"Full secondary treatment would reduce the levels of organic contaminants, viruses and bacteria, released to the ocean, but so far there is no evidence that the extra treatment, at a nominal cost of $400 million, would make ... water problems go away. What's more, sewage treated to full secondary standards still harbors enough viruses and bacteria to pose a significant health risk to recreational bathers if the plume comes ashore."

"So what's the solution? The sanitation district's plan to partially disinfect their sewage is a good start...Unlike secondary treatment, disinfection targets the...protozoa, bacteria and viruses...at a fraction of the cost of secondary treatment. It's also a great experiment..."

"...street runoff is a far greater threat to coastal water quality than the sewage plume..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One wonders if Prof. Grant realizes that the initial cost of the chlorination "experiment" would be $8 million per YEAR, plus $5 million or more in monitoring and testing expenses for more oceanographic studies, tests and surveys; whereas the $400 million "nominal" cost of giving up the waiver would be a ONE-TIME capital outlay via tax free sewer bonds (which OCSD has a ready market for) at a rate of about 3%, according to one recent annual report.

So chlorination really comes in at a minimum of $13 million, even without building chlorination/dechlor detention tanks, and full secondary comes in at $12 million interest costs per year.

Maybe the economics profs should review these cost numbers, in the full outside audit that OCSD is due?

LOL!

/Doug

Back to T.O.C.