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