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