Appendix — Costle v. Pacific Legal Foundation

Supreme Court brief1980

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Bupreme Court, u. & |

BRILEVD }

4 979

APPENDIX ar “i

P RTCA ROONK, JR., GLERK_|

Iu the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1978

Ne. 78-1472

DOUGLAS M. COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

—

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETITION FILED: MARCH 23, 1979

PETITION GRANTED: JUNE 11, 1979

Iu the Supreme Court of the United States

OCTOBER TERM, 1978

No. 78-1472

DOouGLAS M. COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR,

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, ET AL.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

INDEX

Page

a og sseiinn cemsiguibpmnaisninsiiaiaiiianabin 1

2. NPDES Discharge permit, No. CA0109991/Order No.

75-100, August 18, 1975 (A.R. Exh. 1)* -......000...00...... icahaein 3

*“A R.” refers to the administrative record certified by EPA

to the court of appeals. “PLF Stay” refers to the “Joint Motion

for Stay Pending Review and Affidavit of Robert K. Best” dated

September 2, 1977, and PLF’s “Reply to Memorandum in Opposition

to Motion For Stay Pending Review” dated November 3, 1977, both

filed by all petitioners in No. 77-2909 below. “LA Stay” refers

to “Memorandum of Amicus Curiae in Support of Joint Motion

For Stay Pending Review” dated November 23, 1977, filed by Los

Angeles in No. 77-2909. “EPA Stay Opp.” refers to EPA’s “Memo-

randum In Opposition To Motion For Stay Pending Review” dated

September 30, 1977, filed in No. 77-2909. “PLF Merits” refers to

“Petitioners’ Opening Brief” dated January 13, 1978, filed by all

petitioners in No. 77-2909. “PLF Reply” refers to “Petitioners’

Reply Brief” dated February 10, 1978, filed by all petitioners in

No. 77-2909. “LA Merits” refers to the “Brief of the City of Los

Angeles” in No. 77-3008. “EPA Brief” refers to “Brief for Re-

spondents” dated February 1978 in Nos. 77-2909 and 77-3008. “EPA

Pet. Reh.” refers to EPA’s “Petition for Rehearing.” By order filed

December 19, 1977, the court of appeals ordered that “the record

and all other documents received in these petitions for review * * *

are ordered filed.” By order filed February 10, 1978, the court ordered

that “the volume of exhibits to petitioners’ brief heretofore re-

ceived is ordered filed.” See F.R. App. P. 16(b).

21.

INDEX

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order

No. 75-165, December 1, 1975 (LA Merits Exh. 2) ........

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order

No. 76-80, May 24, 1976 (LA Merits Exh. 3) ................

California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order

No. 76-202, November 22, 1976 (LA Merits Exh. 4) ......

Letter, Lawrence L. Hoffman to Paul DeFalco, Jr., De-

cember 9, 1976 (PLF Stay Exh. 6) -.........22...........20ccceceeee

Letter, Albert C. Martin to Paul DeFalco, Jr., December

a Be Fp RRR a RR

Letter, Ronald A. Zumbrun to Paul DeFalco, Jr., De-

cember 30, 1976; letter, Paul DeFalco, Jr., to Ronald

A. Zumbrun, January 31, 1977 (PLF Stay Exh. 8) ........

Order (NPDES No. CA0109991), January 24, 1977 (A.R.

BPRS «OP ecehesaipdsesctusinnsepnvihendeniieaetngins nontedbaimmiaminjeanenit tint nbeatinsgin

Letter, Raymond M. Hertel to City of Los Angeles, Att:

Donald C. Tillman, January 27, 1977 (Order No. 77-1,

January 24, 1977, attached) (A.R. Exh. 8) ~.....0..000.......

. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Order

No. 77-29, February 28, 1977 (LA Merits Exh. 5) ........

Affidavit of Paul DeFalco, Jr., April 18, 1977 (PLF Stay

I I ould cssaa dale hics canniaccansioncsdsng snag eabanheoiaetecdceesiaatoladabaebceameaia

Letter, William H. Pierce to Warren A. Hollier, April

es ST ST SO i a aetna

. Notice of Proposed Action, C-77-18W(M), April 27,

PE GARAea IES UEP hcnnne hn nacnitendepntnnitesteniininhndnaiievebiomiiclte

Letter, R. L. O’Connell to Warren A. Hollier (undated)

nn OY I snseeemaentbaaneiadiciniacntais

Letter, Raymond M. Hertel to City of Los Angeles,

Att: Donald C. Tillman, May 2, 1977 (A.R. Exh. 11) ....

Public Voucher for Advertising, May 3, 1977 (A.R. Exh.

sg RAS Bs BS REESE RMR T IE RB ae LSPA a NC Caine bp TA NI Oe ANE

Transcript, Pacific Legal Foundation v. John R. Quarles,

Jr. (C.D. Cal., Civ. No. 77-0521-HP), May 23, 1977 (PLF

I ad

. Letter, R. L. O’Connell to Warren A. Hollier, June 2,

EN II TEE ecshhhteelasl en iste ctontaictistjenndintdieniectnatsincnssccavess

Letter, Raymond M. Hertel to City of Lous Angeles, Att:

Donald C. Tillman, June 2, 1977 (Order No. 77-84, May

iy Pe MED CR ee Ts, BED ccccckcesnccdocececnccccocecocescces

Letter, David M. Shell to William H. Pierce, June 10,

ERE SRA REE ee ee ae

Page

a eee ee

—, 2 —

22.

23.

31.

32.

INDEX

Telegram-Mailgram, John B. Kilroy, Sr., to Paul De-

Falco, Jr., June 18, 1977 (EPA Stey Opp. Exh. B; PLF

B. TURG TBD sectenscabcdicstgasa salsedipitind cbcatinteibbcaimnmisaiialiians

Letter, R. L. O’Connell to Donald M. Pach, June 23,

BOTS Cie ee OR. TO BA TD occccsisintinsvsterenccnctnanninn

Certification of Issues of Law by R. L. O’Connell for

Paul DeFalco, Jr., June 23, 1977 (EPA Stay Opp. Exh.

5 aeRO CET ema EILEEN oe PA ME ene

Letter, Anthony O. Garvin to David M. Shell, June 23,

PM Be Rt ere ee nee ee,

. Brief of Pacific Legal Foundation on Behalf of John B.

Kilroy on Certified Questions to General Counsel, July

1B, 1977 (CEPA Pot. Tah. Apps ©). ...c.ecsiccrccccccccisecccrceestnsos

. Complaint in United States v. City of Los Angeles (C.D.

Cal., Civ. No. 77-3047R), August 12, 1977 (EPA Stay

Ey BRR Oe ee eee Ee ier eet SUS MAN

Letter, Paul DeFalco, Jr., to Thomas E. Hookano, Sep-

tember 2, 1977 (EPA Stay Opp. Exh. E) ...000....000.0000......

. Decision of the General Counsel on Matters of Law Pur-

suant to 40 C.F.R. Section 125.36(m), No. 66, October

a ay ee! Os See ea ee

. Affidavit of Donald Calvin Tillman, November 23, 1977

(LA Stay, unnumbered attachment) _..0000000000000

Letter, R. L. O’Connell to David M. Shell, December 20,

SOE CH ee ee IN ittiecnctaskcacsetechascineeeieess

Order allowing certiorari ..........................c.....cccccccccocccesccseees

— <¢ —

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1977

Aug 22 FILED, AS OF AUGUST 18, ORIG AND SIX

COPIES OF A PETITION TO REVIEW AN ORDER

OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

—dmf—[77-2909]

Filed as of August 31, 1977, original and six copies of a

petition to review an order of the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency—dmf—[77-3008]

Nov 16 REC’D (LATE), AS OF OCT 20, CERT LIST OF

RECORD PURSUANT TO RULE 17(b) FRAP.—dmf—

Dec. 28 Filed, as of 12/23/77, order (G & A) upon due con-

sideration, the court issues the following orders: a) the

record and all other documents rec’d in these petitions

for review, including the amicus curiae memorandum,

are ordered filed; b) respondents’ motion to consolidate is

GRANTED; and c) that the terms, conditions and re-

quirements of NPDES Permit No. CA0109991 on review

in these consolidated cases are hereby STAYED with

the exception that effluent limitations which were applic-

able to the Hyperion Plant and which were in effect for

the discharges from the Hyperion Plant on 1/1/77, and

the monitoring and reporting requirements related there-

to shall remain in full force and effect pending final dis-

position of these consolidated cases or further order of

this court. d) the Clerk is directed to calendar these

consolidated cases as an expedited appeal, to fix an ab-

breviated briefing schedule and to notify all counsel of the

schedule. jr

1978

Feb 16 Filed, as of Feb 10, order (Br), Upon due considera-

tion, the volume of exhibits to petitioners’ brief hereto-

fore received is ordered filed.—dmf—

(1)

DATE FILINGS-PROCEEDINGS

1978

Feb 16 Filed, as of Feb 10, 25 copies of Exhibits to Peti-

tioners’ Brief.-_—dmf—

Feb 27 FILED AS OF 2/6/78, CERT ADMIN RECORD

IN APPEAL IN ONE VOL, VOL I., PLDGS, THREE

CERT COPIES. ers

Mar 31 Filed as of 3/29/78, Order (G,A) IT IS ORDERED

as follows: (1) Paragraph (c) of this court’s stay order

of 12/23/78, was meant to include a stay of enforce-

ment of NPDES Permit No. CA0109991 by the USA.

(2) The resps and the USA are hereby restrained from

instituting such action and from further prosecuting

USA v. City of LA, CD Cal, Civ No. 77-3047-HP, pend-

ing final disposition of these consolidated cases or further

order of this court by the panel to which these consoli-

dated cases are assigned for disposition. ers

Apr 10 ARGUED AND SUBMITTED BEFORE MER-

RILL, SNEED, CJJ, EAST, DJ. jmr

Aug 10 As of Aug. 9, ORDERED OPINION (SNEED)

FILED & JUDG TO JUDG TO BE FILED & ENTD

Aug 10 As of Aug. 9, Filed opinion—REMANDED.

Aug 10 As of Aug. 9, Filed & Entd Judgment.—fn—

Nov 28 Filed, as of 11/24/78, order (M, S & East) The peti-

tion for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for re-

hearing en banc is rejected. nw

1979

April 13 Received 3/29/79, SC notice of filing petition for

cert. on March 23, 1979, assigned SC+78-1472. pn

June 18 Filed certified copy of SC order of June 11, 1979,

granting certiorari. (copies to panel) pn.

California Regional Environmental Protection Agency

Water Quality Region IX

Control Board (415) 556-3450

Los Angeles Region Permit No. CA0109991

(213) 620-4460 Authorization to Discharge under

Order No. 75-100 the National Pollutant Discharge

Waste Discharge Elimination System-Federal Water

Requirements Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

125 et. seq.)

FOR

City of Los Angeles

Hyperion Treatment Plant

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region (hereafter Board) and the Regional

Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region

IX, find that:

1. City of Los Angeles has filed a report of waste

discharge and has applied for a permit to dis-

charge wastes under the National Pollutant Dis-

charge Elimination System.

2. Hyperion Treatment Plant, located at 12000 Vista

Del Mar Boulevard, Playa Del Rey, California,

currently discharges an average of 340 mgd (mil-

lion gallons per day) of municipal wastewater to

navigable waters or tributaries thereto (Santa

Monica Bay).

3. Approximately 100 mgd of the flow currently re-

ceives secondary treatment by the activated sludge

process; the balance is primary effluent.

a. The combined treated effluent (primary and

secondary) is discharged through an outfall

terminating 26,525 feet offshore in 187 feet

of water. This discharge point, identified as

Discharge Serial No. 002, is at Latitude 33°

54’ 45” N, Longitude 118° 31’ 15” W.

b. Separated solids are digested, screened, and

diluted one volume digested sludge with three

anal

Ve I

volumes secondary effluent prior to discharge

through an outfall terminating at 35,572

feet offshore at the head of a submarine

canyon at a depth of 300 feet. This discharge

point, identified as Discharge Serial No. 003,

is at Latitude 33° 55’ 35” N, Longitude 118°

33’ 15” W.

ce. During wet weather when flow exceeds 650

mgd due to infiltration and inflow approxi-

mately 0 to 20 million gallons of diverted

flow from the secondary settling tanks are

discharged for periods of 1 to 8 hours through

an outfall which terminates 5,364 feet off-

shore in 50 feet of water. This wet weather

flow occurs approximately once or twice a

year. This outfall is also used non-routinely

for gravity discharge in cases of power fail-

ure at the pumping plant. This non-routine

flow occurs approximately two to three times

a year for a period less than one hour. This

discharge consists of 0 to 4 million gallons

of chlorinated secondary effluent. The out-

fall is also flushed weekly with chlorinated

secondary effluent for a period of 3 hours

at a flowrate of 100 mgd. This discharge

point is identified as Discharge Serial No.

001, at Latitude 33° 55’ 05” N, Longitude

118° 26’ 52” W.

4. City of Los Angeles discharges wastes from Hy-

perion Treatment Plant under requirements con-

tained in Order 74-329 and NPDES permit num-

ber CA0109991, issued, respectively, by this Board

and the Regional Administrator on November 18,

1974. This Order makes the following significant

modification to Order No. 74-329 and NPDES per-

mit issued on November 18, 1974:

Discharge Serial No. 003, which was not in-

cluded in Order No. 74-329 and the NPDES

permit issued on November 18, 1974, is now

regulated by this Order.

. The City of Los Angeles is participating in a joint

study with the County Sanitation Districts of Los

Angeles County and the County Sanitation Dis-

tricts of Orange County to develop an optimum

long-range sewage sludge disposal plan. The study

is entitled “Regional Wastewater Solids Manage-

ment Program—Los Angeles—Orange County

Metropolitan Area”.

. The City of Los Angeles expects to have interim

sludge handling facilities in operation by Decem-

ber 31, 1976. Studies should be conducted by the

City of Los Angeles to determine the best method

of disposal of the liquid fraction or supernatant

from these interim facilities so as not to cause a

violation of discharge requirements contained in

this permit.

. The State Water Resources Control Board adopted

the “Water Quality Control Plan—Ocean Waters

of California” on July 6, 1972. This plan contains

water quality objectives for the Pacific Ocean. The

Regional Administrator approved this plan on Au-

gust 18, 1972, thereby establishing this plan as

a State—Federal water quality standard.

. The Board adopted a Water Quality Control Plan

for Los Angeles River Basin on March 10, 1975.

The Water Quality Control Plan contains water

quality objectives for the nearshore and offshore

zones of the Pacific Ocean.

. The beneficial uses of the receiving waters are:

Nearshore Zone: (includes water generally less

than 30 feet deep of those waters within

1,000 feet of the shoreline): aesthetic en-

joyment; ocean water contact sport (swim-

ming, surfing, skindiving) ; propagation and

sustenance of marine life, including kelp and

shore birds; shellfish harvesting; scientific

research and training; sport fishing; com-

mercial fishing; pleasure boating; commer-

cial and naval shipping; and industrial water

supply.

Offshore Zone: (includes all waters located be-

tween the nearshore zone and the seaward

boundary of the Region): aesthetic enjoy-

ment; propagation and sustenance of marine

life; scientific research and training; sport

fishing; commercial fishing; pleasure boat-

ing; commercial and naval shipping; and in-

dustrial water supply.

10. Effluent limitations, national standards of perform-

ance, toxic and pretreatment effluent standards,

and ocean discharge criteria established pursuant

to Section 208(b), 301, 302, 303(d), 304, 306, 307,

403, and 405 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-

trol Act and amendments thereto are applicable

to the discharges.

The Board and Regional Administrator have notified the

discharger and interested parties and persons of their

intent to prescribe waste discharge requirements and

issue a permit for this discharge and have provided them

with an opportunity to submit their written views and

recommendations.

The Board and the Regional Administrator in a public

hearing heard and considered all comments pertaining to

the discharge and to the tentative requirements.

This Order and permit shall take effect 30 days from

the date of signature.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that City of Los Angeles,

in order to meet the provisions contained in Division

7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted

thereunder, and the provisions of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act and regulations and guidelines

adopted thereunder, shall comply with the following:

A. Effluent Limitations

1. Wastes discharged shall be limited to treated

municipal wastewater, as proposed.

2. The discharge of an effluent in excess of the

following limits for Discharge Serial No. 001

is prohibited:

Ee ———————

30-Day 7-Day Daily

Parameter Units Average Average Maximum

BOD, 20°C lbs/day* 25,000 37,500 50,000

mg/1 30 45 ——

Suspended solids Ibs/day* 25,000 37,500 50,000

mg/1 30 45 oe

Fecal coliform MPN/100 ml 200 400 2,000

Oil and grease Ibs/day* 8,340 — 12,500

mg/1 10 — 15

Settleable solids ml1/1 0.1 — 0.2

Turbidity TU 50 -- 75

Floating

particulates mg/1 (dry weight) 1.0 — 2.0

* Based on a design capacity of 100 mgd.

8. The discharge of an effluent in excess of the

following limits for discharge Serial No. 002

is prohibited.

30-Day Daily

Parameter Units Average Maximum

BOD, 20°C Ibs/day* 438,000 665,000

mg/1 125 190

Suspended solids Ibs/day* 385,000 579,000

mg/l 110 165

Settleable solids ml/1 0.7 1.0

Oil and grease Ibs/day* 70,000 105,000

mg/1 20 30

* Based on a design capacity of 420 mgd.

4, As ordered by the schedule of compliance in

F-1 below, the discharge of an effluent in ex-

cess of the following limits for Discharge Seriai

No. 002 is prohibited:

30-Day 7-Day Daily

Parameter Units Average Average Maximum

BOD, 20°C Ibs/day* 105,000 158,000 210,000

mg/1 30 45 —-

Suspended solids Ibs/day* 105,000 158,000 210,000

mg/l 30 45 —

Fecal coliform MPN/100 ml 200 400 2,000

Oil and grease “Tbs/day* 35,000 — 52,500

mg/} 10 — 15

Settleable solids ml/1 0.1 —- 0.2

Turbidity . TU 50 — 75

Floating

particulates mg/1 (dry weight) 1.0 — 2.0

5. The discharge of an effluent from Discharge

Serial Nos. 001 and 002 in excess of the follow-

ing limits is prohibited:

30-Day Maximum

Parameter Units Average Daily

Arsenic lbs/day* 35 70

mg/l 0.01 0.02

Copper Ibs/day* 700 1050

ai mg/1 0.2 0.3

Lead Ibs/day* 350 700

mg/1 0.1 0.2

* Based on a design capacity of 420 mgd.

6. The discharge of an effluent from Discharge

Serial Nos. 001 and 002 in excess of the follow-

ing limits after July 1, 1978, is prohibited;

provided, however, except as to residual chlo-

rine, if it can be conclusively demonstrated by

any discharger to ocean water tributaries that

the treatmen: process required by Water Code

Section 13379 (a and b), plus source control,

will not result in complete compliance with the

following limits by July 1, 1978, the Board and

Regional Administrator may allow additional

time for compliance not to exceed July 1, 1983:

rE “=.

Discharge Rate Concentration

(Ibs/day)* Limit(mg)

30-Day Daily 30-Day Daily

Constituents Average Maximum Average Maximum

Silver 70 140 0.02 0.04

Cadmium 70 105 0.02 0.03

Total chromium 17.5 35 0.005 0.01

Mercury 3.5 7.0 0.001 0.002

Nickel 350 700 0.1 0.2

Zine 1050 1750 0.3 0.5

Cyanide _ 850 700 0.1 0.2

Phenolic compounds

(expressed as phenol) 1750 3500 0.5 1.0

Ammonia (expressed as

nitrogen) 105,100 140,000 30.0 40.0

Total identifiable

chlorinated hydrocarbons 7.0 14 0.002 0.004

Toxicity concentration — — 1.5 tu 2.0tu

Residual chlorine — — 1.0 2.0

* Based on a design capacity of 420 mgd.

7. The discharge of an effluent in excess of the

following limits from Discharge Serial No. 003

is prohibited:

30-Day Maximum

Parameter Units Average Daily

Total solids Ibs/day* 900,000 1,350,000

mg/1 18,000 —

* Based upon a flow of 6.0 mgd.

8. The discharge of an effluent from Discharge

Serial No. 003 in excess of the following limits

after July 1, 1978, is prohibited; provided, how-

ever, except as to residual chlorine, if it can

be conclusively demonstrated by any discharger

to ocean water tributaries that the treatment

process required by Water Code Section 13379

(a and b), plus source control, will not result

in complete compliance with the following limits

by July 1, 1978, the Board and Regional Ad-

ministrator may allow additional time for com-

pliance not to exceed July 1, 1983:

Discharge Rate Concentration

(Ibs/day) * Limit(mg)

30-Day Daily 30-Day Daily

Constituents Average Maximum Average Maximum

Arsenic 0.50 1.00 0.01 0.02

Cadmium 1.00 1.50 0.02 0.03

Total chromium 0.25 0.50 0.005 0.01

Copper 10.0 15.0 0.2 0.3

Lead 5.00 10.0 0.1 0.2

Mercury 0.05 0.10 0.001 0.002

Nickel 5.00 10.0 0.1 0.2

Silver 1.00 2.00 0.02 0.04

Zinc © 15.0 25.0 0.3 0.5

Cyanide 5.00 10.0 0.1 0.2

Phenolic compounds

(expressed as phenol) 25.0 50.0 0.5 1.0

Ammonia (expressed as

nitrogen) 1,500 2,000 80 40

Total identifiable

chlorinated hydrocarbons 0.10 0.20 0.002 0.004

Toxicity concentration — — 1.5(tu) 2.0(tu)

Residual! chlorine —- — 1.0 2.0

* Based upon a flow of 6 mgd.

9. The daily discharge rate shall be obtained from

the following calculation for any calendar day:

Daily discharge rate=8.34 <

¥ oe Q, sn C,

> <

in which N is the number of samples analyzed

in any calendar day. Q: and C, are the flow

rate (MGD) and the constituent concentration

(mg/1) respectively, which are associated with

each of the N grab samples which may be

taken in any calendar day. If a composite

sample is taken, C, is the concentration meas-

" i he

10.

11.

12.

18.

ured in the composite sample, and Q, is the

average flow rate occurring during the period

over which samples are composited.

The 7-day and 30-day average discharge rates

shall be the arithmetic average of all the values

of daily discharge rate calculated using the

results of analyses of all samples collected dur-

ing any 7 and 30 consecutive calendar day

periods, respectively. If fewer than four sam-

ples are collected and analyzed during any 30

consecutive calendar day period, compliance

with the 30-day average discharge rate limita-

tion shall not be determined. If fewer than

three samples are collected and analyzed dur-

ing any 7-day period, compliance with the 7-

day average discharge rate limitation shall not

be determined.

The 7-day, or 30-day, average concentration,

other than the fecal coliform bacteria, means

the arithmetic mean of measurements made

during a 7, or 30, consecutive calendar day

period, respectively. The 7-day, or 30-day,

average concentration for fecal coliform bac-

teria means the geometric mean of measure-

ments made during a 7, or 30, consecutive cal-

endar day period, respectively. The geometric

oe is the nth root of the product of n num-

rs.

For Discharge 001, the arithmetic mean of the

BOD, and suspended solids values, by weight,

for effluent samples collected in » period of 30

consecutive calendar days shall not exceed 15

percent of the arithmetic mean of the values,

by weight, for influent samples collected at ap-

proximately the same times during the same

period. For Discharge 002, compliance with

this condition shall be as ordered by the com-

pliance schedule in item F-1.

The pH of wastes discharged shall at all times

be within the range 6.5 to 9.0.

14. The temperature of wastes discharged shall

not exceed 100°F.

15. Radioactivity in the effluent shall not exceed

the limits specified in Title 17, Section 5, Sub-

chapter 4, Group 3, Article 3, Section 30269

of the California Administrative Code.

B. Discharge Prohibition

1. As ordered by the schedule of compliance in

Provision F-1 below, the discharge of sludge

through Discharge Serial No. 003 shall be

terminated.

2. For the purposes of this Order, sludge shall be

defined as scum, grit, screenings, and sludge

collected from headworks and primary clari-

fiers; waste activated sludge collected from

aeration units and secondary clarifiers; di-

gested sludge collected from anaerobic di-

gesters; and the solids fraction collected from

sludge separation units or drying beds.

3. As used in this order, Phase I shall mean the

facilities necessary to provide for the termi-

nation of no less than the first 144 of the sewage

sludge presently discharged. Plase II shall

mean the facilities necessary to provide for the

termination of no less than an additional 14 of

the sewage sludge presently discharged. Phase

III shall mean the facilities necessary to pro-

vide for the termination of the discharge of

the final portion of sewage.

ce. The discharger shall comply with the schedule of

compliance as outlined in Provision F-1 below to

develop the “Regional Wastewater Solids Manage-

ment Program-Los Angeles-Orange County Metro-

politan Area” and implement the recommended

program for ultimate disposal of wastewater solids.

D. Receiving Water Limitations

1. As ordered by the schedule of compliance as

outlined in F-1 below, the discharge shall not

cause the following limits to be exceeded after

initial dilution after July 1, 1977:

Parameter Units Average Maximum

Floating Particulates mg dry weight/m? 1.0 1.5

Toxicity Toxicity units — 0.05

Grease and Oil mg/m? 10 20

2. The wates discharged shall not cause receiving

waters to contain any substance in concentra-

tions toxic to human, animal, plant, or fish life.

3. Wastes discharged shall not cause the appear-

ance of grease, oil or oily slick, or foam in the

receiving waters.

4. Wastes discharged shall not cause the forma-

tion of sludge banks or deposits or create a

nuisance due to odors or unsightliness along

shores or beaches.

5. Wastes discharged shall not cause objectionable

odors to emanate from the receiving waters.

6. No sewage solids or other physical evidence of

waste discharge shall be visible at any time in

the water or on beaches, shores, rocks, or struc-

tures.

7. The salinity of the receiving waters shall not

be changed by the discharge to an extent such

as to be harmful to desirable biota.

8. Nutrient materials contained in wastes dis-

charged shall not cause objectionable aquatic

growths or degrade indigenous biota.

9. Marine communities, including vertebrate, in-

vertebrate, and plant species, shall not be de-

graded.

10.

11.

12.

13.

The pH of the receiving waters shall not be

changed at any time by more than 0.2 pH units

from that which occurs naturally outside the

zone of initial dilution.

Wastes discharged shall not alter the color of

the receiving waters nor create a visual con-

tract with the natural appearance of the water.

Dissolved oxygen concentrations outside the

zone of initial dilution shall not at any time

be depressed more than 10 percent from that

which occurs naturally excluding effect of up-

welling.

The discharge shall not cause the following

bacteriological limitations to be exceeded in the

following areas:

a. Within a zone bounded by the shoreline

and a distance of 1,000 feet from the

shoreline or the 30-foot depth contour,

whichever is further from the shoreline,

and in areas outside this zone used for

body-contact sports, the following bacter-

iological objectives shall be maintained

throughout the water column:

Sample of water from each sampling

station shall have a most probable num-

ber of coliform organisms less than

1,000 per 100 mi (10 per nl); pro-

vided that not more than 20 percent of

the samples at any sampling station,

in any 30-day period, may exceed 1,000

per 100 ml (10 per ml), and provided

further that no single sample when

verified by a repeat sample taken with-

in 48 hours shall exceed 10,000 per 100

ml (100 per ml).

b. At all areas where shellfish may be har-

vested for human consumption, the fol-

lowing bacteriological objectives shall be

maintained throughout the water column:

— allie, asdprinstaie

14,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

The median total coliform concentra-

tion shall not exceed 70 per 100 ml,

and not more than 10 percent of the

samples shall exceed 230 per 100 ml.

The transmittance of natural light shall not

be significantly reduced at any point outside

the initial dilution zone, such that the mean

of sampling results for ayn consecutive 30-

day period would be beyond one standard de-

viation of the mean determined for natural

levels for the same period.

The concentration in marine sediments of sub-

stances listed in item A8 above shall not be

significantly increased above that present un-

der natural conditions.

The rate of deposition of inert solids and the

characteristics of inert solids in ocean sedi-

ments shall not be changed such that benthic

communities are degraded.

The concentration of organic materials in ma-

rine sediments shall not be increased above

that which would degrade marine life.

The dissolved sulfide concentration of waters

in and near sediments shall not be significantly

increased above that present under natural

conditions.

The natural taste, odor, and color of fish, shell-

fish, or other marine resources used for human

consumption shall not be altered.

E. General Requirements

Neither the discharge nor any treatment of

waste shall cause pollution or nuisance.

This discharge shall not cause a violation of

any applicable water quality standard for re-

ceiving waters adopted by the Regional Board

or the State Water Resource Control Board

—

as required by the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act and regulations adopted there-

under. If more stringent applicable water

quality standards are promulgated or approved

pursuant to Section 303 of the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, or amendments thereto,

the Board will revise and modify this Order

in accordance with such more stringent stand-

ards.

Odors of sewage origin shall not be perceivable

beyond the limits of the treatment plant.

Standby or emergency power facilities and/or

storage capacity or other means shall be pro-

vided so that in the event of plant upset or

outage due to power failure or other cause,

discharge of raw or inadequately treated sew-

age does not occur.

The Board and Regional Administrator shall

be notified immediately by telephone of the

presence of adverse conditions in the receiv-

ing waters or on beaches and shores as a re-

sult of this discharge; written confirmation

shall follow within 24 hours.

Any diversion from or bypass of facilities, in-

cluding the waste collection system, necessary

to maintain compliance with the terms and

conditions of this permit is prohibited, except

(a) where unavoidable to prevent loss of life

or severe property damage, or (b) where ex-

cessive storm drainage or runoff would damage

any facilities necessary for compliance with

the effluent limitations and prohibitions of

this permit. The permittee shall immediately

notify the Board and the Regional Administra-

tor by phone and in writing of each such di-

version or bypass, in accordance with proce-

dures outlined in the attached Standard Pro-

visions. The written confirmation shall include

information relative to the location, estimated

volume, date and time, duration, cause, and

remedial measures taken to effect cleanup and/

or to prevent recurrence. Immediate measures

shall be initiated to clean up wastes due to any

such bypass or diversion and to abate the ef-

fects thereof or, in the case of threatened pol-

lution or nuisance, to take other necessary

remedial action.

Notwithstanding E6, the bypassing of untreated

waste to the ocean is prohibited.

F. Provisions

Task

City of Los Angeles shall comply with the fol-

lowing time schedule to assure compliance with

the effluent and receiving water limitations

listed in items A-4, A-6, A-8, A-12, and D-1,

the discharge prohibition of item B-1, and the

pegrtsg disposal of sewage sludge provision of

item C:

Completion Report of

Date Compliance

A-4 and A-12:

Complete draft facility

plan

Progress report

December 19,1975 |§ December 31, 1975

July 1, 1976 July 15, 1976

Complete final plans and

specifications

December 1, 1976 December 15, 1977

Award contract and

begin construction

Progress reports

Complete construction

January 1, 1977 January 15, 1977

July 1, 1977 July 15, 1977

January 1, 1978 January 15, 1978

July 1, 1978 July 15, 1978

January 1, 1979

September 1, 1979

January 15, 1979

September 15, 1979

Operational level

attained

October 1, 1979 October 15, 1979

Demonstration of com-

pliance with effluent

limitations

D-1

Progress reports

Demonstration of com-

pliance with limita-

tions

B-1

Completion of approv-

able plans and specifi-

cations for Phases I,

II and III

Award contract and

begin construction

Receive delivery of

Phase I dewatering

equipment

Complete construction of

Phase I and achieve

operational level

Complete construction

of Phase II and

achieve operational

level

Complete construction of

Phase III and achieve

operational level

*** report to be submitted within 15 days of date specified

Completion

Date

January 1, 1976

July 1, 1976

January 1, 1977

July 1, 1977

January 1, 1978

July 1, 1978

January 1, 1976

July 1, 1976

January 1, 1977

July 1, 1977

not later than 6

months from date

of concept approval

not later than 9

months from date of

concept approval

not later than 15

months from the date

of conceptual

approval, but in no

case later than

December 31, 1976

not later than 18

months from date of

concept approval

not later than 24

months from date

of concept approval

not later than 30

months from date of

concept approval

completion of compliance schedule task.

Report of

Compliance

January 15, 1976

July 15, 1976

January 15, 1977

July 15, 1977

January 15, 1978

July 15, 1978

January 15, 1976

July 15, 1976

January 15, 1977

July 15, 1977

HEE

for

—

ee eee ee ee

Task

Progress Reports on

Program for Ultimate

Disposal of Sludge

Submit a schedule for

implementation of a

program for ultimate

disposal of waste-

water solids

Completion

Date

October 31, 1975

July 1, 1976

January 1, 1977

July 1, 1977

January 1, 1978

October 31, 1978

Report of

Compliance

November 15, 1975

July 15, 1976

January 15, 1977

July 15, 1977

January 15, 1978

November 15, 1987

The discharger shall submit to the Board and

the Regional Administrator on/or before each

compliance report date, a report detailing his

compliance or noncompliance with the specific

schedule date and task.

If noncompliance is being reported, the reasons

for such noncompliance shall be stated, plus an

estimate of the date when the discharger will

be in compliance. The discharger shal] notify

the Board and the Regional Administrator by

letter when he has returned to compliance with

the time schedule.

This Order includes the attached “Standard

Provisions”.

This Order includes items 1, 2, 8, and 4 of the

attached “Reporting Requirements”.

This Order includes the attached “General

Monitoring and Reporting Provisions”.

This Order expires on February 1, 1977, and

City of Los Angeles must file a Report of Waste

Discharge in accordance with Title 23, Califor-

nia Administrative Code, not later than 180

days in advance of such date as application for

issuance of new waste discharge requirements.

6. A copy of these waste discharge specifications

shall be maintained at the discharge facility so

as to be available at all times to operating per-

sonnel.

7. In the event of any change in name, ownership,

or control of these waste disposal facilities, the

discharger shall notify the Board and the Re-

gional Administrator, of such change and shall

notify the succeeding owner or operator of the

existence of this order by letter, copy of which

shall be forwarded to the Board and the Re-

gional Administrator.

8. Any discharge of wastes at any point(s) other

than specifically described in this permit is

prohibited, and constitutes a violation of the

permit.

9. The discharger shall file a comprehensive report

with the Board and Regional Administrator by

November 19, 1975, detailing measures to be

taken to control inflow and infiltration into the

Hyperion system. Included shall be an imple-

mentation schedule outlining specific tasks and

dates to mitigate inflow and infiltration.

10. Order No. 74-329 and NPDES permit number

CA0109991, issued November 18, 1974, are

hereby rescinded.

11. This Order does not alleviate the responsibility

to obtain other necessary iocal, state and fed-

eral permits to construct facilities necessary for

compliance with this Order; nor does this Order

prevent imposition of additional standards, re-

quirements, or conditions by any other regula-

tory agency.

This certifies that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor-

rect copy of an order adopted by the California Regional

Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, and

of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX. The order and permit shall become effective

30 days from the date of signature.

/s/ Raymond M. Hertel /s/ Richard L. O’Connell

| RAYMOND M. HERTEL RICHARD L. O’CONNELL

Executive Officer Director,

Enforcement Division,

for the Regional

Administrator

Date: August 18, 1975 Date: August 18, 1975

STANDARD PROVISIONS

. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize

the commission of any act causing injury to the prop-

erty of another, nor protect the discharger from his

liabilities under federal, state, or local laws, nor

guarantee the discharger a capacity right in the

receiving waters.

. The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or bio-

logical warfare agent or high level radiological waste

is prohibited.

. The discharger shall require any industrial user of

the treatment works to comply with applicable service

charges and toxic and pretreatment standards pro-

mulgated in accordance with Sections 204(b), 307,

and 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

or amendments thereto. The discharger shall require

each individual user to submit periodic notice (over

intervals not to exceed nine months) of progress to-

ward compliance with applicable toxic standards de-

veloped pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act or amendments thereto. The discharger

shall forward a copy of such notice to the Board and

the Regional Administrator.

. The discharger shall permit the Regional Board, the

Regional Administrator, or their authorized repre-

sentatives:

(a) Entry upon premises in which an effluent

source is located or in which any required

records are kept;

(b) Access to copy any records required to be kept

under terms and conditions of this Order;

ords, and

(d) Samping of any discharge.

5. All discharges authorized by this Order shall be con-

sistent with the terms and conditions of this Order.

sre

The discharge of any pollutant more frequently than

or at a level in excess of that identified and author-

ized by this Order shall constitute a violation of the

terms and conditions of this Order.

The discharger shall maintain in good working order

and operate as efficiently as possible any facility or

control system installed by the discharger to achieve

compliance with the waste discharge requirements.

Collected screenings, sludges, and other solids re-

moved from liquid wastes shall be disposed of at a

legal point of disposal, and in accordance with the

provisions of Division 7.5 of the California Water

Code. For the purpose of this requirement, a legal

point of disposal is defined as one for which waste

discharge requirements have been prescribed by a

regional water quality control board and which is in

full compliance therewith. This provision does not

apply to the sludge discharge through outfall serial

0. .

After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this

Order may be terminated or modified for cause, in-

cluding, but not limited to:

(a) Violation of any term or condition contained

in this Order;

(b) Obtaining this Order by misrepresentation, or

failure to disclose all relevant facts;

a tempora”y or permanent reduction or elimi-

nation of the authorized discharge.

If a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including

any schedule of compliance specified in such effluent

standard or prohibition) is established under Section

307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,

or amendments thereto, for a toxic pollutant which

is present in the discharge authorized herein and

such standard or prohibition is more stringent than

any limitation upon such pollutant in this Order, the

Board and the Regional Administrator will revise or

10.

11.

12.

modify this Order in accordance with such toxic

effluent standard or prohibition and so notify the

discharger.

There shall be no discharge of harmful quantities of

oil or hazardous substances, as specified by regula-

tion adopted pursuant to Section 311 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, or amendments thereto.

In the event the discharger is unable to comply with

any of the conditions of this Order due to:

(a) breakdown of waste treatment equipment;

(b) accidents caused by human error or negli-

gence; or

(ce) other causes such as acts of nature,

the discharger shall notify the Executive Officer and

the Regional Administrator by telephone as soon as

he or his agents have knowledge of the incident and

confirm this notification in writing within two weeks

of the telephone notification. The written notification

shall include pertinent information explaining rea-

sons for the non-compliance and shall indicate what

steps were taken to correct the problem and the

dates thereof, and what steps are being taken to

prevent the problem from recurring.

Pretreatment of Industrial Wastewaters

(a) Submittal of Information

The discharger shall submit to the Board and

the Regional Administrator:

(1) not later than December 18, 1975, the

information described in Section IV of

EPA Form 7550-22 for each major con-

tributing industry;

(2) at least thirty days prior to its initia-

tion, notification of any new introduc-

tion of pollutants from sources which,

if they were to discharge to the waters

of the United States, including the ter-

ritorial seas, would be

(a) a new source as defined in Section

306 of the Act, or

(b) a major contributing industry sub-

ject to Section 301 of the Act. The

notification in (a) & (b) above shall

include the information described in

Section IV of EPA Form 7550-22;

(3) notification of any substantial change

in volume or character of pollutants dis-

charged by an existing source. Such

notice shall include the information de-

scribed in Section IV of EPA Form

7550-22 and the anticipated impact, if

any, on the quality or quantity of efflu-

ent discharged from the discharger’s

facility.

After receipt and review of such information, the

Board or the Regional Administrator may revise or

modify the conditions of this order including any

necessary effluent limitations for any pollutants not

identified and limited herein.

(b) Control of Industrial Pollutants

(1) The discharger shall require all indus-

trial users of its treatment works to

comply with the requirements of Sec-

tion 204 (b), if applicable, and Sec-

tion 307 of the Act. All existing major

contributing industries shall be required

to comply with pretreatment standards

for prohibited wastes and incompatible

pollutants within the shortest reason-

able time but not later than three

years from the date of their promulga-

tion. New industrial sources shall be

required to comply with pretreatment

standards promulgated pursuant to Sec-

(2)

tion 307(c) of the Act upon initiation

of their discharge to the discharger’s

facilities.

The discharger shall by December 18,

1975, submit to the Board and the Re-

gional Administrator for each major

contributing industry either (a) evi-

dence of compliance with pretreatment

standards promulgated pursuant to

Section 307(b) of the Act, or (b) a

report, on a form to be furnished by

the Administrator which shall set forth

the effluent limits to be achieved and

an implementation schedule for the

achievement of compliance by the re-

quired date. Such implementation sched-

ules shall in every case provide for the

initiation of any needed construction

of pretreatment facilities within 18

months of the date of promulgation of

applicable pretreatment standards.

(ce) Compliance Monitoring

(1)

(2)

The discharger shall monitor the com-

pliance of all affected sources with the

provisions of this condition and shall

submit quarterly reports on the status

of such compliance to the Board and

the Regional Administrator. These

quarterly compliance reports shall cover

the same periods and shall be submitted

on the same schedule as the monitoring

reports required by this order begin-

ning by December 18, 1975.

The discharger shall report quarterly

to the Board and the Regional Admin-

istrator each instance of compliance or

noncompliance by an affected source

with the provisions of implementation

(3)

schedules submitted as required by sub-

paragraph b. of this condition.

The wastewater flow of each affected

source that is not covered by a current

implementation schedule shall be mon-

itored by the discharger or at the direc-

tion of the discharger by the source,

or by both, in such a manner and fre-

quency so as to produce information

that will demonstrate to the satisfac-

tion of the Board and the Regional

Administrator compliance or noncom-

pliance with the pretreatment stand-

ards applicable to such source. Such

monitoring shall comply with the moni-

toring requirements of this order. The

results of such monitoring shall be re-

ported by the discharger on the Dis-

charge Monitoring Report Form and

shall be included in the quarterly com-

pliance report described in 1. above.

(d) Definitions

(1)

An “industry” means any facility iden-

tified in the Standard Industrial Classi-

fication Manual, 1972, Office of Man-

agement and Budget, as amended and

supplemented, under the following di-

visions:

a) Division A—Agriculture, Forestry,

and Fishing;

b) Division B—Mining;

ce) Division D—Manufacturing;

d) Division E—Transportation, Com-

munications, Electric, Gas, and

Sanitary Services;

e) Division I—Services.

(2)

(4)

A facility in the Divisions listed may

be excluded if it is determined by the

Board and the Regional Administrator

that it introduces primarily domestic

waste or wastes from sanitary con-

veniences.

A “major contributing industry” means

one that: (1) has a flow of 50,000 gal-

lons or more per average work day;

(2) has a flow greater than five per-

cent of the flow carried by the munici-

pal system receiving the waste; (3) has

in its waste a toxic pollutant in toxic

amounts as defined in standards issued

under Section 307 (a) of the Act; or

(4) is found by the Board or the Re-

gional Administrator to have significant

impact, either singly or in combination

with other contributing industries, on

the treatment works or the quality of

its effluent.

A “treatment works” means any facil-

ity, method or system for the storage,

treatment, recycling, or reclamation of

municipal sewage or industrial wastes

of a liquid nature, including waste in

combined storm water and sanitary

sewer systems.

“Prohibited wastes” means any of the

following wastes, which shall not be

introduced into the treatment works:

a) Wastes which create a fire or ex-

plosion hazard in the treatment

works;

b) Wastes which will cause corrosive

structural damage to treatment

works, but in no case wastes with a

pH lower than 5.0 unless the works

nee ee

is designed to accommodate such

wastes;

¢) Solid or viscous wastes in amounts

which would cause obstruction to

the flow in sewers, or other inter-

ference with the proper operation

of the treatment works; or

d) Wastes at a flow rate and/or pollu-

tant discharge rate which is exces-

sive over relatively short time per-

iods so that there is a treatment

process upset and subsequent loss of

treatment efficiency.

(5) An “incompatible pollutant” means any

pollutant which is not a compatible

pollutant.

(6) A “compatible pollutant” means bio-

chemical oxygen demand suspended

solids, pH and fecal coliform bacteria,

plus additional pollutants identified as

compatible in this permit if the treat-

ment works was designed to treat such

pollutants, and in fact does remove

such pollutants to a substantial degree.

13. Growth—Related Conditions

(a) Step 1.—Warning Notice

(b)

Should there be a violation of any condition

of this order the Board or the Regional Ad-

ministrator pursuant to Section 402(h) of

the Act may proceed in a court of competent

jurisdiction to restrict or prohibit further

connections to the discharge’s treatment works

by any sources not utilizing the treatment

works prior to the finding that such a con-

dition was violated.

Step 2.—Initial Planning Actions

Not later than December 18, 1975, the dis-

charger shall submit to the Board and the

(c)

Regional Administrator a report on progress

in the development of a long-range plan which

will assure the prevention of hydraulic over-

load or inadequate treatment capacity of the

discharger’s treatment works. The report

shall be revised and submitted to the Board

and the Regional Administrator not less fre-

quently than at twelve month intervals there-

after.

The long-range plan shall include but is not

limited to the following considerations:

(1) a land use and pollution strategry to

achieve a balance between increased

wasteload generation and treatment ca-

pacity ;

(2) Community review of developments which

increase wasteload generation such as sub-

division approvals, building permits and

zoning changes; and,

(3) development of local legal authority to

enact ordinances, amend zoning regula-

tions, modify subdivision requirements

and building codes, or other appropriate

measures to assure the prevention of hy-

draulic overload or inadequate treatment

capacity.

Step 3.—Comprehensive Planning and Man-

agement System

Within 60 days of the effective date of this

Order the discharger shall submit to the Board

and the Regional Administrator a schedule of

anticipated new extensions and connections of

new sources of wasteload to the discharger’s

treatment works for the period ending with

the expiration date of this order.

The schedule shall be consistent with appli-

cable land use plans, open space plans, zoning

14,

15.

maps, capital improvement budgets, and other

appropriate planning and management con-

straints. Beginning not later than one year

after submittal of the schedule, the discharger

shall submit to the Board and the Regional

Administrator an annual report which con-

tains revisions of the schedule, if any, and

compares the rate of actual extensions and

connections with the schedule.

In addition, within 30 days of the effective

date of this Order, the discharger shall sub-

mit to the Board and the Regional Adminis-

trator a proposed program of public notice

including quarterly summary reports which

inform users of the discharger’s treatment

works and local government officials of the

extent of compliance achieved with the con-

ditions of this order. Thereafter, the dis-

charger shall initiate the program 30 days

after approval of the Board and the Regional

Administrator including in said implementa-

tion any additions or modifications which the

Board or the Regional Administrator may

make in approving the program.

Nothing in this order shall be construed to relieve

the discharger from civil or criminal penalties for

noncompliance.

The Board and the Regional Administrator may

upon request of the discharger, and after public

notice, revise or modify any schedule of compliance

in this order if they determine good and valid cause

(such as an act of God, strike, flood, materials

shortage, or other event over which the discharger

has little or no control) exists for such revision.

REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

1. The discharger shall file with the Board and the

Regional Administrator technical reports on self-

monitoring work performed according to the detailed

specifications contained in any Monitoring and Re-

porting Programs as directed by the Executive Of-

ficer.

. The discharger shall file a written report with the

Board and the Regional Administrator within 90 days

after the average dry-weather waste flow for any

month equals or exceeds 75 percent of the design

capacity of his waste treatment and/or disposal fa-

cilities. The discharger’s senior administrative officer

shall sign a letter which transmits that report and

certifies that the policy-making body is adequately

informed about it. The report shall include:

Average daily flow for the month, the date on which

the instanteous peak flow occurred, the rate of that

peak flow, and the total flow for that day.

The discharger’s best estimate of when the average

daily dry-weather flow rate will equal or exceed the

design capacity of his facilities.

The discharger’s intended schedule for studies, de-

sign, and other steps needed to provide additional

capacity for his waste treatment and/or disposal

facilities before the waste flow rate equals the ca-

pacity of present units. (Reference: Sections

13260, 13267(b), and 13268, California Water

Code.)

_ The discharger shall notify the Board and the Re-

gional Administrator of (a) new introduction into

such works of pollutants from a source which would

be a new source as defined in Section 306 of the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or amendments

thereto, if such source were discharging pollutants to

the waters of the United States, (b) new introduc- .

tions of pollutants into such works from a source

which would be subject to Section 301 of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, or amendments thereto,

if it were discharging such pollutants to the waters

of the United States, (c) a substantial change in the

volume or character of pollutants being introduced

into such works by a source introducing pollutants

into such works at the time the waste discharge re-

quirements were adopted. Notice shall include a de-

scription of the quantity and quality of pollutants

and the impact of such change on the quantity and

quality of effluent from such publicly owned treat-

ment works. A substantial change in volume is con-

sidered an increase of ten percent in the mean dry-

weather flow rate.

. The discharger shall file with the Board and the

Regional Administrator a report on waste discharge

at least 120 days before making any material change

or proposed change in the character, location or vol-

ume of the discharge.

. The discharge shall file with the Board and the

Regional Administrator, within 90 days after the

effective date of this Order, a technical report on his

preventive (fail-safe) and contingency (cleanup)

plans for controlling accidental discharges, and for

minimizing the effect of such events. The technical

report should:

Identify the possible sources of accidental loss, un-

treated waste bypass, and contaminated drainage.

Loading and storage areas, power outage, waste

treatment unit outage, and failure of process

equipment, tanks and pipes should be considered.

Evaluate the effectiveness of present facilities and

procedures and state when they became operational.

Describe facilities and procedures needed for effec-

tive preventive and contingency plans.

Predict the effectiveness of the proposed facilities

and procedures and provide an implementation

schedule containing interim and final dates when

they will be constructed, implemented, or opera-

tional. (Reference: Sections 18267(b) and 13268,

California Water Code.)

The Board, or the Regional Administrator after re-

view of the technical report, may establish conditions

which it deems necessary to control accidental dis-

charges and to minimize the effects of such events.

Such conditions may be incorporated as part of this

Order, upon notice to the discharger.

;. The discharger shall submit to the Board, and the

Regional Administrator by January 30 of each year,

an annual summary of the quantities of all chemicals,

listed by both trade and chemical names, which are

used for cooling and/or boiler water treatment and

which are discharged.

. The discharger shall submit to the Board, and Re-

gional Administrator together with the first monitor-

ing report required by this permit, a list of all chemi-

cals and proprietary additives which could affect this

waste discharge, including quantities of each. Any

subsequent changes in types and/or quantities shall

be reported promptly.

_ Not later than 6 months from the effective date of

this order and permit the discharger shall submit to

the Board and the Regional Administrator a work

plan and schedule of compliance to achieve a demon-

stration that the discharger complies with Section

403 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Upon approval of the Board and the Regional Admin-

istrator, the interim and final dates contained in the

schedule shall become conditions of this Order. Ap-

proval may include additions or modifications to the

schedule.

GENERAL MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROVISIONS

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR

SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS

Unless otherwiste noted, all sampling, samples preserva-

tion, and analyses shall be conducted in accordance with

the current edition of “Standard Methods for the Ex-

amination of Water and Wastewater” or as approved by

the Executive Officer and the Regional Administrator.

All analyses shall be performed in a laboratory approved

by the Executive Officer or certified to perform such

analyses by the California State Department of Public

Health.

Effluent samples shall be taken downstream of any ad-

dition to the treatment works and prior to mixing with

the receiving waters.

The discharger shall calibrate and perform maintenance

procedures on all monitoring instruments and equipment

to insure accuracy of measurements, or shall insure that

both activities will be conducted.

A grab sample is defined as an individual sample col-

lected in fewer than 15 minutes.

A composite sample is defined as a combination of no

fewer than eight individual samples obtained over the

specified sampling period. The volume of each individual

sample is proportional to the discharge flow rate at the

time of sampling. The sampling period shall equal the

discharge period, or 24 hours, whichever period is

shorter.

GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR REPORTING

For every item where the requirements are not met, the

discharger shall submit a statement of the actions under-

taken or proposed which will bring the discharge into

full compliance with requirements at the earliest time

and submit a time table for correction to the Board and

the Regional Administrator.

By February 28 of each year, the discharger shall sub-

mit an annual report to the Board and the Regional

Administrator. The report shall contain both tabular

and graphical summaries of the monitoring data obtained

during the previous year. In addition, the discharger

shall discuss the compliance record and the corrective

actions taken or planned which may be needed to bring

the discharge into full compliance with the waste dis-

charge requirements.

The discharger shall maintain all sampling and analyti-

cal results, including strip charts; date, exact place, and

time of sampling; date analyses were performed; analyst’s

name; analytical techniques used; and results of all

analyses. Such records shall be retained for a minimum

of three years. This period of retention shall be extended

during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding

this discharge or when requested by the Board or the

Regional Administrator.

Monitoring reports shall be signed by:

a. In the case of corporations, by a principal executive

officer at least of the level of vice-president or his

duly authorized representative, if such representa-

tive is responsible for the overall operation of the

facility from which discharge originates;

b. In the case of a partnership, by a general partner;

ce. In the case of a sole proprietorship, by the pro-

prietor ;

d. In the case of municipal, state or other public fa-

cility, by either a principal executive officer, rank-

ing elected official, or other duly authorized em-

ployee.

The discharger shall mail an originally signed copy of

each monitoring report and of all other reports required

by this order to each of the following:

Regional Administrator California Regional Water

Environmental Protection Quality Control Board,

Agency Los Angeles Region

Region IX 107 South Broadway

Attention: ENCMR Los Angeles, CA 90012

100 California Street Attention: Executive Officer

San Francisco, CA 94111

Each report shall contain the following completed declara-

tion:

“T declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing

is true and correct

Executed on the — day of at

(Signature)

(Title)”

In reporting the monitoring data, the discharger shall

arrange the data in tabular form so that the date, the

constituents, and the concentrations are readily discern-

ible. The date shall be summarized to demonstrate com-

pliance with waste discharge requirements, and, where

applicable, shall include results of receiving water ob-

servations.

If the discharger monitors the discharge more frequently

than required by this order, using approved analytical

methods as specified herein, the results of such monitor-

ing shall be included in the calculation and reporting

of the values required in the monitoring report. Such

increased frequency shall also be indicated in the moni-

toring report.

Monitoring, analytical, and reporting requirements may

be modified by the Board or the Regional Administrator

upon due notice.

es I ee are ae

sa.

38 39

For Traverse 3:

CALORIES Be gag QUALITY Station 3A 6,500 feet

.' @ 15,000 “

LOS ANGELES REGION iis hiniitieetinsh

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Station 4A 6,000 feet

NO. 1492 > @ 20,000 “

FOR » 35,000 “

City of Los Angeles For Traverse 5:

Hyperion Treatment Plant Station - Pin feet

A. Location of Sampling Stations seal as Wah tent

1. A sampling station shall be established for each “ 6B 20,000 “

point of discharge and shall be located where For Traverse 7:

representative samples of the effluent can be ob- Station 7A 5,000 feet

tained. These stations shall be designated as Dis- “ "7B 20,000 “

charge Serial Nos. 001, 002, and 003, respectively. For Traverse 8 :

. Offshore stations shall be established along eight Station _ nae feet

traverses radiating outward from a point of “ g8C 35,000 “

origin which shall be the center of the five-mile

effluent outfall diffuser pattern (approximately

at Latitude 33° 54’ 30” N and Longitude 118°

31’ 30” W).

These traverses shall proceed radially outward

from that point of origin on bearings referenced

to true north, as follows:

Traverse 1 North

es N 45° E

East

S$ 45° E

South

S 45° W

West

N 45° W

The offshore stations shall be located along these

traverses at the following distances from the

origin:

For Traverse 1:

“ee

CO 1H Crm CO ND

Station 1A 7,500 feet

a 1B 20,000 “

For Traverse 2:

Station 2A 6,000 feet

- 2B 15,000 “

In addition to the above, a control station (Sta-

tion OC) shall be established at a location 6,000

feet offshore from Las Tunas Beach (34° 1’ 20.3”

N, 118° 36’ W).

The offshore stations shall be located by means of

radar navigation; other means may be utilized

if in the judgment of the Executive Officer they

are of sufficient accuracy to permit reoccupation

of the stations within a reasonable distance.

. Eight nearshore stations shall be established, in

order to facilitate commutation by boat, at a

distance of 3,000 feet from the shoreline, as

follows:

Station Location

Nl Off Las Tunas Beach (34° 1’ 50.3“N, 118° 36’W)

N2 Along Traverse 1 and 40,000 feet from the origin

N3 Offshore from Ocean Park tower, Santa Monica

N4 Along Traverse 2 and 25,000 feet from the origin

N5 Offshore from Shore Station S 34.8 (see below)

N6 Along Traverse 3 and 28,000 feet from the origin

N7 Off Municipal Pier, Manhattan Beach

N8 Due west from northerly stack, near north end of

King Harbor, Redondo Beach

4. Seventeen shore stations shall be established as

follows: ;

Station Location

S21.7. Extension of Big Rock Road at 19543 Pacific Coasié

Highway, Malibu

S23.6 1,000’ east of Topanga Canyon Blvd., east side of

The Point Restaurant, Malibu

S25.6 East side of Bel Air Bay Club, Pacific Palisades

S27.5 Extension of San Vicente Blvd., Santa Monica-300’

SE of abandoned pilings at Santa Monica Beach

State Park

S28.5 400’ SW of Wilshire Blvd., Santa Monica State Beach

Park (NW of end of breakwater)

$29.6 Strand Street extended, Santa Monica

$31.8 Venice Blvd. extended, Venice Beach

$32.4 Northstar Street extended, Venice Beach

$33.7. Surf Street, north side of Westport Beach Club,

Playa Del Rey

$34.8 Epinard Street extended, Playa Del Rey

$35.8 Opposite Hyperion East Headworks, 1,100’ north of

one-mile submarine outfall

S37.4 45th Street extended, Manhattan Beach State Park

$39.38 6th Street extended, Manhattan Beach State Park

$40.6 South side of Municipal Pier, Hermosa Beach

$42.5 Pearl Street extended, south side of Redondo Park,

Redondo Beach

$43.7 Avenue I extended, Redondo Beach

$45.0 Extension of Arroyo Circle, Malaga Cove, Palos

Verdes Estates

5. Three diving stations shall be established at the

main termini of the one-mile and 5-mile effluent

outfalls and on the shelf above the submarine

canyon in which the sludge outfall terminates;

these shall be designated D1, D2 and D8, re-

spectively.

6. Eight inshore diving stations shall be established

on transects normal to the shoreline at the eight

nearshore stations, at a depth of 80 feet.

B. Type and Frequency of Sampling and Analysis

1. Effluent Monitoring

Minimum

Frequency

Type of

Discharge

Serial No.

001,002,003

of Analysis

Sample

Units

Parameter

continuous

grab

mgd

Flow

twice daily

daily

24-hr. composite

grab

°F

mg/l

mg/1

MPN/10Col

001,002,003

001,002

Temperature

BOD, 20°C

daily

Suspended solids

Coliform group

Fecal coliform

daily

grab

MPN/10Col

—_

daily

once every 8 hours

gra

grab

mg/1

pH units

ml/1

001,002,003

001,002

Oil and grease *

Settleable solids

Arsenic

monthly

24-hr. composite

mg/1

001,002,003

mg/1

001,002,003

Cadmium

mg/1

001,002,003

Chromium

mg/1

Copper

Lead

mg/l

001,002,003

mg/l

001,002,003

Mercury ?

Nickel

Silver

Zine

mg/1

001,002,003

mg/1

‘IPL ‘PEL “dd ‘(spoujey, Vd) e7yefouceyd poyeuloyNe UOIzeI}T} JO WOTEZI19[SseU—UOTF][TS!P AG,

‘poyjaul ozBj[Ns oUTONAqG JO UOT}ONpel WINTUIPe ay} 4G 9

‘aBpnys OT go

‘aBBMOS JOT +

"QLET ‘T 10q0P~O 0}

old paljeysur JusuIdInbs Aressedeu oY} SABY [[BYS JeZIVYyosIp oy], “UOT}eULIO[YO FO spolied Sutinp Ajuo perinbes

31 SISA[BUB SNONuUTzUOD ‘A[feNsIA JO Al[BdltjeWOIeduIe PauTULIEzep quiod pus oy} YIM ‘poyzUl dII}eUOpO! 94} Ad ¢

‘uorydiosqe d1M10}8 ssojeurey Ag z

‘poyyeUL UOTBIZXS SUBYeOLONGLIOLO[YIIT} 4} AG 1

Arep d}ISOdUIOD “IY-FZ re, Sprjos pepuedsng

Ajrep ay180dul0d *1Y4-FZ 1/3 — 0.02 “dod

— pZul — MOLT

qy31eM AIp SuLloyuoW JueNpUy ~%

ATYyUOUL B}ISOAUIOD “1Y-FZ 1/3u Z00‘T00 soyepnoizzed BurzVol yy

A[yquoul 9}ISOdUIOD “1Y-FZ {/3uw €00 asvei3 s]qeyruodes

A[yyuoul dPISOAUIOD “1-H 1/3u £00 SPIO 9[IFBlOA [BIOL

Ajrep a}ISOdUIOD “1Y-FZ 1/3w 00 SPITOS [F}0.L

Ajyyuoul a}ISOdUIOD “1Y-FZ 1/3 €00°Z00'T00 (q 88) snzoydsoyd [230

A[y}uoul O}ISOAUIOD “1Y-FZ 1/su Z00°T00 (SVaN

‘gooUBISGNS 9ATPOB-ON[G

aue[AyJoul 8B) 83U93.1049(

A[yyuoul O}ISOdUIOD “1Y-FZ 1/3 * $00°Z00‘T00 UIBOI}TU IIUBBIO

A[y}uouL 9} SOACUIOD *1Y-FZ 1/3u 200°100 , Ussor}IU BIUOUTY

A[y}uoUl B}ISOAUIOD “1Y-HZ 1/3 Z00°T00 UdSOIPIU 9}VIFIN

A[yyuour 9} 1SOdUIOD “1-H 1/su Z00°T00 9 UIZOI}IU 9FB1}ZIN

Ajyyuoul B}ISOdUIOD “1Y-HZ 1/3u £00‘Z00‘T00 sAuaydiq poyeulsojyosjod

Ajyyuour B}ISOdUIOD *1Y-FZ 9 BY/10d

» [W/10d £00‘Z00‘T00 APATPOVOIPCY

sziun

A[yyuoul B}ISOAUIOD *1Y-FZ AYOIXO]T, Z00‘T00 UOI}ZV.IPUIIUOD APIOIXOT,

A[yjuoul 9} ISOdUIOD “1Y-FZ 1/3 €00°Z00‘T00 suogreo0IpAY pezeult

-O[Y9 B[QBy!zUp! [BIOL

= snonut}uod 1/su Z00‘T00 g [BNPIsat SUILO[YS [8}O,L

Ajqyuoul S}ISOCUIOD “1Y-FZ {/3u $00‘Z00‘T00 spunodulos d1jouesy

A[yyuour B}ISOAUIOD “IY-HZ 1/3uL £00'Z00‘T00 uINnTUs[OS

Ajyyuour O}ISOAUIOD “1Y-HZ T/3u £00‘Z00°T00 opruBsy

sisA[euy JO ‘ajdueg sy1up) “ON [eHeg soyourBseg

Aduanbes jo adh, OBIBYISIG

UINUITUT

3. Receiving Water Monitoring

a. Offshore sampling stations shall be occupied

at least once each week between the hours of

7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Samples shall be taken at

a depth of one to three feet. In the event of

stormy weather that makes sampling hazard-

ous or impractical, these samples can be omit-

ted provided that such omissions do not occur

in consecutive weeks or in more than four

weeks in any calendar year. The following

determinations shall be made at each station:

(1) Dissolved oxygen

(2) Grease

(3) Temperature

(4) Transparency

(5) Floating particulates (surface sample

only—quarterly monitoring only)

- Once each month, on a day when samples are

taken as specified in 3-a above, samples shal!

also be obtained at each offshore station at

depths of 20 feet, 50 feet, and approximately

10 feet below the thermocline (if the latter

two stations lie within 10 feet of each other,

the 50-foot station may be omitted), and the

following determinations made:

(1) Dissolved oxygen

(2) Temperature

(3) Grease (sub-thermocline samples only)

_ Once each month a determination of water

turbidity shall be made at each offshore sta-

tion at the 5’, 10’, 20’, and 50’ depths, and

approximately 10 feet below the thermocline.

. Once every six months bottom samples shall

be obtained at each offshore station fer deter-

mination of content of organic matter, as a

percent of total dry solids. These bottom

samples shall be taken by means of a Shipek,

Petersen, or “orange-peel” dredge or an equiv-

alent device having an open sampling area

of not less than 60 square inches. Five bot-

tom samples shall be obtained at each station

and composited for analysis.

. Once every six months bottom samples shall

be obtained at each offshore station for deter-

minations of thickness of the sludge layer, if

any. These samples shall be taken by means

similar to those specified for core samples in

3-a. above. Sludge thickness shall be deter-

mined by direct measurement to the nearest

millimeter. To the extent practicable, a photo-

graphic record shall be made of each core.

f. Once every six months bottom samples shall

be obtained at each of the offshore stations

for biological examination and determination

of biomass and diversity. One of these sam-

plings shall be made during the summer sea-

son. The samples shall be collected with

Shipek, Petersen, “orange-peel” or equivalent

type dredge having an open sampling area of

not less than 60 square inches. Not less than

four samples shall be taken at each station

and each shall be processed and analyzed sepa-

rately.

. For biomass, the volume and wet weight re-

tained on a one millimeter screen per unit

volume of sediment shall be determined. The

animals representing at least ten percent of

the total population shall be enumerated and

mai as to genus (and species if possi-

e).

. An annual diving survey shall be made. This

shall consist of :

(1) An inspection and coring at and in the

vicinity of each diving station to deter-

mine thickness of sludge layer, presence

and thickness of any “cloud” of unset-

tled solids, and bottom flora and fauna.

A photographic record shall be made of

the results of this inspection.

(2) An examination of each outfall and dif-

fuser port system for leaks and flow dis-

tribution.

i. At intervals of five years or less, beginning

in 1971, an inspection shall be made at the

terminus of the sludge outfall and in the vi-

cinity, to determine thickness of sludge layer,

presence and thickness of any “cloud” of un-

settled solids, and bottom flora and fauna. A

photographic record shall be made of the re-

sults of this inspection. This inspection may

be made by diving, by submarine, or by other

suitable means.

j. Nearshore sampling stations shall be occupied

once each week between the hours of 7 a.m.

and 6 p.m. Samples shall be taken at a depth

of one to three feet. In the event of stormy

weather that makes sampling hazardous or

impractical, these samples can be omitted pro-

vided that such omissions do not occur in con-

secutive weeks or in more than four weeks

in any calendar year. The following determi-

nations shall be made at each station:

(1) Dissolved oxygen

(2) Coliform

shallower than 55 feet). This measurement

shall be made:

(1) With a photometer fitted with a cosine

collecting device and a blue filter having

50 percent transmission values at 450

and 650 millimicrons;

(2) In units of ergs/cm?/day;

(3) Between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. when the

sun is not obscured by clouds (a slight

haze is permissible) .

. Shore stations shall be sampled on a daily

frequency, and the samples shall be analyzed

for coliform organisms, most probable number

(MPN).

. At the time samples are collected of the wa-

ters of Pacific Ocean (shore, nearshore and

offshore stations) observations shall be made

_and recorded of conditions of wind, weather,

and tide. Observations shall also be made and

recorded of water color, turbidity, odor, and

of floating or suspended matter in the water

or on the beach, rocks and jetties or beach

structures. The character and extent of such

matter shall be described.

. The inshore diving stations shall be occupied

at six-month intervals and the following de-

terminations made: Thickness of organic-

laden sediment and composition of substrate;

general condition of ocean floor; water tem-

perature and clarity; benthos; and fish count.

CN at ee Ca Be! BP Rs a PA Bld SDR OO. eee

(3) Transparency 7 C. Techniques of Sampling and Analyzing

(4) Temperature 1. All samples shall be taken and all analyses shall

. Once every six months (summer and winter) be performed in accordance with the latest edi-

the blue light energy shall be measured at tion of “Standard Methods for the Examination

nearshore stations N1 and N2 at a water of Water and Wastewater”, published by the

depth of 50 feet (or 5’ above the bottom if American Public Health Association, Inc., except

that for specific analyses newer techniques may

be used if in the judgment of the Executive Offi-

cer the results obtained are consistent with the

objectives of these waste discharge requirements.

Tests for most probable number (MPN) of coli-

form organisms will be the confirmed test using

at least three tubes per dilution and sufficient

dilutions to permit determination of the upper

and lower MPN limits from standard tables.

. Those personnel involved in sampling and analy-

sis shall be well trained to accomplish those func-

tions. Sampling and analytical apparatus shall

be appropriate to the task and in good working

order.

. Transparency measurements shall be made with

a Secchi disc. A Secchi disc is a circular plate,

having a standard diameter of 30 centimeters,

the top side of which is white. The disc is low-

ered in the water until the disc is just percepti-

ble, and the depth in feet reported.

. Turbidity shall be determined by means of a

turbidity meter, using equipment and procedure

similar to that described by L. V. Whitney,

“Transmission of Solar Energy and the Scatter-

ing Produced by Suspensoids in Lake Waters”,

Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sci-

ences, Arts, and Letters, Vol. 31 (1938). Results

shall be expressed as the percent of light attenu-

ation per meter of sea water, as compared to a

standard of distilled water.

. Procedures for determination of acute toxicity of

the waste using bioassay techniques shall be as

specified in the latest edition of “Standard Meth-

ods for the Examination of Water and Waste-

water”, by American Public Health Association

et al. Particular attention shall be directed to

the selection and preparation of test animals so

that the response of bicta in the marine environ-

ment is accurately measured. Test species selec-

tions shall be submitted to the Executive Officer

for advance approval. The duration of the tests

shall be 96 hours. Modifications of procedures

outlined in “Standard Methods” shall be only as

approved in advance by the Executive Officer of

this Board.

6. Radioactivity determinations of gross bets activ-

ity shall be made within 48 hours following prep-

aration of composite samples. The over-all effi-

ciency of the counting system, size of sample and

counting time shall be such that radioactivity can

be determined to a sensitivity of ten picocuries

' per liter (pc/l) for sewage and ten picocuries

per gram for sludge, with a 95% confidence limit

not to exceed 50 percent.

7. Inshore diving station examinations shall be made

in accordance with methods described by Turner,

Ebert, and Given, California Fish and Game, Vol.

52, No. 1 (1966).

D. Filing of Reports

1. One copy of a written report of the results of

the monitoring program shall be submitted to

the Board and one copy to the Regional Admin-

istrator for each month by the first day of the

second following month, beginning not later than

November 1, 1975.

2. Each written report shall contain the following

information:

a. Dates and times of sampling and observa-

tions;

b. Weather conditions during sampling;

ce. Average and peak daily volume of wastes dis-

charged during the report period;

d. Tabulated results of specified analyses and

physical observations, including the monthly

mean and range for each effluent parameter

reported ;

50 51

State of California

Resources Agency

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

e. Depth of thermocline;

f. In addition to reporting the most probable

number of coliform organisms obtained from

samples collected from shore and nearshore

stations, the running median of the latest

6-month period shall also be determined and

reported. Coliform data obtained during or

within 48 hours following a rainstorm shall

not be used in determining medians.

. In reporting the results of analyses for acute

toxicity, the following shall be reported for

each analysis:

(1) Median tolerance limit (96 hour test) ;

(2) A concise statement or table of the ex-

perimental data on which median toler-

ance limit data are based; that is, the

CONTROL BOARD,

LOS ANGELES REGION

Order No. 75-165

NPDES No. CA0109991

WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

FOR

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region finds that:

. ; 1. City of Los Angeles discharges wastes from the i

number and species of test organisms Hyperion Treatment Plant under waste discharge |

used and the recorded percentages of sur- requirements and a National Pollutant Discharge

vival at each tested concentration. This Elimination System (NPDES) Permit contained in i

table shall also include such data for the Order No. 75-100 jointly adopted by this Board and i

controls used ; issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on |

(3) The total number of test animals used in August 18, 1975.

each analysis shall be reported along with 2. Order No. 75-100 and the NPDES Permit contain |

the number of test animals surviving a time schedule for prohibition of the sludge dis-

after 24 hours, 48 hours, and 96 hours; charge. The time schedule is related to the Clean

(4) The species used in each test. Water Grant concept approval. '

In reporting the data on blue light energy 3. Concept approval was given on October 1, 1975. 3

(Item B3j) the measurement depths shall be 4, The Environmental Protection Agency is admin-

reported.

istratively modifying the NPDES Permit to sub-

stitute definite dates in the time schedule for com-

pliance with the sludge discharge prohibition.

The Board has notified the discharger and interested agen-

cies and persons of its intent to modify waste discharge

requirements for this discharge and has provided them

with an opportunity to submit their written views and

recommendations.

The Board in a public hearing heard and considered all

comments pertaining to the discharge and to the tentative

requirements.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Order No. 75-100

adopted by this Board on August 18, 1975, is modified

as follows:

A. Page 16 is deleted and replaced by the attached

page.

B. All other pages of Order No. 75-100 shall re-

main unmodified.

I, Raymond M. Hertel, Executive Officer, do hereby cer-

tify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy

of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water

en Control Board, Los Angeles Region, on December

/s/ Raymond M. Hertel

RAYMOND M. HERTEL

Executive Officer

RMH: dds

Completion Report of

Task Date Compliance

D-l

January 11,1976 January 15, 1976

July 1, 1976 July 15, 1976

January 1,1977 January 15, 1977

Demonstration of com- July 1, 1977 July 15, 1977

pliance with limitations

Completion of approvable April 1, 1976 April 16, 1976

plans and specifications

for Phases I, II, and III

Award contract and begin July 1, 1976 July 16, 1976

construction

Receive delivery of Phase I December 31, 1976 January 16, 1977

dewatering equipment

Complete constrution of April 1, 1977 April 16, 1977

Phase I and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of October 1, 1977 October 16, 1977

Phase II and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of April 1, 1978 April 16, 1978

Phase III and achieve

operational level

Progress Reports on Pro- October 31, 1975 November 15, 1975

gram for Ultimate July 1, 1976 July 15, 1976

Disposal of Sludge January 1,1977 January 15, 1977

July 1, 1977 July 15, 1977

January 1,1978 January 15, 1978

I, Richard A. Harris, am Assistant Executive Officer of

the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region, certify that this record is a true and

complete copy of the original document.

/s/ Richard A. Harris

RICHARD A. HARRIS

Modified 12/1/75

State of California

Resources Agency

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

CONTROL BOARD,

LOS ANGELES REGION

Order No. 76-80

ORDER DIRECTING THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO

COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS PRESCRIBED BY

THE CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION IN

ORDER NO. 75-100 (NPDES PERMIT NO. CA-

0109991) (C1 1492) (CA0109991) (M-1492)

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region, finds:

1. City of Los Angeles discharges an average of 350

mgd (million gallons per day) of treated municipal

wastewater and approximately 160 tons per day

of sewage sludge to Santa Monica Bay from its

Hyperion Treatment Plant in Playa del Rey under

requirements prescribed jointly on August 18, 1975,

by this Board and the United States Environmental

Protection Agency in Order No. 75-100 (NPDES

Permit No. CA0109991).

2. On December 1, 1975, this Board adopted Order

No. 75-165, amending Order No. 75-100 and the

NPDES Permit by modifying the time schedule for

prohibition of sludge discharge to the ocean to pro-

vide for definite dates for compliance with the

Tasks required for compliance with the Discharge

Prohibition, as specified in Provisions B-1, and B-

3 of Order No. 75-100.

3. The discharge requirements contained in Order No.

75-100 provide, in part, for the following Discharge

Prohibition :

“B-1. As ordered by the schedule of compliance in

Provision F-1 below, the discharge of sludge

through Discharge Serial No. 003 shall be

terminated.”

“B-3. As used in this order, Phase I shall mean

the facilities necessary to provide for the

termination of no less than the first 144 of

the sewage sludge presently discharged.

Phase II shall mean the facilities necessary

to provide for the termination of no less

than an additional 14 of the sewage sludge

presently discharged. Phase III shall mean

the facilities necessary to provide for the

termination of the final portion of sewage

sludge.

4. The time schedule contained in Order No. 75-165

for accomplishment of the discharge termination for

sludge is as follows: davies

Completion Report of

Task Date Compliance

Completion of approvable April 1, 1976 April 16, 1976

plans and specifications

for Phases, I, II, and III

Award contract and begin July 1, 1976 July 16, 1976

construction

Receive delivery of Phase I December 31, 1976 January i6, 1977

dewatering equipment

Complete construction of April 1, 1977 April 16, 1977

Phase I and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of October 1, 1977 October 16, 1977

Phase II and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of April 1, 1978 April 16, 1978

Phase III and achieve

operational level

5. The City has not completed or reported compliance

with the first Task set forth in Finding 4 listed

above.

6. Failure to meet the completion date specified for

approval plans and specifications makes it highly

probable that the City will fail to meet the sub-

sequent completion dates for the remaining Tasks

described above.

The Board in a public hearing heard and considered all

testimony pertinent to the matter. All Orders referred

to above and records of hearings and testimony therein

are included herein by reference.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that City of Los Angeles

shall comply with the following:

1. In accordance with Water Code Section 13301, the

City of Los Angeles is directed to comply with the

provisions of discharge prohibited B-1 of Order No.

75-100 (NPDES Permit No. CA0109991) as

amended by Order No. 75-165 in accordance with

the following time schedule for elimination of sludge

discharge to the ocean:

Phase Not Later Than The City Will

I August 1, 1978 Reduce sludge discharge by 40 tons

per day

II April 1, 1979 Reduce sludge discharge by an addi-

tional 40 tons per day for a cumula-

tive reduction of 80 tons per day

III October 1, 1979 Reduce sludge discharge by an addi-

tional 40 tons per day for a cumula-

tive reduction of 120 tons per day

IV April 1, 1980 Eliminate all remaining discharges

of sludge to the ocean. (Approxi-

mately 160 tons)

To accomplish compliance with the above schedule

the City of Los Angeles shall perform the follow-

ing tasks in accordance with the dates shown:

Report of

Completion Date Compliance

Task Not Later Than Not Later Than

Advertise for the demolition August 1, 1976 August 15, 1976

work, trucks and dewater-

ing equipment for Phases I,

II, Ill & IV

Report of

Completion Date Compliance

Task Not Later Than Not Later Than

Award contract for demo- December 1, 1976 December 15, 1976

lition, trucks and dewarter-

ing equipment for Phases I,

II, II & IV

Submit final plans and January 1,1977 January 15, 1977

specifications for support

system

Award contract for support May 1, 1977 May 15, 1977

system

Complete construction of August 1, 1978 August 15, 1978

Phase I and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of April 1, 1979 April 15, 1979

Phase II and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of October 1, 1979 October 15, 1979

Phase III and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of April 1, 1980 April 15, 1980

Phase IV and achieve

operational level

City of Los Angeles shall submit to the Regional Board,

the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Re-

gional Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency

on or before each compliance report date, a report on

compliance or non-compliance with the specific schedule

date and task.

If non-compliance is being reported, the reasons for such

non-compliance shall be stated, plus an estimate of the

date when City of Los Angeles will be in compliance.

City of Los Angeles shall notify the Regional Board,

the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Re-

gional Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency

by letter when it has returned to compliance with the

time schedule.

2. If the City of Los Angeles fails to comply with any

provision of this Order, the Executive Officer is au-

thorized, and he is hereby directed, to request the

Attorney General and District Attorney to take the

appropriate action against the discharger, including

injunction and monetary remedies.

I, Raymond M. Hertel, Executive Officer, do hereby cer-

tify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy

of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, on May 24,

1976.

/s/ Raymond M. Hertel

RAYMOND M. HERTEL

Executive Officer

I, Richard A. Harris, am Assistant Executive Officer

of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region, and certify that this record is a

true and complete copy of the original document.

/s/ Richard A. Harris

RICHARD A. HARRIS

State of California

Resources Agency

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

CONTROL BOARD,

LOS ANGELES REGION

Order No. 76-202

AN ORDER AMENDING ORDER NO. 76-80 DIRECT-

ING THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO COMPLY

WITH REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED IN ORDER

NO. 75-100 (CI 1492) (CA0109991) (M-1492)

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region, finds:

1. City of Los Angeles discharges an average of 340

mgd (million gallons per day) of treated municipal

wastewater and approximately 160 tons per day of

sewage sludge to Santa Monica Bay from its Hyperion

Treatment Plant in Playa del Ray under requirements

prescribed jointly on August 18, 1975, by this Board

and the United States Environmental Protection

Agency in Order No. 75-100 (NPDES Permit No.

CA0109991).

2. On December 1, 1975, this Board adopted Order No.

75-165, amending Order No. 75-100 and the NPDES

Permit by modifying the time schedule for prohibition

of sludge discharge to the ocean to provide for definite

dates for compliance with the tasks required to com-

ply with the Discharge Prohibition, as specified in

Provisions B-1, and B-3 of Order No. 75-100.

3. The City failed to meet the completion dates as speci-

fied in Order No. 75-165 and at a hearing held May

24, 1976, this Board adopted Order No. 76-80 direct-

ing the City of Los Angeles to comply with require-

ments, as prescribed by this Board, to eliminate sludge

discharge to the ocean.

Order No. 76-80 included the following time schedule

to insure the elimination of the sludge discharge to

the ocean by April 1, 1980:

Report of

Completion Date Compliance

Task Not Later Than Not Later Than

Advertise for the August 1, 1976 August 15, 1976

demolition work, trucks,

and dewatering equipment

for Phases I, II, III & IV

Award contract for December 1, 1976 December 15, 1976

demolition, trucks and

dewatering equipment

for Phases I, II, III & IV

Submit final plans and January 1,1977 January 15, 1977

specifications for

support system

Award contract for May 1, 1977 May 15, 1977

support system

Complete construction of August 1, 1978 August 15, 1978

Phase I and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of April 1, 1979 April 15, 1979

Phase II and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of October 1, 1979 October 15, 1979

Phase III and achieve

operational level

Complete construction of April 1, 1980 April 15, 1980

Phase IV and achieve

operational level

4. City of Los Angeles notified this Board by letter dated

September 29, 1976, that they would be unable to com-

plete submittal of final plans and specifications for

the support system by the due date, January 1, 1977.

The City stated that the support system is being

designed in two phases and requested that the cur-

rent time schedule be revised to allow the submittal

of the final plans and specifications in two stages.

The City has assured the Board that all final con-

struction and operation due dates in Order No. 76-

80 will be met on time without change.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Order No. 76-80

adopted by this Board on May 24, 1976, is amended

as follows:

1. The time schedule for compliance contained in Item

1 is deleted, and replaced with the following:

Report of

Completion Date Compliance

Task Not Later Than Not Later Than

Award vontract for December 1, 1976 December 15, 1976

demolition, trucks

and dewatering equipment

for Phases I, II, III & IV

Submit plans and January 11,1977 January 15, 1977

specifications necessary

to meet Phase I

Award contract for May 1, 1977 May 15, 1977

Phase I support system

Submit final plans and November 1, 1977 November 15, 1977

specifications for

Phases II, III & IV

Award contract for April 1, 1978 April 15, 1978

Phases II, III, & IV

support system

Complete construction August 1, 1978 August 15, 1978

of Phase I and achieve

operational level

Complete construction April 1, 1979 April 15, 1979

of Phase II and achieve

operational level

Complete construction October 1, 1979 October 15, 1979

of Phase III and achieve

operational level

Complete construction April 1, 1980 April 15, 1980

of Phase IV and achieve

operational level

City of Los Angeles shall submit to the Regional Board,

the State Water Resources Control Board, and the

Regional Administrator of Environmental Protection

Agency on or before each compliance report date, a re-

port on compliance or non-compliance with the specific

schedule date and task.

If non-compliance is being reported, the reasons for such

non-compliance shall be stated, plus an estimate of the

date when City of Los Angeles will be in compliance.

City of Los Angeles shall notify the Regional Board, the

State Water Resources Control Board, and the Regional

Administrator of Environmental Protection Agency by

letter when it has returned to compliance with the time

schedule.”

2. All other parts of Order No. 76-80 shall remain in

full force and effect.

I, Raymond M. Hertel, Executive Officer, do hereby cer-

tify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy

of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, on November

22, 1976.

/s/ Raymond M. Hertel

RAYMOND M. HERTEL

Executive Officer

RMH: dds

I, Richard A. Harris, am Assistant Executive Officer of

the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region, and certify that this record is a

true and complete copy of the original document.

RICHARD A. HARRIS

/s/ Richard A. Harris

OFFICE OF

CITY ATTORNEY

CITY HALL EAST

Los Angeles, California 90012

[SEAL]

BURT PINES

CITY ATTORNEY

December 9, 1976

Mr. Paul DeFalco

Regional Director

United States Environmental

Protection Agency

Region IX

100 California Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Re: OBJECTIONS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY’S NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE PRO-

POSED ACTION BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-

TION AGENCY OF MAKING A GRANT OFFER TO THE

City oF Los ANGELES FOR THE PROJECT TITLED

HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT, INTERIM SLUDGE

PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL SYSTEM

Dear Mr. DeFalco:

The purpose of this communication is to lodge with

you a formal protest, on behalf of the City of Los An-

geles, as to your decision to proceed with the funding

of the Hyperion Treatment Plant Interim Sludge Project

without the preparation and serious consideration of a

full environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to

the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act.

The City of Los Angeles strongly believes that there are

serious environmental considerations involved with the

proposed project that under federal law are required to

be seriously analyzed and considered in an appropriate

EIS before the proposed project may properly proceed.

In that regard, the view of the governing body of the

City of Los Angeles, its City Council, is set forth in a

motion unanimously adopted by the City Council on Tues-

day, December 7th, a copy of which we have enclosed.

The City of Los Angeles has received EPA’s negative

declaration and environmental impact appraisal for the

above project. The City strongly questions the validity

of the utilization of a negative declaration in support of

the agency action.

EPA’s environmental impact appraisal stated that the

project consists of dewatering the disgested sludge by

centrifugation at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP)

and hauling the sludge cake by truck to the Palos Verdes

Class 1 saniltary landfill. The project capacity will be

160 dry tons/day and will be constructed in four phases,

with construction of 40 dry tons/day capacity in each

phase. The project will provide for the complete re-

moval of sludge from the ocean by April 1, 1980. EPA’s

environmental impact appraisal goes on to state that

when the entire project is operational, the trucking opera-

tion will require 255 round trips/week with a hauling

distance of 42 miles/round trip. Operation of the cen-

trifuges will require about 640 Ibs. per day of chemical

polymers and will consume about 13.1 million kwh/year

of electricity. An estimate of energy consumption for the

transport of the sludge cake to the Palos Verdes landfill

is 3,600 barrels of oil per year. EPA’s environmental

impact appraisal further states that there will be dust

and noise due to the construction work at HPT, impacts

on the sanitary landfill site itself and impacts from the

transport of the sludge to the site.

The environmental impact appraisal of EPA states,

on page 9:

“Following are the unavoidable adverse impacts

from the project:

(a) The energy and materials required for the

construction of the dewatering facilities and the

energy required for hauling of the sludge cake to

the landfill are less than any alternative which ac-

complishes the objective of removing City of Los

Angeles sludge from the Pacific Ocean. Sludge dis-

posal of the landfill will have less impact on the

total environment than any of the other alternatives

when energy, time, and biotic effects are considered ;

(b) Dust generation during the construction of the

facilities, and noise impacts from the dewatering

and trucking operations are minimal; (c) the air

quality impacts of the trucking are less than the

impacts for any alternative except the “no project”

which does not comply with State and Federal laws.”

(Emphasis added)

EPA, in its environmental impact appraisal, attempts

to justify the utilization of a negative declaration on

the ground that the project would have less environ-

mental impact than any other alternative which EPA

considered. In the City’s view, this does not justify a

negative declaration.

The administrative action of the EPA, which the nega-

tive declaration purportedly supports, is the award of a

grant pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control

Act. Such action of the EPA is subject to environmental

review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy

Act, 40 Code of Federal Regulatons, 35.925-8. EPA was

required to make an environmental review, pursuant to

40 CFR 6.204, to determine whether significant impacts

are anticipated from the proposed action, whether any

feasible alternatives can be adopted or changes can be

made in project design to eliminate significant adverse

impacts, and whether an EIS or a negative declaration

is required. Section 6.212(a) of these regulations states

that when the environmental review indicates there will

be no significant impact or significant adverse impacts

have been eliminated by making changes in the project,

the responsible official shall prepare a negative declara-

tion to allow public review of his decision before it be-

comes final. However, clearly the law does not provide

that a negative declaration can be prepared merely be-

cause it is believed the project will have less of an en-

vironmental impact than the other alternatives.

The principal concern of the City of Los Angeles is

the total failure of EPA to consider the consequences of

continuing the discharge of sludge into the ocean, the

alternative described as “No project”. EPA has sum-

marily dismissed this alternative in its environmental

impact appraisal as not complying with State and Fed-

eral laws. We are unaware of any State or Federal

law that mandates the Interim Sludge Processing and

Disposal System that is the subject of the instant grant

offer, nor are we aware of any requirements of law that

require the City to diccontinue discharge of sludge to the

ocean at this time. Even if we accept the proposition

that EPA need not consider an alternative that conflicts

with the mandate of a federal statute, it is our judgment

that at most the discontinuance of ocean dumping of

sludge may not be required by the Federal Water Pollu-

tion Control Act until 1985. Any decision to require

such discontinuance prior to that date is purely within

the discretion of EPA. Clearly, pursuant to 40 CFR

6.304(b), EPA is required to prepare an EIS, which

“ . . shall develop, describe, and objectively, weigh

feasible alternatives to any proposed action, including

the options of taking no action or postponing action.”

(Emphasis added. )

The City, in its environmental assessments did not

consider the continuation of sludge discharge into the

ocean as an alternative since the City was subject to an

order of a State Regional Water Quality Control Board

ordering the eventual cessation of ocean discharge of

sludge. Pursuant to The California Environmental

Quality Act (Public Resources Code, Section 21154), the

City was precluded from considering ocean discharge as

an alternative since it would conflict with the State

Agency’s order. EPA, however, is not subject to the

restraints of Section 21154.

Additionally EPA couid not justify refusal to con-

sider continuance of ocean discharge of sludge as an al-

ternative merely because the law may preclude such

discharge in the future or even at present. The United

States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia circuit,

in the case of Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc.

v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827 (1972) stated that:

“The need for continuing review of environmental

impact of alternatives under NEPA cannot be put

to one side on the ground of past determinations by

Congress or the President.” (p. 836.)

The court went on to say that:

“The mere fact that an alternative requires legis-

lative implementation does not automatically estab-

lish it as beyond the domain of what is required for

discussion, particularly since NEPA was intended to

provide a basis for consideration and choice by the

decision makers in the legislative as well as the

executive branch.” (p. 837.)

The Morton case has been cited, as to this point, with

approval in subsequent decisions. Environmental De-

fense F., Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of United States

Army, 492 F.2d 1128, 1185 (1974); Sierra Club v.

Linn, 502 F.2d 48, 62 (1974).

The failure of EPA to consider the alternative of con-

tinued ocean discharge is sufficient by itself to require

further environmental assessment. The City of Los An-

geles has other concerns, however, with the adequacy

of the supporting data for EPA’s Negative Declaration.

For example, EPA’s environmental impact appraisal is

totally conclusionary in content. It states, on page 6,

that the dust and noise due to construction activities will

have minimal impacts on the surrounding area. There

is no supportive data in the appraisal for this conclu-

sion. It further states that the use of the Palos Verdes

landfill for final disposal of sludge will result in the

least environmental impacts from the hauling of sludge,

(p. 7) and the impact on air quality is insignificant

when compared to all other viable alternatives. (p. 8).

Again there is no supporting data in the appraisal for

these statements.

The appraisal declares that the “(n)oise impacts pro-

duced by this transport should be minimal because the

trucks will be operated during normal working hours

over standard truck routes.” (p. 7, emphasis added.)

This statement, by its very language, implies that the

noise impacts may not be minimal and thus there may

be a significant environmental impact just from noise.

There are to be 255 round trips/week or 51 round trips

on an average each day, which means 102 goings and

comings from the landfill per day. Assuming the trucks

operate on an eight hour day, and allowing for an hour

going and coming, this could mean there would be six

hours of activity in the area of the landfill, or approxi-

mately 17 trips per hour or approximately one every

314 minutes. To what extent is there presently truck

activity on these routes? How significant is the increase

in truck activity, and in the use of the landfill? What

impact will this trucking and project use of the landfill

have on this area? The environmental impact appraisal

does not even address these questions.

In making the determination as to whether a project

will not have significant adverse environmental conse-

quences, the inherent danger, as stated by the United

States Court of Appeals (9th Cir.) in City of Davis v.

Coleman, 521 F.2d 661, 673, is that the most serious

environmental effects of a project may not be obvious,

and that the puipose of the EIS requirements is to en-

sure that to the “fullest extent possible, agency decision-

makers have before them and take into proper account

a complete analysis of the project’s environmental im-

pact.”

EPA’s negative declaration asserts that it reviewed

the City’s environmental impact assessment. The City,

in its assessment, namely, the final environmental impact

report it prepared for the project, dated August 1, 1975,

stated, on page 44, that the disposal of sludge at a land-

fill may produce severe unavoidable adverse environmental

impacts. The City’s EIR also states that the generation

of noise and traffic, and the consumption of energy by

the operation of the sludge dewatering facilities, trucks

and landfill vehicles are adverse effects which cannot he

avoided if the project is to be implemented. In short,

both the City’s EIR and EPA’s Environmental Impact

Appraisal indicate that the project may cause a signifi-

cant affect on the environment.

The court, in City of Davis v. Coleman, supra, at p.

673 stated that an “EIS (Environmental Impact State-

ment) must be prepared whenever a project ‘may cause

a significant degradation of some human environmental

factor.’” The court went on to quote with approval the

language of the case of Minnesota Public Interest Re-

search Group v. Butts, 498 F.2d 13820, wherein that

court said:

“An initial decision not to prepare an EIS pre-

cludes the full consideration directed by Congress.

In view of the concern for environmental disclosure

present in NEPA, the agency’s discretion as to

whether an impact statement is required is properly

exercised only within narrow bounds. Action which

could have a significant effect on the environment

should be covered by an impact statement.” (Em-

phasis added.)

The United States District Court in the case of Pacific

Legal Foundation v. Burns (Central District, California),

enjoined the operation of the Diamond Lane on the

Santa Monica Freeway, stating therein that “in de-

termining whether a project ‘may have a significant ef-

fect on the environment,’ the courts properly interpret

that phrase to impose a low threshold requirement.”

In the case of Concerned Residents of Buck Hill Falls

v. Grant, 388 F. Supp. 394, 409, the United States Court

of Appeals stated that:

“The duty imposed on all federal agencies by

N.E.P.A. to prepare an environmental impact state-

ment in appropriate cases is to be construed gene-

rously and enforced strictly; Congress intended by

enacting NEPA to require all federal agencies to

give fuller study and consideration to environmental

effects to their projects, a goal which can be realized

only by requiring strict compliance with the proce-

dure set forth in Section 102 (2) (C) of the Act.”

The United States Court of Appeals in Calvert Cliffs

Coordinating Committee v. United States Atomic Energy

Commission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1112 (1971) (D.C. Cir.)

stated that NEPA contains very important “procedural”

provisions—“provisions which are designed to see that

all federal agencies do in fact exercise the substantial

discretion given them. These provisions are not highly

flexible. Indeed, they establish a strict standard of com-

pliance.” .

The Palos Verdes landfill adjoins a residential area.

We are advised that representatives of the affected com-

munities have already contacted you to underscore their

serious concerns regarding the potential impacts on their

communities. By utilizing the EIS procedure, EPA

would be required to publish a notice in local newspapers

stating that the draft EIS is available for comment and

listing where copies could be obtained, and submitting

news releases to other media. 40 CFR 6.208(b) (3). A

public hearing would also be available. While EPA is

not required by statute to hold public hearings on EIS’s

the responsible official should hold a public hearing on a

draft EIS whenever a hearing may facilitate the resolu-

tion of conflicts or significant public controversy. 4 CFR

6.402. Certainly, however, only by complying with the

EIS procedures can all the affected parties present their

concerns and have them properly evaluated and consid-

ered.

‘The City of Los Angeles has not decided that the Palos

Verdes landfill is the appropriate landfill for disposal

of HTP sludge. Even if it is eventually determined to be

the most appropriate site, what happens when it is filled?

We see no evidence in EPA’s data that indicates EPA is

aware of the remaining capacity of the site and the pro-

jected demand for other refuse disposal at the site. If

the Class I landfill capacity of Southern California is

used up for sludge disposal, what alternative disposal

methods are availavie"fOF"those wastes, many hazardous,

that can only be placed in Class I landfills? In light of

these factors, we must question the validity of EPA’s

statement in the Environmental Impact Assessment that

“No secondary impacts on the environment are antici-

pated from the implementation of the project.”

This City continues to be very concerned about the

tentative decision to use the Palos Verdes landfill for

disposal of the sludge. It will be difficult to cope with the

almost certain public controversy that will ensue when

the communities surrounding the Palos Verdes landfill, or

communities around other potential landfill sites, become

aware of the intention to dispose of the sludge at those

sites if a thorough environmental assessment of alterna-

tives has not been done. As noted above, the preparation

and public review of an EIS will allow public participa-

tion and comment on all of the alternatives involved be-

fore a decision has been finally made.

Finally, the Environmental Impact Assessment iden-

tifies a number of alternative methods of disposing of

the sludge when ocean discharge is discontinued and dis-

misses them summarily on the basis of higher costs, other

environmental considerations, conflict with existing EPA

requirements due to delays in implementing the alterna-

tive, or uncertainty as to technological capability. We

are not aware of any in-depth study of these alternatives

to determine whether the conclusions supporting their

rejection are valid, and if so, whether on balance the

disadvantages of disposal in the Palos Verdes landfill

might not outweigh the disadvantages of other alterna-

a even if they are more costly or pose other prob-

ems.

It is requested, therefore, that EPA prepare a full

and legally adequate environmental impact statement

developing, describing, and objectively weighing feasible

alternatives to the project, as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act and applicable regulations

thereunder, including the options of taking no action or

postponing action. The feasible alternatives should in-

clude the alternative of the continuation of sludge dis-

charge into the ocean.

EPA’s environmental impact appraisal, both by its

inclusions and ommissions, indicates that an EIS is nec-

essary prior to EPA’s making a grant offer in this

matter. It is our judgment that without an EIS the

grant offer would be in violation of NEPA, a situation

that the City of Los Angeles cannot countenance. We

feel confident that EPA, as the principal federal agency

responsible for protecting the nation’s environment, also

desires to avoid a clear violation of the applicable federal

law.

We trust you will advise us of the actions you intend

to take in response to this formal protest as expedi-

tiously as possible.

Very truly yours,

BURT PINES

City Attorney

By/s/ L. L. Hoffman

LAWRENCE L. HOFFMAN

Chief Assistant City Attorney

On behalf of the City of

Los Angeles

LLH:jm

ec: Hon. Tom Bradley, Mayor

Each Member of the City Council

Hon. Board of Public Works

Dr. C. Erwin Piper, City Administrative Officer

Donald C. Tillman, City Engineer

State Water Resources Control Board

State Regional Water Quality Control Board

Ken Spiker, Chief Legislative Analyst

{EMBLEM ]

LOS ANGELES AREA

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

404 South Bixel Street, P.O. Box 3696

Los Angeles, California 90051

(218) 482-4010

December 15, 1976

Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.

Regional Administrator

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region IX

100 California Street

San Francisco, California 94111

Hyperion Treatment Plant,

Interim Sludge Processing

and Disposal System

Dear Mr. De Falco:

This is in reply to your letter of November 18, 1976, to

All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups

in connection with the proposed modifications to the

Hyperion Treatment Plant and Interim Sludge Process-

ing and Disposal System.

Chamber of Commerce Position

Briefly, it is the position of the Los Angeles Area Cham-

ber of Commerce that an environmental impact report

must be prepared, circulated, considered and approved

by the City of Los Angeles, the State Water Resources

Control Board and the U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency in connection with the proposed plans to stop

the discharge of sludge from the City of Los Angeles

Hyperion Treatment Plant and to provide for the dis-

posal of this sludge by transportation and disposal in

an appropriate sanitary landfill, or by incineration, or

some other means of disposal.

It is the position of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of

Commerce, based upon a detailed analysis of the pro-

posal that there will be a significant and major impact

on the environment if the proposed Interim Sludge Proc-

essing and Disposal System contemplated by the Agency

is carried out. In addition, there will be a substantial

financial impact on the citizens and taxpayers of Los

Angeles. Since there is no demonstrable adverse envi-

ronmental impact from the present system of sludge

disposal into the deep submarine ocean waters off of

southern California, there are no demonstrable benefits

to be derived from putting the proposed plan into effect.

Finally, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

believes that the Agency’s letter of November i8, 1976

has not been sent to a sufficient number of public agen-

cies and other interested parties in southern California

to constitute adequate notice of the Agency’s proposed

plans. The Agency’s proposal with its significant environ-

mental and financial impact has not been published in

the Federal Register as required under the Federal Reg-

ister Act. Finally, no provision has been made for neces-

sary public hearings at which the environmental effect

of the Agency’s proposed Interim Sludge Processing and

Disposal System can be evaluated.

In essence, since the proposed plan involves action by the

City of Los Angeles, the California State Water Re-

sources Control Board, and the U. S. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency, the statutory and procedural require-

ments imposed by the California Environmental Quality

Act and the National Environmental Protection Act must

be complied with.

Background of Proposed Project :

At the present time the City of Los Angeles’ major Hy-

perion Treatment Plant discharges 360 million gallons

per day of waste water effluent and the resulting digested

primary and secondary sludge into a deep submarine

canyon in the Pacific Ocean through an outfall termi-

nating 7 miles offshore at a depth of 330 feet. The efflu-

ent is 0.75% (3/4 of 1%) suspended solids, made up of:

1.3 mgd of screened digested sludge (primary)

1.0 mgd of waste activated sludge (secondary)

2.5 mgd of secondary effluent

4.8 mgd average daily discharge

This method of disposal of the sludge has been in effect

and in operation for a period of nearly 20 years. Under

the Agency’s proposed plan to alter this method of sludge

disposal, instead, special dewatering facilities are to be

installed at the Hyperion Treatment Plant. The result-

ing estimated 800 wet tons per day of sludge are then

to be trucked across the City and disposed of by dumping

into an acceptable sanitary landfill. While such sludge

dumping, constituting a Class 1 landfill operation is now

permitted at the nearby Palos Verdes landfill site, start-

ing in about 1980, it will be necessary to truck the re-

sulting sludge a distance of up to 40 miles for dumping

in the City’s Lopez Canyon sanitary landfill site in the

Sunland-Tujunga area or up to 40 miles for disposal in

the Los Angeles County Calabasas sanitary landfill.

The present volume of sludge in the underwater

offshore submarine canyon has occupied an area of

about 2 kilometers with a depth of up to 1 meter.

An even greater allowance for disposition of such

volumes of sludge will be required in Lopez Canyon

or any alternate site utilized under the Agency’s

plan.

Based upon an 80-mile round trip for each truck load

and 50 truck loads per day it is estimated that 350,000

additional gallons of gasoline will be consumed on an

annual basis adding to the air pollution and congestion

in the Los Angeles Air Basin. In this regard, both the

California Air Resources Board, and the U. S. Environ-

mental Protection Agency itself, have already expressed

their concern over the emission of any additional air

pollutants into the Los Angeles Air Basin, stating that

such additional emissions can only be authorized in the

event that there be a shut-down of an equivalent amount

of other air emissions on a “trade-off” basis. No such

“trade-off” is contemplated under the Agency’s proposed

plan.

Lack of Environmental Benefit

In order to assess the environmental impact of the pres-

ent Los Angeles City and County sanitation waste dis-

charge practices, since 1969, both the City and County

have participated in a joint Southern California Coastal

Water Research Project employing about 30 qualified

scientists, at a cost of about $800,000 a year. $500,000

of this cost is underwritten by the Cities of Los Angeles

and San Diego, Ventura County, and the County Sanita-

tion Districts of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. An

additional $230,000 is underwritten by the U. S. Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency, and the remainder of the

funding is from miscallaneous sources, including the Uni-

versity of California. Over the more than five years of

the Project’s existence more than $5 million has been

expended studying the biology, chemistry and engineer-

ing problems covering the Southern California Bight

ocean area from Ventura County to the Mexican Border,

the ocean area into which the City’s Hyperion Plan efflu-

ent and sludge is discharged.

The Project’s research work, carried on over a period of

time, has analyzed in detail the effect on marine life,

including fish, marine life, invertebrates, and bacteria

in the entire southern California offshore area. The

Project’s conclusion, as set forth in the Project’s 755-

page 1973 Three Year Report is:

“Because of the generally minor and reversible na-

ture of the effects and uncertainty as to the actual

consequences of the most well-intentioned corrective

actions, there is presently no justification for any

major alteration of waste management or discharge

practice...”

The present Director of the Project has concluded that

there appears to be “no possibility” of harming a “sig-

nificant percentage of the population of any species” of

marine animals. Even if the present waste discharge

practices are continued for several years at about the

present rate and toxicity it is his opinion, backed by the

scientists working on the project, that there will not be

“any serious or irreversible effect on the sealife.”

Compared to the continuation of the present practice of

discharging sewage effluent and sludge into the deep

ocean waters of California the Agency’s proposed Interim

Sludge Processing and Disposal System would have sig-

nificant adverse environmental impacts not only with

respect to the transportation of the sludge, but with re-

spect to the environmental impact of the disposition of

the resulting sludge in the Lopez Canyon and Calabasas

sanitary landfills. In this connection the environmental

impact on adjacent landfill homeowners, the effect on the

flora and fauna and the ecology of the sanitary landfill

area concerned must be assessed, as well as the effect on

ground water supplies underlying the areas in which the

disposition is planned to take place. In this regard, the

need for environmental impact analysis for exactly such

proposed landfill operations has been precisely recognized

in the preparation and presentation of a four-volume

Environmental Impact Statement covering the City of

Los Angeles’ proposed reactivation of the Mission Canyon

Landfill area for exactly the type of sanitary landfill

operations proposed in the present plan.

Adverse Financial Impact

In addition to the substantial adverse environmental im-

pact (which does not exist under the present deep ocean

submarine sludge disposal system) there is a clear ad-

verse financial impact. According to the Agency’s letter

not only will new project facilities totalling $7.2 million

be required, but in addition to this, substantial increased

Operation and Maintenance Expenses will also be in-

curred.

In contrast to the Agency’s statement, it is the City of

Los Angeles’ estimate that the cost to implement the

interim sludge processing project is estimated at $10.9

million of which the City anticipates grant reimburse-

ment of approximately $8.5 million. However, the esti-

mated Operation and Maintenance cost is $3.7 million

annually and is not grant eligible. Since it may take

five years to implement a permanent process which may

be recommended in a present on-going regional study,

if the interim process is operational through this five

year period, the total cost of the interim project will be

$31.3 million. Inasmuch as the wastewater study will

be completed in a reasonably short time and may show

that no project is necessary, there is serious doubt

whether the Agency’s interim proposal is cost effective.

Under the criteria established in the 1972 Water Pollu-

tion Control Act, these additional costs must be met by

increases in sewage process or user charges imposed on

water consumed by the City’s Residential, Commercial,

and Industrial water users or by increases in property

taxes imposed upon Los Angeles taxpayers.

Under the alternatives required to be reviewed and under

the environmental review required, the lack of present

environmental impact and increased adverse impact of the

proposed Agency plan and its financial impact must be

considered.

Lack of Notice and Hearings

In its letter of November 18, 1976, the Agency’s admin-

istrator sets forth the Agency’s plan in a 2-page letter

concluding with the Agency’s “preliminary decision” not

to prepare an environmental impact statement, going on

to state that no action would be taken within 15 working

days from the November 18th date of the Notice—pre-

sumably providing a basis for Agency action after De-

cember 10th.

In this regard it is the Chamber of Commerce’s position

that there has been a lack of effective notice of the

Agency’s plans. Not only was the Agency’s November

18th letter circulated only to a small restricted service

list, but no notice of the Agency’s action was published

in the Federal Register as required under the Federal

circumvent the environmental review principles set forth

in the National Environmental Policy Act by refusing

to prepare and circulate an appropriate Environmental

Impact Report, additional formal notices must be given

of the Agency’s plans in this regard.

The need for this additional notice and the required

holding of hearings are evident by the Agency’s actions

in similar circumstances regarding the City of Phila-

delphia’s proposal to continue its 2-year practice of sludge

disposal into shallow Delaware Bay waters adjacent to

the City of Philadelphia. In that case involving the In-

terim Ocean Disposal permission granted to the City of

Philadelphia (Permit No. PA-010) several days of hear-

ings were held. At the end of this hearing period, at

which representatives of the City of Philadelphia ap-

peared and testified a detailed 65-page Report was pre-

pared by the Chairman of the panel convened and desig-

nated by the Environmental Protection Agency (G. Wil-

liam Frick, Panel Chairman) September 19, 1975. There-

after, on September 25, 1975, the Agency administrator

issued an 8-page decision reviewing the circumstances

(Russell E. Train, Administrator).

While it is the Chamber of Commerce’s position and

understanding that the circumstances surrounding the

disposition of sludge in the shallow waters of the Dela-

ware Bay are different than the circumstances surround-

ing the disposal of sludge over a 20-year period from the

City of Los Angeles’ Hyperion Treatment Plant into the

deep submarine ocean waters off of southern California,

it is nevertheless clear that based on this direct precedent,

the sufficient environmental issues were raised in that

case, and are raised in this case to require the prepara-

tion of an environmental impact report—plus a detailed

further Agency environmental review followed by hear-

ing process for disposition of the issue raised by the

Agency’s proposed plan.

Under these circumstances, it is the Chamber of Com-

merce’s position that in view of the luck of environmental

benefit from the proposed plan, and the adverse environ-

mental impact that is predicted to result and the financial

impact on the City of Los Angeles water users, a similar

environmental review process must be followed by the

Agency in the present instance.

Summary

In sum, it is the position of the Los Angeles Area Chamber

of Commerce that an environmental impact report must

be prepared, circulated, considered and approved by the

City of Los Angeles, the State Water Resources Control

Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in

connection with the proposed plans to stop the discharge

of sludge from the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treat-

ment Plant and to provide for the disposal of this sludge

by transportation and disposal in an appropriate sani-

tary landfill, or by incineration, or some other means

of disposal.

It is the position of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of

Commerce, based upon a detuiled analysis of the pro-

posal that there will be a significant and major impact

on the environment if the proposed Interim Sludge

Processing and Disposal System contemplated by the

Agency is carried out. In addition, there will be a sub-

stantial financial impact on the citizens and taxpayers

of Los Angeles. Since there is no demonstrable adverse

environmental impact from the present system of sludge

disposal into the deep submarine ocean waters off of

southern California, there are no demonstrable benefits

to be derived from putting the proposed plan into effect.

A copy of the Resolution of the City Council concerning

this issue approved on October 22, 1975 is attached for

your information.

Copies of this letter are being sent to the California

State Water Resources Control Board, and a number of

City of Los Angeles officials including the Mayor, the

City Council, its Public Works Committee, the City’s

Department of Public Works and its Bureau of Sanita-

tion. In addition, copies are being forwarded to inter-

ested sanitation officials and other interested parties in

southern California, as well as to other southern Cali-

fornia members of the Legislature and Congress.

Yours very truly,

/s/ Albert C. Martin

ALBERT C. MARTIN

President

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), require the discon-

tinuance of the discharge of pollutants, including sludge,

into the waters of the United States; and

WHEREAS the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean

Waters of California, prepared pursuant to the Porter-

Cologne Water Quality Control Act, requires the discon-

tinuance of ocean disposal of sewage sludge; and

WHEREAS at the request of the Federal Environ-

mental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) the City has en-

tered into a joint regional Wastewater Solids Manage-

ment Program study with the sanitation districts of

Los Angeles and Orange Counties and the EPA and

SWRCB to develop a long term regional solution for

sludge disposal, which study is estimated to be complete

in the fall of 1978; and

WHEREAS the City is participating in the Southern

California Coastal Water Research Project which is

studying the effects of wastewater discharges, including

sludge, into Santa Monica Bay; and

WHEREAS the City is currently disposing of sludge

into the ocean under the authority of a National Pollu-

tion Discharge Effluent System (NPDES) permit issued

jointly by the EPA and the California Regional Water

Quality Control Board, which permit requires the City

to partially discontinue ocean disposal of sludge by April

1977; and

WHEREAS it is within the legal authority of the

EPA and the California Regional Water Quality Control

Board to review the NPDES permit and extend the

sludge out deadline until such time as the regional Waste

Water Solids Management Program study is complete;

and

WHEREAS the Executive Officer of the State Water

Resources Control Board in a letter to the City Engineer

on October 31, 1974, stated that should the engineering

and environmental feasibility of implementing an interim

sludge out project “show that these solutions are not

cost effective or environmentally acceptable, we will then

give further consideration to your request to an extension

of the deadline.” ; and

WHEREAS there is no consensus of scientific opinion

that the City’s current practice of ocean disposal of sew-

age sludge has more significant adverse environmental

effects than land disposal; and

WHEREAS the environmental impact report for the

interim sludge out alternatives which shows that the

interim sludge out proposal is not cost effective inasmuch

as the proposed hauling of sewage sludge by trucks to a

landfill site, at an implementation cost of $10,940,000

and an annual operation expense of $3,700,000, may be-

come obsolete upon completion of the regional Waste-

pom hg Management Program study in the fall of

; an

WHEREAS the said environmental impact report

shows that land disposal of sludge has adverse environ-

mental effects; and

WHEREAS the City does not presently have adequate

funds available for the interim sludge project and also

the mandatory upgrading of the City’s wastewater treat-

ment facilities; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of

Los Angeles hereby requests the Regional Administrator

of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency and

the State Regional Water Quality Control Board to re-

view the current NPDES permit and postpone the dead-

line for the discontinuance of ocean disposal of sewage

sludge until a reasonable time after the regional Waste-

water Solids Management Program study is completed.

PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 465

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone (916) 444-0154

December 30, 1976

Mr. Paul De Falco, Jr.

Regional Administrator

United States Environmental

Protection Agency

Region IX

100 California Street

San Francisco, CA 94111

Dear Mr. De Falco:

Pacific Legal Foundation, as a nonprofit public-interest

law firm, has examined the legal basis for the require-

ments emanating from the EPA and the State Water

Quality Control Board concerning discharges from the

City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant. This

letter contains our conclusions on the law and our re-

quest for EPA to take certain corrective actions which

we believe to be in the public interest.

It is our understanding that EPA bases the require-

ments it is making concerning the elimination of the

discharge of digested sewage sludge to ocean waters

and the achievement of secondary treatment standards

for effluent from the Hyperion Plant on the belief that

these requirements are mandated by Congress in the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972. PL 92-500. For that reason, EPA has not and

will not consider developing reasonable standards for

the discharges from the Hyperion Plant based on the

environmental impact to the ocean area concerned.

We disagree with this reading of the law. In fact, the

law applicable to ocean discharges specifically requires

thorough consideration of the environmental impacts of

such discharges and the setting of reasonable standards

based upon the analysis of such environmental impacts.

EPA’s own regulations governing the requirements for

ocean discharges specifically state this same interpreta-

tion. For these reasons, it is requested that EPA immedi-

ately suspend any orders, requirements or permit condi-

tions directed toward the City of Los Angeles concerning

the cessation of ocean discharge of digested sewage sludge

or the upgrading of wastewater treatment facilities which

discharge to the ocean to secondary treatment stand-

ards. Specifically, requirements to this effect in NPDES

Permit CA 0109991 and any approved federal grants

are to be suspended and no such requirements included

in future permits or grant approvals until a thorough

environmental analysis has been completed and stand-

ards developed for the affected ocean area based on the

environmental aanlysis as required by law.

We have been informed that EPA is basing its present

requirements on Section 301(b)(1)(B) of PL 92-500.

EPA is reading into that section a requirement that all

publicly owned wastewater treatment plants must achieve

secondary treatment technology regardless of where the

plant is located and how it is operated. Section 301 must

be read in the context of the entire act.

We must call to your attention that the definitions of

“discharge of pollutants” as used in Section 101 (a) (1)

and “effluent limitations” as used in Section 301(b) (1)

(B) carefully preserve the distinction between navigable

waters and ocean waters. Sections 501(11) and (12).

These distinctions clearly convey the intention of Con-

gress that requirements concerning discharges to the

different waters were not indiscriminately lumped to-

gether.

To the extent that PL 92-500 is directed towards dis-

charges into the ocean waters, a specific provision is in-

cluded as Section 403. The requirements of Section 403

differ substantially from Section 301 in that the stand-

ards to be applied are not to be based on technological

achievement, but rather on environmental impacts. It is

clear that, as stated in the EPA’s own regulations, Sec-

tion 403(c) requires “that applications for permits for

the dumping or other discharge of any materials into

the marine environment be evaluated on the basis of

the impact of the materials on the marine environment

. . « and on the economic and social factors involved.”

40 C.F.R. 227.1(c). EPA’s regulations also make it clear

that these requirements apply to “discharge through out-

falls.” 40 C.F.R. 227.1(b).

It is also pertinent to note that shortly after the pas-

sage of PL 92-500, directed primarily at the protection

of navigable waters, the same Congress felt it appropri-

ate to pass PL 92-532, directed at protection of ocean

waters. The requirements for criteria in this second law

are very similar to Section 403 of PL 92-500—-so similar,

in fact, that EPA has chosen to adopt a single set of

regulations to implement both. 40 C.F.R. 227. In this

second law, Congress reaffirmed its intention that con-

trol of pollutants in the ocean be based on criteria con-

cerning the impact on the marine environment. Section

102.

Since the definition of navigable waters (to which Sec-

tion 301 applies) includes “territorial seas” (Section 502

(7)) and since Section 403 by its terms applies directly

to the “territorial seas,” there is the potential for some

initial confusion as to the application of these two sec-

tions. However, Section 403 is a specific requirement

by Congress that NPDES Permits issued pursuant to

Section 402 “for a discharge into the territorial sea”

must be issued in compliance with the guidelines estab-

lished under the requirements of Section 403 “for de-

termining of the degradation of the waters of the terri-

torial seas. . .”. EPA openly admits in the regulations

published pursuant to Section 403 that this section con-

tains a congressional mandate that discharges must be

“evaluated on the basis of the impact on the marine en-

vironment. . .” 40 C.F.R. 227.1(c). This specific man-

date by Congress cannot be avoided by reference to Sec-

tion 301 which is a general section on “Effluent limi-

tations.”

As an additional factor of significance, it should be noted

that the Hyperjon Treatment Plant discharges effluent

and sludge not to the “territorial seas” but to the “con-

tiguous zone,” an area clearly included in PL 92-500

in Section 403 only. Only a single emergency outfall

discharges into the territorial sea and such discharges

are rare.

While Congress may have intended a uniform national

requirement for discharges to the navigable waters based

on treatment technology, it is clear that the congres-

sional intent in the case of discharges to the oceans was

that requirements would be based on the environmental

impacts likely to result.

The requirements in Section 403(c) of PL 92-500 and

Section 102(c) of PL 92-5382 for a complete environ-

mental analysis, including economic and social factors,

of the marine environment are separate and distinct

from the requirement for the development of an En-

vironmental Impact Statement under the National En-

vironmental Policy Act. While we hold grave reserva-

tions as to the legality and, in particular, the appropriate-

ness of EPA’s use of a “negative declaration” for the

Hyperion Plant in lieu of an EIS, we are not asserting

that matter here. It is clear that the requirements of

PL 92-500 and PL 92-532 can not be set aside by a

“negative declaration” and that a comprehensive environ-

mental review must be performed to comply with these

laws. It would be most appropriate from the standpoint

of the public interest for EPA to prepare a single com-

prehensive analysis which would conform to the full

requirements for study, analysis, public participation,

< disclosure and open decision making of all three

aws.

We have been informed that substantial scientific and

technical information exist which show that requirements

for the Hyperion Treatment Plant if developed pursuant

to Section 403(c) of PL 92-500 and Section 102(c) of

PL 92-532 would not require secondary treatment for all

discharges. We have also been informed that a full

review as required by the applicable laws, including the

economic and social factors involved, would most likely

indicate that shifting of the disposal of all sludge from

ocean waters to landfill would be environmentally, eco-

nomically and socially undesirable.

Under these circumstances, we believe EPA has a duty

to suspend the present requirements in NPDES Permit

No. CA 0109991 relating to the cessation of discharge

of sludge to ocean waters and to the upgrading of the

Hyperion Plant technology to secondary treatment levels.

No similar requirements should be included in a future

permit until a full environmental analysis, including eco-

nomic and social factors of the ocean discharge of effluent

and sludge, has been completed. As soon as possible, a

new NPDES permit should be issued to the City of Los

Angeles including only those conditions necessary to pro-

vide adequate protection to the marine environment di-

rectly affected by the discharge from the Hyperion Plant

in proper balance with the economic and social costs in-

volved.

Sincerely,

RONALD A. ZUMBRUN

President and Legal

Director

UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[SEAL]

REGION IX

100 California Street

San Francisco, California 94111

CERTIFIED MAIL No. 450175 Jan. 31, 1977

Ronald A. Zumbrun

President and Legal Director

Pacific Legal Foundation

455 Capitol Mall, Suite 465

Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Mr. Zumbrun:

After giving careful consideration to your letter dated

December 30, 1976, I have concluded that I must deny

your request for the immediate suspension of the re-

quirements of the NPDES permit issued for the City of

Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment Plant. My conclusion

is based upon the following considerations.

Section 301(b) (1) (B) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)

(1) (B)) provides expressly that all publicly owned treat-

ment works in existence on July 1, 1977, shall achieve

“effluent limitations based upon secondary treatment as

defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304 (d)

(1) of this Act.” In turn, section 304(d) (1) (33 U.S.C.

§ 1314(d) (1)) requires the Administrator to publish “in-

formation, in terms of amounts of constituents and chem-

icals, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants,

on the degree of effluent reduction attainable through

the application of secondary treatment.” Neither section

301 nor 304 offers any indication that publicly owned

treatment works discharging to ocean waters should be

exempted from secondary treatment requirements. Thus,

under a plain reading of section 301(b) (1) (B), all pub-

licly owned treatment works, including those discharging

to ocean waters must achieve effluent limitations based

upon secondary treatment.

This conclusion was affirmed by the General Counsel

of EPA in a decision of law concerning the NPDES

permit issued to the Greater Anchorage Borough.

(NPDES Decision of Law No. 12). Like the Hyperion

Plant, the treatment works owned by the Greater An-

chorage Borough discharges directly to the ocean. The

General Counsel ruled that this fact does not exempt

the facility from the secondary treatment requirement of

section 301(b) (1) (B).

In your letter, you point out that the definition of the

terms “discharge of pollutants” and “effluent limita-

tions” in section 501 of FWPCA (33 U.S.C. § 1361) pre-

serve the distinction between navigable waters and ocean

waters. Although it is true that these definitions use

the terms navigable waters and oceans rather than using

a single term for both, the important point is that both

navigable waters and ocean waters are covered by the

definitions. The reference to “effluent limitations” in sec-

tions 301(b)(1)(B) and 304(d)(1) thus requires the

Administrator to establish effluent limitations based up-

on secondary treatment for both discharges to navigable

waters and discharges to ocean waters. Similarly, the

use of the term “discharge of pollutants” in section 402

(a) (1) requires the issuance of NPDES permits for

discharges to ocean waters as well as for discharges to

navigable waters. Furthermore, section 402 provides

that NPDES permits must include the condition that

each discharge will meet all applicable requirements of

section 301 and 403. Section 402 thus requires EPA to

issue NPDES permits for ocean discharges from munici-

pal treatment works which contain effluent limitations

based on secondary treatment as defined by the Admin-

istrator.

The regulations published by the Administrator defin-

ing the requirements of secondary treatment do not au-

thorize less stringent effluent limitations for treatment

works discharging to ocean waters. (40 C.F.R. § 133).

The limitations established in this regulation for bio-

logical oxygen demand and suspended solids, moreover,

preclude the discharge of sewage sludge as well as pri-

mary effluent. In view of these requirements, it would

be irresponsible to suspend the conditions of the NPDES

permit issued to the City of Los Angeles for the Hyperion

Plant.

An opportunity for any interested party to contest the

conditions of the NPDES permit for the Hyperion Plant

was available at the time that the permit was issued

in August 1975. Although any interested person could

have requested an adjudicatory hearing under 40 C.F.R.

section 125.36, neither the City of Los Angeles nor any

one else contested the conditions of the permit. In view

of the fact that section 125.386 provides a specific pro-

cedure for review of the conditions of a permit, it would

be inappropriate to reopen consideration of the NPDES

permit for the Hyperion Plant at this date.

Regarding your request that EPA suspend the grant

conditions for the Hyperion Treatment Plant, I have con-

cluded that such action would be irresponsible and must

be denied. The grant conditions requiring the elimina-

tion of discharges of sewage sludge and primary effluent

were proposed by EPA pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 601.25

(b) (86 F.R. 18029) and were accepted by the City of

Los Angeles. As such, these conditions represent mu-

tually agreed upon contractual obligations between EPA

and the City of Los Angeles. With respect to future

grants, section 201(g)(2) of FWPCA prohibits EPA

from making grants for the construction of wastewater

treatment works after fiscal year 1974 unless the grant

applicant has demonstrated that the project will pro-

vide for the application of the best practicable waste

treatment technology. Like section 301(b) (W(B), sec-

tion 201(g) (2) does not provide an exemption for proj-

ects which will discharge to ocean waters. Section 201

(g) (2) of FWPCA thus prohibits EPA from making

grants to applicants which will not utilize at least sec-

ondary treatment technology. In view of this require-

ment, it is clear that any future grants to the City of

Los Angeles must also include conditions requiring the

removal of sewage sludge and the achievement of effluent

limitations based on secondary treatment.

Sincerely,

/s/ Paul DeFalco, Jr.

PAUL DEFALCO, JR.

Regional Administrator

California Regional Water Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Board Region IX

Los Angeles Region (415) 556-3430

(213) 620-4460 Permit No. CA0109991

Order No. Amended Authorization to

Amended Waste Dicharge Discharge under the National

Requirements Pollutant Dicharge Elimination

System—Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 125 et. seq.)

FOR

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region and the Regional Administrator, En-

vironmental Protection Agency, Region IX, finds that:

1. City of Los Angeles discharges wastes under re-

quirements contained in Order No. 75-100 adopt-

ed by this Board and the Regional Administrator

on August 18, 1975. On December 1, 1975, May

24, 1976, and November 22, 1976, this Regional

Board adopted Orders Nos. 75-165, 76-80 and

76-202 respectively, amending the time schedules

contained in Order No. 75-100. Order No. 75-

100 expires on February 1, 1977.

2. City of Los Angeles has filed a report of waste

discharge and applied for renewal of its waste

discharge requirements and National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit prior to

the expiration of the current requirements and

Permit.

3. Adequate review time will not be available for

the tentative waste discharge requirements prior

to the expiration date of the current Order.

4. The City of Los Angeles has prepared a final

environmental impact report in accordance with

the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub-

lic Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.).

5. The City of Los Angeles has changed or altered

the project as follows:

a) Discharge of chlorinated secondary effluent

out the 1-mile outfall during installation of

the eductor—construction schedule has been

arranged such that there should be no inter-

ruption of beach usage

b) Discharge of primary effluent during con-

struction of secondary facilities—construc-

tion activities have been timed so that pri-

mary effluent will be discharged out the

5-mile outfall instead of the 1-mile outfall.

c) Cessation of sludge discharge to ocean-land-

fills utilized will have a shortened useful life

—however, no other alternative is currently

available. The problem is being studied by

the State Water Resources Control Board

and the Los Angeles/Orange Metropolitan

Area Study Group.

6. The changes or alterations of the project miti-

gate or avoid the significant or lasting adverse

environmental impacts of the project.

The Board and Regional Administrator have notified the

discharger and interested agencies and persons of their

intent to amend the waste discharge requirements and

permit for this discharge and have provided them with

an opportunity to submit their written views and rec-

ommendations.

The Board and the Regional Administrator in a public

hearing heard and considered all comments pertaining

to the tentative amended requirements and permit.

This National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

permit amendment shall take effect 30 days from the

date of signature. The amendment to the State require-

ments is effective upon signature.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Order No. 75-100

adopted by this Board on August 18, 1975, and NPDES

Permit No. CA0109991 issued by the Regional Adminis-

trator on August 18, 1975, shall be revised as follows:

1. The expiration date in Provision F-5 is changed

from February 1, 1977, to June 30, 1977.

2. All other limitations, prohibitions, requirements,

and provisions of Order No. 75-100 and NPDES

Permit No. CA0109991 shall remain in full force

and effect.

This certifies that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor-

rect copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional

Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, and

of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems

permit amendment issued by the Environmental Protec-

tion Agency, Region IX.

/s/ Raymond M. Hertel /s/ William H. Pierce

RAYMOND M. HERTEL WILLIAM H. PIERCE

Executive Officer Chief, Permits Bre .ch,

Enforcement Division

for the Regional

Administrator

Date: January 24,1977 Date: January 24, 1977

STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., Governor

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY

CONTROL BOARD—LOS ANGELES REGION ;

[SEAL

107 South Broadway, Suite 4027

Los Angeles, California 90012

(213) 620-4460

Jan. 27, 1977

City of Los Angeles.

Bureau of Engineering

Room 800, City Hall

Los Angeles, California 90012

ATTENTION: Mr. Donald C. Tillman

City Engineer

RE: Waste Discharge Requirements (NPDES Permit

No. CA0109991)

Gentlemen:

Reference is made to our letter lated January 14, 1977,

which transmitted a copy of a tentative Order that pro-

posed extending the expiration date of Order No. 75-100

and NPDES No. 0109991 to June 30, 1977.

In accordance with the administrative procedures, this

California Regional Water Quality Control Board and

the Environmental Protection Agency, held a joint pub-

lic hearing on January 24, 1977. At the hearing, the

Board reviewed the tentative Order and adopted Order

No. 77-1 which extends the expiration date contained in

Order No. 75-100 to June 30, 1977. The remainder of

Order No. 75-100 remains in effect.

The representative of the Regional Administrator, EPA,

recommended issuance of the amended NPDES Permit

No. CA109991 (copy attached) relative to this waste

discharge.

Please note that additional Findings (Nos. 4 through 6)

were added at the hearing.

If you have any questions, please call us.

Very truly yours,

Original signed by

Raymond M. Hertel

RAYMOND M. HERTEL

Executive Officer

ec: See attached mailing list

Enclosures

This certifies that the foregoing is a full, true, and cor-

rect copy of an Order adopted by the California Re-

gional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Re-

gion, and of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-

tion Systems permit amendment issued by the Environ-

mental Protection Agency, Region IX.

/38/ Raymond M. Hertel /s/ William H. Pierce

RAYMOND M. HERTEL WILLIAM H. PIERCE

Executive Officer Chief, Permits Branch,

Enforcement Division for

the Regional Administrator

Date: January 24, 1977 Date: January 24, 1977

California Regional Water Environmental Protection Agency

Quality Control Board Region IX

Los Angeles Region (415) 556-3450

(213) 620-4460 Permit No. CA0109991

Order No. Amended Authorization to

Amended Waste Dicharge Discharge under the National

Requirements Pollutant Dicharge Elimination

System—Federal Water Pollution

Control Act (33 U.S.C. 125 et. seq.)

FOR

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

HYPERION TREATMENT PLANT

The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,

Los Angeles Region and the Regional Administrator,

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, find that:

1. City of Los Angeles discharges wastes under

requirements contained in Order No. 75-100

adopted by this Board and the Regional Admin-

istrator on August 18, 1975. On December 1,

1975, May 24, 1976, and November 22, 1976, this

Regional Board adopted Orders Nos. 75-165, 76-

80 and 76-202 respectively, amending the time

schedules contained in Order No. 75-100. Order

No. 75-100 expires on February 1, 1977.

2. City of Los Angeles has filed a report of waste

discharge and applied for renewal of its waste

discharge requirements and National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System Permit prior to

the expiration of the current requirements and

Permit.

3. Adequate review time will not be available for

the tentative waste discharge requirements prior

to the expiration date of the current Order.

4. The City of Los Angeles has prepared a final

environmental impact report in accordance with

the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub-

lic Resources Code Section 21000 et. seq.).

5. The City of Los Angeles has changed or altered

the project as follows:

a) Discharge of chlorinated secondary effluent

out the 1-mile outfall during installation of

the eductor—construction schedule has been

arranged such that there should be no inter-

ruption of beach usage

b) Discharge of primary effluent during con-

struction of secondary facilities—construction

activities have been timed so that primary

effluent will be discharged out the 5-mile out-

fall instead of the 1-mile outfall.

c) Cessation of sludge discharge to ocean-land-

fills utilized will have a shortened useful life

—however, no other alternative is currently

available. The problem is being studied by

the State Water Resources Control Board and

the Los Angeles/Orange Metropolitan Area

Study Group.

6. The changes or alterations of the project miti-

gate or avoid the significant or lasting adverse

environmental impacts of the project.

The Board and Regional Administrator have notified the

discharger and interested agencies and persons of their

intent to amend the waste discharge requirements and

permit for this discharge and have provided them with

an opportunity to submit their written views and recora-

mendations.

The Board and the Regional Administrator in a public

hearing heard and considered all comments pertaining

to the tentative amended requirements and permit.

This National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

permit amendment shall take effect 30 days from the date

of signature. The amendment to the State requirements

is effective upon signature.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Order No. 75-100

adopted by this Board on August 18, 1975, and NPDES

Permit No. CA0109991 issued by the Regional Ad-

Perera on August 18, 1975, shall be revised as

ollows:

100

1. The expiration date in Provision F-5 is changed

from February 1, 1977, to June 30, 1977.

2. All other limitations, prohibitions, requirements,

and provisions of Order No. 75-100 and NPDES

Permit No. CA0109991 shall remain in full

force and effect.

ec: Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Re-

ional Administrator, Attn: Permits Branch

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

State Water Resources Control Board, Legal Division

Attn: Harry M. Schueller

Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources

Region

Department of Health, Water Sanitation Section

Department of Water Resources

State Department of Parks and Recreation

Department of Navigation and Ocean Development

State Lands Division

City of Los Angeles, City Engineer

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Engineering

City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation

County of Los Angeles, Department of Health Serv-

ices

Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Rec-

reation

Los Angeles County Engineer, Project Planning and

Pollution Control Division

Los Angeles County Engineer, Sanitation Division

County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County

City of Santa Monica

City of El] Segundo

City of Manhattan Beach

City of Hermosa Beach

City of Redondo Beach

City of Torrance

Malibu Township Council

101

U.S. Naval Station, Long Beach

Ocean Fish Protective Association

Izaak Walton League of America

NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Division of River Basin Studies

11th District U.S. Coast Guard, Long Beach

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, Con-

tact Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Attn: Regional Di

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.