Draft
Environmental
Impact Report
& Statement
San Francisco
Wastewater
Master Plan February1974


City and County of San Francisco
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STATEMENT
(D-EPA-2 4003-CA)
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
FEBRUARY 197 4
Prepared by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco CA 94111
City and County of San Francisco
Department of City Planning
100 Larkin Street
San Francisco CA 94102
With technical assistance by:
City and County of San Francisco	J. B. Gilbert & Associates
Department of Public Works
Responsible Officials:
Deputy Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX
Sdlina Bendix, PhD
Environmental Review Officer
City and County of San
Francisco

-------
ABSTRACT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STATEMENT
Draft (x)
Final ( )
Prepared jointly by:
City and County of San Francisco
Department of City Planning
100 Larkin Street
San Francisco, California 94102
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
1. Type of Action;
Administrative
2. Description of Project:
The San Francisco Master Plan for Wastewater
Management is a concept which includes a combina-
tion of pumps, pipes, storage reservoirs, treat-
ment plants, and disposal locations which it is
believed most effectively reduces the detrimental
effects of waste discharges from the City and
County of San Francisco. The Master Plan will be
constructed in four stages during the next 20 years.
Implementation of the first stage of the Master
Plan is necessary to comply with provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 and existing Cease and Desist Orders of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region, which require secondary
treatment of all dry weather flows by July 1, 1977.

-------
Upon completion of the Master Plan, wastes will
receive secondary treatment at the Southeast and
Richmond-Sunset plants. Effluent from these
plants will be transmitted through a tunnel and
pipeline system to the southwest corner of the
City and discharged approximately four miles
offshore. During storm conditions, flows exceeding
the capacity of the secondary treatment plants will
be transported to the 1,000 mgd capacity Southwest
Treatment Plant where it will receive Level I
(low dose ferric chloride) treatment and be discharged
about two miles offshore.
Implementation Plan I, North Point Transport
Project, is scheduled for construction in 1974.
The North Point Transport Project will convey
untreated wastewater from the existing North Point
Water Pollution Control Plant to the Southeast
Water Pollution Control Plant which will allow
conversion of the North Point plant to a wet weather
treatment facility.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts:
A.	Construction impacts will occur in almost every
area of the City—land use changes, traffic
disruption, noise, dust, flora and fauna
disruption, aesthetics, utility disruption,
and temporary turbidity increases in the Bay
and Ocean waters.
B.	Interim discharge of combined North Point and
Southeast secondary treated effluent into South
San Francisco Bay.
C.	Elimination of the North Point primary discharge
to San Francisco Bay.
D.	Control of wet weather flows along the northeast
shoreline at completion of Stage I resulting in
only five wet weather overflows per year.
E.	Control of wet weather flows City-wide at completion
of the Master Plan resulting in only eight wet
weather overflows per year.
F.	Master Plan provides secondary treatment of all
dry weather flow and discharge to the Pacific
Ocean through a five-mile outfall.

-------
G. Capacity of the treatment facilities will not
allow for population growth beyond that
compatible with the applicable air implementation
plan prepared pursuant to the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1970. Secondary impacts in this
area are expected to be minor.
4.	Alternatives:
A.	No Project
B.	Many Individual Treatment Plants
C.	Expansion of Three Existing Plants
D.	One Regional Plant Without Wet Weather Storage
E.	Sewer Separation
F.	Reclamation
5.	Dates Available to CEQ and the Public:
Draft: March 13, 1974
Final:
6.	Distribution List Attached

-------
DISTRIBUTION LIST
S.F. Impact Statement
2/7/74
FEDERAL
Assistant Secretary-Program Policy (10 copies)
Attn: Office of Environmental Project Review
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C. 20240
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (2 copies)
Region IX
50 Fulton Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Department of Housing and Urban Development (2 copies)
San Francisco Area Office
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Council on Environmental Quality (10 copies)
722 Jackson Place, N. W.
Washington, D. C, 20006
Corps of Engineers
South Pacific Division
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Department of Transportation (2 copies)
U. S. Coast Guard
12th Coast Guard District
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Department of Commerce (2 copies)
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southwest Region
30 0 South Ferry
Terminal Island, CA 90731

-------
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs (2 copies)
Attn: Dr. Sidney Galler
Department of Commerce
Commerce Building, Room 2816
Washington, D. C. 20230
Department of Defence (2 copies)
Office of Oceanographer of the Navy
The Madison Building
732 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Legislation (4 copies)
Congressional Affairs Division
Washington, D. C.
Office of Federal Activities (2 copies)
Washington, D. C.
Office of Public Affairs (2 copies)
Washington, D. C.
Office of Public Affairs
Region IX
Office of Water Programs (2 copies)
Water Quality and Non-Point Source Control Division
Washington, D. C.
STATE
State Water Resources Control Board (10 copies)
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
State Office of Intergovernmental Management (10 copies)
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Air Resources Board
1025 "P" Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

-------
State Attorney General's Office
Attn: Louise Renne
6000 State Building
350 McAllister
San Francisco, CA 94102
History Preservation Section
Department of Parks and Recreation
Resources Agency
P. O. Box 2390
Sacramento, CA 95811
Department of Fish and Game
State Headquarters
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Department of Public Health
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development
1316 Ninth Street, Room 1336
Sacramento, CA 95814
Regional Water Quality Control Board (2 copies)
San Francisco Region
364 - 14th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission
1540 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
North Central Coast Regional Commission
1050 Northgate Drive
San Rafael, CA 94903
REGIONAL
Association of Bay Area Governments
Hotel Claremont
Berkeley, CA 94705

-------
Bay Area Sewer Service Agency
Hotel Clareraont
Berkeley, CA 94705
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
LIBRARIES
Branch Department (5 copies)
City Library
Civic Center
San Francisco, CA 94104
Social Science, Business, and Ethnic Studies Library
Attn: Ms. Mimi Sayer
San Francisco State University
16 00 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
Library
Hastings College of the Law
198 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
GROUPS
People For Open Space
Attn: Mrs. Morse Erskine
46 Kearny Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
San Francisco Tomorrow
Attn: Susan Smith
72 8 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Sierra Club
San Francisco Bay Chapter
5608 College Avenue
Oakland, CA 9 4618
Save San Francisco Bay Association
Box 92 5
Berkeley, CA 94701

-------
Waterfront Committee
San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association
126 Post Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
National Resources Defense Council
664 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Friends of the Earth
Attn: Ms. Connie Parrish
529 Commercial Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
California Tomorrow
681 Market Street
San Francsico, CA 94105
League of Women Voters
12	Geary Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Ecology Center
13	Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94111
California Coastal Alliance
P. O. Box 4161
Woodside, CA 94062
Oceanic Society
680 Beach Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Environmental Defense Fund
27 38 Durant Avenue
Berkeley, CA 94704
NEWSPAPER
San Francisco Chronicle
925 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103

-------
PREFACE
The Draft Environmental Impact Report and Statement
(EIR&S) was prepared jointly by the City and County
of San Francisco and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on the City's Master Plan
for Wastewater Management.
The Draft EIR&S is in two volumes. The first
evaluates the overall environmental effects of the
Master Plan for Wastewater Management while the
second evaluates the specific environmental effects
of Implementation Plan I, North Point Transport
Project, scheduled for construction in 1974. This
transport project is part of the Master Plan's
Stage I facilities.
The Draft EIR&S has been prepared to fulfill the
mandate of both State and Federal legislation which
requires that consideration of environmental aspects
be built into the decision making process. This
legislation includes the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) of 19 70 and the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
EPA is considering assisting the City and County
of San Francisco in constructing the North Point
Transport Project. A final decision on this action
will not be made, however, until after public review
of the Draft EIR&S as required by CEQA and NEPA,

-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
PREFACE
SUMMARY				 1
The Problem								 1
Alternative Solutions		3
The Master Plan	4
CHAPTER I
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES			1-1
Marine Environment			1-1
City Environment			1-23
CHAPTER II
EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT			II-l
Water Supply	II-l
Wastewater Management	II-4
Suiramary of Current State and Federal Regulations	11-22
System Studies			11-28
Chronology of Master Plan Development	11-34
CHAPTER III
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS				 III-l
Water Quality					III-l
Aesthetics					III-2
Land Use	III-2
Growth Factors			III-3
Air Quality	III-3
Implementation.		III-3
PART II - WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAPTER IV
ALTERNATIVES			IV-1
No Project	IV-2
Individual Treatment Plants	IV-3
Expand Three Existing Plants	IV-4
One Plant Without Wet Weather Storage			IV-4
Storage/Treatment					 IV-4
Sewer Separation.IV—5
Reclamation.			 .IV-5

-------
CHAPTER V
THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN					V-l
Goals of the Master Plan				 .V-3
Proposed Master Plan Concept..			V-5
Storage					V-ll
Treatment	V-29
Transportation. . 		V-41
Control System						 . .V-42
Summary						 V- 4 5
CHAPTER VI
SUBALTERNATIVES		 .VI-1
Alternative Locations	VI-1
Alternative Control Frequency	VI-7
Alternative Sizes			VI-7
CHAPTER VII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE MASTER PLAN.		 . VII-1
Primary Construction Impacts. 			 		VII-1
Primary Operational Impacts.....	VII - 9
Secondary Impacts					VII-36
Problematical Effects		 . . .VII-37
CHAPTER VIII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OP ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED	VIII-1
No Project					VIII-1
Individual Treatment Plants					.VIII-3
Expand Three Existing Plants		VIII-4
One Regional Plant Without Storage			.VIII-7
Storage/Treatment	VIII-7
Sewer Separation			VIII-7
Reclamation	VIII-8
CHAPTER IX
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS..	IX-1
CHAPTER X
STATUTORY SECTIONS							 . .X-l
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts	X-l
Mitigation Measures			X-3
Local Short-Term Uses vs.
Long-Term Productivity	X-6
Irreversible Environmental Changes.	X-7
Growth Inducing Impacts				 X-7
Cost-Effectiveness		 .X-7
Organizations and Persons Contacted		 .X-10

-------
REFERENCES
APPENDIX A
STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL FOR RECLAMATION OF WASTEWATER
Conclusions and Recommendations		 					 1
Summary	2
Background							8
Characterization of San Francisco Wastewater	15
Potential for Using Reclaimed San Francisco
Wastewater Within the Basin (Excluding San Francisco)... 23
Potential for Using Reclaimed San Francisco
Wastewater Outside the Basin	34
Potential for Using Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the City and County of San Francisco	38
Effect of Reclamation on the Master Plan			43
References	47
APPENDIX B
Glossary of Terms...	..4 9
APPENDIX C
Geology, Seismicity and Earthquake Effects	55

-------
Draft
Environmental
Impact Report
& Statement
San Francisco
Wastewater
Master Plan
February 1974
Summary
City and County of San Francisco
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
CONTENTS
THE PROBLEM. . 				 1
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS			 3
THE MASTER PLAN							 4
Environmental Evaluation	 8
FIGURES
Figure 1—Existing Facilities....			2
Figure 2--First Phase of Master Plan		5
Figure 3—Master Plan 							7
TABLES
Table l--Functional, Economic, and Environmental
Rating of Alternative Concepts	 9
Table 2—Summary of the Potential Adverse Impacts and
Associated Mitigation Measures Due to Construction
of the San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan		 12

-------
SUMMARY
THE PROBLEM
The people, businesses, and industries in the City and
County of San Francisco generate more than 100 million
gallons of wastewater each day-~an average of about 140
gallons per day for each resident in the City. The
City has improved its facilities to convey and treat
this wastewater before it is discharged into San
Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. Fowever, increasing
environmental knowledge and standards, combined with
recent State and Federal regulations and enforcement
actions, require a vastly accelerated improvement
program.
In meeting these needs, San Francisco must cope with a
special situation. The municipal and industrial waste-
waters together with stormwater runoff are transported
in a combined wastewater collection system, most of
which was constructed in the early 1900's. This type
of system, which is common in older communities through-
out the United States, creates special problems in the
conveyance and treatment of wastewaters. For instance,
the City's average dry weather wastewater flow of 100
million gallons per day (mgd) increases to as much as
14 billion gallons per day during storm periods.
Municipal and industrial wastewaters must be treated to
lessen health hazards and damage to aquatic environments.
Stormwaters, although they may contain large concentra-
tions of grease, oil, lead, bacteria, and other pollu-
tants, are not normally treated prior to discharge.
However, the discharge of untreated combined wastewaters
is a definite health hazard and is aesthetically
unacceptable. Therefore, the combined wastewaters of
San Francisco must be treated prior to discharge to the
aquatic environment.
Presently, during dry periods all wastewater is collected
and treated at three separate treatment facilities—
Richmond-Sunset, North Point, and Southeast. However,
during most rainy periods the 340 mgd combined hydraulic
capacity of these three plants is exceeded, resulting
in untreated wastewater being discharged from the col-
lection system at 41 overflow structures located around
the periphery of the City as shown on Figure 1.
1

-------
SUflMARY
THE PROBLEM
The people, businesses, and industries in the City and
County of San Francisco generate more than 100 million
gallons of wastewater each day--an average of about 140
gallons per day for each resident in the City. The
City has improved its facilities to convey and treat
this wastewater before it is discharged into San
Francisco Bay and the Pacific Qcean. However, increasing
environmental knowledge and standards, combined with
recent State and Federal regulations and enforcement
actions, require a vastly accelerated improvement
program.
In meeting these needs, San Francisco must cope with a
special situation. The municipal and industrial waste-
waters together with stormwater runoff are transported
in a combined wastewater collection system, most of
which was constructed in the early 1900's. This type
of system, which is common in older communities through-
out the United States, creates special problems in the
conveyance and treatment of wastewaters. For instance,
the City's average dry weather wastewater flow of 100
million gallons per day (mgd) increases to as much as
14 billion gallons per day during storm periods.
Municipal and industrial wastewaters must be treated to
lessen health hazards and damage to aquatic environments.
Stormwaters, although they may contain large concentra-
tions of grease, oil, lead, bacteria, and other pollu-
tants, are not normally treated prior to discharge.
However, the discharge of untreated combined wastewaters
is a definite health hazard and is aesthetically
unacceptable. Therefore, the combined wastewaters of
San Francisco must be treated prior to discharge to the
aquatic environment.
Presently, during dry periods all wastewater is collected
and treated at three separate treatment facilities—
Richmond-Sunset, North Point, and Southeast. However,
during most rainy periods the 340 mgd combined hydraulic
capacity of these three plants is exceeded, resulting
in untreated wastewater being discharged from the col-
lection system at 41 overflow structures located around
the periphery of the City as shown on Figure 1.
1

-------
The three plants provide advanced primary treatment. In each
case, the effluent quality and treatment efficiency is superior
to conventional primary treatment1 but not adequate to meet
the present State requirements or the provisions of the 1972
Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500).
Compliance with those regulations can only be achieved by major
capital expenditures for new secondary treatment facilities.
During rainstorms, despite the high flow rates, the treatment
plants do remove approximately 60 percent of pollutants.
However, large quantities of bacteria, grease, and untreated
human waste are discharged along the shoreline, particularly
in the beach areas, as a result of some of the average 82
overflows per year. Although these overflows occur only about
2.4 percent of the time in an average year, water quality
and beach conditions are affected for days after each overflow.
Generally, these overflows leave waste material on the beaches
throughout the winter months.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS
There are a variety of ways in which the City can correct its
wastewater problems. Some of the more obvious solutions are:
The construction of separate stormwater and sanitary
sewer systems. Separation of sewers would cost over
$3 billion and result in major disruption throughout
the City for many years. If separation were achieved,
some treatment or special disposal practices might
still be necessary for the stormwaters due to the
highly urban characteristics of the City which result
in pollutants in the stormwaters.
The construction of improved treatment facilities at
the existing plant locations plus separate treatment
facilities for wastewaters bypassed at the existing
41 overflow points or at some consolidation of those
sites. This alternative would also cost an estimated
$3 billion and its effectiveness and reliability are
questionable.
The construction of an integrated system of transport,
storage, treatment, control, and disposal facilities
designed to provide a given degree of control	,
eight overflows per year). This alternative would
cost-an estimated $672 million.
*In general terms, primary treatment will provide 50 percent
removal of pollutants, secondary treatment will provide
90 percent removal of pollutants, and tertiary treatment will
provide 99 percent removal of pollutants.
3

-------
THE MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan is a concept which includes a combination
of pumps, pipes, storage reservoirs, treatment plants, and
disposal locations which it is believed most effectively
reduces the detrimental effects of waste discharges from the
City of San Francisco. It includes the location and sizing
of storage basins, plus the construction of dry weather and
wet weather treatment facilities, transportation systems, and
disposal facilities in a series of stages to achieve any desired
or required level of control. The Master Plan, as shown on
Figure 2, was developed by an environmental planning approach
including thorough studies of key sanitary and stormwater
considerations with special emphasis upon the stormwater
sector as the critical aspect to the design of the combined
system.
Assuming the construction of 45 retention basins, a wastewater
transport system, a major wet weather treatment facility in
the Southwest area of the City, an ocean outfall, and short-
term high level dry weather treatment facilities at the
existing Richmond-Sunset and Southeast treatment plants, the
capital costs of the Master Plan concept would be approximately
$672 million ($339 million for dry weather control and $333
million for wet weather control). The $333 million cost for
wet weather facilities is equal to $18,000 per acre of City
area which can be compared with the cost of similar programs
in other cities: $12,500 in Chicago, $65,000 in Boston, and
$31,000 in Washington, D.C.
On an annual basis, the estimated $672 million capital cost
equates to the following, assuming a 30-year payoff at 6
percent interest:
Annual per capita
Assumption		Cost	
No grant funds are available	$70
87% percent grant funds are available for
total project	$10
87*5 percent grant funds are available for
dry weather portion only	$30
Although the capital expenditure is rather large, it is
doubtful if the committment of $10 per person per year would
have any effect on other capital improvement programs. However,
if no grant funds were available, the City probably would
be forced to delay implementation of the Master Plan. In this
4

-------
Figure 2
MASTER PLAN
NORTH
The complete Master Plan for wastewater management is shown above. Retention basins
(upstream — light blue, shoreline — dark blue) provide storage, control flooding, and allow regulation of
flow to the transportation system (green). During the major portion of the year, wastes will receive
secondary treatment at the Southeast and Richmond-Sunset plants. These treated effluents will be
transmitted through the tunnel and pipeline systems to Lake Merced where they will be discharged
approximately 4 miles offshore. The North Point Plant will be abandoned. During storm conditions, flows
exceeding the capacity of the secondary treatment plants will be transported to a 1000 million-gallon-per-
day capacity treatment plant at Lake Merced. The effluent will be discharged 2 miles offshore. The system
will provide secondary treatment of all waste during a major part of the year and the bypassing of
untreated waste will be virtually eliminated.

-------
event, it is unlikely that the State would force the City to
complete the program with 100 percent local financing. While
the State could require the City to proceed, it is not likely
to as long as the potential for grant funds remains.
The estimated cost was based on the reduction of overflows
to only 8 per year compared to the existing 82 overflows per
year. This would accomplish 90 percent control of wet weather
overflows. However, it should be pointed out that by the
addition of storage capacity essentially complete control
(99 percent) could be accomplished. The additional costs
of greater control are presented below:
Additional capital costs
Annual per capita
Number of overflows Level of Control million (30 years @ 6%)
8 per year	90%	$0	$0
4 per year	95%	$63	$6.50
1 per year	99%	$189	$19.50
1 per 5 years	99+%	$332	$34.50
The exact level of control that is to be selected will be
determined during special detailed studies for the three
major watersheds.
Implementation of the first stage of the Master Plan, as
shown on Figure 3, is necessary to comply with provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which requires secondary
treatment of all dry weather flows by July 1, 1977.
However, it is not possible for the City to comply with the
July 1, 1977 date. The City does intend to proceed with due
diligence and provide secondary treatment of all dry weather
flows by January 1, 19 80.
The Master Plan can be adjusted in a number of ways. For
example, the number of upstream basins could be reduced
by increasing the number of shoreline basins; the cross-town
tunnel could be enlarged to provide additional storage as
well as conveyance; or the wet weather treatment facility
could be located on the Bay side of the City and treated waste-
waters discharged to the Bay or Ocean.
It is not possible, or even desirable, to fully define the
Master Plan at this time; too many changes in land use, waste-
water treatment technology, and construction costs will take
place in the next few years. Therefore, each phase or stage
of the project should be designed to provide optimum water
quality improvement as well as allowing for future changes
such as a greater potential for wastewater reclamation.
6

-------
Figure 3
FIRST PHASE OF MASTER PLAN
NORTH
0 2000 FT
NORTH
POINT
RICHMOND
SUNSET
SOUTHEAST
The improvement program designed to achieve early compliance with State and Federal treatment
standards and to reduce overflows in the critical north shore and ocean beach areas is shown in red. Raw
waste from the North Point service area will be pumped to the Southeast Treatment Plant, The Southeast
Plant will provide secondary treatment for the dry weather flows from the North Point and Southeast
areas. The effluent will be discharged to the Bay through an improved outfall. Wet weather waste control
facilities will be constructed to control overflows in the north shore area. The North Point Plant wil! be
converted to a wet weather facility to treat wastewaters from the area during storm periods. The
Richmond-Sunset wastwater treatment plant will be substantially improved to produce an effluent quality
acceptable for continued ocean disposal. Effluent from the Richmond-Sunset Plant will be transmitted to
the Lake Merced area for ocean disposal.

-------
The most promising potential use of reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater appears to be landscape irrigation within Golden
Gate Park and the three golf courses in the Lake Merced area.
However, the total seasonal demand for these uses is only
5.0 rogd—less than 5 percent of the total average dry weather
flow.
There is also a potential for irrigation use in the Central
Valley; however, the economic and environmental costs of
conveyance systems make the use of reclaimed water in these
areas far more costly than existing water supplies. As the
existing water supplies become more fully used, however, it
may become more economically feasible to reclaim wastewaters
for large scale irrigation projects.
The potential for reclamation can best be realized first in
the construction of small, advanced waste treatment plants
to provide local reclamation for park use; and second, as
part of an areawide program that can be developed in the next
10 to 20 years. Therefore, the Master Plan should remain
flexible to allow for these eventualities.
Environmental Evaluation
The overview environmental impact report-statement is designed
to evaluate all of the reasonable alternatives and subalterna-
tives considering not only ecological and public health factors
but also functional and economic factors. The overview report
was prepared to comply with the Tederal guidelines for prepa-
ration of environmental impact statements and with the State
and City guidelines for preparation of environmental impact
reports.
A comparison of the alternative concepts considered in the
development of the Master Plan on the basis of functional,
economic, and environmental factors is presented in Table 1.
Each of the alternative concepts is assigned an overall
environmental ranking.
Criteria for evaluating functional rating factors are as
follows:
Regulatory Compliance.
1.	Ability to comply with State and Federal water
quality requirements.
2.	Conformity with regional planning.
8

-------
TABLE 1
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RATING1
OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
Regulatory
Compliance
Implement.
Reliability
Flexibility
Reelana tion
Potential
Economic
Functional
Cue
Many	Expand Regional
Individ. Three Plant
No	Treatment Existing Without
Project Plants Plants Storage
Unaccept.	Marginal	Unaccept.	Good
Unaccept.	Unaccept. Unaccept.	Unaccept.
Unaccept.	Unaccept. Marginal	Marginal
Unaccept.	Unaccept.	Marginal	Marginal
Marginal	Marginal	Accept.	Accept.
Total
Capital
Cost
($million)
Per Capita
w/grants
w/o grants
Environmental
Construct.
Impacts
Operational
Inpacts
Secondary
Impacts
Environmental
Ranking2
None
Sig.
Sig.
3,000
$540
$4,300
Sig.
Sig.
Moderate
1,0003
$180
$1,430
Sig.
Sig.
Moderate
2,000
$360
$2,860
Sig.
Moderate
Minimal
Storage/
Treatment
Master
Plan
Good
Accept.
Good
Good
Good
672
$120
$960
Sig.
Minimal
Minimal
Sewer
Separation
Marginal
Unaccept.
Marginal
Unaccept.
Marginal
3,000
$540
$4,300
Sig.
Sig.
Moderate
toting Scale—Functional:
Environmental: Significant Adverse Effects
Moderate Adverse Effects
Minimal Adverse Effects
Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
2Environmental Ranking—1 is most acceptable, 6 is least acceptable
3Plant cost only exclusive of collection system modifications.
9

-------
Implementation«
1.	Acceptability of the concept and probability
of support by the general public and local
government.
2.	Ease of construction and permit acquisition.
Reliability.
1.	Ability of concept to consistently attain
design performance standards.
2.	Vulnerability to system failure or natural
disaster and resulting impacts from such a
failure are minimized.
Flexibility.
1.	Ability to adapt to advanced technology and
future discharge requirements.
2.	Ability to adapt to future land use changes.
3.	Research options are not constrained.
4.	Concept provides maximum interim protection.
Reclamation Potential.
1.	Concept provides no location restraints on
future reclamation options.
2.	Ability of concept to adapt to treatment
requirements for reclamation.
As shown in Table 1, the Master Plan is the most environmentally
acceptable, the most cost-effective, and the most functional
concept of the six that were considered.
All alternatives considered would result in a substantial
reduction in the total quantity of pollutants discharged into
the Bay and Ocean. Long-term discharges to the Bay are likely
to require greater pollutant removals than similar discharges
to the Ocean. This reflects the greater dilution available
10

-------
in the Ocean, environmental characteristics, and likely
interpretations of new Federal effluent requirements. In
addition, detailed biological studies, that are still in
progress, have shown that the least sensitive area of the
marine environment adjacent to San Francisco is in the Ocean
southwesterly from the City.
One of the nost important aquatic species in this area is
the Dungeness crab. Extensive studies of the effects of
San Francisco wastewater on the Dungeness crab life cycle
have been unable to demonstrate that there would be any
detectable short-term harm to this species because of the
proposed waste discharge.
Until significant quantities of the City's wastewaters can
be reclaimed, the least risk area of discharge is that proposed
in the Master Plan. Any possible future impacts would be
mitigated through design to improve levels of pollutant
removal with a minimum of capital investment in the Southwest
Treatment Facility.
Implementation of the Master Plan will provide the following
benefits to the residents of San Francisco:
Significant improvement of the aquatic environment,
particularly in nearshore waters.
Significant (77 to 99 percent) reduction in the
average annual days in which bacteriological swimming
standards are exceeded.
Improvement in the aesthetic quality of nearshore
waters and beaches.
Elimination of all continuous Bay discharges.
Significant (90-99 percent) reduction of all wet
weather overflows.
Unfortunately, the Master Plan also has the following negative
impacts:
High cost.
Disruption caused by the long-term construction
period (up to 20 years).
Continuance of some overflows.
Delay in solving the City's wastewater problems.
11

-------
The degree of environmental alteration that will be caused by
implementation of the project is greatly dependent upon the
measure of care taken during the long-term construction period.
Care should be exercised in excavation activities, equipment
operation, and other construction activities to minimize all
environmental disturbances. A summary of the potential adverse
construction impacts and possible mitigation measures is
presented in Table 2.
TABIiE 2
SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MEASURES
DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
Potential Adverse Impacts
Land use change from open space
to public use.
Temporary disruption in traffic
flow.
Increase in ambient noise levels
due to operation of construction
equipment.
Disturbance of soils creating
possible erosion problems and
additions of dust to the
atmosphere.
Temporary disruption of native
flora and fauna.
Terrporary loss in aesthetic
appeal in localized areas.
Temporary disruption in
utility service.
Terrporary increase in turbidity
in Bay and Ocean waters during
outfall construction.
Mitigation Measures
All facilities should be designed for
multipurpose uses where practical.
Close liaison should be maintained
with the City's traffic engineers
to assure that traffic movement is
as smooth as possible.
Requirements of San Francisco's noise
ordinance must be met.
Construction should be scheduled to
avoid rainy weather; dust can be
minimized by watering dry soils and
covering haul vehicles.
Care should be exercised during con-
struction activities to minimize
disruption.
Replacement of destroyed vegetation
should be included in post-construction
planning.
Carmunication with all utility com-
panies should be maintained prior to
and during construction period.
Requirements of the regulatory agencies
must be met.
12

-------
Present research indicates that operation of the Master Plan
will have, at most, minimal adverse environmental impacts.
All wastewater facilities have the potential for producing
odors. The risk will be higher at the storage and treatment
facilities than it will be in the conveyance system. However,
this'potential impact can be mitigated through careful design
of components to completely control exhaust gases through
covering and treatment. Through careful design, construction,
and operation of these facilities, the potential impact and risk
of future odor nuisance can be reduced to an insignificant
level.
The proposed facilities could be damaged or disrupted as a
result of a significant earthquake and associated movement
along the San Andreas Fault. However, earthquake effects need
not be critically damaging to the on-land portion of the Master
Plan facilities, if proper seismic planning and design are
utilized. It is certain, however, that the Ocean outfall will
be subjected to right-lateral earthquake displacements (sea-
side moves north) where it crosses the San Andreas Fault rift
zone. There will likely be breakage (probably at the rift zone)
of the outfall during rupture of the San Andreas Fault resulting
in a major reconstruction program at the point of breakage
following such an event. If the two-mile wet weather outfall
is kept short of the fault zone, an automatic back-up discharge
point would be provided while the dry weather outfall is being
repaired.
13

-------
s
PART I
BACKGROUND

-------
CHAPTER I
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES
MARINE ENVIRONMENT
The City and County of San Francisco is surrounded on three
sides by salt water, being bounded on the west by the Pacific
Ocean and on the north and east by San Francisco Bay. As
a consequence much of the economic and social well-being
of the citizens of San Francisco is associated with the marine
environment.
The geographical extent of the marine environment adjacent
to San Francisco may be defined as Central San Francisco
Bay extending from the County boundary on the southeast to
the Golden Gate on the northwest and that portion of the
Pacific Ocean known as the Gulf of the Farallones extending
from Bolinas Peninsula on the north to Point Montara on the
south, and from the Golden Gate to Southeast Farallon Island.
A map of the City, Bay, Ocean, and vicinity, with latitude
and longitude coordinates, is presented as Figure 1-1.
The most influential factor controlling distribution of marine
life along the ocean shore is temperature; on the San Francisco
coast the range of temperature is relatively narrow. Near
the Farallones, the monthly averages range from 52.4°F during
April to 56.3°F in September. Northern California has
some of the coldest sea temperatures, for its latitude, on
the earth. In the Bay temperatures are often higher. The
cold water along the ocean cost is associated with the
process known as upwelling, the movement toward the surface
of cold subsurface water. The upwelling carries nutrients
from the nutritious upper layer of the sediments where
worms, echinoderms, bacteria/ and other organisms live.
San Francisco Bay is an estuary, i.e. a partially enclosed
body of marine water where fresh water from land runoff
mixes with high salinity water from the ocean. This mixing
of water masses and the concomitant fluctuations in salinity
are the main factors in determining the distribution and
abundance of flora and fauna in the estuary. The adaption
to these salinity stresses by a variety of specialized
organisms in the estuary produces an ecosystem quite unlike
the adjacent fresh or marine environments.
1-1

-------
FIGURE I-I
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, QULF OF
AND VICINITY
THE
FARALLONS
LONGITUDE

-------
There are four main groups of organisms to be found in estu-
arine and marine environments: the intertidal organisms,
which are alternately covered and exposed to the air as the
tides advance and recede,- the benthos or bottom-dwellers; the
fish and mammals; and the plankton, consisting of small
floating or swimming animals and plants.
Much of the ocean and Central Bay intertidal areas consist of
sandy beaches which support a relatively low diversity of
animals. Chief inhabitants of these areas are sand crabs,
amphipods, clams, the red worm Pectinophelia, and shore birds.
Along the eastern and northeastern intertidal areas of the City,
landfill and pier construction have limited the availability
of marine habitats and the major biota are barnacles,
limpets, mussels, and shipworms (Teredo) on pilings.
In the central area of San Francisco Bay the highest diver-
sity of benthic organisms occurs near the Golden Gate, where
Bay and oceanic species are mixed; diversity declines as
distance from the Golden Gate increases, due to the gradual
loss of oceanic forms. Local fish are discussed later
in this chapter.
About 0.2 percent of the energy in the sunlight that falls
on the ocean is used by plants to make carbohydrates.
Microscopic algae, called diatoms, are the "grass" of the
ocean, serving as food for young fish, 1arval forms of
invertebrates, and bacteria in the plankton, the benthos and
the intertidal areas. Diatoms and other phytoplankton
(plant plankton) play a similar role in San Francisco Bay,
where diatoms occasionally exceed one million cells per liter
of Bay water.
The phytoplankton are the "primary producers." Their chemical
energy is passed largely to zooplankton (animal plankton)
and bacteria, which in turn supply protein to the filter
feeders and small carnivores. Phytoplankton are also major
sources of dissolved oxygen. Oxygen is produced by photo-
synthesis so it is only produced during daylight and dissolved
oxygen tends to drop at night. The most common zooplankters
in the Bay waters are copepods (minute crustacea) of the genus
Paralabidocera.
Sea water generally has a higher concentration of dissolved
salt than the fresh water it mixes with in an estuary, while
fresh water typically is higher in nutrients. The mixing of
high salinity, nutrient-poor waters with low salinity, high-
nutrient waters in an estuary frequently results in the form-
ation of highly productive ecosystems. Estuarine productivity
1-3

-------
has historically attracted human settlement. The development
of major urban centers around estuaries has in turn generated
sewage, industrial wastes, dredging, and filling activities,
which have disturbed the natural ecosystems. The preservation
and restoration of the estuarine environment requires improved
control of pollutant discharge. The Wastewater Master Plan
provides for improved treatment of San Francisco sewage
effluent discharged to the Bay, followed by elimination of such
discharges in favor of discharge to the less sensitive ocean
environment,
Marine Resources and Area Use
The uses of the marine environment surrounding San Francisco
include water-oriented recreational and commercial activities.
The extent of the recreational use of the waters of the Pacific
Ocean and San Francisco Bay adjacent to San Francisco was
defined in a report to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board, prepared by the Board's staff and dated October 30, 1968,
which states in part,
"Almost all of the City and County's 30 miles
of waterfront are used for recreation and aesthetic
enjoyment. There are 5.5 miles of continuous beach
along the ocean and other beaches at Lincoln Park,
the Presidio, and Marina and Aquatic Parks. There
are five marinas in the City. They are located
at Marina Park, in the China Basin channel, and
adjacent to Mission Rock. There are also two
boat launching ramps near Mission Rock. Sport
fishermen use almost all of the shoreline from which
they are not physically excluded. They are excluded
from only a few piers and two shipyards. Even then
the servicemen and employees fish at Hunters Point.
They also fish from boats at several locations along
the City's Bay Shore."
Throughout every season of the year the waters of the Pacific
Ocean and the Bay adjacent to San Francisco serve either as a
habitat or as a migration route for striped bass, king and
silver salmon, steelhead, and other sport fish. The shallow
areas of San Francisco Bay and its estuaries are a natural
habitat for shellfish, and the Bay at one time supported a
thriving commercial oyster industry. Over the years, however,
sewage discharges have contaminated the growing areas to the
point where shellfish within San Francisco Bay are no longer
recognized as safe for human consumption.
1-4

-------
The California Department of Fish and Game indicates that the
Gulf of the Farallones is probably the most important nursery
area along the California coast for both finfish and shellfish
and that San Francisco Bay is also important in this respect.
The Department's observations indicate that juvenile Dungeness
crabs, from larvae to 140 millimeters (up to lh years), are
predominant in the Bay and nearshore shallow areas of the Gulf.
For over 50 years the Gulf of the Farallones has also been
a source of market Dungeness crab for which the restaurants
of San Francisco are famous. From an all-time record of
nearly 9 million pounds in the 1956-57 season, the crab
catch has declined in recent years and during the 1972-73
season the catch was only 30 0,000 pounds. Although the
majority of the fishing effort is presently concentrated
between 10 and 9 0 fathoms, the most productive fishing grounds
in the past were restricted to nearshore waters {less than
10 fathoms) and San Francisco Bay.
The waters surrounding San Francisco also support an extensive
commercial and sport finfishery. The commercial fishery for
salmon is of primary importance in the Gulf of the Farallones.
This is the only fishery in the San Francisco area that compares
in size of catch and market value to the Dungeness crab
fishery. The major salmon fishery is located nearshore
in the Gulf and within the main migratory routes. Trawl effort
is also substantial for rockfish, sole, and other flatfish;
however, this fishery is generally located offshore (more than
3 miles) from the City.
The largest sport fishery in central coastal California is
located in the waters surrounding San Francisco. Salmon, rockfish,
striped bass, and ling cod are the main components of the
sport fishery. Party boat catches account for the major portion
of the salmon and striped bass fishery; however, a large shore
fishery is also present within the area.
Marine laboratories are at Bolinas and several locations within
San Francisco Bay. Three biological reserves are located within
the coastal area at Duxbury Reef, Farallon Islands, and Moss
Beach and just recently the State Water Resources Control Board
designated Seal Rocks and the Farallon Islands as areas of special
biological significance.
The waters of San Francisco Bay are also used extensively for
industrial purposes. For many industries, particularly along the
eastern shoreline, the Bay serves as the principal source of
industrial cooling water.
Navigational use of the waters surrounding San Francisco include
all types and sizes of ships and boats with ocean-going military,
1-5

-------
passenger, and freight vessels using port facilities in the Bay.
A dredged channel is maintained through the Bar in the Gulf of
the Farallones to permit passage of these large vessels.
Other uses for the waters adjacent to San Francisco include
waterfowl and mammal habitat and aesthetic appeal.
Water Current Patterns
Central California Coast. Prevailing ocean currents
off the coast near San Francisco are characterized
by two major currents. In the winter months during
the rainy season, the prevailing nearshore current
is the northerly Davidson Current which is followed
in the spring, summer, and fall by the southerly
California Current.
The influence of these currents is diminished in the
nearshore zone east of the Farallones where tidal exchange
with the Bay overrides the effect of the offshore
currents. Bay waters which move west and south from
the Farallones during ebb tides are entrained in these
prevailing ocean currents and soon become intermixed
with the ocean water.
Gulf of the Farallones. Oceanographic characteristics
of the Gulf are largely dependent upon the tidal ebb
and flood flow through the Golden Gate which varies
in magnitude with the season.
Wet Weather Mass Water Movement - During winter
periods of maximum Delta outflow, the less
dense Bay water produces a tidal outflow which
occurs primarily as a surface layer. It extends
up to 15 miles west and 10 miles south of
the Golden Gate before becoming entrained in
the ocean currents. At times of high Delta
outflow the surface flow may ebb continuously and
surface flood tides are almost nonexistent. Most
of the flooding tidal prism consists of dense
bottom ocean water entering the Bay from the
north through Bonita Channel and from the south
around Lands End.
Wet Weather Currents - Current velocity and
direction during the winter season vary dramatically
with depth following the stratification developed
in the tidal waters. A surface layer of 10 to 15
feet moves westward and southward with current
1-6

-------
speeds of 2 to 4 knots (2.3 to 4.6 miles per hour).
Immediately below this layer there exists a more
balanced pattern of ebb and flood currents of
lesser speeds. Low speed flood currents predom-
inate near the bottom.
Dr^ Weather Mass Water Movement - In the absence
of stratification during the summer and fall, the same
general movement southward and westward by the
ebbing surface layer still exists. During this
period of minimum Delta outflow, tidal outflow
is decreased and the net surface movement is
much smaller. The ebbing tide now extends west-
ward to the shipping channel and southward to
a point west of Lake Merced.
As before, the flooding tidal prism consists
primarily of flow along the shore north and south of
the Gate. Under minimum outflow conditions there
is an eastward movement of surface water toward
the Gate but of a lesser displacement than exists
in the bottom water.
Dry Weather Currents - Surface currents are in
phase with, but of a greater magnitude than,
bottom currents during the ebb; and bottom currents
are greater during flood tides. This results in a
net surface displacement away from the Gate with
bayward movement predominant near the ocean bottom.
Current speeds are greatest near the Golden Gate
but seldom exceed one knot outside the bar.
Central Bay. The volume of the tidal prism is so large
that it overrides the influence of even the Delta inflow.
As a result, although the pattern of mass water movement is
modified somewhat, the basic flow patterns remain unchanged
throughout the year.
Mass Water Movement - From the Bay Bridge through
Alcatraz Channel, there is a pronounced net
seaward displacement of the surface layer and a
southerly bayward flow of bottom waters. Surface
displacement is much greater than that found
on the bottom indicating the shallowness of
the faster moving top layer. During wet weather
conditions, a surface displacement of 10 to 25
nautical miles per tidal cycle is evidenced.
This would result in a mean Bay retention time for
a surface field released near Alcatraz of less
than 12 hours. This net seaward displacement
still exists under dry weather conditions but
subsides to several nautical miles per tidal cycle
during the period of low Delta inflows.
1-7

-------
Currents - In the Alcatraz Channel, current
direction for both ebb and flood tide is approx-
imately parallel to the shoreline. Maximum
velocity for surface currents commonly exceeds
3 knots with occasional 4-knot velocities.
Greater velocities occur on the ebb tide but
they are of shorter duration than the flood
tide currents. Maximum bottom velocities are
generally less than 2 knots.
Tidal Exchange - The ratio of new Ocean water
entering the Bay with each flood tide to the
total tidal prism, the tidal exchange ratio,
varies with the amplitude of the flood tide.
Based on an average tidal amplitude of 4.1
feet, a dry weather tidal exchange ratio at the
Gate of approximately 24 percent exists. For
each 25-hour tidal cycle, this means an intro-
duction of 20 to 30 billion cubic feet of new
Ocean water through the Golden Gate into the
Bay with approximately 15 to 25 billion cubic
feet passing through the Alcatraz Channel south
of Alcatraz and the remainder flowing into
the North Bay.
During wet weather conditions, fresh water
inflow from the Delta and other tributaries into
the Bay and out through the Gate increases the
magnitude of new water flowing through the Bay.
It is estimated that the total tidal exchange
during large fresh water inflow exceeds 80 percent.
Surface Drift - Release of cardboard floats by
Brown & Caldwell during the oceanographic studies
in the Alcatraz Channel in June and October
of 1970 indicate the general surface drift for this
region. It was found that release of floatables
near Alcatraz results in their accumulation on the
Ocean beaches north and south of the Golden Gate
with no significant accumulation on the Bay shoreline.
Floatables released outside the Gate during dif-
ferent tidal conditions will not enter the Bay.
These findings were verified by the oil spill
that occurred near Alcatraz in January 1971.
Oil contamination was concentrated mainly on
Ocean beaches outside the Bay with shoreline
contamination inside the Bay limited to a small
area seaward of the release point.
1-8

-------
Surface drift studies by U. S. Geological Survey
in March 1970 through April 1971 further substan-
tiated this general observation of surface water
movement. Central Bay surface drift was seaward
for the entire study period. It was also found
that no surface drifter released seaward of
the Golden Gate was recovered within the Bay
system.
South Bay.
Mass Water Movement.- South of the Bay Bridge
to Hunters Point there is a net seaward flow
on the surface and a net southerly flow on the
bottom. The net surface seaward displacement
south of the Bay Bridge is substantially less
than that of the Central Bay but amounts to
several nautical miles per tidal cycle in the
waters adjacent to Hunters Point.
South of Hunters Point the tides create a
counter-clockwise circulation in the South
Bay which can be attributed to the deep
navigation channel on west side and broad
shallow areas on the east side.
Currents - Direction of currents is similar
to the pattern of mass water movement described
above. During both ebb and flood tides current
direction is generally parallel to the shoreline.
Surface Drift - Data available from current
U. S. Geological Survey surface drift studies
in March 197 0 through April 1971 and earlier
studies by the San Francisco Department of
Public Works in September-October 1958 indicate
the general surface drift for the northern part
of South Bay. Release of surface drifters just
south of Yerba Buena Island resulted in their
displacement seaward out through the Golden Gate.
Nearshore Zone. Superimposed upon the general mass
water movement for the Bay and the Gulf is the more
complex region of water movement found in a zone extending
approximately 500 to 1,000 feet off the shoreline of the
peninsula. In this zone the current direction and speed
varies from the general pattern described above. Friction
1-9

-------
from the shoreline and shoreline geometry produce eddies
which vary in magnitude and direction with each tidal
exchange and stage. The effect of this nearshore condition
is to limit the exchange of water between prevailing
offshore masses and that in the nearshore zone. This
increases nearshore discharge retention times in the
Bay considerably over that for a discharge further off-
shore.
Receiving Water Conditions
A summary of the general receiving water conditions is presented
in Table 1-1. The effects of existing and proposed discharges
upon receiving waters are evaluated in this section.
Data on the receiving water conditions of the Bay have been
gathered over a long period of time and consists of research
results from studies by State agencies, private consultants, and
independent researchers. The data are generally more complete
and descriptive of actual conditions than are found in other
areas where discharge occurs or is proposed.
Investigation and documentation of conditions existing in the
Gulf of the Farallones is much less thorough and the majority
of these data were obtained in a one-year study. As a result,
there are limited data on physical characteristics of the Gulf
and the conclusions derived from this study may not accurately
represent the extremely variable conditions which exist in this
very complex system.
Dissolved Oxygen, Depression of dissolved oxygen
from waste discharge at each location is not a critical
factor. Initial dilution capability for each outfall
in combination with the fact that oxygen levels
in the waters of the Gulf and Central Bay are near
saturation should minimize problems associated with
depression of oxygen levels. Mathematical model
studies performed by Brown & Caldwell in 1969 indicated
that the maximum depletion of oxygen in the Bay resulting
from all San Francisco discharges would occur south of the
Bay Bridge in the vicinity of the Southeast plant. The
maximum depletion would be approximately 0.07 mg/1 which is
not significant.
Nutrients. Algae, micro-organisms containing chlorophyll,
possess the capability of converting inorganic substances
such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, nitrates, and phosphates
into organic material with energy provided in sunlight
1-10

-------
TABLE 1-1
RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS
Gulf of Farallcnes Central Bay lower Bay
	Inside Bar Outside Bar Alcatxaz Near Hunters Pt.
DO CONCENTRATION, MS/L
Dry Weather
Surface	6.5-8.5	8-10
Bottom	6.5-8.0	4-6
Vfet Weather
Surface	8-9	8-9
Bottom	8-9	8-9
Miniimm	6.5	7.0
Mean	7.3	7.4
Maximum	8.2	8.5
SECCHI DISK TRANSPARENCY, FT
Dry Weather	5-17	6.5-25
Wet Weather	1.5-8	4-15
Jan-June Mean	3.5	2.5
July-Dec Mean	6.5	6.0
SUSPENDED SOLIDS,	M3/L
Miniirum	5-*	8-»
Mean	15	29
Maximum	38	56
TEMPERATURE, °C
Minimum	10.1	10.7
Mean	13.5	14.8
Maximum	19.0	21.0
NITRATE NITROGEN,	MG/L, NO-j
Minimum	0.05	0.06
Mean	0.15	0.12
ttodjnum	0.48	0.21
AMCNIA NITROGEN, MG/L, NH,
Minimum	0.16	0.08
Mean	0.24	0.34
ftexiimm	0.36	0.55
ORTHO PHOSPHATE, MGA, P04
Minimum	0.2	0.3
Mean	0.3	0.5
fteximum	0.4	0.8
1-11

-------
through the photosynthetic process. Low concentrations of
any of these nutrients, however, limit the population of
algae even though all the other necessary factors are in
abundance.
Total nitrogen and phosphorous concentrations in San
Francisco Bay waters are substantially higher than the
growth limiting concentrations for either. However, signs
of enrichment are generally observed only along the shores
and in tidal reaches of some of the tributaries. A
possible explanation for lack of excessive algal production
is light availability and/or the presence of toxic com-
ponents from wastewater.
Nitrate nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen are listed separately
in Table 1-1 because various algae and bacteria can use
one or the other of these forms of nitrogen (or both).
Projected controls of Delta Waters could significantly
reduce turbid fresh water inflows to the Bay and result
in increased available light. In addition, control of toxic
materials in wastewater discharges should improve. This
expected control will create conditions more favorable to
algal production and could result in increases in algal
growth. The net southward movement of a submerged field
at the Southeast plant could also result in a slight increase
in South Bay nutrient concentrations, however, it is not
possible to predict any effects from this increase.
Coliform Concentration. Beaches on the San Francisco
peninsula shoreline are normally posted by the San Francisco
Department of Public Health from October to April each
year due to the contamination from wet weather overflow.
Maximum coliform levels are attained during the rainy
season and can be attributed to wet weather overflow of
combined sewage. Figure 1-2 summarizes the coliform
data from samples collected from 1967 through 1972 and
shows that Public Health criteria for salt water bathing
are normally exceeded throughout the shoreline waters
surrounding the City during the entire winter season. In
the vicinity of the dry weather outfalls, bathing standards
are usually exceeded throughout the year with the exception
of the Richmond-Sunset area where standards are normally
met in July and August.
Analysis of data from routine City sampling at Outer
Marina Beach from mid-1966 to December 1968 identified a
significant variation between coliform levels for dry and
wet weather conditions. The coliform levels increased
1-12

-------
FIGURE 1-2
PERCENT OF SAMPLES EXCEEDING IOOO MPN PER 100 ml
(I)
(MEDIAN 1967 THROUGH 1972)

t«
MARINA AREA
iiimin
AQUATIC PARK ARCA
HHlUmtt
20 M&O
• J**• •! * S ¦
*wrt«a*t
LINCOLN WAV ARCA
<•Ssiol*)«|*
VICENTC ARCA
NORTH POfNT
N
A
FISHERMAN
60 MGO
POfST
W rC P
SOUTHEAST
WKP
SOUTHEAST
SAN fHANClSCO CITY AND COUNT V UMif
i»ANMAUOCUUNTY LIMIT
< 0 I C .. 1 <1
LAH[ MtMCID Af
-------
by a factor of six from dry to wet weather conditions at
a beach sampling station and by a factor of seven at
sampling stations 250 to 1,500 feet offshore. Tidal current
stage was found to cause fluctuations in coliforiti levels
with higher concentrations observed at ebb and low slack
stages than at flood and high slack stages.
Fluctation of coliform most probable number (MPN) levels
at Outer Marina Beach after cessation of wet weather
discharges was also evaluated for two stations. It was
found that median coliform levels at both stations decreased
from a high value attained during wet weather to the back-
ground dry weather level within five dry weather days.
This analysis provides a basis for estimating the number
of days of contamination per year attributable to combined
overflows. It is estimated that the actual number of days
that shoreline waters exceed bathing water standards due
to wet weather overflows averages approximately 171 days
per year.
Floatables. Variation in the frequency and distribution
of floatable materials, both on the water surface and on
the beaches, can also be related to wet weather bypassing
of wastewater. Distribution is also related to surface
drift which for the Central Bay leads to an accumulation on
the Ocean beaches outside the Golden Gate. Figure 1-3
summarizes data on observations of floatable material on
ocean beaches from June 1967 through June 1968 by the
State Department of Public Health. The data indicate a
significant increase in observable floatable material on
Ocean beaches during the rainy season from November
through April in all areas. Floatable material was
observed throughout the year near the Richmond-Sunset
outfall.
The average floatable particulate concentration observed
in the 1969-70 wet weather surveys was 10.5 mg/m2 as
compared to 1.5 mg/m2 observed during dry weather. A
similar increase in dry weather levels over those for
wet weather was also observed in the surface waters of
Outer Marina Beach. Wet weather levels were consistently
an order of magnitude greater for these sampling stations.
There was also a difference between concentrations west
of Marina Beach and those in the easterly sector. This
corresponds to the lack of both combined and sanitary
sewers west of Bakers Beach within the Bay.
1-14

-------
FIGURE 1-3
PERCENT POSITIVE OBSERVATIONS OF FLOATABLE
MATERIAL ON OCEAN BEACHES (1967-1968)
w*
< /«'
S AK FRANC 13 CO
/ north point
~waw-swxMT
mpt»
f
RICHMOND - SUNSET
¦»
4gt
southeast
J
>0
SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY LIMIT.
san'mateo'county limit
HI	1RISTSHMT	low
*• MIS»t«G jtrMfcs oufmtts
X I K * " I m » * Z
«5©i65*i«f2
^SyUOb.nu^t''
J «f
--- 0t?4!JiA&€ bASlN POUN^&St

-------
Conservative Pollutants (Non-degrading). An evaluation
of the dispersion capability of San Francisco Bay is
available from a modeling study recently completed by
the Department of Water Resources. In this study, a
computer modeling technique was used to estimate the
concentration of conservative pollutants under varying
conditions of Delta outflow, tidal exchange, and pollutant
discharge. The dispersion capability is defined in terms
of equilibrium pollutant concentrations under steady-
state conditions and non-stratified flow conditions.
For dry weather conditions, a tidal exchange ratio of
0.24 which is the average value for the Bay, a net Delta
outflow of 1,800 cfs, and a discharge pattern approximating
present conditions, the distribution of conservative
pollutants presented in Figure 1-4 was obtained.
In the Department of Water Resources study, a comparison
of pollutant concentrations is made for a tidal exchange
ratio of 0.20, 0.24, and 0.30, Delta outflows of 1,800
and 5,000 cfs, and two patterns of discharge of pollutants.
Discharge patterns A represents present-day conditions and
pattern B represents implementation of a future water quality
control plan proposed by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board. Modeling results indicate that
only the pattern of discharge of pollutants has a sig-
nificant impact on concentration distributions, partic-
ularly in the South Bay.
The study was performed primarily to estimate dispersion
capability of the Bay and a method was developed for
approximating an increase in pollutant concentration at
selected points in the Bay due to pollutant loadings at
other points. This method allows determination of con-
centration profiles for toxicity but can be applied to
discharges of any pollutant that does not change its
characteristics with time.
Turbidity. The data in Table 1-1 indicate a definite
variation in level of turbidity under wet and dry weather
conditions for the surface waters of the Bay and Gulf of
the Farallones. Higher values evidenced in the winter are
attributable to the turbid fresh water outflows from the
Delta. Being much less dense than the saline water of the
Bay, the Delta outflow forms a thin surface layer of 10
to 15 feet while passing through the Bay. Under most wet
weather conditions, a surface field formed by stormwater
discharge by the City of San Francisco would not be
1-16

-------
FIGURE 1-4
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
FAIRF1ELO
>VALLCJO
CROCKETT V/
MARTINEZ
SAN
RAFAEL •
• RICHMOND
20

• BERKELEY
SAUSALITO
IN ml/1 FOR POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
PATTERN "A" TIDAL EXCHANGE RATIO-
0.24 NET DELTA OUTFLOW- 1000 cf«
OAKLAND
SAN •
FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO
REDWOOD CITY

-------
discernible. Further upstream controls on fresh water
inflow to the Bay could reduce background turbidity levels
in the future. It is also possible for wet weather
overflows to occur early in the rainy season before
development of stratified conditions and high receiving
water turbidity. At this time, storm overflow discharged
as a surface field would be more turbid than the receiving
water and would be easily visible within the Bay or near-
shore zone of the Gulf of the Farallones.
Oceanographic Design Criteria
Based on the above physical and chemical characteristics of the
Gulf of the Farallones and the Bay, the following criteria which
are considered important for the minimization of adverse impacts
on receiving waters were developed.
For dry weather discharges, the fall season represents the
design condition because:
Water clarity is greatest.
Surface net advection is lowest.
Density stratification is least pronounced
because of low fresh water inflow.
The tendency of an effluent field to rise to
the surface is greatest.
. Atmospheric and water temperatures are at the
annual high, and recreational use of the shore areas
is likely to be the greatest.
For wet weather discharges the winter season represents the
design condition for the obvious reasons. During the winter
period of high fresh water runoff:
. Water clarity is lowest.
Surface net advection is highest.
Density stratification is most pronounced,
Oceanographic design criteria which apply only to the Gulf of
the Farallones may be summarized as follows:
To achieve a continuously submerged effluent
field, an outfall diffuser must be located outside
the bar in 80 feet or more of water.
1-18

-------
A surface field released at any point inside
the bar in a water depth greater than about 60
feet will be advected seaward.
The bar area itself is too shallow to permit
either surface installation of a major pipeline
or good initial dilution for a major effluent
discharge.
Effluent discharged through a properly designed
diffuser located west of the mouth of the Golden
Gate will have no measurable effect on the Bay.
Floatable material released west of the mouth of the
Golden Gate will not enter the Bay.
Any dry weather discharge to the Gulf of the
Farallones should be located at least one mile
offshore to:
Avoid the nearshore currents which have
a net bayward displacement?
place a surfacing field beyond the limit
of easy visibility from shore; and
increase the minimum shoreward travel
time.
A wet weather discharge might suitably be made less than one
mile offshore near the mouth of the Golden Gate in an area
where the effluent field would be entrained in the westward
moving surface water mass. However, an outfall and diffuser
in the high current and unstable bottom area near the mouth of
the Golden Gate would cost more per unit of length than in areas
of lower currents.
Oceanographic design criteria which apply only to the Central
Bay may be summarized as follows:
Net advection of the surface layer in the Central
Bay is seaward at all times of the year. Seaward
advection is weakest in the summer and fall and
strongest during periods of high runoff.
Surface advection in the Bay south of the Bay
Bridge is much weaker than in the Central Bay, but
still has a net seaward vector at most times and
stations.
1-19

-------
Surface drift of floatables released in the mid-
Central Bay is seaward at all seasons. No sig-
nificant deposition will occur along the Bay
shoreline, and the distribution along the Ocean
shoreline will be approximately the same as for an
Ocean release.
Density stratification is sufficient to keep an
effluent field submerged most of the time at initial
dilutions of 100 to 1 or greater. At times in
summer and fall, however, there is no density
gradient, and the effluent field will surface.
Dissolved oxygen resources of the Central Bay are
in excess of the lower limiting values established
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
recommended by the Bay-Delta Program.
Tidal exchange at the Golden Gate brings 20 to
30 x 109 cubic feet of new ocean water into the
Central Bay each 25-hour tidal cycle during the
dry weather months, and up to twice that amount
in wet weather.
Tidal exchange at Alcatraz Channel brings 15 to
25 x 109 cubic feet of new water past that site
each 25-hour tidal cycle in dry weather months.
Ecological Data
Diversity, distribution, and numbers of marine biota found
in San Francisco Bay, Gulf of the Farallones, and adjacent
ocean, and the effect of waste discharges on these biota,
was obtained from studies by consultants and other researchers.
In 196 9-7 0, under contract with the City of San Francisco,
Brown & Caldwell performed an ecological investigation of the
Bay and the Gulf of the Farallones to assess the impact of
primary effluent. This study concluded that:
No significant toxic response to seven	species
of fish could be demonstrated after 96	hours
exposure in dilutions of San Francisco	sewage
effluent greater than 1:100.
Eggs and larvae of Dungeness crabs showed
a toxic effect at a dilution of 1:50 and a
stimulatory response at greater dilutions.
Three sampling programs were conducted by Engineering-Science,
Inc., in 1969-70 at the Outer Marina Beach to identify the
water quality and biological characteristics of surface water,
the benthos, and the beach intertidal zone. The following
conclusion regarding biota in the area was derived from the study:
1-20

-------
"Both the concentrations of microplankton in the
receiving waters and benthic animals in the sedi-
ments were low and represented by a number of
varieties. The combination of low and diverse
populations is considered generally to be represen-
tative of a balanced ecology."
In 1971, Brown & Caldwell performed supplemental ecological
investigations to determine the distribution of Dungeness crab
zoea and adults in the Gulf of the Farallones and the toxicity
of wastewater effluents to various life stages of local crab
species. This supplemental study concluded that:
The study area (on the Golden Gate Bar offshore
from Ocean Beach) could again become an important
crab fishery area upon return of the Dungeness crab
to past population levels in the Gulf of the
Farallones and that the area must therefore provide
appropriate protection for all stages of the
Dungeness crab.
Laboratory tests conducted on adults, juveniles,
larvae, and eggs of four species of crabs, with
primary emphasis on Dungeness crab, showed no
statistically significant effect due to wastewater
dilutions ranging from 1:400 to 1:20.
The results of the 1971 laboratory studies generally
confirm the results of the 1970 laboratory studies.
The 1971 laboratory work reinforces the basic
finding of the 1969-70 study, which is that
primary effluent discharged from the City of
San Francisco at appropriate points through properly
designed submarine diffusers wil1 not adversely
affect the marine environment of the Central Bay
or the Gulf of the Farallones.
Ecological Design Criteria
Based on the 196 9-7 0 studies and results reported by other
researchers of the marine biology of the Gulf of the Farallones
and the Bay, design criteria were developed to be used as a guide
for selection of the levels of waste treatment and discharge
location necessary to provide maximum protection to the marine
resources. It was assumed that future toxicity loadings would
be equivalent to chlorinated primary effluent. In addition,
a factor of safety of 10 was incorporated.
Design criteria include;
Where possible, effluent dilutions along the
shoreline or in shallow water should not be less
than 1000 to 1 for more than 24 hours at a time.
1-21

-------
Gravid Dungeness crabs appear to be vulnerable
to the effects of exposure to sewage effluent
through reduced egg-mass viability. The benthos
in areas where gravid crabs are present should
not receive sustained exposure to effluent in
dilutions less than 500 to 1.
Plankton and fish populations should not be
exposed to effluent dilutions less than 100 to
1 for more than 24 hours or less than 200 to 1
for long-term exposure.
Deposition of sewage solids on the ocean floor
should be avoided. Settled material of sewage
origin has been demonstrated to have a negative
effect on benthic populations.
From the standpoint of protecting the marine
ecosystem in the Gulf of the Farallones, a
surface effluent field is preferable to a
submerged field for two reasons:
A surface field will be transported away
from intertidal areas.
A surface field provides the greatest
factor of safety for protection of the
benthos.
This is particularly true during the winter season
when gravid crabs are migrating shoreward.
Since rocky intertidal areas have a greater
diversity and productivity than sandy beaches, a
preferred location for an outfall in the Gulf of
the Farallones would lie south of a line extended
westward along the centerline of the Golden Gate.
Submarine pipelines and diffusers in the Gulf of the
Farallones should be constructed in a manner which
will not impede the periodic shoreward migration of
breeding Dungeness crabs and certain other benthos.
In 1971, Brown & Caldwell study concluded that the ecological
design criteria developed at the end of the 1970 work were
still valid.
Data Evaluation
The data summarized above describing the receiving water
conditions and marine biology of the San Francisco Bay and the
Gulf of the Farallones were used in the development of the
1-22

-------
Master Plan to select the type and placement of the outfalls and
the necessary treatment level. The assimilative capacity of
each proposed or existing outfall location was estimated and
the treatment level determined to ensure compliance with require-
ments of the Regional Water Quality Control Board for both wet
and dry weather conditions.
In developing the Master Plan certain assumptions must be made
of the level of water quality protection that will be required
in the future for the Bay and the ocean. It is correctly stated
in the Master Plan that a higher level of effluent quality
will be required for discharge to the Bay than to the ocean;
however, the level has not yet been defined for the Bay and
questions still remain on ocean discharge requirements.
There are sufficient data to develop general conclusions regard-
ing the impact of discharge at various locations. Criteria
have been developed to determine the relative benefits of alter-
native discharge sites. Based on these design criteria, it
has been possible to analyze the impact of alternate waste
treatment and disposal schemes in sufficient detail to conclude
that the ocean disposal alternative is superior with regard to
environmental protection.
A more detailed description of currents, mass water movement,
and surface drift associated with the proposed discharge location
would facilitate a better understanding of that particular
area. These data could be used to further identify the ability
to maintain a submerged or surface effluent field. Additional
oceanographic data would also permit a closer approximation of
movement of the effluent field. Extent of possible beach
contamination, exposure of the benthos to critical concentrations,
and movement of floatable materials could also be more clearly
defined. Identification of dilution and dispersion would permit
determination of the concentrations of potential pollutants in
receiving waters to allow correlation with toxicity studies.
The City of San Francisco recognizes the need for certain sup-
plemental data regarding receiving water characteristics and the
impacts of waste discharge on marine resources. In this regard,
studies are underway to evaluate the impacts associated with
marine waste disposal especially its toxicity to marine resources.
CITY ENVIRONMENT
Climate
San Francisco is an air conditioned city with cool pleasant
summers and mild winters. This climate results from its unique
location on both the Pacific Ocean and the southern shore of
the Golden Gate, which is the only sea level entrance through
the coastal mountains into the interior of California.
1-23

-------
Sea fogs, and the low stratus cloudiness associated with them,
are a striking characteristic of Sari Francisco's climate.
In the summertime the temperature of the ocean is unusually
low near the coast and the atmospheric pressure relatively high,
while the interior is characterized by the opposite in both
elements. This strongly tends to intensify the landward movement
of air and to make the prevailing westerly winds brisk and
persistent, especially during the period from May to August. The
fog off the coast is carried inland by strong westerly winds
during the afternoon or night and is evaporated during the
following forenoon. Despite the fog, the sun shines on an
average of two-thirds of the daylight hours in downtown San
Francisco.
As a result of the steady sweep of air from the Pacific,
with an annual mean speed of 9 miles per hour, there are few
extremes of heat or cold. During 90 years of records, temper-
atures have risen to 90° or higher on an average of once a year
and dropped below freezing less than once a year. The recorded
highest was 101° and the recorded lowest was 27°. The average
daily temperature through the year ranges from 4 5° in January
to 69° in September. As a rule, abnormally warm or cool periods
last only a few days.
Climatic differences exist within the City of San Francisco,
depending on the hills and the geographical relationship to
the Ocean and Bay. The most obvious difference is the greater
frequency and duration of fog along the Pacific coastal side of
the City.
The normal total annual rainfall within San Francisco is about
20 inches. As shown in Table 1-2 84% of the total annual
rainfall generally occurs during the period November to March
and 42% generally occurs during December and January.
TABLE 1-2
ANNUAL AND MONTHLY RAINFALL VARIATION
FEDERAL BUILDING GAGE
January
February
March
April
May
June
September
October
November
December
July
August
Total
Amount	% of
Inches	Annual
4.57	22.5
3.36	16.5
2.80	13.8
1.43	7.0
0.59	2.9
0.14	0.7
0.02	0.1
0.02	0.1
0.24	1.2
0.89	4.4
2.24	11.0
4.03	19.8
1W7J3	10075"
1-24

-------
Measurable amounts of precipitation fall on less than 70 days
per year and rainfall more intense than 0,02 inches per hour,
which produces a runoff exceeding the capacity of the water
pollution control plants, occurs about 3% of the time during
a year. Table 1-3 presents the average hourly intensities
representing 62 years of record at the Federal Building Gage
and Figure 1-5 presents rainfall intensity-duration-frequency
curves based on the same data.
With its extreme variation in topography and high exposure
to ocean storms, considerable variation exists in rainfall
intensities across the City at any time during a storm. Rec-
ognizing this concept, the City has engaged in continuous
monitoring of the rainfall at 19 or more rain gages throughout the
City, beginning with the 1969-70 rainy season. For that season,
the data indicated a 15 percent lower overall average volume
of rainfall over the whole City than indicated by the Federal
Building gage. Data collected on one large storm during the
1970-71 season and during the large storm in October 1972,
indicate that large storms move across the City, frequently from
northwest to southeast, with the area of most intensive rainfall
covering only a small part of the City at any one instant and
changing from minute to minute as the storm progresses. Both
the maximum intensity of rain and the total rainfall vary widely
throughout the City.
Topography and Land Use
San Francisco is located on a collection of hills, comprising
part of the coastal range, and is surrounded on three sides
by salt water. The streets slope steeply tcward the water on
the west and north and toward a flat coastal strip along the
east side of the business district. A relief map of San Francisco
is shown on Figure 1-6.
TABLE 1-3
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF
HOURLY RAINFALL INTENSITIES
Intensity
Inches/Hour
Percent of Time
Equaled or Exceeded
0. 01
0. 02
0. 05
0.10
0.20
0.55
94
83
72
47
20
1
1-25

-------
FIGURE 1-5
RAINFALL INTENSITY - DURATION - FREQUENCY CURVES
H .6
SAN FRANCISCO U.S.W.B. 7772
MAXIMUM RAINFALL INTENSITY
BASED ON
MONTHLY MAX
24 HOUR MAX
Z HOUR MAX
I HOUR MAX.
SO MINUTE MAX
IS MINUTE MAX
10.S MIN . MAX.
IIOZ YRS)
(4* YRS)
(SB YRS)
141 YRS!
(37 YRS)
(S« YRS)
(3? YRS)
1849
190*
1906
isoe
1908
1906
1906
6 7 8 9 10
DURATION IN MINUTES
120

-------
FIGURE 1-6
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SAN FRANCISCO
Lftttt
_ I >r:iifi;ip> Bantu Boundary

-------
The natural drainage is to the Bay for North Point and Southeast
districts, and to the Ocean for the Richmond-Sunset district.
The City reaches a maximum elevation of 922 feet above sea level
at the confluence of the three major districts.
Although commonly known as the city built on seven hills,
there actually are dozens of peaks and heights, but no general
agreement exists on their actual count. At least 42 of the
hills have names.
San Francisco's major summits are in effect islands in a
sea of sand. The sand was blown by the sea wind, which forced
it around rocky obstacles and up the seaward side of the higher
hills. The highest sand dune is located at an elevation of over
600 feet, on the north-south ridge known as Golden Gate Heights.
This dune covers bedrock of Franciscan chert. The smooth slopes
and rolling contours of the Richmond and Sunset districts were
created by the moving sand. The low areas of Polk Gulch and the
valley now occupied by Market Street were also created by sand.
The concrete sea wall now stopping the flow of sand replaces the
original timber and wire wall built in 1870 by John McLaren
and William Hall, the first Golden Gate Park Superintendent.
The northwestern shoreline of the city is distinguished by
steep headlands rising to 300 feet. The cliffs were created
by the battering ocean which gouged out the soil, sand, and
rocks. In marked contrast, portions of the northeastern
shoreline are man-made, the original bay mud having been
reclaimed with about 3,700 acres of fill.
Except for parks, military reservations, and mountain slopes
the City is practically 100 percent developed. The west side
is predominantly residential, mostly single-family houses.
The North Point district includes the downtown commercial
area with its large daytime work force from all over the
Bay area, a large industrial area, and a large residential
area, predominantly multi-family units. The area tributary
to the Southeast plant, while mostly single family residential,
includes a large industrial area of industries producing
liquid wastes which greatly influence the characteristics
of the sewage received at that plant. The land uses of the
various areas of the City have been established and are
shown in Figures 1-7 through 1-11. Little change has occurred
since these maps were prepared and only minor changes
are to be expected in the near future.
The shoreline has also been fully developed. The east side
of the City from Hunters Point to Fisherman's Wharf consists of
docks and shipping terminals. The North side of the City
includes a swimming beach at Aquatic Park and recreational
facilities at the Marina. Bakers Beach and Phelan Beach lie
outside the Golden Gate, and Ocean Beach extends along the
entire length of the western shore from the Cliff House to
Fort Funston.
1-28

-------
FIGURE l-T
PUBLIC LAND USE
V.
o
;/X« /:
u  IT H > It ~ *1 F*. N T O)' C t V V PI.ANKINC	l»04

-------
FIGURE 1-8
m



Mail


'^feti!®
wl;li!ii| tut.
BtiHiiu fun

i\wm

iiiii'rt
s
W?
LAND USED FOR COMMERCE
SOuPCF i970 t AND i»SF Su»vfi

-------
FIBURE 1-9
mSm

te'4 itfflra
WW v-mm ife K
wwii
LAND USED FOR INDUSTRY
SOURCE '970 lANO USE Su"v£i
M L PA K C D BY THE SAN FKANCISCO OCP*HTHENT OK CITY PLANNING

-------
FIGURE 1-10


iiiii.ii'ii "^IKVUVmu ill1 >iinv^ a
'»  ~ 1* A M 1 M t N t Of V I T V I' 1 A N N* IN C.

-------
FIGURE l-ll
V\'	&'¦&b'X&
H?v\"' iV-
Si'r-^ ^1 W U i	. rV
S5[f$VYi;^••, *«."•<••?/ i''-,Vrt>'cs '< Jf'""Vs-' '/ /(
 i'" vj.-'.i<'i'»rf* ;•;:
:v.iKn '¦'M-.y;, •l>v-M ^ \t* 1: v
•^#» 'i • ->r«*U'.! ,5*" %lv-.; v > . T
*1)
iCjCi-J

»»¦;
»|si i few^r
• ,f~
liSlPS
il?^'
Vht'CU)'«,•••"'
'liinj.fiHTlVO)
i \ j i i ,:i i il il k 11
,'«(«:il U
® I ¦ •¦• it t'l
jWfc
VACANT LAND
*t«CkAB-KG ''Oli.*>&> «*P If AC" (V'
SOuRCt '9?0 .and use SyfivE>
|*Rtl*ANr. U MY TIIE
rnANcisco oci'A rtm rptr or city
r L A H N I N o

-------
The San Francisco City Planning Commission has adopted a compre-
hensive long-term, general plan for the improvement and
future development of the City and County of San Francisco.
This plan is maintained as a guide to the coordinated and
harmonious development of the city. It serves as a basis for
administrative measures by which elements of the plan can be
carried out and for such legislative measures as the Board
of Supervisors may adopt. The general plan projects future land
uses for the City to be 40% residential, 22% industrial and
commercial, and 38% public lands and governmental reserves.
The 1970 census established the population of San Francisco
as 714,300. The Department of City Planning expects the
population to increase to approximately 755,000 by 1990 and
78,000 by 2020. The State Department of Finance in cooperation
with the State Department of Water Resources has made alternative
county level population projections for planning purposes. A
comparison of the City's projections and the State's projections
is shown in Table 1-4.
TABLE 1-4
COMPARISON OF POPULATION PROJECTIONS
D.O.F. D.O.F

City
(D-150)1
(E-O)2
1970
714,300
714,300
714,300
1980
735,000
721,600
712,300
1990
755,000
730,000
706,400
2000
764,000
726,300
688,700
2010
772,000
728,100
672,700
2020
780,000
722,600
650,200
'Department of Finance, Series D fertility
and 150,000 net in-migration to California
for each year beginning July 1, 1980.
Annual migrations from 1971-72 to 1979-80
interpolated between 1970-71 level and
assumed value for 1980-81.
2Department of Finance, Series E fertility
and zero net in-migration to California
beginning July 1, 1971.
The Department of Finance projections are important as they are
the basis upon which the State Water Resources Control Board
has elected to allocate Clean Water Grant Funds. For San
Francisco, which is in a critical air basin, the E-0 projections
are used.
1-34

-------
FIGURE 1-12
9E0L0QIC MAP OF SAN FRANCISCO
QTm
Qd
Qof
Franciscan Formation-
Sandstone, Shale, Chert, Greenstone,
Sepentine, and Metamorphic Rocks.
Merced Formation-
Friable To Dense Sand, Silt,and
Clay; Minor Amounts of Gravel,
Lignite, and Volcanic Ash.
Dune Sand-
Well Sorted Fine-Grained Gray Sand,
Loose in Most Places.
Artifical Fill-
Clay, Silt, Sand, Rock Fragments,
Organic Matter, and Man-Made Debris.
Qe
Clayey Sand

-------
FIGURE I - 13
CALIFORNIA AIR BASIN




jast
""V X
%=s «
1* «>

¦;Tii
•«
\
. »
)»&•
.#r <.
v>7-
V
'••i'''- - 1
'f.'.'.V • •''
mm
CRITICAL AIR AREAS

w
r
it—uT *&*?£An
Tr.v	rv
> -rf'
-\ •,	*	»* i
•V -
Stat a of California
The Reaouroea Agency
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
L\
San
Francisco
ok i»,
Bay Area
r-k-
>
, t-sA
i,U'
\
M • 4 '
'• %Ib

f
San
Joaqtflfe
VaJl*y, *
. u
%•» K
V*VSv
North \|^.. •*
Central \*0 "
Coast	- •
\Vv-
H If .»>(
South
Central
Coast
/ » • I
^ . L
A \
(- Briton \
;lt vaie^i •
~ .-r
*
\
N
f - ',
)
t |4«M • I p » < • I 1
\y
\
'	I < • 		 « •
^Southeast Desert

\


South
Coast
• i
San
N\ Diego
| ¦ » ( • * 1
I •	3
!	*"b-*	ft

-------
however, there is no distinct topographic
boundary between the Bay Area and Central
Valley climatic zone.
The basin contains approximately 5,54 0 square
miles of land area and 490 square miles of
water surface consisting primarily of
San Francisco, San Pablo, and Suisun Bays.
In 1970 the total population of the basin
was 4.5 million, approximately 23% of
the State total. Population increase between
1960 and 1970 was 27 percent while the motor
vehicle registration during the same period
increased 60% to a total of 2.7 million.
Meteorology - The San Francisco Bay Area and
associated valleys constitute a well-defined
coastal climate zone which is broken into sub-
parts as a result of wind climatology. Low
hills, the influence of the large water areas,
and a large influx of maritime air produce
several well-defined wind patterns in the area.
During much of the year, the winds from the
Ocean divide to flow northward into the Sonoma
and Napa Valleys, eastward through the Carquinez
Strait, and southward into the Santa Clara Valley.
There is also an air flow from the South Bay
Area, through canyons in the mountains, into
Livermore Valley. This division of air flows
makes the opposite ends of the Bay Area meteoro-
logical subparts of the basin. The large flew
of marine air through Carquinez Strait also has
a marked influence on the climate in portions
of Solano and Contra Costa Counties.
As in other coastal areas, the subsidence inver-
sion is dominant over this area most of the year.
It varies, seasonally and daily, between 1,000 and
3,000 feet in elevation. Due to solar heating,
the inversion may be destroyed over the extreme
ends of the Sonoma and Santa Clara Valleys. Wide
variations in vertical mixing occur over the
extreme ends of these valleys.
Except during late September and October, and
during hot spells in April, May, or June, wind
movements provide consistent ventilation in
much of the Bay Area.
1-38

-------
Sources of Air Pollution - The estimated
average emission of contaminants into the
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin during 1970
is presented in Table 1-5. This inventory
was compiled by the Air Resources Board based
on information gathered jointly by the Board
and the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District.
Typical of highly populated urban areas, mobile
sources predominate and provide the highest
percentages of highly reactive organic gases,
oxides of nitrogen, and carbon monoxide.
Stationary sources are responsible for most
of the emissions of particulate matter and
sulfur dioxide. The mobile sources (i.e.,
motor vehicles, aircraft, ships, and railroads)
contribute 81% of the total emissions into the
Bay Area Basin. Motor vehicles are by far
the largest single source of all pollutants,
except sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.
A comparison of the estimated emissions from
each of the counties in the basin is given in
Table 1-6. As can be seen by the data in
Table 1-6, the majority of the emissions orig-
inate from the more highly populated counties
to the east and south of the Bay, with Santa
Clara having the highest emissions. San
Francisco contributes about 12% of the total
emissions into the Bay Basin.
Summary of Air Quality. The Bay area has one of the
more serious air quality problems in the nation. As
shown in Tables 1-6 and 1-7, these problems are principally
those of oxidants and carbon monoxide and are caused
predominantly by vehicle emissions. San Francisco,
however, has relatively pure air since prevailing winds
carry the City's emissions to other parts of the Bay area.
Because of the seriousness of the problem, EPA has deter-
mined that the achievement of air quality standards
for the protection of human health cannot be achieved
in 1977 by the controls of stationary sources and conven-
tional mobile controls alone. Consequently, EPA has
promulgated a transportation control plan which requires
the reduction of total vehicle miles traveled in the Bay
area. These controls will affect San Francisco since it
is a major source of automobile emissions. EPA has with-
drawn portions of this plan, and alternatives are currently
being investigated.
1-39

-------
TABLE 1-5
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF CONTAMINANTS
INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, 1970
	(TONS PER DAY)	

Organic Gases
Parti-
Oxides



Reactivity

culate
of
Sulfur
Carbon
Emission Source
High
Low
Total
Matter
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Monoxide
STATIONARY SOURCES
PETROLEUM







Production







Refining
6.0
54.3
60.3
5.9
19.8
72.8
16.9
Marketinq
51.7
63.3
115




SUBTOTAL
57.7
117
175
5.9
19.8
72.8
16.9
ORGANIC SOLVENT USERS







Surface Coating
41.8
167
209
5.3
0.2


Dry Cleaning
4.0
19.8
24.7
.5



Degreasing
8.6
34.2
42.8




Other
15.4
61.5
76.9
0.7



SUBTOTAL
70.7
283
354
6.5
0.2


CHEMICAL

32.0
32.0
25.3
0.8
83.9
0.1
METALLURGICAL

2.9
2.9
28.7
1.2

3.5
MINERAL

0.2
0.2
3.7

1.0
2.3
INCINERATION







Open Burning (durrps)
1.3
10.4
11.7
1.1


30.6
Open Burning (backyard)
3.3
26.6
29.9
3.1
0.1
0.2
73.7
Incinerators
1.6
6.4
8.0
1.1
0.5
0.3
5.9
Other







SUBTOTAL
6.2
43.4
49.6
5.3
0.6
0.5
110
COMBUSTION OF FUELS







Steam Power Plants

1.0
1.0
5.1
56.6
22.7
0.1
Other Industrial

2.3
2.3
9.5
69.9
57.7
0.7
Domestic and Gonmercial

0.3
0.3
5.1
26.2
0.2
0.1
SUBTOTAL

3.6
3.6
19.7
153
80.6
0.9
LIMBER INDUSTRY







Logging Debris







Teepee Burning







Steam Generation







Open Burning (Mill Waste)







SUBTOTAL

0.3
0.3
0.9


3.1
AGRICULTURE







Debris Burning
9.1
74.0
83.1
6.8

0.2
204
Orchard Heaters







Agricultural Product







Processing Plants

3.6
3.6
7.6


6.9
SUBTOTAL
9.1
77.6
86.7
14.4

0.2
211
TOI'AL STATIONARY SOURCES
144
560
704
110
176
239
348
MOBILE SOURCE
MOTOR VEHICLES







Gasoline Powered







Exhaust
540
180
720
28.1
429
15.6
4910
Blcwby
25.8
8.6
34.4




Evaporation
137
69.1
206




Diesel Powered

23.1
23.1
7.3
103
7.3
99.3
SUBTOTAL
703
281
984
35.4
532
22.9
5010
AIRCRAFT







Jet Driven
12.5
12.5
25.0
16.3
7.3
3.6
43.0
Piston Driven
2.3
2.2
4.5
0.4
1.4

21.8
SUBTOTAL
14.8
14.7
29.5
16.7
8.7
3.6
64.8
SHIPS & RAILROADS

5.7
5.7
11.7
10.7
10.6
19.0
TOTAL MDBILE SOURCES
718
301
1020
63.8
551
37.1
5090
GRAND TOTAL
862
861
1720
174
727
276
5440

-------
TABLE 1-6
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS BY COUNTY


(Tans per Day)






1970




Total
Partic-





Organic
ulate
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Carbon
Total
County
Gases
Matter
Oxides
Dioxide
Monoxide
Emissions
Alameda
408
30
140
13
1,190
1,780
Contra Costa
273
41
170
187
689
1,360
Marin
61
5
27
2
237
332
Napa
49
5
12
1
133
200
San Francisco
194
16
95
8
671
984
San Mateo
183
24
87
8
706
1,010
Santa Clara
387
33
145
11
1,320
1,900
Solano1
67
11
25
44
192
339
Sonoma1
97
9
26
2
300
434
Ibtal
1,720
174
727
276
5,440
8,340
lThat portion of the county within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin.
The information in Table 1-6 was derived by using the county percentage
breakdown of the district's jurisdiction sources obtained from the
San Francisco Bay Area Implementation Plan (SFBARPCD) plus motor vehicle
emissions estimated by the Air Resources Board.
1-41

-------
TABLE 1-7
OCCURRENCES OF EMISSIONS HAVING VALUES GREATER THAN
THE AMBUNT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
1972


Jan
Feb
Mar
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
Annual


OCCURRENCES
OF OXIDANTS HAVING A VALUE OF GREATER THAN 0.
08 ppm




San Francisco















Hours
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total Bay Area
Basin














Hours
0
5
54
60
162
214
323
254
118
100
5
0
1295

Days
0
4
28 '
21
58
67
86
76
58
30
1
0
429


OCCURRENCES
CF NITROGEN DIOXIDE HAVING A VALUE OF GREATER THAN 0.
25 ppm



San Francisco















Hours
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3

Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
Total Bay Area Basin














Hours
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3

Days
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
2


OCCURRENCES
§
l
CO
I
HR MOVING AVERAS: CF GREATER THAN 9
ppm

San Francisco















Hours
21
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
8
8
84

Days
2
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
12
Total Bay Area Basin














Hours
214
52
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
172
112
641

Days
24
9
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
19
13
78
DATA FRCM STATE AIR RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT

-------
CHAPTER II
EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT
WATER SUPPLY
The City and County of San Francisco has owned and operated a
water and power system for many years. Through long-range
planning and construction, San Francisco has continued the
development of its overall water and power resources. The
municipal system, including impounding and storage reservoirs,
aqueducts, water distribution facilities, hydroelectric power
plants, and electric transmission facilities, extends almost
completely across the State of California, from the summit of
the Sierra Nevada to the San Francisco Bay Area. Up to the
present time, nearly 500 million dollars has been spent or
committed on these facilities.
An average of more than 225 million gallons of water daily,
with a system peak of more than 300 million gallons per day,
is delivered to two million consumers directly through the
distribution facilities of more than 40 other municipal and
water distributing agencies. Water is supplied for residential,
commercial, and industrial use in a 500 square-mile service
area comprising San Francisco as well as neighboring communities
in most of San Mateo County and in parts of Santa Clara and
Alameda Counties. In fact, more than half of the consumption
is in suburban areas outside of San Francisco.
San Francisco Water Department System
The San Francisco Water Department operation is largely based
on the privately-owned Spring Valley Water Company system
purchased and taken over by the City in 19 30. For operating
purposes this system is broken down into three divisions:
Alameda, Peninsula, and City Distribution.
Alameda County Components. The Alameda system includes
four water producing units, all located within the
drainage area of Alameda Creek in the Coast Range
Mountains east of San Francisco Bay. The principal
sources of supply are Calaveras and San Antonio Reser-
voirs, which are supplemented by two underground sources,
the Sunol Infiltration Galleries in Sunol Valley and the
Pleasanton Well Field in Livermore Valley.
Il-l

-------
Peninsula Components. The Peninsula system, consisting
of three reservoirs, transmission mains, and pump stations,
is located in San Mateo County immediately south of the
City and County of San Francisco on the Peninsula.
The reservoirs-Pilarcitos, San Andreas, and Crystal
Springs (upper and lower)—have a combined watershed
area of 32 square miles, which is for the most part
covered with a heavy growth of trees and brush.
City Distribution Facilities. Making up the City
Distribution System are terminal reservoirs receiving
water from the Peninsula transmission mains, and the
distribution reservoirs, tanks, pumps, and mains deliver-
ing water to consumers within San Francisco. The
San Francisco Water Department is one of the few major
suppliers in the United States which is supported by
revenues from consumers.
Hetch Hetchy System
The Raker Act was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed
into law on December 19, 1913, by President Wilson, who made
the following written comment about the Hetch Hetchy Plan:
. .it seems to serve the pressing public needs
of the region concerned better than they could be
served in any other way, and yet did not impair
the usefulness or materially detract from the beauty
of the public domain."
The Raker Act, taking its name from California Congressman
John Edward Raker, granted to San Francisco rights-of-way
and the use of public lands in the areas concerned for the
purpose of constructing, operating, and maintaining reservoirs,
dams, conduits, and other structures necessary or incidental
to the development and use of water and power.
The mountain water supply system includes three impounding
reservoirs: Hetch Hetchy on the Tuolumne River, Lake Lloyd
on Cherry River, and Lake Eleanor on Eleanor Creek. The
latter two streams are tributaries of the Tuolumne River.
Each year the runoff from rainfall and melting snow is collected
behind the dams. Water stored in Lakes Lloyd and Eleanor
is used to generate power at Dion R. Holm Powerhouse and to
meet downstream irrigation needs. Storage in Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir is drawn upon mainly for San Francisco's domestic
and suburban water supply, and in the course of its journey
it generates electric power at Robert C. Kirkwood and
Moccasin Powerhouses.
II-2

-------
Water released from Hetch Hetchy flows through a series of
tunnels, pipelines, inverted siphons, and powerhouses. It
is led down the Sierra slopes, through the foothills, across
the great San Joaquin Valley, through the Coast Range Mountains,
under and around San Francisco Bay to finally reach Crystal
Springs, a terminal reservoir on the Peninsula.
The water flows 14 9 miles through the system entirely by
gravity. The water supply route is free from the great and
unending expense of pumping; a system in which mountain water
is completely enclosed and protected—except for regulating
reservoirs—for the entire distance. This source supplies over
three-quarters of the total consumption in the City's water
service area.
In passing through the Hetch Hetchy System, water is used to
generate electrical energy on its downhill journey. The City's
three power plants generate approximately two billion kilowatt-
hours of electrical energy a year which produces annual gross
revenues of about $13,000,000.
Under present contractural arrangements, Hetch Hetchy electrical
energy is sold to the following customers:
1.	Various municipal departments of the City and County of
San Francisco,
2.	Modesto and Turlock Irrigation Districts, and
3.	Certain large industrial firms in the San Francisco Bay
Area whose electric service contracts have been assigned
to the City by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
When, at any time, demand of the above customers exceeds the capac-
ity of the Hetch Hetchy system, standby service and supplemental
power is furnished by Pacific Gas and Electric Company under
contractural provisions.
Future Water Supply Demands
Gross future demand for water depends ultimately on three
basic factors: future population within the present service
area boundaries, future per capita consumption, and possible
changes in service area boundaries. In 196 9, the San Francisco
Water Department published a report entitled "An Analysis of
Water Demand, Supply and System Improvements." This analysis
concluded that population and water demand growth rate of the
service area would be as follows:
II-3

-------
Year
Population
1000's
Average Demand
mgd
1970
1,716
267
1975
1,862
299
1980
1,999
342
1990
1,950
354
2000
2,030
396
In addition, the City Department of Public Works has projected
average water demands for the City based on City Planning
Department's population projections as follows:
Year
Population
1000's
Average i
mgd
1970
714
98
1975
725
100
1980
735
103
1990
755
110
2000
764
115
Based on these projections, the present supply of water
provided by the Hetch Hetchy Water System and the San Francisco
Peninsula and East Bay sources will be adequate to meet the
anticipated San Francisco and suburban demands projected for
the foreseeable future.
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
The construction of sewers in San Francisco dates from about
1850. From that time until 1899 when the first Master Plan
for a citywide sewer system was prepared approximately 250
miles of sewers were constructed. Then the system was rapidly
developed to include about 700 miles of sewers by 19 35. At
that time a new Master Plan was developed which divided the
City into three major sewerage districts as shown on Figure II-l.
Plans were developed for a large wastewater treatment plant
plus the necessary diversion structures, intercepting sewers,
and pumping stations for each district.
The three primary treatment plants were located around the
perimeter of the City to accommodate natural drainage basins.
The actual sites were selected with consideration to the
then existing residential development and governmental estab-
lishments, predicted population trends, geology, tidal and
wind induced currents, and the availability of deep water for
disposal.
II-4

-------
FIGURE IM
SEWERAGE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
NORTH
NORTH POINT
RICHMOND-SUNSET
SOUTHEAST
EJ	TREATMENT PLANT
		OUTFALL
	DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
^	BYPASS LOCATION

-------
The Richmond-Sunset Water Pollution Control Plant was completed
in 1939 and the North Point and Southeast Water Pollution Control
Plants were completed in 1951 after delays caused by World
War II. However, it was 1966 before interceptors had been
completed to deliver all of the dry weather wastewater flow
to the treatment plants. Table II-l presents general data on
the physical and hydraulic characteristics of the three plants.
In addition, a more detailed description of each plant is contained
in the following paragraphs.
Richmond-Sunset Water Pollution Control Plant
Description of Facilities. The Richmond-Sunset Water
Pollution Control Plant was completed in 1939 and sub-
sequently enlarged in 1948 and 1966 to its existing
design capacity of 26 mgd. The average dry weather
flow through this facility is presently about 20 mgd
from a tributary area of about 10,470 acres of which
approximately 9,000 acres are sewered, the rest being
park land.
TABLE II-l
DATA ON EXISTING TREATMENT PLANTS

Riclmond-



Sunset
North Point
Southeast
Plant location
Golden Gate
Northeast
Southeast

Park
Waterfront
Sector
Average dry weather



flow, mgd
20
60
20
Design capacity, mgd
26
65
30
Population served, resident
220,000
350,000
166,000
Area served, acres
10,400
9,300
10,200
% Residential
56
39
43
% Industrial & Ccrtnercial
6
31
17
% Public & Government
38
30
40
Discharge location
Lands End
Piers 33,35
Offshore Pier
Receiving waters
Pacific Oc.
S. F. Bay
S. F. Bay
II-6

-------
The Richmond-Sunset Plant provides conventional primary
treatment plus chemical coagulation with ferric chloride.
Individual processes include screening, grit removal,
primary sedimentation with chemical coagulation and chlor-
ination. Effluent is discharged to the Ocean via the 9-foot
by 11-foot Mile Rock outfall which tunnels under Fort Miley
and Lincoln Park and discharges to the beach southwest of
Lands End about one foot below mean lower low water. Solids
removed during treatment are processed by two-stage anaerobic
digestion, elutriation (a process of washing and decanting),
chemical conditioning, and vacuum filtration. Most of the
sludge cake is utilized as ground fill and soil stabilization
in Golden Gate Park.
Environmental Setting. The Richmond-Sunset Plant occupies
four acres in the southwest corner of Golden Gate Park,
between John F. Kennedy and South Drives, just north of the
old Murphy windmill.
Together with the rest of the park before development,
the site originally was a wasteland of rolling sand dunes.
It now supports a variety of growth, the most prominant
being Monterey cypress, with blue gum eucalyptus furnishing
contrast. Hydrangea, Pittosporum, Dracaena, and Myoporum
flourish near the facilities.
As shown on Figure II-2, the plant site is surrounded
by an adjacent green. Public use of the area for picnicking
and games is not inhibited by the presence of the nearby
treatment facilities. However, on occasion, the plant may
be identified by an odor-causing malfunction.
The largely residential area of the Sunset district begins
about 0.1 mile south of the plant. No plant-generated
noise can be detected here. West of the site is the Great
Highway, and farther north along this road is the southern
boundary of the Outer Richmond community area.
Effluent is discharged into the Pacific Ocean through an
outlet a short distance northeast of Point Lobos, approx-
imately 7,000 feet north of the plant. The outlet is a
9 foot x 11 foot culvert located in shallow water at the
foot of steep headlands which rise over 200 feet. The
area is a state beach and is being considered as an Area
of Special Biological Significance {Seal Rocks) by the
State Water Resources Control Board. This designation,
in effect, prohibits all waste discharges in this area.
Particulate matter is often observed on the beaches and
discoloration of the receiving water is evident at all
times as shown on Figure II-3.
II-7

-------
FIGURE 11-2
RICHMOND-SUNSET WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT

-------
FIGURE 11-3
RICHMOND-SUNSET OUTFALL EFFLUENT FIELD

-------
Being at the beach near the entrance to San Francisco Bay,
the effluent is subject to dilution in large swells and
in currents which may be wind induced as well as tidal.
The tidal ebb and flow through the Golden Gate assures
an abundant supply of diluting water. However, no
actual measurements have been made of dilutions at the
Richmond-Sunset discharge.
The stronger ebb current results in a net seaward dis-
placement of the surface layer of water. Further
dispersion and diffusion is provided by the violent
swirls and eddies which characterize the Golden Gate
area. Dissolved oxygen content of the Ocean surface is
generally near saturation. Water clarity varies both
diurnally and seasonally because of the Bay ebb, the
lowest recorded clarity value being 1.5 feet as measured
by the Secchi disc. The Ocean bottom near shore is
primarily coarse sand.
Among the important fish species in the waters adjacent
to the outfall are the king and silver salmon, rockfish,
striped bass, and sole. The major commercial fishing
resources in the area are salmon and the Dungeness crab.
During a diving survey conducted at Lands End directly
off the Richmond-Sunset outfall in October 1970, ten
plant species and 102 animal species were recovered. The
largest numbers of organisms present were polychaetes,
barnacles, amphipods or pelecypods. In the immediate
vicinity of the outfall, the faunal species diversity
was reduced, but returned to background levels within
100 feet of the shore. Laterally, the influence
of the outfall was confined to approximately 50 feet
on each side.
An intertidal survey conducted in the vicinity of the
outfall showed that within the immediate area of the
discharge there was a significant reduction in biota
numbers and luxuriance. Recovery to normal abundance
and diversity was rapid with distance from the outfall.
The influence of the outfall was not observed greater
than 400 feet from the point of discharge.
Waste Discharge Requirements. On January 19, 1967, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) adopted Resolution No. 67-2
which prescribed requirements as to the nature of
waste discharge by the City's Richmond-Sunset Sewage
Treatment Plant. A copy of Resolution No. 67-2 is
11-10

-------
included in the appendix. Subsequently, the RWQCB
recommended that the State Water Resources Control Board
designate the receiving waters in this area (Seal Rocks)
as an Area of Special Biological Significance. This
designation, in effect, prohibits waste discharges in
this area.
For this reason, the RWQCB adopted Order No. 73-54 on
September 25, 1973, which requires the City to complete
construction of all Phase I facilities by about September
30, 1978 (See Chapter V for a detailed description of
Phase I facilities). A copy of Order No. 73-54 is also
included in the appendix. This Order requires the City
to construct Level I (chemical treatment using a low
ferric chloride dosage) waste treatment facilities plus
filtration facilities at the Richmond-Sunset Plant by
June 30, 19 77, and the southwest ocean outfall plus
transportation facilities from the Richmond-Sunset Plant
to the outfall by September 30, 19 78.
North Point Water Pollution Control Plant
Description of Facilities. The North Point Water
Pollution Control Plant serves the main downtown section
of San Francisco. The North Point facility provides
conventional primary treatment plus chemical coagulation
with ferric chloride for an average dry weather flow of
approximately 65 mgd. Individual processes include pre-
chlorination, screening, grit removal, preaeration,
primary sedimentation with chemical coagulation, and
dechlorination. The effluent is presently discharged
through four 48-inch cast iron lines under Piers 3 3 and
35 which terminate without diffusers about 800 feet
offshore and 10 feet below mean lower low water.
Diffusers are now under construction (cost of about
$690,000) which will achieve a dilution of about 10:1.
Solids removed during threatment are conveyed through a
force main to the Southeast Water Pollution Control
Plant for processing.
Environmental Setting. The North Point Water Pollution
Control Plant, as shown on Figure II-4, is situated on
Bay Street between the foot of Telegraph Hill and the
Embarcadero. The treatment units are arranged in two
groups of buildings with the pretreatment building,
influent pumping station, and administration building
on the south side of Bay Street and the remaining build-
ings on the north side.
The major streetside planting is the London plane tree
or sycamore. Site landscaping also includes Leptosperum,
Abelia, Hebe, Pittosporum, and lawns.
11-11

-------
FIGURE 11-4
NORTH POINT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT

-------
Noise generated by the plant operation is not detectable
at the street, and there is rarely, if ever, any
identifying odor.
The immediate vicinity of the plant is given to a variety
of uses. New apartment buildings are adjacent to the
west, and a new commercial structure to the north. On
the south, some Telegraph Hill apartments look directly
over the plant toward Alcatraz and Angel Islands. The
Belt Line railroad operates on the nearby Embarcadero.
Within two or three blocks of the plant may be found
warehouses, parking garages, gas stations, car wash and
the truck and bus yards of the Municipal Railway, Golden
Gate Disposal Company, Greyhound, Pacific Far East Lines,
and Santa Fe.
The four 48-inch outfalls suspended under Port Piers
33 and 35 discharge effluent into the waters of San
Francisco Bay about 800 feet offshore and 10 feet below
mean lower low water. The boil from the discharge is
clearly visible at the pier ends at all times and the
effluent field extends from the discharge point for quite
a distance as shown in Figure II-5. Discoloration of the
receiving waters is evident at all times. Floating
material is frequently seen.
The piers are active shipping facilities. Passenger
liners, such as the SS Mariposa of Pacific Far East
Lines and the SS Orsova of P & O Lines, are a common
sight at Pier 35, with hundreds of passengers either
boarding or disembarking, and large volumes of United
States mail being handled.
The effluent discharge is sukject to the tidal ebb and
flow, a massive movement of water parallel to the
San Francisco shoreline through the channel between
North Point and Alcatraz. This is a portion of the
tidal exchange through the Golden Gate, which, on the
average during dry weather, brings approximately 24
billion cubic feet of new Ocean water into the Central
Bay during each 25-hour tidal cycle. The average
total flood tidal prism, including both new and return
waters, is about 100 billion cubic feet. The seaward
displacement of the surface water layer is stronger
than the bayward movement, resulting in a net flushing
action.
11-13

-------
FIGURE 11-9
NORTH POINT OUTFALL EFFLUENT FIELD
r*

-------
Dissolved oxygen values near Blossom Rock, about two-
thirds mile offshore of the outfalls, and in the Central
Bay, are consistently about 7 mg/1; the minimum value
measured was 6 mg/1. In a recent field study, a high
water clarity reading of 1.6 Jackson Turbidity Units
was recorded near Blossom Rock, All reported Secchi
disc readings for Central Bay range between 0.6 and
10 feet, with summer and fall values being generally
greater than 3 feet. Surface drift studies indicate
that floatable material released within the Central Bay
moves rapidly seaward without significant effect on
the shoreline of the Bay itself.
During field measurements in April 19 70, minimum dilu-
tions in the discharge boil ran about 3 or 4 to 1.
Within about 50 feet of the boil concentrations were
in the range of 20 to 1 and within about 600 feet were
about 30 to 1. During slack water, dilutions less
than 100 to 1 encompassed a field approximately cir-
cular and about 3,000 feet in diameter.
An attempt was made to assess the toxic effect of the
North Point effluent by suspending fish in cages in the
effluent field. Test results were inconclusive in
determining the effect of the effluent field on fish
survival. There was some evidence that Bay water
along the San Francisco shoreline was more toxic than
at a control site at Horseshoe Bay. The source of this
apparent toxicity was not identified.
During April 1970, diving studies were conducted at
the ends of Piers 33 and 35. A total of 44 species
were observed within the study area. At sample
sites directly adjacent to the outfalls very few
species or numbers of organisms were found. Five
sediment collections were made in the sampling area
within 200 feet of the outfalls. The collections made
directly adjacent to the outfalls had a low species
diversity and contained only testate protozoa, peanut
worms, and a few clams. At more distant sample locations
the diversity increased with addition of various
polychaetes, harpacticoid copepods and nematodes. Sediment
at all stations was composed largely of medium grained
sand.
The Bay waters near the outfalls are well used by
both young and adult salmon. Central San Francisco
Bay is considered a nursery area for sport and commercial
fish species. Adult Dungeness crab are found in Central
Bay, although these waters are no longer the commercial
fishery. Large numbers of juvenile crabs are frequently
sampled at near-shore locations.
11-15

-------
Waste Discharge Requirements. On March 26, 19 70, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB) adopted Order No. 70-17,
"Revised Waste Discharge Requirements for City and
County of San Francisco, North Point Sewage Treatment
Plant." Among the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay
that the RWQCB intends to protect are swimming; wading;
pleasure boating; marinas; launching ramps; fishing and
shellfishing; firefighting and industrial washdown
supplies; industrial cooling water; fish, shellfish
and wildlife propagation and sustenance; waterfowl and
migratory bird habitat and resting; navigation channels;
port facilities; and aesthetic enjoyment. In order to
protect these uses the RWQCB requires that the discharge
does not cause, in waters of the State, floating or
deposited macroscopic particulate matter, alteration
of color, oil, dissolved oxygen below 5 mg/1, dissolved
sulfide concentrations greater than 0.1 mg/1, or any
substance in concentrations that impair the beneficial
uses or make aquatic life unfit for consumption. A
copy of Order No. 70-17 is included in the appendix.
Subsequently on October 26, 1972, the RWQCB adopted
Order No. 72-90 which required the City and County of
San Francisco to cease and desist discharging wastes
from its North Point plant contrary to the Board's
requirements. Then on January 11, 19 73, the RWQCB
adopted Order No. 73-1 which amended Order No. 72-90
to include a time schedule for compliance. Order No. 73-1
ordered the City to demonstrate compliance with all
requirements by September 1, 1977. Copies of Order
No. 72-90 and Order No. 73-1 are included in the
appendix.
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant
Description of Facilities. The Southeast Water Pollution
Control Plant serves the heavily industrialized southeast
area of the City plus about 600 residential acres in San
Mateo County. The facility may be more accurately
described as two separate plants, constructed on each side
of Jerrold Avenue at Quint Street, south of Islais Creek
Channel {See Figure I1-6). The first section of the plant
provides low level chemical treatment and conventional
primary treatment for the sewage flow from the Southeast
tributary area, and has a treatment capacity of 30 mgd.
The average dry weather flow through the first section
is 2 0 mgd. The second section consists of the sludge
digestion and processing facilities, which handle not only
the sludge from the Southeast plant but also the sludge
transferred from the North Point plant.
11-16

-------
On the liquid side, individual treatment processes
include prechlorination, screening, grit removal,
preaeration, primary sedimentation with chemical
coagulation, and post chlorination. Capability is
available for use of lime, ferric chloride, and polymers.
Effluent is discharged to San Francisco Bay about
800 feet offshore of Pier 80, the Army Street terminal.
Solids removed in the process, along with the solids
transferred from the North Point plant, are treated by
gravity thickening, anaerobic digestion, elutriation,
chemical conditioning, and vacuum filtration. Sludge
cake is disposed of at the Mountain View sanitary land-
fill which is scheduled to be developed into a regional
park upon termination of the landfill operation.
Environmental Setting. The Southeast Water Pollution
Control Plant is within an industrial district in the
Southeast section of San Francisco. Additional city-
owned acreage at the primary plant is presently being
leased to a trucking firm and a general contractor.
Somewhat southerly and easterly rise the hills of the
residential districts known as Silver Terrace and
Hunters Point. Towards the west are the Southern
Pacific Railroad tracks, the Southern freeway, and the
produce market. Industries in the vicinity of the
plant include iron works, concrete manufacture, building
material supplies, and automobile junkyards.
Both sides of the street are landscaped. The plantings
include lawns, pyracantha, pines, palms, and boxwood
hedges, Irish yews, metrosideros, and blackwood acacias.
Occasional odors at street level identify the primary
treatment operation. Little or no noise generated by
the plant can be detected at the street.
The Southeast booster pump station is a small building
located near the Third Street drawbridge on the south
side of Islais Creek Channel. The structure is consistent
with the industrial environment. Pumping energy is
sometimes needed to overcome friction losses in the
submarine outfall which extends about 800 feet offshore
of the Army Street terminal. The effluent generally
surfaces discoloring the receiving water. In addition,
floating material from the discharge is sometimes observed
on the water.
11-17

-------
FIGURE 11-6
SOUTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT

-------
As might be expected, tidal ebb and flow is the most
important factor in the movement of water in the vicinity
of the Southeast outfall. The concentration of dissolved
oxygen in this part of the Bay runs well over 6 mg/1.
Measurements taken throughout an April day at several
locations within two-thirds mile of the outfall indicated
a salinity of about 27 parts per thousand (sea water has
a salinity of about 30 parts per thousand) and water
temperatures around 55°F.
The existing outfall diffuser has 18 pairs of ports spaced
at 16-foot intervals. The ports average 5.1 inches in
diameter. A field test has indicated that the minimum
dilution is in excess of 100 to 1, except during the slack
water period, when a minimum dilution of 5 3 to 1 was
measured. Under the maximum current condition during
flood tide, the minimum measured dilution was 140 to 1;
after about one mile of travel from the outfall the minimum
dilution was 1000 to 1.
Along the eastern intertidal areas of the City, as
typified by the Army Street terminal, pier construction
has drastically limited the availability of marine
habitats for wildlife. In these areas attached
organisms on pilings and rocky breakwaters constitute
the major biota.
Waste Discharge Requirements. On September 25, 1969, the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region adopted Resolution No. 69-4 4
prescribing requirements for the waste discharge by
the City and County of San Francisco from its Southeast
treatment plant. That resolution set forth the following
beneficial uses that would be protected from this
discharge: swimming, boating, fishing, shellfishing,
industrial cooling water, fish and wildlife prop-
agation, navigation channels, port facilities, and
aesthetic appeal. It is also noted that beds suitable
for shellfishing are located along the Bayshore south
of Candlestick Point.
In order to protect these uses, the RWQCB requires that
the discharge shall not cause, in respect to the
receiving waters, atmospheric odors, floating or
deposited macroscopic particulate matter, oil, grease,
aquatic growths, dissolved oxygen below 5 mg/1, dissolved
sulfide concentrations greater than 0.1 mg/1, or sub-
stances in concentrations that impair any of the beneficial
uses or make aquatic life unfit for consumption. A
copy of Resolution No. 69-44 is included in the appendix.
11-19

-------
Then on October 26, 1972, the RWQCB adopted Order No.
72-91 which ordered the City and County of San Francisco
to cease and desist from continued violation of waste
discharge requirements. Subsequently, on January 11, 1973,
the RWQCB adopted Order No. 73-2 amending Order No. 72-91
by adding a time schedule for compliance. The amended
order requires the City and County of San Francisco
to demonstrate compliance with all requirements by
September 1, 1977. Copies of these two orders are
included in the appendix.
Sludge Disposal. Sludge derived from the present treat-
ment plant operations is ultimately disposed of either
by use as a soil conditioner in the City1s parks or in
the sanitary landfill operation in Mountain View (Santa
Clara County). Anaerobically digested sludge will con-
tinue to be used as a soil conditioner as the City's
need demands. All excess sludge plus the residues from
the recalcination and carbon regeneration operations as
well as the screenings and grit will continue to be
disposed of in a sanitary landfill with the City's other
solid wastes.
The present Mountain View landfill site is estimated to
have a remaining life of eight to nine years. However,
the City's existing contract to use this site expires
in about three years. Prior to the termination of this
site, another suitable use will be developed (e.g.
regional park is presently planned). No information is
presently available regarding possible althernative
disposal sites.
Presently, about 50,000 tons of excess sludge are disposed
of annually at the Mountain View site along with a total
of 700,000 tons of solid wastes. Although the volume of
sludge from the treatment plants may increase by 50 per-
cent in the future due to additional treatment processes,
the additional constituents to be removed are not antici-
pated to create new problems relative to toxicant con-
centrations in the sludge. The City, however, will do the
necessary testing to determine the extent to which precau-
tionary measures must be taken; any necessary measures
will be taken.
Industrial Waste Ordinance. San Francisco City Ordinance
No. 15-71, relating to the regulation of the quality
and quantity of discharges of industrial waste substances,
went into effect in July 1971.
11-20

-------
Enforcement of the ordinance will achieve the following:
.1. Prohibition of the discharge of certain materials
into the sewer system, i.e., mineral oils, grease
or other products of petroleum origin. (The
disposal of these materials will comply with the
requirements of appropriate regulatory agencies.)
2.	Setting of numerical limits on certain character-
istics of discharges, i.e., toxicity (96-hour TLm
bioassay) of the waste as discharged has a limiting
value of 75 percent. (In bioassay work, the term
96-hour TLm is used to designate the concentration
of waste materials required to kill 50 percent of
the test organisms in 96 hours.) Toxicity and heavy
metal control will have a high priority.
3.	Flexibility in meeting new state or federal require-
ments by authority to limit when necessary the con-
centration of any substance in any industrial waste
discharge to the concentration of said substance in
Richmond-Sunset (primarily domestic) raw sewage.
4.	Establishment of fee schedules in order that indus-
trial waste dischargers shall support the adminis-
tration of the industrial waste control program
and shall pay a fair share of the cost of treatment
based on the concentration of certain substances in
excess of the concentration of such substances in
normal raw sewage.
The development of a program for implementation of the
ordinance required a tremendous effort to identify actual
or potential dischargers and to establish administrative
procedures. As of December 31, 1973, almost 6,000
dischargers were identified, and a departmental master
file system suitable for computer application has been
developed. Inspection and discharge fees have been billed
by the Water Department along with water use charges.
A review board of five members has been established to
hear and decide appeals arising as a consequence of the
ordinance. A waste discharge report form has been
developed for dischargers to furnish information on
process, volume, flow, substances, concentrations, etc.
At the present time, emphasis is being placed on inspection
of dischargers and the collection of fees. Future emphasis
will be placed on source control.
The ordinance was initially applied to restaurants. This
action was challenged by the restaurant group and
11-21

-------
litigation is currently underway. Because of this and
other complex problems encountered in implementing the
ordinance, another two years may be required before the
operation is fully implemented.
SUMMARY OF CURRENT STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The Master Plan is primarily influenced by the plans and
policies of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency,
the State Water Resources Control Board, and the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region. A summary of the more important regulations of
these agencies is presented in the following paragraphs.
Receiving Water and Effluent Quality Requirements
On October 18, 1972, Congress passed the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) which
have been acclaimed as "one of the most significant, most
comprehensive, most thoroughly debated pieces of environ-
mental legislation ever to be considered by the Congress."
As stated in the 1972 Act, it is the national goal that the
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated
by 1985, and that, as an interim goal whenever attainable
there be achieved by July 1, 1983, water quality which provides
for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and
wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water.
The 1983 goal is an objective which carries with it defined,
specific enforcement mechanisms while the 19 85 goal is an
ideal toward which Congress intended the country to strive.
To reach these goals, the Act requires that a discharge
of waste or waste-containing water be of a specified, improved
quality before its release from a point source to the
receiving water, or in some cases that the discharge be
prohibited. To assure that the improved quality is attained,
the Act provides a new authority to the Federal and State
governments to continue and fully develop a national permit
system.
The new permit system is called the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). It is a national system because
it is effective nationwide and involves Federal and State
participation, with the objective being State-administered
permit programs. California has implemented a NPDES program;
however, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
will continue to review and monitor the program to insure
that the purposes of the Act are carried out.
11-22

-------
The Act also requires that by July 1, 1977, all publicly
owned waste treatment facilities must utilize "secondary
treatment" and, if an industrial discharger sends its waste
through a publicly owned treatment works, certain "pretreat-
ment standards" must be met. In addition, not later than
July 1, 1983, effluent requirements must be met which repre-
sent the application of the "best practicable waste treatment
technology." Any other applicable pretreatment standards
must also be met by that date. The Act also directs EPA to
promulgate special standards for toxic materials which must
be complied with within one year of promulgation.
The Environmental Protection Agency has defined the minimum
level of effluent quality attainable by "secondary treatment"
to be as follows:
1.	Biochemical Oxygen Demand {5-day)
a.	The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 30 mg/1.
b.	The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 7 consecutive
days shall not exceed 4 5 mg/1.
c.	The arithmetic mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 15 percent of the arith-
metic mean of the values for influent samples
collected at approximately the same times during
the same period (85 percent removal).
2.	Suspended Solids
a.	The arithmetric mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 30 mg/1.
b.	The arithmetric mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 7 consecutive
days shall not exceed 4 5 mg/1.
c.	The arithmetric mean of the values for effluent
samples collected in a period of 30 consecutive
days shall not exceed 15 percent of the arithmetric
mean of the values for influent samples collected
at approximately the same times during the same
period (85 percent removal).
11-23

-------
3.	Fecal Coliform Bacteria
a.	The geometric mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 30 consecutive days shall
not exceed 200 per 100 ml.
b.	The geometric mean of the values for effluent samples
collected in a period of 7 consecutive days shall
not exceed 400 per 100 ml.
4.	pH
The effluent values for pH shall remain within
the limits of 6.0 to 9.0
These limits must be met at all times; however, there is a
special provision for communities with combined sewers
which is as follows:
Secondary treatment may not be capable of meeting
the percentage removal requirements of above during
wet weather in treatment works which receive flows
from combined sewers. For such treatment works,
the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis
as to whether any attainable percentage removal
level can be defined, and if so, what that level
should be.
Compliance with these regulations can only be achieved by
major capital expenditures for new secondary treatment facilities,
The Environmental Protection Agency has also proposed the
following definition for the allowable concentration of
pollutants in the effluent consistent with the application
of "best practicable waste treatment technology" for
publicly owned treatment works discharging into navigable
waters:
Ultimate Combined Oxygen
Demand (UCOD)*
Suspended Solids
Chemical Oxygen Derand
Fecal Coliform
P«
Units of
Measurement
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
number/100 ml
units
Monthly Weekly
50
30
50
200
75
45
75
400
within limits of
6.0 to 9.0
*U00D= 1.5 (B0D5) +4.6 (NH^-N) - 1.0 (D.O.)
11-24

-------
Two exceptions are made to the definition. The first is if the
influent wastewater has a weekly or monthly average temperature
below 20°C, then the criterion for UCOD does not apply. However,
in such cases, the following is the allowable ultimate Biochemical
Oxygen Demand (UBOD) in the effluent.
Units of
Measurement
Ultimate Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (UBOD) *	ng/l
*UBOD= 1.5 (BOD5) - 1.0 (D.O.)
The second exception is made for discharges into the Territorial
Seas and the Contiguous Zone or the adjacent saline tidal waters
where it can be demonstrated that the hydrographic and ocean-
orgraphic conditions provide sufficient depth and have
hydrodynamic properties such that any discharge will be rapidly
mixed and will be dispersed in a predominately seaward direction.
In such cases, "secondary treatment" defines the effluent
quality consistent with the application of "best practicable
waste treatment technology" for publicly owned treatment
works.
In order to comply with the proposed definition of best
practicable waste treatment technology, it will be necessary
for the City to provide treatment capability beyond that
of secondary treatment (i.e., ammonia removal) for a discharge
to the Bay. However, secondary treatment would be adequate
for an Ocean discharge. The added treatment cost for the Bay
discharge would be about $1.2 million per year.
In addition to the above Federal requirements, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
has also adopted specific requirements for the discharges
from the City's three wastewater treatment plants and from
the wastewater system during wet weather periods. The con-
trolling provisions of these requirements are summarized
in the previous section.
Clean Water Grant Program Regulations
The primary purpose of the Clean Water Grant Program is to
implement the Clean Water Bond I.aw of 19 70 which was enacted
in November 1970 by the passage of a $250 million bond issue.
The objective of the bond issue was to make funds available
to assist local governments in correcting and avoiding
pollution of California waters. This program, administered
Monthly Weekly
30	45
11-^5

-------
in cooperation with Federal administration of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, assists in the financing of
treatment works necessary to prevent water pollution and
thereby to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
inhabitants of the State. However, it is intended that
municipalities should continue to have primary responsibility
for the construction, operation and maintenance of the
treatment works necessary to protect or enhance waters of
the State.
Presently, this joint program does provide grants for 87*s
percent of the eligible project costs of treatment works
which include collection systems, interceptor sewers,
pump stations, and outfalls in addition to treatment systems.
The definition of treatment works also includes combined
stormwater and sanitary sewer systems, and separate storm-
water systems. Since the costs of facilities necessary
to control these latter sources of pollutants far exceed
the availability of funds, it is not likely that the State
will give early high priority for full control of combined
wastes.
However, it is possible that substantial grant participation
can be attained for: 1) consolidated wet and dry weather
facilities since the cost allocatable to dry weather control
is eligible and of high priority; or 2) a high benefit/cost
early stage of the Master Plan.
In order to be considered for a Clean Water Grant pursuant
to the Clean Water Bond Law of 1970, the applicant must submit
a facilities plan ("Project Report") to the State Water
Resources Control Board. The facilities plan must provide
sufficient information to permit evaluation of the proposed
project pursuant to all applicable State and Federal regu-
lations. In addition, Section 2118 of the Clean Water Program
Grant Regulations requires the submittal of an Environmental
Impact Report as one of the supporting documents to the
facilities plan.
The Environmental Impact Report must be prepared in accord-
ance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 and guidelines established by the State
Water Resources Control Board. San Francisco's Administrative
Code, Chapter 31, also requires Environmental Impact Reports
for all projects which may have a significant impact on the
environment.
11-26

-------
In accordance with the provisions of the Clean Water Grant
Program Regulations, the comprehensive Environmental Impact
Report must be prepared by the grant applicant.
In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
requires that all agencies of the Federal Government prepare
detailed environmental impact statements on major Federal
actions significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment. EPA considers the Environmental Impact Report
prepared by the grant applicant pursuant to State law to be
an "assessment." EPA reviews the "assessment" to determine
whether it is a thorough and comprehensive analysis of each
alternative project under consideration as well as of the
recommended plan.
Grant Eligibility and Availability
The vast majority of facilities contained within the Master Plan
are eligible for State and Federal grants; however, the avail-
ability of funds is dependent upon future appropriations. Grant
eligibility for wet weather discharges will depend upon cost-
effective analysis showing the desired level of control.
State priority lists indicate that funds will not be provided
for wet weather control for at least five years. Beyond
that time, funds may be allocated depending on national priorities.
Despite State regulations promoting wastewater reclamation and
new reclamation emphasis in recent Federal legislation, treatment
level and compliance with receiving water standards will continue
to be higher priority for State and Federal grants than reclama-
tion. Limited grant funds will result in emphasis on secondary
treatment for all dry weather discharges. The availability of
funds for a separate dry weather treatment system is reasonably
assured if a project is approved for grant participation within
the next three years.
Consolidation of the wet and dry weather programs into one all-
weather wastewater management system, staged to provide the most
cost-effective solution, could maximize State and Federal grant
allocations and minimize the City's need for funding separate wet
weather facilities.
Compliance of the Master Plan with State and Federal Regulations
The Master Plan is a concept which involves the location and sizing
of storage basins, plus the construction of dry weather and wet
weather treatment facilities, transportation systems, and disposal
facilities in a series of stages to achieve any desired level of
control. Therefore, the Master Plan is flexible and will be able
to comply with changing regulations. The following paragraphs,
however, contain a discussion of the ability of the Master Plan
to comply with existing regulations.
11-27

-------
Wet Weather Overflows. The Master Plan provides for the
ultimate elimination of all dry weather discharges to the
Bay and 90 percent elimination of all untreated wet
weather discharges. These wet weather discharges will
not comply with present receiving water standards of the
Regional Board.
Treatment Degree. Secondary treatment must be achieved
by July 1, 1977, to comply with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. It will not be possible
to comply with this provision until all Phase I facilities
are constructed.
Discharge Location. The Master Plan provides for ocean
discharge rather than Bay discharge. All studies to date
and the implication of the State's Ocean Plan as compared
with proposed Bay water quality objectives indicate that
for a given degree of treatment and assuming proper outfall
construction, ocean discharge is far less environmentally
harmful than Bay discharge.
Reclamation. The environmental advantages of ocean discharge
must be weighed against the possible advantages of a Bay
discharge when considering future wastewater reclamation
potential.
The Master Plan is compatible with the State's policy that
requires consideration of reclamation potential in that
future reclamation is not precluded by ocean disposal and
no market presently exists for reclamation particularly
during winter months. The probability of developing a
major reuse scheme for San Francisco that would eliminate
the advantages of ocean disposal is small.
Cost-Effective Program. To achieve dry weather and wet
weather goals in the most expeditious and cost-effective
manner, it is important for the regulatory agencies to
consider the benefits of implementing an all-weather control
system rather than concentrating exclusively on a high degree
of control of separate dry weather flows.
SYSTEM STUDIES
In seeking the most efficient and effective system for controlling
San Francisco's wastewaters, a large amount of data has been
gathered and analyzed and exotic control methods considered.
Following development of the general control plan, information
necessary to optimize design and assure proper operation of the
system is being gathered. Further studies are planned to gather
information about wastewater treatment and effluent quality,
design and operation of upstream retention basins, and the feasi-
bility of automatic control with the proposed central management
software-hardware system.
A brief description of each of the continuing studies follows:
11-28

-------
Pilot Treatment Plant Study
In 1973, the City initiated a pilot treatment plant study to
determine the effectiveness of alternative treatment processes
in meeting the requirements of the various regulatory agencies
for a discharge to either the Bay or Ocean. However, the Pilot
Treatment Plant Study encompassed more than a pilot plant study
of treatment processes. It also included monitoring of waste-
water quality to characterize the influent wastewaters at the
three treatment plants in terms of over 100 constituents.
Based on this investigation, a physical/chemical plant and an
activated sludge plant using both air and high purity oxvgen
were piloted.
The following information was developed by the pilot plant portion
of the study: (1) compliance of effluent with the State Water
Resources Control Board's Ocean Plan and anticipated similar plans
for bays and estuaries as well as the Environmental Protection
Agency's secondary treatment requirement, (2) process reliability
information for selected constituents, (3) design loading rates,
and (4) estimated capital, operation, and maintenance costs.
Following analysis of the above data a preliminary plant layout
and equipment list are to be prepared by mid-1974 for a selected
process and an alternate.
Pilot Retention Basin Project
In March 1972 the City submitted an application to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency for a $3.14 million demonstration grant
project to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of
historical-based event prediction, solid/liquid pre-separation,
and upstream retention facilities to effect the control and manage-
ment of combined wastewater overflows. However, in February 1973,
EPA rejected the grant application due to lack of funds.
Subsequently, the City requested that the State Water Resources
Control Board place an upstream retention basin on its 1974-75
Project List for construction projects. From the construction
and operation of this basin it should be possible to obtain:
A better idea of costs.
First-hand experience in maintenance and cleaning required.
Data on effectiveness as a treatment basin, or diversion
of solids and floatables around the storage compartment
depending on the design concept adopted.
Data for design of an effective outlet control system.
Information on odors produced in the basin during and
following rains and during the summer dry season.
Data for design of an adequate ventilation system.
11-29

-------
By proper selection of the installation site, direct pollution
abatement benefits and flooding relief will be realized. Results
should also be transferable to the design and operation of shore-
line basins.
Control System and Central Management Plan
		i	ii i -*
Colorado State University is assisting in a control and modeling
project to evaluate the potential and effectiveness of automatic
control of the storage and transport facilities of the Master Plan.
Storm Behavior. The American Society of Civil Engineers
Urban Water Resources Research Program in its Technical
Memorandum No. 15 defines the need for automated surveil-
lance and control as follows:
"Because combined sewer overflows occur over a very
small part of a year, any facilities provided for
treatment of potential overflows must be put on the
line almost instantaneously. This means that not
only would such plants be idle more than around
nine-tenths of the year, but that they would have
to be activated immediately with the occurrence
of any stormwater flow that would exceed inter-
ceptor sewer capacity. Effectiveness of overflow
pollution abatement using treatment facilities
designed specifically for that purpose therefore
will require some form of automatic operational
control. Remote supervisory control would quite
likely not be adequately responsive. The control
logic required has yet to be developed, and it is
possible that different metropolitan sewer systems
will require their own fairly unique logic
development."
In the case of San Francisco, the above description is more
appropriate to the operation of the proposed retention
basins and tunnel storage elements which will be capable
of variable feed and withdrawal rates. The objective of
the control system will be to optimize the containment
and treatment of storm runoff with actions dependent upon
the treatment and storage availability and projected storm
and system behavior. When overflows to receiving waters
are necessary, system controls will permit the releases
to occur in the least damaging manner.
Although the currently envisioned automatic control system
is a highly sophisticated central computer operated system,
such complex facilities may not be necessary. An important
aspect of any control system study should be to evaluate
11-30

-------
and compare less complex automatic controls ranging from
computer aided supervisory control to completely local
control at individual units responding directly to local
hydraulic flow and retention basin head.
For the proposed control system, the most difficult task
is the real time prediction of storm behavior. Has the peak
intensity passed? Will the storm cell move progressively
from area A to B to C or by some other route? Will it
increase or decrease in intensity with movement? Is a second
cell developing? Has the storm stalled severely stressing
a limited area? These are but a few of the questions to be
studied in executing a control logic (i.e., if we know what
the storm is going to do next, then we can implement the
most effective counter-measures). Likewise, if an initial
prediction proves to be false, can it be detected and cor-
rected before the problem is compounded? Obviously, the
success of such a program will be largely dependent on a
nearly instantaneous monitoring and data scan capability
and a carefully compiled, catalogued, and interpreted body
of extensive historical data.
Even with the best of systems, it must be anticipated that
the storm behavior prediction will only be partially
successful (one need only to recall the difficulties of
hurricane tracking and prediction); however, as the library
of historical data grows performance should improve. In
order to collect, file, and access the data, computer usage
is essential.
It is proposed to install a pilot retention basin for study
of design and operation throughout a minimum of one entire
rainy season following complete tune-up and testing.
The San Francisco System. On September 1, 19 70, the City
of San Francisco awarded a $420,000 contract to Control
System Industries, Santa Clara, California, for a hydrologic
and hydraulic data acquisition and recording system. This
contract resulted in a system involving 30 remote recording
rain gages and 113 (since increased to 120) sewage flow
level monitors all reporting to a Honeywell H-316 mini-
computer (16,384 word core memory) with teletype printout
and magnetic tape recording (2 tape drives) capabilities.
The remote signals are transmitted over leased telephone
lines to the computer located in the Department of Public
Works, Bureau of Engineering offices, at 15-second intervals.
All data is recorded in chronological or time-ordered
sequence for future use on magnetic tape and selected data
is printed out for system performance evaluation and
engineering analyses. The system first became operational
11-31

-------
in March 1971. The data are transferred selectively to a
larger computer system for sorting and analyses (i.e., the
identification of the maximum 5 minute, 10 minute, 15 minute,
etc., rainfall accumulations by gage) and for the production
of SYMAP (a computer plotting program) displays. The SYMAPs
graphically show simultaneous storm intensities, accumulations
in discrete intervals, and the movement of storm cells across
the City. They may be printed on the basis of any repetitive
time period.
The flow depth monitoring within the sewer system is to be
used to develop time varying runoff coefficients, times of
concentration, and fluid flow behavior for each identifiable
storm pattern, drainage basin, and antecedent condition.
From the above, repeated over a great number of storms and
continuously updated, it is intended that a series of
historical response functions be prepared. Finally, based
on the historical response records, a series of predictive
functions will be developed as a control decision base.
Control Devices. Control will be exerted on the San
Francisco system by regulating the withdrawal rates
from the basins. The preliminary sizing of the
retention basins indicates that they will have a
nominal storage capacity of 0.10 inches of runoff
which corresponds to 0.16 inches of rainfall. There
are on the average (based on Federal Office Building
gage) 381 hours of rainfall per year, 27 hours of
which exceed 0.16 inches of rainfall (i.e., would fill
the basins in less than 1 hour if uncontrolled and no
withdrawal). The preliminary withdrawal rates from
each basin will be capable of being adjusted to the
runoff equivalent of between 0.0 and 0.30 inches per
hour of rainfall. The 0.30 inches per hour rainfall
rate for an hour's duration is exceeded on the
average in only 5 hours per year.
The above figures are presented to set the facility
sizes and capacities in real world perspective. It
is recognized that over shorter time frames rainfall
intensities could be considerably greater and that
the one-hour time interval is merely a convenient
but arbitrary time interval. Also, the use of the
Federal Building gage as representative of average
citywide rainfall, while the best available data at
the time if this report, is questionable in light of
the new data being collected. However, the figures
do indicate the high importance and potential of
control.
11-32

-------
The actual control devices would be motor operated
gates upstream of the basins to control the rate of
inflow and bypass and motor operated gates or pumps
controlling the basin dewatering rates. The sum of
the dewatering rates from all basins at any instant,
corrected for transit times and in transit storage,
would equal the storm flow treatment rate. Limit
switches and level recorders would transmit via
leased telephone lines instantaneous status data to
the central management console to identify basin
performance.
Control Logic. The control logic will be developed
over three phases: development, prediction, and real
time control. Using mass balance techniques, and
taking variability of the rainfall into account,
rainfall and runoff data will be sorted and classified
until a significant number of similar experiences can
be grouped for consistency and uniformity of response.
If a degree of consistency can be attained thus per-
mitting storm runoff behavior prediction, then a
problem identification matrix will be developed.
This matrix will initiate real time corrective pro-
cedures in response to the identified storm pattern.
The remote monitoring of the system will permit con-
tinuous comparison of real time status versus pre-
dicted status and corrected system updates where
necessary. Experience alone will set the limits at
which actions are initiated, otherwise a condition
of over-control could easily develop. The goal
throughout is the maximum containment and treatment
of runoff before overflows are allowed, and when
overflows cannot be avoided to permit selection of the
overflow location(s).
Implementation Plan
A 5-year program has been targeted for the development and testing
of the control system concepts and hardware: running approximately
from June 1972 to June 1977. The program is already underway
with the rainfall runoff data collection and analysis now in its
third year. In addition to the major effort being expended by the
City with staff personnel, three contributary projects are of
special significance: The Colorado State assisted studies, the
Pilot Retention Basin project, and the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Urban Water Resources Research Program assistance.
Colorado State University Project. Under a research grant
from the Office of Water Resources Research CSU is developing
control logic for automation of combined sewer systems for
11-33

-------
overflow abatement. Within this study, CSU has pledged a
minimum of 6 months effort for assistance in the San Francisco
Plan. The City has agreed and is supplying CSU with relevant
available data for one catchment area, Vicente Street. The
physical components, control-actuation devices, storm inputs
(approximately 12 storms total), and flow routing are being
simulated on a computer. A matrix of control criteria is to
be investigated and control logic for the most feasible
developed. Responses to system malfunctions and erroneous
signals will be considered.
Pilot Retention Basin Project. The objectives and scope of
this project were discussed in the previous section. Of
particular benefit to the Central Management Plan will be
the expansion and real time testing of the data base and
control logic. Delays in undertaking the project will
significantly set back the implementation plan schedule.
ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program Assistance.
ASCE, under its contract with the Office of Water Resources
Research to "facilitate research on rainfall runoff quality
of sewered urban catchments," has pledged a minimum of 2
man-months of effort to the project. This provides a broadly
researched and highly professional input to the project and
effects the liaison between the City and CSU project personnel.
Comparisons with Other Cities. No city has yet demonstrated
a program of automated real-time control of wet weather flow
management. The two most advanced systems reviewed are
those at Seattle and Minneapolis-St. Paul. The Seattle
system has been operated under remote supervisory control
(system status displayed at a central control facility
where decisions are made by an observer and controls
implemented) since April 1972. The first attempts at hands-
off computer control will be made this spring, 6 years after
the project initiation. The Minneapolis-St. Paul system
similarly has been operated under supervisory control since
April 1969 with the intent of eventual fully automated
control. A mathematical model of the interceptor system
has been developed and is used for the supervisors' guidance,
but the additional step of automated decision-making has not
been fully implemented.
CHRONOLOGY OF MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT
In December 1967, the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region adopted a resolution requiring
the City and County of San Francisco to submit a Sewerage Master
11-34

-------
Plan. Initial approval of the concept of Stage I was made by the
Board of Supervisors, on July 2, 1973. The following chronology
details the significant actions by the City and regulatory agencies
in the development of the San Francisco Master Plan for Wastewater
Management.
January 19, 1967. Regional Water Quality Control Board
adopted Resolution No. 67-2 prescribing requirements for
wet and dry weather discharges from the Richmond-Sunset
Plant and Zone.
December 21, 1967. Regional Water Quality Control Board
adopted Resolution No. 67-64 calling for the San Francisco
Board of Supervisors to adopt a sewerage Master Plan by
June 1, 1971.
February 2, 1968. San Francisco Board of Supervisors
adopted Resolution No. 6 8-68 approving RWQCB Resolution
No. 67-64.
October 28, 1968. San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Resolution No. 716-68 declared intents to comply with
RWQCB requirements in accordance with the following
schedule:
1.	Dry weather requirements on or about July 1, 1975.
2.	Wet weather requirements for those Bay and Ocean
waters westerly of Pier 45, on or about July 1, 1981.
3.	Appropriate wet weather requirements for those Bay
waters easterly of Pier 4 5 which are mutually agreed
to be water contact sports area at dates to be
established.
October 30, 1968. RWQCB acknowledged San Francisco
Resolution No. 716-68.
September 25, 1969. RWQCB adopted Resolutions No. 69-4 3
and No. 69-44 prescribing requirements for dry and wet
weather discharges from the North Point and Southeast
plants.
October 23, 1969. RWQCB adopted Orders No. 69-52 and
No. 69-53, orders to cease and desist from violations
of requirements contained in Resolutions No. 69-4 3 and
69-44.
January 29, 1970. RWQCB adopted Resolutions No. 70-2
and 70-3 prescribing discharge requirements for wet
weather discharge structures in San Francisco's North
Point and Southeast sewerage zones, respectively.
TT —

-------
March 14, 19 70. SWRCB adopted Order 70-1, a building
permit ban for a majority of the Southeast area of San
Francisco and on March 26, 1970 by Resolution No. 70-18
the building ban was expanded to downtown and the
majority of the remainder of San Francisco.
May 19, 1970. RWQCB by Resolution No. 70-42 lifted the
San Francisco building ban.
December 1970. Design of NPWPCP outfall initiated with
Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers performing design.
June 17, 1971. RWQCB adopted Interim Water Quality
Control Plan - San Francisco Bay Basin.
July 13, 1971. Federal government adopted requirement
requiring 85 percent removal of 5-day BOD, with a
possible waiver for Ocean discharges.
September 1971. San Francisco Master Plan for Waste
Water Management distributed.
September 15, 1971. First hearing of the Master Plan
before a joint committee meeting, Health and Finance, of
the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Action tabled
for a review of the report.
November 30, 1971. Project Report for 1971-72, Dry
Weather Wastewater Treatment and Ocean Discharge,
submitted to SWRCB recommending level II treatment for
all dry weather flows and Ocean discharge.
December 31, 1971 and January 3, 1972. EPA representatives
met with City staff to solicit a grant application for
demonstration of upstream retention basins.
January 26, 19 72. City formally requested a waiver of
the 85 percent BOD requirement for the NPWPCP discharge.
February 3, 19 72. SWRCB modified 1971-72 Project List
to allow the City to study alternative projects for the
NPWPCP, Ocean or Bay discharge.
February 19 72. Master Plan presented to members of San
Francisco Capital Improvement Advisory Committee.
March 1, 19 72. Master Plan presented to the members of
San Francisco's Interdepartment Committee on Water
Pollution Control.
TT-'-ifi

-------
March 10, 1972. Grant Application for upstream retention
basins submitted to EPA.
March 18, 1972. The Board of Supervisors' joint committee,
Health and Finance, held a second hearing during which
the Master Plan was referred to City Planning and Recreation
and Park Departments for their review.
March 19, 1972. Master Plan presented to the Recreation
and Park Commission, who formed a review committee.
April 21, 1972. Waiver for NPWPCP outfall for 85 percent
BOD removal denied by EPA.
April 28, 1972. Dry Weather program project application
sent to SWRCB. First level treatment and Ocean disposal
contemplated.
May 15, 1972. Environmental Protection Agency notified
City that it was withholding grant funds until a City
Plan for sewage treatment was approved by the RWQCB.
June 28, 1972. San Francisco presented a recommended
Dry Weather Plan at a RWQCB hearing on the Interim Basin
Plan.
June 29, 1972. EIS and Project Report sent to SWRCB.
Recommended project included level II treatment for
NP and SE combined, abandoning NP site, and Ocean
discharge of NP-SE-RS waste.
July 6, 1972. State Water Resources Control Board
adopted a Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters.
July 11, 1972. SWRCB certified Phase I of dry weather
program, including NP to SE transport and solids
handling improvements at SE.
July 13, 1972. City Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 6877 approving basic concepts of
Master Plan for Wastewater Management.
August 22, 1972. J. B. Gilbert & Associates appointed
to review Master Plan for Wastewater Management.
11-37

-------
August 1972. Army Corps of Engineers released infor-
mation bulletin on 'Triple S' study (San Francisco Bay
and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Water Quality and Waste
Disposal Investigation). Four of five schemes included
single wet and dry weather treatment plant at Lake Merced
site.
August 30, 19 72. City revised EIS to reflect review
of the Department of Fish and Game submitted to SWRCB.
October 5, 1972. Contract with State for construction
grants signed by City.
October 18, 19 72. Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 passed over Presidential Veto.
October 26, 1972. RWQCB adopted Orders No. 72-90 and
No. 72-91 requiring the City to cease and desist from
discharging wastes contrary to requirements prescribed
by Resolutions No. 69-4 3 and No. 69-44 and included a
detailed time schedule for compliance.
October 30, 1972. Grant Contract with State modified
to include wet weather program submission to SWRCB.
December 4, 1972. City submitted to the RWQCB the
anticipated 5-year project needs for updating and
extending the Municipal Project Lists 1973-78.
December 4, 1972. RWQCB tentatively designated areas
of biological significance. Seal Rocks are included.
December 13, 19 72. SWRCB amended grant contract with
City to separate Phase I into two portions. Solids
handling portion is approved. Transport portion is
being held by EPA pending EPA completion of EIS.
December 14, 1972. Recreation & Park Commission adopts
Resolution No. 9204 approving in principle the Master
Plan for Wastewater Management.
11-38

-------
December 19, 1972. AB 740 signed into law. Bill made
Porter-Cologne Act consistent with 19 72 Federal Amend-
ments and established State grant percent contribution
of 12^5 percent.
December 19, 1972. RWQCB presented tentative objectives
for San Francisco Bay Basin Plan.
December 26, 1972. Board of Supervisors adopted
resolution establishing a citizens committee for public
participation in wastewater project evaluation and
continuing review of the Master Plan concepts.
January 4, 1973. SWRCB adopted 1972-73 priority list
for grant funding due to lack of funds to finance all
proposed State projects.
January 11, 1973. RWQCB adopted Orders No. 73-1 and
73-2 amending Cease and Desist Orders for the North
Point and Southeast plants.
January 30, 1973. Board of Supervisors adopted a
resolution agreeing to time schedules in RWQCB
Resolutions No. 73-1 and 7 3-2 for both interim and
future facilities.
February 1, 1973. EPA rejected upstream retention basin
grant application due to lack of funds.
March 19 73. J. B. Gilbert & Associates submitted its
"Evaluation, San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan"
recommending a staged program of implementation.
May 15, 19 73. City published Supplement I to its
Master Plan which included J. B. Gilbert & Associates'
recommendations.
June 26, 1973. RWQCB adopted Order No. 7 3-35 which required
the City to cease and desist violations of Resolution
No. 67-2 in accordance with a detailed time schedule.
July 2, 1973. Board of Supervisors adopted the concept
of Stage I of the Master Plan for Wastewater Management.
September 25, 1973. RWQCB adopted Order No. 73-54
amending Order No. 7 3-35 requiring completion of
Phase I by September 1977.
November 2, 1973. City initiated its Draft Wastewater
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report.
11-39

-------
CHAPTER III
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS
WATER QUALITY
As stated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, it is the national goal that the
discharge of pollutants into navigable water be eliminated
by 1985, and that, as an interim goal, whenever attainable
there be achieved by July 1, 1983, water quality which
provides for the protection and propagation of fish,
shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and
on the water. The 19 83 goal is an objective which carries
with it specific enforcement mechanisms, while the 19 85
goal is an ideal toward which Congress intended the Country
to strive.
Near the end of 1972, the California Legislature passed
Assembly Bill 740 which amended the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act (the basic law governing water pollu-
tion control in California) to provide compliance with
national legislation. Consequently, California's goals
with respect to water quality are similar to the national
goals. To reach these goals, it will be necessary that all
waste discharges be of a specified, improved quality before
their release from point sources to the receiving waters
or, in some cases, that the discharges be prohibited.
The San Francisco Master Plan for Wastewater Management
was developed with these goals as its primary objective
which is expressed in the following priorities:
Priority A—Protection of Aquatic Life
(Aquatic life must be protected by reducing the
discharge of toxic substances, biostimulants, and
pathogens.)
1.	Continuous waste discharges fully within the
Bay should receive secondary treatment (combined
North Point and Southeast discharge).
2.	Continuous waste discharges to the Ocean should
receive secondary treatment (Richmond-Sunset
discharge).
3.	Continuous waste discharges to the Bay should
be eliminated (combined North Point and Southeast
discharge).
III-l

-------
Priority B—Recreation and Aesthetic Enhancement
(Shoreline waters and beaches must be free of fecal
material, grease, and pathogens and waste fields
must not be unsightly.)
1.	Intermittent bypassing of untreated wastes that
affect North area beaches should be eliminated.
2.	Intermittent bypassing of untreated wastes that
affect the Ocean beaches should be eliminated.
3.	Intermittent bypassing of untreated wastes that
affect the East Shore area should be eliminated.
4.	All waste discharges to the Bay should be
eliminated to the extent feasible.
AESTHETICS
In developing a project as large as the Master Plan, it is
extremely important to consider its aesthetic impacts.
Therefore, the Master Plan facilities are planned to be
developed in accordance with the following guidelines:
1.	All facilities should be architecturally
designed and landscaped to blend harmoniously
with existing improvements and surrounding
neighborhoods.
2.	All structures should be of low profile where
practical.
3.	All construction areas should be restored to
their original condition to the extent feasible.
4.	All facilities should be designed to adequately
control odor producing substances.
LAND USE
The Master Plan is based on some of the more important land
use considerations including:
1.	Land such as in Golden Gate Park and the north
waterfront area should be released from waste-
water treatment uses.
2.	New and replacement facilities should be con-
structed as multipurpose use facilities where
practical.
III-2

-------
3.	Open space land should not be considered for
facility sites purely on the availability or
price of the land, but on the values of its
present and projected uses.
4.	The facilities should be designed for flexibility
to accommodate changes in land use.
GROWTH FACTORS
To assure that the program is capable of adapting to changes
in growth patterns without incurring significant financial
loss, the Master Plan facilities are planned to be developed
within the following guidelines:
1.	Be capable of being an element of, and compatible
with, any Bay Area regional wastewater management
plan.
2.	Be capable of accepting wastewater flows from
other dischargers, especially those in San Mateo
County.
3.	Be capable of accommodating changes in growth
patterns within the City of San Francisco.
AIR QUALITY
Although prevailing winds give San Francisco unusually pure
air, the Bay Area has one of the more serious air quality
problems in the nation. Existing and anticipated air quality
control programs of the Environmental Protection Agency
and the San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution Control District
will affect San Francisco since the City contributes to
regional problems. The Wastewater Master Plan will be
designed in accordance with these programs.
IMPLEMENTATION
The Master Plan should be implemented as rapidly as possible
in accordance with the following guidelines:
1. The Master Plan should provide secondary treat-
ment for all dry weather flows prior to 19 78
(regulatory restriction).
Ill-3

-------
2.	The Master Plan should provide early control
of wet weather overflows in the north shore
and Ocean beach areas.
3.	The expenditure of funds necessary for
implementation should not affect the City's
capability to provide other necessary public
works and recreational facilities.
III-4

-------
PART II
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

-------
PART II - WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAPTER IV - ALTERNATIVES
With its extreme variation in topography and high exposure
to ocean storms, considerable variation exists in rainfall
intensities across the City at any time during a storm.
This concept is extremely important in developing the
Master Plan as the optimum sizing of all facilities is
dependent upon this variability in rainfall intensities.
Recognizing this, the City initiated two programs to develop
reliable rainfall-runoff relationships for the optimum
design of a wet weather overflow control system. Toward
these ends, the City, in 1969, initiated a rainfall
monitoring network which now consists of 30 rain gauges	/
throughout the City (approximately one gauge per l*s square /
miles). Augmenting the rainfall gauges was a companion /
network of 120 flow measuring devices at critical points '
in the collection system.
The data collected at these 150 monitoring stations are
telemetered to a small computer which is capable of producing
raw data records, five-minute summary records, and one-hour
summary records depicting the status of the system at any
given time. This information describes the specific rainfall-
runoff relationships of major drainage and sub-drainage
areas and will be utilized to provide the basis for the
final design of the selected Master Plan. Ultimately, the
data collected by this system, together with various control
devices, will be used to manage the wastewater system during
rainfall occurrences.
This system provided the basic data upon which the Master
Plan was developed. During the development of the "San
Francisco Master Plan for Wastewater Management" many
concepts of wastewater management were considered. Among
those concepts considered were: no project, individual
treatment plants at each of the 41 overflow structures,
expanding the three existing treatment plants, one regional
plant, reclamation, a combination of storage and treatment,
and separating the sewer system. Not all of these concepts
may be considered viable solutions (e.g., the concept of
no project is certainly not a viable solution to the City's
wastewater problems). Solutions of this nature were con-
sidered for comparison purposes only. Brief descriptions
of these concepts are presented in the following sections.
IV-1

-------
NO PROJECT
During dry periods all wastewater in the combined sewer
system is collected and treated at three separate treat-
ment facilities. However, when it rains, untreated
wastewater is discharged from the collection system at
41 overflow structures located along the periphery of the
City.
The average removal efficiency of the three separate
treatment facilities, which were explained in detail in
Chapter II, is presented in Table IV-1.
TABLE IV-1
EXISTING TREATMENT EFFICIENCIES
Parameter
North Point
Richmond-Sunset
Southeast
Effluent % Re-
mg/1 moval
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
Suspended
Solids
102
46
47
74
Effluent % Re-
mg/1 moval
138
72
32
51
Effluent % Re-
mg/1 moval
82
50
56
78
In each case, the effluent quality and treatment efficiency
is superior to that of conventional primary treatment; however,
neither the effluent qualities nor the treatment efficiencies
are adequate to meet the present State requirements or pro-
visions of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Compliance with those regulations, which require at least
85% removal efficiencies for BOD and suspended solids, can
be achieved only by major capital expenditures for new
secondary treatment facilities. If the no project concept
were implemented, there would be continued violations of
waste discharge requirements and water quality objectives
of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region, the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
IV-2

-------
This is not acceptable to the City since the State and
Regional Boards would initiate formal enforcement actions
by issuing the City "building bans" and cease and desist
orders.
Advantages to the no project concept are: no capital costs,
no disruption to the community caused by construction of
new facilities, and no need for additional land. However,
the environmental disadvantages were considered to greatly
outweigh the advantages.
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANTS
As previously discussed, during periods of rainfall exceeding
0.02 inches per hour in each watershed, untreated waste-
water is discharged from the collection system at 1 or more
of the 41 overflow structures located on the periphery of
the City. Therefore, separate treatment facilities for
wastewaters bypassed during storms at the 41 overflow
structures, or at some consolidation of those sites, were
considered.
The costs to achieve an acceptable level of control for
the individual treatment plants concept is estimated at
three billion dollars. The high cost is primarily due to
the large number of separate treatment facilities located
throughout the City. Reliability of operation would be
inadequate due to the seasonal use, long periods of shut-
down, and need to "come on line" almost immediately at
very high flow rates because of the high runoff rates.
High rate treatment systems for removal of floatables,
solids, and pathogens have not yet been fully developed to
provide an effluent of suitable quality for discharge around
the periphery of San Francisco.
However, in October 1970, the City and County of San Francisco
completed the construction of the 24-mgd dissolved air
flotation plant at the Outer Marina Beach for treatment of
wet weather overflows. The effectiveness of this plant
has not been determined to date due to initial startup
problems at the facility and unforeseen hydraulic conditions
in the sewerage system and bypass structure tributary to
the plant. Engineering Science, Inc., under contract to
the City, is still in the process of evaluating the effective-
ness of this facility.
Even if this high rate treatment system proves effective,
the environmental protection for this concept probably would
not be suitable by today's standards due to the continued
Bay discharges.
IV-3

-------
EXPAND THREE EXISTING PLANTS
There are three distinct watersheds within the City and
County of San Francisco—Richmond-Sunset, North Point,
and Southeast. In addition, the City presently operates
separate treatment facilities within each watershed.
Therefore, a logical apparent concept would be to expand
the existing three plants in capacity to enable the treat-
ment of all wet weather flows. It would also be necessary
to provide at least secondary treatment facilities and
new deep water outfalls at all three plants.
This concept was rejected for further analysis because of
the high capital cost (greater than $1 billion excluding
collection system modifications). In addition, two major
discharges to the Bay would be continued which would be
less environmentally desirable than Ocean discharge.
Furthermore, local sites, particularly at Richmond-Sunset
and North Point, are not conducive to major expansion as
required by this concept due to land availability.
ONE PLANT WITHOUT WET WEATHER STORAGE
The concept of one treatment facility without wet weather
storage was also considered. The necessary hydraulic
capacity of the plant would be about 16 billion gallons
per day which is approximately 50 times greater than the
combined capacity of the three existing plants. Evaluation
of this concept indicates that to provide this much
treatment capacity would be too costly ($2.0 billion for
plant only) and would be impractical from an operational
point of view since flows would increase up to 50 times
during storm periods.
STORAGE/TREATMENT
Another alternative would be to provide sufficient storage
to control wet weather overflows up to some selected rain-
fall design occurrence. The City investigated this concept;
however, it was found to be too costly when using only the
existing treatment capacity.
Therefore, the City investigated the concept of providing
a combination of storage and increased treatment capacity
to limit uncontrolled wet weather overflows to a design
frequency. It was concluded that the proper design balance
point is to"provide a maximum 6f~T7000 mgd of treatment
"capacity and~nine million cubTcTTeeTt: or storage which ls
IV-4

-------
the Master Plan concept. The results of the evaluation
that led to this conclusion are illustrated in the Master
Plan report and the Master Plan is described in detail
in Chapter V.
SEWER SEPARATION
During storms when rainfall intensity exceeds 0.02 inches
per hour (70 percent of all storm time), the City's
combined sewer system overflows a mixture of sewage and
stormwater to the Bay and/or Ocean without any treatment.
The combined waste contains varying amounts of human fecal
material and grease solids. When bypassing occurs,
these materials can be found in nearshore waters and on
the beaches.
A solution to this problem would be to construct separate
storm and sanitary sewers throughout the City. Separation
of sewers would cost about $3 billion and result in major
disruption throughout the City for many years. The water
quality benefits which could be achieved by separation
would be questionable since some type of stormwater treat-
ment system might be necessary, due to the pollutants in
the highly urban stormwaters.
RECLAMATION
San Francisco Bay Area communities are currently dependent
on imported water supplies as much of the area's water is
derived from development of water supplies in the high
Sierra-Nevada Mountains. The waters imported from those
sources are passed through the water distribution system,
used, collected, and discharged to saline waters. This
type of once-through water use is equivalent to total con-
sumption of the water supply as opposed to upstream uses
with discharges back to fresh water streams or to ground-
water where the wastewater can be reused or, in the case
of stream discharges, serve as a fresh water source for
the estuary.
The Bay Area's need for fresh water will continue to
increase in the future. These needs can be met by develop-
ment of new sources of fresh water such as; construction
of reservoirs, reclamation of existing wastewater sources,
desalination of ocean water, or conservation of existing
supplies.
IV-5

-------
Development of additional supplies by construction of
reservoirs is limited by the lack of economical sites,
the desire to retain some streams in their natural state,
and a fuller understanding of the impact of dams and
diversions on the environment. Desalination will not
become economically attractive until a relatively cheap
source of energy is found. The cost of operating a 10-mgd
desalination facility is about $1.2 million per year plus
the cost of any necessary pretreatment.
Increased treatment of wastewater required prior to
discharge to the environment and increased difficulty of
developing new water sources are making wastewater
reclamation for some uses more economically feasible.
Therefore, reclamation must be considered in any com-
prehensive water resources management program.
A study of the potential for reclamation of San Francisco
wastewater is included as Appendix 1 of this report.
The findings of that study are summarized in the following
paragraphs.
Potential Uses of Reclaimed San Francisco Wastewater
There are numerous potential uses of reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater. Some of the more likely uses are for landscape
irrigation, salinity control, and agricultural irrigation.
Local Landscape Irrigation. It appears feasible
to produce a limited amount of reclaimed water
at the proposed Southwest treatment plant site
for use at The Olympic Club, Harding Park, and Lake
Merced golf courses and at the Richmond-Sunset
Plant for use in Golden Gate Park. Reclaimed
water can be produced at these two sites at very
competitive rates assuming that secondary effluent
from the Richmond-Sunset Plant would be the source
of supply for the reclamation facilities.
After the Phase I Master Plan facilities are
completed, it appears feasible to construct a
4.0 mgd advanced waste treatment facility (rapid
sand filtration and disinfection) at the Richmond-
Sunset plant. The reclaimed water could be used
for irrigation purposes within Golden Gate Park.
The unit cost of reclaimed water for this alterna-
tive would be about 170/1000 gallons as compared
to 250/1000 gallons of existing irrigation water.
IV-6

-------
It also appears feasible to construct a 1.0 mgd
advanced waste treatment facility (rapid sand
filtration and disinfection) at the proposed
Southwest treatment plant site. The source of
water for this facility would be the effluent line
from the Richmond-Sunset plant. The reclaimed water
produced by this facility could be used for irriga-
tion of The Olympic Club, Harding Park, and Lake
Merced golf courses. The unit cost of the reclaimed
water would be about 22C/1000 gallons.
Salinity Control. The Department of Water
Resources and State Water Resources Control Board
have initiated a San Francisco Bay Area Wastewater
Reclamation Study to determine the feasibility of
intercepting and reclaiming treated Bay Area
wastewater for transport and reuse to augment
Delta outflows, either directly or indirectly by
substituting reclaimed water for irrigation and
groundwater recharge demands in the Bay Area or
adjacent areas.
In its September 19, 1973 progress report, the
Interagency Study Group made the following comments;
"The additional water required by the Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project
to meet contracts and future water demands can
be expressed ciil "Si cl. outflow deficiency expected
at the Delta under projected conditions.
"Water with a salinity of 4,000 to 6,000 ppm
of total dissolved solids could be used to meet
this water deficiency by direct augmentation
of Delta outflow at about Chipps Island, with
provision for treatment to avert toxicity and
biostimulation effects in the estuary."
Preliminary results of this study indicate that
reclaimed water could be made available for about
$90 per acre-foot (28C/1000 gallons) for this purpose.
However, if extended treatment (nutrient and toxicity
removal) were required to produce water which would
not create biostimulation and toxicity problems in
the estuary, this unit cost would escalate to approxi-
mately $130 per acre-foot (40^/1000 gallons).
IV-7

-------
Agricultural Irrigation. Irrigated agriculture
is by far the largest user of fresh water in
California. In 1965 for instance, a total of
8,435,000 acres were irrigated in the State
requiring approximately 30,000,000 acre-feet
(about 10,000 billion gallons) of fresh water.
If reclaimed wastewater could be used for this
purpose, it might be possible to release an
equal quantity of fresh water for uses demanding
a higher quality (e.g., domestic uses). However,
the use of reclaimed water for crop irrigation is
not without problems which include seasonal water
use, quality considerations, public acceptance,
and the possibility of cross-connection with the
potable supply.
Two large agricultural areas in relatively close
proximity to the Bay Area are the Delta-Mendota
and San Luis service areas within the San Joaquin
Valley. The projected import water requirements
under the 2015 level of development for these areas
are as follows:
Service Area	Quantity, acre-feet
Delta-Mendota	1,675,000
San Luis	1,279,000
total	2,954,000
As a part of its study, the Interagency Group
investigated the possibility of using reclaimed
Bay Area wastewaters to supplement the imported
supplies for these two areas. Three of the
alternatives studied by this group included
utilization of San Francisco wastewaters. The
unit costs of these three alternatives range from
$108 to $143 per acre-foot (33$ to 44C/1000 gallons).
To date the Interagency Group has not made any
conclusions regarding the feasibility of implementing
any of its alternatives. However, it would appear
that the costs of delivering reclaimed water to the
point of use are very high.
IV-8

-------
Other Possible Uses for Reclaimed Water. Other
possible uses for reclaimed water include municipal
reuse (complete recycle) and industrial cooling.
Municipal reuse in San Francisco and areas to the
south on the Peninsula is not considered feasible
at this time. San Francisco's water supply is
adequate to meet the anticipated needs through
2020, and with reduced population growth rates
that date will likely be extended. Although it
is not desirable by today's standards, it may be
feasible at some later date to blend reclaimed water
with fresh water in or near Crystal Springs Reservoir
for use in the south peninsula area where groundwater
supplies are declining in quality. However, such
reuse would require change in the State Health
Department's policy toward municipal reuse and
development of more economical and reliable treat-
ment systems. It should be pointed out that this
type of municipal reuse has been effectively practiced
at Chanute, Kansas, and Windhoek, South Africa, where
local needs required this approach.
Another possible use of reclaimed water is for cooling
purposes. However, at present there are no power
plants or other major water using industries in
San Francisco where reclaimed water could be used
for cooling purposes. The existing power plants in
San Francisco utilize once-through Bay cooling water
systems which would have to be converted before
reclaimed water could be used for cooling purposes.
Throughout the Bay area, wastes generated locally
exceed the local reuse potential. Therefore, trans-
portation of San Francisco waste to another area near
the Bay for reuse would eliminate the more economical
alternative of reuse of locally generated wastes.
Wastewater Reclamation Potential Summary. The most
promising potential market for reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater is for landscape irrigation within Golden
Gate Park and the three golf courses near Lake Merced—
The Olympic Club, Harding Park, and Lake Merced. A
summary of these and other uses of reclaimed wastewater
is presented in Table IV-2.
IV-9

-------
TABLE IV-2
SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL FOR USING
RECLAIMED SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER
Reclamation Program
Golden Gate Park
Irrigation
Golf Course
Irrigation
Delta Salinity
Gontrol
Agricultural Use
Delta-Merxtota
Service Area
Quantity
(mgd)
1.0
4.0
1.0
Total dry
weather
Total dry
vreather
Possible
Year of
Implemen-
tation
existing
1980
1980
2000
2000
Other
Responsible
Agencies
none
none
Owners of
individual
golf courses
USBR5
DWR6
USBR
DWR
Oost
C/1000 gal
30
17
22
28-40
Current Cost
Cheapest
Alternative
C/1000 gal
251
251
251
33
Regulatory Constraints
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Restrictive toxicity and
biostimulation requirements
Possible health restrictions
due to intermittent cross-
connection
San Luis
Service Area
Groundwater Recharge
Santa Clara Valley
Industrial Use
Direct Reuse
Ttotal dry
weather
90
Ibtal dry
weather
2000	USBR
Pro-
hibited
Pro-
hibited
Not possible
44
Santa Clara Not calculated
CFC&WD,7 DWR due to regula- 103
tory constraints
Industrial
users	Same as above 1.5
25
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Presently prohibited by State
Department of Health
Subsequent toxicity and
biostimulation requirements
Prohibited by State
Department of Health
1Cost of San Francisco water to large users.
2Existing oost of Delta-Mendota Canal water; if new supplies were developed this cost could double or triple.
3Cost of South Bay Aqueduct water (Reference 2).
''Cost for punping brackish water.
5United States Bureau of Reclamation
6Department of Water Resources
7Santa Clara Oounty Flood Control and Water District

-------
Effect of Reclamation on the Master Plan. It appears
that the most economical method of producing reclaimed
water for landscape irrigation would be to provide
advanced waste treatment facilities (rapid sand
filtration and disinfection) at the Richmond-Sunset
and Southwest plant sites that would utilize secondary
effluent from the Richmond-Sunset plant as their
source of supply. However, the total seasonal demand
for these uses is only 5.0 million gallons per day,
compared to a total average dry weather waste flow of
125 mgd. Therefore, reclamation for local uses would
not have any effect on the size, location, or type
of facilities as envisioned in the Master Plan.
The San Francisco Bay Area Interagency Wastewater
Reclamation Study investigated the feasibility of
aggregating wastewaters within the Bay Area, providing
some form of extended treatment, and producing reclaimed
water that would be direct input into the Delta channels
at Chipps Island to repel salinity, into the Delta
Mendota Canal to serve irrigation demands in the Delta
Mendota service area, and into a proposed canal to
serve irrigation needs in the San Luis service area.
The basic assumption in all the Interagency Study
alternatives was that the San Francisco Wastewater
Master Plan had already been implemented and that the
effluents of the Richmond-Sunset and Southeast plants
were combined at the Southwest plant site. It should
be pointed out, however, that all these alternatives
were based on average daily dry weather flow conditions
of 125 mgd since the irrigation demands are seasonal.
Therefore, the need of the 1,000 mgd wet weather treat-
ment facility would still exist even if one of the
Interagency alternatives were implemented. In fact,
all the facilities envisioned in the Master Plan would
be required whether or not large-scale reclamation
projects were implemented.
In summary, it appears that reclamation, either through
large-scale export of wastes or small-scale local use,
has no effect on the Master Plan with respect to the
size, location, or type of facilities proposed.
IV-11

-------
CHAPTER V
THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
The Wastewater Master Plan is designed to provide a given mea-
sure of control of the combined sanitary sewage and stormwater
runoff collected in the City's system. Sanitary sewage has a
relatively constant flow rate throughout bhe year. Stormwater
runoff, which occurs at infrequent intervals and highly vari-
able flow rates, increases flows in localized areas by approxi-
mately an order of magnitude during nearly half of the storms.
This can be illustrated as follows:
Average daily flow of sanitary sewage from San
Francisco is approximately equivalent to runoff
which would be produced by a rainfall of 0.01
inches per hour occuring simultaneously over
the entire City. In contrast, 94 percent of
the rain, considering the Federal Office Build-
ing gage as representative of intensity, occurs
at a rate greater than 0.01 inches per hour,
and 50 percent of the rain fell at a rate nine
times greater than the rainfall equivalent of
sanitary flow. However, on an annual basis
mors flow is contributed by the sanitary flow.
Daring an average year an estimated SI percent
of the total wastewater is sanitary sewage,
while 19 percent is stormwater runoff.
Most of the wastewater is of sanitary sewage origin and is dis-
charged during dry weather periods at a relatively constant
rate. During rains the waste characteristics vary greatly and
normally consist of much higher proportions of stormwater than
sanitary sewage. Since San Francisco has a combined sev/er sys-
tem, the flow pattern is a steady, fairly predictable bass flow
with a superimposed highly variable series of surge flows which
occur during a very small percentage of the year. This flow
pattern presents numerous problems in the development of an ef-
fective system for transportation, treatment, and disposal.
Deleterious material contained in the sanitary and combined
wastes which can affect the Ocean and Bay environments include:
Material that is floatable or will become floatable
upon discharge.
. Settleable material or substances that form sedi-
ments which degrade benthic communities and other
aquatic life.
V-l

-------
Substances toxic to aquatic life due to increases
in concentrations in water or sediments.
Substances that significantly decrease the natural
light available to benthic communities and other
aquatic life.
Materials that result in aesthetically undesirable
discoloration of the water surface.
Substances that upon discharge result in reduction
of dissolved oxygen concentrations and subsequent
harm to aquatic life.
Substances which serve as nutrients for certain
aquatic microorganisms thereby stimulating eutro-
phication of receiving waters.
Disease-causing organisms or indicator organisms
which represent a real or potential health hazard.
Pollutants contained in San Francisco's wastewaters from sani-
tary sources and from stormwater runoff have similar character-
istics. More specifically, the quality is sufficiently similar
that the effects of these wastes on the receiving waters are
more dependent on flow patterns than on differences in waste-
water quality. As in the case of total flow the major source
of annual pollutant mass emissions is the continuous discharge
of sanitary sewage. During periods of stormwater runoff the
mass emission rates for pollutants is far higher than during
dry weather; for some parameters, dramatically higher. However,
the short duration limits the impact of these high rate emissions
of pollutants.
Differing control methods may be most effective in handling the
constant sanitary flows and the variable storm flows. Histori-
cally, sanitary flows have been collected and treated to reduce
emissions of pollutants and contamination problems while during
storm runoff the wastewater that could not be treated was con-
veyed to the nearest receiving water for discharge. Treatment
of these variable storm flows was not considered practical or
necessary.
In San Francisco when flows exceed that which can be transported
and treated they are discharged at 41 bypass locations scattered
around the entire perimeter of the City. The result of these
discharges is that the nearshore waters surrounding the entire
city are polluted to a degree where beaches are aesthetically
objectionable and waters are not acceptable for swimming for a
significant number of fall, spring, and winter days. These
problems are directly related to the wastewater discharge qual-
ity and quantity and the location of discharge points.
¥-2

-------
Solution of the problem, theoretically, can be achieved by
treatment of all wastes, by collecting these wastewaters and
discharging at a more suitable location, or by various combin-
ations of these alternatives.
The major water quality problems associated with the dry weather
sanitary discharges are related to the constant emission of po-
tentially environmentally hazardous pollutants. Reduction of
pollution load and impact on receiving waters can be achieved
only by upgraded treatment and careful location of discharge
points to minimize concentrations in receiving waters. In San
Francisco, the option is available to discharge to the Ocean or
the Bay. Protection of the Ocean environment generally requires
a lower level treatment than is necessary to protect the Bay.
Emphasis for dry weather control should be directed at both re-
ducing mass emissions and discharging at the optimum available
location.
The Master Plan concept incorporates collection, storage, trans-
portation, treatment, and disposal into one overall system de-
signed to achieve the most cost-effective control of all waste-
waters. Available information is sufficient to proceed with
final design of some elements of the Plan; however, additional
information is necessary and is being developed to permit neces-
sary refinements of other elements.
GOAIS OF THE MASTER PLAN
The Wastewater Master Plan was developed to implement the follow-
ing goals:
"That the treated waste be discharged to the Bay
or Ocean through properly designed outfalls so
as to have no adverse effect on marine life, the
water, or beaches.
"That treatment rate can be varied to meet spe-
cial flow or available dilution changes.
"That there be flexibility to meet changing water
quality requirements and needs for reclaimed
wastewater and a 'building block' concept is in-
cluded to minimize premature abandonments due to
changing plans.
"That direction of the City Planning Commission,
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission,
and other agencies be reflected to avoid adverse
effects on the future development of San
Francisco, particularly waterfront or water
areas and that use of valuable property for treat-
ment facilities be avoided.
V-3

-------
"That valuable land such as Golden Gate Park and
the north waterfront area be released from sew-
age treatment use as replacement facilities
with multi-use potential are constructed in
more appropriate locations.
"That financing of the Plan implementation be
feasible and recognize increasing maintenance
and operation costs and the time-span relating
to San Francisco financing alone or being expe-
dited by Federal and State funding.
"That a cost-benefit relationship be included so
that policy on the degree of wet weather treat-
ment can be established.
"That immediate upgrading of the effluents from
the treatment plants can be undertaken,
"That substantial reduction in flooding of City
streets can be obtained.
"That the degradation of receiving waters by com-
bined overflow be substantially reduced.
"That a viable industrial waste program be pro-
vided to control toxic discharges at the source
with supplemental treatment as necessary and
technically feasible.
"That there be long-range capability for the con-
solidation of the three treatment plants into
one plant.
"That an undue investment in facilities need not
be prematurely abandoned if it proves necessary
in the next century to prohibit all discharges
to the Bay.
"That there be capability to effectuate an agree-
ment for San Francisco to accept effluent from
agencies in northern San Mateo County to facili-
tate a regional consolidation plan.
"That there be compatibility with the anticipated
Bay area regional sewerage plan.
"That there be capability of conversion to rail
transport of solids (dried sludge) in the event
a local or regional rail haul plan for solid
waste is implemented.
"That advantage be taken of the City's hilly to-
pography for underground storm storage.
V-4

-------
"That there be direction toward a central control
system so that dry weather flow, wet weather
flow, and street drainage can be managed with
high-speed decisions on assignments of flow in-
crements to varying transport and treatment fa-
cilities to make the maximum use of available
capacity with changing storm patterns,"
PROPOSED MASTER PLAN CONCEPT
The general concept of the Master Plan is that there exists a
combination of transport, storage, treatment, control, and dis-
posal location which most effectively reduces the detrimental
effects of waste discharges from the City. Specific components
of the ultimate wastewater system contained in the Master Plan
are as follows:
. A system of rain gages to monitor a storm con-
tinuously as it approaches and traverses the
City.
Continued utilization of combined sanitary and
storm sewers throughout the City.
Consolidation of the existing 41 overflows to
15 shoreline collection points and construction
of retention basins at those points. These
basins will receive waste from upstream areas,
store, and release flows at controlled rates.
Wastes from the 15 shoreline basins are released
into either the crosstown tunnel or the ocean
side transport pipeline.
Upstream retention basins within most of the 15
major watersheds. These basins will permit
regulation of flows to downstream sewers and the
15 shoreline retention basins.
. A crosstown tunnel beginning in the North Point
region, extending south into the Southeast drain-
age area, then turning west to the Lake Merced
area. The tunnel will transport all storm and
sanitary waste from the north and east portions
of the City to the Lake Merced area.
. A major pipeline or tunnel from the southern
Presidio boundary south to the Lake Merced area.
This line will transport all waste from the west
side of San Francisco to the Southwest Treatment
Plant near Lake Merced.
Regional storage facilities associated with the
crosstown tunnel to further control flows.
V-5

-------
An all-weather treatment plant (Southwest Treat-
ment Plant) near Lake Merced for sanitary and
storm flows designed to operate with split-flow
alternative treatment levels depending upon
plant inflow.
A dual-purpose ocean outfall designed to trans-
port dry weather flows four miles and storm flows
two miles into the Ocean.
One central computer-operated control system to
characterize storms and regulate withdrawal rates
from all retention basins.
The major physical features of the proposed long-range system
are shown on Figure V-l. At the present level of design data,
the Southwest Treatment Plant is to serve a maximum flow of
1,000 mgd which is equivalent to runoff from 0.1 inches per
hour of uniform rainfall over the entire City. Citywide stor-
age capacity of 9.0 million cubic feet is also provided. The
capacity of the main transport system is not yet determined
but is presently sized at a rainfall rate of 0.3 inches per
hour from the tributary area with a 1,000 mgd maximum. Maximum
release rates from the individual retention basins cannot be es-
tablished without additional data but are preliminarily sized
to handle runoff from a rainfall rate of 0.3 inches per hour on
the tributary area.
The proposed operation of the completed Master Plan facilities
will be as follows:
Storms will be characterized by a system of rain
gages and wastewater flow meters. Control of
storage utilization, transport rate, and treatment
rate will be based on the spatial and temporal
characteristics of the particular storm. Storm
flows will be stored in retention basins and with-
drawn at selected rates for transport to the South-
west Treatment Plant. However, should both the
storage and transport capacity from any of the 15
drainage basins be exceeded, an untreated overflow
to the Bay or Ocean would occur at that particular
shoreline retention basin. On the average, there
will be 8 such overflows per year.
During the major portion of the year, wastes will
receive secondary treatment at the Southeast and
Richmond-Sunset Plants. These treated effluents
will be transmitted through the tunnel and pipe-
line systems to the Southwest Treatment Plant site
and discharged approximately four miles offshore.
During storm conditions, flows exceeding the capac-
ity of the secondary treatment plants will be trans-
ported to the 1,000 mgd Southwest Treatment Plant
V-6

-------
Figure V-l
MASTER FLAN
NORTH
o zooorr


The complete Master Plan for wastewater management is shown above. Retention basins
(upstream — light blue, shoreline — dark blue) provide storage, control flooding, and allow regulation of
flow to the transportation system (green), During the major portion of the year, wastes will receive
secondary treatment at the Southeast and Richmond-Sunset plants. These treated effluents will be
transmitted through the tunnel and pipeline systems to Lake Merced where they will be discharged
approximately 4 miles offshore. The North Point Plant will be abandoned. During storm conditions, flows
exceeding the capacity of the secondary treatment plants will be transported to a 1000 million-gallon-per-
day capacity treatment plant at Lake Merced, The effluent will be discharged 2 miles offshore. The system
will provide secondary treatment of all waste during a major part of the year and the bypassing of
untreated waste will be virtually eliminated.

-------
where they will undergo advanced primary treat-
ment. This effluent will be discharged about
two miles offshore.
To assure adaptability to various treatment needs, the Southwest
Treatment Plant is designed for easy addition of more advanced
treatment processes if needed.
Staging Program
Regulatory restrictions and time schedules limit control options
and establish certain early high priorities. The primary regu-
latory restriction is secondary treatment of dry weather flows
by July 1, 1977- The next priority is the control of bypasses
in the north shore and Ocean beach areas. In order to comply
with these regulations as rapidly as technically and financially
feasible, the Master Plan will be implemented in accordance with
the following staging program.
Stage I. The Stage I facilities are shown on Figure V-2
and summarized below:
Cost	Estimated
Element	Million Dollars Completion Date
Southeast Plant Solids
Handling	10.0	1/76
Richmond-Sunset Plant
Interim Improvements	0.2	10/73
Southeast & North Point
Interim Improvements	1.4	6/74
Pilot Plant S: Toxicity
Studies	1.7	6/74
Transport System—North
Point to Southeast	25.5	6/78
Southeast Primary Plant
Expansion	24.7	6/77
Secondary Facilities for
SE Flow	18.0	1/79
Secondary Facilities for
NP Flow	36.0	1/80
Richmond-Sunset Level I
(advanced primary) plus
Filtration	13.0	1/77

-------
Element
Cost	Estimated
Million Dollars Completion Date
SE Interim Bay
Outfall	7.0	9/77
Lake Merced 2-Mile
Ocean Outfall	30.0	1/81
Transport System
(Richmond Sunset-
Lake Merced)	24.0	1/81
North Shore Wet Weather
Treatment & Transport
(retention basins in
North Shore and trans-
port to North Point &
Southeast)	41.0	1/83
Total	230.5
Upon completion of these facilities, waste from the North Point
service area will be pumped to the Southeast Treatment Plant which
will provide secondary treatment for dry weather flows from the
North Point and Southeast areas. The effluent will be discharged
to the Bay through an improved outfall. Wet weather waste control
facilities will be constructed to control overflows in the North
shore area. The North Point plant will be converted to a wet
weather facility to treat wastewaters from the area during storm
periods. The Richmond-Sunset wastewater treatment plant will be
improved to provide an effluent quality acceptable for continual
Ocean disposal. Effluent from the Richmond-Sunset plant will be
transmitted to the Lake Merced area for Ocean disposal.
Completion of Stage I facilities will result in compliance with
secondary treatment requirements for all dry weather flows, near
elimination of overflows to important North area beaches (to an
average of less than six overflows per year), and significant re-
duction of overflows to Ocean beaches.
Operation of Stage I facilities, in conjunction with improvements
to other wastewater discharges to the Bay, will result in sub-
stantial improvement of the aquatic environment of the Bay, par-
ticularly in nearshore waters adjacent to San Francisco during
the winter and spring months. Annual number of days in which
bacteriological swimming standards are exceeded will be greatly
reduced. At North shore beaches violations on less than 10 days
per year are expected. Normally these days will occur during
the least desirable periods for swimming and beach recreation.
Also, the aesthetic quality of waters and beaches in the Marina,
Aquatic Park, and Fisherman's Wharf areas should be substantially
improved except during the worst storm conditions.

-------
Figure V-2
FIRST PHASE OF MASTER PLAN
north
NORTH
POINT
RICHMOND
SUNSET
V"
SOUTHEAST
The improvement program designed to achieve early compliance with State and Federal treatment
standards and to reduce overflows in the critical north shore and ocean beach areas is shown in red. Raw
waste from the North Point service area will be pumped to the Southeast Treatment Plant. The Southeast
Plant will provide secondary treatment for the dry weather flows from the North Point and Southeast
areas. The effluent will be discharged to the Bay through an improved outfall. Wet weather waste control
facilities will be constructed to control overflows in the north shore area. The North Point Plant will be
converted to a wet weather facility to treat wastewaters from the area during storm periods. The
Richmond-Sunset wastwater treatment plant will be substantially improved to produce an effluent, quality
acceptable for continued ocean disposal. Effluent from the Richmond-Sunset Plant will be transmitted to
the Lake Merced area for ocean disposal.

-------
Completion of the Master Plan. It is anticipated that
the Master Plan will "be completed in three additional
stages as shown in Figure V-5. Stage II facilities in-
clude the remainder of the west side tunnel and all re-
maining shoreline retention basins together with the up-
stream west side basins. With the completion of this
stage all of the City's shoreline will be afforded some
measure of protection. The estimated cost of Stage II
facilities is $14-9 million.
Stage III facilities include the construction of the cross-
town transport facilities with storage for the west side
areas plus the Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant with
1,000 mgd of wet weather advanced primary treatment. Comple-
tion of this stage will result in further reductions of over-
flows and provide for a treated wet weather discharge to
the Ocean. The estimated cost of Stage III facilities is
$161 million.
Stage IV which represents the final phase of construction
presently contemplated in the Master Plan includes the re-
maining upstream storage basins, the Ocean outfall exten-
sion, and dry weather secondary treatment facilities at
the Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant. The estimated
cost of Stage IV facilities is $131 million.
A summary of estimated costs of the complete Master Plan is
presented below:
Stage I	8231,000,000
Stage II	149,000,000
Stage III	161,000,000
Stage IV	131,000,000
Total $672,000,000
STORAGE
The fundamental purpose of storage in wastewater management is
flow control; that is, to provide a means of moderating the high
flow rate variations associated with rainfall events. This mod-
eration is accomplished by providing a volumetric capacity (a
storage basin) with controlled feed (flow in) and withdrawal
(flow out).
When flows in the sewerage system are too high to be treated di-
rectly, the feed rate to the basins is increased until the demand
ceases or the basin becomes full. When flows in the sewerage sys-
tem are below the treatment capacity, the basins are dewatered in
preparation for the next storm. If high flows continue after a
basin is full, an overflow will occur.
V-ll

-------
FIGURE V- 3
STAGING PROGRAM
STAGE II
149 MILLION
STAGE I
231 MILLION
ABANDON

STAGE III
161 MILLION
STAGE IV
131 MILLION
DO ~
ABANDON

-------
As developed in the Master Plan Report the following design fea-
tures may be associated with each basin or tunnel storage unit:
A means of diverting all sewage flow around the
basin during dry weather periods.
. A crude pretreatment system (baffles and weirs)
to minimize solids and floatables accumulations
within the basin.
A remotely operated rate control on the filling
or bypassing of the basin.
A remotely operated rate control on the dewater-
ing of the basin.
Connection of all drainage areas to a single
treatment plant (the capacity of the existing
interceptors is estimated as equivalent to 0.03
inches per hour of rainfall; whereas the desired
withdrawal rate varies from 0.10 to 0.30 inches
per hour).
The first two features are primarily designed to avoid or mini-
mise odor and maintenance problems. The third and fourth permit
the operational use of the storage units on a total systems basis
and the fifth increases operational flexibility to provide in-
creased relief to areas highly stressed by local cells of intense
rainfall.
Storage Location
The Master Plan concept utilizes a combination of three types of
storage: upstream basins, shoreline basins, and tunnel storage.
The approximate locations of the retention basins, identified by
street intersections are listed on Table V-l.
Upstream Basins—Upstream storage basins have been
employed to relieve surface ponding by reducing peak
flows to inadequate sewers, thus eliminating or re-
ducing their inadequacy. The upstream basins are
located at an elevation that in most cases permits
gravity drainage to the outlet sewer. The storage
volumes and release rates are dependent upon the
areas served and hydraulic capacity of downstream
sewers.
Shoreline Basins—The Master Plan concept includes
shoreline basins at the proposed 15 grouped overflow
points. This grouping effectively reduces the 41
existing overflow points to a manageable number.
Withdrawals from the shoreline basins will be pumped
V-l 3

-------
TABLE V-l
RETENTION BASIN LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS
	DIMENSIONS	
Length Width Depth Volume
APPROXIMATE LOCATION	(ft) (ft) (ft) ft3X 106
RIOMUD-SUNSET
John Muir Drive Punp Station
102
60
18
0.11
Vicente and Great Highway
94
50
30
0.14
Vicente and Sunset Boulevard
196
75
17
0.25
Eucalyptus and Melba
45
75
30
0.10
Wawana and Ulloa
85
50
26
0.11
Lincoln Way and Great Highway
180
100
30
0.54
Lawton and 41st Avenue
70
60
24
0.10
Lincoln Way and 39th Avenue
195
100
20
0.39
Noriega and 29th
77
50
26
0.10
Noriega and 20th
154
25
26
0.10
Judah and 7th Avenue
69
50
32
0.11
Fulton and La Playa
135
60
17
0.14
Fulton and 48th Avenue
184
60
19
0.21
Sea Cliff Outfall
123
60
30
0.22
Lake and 24 th Avenue
111
60
15
0.10
Lake and 22nd Avenue
119
60
14
0.10
lake and 17th Avenue
118
60
17
0.12
California and 28th Avenue
50
50
40
0.10

RICHMOND-SUNSET VOLUME
SUBTOTAL
3.04
UOKTH POINT




Marina Outfall
111
60
30
0.20
Baker and Union
63
50
32
0.10
Lombard and Franklin
80
60
25
0.12
Beach Street Outfall
89
60
30
0.16
Jackson Street Outfall
96
60
35
0.20
Brannan Outfall
67
50
30
0.10
Division Street Outfall
302
90
35
0.95
Valencia and 20th Street
193
20
26
0.10

NORTH POINT VOLUME
SUBTOTAL
1.93
SOUTHEAST




Jteriposa Outfall
111
30
30
0.10
Selby Outfall
166
150
35
0.87
Evans and Griffith
125
40
20
0.10
Yosemite Outfall
117
100
30
0.35
Sorrmerset and Wayland
104
40
26
0.15
Sunnydale and Bayshore
143
60
35
0.30

SOUTHEAST VOLUME
SUBTOTAL
1.89



TOTAL
6.98
V-l 4

-------
to the interceptors or tunnels leading to the South-
west Treatment Plant during and immediately following
storms. Shoreline "basins under the Master Plan con-
cept could be reduced in volume by the volume of ad-
ditional upstream basins. The system within an indi-
vidual drainage basin is designed such that waters
containing the highest concentrations of solids and
floatables are diverted directly to the interceptor
and thus the treatment plant rather than flowing to
the shoreline basin. The shoreline retention basins
are designed to provide a degree of removal of solids
and floatables from any wastes which must be bypassed.
Tunnel Storage—The crosstown tunnel will convey an
estimated 68 percent of San Francisco's storm runoff
to the Southwest plant. The tunnel provides both con-
veyance and storage which permits it to act as an
equalization basin ahead of treatment. This concept
permits the operational use of spatial and temporal
variation of rainfall to greatest advantage. By ef-
fectively utilizing this equalization storage and
capitalizing on the nonuniformity of rainfall at any
point in time, significant reductions in treatment
capacity, and perhaps local storage, may be realized.
Storage Volume
The storage volume necessary to contain overflows depends on
the peak runoff, the volume and shape of the runoff hydrograph,
and the rate of withdrawal from storage to treatment. The run-
off hydrograph is related to the rainfall hyetograph if the ef-
fect of storage is neglected. Consequently, the 62-year hourly
rainfall records of the Federal Office Building gage maintained
by the U. S. Weather Bureau and the 21-year hourly record at
the Richmond-Sunset gage maintained by the City were analyzed
by computer. The average number and volume of overflows, the
hours of overflow, and the volume treated in an average year
for various combinations of treatment rates, and storage volumes
were developed from the analysis. The results permit the plot-
ting of the number of overflows versus storage capacity for
treatment rates from 0.02 to 0.10 inches per hour as well as
storage capacity versus treatment rate for constant number and
volume of overflows.
This type of analysis allows evaluation of the overall effect of
the entire yearly rainfall under average conditions on runoff
quantity and number and volume of overflows for different treat-
ment rates and storage volumes, including existing conditions of
0.02 inches per hour treatment rate and zero storage. The re-
sults of this analysis are shown on Figures V-4 and V-5- When
using these figures it is important to note that the treatment
rates are expressed as equivalent uniform rainfall rates and the
V-15

-------
FIGURE V-4
OVERFLOW FREQUENCY FOR VARIOUS TRANPORTATION
RATES AND STORAGE VOLUME
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
1
e
W
%
a
2
•
a
m
m
z
° -16
bJ
<
IE
Z
0
1
o
a.
z
<
K
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02

\
\
\


—i -
\

\
v












\
\
\


\
\
\


\
\









\


\
\
S
s
i
\
\



>
\

STORA
9E V
OLUI
ME



>
\
\




\
>
v
, \
\
s



s
s
\
(inches
of ra
info
1)



N
\




V
\
\\
\
V













\
\





\\
\
\°
\
.15



\ 0.00






v

\
\



\ N
\
i
\
\
\











\
\
k.



\
i

\

0.2!
1
\
V










\
\

0.7
'5

\
\050

\
V '
L
\
1
\








X

S
\
s.


\
\

\
N
\
\
V
i
V


\






yl.C
>0

\
\


0.
30
\
\
\
V


\
















\v
\
\


\
L















V
\
\\



\














s






\
\
0.1
0.2
0.4 0.7 I
10
20
40 70 100
OVERFLOW FREQUENCY
No. ptr ytor
—	FROM DATA
—	EXTRAPOLATION

-------
FIGURE V-6
OVERFLOW VOLUMES FOR VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION
RATES AND STORAGE VOLUMES
0.30
0.28
0.26
STORAGE VOLUME
(inch** of rainfall)
0.24
o
*
2

£
0.18
0.30
••
%
e
0.16
Ui
5
(E
0.14
z
o
O.BO
I
o
a.
z
<
ac
0.12
0.10
0.08
1.00
0.06
0.04
0.02
10
20
0.2
0.4
0.7 I
2
4
7
.07 0.1
OVERFLOW VOLUME,
inches of rainfall par yaar
	 FROM DATA
	EXTRAPOLATION

-------
storage volumes, volumes of overflow, and volumes treated are
expressed as equivalent inches of rainfall, and that brue es-
timates of' volumes and rates require multiplication by an ap-
propriate runoff coefficient. This is assumed to be 0.65 for
the City as a whole.
Based on this type of analysis, the Master Plan concept pro-
vides storage for 0.15 inches of uniform rainfall over the en-
tire City.
An additional source of available storage volume which has not
been fully investigated is that available in the wet weather
transport system and treatment plant. In considering available
volume, no allowance is made for storage available at the treat-
ment plant due to empty tanks tfhich must be placed in service or
for storage in the existing sewers or proposed transport con-
duits. For conceptual analysis this was satisfactory; however,
substantial savings can be realized and in final design these
factors will be considered.
This additional storage can be most effectively utilized only if
the transport capacity from the area of runoff collection through
the crosstown and oceanside tunnels to the treatment plant is
significantly higher than the preliminary design transport rate
(0.1 in/'hr). Further consideration will be given to the storage
source in the final selection and sizing of the storage and
transport system.
In operating the wet weather treatment tanks, small batteries of
parallel tanks will be allowed 1;o fill and overflow at their de-
sign treatment rate before additional batteries are brought into
service. The resultant simultaneous withdrawal of treated efflu-
ent as tanks are being filled will increase their effective stor-
age capacity.
Storage Facility Design
Simplified operational schematic drawings of storage basins and
tunnel storage as conceived in the Master Plan are shown in
Figures V-6 and V-7, respectively. Features of the shoreline
basins are similar to the upstream basins except for the increased
provisions for pumping. The typical arrangement of basins and
tunnel storage with respect bo the transport and treatment systems
is shown in Figure V-3.
V-18

-------
FIGURE V- 6
SIMPLIFIED OPERATIONAL SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
ALTERNATE
DRY WEATHER FLOW ANO STORM
FLOW UP TO O.I IN./HR MAX.*

BASIN
BYPASS
TO TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
STORAGE BASIN
EXISTIN9 TRUNK
SEWER TO
EXISTING
TRUN^_
SEWER
OVERFLOW
TRANSPORT
SYSTEM VIA
SHORELINE
BASIN
PftETREATEO STORM FLOW
IN EXCESS OF BYPASS
CAPACITY OOES INTO
STORAGE
WHEN
BASIN
IS FULL
CONTROL OATES
FOR FLOW
REGULATION
PUMPS FOR
DEWATERINO BASIN
COARSE \
SOLIDS
SEPARATION
PUMPS FOR
DEWATERINO BASIN
TO SEWER DURING
AND AFTER STORM
TYPICAL UPSTREAM BASIN
BASIN
c
DRY WEATHER FLOW AND STORM
FLOW UP TO 01 IN./HR. MAX.*
BYPASS
(SEE NOTE)'
i
EXISTING

TRUNK

SEWE&

STORAGE BASIN
NOTE: FLOW INTO EXISTING
INTERCEPTOR LIMITED TO
APPROX. 0.03 IN./HR
FORCE
MAIN TO
TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
STATION
OVERFLOW TO
BAY OR OCEAN
BASIN
DRAIN
TYPICAL SHORELINE BASIN
4 MOD IFIEO SYSTEM WILL
ALLOW UP TO 0.3 IN./HR

-------
FIGURE V-7
SIMPLIFIED OPERATIONAL SCHEMATIC
OF TUNNEL STORAGE
EXISTING
TRUNK SEWER
COARSE SOLIOS
SEPARATION N
OVERFLOW
CONTROL SATES FOR
FLOW REGULATION -
STORAGE
BYPASS
EXISTING TRUNK
SEWER CONTINUATION
PRETREATEO STORM
FLOW IN EXCESS OF
BYPASS CAPACITY
GOES INTO STORAGE
TUNNEL
STORAGE
DRY WEATHER
FLOW AND STORM
FLOW UP TO O.I
IN./HR MAX, a/
STORAGE
DRAIN
TUNNEL TRANSPORT
•TO WET WEATHER ANO
DRY WEATHER TREATMENT
^MODIFIED SYSTEM WILL ALLOW UP TO 0.3 IN./HR

-------
FIGURE V-8
CONCEPTUAL BASIN AND
TUNNEL STORAGE ARRANGEMENT
SHORELINE
BASIN
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
(U
UPSTREAM BASIN
REMOTE FROM TRANSPORT
LINE RETURNS ALL FLOWS
TO SEWER
_TRUNK
SEWER
UPSTREAM BASIN CLOSE
TO TRANSPORT LINE
WITH DIRECT CONNECTION.
ONLY BASIN OVERFLOWS
CONTINUE TO SHORELINE
BASIN
TUNNEL
STORAGE
TRANSPORT SYSTEM

SOUTHWEST WET WEATHER
TREATMENT PLANT

-------
Retention Basins—The conceptual design of an up-
stream basin is shown on Figure V-9. A flow control
structure allows bypassing of the dry weather flow
and some storm flow to a bypass conduit during main-
tenance and also to eliminate fouling of the basin
and possible odors during dry weather. An expansion
chamber will be incorporated in all storage facilities
to slow the velocity. A dropout in the bottom of this
chamber will conduct the normal dry weather flow and
the heavier solids during storm flows beneath the
basin to a continuation of the sewer downstream, or
where practicable, directly to an interceptor. The
main storm flow will pass under baffles and over weirs
to keep heavy settleable and floatable solids out of
the basin. The flow then enters a distributor channel,
which during low flow will drop the influent to the
bottom of the tank through a manifold of pipes extend-
ing across the entire width of the basin to assist in
flushing settled solids towards the outlet. The stored
flow is withdrawn through controlled gates in the out-
let pipes which are located in the bottom of the end
wall. The flow passes to the downstream sewer or di-
rectly to the interceptor depending on location. When
the storage capacity is exceeded, the excess flow will
pass over weirs and flow to the downstream sewer,
which in the case of shoreline basins leads directly
to the receiving waters. A system of washdown pipes,
an emergency dewatering pump, automatic control equip-
ment, and ventilating fans are included in a two-story
control structure at the outlet end of the basin. In
the case of shoreline basins, this structure would con-
tain the pumps for pumping the stored flow to the inter-
ceptor, and where practicable, high-level gravity
drawoffs.
The last inland basin just across from the wastewater
interceptors and all shoreline basins are designed to
discharge the concentrated waste flows only to the in-
terceptors. Flows reduced by interception but in ex-
cess of basin capacity must first pass through those
basins before overflowing and continuing downstream.
This method permits only the cleanest waters to over-
flow in cases where overflows cannot be avoided.
A schematic diagram of the wet weather control system
is shown in Figure V-10. The design shown on Figure
V-9 and described above may be unnecessarily elaborate.
This is caused in large measure by the attempt to keep
heavy solids and floating material out of the retention
basin. An end weir and baffle across the expansion
chamber with a side outlet to the bypass conduit for
dry weather flow may be sufficient. This would permit
flow over the weirs to drop vertically behind a baffle
wall instead of through a manifold of pipes. It may be
¥-22

-------
FIGURE V-9
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF UPSTREAM RETENTION BASIN
<95
jFP-t . f>ta (2'-C">5'-9")
2.	.".ATERIA,. SCfAaATIG:. ilSUCTUHE.
3."	n.3» wEATMfd 5AMTAB* It OPTIONAL
STON* r"LO« bVPASi
H.	fr)A|x »C, 9*>>«S-Siiwn MCAVY t HOAT-
ABlT HaCiIC'IS PAST STC'AGE.
5.	E*r»i:---r«HA»s r> oatam.es until
AfTIP S1MH,
6.	Hlt-fllTi!-.! MtAvr "/:rr|AL. ?r.ss:s
oillte itr.ac ftc to r-TflHAr.r.
I.	IllHUi'lT TO S'ORA.C
f.
"liT»IHIT:CN CHAt.hCL
1R.
I'MHar-KOufiS itRvjt: aS£a
<*.
r^w-icn)>C9S
17.
fi|» INTAKE
10.
r:o«/.'u c>pa«t*£nt (lOO.OOn cl.ft.)
18.
Fan
11.
^v!«ih naiir.M
10.
foeCE!/ A III C0SSUIT
12.
rVt»fi.c» r.isfiA'c.c :0'.tuir
20.
H.P. W«5MSOWIi JVJTtl" VrtlJtl
13.
FfCRfE'tC* PE«ATE»!'I.". fof"*" SifJTtr
22.
Loci, ajtomtic S

C&nTK'M. '/T£

Cr.SiiBO. '.lAtltX- ¦.•Cn'POLS
X

va.vi:. ?j^s. to. sccrivrs
15.
r'iuvr» oii ;cis >:'n

i!(.'..\LS fD&M CCMThA:. CoNTiSL ilATIOS
?V


C0"i>!r<«r> '.'."H ^OxkaTi'tAn.
Ctat:cs accvss nAh.<0Lt

-------
FIGURE V-IO
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WET
WEATHER CONTROL
SEPARATION
STRUCTURE
DRY WEATHER FLOW & HEAVY STORM MATERIAL
CONTROLj
C.ATE '
1	
	1
DILUTE
STORM
FLOW
CONTROL
GATE
TUNNELS OR INLAND
CONTROI
SYSTEM
STORAGE
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
•TUNNELS OR INLAND
RETENTION BASINS

-------
possible to permit the basins to overflow over a con-
crete end wall instead of into a series of weir
troughs.
Tunnel Storage—The Master Plan proposes a crosstown
tunnel in rock from the northeast section of bhe City
through high ground at an elevation sufficient to dis-
charge by gravity at the proposed Southwest Treatment
Plant. Storm flow from sewers crossing or adjacent to
the route of the tunnel would drop by gravity into en-
larged sections of the tunnel serving as storage
chambers and storm flows would be pumped from retention
basins situated on sewer outlets along the eastern
waterfront at suitable rates for treatment into a trans-
port section in the bottom of the tunnel. A. perspective
cut-away drawing of the tunnel is shown in Figure V-ll
and a schematic cross-section is shown in Figure V-12.
Storage sections of bhe tunnel would be approximately
32 feet in diameter and the transport section would be
equivalent to a 10-foot diameter conduit at the head
end increasing to 16-foot diameter at Southwest. Stor-
age sections would be divided into a lower transport
section, central storage compartments serving individual
watersheds, and an upper section for ventilation, hose-
down piping, and access. It is proposed to provide sep-
aration of the heavy and floating materials in a separa-
tion chamber on the combined sewer and discharge the flow
containing this material directly to the transport sec-
tion with the cleanest water going into the storage
chambers. Controlled gates would control the discharge
of water from the storage chambers to the transport sec-
tion at rates suitable for treatment.
V-25

-------
FIGURE V- II
TUNNEL PERSPECTIVE
S*P&QAm:Q\ STQ^-C'jRi
v"*rr *-444
Ok t ¦>(* -IW*.

&•' c «.r'r
5TCIC*	C«
$("49 * -y. « - iW
*¦? .l*?K*Ot
„	«""M{ *. '£ - .
S'0& *r»l«
|%T«JWC£
rowred.
Vja*
£ov«* p«*r*
va« t> $o-<$a
CO*jT*i?L t'VJ
tChVfr ~S7»Jc +i/+g
SwA'
f */f ?(5#*.C * °uk"*5
J*
UVUJ. PQQ°!* + v	\ I
a • "9 - 9 . f * - J
>(it 5 ;; •?
mC»K$**0+~
^c»	*.a*
.i *sO -i4»"r firovv
1 vru'j. ^tftcr ro
S v. "* 6 "J** r - £V
"*?
6
0

¦ rttK/SPCf COHPAKTKkHTS *o«
COMTtMUOuS 'LOU-TKKU TO
L*Kt "l*CtP TttATUf/T P\.AHT

-------
FIGURE V- 12
SCHEMATIC SECTION OF TUNNEL
SEWER
DILUTE STORM FLOW
VENT SHAFTS
a ACCESS AT
PERIODIC
INTERVALS
\
TO
LAKE MERCEO
TREAT. PLANT
mr
i
STORAGE
( 25" X 30')
|Z£2s C22ZS23 asH. I
J TRANSPORT *
SEPARATION
STRUCTURE
- DRY WEATHER FLOW
ft. STORM FLOW WITH
HEAVY MATERIAL
UTILITY CHASE
FOR ACCESS,
VENTILATION
a PIPING
AUTOMATIC
WASHDOWN
SYSTEM
CONTROL GATES

-------
The cross-sectional tunnel area required for storage and
the area required to transport the peak dry weather flow
from the tributary area is shown below:
Tunnel Storage Required, mil. cu. ft.	2.51
A.vg. Cross-Sectional Area Required
for Storage, sq. ft.*	68
Gross-Sectional Area Required for
Peak Dry Weather Flow**	65
Total Cross-Sectional Area Required,
sq. ft.	133
Avg. Diameter Required, ft.***	13
Slope Required for 5»0 fps****
Velocity at n = .013
blowing Full	.00040
*Based on a length of 37,000 ft.
**1.5 x the projected average flow of 98 ragd from
the North Point and Southeast Treatment Plant
zones at 3-5 fps.
***Minimuin diameter required at outlet end to trans-
port combined flow treatment rate of 991 cfs
?rom North Point and Southeast Treatment Plant
zones at 5-0 fps velocity is 16 ft.
~•~~Manning's "n".
The sum of these two areas determines the average cross-
sectional area of a possible simple tunnel design. As
the storage fills, transport capacity for the wet
weather treatment rate could be automatically established
without requiring additional storage area. The table also
shows the minim-Jim slope required to maintain suitable ve-
locities. The total fall in the 37,000-foot length of
tunnel is 15 feet.
The nearly vertical walls of the tunnel would be self-
cleaning, and the grade of the tunnel would provide self-
cleansing velocities for the dry weather flow. This al-
ternative would provide common storage voluane for the
North Point and Southeast drainage areas. A regulating
gate at the tunnel outlet near Southwest may provide the
necessary flow control. Every effort will be made to
simplify the tunnel design to minimize initial cost and
potential maintenance and operation problems.
The tunnel storage and transportation system will be
evaluated in detail to determine if a less complex de-
sign would provide dependable service at less cost and
V-28

-------
with fewer_operation and maintenance problems. Master
Plan facilities will ba evaluated to assure that the
proposed system offers the most economical balance of
local storage, transportation, centralized storage,
and storage available at the treatment plant.
There are still many unresolved questions with respect
to ^otal implementation of the Master Plan with respect
to storage alternatives. Therefore, data being gathered
by the rainfall gages, wastewater flow meters, and the
retention basin will be used to determine the most eco-
nomical balance between localized and tunnel storage for
each watershed.
TREATMENT
The Master Plan Report studied wet weather treatment from two
viewpoints: a dual functioning facility combining both stor-
age and treatment and physically separated units.
Dual Functioning (Treatment/Storage) Facilities
The comprehensive report notes that to provide multiple treat
ment units at the shoreline for maximum storm flows without
storage would require large volumes of tankage. For example,
at an overflow rate of 1,7^0 gallons per square foot per day
(the peak rate selected for the Master Plan's Southwest facility
for Level I treatment) and a 10-foot water depth, equivalent to
a detention period of 60 minutes, capacities would be required
as shown below:
Such volumes would function as storage basins up to the time
that the tankage became full, after which the treatment opera-
tion would be initiated. Thus the provision of adequate treat-
ment capacity to handle high flow rates also provides large
storage volumes.
It is interesting to note that the storage capacity provided by
the Master Plan is approximately 9 million cubic feet or only
11 percent of the 5-year dual functioning facility value.
Storm Frequency
Volume
5 year
10 year
25 year
50 year
100 year
79 million cubic feet
94 million cubic feet
111 million cubic feet
119 million cubic feet
139 million cubic feet
V-29

-------
Further complications associated with providing dual storage/
treatment units are that they would logically have to be lo-
cated on the shoreline to fully capture area flows, thereby
compounding land acquisition problems. Also the problems of
dewatering the basins after storms and solids disposal would
still have to be resolved.
alternative to providing such large treatment capacities,
is to consider the use of storage to retain the excessive flow
for treatment through intermediate capacity plants when runoff
exceeds the available capacity. The reduction in peak flows
can be considerable if the basin has capacity to retain all
flow until the peak has passed.
The Master Plan considered treatment capacities varying from
1 3^0 mgd (the maximum hydraulic capacity of the existing plants
and equivalent to 0.02 inches per hour of rainfall plus the
existing dry weather flow) to 1,000 mgd (equivalent to 0.10
inches per hour of rainfall) operating in conjunction with
storage. Larger treatment capacities were analyzed with zero
storage.
The treatment rate proposed in the Master Plan Report was 1,000
mgd. The proposed plant capacity, while large, is within reason.
It amounts to 8 times the projected average dry weather flow, or
three times the capacity of the existing plants, and with the
help of the storage retention basins will treat combined storm
flows many times larger. The plant capacity of 1,000 mgd is the
maximum hydraulic capacity, whereas treatment plants are commonly
rated at their design treatment capacity for average flows with
the hydraulic capability of 1.5 to 3-0 times the average flow.
Proposed Treatment System
A flow diagram of the proposed Southwest treatment facility is
shown on Figure V-13. Data on rainfall characteristics and
treatment systems have permitted estimates of the desired treat-
ment plant capacity and treatment processes. Additional rainfall
data will be analyzed to define the desired treatment capacity
and the pilot plant studies will provide information on the most
efficient combination of treatment processes. The plant is pres-
ently envisioned at a maximum capacity of 1,000 mgd. Initial
treatment of the entire flow is proposed to consist of gross
solids and grit removal, chemical addition with low-dose ferric
chloride, and sedimentation. Following initial treatment, the
flow is to be split with a maximum of 250 mgd receiving further
treatment and the remainder, up to 750 mgd, being chlorinated
and discharged.
icall.y Separated Units
V-30

-------
FIGURE V-13
PROPOSED SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM
TO SOUTHEAST sludge
TREATMENT PLANT
rcwmc chloride
AOOITION .
WASTE SOL'OS
TO landfill
MAKE UP
LIME
ftECALClNATION
COMMINUTED
BCRCENINBS
SEE NOTE >
ORIT TO LANOfILL
HCAOWORKS
RECARBONATlQN
WW-OW FLOW
WW-D* FLOW
WW-DW FLOW
fW-DW FLOW
i lit iciua
t CMMMITM
I MIT (NiatCM
1210*50 MAX
( 1000 M60 MAX)
t 'kftCCiKirtoa
J-4ACKWASH RCTURN FLOW
WW EXCESS
{ 730 MOO MAX )
ww-ow flow
(240 MCDMAX }
DUAL MEOIA
	7
BLENOED
ww- ow flow
RECLAMATION.
STAGE
ChiORINATION
CARBON
RECLAIMED WATER FOR REUSE
/ RECREATION. IRRIGATION. \
\ GROUNDWATER RECHARGE /
I COLUMNS
ocean discharge
via outfall and
separate OIFFUSERS
SYMBOLS
	 CARBON REGENERATION
• TA«t •	f*TH
NOTE
I PLANT AIR ABOVE AREAS WHERE WATER SURFACE
IS BROKEN IS TO BC PLACCO UNOER NEGATIVE PRESSURE
ANO CXMAUSTEO THROUOH RCCALCWATlON FURNACES
lf*l( i riUTitir »ae(lli
(Mil i

-------
The secondary treatment level with a maximum capacity of 250
mgd will be operated continuously treating the entire dry
weather flow and the portion of wet weather flow up to 250
mgd. The secondary treatment process is planned to consist
of high-dose lime addition followed by flocculation, sedimen-
tation, and recarbonation. Following treatment, the effluent
will be chlorinated and discharged. From all available data,
these processes appear to be preferred above others; however,
they are considered tentative until the outcome of pilot plant
studies.
Expected effluent qualities for various treatment levels used
in the Master Plan to determine the treatment necessary to
produce the desired effluent quality are shown in Table ¥-2.
These removal efficiencies are reasonable for the treatment
processes specified; however, more accurate information will
be developed from the pilot plant studies currently under way.
4 single treatment plant was selected because of operational
advantages of having one year-round staff and a continuously
operating facility. The single facility can also more econom-
ically treat runoff from the City, due to its spatial and tem-
poral variation, than can be accomplished by individual treat-
ment systems serving various areas in the City. Individual
plants located at the three existing sites would require sub-
stantially greater total capacity than a single plant to pro-
vide the same level of control of wet weather waste discharges.
For disposal at the southwest corner of the City, wastewater
must be conveyed to that area. Since transportation will be
available, and operation and maintenance and capital costs are
lower per volume treated for large facilities, a single plant
in the southwest corner of bhe City is favored.
The site selected for the new plant (Southwest Water Pollution
Control Plant) as shown on Figure V-14- would occupy land now
under the jurisdiction of bhe City Park and Recreation Depart-
ment, Federal Government, and a portion leased from the City
to the State. Present planning for the area has been incorpo-
rated into the facility design.
The plant, as envisioned, would be designed to provide maximum
multiple usage of the plant area consistent with long-range
recreational planning efforts. It is anticipated that through
modern design and effort, side-by-side multiple usage of treat-
ment facility land area will be possible. The experience in
this regard at the Baker Street Air Flotation Facility in the
Marina area serves as a positive example of what can be accom-
plished. At the present time, the conceptual design for the
proposed Southwest plant has incorporated planned aoo parking
facilities and some other multi-uses. It was in this light
that the City Park and Recreation Department approved the Master
¥-32

-------
TABLE V-2
EXPECTED EFFLUENT QUALITIES
FOR
VARIOUS TREATMENT LEVELS
EXPECTED QUAUTY	
Secondary
Parameter
Units
Level I
Level II
Level III
Treatment
Bioassay—96-hr TL^
% survival
25
40
90
90
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day)
Tog/1
120
80
15
30
Chemical Oxygen
Denand
mg/1
300
230
50
60
Oil and Grease,
Total
mg/1
30
10
6
10
Aluminum
mg/1
2.2
<1.5
<1.5
<1.5
Cadmium
mg/1
0.02
<0.015
<0.015
<0.015
Copper
mg/1
0.1
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Iron
mg/1
1.3
<1.0
<1.0
<1.0
Lead
mg/1
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.05
Mercury
mg/1
0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Ammonia (NH-j-N)
mg/1
18
18
<0.015
18
Organic Nitrogen
mg/1
12
7
2
7
Tbtal Nitrogen
mg/1
30
25
5
25
Itrtal Phosphorus
mg/1
16
5
2
10
Floatables
mg/1
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.1
Settleable Matter
ml/l/hr
<0.4
<0.4
<0.1
<0.1
Total Suspended
Matter
mg/1
80
40
6
30
Turbidity
JTO*
25
20
2
10
•Jackson Turbidity Units
V-33

-------
FIGURE V-I4
PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION

-------
Plan in principle (see Recreation and Park Commission Resolu-
tion No. 9204 which is included in the Appendix). A perspec-
tive view of a conceptual plant cross-section and a conceptual
flow diagram are presented in Figures V-15 and V-16,
respectively.
The system as proposed will treat all flow conveyed to the
treatment plant. No bypass at the plant is included in the
plans. It is proposed to discharge all untreated wastes di-
rectly from the 15 drainage basins. It is possible for the
flow to exceed 1,000 mgd at bhe plant assuming intensive rain-
fall in the Richmond-Sunset area as well as the north and east
portions of the City. It is more beneficial from a water qual-
ity viewpoint to discharge untreated waste through an ocean out-
fall than to the shoreline area when such are the alternatives.
Therefore, consideration will be given to providing a bypass
around the plant and into the ocean outfall for flows exceeding
1,000 mgd. The desired capacity will be determined by an anal-
ysis of the cost of the bypass measured against the benefits of
further reducing shoreline discharges.
The following statement is taken from the Master Plan:
"Page VI-2: There is an optimum treatment capac-
ity, storage volume relationship which is depen-
dent upon the relative costs of each. For this
analysis the 0.10 inch per hour rate appears to
be the breakpoint for optimum treatment for the
range of withdrawal and treatment. The equiva-
lent plant capacity for the 0.10 inch per hour
rate is 1,000 mgd which is the ultimate Master
Plan treatment rate."
The Master Plan Report specified a treatment rate of 1,000 mgd,
as being the most cost-effective within the range of storage
being considered. Relationships between effectiveness, storage
capacity, and treatment rate are presented in the Report.
Proposed Lake Merced Outfall
As previously discussed, the facilities proposed in the Master
Plan will have the following design flows: 1) average dry
weather, 125 mgd; 2) peak dry weather, 3^0 mgd; and 3) peak wet
weather, 1,000 mgd. Because of the great variance in these de-
sign flows, the Master Plan proposed a dual-purpose ocean out-
fall designed to transport dry weather flows four miles and wet
weather flows two miles into the ocean (see Figure v-17 for
location).
V-35

-------
FIGURE V-IS
SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT LOCATION

• bo'ohb
ta-fc
bOUWDifly L'.tJfe
*oa *>aopo+iP
Z.0O P*K.»LiWG- U<9*f
^t$lflVATtON
/ / - /
W POP S0"MO^flY
^TATS or CALlFOnwliA
WJkT\<5M^L ^UATiO
AOPnox • 7.0 ^Ei
5T*6£ I
POOCfiM AO.EA
PS0P0560 UA<6 MftRCtO WATfett POLLUTION COWTQOU OLAWT SITE
(Vfl0#OMO ZOO PlfeUU* ttfT MJO K^TiMd FlDlltiU	&T*rm *«»PHTT»*l)

-------
FI6URE V-16
SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT PERSPECTIVE
*•••• Control Houaa
B Physical -Ch* micil Traatmant Tank*
C Carbon Columnt
D Dual Madia Filtar*
E Nlttogan Ramoval Facillllaa

P655P£C"'V£_JF	C0V>3 -*<£ AAfegCfcO AA"E: 3 S3	T OK CCwT 5.3'-	Z3Q ClL.T.i:^

-------
FIGURE V-17
SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM
FERRIC CHIORIOC
TO southeast SlUOCt
WASTE SOL 'OS
TO LANO^'Lt
OMIT TO LANOflLl
MAKE UP
RE CALCINATION
SEE NOTE I
RUMP )
J PRIMARY
LIME
SOLIDS
PHYSICAL
CHEMICAL
treatment
chemical
ADOlON
REACTOR
¦ Ktlll

( IOOO M60 max)
2S0M00 MAI)
BACKWASH RETURN FLOVI
I 750 MGO MAX)
DUAL MCQlA
filters
NITROQEN
PUMP
HOUSE
FACILITY
RECLAMATION
STAGE
ChIOPINATION
CARBON
I COLUMNS
MAKE UP
WW - OW FLO*
(2)0 MGOMAX >
BlENOEO
WW- OW FlO*
RECLAiMEO WATER FOR REUSE
RECREATION. IRRIGATION.
GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
SYMBOLS
OCEAN OlSCHARGE
VIA OUTFALL ANO
SEPARATE OiFFuSIRS
CARiON REGENERATION
vinie 9ft »«? •itrHin r^ot
srtte . »«.o« Mm
*OTC			.....
I PLANT AtR ABOVE AREAS WHERE WATER SURFACE	.		• »*•« •
IS BROKEN IS TO BE PLACEO UNOER NEGATIVE PRESSURE
ANO EXHAUSTED THROUGH RECALCiNA T ION FURNACES	*	«r*«i t

-------
Dry Weather Outfall. As proposed by the Master Plan,
the dry weather outfall will contain a 2,000-foot diffuser
terminating in about 80 feet of water. The diffuser will
ensure that all ecological design criteria for dilution
will be met. During peak dry weather fLows of 3'+0 mgd,
an initial dilution of 107 to 1 will be attained by the
time the rising waste plume reaches stability as a sub-
merged field. Under the most adverse condition of low
slack water, an initial dilution of 140 to 1 will be
achieved for average flow. This dilution will be 2 i;o $
times greater during periods of maximum current. It is
anticipated that the waste field will reach initial sta-
bility at a depth of 15 to 30 feet under most conditions
of waste flow and receiving water stratification.
All of the oceanographic information available on the
Gulf of the Farallones outside the bar indicates that
the effluent field will not contact either the shoreline
or the benthos except in dilutions far greater than the
recommended ecological design criteria. Near 3urface
currents in the vicinity of the discharge site are pre-
dominately southward and westward, largely as influenced
by the tidal ebb and flow through the Golden Gate. After
the surface layer has been displaced westward and south-
ward to the limit of tidal influence, it disperses and
diffuses into the oceanic water mass. Within about 24
hours, its presence is no longer identifiable as a separate
water mass and from that point its movement is presumed to
be controlled by the prevailing ocean currents. Onshore
current vectors are weak and of short duration and the ef-
fluent field will probably not reach the shoreline during
any one tidal cycle of 25 Hours at which time the dilution
will be well in excess of 1,000 to 1.
The most critical point for bottom dilution will be the
bar to the north of the discharge, because the bottom
will be reached first in the shallowest area. At its
shallowest point, the water depth over the bar is about
33 feet. The effluent field must travel about seven hours
on flood tide at an average current speed of 0.4 knots to
reach the shallow area and in that time the dilution would
be 750 to 1. The depth of the effluent field would be
about 16 feet at this point so that dilution due to verti-
cal dispersion would be about 2 to 1 and the total dilu-
tion about 1,500 to 1.
At an average current velocity of 0.41 knots and taking
into account horizontal dispersion only, the outfall will
produce a field with a minimum dilution of 1,000 to 1 ex-
tending approximately 3^5 miles from the point of release
with a maximum width of four miles during peak dry weather
flows. This dilution will be reached in approximately
nine hours.
V-39

-------
Wet Weather Outfall. The wet weather outfall will in-
clude 1,800 feet of diffuser which will terminate in
about 50 feet of water. Unlike the dry weather outfall,
the wet weather outfall will produce a surface field.
It is ecologically desirable to have a surface field for
the wet weather flows because during the rainy season
there is a strong surface movement away from the shore-
line. (See Chapter I for detailed discussion.) The
seaward movement of the effluent field would increase
protection for the intertidal and benthic habitats which
are the areas most sensitive to effluent impact.
During peak wet weather flows, an initial dilution of 16
to 1 will be attained by the time the rising waste plume
reaches stability. However, the minimum dilution on the
ocean bottom (critical benthic habitat) will be approxi-
mately 1,000 to 1.
Interim South Bay Outfall
The Master Plan calls for an enlarged interim Bay outfall
at the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant. The en-
larged outfall will be designed to handle an average daily
dry weather flow of 84 mgd (combined North Point and
Southeast flows). The Bay outfall will not be utilized
when the complete Master Plan has been implemented. At
that time all wastewaters will be discharged to the Ocean
via the Southwest outfall. This time period will approxi-
mate the economic life of the interim outfall.
To date, the Regional Board las not adopted waste dis-
charge requirements for the interim discharge. However,
it is anticipated that the Board will at least require
"secondary treatment" as defined by EPA. Based upon the
weekly average of BOD allowed under EPA1s definition, the
total load from the combined discharge would be about
20,800 lbs per day. Presently, the combined discharge of
BOD from the two plants is about 66,800 lbs per day. There-
fore, there will be a total reduction in the BOD load to
the Bay of about 46,000 lbs per day due to an increased
level of treatment provided at the expanded Southeast fa-
cility. However, the total BOD load at the combined South-
east discharge point will increase from its existing value
of 12,700 lbs per day to 20,800 lbs per day. Although this
i s a substantial increase in organic loading to the South
Bay it is not expected to have any adverse effects as the
combined discharge v/ill occur further offshore in deeper
water. The combined discharge might cause a dissolved oxy-
gen depression of 0.07 mg/1 which is not considered
significant.
V-40

-------
It is agreed that the location of the proposed combined
discharge may not be desirable from a long-term point
of view; however, as an interim solution the overall
improvements in water quality accompanying the action
would lend favor to the concept. Specifically, the re-
moval of the present 65 mgd primary discharge from the
North Point location and conversion of that facility to
a wet weather treatment facility which would eliminate
most wet weather overflows in the northeast area of the
City—Aquatic Park, Marina, Fisherman's Wharf area.
TRANSPORTATION
The transport system envisioned in the Master Plan includes nu-
merous pump stations, force mains, and connecting sewers. The
primary features as shown on Figure V-l are three major force
mains, two major transport lines, and a dual function ocean
outfall. As presently envisioned, the transportation rate is
equivalent of runoff from O.J Inches per hour of rainfall.
This rate was chosen to take advantage of rainfall variation
which has been demonstrated during the first stages of the rain-
fall monitoring program.
The sizing of the transportation system is critical to the
success of the Master Plan. For the Plan to function as en-
visioned, the transportation system must have the capability
to convey the wastewater from heavily burdened areas in the
City at a rate sufficient to relieve flooding, through stor-
age basins, pipelines, and tunnels to the treatment facility.
To provide these capabilities, the system must be siaed so
that all functions can occur when necessary from any individ-
ual retention basin to utilize the maximum control available
with one integrated system.
The capacity of the transport system will determine the degree
to which the treatment plant capacity can be utilized by any
drainage area. Along with storage volume, the transport capac-
ity also determines the necessary hydraulic capacity of the
treatment plant, and the limitations on discharging through
the ocean outfall rather than at the City perimeter. To date,
it has not been possible to determine exactly what these re-
lationships are and what effect they have on the transport
system capacity.
The optimum sizing of the transport, storage, and treatment
facilities is dependent on the variability of rainfall. The
necessary information is presently being gathered to permit
V-41

-------
sizing of facilities and will soon be available. Since the
usefulness of the other components of the Master Plan are lim-
ited without the transportation system, it may be necessary to
proceed with design of the transportation system sized at a
level reasonably assured of being adequate. A rate equivalent
to runoff from 0.3 inches per hour of rainfall^appears to be
sufficiently large to provide such assurance.
CONTROL SYSTEM
As envisioned in the Master Plan Report, a centrally located
advance information system will be utilized for planning, moni-
toring, and control of the Master Plan elements. That system,
part of which is already in existence, is planned to operate
in the following sequence:
Rain measuring stations located throughout the City
and possibly in surrounding areas such as Marin
County and the Farallones Islands will transmit ac-
tual recorded rainfall data every 15 seconds to the
central control station.
Monitors located at critical control points in the
sewer system will transmit data on actual flow
rates to the central control station.
The central station will record and analyze the data
for three purposes:
1.	To provide information on rainfall character-
istics to allow selection of probable opera-
ting mode early in the storm.
2.	To provide information for control of storage
and transmission rates for each individual
watershed based on actual runoff data. The
system is designed to provide maximum effi-
ciencies from available storage facilities.
3.	To provide data for future system planning
and refinement of operating criteria.
Sensing Devices
The centrally located control system relies on sensing devices
to measure rainfall and flow which have been developed to a
reasonably high degree of reliability and accuracy by San
Francisco. Signals are transmitted by telephone lines which
could present reliability problems. A system of parallel
lines or alternate route systems could increase reliability
but is not considered necessary at this time.
V-4 2

-------
Central Control
The information collected at the central receiving station is
continuously fed into computers for the purposes listed above.
The computers can print a visual image of the storm pattern at
any time. When this information is received, the individual
storage or transport facilities are instructed either manually
or automatically to operate in a particular fashion. For
example, when a rainfall is intense in one area of the City,
local retention basins can be opened to receive wastewater,
and as the storm moves across the City, these reservoirs can
be emptied or remain full depending upon the need to assign
treatment or transport capacity to other areas of the City.
System Operation
It is proposed that operational signals also would be trans-
mitted on leased telephone line and the equipment that would
be instructed to operate from the central control system would
include large numbers and varying sizes and types of valves
and pumps. The reliability of remote-control operation for 30
upstream retention basins, 15 shoreline retention basins, the
crosstown tunnel storage system, and portions of the treatment
plants is a complicated subject. Therefore, the proposed
study of retention basin operation and centralized automatic
controls will provide answers to the following questions which
are essential prior to actual system design:
The reliability of information circuits and the
advantages and disadvantages of using radio sig-
nals, leased-line telephone circuitry, or a com-
pletely independent circuit.
The reliability of circuitry and control system
equipment for operation of valves and pumps from
one central remote location.
The accuracy of prediction under computer-
controlled automatic operation.
The system response rate.
The risks at each point in the system of control-
system malfunction and the need for backup safety
features.
The potential problems and liability that may re-
sult from system malfunctions in terms of flood-
ing, unnecessary bypassing, or transportation sys-
tem overloading.
V-43

-------
A comparison of the cost, reliability, and effec-
tiveness of the proposed control system with a
mechanically and hydraulically controlled system
which responds automatically to storm conditions
in localized areas without external control. The
latter system would be designed based on probabili-
ties of rainfall rates.
Operation Responsibility
To ba effective it is essential that the complete control sys-
tem be fully managed and operated by the department responsible
for wastewater management. Operational technical functions in
the use of computers, transmission equipment, ebc., are secon-
dary support functions essential to effective utilization of
the system to achieve the most efficient water quality control
during any storm period. Therefore, maximum benefit will be
made of information provided by the monitoring system to permit
the development of effective programs that reflect real system
problems.
Necessity
Some form of remote automated information and control system is
desirable for operation of the Master Plan. The concept is
sound but the many intricacies and potential problems must be
resolved and tested prior to actual system design.
The proposed system may be overly complex and result in unnec-
essary maintenance and operation problems. It may be adequate
to provide a float-operated gate on the bypass conduit and one
or more self-contained rate controllers on the basin outlets,
depending on the capacity required. In the case of shoreline
basins, a float-operated gate on the connection to the inter-
ceptor and programmed pump operation sensitive to interceptor
and retention basin water levels may be adequate to control
the discharge to the treatment facilities.
Each change in the design of storage and transmission facilities
that simplifies the operational needs will add greatly to the
reliability of the overall system. Every effort should be made
to incorporate modifications in the system which will increase
reliability without significantly sacrificing control. Reduc-
tions in numbers of upstream retention basins, increases in
storage capacity in the crosstown tunnels, and simplification
of tunnel and retention basin design will greatly reduce the
complexity of the control system.
V-44

-------
SUMMARY
The treatment rates, pumping rates, storage volumes and loca-
tions, and transportation system capacity are closely integra-
ted into one overall cost-effective control plan. Unit sizes
have not yet been determined and work is proceeding to analyze
rainfall data to permit this analysis. A decision is necessary
regarding the advantages of bypassing through an ocean outfall
at the treatment plant compared to bypassing at the shoreline
from the retention basins to permit sizing of the transporta-
tion system and ocean outfalls.
V-45

-------
CHAPTER VI
SU BALTERNATIVES
LOW CONSTRAINT PROGRAM
Regulatory restrictions and time schedules presently limit
control options and establish certain early high priorities.
The primary regulatory restriction is that the City of
San Francisco provide "secondary treatment" of all dry
weather waste flows by July 1, 1977. The next priority is
the control of wet weather overflows in the north shore
and Ocean beach areas. Implementation of the Master Plan
as presently conceived will comply with these regulatory
restrictions.
If it were not necessary to comply with these regulatory
restrictions, the City's implementation of a comprehensive
wastewater management program would undoubtedly proceed
differently. For instance, if "secondary treatment" were
not required by mid-1977 improved facilities at the existing
Richmond-Sunset and Southeast Water Pollution Control Plants
probably would not be constructed. It is important to note,
however, that the ultimate plan might be the same only the
staging might be different.
The staging of a "low constraint" program would probably
follow the sequence shown on Figure VI-1. For this plan,
the emphasis would first be placed on improving the north
waterfront area, which includes Marina Beach, Yacht Harbor,
and Aquatic Park, by controlling wet weather overflows.
The next stage would place emphasis on protecting Phelan,
Baker, and Ocean Beaches. The staging would then progress
to the Candlestick-South Basin-India Basin areas as the
next most likely waterfront areas that should be afforded
protection from wet weather overflows. The Islais Creek
central basin and China Basin areas constitute the last
stages in construction because of the constraints imposed
by the sequence in construction of the cross-town tunnel.
ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS
In developing the Master Plan, prime consideration was
given to not only alternative concepts as described in
Chapter IV but also to alternative locations of outfall
(Bay vs Ocean), treatment plant, and storage facilities.
The rationale used in the selection of the Master Plan is
summarized below.
VI-1

-------
FIGURE VI-1
NO CONSTRAINT PROGRAM STAGING
STAGE CONSTRUCT ION
f *1*1 fi M P OWtFAU*.
«04f»
KtATHfirr *VM1
'J-
II4K H W'Ut
V.
£
•*cmwo«(o
rttlATMCMI «t*wr
>0 *G&
m * in.*>
r-iMti i dot IK.D
5,10,15,
Xli\*
n. 0»* %U'K»
""u*t lypOO »t
DO** Villi DIM*

" 5"T
,Jkv ^
lllVE St
VOvi KL AS7
nttAtut** »»i*t
to ##o
nt
/ d
K-^-4
.. -t*£r
/A \% -
t*'»*»
CC ft
»AT|* OC*T*
SM *«»»C»SCO Ht» ft C-
1A4 ftdffO CO
scaiI m» tM0gs*it0 fftr
LEGEND

PROJECT
COST m
*.* Of
f IA*S ]

BAWD iwts of*o*C r«UlTl(S
M>u«p ii«rt3 8C40U •*€ • MClLltlKS









r 1 RC'€«*T>Ot| IM *

STAGf 1
STAGE 2
STAGE 3
S14GI 4
STAGt 5
STAGC 6
SMbl 2 1 SUf.f *

2] *gn»
A
2 0
3 0
' 3
« 2
5 3
2 f
I fl 2 0

Q tiurvinr Kihi
)—( *w*»u
: i
r;;
3 O
5 0
1 3
1 5
T
2 6
33
3 3
r 3®
«. 7
2d n
2 6 4 0

- D
5 s
1 0
' 5
1 *
» 3
9 6
3 2 3 9

TU«»(l WTH &TOHACC StCTiO*




~— ro*ct wNt
alternate
STAGE 9
5 USE 10
STAGE M
5* AGE 12
STAGE 13
STAGE >4
STAGE »3 k STAGC
TOTAL

A
3 3
" *
1 2
2 2
2 1
i 9
. 6 1 2 l
hTTs

B
3 9


? «
3 (
2 2
¦ « [ 2 i
3 9® "
—•*— hit cotrcK* \.mt
C
5 f
I «
t «
4 3
4 6
3 1
' « 2 1
3 2 2
• U8UST t*. tffl
0
7 4
1 4


4 7
3 9
' 6 1 * 1 .
6 6 3

-------
Outfall
The prime consideration in the development of acceptable
solutions for the disposal of treated waste from the City
was the assurance that there would be no effect on the
marine life or on any existing or contemplated beneficial
use of the Bay and Ocean. In order to develop such assurance,
the City engaged a Technical Advisory Board consisting of
Dr. P. H. McGauhey, Professor Emeritus of Sanitary
Engineering at the University of California, as Chairman;
Dr. C. L. Newcombe, Professor of Biology at California
State University at San Francisco; Dr. W. North, Professor
of Environmental Health Engineering at the California
Institute of Technology; and Dr. P. Wilde, Professor of
Oceanography at the University of California. The function
of this Board was to provide technical guidance to the
firm of Brown and Caldwell which was engaged by the City
to perform the field, laboratory, and evaluation work on
the Bay and Ocean.
This work was required to develop the oceanographic and
biological design criteria necessary for evaluation and
selection of waste discharge locations.
In addition, the City established a Project Advisory Board,
consisting of representatives of the State Department of
Fish and Game, State Department of Public Health, State
Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality
Control Board, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental
Protection Agency, and Marin County and San Mateo County
to review the results of this study and to develop guide-
lines that would insure the success of the study and its
acceptance by these various agencies. The study included
extensive laboratory work performed by Dr. George Schuman,
Marine Biologist of Marine Associates of San Diego, and
work performed in the Marine Laboratory at Fort Baker under
the supervision of Dr. Newcombe.
The studies of the condition of the Bay and Ocean with
regard to the ultimate disposal of both treated dry weather
and wet weather wastes from San Francisco were conducted
over a full year cycle of oceanographic conditions. Measure-
ments included both physical and biological parameters
under field and laboratory conditions, as noted above, for
the purpose of developing design criteria for effluent
disposal. As a result of this effort, criteria for discharge
have been developed which reflect existing oceanographic
conditions and which can be extrapolated to reflect future
conditions.
VI-3

-------
Briefly, the factors governing the design, location, and
successful performance of submarine outfall discharges
were divided into three classifications: 1) physical
oceanographic factors such as currents and water density
which influence the performance of an outfall; 2) con-
ditions which the discharge must meet to avoid an adverse
effect on marine environment; and 3) factors such as
waste composition and flow rate, and the characteristics
of the outfall system. In essence, 1 and 2 are those
factors which are design constants and 3 are those factors
which may be manipulated.
The field and laboratory work performed by Brown and Caldwell
as well as an evaluation of that work plus the design
criteria are generally described in Chapters IV and VII
of this report.
Based on the Brown and Caldwell studies and recent regula-
tory requirements discussed in Chapter II, there are only
two sites recommended for the long-term combined discharge
of the massive quantities of flow under consideration:
1) the northwesterly corner of the City with an outfall
extending to deep water in the channel near the entrance
to the Bay, and 2) a location in the Ocean off the south-
westerly corner of the City outside of the Bar. In this
context, it was determined that for any combined dry and
wet weather disposal plan, the best probable location is
to the west and slightly south of the San Francisco Bar.
Selection of this area is based upon the following
advantages: 1) the area is, biologically, relatively
barren; 2) the depths selected are sufficient to provide
the required dilutions for discharge with properly designed
diffusers to meet the design criteria presented in Chapter IV;
3)	the option of provision for seasonal field variation
between surface fields and submerged fields is possible
through the use of dual outfall and diffuser facilities;
4)	the shoreline is afforded maximum protection in terms
of the dilution attained and the probability of effluent
fields reaching shore; 5) if further protection is required
as knowledge of the effects of disposal increases, then
treatment levels may be increased on a split flow basis
without the necessity of overcoming existing background
levels of pollutants as are existent in the Bay or other
zones of multiple discharge; 6) the possible future impair-
ment of the waters at the Alcatraz site caused by South
Bay and North Bay discharges extending into Central Bay
would be averted.
VI-4

-------
Areas at the mouth of the Gate and near Alcatraz have some,
but not all, of the advantages noted above. Areas south
of the Bay Bridge, however, are less desirable than any
of the above locations.
Treatment Plant
The location of the treatment plant is mainly predicated on
the ultimate point of disposal (i.e., ocean outfall off
the southwest corner of the City). Consideration of this
discharge location and of the required treatment facilities
together with the gravity flow possibilities inherent in
the storage system leads to the alternative of consolidation
of the wet weather and dry weather facilities in the south-
west corner of the City.
Storage Facilities
The Master Plan includes consolidation of the 41 overflow
outfalls to 15 via shoreline retention of flows by both
basins and tunnels depending on the location. This con-
solidation, together with appropriate controls, will
reduce the existing 82 annual overflows to 8.
At the inception of the study for the location of storage
basins, investigation was made on the basis of placing all
the storage volume at the shoreline at points of outfall
consolidation in order to contain flow from the total
drainage area. Two general methods of storage were
examined—retention basins and storage tunnels.
A detailed analysis of the cost of tunnels in various
materials and locations in the City was conducted and many
different types of retention basins were analyzed. From
these analyses, it was determined that tunnels at the
shoreline, or in areas where water is present, are more
costly than retention basins for any volume analyzed.
Thus retention basins are more economical than tunnels for
shoreline storage. It was also determined that upstream
basins cost less per unit volume than shoreline basins.
Based upon this conclusion, it was determined to minimize
shoreline storage. Another reason leading to this decision
was the fact that storage at the shoreline requires pumping
to transport the flow to the treatment plant. Based upon
this concept, the Master Plan incorporates a maximum of
upstream storage for the control of flow in conjunction
with peripheral-basins to intercept and contain flow from
areas too low to be stored at higher elevations.
VI-5

-------
It was also determined that the unit price for tunnels
in sand are greater than that for retention basins.
Thus, no economic benefit would result in utilizing
storage tunnels on the west side of the City as most of
the area is sandy. In areas on the west side of the City
where there is material other than sand, the individual
required storage volumes are such that retention basins
are less costly than tunnels. However, in the case of
upstream areas on the easterly side of the City, the option
for tunnels in cases of storage volume in excess of 600,000
cubic feet are economically beneficial.
The location of a site for a retention facility was
selected, insofar as possible, to be upstream of an
inadequate portion of the transport sewerage system. The
flow attenuation thus generated by the basin would serve
two purposes; the first being the reduction of combined
sewer overflows and the second being to reduce the flow
rate in downstream sewers thus relieving their inadequacy.
A further benefit can be derived by placing upstream basins
to relieve the problem of surface drainage pooling on the
street during a high intensity storm.
Tunnels, where useable, have an advantage over retention
basins because of their dual storage/transport function.
The fact that the tunnel intake is to be in an upstream
area allows cross-town transport of flow by gravity. This
is an important feature in the evaluation of the existing
treatment facilities versus the cost of construction of a
new treatment facility for both dry weather and wet weather
treatment and energy conservation.
The desirability of using tunnels for storage of high level
flow and the locations selected enabled a master cross-
town transport tunnel to be considered. Included with
this transport tunnel, which is of a minimum diameter to
carry a 0.1 inch per hour rainfall on the tributary area,
are the necessary storage tunnels. Storage is provided in
large diameter tunnels up to 34 feet in diameter with a
separate transport section in the tunnel bottom.
The storm flow at the selected locations can be committed
to a storage tunnel and when desired a selected discharge
rate from storage to the transport tunnel can be made.
Included in the control mechanism will be the capability
of isolating each or any combination of storage tunnels
from the transport tunnel in order that one or more other
storage tunnels may be emptied at a rate faster than 0.1
inches per hour for the tributary area. It then follows
that when a portion of the City is receiving more rain
than another, an appropriate control mode can be exercised.
VI-6

-------
All storage will be interconnected in a system which
will allow a transfer of treatment capacity to service
those areas with the greatest need during periods of non-
uniform rainfall over the City. This interconnection will
minimize the probability of multiple overflow occurrences
at different locations which cannot be prevented where
zones are not interconnected.
ALTERNATIVE CONTROL FREQUENCY
In developing the Master Plan, the City considered the
following four levels of wet weather overflow control:
Alternate	Overflow Occurrence
Table VI-1 presents a comparison of the wet weather costs,
excluding dry weather system costs and inadequate sewer
replacement costs, versus the accomplishments for each of
these alternatives. As shown in Table VI-1, from an
existing condition of 82 overflows per year occurring over
a total of 205 hours, a reduction of 92 percent is obtained
under Alternate A and over 99 percent is obtained under
Alternate D.
It should be pointed out that the Master Plan is the same
for all alternatives and only the size of the facilities
varies. Also, it is feasible, but not the most economical,
to provide facilities for one alternate as a sequential
building block to reach a higher alternate. Decreasing
the overflow occurrence from eight times per year to even
four times per year results in a substantial incremental
increase in cost ($63 million).
ALTERNATIVE SIZES
The hydraulic capacity needed to treat the total existing
sewer system design storm runoff, which occurs once in five
years, would be at a rate of about 16 billion gallons per
day. This rate is approximately 50 times greater than the
combined capacity of the three existing treatment plants.
However, by providing storage, the necessary treatment
capacity could be reduced.
A
B
C
D
8 times per year
4 times per year
once per year
once in 5 years
VI-7

-------
TABLE VI-1
COMPARISON OF WET WEATHER COST VS. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Exist.	ALTERNATE
Cond.
Cost (Wet Weather) - $ Millions

A
$333
B
$396
C
$522
D
$665
PER ANNUM - AVERAGE





Number of overflow occurrences
% Reduction2
82
8
90
4
95
1
99
0.2
99+
Duration in hours
% Reduction
2.5
2
2
3
4
Total Hours
% Reduction
205
16
92
8
96
3
99
1
99+
Vol. of untreated overflow
discharge (billions of gal.)
% Reduction
6
.8
88
.4
96
.1
98
.0;
99+
Vol. of treated discharge
(billions of gallons)
38.8
44.1
44.4
44.7
45
Days receiving H2O exceeds
bact. standards
% Reduction
171
40
77
20
88
5
94
1
99+
Suspended solids (million lbs.)
% Reduction
42
14.3
66
13.2
68
12.4
70
12.1
71
COD (million lbs.)
% Reduction
126
81.2
35
80.9
36
80.6
36
80.5
36
Grease (millions lbs.)
% Reduction
10.8
3.5
68
3.4
69
3.3
69
3.3
69
Flotables (million lbs.)
% Reduction
0.5
0.3
30
0.3
32
0.3
33
0.3
34
Nitrogen (millions lbs.)
% Reduction
10.4
9.7
7
9.7
7
9.7
7
9.7
7
Phosphate (million lbs.)
% Reduction
5
1.4
71
1.4
71
1.4
71
1.4
71
*0.2 equivalent to "once per 5 years" frequency.
2from "Existing Condition".
VI-8

-------
In order to develop the optimum design balance between
treatment and storage capacity, the City developed a
computer program to model the storage/treatment process
for combined overflow control. The program was used in
conjunction with 62 years of U. S. Weather Bureau hourly
rainfall data and 21 years of rainfall data from the
Richmond-Sunset Water Pollution Control Plant to route
storms of record through the storage/treatment process.
Based on the computer program results, it was concluded
that the optimum design balance is to provide a maximum
of one billion gallons per day of treatment capacity and
9, 16, 34, and 55 million cubic feet of storage for
Alternates A, B, C, and D, respectively.
A detailed analysis was also made to determine the capacity
of the expanded Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant.
Two basic alternatives were considered: 1) abandon the
North Point plant and divert untreated wastewater to the
Southeast plant and 2) retain the North Point primary
treatment facility and divert effluent to the Southeast
plant.
The capital costs of these two alternatives were essentially
the same—$115 million versus $117 million. However, the
City elected to abandon the North Point facility because
of the following:
Operation and maintenance costs would be
reduced by more than $4 million annually.
During the interim, the North Point facility
could be used to treat storm flows and provide
protection to the north shore beaches at an
earlier date.
After Stage II is completed, the North Point
property could be released for other uses.
Eliminate the need for trucking chemicals and
waste materials through the North Point area.
VI-9

-------
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

-------
CHAPTER VII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE MASTER PLAN
PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Implementation of the Master Plan will involve several major
construction projects during the next 20 years. As previously
discussed in Chapter V, the Master Plan, as presently envisioned,
will be constructed in four distinct stages as follows:
Stage I - Transport System, North Point to Southeast
Southeast Plant Modification and Expansion
Richmond-Sunset Plant Modification
Southeast Interim Bay Outfall
Southwest 2-mile Ocean Outfall
Transport System, Richmond-Sunset to
Southwest
North Shore Wet Weather Control System
(retention basins plus transport system
and North Point Plant modifications)
Stage II - West Side Tunnel Extension
Remaining Shoreline Basins
West Side Upstream Basins
Stage III - Crosstown Transport Facilities
First Phase Southwest Treatment Plant
Stage IV - Remaining Upstream Basins
Ocean Outfall Extension
Completion of Southwest Treatment Plant
The primary impacts due to construction of the Master Plan are
generally discussed in the following sections. The detailed
impacts will be discussed in the Master Plan Implementation
Program documents which will be prepared prior to the construction
of each major element. It should be pointed out, however, that
all the potential impacts and the permanency of these impacts will
depend to a great degree on the care taken during construction.
Biological Impacts
Construction of interceptors generally involve the loss of
grasses, shrubs, trees, microflora, and associated fauna along
the pipeline routes. Additional vegetation is sometimes lost
VII-1

-------
as a result of the operation of construction equipment and
storage of construction materials. Trenching may also destroy
the root systems of trees near construction sites, which could
result in the death of some specimens.
The construction zone proposed for the North Point to Southeast
Transport System is generally industrial in nature and has no
natural or self-maintaining plant or animal communities. There
is some landscaping at the two plants, however, that could be
adversely affected by the proposed construction. Plantings
near the North Point and Southeast facilities were described
in Chapter II.
The second element of Stage I calls for upgrading and expansion
of the Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant to provide a
secondary level of treatment for both the North Point and South-
east flows. The upgrading and expansion of these facilities
involves a minimal loss or disruption of biota located on or
adjacent to the Southeast facility. Some grasses, trees, shrubs,
and associated fauna may be lost; however, due to the industrial
nature of the area, biotic disruption will be minimal.
The improvement and expansion of the Southeast Bay outfall will
cause some disruption to estuarine biota in the construction
area, specifically the benthic community. The outfall is
proposed to extend offshore from the existing outfall for a
distance of about 2,600 feet. Effluent will be discharged at
a depth of about 33 feet through a diffuser designed to provide
an initial wastewater to estuarine water ratio of 1:100. Brown
and Caldwell's studies indicate that the clam, Gemma gemma, is
the most common large benthic organism in the San Francisco
estuary. This organism and other benthic associated species
will be directly affected during the construction phase by
direct displacement, turbidity, and settleable materials.
Turbidity will also effect the plankton. These effects will
all be temporary, however, ending as construction is completed.
Upgrading the Richmond-Sunset plant is also planned for during
Stage I. Since this plant is located in Golden Gate Park and
surrounded by trees and other vegetation types, any expansion
beyond present plant boundaries would result in permanent
disruption of flora and fauna utilizing these habitats. However,
the possibility of land acquisition beyond present plant bound-
aries is remote due to legal provisions attached to land use
changes on park property. Consequently, the only expected
biological impact due to construction at this site is the loss
of grasses, shrubs, and associated fauna on the plant site.
Also included as part of Stage I, is the construction of a
portion of the North Shore wet weather control system including
retention basins, interceptors, and North Point Plant modifi-
cations. Construction of the retention basins will likely
VII-2

-------
result in six months to a year of major disruption at each
site. Construction (i.e., excavation) will undoubtedly involve
the loss or disruption of grasses, shrubs, trees, and microflora
which line the streets by destroying their root systems. Addi-
tional vegetation could be lost by the operation of construction
equipment and storage of construction materials. Where practical,
consideration will be given to offstreet sites where the retention
basins could be constructed integrally with public use facilities
such as parking areas, playgrounds, and parks which would pro-
vide additional benefits to localized areas.
Construction of additional interceptors would have similar
effects on the biological environment. Modifications to the
North Point treatment facility will be very minor and therefore
it is anticipated that construction effects to the biological
environment will also be very minor.
Also included as a part of Stage I will be the construction of
the transport system paralleling the Great Highway from the
Richmond-Sunset plant to the Lake Merced area. Any distruptions
to the sand dune community and the adjacent residential-
associated vegetation along the proposed transport system would
be temporary. However, great care will have to be exercised
to avoid the necessity of some tree removal in Golden Gate Park
adjacent to the Richmond-Sunset plant.
The final element of Stage I will be the first phase construction
of the ocean outfall. Initially, 11,300 feet will be constructed
including 1,800 feet of diffuser which will terminate in about
60 feet of water. The major biotic effect of construction will
be the disruption of the benthic community during the excavation
of the outfall. Construction of this outfall will require the
excavation and disposal of approximately 500,00 0 cubic yards of
bottom material which can have a temporary adverse effect on the
marine environment by causing turbidity in the water and deposi-
tion in the immediate vicinity of construction activities. The
increased turbidity will have an adverse effect on phytoplankton
population by decreasing light penetration, thus decreasing
primary productivity. All dredged material will probably be
disposed of at an approved ocean disposal site; however, the
disposal operation will have an adverse effect on the benthic
organisms which the material might cover.
Construction to be completed in Stages II, III, and IV is
actually an extension of facilities constructed in previous
stages. Therefore, the majority of the biological effects due
to construction of all subsequent stages are as previously dis-
cussed for Stage I. The one exception to this generalized
statement will be the removal of the flora and fauna at the
proposed Southwest Treatment Plant site. Care will be exercised
Vli-3

-------
to protect as much of the natural habitat as possible. In
addition, when completed, the site will be rel'andscaped to blend
in with the natural surroundings which are presently open space.
Physical/Chemical Impacts
Construction associated physical/chemical impacts on the overall
environment include those impacts affecting air, erosion, noise,
water quality, and aesthetics. These impacts are discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Air. Air quality will be affected locally by construction
activities since air pollutants such as dust, smoke, and
exhaust fumes (carbon monoxide, etc.) are generated by
earth moving operations and engine exhausts. The control
of dust will be especially important in the sand dune area
during construction of the Richmond-Sunset to Lake Merced
Transport System. The generation of dust in this area,
coupled with the occurrence of normal breezes in the area,
could have an adverse effect on residences within several
hundred feet of the construction site.
Erosion. The actual erosion hazard in the areas of
construction should be only minor, providing appropriate
construction practices are employed. Exceptions to this
might occur in hill areas which exhibit more than gentle
slopes.
Noise. The acoustical quality of the construction areas
will be affected primarily by heavy equipment noises and
movement of personnel and materials associated with
construction activities. Despite the variety in type and
size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant
noise sources and patterns of operation permit all equip-
ment to be grouped into a very limited number of categories.
These categories are indicated on Figure VII-1, together
with their corresponding noise level data. For comparison,
typical sources of community noise and their intensities
are presented in Figure VII-2.
Most residences near the proposed wet weather retention
basins are within 50 feet of the likely basin locations.
Noise levels attained at times during construction may be
unacceptable for those persons immediately adjacent to
the construction area. Therefore, stringent noise level
controls will be necessary for those areas.
Pile driving will be required during construction of the
North Point to Southeast interceptor, the ocean outfall,
and the 1000 mgd Southwest treatment plant. Conventional
pile drivers are either steam-powered or diesel-powered;
VII-4

-------
FIGURE Vll-I
CONSTRUCTION IMPACT NOISE RANGES
NOISE LEVEL (dBA)AT 60 FT
60 70 80 90 100 110
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
EARTHMOVING
COMPACTERS (ROLLERS)
FRONT LOADERS
BACKHOES
TRACTORS
SCRAPERS, GRADERS
PAVERS
TRUCKS

W




|	
	1



|	

—1


1	

	1




—1



N




>
—1

MATERIALS HANDLING
CONCRETE MIXERS
CONCRETE PUMPS
CRANES(MOVABLE)
CRANES (DERRICK)

1	
	,




H



1	
	1




H


STATIONARY
PUMPS
GENERATORS
COMPRESSORS

H




1	
H



1	
	1


IMPACT
EQUIPMENT
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK ORILLS
PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)


1	1




1	
	1




1	
	1
OTHER
VIBRATORS
SAWS


i



1	



NOTE> Bated on limited available data samples

-------
FIGURE VII -2
TYPICAL SOURCES OF COMMUNITY NOiSE
REPRESENTATIVE SITUATIONS
BUSY URBAN STREET
300 ft. FROM HEAVY TRAFFIC
COMMERCIAL AREA
QUIET SUBURB (daytimt)
QUIET SUBURB (nighttimt)
QUIET RURAL (nlghttlma)
SOURCES
NO
JET AIRCRAFT AT 1000 ft.
100
90 TRAINS AND SUBWAYS AT 80 ft.
TRUCKS AND MOTORCYCLES AT 50 ft.
80
POWER MOWER AT 80 ft.
BUSES AT 80 ft.
70 AUTOMOBILE AT 50 ft.
, 60 AIR CONDITIONER AT 20 ft
POWER STATION AT 60 ft.
50
40
30
dB(A) (A-w»ight«d sound Itval)

-------
in both types, the impact of the hammer dropping onto the
pile is the dominant noise component. Noise is also
generated by the power supply; steam-powered pile drivers
generate noise by releasing steam at the head and diesel-
powered pile drivers generate noise by the combustion
explosion that actuates the hammer. Noise levels are
difficult to measure or standardize because they are
affected by pile type and length; however, peak noise
levels tend to be about 100 dB (A) or higher at 50 feet.
As shown on Figure VII-2, this noise level is about the
same as a jet aircraft at 1,000 feet.
Water Quality. Construction of the two outfalls will
require the excavation and disposal of large quantities
of bottom material which will have a temporary adverse
effect with respect to water quality by causing turbidity
in the water and by causing deposition in the immediate
vicinity of construction and disposal. It should be
pointed out that this portion of construction will be
controlled by the Environmental Protection Agency and
the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
Aesthetics. Bulldozing, excavation, and other earth
moving practices will provide localized alterations of
landforms. This will be especially critical in areas
such as Golden Gate Park and the sand dunes paralleling
the Great Highway. The long-term construction program
proposed by the Master Plan will temporarily degrade
the scenic and aesthetic qualities of the San Francisco
area. Construction activities, no matter how minor,
in such areas as Golden Gate Park and the shoreline
lessen San Francisco's aesthetic appeal to visitors
and residents alike.
Social and Economic
Social and economic impacts due to construction activities are
those associated with employment, traffic and utility disruption,
recreation, energy, and land use.
Employment. Increased employment opportunities will
occur during the long-term construction period pro-
posed by the Master Plan. Additional permanent
employment opportunities will also be created as
additional personnel will be required to operate and
maintain the expanded collection, treatment, and
disposal facilities. Increased employment also means
increased payrolls which will add to the area's general
economy.
VI1-7

-------
Traffic Disruption. Construction activities in the
more congested or built-up areas will probably cause
significant disruptions in the vehicular and pedestrian
traffic patterns. This will probably be significant in
commercial areas and on the more heavily travelled
streets during the peak commute hours.
Utility Disruption. Some utility lines, such as elec-
tricity, water, and gas, in the construction areas will
have to be relocated. The relocation may result in a
disruption of service during the relocation activities.
Recreation. Marine-oriented recreational activities
could be hampered by the proposed construction activities.
The ocean outfall will probably be constructed off a
temporary trestle, at least through the surf zone. The
trestle and other outfall construction activities will
undoubtedly cause an interference to navigation. Near-
shore construction activities will also interfere with
recreational useage of the beach area designated as the
construction site.
Energy. If the current nationwide energy crisis continues,
the increased fuel and other construction-associated
power requirements could cause additional shortages in
the San Francisco Bay Area.
Land Use. Construction of the Southwest facility,
abandonment of North Point, expansion of the Southeast
plant, and possible expansion of the Richmond-Sunset
facility will affect land use within San Francisco.
However, the changes will be compatible with appropriate
elements of the Comprehensive Plan of the Department of
City Planning.
The Southwest site is presently open space with the
exception of a National Guard facility occupying a
portion of the property. Construction will necessitate
the abandonment of the armory in addition to a land use
change from open space to public facilities.
Expansion of the present Southeast facilities will
necessitate a relocation of the commercial operations
occupying City-owned property adjacent to the present
plant site. It will also necessitate the acquisition
of non-City property which is presently used for
commercial and/or industrial purposes.
The planned vacating of the North Point site will also
result in a land use change. This site is presently
VII-8

-------
surrounded by a high density residential-commercial
area. The abandoned plant site could be planned to
consider the importance to the community of open space
and natural areas. This site could provide valuable
space within the crowded residential-commercial area
for a park, grassed area, ponds, or other natural
surroundings that provide needed relief from crowded
urban living. To this possible end, the City recently
zoned this site public use.
Unique Archaeological, Historic, Scientific, or
Cultural Features
The City of San Francisco contains numerous sites listed in
the National Register of Historic Places. Construction is
not expected to directly affect any of these sites; however,
the construction of the inland retention basins, interceptors,
or tunnels may bring construction activity near some sites.
Protection against land defacement will be afforded these
special sites. Following construction there should be no
sustained impacts in the areas which might influence the
historical, cultural, or aesthetic value of the sites.
PRIMARY OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
Biological Impacts
Pacific Coast Background. Marine disposal of wastewater
by means of submarine outfalls has been practiced along
the Pacific Coast since the 19th century. A considerable
amount of ecological data is available for these dis-
charges since many researchers have studied their
ecological effects. Professor Wheeler North, under con-
tract to the City of San Francisco, reviewed and analyzed
the biological literature relating to marine disposal of
wastewater along the Pacific Coast and much of the following
discussion is taken from this source.
Although most of the available literature has dealt with
Southern California outfalls which discharge primary
effluent into the ocean, a review of some of the prior
investigations will provide the reader with a marine-
discharge perspective. Therefore, the following paragraphs
contain a brief summary of some of the more important
investigations.
San Diego Bay received primary effluent and wet weather
overflows from the City of San Diego until the Point Loma
VII-9

-------
outfall was placed in operation in 196 3. Dr. North
inspected the area near the discharge in the late
1950's and observed very little life but large accumu-
lations of sludge. Cessation of the discharge into the
Bay caused slowed improvement in water quality and
recent reports by the Environmental Protection Agency
and Dr, North indicate that biota is abundant and the
Bay appears to be in a healthy condition.
Additional work was conducted in 1965 by diving biologists
from the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) at
San Diego's outfall site off Point Loma. Comparisons
made with data collected by San Diego Marine Consultants
prior to construction of the outfall indicated a diverse
and abundant fauna and flora existed on the rocky shelf
inshore from the outfall and no adverse effects could be
attributed to the outfall.
DFG divers also conducted background (1962) and post-
discharge (1967) surveys near the small (2.2 mgd) waste-
water outfall off Canyon de las Encinas to note any
changes caused by the operation. Principal changes
involved increased abundances of sand anemonies, hermit
crabs, sand stars, and white urchins. Diversities and
abundances of species colonizing the outfall structure
were considered normal for the age of the "reef". Overall,
no adverse influences due to the outfall operation were
noted.
Diving biologists from DFG surveyed biota near the Orange
County Sanitation District's discharge off the Santa Ana
River in early 1965. A nearby artificial reef was also
inspected. Numbers and kinds of sedimentary fauna
appeared normal as did communities encrusting most of the
outfall structure. The last 100 feet of outfall pipe
displayed reduced species diversity and there were
indications of impoverishment on the artificial reef.
The general biological impact of the discharge was none-
theless considered small.
Hartman in an Allan Hancock Foundation report defined
several fauna1 zones according to estimated influence
of the Hyperion discharge to Santa Monica Bay. Groups
utilized for this purpose were polychetes, starfish, and
crustaceans. A zone limited by pollution extended for
about half a mile from the outfall terminus. Other biotic
zones were labeled pollution tolerant, limited enriched,
unlimited enriched, and unlimited diminished, in order of
increasing distance from the discharge. Return to
normality was judged to occur at a distance of six miles
VII-10

-------
from the outfall. Resig in "Waste Disposal in the Marine
Environment" found no barren areas in the Bay when sampling
foraminifera, although she did note several unusual
distribution patterns.
In a review of recent sportfishing statistics for the
Santa Monica Bay, Bendix Marine Advisers noted a pre-
cipitous three year decline from 1966 to 1968 (more recent
data were not available) and a decreasing long-term trend
dating from 1949. The 1966-68 decline extended to all
categories of fish. In summary, Santa Monica Bay has
revealed signs of change and even stress.
North in reviewing the literature concerning Pacific
coast ocean outfalls for the City of San Francisco con-
cluded that no correlation has been found between sewage
disposal and plankton blooms. Open sea discharges of
primary effluent of less than 100 mgd over sedimentary
bottoms can cause faunal enrichment; whereas, discharges
of about 200 mgd or more can create adjacent zones of
significant impoverishment. For large discharges over
sedimentary bottoms the impoverishment may be related to
sludge accumulation.
The above studies were presented to illustrate effects
of ocean discharges on their own immediate environment.
It should be emphasized, however, that each discharge
has its own unique physical and biological environment
and extreme care should be taken in any attempt to
extrapolate cause-effect relationships from one marine
outfall to another.
San Francisco Bay Area Background. Background conditions
within San Francisco Bay are probably better documented
than any other California area. Some information can be
found as far back as 1870. The Albatross expedition of
1912-13 also provided considerable data on the Bay fauna.
A series of publications in the Wasmann Journal of
Biology (1954-1959) by Filice correlated faunal distri-
butions with proximity to waste disposal areas in the
Bay. This author identified three zones around waste
disposal areas - barren, marginal, and normal.
In the early 1960's a very broad survey was conducted by
the Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory (SERL) of
the University of California at Berkeley. For Central
San Francisco Bay, the study found the greatest biotic
diversity to occur near the Golden Gate. Plant and
VII-11

-------
animal diversity declined as distance from the Golden
Gate increased. No correlations were made between benthic
animal distributions and specific waste discharges.
The SERL survey was partially duplicated in 196 8 by
Engineering-Science Inc., as subcontractor to Kaiser
Engineers for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality
Program. A primary objective of the Biologic-Ecologic
portion of that study was to compare conditions in 196 8
with data collected five years previously by SERL and
define changes and trends. It should be noted that perhaps
the most important conclusion ("Toxicity now exerts a
major influence on the Health of biological populations
in the Bay", Kaiser Engineers, 1968) does not seem adequately
justified. The statement appears to be based on changes
found in diversity of sedimentary infauna. The diversity
indices employed in the SERL study were not conventional
ecological diversity indices. Recalculation of SERL data
by the Kaiser Engineers led them to conclude that the
effects were not statistically significant.
The City of San Francisco through its consultant, Brown
& Caldwell, began a predesign report on Marine waste
disposal in 1969. This study involved extensive field
and ecological data necessary to establish criteria which
would insure protection of the marine environment from
the proposed ocean discharge. Criteria developed by the
1969-70 study have been elaborated on in Chapter I and
will not be repeated here. The basic finding of the two-
year study was that primary effluent from the City of San
Francisco, discharged at appropriate points through
properly designed submarine diffusers, would not adversely
affect the marine environment of the Central Bay or the
Gulf of the Farallones. However, recent Federal regulations
still require a minimum of secondary treatment. Supple-
mentary ecological investigations were continued in 1971
by Brown & Caldwell. The later study was primarily directed
toward Dungeness crab populations and the effects of waste-
water effluents on their various life stages. The results
of the plankton studies indicate a low population of
Dungeness crab zoea in the Gulf of the Farallones. Catches
of adult crabs were also low with considerable fluctuation.
Laboratory bioassay tests performed on adults, juveniles,
larvae, and eggs of several species of crabs showed no
statistically significant effect due to wastewater effluents
at dilutions ranging from 1:400 to 1:20. It was further
concluded, that the results of this study reinforced the
VII-12

-------
conclusions with respect to ecological design criteria
of the previous predesign report on marine waste disposal.
However, no samples were taken in the near vicinity of
the proposed outfall off Lake Merced. Therefore, Brown
& Caldwell has continued its ecological investigations
with the following objectives: (1) to satisfy the
recommendations of the California Department of Fish and
Game, and (2) to obtain baseline ecological data in the
vicinity of the proposed Bay and Ocean sites which may
have some ultimate bearing on the final site selection.
Task II of this program is intended to provide the
ecological baseline data for wastewater disposal in San
Francisco Bay. The task is divided into several subtasks
as follows:
Subtask II-A —	Preliminary Design of Wastewater
Outfall
Subtask II-B-E — Studies of Benthos near Southeast
WPCP
Subtask II-F — Dispersion of Wastewater Effluents
in San Francisco Bay
Subtask II-G --	Studies of Fish and Macroinverte-
brates near Southeast WPCP
Subtask II-H — Sediment Studies
Subtask II-K —	Review of Data
All of these subtasks are currently underway and completion
is expected during the Fall of 1974.
Task III-A will consider physical oceanographic conditions
in the Gulf of the Farallones. Previous Brown & Caldwell
studies were conducted only during the upwelling season.
Therefore, this survey was designed to provide more complete
data on receiving water conditions.
A dye-tracer release and tracking study was conducted in
October 197 3 near the proposed Lake Merced outfall. Inter-
pretation of these results, however, must await completion
of current data analysis by Brown & Caldwell.
Task III-B includes the collection of benthic biological
data in the vicinity of the proposed outfall in the Gulf
of the Farallones. Data is being collected in accordance
VII-13

-------
with the recommendations of the California Department of
Fish and Game. Three surveys have been scheduled and
two have been completed. The first survey was done in
July 1973, the second was done in October 1973, and the
third is scheduled for February-March 1974. Each survey
includes fish trawling, crab trapping, and benthic
invertebrate sampling.
Effects of the Proposed Discharges. The ocean outfall
in the Gulf of the Farallones will originate from the
coastal area near Lake Merced and will discharge at
points two and four miles offshore over a sedimentary
bottom into turbulent water. Sufficient effluent mixing
is expected and sludge accumulations should be negligible.
Discharged wastes under these circumstances may have the
following influences on surrounding biota,
1.	Suspended and dissolved organics might
nourish certain species, increasing their
survival capabilities and causing abundance
increases. Such changes probably would also
affect food chains based on such favored
species. Possibly less-favored species might
decline due to alterations in competition for
food or predator-prey relationships.
2.	Discharge toxicants might affect nearby sen-
sitive species within limited areas.
3.	Concentrations of substances with slow
biodegradability might increase among
resident fauna and might have selective
effects altering the incidence of sensitive
species.
4.	Abnormal tastes and odors might cause fish
to shun the area.
The following discussion of biotic effects related to
wastewater disposal by the proposed Master Plan system
involves identification of principle marine resources
within five miles of the proposed ocean outfall and within
the Bay and then a discussion of how these organisms might
be affected by the four mechanisms listed above.
Fin Fisheries. Statistical square 455 in the grid used
by the Department of Fish and Game (Figure VII-3) encloses
all ocean bottom lying within five miles of the proposed
outfall.
Odemar, et al in a study for the Department of Fish and
Game gave 1962-1966 averages for Square 455 for many of
VII-14

-------
FIGURE VII -3
QUADRANGLE 455
GULF OF THE FARALLONES^/
37° 50'
Pt. Bontta
Loboa
SAN
MIDDLE FARALLON
FRANCISCO
90UTHEAST
FARALLON
QUADRANGLE
455
180
37° 40
mil**
nout.
DEPTH CONTOURS in fMt
Pt. San
Padro
Croat •action of Gulf of tha Farallonaa, ahowing location of Squara 455 (actually It la a quadrangla)
which ia a taction of an orid uaad by tha Daportmant of Fiah ond Gam# for aubdividing tha California
coaat.

-------
the fisheries. This area was second only to San Francisco
Bay as a source of striped bass. Square 45 5 also lies
centrally within prime fishing areas for salmon and market
crab (Dungeness crab). Considerable sportfishing effort
is expended within Square 455. The area ranked 5th in
partyboat average annual angler days from 1962 to 1966,
considering all 129 squares lying between Point Arena and
Point Lobos.
The marine resources of primary economic concern in Square
455 are thus, salmon, striped bass, market crab, and to a
lesser extent, lingcod, rockfish, and English sole. Some
albacore are taken in the Gulf of the Farallones but, as
will be shown, any influence by a discharge on this
resource would be trivial. Additionally the area contains
many animals having no direct recreational or commerical
values but nonetheless playing vital roles in the food
chains and communities of which these fishes are a part,
and thus indirectly contributing to the welfare of local
fisheries. It is, therefore, pertinent to review briefly
food habits and general biology of the species important
in Square 4 55 fisheries in connection with possible
influences of discharged wastes.
Salmon. King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) is the
most important salmon species in the San Francisco area,
being up to 2000 times as plentiful in sportfish catches
as silver salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
Salmon are anadromous fishes, moving into freshwater
streams to spawn when mature. Adults die after spawning.
The young migrate downstream after hatching and spend most
of their three-to-seven year lifespan in the sea. Large
numbers of salmon use San Francisco Bay as a pathway to
and from the spawning grounds. If sewage-seawater mixtures
affect salmon directly (toxicities, buildup of nonbio-
degradables, adverse odors or tastes, etc.), construction
of the proposed outfall into the Gulf of the Farallones
should not cause any additional changes because salmon
have encountered these same wastes for many years while
passing through San Francisco Bay. It is more likely that
any such direct effects would be reduced by the proposed
outfall vs. existing Bay discharges because of design
improvements and greater turbulence in the receiving waters.
Merkel, in 195 7, analyzed stomach contents of 100 4 king
salmon captured by trolling near San Francisco. Major
dietary items were: anchovy 29.1%, rockfish 22.5%,
euphausiids 14.9%, Pacific herring 12.7%, squid 9.3%,
other fishes 7.3%, and crab megalops 4.0%. Size of
VII-15

-------
individuals did not affect food habits, but seasonal
differences were noted. King salmon thus subsist on a
variety of organisms that are primarily pelagic. Con-
firming this conclusion, Cannon in his book "How to Fish
the Pacific Coast" recommended trolling depths of just
subsurface to eight to twelve feet above the bottom for
salmon. If any changes occurred in pelagic communities
in the immediate vicinity of the proposed outfall any
nearby salmon would probably substitute forage organisms
that had become more plentiful. So long as the total
pelagic population was not reduced there might be no
effect on the salmon diet. A shift in diet is not expected
to have an effect but could, in theory, change the pattern
of accumulation of potentially toxic materials in the
salmon. No adverse effect is expected on salmon migration
as the proposed outfalls are located out of the main
migration route and if anything, a beneficial effect might
be expected as a result of the elimination of the existing
North Point and Richmond-Sunset discharges in the main
migration routes.
Striped Bass. The striped bass (Roccus saxatilis) like
salmon, is anadromous and utilizes the San Francisco Bay-
Delta system extensively for spawning. The species is
not native but was introduced to San Francisco Bay from
the east coast during the last century. The prime striped
bass fishing areas lie within the Bay with only a relatively
minor surf fishery along the ocean coastline.
Johnson and Calhoun analyzed stomach contents of 387 striped
bass from San Francisco Bay. Principal dietary items in
their specimens were shrimp 53%, and anchovy 39%. Skinner
summarized several studies of food habits of striped bass.
Apparently the striped bass is not dependent on one or
two forage species? therefore, the proposed ocean outfall
should have negligible adverse effects on food supplies
of this fish off San Francisco.
Because the Bay fishery presently exists in waters receiving
San Francisco (and many other) wastes, it is not expected
that the proposed Bay outfall will exert a damaging effect
(i^.e. toxicity or taste and odors, etc.) on striped bass.
In fact, if discharged wastes exert any adverse effects
on striped bass within the Bay, the proposed ocean discharge
in the Gulf of the Farallones would benefit the Bay
fishery by reducing the volume of wastes discharged into
the Bay.
VII-16

-------
Lingcod. Lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) are generally
associated with rocky bottom and probably most catches
in Square 455 are obtained near the Golden Gate, or off
Seal Rocks.
Juveniles consumed various crustacea including Pandalus
and Neomysis, as well as herring. Adult stomachs con-
tained sand lances, herring, flounder, dogfish, young
lingcod, crab, shrimp, and squid. Some specimens had
eaten small amounts of hydroids, ell grass, and even
rocks, probably indicating adventitious ingestion while
scooping up prey near the bottom. A rule of thumb for
finding lingcod is "follow the herring". Quast in 1968
reported from his analysis of seventeen lingcod stomachs
almost exclusive recoveries of fish and squid. He found
anchovies only in individuals captured by hook and line
(the lingcod possibly obtained the anchovies as a result
of "chumming"). The varied diet indicated for lingcod
suggests that the species would easily alter its food
if changes in supply followed operation of an outfall in
the Gulf of the Farallones. There is no anticipated
deterioration in the Golden Gate area (probably the main
source of lingcod in Square 455) as a result of the proposed
ocean outfall as the Richmond-Sunset discharge that is
presently released at Lands End would be discontinued.
The proposed ocean outfall would accept this effluent and
disperse it several miles away from the Golden Gate. In
addition, the rock ballast along the exposed portion of
the outfall will provide a favorable rock habitat for
attached organisms and could enhance the fishery for
lingcod and rockfish in the area.
English sole. Published information concerning biology
of the English sole (Parophrys vetulus) in the Gulf of
the Farallones is scarce. Even the general literature
on California flatfishes is limited. Skinner in "Historical
Review of the Fish Resources of San Francisco Bay" reported
that "tremendous numbers of immature flounders, sole, and
sanddabs are present" in San Francisco Bay. He speculated
that the Bay may serve as an important nursery for flat-
fishes as has been demonstrated for flounders and menhaden
in Atlantic coast estuaries. As a group, flatfishes feed
on a variety of invertebrates and fishes characteristic
of sandy bottoms. Cannon suggested ghost shrimp, fresh
stripbait, clam siphons, rock worms, and small crabs as
suitable bait for English sole. The available evidence
thus suggests that English sole and other flatfishes should
be able to adjust to changes in food types if they were to
VII-17

-------
occur in either the Gulf of the Farallones or the Bay
because of the proposed discharges.
Flatfishes appear to tolerate large outfalls as well as
any group of fishes. Six of the ten most common fishes
recovered by Carlisle in his six-year trawl survey of
Santa Monica Bay were flatfishes. English sole ranked
fifth in recoveries out of 10 3 species listed. Santa
Monica Bay, which receives effluent from the City of
Los Angeles, is described in the previous background
section. The relatively high ranking of English sole
in this survey provides some assurance that the proposed
outfall in the Gulf of the Farallones should have a
negligible effect on this species.
Pelagic species. Pacific albacore are large pelagic
fish that occur worldwide in temperate seas. Other
pelagic fish in the San Francisco Bay area include
anchovy, sardine# jack mackeral, and Pacific bonito.
As albacore and anchovies are the principle members of
the pelagic fishery in the area, a discussion of Pacific
albacore and the northern anchovy will be taken as repre-
sentative of this group.
Albacore feed on a wide variety of animals. Clemens and
Iselin recovered 23 categories of invertebrates and 53
categories of fishes from a seven year study of albacore
stomach contents. Principal dietary components included
northern anchovy, rockfishes, jack mackeral, Pacific
saury, barracudines, squid, euphausiids, amphipods, and
heteropods.
The diverse diet of the species indicates that the pro-
posed discharge would not be likely to affect overall
albacore food supplies. Although substantial commercial
lands are made in the San Francisco area the contribution
from the Gulf of the Farallones is miniscule.
The northern anchovy, Engraulis mordax, is a planktophagous
species. It is an omnivorous animal living either on
phytopianktonic or zooplanktonic organisms, or on both
at the same time. Zooplankters seem to be preferred in
the anchovy diet. Among zooplankters, crustaceans such
as the copepods and euphausiids are most frequently found
in the stomachs, and they appear to be the most important
food.
Although there is no sport fishery for northern anchovies,
thousands of tons are netted each year for use as live
VII-18

-------
bait by partyboat and other fisheraien. A major portion
of this catch originates in San Francisco Bay. Therefore,
any elimination of Bay wastewater discharges should
benefit this fishery simply by removal of a potential
hazard.
The proposed ocean discharge would be sufficiently close
to shore so that albacore, anchovy, and other pelagic
species would only rarely encounter even moderately high
concentrations of effluent (i.e. dilutions of 500 to 1).
Hence toxicity effects would be quite unlikely. The only
conceivable influence would be generation of a hypothetical
obnoxious odor or taste, excluding albacore and anchovies
from a small portion of their total habitat.
Other Fin Fisheries. No adverse effects by the ocean
discharge are expected to the Walleye surf perch (Hyper-
prosodon argenteum) even though this was one of the most
sensitive species in bioassays conducted by Brown &
Caldwell who found 9 0 percent survival of Walleye surf
perch as long as dilutions exceeded 1:15.
The habitat of the surf perch, however, is in the surf
zone which will be protected by the 1000 to 1 dilution
criteria established for shoreline and shallow water. A
beneficial effect should be realized for surf perch as a
result of the elimination of nearshore discharges at
Lands End and North Point.
Benthic Community
The consensus of a three year study, by a committee established
by the University of California Berkeley (UCB), to find a
suitable location for its marine biological station (subsequently
sited at Bodega Head) was stated by Dr. Cadet Hand (presently
Director of the Bodega laboratory) who noted that the coast
from Point Reyes to Pigeon Point (Gulf of the Farallones shore-
line) showed "a faunistic and floral depression (which we blame
on the pollution, silt, etc., that flows out through the Golden
Gate) " .
Crab fishery. Dungeness crab (Cancer magister), also
known as the market crab, formerly occurred in San
Francisco Bay in such numbers that at times they were
considered a nuisance. The populations were apparently
depleted by overfishing and the fishery moved outside
the Golden Gate sometime after 1880. (See Figure VII-4.)
Like other crustaceans, Dungeness crab have a planktonic
existence as larvae lasting for months.
VII-19

-------
FIGURE VII -4
DUN8ENESS CRAB FISHIN8 GROUNDS IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA
ROSS
BOOEGA
FRANCISCO
FAR ALL ONES
PT. ANO NUEVO
SAND HILL
BLUFF
L EOEND
DUNGENESS CRAB
FISHING GROUNDS
»CALC MAUT. MILEt
0	10	20
MONTEREY mA
BAY ' J,
I

-------
Many juveniles settling off Sari Francisco probably-
originated from parents situated far to the north.
Effects of discharged wastes on reproduction by crabs
off San Francisco are thus of lesser concern than
effects on larvae and the adult form. Influences of San
Francisco wastes on crab larvae and adults have been
studied by Brown & Caldwell for the City of San Francisco.
Recent investigations have provided the following
conclusions:
1.	The study area is a special nursery ground
for the Dungeness crab.
2.	Laboratory tests on adults, juveniles, larvae,
and eggs of four species of crabs (Dungeness,
Kelp, Hermit, and Porcelain) with primary
emphasis on Dungeness crab showed no statistically
significant effect due to wastewater dilutions
from 1:400 to 1:20.
3.	Primary effluent discharged from the City of
San Francisco at appropriate points through
properly designed submarine diffusers will not
adversely affect the marine environment of the
Central Bay or the Gulf of the Farallones.
Short-term static bioassays using crab larvae were con-
ducted by the Department of Fish and Game in 1971. The
results indicated toxicity to first-stage crab larvae at
a San Francisco waste concentration between 8 (1:12.5)
and 16 (1:6.25) percent, by volume. At waste concentra-
tions around 1 (1:100) to 4 (1:25) percent, larva survival
apparently was not significantly different from controls.
The Department of Fish and Game emphasized, however, that
these are short-term effects and should not be applied to
a long-term evaluation.
Adult Dungeness crab generally prefer shallow sandy bottoms
at depths ranging from 25 to 90 feet. The animals burrow
until only the stalked eyes and antennules are exposed.
Apparently silty water or fine sediments interfere with
activities such as respiration while buried because crabs
recovered from muddy bottoms may be of poor quality. Any
discharge in the Gulf of the Farallones, therefore, should
avoid extensive sludge deposits.
Adult crabs are primarily carnivorous. Food consists of
fish, shrimp, small crabs, clams, and other animals,
including corpses or portions of creatures recently dead.
These broad food acceptances can be expected to aid
survival of resident crabs near a proposed outfall if
VII-21

-------
changes in benthic populations of infauna occur. Skinner
reported that immature market crab occur abundantly in
San Francisco and San Pablo Bays- Therefore, it can be
surmised that the decline in the San Francisco fishery
is the result of failure by crab larvae to settle in the
Gulf of the Farallones, or possibly by environmental
conditions affecting growth rates rather than any local
change in environmental conditions adverse to the adult
forms.
No adverse effect should be evidenced in the Dungeness
Crab fishery provided the ecological dilution criteria
are met. The dilution criteria established were largely
influenced by the requirement to protect the crab from
their larval stages to adulthood. These criteria will be
equaled or exceeded outside the initial dilution zone.
Since the level of treatment provided at the Southeast
and Richmond-Sunset plants will insure removal of most
particulate matter, sludge deposits will not occur.
Approximately the first 8,000 feet of the ocean outfall
will be buried and thus will not interfere with crab
migration either inshore-offshore or laterally. The
remaining portion (approximately 14,000 feet) will be
laid on the bottom and protected by rock ballast on
either side of the pipe which will provide an improved
habitat for some benthic organisms; although some inter-
ference with crab migration may be anticipated.
Other Benthic Organisms. The proposed Southwest discharge
site will be located in an area in which the Shelf com-
munity of benthic organisms exist. The Shelf community
comprises those organisms which inhabit the finer grained
sediments outside the bar at the mouth of the Golden
Gate. The entire community is located in water depths
greater than 50 feet where the effect of wave agitation
and currents is minimal. This community has a low
biomass, usually measuring less than one-half of one
percent organic material. The major organisms are
foramini fera, especially Elphidiella h anuria i , arthropods,
and small molluscs.
The proposed Master Plan is designed for protection of
benthic organisms by assuring adequate dilution by the
time effluent reaches the bottom and by providing treat-
ment sufficient to assure that no sludge deposits occur
on the bottom. The Gulf of the Farallones supports a
diverse fauna, a majority of the species occurring fre-
quently or in high abundance do not appear to be sensitive
VII-22

-------
to discharged wastes, judging from their distributions
in areas near submarine outfalls and in San Francisco
Bay.
Other Biota
Plankton. Much work has been done concerning the possible
biostimulatory effects ocean discharges of wastewater
might have. Gunnerson in the Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers stated that "evidence for
greater production of marine plankton in the vicinity of
sewage-effluent discharges is strong", citing studies
from Florida, Oslo Fjord, and the Mediterranean as support.
This conclusion has since been verified for southern
California waters by Tibby et al.
Stevenson and Grady usually found increases in planktonic
concentrations near outfall "boils". Occasionally the
effect could be traced to a 12,000 foot distance. These
authors did not believe that effluent mixtures caused
plankton "blooms" (marked concentration increases) but
they surmised that discharged nutrients might enhance
bloom intensities. Gunnerson could find no convincing
evidence that the subtle fertilization effects of sewage
could lead to dense plankton blooms or eutrophication in
open coastal waters although such effects may occur in
semi-enclosed situations. Tibby et al. concurred in this
conclusion.
The City of San Diego conducted surface to 20 foot depth
plankton tows for five years near its Point Loma outfall
(a discharge that rarely, if ever, extends to within
20 feet of the surface). A total of 80 groups that
included 35 species were segregated during processing.
Several species may have responded to the Point Loma
discharge (Ceratium dens, Ceratium furca, and Noctiluca
sp. may have increased temporarily, Skeletonema costatum
and Oxytoxum sp. may have increased, particularly during
a period of sludge discharge). Overall, however, it was
concluded that influences on planktonic communities were
negligible. This study was certainly the most detailed
effort and the most carefully analyzed work of its kind
ever conducted on the Pacific coast. As a result, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board was convinced that
the San Diego discharge was not influencing planktonic
communities significantly and the City was allowed to
discontinue this exceedingly costly program.
The biostimulation potential of San Francisco Bay was
studied by Engineering Science, Inc. for the San Francisco
VII-23

-------
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program in 1968. Results
of its findings for Central San Francisco Bay indicated
that at the normal nitrate concentrations found within
San Francisco Bay no stimulation would be expected from
the addition of an activiated sludge effluent.
Brown & Caldwell attempted to determine the threshold
level of biostimulatory response of San Francisco's com-
posite sewage effluent in seawater. Results showed no
difference between controls and dilutions as low as 1:20.
From the above discussion it is reasonably safe to assume
there will be minimal adverse effects to the plankton
populations due to the proposed discharges.
Kelp. As there are no Kelp beds in the vicinity of the
proposed ocean outfall, the project will have no effect
on these marine resources.
Avifauna. The project should have no adverse effect on
bird life in the area. Treatment of dry weather as well
as wet weather flows will insure a minimum of floating
material of wastewater origin which may be ingested by
birds. No substances should be present in the effluent
in sufficient concentration to produce excessive magnifi-
cation in the food chain to endanger bird life.
Mammals. The proposed Master Plan should have no adverse
effect on marine mammals in the area. As with bird life,
no substances should be present in the effluent in suffi-
cient concentration to produce excessive magnification
in the food chain to endanger marine mammals.
Rare or endangered species. The project should have no
adverse effect on rare or endangered species. The only
species identified in "At the Crossroads" a publication
of the Department of Fish and Game dated January 19 72
which might be affected are the California clapper rail,
the salt marsh harvest mouse and the Guadalupe fur seal.
The habitat of these species is sufficiently remote from
the proposed discharge sites to insure no effect.
Physical/Chemical Impacts
Noise. Sound levels associated with wastewater treatment
plant operations are generally of a low level and frequency.
It has been found in past surveys that traffic generated
sound levels generally exceed those from a treatment plant
by 10 to 15 dB (A).
VII-24

-------
No noise complaints have been received due to the opera-
tion of the North Point, Southeast, or Richmond-Sunset
Plants in the past. Since future sound generation will
be no higher than now exists, no adverse impact is expected
from noise generation of new equipment or new facilities.
Air. The City of San Francisco has remarkably pure air
despite its size. While this is essentially accurate the
emissions from the City contribute to some of the most
difficult to solve air pollution problems on the west
coast. The prevailing winds that disperse emissions and
prevent them from accumulating over the City itself, carry
these pollutants to the East Bay where they are contained
by the East Bay hills and thermal inversions allowing the
oxidant reaction to occur, creating some of the highest
oxidant concentrations in the Bay Area.
Future air quality will depend upon population level and
control measures. Changes in air quality will be a
function of motor vehicle traffic and implementation of
various emission control measures including regulations
to control motor vehicle traffic.
The primary air emission sources contained in the Master
Plan will be the waste gas burners used to dispose of
excess digestion gas. Digestion gas contains about 65
to 70 percent methane by volume, 25 to 30 percent CO2 and
small amounts of N2, H2> and other gases. Emissions from
the waste gas burners will include CO2, water, and small
amounts of SO2.
Receiving Water Quality
Dissolved Oxygen. Depression of dissolved oxygen from
wet weather and dry weather outfalls will not be a critical
factor. Initial dilution capability for each outfall in
combination with the fact that oxygen levels in the waters
of the Gulf of the Farallones and Central Bay are near
saturation should minimize problems associated with
depression of oxygen levels. Mathematical model studies
performed by Brown & Caldwell in 1969 indicated that the
maximum depletion of oxygen in the Bay resulting from all
San Francisco discharges would occur south of the Bay
Bridge in the vicinity of the Southeast Plant and would
be approximately 0.07 mg/1. This is not considered
significant, however.
Nutrients. It was concluded in the Bay-Delta Report by
Kaiser Engineers in 1969 that total nitrogen and phos-
phorus concentrations in Bay waters are substantially
VII-25

-------
higher than the minimum concentrations necessary for
biological growth. Enrichment is observed mainly along
the shores and in the tidal reaches of some of the tribu-
taries. A possible explanation for lack of excessive
algal production is the low level of light availability
and the presence of toxic or inhibitory components from
wastewater. Projected reduced Delta outflows could
significantly reduce turbid fresh water inflows to the
Bay and result in increased available light. In addition,
control of toxic materials in wastewater discharges will
improve which could create conditions more favorable to
algal production thereby resulting in increases in algal
growth. The net southward movement of an increased sub-
merged field at the Southeast Plant could result in a
slight increase in South Bay nutrient concentrations from
that discharge point. However, no increase in algal
production is expected in this area due to the increased
discharge because of the continued low level of light
availability in the South Bay.
The increase in nutrient inputs to the South Bay will
cease upon completion of Stage III which will divert all
dry weather flows to the ocean outfall. Nutrient addition
to the ocean environment will have no adverse effects due
to the great dilution factor. Biostimulatory effects have
been discussed in the previous section.
Turbidity. One of the effects of very fine suspended
particles in wastewater discharged into the sea is
reduction of local water transparency. Low transparency
is typical of coastal waters in general. It affects many
of the marine processes, including the depth to which
phytoplankton are productive and the regions and depths
to which fish and other organisms migrate. The first
effect of increased turbidity is to reduce productivity,
and in the case of wastewater, probably to moderate and
slow the growth of phytoplankton. Low transparency may
also increase the numbers of fish migrating into or
residing in the region of outfalls. However, these
effects do not appear to be particularly important or
undesirable.
Coliforms. In densely populated areas, such as San
Francisco, water pollution by sewage is an ever present
hazard. Several serious diseases can be traced to polluted
waters, among them typhoid fever and a group of intestinal
disorders generally called "dysentery". The actual
causitive microorganisms may be extremely hard to detect.
Consequently, health authorities routinely check for the
VII-26

-------
presence of certain bacteria that act as "indicators".
The most often used "indicator organism" is the coliform
bacteria.
Beaches along the San Francisco shoreline are posted by
the San Francisco Department of Public Health from October
to April each year due to high coliform levels from wet
weather overflows. Maximum eoliform levels are attained
during the rainy season and can be attributed to wet
weather overflows of combined sewage. Historical data
collected from 1967 through 19 72 shows that Public Health
criteria for saltwater bathing (i.e. not more than 20
percent of the samples in any consecutive 30-day period
may exceed a most probable number (MPN) of 1,000 per
100 ml.) are normally exceeded throughout the shoreline
waters surrounding the City during the entire winter
season. In the vicinity of the dry weather outfall,
bathing standards are usually exceeded throughout the
year with the exception of the Richmond-Sunset area where
standards are normally met in July and August.
The proposed Southwest and the improved Southeast outfalls
will provide a chlorine contact time in the pipeline
itself which should be sufficient for good disinfection.
The present bacteriological objective of the Regional
Board is a median MPN of 240/100 ml within 1,000 feet
of extreme low water. This objective can be met by
achieving 99 percent eoliform kill in the plant effluent
which is attainable at a fairly low chlorine dosage.
Disinfection of the Southwest Treatment Plant effluent
plus the long outfall will insure compliance with the
above requirements. Dilutions which will be obtained
by the time the effluent field reaches the shoreline
will insure no bacterial contamination of marine waters
and of shellfish used for human consumption.
Adequate disinfection of Bay dry and wet weather dis-
charges, marine wet weather overflows, and sufficient
dilution of marine discharged wastewater will provide a
beneficial impact to the marine and Bay environments by
decreasing eoliform densities in critical recreational
areas such as Aquatic Park and the Marina. The ocean-
side beaches will further benefit from the treatment of
combined flows at the Southwest site followed by Ocean
disposal. The ultimate removal of all dry weather and
most of the wet weather flows from Bay drainage will
enhance the recreational uses of shoreline areas by
greatly decreasing health hazards associated with
untreated waste discharges.
VII-27

-------
Floatables. Fatty and waxy substances are not
foreign to the sea surface. However, the nearshore
location of wastewater-derived floatable materials,
their association with sewage organisms, their
probable content of pesticides and other fat-soluble
chemicals, and their general visual qualities which
strongly distinguish these materials from the natural
ones necessitate their further control.
Variation in the density and distribution of floatable
materials in the San Francisco area can be related
to wet weather overflows. Distribution is also related
to surface drift which for the Central Bay leads to
an accumulation on the Ocean beaches outside the
Golden Gate. Data collected from June 1967 through
1968 indicates a significant increase in observable
floatable material on Ocean beaches during the rainy
season from November through April in all areas.
Floatable material was observed throughout the year
near the Richmond-Sunset outfall.
The average floatable particulate concentration
observed during the 1969-70 wet weather surveys was
10.5 mg/mz (milligrams per square meter) as compared
to 1.5 mg/m2 observed during dry weather. A similar
increase in wet weather levels over those for dry
weather was also observed in the surface waters of
Outer Marina Beach. Wet weather levels were con-
sistently an order of magnitude {10 times) greater
for these sampling stations. There was also a
difference between concentrations west of Marina
Beach and those in the easterly sector. This cor-
responds to the lack of both combined and sanitary
sewers west of Bakers Beach within the Bay.
A post-storm survey of beaches near wet weather bypass
locations will impress any observer. Vast amounts
of plastic debris, sanitary articles, and fecal
material usually line the beach.
When implemented the Master Plan will consolidate 41
wet weather overflows into 15 shoreline retention
basins. These and the other storage facilities
combined with the 1,000 mgd Southwest facility will
provide a minimum of primary treatment and disinfection
to virtually all wet weather flows which will remove
all floatable materials and consequently provide a
beneficial impact not only to water quality of the
marine and Bay environments but also to the aesthetic
and healthful appeal of the shoreline areas.
VII-28

-------
Conservative Pollutants. Conservative pollutants
such as copper, chromium, zinc, lead, and mercury
will continue to be discharged into the Bay
environment until such time as the ocean outfall
is utilized for all wastewater disposal. The
various means by which these metals accumulate
in the environment can be classified as detrital
and non-detrital. A conservative pollutant
accumulates by detrital means if it is introduced
into the sediment in the solid state, whereas it
accumulates by non-detrital means if it is removed
directly from sea water by means such as adsorption,
sulfide precipitation, and organic reactions.
All treatment plants provided for under the Master
Plan will maintain provisions for substantial removal
of suspended solids which carry heavy metals such
as mercury and lead. Therefore, adverse effects from
the discharge of conservative pollutants to
San Francisco's marine or Bay environments are expected
to be minimal.
Other factors which insure minimal discharge of these
heavy metals include industrial source control,
chemical removal at treatment facilities, and
adequate sludge disposal. San Francisco's industrial
waste ordinance (City Ordinance No. 15-71) has set
stringent numerical limits on toxicity of industrial
waste discharged into the City's sewers. However,
the development of a program for implementation of
the ordinance will require a tremendous effort to
identify actual or potential dischargers and to
establish administrative procedures.
Pesticides. The pesticide problem was primarily
due to the durable chlorinated hydrocarbons such as
DDT and DDD which accumulate in food chains. Even
when introduced in non-damaging levels they can
eventually build up to damaging levels in shellfish
and predatory species of fish and fish-eating birds.
The reduction of their use has always appeared to
be the only satisfactory way to avoid the problem.
There has been a 90 percent reduction in the use of
these pesticides in California in the last two years.
The threat of toxicity to the Bay estuary is not
well understood but does not appear to be significantly
increased by San Francisco's waste discharges.
Marine disposal is similarly difficult to define
VII-29

-------
as no information is available from which to
calculate mass emission rates for storm or
combined discharges of pesticides. The great
dilution factor combined with an effluent con-
taining a negligible level of pesticide should
have minimal adverse effects on the marine
environment. Although not pesticides, the
polychlorinated byphenyls, because of their
chemical similarities, behave much like conservative
pesticides, such as DDT, in the environment.
Solid Waste. Presently, about 50,000 tons of
wastewater sludge are disposed of annually at
the City's sanitary landfill site. With the
addition of secondary treatment facilities, however,
this volume may increase by up to 50 percent which
will present disposal problems in addition to
increased transportation requirements. It should
be pointed out, however, that the 50,000 tons of
wastewater sludge is relatively minor compared
with the 700,000 tons of other solid waste materials
generated within the City.
The present landfill site in Mountain View is
estimated to have a remaining life of three to nine
years. Prior to the termination of disposal at
this site, another suitable location will be
developed. Preliminary disposal schemes include
transportation to the Delta to raise the level of
islands and improve flood protection, sanitary land-
fill at an old quarry site in Livermore, and private
landfill disposal in the Fairfield area. All three
of these plans are being considered in a regional
context and are not limited to the City and County
of San Francisco alone.
Aesthetics
Aesthetic impacts associated with the implementation of this
program of wastewater treatment improvements include con-
sideration of odor generation and control, visual effects,
and maintenance of aesthetic qualities of receiving waters.
Odors. The main potential sources of odor in
wastewater treatment facilities, under normal
operating conditions, are the headworks, primary
clarification facilities, and solids handling
VII-30

-------
facilities. In addition, biological units
(aeration basins) are subject to odor emissions
when the biological process is upset by toxicants,
temperature, or overloading. The biological units
also emit a slight musty or earthy odor during
normal operation which some people find offensive.
At the Southwest Treatment Plant, all facilities
which have a potential of producing odors will be
covered and equipped with air scrubbing equipment
to assure that no offensive odors extend into
adjacent areas.
Presently, the headworks, primary clarification
facilities, and the majority of the solids handling
facilities at the Richmond-Sunset and Southeast
plants are housed. It is anticipated that this
concept will be continued for all future modifications
at these facilities. It may become necessary in
the future, however, to scrub the air from these
facilities to adequately control odors.
If untreated wastewaters remain in transmission
mains, tunnels, and retention basins for long
periods of time, anaerobic decomposition will most
probably occur resulting in the production of
hydrogen sulfide gas. It is essential that this
potential source of odor be controlled and should
be considered in the design of all facilities.
Visual Effects. Abandonment of the many wet weather
discharges in addition to the North Point outfall
will enhance the aesthetic quality of San Francisco
Bay. The more stringent control on discharges of
wet weather flows will also provide a beneficial
impact by greatly reducing the amounts of floatables,
oil, and grease released to the marine and Bay
environments. In addition, enforcement of San Francisco's
industrial waste ordinance will regulate discharge of
petroleum products to the sewer system. No adverse
visual effects will result from the discharge plume
as the end of the outfall will be slightly over
three miles offshore.
VII-31

-------
Landscaping. Final plant layouts of the expanded
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant and the
proposed Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant
have not been fully developed. However, it is
anticipated that final designs for both plants
will be incorporated into an overall landscaping
plan that utilizes the available buffer zones.
The existing Southeast facility is in an M-l
industrial district among iron works, concrete
manufacturers, building material suppliers,
automobile junkyards, a trucking firm, and general
contractor, and has the best kept grounds in the
area. It is anticipated that the existing landscaping
plan would be extended for the expansion.
It is proposed to construct the Southwest facility
on a portion of the 4 3-acre site adjacent to the
southerly portion of the San Francisco Zoological
Gardens. Therefore, an adequate landscaping plan
for this site is essential. In fact, the City's
Recreation and Park Commission requires that a
landscaping master plan be developed for the
plant site, with particular emphasis on screening
the structures, and presented to the Commission for
review and approval. The final design of the
Southwest facility will be incorporated into the
Zoo master plan.
Architecture. As is the case with landscaping,
final architectural plans for the expanded Southeast
facility and the Southwest facility have not been
fully developed. However, it is anticipated that
final designs for both plants will be incorporated
into an overall architectural plan that blends the
facilities into their surroundings.
The existing Southeast facility does blend into its
surroundings and it is anticipated that the new
facilities will be harmonious with the existing plant.
The Southwest facility will be designed to incorporate
multiple purpose use with the Recreation and Park
Commission. Preliminary planning indicates that up
to 65 percent of the treatment plant structures could
be either decked or constructed underground such that
the area could be compatible with zoo use. In fact,
the underground structures will be strengthened to
allow for zoo improvements, including animal exhibits.
VII-32

-------
Development of the site will also include parking
facilities for approximately 2,200 automobiles
and 100 buses which will be of great benefit to
zoo visitors.
Social - Economic
The proposed Master Plan will provide the basic framework
for future wastewater management for the San Francisco
City-County area. The eventual form this system assumes
can in turn affect the quality of life in the area. This
section assesses the social impacts of this Master Plan.
These impacts include economic impacts, energy con-
sumption, water quality for future recreational activities,
and public opinion.
Economic. The proposed Master Plan will result
in increased employment of operating staff at
all facilities. These increases will be a direct
result of needs in system maintenance and monitoring
programs.
Commercial trawling in the marine outfall area
could be adversely affected by the minor interference
caused by the discharge three miles offshore. This,
however, is a small area compared to the available
trawling areas in the Gulf of the Farallones.
San Francisco has a number of industrial discharges
that contribute substantial quantities of waste to
the system. The significance of these industries'
contribution to the economy of the City is important
to consider only if the additional cost of waste
treatment resulting from the proposed facilities would
force a closing or altering of the production of one
or more of the major industries. Any conclusions in
this regard must be speculative because of the lack
of information concerning marginal costs, competition
within the industry, and the extent to which industry
itself can reduce its waste load by reducing water
consumption and improving pretreatment. Actual
instances of plant closure in California that have
been directly attributable to waste discharge costs
are extremely few. Nevertheless, the possibility
of such a problem should be a matter of concern to
the community and every effort should be made to
assure that the wastewater rate schedule will comply
with State and Federal regulations and at the same
time attempt to reduce impacts to industry.
VII-33

-------
Energy Consumption. The new facilities proposed
by the Master Plan will require increased energy
needs. These facilities use fairly energy-
intensive processes. Power requirements are a major
operating expense for conventional treatment plants,
and upgrading existing primary facilities or building
new ones will require additional expenditures of
the Bay area's energy budget. This energy demand
associated with wastewater treatment depends on the
degree of treatment and the unit processes involved.
The major use of energy is to operate equipment such
as pumps, scrapers, compressors, blower chlorinators,
etc. A 196 8 estimate of electrical energy by the
Environmental Protection Agency for municipal waste
treatment contained values from 0.018 Kilowatt-hour
per day per person for minor treatment to 0.226 for
tertiary treatment.
A comparison of the total energy produced, purchased,
and used for the existing wastewater collection,
treatment, and disposal system versus that for the
system at the completion of the Stage I facilities
and at the completion of the total Master Plan
facilities is presented in Table VII-1. The Department
of Public Works has provided quality and quantity
data or digester gas production of the Southeast
facility to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for
study. PG&E is presently evaluating the data for
economic feasibility of commercial use of the gas.
As shown in Table VII-1, the more advanced waste
treatment processes being proposed are even more
energy-intensive than traditional processes. Con-
sequently, if the current energy crisis continues,
operation of the Master Plan could be disrupted due
to energy shortages. This could, in turn, pose
severe operational problems which might be reflected
in discharge quality.
Recreation. Recreation potential of the San Francisco
Bay and marine environment is an important asset to
the San Francisco community and California as a whole.
As people's work hours decrease, recreation will
increase in importance. Implementation of the Master
Plan will improve and protect the water quality of
the Bay and Ocean shoreline in addition to improving
the general quality of life in the San Francisco area.
VII-34

-------
TABLE VII-1
ENERGY SUMMARY
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER FACILITIES

Ttotal Energy
Energy Purchased
Total Energy Available
Energy
Used
Surplus

Produced Gas
103 x therm3
per year
Gas
103 x therm
per year
Elect.
106 x kw-hr
per year
Gas
103 x therm
per year
Elect.
10s x kw-hr
per year
Gas
103 x therm
per year
Elect.
10s x kw-hr
per year
Energy Gas
103 x therm
per year
Present
Operations
2013
137.1
20.32
2150.1
20.32
881
20.32
1269
Ccupleticn
of Stage I
4000
0
102.0
4000
102.0
1900
102.0
2100
Oonpletion of
Ntoster Plan 4360
0
97
4360
97
1960
97
2400
aTherm = 100,000 BTU's

-------
San Francisco's shoreline beaches are used for water
body contact recreation. Removal of virtually all
discharges to the Bay and near-shore ocean areas would
protect this resource by protecting public health against
possible bacteriological contamination.
Public Opinion
To be written subsequent to the Public Hearing.
SECONDARY IMPACTS
The secondary impacts of the proposed Master Plan will be
brought about primarily by population increases within the
San Francisco service area.
Population increases in the project area will depend on
factors influencing growth throughout the San Francisco
region, and upon land use controls practiced.
The San Francisco City Planning Commission has adopted a
comprehensive long-term general plan for the improvement and
future development of the City and County of San Francisco.
Facilities of the Master Plan are designed to be compatible
with all elements of the general plan, particularly the Land
Use Plan. In general the Land Use Plan indicates a Citywide
spread of population densities, to encourage a variety of
residential building types in both the Central and outlying
areas, and to encourage a more even distribution of the
population throughout the City on the basis of desirable
space and density standards.
Population projections of the City Planning Department were
used to develop effluent flow predictions and project loading
factors for the Master Plan. City population for 1970 was
700,000. The City projection for 1990 is 755,000 and further
extrapolated to 780,000 for 202 0. Future land uses for the
entire City are projected to be 40 percent residential, 22
percent industrial and commercial and 38 percent public lands
and government reserves. The City's population projections
are higher then those of the Department of Finance, which are
being used for regional air and water quality planning in the
Bay Area. However, these alternative projections do agree
that the City's population can be expected to remain relatively
stable.
Although design for the proposed Master Plan is still conceptual,
the major sizing factor for the system will be the wet weather
VII-36

-------
hydraulic loadings and not expanded capacity to accomodate
population increases. The Department of Public Works agrees
that the City is fully developed and any growth that might
occur would be attributable to increasing densities due to
various forms of urban renewal. In practical engineering terms,
the project will not be affected by projected population
increases. For example, the 80,000 additional persons pro-
jected for the City in 2020 would represent a flow of approx-
imately 8.4 mgd. This is based on a 150 gallons per day per
capita rate of wastewater generation. This addition becomes
minor in scaling a 2 50 mgd treatment facility and would not
change the design factors. Similarly, reduced population
would not impact the Master Plan system since it is designed
primarily for wet weather flows.
PROBLEMATICAL EFFECTS
Problematical effects are those impacts that cannot be fully
defined but are reasonable in terms of speculation and
supposition.
Biological
The discharge through the proposed ocean outfall may have a
mild biostimulatory effect which is beneficial to fish and
other aquatic organisms.
The question of marine discharges of wastewater influencing
neoplastic (cancerous) growths on fish has been a subject of
much discussion. Studies to this date have failed to implicate
such discharges as being causative agents. It is therefore
somewhat of a problematical effect in that such discharges
may cause abnormal growths in fin fisheries. Further study
is needed in this area.
The discharge of suspended and dissolved organics to the
marine environment may affect the food chain. These organic
substances may nourish only certain species, increasing their
survival capabilities and causing abundance increases. Less
favored organisms may decline due to alterations in competition
for food or prey-predator relationships. Moreover, concen-
trations of substances with slow biodegradability may be
magnified through the food chain and increased among resident
fauna.
The discharge of wastes to marine waters may also cause
abnormal tastes and odors causing pelagic fish to shun the
area.
VII-37

-------
Physical/Chemical
Construction activities may result in temporary alterations
in soil structure. The movement of heavy equipment, excava-
tion, stockpiling of ill material, etc., may alter local
characteristics such as soil permeability and compaction.
Moreover, the disposal of sludge may have a minor adverse
impact on solid waste management by the contribution of
additional quantities of treated solids to the landfill site.
Seismic
Woodward-Lundgren & Associates, Consulting Engineers and
Geologists, recently completed a preliminary study concerning
the geology, seismicity, and earthquake effects on the facil-
ities proposed by the San Francisco Wastewater faster Plan.
Woodward-Lundgren's report is included in Appendix 2 of this
report. A brief summary of the problematical effects of an
earthquake on the proposed facilities is presented in the
following paragraphs.
Ocean Outfall. The outfall will cross the active San
Andreas fault zone about two miles offshore; this zone
is not yet located or mapped exactly but it is probably
from 200 to 600 yards wide. It is certain that the out-
fall will be subjected to right-lateral earthquake
displacements (sea-side moves north) where it crosses
the rift zone. There will likely be breakage (probably
at the rift zone) of the outfall during rupture of the
San Andreas fault resulting in a major reconstruction
program at the point of breakage after such an event.
However, if the two-mile wet weather outfall is kept
short of the fault zone, an automatic back-up discharge
point would be provided while the dry weather outfall is
being repaired.
Southwest Treatment Plant. It is possible that ground
accelerations at the proposed Southwest Treatment Plant
site could approach 0.5 g for several cycles in a 1906-
like event so proper aseismic design is essential. A
thorough geotechnical site investigation is needed before
the specific plant design is begun. As a minimum, however,
the plant should be founded on a base of stable soils to
be sure that no loose potentially liquefiable dune sands
underlie the plant.
Pipelines in the Vicinity of the Southwest Plant. As
presently proposed, pipeline routes in the vicinity of
the Southwest plant cross areas which have suffered
extensive earthquake damage and liquefaction in the past
VII-38

-------
135 years. For example: the Sunset line would cross
the filled area at the Zoo over much of the 1852 washout;
the South line would cross the narrow filled neck between
the two arms of Lake Merced where liquefaction slides
destroyed the trestle in 1906 and where 1957 flow slides
occurred; also, the South line crosses several filled
areas east of the Lake which are potential zones of
liquefaction failure. Tnerefore, if pipelines are not
rerouted, they could be subject to severe ground motion,
liquefaction, bouyant floatation, and extensive damage.
A detailed geotechnical investigation will be necessary
before the final location of these pipelines is determined.
However, even with precautions, major repairs can be
expected after a large earthquake, especially where the
pipes enter plant structures.
Tunnels. In general, well-reinforced concrete lined
bedrock tunnels perform fairly well in strong earthquakes
as long as they do not cross active faults. None of the
proposed wastewater tunnels cross such faults; therefore,
damage is expected to be minimal. A typical trouble spot
is where smaller size shafts or pipes join tunnels; at
such junctures cracks and pipe pullouts can occur.
North Point to Southeast Pipeline. Probably, the greatest
variation of soil and rock types will occur along this
proposed pipeline route. It is likely that strong earth-
quakes would cause damage in the filled areas along this
route, especially where pipes cross from filled areas to
stronger native soils or from soil to rock. Ground
fissures or local liquefaction will shear pipe or remove
bedding support causing pipe damage. Generally, the City
should expect heavy pipe maintenance in man-made filled
areas after a strong earthquake event. Damage can be
moderated, however, by using strong, flexible, well-
backfilled pipe laid in as few fill-over-mud areas as
practicable.
The Southeast Plant. Care should be taken in designing
this plant expansion to provide proper foundation support.
This is necessary since the expanded plant will overlie
potentially liquefiable zones of fill and because it will
span from soft Bay Mud to stronger native soils in the
southwest end of the site. For these reasons, a detailed
geotechnical study of this site is necessary prior to any
detail design work.
VII-39

-------
Reservoirs and Buried Structures. Earthquake effects on
buried basins and pump stations are significant; usually
the greatest effect is an increase in lateral earth
pressure on the walls. For low level structures in
saturated soils, dynamic groundwater pressures may also
be produced by an earthquake. These structures can be
designed to accommodate these increased loadings, however.
Control Facilities. Experiences in the San Fernando
Earthquake of 1971 suggest that suspended telephone lines
are particularly susceptible to seismic damage. Therefore,
it would be very desirable to provide a back-up control
system (e.g. microwave, etc.).
Summary. The previous discussion suggests a number of
potential, or problematical, seismic effects on the
Master Plan facilities. Hoever, earthquake effects need
not be critically damaging to the on-land portion of the
Master Plan facilities, if proper seismic planning and
design are utilized.
Social-Economic
Cessation of wastewater discharges to San Francisco Bay may
increase its desirability for fishing and other recreational
uses.
Construction activities in the City area may cause temporary
disruptions of cultural patterns in the immediate environs.
This construction may also pose some threats to the health
and safety of people utilizing the area.
VII-40

-------
CHAPTER VIII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
NO PROJECT
As discussed in Chapter IV, the concept of no project is
certainly not a viable solution to the City's wastewater dis-
posal problems. It is considered for comparison and statu-
tory purposes only. However, in general the no project con-
cept would have the following environmental impacts.
Primary Construction Impacts
Since the no project alternative does not involve con-
struction, there would be no impacts associated with
construction activities.
Primary Operational Impacts
The City and County of San Francisco is presently served
by a combined sewer system. During dry periods, all
wastewater receives advanced primary treatment consisting
of chemical (ferric chloride) addition to gravity sedi-
mentation tanks for more efficient solids removal. When-
ever the rainfall intensity exceeds 0.02 inches per hour,
however, untreated wastewater is discharged from the col-
lection system at 4-1 overflow structures located along the
periphery of the City.
The biological impacts to the marine and Bay ecosystems
caused by these present discharges were presented in
Chapter VII. These discharges also have adverse effects
on the quality of the Bay and marine waters, however,
which would continue under the no project alternative.
These adverse effects include the following:
Material that is floatable or will become float-
able would continue to be discharged to the Ray
and Ocean shoreline.
Organic materials that upon discharge result in
the reduction of dissolved oxygen in the Bay waters
would continue to pose a threat to aquatic life.
Disease-causing organisms or indicator organisms
(coliform bacteria) would continue to represent a
VIII-1

-------
real or potential public health hazard resulting
in the continued posting of beaches.
Turbid wastewaters would continue to be discharged
to the Bay and Ocean waters resulting in the con-
tinued discoloration problems.
It should be reemphasized that the existing level of
wastewater treatment and its associated effects as des-
cribed above are not in compliance with existing State
and Federal regulations.
As discussed in Chapter II, the existing treatment facili-
ties present few aesthetic impacts. The North Point and
Southeast Plants are visually compatible with their sur-
roundings. The Richmond-Sunset Plant is hardly visible
from the public park roads and there is no indication that
it is visually objectionable by the visitors or athletes
at the soccer field. Odor generation at the Richmond-
Sunset Plant would continue to be a problem, however._
Odor generation at the other two existing plants is minimal
other than an accidental release of unburned digester gas
at the Southeast Plant. This latter problem should also be
alleviated in the near future as the City is presently re-
habilitating additional digesters which will triple the
present capacity.
Population projections for the City of San Francisco indi-
cate very small increases in the number of people in the
foreseeable future. Presently, almost all of the land
within the City is devoted to residential, industrial, com-
mercial, public, or governmental uses. This trend is ex-
pected to continue in the future without any significant
changes. Consequently, the quantity of wastewater flows
is not expected to increase significantly in the future.
Since the existing treatment facilities have sufficient
capacity to handle the dry weather flows and control of in-
dustrial wastes will be accomplished by enforcement of the
City's industrial waste ordinance, the lack of future capac-
ity expansions would have no direct influence on the growth
or distribution of population, industry, or automobiles
within the City. However, the recreational quality of areas
near wastewater discharge sites would continue to be de-
graded by a potential hazard to the public health.
Secondary Impacts
If the no-project concept were adopted, the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay
Region, would undoubtedly commence legal enforcement action
against the City. Such actions might involve fines (up to
VIII-2

-------
#10,000 per day), "building bans", and remedial measures.
These actions could halt all development within the Cii>j
and also force the City to comply with existing waste dis-
charge requirements by constructing projects that might
not necessarily be compatible with any long-range planning.
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANTS
The alternative concept of constructing separate treatment facil-
ities at the 4-1 wet weather overflow structures or at some con-
solidation of those sites was also considered. The environmental
impacts associated with this alternative concept are presented in
the following paragraphs.
Primary Construction Impacts
The primary impacts to the biological and physical/chemical
environments by the construction of the many treatment facil-
ities would be dependent upon the actual sites chosen for
these facilities. However, in general these impacts would
include noise, dust, erosion, and traffic disruption as ex-
plained in Chapter VII.
The large number of separate treatment facilities proposed
by this alternative would provide greater construction em-
ployment but would necessitate considerable land acquisition
involving changes in land use.
Primary Operational Impacts
The resulting impacts of this alternative would be benefi-
cial to the biological environment. Treatment of wet
weather flows would remove many pollutants normally dis-
charged to the Ocean and Bay. In general these effects would
be similar to those impacts of wet weather treatment previ-
ously described for the Master Plan in Chapter VII.
Impacts to the physical/chemical environment are largely de-
pendent upon the quality of treatment provided under this
alternative. As discussed in Chapter IV, high-rate treat-
ment systems for the removal of floatables, pathogens and
solids have not yet been developed to provide an effluent of
suitable quality for discharge to the Bay or marine environ-
ments. For purposes of comparison, however, the following
impacts might be realized if adequate high-rate treatment
were feasible.
A beneficial impact would result from the removal
of floatable materials now presently discharged to
the nearshore waters during wet weather overflows.
VIII-3

-------
Bacteriological quality of nearshore areas would
be improved to provide greater protection to pub-
lic health.
Removal of some turbidity from wet weather over-
flows would provide a beneficial effect to water
quality.
Solids removal by treatment of wet weather over-
flows would lessen the discharge of conservative
pollutants to the aquatic environment.
Operational reliability would be lessened due to
the seasonal use, long periods of shutdown, and
the need to "come on line" almost immediately atr
very high-flow rates. System failures would un-
doubtedly negate beneficial impacts.
Solids handling and disposal for the many wet
weather treatment facilities would pose not only
economic impacts but also associated noise and
odor impacts.
Aesthetic impacts associated with this alternative would
involve possible noise, odor, and visual effects. The op-
eration of the many small treatment facilities could com-
pound problems in these areas.
Individual treatment plants would probably require in-
creased seasonal employment as a direct result of the
maintenance requirements of the wet weather treatment
facilities. Power needs, however, would require increased
energy over other alternatives considered.
Recreational potential of San Francisco Bay and the marine
environment would increase due to the removal of all un-
treated waste overflows. However, the cost of this alter-
native has been estimated at $3 billion which far exceeds
that of the Master Plan and therefore is not as cost-
effective .
Secondary Impacts
The secondary impacts of this alternative would be similar
to those described for the Master Plan in Chapter VII.
EXPAND THREE EXISTING PLANTS
The concept of expanding the capacity of the existing three
plants to enable the treatment of all wet weather flows plus pro-
viding secondary treatment facilities and new deep water outfalls
VIII-4-

-------
at all three plants was also considered. This concept was re-
jected for further analysis because of economic reasons ($1
billion for plant expansions, exclusive of collection and
transport system modifications); however, the environmental im-
pacts of this concept are presented in the following paragraphs
for comparison purposes.
Primary Construction Impacts
Construction activities associated with this alternative
would involve some disruption of biotic communities. Up-
grading of the North Point Plant would also involve the
construction of a new Bay outfall which would require the
excavation and disposal of approximately 150,000 cubic
yards of bottom materials. Construction of the outfall
would directly affect the benthic community by direct dis-
placement, turbidity, and settleable materials. These ef-
fects would be temporary, however, ending as construction
was completed.
It would also be necessary to construct a new outfall for
the Richmond-Sunset discharge. One possible site would be
about two miles south of the Golden Gate centerline. Con-
struction of this outfall would require the excavation and
disposal of about 350,000 cubic yards of bottom materials
causing similar effects as the North Point outfall
construction.
The impacts associated with the construction of a new South-
east Bay outfall were described in Chapter VII.
Expansion at the Richmond-Sunset and North Point sites would
not be possible without acquiring additional property. At
Richmond-Sunset this would require taking of park property
and at North Point this would require taking of commercial
property.
Physical/chemical impacts of this alternative are summarized
as follows:
There would be a temporary effect on water quality
as a result of the required outfall construction.
There would be a temporary increase in noise asso-
ciated with movements of personnel, materials, and
vehicles.
There would be a temporary interference with navi-
gation and shoreline activities on nearby piers.
Aesthetic, social and economic impacts due to construction
would be similar to those described for the Master Plan in
Chapter VII.
VIII-5

-------
Primary Operational Impacts
Biological effects of expanding and upgrading the three
present facilities are summarized below.
The impact on the sports fishery of the North Point
area would be reduced.
Shoreline biota which may have been adversely af-
fected by the existing discharges would be benefited.
• Continued long-term discharges to the Bay environment
would add nutrient that could cause biostimulation
problems.
. Treatment provided to wet and dry weather flows would
ensure removal of most settleable material. Little
effect on the benthos would result from deposition of
organic matter since sludge would not be discharged
through the outfall.
There would be a permanent minor interference with
crab migration due to the new outfalls. However, the
crab fishery would not be affected otherwise.
Noise and air impacts under this alternative would be simi-
lar to those of the Master Plan in Chapter VII.
The expanded facilities would all continue to discharge
fresh water into the saline environment. However, this ef-
fect would be noticeable only within the dilution zone since
dilutions of 20 to 1 would be achieved within 15 seconds.
Disinfection by chlorination, or some other suitable means,
prior to discharge would be required to meet the bacteriolog-
ical requirements for protection of public health. Toxicity
attributable to chlorination, if used, would have a negligi-
ble effect largely due to the rapid dilutions of 100 to 1
within approximately one minute and the possible requirement
of dechlorination. Adequate disinfection would provide a
beneficial impact by protecting nearshore beneficial uses.
Other impacts to water quality would be similar to those dis-
cussed in Chapter VII.
Secondary and Problematical Impacts
The secondary and problematical impacts of this alternative
would be similar to those presented in Chapter VII.
VIII-6

-------
ONE REGIONAL PLANT WITHOUT STORAGE
The concept of abandoning the existing three treatment plants
and constructing one regional treatment facility capable of
handling all wastewater flows was also considered. Generally,
the impacts of this alternative are the same as those of the
Master Plan described in Chapter VII. There are some additional
impacts associated with this alternative which are presented in
the following paragraphs.
Because of the great costs involved ($2 billion for the plant,
exclusive of collection and transportation system modification,
this alternative would provide increased benefits to the area's
economy by providing additional employment in the construction
trades.
The abandonment of the existing treatment plant sites would re-
lease land for other uses such as recreational, commercial or
residential. This release of land, involving only a few acres,
could have a beneficial impact on the local neighborhoods by
providing necessary open space. However, the beneficial impact
would be offset by the much larger land requirement for the 16
billion gallons per day treatment facility required for this
alternative.
STORAGE/TREATMENT
The concept of providing a combination of storage and increased
treatment capacity to limit uncontrolled wet weather overflows
to a design frequency was also evaluated. It was concluded that
the proper design balance point is to provide a maximum of 1,°^
mgd of treatment capacity and nine million cubic feet of storage.
This concept is the Master Plan; therefore, all impacts are dis-
cussed in detail in Chapter VII.
SEWER SEPARATION
As previously discussed, the City of San Francisco is served by
a combined sewer system; therefore, the alternative of construc-
ting a separate sewer system was considered in the development of
the Master Plan. The impacts associated with this alternative
are briefly described below.
Primary Construction Impacts
Construction costs of this alternative would involve about
$3 billion and would result in major disruption of San
Francisco for many years. This disruption would produce
impacts due to noise, dust, erosion, traffic disruption,
and aesthetics as explained in Chapter VII.
VIII-7

-------
Primary Operational Impacts
The end result of this alternative would not necessarily
provide a benefit to the environment.
Assuming that the sanitary sewage flows are adequately
treated then the storm waters bearing grease, oil, silt,
dirt, garbage, litter, animal feces, and all the other
materials found on the streets would flow into the Bay
and marine waters. It is highly probable that the City
would be required to provide treatment of these flows due
to the contaminants present in this highly urban runoff.
Secondary Impacts
There would be no significant secondary impacts associated
with the sewer separation alternative.
RECLAMATION
Increased treatment of wastewater required prior to discharge to
the environment and increased difficulty of developing new water
sources are making wastewater reclamation for some uses ore eco-
nomically feasible. Therefore, reclamation was also con~ ierea
during the development of the Master Plan.
It should be emphasized that large-scale reclamation of San
Francisco wastewater does not appear practical for reasons ex-
plained in Chapter IV. However, reclamation should be consid-
ered as an extension of the Master Plan and not as an alternative
to the Master Plan. Generally, the impacts of small-scale recla-
mation would be the same as those of the Master Plan described in
Chapter VII. A large-scale reclamation project would also have
the following impacts.
Primary Construction Impacts
The primary construction impacts of this alternative would
be identical to those described for the Master Plan. How-
ever, since a reclamation project would entail a rather ex-
tensive transport system, these impacts would be extended
in both time and space.
Primary Operational Impacts
The primary operational impacts of this alternative would
also be identical to those described for the Master Plan.
However, reclamation could also provide beneficial impacts
related to local landscape irrigation, salinity control in
the Bay-Delta, agricultural irrigation, industrial cooling,
and possible municipal reuse. A detailed discussion of
these beneficial impacts is included in Appendix 1.
VIII-8

-------
Secondary Impacts
It is possible that this alternative could have adverse
secondary impacts depending on the use of the reclaimed
water. For instance, irrigation with reclaimed water
could degrade the underlying groundwater by salinity
buildup; the subsequent discharge of reclaimed water after
use for cooling purposes could degrade the estuarine en-
vironment; and municipal reuse of reclaimed water could
produce serious side effects. These potential secondary
impacts would have to be resolved prior to implementation
of any reclamation program.
VIII-9

-------
CHAPTER IX
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING OP ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
A comparison of the alternative concepts considered in the de-
velopment of the Master Plan on the basis of functional, eco-
nomic, and environmental factors is presented in Table IX-1.
Each of the alternative concepts is assigned an overall envi-
ronmental ranking and numbered consecutively with 1 signifying
the most environmentally acceptable concept.
Criteria for evaluating functional rating factors are as follows:
Regulatory Compliance
1.	Ability to comply with State and Federal water
quality requirements.
2.	Conformity with regional planning.
Implementation
1.	Acceptability of the concept and probability of
support by the general public and local
government.
2.	Ease of construction and permit acquisition.
Reliability
1.	Ability of concept to consistently attain design
performance standards.
2.	Vulnerability to system failure or natural disas-
ter and resulting impacts from such a failure are
minimized.
Flexibility
1.	Ability to adapt to advanced technology and future
discharge requirements.
2.	Ability to adapt to future land-use changes.
5. Research options are not constrained.
IX-1

-------
TABLE IX-1
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING3 OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
Many Indiv.
Treatment
Plants
Storage/Treat.
The Master
Plan
No Project
Expand One Reg.
Exist. 3 Plant w/o
Plants	Storage
CflMpy
iJCmSiL
Separation
FLNCTICNAL
Regulatory Ocnpliance	Unaccept.	Marginal
Brplementation	Unaccept.	Unaocept.
Reliability	Unaccept.	Unaccept.
Flexibility	Unaccept.	Unaccept.
Reclamation Potential	Marginal	Marginal
ECONOMIC
Unaccept.
Unaccept.
Marginal
Marginal
Good
Unaccept.
Marginal
Marginal
Acceptable Marginal
Good
Acceptable
Good
Good
Good
Margined
Unaccept.
Margined
Unaccept.
Marginal
"Dotal Capital
Cost ($million)
3000
1000L
2000
672
3000
ENVIRONMENTAL
Construction Iirpacts None
Operation Iirpacts Signific.
Secondary Iirpacts Signific.
Environmental Rankincr	6
Signific.
Signific.
Moderate
5
Signific.
Signific.
Moderate
3
Signific.
Moderate
Minimal
2
Signific.
Minimal
Minimal
1
Signific.
Signific.
Moderate
4
aRating Scale
FUNCTIONAL
"Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
ENVIRONMENTAL -
Significant
Moderate
Minimal
^Environmental Ranking - 1 is most acceptable
6 is least acceptable
°Plant cost only exclusive of collection system modifications

-------
4. Concept provides maximum interim protection.
Reclamation Potential
1.	Concept provides no location restraints on
future reclamation options.
2.	Ability of concept to adapt to treatment re-
quirements for reclamation.
IX-3

-------
CHAPTER X
STATUTORY SECTIONS
UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS
Adverse environmental effects were described under appropriate
topics in Chapter VII, since there is an inseparable relation-
ship between "adverse environmental effects" and "environmental
impacts". To facilitate their identification, however, the ad-
verse impacts which cannot be avoided are summarized in the fol-
lowing paragraphs.
Present research indicates that the operational aspect of the
proposed Master Plan will have minimal adverse environmental im-
pacts. The most potentially adverse environmental effects are
anticipated to occur as a result of the long-term construction
program necessary to implement the Master Plan.
Construction Effects
1.	Biological
Temporary disruption of flora and fauna during
construction of Ocean and improved Bay outfalls.
Removal of vegetation near pipeline routes,
plant, and retention basin sites.
2.	Ph.y s i cal/Chcmi cal
Disturbance of soils along the proposed intercep-
tor routes and possible alteration of the soil
profile.
Temporary increases in erosion.
. Temporary additions of dust and other associated
air pollutants.
Temporary increases in ambient noise levels dur-
ing construction.
Temporary increases in turbidity of Bay and
marine waters.
Temporary loss in aesthetic appeal in localized
areas.
X-l

-------
5- Social and Economic
. Temporary disruptions in utility service.
Temporary disruption of pedestrian and vehicu-
lar traffic.
Interference to navigation and recreational
usage of shore areas during construction of
outfall.
Added requirements to area's current energy
budget.
Land use change from open space to public use.
Relocation of some commercial operations.
4. Problematical
Possible threat to health and safety of people
utilizing the area.
Operational Effects
1.	Biological
The terminal 14,000 feet of Ocean outfall will be
laid on the bottom and protected by rock ballast
which will cause minor interference with crab
migration,
2.	Physical/Chemical
There will be a continued and increased discharge
of fresh water to the Ocean environment.
Increased nutrient input to the Ocean ecosystem.
Increased conservative pollutant input to the
Ocean environment.
3- Social/Kconomic
Minor interference to commercial trawling.
Increased energy demands for system operations.
X-2

-------
Problematical Effects
1.	Biological
Possible influence on incidence of cancerous
growths on fish.
Possible effect on biotic food chain.
May cause pelagic fish to shun discharge area.
2.	Physical/Chemical
Possible impact on solid waste management.
3- Seismic
Possible breakage of the outfall during rupture
of the San Andreas Fault.
Possible liquefaction of sands at the Southwest
Water Pollution Control Plant site.
Pipelines could be subject to severe ground
motion, liquefaction, bouyant floatation, and
extensive damage.
Tunnels could be subject to minor cracks and
pipe pullouts.
Possible liquefaction of fill material at the
Southeast Water Pollution Control site.
Possible increased lateral earth pressures on
the walls of buried structures.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Measures to Minimize Impacts of Construction
The degree of environmental alteration that will be caused by
the project is greatly dependent upon the measures of care taken
during the long-term construction period. Care should be exer-
cised in excavation activities, equipment operation, and other
construction associated enterprises to minimize all environmental
disturbances. Specific measures to accomplish this objective
include the following:
Vegetation. Care should be exercised during excavation
activities to minimize damage to vegetation along inter-
ceptor routes and retention basin locations. Extreme

-------
precautions should be taken for all construction in the
vicinity of Golden Gate Park. Replacement of destroyed
vegetation should be included in post-construction
planning.
Air. Impacts of dust generated during construction can
be minimized by watering down bare, dry soils. Haul
vehicles should be covered as necessary to prevent the
blowing of dust.
Erosion. If possible, construction should be scheduled
to avoid rainy weather. Erosion control measures should
be employed.
Noise. Construction noise can be controlled by several
methods such as work scheduling, baffling with sound
barriers and the use of quieter equipment. Substitution
of non-impact tools offers the best practical abatement-
potential. Equipment should be well muffled or restricted
in size.
Requirements of San Francisco's noise control ordinance
must be met. This regulation which prescribes maximum
permissible noise emissions from powered construction
equipment will in general restrict construction opera-
tions to normal daylight hours except under permit or
emergency; and will require the tools and equipment such
as pavement breakers and jackhammers to be equipped with
intake exhaust mufflers and acoustically attenuating
shields.
Trenches. Pipeline construction that is open cut should
be scheduled to proceed as expeditiously as possible to
minimize the time that a given area is disrupted. Open
trenches should be barricaded or provided with bridging
of adequate width, as necessary to furnish pedestrian and
vehicular access to residences, piers, and commercial es-
tablishments in addition to assisting traffic movement.
Traffic. During construction of the various pipelines at
least one traffic lane in each direction should be kept
open for vehicular transit. In addition, trenches should
be bridged as necessary to move cross traffic. Close liai-
son should be maintained with the City's traffic engineers
and Munisystem to assure that traffic movement around and
through the construction site is as smooth as possible.
Vehicles hauling materials in and out of construction sites
should use designated routes as required for public
convenience.
X-4

-------
Utilities. Prior to pipe, tunnel, or retention basin
construction all utility jurisdictions in the City should
be contacted to resolve possible conflicts and problems.
Communication should be maintained with these authorities
during construction to minimize impacts.
Measures to Minimize Impacts of Operation
Toxicity. Continuing bioassay studies should be initiated
to ensure protection of receiving water ecosystems. De-
chlorination facilities may be required in the future for
Bay discharges which will greatly reduce the risk of toxic
waste discharges to San Francisco Bay.
Upgrading current treatment processes and construction of
the deep water marine outfall will incorporate an efficient
diffuser to achieve improved conditions in the receiving
waters.
Ultimately, there will be an elimination of three existing
discharges which fail to comply with Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements and fail to achieve desired pro-
tection of marine and Bay biotic communities.
Construction of the marine outfall will include rock ballast
providing a favorable habitat for certain organisms which
should enhance rock fisheries in the area.
Noise. Installation of noise generating equipment will re-
quire adequate covers and any other controls to reduce
noise to non-objectionable levels.
Odor Control. Improvements to existing treatment plants,
as well as proposed treatment, storage, and pumping facil-
ities must include enclosures and air-scrubbing equipment
in sufficient stages to fully control operational and acci-
dental releases of damaging or odorous gases.
Conservative Pollutants. Industrial source control, chemi-
cal removal at treatment facilities, and adequate sludge
disposal are mitigation measures that the City can use to
protect receiving waters from the adverse effects of con-
servative pollutants.
Aesthetic. The architectural features and landscaping of
new facilities should, be designed to blend harmoniously
with existing improvements and the immediate neighborhood.
Structures generally should be of low profile. Landscaping
should consist of, at least, lawns, shrubs, trees, and
ground cover.
X-5

-------
Energy. The maximum use of digester gas for in-plant
energy needs will lessen expenditures from the area's
energy budget.
Seismic. A number of potential, or problematical,
seismic effects on the Master Plan facilities were dis-
cussed previously. However, earthquake effects need
not be critically damaging to the on-land portion of
the Master Plan facilities, if proper seismic planning
and design are utilized.
There will likely be breakage of the Ocean outfall dur-
ing rupture of the San Andreas Fault, resulting in a
major reconstruction program at the point of breakage,
probably in the rift zone. To minimize the effects to
the marine environment during the reconstruction period,
the two-mile wet weather outfall should be kept short
of the fault zone which would provide an automatic back-
up discharge point. However, minor fault movements need
not be critically damaging, if proper seismic planning
and design are utilized.
LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES VS
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Implementation of the Master Plan is a long-term solution to the
problem of adequate wastewater management for the City of San
Francisco. Tnere will be a protracted construction period of
about twenty years with Stage I requiring approximately nine
years for completion. In this context, the short-term use be-
comes a dedication of local environments to construction that
will ultimately achieve the long-range goals now prescribed as
necessary to protect the beneficial uses and long-term produc-
tivity of the San Francisco aquatic environment.
The short-term discharge of the wastewater from the combined
North Point-Southeast service areas near the existing Southeast
Plant site should not impair water quality. The level of treat-
ment will be at least secondary with the possibility of advanced
processes being required. This solution provides early compli-
ance with Regional Board discharge requirements in addition to
providing an option of a final Bay or Ocean dry weather discharge.
This choice will enable the City to reassess long-term require-
ments for Bay discharge before a commitment to Ocean disposal is
made. The completed Master Plan would commit marine receiving
waters to acceptance of the 125 mgd of secondary treated wastes.
It is not anticipated that any reduction in the long-term pro-
ductivity of these waters will be affected due to the discharge
of this effluent.
The benefits of improved near-shore water quality will ensure
the preservation of beneficial uses and aesthetic ammenities.
X-6

-------
The improved dispersal of the marine effluent, the reduced po-
tential for accumulation of pollutants, plus a high dilution
factor, all combine to favor an Ocean discharge as a long-term
solution to wastewater disposal as opposed to Bay disposal or
the present system.
The consequences of the long-term disposal of wastewater to the
marine environment cannot be accurately predicted. However, in
analyzing the available data, no adverse problems have been ob-
served which would materially reduce the long-term productivity
of the marine environment.
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The lost resources associated with any major public works proj-
ect are the raw materials and energy, both in terms of labor and
natural energy that are applied to the project. Other essential
permanent commitments of resources resulting from implementation
of the Master Plan include:
The proposed outfalls, interceptors, tunnels, and re-
tention basins are long-term permanent structures.
The systems are designed for drainage area capacity
and consequently a long useful life.
The construction of the Southwest Plant will result
in a change of land usage which will be a commitment
of open space that will be difficult to reverse.
The Master Plan will change the current wastewater
drainage patterns from diffuse distribution in
peripheral areas to a centralized collection point
for treatment and disposal to the Ocean.
Chemicals such as chlorine, ferric chloride, and
polymers used in the treatment process are essen-
tially irretrievable.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
There will be no significant growth inducing effect resulting
from the implementation of the Master Plan. The City is sub-
stantially developed and any growth that might occur would be
attributab Le to increasing densities due to various forms of
urban renewal. The effects of these localized density changes
should be evaluated as final plans are developed for specific
Master Plan facilities.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness analysis Is necessary in evaluating engineer-
ing projects to assure that major problems are resolved
X-?

-------
expeditiously, avoid unnecessary expenditure, and optimize^the
benefits of the project per dollar expended as implementation
proceeds. A formal cost-effectiveness analysis also provides
assurance to governmental agencies and the public that funds
are being invested in projects that will provide the maximum
benefit.
The San Francisco Master Plan for Wastewater Management was de-
veloped, in part, in response to a requirement of the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region,
specifying that the City must submit a plan to eliminate the by-
passing of untreated wastewater. This requirement raises numer-
ous questions related to project cost-effectiveness which must
be analyzed as part of the Facilities Plan required for State
and Federal grants. Cost-effectiveness will affect the degree
of reduction of overflows and ultimate treatment levels. The
basic Master Plan is the most cost-effective concept, but indi-
vidual units may be expanded, relocated, or redesigned to
achieve maximum effectiveness for future investments in waste-
water facilities.
Therefore, a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis is not pre-
sented in this report. Instead, the estimated costs of the
Master Plan are presented in Table X-l and a brief description
of the expected results after the Master Plan is operational is
presented in the following paragraphs.
TABLE X-l
ESTIMATED COSTS OF
THE MASTER PLAN
(1974 Dollars)
Stage'*"	Estimated Cost
I	$231,000,000
II	149,000,000
III	161,000,000
!V	151,000,000
Total	|6?2,000,000
^ Staged facilities are described in Chapter V.
Completion of Stage I facilities will result in compliance
with secondary treatment requirements for dry weather flows
and reduction of overflows to important North Shore beaches
to an average of less than five overflows per year. It is
X-8

-------
expected that operation of Stage I facilities in conjunction
with improvements made to other wastewater discharges to the
Bay will result in substantial improvement of the aquatic en-
vironment of the Bay, particularly in nearshore waters adja-
cent to San Francisco during the winter and spring months.
Another benefit will be a reduction of average annual days in
which bacteriological swimming standards are exceeded. At
North Shore beaches violations on less than 20 days per year
are expected and normally these days will occur during the
least desirable periods for swimming and beach recreation.
Also, the aesthetic quality of waters and beaches in the
Marina, Aquatic Park, and Fisherman's Wharf areas should be
substantially improved except during the worst storm conditions.
With the completion of Stage II facilities, all of the City's
shoreline will be afforded some measure of protection which
will greatly improve the bacteriological and aesthetic quality
of the nearshore waters and the aesthetic quality of the
beaches.
Subsequently, with the completion of Stage III facilities there
will be further reductions of overflows and a treated wet
weather discharge to the Ocean.
Stage IV represents the final phase of construction presently
contemplated. Upon completion of this phase all dry weather
flows to the Bay will be eliminated. During the major portion
of the year, wastes will receive secondary treatment at the
Southeast and/or Southwest Treatment Plants and will be dis-
charged into the Ocean approximately four miles offshore. Dur-
ing storm conditions, flows exceeding the capacity of the sec-
ondary treatment facilities will be diverted to the 1,000 mgd
capacity Level I treatment facilities at the Southwest site and
discharged into the Ocean approximately two miles offshore. At
this time, wet weather overflows will be virtually (90$)
eliminated.
By the addition of storage capacity, higher levels of control
can be accomplished. The additional costs over the base case
of 8 overflows per year (90# control) for higher levels of con-
trol are presented below:
Number of	Level of	Additional	Capital Cost ,
Overflows	Control	S million	S/capita/yx^
8 per year	90#	0	0
'4- per year	95#	S3	6.50
1 per year	99#	189	19.50
1 per 5 years	99 #	332	34.50
a/ Assuming	6# interest over a 30-year	period.
X-9

-------
ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONTACTED
Personal contacts were made by the staff of J. B. Gilbert &
Associates or other special consultants with the following
agencies and officials:
Federal Agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
State Agencies
Department of Fish and Game
Department of Water Resources
State Water Resources Control Board
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco
Bay Region
Air Resources Board
Local Agencies
City Planning Department
City Public Works Department
Environmental Groups
Environmental Defense Fund
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Impact Report Authors
J. B. Gilbert and Associates
Jerome B. Gilbert
Keith S. Dunbar
James Sequeira
Special Consultants
Woodward-Lundgren and Associates, Consulting Engineers and
Geologists
Sasaki, Walker Associates, Inc.
Dr. P. Wilde, Professor of Oceanography, U. C. Berkeley
Dr. H. B. Seed, Professor of Seismology, U. C. Berkeley
X-10

-------
REFERENCES
American Public Health Association, et al. Glossary of
Water and Wastewater Control Engineering, 1969.
Bendix Marine Advisers, Inc. Addendum to the Marine
Environment Offshore of the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power Scattergood Generating Plant.
1970. (Mimeo Report)
Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers. A Predesign
Report on Marine Waste Disposal, City and County of
San Francisco. 3 Volumes. 1971-73.
Brown and Caldwell, Consulting Engineers. A Report on
Alternative Methods of Effluent Disposal, City and
County of San Francisco. February 1969.
Cannon, Raymond. How to Fish the Pacific Coast. Lane
Publishing Company, 1964.
Clemens, Harold B. and Robert A. Iselin. "Food of the
Pacific Albacore in the California Fishery (1955-1961)."
FAQ Fish Report No. 6, Volume 3, 1963, pp 1523-1535.
Daniel, Mann, Johnson & Mendenhall and Malcolm Pirnie
Engineers. An Analysis of Water Demand, Supply and
System Improvements. 1969. (Prepared for the
San Francisco Water Department)
Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, City of San Francisco Wastewater Treatment
Facilities. 1973. (Unpublished)
Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction
Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
Home Appliances. 1971 (Prepared by Bolt, Baranek,
and Newman)
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. Vessel
Pollution Study of San Diego Bay, California. 1969
Filice, Francis P. "An Ecological Survey of the Castro
Creek Area in San Pablo Bay." Wasmann Journal of
Biology, Volume 12. 1954, pp 1-24.
Filice, Francis P. "A Study of Some Factors Affecting the
Bottom Fauna of a Portion of the San Francisco Bay
Estuary." Wasmann Journal of Biology, Volume 12. 1954,
pp 257-292.

-------
Filice, Francis P. "Invertebrates from the Estuarine Portion
of San Francisco Bay and Some Factors Influencing their
Distributions." Wasmann Journal of Biology, Volume 16.
1958, pp 159-211.
Filice, Francis P. "The Effect of Wastes on the Distribution
of Bottom Invertebrates in the San Francisco Bay Estuary."
Wasmann Journal of Biology, Volume 17. 1959, pp 1-17.
Franken, Peter A., and Daniel G. Page. "Noise in the Environment."
Environmental Science and Technology. 1972, pp 124-129.
Gilbert, J. B., & Associates. Evaluation, San Francisco Waste-
water Master Plan. March, 1973.
Grigg, Richard W., and Robert S. Kiwala. "Some Ecological
Effects of Discharged Wastes on Marine Life." California
Fish and Game, Volume 56. 1970, pp 145-155.
Gunnerson, Charles G. "Sewage Disposal in Santa Monica Bay,
California." Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
Volume 84, SA 1. American Society of Civil Engineers.
1958, pp 1-27.
Gunnerson, Charles G. "Marine Disposal of Wastes." Journal
of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Volume 87, SA 1.
American Society of Civil Engineers. 1961, pp 23-56.
Hagerman, Frederick B. "Biology of the Dove Sole, Microstomus
paeificus." Fish Bulletin 85. California Department of
Fish and Game. 1952.
Hartman, Olga. Contributions to a Biological Survey of Santa
Monica Bay, California. Final Report to Hyperion Engineers,
Inc. Geology Department, University of Southern California.
1956. (Mimeo Report)
Hartman, Olga. Results on Investigations of Pollution and Its
Effects on Benthic Populations m Santa Monica Bay,
California. Allan Hancock Foundation, University of
Southern California. 1956.
Johnson, W. C., and A. J. Calhoun. "Food Habits of California
Striped Bass." California Fish and Game, Volume 38.
1952, pp 531-534.
Kaiser Engineers and Engineering Science, Inc. Final Report,
Task Vll-lb, Biologic-Ecologic Studies. State Water
Quality Control Board. 1968

-------
Klein, David H., and Edward D. Goldberg. "Mercury in the
Marine Environment." Environmental Science and Technology.
1970, pp 765-768.
Loukashkin, Anatole S. "On the Diet and Feeding Behavior of
the Northern Anchovy, Engraulis mordax." Proceedings of
the California Academy of Sciences. Fourth Series,
Volume 37, pp 419-458.
Merkel, Terrance J. "Food Habits of the King Salmon, Oncorhyncus
tshawytscha, in the Vicinity of San Francisco, California."
California Fish and Game, Volume 43. 1957, pp 249-270.
North, Wheeler J. A Survey of Southern San Diego Bay. 1970.
(Mimeo Report to the Ocean Fish Protective Association
for transmittal to the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.)
North, Wheeler J. Review of Bio-Literature on Pacific Coast
Marine Waste Disposal as a Guide to Prediction of
Ecological Effects of a Submarine Outfall in the Gulf
of the Farallones. 1970.
Odemar, Melvin W., and others. "A Survey of the Marine Environ-
ment from Fort Ross, Sonoma County, to Point Lobos,
Monterey County." Final Report to the San Francisco
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program Pursuant to Task
Order VII la (DFG). Department of Fish and Game. 1968.
Quast, Jay C. "Observations on the Food of the Kelp Bed
Fishes." Chapter 8, Utilization of Kelp Bed Resources
in Southern California, Fish Bulletin 139. Edited by
W. J. North and C. L. Hubbs. Department of Fish and
Game. 1968.
Resig, Johanna M. "Foraminiferal Ecology around Ocean Outfalls
off Southern California." Waste Disposal in the Marine
Environment. Pergamon. 1960, pp 104-121.
San Diego Marine Consultants. Oceanographic Conditions Prior
to Discharge of Wastes from Proposed Disposal System.
City of San Diego. 1961.
San Francisco, City and County of. San Francisco Master Plan
for Wastewater Management—Preliminary Comprehensive
Report. 2 Volumes. Department of Public Works.
September 15, 1971.
San Francisco, City and County of. San Francisco Master Plan
for Wastewater Management—Preliminary Summary Report.
Department of Public Works. September 15, 19 71.

-------
San Francisco, City and County of. San Francisco Master Plan
for Wastewater Management—Supplement I. Department of
Public Works. May 15, 1973.
San Francisco, City and County of. Environmental Impact
Statement, Dry Weather Water Pollution Control Proiect.
Department of Public Works. August, 19 72.
San Francisco, City and County of. San Francisco Land Use
Tabulations for 1970. Department of City Planning.
June, 1973.
San Francisco, City and County of. The Comprehensive Plan,
Recreation and Open Space. Department of City Planning.
May 24, 1973.
San Francisco, City and County of. San Francisco Water and
Power. September, 1967.
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory. A Comprehensive
Study of San Francisco Bay 1962-63, Suisun Bay-Lower
San Joaquin River Area, San Pablo Bay Area, North San
Francisco Bay Area. Third Annual Report (SERL Report
No. 64-3). University of California at Berkeley. 1964.
Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory. A Comprehensive
Study of San Francisco Bay 196 3-64, North, Central, and
Lower San Francisco Bay Areas. Fourth Annual Report
(SERL Report No. 65-1). University of California at
Berkeley. 1965.
Skinner, John E. An Historical Review of the Fish and Wildlife
Resources of the San Francisco Bay Area. Water Projects
Branch Report No. 1. Department of Fish and Game. 1962.
Smith, R. Electrical Power Consumption for Municipal Waste-
water Treatment. July, 1973. (Environmental Protection
Agency Research Report EPA-R2-73-281.)
State Water Resources Control Board. Water Quality Control
Plan (Interim), San Francisco Bay, Basin 2. June, 1971.
State Water Resources Control Board. Water Quality Control
Plan, Ocean Waters of California. July 6, 1972.
State Water Resources Control Board. Clean Water Grant Program
Regulations. August 16, 1973.

-------
State Water Resources Control Board. Environmental Impact
Report and Public Participation Guidelines for Wastewater
Agencies. July, 1973.
Sumner, Francis B., and others. "A Report upon the Physical
Conditions in San Francisco Bay Based upon the Operations
of the United States Fisheries Steamer 'Albatross' during
the Years 1912 and 1913." University of California
Zoological Publication. Volume 14, 1914, pp 1-19 8.
Tibby, Richard B., and others. "The Diffusion of Wastes in
Open Coastal Waters and Their Effects on Primary Biological
Productivity." Proceedings of the Symposium of Pollutional
Effects on Marine Microorganisms by the Producers of
Petroleum. 1964, pp 95-113.
Turner, Charles H., and others. "The Marine Environment in
the Vicinity of the Orange County Sanitation District's
Ocean Outfall." California Fish and Game, Volume 52.
1966, pp 28-48.
Turner, Charles H., and others. Survey of a Marine Environment
Subsequent to Installation of a Submarine Outfall.
Department of Fish and Game Marine Resources Operations.
1967 (Mimeo report, MRO Reference No. 67-24.)
Water Pollution Control Federation. Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972. (Published and
Distributed by WPCF.)
Young, David R. Mercury in the Environment: A Summary of
Information Pertinent to the Distribution of Mercury
in the Southern California Bight. Southern California
Coastal Water Research Project. November, 1971.

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL
FOR
RECLAMATION OF WASTEWATER
March 1974
J. B. Gilbert & Associates
1101 R Street
Sacramento, California 95814

-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An analysis of the need and potential for wastewater reclama-
tion in the City and County of San Francisco has resulted in
the following conclusions and recommendations:
1.	There does not appear to be a water supply shortage,
quality problem, or economic factors that would
justify a wastewater reclamation project within the
City and County of San Francisco at the present time.
2.	The only wastewater generated within the City and
County of San Francisco that could be considered
suitable for reclamation without specialized treat-
ment (i.e., demineralization) is generated within
the Richmond-Sunset service area. Therefore, the
City should continue its infiltration/inflow analysis
to evaluate possible methods of reducing the unfiltra-
tion of highly saline waters into the sewer system.
3.	There are many potential markets for reclaimed water
within the San Francisco Bay Area; however, the most
promising potential market for reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater is for landscape irrigation within Golden
Gate Park (4.0 mgd) and the three golf courses near
Lake Merced - The Olympic Club, Harding Park, and
Lake Merced (1.0 mgd).
4.	Since it appears that reclaimed water can be pro-
duced for landscape irrigation at very competitive
rates, the City should conduct an in-depth feasibility
study to determine the exact costs of advanced waste
treatment and distribution for landscape irrigation
within Golden Gate Park and the three golf courses
near Lake Merced.
5.	Wastewater reclamation has no effect on the Master
Plan with respect to size, location, or type of
facilities proposed; therefore, the City should
continue its actions to assure early completion of
Phase I and to finalize plans for the remaining
facilities.
1

-------
SUMMARY
RECLAMATION NEED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
San Francisco Bay Area communities are currently dependent
on imported water supplies as much of the area's water is
derived from development of water supplies in the high
Sierra-Nevada Mountains. The waters imported from those
sources are passed through the water distribution system,
used, collected, and discharged to saline waters. This
type of once-through water used is equivalent to total
consumption of the water supply as opposed to upstream users
which discharge back to fresh water streams or to ground-
water where the wastewater can be reused or, in the case
of stream discharge, serve as a fresh water source for the
estuary.
The Bay Area's need for fresh water will continue to increase
in the future. Provision of needed water for the future can
be accomplished by development of new sources of fresh water
(construction of reservoirs), reclamation of existing waste-
water sources, desalination of ocean water, or conservation
of existing supplies.
Development of additional supplies by construction of reservoirs
is limited by the lack of economical sites, the need to retain
some streams in their natural state, and a fuller understanding
of the impact of dams and diversions on the environment.
Desalination will not become economically attractive until
a cheap source of energy is found.
POTENTIAL USES OF RECLAIMED SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER
There are numerous potential uses of reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater. However, some of the more likely uses are for
local landscape irrigation, salinity control, and agricultural
irrigation. The potential market for using reclaimed water
for these purposes is presented in the following paragraphs.
Local Landscape Irrigation
It appears feasible to produce a limited amount of reclaimed
water at the proposed Southwest treatment plant site for
use at The Olympic Club, Harding Park, and Lake Merced golf
courses and at the Richmond-Sunset Plant for use in Golden
2

-------
Summary
Gate Park. Reclaimed water can be produced at these two
sites at very competive rates assuming that secondary effluent
from the Richmond-Sunset Plant would be the source of supply
for the reclamation facilities.
After the Phase I Master Plan facilities are completed, it
appears feasible to construct a 4.0 mgd advanced waste
treatment facility (rapid sand filtration and disinfection)
at the Richmond-Sunset plant. The reclaimed water could be
used for irrigation purposes within Golden Gate Park. The
unit cost of reclaimed water for this alternative would be
about $30 per acre-foot plus transportation costs of approxi-
mately $24 per acre-foot.
It also appears feasible to construct a 1.0 mgd advanced
waste treatment facility (rapid sand filtration and disinfection)
at the proposed Southwest treatment plant site. The source of
water for this facility would be the effluent line from the
Richmond-Sunset plant. The reclaimed water produced by this
facility could be used for irrigation of The Olympic Club,
Harding Park, and Lake Merced golf courses. The unit cost
of the reclaimed water would be about $50 per acre-foot plus
transportation costs of about $23 per acre-foot.
Salinity Control
The Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources
Control Board have initiated a San Francisco Bay Area Wastewater
Reclamation Study to determine the feasibility of intercepting
and reclaiming treated Bay Area wastewater for transport and
reuse to augment Delta outflows, either directly or indirectly
by substituting reclaimed water for irrigation and groundwater
recharge demands in the Bay Area or adjacent areas.
In its September 19, 1973 progress report, the Interagency
Study group made the following comments;
"The additional water required by the Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project
to meet contracts and future water demands can
be expressed as an outflow deficiency expected
at the Delta under projected conditions.
3

-------
Summary
"Water with a salinity of 4,000 to 6,000 ppm of
total dissolved solids could be used to meet
this water deficiency by direct augmentation of
Delta outflow at about Chipps Island, with
provision for treatment to avert toxicity and
biostimulation effects in the estuary."
Preliminary results of this study indicate that reclaimed
water could be made available for about $90 per acre-foot for
this purpose. However, if extended treatment (nutrient and
toxicity removal) were required to produce water which would
not create biostimulation and toxicity problems in the
estuary, this unit cost would escalate to approximately $130
per acre-foot. Therefore, before a conclusion regarding the
feasibility of this proposal can be made a detailed environ-
mental assessment of the proposal is required to determine
the actual treatment requirements and therefore the actual
cost of the reclaimed water.
It should be pointed out, however, that these studies were
based on average daily dry weather flow with respect to
sizing of facilities. Therefore, if this proposal were found
to be feasible, it would still be necessary for the City of
San Francisco to construct storage, treatment, and disposal
facilities to solve its wet weather wastewater problems.
Agricultural Irrigation
Irrigated agriculture is by far the largest user of fresh
water in California. Therefore, when considering large-scale
reclamation projects, irrigated agriculture must be considered
as a potential market for the reclaimed water. However, the
use of reclaimed water for crop irrigation is not without
problems which include seasonal water use, quality considerations,
and public acceptance.
Two large agricultural areas in relatively close proximity
to the Bay Area are the Delta-Mendota and San Luis service
areas within the San Joaquin Valley. The projected import
water requirements under the 2015 level of development for
these areas are as follows:
Service Area	Quantity, acre-feet
Delta-Mendota	1,675,000
San Luis	1,279,000
Total	2,954,000
4

-------
Summary
As a part of its study, the Interagency group investigated
the possibility of using reclaimed Bay Area wastewaters to
supplement the imported supplies for these two areas. Three
of the alternatives studied by this group included utilization
of San Francisco wastewaters. The unit costs of these three
alternatives range from $108 to $143 per acre-foot.
To date the Interagency group has not made any conclusions
regarding the feasibility of implementing any of its alterna-
tives. However, it would appear that the costs of delivering
reclaimed water to the point of use are very high and not
competitive with State-Federal project water.
EFFECT OF RECLAMATION ON THE MASTER PLAN
The most promising potential use of reclaimed water within
the City and County of San Francisco appears to be landscape
irrigation within Golden Gate Park and the three golf courses
in the Lake Merced area. It also appears that the most
economical method of producing reclaimed water for this purpose
would be to provide advanced waste treatment facilities (rapid
sand filtration and disinfection) at the Richmond-Sunset and
Southwest plant sites that would utilize secondary effluent
as their source of supply. However, the total seasonal demand
for these uses is only 5.0 million gallons per day compared
to the total average daily dry weather flow of 125 mgd. There-
fore, reclamation for local uses would not have any effect on
the size, location, or type of facilities as envisioned in
the Master Plan.
The San Francisco Bay Area Interagency Wastewater Reclamation
Study investigated the feasibility of aggregating wastewaters
within the Bay Area, providing some form of extended treat-
ment, and producing relaimed water that would be direct input
into the Delta channels at Chipps Island to repel salinity,
into the Delta Mendota Canal to serve irrigation demands in
the Delta Mendota service area, and into a proposed canal to
serve irrigation needs in the San Luis service area.
The basic assumption in all the Interagency Study alternatives
was that the San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan had already
been implemented and that the effluents of the Richmond-Sunset
and Southeast plants were combined at the Southwest plant site.
It should be pointed out, however, that all these alternatives
were based on average daily dry weather flow conditions and
therefore the need of the 1,00 0 mgd wet weather treatment
facility would still exist even if one of the Interagency
5

-------
Summary
alternatives were implemented. This is due to the fact that
the average daily dry weather flow is only 125 mgd compared
to the necessary wet weather treatment capacity of 1,000 mgd.
In fact, all the facilities envisioned in the Master Plan
would be required whether or not large-scale reclamation
projects were implemented.
In summary, it appears that reclamation, either through large
scale export of wastes or small scale local use, has no
effect on the Master Plan with respect to the size, location,
or type of facilities proposed.
6

-------
SUMMARY OF THE POTENTIAL FOR USING
RECLAIMED SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER
Reclamation Program
Golden Gate Park
Irrigation
Golf Course
Irrigation
Delta Salinity
Control
Agricultural Use
Delta-Mendota
Service Area
Quantity
(mgd)
1.0
4.0
1.0
"Dotal dry
weather
Total dry
weather
Possible
Year of
Inplemen-
tation
existing
1980
1980
2000
2000
Current Cost
Other	Cheapest
Responsible Cost	Alternative
Agencies C/l,000 gal <71,000 gal
none
none
Owners of
individual
golf courses
USBR5
DWR6
USBR
DWR
30
17
22
28-40
33
251
251
251
Regulatory Constraints
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Restrictive toxicity and
biostimul ation requirements
Possible health restrictions
due to intermittent cross-
connection
San Luis
Service Area
Groundwater Recharge
Santa Clara Valley
Total dry
weather
90
2000
Prohibited
Industrial Use
Direct Reuse
Total dry Not
weather feasible
Prohibited
USBR
Santa Clara
CFCSWD,7 DWR
Industrial
users
44	3
Not calculated
due to regula- 103
tory constraints
Same as above 1.5U
251
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Presently prohibited by state
Department of Health
Subsequent toxicity and
biostimulation requirements
Prohibited by State
Department of Health
'Cost of San Francisco water to large users.
2Existing cost of Delta Mendota	water; if new supplies were developed, this cost could double or triple.
3Cost of South Bay Aqueduct water (Reference 2).
''Cost for pumping brackish water.
5United States Bureau of Reclamation.
6Department of Water Resources.
7Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District.

-------
BACKGROUND
RECLAMATION NEED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
San Francisco Bay area communitities are currently dependent
on imported water supplies. Much of the area's water is
derived from development of water supplies in the high Sierra-
Nevada Mountains. The waters imported from these sources are
passed through the water distribution system, collected, and
discharged to saline waters. This type of once-through
water use is equivalent to total consumption of the water
supply as opposed to upstream users which discharge back to
fresh water streams or to groundwater where the wastewater
can be reused or, in the case of stream discharge, serve as a
fresh water source for the estuary. Consideration is currently
being given to numerous projects to utilize once-through waste-
waters prior to disposal. These range from small local land-
scape irrigation projects to large projects designed to trans-
port most of the wastewater from the area to a place of reuse
for agricultural irrigation or supplementing fresh water
flows to the estuary.
Provision of needed water for the future can be accomplished
by development of new sources of fresh water (construction
of dams), reclamation of existing wastewater sources, desali-
nation of ocean water, or conservation of existing supplies.
The San Francisco Bay system is the estuarine outlet for
all drainage from the great Central Valley of California.
As such, it supports a highly complex ecological system of
major importance. Predominant features in the past have
been sustenance of large fish and shellfish populations and
the annual migration of anadromous fish. Since man began
developing the Central Valley for agriculture, the character
of the estuary has been changing. Water diversion and con-
sumptive use changed fresh water outflow patterns. Land
use changes and mining practices influenced sediment loads
in the river and Bay systems. More recently, construction
of dams has altered outflow patterns and sediment loadings.
These activities of man have altered the character of the
estuary, primarily by changing fresh water inflow patterns
by diversion of water for beneficial use.
8

-------
Background
Current and planned water diversion and use could potentially
result in unacceptable changes in the estuarine character.
Because of this potential, public concern has resulted in
legislative action to protect the estuary. Such action
essentially requires that some fresh water flow be allowed
to pass without diversion to the ocean, thereby maintaining
the estuary. This legislative action led to Decision 1379
of the State Water Resources Control Board which requires
the California Department of Water Resources and the U. S.
Bureau of Reclamation to release water to maintain quality
requirements in the estuary. Compliance with the decision
without further water development in the northern Coastal
Range of California will result in a water shortage in the
near future. This situation has necessitated a re-evaluation
of present water supply practices in the affected area.
Increased treatment of wastewater required prior to discharge
to the environment and the increased difficulty of developing
new water sources are making wastewater reclamation more
economically feasible. However, a dramatic energy shortage
could favor development of new water (and energy) sources
over energy-consuming reclamation methods. Development of
a cheap energy source would favor desalination as a water
source.
Responsibility for maintaining an adequate flow of fresh
water to the estuary resides with all water users who
consumptively use or degrade the quality of waters tributary
to the San Francisco Bay estuary.
Since the City and County of San Francisco diverts fresh water
which would otherwise be tributary to the estuary and the
City is in the process of finalizing its Master Plan for
Wastewater Management, it thoroughly investigated the use of
reclaimed wastewater to determine if it would be possible to
use reclaimed water in lieu of Hetch Hetchy water and to
determine what effects a major reclamation project would
have on implementation of the Master Plan.
METHODS OF WASTEWATER RECLAMATION
Numerous methods of reclaiming municipal wastewaters are
being discussed and utilized at the present time. For a
detailed discussion of these methods, see References 1
through 17 of this text. A brief listing and description
of these methods follows:
9

-------
Background
1.	Direct Recycle
This method involves extensive treatment and
renovation of the wastewater with subsequent
discharge to the municipal water supply system.
2.	Groundwater Recharge
This method involves extensive treatment and
renovation of the wastewater with subsequent
discharge to the groundwater by direct injection
or by percolation through a soil layer. All
types of water uses can be accommodated by this
method provided water quality is acceptable for
the particular use.
3.	Surface Water Discharge
This method involves treatment of the wastewater
followed by discharge to a fresh water body where
the water can later be further used. This method
is currently practiced primarily as a means of
disposal. However, it must be considered a valid
reclamation method because it does allow further
use by downstream users both human and non-human.
4.	Agricultural Irrigation
This method involves application of properly
treated wastewater to agricultural lands for
production of plants.
5.	Landscape Irrigation
This method involves application of treated
wastewater to areas covered by vegetation for
landscaping purposes. Such areas include parks,
golf courses, cemeteries, freeway median strips,
greenery in commercial areas, and residential
lawns and greenery.
6.	Open Space Irrigation
This method involves application of treated
wastewater to open space area not serving any
beneficial purpose. This normally involves watering
unused hillsides. Open space irrigation is considered
an artificial or created water demand and as such
is much less desirable than other methods which will
supply existing water demands.
10

-------
Background
7.	Industrial Use
This method involves treatment and renovation of
wastewater with subsequent use by industry. Within
this very general classification are many different
types of uses each of which exhibits individual
needs. Utilization of the industrial market for
reclaimed wastewater requires considerably more pre-
study than other uses because of the complex nature
of industrial processes.
8.	Cooling Water
This is an industrial use which requires special
consideration. It involves the use of reclaimed
water to remove and transport heat from industrial
processing or energy production facilities. This
use normally degrades the water only with respect
to temperature and possibly the mineral quality.
Such a change will not interfere with other reuse
such as irrigation, surface water discharge, and
some industrial uses and is therefore not a use
cycle that decreases the reclamation potential of
the wastewater significantly. It should be used
whenever possible but not as the only reclamation
method. Where brackish water is used for cooling,
changing to reclaimed wastewater for cooling serves
no purpose.
9.	Impoundment
This method involves storing treated and renovated
wastewater in large open reservoirs. The impounded
water can serve as a recreation site, as a source
of water for seasonal uses, or both. The two basic
uses are somewhat in conflict since most seasonal
demand occurs in the summer when recreation is at
its peak. Changes in pool level required to supply
seasonal use would interfere with recreational use.
10. Fire Protection
This method involves the use of wastewater for fighting
or prevention of urban and rural fires. Where in-
dustrial use of wastewater occurs, reclaimed water
could be used in fire sprinkler systems. In areas
with high fire potential, green belting with waste-
water could prevent the spread of grass fires.
11

-------
Background
OBSTACLES TO RECLAMATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
Public Health Restrictions
Because of uncertainty about the effect of pathogenic viral
agents and potentially toxic substances which may be contained
in reclaimed wastewater, direct reuse involving human ingestion
is not currently acceptable to the State and local health
authorities. This eliminates the possibility of direct recycle
or groundwater injection for municipal use. Percolation of
wastewater for municipal use may be acceptable if the waste-
water represents only a small portion of the recharged waters.
This restriction also eliminates the potential for use of
wastewater to irrigate crops which come in direct contact with
the water and may be directly ingested by humans.
Any use where the public may come in direct contact with
the wastewater will require proper disinfection. Affected
reclamation methods include landscape irrigation and
recreational impoundment. The disinfection required depends
on the extent of contact anticipated.
Quality Requirements and Treatment Costs
Treatment levels required prior to discharge to surface
waters or land have advanced to the point that many materials
which would limit the reclaimability of wastewater are being
removed. These substances are the gross solids, suspended
matter, and dissolved organics. With these materials removed
from the wastewater, the content of dissolved material becomes
the determining factor in the wastewater's reclaimability.
Dissolved Solids. Buildup of dissolved solids
restricts reuse for irrigation, groundwater
recharge, many industrial uses, and reduces the
water's usefulness for maintaining fresh water
or estuarine habitats. Most water uses result
in an incremental addition of salt content.
Multiple use often results in complete loss of
usefulness unless treatment for removal of
dissolved solids is employed. Treatment of this
type would cost from 0.30 to 1.50 $/l,000 gallons
depending on the quantity being treated and the
process used (Reference 17).
12

-------
Background
Boron is a concern for use of wastewater
for irrigation. Many plants are sensitive
to the boron content. Desalination is the
only available process by which boron can
be removed.
Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous
are beneficial in water used for irrigation
but may hamper industrial use by supporting
undesirable biological growth in piping
systems. Phosphorous removal costs 0.04 to
0.06 $/l,000 gallons while nitrogen reduction
costs 0.01 to 0.05 $/l,000 gallons (Reference 17).
Hardness is beneficial in irrigation water
with high sodium content but can cause
problems in some industrial processes.
Conveyance Requirements
Normal Wastewater Flows. Transportating wastewater to
the location of need is a major cost to any substantial
reclamation project. Reclamation in urban areas re-
quires a second water distribution system which would
involve a mass repiping program if every potential urban
user is to be supplied with both a domestic drinking
water supply and a reclaimed water supply for other
uses because of the potential public health risks.
In rural areas, the problem is the distance from the
major urban wastewater sources to water users. In some
cases this problem can be solved by discharging to an
irrigation canal.
Wet Weather Flows« Urban wastewater flows increase
dramatically during rainfall, particularly where
combined sewers are used. Reclamation of wastewater
from areas with separated sewers is normally accom-
modated by the system without problem. Where combined
sewers are used, peak flows are often several times
normal flow. Such flows occur during only a small part
of the year so total volume does not approach that of
normal flow. Reclamation of these storm flows would
require two things beyond that required to reclaim
normal flow: storage and an oversized transport system.
Storage is required because no water use coincides with
rainfall so the water must be held until it is needed.
13

-------
Background
An oversized transport system is needed to carry the
large peak flows to the storage facility. The added
cost of these two factors makes reclamation of wet
weather waste flows from combined systems far less
attractive than reclamation of normal flows.
Existing Water Supplies. An obstacle to reclamation
of wastewater in the San Francisco Bay Area is the
past and present availability of large quantities of
very high quality water. Actual water shortages are
not immanent. Despite this many Bay Area communities
have proceeded to evaluate possibilities of reclaiming
their wastewater.
14

-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER
QUANTITY
Normal (Dry Weather) Flows
The City and County of San Francisco currently operates
three wastewater treatment facilities. The Richmond-Sunset
Water Pollution Control Plant is located in Golden Gate
Park and treats an average of 21 million gallons per day
(mgd) of sanitary sewage. The North Point Water Pollution
Control Plant is located in the northeast corner of the City,
just below Coit Tower. This facility treats an average of
65 mgd of sanitary sewage. The Southeast Water Pollution
Control Plant is located in the southeastern area of the City
near Islais Creek. It treats an average of 19 mgd of sanitary
sewage. The total dry weather flow from the City is 105 mgd
or 9,810 acre-feet per month (AF/mo).
Current plans call for consolidation of the North Point and
Southeast facilities with an expanded and improved treatment
plant at the Southeast site. This would result in a flow of
84 mgd from this new facility.
Wet Weather Flows
The City in developing its Master Plan for Wastewater Manage-
ment (Reference 18) analyzed 62 years of rainfall data from the
Federal Building raingage. From this analysis and appropriate
runoff coefficients for various areas of the City, the average
annual runoff of stormwaters from the City was estimated to be
8.8 billion gallons per year. Table 1 shows the distribution
of this quantity by month and drainage basin. The dry weather
flow for each drainage basin is shown for comparison. Distri-
bution of runoff among the drainage basins is based on preliminary
results of San Francisco's runoff monitoring program. The
estimated distribution is 40 percent from the Richmond-Sunset
basin, 27 percent from the North Point basin, and 33 percent
from the Southeast basin.
15

-------
TABLE 1
AVERAGE ANNUAL DRY AND WET WEATHER FLOWS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

DRY WEATHER
Frnw




WET WEATHER FLCW
(AF/MD)




ANNUAL

AF/MO
AFAR
JAN
FEB
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
AF/YR
Percent of
Annual
Rainfall
(%)


22.5
16.5
13.8
7,
0
2.9
0.7
0.1 0.1
1.2
4.4
11.0
19.8
100.0
Tbtal City
9810
117,700
6080
4450
3730
1890

780
190
28 28
330
1190
2970
5340
27010
Richmond-
Sunset
Basin
1960
23,500
2430
1780
1490
760

310
80
11 11
130
480
1190
2140
10810
North Point
Basin
6070
72,800
1640
1200
1010
510

210
50
8 8
90
320
800
1440
7290
Southeast
Basin
1780
21,400
2010
1470
1230
620

260
60
9 9
110
390
980
1760
8910
Combined
North Point
and
Southeast
Basins
7850
94,200
3650
2670
2240
1130

470
110
17 17
200
710
1780
3200
16200

-------
Characterization of
San Francisco Wastewater
QUALITY
Undesirable characteristics of a municipal wastewater other
than those related to the mineral quality can generally be
reduced or eliminated by conventional treatment methods.
Effluent from a well operated secondary treatment plant
should be well oxidized and clear, with no odor or other objec-
tionable property. Combinations of treatment processes, such
as filtration and disinfection, can insure removal or destruc-
tion of disease agents; but, these conventional treatment
methods do little to change the mineral quality of wastewater.
Such change requires advanced processes which, while technically
proven, would increase the cost of reclamation by a substantial
amount. From a practical standpoint with the present state
of technical knowledge, the mineral quality can be considered
to be the most important limiting factor in defining the
"reclaimability" of a wastewater.
Mineral quality in municipal wastewater if largely influenced
by three factors: The mineral quality of the original water
supply, the mineral pickup resulting from use, and the mineral
change due to water infiltrating into the sewer system. In
San Francisco, water infiltrating into the sewer system is
largely responsible for the high mineral content of the waste-
water. The City is presently conducting an infiltration/inflow
study of its sewer system to determine methods of alleviating
the infiltration problem.
In addition, the City has retained a consultant (Cl^M-Hill)
to conduct a pilot treatment plant study. That study included
a wastewater characterization program for the three existing
treatment plants. The sampling program involved the collection
of 24-hour flow proportioned composite and peak flow grab
samples on alternate days over a two week period (April 16, 1973).
In all 42 samples were obtained, each of which was analyzed
for 110 constituents. A selected summary of the results of
this sampling program is presented in Table 2 through 5.
17

-------
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
HEAVY METALS
oo
North Point Plant	Southeast Plant	Richmond-Sunset Plant
High	Lew Ave.	High	Low Ave.	High	Lew Ave.
Constituent	(mg/1) (mg/1) (rog/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (rog/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Boron
1.26
0.16
0.61
1.47
0.12
0.83
0.39
0.10
0.25
Cadmium
0.068
0.001
0.0077
0.006
<0.001
0.003
0.006
<0.001
0.002
Chromium (Total)
1.100
0.018
0.149
6.6
1.6
3.2
0.025
0.004
0.012
(hexavalent)
0.180
<0.005
0.010
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Cobalt
0.14
<0.0001
0.006
0.026
<0.0001
0.012
0.018
<0.0001
0.002
Copper
0.80
0.13
0.26
0.51
0.12
0.25
0.880
0.076
0.207
Cyanide
0.148
<0.005
0.053
0.225
<0.005
0.085
0.055
<0.005
0.019
Iron
4.10
1.12
2.12
8.29
1.04
4.33
2.07
0.54
1.26
Vanadium
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
<0.01
Ziric
0.45
0.24
0.35
4.00
0.24
1.15
0.45
0.16
0.23
Lithiun
0.100
0.005
0.034
0.023
0.010
0.015
0.10
0.004
0.007
Lead
0.520
0.030
0.077
0.76
0.050
0.212
0.18
0.032
0.079
Magnesium
59.02
17.75
49.6
153.1
40.63
128.9
16.79
5.36
16.42
Manganese
0.10
0.061
0.078
0.22
0.16
0.18
0.099
0.034
0.054
Mercury
0.00146
0.00048
0.00079
0.00124
0.00018
0.00057
0.00152
0.00024
0.00084
Molybdenum
<0.008
<0.003
<0.007
<0.02
<0.01
<0.018
0.002
<0.001
0.0015
Nickel
0.170
0.008
0.042
0.35
<0.02
0.130
0.180
0.003
0.018
Selenium
0.050
<0.01
<0.017
0.041
<0.01
0.011
0.05
<0.01
0.014
Silver
0.130
0.029
0.048
0.048
0.014
0.030
0.064
0.013
0.023
Sodium
510
100
372
970
370
746
350
50
142
Aluninum
5.96
1.14
2.50
26.28
1.78
6.15
3.24
0.57
1.40
Arsenic
0.0115
0.0007
0.0045
0.0074
0.0022
0.0050
0.0070
0.0016
0.0038
Barium
0.40
O'.Ol
0.10
0.50
<0.02
0.07
0.20
0.02
0.09
Berylliun
0.0073
<0.001
0.0021
0.0037
<0.001
0.0014
0.0040
<0.001
0.0011
tn

-------
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
vo
Constituent
Units
North Point Plant
Southeast
Plant
Richmond-Sunset Plant
High
LOW
Ave.
mgn

LOW
Ave.
Hign
uw
AVH.
Color
units
138
60
71
210

75

120
192
80
109.4
Conductivity
umbos
2f001
789
1,800
5,220
2
,160

4,653
1,360
625
752
Floatables
mg/1
10.0
2.4
4.2
33.
0
2.
7
10.3
45.0
2.8
17.5
Odor (roan
temperature)
Threshold
Nuntoer
24,915
537.5
7,780
112,500

532

23,885
38,230
320.5
8,531
Settleable
Matter
ml/1
18.0
2.0
5.0
13.
0
2.
0
4.6
22.0
5.5
10.2
Total
Dissolved
Solids
mg/1
1,010
386
881
2,940
1
,114

2,092
449
183
345
Total
Solids
mg/1
1,160
269
1,043
3,400
1
,490

2,383
1,373
504
579
Total
Suspended
Matter
mg/1
480
135
163
462

150

290
1,047
155
208
Total
Volatile
Solids
mg/1
533
1
230
303
826

441

567
1,049
243
300.8
Turbidity
JTU
240
70
125
270

100

196
200
105
152
Volume
Suspended
Matter
mg/1
422
100.5
146
380

136

235
1,017
94
192.9
Teirperature
°c
22.0
18.0
20.0
20.
5
16.
8
18.5
21.9
17.
0 19.5

-------
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
CHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL


North Point Plant Southeast Plant
Richmond-Sunset Plant
Constituent
Units
High
Lew
Ave. High
Low
Ave.
High
lew
Ave.
BOD (5-day)
mg/1
282
130
176 412
126
235
210
142
162
Chloride
mg/1
403
80
366 1,250
344
985
244
49
94
ODD
mg/1
696
363
472 1,550
471
782
2,480
420
576
Dissolved
Oxygen
mg/1
4.3
0.4
2.0 4.3
0.0
2.1
3.95
0.10
2.0
Fluoride
mg/1
1.52
0.82
1.03 1.55
0.60
0.85
1.38
0.70
0.93
Oil-Grease
(Total)
mg/1
220.4
20.0
95.5 116.9
37
70.4
119
17
63
PH
units
9.6
5.7
7.7 9.0
5.6
7.3
8.5
6.1
7.3
Phenols
mg/1
0.205
0.020
0.043 1.975
0.054
0.346
0.410
0.038
0.082
Sulfate
mg/1
84
22
78 396
156
242
41
16
31
Sulfide
mg/1
6.80
0.27
0.44 3.8
0.35
0.70
1.3
0.26
0.49
Surfactants
mg/1
9.6
4.3
1
6.7 9.3
6.0
7.4
11.5
4.6
9.7
Total
Hardness
mg/1
220
100
198 560
210
459
120
70
91
Tbtal
Organic
Carbon
mg/1
140
67
107.3 353
78
178
146
84
101
cn

-------
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
NUTRIENTS

North Point Plant
Southeast Plant
Richmond-Sunset Plant

High
(mg/1)
low
(mg/1)
Ave.
(rog/1)
High
(mg/1)
Low
(mg/1)
Ave.
(mg/1)
High
(mg/1)
Low
(mg/1)
Ave.
(mg/1)
Armenia—N
30.0
8.8
12.3
40.0
11.2
15.6
39
15
18.5
Nitrate—N
0.59
0.04
0.193
1.20
<0.01
0.35
0.98
0.05
0.299
Nitrite—N
0.84
0.01
0.50
0.61
<0.01
0.17
0.04
0.01
0.017
Organic Nitrogen
39
7.0
20.2
48
8
22
71
6.4
22.9
Total Nitrogen
49
16
33
70
25
37
105
21
41
Qrthophosphate
6.3
3.2
3.61
6.0
0.5
3.2
9.9
4.7
5.44
Tbtal Phosphate
8.5
5.3
6.17
15.0
5.6
7.9
12.5
6.3
8.20

-------
Characterization of
San Francisco Wastewater
In November 1967 the California State Department of Public
Health's Bureau of Sanitary Engineering published its Waste
Water Reclamation report (Task Vll-le of the San Francisco
Bay-Delta Water Quality Control Program). The following
classification of domestic waste discharges for reclamation
was included as Table VI-II in that report:
	Classification
	Quality Characteristic Suitable (S) Marginal (M) Unsuitable (U)
A.	Dissolved Solids	mg/l	<1,000	1,000-2,000	>2,000
B.	Percent Sodium	%	<60	60-75	>75
C.	Boron	mg/1	<1.5	1.5-2.5	>2.5
D.	Chloride	mg/1	<200	200-350	>350
E.	Chloride and
Sulfate	mg/1 <500	500-1,000 >1,000
Quality Characteristics*
Discharger
A
B
c
D
E
Overall
Richmond-Sunset Plant
S
S
s
S
S
S
North Point Plant
U
U
u
u
M
U
Southeast Plant
M
U
s
u
U
u
~Based on 1962-65 analyses.
The same quality characteristics based on the April 1973 analyses
are as follows:
Quality Characteristics
Discharger
A
B
C
D
E
Overall
Richmond-Sunset Plant
S
S
S
M
M
M
North Point Plant
M
S
S
U
S
U
Southeast Plant
U
S
s
U
U
U
As can be seen from the above, the only wastewater generated
within San Francisco that could be considered for reclamation
without specialized treatment is generated within the Richmond-
Sunset service area. Wastewaters generated within the North
Point and Southeast service areas are generally too mineralized
to be considered for reclamation without specialized treatment
or blending with a higher quality water.
22

-------
POTENTIAL FOR
USING RECLAIMED SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER
WITHIN THE BASIN
(EXCLUDING SAN FRANCISCO)
WATER DEMAND
The San Francisco Bay Area is largely dependent upon imported
water supplies. The complex system of water supply can
logically be treated in two parts: The areas North and South
of San Francisco Bay,
Irrigated agriculture accounts for about 60 percent of the
present water demand in the North Bay Area. However, this
area is experiencing rapid urbanization particularly in
Marin and southern Sonoma Counties. Although irrigated
agriculture is expected to increase in the future, urban
demands are anticipated to account for about 70 percent of
the total water demand by 2020.
Some areas in Napa and Sonoma Counties are already experiencing
groundwater overdraft problems which will continue to occur
unless additional facilities are constructed to meet the
projected increased demands. In fact, the North Bay Area
will have an aggregate annual supplemental water demand of
about 50,000 acre-feet within the 20 years, increasing
to about 350,000 acre-feet by 2020. Urban development is the
primary cause of this supplemental demand.
An analysis of proposed projects by the California Department
of Water Resources indicates that most of the additional water
needs in the North Bay Area can be met by further development
of local supplies, including wastewater.
The highly urbanized South Bay Area has almost fully developed
its local ground and surface water supplies and depends
heavily upon four major water import projects: the Hetch
Hetchy Water System of the City of San Francisco, the Mokelumne
Aqueduct of the East Bay Municipal Utility District, the
Contra Costa Canal of the Central Valley Project, and the
South Bay Aqueduct of the State Water Project. The total
amount of water imported by these four systems in 1972 was
about 500,000 acre-feet. However, planned expansions would
increase the total capacity of these systems to 1,150,000
acre-feet per year.
23

-------
Use Potential within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
These planned expansions, which will have the capability of
importing greater quantities of Sierra Water, are opposed by
environmental groups because of the need to retain some streams
in their natural state and the limited knowledge of the impact
of dams and diversions on the environment. If reclaimed water
were used for some of the less restrictive uses (e.g., landscape
irrigation, industrial cooling water, etc.)# it might not be
necessary to expand these four systems.
There have been many recent studies with respect to the
potential of wastewater reclamation in the San Francisco Bay
Area. The study areas of some of the more significant studies
are shown on Figure 1 and the results with respect to
wastewater reclamation are summarized in Tables 1 through 13.
24

-------
FIGURE lll-l
SUBREGIONAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES


. i
S 0 N 0 m" A
woodiond
a»"yto
1 SACRAMENTO
\A * *1 t
b A N MA T
ALAMEDA
CREEK
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
5 A* T A
AfOVE
MILES
. I. A R A
OVERLAP AREA BETWEEN SOUTH
BAY AND OTHER SUBREOIONS
OVERLAP AREA BETWEEN CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY AND ALAMEDA
CREEK SUBHE8I0K
SANTA
\ CRUZ
rOfltr; ,

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 1
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: NORTH MARIN-SOUTH SONOMA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - 1972 (Reference 1)
Author: J. Warren Nute, Inc./Jenks	& Adamson/Yoder-Trotter-
Orlob & Associates
Present			Future	
Quantity	Cost1 Quantity Cost1
AF/year	$/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Identified Markets for
reclaimed wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
3,6533
152
1980
2000
6,730
20,175
15
15
landscape
5,0453
152
1980
2000
>5,045
>5,045
15
15
Open Space1*
All
wastewater

1980
2000
All
wastewater
All
wastewater

Outside Area


1980
2000
All
wastewater
All
wastewater

Industrial
Cooling	240
160
1985 undefined 150'
1985 undefined 1502
Process

-------
TABLE 1
(Continued)
Present	 	Future	
Quantity Cost1	Quantity Cost1
AF/year $/AF Year ftF/year $/AF
Boiler Feed
Other
Combined	1980 1,120	502
SIC Nos	36,32,29
Inpoundnent
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined
A11
wastewater
2000 41,110 114-1311
Ibtal local Market
and demand
Ibtal Identified
Local Market9	8,814	1980 12,900
Demand in Excess of
Supply (deficiency)8	0	0
2000	0
Available Local Wastewater 13,4006	1980 16,600
2000 61,6007
Excess Local Market
and Demand
Identified Market
Excess9
Demand over Supply/
wastewater total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess over
identified market9	4,590	1980 3,700
Excess over Supply
deficiency	13,400	1980 16,600
61,600
Recommended Reclamation
method	None	1980- Recreation
1985 lake/Outside
Use
1985- Recreation
1990 Lake tares tic
Reuse/CXitside
Use

-------
Present
Future
TABLE 1
(Continued)
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Quantity Cost1
Year AF/year $/AF
Reason for not utilizing
all wastewater
Public Health Problems
X
All to be
utilized
All to be
utilized
Excess Costs
Total
X
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all local
markets in detail
Emphasized local
landscape irrigation	X	X
lCost in excess of secondary treatment
2Wastewater treatment cost only
3Seasonal demand
uConsidered a "created" market
sCost of treatment, reservoir, and recreation facilities
6Interpolation
'From Table 9-23
8Fresh water sources are available
'Excludes open space irrigation and reservoir storage
X

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 2
Report Title:
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE/A STUDY FOP THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER DISTRICT/
PHASE 1 FINAL REPORT - JULY 197 3 (Reference 2)
Author: Consoer-Bechtel
Present
Future
Identified Markets for
reclaimed wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural1
Landscape
Open Space3
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
None
95,000
15,000
unlimited
Year
1990
2000
Quantity
AF/year
1980-
1990
1980-
1990
1990
2000
150,000-
290,000
>75,000
63,900
70,600
72,8002
58,000
unlimited
unlimited
Cost
$/AF
Boiler Feed

-------
TABLE 2	Present	Future
(Continued)	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Other
Combined	very small	1980 very small
2000 very small
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined	snail	1980 small
2000 small
Total local Market
and demand
Total identified	1980- 377,000
local market	110,000	2000 517,000
396,000
2000 509,000
Demand in excess
of supply (deficiency)	6,700	1985 104,000
2000 150,000
Available Local Wastewater'1	115,000	1985 190,000
2000 255,000
Excess Local Market and
demand
Identified market excess	1980- 187,000
2000 327,000
141,000
2000 254,000
Demand over supply/
wastewater total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess over identified
market	5,000
Excess over supply
deficiency	108,300	1980-
2000 86,000
2000 105,000
Reccrmended Reclamation Method None
Reason for not utilizing
all wastewater

-------
TABLE 2
(Continued)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year flF/year $/AF
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all local
markets	X	1980	X
Qrphasized small scale
landscape irrigation
1Also a groundwater recharge market
2Interpolation
'Considered a "created" market
''From Ref. 5 (Sunnyvale, Milpitas, San Jose/Santa Clara,
Union Sanitary District)
2000
X

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
{Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 3
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: CITY OF FAIRFIELD/SUBREGIONAL WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT STUDY - SEPTEMBER 1972 (Reference 3)
Author: Montgomery Engineers
Identified Markets for
reclaimed wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Combined
SIC Nos
Present
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
Year
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
None
15,000
None

-------
TABLE 3
(Continued)
Iinpourclment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined
Flushing Suisun Marsh
Total Local Market
and demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Demand in Excess of
Supply (deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Denand over Supply/
wastewater total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess over Identified
Market
Excess over Supply
deficiency
Recaimended Reclamation Method
Reason for not utilizing all
wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
All waste
flow
120,000
135,000
6,600
128,400
Agricultural
irrigation1
X
X
1995
1985
All waste
flow
120,000
1995 -135,000
30,600
1995 104,400
Marsh
Enhancement2
All
utilized

-------
TABLE 3	Present	Future
(Continued)	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Scope of Report
Considered all local
Markets in detail	X	X
Qrphasized local
landscape irrigation
'All summer flews
2Quality dependent on results of USBR study
3Cost in excess of disposal cost

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 4
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title;
Author: Brown and Caldwell
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER QUALITY STUDY - 19 72
(Reference 4)
Present	Future
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
local
Agricultural
landscape
Open Spaae
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Prooess'
Boiler Feed
Other
Carbined
SIC Nos
Quantity
AF/year
None
None
Little
>29,500
103,000
24,000
18,000
Cost
$/AF
Year
59-80
1980
2000
1980
2000
1980
2000
281,29,33,
20,26
1980
2onn
Quantity
AF/year
155,000
314,000
45,000
96,000
30,000
56,000
Cost
$/AF
281,29,33,
20,26
281,29,33,
20.26

-------
TABLE 4
(Continued)
Present	 	Future	
Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year ?/M
Impoundment
Recreational	Small
For Seasonal Use
Combined
¦Dotal Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market	>174,500	1980 >259,500
2000 >496,500
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)	0	0
Available Local Wastewater	396,000	1980 447,000
2000 671,000
Excess Local Market
and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Itotal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market	<221,500
1980
2000
<187,500
<174,500
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Recommended Reclamation Method
396,000
Reclaim 33600
AF/year indus-
trial use
1980 447,000
At Cost Over
secondary of
S40/AF2
Reason for not Utilizing
all Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Tbtal
Treatment	X
Transport
Storage

-------
Present	Future
VABLE 4	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
(Continued)	AF/year $/AP Year AF/year $/AF
Lade of Demand	X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail	X
Etiphasized Local
landscape Irrigation
'Exclude food and paper industries
Calculated from given data capital at
6% - 30 years

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 5
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title:
Author: Consoer-Bechtel
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
BAY/FINAL REPORT - MARCH 19 72 (Reference 5)
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape
Open Space
Outside Area5
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Contained
SIC Nos
Present
Quantity
AF/year
5,600-
25,0007
cost
$/AF
1563
5,600-
35,500"
117-
1563
11,210 (st) 7 107
7,100
2000
2000
1985
2000
Future
Year
Quantity
AF/year
5,600-
33,600
33,600-
146,000
26,500
42,700
Cost
$/AF
163:

-------
Present			Future	
TABLE 5	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
(Continued)	AF/year $/AF	Year AF/year $/AP
Inpoundment
Recreational	2000 35,870	59
For Seasonal Use
Combined
Winter Discharge5	7,100	1985 26,500
2000 42,700
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified
Local Market	60,500 2000 222,300
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)	0 2000 146,0001
Available Local Wastewater	121,000	1985 257,000
2000 346,000
Excess Local Wastewater
and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Reoonrrended Reclamation
Method
Reason for not Utilizing
all Wastewater
60,500
121,000
Livermore
Valley-Re-
charge
2000 123,700
South Bay
& Bayside-
None
2000 200,0001
346,0002
South Bay
& Bayside-
Fe charge
Public Health Problems
Exoess Costs
Total
Treatment
X

-------
TABLE 5
(Continued)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Transport
X
X
Storage
X
Lack of Demand
X
X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail
X
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
lIf San Felipe Project not built
2If San Felipe Project is built
3In excess of Bay Disposal cost
''Livermore Valley recharge (Union Sanitation District & Local Wastewater)
sLivenrore Valley Reclamation
6Calculated 6% interest on capital - 30 year repayment
7Palo Alto wastewater - total market includes cnly one alternate

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 6
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA CREEK
WATERSHED ABOVE NILES - SEPTEMBER 1972 (Reference 6)
Author: Brown and Caldwell
Present	Future
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local5	2,800
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural5	9,700S	1980 8,800S
1990 8,000S
Landscape
Open Space
Outside Area
Industried
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Contained5	5,000
SIC Nos	10-14

-------
TABLE 6
(Continued)
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined6
Total Local Market
and Demand3
Total Identified Local
Market2 5
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Reconmended Reclamation Method5
Reason for not utilizing all
wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Present	
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
8,660
19,300
0
8,660
10,640
8,660
Year
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
3990
2000
Inpoundment 8660
Irrigation 5000 570k
Recharge	0	1990
2000
Future
Quantity"
AF/year
30,000
44,000
18,000
17,000
0
18,00c1
30,000
44,000
12,000
27,000
30,000
26,000
30,000
11,000
5,000
44,000
14,000
8,000
X
X
Cost
$/AF
165"
130"
Treatment

-------
Present
Future
TABLE 6
(Continued)
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
X
X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail
X
X
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
X
X
'From Figure 4-7
2Excludes municipal reuse
3Data from report—not sum of individual listings
""Total project cost
5Fran Table 4-4
6 Entire waste flew—total flow not necessarily reclaimed
other than for recreational use

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 7
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: REUSE OF WASTEWATER IN THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL
UTILITIES DISTRICT - JUNE 1972 (Reference 7)
Author: East Bay Municipal Utilities District
Present	 	Future	
Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF	Year AF/year $/AF
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape	11,200-
22,4001 1242
Cpen Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Peed
Other
Carto ined	19,1001 3S22
SIC Nos
Impoundment

-------
TABLE 7
(Continued)
Rscreational & Industrial
For Seasonal Use
Corbined
Total Local Market and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Demand in Excess of
Supply (deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Recommended Reclamation Method
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Present	Future
Quantity Cost	Quantity
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year
67,100' 3122 3
110,0001
0
>150,000
>40,000
>150,000
None
X
X
X

-------
Present
Future
TABLE 7
(Continued)
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail
X
Emphasized Local
Landscape Irrigation
'Relate to specifically defined "reasonable"
alternates and not total market for this reuse
in study area
2 Reclamation cost beyond secondary wastewater treatment
distribution system excluded

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 8
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION STUDY FOR NORTH SAN MATEO
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT - 19 71 (Reference 8)
Author: Kirker, Chapman, and Associates, Jenks & Adamson
Present	 	Future	
Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF	Year AF/year $/AF
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Danestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
when
Landscape	3,040 75-97 feasible 5,600 97+
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Prooess
Boiler Fteed
Other
Ccrbined
SIC Nos

-------
Present
Future
TABLE 8
(Continued)
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Inpoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Corbined
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified	when
Local Market	3,040	feasible 5,600
Demand in Excess of
Svpply (Deficiency)2
Available Local Wastewater1	4f600	1980 5,270
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over
Identified Market	1,560
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency	4,600
Recommended Reclamation Method Local
2000 6,500
Landscape
Irrigation
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems
X
Excess Costs
Total
X
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Denand

-------
Present	 	Future	
TABLE 8	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
(Continued)	AF/year $/AF Year AF/vear $/AF
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets
Brrphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation	X
1From Reference 13
2Water provided by the San Francisco
Water Department for the foreseeable future

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 9
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE FOR
CITY OF PALO ALTO (Reference 9)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape
Open Spaae
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Peed
Other (at STP)
Present
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
Year
lcng-
range
future
Quantity
AF/year
maybe
335
27-212
intermed,
future 2,020
lcng-
range
future >2,940
1,255
27-212
interned,
future 1,255
long-
range
future 1,255
Cost
$/AF
27-212
27-212
27-212
27-212

-------
TABLE 9
(Continued)
Contained
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasoned Use
Contained
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Demand in Excess of
Sqpply (Deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater1
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Recommended Reclamation Method
Present
Future
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
1,600
0
25,000
23,400
Landscape
irrigation
and use in
treatment
plant
X
Year
Quantity
AF/year
long-range
maybe future
inter,
future 3,275
>4,200
1985
2000
32,000
36,000
1985
2000
28,700
<31,800
Cost
$/AF
Treatment

-------
TABLE 9
(Continued)
Transport
Storage
lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
Present	 	Future	
Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year S/AT Year AF/year $/AF
X
X
'From Reference 5

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 10
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION BENEFICIAL REUSE -
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO - SEPTEMBER 19 72 (Reference 10)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape	500	69-2102 "future" 1,300 692
Open Spaoe
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Contained
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recreational

-------
TABLE 10
(Continued)
For Seasonal Use
Contained
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Maricet
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Reoorrmended Reclamation Method
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lade of Demand
Scope of Report
Present	 	Future	
Cost	Quantity Cost
$/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Quantity
AF/year
500
0
8,100
7,600
8,100
69-210 future 1,300
69
Local
landscape
irrigation
X
X
2000 11,700
future 10,400
2000 11,700

-------
TABLE 10	Present	 		Future	
(Continued) Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF	Year AF/year $/AF
Considered all local
Markets in Detail
Btiphasized Local landscape
Irrigation	X
'From East Bay Dischargers Study
2Cost in excess of secondary treatment—include distribution and storage cost
3Qnly local large landscape irrigation use considered

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 11
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM/EAST BAY DISCHARGERS/
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - 1972 (Reference 11)
Author; Jenks & Adamson/Kennedy Engineers
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Surfaoe Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural1	11,200
Landscape1	9,000
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Combined1	16,800
SIC NOS
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF

-------
Present
TABLE 11
(Continued)
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seascnal Use
Confcined
Total Local Market and Demand
Ttotal Identified
Local Market1
Demand in Exoess of
Supply (Deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater2
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Ttotal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over
Identified Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Quantity
AF/year
37,000
0
134,600
97,600
134,600
Recotmended Reclamation Method Local
Landscape
Irrigation
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems	X
Excess Costs
Total	X
Treatment	X
Transport
Storage	X
Cost
$/AF
Year
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
2000
1990
2000
0
0
215,000
246,000
1990 215,000
2000 246,000

-------
Present		Future	
TABLE 11	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
(Continued)	AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Lade of Deirand	X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Some Detail	X
Btphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
'Fran Table 8-3 (Flows sure assisted to be annual average maximums)
2Fran Table 5-14 Dry Weather Flows only

-------
Use Potential within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE L 2
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM/SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO-
SAN BRUNO SUBREGIONAL AREA - 1971 (Reference 12)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
landscape	1,220	781	1,940
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler iteed
Other
Contained	225	781
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
SIC Nos
33,311

-------
TABLE 12
(Continued)
Impoundment
Recreational
ftor Seasonal Use
Combined
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified
Local Market
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)2
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over
Identified Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Itecatmended Reclamation Method
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Present		Future	
Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
1,445
0
9,000	2000 14,600
7,555
9,000
No large
scale-possible
small reclama-
tion for land-
scape irrigation

-------
Present	 	Future	
TABLE 12	Quantity Cost	Quantity Cost
(Continued)	iff/year $/AF Year AF/year S/AF
Lack of Demand	X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail	x
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
'Treatment beyond secondary only
2 Water supplied by the San Prancisoo Water Department
for the foreseeable future

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
TABLE 13
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: SAN MATEO COUNTY WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
SYNOPSIS - 1973 (Reference 13)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
landscape
Open Space
Outside Area
Industried
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Contained
SIC Nos
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Present
, I , '
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Future

-------
TABLE 13
(Continued)
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Ccirbined
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market1
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)2
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Sipply/
Wastewater Tbtal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over
Identified Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Reccrrmended Reclamation Method
Reason for not Utilizing
all Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Itotal
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Present	 	Future
Quantity Cost	Quantity
AF/year $/AF	Year AF/year
11,800	future 21,000
0
61,600	1980 72,700
2000 96,600
49,800
2000 75,600
61,600
Use waste-
water when
possible &
feasible
X
X
X
X
X

-------
Present
Future
TABLE 13
(Continued)
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail
Bnphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
General Discussion	X
1Landscape irrigation and industrial use
2City of San Francisco Water Department provides
water as needed

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
POTENTIAL MARKETS
There are many potential markets for reclaimed water in
the San Francisco Bay Area. Some of the more promising
potential markets are irrigation, industrial use, ground-
water recharge, and salinity control. The potential of these
four markets is discussed in the following paragraphs.
Irrigation
The principal areas where irrigated agriculture takes place
are the Sonoma and Napa Valleys, eastern Solano County,
eastern Contra Costa County, Livermore Valley, and Santa
Clara Valley. Except for a few areas, irrigation water is
obtained by means of individual diversions. The only large-
scale irrigation systems in the Bay Area are the Putah South
Canal in eastern Solano County and the South Bay Aqueduct
in Livermore Valley and Santa Clara Valley. However, neither
of these canals would be suitable for receiving reclaimed
water in the near future as they both serve municipal water
and the State Department of Health will not allow direct re-
use until the possible long-term effects of stable organic
compounds on health are determined. The question of these
unknown long term effects will not be answered for years, and
years of exposure may be involved for the occurrence of
adverse effects. Therefore, direct augmentation of a municipal
water supply cannot be considered in the near future.
Potential agricultural markets in the San Francisco Bay Area
were identified in Task Vll-le, San Francisco Bay-Delta Water
Quality Control Program Study and in Task Report D, Comprehensive
Water Quality Management Plan for the San Francisco Bay Basin.
Both of these studies indicated that the potential for agricultural
use of reclaimed water in the Bay Area is very limited.
Another potential for irrigation use of reclaimed water,
especially near urban communities, consists of irrigation of
turf grass areas. The types of areas to be considered include
golf courses, parks, greenbelts, and cemeteries. However, of
all the turf grass areas of large enough size for consideration
for irrigation with reclaimed water (40 acres or more) the most
abundant by far are golf courses.
There are 77 golf courses scattered throughout the San
Francisco Bay Area. However, the total estimated water use
of these 77 courses is only 16.46 mgd and 70 percent of them
are within five miles of other suitable wastewater sources.
Therefore, the potential of using reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater for golf course irrigation outside the City is nil.
27

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
There are many parks and cemeteries scattered throughout
the Bay Area that could use reclaimed wastewater for
irrigation. Generally most of the parks and cemeteries are
near local wastewater sources and therefore transporting
reclaimed water from San Francisco to these areas (e.g.,
East Bay Regional Parks, cemeteries in northern San Mateo
County) would not seem practical at this time. In fact,
the North San Mateo County Sanitation District is presently
planning a wastewater reclamation program which involves
the cemeteries in northern San Mateo County.
In summary, the potential for using reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater for irrigation within the Bay Area but outside
the City is very limited at this time.
Industrial Use
The San Francisco Bay Area contains a large number of industries
including a number of chemical plants, steel and metal producing
mills, petroleum refineries, and other large water users such
as tanneries. Therefore, the potential for industrial use of
reclaimed wastewater in certain areas should be good. Many
of the Bay Area industries use their own well supplies as well
as making use of brackish water. This private use of ground-
water has contributed to a problem in some areas where the
safe yield is being exceeded.
Potential industrial markets in the Bay Area outside the City
are identified in Table 14. There are a total of 73
industrial plants with a total estimated fresh water use of
about 210 mgd (very conservative figure) in the Bay Area. It
is apparent that the major water users are the petroleum and
chemical plants in Western Contra Costa County. However,
fairly large water users are also the chemical plants at
Newark, South San Francisco, and Nichols; a concrete plant
at Napa; five steel product plants at Emeryville; a paper box
plant at Oakland; and a paper products plant at San Jose.
The total estimated water use of the three petroleum refineries
in the Richmond area is about 170 mgd (based on wastewater flow).
The major amount of this estimated water use is, however, for
cooling purposes. At the present time, the major source of
supply for this purpose is brackish Bay water. One of the
assumptions of this study is that where brackish water is
used for cooling, changing to reclaimed wastewater for cool-
ing would not be beneficial. Therefore, there does not
appear to be a potential for using reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater for this purpose.
28

-------
Use Potential Within the basin
(Excluding San Franciscc)
TABLE 14
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL USERS
OF RECLAIMED WATER



No. of
Estimated Water
County
City
Tiuduct
Plants
list;, irijd1
Napa
Napa
Concrete
1
0.52
Solano
Benicia
Petroleur
1
(2.96)
Contra Costa
Avon
Petroleum
1
(12.8)

Martinez
Chemicals
1
0.05


Petroleum
2
(>4.3)

Richmond
Chanicals
5
(>5.2)


Petroleum
3
(167.4)


Iron
1
0.05

Nichols
Chemicals
1
(4.0)
Alameda
Berkeley
Steel




manufacture
2
0.05


Iron
1
0.06


Metals
1
0.06


Leather
1
0.06


Paper box
1
0.06


Soap
1
0.32

Breryville
Steel




manufacture
5
-'0.58


Metals
2
0.02

Oakland
Steel




fabrication
5
0.05


Sheet metal
2
0.03


Steel




manufacture
3
>0.1


Paper hox
1
0.9

San Leandro
Pulp & paper
1
unknewn


Steel




manufacture

>0.03


Iron castings
1
0.02


Rubber
1
unknwn

Hayward
Metal castings
1
0.03


Steel




fabrication

0.02

Newark
Chemicals
1
(>1.69)

Alameda
Steel




fabrication
1
0.02


Steel products
1
0.18
San Mateo
South




San Francisco
Steel




m?nufacture

>0.1


Steel wire
1
0.04


Steel




fabrication
1
0.02


Chemicals
4
(7.3)


Non-ferrous




metals
2
0.05

Belmont
Chemicals
1
0.15
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Paper products

>0.16


Wire products
1
0.02


Steel and




aluminim
1
unkncwi


Steel




fabrication
2
0.003

San Jose
Steel




manufacture
2
0.34


Chemicals
1
0.17


Paper Products
1
0.68


Plastics
1
0.05
'Figures in
brackets 0 are wastewater flow.



-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
{Excluding San Francisco)
There is another cluster of heavy industrial water users
in the Avon-Martinez area. However, the Central Contra Costa
County Sanitation District is presently constructing reclama-
tion facilities to serve these industrial plants. When
completed, these facilities will have the capability of
meeting the likely future industrial needs in this area.
The only other cluster of heavy industrial water users in
the Bay Area outside the City of San Francisco is in South
San Francisco. Total estimated water use in this area, how-
ever, is only about 7.5 mgd. Therefore, it would not appear
feasible to construct separate reclamation and transport
facilities to provide these industries with reclaimed
San Francisco wastewater.
In summary, the potential for using reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater for industrial purposes outside the city of
San Francisco appears to be very limited.
Groundwater Recharge
The most promising potential groundwater recharge area is
the groundwater basins in northern Santa Clara County and
adjacent southwestern Alameda County. These basins have
excellent recharge capabilities. In fact, the Santa Clara
County Flood Control and Water District has operated percola-
tion facilities, a network of off-stream ponds and natural
streambeds, in this area for the past decade. During this
period, the District has recharged an annual average of
150,000 acre-feet ( 140 mgd) of local water and untreated
South Bay Aqueduct water through these facilities. The
Department of Water Resources recently estimated that these
facilities could be increased to recharge an additional
100,000 acre-feet of supplemental water annually.
Since these groundwater basins are a source of municipal
supply, the State Department of Health would not allow
the injection of significant quantities of reclaimed wastewater
due to the unknown health risks associated with stable
organic compounds.
31

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
Salinity Control
The Department of Water Resources and State Water Resources
Control Board have initiated a San Francisco Bay Area
Interagency Wastewater Reclamation Study to determine the
feasibility of intercepting and reclaiming treated Bay Area
wastewater for transport and reuse to augment Delta outflows,
either directly or indirectly by substituting reclaimed water
for irrigation and groundwater recharge demands in the Bay
Area or adjacent areas. The Bay Area is of particular
importance because wastewater is being discharged to saline
water and lost to further beneficial use and the region is
adjacent to the Delta, which is the focal point of water
supplies for a large portion of the State.
In its September 19, 1973, progress report, the Interagency
Study group made the following comments:
"The additional water required by the Central
Valley Project and the State Water Project to
meet contracts and future water demands can be
expressed as an outflow deficiency expected at
the Delta under projected conditions.
"Operation studies were made of the Central Valley
Project-State Water Project system to determine
what deficiencies would occur in the future. The
analysis indicated that under a 1990 level of
development, the average annual deficiency would
be 370,000 acre-feet and would increase to
950,000 under a 2020 level of development. Dry
period average annual deficiencies would be 720,000
and 1,960,000 acre-feet for 1990 and 2020.
"Water with a salinity of 4,000 to 6,000 ppm of
total dissolved solids could be used to meet this
water deficiency by direct augmentation of Delta
outflow at about Chipps Island, with provision for
treatment to avert toxicity and biostimulation
effects in the estuary."
Preliminary results of this study indicate that reclaimed
water could be made available for about $90 per acre-foot
for this purpose. In developing these costs, it was assumed
that wastewater sources currently discharging into San
Francisco Bay would be aggregated at three terminal locations
from which three overland conveyance and regulatory system
possibilities could make the wastewater available at five
possible reuse sites. However, additional treatment facilities
necessary to produce reclaimed water which would not cause
32

-------
Use Potential Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco)
toxicity or biostimulation problems in the estuary were
not included in these unit costs. If found necessary,
this additional treatment would escalate the unit cost
to about $130 per acre-foot. Therefore, before a conclusion
regarding the feasibility of this proposal can be made, a
detailed environmental assessment of the proposal is required.
Another possible area for using reclaimed wastewater for
salinity control is in the Suisun Marsh. Since 1965 the
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation has been making controlled
releases of fresh water from Lake Berryessa into the Marsh
via the Putah South Canal. The primary objective of this
program is to determine the degree of water quality control
that can be achieved by releases of fresh water into the
sloughs of the Marsh. These releases are considered to be
temporary and will not be available in the future because they
represent supplemental water from the Solano Project. Based
on this program, very rough estimates of the total water needs
of Suisun Marsh indicate an annual minimum requirement of
120,000 acre-feet, the quality of which is yet to be defined.
However, the staff of the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region has suggested that
any discharge in this area must be substantially free of all
toxicants and biostimulants. If this policy were upheld
by the Board, using reclaimed water to flush the Marsh would
not be economically feasible.
In summary, it does not appear that utilizing reclaimed
San Francisco wastewater for salinity control in the Delta
or in Suisun Marsh is feasible without the results of detailed
environmental studies concerning toxicity and biostimulation.
33

-------
POTENTIAL FOR USING RECLAIMED
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER OUTSIDE THE BASIN
Irrigated agriculture is by far the largest user of fresh
water in California. Therefore, when considering large
scale reclamation projects, irrigated agriculture must
be considered as a potential market for the reclaimed water.
It is recognized that the use of reclaimed water for crop
irrigation is not without problems which include seasonal
water use, quality considerations, public acceptance, and
the possibility of using the water for drinking. These
problems, however, are not insurmountable.
Two large agricultural areas in relatively close proximity
to the Bay Area are the Delta-Mendota and San Luis Service
Areas within the San Joaquin Valley. The projected import
water requirements under the 2015 level of development
for these areas are as follows:
Service Area	Quantity, acre-feet
Delta-Mendota	1,675,000
San Luis	1,279,000
TOTAL	2,954,000
As a part of its study, the Interagency Group investigated
the possibility of using reclaimed Bay Area wastewaters
to supplement the imported supplies for these two areas.
Three of the alternatives studied by this group included
utilization of San Francisco wastewaters. Brief descrip-
tions of these three alternatives are contained in the
following paragraphs.
Alternative C would aggregate and convey wastewaters from
East Bay Municipal Utility District, Union-Alvarado, San
Jose-Santa Clara, San Francisco-Southeast, and San Francisco-
Richmond- Sunset through Livermore Valley to a 280,000 acre-foot
capacity reservoir on Brushy Creek. Regulated flows from
the reservoir would be released into the Delta-Mendota Canal
at Tracy to serve irrigation demands in the Delta-Mendota
service area during periods when the canal would not be
pumped into O'Neill Forebay. Thus, there would be no mixing
of reclaimed water with export flows to Southern California.
34

-------
Potential For Using Reclaimed
San Francisco Wastewater Outside the Basin
Alternative D was designed to specifically substitute for
Alternative C and eliminate the intermittent cross-connection
with the San Luis Reservoir-State Water Project system-
Alternative D, however, only aggregates those discharges
in the span from San Leandro to San Francisco's Richmond-
Sunset. The aggregated discharge would be conveyed south-
ward. Thence over Pacheco Pass into a 400,000 acre-foot
storage reservoir on Los Banos Creek. Releases would
be made into the Delta-Mendota Canal downstream from O'Neill
Forebay for irrigation use in the Delta-Mendota service
area.
Alternative E was designed as a substitute for Alternatives
C and D. It is similar to D; although, it also includes
the northern East Bay discharges. However, reclaimed water
would not be used in the Delta-Mendota service area but in
the San Luis service area which would require the construc-
tion of a separate canal from the Los Banos Reservoir
southward about 100 miles along the irrigation service area.
Statistical data regarding these three alternatives are
presented in Tables 1 and 2.
To date, the Interagency Group has not made any conclusions
regarding the feasibility of implementing its alternatives.
However, it would appear that the costs of delivering reclaimed
water to the point of use are very high at this time and not
competitive with State-Federal project water.
35

-------
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER PROJECTS3
Alter-
native
Wastewater
Source
Yield,
in AF
Aggregation
Point
Conveyance
Storage
Location,
Capacity
in AF
Use,
Service
Area
C
EBMLJD south, west
and north to
San Francisco
380,000
Union City
East through Liventvore
Valley to Altamont,
north to Brushy Cr,
west to DMC at Tracy
Brushy
280,000
Irrigation
D
San Leandro south,
west and north to
San Francisco
310,000
Alviso
South to Gilroy, east
to Los Banos Cr, east
to HC service area
Los Banos
400,000
Irrigation
DM2
E
EBMJD south, west
and north to
380,000
Alviso
South to Gilroy, east
to los Banos Cr, south
Los Banos
400,000
Irrigation
P.P Cooling

San Francisco


to San Luis service
area

San Luis
^rcm Table 1, Interagency September 19, 1973 Progress Report
^First stage yield to 1990
cDelta-Mendota Canal
ft G
M M
£8*
(5
U)
5"

-------
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER PROJECTS3
(in dollars per acre-foot)
Alter- Aggre-
native gation
Conveyance
to Storage
Energy
Storage
Conveyance
from Storage
Coagu-
lation
Filtration
Disinfection
Nutrient
Removal
Drainage
Salt Balance
Total
C 32
23
14
11
1
12
15
NA
b
108
D 29
34
16
4
1
12
15
NA
b
111
E 29
34
16
4
33
12
15
NA
NA
143
^Frcm Table 2, Interagency September 19, 1973 Progress Report
"Costs variable and speculative {see Remarks)
REMARKS:
1.	Assumed economic life of storage and conveyance facilities: 50 years.
Assumed economic life of treatment facilities: 50 years.
Interest rate for economic analysis: 6 percent.
2.	Alternative C: Results in partial cross-connection of reclaimed wastewater with San Luis Reservoir and
California Aqueduct. Could aggravate drainage problems in OC service area. Project participation in
drainage export facility is indicated. Additional oost undetermined.
3.	Alternative D: Could aggravate drainage problems in CMC service area. Project participation in drainage
export facility is indicated. Additional cost undetermined.
4.	Alternative E: This alternative carries the least unresolved deterrents at this stage of planning.

-------
POTENTIAL FOR USING RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OP SAN FRANCISCO
Wastewater reclamation is not new to the City and County
of San Francisco. In 1899, John McLaren, Superintendent
of Golden Gate Park, began irrigating park lands with
untreated sewage. However, because of complaints, a septic
tank was installed in 1912. Effluent from the septic tank
was used to fill and maintain a series of ornamental lakes
and for the irrigation of about 250 acres. Then in 19 32,
a 1.0 mgd activated sludge plant was constructed solely
for wastewater reclamation—the first in California.
Reclaimed water from the new plant was first used to fill
the ornamental lakes? however, this use was later expanded
to include irrigation of the polo field and other park
areas. Because the limited use of reclaimed water evoked
no complaints, reuse of the water was later expanded to the
entire park irrigation system. Today this source supplies
about 25 percent of the park's total horticultural irrigation
water needs.
WATER SUPPLY
The City and County of San Francisco was served by a private
water company until the early part of the Twentieth Century
when the City developed a plan to utilize water from the
Tuolumne River in the Sierra Nevada. The Raker Act, passed
by Congress in 1913, granted to San Francisco rights-of-way
and the use of Yosemite National Park lands for constructing,
operating, and maintaining reservoirs, dams, conduits, and
other structures necessary to use the Tuolumne River as a
water supply and power source.
In 19 34 the first water from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir on the
Tuolumne River was delivered via the 149-mile aqueduct to
San Francisco. The system was designed for an ultimate
delivery of 400 mqd to the Peninsula. Besides three reservoirs
now used in the Tuolumne Basin, the City has two reservoirs
in the East Bay as well as three major reservoirs on the
Peninsula. Water storage, distribution, and sales in the
Bay Area are managed by the San Francisco Water Department.
The water and power properties are under control of the San
Francisco Public Utilities Commission.
38

-------
Potential For Using Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the City and County of San Francisco
The entire San Francisco water system now supplies water to
two million consumers directly through its own distribution
facilities or indirectly through about 40 other municipal
and water distributing agencies. The water is supplied to
the City and County of San Francisco, most of San Mateo
County, and parts of Santa Clara and Alameda Counties.
Even though the demands for fresh water in the Bay Area are
expected to increase in the future, the San Francisco Water
Department expects no water supply problems for the next
50 years nor does it expect a water rate increase in the
future. The present cost of fresh water within the City
is approximately 25C/1000 gallons ($82/acre~foot) for large
users.
POTENTIAL USES FOR
RECLAIMED WATER
The possible potential uses of reclaimed water within the
City and County of San Francisco include groundwater recharge,
landscape irrigation, and industrial use.
The potential market for using reclaimed water for these
purposes is presented in the following paragraphs.
Groundwater Recharge
The two fundamental benefits of an artificial recharge operation
are relief of overdraft and use of the groundwater basin
for water storage and distribution. Overdraft of a ground-
water basin can create numerous problems including increased
well construction and pumping costs, sea water intrusion,
and land subsidence.
However, highly urbanized San Francisco utilizes only very
small quantities of local groundwater. The major use of
local groundwater used to be the Sunset well field which
had a yield of 6,600 acre-feet. The use of this field was
abandoned, however, in the early 19301s.
Landscape Irrigation
As previously stated, the City and County of San Francisco
operates a 1.0 mgd wastewater reclamation facility in Golden
39

-------
Potential For Using Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the City and County of San Francisco
Gate Park. In addition to this facility, the City also
operates two small reclamation facilities—San Francisco
County Jail and San Francisco Log Cabin Ranch for Boys.
The total quantity of reclaimed water produced at these
two facilities, however, is only about 0.1 mgd.
With respect to landscape irrigation, the most promising
market for reclaimed water is within Golden Gate Park.
Since the McQueen Plant is only capable of producing one-
fourth of the total demand within the Park it appears
logical to expand that plant to a capacity of 4.0 mgd.
However, in addition to the regular activated sludge plant
it would be advisable to also provide rapid sand filtration
which would guarantee a consistently high quality effluent.
The cost of reclaimed water produced by the expanded facility
would be approximately $140/acre-foot compared to about
$82/acre-foot for fresh water. Therefore, the expanded
facility would not seem feasible based solely on economics.
It might be feasible, however, to construct only filtration
and disinfection facilities at the upgraded Richmond-Sunset
Plant and a reclaimed water line from the plant site to
the areas of use. The unit cost of water for this alternative
would be about $30 per acre-foot plus transportation costs
of about $24 per acre-foot. Therefore, the total estimated
unit cost for the reclaimed water would be approximately
$54 per acre-foot compared to $82 per acre-foot for fresh
water.
Other than expanded use at Golden Gate Park the most promising
landscape irrigation markets for reclaimed water are the
seven larger golf courses within San Francisco. Statistical
data with respect to these courses are shown below:
Name of Course	Area, Acres Water Use, mgd
McLaren Park

40
0.1
Harding Park

100
0.2
The Olympic Club

190
0.3
Lake Merced Golf &
Country Club
110
0.2
San Francisco Golf
Club
100
0.2
Lincoln Park

80
0.14
Presidio Army Golf
Club
100
0.2
TOTALS	720	1.34
40

-------
Potential For Using Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the City and County of San Francisco
Although golf courses are usually the largest single water
users in a municipal system, their total water demands are
not that great as shown above. There are three large golf
courses (Harding Park, The Olympic Club, and Lake Merced)
in close proximity to the proposed Southwest Treatment Plant,
however. While the total water demand at these three courses
is only about 0.7 mgd, it might be possible to divert the
necessary quantity of effluent from the Richmond-Sunset
effluent line and further treat it by sand filtration and
disinfection.
The cost of this excess treatment would be about $50 per
acre-foot and transportation costs of about $23 per acre-foot
giving a total estimated unit cost of $73 per acre-foot.
Therefore, based on cost, irrigation of these three
golf courses with reclaimed water would appear feasible if
a major repiping project at the golf courses is not necessary.
The other golf courses were not considered due to their distance
from planned treatment facilities.
It appears feasible to produce a limited amount of reclaimed
water at the proposed Southwest Treatment Plant site for use
at the Olympic Club, Harding Park, and Lake Merced golf courses
and at the Richmond-Sunset Plant for use in Golden Gate Park
at very competitive rates assuming that secondary effluent
from the Richmond-Sunset Plant would be the source of supply
for the reclamation facilities.
Industrial Use
As part of its Basin Planning Program, the State Water
Resources Control Board contracted with the State Department
of Health to investigate the feasibility of wastewater
reclamation in the Bay Area. As part of that study, potential
industrial markets for reclaimed water were identified.
Following is a Department list of potential industrial
markets within San Francisco:
Product
No. of Plants Est. Water-Use, mgd
Steel Fabrication
Steel Manufacturing
Chemicals
Tannery
Metals
3
5
5
1
1
0.03
>0.14
>0.35
0.04
0.02
TOTALS
15
>0.58
41

-------
Potential For Using Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the City and County of San Francisco
Due to the very small volumes involved and the distances
between industrial facilities, it does not appear feasible
to reclaim municipal wastewater for industrial use within
the City of San Francisco.
42

-------
EFFECT OF RECLAMATION
ON THE MASTER PLAN
The Master Plan for wastewater management as shown on
Figure 1 envisions secondary treatment of all wastes
during a major part of the year, elimination of Bay
discharges, and the virtual elimination of untreated waste
bypasses. During the major portion of the year, wastes
will receive secondary treatment at the Southeast and
Richmond-Sunset plants. Effluent from these plants will be
transmitted through the tunnel and pipeline systems to the
Lake Merced area where they will be discharged approxi-
mately four miles offshore. The existing North Point plant
will be abandoned. During storm conditions, flows exceeding
the capacity of the secondary treatment plants will be
transported to a 1,000 mgd capacity treatment facility at
Lake Merced. Effluent from this facility will be discharged
approximately two miles offshore.
The Phase I Improvement Program designed to achieve early
compliance with State and Federal treatment standards and to
reduce overflows in the critical north shore and ocean beach
areas is shown on Figure 2. Wastewater generated in the
North Point service area will be pumped to the Southeast
Treatment Plant which will provide secondary treatment for
the dry weather flows from both the North Point and Southeast
areas. Effluent from the Southeast Plant will be discharged
to the Bay through an improved outfall. Wet weather waste
control facilities will be constructed to control overflows
in the north shore area and the North Point Plant will be
converted to a wet-weather facility to treat wastewaters
from the area during storm periods. The Richmond-Sunset
Plant will be substantially improved to produce an effluent
quality acceptable for continued ocean disposal. Effluent
from the Richmond-Sunset Plant will be transmitted to the
Lake Merced area for ocean disposal.
As previously pointed out, the most promising potential use
of reclaimed water within the City and County of San Francisco
appears to be landscape irrigation within Golden Gate Park
and the three golf courses in the Lake Merced Area—The Olympic
Club, Lake Merced, and Harding Park. It also appears that the
most economical method of producing reclaimed water for this
use would be to provide advanced waste treatment facilities
(rapid sand filtration and disinfection) at the proposed
43

-------
Figure VI-1
MASTER PLAN
®
NORTH
0 ZOOO FT
The complete Master Plan for wastewater management is shown above. Retention basins
(upstream — light blue, shoreline — dark blue) provide storage, control flooding, and allow regulation of
flow to the transportation system (green). During the major portion of the year, wastes will receive
secondary treatment at the Southeast and Richmond-Sunset plants. These treated effluents will be
transmitted through the tunnel and pipeline systems to Lake Merced where they will be discharged
approximately 4 miles offshore. The North Point Plant will be abandoned. During storm conditions, flows
exceeding the capacity of the secondary treatment plants will be transported to a 1000 million-gallon-per-
day capacity treatment plant at Lake Merced. The effluent will be discharged 2 miles offshore. The system
will provide secondary treatment of all waste during a major part of the year and the bypassing of
untreated waste will be virtually eliminated.

-------
Figure V1-2
FIRST PHASE OF MASTER PLAN
NORTH
NORTH
POINT
RICHMOND
SUNSET
X
SOUTHEAST
The improvement program designed to achieve early compliance with State and Federal treatment
standards and to reduce overflows in the critical north shore and ocean beach areas is shown in red. Raw
waste from the North Point service area will be pumped to the Southeast Treatment Plant. The Southeast
Plant will provide secondary treatment for the dry weather flows from the North Point and Southeast
areas. The effluent will be discharged to the Bay through an improved outfall. Wet weather waste control
facilities will be constructed to control overflows in the north shore area. The North Point Plant will be
converted to a wet weather facility to treat wastewaters from the area during storm periods. The
Richmond-Sunset wastwater treatment plant will be substantially improved to produce an effluent quality
acceptable for continued ocean disposal. Effluent from the Richmond-Sunset Plant will be transmitted to
the Lake Merced area for ocean disposal.

-------
Effect of Reclamation
on the Master Plan
Southwest Treatment Plant site and the Richmond-Sunset
Plant site that would utilize secondary effluent as their
source of supply. However, the total demand for landscape
irrigation of these four areas is only 5.0 mgd. Therefore,
reclamation for local uses would not have any effect on the
size, location, or type of facilities as envisioned in the
Master Plan.
The San Francisco Bay Area Interagency Wastewater Reclamation
Study investigated the feasibility of large-scale reclamation
projects within the Bay Area. The Interagency Study investi-
gated the feasibility of aggregating wastewaters generated
within the Bay Area, including San Francisco, providing some
form of extended treatment, and producing reclaimed water
that would be direct input into the Delta channels at Chipps
Island to repel salinity, into the Delta Mendota Canal to
serve irrigation demands within the Delta Mendota service area,
and into a proposed canal to serve irrigation needs in the
San Luis service area.
it should be pointed out, however, that all these alternatives
were based on average daily dry weather flow and therefore
the need for the 1,000 mgd wet weather treatment facility
would still exist even if one of these alternatives were
implemented. In fact, all the facilities envisioned in the
Master Plan would be required whether or not any of the
alternatives investigated in the Interagency Study were imple-
mented. The only questionable portion would be the two barrel
outfall as designed for dry weather flow. However, some form
of "fail-safe" system (alternate method of disposal) would
be necessary and generally the most efficient type of "fail-
safe" system is an ocean outfall. Therefore, all Master Plan
facilities are necessary whether or not large-scale reclamation
plans are implemented.
In summary, it appears that reclamation, either large scale
and export of wastes or small scale and local use, has no
effect on the Master Plan with respect to the size, location,
or type of facilities proposed.
46

-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
REFERENCES
Yoder-Trotter-Orlob & Associates, et. al.; North Marin-
South Sonoma Regional Water Quality Management Program;
December 1972
Consoer-Bechtel; Water Reclamation and Reuse/A Study for
the Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District/
Phase 1 Final Report; July 1973
James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc.; City of
Fairfield/ Subregional Wastewater Management Study;
September 1972
Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers; Contra Costa
County Water Quality Study; August 1972
Consoer-Bechtel; Water Quality Management Plan for South
San Francisco/Final Report; March 1972
Brown and Caldwell Consulting Engineers; Water Quality
Management Plan for Alameda Creek Watershed Above Niles;
September 1972
East Bay Municipal Utilities District; Reuse of Wastewater
in the East Bay Municipal Utilities District; June 1972
Kirker, Chapman, and Associates, Jenks and Adamson;
Wastewater Reclamation Study for the North San Mateo
County Sanitation District; 1971
Jenks and Adamson Consulting Engineers; Wastewater
Reclamation for Beneficial Reuse/for City of Palo Alto;
T5T2
Jenks and Adamson Consulting Engineers; Wastewater
Reclamation for Beneficial Reuse/An Initial Program for
City of San Leandro; September 1972
Jenks and Adamson, Kennedy Engineers; Water Quality
Management Program/Final Report/East Bay Discharges/
Alameda County, California; 1972
Jenks and Adamson Consulting Engineers; Wastewater
Management Program/South San Francisco-San Bruno Sub-
Regional Area; 1971
Jenks and Adamson Consulting Engineers; San Mateo County
Water Quality Management Program/Synopsis; June 1973
47

-------
References
14.	California State Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering; Waste Water
Reclamation/A Study of Waste Water Reclamation
Potential in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Area;
November 196 7.
15.	California State Department of Public Health,
Bureau of Sanitary Engineering; Task Report
No. D (DPH)/Water Reclamation; 1972.
16.	San Francisco Bay Area Interagency Wastewater
Reclamation Study; Progress Report; September 19, 19 73.
17.	California Department of Water Resources;
Bulletin No. 189, Waste Water Reclamation/State
of the Art; March 1973.
18.	City and County of San Francisco, Department of
Public Works; San Francisco Master Plan for
Wastewater Management; May 15, 1973.
19.	City and County of San Francisco, Department of
Public Works; Environmental Impact Statement/Dry
Weather Water Pollution Control Project; August19 72.
20.	J. B. Gilbert & Associates; Evaluation, San Francisco
Wastewater Master Plan; March 19 73.
48

-------
APPENDIX 3

-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
advect ion : transfer by horizontal motion.
aerobic: requiring, or not destroyed by, the presence of free oxyqen.
algae: primitive plants, one- or many-celled, usually aquatic, and
capable of synthesizing their food stuffs by photosynthesis.
aquatic growth: the aggregate of passively floating or drifting or
attached organisms in a body of water.
arthropods: invertebrate animals with jointed legs, including insects,
crabs, spiders, etc.
aseismic: protection against seismic effects.
assimilative capacity: the capacity of a natural body of water to
receive (a) wastewaters without deleterious effects; (b)
toxic materials, without damage to aquatic life or humans who
consume the water; (c) BOD, within prescribed dissolved oxy-
gen limits.
average daily flow: the total quantity of liquid tributary to a point
divided by the number of days of flow measurement.
benthic: relating to, or occurring, on or at the bottom of a body of
water.
benthos: the aggregate of organisms living on or at the bottom of a
body of water.
bi oassay: a method of determining toxic effects by using viable orga-
nisms as test agents.
biological wastewater treatment: forms of wastewater treatment in
which biochemical action is intensified to stabilize, oxi-
dize, and nitrify the organic matter present. The activated
sludge process is an example.
biota: animal and plant life, or fauna and flora, of a region.
bloom: large masses of microscopic plant life, such as green algae,
occurring in bodies of water.
B.O.D.: abbreviation for biochemical oxygen demand. The quantity of
oxygen used in the biological processes that degrade organic
matter under specified conditions.
B.T.U.: abbreviation for British Thermal Unit- Quantity of heat re-
quired to raise one pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.

-------
-2-
chumming: a procedure in which food is broadcast to attract fish, which
are then caught.
clarification: any process, or combination of processes, the primary
purpose of which is to reduce the concentration of suspended
matter in a liquid.
C.O.D.: abbreviation for chemical oxygen demand. The quantity of oxy-
gen used in biological and nonbiological oxidation of ma-
terials in water.
coliform bacteria: a heterogeneous group of bacteria normally inhabi-
ting human and animal intestinal tracts. Used as an indica-
tor of fecal pollution of water and hence of the probability
of presence of organisms causing human disease.
combined sewer: a sewer intended to receive both wastewater and storm
water.
combined wastewater: a mixture of surface runoff and other wastewater,
such as domestic or industrial wastewater.
conservative pollutants: nondegradable or slowly degradable substances
which tend to accumulate in organisms and sediments.
crustacea: aquatic arthropods having a body covered with a hard shell,
such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs, and barnacles.
db(A): a generally accepted unit of loudness which is corrected for
the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear
at commonly encountered noise levels.
diatoms: unicellular, microscopic aquatic plants with a box-like cell
wall containing silica.
dissolved oxygen: the oxygen dissolved in water, or other liquid,
usually expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/1) or per cent
of saturation. Abbreviated D.O.
effluent: wastewater, partially or completely treated, flowing out of
a treatment plant, or part thereof.
elutriation: a process of sludge conditioning whereby the sludge is
washed by either fresh water or effluent to reduce the demand
for conditioning chemicals and to improve settling or filtering
characteristics of the solids.
estuarine: of, or pertaining to, an estuary which is a passage where
the tide meets a river current, especially an arm of the sea
at the lower end of a river.
euphausiids: small crustacea, members of the plankton community.

-------
-3-
fathom; a unit of lenth equal to six feet, used primarily in marine
measurements.
fauna: the animals of a given region or period considered as a whole -
flora: the plants of a given region or period considered as a whole.
foraminifera: a group of marine protozoa which form shells usually of
lime. Foraminiferan shells form an important part of chalk.
gravid: pregnant or in the condition of having young or eggs.
heavy metals: dense metals, such as mercury and lead, which are toxic
because of their ability to react with active sites on biolo-
gically important molecules.
hydrograph: a graph showing, for a given point on a stream or conduit,
the discharge, stage, velocity, available power, or other pro-
perty of water with respect to time.
hydroids: members of the invertebrate group Hydrozoa; related to jelly
fish.
hyetograph: a graphical representation of average rainfall, rainfall
excess rates, or volumes over specified areas during succes-
sive units of time during a storm.
infauna: animals living in the sea bed.
inorganic matter: chemical substances not of basically carbon structure.
invertebrates: animals having no backbone.
liquefaction: earthquake induced transformation of a stable granular
material, such as soil, into a fluidlike state, similar to
quicksand.
littoral current: a current that moves along the shore in a direction
parallel to the shoreline.
lower low water: the lower of the two low tides along coasts where the
two daily low tides are unequal.
median tolerance limit(Tl ): in toxicological (bioassay) studies, the
concentration o? pollutants at which 50 per cent of the test
animals can survive for a specified period of exposure,
usually 96 hours.
megalops: the last larval stage in the development of the crab.
microorganism: minute organism, either plant or animal, invisible or
barely visible to the naked eye.

-------
-4-
milligrams per liter (mg/1): a unit of concentration. In the case
of water solutions, it is equivalent to one part per million
by weight.
mollusc: member of an invertebrate group containing most of the ani-
mals popularly called shellfish, except the crustacea. It
includes the slugs, snails, mussels, clams, oysters, and oc-
topi.
most probable number (MPN): that number of organisms per unit volume
that, in accordance with statistical theory, would be more
likely than any other number to yield the observed test re-
sult with the greatest frequency. Generally expressed as
density of organisms per 100 milliliters.
nitrifications the conversion of nitrogenous matter into nitrates by
certain bacteria.
organic matter: substances with a basic framework of carbon atoms.
oxygen saturation: the maximum quantity of dissolved oxygen that liquid
of given chemical characteristics, in equilibrium with the
atmosphere, can contain at a given temperature and pressure.
pathogens: disease causing organisms.
pelagic: inhabiting the mass of water of sea or lake, in contrast to
the bottom.
photosynthesis: the synthesis of complex organic materials, especially
carbohydrates, from carbon dioxide, water, and inorganic salts,
with sunlight as the source of energy and with the aid of
a colored catalyst, such as chlorophyll.
phytoplankton: plant plankton.
plankton: the aggregate of microscopic organisms in a body of water.
planktophagous: plankton eating.
primary productivity: the rate at which energy is stored by photosyn-
thetic (plant) producer organisms in the form of organic sub-
stances that can be used as food materials by other organisms.
primary treatment: the first major (sometimes the only) treatment in
a wastewater treatment works, usually sedimentation. The re-
moval of a substantial amount of suspended matter but little
or no colloidal and dissolved matter.
protozoa: small, one-celled animals including amoebae, ciliates, and
flagellates.

-------
-5-
recarbonation: diffusion of carbon dioxide gas through liquid to re-
place the carbon dioxide removed by the addition of lime
and thereby to lower the hydrogen ion concentration (pH).
secondary treatment: the treatment of wastewater after primary treat-
ment by sedimentation. The United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency has defined the minimum level of effluent
quality attainable by secondary treatment as follows:
Units of Monthly
Parameter .. Monthly Weekly	. „ ,
	 Measure 	 	 % Removal
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand	mg/1	30	45	85
Suspended
Solids	mg/1	30	45	85
Fecal
Coliforms	no./100 ml.	200	400
Acidity	pH	6.0 to 9.0
static bioassay: bioassay in which solution is not renewed during the
test.
stripbait: pork rind bait used mainly for black bass fishing.
tidal prism: the total amount of water that flows into a tidal basin
or estuary and out again with movement of the tide, excluding
any fresh-water flow.
turbidity: a condition in a liquid caused by the presence of suspended
matter, resulting in the scattering of light rays.
zoeae: an early crab larval form.
zooplankton: animal plankton.

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
SAN FRANCISCO WASTE WATER MASTER PLAN
For
J. B. GILBERT $ ASSOCIATES
Planning and Engineering Consultants
1101 "R" Street
Sacramento, Calif. 95814
By
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN § ASSOCIATES
Consulting Engineers and Geologists
Oakland, California

-------
?730 Adelms Str«et
Oakland, Ca 9*607
UI5) 444-1256
P.O Bok 24Q75
Oakland.Co 94623
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN 1 ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
AN AFFILIATE OF WOODWARD -CLYDE CONSULTANTS
Raymond Lundgr»n
Qaorg* E H«rv«rt
B.A.Vallarga
Uo*d S.CIufT
K»»havan Nair
February
William T, Slack
Edward Marg«»on
Mshm ut Otua
C.J.Van Til
lllrieh Luachar
Bernard B. Gordon
I M. Mnu
i, 1974
Proj ect:
13037
J. B. Gilbert § Associates
Planning and Engineering Consultants
1101 "R" Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Attention: Mr. Fred McLaren
Mr. Keith Dunbar
Gentlemen:
As authorized by your letter of December 27, 1973, and in
accordance with subsequent verbal discussions with Mr. Dunbar,
we have completed our preliminary study concerning the geology,
seismicity and earthquake effects on the San Francisco Waste
Water Master Plan. It is our understanding that this informa-
tion will be used as part of the Environmental Impact Report
which your firm is preparing for the Master Plan. As requested,
Professor H. B. Seed has reviewed our findings and preliminary
conclusions on January 14, 1974.
We are pleased to submit the enclosed geology and seismicity
report which includes a map and a general discussion of the
effects which an earthquake would have on the planned waste
water facilities. A discussion of potential liquefaction effects
in the Lake Merced area and other filled areas is included along
with suggested alternate routes to avoid such problem areas.
We appreciate being asked to provide the enclosed information
and hope to be of further service on this most interesting
project. Please direct any questions concerning the report to
the undersigned Associate.
Very truly yours,
Edward Margas on
Associ ate
EM: sb
Encls.
OAKLAND - SAN JOSE - SAN FRANCISCO - ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
INTRODUCTION	1
SCOPE	1
PROJECT	1
GEOLOGY OF SAN FRANCISCO	2
Faults	3
Seismicity	4
EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS AND SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS	8
Ocean Outfall	8
Southwest 1000 MGD Plant and Pipes	11
Richmond-Sunset Pipeline	13
Pipe Tunnels	13
Northpoint-Third Street Line	14
The Southeast Plant	16
Reservoirs and Buried Structures	17
Control Facilities	18
LIMITATIONS	18
REFERENCES
FIGURE 1 - Topography of San Francisco
FIGURE 2 - Geologic Map and Proposed Wastewater Master
Plan for San Francisco County
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS
SAN FRANCISCO WASTE WATER MASTER PLAN
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to provide geotechnical information
from existing geologic data so that earthquake effects can be
predicted in a general manner for the San Francisco Waste Water
Master Plan (SFWWMP). This study is based on an extensive review
of existing geologic and scismologic data and is intended to pro-
vide general geotechnical planning information in connection with
an environmental impact report being prepared by J. B. Gilbert
and Associates for SFWWMP.
SCOPE
This report provides a description and map of presently known
active and inactive faults in San Francisco and potential problem
areas due to faults and seismicity. The potential effects of
sand liquefaction near Lake Merced and other areas is discussed.
A description of potential earthquake effects on SFWWMP facilities
such as outfalls, treatment plants, pipelines, tunnels, under-
ground storage and pump stations is given along with special
design considerations which might minimize adverse effects during
larger earthquakes.
PROJECT
The Wastewater Master Plan concept is described in detail in
the May 1973 San Francisco Waste Water Master Plan Evaluation
report prepared by J. B. Gilbert $ Associates. Essentially, as
Figure 1 indicates, the p1 an includes three large north-south
trending waste- water transportation lines (North Point-Southeast,
Guerrero, and Sunset) which tie together with an east-west line
running south of Mount Davidson to Lake Merced. Ultimately, the
North Point plant will be abandoned, the Southeast plant will be
WOODWARD-IUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-2-
expanded and upgraded, the Richmond-Sunset plant will be upgraded,
and a new 1,000 mgd wet weather treatment facility will be con-
structed just west of Lake Merced. The plan also includes about
30 upstream retention basins, 15 shoreline basins, and a dual-
purpose ocean outfall designed to transport the continuous dry
weather flows three miles into the ocean and flows above the base
rate two miles into the ocean.
As the topography indicates, the 1,000 mgd system is essentially
a gravity flow network draining to the lower southwest corner of
the City; however, some pumping will be required in the North Point
and Southeast areas to assure gravity flow in the Guerrero-Mount
Davidson line. The outfall location has been selected for minimal
impact on biologically important offshore areas.
When the plan is complete, wastes will receive secondary treatment
at the Southeast and Richmond-Sunset plants and effluents will be
transmitted through the tunnel arc? pipeline systems to the Southwest
site where they will be discharged approximately three miles off-
shore. During storm conditions, flows exceeding the capacity of
the secondary treatment plants will be transported to the 1,000
mgd wet weather treatment plant and discharged two miles offshore.
This system will eliminate continuous waste discharges to San
Francisco Bay and virtually eliminate wet weather overflows to the
Bay and Ocean.
GEOLOGY OF SAN FRANCISCO
The geology of the San Francisco Peninsula consists basically of
a dense Franciscan shale, sandstone and chert bedrock at least 150
million years old overlain in the lower coastal areas by Quaternary
dune sands and clays generally less than 3 million years old, see
References 1, 2, 3 and 4. The general distribution of these two
basic formations is shown on the geology map enclosed as Figure 2.
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-3-
In the Lake Merced area and along San Francisco Bay numerous
man-made fills have been placed, as shown on Figure 2. The
Bay fills lie over soft clayey Bay Mud which in turn overlies
old drowned Franciscan bedrock valleys in the Marina, Downtown,
China Basin and Islais Creek areas. The Lake Merced fills con-
sist mainly of saturated reworked dune sands, but no mud exists
in this area.
Faults
lies
the
Francisco.
1906
with
respect to the city side, a movement termed right -1ateral motion.
Of tlie three presently known inactive faults, the San Bruno fault
lies in the Franciscan bedrock from 300 to 1500 feet under Lake
Merced. There is no evidence that this concealed fault cuts up
into the surface sand formations of the Lake Merced area, hence,
it is considered to be inactive. The City College fault passes
northwesterly through San Francisco City College and out near Seal
Rocks. This fault is exposed at ground surface in Franciscan rocks
near the campus, but is concealed beneath the Quaternary dune sands
north of the campus; it is also considered inactive. The shear
zone which passes from Hunters Point up through Fort Point is an
ancient fault which is found only in limited outcrops of the
Franciscan; its location is characterized by ancient serpentine
extrusions along the fault zone which have formed Hunters Point,
Basically one active fault and three inactive faults trend
northwesterly through the San Francisco area, as shown on
Figure 2. The active fault is the San Andreas fault which
in the ocean about 2 miles west of Lake Merced; no part of
San Andreas fault lies in the land area of the City of San
The last movement of this fault nearest to the city was in
when the west or ocean side moved north as much as 21 feet
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-4-
Potrero Hill and part of Fort Point. There is no direct evidence
that this fault or shear zone has been active in the past 100
million years; however, some surface soil failure may have occurred
in the vicinity of this fault in 1906.
Seismicity
The activity of the San Andreas fault is we 11 documented in the
literature, see References 5, 6 and 7. At least five significant
earthquakes have affected the San Francisco City area by movements
on this fault in the last 135 years. In each case major land
failures occurred.
In June 1838, a large (magnitude similar to 1906 event) shock
originated on the San Andreas fault south of San Francisco. The
Presidio and Mission Dolores were seriously damaged. In November
1852, a large shock (Intensity VIII on the Modified Mercalli Scale)
caused considerable ground fissuring in the north end of Lake
Merced where it formerly was connected to the ocean, see Reference
5; as a result a channel some 300 yards wide and 1/2 mile long was
washed out by the lake waters as they emptied to the ocean,
Reference 9. As Figure 2 indicates, the site of the 1852 washout
was most likely through the east and north side of Fleischacker
Zoo and along Sloat Boulevard to the ocean, Reference 12; this
area has since been filled and developed by man, and it is through
this fill that a major pipeline is proposed.
In October 1865, a large shock (Intensity IX) was centered along
the San Andreas fault just south of the city and caused extensive
lateral spreading and fissuring of filled land on Howard Street
from 7th to 9th Streets. In April 1906, the major San Francisco
earthquake (Magnitude 8.2) occurred causing a continuous surface
rupture on the San Andreas fault from southern Humbolt County to
WOODWARD-IUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-5-
San Juan Bautista. The maximum horizontal movement was 21 feet
at Tomales Bay, the probable epicenter; vertical fault movement
was less than 3 feet. Damage was reported in all parts of the
city, but it was generally least on the Franciscan bedrock areas
where rock is close to the surface, see Figure 2. Where the
earth cover increased, damage generally increased especially in
the artificial fill-over-mud areas shown on Figure 2. Lateral-
spreading land failures occurred in the filled Downtown and
China Basin areas producing lateral movements of 1 to 6 feet
toward the Bay. Pavements were fissured, buckled and arched,
and sewers and water mains broken. Wei 1-ballasted street car
tracks were thrown into permanent shallow wave forms 1 to 2 feet
high and several blocks of filled land surface were deformed
into shallow waves of irregular length and amplitude. Excellent
photos of such damage exist in Reference 12.
In the dense sand areas, the effects were generally less destruc-
tive than in the fi11-over-mud areas although sand boils, fissures
and sand bars were reported in the vicinity of Lake Merced. A
timber railroad trestle, which crossed the narrow neck between
the north and south arms of Lake Merced, see Figure 2, was totally
destroyed as both the west and east banks of the lake liquefied
and slid into the lake, uprooting the trestle. This area has since
been covered by a man-made fill dike about 25 feet high and 50
feet wide with a roadway on top; it is through this same location
a major pipeline is proposed. General slope disturbance was also
reported on the earth slope west of the trestle location and just
east of the Armory in Fort Funston.
In March 1957, the San Andreas fault produced a moderate (Magnitude
5.5) earthquake centered in the Mussel Rock area. While this was
WOODV/ARDIUNDGREN 5. ASSOCIATES

-------
-6-
a milder event than the prior four described (no surface rupture
was found along any fault) above, it nevertheless produced exten-
sive landslides and liquefaction in the Lake Merced-Stonestown
area. Description of these effects are detailed in Reference 7.
Liquefaction landslides occurred in the artificial roadway fills
around Lake Merced, see Figure 2, and filled areas east of the
lake near Stonestown experienced settlements of 1 to 4 inches.
A small foot-bridge on the north arm of the lake was also heavily
damaged by liquefaction landslides.
Damage to pile-supported sewage treatment plant at Linda Mar
was negligible; however, ground settlement around the tanks caused
buried pipelines to break. The Daly City sewage plant digestor
at Alemany and Lake Merced Boulevards rests on concrete spread
footings 10 feet below grade; it experienced backfill settlement
of 1/2 to 1-1/2 inches but the deeper tank base remained stable;
no sewer line damage occurred. In general, sewage collection
pipes from houses did not show damage.
At the Lake Merced pump station, a filled area settled 4 to 6
inches severing a 12-inch pipeline where it entered the station.
Four steel fresh water mains were broken in the southwest area
of the city as earthquake - induced water surges in pressure pipe-
lines damaged air valves and weak joints. Line surges caused
extensive pressure pipe damage in both the 1971 San Fernando and
the 1952 Kern County earthquakes.
In Westlake Palisades, nearer the epicenter, several Transite
water lines broke and one partially-buried square reinforced-
concrete reservoir settled and cracked causing major leaks. This
tank was about 20 feet high and was buried about 8 to 10 feet in
the ground with its base on friable sandstone and its walls partly
backfilled with sand.
WOODWARD-IUNDGREN &. ASSOCIATES

-------
-7-
In the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, extensive damage reports
were filed on water and sewage facilities. The general con-
clusions from these reports which could apply to the SFWWMP area
are that; 1) active fault crossings cause certain damage, 2)
transitions between aboveground pipes and underground tunnels
or tanks are potential breakage points, 3) pipelines on steep
hillsides often suffer landslide damage, 4) buried pipes are
damaged by soil compaction, lateral land spreading, soil lique-
faction and severe ground shaking, 5) buried bell-and-spigot
pipe joints are damaged when they are pushed together, pulled
apart or deflected excessively by ground movement, 6) dynamic
lateral soil pressures on buried tank structures often greatly
exceed static design loads. Photos of similar effects in 1906
in San Francisco are given in Reference 12.
In conclusion, the levels of seismicity which the SFWWMP project
could experience during its design life will be significant and
must be recognized in location and design. There are, in our
opinion, no presently known active faults which the on -1 and
facilities would cross; however, a portion of the ocean outfall
will cross the San Andreas fault, see Figure 2.
Maximum bedrock accelerations from San Andreas events which could
occur during the project life could vary approximately as shown
in Table I below;
Event
Magnitude 4
(typical small event)
Magnitude 5-1/2
(195 7 event)
Magnitude 7
(poss. 1852 or 1865 events)
Magnitude 8.2±
(1906 event)
TABLE I
Distance from
Epi center
5 to 10 miles
5 miles
10 miles
5	miles
10	miles
5	miles
10	miles
Maximum Bedrock
Accelerat ions
0.10 g
0.25g
0 • 1 2g
0. 45g
0. 35g
0. 55g
0.4 Sg
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-8-
As in any general tabulation, the above values should not be
interpreted too literally; these maximum bedrock accelerations
are approximate and may be attenuated or amplified at any
ground surface location depending on the soil conditions over
bedrock, the duration of shaking and the vibration period of
the site and structure. For instance, in the 1957 event,
it is our opinion that the maximum bedrock acceleration deep
under Lake Merced was probably about 0.25g, yet only about
0.18g of maximum ground surface acceleration is estimated in
areas of liquefaction, Reference 11.
EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS AND SPECIAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The previous factors suggest a number of potential seismic
effects on the SFWWMP system, and these are discussed in turn
for each of the major facilities. It is our general conclusion
that earthquake effects need not be critically damaging to
the on-land portions of the Master Plan SFWWMP if proper seismic
planning and design is utilized as described in a preliminary
manner in the following sections. Of course, detailed geotechnical
studies should be made of all major structure sites before final
design is done; however, such studies are beyond the scope of
this report.
Ocean Outfall
The outfall is approximately a 15-foot-diameter pipe that will
be laid directly on the ocean floor; storm overflows will dis-
charge about 2 miles offshore in 55 feet of water, however a
dry weather effluent pipe will continue on to ultimate ocean
discharge 3 miles offshore in 80 feet of water.
The outfall will cross the active San Andreas fault zone about
2 miles offshore; this zone is not yet located or mapped exactly
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-9-
but it is probably from 200 to 600 yards wide. It is certain
that the outfall will be subjected to right-1atera1 earthquake
displacements (sea-side moves north) where it crosses the rift
zone.
To our knowledge, few major ocean outfalls presently cross a
major active fault, so the crossing design becomes somewhat
unique. Certainly a strong flexible pipe system is a minimum
requirement and the outfall should cross the fault at right angles
to minimize extension or compression of joints and to shorten the
transit distance. There will likely be breakage of the outfall
pipe during rupture of the San Andreas, and major reconstruction
would be required at the point of breakage after such an event.
However, if the 2-mile storm outfall is kept short of the fault
zone, then a back-up discharge point might be provided while the
3-mile line is being repaired.
One design approach, then, is to provide a strong flexible pipe
but plan to repair it after each major earthquake. ¦However, if
economics would permit, there may be at least three alternate
methods which might be considered for increased outfall survivability
during a large earthquake.
1) If the pipe were designed to contain a reverse "S" con-
figuration at the fault zone crossing, with the "S"
bending to the south where it crossed the fault, then
fault movement would tend to straighten the pipe to a
more normal alignment. All joints across the rift zone
must be capable of shortening by sliding as the pipe
straightens, and the pipe cylinder must be very strong
to withstand lateral passive earth pressures induced on
the outfall by fault movement. Major repairs are still
a likely requirement with this scheme.
WOODWAR D- IUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-10-
2)	If the 15-foot diameter pipe is placed in a 25- or
30-foot diameter corrugated culvert laid across the
rift zone, then a right lateral movement of about 10
to 15 feet might be tolerated before the inner outfall
suffers serious bending. By such a device, possibly
the outfall could survive one event such as the 1906
offset of 21 feet before repairs are needed; however,
in subsequent major events after that repairs would
be certain. If this scheme is considered, the water
depth over the culvert could present a hazard to
navigation unless the culvert were buried.
3)	If the outfall is supported on pile bents across the
fault zone and kept just above the shifting sands on
the ocean floor, the pipe may be able to bend safely
with the fault movement by sliding laterally on beams
placed across the tops of the piles. Of course, the
piles themselves may be subjected to serious shearing
influences during an earthquake, and local loss of
pipe support could occur. This technique has been
proposed for pipe-fault crossings on land in the Alaska
pipeline.
Another possibility is to run the outfall northwest 3 miles
terminating it just east of the fault. However, this would place
the discharge somewhere off Seal Rocks in 35 feet of water which
is not biologically desirable.
A number of additional factors will influence the support of the
ocean outfall. These would include, but not be limited to: a)
littoral and tidal currents and attendant forces on the outfall,
b) influence of wave action and forces, c) sand erosion and
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & AS50CI ATF5

-------
-11-
shifting of ocean floor, d) fluctuation of ocean bottom profile
with time, and e) the depth of loose or weak deposits on ocean
floor along the alignment. All of these factors need to be
evaluated by a detailed offshore study before design to assure
adequate pipe support and operation.
Southwest 1000 MGD Plant and Pipes
The details of this plant are not yet known; however, it will
be one of the largest in the U.S. It will occupy about 45 acres
and will be constructed probably below Elevation +50 (City Datum)
for hydraulic reasons. The site proposed is in the north tip
of the Fort Funston area near an existing Armory, see Figure 2.
Probably a slightly better site would be Site 2 on Figure 2
between the Armory and the Coast highway. This area is not so
close to the steep east slopes along Lake Merced which failed
during the 1906 event.
The plant should be founded on a base of stable soils; this is
required to be sure that no loose potentially 1iquefiable dune
sands would underlie the plant. If a stable base is provided,
foundation piles would not be necessary; in fact, piles would
probably not be the best foundation choice in such an area of
potentially high seismicity.
It is possible that ground accelerations could approach 0.5g for
several cycles at the plant site in a 1906-1 ike event so proper
aseismic design is essential. A thorough geotechnical site in-
vestigation is needed before specific plant design is begun.
The proposed pipeline routes in the vicinity of the Southwest
plant cross areas which have suffered extensive earthquake damage
and liquefaction in the past 135 years. As Figure 2 indicates,
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOOATFS

-------
the Sunset line would cross the filled area at the Zoo over
much of the 18S2 washout. The South line through Stonestown
will cross the narrow filled neck between the two arms of Lake
Merced exactly at the location where liquefaction slides des-
troyed the trestle in 1906 and where 1957 flow slides occurred;
this pipe is certain to be washed out and broken at the dike
in a large event, and untreated sewage could flow into Lake
Merced. The South line also crosses several filled arms east
of the lake which are also potential zones of liquefaction
failure. If pipelines are left at their present locations they
will be subject to severe ground motion, liquefaction, bouyant
floatation and extensive damage.
A much more stable pipeline route through the Lake Merced area
would be north of the Lake, as shown on Figure 2. The topography
is favorable for a gravity route along this alignment as Figure
1 indicates. At the same time, the Sunset line could be turned
north of Sloat and parallel lines could be laid in a more econom-
ical common trench across Sloat and through the Zoo down to Site 2.
The Sloat crossing would be over the 1852 washout, although at
its narrowest point. This section of pipe would have to be pro-
tected at the washout crossing by a dense compacted gravel bed
and backfill, but this should provide a reasonably stable base
at the Sloat crossing.
If land use permitted, an even better plant location, which would
permit location of all pipes in undisturbed natural ground, would
be Location 1 shown on Figure 2. This would remove the plant from
the Lake Merced area and avoid a major pipe crossing of any soils
which have liquefied in past earthquakes. A dense gravel founda-
tion mat may still be required at Location 1. Another advantage
of Location 1 is that the plant would be about 1/2 mile further
WOODWARDLUNDGREN & ASSOCIATes

-------
-13-
east of the San Andreas fault and further off the San Bruno
fault, and the two-mile outfall discharge point would fall
well short of the San Andreas fault. Sufficient freeboard (at
least 20 feet above MSL) would be required around Location 1
to avoid Tsunami effects, Reference 8.
Richmond-Sunset Pipeline
This line will be located primarily in loose to medium dense
dune sands well above sea level. It will probably be construc-
ted in braced open-cut trenches and be backfilled by sand. The
major seismic problem with this line will be differential settle-
ments of the bedding and backfill during a strong event; lique-
faction should not be a problem since most of the line should
be well above the groundwater level.
To minimize differential pipe settlements and cracking, the
backfill and bedding should be well-compacted around the pipe.
The pipe itself should be a strong-thick-walled reinforced-
concrete section with well designed bell and spigot joints
capable of accepting large joint deflections and movements.
Joints should be neoprene gaskets,and welded or solid mortar
joints should be minimized. Even with the above precautions,
major repairs can be expected after a large earthquake, es-
pecially where the pipe enters plant structures.
Pipe Tunnels
The Guerrero line from south of Mt. Davidson to north of Market
will have several large storage tunnels nominally 25 feet wide
and 50 feet high with a cover depth varying from 50 to 150 feet.
Much of this line will be located in Franciscan bedrock, and there
will be two inactive fault crossings.
WOODWARD - LUNDGREN i ASSOCIATES

-------
-14-
In general, well-reinforced concrete-lined bedrock tunnels
perform fairly well in strong earthquakes as long as they do
not cross active faults, and none of the proposed SFWWMP tunnels
appear to cross such faults. Cracking of linings can occur at
transitions between bedrock and soil overburden, and extra
strong lining is desirable at such points. At the crossing of
the City College fault extra lining strength may also be
desirable in case a sheared and weakened bedrock zone is en-
countered; however, direct fault shearing of the lining is not
expected.
A typical trouble spot is where smaller size shafts or pipes
join tunnels; at such junctions cracks and pipe pullouts can
occur. Aboveground pipes should extend at least 1/2 the pipe
diameter into the tunnel, and exterior shear rings should be
used on pipes and shafts to prevent their movement when they
meet the tunnel linings.
Northpoint-Third Street Line
This Phase I pipeline will probably consist of 36-inch and 66--
inch diameter pipe laid in a variety of conditions. Probably
the greatest variation of soil and rock types will occur along
this portion of the SFWWMP, as Figure 2 shows. The line will
consist of a 36-inch diameter force main within an existing
sewer from the Marina past the Downtown fill and to a pump
station at the China Basin. From China Basin south past the
Potrero Hill bedrock and the Islais Creek fill to the Southeast
plant a 66-inch diameter force main will be provided. Ultimately,
one or more deep pump stations will be required to lift sewage
up to the Guerrero tunnel as operation of the Southeast plant
is modified.
woodward-lundgren & ASSOCIATES

-------
-15-
It is likely that strong earthquakes will cause pipe damage in
the filled areas along the east side of San Francisco. The
pipelines which would be placed in fills will be relatively
flexible elements (on a large scale) which essentially move
with the soil; if the soil does not rupture, liquefy or shear
then pipe damage should not be great. It is expected that pipes
in fills subject to lateral spreading could be pulled gradually
easterly with a maximum of as much as 6 feet in a strong event
and that the vertical pipe alignment will be thrown into a
series of waves of variable length and amplitude.
Where pipes transit from filled areas to stronger native soils
or from soil to rock, differential deflections may occur causing
damage. Likewise, ground fissures or local liquefaction will
shear pipe or remove bedding support causing pipe damage. Ground
motion in filled land and at cut-fill transitions can push or pull
axially on pipe joints causing joint breakage and pipe separations
Generally, the City must expect heavy pipe maintenance in man-made
filled areas after a strong earthquake event. Maintenance can,
however, be minimized by initially selecting a thick-walled
flexible-joint pipe with strong and long gasketed sliding joints
at the connections. It would be desirable to work with pipe
manufacturers to develop reinforced-concrete pipe for the SFWWMP
which could withstand large passive soil pressures and permit
joint deflection and joint sliding without serious joint leakage.
The pipes should be installed on well-compacted granular bedding
courses with at least 3 feet of well-compacted granular fill at
the spring line. Good backfill compaction will at least minimize
the possibility of fill liquefaction around the pipe in low wet
areas.
WOOOWARD- lllNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-16
In conclusion, pipelines in filled areas, especially fills
over soft muds, will move with the soil, and earthquake damage
will occur which will require extensive repairs. However,
damage can be moderated by using strong, flexible, well-
backfilled pipe laid in as few fill-over-mud areas as is
practicable.
The Southeast Plant
This plant site is located partly on fill and mud in the Is la is
Creek Basin. The maximum fill thickness is probably about 20
feet and from 15 to 20 feet of soft Bay Mud underlies the north-
east half of the site, see Figure 2. Just as was described
during 1906 in the Downtown area, some lateral spreading of this
site is likely during a large earthquake. The plant will likely
be founded on piles which will be subjected to bending as they
follow the mud and fill. Such pile bending should be checked
by rational analysis to be sure the piles are sufficiently
moment-resistant to safely sustain bending.
An alternate foundation scheme for areas where the depth to
the base of mud is not more than about 30 feet, is to support
structural elements of the plant on mat foundations extending
through the Bay Mud. This would also minimize seismic dis-
ruptions where pipelines connect to structures or tanks. Care
should be taken to provide proper foundation support for the
plant since it will overlie potentially liquefiable zones of
fill and because it will span from soft Bay Mud to stronger
native soils in the southwest end of the site. A detailed
geotechnical study of this site is very important but is beyond
the scope of this report.
woodward-lundgren & ASSOCIATES

-------
-17-
Reservoirs and Buried Structures
The storage basins will probably be reinforced concrete struc-
tures buried well below grade. The approximately 30 basins in
the higher inland sites will be placed in a variety of locations
on both soi1 and rock as Figure 2 indicates; most of these should
be well above the ground water level.
Earthquake effects on buried basins and pump stations are sig-
nificant; usually the greatest effect is an increase in lateral
earth pressure on the reservoir walls. Where basins are buried
above ground water and all in rock or all in soil (i.e., where
the basin does not extend through a horizontal soil-rock contact) ,
the Mononobe-Okabe analysis using a safety factor of about 1.2
gives realistic predictions of earthquake loadings. A horizontal
acceleration at the base of the structure of 0.2g causes approxi-
mately a 20 percent increase over static active earth pressures;
an acceleration of 0.4g causes approximately a 60 percent increase
over static active earth pressures. Vertical roof loads associated
\vith horizontal accelerations are usually less, being probably
about 1/3 of the horizontal loads.
If the buried structure is partly in rock and partly in soil,
di fferential site response can create shears which may increase
the Mononobe-Okabe seismic soil pressures up to 3 times greater
than the pressures suggested in the prior paragraph; thus a
basin in soi1-over-rock may experience as much as 180 percent soil
pressure increase under Q.4g base acceleration.
For low-level basins or pump stations in saturated soils, dynamic
ground water pressures may also be produced by the earthquake;
these could be 2 to 3 times greater than the corresponding dynamic
WOODWARD- LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-18-
earth pressures, but they would probably not materially affect
a water-filled structure. The empty structure would be most
vulnerable to dynamic ground water pressures or to floatation
if the base soil liquefied. It is extremely desirable to be
sure that all buried basins at or below ground water level
be checked for floatation and be founded on mats of dense soils
which will resist liquefaction.
Buried basins on hillsides may also be subjected to differential
horizontal dynamic pressures as the basin tends to move toward
the lower confinement of the slope face. It is therefore de-
sirable to avoid locating buried basins on excessively steep
slopes or on slopes which may be subiect to flow landslides.
This same general precaution applies to pipelines. It is very
important that each buried reservoir or pump station site be
subjected to detailed geotechnical studies prior to design so
that the above factors may be evaluated.
Control Facilities
The filling and emptying of the retention basins in the SFWWMP
will normally be controlled at a central location using telephone
lines to transmit water level data from each basin. Experiences
in the San Fernando Earthquake of 1971 suggest that suspended
phone lines are particular susceptible to seismic damage. It
would be very desirable to provide a secondary back-up control
at each basin or groups of basins in an area to minimize loss
of system control during an earthquake.
LIMITATIONS
This evaluation of the potential earthquake effects on the SFWWMP
is preliminary in nature and is primarily intended for use in
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES

-------
-19-
environmental assessment and system planning. This study is
based on published or unpublished data and prior experience; no
new field data was generated in this study. While the seismic
guidelines are, in our opinion, very realistic, we recommend
that a detailed geotechnical study be made of all SFWWMP sites
after final locations are selected and before detailed design
is commenced.
The future earthquake events are primarily assumed to occur
along the San Andreas fault, which will likely produce the
strongest ground motion in the SFWWMP system; however, other
active faults in the San Francisco Bay area could also produce
significant response in the system although the severity of
these events would not likely be any greater than that of the
San Andreas events.
WAnnwApn.iiiwnr.Bcn r *ct^.*rcf

-------
REFERENCES
1. "Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South
quadrangle, California/1 by M. G. Bonilla, 1971
(Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-311). Two map
sheets, scale is 1:24,000, U.S.G.S.
J. "Bedrock-Surface Map of the San Francisco North
quadrangle, Ca1i fornia," by Julius Schlocker , 1961,
and "Bedrock-Surface Map of the San Francisco South
quadrangle, California," by M. G, Bonilla, 1964
(Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-334). One map
sheet, both maps at 1:31,680 scale, U.S.G.S.
3.	Schlocker, J.; Bonilla, M. G.; and Radbnich, D. H.
(1958) "Geology of the San Francisco North Quadrangle,
California," U.S. Geological Survey Map 1-272.
4.	Schlocker, J. (1971) "Generalized Geologic Map of the
San Francisco Bay Region, California," San Francisco
Bay Region Environmental and Resources Planning Study,
Basic Data Contribution 8.
5.	Lawson, A. C. (1908) "The California Earthquake of
April 18, 1906--Report of the State Earthquake Inves t i-
gation Commission," Carnegie Institute of Washington.
6.	Wood, H. 0. (1908) "Distribution of Apparent Intensity
in San Francisco," in The California Earthquake of
April 18, I 906 - - Report of the California Earthquake
Investigation Commission (A. C. Lawson, Chairman),
Carnegie Institute of Washington.
7.	Toeher, D. (1959) "Seismic History of the San Franc isco
Bay Reg ion," in_ San Francisco Earthquakes of March, 195 7
(G. B. Oakeshott, ed.) California Division of Mines
Special Report 57.
8.	Ritter, J. R. and Dupre, W. R. (1972) "Map Showing Areas
of Potential Inundation by Tsunamis in the San Francisco
Bay Region, California," U.S. Geological Survey Map MF-4 80.
9.	Soule (1860) "Annals of San Francisco," Archives Section,
San Franc isco City Library.
10.	Youd, T. L. et al, (1973) "Liquefaction Potential of
Unconsolidated Sediments in San Francisco Bay Region,"
U.S.G.S. open file report.
11.	Seed, H. B. and Idriss, I. M. (1971) "Simplified Procedure
for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential," Vol. 97,
September, 1971, Journal of the Soil Mecahnics and
Foundations Division, ASCE.
12.	Schussler, H. (1906) "The Water Supply of San Francisco
After the 1906 Earthquake," Archives of City of San
Francisco.
woodward-iundgren s. ASSOCIATES

-------
Figure 1 - TOPOGRAPHY OF SAN FRANCISCO
S.F, WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN

-------
i
i
1
(
I
I
i
I
i
(
LEGEND;
&
ate
SHBAR ZONE
CITY
COLLEGE
FAULT
DOWNTOWN
cm/iA
0AS/N
h
/S LAIS CKteK
mp2
ffj WASHa
toot.
eesr,
ttLW
A HO EXISTING
Olf£
s. f: county
SAN MATSO COUNTY
• ••••«• •
N BRUNO FAULT
-SAN ANDREAS
FAUL T
FAULTS NOT KNOWN TO BE ACTIVE
CONCEALED FAULTS NOT KNOWS TO BE ACTIVE
I CONCEALED ACTIVE FAULTS
S} MAIN WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
ALTERNATt PIPELINE ROUTES
RETENTION BASINS AND CONNECTING
PIPELINES
WASTEWATER PROCESSING PLANTS
Qd

QTm
KJ
GEOLOGICAL UNITS
ARTIFICIAL FILL -
CLAY, SILT, SAND, ROCK FRAGMENTS,
ORGANIC MATTER, AND MAN-MADE DEBRIS.
DUNE SAND —
WgLC SO«T£D fMHE-GRAINFD SHAY SAND,
LOOSE IN MOST ftACES.
CLAYEY SAND
MERCED FORMATION —
TRIABLE TO DENSE SAN0, SJtT, MWJ
clay; minor amounts or gravel,
LIGNITE, ANO VOLCANIC ASH.
FRANCISCAN FORMATION -
SANDSTONE, SHAI.E, CHERT, GREENSTONE,
SKPENTINE, AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS.
NOTE: Adopted from I.awson, 1908; Jennings,
1961; Schlockcr, 1,958 , 1970; Bonllla, 1971.
1

-------