Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12 r1Lc,, IN THE OFIV -I *NE SECRETARY ORANGE COONT, :aa:TATION DISTRICT DRAFT JAN2 66/�2000 MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING ;- -.---- Wednesday, December 15, 1999 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, December 15, 1999 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Debay, Chair of the Board Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMITS Committee Vince Murdico, MAP Norm Eckenrode, Chairman, PDC Committee Don Hughes Jim Silva, County Supervisor John Collins, Past Chairman of the Board STAFF PRESENT: Directors Absent: Don McIntyre, General Manager Tom Saltarelli, Chairman, FAHR Committee Blake Anderson, Asst. General Manager Peer Swan, Vice Chair Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications Gary Streed, Director of Finance (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the November 17, 1999 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair did not make a report. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 December 15, 1999 (B) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER A. The General Manager introduced Vince Murdico, with the firm of Management Action Programs, Inc. He is the facilitator for the Executive Management Team's retreat that is scheduled for January 27-28. Mr. Murdico will interview the members of the Steering Committee prior to the retreat to help develop the program. The General Manager reported on an automobile accident involving a District employee, who sustained serious injuries and is expected to recover. The work being done by the entrance to the administration building is to provide drainage for a new awning over the front doors to provide better protection during wet weather. Labor negotiations with OCEA are anticipated to be finalized in the next week or so and the changes to the MOU will require Board approval. The Steering Committee decided to schedule a meeting of the FAHR Committee on January 12 at 5 p.m. to review the proposal before submitting to the full Board. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff reported on an annexation request that LAFCO is considering near Brea and the impacts on the District. LAFCO moved to consider the issue at a future meeting because of the questions raised regarding payment of the District's annexation fees and user fees. The Steering Committee recommended amending the annexation ordinance to allow the Directors to waive these fees under special circumstances. Staff will be preparing a report to the Directors. Mr. Woodruff also asked that the Directors consider adding an item to closed session to discuss a consultant report that could lead to litigation. It was moved, seconded and approved to add the item to closed session. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-S) A. Blake Anderson provided a review of the SAWPA Agreement for Desalter Brine Capacity Rights that is on tonight's Board Agenda. B. Mr. Anderson also discussed establishing a Community Advisory Committee for Odor Control Planning. The makeup of the committee was discussed. Director Silver suggested that the committee include a fifth member appointed by the Supervisor as a member at large representing the County, which was agreed to. (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY A. The supplemental agenda item regarding adopting a policy for interim acceptance and treatment of dry weather urban run-off Flows was discussed. The Steering Committee recommended that the Board adopt the thirteen guiding principles as an interim policy and that the principles be the basis for a formal policy that will be presented to the Directors at a future meeting Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 December 15, 1999 (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND/OR STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS There will be a special Steering Committee meeting on January 12, 2000 at 4 p.m. re the General Manager's position. The next regular Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 26, 2000 at 5 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 26 at 7 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 6:25 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Section 54954.2(b), to discuss possible litigation. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The minutes of the Joint Board will report on the actions when they are approved. At 6:55 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Submitted b/' J an Tappan i,yeering Committee Secretary NMp GYYpvtleKIEE COMW/1EE1WhcYPl}M=M... STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Supplemental Agenda for the /Steering �Committee Meeting of Orange County Sanitation District to be held on 1991, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the Districts' offices on /D 19f IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this l4 day of Penny KA6, Woretary Board of Directors Orange County Sanitation District HAWP.DTAIADMINX8SWORMS AGENDA CERTIFICATION-SUPPLEMENTAL.DOC SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA 'STEERING COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CA 92708 REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, December 15, 1999—5 P.M. In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Offices not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not fisted on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Board for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item, or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting data 9. Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any: a. Authorizing consideration of Item 9(a-b) listed below which arose subsequent to the posting of the agenda and which requires action at this time pursuant to authority of Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(2). b. 1. Verbal report of Staff 2. Adopt a policy for interim acceptance into the District's treatment plants of dry weather urban run-off. H:\wp.dtalagen IMSTEERING COMMTTEE)99\Dw99N21599 Supplemental agenda.dw r STEERING COMMITTEE �"'°ae T°M°`°" IZI15/99 IZI15/99 AGENDA REPORT Iran Number IMMMMW gib) zsm) Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Blake P. Anderson, Assistant General Manager Originator: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services SUBJECT: ADOPT A POLICY FOR INTERIM ACCEPTANCE OF DRY WEATHER URBAN RUNOFF GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Adopt a policy for interim acceptance into the District's treatment plants of dry weather urban runoff SUMMARY The District has received a request from the Irvine Ranch Water District to divert dry weather urban runoff from a housing development project proposed by the Irvine Company to the OCSD's wastewater treatment facilities. Our direct experience with this practice is limited. We have only short term operating experience with dry weather urban runoff diversion facilities now operating in the Dunes area of Newport Bay and at four pump stations that normally discharge into the Talbert Channel system located within the City of Huntington Beach. Absent a long-term policy to which we can look for advice on haw to handle the request, staff recommends the Board adopt a policy for interim acceptance of dry weather urban runoff. Staff plans to evaluate any requests from developers seeking to divert dry weather urban runoff into the District's treatment facilities pursuant to that policy direction from the Board. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. X Not applicable(information item) N:M9.mW��V 4�OaM�Re 1M2 W AqM N�18d.4maC.Ox R. Page 1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Storm water and dry weather urban runoff are now regarded as among the largest sources of pollution to the coastal waters of the United States. In southern Califomia, advances in sewage treatment have greatly reduced the emissions of contaminants from sewage treatment plant and industrial discharges into the ocean. As a result, emissions from dry and wet weather urban runoff now constitute a much larger portion of the pollutant inputs to coastal waters. Of greatest concern are water quality impairments related to human health (safety of swimming and seafood consumption) and ecosystem health (presence of a natural balance of species). Recent regulatory developments have focussed greater attention on the issue of urban runoff. Municipalities, industries, and development projects are now required to comply with NPDES storm water permits that require implementation of best management practices for wet weather discharges to receiving waters. Similarly, dry weather urban runoff has come under closer scrutiny, particularly in coastal areas throughout California, where summertime runoff flowing through storm drains onto the beach has been linked to high bacterial counts and beach closures. The Huntington Beach closures of this summer are just one example of this phenomenon. Just in the past month, the District has received inquiries from two developers, the Irvine Company (Newport Coast) and Hearthside Homes (Bolsa Chica), proposing to divert dry weather runoff from their developments into the Districts system. In both of these cases, there are obvious public health and environmental benefits to intercepting and treating the runoff from these developed areas. For example, Los Trancos Canyon, the site of the Irvine Company development, drains to Crystal Cove State Beach, an area that has been posted by the Health Department with signs warning against swimming in runoff-affected waters. Diverting runoff from the beach to the sewer system will provide public health benefits to swimmers and other recreational users. Similarly, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has designated this stretch of coastline as an ASBS—area of special biological significance. Diverting runoff that may be carrying pesticides, fertilizers, and other chemicals, away from this area will protect and enhance water quality. At Huntington Beach this summer, high bacteria levels on the beach returned to normal within days following the diversion to the District's sewer system of several storm drain pump stations that had been discharging to Talbert Channel. The beaches were subsequently reopened and have remained so ever since. The public policy advantages for the District to accept dry weather urban runoff must be balanced with the need to maintain the long-term reliability of the sanitary sewer and wastewater treatment facilities owned and operated by the NMq.OM1\ppM\Bv,J•pe,W flgat\IBABNN/yMWXpwY\IABAT]:-0.MC A,,,,e eaow Page 2 w District. Staff is particularly concerned with winter hydraulic demands on our system. Wintertime peak flows can quickly overwhelm the hydraulic capacity of our facilities and may cause raw sewage spills. Because of this potential problem and the drastic consequences to the environment, it is staffs position that OCSD should not accept winter storm flows. This would include"first flush" storm water runoff that carries the accumulated buildup of debris, bacteria, and chemicals, from streets, rooftops, parking lots, and industrial sites. While sewering this"first flush' has obvious advantages, the potential risk of a sudden rain event quickly overwhelming the capacity of a sewer line and creating an even greater environmental problem is unacceptable. Staff proposes the Board consider a policy for interim acceptance of dry weather urban runoff based on the following principles: 1. The proposed diversion solves a public health or environmental problem associated with the runoff discharge that cannot be otherwise addressed economically or practically. 2. The District will accept dry weather flows only during the period April 15 through October 15. The District will not accept wet weather runoff into the system. 3. The quality and quantity of the discharge must not be harmful to the District's facilities, compliance with our ocean discharge permit or other regulatory requirements, or water reuse practices. 4. The OCSD will have sole discretionary authority to stop the discharge without prior notice. 5. The design of the diversion structures must meet the requirements established by the OCSD and meet the approval of OCSD prior to making the connection and commencing operation. 6. Until a permanent policy is in place, OCSD is not prepared to commit to a long-term agreement with any party for acceptance of dry weather urban runoff. In the interim, until the Board adopts a permanent policy, staff will issue temporary special discharge permits for up to one-year duration, subject to terms and conditions established by OCSD. The District's Board of Directors will consider renewal of a permit following the first year of upon the recommendation of the General Manager. 7. The District prefers that the number of diversion connections from a project to the sewer system be kept to a minimum. A pumped diversion is the preferred alternative method of discharge to prevent debris from entering the District's system. 8. The project proponent must install appropriate filters or other control technology acceptable to the District to remove grease and oil or other objectionable substances. 9. During the term of the permit, in accordance with OCSD Ordinance Nos. 10 and 11, the District will charge an operation and maintenance fee of approximately $400 per million gallons of diverted runoff. The District will also H:Mp.EhYgmW" MNp Repm IMR NAgm ReMftll B3Lem]SE.Gc ReneE-. a Page 3 V charge a capital facilities charge of about $600 per million gallons of diverted runoff. 10.The District will consider reducing the capital facilities charge if the project proponent incorporates water conservation measures (above and beyond minimum code requirements) that will reduce sewage flows from the development to offset the volume of runoff diverted to the sewer system. 11.The District will require the implementation of best management practices and pollution prevention strategies to minimize or eliminate dry weather runoff from the project. At a minimum, landscaping, lawns, and common areas must be designed to minimize or eliminate dry weather runoff and minimize or eliminate the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals on common areas and lawns. 12.The District reserves the right to inspect, monitor, or otherwise gain access to the diversion structure(s)for the purpose of verifying compliance with the District's permit requirements. 13.Sewer connections must be made through a local sewering agency and operation and maintenance of any facilities shall be the responsibility of the project proponent or local sewering agency. Staff believes the principles outlined above provide a policy basis for staff review of runoff diversion requests during the next 12 months and that protects the District's investment in its capital facilities. During that period, staff will be developing a permanent policy and ordinance for handling dry weather runoff diversions to the District's system. ALTERNATIVES N/A. CEQA FINDINGS N/A. ATTACHMENTS October 29, 1999 Letter from Assemblyman Scott Baugh November 30, 1999 Letter to Hearthside Homes December 2, 1999 Reply to Assemblyman Baugh's Letter December 9, 1999 Letter to Irvine Ranch Water District HM ft. genEal PpmMe Rry %IM&n ApaMe Rey¢h%IID 25E.tlx R. gladdB Page 4 SACIIAMENTO OFRCE O6INCT OpFlCE STATE CAPITOL iyS{$Qm�[ltt 19m2 BFICH aLVD.,gUnE t80 P.O.BOi(Wp91B �T &A V WU NOTON SEACK CA >(µ7 � EN1O.CAW1&0081 (Clttliforni$ ' 1P�isltt#urE pulels.eee (616)a1920X7 FAx(71q 91 15 PAX(919)a1MM t r/4q, • ","� :(�k14/NAL Yo G({f1auC1 SCOT't R. BAUGH c oAes To t ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN LEADER MCr^0T1fIL1L pN a /4/.A1e&" J DCdQMt.E`( October 29, 1999 �f�Ctl M•Pli Don McIntyre, General Manager 9 Tµ lgFAu/-T Orange County Sanitation District Oa4�L E **FIE 610.4n P.O. Box 8127 , P li X Fountain Valley, California 92728 C Dear Mr. McIntyre: Thank you once again for the participation of Bob Ghirelll and Blake Anderson in the forum that I hosted on October 7, 1999. The presentation and technical assistance they offered went above and beyond what I had anticipated, but circumstances were such that their expert testimony became an integral part of the educational forum. Both gentleman showed the utmost professionalism, and the forum would not have been as informative without their full participation. But they say that no good dead goes unpunished. The forum,which centered in large part around the issue of the impact of stormwater/urban runoff on beach closures and public health, also addressed the critical question:What do we do next? Some of the suggestions, comments and questions turned to the question of diversion. That is, specifically,diverting dry weather stormwater flows to the OCSD treatment works. The immediate question was: "Can the treatment system handle dry weather flows?" According to Mr.Ghirelli and Mr. Blake, diversion was actually used to evaluate the impact that strategy would have on bacterial counts. However, I had the distinct impression that It was done on a limited basis and for a limited time. So. In order to gather information with the ultimate intent of crafting legislation designed to develop solutions to this critical issue, I am formally requesting answers to the following questions: 1.What Impact would result from using the treatment system for dry weather diversions for stormwater drains in the OCSD service area? Would the treatment works andlor the collection and distribution system need to be expanded? What additional capital costs would be incurred from a dry weather flow diversion strategy? What additional operating costs would result from such a diversion strategy? What funding strategies could be employed, including the funding plan to pay for the limited diversion this past summer, and the potential use of state funds in the future(either new or existing funds,or speculative funds, including water bond funding)? 2.What similar type of cost analysis results from evaluating diversion as a year-round'(wet and dry weather flow)strategy? Some members in attendance pointed out that California had been "lucky"that it had not generally combined its stormwater and sewerage systems into a single system. They compared the"West Coast experience"to the'East Coast problems'with respect to the potential for system overload during wet weather flows. The sum of the comments was that a diversion strategy presents its own unique set of"issues.' It will be important for policy-makers to understand those issues and whatever information you SERVING THE Coh uvr es5 HL ynvaT BEACH,C1 REW,SEAL BEACH,LOS AL MS,LA AILMA.ROSS ..FOUWAIN VALLEY PMLPG.Rery1.'IeE PA l Don McIntyre Page 2 could provide my office on those issues would be greatly appreciated. I recognize that this request is somewhat extensive. However, I also understand that the OCSD is in the midst,or has recently concluded, its 20-year master plan update,and I am hopeful generating this Information will not constitute a great burden on the district. Whatever information can be provided in a 30-day fimeframe would be greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions about this request,please contact Peter Crandall of my staff at 916-319-2067. Thank you again for your assistance. Sincerely, Assembly Repu n Leatler ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT v November 30, 1999 Phone: Ed Mountford 0141 962-2411 Sr. Vice President Hearthside Homes, Inc. m°eo°ew 8127 6 Executive Circle, Suite 250 Fa""°a'"W., 9272B-6127 Irvine, CA 92614 109A4 Hhs Avanua Awnun SUBJECT: Dry Weather Runoff from the Warner Mesa Project Fountain V.IIe,C This letter is in response to your letter dated November 16, 1999 regarding the proposed diversion of dry weather runoff from the Warner Mesa Project Me100e, into the Orange County Sanitation District (District) sanitary sewer system. "Bend°° The District is committed to our mission of protecting the public health and environment, including participation in watershed management issues such 01i.. aft urban runoff. Menaim eeana Park The District has reviewed the information in your letter, and offers the Gyp. following response: F Uu wm wile, Raxmn °e TMn 1. Hearthside has proposed five points of diversion with five control valves. Hunungron Beech evina The District prefers that the number of diversion connections be kept to a B MB°a minimum. The District will need to verify that the valve is closed and ie pmm. Loa AJ try locked prior to any rain events to prevent wet weather flow from entering N°W0°no-.�ea the sanitary sewer. The connection point(s)will need to provide for a.aenaa sampling, installation of a flow monitor, a lockable valve operator, and a Sane Ane Seel eeacn grate or screen to prevent debris from entering the sanitary sewer. A "w" pumped diversion is preferred to guarantee that no troublesome debris rusdn Wra pert would get into the District's system. Ya Lode .Pact .t 0,.... 2. The District agrees that Fossil Filters, or another control technology may be required to remove grease and oil. What type of ongoing maintenance role°, Olnrl.. is required for the filters, and who will be responsible? (bsro Alone "1i°°nr°R 3. The District will accept dry weather flows only. The District will not accept Water viettlets wet weather runoff into the sanitary sewer system, including the "first 1r ine Rance flush". TO Prona the pudic HeaN,end Me Environment throu°n Excellence in Weawe .rer 5Ystems- Ed MountfordV Page 2 November30, 1999 4. Initial approval of the diversion will be for a 12-month period. The District's Board of Directors will consider renewal following the first year of diversion to determine whether a long tens policy of diverting dry weather flow is appropriate. 5. During the first year,the District will charge an O&M cost of about $400 per million gallons of diverted runoff. The District may also charge a capital facilities charge of about $600 per million gallons. 6. The District will consider waiving the capital charges if the development incorporates water conservation measures (above and beyond minimum code requirements)that will reduce sewage flows from the development to offset the estimated 15,000 gallons per day of dry weather runoff. For example, the developer could provide horizontal axis washing machines, low flow sink aerators, water saving water heaters, etc. 7. The District will require that landscaping and grading of common areas and lawns be designed to minimize or eliminate dry weather runoff. The development will also be required to minimize or eliminate the use of potentially toxic fertilizers and pesticides on common areas and lawns. 8. The District would have, at its sole discretion, the ability to discontinue any diversion. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Herberg in the Engineering Dep ent at (714) 593-7310. David A. Ludwin, P.E. Director of Engineering DAL:JDH:jo H:\wp.dblengV 20NeroergV eaMslderenof(response.doe c: B. Anderson R. Ghirelli N. Amontes D. Webb, City of Huntington Beach ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT v December 2, 1999 Ot4)M-2411 Honorable Scott R. Baugh m.maa W&� Assembly Republican Leader as ease127 California State Assembly rou,rcee,vemy.rn 16052 Beach Blvd., Suite 160 9272"127 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 at t at4r.ae 1oa44ecawre'°'e SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Diversions FpmWT vela,.r! 92]0a-]ma This letter is a partial response to your October 29. 1999 letter that requested information regarding the Orange County Sanitation District's(District) ability to M.tier manage urban runoff within our service area. As part of our mission to protect public saeasias health and the environment, the District is committed to participating in watershed v management solutions to the problem of urban runoff and beach closures. ep« The District would like to thank you for your interest in urban runoff water quality issues, particularly as they affect the safety of our local beaches. The District is in the &" process of developing a d weather urban runoff nuisance flow diversion policy. verrw P P g dry-weather ( ) P cY 0n However, diverting urban runoff to the sanitary sewer system is only a partial solution G01Ai8i vauay to this problem. Diversions are one element of a broader range of pollution r,.roFuk o prevention approaches involving the development, implementation, and enforcement Ha &etch fta� of best management practices aimed at reducing the amount of bacteria, viruses. pesticides, metals, and other toxic materials in urban runoff. �.vane Loa AW.W. In the meantime, because of our recent experience in Huntington Beach and our NeNQgS eeaw support the efforts of the county desire to su coun and cities in the watershed, the District is Dunes PP R'a�a developing a formal nuisance flow permitting polity to accommodate this need in the Santa Aaa set eaeach future. In developing this policy, there are several issues that the District must Beach srarxw consider to ensure we continually live up to our mission of protecting public health r49"0 and the environment. For instance, the District has an ocean discharge permit issued y jointly by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Regional Water Oualily Control Board. Maintaining compliance with the permit's discharge limits is one of the aunty o1 Oran District's highest priorities. The permit has very strict limitations (in some cases stricter than drinking water standards)that the District's treated effluent must meet eM., D1 m before it is discharged to the ocean. Cea,a Meaa Mkhm My Because the District's sewage treatment plants utilize a biological treatment process, was., otmtata toxics are not completely removed from the treated waste stream. Instead, the District depends on a highly effective industrial waste control program that limits the I n.Ranh amount of toxic compounds that industries are allowed to discharge into the District's sewage system. Urban runoff is known to contain toxic residential pesticides and heavy metals that could put the District's compliance with its permit in jeopardy. As a result, the District will need to look at inventive ways to ensure that dry- weather nuisance flows do not jeopardize compliance with our discharge permit. -To Protect toe Podic Wakh and d,e Emronment m Lgh Eaceaence n Wastewater Systems' Honorable Scott R. Baugh Page 2 of 3 December 2, 1999 The District is beginning to accept dry-weather nuisance flows as evidenced by the recent diversion of several storm drain pump stations owned by the City of Huntington Beach. We are working with the Orange County Health Care Agency and Public Facilities and Resources Department to identify priority storm drain "hot spots"that should be considered for diversion into the sewer system for treatment and ocean disposal. At this point, we have not decided on a fee structure nor water quality discharge requirements for these diversions. Capacity impacts were another topic you referenced in your letter. As you have noted, the District adopted a new 20-year Strategic Plan on October 27, 1999. While the Strategic Plan is a comprehensive planning document, it did not study collection and treatment of dry-weather or wet-weather urban runoff. The Strategic Plan studies did, however, quantify the existing capacity and future requirements for the District's sewers and treatment facilities. Generally, the District's sewers have unused capacity during the dry-weather season. This extra capacity is designed for handling peak wet-weather flows, which are more than twice as high as the average dry-weather sewage flow. In many cases, this extra capacity could be used for conveying dry-weather urban runoff to the District's treatment facilities. Similarty, the treatment plants have unused capacity during dry- weather flows, but to a lesser degree than the sewer pipelines. On the other hand, collection and treatment of peak wet-weather urban runoff would most likely overwhelm the District's facilities. In recent years, municipalities in the United States have moved away from combining storm sewers and sanitary sewers in response to EPA requirements to eliminate wet-weather sewage spills, which are also a cause of beach closures. In fact, the District is working cooperatively with the 23 cities in its service area to fund projects that minimize the inflow of storm water into the sewer system during wet-weather. Finding permanent, year-round solutions to the urban runoff problem would be a better approach than creating a combined sewer system and the problems associated with its operation. Due to the magnitude and complexity of this issue,we are unable to provide you with a definitive estimate of the cost to divert nuisance flows to the sewer system. However, we can calculate a rough-estimate cost based on a small-scale project the District is presently constructing to divert nuisance flows entering Upper Newport Bay. The preliminary estimate of the cost to construct a small diversion from a storm drain to the District's sewer is roughly$100,000. Assuming that there are about 20 similar diversions to be made throughout the Districts service area, the one time cost to divert flows would be about $2,000,000. In addition, the District's on-going capital and operational costs for collecting and treating the flow would be roughly$1,000,000 per year. Honorable Scott R. Baugh Page 3 of 3 December 2, 1999 Additional studies to identify diversion points, quantify nuisance flows to be diverted, and verify the available sewer capacity at the point of diversion will be required to adequately address the impacts of these diversions on the District's system. For example, treating all the urban runoff in the District's service area would include diverting the flows of the San Gabriel and Santa Ana Rivers along with smaller drains located in the District's service area. These large flows could not be accommodated by the District's system, even during dry-weather. The District is working with the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach to develop more definitive cost estimates and will provide those to you within 60 days. Again, thank you for your continuing interest in this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with you and your staff on this important issue in Orange County. Please call me at 714-593-7100 or Bob Ghirelli, the District's Director of Technical Services, at 714-593-7400, if we may be of further assistance. / ?/�/� c N�AIII Donald F. MMclnyre General Manager DFMUHIDEH:mcm CAWMPLSC "WHLETIER.= c: Jim Silva, Supervisor, County of Orange David P. Garofalo, Mayor, City of Huntington Beach Peter Green, Councilman, City of Huntington Beach Ray Silver, City Administrator, City of Huntington Beach Bob Beardsley, Public Works Director, City of Huntington Beach Ken Smith, Deputy Director, County of Orange, PRFD Larry Honeyboume, Orange County Health Care Agency ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT v Phone: December 9, 1999 914)e62-2411 'P.Q Boa 8127 Pouiv ne W%Y..M 927 8127 Mr. Greg Heiertz Maee.unma: Director of Engineering 108°4®1B� Irvine Ranch Water District Founteln Vellaµ M 9270 7016 15600 Sand Canyon Avenue Irvine, CA 92718 SUBJECT: Diversion of Dry Weather Urban Runoff to the Orange County Nam, Sanitation District Treatment Plant Age"des 0 1 am pleased to respond to your recent request regarding the diversion of dry Md.. weather urban runoff to the OCSD's Wastewater Treatment Facilities. You have an.nem inquired about the feasibility of our accepting dry weather runoff from the Los are. Trans and Muddy Canyon drainage areas of the Newport Coast. I understand Beene that this proposal is for a drainage area consisting of approximately 1500 dwelling Fe. w 8 ,, units, 1100 resort units, portions of golf courses and a recreation center with a wnerton stable. I further understand that the anticipated dry weather flow rate of the sBguxed.e each diversion will be 150 gallons per minute and that the proposal is for only the d Hanongwn Imne 9 P P P Y dry lrnne weather portion of the year(April 15 to October 15). Le Wbra La.a.e Our direct experience with this practice is limited. Dry weather urban runoff N.nvan eseh diversion facilities are now operating in the Dunes Area of Newport Bay and at four "9 Pende storm water pump stations that normally discharge into the Talbert Channel system Senta an. located within the City of Huntington Beach. We have no long term operating sa.i Beach experience with this practice. As a result, our Board of Directors has not et smmm� xP P Y mane formulated a long term standing policy to which we can look for advice on how to uga Pe « handle your request. They do intend to formulate such a policy next year, after Yo be unda reviewingour ongoing experience with this practice. Absent a long-term policy,9 9 � P 9 P cy,we :a.ncv ar on.ne. intend to bring the matter to the Board of Directors next week as described more fully below. anieary Oiwl.ta cast. Mean There are obvious public policy advantages to intercepting and treating runoff from Mldwey Cry developed areas that would otherwise impact public health and the environment waaar Qrscdc.s On the other hand, if such a practice threatens the long-term reliability of the sanitary wastewater treatment facilities to which they are diverted, then there is an Irvin° Rench To Prorett Me Pudic He.hh and Me&Mm eeeant M eugh Excellence in weuewetar 9rytems- Mr. Greg Heiertz Page 2 ' December 9, 1999 obvious conflict of purposes that must be resolved in some way. We have found that every proposal similar to this one does imply a considerable risk to regional wastewater treatment facilities unless the practice is operated under highly restrictive terms and conditions. We are particularly concerned with winter hydraulic demands on our system. Storms in the wet season increase demands on our wastewater treatment capacity. We experience wintertime peak flows that are as much as 2.1 times greater than average dry weather flows. This quickly overwhelms the hydraulic capacity of our facilities and could cause overflows of sanitary sewage into the ocean. Because of this potential problem and the drastic consequences to the environment, OCSD will not accept storm flows. We are actively working to exclude all storm water-related flows to our system including inflow and infiltration by an aggressive capital program to repair leaking sewers and manholes. We prohibit the intentional discharge of storm water of any kind to our facilities for the same reason. This would include "first flush" storm water. I understand that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed this for the Newport Coast First flush storm water carries with it too much hydraulic risk to our facilities. At this point, I cannot conceive of a circumstance that would justify accepting first flush flow in light of the risks that such a practice would imply. While our Board of Directors has yet to develop a unified long term policy on the acceptance of dry weather urban runoff into the OCSD system, I believe that they will ultimately insist that every proposal must first demonstrate an actual public health or environmental problem that can not be otherwise reasonably solved by another practice. From what has been related informally to us by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Newport Coast projects seem to meet this criterion. We are concerned that the practice of diverting dry weather urban flows into our system does not unreasonably proliferate to the point that it can no longer be managed. We are committed to maintaining our ability to monitor all future diversions so that we can preclude the entry of storm water whenever it rains. For this reason, I believe that our Board's long-term policy will be highly selective and that only those projects that are justified by a real need will be approved for connection and operation. In response to your inquiry, 1 am referring this matter to our Board of Directors, which meets on the evening of December 15, with a recommendation that it conditionally approve your issuance of a permit to The Irvine Company for the discharge of dry weather urban runoff from the Muddy Creek and Trancos Canyon drainage areas for the period of April 15 through October 15. The precise terns and conditions of such a permit will have to meet the approval of OCSD prior to The Irvine Company making the connection and commencing operation. Mr. Greg Heiertz Page 3 December 9, 1999 1 hope that this letter has served to clarify our position on this matter. Please contact Blake Anderson or me if you have any questions Donald F. McIntyre General Manager DFM:jt H IMD nT p 4bdq xv rlewa,d¢ c: Sat Tamaribuchi, The Irvine Company Teresa Henry, Coastal Commission Jan Debay, Chair, OCSD Board of Directors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954.2, 1 hereby certify that the Notice and the Agenda for the Steering Committee meeting held on Wednesday, December 15, 1999, was duly posted for public inspection in the main lobby of the District's offices on Wednesday, December 8, 1999. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of December, 1999. i Penny Kyle, Secret ' of t Board of Directors of Orange County Sa ati istrict Posted: 1999, 3 : V p.m. By: Signature 11 w doc%SmWr<omm"ting.fm D..,.., ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD SECRETARY (2) phi 17141962-2411 PO.Bax6127 Fountain Valley CA 92728.8127 NOTICE OF MEETING atAet.am.as: 10044 Ellis Avenue Fanoan Vallee CA STEERING COMMITTEE 9270E-7010 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Walter Ryanclas 0 WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999 - 5 P.M. Ditias Anaheim Been.Park: DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE cyPreas 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Fountain ✓ells, Fullerton FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Garden Grove Huntington Beech Irvine Le Habr. La Palma Los rt Beach A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of NeL. netan 9 9 9 orange Orange County Sanitation District, will be held at the above location, date Placenta see.Ane and time. Seal Beach Scan e, Tustn Ylla Park Yorbe Linda County of Orange 9sn1tar, Distrltta onste Mesa Midway Cry Water Districts Irvine Ranch 'To Protect the Public Health and he Enmr.nment through Excellence in Wasrawater Systems" STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS Wednesday, December 15', 1999 Wednesday, January 26, 2000 Wednesday, February 23, 2000 Wednesday, March 22, 2000 Wednesday, April 26, 2000 Wednesday, May 24, 2000 Wednesday, June 28, 2000 Wednesday, July 26, 2000 Wednesday, August 23, 2000 Wednesday, September 27, 2000 Wednesday, October 25, 2000 Wednesday, November 15, 2000' Wednesday, December 20, 2000' "Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday. STEERING COMMITTEE (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: December 15, 1999 Meeting Time: 5 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Committee Members Jan Debay, Chair of the Board ............................ John J. Collins, Past Joint Chairman .................... Peer A. Swan, Vice Chair................................... Norm Eckenrode, Chair, PDC Committee .............. Pat McGuigan, Chair, OMTS Committee ............... _ Tom Saltarelli, Chair, FAHR Committee ................_ Jim Silva, Supervisor ........................................_ Others Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel .................... Staff Present Donald F. McIntyre, General Manager...................... Blake P. Anderson, Asst. General Manager.............. Jean Tappan, Secretary........................................... _ c: Lenora Crane AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 15, 1999 AT 5 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda has been posted in the main lobby of the District's Administrative Office not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Steering Committee for discussion andror action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b) as an emergency item or that there is a need to take immediate action which need came to the attention of the District subsequent to the posting of the agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM, IF NECESSARY (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS All persons wishing to address the Steering Committee on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approve draft minutes of the November 17, 1999 Steering Committee meeting. a -2- December 15, 1999 Agenda (5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER A. Introduction of Vince Murdico, Management Action Programs (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B) A. Review of SAWPA Agreement for Desalter Brine Capacity Rights on Board Agenda (Blake Anderson) B. Establishment of Community Advisory Committee for Odor Control Planning (Blake Anderson) (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There are no January agenda items for review bemuse the working committees are not scheduled to meet next month. (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (12) FUTURE MEETING DATES There will be a special Steering Committee Meeting on Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 5 p.m. to interview an internal candidate for the General Manager's position. The next regular Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m., Wednesday, January 26, 2000. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m., Wednesday, January 26, 2000. -3- December 15, 1999 Agenda (13) CLOSED SESSION During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Steering Committee, the Chair may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending real estate negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted. Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Directors during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Board on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. A. Convene in closed session, if necessary B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT jt H 1WP.MANG1aDAM EERING CGMMmEEMhDGC=121M AGENDA Wim NMCE AND RIXL CALL WEEr.WC Notice to Committee Members: For any questions an the agenda or to place hems on the agenda,Committee members should contact the Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days In advance of the Committee meeting. Committee Chair: Jan Debay (949)644-3004(Newport Beach City Hall) Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)593-7101 (714)962-0356(Fax) E-mail: Ita DDan*OCsd.COm DRAFT MATES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, November 17, 1999 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, November 17, 1999 at 4 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: OTHERS PRESENT: Jan Debay, Chair of the Board Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Peer Swan, Vice Chair Ryal Wheeler Pat McGuigan, Chairman, OMTS Committee Norm Eckenrode, Chairman, PDC Committee Tom Saltarelli, Chairman, FAHR Committee STAFF PRESENT: John Collins, Past Chairman of the Board Don McIntyre, General Manager Blake Anderson, Asst. General Manager Directors Absent: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Jim Silva, County Supervisor Greg Mathews, Asst. to the General Manager Mike Peterman, Director of Human Resources Gary Streed, Director of Finance Michelle Tuchman, Director of Communications (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) RECEIVE FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the October 27, 1999 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 November 17, 1999 (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR The Committee Chair did not make a report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager asked Blake Anderson and Tom Woodruff to update the members on the recent ruling re the Orange County bankruptcy. The District should receive about 95 cents back for every dollar invested in the pool, and the remaining funds should be available in about four weeks. Blake Anderson mentioned that there may be a legislative bill introduced by Slate Senator Pulanco on behalf of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District that would prevent counties from banning ordinances on biosolids land applications. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff reported that in the Directors Board meeting folders is a memo with additional information on the bankruptcy. He also discussed several items that are on the Board's agenda for closed session, as well as recently submitted construction claims. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B) A. Recommend adopting a Financial Plan to consolidate bookkeeping and rate- setting practices for the District as follows: 1. Combine the assets and liabilities for the separate Revenue Areas into one Revenue Area. 2. Adopt one Financial Plan. 3. Adopt one user fee rate for Revenue Areas 1-13. 4. Continue to fund Revenue Area 14 by contract with the Irvine Ranch Water District. The rate consolidation issue was discussed at length. The main concern was how to address the area formerly known as Revenue Area 7, which is a very old system and has been identified as needing extensive repair/rehabilitation. IRWD has expressed an interest in taking over these lines by changing its boundary for sewering to include this section of Irvine/Tustin, which is already receives water service from IRWD. The portion in Santa Ana would be included within Santa Ana's revenue area. The impacts of removing this area from the District service area on the overall rates in the other revenue areas will be researched and presented to the Steering Committee at the December Steering Committee meeting. The issue of of RA 7 reserves would also have to be considered, as well as considering rate consolidation for all revenue areas except 7 and 14. B. The agenda items scheduled to be presented to the working committees at their December meetings were reviewed with no changes. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 November 17, 1999 (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There was no other business discussed. (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND/OR STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 15, 1999 at 5 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 15, 1999 at 7 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 5:25 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6, to discuss the issue of succession planning. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. The minutes of the Joint Board will report on the actions when they are approved. At 5:55 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 5:55 p.m. Submitted by: Jean Tappan Steering Committee Secretary M.Ivp.dbbpeMe ER COMMR EElpG 2b 1111W SC Mrnuba.� BOARD OF DIRECTORS Meeeng Date To Bd.of Dir. 1211S/99 12/15/99 AGENDA REPORT r� Number Item Numbe Via. Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Blake Anderson, Assistant General Manager Originator: Greg Mathews, Assistant to the General Manager SUBJECT: SAWPA AGREEMENT FOR DESALTER BRINE CAPACITY RIGHTS GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Approve an agreement with the Santa Ana Regional Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) allowing the purchase of two (2) million gallons per day of Treatment and Disposal Capacity rights at OCSD to be used for desalter brine discharge. Total amount due to OCSD based on this agreement is $4,493,642.20. SUMMARY Since 1972, the District has provided treatment and disposal services for some "non-reclaimable" wastewater from the Santa Ana Watershed Protection Agency (SAWPA). After 24 years, the Agreement was modified in 1996. Among the significant changes was the ability to purchase capacity in one million gallon per day (MGD) increments of average flow compared to five MGD of peak flow capacity. Furthermore, payment for plant operations and maintenance would be based upon sewage quantity and strength (vs. quantity only per the original agreement). Based on the intent of the 1996 agreement, in April of 1999 the Board approved a recommendation to negotiate a purchase price of two million gallons capacity for SAWPA-generated desalter brine. During those negotiations, it was agreed by the agencies' staff that the purchase price should be based on expected flow and estimated BOD and Suspended Solids (SS) strength for brine waste. To develop the appropriate BOD and SS concentration estimates, testing was done at the Arlington Desalter. The testing outcomes, in conjunction with flows, resulted in a cost formula shown in Paragraph F., Section 1 of the attached agreement. The formula results in a cost of $2,626,007.60 for one million gallons per day of brine capacity. Note this cost/MGD reflects a reduced price compared to "full-strength" flows because brine waste discharge has significantly lower concentrations of BOD and SS than found in typical industrial or commercial wastewater. Although the total cost of 2 MGD of brine capacity is calculated at $5,252,015.20, SAWPA will receive a credit, calculated at $758,373, from a prior capacity purchase that has gone unused. The credit results in a total agreement cost of$4,493,642.20. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY C MMF AHRSAMA12-15tlm R—. ar Page 1 The total agreement cost of$4.493,642.20 will be paid in full by August 1, 2000 with half paid within 30 days of the agreement's execution. BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Not applicable. ALTERNATIVES No equitable cost-effective alternatives available. CEOA FINDINGS Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. SAWPA/OCSD Agreement for Purchase Price of Brine Capacity Rights GM:gm QAI MN AHR SAWPA 12-15.. Rm avow Page i AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE PURCHASE PRICE FOR, AND THE PURCHASE OF, A 2.0 MGD WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL CAPACITY RIGHT FOR DESALTER BRINE THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into, to be effective this day of , 1999, by and between: ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, a public agency, hereinafter referred to as "OCSD"; AND SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY, a joint powers public agency, hereinafter referred to as "SAWPA". OCSD and SAWPA are sometimes collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". RECITALS A. Pursuant to that certain Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement dated July 24, 1996, between the Parties (the "Agreement"), SAWPA possesses an ultimate Treatment and Disposal Right of 30 MGD (as those terms are defined in the Agreement), pursuant to, and in accordance with, the terms and conditions specified therein; and B. Pursuant to the Agreement, SAWPA has exercised its purchase rights and acquired and presently owns 9 MGD of capacity defined as a Treatment and Disposal Right; and C. SAWPA is presently implementing two groundwater desalting projects, commonly known as the "Chino Desalter" and the "Temescal Desalter", TLW:smm:121119911124791112463 1 which will produce, as a by-product of operation, brine which is proposed to be treated and disposed of under the terms of this Agreement; and D. OCSD has expressed a desire to promote, and participate in, groundwater reclamation in SAWPA's Santa Ana River Interceptor("SARI") Service Area. In furtherance of that desire, OCSD has offered to establish a modified Treatment and Disposal Right Charge for wastewater treatment and disposal capacity for desalter brine, as an incentive to the implementation of the above-described desalter projects; and E. SAWPA has expressed a desire to purchase an initial increment of wastewater Treatment and Disposal Right capacity of 2.0 MGD for desalter brine; and F. OCSD has adopted a Capital Facilities Capacity Charge ("CFCC") payable by all dischargers into the District's system. NOW,THEREFORE, the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows: Section 1: Purchase Price for Brine Capacity. OCSD and SAWPA hereby acknowledge and agree that SAWPA may, by this Agreement and hereafter, purchase Treatment and Disposal Rights for the disposal of brine generated by groundwater reclamation projects within SAWPA's SARI Service Area, at a price established by the following formula, or as hereafter amended due to adopted adjustments of the District's Capital Facilities Capacity Charge: For 1 MGD Assumptions Unit of Measure One-Time Rate Brine Capactv Flow = 1,000,000 Per gallonstday $ 2.39/gpd $2,389,886.55 BOD = 20 mg/L Per pound/day $680.35/#/day $ 113,481.97 SS = 18 mg/L Per pound/day $816.94/#/day $ 122,639.11 $2,626,007.63 m W�1211M'1112n9/ii24es 2 Application of the foregoing formula generates the purchase price of $2,626,007.63 per each million gallons of capacity. Section 2: Purchase and Sale of Increment of Capacity. Subject to all of the terms and conditions of the Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement dated July 24, 1996, except as otherwise expressly provided for in Section 1 herein, OCSD hereby sells, and SAWPA hereby purchases, 2.0 MGD Treatment and Disposal Right, to be utilized solely for the disposal of brine generated by the Chino Desalter, the Temescal Desalter, and other groundwater reclamation projects within SAWPA's SARI Service Area. Section 3: Purchase Price. The purchase price of the Treatment and Disposal Right conveyed hereunder shall be $4.493,642.20 ($5,252,015.20 minus$758,373.00 [credit from prior capacity purchase]), based upon the formula set forth in Section 1 above. One-half of this purchase price ($2,246,821.10) shall be payable in full within thirty(30)days of execution of this Agreement, with the balance due on or before August 1, 2000. Section 4: Applicability of 1996 Agreement. OCSD and SAWPA acknowledge and agree that solely because of the nature of the brine discharge, its costs of treatment, and the indirect benefits to OCSD, and the residents of Orange County, a reduced purchase price for Treatment and Disposal Rights is appropriate. It is the intent of the parties that all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall be applicable to the parties and to the brine discharge from SAWPA to the OCSD system. TLW:Bnm11211/9 M124791112463 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first above written. ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT By Chair, Board of Directors By Secretary of the Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: THOMAS L. WOODRUFF DISTRICT COUNSEL By Thomas L. Woodruff SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJECT AUTHORITY By Chairman of the Commission TLW:smm:1WWII 12479/112463 4 \ STEERING COMMITTEE Me12/1 Dcron9oate I To ad.ofd.. AGENDA REPORT IT'A' nemNumtw Orange County Sanitation District -- - �,b. FROM: Robert Ooten, Director of Operations and Maintenance Originator: Ed Torres, Manager, Air Quality & Special Projects SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR ODOR CONTROL PLANNING GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Recommend that the Directors representing the Cities of Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District appoint a community representative to participate on a Community Advisory Committee to assist the District in improving our odor control program. SUMMARY Staff recommends the establishment of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) to provide input on a comprehensive odor study that will evaluate sources of odors within the treatment plants, future potential odors resulting from expansion of facilities consistent with the recently approved Strategic Plan, alternatives for control of the odors, and odor control measure capital costs. Significant odor control facilities were installed at both plants in the mid-1980's which reduced odor complaints from over 120 per year to less than 10 per year. Within the past few years, both plants have experienced an increase in odor complaints. The exact reasons for the increase are not known but may include the following factors: Increased public outreach and awareness, aging facilities, existing operating protocol of scrubbers, new and/or existing odor sources not addressed, and reduction in O&M staff responsible for odor monitoring and control. During the public comment period of the EIR process for the 1999 Strategic Plan, residents adjacent to the Huntington Beach plant expressed concern over existing odors and whether the situation would worsen with the expansion of our treatment plants under the strategic plan. They questioned the accuracy of our data and the adequacy of our present odor management program. These same residents have recently complained about odors from our facility both to the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the media. C\iEMgCommunM Plenivn0lMury CommIM1w2M16 R—. WIM Page 1 Because of the trend of increasing odor complaints, the District's policy to be a good IF neighbor, and the community's newly expressed awareness we are having on them, staff proposes a plan of action for improved odor control. This plan consists of three elements: 1. Review and improvement of existing O&M odor control procedures and practices 2. Capital improvements to control odors. 3. Community involvement during the evaluation of odor impacts and planning for future odor control facilities As part of the capital improvement program, staff will be recommending to the PDC Committee and the Board at the February meetings to contract with an Engineering firm (at a presently estimated cost of approximately $500,000 to $750,000) to assist staff in characterizing the District Plant odor emissions, both now and under the strategic plan, and assessing opportunities for improving the odor program. Staff anticipates that the odor study will begin in March 2000 and complete by the end of the calendar year. Staff recommends having the CAC in place when the study begins. Staff is recommending that the Directors representing the Cities of Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Fountain Valley and the Costa Mesa Sanitary District each appoint a representative and an alternate to the CAC. Staff has been working closely with several residents living near both plants and can make recommendations to the four Directors on possible candidates. Staff also intends to send notices to the surrounding communities informing them of their representatives on this committee so that any input can be provided. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY The comprehensive odor study is included in the Odor Control Rehabilitation and Refurbishment Project (J-71) which has an approved budget of$5,337,000. The administration of the CAC will be handled under this project at no increase to the existing budget amount. BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The comprehensive odor study will be evaluating many program elements including: existing and future odor sources and offsite impacts; cost implications of future odor control; application of new technology; 0&M procedures and practices for odor control equipment; and organization and program costs for odor control. C'\IEMPLwmnu,vry Glannry Miw,y CemmMee].Ca A„„„. d,a„ Page 2 Since the communities concern is principally with odor impacts, both now and as ' facilities expand, staff is recommending that the CAC's focus will be on reviewing and providing input into the level of odors that are acceptable to the surrounding residents and the associated cost implications to them and other rate payers for the various levels of control being proposed. Staff may also use the CAC to present any significant improvements to the program, as a result of the independent assessment. The odor assessment and control cost evaluation work will take place between March and July 2000. Staff anticipates a minimum of four CAC meetings during this timeframe. This will include one kick-off meeting to discuss the project and the CAC's role, a second meeting to discuss the results of the odor assessment and modeling results, a third meeting to discuss scenario's for odor reduction and associated costs to rate payers and a final meeting to communicate the Boards review and decision on future odor control. Staff also plans to hold at least one Workshop for the Directors to discuss the key project results and identify the policy decisions that need to be made. ALTERNATIVES An alternative would be to not involve the community in the planning process. This alternative is not recommended but the community is ultimately impacted by our decisions and their input is critical to a successful outcome. CECA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS None EMT:hh CATEMMommunity Planning Advisory Committee1doc caivnxon�w w.Na w*en cen.me.eza: ,,,: W0101 Page 3