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
•
•
•