Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD MINUTES 10-25-90 194 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE DISTRICT BOARD OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT HELD ON OCTOBER 25, 1990 The District Board of the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District convened in an adjourned regular session at the Velvet Turtle, 100 Chilpancingo Parkway, Pleasant Hill, County of Contra Costa, State of California, at 6:30 p.m. for a joint meeting of Sewer and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. The Secretary of the District noted the attendance of the following Board Members. PRESENT: Members: I Boneysteele, Clausen, Dalton, Carlson ABSENT: Members: Dalton . Member Dalton had indicated previously that he would be unable to attend this meeting and had requested that he be excused. 1. INTRODUCTIONS Chairperson Rainey welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Sewer and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County. The representatives from each agency and members of the public attending the meeting introduced themselves. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JULY 26. 1990 There being no corrections or additions, the minutes of July 26, 1990, were approved as mailed. 3. STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES Chairperson Rainey introduced Mr. Charles W. Batts, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District. Mr. Batts stated that the statewide water quality objectives is a timely topic as the draft objectives are due to be presented to the State Board in the near future. Mr. Batts introduced Dr. David C. Carlson, Chief of the Freshwater Standards Unit of the State Water Resource Control Board. Dr. Carlson stated that the State Board is in the process of developing two new Water Quality Control Plans: the Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan. The draft plans have not been approved and adopted by the State Board and are subject to a public participation process. The plans may change as a result of that process. Dr. Carlson stated that the Inland Surface Waters Plan and the Enclosed Bays and Estuaries Plan will compliment 16 other water quality plans already adopted in the State of California. The two new plans are being developed to comply with requirements of the 1987 a-mendments to the Clean Water Act. The statutory deadline for complying with these requirements was February 1990. However, only a few states have met this deadline. The law requires the states to promulgate water quality objectives for "primary pollutants" that could interfere with beneficial uses of state waters. The federal government will publish draft rules for states which have not adopted such rules. It is expected that the federal draft rules will be published by the end of the year, and it will be another year before they are final. The State of California is trying to complete their two proposed statewide water quality control plans before the federal rules are completed. The Functional Equivalent Document presents the staff analysis of the major issues, .addresses potential environmental impacts that could occur, and includes the plans as appendices. The objectives of the Water Quality Control Plan are: 1) to assign beneficia'. uses to each water body covered by the plan; 2) to identify water quality objectives to protect the beneficial uses; and 3) to establish a program of implementation for achieving the water quality objectives. Dr. Carlson briefly reviewed the selection of 10 2--5 90 195 pollutants and development of water quality objectives considering aquatic life and human health factors. The plans allow for development of alternative "site specific" objectives by Regional Boards if it is determined that a water quality objective is not appropriate for a specific body of water. Dr. Carlson discussed the major issues as follows: . The ability of publicly owned treatment works to meet proposed objectives and the costs of treatment to achieve the objectives. . The adequacy of protection of the proposed objectives for local species and compliance with the California Endangered Species Act. . The effects of the proposed objectives on existing and proposed water reclamation projects. . The effects of the proposed objectives on agricultural drainage and storm drain discharges. . The adequacy of the list of pollutants addressed. . Compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and the adequacy of the environmental checklist. . Compliance with the Porter-Cologne Act and assessment of economic impacts. . Compliance with statewide objectives while site specific objectives are being developed. Dr. Carlson reviewed the schedule and process for development and adoption of the statewide Water Quality Control Plans for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries. The state should release the plans on or about November 2, 1990. The State Board workshop is scheduled for December 10, and the State Board Meeting will probably be in January 1991. Mr. Batts thanked Dr. Carlson for his presentation and introduGed Mr. Larry F. Walker, of Larry Walker Associates, Inc., an environmental engineering and management consultant. Mr. Walker stated that the Water Quality Control Plan is a monumental document and probably the most important change in water quality legislation in the last 25 years. The Clean Water Act focused on conventional pollutants and the concept of a technology-based treatment standard. This plan is a major change in that historic position. We are moving to a water quality based program and away from a technology based program. Treatment will be dictated by what is required to reach the water quality objective concentration in the receiving water. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits will be modified to incorporate provisions necessary to comply with these water quality plan requirements for the receiving waters. Objectives will be based on criteria developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) nationally. EPA criteria are so stringent that many of the cleanest water supplies in the State do not meet the standards. The standards were developed through laboratory studies using the most sensitive species methodology. Many people are concerned about the translation of the laboratory results into the field. These standards are maximums, not averages. Dischargers cannot exceed these standards for any four-day period in any three-year period. In some cases, the background levels of the receiving waters are higher than the statewide objectives. The Regional Board is looking at areas of San Francisco Bay where background concentrations of metals, i.e. copper, would affect water quality objectives. Mr. Walker expressed concern that once the plans are adopted, there will be standards in place that could not be met by a large number of dischargers. If dischargers are to attempt to meet such standards, ,they will have to employ very costly treatment procedures. It appears the water quality plans will allow some flexibility for dischargers who cannot meet the standards, at least in the near future. If the strategy of controlling toxics into the system is used, it will be necessary to implement source control programs 10'25 9,0 , 196 that go well beyond the current industrial source control programs by implementing waste minimization programs. It will also be necessary to implement public education programs, product control measures, and revised operational programs for water supply and treatment facilities. Mr. Walker predicted that waste minimization alone will not bring dischargers into compliance with these very stringent standards because of the magnitude of reductions needed. Mr. Walker stated that in the future it will be necessary either to put in costly treatment facilities or to get the State to relax the standards and stringent objectives. The potential for amending the Federal Clean Wat.er Act exists. Even if the Act is amended, at a minimum, agencies will be required to employ new waste minimization techniques. Mr. Batts thanked Mr. Walker and Dr. Carlson for the overview of the water quality objectives planned for.our future. Mr. Batts stated that the costs of the changes will be tremendous, but there is still time to get involved in the hearing process. Mr. Batts asked for questions from the audience. Mr. Paul Hughey, of Contra Costa Water District, stated that the City of Sacramento has proposed that they be allowed to discharge raw sewage into the Sacramento River during peak wet weather flow. It would appear that this flies in the face of what we are trying to accomplish with the statewide water quality objectives. Mr. Walker stated that the total mass of toxic pollutants that goes into the overflow from the Sacramento combined sewer system is very small, probably less than three percent. Non-point sources are the primary sources of pollutants. Mr. Walker described the Sacramento system and indicated they are under a cease and desist order. Mr. Walker stated that it is likely that they will be forced to separate their system. Mr. Roger Dolan, 'of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, discussed the site specific plans and the concern that site specific plans for a given discharger which are less stringent than the criteria included in the statewide water quality plan may be considered backsliding. Dr. Carlson answered that each site specific plan would be different and stated that he did not believe that site specific plans would create a backsliding kind of situation. The anti-backsliding regulations only apply to criteria included in an NPDES permit. Dr. Carlson went on to discuss the distinction between aquatic life and human health based toxic effects. In response to a question by Mr. Parke L. Boneysteele, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, Mr. Walker stated that the background levels for mercury in the receiving waters are higher than the objectives about half the time. Much of the mercury occurs naturally in the waters and runoffs. There being no further questions, Chairperson Rainey thanked Dr. Carlson and Mr. Walker for the very interesting and informative presentations. 4. STATUS OF COUNTY DRAFT ORDINANCE DEFINING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-POTABLE WATER USE Mr. Bob Whitley, of Dublin San Ramon Services District, reported that the County Draft Ordinance Defining Requirements for Non-Potable Water Use is scheduled to go to the Board of Supervisors Water Committee in November 1990. . 5. SOLID WASTE JPA UPDATE Mr. Paul Morsen, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, reported that he and Walnut Creek City Manager Don Blubaugh were appointed by the cities to negotiate the Solid Waste JPA with the County. Two problems have been encountered. First, it had been determined that the number of votes would be based on population. Therefore, the County would be entitled to one vote. To encourage the County to participate, the cities agreed that the County should have two votes. However, the County wants three votes. There is expected to be more discussion on this issue. The second issue is that the County wants to take over the staffing of the new JPA organization rather than having 10 25 .90 197 the jPA determine its staffing. Messrs. Blubaugh and Morsen are working with County staff to draft language that is acceptable to all parties. Chairperson Rainey stated that she feels very strongly that the JPA should establish some form of staffing to the jPA rather than having the County do it. Chairperson Rainey asked that each agency consider this issue carefully as they review the JPA document and come into the organization. 6. REPORT ON AWRA AND CAREW SYMPOSIUM V. RECLAMATION-WATER RECYCLING IN THE 90's Mr. Kenneth S. Caldwell, of Dublin San Ramon Services District, reported that the Association of Water Reclamation Agencies (AWRA) and the California Association of Reclamation Entities of Water (CAREW) recently held a joint symposium in Monterey. The two organizations have merged to form a new entity called the Water Reuse Association of California. Mr. Caldwell reviewed the leadership and goals of the new organization. Mr. Caldwell stated that three elements are needed to address California's water future where supply will not keep up with demand: 1) identification of new water supplies and capturing rain and snow; 2) conservation; and 3) water reuse. The term "water recycling" is very important because it implies going through a purification process. To market recycled water it will be necessary to: 1 ) 2) 3) 4) Use a regulatory approach to project implementation. Start public education and funding early. Get local elected leadership involved for success. For acceptance of these projects, try to relate to people not technology. Those interested in joining the Water Reuse Association of California should contact Mr. Caldwell for more information. 7. REPORT ON HAZARDOUS WASTE MINIMIZATION TASK FORCE No report. 8. DISCUSSION OF SEWER AND WATER AGENCIES ORGANIZATION Chairperson Rainey stated that the Sewer and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County have been meeting for one year. At this time it would be appropriate to consider the purpose, structure, and effectiveness of the organization. Mr. Caldwell stated that providing education and sharing information among the member agencies is of value, but at some point it may be beneficial to take on specific action items and use the combined strength of the agencies. Mr. Nels E. Carlson, of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District agreed. Chairperson Rainey stated that if the group intends to become proactive, more frequent meetings may be needed. Mr. Art Del Agostino, of Crockett Valona Sanitary District, stated that the meetings have been worthwhile. Following discussion, it was decided to continue meeting on a quarterly basis. Mr. Caldwell suggested that a committee be formed to prepare comments on the proposed County Ordinance Defining Requirements for Non-Potable Water Use and to present those comments to the Board of Supervisors Water Committee when the ordinance is considered. There was a consensus that such a committee should be formed and the following individuals were appointed to serve on the committee: Jim Kelly of Central Contra Costa Sanitary District; Bob Whitley, Ken Caldwell, and Bert Michalczyk of Dublin San Ramon Services District; Mike Wallis of East Bay Municipal Utility District; Jim Hill of Delta Diablo Sanitation District; and Dave Requa of Contra Costa Water District. Mr. Dolan suggested that the name of this organization be changed from "Sewer and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County" to "Sanitation and Water Agencies of Contra Costa County" since it more accurately reflects the nature of the member agencies. He mentioned that some of the member agencies provide wastewater treatment but provide no actual sewer service. There being no objection, the name of the organization was officially changed. 10 25 90 198 9. OTHER ITEMS Mr. Morsen stated that AB 939 requires that regional plans must be prepared for those who franchise solid waste collection. The cost of preparing these plans must be passed through in the rates. The plans are due January 1, 1991. The County is preparing the plans for the unincorporated areas. To date, no contact has been received from the County. Mr. Morsen suggested that this group send a letter to the County requesting that they incorporate input from the franchisers in the planning stages rather than after the plans are complete. The group agreed. Mr. Morsen and Mr. Alfred Granzella, of West Contra Costa Sanitary District, will draft the letter for Chairperson Rainey's signature. 10. DEVELOP AGENDA FOR JANUARY 24. 1991. MEETING Chairperson Rainey requested that Mr. Batts draft a white paper including comments and recommendations with regard to the statewide Water Quality Objectives for consideration at the January 24, 1991 meeting. There will be an update on the Hazardous Waste Strike Force activities and funding. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at the hour of 8:22 p.m. Dinner was served immediately following the business meeting. Pr . ent of the Board of Directors, Central Contra Costa Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California COUNTERSIGNED: Se,cr t of the Central Co tra C a Sanitary District, County of Contra Costa, State of California 10 25 90