Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-06-19 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ,he.: June 12, 2002 1714)962-2411 its: (71419B2J]886 wene.e.sell m.11inp do.: P.O. Sax 8127 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING Fo In Valley.CA 92728.8127 street.ddm.s: 10844 Ellie Avenue Fountain Valley.CA 927l Waal BOARD OF DIRECTORS gpena1ev ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT • cities Anent. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2002 - 6:00 P.M. Ell Buena Perk 4Preas Fpvntaln ✓allay Fall.rtan DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES Garden Grove Huntington B..nh 10844 Ellis Avenue I.. Fountain Valley, California 92708 Le Habra Le Palma naLos o l,Beal The Special Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation Grange District will be held at the above location, time and date. Plec.mi. Santa Ana Seal Beach 6 Tmmn Tustin 1411e Park lbrba Lintle I Secrl ry County of Drilling. sl Districts Caere Mesa Midway Gty Water Districts Irvine Rench Ta maintain warldclavc leadership in wastewater and water resource management. ADDENDUM NO. 5 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX AT PLANT NO. 1 JOB NO.J-90 JUNE 2002 IN THE OFFICEFILED ORANOE OFFICE F THE SECRETARY 4TION DISTRICT JUN 26 2002 eY - lel. _ . (N'tip Pbn R M.l IJR AJ M-1. 3 K P.LiMsrtom Im TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan 3 Project Description- Engineering Trailer Complex Overview 3 Alternatives Considered 6 Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Project Modifications 6 CEQA Compliance 10 References Figure t Project Location Map Figure 2 Project Site Layout Map Attachment A- Project Site Photographs MD S..,ic Ph.Pmm.EIR AJGe .No.5 K.P.LnMahonL IM 1 ,.WV `, INTRODUCTION This document has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Section 15164 as an Addendum to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report(PEIR)for the Orange County Sanitation District(District) 1999 Strategic Plan certified in October 1999. The purpose of the Addendum is to address changes in the location of Construction Management and Engineering Design personnel and the addition of a newly formed Program Management Office (PMO)Division that will support the implementation of the Strategic Plan facilities approved in 1999. The PEER assessed potential impacts of the Strategic Plan through the year 2020,including treatment system upgrades and new facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1. The PEIR also included the demolition and replacement of old facilities,and construction of new facilities that include changes in the location to accommodate efficient operations.The PEIR did not identify specifically in the description of activities of the program,the location of support facilities to house personnel involved in design and construction of the facilities. Such facilities are addressed in the Reclamation Plant No. 1 Specific Plan approved initially in 1993 and updated periodically with the concurrence and project specific concurrence for specific conditions by the City of Fountain Valley. The 1999 Strategic Plan outlined on-site treatment facility layouts through the year 2020 which have subsequently been examined in more detail as design of certain facilities has been initiated. Most recently,the construction of the trickling filters and new primary clarifiers will necessitate demolition of the existing construction management trailers to allow installation of underground utilities for the new facilities. Additionally,remodeling of the Administration Building will require relocating other Engineering Department personnel,now housed in the Administration Building and trailers behind the Human Resources Building. Both the trailer facilities personnel (Construction Management trailers and Design Engineering trailers)are being moved to a new site formerly used as a storage facility near the comer of Garfield Avenue and Ward Street.(Figures 1 and 2).This site is owned by the District. The proposed trailer complex will be temporary in nature(4-5 years)and share the site with trailers that will house the previously approved support facilities for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Project. This Addendum describes the modifications to the land use for the site and assesses whether the trailer complex would pose additional environmental impacts or require mitigation measures that were not already addressed in the PEIR for the Reclamation Plant No. 1 site. D SD S.,,&Phn Ro .EIR Addendum N.5 K.P.LIWN 1. 2 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN The 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR identifies the District's Capital Improvement Programs(CIP) proposed to meet future demand for wastewater collection,treatment and disposal facilities through 2020. Projects are proposed to replace and rehabilitate sewer collection systems,expand and upgrade the District's two wastewater treatment plants,provide adequate discharge capacity for projected peak flows,provide additional treated wastewater to the Orange County Water District(OCWD)for expanded water reuse,and study the feasibility of other improvements. The objectives of the 1999 Strategic Plan are: 1) To plan for the wastewater collection,treatment,and disposal facilities to serve the needs of the District's service area through 2020; 2) To insure compliance with existing and anticipated ocean discharged permit conditions, including the requirements of the 301(h)modified(secondary treatment waiver)National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit for the discharge; 3) To recommend projects that meet the communities needs,protect public health,are technically feasible,and are cost effective and environmentally responsible; and 4) To maximize the use of treated effluent for water recycling. PROJECT DESCRIPTION-ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX OVERVIEW The 1999 Strategic Plan outlined the need to undertake a large number of treatment plant improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1. These included treatment facilities for primary and secondary treatment,solids treatment,utilities' improvement,and the needed support facilities to provide for treatment plant operations and administration. To implement this approved program of treatment plant improvements,the Engineering Department will form a Project Management Office(PMO)Division and retain a Program Management Consultant(PMC)within eight months to help manage the implementation of the Cff.Currently, there is no available office space for the PMC staff. In addition,the District's Construction Management staff will need a new office facility due to the construction of Trickling Filter Rehabilitation and New Clarifiers(Job No.Pl- 76)which places utilities through the existing Construction Management trailer complex. To support these facilities,a replacement/construction support trailer complex is being built.The complex will also temporarily house other engineering staff while the Administration Building is being remodeled(under a separate project). OCSD Smugie Plan Program EIR Addendum No,5 K.P.Lindo"n%Ina 3 The Engineering Trailer Complex project will provide the following: • Twelve new double-wide modular trailers, including approximately 46 offices, 24 cubicles, two printer/Xerox areas, three conference rooms, somige/filing areas, restrooms, a deck, and two handicap access ramps. • All required trenching, piping (for water and sewer), wiring, and associated utility work to provide a complete office facility including furniture. • Designated parking for 87 parking stalls 4 handicap accessible parking stalls,4 electric vehicle parking stalls and a bicycle rack for 20 bicycles. The trailer complex will be constructed on a vacant lot near the comer of Garfield Avenue and Ward Street on the District property. This project will accommodate the Construction Management staff,Design Engineering staff,and PMC staff that include Engineers,Project Managers,Inspectors,and the support staff. By locating all the staff in one area,efficiency and collaboration will be improved. The trailer complex consists of 24 total(12-doublewide)trailers divided into 2 units of 12 trailers each. A deck will separate the units. Each unit will consist of 2- 14'x 60'trailers and 10- 12'x 60'trailers. The entire trailer complex including the deck will measure 134'X 148'(0.45 acres). Each unit measures 60'x 148'and an adjoining deck that measures 14'x 148'will separate the two units. Handicap access ramps,American Disability Act(ADA)bathrooms,exits,fire alarms,fire sprinklers will be provided per the City of Fountain Valley's requirement. Water for fire and domestic water service will be supplied from the existing 8-inch City water main running north through the site from Garfield Avenue.Water services will conform to the City of Fountain Valley standards for new connections of potable water.The trailers will tie into a newly constructed 6-inch lateral that will be extended to a new 30-inch diameter manhole to be constructed in Ward Street,which will tie into the City of Fountain Valley sanitary collection system.All on-site sewer will be reconstructed in accordance with the City of Fountain Valley standards.Electrical and data/communication connection will be made at the District's 12KV Power Building. The total site,including the trailer complex and proposed access and parking,totals 89,550 sq.ft (2.05 acres). Area for the trailer and parking(85 parking stalls,4 electric recharge stalls,and 4 handicap stalls) totals 70,000 sq.It(1.60 acres). OCSD Smmcgic Pbn Pm ER Mdeodmn Nm 5 IC P.liMOam.Irc 4 The site will be accessed via motor vehicles off of Garfield Avenue using an entrance planned for the GWRS trailer complex. Two entrances from Garfield Avenue are available for accessing the site. One is a shared entrance with the OCWD for their temporary trailer complex located at the southeast comer of the site. The other site entrance is an existing slide gate located along Garfield Avenue at the midpoint of the southern property line. Both access gates will be open during the working hours of the site. The trailers being acquired are typically set at an elevation 3 feet above finished surface.The height of the trailer structure is approximately 13.5 feet. Air conditioning units will be roof mounted. The overall height of the complex from the finished surface may be up to 20.5 feet. The PEIR(Section 3)identified and analyzed all of the potential impacts associated with the construction of new treatment plant facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1. The PEIR discussed the construction activities associated with new facilities including noise and visual impacts and identified mitigation measures to minimize the short-term impacts associated with construction and longer-temt operational impacts. The FOR details the need to schedule and plan construction activities in a manner that would create the least amount of traffic disturbance around the Plant No. 1 site because of existing commute hour congestion problems. The construction of the trailer project will not increase the number of employee-related trips and will involve minimal construction and trailing into the site of the modular trailers with minimal(a few days)to complete the delivery. The site modifications associated with the project as described below do not alter the conclusions of the PEIR. Project Site Modifications The two existing temporary Engineering trailers(Construction Management trailers and Design Engineering hailers)at Plant No. I will be replaced with new ones and a relocated complex will be constructed to house the Engineering Department staff needed to support implementation of the approved Strategic Plan facilities consistent with the 1999 Final Program Environmental Impact Report. The previous use of this District-owned land was for public storage facilities under a long-term lease terminated in August 2001. The land is now unused,but will be the site of the another temporary trailer complex adjoining the proposed project which will house construction management personnel for the GWRS Project being undertakenjointly between the District and OCWD. This trailer complex is anticipated to be constructed starting in August 2002 and will house 70 people and cover a land area of 2.05 acres. OCSD Slnmgk Ph.ftM.EIR Addendum No.5 P.LiM@ Lc 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not proceeding with this project. This alternative is not recommended because it will have several impacts: • Construction Management staff will not have offices beginning in Mareh 2003. • The new PMO Division staff will not have any work space beginning in March 2003. • The newly restructured Engineering and Construction Division staff will remain separated, decreasing the level of efficiency and collaboration needed between the construction and design staff. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVHtONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Potential impacts to environmental resources are evaluated further in this section. None of the proposed modifications would have a potentially significant environmental impact. 1. Aesthetes The project modifications would not have a substantial negative effect on the visual resources of the project area.The project could result in short term visual impacts due to construction activity. The PEIR addressed mitigation of possible short-term impacts to visual resources.Mitigation measure 7.9-la and 7.9-lb in the PEIR require that contractors restore the alignment areas to pre- project conditions or better to avoid long term visual impacts.Contractors will be required to keep the construction area clean,orderly and free of trash and debris.The modifications to the construction methods would not alter the conclusions of the 1999 EIR or require additional mitigation measures. H. Agricultural Resources The project construction activities will be confined to the already disturbed area that previously was used for storage facilities.No significant agricultural land exists at the project site.The PEIR identified no potential impacts to agricultural resources.The project modifications will contribute no additional impacts to agricultural resources. Ill. Air Quality Overall and short-term impacts to air quality due to construction activity at Plant No. 1 were analyzed in the PEIR. Because the anticipated impacts to air quality due to construction activities OCSn S000gw Mon Pmpem MR Aaa'nduO No.S K.P.�Irc 6 were already addressed and appropriate mitigation measures adopted in the PEIR,the assembly of the trailer complex and construction of decking and parking will not have any additional impacts to air quality.The project will be subject to the dust control mitigation as provided in the PEIR. IV. Biological Resources The PEIR analyzed the biological setting for the Reclamation Plant No. 1 site and determined, given the urban setting that no impacts to biological resources were expected.The entire trailer complex site is located within the treatment plant boundaries. No sensitive plant or animal species are known to occur in the project vicinity nor were they observed at the time of the site visit. The paved nature of the area precluded use by wildlife. The absence of biological resources in the project vicinity and the incorporation of mitigation measures already adopted by the PER for protecting biological resources at the treatment plant site will prevent impacts from occurring. V. Cultural Resources The PEIR analyzed the potential impacts to cultural resources by the implementation of the facility improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1. No prehistoric or historic sites have been recorded at the treatment plant site.Therefore no impacts to known cultural sites in the project vicinity are expected. Furthermore,the change in temporary site use activity would not significantly change the amount of underground disturbance at the project site only minor excavation will be required for trenching of utility lines. VI.Geology and Soils The entire project site has been significantly modified in the past by human activity. The PER addressed the potential for impacts to geology and soil.The change in temporary site use would not alter the analysis of the PEIR. VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The PEIR assesses the use of hazardous materials during construction. None are proposed for use in the project,thus implementation of the construction of the trailer complex and parking would not pose additional impacts. OCSD Seexre Mn Pognm FAR A n&wn No.5 KP.L'odmom Irc 7 VIH.Hydrology and Water Quality The PEER analyzes the potential for the project to impact surface water as well as groundwater. The PEIR establish mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality related to construction activities.The adopted mitigation measures(Measure 7.7-1a through IQ establish guidelines to be implemented by the contractors to minimize impacts to hydrology and water quality.The conditions include the implementation of Best Management Practices(BMPs)to prevent erosion and sedimentation to avoid significant adverse impacts to surface water quality, preparation of a Spill Prevention,Control,and Countermeasure Plan,and the storing and staging of all equipment in designated staging areas. Implementation of the current mitigation measures already approved for the treatment plant site projects and permit conditions will minimize or avoid impacts to water quality.The mitigation measures to the PEIR and the compliance with the permits obtained by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for management of stormwater will minimize impacts to hydrology and water quality.No significant impacts are anticipated. IX.Land Use Planning The surrounding land use of the adjoining areas along Ward Street is primarily single-family residences.The PEIR adequately addressed the potential impacts anticipated during the construction at the Reclamation Plant No. I site. A short-term closure of northbound lanes of Ward Street will be required for this project to install the new manhole and lateral sewer. The use of the land will be similar to the storage facilities that existed at the site for the past decade. Construction activities(construction of decking and parking lot,assemblage of the trailers and installation of sewer and water lines)will not significantly impact residences since residences are not directly adjacent to the project site. No additional impacts to land use will occur during construction that would alter the determinations included in the PER regarding potential land use impacts. X.Mineral Resources All modifications will be to previously disturbed land. As analyzed in the PEIR no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. ocsnamat%Pbo Pmrmm Elk MdeeEmn Nu 5 K.P.LiMswiry Irc 8 Now/ M.Noise The PEIR assessed the potential impacts of construction activities associated with the construction of Reclamation Plant No. 1 treatment facilities.These impacts can be significant when pile driving is occurring. Efforts to mitigate noise impacts have been undertaken and noise levels are monitored to comply with applicable ordinance requirements. The construction of the trailer complex would not create any additional noise impacts that would change the conclusions of impacts identified in the PEIR.The construction is expected to last for a brief period of 5 months. The project would be subject to noise mitigation provided in the PER.No new impacts would be anticipated from the short-term construction project. XH.Population and Housing No impacts to population and housing were identified in the PEIR.The changes in site use should not result in impacts to population and housing. XIII.Utilities and Public Services The PEIR fully analysis the potential public service impacts associated with the treatment plant improvement projects. Mitigation measures have been adopted to assure that emergency service access will not be blocked by construction activity.The contractor will provide a copy of the Traffic Control Plan to the Orange County Sheriffs Department,local police department,and fire departments prior to construction.The District will provide 72 hour notice of construction to the local service providers as provided by(Mitigation measure 7.8-1 a)of the PEIR. Mitigation measure 7.8c of the PEIR also establishes the need to maintain access to fire stations and emergency medical facilities at all time and notify facilities in the project vicinity regarding construction schedule.No additional mitigation measures are necessary. XIV. Recreation There are no designated recreation areas within the treatment plant site. No nearby facilities(such as the Santa Ana River Bicycle trail)will be impacted. The use of the designated bicycle lane along Ward Street will be impacted during the construction of the new manhole and connector sewer.This activity should only last a couple of weeks at most. XV.Transportation and Traffic As described in the PEIR,Ward Street is a 32-foot wide neighborhood collector street,with 2 travel lanes and a striped median. A bicycle lane is provided in both directions.Traffic studies included in the PEIR indicate that average daily trips(ADT)along Ward Street between Ellis (XSD Sva egic Plan PnaMM PIR M&Mum M.5 K P.LWltrary Inc 9 Avenue and Garfield Avenue carries an average daily traffic load of 14,000 cars a day(OCSD, 1999). Construction of a new manhole and 30-inch intertie trunk sewer connection in Ward Street will require land closures lasting one or two weeks in the northbound lane. Traffic will be rerouted into the median or merger of the southbound lanes. The traffic control plan and construction schedule will be submitted to the City of Fountain Valley. The following measures will be implemented. • Before the implementation of any traffic control plan it will be required that the City of Fountain Valley approve the plan before construction begins. • The project will be completed in approximately 8 months. • General work hours will be weekdays,between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,unless otherwise required to limit work hours due to other considerations or specifications of the City of Fountain Valley. CEQA COMPLIANCE The proposed placement of temporary trailers on the site does not warrant the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The CEQA Guidelines,Section 15164(e),indicates that an Addendum is the appropriate document to identify and analyze minor modifications to the proposed project for which a Final EIR has been certified. An Addendum may be prepared if the modifications do not pose additional significant impacts. Section 15164(e)of the CEQA Guidelines requires an Addendum to include an explanation as to why a subsequent EIR is not necessary. A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR would be required if the project modifications required major revisions to the PEER and new information of substantial importance that was not available at the time of preparation of the previous EIR. As substantiated in this Addendum,the proposed construction of the temporary trailer complex at the Reclamation Plant No. 1 project site would not result in major revisions in the project description as analyzed in the 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR. This Addendum describes the project modifications and assesses the potential for significant impacts.The project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the PEIR. According to CEQA Section 15164(c),no public circulation or review period is required for an Addendum prepared for a previously circulated and certified Final EIR. The proposed construction modifications to the Reclamation Plant No. I site to accommodate relocation of engineering and construction management personnel to a new trailer complex does not require the adoption of additional mitigation measures that were not already included within OCSD Sbnhgic Plan Pmgnm DR AddeMum No.S K P.4nNbom,luc 10 the PEER.Furthermore,the modifications do not change the conclusions of the PEIR regarding the significance of environmental impacts. REFERENCES City of Fountain Valley, 1995. General Plan Update. Adopted March 21, 1995. City of Fountain Valley, 1994. Sanitation District's Plant No. 1 Specific Plan. Adopted by City Council,April 5, 1994. Orange County Sanitation District, 1999. Final Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Report,October 1999(prepared by Environmental Science Associates and others). Orange County Sanitation District, 1999. Strategic Plan Joint Works(Vol.4). 1999. Orange County Sanitation District,2002. Engineering Complex Preliminary Design Report,June 2002. ME atrnL&Ran ftp FOR AEtl =Na5 IC P.pram ,1. Il REFERENCES ■ •' EN `-' : ' \l i.I jj i � I ri lx I I �n I I777 �- I e I IBDB�DEIM' i I I i' I % Ii� I I DEL 10'M1FA GSA/M 11 I I I I WNDIDE krlVl GARB � ..I �� ,II LIMI OF OCS ENGI�I ERING T LEAf I / COMP EX PAVIN •q i 0 D e e � TR I RSID e .I CID EX x I �.EHGINEERNI3C._TRAIL' R",,; COMPLEX" , NG BBu - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ` QMPIELD AVENUE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICf SCALE;, ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1 = 100.-0. ENGINEERINGTRAILER COMPLEX AT PLANT NO.1 PROJECT N0. No. APPROVED DATE let FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE LAYOUT J -9 0 ATTACHMENT 'A' PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS View down Garfield Street towards Santa Ana River ,. l4 fF F h �• , . View from Egret Ave. i '�`T^yMlrs�'..!�R'q '.`�ti.n .•r yY>> ...u. r• �Y.'. - �.� .,,��a' r�• . 4 n, jT 1 L.11�1 � .. ' i� 1j1,• i 1 View from • n View c from • II {S, ��--����,_,�11a � � i it ®♦ +'' �,.: ��:f. k ♦ J 1 '+ j f 5� tk+vf 0 .w it Existing GWRS Trailers • of the Project 1 4 Lane Closure on Ward Street by OCWD ,I y_ 4 1 1 11, J 1 1 1) 1 I M,r .. ram- • i n 7 1.11gAL F�f' '... � ^ever?{'e�`[��.�"Y l 1 l y[yr•.r awl i .1. �,' • Street and Garfield Ave. Crossing Minutes for Board Meetir, Page 11 O6/26/02 18. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Authorize the General Manager to competitively bid and subsequently award the purchase of the following chemicals in connection with the ocean outfall bacteria reduction program: (a) Sodium Hypochlorite, Specification No. C-2002-981313, to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for an estimated amount of$4,038,000, for the period August 1, 2002 through July 31, 2003, with four one-year renewal options to include not more than a 10% annual cost escalation, if necessary; and, (b) Sodium Bisulfite, Specification No. C-2002-102131), to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for an estimated amount of$800,000, for the period August 1, 2002 through July 31, 2003, with four one-year renewal options to include not more than a 10% annual cost escalation, if necessary. 19. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: (1)Authorize the General Manager to solicit proposals, negotiate, and award a new contract for the Purchase of Natural Gas, Specification No. C-2002-101 BD, to be effective August 1, 2002 for an estimated annual amount of$1,809,000; and, (2)Authorize the General Manager, or his designee, to negotiate fixed prices under the Purchase of Natural Gas, Specification No. C-2002-101 BD contract, if market conditions are favorable, without further Board authorization. 20. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: (1)Approve plans and specifications for Area Classification Study Implementation Plan, Plant Nos. 1 and 2, Job No. J-35-2, on file at the office of the Board Secretary; (2)Approve Addenda Nos. 1, 2, and 3 to the plans and specifications; (3) Receive and file Bid Tabulation and Recommendation; and (4)Award a Construction Contract to J.F. Shea Construction, Inc.,for Area Classification Study Implementation Plan, Plant Nos. 1 and 2, Job No. J-35-2, for an amount not to exceed $14,066,442. 21. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve plans and specifications for Abandonment of Airbase Trunk Sewer-Arlington, Contract No. 6-13-2, on file at the office of the Board Secretary; (2)Approve Addendum No. 1, to the plans and specifications; (3) Receive and file Bid Tabulation and Recommendation; and, (4)Award a construction contract to Mike Prlich & Sons, Inc. for Abandonment of Airbase Trunk Sewer-Arlington, Contract No. 6-13-2, for an amount not to exceed $596,370. 22. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file Addendum No. 5 to the 1999 Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Repo ed by K.P. Lindstrom, Inc., for the Engineering Trailer Complex at Plant No. 1, ob No. J-9 . 23. The Chair declared a recess of the Board of Directors, Orange County Sanitation District, at 10:47 p.m. Minutes for Board Meetiny..,,, Page 10 06/26/02 d. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Authorize an increase to the - Temporary Employment Services authorization by an additional $250,000, raising the authorized amount from $1,300,000 to$1,550,000 for the remainder - of FY 01-02. e. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve proposed Operating, Capital, Debt/COP Service and Self-Insurance Budgets for 2002-03, as follows: Joint Works Operating/Working Capital $65,421,200 Workers Compensation Self Insurance 429,000 General Liability and Property Self-Insurance 2,429,500 Collection System Operating 15.135,000 Capital Improvement Program 154,400,000 Debt/COP Service 38,995,000 Director Brady opposed. f. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Renew the District's All-Risk Property for the period July 1,2002 through June 30, 2003,for an amount not to exceed $823,000; and, to discontinue the Earthquake Insurance Program. 9. Item was removed and referred back to the FAHR Committee. 17. DRAFT JOINT GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM COOPERATIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES: A verbal report was presented by Director Russ Patterson, representative on the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee, re the meeting held on June 10, 2002. The Chair ordered the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee Minutes for the meeting held on May 13, 2002 to be filed. C. Item was removed and referred to the FAHR Committee for review and discussion. d. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve Addendum No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement with Camp, Dresser&McKee Inc. for an additional amount of$557,697, for a total amount not to exceed $35,890,804,for a cost-of-living increase of 2.7%for 2002 in accordance with the PSA for the Groundwater Replenishment System, Job No. J-36, with the Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District paying equal shares of $278,849. Minutes for Board Meetin6. Page 8 12/19/01 18. a. Actions regarding approving the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rehabilitation of the 10 Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-51: 1. Dave Ludwin, Director of Engineering, gave a brief overview of the project. He also reported a need to amend the actions to receive and file staffs response to comments. 2. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 01-24, Making Certain Findings Relating To Less Than Significant Environmental Effects Identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rehabilitation of the 141" Street Pump Station; Approving Mitigation Measures;Adopting the Final Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rehabilitation of the W Street Pump Station; Authorizing the Filing of a Notice of Determination re said project; and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Director Ridgeway abstained. 3. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file the response to comments. b. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve the purchase of real property located at 1514 West Balboa Blvd., Newport Beach, California from Karen Santaniello, Cynthia Peck, and Steven Peck at an amount not to exceed $405,000. Director Ridgeway abstained. C. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve a budget amendment of $405,000 for Rehabilitation of the 10 Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-51, for a total project budget of$2,616,000. Director Ridgeway abstained. 19. Consideration of the following actions regarding environmental documentation required to modify the certified 1999 Strategic Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report: a. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file Addendum No. 2 for the Landscape and Irrigation at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-84; b. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file Addendum No. 3 for the Bushard Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation, Job No. 1-2-4; C. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file Addendum No. 4 for the Warner Avenue Relief Sewer, Contract No. 11-22; and, d. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file a Notice of Exemption for the Area Classification Implementation Plan, Plant Nos. 1 and 2, Job No. J-35-2. Minutes for Board Meeting, `..J Page 9 12119/01 20. DRAFT JOINT GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM COOPERATIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES:A verbal report was presented by Director Patterson, representative on the Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee, re the meeting held on December 10, 2001. The Chair then ordered the draft Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee Minutes for the meeting held on November 14, 2001 to be filed. C. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve Addendum No.4 to the Professional Services Agreement with Camp, Dresser& McKee Inc.for an additional amount of$369,000,for a total amount not to exceed $35,333,107,for changes in the Scope of Work to the final design for the Groundwater Replenishment System,Job No. J-36, with the Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District paying equal shares of$184,500. d. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve Change Order No. 3 to Separation Processes, Inc., Orange County Water District Task Order No. 201301, for an additional amount of$114,665, increasing the total amount not to exceed $2,016,075,for changes in the Scope of Work to the final design of membrane systems for the Groundwater Replenishment System, Job No. J-36, with Orange County Sanitation District and Orange County Water District paying equal shares of$57,333. e. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Approve an Orange County Water District Task Order in an amount not to exceed $143,960 to Howard Almgren for the Howard Almgren team to complete value engineering services at the 70% design level for the Groundwater Replenishment System, Job No. J-36,with Orange County Sanitation District and the Orange County Water District paying equal shares of$71,980 each. 21. Actions re proposed Ordinance No. OCSD-16,An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District, Providing for an Early Retirement Incentive Program by Granting Additional Service Credit to Eligible District Employees as authorized by the County Employees' Retirement Law of 1937, Government Code Section 31641.04: a. The Director of Human Resources and General Counsel gave verbal reports on the proposed ordinance and the process of adopting the ordinance. b. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: Receive and file written comments, if any. C. OPEN PUBLIC HEARING: The Chair declared the hearing open at 9:35 p.m. Randy Furhman addressed the Board asking them to reconsider the overall policy of granting additional time to some employees for retirement and not for others. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meedng Date Toed.uf Dlr. 6/26/02 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number zz Orange County Sanitation District FROM: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Originator: Jim Herberg, Engineering Manager SUBJECT: ADDENDUM NO. 5 TO THE 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX AT PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. J-90 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file Addendum No. 5 to the 1999 Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, prepared by K.P. Lindstrom, Inc., for the Engineering Trailer Complex at Plant No. 1, Job No. J-90. SUMMARY • The Engineering Trailer Complex at Plant No. 1, Job No. J-90, was not included in the 1999 Strategic Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) and needs subsequent documentation according to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). • Pursuant to CEQA, an Addendum is the appropriate document. According to CEQA, no public circulation or review period is required for an Addendum prepared for a previously circulated and certified Final Environmental Impact Report. The Orange County Sanitation District's (District) 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR was previously circulated for a 45-day public review period; June 29, 1999 through August 16, 1999. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY No budgetary action is being requested at this time. BUDGETIMPACT ® This Item has been budgeted. (Budget approved for Job No. J-90 on April 24,2002) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION K. P. Lindstrom, Inc. has prepared this Addendum No. 5 to the 1999 Strategic Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report in accordance with the CEQA guidelines. The Addendum is as follows: Addendum No. 5 for the Engineering Trailer Complex at Plant No. 1, Job No. J-90: The Addendum has been prepared to address the construction of temporary trailers located at the northeast comer of Ward Street and Garfield Street. The construction activities associated with this project would be similar to those described in PEIR. No new significant environmental effects have been identified that would require major revisions or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts or mitigation measures adopted by the Orange County Sanitation District's (District) 1999 Strategic Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). ALTERNATIVES None. In the event, the Addendum for this project is not filed in the District's office prior to the beginning of construction and/or bidding, the District would not be in compliance with CEQA. CEQA FINDINGS The 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR was certified by the District Board of Directors on October 27, 1999. Addendum No. 1 to the 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR and the Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) was filed with the State Clearinghouse on March 28, 2001. Addenda Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were fled on December 19, 2001. ATTACHMENTS Addendum No. 5 to the Strategic Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the Engineering Trailer Complex at Plant No. 1, Job No. J-90 SP:sa IVeadWaW W91obaM9enda Draft Repa Loin BwrdsU.90 AR 062602.dm c�w.d�Aga Aroasvom mare npaw+ero�eeoxrtem n.Fmex ne„u WWI Page 2 ADDENDUM NO. 5 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX AT PLANT NO. 1 JOB NO.J-90 JUNE 2002 MSD S"ftgic Pbn RoMm EM AE alum No.5 KP.Lio&mn,Ino. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 2 Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan 3 Project Description- Engineering Trailer Complex Overview 3 Alternatives Considered 6 Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts Associated with Project Modifications 6 CEQA Compliance 10 References Figure 1 Project Location Map Figure 2 Project Site Layout Map Attachment A- Project Site Photographs OCSDS ft&Plan Pmgnm ER AdEe No.S K P.Lvdsmm�,irc 1 INTRODUCTION This document has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Section 15164 as an Addendum to the Final Program Environmental Impact Report(PEIR)for the Orange County Sanitation District(District) 1999 Strategic Plan certified in October 1999. The purpose of the Addendum is to address changes in the location of Construction Management and Engineering Design personnel and the addition of a newly formed Program Management Office (PMO)Division that will support the implementation of the Strategic Plan facilities approved in 1999. The PEIR assessed potential impacts of the Strategic Plan through the year 2020,including treatment system upgrades and new facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1. The PEIR also included the demolition and replacement of old facilities,and construction of new facilities that include changes in the location to accommodate efficient operations.The PEIR did not identify specifically in the description of activities of the program,the location of support facilities to house personnel involved in design and construction of the facilities. Such facilities are addressed in the Reclamation Plant No. 1 Specific Plan approved initially in 1993 and updated periodically with the concurrence and project specific concurrence for specific conditions by the City of Fountain Valley. The 1999 Strategic Plan outlined on-site treatment facility layouts through the year 2020 which have subsequently been examined in more detail as design of certain facilities has been initiated. Most recently,the construction of the trickling filters and new primary clarifiers will necessitate demolition of the existing construction management trailers to allow installation of underground utilities for the new facilities. Additionally,remodeling of the Administration Building will require relocating other Engineering Department personnel,now housed in the Administration Building and trailers behind the Human Resources Building. Both the trailer facilities personnel (Construction Management trailers and Design Engineering trailers)are being moved to a new site formerly used as a storage facility near the comer of Garfield Avenue and Ward Street.(Figures I and 2).This site is owned by the District. The proposed trailer complex will be temporary in nature(4-5 years)and share the site with trailers that will house the previously approved support facilities for the Groundwater Replenishment System(GWRS)Project. This Addendum describes the modifications to the land use for the site and assesses whether the trailer complex would pose additional environmental impacts or require mitigation measures that were not already addressed in the PEIR for the Reclamation Plant No. 1 site. MD Sme91c Pan Pmgnm EIR Rd .Nu5 KP.Lmde W 2 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 1999 STRATEGIC PLAN The 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR identifies the District's Capital Improvement Programs(CEP) proposed to meet future demand for wastewater collection,treatment and disposal facilities -through 2020. Projects are proposed to replace and rehabilitate sewer collection systems,expand and upgrade the District's two wastewater treatment plants,provide adequate discharge capacity for projected peak flows,provide additional treated wastewater to the Orange County Water District(O1CWD)for expanded water reuse,and study the feasibility of other improvements. The objectives of the 1999 Strategic Plan are: 1) To plan for the wastewater collection,treatmen4 and disposal facilities to serve the needs of the District's service area through 2020; 2) To insure compliance with existing and anticipated ocean discharged permit conditions, including the requirements of the 301(h)modified(secondary treatment waiver)National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)permit for the discharge; 3) To recommend projects that meet the communities needs,protect public health,are technically feasible,and are cost effective and environmentally responsible;and 4) To maximize the use of treated effluent for water recycling. PROJECT DESCRIPTION-ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX OVERVIEW The 1999 Strategic Plan outlined the need to undertake a large number of treatment plant improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1. These included treatment facilities for primary and secondary treatment,solids treatment,utilities' improvement,and the needed support facilities to provide for treatment plant operations and administration. To implement this approved program of treatment plant improvements,the Engineering Department will form a Project Management Office(PMO)Division and retain a Program Management Consultant(PMC)within eight months to help manage the implementation of the CIP.Currently,there is no available office space for the PMC staff. In addition,the District's Construction Management staff will need a new office facility due to the construction of Trickling Filter Rehabilitation and New Clarifiers(Job No.P I- 76)which places utilities through the existing Construction Management trailer complex. To support these facilities,a replacement/construction support trailer complex is being built.The complex will also temporarily house other engineering staff while the Administration Building is being remodeled(under a separate project). MD sx Pi Pa MAEM ..5 KP.Linl�Irc 3 The Engineering Trailer Complex project will provide the following: • Twelve new double-wide modular trailers, including approximately 46 offices, 24 cubicles, two printer/Xerox areas, three conference rooms, storage/filing areas, restrooms, a deck, and two handicap access ramps. • All required trenching, piping (for water and sewer), wiring, and associated utility work to provide a complete office facility including furniture. • Designated parking for 87 parking stalls 4 handicap accessible parking stalls,4 electric vehicle parking stalls and a bicycle rack for 20 bicycles. The trailer complex will be constructed on a vacant lot near the comer of Garfield Avenue and Ward Street on the District property. This project will accommodate the Construction Management staff,Design Engineering staff,and PMC staff that include Engineers,Project Managers,Inspectors,and the support staff. By locating all the staff in one area,efficiency and collaboration will be improved. The trailer complex consists of 24 total(I2doublewide)trailers divided into 2 units of 12 trailers each.A deck will separate the units. Each unit will consist of 2- 14'x 60'trailers and 10- 12'x 60,trailers. The entire hailer complex including the deck will measure 134'X 148'(0.45 acres). Each unit measures 60'x 148'and an adjoining deck that measures 14'x 148'will separate the two units. Handicap access ramps,American Disability Act(ADA)bathrooms,exits,fire alarms,fire sprinklers will be provided per the City of Fountain Valley's requirement. Water for fire and domestic water service will be supplied from the existing 8-inch City water main running north through the site from Garfield Avenue.Water services will conform to the City of Fountain Valley standards for new connections of potable water.The trailers will tie into a newly constructed 6-inch lateral that will be extended to a new 30-inch diameter manhole to be constructed in Ward Street,which will tie into the City of Fountain Valley sanitary collection system.All on-site sewer will be reconstructed in accordance with the City of Fountain Valley standards. Electrical and data/communication connection will be made at the District's 12KV Power Building. The total site,including the trailer complex and proposed access and parking,totals 89,550 sq.ft (2.05 acres). Area for the trailer and parking(85 parking stalls,4 electric recharge stalls,and 4 handicap stalls) totals 70,000 sq. ft(1.60 acres). Ocsnseve{"s Phn P�mand AdAmEm $ x.P.Lmde Lc 4 The site will be accessed via motor vehicles off of Garfield Avenue using an entrance planned for the GWRS trailer complex. Two entrances from Garfield Avenue are available for accessing the site. One is a shared entrance with the OCWD for their temporary trailer complex located at the _southeast comer of the site. The other site entrance is an existing slide gate located along Garfield Avenue at the midpoint of the southern property line. Both access gates will be open during the working hours of the site. The trailers being acquired are typically set at an elevation 3 feet above finished surface.The height of the trailer structure is approximately 13.5 feet. Air conditioning units will be roof mounted. The overall height of the complex from the finished surface may be up to 20.5 feet. The PEIR(Section 3)identified and analyzed all of the potential impacts associated with the construction of new treatment plant facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1. The PEIR discussed the construction activities associated with new facilities including noise and visual impacts and identified mitigation measures to minimize the short-term impacts associated with construction and longer-term operational impacts. The PEIR details the need to schedule and plan construction activities in a manner that would create the least amount of traffic disturbance around the Plant No. 1 site because of existing commute hour congestion problems. The construction of the trailer project will not increase the number of employee-related trips and will involve minimal construction and trailing into the site of the modular trailers with minimal(a few days)to complete the delivery. The site modifications associated with the project as described below do not alter the conclusions of the PEIR. Project Site Modifications The two existing temporary Engineering trailers(Construction Management trailers and Design Engineering trailers)at Plant No. 1 will be replaced with new ones and a relocated complex will be constructed to house the Engineering Department staff needed to support implementation of the approved Strategic Plan facilities consistent with the 1999 Final Program Environmental Impact Report. The previous use of this District-owned land was for public storage facilities under a long-term lease terminated in August 2001. The land is now unused,but will be the site of the another temporary trailer complex adjoining the proposed project which will house construction management personnel for the GWRS Project being undertaken jointly between the District and OCWD. This trailer complex is anticipated to be constructed starting in August 2002 and will house 70 people and cover a land area of 2.05 acres. OCSD Smrtgie P W 0 ,nm EIR AatlgvEmn No.5 rC P.r.mNeom rm 5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED Not proceeding with this project. This alternative is not recommended because it will have several impacts: • Construction Management staff will not have offices beginning in March 2003. • The new PMO Division staff will not have any work space beginning in March 2003. • The newly restructured Engineering and Construction Division staff will remain separated, decreasing the level of efficiency and collaboration needed between the construction and design staff. ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH PROJECT MODIFICATIONS Potential impacts to environmental resources are evaluated further in this section. None of the proposed modifications would have a potentially significant environmental impact. 1. Aesthetics The project modifications would not have a substantial negative effect on the visual resources of the project area.The project could result in short term visual impacts due to construction activity. The PEIR addressed mitigation of possible short-term impacts to visual resources.Mitigation measure 7.9-la and 7.9-lb in the PEIR require that contractors restore the alignment areas to pre- project conditions or better to avoid long term visual impacts.Contractors will be required to keep the construction area clean,orderly and free of trash and debris.The modifications to the construction methods would not alter the conclusions of the 1999 EIR or require additional Mitigation measures. It. Agricultural Resources The project construction activities will be confined to the already disturbed area that previously was used for storage facilities.No significant agricultural land exists at the project site.The PEIR identified no potential impacts to agricultural resources.The project modifications will contribute no additional impacts to agricultural resources. III. Air Quality Overall and short-term impacts to air quality due to construction activity at Plant No. 1 were analyzed in the,PEIR. Because the anticipated impacts to air quality due to construction activities OCSDSnw&P Pm MR AEJeMm WS ICP.lieb•oiry 1. 6 were already addressed and appropriate mitigation measures adopted in the PEIR,the assembly of the trailer complex and construction of deciting and parking will not have any additional impacts to air quality.The project will be subject to the dust control mitigation as provided in the PEIR. "IV. Biological Resources The PEIR analyzed the biological setting for the Reclamation Plant No. I site and determined, given the urban setting that no impacts to biological resources were expected.The entire trailer complex site is located within the treatment plant boundaries. No sensitive plant or animal species are lmown to occur in the project vicinity nor were they observed at the time of the site visit. The paved nature of the area precluded use by wildlife. The absence of biological resources in the project vicinity and the incorporation of mitigation measures already adopted by the PEIR for protecting biological resources at the treatment plant site will prevent impacts from occurring. V. Cultural Resources The PEIR analyzed the potential impacts to cultural resources by the implementation of the facility improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1. No prehistoric or historic sites have been recorded at the treatment plant site.Therefore no impacts to(mown cultural sites in the project vicinity are expected. Furthermore,the change in temporary site use activity would not significantly change the amount of underground disturbance at the project site only minor excavation will be required for trenching of utility lines. VI.Geology and Soils The entire project site has been significantly modified in the past by human activity. The PEIR addressed the potential for impacts to geology and soil.The change in temporary site use would not alter the analysis of the PEIR. VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials The PER assesses the use of hazardous materials during construction. None are proposed for use in the project,thus implementation of the construction of the trailer complex and parking would not pose additional impacts. OCSn Svaegc Phe Pmpem FL[�AhMum No.S K P.L�I. 7 VUL Hydrology and Water Quality The PEIR analyzes the potential for the project to impact surface water as well as groundwater. The PEIR establish mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to water quality related to construction activities.The adopted mitigation measures(Measure 7.7-1a through IQ establish guidelines to be implemented by the contractors to minimize impacts to hydrology and water quality.The conditions include the implementation of Best Management Practices(BMPs)to prevent erosion and sedimentation to avoid significant adverse impacts to surface water quality, preparation of a Spill Prevention,Control,and Countermeasure Plan,and the storing and staging of all equipment in designated staging areas. Implementation of the current mitigation measures already approved for the treatment plant site projects and permit conditions will minimize or avoid impacts to water quality.The mitigation measures in the PEIR and the compliance with the permits obtained by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for management of stormwater will minimize impacts to hydrology and water quality.No significant impacts are anticipated. IX.Land Use Planning The surrounding land use of the adjoining areas along Ward Street is primarily single-family residences.The PER adequately addressed the potential impacts anticipated during the construction at the Reclamation Plant No. I site. A short-term closure of northbound lanes of Ward Street will be required for this project to install the new manhole and lateral sewer. The use of the land will be similar to the storage facilities that existed at the site for the past decade. Construction activities(construction of decking and puking lot,assemblage of the trailers and installation of sewer and water lines)will not significantly impact residences since residences are not directly adjacent to the project site. No additional impacts to land use will occur during construction that would alter the determinations included in the PEIR regarding potential land use impacts. X.Mineral Resources All modifications will be to previously disturbed land. As analyzed in the PEIR no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated. =D snmegic Pan ft rom EIR gadendum No.5 K P.Un&O Irc 8 )a.Noise The PEIR assessed the potential impacts of construction activities associated with the construction of Reclamation Plant No. 1 treatment facilities.These impacts can be significant when pile driving is occurring. Efforts to mitigate noise impacts have been undertaken and noise levels are monitored to comply with applicable ordinance requirements. The construction of the trailer complex would not create any additional noise impacts that would change the conclusions of impacts identified in the PEER.The construction is expected to last for a brief period of 5 months. The project would be subject to noise mitigation provided in the PEER.No new impacts would be anticipated from the short-term construction project. XH.Population and Housing No impacts to population and housing were identified in the PEIR.The changes in site use should not result in impacts to population and housing. XHL Utilities and Public Services The PEIR fully analyzes the potential public service impacts associated with the treatment plant improvement projects. Mitigation measures have been adopted to assure that emergency service access will not be blocked by construction activity.The contractor will provide a copy of the Tmffic Control Plan to the Change County Sheriffs Department,local police department,and fire departments prior to construction.The District will provide 72 hour notice of construction to the local service providers as provided by(Mitigation measure 7.8-1a)of the PEIR. Mitigation measure 7.8c of the PEER also establishes the need to maintain access to fire stations and emergency medical facilities at all time and notify facilities in the project vicinity regarding construction schedule.No additional mitigation measures are necessary. XIV. Recreation There ate no designated recreation areas within the treatment plant site. No nearby facilities(such as the Santa Ana River Bicycle trail)will be impacted. The use of the designated bicycle lane along Ward Street will be impacted during the construction of the new manhole and connector sewer.This activity should only last a couple of weeks at most. XV.Transportation and Traffic As described in the PEIR,Ward Street is a 32-foot wide neighborhood collector street,with 2 travel lanes and a striped median. A bicycle lane is provided in both directions.Traffic studies included in the PEIR indicate that average daily trips(ADT)along Ward Street between Ellis OCSn SoaW&Fh Pm M AdtlsMum No.5 K.P.IJ ft o 1. 9 � u Avenue and Garfield Avenue carries an average daily traffic load of 14,000 cars a day(OCSD, 1999). Construction of a new manhole and 30-inch intertie trunk sewer connection in Ward Street will require land closures lasting one or two weeks in the northbound lane. Traffic will be rerouted into the median or merger of the southbound lanes. The traffic control plan and construction schedule will be submitted to the City of Fountain Valley. The following measures will be implemented. • Before the implementation of any traffic control plan it will be required that the City of Fountain Valley approve the plan before construction begins. • The project will be completed in approximately 8 months. • General work hours will be weekdays,between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m.,unless otherwise required to limit work hours due to other considerations or specifications of the City of Fountain Valley. CEQA COMPLIANCE The proposed placement of temporary trailers on the site does not warrant the preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR. The CEQA Guidelines,Section 15164(e),indicates that an Addendum is the appropriate document to identify and analyze minor modifications to the proposed project for which a Final EIR has been certified. An Addendum may be prepared if the modifications do not pose additional significant impacts. Section 15164(e)of the CEQA Guidelines requires an Addendum to include an explanation as to why a subsequent EIR is not necessary. A Subsequent or Supplemental EIR would be required if the project modifications required major revisions to the PER and new information of substantial importance that was not available at the time of preparation of the previous EIR. As substantiated in this Addendum,the proposed construction of the temporary trailer complex at the Reclamation Plant No. I project site would not result in major revisions in the project description as analyzed in the 1999 Strategic Plan PEIR. This Addendum describes the project modifications and assesses the potential for significant impacts.The project modifications would not alter the conclusions of the PEIR. According to CEQA Section 15164(c),no public circulation or review period is required for an Addendum prepared for a previously circulated and certified Final EIR. The proposed construction modifications to the Reclamation Plant No. I site to accommodate relocation of engineering and construction management personnel to a new trailer complex does not require the adoption of additional mitigation measures that were not already included within OCSD Sucmgic Pan Pmgmm OR AWd m No.5 KP.LiMsv Inc 10 the PEIR.Furthermore,the modifications do not change the conclusions of the PEAL regarding the significance of environmental impacts. REFERENCES City of Fountain Valley, 1995. General Plan Update. Adopted March 21, 1995. City of Fountain Valley, 1994. Sanitation District's Plant No. 1 Specific Plan. Adopted by City Council,April 5, 1994. Orange County Sanitation District, 1999. Final Strategic Plan Program Environmental Impact Report,October 1999(prepared by Environmental Science Associates and others). Orange County Sanitation District, 1999. Strategic Plan Joint Works(Vol.4). 1999. Orange County Sanitation District,2002. Engineering Complex Preliminary Design Report,June 2002. OCSa S"tgic Phn Pmrtm EIR AM =No.5 KP.LiMM la 11 a t REFERENCES t t SOLSA AV AR Q M FAD � W o EDINGER AV 3 z HUNTI ^GTO VEIL 4UR B ARE H AV FOUNT EY LOS PATOS 91 ,WALL SLATE ; TALE RT AV cmi ELLI !/ GISLEROAVL� GAR ELD AV RKT WN o Ay R m a ,TLINDIAt APOLI AV o g PROJECT OCATION WI ON z HAMILI ON AV PROJECT LOCATION MAP N.T.S. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SCALE: ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NOT TO) SCAL r ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX AT PLANT NO.I PROJECT NO. FIGURE 1 PROJECT LOCATION MAP J - 9 0 No. APPROVED DATE 7 wc LIM11 OF OCSE ENGI�l ERING TF LER COMP I EX PAMN ------ --- - ta. mA 0 D ie r TR R Ill CID a LIMITS OF.,OCSD ENGINEER RAILER COMPLETMUNG T— -AVENUE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GARFIELD 4- I ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SCALE: 100-0" ORANGE COUNTY SAWTATION DISTRICT I ENGINEERING TRAILER COMPLEX AT PLANT NO.I PROJECT NO. ul FIGURE 2 PROJECT SITE LAYOUT J-90 li ATTACHMENT 'A' PROJECT SITE PHOTOGRAPHS �II .�~I .•• �xl M � .:Y:. Ma.1.t 7 � M . View from . - fN •� hr({'' • is �i 1. _ '„ r � `� •• 7 wi , i I" f Y `•S- J F• f d- - i 1" 'u 1 " - w Lane Closure on Ward Street by OCWD 4 Orange County Sanitation District Special Board Workshop June 19.2002 Welcome David Ludwin Director of Engineering 11999 Strategic Plan • certified'Preferred Alternative' • Not implemented operationally • Balanced environmental impact ♦ Puraues water Conservation and inflow infiltration reduction • Based sewer user charges and connection fees on flow and strength of savage • Based connection fees on existing and future facilities "at Changed? V-s ♦ Lower than projected r' sewage flows ♦ Beach postings and closures • Urban runoff treatment and costs • Interim disinfection project �.Fj-, -. ♦ Final design of GWR System ♦ Need for additional biosolids treatment `Impact of Changes ♦ Intensive ocean and shorelinestudies from 1999 through 2002 ♦ Updating the 1999 Strategic Pbn ♦ Heightened communityoutreach and involvement ♦ Comprehensive watershed management XFP,e Key Issue Areas ♦ Ocean monitoring • Treatment alternatives • Financial considerations ♦ Regulations and permitting ♦ Public input 2 Ocean Monitoring Bob Ghirelli Director of Technical Services "v iQYe Monitoring Program ♦ Is it safe to swim? ♦ Is it safe to fish? ♦ Is the fishery being protected? ♦ Is the envirorrnent being protected? t Special Studies ♦ Performed as new issues arise ♦ Huntington Beach Investigaton is one of many special studies ♦ 20 data collection efforts since 1999 ♦ HB Phase III,Summer 2001 3 � 'x t the Science is Saying. . . • Ocean transport mechanisms exist ♦ No evidence to linkplume and beach closures ♦ Other known sources • Disinfection will reduce bacteria and viruses V Understanding to Date "We have not yet found a connection between coastal ocean processes and bacterial contamination on the beaches.' "We do not think bacteria in the plume contributes substantially to the contamination events on the beach that exceed the ABA11 standards.' —Principal Investigators N�5" [unions "Good people doing good work with good data. Panel recognizes that analyses are preliminary. Closer investigation of possible cormections is needed. Panel will consult on further analyses. Nee PI/Panel meeting in late August, final reports in October.' —Peer Review Panel 4 Water Quality Exceedances Noutof Total Beach Mile Days) 0 1999 2000 2001 Taial _... ....._..._... _...._...._. .. .eh Mile Oep IO Year HONYamea..... as Huminvoin Slab Bea[M1 .- 9% 0X 0% Treatment Alternatives David LudWn Director of Engineering Strategic Plan Update Addressed ♦ New flow projections ♦ Revised/updated planting assumptions ♦ Treatment level analysis ♦ Pathogen reduction methods ♦ Environmental tradeoffs ♦ Capital costs and rate prooctions ♦ Public input(PAC2) 5 'FanrAlternative Treatment NL els Considered ♦ Permit limits(Alt.A) ♦ 50150 blend(Alt. B) ♦ Full secondary(Alt. C) ♦ Alternative treatment(Alt.D) 'd mit Limits (Alternative A) el.ns w '..,Pnm.ry n d s..maery LB D -n v.n..e Pnm ry A V.M. Dinni.nio nn e.cww. maws BOD^W nqh L55 •SrtgIL 1�70 Blend(Alternative B) .na sox$. ..I 50% ro aw.n A nn0 Pomery �% um.eMo 9.[onG. rooWR MBm BW•60mpM1 • BmpM1 6 le&, Secondary (Alternative C) .wwva lmxsxxe.ry . roOxx 100% S.x.n ..m roaxa Sa.pq 90D=14 myL iEE =]O ngl rnative Treatment ernative D) ei.0ammsonmm. and a .nmry Dx.. I. Mau.y n.axm Di.umnw V. eam roawx ePum =a T. aag sE - � Secondary Treatment Options ..xam. Mm.ry TneYi4 C.nxmxl .x.a am.� ..u..w mm.xi m a nen ax.o•nni Dl.tlnm mwn.m.u.. w.w.a•.igwmm: eoD..e raa n�m•aD.�pr.xasx...w•.i 7 .�!,Puture Treatment \c0ffsiderations V♦'GW R system future phases ♦ slosolids improvements ♦ Disinfection ♦ Urban runoff ♦ Peak flow management ♦ Ammonia control Financial Considerations Gary Streed Director of Finance Frfttds Needed For: ♦Collection system O&M ♦Treatment plant O&M ♦ Capital improvements program ♦Debt service 8 ZSprce of Funds •Property tax • Interest earnings •Connection fees • Userfees •Borrowing R Evaluation Process N� • Rate model inputs • Updated capital improvement plans • O&M costs • Population projections • Flow projections 1 w Projections Strategic Plan Alternative Comparisons t.„,.t m...2n2n) ,o.Y ��,.�m, • 1„N,.,oN r�vW+ ux ux vx nx ux Itx Ya Residential Sewer Service \� atge Over Time YY tW tIN Fmueona. IYwY QYN tIN tIM F.mwlmY YN iwns.mb.w. W „ • Y4 x Example 2020 Commercial \Rdles—a,, l s s C . •EmNp Pp t1.W • P.in,�, !NY YmE •fu.5.btlry LW Y tW Y FNYunnl 10 Example 2020 Commercial Rates—a a B.MFe cw 1.., != f5o lanSM leb MC W .rm s.m,e aMi an.nl f W.f b0 fla Im Wan11eu5a Industrial Permit Impact PemY, SWSO FUY ... .Me LFIYb 81eM 9ecmeay TecMMopy f1eY lY,y 5571 557, SS% $531 9W SS3J 53b Sane S42 M�ml TSS 3M3 5me SJI, S437 Ntmoal Example 2020Industrial Rates—aaeadeFa.SYJb I_ael .FYM^VNY N A%.000 SWW BnO .FJ Sem�Yry If00.EW nw,..,.12.m.. �:a0000 i 450,000 I]OO,Wo C_ s f150010 Y�'� ,m r..ew,ra „w,rc 11 �lanck/Summaly umi uv is yean vF m. Iw full uiam Walt 61 m BeeanEey i.mroioaa aiia+ si.9e s+.ua 6v9se s+.w e� _f �__ sv»e >at.ase iisae si.u7 Nwoap $MM $MM ii,99Y ioi!] Yaru..sw ua9 a.99 a99 sz9e �1�,a,g_OYtetl l'aW 9.imt salt 9As9 R J IYv itii 31N i19 519 Community Outreach and Public Input Lisa Murphy Communications Manager Pyblic Education ♦Speaker's bureau ♦ Mailings ♦ Orange County Business Council • Key opinion leaders ♦ Informational video 12 < 7'�yo Telephone Surveys �♦"Gauge public awareness ♦ Most cost-effective and obpctive ♦ Reliable form of assessing general public attitude Random Survey Conducted Nq he 19-29, 2001 ♦ 1,500 OCSD service area votes ♦ O.C. beaches received high quality ratings: ♦ 67.1%-beachdlles ♦ 57.9%-non<oastalcitles Random Survey Conducted \J the 19-29, 2001,v.-. Real to:lNhal causes beach dosuresr ♦ 42%-sewage overflows and spills • 22%-urbanrw,off ♦ 1094-beatedsewegedisWrge ♦ 75%agree to pay 52g/year to treat urban name ♦ 62%would pay an emra 550/year to heat sewage if it meant cleaner beaches 13 Random Telephone Survey \,dlYril 5-7, 2002 ♦ 500 OCSD serves area voters Response to:What is the source ofbeach closures?' ♦ 4%-wa5tewater ♦ 15%-leaking sewer pipes ♦ M-urbanrunoH • 43%-all of the above `Random Telephone Survey il5-7 2002(_o ♦ 84%want scientific studies conducted to determine the cause of beach closures before changes to treatment or rates • 8%want to move to new type of treatment immediately ♦ 8%did not know or did not comment \Letter/Postcard Campaign !♦ Ocean Oudall Group ♦ Huntington Beach Surfrider ♦ Orange County Chapter of Sierra Club ♦ Orange County Coastkeepers • Earth Resource Foundation 14 "R" ults ♦ 773 form letters,postcards and smalls within service area • 551 unsigned form fazes from Surfrider whin in the semce area • 25 non-form hidden;within the service area • -2,000 from outside service area o C* Actions ♦'Voted against renewal of 301(h)permit ♦ 7 cilia; ♦ I specia delricI ♦ Waiting for additional information • 17 coda I Special dietMls PAC2 Process and Summary Statement Kellene Burn-Roy CDM Project Director 15 -,'Values Used to Evaluate Level '-o01'reatment Alternatives 1. Protect public health 2. Protect and respect the environment 3. Provide cost-effective services 4. Promote integrated regional solutions .evaluation of Alternatives • Compared technical perfomance ♦ Evaluated benefits and rids ♦ Developed summary statement N PAC2 Summary Statement • Alternative A:do not consider • Alternative B:cost effective rrethod that balances environmental impacts ♦ Alternatives C and D:user fee tnpact is reasonable considering the benefits 16 F`PAC2 Summary Statement V♦ Suggest tlecision be made on the level of treatment,not specific technology ♦ Several recommend elimination of the waiver ♦ Some suggest considering economic value of the dischargetl water ♦ A few expressed concern about using an unproven technology Status of 301(h) Permits Kris Lindstrom K.P. Lindstrom, Inc. e'atus of 301(h) Permits ♦ Maddox Bill(AB1969) ♦ City of Los Angeles/CSDLA • City of San Diego • Goleta Sanitary District ♦ Morro Bay/Cayucos S.D. ♦ Honolulu 17 Regulations and Permitting Bob Ghirelli Director of Technical Services 05ean Discharge Permit VCunenlpenng ♦ IaBB-appllcaaon auMntks ♦ 11K0-aEmineVatirety exlen0e0 ♦ 199B-pemlilreissuee ♦ JuN 2o02-PermH moddkaean ladieiNectlon • Jum20o3-permilexlures 2002 Permit At paati ♦ Colo0er M02-fina1 shift to Scat ♦ Deo2002-Buhmilb EPAIRWQCB 'Board Action on Treatment Level '-.&rves Permit Application Process ♦ Early summer action-appication to reflect Board decision ♦ Late summer action-multiple drafts pending Board decision • No action-default to 301 lhl permit application • If higher level of treatment is chosen-negotiate transition plan with EPA and RWQCB 18 Alternatives Comparisons David Ludwin Director of Engineering Alternative Comparisons pram PAC2 Smmery Sletemenb) M• MC MD PwYIlm4 WO rif�«rq MTnrle.w bD6 i884w� NY4e1 R�teY RMAf pnti'FnApm.tiY •IIW •} fR WM •i bNrtl fnYb R.bpbn 4ip NID .M] «Y Ib1R Fw) BrDeYfr{�r rah«rrrrMr� F/Ct Dmrar MM1« m.res. —mRl«fh— YYm �tlY C«pa�r �r.W h«YRW� N«4ur Implementation Comparisons ommrnrb.r r� s— uD as R.ru.r Wr rwrae.r 116 RrbbbV amRawr.rr..n bRb« W W.0 .bn«ab rM«rb fDW efsff rw..l r« r« �� rrr I{{YrRyN RMhOW N� DM.�DY M 11Yr�ran��rRDb: ♦ QVIIBybun • NMYfDCw brR«yfbufDra • WtlYow+YeprvC MM1NDDeenbM osWMelvu 19 'Higher Level of Treatment Niletion Plan ♦ Consider combination of technologies to meet'secondary treatment'equivalency ♦ Continue microfiltration research ♦ Begin negotiations for compliance schedule • Continue research and planning to develop implementation plan eReaffirm OCSD Commitment :♦ Protecting public health and environment ♦ Water reclamation ♦ Beneficial reuse of biosolids ♦ Cooperative projects to improve sewer and urban runoff infrastructure ♦ Long-term facilities planning ♦ Comprehensive watershed management Wrap Up 20 Tf7iat Have We Covered? ��♦ Ocean monitoring ♦ Technology,the levels of treabnent ♦ Financial considerations ♦ Regulations and penrdaing ♦ Public input What's Next? Questions? David Ludwin (714)962-2411 on,ge Dwiey sanftw Disw 10 EBS Avenue Fwnbm VN".DA aurae (714)M-2a11 coil wr websile: ..ocsD.mn 21 -- ROLL CALL BOARD OF DIRECTORS ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MEETING DATE: June 19. 2002 TIME: 6:00 o.m. (MURPHY)........................ ALVAREZ...................... R. _ SIMONIAN (FLORY) .......................... BANKHFAD.................... ✓ — (MILLER).......................... BRADY ........................ ✓ — (YOST) ............................ CAMPBELL ...................� — (BOARDMAN) ................. COOK, DEBBIE.............. ✓ — — — (CRANDALL).................... COOK, LAURANN.......... / — — — (SHAWVER) .................... DONAHUE.....................-D_V'-- - (UNDERHILL)................... ECKENRODE.................. � — (SCHAFER)...................... FERRYMAN................... — — — (DUVALL)......................... GULLIXSON.................... o. (DEBOLT)......................... JEMPSA...................... ✓ (WORLEY)........................ rAWASHIMA............... ✓ — — — (SMITH)............................ KROM........................ — (BROADWATER) ............. LEYES.......................... — (DALY).............................. MC CRACKEN............... ✓ — — (CHRISTY) ....................... MCGUIGAN.................. �_ — — — (SIMONOFF).................... MOORE........................ ✓ — — — (EPPERSON)................... NEUGEBAUER.............. ✓ — — (FRESCHI)....................... PJ................. — (KEENAN)........................ PIERCY........................ — (ADAMS) ......................... RIDGEWAY................... — — — (DOW).............................. SIGLER......................... v- — (SMITH, CHUCK)............. SILVA........................... / — — (BLAKE)............................ WALKER....................... g� — STAFF: jLa Anderson v 0_ Q��ys`� Kyleli Kyle i�r,Ctotl r MathLudmews - dGuw4 Mathews ✓ Miles 0�;� "Azi, Murphy Ooten Tomko ✓ Streed OTHERS: (a(,{ Woodniff ✓ w Andrus Nixon 06/19/02 G:%iv ma%admb =lRECM ectm rmu Caaaa SIGN-IN SHEET ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD MEETING NAME ORGANIZATION/FIRM (please,print) leaseprint) e� � 4 e wc� mil/ p7�8�P°�r4d� 1/� I I �O u L cv L+4�� _n/ ieo✓� V IMh ywry , cmcV q2L HAWRDMADMINMWORMSISIGN-IN FORM.D REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: ( JAL AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (please print) HOME ADDRESS: (`�1er/stre (city/zip de) q I TELEPHONE: /^q - 1Z' V�Y11 REPRESENTING: OU y (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: Ov AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (please print) ._JOa HOME ADDRESS: 7 070 / �'S17dt IhK (numb r/street) 0 nn (city/zip code) fit, TELEPHONE: Dab /s��tf@-/4/-�A REPRESENTING: blJ 7 (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. pp DATE: '41 F "Z AGENDA ITEM NO. "' J NAME: (please print) : /tAJ G TP—A, HOME ADDRESS: (number/street) �� (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: (Z '4, `1 q-3 y9Z/' n REPRESENTING: �"^ ") 9"- Csti�^^ v�Vts+ —"" (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to/the Board Secretaryprior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: J(JNG /t c713D/ AGENDA ITEM NO. (/ NAME: (please print) HOME ADDRESS: PC) , /a-.z f'V'6- 3 number/shneet) (city/a a))/ TELEPHONE: �/ ` REPRESENTING: (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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 Rem is taken for discussion. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Bo rd Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution.. DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. / NAME: (please print) �QPi� «C\�6\."o` n HOME ADDRESS: i�e C Agy '�-b (number/street) l\ (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: \\ J REPRESENTING: (self/nameo rganization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: e ' . ' Zk ' ` ` ' e ' AGENDA ITEM NO./_ NAME: (please print) TJffiaJ&/ 1 HOME ADDRESS: JOG & (number/street) CO," ,14 7�CL /id2 CA (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: g5 S - 6/ REPRESENTING: SI�AAR CL'rs — O/tG 2 U�- (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: 6 1 Z 1911a L AGENDA ITEM NO/'/ NAME: (please print) t7 L U HOME ADDRESS: O Ma L VI r6w (num er/stree 07 M (citylzjp code) TELEPHONE: D z 2- REPRESENTING: (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the�Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. , DATE: I _ AGENDA ITEM NO. (rj'Pn cd4 NAME: (please print) HOME ADDRESS: (number/street) (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: ,,tt REPRESENTING: C Y U✓i d 6 (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. ppN, DATE: �`' o Z AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (please print) A ~ ' * (� u Z oW HOME ADDRESS: (number/street) 'Q ''J/' l�sd 4, cl L 7 s (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: REPRESENTING: SG LT (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (please print) VI/Y) HOME ADDRESS: 58G� SL: ! QL Yv K (number/street) LOA1 (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: 75 `I -7O / REPRESENTING: (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board on speck 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. / DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (please print) l���'/� �/!/�y' HOME ADDRESS: LG �/ � 0 22 (number/street) (city/zip code /) TELEPHONE: A7 -1 e,�-7 — ':�eP REPRESENTING: /2-L 4d6 7-C 1'� (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: to -/F' (5 t AGENDA ITEM NO. NAME: (please print) I t ) YA1^' YFZ2-2L651T HOME ADDRESS: ZZz/ U& (number/street) c�1 (city/zi((ip�p��code) TELEPHONE: 6/z� eL REPRESENTING: J (self/name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the ,Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: A � AGENDA ITEM NO. I ,. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .C�. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . NAME: (please print) HOME ADDRESS: ( um7 ber/street) (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: REPRESENTING: , n 4a (sel name of organization) REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS All persons wishing to address the Board 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. Remarks will be limited to three minutes. Any handouts (35 COPIES REQUIRED) must be given to the Board Secretary prior to the meeting for distribution. DATE: AGENDA ITEM NO. . . . . . . . . . . .c. L,.`. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NAME: (please print) �1(2 P1CV f/J E-l� n rv�--!' HOME ADDRESS: `( (number/street) N, 8- �} z66o (city/zip code) TELEPHONE: C���) y6— 35— REPRESENTING: S _ (self/name of organization) Comments for Shirley McCracken Board Meeting June 19, 2002 • Good evening. I want to welcome everyone to the second special board meeting of the Orange County Sanitation District. • At last month's special board meeting, we heard about the results of the ocean monitoring studies that were conducted last summer • As you will recall, a number of researchers and reviewers from universities and federal agencies provided a fairly detailed reports on their findings. I have to say that I was impressed at how well they kept our attention. Dr. Ghirelli will provide a recap of last month's meeting. • The format for tonight's will be the same format as last month: 1. Formal presentations on tonight's subject matter will be given by staff and by consultants. 2. So that we can stay on schedule, I would ask the directors to hold their questions until the end of each presenter's prepared remarks. 3. We will have a Q and A session for the directors following the presenters. 4. Finally, after the directors have asked questions of the presenters, then public comments will be taken. We want to hold public comments to 30 minutes. 5. If you want to provide comments, please complete the request form and provide them to the board secretary Remember that next week's regularly scheduled board meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m., a half hour early to accommodate closed session matters first. Staff estimates that the closed session will last about an hour. This means that the regular open session of the board meeting will probably not begin until about 7:30. For the members of the public who are attending next week's meeting, please keep this in mind. I would recommend that you plan to arrive here at that time. WE WILL DELAY THE RESTART OF THE MEETING IN OPEN SESSION UNTIL 7:30 in the event that the closed session moves more quickly than anticipated. 1 Remarks to Board of Directors By Blake P. Anderson General Manager June 19, 2002 As we continue our discussion about level of treatment and the very important public policy issues facing this board, I thought it would be useful and relevant for you to hear some of my personal observations. This month is an important milestone for me. Thirty years ago, I graduated from Cal Poly Pomona with a degree in Civil Engineering. Two years earlier, the first Earth Day was celebrated on college campuses and in public squares throughout the Country. I think it's safe to say that on that day, the Country changed its mind about environmental protection. I certainly did. I decided then and there to change my major and pursue environmental engineering as my career. I am so glad I made that choice. Every day that I come to work I make a positive difference in the world around me. I am an environmentalist. I think about this stuff every day of my life. It is my purpose. It is my focus. My professional life is devoted to effective and sustainable environmental protection. I look at water But no one can deny that we are also divided. We are divided on how much treatment should be provided. We are divided on what is causing the bacterial contamination problems. We are even divided on whether disinfection should begin immediately or not. I believe that the basis for these disagreements is a disagreement about approaches and about methods. It is not about values. And it is not about objectives. The trouble is, these disagreements about approaches and about methods have so divided us that trust, respect and effective listening have been lost. The world seems to be divided by one single question: "Are you for the waiver or are you against the waiver?" We make up our minds about the people around us by how they answer that question. All personal motives and motivations seem to boil down to that question and that question alone. We have all witnessed the frustration in others. We have experienced frustration in ourselves. And we have seen too many angry moments, here in this room, out at our front gate, in the press, and in the blizzard of a-mails that hit our computer screens every day. The anger has turned personal and it's gotten mean. But I must also point out that within the context of this mounting frustration and anger, there have also been a large number of wiser voices—on both sides of the question—who have remained calm, respectful, and focused. Leaders have emerged on both sides of the question that have demonstrated that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Leaders have emerged on both sides of the question that are looking for a course of action that brings a great solution that the community can embrace. I would hope that we can learn from their example and begin an effective dialogue that finds a creative and constructive solution to the questions that so divide us now. This board of directors has the important responsibility of formulating public policy that will have long-term implications on everyone who lives, plays and works in Orange County. This board of directors will cast what some have called a "legacy vote". This board of directors will cast a vote that will affect the long- term wastewater treatment practices of the 3`d largest wastewater treatment system west of the Mississippi. This board of directors will cast a vote on behalf of the over 2 million people who are served by this agency. This board of directors will cast a vote that will have impacts on the water, air, land and energy resources of this County. After all the data has been presented--after all of the opinions have been aired--after the board has made its decision, it is my hope and prayer that everyone remains united and friendly and respectful of one another. As we sit here tonight, it's anybody's guess what will be the final outcome of the board's deliberations. However, let us commit here and now that the outcome will not divide us, but unite us. Let us commit here and now that this board and its staff will remain singular in its purpose stated so well in our mission statement, which reads, in part: "We, the employees and the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District, are committed to protect public health and the environment by developing, integrating, and implementing fiscally responsible solutions to wastewater, water reclamation, and watershed protection issues..." You have that as my pledge to you as this important issue moves forward. So... Let's breathe a little more deeply. Let's smile a little bit more often. Let's listen a little bit more effectively. And let's give everyone the respectful attention they deserve. And let's hope for friendly unity when everything is said and done. Our community deserves nothing less. Thank you. That ends my remarks, Madame Chair. Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update June 17, 2002 Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) Interim Strategic Plan Update Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) Introduction and Background District has met the conditions of its current The Orange County Sanitation District(the permit,and the combination of primary and District) has been managing wastewater collection, secondary treatment processes have consistently treatment and discharge facilities for over fifty produced permit-quality wastewater effluent,the years to the residents of central and northern District is aware of concerns by cities,state Orange County. Based upon the 1995 Center for assembly and many community members that a Demographic Research estimations, the District higher quality of wastewater released to the ocean now serves approximately 2.5 million people and is preferred. covers an area of about 471 square miles. By the The decision on how to proceed with its permit year 202Q the population is projected to he around renewal process,and the implications of different 2.9 million. The District must operate its facilities levels of treatment, has significant impacts on the in strict compliance with federal and state direction that the District will take in the next regulations. These regulations stipulate many twenty years. In order to evaluate the benefits and important requirements, including the quality of shortcomings,advantages and disadvantages of the treated wastewater that is released into the possible process alternatives, the District decided Pacific Ocean. to move forward with an Interim Strategic Plan Since 1985, the District has been operating under a Update project. permit granted by the United States Environmental The Interim Stlategic Plan Update Agency (USEPA)and the Stale of ) p �. California's Regional Water Quality Control Board P r ect (RWQCB). This permit requires the District to treat In November 2001, the District began the Interim wastewater to meet a quality that ensures Strategic Plan Update Project. The objectives of the protection of the beneficial uses of the waters of Interim Strategic Plan Update Project were to: California.This quality has been achieved through a blended combination of primary and secondary ■ Provide information for a sound technical, treated effluents. The permit included a waiver to environmental and economic analyses of the requirement for full secondary treatment based different alternative levels of wastewater upon an ocean discharge of sufficient depth, treatment; distance and dilution. From 1985 to 1998,the permit was administratively extended. In 1998,the 0 Evaluate each of the alternative levels of permit was renewed.The District's current permit treatment and compare the performance; will expire in June 2003. Also as part of the permit requirements,the District was responsible to • Estimate the impacts that each alternative would monitor the quality of the treated wastewater and have on the rates that customers would need to the impacts of the treated wastewater on the ocean pay;and environment. ■ Develop information for presentation to the In preparation for the permit renewal process, the District's Board of Directors in order to make a District continues to investigate other options to decision on how to proceed with the permit provide wastewater treatment. Although the renewal process. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update t i�oaoumaamwwnrgmswms....,aa...ma.+rs..�+�v.meartr..a_.,.n.as Summary Statement of the Planning Adwsory Committee(PAC2) Because the permit renewal process was required process that maintains its commitment to openness to start in mid-2002, the Interim Strategic Plan and the need for public involvement in decision- Update Project was conducted as a priority effort. making in order to provide the Board with public input in to their decisicm•making process. In conducting the Interim Strategic Plan Update Project, the District used a two-track process: In moving forward with the development of public participation, the District established the concept of ■ Atecladcal track The work under this track a Planning Advisory Committee. Because of the included the definition of technically feasible relatively short time frame that was available for treatment alternatives;and the generation of a the Interim Strategic Plan Update work the District set of performance parameters to allow a initially turned to the members of the original comparison between representative alternatives. Planning Advisory Committee(PAC)and Rate Advisory Committee(RAC)membership. In ■ Apublic partidpatlan track. The work under parallel with the Interim Strategic Plan Update this track included the development of Project, the District also established a Technical performance objectives to facilitate the Advisory Committee(TAC)to help advise them alternatives comparison process;and the with the complex issues required with the planning contribution of suggestions,comments and and execution of the Huntington Beach Studies observations regarding the results of the (Phase II),and a number of these TAC members comparisons. were also on the PAC2. The District recognized that the PAC2 members could bring several key Both tracks proceeded in parallel throughout the benefits to the project: project,as technical information was developed,it was discussed with the public through a set of ■ Familiarity with the technical issues; workshops. Comments were offered and were incorporated throughout the project to create a ■ Understanding of the public participation feedback process. process; The Public Part filiation Track ■ Distribution of technical, financial, The Planning Advisory Coamdttee(PACE environmental,political and geographic The primary objective of the Interim Strategic Plan viewpoints,and Update Project was to consider different levels of M Demonstrated commitment to active and reliable wastewater treatment and their respective participation. advantages and disadvantages. As part of the process of developing its Interim Strategic Plan In addition to this initial group,the District also Update Project, the District sought the input, reached out to organizations and individuals that comments and suggestions from the residents and had consistently expressed interest in participating businesses that are served by the District. The in the Interim Strategic Plan Update and the permit commitment to actively solicit public comments on renewal process. Attachment 4 includes a list of the appropriate level of treatment represented a the PAC2 members. continuation of a relationship with the public that was established in the original Strategic Plan;this As noted, the primary objective of the Interim relationship proved to be very effective in Strategic Plan Update Project was to consider developing solid information on which the Board different levels of wastewater treatment and their of Directors made their determinations and set the respective advantages and disadvantages. course for the District's future in 1999. For this reason, the District selected a public participation Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 2 Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) The PAC2 members provided key support to the project: Table 1 ■ They reviewed the technical output of the four Summary of PAC2 Workshops representative treatment alternatives under Workshop Date Main Topics consideration; 1 7-Nov�01 Reviewed current situation; introduced alternatives;isThey helped to establish the performance objectives that were used to evaluate the introduced PAC2 roles;listened to PAC2 concerns alternatives; 2 29Jan-02 Discussed Interim Strategic Plan ■ They provided input,comments and Update Project objectives; observations regarding the benefits and developed initial set of PAC2 problems that might be associated with each of objectives the alternatives;and 3 22-Apt-02 Presented update on Ocean Monitoring Study;presented ■ They participated in the preparation of this altematives'details;reviewed Summary Statement for consideration by the initial alternatives performance Board of Directors that attempts to fairly capture 4 16-Way02 Presented Huntington Beach III their comments,concerns,thoughts,ideas and Study;provided narrative recommendations. impacts of treatment alternatives; The WOI'J:Sf:I Process presented relative rate information;began developing The workshops were the heart of the public Summar Statement participation process. Through these workshops, 5 30-May.02 Finalized Summary Statement the PAC2 members learned about the project, their role,and the concerns of other members. They also were able to review the results of the technical PAC2 Objectives development and express their opinions. In Workshop No.2 on January 29,2002,the PAC2 Throughout the process,questions were raised and members identified their values that they would addressed,and for each workshop,minutes were use in their assessments of the four level-of- prepared which included a supplemental treatment alternatives;the PAC2 members feedback report"to respond to questions that compiled a list of 22 values. When considered in could not be fully addressed during the workshop. detail, it appeared that some of these values Over the six-month course of the project,a total of overlapped. Based on these 22 values,the District prepared a consolidated list of four overarching five facilitated workshops were conducted. Table 1 summarizes each of the were conrkshop� objectives and eleven major sub-objectives.The process of developing the objectives and sub- objectives is presented in Attachment 2 The objectives and sub-objectives included the following: ■ PzcrbxtPubhcHmhh ■ Minimize risk of ocean-related health problems Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 3 L s.�F .wv T. r.w_.,.,7. Summary Statement or the Planning AtlWsory Committee(PAC2) ■ Protect and Respect the&rvimrmred that the need for a 301(h)waiver is predicated by the quality of the effluent,not the technology used. ■ Provide clean beaches and water and avoid The EPA will need to confirm this assumption. All environmental degradation of water,air and land alternatives considered by PAC2 included ■ Maximize efficient use of regional resources pathogen reduction technology. Alternative A - Permit Limits: Wastewater ■ Minimize odor impacts on the community trmmtedpoco%s toproducem outfall efBuent[after snamdary,eguent is dvwW to meet Groundwater ■ Provide frost-R(CaMfveSrsvirea Replenishment System(GWR System)requirements] ■ Maximize reliability of system improvements that mws the 1997 Caltfonue,Glean Plan, the District's current dsdargepenut relunements. ■ Maximize adaptability of system improvements Alternative A is equivalent to Scenario 2 from the ■ Minimize cost to ratepayers 1999 Strategic Plan,which was the recommended scenario for implementation through 2020. The ■ Maximize economic/recreational benefits of basis for Alternative A is to provide enough clean beaches secondary treatment at Plant Nos.1 and 2,in addition to secondary treatment requirements to ■ Maximize resource value of by-products(e.g., meet the needs of G W R System, to produce an economic value of water,biosolids and digester oufall effluent that will meet a suspended solids gas) mass emission limit of 20,000 metric tons per year and a 12-month average concentration of 60 ■ PromMeirdegatediRegional solutions milligrams per liter(mg/L). The District's current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ■ Maximize opportunities for regional solutions (NPDES)permit,Permit No.CA011060414(dated May 1998)Order No.98R5 is based on the 1997 ■ Maximize opportunities for systems California Ocean Plan requirements.Alternative A modeling/web-based access of information for would require a 301(h)waiver. analysis and evaluation Alternative B -50t60 Blend: Wastewater treatment The TeduliCal Track processes toproducran outfall edlue t(after swundory The Interim Strategic Plan Update Project difuett a dverted to mad G WR System repreantrs) Alternatives that is a dendcMpercett prinmy treatment effluent In developing a range of levels of wastewater and50 patent secondary treatment Atfue.t. treatment for consideration, the District selected The goal of Alternative B is to release treated the conditions of the current permit as the baseline; wastewater to the ocean that is comprised of 50 all other alternatives that were considered provide percent primary treatment effluent and 50 percent for greater levels of treatment. There are multiple secondary treatment effluent,which is the District's approaches to achieve these objectives. For the current operating philosophy.Therefore,for purpose of this analysis,four alternative levels of Alternative B,enough secondary treatment would treatment were selected for analysis.However,it be needed at Plant Nos.1 and 2 to provide a 50/50 should be noted that hybrids of these alternatives blend outfall effluent As with Alternative A, the could also be implemented and alternative amount of secondary treatment required to technologies can be considered. It is anticipated produce the 50/50 blend outfall effluent would be in addition to the amount of secondary treatment Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 4 Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) needed to satisfy GW R System Phase I.Alternative BOD. The District is currently evaluating B would require a 301(h)waiver. microfiltration of primary effluent using a demonstration-scale testing unit the results have Alternative C - Full Secondary Treatment been encouraging to date. The pilot information Wastewater trrolment proses to producean diluent formed the basis for facilities development for this that maets seconduy treatmartt standards. alternative. Continued investigation is planned because this alternative process is new for this For Alternative C, full secondary treatment would application and is not fully proven. Alternative D be provided at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2. would require a 301(h)waiver. Wastewater treatment processes would be needed to produce treated wastewater released to the performance of Alternatives ocean that meets secondary treatment A facilities model, developed during the 1999 requirements of 30 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Strategic Plan and updated as part of the Interim Demand(BOD)(and 85 percent removal)and 30 Strategic Plan Update Project,was used to mg/L Total Suspended Solids MS)(and 85 determine the numbers of new facilities that would percent removal). For the purposes of this analysis, be required for each of the four alternatives in the activated sludge is assumed as the representative planning year of 2020. The model also generated technology. However,it should be noted that the estimated effluent quality that each alternative hybrids of these alternatives could also be would achieve. In some cases, the numbers of implemented and alternative technologies could be facilities were driven by the need to achieve a considered.Alternative C would not require a specific level of treatment in other cases,the 301(h)waiver. numbers of facilities were driven by the need to Alternative D -Alternative Treatment accommodate the projected flows in the Year 2020. Wastewater treatment pnxe s to producean ontfall The model also monitored the performance of each affluent(after secondary effluent is diveled to meet alternative in several areas. The performance GWR System requirements)flat is a Need of secondary parameters that were tracked in the model for each treebment effluent and dffuent from an alternative alternative included: primary e(tluont treammt press. FQ this prcjecf, m cnofiltradan is usedas a reproontativraltenadve ■ Pu icHwIth Primary affluent treatment process. ■ Total Coliform levels(ft/100 roll Altemative D is based on an alternative treatment process to augment the existing secondary ■ Virus levels(W/10 ml) treatment. Under this alternative,an alternative treatment process would be needed as a parallel ■ Environmental impacts process to existing secondary treatment- This M Water Quality process would provide treatment to all primary effluent that does not currently receive secondary • Biochemical Oxygen Demand -BOD treatment. The treated wastewater released to the (mg/L) ocean would be a blend of secondary treatment ■ Total Suspended Solids-155(mg/L) effluent and alternative treatment effluent. ■ Biosolids Microfiltration was selected as the representative ■ Number of trucks required to haul alternative treatment technology for the project. Microfiltration removes suspended matter,not biosolids off-site(q/day) soluble constituent so this alternative would meet ■ Truck-generated volatile organic secondary effluent requirements for TSS but not for compounds- VOCs(lbs/day) Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update s i ec+mmwam+uwnesd��s�.�.. am...nn�,ra.w,ev,.�irr rw a.naa Summary Slafemenl A Ina Plarming Advisory Committee(PAC2) A set of Alternative Summary tables that integrated the technical performance parameter output of the facilities model,as presented in the ■ Energy Usage Alternatives Evaluation Table in Attachment 1, ■ Number of equivalent homes that could be with the PAC2 objectives/sub-objectives,shown in supplied (rf of houses) Attachment 2,were prepared;these integrated Alternative Summary tables are shown in ■ Air Quality Attachment 3. To assist in understanding the ■ Process-generated VOCs(Ibs/day) relative degree to which each performance measure achieved the objectives,a three-color ■ Number of biosolids trucks to produce coding system was developed. same amount of VOCs (8 of trucks) ■ Odor and VOC control costs($millions) Narrative Evaluation of Altematives Cost Fff"ativiruses, The information shown in the Alternative Summary tables (Attachment 3)presents a complex ■ Capital Cost($million) set of benefits and risk advantages and ■ O&M Cost($million/year) disadvantages. To facilitate the process of using this information to develop the important decision ■ Estimated User Fee ($/home/year) regarding the level of treatment that most closely achieves the overall objectives of each PAC2 The facilities modeling results formed the technical member,a narrative evaluation has been prepared basis for the evaluations;the results of this that summarizes the advantages and modeling effort were consolidated into an disadvantages of each alternative. Alternative Evaluation Table(shown in Attachment 1),and they were presented to the General PAC2 Comments PAC2 for consideration and discussion in Individual members of the PAC2 offered a number Workshop No.3. These technical results were of comments regarding the evaluation of presented in terms of the objectives that were alternatives. These comments are listed below and established by the PAC2 members,for general grouped according to their subject matter and discussion. primary emphasis: As an additional step to confirm that all ■ Dann vlSpsd&c A/te�ratives alternatives were technically feasible,planning- level site plans were developed for each ■ In a virtually imardmous recommendation, alternative. This site planning process confirmed the PAC2 urged that the Board of Directors that each alternative could be accommodated not consider Alternative A as a viable option. within the current boundaries of the two Among other disadvantages,it was wastewater treatment plant properties. considered unacceptable to offer a lower level of treatment than is currently provided. Integrated Evaluation of Alternatives The PAC2 objectives and sub-objectives were used M It was noted that a combination of to evaluate the four levelof-treatment alternatives. alternatives"C"and "D"which would reach Because the District is currently operating its the 30 BOD/ 30 T55 rate levels and comply facilities to achieve a final effluent consisting of a with the Clean Water Act without the waiver blend of 50 percent primary and 50 percent is a preference. The treatment of sewage secondary ef0uents, Alternative B(30/50 blend) should assure a clean ocean,be of a was used as the baseline for making comparisons. reasonable cost and should not adversely Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update s uaam+awa+xr.vo.m.mrmw�.".r s+.�eMwa..".raw.n.caa_uvr Summary Statemew o/the Ptemeng Advisory Committee(PAC2) impact the environment--land,air,and ■ Finally,it was noted that in future studies, the water--thus ensuring health and safely District should consider land use and native issues. Respect for the wider region's habitat impacts resulting from sludge environment--land use,air and water quality disposal. --is also a consideration. It was believed that the use of secondary treatments including. • Waiver Caarens but not limited to,activated sludge could be cost effective,and the inclusion of ■ Several PAC2 members recommended microffliration techniques in the treatment eliminating the need for a waiver. process would help to ensure removal of more hazardous items than traditional • In this regard,it was noted that there are secondary treatment alone. potential cost savings associated with not having to apply for and maintain a waiver. ■ In the same vein,it was suggested that Alternatives C and D be based on the level of B BvalasBdr Proms f3.M'a` treatment provided,not a specific technology. M The PAC2 members expressed concerns about ■ Further discussions regarding alternatives the representation of the community in the "C"and"D,"rated that Alternative D is the PAC2,questioning whether or not the group most expensive choice, is an unproven was reflective of broader community method,and will require the waiver-and interests. consequently appears less favorable than It was also suggested that the process had alternative"C." been constrained by the limited number of ■ Finally, the view was expressed that alternatives presented for the PAC2 to Alternative"C"is the only acceptable choice. consider. From this point of view,it would It removes more solids(than A and B)and have been more effective to compare a larger doesn't need a waiver in order to comply with number of alternatives or,at least,compare the Clean Water Act. various treatment technologies within alternatives. Having both"current permit" ■ Biosoffds Tm P I andMaregeoliad and "50-50 blend"as two of the four alternatives was thought to be of limited ■ It was fell that as biosolids treatment and value. disposal technology becomes more efficient, ■ Ptrhae Cor6z�ahmrs the cost of dealing with biosolids will decrease and the income from the sale of the (Class A)biosolids could increase. In future 9 It was suggested that in the future,when the planning, it was felt that the District should rates are considered, that connection fees consider more efficient drying procedures should bear a portion of the cost associated than belt presses,which would decrease the with implementing a higher level of service. mass that is hauled away, thereby changing the number of trucks and the amount of fuel It was suggested that the District employ an used. online health survey to capture information regarding illnesses and health effects ■ It was suggested that the District consider resulting from contact with the ocean. A treatment/management options that would proposed form to be used for the survey is provide heat that could be used to generate attached (Attachment 5), electric energy. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update z .�w.'. W'r�w..ms.mw.an�r�—,..,_r.,._..m,- Summary Statemenfoflbe Planning Advisory Commitlee(PAC2) ■ Finally, it was suggested that the Directors always consider the economic value of the water being discharged into the ocean as effluent(i.e.,240 million gallons a day).The value of this water should be quantified and recognized as a resource that is currently going unused.This resource could be reclaimed and sold,offsetting the cost of treating wastewater to higher levels. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategk Plan Update a Wvevmwwa.i,erm..=.+sm,..na...nr.yr,�..a..ne: Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) Evaluation of Alternative A-Permit Limits Altemabve A—Permit Limits Summitry of Advanta es and Disadvantages Objective Advantages Disadvantages Protect Public Health Higher virus levels in effluent Protect the Environment • Fewer air emissions for BOD removal More air emissions from disinfection • Fewer off-site space requirements Removes less TSS • Fewer air emissions from TSS removal Fewer biosolids available for reuse • Fewer air emissions from biosolids management Less digester gas for cogeneration • Uses less energy Removes less BOD • Higher energy costs for disinfection • Higher disinfection costs Requires a waiver for BOD and TSS Provide Cost-Effective Services • Lower capital costs • Less adaptable to other disinfection technologies • Lower OSM costs Greater disinfection cost • Lower user rate Potentially reduced beachhac eational benefits • Lower Boo removal cost Fewer biosolids for reuse • Lower TSS removal cost Less digester gas for cogeneration • Lower biosolids management cost • Lower odor control costs • Lower energy costs More adaptable for BODrrSS facilities Promote Integrated Regional solutions More money available for projects PAC2 Comments on Alternative A Altemabve A comments received by the PAC2 ■ It was noted that Alternative A has the included the following,: disadvantage of treating to less than full secondary. ■ The PAC2 recommended that the Board of Directors not consider Alternative A as a viable ■ It was also fell that Alternative A was not option. protective of the public health or of the environment;and that it would be unacceptable ■ It was noted that Alternative A has the to the community to undertake lesser treatment disadvantage of requiring a 301(h)waiver for than that which is currently performed. BOD and TSS. ■ It was noted that Alternative A has potential additional"soft'costs associated with applying and maintaining a waiver. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 9 Evaluation of Alternative B -50)60 Blend Alternative a—50150 Bland Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages Ob Advantages Disadvantages Protect Public Hugh Lower virus levels man W" Higher virus levels than'C'or-D' Protect the Environment • Removesmore TSSthan'A' Removes less TSS than'C-or'D' • Needs less disinfection than'A' Needs more disinfection than'C'or'D' • Less process air emissions lhan'C' More process air emissions lhan'A- • More tack air emissions than'A-or'D- Less truck air emissions lhan-C- • Less VOC emissions lhan'C' More open space for biosoids disposalfreuse • Less open space for biosolids disposagreuse than"A'or'D" than'C' More disinfection energy than'C'or'D" • Less disinfection energy than"A" More overall energy than'A' • Less Overall energy than"C"or'D' Requires a waiver for BOD and TSS Provide Cost-Effective Services • Less extensive disinfection system the "A" More extensive disinfection system than"'or • More proven treatment process than'D' • More adaptable to other disinfection technologies Less adaptable to other disinfection technologies 0an'A' than'C'or'D' • Leaves more on-site space than"C'for future Leaves less or ice space than'A'for future expansion expansion • Lower disinfection cost than"A' M Higher disinfection cost than'C'or'D' • Lower BOD/TSS removal cost Ihan'C'or'D' Higher BODfTSS removal cost than'A- • Lower biosolids management met thanT' . Higher biosolids management cost than'A'or • Lower energy costs than'C" .0. • Lower odor control cost than'C' M Higher energy costs than'A" • Lower VOC control cost than-C' Higher odor control cost than'A'or'D" • Lower ce iMI,O&M and user fu Bmn"C'o"D' I H' her ilaf,O&M and userfee than'A' Promote Integrated Regioul Soludons • More money for regional projects l a,'C'm'D' Less biosolids reuse opportunities than-C' • Less money for regional projects maxi PAC2 Comments can Alternative B Alternative B comments received by the PAC2 ■ It was also felt that Alternative B has the included the following. disadvantage of treating less than full secondary. ■ It was noted that Alternative B has the disadvantage of requiring a 301(h)waiver for ■ It was fell that Alternative B was rot ROD and TSS protective of the public health or the environment. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 10 .gym,cow„�vY+„•s�.�®s...•,s•�,..v�.,s•.�.�.,..•.a_....,,.�,m Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) ■ It was noted that Alternative B has potential additional"soft"costs associated with applying,and maintaining,a waiver. ■ It was noted that Alternative B with disinfection offers a cost effective method that balances the needs of water,air and land use. It was noted that this will also let us focus our valuable resources to address what most likely is the primary culprit of beach closures, that is,urban runoff and not the Districrs discharge. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update t t L 106WZBIpa%NI11p,pubNrmLmW SmRa.IFwa,mWSUYneXim.Fµ M�rbr Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Commiltee(PA 32) Evaluation of Alternative C-Full Secondary Alternative C—Full Secondary Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages Objective Advantages Disadvantages Protectioubecifealth Lower virus levels in effluent Protect the Environment • Lower disinfection requirement - More air emissions from Boo removal • Less disinfection power required More air emissions from TSS removal • Removes more TSS More air emissions from biosolids management • More biosolids available for reuse More energy required • Fewer off-site space requirements • Goes not require a waiver Provide Cost-Effective Services • Higherdisinfection reliability Higher Boo removal cast • More digester gas for cogeneration Leas I adaptable to other BOD/TSS technologies • More adaptable for other disinfection Higher cost for TSS removal technologies More cast for biosolids management • Lowest disinfection cost More energy required • Potential greater beachheveational benefits Higher cost for energy • Lower biosolids management cost Higher cost for odor and VOC control • Higher capital cost • Higher 08M costs Higher user rate Promote Integrated Regional Solutions • Less money for regional projects PAC2 Comments on Alternative C Alternative C comments received by the PAC2 ■ It was noted that there may be potential cost included the following: savings associated with not having to apply for and maintain a waiver. ■ It was noted that Alternative C should include an evaluation of tricking filters or other ■ It was felt that Alternative C provides more processes(in lieu of activated sludge)to meet options for going into other possibilities. It the secondary treatment standard of 30 mg/L was noted that Alternative C allows full ROD and 30 mg/L TSS. It was felt that the implementation of the GWR System and the evaluation should consider energy usage, associated full reclamation. It was also biosolids production and other factors. pointed that when combined with disinfection,another outfall is not needed ■ It was also pointed out that Alternative C has even if the GWR System fails to materialize the advantage of not requiring a 301(h) (resulting in discharges to either the short waiver. outfall or to the Santa Ana River). Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 12 Lm My am+,r.�ww.av^rrv�F��� Fµ N1,as Summary Statement of me Planning Adwsory Comm4me(PAC2) ■ It was rated that Alternative C was more protective of the public health and of the environment. ■ It was pointed out that Alternative C provides a proven(88 year old)method of complying with the Clean Water Act without a waiver. ■ It was noted that Alternative C demonstrates respect for the environment. ■ It was felt that it would be easier to clean up the effluent of Alternative C than it would be for the effluents of either Alternatives A or B. Is It was fell that comparisons of treatment technologies would have been more useful than one representative technology. ■ It was noted that Alternative C has the advantage of costing less than Alternative D. ■ It was noted that the user fee impact is a reasonable cost for the benefits that Alternative C achieves. ■ It was noted that Alternative C should be based on level of treatment,not a specific technology. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 13 Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) Evaluation of Alternative D-Alternative Treatment Alternative D-Alternative Treatment Sum atAdvan as and Disadvantages Advanbges Disadvantages Protect Public Health Lower virus levels in effluent Protect the Environment • Lowrerdisinfectionrequirement Requiresawaiverfor BOD • Less disinfection power required • Removesmore TSS Fewer air emissions from biosolids Provide Cost-Effective Services • Higher disinfection reliability Lower reliability of BOD and TSS removal • More adaptable for other disinfection technologies(microfiarafim) technologies Higher SOD removal cost • Lowest disinfection cost Higher cast fm TSS removal • Potential greater beaWreaeallonal benefits Fewerbiosolidsformuse • More digester gas for cogeneration Higher capital cost • Lower odor control costs Higher O&M costs Higher user raw Promote In tad Reg(onal5oluflons Less money for regional projects PAC2 Comments on Alternative D Alternative D comments received by the PAC2 disinfection,another outfall is not needed (for included the following: discharges to either the short outfall or to the Santa Ana giver). Is It was felt that Alternative D has the disadvantage of requiring a 301(h)for BOD. Is It was felt that Alternative D is a developmental alternative and that sufficient information is ■ It was noted that the District should consider currently not available regarding the cost options to revise Alternative D so that a waiver effectiveness of microftllration as an alternative is not required. For example, the District should to full secondary treatment. consider increasing biological secondary treatment(with activated sludge,tricking filters, ■ It was noted that microfiltration of primary or other technologies)so that blended effluent effluent is not proven at this large scale. meets 30 mg/L BOD and 30 mg/L TSS requirements. . ■ It was noted that this alternative was the most expensive,and the reliability of this alternative ■ It was fell that Alternative D provides more won't be known for years. options for going into other possibilities. It was noted that this alternative allows full reclamation,and,when combined with Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 14 v.,nnawwvanmvm.ou.o.m-...e.=.=s�w,•..ae.�....a...,_rn r Summary Stalemenl orthe Planning Advisory Commidee(PAC2) ■ It was noted that the backwash from the Alternative D microfiltmtion process still requires full secondary treatment. ■ It was noted that additional treatment technologies and combinations of technologies would be far more useful for the analysis than data solely on microfiltration. ■ It was noted that Alternative D has the advantage of giving better solids removal than any other alternative. ■ It was noted that the user fee impact is a reasonable cost for the benefits that Alternative D achieves. ■ It was noted that Alternative D has higher capital costs and user fees than all other alternatives Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 15 Summary Slatemenl or the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) Attachments Attachment I - Alternative Evaluation Table Attachment 2- PAC2 Objectives/Sub-Objectives Attachment 3- Alternative Summary Tables (Color) Attachment 4 - List of PAC2 members Attachment 5-Suggested form for online survey Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 16 Orange G Interim Alterna Public Health Environmental Impacts Allsmative Total Virus Energy Conform r water Quality Blosollds Usage odor Levels, Levels Control V PFU3 301(h) BOD TSS Trucks Eml OC Equivalent Willful, Description a10B col 110 col Waiver (mgA-)x (mgg-)a Per from Trucks Homesa Cost VOC Required? tlay (lbslday)s Cost Emissions Ibs/tla A Permit Limits -1.000 23 Yes 98 51 32 1,900 20,900 $5 18 B 50150 Blend O,DGD 15 Yes 69 39 35 2,100 23,400 $6 20 C Full <1,000 3 No 20 20 38 2.300 28,200 $7 691 8 cundary D Alternative <1,000 <3 Yes 40 9 32 1,900 23,600 $5 42 Treatmem Assumptions: See almched'AssumplionsMomY document for detailed Nscussbrs. All evaluations were based on projected Year M20 flow conditions. All aftems 'Tom,.olfform Masters based on levels after initial dilution of approximately fall ,Estimated values hoes 1999 Musical.Plan Envimnmenml Impast Report. 3PFU=plaque-forming unk;vim'mvem are as estimated leaving the Ireabnent facilities(i.e..before disWbn). 'Values represent 3 Jay awmie anticipated parformance. 'Based on a 350-mite muMrip completed in one day. 69ased on an avemgedaly winter household onergy consumption oil7 MHr. 7UPPercaplel cost value is me estimated Idol project scat fd new feelings ant include design,construction and other project-related coals. lower ca 80peraOon and maintenance costs am estimated annual cosine operate the existing and new f e llges in wmr2020. O6M costs include maintenance, 'Based on historic:level of corn essrs(approximately 3.800/yr)and a commoner,fee structure that is consistent wllh current OCSD fmandal planning. Strategic Plan caphal lemon menm program.Is approximately$15411ome/year. A more detailed study of user fees and connection bus ,to Me enure, '"Utibfence b Issued on comparson between Me estimated single-(amity residence fee for the signalling against Me estimate fee for 1999 Stralegic P 'Difference is Masud on comparison between Me estimated single-hmiy mideme fee for me&1emaWe sanest the authors fee for AMernadw B. o0ifference is based on comparison between Me estimated CIP for the ailernaliw against the estimate CIP for 1999 Strategic Plan($1.7%billion). 130ifference is based on comparison between Me eelbrmted CIP for the aftemalk a against the estimate CIP for Ahemabm B. inty Sanitation District trategic Plan Update ve Evaluation Table Evaluation Crlteda Cost Effectiveness Air Quality Capitol Cost Single Fand Residence User Fee Estimated Difference Dlffemnce operation Difference and Estimated Compared to Difference C Control(lot New Treatment processes) Capital Compared to Comparetl s s Compared Cost' 1999 sp" to Alt.Bra Maintenance User Fee' 19$1 5P at S154m to Alt.Bra Control With Control voc Capital S milliard $million S million $miftrull SRmmalyr f/homelyr Slhume/yr Equivalent Emissions Equivalent Cost $b110on Trucks/tlay Ibsida Trucks/day illbn 0.3 2 0.03 $2 S711m/ .3160 -$41 $52.2 $153 -$7 i10 f1.59� 0.3 2 0.03 $3 S1� -5119 $0 $57.7 $163 $9 SO 11.4 69 1.74 $11 f Oeb $152 S271 $64.9 f195 f41 S32 0.7 4 0.07 $5 fi 64MV $189 $= $63.0 $199 S45 $36 es include pallo,en reduction facipges, at cost value is the estbnate tole]capital improvement pang em cost forall work(newfaciides,whabi ration/replamnient of existing fatlllties,etc). mradon and miscellaneous expenses,but exclude technical support ant adm»istralion. 'or oompadson,the single-famay residence(SFR)user we Nat is pro)Med for Year 2020.based on the current f999 n by OCSD. n lEtSq. Attachment 1 PwcsDuessamsmstalamammma 2-01, 50s bi De.m,a pdx Original List of PAC Member Values Reorganized List(consolidated hits,obfeavansub-obpcurer) 1. Cost effective and responsible waste disposal Protect Public Health i 2. No environmental destruction • Minimize risk of ocean-related health problems Values 4 and to 3. Amount of open space .:. ..... .. ....�, ...,..,, . 4. Protect public health and safety Protect and Respect the Environment 5. Respect for the environment • Provide dean beaches and water,and avoid 6. Impact or benefits to the county's other water resources envaenmental degradation of water(ocean), air(emissions).and lend(open space) 7. Provide clean beaches and clean water VA..2,2,s,r,s a n 8. Certainty that means are effective In achieving benefits ,y" • Maximize efficient use of regional resources --- --- -- - -. "' (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) 9. Assure that other means that can be Implemented Wines e,Is,and 19 by agencies outside OCSD are addressed • Minimize odor impacts on community 10. Impacts quality resulting from any new facilities V.bw 10 to adjacentnt communities ' "" 111' " 11. Advance the level of coastal protection Provide Cost-Effective Services • Maximize reliability of system improvements 12. Protect/maximize economic benefits resulting from V,m e clean beaches • Maximize adaptability of system improvements 13. Minimize pollution In ocean and on beaches Vet.w (fecal coliform count;viral content;BODICOO;OHIGrease; • Minimize cost to rate payers Heavy metals,pesticides and hormones;TSS) valve t and to -^- - ---- - •14. Consider the economic value of the water treated i � Maximize sconomicaecrealional benefitsof clean beadles 15. Improve and maintain public perception of environmental { Valve 12.W is cleanliness • Maximize resource value of bypriducts(i.e.,economic Value of water,biosaidds and digester gas) 16. Minimize use of Imported water in Orange County V.I.island 17 17. Maximize resource value of perceived waste products ,"_.l- "II 1 11 --` 18. Assure financial accountability Promote Integrated Regional Solutions 19. Impacts on land and energy resulting from various levels • Maximize oppo timilies for regional solutions of treatment(e.g.,biosolids) cow.s • Maximize opportunities for system modetingAveb-based 20. Provide for adaptability if assumptions are subject men of information for analysis and evaluation to significant uncertainty - vduaa 21. Provide a system simulation tool that provides holistic predictive results for various alternatives Was: 22. Complete comparison to secondary treatment odpinm cots.m122 was nplmn.cuned nine.dons.— 22. °Conmeare wmparbon W....d.ry tnnua l"Aawrwdn C nemnnse .. ,...e, . . AA'.¢ ,af h ed'bem Vaned bdlmrepmwliwa. Attachment Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 6-07-02 Development of Objectives and Sub-Objectives forAlternatives Comparison Orange County Sanitation District- Interim Strategic Plan Update Altemadme,Summary Perlmmance Meawb: OVERALL OE/ectnd'$. edq-e,ee Allenun—A I AaamatMa i ARameWeC AlMaatlreD Cammmb Pcrml(Llmlls 5MW MM I FOY 5eoonE! Adorned"Trverna l Rolset Pulled ReaIN -NIaIICmalrvM nave sMrienl -Nl ellemarivea nave aue¢a!d -Nl allamalwes NYB aYIGOMI ye Total Mrm xal ocean p¢ullagron to acM1ieve same aver of Orsrnleclwn to aNrevl name bveld O'mnkclbn to eUMw name—I of OdYonn yrU rdalea eea5m dre —1 drdnr tlnn almo— anrnbCan at Pe.elan dmnde rod al me dean V..Lewer -Myner level a a re. Lowe,rev .1vrN5ea Lower lowel d erodes A,V.laM Re eel the Environment PNVNe clean ne acred and water.—r,a denvimnmonbl Jegmdalro -All albmalivea deal Caliber.Oman -TEE-NmWL 4VlaYamelivp meal Glibmia Ocean NI alMmalwee mad GlrMmb Oceen Pbn br BOO Io wXall Wald� cman 'A'remoWe lass RMS(5f mplLlo "RZ11 PMdbr BOU; PlanbrBOD Sed ROD aM ( outlall) 3p1(n._ 'RMwle T55(20 nr Lb outlet) �Renrnas mad,TEE(9 MR&b dMall); TEE Ramses a 301(p le.M Tssaq In,Tss and 'Does wl reewre a 301(Ill waiver for oms nol reauim a Ylf(p welaer he BW �O Tss or Boo Tss(ddddarfaeoo) less em¢swn'nom s .nY More ns irpm sacatlary sae BOD. dere nL dedment ra64vn dvNarodn TSS. Aullmmmnal lee annex—Vero oYsdpe M,A; -Needere lem..l.datld: im11. B.W.I. Maeeer drefmmdsMedbn Less mnZ ns from de,nfebon less em w rssna Vann b..o need; Teal Colieen drlmrfalt:k. rdadr—1 troche Vm form dam) -Leabrd,eaereefaemditls .More la.da.add W b.R -Les MM Real Mr dosdlda See Bmsdrds mau9enrem(eel eiredel nay.,ne,d bed eroaoeml rned.g. (aeeeddeL Maarmr:e eerwnl deal of reerona"rearma see Eeargy I,n. wale,.power.ndual Aawerener,rdle, -bgner energy usage real gas,and land) sea Model Mrnr ¢e Wo,rmpac4 an c.ommanrry Eneg Usa mlry ^ave po[!zs for control alle and Oda Oaaml Pyo.m.Cost-Edame sen ee, de.ederawe ion re1raMNy Because Mo.... A relradld,of Lower d¢idedron mlraBrlM lemma Rgner drsrMeNon nymdrlry eecaum Igs oalenmse VmVe ; Sae BODand system rmpwgnede Rleenyve pmceff I...rrnmaM Pmceae "Lower rtiradilrlY Because dsMMr Total CdYwm nrsmry den,advdrrze o-ealmem "Less aUplaae 1w bs,Il wn W—se -Mwa aoaptaa b,ibs.M.m ow to $ae BOD.T5 MxS�Tijo aeaaaalm a a less s..,vealrrom: mM1e zeCOn aI 4.ubvw, : AMnn a s.u..b,mum..j—H, ane lnMf syshmimpwements -Mwe aeaoMde b'.,bss nUeiuse -Less Map lw e+,—ppUus, moses—isury tnblm , ess 5emneary lreafinenl spa—us.by swoneary l—a ut CJlilmn RgM1tt Ibs...--., owd dvnletlm—L See DOD, -L.—DOD aM iSS remwdl rmM; g LovKK dSlllMpn Gast' M Ifn 90O anJ I55 mmwal cost: TSS,Trial MinimiSo cmllo rJlOWyers {owe/bozdiJs,enorpy aM Wprdrbd JlgllO bpsbgs.nnefgy dvlNnNOC IfyM1er —1-OD T$u,bul val IN Cddam ost: fMeM Cosb: LJwe/u�osJM1os ano Wo,—ntra dffi: Caplal.(MM -Lower Updav08M cost,users lllpNw UpbYObMcbsl.ufv lro "Mgryn UplaYOdb emLS rear lee ano User Fro -ulaRmalrves azJ�l¢ve ame bYaa NI anemalnesamiwn same Iwola NI almmalrves aI,—same l-.1uf Manmrze WST ,.n al Ne cNLle, zmletlm.1 uMbll u—kbem al me.1.11 Soo Tom Tee—...onal MSM1Y ¢vBl a.nsuses. Lower nm of v✓uxi Lowe,loyal aviNse; Cdic,and .bu,bba tloan beaUes -MI alkmMrvesrMIl CaobmO Of -Nla I..,. I,1 Gldomia 01 "N l allemalrves rtsel Glibma OR- V11—Levas q n PUn Wn Mavmnn 25cur-valueM %rou-s hss b0 du ld muaoa PIWums Mp dusags bl Museba Plus -slessbiosobdslwmuseasa mn mz I,e,rcenomuc vaha"1 P1Wums lmsd�paem,Ya.Iw IhW®a 111ma e�aeskrgm kr R1Wurnz mam J�peele. Sea Roo.Ts wall.pmsol�es anJ gas br anJ BmdGs digmlm uas) W Ibuabon caMaMlabWl crgencalwn Romoh In riled nal SONria - M..iwxe opp.,u.b.,bf Mde Uplm auyWuh lo,ra]pNl 'GanT Ses/Kytlin9 ryMrp'ls. LM raplY YyalabakrnpblW Snc 11.1. re9mal ssI.b—s pol s Lev rvpnal ava�lauk ld mnd,egional Pdlbh C—rTpnai doleas caul —11 Manmrzn oppaeuMms br syslpm mWelin{Ywno" NI allemalrms osa IM same kvMs d opw.bu.1— udxJ ac--of inlofmabon mr analysis a.evaluaum ILey to cobs O Relabuep Defer O Nodoleren- RNAwlywdse O NlemalrveDd Pedwman-Measure is Na AMI—bleb Sub Ob;eclme Attachment Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update Alternative Summary Tables P roesba]xwlavamvonxsPorsmonnSlforsMmrn Y.eMfoal—S—I,Iron s lunuo.aran JxaeT Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 1 Performance Summary-Total Coliform(Level of Disinfection) Alternative A Altemative B Alternative C Altemative D Objectives/Subobjectivea (Altemative Comments (Penult Limits) (50150 Blend) (Full Secondary) Treatment] Total Coltonn Level after Dilution(#It 00 ml) <1,000 <7,000 <7,000 <1,000 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health All alternatives have disinfection sufficient to achieve the same level of mltorm problems reduction at the outall Protect and Res eet the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) Air(emissions) "A"has higher "C'and"D"have lower chemical dosage Chemical dosage effects the number of chemical chemical dosage trucks and associated VOC emissions Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources "A"requires more "C"and"D"require less power for Energy usage for disinfection is related to the (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) power for disinfection chemical dosing. disinfection Minimize odor impacts on community Provide Cost-Etlective Services "A'has higher Chemical dosage effects the reliability of the process. Maximize reliability of system improvements "C"and"D"have lower chemical dosage The more dosing required,the less reliable the chemical dosage system. "A"is less adaptable U.an are more adapumne too er Fm comparison,all alternatives assume disinfection Maximize adaptability of system to other disinfection technologies since they with bleach. Other technologies,such as UV or improvements recremiogiessince pmw.emoresewn....0 anmuauvel u.xte ere n u e u euuve ut sewnuary emuem man has less second. treatment on blends of dma and second. effluent. Minimize cost to ratepayers ..A.,has higher -C"and'D'have lower chemical dosage Chemical dosage effects the cost for disinfection chemical dosage Maximize ewnomic/recreational benefits of All alternatives have disinfection sufficient to achieve the same level of wlfform clean beaches reduction at the wffall Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e..economic value of water,biosolids and Negligible difference due to disinfection digester gas) Promoted Integrated Regional Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system madeling/web-basetl access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative B or Pedonnance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P IOCSD-83261 C3 19WORKSHOPSMORKSHOP51AVach 3-Altemafives Summary(draft 5 Jun)/fotal Coloorm DRAFT 611112002 Orange County Sanitation District- Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 2 Performance Summary- Vim%Levels Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Altemative D ObjecflveslSubobjectives (Permit Llmlts) (50150 Bland) (Full Secondary) (AlternativeComments Treatment) Virus Levels(PFU/10 ml) 23 15 3 <3 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health •A•has higher virus -C"and'D'have lower virus levels in problems levels In effluent effluent Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(mean) Air(emissions) Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e..water,power,natural gas,and land) Minimize odor impacts on community Provide Cost-EMecOve Services Maximize reliability of system improvements Maximize adaptability of system improvements Minimize cost to ratepayers Maximize economic recreational benefits of •A•has higher virus "C"and"D'have lower virus levels in clean beaches levels in elfluenl effluent Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e.,economic value of water,biosohds and digester gas) Promoted InfegninaciR tonal Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively beffer No difference Relatively worse Alternative 8 or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P/OCSD.8526/U1 19WORKSHOPS/WORK HOPS/Anach 8.Ntematives Summary(draft 5 Jun)Nims Levels DRAFT 6/11/2682 Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 3 Performance Summary-Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD)(Level of Secondary Treatment) O 'eav o es/Subb ectives Alternative A Alteative B Alternative C Alternative D (Permit Limits) (50150 Blend) (Full Secondary) Alternative Comments Treatment) Effluent Concentration(BOO)(mg/L) 98 69 20 40 Protect Public Health Minimize ask of ocean related health problems BOO is not typically a publichealth risk in the ocean. Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) All alternatives must meet California Ocean Plan requirements Only C does not require a 301 (h)waiver for BOD The amount of secondary treatment for BOD Air(emissions) Less secondary More secondary reduction effects air emissions. Secondary treatment treatment treatment with activated sludge produces more air emission VOCs than primary treatment. Land(open space) Less energy used, energy used, Maximize efficient use of regional resources since less since mom Secondary treatment with activated sludge is more (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) secondary secondary energy-Intensive than primary treatment. treatment I Itneatmem Minimize odor impacts on community All alternatives provide odor control for processes Provide Cost-EOecflve Services Mazim¢e reliability of system improvements "D"relies on technology with a shorter history Of proven performance Maximize arUnlahilih,of svcbm _____-- -+_�_.w ...._ ♦_,.aawc rn m'Fm mIu ......... 'A'has lower cost � C-has higher cost 'D"has higher cost Minimize cost to ratepayers per lb BOO $2861lb per lb BOO Ifter lb BOD removed($2561[b) removed($66911b) removed($809Ab) Maximize economidnecreational benefits of All alternatives must meet California Ocean Plan requirements clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts Produces 169 Produces 166 Produces more P.acutxs more Effluent from'C"and'D'require relatively less (i.e.,economic value of water,biosolitls and million fl /mo million R'/ma digester gas(180 digester gas(174 additional treatment for reuse digester gas) digester gas digester gas million R'/mo) million fl'/rrlo) Promoted Integrated Regional Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modelirgtweb-based access of information All alternatives after the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative 8 or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P:/OCSD-9326/343 MWORKSHOPSNIORKSHOP51Anam 3-Alternatives Summary(doh 5 Jun)MOD DRAFTWW2002 Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 6 Performance Summary-Total Suspended Solids Objectives/Sub-objectives Alternative Alternative IS Alternative Alternative (Permit Limits) (50I50 Blend) (Full Secondary) (Alternative Comments Treatment) Effluent Concentration(TSS)(mglL) 51 39 20 9 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health problems TSS is not typically a public health risk in the ocean. Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) "A"removes less "C"removes more "D"removes more Only C and D do not require a 301(h)waiver for TSS TSS TSS TSS The amount of secondary treatment r T Air(emissions) Less secondary MOrg gbCOKdilir ] reduction effects air emissions. Secondary treatment treatment 0eabtliit(. with activated sludge produces more air emission IVOCs1 than primary treatment. Land(open space) Less energy used, ore energy Maximize efficient use of regional resources since less since more Secondary treatment with activated sludge is more (i.e...water,power,natural gas,and land) secondary secondary energy-inlensive than primary treatment. treatment treatment Minimize odor impacts on community Provide Cost-Elhacfive Services Maximize reliability of system improvements "D"relies on lechnology with a shoner history of proven performance Maximize adaptability of system •A•nroviros more sear..on site for future facilities to 'A'has laver cost 'C has higher cost �*W has higher cost Minimize cost to ratepayers per lb TSS removed $32841I per Ib TSS removed per lb BOD ($25311b) ($838/Ib) removed($8728b) Maximize economicirecrealional benefits of All alternatives must meet California Ocean Plan requirements clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts Produces 169 Produces IN Produces more Produces more (i.e..economic value of wafer, biosolids and mdlbn fts/coo mmmn iP/coo dge!u gas(180 digester gas(174 Effluentety lessdigester gas) digeslergas digester gas millionfta/coo) million fta/me) Promoted Integrated R ional Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All altematives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative B or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P'IOCSD.83MIU W19WORKSHOPSWORKSHOP5IAttadt 3-Altematwes Summary(drift 5 Jun)RSS D"176/1112002 Orange County Sanitation District- Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 5 Performance Summary-Blosollds Alternative A Altemative B Altamative C Alternative D Ob/ecfNes/Subob/actives (permit Llmlts) (50/5g Blend) (Full Secontlary) (Alternative Comments Treatment) Trucks per day 32 35 38 32 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health problems Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) For blosollds,the air emissions are primarily from Air(emissions) Less trucks More trucks Less trucks trucks that haul biosolids to Kem County. So,the more tracks,the more emissions. Less land required More land required Less land required Land(open space) for blosollds for biosolids for biosollds management management management Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e.,water, power,natural gas,and land) Minimize odor Impacts on community All ailematives have odor control for solids handling within the plant sites Provide Cost-Egective Services Maximize reliability of system improvements Maximize adaptability of system improvements The amount of trucks(biosolids)for disposalln:use Minimize cost to ratepayers Less trucks Law trucks The the cast for biosolids management. s. Maximize economicirecreational benefits of clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts ..4 digester reuse red"economic value of water,biosolitls and More biosolids for Less hlosoft for digester gas) k Promoted Indegrated Regional Solutions Provides most Maximize opporunities for regional solutions regional eppoduntiles Maxima¢opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for ana"is and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative B or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective PIOCSD-60261,U3"19WORKSHOPSWORKSHOP5/Avarh3 Attemanves Summary(draft5Jun)/Biosl,ds DRAFT6/112002 i Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 6 Performance Summary-Energy Usage Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Ob/ecHveslSubobjectives (Alternative Comments (Permit Limits) (60150 Blend) (Full Secondary) Treatment) Equivalent Homes 20,900 23,400 28,200 23,600 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of mean related health problems Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) Air(emissions) Assumes emissions form all energy production Is controlled Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources -A'uses less 'C uses more (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) energy resources evergyandlissi Minimize odor impacts on community Assumes odor from all energy production is controlled Provide Cost-ERecth a Services Maximize reliability of system improvements Maximize adaDtebility,of system nryrvvmmm�s "C"uses more Minimize cost to ratepayers "A"has lowest energy,so has energy costs higher costs for energy Maximize ecenomidrecreatlonal benefits of clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts "A"produces less "C"produces more fi.e.,economic value of water,bins lids and digester gas for digester gas for digester gas) oopeneraWn cogeneration Promoted Integrated R tonal Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative 8 or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P.IOCSD-8J260CJ MWORKSHOPSMORKSHOP5IAnach 3 Altemarves Summary draft 5 Jun)IEnergy Usage DRAFT 6/112082 i Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 7 Performance Summary-Odor Control Alternative A Allemative B Altemative C Alternative D ObjecflveslSubob(eetives (Permit Limit.) (SBI56 Blend) (Full Secondary) (Alternative Comment. Treatment) Capital Cost($million) $5 S6 $7 $5 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health problems Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) Air(emissions) All alternatives have odor control for processes Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) Minimize odor impacts on community All alternatives have odor control for processes Provide Lost-Ef ipethre Services Maximize reliability of system improvements Maximize adaptability of system Mvrc, iaiP,a Minimize cost to ratepayers Lower cost for Higher cost for Lower cost for process odor control process odor control process odor control Maximize economic/recreational benefits of clean beaches El Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e.,economic value of water,biosolids and digester gas) Promoted Integrated R Zonal Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of Information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference '="'17I Relatively worse Alternative B or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P;IOCSD-692613 344I9WORKSHOPSIWORKSHOPS/Made 9-Alternatives Summary(dmfl 5 Jun/Odor Control DRAB 61111202 Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 8 Performance Summary-VOC Control AlternativeA Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Objectives/Subobjectives (Alternative Comments (Permit limits) (58/5a Btentl) (Full Seeontla M Treatment) VOC Emissions with control(lbs/day) 2 2 68 4 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health problems Protect and Respectthe Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental de mdelion Water(mean) All alternatives have VOC controls on new process Air(emissions) facilities. Amount of VOC control required is related to level of secondary treatment Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) Minimize odor impacts on community All alternatives have VOC controls on new process facilities Provide Cost-Effective Services Maximize reliability of system improvements Maximize adaptability of system improvemems Minimize cost to ratepayers 'All'B"cost for 'C'has highest cost The amount of VOCs emitted through the treatment Ag'A'cost for VOC AltO'cost for VOC processes is highest from activated sludge(aeration ($3 control for VOC control control($2 million) control($5 million) basins).So alternatives with most activated sludge $3 million) ($11 million) treatment emit the most VOCs and require more Maximize economic/recreational benefits of clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e.,economic value of water,biosolids and digester gas) Promoted integrated Regional Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative B or Performance Measure m Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P./OCSD 8326//M4 19WORKSHOPSMORKSHOP5/Attach 3-Allemabves Summary(draft 5 Jur)NOC Conhol DRART 6/1112 0 0 2 i Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 9 Performance Summary-Capital Coat Alternative A Alternative B Altemative C Alternative O Ob/eetives/Subob(ect(ves (permit Limits) (50/50 Blend) (Full Seeontlary) (Altemative Comments Treatment) Capital Cost($million) $111 $152 $423 $460 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health problems Protect and Respect the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradalion Water(ocean) Air(emissions) Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e.,water,power, natural gas,and land) Minimize odor impacts on community Provide Cost-Etyecttve Services Maximize reliability of system improvements All alternatives are reliable for cost expended Maximize adanmhility of stern ry�mv mum W"has lower capital "C"and"D"have greater capital costs Minimize cost to ratepayers cast due to less due to the additional facilities facility requirements requirements. Maximize economtchecrealfonal benefits of clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e.,eronomic value of water,biasolids and digester gas) Promoted Integrated Regional Solutions "A"results In more '•C"antl"D"result in less money available Maximize opportunities for regional solutions money available for for regional projects regional projects Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation -4 Key to colors O Relatively better No difference 0 Relatively worse Alternative B or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P IOCSD-63261UW19WORKSHOPSANORKSHOPS/AnaM 3-Alternatives Summary(draft 5 Jun)/Capital Cost DRAFT 6I11I2002 Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 10 Performance Summary-Operation and Maintenance Cost Objectives/Subobjectives Alternative A Altemative B ((Alternative Comments Alternativeative C Alternative D (Permit Limits) (50/50 Blend) (Full Secondary) Treatment) Operation and Maintenance cost($milliordyr) $52.2 $57.7 $64.9 $63.0 Protect Public Health Minimize ask of ocean related health problems Protect and Res ecf the Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid environmental degradation Water(ocean) Air(emissions) Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) Minimize odor impacts on community Provide Cost-Eflecttve Services Maximize reliability of system improvements All alternatives are reliable for cost expended Maximbe ad.nt.hili.of aastam mproveneeis "A"has lower a -C"and"O"have greater O&M costs due Minimize cost to ratepayers costs due to less to the additional facilities requirements. facility requirements Maximize economic/recreational benefits of clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e.,economic value of water,biosollds and digester gas) Promoted Integrated Regional Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access of information All alternatives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation -4 Key to colon Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative B or Performance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P IOCSD9326/MA 19WORKSHOPS/WORKSHOP5/Anadt 3.Altemabves Summary draft 5 Jun)ICBM Cost DRAFT6/112pe2 Orange County Sanitation District-Interim Strategic Plan Update Table 11 Performance Summary-Sewer Service Charge Alternative A Alternative Alternative Alternative ObjecflveslSub-obJeegves (Alter(Permit Limits) (50150 Blend) (Full Secondary) Treatment)ative Comments Treatmont) Annual SFR Sewer Service Charge($/SFR/yr) $153 $163 $195 $199 Protect Public Health Minimize risk of ocean related health problems ProfictandRespectthe Environment Provide clean beaches and water,and avold environmental de radation Water(ocean) Air(emissions) Land(open space) Maximize efficient use of regional resources (i.e.,water,power,natural gas,and land) Minimize odor impacts on community Provide Cost-EHacfive Services Maximize reliability of system improvements Maximizeadaptability of system improvements "A"has lower user Minimize at to ratepayers fee due to lower 'C"and"D'have greater user fees due to capital and annual higher capital and O&M coals O&M costs Maximize economichecreational benefits of clean beaches Maximize resource value of byproducts (i.e.,economic value of water,biosolids and digester gas) Promoted Integrated Regional Solutions Maximize opportunities for regional solutions Maximize opportunities for system modelin9tweb-based access of information All altematives offer the same levels of opportunities for analysis and evaluation Key to colors Relatively better No difference Relatively worse Alternative B or Pedormance Measure is Not Applicable to Sub-Objective P IOCSD 8326/M1 19WORKSHOPSMORKSHOP514nan 3-Ahemauves Summary(draft 5 Jun user Fee DRAFT 6/1112002 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop II Organization Name City zip Coda No. 1 No.2 Na3 Nc,4 No.S (lint) (v29/02) (412211112) (W16102) (5130102) t Anaheim/Orange County Vlsilors and Mike NBeban Convention Bur 2 Anaheim Mills Corporation Steven Lieberman Anaheim 92807 i 3 BIA Me.Lynne Fishel Irvine 92814 , 4 Boeing Co. Mr.John Netherwood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 Sales Chka land Twat Ms.Eileen Murphy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ i� 6 Brea-Sommerset Homeowners Jean Soppet Brea 92821 Association 7 California State University,Fullerton Mr.William Geyk Fu0eMrr 92634 ✓ 8 City of Garden Grove Mr.Terry Lean Garden Grave 92840 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 City of Garden Grove Mr.William Murry ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 City of Irvine Ms.Mardis Beckett ✓ I'll.. 11 City of Newpon Beach Gty Mr.Dave 108 Newport Beech 92858&091 ✓ f 12 City of Tustin Mr.Tim Sedet ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 College ParkINIVA Mr.Jerry grcngessner Irvine 92606 ✓ ✓ ! ii 14 Commercial Resources Tax Group Doug Duckworth Brea 92821 15 Corona Del Mar Ras.Assoc. Ms.Val Skoo Corona Dal Mar 92625 16 County of Orange Mr.Mike WeOboume Santa Ana 92702 ✓ II I. 17 County of Orange,PFRD Ms.MaryAnne Skapanirh Santa Ana ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 18 Defend the Bay Mr.Bob Caustin Newport Beach 92663 ✓ ✓ Orange County Sanitation District Ali Interim Strategic Plan Update 6/4102 !i.. i Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name City Zip Coda No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 (1117101) (1129f02) (4122/02) (5f16/02) (51301021 1 Anaheim/Orange County Visitors and Mike Neaban Convention Bur 2 Anaheim Mille Corporation Stevan Lieberman Anaheim 92807 3 SIA Ms.Lynne Fiahel Irvine 92614 4 Boeing Co. Mr.John Netherwood ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 Boise Chica Land Trust Ms.Eileen Murphy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6 Brea.Bommarm Homeowners Association Jean Soppel Brea 92021 7 California Slate University,Fullerton Mr.William Gayk Fullerton 92634 ✓ 8 City of Garden Grove Mr.Terry Lena Garden Grove 92840 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 City of Garden Grove Mr.William Murray ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 City of Irvine Ms.Mancla Beckett ✓ 11 City of Newport Beach City Mr.Dave KIN Newport Beech 92658-8915 ✓ 12 City of Tustin Mr.Tim Serlet ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 College Park/NIVA Mr.Jerry Nrchgessner Irvine 92606 ✓ ✓ 14 Commercial Renounces Tax Group Doug Duckworth Brae 92821 15 Corona Del Mar Res.Assoc. Ms.Val Skoro Corona Del Mar 92626 16 County of Orange Mr.Mike Wellboume Santa Ana 92702 ✓ 17 County of Orange,PFRD Ms.MaryAnne Skorpanich Santa Ana ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 18 Defend the Bay Mr.Bob Caustin Newport Beach 92663 ✓ ✓ Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 614/02 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name City Zip Cade No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 NM5 (1117101) (1/29102) (4122102) (5116102) (S130102) 19 Department of Parka 8 Recreation Mr.Mike Tope San Clemente 92672 ✓ 20 Disneyland Jack Coffey Anaheim 92803 21 ENACT Mr.Tom England ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 22 Endangered Habitats League Dan Silver Los Angeles 90069 23 Envlronmental Englneerng 8 Contracting.Inc. John Sheller Tuetln 92760 24 Federal Burea of Reclamation Dennis Walla Temecula 92590 25 Garden Grove Sanitary District Konya Vlvanb ✓ 26 Golden Rain Foundation President Seel Beach 90740 27 Green Valley Homeowners Association Jay McAlister Fountain Valley 92708 28 Holel/Motel Associellon of California Mr.Rick Chapler Anaheim 92802 29 Huntington Beach Fire Department Tim Greaves Huntington Beach 92648 30 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Mr.Dean Albright ✓ ✓ 31 Ideal Uniform Rental Service Steve Woodroof Garden Grove 92842 32 Industdal/Environmental Coalition of OC Richard Edes Coate Mesa 92627 33 KMkset Corporalon Mr.Kenny Hem Anaheim 92803 34 League of Women Voters Ms.Judith M.Galow ✓ ✓ 35 LNP Engineering Mr.Steve Brown Santa Ana 92705 ✓ 36 MO/U0 Dean Relnemenn ✓ Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 6/4102 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name City 2Ip Code NMI No.2 NM3 NM4 No.5 (1117/01) (1/29102) (4122/02) (5116102) (5130102) 37 Newport Bay Watershed Greens Mr.R.J.Schwlchtant erg Orange 92869 ✓ ✓ ✓ 38 Newport Beach Homeowners Mr.AI Sllcock Newport Beach 92663 ✓ Association 39 Oman OuOall Group(OOG) Mr.Jan D.Vanderslool,M.D. Newport Beach 92663 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 Ocean OuOall Group(DOG) Doug Kortholf ✓ ✓ 41 Ocean OuOall Group(DOG) Irwin Haydmk ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 42 Ocean Outlet Group(DOG) Kris Herdsman ✓ 43 Oman Outlali Group(DOG) Larry Porter ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 44 OOG/HB Hilton Joey Ramno ✓ ✓ 45 Orange Coast Aulo Group Gary Gravy Costa Mesa 92626 48 Orange Coast Keeper Mr.Gamy Srown Newport Beach 92663 ✓ 47 Orange Coast Watch Mr.Mao Hagemann Irvine 92614 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 48 Orange County Business Council Mr.Mike Noonan Irvine 92514 ✓ ✓ ✓ 49 PFRO Flood Program Division Richard Runge Santa Ana 92702 50 Psomas Associates David Plamk Costa Mesa 92626 51 R.O.S.&Associates Mr.Ronald Schlenker Mission Viejo 92691 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 52 Regional Water Duality Control Board, Mr.Ken Theisen Riverside 92507 ✓ ✓ ✓ Santa Ana Region 53 Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Roger Summers New Project Advisory C og port Beach 92660 64 SCAG Mr.Daniel Gdsat Los Angeles 90017 ✓ Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 614/02 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organisation Name City 21p Code No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 (1117101) (1/29102) (4/22102) (SI16/02) (S130102) 55 Sell Alicia Iverson Orange 92667 56 Sell Dr.Jack Skinner ✓ ✓ 57 Se6 John Norman Fullerton 92832 58 Sell Mr.Bill Shears Santa Ana 92704 ✓ 59 Self Mr.Jim Ayms Buena Park 90621 60 No Mr.John Rustler, 61 Self Mr.Jon Ely Huntington Beach 92646 ✓ 62 Self Mr.Randy Furman ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 63 Self Mr.Richard Edger Tustin 92780 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 64 Sell Mr.Sheldon Singer Garden Grove 92841 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 65 Sell Mr.Victor Leipzig Huntington Beach 92647 ✓ ✓ 66 Self Ma.June Park 67 Sell Ms.Shirley DealoB Huntington Beach 92663 68 Seven-Up/RC Bolding Company Mr.Stan Sta)duhar Los Angeles 90023 69 Siam Club Mr.Dennis Baker Corona Del Mar 92625 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 70 SPON Allen Beek ✓ 71 SPON Mr.Jack Skinner,M.D. Newport Beech 92660 ✓ 72 Surfrider Foundation Mr.Christopher Evans.Esq. San Clemente 92672 Orange County Sanitation Dletrlct Interim Strategic Plan Update 614/02 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name city Lip Code No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 1,10.6 (1117/01) (1129102) (4/22102) (5/18/02) (5130102) 73 Sunrider Foundation Mr.Don Schulz Loa Alamitos 90720 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 74 Sumlder Foundation Mr.Gary Sargent Fullerton 92831 75 Surfrider Foundation Nancy Gardner Newport Beach 92658 76 The Emmons Company Scott Smith Irvine 92614 77 U.S.Dyeing Mr.Charles Kim Garden Grow 92841 78 U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Ms.Alexis Strauss San Francisco 94105 79 Voice for Veterans Services Mr.Robin J.Rustan 80 W.Newport Beach Association Mr.Peter Tan Newport Beach 92663 81 West Newport Beach Homeowners Jim Miller ✓ 82 Woodbridge Village Association Don Davis Irvine 92604 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 6/4102 ' Attachment 5 WATER CONTACT ILLNESS MEDICAL AFFIIDAVIT INFORMATION REGISTER YOUR WATER CONTACT ILLNESS WITH ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT/Mmazur(&,hca.co.orange.ca.us (714)667-3751 Print& Fill out information below and have your personal doctor make his diagnosis regarding your Water Contact Illness then bring document home save to your computer and then email Monica Mazur your as your complaint about Water Contact Illness as a Reality! Name of Waterman Date Address City Surf Area you last surfed How Long is your surf session I hour 3 4 5 ? What Kind of Symptoms occur 24 hours away from session 48 hours 72 and what kind of symptoms made you go to your doctor within 72 hours or less after your last surf session? Doctors Notes Doctor Name Address City What is patient's condition Release information to the orange County Health Department,so my Water Contact Illness is registered as a Water Contact Illness due to my exposure to the Recreational Waters that I use to surf in. patient signature Doctors Signature date Patients Signature date Attachment 8 (Remove original document replace with enclosed. Second page was not included with the original package.) Attachment 8 (Remove original document replace with enclosed. Second page was not included with the original package.) • ORANGE COUNTY 2 p-1 putta Suite 100•Irvine,California 92614-5904 BUSINESS COUNCIL phone:949.476224E•fax:949,476.9240•url. u ocbc mg !]6ANMQMOVTIFF GwNUP May 15, 2002 aR Pw gneKwlF®I GiNPWMOX FI&T .NmaN.FErIp.LNIWpc lfF pN, ,I Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue m Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 imrtb Nuy Ladies/Gentlemen: FIOIgMC Uk4➢DPMFHf POUT Ibi¢ FAN Conrvhuq The Orange County Business Council (Business Council/OCBC), an „¢ organization dedicated to Orange County's economic vitality and quality of ��C� life, has been very engaged on behalf of Orange County's business „a G1A1GNN, community on the District's activities relative to ocean water quality and, PB a specifically, the process of updating the District's strategic plan and determining appropriate levels of treatment for the future. The Business „aawP Council's interest in these proceedings is two-fold: 1) protection of our coastal resources, which are key to our countywide economic prosperity and quality of fife; and 2) financial and operational impacts upon our member "P ,°° company businesses and others in the county as a result of your impending a.FeETu�cew decisions. In this regard, the Business Council wishes to offer the following "aG „ comments and requests. W,,,Ra OE„]UP1�tt vim, 1. Coastal protection. The Business Council believes that Orange County's beaches must be protected. It is simply unacceptable for EXECUIT Ww Orange County residents and visitors to the county to witness beach PRF]IDFNPEaA postings and beach closures due to bacterial contamination in the surf 4v 0 tle zone. In our view, a deliberative process honoring the principles of Ewa„a wsuwn. cost-effectiveness; a demonstrated nexus between selected forms of nreucu u IWm Aer treatment and desired results; and common sense, will lead to this „a PF.Esmv". protection for our valued coastal resources. oewoPRfure IM'bTOPPM110IS " 2. Disinfection. In light of the above, the Business Council supports the RI,,I,aE� VIUM O District's short-term proposal to disinfect the sewage effluent. This interim measure will ensure that discharged sewage is not responsible for bacterial contamination in the surf zone. Moreover, a reasonable test period for this process will aid our community s collective efforts to determine the source or sources of pollution leading to beach postings. The Business Council believes that disinfection should commence as soon as possible. SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE Orange County Sanitation District ° - May 15, 2002 Page 2 3. Treatment selection and cost. The Orange County Sanitation District must be able to demonstrate a nexus between selected levels or forms of treatment and protection of our ocean water quality. If higher levels of treatment are warranted to protect ocean water quality, they must be implemented and we must find ways to pay for them. Yet, it is only reasonable to consider cost-effectiveness as well if alternatives are equal in effectiveness for protecting ocean water quality. Required changes in business operations and/or increases in costs to business must be justifiable on the basis of determinable results — in this case, a cleaner shoreline. Orange County residents and business owners must not find themselves in the position of paying higher fees for higher levels of treatment that fail to remedy the sources of coastal pollution. Additionally, the Business Council believes that the Sanitation District must be willing to apply its own reserves or a portion thereof toward increased costs of higher levels of treatment, if those are warranted. 4. Long-term considerations. The Business Council recommends that regardless of the Board's final decision in November of this year on the 301(h) waiver, the District anticipate the longer-term need to move toward secondary treatment. The Sanitation District and Orange County's tourism industry are suffering due to the beach postings as well as the perception, correct or not, that the District's effluent is the source of the problem. Ultimately, both of these factors have the potential to adversely affect our county's economy. The Orange County Business Council has a strong, ongoing interest in this issue and in your upcoming decisions. We appreciate the opportunities for engagement that the District has provided to the business community and to the public at large, and request that you continue to engage us in your decision-making processes going forward. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stan Offelie Julie Puentes President & CEO Executive V.P. Public Affairs \\\ /•, ti ln�,/.�t.{� ...�.,♦j Th l9'ly in /Y4 Conference and Visitors Bureau RL'SOLUTIOW Hu uiiugloo Beach Resolution to Support Clean Water in Huntington Beach by the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau ,.,cnd/'l.npi+ nud WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach includes the longest span of accessible public beaches in Southern California, and; WHEREAS, public beaches are community property that are meant to be enjoyed and shared by both residents and visitors alike, and; WHEREAS, the economic vitality of the region is dependent upon its beaches and clean ocean water that is environmentally safe and healthy for swimming and recreation; and WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau firmly supports public policies that preserve the environmental quality of ocean water and its beaches; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the bureau is firmly opposed to the Orange County Sanitation District's(OCSD) proposed application for a 301(h)Clean Water Act Waiver from the Environmental Protection Agency; and FURTHERMORE that the bureau strongly endorses tertiary treatment of all Orange County Sanitation District waste as the standard of treatment so that discharges into the ocean from the outfall pipe are as clean as ocean water itself, AND FURTHERMORE that secondary treatment of all effluents should begin immediately until facilities are constructed for tertiary treatment of waste as the ocean should not be used as substitute for the OCSD's obligation to treat waste products. Yt aniel, Chairman ntington Beach�Conference and Visitors Bureau Douglas C. Traub, esident Huntington Beach Conference and Visitors Bureau \Lmt street • it... !,in Ii..�.L t-.,n!.�iwd 9214N i131 • '1=.9h4149' • I \U 'IJ 409 S59] • I MX)-SAY OCEAN n 1iM:.!L:��w liu;ul hh•.iaiw n.ae!n•in ;nm . oc : 'TERS TO THE TIMES ORANGE COUNTY COMMENTARY It BN 1 V 'N w J4 OV, `I O MY w. b` � slrs air uTv YM 4t _1 )10 iN ie. ,5 II Rose and Franklin Colcol of Costa Mesa stroll at Huntington State Beach, portions of which were closed to swimmers in April. Dirty Ocean Not an Option By MATT HAGEMANN our cityscape to the ocean, and demic journal in March that fomia Regional Water Board and and LIN WOOD PENDLETON the discharge of sewage from the showed how the plume poten- the California Coastal Commis. 1 Orange County Sanitation Dts- Bally could move to within half a sion to reject it. There's an eerie uncertainty tact offshore at the Newport mule of the shore and to depths as While many argue that second. r among Orange County beachgo- Beach/Huntington Beach bound- shallow as 65 feet. ary treatment is too costly,we be- a ens, government regulators and ary. In April,Orange County closed lieve the public wants clean city officials after spring surf On top of these problems, the a half-mile stretch of beach at beaches and is willing to pay for r brought a monthlong closure to beaches are periodically closed Magnolia Street to swimming be- them. USC and UC Berkeley re- f half a mile of Huntington State when roots and grease clog pipes cause of high bacteria counts and searchers found that more than Beach.Despite five years of study and sewage spills Into waterways uncertainty about their source. 66% of Southern Californian and the expenditure of more than that lead to the ocean. The closure remained in effect for households with at least one Sf $8 million, the question that re- Action has been taken on ur- one month. beachgoer would be wilting to pay mains unanswered Is "Why are ban runoff issues under new, In response, the district has $100 annually to prevent beach our beaches so filthy?" wide-ranging and rigorous per- committed to disinfecting its closures resulting from sewage laq After passage of a 1997 law mils recently adopted by the waste water, and we support this discharge. that required regular testing of state.Cities will be implementing decision. This will finally bring The willingness of the public to Sol water at state beaches, officials measures with residents and the district in line with the mini- pay for clean beaches is well in m quickly found all was not well in businesses .that will affect how mum disinfection efforts of every excess of what the district ash reap Surf City. driveways e cleaned and land- other ocean Sewage discharger in mates it will cost to go to second. Altoar Five miles of beaches between stapes are maintained. California. ary treatment.Anderson recently its' Newport Beach and Huntington A similar commitment to im- To avert beach closures and stated that the cost for the dis Beach were closed In swimming proving the treatment of Orange continuing erosion in public coafi- trict to upgrade treatment facili. in the summer of 1999, and the County sewage has not been dense, we urge regulators to ex- ties would cost residents 5 tend A impact of the closures on beach- made. Orange County is one of pedite the permitting and envi- per day or less than$20 per year. ,Alin related business was disastrous. only a handful of sanitation dis- ronmental review process. We With more than half of at Research in progress by econo- trios nationwide to be granted a must take action now to ensure households in the region claiu m mists at USC and UC Berkeley federal waiver that allows the dis- our beaches are not closed again. at least one beachgoer, lher shows that beach-related spend- trict to dump partially treated Beyond this quick fix, we are should be plenty of public suppol ing at Huntington state and Hun- sewage into the ocean.District of- asking the district to invest in the for the district to increase its pm fdu Bnglon city beaches was down ficials have justified thew waiver infrastructure that will treat sew- tection of our valuable beache more than$15 million in 1999 and based on the belief that their out- age to secondary standards, in After all, what are Handbill ryj, almost $19 million in 2000 corn- fall pipe was sufficiently far off- line with other major facilities, Beach and Newport Beach wit pared with 1998. As this summer shore. such as the Hyperion sewage out beaches that are safe f quickly approaches, we must act Now, these same officials can- treatment plant in Los Angeles. swimming and surfing? to restore clean water and avoid not be so sure.In February,Blake With secondary treatment,we Malt Hagemann is ereculi further economic losses and dam- Anderson, district general man- can ensure more complete de- director of Orange Caaal Wat, age to Orange County's image. ager,wrote in a news release that slruction of disease-causing bac- an environmental nonprofit m What we know is that beach the plume of waste water came teria and viruses. If the district ported by Orange Coro closures and chronic warnings `uncomfortably close" to the goes forward this fall with an ap- businesses. Linwood Pewletor may stem from two sources: or. shoreline at Newport Beach— plicalion for renewal of the an assistant professor at Uf ban runoff, a catchall phrase to within halt a mile.Coincidently,a waiver,we urge the Environment- Wrigley Institute for Envh describe water that Bows across paper was published in an aca- lal Protection Agency. the Cali- mental Studies. , 7 10 4 �4� ;"�- pcsv 1� b wi-A& ISSUE PAPER ISSUES REGARDING DISINFECTION OF _ WASTEWATER USING SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE Orange Coast Watch 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92614 USA PREPARED BY: KOMEX _ 5455 Garden Grove Boulevard, 2ntl Floor Westminster, California 92683-8201 USA June 4, 2002 ORANGE COAST WATCH 208-001 TABLE OF CONTENTS ® INTRODUCTION ............................................................................1 Z BACKGROUND.............................................................................2 2.1 PATHOGENS & INDICATOR BACTERIA................................................2 2.2 ASSEMBLY BILL 411 ..............................................................................3 2.3 HUNTINGTON BEACH MONITORING PROGRAM ...............................3 ® 2.4 CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN.................................................................4 2.5 OCSD NPDES PERMIT NO. CA0110604...............................................5 2.6 301(H) & INDICATOR BACTERIA..........................................................7 2.7 HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS..................8 2.7.1 SUMMER 1999 BEACH CLOSURES.............................................8 2.7.2 WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATION PHASE 11...............................9 2.7.3 TALBERT MARSH & SURF ZONE WATER QUALITY.....................11 2.7.4 DOWNTOWN SEWER LEAKS & GROUNDWATER IMPACTS.....11 2.7.5 CROSS-SHELF TRANSPORT OF WASTEWATER.........................12 s, 2.7.6 OCSD PHASE III OCEANOGRAPHY & WATER QUALITY.........12 2.7.7 SUMMARY................................................................................14 2.8 OCSD COMMITMENT TO DISINFECT .................................................14 2.9 MAJOR PACIFIC OCEAN OUTFALLS IN THE UNITED STATES.............14 2.10 OCSD STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE (TREATMENT OPTIONS) ................16 3 TECHNICAL DETAILS ON SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE...................18 3.1 DISINFECTION KINETICS.....................................................................18 3.2 CHLORINE CHEMISTRY.......................................................................19 3.2.1 CHLORAMINES & BREAKPOINT CHLORINATION ...................20 3.2.2 CHLORINE BYPRODUCTS.........................................................20 3.2.3 TRIHALOMETHANES.................................................................21 3.3 EFFECT OF CHLORINE ON BACTERIA & VIRUSES ..............................21 3.3.1 HOW INACTIVATION WORKS .................................................22 3.4 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE...................................................................23 3.4.1 TYPICAL DOSAGES REQUIRED FOR DISINFECTION................23 3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING DISINFECTION.......24 3.4.3 DISINFECTION EFFICIENCY.....................................................24 3.5 DECHLORINATION .............................................................................26 3.6 RESIDUAL CHLORINE & BYPRODUCTS IN THE MARINE 208-00I Issue Pacer-Disinfection 060402 i KOMEX US&C A(sk UK MD WOROWDE m .. ENVIRONMENT...................................................................................27 3.6.1 IMPACTS OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT........................................................................27 3.6.2 IMPACTS OF Residual Chlorine & Disinfection BYPRODUCTS ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT............................................28 3.6.3 MULTI-COMPONENT TOXICITY ANALYSIS..............................29 3.7 NEPA & CEQA ISSUES REGARDING DISINFECTION..........................30 4 CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................31 JrREFERENCES ...............................................................................35 d. e. .d 208 I Issue Paper-Minlection 060402 11 KOMEX USA,CANADA UK AND WORLDWIDE LIST OF TABLES ea 1 CWA Versus OCSD 301(h)Discharge Specifications 2 Major Pacific Ocean Outfalls hi The United States 3 Summary Of OCSD Treatment Alternatives 4 Typical Chlorine Dosages Required For Disinfection Of Wastewater 5 Typical Microbial Reductions By Primary And Secondary Treatment Processes 6 Typical Virus Reductions By Three Treatment Levels 7 Preferred Ranking For OCSD Treatment Options .e d d d W YL by 20a.001 asue Paper-Disinfection 060402 IN KOMEX USA.CANADA.UKAND WOKID"I r LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB assembly bill ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers AWWA American Water Works Association BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand 'tl Br bromineion C Celsius/Centigrade CAO Cleanup and Abatement Order Ca(OCI)2 calcium hypochlorite CDM Camp Dresser&McKee,Inc. CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFU colony forming units m CFU/100 mL colony forming units per 100 milliliters CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHBr3 bromoform CHBrCl2 bromodichloromethane CHCU chloroform CHCIBn chlorodibromomedume City City of Huntington Beach Cl- chlorine ions C12 chlorine gas '+ C102 chlorine dioxide COP California Ocean Plan CT disinfectant concentration multiplied by time CWA Clean Water Act r0 degrees DHS California Department of Health Services EGo effective concentration for 10°/u of the samples E. coli Eschen'chia coli ENT enterococci FC fecal coliform Fe'2 ferrous iron ions GI gastrointestinal GWRS Ground Water Replenishment System H. hydrogenions 208-001 Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 iv KOMEX USA.CANADA.UKAND WORWMDE r r H2O Water H2a hydrogen peroxide r HxS hydrogen sulfide HAAs haloacetic adds r HIV human immunodeficiency virus HOCI hypochlorous add km kilometers L liter r Ibs pounds LCx lethal concentration for 50%of the samples LII Legal Information Institute " m meters MBAA monobromoacetic acid r MCAA monochloroacetic add mg milligrams r mg-mm/L milligram-minutes per liter MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day r mg/L milligrams per liter mL milliliter(s) Mnr manganese ions min minute r MPN most probable number MPN/100 mL most probable number per 100 milliliters r MSB male-specific bacteriophage Na* sodium ions NaOCI sodium hypochlorite NaHSOa sodium bisulfite NaSCh sodium sulfite r NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NH20 monochloramme NHC12 dichloramine NCB tricliloramine NH3-N ammonia nitrogen NO3- nitrate NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System r OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency 208-001 Ime Popw-Disinfection 060402 v KOMEX r USA.CANADA.UK AND WORLDWIDE .. OCl- hypochlorite ions OCSD Orange County Sanitation District % percent PFU/10 mL plaque-forming units per 10 milliliters pounds/MG pounds per million gallons POTW(s) publicly-owned treatment work(s) r, ppm parts per million RWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Santa Ana Region SAIC Science Applications International Corporation Scripps Scripps Institute of Oceanography SO2 sulfur dioxide SOx sulfite ions SO<- sulfate ions SS suspended solids State Parks California State Department of Parks and Recreation SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TC total coliform TCCA trichloroacetic and .d TDS total dissolved solids THMs trihalomethanes TSS total suspended solids UCI University of California at Irvine ,., ug/L micrograms per liter USA United States of America USC University of Southern California USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey m WET Water Environment Federation ZID Zone of Initial Dilution .n 208-001 Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 vi KOMEX m USA.CANAOA HAND WORLDWIDE 1 INTRODUCTION This Issue Paper discusses the use of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCI) to disinfect wastewater. The issues discussed in this paper are directly relevant to the options presently being considered by the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) as applied to their wastewater v discharge through their marine outfall into the receiving waters off Huntington Beach. This paper has been structured into five main sections including the following: • Introduction-The structure of the Issue Paper is detailed in this section; m • Background - This section provides necessary technical background for several key areas including the following: o Pathogens and indicator bacteria; o AB 411 and the California Ocean Plan; m o OCSD NPDPS permit and 301(h)waiver; o Huntington Beach water quality investigations; o OCSD commitment to disinfect; k, o Major Pacific Ocean outfalls in the United States;and o OCSD proposed treatment options. e. • Technical Details On Sodium Hypochlorite -This section includes information on the following areas: o Disinfection kinetics and chlorine chemistry; o Doses of NaOCI required to disinfect wastewater; o The effect of fluorine on bacteria and viruses; o Ded-dorination; d o Residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts in the marine environment;and o NEPA and CEQA issues regarding disinfection. m • Conclusions - This section itemizes the effectiveness of using NaOCI to disinfect the wastewater at each of the four treatment levels proposed by the OCSD and the potential environmental impacts of NaOCI disinfection byproducts on the marine environment; and • Recommendations - This section includes a recommendation for the best treatment e option to ensure effective disinfection while minimizing impacts to the receiving environment that could result from the discharge of NaOCI disinfection byproducts. 208.00I Issue Poper-Distnfecf*n 060402 l KOMEX W USA.CANAD&UK AND WORIDINDE 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 PATHOGENS & INDICATOR BACTERIA Wastewater contains pathogens (Metcalf & Eddy 1991) that can be divided into the following principle categories: e. • Bacteria (such as E. coli,Legionella, Salmonella, and Vibrio Cholerae); • Viruses(such as Adenovirus, Enterovirus,Hepatitis, and HIV); • Protozoa(such as Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia,and Entamoeba histolytica);and • Helminths(such as Fasciola hepatica, Taenia saginata, and Trichuris trichiura). There are many more specific pathogens than shown in the categories noted above, and a specific wastewater may contain several or many of these different types of pathogens in varying concentrations. Pathogens can cause diseases in humans such as typhoid, polio, .d dysentery, cholera,infectious hepatitis, and many others (Metcalf&Eddy 1991). Because of the great number of pathogen types that may or may not be present in a ^r wastewater at varying concentrations, it is extremely difficult, time-consuming and expensive to attempt to identify and enumerate specific pathogens. As a result, indicator r, organisms have been used as a surrogate for this purpose(Metcalf& Eddy 1991). The general criteria for an indicator organism (American Water Works Association [AW WA] 1990)are as follows: • The indicator should always be present when the pathogenic organism of concern is present, and absent in clean, uncontaminated water; The indicator should be present in fecal material in large numbers; • The indicator should respond to natural environmental conditions and to treatment processes in a manner similar to the pathogens of interest; • The indicator should be easy to isolate, identify,and enumerate; The ratio of indictor:pathogen should be high;and • The indicator and pathogen should come from the same source(gastrointestinal tract(Gil tract). Traditional indicator organisms for monitoring the quality of water and wastewater as well as receiving waters in the environment have included total coliform (TC) bacteria, fecal coliform (FC) bacteria, E. coli bacteria, and enterococci (ENT) bacteria (Metcalf & Eddy r 1991). 208-Oos Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 2 KOMEX USA,CANADA,UK AND WORLDWIDE r 2.2 ASSEMBLY BILL 411 'd On July 26, 1999, in accordance with Health and Safety Code §115880 (Assembly Bill 411, Statutes of 1997, Chapter 765), the Department of Health Services (DHS) was required to expand its regulations for ocean beaches (DHS 1999). AB 411 and the regulations contain weekly monitoring requirements and requirements for posting advisories and dosing beaches to recreational water contact. Posting advisories against swimming are recommended (and required for certain beaches under Health and Safety Code Section 115915 and the All 411 implementing regulations) when indicator organism concentrations r exceed any of the following levels for a single water sample: • Total coliform 10,000 most probable number/100 milliliters(MPN/100 mL); Total coliform 1,000 MPN/100 mL,if the ratio of FC:TC is greater than 0.1; • Feral coliform 400 MPN/100 mL;or r • Enterococd 104 colony forming units(CFU)/300 mL. Note: The FC:TC ratio is an indicator of health risk, and a ratio which increases from 0.1 towards 1.0 indicating a greater risk of illness. Additional sanitary surveys and other related evaluations, including more frequent sampling if concentrations appear to be on an increasing trend, are recommended when .. indicator organisms exceed any of the following concentrations,based on the log-mean of at least five equally-spaced samples in any 30-day period: ,., • Total coliform 1,000 MPN/100 mL; • Fecal coliform 200 MPN/100 mL;or r • Enterococd 35 CFU/100 mL. Ocean water recreational closures are expected to occur when health risks are considered ` greater than those associated with posting advisories, as with wastewater spills or at areas at which monitoring results show that multiple indicator organism standards we exceeded, r for both the single sample and 30-day average values. Closure is required by Health and Safety Code Section 115885(f) when an untreated wastewater release is known to have d, reached recreational waters. r 2.3 HUNTINGTON BEACH MONITORING PROGRAM The OCSD has been monitoring nearshme ocean water quality since the 1970s. Their 17 monitoring stations are spread from Corona Del Mar in the south to Seal Beach in the north. 20&001 Imue Poper-Disinfection 060402 3 KOMEX USA CANADA.UKAND WORLDWIDE r r The OCSD designates their sampling stations with an integer and a letter. The integer represents the location of the station in thousands of feet upcoast or down coast from their reference station (0) at the mouth of the Santa Ana River. The letter N or S is used to designate whether that station is north or south of their reference station. For example, .� Station 6N represents the sampling location that is 6,000 feet north of their reference station. The stations located north of their reference station include 3N, 6N,9N,15N,21N,27N,33N and 39N. The stations located south of their reference station include 3S, 6S, 9S, 15S, 21S, 27S,29S and 395(OCSD 2002a). AB 411,and the regulations which have been adopted by the DHS,contain requirements for weekly monitoring. These requirements apply to coastal beaches visited by more than r, 50,000 people per year and those beaches that are adjacent to storm drains that flow from April 1 through October 31. The Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) is responsible for beach advisories and closures. The OCHCA uses data from its own monitoring program as well as data provided r by the OCSD and other wastewater agencies. Personnel from the OCHCA collect water samples from approximately 150 locations along the Orange County shoreline. The frequency of their sampling program ranges from weekly to five times per week. If r monitoring results show that contamination is present, the sampling frequency may increase in both the number of samples and the number of locations until the results show the situation is improving or the source of contamination has been identified (OCHCA 2002). 2.4 CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN The California Ocean Plan (COP), prepared by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),was amended and approved on December 3,2001(SWRCB 2001). The purpose of r the COP noted that "...the State Water Resources Control Board hereby finds and declares that protection of the quality of ocean waters for use and enjoyment by the people of the State requires ,r control of the discharge of waste to ocean waters in accordance with the provisions cuntained herein." The COP contains specific water quality objectives,some of which include the following: . Bacterial characteristics; . Shellfish harvesting standards; . Physical characteristics; . Chemical characteristics; o Objectives for the protection of marine aquatic life; 20&WI Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 4 KOMEX USA.CANADA,UK AND WORLDWIDE o Objectives for the protection of human health-non-carcinogens; .y o Objectives for the protection of human health-carcinogens;and • Biological objectives. The COP also contains provisions for effluent limitations that include limiting concentrations for the following: • Grease&oil, • Suspended solids; • Settleable solids; • Turbidity;and • PH. Effluent concentration limits are based upon a formula that takes into consideration the water quality objective for a specific parameter to be met at the edge of the initial dilution zone, the background seawater concentration and the minimum probable initial dilution (expressed as parts seawater per part wastewater). ,r Relative to the proposed use of NaOCI to disinfect the wastewater discharge from the OCSD marine outfall,several water quality objectives are of note: .• • Protection of marine aquatic life(for total chlorine residual,ammonia);and • Protection of human health-carcinogens(for chloroform,halomethanes,&others). The technical details of why these particular water quality objectives are significant will be discussed in Section 3 of this Issue Paper. .. 2.5 OCSD NPDES PERMIT NO. CA0110604 The OCSD is operating under a joint Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) - Santa Ana Region National .+ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Number CA0110604 as per Order Number 98-5(RWQCB 1998)which expires in June 2003. `• The permit stipulates specific objectives and requirements that the OCSD must comply with, some of which include the following: •" • Discharge specifications; • Acute&chronic toxicity requirements, .. • Receiving water limitations; 208001 awe Pop&-Wniection 060402 5 KOMEX USA CANADA UK AND WORLDWIDE r . Pretreatment requirements;and . Compliance determination. r The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs) treat r their wastewater to secondary standards before discharging to the marine receiving environment(Legal Information Institute [LII] 2002). The 2001 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 133 — Secondary Treatment Regulation defines secondary treatment in terms of meeting specific effluent criteria for the following specific parameters: . 5-day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODs), 30 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (30-day average),45 mg/L(7-day average); . Suspended Solids(SS),30 mgfL(30-day average),45 mg/L(7day average);and r . PK6.0to9.0. Specific to the discharge specifications, the OCSD requested a variance from the secondary treatment requirements as per Section 301(h) of the CWA. This portion of the act allows a POTW to discharge treated wastewater of a lesser standard than secondary to deep ocean waters that have significant ocean currents and large tides (OCSD 2001a). In order to be eligible for the 301(h) waiver, the OCSD was required to meet the following criteria (OCSD r 2001a): . Compliance with water quality standards of the Clean Water Act and the State Porter-Cologne r Water Quality Act; . Protection and reproduction of a balanced native population of fish,shellfish and wildlife; r . Protection of beach and nearshore recreational activities; . Establishment of an extensive ocean monitoring program; . A rigorous pretreatment program in order to meet secondary water quality equivalency for the removal of toxics and . Protection ofpublic water supplies. r A 301(h) waiver was granted to the OCSD in June 1998 and expires in June 2003. An application for renewal of the waiver must be received by regulators by December 2002 r (OCSD 2001a). The OCSD permit with the 301(h)waiver stipulates the following discharge specifications: . BODs, 100 mg1L (90day average), 150 mgfL (7day average), with the 30-day average being a 30%removal from the influent stream;and •^ . SS,60 mg(L(12-month average),72 mg/L(30-day average), 109 mgfL(7day average). 206001 ante Paper-DBlnfecaon 060402 6 KOMEX r USA.CMADA UK MD WOe MDE r r Table 1 presents a summary of secondary treatment standards versus the permitted discharge specifications the OCSD presently have under the 301(h)waiver. r TABLE 1—CWA Venus OCSD 301(h)Discharge Specifications 'r Period CWA BODs OCSD 301(h)BOD, CWA SS OCSD 301(h)SS (m ) for ) (m ) (mglL) r 7-day average 45 150 45 109 30-day average 30 30%removal 30 72 90-day average — 100 — — r 12-month average — — — 60 r Table 1 shows that,on the basis of considering the 7-day average,the OCSD is permitted to discharge more than three times as much BODs and more than two times as much SS as they r would under the secondary treatment provisions of the CWA. - 2.6 301(h) & INDICATOR BACTERIA r The discharge specifications for the OCSD wastewater effluent do not provide numerical r "end-of-pipe" concentration requirements for indicator bacteria. As noted above, the provisions of the 301(h)waiver only stipulate standards for"end-of-pipe' concentrations of BODs and SS. However,the concentrations of indicator bacteria(as well as pathogens in the wastewater) are linked to the level of treatment a wastewater receives and hence linked to the BODs and SS concentrations of that wastewater. Technical details on indicator bacteria r concentrations versus the level of wastewater treatment(with and without disinfection) are detailed in Section 3 of this Issue Paper. r The OCSD NPDPS permit does contain provisions for receiving water limitations based upon an established water quality monitoring network in the area of the discharge. These limitations contain specific water-contact standards for total and fecal coliform (RWQCB 1998). Specifically, these bacterial characteristics state the following: r . Within the Nearshore Zone,and within the Offshore Zone to a depth of 10 feet,but including all kelp beds, the following bacterial objectives shall be maintained throughout the water column: �. o Samples of water from each sampling station shall have a density of total colform organisms less than 1,000 per 100 mL (10 per mL),, provided that not more than 20 percent of the r samples at any sampling station, in any 30-day period, may exceed 1,000 per 100 mL(10 per ml.), and provided further that no single sample when verified by a repeat sample taken within 48 hours shall exceed 10,000 per 100 mL(100 per mL);and r 20e-001 muerapw-winiecnon0ma02 7 KOMEX r W&CANADA,UK AND WORLDWIDE r o The fecal coliform density based on a minimum of not less than five samples for any 30-day period, shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 per 100 mL nor shall more than 10 percent of the total samples during any 60-day period exceed 400 per 100 mL. Definitions of the Nearshore Zone and Offshore Zone(RWQCB 1998)are as follows: • The Nearshore Zone of the Pacific Ocean is within a zone bounded by the shoreline and a distance of 1,000 feet from the shoreline or the 30-foot depth contour, whichever is further from the shoreline; r • The Offshore Zone are waters between the Nearshore Zone and the limit of ocean waters of the State;and • The surface waters of the Offshore Zone, to a depth of 10 feet, are used far water contact r recreation. 2.7 HUNTINGTON BEACH WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATIONS The OCSD has been conducting offshore water quality monitoring since the 1970s. Of r particular note was a study the OCSD conducted in the fall of 1996 known as the OCSD 1996 20-meter Study. The objectives of the 20-meter study were to characterize the btl oceanographic properties of the water mass and delineate shoreward plume incursions. The fast objective of characterizing the water mass was achieved,however,the second objective r was not fully achieved. The sampling grid was too course in time and space, and too few samples were collected to delineate shoreward plume incursions. However, despite this r constraint, it was found that the OCSD's plume was detected approximately 7,900 feet (1.5 miles) from shore on October 23, 1996. The measured fecal coliform concentration at that location was>16,000 MPN1100 ml.in a water depth of 9 meters. r Since April 1999, the nearshore waters off Huntington Beach have had numerous, periodic episodes where indicator bacteria concentrations in the surf zone have violated the AB 411 standards. The persistent and significant problems of the summer of 1999 launched a series r of investigations to determine the bacterial contamination source(s) and develop mitigation strategies to ensure these waters would not be negatively impacted in the future. 2.7.1 SUMMER 1999 BEACH CLOSURES Prior to the implementation of AB 411 and the new regulations, monitoring data from the M° OCSD showed that indicator bacteria concentrations in the near-shore waters off Huntington Beach were above normal in April 1999. These elevated concentrations resulted r in a meeting being held between the OCSD and the OCHCA in June 1999. The result of that 20BMI Issue Paper-019n1ection 060402 8 KOMEX m, USX CMAD&UKMD WORLDWIDE .. meeting was to increase the number of monitoring locations along the beach so that spacing between adjacent stations was reduced to 1,000 feet(305 meters[m])from 3,000 feet(914 m). .. On June 27, 1999, the concentration of TC exceeded the health standards (10,000 MPN/100 ml.), and the first section of beach was closed on July 1, 1999 (OCSD, 1999). The health officer believed that the increased indicator bacteria concentrations were caused by wastewater. The first ocean water recreational closure extended approximately 5,000 feet (1,520 m) along the Huntington State Beach between Newland Street and Magnolia Street. The affected area continued to spread to the south and north. In total, approximately 4.5 r miles (7.2 kilometers [km]) of beach were closed in the summer of 1999 due to bacterial contamination, extending from the mouth of the Santa Ana River north to Goldenwest Street. A review of historic bacteria concentration data indicates that similarly frequent ocean water recreational closures would have been required during previous years had the 1999 All 411 standards been applicable prior to 1999 (OCSD, 1999). Initial investigations to evaluate the source of the elevated bacterial concentrations were led by the OCSD with the participation of the OCHCA, the California State Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), the City of Huntington Beach (City) and the RWQCB (OCSD 1999). The initial investigations failed to identify a single significant source of the indicator bacteria, although circumstantial evidence at that time pointed to urban runoff as the likely source of the indicator bacteria(OCSD 1999). .d 2.7.2 WATER QUALITY INVESTIGATION PHASE II r. As a follow up to the OCSD report and conclusions, a multi-consultant team was retained by the OCSD, the County of Orange and the City to investigate the possible source(s), W transport mechanism(s) and corrective measure(s) for the elevated indicator bacteria concentrations that were degrading near-shore water quality. The team was to focus primarily on the identification and investigation of potential surface water and urban runoff ed sources as well as potential groundwater and sediment sources. The results of this $2 million team study were presented in a final report dated December 15,2000,and entitled "Huntington Beach Water Quality Investigation Phase II: An Analysis _ of Ocean,Surf Zone,Watershed Sediment and Groundwater Data Collected From June 1998 Through September 2000" (University of California at Irvine [UCI] et al. 2000). This work was independently reviewed by a panel of experts as part of the University of Southern `tl California (USC) Sea Grant Program. The review panel noted that they were impressed with the level of effort expended by local agencies in response to the event and concluded that the data were properly interpreted (USC 2000). The review panel also noted the three 208-001 Issue Popa-DWnteclion 060402 9 KOMEX ad USA CANADA Ur AND WOe{ E .. primary sources of contamination that were investigated as part of the study included the following: • Onshore sewage pipes, The offshore marine outfall,and • Stormwater drainage systems. The panel noted that sewer pipes along the beach were convincingly eliminated as a possible significant source of near-shore contamination. They also noted that pipe leakage into groundwater needed to be investigated, but this was unlikely to be a source given the bacterial patterns that were measured on the beach. The panel noted that onshore transport r of the OCSD outface plume was not likely a source of bacterial contamination based upon the data they reviewed. The panel concluded that the Talbert Channel stormwater conveyance system (which discharges through the Talbert Marsh into the ocean) was the most likely source of bacterial contamination, however they expressed concern that the evidence was limited and that additional studies of the area were warranted to better characterize the contaminants emerging from the stormwater conveyance system both spatially and temporally. r The review panel recommended that near-shore transport processes be investigated more thoroughly and an understanding of the hydrodynamic processes be developed. ^• Additionally,while the panel concluded that the Talbert Channel was the most likely source of bacterial contamination that affected the beaches, the role of Talbert Marsh as a bacterial s, source was not well understood. The panel recommended studies be undertaken so that the dynamics of Talbert Marsh could be more thoroughly understood. Furthermore,the review panel recommended that an outfall plume model be developed so that better assurance could be given to eliminating the OCSD marine outfall as a possible source of nearshore bacterial contamination given periodic water quality degradations along the beach On the basis of the conclusions and recommendation of the review panel (and other involved parties) additional studies have been ongoing since that time. These have included a study of bacterial generation in Talbert Marsh and the effects on surf zone water quality, an investigation of groundwater quality in downtown Huntington Beach in the r vicinity of leaking sanitary sewer infrastructure and an investigation of the cross-shelf transport of wastewater from the OCSD outfall at Huntington Beach. r 208-ODI kve Popm-DWnfection 060402 10 KOMEX USA.CMNA UK AND WORLDWIDE 2.7.3 TALBERT MARSH & SURF ZONE WATER QUALITY A study by Grant et al. (2001), identified the Talbert Marsh as a source of ENT bacteria in water that flows from the marsh out into the surf zone. While urban runoff does flow into .. and through the Talbert Marsh, urban runoff was not identified as the primary source of ENT bacteria in the marsh outflow. The study also noted that the marsh was a net source of ENT bacteria. The authors stated that water quality in the surf zone of Huntington Beach can be negatively affected by the marsh outflow during ebb tides and when ocean waves were striking the beach in the upcoast direction. It was concluded that ENT bacteria generated in the marsh have a localized impact on surf zone water quality at Huntington Beach but the marsh is only partially responsible for degraded water quality at Huntington Beach. Other contributing sources of ENT bacteria and their exact locations remain unidentified. 2.7.4 DOWNTOWN SEWER LEAKS & GROUNDWATER IMPACTS The aging sanitary sewer infrastructure in downtown Huntington Beach was known to have leaking pipes in many locations. Information collected from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department (Krieger 2000) showed that approximately 154,000 linear feet (46.9 kilometers{km]) of sanitary sewer line was installed in the downtown and "old town' mesa of Huntington Beach from 1914 to 1966, with additional sewer lines being installed from 1967 to present day. Internal pipe inspections conducted by the Public Works Department have shown that the aging pipe infrastructure had many locations that were cracked and/or potentially leaking. The RWQCB issued the City of Huntington Beach Cleanup and Abatement Order (CAO) Number 00-86 on December 12, 2000. The CAO specifically stated: .. • The fate of the leaked wastewater has not been evaluated; • The leaked wastewater is discharged to groundwater in areas where groundwater could .d migrate to and impact the quality of near-shore ocean waters; • Wastewater contains significant concentrations of bacteria, such that migration of wastewater to near-shore ocean waters could contribute to elevated bacteria levels in those waters;and r • Although extensive efforts and resources have been expended to identify the source of the elevated bacteria levels in the near-shore waters, the findings to date are r Inconclusive. 2oem1asuePopw-DISIDtectlDD060402 t1 KOMEX USA CANADA.W AND WORLDWIDE uY On the basis of the CAD, an investigation of groundwater beneath downtown Huntington Beach was conducted to determine if leaking sanitary sewers had impacted groundwater, m and if those groundwater impacts could have contributed to ocean water recreational closures as a result of elevated bacterial concentrations in the surf zone of Huntington Beach. The study (Komex 2001) found that the groundwater beneath the downtown area flows inland (away from the ocean) towards the northeast at an approximate velocity that ranges from 17 to 21 feet per year. The concentrations of bacterial indicators(FC and ENT)and the viral indicator (male-specific bacteriophage [MSB]) were below the detection limit in groundwater samples obtained from the monitoring wells in the study area. It was a, concluded that leaking sanitary sewers in downtown Huntington Beach did not have an impact on groundwater quality beneath the area and hence no impact on near-shore ocean r water quality in Huntington Beach. 2.7.5 CROSS-SHELF TRANSPORT OF WASTEWATER On the basis of evaluating data from plume tracking studies conducted in May and November of 2000, researchers from UCI and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography (Scripps) (Boehm et al. 2002) noted that a potential exists for wastewater from the OCSD marine outfall to be carried cross-shelf and into the shallower waters off Huntington Beach 11 via internal tides. Their analyses of current and temperature data showed that cold water is carried into and out of the near-shore waters on a regular basis. Plume tracking studies have also shown that the wastewater plume can be advected into the shallower waters with the cold water. The authors concluded that it was unclear as to whether surf zone water quality is being impacted by the OCSD wastewater plume, but that the wastewater plume can occasionally be found near the sea bed in water that is less than 20 m deep when cross- shelf transport by internal tides does occur. The authors recommended undertaking a comprehensive characterization of the marine environment in the area to allow for a better understanding of how the OCSD wastewater plume behaves. 2.7.6 OCSD PHASE III OCEANOGRAPHY & WATER QUALITY Dr. Stanley Grant of UCI hypothesized that internal waves could possibly transport the OCSD wastewater plume into shallow waters off Huntington Beach and that this plume could be entrained by the AES cooling water discharge and subsequently transported into the beach where elevated indicator bacteria concentrations are routinely measured (OCSD 2001b). The OCSD has recently completed a large study, the goals of which were to better 208-001 Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 12 KOMEX m USA CANADA UK AND WONIDWIDE r r characterize the physical oceanographic properties of the area (as well as receiving water quality) and to determine if transport of the submerged wastewater plume into the near- share waters and beach areas was occurring. This Phase III study was conducted jointly by the OCSD,the United States Geological Survey(USGS),the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Scripps,USC and Science Applications International Corporation(SAIC). r The study participants identified three possible transport mechanisms for material from the wastewater plume to reach the shore. These included the following: y . Subsurface Transport—Cross-shelf transport processes such as those caused by wind- driven upweIIing; • Surface Transport — Breaking internal waves and other coastal processes mix the r wastewater plume vertically where surface transport processes bring the plume into the shore;and . Bottom Transport—Internal waves(or surface waves) causing bottom re-suspension of deposited bacteria being transported cross-shelf into the shore. r The value of this study was greater than $5 million and included the deployment of a comprehensive array of current meters, ammonia sensors, temperature and salinity sensors, r and other instrumentation. Concurrent to this portion of the study, several water quality sampling events occurred that measured salinity, temperature, bacteria and ammonium at numerous locations throughout the study area. A special meeting was held on May 15,200Z to discuss the preliminary results of this study. r The study participants concluded that there is no evidence to suggest that the indicator bacteria are coming from offshore sources such as the OCSD marine outfall"We have not yet found a connection behmen coastal ocean processes and bacterial contamination on the beaches" (OCSD 2002b). A Peer Review Panel has reviewed the preliminary results of this Phase III r Study and concur with the findings. Specifically, they noted that there were no plume transportation events during beach contamination events, enterococci concentrations at the beach were higher than those at the edge of the Zone of Initial Dilution(ZID), and that there was a spatial disconnect between plume bacteria and beach bacteria (OCSD 2002c). A criticism of the study was that the areas near the AES power plant, the outfall and the r surrounding vicinity were under-sampled with regards to physical oceanographic measurements. With respect to bacterial measurements, it was noted that higher resolution sampling would have been better. The panel concluded that closer investigation of possible connections between offshore sources and beach contamination was needed(OCSD 2002c). r 208-001 Issue raper-Mintection 060402 13 KOMEX r USA,CANAD&WAND WORM WIDE v 2.7.7 SUMMARY Despite expenditures exceeding $8 million since the summer of 1999, $5 million of which still has to be disseminated in a final form, the "smoking gun" that caused the ocean water recreational closures still has not been identified. Numerous, small bacterial contamination sources have been clearly identified and include flow from the Talbert Marsh and urban runoff from other areas. While these bacterial contamination sources do contribute to the .. partial degradation of near-shore waters off of Huntington Beach, the combined effects of these sources are not likely to have caused the large-magnitude effect (spanning 4.5 linear miles of beach) seen in the summer of 1999, or the more recent month-long closure of Huntington Beach(along 2,700 feet of beach) that occurred in May 2002. 2.8 OCSD COMMITMENT TO DISINFECT There has been a significant, vociferous outcry by numerous public groups and individuals calling for an end to the 301(h) waiver that allows the OCSD to treat their wastewater to a ,., lesser standard than explicitly required (full secondary treatment) under the CWA. The OCSD has maintained that their wastewater plume remains offshore and is not likely the cause of ocean water recreational closures in Huntington Beach. On February 22, 2002, the OCSD announced (Anderson 2002) their commitment to "...take d+ immediate steps to install disinfection facilities at the Sanitation District." The OCSD noted "The results of their monitoring work conducted on February 11 indicated that the Sanitation District's treated (but undisinfected) discharge plume traveled up a submarine canyon that is present off the coast of Newport Beach and came uncomfortably close to shore." This announcement was made because data showed the plume to be within one half mile of shore at a depth of 45 feet. Since that announcement there has been significant discussion on the costs and benefits (both economic and environmental) related to disinfecting the OCSD wastewater stream prior to discharge through their marine outfall. 2.9 MAJOR PACIFIC OCEAN OUTFALLS IN THE UNITED STATES Table 2 presents a summary of information for 33 major Pacific Ocean outfalls in the United States. The list in the table is by no means complete and comprehensive (as outfalls in .d Washington state have not been researched and are thus omitted),but is used for illustrative purposes. The table has been structured to include information on the following: • Outfall name; 208-001 1uue Paper-DWnfection 060402 14 KOMEX ae USA CANADA UK AND WORLD WIDE .d • Location city; • County; Y• • State; _ • NPDFS permit number, • Whether the outfall is operating under a 301(h)waiver; • Design flow rate(million gallons per day[MGD]); • NPDES permit expiration date; .. • Permit type; • Wastewater treatment level;and r, • Method of disinfection. Some basic statistics from the list detailed in Table 2 include the following: `+ • The outfalls are located in two states(California and Oregon); • 3 outfalls have a 301(h) waiver (including Point Loma, the OCSD and Goleta. Renewal for Goleta was recently denied and the Point Loma renewal is a contentious issue that is still being debated); • Flow rates from these outfalls range from one million to 420 MGD (the OCSD outfall has the 3m highest flow rate(tied with Point Loma] at 240 MGD); • Levels of wastewater treatment for the 33 outfall discharges include the following: o 1 has advanced primary treatment; ^^ o 2 have combined primary and secondary treatment; o 2 have combined advanced primary and secondary treatment; 0 25 have secondary treatment;and c, 3 have combined secondary and tertiary treatment. '� • The types of disinfection used for the 33 outfall discharges include the following: o 9 do not disinfect their effluent; o 20 use chlorination to disinfect their effluent; o 1 uses ultra-violet light to disinfect their effluent;and; o 3 have no information regarding disinfection. In summary, Table 2 shows that the OCSD is the only ocean outfall on the west coast of the continental United States that has a flow rate greater than 200 MGD, treats their wastewater r to less than secondary treatment standards and does not disinfect before ocean discharge. 208-001 Issue PaW-DWntectron twoaz 15 KOMEX r USA CANADA M AND WORMME TABLE 2 MAJOR PACIFIC OCEAN OUTFALLS ON THE PACIFIC COAST OF THE UNITED S ISSUE PAPER - ISSUES REGARDING DISINFECTION OF SEWAGE USING SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE NPDES° OUTFALL NAME LOCATION CITY COUNTY STATE PERMIT W NUMBER MRWPCA REG TREATMENT&OUTFALL SYSTEM MARINA MONTEREY CA CA0048551 _ OCEANSIDE OCEAN OUTFALL OCEANSIDE SAN DIEGO CA CA0107433 ENCINA OCEAN OUTFALL CARLSBAD _ SAN DIEGO CA ICA01073951 MONTECITO WWTP SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA CA CA00478W FORT BRAGG WWTP FORT BRAGG _ MENDOCINO CA CA0023078 AVALON WWTP AVALON LOS ANGELES CA CA0054372 PISMO BEACH WWTP PISMO BEACH SAN LUIS OBISPO CA CA0048151 CRESCENT CITY POTW CRESCENT CITY DEL NORTE CA CA0022756 CARPINTERIA SD WWTP CARPINTERIA SANTA BARBARA CA CA0047364 CARMEL AREA WWTP CARMEL !MONTEREY CA CA0047996 PLANT NO 1 &2 OCEAN OUTFALL FALLBROOK _ _ SAN DIEGO CA CA0108031 SOUTH SLO CO SD WWTP OCEANO _ SAN LUIS OBISPO CA CA004M NPD-MAJSAM WWTP HALF MOON BAY SAN MATEO CA CA0038598 SAN EUJO WPCF CARDIFF SAN DIEGO CA CA0107999 NPD MAI-NORTH SAN MATEO WWTP DALY CITY SAN MATEO CA CA0037737 ESCONDIDO,CITY OF AR ESCONDIDO SAN DIEGO CA CA0108944 EL ESTERO WWTP SANTA BARBARA SANTA BARBARA CA CAOD48143 WATSONVILLE WWTP WATSONVILLE SANTA CRUZ CA CA0048216 HALE AVE WWTP ESCONDIDO SAN DIEGO CA CA0107981 SANTA CRUZ WWTP SANTA CRUZ SANTA CRUZ CA CA0048194 WA AUSO CREEK OCEAN OUTFALL LAGUNA BEACH ORANGE CA CA0107611 WA SAN JUAN CREEK OCEAN OUTFALL SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO ORANGE CA CA0107417 OXNARD WWTP OXNARD VENTURA CA CA0054097 NPD MAJ-OCEANSIDE WWTP SAN FRANCISCO SAN FRANCISCO CA CADD37681 WPCP CARSON LOS ANGELES CA CAOD53813 HYPERION WWTP PLAYA DEL REY LOS ANGELES CA CA0109991 POINT LOMA WWTF SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CA CA0107409 OCSD TREATMENT PLANTS 1 &2 FOUNTFAN VALLEY ORANGE CA CAD110604 MORRO BAY/CAYUCOS WWTP MORRO BAY SAN LUIS OBISPO CA CA0047881 GOLETA SD WWTP GOLETA SANTA BARBARA CA CA0048160 SOUTH BAY INTERNATIONAL WWTP SAN DIEGO SAN DIEGO CA CAO108928 BROOKINGS. CITY OF BROOKINGS CURRY I OR ORO020354 NEWPORT, CITY OF NEWPORT UNCOW I OR I OROD22772 Notes: a NPDES-National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. to MGD-million gallons per day. c Renewal is subject to an ongoing consideration. Table 2 Page 1 of 1 'ATES DESIGN NPDES PERMIT iVI R FLOW RATE EXPIRATION PERMITTYPEI WASTEWATER TREATMENT LML METHOD OF DISINFECTION (MGD°) DATE JO 29.6 6-Dec-02 _ STATE Secondary/Terflary None JO 30 9-Feb-05 STATE I Secondary/Terflary _ None VO 38 12- r-05 STATE I Seconds /Tertiary None 40 1 7-Dec-06 STATE Secondary Chlorination 40 1 21-JUn-0O STATE Secondary Chlorination VO 1.2 29-Jun-05 STATE Secondary None JO 1.75 9-JuE04 STATE Secondary Unknown JO 1.86 22 STATE Seconds Chlorination/Dechlorination JO 2 14Jul-05 STATE Secondary Chlorination JO 3 14-Jul-05 STATE Secondary Chlodnation/Dechlorination JO 3.1 9-Feb-05 STATE Secondary Chlorination VO 3.3 9-Jul-04 STATE Secondary Chlorination/Dechlodnailon JO 4 1 15-Msr-05 STATE I Secondary Chlorination/Dechlorination JO 5.25 10-Nov-04 STATE Secondary Unknown JO 8 15-Mar-05 STATE Secondary Chlorination/Dechlorination JO 9 9Se STATE Secondary None 40 11 BSe STATE Secondary Chlorination 40 12 29-M -03 STATE Secondary Chlorination 40 14.5 10-Nov-04 STATE Secondary None JO 17 31-Mar-05 STATE Secondary Chlorination 40 26.6 26-Feb-06 STATE SecondaryNone JO 30 9-Feb-05 STATE Secondary None JO 31.7 10-M -99 STATE Seconds __ Unknown JO 47 1 19-Mar-02 EPA I Secondary I Chlorination JO 386 10-May-02 STATE Secondary I Chlorination JO 420 10-Mar-99 EPA -Secondary Chlorination ES` 240 12-Dec-00 EPA Advanced Primary/Secondary Chlorination 'ES 240 1-Mar-03 EPA Advanced Prima /Secondary None 40 2.36 26-Jan-04 EPA Prima /Secondary - Chlorination/Dechlodnation ESc 10.6 27-Aug-01 EPA Primary/Secondary Chlorination/Dechlodnation 10 25 20-Oct-01 STATE Advanced Prima Chlorination/Dechlorination JO 1.3 28-Feb-05 STATE Seconds Ultra-Violet Light 10 3.2 30-Jun-98 STATE Secondary I Chbrinaflon KOMEX USA CANADA UK AND WORLDWIDE 2.10 OCSD STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE (TREATMENT OPTIONS) As part of the OCSD Interim Strategic Plan Update, four wastewater treatment alternatives are being evaluated for implementation(CDM 2002). These include the following: " • Alternative A, Permit Limits - Treating the wastewater to produce an ocean outfall effluent that meets the current OCSD discharge permit requirements and those of the d California Oman Plan. The total discharge through the outfall would be in the order of 242 MGD and have a total suspended solids(TSS) concentration of 51 mg/L and a BODs of 98 mg/L. This blended discharge would consist of three combined components: o 175 MGD of primary effluent with a TSS concentration of 65 mg/L; a, o 49.5 MGD of secondary effluent with a TSS concentration of 20 mg/L;and o 17.5 MGD of reverse osmosis (RO) brine from the Ground Water Replenishment System(GWRS)with a TSS concentration of 0 mg/L. • Alternative B, 50/50 Blend - Treating the wastewater to produce an ocean outfall effluent that is a mixture composed of 50% primary treated effluent and 50%secondary treated effluent The total discharge through the outfall would be in the order of 242 MGD with a TSS concentration of 39 mg/L and a BODs concentration of 69 mg/L. This blended discharge would consist of three combined components: o 110.2 MGD of primary effluent with a TSS concentration of 65 mg/L; o 114.3 MGD of secondary effluent with a TSS concentration of 20 mg/L;and o 17.5 MGD of RO brine from the GWRS with a TSS concentration of 0 mg/L. `� • Alternative C, Full Secondary Treatment - Treating the wastewater to produce an ocean outfall effluent that meets the standards for secondary treatment. The total r discharge through the outfall would be in the order of 242 MGD with a TSS concentration of 20 mg/L and a BODs concentration of 20 mg/L. This blended discharge would consist of two combined components: o 224.5 MGD of secondary effluent with a TSS concentration of 20 mg/L;and o 17.5 MGD of RO brine from the GWRS with a TSS concentration of 0 mg/L. • Alternative D, Alternative Treatment - Treating the wastewater to produce an ocean outfall effluent that is a mixture of secondary effluent and effluent from some other alternative form of primary treatment (such as micro-filtration). The total discharge through the outfall would be in the order of 242 MGD with a TSS concentration of 9 r mg/L and a BODs concentration of 40 mg(L. This blended discharge would consist of two combined components: .d o 224.5 MGD of secondary effluent with a TSS concentration of 13.7 mg/L,and 20e-001 iuve Popm-oiunteawn 060402 16 KOMEX y USA CMADA UK AND WOROW DE o 17.5 MGD of RO brine from the GWRS with a TSS concentration of 0 mg/L. Table 3 summarizes information from the OCSD Interim Strategic Plan Update (OCSD 2002) and includes information on the treatment alternative, effluent characteristics (BODs, TSS and ammonia-nitrogen [NH3-NI) and whether a 301(h) waiver would be needed to operate under the associated treatment alternative. Obtaining a 301(h) waiver would require submission of an application for renewal by December 2002 and subsequent EPA d and RWQCB review and approval. .r TABLE 3-Summary Of OCSD Treatment Alternatives d Treatment Alternative BOD, TSS NH3-N 301(h)Waiver Required (m ) (m ) (m ) A-Permit Limits 98 51 30 Yes w B-50/50 Blend 69 39 29 Yes C-Full Secondary 20 20 27 No ,r D-Alternative Treatment 40 9 29 Yes The Interim Strategic Plan Update noted that all alternatives have assumed disinfection of both primary and secondary effluent (with the exception of the micro-filtration streams) using NaOCI followed by the use of sodium bisulfite (NaHS03) to dechlorinate the effluent prior to discharge through the marine outfall. A target TC concentration of 10,000 MPN/100 mL in the outfall prior to discharge has been set. ur r 208-001 Inue Paper-DlsinfecNon 060402 17 KOMEX m USA CANADA.UK AND WORLDWIDE r r 3 TECHNICAL DETAILS ON SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 3.1 DISINFECTION KINETICS r Disinfection is a process in which pathogenic organisms, including bacteria and viruses, are r destroyed or rendered incapable of either reproduction or causing infection. It is a complex mechanism that depends on a variety of factors including the following: The physico-chemistry of the disinfectant; r • The nature of the pathogen; The interaction of the disinfectant and the pathogen;and r • The quality of the effluent wastewater. r Disinfection of wastewater can be achieved in many ways, including,but not limited to: . The addition of chemicals such as oxidizing substances,acids,alkalis and metal ions; • The application of heat;and • The application of light. r It was once hypothesized that disinfection of organisms was achieved by inhibiting specific bacteriological enzymes, but is now clear that chlorine acts on proteins and other structures associated within, or on the surface of bacteria, algae and protozoa (Hurst et al. 1997), causing damage to cellular activity, including nucleic activity (Water Environment re Federation [WEF] and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE] 1998). Similarly, inactivation of viruses is accomplished by damaging nucleic adds or various viral proteins r (WEF and ASCE 1998). In order to effectively disinfect a stream of effluent wastewater, it is important to know the rate of inactivation of the target organism. The effectiveness of any disinfectant can be directly related to the concentration of the disinfectant in the water (WEF and ASCE 1998). r Chicles law of disinfection is a first-order kinetic model relating microbial inactivation and chemical reaction. The rate of disinfection is described by the following equation: r —�=kN dr r When: -dNIdt -rate of decrease in organism population; r k =organism die-off rate constant;and N -number of surviving organisms at any given time, t. 208-001 Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 18 KOMEX r USA.CANADA.UK AND WORLDWIDE A second empirical equation used to describe disinfection relates the concentration of a disinfectant and its contact time with the wastewater effluent: C"t, =K Where: C =disinfectant concentration at time t=0; L =contact time,and K,n =exponential constants. m Although these equations are frequently used in the design of a wastewater treatment system, their usefulness depends on the properties of the disinfectant, the chlorine-to- ammonia ratio and the specific properties of the wastewater effluent being treated. d 3.2 CHLORINE CHEMISTRY v Chlorine is the most widely used chemical for the disinfection of wastewater, applied in either liquid, solid or gaseous form. Although NaOCI, also known as liquid bleach, is the r most common form of chlorine used for wastewater disinfection, other potential chlorine- based disinfectants include chlorine gas (Clz), calcium hypochlorite (Ca(OCI)2) and chlorine dioxide (CIO:). NaOCI is a salt of hypochlorous acid, containing up to 15 percent available chlorine Uoint Departments of the Army and Air Force USA 1988;Spellman 1999). NaOCI is ,y a dear solution with a slight yellow tint, is alkaline and very corrosive. It has been widely used in wastewater treatment plants and proven to be a very effective disinfectant against all known pathogenic bacteria and viruses(Spellman 1999). When NaOCI is added to water, a dissociation reaction takes place, creating sodium (Na') .. and hypochlorite (OCL-) ions. The OCl-ions can then read interchangeably with hydrogen ions (H*) in the water to forrn hypochlorous add (HOCI) (Metcalf & Eddy 1991; WEF and ASCE 1998). NaOCI c> Na-+OCI- m H-+OCI- a HOCI HOCI and OCl- are both identified as free available chlorine, whose distribution in the wastewater is highly pH dependent, with HOCI being more prominent at low pH values .d and OCl-more prominent at high pH values. 208MI Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 19 KOMEX USA CANADA WAND WORLDWIDE r r 3.21 CHLORAMINES & BREAKPOINT CHLORINATION Similar to the effluent from the OSCD ocean outfall, typical wastewater treatment plant effluent contains a significant amount of nitrogen in the forms of ammonia (NH3) and ,., nitrate (NO3-). However, being a true oxidizing agent, HOCI (formed from the addition of NaOCI) reacts with the most readily oxidizable substances in the water, including, but not r limited to, ferrous iron (Fe•2), manganous WM and hydrogen sulfide (H25) compounds. After this initial demand is met,HOCI continues to react with the NH3 in the water to form chloramines including monochloramine (NH20); dicNoramine (NHC12); and trichloramine `+ (NC13)(Metcalf&Eddy 1991;Reynolds and Richards 1996;W EF and ASCE 1998). NH3+HOO a NH20+H20 NH2CI+HOCI G NHC12+H20 NHC12+HOG G NCI3+H20 Cliloramines are also categorized as disinfectants, though their reaction time is very slow, which causes them to be 80 percent less effective at disinfection than chlorine (Narkis and Kott 1992). The formation of chloramines is very dependent on water quality parameters, including pH, temperature, chlorine contact time and the chlorine-ammonia ratio in the water. Breakpoint chlorination is defined as "...the process of using chlorine's oxidative capacity to r oxidize ammonia" (WEF and ASCE 1998). Breakpoint chlorination is the point at which ammonia is completely oxidized until any further reactions between chlorine and ammonia or chloramines create nitrogen gas. It is also the point at which continued addition of chlorine results in a residual of free chlorine in the water. Often, wastewater treatment r plants will intentionally treat wastewater containing high ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) so that a residual of free chlorine is present. In addition to the formation of residual free chlorine in the wastewater, breakpoint chlorination may result in high levels of total r dissolved solids(TDS). The addition of HOCI for example, results in an increase of TDS per unit of NH3-N consumed by a ratio of 7.1:1 (Metcalf&Eddy 1991). 3.2.2 CHLORINE BYPRODUCTS In wastewater effluent containing NH3 (non-nitrified effluents), recent studies have shown that the addition of chlorine below the breakpoint chlorination point results in the r production of high concentrations of chloramines and other combined chlorine compounds 208MI 133De Poper-DWnLection D5D4D2 20 KOMEX r USA CANADA UK AND WORLDWIDE (Rebhun et al. 1997). Ammonia-containing effluents also showed slow rates of chlorine consumption and disinfection byproduct formation. However, nitrified effluents (not containing NH3) contain high concentrations of free chlorine residual, which is highly reactive, leading to high-rate formation of disinfection byproducts (Rebhun et al. 1997). 'r Studies also show that the formation of any disinfection byproduct depends highly on the water quality parameters, including pH, temperature and contact time of the disinfectant with the wastewater effluent. Overall, chlorination of any wastewater effluent will result in the formation of some disinfection byproducts. Low concentrations of these byproducts can be achieved by utilizing treatment processes that create low concentrations of dissolved organic halogens or leave a small amount of residual ammonia in the wastewater(Rebhun et al. 1997). 3.2.3 TRIHALOMETHANES In addition to the inorganic reactions(such as those reactions with ammonia) that take place in wastewater, organic reactions also take place between chlorine and organic Compounds including, but not limited to, methane, alcohol and acetic add. Two significant chloro- organics formed in wastewater are dilorophenols and THMs. Chlorophenols form unpleasant odors in wastewater, while THMs have undesirable effects on environmental and human health. THMs are not only presumed to be carcinogenic, but have negative effects on the environment, persisting and accumulating in land and marine environments (Narkis and Kott 1992). THMs are formed when chlorine in the wastewater reacts with organic adds known as humic adds to form single carbon molecules known as haloforms or THMs(WEF and ASCE 1998). These molecules can be represented by HCXa where either a .. Cl-or a Br atom can be substituted for X(WEF and ASCE 1998). Some of the most common THMs include chloroform (CHCb), bromoform (CHBra), 'y chlorodibromomethane (CHCIBn) and bromodichloromethane (CHBrCh). THM formation is significant in wastewater effluent that is high in ammonia (nitrified effluent), where free chlorine residual is high(Rebhun et al. 1997). 3.3 EFFECT OF CHLORINE ON BACTERIA & VIRUSES The effect of chlorine on the disinfection of bacteria and viruses in wastewater effluent has been studied extensively. Studies on the kinetics of disinfection have resulted in the establishment of models used to relate the dose of a particular disinfectant with the length of time it takes for that disinfectant to reduce a particular number of microorganisms in the 208-001 Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 21 KOMEX m USA.CANADA.UK AND WORLDWIDE r r wastewater. Two of these models, Chick's law and a second, un-named empirical model (based on Chides law),have been described previously. r In general, the relative resistance of microorganisms (Committee on Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas at al. 1993)can be listed,from the least resistant to the r most resistant,as follows: r • Bacteria; • Viruses; • Bacterial spores;and r • Parasitic cysts. However, the rate of effectiveness in reducing pathogen levels is not only a matter of the resistance of the microorganism, but of water quality factors (including pH and temperature)and the concentration of suspended solids in the wastewater effluent. Bacteria belong to the prokaryote division. Prokaryotes lack a true membrane-bounded nucleus, and DNA exists as a closed circular molecule in the cytoplasm (Schlegel 1993). Bacteria are often mobile organisms and primarily reproduce by fission or asexual spore formation. Viruses are simpler entities, consisting primarily of proteins and nucleic acids. Viruses are generally smaller in size than bacteria and can only reproduce inside a living r cell. If a virus is located outside a living cell,it is inert and inactive. 3.3.1 HOW INACTIVATION WORKS r In order to achieve bacterial and viral inactivation in wastewater,chlorine acts upon the cell membrane and interior cellular DNA along with other cellular material to render the r microorganism dead or incapable of reproduction or infection. Research has shown that chlorine affects bacterial cellular respiration, transport and DNA replication activity, along with oxygen utilization and respiration, and cellular membrane activity (USEPA 1999a). Along with basic cellular structures, chlorine can affect specialized cellular structures, such .. as flagellum,along with the actual bacterial surface. Bacteria and viruses are not inactivated at the same rate due to differences in their cellular makeup. Research has shown that when comparing two types of bacteria, E. coli and Stapylococcus aureus, various chlorine dosage rates were required to attain the same level of disinfection in the effluent(Junli et al. 1997). Other research shows that bacteria ingested by protozoa exhibit an increased resistance to disinfection and that effectiveness of disinfection is reduced when a high concentration of suspended and colloidal solids is present 208.001 awe Paper-DWntecaon 060402 22 KOMEX USA cm A WAND woR WIDE r r (Committee on Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas et al. 1993, USEPA 2001). Viral inactivation can be achieved by damage to nucleic adds,the viral mat protein,or both. r 3.4 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE MOO,also known as liquid bleach, is the only liquid hypochlorite form currently in use in wastewater treatment plants(WEF and ASCE 1998). It is a commonly used disinfectant due to the following: • Its effectiveness at low concentrations; r • Its inexpensiveness; - • The fad that it works quickly when applied to the wastewater;and <. • The formation of a chlorine residual occurs if it is applied at a sufficient dosage. r 3.4.1 TYPICAL DOSAGES REQUIRED FOR DISINFECTION The level of disinfection attained by the addition of NaOCI to wastewater varies depending Otl on the following: • The contact time; r • The level of chlorine demand;and • The wastewater characteristics(level of treatment). r Dosage levels can range from 6 to 50 mg/l, and United Stated Environmental Protection r Agency (USEPA) guidelines suggest that a contact time of at least 30 minutes should be used to achieve maximum disinfection (joint Departments of the Army and Air Force USA 1988;USEPA 1999b). r Typical chlorine dosage concentrations required for the disinfection of wastewater at different stages during the wastewater treatment process are summarized below in Table 4 (joint Departments of the Army and Air Form, USA 1988). It should be noted that these numbers are only a guideline and that actual chlorine dosages required to disinfect a r particular wastewater effluent are subject to many other factors that must be confirmed during pilot-scale testing of any proposed disinfection process. r r 208-001 ftwe Poper-DiOnteciion 060402 23 KOMEX r USA CMNA WMD WO W1 E r r TABLE 4—Typical Chlorine Dosages Required For Disinfection Of Wastewater Free Chlorine Free Chlorine NaOCI Dose ge `+ Effluent Types Dosage Dosage (m ) pounds/MCI Raw Wastewater 20 167 160 .r Raw Wastewater(Septic) 50 420 400 Settled Wastewater 20 167 160 r Settled Wastewater(Septic) 40 354 320 Chemical Precipitated Effluent 15 126 120 Trickling Filter Effluent 15 127 120 Activated Sludge Effluent 8 67 64 r Sand Filter Effluent 6 50 48 pounds/MG-pounds per million gallon. r Now: NaOCI typically has a concentration of 12.5 percent available chlorine. In order to ascertain are equivalent NaOCI dosage needed for wastewater disinfection, are numbers provided for free Chlorine dosage should be divided by the fraction of available chlorine(12.5 percent). 3.4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AFFECTING DISINFECTION ,r Environmental factors such as pH and temperature affect the rate of disinfection along with other factors such as contact time,mixing and the absence of suspended solids. When NaOCI dissociates and combines with hydrogen ions to form HOCI and OCl•ions,the distribution between these chlorine species is highly pH dependent. At low pH(pH<6.5), r HOCI dominates, providing an increased rate of disinfection, while at high pH (pH> 8.5), OCI- is the dominant species, providing a decreased rate of disinfection (WEF and ASCE r 1998). Research has shown that an increase in pH from 7.0 to 9.0 results in a viral inactivation rate requiring six times the contact time and that an increase in pH from 6.0 to 7.0 results in a 50 percent increase in necessary contact time(USEPA 1999a). r Temperature is also an important factor when determining the efficiency of chlorine as a ,m disinfectant. It has been shown in studies that pathogen inactivation increases dramatically with an increase in temperature analogous to an Arrhenius OJ10 relationship. For example, a study performed by Junli et al. (1997) showed that the death rate of bacteria could be r doubled with an increase in temperature of 10°C. r 3.4.3 DISINFECTION EFFICIENCY Since the rate of bacterial and viral inactivation is controlled by many factors,it is difficult to r identify a specific rate at which chlorine, or chlorine species, disinfects bacteria and viruses. 2OM1 luue Poper-DWrIleclkm 060402 24 KOMEX r USA.CANADA UK AND WORLDWIDE r r As stated previously, it has been shown that inactivation rates in wastewater effluent are highly variable. r As reported by WEF and ASCE (1998), Table 5 shows the percent removal of r microorganisms through typical primary and secondary treatment processes. TABLE 5—Typical Microbial Reductions By Primary And Secondary Treatment Processes Ytl Removal By Primary Removal By Secondary Microorganism Treatment M Treatment(%) r Total Coliform <10 90 to 99 Fecal Coliform 35 90 to 99 Shigella species 15 91 to 99 r Salmonella species 15 %to 99 E.coli 15 90 to 99 Viruses d0 76 to 99 r WEF and ASCE (1998) have also reported typical viral concentration reductions from three treatment levels. The following table reports the estimated virus concentration percent removal in the effluent assuming an original concentration of 7,000 viruses/L. r The OCSD Interim Strategic Plan update (CDM 2002) noted that the target total coliform concentration in the outfall is 10,000 MPN/100 mL (which would be equivalent to 60 MPN/100 mL after a 180 to 1 dilution in the ED). Virus concentrations have been estimated r at 23 plaque-forming units per 10 milliliters (PFU/10 mL) for Alternative A (Permit Limits), 15 PFU/10 mL for Alternative B (50/50 Blend), 3 PFU/10 mL for Alternative C (Full Secondary)and<i PFU/10 mL for Alternative D(Alternative Treatment). r TABLE 6-Typical Virus Reductions By Three Treatment Levels Treatment Level Expected Removal M Virus In Treated Effluent(s/L) Primary Sedimentation 0 7,000 r Secondary Treatment Trickling Filters 50 3,500 r Activated Sludge 90 700 Physical/Chemical Treatment Precipitation 90 700 r Activated Cuban Adsorption 10 6,300 r 2os-MlInue Paper-oeml«nou06M 25 KOMEX r USA.OANADA UK AND WORLDWIDE W With disinfection by chlorine or a chlorine species as an additional treatment step, the disinfection of the wastewater effluent can be dramatically increased. One of the most comprehensive virus studies (20 viruses were tested) showed that the least resistant virus, reovirus, needed only 2.7 minutes to achieve a 4-log removal (99.99%). For all 20 viruses, W the range of Cr values (the product of the chlorine concentration (mg/L3 and the contact time [minutes]) required to obtain 4-log removal ranged from 1.4 to greater than 30 mg- ,r min/L (EPA 1999a). Other studies have shown that ranges of CT values required to obtain 2-log removal (99%) for E. coli and enteric viruses using chlorine as a disinfectant are 0.6 to 2.7 and 0.3 to 12.0 mg-min/L, respectively (Committee on Wastewater Management for W Coastal Urban Areas et al. 1993). 3.5 DECHLORINATION Dechlorination is the process of removing residual chlorine from wastewater effluent after r chlorination has occurred. The purpose of dechlorinating an effluent is to reduce the toxic effects on the environment, however there is no guarantee that all of the residual chlorine will be effectively removed before discharge. Chemical dechlorination is a simple, inexpensive and effective means of removing chlorine residual from the disinfected effluent. .d Major chemicals used in these types of processes include sulfur dioxide(SO2),sodium sulfite (NaS0.3), sodium bisulfite (NaHS03),hydrogen peroxide(H2O2)or ammonia (Committee on r Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas et al. 1993; Reynolds and Richards 1996; WEF and ASCE 1998). When NaHSO3, the chemical of choice for OCSD, is added to chlorinated wastewater effluent, a dissociation reaction occurs forming sodium (Na') and sulfite (SO3-) ions. SOr reacts instantly with any free or combined chlorine present in the wastewater to form sulfate (SO4-) and chlorine (Cl-) ions (Metcalf& Eddy 1991; Reynolds and Richards 1996, WEF and ASCE 1998). Activated carbon, which can also be used as a dechlorination method, has not been widely r used in wastewater applications due to its cost. However, studies have shown that activated carbon is an effective and reliable method of dechlorination (Metcalf & Eddy r 1991). rr 208-001 Issue Paper-Dlsintectlan D60402 26 KOMEX y� USA CANADA,UK AND WORLDWIDE 3.6 RESIDUAL CHLORINE & BYPRODUCTS IN THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT As a disinfectant,by definition any chlorine discharged to the ocean will have a deleterious v effect on the marine environment in the immediate vicinity of the discharge point. Further environmental effects will be dependant on a number of factors including the following: r • Initial dilution; • Temperature; _+ . Light, • Physio-chemical and ecological sensitivity of the receiving waters;and v • The concentration of residual chlorine or other byproducts of chlorine disinfection. The toxicity of residual chlorine and chlorination byproducts is non-discriminatory; the .+ mode of action of the disinfectant and its byproducts are effective against both desirable and non-desirable organisms. r The COP Water Quality Objectives for total chlorine residual (from intermittent chlorine r sources) is 2 ug/L (for a 6-month median), 8 ug/L for a daily maximum and 60 ug/L for an instantaneous maximum(SWRCB 2001). 3.6.1 IMPACTS OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT The rate of lethality from residual chlorine is rapid and the toxicity slope is steep(increases rapidly). A number of studies have demonstrated the acute toxicity of residual chlorine to a range of both freshwater and saline organisms. Freshwater fish and inverterbrates show a wide range of sensitivity, from a lethal concentration for 50% of the samples (LCso) of 390 micrograms per liter (ug(L) for a darter, to 710 ug/I, for a stickleback. The acute values for two types of trout, shiner and a channel catfish were between 45 ug/L and 90 ug/L. Larvae of the eastern oyster and a copepod were very sensitive with species mean acute values of r 26 ug/L and 29 ug/L respectively(Virginia Department of Health 2001). Chlorine-produced oxidants are toxic to both freshwater and saltwater organisms at d concentrations ranging from 3.4 to 13 ug/L following continuous exposure (USEPA 1985). The effect of discontinuous exposure (typically from chlorination of thermal effluents from electricity generating facilities) and continuous exposure (effluents from wastewater treatment plants)has also been studied. Mysids(Mysidopsis bahia) were more sensitive than inland silversides (Menidia beryllina) when exposed continuously under acute and short- 208-001 Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 27 KOMEX y� USA CANADA UK AND WORWME r term chronic conditions. No difference was found between the acute toxicity responses when exposed to intermittent chlorination. In contrast, a difference in short-term chronic .. toxicity was found between the two species on exposure to intermittent chlorination. All intermittent chlorine exposures were less toxic to both species than continuous exposure (Fisher et al. 1994). e. The effect of residual chlorine on marine vegetation has been studied less extensively, however chlorinated discharges from wastewater facilities can be a contributing factor impacting nearby submerged vegetation (Watkins and Hammerschlag 1984). The vascular `+ aquatic plant Myriophyllum spicatum was exposed to a range of chlorine concentrations with continuous and intermittent exposure in 96-hour toxicity studies. Continuous exposure to r residual chlorine at concentrations as low as 50 ug/L depressed shoot and total plant dry weights by 30%of controls and Chlorophyllw was depressed 25%at 100 ug/I.(Watkins and Hammerschlag 1984). The impacts of chlorine toxicity to emergent aquatic plants have only been implicated in studies of chlorinated wastewater effluent application to freshwater tidal wetlands. 3.6.2 IMPACTS OF RESIDUAL CHLORINE & DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS ON THE .. MARINE ENVIRONMENT While chlorine has been widely used over the decades, it is not without its drawbacks. Chlorination can cause the formation of mutagenic, carcinogenic and toxic byproducts which are potentially harmful to human and aquatic organisms. The formation of •+ undesirable disinfection byproducts was first observed in the early 1970s, when free chlorine was shown to interact with selected precursors including humic substances and ,r other organics. Different disinfectants can react with natural organic substances to give rise to numerous byproducts with mutagenic and or carcinogenic activity (Monarca et al. 2000). While drinking water has been extensively tested for chlorine byproduct mutagenicity .. wastewaters, both disinfected and undisinfected, have been less frequently studied with mutagenicity tests. In aqueous solutions free chlorine reacts readily with nitrogenous compounds to form other v chlorine species (such as inorganic and organic chloroamines), many of which have been reported to have less or no inactivation potential against microorganisms(Shang et al.2000). Cyanogen chloride is a volatile, colorless gas and is only slightly soluble in water. It is highly toxic even at very low concentrations. The theoretical threshold of toxicity of cyanogens chloride in aqueous solution to rainbow trout was calculated to be 80 ug/L (Shang et al.2000). Cyanogen chloride was found as a byproduct when solutions containing 208-001 awe Paper-DWntectbn 060402 28 KOMEX r USA Cw &UKM WOr WIDE .. cyanide and nitrogen compounds (such as amino adds, nitriles, nucleic adds and humic adds)as well as drinking water were chlorinated(Shang et al.2000). r When chlorine is added to water, not only are hypochlorous add and hypochlorite formed, but if ammonia is present, monochloramine and dichloroamine will also be formed. All four compounds are toxic to aquatic organisms. In saltwater hypobromous add, hypobromous ion, and bromamines are also formed. For six species tested, bromine .. oxidants were two to five times more toxic than chlorine oxidants. LCsu could not be calculated for daphnids (Daphnia magna) and amphipods (Hyalella a teca) as the chlorine concentration was below quantitation limits. Bromine oxidants are more toxic than chlorine oxidants, but bromine oxidants decay two to five times faster than chlorine oxidants in it freshwater and saltwater respectively. The toxicological properties of the nine haloacetic adds (HAAs) are not well understood, r but are of concern to public health because of their suspected carcinogenicity as well as developmental,reproductive,and hepatic toxicity(Cowman and Singer 1996). Bromochloro HAA species are readily formed from the chlorination of humic substances in the presence of bromide ion, constituting up to 10%of the total HAAs in waters containing as little as 100 ug/L bromide, at higher concentrations bromo-didtloroacetic add was the principle species formed. In one recent study, the distribution and sources of HAAs in seawater in the vicinity of Tokyo Bay, Japan were investigated. The sources of HAAs included rainwater, river water and conifer needles as well as industrial wastewater. HAAs were found in 66 of 122 samples. Concentrations of trichloroacetic add (TCAA) were high (maximum, 20.3 ug/L) compared to other HAAs in coastal seawater. Concentrations and laboratory studies suggest TCAA is relatively stable in the aquatic environment (Hashimoto et al. 1998). �. Monoddoroacetic add (MCAA) and monobromoacetic add(MBAA) are very toxic to green algae (Hashimoto et al. 1998), the 48-hour effective concentration, 100% (ECto) of MCAA for Scenedesmus sulrspicatus is 7 ug/L. 3.6.3 MULTI-COMPONENT TOXICITY ANALYSIS Studies concemed with the toxicity of disinfectants have focused mainly on the identification of the byproducts formed or an evaluation of potential health risks based on single component toxicity analysis. Although the great majority of information on the toxicity of pollutants to aquatic organisms describes the response of a single species to an r individual chemical (single component toxicity analysis), discharges are typically complex and changing in composition and concentration, affecting thousands of indigenous microorganisms. Differences among species in sensitivity to a single chemical can be an r order of magnitude and possibly seven orders of magnitude (Cairns et al. 1990), and the 208-001 awe Paper-Diantection 06002 29 KOMEX r USA CAN UK AND wpRIDWIDF r r same species are not the most sensitive to all toxicants. Consequently it is likely that a model of joint action for chemicals derived from one species may not directly apply to other species. The problem is generally overcome by basing environmental predictions on an array of single species tests (multi-component toxicity analysis) rather than a single r evaluation. Inhibition response relative to the control (ICm) values for residual chlorine were 2.7 ug/L, comparable to a range of values observed for single species (4.4 to 26.23 ug/L). Concern over chlorines impact on primary productivity has extended research to the phytoplankton community where mortality,reduction in cell growth, as well as depression .r of photosynthesis,respiration and nutrient uptake has been documented. Species diversity of protozoans decreased with increasing concentrations of chlorine. The discharge of disinfected effluents affects the bacterivorous ability of protozoa and the effect depends on the disinfectant applied. Chlorine provokes a decrease in the number of r protozoa and a delay in the bacterivorous ability. The wastewater bacterial population as a whole is able to grow after discharge of disinfected wastewater to receiving waters, in the absence of predation or competition, the recipient systems exert selection with rod-shaped r bacteria predominating (Muela et al. 1998). There is extensive information in the literature about survival in aquatic systems of allochthonous (non-indigenous) bacteria (Muela et al. r 1998), especially the bacterial indicator of fecal contamination. The survival of enteric bacteria discharged into recipient systems is affected by abiotic factors (light, salinity, temperature) as well as by biotic factors (predation). The importance of predation by phagotrophic protozoa and algae in the elimination of allochtonous bacteria has been r stressed. Effluents containing residual disinfectant concentrations may negatively affect the microflora of recipient channels and therefore their predation efficiency. 3.7 NEPA & CEQA ISSUES REGARDING DISINFECTION Any plan by the OCSD to undertake the disinfection of their effluent wastewater stream r using NaOCI followed by NaHSOs for dechlorination must go through the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process to determine potential environmental effects associated with disinfection. In particular, issues related to the potential accidental discharge of residual chlorine must be r examined as well as the effects of discharging byproducts to the marine environment that may have both an impact on marine life as well as human health. Careful pilot-scale testing r, will be required to ensure that effluent characteristics, disinfectant characteristics and final discharge characteristics are well understood for the range of conditions (both operational r and environmental)that the OCSD can expect 20WI Issue Paper-DWnfectlon 060402 30 KOMEX r USA CANADA UK AND WORWME 4 CONCLUSIONS • A direct, verifiable cause-effect relationship between the wastewater plume discharged from the OCSD outfall and ocean water recreational closures in Huntington Beach has .+ not yet been conclusively demonstrated; The OCSD has maintained that their wastewater plume remains offshore and is not r likely to be the cause of ocean water recreational closures in Huntington Beach; The OCSD has announced their commitment to begin disinfecting their effluent because recent monitoring data showed the effluent plume "...came uncomfortably close to short' in February 2002; A partial survey of 33 United States marine outfalls discharging into the Pacific Ocean showed that eight outfalls presently operate under the 301(h) waiver (including the OCSD); 28 of the outfalls have secondary treatment or better, and at least 20 of the outfalls disinfect their effluent prior to discharge; r o The OCSD treats their wastewater effluent to less than secondary standards and does not disinfect before ocean outfall discharge; The OCSD is updating their strategic plan and is evaluating four wastewater treatment options for the discharge of 240 MGD including: o Operating at their present permit limits under the 301(h)waiver which are 100 mg/L (90-day average), 150 mg/L (7-day average) with a 30-day average being a 30% `+ removal from the influent stream for BODs; and 60 mg/L (12-month average), 72 mg/L(30-day average)and 109 mg/L(7-day average) for SS; �. o Upgrading to produce a 50/50 blend of primary and secondary effluent, o Upgrading to full secondary treatment;and r o Upgrading to produce a blend of alternative primary (possibly by micro-filtration) and secondary effluent. ,d • The OCSD is planning to disinfect their effluent with NaOCI and then dechlorinating with NaHSO3 prior to discharge through their marine outfall; • NaOCI has been shown to be very effective in disinfecting wastewater effluent at various treatment levels from raw wastewater through to secondary treated and filtered er effluent; • The level of disinfection(bacterial kill and viral inactivation) depends strongly upon the following: 208001 hsw Poper-DWntection 060402 31 KOMEX UN,CAMADAW MD WORMWmE o The dosage of chlorine applied; o The contact time;and o The wastewater characteristics(level of treatment). • Dosages of chlorine can range from 6 mg/L(for secondary treated filtered effluent) to 50 mg/L for raw wastewater (septic). The more advanced the level of wastewater treatment,the lower the required chlorine dose; • Contact times can range from minutes to hours. The longer the contact time, the higher the bacterial and viral kill; d • Wastewater characteristics that can affect the effectiveness of the disinfection process include: �. o BODs. This is a pseudo-measurement of the organic content (strength) of the wastewater. Organic matter reacts with and consumes chlorine which results in less e. chlorine being available to achieve the desired bacterial and viral kill. The higher the BODs concentration, the larger the required chlorine dose and the longer the required contact time in order to achieve a significant bacterial and viral kill; o TSS. The TSS and the BODs concentrations are somewhat linked as again, suspended material(organic or inorganic) reacts with and consumes chlorine which results in less chlorine being available to achieve the desired bacterial and viral kill. The higher the TSS concentration, the larger the required chlorine dose and the e+ longer the required contact time in order to achieve a significant bacterial and dual kill; ,. o NH3. NH3 reacts with chlorine to produce chloramines. Chloramines are also disinfectants but they are not as effective (as they are slower-acting) at killing m bacteria and inactivating viruses as free dilorine. The reaction of NH3 with chlorine will consume chlorine resulting in less chlorine being available to achieve the desired bacterial and viral kill. The higher the NH3 concentration, the larger the required chlorine dose and the longer the required contact time in order to achieve a significant bacterial and viral kill, o pH. At low pH,HOCI is the dominant species of chlorine and provides an increased rate of disinfection. At higher pH, OCI* is the dominant species of chlorine and provides a decreased rate of disinfection. The higher the pH, the longer the required contact time in order to achieve a significant bacterial and viral kill;and ., o Temperature. As the temperature increases, pathogen destruction/inactivation increases dramatically. 208-001 K e PaM-Dunteclim 060402 32 KOMEX USA cA &WK WORLDWIDE r r • Disinfecting wastewater with chlorine produces disinfection byproducts such as chlorophenols and trihalomethanes(THMs). Several types of THMs include chloroform, bromoform, chlorodibromomethane and bromodichloromethane. Some THMs are presumed to be carcinogenic to humans and also have negative effects upon the receiving environment; • The general "rulesof-thumb" noted above with regards to the effectiveness of chlorine r in disinfecting a wastewater also apply for the production of Tl*&. The chlorine dose, the contact time and the wastewater characteristics all affect the types of THMs produced and the rate at which they are generated. Higher chlorine doses, longer contact times and higher wastewater strengths (as measured by BODs, TSS and NHa) will result in the production of higher concentrations of THMs, "' • The environmental impact of discharging residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts such as THMs to the marine environment depends upon the following: •+ o Initial dilution; o Temperature; o Light; o Physio-chemical and ecological sensitivity of the receiving waters;and o The concentrations of residual chlorine and disinfection byproducts in the effluent. • Residual chlorine is acutely toxic to a range of both freshwater and saltwater organisms 'r at concentrations ranging from 3.4 to 13 ug1L. The higher the concentration of residual chlorine in an effluent, the greater the toxic effects and the larger the area that could r possibly be impacted; • Chlorination byproducts(chloramines,THMs and HAAs among others)me also toxic to numerous freshwater and saltwater organisms at relatively low concentrations (7 ug/L). The higher the concentration of chlorination byproducts in an effluent, the greater the toxic effects and the larger the area that could possibly be impacted;and _ r • On the basis of the four wastewater treatment options the OCSD is presently considering, coupled with the information noted above, Table 7 ranks each of the r options in teens of maximizing the effectiveness of disinfection (in terms of high bacterial kills and viral inactivation) and minimizing the impacts to the environment that could be caused by the discharge of residual chlorine (should dedilorination not be effective)and dilorination byproducts. r r 208-001 Kwe Poper-oMNe<lcn DEoeoz 33 KOMEX USACA AWK WORMWIDE r r TABLE 7-Preferred Ranking For OCSD Treatment Options fla Treatment Alternative nk BOD, TSS NH3-N (Prefe:d Option) (m ) (m ) (m ) 1(Most Desirable) C-Full Secondary 20 20 27 2 D-Alternative Treatment 40 9 29 r 3 B-50/50Blend 69 39 29 4(Lent Desirable) A-Permit Limits 98 51 30 ee r d m r r r r m d 20e-001hwe Pow-o'snfactm060402 34 KOMEX USA CA AUK MD wokfOW r r 5 REFERENCES r Anderson, Blake P. (2002). "An Open Letter to the Orange County Community from the r General Manager of the Orange County Sanitation District." February 22- AW WA. (1990). "Water Quality and Treatment -A Handbook of Community Water Supplies, r Fourth Edition." Frederick W. Pontius, technical editor, McGraw-Hill, Inc, San Francisco,California. r Boehm, Alexandria B., Sanders, Brett F., and Winant, Clinton F. (2002). "Cross-Shelf Transport at Huntington Beach. Implications for the Fate of Sewage Discharged through an Offshore Ocean Outfall." Environmental Science and Technology, 36(9), 1899-1906. r Cairns,J., Niederlehner,B.R.,and Pratt,J.R (1990). "Evaluation of joint toxicity of chlorine and ammonia to aquatic communities." Aquat. Toxicol. 16(2),87-100. Camp Dresser&McKee. (2002). "Orange County Sanitation District, Interim Strategic Plan r Update-Technical Background for PAC2 Workshop 3." April 22. "Chemical Injection Technologies, Inc. - Sizing Guide." (2002). r <http://w .chlorinatoo.com/sizing.htm>(April 23). Committee on Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas et al. (1993). Managing r Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas. National Academy Press,Washington,D.C. r Cowman,G.A.,and Singer,P.C. (1996). "Effect of bromide ion on haloacetic acid speciation resulting from chlorination and chloroamination of aquatic humic substances." r Environmental Science and Technology. 30(1), 16-24. "DHS, Implementation of All 411 for Public Beaches." (1999). r <http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/ddwmenVbeaches/ab4ll-1999mport.htxn> (September 20,2000). r Fisher, D.J., Burton, D.T., and Yonkos, L.T. (1999). "The relative acute toxicity of continuous and intermittent exposures of chlorine and bromine to aquatic organisms in the presence and absence of ammonia." Water Res.33(3),760-768. r 20e-001aH,ePoper_DWtectio 060402 35 KOMEX USA CANADA,WAND WOWME r r Grant, S.B., Sanders, B.F., Boehm, A.B., Redman, J.A., Kim, J.H., Mrse, R.D., Chu, A.K., Gouldin, M., McGhee, C.D., Gardiner, N.A., Jones, B.H., Sveikovsky, J., Leipzig, �+ G.V., and Brown, A. (2001). "Generation of Enterococci Bacteria in a Coastal Saltwater March and It's Impact on Surf Zone Water Quality." Environmental Science and Technology,35(12),2407-2416. Hashimoto, S., Azuma, T., and Otsukf, A. (1998). "Distribution, sources, and stability of haloacetic adds in Tokyo Bay,Japan." Envimn. Toxicol. Chem. 17(5),798-805. r Hurst, C.Y., Knudsen, G.A., McInerney, M.J., Stetzenbach, L.D., and Walter, M.V. (1997). Manual of Environmental Microbiology. r Joint Departments of the Army and Air Force USA. (1988). Technical Manual TM 5-814- 31AFM 88-11, Volume 3, Domestic Waste vatcr Treatment. Junli, H.et al. (1997). "Disinfection Effect of Chlorine Dioxide on Bacteria in Water." Water Resources,31(3),607-613. r Komex. (2001). "Downtown Huntington Beach Hydrogeological Investigation, Huntington Beach,California." June 6. Krieger,S. (2000). Personal communication,Steve Krieger,City of Huntington Beach Public r Works Department. September,2000. "LLI, US Code Collection, Title 33, Chapter 26, Subchapter IQ, Section 1311 — Effluent Limitations." (2002). <http://www4.law.comell.edu/uscode/33/1311.hmd> (April 30, 2002). Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (1991). Wastewater Engineering: Treatment Disposal and Reuse, Third Edition. Irwin,McGraw-Hill,San Francisco, California. r Monarca, S., Feretti, D., and Collivignarel8, C. (2000). "The influence of different r disinfectants on mutagenicity and toxicity of urban wastewater." Water Res. 34(17), 4261-4269. Muela, A., Santorvm, P., and Arana, I. (1998) "Discharge of disinfected wastewater in recipient aquatic systems: fate of allodithonous bacterial and autochthonous r protozoa populations." 1.Appl.Microbial. 85(2),263-270. r 263Wl Mue Paper-DWntection 060402 36 KOMEX USA.CMADA.W AND WORIDME r Narkis, N. and Kott, Y. (1992). "Comparison Between Chlorine Dioxide and Chlorine for Use as a Disinfectant of Wastewater Effluents." Water Science and Technology, 26(7-8), r 1493-1492. "OCHCA, Ocean Water Protection Program — Frequently Asked Questions." (2002). <http://www.ochealdvnfo.com/regulatory/ocean/fags.htn>(June 6,2002). OCSD. (1999). "Huntington Beach Closure Investigation,Phase 1,Volumes 1 and 2,Orange County Sanitation District." December. "OCSD, Answers to questions about 301(h) Provision of the Clean Water Act." (2001a). <http://www.acsd.conVmain.htm>(April 30, 2002). r OCSD. (2001b). "Appendix A —Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III,Physical Oceanographic Measurements." r "OCSD, Protecting the Environment — Beach Monitoring." (2002a). r <http://www.ocsd.comlEnvironment/BeachMonitoringfBeadiMonitoring.htm> Uune 4,2002). "OCSD, What's New — PowerPoint Presentations. Principal Investigators Offshore Presentation — Dr. Marlene Noble (USGS), Dr. Burton Jones (USC)." (2002b). <http://www.ocsd.conVmain.htm>Uune 4, 2002). "OCSD, What's New — PowerPoint Presentations. Peer Review Panel Presentation — Dr. Cynthia Cudaback (UCSD), Dr. Patricia Holden (UCSB)". (2002c). <http://www.acsd.com/main.htm>(june 4,2002). r Rebhun, M. et al. (1997). "Formation of disinfection byproducts during chlorination of secondary effluent and renovated water." Water Environment Research, 69(6), 1154- r 1162. ,r Reynolds, T.D. and Richards, P.A. (1996). Unit Operation and Processes in Environmental Engineering. PWS Publishing Company,San Francisco,California. RWQCB. (1998). "Order No. 98-5, NPDES Permit No. CA0110604 — Waste Discharge Requirements and Authorization to Discharge under the National Pollutant r Discharge Elimination System for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No.2.". June. r 208-ODI Issue Paper-Disinfection 060402 37 KOMEX USA.CANADA.UKAND WORLDWIDE r r " Schlegel,H.C. (1993). General Microbiology. Seventh Edition,University Press,Cambridge. r Shang C., Gong, W.L., and Blatcheley, E.R. (2000). "Breakpoint chemistry and volatile product formation resulting from chlorination of model organic-N compounds." Environmental Science and Technology. 34(9), 1721-1728. Spellman, F. (1999). Choosing Disinfection Alternatives for Water/Wastewater Treatment. ,r Technomic Publishing Co.,Inc.,Lancaster,Pennsylvania. "State Water Resources Control Board - California Environmental Protection Agency - "' Water Quality Control Plan, Ocean Waters of California, California Ocean Plan." (2001). dittp://www.swr6.ce.gov/pinspoIs/oplans/op2001.pdf>(April 30,2002). r UCL (2000). Grant Stanley B. (UCI), Chris Webb (Moffatt & Nichol Engineers), Brett F. Sanders (UCI), Alexandria Boehm (UCI), Joon H. Kim (UCI), Jeremy A. Redman r (UCI), Ailyson K.Chu(UCI),Robert Mrse(UCI),Sunny Jiang(UCI), Nancy Gardiner (URS), and Anthony Brown (Komex). "Final Report - Huntington Beach Water r Quality Investigation Phase II: An Analysis of Ocean, Surf Zone, Watershed, Sediment and Groundwater Data Collected from June 1998 through September 2000." December. USC. (2000). "Huntington Beach Closure Investigation: Technical Review." October. r United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1985). "Ambient water quality for chlorine-1984." EPA 440/54"30. Office of Regulations and Standards, r Washington,D.C. United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). (2001). "Controlling Disinfection By-Products and Microbial Contaminants in Drinking Water." Report No. r EPA/600/R-011110,Washington D.C. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1999a). "Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual." Report No. EPA/815/R-99/014, Washington,D.C. r "Virginia Department of Health, Chlorine." (2001). <http://unmu.dhp.state.va.us1> (April 30, 2002). r r 208001 ftwe Popw-Mraeceon 060402 38 KOMEX USA CANADA Ur AND wo"ME r r Water Environment Federation (WEF) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (1998). Design of Wastewater Treatment Plants, Fourth Edition. WEF, Alexandria, r Virginia,and ASCE,Reston,Virginia. Watkins, C.H., and Hammersdilag, R.S. (1984). "The toxicity of chlorine to a common r vascular aquatic plant." Water Res. 18(8), 1037-1043. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 208-001 Nsue Parer-Disinfection 060402 39 KOMEX USA,CANADA.UK AND WORLDWIDE r LAW OFFICES OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION le� `(ly MEMORANDUM TO: Chair and Members of Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District FROM: General Counsel DATE: June 19, 2002 RE: Clean Water Act Provisions Relating to District Based on certain recent comments and questions relating to the District's Permit issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"), it appears there may be significant misunderstanding and confusion concerning the legal aspects of the District's current modified requirements relating to secondary treatment, often referred to as the "Waiver". First, the term "Waiver" is literally a legal misnomer. The Clean Water Act contains no references to a "Waiver", but over time, it has become a generally referred- to colloquialism. Additionally, the use of the term in recent times has been misapplied, because it is sometimes declared (or at least implied) that because the District has a "Waiver", it is allowed to operate outside of the law. That is absolutely incorrect, and when stated, is false. Secondly, as described further below, most of the publicity and expressions of concern and objection voiced in the past year about the District's discharge, relate to bacteria (pathogens) and resulting beach closures. Persons urging full secondary treatment suggest strongly that the District's "Waiver" is the underlying cause for beach contamination. This point is the cause of much misunderstanding. The operating parameters in the District's NPDES Discharge Permit and the Clean Water Act, as they apply to these issues, are as follows: June 19, 2002 Page 2 THE DISTRICT'S NPDES DISCHARGE PERMIT, ISSUED JOINTLY BY THE U.S. EPA AND RWQCB, IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTIONS 301, 304, AND 402 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT, MODIFIES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT SOLELY ON THE SUBJECTS OF BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (`BOD') AND TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ("TSS'). THE LAW DOES NOT ALLOW, AND THE DISTRICT'S MODIFIED DISCHARGE PERMIT DOES NOT NOW, AND NEVER HAS, GRANTED THE DISTRICT ANY RELIEF, REDUCTION, OR 'WAIVER" OF APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS RELATING TO ANY OF THE REGULATED PARAMETERS, INCLUDING BACTERIA. THE DISTRICT HAS ALWAYS BEEN REQUIRED TO MEET THE EXACT SAME DISCHARGE STANDARDS FOR ALL REGULATED PARAMETERS, INCLUDING BACTERIA, AS EVERY OTHER WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS, INCLUDING THOSE WHO OPERATE FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT FACILITIES (SEE, RWQCB ORDER NO. 98-5), WITH THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS BEING FOR BOD AND TSS, AS NOTED ABOVE. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE DISTRICT'S WATER QUALITY DISCHARGE LIMITS IN ITS PERMIT WILL NOT CHANGE, EXCEPT FOR BOD AND TSS, EVEN IF IT DOES GO TO FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT. The water quality standards are established for all Wastewater Treatment Works, including OCSD, based on the California Ocean Plan and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board — Santa Ana Region, Basin Plan. These standards are adopted after very extensive research, analysis, and public hearing by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Basin Plan by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The standards are reviewed and revised every three (3) years, as required by law. As your Staff Report on the level of treatment decision points out, the RWQCB, in its most recent action, has determined that the District's discharge consistently meets the receiving water quality limits. The District has never been cited for violation of its discharge permit conditions in the seventeen (17) years of operating with a modified discharge standards permit. June 19, 2002 Page 3 REQUIREMENTS TO OBTAIN A MODIFIED PERMIT To be issued a Modified Permit by the U.S. EPA and RWQCB, pursuant to Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act, a POTW must discharge into "marine waters", which are the deep waters of the territorial sea. (Clean Water Act Section 301(h).) Further, the Administrator of the U.S. EPA, with the concurrence of the State, may issue such a Permit only if the Applicant satisfies the Administrator that: 1. There is an applicable water quality standard specific to the pollutant being discharged. (In California, it is the State Ocean Plan, and the Regional Basin Plan.) 2. The Applicant has established a monitoring system to assess impacts on aquatic biota. 3. The Applicant must have a U.S. EPA-approved Pretreatment Program adopted and be enforced, which, in combination with the treatment of discharges from the POTW, removes the same amount of such pollutant as would be removed if such treatment works were to apply secondary treatment to its discharges. 4. The POTW will be discharging effluent which meets the water quality criteria under Section 304(a)(1) [Ocean Plan and Basin Plan], after initial mixing in the waters surrounding the point of discharge. In the absence of proving compliance with the above points (and other technical requirements of the U.S. EPA and RWQCB), a POTW, such as OCSD, cannot be issued a Modified Permit under Clean Water Act Section 402. THOMAS L. WOODRUFF GENERAL COUNSEL TLW:pj cc: Mr. B.P. Anderson ]s11W1eXL=1 LAW OFFICES OF WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN & SMART A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Gary G. Streed Director of Finance FROM: General Counsel DATE: June 19, 2002 RE: Bacteria Reduction Project This Opinion is submitted in response to recent inquiries by members of your Staff and other Departments regarding the processes to be implemented for the immediate implementation of the District's proposed Bacteria Reduction Program. Specifically, in order to develop and make operational a chlorination/dechlorination facility and process, it is necessary to: 1. Purchase certain equipment; 2. Purchase certain supplies; 3. Obtain design services; and 4. Award construction contracts for facilities; This Office has previously advised Staff that this Project is likely deemed to be a "Project" under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and as such, full compliance with the legal requirements thereof must be satisfied before undertaking any efforts towards the implementation, including the purchase of equipment. The Bacteria Reduction Project necessitates an Amendment to the District's Waste Discharge Permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("U.S. EPA") and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"); and as such, discussions between the respective Staffs have been occurring on a regular basis for the past several weeks. We have now received confirmation from the RWQCB, in the form of its Staff Report and the proposed Order No. R8-2002-0055, that it intends to amend Order No. 98-5, which is the approval of the District's Waste Discharge Requirements and its NPDES Permit. The proposed Order has not been acted upon by the RWQCB itself, but is scheduled for hearing on July 19, 2002. It is fully anticipated that the Board will in fact grant favorable approval in accordance with the proposed Order, as drafted by the RWQCB's Staff. Mr. Gary G. Streed June 19, 2002 Page 2 Based thereon, it is our opinion that the Bacteria Reduction Project is a Project of the RWQCB and not that of OCSD. The RWQCB serves as the Lead Agency. As such, they have declared, pursuant to California Water Code Section 13389, that the Amendment is exempt from CEQA, in that it constitutes an adoption of a Waste Discharge Requirement. Additionally, the proposed Order mandates that the District must implement a chlorination project by the use of sodium hypochlorite, and dechlorination by the use of sodium bisulfite. As such, it is our opinion that any actions by the District required to comply with this Order are ministerial acts, and therefore, are not subject to CEQA. Based thereon, it is our opinion that your Office, acting through the Purchasing Department and the Operations & Maintenance Department, may immediately undertake to issue Purchase Orders for specialized equipment that will be necessary in the design and construction of the chlorination/dechlorination processes and facilities. We note that any decision made by a public agency, in furtherance of a project, is always subject to legal challenge. While we consider this risk to be extremely low in the present case, and one that is legally defensible, we do note for your attention that if a challenge were to be made, the District may have to suspend or cancel any outstanding purchase contracts until it completes the necessary CEQA procedures. In view of the risk, as slight as it may be, we do not advise that the District award any construction contracts for the facilities until such time as the RWQCB has in fact adopted its proposed Order. HOMAS L. WOODRUFF GENERAL COUNSEL TLW:pj cc: Mr. B.P. Anderson Mr. R. Ooten Mr. R. Ghirelli Mr. D.A. Ludwin Mr. M. Esquer Mr. M. Dubois gr Mk--J ORANGE COUNTY 2"Plaza,Suite 100•Irvine,California92614-5904 BUSINESS COUNCIL phone:949 476.2242•lax 949.476.9240•udunwuocbc.o g EEGIIIVE�� awRxu+ May 15, 2002 aw Rmt OlmglalRavn QWRRSOXPIEI.i QNW.egeu+Ipr.Gq. Henn,fMptLPoWpf,YF Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue RI Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 £mQLYwog Ladies/Gentlemen: ¢oxowc°IRZUIF r R aas RNI WvmMq WEauno a The Orange County Business Council (Business CounciUOCBC), an G'n45 organization dedicated to Orange County's economic vitality and quality of n* life, has been very engaged on behalf of Orange County's business "aa.uoHa community on the District's activities relative to ocean water quality and, specifically. the process of updating the District's strategic plan and RB a r°vw determining appropriate levels of treatment for the future. The Business Council's interest in these proceedings is two-fold: 1) protection of our slmu.MIS= I.rteen Ewo,n coastal resources, which are key to our countywide economic prosperity and quality of life; and 2) financial and operational impacts upon our member Rre� company businesses and others in the county as a result of your impending decisions. In this regard, the Business Council wishes to offer the following comments and requests. w�moaa oe D%!M r >�,C�y 1. Coastal protection. The Business Council believes that Orange County's beaches must be protected. . It is simply unacceptable for E¢omre",,,, Orange County residents and visitors to the county to witness beach naa° postings and beach closures due to bacterial contamination in the surf zone. In our view, a deliberative process honoring the principles of cost-effectiveness; a demonstrated nexus between selected forms of nreucu N s I. treatment and desired results; and common sense, will lead to this ra RR mm.. protection for our valued coastal resources. aonloP & IMEIOR ItELUI S 2. Disinfection. In light of the above, the Business Council supports the nn a,wa I'READE'n, District's short-term proposal to disinfect the sewage effluent. This interim measure will ensure that discharged sewage is not responsible for bacterial contamination in the surf zone. Moreover, a reasonable test period for this process will aid our community's collective efforts to determine the source or sources of pollution leading to beach postings. The Business Council believes that disinfection should commence as soon as possible. SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE Orange County Sanitation District May 15, 2002 Page 2 3. Treatment selection and cost. The Orange County Sanitation District must be able to demonstrate a nexus between selected levels or forms of treatment and protection of our ocean water quality. If higher levels of treatment are warranted to protect ocean water quality, they must be implemented and we must find ways to pay for them. Yet, it is only reasonable to consider cost-effectiveness as well If alternatives are equal in effectiveness for protecting ocean water quality. Required changes in business operations and/or increases in casts to business must be justifiable on the basis of determinable results —in this case, a cleaner shoreline. Orange County residents and business owners must not find themselves in the position of paying higher fees for higher levels of treatment that fail to remedy the sources of coastal pollution. Additionally, the Business Council believes that the Sanitation District must be willing to apply its own reserves or a portion thereof toward increased costs of higher levels of treatment, if those are warranted. 4. Lona-term consideratlons. The Business Council recommends that regardless of the Board's final decision in November of this year on the 301(h) waiver, the District anticipate the longer-term need to move toward secondary treatment. The Sanitation District and Orange County's tourism industry are suffering due to the beach postings as well as the perception, correct or not, that the District's effluent is the source of the problem. Ultimately, both of these factors have the potential to adversely affect our county's economy. The Orange County Business Council has a strong, ongoing interest in this issue and in your upcoming decisions. We appreciate the opportunities for engagement that the District has provided to the business community and to the public at large, and request that you continue to engage us in your decision-making processes going forward. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 4L au� G71 Stan OHelie Julie Puentes President $ CEO Executive V.P. Public Affairs Board of Directors, OCSD June 2002 What future do you envision for the OCSD? What is your vision for the quality of the 240 million gallons per day that the district discharges into the ocean? Are you satisfied with not utilizing resources so the district can continue putting out a quality of effluent that you may not want to swim in or have your children and grandchildren play in? Playing and swimming in the ocean is a given in Orange County. The district's discharge volume is so great and the effects so far reaching, can you envision continuing to not treat all the wastewater to at least secondary levels? How long will people allow the minimal S savings to be the justification for not treating our sewage to higher levels? This is not about bacteria at the beach. The district will treat the effluent to reduce the amount of pathogens to an acceptable level. But full secondary treatment will make the pathogen reduction much easier to accomplish. Cleaner wastewater requires less energy (UV light), less paracetic acid, or less of any other means used to disinfect. Creating a higher quality effluent will allow the district to utilize other options for the wastewater. Reclamation through GWRS or other programs requires that effluent to be of higher quality than the blend now discharged. A myriad of options become available when the wastewater has been secondarily treated and disinfected. The products of the district can become valuable commodities and resources rather than just something to get rid of. Full secondary treatment with pathogen removal allows reclaiming wastewater into drinking water or discharging into the river or out the short outfall pipe. Class B biosolids becoming Class A biosolids, a profitable commodity and one that communities are willing to accept. Your vision for the future must begin with action now. The district can continue being the forward-looking innovator or it will be pulled along by public opinion and regulatory edict. AB 1969 and others like it are not going away. The outcry for clean recreational waters will not lessen. The need for a reliable source of clean drinking water will only increase. Communities are not going to allow Class B biosolids back onto their lands. Our businesses cannot tolerate the bad publicity of continued beach closures and the reputation as sewage dumpers. The future is truly protecting the environment. Even our logo says that is what we do. The cost/benefit ratio for doing the right thing eventually favors society and the environment. OCSD must be a positive force in the community providing a service in more ways than just treating sewage. The here and now must prepare for the future. You get to decide the direction the district will take for the next five years and beyond. "Protecting the Environment" can be accomplished technologically, scientifically, financially, regulatorily, and with public support. By putting out a higher quality effluent, we welcome the future. �+IT'ti \ rn, cn T,,O > N 7 rn to o o° a aanIWO •w r n a m oH, D •] w e •"fin {` �� •'� � " 0 HUMAN VIRUSES FOUND IN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATERS o WILL NO SNTMMINGTBETHE OTHER rAY AROUND I'ED! eWAY SHpo L TERS VA E OTHER CUTEM ND 'pV FOR CAUSING HAZARDS! y 04 FOR GUSING HEALTH RAZAROS! CIINTAHIHTO WATER lI ngr�yJ'P A.cy0�F fiAZ�� : AAEA CINTANISS" NARMIUS SHINNING AREA I P'dry 0 2L etc ilaNA 1E NIESd m SHINNING �'o F�0PI �oadP ; FANIIIN IASISTAS + ._ � PNHIIDI EL NAS1 � N9 M11IN VEHICLES I yet, n laE VEHICULIS OTIR17AIIS _ SECAETAAIA BE IESARRILLI UNIANI Y EGNLlU1A m y A111HISTRACIIN IE 2MA FFIENAL HAIITINI, TEIREATAE EN ENSENAIA I.E. o^^M m � SEDUE T""R PA: INIF.ImIN1 V CNGERVA"': °3 <' The risk of contamination from human waste appears to be significerd, m according to a Survey of 12 river mouths in Los Angeles,Orange and San Diego N et candies conducted by assistant professor StamY J'mng at the University of a a California, Irvine. 3 N b 0 m Ike b = w a a � y O D _ a o n There are more ttlan 100 viruses folArnd in hlanan Waste that can survive o for as long as 130 days in seawater. None of these are tracked in routine rn m tests by California health officials. V YES ON o V.g MADDOXAHARMON m SPONSORED = 0 wrnn AD1969 ASSEMBLY BILL 3 I o PART OF THE SOLUTION TO POLUTION THE FATE OF ONE BEACH WILL EVENTUALLY BE THE FATE OFANOTHER BEACH THE DOMMO EFFECT M PROGRESS �y �y DUMP THE 310H WAIVER, Water Contact 111fiess is a Sad R 1W Orange County Sanitation District Needs to Dump the 301H waiver,go with Mandatory Second Stage if not Third Stage Treatment to our Sewage before it is dumped into our Oceans. . - N� ►N roo�. ' its COurk# i ht ending sewage waiver- OWM®A&MM puThe five-year Waiver ea- Orange 04'Weva ber �ufam boSiSd m� TTte Cad Coama7 wined dde by Docember wbether to mmumaoa Eu for doing ap*for a renewal.The board away With A i@deral waiver ismadeupanediyommmlreµ that allows the Orange Coumy reseomtive from each of2la- Sanitatim Diarist m Pmtp ties,thrcedtysa� 6t8yftict pardal�lrraaed acwage Sam repreaenfatn sad mtntygo- me ocean. Pervivm'Jlm Sffva The WMMTe repx®enmtive Me waives reeds m be op m tba e,mI;gea diarrkt'5 posed We aced to move to full board of directors,Mike Alva- secondary treatment," Mayor red brosght the leave m court Mark Murphy said tll Ttr�day mgM- Heeaetheatlrern,Atsoffe "B was ®arduous, w ihe May 140Mw Oty Comtd... nest omp k Pm gdag m mear [�. with din ay neck omit give her a aoople raeabreoos rve ati Action item teaed and then have the dry ►Qx>npeslo bonds aw Muria attmnoydmworenp,"Alvmez 4 The ommclvoWm be, ginfor T'heresohmaawiIlhebefore city boards aM commisslearsa . aamal at sM,a 2 Cityooroep8 � ffi baD ry Federalwd msaid MCkanWater AG,requareea pgonagmaymsfhepovamto� oarnmissm members, to Vet Priworage immaped low doe ocean ryy treatment the limns. mayors wadd removal of soh4s,and second- bound by the law. ary ucatmed that removes ap Theterm times atarrnow,at- m 99 percent of baaeria. T9 touting all etantiag hoard and waiver allm ball the sewage ommnissfm members to serve m receive oad�ay}rlmary trot- anotlri2 a. pimps 240 m�ian gatlaas of Mark Mwft,Yet Was Nva treated swag, delf Yes,Jeanne CnmR Deamd and We other prr Yev;Den Saw, Yes. Oaotyn mart and secondary Dented, Cavaodq,Yea. ®no the noose 42 mites off ►Nwd � MaY Huntington Beech 300 4mAen STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice and Agenda for the Rd oard Meeting of Orange County Sanitation District to be held on i) /V , 2002_, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on _e2( 2-/.t 200L. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this /,,? 'ay of , 200— . Penny M. Ky , Secrogry Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District GAWP.DTAWOMIN\BS\FORMS\AGENDA CERTIFICATION.DOC �I AGENDA BOARD OF DIRECTORS ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 www.ocsd.com SPECIAL MEETING June 19, 2002 —6:00 p.m. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Offices not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Board for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item, or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. All current agendas and meeting minutes are also available via Orange County Sanitation District's Internet site located at www,ocsd.com. Upon entering the District's web site, please navigate to the Board of Directors section. NOTE TO ALL PERSONS The principal Agenda Item (No. 6)for this meeting is anticipated to take considerable time for presentation by Staff and Consultants, followed by extensive questions and comments by Directors. No actions will be taken on this Agenda Item at this meeting. - Accordingly, pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.3(b) and District Resolution No. OCSD 01-23, the total time allocated for public comments on Agenda Item No. 7 will be 30 minutes, allocated among all speakers requesting to be heard. Public comments will be received immediately following the question and comment period by Directors. In recognition of the necessary shorter time limits, all interested persons are requested and urged to submit their remarks, comments, and questions, IN WRITING, to the Board Secretary. All written submittals should have the name, address, and telephone number of the person submitting. They may be submitted either in advance or at the time of the meeting. All written comments will be entered into and become part of the official record of Board proceedings. 06/19/02 n Page 2 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. - Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts of member agencies relating to appointment of Directors: City/Aaencv Active Director Alternate Director Seal Beach Patricia Campbell Paul Yost 4. Appointment of Chair pro tem, if necessary 5. The Chair, General Manager and General Counsel present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Directors. These reports are for information only and require no action by the Directors. a. Report of Chair; consideration of resolutions or commendations, presentations and awards b. Report of General Manager C. Report of General Counsel 6. Interim Strategic Plan Update a. Introduction b. Ocean Monitoring Overview C. Treatment Alternatives d. Financial Considerations e. Public Input f. PAC2 Process g. Status of 301(h) Discharges h. Regulations and Permitting 1. Board Options for Consideration J. Wrap Up and Concluding Remarks k. Questions & Answers/discussion by Directors 7. Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Board on specific agenda items, including Item No. 6, or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chair, remarks may be limited to three minutes. Public comments relating to specific items on the Agenda, or matters of general interest, shall be limited to a combined total of 30 minutes for all speakers, to be allocated among the number of persons requesting to address the Board. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Board of Directors except as authorized by Calfironia Government Code Section 54954.2(b). a. Matters which a Director may wish to place on a future agenda for action and staff report. 9. Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any. 1 06/19/02 Page 3 10. Adjournment NOTICE TO DIRECTORS: To place items on the agenda for the Regular Meeting of the Board j of Directors, items shall be submitted to the Board Secretary no later than the close of business 14 days preceding the Board meeting. The Board Secretary shall include on the agenda all items submitted by Directors, the General Manager and General Counsel and all formal communications. i General Manager Blake Anderson (714) 593-7110 Board Secretary Penny Kyle (714)593-7130 Director of Finance Gary Streed (714) 593-7550 Director of Human Resources Lisa Tomko (714) 593-7145 i Director of Engineering David Ludwin (714) 593-7300 Director of Operations& '• Maintenance Bob Ooten (714) 593-7020 Director of Technical Services Bob Ghirelli (714) 593-7400 i i Director of Information Technology Patrick Miles (714) 593-7280 Communications Manager Lisa Murphy (714) 593-7120 Assistant to General Manager Greg Mathews (714) 593-7104 ! ! i GAwp.dta\agwda\Board AgendasU002 Board AgendasW061902 agenda.dw BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeting Date TOBd.of Dir. 6/19/02 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number 6 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Originator: Jim Burror, Project Manager SUBJECT: INTERIM STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE,JOB NO. J-40-8 GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION (1) Receive and file the Staff Report for the Interim Strategic Plan Update, Job No. J-40-8. SUMMARY • This item is a special presentation for the Board of Directors. The Interim Strategic Plan Update was prepared to provide the Board of Directors, the public, and Staff with necessary information to determine the make up of our Ocean Discharge Permit application. • The presentation Includes five key issue areas. These are: 1. Ocean Monitoring Data and Studies 2. Treatment Alternatives 3. Financial Considerations 4. Regulations and Permitting 5. Public Input PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY No authorization of expenditures is being requested. BUDGETIMPACT ® This item has been budgeted. (Line item:Approved by the Board in November 2001) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information Item) The total budget for the Interim Strategic Plan Update, Job No. J-40-8, is$687,610. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A Staff Report is attached to this Agenda Report and a presentation will be given at the 6/19/02 Special Board meeting. ALTERNATIVES Each treatment alternative will be presented at the 6/19/02 Special Board meeting and are described in the attached Staff Report. CEQA FINDINGS Alternative A contained within the Staff Report is the currently adopted treatment level, and the "Preferred Alternative"of the District. Any other treatment option previously considered in that Environmental Impact Report will require the District to issue a"Statement of Overriding Considerations'noting that despite overall elevated environmental impacts of the new treatment alternative, water quality concerns outweigh those impacts. ATTACHMENTS 1. Job No. J-40-8, Interim Strategic Plan Update Staff Report dated 6/12102. JB:sa GAwpAtMagendaXBoad Agenda Repods'2002 Board Agenda ReportsMOZ061902.6em 6.doc 6msea:vxio+ Page 2 JOB NO , J '40'8 N� ORS FOR PL�'N 1N,�ER�M uPOp,�E S PNITATIO JO�lk . 2 A9oTF�T HC NE E��\QO eer%r9 pN tso�District, otl writ a �ra�ge Go" CaVxior"' ,Une12, 2002 a � 9 June 12, 2002 STAFF REPORT .. Interim Strategic Plan Update, Job No. J-40-8 Executive Summary and Staff Findings m Since adoption of the Strategic Plan in 1999, significant developments have taken place that impact the Orange County Sanitation District's (District) operations and capital planning such as: chronic beach warnings and closures due to high indicator bacteria levels, lower than projected wastewater flows, final design of the Groundwater Replenishment System, urban runoff diversions to sanitary sewers, and bans on land J application of Class "B" biosolids. These changes require the District to revisit the 1999 Strategic Plan and provide the Board of Directors, the community, and District staff updated information to determine the appropriate level of treatment for the District's ocean discharge. This level of treatment will be incorporated into the Ocean Discharge Permit application due in December 2002. r District staff developed an approach to outline the full implications of the level of treatment decision that addresses five key issue areas. These are: 1. Ocean Monitoring Data and Studies 2. Treatment Alternatives 3. Financial Considerations 4. Regulations and Permitting 5. Public Input Issue Area 1: Ocean Monitoring Data and Studies Summary r The Ocean Monitoring Data and Studies summarized as the "Huntington Beach Investigation" indicate that there is no connection or correlation between offshore bacteria with specific contamination events, spatial patterns or overall levels of bacteria at the beach. The investigation report has been reviewed and accepted by an independent scientific review panel. Also, further analysis is ongoing and the independent scientific review panel will review any new findings or results. Furthermore, as noted by the scientist at the May 15, 2002, Special Board meeting, these studies have not proven that the outfall can not contribute bacteria to the local beaches. In addition to the ocean studies, a number of on-shore investigations have found other sources that could be contributing bacteria to the local coastal nearshore waters. To .. assist in reducing the contamination problems, a number of sewers have been repaired and storm drains have been diverted to the sanitary sewers. Also, a number of Page 1 of 44 EXHIBIT A P.W.t/aatth Cost Eilectivenm SI le Fami Residence User Fee Anomatiae Total Opamuon Olflerenta Ditlerence Colifonn Vlnuy Water Quality Berens. Maintenenrs and Estimated Compered to Cam aretl Levelsr Levels ImPered r 1999SPrt p All B" User Feea to Alt B" f15A10 PFUa/10 MI(h) BOO TSS Description 91100 ml Weivar million f millbNyr flhomeyr fOmmetyr Sihomo/yr ml RepYired? (.wL: i A PermJBI&-nd <1,000 23 Yes W 51 -54 5522 $153 B 50M <100 15 Yes Be I 39 $0 fS63.0 $163 $9 $D C Full a '0003 No , 2B 20 $271 $1% Sat $30 OAOemTreah <1.000 <3 Yes AO 9 $30B $199 $45 Su a Aaaumaamq: Sae ae9mM•AewmpmnYRolea'4ommmalndel.M4 dismulme. Meyeluad.nsi 'TnY cma.nn Irmne LeaeO m levels emrsidY aaw.n a appm+ameuh teo:1. aE+tlmelea velwn M1an 199a SVeta9c Plan Envimnmmfel ImpeC RapoM1. a aPFU=pipue4ombg unR Nmn MVYa wee mmmllea lmvsp tlw aeaMent la iNas Va.rt rft 30deY oversee anEcpetaa pas anm. sa.ae.enn 3seina.IOUMViP..satee inmeary. °Based men esempe mar Mnsr houmhos eno y pmmmpa.n M 17 XMI l Upper mphel mnl value a aie aaemelM saw omleClmY M new lenses and mduaaalpl. 'Oamemn am meinhn.nm oasts ere esemehtl nsus mY s pones se weans an reW]mhi,aa.awN o!mnnxlans(eppN.aasY 3,mwyr)aMa innet➢an lap a,Pp .,,pmpram,'n a apwaamelely iisamamary.n. nmwe aeuaea seWy sour has uw mnneclionlar 'ODTeIe�u Weed on mmpamm�ealw.n Iha esemere4 Ynalehmay maiJmm he �balerenm s oesa,an mmpa.,aenreen Me—,,a.alnpla-lemay mY4mm lee `0tltnenme Easee m mmpa. as.,M.aspmel.d CIP k Me aMmatr epel "DLhRnce a oases on mmpmis.n t et ,me MP Iw Me stsma.e11 Attachment i tE A-EreluaWn Table(5JUn)AIOUTPUT-Eveluamn Table Dy D&11=02 Orange County Sanitation Distinct- Interim Strategic Plan Update EXHIBIT Altem6ves Summary eMwmanu Muaun ov2a.LL awmp... I aMwee I saanni..0 amamau,.o Mt�aoHaaaaa rMmrtL:mrea lMaeMe A.It .Na— Cantnaraa Raver l4ercxrvr Jarrrlw'wa N..wlM1ay -NrYIYN.aIW aYyaa IJ aenelaelueayp�Ye See TqY Mimm�nakq rcoan aara.vrbpwaea MY YYISGnb.lYwanyb.Ma den...aylaw It b.Y a LarvmM eHma I. pI-- at.ear Ny asset YayptlY 6YferM de. loa. -xye,anao wa aarwrawr..a .rw.rwn»I... rteflo mi Ceeiti wxraMaw TSS-Ja 1 nararwwe aMCYMMO�. renbu� rIeau—tlr Raeona, nw Iai TS5(51 nptb �.IN Mvxecnve T55 Ci9aptb {MbBaJ Sae 9]p aM — east Jiatere,lLSRrr.at,4.v...n lxeanl .pAiMa]lapyaywla Tea and It"i65 and QaMipYe•JOr(M u'wrw 'Doe MaVbee JorMwl'Yw T55 � D r651MaMMfM9JU) AIe..ea ra stlra ..n.raaa.m.a.a.mdn r.rl s o4ot , s«eoo. xtuma , ereas 14t4. .eno—Inmr—MT enawaNwnreyW ruL: rlanY T... .Mae amn—It—Javhc%n laaalafaelmm ysala4n femavo'e auntia.ep ruaa cMnalMb tlrniY not TWICawm Lem lmn a{xel 1aaaaNaPYenta. aw.btlrprente u -tab Ytl Y]sanamr a Sae Be. meep'Yn Na an.) reasserted pea nyeve. I.gunned Mamm eRoan m.r repavl�awna .lwweeN/r.Y .xY.rarvgrase ents seetrams Its re uapa pu.aNM BnM. emanNomruawwr neyarr.Ywa Nw R.bu mvsmtl Caor me _ Cuen R.bra fuafaeaMe SeYe.a � aWYlaobaratWt/aouse, sues—tau t rwem uuus Ifistee4l r'neerryebauo weayrYrm.mr: pro We are eeamn..nab.rMa�Y aab e waon.ti ae�ra.egaa..aMm. •elaera rrus,was.. T.Tan.. b..opb Ls..a.w^wrwa.lnermrmt ere a.sra4Mtumreoarenb a—Wptlma a....areW,on. rm.rmaYyryrr.l( .uae Wajawra aalYw.Ynm Tan. syfbm.rp..vrep . ere abpW ra a eaaam- w uuea YY{YW bgY�'alawe nearoanyo-amert b TssartlrNY M ..aemaara .n YeaaeaNr�lsryewran caraw .rWyrWbSt. Abara.ly y{n e.L SeeWe, _ Mmm�malbnbWaera Aower"aMllbramYemb: VWa9^ON3pmatleuM: -IpYJMMrelrr W[ TSS.Tdal epaeeseaces owlmlr: WetlGib: .laaaardessesevpatlo4 M Emab.erwW aao4M1(C iYaftlYna Nedor ends Cana eau -IeavbpMrJ3Mm "MasegeYCMMubuta. �yrnaPla..aer Mb.WM WV.a Poe .aeararYYew.aeaenei -u.rrawea.rxa«..n.wYa .u.rRrbracw.a r.e..ra se.Tog Meaner aaYYb.Ybala( 6eNNbnYnmr aalRa[Yn Ye.atlr _ acumr —n"r l .rarlleaes aaeuy: LL.YaealYawa. .Lw.r M.MaaYw.: CoxamaG ..'rYanmarle. Jaayryynwl Caadama dot -Yawn .CrreMDarrl ttuI.5arrraceemaa0um 'a Ry pan Na w. eerprptti.aaco.a.e or.Roeu.waamarara.e. .mWeenows. rw ra.Rmr..e.mamrmr.wo.a. see goD, lweM Oaf mq�.r =aeaaP.Mrpb .Reevanpe6ywM.ra Recea mmaOpaM palw i55aN spabrpal a error wgxarM ccpsaEm &oad4 R.naa SeLnbr. Mawav ammneea rar ...—seem",, U—Car e.re.�eaeaa yarepw aarpot sea 9aanl rpaaedtlaa Vaf upW aruum ror MarrparW eMC. mwua pgeca ma•°p Cae � Mvonm gyrraMrM anamlraarpwn aa.r�eea..aw.e aaa MwbnRaR..ee. a.ea.web _ Neylocelcn O Pw.rey raver O o.nert2e OPW.aerywae O PYnoey Bw GMorm.ee Meafva.Na PgicTub S4D¢cvw Attachment 3 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update Alternative Summary Tables P.Vao rxubwwvwo>.wgwswcvuu e.ua�..o...s Almon a.I.MePna arxuoarn .gear of.lrn.ax l 1 1 l l I l l ! I l fl fl [ fl I fl I riorsswawinwmsmmwnncnnzlemrwmmrvs)ammxoq_seapDev.mdper EXHIBIT C Original List of PAC Member Values Reorganized List(ceouh,h ad rote oblaeeveWSu"bjecevas) I. Cost effective and responsible waste disposal Protect Public Health 2. No environmental destruction • Minimize dsk of ocean-related healU problems wNn.ud rs 3. Amount of open space «-- -« - -- - - — 4. Protect public health and safety Protect and Respect the Environment 5. Respect for the environment • Provide dean beaches and water,and avoid 6. Impact or benefits to the county's other water resources enWronmsnlal degradation of water(oman), air(emissions),and hand(open space) 7. Provide clean beaches and clean water whin.z o.s.7,.Mn 8. Certainty that means are effective in achieving benefit • Maximize official use of regional resources ,._....... ._ .._.... .._._ _... (i.e.,water,pourer,valued gas,and lend) 9. Assure that other means that can be Implemented wmw s te.W 19 by agencies outside OCSD are addressed • Minimize odor impacts on comet etty 10. Impact on air quality resulting from any new facilities ' wa.to to adjacent communities if. Advance the level of coastal protection ER Provide Cost-Effective Services 12. Protect/maximize economic benefits resulting from • Nod adze relizbirily of systemimprovemente clean beaches • Maximize adaptability of system lmprovamenls 19. Minimize pollution in ocean and on beaches wlu.zo (fecal coliform count;viral content;BODICOD;Oil/Grease; • Minimize test to rate payers Heavy metals,pesticides and hormones;TSS) Vih.Ir 1° 1/. Consider the economic value of the water treated '~ ' Maximize emnondoNecreaeonel benefits M dean beaches 15. Improve and maintain public perception of environmental vma tz Md is cleanliness • Maximize maeume value ofbypreduds(I.e.,economic value of water,Mosollds and digester gas) 16. Minimize use of Imported water in Orange County vet..u.ndn 17. Maximize resource value of perceived waste products - - -- ---- -- --- -- -- --- - 18. Assure financial accountability Promote Integrated Regional Solutions 19. Impact on land and energy resuhing from various levels • Manmize opportunities for regional solutions of treatment(e.g.,biosollds) M1. 20. Provide for adaptability If assumptions are subject •-- wsno-Mbasedze access op ltles for system modding/ to significant uncertainty 21. Provide a system simulation tool that provides holisfic pied dive results for various aftemafives N. : 22, Complete comparison to secondary treatment on�mmmsnizzwrm tiv0h°'s'0getlea ai cunpwl..,M.n ro...ndvyMW WMmbsb prepmmne _-. �.. ., .__. M..mnedry,wNod.filbommpweem oNwwbm.dN.. Attachment 2 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update soap: Development of Objectives and Sub-Objectives for Alternatives Comparison .d June 12, 2002 improvements are still outstanding and some additional storm drain diversions have u been recommended. Issue Area 2: Treatment Alternatives Summary The findings for the Treatment Alternatives are summarized in Exhibit A, "Alternatives Evaluation Table -Attachment 1" and Exhibit B, "Alternative Summary Tables - Attachment 3" to the Draft Interim Strategic Plan Update prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (CDM) in June 2002. These tables summarize the technical and financial r impacts of the four treatment alternatives for consideration by the Board of Directors. Three of the four treatment alternatives presented (A, B, and D) require the District to maintain use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the Clean Water Act(CWA). Section 301(h) in the CWA is also known as the "waiver" provisions from the requirement to meet full secondary treatment. These provisions recognize that some wastewater .d dischargers release treated wastewater to the deeper parts of the ocean where wastewater is assimilated with few, if any, impacts on ocean water quality. As presented, Treatment Alternative C does not require the use of Section 301(h) in the CWA. A second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2)was utilized to develop the criteria for comparing the four alternatives. These criteria are contained in Exhibit A and were derived from the PAC2 members values contained in Exhibit C, "Development of Objectives and Sub-objectives for Alternative Comparison -Attachment 2" from the Draft Interim Strategic Plan Update. The PAC2 inputs are summarized in a their "Summary Statement", in Attachment 1 for the Board of Directors to review. This document is also considered part of the Public Input process summarized below. Under Alternatives C and D, conventional activated sludge and microfiltration were used in this analysis to develop costs and treatment layouts, respectively. Although, there are a number of other potential treatment technologies that could be employed, in combinations, to eliminate the need for the use of Section 301(h) in the CWA. Thus, If a higher level of treatment is to be employed at the District, District staff recommends that the Board of Directors charge District staff with meeting the full secondary treatment limits of the CWA without directly specifying the use of a particular technology. Finally, all the treatment alternatives include provisions for disinfection, participation in the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project, continued urban runoff diversions, and funding for upgrading biosolids treatment to produce Class "A" m biosolids. .. Issue Area 3: Financial Considerations Summary The Financial Considerations for the treatment alternatives are also summarized in Exhibit A. In general, residential user fees increase as the level of treatment increases. A similar percentage of increase can also be estimated for commercial and industrial Page 2 of 44 d June 12, 2002 users. Large or high strength dischargers who operate under permit are charged separate rates for wastewater flow and content measured as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The BOD and TSS rates also increase as the level of treatment increases. Yet, the financial impact will be unique to u each of these users based on individual mixes of wastewater flow, BOD and TSS. Finally, the District will be required to increase user fees, as additional treatment is needed, under all options. Reserves should not be depleted to avoid rate increases, nor should District financial policies be modified without careful considerations for other .. fiscal impacts. Issue Area 4: Regulations and Permitting Summary Regulations and Permitting for the District requires that a new Ocean Discharge permit draft application be submitted by December 2002. To meet this deadline requirement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), a draft application is currently being prepared. The application for Treatment Alternatives A, B, C, and D could be very similar, despite the differences in treatment options. This is because the implementation period for any new facilities will be beyond this new permit cycle of five years. It is anticipated that any new facilities for a level of treatment higher than Alternative A or B will take 11 years to plan, design, and construct. Regardless, District staff needs direction from the Board of Directors in June or July, to have enough time to complete the draft application by October 2002. Also, with Alternative C, District staff needs direction on whether or not to continue the use of the 301(h) provisions until the full secondary treatment facilities are operational. If the L: District discontinues the use of the Section 301(h) provisions now, District staff will need to negotiate interim compliance permit conditions and a compliance schedule as part of j the permit application process. y If no direction is given to District staff in June or July, staff will continue an application that includes continued operation under the Section 301(h) provisions of the CWA for �+ the next permit cycle. Issue Area 5: Public Input Summary The District has received hundreds of letters, e-mails, and telephone calls, the majority reflecting opposition to the District's use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA. Opposition has also been expressed toward the current level of treatment, currently at 50-percent advanced primary and 50-percent secondary blended effluent. Regardless, the correspondence received does reflect a vast number of opinions from residents, businesses, and environmental groups. u Page 3 of 44 V L June 12, 2002 In addition, two public opinion polls were conducted between June 2001 and April 2002 to gauge awareness of, and opinions about, ocean water quality, District operations, and District rates. Results of these two polls are summarized within this Staff Report. The second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) was formed for developing, reviewing, and providing input on the level of treatment decision. The PAC2 was comprised of representatives from businesses, residents, environmental groups, and local cities within the Districfs service area. The group met five times from November 2001 through May 2002. The PAC2 Summary Statement is contained in Attachment 1. r Although there was no consensus as to what level of treatment the Board of Directors should select for the future, it is important to note that there was a group consensus that Alternative A, Ocean Plan Permit Limits, is an unacceptable treatment level for the District. Alternative A is the currently adopted treatment level, and the "Preferred Alternative" of the District. Regardless, the District has continued to operate at the 50- percent advanced primary and 50-percent secondary blended effluent treatment level. Board of Directors Level of Treatment Options for Consideration Each treatment level alternative, as presented in this Staff Report and the Draft Interim Strategic Plan Update Report prepared in June 2002 by CDM, will require different implementation measures. The treatment alternative requiring the least amount of Board action is Alternative A—Ocean Plan Permit Limits. This is because it is the current District adopted 'Preferred Alternative"for treatment and thus would require minimal future decisions to implement. This "Preferred Alternative" does include participation with the GWRS project. The remaining options would require resolutions, CEQA certifications, possible revisions to rates, etc. to be updated prior to implementation of a Capital Improvements Program (CIP). The following summarizes the issues associated with implementation of the four treatment options: r A@emative A— Ocean Plan Permit Limits 1. Existing resolutions and CEQA certifications are in place—No change required. 2. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for current planned facilities and level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This includes provision for 301(h) discharge limits and participation in the GWRS project. 3. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. Alternative B—Blended Discharge of 50% Primary and 50% Secondary Effluent 1. Revise and/or replace Board resolutions to establish this level of treatment as the "Preferred Alternative." 2. Revise the current CIP and rate structure. Page 4 of 44 V June 12, 2002 LA 3. Change the certified CEQA treatment"Preferred Altemative" to this level of treatment. This will require the issuing of a "Statement of Overriding i Considerations." This statement will note that despite the additional impacts caused it by this treatment alternative as compared to Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan, water quality concerns outweigh other environmental concerns. 4. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This includes provision for 301(h) discharge limits and participation in the GWRS project. 5. Present a detailed plan for treatment implementation program for Board review and approval with the next budget cycle. .e 6. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. R Altemative C—Full Secondary 1. Revise and/or replace Board resolutions to establish this level of treatment as the "Preferred Altemative." For this alternative, District staff asks that the Board establish treatment performance goals consistent with secondary treatment, as defined by the CWA. District staff is not seeking a treatment technology specific altemative. This would allow the emerging technologies and combinations of existing technologies to be employed to best meet the District's needs: W environmentally and economically. This would also allow the District to potentially reduce some of the currently estimated costs and potential impacts as new facilities .. are designed and constructed in the future. 2. Revise the current CIP and rate structure. 3. Change the certified CEQA treatment "Preferred Alternative" to this level of treatment. This will require the issuing of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement will note that despite the additional impacts caused by this treatment alternative as compared to Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan, water quality concerns outweigh other environmental concerns. 4. As described above the District has two options for processing is Ocean Discharge permit application: A. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. Option 4A would include the District reapplying for approval of the present 301(h) discharge limits through the next permit cycle. This option would allow the District to operate under the CWA as it gears up for full secondary treatment. L Following this procedure would avoid the District being immediately declared L Page 5 of 44 .J June 12, 2002 in violation of the CWA. It is anticipated to take about 11 years, or two _ permit cycles, to implement the full secondary treatment, which is consistent with the City of Los Angeles's timeframe for full secondary treatment implementation. -or- B. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This option would not include an application requesting approval of the provision for 301(h) discharge limits. This option could require the District to operate outside the CWA, or operate under an administrative order, as it gears up for full secondary treatment. Again, it is anticipated that it will take about 11 years, or two permit cycles, to implement the full secondary treatment. 5. Present a detailed plan for treatment implementation program for Board review and approval with the next budget cycle. 6. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. Alternative D—Altemative Technologies 1. Revise and/or replace Board resolutions to establish this level of treatment as the "Preferred Alternative." 2. Revise CIP and rate structure. °tl 3. Change the certified CEQA treatment"Preferred Alternative" to this level of treatment. This will require the issuing of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement will note that despite the additional impacts caused by this treatment alternative as compared to Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan, water quality concerns outweigh other environmental concerns. 4. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This includes provision for 301(h) discharge limits and participation in the GWRS project. 5. Present a detailed plan for a treatment implementation program for Board review ® and approval with the next budget cycle. 6. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. 7. (Optional) Combine Alternative D with Alternative C and set the effluent limit for the District at Full Secondary Treatment, as described under Alternative C, Item 1, above. a. Page 6 of 44 V June 12, 2002 Issues Related to Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act L Maddox Bill (AB1969) L This Bill would modify the State's Water Code to require full secondary treatment of the District's discharges. As of June 11, 2002, this bill has been approved by the State's Assembly and is scheduled for a hearing by the Senate's Environmental Quality Committee. Also, the bill requires the District and its ratepayers to accept the full cost burden of the mandated legislation. Finally, Blake Anderson continues to update the Board of Directors on progress of this proposed legislation. City of Los Angeles and LACSD d These agencies, after a lengthy and costly negotiation with the EPA and RWQCB for a modified permit, elected to go the full secondary treatment. They subsequently withdrew their applications for operation under Section 301(h) in the CWA. This resulted in negotiated "Consent Decrees" with EPA, approved by the Federal District Court. These allowed them to continue to discharge blended primary and secondary effluents until the new secondary treatment facilities could be constructed. Others in similar situations included the City of Watsonville, and the City and County of San Francisco. u City of San Diego The City of San Diego electively gave up the opportunity to amend its original application which had received tentative denial in the 1980's. After, San Diego realized the billions of dollars it would cost to achieve full secondary treatment together with the 4 lack of adverse ocean impacts associated with the longer, deeper ocean outfall they had constructed and put into operation in the early 1990's. San Diego requested and obtained Congressional legislation that allowed the City to apply for a modified Ocean Discharge permit under the provisions of 301(h) in the CWA. The City's 1995 application cost of$1 million dollars to compile and was approved in record time in late 1995 after a six month technical review allowing discharge of only advanced primary m treatment. In 2001, the City applied for renewal which received tentative approval from EPA and was approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region in April of 2002. The California Coastal Commission did not certify the r proposed permit for compliance with provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act, but has agreed to reconsider its consistency determination after the Governor, the State Water Resources Control Board, and the State Resources Board all expressed concerns. Goleta Sanitary District L The Goleta Sanitary District applied for renewal of its Ocean Discharge permit in 2001 and received tentative approval in 2002 by the RWQCB Staff. In April 2002, the Central u Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board directed Staff to prepare findings not to L Page 7 of 44 r June 12, 2002 approve the new Ocean Discharge permit. The proposed Resolution of Findings will be considered at a Regional Board Meeting in July 2002 and, if adopted, is likely to be appealed to the State Water Resources Control Board if the Board acts to disapprove the permit. Initially, the RWQCB Staff had recommended approval of the use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA and found no technical basis for not approving the permit. Testimony presented by various opposition groups alleged a number of potential concerns, but no there was evidence to show violation of standards or any impact to existing beneficial uses of the ocean. The appeal process should take a year to 18 months. City and County of Honolulu m This marine discharger was involved in multi-year litigation over its permits. Honolulu did prevail and continues to discharge less than full secondary effluent to the ocean. Regardless, they had to settle the lawsuit in such a manner that they had to spend over $10 million dollars to conduct scientific studies to demonstrate that there were no harmful effects related to its ocean discharges. Because of the studies, upgrading to provide enhanced primary treatment with disinfection and some reclamation was the outcome of the recommendations by the independent scientists. r Page 8 of 44 June 12, 2002 .. Staff Report Interim Strategic Plan Update, .. Job No. J-40-8 Background ` Since adoption of the Strategic Plan in 1999, significant developments have taken place v that have impacted the Orange County Sanitation District's (District) operations — including: • Chronic beach warnings and closures • Lower than projected wastewater flows • Final design of the Groundwater Replenishment System • Urban runoff diversions to sanitary sewers • Bans on land application of Class "B" biosolids. These changes have necessitated that the District revisit the 1999 Strategic Plan and provide the public and the Board of Directors the necessary information to decide upon a level of treatment that is protective of public health and the environment. Also, the Board of Directors needs to provide direction on the terms and conditions of the .. District's Ocean Discharge Permit application. This application is currently being prepared for submittal to the EPA and the RWQCB in December 2002. Based upon all the concerns and issues, District staff has developed an approach to address five issue key areas. These are: 1. Ocean Monitoring Data and Science 2. Treatment Alternatives 3. Financial Considerations 4. Regulations and Permitting 5. Public Input For Ocean Monitoring Data and Science, the District, other state and local agencies, special interest groups, and area universities have conducted a series of studies designed to help identify the source(s) of bacterial contamination and potential transport .. mechanisms to explain bacteria contamination along the Huntington Beach shoreline. These studies have been conducted since the summer of 1999 and have included watershed sampling, extensive groundwater and sediment sampling, nearshore intensive ocean sampling, ground penetrating radar, nearshore current metering, a dye _ study of the District's effluent discharge, a large-scale onshore source investigation, and intensive Santa Ana River and Talbert Marsh sampling. In October 2001, District staff proposed conducting an Interim Strategic Plan Update to support the Ocean Discharge application process. This has resulted in the Page 9 of 44 V L1 �. June 12, 2002 development of information for addressing the issues of treatment alternatives and the associated connection and user fees; as well as, defining regulatory issues and receiving public input. The Interim Strategic Plan Update studied four levels of treatment and developed capital projects and costs for each of them: Alternative A - Ocean Plan Permit Limits Alternative B - Blended Discharge of 50%Advanced Primary and 50% Secondary Ef0uent .d Alternative C - Full Secondary Alternative D -Alternative Technologies The Interim Strategic Plan Update was also supported by five public workshops. The workshops were attended by members of the second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2), which was made up of members of the citizen advisory groups formed during w the 1999 Strategic Planning process; the original Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Rate Advisory Committee (RAC). The Regulations and Permitting for the District requires that a new Ocean Discharge permit application be submitted by December 2002. To meet this deadline requirement of the EPA and the RWQCB. A draft application is currently being prepared. The application for Treatment Alternatives A, B, C, and D could be very similar, despite the differences in treatment options. This is because the implementation period for any new facilities will be beyond this new permit cycle of five years. It is anticipated that any new facilities for a level of treatment higher than Alternative B will take 11 years to plan, design, and construct. District staff needs direction from the Board of Directors in June or July, to have a completed application for the EPA in December 2002. The current application expires in June 2003 and the District is required to submit a renewal application six months prior to its expiration. It is anticipated that the District's Board of Directors will review this renewal application in October 2002. If no direction is given to staff in June or July at the latest, a dual application track for each option will be necessary to have completed applications for the Board to review in October. This will increase costs for the Ocean Discharge application process currently underway. Finally, District staff has conducted an extensive community outreach program to better understand the pulse of the residents, business owners, and environmental groups within the District. This has included presentations to city councils, homeowners associations, and local business associations. Also, two phone surveys were conducted, letters to local newspapers were written, and the PAC2 was formed and utilized as described above. ti .. Page 10 of 44 Y• June 12, 2002 Ocean Monitoring Data and Science Background iC The District has conducted an extensive ocean monitoring program for the past 17 years to monitor and evaluate the environmental and public health effects of the discharge of treated wastewater. The results from all studies to date continue to show minor or no discharge impacts to water quality, sediment quality, and biological parameters beyond the zone of initial dilution (ZID), and demonstrate that existing wastewater treatment and source control programs are protective of the marine environment and water contact uses off of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. The ZID is an EPA approved volumetric area that surrounds the ocean outfall's diffuser section. This area encompasses the volume of water about 200 feet from the ocean _ outfall along the last quarter of a mile where the diffusers are located. The subject of the May 15, 2002, Special Board Meeting focused on the most recent study conducted during the summer of 2001. The "Huntington Beach Shoreline Contamination Investigation, Phase III" (Phases I and II occurred in 1999 and 2000) has involved a number of local universities and governmental agencies. The purpose of this study was to pinpoint the cause(s) of the chronic beach closures along Huntington Beach. Ocean Discharge Monitoring Results and Findings e. Results reported by the District from its ocean monitoring program indicate that since 1985: • The District's ocean discharge complies with permit limits. • All exceedances of water quality criteria for pH, dissolved oxygen and water clarity to date have fallen within the natural range of conditions for the ocean environment surrounding the outfall and were not environmentally significant. • Sediments show slightly increased levels of some contaminants near the outfall and a continued temporal decline in concentrations of metal and organic contaminants. • The treated wastewater does not negatively impact biological communities. The number and types of fish and small invertebrates found at the outfall are similar or higher than local reference areas. • The treated wastewater does not impact the fish health or cause increased accumulation of contaminants in fish tissues. Page 11 of 44 r June 12, 2002 Disinfection Decision and Update While these data did not demonstrate that the District's release of effluent to the ocean impacted the beach, it suggests that a mechanism exists whereby offshore winds mix deeper water into the surface layers carrying the treated wastewater release up to the surface or near surface. The values detected did not exceed applicable water quality standards. During routine ocean monitoring on February 11, the District's staff observed evidence of the plume surfacing 3 miles off shore. In addition, the plume was observed within a half-mile of Newport Beach at a depth of 45 feet below the surface. This did not e demonstrate that the District's release of effluent to the ocean impacted the beach. But, it suggests that a mechanism exists whereby offshore winds mix deeper water into the surface layers carrying the treated wastewater release up to the surface, or near the surface. The values detected did not exceed applicable water quality standards, but this was the first time the plume has been found surfacing several miles offshore. Regardless, this is a concem to the District and staff approached the Board of Directors to consider disinfection of the ocean ouffall effluent. Since then, the Board of Directors has designated the use of bleach (with sodium bisulfite dechlorination) as the option for immediate implementation; and authorized District staff to expeditiously complete the ti work necessary to get disinfection operational. The Interim Strategic Plan Update was to consider the question of disinfection during W the treatment evaluation process. The Board action to immediately move towards disinfection eliminated the need for the PAC2 to evaluate the disinfection potential processes. Therefore, disinfection has been incorporated into all the treatment alternatives that were considered. Recreational Water Quality Survey (a.k.a. 20-meter Study) In 1995, it was indicated by EPA that the RWQCB Basin Plan required compliance with recreational water quality standards in both the nearshore and offshore zone. In order to assist the RWQCB in determining the actual extent of recreation in the offshore zone, as required by the California Ocean Plan and Water Code, the District initiated a recreational use survey. Based on this information and its own analysis, the RWQCB proposed including the top 10 feet of the water column in the offshore zone for recreational use. This language was adopted into the RWQCB's Basin Plan in 1997. In 1996, the District's ocean monitoring program initiated a recreational water quality survey (also known as the 20- meter study) to determine prospective compliance in the offshore zone. The results indicated compliance with the proposed basin plan amendment. Regardless, actual compliance would have to be demonstrated with additional routine receiving water monitoring. This additional monitoring was added to the District permit's monitoring program. Page 12 of 44 June 12, 2002 Studies to Date related to the Huntington Beach Investigation A key area proposed for determining the appropriate level of the treatment has been the ocean monitoring data and science related to the Huntington Beach area. The District has provided over$5 million in funding for numerous studies related to the elevated surfzone bacteria values found along the Huntington Beach coast. The focus of these studies has been to better understand, explain, and possibly mitigate the chronic beach closures in the Huntington Beach area. Each study was conducted within the larger"Huntington Beach Investigation"and was r to determine if one or more contributing factors could cause elevated bacteria levels at the beaches causing closures. These contributing factors include oceanographic mechanisms, onshore sources, and other natural processes. These oceanographic mechanisms dominate the study effort and include internal tidal currents, ocean _ sediment transport, tidal relationships to bacteria transport, cross-shelf transports of cold water, etc. Attachment 2 contains a summary of the studies that were �. encompassed in the larger "Huntington Beach Investigation." Attachment 2 contains a brief summary for the each study conducted, including its purpose and results. The Phase III Huntington Investigation and the District's Expert Panel Review of — Huntington Beach Investigations were summarized at the May 15, 2002, Special Board meeting. Their observations and findings indicate that there is no connection or ti correlation between offshore bacteria with either specific contamination events, spatial patterns, or overall levels of bacteria at the beach, has been reviewed and accepted by an independent scientific review panel. Further analysis is ongoing and the independent scientific review panel will review any new findings or results. Conclusions 4° The ocean monitoring data and studies summarized as the "Huntington Beach Investigation" indicate that there is no connection or correlation between offshore bacteria with either speck contamination events, spatial patterns or overall levels of bacteria at the beach. The investigation report has been reviewed and accepted by an independent scientific review panel. Also, further analysis is ongoing and the r independent scientific review panel will review any new findings or results. Furthermore, as noted by the scientist at the May 15, 2002, Special Board meeting, these studies have not proven that the outfall can not contribute bacteria to the local beaches. In addition to the ocean studies, a number of on-shore investigations have found other W sources that could be contributing bacteria to the local coastal nearshore waters. To assist in reducing the contamination problems, a number of sewers have been repaired and storm drains have been diverted to the sanitary sewers. Also, a number of ` improvements are still outstanding and some additional storm drain diversions have been recommended. ;y Page 13 of 44 y s June 12, 2002 Treatment Alternatives Background The 1999 Strategic Plan evaluated six treatment scenarios. These treatment scenarios included: r Scenario 1: 1998 Ocean Discharge Permit Limits without the GWRS project Scenario 2: 1998 Ocean Discharge Permit Limits with the GWRS project Scenario 3: Full Secondary Treatment, without the GWRS project Scenario 4: Full Secondary Treatment, with the GWRS project Scenario 5: Fifty-Percent Secondary Treatment without the GWRS project ® Scenario 6: Fifty-Percent Secondary Treatment with the GWRS project In September of 1998, the Board of Directors approved the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to establish an environmentally "Preferred Alternative"for wastewater treatment. ® In October of 1999, the Board of Directors certified California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and treatment resolutions establishing Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan as the "Preferred Alternative" for treatment at the District. m In October of 2001, as part of the on-going Ocean Discharge application, District staff proposed developing an Interim Strategic Plan Update. This Interim Strategic Plan Update was to develope four new Capital Improvement Programs (CIP) and rate structures for four different levels of treatment including: Alternative A - Ocean Plan Permit Limits Alternative B - Blended Discharge of 50%Advanced Primary and 50% Secondary Effluent Alternative C - Full Secondary Alternative D -Alternative Technologies The Interim Strategic Plan Update is utilizing the 1999 Strategic Plan documents and materials. The Update was supported by five workshops with the second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) made up of members of the citizen advisory groups formed during the 1999 Strategic Planning process: the original Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Rate Advisory Committee (RAC). r Interim Strategic Plan Update Project Scope ® The Scope of Work for the project included: 1. Updating the 1999 facilities planning models with revised cost assumptions 2. Updating the 1999 flow projections 3. Incorporating Class "A" biosolids into the long term planning Page 14 of 44 June 12, 2002 4. Incorporating final design requirements of GWRS 5. Evaluating and incorporating disinfection technologies into all treatment alternatives 6. Interfacing with the members of the PAC2 w 7. Developing revised Capital Improvement Programs 8. Developing revised estimates of future user rates 9. Developing preliminary costs for future potential issues r CDM was retained in December 2001 for the completion of the Interim Strategic Plan Update. CDM was selected because they prepared the 1999 Strategic Plan and as a a result have unique experience and knowledge for the updated. 1999 New/Revised Assumptions Updates u Assumptions from the 1999 Strategic Plan were assumed to be valid for the purpose of evaluating the differences in the four treatment levels (e.g. treatment plant design criteria, cities land use planning, population projections, etc.) The following summarizes the revised or modified planning assumptions that would significantly impact the alternatives analysis: •+ 1. New projects designed, built, or planned since the 1999 Strategic Plan were incorporated into the new site plans and were used as the basis for the future site 41 layouts and incorporated into the 1999 Strategic Plan Facilities Model. The 1999 Strategic Plan Facilities Model is a spreadsheet model developed during the 1999 Strategic Plan process. This model is used to determine treatment facilities need based on wastewater flow and quality. 2. The baseline Capital Improvements Program outlined in the 1999 Strategic Plan was updated based on the District's current capital improvements program. The updated Baseline CIP was then used as the foundation for generating all of the updated Capital Improvement Programs for the four wastewater treatment alternatives evaluated as part of the Interim Strategic Plan Update. 3. New air quality assumptions were developed for the Interim Strategic Plan Update. This included separately tracking odor control costs and Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) control costs for all new treatment facilities. This was added for the Interim Strategic Plan Update to recognize VOC's and general odors are applied differently W to each process. For example, solids, or sludge, handling facilities generate very little VOC emissions, but they can generate ammonia-based odors that can impact y the surrounding community. Also, costs were added for compliance with new air quality regulation for other treatment processes since the completion of the 1999 - Strategic Plan, namely formaldehyde from the District's power generation facilities. 4. The Capital and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs developed for the 1999 Strategic Plan were updated for inflation. W Page 15 of 44 u r June 12, 2002 5. The wastewater flow projections developed for the 1999 Strategic Plan were updated using recent flow data from 1997 through 2001. Based on the recent flow data, it is evident that the 1999 Strategic Plan flow projections were completed r during a period when the per capita flow rate was increasing. As a result, the increased flows projected in the 1999 Strategic Plan have not been realized. The current flow projections are in Exhibit D, District Total Flows - Figure 3-7 from the Interim Strategic Plan Update. The ultimate flow projection is based on a 115 gpcd usage and results in a 2020 flow estimate of 321 mgd versus 352 mgd from the 1999 Strategic Plan. Other items were incorporated in the new flow projection: A. Flow from dry weather storm drain diversions B. Flow from the dairy washwater pilot program C. Cooperative Projects Program impacts D. Updated water conservation impacts E. New SAWPA flow projections F. New IRWD flow projections G. Revised unit flow coefficient development from 125 gallons per capita per day (gpod)to 115 gpcd (This is based on current use projections from Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC).) H. Revised SARI flow routing for the GWRS project 6. It is also assumed that the District will be required to implement Class "A" biosolids management in the future. O&M costs were added accordingly. 7. The final design requirements for the GWRS project were incorporated into the Interim Strategic Plan Update. Additional secondary effluent will be required from the District to meet the demands of designed process equipment. The process equipment is less efficient than originally planned. 8. Disinfection technologies were incorporated into all treatment alternatives in the Interim Strategic Plan Update. Evaluating the Implementation of Treatment Alternatives Four wastewater treatment levels were evaluated in the Interim Strategic Plan Update. The four levels differ on the amount of secondary treatment, or alternative treatment provided to produce an outfall effluent quality that ranges between meeting Ocean Plan and full secondary treatment requirements. r Also, means were developed to compare the alternatives against on another. These means are defined as "comparison tools." They include a definition of performance measures, potential quantities for each treatment alternative, and related objectives and sub-objectives for the purposes of making comparisons between alternatives. These comparison tools were developed based on public input during workshops with the PAC2. Page 16 of 44 Section 3 Updated Planning Assumptions EXHIBIT D 375 350 62 0130946 34 325 21 15 300 P95 275 250 rn Historic OCSD Total Flow Projected OCSD Total Flow E 225 - 3 u 200 - T 0 175 - b 10 150 - `m Q 125 100 —Rebound l0125 gpcd 75 —Rebound to 120 gpcd Rebound to 115 gpcd 50 Rebound to 110 gpcd —Maintain 104 gpcd 25 �Slrategic Plan Projection Match Water Usage Coefficient Trend 0 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Note:Total Bow projections include OCSO flow based on population,water conservation,and point source flows including IRWD, SAWPA,Dry Weather Diversions,and the Dairy Washwater Pilot Program, Figure 3.7 Conn OCSD Total Flows P 10earge CcunNSan VW83siOZS 1­Pfcj pgxtlwcu W5%742 DRAFT 6!7/02 .. June 12, 2002 The four wastewater treatment levels evaluated are: Alternative A— Ocean Plan Permit Limits This alternative is the same as Scenario 2 developed in the 1999 Strategic Plan. It also is the treatment level that was adopted by a the Board for implementation through 2020. Alternative A will provide enough secondary treatment at Plant Nos. 1 and 2, in addition to secondary treatment requirements to meet the needs of the GWRS project, to produce an effluent that will meet the Ocean Plan suspended solids mass emission limit of 20,000 metric tons per year. This Alternative will also discharge a Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) consistent with the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA. The District's current Ocean Discharge permit, dated May 1998, requires that the District meet the Ocean Plan requirements. This alternative is shown in Exhibit E, Flow Schematic -Alternative A (Permit Limits): Planning Year 2020- Figure 6-1 from the Draft Interim Strategic Plan. Alternative B — Blended Discharge of 50% Advanced Primary and 50% Secondary Effluent This alternative will produce an ouffall effluent that is comprised of 50-percent advanced primary treatment effluent and 50-percent secondary treatment effluent. For Alternative B, secondary treatment facilities would be added to Plant Nos. 1 and 2 to provide a 50/50 blend effluent. As with Alternative A, the amount of secondary treatment required to produce the 50/50 blend effluent would be in addition to the amount of secondary treatment needed to satisfy GWRS Phase 1. This alternative is shown in Exhibit F, Flow Schematic -Alternative B (50/50 Blend): Planning Year 2020 - Figure 6-2 from the Draft Interim Strategic Plan. a Alternative C—Full Secondary. Secondary treatment processes would be added at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2 to produce an ouffall effluent that meets the secondary treatment definition in the CWA: 30 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and 30 mg/L Total Suspended Solids (TSS). Secondary treatment is assumed to be activated sludge to allow for future participation in water reclamation in the GWRS project. This is _ because most other conventional secondary treatment processes discharge elevated levels of turbidity. Although turbidity is not a health concern, it would limit reclamation potential for the GRWS project. This alternative is shown in Exhibit G, Flow Schematic- Alternative C (Full Secondary Treatment): Planning Year 2020 - Figure 6-3 from the Draft Interim Strategic Plan. .. Alternative D—Alternative Technologies This alternative is based on alternative treatment processes to be utilized instead of biological secondary treatment. Alternative treatment processes would be added in parallel to existing secondary treatment. This process would provide treatment to all advanced primary effluent that does not receive secondary treatment. The final effluent would be a blend of secondary treatment effluent and alternative treatment effluent. An alternative treatment technology would be considered since it may offer several advantages such as savings in energy, O&M cost savings, a smaller facility footprint, higher level of treatment than exists today, more stable operation, less residuals to manage, and other environmental benefits. Page 17 of 44 Infemat Recycle 24.gd r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 Plant No. I Influent I Plant No. 1 Adivated Sludge UAW I AUWF-177mO I P1W.'FUOemq I Iflataw foaame0 :'A-7 : Preliminary Primary Treatment .':GWR System Treatment PheeeT`: ' 7ofapa ;.M a:•..:•. ' Trickling FINeB g if.em a GWR MF Backwash � n:maa _ Internet Recycle zemya Plant No.2lnlluenf ADWF-144 mpE I Plant No.2 1 --- —, I PWWP+317m I I I maw Preliminary Primary Trealmenl AdNated SWdge Treatment Mares C q ne.lea GWR RO ReyG X �^. 12OMch OuNad Figure 6.1 Flow Schematic m CDM Alternative A(Permit Limits): Planning Year 2020 1 I 1 I I I I a I ruxf .enrarcyaz.maror tad5eit 1 � Internet Recycle 2me 5d r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l Plant No.�ffuent I Plant No. 1 Activated Sludge 107"d I PWWF=a0amod ry Prelimina Pdmery Treatment 171.5 mod 10.e mod M;N -.. Treatment ph "1-;r; .. . . _._. TdcMing Fillers 7o mod 11.s d GWRMFBachwash 54.5 mod Z Infernal Recycle zrmed w �, a Plant No.2lnauenf Aowwlvdmed — - I Plant No. 2 PWWF=eflmod Preliminary - I Treatment t Primary Treatment I Activated Sludge e1 mad L UP mod E E YI mod GWRRORe/ecl Tm E T 120-inch Outfell W Figure 6.2 Flow Schematic 11 CM Alternative B(50150 Blend): Planning Year 2020 1 l l I i I I I I i , i P.IOC! AInIWKg 63.o1r8YDf(aa5e2) Infernal Recycle zsmgd r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I Plant NO. 1Inauenr I Plant No. 1 aclwaetlswage 10'mpe I aowF=fnm9d - 1 -. PwwP=3oem9e Prelimina If3asmpd foe.3 m9d ?"� ry �=fy m:':" Treatment peq,1,"Cy,- - -.. --- 30m9d Tkkfi Filers 11.8 d GWRMFOackwaah 51.3 med `c � E IntemMRecycle Zeroed w �' Plant Ne.2 Influent I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ADWF-199 mgd I Plant No.2 PWWF=317 med I I q Preliminary 91^Isa --►I Pdmary Treatment F Activated Sludge l Treament 559 mad E Ya "' f7.5"d GWRRORejecf TX E T R 12Dlnch Outlall W Figure 6-2 Flow Schematic T( cm Alternative B(50150 Blend): Planning Year 2020 t 1 i i l Infernal Recyde as mad r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I Plant No. I Influent I Pla111.8 Activated Sludge +af.amad I PWW AMWz f77 1 Preliminary Pdmary Trealmenl { +ae.emed fse.emad I'G�yslent TfeserrenfJl�; I 'uPhase I -- Trickling Filters ad mad a GWR MF Backwash 'a `c w Internal Recycle ].— it, No.Ylnfluanf I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - v' AOWF=ramad _ I Plant No. 2 PWWPo]n mat I N Preliminary HI Primary Trealmenl Activated Sludge U1mad Treatmenl � E 17.5m9d GWRROReject TX E T r 12amch ounell W Figure 6-3 Flow Schematic CM Alternative C (Full Secondary Treatment): Planning Year 2020 June 12, 2002 r The District has been evaluating microfiltration of advanced primary effluent since the mid 1990's. Microfiltration technology was selected for Alternative D because it is believed that it has the potential to produce a high quality effluent at a cost approximately equivalent to traditional biological secondary treatment + while reducing solids production and maximizing the effluents available for reclamation. Currently the District is testing a demonstration-scale US Filter MEMCOR filtration system. To date the results of the testing have been favorable. Continued investigation is necessary because the treatment process has not been widely used on primary effluent and is not fully proven. Testing will allow the District to maximize advantages, mitigate disadvantages, and refine the r design criteria, Microfiltration removes nearly all suspended matter, but cannot remove soluble constituents. Therefore, this alternative would meet secondary effluent requirements for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) but not for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). Implementation of this alternative would require a new discharge permit based on the Ocean Plan and the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA. This alternative is shown in Exhibit H, Flow Schematic-Alternative D (Alternative Treatment): Planning Year 2020 - Figure 6-4 from the Draft Interim Strategic Plan. Combination of Alternatives C and D r During the Interim Strategic Plan process, it became evident that in the future a w combination of technologies, such as microfiltration and conventional secondary treatment, may prove to be the most cost effective and environmentally friendly of any option. + If the Board elects to move to a higher level of treatment and to eliminate the need for a permit under the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA, District staff requests that the Board of Directors direct staff to develop facilities that, in combination, meets the full secondary treatment standards in the CWA without predetermining a treatment technology to be used. This would allow District staff to investigate and implement new technologies such as microfiltration. A schematic of this option is contained in Figure 1 below. r r r r Page 18 of 44 Infernal Recycle 24mgd r — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — I Rant No. i Influent I Plant No. 1 ADWF=n7mgd I Adivaled Sludge PWWF=706 mgd I -•-r�: �.,::. Preliminary i 1lemgd ; Treatment Primary Trealment i y.PMml ' ---- " TdckUng Fillets somyd 8 7a.7 mgd Microfilt'it" 3B'7Me" 19.6mgd MF Backwash Treatment v IntemalRecycle zamgd z, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Plant No. 2Influent I Plant No.2 I o ADWF=144mgd I I y P"VF=317 mgd Preliminary Primary Trealment I Activated Sludge 7amgd Treatment 77.gmgd MicroUllfaUon K8 mgd 1&5mgd MF 6eGvreeA Treatment E 17.s mgd GWR RO RejectX E 2 120-mch Ouffall Figure 6-4 Flow Schematic = CM Alternative D (Alternative Treatment(: Planning Year 2020 June 12, 2002 FIGURE 1 Proposed Full Secondary Treatment r r Advanced Primary Effluent" Secondary Treatment I- - — — — — — — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - -1 r 1 I 1 1 r Trickling Fitters Conventional Advanced Treatment 1 Activated Sludge Technologies (1) 1 1 1 I Ocean Outfall Discharge or Reclamation (2) Note 1:As technologies develop or are designed to produce secondary quality effluent alone or in combination with other treatment technologies. Note 2:Effluent concentrations at: 30 mg/I BOD and 85%removal 30 mg/l TSS and 85% removal Alternatives Comparison Tools and Results In order to compare the alternatives, the PAC2 members were polled for their values. This was to ensure that the comparisons being presented to the public and the Board of Directors were valid. The PAC2 members established 22 value parameters, which were combined to establish 4 primary objectives. Each objective has multiple sub-objectives, this depends on the topic and the PAC2 interests. Exhibit C, Attachment 2 from the PAC2 summary statement and shows the PAC2 members values, objectives, and sub objectives used in the PAC2 workshop process. For the purposes of comparing the four wastewater treatment alternatives being evaluated, three of the four primary objectives were established: Protect Public Health, Protect the Environment, and Provide Cost-Effective Services. The fourth primary Page 19 of 44 June 12, 2002 objective "Promote Regional Integrated Solutions" is being addressed by the District, or it will be in future planning efforts. W Then, performance measures were defined for each of the sub-objective in order to provide quantifiable indicators of how well the alternatives perform. The results for each r performance measure are included in this Staff Report's Executive Summary as Exhibit B, Alternatives Summary Table—Attachment 3 from the Draft Interim Strategic Plan Update. Potential Future Issues for All Treatment Alternatives New issues and regulations will always need to be considered in District planning efforts. This is regardless of any treatment alternative employed by the District. Currently, there are several issues that are under study the result of which could impact W the District's future treatment decisions: • Ammonia Toxicity: Elevated levels of ammonia, hardness, and pH can cause the District's effluent toxicity exceedences. Past studies indicate that long- - term baseline toxicity is increasing. In addition, toxicity is anticipated to increase in the future when the GWRS project begins operation in 2005. This is because ammonia and hardness removed during the GWRS treatment process will be sent back to the District's concentrated. CDM did some r+ preliminary cost estimates for treatment options as part of the Interim Strategic Plan Update. The potential solutions are sidestream treatment of GWRS reject water, sidestream treatment of belt-filter press washwater, or v possibly nitrification of the entire wastewater stream. The later would be prohibitively expensive and could require the District to acquire additional land in Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley for those treatment facilities. r • GWRS: Presently the District is committed to only Phase I of the GWRS project, although continued expansion of GWRS I in the future is possible. It 1, is unclear what financial impact will result if the District participates beyond Phase I. • Biosolids Management: The Interim Strategic Plan Update and the 1999 Strategic Plan evaluated a number of potential treatment options for generating a Class"A" product. Class "A" biosolids is defined by 40 CFR Part 6+ 503 and includes, among other requirements, chemical constituent limits and treatment process requirements for vector attraction reduction. It was assumed in the Interim Strategic Plan Update that biosolids would be 6 ' processed to a Class "A" level off-site by a private contractor. The District is currently developing a Long-term Biosolids Master Plan to further explore on- and off-site treatment options. The future of biosolids management and its 6.0 costs are very uncertain at the present time. w Page 20 of 44 ,�, ,. June 12, 2002 • Disinfection: The Interim Strategic Plan Update and the 1999 Strategic Plan evaluated, at a planning level, a number of potential treatment options for disinfecting the effluent discharged to the ocean. Since a decision has been made to develop a plan to disinfect the effluent, it was assumed in the Interim Strategic Plan Update that disinfection would be included in all options evaluated. • Peak Flow Management: Management of peak flows was a primary focus of the 1999 Strategic Plan, which evaluated new outfall options, flow equalization and peak flow management through advanced treatment and discharge to the Santa Ana River. Participation in the GWRS project has allowed the District to divert up to 100 mgd of peak flow to the project for treatment and discharge, thus precluding the need for a new ocean outfall. In addition, there will be times when the old 78-inch ocean outfall will have to be used for short periods of time to handle peak flows. It is anticipated that disinfected secondary effluent will be discharged to the 78-inch outfall for a matter of hours. Urban Runoff and Diary Washwater Diversions: The Interim Strategic Plan Update included participation in the current urban runoff diversion program. It was also assumed in the Interim Strategic Plan Update these types of programs would continue in the future. In the future, the program will need to address the potential impacts of toxic constituents (pesticides, herbicides, etc.) entering the sewerage system. • New Outfall: In the mid-1990's an internal working group at the District evaluated options for the siting and construction of new ocean outfall facilities to handle peak and future flows. This work showed that a new outfall would require extensive studies and take about ten years to plan, design, and construct. Cost estimates ranged anywhere from $150 to $200 million for a .. new deep-water outfall. The peak hydraulic flow management program and participation in the GWRS Project have precluded the need for an outfall for the next decade, and work has been put on hold to further plan for a new outfall. Conclusions The findings for the Treatment Alternatives are summarized in Exhibit A, "Alternatives Evaluation Table -Attachment 1" and Exhibit B, "Alternative Summary Tables - Attachment 3" to the Draft Interim Strategic Plan Update prepared by Camp Dresser& McKee, Inc. (CDM) in June 2002. These tables summarize the technical and financial impacts of the four treatment alternatives for consideration by the Board of Directors. r Three of the four treatment alternatives presented (A, B, and D) require the District to maintain use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section Page 21 of 44 W June 12, 2002 301(h) in the CWA is also known as the "waiver' provisions from the requirement to meet full secondary treatment. These provisions recognize that some wastewater - dischargers release treated wastewater to the deeper parts of the ocean where wastewater is assimilated with few, if any, impacts on ocean water quality. As presented, Treatment Alternative C does not require the use of Section 301(h) in the CWA. W A second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) was utilized to develop the criteria for comparing the four alternatives. The PAC2 inputs are summarized in a their "Summary Statement", in Attachment 1 for the Board of Directors to review. This document is also considered part of the Public Input process summarized below. Under Alternatives C and D, conventional activated sludge and microfiltration were used in this analysis to develop costs and treatment layouts, respectively. Although, there are a number of other potential treatment technologies that could be employed, in y combinations, to eliminate the need for the use of Section 301(h) in the CWA. Thus, If a higher level of treatment is to be employed at the District, District staff recommends that the Board of Directors charge District staff with meeting the full secondary treatment limits of the CWA without directly specifying the use of a particular technology. Finally, all the treatment alternatives include provisions for disinfection, participation in W the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project, continued urban runoff diversions, and funding for upgrading biosolids treatment to produce Class "N' biosolids. r Point 3: Financial Consideration and Potential Fees W Background The purpose of Point 3 is to provide an overview of inputs to the financial model and resulting rates from the financial evaluation work completed for the District's Interim Strategic Plan Update. W Project Scope For the Interim Strategic Plan Update, existing funding polices were assumed to remain the same in the future. Also, the same four treatment alternatives were chosen for the evaluation, as described above. These alternatives varied in their future Capital and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs. Each scenario was evaluated using a financial model called the FPT (Financial Planning Tool). The FPT allows the user to select a treatment alternative, future growth projection, as well as other variables, and the FPT then calculates the sewer service charges and capital facilities capacity °d charges (connection fees) for residential, commercial, and industrial users. it Page 22 of 44 V June 12, 2002 Funding Sources and Reserves In 1998, the Board of Directors hired Public Financial Management, PFM, a financial advisory firm, to review our long-standing reserve policy and to recommend changes. PFM and District staff developed a reserves policy that explains our needs to have funds on hand. There are six general categories of reserves in the policy as follow: 1. A cash flow/contingency reserve will be established (1) to fund operations and maintenance expenses for the first half of the fiscal year prior to the receipt of taxes and user fee revenues, (2) to provide for non-recurring, unanticipated expenditures, and (3) to fund the annual debt service principal payments and semi-annual interest payments due in August of each year. The level of this reserve will be the sum of(a) an amount equal to six months of the total District Operating costs, (b) 10-percent of the District's Operating costs, and (c)the total of all annual debt service payments due in the month of August for each year. 2. A capital improvement reserve will be maintained to fund approximately 50-percent of the average annual capital outlay plus the entire projected cost of funding specific near-term projects such as the Groundwater Replenishment System. 3. A renewal/replacement reserve will be maintained to fund the District's renewal, rehabilitation and replacement requirement costs associated with the District's existing capital plant and collection system over the next twenty years. The reserve was initially set at $50 million in 1998-1999, and, with an assumed interest rate level of 5-percent and annual increments, will grow to meet 30-percent of the identified demands to 2020. 4. Self-insurance reserves for property (fire, flood, and earthquake), general liability, and workers' compensation will be maintained at a level which, together with purchased insurance policies, FEMA Disaster reimbursement funding, and State Disaster Assistance payments, would adequately protect the District. Based on a potential infrastructure loss of$495 million, the reserve level has been set at $57 million. 5. A debt service reserve will be maintained in amounts set forth in "bond covenants" as required by the investors. This reserve will be maintained by the various Bond Trustees and will be set aside for the unlikely event that the District is unable to make required principal and/or interest payments. Interest from this reserve can be used to make periodic payments. 6. A rate stabilization reserve will be established to provide smooth and orderly adjustments to the annual sewer user fees. It is acknowledged that, in some years, fees will be collected that do not match that year's cost of service. When excess .. fees are collected, they will become a part of this reserve in order to offset shortfalls in other years. Page 23 of 44 V June 12, 2002 1� The balances in these various reserve categories at June 30, 2001 (the date of our last audited statements)were: V Cash flow/contingency $77 million Specific and future capital improvements $163 million Facilities replacement& refurbishment $50 million V Self insurance/catastrophe $56 million Debt (certificate of participation) service $33 million Rate stabilization $98 million Total $477 million As of March 31, 2002, the total amount of cash and investments belonging to the -+ District was $452 million. This is a $25 million reduction from the balance at the beginning of the year. The current capital improvement plan calls for outlays of$1.1 billion over the next 5 years. Operations and maintenance costs over that 5 years are expected to be $450 million. Debt service, principal and interest, is budgeted to be $200 million over the same period. Property taxes are expected to pay current debt service and are budgeted to be $198 million. User fees, the current level, would provide nearly$400 million, almost covering the O&M expenses. This leaves the $1.1 billion of capital improvements with no annual source of funding. Clearly, user fees will be increased, savings will be used, and more money will be " borrowed. We have an excellent credit rating that reduces interest costs. We are able to issue variable rate debt that reduces interest costs from about 5.5-percent to about 3.5-percent. Having money in the bank allows us to benefit from rising interest rates on our "reserves" while we experience rising interest rates on our variable debt. We probably would not be willing to take the risk of rising interest rates if we did not have this hedge. This year, we expect interest earnings of about $25 million. Just that v amount would be close to $28 dollars additional to the single family residence (SFR) user fee. If we had to fix our long-term borrowing using the 2-percent difference above, we would increase interest expense about$4.5 million a year, another$5 to add to the SFR rate. There are 204 projects in our current capital improvement program through 2020. Here u is a list of the 10 most costly ones: W 1 Groundwater Replenishment System $200 million 2 Headworks Improvements at Plant 2 $160 million 3 Co-operative Projects $143 million 4 Primary Clarifiers at Plant 1 $ 90 million 5 Santa Ana River Interceptor protection $ 87 million 6 Primary Clarifiers at Plant 2 (10 total) $ 60 million 6W 7 Trickling Filter Rehab/New Clarifiers $ 50 million u Page 24 of 44 V June 12, 2002 8 Effluent Pumping Station Annex $ 48 million 9 Bushard Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation $ 39 million 10 Cake storage hoppers at Plant 1 (5 total) $ 39 million .. Treatment Alternative Capital Improvement Programs The four treatment alternatives each have a Capital Improvement Program. Exhibit A, also includes the total for the CIP through the year 2020. Attachment 3, from the June 19, 2002, Special Board Meeting Materials, also summarizes the total each CIP from the FPT. This figure also shows the existing CIP compared to the new treatment alternative CIP's. As shown in the Attachment 2, because flows have not increased as projected, future projects in the 1999 Strategic Plan were assumed to be removed from the current CIP. This equates to $271 million, before the new treatment alternatives could be determined. Thus, with Alternative A, $271 million was removed and $111 million in newly revised facilities was added back in. The$111 million primarily includes facility costs for disinfection, solids handling, and digestion. The other CIP totals and differences are also included in the Attachment 2. The four treatment alternatives each have an expected annual Operation and Maintenance cast. The following table titled "Operation and Maintenance Costs" summarizes the total costs for O&M expected from the period from 2003 through 2020 .d for comparison. y Operation and Maintenance Costs DISTRICT Interim Strategic Update Plan Orange County Sanitation District �+ Total Cost 2003 -2020 Altemative (Millions of Dollars) Alternative A $1,387 Alternative B $1,482 .. Alternative C $1,536 Alternative D $1,522 r Current and Projected Treatment Analysis and Rates Residential and commercial sewer service charges are based upon a base EDU charge. Each residential and commercial category has a defined flow and strength. ti Page 25 of 44 r W June 12, 2002 The FPT calculates the required sewer service charge on an EDU basis. The required sewer service charge is calculated as based on the revenues needed to meet the required coverage ratio. The coverage ratio used in the FPT is 1.25 and is calculated exclusive of connection fees. W Potential Residential User Fees u The four treatment alternatives each have a projected rate impact for the District's users. Exhibit A includes the estimated 2020 residential user rates and compares this the currently projected rate for the existing level of treatment. Attachment 4, from the v June 19, 2002, Special Board Meeting Materials, also summarizes the projected residential user rate increases over time for comparing the rate impact for the new treatment alternatives. Potential Commercial and Industrial User Fees The expected increase for commercial and industrial users is anticipated to be similar to the percentage increase for the residential users. Attachment 5, from 6/19/02 Special Board Meeting presentation materials, contains workshop slides for a number of potential commercial and industrial user fees based on this anticipated increase. Conclusions The Financial Considerations for the treatment alternatives are also summarized in Exhibit A. In general, residential user fees increase as the level of treatment increases. A similar percentage of increase can also be estimated for commercial and industrial users. Large or high strength dischargers who operate under permit are charged separate rates for wastewater flow and content measured as Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS). The BOD and TSS rates also increase as the level of treatment increases. Yet, the financial impact will be unique to W each of these users based on individual mixes of wastewater flow, BOD and TSS. Finally, the District will be required to increase user fees, as additional treatment is W needed, under all options. Reserves should not be depleted to avoid rate increases, nor should District financial policies be modified without careful considerations for other fiscal impacts. Point 4 - Regulations and Permits W Background The District discharges are under the authority of an Ocean Discharge permit issued by the RWQCB and the EPA. These regulators are authorized by the State's Porter- Cologne Water Quality Act and the federal Clean Water Act to issue the District an ocean discharge permit. These permits are called Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and Ocean Discharge permit, respectively, from the RWQCB and EPA. u Page 26 of 44 W June 12, 2002 California law states that the manner of compliance for a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) may not be determined by the RWQCB; regardless, the Federal Clean Water Act requires secondary treatment, at a minimum, for all dischargers except those .r discharging pursuant to Section 301(h) of the CWA. All WDRs and Ocean Discharge permits must be renewed every five years. Dischargers are required to submit renewal applications for these permits 180 days before the current permit expires. This allows the regulators time to review, draft and adopt the new permit at approximately the same time that the old permit expires. If a timely and complete renewal application is submitted, then expired permits are continued administratively until the regulators are ready to issue the next permit. Clean Water Act(CWA) and Section 301(h) Provisions The 1977, CWA amendment established the Section 301(h) provisions from the requirements for full secondary treatment for qualifying ocean dischargers. This was established by Congress as a one-time Ocean Discharge permit opportunity and was intended to apply to a limited number of dischargers that met certain criteria. The permit applications were due by October 1, 1978 according to the amendment to the CWA embodied in Section 301(h) which established the procedure for seeking a Ocean Discharge permit that modified the requirements for secondary treatment as defined by the EPA. Secondary treatment is defined by 85-percent removal of Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) substances and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and an effluent limit for each of these two parameters not to exceed 30 milligrams/liter over a 30-day average. 1989 Ocean Discharge Permit Application r In 1989, the District completed a Master Plan in which the agency adopted a 50-percent advanced primary treatment and 50-percent secondary treatment policy. At that time, the agency was operating under its first 301(h) modified permit. Based on the Master Plan and Treatment Policy, the agency submitted a renewal application to EPA and the RWQCB for its 301(h) permit. Due to circumstances outside of the District's control, the EPA did not start processing the application until about 1995. 4 At that time, it was indicated by EPA that the RWQCB Basin Plan required compliance with recreational water quality standards in both the nearshore and offshore zone. The nearshore zone runs from the beach to the 30-foot depth contour or 1,000-foot distance from shore, which ever is further. The offshore zone runs from the nearshore zone to the 3-mile limit of State waters. Previously, the zone of compliance was considered the nearshore zone only. As the RWQCB had not undergone any of the analyses required by the Water Code in adopting the offshore zone as a recreational use, the RWQCB proposed a Basin Plan Amendment to make its Plan consistent with the California Ocean Plan. Page 27 of 44 r W June 12, 2002 In order to assist the RWQCB in determining the actual extent of recreation in the offshore zone, as required by the California Ocean Plan and Water Code, the District initiated a recreational use survey. Based on this information and its own analysis, the RWQCB proposed including the top 10 feet of the water column in the offshore zone for recreational use. This language was adopted into the RWQCB's Basin Plan in 1997. In 1996 the District's ocean monitoring program initiated a recreational water quality W survey (also known as the 20-meter study) to determine prospective compliance in the offshore zone. The results indicated compliance with the proposed basin plan amendment, but actual compliance would have to be demonstrated with continued routine receiving water monitoring. Additional monitoring elements were added to the District permit's monitoring program. The EPA finally adopted the District's permit in June 1998, and it expires in June 2003. I 2002 Ocean Discharge Permit Application In order to meet the permit renewal requirements, the District plans to submit its next 6.1 permit application by December 2002. Originally, the 2002 application was expected to be based on the 1999 Strategic Plan; regardless, beach closures in the summer of 1999 V prompted concerns from the Board of Directors, the public and regulators that the District discharge was affecting recreation along local beaches. As a part of this concem, the District staff proposed to reevaluate the District's 1999 Strategic Plan treatment alternatives. This decision has important ramifications for the permit renewal application process. An Ocean Discharge permit issued under the CWA Section 301(h) requires a more comprehensive package of information than a standard Ocean Discharge permit. In particular, there is a questionnaire that asks for detailed information regarding: W treatment system description, receiving water description, biological conditions, state and federal laws, physical characteristics of the discharge, compliance with applicable water quality standards, impact on public water supplies, biological impact of discharge, W impacts of discharge on recreational activities, monitoring program, effect on other point and non-point sources and the toxics control program. W The 1989 application and appendices represent five-volumes of information, and the 2002 application will also provide a comprehensive set of information. Any proposed change in the level of treatment will change the mix of treatment facilities and effluent quality. This information must be accounted for as a part of any renewal application since it is used to develop the permit effluent limits and monitoring program. Scope of Work for 2002 Permit Application Regardless of the level of treatment chosen by the Board of Directors, the agency is required by law to submit an ocean discharge permit renewal application 180 days before the June 2003 expiration of the current permit. The application process has already begun with the development of substantial portions of the permit application; W Page 28 of 44 June 12, 2002 regardless, those portions related to the treatment plant description and effluent quality will be developed based on the Strategic Plan Update level of treatment decision. Higher Level of Treatment Decision Impacts If the Board of Directors decides to move toward full secondary treatment, then it must decide whether or not to resign the use of the Section 301(h) provisions immediately or seek to maintain it until new treatment facilities are completed. This recognizes that the design, construction, start-up and operation of large-scale treatment facilities take a substantial amount of time, as much as eleven years. The RWQCB specifically accounts for this fact by including compliance schedules of up to ten years as a part of its Basin Plan. The District has two permit options: It could maintain the use of the Section 301(h) .. provisions until new facilities are completed, or it could seek a traditional Ocean Discharge permit, which requires secondary treatment for all flows. Under this later approach, the RWQCB and EPA would use a compliance schedule to allow the District p to complete secondary treatment facilities. This might occur through an Ocean Discharge permit or a consent decree. Regardless, the District could face substantial financial penalties under this approach since it would not be in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Los Angeles County Sanitation District and the City of Los Angeles did not pay fines to the EPA for not maintaining compliance with the CWA because consent decrees were issued, and complied with by both parties. If the Board of Directors decides to resign the use of the Section 301(h) provisions at the end of this permit term, then it should begin immediate discussions with the RWQCB and EPA on an interim compliance strategy. Otherwise, the District should seek to maintain the use of the Section 301(h) provisions with an understanding that it will complete the construction of secondary treatment on a schedule to be developed in consultation with the RWQCB and EPA. Schedule for Application Preparation The Ocean Discharge permit application process began in 2001, and future milestones are listed below: • June 26, 2002 — Level of Treatment Decision • July through September, 2002— Complete preparation of draft permit application which will reflect the June 26, 2002 level of treatment decision regarding the treatment facilities, effluent quality and type of permit • October 23, 2002 — Draft Final Ocean Discharge Permit Application brought .. before Board of Directors • December 2002 — Final Application is submitted to EPA and RWQCB Page 29 of 44 r u June 12, 2002 W Conclusions W Regulations and Permitting for the District requires that a new Ocean Discharge permit draft application be submitted by December 2002. To meet this deadline requirement of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Regional Water Quality �( Control Board (RWQCB), a draft application is currently being prepared. The application for Treatment Alternatives A, B, C, and D could be very similar, despite the differences in treatment options. This is because the implementation period for any new facilities will be beyond this new permit cycle of five years. It is anticipated that any new facilities for a level of treatment higher than Alternative A or B will take 11 years to plan, design, and construct. W Regardless, District staff needs direction from the Board of Directors in June or July, to have enough time to complete the draft application by October 2002. Also, with W Altemative C, District staff needs direction on whether or not to continue the use of the 301(h) provisions until the full secondary treatment facilities are operational. If the District discontinues the use of the Section 301(h) provisions now, District staff will need r to negotiate interim compliance permit conditions and a compliance schedule as part of the permit application process. If no direction is given to District staff in June or July, staff will continue an application that includes continued operation under the Section 301(h) provisions of the CWA for the next permit cycle. W Point 5: Public Input and Meetings Background The outreach regarding the Ocean Permit and issues surrounding it began in January w 2001. A speaker's bureau was established using employees from the engineering, technical services, communications, and operations and maintenance divisions and departments. Letters were mailed to homeowner associations and other civic groups, associations and clubs, offering a presentation or an article for their newsletters on the ocean release permit issue. As of June 4, 2002, approximately 60 presentations have been given to homeowner associations, professional associations, city councils, state and local elected officials and student groups. More than 1,000 people have heard a presentation, and some w groups have published articles in their newsletters. 6j Page 30 of 44 V June 12, 2002 In December 2000, the Board of Directors learned of the Ocean Outfall Group when they attended the regular Board meeting. The Ocean Outfall Group describes themselves as a group dedicated to ending the District's "waiver". District staff met with the Ocean Outfall Group and others approximately fifteen times from January through May to provide an overview of District operations, finances, biosolids management practices, ocean discharge requirements and a tour of the treatment plant. The meetings ranged in attendance from 25 people to three people in attendance, and averaged eight attendees. r The Ocean Ouffall Group has teamed with Earth Resource Foundation, Huntington Beach Surfrider, Orange County Chapter of the Sierra Club and the Orange County Coast Keeper to generate form letters opposing the use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA. .+ Cities and Special District Actions Seven cities and one Special District have taken action, through resolutions, to encourage the District's Board of Directors to not renew the 301(h) permit and move to full secondary treatment. Copies of those resolutions are included in your packet. A letter was received from the City of Placentia addressed to Blake Anderson stating, "The City of Placentia strongly opposes the secondary treatment of wastewater until scientific proof exists to require such a dramatic change in treatment." A copy of the letter is included as Attachment 6. Also, a majority of City Councils and Special Districts were approached by members of the Ocean Outfall Group, both publicly and privately, and asked to consider resolutions declined agendizing action so we have nothing in this report to reflect the non-action from those cities. r Telephone Surveys Telephone surveys were conducted throughout the last year to ascertain public awareness and focus attention on the areas that needed the most educational support. Telephone surveys were selected as a means to gauge public awareness, over individual mailings to residents and businesses in the service area, because they are the most cost effective form of objective community outreach. Telephone surveys are a reliable form of assessment of general public attitudes to determine if a single group's views reflect those of the average ratepayer. r June 2001 Telephone Survey Probolsky and Associates conducted a random telephone survey in June 2001. A copy of the summary of this survey is included with this packet. The Orange County Weekly incorrectly stated that this company conducted the April 2002 survey. Page 31 of 44 r W June 12, 2002 u Telephone interviews were conducted between June 19, 2001, and June 29, 2001. A total of 1,500 District service area voters were surveyed. The goal of the survey was to v test voter awareness on issues relating to the District, specifically urban runoff and treated sewage ocean releases and opinions about beach cleanliness. The executive summary and results of this survey are included in Attachment 7. Some of the key results include: " • Orange County beaches get high marks with over 50-percent giving positive ratings. Voters in Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and Seal Beach give an overall positive rating of 67.1-percent, while the rest of the District's voters give the beaches 57.9-percent positives. The number one reason given for rating the beaches fair or poor is water quality and pollution. • More sewage overflows and spills are the cause of recent beach closures and postings according to over 42-percent of District voters. Over 22-percent polled W cite urban runoff as the culprit and just over 10-percent attribute the problem to treated sewage discharge. V • After hearing an explanation of current sewage treatment measures, over 60- percent feel that more needs to be done. W • After hearing about urban runoff and sewage treatment, respondents were asked if they felt safe from a health perspective to swim in the ocean, 43-percent of respondents said yes and 45-percent said no; 10-percent were unsure. • We asked respondents if they believe urban runoff or treated sewage had more impact on beach closures. Of those choosing one or the other, they said two-to- one that urban runoff had a greater impact. Regardless, nearly 64-percent said it was a combination of both. W • Treating urban runoff at a price of$20 a year is agreeable to nearly 75-percent of the voters. Beach city voters are slightly more likely to agree to pay than those W living on non-beach cities. • A majority of the voters said they would be willing to pay some extra amount of money every year to treat sewage more thoroughly. District-wide,just over 50- percent of voters would not be willing to pay $75 annually to treat sewage more thoroughly. Lowering the proposed cost to $50 annually attracts an additional 12-percent of support for advanced measures in sewage treatment. u W Page 32 of 44 W June 12, 2002 April 2002 Telephone Survey A random telephone survey, fielded by Voter Consumer Research under the guidance of the Irvine office of Porter Novelli was conducted between April 5 and April 7 and included a sample of 500 residents in the District's service area with an additional 150 interviews conducted among residents of coastal cities. r The goal of the survey was to ascertain residents' awareness of the issue and to solicit their views about the current wastewater treatment program, the potential for a full secondary treatment program and about the tradeoffs associated with these issues. The executive summary and the results of this survey are also included in Attachment 7. Some of the key results include: Without additional information about the subject, 53-percent of those who claim r awareness of the wastewater program indicate support for the current system and current level of treatment, while 27-percent oppose it and 20-percent are either undecided or have no opinion about this issue. After hearing some of the key elements of the current program and current level of treatment, support increases to 72-percent with 21-percent opposed and 7- percent undecided or having no option. The public is quite concerned about recent beach closures (89-percent Extremely or Very Concerned). Four percent believe that offshore releases of treated wastewater are the cause of these closures. • Every District Board decision about level of treatment involves tradeoffs and choices in terms of sewer service rates, air pollution, truck traffic and other issues. Also, 84-percent of the ratepayers surveyed want the District to have clear and convincing scientific proof that it is the cause of beach closures before it decides to change the level of treatment or substantially increase sewer rates. r Businesses The Orange County Business Council, an organization dedicated to Orange County's economic vitality and quality of life, has been very engaged on behalf of Orange County's business community on the District's activities relative to ocean water quality ., and, specifically, the process of updating the District's strategic plan and determining appropriate levels of treatment for the future. .. Additionally, the Orange County Business Council organized a group of small, medium and large businesses, both members of Orange County Business Council and non- members to create a forum for businesses to learn about the issue and how it impacts .. their operations and rates. These businesses have been following the issue. Page 33 of 44 June 12, 2002 6"r District staff has provided a presentation to the Orange County Business Council Board L of Directors, and regular briefings to members of the Regulatory and Environmental Compliance, Legislative and Infrastructure committees. W A letter from the Orange County Business Council was provided to the District's Board of Directors in May. Excerpts from the letter follow. A complete copy of the letter is included in Attachment 8. The Orange County Business Council's interest is two-fold: 1) protection of coastal resources, which are key to our countywide economic prosperity and quality of life; and 2) financial and operational impacts upon our member company businesses and others in the county. Their positions regarding District activities are: r 1. Coastal protection. A deliberative process honoring the principles of cost- effectiveness; a demonstrated nexus between selected forms of treatment and W desired results; and common sense, will lead to protection for coastal resources. 2. Disinfection. Orange County Business Council supports the District's short- W term proposal to disinfect the sewage effluent. It will ensure that discharged sewage is not responsible for bacterial contamination in the surf zone. W 3. Treatment selection and cost. The District must be able to demonstrate a nexus between selected levels of treatment and protection of ocean water quality. If higher levels of treatment are warranted to protect ocean water 6W quality, they must be implemented and we must find ways to pay for them. Required changes in business operations and/or increases in costs to business must be justifiable on the basis of determinable results—in this case, W a cleaner shoreline. Orange County residents and business owners must not find themselves in the position of paying higher fees for higher levels of treatment that fail to remedy the sources of coastal pollution. Additionally, the W Business Council believes that the District must be willing to apply its own reserves or a portion thereof toward increased costs of higher levels of treatment, if those are warranted. W 4. Long-term considerations. The Business Council recommends that regardless of the Board's final decision in October of this year on the use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA, the should District consider the longer-term need to move toward secondary treatment. W Correspondence Received Some Directors have indicated that unsigned letters and out-of-service-area letters should not be provided as the out-of-service-area residents won't be paying for the additional treatment, and that the unsigned letters cannot be verified. For purposes of this report, we have included a total of correspondence received from within the service Page 34 of 44 u June 12, 2002 area. We have indicated which items are signed and which are unsigned. We have also reported, where the information was available, what kind of background information the sender had available to them prior to sending the correspondence. It is the board's decision to determine how they will consider the correspondence. A log of all of the correspondence received from within the service area, both for and against the current level of treatment, is contained in Attachment 9. This correspondence includes letters, a-mails and telephone calls. Also, copies of the various form letters received are contained in Attachment 9. Where more than one letter of the same type was received, you have a single sample. Most of these forms letters were sent via e-mail, unsigned. They request that the Board oppose the renewal of the 301 (h) permit. Some of the form letters were available on various Web sites. See section titled Websites below for information. Preprinted postcards were also received. Most of these postcards were hand delivered or mailed in bulk to the District and most are signed. The return address listed is for Earth Resource Foundation in association with Surfrider Foundation, Orange County Coastkeepers, and the Ocean Outfall Group. According to the Director of Earth Resource Foundation, these postcards are handed out at their offices and at events they attend. In some cases, the two-sentence statement is the only background information the signer receives on the issue. .y Hundreds of letters were faxed to the District from a single fax number belonging to Surfrider Foundation. All of the letters are unsigned. We cannot determine if the person whose name on the letterhead is aware of what is being sent on their behalf, as we received one from Blake Anderson. This fax arrived after Blake Anderson visited the site and typed a message about how disappointed he was at the lack of factual coverage of the 301(h) permit issue. That afternoon, a fax arrived from Blake .. Anderson, using the return address of the Orange County Sanitation District's post office box. The letter addressed to the Board of Directors, states "I am writing to urge you to vote against renewing the 301 (h)waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District." Blake was unaware of this letter and did not provide permission for this letter to be generated and sent on his behalf. ^� We cannot confirm how many other letters like this have been sent without the person's knowledge. Websites The following Websites provide information about the District's "waiver" opposition efforts. All of these sites link to each other, regardless, none provide a link to www.ocsd.com, preventing viewers from receiving facts from the District. Links to these sites are contained on the District's Web site. Page 35 of 44 r June 12, 2002 hftp://www.littleshell.org http://www.stopthewaiver.com/ W http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/no_waiver hftp:/Avww.surfrider.org/huntington! http://www.sealbeach.org/clean/ W Newspaper Editorials and Letters to the Editor u Not included in this tally are editorials written by local newspaper staff and Letters To The Editor written by members of the community stating, "both the desire to see sewage treated to full secondary and the desire to see the current practices sustained with attention paid to urban runoff," sited as the true problem of the beaches by writers. W These are not included in this report as they are addressed to the editors and the community, not to the District's Board of Directors. W PAC2 Process Background W As part of the process of developing its Interim Strategic Plan Update, the District sought the input, comments and suggestions from the residents, businesses, W environmental groups, and city representatives that are served by the District. The commitment to actively solicit public input on discussions about the appropriate level of treatment represents a continuation of a relationship with the public that was u established in the original Strategic Plan and which the Board of Directors made their determinations and set the course for the District's future in 1999. For this reason, the District selected a public participation process that maintains its commitment to W openness and the need for public involvement in decision-making. Objectives of Public Participation u In the 1999 Strategic Plan effort, the District benefited from active public participation through a variety of ways: r • Sharing ideas! The comments that were received during the entire public process provided both important insights and a wide variety of viewpoints. The synergy that resulted in the discussions of the District's goals and objectives and the public's issues and concerns produced a better plan. W • Addressing concerns! Not all the participants hold the same views; in fact, a balanced range of public opinion provides the best way to capture the largest number of concerns. Through the public participation process, including the W workshops, each participant had the opportunity to hear, and be heard by, the other members, and in so doing, they all developed a better understanding of what the community at large held as key issues. Page 36 of 44 V 60 June 12,2002 r Public supportl By tapping into this large cross-section of public opinion, experience •' and ideas, the District was able to select a direction that was technically reliable, financially sound, environmentally responsible, and a politically acceptable approach. Through this process, the Board was also able to make policy decisions that reflected a very broad landscape. Because of these and other benefits, the District incorporated the public participation process into the Interim Strategic Plan Update work. The Public Advisory Committee In moving forward with the development of public participation, the District established the concept of a Public Advisory Committee. Because of the relatively short time frame that was available for the Interim Strategic Plan Update work, the District initially turned to the members of the original Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) and Rate Advisory Committee (RAC) membership. The District recognized that these members would bring several key benefits to the project: Familiarity with the technical issues Understanding of the public participation process r Cross sampling of technical, financial, environmental, political and geographic viewpoints Demonstrated commitment to active and reliable participation In addition to this initial group, the District also reached out to organizations and individuals that had consistently expressed interest in participating in the Interim Strategic Plan Update and the permit renewal process. A total of 80 individuals were identified, and the District sent each individual a letter requesting their involvement. All letters were followed up with telephone calls to confirm receipt of the letter and an indication of their intentions; where organizational change had occurred, a new replacement individual was identified and contacted. As a result of this effort, 28 members of the new Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) were confirmed; 20 individuals declined to participate, and 32 individuals did not respond or could not be located. Also, a number of interest groups sent multiple individuals, several other individuals - representing themselves only, and members of the Grand Jury attended to track the process as it transpired. Page 37 of 44 June 12, 2002 u The PAC2 Role u The relatively short timeframe of the Interim Strategic Plan Update work meant that the role of the PAC2 members would need to be different from the role that the PAC and RAC members played in the original Strategic Plan. The PAC2 role, though modified, was important to the overall effort. In the course of the meetings, the membership was expanded to anyone interested. W The primary objective of the Interim Strategic Plan Update was to consider different levels of wastewater treatment. In this comparison process, the advantages and disadvantages of each treatment alternative were evaluated. The PAC2 members provided the key support to the project: u • They reviewed the technical output of the four treatment alternatives under considerations; u • They helped to establish the performance measures and evaluation criteria that were used to evaluate the alternatives; W • They provided input, comments and observations regarding the benefits and problems that might be associated with each of the alternatives; and v • They participated in the preparation of a Summary Statement that fairly captured their comments, concerns, thoughts, ideas and recommendations. u The Workshop Process The workshops were the heart of the public participation process. Through these workshops, the PAC2 members learned about the project, their role, and the concerns of other members. They also were able to review the results of the technical development and express their opinions. Throughout the process, questions were raised and addressed, and for each workshop, minutes were prepared which included a supplemental "feedback report" to respond to questions that could not be accurately answered during the workshop. u Over the six-month course of the project, a total of five facilitated workshops were conducted. The following table summarizes each of the workshops: Workshop Date Main Topics 1 November 7, 2001 Reviewed current situation; introduced alternatives; introduced PAC2 roles; listened to PAC2 concerns 2 January 29,2002 Discussed project objectives; developed initial set of PAC2 objectives Page 38 of 44 W June 12, 2002 3 April 22, 2002 Updated Ocean Monitoring Study; presented alternatives'details; reviewed initial alternatives performance 4 May 16, 2002 Presented Huntington Beach III Study; provided narrative impacts of treatment alternatives; presented final rate information; began developing Summary Statement 5 May 30, 2002 Finalized Summary Statement Copies of the minutes and feedback reports for each workshop are on file in the Engineering Department and available upon request. .. Results of the Process Beginning in Workshop 4, and culminating in Workshop 5, the PAC2 members undertook the process of sorting through the project information and technical results; comparing these results to their own values and objectives; and developing and discussing their observations and comments. These comments and observations were r documented in a Summary Statement. Integrating the Technical Information with PAC2 Values As the first step in developing PAC2 input, it was necessary to integrate the technical information related to each treatment alternative with the values and objectives that had been defined by the PAC2 members. PAC2 Values and Objectives In Workshop No. 2 on January 29, 2002, the PAC2 members identified their values that they would use in their assessments of the four treatment alternatives; the PAC2 members compiled a list of 22 values. When considered in detail, it appeared that some of these values overlapped. Based on these 22 values, the District prepared a consolidated list of four overarching objectives and ten major sub-objectives. The process of developing the objectives and sub-objectives are presented in Exhibit C of this report and includes: • Protect Public Health o Minimize risk of ocean-related health problems Protect the Environment o Avoid environmental degradation of water, air and land o Maximize efficient use of regional resources o Minimize odor impacts on the community '� Page 39 of 44 June 12, 2002 L • Provide Cost-Effective Services o Maximize reliability of system improvements j o Maximize adaptability of system improvements W o Minimize cost to ratepayers o Maximize economic/recreational benefits of clean beaches o Maximize resource value of by-products W • Promote Integrated Regional Solutions o Maximize opportunities for regional solutions o Maximize opportunities for system modeling/web-based access These objectives and sub-objectives were then used to evaluate the four treatment alternatives. Because the District is currently operating its facilities to achieve a final effluent consisting of a blend of 50-percent primary and 50-percent secondary effluents, Alternative B (50:50 blend) was used as the baseline for making comparisons. A set of Alternative Summary tables, that integrated the technical performance parameter output of the facilities model with the PAC2 objectives/sub-objectives are summarized in Exhibit B of this report. These integrated a number of detailed alternative summary tables developed during the workshop process and incorporated into the PAC2 Summary Statement in Attachment 1, as attachment to that document. To assist in understanding the relative degree to which each performance measure achieved the objectives, a three-color coding system was developed for the PAC2 process. The information shown in the PAC2 Summary Statement presents a complex set of benefits and risk, advantages and disadvantages. To facilitate the process of using this information to develop the important decision regarding the level of treatment that most closely achieves the overall objectives of each PAC2 member, a narrative evaluation W was prepared that summarized the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative. Developing the Summary Statement i W To pull all this information together and to provide a platform from which the PAC2 members could generate comments, the District also used a Summary Statement. The u Summary Statement was a dynamic tool that documented the technical and public outreach activities, and it enabled the PAC2 members to track and share comments on each of the treatment alternatives. The Summary Statement was also a key component W of the information package that was provided to the Board of Directors as they considered the level of treatment question and the future direction of the District. Most importantly, the.Summary Statement included a narrative discussion of each alternative r in which the relative advantages and disadvantages, identified in the Alternative Summary tables, the Summary Statement is contained in Attachment 1. w Page 40 of 44 W June 12, 2002 Public Input Summary The District has received hundreds of letters, e-mails, and telephone calls, the majority reflecting opposition to the District's use of the Section 301(h) provisions in the CWA. '+ Opposition has also been expressed toward the current level of treatment, currently at 50-percent advanced primary and 50-percent secondary blended effluent. Regardless, .. the correspondence received does reflect a vast number of opinions from residents, businesses, and environmental groups. r In addition, two public opinion polls were conducted between June 2001 and April 2002 to gauge awareness of, and opinions about, ocean water quality, District operations, and District rates. Results of these two polls are summarized within this Staff Report. The second Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) was formed for developing, reviewing, and providing input on the level of treatment decision. The PAC2 was comprised of representatives from businesses, residents, environmental groups, and local cities within the District's service area. The group met five times from November 2001 through May 2002. The PAC2 Summary Statement is contained in Attachment 1. Although there was no consensus as to what level of treatment the Board of Directors should select for the future, it is important to note that there was a group consensus that Alternative A, Ocean Plan Permit Limits, is an unacceptable treatment level for the .. District. Alternative A is the currently adopted treatment level, and the"Preferred Alternative" of the District. Regardless, the District has continued to operate at the 50- percent advanced primary and 50-percent secondary blended effluent treatment level. r Implementation Measures for Board Consideration Each treatment level alternative, as presented above in this Staff Report and the Interim Strategic Plan Update Report documents prepared by CDM, will require different implementation measures. The treatment alternative requiring limited Board action is Alternative A—Ocean Plan Permit Limits. This is because it is the current District adopted "Preferred Alternative"for treatment and thus would require minimal future decisions to implement. This "Preferred Alternative" does include participation with the GWRS project. The remaining options would require resolutions, CEQA certifications, etc. to be updated prior to implementation of a Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and possible revisions to rates. The following summarizes the issues associated with implementation of the four treatment options: Alternative A — Ocean Plan Permit Limits 1. Existing resolutions and CEQA certifications are in place— No change required. U 2. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for current planned facilities and level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This includes provision for 301(h) discharge limits and participation in the GWRS project. '� Page 41 of 44 W June 12, 2002 3. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation w of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. Alternative B—Blended Discharge of 50% Primary and 50% Secondary Effluent w 1. Revise and/or replace Board resolutions to establish this level of treatment as the "Preferred Alternative.' w 2. Revise the current CIP and rate structure. W 3. Change the certified CEQA treatment"Preferred Alternative"to this level of treatment. This will require the issuing of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement will note that despite the additional impacts caused by this treatment alternative as compared to Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan, water quality concerns outweigh other environmental concerns. W 4. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This includes provision for 301(h) discharge limits and participation in the GWRS project. 5. Present a detailed plan for treatment implementation program for Board review and approval with the next budget cycle. " 6. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. Alternative C—Full Secondary W 1. Revise and/or replace Board resolutions to establish this level of treatment as the "Preferred Alternative." For this alternative, District staff asks that the Board establish treatment performance goals consistent with secondary treatment, as W defined by the CWA. District staff is not seeking a treatment technology specific alternative. This would allow the emerging technologies and combinations of r existing technologies to be employed to best meet the District's needs: environmentally and economically. This would also allow the District to potentially reduce some of the currently estimated costs and potential impacts as new facilities r are designed and constructed in the future. 2. Revise the current CIP and rate structure. 3. Change the certified CEQA treatment"Preferred Alternative" to this level of treatment. This will require the issuing of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement will note that despite the additional impacts caused by this treatment alternative as compared to Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan, water quality concerns outweigh other environmental concerns. w W Page 42 of 44 w June 12, 2002 4. As described above the District has two options for processing is Ocean Discharge permit application: A. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. Option 4A would include the District reapplying for approval of the present 301(h) discharge limits through the next permit cycle. This option would allow the District to operate under the CWA as it gears up for full secondary treatment. Following this procedure would avoid the District being immediately declared in violation in the CWA. It is anticipated to take about 11 years, or two permit cycles, to implement the full secondary treatment, which is consistent with the City of Los Angeles's timeframe for full secondary treatment implementation. -or- B. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This option would not include an application requesting approval of the provision for 301(h) discharge limits. This option could require the District to operate outside the CWA, or operate under an administrative order, as it gears up for full secondary treatment. Again, it is anticipated that it will take about 11 years, or two permit cycles, to implement the full secondary treatment. -� 5. Present a detailed plan for treatment implementation program for Board review and approval with the next budget cycle. 6. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. Alternative D—Alternative Technologies 1. Revise and/or replace Board resolutions to establish this level of treatment as the "Preferred Alternative." 2. Revise CIP and rate structure. 3. Change the certified CEQA treatment "Preferred Alternative" to this level of treatment. This will require the issuing of a "Statement of Overriding Considerations." This statement will note that despite the additional impacts caused by this treatment alternative as compared to Scenario 2 of the 1999 Strategic Plan, water quality concerns outweigh other environmental concerns. 4. Prepare an Ocean Discharge permit application for revised planned facilities and revised level of treatment for October 2002 Board consideration. This includes provision for 301(h) discharge limits and participation in the GWRS project. Page 43 of 44 June 12, 2002 W 5. Present a detailed plan for a treatment implementation program for Board W review and approval with the next budget cycle. 6. Continue investigating toxicity and ammonia management with the implementation of the GWRS project and point source urban runoff diversions. 7. (Optional) Combine Alternative D with Alternative C and set the effluent limit for the District at Full Secondary Treatment, as described under Alternative C, Item 1, above. W CAFileNetWIPU40-8 SP UpdatetCoorespondenw\AR EMT IsswslLatest D=XSlalV Repon for Level of Treanent AR le-f 2-02t.doc W W W W W W W W W W W 6a W Page 44 of 44 W Attachment 1 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update June 4, 2002 Sunvnary Statement _ of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC2) Interim Strategic Plan Update Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) Introduction and Background District has met the conditions of its current The Orange County Sanitation District(the permit,and the combination of primary and District)has been managing wastewater collection, secondary treatment processes have consistently treatment and discharge facilities for over fifty produced permit-quality wastewater effluent,the years to the residents of central and northern District is aware of concerns by cities,state Orange County. Based upon the 1995 Center for assembly and many community members that a r Demographic Research estimations, the District higher quality of wastewater released to the ocean now serves approximately 23 million people and is preferred. covers an area of about 471 square miles. By the year 2020, the population is projected to be around The decision on how to proceed with its permit 2.9 million. The District must operate its facilities gene process,and the implications of different in strict compliance with federal and state levelss of of treatment,has significantx will take impacts to the net the regulations. These regulations stipulate many direction that the District will twenty important requirements,including the quality twenty years. In order to evaluate the benefits and of the treated wastewater that is released into the of shortcomings,possible race advantages and disadvantages e possible process alternatives,the District decided Pacific Ocean. to move forward with an Interim Strategic Plan Since 1985,the District has been operating under a Update project. r permit granted by the United States Environmental The Interim Strategic Pier Update Protection Agency(USEPA)and the Slate of 7�,,, California's Regional Water Quality Control Board P•)ect (RWQCB). This permit requires the District to treat In November 2001, the District began the Interim wastewater to meet a quality that ensures Strategic Plan Update Project. The objectives of the protection of the beneficial uses of the waters of Interim Strategic Plan Update Project were to: California.This quality has been achieved through �+ a blended combination of primary and secondary ■ Provide information for a sound technical, treated effluents. The permit included a waiver to environmental and economic analyses of the requirement for full secondary treatment based different alternative levels of wastewater r upon an ocean discharge of sufficient depth, treatment; distance and dilution. From 1985 to 1998,the permit was administratively extended. In 1998,the • Evaluate each of the alternative levels of permit was renewed.The District's current permit treatment and compare the performance; will expire in June 20M.Also as part of the permit requirements,the District was responsible to iff Estimate the impacts that each alternative would r monitor the quality of the treated wastewater and have on the rates that customers would need to the impacts of the treated wastewater on the ocean Pay;and environment. is Develop information for presentation to the In preparation for the permit renewal process,the District's Board of Directors in order to make a District continues to investigate other options to decision on how to proceed with the permit provide wastewater treatment. Although the renewal process. Orange County Sanitation District •Interim Strategic Plan Update t ..cots iew..+�..vmamwwm,o�.�wm.u�.nnwo.,,�waa.nww,,.a.m. W Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) W .. Because the permit renewal process was required process that maintains its commitment to openness to start in mid-2002, the Interim Strategic Plan and the need for public involvement in decision- Update Project was conducted as a priority effort. making in order to provide the Board with public input in to their decision-making process. In conducting the Interim Strategic Plan Update Project,the District used a two-track process: In moving forward with the development of public W participation,the District established the concept of ■ A technical track The work under this track a Public Advisory Committee. Because of the included the definition of technically feasible relatively short time frame that was available for treatment altenmtives;and the generation of a the Interim Strategic Plan Update work the District set of performance parameters to allow a initially turned to the members of the original comparison between representative alternatives. Planning Advisory Committee(PAC)and Rate W c d Hun track The work under Advisory Committee(RAC)membership. In ■ A P� Per'tr Pr parallel with the Interim Strategic Plan Update this track included the development of Project, time District also established a Technical performance objectives to facilitate the Advisory Committee(TAC)to help advise them alternatives comparison process and the with the complex issues required with the planning contribution of suggestions,comments and and execution of the Huntington Beach Studies observations regarding the results of the (Phase II),and a number of these TAC members W comparisons. were also on the PAC2 The District recognized Both tracks proceeded in parallel throughout the that the PAC2 members could bring several key benefits to the project W project;as technical information was developed,it was discussed with the public through a set of ■ Familiarity with the technical issues; workshops. Comments were offered and were W incorporated throughout the project to create a ■ Understanding of the public participation feedback process. process; The Public Par icipatitm Track ■ Distribution of technical,financial, r The Planning Advisory Conarattee(PAC2) environmental political and geographic The primary objective of the Interim Strategic Plan viewpoints;and V Update Project was to consider different levels of 0 Demonstrated com rubnent to active and reliable wastewater treatment and their respective advantages and disadvantages. As part of the Participation- process of developing its Interim Strategic Plan In addition to this initial group,the District also mr Update Project, the District sought the input, reached out to organizations and individuals that comments and suggestions from the residents and had consistently expressed interest in participating businesses that are served by the District. The in the Interim Strategic Plan Update and the permit u commitment to actively solicit public comments on renewal process Attachment 4 includes a list of the appropriate level of treatment represented a the PAC2 members continuation of a relationship with the public that W was established in the original Strategic Plan;this As noted, the primary objective of the Interim relationship proved to be very effective in Strategic Plan Update Project was to consider developing solid information on which the Board different levels of wastewater treatment and their of Directors made their determinations and set the respective advantages and disadvantages. course for the District's future in 1999. For this reason,the District selected a public participation W Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 2 v LtOL100>B�M1�V,W Y4ssm aNieYIYYBms/9a�u!M1J_L W Ji W Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) ..m The PAC2 members provided key support to the project m Table 1 f They reviewed the technical output of the four Summary of PAC2 Workshops representative treatment alternatives under Workshop Date Main Topics consideration; t 7-Nov-01 Reviewed arrant situation; ■ They helped to establish the performance introduced alternatives; objectives that were used 10 evaluate the introduced PAC2 roles;listened alternatives; to PAC2 concerns 2 29-Jan-02 Discussed Interim Strategic Plan ■ They provided input,comments and Update Project objectives; .m observations regarding the benefits and developed initial set of PAC2 problems that might be associated with each of objectives the alternatives;and 3 22-Apr-02 Presented update on Ocean ® Monitoring Study;presented IN They participated in the preparation of this allematives'datails;reviewed Summary Statement for consideration by the initial alternatives performance r Board of Directors that attempts to fairly ceps 4 16-May02 Presented Huntington Beach III their comments,concerns,thoughts,ideas and Study;provided narrative recommendations. impacts of treatment alternatives; The Workshop Process information; relative rate information;began developing The workshops were the heart of the public Summary Statement participation process. Through these workshops 1 5 3DMay-02 Finalized Summary Statement the PAC2 members leaned about the projec4 their role,and the concerns of other members. They also were able to review the results of the technical PAC2 Objectives ® development and express their opinions. Throughout the process,questions were raised and In workshop No.2 on January 29,211U2,the PAC2 a members identified their values furl they would addressed,and for each workshop,minutes were .. prepared which included a supplemental tree t their assessments a the four level-of- prepared which report"to respond to questions that treatment alternatives the . WhAC2en members could not be fully addressed during the workshop. compiled a list a 22 values. often considered N detail,it appeared that some of these values a. Over the six-month course of the project,a total of overlapped. Based on these 22 values,the District five facilitated workshops were conducted. Table 1 prepared a consolidated fist of four overarching summari2es each of the workshops. objectives and eleven major sub-objectives.The .. process of developing the objectives and sub- objectives is presented in Attachment 2 The objectives and sub-objectives included the following: ■ ProtectPuttficHisalth ■ Minimize risk of ocean-related health problems Orange County Sanitation District -Interim SfYateglc Plan Update 3 rob iaw>•ywo s.— r Summary Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) i W .. ■ Prntoct and Respect the&tvi unman the quality of the effluent,not the technology used. The EPA will need to confirm this assumption. AB ■ Provide clean beaches and water and avoid alternatives considered by PAC2 included v environmental degradation of land pathogen reduction technology. ■ Maximize efficient use of regional resources Alternative A—Permit Limits: Waste+ata treatrant prccesses to prod"an cudall cWtrett(aka r ■ Minimize odor impacts on the community samdaryefgue,t is diverted to need Gramdaata ■ Provide Cost-BffativeServic� Repdanishaard System(GWR System)repdrerteW r that mmsts the 1997 Cahbonia Cann Plan. the ■ Maximize reliability of system improvements District's cuae,t d Avp permit requirerratts. ■ Maximize adaptability of system Alternative A is equivalent to Scenario 2 from the r 1999 Strategic Plan,which was the recommended improvements scenario for implementation through 2020. The ■ Minimize cost to ratepayers basis for Alternative A is to provide enough secondary treatment at Plant Nos.1 and 2,in ■ Maximize economic/recreational benefits of addition to secondary treatment requirements to clean beaches meet the needs of GWR System, to produce an Id outfall effluent that will meet a suspended solids ■ Maximize resource value of by-products(e.g., mass emission limit of 20,000 metric tons per year economic value of water,biosolids and and a 12-month average concentration of 60 digester gas) milligrams per liter(mg/L). The District's current W National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ■ ProantebeegratedRegionel Saludems (NPDES) permit,Permit No.CAO11060414(dated May 1998)Order No.98&5 is based on the 1997 ■ Maximize opportunities for regional solutions California Ocean Plan requirements.Alternative A would require a 301(h)waiver. ■ Maximize opportunities for systems modeling/web-based access of information Alternative B-50,50 Blend Wastexata traitmant for analysis and evaluation pr¢sses topaoducean out6il effluent(after secondary effluent is dvetet to mset GWR Systen rep uernetts) r The Technical Track diet is a Uaid cf 50 Parent t pnmmy t atrenr ekhratr The Interim Strategic Plan Update Project and 50 paced samdary teatrnnt a luetc Altemaldves The goal of Alternative B is to release treated In developing a range of levels of wastewater wastewater to the ocean that is comprised of 50 treatment for consideration,the District selected percent primary treatment effluent and 50 percent the conditions of the current permit as the baseline; secondary treatment effluent, which is the District's u all other alternatives that were considered provide current operating philosophy.Therefore,for for greater levels of treatment. There are multiple Alternative B,enough secondary treatment would approaches to achieve these objectives. For the be needed at Plant Nos.1 and 2 to provide a 50/50 r purpose of this analysis,four alternative levels of blend oulfall effluent. As with Alternative A, the _ treatment were selected for analysis.However,it amount of secondary treatment required to should be noted that hybrids of these alternatives produce the 50/50 blend oulfall effluent would be could also be implemented and alternative in addition to the amount of secondary treatment technologies can be considered.It is anticipated needed to satisfy GWR System Phase 1.Alternative that the need for a 301(h)waiver is predicated by B would require a 301(h)waiver. Orange County Sanitation District •Interim Strategic Plan Update 4 W .:eawm,on+ov.nw�v�*�.we,....arwea�.re.�.v�mv_rm,es r Summary Statement of fhe Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) r - Alternative C- Full Secondary Treatment been encouraging to date. The pilot information Wastewater trmtrrrartprnsses to pradranar effluent formed the basis for facilities development for this r that tracts swondry treatment standards alternative. Continued investigation is planned because this alternative process is new for this For Alternative C,full secondary treatment would application and is not fully proven. Alternative D r be provided at both Plant Nos. 1 and 2. would require a 301(h)waiver. Wastewater treatment processes would be needed to produce treated wastewater released to the Performance of Alternatives r ocean that meets secondary treatment A facilities model,developed during the 1999 requirements of 30 mg/L Biochemical Oxygen Strategic Plan and updated as part of the Interim Demand(ROD) (and 85 percent removal)and 30 Strategic Plan Update Project,was used to mg/L Total Suspended Solids(TSS)(and 85 determine the numbers of new facilities that would percent removal). For the purposes of this analysis, be required for each of the four alternatives in the activated sludge is assumed as the representative planning year of 2020. The model also generated technology.However,it should be noted that the estimated effluent quality that each alternative r hybrids of these alternatives could also be would achieve. In some cases, the numbers of implemented and alternative technologies could be facilities were driven by the need to achieve a considered.Alternative C would not require a specific level of treatment in other uses,the 301(h)waiver. numbers of facilities were driven by the need to Alternative D -Alternative Treatment accommodate the projected flows in the Year 2020. r Wastewater besime rt pr¢asa topmdur an mffall The model also monitored the performance of each went(after samdary effluent is diverted mmxY alternative in several areas. The performance CWR System raryirerrmts)flat is a blend ofsecamdiry parameters that were tracked in the model for each bantmert effluent and e/Duent&an an alternative alternative included: primary eff a t tretment lrocss. Far tlds pnyec, a acfiltrabmisusadmarepreserrtativealtemative ■ Public Hatitb peirrerye�uant treatrerf pr¢ss. ■ Total Coliform levels(e/100 ml) Alternative D is based on An alternative treatment process to augment the existing secondary ■ Virus levels(0,110 ml) r treatment. Under this alternative,an alternative hinvimnarerdel lagaele treatment process would be needed as a parallel process to existing secondary treatment. This ■ Water process would provide treatment to all primary Quality effluent that does not currently receive secondary ■ Biochemical Oxygen Demand-BOD treatment. The treated wastewater released to the (mg/L) r ocean would be a blend of secondary treatment ■ Total Suspended Solids-TSS(mg/L) effluent and alternative treatment effluent. ■ Biosolids Microfiltralion was selected as the representative ■ Number of trucks required to haul alternative treatment technology for the project btoso6ds of(-site(fl/day) Microflhmlion removes suspended matter,not soluble constituent, so this Alternative would meet ■ Truck-generated volatile organic err secondary effluent requirements for TSS but not for compounds- VOCs(lbs/day) BOD. The District is currently evaluating microfiltration of primary effluent using a demonstratimn scale testing unit the results have Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update s �wmooawamwnrp�lrvr4ramn.r air s W.en e,..r.e.a, Summery mriff a olf2) Planning Ativisory Commdtee(PAC2) V .. ■ Energy Usage output of the facilities model,as presented in the ■ Number of equivalent homes that could be Alternatives Evaluation Table in Attachment 1, supplied (0 of houses) with the PAC2 objectives/sub-objectives,shown in Attachment 2,were prepared;these integrated ■ Air Quality Alternative Summary tables are shown in IN Process-generated VOCs(Ibs/day) Attachment 3. To assist in understanding the ri relative degree to which each performance ■ Number of biosolids trucks to produce measure achieved the objectives,a three-color same amount of VOCs (M of trucks) coding system was developed. u ■ Odor and WC control costs($millions) Narrative Evaluation of AlternativesM Goer The information shown in the Alternative rr IS Capital Cost($million) Summary tables(Attachment 3)presents a complex _ set of benefits and risk advantages and ■ O&M Cost($million/year) disadvantages. To facilitate the process of using s. ■ User Fee($/year) this information to develop the important decision regarding the level of treatment that most closely The facilities modeling results formed the technical achieves the overall objectives of each PAC2 basis for the evaluations;the results of this member,a narrative evaluation has been prepared modeling effort were consolidated into an that summarizes the advantages and Alternative Evaluation Table(shown in disadvantages of each alternative. Attachment 1),and they were presented to the PAC2 for consideration and discussion in General PAC2 Comments Workshop No.3. These technical results were Individual members of the PAC2 offered a number presented in terns of the objectives that were of comments regarding the evaluation of ` established by the PAC2 members,for general alteratives. These comments are listed below and discussion. grouped according to their subject matter and primary emphasis: As an additional step to confirm that all _ alternatives were technically feasible,planning- ■ Ofscussion ofSpad6c Altrma6om level site plans were developed for each alternative. This site planning process confirmed ■ In a virtually unanimous recommendation, that each alternative could be accommodated the PAC2 urged that the Board of Directors within the current boundaries of the two not consider Alterative A as a viable option. wastewater treatment plant properties. Among other disadvantages,it was considered unacceptable to offer a lower level ' Integrated Evaluation of Alternatives of treatment than is currently provided. V The PAC2 objectives and sub-objectivestm were used 0 It was noted that a combination of to evaluate the four level-of-treatment alternatives. Because the District is currently operating its alteratives'V and-D-which would reach facilities to achieve a final effluent consisting of a the 30 BOD/ 30 TSS rate levels and comply �+ blend of 50 percent primary and 50 percent with the Clean Water Act wi0out the waiver secondary effluents,Alternative B(50/50 blend) is a preference. The treatment of sewage was used as the baseline for making comparisons. should assure a dean ocean,be of a reasonable cost and should not adversely A set of Alternative Summary tables that impact the environment--land,air,and integrated the technical performance parameter water--thus ensuring health and safety Orange County sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update a u it Summery Statement orfhe Planning Adwsory CommMee(PAC2) r issues.Respect for the wider region's ■ Finally,it was noted that in future studies, the environment-land use,air and water quality District should consider land use and native is also a consideration. It was believed that habitat impacts resulting from sludge the use of secondary treatments including, disposal. but not limited to,activated sludge could be cost effective,and the inclusion of ■ Waive Cmrceme microfiltration techniques in the treatment process would help to ensure removal of • Several PAC2 members recommended more hamrdous items than traditional eliminating the need for a waiver. — secondary treatment alone. ■ In this regard, it was noted that there ere ■ In the same vein,it was suggested that potential cost savings associated with not — Alternatives C and D be based on the level of having to apply for and maintain a waiver. treatment provided, not specific technology. a Evaluation Procne Careimm ■ Further discussions regarding alternatives The PAC2 members expressed concerns about "C"and"D,"noted that Alternative D is the P most expensive choice, is an unproven the representation of the community in the method,and will require the waiver-and PAC2,questioning whether or not the group consequently appears less favorable than was reflective of broader community alternative"C." interests. ■ Finally,the view was expressed that • It was also suggested that the process had Alternative"C"is the only acceptable choice. been constrained by the limited number of It removes more solids(than A and B)and alternatives presented for the PAC2 to doesn't need a waiver in order to comply with consider. From this point of view,it would the Clean Water Act. have been more effective to compare a larger number of alternatives or,at least,compare •u,. ■ Biosolids 2}eatmerrt andllwiamagement various treatment technologies within alternatives. Having both"current pemtit" ■ It was felt that as biosolids treatment and and "SOSO blend"as two of the four — disposal technology becomes more efficient, alternatives was thought to be of limited the cost of dealing with biosolids will value. decrease and the income from the sale of the (Class A)biosolids could increase. In future Fume Cansrdaationir - planning,it was fell that the District should consider more efficient drying procedures 0 It was suggested that in the future,when the than belt presses,which would decrease the rates ere considered, that connection fees mass that is hauled away,thereby changing should bear a portion of the cost associated the number of trucks and the amount of fuel with implementing a higher level of service. used. ■ It was suggested that the District employ an ■ It was suggested that the District consider online health survey to capture information treatment/management options that would regarding illnesses and health effects — provide heat that could be used to generate resulting from contact with the ocean. A electric energy. proposed form to be used for the survey is attached (Attachment 5). Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 7 wooua4�way.aso..n.i4dmm+r,rem+n�an,m w.�n Au�..n a<. V Summery slalement of the — PlanningAdNsory Committee(PAC2) .. ■ Finally,it was suggested that the Directors Always consider the economic value of the water being discharged into the ocean as effluent(i.e.,240 million gallons a day).The value of this water should be quantified and recognized as a resource that is currently W going unused.This resource could be _ reclaimed and sold,offsetting the cost of treating wastewater to higher levels. w ry 4+ r 40 I Lr I.+ li r V W Yr Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update a L y Summary Statement ofine Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) Evaluation of Alternative A—Permit Limits Alternative A—Permit Limits Summary ofAdvanta as and Disadvantages obective Advanta es Disadvantages Protect Public Health .•� Higher virus levels in effluent Protect the Environment • Fewer air emissions for BOD removal More air emissions ham disinfection s Fewer off-site space requirements Removes less TSS • Fewer air emissions from TSS removal Fewer blowhole available for reuse • Fewer air emissions from blowlids management Less digester gas for mgenerelion .>, Uses less energy Removes less BOD Higher energy costs for disinfection • Higher disinfection costs Requires a waiver for BOD and TSS Provide Cost-Effective Services • Lower capital costs Less adaptable to other disinfection technologies yi Lower O&M costs Greater disinfection cost Lower user rate Potentially reduced beach/recreational bsnaflts • Lower BOD removal cost Fewer blowilds for reuse r Lower TSS removal cost Less digester gas for cogeneration • Lower biosolids management cost • Lower odor control coals y, Lower energy costs More adaptable for BODITSS facilities Promote integrated Regional Solutions More money available for projects .. PAC2 Comments on Alternative A Alternative A comments received by the PAC2 ■ It was noted that Alternative A has the included the following: disadvantage of treating to less than full secondary. ■ The PAC2 recommended that the Board of Directors not consider Alternative A as a viable ■ It was also felt that Alternative A was not option. protective of the public health or of the environment;and that it would be unacceptable ■ It was noted that Alternative A has the to the community to undertake lesser treatment disadvantage of requiring a 301(h)waiver for than that which is currently performed. BOO and TSS. ■ It was noted that Altemative A has potential additional"soft"costs associated with applying and maintaining a waiver. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Updafa g yr imcammvm•.vx•v"m....��� ..�.va..�.•.v m�r.._.•.n•.� w Evaluation of Alternative B-5Ob0 Blend Alt emalive B—50150 Blend 6. Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages Obective Advantages Disadvantages Protect Public Heaall W Lower virus levels than'A" Higher virus levels than'C'or"D' \ Prefect the Environment • Removes more TSS than W Removes lees TSS than'C'or"D' V • Needs lean disinfection than"A' Needs more disinfection than'C'or'D' Less process air emissions than"C' More process air emissions than"A' • More Wdr air emissions than"A"or'D' Less truck air emissions than•C" • Less VOC emissions than"C" More open space for biosolids disposal/reuse • Less open apace for biosolids disposalireum than"A'or"D" than'C• More disinfection energy than"C'or'D" M • Less disinfection energy than"A' More overall energy lhan'A' Less overall energy than"C'or'D' Requires a waiver for BOD and TSS Provide Cast-Effective Services v • Less extensive disinfection system Men'A' More extensive disinfection system Than"C'ar • More proven treatment process than'D• "D' • More adaptable to other disinfection technologies Less adaptable to other disinfection technologies than"A' than"C'or"D' • Leaves more on4te space than'C'for future Leaves less on-site space than"A"for future expansion expansion • Lower disinfection coal than'A" Higher disinfection cost then"C'or"D' • Lower BODRSS removal cast than"C'or"D' Higher BODrrSS removal mat than"K • Lower biosolids management cost then"C' • Higher aiomllds management cost than"A•or • Lower energy costs than-C' -D' V • Lower odor control cost Man"C' Higher energy costs Man"A' — • Lower VOC control cost than"C" Higher odor control coal Man'A'or"D' ' • Lower capital,O&M and user fee than'C'or"D' Higher ca tat,08M and user fee than"A" Promote Integrated Regional Solutions • More money for regional projects than"C'or'D' Lem biosolids reuse opportunities than"C' • Less money for regional projects than'A" W PAC2 Comments on Alternative B Alternative B comments received by the PAC2 ■ It was also felt that Alternative B has the _ included the following: disadvantage of treating less than full secondary. �•+ ■ It was noted that Alternative B has the disadvantage of requiring a 301(h)waiver for ■ It was felt that Alternative B was not BOD and TSS protective of the public health or the y environment. s. Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update to i.wrzoamoo•w,•a.nvmm.m..mew."...wm.na.�s.�w.ww�asa_,.m.,a � w r Summary Statement or the Plarming Advisory Committee(PAC2) r ■ It was noted that Alternative B has potential additional"soft"costs associated with r applying and maintaining a waiver. ■ It was noted that Alternative B with r disinfection offers a cost effective method that balances the needs of water,air and land use. It was noted that this will also let us focus our valuable resources to address what most r likely is the primary culprit of beach closures, that is, urban runoff and not the District's discharge. s r r' s W r r ar r Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update I I uoawmwmao«n.rrww.o.s�.�.�.r a..ro+ruwwmw a.�..�.�nem Summary Slammant of the Planning Advisory Commiff"(PAC2) 60 Evaluation of Alternative C-Full Secondary V Alternative C-Full Secondary Summa of Advantages and Disadvantages Objective Advantages Disadvantagesyl Protect Public Health Lower virus levels in effluent I Protect the Environment Inl • Lower disinfection requirement More air emissions from BOD removal • Less disinfection power required More air missions from TSS removal • Removes more TSS • More air emissions torn biosolids management (.I • More biosolids available for reuse More energy required • Fewer off-site space requirements — • Does not require a waiver e� Provide Cost-Effective Services • Higher disinfection reliabilly Higher Boo removal cost • More digester gas for cogeneration Least adaptable to other BODfrSS technologies ,W • More adaptable for other disinfection Higher cost for TSS removal technologies More cost for biosolids management • Lowest disinfection cost More energy required W • Potential greater beach/recreational benefits Higher cost for energy • Lower biosolids management cost Higher cost for odor and VOC con"! • Higher capital cost • Higher O&M costs Higher user rate PromatelateerratedRegionaiSoludons, W • Less money for regionalpmjaW PAC2 Continents on Alternative C Alternative C comments received by the PAC2 ■ It was noted that there may be potential cost included the following: savings associated with not having to apply for and maintain a waiver. u ■ It was noted that Alternative C should include an evaluation of tricking filters or other ■ It was felt that Alternative C provides more processes(in lieu of activated sludge)to meet options for going into other possibilities. It the secondary treatment standard of 30 mg/L was noted that Alternative C allows full BOD and 30 mg/L 7W. It was felt that the implementation of the GWR System and the evaluation should consider energy usage, associated full reclamation. It was also W biosolids production and other factors. pointed that when combined with disinfection,another outfall is not needed ■ It was also pointed out that Alternative C has even if the GWR System fails to materialize .� the advantage of not requiring a 301(h) (resulting in discharges to either the short waiver. outfall or to the Santa Ana River). w Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 12 uocsommweb+n«vva�www.e�..w ar�.naMR.•,.Y aw,aa at„a� Sunda C Srata eenr Arne PNvning Advisory Conlrnrttee(PC2) - - ■ It was noted that Alternative C was more protective of the public health and of the — environment. IN It was pointed out that Alternative C provides s a proven(88 year old)method of complying with the Clean Water Act without a waiver. ■ It was noted that Alternative C demonstrates respect for the environr ent. ■ It was fell that it would be easier to dean up r the effluent of Alternative C than it would be for the effluents of either Alternatives A or B. ,p ■ It was felt that comparisons of treatment technologies would have been more useful than one representative technology. - ■ It was noted that Alternative C has the advantage of casting less than Alternative D. IN It was noted that the user fee impact is a reasonable cost for the benefits that Alternative C achieves. ■ It was noted that Alternative C should be based on level of trealmen4 not a specific 4l technology. b viv Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update la Summary Stammentofthe Planning Advisory committee(PAC2) - Evaluation of Alternative D- Alternative Treatment Alternative D-Alternative Treatment Summa of Advanla s and Disadvantages Objective Advantages Disadvantages W Protect Public Health LewervlNa levels In effluent Protect the EnWromnent u • Lower disinfection requirement Requires a waver for SOD • Less disinfection power required • Removes more TSS W • Fewer air emissions from biasolida Provide Cost-Effective Services • Higher disinfection reliability Lower reliability of SOD and TSS removal • More adaptable for other disinfection technologies(microfiltration) technologies Higher SOD removal cost • Lowest disinfection cost Higher cost for TSS removal • Potential greater beach/recreational benefits Fewer blosolids for reuse • More digester gas for cogeneration Higher capital cost • Lower odor control costs Higher O&M costs U Higher user role Promote Infegrafed Regional Solutiorm I Leas money for regional Projects PAC2 Comments on Alternative D Alternative D comments received by the PAC2 disinfection,another outfall is not needed (for , included the following: discharges to either the short outiall or to the Santa Ana River). ■ It was felt That Alternative D has the disadvantage of requiring a 301(h)for SOD. ■ It was felt that Alternative D is a developmental - alternative and that sufficient information is ■ It was noted that the District should consider currently not available regarding the cost options to revise Alternative D so that a waiver effectiveness of microfiltration as an alternative is not required. For example,the District should to full secondary treatment. consider increasing biological secondary treatment(with activated sludge,tricking filters, ■ It was noted that microfiltration of primary or other technologies)so that blended effluent effluent is not proven at this large scale. meets 30 mg/L SOD and 30 mg/L TSS requirements. ■ It was noted that this alternative was the most expensive,and the reliability of this alternative - ■ It was felt that Alternative D provides more won t be known for years. W options for going into other possibilities. It was noted that this alternative allows full reclamation,and,when combined with V Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 14 �maammw•wwavmr�ranswa.•�w v.�.•rwia..-,men.•aa_„a.m, W Summery Statement of the Planning Advisory Committee(PAC2) - ■ It was noted that the backwash from the Alternative D microfiltration process still _ requires full secondary treatment. ■ It was noted that additional treatment �y technologies and combinations of technologies would be far more useful for the analysis than data solely on microfiltration. ■ It was noted that Alternative D has the advantage of giving better solids removal than any other alternative. s ■ It was noted that the user fee impact is a reasonable cost for the benefits that Alternative s D achieves. ■ It was noted that Alternative D has higher capital costs and user fees than all other Alternatives _ _ av _ w+ _ Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update 10 W Summary Statemento/the Planning Advisory Commihee(PAC2) r .. Attachments Attachment 1 - Alternative Evaluation Table W Attachment 2 - PAC2 Objectives/Sub-Objectives Attachment 3 - Alternative Summary Tables W (Color) Attachment 4- List of PAC2 members W Attachment 5 -Suggested form for online survey W r u 4 W W y III Orange County Sanitation District -Interim Strategic Plan Update t8 IJ I ! W t t t t a t a a a a + + t + a + + t + Orange Canty Sanitagen Ulatd.t EXHIBIT A Interim Strategic Plan Update Altemative Evaluation Table aamnal xpw c.mlm, Yhr1 rwlx oaYb e..xwl ear awmr a»e.r omw.w oM.Ew a I on, Iar1� eeM eM VEEEmnulle xw\rn.ggwMM (nWl CuymE» Eenre M eNm.me cna.p.o mwrw laws cmual EMS 'Mate N1aan WlWvnu' wrFx' Mya.t MM :earl wE a a1EIMGr a»c.eu.i m.na M1MIaM, ArN Me41E MLaM MIM Mary P. Iamx,�p �� I 1 MWW aNa1W llarMl h[w EM i4Mm sm»m, xMYm Im11WM. t .-n, 41ron•h, NwmW, rae.Ir ».azrP =-. xanp..an .vrlr .I.»x » � r el » lam »nm » a> x am » nnm alr ell w.z ilv to w x om » O W alu » »v um » w E rJ .I,Wp i W » N L x,m »]N Ix MI IIA N L11 xll Ilbz ibl »,x iln W p0 NpIC E I,IYnr <I.IXO Q Yy a 1 y » I.xp p.ql » N Pf I oAI Y i xtn va, qlo s,» Ls SN r.eeri x„rr.,,'awrrwa'asaal.,wrrrr r..r.arr.vrltirrmrw »»rrewrxeanrrwe,. w�waaee,enrr,raynawrnup MI. trw AMA r µrww�wr.MwlaM Mu.Mrsrs a,,, wnw.wlrsV..sw.eual 'W se M.r�arwrwren,r� rgrwearr. •unewwM+urawnun,inrnpw,a mm�. 'EssYmrpweurwmPmuairsw.vuwr+•e.rem.wm..rgw�a,alr IwaW w.,uuw.wnmww M.r+A.^r4aw.M,ar,.nwuau•q'+�ia.awrrw..wn ArMwrrrraw.,,awrav+znweo.o,«rrr,nr.mm aumu.m�rwssrrwraor.,l,mww<nserw<wrran Ors artlptiaa,rap�aMfnreen.uar,..w..rr. ocwarlar,++�r.r....rwlrr,..�weM.I....rresr..zMe...e,.n,ar.,i�„zww.»«w.o...,i..w�.+ "irw.lw.Irwrr�M...lar+w�rw�"::b:��:°;",e•�...+.I.wlMa.w,rrnMl be..e.a.rs.r Irrr.,rrw.re a,eer�rr.w+s aparasru,.»rrrwp "»"^^r+..e.r,I�r+=e.,r�r.r,ww.�n.r..wre..wma Iwwrxeern,.wern. rYaiq,ImrrrnwMM W rra,r...a...wa.rr,.rp. AWM'Emrentrt aro...x•.r.w n wrwlrur.u.eew zr P?MCAXMAmedm S•aWm.ndD,ae sonar wbwaMp5laa•T2-0bt,sa1a0bl Do,t agar Original List of PAC Member Values Reorganized List(conadlldand Into oeiexavaxsvaobpoDves) 1. Cost effective and responsible waste disposal Protect Public Health 2. No environmental destruction • Minimize risk of oceanrelatad health problems wMsa and 13 3. Amount of open space 4. Protect public health and safety Protect and Respectthe Environment 5. Respect for the environment • Provide clean beaches and water,and avoid 6. Impact or benefits to the county's other water resources environmental degradation of water loosen), air(emissions),and land(open apace) T. Provide clean beaches and clean water wmw z p.s,z.add tt S. Certainty that means are effective in achieving benefits • Maximize ancient use of regional resources Y'" ---- - - - (i.e.,welen power,natural gas,and land) 9. Assure that other means that can be implemented } wtan a.Is,and 19 by agencies outside OCSD are addressed • Minimize odor impacts on community 10. Impacts on air quality resulting from any new facilities wa•rp to adjacent communities 11. Advance the level of coastal protection Provide Cost-Effective Services Ma 12. Protectlmaximize economic benefits resulting from • Aftia Size reliability of system improvements clean beaches • Maximize adaptability of syslem bnm"manls i 13. Minimize pollution in ocean and on beaches whmM (fecal conform count;viral content;BODICOD;ORIGrease; • Minimize cast le rate payers Heavy metals,pesticides and hormones;7SS) wm.N•nd to 14. Consider the economic value of the water treated • Maximize ecannricireveallenal benefits of clean heaches 15. Improve and maintain public perception of environmental veld..tz and rs cleanliness • Maximize resource value of byproducts(fe.,economic value driveler,bksslids and digester gas) 16. Minimize use of Imported water in Orange County valued td dnd tr 17. Maximize resource value of perceived waste products 16. Assure financial accountability Promote Integrated Regional Solutions ___ t 19. Impacts on land and energy resulting from various levels • Maximize oppodunitias for regional solutions of treatment(e.g.,biosollds) van.9 20. Provide for adaptability if assumptions are subject ' Mao-�eap�ssmlies for system modeling) to significant uncertainty weer r 21. Provide a system simulation tool that provides holistic predictive ��� � �_ � results for various alternatives uw•: 22. Complete comparison to secondary treatmentImpgho�mpereon rd.,�w•do�veam,; ,u,mnMacrey„ama Attachment 2 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update e e4u2 Development of Objectives and Sub-Objectives for Alternatives Comparison f E E [ E _ E E E E t If Ir C ) 8 U.- ? i._ ' C ' f- L E I orang.county s.n"a n District. hablm S ateym Pbn update mram.mes summary .ba.W. .Mm.p.. ..m....c i JeeaeArlle���1YI:� drgMe.plawWlt fa wan.wMavhY4 F. b.NW.�l.da b.p..W.Ngq b.OrW mebNa raaWw i.ibom., rrrr rg npa Mgqu>e bgar.. Iwgwva .� Rv.M gmeWn,ea..rn.wvmae...m.mnvv xprmry Ni�'.wsgCyr.eR�r .I.nawilUhvOra n1.ar.N.uperbpeCiM bq wvu ^4 MbB]J beep Wrlme.l rv1S4Rr^Mb br55-ap Ilnsw mniSelA^NuaEal aamNnmIRRAM1bNR We(Igaq a NlMasb RSN ha M�r.p.Yee Y�PIK_b Mrb e�L11h)r�b •.rvn+me+v ems mnr.em N lm.monl Ou4bIWa Ibem_onbvgiiaWW leu e�1 OYnYgm IQaiv.bege�4M� .mvwvbvnbmYl, We1m�4aWbWY -IpaiiYaYbNMaW WRYelbbngD W l�ml ly' y'eMl PeeWbl �tiMa1yY61 W WW w Yunnab.eu.Y A a.. ,mom_,nabs 1t+s.v%ie.i. rV_.Nb'rai Wf W ual oNUMvgv2m Was r �M Nr.Wa M.w®mmev �nie nnrLLfaN+4tlwSwt� w �Wb�M.�bgmn.W r�r rp+.Wbuba In..aarnm.a.a.npr,. .��ga.rew. b��+tlrueorasbb Weco.a Fanii�4 NYwPm iVWWt_aatl w IeaeOipeYb.ge_W low arrnb YnamiNb W W WYMeOMyrytl gle_eo.YYM_4 i�e®tlgelse INnaWYb WN'baeb �W p._eeepw_ra bae.P.rbgaerles bmMbb4�ia.vr PwemNyYWiR ftlbm ivmWFe_vnn Its p.ebebYswe i .�erooe�+,a+.w Naa -Np.emggtssrmra,n .�emovaNwm 'ss+w IaelimYbvnnb. tlbq>.NOrwn nbmaa a1V_®erONebR¢ iCgbn Jailbb_emmaam. +a�emwvma nr�a. wbwwNomwr �Y°rq�'�p' wry.. � ..�I.ra NaemebarN.e..ra .Nam.b..eb...iwq Nbm `"ri..ma rwr rvla �.+ao.r.. bw_r+a.mma .a,.b.�a,Wmp u._bNa.bi mwra rrtlMprW W�e�tldru(� NabNr..enwlrrbwm.n nevam.nr i.alaWe.6a au w� � ��reeu.oa� ubm WCWYbNea• .Ro1r�Wap.vNbmweNe nolm WaaMbir_• a�., ,rM pWsi4NVb -[MmnmgMa_. Ara —d,eirPb WYW .e�awl W �b Iweeww wwu4Mveseb .wvbpasWabaWal IweW M� b� TVaerYbnga�a Weveb M.aWWe WY PpY _pm. NgCd. YnYYbgpWenb paav_YV'�a' NaYM_abb.wlWeYtlgN' ea_ i nerbmb. © .grbgrbr O Mab.o O IWryaab O Nn�F._M1bAsleW.aYxaNas.ebeb(ba,�e Attachment reee Orange County Sanitation District Inbdm Strategic Plan Update Alternative Summary Tablas Orange Count,Sanitation District-Interim Sfnbyb Plan Updab Table a Pmbrmana Summary-Total Callahan(Leal of Disinfection) NentllveA Alternative AnemWveC AllemaYwO OEjMIVM4ub<Ejediwa jPermlLLddr.) (513fa entl) jPull Aranal (Aft ... cemmanle ,"moll Too CGdom,Level anhr 0ilwmlwldo mp g000 0,000 1 0000 Q,000 PaMct PuNa MeaM MarraeriaL of ttnn relBMC ItuM Al eKemeli.have Eieirdeveion sWfirwN b-Now Ne vmv bvel al problems .11.redetern at Ne oWan Perfect nd RosPoolMe EnHrvnmenl PmvAO out baxMa end welm.aM ewAemronnenulO ead.. W.I.,jeceen) A•1w NpMr CMmiul Uxpe elbcb Me rumba M ovemlral cloarnomAvpm'waml iderals 'CaN'O'MrobwerMlNirb,beapa Wds had essweme VM emsaims w Land!IWan space) .� Maxlmlee e6cieM the of m0i 0urua maina A•rpolM mTe -C•had'D-repulre lW p"ah"br Eur,deal farEbirhadeanb re10tl 10 the I, water.power,reveal des.and land, dparearfor Cianfedbn Nemiul Erring Minim¢e ohrt impetla oa mmmmliry Provide CostERadha 4ewkva Lhere—I closed.eMcts One reWbtliry of Me pasha Meaimrxa rel'ubiliry of syelem impmvemenb K borientateee l W. -C'and'd'have lower Nemmal Maeda The mwe EmFd repuired,IM bea".liable the syelem M ep100 mmperison al a temabves.home inetlon Meaim¢e¢Mpbbll4,013 fan bdw EIsiNOGion lttM1moladies ounce lley 0 all,blanch goer teGnale,es,duce No UV or impmvemenls hachurewashmas pmvid.. xmMary lorallematiw) oraenedivemaemMeryelflumlNn ' Mrvnixe w4bmbppn A•hot EiMade -C anal-0-have bwar tlmmiul MM, Craven—1 dosa,elle.he m9 I.,EiSnleolt Malimixe eMMmifreOY4onal beneffiM of All M onalivoa have E odechiM aN(Kienl b achieve Me soma level of clean hat mlamm meunian at the ammo Maximize reuum value of bypm]ucts (,a. am..w1a0 of woal bichat eat Neolipible dMerenw due to clismmman didann d•s) PmmohOln Mad Re e'"u"Ilulana Muimue oppenw0iee Iv mdionel solmons Mod.U.eappmNNllndese err All WhorroWae other Me ume lrvele of pppmmitles mod0n"' b.lu..a.abo r Rq to colon Q Releuvery boner O No difference Reletiwly wand. O Nlerru4vaRM PerbMance Mudun is Nat AppliTaNe bBubObjetliw P to--1IBSa -veONe4r-1—h-thth"AMml alWneMee5u1 hhh]JunplMlLoelwm bave'..W] Orange county Sandabon olrtncc-Interim Strategic Plan llpda T.ue a Partpmne wmm.n-wru laM. 111Wn..A NYma&.a Na natt.e NYmatleeo OajecdrexlSUEOEjedirex IPmmn umbl Js 013l1omd) IPunsemnearl) (AX°matlre eomm.nd Tr.nm.m) wms Levels(PRJRo mg 23 15 3 U vmNC PuDIie NeaM Minimise risk of open retat 1wM 'C'aM Vbarebg .Mud.n OmNems emwi Pxpcland Rex Ne EnWro e PmvNe tlean Eeatlies aM wefb..f tl aroY emmmlef Yddlan Wew(pcean) Air(enisaida) taae(open speon Metlmix el5tienl we d repwul napapx (i.e..wxa.powe,na aal gas.am wn"I Minimised Impart on mmmunly PmvM Caxtzfl doe Senkex Maximus Niefilily d a,M .m .naaena Maximueofaa ileyofxyuem imprpananb Mmmix cost b...yerz Maximix emmmrlrecmatiarra EerrNRd 'A'bm bgber u]rus C'eM'd'Ma bxrvirfe wtl.n dean MJ a krels n eR�¢nl dh6d W,imue maoune rdue of bypnAuds (i.e wlue of rater.eio:oloxam epeur gags vremexea feeJle ' wsewrwna Maximve ry�rtuaNBs lw repipyl solNgnS Maxi mix opponunvl—for system Al ylerneYxes dNrlM isms kvNa dapparEaritin mWefny .Waed aria N.ytewlora O Relatively better O NOGiflermra ORelabvety worse O ARem DW B ar Perbm M WM M Nd Applimble W Sub bled w P.Ne50Al3fld]NSWOWtSHOGyWOq✓SW VyNuq J Pbivreez Sunnrylaen]JunfNruxlewtl pgAR yyjx] we Orange county Sanhedrin oismcl-Inflation Strategic Plan upEa. T.M.. Palia O.Semmw-Tatel Se.pneed Bend. AlNmtliw• AlMmawB Aurme, Albm.tlwO OLf.Nwtl5u0o0/.[Ilree (Prang Llmd.) (58@Y B.ad, (iu11 U. dwl (Albrrbtlw Commanb Tn.M.M) we Eduard oonombauon(Tri(mgi 5T 79 20 9 Protein Pali Waft Minimizi.n.of ownrd.bd Meth TBS a rKK baPadly pubic earth"it in the swan. ombW.. Pmbce and M eMe EnHmnrMnl PmvNe clean beadles and wale:.and awid emimnngnlel a ndrmin Weer(mean) A'.leas 'C renmws me. 'O'romavaa Tits TSS T55 lnde g11Y CeMOtlo not rpuYea]ollbl waives lorT55 a. ry i ment w Mrl.misfbml L,f°rorvMM1 Mom ammeter, bduddnege[tsakemissom. SemMarilrealmenl Vcalmed WaMpd wad MivdM SWd,produces mesa eu em6sm no,mram,how,mr, Lad Imen eprd a,aMlgyu reaMrgyu are Matlmize eddenl..d Ltliarel I.... M.bar SMYndar,treatment with Klivalaa Sludge'.mom fill,w*or powep nalerel pp,end Wind) amonal semH.rY ..,,den.m flee an f-ar,lmaMenL haddal _ Mamas aWr Impacts an wmmnuty Prorlde CodElywnr.S.rvka. Maaimu¢nliadlih al syaem impmvwnenh '0'aloes on MNmbry with.trader Viably al wer prawn performance Maaimze alarmingly of fresh 'A'plorM,more apam on de for Mtere edemas b impmwmene at Ting we A'Mbw Wal 'CMhiyte. 9'Mab9Mrmd Minimiw and to MepaMb py Ip T88Nrowa !02Mb pr O TSS removed per lb BOg (SIM) (SaTS1 ) remm<d(5B]2/m) Matlmize emnormiareanloMl Were d Al tlernal must meal Calllomia Omen Plan rmu,mmenrs cean beach, Madame....vales el b,pai Produces tee p —,. PNdoem"an PMlaa ' pe..easmum.vales al w.w.beaolids.. milbn BaMlp nv.M Wine dlp,br,alob) digester g,(1)< Eduenllmn'C'entl'O'reWib mlNvely kss hard.p,) aigeslerg, abr►gs mgion fti mJbn efto) eaditiorel VeauMMarbux Pmmoirdln dad ronL Salugena Ma.iame m%dwNee Iw rpimel,Wens Matlmize ommrudti,ter aydem Al derndirea after the ume Nude d opahmand , mWalingwab-Mud.mu K.9 to<al.o O Relatively banter O No aiSemom ORelatively werre O Albmapw B r Perlormarlu Measure is NO Applinde a Sdt Cbjediw VICLSgdJ3fl'YJm9NOXK5NOP5M1YOPKSNOPYPacn] NW .Iwm5umnrylamllJJunV1a5 gMR.r6b]2 onng.county sanilaCon olemal.Wind.$tabgm Plan upd.. T.W.s Pa..—S.—"-Bkiwid. Rlbrnell in rl —onall .B Flbm (116mWra .11-C albmNraO ODNsllreelSUDUDf.YM.. IP.rmit Llmib) MBW w(NW) (FuNBana") Lamm.nb Tntlm.M) Tr.«perday 32 35 38 32 Protect Puolk NUM Mlrimixa nak of own nbW nests pmbl.ma Pro..MR 1M EnHmnm.nl Pri.beatws am w.W.artl.mq smiompaMel Wn W.,(.a) For b'wtliJs.M air ermsims ant pmmsnly Front Air(.minbrs) Laa.t. 1Mirt,— Lee.in. Vurte Net l—I ioaol.to a—Coumy $o or. rton 4u As.Ne mva some. LwlygrpunC Was I..nyitN Less land rpureA taM(wn epsa) la,b'mUiGs bixd'ds brb-.da menepemery rarra" n ine'rne. W.im ..Ific.m rua of nWrai resoncee p.....rer.w.er.mural f,mi.am anal Minimoe Oblrimpa¢s on Wmm.nny ualnrmuve4 U.color mnNl W sdiUS NrHbp a an UN fIN Was PmHN coef£MCMe S.rvkes Ma.imixe relia6liry of sWem impgvFMnb Mesimne singeb.11,of arsfem Implpvemenb Minmixe mY of nbpayen Ly foam, Nona,br yF Lanai Tineemounlol.flbiosd4r)Iwdisposal/reuse alkes 1..1 or bownds managemenl. wan mmNreuaa.bmubbd Olean MaCps W.im r na Mwof bypvlucs plobfdab Wn bibsoiNbr Lao bbpiNW r.. elw of w.dr.biwli6s and � diptller pawl nuo nw Pmmmled integrated R ronal solutions Pnvbn mea Miro—a MpMonrao for.,..I sol.rin5 "ghat epportari W.i..,a......brey5lem Al YltlnYivM offer e yme wens of opponwiues rrWeenyweb-oared mss Rgglncobm O RelatiMy babe O Nodiperence ORMagMy.. O Nternawe B w Perlo,nonce Measurers Not Appin,abletu SubUbjedrve P ucspaizeauu,Wromcs.wesvuvuwwu.m s.w..n.a..s.n.nh lwn a n,nyaororde o.arr ar¢rox o[angp Cool szmhuon Blst kt mlMm sln1e91c Pl.n updalei T.W.a PMarm.rru B etso,-Emr9y Bsp. AIYNv.A AX.mstivsa Al neol.0 AYsi0 armm ) (NMBMM OaH[OvealSuadyec(lves P Itumlb (AMmNvs vsslm _ ( ) jFUII BsmrrtlPy) CbMNnM) Paui.elem Mamas 20.900 27400 28 27600 Pm MY Puwb NUMlr Mlnm risxdwzen reNleC MAIN Ogdems ROM1.nJ Ms II EnHmnm.nl PgviOe dean peaNss entl reW..M.roC em'apmgM.l deoreeleb,o .. Wegrlmxn) Ai,Orolsaloml Aswmes smiulOn loran s aMy jsmtl0000 is cmWbtl Less No..secs) -- Masimize.1166amusedra9imol.... •AW` .Ie, �I.YdIM ire 1'a wrier,sewn,ndursl less,aW end) movest,yiessuests .:.' Minim'¢.Ma,lmpern on mmmurey Asermsa Wn lmm ell emw plpaYmn4 mnadNs Pmvwe ceeeEBe[tive$ervlm. ..r MmoropO eGedli,or system lmp.rts Muimze WepabiRy of ,I. improvements rwsnw. Minimize msl to..'sersn •A-Mc lead Neweifa has, m.woosts wl/r.rmWb Miorrs.ammo',l...fi..Y Mnenn d dun assdns Meaimze gauN value of byprWWv p•ppJva l.0 •C.wwsmmom (i.e. velmolw...pimplib aM tib, tlgeLLer9mbr aiwsler p.slc mpwwWon mptomod. Pgnglee In egJO. YSONIbn. Worn..opserlmi4ea lu n0ipna solutions Meeirrivt 0,;,00..or s,Wron loab-bites AN Yl.metire.dNrtlq.sT.Nveb dopryNni4as mW0 sa... Key to colon 0 Relativdybslta O Noddereme R.Wb.ly worse O AlemaGye B or Performance Measure is NO AppliuWa W SuG bjwme V.9CSOdJtbJamleWOgnsXOPSNV9KSMPYMetl�J .h'nevws Swnury Ian J JunVGnayY Vu9e aMR... Orange cottony serration OlteJct-Interim Strategic Plan update Tables + Pweonnance Summery-E,wrpY Usage AIWntlIvaA Alen....9 Ale, Aft-ad D oe}auvaYsuece}mvaa IpennR umlu) talent.ftea) (Pull Semne. ) (Alkman v ca,nmw Trealmein) E«ineent Menea 20900 27000 20,200 27,800 PmMPuiekli-M Mnimue mk d ocean roWM Mar Dmdeme PMWI and Rea err EnWmn~t Pmvg deenlea eauMwmn.aMaaai e,niwnenWla ,e.e.Ml + weur(«earl Mr(.mwpm) Aes.eno..krm atemW poM1Wkn lawnWlee Irla(ootn speed Weemivaleciemuaed,e,al-I.ouna •A-uwelems 'C Weemae (.e.,wp.Ppwar,N,aal Dev aM Y,MIeneweleatereate, ."and0ea rum+m mmim'e.oderinpectlannomm.., Aexmelb Yen Ylervpy pmdufunmm�WMJ PmylN Cle eFRc W e Sarvkea M.—ire Madli,r of a ra—u,gmwnrond Maxine alalasIMAy d eyYen an...... tMamala Minim.note b.... n Winalovaut ammelet.echis claim aed IIdYDLYYkr Ma.im,ee eMMmbreUYOond Mend of dean peaUgi M..imi.e....value of tiypmlttm KplJ,owW eCDma,ue ices (i...eca,onucvalueolwmr..kfdW aM gpb peb Pmmeleem meR. rsddkn. M..im,de opl,otuniueY is.,..I eoldnne Maeim..11ou,vliee kreye@m A.apema4re.deer we Hme lerela dop,.,.. MM.Ing—b aaaed—a. Kay colon O RelatiMyadter O NodMerence Ru[auvely w«Se O Ntema.ve 0 or Pedormance Measure n Not Applicable to Sub bjedoel Yp SC43]6'. 4oO( taSHOP5 Raa WPYMaoo]�eA b,a.au,mury(a..I Junylr,,Vupe OMRB.RW} Ora1pF County Sanbadpn Olabkt-IntMln SUah4c Ran Update Table] PMermenn Summary-Wer Caneel Rlta.N.A Glft-.d-B Alwmeb.0 AN..".0 OLfecrNaalSubobfatlhaa )Panalt rnhs) (.50111snd) )F.118emMsry) (ABemetive CPmmanb Txlmanll .. c.dw coal aanw.n) ss Ss $7 $5 pr eolPPNm Me.M Minmize rrck d ocean reYbd beats pluMems Prolx vmvaa dean beecne..m and n.wW.a .am.mldememmnw radneon wabr(.a) Air Ntrn M ) AN alleneLves love amp mn4d for omwises land(mm mre) M.—eRidenl ux d reW.l mown[ ,...wdeq maser,wlml gas,ew wa l Minimise wbr.ra'.oa mmmu., All We...Nave color mnW br piameva P—ide C..lFflec S kes Muim,ze relobll'ly al syalem impmr nenb Maimise Maplebileyel system improvements Minmize mdbralawyen �� K*.emit bvbmdb peamaceas bbar pO0Y 0# RRAaafEMm Maomize ecaromidlaoeetiorw pelrefrod Dean amJes M:.i"..ra—vdua al byprtAutl li. .,economic raim at"Na.bimiids am dmRo ma) Pmmoled lnr MedRa ienal SoluBens Mesimise mMm�tiesim mpimal ulJons MaaNiza a�nuMim Mr a,.m A.alle.a dkr ba same krWc dapmnmNe. moeeka,O.mxe cess Key to colon Q Rela0velyloener O Nodiflerence ORelati yymree O NlempWeBw Podwmance Meawre is Nd Applieda 1p SUWbje6ve P.CCSpa]2G�JILa9WOPN5MOPyW WKSMPYMau] PLwngima SvnrrerylOnN]luntDen[mepi pAAR nyTq.] Orange County Sanitation District-Interim S mbogic Plan Update LOIe B paid—an AN S.—al•MC CUNnI /JWMll Altanal0 All C All.m,45aD OEfetllve4Su6aefadlvee (Pymll Llmb) Isd13p Bantu) (Full 5ewM,ry) (AN...Yw --a.- rulmeml Ne VOL Eurnabm.mnpd l6sMay) $ •( 69 4 PmISIPup/k R.eNIJ Moil nsL d clean fettled nel pmdems PrWed.Ad Rea (v.zNn-a .nl Ppl dean Eeecnaa all waW.aM Wemium.ndl dernalseem W.I.,pac en) Nal •C NsncCVOD NYIe Air(amwv ewe Will AnnulofVVOXX wmmdIoOl ra uneeMw kPeRMnea d w N.,al sewMsy ln9nwd Lard Nape,ANNN) Meaiwele.mwe WNellg d.and land) wale.rower,rulual gat.ant land) Min�mue adar lmpacls on wmmunilY Ndbrre4vef Mre VCO mnbtl.an rNw prmnelaCON. Provide Col Services Meaimiren illtu".1 t'.imgrprameMs Madmue M.Ou iTq.f system improwNnN L•B•md ror c1r6NgMKLdd aemmnl aemm mmugn ma veaI—lu Mlnlmim and toratipayen AN•A•�W VXX VOCmNmI brVOGmnM1d Alt-0"msl for VW pm¢ssesls niglusl lmm auivalm slWge(wraoon (SY muua) IA millml IS11 mAbN Im1(55 mnnon) bmms) o anemalmm wnn ms adwdee nudge Maa ou oral m�M d dean E ecM fNu Mnimue rewume vaue of Cyprldu as lie...ecmorrsc vaw of under.Nuaa.and dipdar asl Promp(.dm rarod Re ' aSduJbn. Mnimue wpwlmnies lu ngimal WV— Manm`e....n.rvlies for system Al aN.malivez dlBr theAlllevdadopmr4.reie5 wdeandweo-msee.ness Kay td.1. Q ReNuve!y edger O WNWeal OReNpvdy wove O NlemaeveBw pedp,nance Meawre is rvm Appimde la Sub-0gediw P.00SOAI]bL)u9XOPF5MOG5/NpIXSHOPSMdcn) I.nynewm Summery(wee)Jun�/JOC Cwnm� pMiTbaRWt Om age Courdy 6anxa6on Wstr t-Intadm Btrabplc Nan Updata r.bl.q Penwmance Sum,-Cagxa coal oe1.dM.Ymea dhe. 'e=n�wA M°m.e'eB A"..wc A----. efe (vermu umx.l (]gI508kM1 IPun second") to .m) cemmeaf. n...- Cagital Coal lSmekn) 5777 5152 SC2f $460 Pmf.af PUWk ReaM Mdmi]e m5 of o_em nb@d xeYN .mdems R Wland Rea ffMEmdmnnem Provide tlun Macaws aM..a —4 emianroMY deartla4m Weer bcpn) Air lam.wml Laad lOOen Sgwl a4im ee aa.m up d m,oaa mains (i.e.,rraa.pwm,nYael q..am YM) Minimac -,masonmmmuNly Pm'Ale C..IERSMe Senke. M imue mull el swam imemwnene Af hmtiros.m m4M1e br msl e.pmded Ma.imze ad.a+eiey of swam xno�wapne •twbxr sle4lwiplwweiMPNdaps . Mininip coYbnepyen IpbYp mIMa000on.IkoYMa baft fNIrMMnb Maimixs ecoacmi..lional Mnese al dean npdns Muimxe nmu—value M a pmduda (i.,eCdNm'ia'alm d—tar..iosdidi eM dba.er pa) Pmmol.dln Yed YSduWn. •w W`mla andVla.lifiwan!+i Meaimva appwlwidee la iap'anel mu.n egy,, I -. PM)" lwkaadPARd. Mea'unixa olSaWleM brawem M eXbmtiroa dl.r Ne same leaex doOmmmN.s mo]efrpMob-p.md xreia Keytoro O RY U'YyMmr O Nodiffemonce Relah,mtyaome O NlwpgveBw Pedormame Mpwrei]Nd ApplimUete5ull-0ejeMi — PqCSpa]ffideW9aOxx5�pPSYgeYSw]PynnwA]..biulw Smmryld.f']NnWgaeiCm pMiTdhW] Onent,Coumy sanitaaon District-Interim Strategic Plan opaate Table to � Pwlwmary 4umm.ry-OprVbn W MCMMrrerrn Ceet ore clira,rsr,4o uflv,. AnerMlw lr Memmwa MemWw c AwmetlwD H (Penn Llmt.) (aa306Nna) (Fv118apnMry) IAXemNw Co.—.hMment) opemnn ane Mammwnw wP(smanwv,,) f522 f57.5 ffiL9 f63.0 Pmbcf PudIC Heats Mvumire rrsk of ouan rcalea nevM1a _ pmbleme Pro..na M, IMEnHronmant Pmviaeclame bear]esaM veer."ewttemiomemalraterWlbn Wabr(ocean) Air lembtwbl LanalaPansPace) M '...Heel use of repioml mew,wf (1..-.1 p ver,natural gall.net ewp Meim¢e oaor mpace on commurily Annetta clmtfiteeHw Sorrier. MaumRa relyGliry a i,,steenrryeenerene AN anellerves are mleble for mA e.penaM weem eeMptlibY of.,Won inepmvmnanb -A•Mclouer o6M Cats D'ae a gene-oAM msls aue Mennen.core b raewwrs rase eua N loss nlle aMLwn�l I—Ilies",ler—m,. Need,reawremeTs Maamine ernmmiUevealional[enerN of awn eeaws Ma.im..resource value o1 onewucls vela.of wea,emolgsew aiD.,lm ws) Premiered lnl rabaR bnY soluWns Manmua opparelmitiee for reaicnal wWron, Manmize apWnurtLes ter fyzlem All snematiw,Wet one wma levee of op,.W.s Moore— Wrowa tees Kay to colon O Relatively better O Wd.ff.re. ORelabvelymwsa O Nlamaeve6w Peawmance Meawre is ant Applirablen SubObladive p pC509]]6M]YhWOFKSHOPS/NdiFSrIOiYAn2n]-Mwnrim]wnnsy lOreM1]YnyWNGes DMRfiA Nl Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop OrganlaaWn Name City Zip Code No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.5 (ttnmt) (1129102) (4122/02) (5116102) (5130102) 1 Anahem/Orange County Vlsitms and Mks Neeben Convenkon Bur 2 Anaheim MII4 Corporation Steven Uebmmen Anaheim 92807 3 BIA Ms.Lynne Fishel Irvine 92614 4 Boeing Co. Mr.John Neg madad ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 5 Bolas Chka Land Tmsl Ms.eleen Murphy ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 6 Brea-Sommereat HomeownersJean Soppel Brea 92821 Assodauan 7 California Slate Unlvemily,Fullerton Mr.VWU=Geyk Fullerton 92634 ✓ 8 City of Garden Gmve Mr.Terry Lane Garden Grove 92840 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 9 CRY of Garden Grove Mr.Wiliam Murray ✓ ✓ ✓ 10 City of Irvine Ms.Marda BackeO ✓ I I City of Newport Beach City Mr.Dave I08 Newport Beach 9265MG1 ✓ 12 City of TusOn Mr.Tim Serial ✓ ✓ ✓ 13 College P@WNIVA Mr.Jerry l0rcAgessner Irvine 92806 ✓ ✓ 14 Commercial Resources Taa Group Doug Duckworth Brea 92621 15 Corwu Del Mar Res.Assoc. Me.Val Skom Comna Del Mar 92625 16 County of Orange Mr.Mike Wellboume Barnet Ana 92702 ✓ 17 County of Orarge,PFRD Ms.MaryAnna Skorpankh Santa Ana ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 18 Deland the Bay Mr.Bob Causun Newport Beach 92663 ✓ ✓ Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 614/02 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name City 21p Code No.t No.2 No.3 Na.4 No.5 (11f71U1) (1129102) (4122102) (5116102) (513a102) 19 Department of Parks S Recreation Mr.Mike Tope San Clemente 92672 ✓ 20 Disneyland Jack Colley Anaheim 92803 21 ENACT Mr.Tom England ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 22 Endangered Habits(&League Dan Sliver Los Angeles 90069 23 Environmental Engineering 8 John Shelter Tustin 92780 Connecting.InQ 24 Federal Bum of Reclamation Dennis Wolfe Temecula 92590 25 Garden Grove Sanitary District Konya Vivant ✓ 28 Golden Rain Foundation President Seel Beach 90740 27 Groan Valley He ..Assedation Jay McAlister Pountaln Valley 92708 28 HotellMold Assodation of Caldomla Mr.Rick Chapler Anaheim 92802 29 Huntington Beach Fire Department Tim Greases Huntington Beach 92648 30 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Mr.Dean Albright ✓ ✓ 31 ideal Uniform Rental Service Sieve Woodrooi Garden Grove 92842 32 ImiuelrleVEnvirenmentel Coalition of OC Richard Edes Code Mesa 92527 33 Kwlkset Corporator, Mr.Kenny Hem Anaheim 92803 34 League of Women Voters IMs.Judith M.Glelow ✓ ✓ 35 LNP Engineering Mr.Steve Bmwn Santa Ana 92705 ✓ 36 MC7U0 Dean Reirremann ✓ Orange County Sanitatlon District Interim Strategic Plan Update 814102 r e E - c 1 t 1 1 1 E t E [ E e f E E r F Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name City 21p Cade No.1 No.2 No.3 NcA No.s (11f7101) (1/29102) (4=2) (5116m) (5130102) 37 Newport Bey Watershed Greens Mr.R.J.Schwichlenberg Orange 92869 ✓ ✓ ✓ 38 Newport Beach Homeownera Mr.AI Slloock Newport Beach 92663 ✓ Association 39 Ocean Ougall Group(DOG) Mr.Jan D.Vanderelaot,M.D. Newport Beach 92663 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 40 Ocean Ougall Group(COG) Doug K.Mo6 ✓ ✓ 41 Ocean Ouffall Group(DOG) In An Haydock ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 42 Ocean Outlet Group(DOG) Kris Hardman ✓ 43 Ccom Curtail Group(DOG) Larry Porter ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 44 OOGrHB Hilton Joey Rarano ✓ ✓ 45 Orange Coast Auto Group Gary Gray Costa Mesa 92626 46 Orange Coast Keeper Mr.Garry Brown Newport Beach 92663 ✓ 47 Orange Coast Watch Mr.Matt Hagemann InAne 92614 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 48 Orange County Business Council Mr.Mika Noonan Inme 92614 ✓ ✓ ✓ 49 PFRD Flood Program Division Richard Runge Santa Ana 92702 50 Peeress Associate. David Plawk Costs Mee. 92628 51 R.C.S.6 Associates Mr.Ronald Schlenker Mission Viejo 92691 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 52 Regional Water Quality Control Board, Mr.Ken Theisen Riverside 92501 ✓ ✓ ✓ Santa Ana Region 53 Santa Ana Heights Redevelopment Project Advisory C Roger Summers Newport Beach 92660 59 SCAG Mc Daniel Grlsel Los Angeles W017 ✓ Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 614/02 Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name City ilp Code No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 Ne.5 (111r/0f) (11ANN02) (VM2) (5116102) (5130102) 55 Sell Aida Iverson Orange 92667 56 Self Dr.Jack Skinner ✓ ✓ 57 Self Jahn Norman Fullerton 92832 58 Self Mr.BIII Shear Santa Ana 92704 ✓ 59 Se0 Mr.Jim Ayres Suens Park 9D621 60 self Mr.John Rustler, 61 Sag Mr.Jon Ely Huntington Beach 92646 ✓ 62 Self Mr.Randy Fuhrman ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 63 Sam Mr.Richard Edgar Tustin 92780 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 64 Self Mr.Sheldon Singer Garden Draw 92841 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 65 Self Mr.Vkdor Leipzig Huntington Beach 92647 ✓ ✓ 66 Self Ms.June Park 67 Self Ms.Shtday De tlolf Huntington Beach 92863 68 Seven-Up/RC Bottling Company Mr.Stan S12jduhar Lee Angeles 90023 69 Siena Club Mr.Dennis Baker Corona Del Mar 92625 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 70 SPON Allen Bank ✓ 71 SPON Mr.Jack Sklnrsr,M.O. Newpod Beach 1 92660 ✓ 72 SurMder Foundation Mr.Chdalepher Evens.Es . San Clemente S2672 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 614102 F E C E E C [ E E [ E C E t E E E C E I [ 1 f [ 1 1 1 1 f t I 1 t t 1 1 I t [ Attachment 4 Summary of PAC2 Members and Workshop Attendance Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop Organization Name CRY Zip Code No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4 No.S 111/7101) (1/29/02) (4CM02) (5/18102) (sr"IM) 73 Surrrttler Foundation Mr.Don Schulz I.Alemilas 90720 ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 74 Surdder Foundation Mr.Gary Sargent Fullerton M31 75 Surrlder Founda0on Nancy Gardw Newport Beach 92858 76 The Emmons Company Scott Smith mire, 92814 77 U.S.Dyeing Mr.Chad.Kim Garden Grove 92841 78 U.S.Emhonmemal Protection Agency Ms.Alexis Strauss San Francisw 94105 79 Voloe for Veterans SeMces Mr.Robin J.Ruslan 80 W.Newport Beach Association Mr.Peter Ten Newport Beach U663 81 Wast Newport Beech Homernwrars Jim Miller ✓ 82 Woodbridge While Association Don Davis IMne 92604 Orange County Sanitation District Interim Strategic Plan Update 6/4/02 V Attachment 5 u WATER CONTACT ILLNESS MEDICAL AFFIIDAVIT INFORMATION yr REGISTER YOUR WATER CONTACT ILLNESS WITH ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT/MmazurCahca.co.orange.ca.us (714) 667-3751 Print& Fill out information below and have your personal doctor make his diagnosis u regarding your Water Contact Illness then bring document home save to your computer and then email Monica Mazur your as your complaint about Water Contact Illness as a Reality! Name of Waterman Date W Address City vN Surf Area you last surfed How Long is your surf session 1 hour 2 3 4 5 ? What Kind of Symptoms occur 24 hours away from session 48 hours 72 and what kind of symptoms made you go to your doctor within 72 hours or less after your last surf session? u W Doctors Notes Doctor Name Address u City What is patient's W condition 6, 60 Release information to the orange County Health Department, so my Water Contact Illness is registered as a Water Contact Illness due to my exposure to the Recreational Waters that I use to surf in. patient signature y i Doctors Signature date to Patients Signature date W L+ 60 Attachment 2 1 1 t fl I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I t l I I t 1 1 Huntington Beach Investigation Study Summary Study Description Purpose Time Frame Result Picket Line Microbiology samples taken To determine if the OCSD May,July and None of the samples had along a transecl parallel to offshore discharge was coming August 1999 significantly elevated levels of shore-1000 feet offshore. onshore. bacteria. Closed circuit Visual inspection of OCSD, To identify breaks,joint offsets June 30 to Identified breaks were repaired, television inspection Huntington Beach and State or significant root infiltration October 7, 1999 with on,effect on beach of sewage Park sewer lines that could cause leakage, contamination levels. infrastructure Monitoring Wells Groundwater sampled from To determine if there was a July 29-30, 1999 No contaminated samples were five 30 to 60-foot wells via plume migrating to surf zone found. peristaltic pump. from Coast Trunk line or other facilities. Ground Penetrating Using radar and a hydraulic To determine if the bedding August 9-28, 1999 No contaminated samples were Radar and tam,nearsurface geology and around sewer lines,power plant found Subsequent and groundwater was sampled lines,in local groundwater/ Parallel geological features were Hydropunching functioning as a transportation mechanism for bacterial contamination Offshore triangle Water quality samples were To determine if the August 13, 1999 Offshore samples did not collected simultaneously underground portion of the contain significantly elevated from sites along the beach, offshore OCSD outfall pipe was levels of bacteria- along the outfall pipe and contributing to the beach from different depths along contamination. three offshore transact lines. Page 1 of 6 Huntington Beach Investigation Study Summary Studv Description Purpose Time Frame Result Talbert Marsh(TM) Water quality and nutrient To determine if a transport August 30 and Many of the fruit washed ashore and Santa parameters were monitored mechanism to surf zone existed September 16, 1999 onto Huntington Beach in the Ana River(SAR) throughout TM and over for the effluent water from TM areas of highest bacterial water quality and outfall. Grapefruit and and SAR. counts.The water quality results citrus studies oranges were dropped at the did not confirm the physical ocean outlets of TM and info from the citrus study. SAR and tracked. TM and SAR Densities of all 3 indicator To determine whether bacteria September 8-9, 1999 Inconclusive-high bacteria overnight studies bacteria were measured at the leave TM or SAR at low tides levels on the beach did not outlets to TM and SAR at 30 and enter the surf zone. correlate with water samples minute intervals overnight. collected at the TM and Santa Ana River outlets. Dye studies Rhodamine dye was injected To determine if the nearshore September 30, 1999 No evidence of dye shoreward into the effluent and tracked (buried)portion of the OCSD of the diffuser(offshore) from the OCSD outfall pipe. outfall pipe was leaking and to portion of the pipe.The track the offshore plume. offshore plume was tracked moving downcoast and shoreward. OCSD Phase I Summarized the studies Provide summary of the OCSD December 1999 OCSD sewers were not leaking, Summary Report listed above and performed sanitary survey and related omfall was not leaking,plume by OCSD during the Summer work to date. did not appear in the smfzone, Of 1999. and some local onshore contamination sources were identified. UCI Talben Marsh Hydrology,bacteriology and To determine if the Talbert December 7-2 t, 1999 Pump station discharges tidal transport study chemistry of water Rowing in Watershed is a significant increased the nearshore loading and out of TM was source of indicator bacteria to of total colif rum,but didn't characterized. the nearshore area of explain all the contamination at Huntington Beach. the beach.TM also appeared to be a significant source of episodic nearshore loading of Entemeocci. Page 2 of 6 r r c r c e c E r r IF e.- , E _ Huntington Beach Investigation Study Summary Study Desmi tion purpose Time Frame Result USC Sea Grant An expert panel was The panel was asked to address: Panel Verbally Reported in The panel agreed with the Huntington Beach convened by USC to review 1)Were the proper studies done February 2000 with a final OCSD study conclusion that the Closure Investigation: the 1999 OCSD and were they correctly report in October 2000 most likely source was land- Technical Review investigation. interpreted;2)What should the based and that the areas sewer next set of studies consist of,3) lines and offshore outfall had What the longer-term research been effectively eliminated as a priorities for future source source. They also investigations should be;and 4) recommended using mom What lessons learned could be source tracking techniques and uansferted to others developing better onshore and offshore hydrodynamic models. MEC:Huntington An OCSD consultant ran a To determine if statistics could January 2000 Bacteria levels at the beach Beach Closure: series of statistical analyses reveal evidence of potential during High/Ebb tides and Relationships (correlation studies)on sources in the data that could Low/Flood tides seem to have Between High Counts various available not have been seen byjust different contamination of Bacteria on environmental factors for the reviewing the data. mechanisms. Variables that Huntington Beaches summer of 1999. Based on most correlated included:storm and Potential Sources the strongest correlations, water pump station pump four scenarios were volumes,maximum tide,bird hypothesized to account for counts,shore currents, the results. pycnocline depth and minimum tide levels. UCl/Moffatt& Investigations of contaminate Evaluate bansport efficacy of December 15,2000 No single contaminate source Nichol/URS/Komex transport by groundwater, nexrshom currents;evaluate could be identified. Additional Huntington Beach long-shelf currents inside utility of dry-weather diversion research on contribution of Water Quality surfzone and onshore projects,and catalogue sources contaminants to smfzone by the Investigation Phase nuisance flows. of indicator bacteria in the Santa Ana River and potential 11: An Analysis of Talbert watershed. interaction between the OCSD Ocean, Surfzone, outfall and the AES power plant Watershed,Sediment cooling water system. and Groundwater Data Collected from June 1998 through September 2000 Page 3 of 6 Huntington Beach Investigation Study Summary Study Description Purpose Time Frame Result OCSD On Shom Investigate all potential Find onshore problems and 6x July-October 2001 A number of existing and Investigation July- onshore contamination them. suspected contamination October 2001 sources in the Huntington sources were identified. Several Beach area potential sources were repaired during the project. UCI Cross-Shelf Analyses of current and To determine if a correlation March 2002 Correlation exists between Transport at temperature data from exists between the onshore and onshore and offshore cold-water Huntington Huntington Beach shoreline offshore water temperatures that events. Regardless,it's not Beach. and OCSD ocean outfa6. may imply onshore movement dear where the on shore cold of offshore cold water. water came from since the circulation patterns,especially in the nearshore area,are complex.No evidence of shoreline contamination associated with correlation. UCI Coastal Runoff Measured Now and water To evaluate sources and Jundluly 2001 Fecal indicator bacteria Impacts Study(CRIS) quality at mouth of the Santo dynamics of pollution in the generated locally from land- Ana River,Talbert Marsh, Santa Ana River Watershed and based sources. Fecal indicator Orcenville-Banning Channel, compare to Talbert Marsh viruses were associated with and Newport Slough Watershed. cold ocean water. UCSB Association of A temporal and spatial To evaluate the relationship Data collected from 1997 The primary source of North Urban Runoff with analysis of two years of data. between storm events,urban through 1999. Report published Orange County's coastal Coastal Water nntoff,and water quality. January 2002 in the Water pollution is urban nmoff Quality in Orange Environment Research Journal, discharge by the San Gabriel, County,California and Santa Ana Rivers. Page 4 of 6 € - r-- f U- r- f r- r _ € E _ € c �-- c r- r_ c - U- f [ 1 ( 1 I i 1 1 1 I 1 1 i I I 1 I i l Huntington Beach Investigation Study Summary Study Description Purpose Time Frame Result OCSD Expert Panel To evaluate the scientific Determine whether data February 2002 through Initial review supports Review of work completed to date. collection and analysis were OctoberfNovember 2002 investigator position that no Huntington Beach appropriate to answer the - connection could be made Investigations scientific questions about between the offshore physical transport methods. wastewater plume and surfzone bacteria. Huntington Beach Investigate hypothesis that To:(1)measure physical Sampling:June-October 2001 Transport mechanisms exist,but Phase III Shoreline the OCSD plume is oceanographic transport Preliminary Report:May 15, the data always showed a break Contamination impacting Huntington Beach mechanisms exist and;(2) 2002, between the offshore plume and Investigation shoreline. deterutine shoreward transport Final written reports:October shoreline bacteria. The 2001 of offshore plume. 2002 elevated bacteria levels did not appear to be linked to the wastewater eBluem discharges from the OCSD o,tfall. Page 5 of 6 Huntington Beach Investigation Study Summary L' Also,a number of papers have been attributed to the studies and include: yl 1. Grant,S.B., Sanders, B.F., Boehm,A.B., Redman,JA.,Kim,J.H., Mrse, R.D.,Chu,A.K., Gouldin, M., McGee, C.D., Gardiner,NA.,Jones, B.H., Svejkovsky,J., Leipzig, G.V."Generation of Ernerococci Bacteria in a Coastal Saltwater Marsh and Its Impact on Surf Zone Water Quality", Environmental Science and Technology 2001, 35,2407. 1 , V 2. Sanders, B.F., Green, C.L., Chu,A.L, Grant, S.B."Case Study: Modeling Tidal Transport of Urban Runoff in Channels Using the Finite-Volume Method",J. of Hydraulic Engineering 2001, 127,795. W 3. Boehm,A.B., Sanders, B.F.,Winant, C.D. "Cross-shelf transport at Huntington Beach. Implications for the fate of sewage discharged through an offshore ocean oulfall." Environmental Science and Technology 2002, 36, W 1899. 4. Boehm,A.B., Km,J.H., McGee, C.D., Mowbray,S., Clark, C., Foley, D., Wellmann, D., Grant, S.B. "Decadal and shorter period variability of surf u zone water quality at Huntington Beach, California", Environmental Science and Technology,tentatively accepted. y 5. Kim,J.H.,S. Ensari, S.B. Grant, A.B. Boehm, B.H.Jones, and B.F. Sanders"The transport and fate of fecal indicator bacteria in the surf zone", in preparation. W 6. Boehm,A.B., S.B. Grant,J.H. Kim, C.M. McGee,"The spatial distribution of fecal indicator bacteria from point sources in Northern Orange County, California: influence of dilution and inactivation", in preparation. y 7. Reeves, R.,S.B.Grant,A.B.Boehm,J.H. Kim, B.F. Sanders, "Pollution of coastal waters by fecal indicator bacteria from a salt marsh and urban .' runofr, in preparation. L 8. Kim,J.H.,V.S. Jeong,A.Boehm, S.Weisberg, S.B. Grant, "Public l mis-notification of coastal water quality in California", in preparation. y V 6d V IJ W 1 V Page 6 of 6 Attachment 3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I i t I Rate Evaluation Process Strategic Plan Alternative Comparisons for Costs Through 2020 $1,484,985,000 $271,424,000 Current CIP T¢tal cIP $1,756,409,000 $1,484,985,000, $111,000,000 Permit Limits $1,595,985,000 ■ SP aseline (Alt. A) SP �aseline 1$1,484,985,000: $152,od0,000 Replacement $ 50:50 (Alt. B) $1,636,985,d00 $1,484,985,000 $423,000,000 Full Secondary $1,907�985,000 (Alt. C) $1,484,985,000 $460,000,000 Advanced Treatment $1,944,986,000 (Alt. D) $1.0 B $1.2 B $1.4 B $1.6 B $1.8 B $2.0 B $2.2 B Attachment 4 Residential Sewer Service C arge Over Time N4 $200 Alternative Treatment $180 Full Secondary $160 50/50 Blend Annual $140 Charge $120 Permit Limits $100 Assumes rate increases only as necessary to $80 meet coverage ratios $60 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year Attachment 5 I I I i 1 i I i I I i 1 1 1 Example 2020 Commercial Rates — Annual Sewer Service Charge Li Existing Rate (E) $2,000 ❑ Permit Limits (A) ■ 50/50 Blend (B) ® Full Secondary (C) $1 ,500 ■ Alternative Treatment (D) $ per 1 ,000 sf ' '' $1 ,000 $500 E A E A , $0 Restaurant Car Wash Example 2020 Commercial teS — Annual Sewer Service Charge (conYd) $500 Existing Rate (E) Permit Limits (A) ■ 50/50 Blend (B) $400 ■ Full Secondary (C) ■ Alternative Treatment (D) $ per $300 1 ,000 sf $200 � 3 4 yy 4 $100 t. $0 Supermarket Shopping Center Example 2020 Commercial ,� es — Annual Sewer Service Charge (coned) ❑ Existing Rate (E) 200 ❑ Permit Limits (A) 180 ■ 50/50 Blend (B) 160 ■ Full Secondary (C) 140 ■ Alternative Treatment (D) $ per 120 1,000 sf 100 --- 80 60 40 20 0 E q E jAC E A Warehouse Office Building Hotel / Motel Example 2020 Industrial rites — Annual Sewer Service Charge o Existing Rate (E) $7,000 ❑ Permit Limits (A) $6,000 ■ 50/50 Blend (B) ■ Full Secondary (C) $5,000 Is Alternative Treatment (D) $4,000 $3,000 $2,000 Flo $1 ,000 so $ TS $o E K w E A Industry # 1 Industry # 2 Example 2020 Industrial Rates — Annual Sewer Service Charge ❑ Existing Rate (E) ❑ Permit Limits (A) ■ 50/50 Blend (B) $300,000 ■ Full Secondary (C) ■ Alternative Treatment (D) $250,000 $200,000 a. $150,000 $100,000 3-4 D O =Flow d $50,000 O s ss . ss = $0 Industry #3 Industry #4 Industry #5 Attachment 6 The People arc the C t, P°Ear Mayan V01 CouONST NCE CHRI DPHER A.LOWE Q. y NORMAN Z.ECKENRHILL ODE y NORMAN Z.ECKENRODE City Administrator ' _I' SCOTT P.BRADY ROBERT D'AMATO _� _��wgW1111_ JUDY A.DICKINSON a a a' 4ll,4MEPICA CITY 40f East Chapman Avenue-P/acentia, California 92870 are May 6,2002 .. Mr. Blake Anderson, General Manager Orange County Sanitation District P.O.Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Dear Mr. Blake, On behalf of the City of Placentia, I would like to express my concern regarding the proposed requirement to increase the current level of wastewater treatment. The City of Placentia strongly opposes the secondary treatment of wastewater until scientific proof exists to require such a dramatic change in treatment. Countless surveys and studies have yet to determine that secondary treatment of wastewater will make a substantial difference in ocean water quality. The implementation of a 'full secondary' level of wastewater treatment will impact the Orange County Sanitation District with substantial cost increases. These increases will be placed on individual cities and their residents. The City of Placentia could possibly see a $400 to $500 thousand increase in charges for sewer fees. This increase will impact human resource and community service programs, as well as local law enforcement initiatives. Sewer rates could potentially rise as much as 100 percent to satisfy the cost of a multi-million dollar change in treatment. Placentia residents are concerned about preserving the earth's resources and reducing pollution to the environment. However, until secondary treatment is proven necessary through scientific studies, residents are not in favor.of dramatic increases to their sewer rates. At this time, a pending Environmental Science Report has not been received, substantiating cost increases and Irplc-mantation of"full cocondarf wcctawatc;treatmant. Once again, the City of Placentia strongly discourages any modifications to the current level of wastewater treatment until conclusive evidence determines changes are necessary. The City of Placentia appreciates the opportunity to express its concerns about wastewater treatment. If I can answer any further questions regarding Placentia's position on wastewater treatment I can be reached at 714-993-8117. Sincerely, Robert D'Amato City Administrator i�i1 Axyued Papa, W SUN-03-2002 14:37 ORRNGE, CITY CLERKS OFC 714 744 5515 P.01/02 RESOLUTION NO.9618 "'IP v A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE ENCOURAGING THE O GE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT TO PRO FULL SECONDARY TREATMENT OF SE AG EFFLUENT. I W WHEREAS, the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (the "Act') was enacted to "restore and maintain the chemical,physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters';and w WHEREAS, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has provided sewage .. collection, treatment, and disposal services to Orange County for 50 an id currently serves approximately 2.35 million residents in 21 Orange County cities, lading Orange; and i WHEREAS, OCSD disperses treated sewage wastewater into the ocean off Huntington Beach through a fivamile long cutfall pipe which extends to a th of 200 feet; and u WHEREAS, due to operating and treatment efficiencies OCSD has, ince 1995,been treating wastewater under a"301(b)waiver',which allows for the release of ocean discharge that contains higher levels of Total Suspended Solids (fSS) and greater Biological Oxygen w Demand(BOD)than otherwise allowed under the Act;and I WHEREAS, OCSD is the third largest wastewater agency west of the Mississippi and releases approximately 250 million gallons of sewage wastewater into the ocean each day;and v WHEREAS, OCSD is one of only 36 sewage treatment facilities nationwide operating under a 301(h)waiver;and " WHEREAS, Orange CounWs beaches are an important economic and recreational W resource for all residents throughout Orange County and the eliadnationlof potential sources of beach contamination is an important public health and economic goal Tr the region;and WHEREAS, the beaches of Orange County have experienced numerous closings due to ocean home contaminants over the last several years, resulting in thelloss of recreational use of the ocean and economic losses to the Orange County region;and WHEREAS, beach closures due to contamination potentially result from a variety of V contaminated sources, including but not limited to, urban mnoff illegal-discha ges, local sewer leaks, storm water mnoff, ocean wastewater discharges and wildlif sources;and I AI V L JLN-03-2002 14:37 Ord441E. CITY CLERKS OFC 714 744 5515 P.02/02 ,. WHEREAS, studies to determine the exact Cause of beach closures have been inconclusive and are complicated by variations in water temperature, currents, tides, wave action,runoff amounts and numerous other factors;and WHEREAS, the health and economic benefits of addressing ocean wastewater discharges as a source of possible beach contamination justify public expenditures needed to provide full secondary treatment of wastewater. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange recommends that OCSD and its Board of Directors proceed with the planning, design and implementation of full secondary treatment of wastewater dispersed to the ocean. r, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange recommends that OCSD and its Board of Directors take the necessary steps to obviate the need for the 301(h) waiver and urges OCSD to adopt a plan to provide full secondary treatment as soon as is prudently possible. ADOPTED this 281°day of May,2002. ORIGIN A� SIGNED BY MARK A diil;tl'� Mark A. Murphy,Mayor,City of Orange ATTEST: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Cassandra J- a0lcart, CiTy Clerk of the City of Orange I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28' day of May, 2002,by the following vote: AYES: COUNCUMEMBERS: Slater,Alvarez,Murphy,Coontz,Cavecche NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCB,MEMBERS: None ORIGINAL SIGNED BY CASSANDRA J. CATHCART Cassandra I. Cathcart, City Clerk of the City of Orange r Rose No.9619 2 DAD:ajj TOTAL P.02 r e CiI OF }s$ ` AL ` � 6 CATHERINE STANDIFORD"� Cm MM+ E& Office of the City Manager i� May 14, 2002 W Ms. Penny Kyle Clerk of the Board Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Vallelle�708-7018 ri Dear Pv xl . Attached is a copy of Resolution No. 2002-22, a Resolution of the City Council of the City of La Palma, California, Relating to the Discharge of Wastewater into the Ocean by the Orange County Sanitation District which was adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on May 7, 2002. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call me. .. Sin , X .11 Ta . Piscotty _ Assistant to the City Manager TKP/prt Enclosures (1) 1r u W Phone 714.690.3333 Fax 714.523.2141 W 7822 Walker Street • La Palma • California 90623-1771 • www.cityoflapaima.org r RESOLUTION NO. 2002-22 A RESOLUTION OF THE LA PALMA CITY r COUNCIL RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER INTO THE OCEAN BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT r WHEREAS, the intent of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological Integrity of the nations waters"; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is a special district that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to 21 cities with about 2,35 million residents in central, and northern Orange County including the residents and businesses In La Palma, and r WHEREAS, the OCSD has been operating under a waiver, known as a 301 (h) waiver, of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) since 1985, which allows for the release of ocean discharge that contains higher levels of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and greater Biological .r Oxygen Demand (BOD) than otherwise allowed under the CWA; and WHEREAS, the OCSD, as the third largest wastewater agency west of the Mississippi, releases approximately 240 million gallons of wastewater into the ocean each day; and WHEREAS, OCSD is one of only 36 Sanitation Agencies nationwide operating under a r 301 (h)waiver for secondary treatment; and WHEREAS, close to 80% of the wastewater comes from residential uses such as sinks, r toilets, showers, laundry and dishwashers and 20%from business uses; and WHEREAS, La Palma residents, along with residents throughout Orange County, use the ocean and its beaches for recreational purposes and recognize that taking steps to eliminate potential sources of contamination is an important public health and economic goal for the region; and r WHEREAS, beach contamination can, and most probably does, result from a variety of sources, including but not limited to urban runoff, local sewer overflow, ocean wastewater discharges and natural animal sources; and r WHEREAS, efforts to determine the relationship between, and relative contribution of all sources of ocean contamination are complicated by various in water temperature, currents, tides, wave action, runoff amounts and numerous other factors; and WHEREAS, a county-wide strategy needs to be employed to address all sources of beach and ocean contamination through source control, management treatment and other means available; and WHEREAS, the health and economic benefits of addressing sources of beach contamination justify public expenditures needed to provide requisite treatment; and r r W WHEREAS, the OCSD is charged with protecting the health and safety of the public and marine life has a proven history of employing the best methods of treatment and technology; WHEREAS, by continuing to demonstrate leadership as a waste treatment agency committed to the preservation of our fragile ecosystems the OCSD advances the goal of encouraging other agencies and municipalities to act in a responsible manner to address the - comprehensive challenges that our region faces in assuring our oceans remain clean, healthy and safe environments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the La Palma City Council hereby support OCSD and its Board of Directors in immediately proceeding with planning, design, and implementation of treatment options that would allow the agency to fully comply with the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, including a schedule for construction of facilities to provide full secondary treatment levels; and 'r BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the La Palma City Council hereby support's OCSD's efforts to take early actions to disinfect wastewater Flows discharged to the ocean outfall until +a further treatment projects can be fully implemented; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the La Palma City Council requests that in W conjunction with the above actions, OCSD prepare and adopt a plan of works for facilities to provide full secondary treatment levels, and submit necessary documentation to EPA to eliminate the need for a waiver of full secondary discharge requirements under Section 301 (h) u of the Federal Clean Water Act. APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Palma at a regular meeting held on the 70 day of May 2002. Mayor ATTEST. d •'t�Ctefrk - W 4 Irl V YI STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) r COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF LA PALMA ) I, TAMI K. PISCOTTY, City Clerk of the City of La Palma, Califomla, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 71° day of May 2002, and that it was so adopted by called vote as follows: AYES: Aragona, Barnes, Blake, Duke, Walker NOES: None ABSENT: None e+ Citylerl� r w s r r r r r 3 .r 06/03/2002 00:48 714-7544942 CITY.CLERKS OFFICE PAGE 02 W RESOLUTION NO. O f - HhL v A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA, RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER INTO THE OCEAN -- u THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COSTA MESA DOES HEREBY -- RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSO) is a special district that provides wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services to 21 cities with about 2.35 million residents in central and northern Orange County; and WHEREAS, OCSD uses a 10' diameter Ocean Outfall to discharge approximately 236 million gallons per day of wastewater from OCSO's 2.35 million customers; and -- W WHEREAS, 50% of the wastewater discharged out the Ocean Outfall is wastewater treated to a primary treatment level and 50% is wastewater treated to a secondary treatment level; and WHEREAS, the Ocean Outfall that sits 190' below the ocean surface about - 4.5 miles offshore from the Santa Ana River mouth between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach; and WHEREAS, this discharge creates a wastewater plume in the ocean that can u be up rto 6 miles long, 2 to 3 miles wide and 100 feet thick; and WHEREAS, OCSO's 20 Meter Fecal Coliform Study in 1996 showed that the W wastewater plume may — under certain wave, tidal and current conditions — _ approach the shoreline where it may contaminate the beaches and swimming areas of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach; and u WHEREAS, the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requires rmost Publicly-Owned Treatment Works IPOTW's) to treat all wastewater to full sec ndary levels before such wastewater can be discharged from a treatment facility; Id -- WHEREAS, the Act authorizes POTW's to request a waiver of this full secondary requirement from the US Environmental Protecti Agency (USEPA) -- under Section 301(h) of the Act as long as the POTW can shoN i that the less-then- full-secondary discharge does not harm the environment or hari n public health; and W W 64 06/03/2002 08:48 714-7544942 CITY .CLER(S OFFICE PAGE 03 r WHEREAS, OCSD requested and was granted a waiver under Section 301(h) by USEPA in 1985, with an extension granted in 1998; and WHEREAS, the current waiver las extended) expires on January 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, as projected by a 1999 Environmental Impact Report associated with OCSD's Strategic Plan, full secondary treatment of wastewater reduces r nearly all parameters of ocean pollution including levels of fecal coliform bacterial and viruses; and WHEREAS, sanitation agencies in Los Angeles County have not applied for new waivers under Section 3O1(h) and are in the 4ocess of treating all wastewater at full secondary levels; and WHEREAS, all or a significant portion of the ddptional expense of constructing and maintaining facilities associated with full secpndary treatment at .+ OCSD will likely be borne by the ratepayers of OCSO including the residents and businesses of the City of Costa Mesa; and r WHEREAS, The City of Costa Mesa relies upon a safe, clean ocean to sustain its quality of life and its tourism base; and s WHEREAS, the residents of Costa Mesa use the ocean and its beaches for health, recreation, and swimming; r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City .Council of the City of Costa Mesa that it hereby opposes any extension of or application for a waiver of full secondary discharge requirements under Section 3O11h) of the Federal Clean Air Act by OCSD; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Costa r Mesa that it hereby supports the full secondary treatment of all wastewater discharged into OCSD's Ocean Outfall; and r BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the City Council off the City of Costa Mesa that it hereby urges its resident and business population to join with the r Council in advocating for safer, less environmentally lmpactful wastewater discharge into the Pacific Ocean and in recognizing and accepting the community- wide obligation and financial costs that lie herein. r r r 06/03/2802 08:48 714-7544942 CITY CLERKS OFFICE PACE 04 • W 6r PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19°i day of November, 2001. Utl ATTEST: Deputy City Clekk of the City of Costa Mesa Mayor of the City of Costa Mesa W APPROVED TO FORM W STATE OF CALIFORNIA) �, �I COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss CITY/4WTORNEY CITY OF COSTA MESA ) W I I, MARY T. ELLIOTT, Deputy City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk.of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, hereby certify that the above and foregoing w Resolution No. O/— 8W was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the said . City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19' day of November, 2001. _ v IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Costa Mesa this 20' day of November, 2001. -T Deputy C lly Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of r the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa W W W y �W W u w 03-27-2002 00:08aa Fr®-IaND T-IOd P.006/GOB F-BB7 r RESOLUTION NO.2002 - r RESOLUTION OF THE IRVINE CITY COUNCIL AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER INTO THE OCEAN BY THE .. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT .. WHEREAS,the intent of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act ism "restore and maintain the chemical,physical and biological integrity of the nations waters';and r, WHEREAS,the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)is a special district that - provides wastewater collection,tternment,and disposal services to 21 cities with about 2-35 million residents in central, and northern Orange County including the residents and businesses r in Irvine;and WHEREAS,the OCSD has been operating under a waiver,known as a 301 (h)waiver,of ,r the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act(CWA)since 1955,which allows for the release of ocean discharge that contains higher levels of Total Suspended Solids(TSS)and greater Biological Oxygen Demand(BOD)than otherwise allowed under the CWA;and WHEREAS,the OCSD,as the third largest wastewater agency west of the Mississippi, releases approximately 240 million gallons of wastewater into the ocean each day;and WHEREAS,OCSD is one of only 36 Sanitation Agencies nationwide operating under a 301 (h)waiver for secondary treatment;and WHEREAS,close to 90%of the wastewater comes from residential uses such as sinks, toilers,showers,laundry and dishwashers and 20%from business uses;and WHEREAS,Irvine residents and residents within the IRWD service area,aloog with residents throughout Orange County,use the ocean and its beaches for recreational purposes and recognize that taking steps to eliminate potential sources of contamination is an important public health and economic goal for the region; and WHEREAS,beach contamination can,and most probably does,result from a variety of sources,including but not limited to urban runoff, local sewer overflows,stomtflow,ocean wastewater discharges and natural animal sources; and r WHEREAS,efforts to determine the relationship between,and relative contribution of all sources of ocean contamination are complicated by variations in water tempemture,currents, tides, wave action,runoff amounts and numerous other factors;and WHEREAS,a county-wide strategy needs to be employed to address all sources of beach and ocean contamination through source control,management treatment and other means mailable; and r ATTACHMENT 1 r 08-27-2002 08:58am From-IBND + T-108 P.OW/OOB l-117 _ W WHEREAS,the health and economic benefits of addressing sources of beach V contamination justify public expenditures needed to provide requisite treatment;and WHEREAS,the OCSD is charged with protecting the health and safety of the public and marine life and has a proven history of employing the best methods of treatment and technology; and WHEREAS, by continuing to demonstrate leadership as a waste treatment agency committed to the preservation of our fragile ecosystems the OCSD advances the goal of encouraging other agencies and municipalities to act in a responsible manner to address the comprehensive challenges that our region faces in assuring our oceans remain clean,healthy and safe environments. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Irvine City Council and the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District that they hereby support OCSD and its Board of Directors in immediately proceeding with planning,design,and implementation of treatment options that would allow the agency to fully comply with the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, including a schedule for construction of facilities to provide full secondary treatment levels; and _ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the hvine City Council and the Board of Directors of w the Irvine Ranch Water District that they hereby support OCSD efforts to Take early actions to disinfect wastewater flows discharged to the ocean outfall until further treatment projects can be fully implemented;and �+ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,by the Irvine City Council and the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District that in conjunction with the above actions,OCSD shall prepare v and adopt a plan of works for facilities to provide full secondary treatment levels,and submit necessary documentation to EPA to eliminate the need for a waiver of full secondary discharge requirements under Section 301(h)of the Federal Clean Water Act. W SIGNED and APPROVED this 12th day of March,2002. W MAYOR OF THE CITY OF IRVINE ATTEST: �+ CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE . STATE OF CALIFORNIA) r COUNTY OF ORANGE) SS CITY OF IRVINE) W i M-21-2002 00:50am Fro IRWD + T-IU P.005N08 F-107 1,Jeri Stately,City Clerk of the City of Irvine,HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing r Rcmluti was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Irvine held on the 1?day of February 2002,by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: r NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: r ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: r CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF IRVINE r r Presideay IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT and of the Board of Directors thereof b+ Secretary,iRvm RANCH WATER DISTRICT and of the Board of Dnwtws dx=f r r r r r 11/19/2001 12:13 714/54bU28 COSTAMESAPUBSERSAx'PA PAGE 13 RESOLUTION NO.2001- 69 A RESOLUTION OF'I NE CITY COUNCIL OF THE l.d CITY OF HUNT INGTON BEACH RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTE WATER-INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN �! WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach is a member agency of the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD); and y OCSD is a special district that provides wastewater collection, treatment,and disposal v services to 21 cities with about 2.35 million residents in central and northern Orange County, including the residents and businesses ofHunlino on Beach; and OCSD uses a 10' diameter Ocean Outfall to discharge approximately 236 million gallon per day of wastewater from OCSD's 2.35 million customers; and _. 50%of the wastewater discharged out the Ocean Outfall is wastewater treated to a primary W treatment level and 50%is wastewater treated to a secondary treatment level; and _ The Ocean Outrell that sits 190' below the ocean surface about 4.5 miles olTshorc from the W Santa Ana River mouth between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach;and This discharge creates a wastewater plume in tha ocean,that can be np to 6 miles long.2 to 3 - miles wide and 100 feet thick; and OCSD's 20-Meter Fecal Colifonn Study in 1996 showed that the wastewaterplume may- under certain wave,tidal, and current conditions-approach 44e shoreline where it can contaminate the beaches and swimming areas of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach;and - - The 1972 Federal Clean Water Act requites most Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs)to treat all waastcwater to full second--y levels before such wastewater can be discharged from a treatment facility, and W The Act authonzes POT Ws to request a waiver of this full secondary requirement from the US Emironmental Protection Agency(US EPA)under Section 301(h)of the Act as long as We FOTW can show that the less-than-full-secondary discharge does not harm the environment orhar ai public health; and OCSD requested and was panted a waiver under Section 301(h)by US EPA in 1985,with !�! an extension granted in 1998; and ' The current waiver(as extended)expires on January 1, 2003; and As projected by a 1999 Environmental Impact Report associated with OCSD's Strategic Plan,full secondary treatment of wastewatcr reduces ocarly all parameters of ocean pollution including levels of fecal coliform bacterial and virusca, and I Fpa2ee1anuta lxsshvgcaZ Wmtw�,m loOmn y ah5 ZOel46ra WWI w) tYlr 11/19/2001 12:13 7147545028 COSTAMESAPUBSERSAMPA PAGE 14 r Sanitation agencies in Los Angc!cs County have not applied for new waivers under Section `- 301(h) and are in the process Oftreatingcca 313 -wastewater at full secondary!evels; and _ All or a significant poison of the additional expense of constructing and maintaining ` facilities associated with frill secondary t munent at OCSD will likely he bone by the ratepayers of OCSD,including the residents and businesses of Hunting on Beach; and Huntington Beach relies upon a sa.:,clean ocean to sustain its quality of life and its econorn is and tourism base;and The residents of Huntington BeacS use the ocean and its beaches for health,recreation,and business endeavors,including flatting,boating,and swimming, r Now,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: +y 1. That it hereby opposes any extension of or application far a waiver of full seeonda.�- discharge requirements under Section 301(h)of the federal Clean Water Act by OCSD;and 2. That it hereby supports the f::!!secondary treatment of all wastewater discharged into OCSD's Ocean Outfall. or some other technologically feasible method to improve the quality of the r effluent and reduce the amount of bit solid seat out the owfall;and 3. That it hereby urges it rasidca and btsiness paculation to join with the Council in advocating for safe:, less envirortmertai'.y utpwiful wastewater discharge into the Pacific Ocea: and in recognizing and accepting the cart-=,u,Ey-wide obligation and financial costs that lie therein. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th dayof 5e2texber ,2001. ATTEST: L a- 4 - - CityClerk et- 4` 1 Ir Mayor r REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: /oJ Ciry Adafmistrator ,k`-Ciry Atromey f,.� 2 � Pod300[Roolu:piachargcarwasvaardocon P61001 ea)8 O1N01 r 11/19/2001 12:13 7147545028 COSTAMESAPUBSERSAMPA PAGE 15 _ W Res. No. 2001-69 W STATE OF CAUFORNIA - ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) W 1, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of W the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-offido Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven-, that the foregoing resolution was W passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Coundl at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day,of September, 2001 by the following vote: - W w AYES: Green, Boardman, Cook, Julien Hcuehen, Garofalo, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None W City Clerk and ex-officio C ark of the u City Coundl of the City of Huntington Beach, California TM)W.Wpy,e a7eeWnaln i a owrect .w dtta aAOtnel m Ile In 06of' AS-d Ism y 20 e1 4+ 0 ! yW^�8eeeh Ccound oon*L _Deputy TOTAL F.e7/'�a" W r r Resolution 2001-83 r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION BY THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT FOR A SECTION 301(H)WAIVER FROM r THE FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT WHEREAS,the City of Newport Beach is a member agency of the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD);and WHEREAS,OCSD is a special district that provides wastewater collection,treatment,and r disposal services to 21 cities,three special districts and unincorporated Orange County with about 2.2 million residents in central and northern Orange County,including the residents and businesses of Newport Beach;and WHEREAS,OCSD uses a 10' diameter Ocean Outfall to discharge approximately 240 million gallons per day of wastewater from OCSD's 2.2 million customers;and r WHEREAS,50% of the wastewater discharged out the Ocean Outfall is wastewater treated to an advanced primary treatment level and 50%is wastewater treated to a secondary treatment level;and r WHEREAS,the Ocean Outfall that sits 200'below the ocean surface about45 miles offshore from the Santa Ana River mouth between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach;and WHEREAS,this discharge creates a treated wastewater plume in the ocean that can be up to 6 miles long,2 to 3 miles wide and 100 feet thick and r WHEREAS,OCSD's 20-Meter Fecal Coliforra Study in 1996 showed that the wastewater plume may-under certain wave,tidal,and current conditions-approach the shoreline where it can contaminate the beaches and swimming areas of Newport Beach and Huntington Beach,- and WHEREAS, data from testing station C2-between Vi and 1/2 of a mile off of the ocean - beaches of Newport Beach-may show that the wastewater plume approaches swimming areas used by thousands of visitors daily;and WHEREAS, the 1972 federal Clean Water Act requires most Publicly-Owned Treatment r Works (POTWs) to treat all wastewater to full secondary levels before such wastewater can be discharged from a treatment facility; and r WHEREAS, the Act was amended in 1977 to authorize POTWs to request a waiver of this full secondary requirement from the US Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA) under Section 301(h)of the Act as long as the POTW can show that the less-then-full-secondary r discharge does not harm the environment or harm public health,and r u W WHEREAS,OCSD requested and was granted a waiver under Section 301(h)by US EPA in 1995,with an extension granted in 1998pursuant to the treatment and monitoring requirements; -and WHEREAS,the current waiver(as extended)expires June 2003;and - - WHEREAS,as projected by a 1999 Environmental Impact Report associated with OCSD's W Strategic Plan,full secondary treatment of wastewater further reduces but does not eliminate levels of fecal coliform bacteria and viruses,and W WHEREAS,sanitation agencies in Los Angeles County have not applied for new waiver under Section 301(h)and are in the process of treating all wastewater at full secondary levels; and W WHEREAS,all or a significant portion of the additional expense of constructing and maintaining facilities associated with full secondary treatment at OCSD will likely be borne by u the ratepayers of OCSD,imbiding the residents and businesses of Newport Beach;and WHEREAS,Newport Beach relies upon a safe,dean ocean to sustain its quality of life and its economic and tourism base;and 'u WHEREAS,the residents of Newport Beach use the ocean and its beaches for health, recreation,and business endeavors,including fishing,boating,and swimming;now,therefore W be it RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby opposes any extension of or application for a waiver of full secondary discharge requirements under Section 301(h)of the federal Clean Water Act by OCSD;and be it also RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby supports the full secondary treatinent of all wastewater discharged into OCSD's Ocean Outiall;and be it also RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Newport Beach that it hereby urges its W resident and business population to join with the Council in advocating for safer,less environmentally impactful wastewater discharge into the Pacific Ocean and in recognizing and - accepting the community-wide obligation and financial costs that lie therein. u ADOPTED this 25�Day of September,2001. - u d.nR GAROLD B.ADAMS W Mayor of Newport Beach ATTEST: 7/7rl ,7� V (/YI UA)VnC d_N 2 Po� LAVONNE HARKLESS Newport Beach City Clerk �D aw r 4ueoa� W W u U STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE y as. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH y I, LAVONNE M. HARKLESS, City Clerk of the City of Newport Beach, California,do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council is seven; that the foregoing - resolution, being Resolution No. 2001-63 was duly and regularly introduced before and adopted by the City Council of said City at a regular meeting of said Council, duly and regularly held on the - 26th day of September, 2001, and that the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote,to wit: Ayes: Heffernan, O'Neil,Ridgeway,Glover,Bromberg,Proctor,Mayor Adams a Noes: None Absent: None r Abstain: None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the official seal of said City this 26th day of September, 2001. City Clerk Newport Beach, California (Seal) d �NCOPN� - - - - r IMF: August 29, 2001 Mr. Blake Anderson, General Manager Orange County Sanitation District P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Dear Mr. Anderson, Forwarded for your information is a certified copy of Resolution Number 4926 entitled "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY _ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. " As you are aware, the Seal Beach City Council adopted Resolution Number 4926 at their regular meeting of August 27", 2001 . jVer truly yours, i nne4M YeO ty Clerk City of Seal Beach Encl. Co.- Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco r r RESOLUTION NUMBER J-Laf4i r A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH RELATING TO THE DISCHARGE OF WASTEWATER INTO THE PACIFIC OCEAN WHEREAS, the City of Seal Bach is a member agency of the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD):and r WHEREAS, OCSD is a special district that provides wastewater collection,treatment,and disposal services to 21 cities with about 2.35 million residents in central and northern Orange County,including the residents and businesses of Seal Beach; and WHEREAS, OCSD uses a 10'diameter Ocean Outfall to discharge approximately 236 million gallons per day of wastewater from OCSD's 2.35 million customers;and WHEREAS, 50%of the wastewater discharged out the Ocean Outfall is wastewater treated to a primary treatment level and 50%is wastewater treated to a secondary treatment level;and aw WHEREAS, the 1972 federal Clean Water Act requires most Publicly-Owned Treatment Works(POTWs)to[mat all wastewater to full secondary levels before such wastewater can be discharged from a treatment facility;and WHEREAS, the Act authorize POTWs to request a waiver of this full secondary requirement from the US Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA)under Section 301(h)of the Act as long in the POTW can show that the lea-then-full-secondary discharge r don not harm the environment or hams public health;and WHEREAS, the current waiver in extended)expires on January 1,2003;and WHEREAS, Sul Beach relies upon a safe,clean ocean to sustain its quality of life and its economic and tourism base;and WHEREAS, the residents of Scal Beech use the ocean and its beeches for health,recreation, r and business endeavors,including fishing,boating,and NOW,THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Seal Beach DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: r I. That jphereby opposes the extension of a waiver of full secondary discharge requirements under Section 30I(h)of the Federal Clean Water Act by OCSD. r 2. That it hereby urges its resident and business population to join with the Council in advocating for safer,less environmentally impaclfal wastewater discharge into the Pacific Ocean and in recognizing and accepting the community-wide r obligation and financial costs that lie therein. PAS r ,APPR D AN ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Sul Beach on day of k2by ollowing votAYES: Co cilmembeNOES: Councilmembe ABSENT: Councilmembe �iMayor fM1a��'r r u Li ATTEST: u v J a x M. Yeo,City Clerk V STATE OF CALIFORNIA) W COUNTY OF ORANGE )as CITY OF SEAL BEACH ) I,Joanne M. Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California,do hereby certify that the foregoing u resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number on file in the office of the City Clerk,passed, approved, and ad-opted by the C/',Y*Co 'I ff the City of Seal Beach, at a regular W meeting thereof held on the day of� , 2001. V i Clerk ►.i y 6j u W Lt W W 11/19/Ltltll 1L:13 /14/h9htlLe W51uMt5uYl1e5tK5uxYH Yuan. tltl OCSO's ultimate decision regarding whether to apply for a renewed permit with a Section 301(h) waiver will directly impact the City of Costa Mesa and its residents and businesses. The decision raises the following questions: • Will full secondary treatment of the Outfall discharge lead to water quality improvements at the surf zone? What other water quality impairments - urban runoff, vessel waste, or bird waste- might be as or more determinant of ocean water quality than discharges out the Outfall? • What "message" should the City send to OCSD regarding this issue - is the "go to full secondary" message the only one that appropriately reflects the City's concern for ocean water quality? • What about treatment processes involving less than full secondary treatment-are these ,•• more cost-effective and beneficial than full secondary? • Given that full secondary doesn't kill all viruses nor eliminate all bacteria, Is full secondary good enough?Assuming our goal is the cleanest ocean water possible, is full secondary+ UV disinfection more appropriate? • How will residents and businesses in Costa Mesa react to sewer rate increases should OCSD's treatment process be expanded? Several coastal cities, including Huntington Beach, Seal Beach, and Newport Beach have taken a formal position in opposition to OCSD's request for a renewed five-year Permit reflecting a waiver of secondary treatment requirements for the Ocean Outfall under Section 301(h), and have adopted resolutions to this regard. These resolutions are included in this report as Attachment 2. CONCLUSION: Receive and fit this r ort for discussion and consideration off the attached resolution. ERNESTO MtKgV WILLIAM J. MC611RIS Assistant CitollEngine,ar Director of Public Services Attachment: 1-Resolution for the City of Costa Mesa 2-Resolutions for the Cities of Newport Beach, Seal Beech, and Huntington Beach Distribution: City Manager Deputy City Clerk Staff d 7 Attachment 7 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SURVEY JUNE 2001 PREPARED FOR BLAKE ANDERSON, GENERALMANAGER SUBMITTED BY: ROBOLSKY &. A S S O C I A T E S �:, OPINION RESEARCH &SfRATEGICCOMMUNICATIONS W W TABLE OF CONTENTS W ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY JUNE 2001 r W I. METHODOLOGY PAGE 1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PAGE 2 III. RESULTS PAGE 4 v IV. SURVEY SCRIPT PAGE 14 v APPENDIX: GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION W THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE RATING THE ORANGE COUNTY BEACHES BEACHES SAFE? w IS ENOUGH BEING DONE FOR OUR WATER? WHAT IMPACTS BEACH WATERS THE MOST? W PAYING FOR URBAN RUNOFF W u w W W r I. METHODOLOGY r Probolsky&Associates,on behalf of the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD), conducted a public opinion study of the cities and unincorporated areas within the r boundaries of service of the OCSD. The universe of respondents was drawn from a population of voters in the OCSD service r area. Interviews were conducted via telephone during the evening hours and weekends between June 19, 2001 and June 29,2001. Our directive was to gauge voter opinion on issues relating to the OCSD. A total of 1500 OCSD service area voters were surveyed. A survey of this size yields a margin of error of+/-2.6%. This group of voters is representative of the voting population of the service area as a whole. Appropriate ratios were obtained such as for gender, age group,party registration,and geographic location within the OCSD service area. Here follows an analysis of the data collected during this survey research study. r r r r r Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates r June 2001 Page 1 of 20 W W II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY W W Overall public safety issues rank the highest according to the voters served by the OCSD. Education and schools are a close second. While district-wide environmental issues u register with below 5%,there is a clear indication that voters in beach communities show greater concern over the environment and pollution than their neighbors. W !range County beaches get high marks with well over 50% giving positive ratings. Voters in the beach cities give an additional 10% boost to the excellent/goad rating over their non-coastal neighbors. Voters in Huntington Beach,Newport Beach and Seal Beach give an overall positive rating of 67.1%,while the rest of the district's voters give the beaches 57.9% positives. W The number one reason given for rating the beaches fair or poor is water quality and pollution. W Beachgoers choose the beach they choose based overwhelmingly on its location. Some beachgoers say they avoid specific beaches. The number one reason they do so is water quality and pollution. This is amplified in beach communities with over 12%more likely to avoid a specific beach for this reason. Overcrowding is also a significant factor in why beachgoers choose to avoid specific beaches. Across the board,over 68%of respondents feel it is safe to go in the ocean. Beach community respondents are more likely to say they feel it is safe to go in the ocean. The vast majority of those who feel it is unsafe to go in the water cite water quality and pollution as their reason. Beach community respondents cite water quality and pollution as their reason over 10%more than others. More sewage overflows and spills are the cause of recent beach closures and postings W according over 42% of district voters. Over 22%, site urban runoff as the culprit and just over 10% attribute the problem to treated sewage discharge. W District respondents say that businesses especially, but also residents and government agencies share the majority of the blame for ocean pollution off the Orange County coast. " Those surveyed were given a explanation of urban runoff and asked what they thought happened to the urban runoff. Over 70%believe that it drains to the ocean without any treatment. Orange County Sanitation District Survey Resutrs u Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 2 of 20 W H When asked to choose between three statements about the subject of urban runoff, over 55% said they would be willing to pay to change things. Beach city voters say they are 5%more likely to pay to stop the untreated urban runoff than non-beach city voters. r According to district voters,residents are the biggest cause of urban runoff. However, they say that businesses and government agencies share the blame,too. After hearing an explanation of current sewage treatment measures, over 60%feel that more needs to be done. r After hearing about urban runoff and sewage treatment, respondents were asked if they felt safe from a health perspective to swim in the ocean,43% of respondents said yes and 45% said no. 10% were unsure. We asked respondents if they believe urban runoff or treated sewage had more impact on beach closures. Of those choosing one or the other,they said two-to-one that urban runoff had a greater impact. However,nearly 64% said it was a combination of both. A majority of the voters said they would be willing to pay some extra amount of money every year to treat sewage more thoroughly. The district enjoys the confidence of a majority of the voters on the accuracy and honesty of the district's reporting results. Treating urban runoff at a price of$20 a year is agreeable to nearly 75% of the voters. Beach city voters are slightly more likely to agree to pay than those living on non-beach cities. District-wide,just over 50%of voters would not be willing to pay$75 annually to treat sewage more thoroughly. However, beach city voters are over 10% more likely to be willing to pay than non-beach city voters. Lowering the proposed cost to$50 annually attracts an additional 12% of supporting for advanced measures in sewage treatment. r .. Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 3 of 20 r W W III. RESULTS W Seal/Huntington/Newport Beach vs. Other Areas 1 THINKING ABOUT YOUR COMMUNRY,PLEASE TELL ME,WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE TODAY?'CRY Crosstebulatlon y %within CITY Cm S Munbngbn y Ma n8e Olney TOW 1 THINKING El T.mwn 6.1% 6.8% 5.8% ABDUr YOUR E„e,sy Cnsm 7.8% 9.9% 9.8% PLEASE TELL EEu®tloN3NOob 1).)% W.4% Mm y ME.WHAT IS POMIOSelety 9.5% 11.4% 11.1% THE MOST Clim W 1GengslDmo ).6% 11.0% 10.5% IMPORTANT T.ffk 6.1% 3.9% CM y ISSUE O 'Gm 4.3% 3.8% &M TODAY? E. y 1.)% 2.9% 2.M T. 23 20% 2.1% y F mme Pollution I5% 3.8% 4.)% Panto m Wn 1.T% .m 1.1% INasaudum(R &. 5.6% BUAmngs•ek.) y Housing 1.]% 1.3% 1.3% MomlvRa6gb^ 2.8% 1.8% 1.9% Oat, Bz% 8.8% 8.T% y D 1 K 6.6% 8.2% 7.9% ReatewNmn .9% 1.2% 1 1.1% Toml 109.8% 100.0% 1 100.0% y 2 THINKING ABOUT ORANGE COUNTY BEACHES,PLEASE TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD RATE THEM OVERALL?'CRY CrossWbulallon W %within CITY CITY Seelmunengtm w Me nBead, Olhe, TOW 2 THINKING AB lent 181% 9.8% 11.1% ORANGE COUNTY Goof 48S% 46.1% 482% BEACHES,PLEASE Fatr 19a% 25A% 24A% y TELL ME HOW YOU WOULD RATE THEM Poor 119 8.4% 8.9% OVERALL? Unsure 1.7% 7.2% 6.3% RemseO .9% .6% .7% y TOmI 100.0% 100.0% IW.0% y Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results W Conducted by Probolsky& Associates June 2001 Page 4 of 20 y S CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU FEEL THE BEACHES ARE FAIR/ OOR'CITY Cfosstabulallon %within CrTY Cm '0 SeaV Mngton M OBe C0W TOW 3 CAN YOU I ater Oua4y M n mm 524% 54.9% PLEASE TELL PeOPIeATrem�owtlin9 S.?% 5.T16 ME WHY YOU L cxvA ibilfty ],1% 2.1% 28% FEELTHE BEACHES ME 1 e 0 Cleanitr 12A% 25.?% 24.M _ FAIRIPOOR A mil� 1.4% SA% 2.816 OMer 7.1% B.T% 8.6% Do01 Nn0raRaluse4 1.4% 1.4% IA% Total 1WA% 100A% 100.0% 4 HOW OFTEN DO YOU GO TO THE BEACH IN ORANGE COUNTY? CRY Crosstabulaeon r %within CITY Cm Se .nlin,Wn _ M Beets I OMm TOtal 4 HOW O..We 0' ore 455%j 16.4% 20.1% OFTEN DO Leeethan Onoea We W YOU GO TO pie a Mew 203% 25.1% 24.4% THE BEACH Less Than Once a Monts IN ORMGE to Once Every SIO Moral + 1I'M 21.4% 19.9% COUNTY? Lass Vlan Onw Ewry Su 6.9% 16.4% 14.M � MwaHs b Once a Yeer AWml Never 7.8% 10.4% 10.0% Never 7.4% 11.0% 10A% Unm .4% ROMseB .1% .1% Total 100.OYeI 1W.0% 100.0% 5 WHEN YOU GO TO THE BEACH,DO YOU EVER GO IN THE WATER?'CRY Crosstabulation %within CITY Cm sesNlunSiglm M 0H Be9tlI ONer Tdal d. 5 WHEN YOU GO TO H m 559% 55.1% 5?.8% BEACH,DO YOU EVER N0 ".1% 41A% 41.9% GO IN THE WATER? Rel .4% .4% Total 100A% 100.0% 100.0% r Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 5 of 20 6 WHAT BEACH DO YOU GO TO THE MOST?•CT'Crosslabulatlon W %within CITY CrrY SeaHlun9nglon yl Me Bsdl OMar Total 6 WHAT Seal Beach 9.4% 5.9% 6.4% BEACH DO Newport Beall 15.0% 31.1% 26.6% YOUGOTO Hu figlon Beaty SSA% 352% 36.5% W THE MOM Sunaet Bmdl 2.3% IA% 1.6% ONer 17.4% 24.6% 23.7% Unwna 1.3% 1.1% W Reluwd .2% .1% Tole) 100.0% loam W 7 WHY DO YOU CHOOSE THAT BEACH OVER OTHER BEACHES?•CRY Crmstabul"on %within CITY W cm S"Mun6ngmn INWpon Bead) O r Total W 7WHYDO water OLMMY 1.M 32 2.9% YOU CHOOSE Peeple 1.9% am a.^ THAT BEACH Laslbn 0.5% 413 % 49A% OVEROTHER BEACHES? Ao.."MMy ISAI6 16.4% 165% W Beads Clew 3.3% 5.6% 5.4% Ava eAdWieee 2.e% 6.7% 7.6% outer 4.7% ll^ lam W U. 12% I.0% rl N A .1% Tool loam 100.o% 100A% W 6 ARE THERE ANY BEACHES THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY AVOID?•CRY Crosstebulallon W within CITY CITY Saamunengettl Beech Otlwr Trial v 9 ARE THERE Mym W0 2am 27.6% BEACHES THAT No 79.6% W.9% 70.6% YOU SPECIFICALLY Unewa 2.0% 1.6% Ir AVOID? flalued 1% .1% Told loam 10am lW.m W YrI W Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results W Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 6 of 20 W e_1 CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH BEACHES YOU AVOID?•CRY r Crosstabulatien %within CITY Cm . SmMlunnngtm M fiBmch I OtMr Tool 9_1 CAN YOU Hunfinpn Bn& 46.6% 1 47.1% 47.M PLEASE TELL Miss- h 4.T% SA% 7.6% ME WHICH Sunml Burch .etc .5% BEACHES YOU AVOID' Newport Bea h 14A% 13.6% 13.8% ONer 92.6% 27.6% 26.4% U.. 24% 2.M Relueed 2.3% .3% .5% Told 19D.9% 189.9%1 1Km r e_2 CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH BEACHES YOU AVOID?•CrrY Cross bulation %within CITY Sm Mrl rteB mon mM 061ar total 9_2 CAN You unniglonSe80 924% Ze.T% PLEASETELLME Salemtll 25.9% W.9% W.m WHICH BEACHES Suneet Beecn 12S% 2.2% •+ YOU AVOIDS Newport Beech 97S% 21.8% 24.4% Olner 25A% I&M m0 Tohl 10g.0°6 1W.9% Im.m 9_3 CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH BEACHES YOU AVOID?•CITY Cro bulMion %within CITY CITY SmlMunlington ^° Me neeeai Other TM I e_ M.3% 9.1% TELL ME WHICH 5wmet a&'% is" MM BEACHESYOU AVOID? Newport Beef ISM 9.1% OMer Izm 9.1% TMI tm.e% Im.9% Iw.MA m 94 CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHICH BEACHES YOU AVOID?•CITY Cron bulagon %within CITY � DIrY Sm9Hon6ngton Me n Beadl Other Total 94 CAN YOUPLEASE en9nglan Beach 33.3% 14.3% TELL ME WHICH BEACHES YOU AVOID' NOn�a� 6&T% 195D% 85.T% Total mm 1w.m Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 7 of 20 W 10 CAN YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHY YOU AVOID THOSE BEACHES?•CfrY Crossbbulation W %within GITY Cm SaeOHumnglwt I.l M n aeaol ONer Towl 10 CAN YOU Waler QualftyfflvVb 524% 4 m 0.5$96 PLEASETELL PsoPlelOvercmrdn9 I 26.2% 2a4% 21.1% ME WHY YOU Local 22% 1 m �+ AVOID THOSE BEACHES? A OWantln9 IL4% a.6% 6.1% Beach cNaon 9.V4 132 129% Dear 9.5% 123% 11.9% Reiusea TOW Imm 100.0% tOD.O% W 11 IN GENERAL,DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT IS SAFE TO GO IN THE OCEAN? CITY Craaalabulabon %within CITY V' cm Sea9Hunanow n Beatll OtM1 , TOW V I I IN GENERAI, es 70.6% 67.6% ".1% YOUFEELUI<EIT No 21.6% 24.9% 23.9% ISSAFETOGOIN Unw. T.a% Te% T.m THE OCEAN? RelvseE ,2% R - Tow 100.0% 100.m 100.m 12 WHAT IS THE REASON YOU DON'T FEEL SAFE GOING IN THE OCEAN?•Cm I"1 Crosswbuwllon %within cm W CITY sow m.qw Reed, 01 Talal 12 WHAT IS TH ate'a ue y uaon w.m 74.4% lam y+ REASON YOU lack Ol DONT FEEL UfsgwrtlslBeam Salary 4b 3A% SAFE GOING IN Omen Wi196e 4A% 6b 6.1% THE OCEAN? V Beam Clea'Jlness 2.0% 5.9% 5.3% 0a1er 6.m 6.1% a.l% Gant lOvx .6% b94 Total 100.0% 100A 100.0% W 6d Lr Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates �I June 2001 Page 6 of 20 W 131N 1999 AND 2000,THERE WERE A LARGER NUMBER OF ORANGE COUNTY BEACH POSTINGS,WHICH ARE WATER QUALITY WARNINGS,AND BEACH CLOSURES DUE TO HIGHER BACTERIA LEVELS THAN IN �.. PRIOR YEARS,PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK IS THE MAIN REASON FOR THE INCREASE?•CITY Crosstobulation %within CITY CITY M n Bead) OMsr T0W 131 H Ore ga WERE A URGER NUMBER OF and Spl4 43.3% 420% 422% ORANGE COUNTY BEACH UrbanR -OK 21.9% 22.4% 223% POSTINGS,WHICH ARE Cnarl State Re9Neti0ns 52% 2.1% 2.9% WATER OUAIM WARNINGS, AND BEACH CLOSURES DUE Recreatiowl vM TO HIGHER BACTERIA COmre0Ida1 Bosom .B% LEVELS THAN IN PRIOR Swimmm and BeeN Goes 1.TA 2.3% 2.2% YEARS,PLEASE TELL ME Treated Sswege D4du l0A% IOb% 10.4% MAT YOU THINK IS THE Owen end Coastal YAW* 1.?% 1.?% t.T% WIN REASON FOR THE Other 9,9% INCREASED B.)% B.3% Um. S.1% B.0% Relueed .9% .4% .5% TOtal 100.0% loom 100.0% 14 PLEASE TELL ME WHO YOU THINK IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR POLLUTION IN THE OCEAN OFF ORANGE COUNTY? DO YOU THINK MIS THE•CITY Crosstabalati0n %within CITY CITY SoalMunftton Me n Beadt Otner TO I .� PLEASE14 M n. am 29.4% 2a.9% WHO YOU THINK IS ReeMen4 17.?% 20.?% 20.3% MOST RESPONSIBLE Owen and Coedel WiKse FORPOLLUTIONINTHE SNpe&Sea 26% 25% 2S% OCEAN OFF ORANGE COUNTY? DO YOU SwIlmmela aml Beech Goers 4.3% 35 3.T% THINK IT IS THE 69YBII911NM A9N,tlee 25.5% 21.4% mm 01Mr 11.PA 119 11.4% s Umee 9.1% BD% 9.0% RehAwl IAd6 .m T.01 100.0% I 100.0% I IW.0% 15 PLEASE TELL ME WHAT YOU TMMK HAPPENS TO THIS URBAN RUNOFF AS OF TODAY? CITY Croastabulatfon %within CITY CITY ScalMuntingim _ Mew n Bea& 170� J17.m 15 rains to Ocean iOmt any ME WHIT YOU TmaI.W SamTHINK HAPPENS ReceNes Tjw"mt Belare10.5%TO THIS URBAN Being Released W the OceanRUNOFF AS OF Unsure 121%TODAY? RefusedTotel Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 9 of 20 r PLEASE TELL ME WHICH STATEMENT YOU AGREE WITH MOST CRY Crosslabulation W .. %within CITY CITY Se ungngbn Meweon Bench Other Thal PLEASE TELL E Irn.mingtommstop WHICH STATEMENT urban mno6 into Eta Ocean 60.6% SSM 56.8% YOU AGREE WITH Iamneenitingtom MOST mare,b change ry 2S1% 31.4% 30.4% W UnlmaMo ubn null realty Maanl evmm�me 3.5% Unwm 9.1% RetuuN 1.T% TOW 100.0% 100A96 tOD.O% lr 17 PLEASE TELL ME WHO YOU THINK IS RESPONSIBLE FOR URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION? CRY Crasatabolation %within CITY 64 clry seaurammglon m nBea Otler Tdel V 17VLE4SE TELL ME Busn. 14.3% lfi]% 18.3% WHO YOU THINK IS Residents 32.9% 36.4% 35.9% RESPONSIBLE FOR Ocean anc coastal"lade 1.3le S% .6% URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION? Government egencles 16.5% 13.6% 14.1% Agol Neabwa 25.6% 26S% 26.1% OIAe, 4.C% 28% 3.1% Uneum 4.61% 3A% 3.T W Reluseo .-3%1 3% T0131 loom 100.0% I 11K1.0% W 18 FROM WHAT YOU JUST HEARD,PLEASE TELL ME WHETHER ENOUGH IS BEING DONE TO TREAT OUR SEWAGE OR IF YOU THINK SOMETHING MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE R IS RELEASED INTO THE OCEAN'CRY Crosslabulation V %within CITY Cm Seat unfnglcn eeacb me, Trial V 18 FROM WHAT YOU JUST Oomg Lineup HEARD,PLEASE TELL ME 2fi8% 25.9% 26.1% WHETHER ENOUGH IS BEING More NOaee to bo Dona DONETOTREATOUR 58.4% 6L6% 61.9% L SEWAGE OR IF YOU THINK Uesum 14.3% 10.8% 11.3% SOMETHING MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE IT IS Reluaecl RELEASED INTO THE OCEAN .4% .?% .7% 1-1 Total 100.0% 1W.OYe 1W.0% y W Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates Lj June 2001 Page 10 of 20 W 19 KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW ABOUT URBAN RUNOFF AND SEWAGE TREATMENT,PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU WOULD FEEL R IS SAFE,FROM A HEALTH PERSPECTIVE TO SWIM IN THE OCEAN•CITY Clossl6bulaaon %within CITY Cm SealmaMNRon IN n Bran Other Total 19 KNOWING WHAT YOU sale 43.3% 42.9% 43.0% KNOW NOW ABOUT URBAN RUNOFF AND SEWAGE Ueeale 43.?% 46.9% 45.6% TREATMENT,PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU WOULD Urure 12.6% 10.5% 10.8% FEEL IT IS WE.FROM A °1I HEALTH PERSPECTIVE TO Relusetl SWIM IN THE OCEAN .4% .T% Tale) INN% I 100.0% 100.0% r 20 KNOWING WHAT YOU KNOW NOW ABOUT URBAN RUNOFF AND SEWAGE TREATMENT, WHICH DO YOU THINK HAS THE GREATEST IMPACT ON BEACH POSTINGS AND CLOSURES? r CrrY Creeatabulatlen %within CITY Cm SesHWnrrt9bn M Brch I Other TOM? 20 MID ING WKAT YOU Urban Runoff 18.8% 225% 21.8% KNOW NOW ABOUT URBAN T.W Sewage RUNOFF AND SEWAGE 121% 8.8% e.l% TREATMENT.WHICH DO YOU COntbawn M Both SUM ".1% 63.9% THINK HAS THE GREATEST U.. IMPACT ON BEACH 5.2% - 4.2% 4.9% POSTINGS AND CLOSURES? R.eluse0 1.3% .m .8% Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 21 PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY SOME EXTRA AMOUNT OF MONEY EVERY YEAR TO TREAT SEWAGE MORE THOROUGHLY?•CRY Crasetebulatlon r %within CITY cm seamun8n91an /N Brdt Other Total 21 PUEASETEUL ME IF YOUr 81.5% 58.9% 59.3% WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY SOME EXTRA AMOUNT OF No 26.6% 31.8% 31.1% _ MONEY EVERY YEAR TO Unwm Is5% 8.8% 9.1% TREAT SEWAGE MORE THOROUGHLY? Retuaee .9% .5% .6% Total 100.0% 1W.0% 100.0% Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 11 of 20 V u 22 HOW MUCH CONHOENCE DO YOU HAVE IN THE ACCURACY AND HONESTY OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT'S REPORTING?'CITY CrowUbutatlon W %within CITY Cm SealMur ngtan lnl M BeaNl ghat To l M HOW MUCH CONHUENCEVal 126% t6b% 15.1% DOYOLI UV INTHE Somewhat Om166eM 35.9% 00.3% 39.5% ACCURACY AND HONESTY Somewhat NN o0rd0a14 26A% ZLM 24P v OF THE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATIONDISTRICTS NW 00~ 19b% 15.1% 15.?% REPORTING? � Rohue6 2% .1% IW Tote) 100A% 100.0% 100.9% 23 WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY 20 DOLLARS A YEAR MORE PER HOUSEHOLD v TO TREAT URBAN RUNOFF,IF ITMEANT CLEANER OCEAN WATER AT THE BEACH?' CITY Crosslabulatlon %within CITY CITY SeaYHUN qm M neeaa OW , Talai 23 WOULD YOUF " 73.4% 742% 74.6% TO PAY 20 DOLLARS A YEAR MORE PER HOUSEHOLD TO No 16A% 219% 21.0% TREAT URBAN RUNOFF,IF N U.. 4.3% 3b% 3.T% .� MEANT CLEANER OCEAN WATERATTHEeEACH? Rehtea0 .9% .4% 5% T.WI 100.9% 100.0% 10D.0% W 24 WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY?5 DOLLARS A YEAR MORE PER HOUSEHOLD TO TREAT SEWAGE MORE THOROUGHLY,IF IT MEANT CLEANER OCEAN WATER AT THE BEACH?•CT'Crosstabulation u %Within CITY CITY Se Ue ln9lon rr M n Beetle Other Tolel 24 Y. 515% 39b% 41.6% TO PAY 75 DOLLARS A YEAR MORE PER HOUSEHOLD TO No 40.3% 51.9% 5a.1% TREAT SEWAGE MORE THOROUGHLY,IFIl MEANT U.. 6.5% an 7.8% CLEANER OCEAN WATER AT THE BEACH? Remo 1.7% .3% .6% v TCIBI 100.0% 100.09E 100A% ur W Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Plobolsky&Associates u' June 2001 Page 12 of 20 2S WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY SO DOLLARS YEAR MORE PER HOUSEHOLD TO TREAT SEWAGE MORE THOROUGHLY,IF IT MEANT CLEANER OCEAN WATER AT THE BEACH?•CITY Crasatabulatim %within CITY m Crr Seanlunithgbn Beech Other TO l 25 WOULD YOU BE WILUNGYes M.1% 20.9% 212 r. TOPAY60DOLARSAYEAR MORE PER HOUSEHOLD TO NO 63.9% 67.6% 67ZA TREAT SEWAGE MORE THOROUGHLY.IF IT MEANT U^a1e 13.0% 113% 1t5% CLEANER OCEAN WATER AT THEBEACH2 Ref .1% TOW 10a.a% lm.0% I I00A% 26 THINNMG ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT,PLEASE TELL ME WHICH OF THE FOLLOWRiG STATEMENTS BEST DESCRIBES YOU CITY Cro.Izt,.MU.n %within CITY CRY S M.VO gm M A Beach Other TOb6 THINKING am an 25.1% 17.7% Hum ENVIRONMENT,PLEASE IrecydB anO6mY40er.thaYeq 662 n3 727% TELLMEWHICHOFTHE Ian?NM en ErrrimmmenMlW 69% 70% 70% FOLLOWING STATEMENTS BEST DESCRIBES YOU Reh�seO ,9% A% 5% TOW 10a.0% IW.0% Imm r 27 THINNING ABOUT LOCAL NEWS,PLEASE TELL ME WHAT SOURCE YOU RELY ON MOST TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IS GOING ON IN ORANGE COUNTY?•CITY CrosstabuleBOn %within CITY CITY SeaMmfingb M ABeaoh Weer TOW 27 THI ING ABOUT Los Angeles n 31.6% mm 24.0% LOCAL NEWS.PLEASE Orenge Cm ay Ragmen 372 Q3 42A% TELL ME WHAT SOURCE Ocalge Cant'News Channel 10.7% 16.3% 16.1% YOU RELY ON MOST TO s GET INFORMATION Rem 61% 9.296 62% ABOUT WHAT IS GOING Other 65% 7.7% 75%ON IN ORANGE COUNTY? U.. ToNI 100.VX tWm 100.0% Orange County Sanitation District Survey Results Conducted by Probolsky&Associates June 2001 Page 13 of 20 Orange County Sanitation District 4�J�tV SAM, rOy a Q 9 �fFcl,NC THE Telephone Survey Results April 2002 Prepared by Porter Novelli _ OCSD Telephone Survey The Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors will soon make a decision about whether to reapply for a federal permit to continue Its current level of treatment or to apply for a permit to change its level of treatment. OCSD staff have been communicating this issue to the public and key community groups over the past several months to both educate the public about the choices facing OCSD and to solicit input on the decision. It was recently decided to conduct a random survey of 650 OCSD service-area voters to ascertain their awareness of the issue and to solicit their views about the current wastewater treatment program, the potential for a full secondary treatment program and about the tradeoffs associated with these issues. Some of the key results are reported below: . Wastewater-Treatment Awareness. Just 17% of the public Indicated any open- ended awareness of the wastewater-treatment and ocean-release issue. After being prompted specifically with a summary of the current wastewater treatment system, 54% indicate some level of awareness of it. . Opinion without Information. Without additional information about the subject, 53% of those who claim awareness of the wastewater program indicate support for the current system and current level of treatment,while 27% oppose it and 20% are either undecided or have no opinion about this issue. . Opinions with Information. After hearing some of the key elements of the current program and current level of treatment, support increases to 72% with 21% opposed and 7% undecided or having no option. . Key Information and Facts. A variety of important public education issues were identified in the survey. Some examples of important facts to communicate to the public (and the level of support for the program based on this information)are as s-a follows: 1. Water quality is tested constantly to ensure there is no impact on public health or the marine environment. [85% Support Program] 2. Before wastewater is released more than four miles offshore, 100% is treated onshore and all materials larger than a grain of sand are removed. [789/6 Support Program) 3. The program is conducted under the approval and oversight of the U.S. EPA and the State Water Resources Control Board. [74% Support Program] . Concern About Beach Closures/Cause of Closures. Not surprisingly, the public is quite concerned about recent beach closures (89% Extremely or Very Concerned). However,just four percent believe offshore releases of treated wastewater are the cause of these closures. . Treatment Trade-offs and Choices. Every OCSD Board decision about level of treatment involves tradeoffs and choices In terms of sewer service rates, air pollution, truck traffic and other Issues. The survey is extremely clear on this issue— ratepayers want OCSD to have clear and convincing scientific proof that it is the cause of beach closures before it decides to change the level of treatment or substantially increase sewer rates (84% chose this option rather than simply going to full secondary in hopes that it might help reduce closures). r Questions about the survey should be directed to Lisa Murphy, Communications Manager 714/593-7120, Imurphy@ocsd.com. r v Voter I Consumer Research Orange County Sanitation District Topline Results n =650 Conducted April 5-7. 2002 Hello, I am from Voter I Consumer Research. We're a national survey research company doing a public opinion survey in your area. I need to speak with the youngest(male I female) available now who Is 18 years of age or older. This person must be registered to vote at this address. Q1. Thinking about things in Orange County. Would you say things are generally headed in the y right direction or that things are seriously off-track and headed in the wrong direction? 1 Right direction 67 2 Wrong track 19 3 Don't know 12 - 4 Refused 2 V I am going to read you the names of some individuals and groups. I'd like you to tell me,for each one,whether you think they are doing an excellent,good,only fair or poor job. If you haven't heard of them or don't know enough about them to rate their job performance,just say so. Here is the first one.. (ROTATE) m 0 w o 02. Orange County Board of Supervisors 1 24 31 15 5 24 w Q3. Orange County Sanitation District 3 44 19 6 6 23 - Q4. Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board 1 16 12 4 20 47 Q5. United States Environmental Protection Agency 3 30 30 13 7 18 - Q6. Thinking for a moment about the local taxes and fees you pay for things like sewage treatment and garbage disposal. Would you say these taxes and fees are too high,too low or just about right today? 1 Too high 31 2 Too low 2 v+ 3 Just about right 56 4 Don't know 10 5 Refused u Q7. Have you read or heard anything in the news in the past few months about local water quality issues in Orange County? f YES:And could you briefly describe what you read or heard about?] 1 Ocean Waiver Controversy, Ocean Oulfall,Sewage in Ocean, Ocean Contaminated with Sewage,etc 17 2 Urban Runoff,New Regional Runoff Rules, Regional Water Quality Rules, u New Regional Water Quality Controversy 14 3 Beach Closures 3 4 Other(VOL, SPECIFY) 10 5 Not heard anything 49 6 Don't know 9 7 Refused 1 W OC Sanitation 1 W r r Q8. The Orange County Sanitation District treats wastewater that comes from homes and businesses in the County. After It treats the wastewater it releases it through a pipeline located on the ocean Floor four and a half miles off the mast under the approval of the U.S. r Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water quality Control Board. Were you aware of this issue before I read you this information, or not? 1 Yes Aware 54 2 No, not aware 45 ... 3 Don't know 1 4 Refused r 09. And does this sound like something you would support or something that you would oppose? [PROMPT:And do you feel strongly about that?] 1 Support/strongly 23 r 2 Support 30 3 Oppose 10 4 Oppose I strongly 17 5 Don't Know 20 r' 8 Refused 1 Q10. And can you give me one or two reasons why you would feel that way? r 011. When you think about the offshore release of treated wastewater,which one of the following r Is your primary concern? Is il...[read all options] 1 The potential impact upon marine life around the pipeline 31 2 The potential Impact upon the beaches and public health 50 3 The cost of the program 4 4 The potential Impacts to fishing boats or watercraft that might operate in the area 2 5 Some other impact 2 8 You don't have any concerns about It 9 ,�. 7 Don't Know(DNR) 3 8 Refused(DNR) 1 r r r OC Sanitation 2 r V Y I am going to read you some additional information about the Sanitation District Program that releases treated wastewater four and one half miles offshore. I'd like you to tell me whether this information makes you more likely to support this program or more likely to oppose it. ,r [PROMPT: And is that strongly or just somewhat?] 0 n � — n O 6L b O) ; O O) u° mt mE 60 zy Ym yrp yN � Y o \ of o o O � .2 Q12. The program is conducted under the approval and oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State Water Resources Control 33 41 8 9 9 1 Board Q13. Water quality is tested constantly to ensure there is no impact on public health or marine life. 54 31 4 6 4 1 314. The program has been in place for twenty-five years and no study has ever shown that wastewater 38 31 8 12 10 2 u released four and a half miles off shore has _ returned onshore or impacted public health. Q15. Before wastewater is released, 100%of it is treated onshore and all materials larger than a grain of 43 35 6 6 9 2 sand are removed from the water. Q16. Ocean studies show that marine life around the y pipeline is thriving and that there is more marine life around the pipeline now than there was when the 42 35 6 5 12 1 program started. 017. Based on all the information you have just heard do you support the release of treated wastewater four and one half miles offshore or do you oppose it? [PROMPT:And do you feel strongly about that?] u 1 Strongly Support 40 2 Support 32 3 Oppose 8 4 Strongly Oppose 13 5 Don't Know 6 6 Refused 1 W Q18. About five years ago some Orange County beach cities began to experience beach area water contamination and water quality problems that resulted in the ocean water being closed to the public. Have you mad or heard anything about this issue? 4tl 1 Yes 86 2 No 13 — 3 Don't Know 1 4 Refused - Y v V OC Sanitation 3 v r Q19. And thinking about the issue of beach closures, how concerned are you personally about this issue? Are you extremely concerned,somewhat concerned, somewhat unconcemed, or not at all concerned? 1 Extremely Concerned. 47 2 Somewhat Concerned. 42 3 Somewhat Unconcerned. 6 4 Not at all Concerned. 4 r 5 Don't Know 1 6 Refused ,r Q2O. And which one of the following do you think is mostly responsible for these beach closures? Do you think it is... 1 Offshore releases of treated wastewater. 4 2 Urban run-off that flows down creeks and stomr drains to the ocean. 26 r 3 Outdated, leaking sewer pipes located in beach areas. 18 4 All of the above. 43 5 Some other source. 3 + 6 Don't Know 5 7 Refused 1 Q21. Some people have suggested that the release of treated wastewater four and one half miles r offshore is the cause of recent beach closures. They have suggested that the Orange County Sanitation District change the way it treats wastewater and go to a program called "full secondary treatment"to reduce the chance that it might be causing closures. I'd like to read you the two options now facing the Sanitation District and I'd like you to tell me which one you personally favor: Option one is to immediately go to the new type of treatment at a cost of about$400 million per year that would increase residential sewer bills by 50 h to 100%per year because it might help reduce beach closures. Option two is to conduct scientific studies to determine the cause of beach closures and then decide whether to change the current level of treatment or increase residential sewer bills. (PROMPT IF NECESSARY:)Which of these options do you favor? 1 Option one 8 2 Option two 84 3 Don't know 6 4 Refused 2 r m r r OC Sanitation 4 r As I mentioned some people are suggesting the Orange County Sanitation District change the way it treats wastewater to a new system called Full Secondary. This new treatment system would generate some impacts to the community and to ratepayers. I'm going to read you some of these impacts and I'd like you to tell me whether you would be Inclined to support this new program or oppose it,based on these impacts. [PROMPT:And do you feel strongly about that?] - Z w qO tY N 2- C N C ¢ E S E O C Y as b O vOiG O O W O (C r N N D22. Yearly residential sewer rates would increase between 50% 7 15 23 49 6 1 and 100 . D23. The new program would reduce the amount of bacteria and viruses that are present in wastewater released offshore. 36 37 9 11 6 2 , W a24. There would be fewer microscopic solid materials in the treated wastewater 29 39 9 13 6 2 025. Approximately 3,000 additional truck trips would be r generated on local streets and roads each year to haul the 11 22 24 33 10 1 additional solids that would be removed from wastewater. 026. Increased truck traffic generated by this program would add approximately 20 tons of new air pollutants to the air each 7 11 24 50 7 2 year. W W r W W W OC Sanitation 5 Ir I am going to read you some names of individuals and groups who have been involved in ocean and beach water quality issues in the County. I'd like you to tell me whether you consider each one a credible source of information or not a credible source of information on this topic. If you have not heard of an individual or group or don't know enough about them to have an opinion.just say so. [PROMPT:And is that 6dramely or just Somewhat?] `o 12 41 yc pas :2 & a g 8 a pa_ O E < ty. & . C o Z p r Uw U0 rjl iW >y Z Q27. The Ocean Outfall Group. 3 5 2 2 55 33 028. Orange County Sanitation District. 18 49 7 5 5 17 029. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 26 46 9 5 3 10 4 Q30. Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board 11 34 6 3 17 29 031. Coastkeeper 3 7 3 1 55 31 032. Orange County Visitor and Convention Bureau 4 21 12 7 27 29 Q33. The Surfrider Foundation. 12 19 5 3 35 25 r 034. Coastal Orange County cities. 7 31 10 4 18 29 1 335. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography. 50 22 1 1 14 12 Q36. Marine Scientists from the U.S. Naval Academy 37 29 2 13 19 +y r r r OC Sanitation 6 V I'm going to read you some statements that have been made about some of the issues discussed in this survey. I'd like you to tell me whether you agree or disagree with each statement. [PROMPT:And is that strongly or just somewhat?j Here is the first statement... V (0 l0 O T m 9 C 111 2 Y d Vd ° m Em Em 037. 1 don't think much about sanitation issues or wastewater �+ treatment too much-my main concem is that my sewer bill 15 17 29 35 3 1 remains at a reasonable cost. Q38. Before the Sanitation District raises my sewer rates 50 to �r 100%they better make sure they have sound scientific _ evidence that an expensive new wastewater treatment 79 14 2 3 2 1 system is needed. V 039. I Mink the experts at the EPA and Regional Water Quality Control board should decide if it's OK to release treated 27 31 19 16 6 2 wastewater offshore-not local environmental groups. O40. I don't mind paying higher sewer bills if it means some W improvement in the way wastewater is treated. 28 40 13 15 4 1 v t� �1 v V be OC SarufaWn 7 u I have just a few last questions for demographic purposes only.. 941. Are you registered to vote as(ROTATE:)a Republican,a Democrat,an independent or something else? 1 Republican 46 2 Democrat 35 3 Independent/unaffiliated/decline to state 11 4 Other/third party 4 5 Don't know 2 6 Refused 3 Q42. What is your approximate age? 1 18-24 12 2 25-34 13 3 35-44 17 4 45-54 20 5 55-64 16 6 65 and over 21 7 Don't know - r 8 Refused 2 Q43. Which of the following Income groups includes your TOTAL FAMILY INCOME in 2001, before taxes? Just stop me when I read the right category- 0 1 Under$10,000 2 2 $10,000420,000 5 3 $20,000430,000 10 4 $30,000-$40,000 8 rr 5 $40,000$50,000 10 6 $50,000-$75,000 20 7 $75,0004100,00 17 8 $100,000 and over 18 9 Don't know(VOL) 1 10 Refused(VOL) 10 044. What is the last grade of school you completed? 1 Grade school or less 1 2 Some high school 4 3 Graduated high school 18 4 Vocational i Technical school 1 5 Some college 12 years or less 23 6 Some college I more than 2 years 12 7 Graduated college 26 8 Post graduate degree 14 9 Don't know r 10 Refused 2 Q45. Are you yourself of Hispanic or Latino descent—for instance Mexican American, or Cuban or Puerto Rican,or not? r 1 Yes 14 2 No 83 3 Don't know - 4 Refused 3 s OC Sanitation 8 r .. 048. Is your racial or ethnic background (RANDOMIZE)white, black,Asian, Native American,or something else? f White 83 2 Bieck 2 3 Asian 4 4 Native American 2 5 Other 5 i 6 Don't know - 7 Refused 5 Q47. Sex(BY OBSERVATION) j I. t Male 48 2 Female 52 I kd W ) ICI yid W IW �I Irk OC Sandatlan g i Attachment 8 :rr 3 ORANGECOUNTY 2Park Plaza,Suite 100•Irvine,CoMomla 92614-5904 BUSINESS COUNCIL phone:949.476.2242•fax:949.47E 9240•urkuninuock org warn"enumlme QUI&RAN May 15, 2002 au� DlnyixWFgeX awEvf%onHm ancm:maNrlPC ew .um,ea,vady,s vm�x�,ur Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue W�Bwft Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 £mCbl'au„g "�O1"'""""• Ladies/Gentlemen: 60X0111[DfY60ITDM esi Eobm Hence F.fNCbwuGUR The Orange County Business Council (Business Council/OCBC), an UVR&N organization dedicated to Orange County's economic vitality and quality of r&,au life, has been very engaged on behalf of Orange County's business "Q«R&RIN, community on the District's activities relative to ocean water quality and, specifically, the process of updating the District's strategic plan and determining appropriate levels of treatment for the future. The Business Council's interest in these proceedings is two-fold: 1) protection of our coastal resources, which are key to our countywide economic prosperity and quality of life; and 2) financial and operational impacts upon our member SR."FbRPW�N:G company businesses and others in the county as a result of your impending decisions. In this regard, the Business Council wishes to offer the following �a M comments and requests. "o&uo&aDemwvE�rt T*&Wq 1. Coastal protection. The Business Council believes that Orange County's beaches must be protected. It is simply unacceptable for FM"MINE ETM' Orange County residents and visitors to the county to witness beach postings and beach closures due to bacterial contamination in the surf 0htl zone. In our view, a deliberative process honoring the principles of "�e�0°^• cost-effectiveness; a demonstrated nexus between selected forms of J wu R �Nov.. treatment and desired results; and common sense, will lead to this "CEPNEUDW.. protection for our valued coastal resources. DE4HUPWIT& IM'6TDRNELITUNS _ "`"`N°°"°' 2. Disinfection. In light of the above, the Business Council supports the FlN.N�Br.D�ARI6TMI10N District's short-term proposal to disinfect the sewage effluent. This oaN .PH interim measure will ensure that discharged sewage is not responsible for bacterial contamination in the surf zone. Moreover, a reasonable test period for this process will aid our community's collective efforts to determine the source or sources of pollution leading to beach postings. The Business Council believes that disinfection should commence as soon as possible. SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE r Attachment 9 r Cover Sheet for Log This tog contains a list of emails, faxes, postcards, phone calls, and letters received between January 1, 2002 and May 31, 2002, that are in the service area. Correspondence received includes support for and opposition to the current level of treatment. A total of 773 entries are contained in this log. A total of 551 unsigned faxes within the service area (sent from one fax number)were received and are not included in this log. r r r g\cop.dWaatlmin\1301301(h)\06.03.02 to board log cover sheeltloc y ..... , .... *.:. :: : NO Won .... . ... .... ........... urw.. ..... ........... ...... ..... ...... .... ... . ...... 1 2/19/2002 Ron Johnson Anaheim Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 2 2119/2002 Kim Solomon Newport Beach Yes mail Form letter Full Secondary 3 —TT9M Tn7y—rel—ler — Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 4 2/19/2002 Carolyn Mirliss Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 5 2119/2002 Jolfre Loor Tustin Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 6 2119/2002 Dustin Shelton Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 7 2/19/2002 John Dickson Cypress Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 8 2/19/2002 Brien Cleassen Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 9 2/19/2002 J.Steiner Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 10 2/19/2002 Todd Dobbs Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 11 2/20/2002 Cory Williams Garden Grove Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 12 2/20/2002 Jeff Helsing Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 13 2/20/2002 Matt Skogmo Costa mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 14 2t20/2002 Brian Rogers No return address Yes email Farm letter Full Secondary 15 2/20/2002 Josh McDonald Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 16 2/20/2002 J.L. Howard,Jr. Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 17 2/2012002 Cavan Concannon Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 18 2/20/2002 David Foster Santa Ana Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 19 2/20/2002 Brian Shaffner Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 20 2/20/2002 John Dewitt Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 21 2120/2002 Chad Brow Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 22 2120/2002 Matthew Parker Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 23 2120/2002 Brian Davis Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 24 2120/2002 John Brodie Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 25 2/20/2002 Paul Hafen Cypress Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 26 2/20/2002 Christian J. Mushier Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 27 2120/2002 Ryan Gates Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 28 W2012002 Paul Dugan Fountain Valley Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 29 2/20/2002 Tom Hemnstad Seal Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 30 2120/2002 Amy Clark Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 31 2/20/2002 Vied Vanek Irvine Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 32 2/20/2002 Nick Pink Placentia Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 33[ 2t20/2002 Curtis Ford Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 34F—2t20/2002 Andrew Barnes Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 35 F��— LnB 20120121 John Costa Mesa !Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 36 2/20/2002 Jason Wallis Costa Mesa lYes Ismail I Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 1 of 22 - Euq 56gO11CI8.li ..Seiv No Dafe . Name CILYIGr0up rYfaa 7 e Comments: Guns �f t5 ..:Wait 37 2/20/2002 Daniel Richmond Newport Beach Yes email Farm letter Full Secondary 38 2/20/2002 Louis Salmina Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 39 2/20/2002 Mike Kltto Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 40 2/20/2002 Patrick St.Peter Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 41 2/20/2002 Gregory Ashton Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 42 2/20/2002 Scott Grady Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 43 2/20/2002 KrIsty Perry Huntington Beach Yes lemaill Form letter Full Secondary 44 2/20/2002 Vince Costa Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 45 2/20/2002 Savith I engar Anaheim Yes. email Form letter Full Secondary 46 2/20/2002 Gabrielle Hirst Placentia Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 47 2/2l/2002 Steve Pe koff Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 46 2/21/2002 Ell Bali ad La Palma Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 49 2/21/2002 Clay Peterson Los Alamitos Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 50 2/22/2002 Carrie Marshall Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 51 2/25/2002 Mike Imo Los Alamitos Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 52 2/25/2002 Keff Toomlre Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 53 2/25/2002 Carol 8 Neil Olson Fullerton Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 54 2/26/2002 Ernie Krueger Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 55 2/26/2002 Steve Ely Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 56 2/27/2002 Shahin Ami our Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Second a 57 a ew Briggs an Ana es emai Form letter u econ a 58 2/28/2002 Greg de Hares Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 59 2/28/2002 Draw Benner Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 60 3/4/2002 Jerffrey Collins Fountain Valley Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 61 3/4/2002 Stephen M. Kuhlman Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 62 3/5/2002 Mark De Rocco Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 63 3/6/2002 Jones Altman New Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 64 3/7/2002 Chary! Myers Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 65 3/7/2002 Shelley Christensen Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 66 3/7/2002 Jennt Luu Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 67 3/7/2002 Greg Macias Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 68 3/7/2002 Scott Banuelos Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 69 3/8/2002 Kim Hu en Fountain Valle Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 70 3/8/2002 Mike Oilman Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 71 3/8/2002 Breeen Lingle Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 72 3/8/2002 Feli a Basco a Costa Mesa Yes email Form latter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 2 of 22 ........ ......... con .. ............ ........... ... ........................... .. . .. ....... ..... .1...... .........I.... .......... . ......--..... ....... Own ......... 0*.*ftoff ........... ...................... ....... It 0, wolt .............. 73 3/1112002 Erin Immegart Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 74 3/11/2002 Amy Allred Newport Beach Yes small Form letter Full Secondary 75 3/11/2002 Nichols Irby Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 76 3/11/2002 Russell Colby Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 77 3111/2002 Tim Garrett Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 78 3111/2002 Tim Lelvis Irvine Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 79 3111/2002 Carl Blanchard Newport Beach Yes jemail Form letter Full Secondary 80 3111/2002 Darryl Shinder Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 81 3(1212002 Erik Kristiansen Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 82 3/12/2002 Raymond Hardiman Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 83 3/12t2002 Marc Bonando Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 84 3112/2002 Greg Macias Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 85 3/1212002 Sean Mahan Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 86 3/12/2002 Stefanie Kristiansen Costa Mesa Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 87 3114/2002 Taylor Whisenand Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 88 3/14/2002 Rick Petri Irvine Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 89 3/I8/2002 Stevell-inda Childers Irvine Yes mail Form letter Full Secondary 90 3/18/2002 Steve Zeldin Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 91 3128/2002 Fred Rissle Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 92 4/212002 Tommasina Cirrito Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 93 4/8/2002 Rob Nelson Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 94 4/9/2002 Kyle Calcagno Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 95 4/10/2002 Erik PaDke Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 96 4/10/2002 Larry Mawr Cypress Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 97 4/10/2002 Rays Olson Seal Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 98 4/10/2002 Dave Simpson Irvine Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 99 4/16/2002 Kevin Wallis Newport Beach Yes email world Full Secondary 100 502002 Nim Dixit Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 101 511412002 Tom Reynolds Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 102 5/15/2002 M/M Ernest To Orange Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 103 512=002 Gary Crane Newport Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 104 —72072W Adam Gallegos Huntington Beach Yes email Form letter Full Secondary 1051 4118/2002 Matthew Thomas Huntington Beach Yes email N/F Representing Water Magazine Full Secondary 06�=002.Gregory Koch Anaheim Yes email N/FlAgainst waiver Full Secondary "dumping bleach in ocean is 107 1 2125/20021Gordon LaBedz OC Sierra Club iYes Ismail N/Flpollution" Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 3 of 22 1 ! ( 1 ( l 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l ....... ....... .. :...... ...•.:• Sera.:: : Fop 3ecgnderyi 'No hale: ... ': Naikl J;;rqu Afad :; omMents cur�fsnitt ciWatt I. 108 2/25/2002 Joey Raceno DOG Yes email N/F "Joey the waiver killer" Full Secondary 109 2/25/2002 Doua Korthoff Seal Beach Yes email N/F "negative consequences of chlorine"Full Secondary 110 2/25/2002 Brian Meisch Tustin Yes email N/F "Surfed OC for 22years" Full Secondary 111 3/18/2002 Melvin Navarro Buena Park Yes email N/F Wait for studies to be completed. Welt 112 2/17/2002 Jan West Santa Ana Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 113 2/17/2002 Eric Ruckna el Costa Mesa Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 114 2/17/2002 Shelly Castellano Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 115 2/14/2002 Cavan Hadley Balboa Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 116 2/13/2002 Karyn Sandin Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 117 2/19/2002 Derek Schimming Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 118 2/19/2002 William Colby Huntington Beach Yes fax Forth letter Full Secondary 119 2/21/2002 Curt Mitchell Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 120 2/21/2002 Jason Jacobs Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 121 2121/2002 Mike Mandibles Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 122 2121/2002 An elica Naimo Seal Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 123 2/27/2002 Eric La Loggia Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 124 316/2002 Daniel Geary Costa Mesa Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 125 3/6/2002 Roger Russell Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 126 3/6/2002 Michael Dyer Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 127 3/7/2002 Tom Mortimer Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 128 4/4/2002 Linda Nicholas Anaheim Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 129Margie Stale Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter u 1 Seconds 130 4/23/2002 Grace McElhaney Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 131 4/23/2002 Robert McElhaney Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 132 4/23/2002 Marinke Horack Huntington Beach Yes fax Forth letter Full Secondary 133 4/23/2002 Paul Fudenz Seal Beach Yes fax Forth letter Full Secondary 134 4/23/2002 John Pitre Huntington Beach Yes fax Forth letter Full Secondary 135 4/23/2002 Glenna Toukey Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 136 4/23/2002 Lois Vackek Huntin ton Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 137 4/23/2002 Kell Connell C ress Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 138 4/23/2002 Linda Grzeskowiak Westminster Yea Ifax Form letter Full Secondary 139 4/23/2002 Matthew McDermol Fullerton Yes fax Form latter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 4 of 22 .. ...... .... .........I...- .............*,..,.:,:::::: ... .... ..... ....... ................ . ............... ......... .... ........I..... .......... ........... ...... ............. . 140 4/23/2002 Stewart Hinkley Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 141 4/2312002 Lynda Fatter Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 142 4/23/2002 J.E. Hickens Irvine Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 143 4/23t2002 Jim Bailey Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 144 4/23/2002 Duane Blamer Costa Mesa Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 145 4/23/2002 Masse Taylor Costa Mesa Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 146 4/23/2002 Anna Love Huntington Beach Yes fax [Form letter Full Secondary 147 4/2312002 Lori Gonzano Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 148 4123/2002 Holly Elizon Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 149 4/2312002 Jeanette Glavinlc Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 150 4/2312002 David Taylor Costa Mesa Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 151 4/23/2002 Kim Winderman Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 152 4/23/2002 Carrie Thomas Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 153 4/2312002 Stephen Chenette Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 164 4/23/2002 Tom Harmon Huntington Beach yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 155 4/23/2002 Alison Sheltrown Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 156 4/25/2002 Jennifer Guinaldo Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 157 4/2512002 Marcell Guinaldo Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 158 4/25/2002 Steve Hadley Newport Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 159 4/25/2002 Stephen Mahoney Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 160 4/25/2002 Patricia Bettencourt Westminster Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 161 4/25/2002 Lisa Christiansen Seal Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 162 4/25/2002 P.Darcey Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 163 4/25/2002 S. Messley Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 164 4/25/2002 Esther Wallin Westminster Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 165 4/25/2002 Scott Hyde Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 166 5/2/2002 Michael Daly Huntington Beach Yes fax Form letter Full Secondary 167 2/6/2002 Frank Sur an Newport Beach Yes fax NIF wants full secondary treatment. Full Secondary 168 4/3/2002 Karl Pond Westminster Yes fax N/F Concern for health issues Full Secondary 169 4/10/2002 Christopher Prevatt Garden Grove Yes fax N/F Letter to editor OC Register Full Secondary 170 4/22/2002 Craig Lacy Huntington Beach Yes fax N/F Surfer,concerned with health Full Secondary 171 4/22/2002 Brett Lacy Huntington Beach Yes fax N/F Surfer,concerned with health lFull Secondary 172 4122/2002 Matt Lacy Huntington Beach Yes fax NIF Concerned with pollution of ocean lFull Secondary 173 4123/2022 Fred mh Westminster Yes fax NT—IForra letter lFull Secondary 174 4/23/20 Peter Huntington Beach IYes Ifax N/F Form letter lFull Secondary 175 4/23/2002 Michael Pond Westminster iYea Ifax N/F Concerned with bacteria Full Seconds Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 5 of 22 If F .................. .. ....... ............................. Ij X NO 0 ...... die "tro"M , . X 176 5/212002 Craig T. Stevens Newport Beach Yes fax WF Form letter Full Secondary 177 2119/2002 Eric Vanek Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 178 2119/2002 Matt West Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 1179 2119/2002 Michael Hurst Placentia Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 180 2113/2002 David Fults Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 181 2/13/2002 Antonio Brown Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 182 2119/2002 Jason Jacobs Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 183 2/1312002 Devon Clark Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 1184 2/1712002 Paul Mejls Anaheim Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 185 2119/2002 Sean Strauss Los Alamitos Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 186 211912002 Jeff Stevens Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 187 2119/2002 Christopher Kynch Seal Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 188 2/19/2002 Travis Alien Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 189 2/21/2002 Tumbleson Santa Ana Yes letter Farm letter Full Secondary 190 2/21/2002 Joseph K. Liu Huntington Beach Yes Vetter Form letter Full Secondary 191 2121/2002 Andrew Barnes Costa Mesa yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 192 2121/2002 Eric Slade Newport Beach Yes letter I Form letter Full Secondary 193 2/2512002 Steve Cullen Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 194 2125/2002 David Brackenhoff Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 195 2125/2002 Troy Andrews Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 196 2125/2002 Susan Raymondi Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 197 2125/2002 Lanae Holcomb Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 198 2125/2002 Claus Hecht Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 199 2/25/2002 Donovan Sipe Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 200 2/25/2052 Mike Winter Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 201 212512002 Chris Hoffman Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 202 2/26/2002 Matt Emerson Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 203 2/26/2002 Austin Blood Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 204 2126/2002 David Seefeldt Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 205 2/26/2002 Dan&Sarah Seneno Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 206 341-2002 Aprill Sarkisian Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 207 3/4/2022 Andres McElhine Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 208 314/20102 Todd A. Borowski Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Seconds 209 314/2002 Jerald A.Weitzman Newport Beach Yes I.H., Form letter Full Seconds 210 3/4/2002 Gre Baum Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Seconds 211 3/4/2002 Jeff Hurd Huntin on Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Seconds Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 6 of 22 1 Seib. Fy 46conttar NG pate Ndrtte Grtyldroup lAre Type C4mlwteMS. Gllttehk 17p `.:.Walk s 212 3/5/2002 John V.Turner Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 213 3/11/2002 David Bonevenlura Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Wait 214 3/11/2002 Erik M kletun Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 215 3/11/2002 Macke O"Donnell Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 216 3/11/2002 Jeff Ragland Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 217 3/11/2002 Craig Atkins Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 218 3/11/2002 Antonio Saxon Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 219 3/11/2002 Steve Jones Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 220 3/11/2002 Joe Percival Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 221 3/11/2002 Pamela Zamosclanylk Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 222 3/11/2002 Brad Dougherty Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 223 3/11/2002 Scott Baugh Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 224 3/14/2002 Jon King Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 225 3/14/2002 Brian/Sarah Wallin Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 226 3/18/2002 Nicolai Glazer Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 2271 3/18/2002 June NyeHuntington Beach Yes letter Forth letter Full Secondary 228 3/28/2002 Robert Nelson Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 229 4/2/2002 Lisa Rosen Seal Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 230 4/3/2002 Jeffrey McConville Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 231 4/5/2002 Jeffrey McConille Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 232 4/9/2002 Elan Woodall Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 233 4/10/2002 Todd Horton Huntington Beach Yes letter Forth letter Full Secondary 234 10/2002 Evan Slobodian Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 235 4/10/2002 WhitneySlobodian Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 236 4/11/2002 Jae Shim Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 237 4/11/2002 Manses Cerrero Mission Viejo Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 238 4/11/2002 Mark Moledor Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 239 4/11/2002 Michelle Walker Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 240 4/11/2002 Keli Walker Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 241 4/11/2002 Gary Larson Stanton Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 242 4/11/2002 Me han Reinharst Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 243 4/11/2002 Lisa Yo Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 244 4/16/2002 Kristine Bante ue Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 245 4/16/2002 Hector Maldonado Huntington Beech Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 246 4/18/2002 James Hurt Orange IYes Iletter I Form letter Full Secondary 247 4/18/2002 Elliot Gordon Irvine IYes Iletter I Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 7 of 22 1 I f I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I It I l . Full Sacanda..yj Name Cltylt#rtoup Area fse Cat»mehts , . . . .. ; :. GutrtihttspVi`ai: 248 4/22/2002 Rick Humphrey Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 249 4/2212002 Barbara Fleischman La Palma Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 250 4/22/2002 G. Senorans Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 251 4/22/2002 Cynthia Barnes Placentia Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 252 4/30/2002 Leslie Ninn Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 253 4/30/2002 Susan Caine Huntington Beach Yes letter Forth letter Full Secondary 254 4/30/2002 John/Melinda Grace Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 255 4/30/2002 Bonnie Glenda Anaheim Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 256 5/2/2002 Cherylee Sharp Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 257 5/3/2002 Steve Womach Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Wait 258 5/3/2002 Kelly Madden Fountain Valley Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 259 Betty North unt n ton eac Yes otter Form letter Full Secondary 260 5/3/2002 Martha Burke Anaheim Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 261 5/3/2002 Mark Hayes Orange Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 262 5/a/2002 James Burke Anaheim Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 263 5/8/2002 Kelly Reinke Garden Grove Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 264 5/8/2002 Marti Rice Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 265 5/14/2002 Vincent Donohue Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 266 5/15/2002 Ray Busch Orange Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 267 5/16/2002 Gary Stark Newport Beach Yes letter Forth letter Full Secondary 268 5/17/2002 Linda Pomeroy Brea Yes letter Forth letter Full Secondary 269 5/24/2002 Tracy Blocklin Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 270 5/24/2002 Lois Vance Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 271 5/24/2002 Jeanette Roshes Orange Yes letter Farm letter Full Secondary 272 5/24/2002 Jeff Davis Huntington Beach Yes letter Fon letter Full Secondary 273 5/24/2002 Nancy Buccinelli Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 274 5/24/2002 Jay Cotting Huntington Beach Yes letter IForm letter Full Secondary 275 5/29/2002 Joel Cruz Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 276 5/29/2002 Joshua Silverstein Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 277 02 Paul Ramiro Westminster Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 278 5/29/2002 Robert Gomez Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 279 5/29/2002 Steve Rod d uez Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 280 5/29/2002 Drew Kenny Huntington Beach Yes letter Farm letter Full Secondary 281 5/29/2002 Jenna Fardges Costa Mesa Yes letter Forth letter Full Secondary 282 5/29/2002 Liz Campbell IBrea Yes Iletter Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 8 of 22 Serv. NU onC[d. i :• IVo RdEA Nit19 .: CI It#rtoup Area T e s Gammrnts. Guttsat Cp; tMBit s 283 5/29/2002 A.Lomeli Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 284 5/29/2002 Andrew Nguyen Westminster Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 285 5/29/2002 Jeff Holmes Orange Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 288 5/29/2002 C thla Bo a Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Seconds 287 r an w nn a oun a n Valley es a er orm a er u econ a 288 5/29/2002 Melissa Shoepa Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 289 5/2912002 Vincent Williams Anaheim Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 290 5/29/2002 Trisha Push! Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 291 5/29/2002 Phuong Pham Garden Grove Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 292 5/29/2002 Calvin Lee Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 293 5/29/2002 Carolyn Raub Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 294 5/29/2002 Reanina Beers Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 295 5/29/2002 Bartle Wallace Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 296 5/29/2002 Michelle Miller Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 297 5/29/2002 Leah Abbott Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 298 5/29/2002 Jennifer Knartyar Costa Mesa Yee letter lForm letter Full Secondary 299 5/29/2002 Kristin Halt Fullerton Yea Iletter Form letter Full Secondary 300 5/29/2002 Joe Schnabel Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 301 5/29/2002 Michelle LaRue Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 302 5/29/2002 Gina Feathen Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 303 5/29/2002 Kim Huebner Orange Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 304 5/29/2002 Seen Murphy Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 305 5/29/2002 Gregory Fantt Seal Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 308 5/29/2002 J.W. Scherlaw Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 307 5/29/2002 David A uro Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 308 5/29/2002 Cheryl Roland Huntington Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 309 5/29/2002 Colleen Orelleana Anaheim Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 310 5/2912002 Cara Weber Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 311 5/2912002 Kristen Nesselrod Newport Beach Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 312 5/29/2002 Lisa Plummer Irvine Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 313 5/29/2002 P. Cenantes Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full Seconds 314 5129/2002.Judy Miller Santa Ana Yes letter Form letter Full Secondary 315 5/29/2002 A rll Levin Costa Mesa Yes letter Form letter Full condary 316 1/5/2002 Jean Watt Parks, Newport Beach Yes letter N/F beaches/ arks/harbors. Full Seconds 317 2121/20 2 David Wa ester I Huntington Beach Yes letter N/F Letter lFull Seconds 318 2t2l/2002 Kevin Weatherman I Huntington Beach Yes letter N/F IlLetter lFull Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 9 of 22 ... ...... . .... . ........ ....... ........ . .. .... .. .. .. .............. FUMCon......... ... ... ................ 319 2/22/2002 Bill/Maureen Krueger Orange Yes letter N/F Letter Full Secondary 320 212512002 Mike Rivney Placentia Yes letter NtF Surfer, concerned with health_ Full Secondary 321 3/4/2002 Mario Christian Rodriguez Irvine Yes letter NIF LICI student,surfer Full Secondary 322 3t28/2002 Regimald Thatcher Newport Beach Yes letter N/F Wants to wait for result of studies Wait 323 4/16/2002 Colson Scarminach Huntington Beach Yes letter NIF and what is right is not always Wait 324 4/18/2002 Greg Jewell Westminster Yes letter N/F and beaches Full Secondary 325 4/18/2002 Kimberly Lindsay-Stem Huntington Beach Yes letter N/F,Concem for the ocean Full Secondary 326 4/2212002 Grant Spencer Buena Park Yes letter N/F Concerned with dumping into ocean Full Secondary 327 4/2212002 Dave Simpson Irvine Yes letter N/F is vocal Wait 328 4/22=02 Howard Stein Huntington Beach Yes letter N/F ecosystem Full Secondary 329 4/23/2002 JackDelucs Newport Beach Yes letter NIF Suggest reclamation of water Full Secondary 330 5/1/2002 Mindy Graves Huntington Beach Yes (otter N/F Terminate the waiver Full Secondary 331 5/6/2002 City of Placentia Placenta Yes letter N/F treatment level Wait 332 5/14/2002 City of La Palma La Palma Yes letter NIF Resolution for full secondary Full Secondary 333 5115/2002 Irwin Haydock Fountain Valley Yes letter NIF Objecting to the waiver Full Secondary 334 5/15/2002 OC Business Council Irvine Yes letter N/F treatment levels Wait Cartoon depicting scientists/surfers 336 5/29/20021 Bill Anderson Costa Mesa Yes letter N/F at beach Full Secondary 336 2/19/2002 City of Fullerton Fullerton City Council Yes mtg. City Council meeting voted to wait Wait 337 2119/2002 City of Orange Orange City Council Yes mtg. City Council meeting voted to wait Wait 338 2119/2002 City Council City of Fullerton Yes mtg. Presentation to City Council Full Secondary 339 2t1 9/2002 City Council City of Orange Yes mill. Presentation to City Council Full Secondary 340 21512002 City Council Fullerton Yes mtg. treatment. Full Secondary 341 2/1212002 City of Irvine Irvine Council Yes mtg. 3/17102with IRWD to discuss Full Secondary 342 5/26/2002 Bruce Watten Huntington Beach Yes call Wants full secondary Full Secondary 343 3/27/2002 Rob Nelson Huntington Beach Yes Imsg. 10pposition to waiver Full Secondary 344 4/2212002 Scott Becker Huntington Beach Yes Imsg. Against the waiver Full Secondary 345 4/2212002 Bruce Women Huntington Beach Yes msg. Against the waiver Full Secondary 346 4/25/2002 Theresa Glass Huntington Beach Yes msg. Against the waiver Full Secondary 347 4/25/2002 Bob McKennon Newport Beach Yes msg. Against the waiver Full Secondary 348 5/2212002 Steve Rader Costa Mesa Yes msg. Wants full secondary Full Secondary 349 316/2002 Phillip Wilder 1212 2 2 Beach E Yes postcard Form letter U 2SenIg g�2 na 350r 316/2002 Robert Moss Humin on Beach Yes postcard Form letter Fullcon 351 F 3/1-212002 Alex Hernandez lCosta Mesa Yes postcard Form letter IFull Secondary 352F-3114i2002 James EcclesICypress Yes postcard Form letter IFull Seconda Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 10 of 22 .......... .I......... ... ....... ...................... Full: can .. ...... ... ... . .. .... . ry' 'OkOf 353 3/14/2002 Carolina Ortega Placentia Yes postcard Form letter Wait 354 3114/2002 Charles Wilson Newport Beach Yes_ postcard Form letter Full Secondary 355 3/14/2002 Jeff Tyson Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 356 3114/2002 Amy Clark Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 357 3114/2002 Theresa Tenerelli Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 358 3/18/2002 Jessica Sanchez Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 359 3/18/2002 Vema Bondoc Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 360 3118/2002 Carl Martz Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 361 3/18/2002 Kim Borland Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 362 3/18/2002 Carrie Osterhout Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 363 3118/2002 Tiffany Pattersen Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 364 3/18Q002 Patrick Bristow 11 Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 365 3t18/2002 Victoria Sauer Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 366 3/18/2002 Steven Przybylowski Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 367 3/18/2002 Anela English Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 3681 3/18/2002 Ellen Wright Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 369 3118/2002 Stephanie Barger Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 370 3/18/2002 Adam Thompson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 371 3/18/2002 Magda Saborio Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Wait 372 311=002 Marchon Deike Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 373 3/1812002 Lauren Ruby Cypress Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 374 3/18/2002 Ricci Glyn Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 375 3/18/2002 Sally Alexander Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 376 18/2002 Kyle Mikemi Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 377 3118t2002 Drane Rice Anaheim Yes postcard Farm letter Full Secondary 378 3/18/2002 Cory Uniguez Midway City Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 379 3/18/2002 Felicity Figuera Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 380 3/18/2002 William Robertson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 381 3/18/2002 Judith Cooper Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 382 3/18/2002 Nadeah Vah Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 383 3/18/2002 Alicia Cordova Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 384 3/18/2002 Sonny Ho Midway City Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 385 3/18/2002 Michelle Smith Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 386 3/20/2002 Arnaldo Greenberg Newport Beach Yes c Form letter Full Secondary 387 3/20/2001 Tames-Tomas Huntington Beach JYes 1'p2o2,tc �r 0 "a[ Full Secondary 388 3/20/2002 Alive Schlea Fountain Valley lYes 1postcard Form Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 11 of 22 I [ t t It t t t t 1 l l ! t l SO ; : NU Seaonda:Mi R► a Type :» Commegts i:Wak No Date ::> Name ;: C 7Groirp : ,. 044 iit op 389 3/20/2002 Ser le Ramirez La Palma Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 390 3/20/2002 Elizabeth Butterfield Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 391 3/20/2002 Gordon Csusak Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Sawndary 392 3/22/2002 Robert Dunn Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 393 3/22/2002 Lee Head Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 394 3/22/2002 Judie Vivian Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 395 3/22/2002 Lori Whalen Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 396 3/22/2002 Sarah Taper Orange Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 397 3/22/2002 Ruston Eastman Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 398 3/22/2002 Robin Vivian Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 399 3/22/2002 Rick Schaffer Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 400 3/25/2002 Greg McCloud Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 401 3/25/2002 Ryan Schultz Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 402 3/25/2002 Maria Uceda Costa Mesa Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 403 3/25/2002 Patty Hon Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 404 3/25/2002 Noel Edsom Cypress Yes 1postcard Form letter Full Secondary 405 3/25/2002 Jane McCloud Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 406 3/27/2002 Lauren Belcher Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 407 3/27/2002 Stephen Freeland Seal Beach Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 408 3/27/2002 John Ritchie Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 409 3/27/2002 Erin Lewardo Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 410 3/27/2002 Casey Bordreau Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Sewndary 411 3/27/2002 Julia Ammons Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 412 3/27/2002 Marc Milton Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 413 3/27/2002 Marcos Emhof Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 414 3/27/2002 Daniel Lynn Huntington Beach Yes 1postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 415 3/28/2002 Gerald Catarina Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 416 3/28/2002 Mike Newman Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 417 3/28/2002 Nick French Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter . Full Secondary 418 3/28/2002 Frank Toms Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 419 3/28/2002 Yaris Donde Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 420 3/28/2002 Jasper Rowland Huntington Beach Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 421 3/28/2002 Krista Shirley Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 422 3/28/2002 Samuel Fuller Orange Yes ostcard Forth letter Full Secondary 423 3/28/2002 Grace Zinno Seal Beach Yes ostcard Form letter Full Secondary 424 3/28/2002 Cad Kociencki Huntington Beach Yes ostcard Form letter Full Sewnda Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 12 of 22 $iiry NU con s; Narns:. Ghy/t#toup . .. > .. .. .Afea 'CyPe ,: Cvmhlegt5 GufYentdp;_,.lNai#....:. 425 3/28/2002 Jennifer Petersen Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 426 3/28/2002 Jeff Cader Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 427 3/28/2002 Pamela Primm Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 428 3/28/2002 Chad Sorensen Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 429 3/28/2002 Gary Smith Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 430 3/28/2002 James Pratte Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 431 3/28/2002 Lance Nemier Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 432 3/28/2002 Mariah Builrke Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 433 4/1/2002 Elizabeth Pratte Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 434 4/1/2002 Aric Entwistle Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 435 4/1/2002 Bethanie Kloe fer Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 436 4/1/2002 Susan Pallotta Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 437 4/1/2002 Brian Gerald Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 438 4/1/2002 Reed Jones Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 439 4/1/2002 Edwardo Hayes Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 440 4/1/2002 Howard Reichenback Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 441 4/1/2002 Rhonda Jones-Mason Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 442 4/1/2002 KathyDonde Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 443 4/1/2002 Morgan Ghan Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 444 4/1/2002 ShirleyConquest Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 445 4/1/2002 Atti Reding Huntington Beach Yes Postcard Form letter Full Secondary 446 4/1/2002 Larry Reding Huntington Beach Yespostcard- Form letter Full Secondary 447 4/8/2002 Martin Gulich Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 448 4/8/2002 Tasha Wegner Huntington Beach Yes postcard IForm letter Full Secondary 449 4/8/2002 Brian Lillis Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 450 4/8/2002 Tony Yansleo Huntington Beach Yes 1postcard Form letter Full Secondary 451 4/8/2002 Darin Remsing Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 452 4/8/2002 Kenny Kuyrers Buena Park Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 453 4/8/2002 Emily Clarke Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter . Full Secondary 454 4/812002 Mlrya Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 455 4/8/2002 Chiron Powell Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 456 4/8/2002 Justin Scoccia Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 457 4/8/2002 Wayne Baumgartner Westminster Yes postcard Form letter - Full Secondary 458 4/8/2002 Tanya Patemo Stanton Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 459 4/1 M002 Hennenfent Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 460 4/11/2002 Jeff Hellig Huntington Beach Yes ostcard Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02,06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 13 of 22 (_ r E IL E E E E E : g E_ [ E ! E E E E ` IF 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ... ............................. .... ....... ...... ...............�. ...... . .......... ..................................................—...I....... ...................................................................... .... .... F.UH ftd o..Q Rafe . . . .. 461 4/11/2002 Lynda Pepper Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 462 4111/2002 Will Hutchinson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 463 4/111/2002 Massa Taylor Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 464 411112002 Davie Taylor Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 465 4111/2002 Duane Stainer Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 466 4/11/2002 Roger West Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 467 4/11/2002 Stephen Chenatte Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 468 4/18/2002 Erin Steele Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 469 4122/2002 Rita Healey Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 470 412212002 Beverly Weatherill Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 471 4/2212002 Luella Taylor Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 472 4/2212002 Lois Ramey Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 473 4/2212002 Cathy Glasqun Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 474 4/2212002 P.E. Kennedy Fullerton Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 475 4/22/2002 Stewart Kindle y New port Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 476 4/2212002 T.E. Huckins Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 477 4/2212002 Gracie Kinder Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 478 4/22/2002 Peggy Woods Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 479 4/23/2002 Michelle Kunihiro Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 480 4123/2002 Holly Miles Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 481 4/23/2002 James Lieber Huntington Beach yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 482 4/2312002 Leo LeMieny Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 483 4/23/2002 Lois Hiebsch Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 484 4/23/2002 Carol Nitcher Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 485 4/2312002 Kai Dinh Westminster Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 486 4/23/2002 Kurt Usbeil Huntington Beach Yes Postcard Farm letter unstamped Full Secondary 487 4/2312002 Catharine Zimmer Costa Mesa Yes tcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 488 4/23/2002 George Koch Anaheim Yes ostcard Farm letter unstamped Full Secondary 489 4123/2002 Connie Haw Westminster Yes ostcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 490 4/23/2002 Andresna Berra yo Garden Grove Yes ostcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 491 4/2312002 Bridget Johnson Garden Grove Yes ostcard Form fetter unstarnDed Full Secondary 492 4/23/2002 Katie Steinbeck Garden Grove Yes ostcard Form letter unStBMDed lFull Secondary 493 4/23/2002 Brianna Macias Garden Grove Yes ostcard Form letter unstamped it a 2! 494 Vicki Stembeck 6Zda Grove Yes 2o2stLc unstamped 211 SLEEndary 1�ar�d Form letter n 4951 ±12312P2?jL0n!jerraho lGarden Grove Yes p o,tce,ostcard Farm letter unstamped I Full Secondary 496 4/2312002 Maggie Nguyen ]Westminster lYes 1postcard lForth letter unstamped Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 14 of 22 Sely f. U 5eeolidBTy,'. NO Date Nerve `: Ct /c3Ou �1l30 T pg <: C4mtnent5 C4Fr6itt Dp :W>31t 497 4/23/2002 Carino Macias Garden Grove Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 498 4/23/2002 Jennifer Encineas Garden Grove Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 499 4/23/2002 Gina Quarels Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 500 4/23/2002 Roberto Villareal Westminster Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 501 4/23/2002 Miguel Patemo Stanton Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 502 4/23/2002 Raul Duarte Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 503 4/23/2002 Bryan Lelipper Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 504 4/23/2002 Marc Patemo Stanton Yes 1postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 505 4/23/2002 Nicholas Hooper Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 506 4/25/2002 Ryan Waddell Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 507 4/25/2002 Johnnae Nardone Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 508 4/25/2002 Linda Todd Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 509 4/25/2002 Scott/Mary Becker Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 510 4/25/2002 Joseph Recano Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 511 4/25/2002 Lorene Rivera Placentia Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 512 4/25/2002 Kelly Connell Cypress Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 513 4/25/2002 Lauren Butler Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 514 4/25/2002 Cindy Shaw Huntington Beach Yes lipostcard lForm letter Full Secondary 515 4/25/2002 Julie Shields Huntington Beach Yes 1postcard Form letter Full Secondary 516 4/26/2002 Y o Leung Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 517 4/26/2002 Elysse James Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 518 4/26/2002 Cindy Faatz Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 519 4/26/2002 Nikki Michele Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 520 4/26/2002 David McGorrin Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 521 4/26/2002 Paul Kelly Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 522 4/26/2002 Lod Gerilano Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 523 4/26/2002 Linda Vaicam Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 524 4/26/2002 Deborah Castilla Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 525 4/26/2002 Tema Gardand Westminster Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 526 4/26/2002 Scott Lucchese Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 527 4/26/2002 Donna DeLaVega Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 528 4/26/2002 Fdex Nava Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full ary 529 4/26/2002 Mark Harden La Habra Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Seconda 530 4/26/2002 Sharon unsay Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full ary 531 4/26/2002Ellen Jacobs Huntington Beach Yes ostcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 532 4/26/2002 Jo a Carter Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 15 of 22 I t I I I I I I 1 1 I 1 l l I .... . .......tt ..... ............ ..- ...... ..... .. .. ... 1.�......,..,...........I I-I........:::: .. ........ .... ....... ...... ............. ....... ... ........ .............. ... .............. :;Waft 533 4/26/2002 Laura Jennings Huntington Beech Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 534 4/26/2002 D.Anthony Carter Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 535 4/2612002 Valerie Braun Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 536 4/26/2002 Richard Nguyen Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 537 4126/2002 Michael DeLiscia Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 538 4/26/2002 Dwight Jaesli Fountain Valley Yes postcard Farm letter unstamped Full Secondary 539 4/26/2002 Lou Ann Hobbs Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 540 4/26/2002 Frances M. Smith Placentia Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 541 4/26/2002 Derry E.Smith Placentia Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 542 4/2612002 Rachel Rosdies Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 543 4/26/2002 Nathan Stankowski Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 544 4/26/2002 Annie Chang Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 645 4126t2002 Jenny Fen Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 546 4/2612002 Nancy Gardner Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 547 4/26/2002 Casey Swank Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 548 4/26/2002 Shirley Hsueh Huntington Beach Yes_ postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 549 4/26/2002 Brad Nguyen Garden Grove Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 550 4/26/2002 Dana Finley Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 551 4/26/2002 Connie Springer Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 552 4/26/2002 Lisa Davis Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 553 4/26/2002 Jennifer Webster Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 554 4/26/2002 Geniece Magini Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 555 4/26/2002 Stephen Sellers Cypress Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 556 4/26/2002 Lilian Quenda Fullerton Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 557 4/2612002 Cary Koidus Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 558 4/26/2002 Steven french Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 559 4/26/2002 Sandra Rodriguez Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 560 4/26/2002 Min gyu Z"nq Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 561 4/26/2002 James Siten Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 562 4/2612002 lejara Ross Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 563 4/26/2002 Masato Muso Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 564 4/26/2002 Satushl Muso Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 565 4/26/200 Huibel U Ye 1,o2Lc�a d 1E2Lm tlorum;La�,,2d 1Fq Seconds gtca�rd Form:2 letter tamped Full 5661 412RO02 Ruth Kim Va:2112 Yes uns Secondary 567 /2 /2000 Jenny Todd Irvine Yes 1postcard I Form letter unstamped [Full Secondary 5681FIN26661/2002 Laron Mariz lIrvine Yes 1postcard I Form letter unSt8MDed IFull Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 16 of 22 .......................... I. :::.:... 11.1 ............. ............... ......... .. .... ....... .. ....... . ......... U: Oil............ ... ...................... .......... ........................... .5 .... .... ......... ............. .......... ........... ............................... ........ ............. :X ............ Ik*',*>,: oak: .......... ojl:qp' W 569 4/26/2002 Bryant Tran Irvine yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 570 4/26/2002 Thu an Nguyen Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 571 4/2612002 Justin Ornellas Huntington Beach yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 572 4/26/2002 Staci Ann Thompson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 573 4/26/2002 Esoeranza Corona La Habra Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 674 4/26/2002 W.A. Parradee Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 575 4/26/2002 Linda Miller Huntington Beach yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 576 4/26/2002 Barbara Wingfield Huntington Beach Yes postcard ]Forrn letter unstamped Full Secondary 577 4126/2002 Jim Hughes Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter unstamped Full Secondary 578 4/26/2002 Beth Hughes Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter unstamped Full Secondary 579 4/26/2002 Carol Beth Gargeson Huntington Beach yes postcard lForm letter unstamped Full Secondary 580 4/26/2002 Jeanne Langfeldt Stanton Yes postcard IForm letter unstamped Full Secondary 581 4126/2002 Jennifer Sotodeh Newport Beach Yes postcard lForm letter unstamped Full Secondary 582 4/2612002 David Carlos Huntington Beach Yes postcard IForm letter unstamped Full Secondary 583 4/26/2002 Sean H.Thomas Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 584 4/26/2002 Kelly Koldus Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 585 4/26/2002 Debra Henderson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 586 4/26/2002 Taylor Little Tustin Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 587 4/26/2002 Perin Patel Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 588 4126/2002 Julia Sevres Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 589 4126/2002 Janice Vail Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 590 4/26/2002 Todd Calkins Garden Grove Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 591 4/26/2002 Jodi Monaco Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 592 4/26/2002 Jon Vail Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 593 4/26/2002 John Hart Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 594 4/26/2002 Vanessa Collant Westminster Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 595 4126/2002 Corinne Armstrong Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 596 4/26/2002 Jos hone Yun Irvine Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 597 4/26/2002 Madeline Rae Jensen Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 598 4/26/2002 Heather Hamm Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 599 4/26/2002 Paul DeGeorce Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstarnped Full Secondary 600 4/26/2002 Jack Kao Garden Grove Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 6011 412 Fred Williams a Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Seconda 602 ry 6201 Daniel I CO2 26/2002 wet Hamm i�.n n' Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 6031 4/26/2002ILouren Patty Newport Beach Yes ostcard Form tattler unstamped Full Secondary 6041 4/26/20021 Heather McKlbbin ICosta Mesa Yes ostcard Form letter unstamped Full Seconda Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 17 of 22 f I I f ........... .............. NO Seconda•............ . .... ....... . .... . .. ............* .....**.�:�:::�::jo N . .. .... : .Yp 605 4/26/2002 Valk Will Costa Mass Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 606 4/26/2002 Brian Christoffersen Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 607 4/26/2002 Carolyn Kraber Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 608 4/26/2002 Michael Mott Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 609 4/26/2002 Kelly McMullen Irvine, Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 610 4/26/2002 Molly Kent Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 611 4/26/2002 Nita Stevens Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 612 4/26/2002 Chris Hart Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 613 4/2612002 Rose Molina Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form Letter unstamped Full Secondary 614 4/29/2002 Gisela Rivera Placentia Yes postcard Form letter unstamped Full Secondary 615 4/29/2002 Rosalind Freeman Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 616 4/29/2002 Eileen Murphy Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 617 4/29/2002 Margarita Cerda Fullerton Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 618 4129/2002 Mukui Muthama Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 619 4/29/2002 Morgan Pace Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 620 4/29/2002 Daniels Sal' an Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 621 4/29/2002 Guadaluna Cradle Fullerton Yes postcard JForm letter Full Secondary 622 4/29/2002 Kim Winderman Huntington Beach Yes postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 623 4/29/2002 Teri Wright Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 624 4/29/2002 Melanie Meimen Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 625 4/29/2002 Linda Freure Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 626 4/29/2002 Anna Love Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 627 4/30/2002 Katie Nelson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 628 4/30/2002 Terry Nelson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 629 4/3012002 Penny Nelson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 630 4/30/2002 Tatiana Nelson Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 631 518/2002 Martha Brayton Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 632 5/812002 Michael McDuffy Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 633 5/1312D02 Ataxia Swanepoel Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 634 5/1312002 Ray Jacelyn Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 635 5/1312002 Dylan Rogan Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Seconds 636 5/14/2002 Charley Loetis Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 637 5(1612002 Nancy Loftis Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 638 5/1612002 Plat d Huntington Beach Yes Full Secondary Jeff E2 postcard Form letter 639 5/116/200211 I-I' Huntington Beach as postcard 22n 2 Full Secondary Yes _ 1�or, 6401 5116/20021 Kelly Lee Keller Huntington Beach Ye postcard Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 18 of 22 .. .. ........ ....... ....................... .. . ....... . ..... 0 6 da ........... ... ........... ........................... ...... ...................... . 641 5/1612002 Kevin Keller Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 842 5/20/2002 Julie Ford Maloney Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 643 5/2212002 Gary Gordon Fountain Valley Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 644 5/2212002 Robert Garland Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 645 5/23/2002 James Metsunari Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 646 5/2412002 Ron Delatorre Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 647 5/2512002 Sharon Allen Cypress Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 648 5/2312002 Frank Galbech Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 649 5/23/2002 Kathern Tran Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 650 5123/2002 Matt Bennzolt Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 651 5123/2002 Donald Rizzo Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 652 512312002 Kayla Rayfs Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 653 5123/2002 Raishri Mainthia Fullerton Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 654 5123/2002 Tiffany Drage Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 655 5/23/2002 Kate Kun Fullerton Yes posteard Form letter Full Secondary 656 5/23/2002 Ron Allen Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 657 5/23/2002 Allison Von Tun Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 658 5/23/2002 Jessica Thompson Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 659 5/23/2002 Kathryn Chew [Nine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 660 5/23/2002 Sharada Sumer Placentia Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 661 5/23/2002 Neil Aggawal Anaheim Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 662 5/23/2002 Manses Textor Fullerton Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 663 5/23/2002 Dane Johnarmsen Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 664 5123/2002 Lavorme Hover Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 665 5/23/2002 Hamlett Jung Cypress Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 666 5123/2002 Whitney Pierce Seal Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 667 5/2312002 Theo Nguyen Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 668 5/23/2002 Kirsten Cappel Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 669 5/23/2002 Ma Ann Pharn Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 670 5/23/2002 Sarah Coulern Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 671 5123/2002 Dan Nociega Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 672 5/23/2002 Bill Butler Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 673 5/23/2002!Christopher Vu Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 6741 5/23/20021Lanie Nguyen 'v as 12s�caEq jFoEm:2 E Full Second2a postcard Form % 6751 5/231200211-eymore Butts VSE IYLe-, 'r Full Secondary 6761 5/23/2002 Simone Garza lCosta Mesa IYes 1postcard I Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 19 of 22 i I I I I I I I I t I ........... ........-....I...... ............... .......... . ........ ........ Full U b.' .............. ... ...con- I .......... ....... .. ..... ............. ..- 0 W 677 5123/2002 Mimi Nguyan Costa Mesa yes postcard jForm letter Full Secondary 678 5/23/2002 Paul Lee Costa Mesa Yes postcard IForm letter Full Secondary 679 5/23/2002 Sara Baceman Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 680 5/2312002 Steven Olivarez Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 681 5123/2002 Jon Newton Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 682 5/2312002 seen Meyers Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 683 5/2312002 Margaret Schoeppner Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 684 5/23/2002 Yoshi Komi ya Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 685 5/2312002 Kristie Kreider Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 686 5/23/2002 Tora Malcom Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 687 5/2312002 Marko Mayoshandji Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 688 5/23/2002 Joseph Ballucci Fountain Valley Yes 1postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 689 5/2312002 Arnie Pestoles [Nine Yes 1postcard Farm letter Full Secondary 690 5/2312002 Michelle Kim Fullerton Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 691 5/23/2002 Todd Flora Yorba Linda Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 692 5/2312002 Melissa Matheson Oran a Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 693 5t2312002 Angle Chou Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 694 5/23/2002 Dorothy Beek Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 695 5/23/2002 Julia Jones-Ufkes Orange yes postcard Farm letter Full Secondary 696 5/2312002 Susan Eaton Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 697 512312002 Rosie Martinez Santa Ana yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 698 5/2312002 Amy Hidalgo Orange Yes_ postcard Form letter Full Secondary 699 —'5/23/2002 Paige Kilgore Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 700 5/2-3/2002 Thomas C. Hall Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 701 5/2312002 Joanna Zyukowska Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 702 5/2312002 Jordon Bumier Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 703 5/23/2002 Jackie Otar! Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 704 5/2312002 Chelsea Davis Westminster Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 705 5/23/2002 Mary Artino Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 706 5/23/2002 Came Thomas Huntington Beach Yes ostcard Form letter Full Secondary 707 5/23/2002 Todd Crallinger Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 708 5/23/2002 Jean H.Watt Newport Beech Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 709 Lynda Hernandez Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 7101 5/2312002 Felicity Figueroa Irvine Yes nostcard Form letter Full Secondary 7111 512312002 Bart Haka Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 7121 5/23/2002 Mark Tabbert Newport Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 20 of 22 aty , . F.S Secondary, IV4 Qate Name . C /Z3ryu AteB kype Commefts Giitreftt 0 .:fNalt 713 5/23/2002 Carol Hallenbeck Santa Ana Yea postcard lForm letter Full Secondary 714 5/23/2002 Merry Nickerson Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 715 5/23/2002 Wesley Partings Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 716 5/23/2002 Charlene Horning Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 717 5/23/2002 Julia Boynton Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 718 5/23/2002 Elsie Hale Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 719 5/23/2002 Jane Elliott Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 720 5/23/2002 Marion Mvinary Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 721 5/23/2002 Lynn Rene Pyle Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 722 5/23/2002 Michelle Kennedy Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 723 5/23/2002 Lisa Kotler Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 724 5/23/2002 Jeannette Dreyer Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 725 5/23/2002 Robert Elliott Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 726 5/23t2002 Mary Lynn Norby Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 727 5/23/2002 Norman Henke Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 728 5/23/2002 Vicki Osborn Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 729 5/23/2002 Rebekah Jordan Ycrbs Linda Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 730 5/23/2002 Christopher Jennings Santa Ana Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 731 5/23/2002 Kristine Waldorf Cypress Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 732 5/23/20O2 Cathi Schrader Anaheim Yes 1postcard Form letter Full Secondary 733 5/23f2002 Julia Boynton Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 734 5/23/2002 Margaret Henke Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 735 5/23/2002 Jean Gold Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 736 5/23/2002 Dawn Thursb Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 737 5/23/2002 Daney Nefreld Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 738 5/23/2002 Dolly Ka plum Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 739 5/23/2002 Les Red path Irvine Yes postcard Forth letter Full Seconds 740 5/23/2002 Kathryn Wells Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 741 5/23/2002 Lynette Davenport Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 742 5/23/2002 Barbara Aitken Irvine Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 743 5/23/2002 Carole Jenning Irvine Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 7" 5/23/2002 Kathleen Larson Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 745 5/23/2002 NancyJoslynIrvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 746 5/23/2002 Carol Brannon Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 747 5/23/20 2 Colette Contaoi Irvine Yes postcard Forth letter Full Secondary 746 5/23/2002 Karol Welts Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary Ocean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 21 of 22 ..... ....... Ser.V ... ..... .... .. . ........ . ............. .. .111.1........1. 1 1 .i: : : .............. ......... .... .................. .. .... .......... AN i. .... ...... .... .. ... ... ........... ......... . .......... Ir3toup �ii� . ........................... 749 5123/2002 Mark Larson Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 750 512312002 Janet Richard Costa Mesa Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 751 5/23/2002 Donna Bokale Irvine Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 762 512312002 Patricia Ewald Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 753 5123/2002 Cecilia May Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 754 5/23/2002 Dennis May Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 755 5/23/2002 Luanne Homer Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 756 5/2312002 Bernina Clark Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 757 5/23/2002 Aaron Davenport Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 758 5/2312002 Kim Larson Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 759 5/23/2002 Cynthia Burnett Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 760 5/23/2002 Sybil Low Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 761 5/23/2002 Don Rohrbaugh Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 762 5/23/2002 Della Lamberson Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 763 5/23/2002 Kimberly Churton Santa Ana Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 764 5/23/2002 Debra Lainoire Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 765 5/23/2002 Skip Lemcire Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 766 5/23/2002 Reed Tibbetts Tustin Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 767 5/2312002 J.C.Low Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 768 5/2912002 Richard Jett7Jmke Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 769 5/2W002 Ingrid Austin Orange Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 770 5/29/2002 Natalie Austin Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Secondary 771 5/29/2002 Shannon Weaver Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Second2!, E9 772 5/29/2002 AI Trone Huntington Beach Yes postcard Form letter Full Fc; dary-n postcard 773F 4/8/20021 Donald Egan I Buena Park IYes I N/F IAgaInst further tax increase Wait OceanOcean Release Permit Public Input 02.06.02 sorted 05.30.02 Page 22 of 22 W Richard B. Edgar w 345 West First Street, #29 Tustin, CA 92780 (714) 505-0904 W May 31, 2002 Norman Z. Eckenrode Chairman Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District 19844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Norm: W During the last few months, I have been privileged to participate in the PAC-2 meetings to consider renewal of the waiver to the Clean Water Act. This has broadened my understanding of the issues to be addressed. My twenty-five years association with this issue whets my curiosity for additional facts. W After attending months of meetings and reading volumes of material, it is my opinion that the best choice is Alternative B. The purpose of the Clean Water Act is sound. The concept of restricting wastewater out of a sanitation district so that a downstream user can use the water is wise and cannot be questioned. However, if these same standards are used for wastewater that is discharged into the ocean, I believe that such control is irrelevant. u The proper question to be addressed is whether the discharge causes any - hazard. One hazard that could occur is to permit heavy metals to be present in the discharge, however OCSD standards have removed heavy metals very effectively. Another hazard that could be present is bacteria in the effluent. The present commitment for disinfection will effectively remove this. In fact, the presence of bacteria on the beach that is two orders of magnitude greater than any bacteria W in the effluent clearly removed any blame that could be related. It may be that other conditions could exist needing attention. If these exist, they W could be addressed directly rather than to be swept into a general action. During the last twenty-five years, OCSD has continuously processed wastewater in compliance to the waivers that have been authorized. To my knowledge, there has never been an instance in which there is any scientific proof that any harm W W e Norman Z. Eckenrode May 31, 2002 Page 2 .d has been done to the environment or to any individuals' well being. In fact, there does not seem to me that any justification exists to try to match seawater characteristics to wastewater. In fact, the nutrients in this wastewater may be beneficial to sea life. r If either Alternative C or D are used, OCSD will spend millions of dollars annually simply to conform to the letter of text of the Clean Water Act. There are no -d benefits that I am aware of to justify this high expenditure. It is important to note that the effort expended during the months of PAC 2 .. meetings has not been wasted. Many talented people have surfaced concerns that are substantial. The OCSD staff clearly must address these issues so that remedial action can be taken for each problem identified. However, it is prudent for OCSD to continue its quarter century of processing wastewater to reasonable standards. Use of Alternative B will accomplish this without spending millions of dollars of taxpayer money. Si erel Richard B. Edgar RBD:me .. cc: Blake Anderson General Manager .d r r W V 949-492-8142 W norman rest 736 canyon view 615 irvine, laguna/newpott,CA 92651 W April 24, 2002 Chair,OCSD Board of Directors Nonn Eckenrode 10844 Ellis Avenue _ Fountain Valley,CA 92708 W Subject: Please end the 301(h)waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District. W Dear Chair, OCSD Board of Directors Nonn Eckenrode: I am writing to urge you to vote against renewing the 30t(h)waiver held by the Orange County W Sanitation District. I understand that you will he voting on the waiver extension this year.This waiver allows for less than full secondary treatment of the sewage being discharged into the ocean off Huntington Beach.The waiver has potentially harmful effects to the marine environment and is may be causing beach closures thereby exposing the beach going public to a health risk. I request that you immediately direct the staff of the sanitation district to develop and implement plans to treat the sewage to full secondary standards. W As an ocean enthusiast, I demand that our ocean and beaches get the protection they deserve. I do not want to get sick from sewage that is discharged into the ocean and is not treated to the W minimum of full secondary treatment and disinfection. I want a clean and safe ocean.The waiver prevents a clean and safe ocean. Please"Do Us a Favor. Get Rid of the Waiver". W Sincerely, W nortnan rest W W W W W W 94 9 4 92-8142 TO: Chair, OCSD Board of Directors Norm Eckenrode _ 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 ,. FROM: stephen thomas 9862 dragon cr 20061 shorewood cir huntington beach, CA 92646 SUBJECT: Please end the 301(h) waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District. DATE: April 24, 2002 Dear Chair, OCSD Board of Directors Norm Eckenrode: I am writing to urge you to vote against renewing the 301(h) waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District. I understand that you will be voting on the waiver extension this year. This waiver allows for less than full secondary treatment of the sewage being discharged into the ocean off Huntington Beach. The waiver has potentially harmful effects to the marine environment and may be causing beach closures thereby exposing the beach going public to a health risk. I request that you immediately direct the staff of the sanitation district to develop and implement plans to treat the sewage to full secondary standards. As an ocean enthusiast, I demand that our ocean and beaches get the protection they deserve. I do not want to get sick from sewage that is discharged into the ocean and is not treated to the minimum of full secondary treatment and disinfection. I want a clean and safe ocean. The waiver prevents a clean and safe ocean. Please 'Do Us a Favor. Get Rid of the Waiver". —Sincerely, stephen thomas - W 949492-8142 April 25, 2002 ,r Blake Anderson PO Box 8127, ♦ Fountain Valley, CA 92728 Chair, OCSD Board of Directors Norm Eckenmde 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Subject: Please end the 301(h)waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District. W Dear Chair, OCSD Board of Directors Norm Eckenrode: W I am writing to urge you to vote against renewing the 301(h)waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District.I understand that you will be voting on the waiver extension this year-This W waiver allows for less than full secondary treatment of the sewage being discharged into the ocean off Huntington Beads.The waiver has potentially ha®fiil effects to the marine environment and may be causing beach closures thereby exposing the beach going public to a health risk.I request that you immediately direct the staff of the sanitation district to develop and implement plans to treat the sewage to full secondary standards. W As an ocean enthusiast,I demand that our ocean and beaches get the protection they deserve. I do not want to get sick from sewage that is discharged into the ocean and is not treated to the minimum of fall secondary treatment and disinfection.I want a clean and safe ocean.The waiver prevents a clean and safe ocean.Please"Do Us a Favor. Get Rid of the Waiver". W Sincerely, W Blake Anderson W W W W W Christopher Prevatt 12152 Chapman Avenue,#3 Garden Grove, CA 92840 714.290.4428 clprevatt@aol.com .. April 11, 2002 Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors The following is an Op-ed letter published recently in the Orange County Register that I thought .. you would be interested in having. Dropping District Waiver isn't the Solution As reported by the Orange County Register on February 14, 2002, Assemblyman Ken Maddox, R-Garden Grove,has weighed in on the ongoing debate about the water treatment waiver held by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). He, like some city leaders in Orange County, has fallen victim to the relentless campaign of misinformation waged by the opponents of the clean water act waiver held by OCSD. These individuals have claimed that the waiver allows OCSD to dump untreated sewage into the ocean. They have claimed that full secondary treatment of sewage, which would be required if the waiver were to be dropped, would remove most of the bacteria and viruses from the waste water discarded in the ocean 4.2 miles off the coast of Huntington Beach. They have claimed that the waste water flowing into the ocean is the cause of the beach closures in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. They claim that full secondary treatment will solve the problem of beach closures. Mr. Maddox has bought into those claims and is proposing legislation to prevent OCSD from applying for a continuance of its waiver. There is however only one big problem with Mr. Maddox's reaction to those claims. None of the claims are true. First, all sewage is treated prior to discharge into the ocean. Second, full secondary treatment only removes an additional percentage"solids" from the waste water. Secondary treatment does not remove all viruses and bacteria, only complete water purification or chemical treatment would do that. In fact, OCSD is preparing to add chlorine to the treated sewage to kill any remaining bacteria. Third, there is no evidence to support blaming beach closures on the waste water discarded in the ocean by OCSD. In fact,numerous studies have failed to locate the actual cause of the high bacteria counts that have resulted in beach closures. It is more likely that leaking sewer systems in coastal cities as well as pollution from rain water runoff is the cause of the high levels of bacteria. Mr. Maddox's proposal preempts the appropriate regulatory authorities from deciding the merits a request for renewal of the waiver, before OCSD even decides if it wishes to submit an application. His proposal also does not consider the impact on local homeowners and businesses from increased costs resulting from secondarily treating 100% of the waste water. His proposal does not consider that currently, 50%of all sewage undergoes secondary treatment. In addition, �— his proposal does not address the problem of where to put the additional "solids" generated from full secondary treatment. Processing facilities for this material do not exist in Orange County and increasingly other counties and states are prohibiting disposing of this material in their jurisdictions. It is important for our elected officials to not just simply jump on some political bandwagon during an election year. We have the right to expect that our elected officials research the facts before they propose legislation. I can find no current compelling need for the legislature to weigh in on an application for a waiver, that may or may not be submitted, when other government bodies have the ability to regulate whether a waiver application is granted. The only relevant and beneficial legislation that I believe could be proposed on this matter would be to direct that, if a continuation of the waiver is not applied for or granted, that OCSD fund the additional treatment costs from their reserve fund. This would at least prevent OCSD,which has by many accounts excessive reserves, from passing.on the costs of implementing full secondary treatment to local sanitation districts and ultimately homeowners and businesses. While I am in support of cleaner water and cleaner beaches, I do not support taking actions and spending millions of dollars on solutions before we know whether those solutions will solve the problem. To stop the waiver, increase costs, and not solve the underlying problem is poorly conceived public policy and simply stupid. w Sincerely, W e.i Christopher Prevatt Commissioner Garden Grove Sanitary District Advisory Commission W NOTE: The Garden Grove Sanitary District Board of Directors and Its Advisory Commission have not taken an ofIIcial position regarding the OCSD waiver. W W u W W W Lu r{,Id•�Z LI srf 1`0-t2AK� ` pc�r--'os c oG April 7, 2002 -�Spon'a -Mr. Blake Anderson, General Manager Orange County Sanitation District P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Dear Mr Anderson, There is a growing trend, it seems, where vocal voices from small groups are having more and more influence on public policy decisions. The current debate calling for OCSD to increase sewage treatment to from 50 percent secondary to full secondary treatment has not escaped this trend. Recent council votes by Huntington Beach and r others coupled by newspaper articles that seem to be geared more to encourage a public policy fight have added to a vocal minority. While not an expert in sewage treatment requirement, I do have first-hand experience with large, public infrastructure projects and encourage the OCSD Board to think twice before moving to a full secondary scenario. It seems that absent hard, scientific evidence as well as a full understanding of what full secondary would mean to surrounding neighborhoods (specifically air quality), such a move is premature. Adding to the compelling argument against moving to full secondary treatment are the .. tremendous costs involved — estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars. Why would a government agency expend such funds on a program that is unknown? I strongly urge the Board to not respond to a popular public policy demand with a knee- jerk reaction of moving to the costly option of full secondary treatment that has unknown outcomes. What is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. Please act with the interests of all Orange Countians and not vocal minorities. As with many public policy issues, you are not hearing from a majority who depend and trust local —' jurisdictions such as the OCSD to pursue sound policies. .. Sincerely, Da�mpso� 60 Knollwood Irvine, CA 93602 Preview your letter,print it out, hit the button to go back to edit Page 1 o d W PR�N7-lette7.t'fKq�rlL�l�ie�land;of�� , r l Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors Chairman Eckenrode 10844 Ellis Ave. Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 W Tale:(714)962-2411,FAX(714)962-3954 RE:Orange County: get rid of the 301(h)sewage waiver 04/052002 W Dear Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors: Orange County Sanitation District has a waiver allowing it to avoid full secondary treatment of 240,000,000 gallons per d: of wastewater.All other districts our size have given up the waiver and gone to full secondary treatment. Secondary treatment removes 90%or more of live bacteria,virus and other pathogens.After this basic"big hump",further treatment to the potable level is cheaper and easier,making the ourfall obsolete. W Potable water is used at most of the 16,000 sewage treatment districts to refill wetlands and discharge into rivers and lakes. Even Los Angeles has done so, bringing their rivers back to life. More than 16,000 other sewage dischargers,even Los Angeles,have gone to full secondary treatment,the basic in sewage W treatment standards. The conditions under which the"waiver"were granted include no harm to fisheries,recreation,or habitat.Yet we now havy evidence that the sewage wastefield,even in high concentrations,intrudes close to shore. It's a lot easier to treat and properly dispose of solid waste materials--sludge and biosolids--on the land.Sludge should be treated on-site to the"A"level,and all operations should use air scrubbers. W Current wastewater has concentrations of live bacteria of about 40,000,000 per 100 in(about half a cup)and an unknown amount of virus. W After initial diffusion of 180 to 1,the original 240 million gallons per day swells to over 35 billion gallons per day,and the concentration is still a public health menace. Evidence from Los Angeles, and elsewhere,suggests that full secondary treatment results in dramatic improvement in W fisheries and Ocean quality. We should reclaim as much water and solids as possible from our sewage before it is dumped into the Ocean. We no longear can afford to treat the Ocean as a trash can. On Feb. 11,2002,and in tests done in 1996 and as early as 1987,evidence shows that the wastefield plume comes alarmingly close to shore. W Sincerelvh W (Signed W Name: Address: W City,Zip: Telephone: Emai ENl)jr�- IW W me/na What YOU Can C>o t0 wny!x. :itr,�rl'61x.',p/<alvsr,cum 1 Call Blake Anderson, 714-593-7110 tell the Orange County Sewage District that you want OC to follow the lead of the Coastal Commission and give up our waiver.Ask why Orange County believes that full secondary treatment is "unnecessary" although everyone else our size on the Coast thinks it's necessary. 2. Attend the 005D Board of Directors meeting on Weds"day, APRIL 24, 2002 at 7:00 P.M. 400 � 4 C suclid O}framp m tD Y Guard shack Mooting 10844 E111s Orange County Sanitation District Located at 10844 Elba in Fountain Valley.From the San Diego Fwy South,take the Euclid offramp.Go straight at the light into the Sanitation District,veer to the right,pull up at the guard shack,the guard will show you the way to the Meeting. 3. Write a letter from www.StopTheWaiver.com or just send this: er Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors Chairman Eckearode 108"Ellis Ave.Fountain Valley,CA 92708.7018 Tale:(714)962-2411,FAX(714)962-3954 RE:Orange County:Get rid of the 301(h)sewage waiver /_/2002 Dear Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors: Orange County Sanitation District has a waiver allowing it to avoid fall secondary treaonont of 240,000,000 gallons per day of wastewater.All other districts our size havc given up the waiver and gone to full secondary treatment, which removes 90%or mom of live bacteria,virus and other pathogens. The Coastal Commission has ruled this is the minimum treatment required by the Coastal Act. Sincerely, .. (Signed) Name: Phone/Email Address:_ _City, ' w Or mail to P.O. Box 2911, Seal Beach 90740 W 3/29/2032 tls . Lisa durpny, OCSD Communications Nanager u Orange County Sanitation District 10044 Ellis Avenue Fountain ✓a11ay, CA 92703 W Dear its . ilurphy : W Thank you for providing tat important info r,aation about Sewer Service Fees and the Level of Jastewater Treatment . me exact cause of the pollution of the beaches should be W determined so that the appropriate corrective action can be taken. W Sinca you are spending $5 , 100,000.00 in studies to identify the causes , it stems in my opinion, it would be only logical to wait for the results of these studies before swending any more taxpayers funds on additional treatments that iaay or W may not be re4uired. The results should be forthcoming any time now. 4 Spending $400,000,000.00 to finance and construct a Oacundary treatment system tnet may or may not target the exact problem is a ridiculuua waste of taxpayers money. W Sincerely, //A glnald fhatcher 601 Lido Park Orive, 1D W Newport Beach, CA 92663-4456 W u W kw 6w W 64 February 5, 2002 y \ �r m Norman Z. Eckemode {y, Placentia City Hall VigC\%�Rpt\ON m 401 E. Chapman Ave. Placentia, CA 92870 Dear Norman Z. Eckemode, I am very concerned about the health of our beaches and the Orange County Sanitation District's direct involvement. As you know,the OCSD is still not meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act for secondary treatment. As a father and a surfer, my family and I are very careful when using the beaches of Orange County. The"301(h)waiver"has been granted for approximately 20 years. I believe that a waiver is needed but only should be granted when there is progress on compliance. What progress has been shown? How much longer? These questions need to be answered and not left open. We are already paying the price with beach closures. We should pay the price up front by upgrading the facilities of the sanitation district. Please bring up this issue for study to the rest of the council members. Also, include a city resolution as to whether the waiver should be renewed. There are already other city councils, mainly from beach communities, who have already passed resolutions to not renew the waiver. Respectfully, Mike Rivney 1533 N. Fisher Circle Placentia, CA 92870- 01 cc: Constance Underhill oFHarbor s January 5,2002 n, H Ja' Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District 18044 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA 92708-7018 FHBP Board Of Directors: Re: Support of Full Secondary Treatment for Wastewater Jean Watt,President Alice Sorenson,Vim President Discharged into OCSD's Ocean Outfall Don Thomas,Treasurer Carolyn Wood,Secretary Howard DeCruyenaere Marilyn Ganahl To the Chair and Members of the Board of Directors: Sandy Gerais Shirley Grindle Paul Mudge The Friends of Harbors Beaches and Parks(FHBP)is an Stephanie Pacheco Janet Remington organization devoted to promoting, protecting and enhancing the John scot harbors,beaches,and parks in Orange County. Inherent to our Theresa sears- promotion of beaches is the protection of healthy marine Nancy Skinner Jan vandersloot,M.D. ecosystems, which are currently being threatened by pollution. Executive Director - Bob Fisher We appreciate the Orange County Sanitation District's Supporting organizations opportunity for input from the community on the issue of the Anugos de Bolsa Chia request of a 2003 waiver to the Clean Water Act of 1972. We Aodubon,sea ST Sage sa Chapter tutu Chi" Land ageTrust have reviewedvarious anay� l bons of this issue from experts, .'aspers wilderness Park both within the Sanitation District,and from outside experts Volunteers Equestrian Coalition of O.C. such as Dr. Vandersloo Dr. Skinner,Dr. Grant,and Dr. Environmental Nature Center Haydock,along with analysis by some cities and other parties. Friends of Newport Bay We now urge you to support full secondary treatment. Huntington Bch Wetlands Con- servancy,fa Wildlife Care Center Laguna canyon conservancy Our oceans and beaches, as you know, are important for many Laguna Canyon Foundation Laguna Greenbelt,Inc. reasons,such as marine life,recreation,and the economy. There Newport Conservancy are so many variables in the process of the ocean;varying ocean Siena Club,Orange Cry Group tides,currents, wind an waves d patterns, and even the interaction Southeast Huntington Beach Homeowners of the ocean with the AES discharge. We can't take chances Surfriders Foundation, with the health of our oceans b creating a 6-mile plume of Newport Beach Chapter y g Stop Polluting Our Newport primary/secondary water with the bacteria and viruses that are WBdemess Park Trust Fund located in this plume.This is especially important since there is- Advisory Board the hypothesis and possibility that that plume may come to the Marian Bergeson shore. Marilyn Brewer Use Byrnes Roy Byrnes The OCSD must also take responsibility for clean air quality, LouEvelyn nn Hartle which includes protecting our air from unpleasant or harmful Jack eating odors. Additional secondary treatment requires that OCSD ManRay calg install the appropriate air quality and odor controls. This is Claire Shlotterbeck important for both the businesses and residences located near the Jack Skinner M.D. OCSD, and for the general air quality within the Los Angeles basin. Post Office Box 9256 Newport Beach,CA 92658-9256 949-399-3669 .. Earth Resource Foundation Pint In association with Surfrider Foundation Orange County Coast Keepers OOG—Ocean Outfell Group 230 E. 170 SUeet#208 Costa Mesa, CA 92627 "No waiver please" "Do us a favor, get rid of the waiver" We want a Clean Ocean!! To: Blake Anderson,General Manager Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Ave Fountain Valley, CA 92700-7010 . ATTN: Use Murphy,Communications Manager s 2 _ "Do us a favor, get lid of the waiver" Dear Mr.Anderson, I am writing to ask that you to"Co us a favor and get rid of the waiver', NI Sew- age discharged Into the ocean should be fully treated without a waiver from the 1972 Clean Water Act standards. 1 WANT A CLEAN AND SAFE OCEAN [ Please pass this on to the Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors. Thank you, Print Name: Slgnature: . Address:_ — State:_ Zip Code'. City:_---•--- + Addlbonsl Comments. W W Deer Orange County Sanitation District Board of Directors, As a person who enjoys swimming and surfing in our oceans,I am writing to ask that you vote to oppose the extension and/or renewal of the fecal W bacteria waiver(AKA 301 (h)wavier)that is now held and used by the Orange County Sanitation District. W As you know,this waiver allows the sanitation district to discharge 120 million gallons a day of primary treated sewage,which contains fecal bacteria into the ocean off Huntington Beach.This sewage has been shown to Li make its way back towards the shoreline.I'm very upset that this sewage is not fully treated to the standards of the Clean Water Act,which require full secondary treatment.I am totally opposed to under treated sewage being pumped into the ocean and potentially exposing me to sewage products when I W surf and recreate in the mean.I am confident you are too. I support clean oceans across the country and the world.I request that youW do too.With eleclionsjust around the canner,I ampositive your constituents will be watching closely.You can do your part by opposing the Orange Sanitation District's request to renew their fecal bacteria waiver (301-(h)waiver).Thank you for voting for a clean ocean and for opposing W the waiver. Sincerely, W W V W W W W V 1� Orange County Sanitation District (714) 962-2411 www.ocsd .com mailing address: P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 street address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-701fi published on recycled paper