The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-11 DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, November 19, 2003 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 at 5 p.m., in the Districts Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: OTHERS PRESENT: Directors Present: Thomas L.Woodruff, General Counsel Shirley McCracken, Chair Don Hughes Steve Anderson, Vice Chair Ryal Wheeler Jim Ferryman, Chairman, OMITS Committee Gerhardt Van Drie Brian Donahue, Chairman, PDC Committee Jim Silva, County Supervisor STAFF PRESENT: Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair Blake Anderson, General Manager Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Directors Absent: Bob Cotten, Director of Operations and Brian Brady, Chairman, FAHR Committee Maintenance Carol Beekman, Communications Services Manager Mike Moore, ECM Manager Jim Colston, Legal and Regulatory Affairs Liaison Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ORANGF r- ••_• - DISTRICT No appointment was necessary. DEC 17 2003 44 (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS rY Mr. Gerhardt Van Drie asked for a copy of the correspondence pertaining to his proposal. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the October 22, 2003 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 November 19, 2003 (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Shirley McCracken announced that the CASA Conference will be held January 21- 24 in Palm Springs. Chair McCracken also announced that she is changing the governance system for the Cooperative Projects Guidance Committee. It will be chaired by the Board's Vice Chair, Steve Anderson, and include the chairs of the three standing committees and the Board of Supervisors representative. They will be the voting members of the committee. This is a significant change from the last five years when city managers and sanitary district managers were also voting members. However, the involvement and input from the cities and the districts we serve remains important and staff will invite all of them to future cooperative projects committee meetings. The Guidance Committee will continue to report to the Board through the PDC Committee, as it has been doing. Chair McCracken reported that the Directors Compensation Task Committee continues to work on refining the policies and procedures. A report will be forthcoming. The report of the Legislative Advocacy Ad Hoc Committee will be made under Agenda Item B.B. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER A. Staff Response to Unsolicited Pr000sals General Manager Blake Anderson reported that staff evaluated the unsolicited proposal from Mr. Gerhardt Van Drie and has recommended that no action be taken at this time. He commented on staff's ongoing practice of providing information that members of the public request. Mr. Anderson also reported that staff has spent a considerable amount of time meeting with the proposer, conducting tours, reviewing data and answering questions but due to construction and operating constraints, as well as a lack of necessary data as out lined in Mr. Ooten's memo, no action is recommended. B. Update on SAWPA Agreement Necotiations Meetings continue between the Sanitation District and SAW PA. The amount of outstanding invoices and interest on overdue amounts has been established. The terms for SAW PA's option to purchase the SARI line have been established including the pricing structure for how SAW PA eventually sells back treatment capacity and sewer capacity to the District if their proposed brine line to the ocean is constructed. The problematic issue at this time is what happens in 2008 if SAW PA hasn't bought the 4-mile stretch of the SARI line or Orange County Flood Control and the Corps of Engineers haven't issued a notice to proceed with the line improvements. Both sides continue to try to reach an agreement. It is anticipated that the agreement will move through the FAHR Committee to the Board in December. Another concern that has surfaced is the progress on the CA Fish and Wildlife Services studies as a result of a federal court case brought by an environmental group to protect the critical habitat of the Santa Ana Sucker. The results must be addressed in the EIS/EIR. If the federal agency studies are not forthcoming,the District could . . Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 November 19, 2003 ask for a federal hearing on the problems. The County of Orange, Orange County Water District and SAWPA also are stakeholders in the process as they have projects that Impact the river watershed. It was suggested that the lobbyists for the impacted agencies work together on this Issue in an effort to keep the project moving. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff did not make a report. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS(Items A-E) A. Joint Water Campus and Related Signage Concepts The District has conceptually agreed to allowing the chemical trucks for GWRS to come through our Ellis Avenue gate to reduce traffic on Ellis and Ward,to reduce the noise impacts, improve safety, maintain good relations with our neighbors and the City of Fountain Valley, and to guarantee unrestrained night-time deliveries to GWRS. The District has always attempted to take extra measures to protect the interests of our neighbors around our treatment plants. The signage at the front gate is under study as well as the appropriate level of security and access to areas of the treatment plant. By providing an entrance road to access the Sanitation District,the Water District, NW RI and MW DOC, a water campus could be created that will address both traffic and security issues. A second entrance on Ward Is also contemplated that would provide the same level of access from that direction as well. Once GWRS is online, an increase in visitors is expected and many of them will want to tour the Sanitation District as well. Easy access for visitors and delivery trucks through one entrance provides a better opportunity for security checks. Director John Collins has asked for the general counsels of all agencies to make certain there Isn't a liability issue. General Counsel Woodruff reported that he doesn't see any increased liability with the proposed change but an evaluation will be made. The Committee agreed to send the item through our working committees and report back to the JCC. B. Update on the Renewal of the NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit Jim Colston updated the Committee on ongoing negotiations for the NPDES permit. He described the contents of the operational plan and proposed changes to it and explained the proposed interim limits that will be in effect until secondary treatment is achieved. Bob Ooten said that Operations has been able to do better than the proposed limits through optimizing the system. Two-thirds of our ocean discharge now receives secondary treatment. Disinfection will be Included for the duration of the 2004-09 Permit. Engineering is looking at final alternatives for permanent disinfection which will be included in the next permit. Mr. Colston explained that once the permit is issued, the process requires that the District be sued and a consent decree will then be signed. This will allow the District Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 4 November 19, 2003 the time it needs to convert to full secondary treatment. Staff will continue to update the Committee on future activities and progress. C. Legislative Consultant Contracts Bob Ghirelli updated the committee on the federal, state and local legislative advocacy activities in the past month. The EPA funding bill is one of four spending bills still pending before Congress and our lobbyists are continuing their work to secure funding for OCSD in that process. In February, Board members will be visiting key members of Congress to bolster support for our$3 million request and begin to lay the groundwork for an authorization in next year's session. State lobbyists are following the changes in Sacramento and looking for opportunities to gain support for the District's issues and funding requests. Staff is going to be working more closely with the Water District, the Orange County Business Council and the County of Orange on legislative initiatives of mutual interest. Bob Ghirelli reported that staff was directed to prepare contracts for the consultants at last month's Steering Committee. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED TO: Recommend to the Board that it: 1) Establish a budget of$320,000 for state and federal legislative advocacy; 2) Authorize the General Manager to enter into Consultant Services Agreements with ENS Resources, Inc.,for a contract amount not to exceed $180,000; Mayer, Brown, Rowe& Maw, LLP, for a contract amount not to exceed $60,000;and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., for a contract amount not to exceed$60,000, for a one-year period, effective January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, which will provide for professional advocacy services in a form approved by General Counsel;and 3) Each contract will be renewable for up to three (3) one-year periods at the discretion of the General Manager. D. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in December were reviewed. E. The agenda items scheduled to be presented to the Board at tonight's meeting were reviewed. (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. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 5 November 19, 2003 (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 17, 2003 at 5 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, December 17, 2003 at 7 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 6:12 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Section 54957,to evaluate General Counsel Services. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. Confidential Minutes of the Closed Session held by the Steering Committee have been prepared in accordance with Government Code Section 54957.2, and are maintained by the Board Secretary in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Committee Closed Meetings. A report of the recommended actions will be publicly reported at the time the approved actions become final. At 6:55 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. bmitted by: a Tappan St"ring Committee Secretary aiw eu�ew.�sw,xpcomn,xe.mswow..mscmmew.e ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT phone: v141 9 62-2 411 ft.: I71419620 56 ..acad.. 'yral ea a 8127 NOTICE OF MEETING Fauna n valley aA OF THE 92728 8127 .oral earn...: STEERING COMMITTEE 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain92708-7018 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT alenher Agencies WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003 - 5 P.M. • cela. Anehmm DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE B^ed Beene pen: 10844 ELLIS AVENUE C'pfBSe FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Fountem Valley Fullerton Gorden Grave heravo son Beach Irvine La Hehra Polmd A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of a Lda alem4oa Orange Count Sanitation District will be held at the above location, date and Nreal"t Beach 9 Y orange time. parnntin Santa And Seel Beech stool msdn frill° Park 1bMa Linda lkgary of orange Wherg olrtrim. costa Mean Midway city Water District. Irvine Reach To maintain world class leadersh,g in aso eweler and water resource management. STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS Wednesday, November 19, 2003" Wednesday, December 17, 2003' Wednesday, January 28, 2004 Wednesday, February 25, 2004 Wednesday, March 24, 2004 Wednesday, April 28, 2004 Wednesday, May 26, 2004 Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 Wednesday, October 27, 2004 Wednesday, November 17, 2004' Wednesday, December 15, 2004' 'Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday. STEERING COMMITTEE (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: November 19, 2003 Meeting Time: $p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Committee Members Shirley McCracken, Board Chair Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair _ Brian Donahue, Chair, PDC Committee Jim Ferryman, Chair, OMTS Committee Brian Brady, Chair, FAHR Committee Jim Silva, Supervisor Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair Ohm Thomas L.Woodruff, General Counsel Don Hughes Staff Present Blake P. Anderson, General Manager................................ Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services....................... David Ludwin, Director of Engineering............................... Patrick Miles, Director of Information Technology.............. Robert Doren, Director of Operations & Maintenance........_ Gary Streed, Director of Finance/Treasurer....................... Lisa Tomko, Director of Human Resources........................ Carol Beekman, Communication Services Manager.......... Jean Tappan, Secretary..................................................... c: Lenora Crane AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2003 AT 5 P.M. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Agenda Posting: 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. Items Not Posted: In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Committee for discussion and/or action,I will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2(b)as an emergency item or because there is a need to take immediate action,which need came to the attention of the Committee subsequent to the posting of agenda, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted in the manner as above,not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. Accommodations for the Disabled: The Board of Directors Meeting Room is wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations,please contact the Orange County Sanitation District Board Secretarys office at(714)593-7130 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. Items Continued: Items may be continued from this meeting without further notice to a Committee meeting held within five (5)days of this meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(3). Meeting Adjournment: This meeting may be adjourned to a later time and items of business from this agenda may be considered at the later meeting by Order of Adjournment and Notice in accordance with Government Code Section 54955 (posted within 24 hours). All current agendas and meeting minutes are also available via OCSD's Internet site located at www.ocsd.com. Upon entering OCSD's web site, please navigate to the Board of Directors section. (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM, IF NECESSARY Book Paec 1 -2- November 19, 2003 Agenda (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 three minutes. Matters of interest addressed by a member of the public and not listed on this agenda cannot have action taken by the Committee except as authorized by Section 54954.2(b). (4) APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING Approve draft minutes of the October 22, 2003 Steering Committee meeting. (5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR A. Report of Task Committee re Directors Compensation for Meeting Attendance B. CASA Winter Conference, January 21-24, 2004 in Palm Springs (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER A. Staff Response re Unsolicited Proposal B. Update on SAW PA Agreement Negotiations (Anderson) (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-E) A. Joint Water Campus and Related Signage Concepts (Anderson) B. Update on the Renewal of the NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit (Ghirelli) C. Legislative Consultant Contracts (Ghirelli) D. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in December (information item only) E. Review and consideration of Agenda Items for Board of Directors Meeting of November 19, 2003 (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING Book Page 2 -3- November 19, 2003 Agenda (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (12) FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2003. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m.,Wednesday, December 17, 2003. (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 1. Evaluation of General Counsel Services pursuant to Government Code Section 54957. B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT jt H.%WP.DTAWGENDA�TEERWG COMMNTEP QENDAINT NOME ANDR=C&LSHEEf DW Book Page 3 -4- November 19, 2003 Agenda Notice to Committee Members: For any questions on the agenda or to place items on the agenda,Committee members should contact the Committee Chair or the Secretary ten days In advance of the Committee Meeting. Committee Chair: Shirley McCracken (714)765-5247(Anaheim City Help Committee Staff Contact: Blake P.Anderson (714)593.7110 General Counsel: Thomas L.Woodruff (714)564-2605 Secretary: Jean Tappan (714)593-7101 (714)962.0356 (Fax) E-mail: )teppan0ocstloom Book Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, October 22, 2003 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, October 22,2003 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: OTHERS PRESENT: Directors Present: Thomas Nixon, General Counsel Shirley McCracken, Chair Don Hughes Steve Anderson, Vice Chair Scott Baugh Jim Ferryman, Chairman, OMTS Committee Larry Kest Brian Donahue, Chairman, PDC Committee Eric Saperstein Brian Brady, Chairman, FAHR Committee Chris Townsend Jim Silva, County Supervisor Chris Massey Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair Mike Moore Tod Ridgeway, Director, Guest Sonja Wassgren Gerhardt Van Dreis Directors Absent: Randy Fuhrman None STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, General Manager Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Patrick Miles, Director of Information Technology Carol Beekman, Communications Services Manager Jim Colston, Legal and Regulatory Affairs Liaison Layne Baroldi, Legal and Regulatory Affairs Liaison Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS Gerhardt Van Dreis stated that he had submitted an unsolicited joint venture proposal to operate secondary treatment processes and has not received a reply. Chair McCracken asked staff to prepare a response. Book Page 5 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 October 22, 2D03 Randy Fuhrman asked the legislative consultants to discuss how they will deal with trying to get funding when there are so many other issues also seeking the same funds. He also asked that alternative treatment processes be considered and stated he was interested in the directors' compensation discussion. (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the September 24, 2003 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Shirley McCracken asked Directors Brady and Anderson to provide an update on their review of the Directors reimbursement policies. They provided a draft with only three major changes: definition of what constitutes a meeting;how meetings are authorized; and how much compensation is received. Blake will ask Lisa Tomko,Gary Streed and General Counsel to review the proposed changes and it will be returned to the Steering Committee in November for further consideration before presentation to the Board. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Blake Anderson said that he was pulling agenda item 6.A. Chair McCracken stated that Tom Woodruff will be addressing the Board on the subject in November in Closed Session. A breakdown of litigation fees will be provided at that time. Mr.Anderson announced that there were still seats available for the 2004 Economic Forecast Conference for Orange County that is being held on October 28. He reported that meetings are ongoing with SAWPA to negotiate an agreement based on the term sheet that was approved by the Board. There is another meeting scheduled for October 24 and he hopes to bring the agreement to the Board in November. EMT and staff are working together on strategic planning activities. This process should take another 16 to 20 weeks and will be used during the preparation of the 2004-05 budget. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Nixon reported that the arguments were held today in the appeal hearing on the Crow-Winthrop case was held today. The judge has 90 days to make an opinion. General Counsel Tom Woodruff represented the District. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS(Items A-D) A. Update on Biosolids Procram and Costs Layne Baroldi reported on ongoing activities and what is planned until such time as the Biosolids Management Strategic Plan is approved. One-half of the Book Page 6 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 October 22, 2003 biosolids is going to Tule Ranch at a cost of between $33-35/ton. Staff was asked to prepare a detailed breakdown of the contract terms and costs for the November 5, 2003 OMTS Committee meeting. B. Legislative Briefina by Consultants Chair McCracken commented that during 2003 legislative calendar the District hired four legislative advocates to assist the agency in forwarding its legislative agenda and respond to legislation of interest to the District. Each of those consultants provided the Committee with a brief update on the status of their efforts. Our federal legislative consultants, Eric Saperstein and Larry Kest(partner of John Freshman), updated the committee on their activities for the past year and their plans for 2004. Their consulting services focused on acquisition of federal funding for the secondary treatment expansion through EPA assistance grants. They have been building support for our request with the Orange County and California delegation in Washington and will continue to work to get this project into the EPA budget as a line item. The first year is always the hardest. Congressman Christopher Cox has asked to keep this project in view and has indicated that he will speak to the Chair of the Appropriations Committee to help him understand the project and the need for funding. It is important that the message be reinforced to our Washington delegation. Directors Jim Silva and Tod Ridgeway reported on their trip to Washington, DC.They were accompanied by Bob Ghirelli and our federal legislative consultants. They appreciated the work that the consultants did to set up the various meetings with the delegates and staff members,which were very focused and effective. Director McCracken thanked Directors Silva and Ridgeway for making the trip to Washington last week to help sell our project. It is important that through our consultants we are vigilant in our efforts to keep our goals in mind. Scott Baugh reported on the state legislative initiatives he was working on and most recently, his activities in the areas of biosolids and urban runoff funding. He will continue to work to amend the state constitution to allow the assessing of fees to treat urban runoff. There is a need to educate the public and those organizations that have expressed concerns, such as Howard Jarvis and the Orange County Taxpayers. Mr. Baugh is also working with the District on a state-wide biosolids policy, using a two-year bill that is now"parked"at our request of the author, Ken Maddox. If the State Water Board takes on the issue through language in its General Order for Biosolids, then the bill won't be necessary. He also discussed budget impacts and how the govemor-elect may address these problems. There may be some special sessions of the assembly this fall to deal with the budget issues. Christopher Townsend and his firm are focused on acquisition of state funding for District projects including fats,oil and greases, Santa Ana River Interceptor line and other projects through Propositions 40 and 50 and other grant sources. He indicated that all of the Proposition 50 money has been given to the Department of Water Resources for distribution. They will be working to get funds identified for the District. After a brief question and answer period,the Directors agreed that the services provided by the three firms could not be accomplished with OCSD staff alone and felt that all Book Page 7 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 4 October 22, 2003 were representing the District professionally and effectively. Mr. Saperstein stressed that continued participation by the Directors will be required to make the team effective. He also thanked the staff for their assistance and responsiveness in providing such high-quality information for them. B. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in November were reviewed. Director Brady asked if the MOUs were going to be presented to the FAHR Committee in November. Mr. Anderson said that he was happy to report that all of the bargaining units have signed and the MOUs will be presented to the directors in November. C. The agenda items scheduled to be presented to the Board at tonight's meeting were reviewed. (9) OTHER BUSINESS, COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY Director Eckenrode announced that he met with the mayor of Anaheim, Curt Pringle, and briefly discussed the GW R System project. Mayor Pringle has asked to meet with the general managers of the Orange County Water District and the Sanitation District to discuss this project and the possibility of landscaping the settling basins. (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, November 19, 2003 at 5 p.m., one week earlier than usual. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, November 19, 2003 at 7 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 6:42 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Sections 54957.6 to discuss the General Manager's performance evaluation and compensation. Minutes of the Closed Session are on file with the Board Secretary. Confidential Minutes of the Closed Session held by the Steering Committee have been prepared in accordance with Government Code Book Page 8 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 5 October 22, 2003 Section 54957.2, and are maintained by the Board Secretary in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Committee Closed Meetings. A report of the recommended actions will be publicly reported at the time the approved actions become final. At 6:55 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Su miffed by: Je n appan Sideting Committee Secretary a'wnmawb. ro cm.,,nwusxn imxs ma sc�crrmc Book Page 9 STEERING GOMM11TEE GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT November 12, 2003 ITEM 6.A. MEMORANDUM TO: Blake Anderson General Manager FROM: Bob Ooten Director of Operations and Maintenance SUBJECT: July 29, 2003 Letter proposing High Purity Oxygen Equipment for Reclamation Plant No. 1 The purpose of this memorandum is to report on a review of Gerhardt Van Drie unsolicited proposal of July 29, 2003 to provide a bid and offer to operate the Plant No. 1 secondary treatment reactors. Staff has reviewed the proposal and finds that the assumptions and assertions are generally incorrect or not applicable. Mr. Van Drie's assumptions are the following: 1. An oxygen secondary treatment plant can operate with less aeration detention time (more treatment can be gotten in a smaller volume). 2. That the mixing system he is researching can perform with less energy. 3. The secondary treatment process using his mixing system will produce fewer solids and that will decrease solids handling and disposal costs. 4. That ventud or ceramic diffusers will efficiently transfer oxygen to the water, hence further reducing the energy needed for secondary treatment. All of the end results of the claimant are professionally interesting and in line with objectives staff and the consultants seek while providing the facilities at the District. However, the question is whether Mr. Van Drie's claims are valid. Staffs response is as follows: 1. Oxygen secondary treatment plant reactors do operate with less aeration detention time. The District has an oxygen and an air secondary treatment plant. We conducted a life cycle cost comparison during our 1989 Strategic Planning process and found that the two secondary plants are nearly equal in cost. Expanding the Plant 1 aeration by converting it to oxygen aerators would require an oxygen generation system, more clarifiers and other equipment that, on a life cycle cost comparison, would be similar to air. It would significantly complicate our siting and Book Page 10 Blake Anderson Page 2 of 3 November 12, 2003 coordination challenges, add cost to our already significant capital demands—all with limited operational benefit. For this reason, staff recommends that a pure oxygen system not be installed at Plant 1. 2. The research scale mixing system being researched by Mr. Van Drie is purported to use less energy than conventional systems. Preliminary staff analysis of the claim does not support his hypothesis. In the absence of verified performance data to the contrary, staff is reluctant to provide upfront research efforts necessary to support Mr. Van Drie's claim. Staff recommends that no action be taken by the District at this time. Assuming that Mr. Van Drie can, in the future, provide full scale operating data (perhaps at a treatment plant far smaller than ours for starters), then we would consider the information and perhaps render a different opinion. 3. The District operates an oxygen and an air activated sludge secondary plant. The solids production varies with how the plants are operated. The oxygen secondary plant has not historically produced less solids. The oxygen secondary plant has been operated similar to Mr. Van Drie's suggested method of operation and has not achieved the solids reduction claims Mr. Van Drie predicts. We have no evidence to support his claims and, in fact, have contrary evidence. For this reason, staff recommends that Mr. Van Drie must first provide supporting data before we consider the claim of reduced solids production. 4. There are more and less efficient aeration diffusers than are used at the District's Plant No. 1 secondary plant. Our consideration for selecting a particular technology includes fouling of the pore spaces, maintenance, tank geometry, system operation and many other application factors that go into developing a life cycle cost for diffuser selection. The District did, in fact, retrofit our Plant 1 facilities with fine bubble diffusers several years ago, achieving energy savings to a large degree as Mr. Van Drie now suggests. To judge Mr. Van Drie's claims further, staff needs the following information: 1. Data: • Performance data from other significantly-sized secondary treatment facilities that are using the system that is being proposed. • Performance data that verifies Mr. Van Drie's claims of oxygen transfer efficiencies of 92 percent—transfer rates that according to our experience and to our understanding of the science of the matter are hard to understand. Mr. Van Drie's experience at an operating treatment plant similar to the Plant No. 1 open tank 80 MGD activated sludge system, in which he has been able to transfer 92 percent of the oxygen supplied with venturi or small bubble diffusers. Book Page 11 Blake Anderson Page 3 of 3 November 12, 2003 • Performance data verifying other claims contained in his proposal. 2. Engineering Calculations: • Provide activated sludge process calculations explaining how the proposed process works, including as a minimum: mean cell residence time; mixed liquor suspended solids; oxygen uptake; waste activated sludge flow; return activated sludge flow; food to microorganism ratio; effluent BOD, TSS, ammonia and turbidi . • To meet the District's effluent quality criteria for reclamation and ocean discharge, demonstrate the capability of the system to operate in nitrification and non-nitrification modes. To determine if Mr. Van Drie's pilot research assumptions are valid, larger scale operating experience must be well documented to provide staff with sufficient data to make life cycle cost comparisons with our present technologies. Staff's understanding is that no full scale applications exist. We would be extremely reluctant to provide District resources of any kind for this reason. Finally, as you know, according to the Sanitation District's long-standing policies and practices related to procuring professional engineering services, any firm we do hire for design of our capital facilities is subjected to a rigorous evaluation process. Staff spends considerable time evaluating the demonstrated competencies and experience of the team of individuals that are proposed to do our work. We accomplish this evaluation by checking references and review the firm's prior projects. The proposals we receive from firms provide us with extensive examples of the projects they have completed. We would expect the same of all professional engineers with whom we engage. RJO:jt G Mp.mnMGmn'GATW IM111 H1t BVP Iqm 0..V N V0n pne UrudiolBE Rvmel m1.Ez Book Page 12 Ooten, Robert From: Dan Gay[Dan_Gay DWGAssodates.com] Sent: Friday, October 11,PC 02 9:11 AM To: Ooten, Robert Subject: Van Drie Bob, I've looked at Mr. Van Drie's design, and his unconventional calculational approach makes it difficult to quickly pick out the problems with his calculational procedure. It appears to me that his diffuser efficiencies (or OTES) are much too high. It looks like he's got them around 70% - 85%, which given his very shallow depth and high D.O. is very unrealistic. He's also assumed an influent BOO concentration of somewhere around 80 mg/L, which I don't think is an acceptable design assumption. And finally, he's comparing a theoretical design with an operating surface aeration system that was designed to handle a much different set of influent conditions. So what I did was a quick, apples to apples design comparing his device with current surface aerator technology. I assumed an influent flow of 250 mgd containing 125 mg/L HOD (we're also tacitly assuming here [1) that we either add final clarifiers or somehow get the ones already there to work, and [2) that a hydraulic retention time in the aeration system of -0.5 hrs. is doable) . All eight trains are operating for both systems. I used the latest information on the efficiencies of tube/disk-type fine bubble diffusers at the depths proposed by Mr. Van Drie. I don't believe he's claiming to improve the mass transfer efficiency of these devices (in actuality his system, I believe, will significantly degrade the mass transfer efficiency of fine bubble diffusers because of the bubble coalescence that will occur under his umbrella devices) . It's my understanding that We just improving the mixing efficiency. The aerating gas for both systems is cryogenically generated high purity oxygen (purity -971) . The product pressure from the Cryo is about 2 psi (probably less by the time it gets to the aeration tanks, but I used 2 psi just the same), which is what I used for his booster compressor suction pressure. I also designed a surface aeration system for these same conditions (the D.O. concentrations are higher for the Van Drie system, which I think is consistent with his recommendation) . My personal opinion is that, given all of the technical questions surrounding his system, I've designed his system very optimistically. Total power draw for each system is: Van Drie - 1,300 Hp. ; Surface Aerator - 1,400 Hp. I view this as a "wash," especially since we can't answer at this time such questions as what will the alpha magnitude of diffusers operating at such low gas rates be? How will bubble coalescence affect the mass transfer efficiency of Mr. Van Drie's System? How does he plan to mix the bottom of the tank if the diffusers are located 4.5 feet off of the bottom? And finally, and most importantly, what are the safety ramifications of operating high purity oxygen compression equipment? As I've stated in the past, I believe Mr. Van Drie has become "mixing myopic." He's not acknowledging that mass transfer is the controlling phenomenon in almost all wastewater treatment plants, especially the very high rate HPO plants. If you have any further questions, let me know. Dan 1 Book Page 13 srSWt&-'q July 29, 2003 (i, tt.O3 Shirley McCracken,Director and Chan ypacr AdN Orange County Sanitation District ArR ON City of Anaheim 200 S. Anaheim Blvd. Santa Ana, CA 92805 Dear Shirley McCracken: 1 have formed an alliance with a company for the purpose of marketing jointly our equipment and processes. We want to submit to you a bid for operating the secondary treatment process at plant No. 1.This company will offer the bid and will offer to be the operator of the reactors for you. The OCSD staff has estimated that the capital cost for secondary treatment at Plant 1 will cost about$200,000,000 dollars. This estimate is based on pouring more concrete. The existing secondary reactors are provided atmospheric air by 4000 horsepower blowers. The air has 20 percent oxygen. Of this 20 % only 30 % of the oxygen is dissolved; amounting to only 2 % of the compressed volume being utilized by the microbes. The treatment time will vary from 4 to 6 hours. We see the opportunity for capital and operating cost savings by speeding up the activated sludge process. We know that this is possible to do and will guarantee it. When inputting 90% purity oxygen with venturi or small bubble diffusers; 90 % of the oxygen can be transferred. The treatment time will vary from 1 Yx to 2 hours. With this process the opportunity exists to reduce the amount of sludge that goes to the ocean and the amount that has to be hauled off-site. Also the opportunity exists to reduce the effluent to less then 10 and 10 BOD and suspended solids. Our equipment and the processing of organic solids will be operated within the existing concrete reactor tanks at Plant 1. By going to a private sector contractor, full secondary treatment at Plant 1 can be accomplished almost immediately and at huge savings to the OCSD. In order to prepare a responsible bid we will need the cooperation of the staff at giving us access to the existing equipment and drawings. We are now requesting of you that this information be provide to me by the staff. It is hereby understood that the bid preparation and submittal will be at no cost or obligation to the OCSD. With best regards, G✓VIJ / Gerhardt Van brie,R.C.E. . Copies to: Directors,staff,press,and 000 members Book Page 14 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Dam To8d.ofDir. 11/19/03 11/19/03 AGENDA REPORT 2�� itEn"ambe Orange County Sanitation District FROM: David Ludwin, Director of Engineering Originator: Wendy Sevenandt, Associate Engineer III SUBJECT: GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM, JOB NO. J-36, JOINT WATER CAMPUS AND RELATED SIGNAGE CONCEPTS GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Approve conceptual idea of a joint water campus between Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Water District, and Metropolitan Water District of Orange County. SUMMARY • The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and Orange County Water District (OCWD)own the property and facilities in the area bordered by Ellis Avenue, Ward Street, Garfield Avenue and the Santa Ana River. • OCWD leases office space to Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and National Water Research Institute (NWRI). • Staff is considering the concept of having a joint "water campus' with public access being shared between OCWD and OCSD. • Staff is seeking Board approval of the conceptual idea of a 'water campus"which will lead to development of signage. • The Groundwater Replenishment System Joint Cooperative Committee approved recommending the conceptual idea to the Boards on November 10, 2003. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS There are no prior actions regarding an shared water campus. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY No cost impacts with approval of the conceptual idea. BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (tine item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ® Not applicable (information item) GNIyaEMpMW P911 Pp]'bWMr'9 �'mn¢a\Walar W Wi0% Page 1 Book Page 15 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and Orange County Water District (OCWD)own the property and facilities in the area bordered by Ellis Avenue,Ward Street, Garfield Avenue and the Santa Ana River. OCWD leases office space to Metropolitan Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and National Water Research Institute (NWRI). An initial meeting has been held with staff from OCSD, OCWD, MWDOC and NWRI to discuss ideas relating to development of future signage for the facilities. At that meeting the concept of having a joint "water campus"with public access being shared between OCWD and OCSD was suggested. Before any signage concepts could be developed, the feasibility of a joint "water campus" needed to be explored. This idea was then brought to both General Manager's for their consideration and both agreed that this concept is worth exploring, but would need to be brought to both Boards before moving forward. If the concept of a joint "water campus" is agreed upon, then the signage concepts can be further developed and brought forward to the Public Information and Education committee for the Groundwater Replenishment System and then the Joint Cooperative Committee (JCC)for approvals. ALTERNATIVES The alternative to the 'beater campus" is to maintain separation between the facilities using fencing and not share public entrances. CEOA FINDINGS The Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS)for the Groundwater Replenishment (GW R) System was certified by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) and the Orange County Water District (OCWD) Board of Directors on March 24, 1999. Addendum No. 1 was approved on March 28, 2001. . Addendum No. 2 was approved by OCSD on January 23, 2002, and by OCWD on January 16, 2002. ATTACHMENTS Agenda Item Submittal to the JCC re: Joint Water Campus and Related Signage Concepts WS:lc c miaoe<iwa<"ao wau aepa"<sie< a ca,�,neew<,«�„�":eoc a<",<°. °e.°M Page 2 Book Page 16 AGENDA ITEM SUBMITTAL Meeting Date: November 10, 2003 Budgeted: Yes Funding Source: OCWD/OCSD/Grants To: Joint Groundwater Replenishment Program/Line Item No.: 501-5049-722.60-01 System Cooperative Committee Cost Estimate: N/A From: Virginia Grebbien General Counsel Approval: N/A Blake Anderson Project Report Approved: Yes CEQA Compliance: Yes Staff Contact: Virginia Grebbien, Blake Anderson Subject: JOINT WATER CAMPUS AND RELATED SIGNAGE CONCEPTS SUMMARY Coordination issues are being developed between all agencies. RECOMMENDATION Refer conceptual ideas of a Joint Water Campus to the OCWD, OCSD and MWDOC Boards of Directors. DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Staff from OCWD, OCSD, MWDOC and NWRI met to discuss ideas about future signage for Fountain Valley facilities. At that meeting, the concept of having a joint ,.water campus'with public access being shared between OCWD and OCSD was suggested. See attached conceptual map. Before any signage concepts can be developed, the feasibility of a joint "water campus" needed to be explored. This idea was then brought to both General Managers for their consideration and they agreed that the concept is good, but would need to be brought to both Boards before moving forward. If the concept of a joint "water campus" is agreed upon, then the signage concepts can be further developed and brought forward to the PIE Committee and then to the JCC for discussion and approval. PRIOR COMMITTEE ACTIONS None. - 1 - Book Page 17 81 38cd Moog ch p D CD n CD C -1. E v I: M1 I ' n CD . N v CD (D — L' c O CD U) Cn C (D y (D cn 1 CL STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To lid.of W. 11-1e-03 AGENDA REPORTItemNy�1per Iem Number Orange County Sanitation District C FROM: Robert Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Originator: James Colston, Legal and Regulatory Affairs Liaison SUBJECT: Update on the Renewal of the NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Information Item SUMMARY In December 2003, OCSD submitted a renewal application to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX (EPA) and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for its NPDES ocean discharge permit. Since that time, OCSD staff has met with the EPA and RWQCB to discuss the renewal process. OCSD staff will provide an update on the renewal process including the following information: • OCSD's final Operational Plan; • Status of the short-term permanent disinfection system and the Ultra Violet Light pilot testing program; • Ocean monitoring program results since disinfection; and • Status of the permit renewal process and interim compliance strategy. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS None 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. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Staff will provide a presentation of additional information. JC:wh G:\wp.d1a\agepde\S1eering Committee\03\NOW 11903 AR NPDES Permit Update.doc Page 1 Book Page 19 ALTERNATIVES N/A CEQA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS Operational Plan, revised September 3, 2003 JC wh G:\wedta\agenda\Steering Committee\03\NOW 11903 AR NPDES Permit Updete.doc Page 2 Book Page '_0 Operational Plan Implementation of the July 17, 2002 Board of Directors Policy To Achieve Compliance with the Clean Water Act Secondary Treatment Standard September 16, 2002 Revised September 3, 2003 Prepared By: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 With Assistance From: Kris Lindstrom, President K. P. Lindstrom, Inc. i Book Page 21 T"of Contuft I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................I............1 A. Background..............................................................................................................................1 B. Basis of this Update..................................................................................................................1 IL PRESENT OPERATING STATUS..................................................................................._....................2 A. Summary of Permit Conditions and Compliance..............................................................................2 B. Updated Projections of Flow and Quality..........................................................................................2 C. Current Ocean Monitoring Program..................................................._.............................................4 D. Current Baseline Conditions.............................................................................................................5 III. PROPOSED CHANGES IN OPERATING STRATEGY TO MEET BOARD DIRECTIVE TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARD...................................................7 A. Year 2002 New Operational Philosophy...........................................................................................7 1. Operational Goals and Strategies................................................................................................7 2. Implementation of Treatment Changes.............................._.......................................................9 S. Proposed Ocean Monitoring Changes..................._.........................................................................10 C. Biosolids Management Changes......................................................................................................10 IV. DOCUMENTING CHANGES...................................................................................................................11 A. Operational Feedback Loops and Reporft....................................................................................11 B. Compliance Feedback Loops and Reporting....................................................................................11 C. Effluent Monitoring............................................................................................................................11 D. Ocean Monitoring---..........................................................................._..............................................12 E. Energy Use........................................................................................................................................12 F. Biosolids Management Changes............................................._........................................................12 G. Other Changes........................................................................................................_........................13 H. Estimated Changes in Flow and Effluent Quality as a Result of NewOperational Strategy..................................................................................................................13 V. PROPOSED INTERIM LIMITS UNTIL SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARDS ARE MET.............14 II Book Page 22 Table of Tables Table 1 -Effluent Quality Assumptions...................................................................................................15 Table 2-Proposed Interim Limits for NPDES Permit Renewal before GWRS is online................................15 Table 3-Proposed Interim Limits for NPDES Permit Renewal after GW RS is online...................................15 Table of Figures Program Milestone Notes for Figures 1-4..............................................................................................Is Figure 1-Projected Wastewater Flow Analysis.....................................................................................17 Figure 2- Projected Percent Secondary Treatment Analysis....................................................................Is Figure 3-Projected Effluent Mass Emission Rates................................................................................19 Figure 4-Projected Effluent BOD and TSS Concentrations.....................................................................20 Book Page 23 September 3, 2003 — Operational Plan I. INTRODUCTION A. Background At their July 17, 2002 meeting, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District (District) provided policy direction for the staff to expeditiously move to meet the Clean Water Act secondary treatment standard as defined in the 40 Code of Federal Regulations §133.102. The timing and method of achieving these limits was left indeterminate pending staff investigation of necessary permitting and the most cost- effective and environmentally sound means of achieving the limits without having to re- apply for a waiver from secondary treatment requirements under Section 301(h) of the federal Clean Water Act. Part of the directive given to staff was to achieve these limits in the shortest feasible time frame and, if possible, continue to operate without applying for a waiver, as long as there were no risky legal consequences or substantial monetary penalties. Implicit in the directive was the optimization of existing treatment facilities. In addition to this directive from the Board of Directors, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB), at its July 19, 2002 meeting, directed the District to initiate the use of sodium hypochlorite (bleach) for achieving bacterial reduction goals with the intent of meeting state receiving water standard at the 3-mile limit of State of California waters. The short-term goal was to use temporary facilities to have these facilties operational by August 12, 2002 (bleach followed by dechlorination using sodium bisulfite). The short-term goal was achieved, and the permanent facilities have been in operation since August 2003. Meanwhile, a study on long-term disinfection alternatives has been completed, and a report was published and submitted to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and RWQCB during the spring 2003. Based on the outcome of this study, the District has initiated pilot studies and field testing of three types of Ultra Violet Light disinfection systems. In concert with this testing, the District is conducting an assessment of other water quality parameters of the effluent, including results from whole effluent toxicity testing, to understand how various disinfection alternatives influence effluent quality. B. Basis of this Update Since the drafting of the September 16, 2002 Operations Plan, the District has optimized the use of existing secondary treatment, removed the trickling filters at Plant No. 1 from service for demolition and reconstruction, and optimized the full-scale effluent disinfection. Based on a review and update of planning assumptions, including the latest schedule of new construction, startup of the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) project, and new District facilities, and changes in influent and unit process performance, revised effluent flow and accompanying mass emissions were estimated. These revised estimates are presented in Figures 1 through 4. Table 1 (Planning Assumptions) has 1 Book Page 24 September 3, 2003—Operational Plan been updated and Table 2 (Summary of Flows and Loads) of the 2002 Draft Operations Plan has been eliminated and replaced by the four Figures. These four figures will serve as the new"best estimate" until conditions change and new estimates are prepared when warranted. Former Table 3 (now designated Tables 2 and 3), entitled Interim Effluent Limitations, has been expanded and revised to account for concentration and mass changes associated with the GWRS project as well as the planning assumptions discussed in this updated plan. II. PRESENT OPERATING STATUS A. Summary of Permit Conditions and Compliance The District's effluent quality must meet the conditions of the June 1998 301(h) modified National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued jointly by the EPA and the RWQCB. This permit was set to expire in June 2003, but it was administratively extended for the permit renewal process with the timely submission of the new application in December 2002. The District requested and received a change in their NPDES permit testing protocols for whole effluent toxicity testing during the July 19, 2002 permit modfication, which mandated the use of bleach followed by dechlorination for bacterial reduction of the effluent. This change requires the use of marine species for both acute and chronic testing to make the permit consistent with the 2001 California Ocean Plan amendments. This is expected to provide a more meaningful measure of marine toxicity compared to the use of freshwater species, which have shown some toxicity to be present in recent months. Preliminary results have shown a reduction in toxicity since the new testing protocols and bleach disinfectionldechlorination has been implemented. The current drought has also reduced sewer flows and increased the concentrations of ammonia entering the treatment plants. As of this date, preliminary testing has shown that ammonia toxicity is less of a concern with the new testing protocols and disinfection operations. However, ammonia-related toxicity is a concern that has been studied to ensure that compliance is maintained. Side stream management (from solids dewatering and advanced treatment backwash) and other treatment options were evaluated and it was determined that side stream treatment or nitrification of the effluent will not be necessary to accommodate the GWRS Project. Moreover, toxicity testing work done in the past has shown that higher levels of secondary treatment do lower toxicity. Thus, the following operational plan and other necessary improvements should help alleviate future toxicity-related issues. 2 Book Page 25 September 3, 2003—Operational Plan B. Updated Projections of Flow and Effluent Quality The October 1999 Strategic Plan and supporting certified Program Environmental Impact Report evaluated six treatment alternatives for possible implementation through the year 2020. All were based on the same projected service area population and flow projections for the service area as well as tributary areas that are served, such as from the Irvine Ranch Water District (IRWD) and Santa Ana Watershed Planning Authority (SAWPA). There were three basic treatment scenarios: 1) Maintain the 50:50 blend of primary and secondary treatment pursuant to the 1989 Master Plan (the NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE); 2) Compliance with the 1998 ocean discharge permit limits (the PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE); and 3) Compliance with the secondary treatment standard. All three of these options were then considered with and without the implementation of the GWRS project. The GWRS project is planned for implementation in three phases and may eventually divert up to an annual average dry weather flow of 110 million gallons per day (mgd) (summer peak is 165 mgd) of secondary treatment for reuse. Phase I, now under construction, is expected to divert an annual average of 92 mgd of secondary effluent from Reclamation Plant No. 1 with a net yield of 64 mgd of water after the return of backwash from the microfiltration process and brine from the reverse osmosis process to the District. The 1999 Strategic Plan (which projected flows and facility needs through the year 2020) was updated in 2002 on an interim basis to verify assumptions and to refine the treatment aftematives in response to changed service area flow characteristics. The updated Interim Strategic Plan Update indicated that per capita flow contributions are now lower and required the District to lower its previous flow forecast prepared in 1997. Projected influent flows include 32 mgd of flow from the IRWD and 30 mgd of flow from SAWPA for a total capacity need of 321 mgd by the year 2020 (31 mgd less than the 1999 Strategic Plan had projected). In the Interim Strategic Plan Update (started in 2001 and completed in July 2002) four different treatment alternatives (designated A, B, C and D) were developed. These were similar to those from the 1999 Strategic Plan and included the following: A) Compliance with 1998 permit limits; B) A 50:50 blend of primary and secondary treatment; C) Secondary treatment; and D) Alternative Treatment such as microfiltration. These scenarios were addressed in detail and presented at various public workshops, to a Planning Advisory Committee, and the Board of Directors. All of the scenarios with the exception of C required that the District obtain a Clean Water Act §301(h) modification from secondary treatment because the effluent quality generated could not achieve the federal standard for secondary treatment. Ultimately, the Board selected an alternative that provided for compliance with the secondary treatment standard. Such an alternative could include a mix of technologies identified in Alternatives C and D. At that same time the Board directed staff to immediately improve effluent quality to the maximum extent possible using existing treatment facilities. 3 Book Page 26 September 3, 2003—Operational Plan The September 2002 Draft Operations Plan originally submitted as part of the District's NPDES permit application addressed the immediate plans to improve effluent quality. Now that the immediate plans have been implemented and detailed scheduling of proposed new facilities has been refined, new effluent quality estimates have been developed. Effluent quality through the next NPDES permitting cycle and beyond will be based on the new operating policy of maximizing treatment using existing facilities and new facilities already under design or construction that will be operational during the permit life (five years). Until the GWRS Project comes on-line, effluent quality changes can be influenced by the use of chemicals, optimization of existing secondary treatment and other operational changes. When facili ies are taken off line for rehabilitation or new facilities are connected to the treatment system, effluent quality will change. In July 2007, when the GWRS is anticipated to become operational, effluent quality will change. Concentrations of various constituents in the final effluent will increase while the respective mass discharges will decrease as secondary effluent is diverted to the GWRS facilities. Note that the backwash flows from the GWRS will be returned for treatment while the reverse osmosis brine flow will be discharged directly to the ocean. Estimates of flow and effluent quality through 2012 are discussed in Section H and presented in Tables 1 and 2. Understanding the nature of these anticipated changes is Important since effluent quality is not addressed in detail in the updated Interim Strategic Plan other than the long-term changes anticipated as a result of implementing a particular alternative. C. Current Ocean Monitoring Program The District conducts an extensive ocean monitoring program to demonstrate compliance with NPDES permit conditions and to assess effects from the wastewater discharge on water quality, sea floor conditions, marine biota, and human health. The various elements include shoreline monitoring and offshore water quality, sediment, fish and infaunal communities, and bioaccumulation monitoring. These complement an extensive influent, treatment process and effluent monitoring program to characterize the wastewater coming into and leaving the treatment plants. Regional monitoring is also conducted to characterize changing conditions outside the area near the District's outfall. The intensive monitoring program now being conducted is in fts 171' year since the Clean Water Act §301(h) modified permit was first issued in 1985. This long-term database is an effective tool in understanding the changes that occur in the marine environment and how they might be related to any changes in effluent quality. This understanding is a key factor in the District's ability to predict the changes that are anticipated as a result of improvements in the level of treatment. The District has proposed to continue the program (with minor modifications) until the secondary treatment standard is achieved, in order to provide a consistent long-term record of environmental conditions in the ocean. a Book Page 27 September 3, 2003— Operational Plan D. Current Baseline Conditions Assessing the operational changes and the impacts those changes will have on operating costs and environmental quality is of key importance in implementing the secondary treatment standard. The 1999 Program Environmental Impact Report assumed certain baseline conditions and projected impacts through the year 2020, based upon a conservative set of assumptions. The Interim Strategic Plan Update revised the cost impacts and major environmental consequences of each of the treatment levels under consideration. The Plan-to-Plan, which identified the specific treatment processes to be used to achieve the secondary treatment standard, was completed May 2003. Additional environmental work to fulfill the California Environmental Quality Act requirements will be completed prior to design of those facilities. In the original Operations Plan, FY 2001/02 annual average conditions operating at a minimum 50:50 blend of primary and secondary treatment were considered to be the baseline conditions against which the new operating ramp-up to improve treatment was to be compared. Now that this is completed and details on proposed changes have been refined, the various influent and effluent quality assumptions have been developed and updated final effluent quality forecasts have been modeled. A major premise in the selection of the secondary treatment standard as a new Preferred Alternative for implementation is that It will result in an overall reduction of both the mass and concentration of constituents discharged to the marine environment. Selection of this higher level of treatment has taken into account the impacts on the marine environment and those on land and air resources associated with providing for disposal or reuse of residuals, use of energy, construction of new facilities, use of chemicals, employee commute impacts from a larger staff, etc. This cross-media consideration has been a hallmark philosophy of the District since preparation of the 1989 Master Plan, 1989 NPDES permit renewal application, and accompanying Program Environmental Impact Report. This identification of impacts and consideration in the selection of the appropriate level of treatment was continued with the 1999 Strategic Plan and the 2002 Interim Strategic Plan Update. Present baseline conditions for assessing changes in the near term are discussed below, but they must be kept in the context of both historical and future changes. Over the next 9 years, the treatment facilities at both treatment plants will be increased to provide treatment to achieve an effluent quality that meets the secondary treatment standard. This will be done using one or more treatment technologies, depending upon the outcome of facilities planning studies to be initiated shortly. Costs will increase in the interim as more chemicals, energy, solids generation, and personnel are used to achieve a higher level of treatment. The cost to achieve approximately 60-65% secondary treatment, the maximum operational capacity of the existing secondary treatment facilities under present flow conditions, was$3,000,000 annually during the 2002-03 fiscal year. 5 Book Page 28 September 3, 2003 — Operational Plan The basic baseline conditions are described below. 1. Advanced Primary Treatment (APT)Conditions—Since July of 1989, the treatment plants have been operated to meet a 50:50 blend of APT and secondary effluents. Current primary treatment removals have been based on the continuous addition of chemicals at Reclamation Plant No. 1 to achieve optimal results of about 75% removal of suspended solids (60 mg/L TSS) and 45% removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (150 mg/L BOD). At Treatment Plant No. 2, the operations are similar, except the BOD removals result in a lower effluent concentration (135 mg/L)due to the lower influent BOD concentration. 2. Secondary Treatment — The secondary treatment facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1 consist of both air Activated Sludge (A.S.) (as of June 2003, treating 77 mgd) operated to produce flow for both ocean discharge and reclamation. The A.S. facilities produce a high quality effluent(<10 mg/L TSS and <15 mg/L BOD). Plant No. 2 has a pure oxygen A.S. facility treating 80 mgd, as of June 2003. which produces an effluent with a BOD of 10 mg/L and a TSS of 12 mg/L (under present flow conditions). 3. Reclamation Diversions — The amount of secondary A.S. effluent diverted to the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for reclamation varies based on seasonal demands. Recently, as much as 8 mgd of flow has been diverted for reclamation, with 5 mgd recycled to the District for a net of 3 mgd. This amount is expected to increase over time as the GWRS project is implemented. Start-up of the GWRS project is scheduled to occur in mid-2007. At that time, additional secondary treatment flows of up to 92 mgd (64 mgd annual average net change in ocean discharge amounts after taking back microfiltrabon backwash and reverse osmosis reject)will be delivered to the OCWD GWRS for advanced treatment. 4. Ocean Discharge — The baseline final effluent consists of a 50:50 blend of advanced primary treated effluent and secondary effluent. This blend consists of APT effluent from both treatment plants and conventional activated sludge effluent from Reclamation Plant No.1 and pure oxygen activated sludge effluent from Treatment Plant No.2. 5. Biosolids Management — Biosolids are dewatered to optimize cake dryness to reduce hauling costs. The average cake dryness is about 22% at both treatment plants. Dewatering operations are now conducted seven days a week to minimize filtrate impacts to the treatment processes. Overall production of solids varies, but ranges from 500-600 wet tons per day of biosolids with Treatment Plant No. 2 producing about 100 wet tons per day more than Plant No. 1. The District is also conducting a long-tens biosolids management plan that will function under the requirements of the District's certified Environmental Management System. 6 Book Page 29 September 3, 2003—Operational Plan Prior to initiation of treatment changes, the various departments agreed upon baseline benchmark conditions. This facilitated tracking changes in operational parameters and relating these to changes in effluent quality, marine water quality, and residuals management operations. Other baseline conditions, such as chemical and energy use, maintenance and operations labor, air emissions, odor generation, etc. have been established for benchmarking against future changes. III. PROPOSED CHANGES IN OPERATING STRATEGY TO MEET BOARD DIRECTIVE TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARD A. Year 2002 New Operational Philosophy With the July 17, 2002 Board of Directors vote to meet the secondary treatment standard as expeditiously as possible, a new operational philosophy was implemented. With the approval of this new treatment scenario, the District will move away from the policy chosen in 1989 to provide an effluent that would provide for secondary treatment of half of the flow discharged to the ocean to a policy to achieve full secondary treatment standard as soon as practical. Under the Plan-to-Plan adopted by the District's Board of Directors in April 2003,the new treatment standard will be met by December 31, 2012. To implement the plan, many operational changes must be implemented. The District staff has evaluated existing facilities and changes have been made to the operations of facilities, including the use of more chemicals, redirecting flows to different treatment facilities, increasing the use of facilities, etc. There were several operational goals and strategies that were considered as the mode of operation changes. The following summary provides the original goals and strategies, concerns, and the proposed implementation plan that has been and will continue to be implemented. 1. Operational Goals and Strategies • Ensure that Reclamation Plant No.1 Air A.S. Plant maintains a flow that meets the peak demands of 65 mgd to 75 mgd of capacity. • Utilize the Plant No. 2 Oxygen A.S. Plant to the extent practical to achieve up to 80 mgd of secondary treatment. • Work with the Engineering Department to design improvements to optimize existing and new secondary treatment facilities and ensure reliability under different operating conditions (high and low flows). 7 Book Page 30 September 3, 2003 — Operational Plan • Treat to a level that meets all permit requirements and maximizes the removal to suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand. • Develop an Ammonia Management Plan and any needed treatment methods for implementation prior to commencement of GWRS. This should be integrated with the Side stream Management study and design program to assure toxicity limitations can be met. • Monitor the process closely using tracking mechanisms that will allow for a quick assess performance and make timely process adjustments to maximize performance. • Ensure primary clarifiers are performing efficiently and reliably at all times. • Ensure maintenance work performed on primary clarifiers gets prioritized appropriately and that quick turnarounds are emphasized. • During a primary outage or upset of any length of time, increase the disinfection chemicals in a relatively quick manner to ensure adequate disinfection. • Continue coordination with Engineering to ensure that operational strategies do not conflict with upcoming rehabilitation of existing facilities and construction of new facilities. • Continue the effective interface between the Laboratory and Operations to ensure reliable,timely, and accurate process feedback. • Start a multi-departmental project team to monitor progress and address problems that arise during the optimization process. • Determine how to provide process-oxygen at a rate that maximizes performance, but conserves energy. • Determine how to accommodate future construction activities to the Secondary Treatment processes, such as the Trickling Filter Rehabilitation Project, and still meet all effluent quality goals. Based on an initial review of construction projects, some temporary lowering of water quality may be necessary during the construction of new facilities to accommodate the tie-in of new facilities. The District requests that the interim permitting strategy allow for some temporary lowering of water quality of up to 10mg1L when certain notice and timing requirements are met during the tie-in of new secondary treatment facilities and the new Plant No. 2 headworks. Realizing these goals and implementing the strategies will most likely require some physical modifications to the plant equipment. Depending on the water quality impacts 8 Book Page 31 September 3, 2003 —Operational Plan from the initial stages, the ability to turn up the process may not materialize to the extent envisioned. For example, Plant No. 2 can only operate 4 of the 8 reactors until the rehabilitation project for the Plant No. 2 secondary plant is complete by June 2005. 2. Implementation of Treatment Chances In analyzing historical process performance, projections have been made that foresee effluent quality limitations from the NPDES permit to be achieved and improved upon, as the amount of flow going through the secondary treatment process is increased. The target for activated sludge secondary treatment for Plants No. 1 and 2 were 60 mgd and 75 mgd, respectively, by December 2002. Influent flows that receive secondary treatment will vary from 150 mgd to 200 mgd from 2003 through 2007 as described in the strategy below. From 2007 until 2011 the amount of secondary treatment will remain constant at 200 mgd with the exception of short term interruptions for construction tie-ins. The basic strategy has been implemented as follows: 1. Treatment of the side streams from solids processing and from primary treatment floatables was performed using the trickling filters at Reclamation Plant No.1. When these treatment facilities are taken off line for rehabilitation, the side streams will have to be treated by some other process(es), which are now under evaluation for possible future design and construction. 2. The APT removal efficiencies were increased using chemical dosing to reduce the solids loading to secondary treatment at both Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 to improve the quality of the APT effluent discharged to the ocean. 3. Beginning in July 2002, secondary treatment was gradually increased to achieve 75 mgd at Reclamation Plant No. 1 by July 2003. Treatment Plant No. 2 will operate the oxygen plant at 80 mgd. 4. In June 2003, the trickling filters at Plant No. 1 were taken out of service for two years for rehabilitation and increased capacity. This reduced available secondary treatment by 20 mgd to a total of 155 mgd. 5. Secondary treatment research is underway on aeration basins at Plant No. 1 to operate an anaerobic selector to seek to enhance operational flexibility and capacity. 6. In March 2005, the Plant No. 2 secondary plant control system project will be completed, restoring the secondary treatment design capacity of the plant. This s Book Page 32 September 3, 2003 — Operational Plan will increase available secondary treatment by 10 mgd to a total of 165 mgd. 7. In August 2005, the Plant No. 1 secondary treatment rehabilitation construction will begin, and this will lower the available secondary treatment by 15 mgd to 150 mgd as banks of equipment are removed and replaced. 8. In March 2006, the trickling filters at Plant No. 1 will be completed and back in service. This will increase available secondary treatment by 30 mgd to a total of 180 mgd. 9. In June 2007, the Plant No. 1 rehabilitation will be completed restoring an additional 20 mgd of capacity at Plant No.1. This will increase the total secondary capacity to 200 mgd. 10.In July 2007, the GWRS is planned to begin operation. This will divert a net flow of approximately 70 mgd of secondary effluent from ocean disposal to reclamation. in order to provide sufficient flows of secondary effluent, some nighttime flows from Plant No.2 will be diverted to Plant No.1. This diversion will also reduce the overall secondary effluent from the two treatment plants from 200 mgd to about 185 mgd. This is because the nighttime flows at Plant No.2 are below its secondary treatment capacity. Thus, the reduction in nighttime flows reduces the daily averages of the two treatment works. 11.In February 2011, the Plant No. 2 secondary expansion will be completed adding 60 mgd of secondary capacity to the plant. All wastewater tributary to Plant No. 2 will receive secondary treatment after this point. 12.In December 2012, the Plant No. 1 secondary expansion will be completed adding 90 mgd of secondary capacity to the plant. At that time, all District effluent will meet the secondary treatment standard. B. Proposed Ocean Monitoring Changes There is only a minor change (frequency of histopathology analysis of fish) in the ocean- monitoring program that is being proposed as part of the implementation of the improved treatment scenario to meet the secondary treatment standard. The basic permit monitoring requirements will not change. C. Biosolids Management Changes There will be changes in the biosolids management program as a result of increasing the amount of secondary treatment and the District's goal of implementing sustainable management options. Over time, there will be more solids to manage with slightly higher 10 Book Page 33 September 3, 2003 — Operational Plan water content resulting in more difficult dewatering and more truck trips for beneficial reuse. Also, the reuse will include more EPA defined Class 'A' biosolids management options. IV. DOCUMENTING CHANGES Changes that occur in the by-products produced by the treatment plants and their impacts on the environment as the treatment changes occur and are sustained at a new level are being documented through various monitoring programs. Of key importance will be the in-plant and effluent monitoring programs to document the individual treatment unit performance and effluent quality produced along with the final effluent discharged to the ocean. The ocean monitoring program will be able to detect changes in marine water quality and marine biota over time. Other key areas of importance will be biosolids quality and air quality, which will change as a result of increased use of existing secondary treatment facilities. In the long-term future, the secondary facilities will need to increase to full capacity in order to accommodate the demand from GW RS. A. Operational Feedback Loops and Reporting The Operations Department will prepare its Monthly Operations Reports that will include a discussion of what major operational changes were made and how these changes impact effluent quality. B. Compliance Feedback Loops and Reporting The Environmental Compliance and Monitoring (ECM) Division of Technical Services is working with the Environmental Sciences Laboratory (ESL) Division to evaluate on-going monitoring data and provide the Operations Department feedback on the results of the effluent monitoring and ocean monitoring program results and NPDES permit compliance. As results become available from the monitoring program, any violations of permit conditions will be immediately reported to Operations and appropriate actions will be taken to adjust the treatment processes in order to address the particular parameter(s) of concern. If the change is related to a change in the influent characteristics to the treatment plant, then ECM will consult with the Source Control (SC) Division to determine if there is a need to increase monitoring or enforcement to ensure any needed reductions in a particular parameter. C. Effluent Monitoring Effluent monitoring will be continued in accordance with the Monitoring and Reporting Program issued concurrently with the current NPDES permit. 11 Book Page 34 September 3, 2003— Operational Plan D. Ocean Monitoring The Ocean Monitoring program results are generally reported on an annual basis. However, due to the nature of the proposed change in treatment and the initiation of bacterial reduction using bleach, it is proposed that for the first year of implementation, more attention will be given to highlighting any notable changes in water quality. Most notable will be the changes in water quality that might be measurable. Based on historical discharge practices and the past 18 years, the anticipated changes are expected to be minor. However, as results are obtained, they will continue to be compared against past trends, and any that can be attributed to the change in the level of treatment are noted. These results will also be discussed at the Quarterly Management and monitoring program meetings held with the EPA, RWQCB, and the Orange County Health Department staff. E. Energy Use Secondary treatment is an energy intensive treatment process and thus, the energy use from increasing the amount of secondary treatment should be significant. Documenting the amount of increased energy use will be an important component of the Secondary Treatment Implementation Program. The energy use (in terms of both natural gas and electrical power) that can be attributed to the implementation of the Secondary Treatment Standard alternative will be documented and summarized in the Monthly Operations Reports, as discussed above. The increased energy use and costs will be compared to an established baseline usage for 50:50 treatment. F. Biosolids Management Changes The District generates about 230,000 wet tons per year of biosolids for beneficial reuse in agricultural areas as a soil amendment. The biosolids management program has been changed from one in which only Class B materials were directly land-applied to one that includes the production of Class A materials for various markets. The trend from utilizing the land application of Class B biosolids to the increased production of Class A biosolids products is expected to continue. This program is looking towards the future, as local regulatory programs become more restrictive in response to public concerns about the land application of biosolids. Class A material is essentially pathogen free and can be utilized for a wider variety of uses, including home landscaping. Secondary treatment generates much larger quantities of biosolids and thus requires greater chemical and energy use, and entails a larger number of truck trips to reuse areas. Increasing the amount of secondary treatment will increase the amount of biosolids, which requires additional hauling and reuse. This will result in higher costs for the management program and increased environmental impacts associated with the treatment and reuse of biosolids. Documenting the changes associated with sludge treatment and biosolids management will be an important component of the Secondary Treatment 12 Book Page 35 September 3, 2003— Operational Plan Implementation Program. The changes in the program that can be attributed to the implementation of the secondary treatment standard will be documented and summarized in the Monthly Operations Reports. The costs and impacts will be documented to establish baseline costs for an improved level of treatment. G. Other Changes The Operations Department will monitor and document changes which occur in air emissions, labor expense, chemical use, odor complaints, and other operational and maintenance changes to quantify the differences from different levels of treatment. It is anticipated that annual operating costs will increase by about $3,000,000 a year to add additional chemicals during primary treatment and to operate at the 60-65% secondary treatment level. In addition, overall land and air-related environmental impacts will increase (energy use, air emissions, truck trips, biosolids generation, etc.) while marine environmental impacts will decrease. At the end of one year of full operational experience, a complete written report documenting the changes will be prepared for presentation to the Board and other interested parties. H. Estimated Changes in Flow and Effluent Quality as a Result of New Operational Strategy A summary comparison of the projected changes in wastewater flow, effluent quality and mass emissions (annual average conditions) and key environmental impacts associated with the optimization of secondary treatment facilities to achieve maximum performance from the existing facilities through the end of the next NPDES permit (late 2008 is anticipated, given that the existing five-year permit expired in June 2003) and for the entire period until full secondary treatment is constructed and becomes operational are shown in Figures 1 through 4. The quality assumptions used in calculating the effluent quality are presented in Table 1 and differ slightly from previous assumptions since they are more reflective of current performance. While these numbers provide long-term planning estimates, it is the near-term impacts which can be monitored and tracked that are of key importance to the initiation of the new treatment policy now being implemented. These quality numbers shown are estimates only, based on past projections and treatment plant performance and are subject to change. The assumptions used for planning are consistent with those used in the 1999 Strategic Plan Environmental Impact Report, but have been updated, as shown in red. The recent addition of bleach will change some parameters, particularly the bacterial indicators. Actual operational performance is being reported to the Board of Directors on a monthly basis and posted on the District's web site and as part of routine NPDES permit monitoring and reporting. 13 Book Page 36 September 3, 2003—Operational Plan Once GWRS is operational, there will be an increased load back to the District's treatment facilities, due to the return of backwash to the secondary treatment facilities from the microfiltration process as well as the disposal of reverse osmosis reject flows directly to the ocean outfall. These reject streams will result in an increase in effluent concentrations of many constituents, particularly ammonia-nitrogen and trace materials. Impacts associated with these process streams are being evaluated on a periodic basis, as additional pilot work and testing is done. Any impacts on the District's ability to meet permit conditions will be addressed by additional treatment, flow equalization, nitrification, or other means yet to be determined. The Waste Side Stream Management Plan will evaluate the need to manage any impacts associated with ammonia and the need for removal to meet toxicity requirements for both the District's treatment facilities and GWRS reject waste streams. It is also important to note that there will be significant diumal flow changes that will occur once diversions for GWRS commence. These changes in flow will be of such a magnitude that they will present significant new operational challenges not previously experienced. Until these flow changes actually occur, the operational management changes needed cannot be fully recognized (i.e. A.S. feed changes, solids loading, etc.). V. PROPOSED INTERIM LIMITS UNTIL THE SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARD IS MET During the next permit cycle, the District anticipates improving treatment using existing and new treatment facilities already under design or construction (trickling fitters at Treatment Plant No. 1). Achieving the secondary treatment standard is not anticipated' to occur until the end of the year 2012, based on the scheduling of new facilities identified in the Interim Strategic Plan and amended under the May 2003 update and revised schedule. Thus, some type of interim limits for incorporation into the new NPDES permit will be required. Based on existing facilities, the Operations Department has proposed limits that are less than those in the present permit, but deemed achievable during the next ten years on a regular basis given the changes anticipated in the treatment plants. These interim limits are shown in Tables 2 and 3, and they reflect changes associated with implementation of the GWRS project. G9wp.db\tsW20\GENERAL DATAWgenda Repo L\StwnngQC OCSD Final OPS RepoM1 S e dng 11-1903.doc 14 Book Page 37 Table 1 Effluent Quality Assumptions: Annual Average Values for Planning Estimates mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L Reclamation Plant No. 1 TSS BOD 08G NH4-N Advanced Primary Effluent 60 150 28 25 Trickling Filter Effluent 25 25 7 44 Activated Sludge Effluent 25 25 7 19 Plant No.2 Advanced Primary Effluent 60 135 28 22 Activated Sludge Effluent 25 25 7 22 Table 2 Proposed Interim Permit Limits for NPDES Permit Renewal before GWRS is online Parameter 7-Day Avg. 30-Day Avg. 904Da Avg.' Annual Avg.' BODs or 130mg/L or 80mg1-or CBOD2 125m L 75mWL TSS 100m 60m 40mufL TSS 15,000 metric tons) ear Table 3 Proposed Interim Permit Limits for NPDES Permit Renewal after GWRS is online Parameter 7411la Avg. 30-Da A t9O-DavA . Annual Avg.' BODs or 130rri or g(L orCBODa 125rr TSS 100m 60m 50m TSS 12,500 metric tons) ar G:1wp.dl kW6201GENERALOATA1 genda Reporbl5teedngVC_Tables 1-3or OpsPlan_9-04-03_Steenng_11-1"Idoc ' Note that it may be necessary to temporarily lower water quality by as much as lomg/L for BOD5 and TSS during the connection of new facilities to the treatment works. This includes the new headworks at Plant No. 2 as well as the new secondary facilities at both plants. The District proposes to provide the EPA and RW QCB at least 90 days notice prior to commencement of the project with a description of the proposed action and any projected lowering of water quality with a schedule of completion. Due to potential need to conduct partial or full nitrification of the secondary treatment facilities to remove ammonia prior to the reclamation of wastewater,the discharger, at its option, may measure compliance with biochemical oxygen demand as either the five day measure of biochemical oxygen demand (BODs) or the five day measure of carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand(CBOD). Compliance with a CBOD limitation will be based on Smg/L less of CBOD than the equivalent BODs standard in a similar manner as allowed under 40 Code of Federal Regulations§133.102(a)(4)of the secondary treatment standard. a The GWRS project is scheduled to go online in the Fall 2007. The District proposes to provide the EPA and RWQCB with at least 90 days notice prior to start-up of the completed project and implementation of Table 3 interim limits. Book Page 38 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To B4.of Dr. Il/19/03 AGENDA REPORT Item Num r Item Number ,F(c Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Originator: Jim Colston, Legal & Regulatory Affairs Liaison SUBJECT: State and Federal Legislative Advocacy GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION (1) Establish a budget of $320,000 for state and federal legislative advocacy; (2) Authorize the General Manager to enter into a Consultant Services Agreements with ENS Resources, Inc. for a contract amount not to exceed $180,000, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP for a contract amount not to exceed $60,000, and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.for a contract amount not to exceed $60,000 for a one-year period, effective January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004, which will provide for professional advocacy services in a form approved by General Counsel; and (3) Each contract is renewable for up to three (3) one-year periods at the discretion of the General Manager. SUMMARY On October 22, 2003, staff was directed by the Steering Committee to continue to pursue state and federal legislative activities for the purpose of obtaining grant money to support District projects and secondary treatment facilities, as well as support District legislative goals. The District presently has three lobbyist firms under contract to accomplish these goals. ENS Resources, Inc., which provides consulting services focused on the acquisition of federal funding for the secondary treatment expansion, through EPA assistance grants; Townsend Public Affairs, Inc., which provides consulting services focused on the acquisition of state funding for District projects (Fats, Oils, and Greases, Santa Ana River Interceptor line, etc.) through Propositions 13, 40, 50 and other grant sources; and Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP, which provides consulting services focused on state legislative initiatives to support District goals, most t recently in the areas of secondary treatment, biosolids, and urban runoff. Following a presentation by these District's lobbyists, the Committee informally recommended a contract extension for all three (3) firms. The District's current agreement with these consultants expires on December 31, 2003. The proposed contract will extend the contract for one year. PRIOR COMMITTEEIBOARD ACTIONS November 20, 2002— Board approved current contract with ENS Resources, Inc., which expires on December 31, 2003. Book Page 39 PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Professional Services • ENS Resources, Inc. $180,000 • Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP $60,000 • Townsend Public Affairs $60,000 OCSD Direct Costs (Estimated) $10,000 'OCSD Travel (Estimated) $10,000 TOTAL Budget $320,000 'Out of Town Travel Subject to District Approval Due to the complexity of this project and the need to pursue funding over multiple funding cycles, this may end up being a multi-year effort of up to five years. This contract request is for one year at a total not to exceed $300,000. If a contract extension is necessary to extend these services beyond 2004, this action will provide for up to three (3) one-year contract extensions at the discretion of the General Manager. BUDGET IMPACT ® This item has been budgeted. (Line item: G.M.'s Budget) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION At the October 22, 2003 Steering Committee meeting and the subsequent meeting of the Board of Directors, the four members of the District's lobbying team provided an update on this year's activities and a strategy for proposed future action. The team members include Eric Sapirstein (ENS Resources, Inc.), Larry Kest (Freshman Kest— subcontractor to ENS Resources, Inc.), Christopher Townsend (Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.) and Scott Baugh (Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP). ALTERNATIVES These contracts are not necessary if the Board of Directors decides it does not want to utilize consultants to pursue state and federal legislative activities for the purpose of obtaining grant money to support District projects and secondary treatment facilities, and to support District legislative goals. CEOA FINDINGS N/A Book Page 40 ATTACHMENTS N/A aook e.�so 41 STEERING COMMITTEE MedgDate I Tosd.ofW. 11/19/03 AGENDA REPORT IeanN(�ir I Item Number Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary SUBJECT: December Agenda Items for Consideration by Working Committees GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Review with staff the agenda items tentatively scheduled for review by the Working Committees in December. SUMMARY Staff routinely prepares for the Steering Committee a list of items scheduled for presentation to the Working Committees and the Board at their next monthly meetings. This allows the Steering Committee the opportunity to review these items early enough to make reassignments in the review or approval process. The following items are scheduled to be considered by the Committees in December: OMTS Committee: 1. Consider Long Term Biosolids Management Plan review, recommendations and implementation 2. Consider Polymer Contract Change 3. Ratify Change Order to Digester Gas Pipeline Repair project 4. Consider contract for Small Diameter Pipe Sewer Cleaning PDC Committee: 1. Award professional services agreement for Contract 5-58, Newport Trunk Sewer and Force Mains 2. Ratify Change Order No. 11 to Job No. 131-37, Primary Clarifier Nos. 16-31 and Related Facilities at Plant No. 1 3. Ratify Change Order No. 2 to Job No. J-87, Short Term Ocean Outfall Bacteria Reduction 4. Approve Amendment No. 5 to PSA for Job No. J-35-2, Area Classification Study Implementation at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 5. Approve Amendment No. 6 to PSA for Job No. 1-2-4, Bushard Trunk Sewer 6. Award professional services agreement for Job No. P1-82, Activated Sludge Rehabilitation 7. Award professional services agreement for Job No. J-40-10, Supplemental Full Secondary CEQA Documentation 8. Report on Job No. J-40-7, Long Range Biosolids Master Plan FAHR Committee: 1. Consider Annexation Charge Policy 2. Consider Capital Facilities Capacity Charges 3. Consider revised Purchasing Resolution 4. Consider 03/04 First Quarter SWAP Report (Information) Book Page 42 5. Consider Internal Auditing Firm 6. Consider Budget Assumptions, Calendar and Fiscal Policy Statements for FY 2004/05 Budget PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGET IMPACT ❑ 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 NA ALTERNATIVES NA CEOA FINDINGS Not a project. ATTACHMENTS NA jt c:�.meeo.wome.noo c�.n..wwant t t ma un a rro w oac.,ex Page 2 Book Page 43 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Dare To lid.or Dir. 11/19/03 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Item Number e Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary SUBJECT: November Agenda Items for Consideration by the Board GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Review with staff the agenda items tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Board at its November 19, 2003 meeting. SUMMARY Staff routinely prepares for the Steering Committee lists of items scheduled for presentation to the Working Committees and the Board at their next monthly meetings. This allows the Steering Committee the opportunity to review these items early enough to make reassignments in the review or approval process. The following items are scheduled to be considered by the Board at the November 19, 2003 meeting: 9. Consideration of motion to approve all agenda items appearing on the Consent Calendar not specifically removed from same, as follows: a. (1) Receive and file petition from Bill Tovatt requesting to annex 1.02 acres to Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in the vicinity of Randall Street and Clark Street in an unincorporated area of Orange County; and, (2) Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 03.25,authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex said territory to OCSD (Proposed Annexation No. OCSD-33—Tovatt Annexation). b. (1) Receive and file petition from Ken Kirkland requesting to annex 0.31 acres to Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) in the vicinity of Randall Street and Clark Street in an unincorporated area of Orange County; and, (2)Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 03.26,authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex said territory to OCSD (Proposed Annexation No. OCSD-35—Kirkland Annexation). END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 10. Consideration of items deleted from Consent Calendar, if any. Book Page 44 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 11. STEERING COMMITTEE Consent Calendar a. Order draft Steering Committee Minutes for the meeting held on October 22, 2003 to be filed. Non-Consent Calendar b. Review and consideration of agenda items considered by the Steering Committee re the November 19, 2003 meeting. C. Consideration of items deleted from Steering Committee Consent Calendar, if any. 12. OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE AND TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE (OMTS) OMTS Consent Calendar a. Order draft Operations, Maintenance and Technical Services Committee Minutes for the meeting held on November 5,2003 to be filed. a. Receive and file Final Report for Corrosion Management Assessment Study, Specification No. CS-2002-80-BD, dated September 2003, prepared by M.J. Schiff& Associates, Inc. OMTS Non-Consent Calendar C. Consideration of items deleted from OMITS Committee Consent Calendar, if any. 13. PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (PDC) PDC Consent Calendar a. Order draft Planning, Design and Construction Committee Minutes for the meeting held on November 6, 2003 to be filed. b. (1) Ratify Change Order No. 1 to Rehabilitation of 36-inch Forcemain (B) Between Bitter Point Pump Station and Junction Box, Contract No. 5-29-R1,with Insitufonn Technologies, Inc., authorizing a deduction of$15,529, decreasing the total contract amount to$1,536,941; and, (2)Accept Contract No. 5-29-R1 as complete, authorizing execution of the Notice of Completion and approving the Final Closeout Agreement. C. Ratify Change Order No. 10 to Primary Clarifiers 16-31 and Related Facilities, Job No. P1-37, with Margate Construction, authorizing an addition of$56,041, increasing the total contract amount to$71,198,134. a�.maero«ays,«. v cw,.,.n«eaumvwz,m uu iw rvw,eoa�au aac Page 2 Baok Page 45 d. Ratify Change Order No. 4 to Area Classification Study Implementation Plan, Plant Nos. 1 and 2, Job No. J-35-2, with J.F. Shea Construction, Inc., authorizing an addition of$197,094, increasing the total contract amount to$14,731,356. Y e. (1)Approve a budget Amendment of$4,222,000 for Long Term Monitoring Program, Job No. J-73-2,for a project budget of$7,074,000; and, (2)Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Professional Services Agreement with ADS Environmental Services for additional flow monitoring and analysis for an additional amount of$125,000, increasing the total amount not to exceed $6,337,400. I. Approve Amendment No. 1,to the Professional Services Agreement with Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., for Ellis Avenue Pump Station Rehabilitation, Job No. 1-10, providing for additional design engineering services for an additional amount of $400,055, increasing the total amount not to exceed $3,586,082. g. Approve Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Tetra Tech, Inc. for the Warner Avenue Relief Sewer, Contract No. 11-22, providing for additional engineering services during construction,for an additional amount of $78,500, increasing the total amount not to exceed $440,979. h. Approve Amendment No. 5 to the Professional Services Agreement with Black & Veatch Corporation for additional construction support services for Effluent Pump Station Annex, Job No. J-77,for an additional amount of$1,776,417, increasing the total amount not to exceed to$6,164,240. PDC Non-Consent Calendar i. Consideration of items deleted from PDC Committee Consent Calendar, if any 14. FINANCE, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES COMMITTEE (FAHR) FAHR Consent Calendar a. Order draft Finance, Administration and Human Resources Committee Minutes for the meeting held on November 12, 2003 to be filed. (Minutes to be distributed at 11119102 Board Meeting.) b. Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of October 2003. C. Receive and file the Quarterly Investment Management Program Report for the period July 1, 2003 through September 30, 2003. d. Receive and file the 2003-04 First Quarter Financial Report for the period ending September 30, 2003. e. Approve SAFETY-POL 113- Exposure Control Plan for Bloodbome Pathogens Program, as provided for in Resolution No. OCSD 02-5, regarding the District's Injury and Illness Prevention Program Policy. c:w.fm��uc�row;vou WNWm *W.� Page Peviwtl:eQOBB Book Page 46 f. Adopt Resolution No. OCSD o3-27, Authorizing the Director of Human �I Resources to Appoint or Employ Agents or Advisors to Implement and Administer District's Deferred Compensation Plan Loan Program. g. Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 03-28, Amending Resolution No. OCSD 98-33, Amending Human Resources and Policies Procedures Manual, providing for: 1. Create the Automotive/Heavy Equipment Assistant classification at pay range 53 ($16.772 -$20.965); and, 2. Delete the Lead Collection Facilities Worker classification at pay grade 66 ($23.123- $28.904). h. Approve the reclassifications of eight District employees,the upgrading of one vacant position and an equity adjustment for one employee. 1. Receive,file and approve the District's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)for the year ended June 30, 2003, prepared by staff and audited by Moreland and Associates, Certified Public Accountants. j. Authorize staff to invest the Debt Service Reserve Fund for the 2003 Certificates of Participation through a competitive selection process to be conducted by the District's Financial Advisor, Public Resources Advisory Group, in accordance with the District's Investment Policy. k. (1)Approve two additional vanpool routes for the Rideshare Program utilizing existing vans;and, (2) Approve implementation of rideshare incentives in an effort to comply with SCAQMD Rule 2202 and meet established Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) targeted goal, at the Board's discretion and subject to change by the Board at any time. FAHR Non-Consent Calendar I I. Consideration of items deleted from FAHR Consent Calendar, if any. 15. JOINT GROUNDWATER REPLENISHMENT SYSTEM COOPERATIVE COMMITTEE (JCC) JCC Consent Calendar a. Order Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee Minutes for the meeting held on October 13, 2003 to be filed. b. Authorize award of a construction contract by the Orange County Water District (OCWD)to Colich Construction LP,for construction of Groundwater Replenishment System(GW RS) Unit II Pipeline Project, Contract No. GWRS-2003-4,for an amount not to exceed$16,084,005, with OCWD and I Orange County Sanitation District paying equal shares of$8,042,003. G:bnNeNpenMlSreMnBCmminee`0.TNGWIn el Mcla,MVBoeNer.Uoc HaweW:H2G98 Page 4 Book Page 47 t JCC Non-Consent Calendar C. Consideration of items deleted from JCC Consent Calendar, if any. NON-CONSENT CALENDAR 16. Closed Session a. Convene in closed session, if necessary 1. Confer with Lisa Tomko, Director of Human Resources, and Steve Filarsky, Special Labor Counsel, re Meet and Confer Update re Orange County Employees Association (Government Code Section 54957.6). 2. Confer with Lisa Tomko, Director of Human Resources, and Steve Filarsky, Special Labor Counsel, re Meet and Confer Update re Supervisor and Professional Management Team Group (Government Code Section 54957.6). b. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, d any, on matters considered in closed session 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. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NA ALTERNATIVES NA CEOA FINDINGS Not a project. G Wq.NeNpwNa�5lminp CwmfnooWwOWiu o+Nts is rvw Biu,ber Eoc Page 5 Book Page 48 ATTACHMENTS NA it G.wpM ntlalSroMn9 CammtluaeW9WOMN M P mrN We dw Rov aaas. Page 6 Book Page 49 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT (714)962-2411 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92728-8127 Street Address: 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 OCSD 2/13/03 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 4 November 19, 2003 the time it needs to convert to full secondary treatment. Staff will continue to update the Committee on future activities and progress. C. Legislative Consultant Contracts Bob Ghirelli updated the committee on the federal,state and local legislative advocacy activities In the past month. The EPA funding bill is one of four spending bills still pending before Congress and our lobbyists are continuing their work to secure funding for OCSD in that process. In Febmary, Board members will be visiting key members of Congress to bolster support for our$3 million request and begin to lay the groundwork for an authorization In next year's session. State lobbyists are following the changes in Sacramento and looking for opportunities to gain support for the District's issues and funding requests. Staff is going to be working more closely with the Water District,the Orange County Business Council and the County of Orange on legislative Initiatives of mutual Interest. Bob Ghirelli reported that staff was directed to prepare contracts for the consultants at last month's Steering Committee, MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED TO: Recommend to the Board that it: 1) Establish a budget of$320,000 for state and federal legislative advocacy; 2) Authorize the General Manager to enter into Consultant Services Agreements with ENS Resources, Inc.,for a contract amount not to exceed$180,000; Meyer, Brown, Rowe&Maw, LLP, for a contract amount not to exceed$60,000;and Townsend Public Affairs, Inc.,for a contract amount not to exceed$60,000,for a one-year period, effective January 1,2004 through December 31, 2004,which will provide for professional advocacy services in a form approved by General Counsel;and 3) Each contract will be renewable for up to three(3)one-year periods at the discretion of the General Manager. D. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in December were reviewed. E. The agenda items scheduled to be presented to the Board at tonight's meeting were reviewed. (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.