The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1985-04-04COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE CEUCLIO OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAYJ March 29, 1985 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICT NO. 3 .THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 1985 -7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of March 13, 1985, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 will meet in an adjourned meeting at the above hour and date. 1 II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT No. 3 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4~ 1985 -7:30 P.M. (1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tem, if necessary · Post Office Box 8127 1084~f Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 5<40-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (3) Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System (a) Report of Consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (b). Discussion (c) Consideration of motion to receive, file, and approve March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System, prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (d) Consideration of motion authorizing and directing the staff to implement the recommendations of the ~alcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study (e) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to solicit proposals from suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda for odor abatement in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer system (4) Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation on Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer and connecting local sewers (a) Staff report (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report dated March 28, 1985 re Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer Odor Control Study and Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the ~election Committee (District Chairman and Chairman pro tern) to solicit proposals and negotiate an agreement for the design of rehabilitation of 70+ vaults on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer for considerat~on by the Board (e) Consideration of motion approving policy re settlement of claims for damages to local sewer manholes adjacent to the District's trunk sewers in the amount of of t~e contract construction cost to rehabilitate the manholes, provided that the local agency agrees that all new manholes adjacent to the sewer are constructed with protective coatings ..._,,. (5) Other business and communications, if any (6) Consideration of motion to adjourn 11 1 II -&OARDS OF DIRECTORS -County Sanitation Districts -Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: ( 1) (2) (3) DISTRICT No. ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4J 1985 -7:30 P.M. Roll Call Area Code 71..( 5-40-2910 962-2-411 AGENDA Appointment of Chairman pro tern, if necessary .-~ ~ Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System ~ Report of Consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion to receive, file, and approve March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System, prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. Consideration of motion authorizing and directing the staff to implement the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study (e) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to solicit proposals from suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda for odor abatement in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer system (4) Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation on Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer and connecting local sewers (a) Staff report ® Discussio~ ~ ~ ~ J..al:bA. r ~. ~. ~ .iJt4 ~ !3/ a (8S . (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report dated M\? March 28, 1985 re Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer Odor Control Study Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation and (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection Committee (District Chairman and Chairman pro tern) to solicit proposals and negotiate a n M.[~ agreement for the design of rehabilitation of 70± vaults on the ®.Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer for consideration by the Bo ard onsideration of motion approving policy re settlement o f claims for damages to local sewer manholes adjacent to the Di s t r ict's trunk sewers in the amount of of the contract construction cost to rehabilitate the manholes, provided that the local agency agrees that all new manholes adjacent to the sewer are constructed with protective coatings (5) Other business and communications, if any (6) Consideration of motion to adjourn ~ · . .5 3 . l~ ~-.-~£.CARDS. OF DIRECTORS 1 County Sanitation Districts 1 II of Orange County, Califomi~ · Post Office Box 8127 10844. Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: DISTRICT No. 3 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4, 1985 -7:30 P.M. Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA ( 1) Roll Call (2) Appointment of Chairman pro tem, if necessary (3) Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System (a) Report of Consultant, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. f-Wv--l ~\ L (b) Discussion Consideration of motion to receive, file, and approve March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System, prepared by Maicolm Pirnie, Inc. Consideration of motion authorizing and directing the staff to implement the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion II and Odor Abatement Study Consideration of motion authorizing staff to solicit proposals from suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda for odor abatement in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer system (4) Manhole/Vault. Rehabilitation.on Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer and connecting local sewers (5) (6) (a) Staff report (b) Discussion (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file staff report dated March 28, 1985 re Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer Odor Control Study and Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection Committee (District Chairman and Chairman pro tem) to solicit pro s and negotiate an agreement for the design of rehabilitation of 70+ vaults on the 7 ./ Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer for consideration by -e card T Consideration of motion approving policy re settlement of claims for damages to local sewer manholes adjacent to the District's trunk sewers in the amount of of the contract construction cost to rehabilitate the manholes, provided that the local agency agrees that all new manholes adjacent to the sewer are constructed ,~n with protective coatings ·~' ~UJJf 10 lo r'1 /V v ) . Other business and communications, if any '9 0 !'J.. v Consideration of motion to adjourn ~ ', ~ ~ 3 ., · f'). ..., 0 IJ-v II MANAGER~S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California DISTRICT NO. 3 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING APRIL 4J 1985 -7:30 P.M. Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 T e leprcr:ies: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 Last October the Board of Directors engaged the consulting firm of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. to study the odor and corrosion problems in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer. The consultant has completed the study and a copy of the Executive Summary is enclosed. A rep~esentative of Malcolm Pirnie will attend the Board Meeting and present their findings and recommendations. If any Director desires a copy of the full report , please contact staff member Hilary Baker at 540-2910. Recently, District No. 3 has awarded contracts for the rehabilitation of 20 large manhole vaults on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer which have deteriorated as a result of attack by hydrogen sulfide gas which is generated in the sewer. We have completed a survey of the remaining 200 manholes on the Miller-Holder Trunk system between its terminus at Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach and the City of La Habra, and it appears as if another 70 manholes will require rehabilitation. Staff is recommending that we proceed with design of the rehabilitation of the additional 70 manholes. At the regular March Board Meeting, the Joint Districts adopted a Policy re Settlement of Claims for Damage to Local (city or sanitary district ) Sewer Manholes. Adoption of this policy resulted from claims submitted by several local sewering agencies for damage to their manholes, immediately adjacent to the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer, on local lines connected to the Trunk. The adopted policy, however, does not fix the amount or basis of the settlement of such claims, but rather leaves that determination to each individual District. Inasmuch as the manhole deterioration problem is presently limited to District No. 3, Chairman Roth has asked that the matter of fixing the s·ettlement amount be considered at this adjourned meeting. Enclosed with the Agenda is a Staff Report summarizing the issues. March 28, 1985 Background STAFF REPORT COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of 0 RANGE COUNTY , CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX6127 10644 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92706 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer Odor Control Study and Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation When the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer was constructed in 1959, a newly developed liner made of polyvinylchloride was anchored to the top of the pipe by cast in place locks to prevent corrosion damage caused by hydrogen sulfide gases generated from the sewage. This was a rather new, innovative and somewhat expensive method of protecting the pipe. Consequently, at the time the pipe was installed, the manway access structures, called vaults or manholes, were constructed without this liner. The Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer carries sewage from as far as the City of LaHabra to Treatment Plant No. 2 located in Huntington Beach. Due to the long transit time and warm temperatures, the sewage becomes se ptic. The septic (lack of oxygen) condition allows anaerobic bacteria to act on the su lfates and form hydrogen sulfide gases which lead to concrete corrosion. Since the mid-1970s when the more stringent industrial waste discharge stan - dards were adopted by the Districts, certain industrial discharges, prin- cipally heavy metals, which prevent the growth of the gas generated bacteria have been dramatically reduced. The parado x is that hydrog en sulfide genera- tion has thus increased, resulting in odors and accelerated corrosion attack on the unlined vaults. The District's vaults have suffered extensive corro- sion, and corrosion has also taken place in manholes on connecting lines owned by local {City/Sanita ry District) sewering agencies. In addition, odor problems have plagued residents adjacent to the line; and the trunk sewer has co ntributed to the odor problems at the Huntington Beach Treatment Plant. This report address each of these problems and proposed solutions. Rehabilitation of Dis trict Vaults District's staff has completed a survey of the Miller-Holder ·Trunk Sewer bet- ween Treatment Plant No. 2 and Imperial Highway in the City of La Habra. Corrosion to manhole vaults was generally found south of Artesia Boulevard in the City of Buena Park. In the last year and a hal f , the Directors of Sanitation Di st rict No. 3 have awarded two contracts totaling nearly $900,000 for the rehabilitation of 20 of the most badly corroded vaults. Approximately 70 additional vaults and manholes are in need of .some degree of replacement or repair. Staff is preparing a scope of work outlining the needed rehabilitation work. The scope of work will detail the degree of repairs ne eded at each structure Staff Report March 28, 1985 Page Two which will range from patching e xisting coatings to co mplete replacement. Design proposals to prepare plans and spe c ification s f or t he re ha bi li t at ion of the structures should be ready for consideration by t he Board in June, 198 5. Preliminary staff estimates indicate that the repair to the 70 structures will cost about $1,750,000. Corrosion Damage to Local Sewer Facilities The Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer collects flow from the following local sewering agencies: Fullerton, Brea, La Habra, Buena Park, Cypress, Midway City Sanitary District, Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. While the local sewer lines are vitrified clay pipe and very resistent to gas att ack, t he unlined concrete manholes closest to our Trunk Sewer on the l ocal lines have suffered deterioration. Generally, the local ~ystem damage has been limited to the first or second manholes upstream from the District's trunk sewer con- nection. To date, requests for compensation for damages to sewers have been received from four.agencies. Last July, the Executive Committee considered a cla i m from the City of Fountain Valley for the costs to repair ten (10) manholes adjacent t o the Districts' Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer in the amount of $10,000. The claim was subsequently approved by the Boards. The City Attorney and Di s tricts' General Counsel proceeded with drafting a settlement agreement. However, before it was completed, the District received requests for repair of manholes from two additional cities and a sanitary district, plus a request from Fountain Valley to pay for the full repair of the original ten manholes and an additional twelve manholes as tabled below: Fountain Valley 22 Manholes -All needing repair (including 2 manholes connecting to the Knott I nterceptor Sewer). Huntington Beach 58 Manholes -All repaired by the City between March 1980 and September 1984 at a cost of $83,014. Buena Park 31 Manholes submitted, 20 need repair, no cost estimate. Midway City Sanitary District 5 Manholes, no cost estimate. District's crews have spot checked manholes owned by other local agencies adjacent to the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer and have confirmed vary i ng degrees of damage generally south of Artesia Boulevard. Staff Report March 28, 1985 Page Three After rather lengthy review and detailed consideration of this issue at the last Board meeting, the Directors adopted the attached Policy Re Settlement of Claims for Damage to Local Sewer Manholes, as recolTITiended by the Executive ColTITiittee. In formulating the policy statement, several factors were taken fnto consideration by the Executive Committee--namely: There is no evidence to show that 100% of the damage is caused by hydrogen sulfide gases in the Districts' trunks. There is evidence to show that the hydrogen sulfide does cause substantial damage. The Cities/Sanitary Districts are not totally free of fault, in that their local maintenance programs failed to adequately detect the deterioration or to adequately take corrective measures in time to minimize the damage to the manholes. Thus, once repaired, the Cities and Sani t ary Districts should be required to waive any future claims for damages. The Districts have certain legal defenses to any such claims based upon the statute of limitations (January 1, 1982) and the claims filing requirements of the State of California. The Districts wish to assume major responsibility for maintaining good relationships with the Cities and the Sanitary Districts, and to provide assistance and advice in assuring that the local facilities will not suffer from further damage. The Districts' experience in manhole rehabilitation work should be made available to the Cities and Sanitary Districts and they should use the Districts' specifications for the repairs. The adopted policy does not fix a settlement amount but, rather, provides that each individual District determine its settlement basis or amount. There are four basic settlement alternatives: (1) the full cost of repairs, (2) a percentage of the cost, {3) a fi xed (average) amount, or (4 ) denial of the claim. Although a determination of the basis or amount of settlement is a Board policy matter, the staff offers the following observations on the alternatives. Staff Report March 28, 1985 Page Four It would seem that the full cost of the repairs, (1) above, or denial of the claims, (4) above, have been precluded by the adopted policy statement which recognizes that there is a shared responsibility of both the Sanitation District and the local sewering agency. The amount of damage sustained by the local sewering agencies generally increases the closer the agency is to the lower reaches of the trunk sewer. Thus, a flat fee per manhole, (3) above, may well cover costs of rehabilita- tion in the more northerly communities but may fall short in the southerly COITTTIUnities. Based on the surveys completed and on knowledge of methods of repair, staff believes that a percentage of the contracted construction costs to physically repair costs, (2) above, may be the most appropriate in settling claims for damage. It would be appropriate for the District to pay the major portion of the cost. However, a percentage less than 100 percent would encourage the local sewering agencies to expedite the installation of coatings before major structural damage occurs. To avoid any disputes over the actual repair costs, the reimbursable amount should be limited to the actual contracted construc- tion costs (exclusive of design, inspection and administration). Addition- ally, as a condition of receiving repair funds, the local agency should agree that all new connections will be made with protected manholes. Odor Problems Adjacent to the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer As noted previously, the paradox of our successful industrial waste control program has been an increase in odors, particularly in the Miller -Holder Trunk. District's crews have worked to control local odor problems along the Miller-Holder Trunk by sealing vent holes in the manhole covers and installing flaps on connector sewers to prevent gases from migrating to the local community, however, it has been only marginally su ccessful. Each day, as the water level in the sewer fluctuates, the foul air must be displaced . Vent holes, as well as roof top vents on nearby residences are the outlets for the excess sewer gas. Plugging of the vents at one location simply pushes the problem to a new location. When repair work or cleaning is in progress, as evidenced last summer while rehabilitation efforts were underway, the magni- tude of the problem increases significantly. In October 1984, the Directors of Cou nty Sanitation District No. 3 authorized Malcolm Pirnie to study the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer with an eye towards long-term odor control by chemical addition. The work has now been completed and a copy of the Executive Summary is enclosed for the Directors review. The study evaluated the addition of several chemicals and concluded that the opti- mum chemical control of odors from the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer would be by the addition of caustic soda on a frequency of about ten days in the summer and fifteen days or longer in the winter. Annual costs are estimated to be about $75,000. Staff Report March 28, 1985 Page Five Summary and Recommendations The Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer is a major trunk sewer with relatively flat grades, warm temperatures and long transit time. Consequently, it produces a high odor load and has caused considerable damage to the unlined vaults and manholes on and adjacent to the trunk sewer. To rehabilitate the damaged manholes and to help prevent future corrosion and odors, the staff recommends: 1. Authority for the Selection Committee to negotiate for the design of the rehabilitation of 70 +vaults on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer between Treatment Plant No. 2-and Artesia Boulevard in the City of Buena Park. 2. Approval of a claim settlement policy for damage to local manholes adjacent to Districts Trunk Sewers in the amount of of the contract construction cost to rehabilitate manholes, provided that the local agency agrees that all new manholes adjacent to the sewer are constructed with protective coatings. 3. Approve the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study and authorize staff to implement chemical control of odors on the Miller- Holder Trunk Sewer in accordance with the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie report to control odors in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer. POLICY OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS RE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO LOCAL SEWER MANHOLES 3/13/85 Revised The Board of Directors, upon rece1v1ng a detailed report of its staff and General Counsel, relating to damages incurred by Cities and Sanitary Districts to their local manhole facilities which are located in the proximate vicinity of Districts' trunk sewer lines, determined that it was in the best interests of the Districts to effect a settlement of claims for reimbursement of these damages by each of the entities. The Directors have taken into consideration the relative degree of responsibility between the Sanitation Districts and the local sewering agency, together with the estimated costs of repair of said facilities, and based thereon, the Board of Directors does hereby adopt as its policy: "The Board of Directors does approve the settlement of claims made by any local sewering agency wherein damage has been incurred to its local trunk sewer facilities, including manholes, which are connected to the Districts' Trunk Sewers. Pursuant to this policy, the Districts will pay to each local sewering agency, the sum of (amount to be determined by each respective Distr i ct) for each manhole proven to have incurred damage resulting, in part, from hydrogen sulfide gases emanating from the Districts' Trunk Sewers. The policy is to be implemented by the payment of this sum, provided the Districts receive a general release of all claims including a waiver of any future claim for damages to its facilities and that the local sewering agency will immediately undertake to repair its manhole facilities with materials and in accordance with specifications approved by the Districts. This policy shall further be limited with regards to reimbursement for manholes already repaired by any local sewering agency to those which have been repaired since January 1, 1982.11 \.._/ · EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SEWER CORROSION AND ODOR ABATEMENT STUDY: MILLER-HOLDER INTERCEPTOR SYSTEM For County Sanitation Districts of Orange County ·March 1985 Project: 788-02-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGiNE2RS. SC:= 'i7'..: .. :: ff ..,_4' ,. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -~ . :. 1. The County Sanitation Districts of O~ange County (Dis- tricts) has identified a corrosion and an odor problem associated with theii Miller-Holder (M-H) wastewater interceptor sewer system. Corrosion of concrete struc- tures and portions of pipe, as well as the receipt of odor complaints from residents living in the vicinity of the interceptor have been of significant concern to the Districts. Accordingly, the Districts retained Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (Pirnie) in October 1984 to conduct a· sewer corrosion and an odor abatement study for the Miller-Hol- der wastewater interceptor sewer. 2. The M-H interceptor sewer is a major component of waste- water collection tributary to Plant No. 2. The system comprises about 30 miles of sewer oi va+ious sizes with a design flow capacity of 69 mgd approaching Plant No. 2. Currently flows average about 20 to 25 mgd. When con- structed, the pipes in the M-H system w~re.lined with plastic, but the manholes were no~. Inspection of the manholes and piping by the Districts has resulted in the identification of severe corrosion in some manholes and failure of the plastic liner in the pipe prior to con- nection at the manholes. In addition, gases emanating from the manholes have been a source of intermittent odor situations. 3. The Districts currently is rehabilitating interceptor sewer manholes and pipe connections along the M-H system and installing linings to provide a high degree of corrosion protection. However, rehabilitation is expen- sive and time-consuming and there is concern that corro- sion is advancing at a rapid pace in currently unpro- tected portions of the system. Further, the need for odor abatement remains irrespective of structures reha- bilitation. Accordingly, Pirnie proposed to develop best estimates of costs and performance of combined corrosion and odor control using chemical addition for the M-H interceptor wastewater by conducting on-site, bench-scale testing. 4. After review of the data and preliminary field inves- tigation, Pirnie, with assistance from Districts person- nel, selected four sampling locations. The four loca- tions selected are identified below by the cross streets immediately adjacent: o Station #1 -Caballeros Boulevard and Descanso Avenue ES-1 1· o Station #2 -Barbados Avenue and Providencia Street o Station #3 -Industry Way and Edwards Avenue o Station #4 -Warner Avenue and Nichols Street In addition to the four locations identified above, a fi~th M-H site (Station No. 5) just upstream from Plant No. 2 was selected for limited investigation. 5. Pirnie conducted an intensive, seven-day field inves- tigation using a mobile laboratory at the sampling locations noted. The field investigations included the following: o analytical testing for pH, temperature and total aqueous sulfide of the raw wastewater; o jar ·test studies to evaluate the aqueous sulfide removal capabilities of: ch~orine as sodium hypochlorite hydrogen peroxide potassium permanganate ferrous and ferric chloride; o development of titration curves on the raw waste- water using caustic to pH 12; o estimates of the wastewater flow; o determination of the hydrogen sulfide (H 2 S) gas concentration in the interceptor manhole head space; o qualitative assessment of the odors encountered while sampling. 6. Wastewater sulfate is reduced to aqueous sulfide by certain bacteria under anaerobic (absence of oxygen) conditions. At neutral to acidic pH, both aqueous sulfide and gaseous H2 s exist. Hydrogen sulfide escaping from the aqueous phase into the vapor phase dissolves . into the moisture on the sides of poorly ventilated sewers where attached bacteria convert the H2 s to sul- furic acid. Sulfuric acid causes concrete and mild steel to corrode. Gaseous H2 s is highly odorous and may escape from vents and manhole covers and create odor nuisances. 7. Conditions within the M-H system are favorable for producing H S. These include ~ong collection systems, low wastewater velocity, long wastewater travel times and warm temperatures. ~ ES-2 '• 8. -~ -· Wastewater samples from the sampling locations were ~-analyzed for aqueous sulfides for six days between -·:.November 28 and December 4, 19.84. The field · inves- tigation results indicate that the average-concentration of wastewater sulfide increases from ~ low of 1.5 mg/l at Caballeros Blvd. and.Descanso Ave., (Station #1) to a high of 4.8 mg/l at Warner Ave. and Nichols St. (Station #4). The lowest and highest measured aqueous sulfide concentration was 0.8 mg/! at Station #1 and 7.1 mg/! at Station #4, respectiveiy. The sulfide concentrations generally increase as the wastewater approaches P~ant No. 2. 9. · Measurements of gaseous hydrogen sulfide in the manhole headspace were made through available ports prior to removing the manhole cover. Measured H2 s ranged from 1 ppm to greater than 250 ppm. A sununary of average H~S concentration is shown below. - Station Number 1 2 3 4 Average Manhole Hea.dspace H2 s Concentration (ppm) 4 41 >195 57 10. Strong odors were detected within the sewer at all sample locations. At Station No. 3, strong odors were noticed in the area of the sample manhole before lifting the ·manhole cover. 11. The data from this study indicate that H~S is present in the headspace of the Miller-Holder interceptor for at least the later 20 miles. H~S generation appears to be a critical problem relative to~materials corrosion and odor nuisance. Remedial action is necessary to retard the destruction of the interceptor as well as mitigate intermittent odor problems. 12. Wastewater temperature was recorded at each sampling location. The data indi.cate a consistent, warm tempera- ture at all the stations sampled. The overall average temperature was 25°C (77°F) • · 13. Wastewater flows were calculated from measured depth of flow, pipe diameter and slope in the interceptor at the point of sampling. The average flow ~t each station during the field investigation is presented below. ES-3 Station Number 1 2 3 4 5 Average Wastewater Flow (MGD) 7.9 13.1 14.9 16.7 22* *CSDOC Long Term Data for M-H at Plant No. 2. 14. Tests were performed in a mobile laboratory to determine the effectiveness of four chemicals in reducing the wastewater sulfide concentration, plus wastewater titra- tion curves with caustic. A total of 55 separate jar test analyses were performed. For the sulfide removing chemicals, a performance goal for odor and corrosion control was set at 0.5 mg/l wastewater sulfide residual after chemical addition. Our assessment of the effectiveness of the chemicals tested to achieve odor and corrosion goals is presented below. 15. Chlorine (as sodium hypochlorite). Chlo'rine consistently reduced wastewater sulfides to 0.5 mg/l or less at all stations. Based on the results of this study, a dosage of about 5 pounds chlorine per pound of sulfide would be expected. Precipitates were not produced at any dosage tested. Accordingly, chlorine appears to be able to meet the odor and corrosion reduction goals in the M-H system and should be a candidate for economic analysis. 16. 17. Potassium Permanganate (KMnOt). Potassium permangandte consistently reduced wastewa er sulfides to 0.5 mg/l or less at all stations. A dosage of about 12 pounds KMno 4 per pound of sulfide would be required. A fine precipi- tate was created on occasion. KMno 4 should be considered further for economic analysis. Caustic (NaOH). Wastewater titration curves with caustic indicate that M-H wastewater pH readily can b~ increased to 12 and higher. Since the action of caustic is to reduce sulfide through the destruction of sulfide produc- ing slimes in the sewe~, and not to oxidize or precipi- tate wastewater sulfide, the actual effectiveness of caustic could not be developed from jar tests for this study. Nevertheless, our full-scale experience, as well as the experience of others, including the LA County ES-4 Sanitation Districts, indicates that ca~stic addition is effective and economical in controlling odors and corro- sion. Accordingly, caustic should be candid~te for economic analysis. · o Hydrogen Peroxide (H 2 o 2 ) -Wastewater sulfide reduction with hydrogen peroxide was erratic at the majority of M-H sample locations. Overall, the 0.5 mg/L sulfide residual target could not be met, except with very heavy dosages (upwards of 27 lbs./lb. sulfide). At the higher dosages, a light precipitate formed on occasion. Given the demon- . strated inconsistent performance and the large dosages required, hydrogen peroxide should not be considered further. o Ferric Chloride (FeC1 3 ) and Ferrous Chloride (FeC1 2 ) Ferric chloride and ferrous chloride were signifi- cantly less effective in reducing dissolved sulfide than chlorine or potassium permanganate. Results at some stations were erratic. Neither chemical could' reduce the wastewater sulfide to 0.5 mg/L (except at the uppermost Station #1), even at heavy (25 pounds per pound sulfide) dosages. The addition of these chemicals always produced a black (likely iron sulfide) precipitate. Based on inferior performance and average inability to lower dissolved sulfide to 0.5 mg/L, ferric chloride and ferrous chloride should not be considered further. 20. Preliminary ~apital and annual operating and maintenance cost estimates were prepared for chemical treatment with chlorine as sodium hypochlorite, potassium permanganate and caustic. Chlorine gas was not evaluated due to the liability of gas storage and usage in the residential community at remote and unmanned application stations. The addition of sodium hypochlorite or potassium perman- ganate requires permanent facilities for continuous chemical addition. Based on our experience at other locations, two chemical addition facilities would be required along the M-H interceptor. For caustic addi- tion, permanent metering facilities are not required. Caustic ~ould be purchased in bulk and delivered to the application sites in tank trucks every 1 to 1-1/2 weeks in the summer and every 2 weeks or longer in the cooler periods, based on need. ES-5 -.. i' 21. The results of the economic analyses are presented below. Alternative Capii:al·Cost ($) Annual Chemical Cost ($ /yr) Operations Labor and l·1aintenance co·sts {$/yr) Sodium Hypochlorite 700,000 2,075,000 45,000 Potassium Permanganate 820,000 4,765,000 4_5 ,000 Caustic 20,000* 45,000 30,000 *Preliminary estimate for possible addition of valves and/or feedlines to facilitate chemical additions with a minimum of traffic disturbance. 22. To minimize corrosion and odor situations, it is recom- mended that the Districts pursue a comprehensive Corro- sion and Odor Management Program for the M-H system. The program would include chemical addition to control odors and limit the corrosive environment, continued recon- struction of damaged manhole and pipe sections on a priority basis, and monitoring to provide feedback on results of chemical addition and to guide program objec- tives and direction. Specific Corrosion and Odor Manage- ment Program recommendations are described below. o Caustic Addition -For the chemical application portion of the program, the Districts should apply caustic at selected points in the M-H interceptor. Besides its long term demonstrat~d effectiveness in controlling sewer odors and corrosion, caustic is recommended based on: Lowest chemical cost. Caustic addition is estimated to be substantially less costly, on a materials bas~s, than all other alternatives. Avoidance of Major Construction Costs. Since caustic would be spot-applied in contractor's tank trucks, construction of permanent, costly chemical addition stations, as well as mechan- ical metering and storage facilities, is not required. ES-6 Flexibility .. The mobility of tank truck application of caustic would allow the Dis- tricts to control odors rapidly wh~re and when they occur. Avoidance of Equipment Maintenance. Monitoring and maintenance of equipment, normally associ- ated with permanent chemical addition stations, would be avoided. 24. Caustic application·locations and frequencies should be selected by trial based on actual performance results, including the extent of the effect of the chemical and the per.sistence of an odor situation. It is possible that four to five or more manholes could be utilized on a rotating schedule for caustic application. Up to 2,500 gallons of 50 percent caustic solution may be required at each locatiqn. 25. It is reconunended that the Districts continue to re- place/reconstruct ·manholes and pipe joints/sections previously damaged by corrosion. The Zebron protective coating currently used by the Districts appears appropri- ate. This is the Districts best defense against long term materials corrosion. 26. The Districts should contact industrial dlscharges to the M-H system and investigate methods available to the industries to increase the wastewater pH within the limits of current Districts regulations. 27. The Districts should identify and organize a manpower group responsible for the M-H Odor and Corrosion Management Program. Responsibilities would include coordination of caustic deliveries, field monitoring of the effectiveness of the application~, developing the application needs schedule and providing rapid response to odor situations. 28. For a sho~t duration subsequent to caustic application, additional solids likely will be influent to Treatment Plant No. 2. This material should be removed in the primary clarifies without difficulty. Operations person- nel at the plant should be notified of the caustic application schedule and the possibility of some minor short term changes in influent characteristics. Further, caustic addition to M-H should have no measurable impact on the current odor situation at Plant No. 2, except fer possibly reducing odor load to the trunk line scrubbers. ES-7 J:;. J:;. -· ( ,j ~,._ .... ~ ._....._c .... .,.,o..,...c ...... ,....,___.._......,.. ~ 0 " " ((, " ~! ·"" PUMPING STATIONS DISTRICT BOUNDARY COUNTY BOUNDARY ' -.. MILLER-HOLDER TRUNK SEWER ~ J.• ( ·- LOS COUNTY .. ( I\ I FIGURE 1 .. "' -==---':\.~ ~·-.••. '\?~ -··'~'\a . . . \.~~ • t.. • . --'\ , ... . . . . "'b '.. . ··"~~~ •. t ,,, . . ' .. ... : ·~··.~ <:.. ;(~_, .. ~. ,. .t .... ; - . , ·. ·c\. < .. _:-········ :~~. ·.· . j. . . C' • · ' l. PR~POSE~ SERVICE I II''·~? • , -' • J . AREA BOUNDARY • ) 1•.. . I • • ""\.'.!_• • , ... . r~~"·, . ; . .·~~~""-\ ,-. '·J ·: ... , .. . } . -~·:_.~ \ ··,. ' ··. . .. _ ..... .. _,,._.: ... (• \. ; ..• INTERCEPTOR SEWER FACILITIES COUtfT! SANITATlf:?N DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 1980 ..... ... - 1 t RE: AGENDA ITEM #4 City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR March 8, 1985 Board of Directors, District 113 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P. 0. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Dear Board Members: Subject: Miller Holder Trunk Sewer Protective Coating Reimbursements The city of Huntington Beach received notice through a letter dated September 13, 1984, from district offices to the City Engineer regarding a reimbursement program for pro- tective coatings of city manholes adjacent to the Miller Holder Trunk Sewer. Subsequently, communications and submittals of listings of our considered eligible manholes were sent to district offices for approval considerations. The listing totaled 58 manholes within which the City has expended $83,014. I would like to point out that the city had recognized the gas deterioration problem Jong before the program was instituted and commenced protective measures as early as 1980, even participating in experimental trials of several types of protective coatings. The coat- ing settled upon is that which complies with the district specifications. It was brought to my attention that a recent consideration was made by the Board of Direc- tors to approve a limited reimbursement; however, the actual costs incurred in many, if not most, cases exceed the approved amount. These costs are related to proximity to the county trunk, depth of the manholes, and severity of deterioration; therefore, there is no equitable average cost. Cities can only provide funding for a limited number of manholes each year, thus, two very similar manholes can vary greatly in cost if one is funded and coated, and the other has to await one or two years for additional funds. We also must recognize and protect accordingly our manholes adjacent to the trunks of other sanitation districts such as Bushard, Brookhurst, Newland, etc., and it should be noted that cities absorb other related costs in these type manholes with gas traps for odor con- trol as an example. The same gases that deteriorate the manhole walls also take their toll of the fittings on the gas traps which create a maintenance cost for inspections and repairs. Telephon.e (714) 536-5202 -2- I do urge the Board of Directors to reconsider its actions and approval policy and provide the city wih 100% reimbursement for those manholes which are first and second upstream . in the City system from the district trunk. The City has many thousand manholes, and our annual protective coating program will be significantly affected by your actions. CWT/a<:pj xc: City Council Mayor Ruth Bailey, Member of Sanitation Board MEETING DATE Apri l 4, 1 985 DI STKICT i (CKANK),,,,,, l , HANSON,,,,,, __ (LUX EM BOUR GER J , GRISE T , , , , , , (KENN EDY ),,,,,, SAL TAR ELLI ,.-- (W I ED ER),,,,,, .STANTON ,,,,·== DISTR ICT L l NO RBY),' l ',,, .CA TLI N,,,,,, __ (OVERHO~T J ,,,, ,RO TH,,,,,,,, (NEW TON),,,,,,, BUCK,,,,,,,.-- (N EL SON),,,,, l 'COOPE R,, ,, , .-- (L UX EMBOURGER J , GR I SET ,,,,,,-- (MAHONEY ),,,,,, HO LMBE RG ,,,.-- (S JL ZEL),,,,, •• KAWANAMI ,, , .-- (SCO TT ) l,, , , , , , NEAL , , , , , , , ·== (CUL VERJ ,,,,,, ,PERRY ,,,,,,, (BEYER),,,,,,, ,SMIT H •• ,,, •• -- (WJ EDER).l ',,, .STANTON,,,,.-- (b EVERAGEJ,,,, .WISNER,,,,,·== DISTR ICT 3 TIME (OVERHO~T )'. I •• ROTH •• I I I ••• Q..., (COOPER I. I •••• NELSON •••••• ~ -- (THOMAS ....... BAILEY ...... V--- l RJ S NER),,,,,,, BROWNELL ,,,.~ -- (NORfl Y}. I •••••• EATLI N ••• ' •• ~-- (PERRY). l ~~ •••··~== l J ARRE LLJ f"'• 'l GRIFF! • • • ·~ __ (LUXEMBOURGERJ, , , , , • ·~ __ lMAHON~Y),,, ,, ,HOLMFlERG,, ••-1....c:::: __ (SCOTT), , , , , , , , NEAL, , , , , , , •-1....:=:=:" (F JNLA YSON) ... , OLSON .,,,,,·~== (K ANEL ),,,,,,,, PARTIN .,,,,.~ (S EIDEL )l ',,,,, POLI S , , , , • ·~ (S I RJAN j J ,,,,, ,SAP IEN,,,,,, -- (W I EDER),,,,,, ,S TANTON,,, ,,:cg:: -- (LANDE R),,,,,, ,SY LVIA .,,, •• ~ -- DI STRIC T 5 (cox ) •••••••••• HART •••••••• (cox ) •• l'''''''MAURER •••••• == (WJED ERJ , ••• I •• STANTON ••• I ·-- DISTRICT 6 ~ GAL ~ACHER),,,, WAH NER ,,,,,, __ COX),, l ',,,,, .PL UMMER ,,,,, WI EDER J ,,, , , , , STANTON ,,,,·== DISTRICT 7 (BEYER)l '',,,, .SMITH ,,,,,,, __ (MJ LLERJ . I. I ••• S ILL S . I •• I •• (K ENNEDY),,,,, .EDGAR .,,,,,,-- (LUX~MBOURGER). GR I SET.,,,,.-- (COX). I. I •••••• MAU RER . I •••• -- ( w I EDER) I ••••• I STANTON. I I •• -- (GR EEN) I I. I I . I. WAHNER ••• I I·== DISTRICT 11 (MANDIC),,,,,,,BAILEY ,,,,,, (WIEDER),,,,,, ,STA NTON ,,,,·== (F INL EY) I •• I I. I THOMAS. I. I I·-- DI STRICT 13 (BEYER) l' I. I •• I SM I TH. I I ••• ·-- (WI SN ERJ,,,,, ,,BEVERAGE,,,, (NEL SO N). l , I. I ,COOPER. I. I I .-- (OVERHO LT ) I I I I. ROTH ••••• I •• -- (WI EDER),,,,, ,,STA NTON ,,•••== 4/10/85 7 :3 o pm DISTR ICTS 3 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~- JO INT BOARDS (THOMAS /MANDIC) •• BAIL EY . I •• '' (WIS NER ) •••• I' ••• BE VERAG E •• '.-- (R ISNER ),.''' •• I .BRO WNE LL .' •• -- (NE w T 0 N) • I •• ' • ' ' ' BUCK •• ' I • I •• -- (NORB Y)\ •• ' I ••••• CATLIN •••• '·== (NELSON J ,,,,,,,, ,COOPER.,,,,, (PER RY), •• 11 I ••• ,CUL VER •••••• -- (KENNEDY) •• '' ••• I EDGAR .'''.'.-- (JARRELL). I.' l' •• GRIFF I N ••• '.-- (L UXEMf30URGERJ., .GR I SET.,,,,.-- (CRANK),,,,,,,,,, HANSON ,,,,,.-- (cox ) ... ( .. I • ' •• I HAR T •••••••• -- (MAHON EY J ,,, ,, ,, ,HO LMBERG ,, •• -- (S I L?EL). •••• ' •• 'KA WANAMI •• I·== (cox ),l''''''''''MAURER •••••• (SCOTT) •••••••••• NEAL •••••• I.-- (COOPER) •• I ••• I •• NELSON ••• ' •• -- (FINLAYSON).,,,, ,OL SON .,,,,,.-- (KANEL),, •••••••• PAR TI N. I •••• -- (CU L VER) •••• I •••• PERRY ••••••• -- ( c 0 x ) •• l • I I • I I ••• PL UMM ER I I • I ' -- (SEID EL J , l ' I I I I I I POLIS ••••••• -- (OV ERHOLT ). I. I I I I ROTH . I I ••• I.-- (KENNEDY) I I I I I I I I SAL TARELLI •• -- ( s 1 RI AN !) I I. I I I •• SAP! EN •••••• -- (M ILL ER ). I I •• I ••• SILLS ••••••• -- (BEYER)~,. I I ••••• SM IT H •• I I •• ·== (W IE DER ••••••••• ST ANTON •• I I I (LANDER • I I I I •• I I S YLVIA. I I I I.-- (FINLE Y) •• I I I I.' l THOM AS ••••• ·== (GR EEN /GA LL AC HERJWAHNER ,,,,,, (BE VERAGE). I I. 11 .WISNER ••••• ·== STAFF: OTHERS: SY LVES TER ,,, !,.../ CLARKE,,,,,, DAW ES ,,,,, •• ~ ANDERSON •• I I BUTLER ,,,,,, i-../ BROWN . Ill I .·~ BAKER. I I. I •• KYLE •• II ••••. YOU NG ••••• I. VON LAN GEN WIN SOR •••• I. STREED,,,,, ·--1..::::::'.: CLAWSON . I •• I WOODRUFF,,,.~ ATK IN S ,,,,,, HOHENER •• I I • HOWARD. I. I •• HUNT I I I I I I I I KE! TH. I . I. I I KNOP F I. I I. I I LE BLANC I I I I LI ND STROM I I I LYNCH. I I I I. I MARTIN SON •• I PEARCE. I I I •• DISTRICT 3 ADJOURNED MEETING NOTES -4/4/85 #3{a) -Report of Frank Dryden from Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., District odor consultant The General Manager reported that last Octobe r Malcolm Pirnie was hired to conduct a study of the Miller-Holder Trunk S ewer re odor control and corrosion issues. He then introduced Frank Dryden of Malcolm Pirnie who addressed the Board with regard to the findings and conclusions of said study and their recommendations. He also gave a slide presentation . He indicated that four sites were studied, and they found that the odors were caused by corrosion which resulted from a hydrogen sulfide and H2S reaction. {Se e also Executive Summary of Odor Abatement Study) #4{b) & (e) -Discussion & action re Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation on Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer The General Manager reported that for the reasons described by Frank Dryden, the District's manhole vaults were experiencing deterioration and cities' lines were also experiencing the same deterioration. Tom Dawes stated that we do have an ongoing contract right now to repair some of these manholes. He distributed some pictures of manholes needing repairs. He said the staff selected 20 manholes in the worst shape. Some of them were so bad that we had to take them completely out and put in new ones. Corrosion had sometimes eaten into 7 inches of an 8 inch wall. There are some 208 trunk manholes on the Miller-Holder Sewer from the the Huntington Beach Treatment Plant to La Habra. Local sewers connect only at District manholes and vaults . There might be one or two manholes at each connection . The Districts' problems are quite similar to those experienced by local sewering agencies. Manholes north of Artesia are in good shape but south of Artesia they are in bad shape. TMD referred to survey reports available for inspection. Said 74 vaults need work and 6 of them need to be replaced. The cost estimate is $1-3/4 million to complete the work. Have spent $900,000 on 20 manholes . It is quite a job to replace our sewers as they are four or five feet down and run half full or better. A que stion was as ked relative to the difference betwe en a vault and a manhole. Tom e xplained that it costs about $45,000 to fi x a District vault and about _ $1,500 to fix a city manhole. We have reinf orced vaults on the District trunk sewers and have to tear up the streets to replace the vaults . It is a major proj e ct and takes 30 days or longer . City ma nholes can be repaired in place; Don't have to take these out. Most o f the work left on the Districts' system will consist of similar work to that of City manholes. Tom addeded that we have done a survey of District structures and would like to enlist an engineer to prepare plans and specifications for the work. Re city manholes , we have received information from Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Buena Park and Midway City Sanitary District on structures that have deteriorated adjacent to our lines. Are many 20-30 feet from District lines. We have inspected about 75 of these structures and found 60 needed repair. Director P~rtin asked if Cypress lines were ins pected and Tom replied that we did and found s ome d a mage. Referred to cl a im from City of Huntington Beach include d in Directors' folders. Tom Woodruff reported that they had 58 manholes repaired commencing in 1980 and were a s king for a full 100%. He indicated that the is s ue is whether the District will pay 100 % o r some othe r percent or a flat amount? The other issue is relative to the timing of Huntington Beach's claim. Have a major legal obstacle as claim is outdated. Property damage was over 1 year ago . The law authorizes the Board to accept a l a te claim; however, there is a statute of limita tions upo n which a ny act ion c a n be brought a ga inst the Districts. Some of the c l a im s wo uld pr e d ate J a nu a r y 1982. Nothing prior to tha t could possibly pr e va il. ~ Director Polis asked about life expectancy of a manhole and how long should claims be accepted for ~eplacement. Tom Dawes said our sewers have been good for 25-28 years. If protected, we might expect concrete sewers to last a good 50-75 years. He added that the cities and sanitary districts put their lines in when they needed a connection to our sewer so are 5 -25 years old, most of them being 15 years or newer. The rapid deterioration has come about in the last five years. A question was asked whether the age of the amount of damage the District is willing to many variables. That is just one of them. increased corrosion. manhole was directly related to the pay. Griffin stated that there are In recent years there has been Tom Woodruff said at first we thought we had only 12 problems. The City of Fountain Valley Engineer and the District got together and came up with about $1,000 each to replace those. We said we didn't want the City coming back in 5-10 years and say they have another 10-20. Our staff worked with the Public Works Departments of all the cities to try to get a thorough inventory, and the problem went from 12 to 100+. Griffin said we could act today and then have the subject before us 5 years from now. Should have a time limit to do this. Shouldn't let this go on for years. He said he hadn't been able to get a determination from his city yet . Griset asked if there was a staff recommendation relative to what percent of the cost might be reasonable? He felt with the variety of age, there shouldn't be a fixed dollar amount. The General Manager reported that the staff and the General Counsel had given this quite a bit of consideration. He referred to the general policy statement the Joint Boards adopted on March 13th which indicates that there is a shared responsibility on the part of the District and the local sewering agency. Said there really is a range of alternatives from full cost to paying zero, but it would seem to staff that both of those are precluded by the adopted policy re shared responsibility. Another alternative is some fixed amount. The fourth alternative is some sort of percent which, in the opinion of staff , would be the fairest method. We have discussed a range of 2/3 to 85-90%. Couldn't agree among ~taff on what that number should be. Something in that range. Director Olson said that MCSD 's damage seems to be adjacent or close to the Miller-Holder Trunk line. Manholes away from the line are not in this particular situation. Said his Board feels that this problem is not one that they created and they feel their percentage of the cost should be very minimal. They have determined that the 5 or 6 of these with the most damage are those closest to the Miller-Holder line. Is not MCSD's problem but OCSD's problem. The General Manager stated that staff has found that that is generally true in all cities. Director Neal said the City of Fountain Valley's staff investigated also and found no damage on those away from the Miller-Holder line. Damage was from Miller-Holder line gas. Bailey commented that the City of Huntington each did repair these manholes since 1980 so didn't feel they should be penalized for having maintained them. Said if they were to be reimbursed 100 %, would still be saving the District money because the cost of repairing them now would be much higher. -2- ,. Director Polis asked how we get other agencies to line their manholes? Tom Woodruff said the District wants these manholes in good shape and does~'t want this to occur in the next few years. Before we pay the bills, we will get a release from the cities. Also the claim has to come in within the next 60 days or some time period and the City has to start the work within some reasonable period because what may cost $1,000 today may be $3,000 in 3 years. Cities should go out and do this. Question asked if cities would be formally notified? Replied yes, each city would be put on notice formally re disposition of claims. Director Neal said that his city feels that if manholes are adequately lined, they will last indefinitely. Aren't really concerned about 25-30 years from now. Said he has felt that on manholes adjacent to the Miller-Holder Trunk, District should have paid 100% but as a good neighbor and because of Torn Woodruff's eloquence and opinion, would support 90%. Griffin asked if the staff knew exactly how many manholes are immediately adjacent to the Miller-Holder Trunk? TMD said that the only damage we found was south of Artesia in the City of Buena Park. Below that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of 150±. manholes. A large percentage have suffered damage. We have investigated 60-70 so far. Mr. Sylvester added that when this matter was first brought before the Joint Boards last October, upon recommendation of the Executive Comrnittee, the staff did send a letter to the Public Works Director of each city along the Miller-Holder Trunk and the response to that letter is the reason why the three additional communities submitted claims. Some other communities have not yet submitted a claim. Whatever policy the Board adopts, we would convey that message to the city staffs. Question was asked re how acid-contaminated manholes are lined? Torn Dawes replied that there are three methods. First, we have to get the manholes clean with water pressure. It penatrates into the mortar and drives out the sulfur. Then PVC lining is applied. It will not adhere to concrete so has to be attached with bolts. Two other methods will adhere to concrete. Many coatings would adhere to concrete but won't stick because of water pressure. Polyurethane will stick or fiberglass coating will adhere to concrete. Bailey then MOVED that the District pay 90% of the repair costs. Motion SECONDED. Griset s uggested that the 90% be paid for a period of 12 months and then the percentage should drop in successive months. TMD said it would take our staff quite a bit of time to inspect all the manholes and it might take 6 months to get the claims in. Contracts could go very fast for the coatings. Would share our specifications with cities. Would take about one year+ to get most of the manholes inspected and contracts out on the street. - Griset then made an AMENDED MOTION to add a proviso to pay 90% for claims completed within 24 months beginning now and for each successive year (12-rnonth period) the payment would drop to 60%, 30% and then zero, respectively. MOTION SECONDED. A ques tion was asked whether the s~nitation Districts could install gas traps where these lines come off. Mr. Sylvester advised that we presently do that in several locations. TMD agreed that we are doing that now. He said it isn't the total answer but it does cut back. The General Manager added that the action taken under item i3 re Malcolm Pirnies' report and recommendation will correct the problem that we have experienced in recent years. Tom Woodruff stated that the cities must comply with the District's specs. -3- ~ ,~ The Directors discussed reducing the percent of payment for the first, second and third manholes away from the Miller-Holder Trunk. Director Neal ix>inted ou.t that the degredation would diminish back up the local line anyway so this would be handled automatically if damage is less than first manhole. In Fountain Valley they found damage to the second manhole was usually a lot less. He added that he saw no reason to determine a lesser amount. Griset then asked staff to reix>rt back re recommendations re the appropriate distance level and how far the likely damage issue is. Tom Woodruff said the cities' staffs have to give us a claim within 60 days. Then allow us four months to inspect and agree. We are talking about damaged manholes now. Then no money in the future . CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The General Manager added that our experience in the past re matters like this is that usually in determining the actual cost of these repairs, there quite often arises a dispute. Staff suggested that the "cost" is the actual contract cost for repair of the manhole which eliminates overhead and design. Directors agreed . Torn Woodruff reiterated amended motion. VOICE VOTE ON AMENDED MOTION . MOTION CARRIED. -4- TO: TOM WOODRUFF POLICY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 RE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO LOCAL SEWER MANHOLES 4/4/85 Revised The Board of Directors, upon rece1v1ng a detailed report of its staff and General Counsel, relating to damages incurred by Cities and Sanitary Districts to their local manhole facilities which are located in the proximate vicinity of District's trunk sewer lines, determined that it was in the best interests of the District to effect a settlement of claims for reimbursement of these damages to each of the entities. The Directors have taken into consideration the relative degree of responsibility between the Sanitation District and the local sewering agency, together with the estimated costs of repair of said facilities, and based thereon, the Board of Directors does hereby adopt as its policy: "The Board of Directors does approve the settlement of claims made by any local sewering agency wherein damage has been incurred to its local trunk sewer facilities, including manholes, which are connected to the Districts' trunk sewers. Pursuant to this policy, the District will pay to each local sewering agency, the following proportional amount of the actual contracted construction costs (exclusive of design, inspection, and administration expenses) to rehabilitate each manhole proven to have incurred damage resulting, in part, from hydrogen sulfide gases emanating from the District's trunk sewers, provided that claims for said damages be filed with the District within sixty (60) days of notification of this policy: For Rehabilitation Work Completed Within Following Time Periods After Policy Notification 24 25 -36 37 -48 49 + Months Months Months Months Percent of Contracted Construction Costs To Be Paid By District 90% 60% 30% 0% ..,._ .r--•. '-.. Further provided that the policy is to be implemented by payment in accordance with the above schedule, subject to: 1. The District receiving a general release of all claims from the local sewering agency including a waiver of any future claims for damages to its facilities. 2. The local sewering agency undertaking the repair of its manhole facilities with materials and in accordance with specifications approved by the District. 3. Agreement by the local sewering agency that all new connections to District facilities will be made with manholes protected in accordance with specifications approved by the District. This policy shall further be limited with regards to reimbursement for manholes already repaired by any local sewering agency to those which have been repaired since January 1, 1982." 3(o) ht.{l)l<.-l;) fA'f K"~ -µ ~ I ~c_ · -S LI 'De~/ /$B:._ , .JM N Ylftl/ '30 M I -,,,_, '-'«-fio LDL_,__ I k> MI -C.Witl'T "' f ,,s;q-f+;. s. t ) + " I Tb', ~ '"1J - -06.f; G/itL ~~lo.)/ o~ /o1MTNrt . Tl> C. cW Tflc L ~,5 'k. -1 ,:,sr/~,,,.,rur .iw -11.,_s/r11-/ 1tt>o ~•I KLS. -Nt>-Lto/.J-/f<-M,.o'1/ /f2-•2 /F._c/2 -J-(~ tJtJ.-OI/ -t:f i,~Of _::, fr>i'Jc:J-~-~' .lf'rrb~ -/ /ZX./o~ s~ -fLtti.17L ntt<.€!) -~-w<?fl-~:.s~~ -~tlftrn:..>~ & rffioe\4A-~AEtotsr<!.. /?1Jc:ti21..11t-1';:, ww - + .5 LI~ ---?> J/--i,_.5 -7> // ~ .!Sof- -G.~ c. L1;J€/ 'fUal 6~F-77° ,;:i ~&-l -011c frc....~dl. u,J;,Jb -Dor A,/IJ.~~J \iJ{<hUJ M-€" "/Jhyt...f .PE1Y-lofl.J)ref) /,,.IA f-'TV! .... Vf ) J ~ M -~rl Tf.ou. '. (1) G/le-~tc ~ o't1D1t77~ ~ f~f1rlrn~ -11-;,..o;._ ..:;.oXJ;mr-J; ~C/z_-t-C-(y-=-flt;uf (i:) ·N ... :ofJ--7' ~~ 'fAq-pt.11t - 1711.e --t l>l.bf~CG--t-~+A-bl>'<_~~ facr<.. /Je,S - >-y-'2--Pr~ _$.v( Lh~ ·~ fftvr.~ -z.-ftfik-s. ~ wrJrt~ - p~t:rll-tJo...~ -c f tmli---/ y fL.--~ ~~ -4-ooo r T/.u.lJk. -.bo i-00. : .urM~ C0 1 o ~OLIA:~h~ -~ f11J .rt.&AC:.---?-f If 17--? ~ pafi~ ?f!c't>W!i7~ ~'i k~A - f..a_s '. .-· ~T>Nu.€ lo 4:fu;UF ,4'f (If J · II -i.11>"-7t:ll.L~oJ -t1..1J~ NQ_Of.f ~1nci)_,st - -L•~ M~th>up ~ 1>t;)) /~ ti-1~~1 c,o~TfllJC:r. ~ ( c: J ( J) ( ~ -N./r -~Pto~ fA,J ktJ . - 4 -la) Tf.\D ~ -Jh~ 1-{~t/o~ oJ eiJnW 1...uJe--Pflc~~ ~ ft1f,r1) (.oCA(_ L-1Jt'.> ~ OF ~fr 'ju!J:, 1) ~A fµt,_ -.fr_ ,.l&-0 /!Gt.)(.</ lennltiJ t'l Ate ~ f/1 7~)~ ,;:i kDD 1 1...-CMrrlh. Co.MS ' ;Jr 'J-0 (A-kvcJrw:i~J> 7f fkf~) ~ '/ I I / (IJW...TS ~ ~-1° ""'rrl ~ 1-10'\ -l/41.u .. n : N~ ,Mo~ woA-. -folh.4!0 4f UUk~ CJ.n~/N~ })!Jl?,/ ~1T1Jf7•;) :Pt srf.tq;/ - l.iJ !1-fr1 °1 o I W: l--Til-1 tu1 o F tf$ -js /8<-w~r .J.oaro ft;JH~r - .(__ .:1J'8 ~ -~vr [B/tf.L>1 ~f<f,lE · .iJ ~ tJ ... <jJ_ .-f/t1A-1A. #-;$ fJF ;ft' iJofi[--J -~A~ oY-M~iktE To I f;L_ /tfAf{-t -?- -~~'. &fo ~r -)/31f5 ~)9/o -~T ()iJMJJM.OM.,f- -TLi,0: 1:>t~'T; W~ k ~~ -ll/HM w/1JJ Go 'Dfh-/s. -~ {)). lt;iJ§f 1J N~ 11M-u..~- \r--l P '.-@-J<o MkKL µ~~u;:~ S . oF Mra.11J-7{-.J,o fr;LW, fflol.~~ -/t«hS{--lt;~c.Jra) M l/77€~ ~ f>f..o~1 - -? l/ ~1,lr;. MET1JcDS : ;::L WhffQ..,i!><.As.I (QN(/-rrE -1000 P.{I -. (i J P-Vc_ -'f0 t.:r oJ · ( j_ J ~ft?-/~o,dr/l))oil1,f77e. ~ To M:o tm-l--Po L '1 ~t= 0 l , ' :Jo$.f CJ)µ.ft-eiSl> iiJ/:nJ -f, Beil(,LA1..s ~ 1 {e.) -9¢ 1° -~:L..-f Mofv~ -(~) .. i'b~s. ~LE=!) w/tJ '!b =t>~j- (11.1'1 -~l>/o II 3~ f t -3'f'1~ It 4 ~ // -ep1o - -J~~ foAJ!. mf;t ?. , 1 1Jk Def~~ f;j-a~ ~ L:)tJEf, - -Twp: ~~loF W"1f-:-Co..;)~ ~'flh'-cru.13-A)o 0/11 Jtl,5f.- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR METING April 4, 1985 -7:30 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of March 13, 1985, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts' Administrative Offices. The Chairman pro tern called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: DIRECTORS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS: Don Griffin, Chairman pro tern, Ruth Bailey, Oscar Brownell, Dan Griset, John Holmberg, James Neal, Chris Norby, Richard Olson, Richard Partin, Bob Perry, Richard Polis, Charles Sylvia Carrey Nelson, Don Roth, Sal Sapien, Roger Stanton J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M. Dawes, William H. Butler, Gary Streed Thomas Woodruff, General Counsel , Frank Dryden * * * * * * * * * * * * * Approving March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System abatement study in the Miller-Holder is the Districts' longest sewer line all the way to Plant 2 in Huntington Dryden, representing Malcolm Pirnie, study and findings. The General Manager reported that in October the Board had engaged the consulting firm of Malcolm Pirnie to conduct a sewer corrosion and odor Trunk Sewer. The Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer and conveys sewage from the City of La Ha b ra Beach. Mr. Sylvester intr oduced Mr. Frank who reviewed the engineering consultant's The study evaluated the addition of several chemicals and concluded that the optimum chemical for control of odors as well as corrosion in the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer would be the injection of caustic soda approximately every ten days during warm weather and every fifteen days during the cooler weather at various points along the trunk sewer. The anticipated annual cost for such a program would be $75,000.00. Following a brief discussion it was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That the March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System, prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved. -1- 4/4/85 Authorizing staff to implement the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be, and is hereby, authorized and directed to implement the recommendations of the Malcolm Pirnie, March 1985 Sewer Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study: Miller-Holder Interceptor System. Authorizing staff to solicit proposals from suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda for odor abatement in the Miller- Holder Trunk Sewer system Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer system as Corrosion and Odor Abatement Study. Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be, and is hereby, authorized to solicit proposals from suppliers for the annual procurement of caustic soda for odor abatement in the recommended in the Malcolm Pirnie Sewer Staff report re Miller-Holder Trunk The staff reported that, for the reasons Sewer Odor Control Study and described in the Malcolm Pirnie report, Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation the Districts' had experienced considerable deterioration in its manhole vaults on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer System between Treatment Plant No. 2 and Imperial Highway in the city of La Habra. The Deputy Chief Engineer reported that during the last l~ years the Directors of District No. 3 had awarded two contracts totaling nearly $900,000.00 for the rehabilitation of twenty of the most badly corroded vaults on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer. Mr. Dawes reported that staff had just concluded a survey of the remaining manholes on the Miller-Holder sewer and that an additional 74 were in need of replacement or repair. He estimated the cost for rehabilitation of the remaining manholes to be $1,750,000. \.,,) It was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff report dated March 28, 1985 re Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer Odor Control Study and Manhole/Vault Rehabilitation be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Authorizing the Selection Committee to solicit proposals and negotiate an agreement for the design of 74 vaults on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer on the Miller-Holder Trunk Sewer for Approving EOlicy re settlement of claims for damages to local sewer manholes adjacent to the District's trunk sewers Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Selection Committee be, and is hereby, authorized to solicit proposals and negotiate an agreement for the design of rehabilitation of 74 vaults consideration by the Board. The Deputy Chief Engineer reported that, similar to the District's experience, the local sewering agencies (Cities/Sanitary Districts) had also experienced manhole corrosion, apparently as a result of hydrogen sulfide gases migrating from the Districts' trunk sewers into the local systems. Generally, the local system damage has been limited to the first manhole upstream from the District's trunk sewer connection. He reported that requests for compensation for damages to the local system ,~ -2- -4/4/85 .Jfil •..,.-• facilities have been received from the City of Fountain Valley, the City of Huntington Beach, the City of Buena Park and the Midway City Sanitary District. He stated that District's crews have spot-checked manholes owned by local agencies and confirmed damages. The Board then entered into a lengthy discussion concerning a policy regarding the settlement of claims against the District for damage to local agency manholes. During the discussion it was pointed out that the Joint Boards at their regular March meeting had adopted a policy concerning settlement of such claims. However the policy did not fix a settlement amount but rather provided that each individual District determine its settlement basis or amount. There are four basic settlement alternatives. 1) The full cost of repairs: 2) a percentage of the cost; 3) a fixed (average) amount; or 4) denial of the claim. It was pointed out that both the full cost of the repairs or denial of the claim in its entirety appeared to have been precluded by the adopted policy statement which recognizes that there is a shared responsibility of both the Sanitation District and the local sewering agency. As the amount of damage sustained by the local sewering agencies generally increases the closer the agency is to the lower reaches of the trunk sewer, a flat fee per manhole also appeared to be inequitable. Therefore, the concensus was that a percentage of the contract construction cost to repair local agency manholes would be the most appropriate method of settling claims for damages. It was then moved and seconded: That the District establish a policy of paying 90% of the cost of rehabilitating local sewering agency manholes damaged by hydrogen sulfide gases emanating from the District's trunk sewers. The Board then entered into a discussion concerning time limits for filing of claims· to be paid pursuant to the proposed District's policy and time limits for honoring said claims. After the discussion an amendment to the original motion was moved and seconded to provide time limitations for filing of claims and payment of such claims. Following further discussion the amended motion was duly adopted. The Board's adopted policy statement is set forth below: POLICY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 RE SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR DAMAGE TO LOCAL SEWER MANHOLES The Board of Directors, upon receiving a detailed report of its staff and General Counsel, relating to damages incurred by Cities and Sanitary Districts to their local manhole facilities which are located in the proximate vicinity of District's trunk sewer lines, determined that it was in the best interests of the District to effect a settlement of claims for reimbursement of these damages to each of the entities. The Directors have taken into consideration the relative degree of ~-responsibility between the Sanitation District and the local sewering agency, together with the estimated costs of repair of said facilities, and based thereon, the Board of Directors does hereby adopt as its policy: -3- 4/4/85 "The Board of Directors does approve the settlement of claims made by any local sewering agency wherein damage has been incurred to its local trunk sewer facilities, including manholes, which are connected to the Districts' trunk sewers. Pursuant to this policy, the District will pay to each local sewering ~ agency, the following proportional amount of the actual contracted construction costs (exclusive of design, inspection, and administration expenses) to rehabilitate each manhole proven to have incurred damage resulting, in part, from hydrogen sulfide gases emanating from the District's trunk sewers, provided that claims for said damages be filed with the District within sixty (60) days of notification of this policy: For Rehabilitation Work Completed Within Following Time Periods After Policy Notification 24 25 -36 37 -48 49 + Months Months Months Months Percent of Contracted Construction Costs To Be.Paid By District 90% 60% 30% 0% Further provided that the policy is to be implemented by payment in accordance with the above schedule, subject to: 1. The District receiving a general release of all claims from the local sewering agency including a waiver of any future claims for damages to its facilities. 2. The local sewering agency undertaking the repair of its manhole facilities with materials and in accordance with specifications approved by the District. 3. Agreement by the local sewering agency that all new connections to District facilities will be made with manholes protected in accordance with specifications approved by the District. This policy shall further be limited with regards to reimbursement for manholes already repaired by any local sewering agency to those which have been repaired since January 1, 1982." Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman pro tern then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:53 p.m., April 4, 1985. -4-