Loading...
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