Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-05 DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, May 26, 2004 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, 26, 2004 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS: OTHERS PRESENT: Directors Present: Thomas L.Woodruff, General Counsel Shirley McCracken, Chair Don Hughes Steve Anderson, Vice Chair Jim Ferryman, Chairman, OMTS Committee STAFF PRESENT: Brian Brady, Chairman, FAHR Committee Blake Anderson, General Manager Jim Silva, County Supervisor Carol Beekman, Communications Services Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary Directors Absent: Layne Baroldi, Legal & Regulatory Affairs Liaison Brian Donahue, Chairman, PDC Committee Richard 'Mac' McLaughlin, Principal Public Information Specialist (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ORANGE rn,",_.•-..,*.*,nq DISTRICT (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS JUN 23 2004 There were no comments by any member of the public. BY (4) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the April 28, 2004 Steering Committee meeting were approved as revised. (5) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Shirley McCracken reported on a scheduled GWRS video shoot with Huell Howser. Mr. Howser will be interviewing staff members, board members and community representatives about the value of GWRS to them. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 May 26.2004 Chair McCracken also announced that the Steering Committee will be meeting in closed session on the general manager's performance. She reported that she met with the general manager and signed off on his salary increase in accordance with the Steering Committee's determination a few months ago. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Blake Anderson provided updates on several issues, as follows: • Update on SB 1272 (Ortiz): This bill was defeated by the Senate Appropriations Committee, even though Senator Ortiz had amended the bill, limiting it to only enterprise special districts, eliminating the Controllers audit, deleting most of the whistle blowing elements, setting per diem limits at$150 per meeting with a CPI/COLA adjustment provision, and limiting meetings for large agencies at 10 per month. • Update on In-County Biosolids Ootions: Layne Baroldi reported that the SOCWA/OCSD In- County Biosolids facility proposal is now under consideration by County staff, and working cooperatively with us. SOCWA is the lead agency on this effort. If this proposal is accepted, OCSD would send two truckloads per day of biosolids to the facility. Mr. Baroldi expressed his appreciation for the intervention by Director Silva to move this project along. An alternate site is under consideration. There was also a meeting last week with the Great Park Committee. It recommended the formation of a subcommittee of the Finance Committee to evaluate our proposal. • Tax Shift from Entemrise Special Districts: Mr.Anderson reported on the Govemor's Local Govemment Proposal, which is estimated at$1.3 billion from all local government agencies. Our share will be about$17 million for each of the next two years. The Governor promises that this is a one-time shift. Assemblyman Todd Spitzer has asked the District and the cities to place the support of this tax shift on the Board/Council agendas. Mr.Anderson will ask the Board if it wants to take any action. This proposed tax shift still is not a'done deal.' • NPDES Permit Negotiations: Negotiations for the permit and consent decree are neariy complete and it's been a very cooperative process. EPA and the Regional Board recognized the reasons why we asked for specific things and agreed with our requests. In August a hearing will be held by the Regional Board and EPA. The consent decree will go out for public review via the Federal Register. A signed permit should be received in late 2004 or early 2005. Mr. Anderson recognized Tom Woodruff, Bob Ghirelli,Jim Colston and other staff members who have worked on this major effort over the past three years. • SAWPA: Mr.Anderson reported that there appears to be nothing more that can be done to resolve the problems, other than litigation. • There will be no committee meetings in August unless something unforeseen arises. • Coordination of Urban Runoff and Funding via a Proposition 218 Election: Mr.Anderson met with representatives from the County, IRW D and SOCWA last week to determine which agency(ies)should attempt the Proposition 218 direct mail ballot. The Board of Supervisors wants to hold a special invitation workshop at our offices in August to discuss the institutional, financial,technical matters implied by the County's regional strategic plan. Mr. Anderson also reported that the Orange County Business Council and CA State Fullerton will be conducting a public policy poll that will include a number of questions that will test the public's interest and support for the urban runoff program. • Findings of the Grand Jury Report on OC Bisolids: The Grand Jury completed its report and the District agrees with their findings without exception. The District is either doing or plans to do all of the things they recommended. Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 May 26, 2004 • New Communications Division Emolovew Carol Beekman introduced Richard 'Mac' McLaughlin as the new principal public information specialist. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff reported that escrow for the property for the relocation of the Rocky Point Pump Station has needed to be extended because of some geotechnical problems that have surfaced and may need further study. The seller of the property has agreed to the extension in exchange for a price increase of$6500 per month. Said sum is within the Board's approved maximum purchase price. All problems should be corrected or mitigated within the next 90 days. The EIR on the project is scheduled to be released for public comment next week. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B) A. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in June were reviewed. B. 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. (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, June 23, 2004 at 4 p.m. There will be a special 501"Anniversary Reception on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 beginning at 6 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, June 23, 2004 at 7 p.m. Minutes of the Stewing Committee Page 4 May 26, 2004 (13) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 5:30 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Sections 54956.9(b)(1), 54956.9(c)and 54957.6, to discuss three Items. Closed Session Agenda Item A.4. was not discussed. 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 6:05 p.m.,the Committee reconvened in regular session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m. Su itted by: Je appan Ste Ing Committee Secretary H Com..WWey10.516M W MGi .S..d- ORANGE COUNTY SANITATI.O_N DISTRICT f° BOARD SECRETARY (2) phone: 4)962-2411 hz: 419620366 ocb.mm o. ea.a1z� NOTICE OF MEETING e1n valley.G neere� OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE 1 Ellis Avanae rVall.ein Valley.CA S2706-7016 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MemL.r Agaachhi 0 WEDNESDAY, MAY 26, 2004 - 5 P.M. Mi.. Anaheim DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE Brae Soon.Park 10844 ELLIS AVENUE Cypress Fwnte valley FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 alley FWar[on G'.rtlen Grove MYnGRat. Beach ftemp e Habra Le Palms A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Board of Directors of Cos Alamitos Orange County Sanitation District will be held at the above location, date and --.}y(1wPort nan Orange time. . . antis Santa Ana Seal Roam Stanton sera wbe Pork >brbe Linda Gamy .1 Onnp. bnlgry Gh.A... Cosa.Mesa Mitlwey Cm> water Cl..rl.c. o-.ins Roth "To maintain world class leadership in wastewater antl water rasource menepemam..' STEERING COMMITTEE AND BOARD MEETING DATES FOR THE NEXT TWELVE MONTHS Wednesday, May 26, 2004 Wednesday, June 23, 2004 Wednesday, July 21, 2004' Wednesday, August 25, 2004 Wednesday, September 22, 2004 Wednesday, October 27, 2004 Wednesday, November 17, 2004 Wednesday, December 15, 2004 Wednesday, January 26, 2005 Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Wednesday, March 23, 2005 Wednesday, April 27, 2005 Wednesday, May 25, 2005 Wednesday, June 22, 2005 'Tentatively rescheduled from regular fourth Wednesday. STEERING COMMITTEE (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: May 26, 2004 Meeting Time: 5 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: Committee Members Shirley McCracken, Board Chair Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair Brian Donahue, Chair, PDC Committee Jim Ferrymen, Chair, OMTS Committee Brian Brady, Chair, FAHR Committee Jim Silva, Supervisor Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair Others 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 Oaten, 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, MAY 26, 2004 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, it 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 Secretary's 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 maybe 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). (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM IF NECESSARY Book page 1 -2- May 26, 2004 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 April 28, 2004 Steering Committee meeting. (5) REPORT OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (6) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER A. Update on Ortiz Bill B. Update on In-County Biosolids Options (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-B) A. Review Agenda Items scheduled to be presented to Committees in June (Information item only) B. Review and consideration of Agenda Items for Board of Directors Meeting of May 26, 2004 (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 (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (12) FUTURE MEETING DATES Book page 2 -3- May 26, 2004 Agenda The next Steering Committee Meeting is scheduled for 5 p.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2004. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for 7 p.m., Wednesday, June 23, 2004. (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 properly; (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 to: 1. Confer with General Counsel re proposed U.S. District Court Consent Decree with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency re NPDES Permit, Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) 2. Confer with General Counsel re anticipated litigation, one (1) potential case, Government Code Section 54956.9(c) 3. Confer re General Manager's Compensation pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. 4. Conference with Real Property Negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.6. Property: 5455 Dodds Avenue, Buena Park, California Agency Negotiator: James D. Herberg Negotiating Parties: Stage Road Limited Liability Corporation LLC Under Negotiation: Instruction re price, terms, and conditions for the purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of subject property. B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT jt H:VEP ENOA�ENINO COMMMEEbNMYbS AaENW00L Book page 3 -4- May 26, 2004 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 Hell) 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: jtappan@o cl.com Book page 4 D l9 DRAFT MINUTES OF STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, April 28, 2004 A meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, April 28,2004 at 4 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 Darrel Cohoon Brian Donahue, Chairman, PDC Committee Brian Brady, Chairman, FAHR Committee STAFF PRESENT: Jim Silva, County Supervisor Blake Anderson, General Manager Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Directors Absent: Bob Ooten, Director of Operations and Norm Eckenrode, Past Board Chair Maintenance Jim Ferryman, Chairman, OMTS Committee Gary Streed, Director of Finance/Treasurer Jim Herberg, Engineering Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM No appointment was necessary. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments by any member of the public. (4) SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 4:10 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Section 54957, to discuss 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 5:05 p.m., the Committee reconvened in regular session. Book page 5 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 2 April 28, 2004 (5) RECEIVE. FILE AND APPROVE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the March 24, 2004 Steering Committee meeting were approved as drafted. (6) REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Shirley McCracken reminded the Steering Committee members that nominations for Board Chair would be opened at the May 26, 2004 meeting with elections scheduled for the June 23, 2004 meeting. The Meeting Reimbursements/Compensation Subcommittee, General Counsel and staff reported on the major changes to the proposed ordinance and resolutions pertaining to directors' compensation and policies. The proposed change in the number of compensable meetings detailed in Ordinance OCSD-14 was discussed and no agreement was reached. MOVED, SECONDED AND APPROVED TO: Convey Report from the Steering Committee to the Board at its May 26, 2004 regular meeting, recommending adoption of the two resolutions. For the time being Ordinance OCSD-14 will not be changed, awaiting the passage of the Ortiz bill. (7) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER A. June 23 2004 Steering Committee start time—chance to 4 P.m. to accommodate 50th Anniversary Reception General Manager Blake Anderson asked to change the June 23, 2004 Steering Committee meeting start time to 4 p.m.to accommodate the 5d"Anniversary reception planned for 6 p.m., prior to the Board meeting. The Directors agreed to the change. B. Tax Revenue Take by State Mr. Anderson provided updated information on the possibility of the State taking a portion of special districts'tax revenues. The governor has Indicated that if the State takes the revenue for two years, a constitutional amendment would be signed to protect those agencies from future'takes: This could mean a reduction in revenues of between$16—33 million per year. Even with the proposed increase in user fees, the District's anticipated revenue will drop between $2 -19 million for each of the next two years. C. Late Breaking News (if any) re GWRS Bid Award for Advance Water Purification Facilities There was no additional news. D. In-County Biosolids Management Option: News on South County Proposal Mr.Anderson reported on an issue that arose today with IWMD. IWMD Staff planned to oppose the proposed composting facility at Prima Descheca in closed session with a subcommittee of the IWMD board without ever consulting with the agencies involved. Even through the meeting did not comply with Brown Act requirements our representative and others were told not to attend. After discussions with Supervisor Silva's office, the item was discussed in an open meeting with OCSD Staff present, and the report will be modified to include additional information. It will then be presented to IWMD management for review before moving forward. Book page 6 Minutes of the Steering Committee Page 3 April 28, 2004 E. Article re Under/Over Charging User Fees Mr. Anderson commented on the e-mail and newspaper articles on the protest of the District's Sanitary Sewer Service User Fee Program. He indicated that there are problems with the non-residential codes assigned to some properties,but that a staff driven process has been developed to improve the data base and manage the - program on an annual basis. A consultant could be hired to do this, but Mr.Anderson stated that he is convinced the District can do it cheaper. The FAHR Committee is considering the program and should be making a decision on moving forward within the next two months. (8) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel Tom Woodruff did not make a report. (9) DISCUSSION ITEMS(items A-B) A. The Agenda Items scheduled to be reviewed by the Board's working committees in May were reviewed. B.- The agenda items scheduled to be presented to the Board at tonight's meeting were reviewed. (10) OTHER BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY There was no other business discussed. (11) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING There were none. (12) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND/OR STAFF REPORT There were none. (13) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 26,2004 at 5 p.m. The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 7 p.m. Book page 7 Minutes of the Steering Committee . Page 4 April 28, 2004 (14) CLOSED SESSION The Committee convened at 6:20 p.m. in Closed Session, pursuant to Sections 54956.9(c), 54957.6 and 54957.8,to discuss anticipated litigation, employee compensation and benefit matters and a real property issue. 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 Cade Section 54967.2, 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. (15) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Submitted by: fiI l/ Je n appan S Vining Committee Secretary ewaw�ww..,.yca,a„ma.na�,wazew d ftsc.wam..e: Book page 8 STEERING COMMITTEE Mees/zeitlrg Doaate Toad ofDr. AGENDA REPORT 111" oa r¢nn NumW Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary SUBJECT: June 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 June. 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 June: OMTS Committee: 1. Consider Air Products contract extension 2. Update on FOG program 3. Annual Compliance Summary Report 4. OMP ("State of the Ocean") Annual Report and Five-year Review PDC Committee: 1. Ratify Change Order No. 2 to Job No. P11-76, Trickling Filters Rehabilitation and New Clarifiers 2. Ratify Change Order No. 7 to Contract 1-2-4, Bushard Trunk Sewer Construction 3. Approve Amendment No. 3 to PSA for Contract 2-24-1, Carbon Canyon Sewer and Pump Station Abandonment 4. Approve Amendment No. 6 to PSA for Job No. P2-66, Headworks Improvements at Plant No. 2 5. Approve PSA for Job No. P2-90, Trickling Filters at Plant 2 6. Approve PSAs for Facilities Engineering Annual Design Contracts 7. Approve Amendment No. 4 to IMPC Contract FAHR Committee: 1. Recommend Approval of Final 2004-05 Budgets 2. Consider Renewal of Excess Workers' Comp, General Liability, Boiler and Machinery, All-Risk Property Insurances 3. Consider General Manager Approved Purchases 4. Consider Review of Non-residential Parcels and Annual Sewer Service User Fees Book page 9 5. Consider SWAP Status Report 6. Consider Human Resources Policies and Procedures Updates 7. Consider Safety Policies Updates 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. ATTACHMENTS NA jt N'yNWvWISIMnp<:Pn11M`LiM4yY626'N Itll d PA!Ia.Mv 4X WOW Page 2 Book page 10 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Date To ad.or Dir. 5/26/D4 AGENDA REPORT Item Number Vern Number Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Blake P. Anderson, General Manager Originator: Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary SUBJECT: 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 May 26, 2004 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 May 26, 2004 meeting: 10. 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 Michael Russell requesting annexation of 0.392 acres to Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in the vicinity of Vista Del Lago and Lemon Heights Drive in an unincorporated area of Orange County; and, (2) Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 04-13, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex said territory to OCSD (Proposed Annexation No. OCSD-42 — Russell Annexation). b. (1) Receive and file petition from Donald Jansen, et al., requesting annexation of 5.24 acres to Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) in the vicinity of Foothill Boulevard and Skyline Drive in an unincorporated area of Orange County; and, (2) Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 04-14, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex said territory to OCSD (Proposed Annexation No. OCSD-43 —Jensen Annexation). C. Approve Agreement re Easement on Real Property with Waste Water Disposal Company, providing for acquisition of an easement and associated sewer line that traverses thru Craig Regional Park, City of Book page 1 I Brea, and ends at State College Boulevard/Orangethorpe Avenue, City of Fullerton, in connection with Yorba Linda Pump Station Abandonment, Contract No. 2-42, and Cypress Avenue Trunk Replacement, Contract No. 2-45, in a form approved by General Counsel. d. Approve an agreement with Irvine Ranch Water District, authorizing the transfer of Irvine Regional Park from the Consolidated Revenue Area to Revenue Area 14, in a form approved by General Counsel. END OF CONSENT CALENDAR 11. Consideration of items deleted from Consent Calendar, if any. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDED ACTIONS 12. STEERING COMMITTEE Consent Calendar a. Order draft Steering Committee Minutes for the meeting held on April 28, 2004 to be filed. b. Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 04-15, Fixing and Establishing Rules of Procedure for the Conduct of Business of the District; and, Repealing Resolution No. OCSD 01-23. C. Adopt Resolution No. OCSD 04-16, Establishing a Policy regarding Board of Directors' Business and Travel Expense Reimbursement and Meeting Attendance and Compensation. Non-Consent Calendar d. Ordinance No. OCSD-23, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of Orange County Sanitation District, Amending Ordinance No. OCSD-14 Establishing Board of Directors Compensation: 1. Motion to read Ordinance No. OCSD-23 by title only and waive reading of said entire ordinance. (The waiver of the reading of the entire ordinance must be adopted by a unanimous vote of Directors present.) 2. Motion to introduce Ordinance No. OCSD-23, and pass to second reading and public hearing on June 23, 2004. e. Review and consideration of agenda items considered by the Steering Committee re the May 26, 2004 meeting. N W9pM1pmp4�5�ppnn0 CMmOBO`DSVAdyY5IWf li4t d RRS IoM4Y BOSNdr N[ Page 2 Book page 12 f. Consideration of items deleted from Steering Committee Consent Calendar, if any. 13. 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 May 5, 2004 to be filed. b. (1) Approve Special Purpose Discharge Permit No. 54-202 issued to Transportation Corridor Authority (TCA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for extracted groundwater from a maintenance project of the Eastern Transportation Corridor of Orange County, operated by TCA/Caltrans, near the intersection of Interstate 5 Freeway and Jamboree Road in the city of Irvine; and, (2) Approve a Permit Agreement for Discharge from Groundwater with Irvine Ranch Water District in connection with said project, in a form approved by General Counsel. c. Receive and file the following reports prepared by Undersea Graphics, dated March 15, 2004, that include the major findings of the external inspection of the 120-Inch and 78-Inch Ocean Pipelines: 120"/78" Outfall Inspections 2004: 120" Manholes 2004: and 120778" Port Book 2004. OMTS Non-Consent Calendar d. Consideration of items deleted from OMTS Committee Consent Calendar, if any 14. PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION COMMITTEE (PDC) PDC Consent Calendar a. Order draft Planning, Design and Construction Committee Minutes for the meeting held on May 6, 2004 to be filed. b. Accept Modifications to Main Street Pump Station, Contract No, 7-7-2, as complete, authorizing execution of the Notice of Completion and approving the Final Closeout Agreement. C. Ratify Change Order No. 6 to Bushard Trunk Sewer Rehabilitation, Job No. 1-2-4, with Steve P. Rados, Inc., authorizing an addition of$27,612 and a time extension of five calendar days, increasing the total contract amount to$31,122,391. N^EOW`.eMd"WW,em.e"eoweu ,MW un aI tr M,Boomsr.ax A".."a soave Page 3 Book page 13 d. Ratify Change Order No. 14 to Primary Clarifiers 16-31 and Related Facilities, Job No. P1-37, with Margate Construction, authorizing an addition of $67,455, increasing the total contract amount to $71,309,443. e. (1) Ratify Change Order No. 2 to Effluent Pathogen Reduction Pilot Testing Study, Job No. J-40-6, with S.S. Mechanical Corp, authorizing a deduction of $15,975, and a time extension of 277 calendar days, decreasing the total contract amount to$305,148; and, (2) Accept Effluent Pathogen Reduction Pilot Testing Study, Job No. J-40- 6, as complete, authorizing execution of the Notice of Completion and approving the Final Closeout Agreement. f. (1) Withdraw award of Professional Services Agreement with Fluor Enterprises, Inc., to provide engineering services for Plant No. 1 Plant Water VFD Replacement, Job No. SP-94, for an amount not to exceed $89,700; and, (2) Approve Professional Services Agreement with Spec Services, Inc., providing for engineering services for Plant No. 1 Plant Water VFD Replacement, Job No. SP-94,for an amount not to exceed $89,479. g. Approve Professional Services Agreements with Geo-Matrix Consultants Inc.; Kleinfelder, Inc.; Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants; and Smith-Emery Laboratories to provide for materials testing, inspection, and geotechnical engineering services for capital projects, for an amount not to exceed $150,000 for each consultant for July 2004/2005 ($600,000 total), with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $200,000 for each agreement for July 2005/2006 ($800,000 total), and for an amount not to exceed $150,000 for each agreement for July 2006/2007 ($600,000 total). h. Approve Professional Services Agreements with Bush &Associates Inc., Forkert Engineering & Surveying Inc., MDS Consulting, and RBF Consulting to provide for surveying services for capital projects, for an amount not to exceed $150,000 for each consultant for July 2004/2005 ($600,000 total), with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $200,000 for each agreement for July 2005/2006 ($800,000 total), and for an amount not to exceed $150,000 for each agreement for July 2006/2007 ($600,000 total). i. Approve Professional Services Agreements with Electro-Test Inc. and Hampton Tedder Electrical Testing & Engineering to provide for electrical acceptance testing services for capital projects, for an amount not to exceed $100,000 for each consultant for July 2004/2005 ($200,000 total), with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods for an amount not to exceed $150,000 for each agreement for July 2005/2006 ($300,000) and July 2006/2007 ($300,000 total). HW ftw�,Wno M,W M,ears.r.ex a.W: a 6 Page 4 Book page 14 j. (1) Approve time extensions to Cooperative Projects Program Contracts: City of Anaheim (Contract No. 0201); City of La Habra (Contract No. 0108); and Midway City Sanitary District (Contract Nos. 0128 and 0209); (2) Approve Amendment No. 1 with the Midway City Sanitary District (Contract No. 0209), increasing the number of manholes being repaired or rehabilitated by 40 percent, with no change in funding; and, (3) Approve Amendment No. 1 with the City of La Habra, (Contract No. 0108), providing additional funding of $43,000, increasing total Program funding since inception to an amount not to exceed $18,794,736. PDC Non-Consent Calendar k. Consideration of items deleted from PDC Committee Consent Calendar, if any 15. 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 May 12, 2004 to be filed. b. Receive and file Treasurer's Report for the month of April 2004. C. Receive and file the 2003-04 Third Quarter Financial Report for the period ending March 31, 2004. d. Receive and file Quarterly Investment Management Program Report for the period January 1, 2004 through March 31, 2004. e. (1) Authorize staff to establish contracts for Temporary Employment Services, Specification No. 5-2004-181BD, with temporary service firms for a one year period, July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, for a total amount not to exceed $1,700,000 per year; (2) Authorize staff the option of four additional one year contract renewals, cancelable at any time, for a total amount not to exceed $1,700,000 per year; and, (3) Authorize staff to enter into these contracts with temporary service firms, as identified by the Human Resources Department, with the authorization to add or delete such firms as necessary to meet District work requirements. X bepromaaysiem.e com.,.�eewaw.N�sO+LLv a,we m,Mar&vNu Ex a,„H,. aaa9a Page 5 Book page 15 FAHR Non-Consent Calendar f. Consideration of items deleted from FAHR Committee Consent Calendar, if any 16. GWR SYSTEM STEERING COMMITTEE (GWRSSC) GWRSSC Consent Calendar a. Order Joint Groundwater Replenishment System Cooperative Committee Minutes for the meeting held on April 12, 2004 to be filed. GWRSSC Non-Consent Calendar b. Consideration of items deleted from GWRSSC Consent Calendar, if any. NON-CONSENT CALENDAR No items listed. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGETIMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: I ❑ 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. H�Wnn CwmYl,ae`OIVMN '6M ll&MN WWy�arder.0x HWW: MM Page 6 Book page 16 ' _g.srev sEaa.frwev — STEfdetw4 c,oww�a-teEs o psA`( pc<ENOh tT'Ee1 rL ttnepiE 'Lt^+4 Y 0tA6otOl ORANGE COUNT_Y GRAND JURY 700 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE WEST°SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 •714/834-3320 FAX 714/834-SSSS pj'2+r+c , YO0t2 "4Z°"*W�) May 5, 2004 Blake Anderson General Manager tZ�erpwaMrrardar�^g t?iY IIJOOYt� Orange County Sanitation District T(7>�pLY 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Dear Mr. Anderson: Enclosed is a copy of the 2003-2004 Orange County Grand Jury report, "Does Anyone Want Orange County Sanitation District's 230,000 Tons of Biosolids?". Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05(f),a copy of the report is being provided to you at least two working days prior to its public release. Please note that "No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release ojthefinal report."(Emphasis added.) It is required that the Board of Directors provide a response to each of the findings and recommendations of this report directed to your office in compliance with Penal Code 933.05(a) and (b), copy attached. For each Grand Jury recommendation, be sure to describe the implementation status, as well as provide a schedule for future implementation. It is requested that the response to the recommendations be mailed to Frederick P. Hont, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, with a separate copy mailed to the Orange County Grand Jury, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, no later than 90 days after the public release date, May 11, 2004, in compliance with Penal Code 933, copy attached. The due date then is August 11, 2004. Should additional time for responding to this report be necessary for further analysis, Penal Code 933.05(b)(3) permits an extension of time up to six months from the public release date. Such extensions should be advised in writing, with the information required in Penal Code 933.05(b)(3), to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, with a separate copy of the request to the Grand Jury(address above). We tentatively plan to issue the public release on May I. Upon public release, the report will be available on the Grand Jury web site(www or:wurts ore/amdmrv). Very truly yours, 2003-2004 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY —t/ Lit—'"'�t6E 'I�C[ T.W. aple,M Fore TWS:dv Attachments Grand Jury Report Penal Code 933,933.05 Book page 17 DOES ANYONE WANT ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT'S 230,000 TONS OF BIOSOLIDS? PREPARED BY 2003-2004 ORANGE COUNTY GRAND JURY Book page 18 SUMMARY Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) produced more than 230,000 tons of biosolids (treated sewage sludge) in 2003 and beneficially used 100 percent of the material — primarily as a fertilizer and soil amendment on farms in California, Arizona and Nevada. Increasing public opposition to the practice. has impacted OCSD's current biosolids management program and prompted OCSD to conduct a comprehensive assessment of alternative, more expensive options. Continuing the current program of applying biosolids on farm land will delay the need to implement more costly methods of disposal but will require proactive measures to broaden public tolerance of the practice. Treating all biosolids to higher quality standards prior to land application would eliminate much of the public's concern regarding potential threats to public health and the environment. Compiling and responding to public health concerns and nuisance issues by soliciting comments from affected parties, regulatory agencies, vendors and local officials would demonstrate a commitment to minimizing impacts. Participating in a national survey to quantify contaminants in biosolids could help eliminate persistent uncertainty regarding potential risks from pharmaceuticals, health-care proddcts and other emerging compounds. Implementing a comprehensive monitoring program at a land-application site could demonstrate that treatment and application methods do, in fact, provide an adequate level of protection for the public. INTRODUCTION Biosolids are nutrient-rich materials that are a by-product of the wastewater treatment process. Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), which collects and treats sewage wastes from about 2.3 million Orange County residents, produced more than 230,000 tons of biosolids in 2003. Owing largely to a 2002 decision by the OCSD Board of Directors to implement full secondary treatment of wastes prior to ocean disposal, total production of biosolids is expected to increase to approximately 325,000 tons per year by the year 2020. Currently, OCSD beneficially uses 100 percent of the produced biosolids by delivering them to willing farmers who use the material as a fertilizer and soil amendment on crop lands. Utilizing biosolids on agricultural lands is an economical management approach but the practice has generated considerable controversy. OCSD has recognized that more-acceptable alternatives must be developed but also realizes that new methods will have higher costs. While OCSD evaluates other technologies, it hopes to continue to use existing land-application agreements and permits. Even if new methods to beneficially use biosolids are developed through pilot studies, the 1 Book page 20 it I 4 cost advantages of land application will continue to make it an attractive option. To keep land application of biosolids a viable option, OCSD will need to implement changes in procedures to minimize public opposition. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study was to review OCSD's existing biosolids management programs and long-range plans in light of recent developments to determine if modifications are warranted. The study also considered opportunities to enhance public acceptance of existing programs, which could extend the timeline for eventual conversion to more-viable options and - postpone the inevitable expenditure of funds to develop alternatives for biosolids recycling. SCOPE OF THE INVESTIGATION Interviews were conducted with OCSD personnel in the biosolids program to gather information about current operations and long-range plans. An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) biosolids specialist was contacted to gain insight into changes in public perceptions regarding land application of biosolids. A private vendor with expertise in land application of biosolids provided authoritative information on problems associated with agricultural use of biosolids. A Congressional Fellow with expertise in environmental issues and familiarity with one of OCSD's biosolids sites provided information about local concerns regarding quality-of-life issues and potential environmental problems. A private citizen who lives near an OCSD biosolids land-application site was interviewed to determine which issues are of major concern to affected neighbors. Numerous reports, compliance documents, and fact sheets prepared by OCSD and their consultants were reviewed to gain information about programs and plans. Numerous Internet Web sites were visited to gain a sense of public perceptions and concerns regarding land application of biosolids. Scientific and technical literature was consulted to obtain factual information about the real and perceived problems and to determine the present state of scientific knowledge. HISTORY OF OCSD BIOSOLIDS MANAGEMENT PROGRAM OCSD began recycling biosolids in 1971 when it contracted with a local fertilizer manufacturer to haul and compost material. The contract ended in 1979 when the company lost its land lease and terminated the composting operations. 2 Book page 21 After the composting operations ceased, OCSD established and operated an air drying/composting site at the Orange County Coyote Canyon Landfill. Biosolids were dried and composted to 50-percent solids content, blended with municipal solid wastes and deposited in the landfill. Biosolids were also delivered to the BKK Landfill (a private site owned by BKK Corporation) in West Covina. Landfill dumping was the principal method of biosolids, disposal from 1979 until 1988. In 1988, OCSD developed contracts with composting firms and agricultural land appliers to beneficially use as much as 50 percent of produced biosolids. The recycling program grew rapidly and in November 1991, OCSD achieved 100-percent utilization of biosolids (primarily as a fertilizer and soil amend- ment on farm lands, but small amounts were also used as Alternative Daily Cover at landfills) and has continued full recycling since then. OCSD has used biosolids on farming sites in San Bernardino, San Diego, Riverside, Kern and Kings Counties, California; La Paz, Maricopa, Mohave and Yuma Counties, Arizona; Nye County, Nevada; and Tribal Lands of the Mohave Indian Reservation in California, Nevada and Arizona. In June 2000, OCSD purchased 1800 acres of farm land in Kings County, California, to provide a reliable, long-term site for treatment and land application of biosolids. In recent years, OCSD has been frustrated by the passage of local ordinances and rules that have restricted use of sites, required costly treatment before application, or completely banned the use of biosolida. These restrictive local ordinances and mounting public opposition portend an eventual end to direct use of biosolids on farm lands. In 2003, OCSD commissioned a comprehensive study to assess sustainable options for beneficial use of hiosolids. The study concluded that biosolids could be used to produce compost, dry pellets and granules, or organo-mineral fertilizer products for use in horticulture (homes, nurseries and parks) and silviculture (shade-tree programs). The report also identified direct energy production (using biosolids cake and dry pellets as a fuel source) as a viable option. The report acknowledged that it will take time to implement the long-range biosolids management plan and noted that OCSD needed to maintain its current land-application capacity and options during the implementation process. While acknowledging that land application would be an integral part of OCSD's biosolids management program for the near term, the report offered little guidance on ways to prolong the practice. 3 Book page 22 NATIONAL TRENDS IN BIOSOLIDS UTILIZATION Recycling of biosolids for beneficial use has been commonplace for centuries in China where "nightsoil" is considered to be a valuable commodity. In the U.S., however, recycling gained acceptance only after disposal of sewage waste became problematic. The city of Boston began using sewage biosolids for fertilizer as early as 1907 but, until the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, many communities simply discharged wastes into the nearest waterway. With the passage of the Clean Water Act (and subsequent laws that restricted dumping of municipal wastes into the ocean), communities began to manage biosolids in more environment-friendly ways. The methods most commonly used were disposal in landfills, land application and incineration. In 1993, EPA promulgated Standards for the Use and Disposal of Sewage Sludge (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 503), which established rules for land application of biosolids. Only biosolids that meet regulatory requirements for pathogens (disease-causing bacteria and viruses), vector- attragtion reduction (to minimize problems associated with flies, mosquitoes, rodents and other pests that can transport pathogens), and metal content can be applied to land. The pathogen reduction and vector-attraction reduction requirements are presumptive, rather than measured limits. Biosolida are presumed to meet the pathogen and vector requirements if certain specified treatment processes are employed. The metal limits, however, require laboratory testing to determine concentrations in the biosolids. Part 603 divides biosolids into either Class A or Class B. Class A biosolids must be treated to reduce pathogens to non-detectable levels. Class B biosolids receive sufficient treatment to ensure that pathogens have been reduced to a level protective of public health if used in a prescribed manner. Both Class A and Class B biosolids must meet specified vector-attraction reduction guidelines. Concentrations of certain heavy metals in both Class A and Class B biosolids must meet regulatory limits before they can be approved for land application. There are ceiling limits for the metals and more stringent, high-quality pollutant limits. Biosolids that meet the ceiling limits but not the higher standards can be applied to land only until cumulative limits are reached. High-quality biosolids can be applied without tracking loading limits as long as the application rate does not exceed agronomic rates (application rate matched to the nutrient needs of the crop). Following passage of Part 503, use of biosolids as a fertilizer and soil amendment on farm lands gained wide acceptance by the agricultural 4 Book page 23 community and the wastewater industry. A nationwide assessment of biosolids management by EPA found that (in 1998) 60 percent of the nation's biosolids were being recycled — 41 percent was applied directly to farms, 12 percent received advanced treatment before land application and another 7 percent was used as landfill cover or mixed with aggregate. The non-recycled remainder (about 40 percent) was either incinerated or deposited in landfills. Although most farmers and those associated with treating, hauling and applying biosolids were comfortable with assurances from EPA that properly treated wastes could be safely applied to suitable farm land, the general public had reservations about the practice. Many expressed concern about potential health risks from unknown contaminants or undefined pathogen pathways, noxious odors and other quality-of-life issues, and threats to natural resources. The public concerns about the Part 503 rules prompted EPA to request an independent audit of the program by the EPA Office of the Inspector General. In March 2000, the Inspector General concluded that there was a significant lack of oversight and resources committed to the program. The audit noted that EPA had one person in Region 9 assigned to oversee all of the biosolids programs in California, Nevada, Arizona and Hawaii. In 1988, EPA conducted field inspections at only 18 land-application sites in the entire Region and had initiated a total of three enforcement actions. Although EPA can delegate authority for Part 503 to states, only five states (California is not included) have received official delegated authority to enforce the regulations. In 2000, EPA asked the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct an independent evaluation of the technical methods and approaches used to establish the chemical and pathogen standards for biosolids. Eighteen months later, NRC issued a lengthy report that contained about 60 specific recommendations for program improvement. EPA issued a final response to the NRC report in the Federal Register in December 2003. EPA, citing limited resources, announced that it could implement 14 projects in 2004 to, among other things, survey targeted contaminants in sewage sludge, develop methods to identify pharmaceuticals and personal care products in sewage sludge, participate in incident-tracking workshops and conduct field studies at selected land-application sites. The National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) — a coalition of private water and sewer associations and EPA — developed a model Environmental Manage- ment System (EMS) to assist operators of sewage treatment works to establish biosolids management programs that exceed the requirements set forth in Part 503. Participants in the program must commit to following 5 Book page 24 NBP's Code of Good Practice, document responsibility for all biosolids management practices and submit to third-party review before certification. In keeping with its outstanding record of leadership in wastewater treatment, OCSD agreed to participate in the program in July 2000. On July 17, 2003, OCSD became the first wastewater treatment facility in the nation to receive formal certification for their EMS. STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS In California, the Department of Health Services and the State Water Resources Control Board share responsibilities for regulating the beneficial use and disposal of biosolids. Health Services determines whether biosolids are a hazardous or non-hazardous material, and the Water Resources Control Board (through nine regional boards) administers and enforces regulatory requirements. State biosolids regulations incorporate conditions outlined in the EPA Part 503 rule. In addition, state permits require detailed site information and adherence to California Water Environment Associations Manual of Good Practice for Agricultural Land Application of Biosolids. Other state regulations on biosolids have been issued by the Integrated Waste Management Board, the Department of Food and Agriculture, the Department of Toxic Substances and the Air Resources Board. A statewide Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on use of biosolids as a soil amendment produced a General Order that added specific requirements related to moisture content of biosolids, wind conditions, depth to ground water, testing of plant tissue for selected metals and annual soil testing for residual nitrogen. The EIR is currently being revised. A draft version of the EIR acknowledges that land application of Class B biosolids is an environmentally superior option compared to use of Class A biosolids when transportation and energy costs are considered. Several counties have issued ordinances regarding land application of biosolids. Kern, Kings and Riverside Counties, for example, all have issued ordinances that ban land application of Class B biosolids. Many of the local ordinances have been challenged in court, and some cases are still being litigated. In Arizona, local ordinances have placed strict regulations on, or established permit fees that severely limit, biosolids application on farm land. 6 Book page 25 PUBLIC OPPOSITION TO LAND APPLICATION OF BIOSOLIDS Opposition to land application of biosolids usually falls into one or more of - three concerns: (1) apprehension about the adequacy of regulations to protect public health, (2) odors and other quality-of-life issues and (3) protection of natural resources. Public-Health Issues Those who support the contention that land application poses no risk to the public often quote the opening statement in the "Overarching Findings" section of NRC's review of Part 503: '7here is no documented scientific evidence that the Part 503 rule has failed to protect public health." Conversely, those who question the adequacy of the rule find substantial support for their views in the sentences that follow the opening statement: "However, additional scientific work is needed to reduce persistent uncertainty about the potential for adverse human health effects from exposure to biosolids. There have been anecdotal allegations of disease, and many scientific advances have occurred since the Part 503 rule was promulgated. To assure the public and to protect human health, there is a critical need to update the scientific basis of the rule to (1) ensure that the chemical and pathogen standards are supported by current scientific data and risk-assessment methods, (2) demonstrate effective enforcement of the Part 503 rule, and (3) validate the effectiveness of biosolids-management practices." Much of the current controversy seems to focus on the term "persistent uncertainty." Advocates for land application of biosolids suggest that the .,uncertainty" is in the minds of the uninformed public who refuse to accept the contention that there is "no scientific evidence' that public health has been threatened. On the other hand, those with ,an aversion to exposure to biosolids are quick to argue that the "uncertainty ' is in the lack of credible scientific studies to verify that biosolids are truly risk-free. They note the existence of countless pathogens and multitudes of emerging chemicals (pharmaceuticals, health-care products and industrial compounds, to name a few) known to be present in raw municipal wastes that may pass through the treatment process in concentrations sufficient to constitute measurable risks to the public. Although there have been lengthy debates in the scientific community regarding potential health risks associated with exposure to biosolids, little has been said about psychosomatic reactions to perceived hazards. Skin 7 Book page 26 rashes, respiratory problems, headaches, gastro-intestinal distress and numerous other maladies can be manifested by real or imagined exposure to toxic substances. It is generally accepted that psychosomatic reactions are exacerbated when affected individuals personally observe evidence that they have been exposed to hazardous substances (e.g., odors, flies, trucks transporting wastes, spreaders broadcasting biosolids). Odors and Other Quality-of-Life Issues The single most common complaint about land application of biosolids relates to odors. Part 503 never directly addresses the issue of odor because EPA considered odor to be subjective and not within its authority to regulate. In various publications, EPA has acknowledged that odor may be present but is difficult to characterize because of differences in treatment and other factors. Their descriptions of biosolids odor often include such terms as "musty,' "earthy' and "ammonia." OCSD's description of biosolids odor parallels those of EPA but adds "salt water smell" for biosolids that have been treated with organic polymer additives. The differences between the benign terms used by EPA and OCSD and the terms used by those living near land-application sites are profound. The more folksy terms found in complaints include "noxious," "horrible," "putrid," "nauseating," "eye-watering" and "sickening." An interesting table in the previously mentioned NRC report (Table 5-14) provides a more scholarly basis for assessing biosolids odor. The table contains a list of odorants generated during sewage treatment and characterizes the smell of compounds that have been detected in biosolids. Hydrogen sulfide, as most people know, smells like rotten eggs. Dimethyl sulfide and carbon sulfide have the odor of decayed vegetables. Thiocresol imparts a rancid odor reminiscent of skunk. Methylamine, dimethylamine and trimethylamine have an odor that is described as fishy. The odor of pyridine is characterized simply as disagreeable and irritating. Nitrogenous compounds, indole and scatole (the name provides a clue), have a nauseating fecal smell. In all fairness, acetaldehyde is reported to smell like apples. One can only imagine what odor might emanate from a concoction of these compounds. "Musty" or "earthy' doesn't come to mind. Quality-of-life issues are those that aren't necessarily life threatening but nevertheless have a negative impact on nearby residents. Common concerns include increased truck traffic on local roads, blowing dust from agitated farm lands, a perceived increase in the number of flies and mosquitoes, negative impacts on crop values and depressed real estate values. 8 Book page 27 Natural Resources Although Part 503 purports to provide adequate protection for ground- and surface-water supplies, monitoring requirements are minimal or non- existent. State regulations are somewhat more restrictive than the federal regulations, but controls are generally programmatic and related to permitting, not periodic monitoring. Land application of biosolids poses the_ same risks to natural resources (primarily water supplies) as any other farming practice with the added concerns of pathogens and toxic compounds. Two important pathways for contamination of water resources — runoff from treated lands and deep percolation of excess irrigation water or precipitation — are difficult to control or mitigate. Ground-water supplies can be rendered undrinkable if applied fertilizer (either commercial chemical products or biosolids) is leached from the soil by excess irrigation water or precipitation. Erosion can present problems if sediment washed from farm land contains biosolids. Sediment transported into waterways could pose a threat to stream biota. A LITANY OF FRUSTRATIONS OCSD's biosolids management program is faced with an increasing level of public opposition. Despite OCSD's laudable and award-winning efforts in environmental excellence (i.e., source-control programs, participation in the Ground Water Replenishment System, commitment to full secondary treatment of wastes prior to discharge to the ocean, 100-percent beneficial use of biosolids and certification for the nations first EMS), the public continues to have concerns about human health risks and nuisance issues. Clear and convincing evidence of the tenuous future of biosolids land application as a means of recycling is provided in a brief review of recent developments that have affected OCSD land-application projects. In 1999, Kern County adopted an ordinance that bans land application of all except the highest quality biosolids and established extensive monitoring requirements. In an attempt to retain the option of applying Class B biosolids, OCSD and others filed suit to vacate the ordinance. In 2002, the court upheld Kern County s right to control biosolids use. In 2003, the ordinance was expanded to include permitting, reporting, testing and inspection that are to be supported by beneficial-use fees. In Kings County (where OCSD had purchased farm land for the sole purpose of beneficially using Class B biosolids), lengthy discussions between agricultural interests, land appliers and the public resulted in the adoption of a ban on Class B biosolids beginning in 2003. Use of Class A biosolids is 9 Book page 28 allowed until 2006, but only composted Class A biosolids can be applied after that date. Again, OCSD filed suit to overturn the ordinance but, thus far, has been unsuccessful. In 2001, Riverside County issued an ordinance that banned the use of Class B biosolids for land application but allowed limited use of Class A biosolids. In 2003, the restrictions were expanded to address nuisance problems related to Class A biosolids. Although Arizona still allows application of Class B biosolids, OCSD has experienced problems with operations in Mohave County where a newly adopted permit fee makes application uneconomical. In addition, a composting and landfill-cover contract used by an OCSD vendor in La Paz County was suspended because of surety-bond issues. In Nye County, Nevada (where OCSD's vendor obtained a five-year permit to land-apply Class B biosolids in May 2003), complaints from affected neighbors resulted in cessation of operations in March 2004. OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE In light of the frustrations that OCSD has experienced in preserving its program of land application of biosolids, it is apparent that operational adjustments are in order. If the expectations outlined in OCSD's long-range biosolids management plan (e.g., continued land application during the conversion to higher-cost, more environmentally-acceptable options) are to be realized, OCSD will have to redouble its efforts to overcome public perception problems. Specifically, OCSD must address the issue of "persistent uncer- tainty on the potential for adverse health effects" that NRC described in its review of land application of biosolids. Actions that could bolster public tolerance of OCSD's biosolids management program include: • Treating all biosolids to Class A standards by lime addition and/or composting and terminating all existing Class B land- application projects except in remote locations • Initiating a comprehensive incident-report data system for all land-application projects to expand OCSD's tracking program • Participating in a nationwide biosolids-characterization project • Conducting environmental-monitoring programs at selected sites 10 Book page 29 Terminating Class B Land-Application Projects Increasingly restrictive local ordinances and growing public resistance has virtually eliminated opportunities to initiate new Class B land-application projects except in remote locations with no nearby residents. Current Class B land-application projects may continue for the foreseeable future but are subject to termination at any time. OCSD would be prudent to abandon hopes of securing future Class B land-application sites and should initiate action to eliminate existing projects. Stablilizing all biosolids with lime and/or composting to Class A standards before land application would demonstrate to the public that OCSD is sensitive to nuisance problems and public-health issues. Implementing an Incident Reporting System OCSD has an excellent track record in leading the nation in various biosolids programs (source controls and development of an EMS). Expanding on that leadership role by initiating a pilot comprehensive incident-report data system would demonstrate sincere commitment to addressing the concerns regarding public health and nuisance issues. NRC recommended implemen. tation of a tracking system to document allegations and sentinel events (clusters of health problems or other unusual incidents associated with a land-application site). EPA agreed that an incident-tracking program would be useful in responding to alleged health problems but argued that knowl- edgeable stakeholders should design and manage the system. To be effective, an incident-report database would need to include more than just complaints submitted to OCSD. To be complete, the database also would have to include complaints addressed to permitting agencies, land- owner/appliers, haulers, health officials and government representatives; reports from regulators and site inspectors; and solicited observations (written questionnaires) from residents living or working in the vicinity of the site. The database should contain responses to all complainants from OCSD, haulers and regulating agencies (it is presumed that OCSD would provide thoughtful written responses to all complaints, whether addressed to them or not). A comprehensive incident-report data system would be invaluable in assessing allegations of non-compliance and documenting clusters of health complaints that might require special attention. Biosolids Characterization NRC's review of the adequacy of Part 503 rules noted a need to better define the occurrence and concentrations of emerging compounds in municipal waste streams. EPA acknowledged a need for more advanced methodologies to identify and quantify newly'developed chemicals and recently identified pathogens. Citing limited funds in the current budget, EPA proposed future 11 Book page 30 studies to address the issue. However, EPA did agree to conduct a targeted survey of pollutants deemed to present potential hazards to the public. OCSD currently performs a wide variety of analytical tests on biosolids and could contribute substantially to a targeted nationwide biosolids- characterization project. Selecting emerging compounds and pathogens of local interest and developing laboratory analytical techniques to investigate the efficacy of waste-treatment processes would help answer concerns raised by NRC's review. Identifying the principal compounds is only part of the task. There is also a need to identify daughter compounds (metabolites) that are produced during the treatment process. Metabolites sometimes pose higher risks to public health than the original compound itself. Documenting and sharing newly developed laboratory and analytical methods with other waste-treatment entities could reduce research-and- development costs for sister agencies. More importantly, sharing the results of pollutant surveys with national audiences would help EPA determine if adjustments are needed in Part 503 rules. Environmental Monitoring EPA and state regulations related to land application of biosolids rely heavily on presumptive methods to ensure protection of public health. NRC noted a paucity of field data to verify that accepted practices are indeed protective. In response to NRC's recommendation, EPA announced that they would initiate field investigations at selected sites to determine if pathogen and chemical requirements of Part 503 are being met. They indicated that they would seek participation from state and regional stakeholders to conduct field studies at up to five locations in the coming year. OCSD could exercise leadership by volunteering to participate in the effort and implement a full monitoring program at a biosolids site (including soils, plants, water, air and vectors). The findings would be invaluable in demonstrating that local treatment and land-application processes do, in fact, serve to protect public health and the environment. FINDINGS Under California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, responses are required to all findings. The 2003-2004 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at the following findings: 1. Public opposition to land application of Class B biosolids is increasing, and long-term viability of the practice is tenuous. 12 Book page 31 2. Continuation of Class A biosolids land-application programs can postpone expenditure of funds to develop other viable alternatives. 3. Developing alternatives to replace Class B biosolids land- application programs will increase the cost of beneficially using biosolids. 4. Public tolerance for Class A biosolids land-application projects can be enhanced by demonstrating commitment to protecting public health and addressing nuisance issues. 5. Participating in EPA programs to develop a national incident- report data system, conducting surveys of emerging compounds and pathogens in waste streams, and implementing monitoring programs at a land-application site would demonstrate Orange County Sanitation District's commitment to protecting public health and addressing nuisance issues. Responses to all findings are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code §933 and §933.05, each recommendation requires a response from the government entity to which it is addressed. These responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based upon the findings, the 2003-2004 Orange County Grand Jury recommends that: 1. Orange County Sanitation District phase out Class B biosolids land-application programs except in remote locations where no nearby residents will be impacted. (Finding 1) 2. Orange County Sanitation District develop plans to stabilize all biosolids through lime application and/or composting to Class A standards. (Findings 1 and 2) 3. Orange County Sanitation District formulate a schedule and costs for implementing a long-range biosolids management plan, and inform the public of anticipated cost increases. (Findings 2 and 3) 13 Book page 32 4. Orange County Sanitation District explore opportunities to partner with EPA in developing an incident-report data system, conducting a local survey of emerging compounds and pathogens in sewage wastes, and/or implementing a monitoring program at a biosolids land-application site. (Findings 4 and 5) Responses to all recommendations are required from the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District. REFERENCES CH2M-Hill, December 2003, Long-Range Biosolids Management Plan, Prepared for Orange County Sanitation District Environmental Protection Agency, September 1999, Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in the United States, EPA Report 530-R-99-009 Environmental Protection Agency, March 2000, Biosolids Management and Enforcement, Office of the Inspector General Audit Report Environmental Protection Agency, December 2003, Standards for the Use or Disposal of Sewage Sludge; Final Agency Response to the National Research Council Report on Biosolids Applied to Land and the Results of EPA's Review of Existing Sewage Sludge Regulations, published in Federal Register Environmental Science Associates, October 1999, Orange County Sanitation District 1999 Strategic Plan, Final Program, Environmental Impact Report National Research Council, 2002, Biosolids Applied to Land. Advancing Standards and Practices, Report to Environmental Protection Agency Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids—Monitoring, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids— Odors, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, April 2002, Answers to Questions About Biosolids — Pathogens and Safety Concerns, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet 14 Book page 33 Orange County Sanitation District, 2003, Biosolids Management Compliance Report, Year 2003, Report to EPA Orange County Sanitation District, February 2003, Environmental Management System for OCSD Biosolids, Orange County Sanitation District. Fact Sheet Orange County Sanitation District, October 2003, Environmental Management System for Biosolids, Orange County Sanitation District Manual Orange County Sanitation District, November 2003, Answers to Questions About Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Sanitation District Fact Sheet 15 Book page 34 933. (a) Each grand jury shall submit to the presiding judge of the superior court a final report of its findings and recommendations that pertain to county government matters during the fiscal or calendar year. Final reports on any appropriate subject may be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court at any time - during the term of service of a grand jury. A final report may be submitted for comment to responsible officers, agencies, or departments, including the county board of supervisors, when applicable, upon finding of the presiding judge that the report is in compliance with this title. For 45 days after the end of the term, the foreperson and his or her designees shall, upon reasonable notice, be available to clarify the recommendations of the report. (b) One copy of each final report, together with the responses thereto, found to be in compliance with this title shall be placed on file with the clerk of the court and remain on file in the office of the clerk. The clerk shall immediately forward a true copy of the report and the responses to the State Archivist who shall retain that report and all responses in perpetuity. (c) No later than 90 days after the grand jury submits a final report on the operations of any public agency subject to its reviewing authority, the governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body, and every elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility pursuant to Section 914.1 shall cbmment within 60 days to the presiding judge of the superior court, with an information copy sent to the board of supervisors, on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of that county officer or agency head and any agency or agencies which that officer or agency head supervises or controls. In any city and county, the mayor shall also comment on the findings and recommendations. All of these comments and reports shall forthwith be submitted to the presiding judge of the superior court who impaneled the grand jury. A copy of all responses to grand jury reports shall be placed on file with the clerk of the public agency and the office of the county clerk, or the mayor when applicable, and shall remain on file in those offices. One copy shall he placed on file with the applicable grand jury final report by, and in the control of the currently impaneled grand jury, where it shall be maintained for a minimum of five years. (d) As used in this section "agency" includes a department. 933.05. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. Hook page 36 (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor. (c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters over which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release. (a) During an investigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation regarding the investigation, unless the court, either on its own determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury, determines that such a meeting would be detrimental. (f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Book page 37 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