HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-16; City Council; 8833; Encina Waiver From Secondary TreatmentCIT0)F CARLSBAD - AGENDQJILL
•H 01 C
o> g cd
X! cd
4-> CO XI4-1
13 0) *H
0) XI SbO 4.)
M 133 O 0)1 0 4>J^ cd
dOPla 4J -H
13
4J CO ^
CJ rJ Ooi o) og £ o
4-) Ocd ft o)
01 XI
t-l 4J
4-1 fl 4J
•H C
>i O 0)
rJ •<-) g
Cd 4J13 0) COpi XI 01
O 4-1 r-1
O 4-1
0) 4-1co o >>
rJ
rH CO n)
H t-t T33 01 C
4H XI 00 0O OI O)
4-) 0 CO
(-1 0) rH
3 XI 34J 4-1 4H •o) o g
M O O)
0) 4-1 4J
CS XI CO
4J OI >~,4J > COrJ >-, O
0 XI S rH
ft X> cdft O ^t CO
3 rH fi 0co nj fto co
O 4-1 4J -H
4J cd 13co xl13 OI 4-1 OI0) > bOC3 "H ^> TJ
•H 4-1 rH 3gcd i — t T— I
4-1 Cd CO
01 PI Pi
4-1 OI O 4-1o) co -H C
13 0) 4-1 OI
t-l -H bO
rH ft 13 -H
•H OI 13 rH
0 J-l Cd rHa oi^« r i ""rt j_j^ ^_^ (J ^J
O <! C CU >-) cd -H
oo1
VD
MJG- 12-16-86 PITRT.TC HEARING AND COUNCIL DISCUSSION C'TY ATTYlK
OPPT U/M ON ENCINA WAIVER FROM SECONDARY TREATMENT ^|Ty MJ?B ^
w
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Hear presentations and conduct a public hearing on the secondary
waiver at Encina and provide City Council JAC representatives and
staff with Council direction as appropriate.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
Council Member Pettine requested that staff provide a workshop for
the Council on the issue of the Encina wiaver from secondary
treatment. The following individuals have been contacted and will
brief the Council:
Mr. Richard Graff, Manager
Encina Water Pollution Control Facility
Mr. ALan Thum
Kinnetics/Lindstrom
Mr. Thum conducts the Encina waiver monitoring program.
Dr. Jack Anderson, Executive Director
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP)
Dr. Anderson and his group conduct many studies and analyses of
the ocean environment along the Southern California coast.
An agenda is included as Exhibit A.
EXHIBITS:
A. Workshop Agenda.
B. Memorandum from Roger Greer, dated November 3, 1986,
regarding Ocean Monitoring Report.
C. Copy of Richard Graff's presentation.
.D. SANDAG map of ocean outfalls in San Diego County.
Z
O
o
8
EXHIBIT "A1
AGENDA
Presentation:
1. Mr. Richard Graff (10 minutes)
Background on the Encina plant and waiver
application
2. Mr. Alan Thum (10 minutes)
Encina ocean monitoring program and
first year monitoring results
3. Dr. Jack Anderson (10 minutes)
SCCWRP activities and pertinent
studies relating to secondary waivers
4. Mr. Richard Graff (10 minutes)
Status report on the North County Sludge
Study and report on use of Otay Landfill
for disposal of Encina sludge
Public Hearing
Questions and Answers
EXHIBIT "B1
November 3, 1986
TO CITY MANAGER
FROM: Roger Greer, Staff Rep to JAC
ENCINA WAIVER FROM SECONDARY TREATMENT
There have been recent newspaper articles and individual pronounce-
ments concerning the waiver from secondary treatment for the Encina
Water Pollution Control Facility. The press statements are partic-
ularly rife with misstatements of fact.
The waiver from secondary treatment was approved in December 1984
and Encina began the waivered level of discharge on July 1, 1985.
The waiver approval process required a program of detailed monitoring
far and above that previously required. The first year's (July 85-
August 86) report of this monitoring program has just been released.
I have attached a copy of the Executive Summary for your information.
I have complete copies of the report in the Utilities & Maintenance
office and will make them available to everyone who wishes to review
the total report. Some excerpts of the report follow:
Surf Zone Water Quality -- "...the reduction in the level of treat-
ment from full secondary to advanced primary has had no measureable
impact on surf zone water quality."
Nearshore Water Quality — "...Surface waters average less then
7 mpn/100 ml" (of fecal coliform). The standard for swimmable water
is 1,000 mpn/100 ml. Only one station exceeded the standard in
one occasion and this was a control station about a mile from the
outfall. A further conclusion was "...strong evidence indicates
that receiving waters are influenced by bacterial sources other
than waste waters."
Offshore Water Quality — "...Results indicate no discernable
(measureable) influence on Encina wastewater effluent on these specific
(suspended solids, grease, oil and light transmittance) marine water
quality parameters."
Benthic-Monitoring — Toxic pollutants — "concentration in sediments
near the outfall are not higher than in areas some distance from
the outfall (reference stations)." Further, "...those detectable
are trace metals whose levels lie within the concentration range
considered to occur naturally along the Southern California mainland
shelf."
Biological Monitoring - "...the present Encina discharge does not
demonstratably cause any abnormal body burden of toxic pollutant
which is known to have adverse effects on the organism or consumers."
Kelp - Kelp monitoring is done on a regional basis involving all
ocean dischargers. The report covering this same period will be
submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board later this
month.
The monitoring report is the first of annual reports required as a
condition of the ocean waiver. It is unique in that no other
outfall in Southern California has been subjected to the detailed
analysis as has Encina. The report does not disclose any unusual or
unanticipated results projected by the original application for the
waiver. It must be remembered that the monitoring program and the
report utilize the state of the art technology currently available.
As new techniques or testing procedures for other health related
organisms are developed, Encina is prepared and is committed by
policy to incorporate them into the monitoring program.
A more current program and one which I trust will develop a great
deal of public interest in the near future concerns the disposal of
sludge. The monitoring program relates only to the effluent trans-
ported to the ocean environment, sludge or the solids removed from
the treatment process must also be disposed of in an environmentally
responsible and cost-effective manner. Encina is just completing a
year long analysis done in concert with other North County dischargers,
Encina must find a disposal method for over 2,800 dry tons per year.
Currently the only alternatives utilized are use as a soil amendment
for certain farming operations or landfilling. Should the plant
return to full secondary, the quantity of sludge will increase to
3,700 dry tons or increase by a factor of 1/3. Concerns for the
risks associated with virus survivability relating to disposal of
sludge in the ocean are just as real as is the disposal of sludge
on the land. The only remaining alternative for sludge disposal
may be incineration, however, the recent public concern for the
disposal of trash by incineration in San Marcos may preclude this
alternative from any consideration. The final report and recommen-
dations are expected in late January.
SANDAG will be conducting an all-day workshop on December 4, 1986
commencing at 9 AM at the La Jolla Marriott Hotel on La Jolla Village
Drive. I would strongly urge the City Council members to attend this
workshop as there will be discussion of the waivers from secondary
treatment and the sludge disposal problem facing us in the near future
I will provide Bonnie with this detailed information, when available,
for them to register. Fees will be $25 per person including lunch.
RO^ER W. GREER
Attachment
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
In July 1985 Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. and K.P. Lindstrom and
Associates (KLI/KPLA) were designated in a renewable (annually) five-year
contract to perform specific monitoring program tasks mandated in the Encina
Water Pollution Control Facility's (EWPCF) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit (NPDES Permit No. CA0107395). This permit was adopted
by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), San Diego
Region, as Order No. 84-35 on December 17, 1984 and issued by Region 9, on
December 24, 1984. Following the public appeals process, Encina initiated
treatment operations and monitoring requirements in accordance with the new
permit July 1, 1985. This order and permit may be reissued, modified or revoked
in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 5122.44, 5122.62-5122.64, 5125.62,
and 125.64, and expires on 23 December 1989. It establishes effluent discharge
limitations, flow and mass emission limits, and mandates various monitoring
and reporting programs to demonstrate compliance or noncompliance. The permit
is based on a variance from the requirements of achieving[ful"^secondary treatment
as provided for by Section 301(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act (PL 95-217),
and incorporates the receiving water and biological resource protection provisions
of the California Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters (Ocean Plan).
Results of the first complete year of data collection are analyzed and discussed
in this report. Data analysis, interpretation, a discussion of the findings,
and their significance in terms of environmental impact are included. To
measure the degree of environmental effect, results are compared to adopted
standards, permit limitations, receiving water objectives or standards, and
comparisons with other California coastal locations.
Treatment
During the first year of operation under the guidelines of the permit,
the Encina Sewage System provided a high level of treatment to an averag_e_17
million gallons a day (mgd) of influent^sewage yielding an effluent quality
that approaches or exceeds that normally achieved by most secondary treatment
plants. This is accomplished by blending primary and secondary effluents to
produce a composite effluent, the process is referred to as "advanced primary"
treatment (Table 1). A comparison of various levels of removal by primary and
1
m • i • ••••lllllllllll
PO
Table 1
Estimated removal efficiencies of treatment processes (range of percentage removals).
Parameter
BODs
Suspended Solids
Settleable Solids
Grease and Oil
Ammonia
Phenol
Zinc
Cyanide
Copper
Chromium
Nickel
Silver
Mercury
Lead
Cadmium
Encina
Advanced
Primary
77.6
81.5_
80.0
5.4
69.2
45.8
ND
64.6
74.9
61.6
78.6
ND
83.1
64.2
Facility
Secondary
83.7
96.8
—95.4
NA
74.8
66.3
ND
74.9
85.1
41.1
92.2
ND
84.7
63.1
Primary
30
51
70
48
4-71
—30
—20-35
25-38
6-30
—22-27
20-35
0-30
Advanced
Primary1
50-55
75-80
80
—
75-80
65-80
75-80
20-30
60-75
75-80
55-75
Conventional
A.S.2
91
88
95
88
17-93
99
71-80
59
70-82
52-90
9-32
94
50-86
46-90
10-92
Trickling
Filter3
77
78
90
46
94
73
68
75
63
10
83
49
77
84
Sources: U.S. EPA 1977, 1982
•^Physical-chemical treatment using ferric chloride and polymers.2Activated sludge treatment.3Trickling filter alone.
ND - Not Detected
NA - Not Applicable or Measured
secondary treatment nationwide are compared with Encina's performance this
past year in Table 1. Removal of BODs averages 78% while total suspended
solids (TSS) removal is about 82% at the present. The EPA definition of
"secondary treatment" is based on 85% removal of BODg and TSS. Removals of
netals and other parameters from advanced primary treatment are generally
equivalent or slightly less than those achieved by conventional activated
sludge treatment (Table 1). Removals are sufficient to assure compliance with
provisions of the California Ocean Plan by a large margin. This is a result
of relatively small industrial flow (approximately 5% of total sewage produced),
a rigorous pretreatment program, a high degree of treatment, efficient plant
operations, and a well-designed outfall diffuser where treated effluent mixes
with seawater 7,800 feet offshore at an average depth of 150 feet.
SURFZONE WATER QUALITY
"Surfzone monitoring is conducted to assess bacterial conditions in
areas used for body-contact activities (e.g., swimming) and to assess aesthetic
conditions for general recreational uses (e.g., picnicking)." Order 84-35 has
established five surfzone sampling stations, SI, S2, S3, S4 and S5. These
stations bracket the point of intercept of the outfall to the shore such that
SI is about one mile south of the outfall, S3 is at the outfall and S5 is one
vile north of the outfall. Sampling is conducted weekly.
Three water sources recognized as having the ability to impact surfzone
test results are located in the vicinity of the Encina outfall. These sources
are Batiquitos Lagoon, Encinas Creek and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Encinas Creek,
located 100 yards north of the outfall and Station S3, appears to have the
greatest impact on surfzone test results. Greatest impact occurs during winter
months following storm activity when storm water runoff is greatest.
During the past year a total of 255 surfzone samples were analyzed for
total and fecal coliform. Average annual total coliform counts for the five
surfzone stations ranged from 5.6 to 18.8 mpn per 100 ml. One sample (collected
1-8-86 at S5) exceeded surfzone water quality objectives of 200 mpn/100 ml for
fecal coliform. No material of sewage origin was observed at any time during
the first year's monitoring effort.
Comparison of results of testing conducted for calendar 1984 with
testing conducted during the first year of Order 84-35 supports the conclusion
that the reduction in the level of treatment from full secondary to advanced
primary has had no measurable impact on surfzone water quality.
NEARSHORE WATER QUALITY
"Nearshore water quality monitoring is conducted to assess
bacteriological conditions in areas used for body-contact sports (e.g., scuba
diving) and where shellfish and/or kelp may be harvested; and to assess aesthetic
conditions for general boating and recreational uses." Monthly sampling is
conducted at five stations at depths ranging from 9 to 15 meters (30 to 48
feet) at a distance of 1,564 to 1,903 meters (5,131 to 6,244 feet) from the
mid-point of the discharge diffuser. During the past year, 59 samples each
were taken at surface, mid-depth, and bottom depths (five stations combined).
Average total coliform values ranged from 1.5 to 170 mpn/100 ml. One sample
(maximum count of 1,000 mpn/100 ml mid-depth at Station Kl in January) exceeded
Ocean Plan water quality objectives.
Fecal coliform counts ranged from zero to 167.3 throughout the water
column with the mid-water sampling stations having the highest average counts.
Surface waters averaged less than 7 mpn/100 ml. Kelp bed stations had the highest
overall averages for mid-water stations. Highest counts generally occurred in
the winter months of December and January appearing to correspond to terrestrial
runoff during the rainy season. Strong evidence indicates that receiving waters
are influenced by bacterial sources other than wastewaters. Additional efforts
aimed at better identifying and quantifying the impact of non-effluent bacterial
sources may be warranted.
OFFSHORE WATER QUALITY
"Offshore monitoring is conducted to determine compliance with the
Ocean Plan; and to determine if the Encina discharge causes significant impacts
on the water quality within the ZID and beyond the ZID as compared to references
areas."
Monthly water column profiling is conducted at six offshore stations
at 3-meter depth intervals to measure temperature, salinity, pH, dissolved oxygen,
and to sample suspended solids, and grease and oil at three depths. Readings
of light transmittance and observations of currents are also performed. Results
indicate no discernible (measurable) influence of Encina's wastewater effluent
on these specific marine water quality parameters. This may be a result of
the high degree of dilution and mixing which occurs. To illustrate, if one
assumes that the area within 150 feet of the diffuser were confined (as in a
giant aquarium), the Encina effluent flow over a 24-hour period would represent
only 5.6% of the boundary volume. Any small variations in the measured parameters
which may exist (i.e., 1 to 2 %) are typically undetectable within the limits
of existing instruments and well below acceptable Ocean Plan water quality
standards (e.g., no more than 10% change from background for dissolved oxygen).
BENTHIC MONITORING
Sediments
Analysis of one pooled bottom sediment sample (from three 0.1-m2
grabs) at each of six stations is performed annually to determine the physical
and chemical quality of sediments. Analyses for over 130 different chemical
substances are conducted; including all priority pollutants exclusive of asbestos.
The results of sampling to date include analyses for thirteen different
metals, cyanide and BOD, oil and grease, total organic carbon, dissolved sulfide,
other priority pollutants and radioactivity at six ocean monitoring stations
(Zl, Z2, 61, G2, Rl, and R2) and selected parameters at two nearshore stations.
Toxic Pollutants
Based on a comparison of metals concentrations in sediments found in
areas remote from major sewage outfalls or anthropogenic sources (e.g., storm
drains, rivers, harbors), the Encina outfall is not contributing metals to the
marine sedimentary environment at a level which results in any significant
increase over background levels in marine sediments. Concentrations in sediments
near the outfall (ZID) are not any higher than in areas some distance from the
outfall (reference stations).
The absence of chlorinated hydrocarbons, organics and cyanide is
indicative of a lack of potentially persistent or toxic compounds in sediments
which can adversely affect marine biota. Results of effluent and fish tissue
analyses confirm such a finding.
Based on the results of the first year, it is evident that few compounds
on the priority pollutant list are present at detectable levels in sediments.
Those detectable are trace metals whose levels lie within the concentration
range considered to occur naturally along the southern California mainland
shelf. None of the persistent organo-chlorine or synthetic organic compounds
with high bioaccumulation potential were found in the sediments near the Encina
outfall.
Infauna
Benthic infauna were characterized by species assemblages and densities
of organisms that typically inhabit background condition coastal sediments.
Pollution "indicator" species were generally absent or were present only in
low numbers.
Low level discharge effects upon infaunal populations, should they
exist, would be difficult to statistically detect from only two surveys due to
high small scale spatial variability between station replicates and between
sampling periods.
Seasonal cl imatic/oceanographic effects appear to be the major influence
upon infaunal populations.
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Fish and Hacroinvertebrate Community Parameters
Demersal fish and macroinvertebrate species showed no significant
spatial distribution trends related to the Encina discharge. However, only
large-scale effects would be detectable from two surveys. Although the
distribution of bottom feeding fish appear to be influenced by large discharges,
even these areas have not been sampled rigorously enough to define patterns
for more than a few species (Spies 1984). Encina data from all stations revealed
a fauna that characterizes sedimentary shelf habitats throughout the Southern
California Bight.
Fish Tissue Chemistry
Analyses of trawl-caught fish tissues are conducted annually to
assess pollutant uptake and relate any findings to wastewater discharge practices.
Three different bottom-dwelling fish were analyzed (Longfin sanddab, Hornyhead
turbot and California tonguefish). Muscle tissue levels of metals were all
well below the levels found in sediments except for mercury. None except
mercury appear to be bioaccumulating above ambient levels in sediments.
Variability between individual fish in other studies has been shown to vary by
5 to 10-fold in muscle tissue and 3 to 200-fold for liver. Preliminary results
for the fish caught off Carlsbad indicate no excessive body burdens, but much
more data needs to be collected before any strong conclusions or trends can be
determined.
The only organic priority pollutants found, other than DDT and it
derivatives, were phthalates which are used as plasticizers and in pump fluids.
This class of compounds was not found in either the effluent or sediments
indicating other possible sources (tankers or marine shipping). These compounds
are known to have a high bioaccumulation potential, but few exist to form a
basis for EPA to develop water quality criteria or to determine the significance
of the 2.69 ppm body burden measured in the California tonguefish caught at
Station T-3.
Fish caught near the Encina outfall had DDT levels 70,000 times
lower than the USFDA Action Level of 5 ppm of edible tissue and 125 times
lower than the level for mercury and indicate no increased health risk from
consumption of these fish.
In summary, the present Encina discharge does not demonstratably
cause any abnormal body burden of toxic pollutants which is known to have
adverse effects on the organism or consumers. Tissue burden levels of trace
metals, pesticides and priority pollutants are all very low and for most of
the synthetic hydrocarbons, below present detection limits.
KELP
Kelp Bed monitoring is conducted to assess the extent to which the
discharge of wastes may affect the area! extent and health of coastal kelp
beds. Permit requirements call for the EWPCF to participate with other ocean
dischargers in the San Diego Region in an annual regional kelp bed photographic
survey. As regards this permit requirement, EWPCF is in compliance.
The purpose of the regional plan is to review the general health and
size of the kelp beds relative to each other. Thus, if one kelp bed decreases
in size while all others have grown larger, cause for closer scrutiny of the
unique situation is justified. To accomplish this goal, results of each annual
survey will be presented as follows:
1. An infrared photo mosaic of the region will be produced. This
mosaic will be scaled and include locations of outfalls and
both the 30- and 60-foot depth contours.
2. The location of each kelp bed will be charted and their area!
extent will be determined.
3. A photo essay of the coastline using kodachrome slides will be
part of the aerial study.
Results of the 1986 survey will be presented at a region-wide meeting
at San Diego RWQCB headquarters on September 26, 1986.
OCEAN CURRENTS
Collection of data'on ocean currents is conducted to determine the
potential for onshore transport of effluent and to verify predictions based on
effluent dilution and sediment accumulation models. The study presently being
conducted by Terry Hendricks of the Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project Authority (SCCWRP) on behalf of EWPCF will establish characteristics
of the mid-water and near-bottom currents in the vicinity of the Encina outfall
diffuser and the head of Carlsbad Canyon. Program submittal was made to EPA
on November 19, 1985 with subsequent approval for the project granted December
16, 1985. By this agreement, field measurements will be made during calendar
year 1986 and represent conditions during two critical climatic periods, winter
and summer.
8
Field measurements of "winter" conditions were made over a 90-day period
from January through the end of March 1986, and included current measurements
collected during at least one severe winter storm. Field measurement of "summer"
conditions have just concluded and were conducted from mid-July through mid-
September 1986.
Submittal of the draft final report is scheduled for delivery to
EWPCF by November 30, 1986. Final report submittal to EPA is scheduled for
January 31, 1987.
EXHIBIT "C"
CITY OF CA&S5BAD DECEMBER 16,1986 COUN^rf MEETING
RICHARD W. GRAFF
ENCINA GENERAL MANAGER
Ref: 1L.2129
Mayor and City of Carlsbad Council Members:
The following comments are provided in order to assist you in making difficult
decisions - environmental and economic. Decisions which may be made easier if
all information were available. In fact there are questions for which we do not
have the answers.
Some answers are being provided by new information available. Some others will
be answered or clarified within the near future. Other areas which are not
being examined now may never be answered.
This presentation is made with the understanding that you have already reviewed
the waiver issues paper dated July 27, 1986. Copies of this presentation and
issues paper will be made available to the public. I do not intend to review
the Issues Paper but rather respond to your questions and provide an update to
the solids (sludge) disposal issue and its impact on the waiver economics.
The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and Ocean Outfall serve the
wastewater treatment and disposal needs of residents and businesses within a
75,000 acre service area located in the coastal areas of San Diego's North
County. This service area includes the cities of Vista and Carlsbad, the
Leucadia and San Marcos County Water Districts, and the Encinitas Sanitary and
Buena Sanitation Districts. The combined population of these areas is
approximately 180,000. In addition, an estimated 10,000 homes on septic systems
in and outside the service area are provided service. The facility is owned and
operated by the six member agencies through a joint powers agreement. Encina
itself serves as a wholesaler - each of the member agencies issue permits,
operate collection system and bill customers, etc. The Encina Joint Adivsory
Committee (JAC) consists of two representatives from each member agency and
recommends to the agencies items such as annual budgets, etc.
Encina is capable of treating 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD) to full secon-
dary level and currently receives a flow of (approximately 17 MGD. Operating
since 1965, the plant provided only primary treatment until the most recent
expansion which was completed in 1983. The 83 expansion also provided for
secondary treatment as well as other improvements. Treated effluent not
reclaimed is disposed of via an 8000 foot ocean outfall discharging at a depth
of 150 feet. Effluent discharged to the ocean is not disinfected. The outfall
has a present design capacity of 40.5 MGD.
Encina is located on a 25 acre ocean front site within the city limits of
Carlsbad. Unit processes include: preliminary screening and grit removal, pri-
mary sedimentation, anaerobic digestion, activated sludge, secondary clarifica-
tion, biological odor reduction and dissolved air flotation thickening. 4 MGD
of secondary effluent are reclaimed for use within the plant as process, irriga-
tion, and cooling water.
The plant produces its own electrical power through engine generators that are
run on purchased natural gas. Waste heat from the engine generators is used to
provide heating and cooling throughout the plant. Methane gas produced during
anaerobic digestion is used to fuel an engine blower providing air for the acti-
vated sludge process.
A modern, fully equippt?f laboratory capable of perfori^sfg complete bacterial,
heavy metal, and organic pollutant monitoring provides analytical data for unit
• process control and NPDES Permit reporting requirements. The lab along with the
staffs of the six member agencies also perform collecton system sampling and
analysis to insure compliance with an aggressive Industrial Waste Pretreatment
Program.
Encina operated as a full secondary treatment facility from 1983 to mid-1985
when it was granted a Waiver under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act. The
permit expires in December, 1989. The Waiver allowed Encina to reduce its level
of treatment from full secondary to advanced primary (AP) levels. This is
accomplished by diverting primary effluent and subsequently mixing it with
secondary effluent at a ratio of approximately 1:1. The Waiver also involved
the development of a $150,000/year Ocean Monitoring Program in addition to the
existing monitoring efforts since 1965. To-date that monitoring program has not
indicated any problems with AP.
The sludges produced by primary and secondary treatment are anaerobically
digested and dewatered by belt filter presses. The dewatered solids, produced
at a rate of approximately 42 wet tons/day (50 cubic yards/day) had been
disposed of either by landfilling or agricultural reuse in San Diego County
until November 21, 1986. Encina is currently involved in the North County
Sewage Solids Management Study (NCSSMS) along with 12 other North County agen-
cies. The study is examining options for a long term solution to the problem of
disposing the solids generated by wastewater treatment.
Encina is presently supporting water reclamation efforts in the North County by
treating the solids generated by 3 satellite wastewater reclamation plants
(Shadrowridge, Meadowlark, Gafner). These plants are owned and operated by the
member agencies - San Marcos County Water District, Buena Sanitation District
and Leucadia County Water District. A fourth plant (Calaveras Hills) owned by
Carlsbad is not connected to Encina.
Encina is providing environmental management planning for the future of its
member agencies in several critical areas. A 20-year Facilities Plan for the
ocean outfall system was completed in 1985. The plan includes recommended capi-
tal projects to provide disposal of treated wastewater and to act as a failsafe
for unreclaimed flows from inland satellite plants. A plant Facilities Plan for
a 30-year phased expansion to an ultimate capacity of 45 MGD is scheduled to be
completed in July, 1987. This plan will closely examine issues of water recla-
mation, energy management, 'wheeling' of excess electrical power, odor control,
and whether or not Encina should continue to serve as the sole North County sep-
tage discharge point. The NCSSMS will in the near future describe a recommended
course of action for the disposal of the wastewater solids generated in the
North County. At the earliest, regional or independent solids handling facili-
ties could be on line within the next 3 to 4 years. Capital dollar needs over
the next 20 years to support these programs is in excess of $82,000,000.
The Encina planning is being done considering dual scenarios i.e. with and
without waiver.
Encina is staffed by 46 experienced professionals in the wastewater field.
In summation, Encina, IwS all wastewater treatment fa>«fities face a difficult
task: to protect the health of residents within their service areas by providing
cost-effective treatment of wastewater while at the same time planning for
growth, limiting impacts on the environment, and adapting to changes in environ-
mental regulations, public concerns, financing options, energy availability and
inflationary swings. Maintaining this adaptibility is important as part of the
above mentioned environmental management planning.
Groups interested in touring the Encina facility may contact Mr. Mike Garner at
438-3941.
Attachments
ENCINA 301(h) WAIVER
July 27, 1986
ISSUES SUMMARY
Ref: 11.1815
The purpose of this document is to summarize issues regarding the Encina waiver
from full secondary treatment. The document is for the most part site specific
to Encina. It contains history/background, rationale, explanation of terms, and
a synopsis of issues. It is is not intended to contain all information but
rather, the main points.
BACKGROUND
The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 established the requirement of secon-
dary level of sewage treatment across the country regardless of the nature of
the discharge, point of discharge, etc. Until then, in California, the required
treatment level of wastewater discharged to the ocean was determined by the
State. Encina, which began discharging wastewater in 1965, was built as a pri-
mary level plant in compliance with State requirements. The main difference (for
ocean discharger purposes) between primary and secondary levels of treatment is
the amount of solids removed (see Attachment 1).
The CWA required that Encina be at full secondary by 1983. In 1974 Encina began
the planning process to meet the 1983 deadline.
In 1982, during a high inflationary economic time and an energy crisis period,
the CWA was amended. This amendment allowed for a one time only application for
a waiver from the full secondary treatment requirements.
The application had to be submitted by December, 1982. Prior to approval it
would be subjected to a rigorous environmental review, public hearing process
and had to meet several criteria prior to approval. In the case of Encina, the
discharge would have to comply with California Ocean Plan level of treatment or
75* removal of solids in addition to many other limitations and requirements.
The Encina Ocean Outfall was granted a waiver in December, 1984 and began a
waiver discharge in July 1, 1985. The waiver permit expires in December, 1989.
The provisions for continuing this permit beyond that date are not specific at
this time.
Not knowing if and when a waiver would be granted, Encina had completed the
secondary level treatment works in October, 1983 as required by the CWA.
ISSUES
1. Previous Discharge - Encina has discharged treated wastewater through an
ocean outfall for 21 years. In 1965, the flow was 4.5 million gallons per
day (MGD) and given primary treatment (65% solids removed). In 1983 the
flow was 14 MGD and given secondary treatment (85% solids removed). Since
July, 1985 the treatment has been at an advanced primary level (75% solids
removed) and the present flow is 17 MGD including unused flows from inland
reclamation plants. During these 21 years there have been no problems
(public health, fish, kelp, etc.) identified with the discharge - either in
the beach area or open waters.
Qteristics - Encina's discharge **lf relatively small (17
MGD) when compared to typical large metropolitan flows (San Diego, 180 MGD;
Orange County, 250 MGD; Los Angeles County, 350 MGD). Encina's potential
ultimate flow 45 MGD is also relatively small. The industrial flow, which
is approximately 4% of the Encina total flow, would account for any major
source of toxic (metals, PCB's, etc.) material. A typical metropolitan industrial
flow percentage is 15% or more. Encina's volume and most characteristics
are similiar to San Elijo Outfall to the south and Oceanside Outfall to the
north. Encina's outfall is 20-30 feet deeper at its discharge point than
either of these outfalls. Also, in the vicinity of Encina's discharge there
are no significant kelp beds or shellfish harvesting areas, although the
monitoring program includes elements to help assess impacts on these
resources.
3. Indicator Organisms - The Ocean Plan requires that bacterial contamination
be determined by taking measurements of coliform organisms in the ocean at
set locations on a weekly schedule. These tests have been accepted and
required by State and County health authorities. It has been suggested that
enterococcus bacteria be used as a better indicator of the presence of
enteric pathogens. Neither EPA or the State have developed standards for
enterococcus. However, Encina has done preliminary testing to become fami-
liar with the methodology and evalaute its feasibility as a useful moni-
toring parameter.
*. Viruses - Sewage contains viruses. The subject of virus survival, interac-
tion with ocean environment, testing techniques, etc. is a complex and very
specialized area of study. Encina has and continues to rely on the health
(San Diego County and State) agencies and regulatory (Regional and State
Water Resources Control and EPA) agencies to set discharge requirements. In
turn, Encina meets those requirements in a cost effective manner.
Secondary treatment removes more viruses than advanced primary and primary
treatment. Secondary treatment has been reported to have 200 times less
viruses than primary treatment. Viruses have not been implicated as an
issue of public health concern by the local and state health departments for
Encina's discharge. The Ocean Plan requires disinfection (chlorination,
etc.) when distance and dilution are not sufficient to protect public
health. Encina is not required to disinfect and therefore does not have
facilities to disinfect. There are no established standards for viruses
in drinking water, shellfish, or bathing water. Viruses are known to sur-
vive for weeks in seawater. Their survival depends on temperature. The
warmer the water, the sooner they are inactivated, thus in summer their
infectivity concentrations are at their lowest levels.
Bacteria also die off in a similiar manner. We use fecal coliform bacteria
as an indicator of the presence of animal waste (Issue 3). Viruses are not
measured for several reasons according to officials of the California
Department of Health Services Sanitary Engineering Branch (excerpted from
Oceanside Waiver Testimony). These include:
Viruses have not been indicated as causing any serious health
effects in bathing waters. Risk from swimming in waters
meeting State Standards for fecal coliform and getting an
illness is perhaps one in a million or greater. Risks of
other activities are much greater. Shellfish sanitation
still relies on fecal coliform.
- 2 -
Q oe detected in seawater unices extremely
sophisticated techniques to filter hundreds to thousands of
gallons are used.
No commercial laboratories are available to perform routine
analysis. California Department of Health maintains their
own lab for viral samples.
Analysis for viruses is expensive and difficult. Special lab
precautions are needed.
5. Unused Facilities - Comments have been made that the $56 million project to
expand and upgrade the the Encina facility to full secondary is not being
used. This is not true. Of the $56 million approximately $23 million is
secondary related. Approximately 8-10 MGD of primary treated wastewater is
further processed to full secondary level under the waiver mode. This
secondary flow is needed to meet plant reclaimed water needs (landscape
watering, washdown water) and the blending requirement. Therefore, approxi-
mately 50% of the $23 million may be considered underutilized. However,
even this is misleading as total plant flow is 16 MGD or 71% of the plant's
rated capacity (22.5 MGD). Maximum cost effective use of all facilities
will be included in future capacity planning.
6. Economics - Attachment 2 is a ten year economic analysis. In the event the
permit variance is not renewed in 1989 the 4i years' savings would cover the
costs of obtaining and implementing the waiver. Present year (1986/87)
($189,000) translates to approximately $1.00 per person per year in the ser-
vice area. The economics are subject to change as a result of the ongoing
Solids Study and scheduled plant Facilities Plan. The savings per person
can be expected to increase with the cost of solids disposal, energy etc.
7. Public Input - Three mandatory State and EPA public hearings were held in
Oceanside, (October 15, 1984) and San Diego (November 26 and December 17,
1984) on Encina's variances. In addition, two widely advertised public
forums were sponsored by the 3AC. The first was held in Carlsbad February
18, 1982 when the decision to apply for the waiver was being considered.
The second was held in Carlsbad August 9, 1984 prior to the formal public
hearings. Two public appeals against the waiver were considered by EPA and
State in 1985. Both were denied.
8. Toxics - The waiver did not relax the limits on the discharge of toxic
materials (metals, DDT's, PCB's, etc). The California Ocean Plan limits
which are in Encina's waivered permit were the same limitations that Encina
had as a primary plant and secondary plant. Although the Encina service
area has a low percentage of industry (Issue 2) it also has an EPA approved
industrial pretreatment program. Each of the member agencies through their
permitting and ordinance procedures issues special permits to industries and
restricts their discharges of hazardous material. Self monitoring, unan-
nounced inspections and enforcement actions are part of the member agency's
pretreatment programs. In addition, Encina does periodic baseline testing in
the major sewage trunks coming from each agency. Encina does continuous
monitoring at the plant itself. Although residences are not a major source
of toxic material Encina is participating in the County's Household
Hazardous Waste Education Program.
- 3 -
As a result of all Vrfese factors the Encina discharger of toxic materials is
less than 10% of allowed limits as a primary, secondary or advance primary
plant, e.g. approximately 15 Ibs of metals per day in 1985 were discharged
whereas the Ocean Plan permits up to 1170 Ibs of metals per day for a
discharge of our size.
9. Reclamation - Encina is reusing/reclaiming approximately 4 MGD daily of
secondary treated wastewater. The uses include irrigation, engine cooling
water, odor control and process/washdown water. The 4 MGD makes Encina the
largest reuser of water in San Diego County. Reclamation markets external
to the Encina 25 acre plant site have been met by the member agencies' four
satellite plants (Meadowlark, Gafner, Shadowridge and Calaveras Hills).
Encina supports these satellite plant reclamation efforts by taking all
their solid material and treating it at one location resulting in an economy
of scale. Encina also uses the methane gas from these solids to generate
power at the plant.
10. Monitoring - The second year of Encina's intensive monitoring program began
July 1, 1986. The bulk of the ocean monitoring program is conducted
by Kinnetic Laboratories, Inc. This firm is also conducting 301(h) moni-
toring programs for Watsonville, Anchorage, Alaska, Escondido and Santa
Cruz. Therefore, out of the eight programs currently being conducted
Kinnetics is doing five. This gives Encina assurances of full familiarity
with wastewater marine monitoring. In addition to Kinnetics, Encina is
contracting site specific current monitoring work to the Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP).
To date, none of the monitoring program information is in conflict with (1) data pre-
sented in the waiver application or; (2) the analysis and conclusions reached
by EPA and State in granting the variance.
In addition to the ocean monitoring program, the Encina incoming (influent)
and outgoing (effluent) flows are sampled 2k hours a day, 7 days a week.
Flows are measured continuously. Monthly reports are filed with the State
and EPA.
Also, in addition to the mandatory monitoring requirements - Encina is
either sponsoring or conducting monitoring efforts in the following three
areas:
Dilution Study - A $42,000 joint EPA/SCCWRP research
project is being conducted on the Encina outfall to
validate the mathematical models used to estimate
the dilution of the discharge with surrounding ocean
waters.
Storm Water Runoff - Encina has done sampling and analy-
sis of the stormwater channel carrying runoff directly
to the ocean from roads, agricultural areas, etc.
without the benefit of treatment.
Indicator Organism - As mentioned in Issue 3, Encina has
begun to establish baseline data on the subject of the
enterococcus bacteria in the event this is determined by
the health agencies to be a better indication of
contamination.
11. Solids Disposal - Increased solids removal results from increased levels of
treatment. In 1986 it is estimated 2800 dry tons of sludge will be
generated as a result of advance primary treatment. 3700 dry tons would be
generated from full secondary. Solids disposal options are becoming limited
and the increased solids compounds this problem.
In summary, the Joint Powers considered the environmental issues during the
application and hearing period - in view of no data to the contrary on Encina's
outfall, and with no objection from the EPA, State Water Resources, County and
State Health Agencies regarding the environmental aspect - then the economics of
the waiver were considered which favor the reduced level of treatment.
c
ATTACHMENT 1
COMPARISON
OF
ENCINA TREATMENT LEVELS
LEVEL
Primary
PROCESS
0 Screening
0 Grit Removal
0 Sedimentation
0 Digestion
0 Dewatering
0 Disposal
PERMIT
REQUIREMENT
65%
Solids
Removed
Secondary 0 Primary
0 Aeration
0 Sedimentation
0 Thickening
0 Digestion
0 Dewatering
0 Disposal
85%
Solids
Removed
Advance Primary 0 Treat a portion to
secondary level and
blend with the remain-
ing flow treated to
primary level
75%
Solids
Removal
"»•*»
ATTACHMENT 2
WAIVER
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
10 YEAR
($ in Millions)
1)
2)
3)
«
5)
6)
ITEM
Solids Dewatering and Disposal
Other Operations and Maintenance
Increase Monitoring
Blend Pipeline (Built 1983)
Future Construction (Expansion)
Waiver Application and Process
SAVINGS
$
$2.75
0.31
0
0
11.99
0
$15.05
COST
$
$ o
0
0.70
1.38
0
0.10
$2.18
NET SAVINGS $12.87 Million
Item 1 are the solids dewatering and disposal savings of $2.75 million.
These result from the removal of 75* of the solids instead of the 85* remo-
val required as a secondary plant. These savings assume that landfill
disposal will still be a viable option over the next ten years.
Item 2 are other operations and maintenance savings of $310,000. These are
the other process savings such as power, labor, and equipment replacement
associated with aeration, thickening, and digestion.
Item 5 are future construction savings of $12 million. The next expansion
of Encina which is projected to be in place by 1992 would require only addi-
tional primary level facilities.
On the cost side - Item 3 is the increased monitoring required by EPA and
RWQCB as a result of the granting of a variance from secondary treatment.
Item 4 - This cost is the escalated $800,000 cost (1983) of the already
built blend pipeline. This pipeline goes from the primary sedimentation
tanks to the secondary treated effluent system. It was built as part of the
present upgrade and expansion project in anticipation of a waiver and
because it could be built for half of what it later would cost./
Item 6 - The waiver application costs of $100,000 are the escalated expenses
of applying for and processing a waiver.
The net savings are expected to be $12.87 million.
-20-
AT t 8F RR
STATE HWV 1
,2OO FEET OF d4* RCP
40
OUTFALL PUMP STATION
AND SURGE TOWER
500 O 800 KXK)
SCALE IN FEET
flJOMM CAROLUO
lEMGIIMEfcRS
INCH RCP
(FUTURE OUTFALL CONNECTION)
ENCINA OCEAN OUTFALL
PLAN AND PROFILE
FIGURE 11-2
ENCINA OCEAN OUTFALL FACILITY PLAN
11-5
12/04/86
301(h) Application Status for EPA Reqion 9
Ineligible (2)
Kaneohe, MCAS
Navy PWC, GU
Final Denial (10)
C. Contra Costa
Pinole
Rodeo
Pisroo Reach
LA City (Terminal Island)
Vallejo
Las Gallinas
Marina
City of LA (Hyperion)
EBMUD (wet)
Withdrew (21)
Eureka
EBMUD (dry)
Sausalito-Marin City
Monterey
Kailua-Kona
Ft. Bragg
SERRA
Aliso
Santa Barbara
Kapaa
Oceanside
Wailuku-Rahului
Kihei
Lahaina
Avalon
SSF & San Bruno
Millbrae
SASM
Burlingame
San Elijo
Escondido
Final Approval (18)
Encina
Orange County
Morro Bay
Tafuna, AS
Otulei, AS
Oxnard*
Goleta
Palau, TT
Kosrae, TT
Ebeye, TT
Ponape, TT
Yap, TT
Truk, TT
Majuro, TT
Agingan, NI
Garapan, NI
North District, GO
Agana, GU
Pending (15)
Agat-Santa Rita, GU
Agat, GU
North San Mateo
San Francisco
W. County Agency
Hilo
Waianae
Kaneohe-Kailua/Ahuimanu
Santa Cruz
LA County
Watsonville
San Diego
Honouliuli
Sand Island
Pacifica
•Evidentiary Hearings*
Oxnard (unscheduled)
EXHIBIT "D
Orange County
Camp
Pendleton
Fallbrook 5
Riverside County
Oceans!
OCEANSIDE*
Carlsl
ENCINA1
Vista
SanMarcos
Valley Center
Escondldo
EnclnltasV
SAN Solana Beach
Ramona
Del Mar \
OCEAN OUTFALLS
— TREATED EFFLUENT
LAND OUTFALL
!•• OCEAN OUTFALL
(Ml
San Diego i
SAN DIEGO
METRO
024 8Mllct
This map was produced by the
San Diego
ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS
_ ^»Coronado^
Imperial Beach
Poway
w
EICa|on
| La Mesa
•v ,
LemonGrove
k National City
iChula Vista
Alpine
Mexico
ATTACHMENT 2 DECEMBER 16, 1986
WAIVER
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
1O YEAR
($ IN MILLIONS)
" OSAVINGS COST
ITEM * $
1) SOLIDS DEWATERING AND DISPOSAL * 7.54 $ 0
2) OTHER OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE O.31 0
3) INCREASED MONITORING O 0.7O
4) BLEND PIPELINE (BUILT IN 1983) 0 1.38
5) FUTURE CONSTRUCTION (EXPANSION) 11.99 0
6) WAIVER APPLICATION AND PROCESS 0 0.10
I I
19.84 * 2.18
NET SAVINGS * 17.66
o
ENCINA WPCF DECEMBE" ll" "^
1986/87 DEWATERING AND DISPOSAL COST COMPARISON
sssa=sasaasmssaiaamm^aaamma:easiasssmasasssssssssssssssaessesmaasssssssssssssstsssssasasasssissssasssss=ss
ANNUAL COSTS PER CAPITA COSTS
DISPOSAL / REUSE */DRY TON WAIVER SECONDARY WAIVER SECONDARY
1 SAN PASQUAL
2 OTAY (PRESENT)
3 OTAY (SURCHARGE)
4 BKK LANDFILL
**PRELIMINARY*#
5 NCSSMS RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE (SURCHARGE)
1O3
115
145
481
220
248OOO 3340OO
277000 374000 x.
35000O 755OOO *
1157000 1563000
528OOO 777OOO
1.34
1.50
1.89
6.26
1.81
2.02
4.08
8.45
2.85 4.20
~ ss: 2s:= » — s: = ss ssss :szs ss ss ssz ss ss ss as SSSSL ss sszsx ss ssr ss cess ss ss as ss sss
ENCINA WPCF
1986/86 TOTAL WAIVER VS. NON - WAIVER MAJOR COSTS
DECEMBER 16, 1986
PRIOR TO DEC. 9, 1986
SLUDGE (DEWATERING & DISPOSAL)
UTILITIES
INCREASED MONITORING
TOTAL:
DIFFERENCE:
WAIVER SAVINGS:
AFTER DEC. 9, 1986
SLUDGE (DEWATERING k DISPOSAL)
UTILITIES
INCREASED MONITORING
TOTAL:
DIFFERENCE:
WAIVER SAVINGS:
PER CAPITA COSTS
WAIVER SECONDARY
* 1.5O * 2.O2
* 2.24 * 2.80
* .31 * 0
* 4.05 * 4.82
* .77
* 142450 PER YEAR
$1.89 * 4.08
* 2.24 * 2.80
* .31 * 0
* 4.44 * 6.88
* 2.44
* 451400 PER YEAR
n
KINNETIC
LABORATORIES
INCORPORATED
5225 AVENIDA ENC1NAS
SUITE H
CARLSBAD. CA 92008
(619) 438-8968
CARLSBAD WAIVER PUBLIC HEARING
DECEMBER 16, 1986 AT 6:00 p.m.
(Alan B. Thum)
ANCHORAGE, AK SANTA CRUZ, CA SANTA BARBARA, CA CARLSBAD, CA
KINNETIC LABORATORIES, INC.
A MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING FIRM
15 YEARS OF CORPORATE EXPERIENCE
COMPLETED OVER 200 CONTRACTS
PRESENTLY CONDUCTING FIVE 301(h) MONITORING STUDIES
(Escondido, Encina, Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Anchorage)
CLIENTS INCLUDE: NOAA, MMS, BLM, EPA
INDUSTRY
MUNICIPALITIES
RECOMMENDATION
REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER LEVEL OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT YOU
ULTIMATELY DECIDE ON, THE PRESENT 301 (h) LEVEL OF MONITORING
SHOULD BE CONTINUED.. .FOR ALL DISCHARGERS.. .AND INTERPRETED
ON A REGIONAL BASIS.
OLD NPDES PERHIT MONITORING
RWQCB Design (provincial)
Local Review
Technical Reports (only)
Intensive Study 1/5 yrs. (maybe)
Trivial Monitoring:
/yr. /5 yr.
Surfzone 195 (975)
Nearshore 84 (420)
Offshore 0 (0)
Benthic:
Sediment Chem. 7 (7) maybe
Infauna 7 (7) maybe
Fish & Macroinvertebrates:
Populations 0 (0)
Chemistry 0 (0)
301fh) MONITORING
EPA Design (national)
National Scrutiny
Technical Reports and Computerized
Data Submittal (ODES)
Intensive Study 5/5 yrs.
Rigorous Monitoring:
/yr. /5yr.
260 (1300)
108 (540)
72 (360)
6
60
16
8
(30)
(300)
(80)
(40)
MONITORING PROGRAM
UNDER SECONDARY
MONITORING PROGRAM
UNDER ADVANCED PRIMARY
REPORTS
THE ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS OF THE FIRST 12 MONTHS (7/85-
6/86) OF OCEAN MONITORING AT ENCINA WAS SUBMITTED IN
SEPTEMBER (1986).
o ALL STUDY ELEMENTS WERE DISCUSSED IN A 9-PAGE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY AND A 70-PAGE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS REPORT.
o TWO PREVIOUS 200-PAGE REPORTS PRESENT THE RAW DATA.
SECTION 301(h) CRITERIA
301(h) The Administrator, with the concurrence of the
State, may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies
the requirements of subsection (b) (1) (B) of this section
with respect to the discharge of any pollutant in an
existing discharge from a publicly owned treatment works
into marine waters, if the applicant demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that--
(1) there is an applicable water quality standard specific
to the pollutant for which the modification is
requested, which has been identified under section
304(a) (6) of this Act;
(2) such modified requirements will not interfere with
the attainment or maintenance of that water quality
which assures protection of public water supplies
and the protection and propagation of a balanced.
Indigenous population of shellfish, fish and wildlife,
and allows recreational activities, in and on the
water;
(3) the applicant has established a system for monitoring
the Impact of such discharge on a representative
sample of aquatic biota, to the extent practicable;
(4) such modified requirements will not result in any
additional requirements on any other point or nonpoint
source;
(5) all applicable pretreatment requirements for sources
introducing waste into such treatment works will be
enforced;
(6) to the extent practicable, the applicant has
established a schedule of activities designed to
eliminate the entrance of toxic pollutants from
nonlndustrlal sources into such treatment works;
(7) there will be no new or substantially increased
discharges from the point source of the pollutant
to which the modification applies above that volume
of discharge specified in the permit;
(8) any funds available to the owner of such treatment
works under title II of this Act will be used to
achieve the degree of effluent reduction required
by section 201 (b) and (g) (2) (A) or to carry out
the requirements of this subsection.
OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING (40 CFR 125.62)
• DOCUMENT SHORT- AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE DISCHARGE
ON RECEIVING WATER, SEDIMENTS, AND BIOTA; ALSO, ON
BENEFICIAL USES OF THE RECEIVING WATER.
t DETERMINE COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
• ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TOXIC CONTROL PROGRAMS.
While divided into general biological, water quality, and effluent
monitoring components, in general, the monitoring program should
focus upon demonstrating the discharge's compliance with applicable
standards and permit conditions, and demonstrating predictable
relationships between discharge characteristics and Impacts upon
the marine receiving water quality and the marine biota. Further,
once an adequate background data base is established and predictable
relationships among the biological, water quality, and effluent
monitoring variables are demonstrated. 1t should be possible for
many 30Uh) permittees, especially those with small discharges, to
scale down the Intensity of certain elements of their field monitoring
studies.
I" ce ' .', -re'
Adi" ~';:cn DC 20460
v. .'-oe- '532
•13C 9-82 C'0
X-/EPA Design of 301 (h)
Monitoring Programs
for Municipal
Wastewater Discharges
to Marine Waters
f* «£
NEARFIELD :« o
ZID
o Small discharge station
* Large discharge station
CONTROL :*
Figure 1. Representative sampling locations for two levels
of biological monitoring.
44
THE COMPOSITION AND FREQUENCY
OF THE MONITORING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
STUDY ELEMENT
Influent (Chemistry)
Effluent (Chemistry)
Sludge Solids (Chemistry)
Water Quality:
Surfzone
Nearshore
Offshore
Ocean Currents
Benthic:
Sediment Chemistry
Infauna
Fish & Macroinvertebrates
Populations
Tissue Chemistry
Kelp Beds
ODES (Data to EPA)
FREQUENCY/YEAR
2
4
2
52
12
12 (4)
1 (only)
1
2
2
1
1
4
GROUP
Encina
Encina
Encina
Encina
Kinnetics
Kinnetics
SCCWRP
Kinnetics
Kinnetics
RWQCB
Kinnetics
• ^ i
OFFSHORE N
v NEARSHORE
_._.— TKAVL STATION
JIB BOUNDARY STATION
MrCHIHCC BTATION
NT A It •HOKC (TAT ION
»U«r tONC STATION
rLOATINC STATION
•KADI (NT STATION
INFLUENT
Figure 1-1 Location of outfall, diffuser, kelp beds, and sampling stations for
the fncina Ocean Receiving Water Monitoring Program.
1-5
COPY
/*•*•
Table 3-1
Total collform counts (mpn/100 ml) from twelve surface, midwater and bottom
water surveys at Iricina nearshore monitoring stations,
monthly from July 1985 through June 1986.
Kl (kelp) K2 (kelp)
Surface Average
Range
Peak Month
Midwater Average
Range
Peak Month
Bottom Average
Range
Peak Month
3.7
0-13
Dec
195.1
0-1600
Jan
170.2
0-540
Feb
8.2
0-46
Dec
110.8
0-920
May
42.4
0-240
Feb
STATION
N2a
29.1
0-220
Dec
27.8
0-300
Jan
46.3
0-350
Dec
Data were
N3*
1.5
0-5
Dec
4.9
0-34
Dec
16.8
0-110
Apr
collected
N4
3.3
0-34
Dec
13.8
0-110
May
19.2
0-170
Dec
•Samples not collected at this station in November 1985.
Table 3-2
Fecal coliform counts (mpn/100 ml) from eleven surface, midwater and bottom
water surveys at Encina nearshore monitoring
monthly from August 1985 through June 1986.
stations.
STATION
Kl (kelp) K2 (kelp) N2a
Surface Average
Range
Peak Month
Midwater Average
Range
Peak Month
Bottom Average
Range
Peak Month
1.7
0-9
Jan
64.8
0-500
Jan
65.0
0-350
Jan
3.4
0-23
May
167.3
0-920
May
39.0
0-240
Feb
6.6
0-30
Jan
13.1
0-130
Jan
15.0
0-70
Apr
Data were
N3*
0.4
0-2
Dec-Jan
1.4
0-4
Dec-Feb
6.0
0-21
Dec
collected
N4
0.6
0-5
Dec
6.2
0-49
May
0.62
0-17
Dec
*Samples not collected at this station in November 1985.
3-5
Table 3-3
Percentage distribution of total and fecal coliform counts from Encina nearshore
monitoring stations. Samples were collected monthly: total coliforms, July
1985 through June 1986. Fecal coliforms, August 1985 through June 1986, no
sample in November.
Surface
Midwater
Bottom
No. of
Samples
59
59
59
Total Coliform Counts (mon/100 ml)
Zero
55.9
27.1
23.7
1-100
40.7
59.3
59.3
101-500 501-1000 1001-2000
3.4
10.2
13.6
0 0
1.7 1.7
3.4 0
Surface
Midwater
Bottom
No. of
Samples
54
54
54
Zero
66.7
44.4
35.2
Fecal Coliform Counts
1-100 101-200
33.3
51.9
59.2
0
3.7
1.9
(mon/lOO ml)
201-500
0
1.9
3.7
501-1000
0
1.9
0
3-6
Table 5-1
Quantitative chemical analysis of sediments at offshore Stations II, 12, Gl, G2,
Rl, R2 and nearshore Stations N2a and N4 (sampled September 1985)*.
Offshore
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryl 1 i urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Cyanide
BOD (mg/kg)
Oil & Grease
(mg/g)
TOC (%)
Dissolved
Sulfide (ug/g)
Other 125
Priority
Pollutants &
Pesticides
(ug/g)Radioactivity
Gross Alpha
(pCi/g)
Gross Beta
(PCi/g)
Zl
8.04
3.53
0.17
0.39
15.9
8.48
15.2
0.002
9.35
0.04
0.33
1.09
41.3
<0.02
96
0.4
0.37
18.7
ND
13
32
Z2
7.97
2.60
0.18
0.43
17.5
8.88
18.2
0.010
9.78
0.08
0.34
0.05
39.9
<0.02
79
0.4
0.63
5.5
ND
12
26
Gl
7.96
4.00
0.21
0.35
14.3
7.73
16.4
<0.002
10.1
0.24
0.28
2.81
38.6
<0.02
66
0.3
0.42
<0.2
ND
12
31
Stations
G2
7.09
3.27
0.25
0.41
13.5
9.28
13.5
0.002
9.62
0.30
0.34
3.21
46.4
<0.02
89
0.3
0.79
2.1
ND
10
31
Rl
5.47
2.42
0.21
0.34
13.0
5.89
16.8
<0.002
7.16
0.05
0.21
3.79
74.7
<0.02
88
0.4
0.21
0.4
ND
9
31
R2
10.6
6.99
0.35
0.54
17.8
12.0
13.9
0.006
13.4
0.41
0.37
1.92
61.0
<0.02
110
0.3
0.84
3.0
ND
12
34
Nearshore
Stations
N2a
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
68
0.3
<0.5
9.7
NR
33
31
N4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
45
0.4
0.16
1.4
NR
4
29
*Micrograms per gram (ppm) dry weight, except as otherwise noted.
NR-Not required
ND - Not Detected
pCi = picoCuries
5-4
/•*»
taken annually, no organic priority pollutants or pesticides were found at any
of the sediment monitoring stations. These results and the metals results
indicate that toxic pollutants are not accumulating in sediments near the
outfall. Radioactivity levels appear to be at background levels for coastal
marine waters.
Table 5-2 compares average Southern California Bight mainland shelf
background levels, Santa Catalina Island levels (clean reference area) and maximum
concentrations from polluted areas for the metals listed in Table B of the
California Ocean Plan with the levels found in sediments near the Encina outfall.
As with the fate of trace metals in seawater, little is known about environmental
effects of high concentration of metals in the sediment although levels near
the outfall, with the exception of zinc, are near background levels. The
maximum zinc level found near the Encina outfall was 74.7 ppm at Station Rl.
ZID and gradient station levels (Table 5-1) were at background levels in September
of 1985.
Table 5-2
Comparison of sediment metals for various areas of southern California (mg/kg,
dry weight).
Mainland Shelf
Natural Background Santa Catalina
Metal Average1 Range2 Island (ASBS VI)
Silver
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Lead
Zinc
Mercury
0.41
0.43
22.50
9.02
15.40
10.50
44.50
..3
1-1.5
20-30
5-10
15-20
20-25
30-35
0.025-0.050
..3
2.79
54.0
12.6
46.5
57.3
42.9
0.034
Maximum Encina
Concentration Outfall
Polluted Areas1 Region
18.1
60.8
1317.0
782.0
107.0
537.0
2096.0
0.21-0.37
0.34-0.54
13.0-17.8
5.89-12.0
7.16-13.4
13.5-18.2
38.6-74.7
<0. 002-0. 010
Sources: ^atz and Kaplan (1981)
2chen and Lu (1974) (0-2 inch depth)3no data available
Based on a comparison of metals levels in sediments found in areas
remote from major sewage outfalls or anthropogenic sources (storm drains, rivers,
harbors, etc.), the Encina outfall is not contributing metals to the marine
5-5
Table 5-5
Encina Ocean Monitoring. Benthic infaunal abundance and species richness.
Five 0.1-nr Van-Veen grab samples were collected at each station during two
surveys. Abundance = estimate per m2, Diversity = total number of species
from five replicate grabs.
Survey*
Total Abundance
Total Species
Polychaete Abundance
Polychaete Species
Crustacean Abundance
Crustacean Species
Mollusc Abundance
Mollusc Species
Echinoderm Abundance
Echinoderm Species
1
2
Avg
1
_2_Avg
1
_!_Avg
1
2
Avg
1
_2_
Avg
1
_!_
Avg
1
2
Avg
1
_2_
Avg
1_2_
Avg
1
2
Avg
Minor Phyla Abundance 1
_2_Avg
Minor Phyla Species 1
_2_
Avg
Encina Ocean Monitoring
Zl Z2 Gl G2
5300
4090
4695
232
219
226
3312
2130
2721
104
94
99
862
978
920
51
_M
54
570
472
521
39
34
36
340
270
305
10
_1110
216
240
228
28
26
4772
4714
4743
250
_231
240
2522
2388
2445
96
82
89
1052
1390
1221
62
_6J
64
734
404
569
50
44
47
210
280
245
7
8
254
252
253
35
~32
5626
4016
4821
232
216
224
3432
2008
2720
107
100
104
756
906
831
44
42
43
694
456
575
41
^638
412
354
383
9
_^3
11
332
292
312
31
_15
28
5558
3844
4701
202
206
204
3250
1862
2556
89
83
86
804
^42
773
44
_13
44
588
584
586
35
42
38
606
384
495
10
_J2
11
310
272
291
24
26
25
Station
Rl R2
3194
3756
3475
196
190
193
1958
2062
2010
86
84
85
368
620
494
36
_36
36
462
338
400
34
_30
32
132
420
276
11
12
274
316
295
29
28
4884
3562
4223
204
200
202
3250
2060
2655
84
93
98
436
_5I6
476
39
36
38
592
532
562
38
^138
330
260
295
11
7
9
276
194
235
32
_21
30
Average
4889
3997
4443
219
210
214
2954
2085
2520
94
89
92
713
859
781
46
46
46
607
464
536
41
_3Z
39
338
328
333
10_ii
10
277
_26i
269
30
_26
28
*Survey 1 - September 1985; Survey 2 - March 1986
5-15
PERCENT
20 40 60 80 SAMPLES
SRVY 1 61
SRVY 1 Zl
SRVY 1 GE
SRVY 1 Z£
SRVY 1 Rl
SRVY 1 RE
SRVY E RE
SRVY £ Gl
SRVY E GE
SRVY £ Zl
SRVY £ Rl
SRVY S 2£
Figure 5-2. Encina Ocean Monitoring. Percent similarity cluster groupings
(Bray-Curtis) of Encina benthic infaunal stations and surveysSeptember 1985 and March 1986. surveys,
5-19
The only organic pollutants or pesticides detected were DDT, DDE (a
derivative of DDT) and phthalates, compounds in widespread use as plasticizers
and in pumps as lubricating fluids (Tables 6-8 and 6-9).
Table 6-8
Quantitative chemical analysis of priority pollutants in fish muscle tissues
from trawl Stations Tl, T2, T3, and T4 (sampled September 1985).
Species Analyzed:
Station Identification
Tl T2 T3 T
A1 B2 C3 C
Maximum
Concentration
in Effluent
(ppm)
Range in
Sediments
ppm (dry)
POLLUTANT DETECTED
Microqrams per gram
(ppm) wet weight
Arsenic 0.52
Cadmium 0.13
Chromium 0.23
Copper 0.35
Lead <0.02
Mercury 0.04
Nickel 0.45
Silver <0.01
Zinc
Cyanide
Micrograms per kilogram
(ppb) wet weight
(EPA Method 608)
4,4'-DDE 0.01
bis(2-ethylhexyl)
phthalate
di-n-octyl phthalate
1.89
0.16
0.27
0.40
<0.02
0.04
0.52
<0.01
2.88 3.54
<0.002 0.01
0.25
0.16
0.12
0.37
0.08
0.04
0.50
<0.01
3.11
0.05
0.18
0.13
0.28
0.42
<0.02
0.04
0.70
<0.01
3.4
0.02
0.0045
0.04
0.47
.27
.68
0.09
1.06
0.45
13.24
<0.02
4.
0.
0.01 0.07 0.01
2,690
250 110
ND
ND
ND
2.60-6.99
0.34-0.54
13.0-17.8
5.89-12.0
13.5-18.2
<0.002-0.010
7.16-13.4
0.21-0.37
38.6-74.7
<0.02
ND
ND
ND
ND
Cithan'chthys xanthostigma - Longfin Sanddab
Pleuronichthys vertical! s - Hornyhead Turbot
Symphurus atricauda - California Tonguefish
Not Detected
6-15
ASSESSMENT
Since 1965 Encina's effluent has varied in volume,
organic and industrial composition, level of treatment,
municipal sources of input, depth of discharge,
rates of ocean dispersion, and in sophistication of
the monitoring program.
Advanced primary treatment was initiated on 7/1/85,
but took 9 months to stabilize at a mixture of 47%
primary and 53% secondary. This mixture is the
basis for the present level of removal.*
Encina's present level of removal (78% BODs and 82%
TSS removal) is very close to the secondary treatment
(85% removal).*
Since the rigorous 301(h) sampling design was not
implemented until after advanced primary treatment
was initiated, there is no quantitative baseline
with which to compare effects at secondary vs.
effects of advanced primary using the same sampling
design. Comparisons of effects must now be limited
to comparisons of changes within and among treatment
stations (at the discharge) to changes within and
between control (reference) stations.
It is very difficult to separate spatial and temporal
station data interactions based on only two benthic
sampling periods. Real differences between treatment
stations and reference stations can be easily confused
by other elements (e.g. precipitation runoff, warm
El Nino conditions, winter storms) in short-term
studies.
The present monitoring program is essential to
document that toxic substances are not being discharged
or accumlating at harmful levels that could surface
in subsequent years as long-term effects.
(_xjliiornia rederation Of Women s C_Jubs
; Member: General Federation of Women's Clubs, Int'l
GFWC Roman's Club of Vista
PO Box 91
Vista, CA 92083
Whereas, The Encina sewage plant is operating under a waiver
which allows for' lower or primary treatment only of waste,
in which remain live viruses, toxins and bacteria which
is pumped into the ocean 1% miles off the coast; and
Whereas, This lower sewage treatment allows up to 100 virus par-
ticles per liter of water — viruses which can live in
ocean water for weeks; and
Whereas, Only one viral particle can cause a clinical infection;
and
Whereas, Full secondary treatment would eliminate most of the
bacteria and viruses, removing much of the risk to
public health and marine life; and
Whereas, A facility to provide secondary treatment was built from
1980-1983 at a cost of $50,000,000 in state and Federal
grants, but was used only from 1983-1985; and
Whereas, Sludge remaining after treatment cannot be put in landfills
because it is not "certified safe," but if it received
secondary treatment, it could be sold as a soil conditioner
as is .done in Philadelphia and other cities; and
Whereas, Other communities of Los Angeles, Laguna Beach, San Clemente,
Oceanside, Escondido and Cardiff/Solana Beach were success-
ful in demanding both primary and secondary treatment of
sewage; therefore be it
RESOLVED That members of the Woman's Club of Vista, meeting in
Vista this ninth day of December 1986, strongly urge
the use of both primary and secondary treatment at Encina
• Water Pollution Control Facility to reduce contamination
of coastal waters, making our beaches safer for our resi-
dents ; and be it further
RESOLVED That copies of this Resolution be sent to U. S. Rep..Ron
Packard, 2121 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, CA 92008;
State Sen. William Craven, 2121 Palomar Airport Road,
Suite 100, Carlsbad, CA 92008; Gloria McClellan, Mayor
of Vista and City Council members Nancy Wade, Jeanette
Smith, Eugene Asmus, and Bernard Rappaport, all at PO Box
1988, -Vista, CA 92084; Encina Joint Advisory Committee,
6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92008-0171; Woman's
Club of Carlsbad, PO Box 173, Carlsbad, CA 92008.
PETITION
WOMAN'S CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE
SEWAGE FROM THE ENCIN£ PLANT TREATED WITH THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED
FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE CON-
TAMINATION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR
OUR RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALREADY
PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
***********************************
ank you for signing and printing your name
n/////
,
PETITION Q
WOMAN'S CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE
SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINft PLANT TREATED WITH THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED
FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE CON-
TAMINATION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR
OUR RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALREADY
PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
***********************************
Thank you for signing and printing your name
i GNAT ORE
j V",'
CfjjOJf
faa^s^x^c^
, -3 -2-^
3 -/Q
/
Y&-PETITION
WOMAN'S t L U B OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE
SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINft PLANT TREATED WITH THE SBJ FEDERALLY FUNDED
FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE CON-_
TAMINATION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR
OUR RESIDENTS. OUR. NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALREADY
PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT- FQfnffiE^Slffr FROM THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
***********************************
Thank you for signing and printing your name
o
WOMAN
PETITION
CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE
SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINftPLANT TREATED WITH THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED
FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE CON-
TAMINATION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR
OUR RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH-AND SOUTH ARE ALREADY
PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
***********************************
Thank you for signing_and printing your name
./
^A i c. Go.
^.C
PETITION
WOMAN'S 'CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE
SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINft PLANT TREATED WITH THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED
FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE CON-
TAMINATION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR
OUR RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALREADY
PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
***********************************
Thank you for signing and printing your name
v>
c PETITION
WOMAN'S CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT TO HAVE
SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINft PLANT TREATED WITH THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED
FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE CON-
TAMINATION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR
OUR RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE ALREADY
PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR'THE EFFLUENT FROM THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS,
***********************************
Thank you for signing and printing your name
~~~^ G tvlA V U
A A ft _ •• —•"^yk? fefrforu^
0
b^xMCxOTt
PETITION
W 0 M JL.N' S CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT
TO HAVE THE SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINA PLANT TREATED WITH
THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY
TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE ' CONTAMINATION OF OUR
COASTAL WATERS. AND MAEES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR OUR
RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE
ALREADY PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM
THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
# *##•** •*•*#••* #- * *..x-#"* •*•?<-*• •*•)<•#• •*•*#.»<•
Thank you for signing, your name.
SIGNATURE ADDRESS
-^ \S /I )*V» /V- L+*-S>-»s
PETITION
W^OMA.N' S CLUB OF CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT
TO HAVE THE SEWAGE FROM THE ENCINA PLANT TREATED WITH
THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY
TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE'CONTAMINATION OF OUR
COASTAL WATERS. AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR OUR
RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE
ALREADY PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM
THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
**• X-#•*•#-X # *.*## #••**•
Tkank you for signing your name.
SIGNATURE ADDRESS
itz-K/i &L i?. 2 y Z'
-r)
'-f '
'**•*'
PETITION
CLUB OP CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT
TO HAVE THE SEWAGE ..... FROM THE EN CINA PLANT TREATED WITH
THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY
TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE ' CONTAMINATION OF OUR
COASTAL WATERS: AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR OUR
RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE
ALREADY PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM
THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
Tliank you for signing your name.
SIGNATURE ADDRESS
sdL^fl'S._j£u^LjSfe&-,,-- - — -r-^r- _n // ^ —.
^^^^Al^^C^^^^-> .^^ z?^- ^rg^^j<
' PETITION ..
W.OMA..N1 S OLUB. 0? CARLSBAD
WE URGE THE CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL TO USE EVERY EFFORT
TO HAVE THE SEWA&E FROM THE ENCINA ; PLANT TREATED WITH
THE NEW FEDERALLY FUNDED FACILITY TO PROVIDE SECONDARY
TREATMENT. THIS REDUCES THE 'CONTAMINATION OF OUR
COASTAL WATERS AND MAKES OUR BEACHES SAFER FOR OUR
RESIDENTS. OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE
ALREADY PROVIDING SUCH TREATMENT FOR THE EFFLUENT FROM
THEIR TREATMENT PLANTS.
######**###*#*####*#*######**# •**#*•* •*#•*** '**"?<-#*-** #•-*###•*•##
Thank you for signing your name,
SIGNATURE ADDRESS
'M^- /fat^i^^Ajltfa fr/fGi^tU+stfa &£&&*/• , £&*££**{
r~\ (I
4- SU—- Vd^-c^3 37^>>^x^<^^ id *-*!_.
EETITION
12/4/86
.4-
We, the undersigned, request that Mayor Lewis and members
of The Carlsbad City Council use every possible means
to require The Enoina Sewage Plant to use "PULL SECONDARY
TREATMENT" on all sewage to protect human and marine life
and to atop pollution of the ocean and the beaches.
Sienature JLddress
^W/^^^/C^^*^>v-f^l IJv+rt^4*.«wil«H
U
(&*&»*>
PETITION
12/4/86
We, the undersigned, request that Mayor Lewis and members
of The Carlsbad City Council use every possible means
to require The Enoina Sewage Plant to use "PULL SECONDARY
IEEATMENT" on all sewage to protect human and marine life
and to atop pollution of the ocean and the beaches.
Signature
EETITION
12/4/86
We, the -undersigned, request that Mayor Lewis and members
of Tke Carlsbad City Council use every possible means
to require The Enoina Sewage Plant to use "PULL SECONDARY
31BEAIMENT" on all sewage to protect human and marine life
and to atop pollution of the ocean and the beaches.
Siena ture Address
s'A
Tfe^a*'
EETITIOK
12/4/86
We, the undereigned, request that Mayor Lewis and members
of The Carlsbad City Council use every possible means
to require The Enoina Sewage Plant to use "FULL SECONDARY
HEEATMENT" on all sewage to protect human and marine life
and to atop pollution of the ocean and the beaches.
Sienature Address
r
ff
Post Office Box 456
Cardiff-by-the-Sea,
CA 92007-0456
619/944-9282
18 January 1987
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Council:
As a long-time resident of the beautiful North San Diego
County coast, I am writing with concerns over Encina Power
Plant's waiver of the Clean Water Act, which allows it to
partially treat the waste it pumps into our ocean. My
neighbors in Leucadia and I feel that lower sewage treatment
is not appropriate. The risk to public health and marine
life is subtaintially increased when treatment is decreased,
and we would like the plant's waiver to be lifted immediately.
Of primary concern are:
Sewage Outfalls. Although sanitation consultants tell us
these local water wastes--dumped about 1% miles off our
coast—won't reach the ocean's surface or our beaches because
of a thermocline, marine biologists and oceanographers
disagree. That condition does not exist at all during certain
months, and waves or upwellings could bring those wastes
to the surface or shorelines at any time.
Suspended Solids. The reduced sewage treatment more than
doubles suspended solids in the ocean, and causes a less
rapid bacterial die-off rate since they often shield potential
pathogens from seawater.
Carlsbad City Council
18 January 1987
Page Two
Viruses. Human feces may contain more than 110 types of
enteric viruses. And, secondary treatment results in a
significant reduction of pathogenic viruses in the effluent.
This 200-fold reduction over primary treatment has been
eliminated, increasing the risk to public health by a similar
factor.
Swimming Dangers. As little as one viral particle causes
a clinical infection, and swimming in such contaminated
waters can be responsible for significant clinical illnesses
among bathers. Oftentimes we don't know we're in polluted
water until days or months after the fact.
New Facility Being Bypassed. State and Federal grants built
Encina's new facility, which has not been in use since the
waiver was attained in July of 1985. We have already paid
for a higher level of waste-water treatment, and we wish
to attain it.
Thank you for your consideration of our important concerns
for our environment and health.
Sincerely,
T.A. LANZETTA
-P/emjL,
/>lA^/^L^txC/
; < V-
Choices
January 20, 1987
Sen. Alan Cranston
229 Russel
Senate Office Bid.
Washington, D.C. 20510
RE: Partially treated sewage in Leucadia, CA
Gentlemen:
I am writing in response to a flier that was left on my door from a
member of People for a Clean Ocean. Members of this group have urged us to
write to our representatives to tell them how we feel about having partially
treated sewage dumped into the ocean.
I do not like the idea of sewage of any kind being put into the ocean.
I think that it upsets the balance of the environment. I especially do not like
partially treated sewage being put into the ocean. I want the decision to allow
this action to be reversed. I do not want partially treated sewage in the ocean.
Sincerely,
Erica Rubin
:ER
CC: Sen. Pete Wilson
Sen. Craven
Assemblyman Frazee
Carlsbad City Council
199 North E! Camirio Real . Suite F-278 • Encinitas, CA 92024 . (619) 753-2977
A*^-C flJLf-L^J^ fl-*+4
0
CARAVAN
R&B'SOUL
972 Hermes Avenue, Leucadia, CA 92024
619-436-9252 SISECOPY
Please help!!!
I am writting because we need full treatment for our oceans, in connection \t/ith sewage
treatment. We must have full treatment. If you allow partial treatment to go on
you are contaiminating the future before it has a chance. Please do not destroy
our oceans. Please do not contamiante the lives of our children.
Thankyou,
Shanon Leder
\
COASTAL
SEWAGE
OUTFALLS
AND
TREATMENT
LEVELS
Treatment LAGUNA BEACH/SOUTH LAGUNA
.Full Treatment -ANA POINT/
t'
OCEANSIDE
CARLSBAD
.CARDIFF/SOLANABEACH
('MM!1 ' ' M j '
• -- ./
"*$ ^o
-^ o
&
fr
J
^
V
Please do not allow the City of Escondido
a 301(h) sewage treatment waiver. I am
a voting citizen who enjoys the ocean for
sport and quality of life/ I do not want
to swim in a toilet! I have been made ill
a couple of times by the low level
treatment in Carlsbad.
Carletta Chadwell 1444 Buena Vista Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
08/14/86
.:J-
/ <_. rv^J^u^
*V-C Cl>JC»-yN_
'TSiTsrt
&AS. 9^C&£.
c.
Oct. 20, 1986
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to let you know that I am greatly opposed to the
issuance of any 501(h) waivers to the Clean Water Act. It is the
responsibility of our government to protect the health and well-
being of the people it serves, and it is time you took that respon-
sibility seriously. Allowing millions of gallons of sewage contain-
ing viruses, toxins and bacteria to be dumped into our ocean every
day right off c>f our public beaches is a blatant disregard for our
health and welfare.
We who live, swim and VOTE here will not stand for it!
Very Sincerely,
Cynthia-M^ Porter
'Dem 6 Cici Voter
2723 Oam St.
A 92008
Sheila Kebow
6061 Shore Dr.
Carlsbad, CA 92006
October 23, 1986
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
I am writing in strong support of a clean ocean for Carlsbad
and other cities, via secondary treatment at the Encina Water
Treatment Plant.
I understand that Encina already has the ability to treat sewage
at the secondary level. And, 2H per month is a small price
to pay for a clean ocean. We don't want Carlsbad known as the
only polluted beach in North County -- a very definite deterrent
to tourism also.
I feel that immediate action should be taken in order to implement
this secondary treatment and keep our Carlsbad beaches/ocean
CLEAN!.
Sincerely yours,
Colleen Holloway
6673-D Paseo del Norte
Carlsbad, CA 92008
ALTA M. WILKINS
6550 PONTO DR. #68
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
V*
f
LARM
A massive increase of virus and toxins
in our ocean has been approved!
The regional water board has approved a 301 (h) sewage treatment
waiver for the city of Escondido, which pumps 13 million gallons
a day just off our beaches. The waiver allows for lower
treatment of waste (ie household toilets, industrial, hospital,
and mortuary wastes). People for a Clean Ocean has stalled this
order by appealing this decision. <CarlsbadJwas previously
approved (without public awareness ) an2t~Tsnow pumping 15 million
gallons a day off Carlsbad State Beach... sewage containing
live viruses, toxins, and bacteria.
The lower sewage treatment could allow up to 100 virus particles
per liter of water and would eliminate few bacteria. Full
secondary treatment eliminates most of the bacteria and viruses.
Lesser treated effluent increases risk to public health and to
marine life. Viruses can live in ocean waters for days, weeks,
and sometimes months!
Community outcry is needed to
Citizens in Los Angeles, Laguna Beach, Dana Point/San Clemente,
and Oceanside were successful in their battle against a similar
issue .
Write, call, or send a telegram. Let your representatives know
that lower sewage treatment is NOT appropriate!
Escondido City Council: 100 Valley Blvd., Escondido, CA 92025
Carlsbad City Council: 1200 Elm Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008
Sen. Alan Cranston: 229 Russel Senate Office Bid, Wash. DC 20510
Sen. Pete Wilson: US Senate, Wash. DC 20510
Environmental Protection Agency: Judith Ayers, 215 Fremont St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Sen. Craven: 2121 Palomar Airport Rd, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Assemblyman Frazee: 3088 Pio Pico, 1200, Carlsbad, CA 92008
906 • B Caminito Madrigal
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
\ T--0 O
4v.
N
CX
VJUUi
-V*
V
CM- .
A
.^-
VO
y\
ex.
October 28, 1986
6^91 Camino del Parque
Carlsbad, CA.
ToJ The Carlsbad City Council
Carlsbad, California
Pet CLEAN OCEAN WATER FOR CARLSBAD
Dear Friends,
I feel sure that you are aware of the fact that
lower (partial) sewage treatment will not do the job.
Please do what you can to see that FULL treatment
is approved.
Thank you for listening.
Sincerely,
S'/n,
^/ e
c,
c
/r
L / e
7%^
John Harrison D.C
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Ocotber 30, 1986
Dear Sirs and Madams,
I have just been informed of a very serious envoirnmental and public health
hazard. This is the issue concerning the partial treatment of sewage from the
Carlsbad Encina Sewage Plant*
Without becoming emotional or resorting to name calling I would appreciate
a response to these questions:
1. Is the sewage plant treating sewage only partially?
If so how long has it been doing so and how long will it continue to do so?
2. As a City Council are you as a group concerned with this situation as being
a health hazzard?
If not why?
If so, what are we as concerned citizens to do?
3. Also if we invested in this sewage plant why is it not an example of the
best service and the least toxic rather than it being looked upon with
disdain and distrust?
4. The issue at hand will not go away with a fancy letter. As a doctor in our
community as well as an envoirnmentalist and on who enjoys the ocean I would
appreciate some answers to give my patients ,from those that I hope are in the
know.
Sincerely,
- A
''/John F. Harrison, D.C.
800 Grand Avenue, Suite C-2, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Margaret King
COPY
i in
. a
c/rr
'C / t.
LT
Pr Bib A1I5T7KE
THfrT C. A H-A3
H
T/H
TO
A
//A5 ^^^M /P
00/4 T
r 0x1^5"
/3Y"
A 30u^r 777
^n
*s;^
j*.
>:s*
T-T-
c^r
•-Sf^cerfa/ <.
Editorials
JUDY & STEVE WHITE
7650 Cortina Court
Carlsbad, CA 92008
COPY
et's clean it up
Concerned residents of Carlsbad, Vista, San Marcos, and En-
cinitas should start lobbying to upgrade sewage treatment at the
Encina sewage plant.
The Encina plant in Carlsbad is the only North County sewage
treatment plant which is dumping lesser-treated sewage into the
ocean. It pumps 14 million gallons of sewage treated to only the ad-
vanced primary level into the ocean daily through an 8,500-foot
pipeline.
By contrast, the cities of Oceanside and Escondido treat their
sewage to the secondary treatment level. Both cities — responding
to public pressure — recently rescinded requests to obtain a waiver
to the federal Clean Water Act of 1981, which would have allowed
similar downgrading to the advanced primary level.
The main difference between advanced primary sewage and sec-
ondary sewage is that secondary treatment removes 85 percent of
the solid waste from sewage, while advanced primary treatment
removes only 75 percent.
That in itself is not drastic, but what is of serious concern is the
enormous increase in the amount of viruses and bacteria which are
released when the sewage is downgrat *d. Some estimate as much
as 10,000 percent more viruses are disci, aged in advanced primary
effluent.
The Encina plant ha been discharging lesser treated sewage
since mid-1985 when its tederal waiver was granted. Encina board
members voted to downgrade sewage treatment through a federal
waiver rather than spend $13 million to expand the plant. That
amount is no doubt higher now.
Each municipality and sewer district has a representative on the
Encina board, and each representative has a vote, weighed accor*
ding to the capacity each community or district has at the plant.
Lois Humphreys, a recent Carlsbad City Council candidate who
serves on the Leucadia board, is planning the formation of a studygroup to determine public sentiment on the matter.
We feel the public demand for a clean ocean, as espoused by the
North County group People for a Clean Ocean, clearly shows that
the public wants the ocean to be as clean as possible. Why have afederal Clean Water Act if we are going to seek ways to circumvent
it?
Sewage plant officials will tell you that there is no danger from
dumping 14 million gallons of sewage in the ocean every day, but
they have never been surfing when there is a strong swell, and
swum through the brown scum and fecal residues in the ocean. We
have.
The Pacific Ocean is North County's finest recreational asset, and
the Encina sewer agencies are unnecessarily polluting it.
The only way we are going to force the Encina board to reverse
the treatment waiver decision is for a public outcry, and pubUT
!i and Carlsbad, the boardsTo?pressure on city councils in vista and Carlsbad, the boards of the
san Marcos and Leucadia water districts,.and the boards of the
Encinitas and Buena sanitation districts.
If public pressure is strong enough, it can reverse such decisions,
as Oceanside's and Escondido's actions show.
Reprinted from the Blade Tribune.
317 Acacia Ave. Apr 206
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Nov. 12, 1986
Carlsbad City Council
1200 Elm Ave.
Carlsbad, CA 92008
This is to advise you that I am another citizen of Carlsbad
in favor of full secondary treatment at the Encina sewage
treatment plant.
I would point out that Encina is now the only treatment
pleant in North County that still has a federal waiver for
lower treatment standards. Other cities in the area have
decided full treatment is desirable and have dropped their
waivers.
It seems especially easy to switch to secondary treat-
ment at Encina, since the facilities already exist. In addition,
I understand it would cost only twenty one cents a month
per household to operate at full secondary treatment! A
small price to pay! I'll gladly pay it!
At lot of people use the beaches at Carlsbad, including
both tourists and surfers. I think we should provide them
the cleanest water we can.
Look at it this way: Would you want your son or daughter
surfing in the effluent from Encina? Would you prefer him
or her surfing in the effluent from full secondary treatment?
The choice seems easy.
Frankly, I don't want to live with the notion that our
beautiful beaches in Carlsbad are polluted with sewage,
because it hasn't received the full treatment.
Sincerely yours,
James Land
"*>,
£a (Eort*
2507 ^Ca Clolmt&rma jftrtet
|Ca (Eflsia, Qlavlahah, daltforma 92008
f
LfrtL^Ust
,
^c^Y x2^ Cts&/$ /
Oi^^y A^
/?.
<y v
^fctA^£ JLSL£K frlL&t*
t*
t
fro -fret*
WRITE IT - DON'T SAY IT!
Date 19
To Mayor & Council Members nReply Wanted
From Bonnie DNo Reply Necessary
Calls in favor of full secondary treatment at Encina Plant:
Mrs. McCloud
902 - G Caminito Madrigal, Carlsbad
(She will also be at Council meeting Tuesday night)
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 . PRINTED IN USA
WRITE IT-DON'T SAY i T!
Date 12/16/86 19
To MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS & CITY CLERK ) QReply Wanted
From Bonnie CUNo Reply Necessary
Calls in favor of full secondary treatment at the Encina Plant:
William and Grace Beckett
3580 Ridgecrest Drive
Carlsbad, CA
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRINTED IN USA
WRITE IT - DON'T SAY IT!
Date Dec . 16
Phone calls in favor of full secondary treatment at Encina:
19 86
<
To Mayor & Council Members
From Bonnie .
" \x" (City Clerty
v^__ --'D Reply Wanted
DNo Reply Necessary
Richard Kennan
7020 Snapdragon
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Henry H. and Doris Springer
7024 Snapdragon
Carlsbad, California
Betty J. and Hugh Cochran
1788 Guevara, Carlsbad
Norma Sayre
7946 Las Mientes Lane, Carlsbad
AIQNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRINTED IN USA
WRITE IT - DON'T SAY i F! f. y
Date 19
To Mayor and Council Members DReply Wanted
From Bonnie DNo Reply Necessary
12/15/86
Mr. and MRs. Manly Danforth
2906 La Duela Lane
Carlsbad, CA (942-0303)
Unable to attend the Council meeting Tuesday night,
but are in favor of secondary treatment at the
Encina plant.
AIGNER FORM NO. 55-032 PRINTED IN USA