Internet Fax To Email - Unlimited
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
Unlimited Faxes, No Fees, Dedicated Phone Number
|
|
|
GWINNETT COUNTY SEWER
This is another memo responding to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's (EPD) Proposed rule change that I believe will lower water quality in Lake Lanier August 9, 2005 Ms. Louise Mathis Subject: EPD Proposed amendments to
Georgia’s Rules for Water Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-6-.(03)2 “Water
Quality Enhancement” I am convinced that the proposed rule change (amendments)
weakens the Georgia waters antidegradation intent of the current rule.
The rule change will allow more sewer pollution of Lake Lanier and other
Georgia waters. I am against the proposed rule change because it will allow
more sewer pollution of Lake Lanier. I
believe EPD has not been honest and straightforward in its public reasons for
the proposed change. I believe one
of the EPD hidden motivations for the proposed change is to allow more polluting
sewer outputs to be discharged into Lake Lanier (reducing its attractiveness and
recreational use) than the current rule allows. I believe another hidden motivation for the proposed change
is to negate the Georgia Supreme Court’s ruling against the previously EPD
issued Gwinnett County sewer permit, which allowed the Gwinnett County Lake
Lanier sewer discharge to be more polluting than the current rule dictates.
I believe the rule change will allow Gwinnett County and other future
sewer discharges into Lake Lanier to be more polluting and harmful than the
current rule allows. I have long been an advocate for Lake Lanier, including
water quality. I have been, and am,
a member of several Lake Lanier Interested organizations.
I have published many thoughts and conclusions on my website at www.ronseder.com,
and ask that they be considered part of this response to the proposed rule
change. When EPD first proposed the rule change to the DNR Board
EPD said the reason for the proposed rule change was that, “the DNR rules are
not clear and need improvement” (EPD did not say the change would allow more
pollution). EPD recommended
changing the language from “the level of treatment required is the highest and
best practicable under existing technology” to “there shall be achieved the
highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point
sources”. Additionally, the
proposed rule change was offered with a definition for “highest statutory and
regulatory requirements”, which included sending the reader to other rule
sections, and in my view complicated understanding of the rule, making the
proposed rule change much less clear than the current rule.
I think it is obvious to almost every reader that “highest and best
practicable under existing technology” is easier to understand than “highest
statutory and regulatory requirements”. A stated EPD
intent of making the rule change is to “read
exactly as the EPA rule (federal consistency)”, but an US EPA letter from
Director James D. Giattina to David Word, Georgia EPD Assistant Director, finds
that the proposed rule change definition was very different from the EPA
definition (federal consistency?), and “recommends that either 1) the
definition and related provisions in the State’s proposed revisions be removed
for clarity or 2) the proposed definition of the phrase be corrected to avoid an
inconsistency with the scope of this provision.” I notice that in the latest material released for the
proposed change a definition of “highest statutory and regulatory
requirements” has been omitted. There is another issue that I think should be highlighted
and pinned down. The Georgia EPD
has said it has been issuing its sewer permits according the EPA rule rather
than according the Georgia rule. If
this is true, why has the EPD ignored the Georgia rule for several decades?
If the EPD really has been issuing sewer permits according to the EPA
rules why did the EPD not understand and use the EPA definition of “highest
statutory and regulatory requirements”? If
the Georgia EPD has really been ignoring the Georgia rules and using the EPA
“highest statutory and regulatory requirements”, should not the EPD be
reprimanded? I know that protecting the purity of Georgia waters like
Lake Lanier is difficult and requires special effort in the fast growing Atlanta
Metropolitan area, but if we are not conscientious in protecting the waters,
future generations will pay a larger price than the near in savings realized by
some from allowing more pollution now. For the reasons stated here I ask that the rule not be
changed. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder
Georgia has proposed a change to its
antidegradation rule for Georgia waters. The proposed rule change can be
seen on the web at http://environet.dnr.state.ga.us/6.
Below is my response to the proposed rule change, as well as information taken
from the state website. June 2, 2005 Ms. Louise Mathis Subject:
Comments on the draft amendment to the rules for Water Quality Control,
391-3-.03(2) entitled “Water Quality Enhancement”. I have been working for
the preservation of Lake Lanier for the past 15 years. I am a member of the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance
Council (LSLWGC), the Lake Lanier Basin Advisory Council (LLBAC) of the
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD), and the Lake Lanier
Association (LLA) where I have previously been a Board member, Vice President
and President. I was also a member
of the “Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Water Issues”.
I participated in the early considerations of the Gwinnett County sewer
discharge into Lake Lanier, and have learned much about Lake Lanier water
quality and Lake level threats during my 15-year effort.
Some of my past thoughts and conclusions about Lake Lanier water quality
including the water quality standards are documented on my website www.ronseder.com
at “Gwinnett Sewer” and “Standards” in the “Lake Lanier” section of
the website, and I would like that to be considered as part of my response. I believe the effort to
redefine the antidegradation rules is meant to allow more pollution of Georgia
waters, and therefore I am against the change. The current rule has been
in place for three decades and did not require a change until the Georgia
Supreme Court found that the sewer permit given to Gwinnett County by the
Georgia EPD did not follow the rule, and allowed too much pollution.
I believe that now the GA EPD wants to relax the rule so it can issue
sewer permits allowing more unnecessary pollution in the receiving waters. Experience has convinced
me that the EPD has a practice of trying to persuade the public that it is
protecting water quality while actually allowing more water pollution.
A glaring example is the water quality standards established for Lake
Lanier five years ago. One of the EPD charts shown to the Board of Natural Resources
to get approval of the standards said an objective of the standards was:
“Allow no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll a
concentrations above historic levels”. However,
the EPD then asked for and received Board approval for water quality standards
that do allow more of these substances in Lake Lanier to further pollute the
Lake. It has been said that one
of the reasons for the new rule is because the current rule is not well
understood. To me the current rule
is much easier to understand than the proposed change.
The current wording is: “the level of treatment required is the
highest and best practicable under existing technology to protect existing
beneficial uses.” That says
to me that if there is an established practical technology that produces better
output the permit issued by EPD should set pollution limits accordingly. The proposed rule says: “the
state shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and
regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources” (same as the
EPA rule?). I and many others
are unable to decipher the meaning of that phrase, and apparently EPD came to
the same conclusion because EPD felt obligated to define the phrase, which still
leaves me confused and sends us out to another section to further confuse the
issue. I doubt that all of that
definition still leaves the rule the same as the EPA rule.
Apparently the two phrases are the same, but when EPD adds words of
explanation that are several times more numerous than the original phrase we
should not assume we have the same rule as the EPA.
Also, the EPA sets the federal minimum requirement, and I think Georgia
should have more restrictive rules to protect some of its best waters, such as
Lake Lanier. To protect Georgia waters
and do what is best for the State, I think the current rule should be preserved.
The Georgia Supreme Court has decided the Gwinnett Sewer case to help
define the rule, and I think many fewer words than are in the proposed rule
definition could eliminate any remaining doubt about the meaning of the current
rule. In addition to preserving the current Georgia rule, I further ask that the Georgia EPD really do what is necessary to allow no degradation of waters covered by he rule. However, if the EPD does intend to allow more pollution of the waters please level with the public rather than trying to disguise the real intent. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder --------------------- The Georgia EPD is proposing a change to
the Georgia antidegradation rule, which can be seen on the web at http://environet.dnr.state.ga.us/6
. EPD proposed the rule change
after being instructed by the Georgia Supreme Court to put stricter limits on
pollutants in the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit. Following are some of the significant
portions I lifted from the website. CURRENT RULE: Those
waters in the State whose existing quality is better than the minimum levels
established in standards on the date standards become effective will be
maintained at high quality; with the State having the power to authorize new
developments, when it has been affirmatively demonstrated to the State that a
change is justifiable to provide necessary social or economic development; and
provided further that the
level of treatment required is the highest and best practicable under existing
technology to protect existing beneficial water uses. Existing instream water uses and the level of
water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and
protected. All requirements in the Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 131.12, will
be achieved before lowering of water quality is allowed for high quality
water. PROPOSED
RULE CHANGE: Where the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the division finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the division continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located. In allowing such degradation or lower water quality, the division shall assure water quality adequate to protect existing uses fully. Further, the division shall assure that there shall be achieved the highest statutory and regulatory requirements for all new and existing point sources and all cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control. DEFINITIONS OFFERED BY THE STATE TO CLARIFY THE RULE
CHANGE (b)
(iii) For existing point sources, the highest statutory and regulatory
requirements are those contained in paragraph .06(4) “Degree of Waste
Treatment Required” of this rule. (iv)
For new point sources, the highest statutory and regulatory requirements are
either (1) those contained in paragraph .06(4) “Degree of Waste Treatment
Required” of this rule or (2) those in antidegradation procedures prepared
by the division, or (3) those proposed by the applicant, whichever results in
less pollutants (total mass) discharged to waters of the State or less
pollutant concentrations in waters of the state. (v)
New point sources include expansions of existing point sources if such
expansions increase the amount of pollutants (total mass) discharged to waters
of the state or increase the pollutant concentrations in waters of the state. (vi) The Division shall solicit public participation and input prior to any significant revision to the antidegradation procedures in (iv) above.
April 18, 2005 Dr. Carol Couch Subject: F. Wayne Hill Water Resources
Center NPDES Permit Dear Dr. Couch, I have been
working for the preservation of Lake Lanier for the past 15 years. I am a member of the Lake Sidney Lanier Watershed Governance
Council (LSLWGC), the Lake Lanier Basin Advisory Council (LLBAC) of the
Metropolitan North Georgia Water Planning District (MNGWPD), and the Lake Lanier
Association (LLA) where I have previously been Board member, Vice President and
President. I was also a member of
the Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Water Issues.
I was involved with the early considerations of a Gwinnett County sewer
discharge into Lake Lanier and I have learned much about Lake Lanier water
quality and Lake level threats during my 15-year involvement.
Some of my past thoughts and conclusions about the Gwinnett Sewer Lake
Lanier discharge are documented on my website at www.ronseder.com
at Gwinnett Sewer in the Lake Lanier section of the website, and I would like
that to be considered as part of my response to the most recent draft NPDES
permit of the F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center. I do not
agree with Gwinnett County being allowed to discharge its treated sewage
directly into Lake Lanier, but because of past Georgia Supreme Court rulings my
comments here assume Gwinnett County will be allowed the 40 mgd sewer discharge
into the Lake. I believe phosphorus to be the most
important consideration in the sewer discharge, so I will first concentrate on
it. Court Testimony by a court recognized
expert, Dr. Jack Jones, shows that the release of phosphorus going into the
photic zone of the Lake will cause algae growth and pollute that portion of the
Lake. Dr. Jones testified that phosphorus released
at the permitted 33-foot depth would enter the photic zone and cause pollution.
Therefore, there must be a focus on the amount of phosphorus in the
discharge, and the depth at which it is released. First, the amount of phosphorus permitted in
the discharge. The Gwinnett sewer
plant uses a technology that can be expected to routinely produce a sewer
effluent at less than one half the 0.1 mg/l 30 day moving average allowed by the
draft permit. In 1999 Gwinnett
County representatives told us that the sewer plant was designed to produce no
more than 0.05 mg/l, and the actual phosphorus output would be less than that. The history of the 20 mgd operating section
of the sewer plant shows that the plant mostly produced a phosphorus discharge
at less than .05 mg/l until almost the end of 2003.
For some reason, operation since that time has produced a somewhat higher
phosphorus output, but still mostly below .06 mg/l.
For all of these reasons I believe a phosphorus permit limit of .06 mg/l
is justified. Second, the permitted sewer plant discharge
is at a depth of 33 feet, and that is when the Lake is full.
Of course when the Lake is less than full, which is most of the time, the
sewer discharge is even closer to the Lake surface.
As was pointed in Dr. Jones’ testimony, the release of the phosphorus
rich discharge at the 33-foot depth will rise into the photic zone promoting
algae growth, and obvious and significant Lake pollution.
Releasing the sewer effluent much deeper in the Lake will allow less
phosphorus to reach the photic zone, therefore the sewer effluent depth should
be much deeper than 33 feet, perhaps at the original depth proposed in the first
draft permit (somewhere around 140 feet). Next, Let’s look at some of the other
pollutants in the proposed sewer discharge.
Again I am looking at the history of the currently operating F. Wayne
Hill sewer plant (and treating its late 2004 performance as not quite right).
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) has been less than 13 mg/l, and I recommend
a permit limit of 13 mg/l. Total
Suspended Solids (TSS) have been less than 1 mg/l, and I recommend a permit
limit of 1 mg/l. Ammonia (as N) has
been less than 0.10 mg/l, and I recommend a permit limit of 0.10 mg/L.
Turbidity (NTU) has been less than 0.30, and I recommend a permit limit
of 0.30. The Lake Lanier polluting components of the
Gwinnett Sewer Plant discharge should be held to the lowest practicable amount
that the technology can reliably produce. I
believe that past information from Gwinnett County representatives and the
history of the currently operating section of the F. Wayne Hill Sewer Plant show
the limits I have recommended here to be realistic. Sincerely, Ronald E. Seder
THE GEORGIA SUPREME COURT
ISSUES ITS RULING FAVORING LANIER On November 23, 2004 the Georgia Supreme Court issued its
ruling (a 6 to 1 vote of the Court) on the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer
discharge permit. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed some of the Appeals
Court rulings in favor of the Lake Lanier Association's (and others) legal
challenge of the Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge permit issued to Gwinnett
County by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division. Briefly, the Court denied the permit because the permit did
not have stringent enough limits on pollutants in the sewer discharge.
The Court also ruled that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in the
original case erred in denying to hear a part of the case challenging the
issuance of the permit without another public notice and comment period,
following a change in Lake location and depth of the permitted sewer discharge. The Georgia Supreme Court Said: “The undisputed facts show that the discharge will
degrade the water quality in Lake Lanier. Before
a permit will issue to allow the degradation of water quality in Lake Lanier,
the clear and unambiguous language of Georgia’s anti-degradation rules require
the permittee to utilize the “highest and best [level of treatment]
practicable under existing technology.” Because
the treatment plant at issue, the Hill Plant, is capable of removing more
pollutants from the discharged water than the permit requires, the permit
violates the anti-degradation rules. Accordingly, we reverse. “The challengers also argue that the EPD failed to comply
with the required public notice and comment rules. Agency actions, such as the issuance of the permit in this
case, undergo a public notice and comment period to provide the public with the
opportunity for meaningful participation in important agency decisions.
Under the Georgia and federal regulations, the discharge point is an
element of the permit that the agency must submit to the notice and comment
process. “The public is precluded
from a meaningful opportunity to participate in the comment process if the
agency makes available on version of a guideline… provides the opportunity to
comment on that version, and them adopts a completely different approach in its
final guideline without having provided an opportunity to the public to comment
on the adopted version.”
STATUS OF THE PERMITTED GWINNETT COUNTY On March 4, 2003, a Superior
Court judge ruled in favor of disallowing the 40 Million Gallons per Day (MGD)
Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit, issued by the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division (EPD) to Gwinnett County. Let us review some of the
history leading to this Superior Court decision. During November 2000, the
Georgia Environmental Protection Division gave Gwinnett County a permit to
discharge 40 MGD of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. The Lake Lanier Association,
the Upper Chattahoochee River Keeper, the Sierra Club and Terrence Hughey (which
I will name the “LL Group”), convinced that the permitted discharge would
add pollution to Lake Lanier, challenged the permit issuance in the
Administrative Law Court, as required by law. During
the winter and spring of 2002, Administrative Court Judge Jessie Altman presided
over several days of hearings while both sides presented their case. In
October 2002 Administrative Law Judge Jessie Altman found in favor of
Gwinnett/EPD, supporting the legality of the permit. Because the LL Group
disagreed with Judge Altman’s findings, the LL Group appealed the findings in
the Hall County Superior Court. Hall
County Superior Court Judge John E. Girardeau reversed some key findings of
Administrative Law Court Judge Jessie Altman. First, Judge Girardeau found that the EPD did not comply with the requirements
for public notice and comment for issuing the permit, because EPD changed
the location and depth of the Lake Lanier sewer discharge after the public
comment period ended. Second, Judge Girardeau found that the permit did not comply with Federal and
State antidegradation regulations, because the permit would allow
unjustified degradation of Lake Lanier water quality.
Judge Girardeau’s conclusion says, “Respondents
concede that the discharge authorized by the Permit will degrade the existing
level of water quality in Lake Lanier by raising the level of pollutants.”
(The respondents are EPD and Gwinnett County). I think Judge Girardeau’s
ruling, preventing Lake Lanier water quality degradation, also emphasizes the
need to change the Lake Lanier water quality standards. In January 2000 the Georgia Board of Natural Resources
established water quality standards for Lake Lanier, as proposed by EPD.
Prior to the standards being accepted by the Georgia Board of Natural
Resources, EPD insisted that the Lake Lanier water quality standards would not
allow the quality of Lake Lanier water to degrade. One
of the objectives of the proposed standards, shown in the EPD presentation given
to obtain the Board of Natural Resources’ approval, was, “Allow
no increase of phosphorus loading and nitrogen and Chlorophyll a
concentrations above historic levels.”
Neither the Gwinnett County sewer discharge permit nor the Lake Lanier
water quality standards satisfy the stated objective. As previously stated, the
Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit would allow degrading the
quality of Lake Lanier water. However,
that degraded water quality would satisfy the established Lake Lanier water
quality standards. Therefore, the
Lake Lanier water quality standards allow Lake water quality to degrade.
Logically then, Judge Girardeau’s antidegradation ruling should cause the
Georgia Board of Natural Resources to tighten the Lake Lanier water quality
standards. During the process of
permitting the Gwinnett 40 MGD Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge, Gwinnett
and EPD insisted that the permitted discharge would not degrade the quality of
Lake Lanier water. In fact, things
were said that caused much of the public to believe that the sewer discharge was
purer than Lake Lanier water, and that the sewer discharge water was drinking
water quality. Both of these
conclusions are incorrect. It is important to recognize
that the scope of Hall County Superior Court Judge Girardeau’s review was
limited by law. The Appeal could
not be conducted as a new trial. Judge
Girardeau had to confine his review to evidence presented to Administrative Law
Judge Jessie Altman and how she applied the law to that evidence.
However, Judge Girardeau did have some other observations. Regarding the Fecal Coliform
limits (fecal coliform is used as an indicator of human health risks) in the
permit (the Gwinnett County permit allows 23/100 ml fecal coliform), Judge
Girardeau said, “Petitioners’
argument that the Permit allows a loading of more than 23/100 ml fecal coliform
during short periods of time addresses itself to the reasonableness of the rules
permitting the discharge and not the issue of whether the Permit is valid under
the Rules.” A geometric mean of a few
samples during a thirty day period is to be used to determine compliance with
the permitted fecal coliform limit. A
geometric mean is very different from an arithmetic mean.
For example, a geometric mean would allow seven days at 230,000/100 ml
fecal coliform during that thirty day period, while still satisfying the
permitted 23/100 ml fecal coliform. However,
an arithmetic mean would not allow even one day of more than 700/100 ml fecal
coliform to meet the permit limit. As
one can see, using the geometric mean to determine compliance allows very high
exposures to human health hazards. While ruling in favor of
Gwinnett/EPD on the LL Group challenge of the permitted Lake Lanier phosphorus
discharge, Judge Girardeau also observed, “Petitioners
have raised some reasonable concerns on this issue, particularly in light of the
apparent weakness in and difficulty of enforcing this statute and Rule: However,
this is not the forum for satisfying such concerns.” Well, that is where things
stand now. The next move is up to
Gwinnett/EPD. They can ask the
Georgia Court of Appeals to review the case, and the Court of Appeals would then
decide whether or not to review it. The fight is not over.
There is a lot of “development community” and resultant political
pressure to discharge much more than just this Gwinnett County 40 MGD of treated
sewage into Lake Lanier. I think the Gwinnett County 40 MGD discharge is just the tip
of the iceberg. If the Gwinnett
permit is ultimately allowed to stand it would be the precedent that eventually
would cause hundreds of millions of gallons of polluting treated sewage to be
discharged into Lake Lanier. Saving Lake Lanier requires citizens to tell their political leaders where they stand on this issue. For the sake of our children and grandchildren we must not allow Lake Lanier to be destroyed.
LAKE LANIER AT RISK During November 2000, the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division (EPD) issued to Gwinnett County a permit to
discharge 40 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.
The Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) is convinced that this permitted
treated sewage discharge will pollute Lake Lanier, and therefore opposes the
discharge. The LLA pursued
all alternatives to protect Lake Lanier from this permitted discharge, without
success, leaving two options: end the LLA active opposition to the discharge,
which will result in additional pollution of the Lake; or take legal action to
prevent the permitted discharge. In December
2000, the LLA, the Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Sierra Club,
Terence D. Hughey and Save Our Communities Now, Inc. initiated an appeal of the
permit issued by EPD to Gwinnett County. Gwinnett
County sided with the EPD and is taking the lead in defending the permit. During the past
few years, the public has been told that this Gwinnett County sewer discharge
will not degrade the quality of Lake Lanier water. That is untrue!!! When EPD
proposed, and the Georgia Board of Natural Resources accepted, the water quality
standards for Lake Lanier in January 2000, the LLA was told that the standards
would not allow degradation of Lake Lanier water quality.
That is untrue!!! When EPD
proposed the Lake Lanier Water Quality Standards to the Georgia Board of Natural
Resources, one of the objectives listed was “Allow no increase of phosphorus
loading and nitrogen and chlorophyll a
concentrations above historic levels”. However, during court testimony Alan Hallum, the Chief of the
Water Protection Branch for the Georgia EPD, agreed that “the water quality in
Lake Lanier is better than the level set by the water quality standards for Lake
Lanier”. Mr. Hallum
testified, concerning whether or not to allow degradation of Lake Lanier water
quality to accommodate the Gwinnett County sewer discharge, “we have to make
sure that there is going to be a trade off, a socioeconomic evaluation done to
ensure that for whatever amount of decrease in water quality over the current
amount, whatever that drop is, there is a socioeconomic benefit associated with
that drop in water quality”. Mr. Hallum also testified that he would not recommend swimming within 35 meters of the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. Mr. Hallum’s
testimony leaves little doubt that EPD intends to allow degradation of Lake
Lanier water quality to accommodate additional Lake Lanier sewer discharges. Prior testimony
by Dr. Jack Jones, a respected expert on lakes and reservoirs, shows that Lake
Lanier would be polluted by the permitted Gwinnett County sewer discharge,
particularly in the area of the discharge. For a long time,
because of Gwinnett County and EPD promotions, much of the public believed that
the Gwinnett County sewer discharge would not harm Lake Lanier.
Much of the public believed that EPD would not allow the Lake water
quality to be degraded. The public has
been told that the same kind of sewer plant is discharging into the Occoquan
Reservoir in Virginia, encouraging the public to believe that the Occoquan
Reservoir has water quality similar to Lake Lanier water quality.
A visit to the Occoquan Reservoir and discussions with experts proved
that to be false. In fact, it has
been discovered that chemicals are sometimes used to reduce the algae growth in
the Occoquan Reservoir. The public has
also been encouraged to believe that the permitted discharge from the sewer
plant would be as pure as drinking water, and purer than the Lake water into
which it would be discharged. Both
of those claims are false. The future well-being of Lake Lanier is threatened by the Gwinnett County permitted 40 MGD treated sewage discharge into the Lake. As the legal action opposing the permitted discharge moves forward, testimony under oath further confirms the threat to the water quality of Lake Lanier. For the sake of future generations’ use and enjoyment of the Lake, we must not allow it to be destroyed.
THE PERMITTED GWINNETT
COUNTY 40 MGD TREATED SEWAGE DISCHARGE WILL POLLUTE LAKE LANIER During November 2000, the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division (EPD) issued a permit to Gwinnett County to discharge 40 million
gallons per day (mgd) of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. The public has been told by Gwinnett County and the EPD that the permitted 40 mgd discharge will not pollute or otherwise harm the lake. That is not correct. The permitted sewer discharge will pollute Lake Lanier. The permit allows the treated sewage discharge to contain much larger concentrations of pollutants, including phosphorus, total suspended solids, chemical oxygen demand and mercury, than the Lake Lanier water into which it is to be released. Legal Action The Lake Lanier Association, Inc. (LLA) is convinced that the preservation of Lake Lanier water quality requires the repeal of this Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit. In December 2000, the LLA, the Upper Chattahoochee
Riverkeeper Fund, Inc., the Sierra Club, Terence D. Hughey and Save Our
Communities Now, Inc. initiated a lawsuit against EPD for issuing the permit.
Gwinnett County sided with the EPD and is taking the lead in defending
the permit. The lawsuit is now
in the State Administrative Law Court with the Honorable Judge Jessie R. Altman
presiding. Expert testimony during the trial by Dr. Jack Jones showed
that the permitted 40 mgd treated sewage discharge will pollute a
portion of Lake Lanier. Dr. Jack Jones is a Professor of Limnology (the scientific study of life and phenomena of fresh water, especially lakes and ponds) and chair of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, School of Natural Resources at the University of Missouri. Dr. Jones is an internationally experienced and respected limnologist who teaches undergraduate and graduate classes in limnology, does research in reservoir limnology and has authored approximately 75 peer reviewed articles in his field of study. Phosphorus, Algae and
Chlorophyll Pollution During his court testimony on November 15, 2001, Dr. Jones
explained that the permitted sewer discharge allows a phosphorus concentration
several times greater than the phosphorus concentration of the lake water into
which the treated sewage is to be discharged.
The permitted phosphorus allowed in this treated sewage will add about
eight (8) tons of phosphorus to the lake each year. Dr. Jones further explained that the temperature of the
treated sewage discharge, compared to the water temperature at different depths
of the lake during the warmer months of the year, will cause the discharge to
form a “sewage sandwich” at a depth in its portion of the lake that will
promote algae growth, and cause the Lake Lanier chlorophyll standard to be
violated. During the cooler months
of the year when the lake surface water is cold, the treated sewage will rise to
the surface like a sewage icing. Dr. Jones testified, “it (Lake Lanier in the proximity of
the sewer discharge) is going to look like a different lake.”
When Dr. Jones was asked, “will the algae blooms interfere with
swimming” Dr. Jones stated that “algal blooms can cause dermatitis.
People are hesitant to swim in water that is turbid with algae.
Algae degrades the aesthetics. They
degrade real estate values.” Dr.
Jones also explained that the Lake below the area of the algae blooms “will
have lower oxygen and so it will limit the habitat, particularly for the deep
floor fishermen, the bass, white crappie, etc.” Dr. Jones testified, “You will have algae on the beaches, you will have algae in the center of the lake. People will boat into that area of the lake and they will just see green, it will be turbid”. Offset Gwinnett County
Sewer Discharge Phosphorus Increases By Reductions Elsewhere? With a hint of a possible attempt to counteract the
increased phosphorus added to the lake by the Gwinnett County sewer discharge,
EPD has said that reducing phosphorus discharges in one part of the lake will
allow larger phosphorus discharges in another part of the lake (e.g. the
Gwinnett County 40 mgd discharge). Dr.
Jones explained that reductions of phosphorus in another part of the lake would
not reduce the water pollution caused by the Gwinnett County treated sewage
discharge into its area of the lake. Undoubtedly there are portions of the lake that should have phosphorus concentrations lowered, but accomplishing that would not counteract increased pollution in the Gwinnett County discharge portion of the lake. Fecal Coliform As An
Indicator Of Public Health Safety? Dr Jones also testified about the Fecal Coliform permitted
in the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. The LLA, during the formation of the
Lake Lanier water quality standards in 1999, suggested using E. coli instead of
fecal coliform as a measure of public health safety for swimming in the lake.
However, the EPD chose the customary fecal coliform measurement for the
lake standards and for the Gwinnett County sewer discharge. The Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge permit
allows a monthly fecal coliform count of 23, as determined by a geometric mean
of several lake water samples taken during a month. Most of us do not know much about the geometric mean
calculation and our eyes gloss over when someone tries to explain it, so you
will be spared an explanation attempt here.
But, some of the potential negative consequences of using the geometric
mean, included in Dr. Jones’ testimony, are important for us to consider.
Dr. Jones explained that the geometric mean allows individual samples of
lake water to have very high fecal coliform counts.
The monthly 23 fecal coliform count allowed by the permit could be
satisfied with 7 days of 230,000 and 23 days of 2, or 9 days at 23,000, or 12
days at 2,300 or 17 days at 230. Certainly, no one should want to swim in waters with fecal coliform counts of 230,000, 23,000, 2,300 or 230. Obviously, the geometric mean calculation is not an adequate indicator of public health safety on any given day. Mercury Now lets look at the results of Dr. Jones’ testimony regarding mercury discharges into Lake Lanier. Gwinnett County’s permit contains no limit for mercury. Dr. Jones testified that mercury accumulates in fish tissue. Currently there are fish eating advisories for certain species of fish in Lake Lanier because of the amount of mercury in their tissues. Dr. Jones testified that if there is any mercury in the Gwinnett County sewer discharge it will add to the accumulation of mercury in fish. Summary Dr. Jones’ testimony makes it clear that the permitted Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge into Lake Lanier will pollute Lake Lanier water. The permitted Gwinnett County treated sewage discharge allows pollutants that will impair current and legitimate uses of the Lake, particularly in the treated sewage discharge area of the lake, including bodily contact with the water. Your Help Is
Needed To Win The Battle To Preserve Lake Lanier The Lake Lanier Association remains convinced that the
deterioration of Lake Lanier water quality and the impairment of current and
legitimate lake uses should not be tolerated, and that the current permit
allowing Gwinnett County to discharge 40 mgd of treated sewage in the Lake
should be reversed. The LLA tried, while the Lake Lanier water quality
standards were being determined, and while the Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer
discharge permit was being considered, to negotiate satisfactory results to
protect Lake Lanier. The LLA was
unable to successfully negotiate with the EPD or Gwinnett County to have
appropriate Lake protection alterations made to the Lake standards or the sewer
permit, and the sewer discharge permit was issued.
After exhausting all other alternatives, legal action was the only option
left for the protection of Lake Lanier. The legal battle is expensive. The cost runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Donations are needed to finally win protection for Lake Lanier water
quality. Please help the Lake Lanier Association in its Lake Lanier preservation efforts. Your contributions can be sent to: Lake Lanier Association, Inc., P.O. Box 1777, Buford, Georgia 30515-8777, or you can make credit card donations by calling 770-831-1819.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC January
9, 2001 Letter
to the Editor Dear
Editor: I
am writing to correct some errors in an article, “Water debate flows on”,
in the January 7, 2001 issue of the times. A
statement in the article says: “water from the sewer plant has a much lower
level of toxic contaminants than water drawn from the lake.”
That statement is incorrect. The
Lake Lanier sewer plant discharge permit issued by the EPD to Gwinnett County,
and data supplied by Gwinnett County, confirm that the statement is wrong.
The Gwinnett County sewer plant discharge is permitted to contain up to
26 times as much Phosphorus, 6 times more Total Suspended Solids, 15 times more
Total Dissolved Solids, 7 times more Chemical Oxygen Demand and more Fecal
Coliform than the Lake Lanier water into which it is to be discharged.
In addition there are many other chemicals in the discharge that result
from residential, commercial and industrial waste, and very little is known
about their long-term harm to a lake like Lanier. Another
statement in the article, referring to Lake Lanier water quality standards,
says: “EPD designed standards to maintain the lake without repairing the
environmental damage from years of pollution.”
Not only do the standards not maintain the lake at current quality
levels, they allow significant additional pollution to be added to Lake Lanier
without violating the standards EPD created. There
have been many myths perpetuated about the proposed Gwinnett County sewer plant
discharge, such as, the sewer plant discharge will be as pure as drinking water
or that the water will be purer than the lake water into which it will be
discharged. These
claims are false. If the claims
were true would it not make sense to send the treated sewage directly to the
drinking water plant rather than pay the expense of pumping it to the lake, or
pay the cost of treating lake water for drinking water? The
Gwinnett County sewer plant discharge into Lake Lanier will add to the pollution
of the lake and should not be allowed. That is why the Lake Lanier Association has taken legal
action to disqualify the permit. Sincerely
yours, Ron
Seder 770-889-1088
(2/3/01) You
might also be interested in the Lake Lanier Association's response to another
newspaper article almost two years ago. LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC March 26,
1999 Letters to
the Editor Dear Editor: In his March
14, 1999 article, Elliot Brack encouraged Gwinnett County's intended discharge
of huge quantities of treated sewage into Lake Lanier.
It is obvious that Mr. Brack knows little about the subject.
His article is filled with errors. Contrary to
Mr. Brack's assertions, the sewage discharge would not be purer than the water
in the lake, dead and decaying trees in Lake Lanier do not filter/clean the
water and the lake turning over twice a year would not cleanse the sewer
discharge. If the
treated sewage were to be so pure why not run the output of the sewage treatment
plant to the input of the drinking water plant.
That would avoid the cost of pumping the water to and from Lake Lanier
and would also reduce Gwinnett County's need to withdraw as much water from the
lake. Sincerely, Jacqueline
A. Joseph
(2/4/01) Last week the we were made aware of the following 1999 letter from the Director of the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, Harold Reheis, to a member of the Georgia Natural Resources Board, James E. Butler, Jr. The letter also discusses some of the false claims. The bold colored emphasis is mine. Georgia Department of Natural Resources Mr.
James E. Butler, Jr. Dear
Jim; This is in response to your May 25 letter to me regarding
Lake Lanier. Some of your questions and comments are regarding Mr. Elliott
Brack’s commentary from the Gwinnett Section, Sunday, March 14 edition of the
Atlanta newspapers. I had not seen that article until you sent it to me with
your letter. I don’t know where Mr. Brach got his
Information, but some of it is really bad. Yes, Gwinnett County does propose to treat wastewater to
a very high degree in their North Wastewater Treatment Plant which is currently
under construction. They are required to treat it to that degree due to the
permit that EPD Issued to them. Contrary to what Mr.
Brack says, the effluent will not be better than the quality of the water coming
to Gwinnett County in its Lake Lanier water intake, nor will it be better than
the quality of the water in the river below Buford Dam. It will be
the cleanest wastewater discharged in Georgia, but it still will not be as clean
as the lake or the river. Yes, it is technically feasible to do direct reuse of the
treated sewage. Nobody in Georgia is doing direct reuse, of treated
sewage back into the potable water System, and there are very few places in the
United States where this is done. Our current thinking in EPD is that it is
preferable to have treated effluent diluted with some natural water, such as in
a lake or river, before treating it for potable use. Yes, If Gwinnett County can build such a facility others
can also. Gwinnett County is currently leading the way in Georgia in terms of
having the most highly treated effluent at their Crooked Creek plant which does
discharge into the Chattahoochee River. I expect that EPD will require nearly
all metro governments who discharge treated wastewater into the Chattahoochee
River to attain standards comparable to what Gwinnett is now achieving at their
Crooked Crick Plant. The Gwinnett North Plant, currently under construction,
will do even better than the Crooked Creek Plant. Your
next question is regarding the safety of direct reuse, and you ask if it is not
safe to drink, how can it be safe to swim in and swallow? Dilution, as you
suggest, is part of the answer. Nowhere In Georgia is anybody swimming in a
stream or lake that is 100% treated wastewater. There is natural dilution in all
bodies of water where wastewater is discharged. Part of the answer to your
question is, that is what ambient Water quality standards are about. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and a variety of scientists around this country
have spent a lot of time studying the issue of what water quality standards
should be for fishable/swimmable waters. For fecal coliform bacteria, the number
is 200 colonies of bacteria per 100 milliliters of water. We adopted that
standard in Georgia ten years ago, making a more strict standard than what we
previously had. The scientific presumption is that if fecal coliform colonies
are less than 200 per 100 milliliter the water is safe to swim in. Most people
who swim don’t swallow a lot of water. You certainly don’t swallow as much
swimming, as you do drinking out of your tap at home or at the office day in and
day out over the course of your life time. I agree that those people who swim and fish in Lake
Lanier are entitled to a choice too, just like people are entitled to a choice
as to whether or not they want to drink their own sewage directly. Under the
federal Clean Water Act and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and their
corollary acts in Georgia, people who drink water from public water systems are entitled
to safe water, and people who swim in waters of the United States are entitled to swim in waters that meet water quality
standards. You asked whether there is a facility anywhere in the
United States that discharges treated wastewater cleaner than water withdrawn
from the same source. I don’t know of any; certainly there are none in
Georgia. We’ll do some research and see what we can find for you on that. You asked how clean the proposed discharge from Gwinnett
County will be going into Lake Lanier. The answer is we have a pretty good idea
now, that the quality of effluent that Gwinnett County will be producing at its
North Wastewater Treatment Plant in that it is permitted to discharge into the
Chattahoochee River, will be sufficient to protect the quality of Lake Lanier.
However, it is my intent not to make a permit decision on Gwinnett County’s
application, or anyone else’s application that discharge into Lake Lanier,
until such time that we have completed our additional water quality standards
rulemaking for Lake Lanier. This is scheduled to happen at the December 1999
Board Meeting. After those new standards are adopted, EPD will work with
Gwinnett County and any other government around the lake which wishes to
discharge treated wastewater back to the lake, to determine whether and under
what conditions we can issue permits for such discharges. You ask how far along Gwinnett County is
in planning to discharge into the lake. They have purchased a large tract of
land between Interstates 85 and 965, and are building a sewage treatment plant
there. This is the North Plant. That plant will be expandable to a larger size.
Gwinnett County is permitted to discharge 20 million gallons a day (mgd) from
that plant, when it is completed, to the Chattahoochee River. Gwinnett County
also hopes for subsequent expansions of the plant, and hopes to be able to
return treated wastewater to Lake Lanier from there. I do not know whether or
not Gwinnett County has actually acquired any land or rights-of-way for
discharging a treated effluent back into the lake. If they have done so, they
have done so at their own risk, I have told Gwinnett County Commission Chairman
Wayne Hill that EPD will not be making any permit decisions until after the
additional water quality standard rulemaking for Lake Lanier is completed in
December. They understand that any actions they are taking prior to getting a
permit are done so at their own risk. You asked about the General Assembly’s amendments in
1990 that required more stringent water quality standards to be adopted for Lake
Lanier. The law required lake standards to be adopted for all the large public
lakes in the state, and we are getting around to them as quickly as we can. We
do, us you surmised, have a shortage of resources. EPD has developed and the
Board has adopted standards for Lake Jackson and West Point Lake. In December,
we intend to bring proposed standards for Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier to the
Board. Both Lake Allatoona and Lake Lanier have had large complex water quality
studies being done on them for years, funded by state, local, and federal
monies. The study done on Lake Lanier has been headed up by a team from the
University of Georgia, and we will be using their Clean Lakes Study report and
other information as we develop proposed standards to bring to the Board in
December. Each of the clean lakes studies that has been done thus far has
certainly taken longer than anybody expected that it would. More money and more personnel would certainly help these
things to happen more quickly. However, we are using our resources in adopting
the standards in order of priority. West Point Lake end Lake Jackson have both
historically had significant water quality problems. We wanted to adopt new
standards for those two lakes first, so that we can get any new protective
actions underway that needed to be done. Lake Lanier and
Lake Allatoona have
historically had very good water quality, but both are
threatened by rapid development around them and upstream and their watersheds,
and we want to provide protections necessary to keep those lakes in good shape,
so those are our next priorities after West Point and Lake Jackson. I will be getting the Board a very clear picture of the
money and resources EPD needs in the near future. We are in the process of
developing our budget, and we need more people in the water quality program than
in any other branch of EPD. Now we can get to what you say are your
“over-arching” concerns. These are related to the statement in my letter of
May 11 which says allowing discharges into Lake Lanier will minimize consumptive
use and inter-basin transfers and allow finite water resources of Lake Lanier to
last longer for public supply as growth inevitably continues to occur. I
probably made an inadequate choice of words this statement. I agree with you
that the water resources of Lake Lanier must not just last longer, but forever
and it is my belief that they will. It is certainly my intent. However, if we
want the lake to have a full, stable level which the folks who enjoy the lake
definitely want, then there are limits as to how much can be taken out of the
lake and not put back. EPD Intends to manage the lake quality so that it will
last forever, and whomever is using the lake as water supply will continue to be
able to use their permitted amounts long after the time that we cap those
permits and issue no new permits. In that regard, the water supply is also
forever. If we determine that no new permits can be issued after the Year 2030,
everybody who has a permit can continue to use it essentially forever.
It’s just that the lake won’t necessarily supply water for the new growth
that occurs after 2030, only for the number of people that are using it when
2030 occurs. Second, you state, that you are unaware of any policy
decision to allow any Inter-basin transfers. You do not believe that inter-basin
transfer is a reasonable use. To my knowledge, we do not have laws that prohibit
inter-basin transfers of water in Georgia. In fact, inter-basin transfers have
been going on at east since about the turn of the century when Atlanta first
developed its sewer system. Atlanta, Clayton County, Cobb County, DeKalb County,
and Gwinnett County all create inter-basin transfers, and have been doing so for
decades. Many other cities and counties are recipients and beneficiaries of
these inter-basin transfers. EPD has made a policy decision that we want to
minimize future Inter-basin transfers, but we do recognize that some additional
inter-basin transfers are inevitable, simply due to the geography of the metro
Atlanta area and its water supplies. Third, you state that growth does not “inevitably
continue to occur”. I agree that growth does not inevitably continue to occur
forever, but for the foreseeable future, at least the next 20 or 30 years, I
believe metro Atlanta is going to continue to grow. I also agree with you that
there are environmental constraints. Environmental resources are limited, and so
far, growth is not. At some point, the cost of meeting the environmental
standards may become so costly that growth will stop. Another option is that
before the metro Atlanta governments run out of water in this area, may choose
to go someplace and get some more. At this point, given the negotiations we are
involved in with Alabama and Florida, our course is to secure what water
supplies we can from the Coosa, Tallapoosa, Chattahoochee, and Flint River
Basins for Georgia and for metro Atlanta. We believe that that will take us out
to at least 2030 once we determine that we have an agreeable allocation formula
with Alabama and Florida. Then It will be time for the metro Atlanta governments
to start working on developing water supplies for themselves that can begin to
be used after the time that they have reached their limits from the
Chattahoochee, Lake Lanier and other resources in the Atlanta area. As you
surmise, the Ocmulgee and the Oconee River watersheds might well be a part of
the ultimate solution for metro Atlanta, but there is little if any study going
on of those options right now. Finally, you ask a couple of questions about statements
made by Mr. Brack and his column that was mentioned earlier. He
says that the dead standing timber at the bottom of Lake Lanier filters the
water. He is wrong. That Is an absolutely outlandish claim. He Is correct that the lake turns over, just like almost
every other large lake In the world. Lakes get thermally stratified in the
summer, with cold waters in the deep layers and the warm waters in the other
layers. Cold layers become oxygen-starved, the warm layers are oxygen-rich by
comparison. The turnover is natural in the spring and
the fall and lakes become well-mixed from top to bottom; however, I am not aware
of any cleansing that that does in Lake Lanier or any other lake. You’ve asked a number of good, thoughtful questions and
made a number of interesting comments. I look forward to further discussions
with you on these matters. Sincerely, HFR:ypf Cc:
Lonice Barrett
GWINNETT
COUNTY I did a search on the Georgia EPD web site to find the executed orders, since January 1999, for Gwinnett County sewer violations. I did this to show that Gwinnett County has paid numerous financial penalties for known sewer violations. It is important to understand this considering that we are being told by some that the proposed Gwinnett North Sewer Plant would not fail and pump unpermitted effluent to Lake Lanier. Executed orders Date: January 9, 2001 Date: April 12, 2000 Date: January 28, 2000 Date: August 6, 1999 Date: June 16, 1999
The following is my
personal letter written in response to Gwinnett County's request to discharge 40 MGD of treated
sewage into Lake Lanier. Harold
F. Reheis
Subject: Gwinnett County proposed 40 MGD treated sewage into Lake Lanier Dear
Harold: I
am writing to ask that the Gwinnett County request to discharge treated sewage
into Lake Lanier be denied. Following
are pictures of the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia.
This is not the kind of water quality or recreation restriction that
should be imposed on Lake Lanier.
Occoquan
Reservoir and sewer discharge
Several years ago, before the
Limno-Tech study, and several times since, I have been told, by Gwinnett County
and Atlanta Regional Commission leadership, that the Gwinnett County request
should be allowed, without any study, because it was modeled after the Occoquan
Reservoir in Virginia, which had a sewer plant discharging into that reservoir,
while protecting water quality like we have in Lake Lanier. That statement is not true. As
can be seen from the Occoquan Reservoir photographs on the prior page, taken
during my visit to the Occoquan Reservoir last year, the Occoquan Reservoir
water quality is much worse than Lake Lanier, and certainly is not what we
should desire for Lake Lanier. The Occoquan Reservoir water is brown. There are spots of brown foam floating on the Reservoir. Near the shore where the bottom can be seen there is green stuff on the bottom. No swimming signs are posted all around the Reservoir. For the past couple years
Gwinnett County has been asked repeatedly to provide a factual comparison
between Lake Lanier and Occoquan Reservoir water quality, and they have not
produced it. Therefore, my
conclusion is that the facts do not support their claims. We have also been told by Gwinnett County that there are other places in the United States where large amounts of treated sewage are being discharged into, and protecting, Lake Lanier “like” water quality. We have repeatedly asked Gwinnett County to identify some of those locations, and again they have failed to do so. Consequently, I believe there is no other place where large, proposed Gwinnett County “like”, treated sewage discharges are protecting water quality comparable to Lake Lanier. Other
misleading claims of benefit
We
are told that the proposed Gwinnett County sewer plant would put cleaner water
into Lake Lanier than is in the lake. We
have been told that out of specification sewer effluent could not reach the
lake. We are told that this sewer
system would reduce the number of septic systems with the implication that this
is good for the lake. We are told
that the sewer discharge will produce higher Lake Lanier levels. Sewer
plant discharge cleaner than Lake Lanier water?
I believe this statement is meant to convey that the water would be purer than Lake Lanier water, and that is not true. The water may be clearer because of fewer suspended solids than Lake Lanier water, but battery acid is also clear while being unsafe for human contact. The treated sewage water will not be purer than lake water. The sewer discharge will add pollution to the lake and have concentrations of more phosphorus, dissolved solids, chemical oxygen demand and many other compounds than currently in Lake Lanier water. And, the consequence of many of these for lake water is unknown. Out
of specification sewer plant discharges would not get to the lake? Not
true. I do not believe an
independent reliability analysis of the proposed sewer system has been done.
However, all sewer plants fail.
Failure, both mechanical and human, is part of sewer system operations.
There are numerous past and continuing examples of sewer systems
discharging bad output. What would
millions of gallons of raw sewage do to the lake?
It certainly would make the lake unsafe for human contact. Lake
Lanier will benefit because the new sewer plant would avoid the installation of
many septic systems in Gwinnett County? Not
true. First, factual knowledge of
the impact of septic tanks on Lake Lanier is unknown, and some experts think it
is not much. Second, Gwinnett
County contains only about 3 square miles of the 1040 square miles of land that
has natural drainage to Lake Lanier; therefore the proposed Gwinnett sewer
would provide virtually no reduction of septic system contamination of the lake. The
sewer discharge would produce higher Lake Lanier levels?
Probably
not true. I have been on the
Governor’s Advisory Council for Tri-State Issues since it was created in 1992.
Therefore, I have some knowledge from the negotiations thus far, and that
shows that more water into Lake Lanier would be released at Buford Dam to
produce higher flows than to be kept in the lake to produce higher levels Other
Considerations
EPD
will not allow the sewer discharge directly into the Chattahoochee River
Sewer
discharge contaminants released to the lake eventually end up in the
Chattahoochee River anyway, unless they stay in the lake to accumulate for
future lake harm. We are told that
the reason the EPD will not allow the proposed sewer to discharge into the
Chattahoochee River is that the dissolved oxygen content of the river water is
too low. Of course the water
released to the Chattahoochee River from Buford Dam has almost zero dissolved
oxygen most of the year because the water is released from the bottom of the
lake, below the thermocline, where there is very little dissolved oxygen.
The proposed Gwinnett County sewer output is supposed to have a high
level of dissolved oxygen. Would not that help to improve the dissolved oxygen content
of the river water? A
sewer discharge into a river is safer than a discharge into a lake because
moving water does a better job of cleansing normal treated sewage, as well as
being much more effective in correcting sewer discharge mistakes. A
river discharge would put more water into the river, thereby requiring lower
Buford Dam releases to provide the same quantity of water in the river. Water
quality standards established for Lake Lanier allow more pollution
The
Lanier water quality standards established this year for Lake Lanier allow more
pollution of Lake Lanier while satisfying the standards.
The lake water quality should not be allowed to degrade.
Instead there should be a goal of improving the lake water quality for
the millions who use the lake. The
quality of the proposed sewer plant discharge relies on self monitoring and
reporting EPD
does not and cannot enforce the permit required sewer discharges The
Georgia EPD has the responsibility to enforce the provisions of the sewer
discharge permits it issues. That
does not mean that sewer systems will not discharge bad effluent.
Like law enforcement does not stop all crime.
And, like law enforcement, allocated resources and motivation of the
leadership determine the degree of enforcement effectiveness.
There are continuing examples of sewer systems failing.
One example is presented in the University of Georgia Clean Lakes Study.
While the study was being conducted in 1998 it was found that six of the
nine municipal plants, that the study sampled, had permit busting bad
discharges. I have seen nothing to indicate that those six bad discharges
have been corrected. The
consequences will not be seen for many years
The
negative consequences of the decisions made today would not be realized for many
years. The proposed sewer plant
would be expected to be operational in five years. It would not be processing 40 MGD of sewage for decades.
For the first few years the sewer plant output will be much less than the
40 MGD, and the sewer plant output is to be discharged very deep in the lake, so
that the cause of resultant lake water quality problems will be difficult to pin
down to the discharge. It would be
many years before a lake problem could be pinned down to the sewer discharge. Even
if the people responsible today are determined to do their best and live up to
their promises they would not be able to do so, and they will not always be
there. How many of today’s
decision makers will be there in ten years, twenty years or more?
How conscientious will those to follow, who have not made the promises,
be? Would future governments
underfund this sewer system like several governments are underfunding their
current systems? Would future
problems be promptly corrected? Who would be around to be held accountable for bad decisions
made now? Growth
and sewer
Those
who benefit from the growth are waging the push for the least expensive sewer
solution most vigorously. I am not
antigrowth, but I am against spoiling Lake Lanier to provide the least expensive
sewer solution. Most of those in
favor of the proposed Gwinnett County sewer discharge into Lake Lanier say they
do not want to harm the lake, but I think many are not nearly as concerned about
Lake Lanier as they are about having the least expensive sewer solution.
There are sewer solutions that pose less risk to Lake Lanier and the
environment in general, and one of those solutions should be chosen. Conclusion
and Recommendation
There
are too many unknowns to allow the proposed Gwinnett County treated sewage
discharge into Lake Lanier. There
is no other location that is discharging treated sewage into a body of water
while protecting water quality like we have in Lake Lanier. There are reasonable alternative sewer discharge solutions. For
the future health of Lake Lanier I ask that you deny the Gwinnett request to
discharge 40 MGD of treated sewage into the lake. Sincerely,
Copy:
Alan Hallum
E-MAIL REGARDING GWINNETT TREATED SEWAGE DISCHARGE INTO LAKE
LANIER Jackie Joseph, President of the Lake Lanier Association, received the following e-mail on March 18, 2000, and she forwarded it on to me. I found out after writing the response that the e-mail transmission did not contain the e-mail address of the writer. I am putting the e-mail and my reply to on my web site. Others may hear similar comments and this response may help them. Also, maybe the writer will see it, respond and make himself/herself known to us. ---------------- Just finished reading your website messages about the Gwinnett County DPU's plan to discharge treated sewage into Lake Lanier. First let me tell you about me. I am a civil engineer who designs and builds treatment plants for both drinking water and sewage as well as pipelines for both. I am also an avid fisherman and hunter. I grew up in Gainesville and have fished a the lake all my life. Many friends live on its shore and many of my aunts and uncles gave up land (under force) for its creation. Now for my concerns. No municipality returns sewage to any body of water treated or otherwise. All flows returned are water and water only. As a matter of fact "sewage" is 99% water. So I feel the use of the word "sewage" in these statements conjures up visions of things it is not. Also, if I am not mistaken, Gwinnett County's proposed pipeline will end in the old river channel out in the lake, therefore, forcing all effluent to flow throught the dam and into the river rapidly and not effecting water quality. The quality of water in Lake Lanier is being degraded by normal environmental factors such as upstream erosion. There is no doubt, however, that upstream private development is increasing the problem. I wouldn't attack growth. Remember, us native Hall Countians would prefer that the people who have moved from out of town to the lake's shore and built homes and roads, etc. would have never come. So it would not be fair for those who did that to attack those who want to do it now. Also, Gwinnett County's new sewage plant will have spills, but it is built to contain those spills and not allow them off the site. Their discharge WILL be better than what is already in the lake. It has to pass through the most advanced treatment process ever built in the southeast before it can be discharged. It WILL NOT affect the quality of the lake. Luckily, those who make those decisions base them on fact, not emotion. Thanks for your time. ---------------- Hello e-mail writer. Jackie Joseph passed along to me the 3/18/00 e-mail you sent to her regarding the Gwinnett County requested discharge of 40 Million Gallons per Day of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. First, let me respond directly to some of your comments, and then request that you read other published material that covers much more about the Gwinnett County requested Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge. We do correctly call it treated sewage because it is the major output of a sewer plant after raw sewage is treated. The treated sewage would add pollutants to Lake Lanier. The treated sewage would have concentrations of some pollutants several times greater than the lake water into which it would be discharged. The treated sewage would degrade the quality of the lake. The sewer plant would sometimes release worse than permitted effluent to the lake. If you objectively review the facts you can verify what I say here. I have written quite a bit about this, some of which has been published in newspapers, and much more of it published on my web site at http://ronseder.home.mindspring.com. Look at the Gwinnett Sewer and other subjects in the Lake Lanier section of the web site. You will also see there some of the correspondence we have had with Gwinnett County. One point I would like to highlight is the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia. We were told five years ago by Gwinnett County leadership that Gwinnett County should be allowed to discharge its treated sewage into Lake Lanier because the Gwinnett sewer plant would be modeled after a sewer plant in Virginia that discharged into the Occoquan Reservoir, and the Occoquan Reservoir was in great shape like Lake Lanier. We have been trying for more than half a year to get Gwinnett County to give us the facts on the Occoquan reservoir, and we have yet to receive the facts. I visited the Occoquan Reservoir last summer and saw water that we would not want in Lake Lanier. Gwinnett County paid for citizen visits to the Occoquan Reservoir sewer plant last summer without showing the Occoquan Reservoir to the visitors. I wonder why? I suspect that if the water in the Occoquan Reservoir were visually pleasing, viewing the Reservoir would have been part of the visit agenda. Can you get the Occoquan Reservoir water quality facts for us? Can you get the facts for us on any reservoir like Lake Lanier in the United States, receiving the proposed quantity of treated sewage, that has the quality of Lake Lanier water? We certainly would appreciate anything you can do for us. We need to have the facts to help us be wise in our pursuits. So far, after my Occoquan Reservoir visit and asking Gwinnett County for the facts, all we have gotten from Gwinnett County are reasons why the Occoquan Reservoir can’t be expected to have good quality water like Lake Lanier. A different story than five years ago. Let me also point out that the Lake Lanier Association is not anti-growth. However, we believe growth should pay its own way. We think less expensive growth for the cost of losing Lake Lanier water quality is too great a price to pay. E-mail writer, thanks for your interest and input. Our only interest is the preservation of Lake Lanier. I ask again that you read the material on my web site and contact us at least once more. We are most interested in any facts that will enforce or dispute what we have concluded so far. We do not know it all, and we still have a lot to learn. But, we have learned much so far and that is the basis for our opposition to the 40 MGD Lake Lanier treated sewage discharge requested by Gwinnett County. My strong desire is that the final decision will be based on facts rather than emotion, political influence or pro sewer spin from those hired by, and/or those who seek the favor of, Gwinnett County. Ron Seder Vice President
LLA Meeting 2/29/00 Gwinnett County has experienced tremendous growth and now has a population in excess of 500,000, heading to an ultimate population of about 1,000,000. Gwinnett County has a continuing need for increased sewage disposal. They are currently building a 20 million gallon per day (mgd) sewer plant that will discharge into the Chattahoochee River. Gwinnett County sees more future sewer need and they have been denied any further treated sewage discharge into the Chattahoochee River. Therefore, Gwinnett County has requested permission to discharge 40 mgd of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. Your Lake Lanier Association is opposed to that discharge and in this article I will briefly explain why. This sewer plant would contribute additional pollution to the lake, and if allowed to establish the precedent, would probably lead to another 300 mgd of treated sewage discharges into Lake Lanier within the next few decades. We are told that the output of the sewer plant would not harm the lake. We are told that it would put cleaner water into the lake than is in the lake. We are told that out of specification sewer effluent could not reach the lake. We are told that the sewer plant is being modeled after a sewer plant on the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia that has been discharging into the Occoquan reservoir for years without harming the Reservoir. We are told that this sewer system will reduce the number of septic systems with the implication that this is good for the lake. We are told that the sewer discharge will produce higher Lake Lanier levels. All of these statements are incorrect or misleading. The sewer plant proposed by Gwinnett County is a high quality sewer plant, but we believe that even that sewer plant discharge would cause significant deterioration in the quality of Lake Lanier water. The output of the sewer plant would contribute additional pollution to the lake. The water may be clearer than lake water, but it is not purer than lake water. Good sewer plant operations would produce sewer effluent that would contain more phosphorus, dissolved solids, chemical oxygen demand and a host of other compounds about which little is known as to their long term impact on a lake. At times the sewer plant would fail and discharge very bad effluent into the lake. All sewer plants fail. Failure is not abnormal, it is normal and to be expected. Sewer system failures happen around Georgia all the time. Gwinnett County has paid fines during the past year for several sewer system failures. Lake Lanier water quality would not benefit from fewer Gwinnett County septic systems. The sewer plant would not appreciably reduce the number of septic systems on the Lake Lanier watershed. Gwinnett County contains only about 3 square miles of the 1040 square mile Lake Lanier watershed. We do not want Lake Lanier to be modeled after the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia. I personally visited the reservoir last summer. Its water is brown. There are spots of brown foamy stuff floating on it. Next to the shoreline where you can se the bottom it has the look of spotty green slime. There are "ABSOLUTELY NO SWIMMING" signs posted all around the Reservoir. Occoquan Reservoir, Summer 1999
Ladies and gentlemen, several years ago I was told by leaders of Gwinnett County and the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) that Gwinnett should be allowed to discharge into Lake Lanier because it was being done so successfully on the Occoquan Reservoir. That attitude might be a good indication of Lake Lanier priorities in the eyes of those leaders. Recent "show and tell" citizen visits to the Virginia sewer plant, funded by Gwinnett County, have not included a viewing of the Occoquan Reservoir. Because the water in the reservoir is so displeasing to the eye it is hard to believe that was just an oversight. As I view the Tri-State water negotiations today, the Gwinnett sewer discharge would not contribute to higher lake levels. Rather it would contribute to larger releases from Buford to support greater down river flows. And, even if it did give us a little more lake level, it is not worth the risk to lake water quality. As I said earlier, Gwinnett County has been denied more sewer discharge into the Chattahoochee River. But, I fail to see the difference between releasing the sewer effluent through Buford dam into the river instead of a direct release into the river. Because of all of this we are convinced that Gwinnett County’s application to discharge 40 mgd of treated sewage into Lake Lanier should be denied. However, there are strong financial incentives and political pressures to permit the discharge, and it looks like it is on track to be approved. If we pursue the fight to prevent this Lake Lanier contamination, it will be a tough fight. It will be an expensive fight. Those desiring the discharge have virtually unlimited funds with which to achieve their intention. But, for the sake of Lake Lanier we believe the fight must be waged. Our minds eye picture of Lake Lanier receiving 300 to 400 mgd of treated sewage is not a pretty one.
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC February 29, 2000 Mr. Frank J. Stephens Dear Frank: Thank for your letter of February 7, 2000 responding to our letter of August 25, 1999. Please pardon our delay in responding to your February 7th letter. As you know, we are an all-volunteer organization with limited funds that support only a part-time paid office person. And, there are currently many issues threatening Lake Lanier, which dilutes our volunteer’s concentration on any one issue. You advanced many points in your letter that could divert attention away from the main issue of the threat to Lake Lanier from discharging huge quantities of treated sewage into the lake. I will initially concentrate on the main issues and then also respond to many of the other points raised in your memo. First, let me express my surprise at how long it is taking Gwinnett County to give us the facts about the quality of the Occoquan Reservoir water and the Virginia sewer plant’s contribution to it. One of our Board members was told five years ago, by the leaders of Gwinnett County and the ARC, that Gwinnett County should be allowed to discharge large quantities of treated sewage into Lake Lanier because it was being done so successfully at the Occoquan Reservoir. The thought was that if Virginia could discharge treated sewage into the Occoquan Reservoir, and maintain the reservoir water quality high, then Gwinnett County could use the Virginia model and not degrade Lake Lanier. One would think that confidence would be based, at least in part, on the facts of the Occoquan Reservoir, and therefore Gwinnett County would have the facts readily at hand, offering them to all who have an interest. We want to see a comprehensive analysis of the Occoquan reservoir water quality and the uses of the reservoir. We are looking forward to Gwinnett County backing up its claim about the purity of the Occoquan Reservoir water. By the way, it is hard for us to accept that Gwinnett County had no influence on the county funded citizens’ visits to the Virginia sewer plant. If the Occoquan Reservoir was visually pleasing, we suspect the citizens would have been encouraged to see the reservoir. We would also welcome a comprehensive analysis (not just self-serving sound bites) of any successfully operating lake or reservoir situation similar to your proposal for Lake Lanier. If there are any please identify them for us. We would appreciate the opportunity to interact with the data and the people involved with the lake/reservoir water quality. We are doubtful about the explanation for your focus on turbidity of the proposed sewer effluent, put forth in your letter. We do not agree that pollution associated with turbidity is the main threat to the lake’s water quality. The Gwinnett County public focus on turbidity has caused an uninformed public to assume the treated sewer effluent would be pure, and we suspect that may have been the intent. We all know that a liquid can be visually clear, but extremely harmful to human consumption and/or bodily contact. The proposed Gwinnett County sewer effluent will add pollutants to the lake, and we do not think additional pollutants should be added to the lake, even if they are less than the pollutants contributed by some other source. You pointed out that none of Gwinnett County’s sewer plants violated their permit parameters last year, but we remember articles in the paper saying Gwinnett County paid fines last year for several sewer system failures. We would also like to point out that in the future different people would operate the proposed sewer system. Those people may not be as conscientious about producing good sewer operations, particularly if they are not trying to get permission for more sewage discharge. We, suspect that all of today’s failing sewer plants promised better operations when they were seeking their permits many years ago. You said there are past LLA position papers advocating public sewers instead of septic systems. We cannot find those position papers. Would you give us copies so we can respond to the facts in appropriate context? There seems to be a thought process that septic systems are intrinsically bad, and that discharging additional huge quantities of sewer effluent into Lake Lanier is preferable to having additional septic systems on the watershed. Do you have any empirical evidence supporting those thoughts? We have had trouble finding any. The UGA Clean Lakes Report says in section 5.6 on page 5-53: "abandoning septic tank/soil absorption systems along the shorelines will seldom result in significant change in lake trophic status." You also asked for our lake location preference for a Gwinnett Sewer outfall. We do not believe there is a good location for the outfall in Lake Lanier. We have suggested a minimum 100’ undisturbed lake buffer (combination of Corps of Engineers property and private property) for all new zonings and developments on Lake Lanier. Limited resources have not allowed us to produce a comprehensive list of recommendations for the Lake Lanier watershed to prevent further degradation of the lake. That is one reason why we have been pushing to get a sufficiently funded Lake Lanier Watershed Authority established. As we envision it the authority would have the responsibility to do the necessary studies to produce meaningful Lake Lanier protection recommendations. Frank, we remain convinced that the proposed Gwinnett County sewer effluent discharge into Lake Lanier would be a significant detriment to lake water quality and the recreational uses of the lake. However, we are willing to be convinced otherwise. If there are any examples of where this has been done successfully, and it results in a lake with the quality of Lake Lanier, we really would appreciate the facts and a comprehensive analysis of the facts. We look forward to your early response to this letter. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Joseph
GWINNETT COUNTY February 7, 2000 Ms. Jackie Joseph, President Dear President Joseph: You have raised several issues in your correspondence which I wish to answer. One issue is the clarity of the reclaimed water. We brag on clarity for a couple of reasons. W know that the main threat to the lake is sediment and sediment's associated pollutants. Our reclaimed water has negligible sediment, in that it has a turbidity limit of 1 ntu. This limit was recommended by Gwinnett County, although I expect the EPD would have allowed a higher number. The 1 ntu value corresponds to approximately 1 part per million suspended solids. Most people cannot see turbidity until it gets above 10 ntu. The first point I need to make is that the reclaimed water is extremely low in suspended solids, and therefore is not going to contribute sediment nor sediment-bound pollutants to the lake. Secondly, clarity is the best indicator of microbiological purity, which is why turbidity is the main standard for drinking water. Regarding the comparison of the reclaimed water with the water in the lake, I recommend that you contrast our reclaimed water limits with the data on tributary inflows to the lake. In particular you may wish to review recent data from Dr. Callahan. The reclaimed water quality fares very well by this comparison. You also mentioned that there are compliance problems with other plants in Georgia and in the Lanier watershed. True. Let me offer you an analogy. There may be people in the Chattahoochee basin who cheat you and I by making false deductions on their income tax. That does not mean that you or I ever have or ever will file a false income tax statement. Gwinnett County operates eight water reclamation facilities. Not one of them violated any permit parameters last year, even once. You also expressed a concern about the proposed outfall location. As you may know, the proposed outfall location is in Gwinnett County. Let me know what alternative locations in the lake you prefer. Regarding UOSA, I have sent a letter to the State of Virginia and to UOSA relaying your questions. You may want to bypass me and ask them the questions directly. By the way, I take umbrage at the suggestion that the Citizen Advisory Board was escorted to UOSA and was precluded from seeing the reservoir. The CAB made the trip on their own volition out of their $50,000 per year budget. You may want to suggest, through your representative on the CAB, that additional trips and destinations are worthwhile. A few years ago one of the LLA's position papers included advocacy of public sewers over septic tank leach fields in the lake's watershed. Is this still the case? Septic tank leachate is credited as a major problem to Lake Allatoona. Also, what is the LLA's position on riparian and shoreline buffers? The Clean Lakes Study says that "riparian buffer zones have been shown to filter out fecal coliforms and other bacteria as well as organic pollutants." (p.3-30) Lastly, one of your letters referenced safe swimming. Please note that swimming contributes fecal contamination to a water body, as explained in the attached article. In particular, the author on page 15 refers to the "fact that body contact recreation can add microbiological pathogens to the water." On pages 19 and 20 the author refers to regulations and state laws prohibiting body-contact activities in drinking water sources. That is why many water supply reservoirs prohibit body contact recreation. For example, the Fairfax County Water Authority, which owns the Occoquan Reservoir, prohibits swimming in the reservoir to prevent fecal contamination in their public water supply. Our reclaimed water has an upper limit on coliform bacteria that is much less than allowable concentration for swimming water. I hope this answers most of your questions. I will share answers from UOSA and Virginia as they arrive. I may also write some of the other advanced reclamation plants in western states to test some of the same questions you raised. I look forward to future dialogue on these issues. I am confident that Gwinnett's proposal poses no harm to our enjoyment of the lake for swimming and other recreational uses, nor will it diminish property values. I believe it will set a new standard for the existing sewage treatment plants, such that we may expect them to be upgraded to water reclamation facilities. Sincerely, Frank J. Stephens, Deputy Director
GWINNETT
COUNTY'S REQUEST TO DISCHARGE TREATED SEWAGE INTO LAKE LANIER SHOULD BE DENIED The future
well being of Lake Lanier is seriously threatened on three major fronts. 1) Increased lake
pollutants resulting from continuing rapid development of the lake's watershed. 2) Lower lake levels that could result from the
Tri-States negotiations dealing with how to reapportion Lake Lanier's waters. 3) More lake pollution caused by discharging huge
quantities of treated sewage into Lake Lanier. The focus of
this article is on only one of these threats. Gwinnett
County has requested permission to discharge 40 million gallons per day (MGD) of treated
sewage into Lake Lanier. Gwinnett
County gives assurances that the requested discharge will have no negative impact on Lake
Lanier, and with its virtually unlimited funds the county is trying to convince the public
to accept the county's assertion. I am a Vice
President of the Lake Lanier Association (LLA), a 30-year-old volunteer organization
devoted to the preservation of Lake Lanier. The
LLA is convinced that granting Gwinnett County a 40 MGD Lake Lanier discharge permit is
much too risky and poses a major threat to the future health of the lake. There are currently too many treated sewage
discharges into Lake Lanier, totaling about 20 MGD. The
current discharges are already fouling the lake. The leaders
of Gwinnett County are determined to fuel its rapid growth until the County is built out. The LLA is not antigrowth, but we are against
growth that causes significant negative consequences for others. The LLA believes that large additional sewer
discharges into Lake Lanier would have significant negative consequences for lake
recreation and the aesthetic benefits enjoyed by millions. We have been
told that the Gwinnett County sewer discharge will be cleaner (purer) than Lake Lanier
water. That is not true. The sewer discharge will introduce larger
quantities of several polluting compounds into Lake Lanier.
For example, the requested permit would allow several times more phosphorus,
dissolved solids and chemical oxygen demand in the sewer effluent than currently exists in
the lake's water. In addition, there are
numerous other pollutant elements in sewer effluent, about which little is known as to
their long-term impact on a lake like Lanier. If Gwinnett
County's assurances that the treated sewage would not harm the lake are true, why not run
the output of the sewer plant to the input of the drinking water treatment plant, and
avoid the expense of pumping the water to and from Lake Lanier? That would provide a built in encouragement for
the leaders of Gwinnett County to be vigilant in assuring a high quality sewer plant
output. There are also other uses for highly
treated wastewater, such as, irrigation, industry, toilets etc. Some of these solutions for disposing of
wastewater are more expensive than discharging it into Lake Lanier, but we believe
avoiding the additional lake contamination justifies the cost. The public
has also been told that sewage containing more contaminants than allowed by the requested
permit could not reach the lake. That is
just not real, sewer systems fail. The sewer
industry knows that, and Gwinnett County's planning and permitting director for the public
utilities was quoted in a newspaper last May saying, "You're never going to get to
where you don't have any [spills]." Mr.
Alan Hallum, the EPD Director of the Water Protection Branch said in a meeting with LLA
representatives last year that all sewer plants will experience malfunctions or spills at
some time. History bears that out. There are numerous examples of sewer system
failures. Gwinnett
County itself has paid several fines during the past year for sewer system failures. A University of Georgia Lake Lanier study
disclosed that of the nine (9) Lake Lanier discharged municipal sewer plants they sampled
during the study, only three (3) were in compliance with their permit requirements. Last September Dalton Utilities pleaded guilty to
criminal charges that it lied about discharges of polluted water from its sewage treatment
plant. An Augusta sewer plant had a million
gallon sewer spill in December 1998. Atlanta
has a long history of allowing bad sewer discharges, for which they have paid several
million dollars in fines (apparently the fines are cheaper than fixing the system). Gainesville has had significant large sewage
spills into Lake Lanier during the past year. A
sewer plant on the south end of the lake has been known to be out of compliance for almost
two years and it is still out of compliance. And,
there are many more instances of bad sewer effluent reaching its receiving public waters. One only has to read the newspapers and/or tune
into the Georgia Environmental Protection Division's reports to see that violations are
frequent occurrences. Violations are more
normal than they are abnormal. Sometimes the
violations are by intent, but more often they are accidental and are just part of
operating a sewer system. You can bet
that promises of good operations were assured when permits were requested for all of the
currently failing sewer systems. When much
larger lake discharges (e.g. 40 MGD) go wrong how much faster can they threaten human
health and aquatic life? Even assuming the
best of intentions of those currently requesting the Lake Lanier discharge, there is no
assurance of that intent when others subsequently have the responsibility. Another
concern is that Gwinnett County is planning to discharge its treated sewage deep in the
lake. That would allow out of specification
sewer system discharges to go undetected for a long time.
Also, there are many unknowns concerning the possible negative consequences of
discharging large amounts of treated sewage into waters below the lake's
thermocline. This
Gwinnett County Lake Lanier sewer discharge is not a new idea. Several years ago Gwinnett County and the Atlanta
Regional Commission (ARC) told me that Gwinnett County should be allowed to discharge
treated sewage into Lake Lanier because treated sewage is being discharged without harm
into the Occoquan Reservoir in Virginia. Last summer
I personally visited the Occoquan Reservoir and found a body of water that is very
unappealing compared to Lake Lanier. The
water is brown. The water has spots of brown
foamy stuff floating on it. Next to the
shore where the bottom can be seen there is a green look to the bottom. And, there are signs saying "ABSOLUTELY NO
SWIMMING" posted all around the reservoir. The LLA
asked questions of Gwinnett County about the Occoquan Reservoir and sewer plant in an
August 25, 1999 letter. The LLA questions
included: "How does the Virginia sewer plant permit compare with the Gwinnett
request? What is the history of the Virginia
sewer plant compared to its permit requirements? What
are the instances of bad sewer discharges released into the reservoir? How does the quality of the water in the Occoquan
Reservoir compare to the quality of the water in Lake Lanier? How does the recreational activity on the Occoquan
Reservoir compare to the recreational activity on Lake Lanier (type and quantity)? Do people swim in the Occoquan Reservoir? If not, why not, and is the water pure and
attractive enough for swimming? Why have
people who have been escorted to the Virginia sewer facility by Gwinnett County not been
shown the reservoir?" People who
Gwinnett County has escorted on a visit of the Occoquan sewer system have not been shown
the Occoquan Reservoir. The LLA suspects that
the reason for this is that Gwinnett County does not want the visitors to see the poor
quality of the reservoir's water. I cannot
imagine anyone interested in preserving Lake Lanier desiring the quality of the Occoquan
Reservoir water for Lake Lanier. By the way,
we have been told that the new Gwinnett County sewer system will be modeled after the
Occoquan Reservoir sewer system. It is
certain that, if approved, the Gwinnett County requested discharge into Lake Lanier would
only be the first of many. Continued rapid
development is predicted for the Lake Lanier watershed, and it is realistic to anticipate
requests for additional Lake Lanier discharges totaling 300 to 400 MGD during the next few
decades. We are also
encouraged to believe that the reduction in the number of additional septic systems, that
would be allowed by more Gwinnett County sewer capacity, would benefit Lake Lanier's water
quality. But, since only about three square
miles of Gwinnett County has natural drainage into Lake Lanier, decreasing Gwinnett septic
systems will have virtually no effect on the lake. In
fact, because almost all of Gwinnett County's natural drainage is not into Lake Lanier, we
question why Gwinnett County should even be considered for a Lake Lanier sewer discharge. Gwinnett
County makes the point that most Lake Lanier pollutants come from runoff, and therefore
land usage is much more important to the pollutant levels in the lake than current sewer
discharges. We agree with that observation. But, that does not justify allowing a lot more
contaminants to be discharged into the lake from sewer plants. We must concentrate on, and control pollutants
from all sources. The LLA has been pushing
hard for a long time to have a State Lake Lanier Authority created. Our vision is that that authority would be able to
determine, and have the power to cause implementation of, controls to better manage the
amount contaminants washed into the lake from its watershed. We hope to see some kind of Lake Lanier Authority
legislation enacted in the next session of the Georgia Legislature. The public
is also being told that the Gwinnett discharge is needed to provide adequate Lake Lanier
levels. The LLA does not think that is
correct. The way the Tri-State negotiations
are progressing the LLA believes higher flows into the lake are more likely to be used to
provide larger releases from Buford Dam to subsidize downstream river flows, than they
would be used to produce higher lake levels. The Georgia
Environmental Protection Division has told Gwinnett County that it will not be allowed any
additional treated sewer discharges into the Chattahoochee River because of the poor
quality of water already in the river. But,
since Lake Lanier is released into the Chattahoochee River, the sewer effluent would
ultimately end up in the river anyway. Therefore,
unless some of the treated sewage contaminants are left behind to accumulate in the lake,
there is no difference to the Chattahoochee River of a lake discharge instead of a river
discharge. The LLA conclusion, resulting from its review of the evidence and the continuing unanswered questions, is that the preservation of the quality of Lake Lanier requires the state to deny the Gwinnett County requested 40 MGD discharge of treated sewage into the lake.
Proposed Gwinnett Sewer discharge into Lake Lanier will harm the lake LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC August 25,
1999 Mr. Frank J.
Stephens, P.E. Dear Frank, We are
submitting our comments about the proposed expansion of the North Advanced Water
Reclamation Facility (NAWRF). Many of our
members attended your public displays on August 16 and 19. We are
convinced that Gwinnett County's desire to discharge huge quantities of treated sewage to
Lake Lanier is much too risky for the environment, health and recreational benefits of the
lake. Lake Lanier recreation is a tremendous
quality of life enhancement for large numbers of north Georgians and produces an annual
economic benefit of about $2 billion. Several
things the public has been told about the NAWRF discharge are questionable and/or
incorrect. We are told: the proposed sewer
discharge will have no impact on the lake and the water from the NAWRF will be cleaner
than lake water; it is impossible for out of specification discharges to reach the lake;
the sewer plant and reservoir discharge are the same as a system that has been running in
a Virginia location (Occoquan Reservoir) for many years without problems or polluting the
Occoquan Reservoir; Gwinnett's treated sewer discharge is needed to produce high lake
levels; it is better to discharge the treated sewage into Lake Lanier than to discharge it
into the Chattahoochee River. Now let us
address each of these points. The
proposed sewer discharge will have no impact on the lake and the water from the NAWRF will
be cleaner than lake water? From
Gwinnett County we have learned that on average the treated sewage will have fewer
suspended solids, but clear water is not synonymous with pure water. Battery acid is clear, but obviously is not
suitable for swimming or drinking. From
Gwinnett County's research we have learned that the requested permit for the NAWRF will
allow up to 26 times as much phosphorous, 7 times more Chemical Oxygen Demand and 15 times
more dissolved solids than in raw lake water. There are many other compounds contained in
sewage plant effluent, about which little is known as to their long-term consequences for
Lake Lanier. It is also important for
everyone to understand that Gwinnett's intention to continue withdrawing its drinking
water from Lake Lanier provides no assurance that the water will be good enough for
recreation, as we know it on Lake Lanier today. Water
unfit for many types of recreation can be cleaned up to be used as drinking water. It is
impossible for out of specification discharges to reach the lake? Out of
specifications sewer discharges are commonplace throughout the state. Gwinnett County itself has paid fines this year
for several sewer problems. Gainesville has
had two large out of specification sewer discharges into Lake Lanier so far this year. The Atlanta history of paying fines for
intentional and unintentional bad sewer discharges into the Chattahoochee River is widely
known. In December of last year Augusta had a
million gallon bad sewer discharge. The Clean
Lakes Study done by the UGA sampled 9 municipal plants currently discharging into Lake
Lanier. The study found that only 3 of the 9
sewer plants consistently met their discharge quality requirements. The Lanier Beach South sewer plant discharge has
been known for one and one half years to be out of compliance with EPD's requirements and
it is still out of compliance. EPD has
records of very many other sewer plant discharges that have been out of compliance with
their requirements. Our guess is that all of
these sewer plants promised compliance when they requested their initial permit. Murphy's law
will apply here as it does to everything else in life.
What would be the consequences and actions when large out of specification
sewer effluent discharges reach the lake? What
are the real animal and human health and life risks?
Since Gwinnett's proposed sewer discharge is deep in the lake would the
public ever know if there was a bad discharge? If
people were to get sick or die from their Lake Lanier exposure how will we ever be sure of
whether or not it was caused by Gwinnett's sewer discharge?
It was demonstrated last year at White Water in Marietta that promised clean
and pure water can threaten health and life. Certainly,
the consequences of even suspected unhealthy or life threatening Lake Lanier water would
significantly reduce recreation on the lake. The
sewer plant and reservoir situation are the same as a system that has been operating in a
Virginia location (Occoquan Reservoir) for many years without problems or polluting the
reservoir? We suggest
that EPD publish the results of the Virginia sewer/reservoir operation and compare it to
the Gwinnett request for the enlightenment of all of us.
How does the Virginia sewer plant permit compare with the Gwinnett request? What is the history of the Virginia sewer plant
compared to its permit requirements? What are
the instances of bad sewer discharges released into the reservoir? How does the quality of the water in the Occoquan
Reservoir compare to the quality of the water in Lake Lanier? How does the recreational activity on the Occoquan
Reservoir compare to the recreational activity on Lake Lanier (type and quantity)? Do people swim in the Occoquan Reservoir? If not, why not, and is the water pure and
attractive enough for swimming? Why have
people who have been escorted to the Virginia sewer facility by Gwinnett County not been
shown the reservoir? Gwinnett
County's treated sewer discharge is needed to produce high Lake Lanier levels? It appears,
from the negotiations with the other states, that additional treated sewage discharges
into Lake Lanier would more likely be used to produce more river flow than being reserved
in Lake Lanier to produce higher lake levels. We
suspect that if Metropolitan Atlanta water demands were less for any reason Lake Lanier
levels would not benefit. Instead, there
would probably be more lake water releases for peak power generation, downriver barge
navigation, higher river levels and greater discharges into the Gulf of Mexico. It is
better to discharge the treated sewage into Lake Lanier than to discharge it into the
Chattahoochee River? Even if the
treated sewage is discharged into Lake Lanier it will eventually end up in the
Chattahoochee River in the same concentrations anyway, unless some of the contaminants are
left behind to accumulate in Lake Lanier. If
the law denies a Chattahoochee River discharge it seems reasonable that it would prevent a
Lake Lanier discharge because Lake Lanier is part of the Chattahoochee River. Another consideration should be that a moving
river better cleanses treated sewage than the virtually standing Lake Lanier water. Something
more to consider is that this current proposal for a 40 MGD disposal of Gwinnett County's
treated sewage into Lake Lanier, if approved, is just the first of many requests to come. Decisions about Gwinnett's request should not be
made as a stand alone, but rather should consider the growth and consequent treated sewage
disposal potential on the total watershed for the next 50 years, the same timeframe as the
tri-state water negotiations. There is a
likely treated sewage discharge requirement during the next 50 years of about 400 MGD not
just 40 MGD, and decisions should consider that perspective. And, certainly no Lake Lanier wasteload allocation
should be determined until new water quality standards are established for the lake. In closing,
we are convinced that we should be working to improve Lake Lanier's water quality rather
than allowing additional wasteload allocations. Gwinnett
County should be denied its request for a Lake Lanier wasteload allocation. Some kind of direct treated sewage reuse or a
Chattahoochee River discharge are better alternatives than a Lake Lanier discharge. Sincerely, Jacqueline
A. Joseph
Smith Gambrell & RUSSELL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 14, 1999 Harold F. Reheis
Re: Lake Lanier Association/Gwinnett County Dear Harold: I am writing as counsel for Lake Lanier Association,
Inc., regarding Gwinnett County's efforts to obtain a Lake Lanier waste load allocation
("WLA"). The Lake Lanier Association ("the Association") is an
organization of concerned citizens, property owners, and businesses dedicated to
preserving, protecting, and enhancing Lake Lanier. Due to its concern about the proposed discharge, the
Association has contacted EPD by letter and telephone on a number of occasions. Pursuant
to these contacts, EPD has agreed to hold a public hearing prior to the issuance of any
Lake Lanier WLAs, and provide 30 days advance notice of the hearing to the public and
interested parties. EPD also stated it would seek Lake Lanier WLA desires from all
adjoining county and municipal governments prior to the public hearing, and thus prior to
EPD's decision regarding Gwinnett County's proposed discharge. The Association is concerned with the environmental,
economic, and public health impacts on Lake Lanier of Gwinnett County's proposed
discharge. Therefore, it seeks substantial and meaningful involvement in the process of
establishing or denying a Lake Lanier WLA for Gwinnett County. The Association's opposition to Gwinnett County's
requested WLA is based on a number of grounds. First water quality standards for Lake
Lanier, under section 303 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. & 1313(c), will not be
proposed and open for public comment until the end of 1999 at the earliest. The
Association believes that the EPD should refrain from considering or issuing any
additional WLAs for Lake Lanier until those standards are determined and established.
Moreover, two segments of the Chattahoochee River adjoining Lake Lanier, the Soquee River
to Lake Lanier segment and the three mile segment downstream from Buford Dam, are listed a
water quality limited segments under & 303(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C.
& 1313(d)(1)(A), and thus EPD is in the process of establish total maximum daily loads
("TMDLs") for these segments, as required by 33 U.S.C. & 1313(d)(1)(A).
There should be no further discharges allowed which could effect those water quality
limited segments until TMDLs are established. Increasing loads in Lake Lanier will also
increase loads at least in the river segment below Buford Dam. Without water quality
standards for Lake Lanier, it is impossible to know whether establishment of TMDLs for the
Lake is necessary, and no additional discharge should be permitted until that can be
known. Second, there are already too many permitted sewer
discharges into Lake Lanier. Last year, the Association discovered that one of the
permitted sewer discharges, a private wastewater treatment plant, was illegally
discharging high bacteria effluent into the Lake. As a consequence of the Association's
discovery, EPD imposed a $5000 fine on the treatment plant and entered into a consent
order with the plant to correct its problems, but problems still persist. In light of the
admittedly limited staff and funding for EPD monitoring and enforcement, the Association
has serious concerns about the EPD's ability to monitor Gwinnett County's proposed sewage
treatment plant and prevent permit violations and the discharge of unpermitted and
potentially hazardous elements in the County's effluent. Lake Lanier is too important a
resource with which to plan Russian roulette. Third, Gwinnett County is constructing its treatment
plant for the discharge of 20 million gallons per day of treated sewage into the
Chattahoochee River. In issuing the permit for this discharge, EPD stated that Gwinnett
County would not be allowed to discharge further effluent into the Chattahoochee River.
The County now proposes to discharge 40 millions gallons per day of sewage into Lake
Lanier, into and from which the Chattahoochee River flows. The Association believes that
Gwinnett County's attempt to obtain a WLA for Lake Lanier violates the 20 million gallon
per day limit for discharges into the Chattahoochee. Fourth, in its effort to obtain the
WLA, Gwinnett
County attempts to rely on the two-year Limno-Tech study of Lake Lanier's water quality.
However this study identified additional sewage treatment discharges as a threat to Lake
Lanier and documented the dissolved oxygen problems faced by the Lake. The dissolved
oxygen problems long ago caused the loss of trout in the lake and now threaten Lake
Lanier's striped bass population. Additionally, a University of Georgia study, under the
Clean Lakes program, concluded that Lake Lanier's water quality faces serious degradation
from development and increased wastewater discharges. Finally, although Gwinnett County proposes use of
"advanced technology" in any sewage treatment plant on Lake Lanier, the
Association questions whether the technology being proposed is the most advanced
technology available in the U.S. (San Diego currently uses a "membrane"
technique in a direct reuse system that appears to constitute a more environmentally sound
technology). Moreover, even with the most current technology, there exists a serious and
real potential for spills and bypasses that would discharge untreated sewage into Lake
Lanier. Spills and bypasses are a relatively common occurrence with sewage treatment
plants. A few recent examples: the City of Augusta spilled one million gallons of raw
sewage into the Savannah River on December 1, 1998. The City of Gainesville spilled
approximately on half million gallons of raw sewage into Lake Lanier earlier this year.
Finally, EPD recently imposed a $40,000 fine on Gwinnett County for several illegal spills
and discharges. This type of spill resulting from equipment failure or human error would
constitute a distinct and ever-present possibility with Gwinnett County's proposed
discharge into Lake Lanier. In conclusion, the Lake Lanier Association opposes
Gwinnett County's efforts to obtain a WLA for the discharge of 40 million gallons per day
of treated sewage into Lake Lanier because of the danger of serious damage to the Lake's
plant and animal life, public health, and the $2 billion Lake-generated recreational
economy of the area. The continued expansion of metropolitan Atlanta imposes increasing
demands on Lake Lanier, and thus the time is ripe for EPD to address long-term management
of Lake Lanier and the surrounding watershed. We would be happy to provide you with any additional
information regarding the Association's opposition to Gwinnett County's proposed discharge
into Lake Lanier. We look forward to the public hearing, and if you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me at (404)815-3527. Because the EPA is involved in TMDLs for
the Chattahoochee watershed, I have taken the liberty of copying Mike McGhee with this
letter.
Very truly yours, cc: Lake Lanier Association, Inc.
LAKE
LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. Harold F. Reheis Dear Herald: Thanks for your telephone call today in response to my
March 11, 1999 letter to you. As we discussed in the phone conversation, I am sending
this memo confirming the major points of the conversation. Even though not required by
law, EPD will conduct a public hearing prior to EPD issuing any Lake Lanier wasteload
allocations, and the public will be given at least 30 days advance notice of the public
hearing. You want to get wasteload allocation desires from other jurisdictions, in
addition to that you already have from Gwinnett County, prior to the public hearing, which
will occur before EPD's decision about any Lake Lanier wasteload allocations. I have talked with Alan Hallum since our telephone
conversation and we concluded that he would meet with a few of us on March 31, 1999 to
understand our current concerns about Lake Lanier wasteload allocations. If you have a different interpretation than I have
presented here please let me know soon. Sincerely,
LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC. Harold F. Reheis Dear Herald: I am writing to seek your help in securing a public
hearing on the 40 MGD wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier requested by Gwinnett County. We, the Lake Lanier Association, Inc., have been
dealing through our President, Jacqueline Joseph, with Mr. Alan Hallum about a public
hearing prior EPD deciding on the Lake Lanier wasteload allocation. We are told that the law does not require a public
hearing, but we are convinced that because this request has the potential to considerably
impact Lake Lanier, and its many users, a public hearing is just common sense. Jacqueline Joseph has corresponded with, and talked to,
Alan Hallum about holding the public hearing. We asked for 30 days advance notice of the
public hearing to allow adequate preparation and notification time for those who would
like to attend and contribute to the public hearing. A copy of that correspondence is
attached. During the first half of February Mr. Hallum told Jacqueline Joseph that EPD
decided to have the public hearing. The Lake Lanier Association, Inc. received a letter
from Mr. Hallum on March 9 that was dated February 26, and postmarked March 1. The letter
talked about having a meeting with us. After receiving the letter, Ms. Joseph called Mr.
Hallum and the net of the discussion was: EPD will not hold a public hearing; EPD will
attend a public meeting; EPD will not notify anyone of the meeting; EPD will not do the
setup; and, the latest date EPD will attend the meeting is March 31,1999. Herald, will you please look into this, help make some
sense out of it and make sure a public hearing is held? A time urgency was conveyed to us,
so I would appreciate your immediate attention to this request and a response by telephone
and letter. Sincerely,
Georgia
Department of Natural Resources February 26,
1999 Ms. Jacqueline A. Joseph, President Dear Ms. Joseph: The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) is
committed to seeking input from all interested stakeholders on matters which it regulates.
Opportunities for this input, with respect to wastewater treatment plant construction,
include the required public meeting(s) associated with the Environmental Impact Document
as well as the period of time when a draft Permit is submitted for public comment. Even though the proposed project has not advanced
anywhere near to the point where these opportunities for public input would occur, you
have expressed an interest in providing EPD with input regarding the wasteload allocation.
In order to ensure that we are cognizant of all of the issues which you deem important
regarding this proposal, EPD would like to meet with you on March 17, 1999. In order to
make this process as convenient as possible for you, we will come to a location of your
choosing. Please provide for us directions to the place at which you wish to hold the
meeting. If you have any questions, please contact me at your
convenience. Sincerely,
LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC. February 15, 1999 Mr. Allen Hallum Dear Mr. Hallum: This letter will confirm our conversation of this date
regarding our written request for a public hearing conducted by the EPD prior to its
decision on the wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier requested by Gwinnett County. You
stated that there will be a public hearing as we have requested. I understand that a specific date or place for this
hearing has not been determined. We would request that the Lake Lanier Association have a
minimum of thirty days notice prior to the scheduled meeting in order to appropriately
inform interested parties. Yours truly,
LAKE LANIER
ASSOCIATION, INC. February 4, 1999 Mr. Alan Hallum Dear Mr. Hallum: This letter is an addition to the letter we sent to you
on February 1, 1999. Our understanding is that the standards for Lake Lanier
water quality will not be established until the end of the year. It doesn't make sense to
us that the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) can or should consider issuing any
additional wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier until those standards are determined and
established. We also believe that the EPD should interact with a
citizen's advisory council while it is determining the Lake Lanier water quality
standards. We think that EPD doing the work and then displaying it in a public hearing is
not adequate to give proper consideration to the standards during their formulation. We would appreciate your response. Sincerely, Cc: Mr. Harold F. Reheis
LAKE LANIER ASSOCIATION, INC. February 1, 1999 Dear Mr. Hallum: I am writing concerning the Gwinnett County request for
a 40 MGD wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier. We are convinced there should be public
hearings and public involvement prior to the state making a decision on any additional
wasteload allocation to Lake Lanier. Thousands of responses to a survey we conducted a
year and a half ago, an overwhelming majority, opposed additional sewer discharges into
Lake Lanier. We oppose new sewer discharges into the lake because we
believe there is too much danger of seriously damaging lake plant life, lake animal life,
human health/life and the $2 billion lake generated recreational economy. Not many people
want to swim or otherwise recreate near a large sewer discharge. There are now several sewer discharges into the waters
above Buford Dam, but they accumulate to a total of less than half this initial request
from Gwinnett County. We think we must all realize that this first Gwinnett
County request for a major Lake Lanier wasteload allocation is just the beginning. As we
envision the continuing expansion of Metropolitan Atlanta we can see a day when the
majority of the Lake Lanier watershed will be developed. That development will create the
need for disposal of a lot of wastewater, and Lake Lanier could be a prime target for
those sewer discharges. Maybe as much as 400 to 500 MGD. Gwinnett County says it can discharge sewer effluent
into the lake without significant negative consequences for the lake, but we do not think
that is proven, even if sewer plants operated correctly all the time. But, we know that
because of equipment malfunction, human error and/or human frailty we can be sure there
will be significant disasters accompanying any large permitted sewer discharges. There are
examples of existing sewer plants not satisfying their permit requirements and discharging
out of specification effluent to the lake. The continuing Atlanta sewer discharge permit
violations, the recent Augusta million gallon spill and other continuing violations are
more examples of contaminated sewer plant discharges not envisioned when original permits
were issued. We must not allow such mistakes on Lake Lanier. If, as Gwinnett County says, it will produce sewer
effluent to a quality that could be used as input to drinking water plants, we suggest
they do that without going back through Lake Lanier. That would reduce Gwinnett County's
gross Lake Lanier water withdrawals and perhaps be less costly than transporting
additional water from the lake for water supplies and transporting sewer effluent to the
lake for discharge. We have also been informed that EPD will not give
Gwinnett County a permit for additional discharges into the Chattahoochee River because of
a dissolved oxygen problem in the river. But, the Limno-Tech, Inc. Lake Lanier Study
discovered that there is a dissolved oxygen problem in Lake Lanier. That apparently
growing Lake Lanier dissolved oxygen problem long ago caused the loss of trout in the lake
and now threatens the lake's ability to provide adequate environment to support Striped
Bass. Therefore, Mr. Hallum we request, and believe it
imperative, that the Georgia Environmental Protection Division hold public hearings in the
Lake Lanier vicinity about the Gwinnett County wasteload allocation request, prior to
making a decision about the allocation. We ask that you tell us, before issuing a Gwinnett
County Lake Lanier wasteload allocation decision, if you will not conduct the public
hearings we have requested here. Thank you in advance for your attention to our request.
Sincerely,
Cc: Mr. Harold F. Reheis
|
