HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-19 �a
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX$127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
�MtecW� (714)962-2411
FAX(714)962-0356
July 13, 1989
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1989 - 7: 30 P.M.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER
10200 Slater Avenue - Hall B
Fountain Valley, California
(See enclosed location map)
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of July 12, 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.
Secr ary
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
FI ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
1 B ELLIS AVENUE
PO.BOA B12]
FOONTAIX VALIFY.C<4FOPNIL 92J2B-8121
P141%22an
July 3, 1989
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: ALL BOARD MEMBERS
RE: A • • • L
Fountain Valley Community Center
10200 Slater Avenue - Hall B
Fountain Valley, California
This is a reminder for your calendar that following the regular
Board meeting on July 12, the Joint Boards will adjourn to the
above time and place to consider the Final EIR on the Districts,
"Action Plan" wastewater Management Program and a determination
on the terms of our application to the U.S. EPA and the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board for renewal of the
Districts' NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit.
Rita J. Brown
Board Secretary
rjb
0
a
N
a
N N
Y
O
O
m CITY HALL
PARKING SLATER AVE.
PARKING
N
N
O
F
COMMUNITY
CENTER J
a o
TALBERT
N G
O 3 H
J N
O
J
W
AVE.
FRlVY
ELLIS AVE.
WEDNESDAY DULY 19, 1989 7: 30 PM
�..i F .V. COMMUNITY CENTER. HALL 'B'
c"ARDS OF DIRECTORS
.County Santla6ion DisMNs - P.O.box 8127 a 10844 Slis Avenue
al orange County,CalBomia Fountain Valley,CA 927284427
Telephone:(714)962-2411
JOINT BOARDS
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JULY 19, 1989 - 7:30 P.M.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER
10200 Slater Avenue - Hall B
Fountain Valley, 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
Conziider�ion of actions relative to the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report on Collection, Treatment and
Disposal Facilities Master Plan: '
(a) Verbal report of EIR Consultant, Jones and Stokes, Inc.
(b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report
and Summary dated July 12, 1989 re said Final EIR (Copy
enclosed with Directors' agenda material)
(c) Consideration of motion to receive and file written
comments received after the public hearing on May 17,
1989 (Copies included in Final EIR)
(d) Discussion
is) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve
Final Program Environmental Impact Report on Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan; and
certify that said Final EIR has been completed in
compliance with the State and Districts' Guidelines
Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended (Copy enclosed with Directors' agenda
material)
(f) Consideration of Resolution No. ag-101, certifying the
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the
County Sanitation Districts' Collection, Treatment and
Disposal Facilities Master Plan - 1989 (Copy enclosed
with Directors' agenda material) .
7/19/89
(4) ALL DISTRICTS
Consi era ion of actions relative to terms and conditions of
application to U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa
Ana Region (CRWQCB) , for renewal of Districts' Five-Year
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ocean �✓
Discharge Permit that expires February 1990:
(a) verbal staff report
(b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Final Staff
Recommendation on "2020 VISION" Action Plan for
Wastewater Management and Environmental Protection,
1990-2020, dated July 19, 1989 (Copy enclosed with
Directors' agenda material)
(c) Discussion
(d) Consideration of motion adopting the prescribed
treatment level to be included in Districts ' application
to EPA and CRWQCB for renewal of NPDES permit, and
directing staff and consultants to prepare and file said
application based on Scenario No.
(5 ) ALL DISTRICTS
Consideration of actions relative to Collection, Treatment
and Disposal Facilities Master Plan: (Draft received and
filed by Boards on April 12, 1989; Executive Summary
previously provided to Directors)
(a) Consideration of motion to approve said Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan dated
February 1989, consisting of the following volumes:
volume Title
volume 1 Summary Report
Volume *2, Parts 1-3 Joint works Treatment and Disposal
Facilities
i Volume 3 Potential Water Reclamation Plants
Reconnaissance Report
Volume 4, Parts 1,2 Trunk Sewer Conveyance System
Volume 5 Computer Control, Monitoring and
Data Handling Systems
volume 6 Reliability Analysis
Volume 7, Parts 1-3 Disaster Preparedness Plan
Volume 8 Financial Plan
[ITEM (5) CONTINUED ON PAGE 3 ]
-2-
7/19/89
• (5) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued from page 2)
(b) Consideration of motion directing staff to implement
elements of Facilities Master Plan to effect the
treatment level application to io N t included andCRWQC�orrenewalo be ofth in
e the
Districts' NPDES ocean discharge permit, as previously
determined by the Boards of Directors.
(6) ALL DISTRICTS
Cons— i e�Ei-En of Resolution No. 89-102, making certain
findings relating to significant environmental effects
identified in the Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan - 1989 ( ' The Project-- ) ; adopting a
statement of overriding consideration; and authorizing the
filing of a Notice of Determination re said project (Copy
enclosed with Directors' agenda material)
(7 ) DISTRICT 1
0 EHer usiness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
( 8) DISTRICT 1
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(9 ) DISTRICT 2
O hhersiness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(10) DISTRICT 2
Consi eration of motion to adjourn
(11 ) DISTRICT 3
Other usiness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(12) DISTRICT 3
Consi eration of motion to adjourn
(13 ) DISTRICT 6
Other business and communications or supplemental agenda
Stems, if any
(14) DISTRICT 6
Cons�ticn of motion to adjourn
( 15 ) DISTRICT 7
OH_ �iness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
( 16 ) DISTRICT 7
Consi eration of motion to adjourn
(17 ) DISTRICT 13
0 er usiness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
-3-
7/19/89
(18) DISTRICT 13
ConsZ'eration of motion to adjourn
(19) DISTRICT 14
Oder Fsiness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(20) DISTRICT 14
Condon of motion to adjourn
(THE FOLLOWING ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON JULY 12, 1989 DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM IN DISTRICTS NOS. 5
AND 11 ) :
(21 ) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
ACTIONcorrections or amendments are made, the
following minutes will be deemed approved as mailed
and be so ordered by the Chairman:
District 5 - June 14, 1989 regular
District 11 - June 14, 1989 regular
(22) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
Considerationf roll call vote motion ratifying payment of
claims of the joint and individual Districts as follows:
6/07/89 6/21/89
JOINT DISTRICTS
Joint Fund - $ 602,029 .90 $1,047,099.77
Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 3 ,214, 330. 61 842,081.28
Joint Working capital Fund - 126,669.14 175,031.33
Self-Funded Insurance Funds - 626.79 11,161 .01
DISTRICT NO. 5 - 7 ,873 .12 7,649 .42
DISTRICT NO. 11 - 54.56 6,456 .97
DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOINT - 700,101 .86 8 ,291.25
(23 ) (CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS) :
(a) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
consid�f the following resolutions
authorizing and directing execution and filing of
documents necessary for Federal and State Clean
Water Grants and Loans under 33 U.S.C. ,
1251 at seq. ; Chapters 12 .5 , 13, 14 and 15; and
Division 7 of the California Water Code, and
providing certain assurances in connection with the
1989-90 Joint works Improvements and Additions:
District No. Resolution No.
5 89-70-5
11 89-73-11
[ITEM (23) CONTINUED ON PAGE 5]
-4-
7/19/89
(23) (CONSENT CALENDAR Items Continued from page 4)
(b) DISTRICT 5
Cons eraation of motion authorizing the Selection
Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the
Professional Services Agreement with The Keith
Companies for design and construction services
required re South Coast Trunk Sewer, Contract
No. 5-35, and Crystal Cove Pump Station, Contract
No. 5-36, to provide for changes in the scope of
work initiated by The Irvine Company, City of
Newport Beach and Laguna Beach County Water District
re project alignment in Pacific Coast Highway and
the construction schedules for said projects (The
project costs are being paid by the proponents) .
(c) DISTRICT 5
Consi&e—ration of motion to receive, file and deny
claim of Hamish Michael dated May 31, 1989 , in the
amount of $248.19 for damage to his auto windshield
from debris, allegedly in connection with
construction of Replacement of Portions of Coast
Highway Force Main, Contract No. 5-31; and refer to
the District' s General Counsel, liability claims
administtator, contractor and contractor's insurance
company for appropriate action.
(24 ) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
Consi era on of action on the following items recommended
by the Executive Committee:
(a) Individual District Budgets:
(1) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
Considers ion of the following resolutions
creating a Capital Facilities Fund and
terminating the Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund
and the Facilties Revolving Fund in each
District.
DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.
i
5 89-84-5
11 89-87-11
(2) DISTRICT 5
Ro ca vote approving 1989-90 fiscal
year budget in the following amounts:
Operating Fund $ 6,766,000
Capital Facilities Fund 8,249 ,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1951 52 ,000
TOTAL $ 1 O6767,000
...
[ITEM (24 ) (a) CONTINUED ON PAGE 6]
-5-
7/19/89
(24) DISTRICTS 5 & 11 (Continued from page 5)
(a) ( 3) DISTRICT 11
Ro 1 call vote approving 1989-90 fiscal
year budget in the following amounts:
Operating Fund $ 7,302,000
Capital Facilities Fund 10,652,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1951 14,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1958 29 ,000
TOTAL $ 17,997 ,000
(4) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
Cons iConsi e� the following resolutions
establishing the annual Gann appropriations
limit for fiscal year 1989-90 for each District
in accordance with the provisions of Division 9
of Title 1 of the California Government Code.
DISTRICT RESO. NO. LIMITATION
5 89-92-5 $2,077,000
11 89-95-11 2,209,000
(5) DISTRICTS 5 & 11
Considers ion of the following actions relative
to revised wastewater Discharge Regulations for
the County Sanitation Districts of Orange
County: (Copy of Staff Report and draft uniform
Ordinance included with Directors ' July 12, 1989
agenda material)
(a) Consideration of motion to receive, file
and approve Staff Report dated June 28,
1989 (Revised) , summarizing revisions to the
Districts' wastewater discharge regulations .
(b) DISTRICT 5
Consideration of proposed Ordinance No. 520,
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange
County, California, Establishing Wastewater
Discharge Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities, and Repealing
Ordinances Nos. 514 and 518 :
(1 ) Consideration of motion to read said
Ordinance. by title only, and waive
reading of entire ordinance (must be
adopted by unanimous vote of Directors
present)
[ITEM (24) (a) (5) (b) CONTINUED ON PAGE 7]
-6-
( 24) DISTRICTS 5 9 11 (Continued from page 6) 7/19/89
(a) (5) (b) (2) Consideration of motion to introduce
said Ordinance and pass to second reading
and public hearing on August 9, 1989
( 3) Consideration of motions making finding
that adoption of said Ordinance is
categorically exempt pursuant to
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15308, in that
the Ordinances are regulatory actions
taken by the Districts to assure the
protection of the environment
(c) DISTRICT 11
Constion of proposed Ordinance No. 1110,
An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of
County Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange
County, California, Establishing Wastewater
Discharge Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities, and Repealing Ordinances
Nos. 1106 and 1107:
(1 ) Consideration of motion to read said
Ordinance by title only, and waive reading
of entire ordinance (must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
(2) Consideration of motion to introduce
said Ordinance and pass to second reading
and public hearing on August 9 , 1989
(3) Consideration of motions making finding
that adoption of said Ordinance is
categorically exempt pursuant to
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15308, in that
the Ordinances are regulatory actions
taken by the Districts to assure the
protection of the environment
(25 ) DISTRICTS 5 5 11
(a) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report
re Agreement with County Assessor re Supplemental User
Fee Processing, dated June 29, 1989 .
(b) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager
to execute an agreement with the Orange County Assessor' s
Office for the purchase/lease of property file data base
services necessary to calculate, assess and collect the
Districts' supplemental user fee charges on the annual
property tax bills, and providing for the annual cost for
said services to be fixed by the County Assessor and
Board of Supervisors.
(END OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 1989 JOINT BOARD MEETING)
-7-
7/19/89
(26 ) DISTRICT 5
Oer
Eu—s-iness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(27) DISTRICT 5
Con�tion of motion to adjourn
(28) DISTRICT 11
OEE—er—EUslness and communications or supplemental agenda
items, if any
(29 ) DISTRICT 11
Condon of motion to adjourn
-8-
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT
County Sanitation Districts P.O.Box 8127.10844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, California Fountain Valley,CA 92728.8127
Telephone:(714)962-2411
JOINT BOARDS
I
ADJOURNED BOARD MEETING
Wednesday, July 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Fountain Valley Community Center
10200 Slater Avenue, Hall B
Fountain Valley, California
ALL DISTRICTS
RE: (3) CERTIFICATION OE FINAL PROGRAM EIR
(4) SELECTION OF TREATMENT LEVEL SCENARIO FOR NEXT 5-YEAR NPDES PERMIT
(5) APPROVAL OF FACILITIES MASTER PLAN
(6) MASTER PLAN/EIR FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS;
AND AUTHORIZING FILING A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
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. 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.
At the April meeting the Boards also received the staff's 112020 VISION"
Preliminary Report and Executive Summary. 112020 VISION" evaluated and
summarized the 4,000-page, nine-volume facilities master plan and environmental
impact report, and public input received to that date on our proposed program,
and presented the staff' s preliminary recommended Action Plan for Wastewater
Management.
On Wednesday, May 17th, the Boards conducted a public hearing. Following the
hearing the Boards directed the staff and consultants to address the oral and
written comments received at the hearing and during the public comment period
that ran through.May 30th, into a Final Environmental Impact Report to be
considered by the Boards at the adjourned meeting on July 19th.
July 19, 1989
The environmental consultants, Jones and Stokes, Inc., have prepared the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan. The Final Program EIR includes copies of all of the \/
public commentary and the responses to the comments.
The purpose of the adjourned meeting is to:
Certify the Final Pro ram Environmental Impact Report - A copy, along
w h a s off summary, is enclosed. Also enclosed is a draft of
Resolution No. 89-101 certifying the Environmental Impact Report as
required by CEQA.
Select the preferred treatment level scenario - A transmittal memorandum
with the staff's Final Report and Recommendation re the Districts'
Action Plan for Wastewater Management and Environmental Protection,
along with a copy of the "2020 VISION" Preliminary Report and Executive
Summary, are enclosed.
Approve the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan.
Adopt EIR findings and Statement of Overriding Consideration - Also
enclosed is a draft of Resolution No. 89-102 making certain findings and
a statement of overriding consideration, and authorizing filing of a
Notice of Determination, as required by CEQA.
If any Director desires additional copies of the staff's 112020 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 (714) 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.
DISTRICTS 5 8 11
RE: (21)-(25) CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS OF BUSINESS CARRIED OVER FROM JULY 12
1989 MEETING
At the regular July 12, 1989 meeting of the Joint Boards, Districts 5 and 11
failed to muster a quorum and the Board Secretary, therefore, adjourned the
meeting to July 19, 1989 at 7:30 p.m.
Included on the July 19th agenda are items of business carried over from the
July 12th meeting that must be acted upon by the Boards of Districts 5 and 11.
Supporting material for these items was included with the regular July 12th
meeting agenda package mailed to all Directors. If any Director needs
additional copies, please call Rita Brown or Penny Kyle at (714) 962-2411.
-2-
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
91 ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
July 13, 1989 148aELiSAVENUE
PO BOX 8127
FOUNTAIN VAULEY,CAUfOANIA 92728.8127
.�. 01119622111
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: All Directors
RE: Ocean Discharge Treatment Level Issues
At the recent Action Plan Workshops conducted for the Board Members, several
Directors requested additional information on the pronouncements of several
marine experts on the City of San Diego's decision to withdraw their 301(h)
waiver application and install full secondary treatment. Accordingly, we are
enclosing a copy of the newspaper article and the letters of the oceanographers
and scientists.
Also enclosed are copies of news accounts of a Massachusetts Institute of
Technology (MIT) professor's questioning of a similar decision in Boston.
Finally, a copy of a recent article by a retired Oregon State University
professor of oceanography on the ocean's abi Xty to similate human wastes is
included for Directors' information. y ves L eW
ei7a1 M
JWS:sc U
r^astiee 77ae7hh-- 9m Dien
T IE
t
npm
�T T
layaa p„�� V
�I�+K Newspaper
Monday,Ada➢V,, ,M
$4.2 billion sewage plan a
waste, scientists say
By Kathryn Balint tion, said of the ci s decision to Thbane Staff Writer upgrade mphy into a respeeted science,now a part of
sewage treatmmL University of Cr ceiv a at San Diego.
Marine scientists from Scripps Institution Richard Seymour, who designed and built '"The value received is eatremely small
of Oceanography say Sao Diego's mnitihil- sewer pipes before coming to Scripps 7A compared to the cast,"Seymour said
lion-dollar plan tow
o improve sewage treat- years ago to study omen waves acid currents, The city of San Diego ni being required to
meat would serve oo useful purpose. said the marginal improvement in the purity bring its discharge up to federal secondary-
The sciantLsGs, who insLst they would be of sewage dumped at sea off Sao Diego treatment standards,which would remove 90
among the first to protect the ocean mviron• would hardly justify possible costs of up to percent of the sofds from sewage. That
meat, say sea life is not harmed by waste tit billion means San Diego would be cleansing sewage
water now damped into the Pacific off Point "it's very Wear to me, in my judgment, destined for the sea to the same degree as
Lom that it is not necessary,"said Seymour,head ernes along the Mississippi River, whose
I don't think its at all necessary,"Roger of ocean engineering research for the Instate- waste water may Row into the drinking sup-
Revelle,director emeritus of Scripps Instltu- thin,a school credited with turning oceanog- ply of the nest metropolis downstream
Driving the city's move to secondary percent of solids from Sao Diego's sewage
treatment Is a lawsuit filed a year ago by the "Arguably, secondary treatment could be
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, less desirable than advanced primary treat-
charging the city with failing to meet federal merit,"said Jeffery Frautschy,a marine sal-
discharge standards and carrying a threat of entist at Scripps for 40 years before retiring
$Z5,000 a day in penalties will new facilities seven years ago as deputy director of the
are completed a decade from now. institution. "At best, the effect will be the
The way scientists at Scripps describe it, same as advanced primary.It's a bell of a lot
waste our choke life in bays,lakes or riven, of money to pay for nothing."
but the wide-open ocean can actually benefit Revelle, Seymour and Frautschy are
from the nutrients that are present in sew- among half a dozen scientists from Scripps
age treated with the advanced primary pm whose opinions City Councilman Bruce Ren-
ews,which is now being used to eliminate 75 Please see SEWAGE A-&Col.I
_ as[ Wince would ce Pr `"'6mgeisdersod has solicited lathe P - s,', t�yyt was not endangered.'
lead credence m his argu- _ �,,,1. m the ocean.'
month m secondary treatment in a.rr•'" the order of things
that r - One thing u clear from the hem
t�t Diego s uld be a wnse of _ . and Hashimoto
scientists guarantees whin secondary
money. are no
The 6th pfstricl comcilmaa plans - :r .F,' scwa8e treatment. The brittle star
m make the information he has col- ,� �ghs b, just as inclined
at a news ht be 01GBr
lee ma public tomortow -- �.'`. away from�e 09Dam+1 the d�
conferrace on Scripps Pier.
One of his strongest testim oials .� t nOW. And there mjg as
comes from Edward D. Oo1dPPg changes to the ocean elf
vironm�t
Professor of chemistry at the ocean o% WeH'
whose work protecting r ^lt probably will have some
from pollution won him the per" changes;'Hashimoto said.
giants 1989 Tyler Prize in envaon- Ina standard that Scripps sclea-
mental science this month."I am strongly Opposed the in- fats said was ridiculously stringent
tent to provide secondary treatment the EPA insists the waters in the
Of sanitary sewage for San Diego on _ Point Loma kelp bed meet the same
economic, scientific and social quality as the surf at city beaches—
gromds,"Goldberg wrote to Header- ROGER REYELLE a requirement under state law.
son."Emlogicafly,there are no unac- 'Don't think ips at all necessary" The coliform (bacteria) count
cepuble adverse impacts as a come- though often exceeds those requ re-
quence of the discharge off Point aged,"Revelle said. menu in the outer edges of the kelp
Loma" The ommagraphers at Scripps forest. Even though the meanogra-
Benefrmal or not,secondary treat- said they knew of no one in their phers felt it posed no major health
ment will bite into the pocketbooks fields who would argue that second- risk, whatever risk there might be
of the 1.5 million people who use the ary treatment off San Diego would probably would be eliminated simply
cites sewer be worth the expense. "I don't think by extending the ocean outfall pipe,
On Wednesday,a committee of the you'll find anyone who would say they said.
San Diego City Council will consider fit„Seymour said. '"this problem can be almost cer-
whether to more than double sewer At the EPA's regional headquar- tainly mitigated by extending the
rates between now and July 1, 1990. ters in San Francisco, Janet Bashi- outfall at a much lesser cost than
With the prospect of federal loading mom,chief of the oceans and estuar- building a secondary sewage-treat.
bleak, the Rat-rate sewer fee is pro- im section,was unsure of the effects meat plant" said Mix Tegner, who
posed to increase from $12.52 to that sewage treated to the advanced- has made an average of 150 dives a
$2022 a month per household,largely primary level has in the coastal wa- year into the Point Loma kelp beds
to finance the first installment of em off Point Loma during the past 15 years researching
new sewage-treatment facilities. "That's a little difficult question to them for Scripps.
The 190 million gallons of sewage answer," Hashimoto said, explaining The city Water Utilities Depart-
Rushed down drains every day (man that she was not with the agency mint estimates it would cost $100
Del Mar to San Ysidro is pumped to when it first tentatively approved, million to pipe the sewage a mile and
the Point Loma Wastewater Treat- then later tentatively denied, Sao a hall fanner out to sea.
Treat-
ment Plant T the coeds, or Diego's request for a waiver from
sludge,are separrateae,ed from the waste secondary-treatment standards. So why spend billions of dollars for
where dried and disposed of of land. secondary sewage treatment?
The remaining liquid waste u sir- While the shift th some starfish Its the law, said Hashimoto. "It
risin 1 clear,clouded only b min- was dLamissed by Paul Dayton, as wasn't that we were picking on San
P B y y Y ecologist at Scripps who teaches
ire particles. about the Point Loma kelp,as"utter- Diego;'she said."Secondary a a na-
me 9-foot-wide pipe, big enough to I trivial," the EPA had deemed it tional sandard for publicly owned
drive a car through,carries the efflu- troubling enough to cite that change treatment plants."
ent on an 18-minute, 2Yz-mfle-long inco�onment as one of two reasons After tentatively being denied a
journey to sea. waiver from those regulations.
Amid a forest of bulbous kelp, the for tentatively denying San Diego's Mayor O'Connor persuaded a majori-
ewage is plunged 220 feet deep into waiver application.The other reason ty of the San Diego City Council in
the ocean.A nozzle at the end of the was that the outer edges of the kelp February 1987 to upgrade the sewage
outfall pipe disperses the sewage so beds do not meet bacteriological treatment over the strident objec-
it dilutes,quickly in the seawater. standards et by state law. lions of the city manager and staff of
In the two miles around the sew- Although unable to speak specs- the Water Utilities Department.
age pipe, some pollutant-sensitive rally about the starfish off San Upon study, San Diego's project
brittle starfish have moved away, Diego's coast, Hashimoto explained appears to based almost entirely
just as some plants next to a road- that the EPA reached its conclusions upon the EPA's desire for a national-
way do not thrive well under gas based on the agency's criteria calling ly consistent set of sewage-treat-
forms from can. Pollution-tolerant for a balanced marine environment. ment guidelines. But scientists said
clams, meanwhile, abound near "The mean's got to support a bal- the EPA ought to realize that sund-
Poiat Loma's sewage outfalL anced, indigenous population:' said ards for an ocean outfall need not be
City-commkssioned surveys of the Hashimoto,a marine biologist with a nearly as strict as those for rivers.
ocean bottom in 1985 and 1986 re, bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley. which convey the treated sewage to
vented no occummes of fir rot, to. "You can't support just one type of drinking supplies downstream.
mom or deformities in fish, any of group of organisms.' When the federal Clean Water Act
which might have indicated possible Frau achy at Scripps says the EPA of 1972 was enacted to clean up the
rnntaminstion by sewage. seems to have based its conclusions nation's sewage-laden waterways, it
"There's not any evidence what- more on a uniform set of guidelines required all municipalities to treat
scever that the ocean has been dam- than on scientific evidence. their sewage to the secondary level
ig1li UNF
San Diego's Pubtwr Prize-wining Newspaper
Monday,Maya, 1999
$4.2 billion sewage plan a
waste, scientists say
By Kathryn Balint tion, said of the city's decision to upgrade raphy into a respected science,now a part of
Iliewm SWf Wnter sewage treatment. University of Calif ,at San Diego.
Marine scientists from Scripps Institution Richard Seymour, who designed and built "The value received is extremely small
of Oceanography say San Diego's multibil- sewer pipes before coming to Scripps 20 compared to the cost,"Seymour said.
lion-dollar plan to improve sewage treat- years ago to study ocean waves and currents. The city of San Diego is being required to
meat would serve no useful purpose. said the marginal improvement in the purity bring its discharge up to federalsecondary-
The scientists, who insist they would be of sewage dumped at sea off San Diego treatment standards,which would remove 90
among the fast to protect the ocean eoviron- would hardly justify passible costs of up to percent of the solids from sewage. That
meat, say sea life is not harmed by waste $4.2 billion. means San Diego would be cleansing sewage
water now dumped into the Pacific off Point "It's very clear to me, in my judgment, destined for the sea to the same degree as
Loma. that it is not necessary,"said Seymour,head cities along the Mississippi River, whose
"I don't think it's at all necessary," Roger of ocean engineering research for the institu- waste water may flow into the drinking sup-
Revelle,director emeritus of Scripps Institu. tion,a school credited with turning oceauog- ply of the nert metropolis downstream.
Driving the city's move to secondary percent of solids from San Diego's sewage.
treatment is a lawsuit filed a year ago by the "Arguably, secondary treatment could be
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, less desirable than advanced primary treat.
charging the city with failing to meet federal meat,".said Jeffery Frautschy,a marine sa-
discharge standards and carrying a threat of entist at Scripps for 40 years before retiring
i25,000 a day in penalties until new facilities seven years ago as deputy director of the
are completed a decade from now. institution. "Al best, the effect will be the
The way scientists at Scripps describe it, same sit advanced primary.It's a hell of a lot
waste can choke life in bays,lakes or rivers, of money to pay for nothing."
but the wide-open ocean can actually benefit Revelle, Seymour and Frautschy are
from the nutrients that are present in sew- among half a dozen scientists from Scripps
age treated with the advanced primary pro- whose opinions City Councilman Bruce Hen-
cess,which is now being used to eliminate 75 Please see SEWAGE A-B, CoL I
eer on i ;oUe1ted to the past . " _ said,bafShrd 99 yD 11h7 0 mudsS
month to lend credence to his argu- --" ;--wit [(2BCC wBuld b2 laced od a�iab
meat that secondary treatment in
San Diego would be a waste of `>'h --" Nat was not endangered"Change is
money. F. _ . ' r the order of things in the ocean."
The 6th District councilman plain One thing is clear from the Scripps
to make the information he has cut- - scientists and Hashimoto — there
lected public tomorrow at a news "yam '. are no guarantees with secondary �.
conference on Scripps Pier sewage treatment The brittle star
One of his strongest testimonials might be just as inclined to move
comes from Edward D. Goldberg, a - "�.. away from the outfall,just as it does
professor of chemistry at Scripps now. And there might be other
whose work protecting the ocean changes to the mean environment as
from pollution won him the presti-
gious 1989 Tyler Prize in envaon- _ "It probably will have some
mental science this month. changes,"Hashimoto said.
"I am strongly opposed to the in- In a standard that Scripps smen-
tent W provide secondary treatment tists said was ridiculously stringent,
of sanitary sewage for San Diego on the EPA insists the water in the
economic, scientific and social Point Loma kelp bed meet the same
gromds,"Goldberg wrote to Hender- ROGER REVEL LE quality as the surf at city beaches—
son."Ecologically,the are no mac- "Don't think it's at all necessary" a requirement under cte law.
re
cepmble adverse impacts as a come, The colitorm (bacteria) count
quence of the discharge off Point though often exceeds those requim
�� "Revelle said. ments in the outer edges of the kelp
Beneficial or not,secondary treat- The oceanographers at Scripps forest. Even though the meanagra-
ill bite into the pocketbooks said they know of no one in their phers felt it posed no major health
ment w
of the it million people who use the fields who would argue that second- risk, whatever risk there might be
of the
sewers. ary treatment off San Diego would probably would be eliminated simply
of the be worth the expense. "I don't think by extending the ocean outfall pipe,
On Wednesday,a committee
San Diego City Council will considerthe you'll find anyone who would say they said
whether to more than double sewer that, bennoar said "This problem can be almost cer-
rates between now and July L 1wer At the EPA's regional headquar- tainly mitigated by extending the
With the prospect of federal fording ten b San Francisco, Jane[ Bashi- outfall at a much lesser cost than
bleak,the prospect
sewer fee u pro- moto,chief of the oceans and estuar- building a secondary sewage-treat-
posed to increase from fee
is to Les section,was unsure of the effects meet plant," said Mm Tegner, who
$2022 a month per household,largely that sewage treated to the advanced- has made an average of 150 diva a
to finance the first installment of primary level has in the coastal we, year into the Point Loma kelp beds
ten Off Point Loma. Burin the t 15 ea g
new se190 million gallons of facilities. ,That's a little difficult question to them for Scns years researching
flushedla�amgvaevery day from answer," Hashimoto said,explaining The city Water Utilities Depart-
Del Mar to San sins e r pumped to that she was not with the agency meat estimates it would cost $100
the Point Lama Wastewater Treat- when it first tentatively approved, million to pipe the sewage a mile and
went Plant There, the solids, or then later tentatively denied, Sao a halt farther out to sea.
sludge,are separated from the waste Diego's request for a waiver from So why spend billions of dollars for
secondary-treatment standards. v
water,dried and liquid
disposed of of land secondary sewage id Hashimoto.
While the shift th some starfish
The remaining liquid waste is It's the law, said Hashimoto. an
ute parti clear,clouded only by min- was dismissed ri Pam Dayton, an wasn't that we were picking on San
ub particles. ecologist at Scripps who teaches Diego,"she said."Secondary is a na-
A 9-fact-wide pipe, big enough to about the Point Lama kelp,as"utter- tonal standard for publicly owned
drive a car through,carries the efflu. ly trivial," the EPA had deemed it treatment plants."
ent on ad Ill-minute, 245-milclong troubling enough to cite that change After tentatively being denied a
journeys sea in environment as one of two reasons waiver from those regulations,
Amid a forest of bulbous kelp, the for tentatively denying San Diego's Mayor O'Connor persuaded a majori-
sewage is pinged 220 feet deep into waiver application.The other reason ty of the San Diego City Council in
the ocean.A nozzle at the end of the was that the outer edges of the kelp February 1987 to upgrade the sewage
outfall pipe disperses the sewage so beds do not meet bacteriological treatment over the strident objec.
it dilutes quickly in the seawater. standards set by state law. lions of the city manager and staff of
In the two miles around the sew- Although unable to speak specth- the Water Utilities Department.
age pipe, some pollutant-sensitive cally about the starfish off San Upon study, San Diego's project
brittle starfish have moved away, Diego's coast, Hashimoto explained appears to based almost entirely
just as some plants next to a road- that the EPA reached its conclusions upon the EPA's desire for a national.
way do not thrive well under gas based on the agency's criteria calling ly consistent set of sewage-treat-
tomes from cats. Pollution-tolerant for a balanced marine environment. ment guidelines. But scientists said
clams, meanwhile, abound near "the mean's got to support a hall, the EPA ought to realize that stand.
Point L.omes sewage outfall. need, indigenous population," said ards for an ocean omfml need not be
City-commissioned surveys of the Hashimoto,a marine biologist with a nearly as strict a9 those for rivers,
Oman bottom N 1985 and 1986-re- bachelor's degree from UC Berkeley. which convey the treated sewage to
vented no ocourences of fin rot, to. "You can't support just one type of drinking supplies downstream.
mom or deformities in fish, any of group of organisms.' When the federal Clean Water Act
which might have indicated possible Frautschy at Scripps says the EPA of 1972 was enacted to clean up the
contamination by sewage. seems to have based its conclusions nation's sewage-laden waterways. it
"There's not any evidence what- more on a uniforin set of guidelines required all municipalities to treat
scever that the ocean has been dam- than on scientific evidence, their sewage to the secondary level
Advanced primary treatment pro-
duces ao effluent rich in nitrogen and
phosphorous, the same nutrients f
found in the fertilizers farmers use •�
on crops, Frautschy said. But be-
cause secondary treatment removes ".
90 percent of the solids from sewage ;1y
^_ it also saps some of those valuable
3 nutrients from the wastewater.
"What's left over you can think of '
as ash," he said. '"that means very ...�
little left of what goes to sea is of use }
to marine animals.' t
Usually,scientists are reluctant to
get involved in political decisions,
Frautschy said. But, with so many
.. billions of dollars at stake, some of
w the Scripps scientists are worried
that secondary sewage could be ac-
complished at the expense of real en-
vironmental concems.
JEFFERY FRAUTSCHY "Secondary treatment is a dead EDWARD D.GOLDBERG
"The effect will be the same" loss:'Dayton said."It seems to me to "Strongly opposed to the intent"
be a monumental waste of money.
by July 1,1988,regardless of whether There just seem to be some awful
the effluent was disposed of in an environmental problems that could turning one of the most beautiful
inland waterway or off the coast benefit from the money." bays for recreation into a cesspool as
"It just sort of assumes water is Here are some of the city's sewage a result of the breaks in the sewer
water, and it doesn't make a differ- problems the scientists listed as lines. There's no comparable prob-
ence if it is a pond or the ocean,"said most urgent,none of which would be lem in the ocea ."
Elaine R.Brooks,who studied plank- fixed by an upgrade to secondary I[ secondary treatment were to
ton at Scripps for 20 years before sewage treatment benefit the waters off San Diego,Sey-
being laid off three months ago when 0 The city's corroding sewer pipes mour said he and his colleagues
grant funding dried up. repeatedly become clogged or bro- would jump on the bandwagon.
In a lake, too much sewage home ken,spilling raw sewage into Mission
bacteria can end a killing fish and Bay. '"these are people who live in this
p g • Toxic contamination at the bot- community,who make their living in
shouts. But c the ocean, sewage the ocean." he said. "These are emi-
a gar not necessarily be though[of tom of San Diego Bay. nent chemists and biologists who
• Millions of gallons of Mexican B�
as garbage. sewage flows acss the border into would not take a stand against sec-
It's "a fertilizer for marine organ- g ondary treatment unless they felt
isms,"Re a so said. Of food"
thinks In Diego, threatening valley farm- strongly about it
of it as "a source of toad" for co- land and an estuary.
pepods, the insects of the sea that "In Mission Bay, you have a se- "I think there's a very,very strong
make up the first rung in the ocean's rious problem and a serious health message here: There isn't any prob•
food chain. problem," Seymour said. "We are lem in our ocean."
University of California San Diego Institute of Marine Resources
Ocean Engineering Research Group
Scripps Institution of Oceanography Mail CodeA-022, UCSD
La Jolla, CA 92093-0222
(619)534-2561
TWX 9103371271
April 28, 1989
J. Bruce Henderson
Councilman Sixth District
City Council Office
202 C Street
San Diego,CA 92101
Dear Councilman Henderson:
I object strongly to the proposed plan of secondary treatment of sanitary sewage in San
Diego.
San Diego has a number of real,but solvable problems with its present sewer system The
spills in Mission Bay,the failing mains under Harbor Boulevard, the hydrogen sulfide
problem in La Jolla and sludge dumping on Fiesta Island are a few of the symptoms of an
outmoded and overloaded system.If we undertake the massive investment in a totally
unnecessary secondary treatment capability,it will clearly be done at the expense of the
rest of the ageing and inadequate system.We cannot afford to continue to defer
maintenance and upgrading on the basic collection and primary treatment system.
It is well understood that the national secondary treatment requirements were based upon
a single standard for discharge into fresh water bodies with limited holding capacities and
with an overload of organics from runoff sources.Exemptions have wisely been given for
many sewer systems using open ocean discharge out of recognition that secondary
treatment removes compounds of great value (scarce nutrients)to the ocean and fails to
remove those sewage components that are detrimental in the ocean environment.
Construction of secondary treatment makes absolutely no sense for San Diego. It will
harm rather than help the health of the local ocean and its cost is enormous. We will end
up with a tdtally inadequate basic system because we will not be able to afford mirthing
but the useless secondary treatment capability.
I applaud and support your efforts to halt this serious mistake and I will be happy to help
in any way that I can.
Sincerely yours,
Rkhard . Se our,Ph D.
Head, Ocean Engineering
Research Group
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
66Dm.LY DAVU •IpVn6•LDS M=O •Il Wlt •SA.V 0.•8AN I ND I S WA 9M •S 17\ a1vz
SCRIPPS INSTMJ`I7ON OF OCEANOGRAPHY LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92093
OfsA.V SPSIMOI DrvNpN
May 3, 1989
J. Bruce Henderson
Councilmember, Sixth District
City Council Office
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Councilman Henderson:
I am strongly opposed to the intent to provide secondary treatment of sanitary sewage for San Diego on
economic, scientific and social grounds.
Economically, the present costs of operations of the Advanced Primary Plant are less than fifty million
dollars per year. The proposed Secondary Plant will cost in the neighborhood of four billion dollars per
year. This is nearly a hundredfold increase. Clearly, upgrading of the present plumbing of the treatment
system is crucial. But if done properly, the effective use of the facility well into the twenty fit century,
with the discharge of 240 million gallons per day, can come ate ma t Srbenefit of our cidunry. There is
no need to tax each family in San Diego about forty dollars a an effort that will not improve the
quality of our environment.
Ecologically, there are no unacceptable adverse impacts as a consequence of the discharge off Point Loma.
Arguments are made that sewage discharge today affects the vitality of the Point Loma kelp beds and the
health of divers in the area through exposure to micro-organisms. Neither of these perceptions have been
validated by scientific studies. If undesirable effects from present-day sewage discharges are found, resort
probably be taken to lengthening the outfall pipe.
The construction of secondary treatment plan(s) will lessen the amenities of our population through
increased clogging of our freeways, both during the concoction and operation periods, increased ambient
noise levels during operation, and greater demands upon such services as roads, utilities, ere. These
unnecessary social costs strongly conflict with any presumed gains from secondary treatment
Finally, the billions of dollars needed for secondary treatment plants could be much better spent to improve
educational, health, recreational and social goals of the community, whether the funds come from the city,
state or federal government.
Sincerely,
\� Edward DiuldbeX
Professor of Chemistry
EDG:Isj
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN DIEGO
eGZ¢EY UAVU • MV E• COS ANCI U • MIUMIDc•UN OIWO • SAN FIWI0=0 00 SnYiw swNwM•SANTA cna
v
SCIENCE,TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS Q060
LA JOLLA,CALIFORNIA 92093
May 24, 1989
Councilman Bruce Henderson
City Administration Building
202 11C" Street
San Diego CA -
Dear Bruce:
The more I think and learn about San Diego's sewage problem,
the more convinced I become that spending a huge sum of
money in the near future for secondary sewage treatment
would be a serious mistake.
I am particularly convinced by the eloquent paper by Miss
Kim Shea, entitled "Secondary Sewage: A Conflict of
Politics and Biology. "
obviously we do have serious sewage problems. These are
related to the northward movement of the sewage effluent
from Tijuana and the fragile and disintegrating condition of
our sewage collector system on land. The frequent breaks
which contaminate Mission Bay and other areas must be
remedied by extensive replacements of this system. And
something must be done to provide treatment for the Tijuana
sewage.
A third operation which would remove any possible problem of
contamination of the Point Loma kelp beds would be to move
the existing outfall two miles further out to sea, which
would place it in deeper water. This increased depth would
remove any possibility of effluents--either liquid or solid-
-rising into the zone of life and light near the surface.
But we would still be able to preserve the beneficial effect
of the added nutrients from the outfall for plant life,
including the valuable kelp resource.
I hope you can organize a citizens' group to work for a
sensible solution to San Diego's serious problem.
Sincerely,
�..i Roger�Revelle
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNM SAN DIEGO
2[SSLI..S1 - DAM ' MV Z-LOS A MM -111VGb DZ'JAN UQCO 'SAN lMNC6W _ ' SA n SMAnRA•SAVTn cAv[
SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY
00U aFSEARCa DIVISION LA JOLLA,CALIFORNIA 92093
May 26, 1989
J. Bruce Henderson
Councilmember, Sixth District
City Council Office
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Councilmember Henderson,
I believe that it is a serious mistake to spend billions of dollars on secondary treatment of
sewage of San Diego sewage. The only data demonstrating biological or health effects of
the outfall is a modest suppression of an ubiquitous and common ophiuroid near the end of
the pipe and records of human coliforms in the outer kelp bed. So far as I know, the
coliforms are the only indication of inshore outfall effects and they offer no clear
indication of ecological problems. There is no sludge, and in fact, this is a remarkably
clean outfall. We have been studying the Point Loma kelp forest since 1970, and while
never specifically looking for outfall effects, have seen no ecological effects in the kelp
forest. Certainly the southern end of the kelp forest is stressed (poor plant health,
recruitment and settlement, heavy sediment load, etc.), but I have always assumed that
these problems result from exposure to water flushed from San Diego Bay. The longshore
currents tend.to have a northerly trend and the plant health seems to get progressively
better north of the Bay. The only data I know demonstrating biological effects of the
outfall include a modest suppression of a common brittle star near the end of the pipe and
occasional records of human coliforms near the outer edge of the kelp forest, usually to the
north of the oatfall. The alleged brittle star effect is utterly trivial and in itself can have
no ecological consequence. Regarding the coliforms, it is usually thought that when the
thermocline breaks down some of the sewage effluent can be transported shoreward toward
the kelp forest. No doubt this happens, but it certainly causes no ecological harm and it is
highly unlikely that this is evidence of any health problem. The fact that the coliforms
usually appear north of the outfall tends to corroborate the northerly current trend and
strongly implicates the Bay as the source of the stress of the community at the southern
end of the kelp forest. Clearly money should be spent to improve the system in general,
but so far as I can tell, a simple lengthening of the pipe would suffice to eliminate
essentially all of'the nearshore effects.
Councihnember J. Bruce Henderson
May 26, 1989
Page Two
The social consequences of secondary treatment dealing with a non-problem are mind
boggling. For one thing the treatment produces a tremendous amount of sludge, the
transportation and disposal of which will include great cost in the logistics, finding areas
for landfill and possibly poisoning the ground water. Secondarily treated effluent is not
utilized biologically and may cause a more serious benthic effect thatethe present outfall.
In contrast, the BOD which so intimidates the EPA is available to biological uptake and in
the amounts released in San Diego has never produced an anaerobic sludge field. Certainly
any environmental results of this expensive treatment would be very hard to detect. It
seems to me that this project is a monumental waste of money to deal with what clearly is
not a biological or health issue.
Sincerely yours,
PPS
Professor of Marine Ecology
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO
ema¢er•ww•av¢R.Ws wnee.rs•wmmi•sex Dam•aw rawraco _ - e I auaw ewnwu.wrrw race
SCR@K INSIRIJRON OF OCEANOGRAPHY
OCEAN REIFAR®DIWRIN LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92NO
May 26, 1989
J. Bruce Henderson
Councilmember, Sixth District
City Council Office
202 C Street
San Diego, CA 92101
Dear Councilmember Henderson:
As a kelp forest ecologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography with fifteen years of
research experience in the Point Loma kelp forest, I would like to add my voice in support
of your efforts to obtain a secondary treatment waiver. Secondary treatment of sewage is
highly appropriate for discharge into freshwater, estuaries, and confined marine bays.
However, I know of no evidence that secondary treatment will improve environmental
conditions or public health standards where the discharge is into deep water, open coastal
habitats. On the other hand, secondary treatment may well reduce the productivity of
nearshore resources harvested by sport and commercial interests, and introduce toxic
valence states of certain metals, notably mercury and chromium, into the environment.
Most absurdly, secondary treatment will require enormous capital expenditures without
addressing the every serious issues of sewage and runoff transport to the treatment plant,
e.g., the spills and frequent closings of Mission Bay because of overloaded/obsolete pipes,
pumping stations, etc.
Coliform counts indicate that some sewage does impact the outer edge of the Point Loma
kelp forest on occasions, and we have documented that kelp in the southern end of the
forest is less healthy than in the central and northern regions. While this is obviously not
an ideal situation, I would like to note that it does not appear to be a public health issue.
Our research group of four to six divers has averaged about 1,000 dives per year, including
regular work at outer edge and southern stations, with no medical problems. Secondary
treatment will not reduce coliform counts but it is highly likely that a significant seaward
extension of the discharge will solve this problem. Common sense economics dictate that
we explore this option before spending billions of dollars on secondary treatment. The
health of the south end of the kelp forest is more problematic. Historical records indicate
that the forest once extended a mile or more to the south of what has been observed in the
last three decades. Kelp stands on the present southern area are less stable than stands
further north. While sewage may be part of the explanation — and the evidence is
could trade effluent for excess River water from the Imperial Irrigation District? Answers
to these questions might make Alternative V a viable solution to our problems both with
regard to construction but also to operation. I believe we have to be as visionary as
possible and I hate to see a valuable resource wasted by dumping it into the ocean,even if
this is always the way we have solved our problems in the past.
If Alternative V turns out not to be feasible,my second choice would be Alternative IV,
since this provides secondary treatment and water reclamation in a reasonable way.
I have discussed reclamation with many people and all seem to be in favor of it as a pan
of the new system. However,most people are surprised that it is planned to reclaim only
25% of the sewage. We all feel that this figure is too low and that every effort should be
made to reclaim a larger portion. I know that present State law prevents the use of
reclaimed water as a source of potable water. However,I believe that the technology
(proper disinfection)exists to use reclaimed water for potable purposes. I think that an
effort should be made to change this law so that San Diego's dependence on outside water
sources can be reduced as much as possible. After all,secondarily created sewage is
discharged into midwestem rivers by many large cities and downstream cities reuse the
river water for potable requirements.
Anyway, these are my present ideas and I appreciate your efforts and those of the Task
Force to study and plan for our long-term needs. I also appreciate your keeping me on
your mailing list of meeting announcements and I plan to continue to attend Task Force and
Reuse Committee meetings as often as I can. Thank you very much for all you people are
doing.
Sincerely,
William H.Thomas
Research Biologist
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
P.S. Since my opinions concern not only sewage but water issues, I would appreciate
sour sending the extra enclosed copy of this letter to the proper people at the County Water
Authority.
i
cc: County Water Authority
Dr. Hassan Aref, UCSD Water Research Project
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN DIEGO
evu:asr • ww .ume. ,�. wactvs •arvmme•aAa ovca .aAw rnw. 0
-ewaa.w•—u avr
";�a77MEOF MAItWERESDVRCES LA XXI.A,UIIFaWIA 9209J 8
i8es vsrrtvnCN of o�nr:CcxAexr
June 15, 1989
Councilman Bruce Henderson
202 C Street
Hail Station 10A
San Diego, California 92101
Dear Councilman Henderson:
I am one of the oceanographers familiar with the sea off San Diego
who view secondary waste treatment with ocean disposal as
unnecessary and a wasteful expenditure.
Hy expertise is in the relation of plankton growth in the ocean to
plant nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates. Secondary
treatment will not decrease the quantity of plant nutrients
released to the ocean. It will, however, more completely convert
particulate organic nitrogen to soluble, mineral forms readily
used by the plankton. If anything, secondary treatment will
increase the release of plant nutrients directly useable by the
plankton. In the past we have not been plagued with nuisance
plankton blooms in response to nutrients from the waste treatment
outfall at Point Loma. I don't expect we will be in future, even
with secondary treatment. Nevertheless, the probability of such
blooms occurring, however small, can only be increased by
secondary treatment. -
Yours sincerely,
N�/l
Richard W. Ep ley
Research Oceanographer
STATEMENT OF JEFFERY D. FRAUTSCHY
2625 Ellentown Road
La Jolla, CA 92037
Presented in brief to the
San Diego City Council
December 9, 1986
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council :
My name is Jeffery D. Frautschy. I have been interested and
involved in water quality matters for a long time. In 1982 I retired
from service at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography as Deputy
Director. I had been employed in marine science there for 40 years.
During this time, there were periods of time when I was on the advisory
board of the systemwide Water Resources Center at Davis and when I was'
an Associate Director of the systemwide Institute of Marine Resources. I
have also served terms as a commissioner of the Governor's Commission on
California's Changing Environment, on the Regional and State Coastal
Commissions, and as a member of the San Diego Regional quality Control
Board. I participated in the field studies that led to construction of
the Pt. Loma plant. In recent years, I managed the California Sea Grant
Program - a more than $3 million a year research and public education
program dedicated to wise conservative use of marine resources. The
University of California system, the State University system, and
private universities like Stanford and Cal . Tech. all participated in
this program.
Recently the City of San Diego's practice of discharging sewage
effluent treated to the advanced primary level has been criticized by
some citizen groups, the local press, and electronic media commentators.
What is not recognized is that this dischar a is receivin the
correct eve o treatment. This as resu to in si ni icant net bene it
to the marine biota. Unfortunately the wastewater disposal pro em" has
been so cherished colonized, and institutionalized that we only mar
fiorror s on es ar a re a e o as practices elsewhere,
mis n orma on resu t n fro
ac o understanding at tundamental
di erences Detween the open coastal marine biota and the ota of
con ine o es a water and generalizations about residual problems.
Never do we near of benetits.
Responsible European fisheries biologists now ascribe the doubling
of fish production from the North Sea during the period 1955-1975 to
increased sewage flows from the cities of Northern Europe.
Unfortunately EPA has decided that there will be a single standard
of wastewater treatment for wastes to be discharged into either
freshwater or ocean water. Even more unfortunately, this standard is
inappropriate environmentally for deep water open ocean discharges like
San Diego's and cannot be justified on the basis of environmental
benefits or public health benefits. The single standard of secondary
treatment was established for the administrative convenience of EPA and
to establish equality of regulatory treatment - important considerations
for bureaucrats.
Very major differences exist between freshwater and marine biota.
The biomass of the oceans is dominated by very small (often microscopic)
plants and animals. Many of the small animal forms are the juveniles of
larger species and bear little resemblance to the adult forms. The ocean
world is dominated by juveniles. Most of them feed opportunistically on
small particulate organic material . Most marine plants are very small
and rather primitive. They derive their basic nutrition from simple
nutrient compounds• dissolved in sea water. Most of the food for these
animals and the nutrients for the plants ultimately have come from land
(some are recirculated by upwelling) . This is why most of the
productivity of the ocean is in coastal waters and the deep ocean is a
desert. Oxygen is in plentiful supply in most open ocean waters and is
rapidly replenished.
Secondary treatment is a process in which a favorable environment
is maintained in the treatment plant for bacteria to propagate and feed
on the waste materials. The residual materials left are mostly oxidized
particulate material (which can be thought of as "ash") and simple
dissolved compounds which can serve as plant nutrients. These simple
nutrients are sometimes referred to as "mineralized compounds." What is
left does not extract much oxygen from the water (at least in the
short-term) . It also has no food value for animals since the bacterial
action has already extracted the available energy by oxidation. Since
the treatment process depends upon thriving bacteria, the introduction
of sewage containing biocides stops the process and the plant is said to
suffer an upset. The sewage then goes through virtually untreated..
Further, the oxidation process renders some toxic materials in sewage,
notably mercury and chromium, thousands or even millions of times as
toxic as they were in the common reduced state.
In spite of these shortcomings, it is rational to require secondary
treatment of wastes to be discharged to fresh water or sea water in
confined bays or estuaries where availability of oxygen can be a
problem.
-2-
Considering the environmental rather than regulatory
considerations, it appears difficult to defend a secondary standard for
a situation like San Diego's and impossible if economics enter the
picture. Microscopic and very small marine animals in the sea, underfed
in most circumstances, would not benefit from the effluent since
bacteria in the plant would have oxidized (or removed the available food
energy) from most of it. True, oxygen would not be demanded from the
ocean water but this is of no consequence since it would be rapidly
replenished. Nevertheless, EPA is concerned about the oxygen since it is
very important in fresh water.
A contractor retained by EPA has faulted the existing discharge on
the grounds that in a bottom area in the vicinity of the discharge
brittle stars are diminished in numbers and there are now more of
another bottom dwelling species present. In effect, EPA is saying, 'feed
the birds, but don't attract kinds of birds not already present." This
is to my mind not a very brilliant protective strategy. Put out oats,
you get sparrows; put out pyrocantha berries and you get cedar-waxwings.
The ocean is a vast open system with myriad juvenile forms, some of
which will take advantage of any available food. What EPA says is
"introduce effluent but don't cause any changes to a balance of
populations that existed prior to this introduction of animal food and
plant nutrients. Balanced indigenous populations may exist in the land
or freshwater environments. If they exist in the ocean at all they are
evanescent.
Conversion of sewage treatment from advanced primary to secondary
has no real public health implications, positive or negative. Advanced
primary treatment is as effective in reducing bacterial and viral
pathogens as secondary treatm¢fit. Secondary effluent discharged through
the Pt. Loma diffuser would not solve nor improve the compliance problem
that San Diego has along the western margin of the Pt. Loma kelp bed.
Moving the discharge sufficiently far away from the kelp bed would.
/San Diego has several real and identifiable waste water problems
and opportunities:
1. Bacteria counts at depth in the vicinity of the western margin
of the Pt. Loma kelp bed are too high. Secondary treatment will do
nothing to solve this problem. Exploring the feasibility of extending
the outfall seaward sufficiently far is a necessary first step if Pt.
Loma is to stay in service as a primary or secondary plant.
2. The city should continue to explore sound methods for
reclaiming waste water for reuse. Pumping product water to reuse loci is
a significant fraction of the cost. It appears that reclamation should
take place at disseminated plants at elevations near the elevations of
-3-
places where product water will be reused. A new major secondary plant
near sea level will not contribute to reclamation. Part of the capital
costs of a secondary plant would be better spent in establishing some
disseminated reclamation plants where water could be used for irrigation
- near freeways or major parks, for example.
3. With continuing growth of the city, an additional coastal
treatment plant and ocean discharge site needs to be identified and
protected for future use. for many years, the use of reclaimed water
will be seasonal and a coastal backup plant will be a necessity. .
4. While the city has a good program to keep industrial toxins out
of the sewer system, there is always room for improvement. A continuing
public education program to keep household toxins out of the ocean is
also important. Introduction of persistent toxins into the ocean with
waste water is the biggest and only real threat to the ocean
environment. Secondary treatment will not ameliorate this threat. It is
unlikely that any economically feasible treatment will remove very small
quantities of many kinds of toxins from enormous quantities of waste
water. Ten percent bf the operating costs of a secondary plant spent on
keeping toxins from getting into the sewer system will accomplish far
more for the ocean environment than secondary treatment.
5. San Diego's biggest ocean discharge problem is EPA's bullheaded
pursuit of a single discharge standard, flaunting the intent of Congress
which established the 301(h) waiver procedure permitting exceptions from
EPA's single standard when environmentally appropriate.
Testimony by the late John D. Isaacs of the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography was particularly effective in influencing Congress to
provide for the 301(h) waiver and was directly applicable to San Diego's
discharge. The record of the hearing fills some 380 printed pages, and I
urge that you become familiar with it before you make a decision. I know
that you are busy but so were the Congressmen considering the matter.
The local press should also be encouraged to educate themselves in this
regard so that more enlightened views will be printed. If one believes
that EPA discharge regulations are based on sound scientific principles,
he is sadly deluded.
Isaacs, a member of both the National Academy of Science and the
National Academy of Engineers, headed the Marine Life Research Program,
a multi-million dollar continuing investigation of life and the
California Current system, and the systemwide University of California
Institute of Marine Resources. He was qualified to express the positions
that he took. He frequently urged that coastal cities build pyramids
rather than secondary treatment plants. They would do as much good
environmentally and would be more interesting.
-4-
If you opt to vote for construction of a secondary plant here in
San Diego, do so knowing that:
1. The plant will not improve the ocean environment. In fact, it
will probably detract from it. Primitive plants will flourish at the
expense of important near-microscopic marine animals in the water
column. Food which would have been available to support large animal
populations will have been consumed by bacteria in the plant with the
production of by-product nutrients for plants and virtually inert
particulate material .
2. Money which could have been well spent to keep toxic materials
out of sewage will be unsuccessfully used to attempt to remove small
amounts of toxins from oceans of water.
3. Counts of pathogen indicators, as well as pathogens, will be as
high in the secondary effluent as in advanced primary effluent. There is
no perceptible public health advantage of secondary treatment.
4. You will have committed a large amount of city money (and
possibly Federal ) to build a large secondary plant at a new and as yet
unidentified near coastal site as well as a new ocean outfall . The new
plant will cost much more to operate than the Pt. Loma plant.
S. And, apparently very important - EPA will be off your back for
awhile!
Point 5 makes the secondary option sound too attractive. Remember
the capital cost, the marginal or nonexistent benefits of secondary
treatment, and how voters will react when they get their water bills
with new sewer charges. Each of them will acquire a new debt of
something like $1 ,000 because of this decision.
You of the Council should know that if you choose to fight for a
301(h) waiver, you are not trying to shortchange the environment by
taking the cheap way out. You are making an environmentally sound
decision, dealing with the real ocean rather than one imagined by EPA.
Also that the Congress intended that in situations like this a waiver
should be granted.
In my opinion, I believe that it is almost impossible to get a
waiver without Congressional intervention. EPA does not want to deal
with exceptions, nor facts. The agency will mend its ways only if
threatened by Congressional action.
-5-
r it A Z
r x y
Il
H�b .
,
II t
III { (
:
Tuesday, May 230989 18 'Theeoslon Herald Tuesday May 23 1989
1V,J `]stuir� y:`NHAMM cleanup
plan doti ng �u� a fish sto
From Pngo 7 I ] tl ,It l j 1'werei conducted In 197D;'.1083,i cldded in the $6.1 billion lolfll
gone,'y!offlclala �.who noted Lf nnd,r1985 ;: Iso.chp lie nged ,Includes building-20 miles of:
secondary treatment Is stun- Harleman e'"sertlon that.thejl,aloragatumelsandanolhera00
!' '�- dard in nearly all.major metro- harbor will not he mignl[IC.. toy) ]miles of pipes to channel them
( I! - polllan'ereas.of the country r cleaneriwhan^oho protect ends J,,lo Deer Inland h.•k a
�. .In,1988 t 'Wily
But"Hablo men anld his �Hnrlemaa In!`an Intarvl0w,,
"Our hope Id through¢rnm Taat`week j noted' the cleanup y,
Platudy)= which will appear In binnllon o[ coca, ry ,treats schedule calla for. completingj
the-, �glneHers�journal CIv11on Society of 1En Dn.in ` .meat and proper etutlgeim¢nj ,,1he' oulfall,^l�nncl;I primary'
g . .age ment, .we can have4aei treatment portion;of the plant, f
P cering'Practice", ,highlights ,fishable swimmable harbor by-sl+and'slulgeproceaaing facllltleat
serious -flaws- in, the 10 year ,,1899 he sald:7 I r f 1In'1995; whenowork or, neccm '•
cleanup plan the, biggest con :,The Qom binatlon ! of dary'trealment,operallons be,
alruction project In New,Eng ,,:cleanup, components, Iln'. gin•,, • �, ., t y
(land history l - _fcrred to have.beenaharply.de ' ;.But- Harleman:. bfrVaI
!At'thc center t his clalms bated since 199Q'when a alrict Ford Professor of Engineering
are allcgaliom:that secondary 'timetable :w"- mandated ea�:Nand,a fatally- f Enginmbereering
�� f health linty,of "lie Im- -r-part.pLthe. court-or dere d ince
.1930-edl his oud flow,the
pB(S_9j4idl( .prove the quality,of water al- cleanup "CS schedule should n1095 and
'ready, laved • he my treplace
t.at Those components include the work to apron In,should
and-
meDeerIsl to by In paned al modifying';the Deer Which -..thea pee In favor
project should be
a.
the Deer island sewage facility treatment =IIon2 h ;'tive' process. of an e,ad.
m.1893. I :: �damps 300 'lodge Into the
r. .;:live;d primary
known :eat.
:"It' will' some„ as t rude :f bor d ;and sludge info country's
vanced primary treatment. :.
andck'lo ralepsyers;{hot lha je bor dolly ,;into the counlrya ii ;That process, which relies
® billion plan wheny:completed -aecondlargeal-sewage facility ton chemical treatment of prl-
will not make Boston Harbor fl .a 0-mile tunnel to carry treated mart',treated,sludge would
sh¢blc or swimmable,' his ro ai wsele out to?pea,;and.:sludge 41bringlltoneae.eec6ndaryqual
port.concluded.- �" procea'aing'plants m-Qulncy to ]ty'and,coat far leas than 42,3•
p The 2.5 million•Massachu handle 180 tons of sludge gener r:billlon,'according to the atudy.';
::•I" sells'Water Resources Author-2' ated each day by the purifying j J. Harleman noted;;treatment :
Ity.'ratepayers .will cover_90�, procesai'�"9 • ' ?1 :j. brcaka ,pollutlom.;do"; by re;;:
6y NICK TATE R.h'. liarlem¢n, said percent of the, cleanup ex 1 l• A fourth "peel of tbe,pro educing the-,"blochemicia oxy
A NCW MIT study soya the huge-' 'secondary-. P.nses I ! ]eel Is an,jB00,W0;pinn;to re gen demand"'(HOD) and sus
�. the ,j6.1 bllllon Boston. treatment,plant at the ';:EPA offlclals lenld H¢r10 ' vamp,90 combined acwcr,over .1.
,pended,solids in wastewater {;;
heart of, the.,'Clcanu man'e,aclenllfle[Indinga era In•f':'tlowa'(CSO5);which nowRl0od_. (Primary.treatment rsduces
". Harbor Cleanup ; plan;. p --accurito and•costa for the as-" when.'it ralns`andrdum rawt•' 40"- will fall, to make,the , will: deli.significantly I , r, .{ moves
by percenepnt,,lid act' .
Improve., anti- llutton condary;Is nd.will b �.plant_ to sewagethe,ha ' and atlosing pronto inovea 80 percent ofaothe;ae:::
water "swimmable ' or efforts, and -s ould be 'Deer;]eland :will b¢ closer to the,harbor — closing beaches-itcondary'takes 'out another:13
fishable"— and its cen- ,. $500,000. '• �, I . and, shellfish beds about e0
canned.¢[ n savin s o[ �.l 4 percent of the solids:"d chops ,.
�.terpiece. treat ment� g •:'•Thos.is;no'nrl,Itrary deco ;',days every year. -IBOD further by'adding oxygen '
!_plant may double the E2.5 billion. r. slon,"said Stephen Ella EPA n This project,which le not In 'to treatment tanks 1 e
amount; of -sewage. .The report, 1i copy�of 'chief of cnvlronnenlnl review, 'y:; •t"-" - ""'` " " 'w' ' ••.,' .'
sludge it creates' which was obtained by "Thij,j], s .been the:Inw'of 11le;
':•TIIC conlrov aralal'. ' the Herald, was derided hmd slnee (the Cicnn Water Acl
study — conducted by as "wrong" and "uns- 'of) 1972 and the overwhelming'
Massachusetts 'Instl-;' cientife" by V.S. Envlr. number of plants In the U.S. so„
tole of Technology onmental,. Protection secondary treatment:', .1..
professor Dr. Donald Turn to Page 18 .j Ells - who paid: aclenUtic
• - comparisons of secondary nnd�
-- 'ptimnryj treatment'.. methods
DIE BOSTON GLOBE — MAY 23, 1989
MIT professor says Harbor plan wasteful,
A professor at the Massachu- harbor cleanup officials should the law and the science. 5eeon-
setts Institute of Technology yes- drop plans for secondary treat- dary treatment has been the law
terday branded the S6.1 billion ment. the expensive process that of the land since 1977 and has
cleanup plan for Boston Harbor a screens out 50 percent of the re- been exhaustively studied. since
waste of money and recommended maining biological and chemical then,and I don't know or another
abandoning the,second stage of pollutants. - voice In the country who stid proo-
sewage treatment. The Environmental Protection fesses It is predicated on anything
Primary treatment. which re- Agency has repeatedly contended other than solid sclence."
moves about 40 percent of human that secondary treatment is vital Harleman's report. Deland
wastes and other.biological pollu- to a clean waterway. added, "is precisely the mentality
lanes.is the most cost-effective ap- Last night Michael Deland. that led Boston Harbor to be one
proach, said Donald Hartman. a head of EPA's New England office. Of the most polluted water bodies
professor of engineering. He said said,"Harleman Is wrong on both in the world." _LARRY TYE
14 THE BOSTON GLOBE WEDNESDAY. MAY 24. 1989
A harbor-cleanup strategy
As planning has moved ahead — and costs The underlying thesis in Harleman's case
have mounted — for the construction of is that the federal Clean Water Act is defective
sewage-treatment facilities.-one key question in requiring a specific technology—seconcary
has remained unanswered: will Boston Har- treatment. By contrast. the Clean Air act sets
bor•s waters be substantially cleaner when the standards for air quality and allows local au-
project is completed? thorities to devise ways to meet the standards.
. A persistent group of doubters has que As the consequences of secondary treat-
s;-tioned whether the secondary-treatment plant ment become clear — not only its higher cost.
now being constructed under a federal court but also the need to dispose of the sludge it
order will produce waters that are fishable or Produces — they underscore the importance of
swimmable — and has argued that It may be Harleman's analysis. "The Incremental envi-
possible to achieve those goals With alternative ronmental benefits of secondary treatment for
technologies at less cost. - the harbor," he writes. "have never been bal-
.The forthcoming publication of an analysis anted against the negative environmental im- i
gP pact of disposing.tw•ice as much sludge on
of secondary treatment by Donald R. F. Harle- land or by incineration in the air.
man. a professor of engineering at Massachu- Harleman has joined With The Boston Har-
setts Institute of Technology, could reopen the bor Association in urging a new study of the
matter while time remains to adopt an alter- Deer Island project by the National Research
native strategy. Council. The study may not persuade federal
...'Specifically. Harleman argues for elimina- authorities to giae up their insistence on sec-
tion of the combined storm and sanitary sewer ondary treatment, but it might prompt them
overflows (CSOs) that discharge directly into to allow the Massachusetts Water Resources
the harbor.Failure to do so, he says. will mean Authority to make elimination of the CSOs —
ihaVdRrharbor will still be polluted even'affer and thus, a surer cleanup of the harbor's wa-
completion of the secondary-treatment plant. ters - a higher prioriEV
IN FiFFAI.D, WEEI)NNFSDAY, MAY 24, 1989 .Cleanup(
bosses rip
i waste claim
Harbor cleanup basses rip waste claim From Page 3 I .
on the$800,000 overflow-Improve•
By NICK TATE ment Project In I99a
Into the harbor whenever director
It of the
Improved. - He said that'project^
ItOSTON HARBOR cleanup 6oascs Levy, executive director of the - "We w11i be collecting acicnllflc He
Is not part of the i6.1 mil-
and environmentalists yesterday Massachusetts Water Resources data that has never been collected -lion cleanup or on the schedule
rejected an MIT study's claims Authority, also supported MIT for Boston Harbor as we do the — ahouW follow completion of
that the $6.1 billion project is professor Dr. Donald R.F. Harle- cleanup and I think It's prudent the first three major aspects of
wasteful and will not make the man'a proposal to further review that we evaluate It for what to do the effort: .refurbished prima-.
,valer"fishable or swimmable"by secondary wastewater-treatment for the future,"Levy said, But I'm ry-treatment plant on Deer Is.
1990. options.— a key, costly aspect of not willing at this point to any land,,a9-mile oulfall tunnel to .
But harbor cleanup czar Paul the cleanup plan. whether we should do more or leas carry waste out to sea and two I
I.evy backed calls by the author of But while Harleman advocated secondary trealmenL" Quincy plants to process
.lie Massachusetts Institute of scrapping the j2 billion to $2.5 bll. Levy added, however, that he kludge.
technology report to reorder pro- lion secondary-treatment portion advocates reordering priorities on '! ,The court schedule now
icet priorities to give greater of the project, which he termed the court-ordered cleanup ached. calla for building secondary-
selght to revamping 90 Boston- "unnecessary."Levy said he backs ulc to all
treatment facilities In 1995 be-
urca sewer overflows that now merely postponing the secondary ow workers to begin work fore the overflow project can
nich raw sewage and elormwaler plans until after the overflown are Turn to Page 23 .begin.'
•. "I think most people would
agree In terms of priority that
what given you the biggest
bang for the buck la the tunnel
and primary lrealmcht (in-
cluding sludge processing).
"But • (then) It's the (over-
flows), and (finally) secondary
treatment."
lie noted,however, the final
decision will coma from the En-
vironmental Protection Agency
and U.S. District Court Judge
A.David Mnzzone,who Is over.
seeing the clennnp.
Levy's remarks came a day
after the Herald reported the
findings of the report,based on
a one-year study at MIT's
Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory
for Water Resources and Hy-
drodynamics.
. . Specifically, HnrlemAn con.
cluded secondary treatment
will mark only "marginal Im-
provement" over primary
treatment of harbor wastes and
should therefore he canned, for
a savings of $2.5 billion.
—NICK TATE
N.y r,,:45 qiY/�r 'I
Deep Ocean:
The Safest Dump
where we don't live—the much big-
ger,deep ocean,with water depths of
3,000 feet or mare.
DAMASCUS,Md. Fortunately,that view doesn't pre.
s the ocean as Congress views vail in our homes, where we insist
it — a thin, fragile veil of that chimneys penetrate mats,carry-
water• brim full of good food Ing smoke outside and, above all,
for future generations, but where sewer pipes must extend be.
wantonly poisoned by man? yond the range of our noses.A cork in
Or is it as some oeeanogre- either pipe for even a few weeks
phers believe—a deep,dark,barren would convince anyone of the wisdom
desert providing little food but with of this philosophy.
the greatest capacity to assimilate Perhaps this isn't being fair to the
human wastes of any earthly ecasys- members of Congress. Perhaps they
tem? don't think wastes should go on the
It is both.Two percent o1 the ocean land willy-nilly — just on any land
is coastal water—the seashore,har- outside of my state. Probab!y they
bors and a home for fish. The rest is mean out West, where a surfeit of
the deep ocean, where few fish are desolate lands lays idle,defended by
caught, few votes in the House o1 Represema.
Nonetheless•it was the view of Con- tires.
gress that prevailed lest year when it Does Congress expect nature to
passed legislation that prohibits the suddenly change her ways and abide
dumping of sewage and industrial by the new,law of the land?
wastes into the ocean after Dec. 31, Mother nature will piactdy.thwart
1991. the intent of Congress by flushing
In doing so, Congress disregarded wastes, legally confined to the land
advice from the National Research and air we try to live on, illegally to
Council of the National Academy of the coastal ocesn.
Sciences and the National Advisory
Committee on Oceans and Atmos- For despite the new law, gravity
will prevail. Congress
pheres to keep our options open. damned:
These groups argued that we should Those wastes on land willll eventually
not foreclose deep ocean dumping be- reach the sea,as surely as rivers con-
cause,in some cases,it is preferable tine to flow down hill.
to any of the alter natives. Percolating rains, the unpredict.
Moreover,this law does not protect able changes in ground-water levels
the coastal wean. Waste, when and erosion will see to that. And
burned or dumped on land,eventually smoke and debris sent into the skies
ends up in the coastal ocean. As will return a.acid rain and crud.join-
'Chemical Oceanography;' a well. ing the flood to the sea.
known text, states: "The ocean is Congress is sure to lose this contest
menns ultimate garbage can. Sooner of wills. Unfortunately, in the mean-
or later.all of the products of civilize. time, the land, air and fresh water
tion find their way to this reservoir." that sustain life on earthwill be de-
Indeed, a better way to protect the graded, forced by me new law to
coastal ocean would be to dump our serve as half-way houses,holding the
waste in the deep ocean. wastes briefly a'al of sight, su+ of
The new law places two-thirds of mind before freeing them to flow see-
our planet off-limits to mankind's ward.
wastes.This is an in[cresting new phi. It makes little sense for Congress
losophy: the, our wastes should go to protect the durable deep ocean if it
where we love—the land—and not means discriminating against
-- -- the planet's other life-suppon sys.
tems, especialic when it affords no
Charles Osterberg is retired p-om-tion to c Prat Ie ceara'
professor of oceanography at
Oregon State University.
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CAUFORNIA
July 12, 1989 1O9 ELus AVENUE
A o Fox 912)
FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 9272E-0127
IIIAI962-tan
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: All Board Members
SUBJECT: Selection of Preferred Treatment Level re Districts'
Wastewater Management Program
Background
The Districts operate under the terms and conditions of a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued jointly by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (CRWQCB). The permits are issued for a 5-year period. In February 1985,
after an extensive 7-year -evaluation by the EPA, the first permit ever issued
pursuant to Section 301(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act was issued to our
Districts. It was issued because of the Districts' ability to demonstrate that
they could comply with the strict conditions imposed under Section 301(h) , which
allows a high quality but less than full secondary treated effluent to be
discharged if the ocean and public health are protected.
Over two years ago the Directors and staff undertook an engineering and
environmental study to prepare for renewal of the Districts' current NPDES
permit which expires in February 1990. Although the Districts' primary
responsibility is ocean protection, we take a more holistic, total environmental
management view and consider impacts on land and air as well as water resources.
Further, ongoing long-range planning has always been an integral part of our
wastewater management program. Thus, we have integrated our approach to include
the long-range engineering, cross-media environmental , public health, financial
and social aspects of our wastewater management program.
The culmination of this comprehensive effort has been the preparation of
2020 VISION°, the Districts' 30-year Action Plan for Wastewater and
Environmental Management. Executive summaries of the Facilities Master Plan and
EIR were provided to the Boards in April .
A major focus of the Action Plan is a determination of the appropriate treatment
level for the Districts. In April , the staff also submitted its preliminary
recommendation on the preferred treatment level. Enclosed herewith is another
copy of staff's preliminary report and recommendation.
Final Recommendation - Preferred Treatment Level
Staff, in assessing all of the information to formulate its recommendation, has
judiciously attempted to discipline itself to maintain an objective, professional
approach and arrive at a conclusion based on the technical merits of the issues.
...� The staff takes very seriously the responsibility of protecting the ocean and
the public health. Likewise, we take very seriously our responsibility of
spending public dollars in the wisest manner. Finally, staff believes that our
role is to give the Boards of Directors our best professional advice.
All Board Members
July 12, 1989
Page Two
After thorough evaluation of the engineering, environmental and financial
information, and the public commentary, it is staff's recommendation that the
current level of treatment (Scenario 2 - 50% secondary treatment) be selected
as the preferred alternative for our wastewater management program; and that a
Section 301(h) ocean discharge permit renewal application be submitted to EPA
and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board based on this treatment
level. A copy of the staff's final recommendation is enclosed herewith.
The staff's recommendation will assure continued protection of public health
and the beneficial uses of the ocean, provide for the wisest management of
limited public and natural resources, and promote balanced environmental
protection. Scenario 3 - 100% secondary treatment, would cost $1.4 billion
more over the 30-year Action Plan period. From our study of the facts, which
are summarized in our enclosed preliminary and final recomnendation documents,
it is staff's best professional judgment that the evidence simply cannot support
a case for spending limited public funds on a higher level of treatment that
would produce little, if Any, measurable benefit.
When one considers that public resources are limited, then it seems prudent that
public funds be spent on programs that demonstrate that there is a return for the
expenditure. For example, as it turns out the recently announced Santa Ana River
flood protection program happens to carry a $1.4 billion price tag. That project,
to correct what the Corps of Engineers calls the worst flood threat west of the
Mississippi, is estimated to save 3,000 lives and $12 billion in property damage
from storm intensities that will eventually occur (200 year flood).
The decision on the appropriate treatment level to apply to EPA and CRWQCB for
renewal of the Districts' NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit is a public policy
decision that rightfully belongs with the Board of Directors. Whatever the
decision, you may rest assured that it will b supported and implemented by
staff with equal vigor, enthusiasm an rof siFondpatch.
Wern al
JWS:sc
Enclosures: Staff's Final Report and Recommendation on 112020 VISION"
Districts' Action Plan for Wastewater and Environmental Management '
Copy of 02020 VISION" An Action Plan for Wastewater Management -
Preliminary Report and Executive Summary
"2020 VISION"
ACTION PLATY
FOR
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
1990 - 2020
Final Staff Recommendation
L?aucrtry Sa�itatco� DcOffccetd o� daaKge ( , ( csia
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California
P.O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127
(714) 962-2411
J. Wayne Sylvester
General Manager
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
M ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
July 12, 1989 10944 EWS AVENUE
PO eoa 9121
EOUNTWN VALLEY.LAUFOAN1A 927 &8121
STAFF SUMMARY REPORT all)9e2.2.11
ON
FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON
COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
MASTER PLAN
On April 13, 1989 the Sanitation Districts released the Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (Draft Program EIR) on the Collection, Treatment and
Disposal Facilities Master Plan for 45 days of public review. The Master Plan
presents a 30-year plan for wastewater management, including the collection,
treatment and disposal facilities necessary to accommodate expected future
Increase in sewage flows, based on three alternative treatment level scenarios,
(1) 33% secondary treatment; (2) 50% secondary treatment, which is the level of
the Districts' current program; and (3) 100% secondary treatment.
The Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan reviewed treatment
and disposal facilities, water reclamation, trunk sewer collection, computer
control and monitoring, facilities reliability, disaster preparedness and a
financial plan.
On May 17, 1989 the Boards of Directors conducted a public hearing on the Draft
Program EIR before a hearing officer, staff representatives, General Counsel ,
Board Secretary, and consultants to describe the Draft Program EIR and receive
oral public comments. Following the hearing, the Boards directed staff and the
consultants to respond to the oral and written public comments to comply with
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for completion of an
EIR following the close of the public comment period. The 45-day comment period
ended on May 30, 1989.
The Sanitation Districts received 94 written comment letters and 12 oral
comments on the Draft Program EIR. Of the written comments, 19 letters were
written by public agencies, 5 by interest groups and 70 letters were written by
individuals.
The Final Program EIR has been prepared by the environmental consultant, Jones
and Stokes, Inc., to respond to the public comments received on the Draft
Program EIR on the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan.
All of the written and oral public comments are contained in the Final Program
EIR, together with indexed responses to each comment. The Final Program EIR
along with the Draft Program EIR together actually constitute the Final Program
EIR.
The EIR provides a comprehensive public disclosure document and the basis for
the adoption of the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan.
The Final Program EIR provides an independent evaluation of the cross-media
impacts associated with implementation of the alternate levels (scenarios) of
wastewater treatment and methods of residual disposal to serve the needs of the
service area. The document will be used as part of the decision-making process
...� to support an application for a new National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for ocean discharge. The Districts' existing permit
expires in February 1990.
In addition to the three treatment level scenarios that were reviewed, a 'No
Project' alternative was also evaluated. The Final Program EIR identifies and
addresses project objectives, alternatives, and impacts, including significant �..i
environmental effects that cannot be avoided. In addition, the Final Program
EIR identifies impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels.
The Boards must act on the Final Program EIR to satisfy CEQA requirements.
Proposed is the approval of Resolutions 89-101 and 89-102, certifying the Final
Program EIR; adopting certain findings, including mitigation measures to offset
environmental effects of the project, and findings that certain environmental
effects are adverse, unavoidable and likely to be significant and cannot or are
unlikely to be mitigated; adopting a statement of overriding consideration; and
authorizing filing of a Notice of Determination.
-2-
, r
RESOLUTION NO. 89-101
�i CERTIFYING FINAL PROGRAM EIR FOR COLLECTION
TREATMENTN DISPOSALFACILITIES
A ILITIE ER
P Li
N
A JOINT 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, CERTIFYING
THE FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS' COLLECTION, TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN - 1989
WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California ("Districts"),
are presently considering the approval of project, described as the Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan - 1989 (the Master Plan), and,
WHEREAS, the Districts are the Lead Agency for the preparation and
consideration of environmental documents for the Master Plan and projects
contained within the Master Plan, pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, ("CEQA") , the State of California CEQA
Guidelines and the Districts' CEQA procedures; and,
WHEREAS, to assess the Master Plan's environmental impacts
objectively, the Districts have caused to be prepared a Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to assess the significant environmental
impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives associated with the Master Plan;
and,
WHEREAS, the DISTRICTS have consulted with other public agencies and
the general public, giving them an opportunity to comment on the Draft Program
EIR as required by CEQA; and,
-1-
o _
WHEREAS, on May 17, 1989, the Boards of Directors of the Districts
held a duly-noticed public hearing to provide a further opportunity for the
general public to comment on and respond to the Draft Program EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the Districts have objectively evaluated the comments from
public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft Program EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the comments and recommendations received on the Draft
Program EIR, either in full or in summary, together with the- Districts'
responses to significant environmental concerns raised in the review and
consultation process, have been included in the Final Program EIR; and,
WHEREAS, said Final Program EIR has been presented to the members of
the Boards of Directors of the Districts for review and consideration prior to
the final approval of, and commitment to, the Master Plan and any MasterPlan
projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
jhat the Boards of Directors do hereby certify that the Final Program
EIR on the Master Plan has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State
CEQA Guidelines, and the Districts' CEQA procedures, and that the Boards of
Directors have reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
Program EIR prior to approval of, or commitment to, the Master Plan and any
Master Plan projects. The Final Program EIR consists of the following two
documents:
-2-
A. "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report on Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan", dated March 1989; and
B. "Final Program Environmental Impact Report on Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan", dated July 1989.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1989.
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 89-102
\� MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE LLE TION,
TREATMENTAND DISPOSAL FACILITIES ER PLAN -
1989 "T P T STATEMENT
OVERRIIU LN(i GUNN$I ERATI N• AND AUIRUKILINU THE
FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION E 5AID PROJECT
A JOINT 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 MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS IDENTIFIED IN THE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES MASTER PLAN - 1989 ("THE PROJECT");
ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION; AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
RE SAID PROJECT
k # # k k k k k k k k k k k k k # #
WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 51 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California ("DISTRICTS")
are presently considering the approval of the Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan - 1989 ("the Master Plan"); and,
WHEREAS, the DISTRICTS are the Lead Agency for the preparation and
consideration of environmental documents for the Master Plan and projects
contained within the Master Plan pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended ("CEQA"), the State of California CEQA
Guidelines, and the DISTRICTS' CEQA procedures; and,
WHEREAS, the DISTRICTS caused to be prepared a Draft Program
Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"); held a duly-noticed public hearing to
provide general public comment; received, filed and evaluated comments from
public agencies and persons who reviewed the Draft Program EIR; and prepared a
Final Program EIR; and,
-1-
WHEREAS, the Final Program EIR on the Master Plan has been certified
in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and,
WHEREAS, the Master Plan identified the three separate and distinct
alternatives (the "scenarios") for the level of prescribed treatment of
wastewater; and,
WHEREAS the Final Program EIR has identified one or more significant
environmental effects resulting from implementation of actions, activities or
specific projects set forth in said Master Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, 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 RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
I. FINDINGS
Section 1: That the Master Plan and the Final Program EIR have fully and
adequately addressed all three alternatives for the prescribed level of
treatment of wastewater, and that the Boards have determined that the treatment
alternative described as Scenario No. _ is the preferred alternative and the
most appropriate wastewater management program for the residents of Orange
County.
Section 2: That the proposed project, which consists of a 30-year
Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan, will create a number
of significant or potentially significant environmental effects. These impacts
are identified with a "P" or "PS" , respectively, in Tables S-2 (Treatment
Scenario No. 2) and S-3 of the Final Program EIR, that are appended to this
Resolution as Attachments A and B.
-2-
Section 3: That the Boards of Directors of DISTRICTS do further find that
�i changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed
project which avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects,
as identified in the Final Program EIR.
Section 4: Significant impacts identified in the Final Program EIR that
will be mitigated to less-than-significant levels by the DISTRICTS are as
follows:
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL - SCENARIO NO.
A. Degradation of the infaunal community area by solids in effluent
will be mitigated by spatial separation between existing and proposed outfalls.
B. Safety hazards during operations will be mitigated by conducting
safety classes, using appropriate safety equipment, and enclosing facilities.
C. Risks of workers contacting pathogens will be mitigated through
implementation of a safety program.
D. Temporary loss of use of a bicycle trail along the Santa Ana
River during interplant pipeline construction will be mitigated by relocation of
the bicycle trail during construction.
E. Temporary visual impacts during interplant pipeline construction
will be mitigated by minimizing construction time and post-construction
restoration.
F. Conflicts between treatment plant facilities and residential land
uses will be mitigated by maintaining a visual buffer.
-3-
G. Increased congestion from construction vehicles will be mitigated
by appropriate scheduling of construction and coordinating with the Cities of
Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach.
H. Increased congestion from operations vehicles will be mitigated
by the DISTRICTS' implementing a ride-sharing program for their employees and
scheduling sludge hauling and chemical delivery trucks to stay off regional
facilities during peak commute periods to the extent feasible.
I. Temporary construction noise, and pile-driving noise and
vibration, will be mitigated by limiting construction hours, using alternative
foundation designs, informing the neighbors of construction activities, and
hiring an acoustics engineer to evaluate a means of buffering external noise
emanating from construction sites.
J. Noise impacts caused by engines during operations at treatment
facilities will be mitigated with mufflers and by enclosing engines.
K. Air emissions from wastewater, plant equipment, vehicles, and
sludge during project operations will be mitigated by continued compliance with
SCAQMD requirements, continuation of the DISTRICTS' source control program, and
enclosing treatment plant facilities.
L. Odors caused by plant operations, sludge disposal , and
reclamation plants will be mitigated by continuing the DISTRICTS' current odor
control program, covering certain plant processes, and using rural sites for
sludge disposal where feasible.
M. Exposure of the treatment plants to flooding will be mitigated by
maintaining a flood wall at the plants and instituting a disaster preparedness
plan.
-4-
N. Disruption of treatment reliability provisions during
construction will be mitigated by appropriate construction scheduling and by
providing for treatment redundancy.
TRUNK SEWER CONSTRUCTION
0. Access, noise, and dust impacts during construction will be
mitigated by scheduling construction for off-peak traffic hours where feasible,
compliance with all applicable noise ordinances, and water spraying of dry earth
to the extent feasible. -
P. Land use impacts caused by construction of Orange Park Acres
Trunk on properties adjacent to Handy Creek will be mitigated by providing
advance notification of construction and scheduling dates.
O. Land use impacts caused by construction of Big Canyon Trunk on
Big Canyon Country Club, and impacts of constructing Los Alamitos Subtrunk
parallel sewers on Forest Lawn Memorial Park, will be mitigated by using "inside
the pipe' repair and rehabilitation techniques, and by appropriate scheduling of
construction to the extent feasible.
R. Disruption of roadways and bikeways during construction will be
mitigated through preparation of traffic control plans that maintain maximum
safe traffic access.
S. Disruption of utility service duringexcavation activities will
be mitigated by coordinating with the Underground Service Alert and local
utilities, developing plans for alternative services where needed, and rerouting
of facilities where necessary and at the DISTRICTS' expense if a utility
purveyor has prior rights.
-5-
T. Increased emergency response times during project construction
will be mitigated by preparing traffic control plans prior to construction and
by notifying emergency service provides before construction schedules are
implemented.
U. Any disturbance of drainage facilities during project
construction, and groundwater infiltration into open trenches and tunnels, will
be mitigated by scheduling sewer construction during dry months, coordinating
with Orange County Flood Control District to protect underground facilities and
determine best scheduling, and pumping and discharging groundwater pursuant to
the DISTRICTS' NPDES permit.
V. Disturbance of cultural resources along Handy Creek during
construction of Orange Park Acres Trunk Sewer will be mitigated by halting work
if unusual materials are found, and then consulting qualified professionals to
examine the materials, record findings, and properly curate any significant
artifacts discovered.
W. Dust generation and air pollutant emissions from construction
vehicles will be mitigated by using watering trucks as necessary to control dust
and clean vehicles and keeping streets free of dust and dirt, covering trucks
and dirt piles, using well-tuned and properly-maintained construction equipment,
and discontinuing construction during second-stage smog alerts to the extent
feasible.
X. Impacts of Orange Park Acres Trunk Sewer construction on
equestrian trails and bridges will be mitigated by designing and constructing
the sewer to avoid removal of equestrian bridges and, if necessary-and feasible,
developing an alternative equestrian trail around construction activities.
-6-
Y. Impacts of replacement of Big Canyon Trunk Sewer on Big Canyon
County Club Golf Course will be mitigated by scheduling construction during
winter to avoid periods of peak use, to the extent possible.
Section 5: For the following significant impacts, either no feasible
mitigation measures are available, or the DISTRICTS will implement certain
feasible mitigation measures, but residual impacts will still be significant or
potentially significant. For these impacts, specific economic, social or other
considerations make infeasible other mitigation measures or alternatives that
may have been identified in the Final Program EIR.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL - SCENARIO No.
A. Impacts of outfall construction on the least tern colony will be
partially mitigated by scheduling construction to avoid any nesting disturbance,
conducting additional environmental 'studies, and consulting with the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A
project-specific EIR will be prepared for outfall construction. This impact
could be avoided by the No-Project Alternative, but the No-Project Alternative
is considered infeasible because it would lead to a decline in treatment
effectiveness, risk violations of effluent quality standards, exceed the
capacity of the existing 120-inch diameter ocean outfall and violate NPDES
permit conditions.
B. Construction safety hazards to workers and the public will be
partially mitigated by continued implementation of a safety program, fence
construction, and coordination with cities. This impact could be avoided by the
No-Project Alternative, which is considered infeasible for the reasons stated in
Section 5A.
-7-
C. Chemical spill risks during handling and transport will be
partially mitigated by continuing a safety program, fence construction,.
coordination with cities,' and conformance to U.S. Department of Transportation
transport standards.
D. Temporary loss of beach use during outfall construction cannot
feasibly be mitigated. This impact could be avoided by the No-Project
Alternative, which is considered infeasible for the reasons stated in Section
5A.
E. Temporary outfall construction aesthetic impacts on Huntington
State Beach and Newport Beach can be partially mitigated by minimizing
construction time and by post-construction restoration. This impact could be
avoided by the No-Project Alternative, which is considered infeasible for the
reasons stated in 5A.
F. Land use impacts associated with sludge disposal (land
requirements of 410 acres for monofill or 580 acres for dedicated land disposal)
cannot feasibly be mitigated. Impacts on the landfill capacity of sludge
co-disposal in landfills cannot feasibly be mitigated. As identified in the
Final Program EIR, these impacts could be mitigated by minimization of total
sludge volume and reuse of all sludge, but such reuse is not feasible under
current conditions, because of limited markets for sludge products and
regulatory health and safety issues that need to be resolved.
G. Air quality impacts associated with construction dust, equipment
emissions, and truck emissions will be partially mitigated by controlling dust,
limiting work during first-stage smog alerts, and requiring contractors to
-8-
maintain equipment, and where feasible schedule deliveries to avoid peak traffic
periods and implement ride-sharing programs. These impacts could be avoided by
the No-Project Alternative, which is considered infeasible for the reasons
stated in 5A. These impacts could also be avoided by Treatment Scenario No. 1,
which is considered infeasible because it would lead to treatment levels below
those currently being implemented.
H. Emissions of air toxics will be partially mitigated by continued
compliance with SCAQMD requirements and source reduction.
I. Exposure of the treatment plants to seismic action can be
partially mitigated by design and maintenance of the plants to code and best
engineering practice, and by maintaining an emergency preparedness plan.
J. Energy use and construction material consumption during project
construction, and energy use during project operation cannot feasibly be
mitigated. The No-Project Alternative could avoid energy and construction
material impacts during project construction, but is considered infeasible for
the reasons stated in Section 5A.
TRUNK SEWER CONSTRUCTION
k. Increases in emergency response times by police, fire, and
paramedics will be partially mitigated by preparation of traffic control plans.
This impact could be avoided by the No-Project Alternative, which is considered
infeasible because of public health and water quality problems that would result
from its implementation.
L. Water quality effects caused by stormwater runoff from soil
stockpiles will be partially mitigated by covering soil stockpiles during winter
-9-
if necessary. Damage to sewer facilities during seismic events, and resulting
water quality effects of line rupture or blown manholes, will be partially
mitigated by adherence to standard sewer design and construction practices.
These impacts could be avoided by the No-Project Alternative, which is
considered infeasible for the reasons stated in Section 5A.
Section 6: For the following significant impacts identified in the Final
Program EIR, project changes or alterations that would avoid or substantially
lessen impacts are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public
agency, and not the DISTRICTS. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
A. Water quality impacts from leachate generated by landfills where
sludge is disposed can be mitigated by having the landfill operating agency
Install a leachate collection system and monitoring program, as well as
continuing the DISTRICTS' source control program.
B. Risk of exposure to toxic materials from sludge and leachate can
be mitigated by having the landfill operating agency institute a safety program,
a leachate collection system, and a monitoring program, and by practicing daily
landfill cover.
C. Traffic congestion and delay due to growth can be partially
mitigated by implementation of Southern California Association of Governments'
(SCAG's) Growth Management Plan and Regional Mobility Plan, and by local
governments improving jobs/housing balance.
D. Vehicle emissions increases from growth can be partially
mitigated by implementation of SCAG's Growth Management Plan and SCAQMD's Air
Quality Management Plan.
-10-
E. Loss of flood storage capacity at the Crescent Basin reclamation
plant site can be mitigated by incorporating alternative designs to allow
continued use of land as a flood basin or by providing flood storage elsewhere.
F. Increased demand for all public services and utilities due to
growth Can be partially mitigated by service agencies and utilities planning to
meet increased demand.
G. Population and employment increases facilitated by trunk sewer
construction, and resulting secondary environmental effects, can be partially
mitigated by land use planning, growth management, and environmental protection
measures that are the responsibility of SCAG, SCAQMD, and local governments.
H. For those impacts identified in Sections 6C, 6D, 6F and 6G,
post-mitigation residual impacts will still be significant and cannot feasibly
be mitigated.
Section 7: The DISTRICTS will implement the following mitigation measures
for impacts identified as less than significant in the Final Program EIR.
A. Marine environment impacts of suspended solids, toxics, and
metals will be mitigated by continued implementation of the DISTRICTS' source
control program.
B. Marine environment impacts of coliform bacteria and viruses will
be mitigated by disinfection upon pipeline breakage or identification of a
health risk.
C. Remote risk of pathogen contact by beachgoers will be mitigated
by ocean monitoring, disinfection upon pipeline breakage, and conducting
\J sanitary surveys and other studies to investigate pathogen sources and risks.
-11-
D. Aesthetic impacts of construction and plant equipment will be
mitigated by additional screening. �J
E. Increased demand for potable water in treatment plants will be
mitigated by using reclaimed wastewater where possible, and promoting water
conservation.
F. Cultural resources impacts during construction at the treatment
plants will be mitigated by consulting an archeologist if artifacts are
encountered.
G. Biological impacts of construction of Orange Park Acres Trunk
Sewer within Handy Creek will be mitigated by routing the sewer along the top of
creek banks or nearby streets, or if construction proceeds in Handy Creek, by
preserving some major mature trees and replanting creek banks with suitable
vegetation.
H. Temporary impacts on traffic access to beach recreation areas
will be mitigated by traffic control plans that maintain maximum access.
Section 8: The DISTRICTS hereby adopt the following monitoring and
reporting program to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures described
In Sectiods 4, 5 and 7.
A. Within 30 days following adoption of this resolution, the General
Manager, or his designee, shall appoint an Environmental Monitor responsible for
coordinating mitigation monitoring and reporting activities.
B. The Environmental Monitor shall review the design of all Master
Plan facilities and either certify that the facility design complies with EIR
-12-
migitation measures, or recommend to the Director of Engineering design
modifications necessary to achieve such compliance. In addition, prior to the
DISTRICTS obtaining bids for construction of Master Plan facilities, the
Environmental Manager shall review the bid documents and certify compliance with
applicable mitigation measures.
C. Within 60 days of the adoption of this resolution, the
Environmental Monitor shall design a checklist to demonstrate compliance with
mitigation measures in the field during construction of Master Plan facilities.
The Director of Engineering shall assign staff responsibilities for completing
this checklist, and certify compliance with mitigation measures during and after
construction of Master Plan projects.
D. The Director of Engineering shall prepare reports to the General
Manager on the status of mitigation measure implementation.
Section 9: The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1,
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, have balanced the
benefits of the Master Plan against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the Master Plan. The Boards hereby find that the
occurrence of the unavoidable significant environmental effects identified in
the Final Program EIR and listed in Sections 5 and 6 is acceptable for the
following reasons:
A. The Master Plan is necessary to accommodate wastewater flows from
ongoing development approved by local governments after required environmental
reviews. The DISTRICTS are a single-purpose agency with the responsibility to
collect, treat and dispose of wastewater generated with the DISTRICTS' service
area.
-13-
B. The Master Plan is necessary to meet the following objectives:
to provide an environmentally sound regional sewage collection, treatment and
disposal system that minimizes risks to public health and safety; to protect the
beneficial uses of water, land, and air from significant impai ment from
wastewater management activities; to comply with all federal and state
regulatory standards applicable to the treatment reuse and disposal of treated
effluent and sludge; to encourage wastewater flow reduction through water
conservation and reuse; to reclaim wastewater for beneficial reuse and encourage
development of markets for reclaimed wastewater; and to encourage beneficial
reuse of sludge.
Section 10: That the treatment alternative described as Scenario No.
is the preferred alternative.
Section 11: That the Board Secretary is authorized and directed to file
the Notice of Determination and any other documents in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA and the Districts' CEQA procedures.
PASSED AND ADOPTED AT AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 19, 1989.
-14-
` ATTACHMENT A
Table S-2. Environmental Impact Summary - Treatment and Diaposal Alternatives
---------------------------------••--------.....---.---------..-----..-.-----------------------.--------------......--..----------------------------------------------....-
Environmental Impacts Fact Significance Fact Significance After Mitigation
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------
Impect Scenario Scenario Scenario No Scenario Scenario Scenario No Mitigation Scenario Scenario Scenario No
Category No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project Measures No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marim Suspended Some Same Same, except NS NS NS PS Continued NS NS No PS
environment solids and toxic toxicants implementation
constituents pre concentrations of source central
sent in effluent; may ba program
concentrations greater
Neff below limits
Coliform bacteria Same; fewer Setae; fewest Same, except NS NS NS PS Disinfection if NS NS NS NS
and viruses in bacteria and bacteria and potential pipeline breaks
discharge-, no iden- viruses viruses for health or health risk
tified health risk risk exists identified
Accumulation of Same; metals Same; metals Same; metals NS NS NS PS - Continue NS NS NS PS
metals In sedi- concentration concentration concentration aggressive source
ment at diffuser about 5 per- about 10 per- could become control program
to centime at cent less than cent less than greater than
existing rates Scenario No. 1 Scenario No. 1 Scenario No. 1
No identifiable Same Same Same MS NS Ns NS Nona required NB NS NS as
impacts on fish,
kelp communities,
coastal birds,
marine mammals,
special-status
species -
Temporary loss of Same Same No impact NS NS NS NS Noce required NS NS NS NS
same ocean blots
in outfall con-
struction area
Infaunaf can- Same: Sees: Sam: S S NS S Spatial separa- NS NS as S
munity area 18 acres 5 acres qua
ntified; tion between
degraded by lass than 28 existing and
solids in effluent acres proposed outfalis
(ITI=30): 28 acres
Temporary turbid- Some Same No impact NS NS Ns NS Nona required NS NS NS NS
ity in outfafl con-
struction area
Biological Outfall Same Same No impact S S S NS Schedule to PS PS PS NS
resources construction avoid nesting;
impacts on least Section 7 USFNS
tern colony, coordination; pre-
pare supplemental .
enviromental
document
Legend: B = Beneficial impact NS = No significant impact PS = Potentially significant adverse impact S = Significant adverse impact
ATTACHMENT A
Table S-2. Emirmenentel Impact Summery - Treatment and Disposal Alternatives (Continued)
................................................................................................................................•----...........---.....--.................
Erviroummntal impacts Fact Significance Impact Significance After Mitigation
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ....................................
impact Scenario Scenario Scenario No Scenario Scenario Scenario No Mitigation Scenario Scenario Scenario No
Category No. t No. 2 No. 3 Project No. i No. 2 No. 3 Proj act Measures No. i No. 2 No. 3 Project
...........................................................................................................................................................................
Water Pollution from same Some Same PS PS PS PS Leachate collec- NS NS NS NS
quality landfill tion system, mon-
leachate from ituring; continue
sludge source control
program
Pollution from Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Provide redon- PS PS PS PS
plant failure dancy; disaster
or line breakage preparedness
during construc- plan; carmtruc-
tion an scheduling
Public Construction Same; Same; No impact PS PS PS NS Safety program PS PS PS NS
health safety hazards slightly greatest risk fence eonatrue-
to corkers greater risk Lion, coordinate
and public cith cities
Safety hazards Same Same Score PS PS PS PS Safety class as, NS NS NS NS
during opera- safety equipment,
tions enclosing facil-
ities
Chemical spill Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Same; conform to PS PS PS PS
risk during ben- DDT transport
dling, transport standards; safety
program
Pathogen contact Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Safety program NS NS NS NS
risk - workers
Remote pathogen Same Sam Same NS NS NS PS Mean monitoring; NS NS NS NS
contact risk - disinfection if
beachgoere pipelinc breaks;
condixt epidemio-
logical studies
Vector genera- Same Same Same NS NS MS NS Preclude mos- NS NS NS NS
tion risk quito breeding
Toxic materials Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Safety program; NS NS NS Ns
exposure risk I achate collect-
from sludge, Ion system, monitor-
leachate ing, daily cover
Recreation Temporary loss of Same Same No impact PS PS PS NS None PS PS PS NS
use of portion of available
beach during out-
fell construction
Legend: = Bencficial impact NS = No significant impact PS = Potentially significant adverse impact S - Significant adverse 't '
Table S-2. Environmental Impact Sumary - Treatment and Oisposal Alternatives (Continued)
•-•-----------•-------------------•--------._.-_------------------------------------------------------------------------•-------------___....---........-.---------.....---
Envirommuntal Facts Impact Significance Impact Significance After Mitigation
---•----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------___.--------
Impact Scenario Scenario Scenario No Scenario Scenario Scenario No Mitigation Scenario Scenario Scenario No
Category No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project Measures No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project
----------------------------------------------------------------------------••---------------..-..-___------------• -------------------------------------------------------
Temperer Iona of Some Same No impact PS PS PS NS Rat ocate trail NS its NS NS
use of bike trail during
along Santa Ana cowatruetion
River during inter-
plant pipeline
construction
t paacts on Same Same No impact PS PS PS NS Increase NS NS NS NS
resources from resources
growth
Aesthetics Construction Same Same Plant NS NS NS NS Additional MS NS NS IS
equipment, plant equippmnent screening
equipment visible vial ble
Temporary outfall Same Same No impact S S S NS Minimize S S S Ns
construction im- construction
pacts an Huntington time, restore
Beach areas
Temporary visual Same Same No impact PS PS PS NS Minimize call- NS NS NS NS
impacts during struction time,
Interplant corridor restore areas
construction
Lard use Changes on Same Same No impact NS NS NS NS More required NS NS MS NS
plant sites
Conflict with Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Maintain NS NS NS NS
residential visual buffer
lard uses
Use of 3" Use of 410 Use of 560 Use of unknown S S S S Reuse all sludge, NS NS NS NS
acres if ail acres if it acres if all acreage If all or use other
sludge to sludge to sludge to sludge to disposal methods
monofill mencfill monefiil monofill
Use of 490 Use of 580 Use of 790 Use of unknown S S S S Reuse all sludge, NS NS NS NS
acres if all acres if all acres if ell acreage If all Or use other
sludge to sludge to sludge to sludge to disposal methods
dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated
(and disposal land disposal land disposal land disposal
Temporary use Temporary use Temporary use Use of Unknown NS NS NS NS Noce required Ns NS NS NB
of 5,440 acres of 6,550 acres of 8,890 acres acreage if all
for agricul- for agricul- for agricul- sludge to
trral land turil land turd led agricultural
application application application land
of sludge of sludge of sludge application
(20 years) (20 years) (20 years) (20 years)
Legend: A = Beneficial impact NS = No significant impact PS = Potentially significant adverse impact S = Significant adverse Impact
Table S-2. Erviromentel Impact Sumeary, - Treatment and gisposal Alternatives (Continued)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enviromental Impacts Impact Significance Impact Significance after Mitigation
--------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ------- ------------------------------------
Impact Scenario Scenario Scenario No Scenario Scenario Scenario No Nitigation Scenario Scenario Scenario No
Category No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project Measures No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project
.............--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Landfill Codisposal of Sam; greater Same; greater Same; S S. S S Rou6e all PS PS PS PS
capacity sludge in lend- iryect than fnpact than unquantiffed sludge source
fills uses Scenario No.1 Scenario reduction
limited capacity Nos. 1 and 2
Trmspor- Construction Saran (338 Same (400 No impact PS PS PS NS Schedule con- NS NS NS NS
Cation vehicles (300 per vehicles par vehicles per structiou,
day) NWId In- day) day) inform cities
crease congestion
Operations vehicles Sane (1,260 Same (1,475 Same PS PS PS PS Schedule off- 11S NS NS MS
(1,100 trips per trips per day) trips per day) peak operati are
day) would increase
congestion
Traffic con- Sam Same Same, but S S S S SCAN could PS PS PS PS
gestion and delay impact may be implement Growth
could increase (united of Management plan,
significantly if sewer Regional Nobility
due to growth connection ban Pin, and improve
slowed growth jobs/housing balance
Noise Temporary con- Sane; greeter Same; greater No Impact S S S NS Limit hours; NS NS NS NS
sruction noise; noise than raise than alternative faun-
pile driving noise Scenario 1 Scenarios 1 datfon designs;
and vibration or 2 inform neighbors;
effect on residents acoustic study
operations Same; greater Same; greater Same PS PS PS PS Enclose enilnaa, NS NS NS NS
miss effect noise than noise than employ mufflers
an residents Scenario 1 Scenarios 1
or 2
Air quality Cans tructfon Same; greater Same; greater No Impact PS S S NS Control dust; NS S S Ng
dust; equipment Impact than impact than limit work
omissions; Scenario 1 Scenario 2 durng stage 1
truck emissions snmg starts;
construction con-
tractors Nould be
required to
implement ride
share program
Emissions Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Continue complf- NS NS NG NS
from wastewater, ame with SUM
plant equipment, requirements;
vehicles, sludge continue source
control program
Legend: = Beneficial impact NS No significant impact PS Potentially significant adverse impact S - Significant adverse -t -
Table S-2. Environmental Impact Summery - Treatment and Disposal alternatives (Continued)
----------------------...................•---...-----------.-----------------...-........-----......-------..----.--.----.----.-......-----•.------------.................-
Envirmmental Impacts Impact Significance Impact Significance after Mitigation
--------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ..------------------------------...-
Impact Scenario Scenario Scenario No Scenario Scenario Scenario No Mitigation Scenario Scenario Scenario No
Category No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project Measures No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project
Toxic and/or 63.82 tpy 85.55 tpy leas than 41 S S S 6 Continue co pli- PS PS P6 PS
potentially toxic typ once with SCAM
compounds emitted requirements,
(uncontrolled) fact) source reduction
46.19 tons per year
(tpy)
Vehicle axis- Sane Same Same, but S S S S SLAG could PS PS PS PS
siona from growth impact may implement Growth
would increase, be limited Management Plan;
making attainment if sewer BMW could
of standards connection ban implement AGMP
less likely slowed growth
Odor Plant opera- Sena Same Sere PS PS PS PS Continue current MS MS NS NS
time, sludge odor control
disposal, arid program; cover
reckons Lion plant ee ;
plants may rural pr sitiesngaes fro
cause odors sludge disposal
flooding Exposure of Same Same Same PS PS PS PS Maintain flood NS NS NS NS
Plant Nos. 1 wall at plants;
and 2 to flooding maintain disaster
preparedness plan
Loss of flood Same Same No impact PS PS PS NS Provide flood NS Ns NS NS
storage capacity storage else-
et Crescent Basin where; multiple
reclamation plant use of site for
site flood control
Seismicity Exposure of Be.; more Same; most Same; least PS PS PS PS Design and mein- PS PS PS PS
plants to equipment equipment equipment twin plant to
seismic action at risk at risk at risk code and best
engineering prac-
tice; maintain
preparedness plan
Cultural No impact Same Same No impact as NS NS NS Consult NS NS NS NS
resources likely archeologist
If artifacts
encountered
Soils Temporary construe- Same Sane No impact NS MS NS NS None required NS NS MS NS
tion disturbance
Improved fertility Sane Same Same B B B B Mane required B B B B
and agricultural
productivity by
sludge reuse
Legend: B = Beneficial impact MS = No significant beet PS = Potentially significant adverse impact S = Significant adverse impact
Table S-2. Environmental Impact Summary - Treatment and Disposal Alternatives (Continued)
---------------•--••-•----------------------------------------•-----------------------••-------------------........---...-------••------...-----............-----..........
Erntronnental Impacts Impact Significance Impact SIBn(ficenc6 After Mitigation
-
-------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------...------.------------.--..-..
Impact Smererio Scenario scenario No Scenario Scenario Scenario No Mitigation Scenario Scenario Scenario No
Category No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project No. 1 No. 2 No. 3 Project Measures No. i No. 2 No. 3 Project
-------------------------------------------------------------------------•--.-.....-..--------------------------------••-----•-•------......-------------------------------
Nater Nate, reclamation Same Same No iapect B B B NS None required B B B NS
Supply increases supply
for potable was \
Increased Same Same No impact NS NS NS NS Use reclaimed MS NS NS NS
demand for water wherever
potable water possible
In plants
Public Increased Sere Same Unknown; may S S S PS Service agencies S S S PS
services and demand for ell be less Impact and utilities
facilities public services if sewer should plan to
and utilities connection ban meat demand for
due to growth slowed growth services
Treatment potential for Same Same No Impact PS PS PS N9 Construction NS NS NS NS
reliability construction scheduling;
disruption provide
redudency
Energy Significant Construction Construction No impact S S S NS None S S S NS
consumption construction energy use energy use available
energy 69% more than 103% more than
consurytion Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Significant Same: Same; Same; (esti- S S S S Nona S S S S
net operations (equivalent (equivalent mated at Ions available
energy demand of 8,100 of 14,400 than 5,000
(equivalent households households equivalent
of 5,250 house- in 2020) In 2020) households
holds in 2020) in 2020)
Construction Consumption Same (more Some (moat No impact S S S NS None S S S NS
material of construction materiels than materials available
consumption materials (least) Scenario 1) consumed)
Employment Construction Construction Construction Creates B a B . NS None required 0 a B NS
creates 300 creates 340 creates 404 no jobs
direct jobs, direct jobs, direct jobs,
636 indirect 719 indirect 852 indirect
jobs jobs jobs
Operation Operation Operation Operation B ,B B B None required B B 8 B
provides 676 provides 763 provides 906 provides 450
direct jabs direct jobs direct jobs direct jabs
Cost Significant Same; greater S.; greatest No impact S S S MS None S S S NS
cost for cost cost available
construction
User costs Some; greater Same; greatest No impact S S 9 NS None S S S NS
would Increase increase increase available
-----------------------------------------------------------------•----------•---------...--•---•---------------------------------••-----•-------------.....---.-..........-
Lepers: M Beneficial impact N5 = We significant Impact PS . Potentially significant adverse Impact S = Significant adverse(
a
ATTACHMENT B ( .
Table S-3. Environmental Impact Summary-Trunk Sewers
Impact
Impact Significance
Impact Category Environmental Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Land Use In general, temporary (short term) reduced PS Scheduling of construction during off- NS
access to private and public properties,localized peak traffic hours,as feasible. Compli-
noise and fugitive dust increases during con- ancewith allapplicablermiseordinanoes.
struction. Cover dump trucks and spray down dirt
piles.
Properly owners adjacent to affected portion of PS Advance notification of construction NS
Handy Creek would suffer construction impacts routing and scheduling.
through yards abutting the creek, during con-
struction of the Orange Park Acres Trunk. NS
Portion of the private Big Canyon Country Club PS Use of repair/rehabilitation techniques NS
will be excavated and unusable while relying on work 'inside the pipe'.
replacement of Big Canyon Trunk underway. Schedule work on Big Canyon Trunk
Construction of Los Alamitos Subtrunk parallel during winter season,work on Air Base
sewers through Forest Lawn Memorial Park Trunk No.2duringsummer(non-school
will impede access along private streets and session) months.
disrupt the quiet atmosphere.
If Air Basin Trunk No. 2 rehabilitation through PS Scheduling of construction during off- NS
the Harbor Lawn Memorial Cemetery and peak traffic hours,as feasible. Compli-
nearby C.W. Tewinkle School is done by ancewilh all applicablenoiseordinances.
trenching, both of these sites would be tem- Cover dump trucks and spray down dirt
porarily impacted by excavation and related piles.
construction noise, vehicles, and equipment.
Population and Proposedimprovementswouldfaciliiatepopula- S Land use planning,growth management, S
Housing lion and employment increases, in accordance and environmental protection measures
with adopted local general plans. Secondary are the responsibility of other agencies
effects on air quality,water quality, transporta- (see Part 2, Chapter 9, for complete
lion, biological resources, cultural resources, discussion).
utilities, public services, energy, natural
resources, noise, and solid waste management
would result from such growth.
ATTACHMENT B
Table S-3. Continued
Impact
Impact Significance
Impact Category Environmental Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Transportation/ Numerous roadways and bikeways will be PS Traffic control plans will be prepared NS
Circulation temporarily disrupted during construction for each project to determine The most
activities involving pipeline trenching or man- effective combination of alignment,
hole and pump station repair. Such impacts scheduling, warnings, detouring, etc,
will be most severe along heavily traveled streets that will maintain maximum access
and where the roadway width and configuration throughout construction activities.Close
prevents simple detouring or maintenance of coordination with Caltrans and all local
two-way traffic. agencies responsible for the affected
circulation routes will occur in the
preparation of these plans.
Emergency response limes by police, fire, and PS Traffic control plans will be prepared PS
paramedics could be increased. for each project to determine the most
effective combination of alignment,
scheduling, warnings, detouring, etc.,
that will maintain maximum access
throughoutconsumetionactivities.Close
coordination with Caltrans and all local
agencies responsible for the affected
circulation routes will occur in the prep-
aration of these plans.
Utilities Numerous underground and overhead facilities* PS The Sanitation Districts will coordinate NS
could be disturbed or rerouted during construe- project design and construction with the
lion involving trenching or other excavation. Underground Service Alert of Southern
Such disturbances could result in temporary loss California and all local utility purveyors
of service 10 utility customers, to determine the precise locations of all
potentially affected utility facilities and
to develop plans for alternate service,if
needed. Facilities that must be rerouted
will be done at CSDOC's expense if the
particular utility purveyor has prior
rights.
Table S-3. Continued
Impact
Impact Significance
Impact Category Environmental Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Public Services Temporary (short-term) access restrictions PS Preparation of traffic control plans prior NS
during project construction could increase to construction. Provide advancenotifi- S (Growth Induced)
emergency response times for policy, fire, and cation of construction schedule to emer-
paramedie services. Secondary impacts due to genry service providers. Mitigation of
increased population,housing,and employment growth-induced secondary impacts dis-
will include need to expand public services cussed in Part 2, Chapter 9.
(schools,rare,police,medical,library, Irampor-
tation, solid waste management, water and air
quality management,general government).
Plant and Animal Construction of Orange Park Acres Trunk NS Route Orange Park Acres Trunk along NS
Life within Handy Creek would destroy existing lop of creek banks or along nearby
vegetation, resulting in destruction of local streets. If this sewer is constructed in
wildlife habitat as well. Several creek bottoms, Handy Creek, preserve some major
lightly covered with scattered grasses, will be mature trees and replant creek banks
disturbed, temporarily disrupting birds and with suitable vegetation to replace lost
mammals in those arms. No rare or endan- wildlife habitat.
gered species are found in any project area.
Hydrology/ Numerous existing drainage facilities will be PS Scheduling sewer construction during NS
Water Quality crossed or lie in close proximity to proposed dry months. Coordination with Orange
sewer improvements. Storm water runoff could County Flood Control District to protect
be impeded ifsuch facilities are disturbed during underground facilities, determine best
the rainy seasons. Open trenches and tunnels scheduling. Groundwater will be
maybesubjecl togroundwaler infiltration,which pumped and discharged pursuant to the
will need to be discharged properly. Sanitation Districts' NPDES permit.
Excavated soil materials could degrade quality PS Soil stockpiles will be covered during PS
of downstream waters if stockpiles are washed winter months. Adherence to standard
off by storm waters into nearby catch basins. sewer design and construction practices
Line rupture or blown manholes resulting from will minimize potential raw sewage
seismic events could result in discharge of raw discharge due to line rupture or man.
sewage into underground or downstream waters. hole blowout. _
Table S-3. Continued
Impact
Impact Significance
Impact Category Environmental Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Natural Minor and insignificant consumption of earth NS No mitigation proposed. NS
Resources and energy resources to manufacture pipeline
materials, operate machinery and equipment
during construction.
Geology, Soils, Project area is seismically sensitive. Severe PS Adherence to standard engineering and PS
and Seismicity ground shaking and unstable soil conditions sewer construction practices will mini-
could result in pipeline rupture, pump station mite potential damage to sewer facili-
damage, manhole breakage, with discharge of ties during a seismic event.
raw sewage underground or along ground
surface and possibly into downstream waters.
Cultural Except for proposed Orange Park Acres Trunk, PS Work along Handy Creek will be halted NS
Resources all proposed improvements follow previously if unusual materials found. Qualified
disturbed alignments. No effects on cultural professional will be retained to examine
resources are anticipated in those areas. materials, record findings, and properly
Archaeologicalorpaleontological resources may curate any significant artifacts discovered.
be encountered along Handy Creek, during
construction of Orange Park Acres Trunk.
C �. v
Table S-3. Continued
Impact
Impact Significance
Impact Category Environmental Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Recreation Construction of the Orange Park Acres Trunk PS The Sanitation Districts will attempt to NS
could temporarily disrupt the equestrian trail design and construct the Orange Park
along Orange Park Boulevard. It could also Acres Trunkin a mannerwhichdoes not
require temporary removal of the existing require a temporary removal of the Iwo
pedestrian/equestrian bridge across Handy bridges over Handy Creek. This may
Creek at Orange Park Boulevard and possibly include an alternate alignment which
the planned bridge at Meads Avenue, follows existing streets. If necessary and
feasible,an alternate equestrian trail will
be developed around the construction
activitim. The Sanitation Districts will
consult with the Orange Park Acres
Association to develop the most accept-
able approach.
Replacement of the Big Canyon Trunk will PS Schedule work on Big Canyon Trunk NS
temporarily prevent use of about one-fourth of for slow golf season (winter months).
the Big Canyon Country golf course.
Disruption of traffic along Pacific Coast High. NS Preparation of traffic control plans, as NS
way and nearby roadways that lead to the coastal described above.
area could create temporary increases in travel
limes and restricted accessibility to the beach NS
recreation areas in Huntington Beach and
Newport Beach.
NS = No Significant Impact
PS = Potentially Significant Adverse Impact (Temporary)
S = Significant Adverse Impact
Table S-3. Continued
Impact
Impact Significance
Impact Category Environmental Impacts Significance Mitigation Measures After Mitigation
Air quality Potential dust generation, emissions PS Use water trucks as often as necessary to NS
from construction vehicles, and odor control dust and clean vehicles when leaving
problems if the sewer line is accidentally construction site.
cut.
Keep streets clean of dust and dirt.
Cover trucks and dirt piles to prevent
extended exposure of disturbed earth to wind.
Use welt-tuned and properly maintained
construction equipment.
Discontinue construction during second-stage
smog alerts.
NS = No Significant Impact
PS = Potentially Significant Adverse Impact (Temporary)
S = Significant Adverse Impact
RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 3(e) - ERRATA SHEET - FINAL EIR Q ock%8 "` -
�l�v189
Table 6-20. Comparison of Operation and Maintenance Costs by Scenario
Scenario No. 1 Scenario No. 2 Scenario No. 3
2005 2020 2005 2020 2005 2020
Total cost per year,
current dollars& $42,900,000 $45,500.000 $46,100,000 $55,700.000 $55,700.000 $67,300,000
Total cost par year,
inflated dollarsb $93,600.000 $224,600,000 $100,600,000 $253,000,000 $121.700,000 $305,300.000
a Based on anticipated mid-1989 price levels.
b Based on an Inflation rate of 5 percent per year.
-------------------------------------------------------------__----_-----------------------------------
Table 6-21. Total 30-Year Cumulative Program Costs (1990-2020)
In Current Dollars
Scenario No. 1 Scenario No. 2 Scenario No. 3
Capital costsa $1,340,000,000 $1,480,000,000 $1,720,000,000
30-Year O&M costs 1,510,000,000 1,620,000,000 1,850.000,000
Cost of debtb 165,000,000 195,000,000 269,000,000
Total $3,015,000,000 $3,295,000,000 $3,839,000,000
a Includes both Joint works and trunk sewers.
b Includes interest and cost of issuance.
--------------------------------------------_----------__-----------------------------------------------
Table 6-22. Total 30-Year Cumulative Program Costs (1990-2020)
in Inflated Dollarsa
Scenario No. 1 Scenario No. 2 Scenario No. 3
Capital cestsb $2,440.000,000 $2,760,000,000 $3,160,000,000
30-Year O&M costs 3,780,000,000 4,110,000,000 4,750,000,000
Cost of debtc 818,000,000 983,000,000 1,342,000,000
Total $7.038,000,000 $7,853,000.000 $9,252.000,000
a Cumulative cost inflated at 5 percent per year.
b Includes both Joint works and trunk sewers.
c Includes Interest and cost of issuance.
2-25 Revised: 7/19189
RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 Q9RJes� i,r �p1st 9n o' °
1 g1 PORT
o� m CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
F.
U }q Z'
d
C'aG/Fn P
Mayor July 17, 1989
Donald A.Strauss
Mayor Pro Tem
Ruthelyn Plummer
Council Member. Orange County Sanitation Districts
John C.Cox.Jr. 10844 Ellis Avenue -
Evelyn R.Hart Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018
Phil Sansone .
ClarenreJ.Tamer Subject: Wastewater Management Programs
Jean H.Wan Request for PHASE-IN TO FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT
Dear Joint Cha;rmn Hoesterey and Members of the Boards:
We are aware that the "Action Plan" is the product of the most compre-
hensive wastewater management study ever undertaken by the Sanitation
Districts. The "holistic" view that has been taken is coimmendable.
The choices in Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 are unfortunate in that Scenario 1
would be a step backward and such a step in no way represents a reason-
able choice given increasing envirormmental and public health concerns.
Appropriate Alternate Scenarios in our view would have been as follows:
Scenario 1, current NPDES Permit Concentration Limits; Scenario 2,
phase-in to Full Secondary by restricting the amount of suspended
solids discharged to the current level; Scenario 3, Full Secondary.
Having reviewed the proposed Scenarios, our Committee wishes to convey
to you its vote for Full Secondary treatment. If not immediately,
then over time such Full Secondary should be attained by limiting sus-
pended solids to the present amount, thus gradually increasing to 85%
removal as called for in the Clean Water Act.
In an economic sense, the productive use of sludge can be expanded
and the perceived increase of cost to citizens is not as great as it
appears when viewed in comparison to the increase under any Scenario.
As an environmental matter, considering the disagreement among experts,
the impacts of increasing solid waste products on marine life cannot be
underestimated. As population and pollution grow, it is more and more
the case that dilution is not always the answer to pollution.
The 1972 Clean Water Act goals which call for 85% removal of biochemical
oxygen demand and suspended solids have been considered a minimum in most
cases. We do not feel that there is adequate proof that the marine envi-
ronment along our coast will not be adversely impacted by increasing BOD
and suspended solids. A continuing 301(h) waiver seems to be ill-advised.
Thank you for considering our request.
�.d
3.
(714)644.3C04
Orange County Sanitation Districts
July 17, 1989
Page -2-
Very truly yours, (�
JEAN WATT BILL MORRIS
Council Member Chairman
Chairman, Harbor Quality Environmental Quality
Citizens Advisory Camaittee Affairs Committee
JW:cd
Ay Orange Coast DAILY PILOT/Thursday.July 20. 1989
�y
Sanitation District
to seek sewage
treatment waiver
By ROBERT BARKER ary Treatment.
a a.oy viw u.n Mays warned hat about twig u
Orange County Sanitation District many solids will be dumped into the
directors overrode near unanimous ocean by the yeu 2020 unless full
opposition from Huntington secondary vestment is put into el-
and Newpon Beach officials
Wednesday night and voted to seek "As sun as he ocean stares life,it
a federal waiver on he treatment of, can end it, with our help," he mid.
sewage piped into the ocean. Newpon Brach's Plummer mid
Dvectam voted 44-6 to seek that full secondary treatment is the
another five-yeu permit from the "environmentally superior station-
Environmental Protection Agency to tire."
continue treatment at levels less The extra costs would only
sM. ge it than required by the feller- amount to about $1.50 per family
al Cleun Water Am per month, she said.
The Huntington Beach sanitation Marine Bioligist Thomas D.
district delegation of Mayor Wes Lewis, West Coast conservation
Bannister and City Council mem- chair of the American Cemcean So-
bers Tom Mays and Grace Winchell ciety,told the gathering at the Foun-
joined Newpon Beach's Domld min Valley Communityy Center that
Strauss and Ruhelyn Plummer in levels of PCBs and DDTs in the
voting against the waiver and in blubber of Southland marine mam-
favor of more tough vestment, mals "is very high.'
Newpon Beach's John Cox voted "Many (people) are eating mom
in favor of the waives fish,we are told it's more healthy.Is
The waiver,ifgmnted by the EPA, it really?"
would let the big treatment Vlams at The overwhelming majority of
Huntington Beach and Founmin sanitation district dnenors. how.
Valley continue a combination of ever, appeared to agree with en-
first and secondary sewage treat- vironmental studies showing current
meat in which 75 percent of the sewage treatment meets all state
solid material is removed from the standards for bacterial concentm-
waste water before going to the lions and protects he ocean from
ocean. adverse impacts of toxic materials.
Full secondary treatment — Officials also said that greeter
favored by he Huntington Beach treatment levels would create mom
and Newport Beach contingents — sludge to be trucked away, and
would remove 85 percent of the would cause greater air emissions
organics before the material is piped because of increased numbers of
into a five-mile outfall at Pacific trucks and increased numbers of
Coati Highway midway between engnes to operate treatment plants.
Newpon Beach and Huntington Officials my that the plants cur-
ready treat 260 million gallons of
District officials estimated that it wastewater a day. Production is ex-
will cost at least $7.85 billion over oecmd to grow to 400 gallons a day
the next 30 years at current treat- y 2020.
ment levels. The cost could jump to Homeowners currently pay mixes;
$9.25 billion for full secondary teat- of about S65 a year for sewer w-
ment, officials mid. vices.That total a ex to range
Huntington Beach's Winchell said from S 125 to about S 25 by 2020 for
that changes in organisms from con. panial secondary treatment. For full
lamination
ye tab could
he we noa it v be g by o to $240 treatment.
officials
late."she said,in urging full second- said.
Angeles Ohnes R Thursday, July 20, 1989/Pan If 3
sanitation Districts
Won't Alter Ocean
Dumping Practices
By THOMAS BE`ist;R Times Scoff practices.
SEWAGE: Ocean Dumping
The Sanitation Districts We Wednesday
Or-day pr"As to
night
County voted Wednesday "As' long as the sanitation resric one.
night million
dumping p about triers pursue stringent the
Continued Huntington
ea8 sanitation agency,wNchhas fHim-
treated; -
mllllan gallons of partially me will not damage the t,"Catlin
and Huntington Beach City Conn.ocean ties in Fountain Valley and ewage Into waters off ment m any deeper extent,"Catlin began Tom Mays. "The ocean tington Beech, page p primary
Huntinn Beach shortly rather ultl, began eba oven also sewage
it" treatment—sewage processed
than spend glA billion on added Catlin said full secondary treat- The as godebate over sewage treat- once—to t all its sewage, and sec-
treatment facilities to cut the land of sewage requires more Cont ess posed since Clem
Water
ondery treatment W hell Under
amount of solid waste pumped landfill apace for an increased Congress passed the Clean Water primary treatment. L,75%sanitation of the
offshore. amount of sludge. . Act. setting a standard that ail of solids are taken out, dersec.
Despise environmental
of represents- Those who favorfac improved cows the country's waterways should be district treatment,
said. Under sec.
lives from enWronuennl groups ego treatment groups such ed fishable and swimmable. would eremo removed.
threatens the solids
that such continued dumping environmental groups concerned The law required treatment would he removed.
threatens the public health, the about marine life,say the inerem- plants to process sewage twice to According to a sanitation agency
37-member board voted over. ing amount of sewage—an esUmat, remove at least 85% of the solids report on the Issue, 18 acres of the
whelmingly to apply to the U.S. ed e00 million gallons a day by the before dumping the effluent into ocean bottom would be affected by
Environmental Protection Agency year 2020—would put a strain on water. The act was amended in the Cunty's sewage outfall with.
for a second five-year waiver from the environment. They contend 1977 after coastal cities complained out secondary treatment.With full
water quality standards in the that improved treatment would that they were being held to stand- secondary treatment, only five
federal Clean Water Act.Six mem- ensure that the impact on marine ards intended for lakes and rivers acres would be leas pure than
ben of the board voted not to seek life and beaches never gets worse even though oceans have a greater surrounding waters.
a waiver and to add to treatment than it is today. capacity to absorb sewage. The county's sewage goes
facilities. If current dumping practices The amended bill allowed the through a massive pipe that lies
The districts' board of directors, continue,"cockroaches will be the EPA to grant waivers to coastal
which represents 80% of northern best animal to survive in the.new areas that could prove that they beneath Brookhurst Street In Hun-
Orange County, decided that the environment." said Margaret were meeting clean water stand- tington Beech, continuing under-
impact of ocean dumping of sewage Johnson of Huntington Beach and a ards without full secondary treat- neath Pacific Coast Highway and
vested to less than full secondary member of the American Cetacean ment of their sewage. The county out Wong the ocean bottom for
standards as required has been Society, which seeks to protect sanitation districts received a five- about five miles.
minimal and that the alternative marine mammals. "The ocean out year waiver in 1995.It expires next There, 200 feet below the sur-
would be too costly,amounting to there is not one big tidy bowl. We year, face,it dumps almost all of Orange
increased sewer fees of $25 per want the ocean clean." County's Partially treated sewage.
household each year. Members of the sanitation die-' WaiverPlam Dropped The sewage outlet!has been oper-
Board Vice Chairman A.B. tricts' board who expressed.the Two southern Orange County ating for almost 18 years. No
(Buck) Catlin, before casting his most support for adding additional sanitation districts several years evidence of damaged marine life
vote at the hearing in the Fountain facilities represented Orange ago dropped plans to seek waivers has beenreported.
Valley Community Center. said County's beach communities. in the face of opposition from local Despite the decision,most won.
there is no evidence that the "We cannot take a chance on the environmeniWisls. Now, the cities ty residents will pay more in future
marine environment offshore has environment." said board member of Ina Angeles and San Diego have sewage fees. as county facilities
been harmed by current dumping Please see SEWAGE,Page 16 opted to spend billions to upgrade will have to be expanded to accom-
sewage treatment facilities. modate the increased flow of sew.
Currently, the Orange County age expected by 2020.
Thursday, July 20, 1989 The Orange County Register B71
Sewage
pricli FROM 1
coast of Huntington Beach near be based on science, not emotion.Btooldmrst Avenue. The sewage Drily four of 38 directors—three
! will increase by about 50 percent,
M � to about 400 million gallons a day, i from Huntington Beach and one
�j iI'i within 30 years. from Newport Beach — voted in
Orange County is the only major favor of improved treatment,Car-
metropolitan area in the nation I rying only one district out of nine.
Water adequately that has a waiver and does not per. I The board is composed of 30 city
form secondary treatment on all I counofl members, rum county so-
treated, county says sewage before releasing it into the ! pervisors and six water district of-
mom. Nevertheless, it meets all fichils-
By Made Cope pollution standards, so the EPA "No harm has been demonstrat-.
The Register waived the requirement for the I ad and I'm opposed to taxing peo-
county. pie unless there's a proven need.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY—Orange The waiver allows Orange Coun- I We shouldn't be giving in to the
County officials decided Wednes ty to perform secondary treatment extremely vocal minority,"Yorba
day to seek federal permission to —a process that removes bacteria Linda Mayor Hank Wedaa said.
keep pumping sewage into the and toxic pollutants—on only half
ocean through 1995 without remov- the sewage. The other half under-
ing more toxic materials,bacteria, goes primary treatment,a less ad-
oily waste and other pollutants. vaned process.
Environmentalists, surfers and The five-year permit expires
other ocean enthusiasts were dis- next year, and the renewal — if
appointed by the county sanitation granted by the EPA as expected—
board's decision,which came after would allow the county to continue
two years of studying the options. the existing treatment for another
"The ocean out there is not one five years. Then the county could
big (todet) bowl," said Margaret seek another.extension.
Johnson,a Huntington Beach resi- Opting for full secondary treat-
dent representing the American ment would have cog$1.4 billion in
Cetacean Society. "We want our sewer fees spread over 30 years,or
mean clean." $25 per average household per
The directors of the Orange year,to pay for new treatment fa,
County Sanitation Districts reject- cilities,the sanitation agency says.
ed a 51.4 billion improvement prof. Members of the Sierra Club and
ect.saying the waste water is clean other environmental groups said
enough to protect marine animals the money would have been wait.
and public health. Instead, they spent because there is uncertainty
opted to ask the US Environmental about whether the bacteria and
Protection,Agency to renew,a corn toxic,harm marine animals or in.
troversial waiver that exempts Or. fect swimmers with viruses.
ange County from a federal clean. "If people keep getting waivers
water law.
"This will not damage the envi- until people get sick or fish grow
ronment to any degree," said Tus- rumors, then it's too late," said
tin Councilman Ronald Hoesterey, Thomas Pratte,executive director
the board's chairman. of the Surfrider Foundation,a Hun-
Every day,260 million gallons of tington Beach-based group of surf.
treated sewage from 1.7 million ers and others."People want clean
Orange County residents is dis. water to swim in and fish in."
charged from an enormous pips- The directors,however,decided
line that extends five miles off the the reduction in pollutants would
°lease we WATERIg be small and that there is no evi.
dence the waste water is hazard.
ous.The decision,they said,should
LATER: 1 .4 billion too much to spend on treatment
without definite evidence, directors decide
Huntington Beach Councilwom- "Beach swimmers have a very
an Grace Winchell tried To con- small risk of illness as a result of
vinx, other board members that ingesting a number of viruses de,
the waiver takes too big a gamble rived from the main sewage out.
with the environment. fall;' said Dr. Paul Papanek, an
"The changes in the marine en- epidemiologist with the Los Ange-
,ironment are very slow to occur lea County Health Department, in
and by the time we do notice a a letter analyzing the sanitation
serious marine impact, it my be agency's report.
tan late to reverse it," she said. Marine Scientists said the wane
The $1.4 billion treatment Pro]- apparently has changed the types
ect would have reduced the fecal and numberof creatures that dwell
bacteria and oil and grease dis- on the ocean bottom for 18.acres
charged into the ocean by 85 per- ground the discharge point. Some
,Cent, and the lead, mercury and usually abundant tiny worms and
other toxic pollutants by about one- other animals have disappeared,
third.For example,the 55g pounds while others thrive, according to
of toxic materials in a day's sew. Scientists with the Southern Cali-
age would have been reduced to forma Coastal Waters Research
about 370 pounds. Project in Long Beach.
Orange County plans to submit The scientists Said they do not
its application by October to the know if the changes are good or
EPA and the Santa Ana Regional bad, or what kind of role the hot-
Water Quality Control Board. Fi- tam-dwelling organisms play in
nal decisions by the two agencies the ocean environment. There has
will be made by March. been no documented effect on fish
Gerard ThibeaWt,executive offi- or marine mammals.
cer of the water-quality board,said Anderson said that if evidence
the waiver is expected to be ap- does emerge that the wane is
proved because the counry's efflu- harming the ocarn or public, the
ent is"high-quality" and the sani. county will switch to full secondary
tation agency has an excellent rep. treatment.
oration.
Sewer rates will increase sub-
stantially—even with the waiver From sewer to sea
—because of S7.8 ncludi billion w,planned Orange County ogidals Wednesday rejected a$1.4 All of the waste undergoes primary treatment.a
expansion,including a new,second
pipeline that would Flow mho the billion sewage-treatment project and instead will seek process that removes solid materials.But only has
ocean. Households that now pay a federal walverirom a clean-water law.That means receives secondary treatment,an advanced
Sag to US annually Will pay about that through 1995.only had of the countys sewage biological process that exposes the waste to
$100 in five years and as much as would undergo secondary treatment before it flows microorganisms that consume toxic materials.
S300 a year by 200S. into the ocean live miles off Huntington Beach. bacteria and oily waste.
Fecal coliform bacteria can
cause intestinal and stomach vi- Preliminary Primary Secondary
ruses, but sanitation officials said treatment treatment treatment
there is no evidence that the Bar Get Primary settling Acheron secondary 5mile ocean
amounts In the Sewage cause 91- screens removal Easins Eosins seining chains oudall
names in swimmers or surfers.
The agency's environmental im. tioes 1st g lo e
pact report shows that the highestSgrpndarylevel of fecal coliform found in Or- -Eearnent
ange County's surf zone poses a
risk of one illness among every 6 \
million swimmers.
'There's virtually no possibility 112 ble fiefeeihsed0 Smallwhordeloe Starting oceann
of human health effects from our
discharge:' said Blake Anderson. Solids rem vea arm taken m landrll o 0 0 0
the agency's director of technical
VICCS. The Rexhir
�ecent research has shown that
Mine types of bacteria are not
killed in the ocean, and that per-
haps the wrong strains are being
measured to determine the risk.
Health officials, however, believe
the threat is minor.
MEETING DATE JUlY 19, 1989 TIME 7*30 •m• DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7,11,13 S 14 (Fountain Valley
DISTRICT 1 INT BOARDS Canwnity Center)
(CRANK)........HANSON...... ✓ VEA L)EN).........ALLEN.......
(YOUNG)........GRISET... ...� (GREEN). ...........BANNISTER..._ -- _.
(KENNEDY)......HOESTEREY... (WEDAA)... .. . ......B IGONGER. ..._
6.,...
(BOTH).........` .... (HART)...... I......CAT .. .. .. b•
� w (HART).............Cox........ ._ ) ,�
T DISTRICT P (PERRY)............ECULVER DGER...... .
(KENNEDY)..........EDGER...... .
(GRAHAM).......MAHONEYe.
..... ✓ N Y (YOUNG)............GRIFFI..... ._ ('+''•' �
(NELSON).......&twR ......� (YOUNG)............HANSON......_
(WEDAA).... . . ..CATLIIN.. . . . .7 (C BANK)............HANSON......_
(YOUNG).... . . ..CATLIN.. . . . .1G (NENNEGY)..........MOESTE BEY..._
(SCOTT)..... . . .GRIL ET.. . . . . ,/ TT�� (NE LSO
uI - - .icI FS.......
(DOWNEY).... . . .NEWTON.. . . .
NEWTON... . . . (EDGAT
(CULVERI.......PE RRY..... . . J_ (GRAM{ Aj
(HUNTER). ......PICKLE R..... $� (SILV/
(FASBENDE......SATE....... $ (SCOT'.
(BATHE..........MITH........L �LJ{_ (WEDI1
(RDiX).........i""'^" .... i (DOWNS C 8
CULVI - 1,1
DISTRICT 3 (HUNTS V
HART
(DUKE). . .......POLIS ...... DUKE - AA-•O
(WEDIN). . ......NELSON...... ✓ (STAY
(VERELLEN) ...ALLEN. ... ... V `� (AGRA
(GREEN)....... BANNISTER.... 0 _•f4 (WILE
(NORBY).... .
......CATLIN...... ✓ _j`_ (FASB
(PERRY).... . . . .CULVER......SC (BARB (� , b ��.._
(YOUNG)..... . . .GRIFFI......J� ROTH(
(YOUNG) GRISE.......yC (HART 0
( )........KANEL....... ✓ y_ (MILL t�-�M-e = N O
(GRAHAM).......NEAL........_ �= (WEAL ` F `a•z'^���
(.COTT)........NEAL........ V -�- (FEAR
(HUNTER).......PICKLE.. .... (BIGC
(MILES)........SIEFEN.. ....J� (ISLE
(ROTA).........fiLVIBlF.. ...y (GAGA
(WAHLST... :...SYLV IA.. ....JC `Y (BAN\__ _
(GRGAS)..... ...MIL SON..... . v
DISTRICT 5 STAFF:
S YLVE STET.. . ✓
(HART).........Cox........._✓ N BROMN.......,JC
(HART).... .....ROTH......... CLARKE.NDERSON. ..........
CAWES.......JG
DlSTRICT•6 FILES.......JC
FILECCIA....J�
(FERRYMAN).....WAHNER...... A/ Y HODGES.... . .
(HART).........PLUMMER..... ✓ KYLE....... .
(STANTON)......ROTH.......... LINDER..... .
OOTEN.......
DISTRICT 7 STREED......JC
VON LANGEN
(KENNEDY)......SMITH EDGAR.......,C' MINSOR
(YOUNG)........EDGAR.......�C
(YOUNG)........GRIROTH. .......�C
(STRNTON)......ROTA. .......
(AGRAN).. ......STRAUSS N....-lC
(COX). .. . ......STRAU55.....�L
(GREEN)........YAHNER......JC
OTHERS: WDODRUFF. ..._�f
DISTRICT 11 IDS...... ..
ANMAR.... ..._
(SILVA)........MAYS......... Y N DEMIR.......
(BANNISTER)....MINCHELL.... _a FLEMING..... ✓
(ROTH).........gq*109W..... HOUGH. .....
_
HOUGH.......
DISTRICT 13 HUNT. .. ....
_
HUNT........
(BIGONGER).....MEOAA....... V LKNOPF INDST......_
(HUNTER).. .....ROTH...PICKLER.....,C LINCH.......s�
(STANTON)......BOTH........�C LYNCH.......
(BARBER A)......SMITH....... STONE.......
(l.LE.). .......WEDIN.......�.� _� g WRSON.......
DISTRICT 14 YOUNG.......
(MILLER).......SMAN....... . Ai
(EDGER). ..... ..KENNEDY.....
(STANTON)......ROTH... .....
(AGRAN)........SHERIDAN....W
(BARRERA)......SMITH....... ✓ C LLA. d=&J �7.�(`)
07/13/89
MEETING DATE JUlY 19, 1989 TIME 730 D•D1. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7,11,13 6 14 (Fountain Valley
' DISTRICT 1 i• 1*& JOINT BOARDS C Nnity Center)
(CRANK)...
....:HANSON......Y _ _ (VERELL EN).........ALLEN......._ _
(YOUNG)........6RISET...... _ _ (GREEN)............BANNISTER..._
(KENNEDY)......HOES TERE Y..._ _ _ (WEDAA)............BIGONGER...._
(ROTH)..........jmffo,.... (NORBY)............CATL IN......
(HART).............COX.........
DISTRICT 2 (PERRY)............CULVER......
(KENNEDY)..........EDGAR.......
(GRAMAM).......MAHONEY..... Y (CHESSEN)..........GRIFFIN.....
(NELSON).......)MIWBT.......� _ _ (YOUNG)............GRISET...... _
(NEDRA)........BSeBRBlRf...-� (CRANK)............HANSON......
(NORBY)...
.....CATLIN......T _ _ (KENNEDY)...
.......HOESTEREV...
(YOUNG)........GRISET...... _ _ (NELSON)...........ISLE S......._
(SCOTT)........NEAL........ ( ).....
....
...KANEL.......
_
(DOWNEY).......N..TON...... (EDGAR)............KENNEDY....._
(CULVER).......PERRY....... _ _ (GRAHAM)...........MAHONEY....._
(HUNTER).......PICKLER..... (SILVA)............MAYS........_
(FASSENDERI....SILZEL...... (SCOTT)............NEAL........_
(BARRERA)......SMITEH....... I (WEDIN)............NELSON......
(ROTH).........BARROW....!I I DOWNEY)...........NEWTON......
(CULVER)...........PERRY.......
DISTRICT 3 (HUNTER)...........PICKLER.....
(HART).............PLUMMER.....
(DUKE).... POLIS _ _ (DUKE).............POLIS.......
(WEDIN).............NELSON......... _ _ (STANTON)..........ROTH........
(VERELLEN).....ALLEN....... _ _ (RGRAN)............SHERIDAN...._
(GREEN)........BANNISTER... (WILES).. ......
(HONEY)........CRTLIN...... (FASSENDER)........SIL2El......
_
(PERRY)........CULVER...... _ _ (BARBERA)..........SMITH.......
(CHESSER)......GRIFFIN..... (ROTH)... STANTO......
(YOUNG)........GRISET.....: (HART/CO%).........STRAUSS....._ _
( )........KANEL....... (MILLER)...........SWAN........
(GRAHAM).......MAHONEY..... (WAHLSTROM).....'...SYLVIA......
(SCOTT)........NEAL........ (FERRYMAN/GREEN)...WRHNER...... _
(HUNTER).......PICKLER..... (BIGONGER).........WEDAA....... _
(WILES)........SIEFEN...... (ISLES)............WEDIN.......
(ROTE).........BPRMMN..... (GRGAS)............WILSON......
(WAHLSTRDM)....SYLVIA...... (BANNISTER)........WINCHELL...._
(GRGAS)........WILSON......
DISTRICT S Ipe;w,.0 )� STAFF:
SYLVESTER..._
(HART).........COX......... Y BROWN......._
(HART).........STRAUSS..... ANDERSON...._
(STANTON)......ROTH........ CLARKEE......
_
CLAWSON.....
DISTRICT 6 DAWES.......
FILECCIA...._
(FERRYMRN).....WAHMER...... _ _ HODGES......_
(HART).........PLUNNER..... KYLE........_
(STANTON)......RUTH......... _ _ LINDER......
_
OOTEN.......
DISTRICT 7 $TREED......
VON LAWMEN
(BARRERA)......SMITH....... NINSOR......
(KENNEDY)......EDGAR.......
(YOUNG)... .GRISE T......
(STRNTON)..........ROTH........
(Cox)..........SXERIORN....
(CD%)..........STRRUSS.....
(GREEN)......
..WAHNER......
OTHERS* WOODRUFF...._
DISTRICT 11 110iR.. IQ - AIDE NWAR......._
RNMAR.......
( ........MAYS........� A DEMIR ......
(BANNISTER) YINCMELL. FLEMING.....(ROTH)..... M _�`_ � HOXENER.......
HOUGH.......
DISTRICT 13 HOWARD......
HUNT........
(BIGONGER).....WEDAA....... _ _ KNOPF.......
(HUNTER).......P ICKLER.... LINDSTROM..._
(STANTON).. ...R LYNCH.......
STONE.......
(BRRRERA). ....SNTMH....... WA SON.......
(ISLES)........WEDIN.......
DISTRICT 14 YOUNG.......
(MILLER).......SNAN........
(EDGAR)........KENNEDY.....
(STANTON)......ROTH........
(AGRRN)........SHERIDAN.... _
(BARRERR)......SNJ H....... _
07/13/89
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
I
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS
OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM
TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING.
A DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE
SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO
FIVE MINUTES. 9 3
� e l (/l)
DATE: `I �/ AGENDA ITEM NO. W) av e`
NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) �QnC y �l/C!/1,ntY
HOME ADDRESS: 17 zzi2' ���,.c
8ER TR ET
QeA,l Clq- 9 z6G°
/ l / ITY ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE:
2^RESENTING:
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION
F2BA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS
OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM
TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD MEETING.
AS DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE
SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO
FIVE MIN1UTES.
DATE: ,u go Iq $ 9 AGENDA ITEM NO.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) M A 2 6 A R E'r" Ja H N 5(0 )✓
HOME ADDRESS: Ia 7 +;),— St,0� c Z- Lc,-,, 'e
(NUMBER/STREET)
�Tvn�Inu Ian Ba, k 97—� yR
(CITY ZIP CODE)
TELEPHONE: CI LIF37
RESENTING: rr Nne ri c Ce .I Scoci o T
y� SELF UK NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
F28A
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS
OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM
TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE B ARD� MEETING.
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.
DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) /}/0l9A5 ✓L�GUJ/S
HOME ADDRESS: ag/D r,6'
N MBER STREET
�aidG l�Fs�eN,c�.��,-/, 9o�a�
` ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE: ,3.� 53��/Y3Q
PRESENTING: 7E.Ple✓1/1/ (�!
ELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
V`F28A
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE BOARDS ON SPECIFIC AGENDA ITEMS
OR MATTERS OF GENERAL INTEREST SHOULD COMPLETE AND SUBMIT THIS FORM
TO THE BOARD SECRETARY PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BOARD BOARDMEETI�
A -DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRMAN, SPEAKERS MAY BE DEFERRED UNTIL THE
SPECIFIC ITEM IS TAKEN FOR DISCUSSION AND REMARKS MAY BE LIMITED TO
FIVE MINUTES.
DATE: 7- �/o
— 89 AGENDA ITEM NO.
NAME: (PLEASE PRINT) I
HOME ADDRESS:
NUMBER STREET
CITY ZIP CODE
TELEPHONE: a /
"PRESENTING: K/�✓te�C.✓ TOGHi[Q.T10�1..
SELF OR NAME OF ORGANIZATION)
�F2BA
SIGN-IN SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
JULY 19, 1989 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Name Address (Include zip) Phone Organization
�J
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
8 F(,/u- mllj<i /sv S. ,BRrwg0 p.Bs�9oNMA �t�zn7 - f3yWwe/ �- 6&tO—e ,-
d
lMg2GARe7r jot4tJ66N Mlga Sboyeckc( k8q%gl8 11o04837 Avmerirart e�acPa,.Scc,n
#OW440d.w �9s92S�it6tsifi►Nr ysosa�y Mst�.avc���ur�.rr��
A7.P.e,e /y/eil/r// i3o6 w. N,u
AY l / m `1Y7-fO19 r�r e In Ingx t Em�rje6
Ao /q�oi aaveYzty� �s�-3�� WO �uln'
pa• Bx 27b �' 9Go B390 bra' '
SIGN4N SHEET
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
JULY 19, 1989 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Name Address (Include zip) Phone Organization
(Please Print) (Please Print) Number (Please Print)
ane 51 41
0
0
" Ale",� ��Gr/d72za s�/.�IrGc er
b C /��✓ 3 — � � u.�w� [!i 1 /u'G�irer�Jm+.s.
�.d
av 7 /P 89
0
Brz c.tccfe d`1'd�caf vP/�/-C�+.c •�
/s
!N I cL( m lrie S •ar.�vc1'DLCG[�w
a
Fsle �
� 1
P Q(kpv
S - ,`ems cazi.< k fC a a'o Z
f Ole�
v.
�ea,�b/`11s f� yic�are S"�4Gu'�-tc�f�
SC2a �✓!o S ll� E/,P
Cos e( .�J � SO Ch C Clue / 1
/ . 17Z �6t-f e� a,u� cos vny as
(/ , 4e
Lk (O GGu G�aJ2
(( Gaca /Q �� �azc m�
S - G `��r 2ScsfQ .6lg c.ai. r.,..0�,Se
A
CK
LUS �QGw��'( ��T`/ G/a✓�Ci eo-�i$i h2C sYY�/BJ' ,OH7u. �a�. m'Ir w.C/uc+r�
MAJOR COMMENT
4K,
COMMENT: DISTRICTS SHOULD IIVIPLEMENT FULL
SECONDARY TREATMENT FOR
ALL FLOWS
RESPONSE: NONE OF THE SCENARIOS WILL
IMPAIR PUBLIC HEALTH OR
BENEFICIAL OCEAN USES. ALL
FACTORS, INCLUDING PUBLIC
COMMENTS, WILL BE CONSIDERED
IN REACHING A DECISION
MAJOR CaMMEN
COMME '
ESPO MARINE IMP T ALYSIS.
IS
SED ON
Y Qaej-4- - A f2-r ecd / ."�H"-a'�*f/
6(/�yj f o� fce41 d to/-ems c/G�tl�p i
(Gu/ x C-
ale cP
�u KCa �dt 4/erS q�uca c� �Vadre 41-
ate
��vx�G !��[ •me-�k2 �lll/� �/i`"GL xllj jl/ Z-1' ^
O•�-r�c6� uu Ca�u�iP.DD�au�t-//v..e �a.-r+�
��n,Tar.c[.p .y /aka FrsalJ�
V�
� C .
OTHER REPRESENTATIVE
faf6lc CONCERNS
GROWTH AND EFFECTS OF GROWTH
AIR QUALITY
IMPACTS ON LOCAL AGENCIES
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
WATER SUPPLY LIMITATIONS
MITIGATION MONITORING
OTHERS
Cs 4Vcu - A&1964�yx .C.a/ /,c �oLLCI
yG�l rJ feL /: Nt C4//,• �9hn/.!/af .- lees
'6a,J. SCLc.-/p,G LtGpcL c�.P.�Cv" �w7+1.W-ae- ,✓l
Cvzc cGr/ot a(/-�✓ �j4Cacd� G.<c �c Tf �
711
12
612 l�Cr/ �f9c es — G�/t/ecx�
es,
dG2e[ 3 t-<tcf fps/ Q
Lvi//' �cYe - �zc/� �/clr s-�Sl' iF.rues
/��
Yi
f,4- Ule-:�rs 7Z�
S/� 9 E/,Q
OE S ��O�O/'/
At-,¢7jG
(Sp•.�//s s Ik�e snt�l�O a s �s� 7L
i j Lcrm-�- lrc��ecr�a+c J'�
PHONES'.n14)
w s
RITA J. BROWN asx-xnn
BOARD SECRETARY
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
P.O.BO%B1IIz
FOUNTAIN VALLBY,CALIFORNIA BBTBB-BIVx
7/20/89
Curt Spencer:
I am returning herewith your outline
for the presentation you gave at
the July 19th Board Meeting. Thank
you for letting me make a .copy of it.
Hope you had a good vacation.
Rita J. Brown
V�
1 .
4�nAnoy4
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, , A IFORNIA
P.O.BOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFOBNIA 92]28-812]
y� 10844 ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714)962-2411
FAX(714)962 GSS6
OUTLINE OF REMARKS BY BLAKE P. ANDERSON
DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
AT THE
JOINT BOARDS' ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
FOUNTAIN VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER
JULY 19, 1989
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board, and members of the public. Two years ago
the Sanitation Districts embarked on a comprehensive study to determine the
appropriate wastewater management program to meet the growing service needs of
Orange County and increasingly stringent environmental standards. During our
review process, three alternative treatment level scenarios were studied to
determine their overall impact on air, land, and water resources.
The three treatment level scenarios included 1/3 secondary treatment, 1/2
secondary treatment (which is the level of treatment we now provide) , and full
secondary treatment. Note that under all three scenarios we would continue to
provide primary treatment or advanced primary treatment to the entire flow.
The Draft EIR (and the Final EIR) found that all three scenarios meet existing
regulations, will not impair the beneficial uses of the marine waters off
Orange County's coast, and will not cause significant impairment of the
environment.
The staff recommendation before you tonight is to continue with the present
level of treatment. That is primary treatment and advanced primary treatment
to all of the flow and secondary treatment to 1/2 of the flow. This
recommendation is based on a thorough evaluation of the engineering,
environmental and financial information contained in the Action Plan and on
all of the public commentary received during our public participation program.
But the staff recommendation before you tonight is actually much more than a
simple question of treatment level. Our recommendation is actually a
comprehensive wastewater management and environmental protection program that
we have entitled, '2020 VISION". 2020 VISION contains 11 elements that
combined will assure continued protection of public health and the beneficial
uses of the ocean and will provide for the wisest management of limited public
'and natural resources and will promote balanced environmental management. I
would like to talk briefly on the 11 elements.
�� 1
E COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
N ORANGE COUNTY. CAUEONNIA
10W ELLS AV E
P.O.WX 81"
�x•� x]UMAIx VPLLEY.CAUFOIWb B2)28-812)
mnsx2x11
Element 1 - Ocean Protection
The Districts' wastewater treatment program will continue to protect the
marine environment and continue to protect the beneficial uses of the
ocean including protection of public health.
Element 2 - Balanced Emixonmental Protection
• We will maintain a wastewater management program that minimizes cross-
media impacts.
• Our existing level of treatment balances the impacts on air, land, water
and energy resources and protects their beneficial uses from impairment.
• We will continue our extensive environmental monitoring efforts to
assure the effectiveness of our environmental protection programs and if
our monitoring efforts ever begin to detect a problem, then we will
change our programs accordingly.
Element 3 - Wastewater Facilities
• All flow will receive primary or advanced primary treatment. Half of
all flow will receive secondary treatment.
• We will construct the collection, treatment and disposal facilities
needed for our service area which is expected to reach 400 MGD by the
year 2020.
• Incidentally, within the next five years, we will be adding new
secondary treatment capacity totaling another 44 MGD (that's a secondary
capacity increase of 1/3) .
• While we're talking facilities we ought to talk money. Here's the 30- -
year totals for capital, OSM and debt costs for the three treatment
scenarios that we studied. Scenario 2 is the staff recommendation.
Note that it is $1.4 billion less than Scenario 3 (full secondary
treatment). How much money is $1.4 billion? Well, it's equal to the
entire cost of the Santa Ana River Flood Control project that has been
under consideration by Congress for over 10 years.
Element 4 - Toxics Control
• We will continue to aggressively enforce our source control program to
minimize toxics.
xs 2
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
d ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA
IOBAA nus Av E
F a.eaz el 2)
MWMNVALLEY.Gy=1 SVMM127
P14)Mzan
• We will emphasize waste minimization and safe materials substitution.
• We pledge to reduce future toxic mass discharge to less than today's
mass discharge.
• Can we deliver on that pledge? Our experience tells us, yes. This
graph illustrates our existing effluent quality compared to the
California State Water Resources Control Boards' Ocean Plan limits. Our
effluent heavy metals are shown as a percentage of their allowable
limits. As you can see, we are far below the California Ocean Plan
limits. As a matter of fact, our source control program has been so
effective in reducing heavy metals that even our incoming raw sewage
meets the California Ocean Plan limits. We expect future results to be
even better.
Element 5 - Sludge Reuse
Today half of our sludge is beneficially reused as a composted soil
amendment or in direct agricultural reuse.
• We will strive for 100% reuse.
• However, we will also seek to have at least one in-county land disposal
alternative as a backup.
• We must always have dependable sludge management alternatives.
Element 6 - Water Reclamation
• We will construct and operate up to three new satellite water
reclamation plants.
• We will continue to provide secondary treated wastewater for reclamation
from our Fountain Valley Treatment Plant
• We will develop new markets and maximize reuse of reclaimed water.
Element 7 - Water Conservation
• We will actively foster and promote water conservation.
• We will develop cooperative programs with other public agencies to
provide public education, community use of water saving devices, amend
plumbing codes and other appropriate changes to help reduce water usage.
3
t COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
d ORANGE COUNTY, CAUFORNIA
tmw sue AV f
ec sm eta]
fOUNfMN V4lEY.CYIFONMG 92Ra9t2]
p1Ab902a11
Element 8 - Regulatory Compliance
• We will continue to consistently comply with all federal and state laws,
regulations, and guidelines designed to protect water quality, air
quality, land quality, agricultural productivity, public health and the
environment.
• In particular, we will continue to comply with the Federal Clean Water
Act. A 301(h) waiver ij part of the Clean Water Act. Congress added
ocean waivers to the Clean Water Act in 1977. Our existing waiver and
any future waiver is jointly issued by the EPA and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. While a 301(h) waiver does relax
the BOD and suspended solids standards of full secondary treatment, it
maintains tough toxics standards and requires protection of beneficial
uses.
• In addition to the Federal Clean Water Act, we will continue to comply
with all provisions of the California Ocean Plan. It establishes
limitations on 22 toxic substances and protects the ocean from adverse
effects such as oxygen depletion.
• We are achieving these standards today.
• We will achieve these standards tomorrow.
Element 9 - Ener" Conservation
• We will continue to emphasize energy management programs in our
wastewater treatment facilities.
• We will continue to increase use of digester gas for energy recovery and
production.
• One of the advantages of continuing with our existing level of treatment
is that it requires less energy than full secondary treatment.
Element 10 - Research
• We will continue to conduct research and demonstration programs in
marine monitoring, air pollution control, sludge composting, water
conservation, energy conservation, industrial pretreatment and waste
minimization.
• We will continue operational research to maximize operational
efficiency.
�.i 4
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
W ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFONNUI
Imua aus AY Ifi
oa ea%el21
f WAIeV UEY.=GXFM 68212E-0121
011I9E2.2A11
Element 11 - Public Education
• We will continue our community outreach efforts that will include
information on all of our ongoing programs.
• We will develop a speaker's bureau.
And, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a minute to tell you what we have
already done in the area of public education. In the last year-and-a-
half, we have:
• Distributed 10,000 fliers, brochures and announcements
• Had direct contact with 2,600 people
• Conducted nearly 100 presentations and tours that have included
workshops and hearings on this plan as well as new user fees.
This level of effort demonstrates our commitment to community involvement.
S�ary
Finally Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put our entire program on a wide, global
perspective. Your staff believes that 2020 VISION is a progressive approach
toward complete environmental management and is in this community's overall
best interest. It is important to remember that the Ocean Discharge Permit is
issued for only a five-year period. All of these issues will be reviewed
again in 1995 - as they should be. Which gets me to my last point, and that
is the one of safe guards.
One major concern that we have heard from the public is their uncertainty over
future impacts. They ask us, "What if you are wrong about your projections?"
Well, the answer is quite simple. Your staff as well as the EPA, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board and other regulatory agencies
closely review the results of our monitoring data. If any of these scientists
or engineers detected impending problems, then our wastewater management
program would be changed. The safe guard is careful environmental monitoring
and assessment. For this reason we believe that this Board can confidently
adopt our treatment level recommendation and the other elements of 2020
VISION. 2020 VISION reinforces the Districts' long-standing commitment to
sound, cost-effective environmental management based on supportable scientific
data.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks.
REF #910169.RP
`� 5
X COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS NOS. 19 29 39 59 69 7, 119 13 AND 14
OF
.p f
ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF THE
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
ON
JULY 199 1989
r ePN1 er A ais
sece t9'+
ORANGE COVN�
FOUNTAIN VALLEY COMMUNITY CENTER
10206 SLATER AVENUE - HALL B
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, 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 July 19, 1989,
at 7:30 p.m., at the Fountain Valley Community Center, 10200 Slater Avenue, Hall B, Fountain
Valley. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the
Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11. 13 and 14 as
follows:
ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS
DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chairman ma_Or Crank
-7--Dan Griset, Chairman pro tem Dan Young
7--Ronald B. Hoesterey —Ursula Kennedy
_Roger Stanton z Dan R. Roth
-' DISTRICT NO. 2: x William D. Mahoney, Chairman -Beth Graham
_Ron Isles, Chairman pro tem z Carrey Nelson
Roland E. Bigonger x Henry W. Wedaa
x A.B. -Buck- Catlin Chris Norby
-7--Dan Griset —Dan Young
x James Neal —_George Scott
a Arthur G. Newton _Carol Downey
-7--Bob Perry man
Culver
a Iry Pickler _Fred Hunter
a Wayne Silzel _James T. Fasbender
x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera
_Roger Stanton -7--Don R. Roth
DISTRICT NO. 3: x Richard Polls, Chairman Orbrey Duke
x Carrey Nelson, Chairman pro tem —_Wayne Wedin
7--Edward L. Allen _Paul Verellen
-7--Wes Bannister Peter Green
x A.B. 'Buck' Catlin __Chris Norby
%Norman Culver _Bob Perry
x Don R. Griffin Donna L. Chessen
z Dan Griset _Dan Young
z John Kenai%William D. Mahoney —Both Graham
x James Neal George Scott
a Iry Pickler —_Fred Hunter
x J.R. "Bob" Siefert Dewey W11 as
_Roger Stanton x Don R. Roth
x Charles Sylvia Robert Wahlstrom
x Edna Wilson _Victor Grgas
DISTRICT NO. S: x John C. Cox, Jr., Chairman _Evelyn Hart
x Donald A. Strauss, Chairman pro tem Evelyn Hart
x Don R. Rath =Roger Stanton
DISTRICT NO. 6: x James Rohner, Chairman James M. Ferryman
x Ruthelyn Plumm rm er, Chaian pro tem —Evelyn Hart
x Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton
DISTRICT NO. 7: x Don E. Smith, Chairman _Fred Barrera
x Richard Edgar, Chairman pro tem Ursula Kennedy
x Dan Griset —Dan Young
-7--Don R. Roth =Roger Stanton
W_-Sally Anne Sheridan _Larry Agran
-x-Donald A. Strauss John C. Cox, Jr.
=James Rohner —Harry Green
DISTRICT NO. 11: x Tam Mays, Chairman _Jim Silva
x Grace Winchell, Chai man pro tem Wes Bannister
_Roger Stanton x Don R. Roth
DISTRICT NO. 13: x Henry W. Medea, Chai man Roland E. Bigonger
a Iry Pickler, Chairman pro tem —Fred Hunter
x Dan R. Roth _Roger Stanton
x Don E. Smith Fred Barrera
a Wayne Wedin _Ran Isles
DISTRICT NO. 14: x Peer A. Swan, Chairman Darryl Miller
x Ursula Kennedy, Chai roan pro tent —Richard B. Edgar
x Don R. Rath =Roger Stanton
7--Sally Anne Sheridan Larry Agran
z Don E. Smith _Fred Barrera
-2-
7/19/89
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager,
Rita J. Brown, Board Secretary, Blake P.
Anderson, Thomas M. Dawes, Gary G.
Streed, Corinne Clawson, Charles
Nichols, Jean Tappan
OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel ,
Kris Lindstrom, Curtis Spencer, Gary
Robbins, Dewey Wiles, Bill Fleming,
Bill Butler, Margaret Johnson, Howard
Johnson, Thomas Pratte, Thomas D.
Lewis, Nancy Skinner, Patrick McNelly,
Don Willet
* * * * t * t * t t t t t * t t t t * t t
ALL DISTRICTS
Actions re Final Program EIR on
Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan
Verbal report of environmental
consultant
The Joint Chairman recognized Mr. Curtis Spencer of Jones and Stokes
Associates, Inc., the independent environmental consultant that prepared
the Environmental Impact Report on the Districts' Collection, Treatment
and Disposal Facilities Master Plan. Mr. Spencer advised that the Final
EIR was prepared in addendum form which meant that the final document was
comprised of the Draft EIR together with the Final EIR. The consultant's
report included a slide presentation depicting the various elements
covered by the EIR.
Mr. Spencer stated that the Draft Program EIR was distributed for public
review and comment from April 13, 1989 to May 30, 1989. The Draft
document covered possible impacts associated with the proposed
Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan, including
growth, construction, operations, public health and marine environmental
issues, plus other potentially relevant impacts. A public hearing on the
Draft EIR was held on May 17, 1989 at the Garden Grove Community Center.
The consultant reviewed the organization of the Final EIR and pointed out
that Chapter 1 is the introduction; Chapter 2 addresses changes and
additions; Chapter 3 includes public comments and the Districts' response
to those comments; and Chapter 4 contains the bibliography. Mr. Spencer -
elaborated on some of the changes and additions to the Draft EIR which
are included in the Final EIR. He noted two minor changes in impact
summary tables. He also commented that although the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines suggest that an
"environmentally superior alternative" be identified, the consultants
-3-
7/19/89
could see no technical basis for saying one alternative is
environmentally superior because differences between treatment scenarios
involve trade-offs between land, air and water, and because they are not
in a position to judge whether one is more important than the others. He
further noted that said CEQA guidelines also suggest that a "preferred
alternative" be identified. The Districts' staff has done this. They
recommend eliminating Scenario No. 1 (33% secondary treatment) because it
represents backsliding. Staff recommended Scenario No. 2 (50% secondary
treatment, the current treatment level) based on their evaluation of the
trade-offs. The Environmental Impact Report will support the Boards'
selection of any one of the three scenarios (Scenario 3 is 100% secondary
treatment).
Mr. Spencer reviewed air quality tables contained in the EIR reflecting
recent results of staff studies of the air toxics emitted during the
treatment process. He pointed out that the new tables show more
significant air toxic emission differences between the various scenarios
than had been indicated in the Draft EIR. The higher the degree of
treatment, the more air toxics that are released. In other words,
secondary treatment releases more air toxics than primary treatment.
The Final EIR also provides cost updates, and Directors were provided
with a revised page of the Final EIR which corrected an error in the debt
service costs for Scenario No. 3.
The consultant pointed out that a revised chart was included in the final
document relative to the numerical relationship between coliform bacteria
and viruses. Figure 7-10 revises the estimate of the risk of contracting
disease from viruses in surf zones to one in six million.
The consultant summarized the types of written responses received on the
Draft EIR. A total of 94 written comments were received, including two
from the Federal Government, six from State agencies, 11 from local and
regional agencies, five from public interest groups, and 70 from
individuals. In addition, 13 oral comments were heard at the public
hearing on May 17th.
Mr. Spencer advised that 55 letters from individuals expressed the view
that the Districts should implement full secondary treatment for all
flows. He noted that some of the letters erroneously referenced
untreated or raw sewage and pointed out that all wastewater receives
primary treatment or advanced primary treatment and 50% also receives
secondary treatment. The consultant's response to the public comment
that the Districts should implement full secondary treatment, was that
none of the scenarios would impair public health or beneficial ocean
uses; and, that all factors, including public comments, would be
considered by the Districts in reaching a decision.
He also responded to other public comments relative to whether the marine
Impacts are adequately addressed in the EIR. Mr. Spencer advised that
the marine impact analysis was based on comprehensive marine monitoring
program results and, accordingly, the consultant's conclusions remain as
indicated in the Draft EIR.
The following other comments on the EIR were reviewed by the consultant.
He noted that all concerns and comments were addressed in the Final EIR.
-4-
7/19/89
Growth and Effects of Growth - The consultant indicated that the
EIR fully discusses growth and points out that the Sanitation
Districts do not have land use responsibilities and identifies
those agencies that do have the land use responsibilities. The `
growth projections are consistent with regional planning agency
estimates.
Air Auality - Mr. Spencer noted that the EIR responds to technical
commen s y SCAQMD relative to compliance with regulations, permit
requirements and their Air Quality Management Plan, and states
that the Districts will comply with SCAQMD regulations, will
obtain the necessary permits and will maintain consistency with
other plans.
Im acts on Local A encies - The comments received centered on
construc AIR operation of facilities, especially within
the treatment plants. The findings in the EIR provide for
adoption of mitigation measures to resolve most of these impacts.
Sludge Management - The consultant noted that the comments received
dealt with the tlesirability of sludge reuse, landfill impacts
and the limited landfill capacity. The Draft EIR addresses these
issues and the Final EIR responds more fully to future sludge
management planning by the Sanitation Districts.
Wate w
r Su 1ate Limitations - In response to the comments suggesting
that a r supp y may not be available to produce the
projected wastewater flows, Mr. Spencer stated that the EIR
assumes that the Metropolitan Water District will continue to
obtain the water necessary for the area. However, if water
supply problems do occur or if conservation efforts reduce
future flows, the Master Plan allows the Districts to implement
the treatment expansion program on a slower schedule.
Mitigation Monitoring - Mr. Spencer noted that some agencies
suggested that a mitigation monitoring plan be included in
the EIR itself. However, the consultant indicated that such a
plan 1s more appropriate in the findings to be adopted by the
Boards.
The consultant then outlined the actions to be considered by the Boards
relative to the Final Program EIR, which included certification of the
EIR, adoption of certain findings relating to environmental effects
identified in the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master
Plan, adoption of a mitigation monitoring program, adoption of a
statement of overriding considerations that certain impacts aren't fully
mitigated but that the project is more important, and authorizing the
filing of a Notice of Determination documenting the Boards' actions.
Mr. Spencer concluded that the Boards would also be considering approval
of the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan, as well
as selecting the level of treatment to be included in the Districts'
application to the Environmental Protection Agency and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) for renewal of their NPDES
-5-
7/19/89
ocean discharge permit, and actual filing of the permit application. He
pointed out that this EIR was sufficient to cover implementation of most
Z,.-,✓ of the Master Plan projects. However, additional CEQA documentation
would be required for the extension of the ocean outfall , and
construction of the interplant pipeline and reclamation plants.
Receive and file Staff Report Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That the Staff Report and Summary dated July 12, 1989 re said Final
EIR be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed.
Receive and file written comments Moved, seconded and duly carried:
received after public hearing
That the written comments received after the public hearing on
May 17, 1989 (included in the Final Program EIR) be, and are hereby,
received and ordered filed.
Receive, file and approve Final Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Program EIR on Collection, Treatment
and Disposal Facilities Master Plan That the Final Program Environmental
Impact Report on the Collection,
Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan be, and is hereby,
received, ordered filed and approved; and,
FURTHER MOVED: That the Boards of Directors do hereby certify that said
Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the State and Districts'
Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
as amended.
Certifying Final Program EIR Moved, seconded and duly carried
by unanimous ballot:
That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 89-101,
certifying the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the
County Sanitation Districts' Collection, Treatment and Disposal
Facilities Master Plan - 1989. A certified copy of this resolution
is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
ALL DISTRICTS
Actions re terms and conditions of
application for renewal of Districts'
Five-Year NPOE5 Ocean Discharge Permit
Verbal staff report
The Districts' Director of Technical Services, Blake Anderson, addressed
the Board. He indicated that two years ago the Districts embarked on a
comprehensive study to determine the appropriate wastewater management
program to meet the growing service needs of Orange County and the
_ increasingly stringent environmental standards. During the Districts'
review process, three alternative treatment levels were studied to
determine their overall impact on air, land and water resources.
-6-
7/19/89
Mr. Anderson reviewed the following three alternative treatment levels _
considered:
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 (BOO) 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
(Entire flow would receive secondary treatment)
He noted that under all three scenarios the Districts would continue to
provide primary treatment or advanced primary treatment to the entire
flow.
It was pointed out that the results of the EIR indicate that all three
scenarios meet existing regulations, will not impair the beneficial
uses of the marine waters off Orange County's coast, and will not cause
significant impairment of the environment.
Staff recommended that the Boards approve Scenario No. 2 which provides
for continuation of the present level of treatment. This includes
primary treatment and advanced primary treatment to all of the flaw and
secondary treatment to one-half of the flow. Mr. Anderson stated that
this recommendation was based an a thorough evaluation of the
engineering, environmental and financial information contained in the
"Action Planu and on all of the public commentary received during the
Districts' public participation program.
He added that the staff's recommendation also encompasses the entire
comprehensive wastewater management plan and environmental protection
program that is included in the Districts' 112020 VISION" report.
Mr. Anderson noted that 112020 VISION" contained 11 elements which would
ensure continued protection of public health and the beneficial uses of
the ocean, would provide for the wisest management of limited public and
natural resources, and would promote balanced environmental management.
He then briefly reviewed each of the following elements of the "2020
VISION" plan:
-7-
7/19/89
Element 1 - Ocean Protection
Mr. Anderson stated that the Districts' wastewater treatment
program would continue to protect the marine environment and
the beneficial uses of the ocean as well as public health.
Element 2 - Balanced Environmental Protection
• It was pointed out that the Districts will maintain a wastewater
management program that minimizes cross-media impacts. The
Districts' existing level of treatment balances the impacts
on the air, land, water and energy resources and protects
their beneficial uses from impairment. He advised Directors
that the Districts would continue their extensive environmental
monitoring efforts to assure the effectiveness of their
environmental protection programs. If the monitoring efforts
ever begin to detect a problem, the Districts would change their
programs accordingly.
Element 3 - Wastewater Facilities
Staff reiterated that all flow will receive primary or advanced
primary treatment and 50% will receive secondary treatment.
Collection, treatment and disposal facilities will be constructed,
as necessary, to meet the increased demands of the service areas
of the Districts. Mr. Anderson noted that flow projections are
expected to increase to 400 mgd by the year 2020. He further
pointed out that within the next five years, the Districts would
be adding new secondary treatment capacity totaling an additional
49 mgd, which is a one-third increase in secondary capacity.
With regard to the cost for the various treatment levels, he
reported that Scenario 2 recommended by staff will cost
$1.4 billion less than Scenario 3.
Element 4 - Toxics Control
The Director of Technical Services stated that the Districts will
continue to.aggressively enforce their source control program to
minimize toxics, emphasizing waste minimization and safe materials
substitution. The Districts are pledging to reduce future toxic
mass discharge to less than today's mass discharge. Mr. Anderson
pointed out on a graph which illustrated the Districts' existing
effluent quality compared to the California State Water Resources
Control Boards' Ocean Plan limits, that the Districts were far
below the Ocean Plan limits for effluent heavy metals. He further
noted that the Districts' source control program had been so
effective in reducing heavy metals that even the incoming raw
sewage (influent) meets the California Ocean Plan limits for
effluent.
-8-
7/19/89
Element 5 - Sludge Reuse
Staff reported that presently 50% of the Districts' sludge is
beneficially reused as a composted soil amendment or in direct
agricultural reuse, and the goal is to increase that figure to
100%. It was pointed out that a dependable sludge management
alternative is also necessary, and the Districts would seek to
have at least one in-county land disposal alternative as a backup.
Element 6 - Water Reclamation
The new Facilities Plan provides for construction and operation of
up to three new satellite water reclamation plants. The Districts
will continue to provide secondary treated wastewater for reclamation
from their Fountain Valley treatment plant, and plan to develop new
markets to maximize reuse of reclaimed water.
Element 7 - Water Conservation
Mr. Anderson stated that the Districts' will actively faster and
promote water conservation. This will include developing cooperative
programs with other public agencies to provide public education,
community use of water saving devices, amending plumbing codes and
other appropriate changes to help reduce water usage.
Element 8 - Regulatory Compliance
Staff reiterated that the Districts will continue to consistently
comply with all federal and state laws, regulations, and guidelines
designed to protect water quality, air quality, land quality,
agricultural productivity, public health and the environment. He
particularly emphasized the Districts' continued compliance with the
Federal Clean Water Act and California Ocean Plan.
It was pointed out that a "301(h) waiver" is a provision in the Clean
Water Act added by Congress in 1977. The Districts' existing waiver
and any future waiver is jointly issued by EPA and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board. Mr. Anderson noted that while a
301(h) waiver does relax the BOD and suspended solids standards of
full secondary treatment, it maintains tough toxics standards and
requires protection of beneficial uses. He stressed that the
Districts are achieving these standards today and would continue to do
so in the future.
Element 9 - Energy Conservation
Mr. Anderson pointed out that one of the advantages of continuing
with the existing level of treatment is that it requires less energy -
than full secondary treatment. He added that the Districts will
continue to emphasize energy management programs in their wastewater
treatment facilities and would strive to increase the use of digester -
gas for energy recovery and production.
-9-
7/19/89
Element 10 - Research
Existing research and demonstration programs in marine monitoring, air
pollution control , sludge composting, water conservation, energy
conservation, industrial pretreatment and waste minimization will be
continued in the future. Staff indicated that the Districts will
continue operational research to maximize operational efficiency.
Element 11 - Public Education
The Districts plan to continue their community outreach efforts
which will include information on all of their ongoing programs.
Development of a speaker's bureau is also planned. Mr. Anderson
briefly outlined some of the public education methods utilized
during the past year and a half relative to the Districts' 30-year
"Action Plan" and other District activities, including distribution
of 10,000 fliers, brochures and announcements, direct contact with
over 2,600 people, and conducting approximately 100 tours and
presentations. He stressed the Districts' commitment to
community involvement.
Mr. Anderson reiterated that 112020 VISION" was a progressive approach
with a global perspective toward complete environmental management
with the community's overall best interests in mind. He noted that all
of the issues would again be reviewed in 1995 as the ocean discharge
permit is only issued for a five-year period. Careful environmental
monitoring and assessment will provide safeguards against future adverse
impacts on the ocean. The Director of Technical Services concluded that
the elements of 112020 VISION" reinforce the Districts' long-standing
commitment to sound, cost-effective environmental management based on
supportable scientific data.
Receive and file Final Staff Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Recommendation on 11 VISION"
Action Plan That the Final Staff Recommendation
on "2020 VISION" Action Plan for
Wastewater Management and Environmental Protection, 1990-2020, dated
July 19, 1989, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed.
Receive and file communications Moved, seconded and duly carried:
re su ested levels o tFeatmen
To a included in Distrcts' The the letter from the Chairmen of the
applca on or renewal of NPDE Newport Beach Harbor Quality Citizens
ermit Advisory Committee and Environmental
Quality Affairs Committee, dated
July 17, 1989, suggesting the Districts phase-in full secondary
treatment; and the letter from the President of the National American
Cetacean Society, dated July 17, 1989, requesting full secondary
treatment for all flow, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed.
Public Comment
The Joint Chairman pointed out that this meeting was not for the purpose
of a public hearing but four individuals had requested to speak and he
wished to acknowledge them at this time.
-10-
7/19/89
The Chair then recognized the following persons who addressed the Boards.
Mar aret Johnson, 19742 Shorecliff Lane, Huntin ton Beach
rs. Johnson stated tat she represented the American Cetacean Society
and was also a member of Green Peace. She referred to an article in
NEWSWEEK relative to environmental impacts on human life in the future
and related that to the issue of full versus partial secondary
treatment. She urged the Orange County Sanitation Districts to follow
the examples of the Cities of Las Angeles and San Diego and go to full
secondary treatment. She expressed concern that if the Districts
waited five years to consider full secondary treatment, the financial
burden of constructing the necessary treatment facilities may be too
great for the average taxpayer.
Thomas D. Lewis, 2830 E. S7th Street, Long Beach
Mr. Lewis stated that he was a marine biologist and that he
represented the International Membership of the American Cetacean
Society. He indicated that from his experience in testing marine
mammals that have been beached on the Southern California coastline,
very high levels of DDT and PCB's are shown in their blubber layers.
He also noted that many fish that have been studied, particularly in
the Santa Monica Bay region of Los Angeles County, have been found to
contain extremely high levels of DDT and PCB also. He expressed
concern that Orange County would develop the same pollution problems
as Los Angeles County. In his view, the current level of pollution is
already impacting the marine environment. On behalf of the American
Cetacean Society, he urged full secondary treatment.
Nancy Skinner, 1724 Highland Drive, Newport Beach
Mrs. Skinner acknowledged the service that the Districts provide and
complimented the management staff for their efforts and for providing
Information to her. She suggested that perhaps a fourth scenario
should have been considered providing for a level of treatment in
between Scenario 2 and Scenario 3. Mrs. Skinner expressed her view
that by removing more solids, this would reduce toxics and viruses in
the effluent. She was particularly concerned relative to viruses
which she believed could survive for days or weeks in the marine
environment. Mrs. Skinner questioned whether staff had evaluated any
other compromise levels of treatment. She noted that she realized
that the Districts would still require a waiver if they chose any
compromise treatment level other than full secondary, but felt her
suggestion would help alleviate some of the unknown impacts in the
future.
Thomas Pratte (no address given)
Mr. Pratt, representing the Surf Rider Foundation, commented that, in
his view, public health could be adversely affected by the discharge
of effluent into the surf zone even if it had received secondary
treatment. He expressed concern that it would be too late to correct
the situation if the Districts and others wait until a problem
develops in the marine environment. He noted that the cost of
treatment in Orange County was far less than in other parts of the
nation. Because of the unknown long-term effects of viruses in the
effluent on marine mammals, as well as humans, he indicated that, in 1 ,
his opinion, the prudent decision would be to go to full secondary `•✓
treatment as soon as possible.
-11-
7/19/89
Discussion consideration and
adoption of Preferred Treatment Level
cenario re NPDE Permit Renewal
Directors then entered into a lengthy discussion of the 112020 VISION"
Action Plan for Wastewater Management, the Environmental Impact Report
and the public commentary.
Director Edgar stated that he had participated throughout the process and
had critically and carefully reflected on the thorough engineering and
scientific information, and expressed his view that Scenario No. 2
clearly provided for expansion of the Districts' secondary treatment
process according to the needs of the community and ensures a level of
treatment which has proven to effectively protect the public health and
environment.
It was moved by Director Edgar, and seconded, that Scenario 2 [advanced
primary treatment to all wastewater flows plus secondary treatment to
one-half of the wastewater flows, resulting in 75% removal of suspended
solids and 60% removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)] be approved
and adopted as the preferred level of treatment to be included in the
application to the U.S. Environmenal Protection Agency (EPA) and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) for renewal of
the Districts' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
ocean discharge permit for the five-year period beginning February 1990.
It was pointed out by immediate-past Joint Chairman Smith that the
Districts' strive for operational and maintenance excellence and he noted
that their efforts had been recognized by the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board who had nominated the Sanitation Districts for
awards of excellence which are given annually by the Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA concurred with the Regional Board's
recommendation and awarded Certificates of Excellence to the the
Districts for the last two years.
Director Strauss asked for comment in response to Mrs. Skinner's remarks.
Staff concurred that if the Districts were to maintain their existing
mass discharge levels of BOD and suspended solids, they would need to
continue to build increasingly larger increments of secondary treatment
facilities and would, by 2050, achieve full secondary treatment. For the
30-year Action Plan the overall costs and environmental impacts would
fall somewhere between Scenarios 2 and 3. The Director of Technical
Services pointed out that there is a continuum of options between the
ranges of the three scenarios. Staff and consultants discussed many of
these options before selecting the three that have been analyzed and
addressed in the EIR, each requiring a tremendous amount of engineering
and environmental study. He added that with a level of treatment between
Scenarios 2 and 3, the overall discharge of toxics would remain
essentially the same because of the Districts' source control program,
which is the primary reason for the current and expected ongoing success
in reducing the level of toxics being discharged.
In response to a question from Director Polis, staff reiterated that the
Districts regulate the discharge of BOD from the ocean outfall through
both industrial source control and the treatment process. Additional
�....' increments of secondary treatment facilities will be added over the next
five years to keep up with the needs of the Districts' service area while
mal4taining .the 50% secondary treatment level.
-12-
7/19/89
Director Cox asked staff to elaborate on the cost issues comparing --
current construction costs with future costs due to inflation. Staff
advised that under any scenario additional facilities will be constructed �d
only in incremental units to keep pace with service demands as flows
increase. Although construction costs will escalate if the Districts
delay construction of additional secondary treatment facilities, it was
pointed out that the cost of operation and maintenance of these
facilities if built now would be substantially more than the rate of
inflation if said facilities were constructed later.
Vice Joint Chairman Catlin commented on his close involvement in the EIR -
process and to the complex and technical issue of selecting the
appropriate level of treatment. He noted that his decision to support
Scenario No. 2 was based on three major considerations:
ideafCapital Costs - Mr. Catlin commented that although it may be
able to go to full secondary treatment, it would
greatly increase capital costs resulting in major increases in
the fees paid by the citizens of Orange County. He further
observed that the cost of full secondary treatment must be
considered along with costs associated with some of the other
infrastructures in Orange County, such as transportation,
air quality management, solid waste disposal and flood control ,
all of which will place additional financial burdens on the
public in the future.
Cross- ima Impacts - Impacts such as increased energy, increased
air problems and increased solids residuals are associated with
full secondary treatment, and, as pointed out in the EIR, would
actually result In a negative economic, as well as environmental ,
Impact. Full secondary treatment greatly increases the amount of
residual solids to be disposed of requiring greater landfill
capacity. Until sludge disposal problems can be resolved, he
suggested that a middle-ground approach would be more practical .
Scientific Justification for Continued Waiver - The Vice Joint
ha rman stated that in his View there is sufficient scientific
data and expertise, in contrast with the generalized public
commentary, to justify the continuation of the 301(h) waiver and
avoid the unnecessary capital expense associated with full
secondary treatment. Mr. Catlin commented that the Districts
have an excellent reputation and record, both nationally and
internationally, of pursuing source control programs to protect
public health and safety and the environment and will continue
to do so.
Mr. Catlin added that he is personally acquainted with Roger Revelle of
Scripps Institute of Oceanography and holds him in the highest regard,
and that he is persuaded by Mr. Revelle and other Scripps scientists'
statements that full secondary treatment for deep ocean dischargers is
unnecessary. Vice Joint Chairman Catlin urged Directors to support
Scenario No. 2 based on all of the testimony and technical data presented
and reviewed to date.
-13-
7/19/89
Director Winchell urged support of full secondary treatment (Scenario 3).
She stated that although the Districts' program was excellent, she felt
changes in marine organisms and the ecosystem are very slow to occur and
not easily perceived.
Director Winchell observed that in the past man has erred in their
knowledge of the planet and expressed concern that any potential negative
marine impacts be avoided. She also commented that she believed the
Scripps scientists' remarks were more directed to other areas with
different conditions and reiterated her concern that the Boards not take
an action that might potentially result in cumulative, slow-moving
` impacts.
Director Kennedy stated that when she began the study of this program, on
her first reading, she supported full secondary treatment. However, she
was now convinced that, for at least, and maybe only, the next five
years, the Districts can go to Scenario 2 without damaging the
environment. She stated her reasoning was based on the face value of
opinions of the very prestigious Scripps oceanographers who evaluated
full secondary treatment and found that it was not necessary nor
warranted under circumstances that we in these Districts have.
Mrs. Kennedy further observed that her decision was based on the
Districts' commitment to sludge reuse; water conservation; and the
commitment by the Districts that if there are unacceptable impacts,
secondary treatment would be tightened.
Director Kennedy also stated that consideration of the total environment,
which was brought up by Mr. Catlin, was another consideration of hers.
If the Districts go to full secondary treatment, our land environment is
going to take an impact that is worse than our ocean is taking under
Scenario No. 2. She added that she was also persuaded because this is a
five-year permit and will be reviewed again every five years.
Mrs. Kennedy also noted a problem that the Districts face and are not
responsible for is the storm drains and their impact upon the ocean, and
the fact that the Districts often take the rap for the storm drain
problem. She stated she believed that the storm drains are a great deal
of the problem pointed out by the public.
Director Kennedy also observed that while the added economic cost of full
secondary treatment was also persuasive, it would not have changed her
vote for the treatment level if she felt it was right. With assurances
that the present level of treatment will be maintained, Director Kennedy
stated she supported Scenario No. 2.
Director Plummer indicated her support for Scenario No. 3. She stated
that although the EIR states that none of the scenarios are
environmentally superior, this scenario was the environmentally superior
alternative with regard to impacts on ocean resources. Director Plummer
stated her opinion that the increase in the cost to the public for full
secondary treatment would be nominal compared to the possible unknown,
long-term effects on the ocean.
-14-
7/19/89
Director Mays stated that the treatment level question had been a very
difficult decision for the Huntington Beach delegates. Although the
economics of the program are significant regardless of the scenario, he
did not believe that cost was the major issue. He stated that the major
factors in their determination to support Scenario 3 were environmental .
A substitute motion was then offered by Director Mays, and seconded, to
support Scenario 3 (advanced primary treatment to all wastewater flows
plus secondary treatment to all wastewater flows, resulting in 85%
removal of suspended solids and 85% removal of BOD).
Director Mays stated that with the expected build-out of the County, full
secondary treatment would maintain the amount of solids currently
permitted to be discharged and reiterated his concern for ocean
protection.
Joint Chairman Hoesterey observed that a member of the public had
expressed concern about DDT and PCB's and asked staff whether the
allowable emission of DDT and PCB would be different if the Districts'
waiver were renewed. Staff advised that the actual limitations under
which the Districts operate would be the same under Scenarios 2 or 3 for
DDT and PCB. He further noted that because of the Districts' source
control program and because both of those materials were banned from the
general public's use since the early 1970's, the Districts detect no PCB
in their effluent today, nor do they expect any in the future. With
regard to DDT, normally none is found in the effluent, although
occasionally very low levels are measured. The Director of Technical
Services stated that under any treatment scenario DDT and PCB are
essentially a non-issue for the Orange County Sanitation Districts, based
on an exhaustive study performed a few years ago.
Joint Chairman Hoesterey then commented that he, along with the other
Directors, had carefully studied the treatment level issue and looked at
all of the alternatives, weighing them against cross-media impacts.
Mr. Hoesterey said that as others had stated, the economic factors had
probably been one of his least considerations until he considered where
that money could best be used to help mitigate overall impacts on our
environment.
The Joint Chairman pointed out that if the Board decided that evening to
go to full secondary treatment (Scenario 3) that decision would be
irreversible and the Districts would begin immediately to implement the
plan over the next 15 years. However, if Directors chose Scenario No. 2
based on all of the data provided by staff and consultants, and the
Scripps Institute people, it would not be an irreversible decision. He
further pointed out that should data or conditions change warranting an
increase in the level of secondary treatment, that option is always
available to the Districts at any time.
The Joint Chairman commented on the Districts' reputation of being an
environmentally sensitive agency that has not only performed to
established limits, but at a level significantly better than what legal
limits are, and stated that this agency will continue to do the best job
possible in the future. Mr. Hoesterey stated that contrary to the
-15-
7/19/89
remarks of one of the members of the public that if the Districts sought
continuation of the waiver, they would "be getting away with something",
that has not been the policy or direction of the Boards in the past, and
he did not believe it would change in the future. He reiterated that the
Districts are concerned with environmental impacts on all media--the
ocean, the air and the land--and have implemented their own controls far
exceeding any regulatory controls placed upon them.
Joint Chairman Hoesterey then stated that he would support the original
motion in favor of Scenario No. 2 as the prescribed level of treatment to
be included in the Districts' application for renewal of their ocean
discharge permit, and that he would oppose the substitute motion for
Scenario No. 3.
The Joint Chairman then called for a vote on the substitute motion to
support of Scenario 3 (full secondary treatment) as the preferred
treatment level alternative.
Following a roll call vote, the Secretary reported that the substitute
motion had failed by virtue of eight Districts voting to defeat the
motion and one District voting for the motion.
The Joint Chairman then called for a vote on the original motion that
Scenario 2 (advanced primary treatment to all wastewater flows plus
secondary treatment to one-half of the flows) be approved and adopted as
the preferred level of treatment to be included in the application to the
EPA and the CRWQCB for renewal of the Districts' NPDES ocean discharge
permit for the five-year period beginning February 1990.
Following a roll call vote, the Secretary reported that the original
motion had passed by virtue of eight Districts voting to favor of the
motion and one District voting against the motion.
It was then FURTHER MOVED, seconded and duly carried that the Districts'
staff and consultants be, and are hereby, directed to prepare and file an
application with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, based on the Scenario
No. 2 preferred treatment level approved and adopted by the Boards, for
renewal of the Districts' National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Permit, in accordance with the provisions of Section 301(h) of the
Federal Clean Water Act.
ALL DISTRICTS
Actions re Collection• Treatment
and Di
s osal Facilities Master Plan
dated February 1 9
Approving 1989 Master Plan Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilites Master Plan, dated
February 1989, consisting of the following volumes, be, and is hereby,
approved and adopted:
-16-
7/19/89
Volume Title
Volume 1 Summary Report
Volume 2, Parts 1-3 Joint Works Treatment and Disposal
Facilities
Volume 3 Potential Water Reclamation Plants
Reconnaissance Report
Volume 4, Parts 1,2 Trunk Sewer Conveyance System
Volume 5 Computer Control , Monitoring and
Data Handling Systems
Volume 6 Reliability Analysis
Volume 7, Parts 1-3 Disaster Preparedness Plan
Volume 8 Financial Plan
Directin staff to im lement Moved, seconded and duly carried:
elemen s of Fac lties Master
Plan to effect Scenario No. 2 That the staff be, and is hereby,
treatment level adopted by oards directed to implement appropriate
elements of the adopted 1989 Facilities
Master Plan to effect the treatment level proposed in Scenario No. 2
(advanced primary treatment to all wastewater flows and secondary
treatment to one-half of the wastewater flows) to be included in the
application to EPA and CRWQCB for renewal of the Districts' NPDES ocean
discharge permit, as previously determined by the Boards of Directors.
Directors Tom Mays and Grace Winchell requested that their votes in
opposition to the motion be made a matter of record.
ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried by
Making certain findings re roll call vote:
environmental effects identified in
1989 Facilities Master Plan and That the Boards of Directors do hereby
adopting a statement of ove rridin adopt Resolution No. 89-102, making
considerations based an trea ment certain findings relating to
level included to Scenario No. 2 significant environmental effects
identified in the Collection, Treatment
and Disposal Facilities Master Plan dated February 1989 ("The Project") based
on the treatment level included in Scenario No. 2 (advanced primary treatment
to all wastewater flows and secondary treatment to one-half of the '
wastewater flows) ; adopting a statement of overriding consideration; and
authorizing the filing of a Notice of Determination re said project. A
certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these
minutes.
-17-
7/19/89
DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
gam^ That this meeting of the Board of Directors
of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the
meeting so adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , July 19, 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 9:15 p.m. , July 19, 1989.
DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Ad ournment
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 9:15 p.m. , July 19, 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. The Chairman then declared the
meeting so adjourned at 9:15 p.m., July 19, 1989.
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 9:15 p.m. , July 19, 1989.
DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
journment
That this meeting of the Board of Directors
of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared
the meeting so adjourned at 9:15 p.m. , July 19, 1989.
DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Adjournment
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 9:15 p.m. , July 19, 1989.
(THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WERE CONTINUED FROM THE REGULAR MEETING HELD
ON JULY 12, 1989 DUE TO LACK OF QUORUM IN DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 11) :
DISTRICT 5 There being no corrections or amendments
Vpproval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting
held June 14, 1989, the Chairman ordered
that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed.
-18-
7/19/89
DISTRICT 11 There being no corrections or amendments
Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting
held June 14, 1989, the Chairman ordered ' ✓
that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed.
DISTRICTS 5 & 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
at cat on of payment of Joint
and Individual District Claims That payment of Joint and individual
District claims set forth on pages "A" and
"B" attached hereto and made a part of these minutes, and summarized below, be,
and are hereby, ratified by the respective Boards in the amounts so indicated.
6/07/89 6/21/89
ALL DISTRICTS
Joint Operating Fund - $ 602,029.90 $1,047,099.77
Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 3,214,330.61 842,081.28
Joint Working Capital Fund - 126,669.14 175,031.33
Self-Funded Insurance Funds - 626.79 11,161.01
DISTRICT NO. 5 - 7,873.12 7,649.42
DITT-RI 7 N 11 - 54.56 6,456.97
DI TES —RICTS�5 & 6 JOINT - 700 101.86 8 291.25
4,651,685.98 ,771.0
DISTRICTS 5 & 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
t ozing ad resting exeh gooudr' f dcuments cut on
necessary That the following resolutions
for teaeral and State Urants for authorizing and directing execution and
the 9 - 9 Joint ors Improve- filing of documents necessary for
meets and Additions Federal and State Clean Water Grants and
Loans under 33 U.S.C. , 1251 et seq. ;
Chapters 12.5, 13, 14 and 15; and Division 7 of the California Water Code, and
providing certain assurances in connection with the 1989-90 Joint Works
Improvements and Additions, be, and are hereby, adopted by the respective Boards
of Directors:
District No. Resolution No.
5 89-70-5
11 89-73-11
Certified copies of these resolutions are attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Authorizing he election omnittee
to negotiate Addendum Ro 1 to the That the Selection Committee be, and is
Professional Services A reement hereby, authorized to negotiate Addendum
with The Keith Companies for design No. 1 to the Professional Services
and construction services re Agreement with The Keith Companies for
Contracts Nos. 5-35 and 5-3 design and construction services
required re South Coast Trunk Sewer, -
Contract No. 5-35, and Crystal Cove Pump Station, Contract No. 5-36, to
provide for changes in the scope of work initiated by The Irvine Company, City
of Newport Beach and Laguna Beach County Water District re project alignment
in Pacific Coast Highway and the construction schedules for said projects (the
project costs are being paid by the proponents).
-19-
7/19/89
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Receive, file and deny claim of
Hamish Michael re Contract No. 5-31 That the claim of Hamish Michael dated
May 31, 1989. in the amount of $248.19
for damage to his auto windshield from debris, allegedly in connection with
construction of Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main, Contract
No. 5-31, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and denied; and,
FURTHER MOVED: That said claim be, and is hereby, referred to the District's
General Counsel , liability claims administrator, contractor and contractor's
insurance company for appropriate action.
DISTRICTS 5 & 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Creating a Capital Facilities Fund
and terminating the Accumulated That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt
Capital Outlay Fund and the the following resolutions, creating a
Facilities Revolving Fund Capital Facilities Fund and terminating
the Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund and
the Facilities Revolving Fund in each District:
DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.
5 89-84-5
11 89-87-11 -
Certified copies of these resolutions are attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and unanimously
Approving 1989-90 fiscal year carried by roll call vote:
budget
That the District's 1989-90 fiscal
year budget be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved in the
following amounts:
Operating Fund $ 6,766,000
Capital Facilities Fund 8,249,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1951 52,000
TOTAL $ 15,067,000
DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and unanimously
Approving 1989-90 fiscal year carried by roll call vote:
budget
That the District's 1989-90 fiscal
year budget be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved in the
following amounts:
Operating Fund $ 7,302,000
Capital Facilities Fund 10,652,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1951 14,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1958 29,000
�..d TOTAL $ 17,997,000
-20-
7/19/89
DISTRICTS 5 a 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Este l shin a annua Gann
appropriations limit for fisca That the following resolutions establish
year 1 -90 the annual Gann appropriations limit for
fiscal year 1989-90 for each District in
accordance with the provisions of Division 9 of Title 1 of the California
Government Code, be, and are hereby, adopted by the respective Boards of
Directors:
DISTRICT RESO. NO. LIMITATION
5 89-93-5 $ 2,077,000
11 89-96-11 2,209,000
Certified copies of these resolutions are attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
DISTRICTS 5 8 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Receive file and approve Staff
e or re revised Wastewater That the Staff Report, dated June 28,
Dischar e e ulat ons for the 1989 (Revised) , summarizing revisions to
County Sanitation Districts of the Districts' wastewater discharge
range County regulations, be, and is hereby,
received, ordered filed and approved.
DISTRICT 5
Actions re proposed Ordinance
No. bzU
First reading of Proposed Moved, seconded and duly carried:
rdinance No. 520
That proposed Ordinance No. 520, An
Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of
Orange County, California, Establishing Wastewater Discharge Regulations for
Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and Repealing Ordinance Nos. 514 and
518, be read by title only; and,
FURTHER MOVED: That reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is
hereby, waived.
Following the reading of Ordinance No. 520 by title only, it was moved,
seconded and duly carried:
That Ordinance No. 520, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, Establishing
Wastewater Discharge Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities,
and Repealing Ordinance Nos. 514 and 518, be introduced and passed to
second reading and public hearing on August 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. , at
the District's administrative office.
Makin findin that adoption of Moved, seconded and duly carried:
rdinance No. 520 1s cite oricall
exempt per CEQA Guidelines That the Board of Directors hereby
finds that adoption of Ordinance
No. 520 is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15308, in that the Ordinance is a regulatory
action taken by the District to assure the protection of the environment.
-21-
7/19/89
DISTRICT 11
c ons re proposed Or finance
First readin oP Proposed Moved, seconded and duly carried:
r inance No. 111
That proposed Ordinance No. 1110, An
Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 of
Orange County, California, Establishing Wastewater Discharge Regulations for
Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and Repealing Ordinance Nos. 1106 and
1107, be read by title only; and,
FURTHER MOVED: That reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is
hereby, waived.
Following the reading of Ordinance No. 1110 by title only, it was moved,
seconded and duly carried:
That Ordinance No. 1110, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County
Sanitation District No. 11 of Orange County, California, Establishing
Wastewater Discharge Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities,
and Repealing Ordinance Nos. 1106 and 1107 be introduced and passed to
second reading and public hearing on August 9, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. , at the
District's administrative office.
Makin findin that ado tion of Moved, seconded and duly carried:
rd nance o. 1 is cate orica
exempt per cEQA Liuioeilnes That the Board of Directors'hereby
finds that adoption of Ordinance
No. 1110 is categorically exempt per California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15308, in that the Ordinance is a regulatory
action taken by the District to assure the protection of the environment.
DISTRICTS 5 & it Moved, seconded and duly carried:
Receive and fie Staff Re ort re
A reement w th ount Assessor re That the Staff Report re Agreement with
upplemental User Fee Processing County Assessor re Supplemental User Fee
Processing, dated June 29, 1989, be, and
is hereby, received and ordered filed.
DISTRICTS 5 & 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
uthorizing the General Manager to
execute an a reement with the That the General Manager be, and is
Orange ount ssessor's Office for hereby, authorized to execute an
the purchase lease of property file agreement with the Orange County
data base services re wired to Assessor's Office for the purchase/lease
collect su lementa user fees on of property file data base services
the property ax t is necessary to calculate, assess and
collect the Districts' supplemental user
fee charges on the annual property tax bills, the annual cost for said services
to be in the amount fixed by the County Assessor and Board of Supervisors.
(END OF ITEMS CONTINUED FROM JULY 12, 1989 JOINT BOARD MEETING)
: • • • x x f • x s. • x t
-22-
7/19/89
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: h
ournmen
That this meeting of the Board of
Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:20 p.m., July 19, 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. The Chairman
then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:20 p.m., July 19, 1989.
�ecretaryoT t e Boards of Directors
of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1,
29 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14
-23-
FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 5/31189 FADE I
L REPORT NUMBER AP43
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
CLAIMS PAID 06 01 89 POSTING DATE 06/07/89
WARRANT M0. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
099988 ABC PAINT STRIPING SERVICE $675.00 ASPHALT STRIPING
11999+9 ADAMSON ON
{ EQUIP. f5B2.08 SAFETY SUPPLIES
YA S. INC. SL.250.76A.11 Cbff9NUt'lWP1-26.P2-0¢.33.14
. 099991 AIR PRODUCTS { CNEHICAL INC. S13.469.60 MECHANICAL REPAIRS
�• 099992 AIRGUARD INDUSTRIES. INC. S309.33 ELECTRIC PARTS
099993 ALLENG $14. 85.2E KEY VEHICLE--_-
099994 THE ANCHOR PACKING CO. f1.101.55 MECHANICAL PARTS
099995 ANIRTER . WIRE 6 CABLE f124.24 INSTRUMENT PART
099996 ANTELOPE VALLEY EGUIP. 11,958.00 TRUCK PARTS
099997 A-PLUS SYSTEMS $2.072.78 NOTICES 6 ADS
Ij 099998 ARATER SERVICES, INC. S122.90 win" RENTALS
099999 ASSOCIATED CONCRETE PROD.. INC $85.86 BUILDING MATERIALS
1, IOODaD ASSOC. PUBLIC SAFETY S125.00 INSTRUMENT SERVICE
ID0001 ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING fl 409.50 SOIL TESTING
Y 11.79 CONVEYOR PUTS
100003 AVIS CAR LEASING $18.762.00 NEW VEHICLES
I++� 300004 FALCON DISPOSAL SERVICE S46.969.39 GRIT REMOVAL M.0.7-13-88
15.705.00 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PI-25626.P232.33.34.37
+ fTl 100306 BANTER SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS 13,312.37 LAB SUPPLIES
� 1 A 0107 BENT ENGINEERING. INC. f316.73 COMPRESSOR PARTS
= 160008 BOISE CASCADE FFFCE PRODUCTS 3715.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES
J 160009 BON-A-RUES $06.20 TRUCE PARTS
+ w 100010 BROOKS PRODUCTS SB.130.00 VAULTS
w11 Y { Y LL CONSULTING S79.B92.39 INCINBBRIXG SERVICES P2-J1.J-23-1 --
100012 BURKE ENGINEERING CO. S205.70 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
100013 BUSH AND ASSOCIATES. INC. 1440.60 LAND SURVEYING
I ID0019 G RY G.—TA". S575.52 PETTY CASH BEIMEURSPMRii
100015 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY S172.76 PAPER
200016 C S R RECONDITIONING CO. s350.OD IRCWNICAL PARTS
100017 CS COMPANY f9.702.51 VALVE
100018 CSI-CALTROL s1.372.D8 MECHANICAL PARTS
100019 CAL.CHEN SALES $148.40 SAFETY SUPPLIES
100� JOHN R. CACAPRICE. PRO S4.596.00 CONSULTING SERVICES - OCEAN MONITORING
100021 CAROLLO-BOYLE.A JOINT VENTURE $29.864.76 ENGINEERING SERVICES RUNS 87-131
100222 CASE POWER { EDUIPMENT S593.11 TRUCK PARTS
0 U T 1FLIT INST. S STAFF $2,329.03 SAFETY SUPPLIES
100024 CMENWE ST INDUSTRIES. INC. $66.30T.03 FERRIC CHLORIDE M.O.11-00 -8B
100025 CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. 53.193.39 OIL 6 GREASE
1 002 TORS CONTROLS, INC. ORA8 CHLORINATION PARTS
100027 DALE CHRIS71AN STRUC. ENGA. $1.200.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES J-20
100020 CHRISTEVE CORP. 316E 006.00 CONSTRUCTION 5-31
0 29 ORINNE CLAWSON $32.02 MEETING EXPENSE
100130 COMPRESSOR COMPONENTS OF CALIF f9.945.50 MECHANICAL PARTS
100031 CONNELL G.M. PARTS / DIV. 1174.12 TRUCK PARTS
100032 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL fff-ST. $6.194.45 ELECTRIC SUPPL185
Ie 100033 CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS f22.583.65 BLUEPRINTING
FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 5131/89 PAGE 2
L, REPORT NUMBER AP43
COUNTY SANITATION 01 RIC OF OR
4N CO
CL AINS PAID 061,77" POSTING DATE 06/U7/89
WARRANT NO VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
100034 CONTROL CABLES. INC. $57.46 CABLE
100935 CONTROL DATA CORPORATION 9310.50 PIRLO SERVICES
100036 CONTROLCO $97.40. ELECTRIC PATS
100037 CORE-INTERNATIONAL $1s222.00 CONFUTER PARTS
100038 COSTA MESA AUTO SUPPLY t.q.X4 AUTUNCHBILE
200039 COUNTY WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $2.097.89 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
I00040 CAL WATER $129.58 Una EQUIPMENT
21 100041 AR 6 SIMO
_ 100042 STATE OF CALIFORNIA $400.00 BBE PROCESSING HE
200043 STATE OF CALIFORNIA $154.50 HAZARGDUS WASTE TAR
00044 DATA RENTAL
100045 DECO 9371.41 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
100046 DEZURIK AND/OR CS CO. f1.711.01 VALVE PARTS
1 001 PPO ASSOCIATES
100048 DORADO ENTERPRISES. INC. $25.003.52 PLANT MAINTENANCE A REPAIRS
I00049 O-VALS SALES CO. $129.79 FITTINGS
00050 E.I.L. INS RU EINC, 0 MEMORIES
_ 100051 EA$TMAN, INC. 11.658.64 OFFICE SUPPLIES
108052 W. H. EBEAT CORP. 9183.D37.11 CONSTRUCTION 2-26-2
I00053 V.H. EBERT CORP. $313 435.50
a,X 1000'. EFFECTIVE VISUAL IMAGERY $800.30 PRESENTATION AIDS
2 100055 ENCHANTER. INC. f1.200.00 OCRAN SAMPLING H.D.6-10-87
00056 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE ASSOC.
100057 FST SAND AND GRAVEL. INC. $234.83 ROAD BASE MATERIALS
_ ao� 100058 JAMES FALCONER i2.100.00 CONSULTING SERVICES - SCAQHO
100059 J08N B. FALMENSTEIN P.E. i 5
_ 100060 FARR SALES 6 SERVICE $758.79 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
100061 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. $255.75 AIR MIGHT
aN 100062 FERRELLGAS $29.25 HOME
100063 FISCHER $ PORTER CO. f1O.022.77 CHLORINATION PARTS
100064 FLO-SYSTEMS $608.84 ELECTRIC PARTS
00065 GELBER PUMPS, S214.-6 PUMP PARTS
100066 FOUNTAIN VALLEY PAINT $511.35 PAINT SUPPLIES
100067 FOUNTAIN VALLEY READY MIX $1,613.65 CONCRETE
100 68 DONALD L. F N $ ASSOCIATES 11.825.5ft SAFM CONSULTING
100069 THE FORE ORO CO. $2.211.61 INSTRUKENT SUPPLIES
100070 FROST ENGINECAIN6 SERVICES CO. sI32.18 VAVLlS
100 71 GANAHL L MB R CO $296.50 BUILDING
f00072 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION $108,160.38 CONSTRUCTION J-I5A
Sol, GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. $1,764.54 TELEPHONE
100074 61 RL H-MITCHELL INC 19 353.96 PUMP & MECHANICAL PARTS
100075 DON GREEK f ASSOCIATES f13.910.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 88-72
100076 KALPAIN SUPPLY CO. f206.70 OETGEN SUPPLIES
100077 NARGOUR ENGINE RING i] 330.T3 FARTS
OOTB HATCH XIRX• f1.135.31 MECHANICAL PARTS
1000.75 S. A. HEALY CO. i9D.000.00 CONSTRUCTION PI-31-1
9.1 _
FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORMING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 5131/69 PAGE 3
LJ REPORT NUMBER AP43
COUNTY SANITATION OISTR"If OF ORANGE COUNTY
CLAIMS PAID 06/07789 POSTING DATE 06/07/89
WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
100080 DAVID HEINZ $46.00 MEETING EXPENSE
100081 E.G. HELLER+S SON, INC. $97.30 TOOLS
I�02 . C. ITS.13 HARDWARE
1 I 100083 MOERBIGER C.Y.3. CALIF. ° INC. $1.256.49 MEcEA01CAL PARTS
+i 100084 HORIZON HIGH-REACH f187.86 TRUCK PARTS _
Lou.— Of BATTERIES 3288.69 BATTERIES
100086 R.S. HUGHES CO.. INC. $2,478.24 HARDWARE
1 I508T 1NO DELAVAL INC. f366.92 ¢Le
f1. . ♦ GEARS 6 CHAIN
1111.1 INGRAM PAPER f2.104.29 PAPER
100090 INLAND EMPIRE EQUIPMENT CO. f217.76 TRUCK PARTS
100091 flITERNAT ONAL T M R CORDER $89.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT
100092 JACK N CHANGE $211.47 TRUCK REPAIRS
I01E093 RIVIERA FINANCE tl N9 90 JAN TORIAL SUPPLIES
00094 J NSEN TOOLS 6 ALLOYS f1.316.20 TOOLS
100015 MA
BEARINGS f SUPPLY 1471.30 FITTINGS
100096 HANER COMPANY f1.670.68 TOOLS
10009 Y- Y. INC. f1.401.27 ELECTRONIC PARTS
100098 THE KEITH COMPANIES $2.765.18 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5-35636
�++ ITT 100099 MIEWIT PACIFIC CO. f1.106.004.05 CONSTRUCTION PI-31
yl� 100100 KING BEARING. INC. $2,375.63 HECHANCIAL PARTS
100101 KIRST PUMP 6 MACHINE WORKS 11.281.01 PUMP PARTS
IccI 2 MARTIN KORUICK. SR $3,055.90 _
100103 LEE B AO CONSULTING ENGR, $87,031.00 CONSULTING SERVICES PI-33
F. 100109 LIMITOROUE CORP. $5.397.35 INSTRUMENT
h. 100105 MDS $50.99 IllIRUHENT PARTS
IN 106 $276:50 PNOTOCWHIC SERVICES
uHW 100107 XA LCOLM PIRNIE . INC. 518.799.41 ENGINEER2NG SERVICES RES 86-146
10010E MARVAC ELECTRONICS $46.71
109109 M4 T - CHLOR. INC. S1.296.09 CHLORINATION PARTS
100110 MCKENNA ENGR. 6 EQUIP. S16.90I.13 PUMP PARTS
100111 MC KINNEY ELECTRONICS f69.95 DATE PARis
S�—N -TCB�6W I S90.BQ LAB SERVICES
HM 108113 MEDLIN CONROLS CO. S291.44 GRACE
100114 TMOMAS MENDEZ $626.79 LIABILITY CLAIM
115 MICROAGE COMPUTER 6,419.16 COMPUTER SOFTWARE 6 HARDWARE
100116 MIDLAND MFG. CORP. :2,889.09 CHLORINATION SUPPLIES
100117 MLEN 4D BUNTiCN CONS TRUCTIOh CO $350 366.36
IOOIIB MO NTBOM ERT LAB A RIES ii.920.00 LAB SERVICES
100119 MOORE f TABER i5.383.83 ENGINEERING SERVICES DIST 2
100120 NEAL SUPPLY CO. $160.31 PTITT
100121 NEWPORT BUSINESS INTERIORS 31.O15.BB PARELING
100122 NOR TN SUPPLY fT1B.9J INSTRUMENT PART
I00123 OCEAN SALT CO.. INC. f333.26 SALT
100124 OLYMPIC CHEMICAL CO. 936.455.75 CHLORINE M.0.10-12-88
160225 ONE DAY PAINT 6 BODY f230.16 TRUCE REPAIR
FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 5/31/89 PAGE 1
L, REPORT NUMBER AP43
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY _
CLAIMS PAID 06/07/B9 POSTING DATE 06/07/69
WARRANT N0. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
300126 ORANGE COAST ELECTRIC SUPPLY S275.07 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
I00127 ORANGE COAST JEEP f12.588.20 NEW VERT"
100128 ORANGE COUNTY AUTO PARTS CO. 1102.29 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
100129 ORANGE COUNTY FARM SUPPLY CO. 973.03 PESTICIDE
inalso ORANGEA t FITTING
100131 COUNTY OF ORANGE f33.759.AB DISPOSAL GATE PEES
100132 COUNTY OF ORANGE $2.479.25 PERMIT FEES
100133 ROBERT L. CITRON S 1 ETERRED COMP OEPOSTT rn
100131 PACIFIC ELECTRIC. INC. $15.531.49 CONSTRUCTION J-15
100135 PACIFIC ELECTRIC S5$tI39.BO CONSTRUCTION 3-15
1 6 A F SAFETYEQUIPMENT
101131 PACIFIC BELL $92.51 TELEPHONE
17 10013E PHOTO A SOUND CO. $8.306.53 CWPUTER EQUIPMENT 6 SUPPLIES
3001]9 P/CNVICK PAPER f238.00 FATTY
100190 PIN, 6R0 S73TLKSo INC. $19.464.55 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.0.5-11-88
100111 POLYPURE. INC. $13,937.66 CATIONIC POLYMER M.0.3-8-89
100142 POWER ELECTRO SUPPLY CO. $83.12
100143 HAROLD PRIMROSE ICE 3132.00 ICE
100199 THE PROJECTS SOLUTION CO. $4.100.00 INSTRUM¢NTATION INSPECTION M.0.8-10-88
300195 vUMP ENGINEERING CO. 12 308.68
10G116 OUEST I TL. MONITOR SERVICE t735.00 INSTRUMENT REPAIR
= 100117 RA FIG.,
ANO ASSOCI ATE S.
INC. 58.650.00 MAPPING SERVICES
100118 RED WING SHOES $123.77 ETY RBnvS
100119 R.A. REED ELECTRIC f1533.90 ELECTRIC METER
-i 100150 THE REGISTER :1:986.90 NOTICES 6 ADS
lati5l REMEDY TEMP SZ0.61
100152 THE REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. $66.62 HARDWARE
D 100I53 RI COH [OR PORATION $69.37 COPIER LEASES
I00151 ROB[N30N FERTILIZEN CO. S1,140.91
1 9 .9
100155 ROCCO'S TRUCK WRECKING S127.20 TRUCK PARTS
100156 ROSEMONT ANALYTICAL $512.65 ELECTRIC PARTS
100157 ROSEMOUNT/UNILOC s 62.3
100150 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC f1.190.01 ELECTRIC PARTS
100159 RYAN-NERCO $562.35 MIGHT
100160 JOSEPH I. RYERSON A SON, INC. $794.22
100161 SAFETY-XLEEN CORP. 5199.20 PARTS CLEANER
100162 SANCON ENGINEERING . INC. $6.400.00 SANDBLASTING
10C16! SANTA ANA ELECTRIC MOTORS f128.90
108161 SCHAEFER DIXON ASSOCIATES $6.730.62 ENGINEERING SERVICES M.O.11-09-88
100165 SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INT•L f215.031.90 OCEAN MONITORING M.0.8-10-88
1010166 SEA COAST DESIGNS $328.60 OFFT
L10117 SEARS. ROEBUCK 1 CO. 5126.71 LAB SUPPLIES
10,169 SEARS-. ROEBUCK 6 CO. 512.91 LAB SUPPLIES
100169 SHAMROCK SUPPLY $1,030.58
10 E A COPY 39.386.59 PRINTING
IOOITI SKYPARK WALK-IN MEDICAL CLINIC 571.00 PHYSICAL EXAMS
°i�
FUND NO 9199 JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 5/31/89 PAGE 5
L REPORT NUMBER AP43
C OUX TY 4NITAltON ISTR LTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
CLAIMS PAID 06/0 1
/09 POSTING OATS 06/OT/89
WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
1001 72 SLIDE MAKERS WEST S455.80 PRESENTATION AIDS
/001T3 SOIL AND TESTING ENGINEERS $212.00SOIL TESTING
190174 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. $8,306.85 POWER
•� 100115 SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. S9.000.67 DIESEL FUEL
_ 1001T6 SPEC TECH WESTERN 1272221,
3001 TT SPECIAL PLASTIC SYSTEMS. INC. f241.50 VALv¢
100178 SPEEC0 f1.643.58 SCALE MAINTENANCE
IOD179 STAR IOOL f SUPPLY CO. 11.030.61
OOIBp STERLING ART f23N0 GRAPHIC ART SERVICES
100161 $USIA. INC. S795.00 PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES
100t02 SUPER MEM CO RP $1,212.00
"'In TxE SUP PL lEAS f3.6B6.80 HAADUAAE
100184 TIM ASSOCIATES S1.849.80 LAB SUPPLIES
IOC185 TAYLDA�DWHN S39.92 ELECTRIC CAST snPPT ne
100186 T L-A-TRAIN $114.60 FILM RENTALS - ELECTRICAL SAPRTY
I OO10T TNONAS TEMPORARIES 52.091.19 TEtffORARY SERVICES
1001BB TOVNE AOY ERTISE. S 5 NAILING SERVICES M.o 4-ZT-89
300189 TRAVEL TRAVEL 1336.90 TRAVEL SERVICES
300190 M.O. TR ER ICE CO. f401.93 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES
m 109121 T.S. TRIPP sI.d94.00 WT.GGW 11 PANING
Z 00192 TRUCK R AUTO SUPPLY. INC. $63.21 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
110193 J.G. TULK ER L SON. INC. $1.099.13 ANALYZES PARTS
Ill 100194 U.S. AUTO GLASS CENTER.INC. S337.09 TRUCK FARM
0 195 UNITE PARCEL SERVICE $12T.30 PARCEL SERVICES
—1 300296 URBAN ALTERNATIVES s15.920.00 CONSULTING SERVICES RES 89-44
100197 VYR SCIENTIFIC fl 4. SUPPLIER
• VALLEY T S SUPPLY CO. 36,455.59 FITTINGS/VALVES
"VI 101199 VAREC DIVISION f97.45 FREIGHT
100200 VARIAN INSTRUMENT GROUP $1 169 0 LAB
100201 VIKING INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY f1.147.67 SAFETY SUPPLIES
1D0202 VISTA PAINT CORP. $82.36 PAINT SUPPLIES
100203 LARpV WALNER ASSOq ATES. INC. S1,485.25
300204 WELLS FAK60 GUARD SERVICE S2.308.26 GUASD SERVICES
100205 VESTATES CARBON. INC. 1858.46 CHEMICALS
300206 WESTERN STATE CHEMICAL SUPPLY $13 02 9
TOO10T JOHN VILEY L SONS. INC. $25.70 PUBLICATIOw
100209 YILLOAN ASSOCIATES s292.l2 ENGINEERING SERVICES 2-26-1
100209 R0UPN1 f WOODRUFF sl 416.I0
100210 KEP OV CORP. 3].S]5.25 COPIER LEASES
100211 GEORGE YARDLEY ASSOCIATES 5151.45 HARDWARE
100212 RICHARD YOUNG PASO. s314.06 OFFirP 9RP1 TF9
. 2I7 TIE AR' H AND ALPER =242=460_ _90 CONSTRUCTION P2-37
----
TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 06/07/B9 S5.6B2.572.47
FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 05/31/69 PACE 6
L REPORT NUMBER U43
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
a
SUMMARY MOUNT
02 AID FORD S 4,300.06
/2 P/R FOND 622,717.27
PER FUND g9o.394.6i
86 2.31
IS OPER FUND 3.26)44
/b A-W FUND
07 OPER FUND 3.136.95
4.033.29
I 11 OPER N r�3
013 OPER FOUND 480.00
0566 OPER 320.76
/SA6 ACO PUXD 699,]81.10
/nT OPER POND
ETi . JT OPER POND 603,029.90
X
Z SELP FUND WRKERS C0V INSURANCE FUNp 62fi.)9
a. JT MOBBING CAPITAL FUND 126 669.Ib
18, W, 1;
n
a; APHWrD BY EM31C75 5 a 11 S9.fi51.fi85.9E{
,q
FUND NO 91" JT GIST WORNIN4 CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 6/14/09 FAGS I
_- REPCRT NUMBE9 AP43 ,
COUNTY SANITATION DISTP ICORANGECLAIMS "10 06/21/89 POSTING DATE COUNTY06/21/89 sl
WARRANTNO. ENDOR MT nrSCRTPTTQN
'• 163239 AIL CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1723.18 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5-34-1
• 0 41RON BRO Y £ART MART% f197.2fi ENGINEERING PRESENTATION AIDS
941 LI NCOLN DARFETI i INiCPI0P5 $284.00 CARPET CLEWING O1
�• 100942 A" ACCESSORIES CO. s1_,585.06 HECNANCAL SUPPLIES n)10114
LEASING 1 n eT ES/A A
• 44 1LLI 0 ELECTp ONICS f91.9tl INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES I1e
IOC245 AMERICAN CHAIN L GEAR CO. $459.45 CHAIN 6 GEARS �•�
�R 100246 AMERITECH f9
0024 H CM N PACKING CO. $11.115.63 tlA9DVAR¢/MECHANICAL SUPPLIES
100248 A-PLUS SYSTEMS $3.217.53 EMPLOYlBNS NOTICES 6 ADS Iw 1002149 ARA T ER SERVICES INC. i4 1 .9MAN RENTALS
F 0 ASSOCIATED SOILSENGINEERING 1240.0 SOIL TESTING
100251 AUDIO VIDEO REFOPTING SERVICE t8B.80 VIDEOS ��•;
209252 AUTO SHOP EQUIPMENT CO. f I • AUTOMOTIVE
ISO'53 1 DISPOSAL I RVI fBl,d46.6! GRIT REMOVAL M.O.7-13-68 IOW
111254 04NANA BLUE PRINT $1,198.81 BLUEPRINTING
100255 BANK OF AKERICA N795A ISA CARD9. MEETING ¢APENS¢9 ���
R+ 100P256 P.N. BAkOITI AND ASSOC. 39 F560.SO CONSTRUCTION SERVICES PI-25.26.P2-32,33.37 •+M
° T11 304257 B4 RX On OR Oi ED.DA ANGE CIY,iNC s1.314.53 Do
DR REPAIRS
+• I.029a I. BA7EMAN 575.0 6a
100259 BI TTERIES NEST, INC. f623.45 TRUCK PARTS
I,R f00260 BAM IEP SCIENTIFIC Pp OOUCTS i2,012.57 LAB SUPPLIES � M
ENTERPRISES,92261 BEACON BAY
TOP 262 ROBERT %EIN,WILLIJM FROST A AS i4,600.00 END INSERT NO SERVICES 5-33.34 ^'
100263 BLOCK A COMPANY, INC. $25.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES
+° 100264 9015E CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS
1--� 100265 BOLSA RADIATOR SERVICE $307.40 RADIATOR REPAIRS I.v
100266 BON-A-RUES $197.40 TRUCK PARTS
6
°+ 111211 BROWN A CALDWELL $5,559.00 LAB SERVICES ,
100269 BROWN L CALDWELL CONSULTING f61.3)).47 SHOINEeRINC 9ERVICE3 3-23-1
I,�
?• 1OC210 RURME EN6 NEE!
ING CO.
N° 602 SH AN ASIOC ES, sl°192.01 SURVEYING SERVICES
100272 6ART G. ITREED $1,653.97 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT
1002T3 CI COMPANY .4TVALVES
.+•� . . f2,232. INSTRUMENT PARTS �q
IOC271 CALIF. 1550C. OF SAN1TAil0N f440.30 TRAINING
100276 CAPITOL 6ESTWAPO f961.tl6 MECANICAL SUPPLIES Cl
T77�[ETO�I�ENGI NEERS 2,1 6.5 ENGINEERING SERVICES J-19,P1-3/-2
« 100216 MOT/CASTLC $5,514.19 LAB EQUIPMENT wi 100279 CENTEL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM Sfi 3I4.J4 PHONE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS
' ftll).00 PENCING
I00281 CHENWCST INDUSTRIES, INC. S59,I17-.25 FERRIC CHLORIDS 11-09-89
' 100212 1.u. CHEST,
RT ON - L.A. $5,91C.08 PUMP PARTS
CHEVRON U.S.A.. NC. $524.25 PAINT SUPPLIES
101284 CHA/STEVE CORP. $1,272.66 EMERGENCY 9EMSR REPAIRS iw
1=e
FUND NO 9159 - JT DIST VORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 6/I9/89 PAGE 2 _
REPORT NUMBER AF43
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY •
CLAIMS ID 06 21 99 POSTING DA E 06 21 89 f�
WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION .�
100265 CORINNE CLAWSON 192.98 MILEAGE REIMBURSENEHT
�• 100286 COAST INSURANCE AGENCY S2r32T.O0 INSURANCE
C-TT�CO. . INC. 2r 76.55 M¢CMANICAL PARTS A
U 1OC2B8 COMPRESSOR COMFONENTS OF CALIF SI.828.50 NECH.INIC PUTS
•1 100289 COMPUSERVE 560.9E COMPUTER SERVICES
90 B PACKING $1,192.50 RUBBER PRODUCTS
lu 10029I CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST. $2.094.45 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES .I
10I292 CONSOLIDATED FNEIGHTWAYS $91.34 FREIGHT CHARGES In�
105213 CONSULIOST R PROGRAPMICS S5 N85.70 BLUEPRINTING 1.1
10029♦ COSTA MESA AUTO SUPPLY $223.76 AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR :1i1
100295 COUNCIL ON EDUCATION $195.00 SEMINAR vl
100 96 COUNTY WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $1,215.59 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES a
1, Lou% CAL VAEM 5209.50 RENTAL EQUIPMENT IR
I CC296 LA RR
CTUNIT TRUCK B EGUIFMEHT $24.320.00 STOOGE REMOVAL M.O. 4-13-88 �In
IUDZI, UA.ALL3 TIRE SERVICE $1.497.9; TIRES �+
100306 DELTA FOAM PRODUCTS 1246.00 LAB SUPPLIES
100301 DE2UNIN AND/OP CS CO. 19 255.07 VALVE PUTS
02 DIITEC POLYMERS 13.JO0.49 ANIONIC POLYMERS M.O.8-10-88
101303 DICMSONS 5991.28 HARUWUE Ib
•• X IFILIPPO ASSOCIATES SBBT.TS PRINTING
1
0
03
09 D
�b 0 -NO AO EN TERPPI SOS. INC. S9.S19.G6 PLANT MNITIT[NANCE 6 MAIM100306 pUNN EO YAPOS CORP. i9.651.19 PAINT SUPPLIES
100l07 DUR-RED PRODUCTS $114.87 BUILDING SUPPLIES
+• _.1 100308 ENS RESOURCES. INC. SI.263.99 CONSULTING SERVICES - REG. 6 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS •y°
100309 EASTMAN, INC. $624.79 OFFICE SUPPLIES I+y
If. UO 101,310 EBERHARD EOUIPMENT 16T.C5 AUTOMOTIVE REPAIRS J
N LOV311 ECDANALYSIS. INC. $1,251.25 CONSULTING SERVICES - MEAN MONITORING
109312 EFFECTIVE VISUAL IMAGERY 1273.48 PRESENTATION AIDS I�R
OCS 3 ARD L. ELLIOT JR. O ENGIN68RIGNS SERVICE I.
E0319 AM"
180.00 PUBLICATION I•a
100315 FACTOPI PEFRESENTATIVE. INC. 168E.95 INSTRUMENT PARTS
100316 MARSPALL FAIRRES S390.00 DEFERRED COHP DISTIRBUTION
1003 JAM ES FALCONER 11.I00.00 CONSULTING SERVICES - SCAQIN PERMITS I'
100318 JOHN B. FALKENSTEIN P.C. 53.185.00 CONSTRUCTION SERVE= J-7-4.J-20
0 AL ES F AIR FREIGHT
1 ]2O f AE GLASS STRUCTURAL INGR. f2.B91.7A ENGINEERING SERVICES
100321 FILTER SUPPLY CO. S1.7E3.57 FILTER
100322 FISCHER 1 IDPTER CO. 17.673.38 CHLORINATION PARTS
100323 FLAT' R VERTICAL CONCRETE $323.90 CONCRETE CUTTING iA
100324 FLU-SYSTEMS 11076.87 PUMP PUTS
�1 I00325 FOG DMAN ER. INC. f129.JL PERMIT REFUND 'oa
.1 0326 -MDO VA Y N RA SL30.75 FILM .O
1 100327 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY 1296.75 PERMITS
u� IOC328 FOUNTAIN VOLLEY FAINT S2 l97.31 PAINT SUPPLIES
- -9L CS 3 .B25.00 SAFETY CONSULTING
I0033D FOXBORO CO. / MAO SYSTEMS $2.278.51 INSTRUMENT
kn
-o
I.:i
FUND NO 9159 - JT GIST GUNNING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 6/14/85 PAGE ]
L REPORT NUMBER AP43
COUNTY SANITATION OISTR B[TS OF ORANGE COUNTY
CLAIMS PAID 06/21/B9 POSTING DATE 061211.1
VAGRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
100l31 FRO5T ENGINEERING SERVICES CO. 1131.78 VALVES
109332 CITY Of EDELFRT ON f{32.71 RATER
33 .M.A.C. AND/OR fIJr620.93 VEHICLE PARTS
10033/ GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. f5.854.88 TELEPHONE
IBM!
ON GR[ X ASSOCIATES 1 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 88-72
10 nAOCC INS TRLMENTS S1B3.61 GAUGE
ED9337 HANCY L ASS CC. f1r176.6C MECHANCIAL REPAIRS
100336 H4 RBOU EN6/NECRING f .00 MECHANICL REPAIRS
CNARLES X 0 • . flll.l0 BUILDING MATBelALS
N10439D fAEG AA NARMEA fL930.00 DePEPRNO COMP DxSTRIBUTION
O... HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS $870./7 UMP
r-� l
]A2 nATCN C IRM. INC. f518.33 ENGINE PARTS
343 HEWLETT-PACKAPD $466.60 INSTRUHBNI' PARTS
N MIG6 VOLTAGE ELECTRIC f 0 GENE TORS
t. f998.52 TOOL
516 HOER';GE C.Y.S. CALIF. . INC. $741.39 COMPSESSOR PARTS
347 HOLIRACHEN NEST. INC. f 5A9.79 CAUSTIC SODA
S4 NIL . NONOMICML 9300.40 DETERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION
3A9 HOUSE OF BATTERIES s1.095.05 BATTERIES
3SJ P.S. HUGHFS CO.. INC. f5 17.29 PAINT SUPPLIES
CITT OFHU N TINOTON REACH f13.60 RATCR USEAGE
HUNT INGTON EE ALH AU6BER STAMF f118.19 RUBBERSTAIRS35! HUNTINGi0N VPL CM NN Y BIN! PARTS
15A N US P AL THREADED PROCUC TS f1r681.37 FITTINGS
355 IMF ILC0DEGREMONT. INC. 1224.6A FREIGHT
356 INGRAM PAPER - 3 29.60 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
100357 RENTAL EQUIPMENT
v W 100358 IN PLACE MACHINING CO. $5.093.00 MACHINE sun
100359 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACH NE S58.04 PRINTEIR SUPPLIES
"I'll IRVINE RANCH WATER OISTRIC7 f20.53 WATER USEAGE
100361 JENSEN INSTRUMENTS CO. $583.75 METERS
100362 JENSEN TOOLS B ALLOYS i 10.2A TOOL
100363 J X STONE SUPPLY f6B.B0 EI.ECiRIC PARTS
100364 XAMAN BEAR]N65 B SUPPLY $667.79 PITITNGS
300l65 MANER COMPANY f S].fie TOOL
100166 NAY- IY• INC. f1.511.R9 INSTRUMENTS
IOC367 NEENAN SUPPLY $94.02 REPAIR KIT
100368 KFI STORC VALVE $1.935.3R VALVE
100369 KIN STOCK INC. f6 .750.00 VOC CREDITS M.O.5-10-89
100370 NING BEARING. INC. f8A3.7 MACKINB SUPPLIES
10CS71 DONALD E. XINNEY 3 15.00 DEFERRED DISTRIBUTION
100372 YTRST PUMP L MACHINE WORKS f2r7A2.02 PUMP PARTS
17 100!7! EASTMAN XCDAM CO. SS7.19 LAB SUPPLIES
100374 MARTIN KORDICKI IF S852,03 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 5-29 5-31
156375 L.S.N.S.r ING. .101.49 WIGGING SUPPLIES
1003T6 LASER SUPPLIES 9 SERVICE f243.56 PRINT SUPPLIES
FUND NO 9294 JT 0191 WCFNINL CAFITAL PROCESSING DATE 6/14/89 PAGE 4
REPORT NUMBER AP43
U6 RICPOTSSTOIFNG COUNTYOUM1 N 201/ST9CLAMSR
1PAID DATE C6/21/89
WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT OES[PIPTION
100377 LE ROY CRANDALL 6 ASSOC. $682.71 CONSULTING SERVICES
100376 LIEEERT. CA SSI OT a FRIERSOn f 0 NAa CI TPATIO
100319 MITOROUC CORP. f4.719.61 VALVE REPAIRS
100706 K.P. lINOSTROM. INC. $13,497.27 CONSULTING SERVICES - MASTER PLAN
IOP701 AS DATA SERVICE CORP. 594.80 LAB SUPPLIES
10 0 2 NAC CO Sli9.HP SERVICE AGREEMENT
100 JPS NAGN US NOBILITY SYSTEMS s3Db..4 TOOL
100�P.4 04 NTENAN PROD C C iMECHANICAL SUPPLIES
]003E9 NALC LM P pNI . INC. fb BB l.90 ENGINEERING SERVICES
100386 MANVAC ELECTRONICS $142.73 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES
1003067 MATT - CHLOR INC. i 93 .49
10 1, MCN NNA LNG L EOUIF. $
5.4 4.I2 PUMP PARTS
IOC 309 MCRCNAM,
AN iS L MANUFACTURFPS 3600.03 MEMBERSHIP DUES
100390 MICPDAGE COMPUTER f99 .9
100391 M LAN MFG. CORP. $436.12 CHLORINATION PARTS
100392 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO. $629.43 SAFETY SUPPLIES
100393 MOORE 8 TABER f1 106.SO ENGINEERING SERVICES
a HUTTON INDUSTRIES, INC. BEARINGS
IOC399 MOTOROLA. INC. $23.004.98 PAGERS
100396 N.T.IOLA CILLULAP ERVICES 579.34 CELLULAR SERVICES
1 OP 397 NEAL SUPPLY CO. i1.117.83 FITTINGS
100398 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH $4.93 W1T0R USEAGE
OBK99 NORTHWEST MOTOR WELDING, I SS.SSO.fio ENGINE PART
100401 OCCUPATIONAL VISION SERVICES $406.34 SAFETY CUSSES
13C401 NAT. INST. Of STANDARDS f196.04 LAB SUPPLIES
OP402 0 YMPIC ChEPICAL CO. CHLORINE H.0.10-12-80
• i 1004D3 ORANGE COAST ELECTRIC SUPPLY $170.66 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
100404 ORANGE COUNTY CHEMICAL CO. $912.20 CHEMICALS
4 SPECIALTY GASES
100406 COUNTY SANITATION DISiPIC1 f93.92 EMPLOYEE HEALTH PLAN CONTRIBUTION
100407 COUNTY SANITATION OISTRI CT 39 N9].49 REIMBURSE WUERS COMP INSURANCE
10044P FSS 3LAB0.DD SEVER VIDEOS
e0 A PUMPS34.309.R0 PUMP PARTS
1.0.10 PACIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. $298.81 SAFER SUPPLIES
100411 PACIF C BF LL 3 TELEPHONE
L IA f..... CELLULAR SERVICES
100413 FOUL FAFANEK 5300.90 PEER REVIEW - TOXICS EPIDOMOWGV PROGRAM
IOOA14 ASH ANALYSIS AND/DR 39 1.0' PUMP ANALYSIS
g RENEE 9 38N PUP.LICA71ON-r. INC 4 2.91 PUBLICATION
111416 PARTS ENGINEERING COMPANY $2.609.60 COMPRESSOR PARTS
....17 PARTS UNLIMITED $535.44 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS
0 4 A H $26.99 PUBLICATION
17 I00419 PEAT. MARWICK. PAIN L CO. f4.00D.G0 AUDITING SERVICES
100420 ROY FENOCRGRAFT $440.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTINCTION
0 NI P MAL ANY l609.OD CORE DRILLING
IOU422 PHOTO f BOVNO CO. 11,920.29 COMPUTER SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT
FUND NO 91C9 - JT ❑IST MCRVIU6 CAPITAL FROCESSING DATE 6/14/89 PAGE 5
L REPORT NUMBEP AP45
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
CLAIMS P 0 06/21 09 POSTING DATE 06 21 9
VARRANT NO. VENDOR_ AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
106421 PICRUICN PAPER 11.J13.31 OFFICE SUPPLIES
196424 PIMA BAD SYSTEMS. INC.' f11.165.45 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.O.5-11-88
POLVPURC. INC. $22,685.79 CATIONIC POLYMEa M.0.3-8-69
100426 THE PROJECTS SOLUTION CO. 13.950.40 INSTRUMENTATION INSPECTION H.0.8-10-88
190427 PULSAFEEDER $1.153.36 PUMP PARTS
09128 PUMP ENGINEEPING CO. 111.1. PUIB PARTS
100429 PAINDOW DISPOSAL CO. 1744.56 TRASH REMOVAL
I OC 430 eECYC. INC. 36 d90. 1 SLUDGE REMOVAL H.0.5-11-88
LY f1355.88 VALVE PARTS
100432 R.A. REED ELECTRIC• $2,347.00 ELECTRIC REPAIRS
10U133 REMEDV TEMP f579.O9 TEMPORARY SERVICES
0i 43 R M TE ME ER RESETTING 5Y5TEM 53.000.4E POSTAGE
100135 THE REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. 5277.22 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES
30 1i6 RENOLO POWER TRAM M1 IGN i 0 0.CC MECHANICAL REPAIRS
101131 RICMARDS, WATSON 5 GERSHON i1T.402.62 LEGAL SERVICES 4-8-97
106438 RICOH CORPORATION $69.37 COPIER LEASES
.11 1DO4 9 RICHARD ROLFE i 222121 METING MERGE
100440 ROSEMONT ANALYTICAL il•915.35 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES
IOC 1.M IOSEMOUNT/UNILOC 5299.78 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES
ITTIOO112 JOSEPH T. RYERSON A SON. [P.C. $229.47 STEEL
Z I00113 SAFETY-ULEEN CORP. 1265.60 PARTS GLEANER
1 OC111 SANCON ENGINEERING . INC. $960.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES
00445 AR ENT-VEL SCIENTIFIC LAB SUPPLIES
IOOe16 SCIENCE APPLICLTICNS TAT•L 3111.683.9E OCEAN SAMPLING M.0.6-10-88
—1 100111 SEA COAST DESIGNS 1319.12 OFFICE FURNITURE
100118 SEA-ILAN 11 615.00 LAB MUIPMENT
. U 100119 CI T OF SEAL BEACH $105.50 WATER USEAGE
LF1 100150 SEVER EQUIP. CO. OF AME61CA $1.192.96 TOOLS
045I SHAMROCK SUP— S114.2a JANITORIAL SUPPLIES
100452 SOIL AND TESTING ENGINEERS f616.00 SOIL TESTING
100453 SO. COAST AIR QUALITY $250.00 VIOLATION PEE
4151 n 4E SDULAG MEETING EXPENSE
100055 SOUTH COAST DODGE 319.77 AUTOMOBILE PARTS
100456 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. 1376.318.19 POWER
1001 ] SO. CAL. GAS CO. $15,382.43 NATURAL GAS
10945R SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO. $10,349.27 DIESEL FUEL
100459 SPEC TECH UESIEPN $1.203.13 MELDING SUPPLIES
SPECIAL PLASTIC Y.T C WRING
1O&A61 STARBUCN TRUCK REFINISHING 13,175.00 SAND BLASTING
110162 STAR TOOL 9 SUPPLY CO. 32.718.52 TOOLS
109463 SUBI1 INC. f VISUAL SUPPORT SERVICES
IO 01E1 SUMMIT STEEL $74.69 STEEL
300165 SUPELCO. INC. $254.55 LAB SUPPLIES
IcC466 SUPERIOR SWEEPING 'OUTN S225.DO STREET SWEEPING
100467 THE SUPPLIEPS f1.654.69 HARDWARE
10096E SURVEYORS SEPVICE CO. 1106.85 TOOLS
FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST MORNING CAPITAL FROCESSING DATE 6/I1/8S PAGE 6
L REPORT NUMBER AP43
OUNTY SANITATION DIS RI T OF ORANGE COUNTY
CL lIM3 PAID C6R21/89 POSTING DATE 06/21/89
WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION
100469 TAN IAKAMIML S4,570.CO CONTRACT GROUNDSREEPING
10C470 TAYLOR-DUNN S633.2gCAAT PARTS
100471 TECHNICAL PYOOUCTS t CTRLS 3954.20 INSTRIMEHL PARTS
3 100472 TEXAAR COMPANY 9467.43 LAB SUPPLIES
100473 THERMO ANALYTICAL. INC.ANOPCAL 312.D0 LAB SERVICES
1. f} 6.10 iFWORARY SERVICES
100475 THOMASON MECHANICAL CORP. 91.736.25 MECHANICAL PARTS
130476 TORRANCE LOSS CON TPOL.CORP. 9695.0P SAFETY SUPPLIES
100477 V ADV T S 5 $87.21 MAILING SERVICES
1OC478 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE. INC. $165.89 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES
00971 TRAVEL TRAVEL f9B .00 TRAM SERVICES
0 C.
Ill, 9490.00 WINDOW CLEANING
IOCAOI TRUCK t AUTO SUPPLY, INC. $810.97 TRUCE PARTS
1504P2 J.G. TUCKER t CON, INC. f675.68 INSTRUMENT PARTS
ICO483 THE REGENTS OF THE $50.06 PUBLICATION
Al 100484 U.S. AUTO GLASS CENIER.INC. 9138.43 TRUCK PARTS
100AR5 UNOCAL1263,02 UNLEADED GASOLINE
0 AP6 THE UNISOURCE CORP. $8.170.51 PAPER
..Fn 200467 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE f119.20 PARCEL SERVICES
IUCAPB UNITED WESTN ELEVATOR f319 i5 MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
_ ]PJAR9 VYR SCIENTIFIERC L482.27 , LAB SUPPLIES
300490 VALLEY CITIES SUFPLY CO. f6.268.15 VALVE PARTS
7 M IGP492 VARIAq INSTRUMENT GROUP $1,464.23 LAB SUPPLIES
1 CA.2 VEHICLE SFRING SERVICE $211.30 TRUCK PARTS
IOC-93 VERTEX SYSTEPS f1.303.J6 COMPUTER PROGRAM MAINTEMAICE
I00 A9A YI KING INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY f8A .A PAINT SUPPLIES
1 100AN RI NA D W. VO L.. EN $343.64 M¢ECIBG MANSE
En 160496 JOHN R. MAPLES $53 T.80 ODOR CONTROL CONSULTANT
100A97 ME L 3 FAR 60 6 AR SERVICE $ 339.10 CUARU SERVICES
IORA98 VC STERN STATE CHEMICAL 5UFELY f53.J27.62 CAUSTIC SODA M.O.11-10-86
100499 WEST-LITE SUPPLY CO. f588.25 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES
1 Of 900 YESTRUY HT FPNAT IOkAL 5129.59 AMMOTIVE PARTS
Ar IR. ENGINEERING SERVICES 2-26-2.2-26-3.2-27.2-28
100562 ROURKE t WOODRUFF S43.I39.52 LEGAL SINHICES M.O.10-16-87
100513 REROX CORP. S1.J60.G0 COPIER LEASES/SUPPLIES
L . ISi.fC LAB SERVICES
100505 RICMARD YOUNG FFOD. 11,299.-1 OFFICE SUPPLIES
.. ----------•.-----
TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 111211.1 $2.169,197.60
1 l
FUND NO 9199 - JT pIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSINGDATE 06/14/89 PACE )
REPORT
NUR NUMBEH pP43
L COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY
CLAIMS PAID 06121199 POSTING GATED 21 H
I,I SUMMARY AMOOIR
#I OPEN FUND
/2 OPEN NO ],762.37
/2 AGO FOND Bd.00
13 OPER FORD 25.209.11
/3 AM FORD 22B.DO
5 OP7—R FR FIIN II�t I�T}7�.0�1
/5 P/R FOND ] 338.37
OPEe FOND 9.2d
/6 ACD NXO B52.00
5 06 F/R FUND 129.00
I' 6,IB1.B2
j�Jj_O�PER.FUND�
14 op.
PI E8 NNO
014 AGO FUND 888.00
OPER
/566 ACO FURL 6 950.65
7614 OPER UNO
Y 1]T R N
"= CORP :42.OB1.2B
SELF FORDED WORKERS COMP INSURANCE NO 11.161.O1
1ST Im 75,03143
b.
�y V PFFEUM) B1 EMMIM 5 & 11 $2LF 771.03
LI
r�l
I,
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. , July 19, 1989, at Fountain Valley Community Center,
10200 Slater Avenue, Hall B, Fountain Valley.
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. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
DISTRICTS 5 6 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried:
reatinq a apital Facilities Fund
and terminatin the Accumulated That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt
capital Outl2 Fund and the the following resolutions, creating a
Facilities evolving Fund Capital Facilities Fund and terminating
the Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund and
the Facilities Revolving Fund in each District:
DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.
5 89-84-5
it 89-87-11
Certified copies of these resolutions are attached hereto and made a part of
these minutes.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and unanimously
Approving 1989-9u fiscal year carried by roll call vote:
budget
That the District's 1989-90 fiscal
year budget be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved in the
following amounts:
District 5
Operating Fund $ 6,766,000
Capital Facilities Fund 8,249,000
Bond 8 Interest Fund - 1951 52,000
TOTAL $ 15,067,000
`d
07/19/89
DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and unanimously
Approving 1989-90 fiscal year carried by roll call vote:
budget
That the District's 1989-90 fiscal
year budget be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved in the
following amounts:
District 11
Operating Fund $ 7,302,000
Capital Facilities Fund 10,652,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1951 14,000
Bond & Interest Fund - 1958 29,000
TOTAL $ 17,997,000
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
19th day of July, 1989.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of July, 1989.
Secretary of the Boards of D rectors
of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14
-2-
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
EI ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
10E44 ELLI9 AVENUE
PO 90k 9121
1" FOUNTAIN VLLLEv,CAUFOPNIA 921269122
IIIMW2-2A11
RE: MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 19 , 1989
The Certified Stenographic Reporter has not yet completed the
transcript of the proceedings at the July 19th Adjourned Board
Meeting. Upon receipt of the certified transcipt, the minutes
will be finalized and submitted to the Directors for approval
at the regular Joint Board Meeting on September 13th.
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 Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 held
on CZ.A... %at , 19—n was duly posted for public inspection
at the main lobby of the Districts' offices on 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 'AL
day of 19,4M .
��
Rita J. Brown, Secretary of
each of the Boards of Directors
of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 &
14 of Orange County, California