Final
Environmental
Impact Report
& Statement
San Francisco
Wastewater
Master Plan May 1974
City and County of San Francisco
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
^£D S7:%
^ v - - - j %
" ^ " 1 ' - LLl
J3
o
^ PRO^
-------
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STATEMENT
(D-EPA-24003-CA)
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
MAY 1974
Prepared by:
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
SCH 74040876
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
Department of Public Works
R
Paul De Falco, Jr. */
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection
J. B. Gilbert & Associates
Spectrum-Northwest
Agency
Selina Bendix, PhD
Environmental Review Officer
City and County of San
Region IX
Franc i s co
-------
ABSTRACT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND STATEMENT
Draft ( )
Final (X)
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 ngd 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 Pay.
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. P.eclamation
5. Dates Available to CEQ and the Public:
Draft: March 13, 1974
Final: May 24, 1974
6. Distribution List Attached
-------
DISTRIBUTION T.TST
S.F. Impact Statement
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 (7 copies)
722 Jackson Place, N, W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
Corps of Engineers (2 copies)
South Pacific Division
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
'•Department of Transportation (2 copies)
U. S. Coast Guard
12th Coast Guard District
6 30 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Department of Commerce (2 copies)
National Marine Fisheries Service
Southwest Region
300 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 (2 copies)
Office of Oceanographer of the Navy
The Madison Building
7.12 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
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
State Office of Intergovernmental Management (H copies)
(State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Air Resources Board
1709 11 Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
-------
National Park Service Service (2 copies)
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
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 9 5811
Department of Fish and Game (3 copies)
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 Claremont
Berkeley, CA 94705
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
30 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
LIBRARIES
Branch Department (2 copies) •
City Library Civic Center
San Francisco, CA 94104
Social, Science, Business and Ethnic Studies Library
Attn: Ms. Mimi Sayer
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
Library
Hastings College of the Law
198 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Appointed by Board of Supervisors:
Mr. Allen T. Mitchum
D. F, Greene & Co.
2680 Bank of America Center
San Francisco, CA 94104
Mr. Hans A. Feibusch
319 11 Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Mr. John H. Kirkwood
SPUR, 126 Post Street
San Francisco, CA 94108
Mrs. Ellen Johnck
2454 Clay Street
San Francisco, CA 94115
Appointed by Mayor:
General Paul D. Berrigan
2366 Leavenworth Street
San Francisco, CA 94133
-------
Mr, Bernard Speckman
S.F. Labor Council
3068 16 Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Mr. Homer Helmstein
Frank B. Hall Insurance Co.
44 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Ms. Marguerite Warren
1746 32 Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
Appointed by Greater Chinatown Community Service Association:
Mr. Quailand Tom
1040 Grant Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94133
Appointed by S.F. Planning & Urban Renewal;
Mr. Redmund Kernan
S.F. Redevelopment Agency
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco, CA 94101
Appointed by San Francisco Beautiful:
Mrs. Rufus Thayer
255 28 Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
Appointed by Western Addition Project Area Committee:
Mr. Aenos Baker
1513 Fillmore Street
San Francisco, CA 94115
Appointed by Southern Promotion Association:
Mrs. Andrew Gallagher
681 Market Street, Room 185
San Francisco, CA 94105
Appointed by San Francisco Tomorrow:
Mr. Kenneth Hunter
604 48 Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
-------
Appointed by OMI Community Association, Inc.:
Mr. Parker Meeks
272 Thrift Street
San Francisco, CA 94112
Appointed by Save S.^. Bay Associationi
Miss Susan M. Smith
1730-A Jones Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Appointed by SPEAK:
Mr. James Walsh
2662 40 Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94116
Appointed by Outer Richmond Neighborhood Association:
Mr. Harlan C. Maaske
48 Shoreview Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94121
Appointed by S.F. Bay Chapter Sierra Club:
Mr. Douglas J. Craig
247 Ortega Street
San Francisco, CA 94122
Appointed by Marina Civic Improvement and Property Owners
Association, Inc.:
Mrs. John A. Skance
132 Cervantes Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94123
Appointed by Bayview-Hunters Point Model Neighborhood Commission:
Ms. Ethel Garlington
201 Southridge Road
San Francisco, CA 94124
Appointed by League of Women Voters of S.F.:
Mrs. Stanley M. Friedman
2937 25 Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
-------
Appointed by S.F. Jr. Chamber of Commerce;
Mr. Joseph K. P. Armin
24 California Street, #600
San Francisco, CA 94111
Appointed by Greater S.F. Chamber of Commerce:
Mr. Richard R. Kennedy
657 Howard Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Appointed by San Francisco Ecology Center:
Mr. Martin HcLean
c/o SF Ecology Center
13 Columbus Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94111
Appointed by S.F. Council of District Merchants Associations;
Mr. Mel Gentry, Asst. Mgr.
Bank of America, NT&SA
5000 Third Street
San Francisco, CA 94124
Appointed by American Society of Civil Engineers:
Mr. Walter R. McLean
391 Begier Avenue
San Leandro, CA 94577
Appointed by Visitacion Valley Improvement Association:
Mr. Mick Verreos
870 Market Street, Suite 548
San Francisco, CA 94102
GROUPS
San Francisco Tomorrow
Attn: Susan Smith
728 Montgomery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Sierra Club
San Francisco Bay Chapter
5608 College Avenue
Oakland, CA 94618
-------
People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area
3627 Clement Street
San Francisco, CA 94121
Friends of the Earth
Atten: Ms. Connie Parrish
529 Commercial Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Oceanic Society
680 Beach Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
Sunset-Parkside Education and Action Committee (SPEAK)
1329 Seventh Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94122
Regional Parks Association
c/o Ms. Alice Q. Howard
6415 Regent Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Marina Civic Improvement and Property Owners Association
c/o Ms. Virqinia Fusco
34 Cervantes Boulevard
San Francisco, CA 94123
Northern California Committee for Environmental Information
P. 0. Box 761
Berkeley, CA 94701
NEWSPAPER
San Francisco Chronicle
925 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
San Francisco Bay Guardian
1970 Bryant Street
San Francisco, California
San Francisco Progress
851 Howard Street
San Francisco, California
San Francisco Examiner
110 Fifth Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
Oakland Tribune
13 and Franklin
Oakland, California
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
100 CALIFORNIA STREET'
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 9411 1
FOREWARD FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Impact Report and Statement (EIR&S) was
prepared jointly by the City and County of San Francisco
and our agency on the City's Master Plan for Wastewater
Managemen t.
The 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 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 1970 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 at least 30 days after the release of this document.
Upon reviewing the Master Plan and preparing the joint
EIR&S, we have found that the concepts of the Master Plan
are generally acceptable. More specifically, we find that
the concepts of storage, transport, upgraded treatment and
disposal appear to be the most acceptable approach to
solving San Francisco's wastewater problems.
0* f*
\ ,/
-------
-2-
However, there remains several major issues which will
need to be explored before a number of the Master Plan
concepts can be implemented. These include the proper
location and sizing of holding basins, the location of
outfalls, the proper level of treatment for discharges
to San Francisco Bay and the acceptability of allowing
eight overflows per year of untreated wastewater.
Although these questions remain, it is possible to proceed
with several projects without committing the City and
County of San Francisco to implement the entire Master
Plan. The North Point Transport Project, if approved,
would only commit the City to consolidate wastewater
treatment for mos t of the City's dry weather flows at
the Southeast Plant. Other elements of the Master Plan
are to varying degrees independent of tnis action.
As EPA is asked to fund the construction of future projects,
we will re-evaluate both the proposed project and the
Master Plan concept as part of our actions to comply with
the National Environmental
/aul De Falco, Jr. /
//Regional Administrator
-------
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT
PREFACE
SUMMARY 1
The Problem 1
Alternative Solutions 2
The Master Plan 3
PART I - BACKGROUND
CHAPTER I
ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES 11
Marine Environment 11
City Environment 29
CHAPTER II
EXISTING WATER MANAGEMENT 40
Water Supply 40
Wastewater Management 43
Summary of Current State and Federal Regulations 55
System Studies 61
Chronology of Master Plan Development 67
CHAPTER III
ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS 73
Water Quality 73
Aesthetics 74
Land Use 74
Growth Factors 75
Air Quality 75
Implementation 75
PART II - WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
CHAPTER IV
ALTERNATIVES 77
No Project 78
Individual Treatment Plants 79
Expand Three Existing Plants 80
One Plant Without Wet Weather Storage 81
Storage/Treatment 81
Sewer Separation 82
Reclamation 82
-------
CHAPTER V
THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN .89
Goals of the Master Plan 91
Proposed Master Plan Concept 93
Storage 97
Treatment 105
Transportation 112
Control System 113
Summary 116
CHAPTER VI
SUBALTERNATIVES 117
Low Constraint Program 117
Alternative Locations 117
Alternative Control Frequency 122
Alternative Sizes 122
PART III - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER VII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE MASTER PLAN 125
Primary Construction Impacts 125
Primary Operational Impacts 131
Secondary Impacts 157
Problematical Effects 159
CHAPTER VIII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 163
No Project 163
Individual Treatment Plants 165
Expand Three Existing Plants 167
One Regional Plant Without Storage 169
Storage/Treatment 170
Sewer Separation 171
Reclamation 171
CHAPTER IX
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS 173
CHAPTER X
STATUTORY SECTIONS 176
Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 176
Mitigation Measures 178
Local Short-term Uses vs.
Long-term Productivity 181
Irreversible Environmental Changes 182
Growth Inducing Impacts 183
Cost-Effectiveness 183
Environmental Impact Report Authors 186
Organizations and Persons Contacted 186
ii
-------
REFERENCES
1B7
APPENDIX A
STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL FOR RECLAMATION OF WASTEWATER 192
Conclusions and Recommendations 192
Summary 192
Background 193
Characterization of San Francisco Wastewater 206
Potential for Using Reclaimed San Francisco
Wastewater Within the Basin
(Excluding San Francisco) 214
Potential for Using Reclaimed San Francisco
Wastewater Outside the Basin 261
Potential for Using Reclaimed Wastewater
Within the City and County of San Francisco 265
Effect of Reclamation on the Master Plan. 270
References 272
APPENDIX B
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 274
APPENDIX C
GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY AND EARTHQUAKE EFFECTS 279
Introduction 279
Scope 279
Project 279
Geology of San Francisco 280
Earthquake Effects and Special Design Considerations... 286
Limitations 296
References 298
APPENDIX D
PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR&S 299
APPENDIX E
OAKLAND TRIBUNE NEWSPAPER ARTICLES... 329
APPENDIX F
SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION OF
CERTIFICATION 370
iii
-------
After Page
FIGURE 1
Existing Facilities 1
FIGURE 2
Master Plan 3
FIGURE 3
First Phase of Master Plan 4
FIGURE 1-1
San Francisco Bay, Gulf of the Farallons,
and Vicinity 11
FIGURE 1-2
Percent of Samples Exceeding 1000: MPN per 100 ml 21
FIGURE 1-3
Percent Positive Observations of Floatable
Material on Ocean Beaches 22
FIGURE 1-4
Pollutant Concentrations 23
FIGURE 1-5
Rainfall Intensity-Duration-Frequency Curves.. 31
FIGURE 1-6
Topographic Map of San Francisco... 31
FIGURE 1-7
Public Land Use 32
FIGURE 1-8
Land Used for Commerce 32
FIGURE 1-9
Land Used for Industry 32
FIGURE I-10
Land Used for Residence 32
FIGURE I-11
Vacant Land 32
FIGURE 1-12
Geologic Map of San Francisco 34
FIGURE 1-13
California Air Basin.... 34
iv
-------
FIGURE II-l
Sewerage District Boundaries 4?
FIGURE II-2
Richmond-Sunset Water Pollution Control Plant. 45
FIGURE II-3
Richmond-Sunset Outfall Effluent Field 45
FIGURE II-4
North Point Water Pollution Control Plant.... 47
FIGURE II-5
North Point Outfall Effluent Field 50
FIGURE II-6
Southeast Water Pollution Control Plant 94
FIGURE V-l
Master Plan 95
FIGURE V-2
First Phase of Master Plan..... 97
FIGURE V-3
Staging Program 98
FIGURE V-4
Overflow Frequency for Various Transportation
Rates and Storage Volume 101
FIGURE V-5
Overflow Volumes for Various Transportation
Rates and Storage Volumes 101
FIGURE V-6
Simplified Operational Schematic Drawings 101
FIGURE V-7
Simplified Operational Schematic of Tunnel Storage... 101
FIGURE V-8
Conceptual Basin and Tunnel Storage Arrangement 102
FIGURE V-9
Conceptual Design of Upstream Retention Basin 102
FIGURE V-10
Schematic Diagram of Wet Weather Control... 103
v
-------
FIGURE V-ll
Tunnel Perspective 103
FIGURE V-12
Schematic Section of Tunnel 103
FIGURE V-13
Proposed Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant
Conceptual Flow Diagram 106
FIGURE V-14
Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant Location 108
FIGURE V-15
Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant Perspective.. 109
FIGURE V-16
Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant Conceptual
Flow Diagram 109
FIGURE V-17
Proposed Outfall Location 110
FIGURE VI-1
No Constraint Program Staging. 117
FIGURE VII-1
Construction Impact Noise Ranges 128
FIGURE VII-2
Typical Sources of Community Noise 128
FIGURE VII-3
Quadrangle 455, Gulf of the Farallones 136
FIGURE VII-4
Dungeness Crab Fishing Grounds in the
San Francisco Area 141
FIGURE A-l
Subregional Study Area Boundaries 215
vi
-------
TABLE 1
Functional, Economic, and Environmental Rating
of Alternative Concepts 6
TABLE 2
Summary of the Potential Adverse Impacts and
Associated Mitigation Measures Due to Construction
of the San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan 9
TABLE 1-1
Receiving Water Conditions 20
TABLE 1-2
Annual and Monthly Rainfall Variation 30
TABLE 1-3
Frequency Distribution of Hourly Rainfall
Intensities 31
TABLF 1-4
Comparison of Population Projections 33
TABLE 1-5
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Average Emissions
of Contaminants into the Atmosphere 37
TABLE 1-6
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin Comparison of
Emissions by County ^
TABLE 1-7
Occurrences of Emissions having Values Greater
Than the Ambient Air Quality Standards 39
TABLE II-1
Data on Existing Treatment Plants 44
TABLE IV-1
Existing Treatment Efficiencies 7 8
TABLE IV-2
Summary of the Potential for Using Reclaimed
San Francisco Wastewater 87
TABLE V-l
Retention Basin Location and Dimensions 99
TABLE V-2
Expected Effluent Qualities for Various
Treatment Levels 108
vii
-------
TABLE VI-1
Comparison of Wet Weather Cost vs. Accomplishments... 123
TABLE VII-1
Energy Summary, City and County of San Francisco
Wastewater Facilities 156
TABLE IV-1
Functional, Economic, and Environmental
Rating of Alternative Concepts 174
TABLE A—1
Summary of the Potential for Using Reclaimed
San Francisco Wastewater 198
TABLE A-2
Average Annual Dry and Wet Weather Flows 207
TABLE A-3
San Francisco Wastewater Quality
Heavy Metals 209
TABLE A-4
San Francisco Wastewater Quality
Physical Parameters 210
TABLE A-5
San Francisco Wastewater Quality
Chemical and Biochemical...... 211
TABLE A-6
San Francisco Wastewater Quality
Nutrients 212
TABLES A-7 through A-19
Reclamation Information Summary 216
TABLE A-20
Potential Industrial Users of Recalimed Water 257
TABLE A-21
Description of Alternative Wastewater Projects 263
TABLE A-22
Costs of Alternative Wastewater Projects 264
viii
-------
Final
Environmental
Impact Report
& Statement
San Francisco
Wastewater
Master Plan
Mav 1974
Summary
City and County of San Francisco
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
CONTENTS OF SUMMARY
THE PROBLEM . 1
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS. 2
THE MASTER PLAN 3
Environmental Evaluation 5
FIGURES
Figure 1--Existing Facilities 1
Figure 2—First Phase of Master Plan 3
Figure 3—Master Plan 4
TABLES
Table 1—Functional, Economic, and Environmental
Rating of Alternative Concepts 6
Table 2—Summary of the Potential Adverse Impacts and
Associated Mitigation Measures Due to Construction
of the San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan 9
-------
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. 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
-------
Surrcnary
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 a significant percentage 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 (i.e. ,
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.
2
-------
FIGURE I
EXISTING FACILITIES
NORTH
North Point
Water Pollution Control Plant
Richmond-Sunset \
Water Pollution Control Plant \
o
Southeast
Water Pollution Control Plant
The existing three treatment plants (North Point, Southeast, and Richmond-Sunset) provide primary
treatment with chemical addition and discharge through the outfalls shown on the map. Located around
the perimeter of the City are solid arrows representing the existing 41 bypass locations. At these points a
combination of untreated domestic wastewater and stormwater overflows into the Bay and Ocean when
rainfall exceeds 0.02 inches per hour. Overflows occur approximately 80 times per year.
-------
Surmtary
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 ?7(5
87*5 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
3
-------
Sunmary
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.
4
-------
Figure 2
MASTER PLAN
r"
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.
-------
Figure 3
FIRST PHASE OF MASTER PLAN
NORTH
0 2000 FT
NORTH
POINT
RICHMOND
SUNSET
N
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 he
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.
-------
Sunmary
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 mgd—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 Federal 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.
5
-------
Summary
TABLE 1
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RATING1
OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
One
tfany
Expand
Regional
Storage/
Individ.
Three
Plant
Treatment
No
Treatment
Existing
Without
foster
Sewer
Project
Plants
Plants
Storage
Plan
Separation
Functional
Regulatory
Compliance
Unaccept.
Marginal
Unaccept.
Good
Good
Marginal
Implement.
Unacoept.
Unaccept.
Unaccept.
Unaccept.
Accept.
Unaccept.
Reliability
Unaccept.
Unacoept.
ftorginal
Marginal
Good
Marginal
Flexibility
Unaccept.
Unacoept.
Margined
Marginal
Good
Unaccept.
Peclamtion
Potential
Marginal
Margined.
Accept.
Accept.
Good
Marginal
Economic
Total
Capital
Cost
($million)
0
3,000
1,0003
2,0003
672
3,000
Per Capita
w/grants
$540
$180
$360
$120
$540
w/o grants
$4,300
$1,430
$2,860
$960
$4,300
Environmental
Construct.
Irrpacts
None
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Operational
Impacts
Sig.
Sig.
Sig.
Moderate
Minimal
Sig.
Secondary
Hrpacts
Sig.
Moderate
Moderate
Minimal
Minimal
Moderate
Environmental
Ranking2
6
5
3
2
1
4
1 Rating Scale—Functional: Good Environmental: Significant Adverse Effects
Acceptable Moderate Adverse Effects
Marginal Minimi Adverse Effects
Unacceptable
2 Environmental Ranking—1 is most acceptable, 6 is least acceptable.
3Plant cost only exclusive of collection system modifications.
6
-------
Summary
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.
Flexibili iz-
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
7
-------
Summary
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 most 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.
8
-------
Sunmary
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.
TABLE 2
SUM4AM CP THE PCttSNnAL ADVERSE IMPACTS
AND ASSOCIATED MITIGATION MEASURES
DUE TO CONSTRUCTION OF TOE
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.
Temporary loss in aesthetic
appeal in localized areas.
Temporary disruption in
utility service.
Temporary 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.
Ccrmunication with all utility com-
panies should be maintained prior to
and during construction period.
Requirements of the regulatory agencies
must be met.
9
-------
Summary
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.
Public conceAn about this project has centered abound the. Attention basim.
TheAefiofie, tkeAe will be an Implementation Plan Environmental Impact
Repo-ti pAepaAed ^oa the fauat retention bcu,in. Implementation Plan Envinon-
mental Impact Reports {oft 4u.b6e.que.nt Attention baiini mill evaluate the
comtmction and operation oi the. phototype a& well a& the 6peol^ic impact*
^utuAe bcu>in6.
10
-------
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 coast 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.
11
-------
Environmental Features
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 xntertidal 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, larval 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
12
-------
Fieupg I-I
SAN FRANCISCO BAY, 6ULF OF THE FARALL0N3
AND VICINITY
8
I
»-
ATMOMS
c.&u.s.swz
LONOITUOE
-------
Environmental Features
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.
13
-------
Environmental Features
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 1*5 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 300,000 pounds. Although the
majority of the fishing effort is presently concentrated
between 10 and 90 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 the Farallon Islands as an area 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,
14
-------
Environmental Features
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
pe riod s 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
15
-------
Environmental Features
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.
Dry 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.
Drx 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.
16
-------
Environmental Features
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.
17
-------
Environmental Features
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 U. S.
Geological Survey surface drift studies in
March 1970 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
18
-------
Environmental Features
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 limiting
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
19
-------
Environmental Features
TABLE 1-1
RECEIVING WATER CONDITIONS
Gulf of Farallcnes Central Bay Lower Bay
Inside Bar Outside Bar Alcatraz Near Hunters Pt.
DO CONCENTRATION, M3/L
Dry Weather
Surfaoe 6.5-8.5 8-10
Bottom 6.5-8.0 4-6
Wet Weather
Surface 8-9 8-9
Bottom 8-9 8-9
Minimum 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
Minimum 5 8
Mean 15 29
Maximum 38 56
TEMPERATOKE, °C
Minimum 10.1 10.7
Mean 13.5 14.8
Maximum 19.0 21.0
NITRATE NITCOaN, MG/L, NO,
Minimum 0.05 0.06
ffean 0.15 0.12
Maximum 0.48 0.21
AMCNIA NITROGEN, MG/L, NH,
Miniiraxn 0.16 0.08
Mean 0.24 0.34
Maximun 0.36 0,55
CKTHO PHOSPHATE, M3/L, PO.
Mininun 0.2 0.3
Mean 0.3 0.5
Maximum 0.4 0.8
20
-------
Environmental Features
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
21
-------
Environmental Features
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 coliform levels
with higher concentrations observed at ebb and low slack
stages than at flood and high slack stages,
Pluctation 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.
22
-------
FIGURE 1-2
PERCENT OF SAMPLES EXCEEDING IOOO MPN PER 100 ml
(I)
(MEDIAN 1967 THROUGH 1972)
iiiiii
j.'ss?:::!:;;
MARINA AREA
minin
i.n
aqua Tic park area .
HIHHhiH
»S* t®2r*«S 5*
?<:«to*r>00
MAY I Xl.l U) tUKlMl'N I f M 100 Ml.
-------
FIGURE 1.3
PERCENT POSITIVE OBSERVATIONS OF FLOATABLE
MATERIAL ON OCEAN BEACHES (1967-1968)
6OMG0
le • *
NORTH point
^[1
UiC.hMONLj • SUfiSfc T
WPCP
-------
Environmental Features
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
-------
Environmental Features
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.
24
-------
FI8URE 1-4
POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
chockctt \ /
•AN
20
0-5.
SAIWAUTO
IN ml/1 FOR POLLUTANT DISCHAR6E
PATTERN V TIDAL EXCHANGE RATIO-
0.24 NET DELTA OUTFLOW-1«00 eft
»SAN LEANMO
MATEO
RCDWOOO CITY
-------
Environmental Features
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.
25
-------
Environmental Features
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 wi11 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,
were obtained from studies by consultants and other researchers.
In 1969-70, 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:
26
-------
Environmental Features
"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 will not adversely
affect the marine environment of the Central Bay
or the Gulf of the Farallones.
Ecological Design Criteria
Based on the 1969-70 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 acute 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.
27
-------
Environmental Features
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.
The 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
28
-------
Eiivixonmental Features
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
supplemental 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 of different types of
efflunets, especially 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.
9Q
-------
Environmental Features
Sea fogs, and the low stratus cloudiness associated with them,
are a striking characteristic of San 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
Amount
Inches
4.57
3.36
2.80
1.43
0.59
0.14
0.02
0.02
0.24
0.89
2.24
4.03
20.33
% of
Annual
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
7775
16.5
13.8
7.0
2.9
0.7
0.1
0.1
1.2
4.4
11.0
19.8
Total
1FO
30
-------
Environmental Features
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 toward 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
31
-------
Environmental Features
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 4 2 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.
32
-------
FIGURE 1-0
RAINFALL INTENSITY - DURATION - FREQUENCY CURVES
3
O
o
SAN FRANCISCO U.S.W.B. 7772
MAXIMUM RAINFALL INTENSITY
BASED ON
MONTHLY MAX
84 HOUR MAX
ZHOUR MAX
I HOUR MAX
SO MINUTE MAX
18 MINUTE MAX.
10.0 M(N. MAX
(102 YR3J
(4« YR3)
(38 YR3)
(41 YNS)
(37 YR3)
(3« YR3)
(37 YR3)
• 49-1991
1903-1931
1903- 930
1906-1931
1906-1943
1903-(943
1903-1947
6 7 8 9 10
DURATION IN MINUTES
120
-------
FIGURE 1-6
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SAN FRANCISCO
LAKE
_ Drainage Basin Boundary
-------
FIGURE I -7
PUBLIC LAND USE
r
PUBLIC LAND USE
I iraaiic MiravMO i
SOURCE 196 > S<» LANG USE SORVEV
PREPARED B T THE SAC m»»CISC« D E P A «l T M K « T OP C1TT PLANNING >*•*
-------
FIGURE 1-8
ffiff"t 11 it"" I'i ni7> < r r \|i '<«a st1!1
BfflW
i Willi
Mi
LAND USED FOR COMMERCE
SO g«C€ i970 lANO U$F StiRVPv
CO BY THE SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OP CITY PL* W N I NC
-------
FIGURE 1-9
V<-1 fjy»
p^ggap
(uuiifimij
LAND USED FOR INDUSTRY
SOURCE «970 L A N 0 USE Su»vE>
PUCFARCD BY THE IAN FRANCISCO OEPaRTKCNT OP CITY fLA N N I NO
-------
FIGURE I -10
tfEBatfT
»«»v"
nub
p
imni
11
HNB
m
LAND USED FOR RESIDENCE
SOURCE. '9*0 LAND uSE Sufiv[Y
pncpANio b v rut: s a s rnxNcisco omu nr m t n r or city planking
-------
FIGURE 1-11
m) /
sSiWl^i
mm
!#aT-
m?>wr&t
VACANT LAND
«tsciuo>«& T.ocmoi *«& biachcii
SOURCE 1970 tAND USE 5URVE*
PRCPARCO ¦~ THE SAN FRANCISCO DEFAK7N K W T OF CITY PLANKING
-------
Environmental Features
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
780,000 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 Rfesources 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.
33
-------
Environmental Features
Geology. San Francisco is literally founded on sand, the
peaks being outcrops of bedrock protruding above the
rolling dunes. The two principal kinds of bedrocks under-
lying the sand are chert, a by-product of volcanic activity,
and sandstone. These comprise the Franciscan formation,
layers of rock which extend for hundreds of miles along
the California and Oregon coasts. The formation, first
discovered in San Francisco, extends to depths of 10,000
to 50,000 feet. Beds of clay, shale, serpentine, or
conglomerate may be found in the formation.
The bedrock may weather to a depth of 100 feet. Weathered
volcanic rocks are closely fractured, soft, and crumbly,
while weathered serpentine is hard and waxy.
Surface deposits over the Franciscan formation include the
Merced and Colma formations, dune sand, bay mud and clay,
slope debris and ravine fill, beach deposits, alluvium,
landslide deposits, and artificial fill. Although the
surface deposits are nowhere near the immensity of the
Franciscan formation, they cover a majority of San Francisco's
land area. There are large deposits of sand in the Sunset,
Lake Merced, Lobos Creek, and Downtown areas, while a
portion of the east side of the City is fill over bay mud.
In general, the surface materials are uncemented and
easily excavated, but may present other problems, such as
settling or the running of non-uniformly graded sands.
San Francisco is in a seismically active area bounded by two
major active faults: the San Andreas to the west and the
Hayward to the east. The most recent tremor causing signifi-
cant damage in San Francisco occurred along the San Andreas
fault in 1957.
There are three local inactive faults within the city limits
and parallel to the major active faults: the San Bruno,
City College, and Fort Point-Hunters Point.
A geologic map of San Francisco is shown on Figure 1-12.
Air Quality. The potential in a given area for atmospheric
pollution to reach a level that would produce adverse
effects is dependent on the basin configuration, meteo-
rology, and the sources of pollution in the area. Each
of these variables is discussed in the following sections.
Air Basin Description - The San Francisco Bay
Area Air Basin, as shown on Figure 1-13, includes
all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San
Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties,
plus portions of Solano and Sonoma Counties.
The basin is generally surrounded by low mountains;
34
-------
J
FIGURE 1-12
QE0L06IC MAP OF SAN FRANCISCO
K J
OTm
04
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
A
Z u
>. J
TlC
N
¦ V; tji
J
ortb
Coast
'St
• 'a *,
A X 1.
.» *.> *
/XylvXv
^tc^a n»<5
rM'
f - »~
/»<
4;
—t iW
vCr-W^I/
^ * i
* I kvll
CRITICAL AIR AREAS
State of California.
The Retoursn Afcanay
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
San
Francisco
Bay Area
\ JL
M
v° >'&
t
K
, -S>.r^4'
»i »v ^
\
' //J
• * »w 'J v -
x-i
Sati Joaqtfife
North
Central
Coast
Val'tey
fc.'
£.1 £x
H:§\
K - -
s
r\
• • » • _»
M t « • I
h L
^Srfcat A X
• Basin ¦< \
South
Central'
Coast
ryl
* r
r- '>-
J
^
-Southeast Desert
\t
X
-r
<><
South
Coast
\
X
^ - -*
( -
ij
' i •>
San
\ Diego
i
)
j ¦ • t • < » I
*9*1—m
-------
Environmental Features
however, there is no distinct topographic
boundary between the Bay Area and Central
Valley climatic zone.
The basin contains approximately 5,540 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 flow
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.
35
-------
Environmental Features
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.
36
-------
TABIE 1-5
SAN FRANCESCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
AVERAGE EMISSIONS OF CONTAMINANTS
INK) THE A3M3SPHEPE, 1970
(TCNS PER DAY)
Organic Gases
Parti-
Oxides
Emission Source
Reactivity
culate
of
Sulfur
Carben
High
Lew
Total
Matter
Nitrogen
Dioxide
Monoxide
STATIONARY SOURCES
PETROLEUM
Production
Refining
6.0
54.3
60.3
5.9
19.8
72.8
16.9
Marketing
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
0.9
53.9
0.1
METALLURGICAL
2.9
2.9
28.7
1.2
3.5
MINERAL
o
•
to
0.2
3.7
O
•
r—1
2.3
INCINERATION
Open Burning (dumps)
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
Dcrestic and Corrmercial
0.3
0.3
5.1
26.2
0.2
0.1
SUBTOTAL
3.6
3.6
19.7
153
80.6
0.9
LUMBER 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
TOTAL 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
361
1020
63.8
551
37.1
5090
GRAND TOTAL
862
641
1756
174
727
276
5440
-------
Environmental Features
TABLE 1-6
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA AIR BASIN
COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS BY COUNTY
(Tons 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 Franc is oo
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
Soncma1
97
9
26
2
300
434
Total
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 Tfeble 1-6 was derived by using the county percentage
breakdown of the district's jurisdiction sources obtained fton the
San Francisco Bay Area Implementation Plan (SFBARPCD) plus motor vehicle
emissions estimated by the Air Resources Board.
38
-------
TABLE 1-7
OCCURRENCES OF EMISSIONS HAVING VALUES GREATER THAN
THE AMBIENT 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
Ttatal 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 OF 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 OF CARBON MGNOXIDE HAVING AN 8-HR MOVING AVERAGE OF GREATER THAN 9
ppn
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
Tbtal 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 i..xllion 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 ute 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 1930. 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.
40
-------
Existing Water Management
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.
41
-------
Existing Water Management
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 149 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 1969, 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:
42
-------
Existing Water Management
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 :
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 1935. 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.
43
-------
Existing Water Management
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 19 39 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
Richmond-
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 & Comtercial
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
44
-------
FIBURE II-1
SEWERASE DlSTRICT BOUNDARIES
NORTH
NORTH POINT
RICHMOND-SUNSET
SOUTHEAST
£2 TREATMENT PLANT
OUTFALL
-— DRAINA9E BASIN BOUNDARY
+ BYPASS LOCATION
-------
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.
45
-------
Existing Water Management
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
displacement 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 sport and commercial 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 poly-
chaetes, 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, 1987, 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
46
-------
FIGURE 11-2
RICHMOND-SUNSET WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
-------
FIGURE 11-3
RICHMOND-SUNSET OUTFALL EFFLUENT FIELD
-------
Existing Water Management
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, would prohibit waste discharges
in this area. The State Board did not designate the
area as ASBS.
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).
This Order requires the City to construct Level I (chemi-
cal treatment using a low ferric chloride dosage) waste
treatment facilities plus filtration facilities at the
Richmond-Sunset Plant by June 30, 1977, and the southwest
ocean outfall plus transportation facilities from the
Richmond-Sunset Plant to the outfall by September 30, 1978.
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 33 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 treatment 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
Imbarcadero. 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.
47
-------
Existing Water Management
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 80 0 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.
48
-------
FIGURE 11-4
NORTH POINT WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
-------
Existing Water Management
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.
49
-------
Existing Water Management
Waste Discharge Requirements. On March 26, 1970, 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
shellfishingj 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, 1973, 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, 19 77. 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 20 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.
50
-------
FIGURE 11-5
NORTH POINT OUTFALL EFFLUENT FIELD
-------
Existing Water Management
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.
51
-------
Existing Water Management
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. 69-44
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.
52
-------
Existing Water Management
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 City's 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.
53
-------
Existing Water Management
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
54
-------
Existing Water Management
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, 19 83, 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 1985 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.
55
-------
Existing Water Management
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 45 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 45 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).
56
-------
Existing Water .Management
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.
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:
4. pH
The effluent values for pH shall remain within
the limits of 6.0 to 9.0
Units of
Measurement Monthly Weekly
Ultimate Occfcined Oxygen
Demand (UCOD)*
mg/1
50
75
Suspended Solids
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Fecal Coliform
mg/1
mg/1
nurber/100 ml
200
30
50
400
45
75
PH
units
within limits of
6.0 to 9.0
*U0CD= 1.5 (BOD^) + 4.6 (H^-N) - 1.0 (D.O.)
57
-------
Existing VJater Management
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)* mg/1
*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 Law of 1970 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
58
-------
Existing Water Management
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%
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.
59
-------
Existing Water Management
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.
60
-------
Existing Water Management
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 July1, 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:
61
-------
Existing Water Management
Pilot Treatment Plant Study
In 19 73, 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 oxygen
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 197 3,
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.
62
-------
Existing Water Management
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
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
63
-------
Existing Water Management
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, 1970, 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
64
-------
Existing Water Management
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.
65
-------
Existing Water Management
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 hardwares 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
66
-------
Existing Water Management
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 guality
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
67
-------
Existing Water Management
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, 196 8. San Francisco Board of Supervisors
adopted Resolution No. 68-68 approving RWQCB Resolution
No. 67-64.
October 28, 1968. San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Resolution No. 716-6 8 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 45 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. 69-43
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.
68
-------
Existing Water ffenagement
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, 1972. City formally requested a waiver of
the 85 percent BOD requirement for the NPWPCP discharge.
February 3, 1972. SWRCB modified 1971-72 Project List
to allow the City to study alternative projects for the
NPWPCP, Ocean or Bay discharge.
February 1972. 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.
69
-------
Existing Water Management
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 Plain for Wastewater Management.
70
-------
Existing Water Management
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, 1972. 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, j-^72. RWQCB tentatively designated areas
ofbiological significance. Seal Rocks are included.
December 13, 1972. 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.
71
-------
Existing Water Management
December 19, 1972. AB 740 signed into law. Bill made
Porter-Cologne Act consistent with 1972 Federal Amend-
ments and established State grant percent contribution
of 12% 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, 197 3. RWQCB adopted Orders No. 7 3-1 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 73-2 for both interim and
future facilities.
February 1, 197 3. EPA rejected upstream retention basin
grant application due to lack of funds.
March 1973. J. B. Gilbert & Associates submitted its
"Evaluation, San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan"
recommending a staged program of implementation.
May 15, 1973. City published Supplement I to its
Master Plan which included J. B. Gilbert & Associates'
recommendations.
June 26, 1973. RWQCB adopted Order No. 73-35 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. 73-35 requiring completion of
Phase I by September 1977.
November 2, 1973. City initiated its Draft Wastewater
Master Plan Environmental Impact Report.
72
-------
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 1983 goal is an objective which carries
with it specific enforcement mechanisms, while the 1985
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).
73
-------
Environmental Goals
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.
74
-------
Environmental Goals
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).
75
-------
Environmental Goals
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.
76
-------
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 1% 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.
77
-------
Alternatives
NO PROJECT
During dry periods all wastewater in the combined ?ewer
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 TREAiMENT EFFICIENCIES
Parameter
North Pcir.t
Richnxnd-S msen
Southeast
Effluent % Re-
mg/1 npval
Biochemical
Oxygen
Demand
Suspended
Solids
102
46
47
74
Effluent % Re-
mg/1 rtoval
138
72
32
51
Effluent % Re-
rg/1 moval
82
5C
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.
78
-------
Alternatives
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.
79
-------
Alternatives
Although it appears to be unfeasible to provide a high degree
of treatment at overflow points, it may be feasible to implement
short term actions to provide some treatment at overflow
facilities to reduce the discharge of pollutants during wet
weather.
A possible application of this principle could be the con-
struction of partial treatment facilities at overflow sites.
With such a system, it could be possible to isolate the
floatables and heavy solids from the waste stream, to allow
overflows of partially treated water, and to transport these
floatables and heavy solids to a treatment plant.
The Department of Public Works is currently evaluating such
a scheme for the proposed Channel Street Pump Station, a
component of the transport system which will convey wastewaters
from the North Point Plant to the Southeast Plant for treat-
ment. The City hopes to implement the above program, as
well as others, where appropriate and as funding is available.
Such measures, however, would only be interim actions and
not a final solution to the wet weather overflow problem.
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 e::pand
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.
80
-------
Alternatives
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.
Another variation on the "one plant" alternative would be
to consolidate San Francisco's system with those of other Bay
Area communities. This alternative was first proposed by
the Bay-Delta Program in its 1969 Final Report. This
$3 million study, directed by the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) recommended that wastewaters from most Bay Area
cities be transported to a regional treatment plant at Redwood
City for treatment, transported to the west over the mountains,
and discharged to the Ocean. Because this proposal was
poorly received by the public and had technical and environ-
mental disadvantages, an alternative strategy was later
endorsed by the SWRCB, calling for subregional consolidation
of facilities around the Bay. This concept of consolidation
of facilities will be discussed further in Chapter VIII.
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 of 1,000 mgd of treatment
capacity and nine million cubic feet of storage which is
81
-------
Alternatives
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.
82
-------
Alternatives
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 A 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 17C/1000 gallons as compared
to 25C/1000 gallons of existing irrigation water.
83
-------
Alternatives
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 220/1000 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 as an 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 (280/1000 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 (400/1000 gallons).
84
-------
Alternatives
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.
85
-------
Alternatives
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 potentialmarket 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.
86
-------
TABLE IV-2
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
San Luis
Service Area
Groundwater Recharge
Santa Clara Valley
Industrial Use
Direct Reuse
Quantity
(mgd)
1.0
4.0
1.0
Total dry
weather
Total dry
weather
Total dry
weather
90
Tbtal dry
weather
Possible
Year of
Inplemen-
tation
existing
1980
1980
2000
2000
Current Cost
Other Cheapest
Responsible Cost Alternative
Agencies C/1000 gal C/1000 gal
none
none
Owners of
individual
golf courses
USER5
DWR6
USBR
DWR
30
17
22
251
251
25
28-40
33
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
Regulatory Constraints
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Restrictive toxicity and
biostinulation requirements
Possible health restrictions
due to intermittent cross-
connection
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Presently prohibited by State
Department of Health
Subsequent toxicity and
biost imulation requirements
Prohibited by State
Department of Health
lCost of San Francisco water to large users.
2Existing cost 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 pumping brackish water. 1
5United States Bureau of Reclamation
6Department of Water Resources
'Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District
-------
Alternatives
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.
88
-------
CHAPTER V
THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
The Wastewater Master Plan is designed to provide a given
measure 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 the
year. Stormwater runoff, which occurs at infrequent inter-
vals and highly variable flow rates, increases flows in
localized areas by approximately 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 rainfall of 0.01 inches per hour occurring
simultaneously over the entire City. In contrast,
94 percent of the rain, considering the Federal Office
Building 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 more flow is contributed by the sani-
tary flow. During an average year an estimated 81
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
discharged 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
sewer system, the flow pattern is a steady, fairly predictable
base 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 effective system for transportation,
treatment, and disposal.
Deleterious material contained in the sanitary and combined
wastes which can affect the Ocean and Bay environments
include:
B9
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
Material that is floatable or will become floatable
upon discharge.
Settleable material or substances that form sediments
which degrade benthic communities and other aquatic
life.
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 eutrophication 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
sanitary sources and from stormwater runoff have similar
characteristics. 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 wastewater 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 them 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.
Historically, 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 conveyed to the nearest receiving water for
discharge. Treatment of these variable storm flows was not
considered practical or necessary.
90
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
In San Francisco when flows exceed that which can be trans-
ported 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 quality and quantity and the
location of discharge points.
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
combinations of these alternatives.
The major water quality problems associated with the dry
weather sanitary discharges are related to the constant
emission of potentially 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 reducing mass emissions
and discharging at the optimum available location.
The Master Plan concept incorporates collection, storage,
transportation, treatment, and disposal into one overall
system designed to achieve the most cost-effective control
of all wastewaters. 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 necessary refinements of other elements.
GOALS OF THE MASTER PLAN
The Wastewater Master Plan was developed to implement the
following 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 special flow
or available dilution changes.
91
-------
Hie Wastewater Master Plan
"That there be flexibility to meet changing water quality
requirements and needs for reclaimed wastewater and a
'building block' concept is included to minimize pre-
mature 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 water-
front or water areas and that use of valuable property
for treatment facilities be avoided.
"That valuable land such as Golden Gate Park and the
north waterfront area be released from sewage 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 financ-
ing alone or being expedited by Federal and State funding.
"That a cost-benefit relationship be included so that
policy on the degree of wet weather treatment 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 combined
overflow be substantially reduced.
"That a viable industrial waste program be provided
to control toxic discharges at the source with supple-
mental treatment as necessary and technically feasible.
"That there be long-range capability for the consolida-
tion 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 agreement
for San Francisco to accept effluent from agencies in
northern San Mateo County to facilitate a regional
consolidation plan.
92
-------
The Wastewater Master 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 topography
for underground storm storage.
"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 increments to varying transport
and treatment facilities 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
disposal location which most effectively reduces the detri-
mental 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 continuously
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, the ocean side trans-
port pipeline, or the Southeast treatment facility.
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 drainage 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.
93
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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.
Continued utilization of the Southeast Treatment Plant.
An all weather treatment plant (Southwest Treatment Plant)
near Lake Merced for sanitary and storm flows deor.gned
to operate with split-flow alternative treatment " eveIs
depending upon plant inflow. {See Figure V-17)
A dual-purpose ocean outfall designed to transport dry
weather flows four miles and storm flows two miles into
the Ocean.
One central computer-operated control system to charac-
terize 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 storage 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 established 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 utiliza-
tion, transport rate, and treatment rate will be based
on the spatial and temporal characteristics of the
particular storm. Storm flows will be stored in reten-
tion basins and withdrawn at selected rates for trans-
port to the Southwest Treatment Plant. However, should
both the storage and transport capacity from any of the
15 drainage basins be exceeded, an untreated overflow
94
-------
FIGURE 11-6
SOUTHEAST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
-------
The Wastwater Master Plan
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 pipeline systems to the Southwest
Treatment Plant site and discharged approximately four
miles offshore. During storm conditions, flows exceed-
ing the capacity of the secondary treatment plants
will be transported to the 1,000 mgd Southwest Treatment
Plant where they will undergo advanced primary treatment.
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 regulatory 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:
Element
Estimated
Cost Completion
{$ mil) Date
Southeast Plant Solids Handling
Richmond-Sunset Plant Interim Iitproverrents
Southeast & North Point Interim Inprove.
Pilot Plant & Toxicity Studies
Transport System—North Point to Southeast
Southeast Prirary Plant Expansion
Secondary Facilities for SE Flew
Secondary Facilities for NP Flew
Richmond-Sunset Level I (advanced
10.0
0.2
1.4
1.7
23.5
24.7
18.0
36.0
1/76
10/73
6/74
6/74
6/78
6/77
1/79
1/80
primary) plus Filtration
SE Interim Bay Outfall
13.0
7.0
1/77
9/77
95
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
Estimated
Oost Oarpletion
Element ($ mil) Date
Lake Meroed 2-Mile Ocean Outfall 30.0 1/81
Transport System (Richmond Sunset-Lake
Meroed) 24.0 1/81
North Shore Wet Weather Treatment &
Transport (retention basins in North
Shore and transport 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 reduction of overflows to Ocean beaches.
Operation of Stage I facilities, in conjunction with improve-
ments to other wastewater discharges to the Bay, will result
in substantial improvement of the aquatic environment of the
Bay, particularly 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.
96
-------
Figure V-l
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.
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
Completion of the Master Plan. It is anticipated that
the Master Plan will be completed in three additional
stages as shown in Figure V-3. Stage II facilities
include the remainder of the west side tunnel and all
remaining shoreline retention basins together with
the upstream 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 $149 million.
Stage III facilities include the construction of the
crosstown 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. Completion of this stage will result in further
reductions of overflows 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
remaining upstream storage basins, the Ocean outfall
extension, and dry weather secondary treatment facilities
at the Southwest Water Pollution Control Plant for the
Richmond-Sunset flows. The estimated cost of Stage IV
facilities is $131 million.
A summary of estimated costs of the complete Master Plan
is presented below:
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 moderation is accomplished by providing a volumetric
capacity (a storage basin) with ntrolled feed (flow in)
and withdrawal (flow out).
When flows in the sewerage syst are too high to be treated
directly, the feed rate to the basins is increased until
the demand ceases or the basin becomes full. When flows in
Stage I $231,000,000
Stage II 149,000,000
Stage III 161,000,000
Stage IV 131,000,000
Total
$672,000,000
STORAGE
97
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
the sewerage system 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.
As developed in the Master Plan Report the following design
features 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 dewatering
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
minimize 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 increased 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 reducing
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.
98
-------
Figure V-2
FIRST PHASE OF MASTER PLAN
O 20Q© 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. Haw
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 wilt 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.
-------
FIGURE V-S
STAGING PROGRAM
STAGE I
231 MILLION
STAGE II
149 MILLION
STAGE III
IGI MILLION
STAGE IV
131 MILLION
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
TABLE V-l
RETENTION BASIN LOCATION AND DIMENSIONS
DIMENSIONS
Length Width Depth Volume
APPROXIMATE LOCATION (ft) (ft) (ft) ft3x 106
RICHMOND-SUNSET
John Muir Drive Punp Station
Vicente and Great Highway
102
60
18
0.11
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
Lawtcn 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 24th 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
NOKTH 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 Oitfall
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
NDRIH POINT VOLUME
SUBTOTAL
1.93
SOUTHEAST
Mariposa 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
Somerset and Way land
104
40
26
0.15
Sunnydale and Bayshore
143
60
35
0.30
SOUTHEAST VOLUME
SUBTOTAL
•
GO
TOTAL
6.98
99
-------
Hie Wastewater Master Plan
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. With-
drawals from the shoreline basins will be pumped to
the interceptors or tunnels leading to the Southwest
Treatment Plant during and immediately following storms.
Shoreline basins under the Master Plan concept could
be reduced in volume by the volume of additional upstream
basins. The system within an individual 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 effec-
tively utilizing this equalization storage and capi-
talizing 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 runoff hydrograph is related to the rainfall
hyetograph if the effect 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 plotting 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.
100
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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 treatment rates and storage volumes, including
existing conditions of 0.02 inches per hour treatment rate
and zero storage. The results 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 storage volumes,
volumes of overflow, and volumes treated are expressed as
equivalent inches of rainfall, and that true estimates of
volumes and rates require multiplication by an appropriate
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
provides storage for 0.15 inches of uniform rainfall over
the entire 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 avail-
able volume, no allowance is made for storage available at
the treatment plant due to empty tanks which must be placed
in service or for storage in the existing sewers or proposed
transport conduits. 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 inches/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 to fill and overflow at
their design treatment rate before additional batteries are
brought into service. The resultant simultaneous withdrawal
of treated effluent as tanks are being filled will increase
their effective storage 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
101
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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 to
the transport and treatment systems is shown in Figure V-8.
Retention Basins. The conceptual design of an upstream
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 maintenance and also
to eliminate fouling of the basin and possible odors
during dry weather. An expansion chamber will be incor-
porated 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 dis-
tributor channel, which during low flow will drop the
influent to the bottom of the tank through a manifold
of pipes extending 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 outlet pipes which are located in the bottom of
the end wall. The flow passes to the downstream sewer
or directly 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 equipment,
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 contain the
pumps for pumping the stored flow to the interceptor,
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
interceptors. Flows reduced by interception but in
excess 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.
102
-------
FIGURE V-4
OVERFLOW FREQUENCY FOR VARIOUS TRANPORTATION
RATES AND ST0RA8E VOLUME
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.24
o
Am
0.22
*
0.20
I
w
&
0.10
m
1
£
0.16
Ul
*<
ac
014
SB
O
g
0.12
£
o
5
0.10
*
*-
"X
STORAGE VOLUME
(inch** of rainfall}
0.04
0.02
0 1
0.2
0.4
TO 100
OVERFLOW FREQUENCY
No. ptr ytar
FROM DATA
EXTRAPOLATION
-------
FIGURE V-8
OVERFLOW VOLUMES FOR VARIOUS TRANSPORTATION
RATES AND STORAGE VOLUMES
0.30 mm-
STORAGE VOLUME
(lnch«« of rainfall)
0.10-
0.06
.07 0.1
FROM DATA
OVERFLOW VOLUME,
Inofcts of rainfall par year
EXTRAPOLATION
-------
FIGURE V-e
SIMPLIFIED OPERATIONAL SCHEMATIC DRAWINGS
¦AS IN
EXISTING
SEWER
r
ORY WEATHER FLOW AND STORM
FLOW UP TO 0. I IN./HR MAX.*
kCOARSE
SOLIDS
SEPARATION
STORAGE BASIN
PRCTRCATCD STORM FLOW
IN EXCESS OF BYPASS
CAPACITY SOES INTO
BTORABC
CONTROL SATES
FOR FLOW
REGULATION
OVERFLOW
WHEN
¦ASIN
IS FULL
ALTERNATE
DIRECT
CONNECTION
TO TRANSPORT
SYSTEM
SEWER TO
1
TRANSPORT
SYSTEM VIA
SHORELINE
BASIN
PUMPS FOft
'DE WATER INS BASIN
TO SEWER DURINB
ANO AFTER STORM
TYPICAL UPSTREAM BASIN
¦ASIN
r
DRY WEATHER FLOW ANO STORM
FLOW UP TO 0.1 IN./NR. MAX.*
¦YPASS
(BEE NOTE)
STORAGE BASIN
EXISTINS
TRUNK
seweR
NOTE: FLOW INTO EXISTING
INTERCEPTOR LIMITED TO
APPROX. O.OS IN./NR
FC*-.E
Ml>h TO
T>»A#SPORT
EM
tl
OVERFLOW TO
¦AY OR OCEAN
11
¦ASIN
DRAIN
TYPICAL SHORELINE BASIN
* MODIFIED SYSTEM WILL
ALLOW UP TO O.B IN./NR
-------
FIGURE V-7
SIMPLIFIED OPERATIONAL SCHEMATIC
OF TUNNEL STORAGE
EXISTING
TRUNK SEWER
COARSE SOLIDS
SEPARATION \
OVERFLOW
CONTROL GATES 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.aV
STORAGE
DRAIN
¦TUNNEL TRANSPORT
TO WET WEATHER ANO
"TO WET WEATHER ANO
DRY WEATHER TREATMENT
^MODIFIED SYSTEM WILL ALLOW UP TO 0.5 IN./HR
-------
FIGURE V-8
CONCEPTUAL BASIN AND
TUNNEL STORAGE ARRANGEMENT
OVERFLOW
OCEAN
OUTFALL
SHORELINE
BASIN
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
(U
K.
UPSTREAM BASIN
REMOTE FROM TRANSPORT
LINE RETURNS ALL FLOWS
TO SEWER
£qJ-
_TRUNK
SEWER
UPSTREAM BASIN CLOSE
TO TRANSPORT LINE
WITH DIRECT CONNECTION.
ONLY BASIN OVERFLOWS
CONTINUE TO SHORELINE
BASIN
TUNNEL
STORAGE
TRANSPORT SYSTEM
aOSKTO** W"®-
SOUTHWEST WET WEATHER
TREATMENT PLANT
-------
FISURE V-9
CONCEPTUAL DCSWN Of UPSTREAM RETENTION BASIN
UPPit
[ A b**t)
SO Ft.
COK-it tfffi Qi
PLAN [roof removed]
fT
Graphic Scale: Horiiontal t Vertical
to) (/?5'» 2S'' 3Z'A\ j. Otp**)
<- P S'cpt 0104
KEY
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
S5CTION A - A
1. Fxisting combined sewer (2'-6"x3'-9")
fi.
Distribution channel
lfi.
Underground service area
2. Material separation structure.
9.
HoKNcnf'EPS
17.
AlP INTAKE
3. DRY WEATHER SANITARY K OPTIONAL
10.
Storage compartment (100.000 cu.ft.)
18,
Fan
STORM FLOW HYPASS
•). nRAIN TO BYPASS-SMUIIT5 HEAVY t FLOAT"
11.
Overflow trough
10.
Forced air conduit
12.
2n,
ABLE FRACTIOUS PAST STORAGE <
'VeRFlOw r.lSCHARGE COKDUIT
H.P, WASHDUhN SYSTEM V«ULT
5. Baffles-entraps fi.oatablES until
15.
Emergency denatering pump systep:
22.
Local ajto."Atic S "iip-ote
AFTER STORM,
li*.
Control cats
CGNIRO. STATION- CCnTROLS
6. hEIR-RETAlSJ HEAVY MATERIAL. PASSES
valve;. ?umps. ect. receives
15.
Gravity disoiarge-rscch-ects kith
SIGNALS FROM centra:. CONTROL STATION
aiLUTE STORM ElGM TO STORAGE.
21.
7. Influent to storage
COMPINED SENCR DOWhitPCAA.
STATICS ACCtSS MANHOLE
-------
'Hie Wastewater Master Plan
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
possible to permit the basins to overflow over a concrete
end wall instead of into a series of weir troughs.
In order to alleviate public concern over residential
disruption due to retention basin construction and
operation and to provide for community input to the
decision-making process for final siting of the reten-
tion basins, a series of community meetings for two-
way information flow will be held in affected areas.
Tunnel Storage. The Master Plan proposes a crosstown
tunnel in rock from the northeast section of the City
through high ground at an elevation sufficient to
discharge 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
enlarged 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
transport 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 the 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.
Storage 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
separation of the heavy and floating materials in a
separation chamber on the combined sewer and discharge
the flow containing this material directly to the
transport section with the cleanest water going into the
storage chambers. Controlled gates would control the
discharge of water from the storage chambers to the
transport section at rates suitable for treatment.
103
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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
Avg. Cross-sectional area required
for storage, sq. ft.1 68
Cross-sectional area required for
peak dry weather flow* 65
Ttotal cross-sectional area required,
sq. ft. 133
Avg. diameter required, ft.3 13
Slope required for 5.0 fps14
Velocity at n = .013
Plowing full .00040
1Based on a length of 37,000 ft.
21.5 x the projected average flow of 98 mgd from the
North Point and Southeast Treatment Plant zones at
3.5 fps.
3 Minimum diameter required at outlet end to transport
oonbined flew treatment rate of 991 cfs frcm 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 minimum slope required to maintain suitable velocities.
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
alternative would provide common storage volume 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.
104
-------
FieURE V-10
SCHEMATIC 0IA8RAM OF WET
WEATHER CONTROL
SEPARATION
STRUCTURE
DRY WEATHER FLOW & HEAVY STORM MATERIAL
CONTROLi
GATE '
1
1
DILUTE
STORM
FLOW
CONTROL
GATE
TUNNELS OR INLAND
OVERFLOW
CONTROL
SYSTEM
STORAGE
SEWAGE
TREATMENT
PLANT
•TUNNELS OR INLAND
RETENTION BASINS
-------
FWURE V-II
TUNNEL PERSPECTIVE
r.t. 'a .****¦-'. tr s*it*s I i- .X,'-
$jPA*A7iQH S7QUC7J%*
V*S7ZiA*t
o*.6 /«e^ siivei
5rKf*t >iccfji *.n
rcisv i * rnj
t'0|«/UK
Srttigr suf'tci
:>¦#**. 3W
- P „t*rs
«e**' s*>. -*
#4*$«©*r c3**«*r*UA;r
^Qw»SMd^r
v r:ofc»
4vv Sro«#
¥*•(4:,4^. 08t&Jm 0*J
7Z&UO*
CM* P*PT*
V4ft/*» $9'->fO'
—'V*i,i.SA/T PCmi«C3*f*$
eiiv*~ot
s«*r:
fCf Si. * K
- * + MMTf* Sur»-ms
*OK U*$uOO*tU SlS
Sr&cses co*
4cc#h
£kt(*6tVCY °U\4fS
src*4*j
COUP**TH£UT
cn • *o)
r cc«e*BT*tNT 4„c*SS
K'6*
trtJtfOOW Srrrfaf,
*r
CM*
~ r
-------
FIGURE V-12
SCHEMATIC SECTION OF TUNNEL
DILUTE STORM FLOW
VENT SHAFTS
A ACCESS AT
PERIODIC
INTERVALS
STORAGE
( 25' X 30*)
TO
LAKE MERCED
TREAT. PLANT
rvU.lL- I
J TRANSPORT
SEWER
SEPARATION
STRUCTURE
DRY WEATHER FLOW
& STORM FLOW WITH
HEAVY MATERIAL
UTILITY CHASE
FOR ACCESS,
VENTILATION
S PIPING
AUTOMATIC
WASHDOWN
SYSTEM
CONTROL GATES
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
The tunnel storage and transportation system will be
evaluated in detail to determine if a less complex
design would provide dependable service at less cost
and with fewer operation and maintenance problems.
Master Plan facilities will be 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 total 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
storage 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 1,740 gallons per day per square foot
(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
operation would be initiated. Thus the provision of adequate
treatment capacity to handle high flow rates also provides
large storage volumes.
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
105
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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.
Further complications associated with providing dual storage/
treatment units are that they would logically have to be
located 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.
Physically Separated Units
The 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
340 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
treatment plant capacity and treatment processes. Additional
rainfall data will be analyzed to define the desired treat-
ment capacity and the pilot plant studies will provide
106
-------
PliURl V-13
PROPOSED SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIA8RAM
t# SOUTHEAST SLUOaC
THCATHCMT »UANT
flWHC BMLOmOt
AOOITION ,
«STl SOt'OS
TO LANOfltl
«£C*LCINATIO«
COMMinUTEB
• CMtNINM
HI HOTC I
TO LJkNOflLl
HtCAMOMATlOH
wm-em plow
*w~e* ri.o«»
mv-gw rLOw
> tuila
( IOOO M«D MAX)
t PiteeviAfier
1
l mtt («is«iu
f-4ACKWASM *1TURK FLOW
WW IKCCSS
< 750 MCO MAX »
• vv-ov FLOW
1250 MCO WAX 1
¦lenoco
WW- BW PlOW
RECLAMATION
STAGE
CHLOPiNATION
RECL AlMEO WATCH FOR RtUSC
f RECREATION, IRRIGATION, \
\ OROUNDWATER RECHARGE/
t columns
«CEA*I OlSCMARGE
VIA OUTFALL AMD
tI*MAT( QdFuSCRl
SYMBOLS
tlflll in • ¦« IIITflflt nit
CARBON REGENERATION
MOTE 1 : ..... ,
, PLANT AtR A90VE AREAS WHIRS WATER SURFACE
IS BRORCM IS TO •( RLACIO UMOER NEGATIVE PRtSSURI . , ¦ ,
A HO CXHAUSTEO THR0U9H RECALCULATION FURNACES • t
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
information on the most efficient combination of treatment
processes. The plant is presently envisioned at a maximum
capacity of lfQ00 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 sedi-
mentation. 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 dis-
charged.
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 additional treatment for the 250 mgd flow
is planned to consist of high-dose lime addition followed
by flocculation, sedimentation, 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
V-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.
A single wet-weather/dry-weather 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 economically treat runoff from the
City, due to its spatial and temporal variation, than can
be accomplished by individual treatment systems serving
various areas in the City. Individual plants located at the
three existing sites would require substantially greater
total capacity than a single plant to provide 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 the 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 the City Park and Recreation
107
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
TABLE V-2
EXPECTED EFFLUENT QUALITIES
FOR
VARIOUS TREATMENT LEVELS
EXPECTED QUALITY
Secondary
Parameter
Units
Level I
Level II
Level III
Treatment
Bioassay—96-hr TE^
% survival
25
40
90
90
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (5-day)
mg/1
120
80
15
30
Chemical Oxygen
Demand
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
mgA
0.02
<0.005
<0.005
<0.005
Aimonia (NH3-N)
mg/1
18
18
<0.015
18
Organic Nitrogen
mg/1
12
7
2
7
Total Nitrogen
mg/1
30
25
5
25
Total 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
JTU*
25
20
2
10
*Jackson Turbidity Uhits
108
-------
FlflURE V -14.
SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT LOCATION
»OviuDk.av wiuh
¦®« «ei>o»ie
xao lot
4MM/«VO A.C.
um v.»icko
*4 mh«»h#y
state or cAuifoaui*
MATIOWfcl. £u»aO
*epio* • 7 0 <^qe«
st&se i
PQOSEU AR.KA.
PROPOS6D UAK.6 MftttCtD WATfcR POU.UTIOW CONTROL PLAUT SlT»
zoo euuuua vor *up mistm* r»o*aM. mo fer*Ym »aopft«m»«)
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
Department, Federal Government, and a portion leased from
the City to the State. Present planning for the area has
been incorporated 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 treatment facility land area will be possible.
The experience in this regard at the Baker Street Air Flota-
tion Facility in the Marina area serves as a positive
example of what can be accomplished. At the present time,
the conceptual design for the proposed Southwest plant has
incorporated planned zoo parking facilities and some other
multi-uses. It was in this light that the City Park and
Recreation Department approved the Master Plan in principle.
A perspective 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
directly from the 15 drainage basins. It is possible for
the flow to exceed 1,000 mgd at the plant assuming intensive
rainfall in the Richmond-Sunset area as well as the north
and east portions of the City. It is more beneficial from
a water quality viewpoint to discharge untreated waste through
an ocean outfall 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 analysis 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 IV-2: "There is an optimum treatment capacity,
storage volume relationship which is dependent 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 equivalent 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.
109
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
Proposed Ocean Outfall
As previously discussed, the outfall proposed in the Master
Plan will have the following design flows: (1) average dry
weather, 125 mgd; (2) peak dry weather, 340 mgd; and (3) peak
wet weather, 1,000 mgd. Because of the great variance in
these design flows, the Master Plan proposed a dual-purpose
ocean outfall designed to transport dry weather flows four
miles and wet weather flows two miles into the Ocean (see
Figure V-17 for location).
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 340 mgd, an initial dilution of 107 to 1 will be attained
by the time the rising waste plume reaches stability as
a submerged 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 to 3 times greater during periods of maximum current.
It is anticipated that the waste field will reach initial
stability at a depth of 15 to 30 feet under most condi-
tions of waste flow and receiving water stratification.
All of the oceanographic information available on the
Gulf of the FaraHones 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 surface
currents in the vicinity of the discharge site are
predominately 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 effluent field will probably not reach the shore-
line 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
110
-------
FIGURE V-15
SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT PERSPECTIVE
*•••• Control Houaa
B— Phyalcal-Chamlcal Traatmant Tanka
C-— Carbon Columna
D Dual Madia Flltara
E•••• Nitrogen Removal Facllltlaa
P6aSP£CTivE CF PROPOSED C3MB si£Ci -A<£ MERCfeO WAT&a P3'_L-T OM CONTROL 3„AV.~ ZOO FACl'_;Tifc3
-------
FIGURE V-J6
SOUTHWEST WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT CONCEPTUAL FLOW DIAGRAM
FERRIC QMLOHIOC
TO southeast sludoe
TREATMENT PLANT
•MY TO LANDFILL
RECALCINATION
JVASTC SOLIDS
TO LANOFlLL
SEE NOTE
MAKE UP
PRIMARY
solids
chemical
ADOlYlON
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
WW-DW FLOW
WW-pw FLOW
(2S0MG0 MAxT
WW-DW FLOW
r Ml ICRHH
«c
~ IIIIIH*
t'LOCCWlAtlON
( 1000 M60 MAX)
I MIT CIUIIM
r-GACK WASH 9CCYU
( 790 MGD MAX)
' NITROGEN '
["removal-]
, FACILITY
RECLAMATION
STAGE
( CARSON
, COLUMNS »
RECLAIMED WATER FOR REUSE
/ RECREATION. IRRIGATION. \
V GROUNDWATER RECHARGE I
MARE UP
SYMBOLS
-WW-DW FLOW
(290 MGD MAX )
BLENDED
WW- OW FLOW
OCEAN OISCHARGE
VIA OUTFALL ANO
SEPARATE DIFFUSCRS
NOTE
I PLANT AIR ABOVE AREAS WHERE WATER SURFACE
19 BROKEN IS TO BC PLACCO UNDER NEGATIVE PRESSURE
ANO EXHAUSTED THROUGH RECALCMAT40N FURNACES
•tam i rmriiiT raoctn
-------
FIGURE V- 17
PROPOSED OUTFALL LOCATION
is
it
REA
NO-*** 1
I. Ill JC.ti I>1I| I4M s<
.A«a JN ^ . ..
IS
»0«* i>
J RBa m kc
i\
tc*n»0ai
14
*A-"3s« :'e n TJ.ji
pnQHiamo oumpinc
* ^05.59
*#*./
MCA
n
auCSCO
r ISA 1)4/
>*C
JO — 4— J
' *"v> .:.,• /I / PoS,. ° c,.
17
4 S»
»
A ^
:r V- ' S •»
•'• ;I\ . '.;. a;.
J* K-ttJ-
hlot apca •
14""'
I*
17
*» It
u. f; HtaSM \
Ktlhr 1
\
" \
Vt>3'»IL
CCX
7>Y
14 - 14 '•;•/.7..• •
14
IS IS . \
2000• diffueer
¦ 14 13
Suitable
Disposal
Areas
V •
i
17
DEPTH 40 T0 60 Fil-
1" - 8000'
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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 vertical dispersion would be about 2 to
1 and the total dilution 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 extending 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.
Wet Weather Outfall. The wet weather outfall will
include 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 approximately 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 enlarged
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 com-
plete Master Plan has been implemented.- At that time all
wastewaters will be discharged to the Ocean via the Southwest
outfall. This time period will approximate the economic
life of the interim outfall.
To date, the Regional Board has not adopted waste discharge
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
111
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
of BOD allowed under EPA's definition, the total load from
the combined discharge would be about 20,800 pounds per day.
Presently, the combined discharge of BOD from the two plants
is about 66,800 pounds per day. Therefore, there will be
a total reduction in the BOD load to the Bay of about 46,000
pounds per day due to an increased level of treatment pro-
vided at the expanded Southeast facility. However, the
total BOD load at the combined Southeast discharge point
will increase from its existing value of 12,700 pounds per
day to 20,800 pounds per day. Although this is a substantial
increase in organic loading to the South Bay it is not
expected to have any adverse effects as the combined discharge
will occur further offshore in deeper water. The combined
discharge might cause a dissolved oxygen depression of
0.07 mg/1 which is not considered significant.
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 removal 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
numerous pump stations, force mains, and connecting sewers.
The primary features as shown in 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 0.3 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 rainfall monitoring program.
The sizing of the transportation system is critical to the
success of the Master Plan. For the Plan to function as
envisioned, 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
storage basins, pipelines, and tunnels to the treatment
facility. To provide these capabilities, the system must
be sized so that all functions can occur when necessary from
any individual retention basin to utilize the maximum control
available with one integrated system.
112
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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 trans-
port capacity 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 relationships 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 sizing of facilities and will soon be available.
Since the usefulness of the other components of the Master
Plan are limited 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,
monitoring, 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 Farallon Islands will transmit actual 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.
113
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
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 efficien-
cies 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.
Central Control
The information collected at the central receiving station
is continuously fed into computers for the purposes listed
above. The computers can bring 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:
114
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
The reliability of information circuits and the advan-
tages and disadvantages of using radio signals, leased-
line telephone circuitry, or a completely 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 result
from system malfunctions in terms of flooding, unnecessary
bypassing, or transportation system overloading.
A comparison of the cost, reliability, and effectiveness
of the proposed control system with a mechanically and
hydraulically controlled system which responds auto-
matically to storm conditions in localized areas without
external control. The latter system would be designed
based on probabilities of rainfall rates.
Operation Responsibility
mmJkkmmm m i m—mm—ttit-m.
To be effective it is essential that the complete control
system be fully managed and operated by the department
responsible for wastewater management. Operational technical
functions in the use of computers, transmission equipment,
etc., are secondary 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.
115
-------
The Wastewater Master Plan
The proposed system may be overly coup lex and result in
unnecessary 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 interceptor 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. Reductions in numbers of upstream
retention basins, increases in storage capacity in the
cross-town tunnels, and simplification of tunnel and reten-
tion basin design will greatly reduce the complexity of the
control system.
SUMMARY
The treatment rates, pumping rates, storage volumes and
locations, and transportation system capacity are closely
integrated 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, h 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 transportation system and ocean outfalls.
116
-------
CHAPTER VI
SUBALTERNATIVES
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.
117
-------
Subalternatives
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.
118
-------
FIGURE VI-1
NO CONSTRAINT PROfRAM STA81NA
STAGE CO NSTRUCT ION
I1-IT6 •% Outliu
«>e*»0«0 luMSir
t«AT«lf*? HANt
to «*ce
Htm u«t
?•{trwtM nA**
»**.**?! • 00<"> H6d
5,IO,13t
SLIH*
>0,000 'T
«lt|l 9C»*»
*
pmt wt*f»l* o>"u!(«$
-*A« 31,000 M
tO'T •*»!» M»»*
HtHH**'
f
f
tt»*«
SOUTk|«|T
to *se ^
uh n*»c>sce c<^ t c
fan itrio CO
A
"ii.tr© M w,MVt
PROJECT COST ; wiu oas of can a*s )
ALTCKNATC
Sf A6E 1
STAG! 2
STAGE 3
STAG! *
STACC »
S?AGC ft
STAGE 7
stAce •
A
2 0
3 0
1 S
1 Z
33
2 T
1 ft
2 0
•
a r
3 0
1 5
l t
33
3 ft
t 0
2 ft
C
»f '
3 0
l S
2 8
3 3
ft T
2 ft
4 0
0
* 1
3 o
i S
V •
3 3
9 ft
3 t
ft ft
AtttdNAtl
st*se »
STAOE 10
STAGE II
it AGE 12
STAOC 13
STAOC >4
STAOC <5
3 UCC l«((|| IIU tt MtTri »||l! •»(» I| illtiaall
-------
Subalternatives
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 less
diverse; 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.
119
-------
Subalternatives
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.
120
-------
Subalte rnatives
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.
121
-------
Subalternatives
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
122
-------
Subalternatives
TABLE VI-1
COMPARISON OF WET WEATHER OOST VS. AOOCMPLISHMENTS
Exist. ALTERNATE
Ootid.
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.
2 from "Existing Condition".
123
-------
Subalternatives
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 baaches 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.
124
-------
PART III
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
-------
CHAPTER VII
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE MASTER PLAN
PRIMARY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
Implementation of the Master PI em 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
125
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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
126
-------
Environmental mpacts
of the Master Plan
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 500,000 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
127
-------
Environmental Irnpacts
of the Master Plan
to protect as much of the natural habitat as possible. In
addition, when completed, the site will be relandscaped to blend
in with the natural surroundings which are presently open space.
Physical/Chemical Impacts
————-—— nri ** .
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
willbe 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;
128
-------
FIGURE VII-1
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
H
1
1
1
—1
h—
1
—1
H
1
—1
MATERIALS HANDLING
CONCRETE MIXERS
CONCRETE PUMPS
CRANES (MOVABLE)
CRANES (DERRICK)
1
1
H
1
1
H
STATIONARY
PUMPS
GENERATORS
COMPRESSORS
i
1
H
1
1
IMPACT
EQUIPMENT
PNEUMATIC WRENCHES
JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS
PILE DRIVERS (PEAKS)
1 1
1
1
1
1
OTHER
VIBRATORS
BAWS
H
1
4
NOTE' Bwtd on limited available tfato samptaa
-------
FIGURE VII -2
TYPICAL SOURCES OF COMMUNITY NOISE
REPRESENTATIVE SITUATIONS
BUSY URBAN STREET
100 ft. FROM HEAVY TRAFFIC
COMMERCIAL AREA
QUIET SUBURB (teytfnw)
QUIET SUBURB (mtftftim}
QUIET RURAL Mgkttfmt)
SOURCES
.110
JET AIRCRAFT AT 1000 ft.
100
90 TRAINS AND SUBWAYS AT SO ft.
TRUCKS AND MOTORCYCLES AT 50 ft.
80
POWER MOWER AT SO ft.
BUSES AT SOft.
70 AUTOMOBILE AT SOft.
.60 AIR CONDITIONER AT 20 ft
POWER STATION AT 80 ft.
SO
,40
30
dl(A) (A-vaJght*d sound Itvtl)
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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 area1s general
economy.
129
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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.
Enerory. 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
130
-------
Qivircnnental Iirpacts
of the Master Plan
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
131
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
outfall was placed in operation in 1963. Dr. North
inspected the area near the discharge in the late
19 50'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 19 65 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 faunal 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
132
-------
Environmental Iirpacts
of the Master Plan
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 196 8 (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
133
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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 1968 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 zoeae 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
134
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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
WPCF
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 1973 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
135
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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
136
-------
FIGURE VII -3
QUADRANGLE 408
0ULF OF THE FARALLONES Sj
37° 80'
O <£P
3»
_ SAN
FRANCISCO
INDOLE FARALLON
SOUTHEAST
FARALLON
190
37° 40
naut. mil**
DEPTH CONTOURS in fMt
J5-/ Crow (action of Qulf of tha Farallonaa, ahowlnfl location of Square 488 (actually It la a quadrangla)
which It a MCtkm of an orld uaad by th« Department of Flah and Qama for aubdivldlng tin California
eoaat.
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
the fisheries. This area was second only to San Francisco
Bay as a source of striped bass. Square 455 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 Parallones 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 455 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 1957, analyzed stomach contents of 1004 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
137
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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.
138
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
Lingcod. Lingcod (Qphiodon 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
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, eel 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 196 8
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 4 55} 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
139
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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 103 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 2 3 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
phytoplanktonic 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
140
-------
Qivironmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
bait by partyboat and other fishermen. 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. Ho 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 at 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 planktonie
existence as larvae lasting for months.
141
-------
Environmental Imapcts
of the Master Plan
Many juveniles settling off San 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
142
-------
FI8URE VII -4
DUNOENESS CRAB FISHIN8 0ROUNDS IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO AREA
%
» i
/
FAMALLC
V«-A
B0DE8A
BAY
PT. REYES
,FARALLONES
k PILLAR
I
LEOENO
DUNOENESS CRAB
FISHING GROUNDS
O 10 to
PT. ANO NUEVO
"» %
'* V
v"\ v
SAND HILL
BLUFF
Hr.'i
MONTEREY
»** A
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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
foraminifera, especially Elphidiella hammai, 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
143
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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 Qxytoxum 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
144
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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.
KelF» 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 1972
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).
145
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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 N2r and other gases. Emissions from
the waste gas burners will include CC>2r 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
146
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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
147
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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 coliform levels are attained
during the rainy season and can be attributed to wet
weather overflows of combined sewage. Historical data
collected from 1967 through 1972 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 coliform 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 coliform 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.
148
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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/m2 (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.
149
-------
Environmental Inpacrts
of the Master Plan
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
150
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
as no information is available from which to
calculate mass emission rates for storm or
combined discharges of pesticides. The great
dilution factor coinbined 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 dis-
posal schemes include transportation to the Delta to
raise the level of islands and improve flood protection.
This as well as other plans are being considered in
a regional context and are not limited to the City and
County of San Francisco alone. Future proposals for
solid waste management will be evaluated in subsequent
Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Reports.
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
151
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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 inaddition 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.
152
-------
Qivirarmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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 43-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.
153
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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.
154
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
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, blowers, chlorinators,
etc. A 1968 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 for 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 thd 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.
155
-------
TABLE VII-1
ENERGY SUWMtf
err* and coam of san francisoo wastewater facilities
Total Ehergy
Ehergy Purchased
Total Eherqy Available
Ehergy Used
Surplus
Produced Gas
10s x therm3
per year
Gas
L03 x therm
per year
Elect.
10 s x kw-hr
per year
Gas
10s x therm
per year
Elect.
10s x kw-hr
per year
Gas
10s x therm
per year
Elect.
10' x kw-hr
per year
Qnergy Gas
10s x therm
per year
Present
Operations
2013
137.1
20.32
2150.1
20.32
881
20.32
1269
CDnpleticn
of Stage I
4000
0
102.0
4000
102.0
1900
102.0
2100
Oarpletion of
Master Plan 4360
0
97
4360
97
1960
97
2400
^Iterm ¦ 100,000 OTU's
-------
Environmental Irrpacts
of the Bister Plan
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.
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 2020. 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 than 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 the Master Plan facilities will be sized to handle
minor population increases, the major sizing factor for the
system will be the wet weather flows, which are many times
larger than dry weather flows. Consequently, there will be
added capacity in the system to treat dry weather wastewaters
in excess of those projected. It is anticipated, however,
that the Master Plan facilities will have only a very minor
effect on growth within the City.
157
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
An area outside of the City which will be served by the City's
system is the Brisbane-Guadalupe Valley area, which is adjacent
to San Bruno Mountain. The proposed Rancho Visitacion develop-
ment on a portion of San Bruno Mountain has been the subject
of much public controversy concerning the conversion of open
space land to residential development.
To insure that the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
policy of area sewerage facility consolidation was carried
out, San Francisco was directed in 1972 to sign an agreement
with the Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement District (MID)
to provide sewerage service to that agency. This requirement
was included as a special condition to a 10,000,000 EPA and
SWRCB grant to San Francisco, in December 1972, for solids
handling facilities at the Southeast Plant.
The Brisbane-Guadalupe Valley area will be connected to the
San Francisco system after completion of an interceptor to
transport wastewater from the Guadalupe Valley MID to the
City's system. This project was funded with EPA and SWRCB
grant monies in December 1972, with the condition that, "the
municipality shall not permit any connections from the
proposed Rancho Visitacion development to the Guadalupe Valley
Municipal Improvement District and the City of Brisbane
sewerage systems until the proposal to develop San Bruno
Mountain has received San Mateo County Local Agency Formation
Commission 'sphere of influence1 determination and acceptance
by the appropriate local jurisdictions."
Although the EPA and SWRCB grant funds only covered the cost
of an interceptor to handle existing flows plus a small
increase, the Guadalupe Valley MID chose to construct a
larger pipeline to provide capacity for future flows from the
San Bruno Mountain area. Consequently, the interceptor being
constructed by the MID does remove a constraint on development
on San Bruno Mountain by providing sewerage capacity.
The construction of secondary facilities at the Southeast
Site will further remove a sewerage constraint from the
proposed development. Consequently, growth in the San Bruno
Mountain area will not be controlled through sewerage service.
Another area of San Mateo County which may be affected by the
San Francisco system is the Daly City area. The North San
Mateo County Sanitation District which serves the west county
area will probably share the San Francisco ocean outfall
when constructed, since the Sanitation District's treatment
plant is just south of the City.
158
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
Although Daly City is now almost completely developed, the
Sanitation District may experience increased flows from
development on the west side of San Bruno Mountain. Conse-
quently, the District's sharing of the future ocean outfall
may provide additional capacity for growth in the San Bruno
Mountain area. The ocean outfall project, however, will
not be constructed for a number of years.
The anticipated flows from San Mateo County are small compared
to the San Francisco flows which the Wastewater Master Plan
is designed to handle, hence they have a very minor effect
upon design parameters for the system.
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.
159
-------
Environmental Inpacts
of the Master Plan
Physical/Chemical
Construction activities may result in temporary alterations
in soil structure. The movement of heavy equipment, excava-
tion, stockpiling of fill 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 Master Plan.
Woodward-Lundgren's report is included in Appendix C 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 m the vicinity of
the Southwest plant cross areas which have suffered
extensive earthquake damage and liquefaction in the past
160
-------
Environmental Irrpacts
of the Master Plan
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 19 57 flow slides
occurred; also, the South line crosses several filled
areas east of the Lake which are potential zones of
liquefaction failure. Therefore, 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.
161
-------
Environmental Impacts
of the Master Plan
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. 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.
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.
162
-------
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
disposal problems. It is considered for comparison and
statutory purposes only. However, in general the no project
concept would have the following environmental impacts.
Primary Construction Impacts
Since the no project alternative does not involve construction,
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 sedimentation tanks
for more efficient solids removal. Whenever the rainfall
intensity exceeds 0,02 inches per hour, however, untreated
wastewater is discharged from the collection system at 41
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 floatable
would continue to be discharged to the Bay 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.
163
-------
Environmental Inpacts of
Alternatives Considered
Disease-causing organisms or indicator organisms (coliform
bacteria) would continue to represent a 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 continued
discoloration problem®.
It should be reemphasized that the existing level of waste-
water treatment and its associated effects as described above
are not in compliance with existing State and Federal regu-
lations ,
As discussed in Chapter II, the existing treatment facilities
present few aesthetic impacts. The North Point and Southeast
Plants are visually compatible with their surroundings.
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 rehabilitating additional digesters which
will triple the present capacity.
Population projections for the City of San Francisco indicate
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, commercial, public,
or governmental uses. This trend is expected 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
industrial wastes will be accomplished by enforcement of
the City's industrial waste ordinance, the lack of future
capacity 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 degraded
by a potential hazard to the public health.
164
-------
Environmental Inpacts of
Alternatives Considered
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 $10,000 per
day), "building bans", and remedial measures. These actions
could halt all development within the City and also force the
City to comply with existing waste discharge 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
facilities at the 41 wet weather overflow structures or at
some consolidation 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
facilities 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 explained in Chapter VII.
The large number of separate treatment facilities proposed
by this alternative would provide greater construction employ-
ment but would necessitate considerable land acquisition
involving changes in land use.
Primary Operational Impacts
The resulting impacts of this alternative would be beneficial
to the biological environment. Treatment of wet weather flows
would remove many pollutants normally discharged to the Ocean
and Bay. In general these effects would be similar to those
impacts of wet weather treatment previously described for the
Master Plan in Chapter VII.
Impacts to the physical/chemical environment are largely
dependent upon the quality of treatment provided under this
alternative. As discussed in Chapter IV, high-rate treatment
165
-------
Environmental Inpacts of
Alternatives Considered
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 environments.
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 near-
shore waters during wet weather overflows.
Bacteriological quality of nearshore areas would be
improved to provide greater protection to public health.
Removal of some turbidity from wet weather overflows would
provide a beneficial effect to water quality.
Solids removal by treatment of wet weather overflows 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 at very high-flow
rates. System failures would undoubtedly negate bene-
fxcxal 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
operation of the many small treatment facilities could com-
pound problems in these areas.
Individual treatment plants would probably require increased
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
alterantives considered.
Recreational potential of San Francisco Bay and the marine
environment would increase due to the removal of all untreated
waste overflows. However, the cost of this alternative has
been estimated at $3 billion which far exceeds that of the
Master Plan and therefore is not as cost-effective.
166
-------
Environmental Iirpacts of
Alternatives Considered
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
providing secondary treatment facilities and new deep water
outfalls at all three plants was also considered. This concept
was rejected for further analysis because of economic reasons
($1 billion for plant expansions, exclusive of collection
and transport system modifications); however, the environmental
impacts 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. Upgrading
of the North Point Plant would also require 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 displacement, turbidity, and settleable
materials. These effects 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. Construction
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:
167
-------
Environmental Irrpacts of
Alternatives Considered
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 associated
with movements of personnel, materials, and vehicles.
There would be a temporary interference with navigation
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.
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 affected
by the existing discharges would be benefited.
Continued long-term discharges to the Bay environment
would add nutrients 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 similar
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 effect
would not be noticeable only within the dilution zone since
dilutions of 20 to 1 would be achieved within 15 seconds.
168
-------
I
Environmental Impacts of
Alternatives Considered
Disinfection by chlorination, or some other suitable means,
prior to discharge would be required to meet the bacteriological
requirements for protection of public health. Toxicity
attributable to chlorination, if used, would have a negligible
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
discussed in Chapter VII.
Secondary and Problematical Impacts
The secondary and problematical impacts of this alternative
would be similar to those presented in Chapter VII.
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 modifications),
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
release 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.
Another variation on the "one plant" alternative is to con-
solidate San Francisco's system with those of other Bay Area
communities. This alternative was first proposed by the Bay-
Delta Program in its 1969 Final Report, as discussed in
Chapter IV.
169
-------
Environmental Inpacts of
Alternatives Considered
The current Interim Basin Plan of the State Water Resources
Control Board calls for San Francisco to handle its own
problem separately from those of other communities, since
transporting San Francisco's wet weather flows southward would
require huge transport facilities, and would create problems
of treating large variations of flow at the point of treatment.
Another consolidation alternative, the transport of San Mateo
County wastewater northward into the City's system, would
aggravate the existing treatment problems in the City.
The concept of allowing San Francisco to treat its wastewater
separately from those of other communities was recently
endorsed by a consortium of firms preparing a Basin Plan for
San Francisco Bay under the sponsorship of the State Water
Resources Control Board. In a "Basin Contractor" report of
March 5, 1974, entitled "Development of a Water Quality
Control Plan—San Francisco Bay Basin," the consortium of
Brown and Caldwell, Water Resources Engineers, and Yoder-
Trotter-Orlob stated the following:
"At a basin strategy planning level, no viable alternatives
are suggested to the existing program (the Master Plan).
The City's Master Plan for Wastewater Management was
reviewed carefully and found sound from an operational
and environmental viewpoint. There are, of course, many
variables at a 'facilities level' which can be analyzed
in project reports for specific facilities or systems, but
the general planning direction (initial upgrading of
Bay discharges, followed in the near future by conveyances
to a deep ocean outfall) was found compatible with
Basin Objectives."
With respect to consolidation, the above report did recommend
that the North San Mateo County Sanitation District be required
to utilize any deep water ocean outfall which may be constructed
by San Francisco.
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 1,000 mgd of treatment capacity and nine million cubic
feet of storage. This concept is the Master Plan; therefore,
all impacts are discussed in detail in Chapter VII.
170
-------
Environmental Iirpacts of
Alternatives Considered
SEWER SEPARATION
As previously discussed, the City of San Francisco is served
by a combined sewer system? therefore, the alternative of
constructing 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.
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
more economically feasible. Therefore, reclamation was also
considered 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
explained in Chapter IV. However, reclamation should be
considered as an extension of the Master Plan and not as an
171
-------
Environmental Iirpacts of
Alternatives Considered
alternative to the Master Plan. Generally, the impacts of
small-scale reclamation would be the same as those of the
Master Plan described in Chapter VII. A large-scale reclama-
tion 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. However,
since a reclamation project would entail a rather extensive
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 A.
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 environment;
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.
172
-------
CHAPTER IX
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
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 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 disaster
and resulting impacts from such a failure are
minimized.
Flexibility
1. Ability to adapt to advanced technology and future
discharge requirements.
173
-------
TABLE IX-1
FUNCTIONAL, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RATING3 OF ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTS
Storage/Treat.
The Master
Plan
No Project
Many Indiv.
Treatment
Plants
Expand
Exist.
Plants
One Reg.
Plant w/o
Storage
Sewer
Separation
HWCTIONAL
Regulatory Ocrtpliance
Implementation
Reliability
Flexibility
Reclamation Potential
BOOICMIC
Total Capital
Cost ($million)
EMVIKMENTAL
Unaocept. Marginal Unaocept. Good
Unaocept. Unaocept. Unaocept. Uhaccept.
Unaccept. Unaccept. fferginal Marginal
Unaocept. Uhaooept. Marginal Marginal
Marginal Marginal Acceptable Marginal
3000
iooo1-
2000
Good
Acceptable
Good
Good
Good
672
Construction Inpacts None Signific. Signific. Signific. Signific,
Operation Inpacts Signific. Signific. Signific. Moderate Minimi
Secondary Impacts Signific. Moderate Moderate Minimal Minimal
Enviroranental Rankiner 6 5 3 2 1
Marginal
Unaocept.
Marginal
Unaocept.
Marginal
3000
Signific.
Signific.
Moderate
4
aRating Scale
FINCTICNAL
"Good
Acceptable
Marginal
Unacceptable
ENVIRONMENTAL -
Significant
Moderate
Minimal
Enviroranental Ranking
1 is most acceptable
6 is least acceptable
°Plant cost only exclusive of collection system modifications
-------
Functional, Economic, & Environmental
Rating of Alternative Concepts
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.
175
-------
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
adverse impacts which cannot be avoided are summarized in the
following paragraphs.
Present research indicates that the operational aspect of the
proposed Master Plan will have minimal adverse environmental
impacts. The most potentially adverse environmental effects
are anticipated to occur as a result of the long-term con-
struction 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. Physical/Chemical
Disturbance of soils along the proposed inter-
ceptor routes and possible alteration of the soil
profile.
Temporary increase in erosion.
Temporary additions of dust and other associated
air pollutants.
Temporary increases in turbidity of Bay and
marine waters.
Temporary loss in aesthetic appeal in localized
areas.
176
-------
Statutory Sections
3. Social and Economic
Temporary disruptions in utility service.
Temporary disruption of pedestrian and vehicular
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 te!rminal 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 and Economic
Minor interference to commercial trawling.
Increased energy demands for system operations.
177
-------
Statutory Sections
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
exercised in excavation activities, equipment operation,
and other construction associated enterprises to minimize
all environmental disturbances. Specific measures to accom-
plish this objective include the following:
178
-------
Statutory Sections
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 operations
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
establishments 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
liaison 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.
179
-------
Statutory Sections
Vehicles hauling materials in and out of construction
sites should use designated routes as required for
public convenience.
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.
Dechlorination 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
protection 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
require adequate covers and any other control to reduce
noise to non-objectionable levels.
Odor Control. Improvements to existing treatment plants,
as well as proposed treatment, storage, and pumping
facilities must include enclosures and air-scrubbing
equipment in sufficient stages to fully control operational
and accidental releases of damaging or odorous gases.
Conservative Pollutants. Industrial source control,
chemical 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 conservative pollutants.
180
-------
Statutory Sections
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.
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 discussed
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 during
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 backup 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. There 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 becomes 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
productivity 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
treatment will be at least secondary with the possibility
of advanced processes being required. This solution provides
early compliance with Regional Board discharge requirements
in addition to providing an option of a final Bay or Ocean
181
-------
Statutory Sections
dry weather discharge. This choice will enable the City to
reassess long-term requirements 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 antici-
pated that any reduction in the long-term productivity 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.
The improved dispersal of the marine effluent, the reduced
potential 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 observed which would materially reduce the long-term
productivity of the marine environment.
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The lost resources associated with any major public works
project 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 reten-
tion 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 peri-
pheral areas to a centralized collection point for
treatment and disposal to the Ocean.
Chemicals such as chlorine, ferric chloride, and poly-
mers used in the treatment process are essentially
irretrievable.
182
-------
Statutory Sections
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
As discussed under "Secondary Impacts" in Chapter VII, the
Master Plan is not expected to have a significant growth
inducing impact. The City is now almost completely developed,
and further growth could only occur through replacing existing
structures with high density development. Because the City's
wastewater system will be sized to treat wet weather flows,
however, there will be added capacity available to handle
dry weather flows above those now anticipated.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost-effectiveness analysis is necessary in evaluating
engineering projects to assure that major problems are
resolved 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
developed, 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 bypassing of untreated wastewater. This
requirement raises numerous 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 individual units may be
expanded, relocated, or redesigned to achieve maximum effec-
tiveness for future investments in wastewater facilities.
Therefore, a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis is not
presented in this report. Instead, the estimated costs of
the Master Plan are presented in Table X-l and a brief descrip-
tion of the expected results after the Master Plan is opera-
tional is presented in the following paragraphs.
183
-------
Statutory Sections
TABLE X-l
ESTIMATED COSTS OF
THE MASTER PLAN
(1974 dollars)
Stage
Estimated Cost
I
II
III
IV
$231,000,000
149,000,000
161,000,000
131,000,000
Total
$672,000,000
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
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
environment of the Bay, particularly in nearshore waters
adjacent 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 condi-
tions .
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
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.
184
-------
Statutory Sections
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
discharged into the Ocean approximately four miles offhosre.
During storm conditions, flows exceeding the capacity of
the secondary treatment facilities will be diverted to the
1,000 mgd capacity Level I treatment facilities at the South-
west site and discharged into the Ocean approximately two
miles offshore. At this time, wet weather overflows will
be virtually (90 percent) eliminated.
By the addition of storage capacity, higher levels of control
can be accomplished. The additional costs over the base
case of eight overflows per year (90 percent control) for
higher levels of control are presented below:
Number of
Overflows
Level of Additional Capital Cost
Control $ million $/capita7yr1
8/year
4/year
1/year
1/5 years
90%
95%
99%
99+%
0
63
189
332
0
6.50
19.50
34.50
'Assuming 6% interest over a 30-year period.
185
-------
Statutory Sections
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AUTHORS
J. B. Gilbert & Associates
Jerome B. Gilbert
Keith S. Dunbar
James Sequeira
Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Joseph Califf
City Planning Department
Dr. Selina Bendix
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:
State Agencies
Department of Fish and Game, Mr. Donald Lollock
Department of Water Resources, Mr. Donald Finlayson
State Water Resources Control Board, Mr. James Cornelius
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco
Bay Region, Mr. Fred Dierker
Air Resources Board, Mr. William Lockett
Local Agencies
City Public Works Department, Mr. Robert Levy
Environmental Groups
Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Gerald Meral
Friends of the Earth, Ms. Connie Parrish
Special Consultants
Spectrum-Northwest, Mr. Wallace Stokes
Woodward-Lundgren and Associates, Consulting Engineers and
Geologists, Mr. Edward Margason
Sasaki, Walker Associates, Inc., Mr. Kalvin Piatt
Dr. P. Wilde, Professor of Oceanography, U. C. Berkeley
Dr. H. B. Seed, Professor of Seismology, U. C. Berkeley
186
-------
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.
187
-------
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 Dover Sole, Microstomus
pacificus." Fish Bulletin 85. California Department ot
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
II
188
-------
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, Oncorhvncus
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. Oceanographies 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, 1971.
189
-------
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 Project.
Department of Public Works. August, 1972,
San Francisco, City and County of. San Francisco Land Use
Tabulations for 19 70. 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 1963-64, 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, 19 72.
State Water Resources Control Board. Clean Water Grant Program
Regulations. August 16, 1973.
190
-------
State Water Resources Control Board. Environmental Impact
Report and Public Participation Guidelines for Wastewater
Agencies'"! July, 1973.
Sunuier, 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 1-198.
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.
191
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
STUDY OF THE POTENTIAL
FOR
RECLAMATION OF WASTEWATER
FOR THE
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
March 1974
J. B. Gilbert & Associates
1101 R Street
Sacramento, California 95814
-------
Appendix A
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 infiltra-
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.
192
-------
Appendix A
SUMMARY
RECLAMATION NEED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
Sari 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-Sunspt Plant for use in Golden
193
-------
Appendix A
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.
194
-------
Appendix A
"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
195
-------
Appendix A
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
196
-------
Apnendix A
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.
197
-------
TABLE A-l
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
Qiantity
(mgd)
1.0
4.0
1.0
Total dry
weather
Total dry
weather
Possible
Year of
Implemen-
tation
existing
1980
1980
2000
2000
Current Cost
Other Cheapest
Responsible Cost Alternative
Agencies C/1,000 gal C/l,000 gal
none
none
30
17
Owners of
individual
golf courses 22
US BR5
DWR6
USSR
DWR
28-40
33
251
251
251
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
Total dry
weather
Groundwater Recharge
Santa Clara Valley 90
Industrial Use
Direct Reuse
Total dry
weather
2000
Prohibited
Not
feasible
Prohibited
USBR
Santa Clara
CFC&WD,7 DWR
Industrial
users
lCost of San Francisoo water to large users.
2Existing cost of Delta Mendota Canal water;
3Cost of South Bay Aqueduct water (Reference
''Cost for punping brackish water.
5United States Bureau of Reclamation.
6Department of Vbter Resources.
7Santa Clara County Flood Control and Water District.
44 3
Not calculated
due to regula- 103
tory constraints
Same as above 1.5l
25l
if new supplies were developed,
2).
Restrictive bacteriological
requirements
Presently prohibited by State
Department of Health
Subsequent toxicity and
biostimulation requirements
Prohibited by State
Department of Health
this cost could double or triple.
-------
Appendix A
BACKGROUND
RECLAMATION NEED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
San Francisco Bay area conununitities 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.
199
-------
Appendix A
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:
200
-------
Appendix A
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.
201
-------
Appendix A
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.
202
-------
Appendix A
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).
203
-------
Appendix A
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.
204
-------
Appenoix k
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.
205
-------
Appendix A
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 A-2 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 Francisco1s 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.
206
-------
TABLE A-2
AVERAGE ANNUAL DRY AND WET WEATHER FLOWS
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DRY WEATHER
ft rw
WET WEATHER FLOW
(AF/MD)
ANNUAL
AFAR
AF/MO
AFAR
JAN
FEB
MARCH
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
JULY AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
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
Dotal 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
Cento ined
North Point
and
Southeast
Basins
7850
94,200
3650
2670
2240
1130
470
110
17 17
200
710
1780
3200
16200
-------
Appendix A
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 (Cf^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 Tables A-3 through A-6.
208
-------
TABLE A-3
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
HEAVY METALS
North Point Plant Southeast Plant Richmond-Sunset Plant
High
Lew
Ave.
High
Low
Ave.
High
Lew
Ave.
Constituent
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/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
Zinc
0.45
0.24
0.35
4.00
0.24
1.15
0.45
0.16
0.23
Lithium
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
Seleniun
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
Aluminum
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
Bariun
0.40
O'.Ol
0.10
0.50
<0.02
0.07
0.20
0.02
0.09
Beryllium
0.0073
<0.001
0.0021
0.0037
<0.001
0.0014
0.0040
<0.001
0.0011
-------
TABLE A-4
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
PHYSICAL PARAMETERS
Constituent Units
Color units
Conductivity ymhos
Floatables mg/1
Odor (rocm
temperature)
North Point Plant
Hign
low
Ave.
Southeast Plant
High JLcw Ave.
Richmond-Sunset Plant
Htgft
LOW'
138
60
71 210 75 120
2,001 789 1/800 5,220 2,160 4,653
10.0 2.4 4.2 33.0 2.7 10.3
192 80
1,360 625
45.0 2.8
AVE?."
109.4
752
17.5
Threshold
Number 24,915 537.5 7,780 112,500 532 23,885 38,230 320.5 8,531
Settleable
Matter ml/1
Total
Dissolved
Solids mg/1
Total
Solids mg/1
Total
Suspended
Matter mg/1
Total
Volatile
Solids mg/1
Turbidity JTL
Volume
Suspended
Matter mg/1
Tenperature °C
18.0 2.0
1/010 386
5.0
13.0 2.0
4.6
22.0 5.5 10.2
881 2,940 1,114 2,092
1,160 269 1,043 3,400 1,490 2,383 1,373
480 135
533 230
240 70
163
303
125
422 100.5 146
22.0 18.0 20.0
462 150
826 441
270 100
380 136
290 1,047
567 1,049
196 200
235 1,017
449 183 345
504 579
155 208
243 300.8
105 152
94 192.9
20.5 16.8 18.5
21.9 17.0 19.5
-------
TABLE A-5
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
CHEMICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL
North Point Plant
Southeast Plant
Richmond-Sunset Plant
Constituent
Units
High
Lew
Ave.
High
Lew
Ave.
High
Low
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
OOD
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/l
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/i
84
22
78
396
156
242
41
16
31
Sulfide
mg/l
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
i
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
Total
Organic
Carbon
mg/1
140
67
107.3
353
78
178
146
84
101
-------
TABLE A-6
SAN FRANCISCO WASTEWATER QUALITY
NUTRIENTS
North Point Plant
Southeast Plant
Richmond-Sunset
Plant
High
(mg/1)
Low
(mg/1)
Ave.
(mg/1)
High
(mg/1)
LOW
(mg/1)
Ave.
(mg/1)
High
(mg/1)
Lew
(mg/1)
Ave.
(mg/1)
Ammonia—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
Grthophosphafce
6.3
3.2
3.61
6.0
0.5
3.2
9.9
4.7
5.44
Total Phosphate
8.5
5.3
6.17
15.0
5.6
7.9
12.5
6.3
8.20
I
-------
Appendix A
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/1
<1,000
1,000-2,000
>2,000
B. Percent Sodiun
%
<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.
213
-------
Appendix A
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.
214
-------
Appendix ?
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 A-7 through A-19.
215
-------
Appendix A
Report Title:
Author;
TABLE A-7
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
NORTH MARIN-SOUTH SONOMA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM - 1972 (Reference 1)
J. Warren Nute, Inc./Jenks & Adamson/Yoder-Trotter-
Orlob & Associates
Identified Markets for
reclaimed wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Open Space1*
Outside Area
Present
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
3,6533
5,0453
All
wastewater
155
15 s
Year
1985
1985
Quantity
AF/year
undefined
undefined
Go St
$/AF
1502
ISO2
1980
6,730
15
2000
20,175
15:
1980
>5,045
15
2000
>5,045
15
All
1980
wastewater
All
2000
wastewater
All
1980
wastewater
All
2000
wastewater
216
-------
FIGURE I
SUB REGIONAL STUDY AREA BOUNDARIES
YOLO
o
Woodland
?w*T
SACRAMENTO
S ON 0 \ M A V Lou.
Btrrytna
LLEJO
NORTH UAn
SOUTH SONOMA
SOLAN
BENICIA
MARI
oMartinaz
CONTRA COSTA
CONTRA
u Stockton
SAN
JOAOUIN
Oakland
SAN FRANCI
EAST BAY
ALAM
Modesto
o
tuolul""*
STANISLAUS
SAN MJTEO
wood
City o
\
O Sort Jose
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
SAWTA
CLARA
SANTA
CRUZ
o
Scmta Crui
OVERLAP AREA BETWEEN SOUTH
BAY AND OTHER SUBREOIONS
OVERLAP AREA BETWEEN CONTRA
COSTA COUNTY AND ALAMEDA
CREEK SUBREQION
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-7
(cont'd)
Present
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Feed
Other
Combined
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined
•total Local Market
and demand
Total Identified
Local Market3
Demand in Excess of
Supply (deficiency)a
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market
and Demand
Identified Market
Excess9
Demand over Supply/
wastewater total
Quantity
AF/year
240
160
cost1
&AF
36,32,29
8,814
0
13,400s
2000
1980
2000
Future
Quantity Cost1
Year AF/year
§/AF
1980 1,120
50'
All
wastewater
2000 41,110 114-1315
1980 12,900
0
0
16,600
61,600'
217
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-7
(cont1d)
Present
Future
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess over
identified market9
Excess over Supply
deficiency
Feconmended Reclamation
method
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
4,590
13,400
None
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Reason for not utilizing
all wastewater
Public Health Problems
1980 3,700
1980 16,600
61,600
1980- Recreation
1985 Lake/Outside
Use
1985- Recreation
1990 Lake Domestic
Reuse/Outside
Use
All to be
utilized
All to be
utilized
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all local
markets in detail
Emphasized local
landscape irrigation X X
lOost in excess of secondary treatment
2Wastewater treatment cost only
'Seasonal demand
"Considered a "created" market
5Cost of treatment, reservoir, and recreation facilities
6 Interpolation
'From Table 9-23
8Fresh water sources are available
'Excludes open space irrigation and reservoir storage
-------
Appendix A.
Report Title;
TABLE A-8
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE/A STUDY FOR THE SANTA
CLARA COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER DISTRICT/
PHASE 1 FINAL REPORT - JULY 1973 (Reference 2)
Author: Consoer-Bechtel
Present
Future
Identified Markets for
reclaimed wastewater
Direct Reuse (Danestic)
Groundwater Recharge
local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
local
Agricultural1
Landscape
Open Space3
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Peed
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
219
-------
Apcendix A
Other
Combined
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined
Ibtal Local Market
and demand
TABLE A-8
(cont *d)
Present
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
very small
snail
Future
Year
1980
2000
1980
2000
Quantity
AF/year
very small
very small
snail
small
Cost
$/AF
Total identified
local market
Demand in excess
of supply (deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater1*
Excess Local torket and
demand
Identified market access
Demand over supply/
wastewater total
110,000
6,700
115,000
1980-
2000
2000
1985
2000
1985
2000
1980-
2000
2000
377,000
517,000
396,000
509,000
104,000
150,000
190,000
255,000
187,000
327,000
141,000
254,000
220
-------
TABLE A-8
(cont'd)
Appendix A
Present
Future
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess over identified
market
Excess over supply
deficiency
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Year
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
5,000
108,300
1980-
2000 86,000
2000 105,000
Recarmended Reclamation Method None
Reason for not utilizing
all wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Denand
Scope of Report
Considered all local
markets X
1980
2000
X
X
Qnphasized snail scale
landscape irrigation
^so a groundwater recharge market
2 Interpolation
3Considered a "created" rarket
"From Ref. 5 (Sunnyvale, Milpitas, San Jose/Santa Clara,
Union Sanitary District)
221
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-9
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: CITY OF FAIRFIELD/SUBREGIONAL WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT STUDY - SEPTEMBER 1972 (Reference 3)
Author: Montgomery Engineers
Present Future
Identified Markets for
reclaimed wastewater
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local None
Surface Spreading
Injection
CXatside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural 15,000
Landscape
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial None
Cooling
Prooess
Boiler Feed
Other
Combined
SIC Nos
222
-------
Inpoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined
Flushing Suisun Marsh
Total Local Market
and demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Derrend 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
Reccrmended Reclamation Method
Reason for not utilizing all
wastewater
Public Health Problems
Appendix A
TABLE A-9
(cont'd)
Present
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Future
Year
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
All waste
flow
120,000
03
All waste
flow
120,000
135,000
1995 =135,000
6,600
1995 30,600
128,400
1995 104,400
Agricultural Marsh
irrigation1 1985 Enhancement2
All
utilized
223
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-9
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage X
Lack of Datend X
Scope of Report
Considered all local
Markets in detail x
Emphasized local
landscape irrigation
'All sumner flows
^Quality dependent on results of USER study
Oost in excess of disposed, cost
224
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-10
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: CONTRA COSTA COUNTY WATER QUALITY STUDY - 19 72
(Reference 4)
Author: Brown and Caldwell
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic) None
Groundwater Recharge None
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
local
Agricultural Little
landscape
Open Space >29,500 59-80
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
103,000
1980
155,000
2000
314,000
Process1
24,000
1980
45,000
2000
96,000
Boiler Feed
18,000
1980
30,000
2000
56,000
225
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-10
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Other
Carbined
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recneaticnal
For Seasonal Use
Carbined
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
Year
281,29,33,
20,26
Snail
Quantity
PI"/year
Cost
$/AF
1980
2000
281,29,33,
20,26
281,29,33,
20,26
Total Local Market
and Demand
Tbtal Identified Local
Market >174,500
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency) 0
Available Local Wastewater 396,000
Excess Local Market
and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Tbtal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market <221,500
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
1980
2000
1980
2000
>259,500
>496,500
447,000
671,000
396,000
1980 <187,500
2000 <174,500
1980 447,000
226
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-10
(cont'd)
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Reoormended Reclamation Method Reclaim 33600
AF/year indus
trial use
Reason for not Utilizing
all Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment X
Transport
Storage
Lade of Demand X
Scqpe of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail x
Emphasized Local
Landscape Irrigation
Exclude food and paper industries
2Calculated from given data capital at
6% - 30 years
At Cost Over
secondary of
$40/AF2
227
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-11
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
BAY/FINAL REPORT - MARCH 1972 (Reference 5)
Author: Consoer-Bechtel
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Danestic)
GrouicWater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
landscape
Open Space
Outside Area5
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Present
Quantity
AF/year
5,600-
25,0007
Cost
$/AF
156;
5,600-
35,500**
117-
1563
11,210 (st) 7 107
7,100
Future
Year
2000
2000
Quantity
AF/year
5,600-
33,600
33,600-
146,000
1985
2000
26,500
42,700
Cost
$/AF
163
228
-------
Apoendix A
TABLE A-11
(cont1d)
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Boiler Feed
Other
Contained
SIC Nos
Inpouncknent
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 146,000
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 60,500 2000 123,700
229
-------
Aroendix A
TABLE A-11
(cont'd)
Present
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Recommended Reclamation
Method
Quantity
AF/year
121,000
Livermore
Valley-Re-
diarge
Cost
$/AF
Future
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
2000 200,000'
346,0002
South Bay South Bay
& Bayside- & Bayside-
Ncne Recharge
Reason for not Utilizing
all Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total X
Treatment X
Transport X
Storage X
Lack of Demand X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail X
Brphasized Local landscape
Irrigation
'if San Felipe Project not built
2 If San Ftelipe Project is built
3 In excess of Bay Disposal cost
14Livermore Valley recharge (thion Sanitation District & Local Wastewater)
5Livermore Valley Reclamation
6Calculated 6% interest on capital - 30 year repayment
7Palo Alto wastewater - total market includes cnly one alternate
230
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-12
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA CREEK
WATERSHED ABOVE NILES - SEPTEMBER 19 72 (Reference 6)
Author: Brown and Caldwell
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/vear $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Identified Markets for
Raclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Locals 2,800
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural5 9,700S 1980 8,800s
1990 8,000s
Landscape
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
231
-------
TABLE A-12
(cont'd)
Presait
Quantity Cost
AF/Vear $/PF
Boiler Feed
Other
Contained5 5,000
SIC Nos 10-14
Inpoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined6 8,660
Total Local Market
and Demand3
"total Identified Tr>na]
Market2 5 19,300
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency) 0
Available local Wastewater 8,660
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess 10,640
Demand Over Sipply/
Wastewater Tbtal
Excess Local Wastewater
Exoess Over Identified
Market
Appendix A
Future
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
1990 30,000
2000 44,000
1990 18,000
2000 17,000
1990 0
2000 18,0001
1990 30,000
2000 44,000
1990 12,000
2000 27,000
232
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-12
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Reoomnended Reclamation Method5
Quantity
AF/year
8,660
Cost
Year
1990
2000
Irrpoundment 8660
Irrigation 5000 5704
Recharge 0
Reason for not utilizing all
wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
X
1990
2000
Quantity
AF/year
30,000
26,000
30,000
11,000
5,000
44,000
14,000
8,000
X
X
X
Cost
$/AF
165"
130"
'Fran Figure 4-7
2 Excludes municipal reuse
3 Data from report—not sum of individual listings
uTotal project cost
5Frcm Table 4-4
6 Eh tire waste flow—total flow not necessarily reclaimed
other than for recreational use
233
-------
Apoendix A
TABLE A-13
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 $/&F Year AF/year $/HF
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape 11,200-
22,400* 1242
Qpen Spaae
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Heed
234
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-13
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Other
Carbined
SIC Nos
Inpounchent
Recreational & Industrial
For Seasonal Use
Carbined
Total Local Market and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Demand in Exoess of
Supply (deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Exoess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
110,0001
>150,000
>40,000
>150,000
Reoaimended Reclamation Method None
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Cost
$/AF
Year
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
19,1001 382s
67,100* 312
2 3
235
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-13
{cont *d)
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Pviolic Health Problems X
Exoess Costs X
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail X
Emphasized Local
Landscape Irrigation
1 Relate to specifically defined "reasonable"
alternates and not total market for this reuse
in study area
2Reclamation cost beyond secondary wastewater treatment
'Distribution system excluded
236
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-14
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 (Domestic)
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
Process
Boiler fteed
Other
Ccnbined
SIC Nos
237
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-14
{cont'd)
Present
Inpomdment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Contained
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified
Local Market
Demand in Excess of
Svpply (Deficiency)2
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
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
Year
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
3,040
4,600
when
feasible 5,600
1980
2000
5,270
6,500
1,560
4,600
Local
Landscape
Irrigation
Pvblic Health Problems
238
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-14
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Excess Costs
Ibtal
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets
Emphasized Local Landscape
1Frcm Reference 13
2Water provided by the San Francisco
Water Department for the foreseeable future
Irrigation
X
239
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-15
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION FOR BENEFICIAL REUSE FOR
CITY OF PALO ALTO (Reference 9)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Identified Maricets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Danestic)
Groundwater Recharge
l£>cal
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape
Open S£ace
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Peed
Present
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
S/AF
Year
laig-
range
future
Quantity
AF/yft*r
Cost
$/AF
maybe
335
27-212
interned,
future 2,020
long-
range
future >2,940
27-212
27-212
240
-------
Other (at SIP)
Carbined
SIC Nos
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Contained
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater1
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Ibtal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Appendix A
TABLE A-15
(cont'd)
Present Future
Quantity Oost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
in termed.
1/255 27-212 future 1,255 27-212
lcng-
range
future 1,255 27-212
long-range
maybe future
inter.
1,600 future 3,275
>4,200
0
25,000 1985 32,000
2000 36,000
23,400
1985
2000
28,700
<31,800
241
-------
Apcendix A
TABLE A-15
(cont'd)
Present Future
Cost
$/AF
Excess Over Supply
Deficiency
Recommended Reclamation Method Landscape
irrigation
and use in
treatment
plant
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems X
Excess Costs
Total X
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand X
Scape of Report
Considered all Local
Markets
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation X
'Fran Reference 5
242
Quantity Cost Quantity
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year
-------
Anpendix A
TABLE A-16
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER RECLAMATION BENEFICIAL REUSE -
CITY OF SAN LEANDRO - SEPTEMBER 1972 (Reference 10)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Danestic)
Grouncisrater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape
Open Spaae
Industrial
Cooling
Proaess
Boiler Eteed
Other
Canfoined
SIC Nos
Inpoundment
Recreational
Present
Future
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
Year
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
$/AF
500
69-2102 "future" 1,300
69
243
-------
Anoendix A
TABLE A-16
(cont * d)
Present
Future
For Seasonal Use
Contained
Itotal Local Market
and Demand
Tbtal Identified Local
Market
Demand in Exoess of
Supply (Deficiency)
Available Local Wastewater
Exoess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Exoess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater Total
Exoess Local Wastewater
Excess Over Identified
Market
Exoess Over Sipply
Deficiency
Recommended Reclamation Method
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Pttolic Health Problems
Exoess Costs
Quantity
AF/year
500
0
8,100
7,600
8,100
Cost
§/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
69-210 future 1,300
2000 11,700
69
Local
landscape
irrigation
X
X
future 10,400
2000 11,700
244
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-16
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost OuanUty cSSt
AF/Vear S/AF Year AF/year $/rp
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail
Emphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
1Fran East Bay Dischargers Stud/
2Cost in excess of secondary treatment—include distribution and storage cost
3Only local large landscape irrigation use considered
245
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-17
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM/EAST BAY DISCHARGERS/
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - 19 72 (Reference 11)
Author: Jenks & Adamson/Kennedy Engineers
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Direct Reuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
Local
Surface Spreading
Injection
Outside Area
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural1 11,200
Landscape1 9,000
Open Spaoe
Outside Area
Industriad
Cooling
Process
Boiler Peed
Other
Carbined1 16,800
SIC NOS
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
246
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-17
(cont1d)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Contained
Total Local Market and Demand
Ttotal Identified
Local Market1 37,000
Derand in Exoess of
Supply (Deficiency) 0 0
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Exoess
Demand Over Svpply/
Wastewater Itotal
Excess Local Wastewater
Exoess 0\*Br
Identified Market 97,600
Exoess Over Supply
2000
0
Available Local Wastewater2 134,600
1990 215,000
2000 246,000
Deficiency
134,600
1590 215,000
2000 246,000
Reccmrended Reclamation Method Local
Landscape
Irrigation
Reascn for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
247
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-17
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs
Toted
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Some Detail
Emphasized Local landscape
Irrigation
Quantity
AF/year
Cost
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
X
X
X
X
X
Ski"6 t~ 1A (n1CWLar! assumed to annual average maximums)
From Table 5-14 Dry Weather Flows only
248
-------
Annendix A
TABLE A-18
RECLAMATION INFORMATION SUMMARY
Report Title: WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM/SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO-
SAN BRUNO SUBREGIONAL AREA - 1971 (Reference 12)
Author: Jenks & Adamson
Present Future
Identified Markets for
Reclaimed Wastewater
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Direct Reuse (Danestic)
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 Feed
249
-------
ADpendix A
TABLE A-18
(cont' d)
Present
Other
Contained
SIC Nos
Inpoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Combined
Ibtal Local Market
and Demand
Ibtal 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 Ibtal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over
Identified Market
Excess Orer Supply
Deficiency
Rsconmended Reclamation Method
Quantity
AF/year
225
33,311
1,445
0
9,000
Cost
$/AF
781
7,555
9,000
No large
scale-possible
small reclama-
tion for land-
scape irrigation
Future
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
2000 14,600
250
-------
Accendix A
TABLE A-18
(cont1d)
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/yg*r $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Reason for not Utilizing all
Wastewater
Public Health Problems
Excess Costs X
Total
Treatment
Transport
Storage
Lack of Demand X
Scope of Report
Considered all Local
Markets in Detail X
Enphasized Local Landscape
Irrigation
1 Treatment beyond secondary only
2 Water supplied by the San Francisco Water Department
for the foreseeable future
251
-------
Apoendix A
TABLE A-19
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 Iteuse (Domestic)
Groundwater Recharge
local
Surface Spreading
Injecticn
Outside
Irrigation
Local
Agricultural
Landscape
Open Space
Outside Area
Industrial
Cooling
Process
Boiler Peed
Other
Ccnbined
SIC Nos
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/AF
AF/year $/AF
252
-------
Ancendix A
TABLE A-19
(cont'd)
Present Future
Quantity Cost Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF Year AF/year $/AF
Impoundment
Recreational
For Seasonal Use
Carbined
Total Local Market
and Demand
Total Identified Local
Market1 11,800 future 21,000
Demand in Excess of
Supply (Deficiency)2 0
Available Local Wastewater 61,600 1980 72,700
2000 96,600
Excess Local Market and Demand
Identified Market Excess
Demand Over Supply/
Wastewater ibtal
Excess Local Wastewater
Excess Over
Identified Market 49,800 2000 75,600
Exaess Over Svpply
Deficiency 61,600
Reccmnended Reclamation Method Use waste-
water when
possible &
feasible
Reason for not Utilizing
all Wastewater
253
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-19
(cont'd)
Present
Future
Quantity Cost
AF/year $/AF
Quantity Cost
Year AF/year $/&F
Public Health Problems
x
Excess Costs
Ttotal
x
Treatment
X
Transport
X
Storage
X
Lack of Demand
Scope of Report
Considered all local
Markets in Detail
Qn^hasized Local landscape
Irrigation
General Discussion X
1 landscape irrigation and industrial use
2City of San Francisco Water Department provides
water as needed
254
-------
Appendix P
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.
255
-------
Appendix A
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 A-20. 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.
256
-------
Appendix A
TABLE A-20
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL USERS
OF RECLAIMED WATER
county
Napa
Solano
City
Napa
Benicia
Contra Costa Avon
Martinez
Rictmond
Alameda
Nichols
Berkeley
Breryville
Oakland
San Mateo
San Leandro
Hayward
Newark
Alameda
South
San FranciBoo
Santa Clara
Belmont
Santa Clara
San Jose
Product
Concrete
Petroleum
Petroleian
Chemicals
Petrolevm
Chanicals
Petroleum
Iron
Chemicals
Steel
manufacture
Iron
Metals
Leather
Paper box
Soap
Steel
nanufacture
Metals
Steel
fabrication
Sheet metal
Steel
manufacture
Paper box
Pulp t paper
Steel
manufacture
Iron castings
Rubber
Metal castings
Steel
fabrication '
Chanicals
Steel
fabrication
Steel products
Steel
manufacture
Steel wire
Steel
fabrication
Chemicals
Ncn-ferrous
metals
Chemicals
Paper products
Wire products
Steel and
aluminixn
Steel
fabrication
Steel
manufacture
Chemicals
Paper Products
Plastics
No. of
Plants
Estimated Water
Use, ntjd'
0.52
[2.96)
(12.8)
P. 05
(>4.3)
(>5.2)
(167.4)
0.05
(4.0)
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.32
>0.58
0.02
0.05
0.03
>0.1
0.9
unknown
>0.03
0.02
unknown
0.03
0.02
(>1.69)
0.02
0.18
>0.1
0.04
0.02
(7.3)
0.05
0.15
>0.16
0.02
tmkncMn
0.003
0.34
0.17
0.68
0.05
'Figures in brackets () are wastewater flew.
-------
Appendix A
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.
258
-------
Appendix A
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
259
-------
Appendix A
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.
260
-------
Appendix A
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.
261
-------
Appendix ?
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 A-21 and A-22,
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.
262
-------
TABLE A-21
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER PROJECTS3
Alter-
native
Wastewater
Source
Yield
in AF
Aggregation
Point
Conveyance
Storage
location,
Capacity
in AF
Use,
Service
Area
C
EBMJD south, west
and north to
San Francisco
380,000
Union City
East through Livermore
Valley to Altamont,
north to Brushy Cr,
west to DMC at Tracy
Brushy
280,000
Irrigation
DM>
D
San Leandro south,
west and north to
San Francisco
310,000
Alviso
South to Gilroy, east
to Los Banos Cr, east
to DM: service area
Los Banos
400,000
Irrigation
dm:
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
^frcm Table 1, Interagency September 19, 1973 Progress Report
^irst stage yield to 1990
cDelta-Mendota Canal
-------
TABLE A-2 2
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER PROJECTSa
(in dollars per acre-foot)
"Alter- Aggre-
native gation
Conveyance
to Storage
Energy
Storage
Conveyance
frcm Storage
Coagu-
lation
Filtration
Disinfection
Nutrient
Removed
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
^Frcni Table 2, Interagency September 19, 1973 Progress Report
Oosts variable and speculative (see Remarks)
, REMARKS:
o
Ti
1. Assured 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. Gould aggravate drainage problems in DM! service area. Project participation in
drainage export facility is indicated. Additional cost undetermined.
3. Alternative D: Could aggravate drainage problems in DM3 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.
-------
Appendix A
POTENTIAL FOR USING RECLAIMED WASTEWATER
WITHIN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF 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 unti1 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 1934 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 mgd 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.
265
-------
Appendix A
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 19 30's.
Landscape Irrigation
As previously stated, the City and County of San Francisco
operates a 1.0 mgd wastewater reclamation facility in Golden
266
-------
Appendix A
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
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
267
-------
Appendix A
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 $2 3 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
268
-------
Appendix A
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.
269
-------
Appendix A
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
270
-------
Figure Vl*l
MASTER PLAN
NORTH
0 tOOOFT
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 Vf-2
FIRST PHASE OF MASTER PLAN
NORTH
0 2O0OFT
NORTH
POINT
a.
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 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.
-------
Appendix A
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.
271
-------
1,
2,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
REFERENCES
Appendix A
Yoder-Trotter-Orlob & Associates, et. al.; North Marin-
South Sonoma Regional Water Quality Management Program;
December 19 72
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 19 72
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;
TTTi
Jenks and Adamson Consulting Engineers; Wastewater
Reclamation for Beneficial Reuse/An Initial Program for
City Qf gan 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
272
-------
Appendix I
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 Enqineerinq; Task Report
No. D (DPH)/Water Reclamation; 1972.
16. San Francisco Bay Area Interagency Wastewater
Reclamation Study; Progress Report; September 19, 1973.
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; August1972.
20. J. B. Gilbert & Associates; Evaluation, San Francisco
Wastewater Master Plan; March 1973.
273
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
advection: transfer by horizontal motion.
aerobic: requiring, or not destroyed by, the presence of free oxygen.
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.
bioassay: 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.
274
-------
Appendix B
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)j 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.
euphausiidsi small crustacea, members of the plankton community.
275
-------
Appendix B
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.
276
-------
Apoendix B
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.
nitrification: 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.
277
-------
Appendix E
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 Measure Monthly Weekly % 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.
278
-------
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
-------
2730 Adeline Street
Oakland, Co &4607
Mis) -44-4-1256
P.O.Box 24075
Oakland.Ca 9-4623
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ANO GEOLOGISTS
AN AFFILIATE OF WOODWARO-CLYOE CONSULTANTS
Raymond Lundgran
Oaorge E Harvart
B.A.Vollerga
Lloyd S. ClufT
Keehavan Nair
William T. Black
Edward Margaaon
Mahmut OtuB
C.J.Van Til
Ulrieh LuacKer
Barnard B.Gordon
I.M.Id ma*
February 6, 1974
Proj ect: S-130 3 7
J. B. Gilbert 5 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 Margason
Associate
EM: sb
Ends .
OAKLAND - SAN JOSE SAN FRANCISCO • ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
-------
GEOLOGY, SEISMI CITY 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 seismologic 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 5 Associates. Essentially, as
Figure 1 indicates, the plan 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
279
WOODWARD-IUNDG REN S. ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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, IS 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 and 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,
280
WOODWARD-LUNOGREN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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
Bas ica lly 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 lies
in the ocean about 2 miles west of Lake Merced; no part of the
San Andreas fault lies in the land area of the City of San Francisco.
The 1 ast movement of this fault nearest to the city was in 1906
when the west or ocean side moved north as much as 21 feet with
respect to the city side, a movement termed right-lateral motion.
Of the 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,
281
WOODWARD-IUNDGREN S, ASSOCIATES
-------
ApDersdix C
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 act ivity of the San Andreas fault is well 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 1 and
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
282
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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 severs and water mains broken. Wei1-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 fill-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 SO
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
283
WOOOWARD-tUNDGREN £. ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
a milder event than the prior four described (no surface rupture
was found along any fault) above, it nevertheless produced exten-
_ j.»/c A^ndslides 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 195 2 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.
284
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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-land
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:
Magnitude 4
(typical small event)
Event
TABLE I
Distance from
Epicenter
S to 10 miles
Maximum Bedrock
Accelerations
0.10 g
Magnitude 5-1/2
(1957 event)
5 miles
10 miles
0. 25g
0 • 12g
Magnitude 7
(poss. 1852 or 1865 events)
S miles
10 miles
0 . 4 5 g
0. 35g
Magnitude 8.2±
(1906 event)
5 miles
10 miles
0. 55g
0.45g
WOOOWARD-IUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
285
-------
/ipoendix C
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 195 7 event,
it is our opinion that the maximum bedrock acceleration deep
under Lake Merced was probably about 0.2Sg, 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 maj or structure s i tes 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
286
wonnwien-1 iinhapfn t
-------
Appendix C
but it is probably from 200 to 600 yards wide. It is certain
that the outfall will be subjected to right-lateral 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 out fall 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.
287
WOODWARD-LU NOG REN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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 possibilityis 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
288
WOODWARD- IU NOG REN S. ASSOCIATES
-------
/Appendix C
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 ,
289
WOODWARD-tUNDGREN ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
the Sunset line would cross the filled area at the Zoo over
much of the 1852 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
290
WOODWARD - LUNDGREN £. ASSOTlATFS
-------
Appendix C
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 j oint 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 30 feet high with a cover depth varying from 50 to 150 feet.
.Much of this line will be located in Franciscan bedrock, and the re
will be two inactive fault crossings.
291
WOODWARD-LUNDGR EN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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.
292
WOODWAR D - IU N DGR EN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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, 1iquefy 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 trans it 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.
293
WOODWARD-IUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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
p racti cable.
The Southeast Plant
This plant site is located partly on fill and mud in the Islais
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.
294
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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 soil 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
with 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,
differential 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 soil-over-rock may experience as much as 180 percent soil
pressure increase under 0.4g 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
295
WOOOWARO-LUNOGRIN & ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
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
296
WOftflWAPn-l llwnr,DSM r Acc^r. ATcr
-------
Appendix C
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.
297
WOODWARD-IUNDGREN £. ASSOCIATES
-------
Appendix C
REFERENCES
1. "Preliminary Geologic Map of the San Francisco South
quadrangle, California," by M. G. Bonilla, 1971
(Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-311). Two map
sheets, scale is 1:24,000, U.S.G.S,
2. "Bedrock-Surface Map of the San Francisco North
quadrangle, California," 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 Radbruch, 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 Reg ion 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 Investi-
gation Commission," Carnegie Institute of Washington.
6. Wood, II. 0. (1908) "Distribution of Apparent Intensity
in San Francisco," in The California Earthquake of
April 18, 1906--Report of the California Earthquake
Investigation Commission (A. C, Lawson, Chairman),
Carnegie Institute of Washington.
7. Tocher, D. (1959) "Seismic History of the San Francisco
Bay Region," ija San Francisco Earthquakes of March, 1957
(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 Francisco 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, 1. 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.
298
wnnnwABn.inwnr,§iid r *ccAn»Tce
-------
Figure 1 - TOPOGRAPHY OP SAN FRANCISCO
SiFi WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN
^3-
o
0
&
'/
a>
i%2
>,
u
es
-O
C
=3
o
QC
sfi
CO
03
OJ
be
«Q
c
-------
LEGEND;
Gr
aie
CITY
COLLEGE
FAULT
SHEAR ZONE
OOWNTOWAl
GMtiA
3A$tN
~CD—
*.s.
/slA/s cficeeK
Qaf
^ /Bp'Z
CQ WAStfO
CL
f$0£>
/'/?€S TL £r
FAIL U&£-
AUO £X(STiW
oiKE ceosstucz
ft®
S. F~. COUNTY
SAM MAT&O COUhJTY
«••••«• •
N BRUNO FAULT
-SAM ANDREAS
FAUL T
Seals
2 MILLS
—I
FAULTS NOT KNOWN TO BE ACTIVE
CONCEALED FAULTS NOT KNOWS TO BE ACTIVE
CONCEALED ACTIVE FAULTS
,f MAIN WASTEWATER TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
ALTERNATE PIPELINE ROUTES
RETENTION BASINS AND CONNECTING
PIPELINES
WASTEWATER PROCESSING PLANTS
Qd
Qc
QTm
KJ
GEOLOGICAL UNITS
ARTIFICIAL FILL -
CLAY, SILT, SAND, ROCK FRAGMENTS,
ORGANIC MATTER, AND MAN-MAOE DEBRIS.
DUNE SAND —
WELL SORTED riHE-GRAIMTI) 51*AY SAND,
LOOSE IN MOST ftACfiS.
CLAYEY SAND
MERCED FORMATION —
FRIABLE TO OCh'SE SAN0, SJtT, AMD
CLAY; MINOR AM9UNTS Or GRAVEL,
LIGNITE, AND VOLCANIC ASH,
FRANCISCAN FORMATION -
SANDSTONE, SHALE, CHERT, GREENSTONE,
SEPENTINE, AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS.
NOTE; Adopted from Lawscm, 1908; Jennings,
1961; Sthlocker, 1,958 , 1970; Bonilla, 1971.
WOODWARD-LUNDGREN & ASSOCIATES
CCMSUITIHG ENSINKRS AND OEOIOGISTS
2730 ADELINE STREET
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA M607
GEOLOGIC MAP AND PROPOSED
WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN FOR
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT
STUDY
£. M.
L.H.
At Shawn
t - IT-74
jo« wo 3" I30S7
Figure 2
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
APPENDIX D
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT EIR & S
California Air Resources Board
Letter from William C. Lockett, Chief of Evaluation and Planning,
to the Environmental Protection Agency dated April 11, 197 4.
Comment: It does not appear that this project will conflict
with the California State Implementation Plan for
Attaining and Maintaining the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. However, the City will need to
submit a resolution from the Board of Supervisors
in accordance with Section VII D 6 of the State
Water Resources Control Board Guidelines.
Response: The required resolution, which will state the City's
intent to comply with the air implementation plan,
will be submitted to The Board of Supervisors for
adoption and upon adoption sent to the State Water
Resources Control Board.
BASSA, Bay Area Sewage Services Agency
Letter from Paul C. Soltow, Jr., General Manager to Dr. Selina
Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, Department of City Planning,
dated April 19, 1974.
Comment: The facilities program selected is consistent with this
Agency's Regional Water Quality Management Plan—1973.
We, therefore, support your program and offer our
assistance in its implementation.
Response: None
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Letter from Russell W. Porter, Chief of Grants and Statewide
Studies Division to Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Administrator,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency dated April 18, 197 4.
Comment: As staff for the State Historic Preservation Officer,
we have determined that the project may have an effect
on a site on the National Register of Historic Places,
the Jackson Square Historic District bounded by Sanson^
Street, Columbus and Kearny, and Pacific and Broadway.
299
-------
Appendix D
As this historic district is afforded the full
protection of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966, the sponsor should, in compliance
with Section 106 of this Act and with Executive
Order No. 11593, determine if there would be any
adverse effect. This should be done in compliance
with the revised procedures for the protection of
historic and cultural properties as published in
the January 25, 1974 issue of the Federal Register.
In addition, as there are over 30 sites in the
project area on the National Register and over 40
California Historic Landmarks in the area, we would
appreciate your sending us a more detailed map of
the proposed project by which we could determine
additional possibly affected sites.
As there are numerous sites on local registers,
we also suggest you contact the Landmarks Preser-
vation Advisory Board, City and County of
San Francisco, 100 Larkin Street, San Francisco
94102.
With regard to archeological sites that might be
affected, the sponsors should contact the Depart-
ment of Anthropology, San Francisco State University,
San Francisco 94132.
Response: At this point in time, the Master Plan is still in
the conceptual stage and therefore it is not
possible to provide the Department with a more
detailed map of the project. However, the Depart-
ment and other agencies will be contacted during
the development of the future Implementation Plan
Environmental Impact Reports to determine any
possibly affected historic or archeological sites.
SPUR, San Francisco Planning and Urban Renewal Association
Letter from Michael S. McGill, Associate Director to Dr. Selina
Bendix, Environmental Review Officer, City Planning Department
dated April 19, 1974.
Comment: Our primary concern relates to the disruptive effects
that will occur during the construction period for
wastewater facilities. SPUR believes that
San Francisco residents adjacent to construction
areas should be fully informed well in advance of
all construction activities and should have avail-
able to them persons to whom they can make complaints
during the construction period.
300
-------
Appendix D
Response: The Department of Public Works fully intends to
inform all affected residents well in advance of
all construction activities. All future construc-
tion projects will also be evaluated in detail in
Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Reports
prior to actual construction. These future reports
will be subject to public hearings and citizen
input.
People for a Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Written statement by Madlyn W. Stein of the Steering Commit-
tee dated April 22, 1974.
Comment: The planning program should be sensitive to the
recreational aspect of the Fort Funston area and
the beaches near other outfalls scheduled for
construction. Care should be taken during the
construction period for a minimum of disruption.
All such areas should be returned to their natural
condition by total removal of construction mater-
ials , replanting, regrading, or any other means
necessary.
Response: See pages X-3 and X-4.
Comment: The extent of land use change from open space to
public use (wastewater facility) has not been
specifically delineated in the report nor has the
ocean outfall easement location been delineated.
Such an easement would result in a reduction of
park land in the Fort Funston area available to
the public for recreational use. We urge that
planning for this area retain the maximum amount
of land available for public recreation use and
that outfall design be as compatible as possible
with such use.
Response; Land use at the proposed Southwest Water Pollution
Control Plant is described in detail on page V-32.
It is not possible to delineate the exact area
until the actual treatment process is selected.
This matter will be dealt with in detail in the
Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Report
for the treatment plant.
The exact location of the ocean outfall easement
has not been selected to date. However, there
will be an Implementation Plan Environmental
Impact Report prepared for the ocean outfall which
will evaluate the specific impacts of construction
and operation.
301
-------
Appendix D
Friends of the Earth, Inc.
Oral statement of Stephen Wagner for Connie Parrish, representa-
tive of Friends of the Earth, Inc., April 22, 1974.
Comment: Other viable alternatives do exist to the
Master Plan, for instance:
(1) Utilize both ocean outfall locations
recommended by Brown and Caldwell
(Page Vl-4), avoiding wastewater trans-
port south and dividing the effluent
impact on the ocean environment.
(2) Upgrade the three existing treatment
plants to secondary or tertiary treat-
ment and utilize storage for wet weather.
(3) Transport all treated or untreated
San Francisco wastewaters for large-
scale reclaimed use to areas of water
need in the Bay Area.
Response: All of the above alternatives were considered during
the development of the Master Plan. However, they were
all discarded for further evaluation because of the
following:
(1) Because of the disruption caused by the
construction of outfalls, both on land
and in the near-shore zone, it is un-
desirable to build more than one outfall.
The dispersion provided by two outfalls
can be achieved at less cost by building
a longer outfall and a better diffuser
at one site. In addition, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board has recommen-
ded that Seal Rock, at the Northwest
corner of the City be designated as an
"Area of Special Biological Significance"—
an area to be protected from waste dis-
charges. Although the State Water
Resources Control Board has not approved
this designation, it is clear that the
Seal Rock area is an important area of
biological interest.
(2) The alternative of upgrading the three exist-
ing treatment plants to handle the dry
weather flows was also considered during
the development of the Master Plan. This
alternative was discarded for further
analysis due to lack of the necessary
302
-------
Appendix D
land availability at North Point and
Richmond-Sunset plants and the high
operation and maintenance costs.
(3) Reclamation of San Francisco's waste-
waters was considered in detail in
Appendix A, "Study of the Potential for
Reclamation of Wastewater for the City
and County of San Francisco". This study
determined that the most promising poten-
tial market for reclaimed San Francisco
wastewater is for landscape irrigation
within Golden Gate Park and the three golf
courses near Lake Merced. However, the
total seasonal demand (market) for these
uses is only 5.0 million gallons per day,
compared to a total dry weather flow of
125 mgd and a total wet weather flow of
1000 mgd. Transportation of reclaimed
water from areas of need would involve energy
expenditure for pumping and environmental
disruption caused by major pipeline con-
struction which are not justified until
major sources of reclaimable water closer
to the areas of need are utilized. The
Master Plan system is planned so that a
future switch to total reclamation, when
this becomes desirable, can be effected
with minimal changes in present facilities.
Comment: "All the facilities envisioned in the Master Plan would
be required, whether or not large-scale reclamation pro-
jects were implemented.
"This is classic 'assumptions determine the solution'
narrowness, an unfortunate exception to the report's
generally intelligent, comprehensive nature.
"Future Bay Area water demands not handled by conserva-
tion should be met through reclamation, not by
"construction of reservoirs', river destruction."
Response: The maximum volume of wastewater to be treated in San
Francisco is determined by rainfall on the City. If
the wastewater were to be reclaimed, it would have to be
treated to a minimum level of secondary treatment, and
facilities equivalent to the proposed system would have
to be built to collect and treat it.
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. 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.
303
-------
Appendix D
Comment; Energy conservation should be made a primary concern
in all phases of project planning, construction, and
operation.
Response: Significant differences in the energy requirements for
construction and/or operation of various alternatives
will be discussed in the relevant Implementation Plan
EIR's and considered in the design decision process.
SPEAK, The Sunset-Farkside Education and Action Committee
Oral statement of David Lacey, representative of SPEAK, April 22, 1974
Comment: "SPEAK is in favor of the goals of the Master Plan and
is supportive of the need to reduce pollution of the
Bay and the Ocean due to inadequate treatment of San
Francisco's sewage. We are, however, critical of the
lack of adequate treatment of neighborhood needs in the
several hundred pages which comprise the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Report and Statement,"
Response: The Overview Environmental Impact Report and Statement
was designed to evaluate all of the reasonable alter-
natives considering not only ecological and public
factors, but also functional and economic factors. The
more detailed specific environmental effects of the
Master Plan will be evaluated in subsequent Implementa-
tion Plan Environmental Impact Reports.
Comment: "The mitigation measures recommended by the Environmental
Impact Statement do not do enough to compensate residents
for the impact of these projects, which are almost without
precedent in San Francisco's residential areas. The
stability of the Sunset-Parkside area and other resi-
dential areas in San Francisco requires that positive
benefits accrue from these projects to help in some
measure to balance the negative impacts which would
inevitably occur. The undergrounding of public utility
lines on affected streets, especially in the vicinity
of the proposed basins, could easily be accomplished
in connection with other aspects of these projects.
Street beautification through tree planting could also
occur. The implementation of the "protected residential
neighborhood" concepts in the City's Urban Design Plan
could be done if residents in the affected areas desired
to take this opportunity to insist upon an end to the
needless through traffic found on nearly every street
in our community."
Response: The measures suggested above, together with others, will
be considered when final plans for construction of the
retention basins are formulated and will be discussed
in the relevant element EIR's.
304
-------
Appendix D
Comment: In addition, the City should consult with neighborhood
organizations, improvement clubs, and merchant associa-
tions to guarantee continued liaison with the affected
communities.
Response: No decision will be made at this time. The decision
will be taken under submission for later consideration.
Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter
Written statement of Mrs. Jeanne Lippay on behalf of the San
Francisco Bay Chapter dated April 22, 1974.
Comment: Although wastewater reclamation is discussed, sludge and
gas factors are not dealt with, which is a deficiency.
Response: See pages VII-30, VII-34, and X-6.
Comment: There should be mandatory provision for critical evalua-
tion of the Plan after the first phase is completed.
Response: It is the intent of the Department of Public Works to
continue a critical evaluation of the Master Plan through-
out its development. In addition, as projects are
proposed for grant funding, both EPA and the State Water
Resources Control Board will re-evaluate the Master Plan
to insure that viable options are not being precluded
by the proposed projects.
Comment: There should be mandatory provision for critical evalua-
tion of the retention basins after the first one or two
have been constructed. Specific items to be considered
should be: noise, disruption, and odor.
Response: An Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Report will
be prepared prior to the construction of the first
retention basin.
Comment: There is no discussion of what is going to happen to the
earth dug out for installation of the retention basins.
How much will this constitute in cubic yards?
Response: This subject will be discussed in detail in a subsequent
Implementation Plan Environmental Impact Report,
Comment: Will the City or Regional Water Quality Control Board
provide adequate means for monitoring toxic industrial
wastes?
Response: The City's Industrial Waste Ordinance contains the
necessary provisions.
Comment: The report should clearly highlight major decision points
which will occur over the next twenty years.
305
-------
Appendix D
Response! The subsequent "Overview Facilities Plan" will contain
a detailed implementation schedule, including major
decision points.
Comment: The report does not clearly address the alternative of
land disposal of the wastewater.
Response: See Appendix A.
Comment: There should be provisions for more citizens input.
Response: This will be done insofar as feasible through community
meetings, the Citizen's Advisory Committee, and future
public hearings.
Comment: Communities which will suffer disruption because of
construction of retention basins and transporter system
should be compensated in some way.
Response: See response to comments by SPEAK.
Comment: Construction at Lake Merced and Fort Funston must be
done in such a way as to preserve the fragile dune-beach-
ocean ecology.
Response: See Pages VII-7 and X-3.
Comment: We raise the question as to whether this plan has been
designed to accommodate the new community proposed by
the Crocker Land Development Corporation on San Bruno
Mountain.
Response: See Page VI1-36.
Central City Coalition and District Council No. 5, EOC.
Oral statement of Leland S. Meyerzove, Co-chairperson of the Central
City Coalition and Chairperson of District Council No. 5, EOC.
Comment: "I don't think you're ever going to be able to please
anybody where the final plant is going to be and I
think we should recognize that factor."
Response: None
Comment:
"So, we would like to see in the future as the further
implementation programs come before you that they are
written up previously with members of SPEAK, the
people in the Richmond areas and those in between,
so that you have the input into the statement itself
rather than on public record afterwards.
"And I think that on this kind of basis we could
accomplish a lot further to get this work done."
306
-------
Appendix D
Response; This will be done insofar as it is feasible. See
also Page V-25 of the FEIR.
Ms. Joyce Haerr
Oral comments at hearing of April 22, 1974.
Comment: "...what sort of replacement is planned for many of
the antiquated system of pipes we now have? If many
of the pipes will have to be replaced, should we not
re-evaluate the alternatives with this in mind?"
Response: Replacement of old pipes does not affect evaluation of
the Master Plan alternatives. The storm and sanitary
sewers cannot be separated in small sections scattered
around the City because this would necessitate building
a separate line to bring the storm flow from each
separated section to an appropriate discharge point at
the periphery of the City. Once the Master Plan is in
effect, future replacements will be made with compati-
bility with the Master Plan in mind insofar as construc-
tion funds are available. San Francisco's ongoing
Capital Improvement Program is supported by General
Obligation bonds approved every 4 to 5 years.
Comment: "...how many outside experts have looked at this plan
and the alternatives? What kind of documentation of
cost factors was done on the alternatives to the
'Master Plan?1"
Response: Experts from three independent consulting firms and
various Federal, State and Regional agencies have
looked at this plan and the alternatives. Detailed
cost documentation can be found in Master Plan
Supplement II and in Department of Public Works
Annual Reports.
Comment: Increased media coverage and hearing notice posting
on telephone poles would improve public knowledge of
the potential impacts of projects such as the
Wastewater Master Plan.
Response: None.
Solid Waste Management Subcommittee of the Northern California
Committee for Environmental Information
Oral comments by Ms. Ariel Parkinson presented at public hearing
on April 22, 1974.
Comment: "Well, our subsidiary in other words, endorses con-
struction of the retention basins and tunnel and
pipeline system necessary to transport all of San
Francisco's dry weather wastewater to two plants
307
-------
Appendix D
where it will receive secondary treatment, and
conversion of the North Point Plant to a wet
weather facility."
Response: In the near future, the North Point Plant will be
converted into a wet weather treatment facility.
However, the Master Plan calls for eventual abandon-
ment of the North Point Plant and treatment of wet
weather flow at a plant which will probably be
sited in the southwest portion of the City.
Comment: "I would like to say in conclusion, I think that it's
rather interesting that we've done really half the
job of making a water system for any of the Bay Area
communities and I think the question at issue here is
whether this generation is really going to complete the
job or whether it's going to simply patch it up.
"Half a job is procuring the water. The other half is
disposing of the water in a way where it enters the
California drainage system, the drainage system for the
State of California once again in a usable condition and
an ocean outfall is not what I would consider usable
water for the State of California."
Response: There is no environmentally or economically desirable
method of re-usinq San Francisco wastewater until such
time as either reclaimed water can be used for drinking
water or other sources of reclaimable water closer to
areas of need are exhausted.
General Paul Berrigan
Oral comments at hearing on April 22, 1974.
Comment: "First, we haven't got a standard of water of the Ocean
versus the Bay and we're going to dump it in the Ocean
because somebody says the standard for the Bay is going
to be higher than for the Ocean.
"I think we ought to have a standard for the Bay before
we get any further so we'll know and we can make a cost
comparison."
Response: Because of general biological agreement that estuarine
environments are both biologically more productive and
more sensitive to environmental disturbance than marine
environments, it is expected that final effluent standards
for the Bay will be more stringent than those for the
Ocean, if discharge of effluent to the Bay is permitted
at all. Because of this it is assumed that ultimate
disposal of effluent will be to the Ocean; however, the
final decision has not been made and the Master Plan
308
-------
ApDendix D
includes allowance for the possibility of Bay
discharge. The decision on this point will be
discussed in full in a future Implementation Plan
EIR.
Retention basins and tunnels are very expensive.
The costs are grossly underestimated.
All cost estimates used in the development of the
Master Plan were generated, using the most up-to-date
information available at the time. More recent
information does not indicate that an alternative
to the Master Plan would be more cost-effective
to the existing plan.
Rather than upstream basins, big retention basins
should be built along the shoreline. Crissy Field
(Presidio) would be a good place for a retention
basin.
Crissy Field is on Federal land and Department of
Defense permission would be required for its use.
Permission for similar use of this area has been
refused in the past. A retention basin roof strong
enough to support the weight of aircraft landing at
Crissy Field would be extremely expensive. This
sea-level retention basin site would require a greater
expenditure of energy for pumping that sites at higher
elevations which permit gravity flow.
Planning Association for the Richmond
Oral comments of Ms. Diane Clarke at the public hearing on April 22,
1974.
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
309
Comment:
Response:
Comment:
Response:
"If retention basins are found to be the only viable
alternative, the citizens of the Richmond would like
to know the potential effects on the neighborhood
of the maintenance of a periodic or emergency nature,
the potential for air pollution, odor and methane
gas production."
See pages Summary-13 and V-25 of the Master Plan EIR & S.
San Francisco is now on the State Water Resources Control
Board's Fiscal Year Priority List for funding of an
$800,000 study and design of a retention basin. Once
constructed, this basin will be tested to determine the
acceptability of retention basins.
"In terms of what we would like, if the retention basins
must be built, then we certainly would expect that the
neighborhood would benefit substantially in terms of
street beautification, planting of trees, and the other
things that have already been discussed today."
See response to this point as raised by SPEAK.
-------
Appendix D
Sari Francisco Ecology Center
Oral comments of Martin David McLain.
Comment: "I commend it to your attention that the Environmental
Impact Report and Statement which we have been review-
ing should include a quantitative summary of materials
recoverable with new reclamation techniques and that
this be appended to the Report and Statement to show
that such planning is a basic and integral part of
sanitation processes."
Response: Discussion of reclaimable materials will be included in
the subsequent EIR's for relevant Implementation Plans.
Issue Committee on Environmental Protection of the Bay Area Citizens'
Action group.
Oral comments by Edward L. Spira at the public hearing on April 22, 19
Comment: "First of all, we are pleased that the City and County
of San Francisco has finally developed what appears to
be generally a viable program of wastewater management
and one which will, we believe, prove to be its effec-
tive contribution to the protection and enhancement of
water quality conditions in the Bay system. We cannot
help but observe, however, that the development of this
program is somewhat tardy. The Draft Environmental
Impact Report and Statement is, we believe, a reasonably
thorough examination of the impacts involved.
"Two, while we can appreciate the complexities of the
program and the problems of staged construction, we still
think that 20 years is too long to have to wait for a
fully effective wastewater management system. We there-
fore urge that the proposed span of construction be
shortened wherever and whenever possible. We specifically
recommend a 15-year maximum target period."
Response: The rate of implementation of the Master Plan will depend
upon the availability of funding and the time required
for construction.
Comment: "Three, while it would be desirable to have zero
occurrences of overflows from the combined sewer system,
we fully recognize the unreasonable idealism of this
objective. Nevertheless, we think it is a worthy
objective toward which to strive. We believe that the
proposed objective of reducing overflows to an average
of eight days per year is reasonable as an interim goal.
The ultimate goal should be one of significantly less
average overflows per year."
310
-------
Appendix D
Response; The Master Plan provides for any desired degree of
control of overflows on the basis of the number of
retention basins constructed. This number will depend
upon available funding.
Comment: Operational results from the first retention basin should
be carefully reviewed and any indicated modifications
should be made.
Response: See Summary, Page 13.
Comment; "We do not feel that the question of point source control
of unique discharges, that is industrial wastes, et
cetera, has received quite the attention it deserves.
It is generally conceded that better regulations and/or
laws and better monitoring is required in order to
prevent or severely limit the discharge of conservative,
that is, persistent pollutants, into receiving waters, or
preferably, even into the main wastewater streams. Of
all the esoteric pollutants or potential pollutants, the
heavy metals have been given the most attention and it
would appear that a significant amount of information
concerning the incidence of heavy metals in San Francisco's
wastewater streams has been developed.
"By contrast, however, the esoteric organics have
apparently been given little attention, except indirectly
through the vehicle of the amorphous grab-bag category
of "toxicity". But toxicity, as we understand it, does
not evaluate the phenomenon of food chain concentration
build-up. We wonder, for example, what kind of persistent
odd-ball chemicals and biochemicals get discharged into
San Francisco's sewers from the various laboratories and
similar facilities from the city's various hospitals and
other medical facilities?"
Response: The San Francisco Industrial Waste Ordinance complies
substantially with Federal requirements and in the case
of compatible pollutants is stricter. However, as EPA
defines effluent guidelines for various industries, the
Industrial Waste Ordinance will be updated to meet the
new requirements.
Jack Oppenheimer
Oral comments at public hearing on April 22, 197 4.
Comment: Staff comment was requested on the feasibility of separa-
ting surface runoff from industrial and residential
sources at the source for new developments.
Response; See response to comments of Ms. Joyce Haerr.
311
-------
Appendix D
Marguerite Warren
Oral comments at public hearing on April 22, 1974.
Comment: "We (as Citizens Wastewater Advisory Committee) accepted,
as I said, the thought of having one holding tank,
retention tank, on the basis it would be an experimental.
Hopefully, and this was the thought of the Wastewater
Management Committee in their recommendation, hopefully
feeling that in time to come and over a period of the
next 15 years or less, someone would come up with a
better program."
Response: See pages Summary 13 and V-25.
Inner Sunset Action Committee
Oral comments by Marsha Lindeen at hearing on April 22, 1974.
Comment: Would like to know whether this "treatment plant is
going to be providing for an additional 27,000 people
who will be residents of the San Bruno Mountain Project,
since I've been told that this treatment plant has
already contracted to provide the wastewater manage-
ment for the San Bruno Mountain Project which is still
being opposed by the local people."
Response: See the section on "Secondary Impacts" in Chapter VII.
Russian Hill Improvement Association
Oral comments by Peter S. Hockaday at hearing on April 22, 1974:
Comment: A higher level of publicity about the Wastewater Master
Plan would have been desirable.
Response: We have no control over media coverage of any project.
Comment: Expressed concern over retention basins.
Response: Same as before.
John Inase
Oral comments made at hearing on April 22, 1974.
Comment: "There has not been any research done on the effects of
low salinity water being dumped out into high salinity
marine environment."
Response: True. Any research which becomes available will be
discussed in the Implementation Program EIR for the Ocean
Outfall.
312
-------
Appendix D
Southern Promotion Association
Oral testimony of Mrs. Andrew Gallagher at hearing on April 22, 1974.
Comment: "Now, I would like to know just exactly what position
this report has put industries in. Are they going to
be penalized or taxed in any way?"
Response; Industrial discharges will be assessed along with other
contributors to the San Francisco system to defray costs
of constructing and operating the wastewater facilities.
In addition, industries generating high strength or
toxic wastes will be required to pre-treat them prior
to discharge into the City's sewers.
Comment: Automation of the system would be desirable.
Response: Future facilities will be designed to be as automated
as possible.
Marine Civic Improvement & Property Owners Association, Inc.
Letter from Charles Cars, President, to the Department of City
Planning, dated April 11, 1974.
Comment: At a meeting of the Board of Directors of this Association,
held on April 10, 1974, the following resolution was
unanimously passed:
1. "That a letter be sent to the City Planning
Commission, a copy to Robert Dolan, Clerk
of the Board of Supervisors for copies to
each Supervisor, as follows:
2. "That the North Point Sewage Treatment Plant
be retained,
3. "That the proposed plan for trans-City tunnels
to the west portion of the City be held in
abeyance, and
4. "That we encourage immediate purchase of land
for the South Bay sewage treatment plant.
Response: None
Regional Parks Association
Letter from Alice Q. Howard, Corresponding Secretary to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, dated April 11, 1974.
Comment: "It is not reassuring to know that the (proposed)
correction will still allow an average of at least
eight times a year large discharges of raw sewage
313
-------
Appendix D
to issue forth from some fifteen points of
origin, many of them at or near public beaches....
we must protest in strong terms this continued
degradation of public parks."
Response: See response to comments of the Issue Committee
on Environmental Protection of the Bay Area
Citizens' Action Group.
Ms. Susan M. Smith
Letter to EPA-Hearings Office dated April 8, 1974.
The EIS should pertain to the entire plan and not one
part of it—the North Point Transport Project.
The EIS is in two parts: a comprehensive EIS on the
Citywide master plan, and on the specific projects to
transport waste from the North Point Plant to the
Southeast Plant.
Value of land use at existing treatment plants and
adjacent areas should consider that treatment plants are
the "higher or better use" and possibility of "camouflaging"
the plant.
Like other major public works, treatment plants can be
attractively designed and landscaped. The North Point
Plant could be expanded vertically at much greater cost.
The space occupied by treatment facilities does represent
a noncompatible use, no matter how well camouflaged, unless
it is an industrial area, and even then problems occasion-
ally arise. Environmental impacts of the master plan can
be decreased by limiting the number of major storage and
treatment facilities in residential, commercial, or
recreational areas.
The costs of damages resulting from earthquakes could be
sufficiently high to justify alternative locations of
facilities.
Appendix C of the EIS contains an anlysis of earthquake
and seismic problems. The risk of an earthquake is always
present, but the occurrences are infrequent. The cost of
repairing damages in all but the most severe earthquakes
would be small compared to the capital and operation and
maintenance costs of the regional system. The cost of
damage resulting from earthquakes should be analyzed in
determining the final location and design of each of the
facilities within the master plan.
A request that a least two companies expert in sewer design
make design suggestions.
314
-------
Appendix D
The basic design responsibility is exercised by the
City's Department of Public Works. The Department has
used recognized experts in the field of waste
treatment and planning, including the firms of Brown and
Caldwell, Metcalf & Eddy, CI^M-Hill, and J. B. Gilbert &
Associates. Each firm has made recommendations concerning
alternatives. If other concepts should be considered,
they can be included in future planning, including the
facilities plan scheduled for completion by the end of
the year and future individual environmental and project
studies.
The City's record of failure and neglect in the field
of waste treatment requires,as a minimum, that the wastewater
system be a division of the San Francisco Water Department.
Studies to date have not analyzed the internal institutional
arrangements of the City. State and Federal requirements
for waste treatment system operation and City departments
and internal City policies should consider organizational
needs for future wastewater management.
City development priorities should restrict sewage volume
until a new system is functional.
Considering the City's combined sewer system and the rate of
growth within the City, the impact of development on compliance
with waste discharge requirements is extremely limited. The
master plan will take at least 15 years to construct and
such a long-term limitation on development or redevelopment
within the City could have adverse economic and social
consequences. It is not likely that the adverse environmental
effects from development would be significant upon completion
of secondary treatment facilities.
315
-------
Appendix D
San Francisco Citizens Advisory Committee
Oral comments made at a Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting on
March 26, 1974.
Comment: The City should develop emergency control
measures to provide continued waste treat-
ment during strikes, power failures, and
other emergencies.
Response: The facilities to be constructed to implement the
Master Plan will be automated to the extent possible.
In addition, the Department of Public Works is in-
vestigating other means to prevent raw sewage dis-
charges during emergencies.
Comment: In discussion of mitigation of construction impacts,
mention should be made of the City's Utility coordina-
tion program to minimize the total amount of digging
and disruption in the City.
Response: CULCOP, The Committee on Utility Liaison Coordination
and Other Projects, meets monthly to coordinate the
activities of public and private utilities in order
to minimize disruption due to the digging up of City
streets.
Comment: The statement should discuss the consistency of the
Master Plan with total Bay Area planning.
Response: Discussion of Bay Area planning appears in Chapter
VIII and in Appendix A.
Comment: A discussion should be included on solids reclamation.
Response: See Page VII-30.
California Regional Waste Quality Control Board, San Francisco
Bay Region
COPY
May 10, 1974
In reply, please refer
to File No. 2426.6008-9-10
(RRS)
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pacific Southwest, Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
and
316
-------
Appendix D
City and County of San Francisco
Department of City Planning
100 Larkin Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Gentlemen:
Subject: Comments on Draft EIR's- Wastewater Master
Plan - February, 1974. (Two Volumes).
My comments on the above subject documents are as follows:
A. With respect to the volume entitled "San Francisco Wastewater
Master Plan - February 1974 - Implementation Program 1 - North
Point Transport Project": -
The alternative chosen appears to employ good use of existing
facilities with least disturbance to the central portion
of San Francisco.
The environmental impacts, except for no project, are as
given in the abstract. It should be clearly stated that
the City and County is looking presently at an interim
disposal location at Islais Creek, rather than the deep
water Bay outfall. Comparative biological data collected
at this Bay site and the proposed ocean outfall site
will be employed for future decisions on Bay vs. Ocean
discharge.
B. The volume entitled "San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan -
February 1974" which evaluates the overall Wastewater
Master Plan does not accurately identify the environmental
impacts of the project, and modifications should be made
in accordance with the following: -
PART I - BACKGROUND
Page 1-3, Paragraph 1. The categories should be similar, that is
(1) inter-tidal, (2) sub-tidal, (3) pelagic, etc. Consult general
text.
Page 1-3, Paragraph 3. What is the source of this information?
This may be true for plankton, but benthic organisms diversity
is not particularly high at the Gate.
Page 1-5. The fifth paragraph states that Seal Rock was designated
as an Ocean Area of Special Biological Significance. However,
the State Board did not include Seal Rocks as an ASBS for the
S. F. Coast. (March 21, 1974).
317
-------
Appendix D
Page 1-20
Under Ecological Data
There is a need to document both study conclusions with actual
data, definition of terms, etc. For example, what does "No
significant toxic response", "toxic effect", and "stimulatory
response" mean?
The data, fish species should be presented (appendix).
Page 1-21
The second and fourth conclusions regarding the 1971 Brown and
Caldwell laboratory tests on Cancer magister are not conclusive.
The Dept. of Fish and Game has recommended that further studies
be completed (Page 7, Paragraph 3 of attached memo dated
1 September 1972). As noted on 1-23, Paragraph 5, the City and
County of San Francisco is aware of the problems and concerns
and have contracted with Brown and Caldwell to do further studies
to substantiate previous conclusions.
Data should be presented in Appendix for all statements under
Section Ecological Data. This tabulation of data should include
the Engineer Science Study conducted in 1969-70 at the Outer Marina
Beach.
Page 11-11
Seal Rocks has not been designated as an Area of Special Biological
Significance by the State Water Resources Control Board (March 21,
1974J. It is recommended that the wording of this section under
Waste Discharge Requirements reflect this fact.
The Orders indicated are not included in the Appendix (twice for
all Orders mentioned).
Page 11-15
A summary of the data for the tests mentioned in Paragraphs 3 and 4
should be included in Appendix for review. In the 4th paragraph
it is assumed that the 44 species refer to "benthic organisms".
This section is poorly written.
PART II - WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Chapter IV
Reclamation alternatives may influence the option of a 5-mile ocean
outfall. Reclamation alternatives should be considered and weighed
carefully in the development of the Plan.
318
-------
Appendix D
Chapter VI
Page VI 4, Paragraph 3, Line 13. "1) The area is, biologically,
relatively barren"; I believe this means that this area of the coast
is "barren" in relation to other areas along the California Coast.
PART III - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Page VII - 12, Paragraph 1, Both the Kaiser Engineer and SERL data
regarding toxicity and its influence on the Bay biota has been the
subject of criticism, specifically in area of methodology with
studies of benthor (U. S. Geol. Survey Core No. 677, 1973).
Page VII-12, Paragraph 2. Some of the conclusions are not justified
at this time. For example, trapping techniques may be the result
in the apparent low adult crab numbers. Also, the laboratory bio-
assay tests were not conclusive.
Page VII-21
Again, the conclusions 2 and 3 are not fully justified at this time.
Page VII-24, Paragraph 2. This statement requires the presentation
of data in the Appendix for the reader's examination. There is no way
that one might determine that no difference between controls and
dilutions as low as 1:20 were experienced in biostimulatory studies
by G & C.
Page VII-26, Paragraph 1, last sentence. Near shore areas in the
South Bay which have a higher level of light availability may be
subject to algal production with increased nutrient concentrations.
Page X-3
Under biological - Items should be listed in order of importance.
Summary of "B" Comments
A weakness of the Master Plan (chosen plan) at this point is the
lack of basic biological data to assess the alternatives. On
Page 1-23 (Paragraph 5) the City and County of San Francisco
recognizes this point.
Since all of the viable alternatives have not been examined as
critically with respect to the environmental concerns as the selected
alternatives, it is not possible to provide any judgment, other
than speculation, as to the probable impact of the other alterna-
tives and how they might compare with the chosen plan.
If you have any questions or wish further information, please call
Mr. Robert Scholar.
Sincerely,
Fred H. DIERKER
FHD/had Executive Officer
cc: SWRCB - DWQ, Attn: Mr. James Cornelius, RRS
Attachment: Memo dated 1 September 1972
-------
Appendix D
Response: The obvious errors in the text have been corrected.
The oceanographic data collected in previous studies
occupies several volumes and cannot be easily
summarized or duplicated. It is true, however/ that
a number of unknowns remain concerning the impacts
of the Master Plan on the marine environment.
Several oceanographic investigations are now underway
which are designed to provide answers to the remaining
questions. If additional information is required,
further studies will be conducted as needed. Future,
as well as past oceanographic and estuarine studies
will be documented in subsequent EIR's.
Department of Fish and Game
Memorandum to the Secretary of Resources, received from the State
Clearinghouse:
COPY
State of California
MEMORANDUM
TO: N. B. Livermore, Jr. Date: May 9, 1974
Secretary for Resources
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
FROM: Department of Fish and Game
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report and Statement Review
and Comment for the Wastewater Master Plan and the North-
point Transport System - San Francisco SCH 74040876
We compliment the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and the City
and County of San Francisco for their extensive efforts in the prepara-
tion of the City's complex wastewater management plan. We are en-
couraged by and strongly support the comprehensive studies undertaken
by San Francisco, relative to the solution of its wastewater manage-
ment problems and agree in concept with the comprehensive manage-
ment plan offered.
Nevertheless, we are concerned with a number of statements contained
within the impact report and are compelled to comment upon specific
points as follows:
Page 10: We agree in concept with alternative plans which
include "source control" as the most desirable
objective to reduce the total quantity of pollu-
tants discharged to a bay or ocean environment.
We question the rationale for the statement:
"Long-term discharges to the Bay are likely to
require greater pollutant removals than similar
320
-------
Appendix D
discharges to the Ocean. This reflects the
greater dilution available in the Ocean, environ-
mental characteristics, and likely interpretations
of new Federal effluent requirements." It is the
Department's position that use of State waters for
dilution of pollutants is an unreasonable use of
said waters. In our opinion, source control or
reduction of pollutants within the treatment process
is the only reasonable methodology for wastewater
treatment, with the intent of protecting receiving
water quality beneficial uses.
Page 11: We object to the conclusion expressed in the following
statement: "In addition, detailed biological studies,
that are still in progress (emphasis added) have shown
that the least sensitive area of the marine environment
adjacent to San Francisco is in the Ocean southwesterly
from the City. The report fails to include evidence
of or data to support that conclusion. It is also
apparently contradictory to statements in Chapter VII-13:
"No samples were taken in the near vicinity of the pro-
posed outfall off Lake Merced. Therefore, Brown and
Caldwell has continued its ecological investigation..."
If, in fact, the investigations have not been carried
out to date, the report should so indicate. We recommend
amendment of the statement on Page 11 to reflect the fact
that the marine biological consultants are continuing
investigation and data collection for determining the
least sensitive area off the San Francisco coast.
Data to support the statement that "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-time harm to this
species because of the proposed waste discharge" is
entirely lacking in the report. If such data are avail-
able, we suggest their inclusion to support that contro-
versial supposition.
Page 13: The statement "present research indicates that operation of
the Master Plan will have, at most, minimal adverse environ-
mental impacts" is highly debatable, especially in relation
to data presented in the report. It is difficult to under-
stand how predictions of the environmental impacts can be
made prior to the completion of a number of baseline
studies as proposed by Brown and Caldwell (Page VII-13).
Page 1-10: The statement "depression of dissolved oxygen from waste
discharge at each location is not a critical factor" needs
clarification or amendment. It is our understanding that
the mathematical modeling studies have predicted that
dissolved oxygen is not the responsible or limiting factor
for benthic species diversity as a result of the combined
waste discharges to the Bay.
321
-------
Appendix D
Page 1-20: Although we are aware that Brown and Caldwell, under
contract with the City of San Francisco, performed
an ecological investigation of the impacts of primary
effluent, we do not agree with the interpretation and
conclusions of those studies. Specifically, we dis-
agree with the interpretations of the statistical
significance of a number of the bioassay experiments.
Page 1-21: The statement of findings from Engineering-Science, Inc.,
on the Outer Marina Beach is somewhat perplexing: "Both
the concentrations of microplankton in the receiving
waters and benthic animals in the sediments were low
and represented by a number of varieties. The combina-
tion of low and diverse populations is considered
generally to be representative of a balanced ecology."
Furthermore, we find that open coast sandy habitants
are the most inhospitable of the open coast habitat
types. Most populations of open coast sandy communities
are markedly fluctuating in character. Food, substrate,
and recruitment of larval stages severely limit the
distribution and abundance of the five to seven commonly
occurring species present in this substrate type. All
of these factors warrant extensive and complete pre-
monitoring to insure that no avoidable adverse impacts
will result from discharge to the open coast sandy sub-
strate community, which is, as we characterize it, under
"natural" environmental stress.
We concur with and support the Brown and Caldwell finding:
"The study area (on the Golden Gate Bar
offshore from Ocean Beach) could again
become an important crab fishery area
upon the 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."
We find the following statement to be inaccurate and request
that it be modified to be consistent with the laboratory
findings:
"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."
Our analysis of the data has shown that with the correction
of many of F-test values, which changed the results to
ones of significance, and correction of the inappropriate
322
-------
Appendix D
use of the analysis of variance test, the
bioassay testing supports the contention
that at some dilutions San Francisco muni-
cipal wastewater effluent had and will have
an effect upon Dungeness crabs.
Within the findings of the 1971 laboratory
work, we question the applicability and
appropriateness of discharge of primary
effluent. We recommend that predicted
effluent loadings, in compliance with all
applicable regulatory guidelines, be utilized
in the assessment of impacts of the submarine
diffuser upon the marine environment of the
Central Bay or the Gulf of the Farallor.es.
It should be indicated that the design
criteria used as a guide for selection of
levels of waste treatment, discharge location,
and, most importantly, toxicity criteria were
based upon acute effects of the wastes upon
marine organisms. The Department is continuing
to evaluate the chronic, sublethal impacts of
potential pollutants, including sewage effluent,
upon marine organisms.
Page 1-22: We do not believe sandy beaches or exposed coast-
sandy substrate habitats are "preferred locations"
for domestic sewage outfalls. The report should
indicate that the Brown and Caldwell design criteria
indicated that the sandy areas were most desirable
for the purposes of outfall siting.
Page 1-23: We support the following finding: "A more detailed
description of currents, mass water movement, and
surface drift associated with the proposed discharge
would facilitate a better understanding of that
particular area . . . Extent of possible beach con-
tamination , exposure of the benthos to critical
concentrations (emphasis added) 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." In this regard,
we recommend that the City of San Francisco immediate-
ly and fully investigate these critical areas to
insure that the diffuser and effluent fields will
perform ±n a manner that will not substantially
affect marine resources. If there is serious
question that the oceanographic characteristics
of the discharge area is not adequate to fully
protect marine resources from potential pollutants,
we object to the project as specified.
323
-------
Appendix D
It appears that the City of San Francisco questions
the ability of the proposed system to protect
"receiving water characteristics and the impacts of
waste discharge on marine resources" as a result of
marine waste disposal, since the report indicates
"studies are underway to evaluate the impacts associa-
ted with marine waste disposal especially its toxicity
to marine resources.
Page 11-10: The statement "among the important fish species..."
should be amended to read "among the important
sport and commercial fish species...
The environmental setting for the Richmond-Sunset dis-
charge is inadequate in its description and quantifica-
tion of the marine environment and its fish and wild-
life resources. It appears, for example, that only one
predischarge survey was made for comparative purposes
to estimate recovery of the receiving waters from the
present discharge. Further, the meaning of the word
luxuriance is unclear in the sentence "an intertidal
survey conducted in the vicinity of the outfall... showed
...a significant reduction in...luxuriance~" In
addition, the report states "The influence of the outfall
was not observed greater than 400 feet from the point of
discharge." Our staff has, upon numerous occasions,
observed influences (discoloration of receiving waters,
oil and grease slick) at least 400 yards from the point
of discharge (as does Figure II-3).
With regard to the North Point Water Pollution Control
Plant, one of our primary concerns with the proposed
interim measures of diverting flows from that facility
to the South East plant is that dechlorination for the
additional 65 mgd for the South East outfall is not
reported. Secondly, we note that there will be a
continued wet weather discharge during the interim
period. We understand, however, that a complete EIR
will be prepared when each treatment facility is
designed and constructed.
Page 11-21:The report cites the San Francisco industrial waste
ordinance in reference to toxicity and heavy metal control
as having a high priority. There is no mention, however,
of estimated heavy metal or toxicity levels for the
interim South East discharge or how such will be mitigated.
Page 11-28: In the discussion of compliance of the City's master
plan with State and Federal regulations, we note that the
plan calls for the elimination of continuous discharge
to the bay but not all discharge (i.e., wet weather
flow). The report states that wet weather overflow
will not comply with receiving water standards as set
forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
324
-------
Appendix D
and is an acknowledgment that potentially toxic
materials will be discharged to San Francisco Bay
without water quality control.
Page V-2: Mass emission rates for pollutant discharges during
wet weather flows is higher than dry weather flows
yet it is claimed that effects of the discharge due
to its short-term duration is negligible. Dilution
is supposed to mitigate toxicity, and the Department
is opposed to this management technique.
Page VI-4: We object to the statement referring to the area of
the San Francisco Bar as "biologically barren." It
may be true that the area, when compared to rocky reefs,
has a lower species diversity, and possibly a lower
gross productivity; nonetheless, as the Brown and
Caldwell studies clearly indicate, the area has a
great potential as an important Dungeness crab area
and, as such, must be provided "appropriate protection
for all stages of the Dungeness crab."
Page VII-2: Although the Brown and Caldwell studies may have
indicated the clam, Gemma gemma, to be the most common
large benthic organism in the San Francisco estuary,
we believe the identity and impacts upon other bay
estuarine organisms should be included in the report.
Page ¥11-3: During Stage i-first phase construction of the ocean
outfall, we are concerned with potential impacts of
dredge spoil on benthic and planktonic communities.
Of more concern than the temporary impacts of turbidity
in the water and deposition in the immediate vicinity
are the potential adverse impacts of toxicants contained
within dredged sediments.
Page VII-7: During outfall construction which requires excavation
and disposal of large quantities of bottom material, we
are concerned with the quality of the sediments, especially
with concentrations of heavy metals and pesticides
and the resultant impact on benthic and planktonic
organisms.
Page VII-12: Regarding the discussion of recalculation of SERL data
by Kaiser Engineers, investigations by the Department
lead us to believe that toxicity from chlorine residual
alone has increased to major proportions in San Francisco
Bay. The Bay Toxicity and Biostimulation Study (1971,
Volume IV) found that chlorination was shown to introduce
significant toxicity into effluents regardless of prior
treatment. This may be the largest single source of
toxicity entering San Francisco Bay today. The study
also recommended the regulation of discharge toxicity
to protect the San Francisco Bay-Delta biota. It did
point out the limitations of the Pearson diversity
325
-------
Appendix D
index, used in the SERL study, and recommended
additional benthic diversity indices and other
forms of diversity indices, such as aufwuchs
diversity. Finally, the SERL study showed "the
effects of toxicity on the aquatic environment
are still not clear."
We disagree with the 1971 findings of the Brown
and Caldwell crab bioassay tests based upon our
previous comments relative to the corrected F-test
values and inappropriate use of the variance test.
Page VII-A: In the discussion of the effects of the proposed
discharge upon organisms in the vicinity of the proposed
Lake Merced outfall, we are concerned that suspended
and dissolved organic materials might also adversely
impact species with lesser tolerances.
The statement "concentrations of substances with slow
biodegradability might have selective effects altering
the incidence of sensitive species (emphasis added).
Does this mean decreased productivity standing crop,
or diversity?
Abnormal tastes and odors, in addition to causing fish
to avoid the area, might implant unnatural tastes or
odors to the fish, thereby destroying their value for
commercial or sport use.
Page VII-21: We find the following statement to be inaccurate and
request that it be modified to be consistent with the
laboratory findings:
"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."
Our analysis of the data has shown that with the
correction of the inappropriate use of the analysis of
variance test, the bioassay testing supports or does not
disprove the contention that, at some dilutions,
San Francisco municipal wastewater effluent had an
effect upon crabs.
We again point out the inapplicability and inappropriate-
ness of use of primary effluent to predict potential
impacts, in light of recent State and Federal guidelines
for discharge to the marine environment.
326
-------
Appendix D
Page VII-23: There is an apparent contradiction in the findings
of Tibby et a_l relative to biostimulatory effects
of wastewater.
"Gunnerson...stated evidence for
greater production of marine
plankton in the vicinity of sewage-
effluent discharges is strong."
In the next paragraph, the report states:
"Gunnerson could find no convincing
evidence that the subtle fertiliza-
tion effects of sewage could lead to
dense plankton blooms or eutrophica-
tion in open coastal waters# although
such effects may occur in semi-enclosed
situations."
It appears that there is no evidence to support or
reject the hypotheses of biostimulatory effects of
wastewater upon ocean receiving waters.
Page VII-37: The report indicates that ocean discharge of waste-
water may have a mild biostimulatory effect "which is
beneficial to fish and other aquatic organisms."
Both the biostimulatory effect of wastewater and the
beneficial impact upon fish and aquatic resources are
extremely hypothetical and debatable. Further intensive
studies are required to confirm the report's contention.
Page X-5: We concur with the intent of Toxicity Control expressed
both in San Francisco Bay discharges, as well as ocean
disposal. We strongly recommend the implementation of
dechlorination facilities to limit the risk of toxic
waste discharges to the ocean outfall. However, the
report indicates the only mitigation for the project is
that declorination may be required.
Page X-7: We strongly agree with the statement;
"The consequences of long-term disposal
of wastewater to the marine environment
cannot be adequately predicted."
In light of our comments, it is evident that there is
some question as to the validity of the statement:
"in analyzing the available data, no adverse
problems have been observed which would
materially reduce the long-term productivity
of the marine environment." (emphasis added)
327
-------
Appendix D
Our staff is available to discuss our recommendations and comments
on this report and any relevant additional studies related to the
report.
FOR
Director
Response: See comments on letter from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region.
328
-------
APPENDIX E
(OAKLAND TRIBUNE ARTICLES)
-------
Sunday, March 31 , 1974
dlVERS OF FILIH 51'ILL FOULING S.F. BAY
"San Francisco dumps millions of gallons of human waste onto
the beaches 82 Limes a year as a routine method of sewage disposal.
••The big forty. List of the major dischargers dumping waste
into San Francisco Bay.
"Little ditch, Big ditch. How farmers pollute clean water.
-fhe acid trip. How a few dischargers are ruining a city's
sewer pipes.
-i he battle of the Delta. Legislators and the state's most
fundamental clean water decision.
••'this is the first article in a series examining Jay pollution.
-Subsequent articles will deal with flay pollution from farms,
industries and public agencies.
329
-------
Sunday, March 31, 1974
L tUBUUE [£U 11 ORIAL
Joseph .v. Know land
l£ditor and Publisher
Pollution is a major threat to our very existence.
loo often we talk about the dangers of "pollution" and the
values of "ecology."
Seldom do we do anythingl
As the "power of the free press" carries with it the respons-
ibility to prevent its own misuse, so it also carries the respons-
ibility to implement its constructive use on behalf of the people.
If the Oakland Tribune is to live up to its obligation as a
"Responsible Metropolitan Newspaper," it thus becomes necessary
to report to you any and all dangerous pollution problems and
then "do something about themI"
The Oakland Tribune's editorial staff has therefore been
directed to investigate and prepare a series of reports for you
regarding the pollution of San Francisco Bay. t
The first of such investigative reports appears in todays
publication. It states that chemicals and other pollutants are
being dumped into the Bay by farms, industries, and public
agencies.
Moreover, raw sewage is being flushed into San Francisco Bay
by the city of the same name -- SAN FKANCISCO!
It also states that there are laws which prohibit this
pollution, yet these laws are not being enforced by boards
appointed by the State to do so
It should be noted that on Friday the Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board requested the State Attorney General to
impose "monetary liabilities" related to San Francisco sewer
spillage resulting from the recent municipal strike.
I hat action is totally insufficient!
It deals only with a narrow, isolated issue and avoids the
real problem -- which is the continuing, long range putrification
of our unique and lovely Bay.
Therefore, on your behalf (and on behalf of generations yet
to live here) I have instructed I he Oakland Tribune's legal
counsel to file suit in Superior Court seeking a writ of mandate
to compel the Attorney General and the following boards to enforce
the laws now in effect, but now being flaunted! State Water
Resources Control Board and the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San [• rancisco Bay Region.
In addition, I now call upon our California legislators and
U.S. Congressmen to assume their responsibilities as the elected
representatives of all of us to speak out on our behalf and take
whatever action necessary to discontinue the pollution of San
Francisco Bay.
"1HE BAY BELONGS TO ALL OF US . . . WE CANNOT ALLO.v' II 10
BECOME A CESSPOOL."
330
-------
SUNDAY, MARCH 31, 1974
S.F.'s RAW SEWAGE UNCHECKED
BY FRED GARRETSON
Five years ago The Tribune reported in detail about the
crucial problem of the City of San Francisco's archaic sewer
system which dumps millions of gallons of raw sewage into the
Bay and spreads a blanket of human waste along the ocean beaches.
It happens an average of 82 times each year in the routine
operation of the system.
Last week Tribune reporters and photographers took another
look at these infamous rivers of filth and found that very little
has changed.
Near Lake Merced the children still build sand castles out of
the easily molded brown sludge that stains the beach, and little
boys and old men still sit on the outfall pipe where the oily
flow of the Pierce Street sewer empties into the Bay with a
gentle plopping sound.
On those brisk afternoons when a little rain has swept away
the smog and the great hills look like magic mountains full of
fairy castles standing beside an enchanted bridge, not too many
sophisticated citizens go near the sea. This is the time when
the Hyde Street sewer spews toilet tissue, offal, putrified
grease into the waters of Aquatic Park and feces bob like broken
corks among the pilings at Fisherman's Wharf.
On those days when the fog rolls like a sea wave through the
mansions of Pacific Heights and the raindrops twinkle down
among the big glass palaces on Montgomery Street, the sewers
run wild.
In those times, the sophisticated city's sanitary service
reverts to the primitive and, from a sewer engineer's point
of view, the skyscrapers in downtown San Francisco function
like high-rise outhouses connected to pipes that pour toilet
flushings directly into the Bay at the foot of Jackson,
Howard, Brannan and Townsend streets.
But there have been some changes since Feb. 9, 1969, when
The Tribune first presented a detailed series of stories
examining the San Francisco sewer system.
The city has installed 120 flow measuring devices so there
are now some accurate data — rather than educated guesses —
about how much sewage is pouring into the Bay. Devices have
been installed to alert a central control station whenever key
pumping plants break down and careful surveys have turned up
some previously unknown, or at least unmapped, raw sewage
discharge pipes.
A revised city master plan has been prepared calling for
$672 million in construction of big caverns under the streets
that would function like flood control dams to hold back the
crest of the frothing, surging brown flow whenever the sewers
run wild.
If the proposed master plan is approved, funded, constructed
331
-------
and works like it's supposed to, the San Francisco sewers still
will overflow raw sewage an average of eight times a year,
according to the environmental impact statement on the proposed
new master plan issued last week by the city and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
San Francisco is now, and apparently will continue to be,
the only city in the Bay Area and perhaps the West, which is
allowed to discharge human feces, toilet tissue, various solid
materials and sewage greases onto public beaches and into
marinas, fishing areas and supposedly protected shellfish beds
and recreation waters.
Ironically, it is the issuance of last week's environmental
impact statement that triggers the legal machinery for
San Francisco to file for federal and state "permits" to
legalize its 41 separate raw sewage discharges.
Fog Can Overload Antique System
It reguires only an exceedingly small rainstorm to activate
the wet weather bypasses. Despite some improvements in recent
years, the system still overflows raw sewage out of the 41 vents
every time precipitation exceeds 0.02 inch per hour (two one-
hundredths of an inch of rain per hour).
The Weather Bureau classifies this as a heavy fog or mist.
Denis Mishek, an enforcement staff engineer for the
San Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board,
said the most recent studies show an average of 82 occurrences
of sewage bypass on 46 days in an average year.
A report by the San Francisco Health Department issued
last week as part of the environmental impact statement estimates
that, "The beaches of San Francisco are unsafe for water
contact recreational activities 171 days per year," because of
these raw sewage bypasses.
Earlier reports by the regional board said that the water
at a measuring station near Fisherman's Wharf was regarded as
unsafe 67 per cent of the time.
Even with some improvements in recent years (replacement
of old pumps, etc.) the San Francisco sewer system still is
dumping raw sewage into the Bay and onto the ocean beaches
2.4 per cent of the time, according to the environmental
impact report.
The North Point Sewage Treatment Plant, which handles
almost two-thirds of the city's liquid waste, is operating near
capacity and now overflows "approximately 3 per cent of the
time," according to the implact statement.
The North Point Drainage District discharges sewage into
the San Francisco Marina, Aquatic Park, the beaches east of
the Presidio, close to the ceremonial pier at the Ferry
Building and at spots under various docks and waterfront
buildings between the Golden Gate and the Bay bridges.
The proposed city master plan would consolidate the
existing 41 wet weather bypasses into 15 locations and provide
enough backup storage so that it would require an actual
rainstorm — instead of a winter fog — to make the San
Francisco sewers overflow.
332
-------
The fact that the proposed sewer plan would stir up a
lot of dust during construction of certain big pipelines is
a subject of considerable comment in the environmental impact
statement issued by the city and EPA. The fact that the
proposed system would dump raw sewage into the Bay and ocean
eight times a year — and more often in rainy years — is
brushed over rather lightly in the report.
Central Oakland Has Old Sewers
The problem of sewer bypasses isn't unique to San Francisco.
All systems have some kind of bypass system to dump raw sewage
in case of sabotage or a major flood. All sanitary sewer
systems get some inflow of storm water seeping underground into
cracked or badly connected pipes. There are some places in
the Bay Area — including a small area near The Tribune Tower
in downtown Oakland -- where the old-fashioned combined sewer
system pipes haven't been replaced completely.
But regional board officials say that San Francisco is
the only city in California, and perhaps west of the Mississippi
River, that's designed to overflow raw sewage all along its
waterfront many dozens of times each year.
It's probably the only municipal sewer system in the nation
that automatically malfunctions every time there's a heavy fog.
It's probably the only city in the nation that regularly
and simultaneously discharges raw sewage directly onto the
sands among the bathers at a national park (Bakers Beach),
a state park (Phelan Beach) and a city park (Ocean Beach).
These three points and a number of other scenic places
at the end of various wet-weather bypass pipes are scheduled to
become part of the U.S. Department of Interior's Golden Gate
National Recreation Area. Thus the onus and the liability of
operating contaminated beaches will pass from the city and the
state to shoulders of the National Park Service.
San Franciscans are rather blase about the filthy situa-
tion, in part, perhaps, because San Francisco's newspapers
keep their heads in the sand when it comes to covering
sewer problems.
A major, definitive, detailed report on the San Francisco
sewer problem issued several years ago by the regional water
quality control board was given three paragraphs in the
Examiner and completely ignored by the Chronicle.
Plan To Dig Up Every City Street
San Franciscans perhaps have a right to be traumatic
about facing up to the problem. Rebuilding the system to modern
standards — installing separate pipes for storm water and
sanitary waste — would require digging up every street in the
city and rebuilding the plumbing and foundation drainage systems
in every single building in San Francisco. It would cost about
$3 billion, according to the most recent estimate by S.
Myron Tatarian, the city's public works director, and Robert
Levy, the city engineer.
The master plan that Tatarian and Levy have prepared
would consolidate the three existing sewer plants into two —
near Islais Creek about four miles south of the Bay Bridge,
333
-------
and near Lake Merced on the Pacific Ocean coast. The sewage
from the whole downtown and northern waterfront areas would
be transported to Islais Creek through a sewer pipe as big as
a subway tunnel.
The 57 proposed sewage caverns to be built around the city
would be awesome things. The average concrete-lined cavern
would be 120 feet long, 60 feet wide and 20 feet deep.
Construction would require tearing up a whole block and digging
a hole at least 25 feet deep.
Tatarian and Levy want to build one or two prototype
caverns to make sure that they really will function as designed
without producing odors that would leak through surrounding
neighborhoods as the impounded sewage putrifies.
The citywide system would be completely automated.
Sewage would be diverted into storage caverns when it started
to rain. When the rain stopped, sewage would be pumped out
of the caverns and continue toward the treatment plants.
Computers would regulate the flow so that the treatment plants
would receive only as much of a constant flow as they could
handle at one time.
But eight times a year the combined storm water and
sanitary sewage would fill up all the caverns and then the 15
bypasses would dump raw sewage onto the waterfront. At such
times, many, and often most, of the toilet flushings in the
city would flow directly into the Bay and the ocean without
any treatment.
The aim of this system is to catch "the first flow" of
storm water entering the sewers.
Officials explained that during dry weather sewer pipes
and catch basins are only partly full of liquid, so the walls of
the pipes and basins become coated with filth and grease and
contain large objects, such as rats.
The first rush of storm water pouring through street
gutters and roof drains carries additional filth. The putrid
surging liquid scours the greasy walls of the pipes, creating
a "first flow" that's more contaminated than the contents of an
average toilet bowl.
Grease Coats Sewer Lines
As the storm continues, the quality of the water inside
the sewers improves dramatically. However, this higher quality
flow can't be classified as simple storm water because it
still contains flushings of 715,000 residents and the approxi-
mately 500,000 daily visitors to the city.
Tatarian and Levy said that if the system works as planned,
San Francisco will have the best waste water treatment system
in California. With some rare exceptions, the water flowing
out of storm drains in most cities isn't subjected to any kind
of treatment, and the trash and filth accumulated in the
streets gets washed straight into the Bay, ocean or the
nearest river.
While San Francisco has improved its dry weather treatment
plants in the past five years, the main improvement in the
334
-------
wet weather bypasses was the construction of a small, experi-
mental treatment plant on the end of the notorious Baker Street
sewer.
I he Baker Street sewer used to disgorge its contents onto
the beach directly in front of the dining room picture window
at the St. 1 rancis Yacht Club. In the process of building
the experimental treatment system the outfall was relocated
more than a hundred yards away so that the sewer problem
won't intrude on yacht club diners.
Most civic-minded San I ranciscans know the location of
their neighborhood school, fire alarm box or police sub-
station, but few people ever take the trouble to track down
the location of their neighborhood's sewage outfall. It's
easy enough to do by examining the sewer system maps at
city hall.
lor example, maps and diagrams at city hall trace the
wet-weather flow from the toilets in Mayor Joseph Alioto's
home right down to a big discharge pipe sitting well above the
high tide line at Bakers Beach, once a state park, but which
recently was transferred to the National Park Service as one
of the first increments of the Golden Sate National Recreation
Area.
Children regularly play in and arround the rather smelly
little lake and stream which this sewer outfall has carved
into the public beach.
Persons wanting to explore the outfalls of the San Fran-
cisco sewer system can get a simplified map of the wet weather
outfall locations from the San trancisco Public Works Department.
In general, the outfalls can be found at the foot of the
following streets;
Pierce, Laguna, Hyde, Beach, Kearny, Sansome, Greenwich,
Jackson, Howard, Brannan, Townsend, Berry, Ihird, Fourth,
}• if th, Sixth, Seventh, Mariposa, North Ihird, Marin, Sol by,
Rankin, South Ihird, Mendel1, Evans, Griffith, Yosemite,
I itch, Sunnydale, Vicente and Lincoln.
I here are big outfalls at Mile Uock Beach, Phelan Beach,
Baker Beach and near Lake Merced. The treatment plant
which handles about two-third's of the city's sewage
discharges underwater near Piers 3 J-35, creating the oil
slick where gulls congregate to feed just east of Fisher-
man's Wharf.
Federal Financial Assistance Needed
The document is also the key to unlock the outer doors of the
U.S« Treasury so that San Francisco can seek 87.5 per cent of
construction costs through federal and state grants to construct
a sewer system that would make regular contamination of the
waterfront with raw sewage a permanent part of the way of life
in San Francisco.
The basic problem with San Francisco's sanitary engineering
is that the city uses a combined sewer system to handle both
335
-------
sanitary sewage and storm water. Every other city in California -
and most cities in the nation - use completely separate networks
of pipes for sanitary sewage and to carry away storm water runoff.
In dry weather the system functions fairly well and every-
thing that gets dumped into a sewer, or a creek, in San Fran-
cisco flows down into one of the three big treatment plants that
process and decontaminate 105 million gallons of sewage per day.
But in rainy weather the treatment plants aren't able to
process the flow of raw sewage augmented by the flow of storm
water cascading off the streets and roofs.
The big screens in the sewer plant which are supposed to
scoop up the floatable material start to malfunction. The
flow of filth backs up in the pipes and the city's sewage is
diverted through 41 "wet weather bypasses" around the periphery
of the city which empty onto public beaches, out of the sea
walls and under the docks.
Tomorrow: Major sources of waste.
336
-------
Sunday, March Si, 1974
DA I A DESCRIBES I'EiUL iO HEAL IH
The Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board has a shelf
full of documents describing in disqusting detail how San Fran-
cisco's regular and routine discharge of raw sewage into the Bay
and the ocean creates a hazard to public health,
I he raw sewage is discharged every time precipitation
exceeds 0.02 inch per hour (a moderately heavy fog).
Dr. leng-chung Wu, one of the board's top experts, said
there are two main components of sewage regularly monitored by
the San Prancisco Public Works Department and field-checked by
the board's pollution control staff.
One component is eolifortn bacteria, a common bacteria
found in the intestinal tracts of all animals. Coliform
bacteria are regarded as an indicator that disease-carrying
organisms found in sewage are present wherever coliform is found,
the State Department of i-ubl ic Health standard for water-contact
sports says the coliform bacteria count in water samples must not
exceed 1,000 coliform bacteria for each 100 milliliters of water
in more than 20 per cent of samples.
Dr. .vu showed a reporter two typical reports for December,
197 3, when the grab samples of water taken from the surf at Ocean,
Bakers Beach and Phelan beaches averaged 2,400 coliform, with
maximum counts of 24,000.
At the same time, water samples at Mile Rock Beach, where
the outfall line of the Richmond-Sunset neighborhood sewage
treatment plant is located, reached an amazing 6,200,000
coliform per 100 milliliters of water. rort.unately for the
public health of the Bay Area, this isolated beach is seldom
visited and can normally be reached only by climbing down
dangerous cliffs.
Dr. .Vu said the other component measured in the monitoring
programs is floatable material such as human feces, grease of
sewage origin, rubber products and similar visible material.
Inspectors travel along the beaches and waterfront areas
measuring the size of each piece of human feces or globule of
sewage grease and also record the number of particles of such
material found in a typical port ion of the water or on a beach.
Dr. Wu said ocean waves generally break up the floatables,
so feces larger than one-quarter inch are seldom found on
ocean beaches, though they turn up in the monitoring programs
in the quieter waters of San I- rancisco Bay.
He said inspectors normally look for large collections of
small pieces of human feces and sewage grease in concentrated
lines along the beach. lhese lines, which at first glance
appear similar to tree growth rings, show the location of
high-tide 1ines.
During the port ions of the lunar cycle where the elevation
337
-------
of the high tide has dropped steadily for several days, there will
be a number of clear and distinct sewage lines on the >an i-ran-
cisco beaches, often with insects and vermin crawling across the
fetid mass of human waste. Ihese sewage lines extend quite hi,',h
onto the beaches, affecting not only swimmers, but reaching the
areas used by sunbathers and hikers, according to Dr. wu._
On a typical day, Dec. 17, Dr. .vu' s records showed 15
reports of sewage solids on a portion of the ocean beaches. In
two cases the concentrations were rated heavy, while most other
concentrations were rated moderate.
I he areas listed as heavy were on Bakers Beach, which was
recently transferred from the California State Park System to
become part of the U.S. Interior Department's Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
338
-------
Monday, April 1, 1974
HUGE PLOW Of WAS 1£ IN CO BAY
Tremendous Effect on The Water
By Fred Garretson
l'here are three great "rivers" flowing into San Francisco
Bay which do not appear on any geographical map.
One is a river of "cooling water" and refinery waste from
the Standard Oil Co. of California refinery at Richmond which
discharges 117 million gallons of fluid per day into the Bay on
the north side of Point San Pablo.
The second is a giant flow of treated sewage -- and some-
times raw sewage -- pouring out of a pipe 45 feet below the
surface just south of the Bay Bridge between Yerba Buena Island
and the Oakland Outer Harbor. lhis is the 79,6 million gallons
per day discharge of the East Bay Municipal Utility District
sewage treatment plant in West Oakland,
The third river is the 74 million gallon per day discharge
from the San Jose sewer plant which pours highly treated
sewage into Grey Goose Slough near the southern tip of the Bay.
These are the three largest dischargers on a list of 4 3 top
waste dischargers compiled by the Bay Area Regional Mater
Quality Control Board, an agency whose jurisdiction includes
all portions of the nine Bay Area counties which are tributary
to San Francisco Bay.
A list of the 43 top dischargers in the Bay Area appears
in today's Tribune.
Ihe three largest dischargers produce more than one-third
of ail the waste listed in the regional board's computation,
But the figures don't tell the whole story. The City of
San Francisco, for example, has broken its sewer system into
three separate treatment plants, which, taken together, dis-
charge 105.4 million gallons of sewage (dry weather flow)
per day. Thus San Francisco, which produces 13.4 per cent
of the region's sewage, is by far the biggest municipal water
polluter in the Bay Area.
Other sewer plants are consolidating their operations.
Milpitas has merged with San Jose; Stege Sanitary has joined
EBMUDj Palo Alto, Los Altos, Mountain View and Standford
University have merged; South San Francisco and San Bruno have
merged and may soon be joined by the San Francisco Inter-
national Airport and by a major chemical company, and Burlin-
game and Millbrae are merging.
A number of other mergers are under way in order to
improve the efficiency of treatment processes, and in a few
years the comparative rankings of various dischargers may be
quite different.
339
-------
Standard Oil Co. officials stress that 100 million of the
company's 117 million gallons per day (g.p.d.) discharge is
"once-through" cooling water" pumped through heat exchange
equipment to cool the refinery's high temperature machinery.
Only 17 million g.p.d. has actually come into direct contact with
contaminants such as oil and chemicals, a refinery spokesman
stressed.
If Standard Oil had its way, the company would be ranked No.11
instead of Jm'o . 1 on the waste dischargers list, but because
treated wastewater is mixed with the cooling water before discharge,
the whole outflow is classified as pollution.
I he other two big dischargers -- £BMIJD and San Jose --
shouldn't be regarded merely as sewer pipes emptying somewhere
out of the sight of man. In terms of the environment of the
receiving waters of the Bay, both are major rivers ot "used"
fresh water.
Both the cBMUD and San Jose sewer plants have outflows
bigger than the 114 cubic feet per second mean annual outflow of
the Napa River. The iJapa is regarded as the second biggest
tributary of the day, the Sacramento-San Joaquin oliver being the
largest.
If one took a survey of all of the great rivers and streams
flowing into the Pacific Ocean between the Golden Gate and the
tropical rain forests of Central America, it probably would
rank the EBMUD sewer plant near the top of the list.
The plant, which drains sanitary waste from Oakland,
Berkeley, Alameda, Emeryville, Albany, Piedmont, Kensington and
El Cerrito, would rank not far behind the mighty Colorado
River, which drains one-twelfth of the continental United States
and carved the Grand Canyon.
Which is to say that by any standard, the big sewer outfalls
have a big effect on the Bay.
This is why so many engineers and environmentalists were
shocked when the three big San Francisco sewer plants were shut
down and began discharging 105 million gallons of raw sewage
per day into the Bay and onto the ocean beaches.
A typical reaction came from D. I. Steele, plant manager of
the National Gypsum Co., in Richmond, who telegraphed Gov. Konald
Reagan*. "The discharge of raw sewage by the City of San Francisco
is a deplorable situation. If we in industry were even to con-
template such, we would be severely fined or jailed. I suggest
the National Guard be placed in immediate service to correct
the situation."
fhe Mountain View Sanitary District directors asked the
state to take action against San Francisco's "flagrant violation"
of pollution control law, sayings "Ihe tragedy of the violation
is evident when you consider that the 100 million gallons of
raw sewage discharged in one day created more pollution to the
Bay than 50 years cumulative discharge from Mountain View
Sanitary District."
340
-------
1 here's no easy way to compare sewage dischargers, and the
regional water quality control board has given up the idea of
maintaining some kind of "ien most wanted list" of pollution
law violators.
However, it is possible to pinpoint some of the best and
some of the worst dischargers.
lioger James, assistant executive director of the regional
board, ranks the Valley Community services District at the top
of the list of the best in the Bay Area. Ihis sewer plant,
serving Liverrno re-Amador Valley, including parts of Fleasanton
Dublin and some unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County,
discharges a sewer effluent which enters a vital ground water
basin and is soon reused as drinking water in the Livermore
and Fremont areas.
James said this tertiary treatment plant, whose discharge
is required to meet some of the highest water pollution stand-
ards in the world, is still less than adequate because of the
high salt content of the discharge water going into a critical
area where salty ground water is a problem.
Other treatment plants which James Described as doing a
good job are those run by the City of l'alo Alto, Aapa sanitary
District and the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
(which is pioneering in building facilities to reclaim sewage
for industrial use).
Another top ranking plant is the City of ian i rancisco's
water reclamation plant which takes one million gallons of
sewage per day and after elaborate treatment produces the water
used to irrigate the lawns and fill the lakes in Golden gate t-ark.
Any list of the worst sewer plants in the Bay Area would
include the Richmond-Sunset Treatment Plant in San l; rancisco,
whose main outfall pours onto Mile Rock Beach, and whose
wet-weather bypass lines regularly pour human feces and sewage
greases onto the public beaches in San Francisco.
£ven if one ignores the wet weather bypass lines, the
operation of the rvichmond-Sunset plant during dry weather con-
ditions caused Fred Dierker, executive officer of the Bay
Area Regional Water Quality Control Board, to tell his
directors! "This plant comes very close to the top of the list
of violators in the area."
341
-------
I'HK [OF 4J
l'his is a list of the 4 3 largest dischargers of wastewater
into the flay, as compiled by the Bay Area Regional water
Quality Control Hoard.
DISCHARGER
1-
2-
3-
4-
5-
6-
7-
8-
;so
1
-standard Oil Co. .
-l£BMUD Special Dist
-San Jose, City of
-San i rancisco: North Point
-Union Co - . .
-Dow Chemical Co. .........
-C&tl Sugar
-Central Contra Costa
Sanitary Dist.
i < i i i i
-San Franciscos
Richmond-Sunset
10-
11-
12-
1 i-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
21-
22-
23-
24-
25-
-U.S. Steel Co. ...
-San Francisco: Southeast
-Shell Chemical Co
-Oro Loma Sanitary Dist.
-Sunnyvale, city of .....
-Palo Alto, city of
-Phillips Petroleum
-i lay ward , city of ....
-South San I-rancisco
and San Bruno ....
* • ¦ »
i * I t t
-San Mateo, city of
-Richmond, city of
-Ideal Cement Co.
-San Leandro, city of
-Redwood City
-San Pablo Sanitary Dist.
-Vallejo Sanitary & Flood
Control District
Million
Gallons
Per Day
117.0
79.6
74.0
66.5
52. i
3 0.0
28.8
23.1
21. 5
20.9
17.4
14.0
13.9
13.5
13.4
11.7
11. i
11.2
10.9
10.2
9.9
9.5
7.6
7. 3
6.9
Percentage Of
Total '.taste
Lo Bay
14. 'U
9.9/4
9.2;;
j /o
6. 5/4
i.l'u
3.6/4
2.9;;
2.7/4
2.6/o
2.2%
1.7X
1. 77.
1. 7 7.
1.7/4
1. 5/4
1.44
1.4 X.
1.4/.
i.y/*
1 2/4
1. 2%
0.9%
0.9/.
0 97.
342
-------
DISCHAKGtiU
.Million
Gallons
Per Day
Percentage Of
lotal Waste
1 o Bay
2 6 Mountain View, city of 6.8 0.3k
2 7 Napa Sanitary Dist 6.7 0.3 k
2 8 Marin Sanitary Dist. No. 1 6.0 0.7 k
2 9 Merck !x Co 5.8 0.7 «
JO Menlo Park Sanitary Dist 5.6 0.7k
3 1 Union Sanitary Dist.
Irvington plant 5.0 0.6k
3 2 Burlingame, city of . 5.0 O.G.o
JJ Union Sanitary Dist.
Newark plant 4.8 0.6k
3 4 Stege Sanitary Dist 4.3 0.5.k
3 5 Fairfield-Suisun Sanitary Dist... 3.9 0.5.°
3 6 Concord, city of 3.8 0.5'k
3 7 San Carlos-Belmont 3.8 0.5 k
3 8 San Rafael main plant 3.2 0.4/«
3 9 Allied Chemical, Nichols 3.1 0.47.
4 0 Shell Oil Co 2.9 0.4k
4 1 Mil pitas Sanitary Dist. 2.8 0.3 k
42 --Las Gallinas Sanitary Dist 2.8 0 3k
4 3 Millbrae, city of 2.4 0.3k
All others (61) 42.5 5.VL
LOlALS 803.6 100.0k
343
-------
Monday, April 1, 1974
5 I AN DA is D OIL, EiJMtiL) A. 41J
-SAi-4 jos.-: --- lot uiscuauje^s
the bit* EBMUD treatment plant in West Oakland has managed to
avoid legal trouble with the regional board -- because of vigorous
efforts to improve the operation -- but EBrtUu doesn't win much
praise either.
Koger 'Dolan, manager of technical services for E3HUD Special
District No. 1, estimates there are 10 times a year, in an average
year, when the t5MUD treatment plant malfunctions during wet weather
and sewage gets only partial treatment.
Dolan said this is caused by storm water infiltrating into
cracked and misconnected sewers, and by the flow of water from aged
combined sewer systems which still exist in some parts of downtown
Oakland. 1 he EBMUD plant, designed to operate at 85 million
gallons per day, gets overwhelmed when the flow reaches i30 million
gallons per day for a few hours during large storms.
This situation is being corrected through an on-going $1
million per year sewer replacement program and through a variety
of efforts planned and under way in other cities, A major study
of the problem by EBMUD is nearing completion.
But the shame of the EBMUD sewer treatment system is the
situation at "Station H" in East Oakland. Station H regulates
the flow of all city sewers which drain into the EBMUD inter-
ceptor sewer in a huge area of East Oakland between Fruitvale
Avenue and the San Leandro city line.
Approximately 10 times a year, during big rain storms, they
throw the switch at Station 11 and all of the raw sewage from East
Oakland pours into San Leandro Bay through a bypass pipe located
on the banks of Elmhurst Creek near the Oakland-Alameda County
Coliseum. Dolan said these raw sewage discharges last from two
to ten hours.
I wo years ago there were no bypasses at Station II, but
there have been a number of them this year, Dolan said.
1 he flow at Station H contaminates parts of the Oakland
Estuary, the waterfront homes of southeastern Alameda and the entire
area where the East Bay Regional Park District plans to establish a
shoreline park in San Leandro Bay.
(Tomorrow! The effect of acids on sewer systems.)
344
-------
luesday, April 2, 1974
ALAMtDA S£w'AGl£' S SLG.v lkIP
I his is the third in a series of articles on San Francisco oav
pollution. Yesterday L'he Lribune listed the top A J dischargers in
the Bay Area, described the three "rivers" of wastes being discharged
and named some of the treatment plants doing a good job or a bad one.
By Fred Garretson
lribune Staff Writer
Whenever sanitary engineers get together in the day Area the
conversation eventually comes around to the subject of the not-
orious Pearl Street sewer in Alameda.
the Pearl Street sewer is operated by the East Bay Municipal
Utility District as a major interceptor line to collect sanitary
waste flowing out of the city-owned sewer pipes in eastern
Alameda, Bay Farm Island and part of the Alameda South Shore
district.
3v the time they rebuilt it last year the pipe was being
eaten away by sulphuric acid, the street was threatening to collapse
and the odor of hydrogen sulphide (rotten egg gas) was seeping out
of the manholes in various parts of the South Shore and the east-
ern part of the city.
Elmer J. .toss, manager of EBMdD special district no. 1, and
his assistant, iloger Dolan, said sewage from Bay rarm Island
takes so long to move through the sewers that a number of chem-
ical reactions start to take place long before the waste material
reaches the £iiMUU treatment plant in .vest Oakland.
I he Pearl Street sewer was planned with the assumption that
there would be a population boom on Bay Farm Island. I he boom
has thus far been merely a rumble.
ihe result is that the pump that moves sewage under the Bay
larm Island residential area stands idle most of the time, waiting
for hours and hours until enough sewage trickles into the catch
basin and activates the pumps, Ihen the sewage moves slowly under
the channel -- a slug at a time -- something like a car in a
traffic jam, until it reaches a sewage reservoir near Krusi Park,
where it waits some more.
The mixture is rather ripe by the time the Krusi Park pumping
plant lifts the liquid up over the crest of the island to run
downhill through the Pearl Street sewer where it gets into another
traffic jam waiting for the pumps t.hat move sewage under the
Oakland Estuary and into the great 9-foot diameter East Oakland
interceptor sewer (which has problems of its own).
Dolan said the hydrogen sulphide gas mixes with oxygen,
infiltrates the concrete and forms calcium sulphate crystals
which expand and cause the roof of the sewer pipe to break out
pieces of" concrete and gradually crumble away. In the break mean-
time hydrogen sulphide gas and sulphuric acid spread throughout
the tributary sewers.
345
-------
(Continued)
SOMn PROBUiMj IN EBMU!) SJiV^S
i>olan said £BMHD replaced damaged pipes and installed a
special chlorination facility at Rrusi r'ark to neutralize and kill
the odor from all sewage ilowing in from day tarm Island.
Jolan said that if and when the population of Bay i arm
island increases, the more frequent and increased flow through the
pumping plants will solve the problem.
Special District No. I serves seven cities. Uoss said it
normally takes sewage from the most distant point in the 1,400 miles
of tributary sewers only six hours to flow down to the pumping
plant In .vest Oakland. However, because of the pumps required in
Alameda, the sewage from Bay Farm Island is a day old when it finally
gets treated.
i'he same sort of sulphuric acid reaction coming out of the
fumes of ordinary domestic sewage apparently was responsible for
the collapse of the 14th Avenue sewer between East 12th and East
14th streets In Oakland, last year, according to Kicharc Culleri,
a designer for the Oakland Public .vorks Department.
Cullen said the crown of the pipe was eaten away by acid fumes
and then the pavement above fell in. 1 he floor of the sewer was
pitted and badly eroded. Cullen said most modern sanitary sewer
pipes are made from inert clay, but concrete is used in the bigger
pipes.
iioss and Dolan said there have been few cases In recent years
where large-scale discharges of Industrial acid damaged pipes,
because the acid Is quickly absorbed by the much larger flow of
sewage in the pipes.
ihey said industries in the £astbay cities have been more
cooperative, particularly since the EoMUD board of directors gave
Special District No. 1 authority to initiate criminal prosecution
of industrial officials responsible for discharging specific
prohibited acids and poisons into city sewers which feed into the
tiBMUD sewage treatment plant.
Dolan said various industrial acids and poisons could disrupt
completely the SBMUD sewage treatment plant that's now under
construction near the Bay Bridge loll Plaza, fhe district has
undertaken a major effort to halt such discharges before mid-1976
when the new plant will be In operation.
Occasionally things still happen to plug up the sewers. Koss
recalls that four years ago a J,000-galIon tank of hot tallow,
used to make soap, discharged into a sewer accidentally. I he
hot flow coagulated as soon as it hit a major sewer line full of
cool liquid. One sewer jammed up and big chunks of tallow,
looking like snow white icebergs, drifted into the sewer treat-
ment plant and started clogging up the works. The company sent
men down to clean out the sewer plant.
Ed Steffanl, the Emeryville city engineer, recalls a similar
incident where latex, a rubber-like material, escaped from a
paint factory and coagulated in a sewer pipe. fhe company didn't
require much urging to send In crews to clean out the city pipes,
346
-------
because the company's own sewers were backing up.
But there are other, more deadly, things that people put
into sewers and into San irancisco Bay.
tomorrow: The loisoned lide.
.SE.terf LINE OVERFLOWS IN ALBANY
ALBANY -- I he cast Bay Municipal Utility District's northern
shoreline interceptor sewer overflowed raw sewage from the City of
Albany into Cerritos Creek for 11 hours yesterday after storm
waters infiltrating the sanitary sewers through cracked pipes
overloaded the 78-inch interceptor pipe.
BM?:D officials said "Station A," a pumping plant near the
Sastshore Freeway, at the Alameda-Contra Costa County line,
overflowed raw sewage from 3130 a.m. until 2s 30 p.m. despite the
fact that the pump was operating at full power.
ihis is the first raw sewage spill by EBMUD to be publicly
reported for this interceptor which carries sewage from CI Cerrito,
Kensington, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville and North Oakland to the
EBMUD treatment plant in West Oakland.
347
-------
Wednesday, April 3, 1974
I.U.UH MAY Lli.ov L< l-OUL .VALv:
] his is the fourth iri a series on ian i'raricisco 3ay pollution.
Yesterday's story was about the Pearl -street, sewer In Alameda, where
sewage is slowly processed because an expected population increase
on Bay I:arm Island hasn't yet materialized.
By Norm Hannon
Iribune Staff .Vriter
Sudden death from water pollution seems an unlikely possibility,
but it does exist.
The 3ay Area's burgeoning industrial complex produces growing
amounts of lethal materials every day which can't be let into the
environment,
Keeping these exotic wastes out of circulation is a matter of
the most vital public concern, yet most are handled in the most
primitive way possible -- by dumping them on the ground.
This is allowed at four places in the Bay Area -- three in
Contra Costa County and one in Solano County -- which are euphem-
istically referred to as "Class I Dumpsites." i here are only about
a dozen in the state.
In the past two years there have been serious accidents at
two of these sites. A third is under investigation for possible
violations last month.
i ew sanitary districts have considered the solution which is
built into the advanced new i'alo Alto sewage plant for solving the
industrial waste problem. lhe plant has a special system of tanks
to which these wastes are hauled for chemical "defusing" before
they are routed into the main system.
I his is one solut ion to the toughest land-use question. L he
Group I sites are increasingly being criticized as "environmental
time bombs." The recent accidents serve as scary reminders.
In March, 1973, there was an explosion and fire at the
Antioch dumpsite where Industrial lank, Inc., was depositing
"Group I" materials. Firemen were warned not to approach, but
they could never discover exactly what was in the site that posed
the threat. Deadly beryllium was rumored.
I he 3ay Area Air Pollution Control Board staff asked the firm
riot to cover the mysterious materials until they were checked to
see what the air pollution threat might be. But when investigators
arrived the following day the materials had been covered. I here
apparently was no law requiring the firm to identify the materials.
the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board issued
the original discharge requirements for the site, and they did not
forbid Group I wastes. However, the board decided later that the
site is not geologically suitable and has told the firm to phase
out its operation by Oct. 1.
So the firm has applied to the water board for permission to
348
-------
establish a new site near Brentwood.
i ed uerow, chief of the county's division of environmental
health, is highly critical of the water board's handling of the
who1e case, but even more critical of the Brentwood site, which
it appears likely the board will approve.
"It's a mess and it turns my stomach," says Gerow, who thinks
land use should get equal consideration with water quality,
1 he Richmond Sanitary Service site in the tidelands north
of Richmond has been the frequent target of conservationists, but
usually on the Bay fill and land-use issues, Gerow also contends
the company's handling procedures are deficient.
How the Bay Regional .v'ater Quality Control Board says the
company appears to have violated requirements and some of the
accumulated poisons may be getting into the Bay.
i'he materials used to build a required 500 by 1,000-foot clay
barrier are too coarse, staff investigators say, and the structure
may be leaking. ihey also report too little freeboard has been
left at the top of the barrier, posing the danger of a spillover,
I he J & J Disposal Company of Benicia, which maintains a
system of diked ponds in the hills for Group I wastes, had big
difficulties during the winter of 1972-73.
During one storm, one structure overflowed and the noxious
stew went seething and foaming down a watercourse to Suisun Bay.
1 he Department of Fish and Game photographed dead cattle lying
along the stream.
1 he firm was fined a small amount in Benicia Municipal Court
on the complaint of lish and Game authorities and put under a cease
and desist order by the regional board. I hey are now in tenuous
compliance with requirements, according to Ed Simon, chief of
surveillance for I ish and Game.
Industrial lank has another Class I site at Martinez which
includes a system of tanks and holding ponds in which wastes are
rendered chemically harmless. Some materials, including waste
oils, are recovered and sold.
Many wastes the East Bay Municipal Utility District declares
are too dangerous to be put into its sewers are separated by indust-
ries and shipped to Martinez. But if it is not profitable to
recycle them, they may end up at Antioch, where there are both
solid and liquid Class I disposal areas.
EBHUD considered chemical treatment of its own, but decided the
job was better left to a private firm.
1 he new sanitary district which includes Palo Alto, Mountain
View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, £ast Palo Alto and Stanford
decided on a municipal industrial waste unit partly because there
is no Class I dumpsite in the South Bay Area.
The new Palo Alto sewage plant has been in operation more than
a year, but a flaw in design has delayed the industrial waste
unit. 1 he piping had to be redone, but it is expected to open this
summer.
Industries such as Kodak, Philco-Ford, Varian Associates and
Hewlett-Packard, which produce large amounts of poisonous heavy
349
-------
metals ainonp, other things, will separate them out and haul them
directly to the special unit.
I he industries will be bonded to declare exactly what they are
depositing and in what proportions.
I he plant will treat the substances accordingly, test them and
discharge them into the regular system.
Other districts, such as £5MUD, have taken another approach
on some of the less potent industrial wastes. A scale of fees has
been imposed on the dischargers according to the volume and toxicity
of substances they put into the sewers.
But the more potent stuff can't go into the system.
It could be rendered chemically harmless and thrown in, but
this costs money.
So it goes into the land.
Tomorrow: Ihe makeup of the Bay Regional .vater Quality Control
3oard.
350
-------
ASS .ii liiLY -SHELVES DELIA ."*Al E»< UULING
jy v'irgil Meibert
Sacramento — A patenttally explosive controversy between
California water users and conservationists has been defused by
Assemblyman Ken MacDonald's decision to at least temporarily with-
draw legislation triggering the dispute.
MacDonald, an Gjai Democrat, announced his decision at the end
of a lengthy hearing yesterday afternoon on his proposal to restrict
the right of the state Water Resources Control 3oard to implement
its so-called "Delta" decision.
ihat decision, In essence, was that the =Vater Resources
Control tksard reserved the right to order the release of upstream
water to preserve both the quality of downstream water itself and
water-related activities, such as fishing.
:he Mac:-onald bill was attacked yesterday at a hearing of the
Assembly Water Committee -- which he heads -- as posing a serious
threat to the future quality of Northern California rivers and
streams, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and even San Francisco
Bay.
However, MacDonald insisted he drafted the measure only because
wildlife Interests in his district were seeking to use the water
board decision to force the release of vast quantities of stored
water into the Ventura Kiver to create a fishing stream.
He said if that happened the Casitas Municipal .vater District
wouldn't have enough water left for municipal and industrial
consumption.
.V. W. Adams, chairman of the state .Vater Resources Control
Board, testified that his board "strongly opposes" the MacDonald
bill, saying it threatens the protection promised Northern Calif-
ornia waters in the development of the State Water Project.
Others, including representatives from the state Chamber of
Commerce and the California Farm Bureau Federation, testified in
favor of the MacDonald measure, saying the various water user agen-
cies throughout the state shouldn't have to stand by and watch the
water they paid for diverted to recreational uses.
However, a move toward compromise rather than confrontation
was agreed upon when MacDonald and Harvey Banks, former director
of the state Department of Water Resources, agreed that a great
deal of additional study Is needed before any new legislation can
be enacted.
Banks appeared as a consultant to the Contra Costa County
Water District.
351
-------
ihursday, April 4, 1974
liAV .vAl'Ett :JOAXU
l- IGH) AGAINST POLL IU'ION
1 his is the fifth in a series of articles on San Francisco day
pollution. Ihe tribune yesterday report cm 1 the dunlin.., oi lethal
materials on the ground by the Bay Area's industrial complex.
I he materials can be rendered harmless by chemical means but the
processes are too costly
• iy . lortn 1 '.annon
tribune staff .riter
ihe nine-member san i rancisco Liay .;e^ional .ater Quality Control
Board is at once the most active, the most praised and most criti-
cized of the nine regional boards in the state.
It is charged with enforcement of the Porter-Cologne Act of
1970, considered the toughest water pollution control law in
the Ration.
Its territory covers the nine bay counties, except for the
Delta port ions of Contra Costa and Solano Counties and the Kussian
;
-------
1 wo years ago it: enacted a tough policy on disposal of
polluted dredge spoils, requiring that they all be hauled to the
100-fathom line of the ocean, which is about. JO miles off Lhe
Golden Gate.
However, Lhe board's critics see a weakening of iLs tough
stance in some recent actions. At its Pebruary meeting it went
against a staff recommendation and refused to file suit against Lhe
CiLy of Half Moon 3ay for dumping 15,000 gallons of sewage sludge
in a place were it washed down onto the ocean beach.
It has also modified its dredge spoils policy, claiming it
hasn't gotten support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
whose criteria was used to set the original policy.
lhe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can now dump its dredge
snoils in Lhe bay in nost cases All it. ha^ to -'o is ; hou ll
doesn't have the money to haul them out to sea.
lhe members of the regional water board are appoint er1, by the
governor to four year terms ihey are chosen to represent seven
categories of water users: recreation and wildlife, water quality,
industrial, water supply, irrigated agriculture, municipal govern-
ment and county government. I'here is one "undesignated" or
"at-large" member,
lhe current members are:
"Sidney S. Lippow, iMartinez real estate man who is chairman
and senior member of the board with 10 years service. At-large
member. Perm expires in September, 1974.
"'Mrs. William liastman, Los AlLos conservationist and housewife.
Recreation and wildlife member. Term expires in September, 1974.
••"Mrs. Joseph Cuneo, San Francisco housewife who is also active
in art circles. .vater quality member. I erm expires in September,
1976.
-Kaymond Gambonini, Petaluma dairyman. Water quality member.
1erm expires in September, 1977.
"C. U. Hitchcock of San Leandro, a Peterson Praetor executive.
Industrial member. Ierm expires in September, 1976.
-'Homer H. Hyde, owner of the Campbell .Vater Company. .Vater
supply member. Ierm expires in September, 1976.
->Louis P. Martini, St. Helena winery owner. Irrigated
agriculture member. Perm expires in September, 1976.
••Peter M. Pripp, Oakland insurance executive and former
Oakland city councilman and current Port of Oakland commissioner.
Municipal government member. Perm expires in September, 1975.
-Roger A. McConnell, engineer on the staff of the Stanford
Linear Accelerator and conservationist. Vice chairman of the board.
County government member. lerm expires in September, 1975.
The regional board currently has 14 cases against polluters
which are being pressed in court by the attorney general's
office.
It has 11 building bans in force in the nine counties.
It has 17 cleanup and abatement orders outstanding against
polluters.
There are also 66 cease and desist orders in force against
various agencies and companies. About halT oT these already may
353
-------
have served their purpose to bring polluters into compliance,
i omorrowj Pinpointing the major violators.
1 ,-U iiUUc, I1AILEU I Qd AXi lCLu.b
Lhe Oakland City Council has commended The 1ribune for its
current series of articles on pollution of San francisco day.
Councilman t'red Maggiora, who offered the motion praising
the articles, called the series a "courageous attack" and
suggested that the city council should support the action in any
way possible.
His motion was seconded by Councilman John jutter and
approved unanimously.
354
-------
Friday, April 5, 1974
THE CHIEF BAY POLLUTERS
State's Fight To Protect Water
This is the sixth in a series of articles on the pollution
of San Francisco Bay. Yesterday's story described some of the
decisions of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, tough
in some areas but weak in others.
By Fred Garretson and Norm Hannon
Tribune Staff Writers
The waste dischargers listed with this story are the major
violators of the state's water pollution control laws in the
nine Bay Area counties, according to Roger James and Dennis
Mishek, engineers for the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board.
There are many other dischargers pouring larger volumes
of waste matter into the bay but they are complying with all
state regulations.
The most severe administrative action the regional board
can take is to impose a total ban on new connections to sewer
systems which are tributary to sewage treatment plants violating
pollution control laws. This is, in effect, a ban on new con-
struction in a city or sewer district until the regional board
makes a formal finding that the treatment plant is capable
of handling an increased population without violating the law.
In some cases the regional board may find that a particu-
lar plant can handle the growth of relatively easy to treat
domestic sewage but can't accept any more toxic chemicals from
industrial discharges. In this case the board bans only the
construction of new industries.
A "cleanup and abatement order" is usually aimed at a
very specific violation of laws or water quality standards,
and requires the offender to stop polluting and to clean up
the mess he's made. This is commonly used in oil spills, but
is also used to make companies clean up industrial garbage
dumps that are polluting ground or surface waters.
The board also issues "cease and desist orders" against
violators. These orders put a violator on notice and set a
timetable for taking specific actions to end discharges which
violate the law. There are 66 such orders now in effect in
the Bay Area. The names listed here are those cases in which
Mishek said further action — including prosecution — is
contemplated by the regional board's staff.
The board is involved in a number of pending court cases,
including an effort to fine the City and County of San
Francisco up to $10,000 per day for each day of the raw sewage
discharges during the recent municipal workers strike. In
some of these pending cases it's possible a polluter might be
found in contempt of court, and continued discharges could
355
-------
result in large fines or even jail sentences.
In addition, there is active litigation by cities, sanitary
districts and developers, who are challenging the board's
authority to impose sewer connection bans.
Next article: Public reaction to the pollution problem.
356
-------
MAJOR VIOLATORS OP POLLUTION LAWS LISTED
TOTAL SEWER CONNECTION BAN IN EFFECT
Prohibits issuance of building permits to connect new
homes, business or industries to any sewer lines tributary
to the offending treatment plant.
•Richardson Bay Sanitary District (northern part of
Tiburon Peninsula and adjacent area of Marin County
•City of Mill Valley
•Sanitary District No. 1 of Marin County (Ross, San
Anselmo, Kentfield area)
•Rodeo Sanitary District (Contra Costa County)
•City of Pittsburg, Montezuma Treatment Plant (western
and central part of the city)
•City of Pleasanton (the portion of the city served by
the old municipal treatment plant)
•Bolinas Community Public Utility District (Marin County)
•Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 7- A
(serving the Shore Acres and Bella Vista area west of Pitts-
burg)
INDUSTRIAL CONNECTION BAN ONLY
Allows new home and business construction but prohibits
additional industrial connections to sewer system
•Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno joint treat-
ment plant
•City of San Jose Sewage Treatment Plant, including all of
San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas and eight other tributary cities
and sewer districts
•City of Pittsburg, Camp Stoneman Treatment Plant (eastern
portions of the city)
Sewer connection bans formerly in effect have been removed
by the regional board in: Fairfield/Suisun Sewer District;
Milpitas Sanitary District; San Francisco North Point Treat-
ment Plant; San Francisco Southeast treatment plant; San
Pablo Sanitary District; City of Pittsburg Camp Stoneman
Plant (residential ban removed); City of Half Moon Bay;
Valley Community Services District (the Dublin/San Ramon
area of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties); Cities of San
Carlos and Belmont; City of Redwood City; San Francisco
International Airport.)
357
-------
CLEANUP & ABATEMENT ORDERS IN EFFECT
•Howard L. Jenkins and J & J Disposal Co., a "class One"
dump site for toxic industrial wastes, in Benicia
•Port of San Francisco, India Basin port development
•Pacific Resin and Chemical Co., Richmond
•Adolph Dutra Dairy, Napa County
•Robert E. Atkinson, Sonoma County dairy
•Howard L. Jenkins, J & J Disposal, Winton Jones and Olin
Jones (a second abatement order involving additional violations.
Referred to attorney general.)
•Ed Olivera Poultry Ranch, Santa Clara County
•Allied Chemical Corp. in Nichols, Contra Costa County
•Bray Oil Co., Richmond
•Burlingame Hyatt House Hotel (garbage dumped in ditch)
•Redding Petroleum Co., Concord (gasoline leak at a service
station)
•Collier Carbon and Chemical Corp., Nichols, Contra Costa
County
•Myers Drum Co., Emeryville (discharge of assorted chemicals
into Temescal Creek and the "Emeryville Crescent" marshlands
near Bay Bridge Toll Plaza)
•Capitol Chip Co., a contractor on dead eucalyptus tree
removal on East Bay Regional Park District lands allegedly
creating erosion and muddy water problems in East Oakland hills.
•East Bay Municipal Utility District, erosion from
Upper Sam Leandro Dam reconstruction upstream from Willow Park
Golf Course and Lake Chabot.
•City and County of San Francisco (cleanup of contamin-
ation created by shutdown of sewage treatment plants during
municipal workers strike)
-Solano County Sanitary Land Fill, near Benicia. (dis-
charge of highly toxic sulphide chemicals into a stream which
flows through Southampton Bay State Park)
CASES UNDER ACTIVE LITIGATION
•City and County of San Francisco (March 8-13 raw sewage
dumping)
•Myers Drum Co., Emeryville
•Collier Carbon and Chemical Co., Nichols
•Port of Oakland/Port Petroleum Co./Economy Refining and
Service Co./Michael Marcus. 1973 oil spill in Oakland Estuary.
•Cynthia Olson, etc. (freihter spilled 5,000 gallons of
oil in Oakland during demolition for scrap)
•U.S. Navy Alameda Naval Air Station (industrial wastes
discharged into the Bay. Will be connected to East Bay
Municipal Utility District treatment facilities.)
•Phillips Petroleum Co., Martinez (three small oil spills)
•U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Midway (oil spill)
•U.S. Navy Hunters Point Shipyard, San Francisco (indus-
trial waste into bay)
•Port of San Francisco, India Basin development
•South San Francisco Scavenger Co. and the City of South
San Francisco
358
-------
•Bolinas Community Public Utility District
•San Francisco International Airport(treatment plant)
•The Richardson Bay Sanitary District, the City of Mill
Valley and numerous other dischargers have sued the regional
board challenging the constitutionality of the sewer connection
ban. The case is in appelate court. Suits have also been filed
against the board by the City of Concord and the Mountain
View Sanitary District.
MAJOR CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS (66 in effect)
•Richardson Bay Sanitary District
•City of Mill Valley
•Rodeo Sanitary District
•City of San Francisco. Separate orders covering the
North Point, Southeast and Richmond-Sunset Sewage Treatment
Plants. A separate order covers wet weather diversion of raw
sewage in the North Point sewage watershed zone between the
Bay Bridge and the Golden Gate Bridge.
•Marin County Sanitation District No. 1
•Cities of South San Francisco and San Bruno
•City of Pittsburg (two treatment plants)
•City of San Jose Treatment Plant
•Contra Costa County Sanitation District No. 7-A
•United States Steel Corp., Pittsburg (acids dumped into
the bay)
•St. Helena Hospital and Health Center, Napa County.
Discharge of contaminated hospital sewage and waste into the
Napa River.
•City of Pleasanton (odor and spray field problems)
•Marin County Sanitary District No. 6, Novato.
•FMC Corp., Newark, (cooling water discharged into a
slough contains phosphates which produce algae blooms in water)
•Allied Chemical Corp., Nichols, Contra Costa County
•Mondavi and Sons, Napa County, operators of the Charles
Krug Winery, whose winery wastes flow into the Napa River,
according to regional board officials.
•City of Berkeley Garbage Dump, (pollution leaking through
the walls of the garbage dump dike)
•Sausalito Houseboats, (order against property owners
Donlon J. Arques, Miriam M. Tellis, George Kappas Yacht
Harbor and Marin County Board of Supervisors.
359
-------
Sunday, April 7, 1974
MEADE PLANNING BILL TO CLEAN BAY SEWAGE
This is the seventh in a series of articles on the pollu-
tion of San Francisco Bay. Friday1s story named public agencies
and corporations currently classified as violators of water
pollution control laws.
By Fred Garretson
Tribune Staff Writer
Assemblyman Ken Meade, D-Oakland, has announced he is
studying possibilities for legislative action to clean up the
water pollution problems in the San Francisco Bay Area des-
cribed by The Tribune in this series.
Meade was particularly critical of the San Francisco
sewer system which, The Tribune revealed, discharges raw sewage
into the Bay and onto public beaches an average of 82 times
each year. San Francisco beaches are therefor, classified by
the county health department to be contaminated an average of
171 days per year,
Meade said, "The only reason this kind of conduct is toler-
ated by a public agency is that the people are unaware of the
situation or don't know enough about it." He praised The
Tribune for acting in the best tradition of responsible journal-
ism to increase public awareness of the problem.
He said he hasn't determined what type of legislative
remedy will be sought, but he expressed particular concern
about contamination of public beaches.
Oakland City Councilman John Sutter, an active conser-
vationist and the immediate past president of People for Open
Space, said San Francisco's discharge onto public beaches affects
everyone in the Bay Area "because there are very few beaches
anywhere in the Bay Area which are usable. If you compare our
shoreline to the shoreline in Southern California or almost
anywhere else, we have very little shoreline that is available
for swimming."
Sutter observed San Francisco's sewer problem "goes back
100 years and they are doing little about solving it. Unless
they develop an ongoing program for separating sanitary sewers
from storm drains, this problem will go on for another 100
years.
Sutter said it's ironic San Francisco can continue to
operate a system which overflows sewage in each small rain or
heavy fog while Oakland has a program, costing almost $1 million
per year, to replace the few remaining combined sewers and other
inadequate sewers in the city.
(Mark Ng, an engineer in the Oakland Public Works De-
partment, said contracts will be let soon for replacement of
the last combined sanitary and storm water sewers left in
Oakland. Ng said these are on Castro Street, between First and
360
-------
14th streets; on Franklin Street, between 12th and 14th streets;
and on Manila Avenue near College Avenue and Broadway.)
In another development, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency announced a public hearing will be held at 1:30 p.m. on
April 22, at the EPA's regional office, 100 California St.,
San Francisco, to consider the adequacy of an environmental
impact statement on San Francisco's proposed $672 million sewer
master plan.
The environmental impact statement, prepared jointly by
the EPA and the city, is the first such report to be co-
authored by federal and local officials and therefore is
expected to set a number of precedents for environmental control
activities and federal-state relations in the Western states,
EPA officials admitted.
Few people have read the document and two spokesmen for the
Sierra Club's San Francisco Bay chapter, Dwight Steele and
Helen Burke, expressed surprise when told that the EPA report
would authorize a minimum of eight large discharges of raw
sewage per year if and when the $672 million improvements are
completed.
The EPA report said for an added $63 million the raw
sewage bypasses could be reduced to four times per year, and for
an added $189 million the bypasses could be cut to once per year.
The report said it would cost $332 million to build enough
storage capacity to reduce the probability of raw sewage over-
flow to once every five years.
The Federal Government is expected to pay 75 per cent of
the sewer construction costs and the state 12.5 per cent of
any plan that's adopted, leaving local taxpayers responsible
for only 12.5 per cent of the total project cost.
Gov. Ronald Reagan told a rress conference last week that
he is concerned about the San Francisco problem.
The governor said, "I guess it's the only city we know of
in California that has single pipes to handle both runoff
water from the streets and rooftops and so forth, and sewage.
Every time it rains more than (0.02 inch per hour) in San
Francisco, you have raw sewage going into the Bay."
The EPA/city report estimates complete replacement of the
present combined sewers with separate sanitary and storm water
pipes would cost $3 billion.
Next: Pollute the parks.
361
-------
Tuesday, April 9, 1974
S.F. POLLUTION PROBLEM TO U.S.
This is the eigth in a series of articles on San Francisco
Bay Area water pollution problems. The previous article on
Sunday described the importance of the planned April 22 public
hearing by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on San
Francisco's sewer master plan.
By Fred Garretson
Tribune Staff Writer
The national Park Service apparently is going to inherit
the City of San Francisco's most visible water pollution problem.
Negotiations are now under way between the U.S. Interior
Department and city and state officials to transfer the city-
owned Ocean Beach, and perhaps the state-operated Phelan Beach,
to the National Park Service as part of the new Golden Gate
National Recreation Area.
The problem of San Francisco's antique sewer stytem,
which spills raw sewage into the bay and onto the public beaches
82 times in an average year, hasn't even been mentioned in these
real estate negotiations even though the sewer outfalls are
such visible protrusions as to be landmarks for hikers and
surfers on the ocean shore.
If the Federal Government really wanted to get rid of these
easements for filth, the real estate negotiations over the
transfer of the property presumably would be the time to raise
the question. Possibly the removal of the raw sewage discharges
could be made a condition of the sale or transfer of the
property.
"Perhaps it ought to be mentioned, but it hasn't come up,"
according to Jack Wheat, chief of special projects for the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area, who heads the federal
negotiating team.
Other federal officials expressed surprise that anyone
would even ask about the pollution problem.
Thus, in rather casual fashion, the National Park
Service is moving to take over the onus, the responsibility
and perhaps the liability of operating public beach facilities
in areas which a report by the San Francisco County Health
Department declares "are unsafe for water contact recreational
activities 171 days per year" because of the raw sewage dis-
charges.
While there is no evidence of any kind of conspiracy to
dump the problem onto the National Park Service, there are
off-the-record and unofficial sighs of relief that it will be
federal park rangers, rather than San Francisco City Hall,
which will be the front line target for growing public out-
rage over the beach contamination.
The first contaminated beach to be turned over to the
362
-------
National Park Service was Bakers Beach, on the west ocean shore-
line of the San Francisco Presidio, where a wet weather sewage
bypass outfall well above the high tide line starts emptying a
stream of sewage across the public beach every time pre-
cipitation exceeds 0.02 inch per hour, which the Weather
Bureau said is equivalent to a heavy fog.
This particular sewer outfall carries the waste from the
toilets and the kitchen sinks in Mayor Joseph Alioto's
neighborhood. In dry weather the sewage world drain into the
Richmond-Sunset Treatment Plant and be discharged out of a big
pipe that empties out of the rocky headlands at Mile Rock
Beach.
It's not clear yet whether the National Park Service will
be acquiring Mile Rock Beach, but if it does, the park rangers
will be getting the discharge pipe of a sewer teeatment plant
which Fred Dierker, executive officer of the Bay Area Regional
Water Quality Control Board, has described as being very close
to the top of the list of violators of water pollution control
laws in the nine Bay Area counties.
The second area transferred to the National Park Service
included heavily polluted beaches along the bay shore near the
eastern edge of the San Francisco Presidio.
San Francisco's proposed $672 million sewer improvement
system would eliminate the Mile Rock discharge and transfer all
sewage from the western one-third of San Francisco to a new
treatment plant near Fort Funston.
The proposed plan would reduce the incidence of raw
sewage discharge onto the beaches from the present average of
82 times a year down to eight times each year, according to
the environmental impact statement on the project issued
last month.
Tomorrow: Some polluted marinas and some restaurants
better left unnamed.
363
-------
Wednesday, April 10, 1974
EAT AND LOOK, BUT DON'T GO NEAR WATER
This is the ninth in a series of articles on water pollution
problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. Yesterday's story
described how San Francisco is succeeding with transferring the
onus, the responsibility and the liability for polluted beaches
to the National Park Service.
By Fred Garretson
Tribune Staff Writer
There are some fine restaurants along some parts of the
shoreline of San Francisco Bay where you can eat the food and
enjoy the view, but it's best that you not go near the water —
particularly after a rainstorm.
These restaurants tend to be landmark locations where
engineers go to collect water samples for pollution analysis.
Although these establishments usually aren't the cause of the
problem, they often end up being listed in water pollution
reports, which isn't the same as being listed by Duncan Hines.
This story will list some specific pollution levels at
specific places along the shoreline where people are likely to
come into contact with water pollution.
People go to restaurants to eat, not swim, and therefore
restaurant names will be deleted from this story.
Dr. Teng-chung Wu, a top engineer and chief of surveill-
ance for the Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board,
said water samples are incubated for 96 hours in a liquid
medium. The gas bubbling off is easily analyzed, giving a read-
ing that indicates the most probable number of coliform bacteria
contained within the water sample.
There is a different, more complicated test in which the
actual number of bacteria in a small sample are counted. This
test is used to confirm the results of the simpler gas
analysis tests.
Dr. Wu explained that coliform is a common bacteria found
in the soil and in the intestines of warm-blooded animals. The
"total coliform" test produces a numerical result which can
be legally used to determine whether water is safe for water
contact sports.
A more specific test, in which the water sample is incub-
ated at a higher temperature, isolates the specific coliform
bacteria found in animal feces and is considered a more rigid proof
that water is actually contaminated by sewage. This "fecal
coliform" test is used by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, but hasn't yet been adopted by state agencies.
364
-------
The "total coliform" standard considers water to be too
contaminated for swimming if there are more than 1,000 coliform
bacteria per 100 milliliters of water. The fecal coliform
standard considers the water contaminated if coliform count
exceeds 200.
In September, 1973, Dan S. Hallett, of the Water Sanita-
tion Section of the State Department of Health, made hundreds
of water samples both along the shoreline and from boats in the
center of the bay. Most of the month was dry, but on the even-
ing of Sept. 20 there was a light rain, causing bird droppings
from roofs, dog droppings from the streets, and other material
in the gutters to flow into the bay through storm drains.
Hallett said the little storm produced "very high coli-
form counts along the Eastbay shoreline" and he had to remove
all of the rainfall-affected samples from the study in order to
get a truer picture of dry weather conditions in the bay.
But the rainfall also provided significant new evidence
supporting the general warning that shoreline waters in the
bay are almost always contaminated for a while after a storm.
Hallett*s dry weather tests showed that "total coliform"
and "fecal coliform** counts were 2,400 — positive evidence of
sewage — at the San Leandro Marina breakwater, Joseph's
Boat House in Rodeo, Richardson Bay at the end of Barbaree
Way, and at Point San Quentin near the state prison.
The total coliform counts ran from 2,400 to 11,000 at
Vallejo, reached 11,000 at Port Costa and 24,000 at the
Antioch Recreation Pier. The contamination counts generally
were high in Suisun Bay and the Western Delta.
Hallett's report showed a high degree of sewage contamination —
total coliform of 24,000 — at the Antioch boat ramp and the
water intake pumphouse for the Antioch Municipal water supply
system which §km£h water from the delta during winter,
spring and early summer. The water is treated before being
placed in drinking water pipes.
None of Hallett's water samples were taken along the
San Francisco city "shoreline where raw sewage discharges occur
during wet weather.
A similar survey was taken by Richard Condit, an envi-
ronmental specialist for the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board, with the assistance of the Oceanic Society's
Conservation Patrol during June of 1973.
They found total coliform samples running up to 2,400
at the Berkeley Marina, Vallejo and Sausalito, and up to 7,000
at Mare Island Strait, Berkeley Aquatic Park and in the area
¦ere houseboats flush toilets directly into the waters of
Richardson Bay.
At the Redwood City Marina the coliform count was 24,000
and in nearby Redwood Creek it reached 2,400,000. Condit
concluded, "Extremely high counts of coliform bacteria were
found to be entering Redwood Creek from unknown sources in
Redwood City. Contamination at the lower end of the creek
appeared to be due to the sweeping of part of the waste field
365
-------
from the Redwood City Sewage Treatment Plant into the mouth of
the creek during flood tide."
But there are also parts of the bay where the water is
good and clean and safe for swimming.
Tomorrow: An amazing discovery about the bay.
366
-------
Thursday, April 11, 1974
CLEAN WASTE WATER COSTLY
TREATMENT SUCCEEDS
This is the 10th and final article in a series on water
pollution problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. Yesterday's
story listed some specific locations, now open to public access,
where the levels of fecal bacteria in the bay exceed health
standards.
By Fred Garretson
Tribune Staff Writer
In the fall of 1969, after a Tribune series called to
public attention water contamination in San Francisco Bay, the
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board ordered all
municipal sewage treatment plants to start disinfecting all
treated sewage being discharged into the bay.
Previously, disinfection (chlorination) had been required
only when sewage was discharged into rivers or confined
bodies of salt water, or during the summer months in some areas.
There were influential voices on the regional board staff who
warned that the disinfection order legally might be challenged
as an "unreasonable" requirement.
Chlorination was expensive for the dischargers.
The East Bay Municipal Utility District had to build a
special railroad in West Oakland to bring trainloads of sealed
cars full of dangerous chemicals to its treatment plant.
Smaller cities and sanitary districts abandoned their
"home rule" arguments and joined with or merged with other
agencies to build bigger treatment plants.
Standard Oil Co. spent II million separating all sanitary
waste from the rest of the company's waste discharge facilities.
Engineers expected some improvements, but it turned out
that chlorination succeeded beyong everybody's wildest
expectations.
A new report issued by the State Department of Health
says there has been amazing improvement in contamination
levels of San Francisco and San Pablo bays in the 10 years
since a study by the University of California Sanitary
Engineering Research Laboratory showed that most of the bay
had bacteria levels that legally were regarded as unsafe for
water contact sports most of the time.
The new report, propared by Dan S. Hallett, of the State
Health Department's water sanitation section, said the
coliform bacteria levels in the main part of San Francisco
Bay are only l/83rd of what they were 10 years ago. In San
Pablo Bay the bacteria levels are only 1/25th of what they
were a decade ago.
The improvement is so dramatic that Dr. Teng-chung Wu,
chief of surveillance for the regional board, said that
bacteria levels in 90 per cent of San Francisco and San Pablo
367
-------
bays are now down to "background levels" during dry weather.
Put in another way, 90 per cent of the bay has returned to
a state of nature during dry weather at least as far as this
one single component of water pollution is concerned.
This doesn't mean that the bay pollution problem has been
solved. A recent U.S. Geological Survey report found that the
levels of toxicity, biological oxygen demand and biostimulation
are still rising.
The levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in the bay waters
are from 20 to 60 times higher than the theoretical level
needed to trigger the growth of giant algae blooms that could
turn the bay into a giant, scummy pond, and nobody knows what
"X" factor in the environment is suppressing algae growth.
In other words, 90 per cent of the bay is now safe for
humans, but it may be unsafe for fish.
Hallett's discovery is legally important because the
primary legal definition of water contamination is based on
tests for coliform bacteria, an organism commonly found in
the intestines of warm-blooded animals which is used as an
indicator that feces are present in the water.
In normal water pollution testing a substantial number
of water samples can exceed the coliform standard without
violation of the law. However, in some parts of the bay
Hallett found that 100 per cent of the samples met the pollu-
tion standard.
But at the same time, Hallett found heavy contamination in
the water east of Carquinez Strait, including Suisun Bay and the
fresh water outflow channels of the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta.
Hallett found that the average level of coliform bacteria
contamination in the water at the intake pumping plant for the
City of Antioch's municipal drinking water system was 24
times worse than the contamination level which could require
closing a public swimming pool. (The city treats the water
before it gets into drinking water distribution pipes.)
Even in the relatively clean areas of the bay Hallett
found contamination in the enclosed waters of a number of
marinas where thousands of pleasure boats are believed to
empty their shipboard toilets.
In a summary of Hallett*s findings, Dr. Wu described the
10 per cent of the San Francisco/San Pable Bay system still
regarded as contaminated in dry weather. He said they are areas
south of the Dumbarton Bridge, a large part of Richardson Bay
which is affected by the raw sewage from houseboat colonies,
and a small portion of the Oakland Estuary near the High Street
and Fruitvale bridges, where the regional board suspects there
are houseboat discharges.
Both Hallett and Dr. Wu stressed that shoreline areas are
contaminated after rainstorms because of the bird droppings,
dog feces and other materials washed out of the gutters
during a storm. In San Francisco, whose antique sewer system
discharges raw sewage into the bay and onto the beaches an
average of 82 times a year, the county health department
368
-------
classifies the beaches as contaminated and unsafe for water
contact sports 171 days per year.
Dr. Wu said engineers are so impressed by finding so much
clean water in the bay that a staff committee is now at work,
involving the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State
Health Department and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
trying to see if there might be some way to reopen at least
some of the bay's long-quarantined shellfish beds for
recreational harvesting.
There are 42 big shellfish beds in the bay, including two
particularly outstanding oyster beds near Oakland International
Airport, and clam colonies all along the bay shoreline. Taking
shellfish is now prohibited because the shellfish life processes
tend to "magnify" sewage poisons and transmit diseases such as
hepatitis, typhoid fever, cholera and salmonellosis.
369
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
APPENDIX F
SAN FRANCISCO
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 7180
WHEREAS, A Draft Environmental Impact Report - Environmental
Impact Statement, dated February 1974, has been prepared by
the Department of City Planning and the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency in connection with EE74.62, San Francisco
Wastewater Master Plan, and San Francisco Wastewater Master
Plan, Implementation Program 1, North Point Transport Project?
and
WHEREAS, The Department duly filed a notice of completion
of the Draft Report with the Secretary of the California
Resources Agency, gave other notice and requested comments
as required by law, made the Report available to the general
public and satisfied other procedural requirements; and
WHEREASS, The Department of City Planning and the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency held a duly advertised
public hearing on said Draft Environmental Impact Report -
Environmental Impact Statement on April 22, 1974, at which
opportunity was given for public participation and comments;
and
WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission held a duly advertised
public hearing on said Draft Environmental Impact Report on
May 9, 1974, at which the Commission heard the report of the
Environmental Review Officer concerning the public hearing
of April 22, 1974, and at which opportunity was given for
public participation and comments; and
WHEREAS, A Final Environmental Impact Report, dated May 9, 1974,
has been prepared by the Department, based upon the Draft
Environmental Impact Report, any consultations and comments
received during the review process, any additional information
that became available, and a response to any comments that
raised significant points concerning effects on the environ-
ment, all as required by law; and
WHEREAS, On May 9, 1974, the Commission reviewed the Final
Environmental Impact Report, and found that the contents of
Said Report and the procedures through which it was prepared,
publicized and reviewed comply with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act, the Guidelines of the
Secretary for Resources and San Francisco requirements?
370
-------
Appendix F
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the City Planning Commission
does hereby find that the Final Environmental Impact Report,
dated May 9, 1974 concerning the San Francisco Wastewater
Master Plan, and the San Francisco Wastewater Master Plan,
Implementation Program 1, North Point Transport Project, is
adequate, accurate and objective, and does hereby CERTIFY THE
COMPLETION of said Report in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act and the State Guidelines;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Commission in certify-
ing the completion of said Report does hereby find that the
project as proposed will have a significant short-term effect
on the environment, and will not have a significant long-
term effect on the environment.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That it is the opinion of City
Planning Commission that the Wastewater Master Plan will have
a beneficial long-term effect upon the environment.
Unanimously passed 9 May 1974
371
------- |