Synopsis: A proposal to discharge brine waste from the operations of a local water treatment company has aroused the concerns of some Morro Bay residents. The brine would be discharged into the Morro Bay-Cayucos wastewater treatment plant ocean outfall. Some residents have raised issues including regarding permits, environmental impacts, and possible changes related to the new plant.
On August 11, the Board of the Morro Bay-Cayucos wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) considered a proposal to enter into a contract with Central Coast Water Treatment (CCWT). The proposal in the staff report was to "approve of the Brine Disposal Concept, not enter into a contract.
The firm, which is headquartered in Grover Beach, is owned by Culligan franchises in Morro Bay, Santa Maria and Lompoc.
The contract was initially proposed to Morro Bay Wastewater Division Manager Bruce Keogh. In a letter to Keogh, dated July 29, 2011, CCWT Secretary Arby Kitzman requested a permit to "deliver city water and salt brine waste to Morro Bay Waste Treatment Plant for disposal." Keogh subsequently formulated the proposal that was submitted to the JPA Board, suggesting that the CCWT brine be discharged into the Morro Bay-Cayucos wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) ocean outfall if approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
The amount of brine to be disposed of is estimated to be about 32,000 gallons per month, on average. The material is currently disposed of in Santa Paula and, before that, was discharged in the South County Sanitation District's WWTP outfall. According to the proposal, CCWT currently pays $.15 per gallon to dispose of brine in Santa Paula, but had paid less for disposal at the South County facility. Keogh recommended that the JPA charge the firm $.07 per gallon.*
During public comment on the proposal, one resident, Richard Sadowski told the Board that a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) would be needed for the proposed discharge operation, and expressed concerns regarding National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations.
After hearing public comment and receiving input from CCWT and Morro Bay City staff, the Board decided that the matter needed further study, and that the issue would be discussed again at the Board's September meeting.
Several concerned residents, including local clean water activists Richard Sadowsi and Marla Jo Bruton, have concurred with the decision, and have asked whether implementation of the proposal, which might also cause problems and generate expenses that could negatively impact taxpayers and the environment. Mayor Yates' said: "I have no problem with this (brine disposal). I heard Richard and Marla Jo, but we depend on our staff. I am going to depend on them to keep us out of trouble."
Councilman Noah Smukler said the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which issues the NPDES permit to the city and CSD for the WWTP operation, said at the meeting that the RWQCB, should review the matter before the city/CSD agree to disposal of the brine at the WWTP. Before the motions, Keogh said, "Fine. We will ask the regional board and see what the next steps will be." Schultz said, "We will make sure we follow the decision of the regional board."
CDP Requirements
Richard Sadowski, who spoke at the August 11 meeting, a CDP is required when industrial waste is to be disposed of in a new location in the Coastal Zone. The proposal submitted by Keogh to the Board made no mention of a CDP, and at the JPA meeting, City Attorney Robert Schultz stated that no such permit was needed. However, some residents disagree, and have stated that they will bring the issue to the attention of the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
Section 30106 of the Coastal Act defines "development" that must be permitted by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as follows: "Development" means, on land, in or under water, the placement or erection of any solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including, but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction, reconstruction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations which are in accordance with a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commencing with Section 4511)."
NPDES Permit Issues
The brine discharge proposal suggests a modification of the existing NPDES permit for the WWTP: "City staff did discuss the possibility of utilizing the plant's ocean outfall for disposal of brine from CCWT with RWQCB staff. They were supportive of this concept and feel that ocean outfalls are appropriate choices for disposal of brine solutions provided adequate monitoring and reporting requirements are in place. There was discussion concerning the regulatory requirements and potential modifications to the NPDES permit for the MBCSD treatment plant. RWQCB staff indicated they felt the NPDES permit could be administratively amended provided the quantity of brine was limited to the amounts similar to those currently being disposed of by CCWT."
Several residents have expressed the view that WWTP's existing permit to discharge to the ocean outfall cannot simply be "administratively amended" to cover discharge of brine. Keogh's proposal notes that CCWT has, in the past, had a contract with the South County Sanitation District to discharge brine through that agency's ocean outfall. However, several Morro Bay residents have stated the opinion that every discharge location will have its own unique characteristics and potential risk factors. They note that the fact that brine discharge was evidently found to be safe for the marine environment at the South County outfall location does not guarantee that it would be harmless to the marine environment adjacent to Morro Bay. In addition, those residents point out the fact that sewage in the South County is treated to full secondary standards, while sewage processed by the Morro Bay-Cayucos plant receives only partial secondary treatment. Therefore, residents assert, the NPDES permitting process should include scientific studies to evaluate potential risks of brine discharge with regard to the unique conditions at the Morro Bay site
Several residents have raised legal issues, noting the possibility that State and/or Federal authorities might require that CCWT become a co-permittee on the WWTP's NPDES permit. A Morro Bay resident recently discussed this possibility with a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) staff member, and was told that such an arrangement might be required. The USEPA regulates and oversees the NPDES Permitting process.
An example of a similar situation has been found in a letter from a USEPA Permits Office staff member to a representative of a utility company in Escondido. The USEPA staff member noted that, due to the significant contribution of pollutants and flow from the utility company, it appeared appropriate that the company be included as a co-permittee on the City of Escondido's NPDES permit.
Richard Sadowski has also asked if co-permittee status on the NPDES permit and/or CCWT contract terms might impact the future ability of the City and the Cayucos Sanitary District (CSD) to disengage themselves from the NPDES permit and the outfall. The issue was raised in light of the fact that the new Morro Bay-Cayucos WWTP could potentially include water reclamation facilities that might greatly reduce the amount of effluent to be discharged from the plant into the outfall, or even eliminate the need for the outfall altogether.
The Need for Scientific Studies
Discussion at the August 11 JPA Board meeting, and available documentation on the brine discharge proposal, appear to indicate that the City and the CSD have not planned or done any scientific studies to determine the potential impacts of brine discharge through the WWTP outfall. Statements made in the proposal appear to imply that there would be no difference between discharging the brine in the Morro Bay - Cayucos ocean outfall and outfalls in other areas.
The proposal states, "Any brine disposal permit issued would be modeled after the South County permit for CCWT and would contain monitoring and reporting requirements for parameters such as pH, Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and selected metals that would be protective of the receiving waters. In addition, the South County permit contains provisions for indemnifying South County and has provisions for suspension of the permit." And, "Staff also spoke with staff at the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA)that provides a similar service to brine generators throughout the Monterey area. They allow brine generators to dispose of brine either through the outfall or by concentrating brine in onsite storage ponds for later disposal at the landfill."
It might be said that there is a precedent for discharging brine into the ocean near the Coast of Morro Bay. The Morro Bay desalination plant discharges its brine into the power plant outfall at the north foot of Morro Rock. However, the WWTP's ocean outfall is a considerable distance offshore, in the open ocean, where environmental conditions and factors are different from those adjacent to the Rock. Another key difference is that the desalination plant brine is mixed with heated discharge water from the power plant, while the CCWT brine would be combined with effluent from the WWTP. In addition, the desalination plant was built under a Coastal Development Permit issued in 1993 to allow the City of Morro Bay address an emergency situation, and some have questioned whether the same permit would be accepted by the CCC today.
Clean water activist Sadowski asserts that, "Each outfall has its own unique effects on the surrounding marine environment that need to be investigated for the effects of brine discharge. Comparing brine discharges in South County, Monterey or Hollister to the potential effects on Estero Bay's marine environment is absurd." Sadowski's opinion appears to be supported by those of a number of researchers.
A 2007 study on desalination plant brine discharge, "Evaluating Environmental Impacts of Desalination in California", by H. Alpert, C. Borrowman and B. Haddad, deals with desalination plant brine, but may be applicable to CCWT brine as well. The authors state, "Ocean discharge is viable but requires a significant amount of research to prove environmentally sound. Studies of hydrodynamic modeling, toxicity testing, salinity tolerance analysis, and intake water quality characterization must be completed before approving an open ocean discharge." And, "Every site has a limited carrying capacity with respect to assimilating brine and thermal waste."
A University of Texas study, "Fate of Desalination Brine in Texas Coastal Bays and Estuaries" states, "Disposal of brine into coastal waters is an economical option for the desalination projects. After discharge, dense brine water flows below the less-dense ambient water to form a stratified cap over the bottom sediment. Typically, it is not the quantity of salt discharged that causes a problem; it is the mixing rate and the brine's fate prior to complete mixing that determines impacts. If natural forces of plume flow, wind mixing and tidal currents are slow to mix the brine with the overlying water, bio-geochemical processes in the sediment may deplete the available dissolved oxygen near the bottom, causing hypoxic (low oxygen) conditions that harm aquatic life. Some Texas bays already experience episodic hypoxia when high evaporation rates combine with weak winds to produce stratified conditions, which could be exacerbated by poorly-sited brine discharges. Finding the optimum discharge location requires a tool for computing the fate of brine with varying winds and currents."
In addition, researchers Jean-Daniel Saphores, Tim Bradley, Sunny Jiang, and Jan Scherfig have stated that when brine is mixed with secondary-treated sewage, the result may be an unintended modification of microbial community composition & diversity, and that the result might be "evolution and adaptation of some microbial pathogens to marine water in discharge field "The Alpert/Borrowman /Haddad study echoes this concern, stating, "There may be synergistic effects in combining brine with other types of discharge (wastewater or power plant outfalls)."
Issues Related to the Future of Brine Discharge in Morro Bay
CCWT may not be the only local entity with a brine discharge problem. The City of Morro Bay desalination plant, which currently discharges its brine in the power plant outfall, may also be looking for a new discharge site.
To minimize the environmental impacts of discharging desalination plant brine into the ocean, the brine is often mixed with another stream of water, such as the discharges from a power plant or a WWTP. This is the case in Morro Bay, where water from the power plant's once-through cooling process dilutes the desalination plant discharges in the shared power plant outfall. New state regulations have resulted in an order that the Morro Bay power plant stop using the once-through cooling process by 2015. The power plant owners' plans for the outfall after 2015 are unknown, and even if they were willing to allow the desalination plant to continue using it, there is still another major problem. Without the water used in the power plant's once-through cooling system to dilute the brine waste, the environmental impacts of brine discharge would increase, potentially causing State agencies to disallow further discharges at the site.
The Keogh proposal states, "It should be noted, that the City and District have a settlement agreement that prohibits the discharge of brine from the City's desalination facility into the outfall. This settlement agreement does not preclude consideration of proposals for brine disposal from other sources such as CCWT." Comments made during the August 11 JPA meeting appear to indicate that the CSD is open to the plan to discharge CCWT brine in the WWTP's ocean outfall. There has been no public indication that the CSD Board members might be willing to reconsider their position on the desalination plant brine.
It has been suggested by several Morro Bay residents that the proposal to allow CCWT brine discharge in the WWTP outfall might be an attempt to set a precedent for brine discharge in that location – potentially smoothing the path for moving desalination plant brine discharge to that site after 2015, when the power plant, under state policy must cease using once-through cooling. It has even been suggested that this may be a factor in the strong resistance of some local government officials and staff to moving the WWTP to what the California Coastal Commission (CCC) and many residents would consider a more suitable location.
Whether or not these assertions prove true or false, there appears to be a general consensus that there is a need for an appropriate, environmentally safe and sustainable, long-term solution for disposing of brine generated by CCWT and the desalination plant. That solution remains to be determined.
*The staff report said: "Tipping fees generated from the brine disposal would need to be established. As noted above, there are widely varying fees for brine disposal depending on the facility accepting the brine. Staff would recommend that the tipping fees be modeled on MRWPCA's disposal fee of $.07 per gallon ($70 per 1000 gallons), as CCWT is not in the MBCSD service area. Based on historical average volumes (32,000 gallons per month) revenue could range from $360 (at $.01125 per gallon) to $2240 (at $.07 per gallon) per month. In addition, staff would recommend that revenues be cost apportioned between the City and District on the basis of ownership rather than pro rata share of flow. This would result in a cost split of 65% to the City and 35% to the District."
