Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 194A; Aquaculture Systems International; Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (18)ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY RECEIVE0 62OOAvenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92009-01 71 Telephones (61 9) 438-3941 Date: July 12, 1990 Attn: Subject: Agua Hedi onda Lagoon Contami nation The following Items are transmitted: a Herewith 0 Under Separate Cover vip: U.S. Mail Number or copioa Oeacriptlon 1 1 Testimony for the Encina Administrative Agency Letter from the City of Carlsbad to the Regional Water Quality Control Board dated July 11, 1990 regarding the above subject The above items are submitted: 0 A1 your request 0 For your approval 0 Per contract dated 0 0 For your review 0 For your action 0 For your liles IJ For your inlormation General remarks I will be presenting Encina's testimony at de RWQCB hearing on Monday, July 11, 1990 in the Encinitas City Council Chambers at 9:00 a.m. RWG : MA3 Forward reply to Encina Water Pollution Control Facility SERVING THE CITY OF VISTA, CITY OF CARLSBAD. BUENA SANITATION MSTRICT. SAN MARCOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. LEUCADIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT AND ENClNlTAS SANITARY DISTRICT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, CA 92009-01 71 hone (619) 438-3941 REGIOMAL QUALITY CONTROb B&h July 16, 1990 Richard W. Graff General Manager Encina Water Pollution Control Facility 6200 Avenida Encinas Carlsbad, California Ref: 8972 I" The Encina Water Pollution Control Facility is owned and operated under a joint powers agreement. The 6 member agencies are the City of Vista, City of Carlsbad, Buena County Sanitation District, Vallecitos Water District, Leucadia County Water District, and Encinitas Sanitary District. The plant is operated by the Encina Administrative Agency for the member agencies. Encina has been indicated as a possible source of fecal coliform contamination of shellfish at episodic (infrequent) periods during non-rainfall or dry weather conditions. The prime document that has identified the problem and implicated Encina is the 1989 State Department of Health Services (DOHS) Study. The DOHS report does show, however, that the water does meet bathing water standards for safe recreational use. It is Encina's position that the Encina ocean outfall is not significantly contributing, if at all, to the high shellfish fecal coliform counts being experienced in and around the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. We base this position on: 1) Examination of similar recent and ongoing studies in the State, 2) Information gathered and analyzed about the lagoon over recent months, 3) Examination of 5 years of operating and monitoring data for the Encina outfall and 4) The well documented statewide problem of nonpoint source contamination including high bacterial counts in coastal areas. If a study is to be done, we believe it should be conducted and funded as a regional study of statewide and/or national importance on the subject of nonpoint source contamination. We also believe that it is important to note that there are reservations about existing bacterial standards for both shellfish tissue and shellfish growing waters. These are presently the subject of a 5 year study which is being conducted by National Marine Fisheries Sentice. SERVING THE CITY OF VISTA, CITY OF CARLSBAD. EUENA SANITATION DISTRICT, UN MAKOS COUNTY WATER DISTRICT. LEUCADIA COUSTY WATER DISTRICT AS0 E\CINITAS SANITARY DISTRICT Ref: 8972.1 We have, in addition to testimony from myself, testimony from Dr. Victor Cabelli and Mr. Charles Phillips. Dr. Cabelli is a Professor at the University of Rhode Island, specializing in bacterial and viral effects to marine and estuarine systems, including potential human health concerns. He has served as the Director of the EPA Recreational Water Quality Program and was a primary contributor to the development of EPA criteria on health effects for marine and freshwater recreational waters. Dr. Cabelli has pioneered the use of many laboratory and field bacteriological methods for use in assessing contamination of marine and freshwater systems. He will be commenting on shellfish standards and the DOHS study. Mr. Phillips is with Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). SAIC has been retained by Encina and Oceanside to assist in responding to RWQCB concerns. He will be commenting on the content of the proposed study plan. Copies of Dr. Cabelli and Mr. Phillips testimonies are attached (Exhibits A and B). Also present on behalf of Encina is Mr. Greg Moser of Jennings, Engstrand and Henrikson, General Counsel to the Encina Administrative Agency. He is not scheduled to give testimony but may aid in the anticipated discussion. ENCINA BACK GROm Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (EWPCF) is a secondary treatment plant with a present flow of 18.5 million gallons per day (MGD) through the plant and into the Encina ocean outfall. An additional 1.5 MGD discharged to the outfall comes from inland satellite reclamation plants. Flows through the Encina plant were treated to an advance primary level from July 1985 to August 1988. Since 1988, the treatment level has been full secondary. The Encina plant is undergoing an expansion to 36 MGD liquid capacity and 38 MGD solids capacity. The plant does not have disinfection facilities except for a nominal 1.5 MGD unit for plant reuse purposes. It is estimated that up to $7 million would be needed to provide full disinfection facilities. Operating costs for full disinfection are estimated at $500,000 annually. The ocean outfall system presently consists of a pump station and an outfall pipe extending 7500 feet directly offshore to a depth of 165 feet (Exhibit C). The last 800 feet consists of a 72 inch diameter diffuser manifold with 138 diffuser ports varying from 4 to 2.5 inches in diameter. The end of the 72 inch outfall is plugged to assure maximum dilution. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (1989) recently calculated the initial dilution factor for the outfall at 165:l using the EPA UP= ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-01 71 (619) 438-3941 Ref: 8972.2 . computer model. An actual dye test to measure dilution was conducted by EPA and Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP) in 1986. Dilutions ranged from 289:l to 1728:l. Dilution values of 1OO:l are considered good. The outfall has been annually inspected by a diving firm since 1984. The last four years have been nearshore inspections. A relatively intensive Ocean Monitoring Program has been conducted on the receiving waters since July 1985. Exhibit D is a layout of Encina's monitoring stations. The 1989 DOHS Report has indicated high fecal coliform counts in commercially harvested shellfish during dry weather conditions exceed State standards for marketing. There is no disagreement, as we understand the problem statement to date, with the fact that throughout California including the Agua Hedionda Lagoon, wet weather flows from storm drains, runoff and other nonpoint sources result in high fecal coliform counts in commercial and native shellfish. Part of the basis for implicating the Encina and Oceanside treated wastewater discharges are the experiences in Morro Bay and Santa Barbara/Goleta. These two areas have been referenced as examples where ocean wastewater dischargers have supposedly been shown to significantly contribute to shellfish contamination problems. It has also been suggestedthatchlorination of these dischargers have had a significant effect on controlling the problems. With respect to Morro Bay, we have attached excerpts from a SWRCB funded study in 1986-1987 on bacterial contamination (Exhibit E). That study indicates there are still many questions unanswered about water standards, sources of contamination, bacterial counts in shellfish i.e. appropriate standards, test procedures, etc. It does not conclude that the local wastewater plant was a significant contribution to the problem. In fact, the SWRCB disagrees with an earlier conclusion by the DOHS of significant contamination by the wastewater plant. Santa Barbara/Goleta is also unresolved. Attached is a summary report which concludes, after approximately 3 years of study, that the treated wastewater discharges are not significant contributions to the shellfish contamination problem (Exhibit F). There, too, questions of shellfish standards, bacterial uptake, etc. have been unanswered. It is our understanding that the SWRCB is now beginning a nonpoint source bacterial study in this area that will be similar to the Morro Bay work. E NC I NA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-01 71 (619) 438-3941 . Ref: 8972.3 We believe these two studies are worth referencing because: 1) They confirm the regional nature of the problem of shellfish bacterial contarnination. 2) In both areas nonpoint sources have been shown to be the predominant, if not the only, source of bacterial contamination. 3) The studies point out the complexities in conducting these types of studies. 4) They indicate basic questions with the shellfish and growing water standards. Another on-going study worth referencing which includes examination of nonpoint sources of bacteria is the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (Exhibit G). This study funded by EPA and the State, again underscores the regional and statewide nature of bacterial contamination from nonpoint sources. With respect to the Agua Hedionda L~igoon, the Encina Power Plant continually discharges between 500 and 700 MGD of lagoon cooling water which has been raised approximately 10 to 15' C in temperature. The discharge is directly offshore and could explain some, if not all, of the fecal coliform water and shellfish counts obtained in the lagoon nearshore waters and in the area of the kelp beds off the power plant. This is & to be construed to suggest that SDGhE is the source but rather enhances the circulation of an existing contamination. Excerpts from a 1989 thermal dispersion study of the discharge by SDG&E are attached (Exhibit H) . The discharge is shown to be offshore and down coast thousands of feet. Weekly tests by Encina since April 10, 1990 show consistently high fecal coliform counts in the cooling water during wet dry weather periods (Exhibit I, Table 1). Since this water is drawn from the lagoon, it would indicate continual rather than episodic sources of contamination into the lagoon. Parallel testing of the lagoon inlet from the ocean shows consistently lower fecal counts than the cooling water discharge except occasionally on a ebbing (outgoing) tide (Exhibit I, Table 2). All this would suggest a contamination source internal to the lagoon. Controllable dry weather sources of pollution could include illegal migrant worker camps which have become commonplace throughout North County. Other possible, but more difficult to control, nonpoint sources include birds, agricultural runoffs and the general runoff from the upstream shed of approximately 30 square miles. An example supporting the dry weather nonpoint source concept of fecal contamination is "Cannon Lake". This water body is a sump located in the Agua Hedionda Lagoon drainage just south of the power plant. The lake is approximately three (3) acres in surface area and has a drainage area of about 1 square mile. ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-0171 (619) 438-3941 Ref: 8972.4 Originally, it was thought that the lake could be a source of "dry weather" flows and hence contamination to the lagoon due to overflow caused by irrigation of lawns, agricultural runoff, etc. and/or tidal interchanges. However, indications are that it only discharges to the lagoon during rainfall events. Encina has been sampling the lake since March 27, 1990 (Exhibit I, Table 3). We have found consistently high fecal coliform counts. Since this lake is not subject to ocean influence and is in the same drainage as the lagoon, we believe it is an example of a nonpoint source contamination problem that would exemplify the lagoon if tidal conditions did not exist. In other words, if the lake maintains a relatively high fecal coliform count during dry weather; Why is it not possible to expect similar land based sources to the lagoon? The DOHS study uses data beginning in 1985 to examine the lagoon contamination issue. We have examined the period from 1985 thru June 1990 for compliance with the Ocean Plan Standards for water contact recreation using Encina's bacterial sampling data. Approximately 2000 samples have been collected. Only 1 sample in 5 years exceeded the total coliform standard of 1000 most probable number (mpn) per 100 milliliter (ml). The average total coliform by year is shown on Exhibit J. Using the same 2000 samples none exceeded the fecal coliform geometric mean standard of 200 mpn per 100 ml. The average fecal coliform by year is shown on Exhibit K. In other words, over a 5# year period 2000 samples were taken in the near-shore zone (Exhibit D) and only one sample was in violation of Ocean Plan Water Standard. Additionally, for the last 15 months Encina has been routinely monitoring its five surf stations for the new enterococcus standard. To date, 360 samples have been taken with none exceeding the Ocean Plan geometric mean standards of 24 organisms for 30 days nor 12 organisms for 6 months. The average for the 360 samples is less than 2 organisms/100 ml. The surf zone is not designated by the RWQCB as a shellfish harvested area. However, an analysis was performed on the data (1400 points) for the surf zone stations against the Ocean Plan total coliform standard of 70 mpn for shellfish harvesting. A fairly consistent 14 to 3% of the samples over the 53 year period exceeded the 70 mpn standard (Exhibit L). This data was plotted against the flows for Encina (Exhibit M). ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-0171 (619) 438-3941 Ref: 8972. 5 While the standard is exceeded consistently 2% of the time there appears to be no correlation to the Encina flows which have increased approximately 30% over the same period of time. Encina believes the issue of bacterial contamination should be recognized as part of a statewide nonpoint source problem. We have earlier cited three areas (Morro Bay, Goleta/Santa Barbara and Santa Monica Bay) under study. The regional nature of the problem is further supported by the shellfish data collected in 1989 and 1990 by DOHS (Exhibit N) and County Department of Environmental Health Services (Exhibit 0). This data covers the Orange County and San Diego coastlines. Recognizing the problem as statewide leads to questions concerning study purpose and design, funding sources, policy discussions on 1) nonpoint control and treatment and 2) appropriate designated shellfish areas. A study to thoroughly examine the issue of contamination in the lagoon will be technically complex. By its nature it will take time and significant amounts of funds. This fact is born out by the multiyear efforts at Morro Bay, Goleta/Santa Barbara and Santa Monica Bay. In all three cases questions remain regarding contamination including the validity of standards themselves. The proposal to have dischargers (Encina and Oceanside) and/or a single land use agency (Carlsbad) bear the substantial burden of conducting a study is not justified because: (crwai North *an ONLO Count, The regional and statewide nature of the problem is well documented: Similar studies in Morro Bay and Goleta/Santa Barbara have not shown that the dischargers are significantly contributing to the problem: The lagoon specific information provided in our testimony establishes the likelihood of a non-point source of contamination: The shellfish related bacterial standards are currently under re-examination: and State and Federal funds either have been or are now bein$ applied to these types of studies. ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas, Carlsbad, CA 92009-01 71 (619) 438-3941 Ref: 8972.6 The questions to be answered after a study we believe will at least include: What level of control and treatment is to be placed on the non-point sources? Is it appropriate to designate commercial shellfishing in urban drainage areas? Is it appropriate for the local land use permitting agency (city or County) to issue a permit for commercial shellfishing and thereby subject its residents to subsidizing the operation through non-point control costs? These are important questions and should be expected going in. The implications are substantial. But again, these are STATEWIDE if not national questions and warrant a regional perspective on the study purpose, design and funding. ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY 6200 Avenida Encinas. Carlsbad, CA 92009-0171 (619) 438-3941 City of Carlsbad Juty 11, 1990 Mr. Arthur L Coe Acting Executive otficec State d California San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 9771 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, Suite 6 San Diego, CA 92124 AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON - PROPOSED COLIFORM STUDY Dear Mr. Coe: The City is in receipt of your June 11, 1990 letter concerning the Regional Board's proposed action on the Agua Hedii Lagoon Coliform Study. This letter sdiciis comments on the Regional Boards proposed study design, and indicates they are considering naming the City of Carlsbad, Encina Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and the City of Oceanside as responsible parties for implementation of that study. As a member agency at Encina WPCF, the City was aware of the coliform issue, but this was the first indication that the City was to be named as a responsible party. Since becoming aware d our potential involvement in the study, staff has attempted to become more informed of the precise details and potential financial and legal exposure which may accrue to the City. To date, with limited research and expertise, we have determined that the proposed study is estimated to cost $5oo,OOO to $700,000, with no clear undefstanding of what might be required shouM the source of contamination prove to be non-point source dxharges. As a new participant in the study issue, we have not had sufficient time to assess potential cost or liabilities, or to develop the expertise to adequately evaluate the varied and contradictory information that is being generated on thii subject. The City would request a delay on any action to allow further time to evaluate the problem and the proposed study design as it affects the City. In evaluating this situation, the City d Carlsbad wiH assume a dual role. NU only are we Concerned as a named party in the proposed study, but we are also the primary permit authority for Seafarm West Mariculture. Seafarms West is currently operating under a Condiiional Use Permit that has expired. The City is now revking 8ppkaWn for renewal. Given patential health hazards and the potential public expense required to mitigate those hazards, great care will be exercised in review of the permit extension. In discussing the issue with the Regional Board stafl, tow key issues were identified: 1. Mitigath d potential health hazards assodated with Seafarms West. 3. Impact d wastewater discharges on shellfish in general and potential mitigatbn measurea 4. The natwe and extent d pollution to the lagoon and ocean environments from -point source disdrarger, and patential mitm strategies. 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, California 92009-4859 * (619) 438-1 161 I Mr. Arthur L Coe Agua Hedionda Lagoon - Proposed Coliform Study July 11, 1990 Page: 2 Only Issues 1 and 2 are unique to this particular situation. Non-point source and ocean discharge impacts on the shelKsh environment are general issues common to all ocean dischargers. Removal of Seafarms West would presumably eliminate the need for our particular agencies to assume responsibili for development d the science of shellfish contamination. These issues would revert to the State agencies with the expertise to better explore and evaluate ocean pollution in general and to develop appropriate regulatory standards and practices. The issue d non-point source pollution is being adequately addressed by Order 9042, which the Board will be considering later in their meeting. The City of Carlsbad fully supports these efforts, and hopes to continue its active protection d our lagoons and the ocean environment. Prior to initiating massive expenditures related to the state of the art on shellfish contamination, we would like to thoroughly evaluate the cost benefits d the Seafarms West operation. What measures are required to decontaminate the shelKsh to meet health standards? What are the costs of those measures? How do the cost benefits of the Seafarms West operation relate to the cost of the proposed studies and potential mitigation measures? In our zeal to increase ow knowledge d shellfish contamination in general, we should not lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with a discreet health hazard at an individual business. No major expenditure of public funds shouM be plovided to support any business without a thorough understanding of the cost benefits d those expenditures. I would request that this letter be entered into the Carlsbad be given an opporhrnity to give testimony Thank you for yow consideration. cordally, A record of the July at the hearing. 16 hearing, and that the City d