Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout1976_12_07 MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING ON WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES PLAN, 133 DECEMBER 7 , 1976. A Public Hearing was held in the Council Chambers, 10 West Loud- oun Street, . Leesburg, Virginia on December 7 , 1976. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Newman at 7 : 36 P.M. with the announcement that this public hearing is to present the Town of Leesburg' s Waste- water Management Facilities Plan to the public. Present were: Mayor Mary Anne Newman, Councilmembers Charles E. Bange, Glen P.' Cole, Stanley D. .Herrell , Jr. , James A. Rock, C. Terry Titus *and John W. Tolbert, Jr. Also present were representatives of the Council of Governments and the State Water Control Board, Northern Regional Office. Present from Johnson and Williams, engineering consultants, were John W. Hawthorne, Jr. , Robert Southworth and Anthony J. De Falco. The Notice of Public Hearing was read by the Clerk of the Council. Mayor Newman introduced Mr. Anthony De Falco of Johnson and Wil- liams, who explained that this is a rather important step in the ac- tual Federal funding process as it relates to the development of wastewater management facilities for the Town of Leesburg for the next twenty years'. He explained that there are three steps involved (exhibiting these steps on a series of cards) , each one involving application, prior application and subsequent review. Step I is CD the planning process, for which a grant has already been secured and which is the process involved here tonight. When this. process is completed, it will be submitted for approval by the appropriate authorities, these being the local governing body, the state body and the federal authorities. Step II is the design of the facili- ties, which will also be presented for approval by the above-men- tioned governing bodies. Step III- is the implementation or con- struction phase of the planned facility. A previous public hearing has been held for the purpose of informing the citizens of Leesburg just -what -the engineers are 'engaged in and what they are attempting to do for them. There are three tracks involved in this planning process, they being (1) enyneering feasibility; (2) review of cur- rent wastewater management and (3) future conditions. Along with this, they looked at and included in their analysis the infiltra- tion/inflowstudy done by another engineer (Bengtson-DeBell) . . From this study, they were able to determine the most cost effective a- mount of infiltration/inflow to. be removed. For purposes of this study, a 75: pe_cent removal amount has been .used, along with a growth rate of five percent per annum. He pointed out on a map the study area involved, this being a 29-square mile area which ent. compasses the town and its one-mile subdivision jurisdiction out- side the corporate limits. This is the area considered to be "im- mediate needs". The EPA will fund 75 percent of all capital costs associated with the actual facility for these immediate needs, these having been defined as those facilities needs which will be mani- fested in 1985. The above three tracks have been culminated into the development of the following wastewater management alternatives ; which were explained in detail by Mr. De Falco : (1) No. action. (2) Optimization of existing facilities. (3) Use of Potomac Interceptor and Blue Plains Treatment Plant. (4) Dulles Treatment Plant. (5) Upgrade Leesburg' s plant (biological) . (6) Upgrade Leesburg' s plant (physical/chemical ) . (7) Upgrade Leesburg' s plant (compromise) . The seventh is the recommended alternative - the plant is already in existence and is a fairly new one, the conveyance systems are already in the ground and a rehabilitation program is underway to improve the infiltration/inflow considerably. • . They_are•trying to achieve the standards that the- State wants' - basically, these being the same .as the Occoquan plant. He explained the applicable discharge criteria required, with one of the most important being to inactivate all of the viruses present in the wastewater .before discharge into the Tus- carora. This would require a 55-day holding pond, which• is an ex- tremely expensive proposition. .The recommended alternative, .which exludes the holding pond.; is not nearly as stringent and as ambi- tious as that required by the .State Water Control Board - this new set of proposed criteria will have to be "sold" to the SWCB. This X MINUTES., OF DECEMBER 7 , 1976 PUBLIC HEARING. 134 excludes the 55-day holding pond. He presented a comparison of the applicable discharge criteria to that proposed and cited the advan- tages of the proposed alternative. He said the Water Control Board has advised that it will be very receptive to any new discussion. Mr. De Fal'co' described and pointed out on a chartthe present worth technique required by EPA on any of the: elternatives. This is the only important thing to the..'Town at this time. This chart also listed the initial capital outlays asscoiated with each al- . ternative. The initial outlay for Alternative 7 is 1 . 53 million dollars. In summary, Mr. De Falco made two points : (1) It is extremely important that the Town has the participa- tinn of the Federal Government in this process. One of the key ways to have them participate most effectively is to select an alterna- tive that has most of the money in the capital end of the system budget. (2) The State Water Control Board requires that 100 percent re- dundancy be implemented along with the new facilities. This means that the town would have one plant operating, with a new plant in reserve for emergency use. There is a possibility that by 1985 there might .be two-thirds of this new plant available for use. Mr. John A. Wallace raised questions concerning the chart, with Mr. De Falco supplying the answers. He was particularly interested in the five percent- growth figure being used for purposes of the study. Mayor Newman said Council haddiscussed this at length and this five percent figure was used as a guide. Mr. Rock asked the representative from COG if it were not possible to alter the 208 information if there is a substantial chang in estimates. The reply was that he believed this was possib1 W7MS did not believe it could be assumed that Federal assistance would be available. Mr. Wallace was pleased to hear that they were suggesting some change from the Occoquan standards. Mr. Beckham' W. Dickerson, Jr. , referring to a map exhibited by Mr. De Falco, asked which are the service areas within the one-mile jurisdiction. Mr. De Falco said everything within the. black lines on the map is in the service area. For purposes of the study, the one-mile jurisdiction was used as a basis for the five percent growth rate. Mr. John Berry, part-owner of a parcel of land partially within the one-mile jurisdiction, asked how all this relates to the present capacity of the plant. Is the plant operating at capacity? Mr. De Falco said that, with the infiltration/inflow at the present time, there is still some capacity left. Mr. Jack Hawthorne, also of Johnson and Williams, said there is q qustion of testing techniques at the plant at this time by the Water Control Board. Mr. E. L. Steffey asked when the infiltration will be corrected so that there will be more capacity in the plant? Mr. De Falco said this is a three-phase program to reduce infiltration/inflow: (1) to determine whether or not there is infiltration/inflow; (2) if there is excessive infiltration/inflow, to determine how much and where it is and (3) the actual rehabilitation. The Federal Govern- ment will participate in this also, but you must go through the same channels for such a grant. The first part of this program has been completed with a report from Bengtson-DeBell , so they are involved in the second part at this time. Mr. Wallace asked the time frame involved in getting this ulti- mate plant into being. Mr. De Falco said the record will be held open for comments in writing for a period of 30 days - after this, an alternative will be selected. Following. this, if Alternate No. 7 is chosen, it must be approved by the Water Control Board. A copy of this report has been sent to them and a comment has been received. A letter from the Chief of Planning of the Northern Re- gional Office•aof •the State Water Control Board was . read by Town Manager John Niccolls. A copy of this letter may be seen in the office of the Clerk of Council . Mr; Niccolls commented that the MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7 , 1976 PUBLIC HEARING. 135 suggestion that the Potomac Interceptor be used as a "backup or fail safe system" is in lieu of some of the redundancy requirements - this is the first of numerous alternate suggestions by other agen- cies and the Town' s engineers will be asked to comment on these al- ternate suggestions. Mr. Rock left the meeting at this time ' Mr. Beckham W. Dickerson, Jr. , representing Mr. Paul Hdffman,' owner of a parcel of land partially within the study area and ad- jacent to Country Club Subdivision, and also representing himself as an interested citizen of Leesburg, addressed Council. He said that Mr. Hoffman' s property is proposed for agricultural=3-acre lots and will not perk - he requested a review of this particular area. He also requested a copy of the entire study in order that he might submit a written report within the 30-day period. A list of Mr. Dickerson' s comments and questions is on file in the office of the Clerk of Council . • ' Mr. Martin D. Walsh, attorney, also representing Mr. Hoffman, said they were of the opinion that Mr. Hoffman' s property was within the service area of Leesburg. He requested a deferral of action on this matter until they (he and Mr. Dickerson) can study it thoroughly and make comments for the record. Mr. Titus asked Mr. De Falco if there is consideration in the Council cost of the Dulles plant as to Leesburg' s contribution to s the plant itself. Also, assuming that' the town would use the in- terceptor, would the town use the Xerox line or a parallel line? Mr. De Falco said the town would buy into the Xerox line - this is in the report. Mr. Titus could not understand why the Water Control Board re- quires jurisdictions in the Virginia and Metropolitan Washington areas to have redundancy where -those jurisdictions on the other side of the river not a mile or two away have no such requirements. He could not justify the grants made to the State of Maryland when Virginia has so many additional requirements. Assuming in 1985 that two-thirds redundancy is capable of being used, there is noth- ing to say that Congress won' t change the requirements and Leesburg will have spent millions only to be tossed away. Mr. Titus did not agree with the five percent growth figure. He was willing to sit down with Mr. Dickerson and other representa- tives of Mr. Hoffman and see if there is not some logical solution to this problem. He asked that the Policy Statement advertised by Council be read. Mr. Niccolls advised that it was not adopted. Mr. Herrell agreed with Mr. Titus concerning the five percent growth figure, however, he asked if there is an alternative. Mr. De Falco could not see that there is an alternative - the EPA was very clear when they stipulated "immediate needs". He also said so much depends on the internal desires of the town. He agreed that now is the time to strike on this question - he also agreed that 100 percent redundancy is wasteful. Mr. Herrell said this five _ percent growth figure is not realistic - there must be some indus- trial development in order to meet these costs. Mr. De Falco said this plan is based on "land use" which has been advanced. The plan will change as the land use changes. • Mr. Titus said this study projects itself forward to the year 2000, with a growth rate of only five percent. He could not rationa- lize the two and anticipated many problems to change the growth rate. • Mr. Wallace said that, if the three planned communities are built, the rive percent figure would be exceeded - he was afraid of this five percent plan. Mr. Dickerson asked if EPA would accept a different distribution method of the five percent. There followed an explanation by Mr. De Falco and Mr. Southworth as to the sources used by their firm to arrive at the five percent growth figure, with Mr. Dickerson dis- puting the authenticity of some of these sources. 136- MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7; 1976 PUBLIC HEARING. Mr. Steffey said there are at least 800 acres within the one- mile jurisdiction along Route 7 that would have been developed if sewer capacity had been available when applied for in 1973.. He felt that, if it is imminent that sewer will be available in the not too distant future, the five percent growth figure is truly unrealistic. He asked how they can determine the status of imple- mentation of the infiltration/inflow program. This was explained by Mr. De Falco and Mr. Hawthorne, who said a minimum time frame of one to two 'years would be required before capacity could be al- located by Council . Mr. 'John Berry asked what liaison there has been with the County since the County controls zoning and the town has subdivision juris- diction over a one-mile area beyond the corporate limits. Mr. De Falco felt that liaison had been very good, they have worked with County 'officials and staff .personnel to get as much information as possible and they are aware of what Johnson and Williams is doing. Mayor Newman declared the Public Hearing closed at 9 : 47 P.M. Mayor C • o e Counci • • •