Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-01-14
MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District January 14, 2004 A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 at 5 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Patty Campbell, Director Norm Eckenrode, Director Cathy Green, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Tod Ridgeway, Director Jim Silva, Director/Supervisor Shirley McCracken, Board Chair Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair Directors Absent: None STAFF PRESENT: Blake Anderson, General Manager Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Bob Ooten, Director of Operations and Maintenance Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager Jean Tappan, Committee Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM This was not required. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Don McIntyre, Consultant Bob Beardsley, City of Huntington Beach Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach Chris Crompton, County of Orange Norris Brandt, IRWD Larry McKenney, OCPFRD Scott Baugh, Legislative Consultant Ken Theisen, RWQCB Sonja Wassgren John Shaffer Don Schultz IN THE OFFICFIL E OFEOHE SECRETARY ORANGF r'n,— r r'r)N DISTRICT JAN 2 8 2004 ©Y The minutes of the May 21, 2003 meeting were ordered to be received and filed. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 2 January 14, 2004 (5) REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Don Bankhead did not make a report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER General Manager Blake Anderson reported on the Third Annual Orange County Leadership Symposium that was held at Lake Arrowhead the weekend of January 9-11, 2004. Seven of our board members attended. One of the discussions dealt with determining which opportunities to pursue. The questions facing the district are similar to those facing all of the entities in Orange County. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS A. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED TO: Receive and file CA Regional Water Quality Control Board letter to County of Orange and Beach Cities dated December 23, 2003 re Notice of Violation of Order No. R8-2002-0010 (MS4 Permit) - Discharges of polluted Non-Stormwater to the Santa Ana River and the Pacific Ocean and Request for Technical and Monitoring Information Pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code. Ken Theisen of the Regional Water Quality Control Board explained the reasons for issuing the Notice of Violation of Order No. R8-2002-0010 (MS4 Permit). It appears that the Santa Ana River is the main contributor to the high bacteria counts at the beach. Further investigations of the Santa Ana River will be done to try to identify the sources of pollution. Mr. Theisen also mentioned that the letter is to force the permittees to take all steps necessary to reduce urban runoff discharges into the Santa Ana River and have the permittees maintain all stormwater facilities. The County and the Corps of Engineers will be performing a study on the lower Santa Ana River. Larry McKenney stated that 90 percent of the allowable dry weather flows are proposed to be diverted to the sewers. He also said that bird and pet waste is a major problem and adds significant amounts of bacteria to the runoff. Bob Beardsley described the actions the City of Huntington Beach has taken to reduce urban runoff discharges onto Huntington Beach shorelines. It was mentioned that not all of the 30 — 60 million gallons per day of urban runoff needs to be diverted. B. Discuss Urban Runoff Study — Triennial Report Findings and Recommendations. Tom Meregillano gave an information report to the committee members on the diversion program. He reported on the status of the program, the identified sources of urban runoff, quantity and quality of urban runoff and observable impacts, a preliminary financial analysis and future concerns about capacity to Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 3 January 14, 2004 treat increased amounts of urban runoff. The report concluded that the current diverted flows have no significant impacts that would require revision to the policy. However, the 28 proposed diversions could exceed the maximum capacity of 10 mgd. There is a need to determine the ultimate capacity, long- term quality impacts to OCSD, limitations, and cost sharing. The study that staff is recommending under Agenda Item 7.C. will provide the additional information and cost estimates that the directors will consider to determine the direction of the urban runoff program. Once this information is in hand, the future of the program will have to be determined. Several funding options were identified, including a dedicated county -wide revenue source. At 5:50 Director Cathy Green left the meeting. The directors agreed that it is important to continue the program. C. MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED TO: Recommend approving a sole source Professional Services Agreement with Integrated Program Management Consultants (IPMC), a joint venture of Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc. and CH2M Hill, Inc., to conduct an urban runoff study in an amount not to exceed $223,123. (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 STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The directors agreed that quarterly meetings would be appropriate. The next Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff meeting will be held on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 beginning at 3 p.m. Future meetings are scheduled for Wednesday, July 21, 2004 at 5 p.m. and Wednesday, October 20, 2004 at 5 p.m. (13) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 4 January 14, 2004 (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Submitted by: "4z,4", J Committ 5 retary H:VTappan, gtrn"."Hoc CommitieeslUrban RunofA20041011404 Urban RunoffAH Committee MinUtes.doC MINUTES OF AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF MEETING Orange County Sanitation District Wednesday, May 21, 2003 A meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff of the Orange County Sanitation District was held on Wednesday, May 21, 2003 at 3 p.m., in the District's Administrative Office. (1) The roll was called and a quorum declared present, as follows: AD HOC COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Directors Present: Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair Patty Campbell, Director Debbie Cook, Director Norm Eckenrode, Director Beth Krom, Director Roy Moore, Director Tod Ridgeway, Director Shirley McCracken, Board Chair Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair Directors Absent: Jim Silva, Director/Supervisor STAFF PRESENT: Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services Carol Beekman, Communications Manager Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager Adriana Renescu, Source Control Supervisor Jim Colston, Senior Regulatory Specialist Penny Kyle, Board Secretary (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM This was not required. (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. (4) APPROVAL OF MINUTES OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel Don McIntyre, Consultant Chip Monaco, OCPFRD Richard Boone, OCPFRD George Edwards, OCPFRD Randy Fuhrman Gerhardt Van Drie FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ORANGE 011'' - - --erinxi rNSTRICT JAN 2 8 2004 BY The minutes of the May 7, 2003 meeting were ordered to be received and filed. Directors Anderson, Eckenrode and Ridgeway abstained. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 2 May 21, 2003 (5) REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR Committee Chair Don Bankhead did not make a report. (6) REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER The General Manager was not in attendance. (7) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL General Counsel did not make a report. (8) DISCUSSION ITEMS A. The Orange County storm water management program is defined within a policy and regulatory framework established by the Orange County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit and Drainage Area Management Plan currently managed by OCPFRD. The purpose of this meeting is to gain a better understanding of that policy framework as a foundation for considering the future direction of the District's Urban Runoff program. Dr. Robert Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services, led a discussion with presentations by Adriana Renescu (OCSD) on the source of urban runoff discharges, and Chip Monaco (OCPFRD) on overview of the regulatory context surrounding urban runoff issues. The Committee members discussed various items to include diversion methods, funding costs, partnering with other cities and agencies, and legal opinion on Propositions 218 issues. Staff was then directed to evaluate the cost and feasibility of diversions and OCSD treatment capability and other treatment options, such as natural treatment systems and filter devices that the District could implement, and report their findings at the meeting scheduled tentatively for July 2003. (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 STAFF REPORT There were none. (12) CONSIDERATION OF UPCOMING MEETINGS The next Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 9, 2003 beginning at 3 p.m. Minutes of Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff Page 3 May 21, 2003 (13) CLOSED SESSION There was no closed session. (14) ADJOURNMENT The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 4:54 p.m. Submitted by: r' Penny M. ;Kyle, Board retary H:ldeptlagendalAd Hoc CommitteeslUrban RunoM200W52103 AH Committee Minutes.doo ty 5 6 N r `y ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT y 9 1q. HE tl e phone: (7141 P62 24I . fax: {71A] wwuv.arsd,cam NOTICE OF ma61PG.Bow AD HOC COMMITTEE RE URBAN RUNOFF FouritDln Vr:hay. C.� 9272E-E1'7 street address: 10844 E1rs Avc - -j�- ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Fountain Vc;12y. CA R2706-7Q ; WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 2004 - 5 P.M. Member Agencies Cities DISTRICT'S ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 Cyr r•�__ Founaa,n Uc:: -y iruntn�t,n_=_; A regular meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee re Urban Runoff will meet at the above date and time to discuss issues of mutual interest. Los Jrar Caunty at Orange Sanitary ilistricas coier—n M 1i111fiY1f'/ r''•;� Water Oistrins Irmo Ranc'7 To maintain world -class leadership in wastewater and water resource management. ROLL CALL (1) Roll Call: Meeting Date: _January 14, 2004 Ad Hoc Committee Members Don Bankhead, Ad Hoc Committee Chair ........................... Patty Campbell, Director ..................................................... Debbie Cook, Director......................................................... Norm Eckenrode, Director ................................................... B th K Director erom,........................................................... Roy Moore, Director............................................................ Tod Ridgeway, Director...................................................... Jim Silva, Director............................................................... Shirley McCracken, Board Chair ........................................ Steve Anderson, Board Vice Chair ...................................... Others Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel ............................... DonHughes........................................................................ Don McIntyre, Consultant.................................................... Vicki Wilson, County of Orange .......................................... Dave Kiff, City of Newport Beach ........................................ Geraldine Lucas, City of Huntington Beach ......................... Scott Baugh, Consultant..................................................... Chris Crompton, County of Orange ..................... NorrisBrandt, I RW D........................................................... Larry McKenney, OCPFRD................................................. Staff Present Blake P. Anderson, General Manager ................................. Bob Ghirelli, Director of Technical Services ........................ David Ludwin, Director of Engineering ................................ Gary Streed, Director of Finance ......................................... Bob Ooten, Director of Operations & Maintenance ............. Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager ............................... Tom Meregillano, Regulatory Specialist .............................. Jim Colston, Sr. Regulatory Specialist ................................ Carol Beekman, Communications Services Manager ......... Jean Tappan, Secretary...................................................... c: Lenora Crane Meeting Time:_ 5 p.m. Meeting Adjourned: AGENDA MEETING OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE RE: URBAN RUNOFF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 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 may be continued from this meeting without further notice to a Committee meeting held within five (5) days of this meeting per Government Code Section 54954.2(b)(3). Meeting Adjournment: This meeting may be adjourned to a later time and items of business from this agenda may be considered at the later meeting by Order of Adjournment and Notice in accordance with Government Code Section 54955 (posted within 24 hours). (1) ROLL CALL (2) APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR PRO TEM, IF NECESSARY -2- January 14, 2004 (3) PUBLIC COMMENTS (4) REPORT OF AD HOC COMMITTEE CHAIR A. Minutes of the May 21, 2003 Urban Runoff will be distributed at the meeting and considered for approval. (5) REPORT OF GENERAL MANAGER (6) REPORT OF GENERAL COUNSEL (7) AD HOC COMMITTEES DISCUSSION ITEMS (Items A-C) A. Receive and file CA Regional Water Quality Control Board letter to County of Orange and Beach Cities dated December 23, 2003 re Notice of Violation of Order No. R8-2002-0010 (MS4 Permit) -Discharges of polluted Non-Stormwater to the Santa Ana River and the Pacific Ocean and Request for Technical and Monitoring Information Pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code. B. Discuss Urban Runoff Study —Triennial Report Findings and Recommendations. C. Approve a sole source Professional Services Agreement with Integrated Program Management Consultants (IPMC), a joint venture of Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc. and CH21M Hill, Inc., to conduct an urban runoff study in an amount not to exceed $223,123. (8) OTHER BUSINESS. COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS IF ANY (9) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR WOULD LIKE STAFF TO REPORT ON AT A SUBSEQUENT MEETING (10) MATTERS WHICH A DIRECTOR MAY WISH TO PLACE ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR ACTION AND STAFF REPORT (11) FUTURE MEETING DATES The next Urban Runoff Ad Hoc Committee Meeting will be scheduled at the meeting. Staff is proposing that the Committee meet quarterly on the third Wednesday or Thursday in April (April 21 or 22), July (July 21 or 22), and October (October 20 or 21). Please check your calendars for availability. -3- January 14, 2004 (12) CLOSED SESSION During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Chair may convene the Committee in closed session to consider matters of pending real estate negotiations, pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted. Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Directors during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Board on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. A. Convene in closed session, if necessary B. Reconvene in regular session C. Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (13) ADJOURNMENT jt H:\dept\agenda\Ad Hoc Committees\Urban Runofl\2004\011404 AH Committee Agenda.doc Notice to Committee Members: 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: Don Bankhead (714) 738-6311 (Fullerton City Hall) Secretary: Jean Tappan (714) 593-7101 (714) 962-0356 (Fax) e-mail: jtappan@ocsd.com I v California Regional Water Quality Control Board Terry Tamminen Secretary for Environmental Protection December 23, 2003 Santa Ana Region Internet Address: http://www.swreb.ca.gov/rwgcb8 3737 Main Street, Suite 500, Riverside, California 92501-3348 Phone (909) 782-4130 - FAX (909) 781-6288 Vicki Wilson, Director Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Dept. 300 North Flower Street, 7t" Floor Santa Ana, CA 92703 Dave Kiff Assistant City Manager City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. P.O. Box 1768 Newport Beach, CA 92658 CERTIFIED MAIL Return Receipt Requested Ray Silver City Manager City of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Raymond Kromer Allan Roeder City Manager City Manager City of Fountain Valley City of Costa Mesa 10200 Slater Ave. P.O. Box 1200 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Arnold Schwarzenegger Governor David Ream City Manager City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Santa Ana, CA 92701 NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF ORDER NO. R8-2002-0010 (MS4 PERMIT) - DISCHARGES OF POLLUTED NON-STORMWATER TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN, and REQUEST FOR TECHNICAL AND MONITORING INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 13267 OF THE CALIFORNIA WATER CODE This letter is to notify the County of Orange, and the Cities of Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana that discharges of non - storm water/urban runoff (hereinafter collectively referred to as nuisance flow) to the Santa Ana River, and from the Santa Ana River to the Pacific Ocean, are causing and/or contributing to violations of water quality standards. This is a violation of Receiving Water Limitation, Provision IV.1, of the MS4 Permit. This letter sets forth a requirement under California Water Code Section 13267 that the County of Orange and the above named cities provide a technical report regarding the sources of polluted urban runoff in the Santa Ana River and the impacts of the discharge from the River on the Pacific Ocean. On October 15, 1999 we requested that the County of Orange, and the Cities of Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Santa Ana submit a technical report for the investigation of bacteriological water quality impairments in the Talbert California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper OCPFRD, CWC 13267 Request -2- December 23, 2003 Channel, Lower Santa Ana River, and the Greenville Banning Channel. On November 16, 1999 the County of Orange provided the requested report, which proposed Phase I of the Coastal Runoff Impact Study (CRIS-1) to be completed by researchers from the University of California at Irvine (UCI) and led by Dr. Stan Grant and Dr. Brett Sanders. This work was funded by the County of Orange, the National Water Research Institute and the State Water Resources Control Board. The results of this investigation, which focused on the Talbert Watershed, together with the results of the subsequent Phase II of the CRIS which focused on the Lower Santa Ana River and Newport Slough, have been submitted to this office in full compliance with our October 15, 1999 letter. We appreciate the work that has been done to date to address this problem. We would also like to thank the County and the cities for taking proactive actions to divert polluted urban runoff from the Talbert and Santa Ana River watersheds to the sanitary sewer system to correct violations of the MS4 permit. These diversions appear to have had a very positive impact on water quality in the ocean, and the extent of violations of the water quality objectives has been greatly reduced from what we experienced in 1999. However, the evidence provided by the CRIS investigations also shows that discharges from the Santa Ana River continue to violate water quality standards, and one of the likely sources of this pollution is the nuisance flows entering the Santa Ana River from various sources downstream from the current diversion. We have reviewed the CRIS Phase I and II reports and believe that these reports provide a significant amount of evidence demonstrating that discharges of nuisance flows from the Talbert and Santa Ana River watersheds are causing and/or contributing to violations of water quality standards for bacteria. We also believe that the evidence in these reports clearly shows that the discharges of nuisance flows are not the sole cause of violations of water quality standards, and that there are still some unidentified sources contributing to the concentrations of bacteria we see along Huntington State Beach north of the mouth of the Santa Ana River. However, since the discharge from the Santa Ana River to the Pacific Ocean routinely exceeds water quality objectives for bacteria there is still a need for further investigation and control of bacteria sources in this watershed. Evidence Supporting the Requirement/Threat to Water Quality According to a study entitled "Coastal Runoff Impact Study Phase II: Sources and Dynamics of Fecal Indicators in the Lower Santa Ana River Watershed" (Grant, et al, UCI, 2002), the Santa Ana River discharge may contribute up to 70% of the total coliform bacterial pollution found along Huntington State Beach. The discharge from the river exceeded water quality objectives for bacteria in 58% of the samples collected during 2002. 2. According to A. Boehm, et al., "Decadal and Shorter Period Variability of Surf Zone Water Quality at Huntington Beach, California," June 21, 2002, a regression analysis of fecal indicator bacteria monitoring over 40 years, California Environmental Protection Agency Y �a� Recycled Paper - OCPFRD, CWC 13267 Request -3- December 23, 2003 "suggest[s] that total coliform concentrations have been slowly rising over time." The most recent fecal indicator bacterial pollution along Huntington State Beach actually started in 1997, two years before the adoption of AB411 establishing a water quality objective for enterococcus. Violations of the enterococcus objective make the water pollution problem more apparent, and the majority of violations of water quality standards are for the enteroccocus objective. 3. The is no evidence from any of the numerous studies of the Huntington Beach pollution problem that shows bacteria from Orange County Sanitation District's offshore discharge is impacting the beach water quality. 4. After the completion of numerous sanitary surveys by OCSD, the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach, and the California State Parks Department we have not found any evidence of leaking sewers, or other sewage discharges that are causing the bacterial pollution in the Santa Ana River and the Pacific Ocean. 5. After diverting all the nuisance flows from the Talbert Channel and Marsh, the discharge from the marsh no longer routinely exceeds water quality objectives for bacteria, as was the case in 1999 before the diversions were put in place. 6. According to Komex, "AES Huntington Beach Generating Station Surf Zone Water Quality Study", August 4, 2003, the AES discharge may entrain the discharge from the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers and cause an impact at monitoring stations 6N and 9N. Komex found no sources of fecal indicator bacteria at the AES plant that could explain the pollution found along the beach. Source tracking analysis done as part of the study found no evidence of human waste within the AES plant, but did find some indication of human waste bacteria in the samples collected at stations 6N, 9N and the River. 7. As part of the Santa Ana River project in the 1990s, the Army Corps of Engineers identified 10 drains discharging into, or crossing, the Santa Ana River downstream of the current diversion system. Report Requested In accordance with California Water Code Section 13267, please provide the following report: Provide a plan and schedule for investigating, identifying, and eliminating sources of fecal indicator bacteria being discharged from the Santa Ana River to the Pacific Ocean, downstream of the diversion near OCSD's Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley. California Environmental Protection Agency %ai Recycled Paper OCPFRD, CWC 13267 Request -4- December 23, 2003 2. If the nuisance flows in the storm drains are not eliminated, then the County/cities shall develop and implement a monitoring program to quantify the load of fecal indicator bacteria from these drains to the River. The monitoring program should include the flow rate of the discharge over the entire monitored period and collection and analysis of samples of the discharge and upstream water quality in the Santa Ana River. The nuisance flow samples and the upstream samples shall be analyzed for total and fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria using the membrane filtration method. Deadlines: A workplan, including the schedules, shall be provided to this office no later than February 9, 2004. If the discharge is not eliminated and the County implements a monitoring program accordinto No. 2 above, all collected monitoring data shall be submitted monthly, by the 30t day of the month following the analysis. Penalties for Failure to Submit the Report: This Order is issued pursuant to Section 13267 of the California Water Code. Failure to comply with this Order can result in penalties under Water Code Section 13268, in an amount up to $5,000 per day for each day of violation. Appeal to the Board: If you believe this Order has been issued in error, you may submit a written request for a hearing before the Regional Board. Note, however, that the terms of this Order will remain in effect pending such a hearing. Be further advised that the time for filing a petition for review of this Order with the State Water Resources Control Board is within 30 Days from the date of this Order. If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 782-3284 or Ken Theisen at (909) 320-2028. All legal questions should be directed to our legal counsel, Jorge Leon at (916) 341-5180. Sincerely, Gerard J. Thibeault Executive Officer cc: Jorge Leon, SWRCB Office of Chief Counsel HB TAC (via email) California Environmental Protection Agency y Recycled Paper AD HOC COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D.Env. Director of Technical Services Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Triennial Review Findings GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Informational Only SUMMARY Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 1/14/04 Item Number Item Number t11h) The Urban Runoff Policy adopted by the District's Board of Directors included a provision requiring an evaluation of the Urban Runoff Program over the first three years of its initial implementation to determine whether the provisions in the policy need to be amended. Based the evaluation, the current urban runoff flow volumes received by the District has not produced any observable impacts to its collection and treatment facilities as well as its regulatory obligations. As a result, there are no significant impacts that would necessitate revisions of the current urban runoff policies. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS ■ May 2003 — Preliminary findings of draft triennial review report presented to Committee. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY N/A BUDGET IMPACT ❑ This item has been budgeted. (Line item: ) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ® Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Summary of the Findings of the Evaluation: Status of Program Implementation: The Urban Runoff Program is fully implemented with the necessary policies, regulatory control mechanisms, and legislation to collect and treat urban runoff. Currently, there are 16 dry weather urban runoff diversion systems connected to the District's facilities. ■ Sources of Urban Runoff: Based on the land use makeup surrounding each of the 16 diversion systems, the majority of urban runoff comes from residential (44%) followed by commercial (15%), vacant land (13%), and industrial (10%). It is difficult to correlate the quality of urban runoff with land use, since urban runoff is diffuse in origin. • Urban Runoff Flows: During the dry weather seasons in 2000, 2001 and 2002, the District received urban runoff daily flows that ranged from 0.7 to 2.6 MGD. The maximum daily flow represents 65% of the 4 MGD threshold for fees and 26% of the 10 MGD allowable maximum discharge flow. • Impact on the Collection System: No observable impact was noted. • Impact on the Treatment Facilities: There was no observable capacity impacts to the treatment facilities associated with urban runoff discharges. • Impact on Compliance with Local and Ocean Discharge Requirements: The urban runoff quality generally meets the local and ocean discharge requirements. Over the three-year period, there was only one incident of noncompliance with the District's pesticide local limit. The noncompliant pesticide sample represents one of out 1856 pesticide samples taken during this period. Pesticide is not a common chemical signature found in industrial and domestic wastewater streams, which may have a potential impact on the water quality requirements for reclamation. • Impact on Effluent Toxicity: Based on the present urban runoff flows from the 16 diversion systems, urban runoff does not pose a concern in meeting toxicity compliance requirements. The long-term toxicity impact on the receiving marine environment may become an issue if the volumes of urban runoff increases and is not well understood at this time. • Impact on Biosolids Quality: Based on the current volume of urban runoff, the biosolids quality meets the regulatory compliance standards. • Financial Impact: During the three-year period, the District incurred a cost of approximately one million dollars ($1 M) for the treatment/collection/disposal of urban runoff and associated administrative costs but has not charged urban runoff permittees, since the discharge flows are below the 4 MGD fee threshold. • Policy: There are no significant negative impacts on the urban runoff program that would necessitate revision of the current urban runoff policies based on current flows. Future regional needs to divert more urban runoff flows based on future projections by the County of Orange require technical studies of the District's ultimate capacity to accept urban runoff. It is anticipated that the outcome of the studies will result in revision of current policies and establish long-term policies for accepting urban runoff. Page 2 ALTERNATIVES N/A CEQA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS • Triennial Report — Technical Summary Page 3 AD HOC COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT Orange County Sanitation District FROM: Robert P. Ghirelli, D.Env. Director of Technical Services Originator: Mahin Talebi, Source Control Manager SUBJECT: Urban Runoff Sole Source Contract GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Meeting Date To Bd. of Dir. 1/14/04 Item Number Item Number Approve a sole source Professional Services Agreement with Integrated Program Management Consultants (IPMC), a joint venture of Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, Inc. and CH2M Hill, Inc., to conduct an urban runoff study in an amount not to exceed $223,123. SUMMARY The volumes of urban runoff discharge are anticipated to increase and it is imperative for the District to conduct further studies to determine its collection and treatment limitations. In order to undertake such a task, consulting services are required. Recommendation for sole sourcing is based on the following justification: IPMC has conducted closely related studies with the Engineering Department in the P2-90 project for Secondary Treatment Alternatives and has accumulated a significant knowledge base and familiarity with the District's overall collections and treatment operations. As a result, significant time and project cost savings are anticipated. 10 In order to undertake and execute the urban runoff study effectively, potential vendors must have thorough knowledge of the District's collections and treatment processes that IPMC has already attained. In addition, this study requires the utilization of the findings obtained by IPMC from the P2-90 project. Awarding the contract to IPMC will avoid duplication of efforts in building the same foundation that IPMC has developed in the past. PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS On May 7, 2003, the Ad Hoc Committee approved contract services for a consultant to evaluate the technical, institutional, and cost issues associated with continuing the District's Urban Runoff Program and expanding it beyond the 10 MGD cap to meet anticipated needs. $300,000 was budgeted to conduct the study. PROJECT/CONTRACT COST SUMMARY Source Control budgeted $300,000 through the Joint Operating (JO) Budget to fund relevant studies to ensure that the practice of collecting and treating urban runoff does not compromise the District's treatment system and regulatory obligations. While $300,000 was authorized for the program, only $100,000 is appropriated this year for the work; the scope is $223,123. The remaining unencumbered JO engineering services funds will be transfer to cover the remaining cost of the study. BUDGET IMPACT ® This item has been budgeted. (Line item: 108) ❑ This item has been budgeted, but there are insufficient funds. ❑ This item has not been budgeted. ❑ Not applicable (information item) ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The District's Urban Runoff Policy allows the discharge of up to a maximum of 10 million gallons per day (MGD) of urban runoff into its sewer system primarily to address serious public health or water quality problems. The County of Orange expects an increase over the next several years in the number of urban runoff diversion facilities throughout Orange County. With this increase, it is anticipated that the volume may exceed the established 10 MGD flow limit. In order to gain a better understanding of the District's collections treatment capacity for urban runoff, as well as concerns in meeting its environmental compliance and water quality standards for future reclamation, it is important for the District to determine the extent to which it can accept future urban runoff diversions without impacting its ability to collect, treat, dispose, and reclaim wastewater. Staff is proposing the following scope of work to understand the District's ultimate capability to accept urban runoff: Determination of existing and future residual capacities for both trunkline and treatment facilities. The quantity (or volume) of urban runoff that can be accepted by the District is dictated by the residual capacity, which is the capacity that is left available after meeting its basic sanitary wastewater collection and treatment requirements during dry weather. Although existing available capacities can be easily determined, the future projections of residual capacity will require more considerations. Such determination should take into account future facility expansions identified in the District's Strategic Plan among other factors. Determination of the quality impact of urban runoff. The chemical quality or characteristics of urban runoff can potentially have a direct impact on the District's ability to meet compliance requirements for toxicity, effluent limits, biosolids, and most likely the reclamation and drinking water quality standards for the Ground Water Replenishment System (GWRS) project. It is necessary to identify all existing, as well as emerging pollutants of concern, to determine potential impact in meeting compliance and identify options to mitigate or resolve the problems. ■ Determination of future quantity of urban runoff diversions anticipated by the county and additional conveyance and treatment capacities requiring capital improvements. Page 2 This requires coordination with the County of Orange to determine the future quantity of urban runoff that need to be diverted to address the regional needs. Based on the past and current studies conducted by the County of Orange and the proposed diversion facilities in the future, any additional conveyance and treatment capacities beyond the residual capacities must be determined. The determination for additional capacities is necessary to identify the cost of capital improvements required. OCSD URBAN RUNOFF STUDY Proposed Project Milestones and Deliverables ITEM # Action Items Start Complete 1 Kick Off Meeting 02/05/04 Task 1: Residual Treatment Capacity 02/05/04 03/02/04 Briefing Meeting 02/19/04 Report 03/02/04 Review Meeting 03/09/04 2 Task 2: Residual Trunkline Capacity 03/19/04 04/22/04 Briefing Meeting 04/08/04 Report 04/22/04 Review Meeting 04/29/04 3 Task 3 Urban Runoff Characterization 04/08/04 05/05/04 Briefing Meeting 04/22/04 Report 05/05/04 Review Meeting 05/12/04 4 Task 4: List Emerging Pollutants 04/22/04 05/20/04 Briefing Meeting 05/06/04 Report 05/20/04 Review Meeting 05/27/04 5 Task 5: Future Urban Runoff Flows 05/06/04 06/30/04 Briefing Meeting 06/17/04 Report 06/30/04 Review Meeting 07/07/04 6 Task 6: Additional Needed Capacity 06/17/04 07/21 /04 Briefing Meeting 07/07/04 Report 07/21 /04 Review Meeting 07/28/04 7 Task 7: Final Study Report 07/28/04 09/28/04 Draft Report 08/27/04 Review Meeting 09/16/04 Final Report 09/28/04 Page 3 Scope of Work Project costs Total Time Hour 2,042 Total Labor Cost $212,250.00 Total Expenses: $10,873.00 Copy and Report and Travel Grand Total $223,123.00 Justification of Sole Source On December 2003, the Engineering department, through the IPMC, contracted CH2MHill to conduct a study to evaluate Secondary Treatment Alternatives (P2-90). This study solely dealt with the evaluation of secondary treatment alternatives, focusing on toxicity sources and their removal efficiency in pre -selected secondary treatment units. During a period of 12 months, CH2MHill gathered an extensive data set of the District's wastewater flow and chemical constituent quality from different sources within the District, including the laboratory, operations, and source control to project and anticipate the changes in the District's future influent and effluent composition. This evaluation took into account the current and future projections of urban runoff flow volumes and relevant toxicity trends. With their extensive work on the P2-90 project, CH2MHill obtained comprehensive knowledge of the District's urban runoff flow volumes, chemical composition, toxicity trend as well as the knowledge of the relevant impacts associated with the District's collection and treatment processes, which are pertinent factors needed to undertake the urban runoff study. These circumstances place CH2MHill in a unique position to conduct the proposed scope of work. A substantial portion of the task elements in the P2-90 project build on the proposed task elements in the urban runoff study. With the County of Orange and several Coastal Cities aggressively seeking the District's services to treat urban runoff, the urgency to determine the District's ultimate capability to accept urban runoff is imperative. Findings from the study would provide the District's Board of Directors with engineering and scientifically based information that would allow them to make an informed decision whether to accept additional urban runoff flow volumes above existing 10 MGD limit. ALTERNATIVES Solicit Proposals for Bid: This option requires that the District to send a request for proposals for the urban runoff study. This would add approximately six months to the project schedule due to the bidding process and establishing initial knowledge base, which needs to be gain by a non-IPMC. Page 4 No Project: Determining the District's ultimate capacity and quality of urban runoff would not be addressed. CEQA FINDINGS N/A ATTACHMENTS a Scope of Work h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoff\2004\011404 agenda report-2 sole source.doc Page 5 Scope of Work for Urban Runoff Study 1.0 SUMMARY Urban runoff quality and its direct impact to the coastline has become a major concern in Orange County. In response, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) has taken a proactive role in providing its service as part of a regional solution to address urban runoff pollution. As a major watershed stakeholder, OCSD has partnered and coordinated with cities and agencies to move towards achieving long-term solutions without compromising its primary objective of safely and effectively treating sanitary wastewater. The scope of work embodied in the Urban Runoff Study will initially focus on the basic determination of OCSD's ultimate capability to receive, treat and dispose urban runoff diversions. The outcome of the study is a key factor in enabling OCSD to develop the best practical strategy in seeking a long-term solution, while using an approach that would be beneficial to the whole region. OCSD established the Urban Runoff Program in response to the resolution adopted by its Board of Directors to accept, treat, and dispose dry weather urban runoff diversions to OCSD's sewer system. The resolution allows urban runoff discharges up to a maximum of 10 million gallons per day (MGD) primarily for diversion of nuisance flows that address imminent public health or environmental problem. The County of Orange (Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department) has conducted a study that shows an expected increase in the number of proposed urban runoff diversion facilities throughout Orange County. With this increase, the volume of urban runoff discharge into the sewer system is anticipated to be magnified and may exceed the established flow limit. Because of OCSD's limited collection and treatment capacities, as well as concerns in meeting environmental compliance and water quality standards for future reclamation, it has become a priority for OCSD to determine the extent to which it can accept future urban runoff diversions without impacting its primary objectives. Professional services are required for establishing OCSD's ultimate capability to accept urban runoff which include, but not limited to, the following: 1.1 Determination of existing and future residual capacities for both trunkline and treatment facilities. The quantity (or volume) of urban runoff that can be accepted by OCSD is dictated by the residual capacity, which is the capacity that is left available after meeting its basic sanitary wastewater collection and treatment requirements during dry weather. Although existing available capacities can be easily determined, the future projections of residual capacity will require more considerations. Such determination should take into account, but not limited to, future facility expansions identified in OCSD's Strategic Plan among other factors. 1.2 Determination of the quality impact of urban runoff. The chemical quality or characteristics of urban runoff can potentially have a direct impact on OCSD's TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 1 of 11 1/7/2004 h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc ability to meet compliance requirements for toxicity, effluent limits, biosolids, and most likely the reclamation and drinking water quality standards for the Ground Water Replenishment System (GWRS) project. It is necessary to identify all existing, as well as emerging pollutants of concern, to determine potential impact in meeting compliance and identify options to mitigate or resolve the problems. 1.3 Determination of future quantity of urban runoff diversion anticipated by the county and additional conveyance and treatment capacities requiring capital improvements. This requires coordination with the County of Orange to determine the future quantity of urban runoff that need to be diverted to address the regional needs. Based on the past and current studies conducted by the County of Orange and the proposed diversion facilities in the future, any additional conveyance and treatment capacities beyond the residual capacities must be determined. The determination for additional capacities is necessary to identify the cost of capital improvements required. 2.0 BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION To facilitate an immediate resolution to the problem of beach contamination, OCSD's Board of Directors adopted a resolution for accepting urban runoff discharges. The diversion of dry weather urban runoff to the sanitary sewer is allowed primarily to handle nuisance flows that cannot otherwise be addressed in an alternative practical or economical manner. Urban runoff diversion is to be considered the last option when selecting appropriate dry weather flow treatment. OCSD issues permits to allow discharge of urban runoff to OCSD's sewer system on a year round basis but only during dry weather periods, provided that urban runoff quality meets specific standards set by OCSD and there is adequate capacity to accommodate treatment. OCSD's primary mission is to provide efficient treatment of wastewater that complies with its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for ocean discharge and meets quality standards that will allow future reclamation for the GWRS project and biosolids reuse. Although OCSD does not have the key responsibility for dealing with urban runoff management throughout Orange County, it has assumed a more responsive role in addressing immediate regional needs to protect public health and the environment. OCSD, however, cannot jeopardize its wastewater treatment and future reclamation operations in any way by accepting urban runoff diversions to the sewer system that will result in violation of its NPDES permit, potentially cause a sewer overflow, or negatively impact its future reclamation project. Because of this, it becomes necessary to establish OCSD's ultimate capability to accept urban runoff, in quantity and quality, to the extent that it will not compromise its primary objective, while considering alternative solutions to accommodate regional needs. The objective of this study is to determine the following: 2.1 Maximum Residual Hydraulic Capacity — Without capital improvements to increase existing capacities specifically to accommodate urban runoff, the maximum available hydraulic capacity for the collection and treatment of urban TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 2 of 11 1/7/2004 h \dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoft\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc runoff need to be determined. This is to assess if OCSD has available capacity to accommodate the regional water quality improvement needs of the county, without taxing facility capacities primarily established for projected sanitary wastewater. In determining present and future residual hydraulic capacities, the following, at a minimum, shall be considered: • Ongoing capital improvement projects based on OCSD's Strategic Plans that would result in future capacity changes/expansion, such as upgrade to full secondary treatment. Updated wastewater flow projections for: • Per capita water usage • Population -based flow projections • Water use by industrial and commercial sectors • Impacts of rainfall on the average daily flow rate • Future projections for urban development + Other components affecting future flows: a Addition of dairy washwater, SAWPA, and IRWD flows ■ Consideration for estimated flow reduction due to water conservation ■ Plans for diverting SARI Flow from Plant 1 to Plant 2 ■ Plans for diverting flow from the Knott and Magnolia trunks (tributary to Plant 2) to Plant 1 as a replacement to the SARI flow. This is needed to produce enough secondary effluent at Plant 1 during minimum diurnal flow conditions to meet GWRS requirements. • Completion of the Bushard Trunk Rehabilitation Project. When completed, it will relieve the capacity constraints experienced in the Knott/Interplant trunk system which is currently operating above its design capacity. ■ Dewatering and soil remediation projects within OCSD's jurisdiction in Orange County 2.2 Quality Impact of Urban Runoff — It is anticipated that the ocean toxicity criteria and the stringent water quality requirements of the GWRS project will dictate acceptable quality of incoming wastewater to OCSD's treatment plant, including urban runoff diversions. Establishing acceptable quality of urban runoff will ultimately require revision of OCSD's existing local limits to include numerical values for the new pollutants of concern. Since numerical limits will define acceptable water quality for all incoming flow including urban runoff, the parameters that directly impact the limits need to be considered. Because of difficulties in controlling the sources of pollutants in urban runoff, its chemical characteristics can potentially have a direct impact on OCSD's ability to meet compliance requirements for toxicity, ocean discharge standards, treatment processes, biosolids, toxicity, and most likely the water quality standards for the GWRS project. Therefore, all pollutants of concern, as well as the emerging TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 3 of 11 1/7/2004 h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoft\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc ones, must be identified. At a minimum, the quality impact of urban runoff must be determined by: • Characterizing the urban runoff to evaluate its chemical quality by: Utilizing existing water quality data and, if needed, conducting additional sampling to identify and quantify the presence of current and emerging pollutants of concern. 4 Utilizing acceptable analytical methods in identifying and quantifying pollutants of concern using appropriate detection limits (relative to the desired levels) specific for each target constituent. • Determining the relative quality impact of each pollutant of concern on OCSD's capability to meet the following: • Water quality standards for recycled water (GWRS) • Ocean discharge toxicity • Biosolids quality for Class A application Identifying solutions to mitigate or resolve problems posed by pollutant constituents with significant quality impact. This may include: • Alternative treatment • Opportunities for source control ■ Establishing action levels or numerical limits ® Conducting surveys of other POTWs that operate combined sewer systems treating urban runoff and sanitary wastewater to reclamation standards for reuse will help discover all relevant experiences that can benefit OCSD. 2.3 Additional Hydraulic Capacity and Cost of Capital Improvements — Based on the regional needs of the county to divert more urban runoff to OCSD in the future, additional hydraulic capacity may be needed. This is after utilization of any residual capacity for both conveyance and treatment. Because additional capacity requires capital improvement, it is important to determine the cost required to assess if this is a viable option. 3.0 DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK 3.1 Determination of Maximum Residual Hydraulic Capacity Task 1: Establish Residual Treatment Plant Capacity Determine existing and future residual hydraulic capacity of the treatment plant that can be made available for urban runoff treatment based on the difference between treatment plant design capacity (Plants 1 and 2), designed influent TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 4 of 11 1/7/2004 h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc quality, OCSD plant operational practices, and historically observed influent quality, and plants' incoming current and future wastewater flow. Establish residual hydraulic capacity through year 2020 considering planned facility expansion/improvements and historical projection of incoming flows, among other factors deemed significant for the determination. The residual hydraulic treatment plant capacity shall be established by: Drawing upon the relevant existing technical information and/ or most recent technical information being developed in OCSD's Engineering and Operations & Maintenance Departments regarding ongoing projects involving expansion of treatment capacity and modification of treatment processes to accommodate secondary treatment, GWRS, and other requirements. Target project completion dates will help determine when and how much capacity is added. Evaluating the limiting flow in the treatment plant operations that dictates the maximum capacity. Utilizing updated wastewater flow projections from all sources of incoming flows (excluding urban runoff) as defined in the most recent Strategic Planning Study Updates. Flow projections shall be examined to verify the validity of assumptions in comparison with anticipated changes in the future. Determining and applying safety factors that reasonably take into consideration flow excursions brought about by daily fluctuations, seasonal variations or events that are expected/unexpected. Task 2: Establish Residual Trunkline Capacity Determine residual hydraulic capacity of OCSD's trunkline system that can be made available for urban runoff collection, based on the difference between trunkline design capacity, historically observed and projected future and wastewater flow. Establish individual trunkline capacity for the next fifteen years considering any planned trunkline expansion/improvements and historical projection of wastewater flows, among other factors considered significant for the determination. The residual hydraulic treatment plant capacity shall be established by: Identifying all trunklines or those that are impacted by current and future urban runoff diversions. Drawing upon the relevant existing technical information and/ or most recent technical information being developed in OCSD's Engineering TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 5 of 11 1/7/2004 h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc Department regarding ongoing projects involving expansion/modification of trunklines design capacities. Target completion dates will provide information on when and how much trunkline capacity will be added. Performing trunkline model simulations or other analytical methods to determine threshold limits and residual capacities. For each impacted trunkline, develop spreadsheet based hydraulic model. Compare the modeling results with results from the model used for the most recently completely Strategic Planning Study Update. It is assumed that twenty- five trunkline are impacted by current and future urban runoff diversions. Utilizing updated wastewater flow projections from all sources of incoming flows (excluding urban runoff) since the residual capacity is dependent also on the incoming flow. Basic assumptions and projected data shall be examined to verify the validity of historical projections in comparison with anticipated changes in the future. Determining and applying safety factors, which reasonably allows for flow excursions brought about by daily fluctuations, seasonal variations, and events that are expected/ unexpected. Considering other relevant factors such as impact of new stormwater regulations on sewer capacity. 3.2 Determination of Quality Impact of Urban Runoff Task 3: Conduct urban runoff characterization studies to determine urban runoff quality Urban runoff characterization consists of identifying and quantifying pollutant constituents present and their potential sources. Characterize urban runoff by: Utilizing existing OCSD urban runoff water quality data to initially identify typical pollutant constituents and concentrations. Identify and utilize other existing urban runoff data relevant to South Coast urban runoff pollutant concentrations. Identify potential sources of pollutants constituents and establish spatial correlation between typical pollutant constituents and land use patterns including residential, commercial, industrial, roadways, and agricultural/green areas. Identify temporal factors that cause variations in urban runoff characteristics, including seasonal variations. Based on the findings above, prepare a sample collection and analysis plan for urban runoff to complement existing data. The plan will include TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 6 of 11 1/7/2004 h \dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc design of typical sampling stations, proposed location of sampling stations, protocols for sample collection, sample analysis, and detection limits for each constituent of interest. Conduct a survey of at least three other agencies that are similar to OCSD in terms of location (semi -arid to arid climate zone), land use pattern and degree of urbanization, combined treatment of wastewater and urban runoff that also have existing water reuse and reclamation activities. The purpose of the survey is to provide OCSD with a broad perspective and experiences gained from similar urban runoff management programs. Identify factors that cause variations in urban runoff characterization and the extent of variation, including effects of seasonal changes. Task 4: Establish a list of existing and emerging pollutants of concern, an analysis of the potential quality impact for each, and possible options to mitigate or eliminate such impact Establish the pollutants of concern and analyze quality impact of each constituent on OCSD's ability to meet required standards for toxicity, recycled water, biosolids, and ocean discharge by: Reviewing applicable regulations, environmental protection criteria, and pollutant effects data to determine stringent requirements regarding wastewater, reclaimed water and biosolids, which are difficult to meet. ■ Reviewing emerging pollutants of concerns with NDMA, 1,4 Dioxane, Perchlorate, Industrial Endocrine Disruptors, Hormonal Endocrine Disruptors, Pharmaceutical and Surrogates, TOC, Pesticides, etc. ■ Identifying limiting factors in OCSD's operation that are most likely to be impacted/inhibited by the presence of specific pollutants. • Identifying pollutants that will pass through OCSD's treatment facility because of its inability to treat due to inadequate treatment technology. ■ Evaluating characterization of urban runoff diversion and other pertinent discharges relative to OCSD's influent characteristics, to establish pollutant constituents which are likely to have direct or indirect impact on OCSD. Summarize and interpret the results to describe qualitatively how urban runoff is most likely to impact OCSD. For pollutants of concern that have significant quality impact, provide options to mitigate or eliminate impact such as: TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 7 of 11 1/7/2004 h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc • Determining applicable treatment technologies to bring pollutant levels down to acceptable standards. • Identifying source control strategies to reduce influent concentrations. ■ Developing technically based limits or action levels. • A combination of the above or any other effective method. 3.3 Determination of Additional Hydraulic Capacity and Cost of Capital Improvements Task 5: Determine the future volumetric flow of urban runoff diversion based on the regional needs of the county. Future volumetric flow of urban runoff diversions may be determined by: • Reviewing the results of the study on "Urban Runoff Dry Weather Diversion" conducted by the County of Orange to assess how OCSD can accommodate the regional needs for urban runoff diversion. Consulting with the County of Orange regarding the latest information on projected urban runoff diversion flows. Identify proposed sites for future diversion facilities, start of operation, and anticipated volume of urban runoff diversion. Task 6: Determine additional hydraulic capacity to accommodate regional needs and the corresponding cost of capital improvements. The following shall be considered in determining additional hydraulic capacity and the cost of capital improvement: Comparison of future volumetric flows of urban runoff diversion (based on information from the County of Orange) with the residual capacities to determine the additional capacities required. • In determining additional capacities, consider when proposed urban runoff diversion facilities will commence operation and the anticipated hydraulic loading and capacities of the conveyance and treatment facilities at that time. ° Evaluate cost of capitai improvement for both conveyance and treatment facilities to accommodate projected urban runoff flows. TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 8 of 11 1012004 h:\dept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoft\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc 3.4 Final Report Task 7: Submit final report for the study Summarize results of the findings and final recommendations. Provide details of the report to support findings and conclusions. Compile task reports and summary of findings and results into a final Draft Study Report and submit to OCSD for review. Incorporate mutually agreed on review comments and issue the final Study Report. 4.0 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION The project shall be implemented by dividing it into seven tasks as identified in 3.0. The following diagram shows the hierarchy of implementation and relative dependence of each task: TASK 1 Establish residual treatment plant capacity TASK 2 Establish residual trunkline capacity TASK 6 Determine additional hydraulic capacities (conveyance and treatment) and cost of capital improvements TASK 5 Determine future volumetric flow of urban runoff based on regional needs TASK 7 Submit Final Report TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 9 of 11 h:\dept\aaenda\ad hoc committees\urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc TASK 3 Conduct urban runoff characterization TASK 4 Establish pollutants of concern, analysis of quality impact, and options to eliminate impact 1812004 5.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE Task Major Milestones Deadline 1. 1 Submit report establishing residual treatment plant capacity 03/02/04 2 Submit report establishing residual trunkline capacity 04/22/04 3 Submit report for urban runoff characterization 05/05/04 4 Submit report for pollutants of concern, analysis of quality impact, and options to eliminate impact 05/20/04 5 Submit report for future volumetric flow of urban runoff based on regional needs 06/30/04 6 Submit report regarding additional hydraulic capacities (conveyance and treatment) and cost of capital improvements 07/21/04 7 Submit final report summarizing results of the study and final recommendation(s) 09/28/04 *Weeks from the contract start 6.0 DELIVERABLES The consultant shall provide OCSD with the following: • Milestone reports as specified in 5.0 • Monthly Progress Reports 7.0 MONITORING OF WORK 7.1 Meetings Prior to work, meeting(s) with OCSD staff shall be held to establish appropriate contacts and review the Consultant's plan to implement this study. These meetings shall be held at OCSD's offices or as determined by OCSD. Status meetings shall be held to present the task reports to OCSD staff and to keep OCSD apprised of the work in progress. A minimum of one (1) meeting shall be held every two months at OCSD's offices (or as determined by OCSD) or may be held via conference call. The Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation of formal agendas for the meetings and for the preparation of meeting notes. The formal agenda shall be submitted with the previous meeting notes at least one week prior to each meeting. Task progress reporting meeting will be held for each of the six tasks and one for the final Study Draft Report. During the task progress reporting meetings, the TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 10 of 11 1/7/2004 h \dept\agenda\ad hoc committee \urban runoff\2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc consultant will brief OCSD with task progress and will receive inputs from OCSD's stakeholders. The final Study Draft Report review meeting will be held to discuss OCSD's review comments that will be incorporated in the Final Study Report. 7.2 Progress Reports The Consultant shall submit monthly progress reports by the 10th of the month following the end of each month after award of contract. Report must include at a minimum: (1) current activities, (2) future activities, (3) potential out -of -scope items, (4) concerns, (5) solutions, and (6) strategies implemented and initiatives taken. 7.3 Right to Review Services, Facilities, and Records OCSD reserves the right to review any portion of the services performed by the Consultant under this Agreement, and the Consultant agrees to cooperate to the fullest extent possible. The Consultant shall furnish to the OCSD such reports, statistical data, and other information pertaining to the Consultant's services as shall be reasonably required by OCSD. The right of OCSD to review or approve procedures, instructions, reports, test results, calculations, schedules, or other data that are developed by the Consultant shall not relieve the Consultant of any obligation set forth herein. 8.0 RESOURCES AVAILABLE OCSD will make the following resources and information available to the consultant: ■ Access to OCSD's Engineering, Operations and Source Control staff. ■ Information pertinent to the study such as: operations data, engineering drawings and plans, technical reports, EPA Manuals on regulations. • Arrangement with Orange County Water District and/or Orange County Public Facilities and Resources Department as an additional resource ■ OCSD's updated Strategic Plan 9.0 STAFF ASSISTANCE A designated OCSD staff member will be assigned to work with the Consultant on this project. All meetings with OCSD staff will be scheduled through the designated OCSD staff member. TMeregillano/SC/640 Page 11 of 11 1/7/2004 hAdept\agenda\ad hoc committees\urban runof \2004\011404 sole source scope of work.doc OC$D - URBAN RUNOFF STUDY Project Cost Estimates - Hours and Expenses, Only Task Labor Expenses, $ Resources Lodg y Time Cost No. Task Title Name Role h $hour t+i Total Labor, 5 Transp ort and d :,aO. Meals ro Total Expenses Total $ 1.1 Identify planned treatment plant improvements and implementation schedules A. Wistrom Z. Erdal PE E to.0 24 ❑ 25 25 25 25 25 25 1.2 Estimate (by modeling OCSD operational criteria) maximum hydraulic treatment capacity A. Wistrom Z. Erdal PE E 8 32 0 0, 0 0 0 0 1.3 Estimate flow projections through 2020 A. Wistrom Z. Erdal PE E 4 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.4 Estimate safety and peaking factors S. Nedic A. Wistrom Z. Erdal PM PE E 4 4 16 Ct 01 0, 0 0 0 0 0 1.5 TM 1 A. Wistrom Z. Erdal S. Nedic Hanson PE E PM Edit '+ 16 32 8 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0S. 0IAID 1000 R22ro Prod 4 0 468 468 o 468 7❑TAt. TASK 1 _ .�i 1t3$ . '_0 4 �",+.f} _ 0 ::4fi8 :*.at � 2.1 Identify impacted trunkFlnes Z. Erdal E 16 0 50 54 A. Wistrom PEfi75 0 50 5D 50 50 2.2 Describe each site diversion (total of 23) Z. Erdal E 0 0 1. Feghaly E 0 0 0 0 A. Wistrom PE 0 0 0 2.3 Planned trunkline improvements and Z. Erdal E Cl 0 0 implementation schedules (25 trunkline) 1. Feghaly E C1 0 A. Wistrom PE 0 0 0 0 2.4 Tninkifne modeling {25 trunkline spreadsheet m Z. Erdal E 0 A. Wistrom PE 0 0 0 0 C1 I. Feghaly E 100 0 0 01 2.5 Trunkline flow projections Z. Erdal E 8 C1 C A. Wistrom PE 4 01 0, 0 0 1. Feghaly E 32 0, 0 0 2.6 Estimate and apply safety and peaking factors Z. Erdal E 8 0 0 A. Wistrom PE 2 0 0 C, 0 2.7 Estimate impacts of new stormwater regulation I Z. Erdal E 8, 0 Cl A. Wistrom PE 2 0 0 0 0 2.8 TM 2 A. Wistrom PE 16 p 0 Z- Erdal E 32 0 0 S. Nedic PM 8 ❑ 0 S- Hanson Edit 6 ❑ 0 WP Format B 0 0 Repro Prod. 4 0 668 41, 668 TOTRL=TASK 2 58� D 10t] 3.I Utilizing existing OCSD urban runoff data identify Z Erdal E 6 D 25 25 pical ollutant constituents and concentrations A. Wistrom PE 2 0 25 25 3.2 Identify and utilize other existing data relevant to A. Wistrom PE 32 0 0 South Coast urban runoff pollutant concentrations Z. Erdal E 8 0 0 3.3 Establish spatial correlation between typical A. Wistrom PE ❑ 0 0 pollutant constituents and land use Z. Erdal E 56 0 0 0 3.4 Develop a sample collection and analysis plan to A. Wistrom PE 4 C1 "calibrate" the above data Z. Erdal E 16 Cl 0 0 0 3.5 Conduct survey of three agencies A. Wistrom PE 8 01 C1 0 Z. Erdal E 16 0 0, 0 0 1. Feghaly E 24 0 0 0 3.6 TM 3 A. Wistrom PE 40 0 0 Z. Erdal E 16; 0 0 0 0 S. Nedic PM 8; 0 0 0 S. Hanson Edit 6 0 0 0 WP Formal 8 0 0 ❑ Repro Prod. 4 0 818 818 818 TflTAL;TA5K:3 278 0 5t} 0 alai 868. 868 4.1 Review applicable regulation A. Wistrom PE 8 0 0 Z. Erdal E 16 0 0 0 0 I. Foghaly JE 16 q 0 0 4.2 lEvaluate emerging contaminants Z. Erdal E 8I 1 0 0 0 A. Wistrom PE 2 0 0 0 4.3 Identify treatment operations limiting factors that A. Wistrom PE 2 1 01 0 0 will be im acted S. Nedic PM 6 0 0 0 4.4 Identify pollutants that will not be removed by A. Wistrom PE 2, 0 0 0 Treatment S. Nedic PM 6 0 0 0 4.5 Identify pollutants that will have impact on OCSD A. Wistrom PE 2 0 01 0, treatment processes S. Nedic PM 2 Cl 0 0 Z. Erdal JE 8 oil 0 4.6 TM 4 A. Wistrom PE 4 0 0 0 Z. Erdal E 24 0 01 0 S. Nedic PM 4 0 0 0 S. Hanson Edit 2 0 0 0 WP Formal: 4 0 0 0 Repro Prod. 2 0 468 468 46811 0 200 2001 200i TOiAL7ASK'4' e`' r F:: ._y - rswr : •. 1.18 mow.. aQ ?:=`r sr0 - ❑ 6.681;-Af668 - 5.1 Assess options to accommodate reglonas urban A. Wistrom PE 8 C1 ❑ 0 runoff flows defined in OC's "Urban Runoff..." Z. Erdal E 16• Ci 0 0 5.2 Identity and assess future diversion sites A. Wistrom PE 8 0 0 Oi Z. Erdal E 24 0, 0 0 5.3 TM 5 A. Wistrom PE 8 0 01 0. Z. Erdal E 32 0 0 0 S. Nedic PM 4 0 0 0 S. Hanson Edit 2 0 0 0 WP Format 4 0 0 0 Re ro Prod. 2 0 468 468 488 YDTAI.T 5 t i.' e: s. — g-S �:'.i r 11 �� i 12 4 ?� 0 : 19 =�}88 408 6-1 Compare residual capacity with future flows A. Wistrom PE 8 0 0 ❑ Z. Erdal E 16 0 0 0 6.2 Compare dynamics of OC projected diversion A. Wistrom PE 8 0 pi 0, flow with conveyance and treatment capacities Z. Erdal E 16 0 0 0 6.3 Estimate and evaluate capital and O&M costs of A. Wistrom PE 8; C1 0 0 urban runoff conveyance and treatment S. Nedic PM 24 01 0 0 Z. Erdal E 4011 0 0 0 I. Fe hal E 40- 0, 0 0 6.3 TM 6 A. Wistrom PE 4 0, 0 0 Z. Erdal E 40 0 0 ❑ S. Nedic PM 16 0 0 0 S. Hanson Edit 8 0 0 0 A. Vollmar Graph 16 0 0 0 WP Format 8 0 0 0 Repro Prod 1 3 0 468 468 468 # X�iJ15j�_ a , :• E70 b 4 no 7.1 Draft Report A. Wistrom PE 24 0 01 0 Z. Erdal E 40. C. 0 0 F. Soroush!2 OC 8 0 0 0 S. Hanson Edit 6 0 0 0 A. Vollmar Graph 40 0 0 0 WP Format: 8 0 0 0 Repro Prod. 4 0 2,2361 2,236 2.236 7.2 Final Report A. Wistrom PE B 0 01 0 Z. Erdal E 16 0 01 0 S. Hanson Edit 3 0 0 0 A. Vollmar Graph 32 C1 0 0 WP Format 4 C1 0 0 Repro Prod 4 01 2.236 2,236 2,236 TOTAL TASK 7 -197 0 :. 0.. 0- 4,472 4,472 4X/2 8.1 Monthly progress reports and meetings a. Progress Reports S. Nedic PM 24 0 20 20 20 b. Progress Meetings S. Nedic PM 24 0 100 20 120 120 8.2 Project startup and bi-monthly status meetings S. Nedic PM 12 01 100 150 250 2501 A- Wistrom PE 24 0 0 0. Z Erdal E 48 0 1 1 0 0. 8.3 Task progress reporting meetings and Draft S. Nedic PM 14 0 100 3001 400 400 Report review meeting A. Wistrom PE 28 0 1,385 1,385 Z. Erdal E 70 01 0 0 TO. TAL?ASK B 244 0 300 0 4901 21175• 2.:F75 GF3 i7p•`1 T�11 4°!'fir'i'_'fi .i=t:ir =5: -y f'di25b r`"'ix501] 0 1-1 ff&k- > rtOj87,3 n 223:123