Loading...
Agenda Packets - Board - 2004-10-040 �r G� non r re sa Ic Cac �Sa-njtan/-) 0lat ... an Inbepenbent Special Distyict Board of Directors Arlene Schafer Greg Woodside James Ferryman Art Perin Dart Worthington Staff Robin B. Hamers Manager District Engineer (949) 631 -1731 Thomas A. Fauth Assistant Manager (714) 754 -5043 Joan Revak Clerk of the District (714) 754 -5087 Fax (714) 432 -1436 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS OCTOBER 4, 2004 The Board of Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District will meet on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 11:00 a.m. in Conference Room 1A at Costa Mesa City Hall, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa, California, to discuss the following: Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Consideration by the Board of Directors of the parameters for the Costa Mesa Sanitary District grease control program and consideration of authorizing EEC to begin program development and implementation of the District's grease control program in accordance with proposal dated Au ust 30, 2004 in the amount of $142,279.00 , II. Trash Collection Program M Consideration by the Board of Directors for establishing a variable rate trash co lection programoA X'1 pejrr �,� cane t ��JuOaMn� �• U III. City / Distric Af greement ' a Consideration of proposed City /District Agreement. - %o-ov -o4 IV. Tour of CR Transfer - Acrpoxu Consideration by the Board of Directors of inviting the 12 candidates for Mailing Address City Council of Costa Mesa on a tour of CR Transfer prior to the City P. O. Box 1200 Council election. Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1200 V. Public Comments Street Address 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -6520 Printed on Reevcled Paper Dated: September 28, 2004 qrLt�" Board Secretary /Program Manager Protecting our community's hea[t� 6� provibing so[ib waste anb sewer co[fection services. costamesasanitarv�bistrict.org COSTA 914ESX SA99TART(DIST4UCT Memorandum To: Board of Directors ... an Independent SpeciafOi'strict From: Robin B. Hamers, Manager /District Engineer Date: September 20, 2004 Subject: Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Grease Control Program At the Special Meeting on October 4, 2004, Staff will present the proposed grease control program for the District to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board's (RWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements. Enclosed is the RWQCB WDR Order in its entirety for a re- review by the Board of Directors of the requirements placed on the District. The grease control program requirements are found in paragraph (viii) on page 12. The Order applies to all agencies owning sewer systems that are tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District and these agencies are shown on pages 1 and 2 of the Order. The city councils and boards of directors of these agencies are also in the process of determining the parameters of their grease control programs. The Sanitary District has been in full compliance with the Order for all policies and documents required to date, and the grease control program must be in place by December 30, 2004. As a first step for the Sanitary District's grease control program, the Board of Directors retained Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) to perform a fats, oils and grease (FOG) study — termed FOG Characterization. The study encompassed determining the source and associated problems of grease discharged into the sewer system by food service establishments inside the District. The characterization is nearly complete and will be the basis for the grease control program. The enclosed proposal from EEC reflects a scope of services negotiated by the Manager /District Engineer and Assistant Manager in order to be tailored to the anticipated Sanitary District program. Because the program is, in effect, a commitment ftotecting our community's health 6y providing soW waste and sewer collection services. costamesasanitarydistrict. org Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) September 20, 2004 Grease Control Program Page 2 to a new long -term policy, Staff recommends EEC present the proposal and policy considerations directly to the Board. John Shaffer, President of EEC, will give the presentation. The policy and program adopted by the Board will most likely require the Attorney for the District to revise the existing grease control ordinance. As a reminder, and in order to further understand EEC's qualifications to perform this work for the Sanitary District, the District and the other co- permittees under the order retained EEC to prepare a nationwide study ,of grease control practices, known as the Phase I study. The result of EEC performing this major study is that John Shaffer is now as knowledgeable as anyone in the United States regarding municipal grease control programs. This knowledge is especially important when selecting the parameters that will create an effective program. EEC and District Staff will be available to answer questions during and after the presentation. If there are any questions prior to the Special Meeting, please call. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION ORDER NO. 118- 2002 -0014 GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWAGE COLLECTION AGENCIES IN ORANGE COUNTY WITHIN THE SANTA ANA REGION The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (hereinafter Regional Board), finds that: The following federal agencies, municipalities, counties, districts or other public bodies, which own or have responsibilities for sanitary sewer collection systems or any facilities that collect or convey untreated sewage wastewater. in the portions of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region, are named as dischargers (or permittees) in this Order. Since most of these dischargers are tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), the OCSD may lead a steering committee for all other entities tributary to OCSD, to facilitate compliance by each discharger with the requirements of this Order. City of Anaheim City of Newport Beach City of Brea City of Orange City of Buena Park City of Placentia Costa Mesa Sanitary District Rossmoor /Los Alamitos Area Sewer District City of Cypress City of Santa Ana City of Fountain Valley City of Seal Beach City of Fullerton City of Stanton Garden Grove Sanitary District Sunset Beach Sanitary District City of Huntington Beach County of Orange Unincorporated Area 7 City of La Palma City of Villa Park Irvine Ranch Water District City of Yorba Linda City of La Habra Yorba Linda Water District Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 2 of 18 Orange County Sanitation Midway City Sanitation District District (OCSD) -City of Los Alamitos El. Toro Water District U.S. Air Force Reserve Center Joint Forces Training Base Los Los Alamitos Alamitos Marine Corps Air Station El Naval Weapons Station Seal Toro/Tustin 11 Beach 2. A sanitary sewer system is a sewage wastewater collection system including sewers, pipes, pumps, or other conveyances that convey sewage wastewater (e.g. domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewaters) to a sewage treatment plant. This order prohibits the discharge of sewage from collection systems that result in a discharge of sewage to surface waters of the State. A sanitary sewer system overflow (SSO), or sewage spill, is each instance of a discharge of sewage from a sanitary sewer system. If these discharges of sewage from any sewage spill or SSO are not fully contained and cleaned up, and there is a discharge of sewage to surface waters of the State, or the SSO causes a nuisance, it is a violation of this order, Sections 13260 and 13376 of the California Water Code, and Section 301 of the Clean Water Act. The discharges of sewage from a sanitary sewer system, that are fully contained above ground, and do not create a nuisance or result in a discharge of sewage to waters of the State, are not subject to the Prohibition A.1 of this order. Sewage discharged from a collection system that result in a discharge of sewage to an enclosed storm drain pipe, and not discharged to surface waters, are not considered discharges to surface waters in terms of this order, except that these sewage discharges shall be reported in the same manner as a sewage discharged to surface waters and the discharger is required to demonstrate that the sewage was not discharged from the storm drain to surface waters. Sewage discharged to open drainage channels, whether ,iatural, man made, or concrete lined, are considered to be discharges of sewage to surface waters of the State. The order also requires the discharger to develop and implement a plan to address subsurface discharges of sewage to ground waters of the State. Temporary storage and conveyance facilities (such as vaults, temporary piping, construction trenches, wet wells, impoundments, tanks, highlines, etc.) are considered to be part of the sanitary sewer system, and discharges of sewage to these facilities are not sanitary sewer overflows, provided that sewage from these facilities is not discharged to waters of the State. 3. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) consist of varying mixtures of domestic sewage, and industrial and commercial wastewater depending on the pattern of Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 3 of 18 land uses in the sewage collection system tributary area. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen demanding organic compounds, oil and grease and other pollutants. SSOs -may cause a nuisance, cause temporary exceedances of applicable water quality standards when the sewage is discharged to surface waters of the State, pose a threat to the public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the public recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. Section 13050(m) of the California Water Code defines a nuisance as anything that meets the following requirements: (1) Is injurious to health, or is indecent to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. (2) Affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. (3) Occurs during, or as the result of, the treatment or disposal of waste. 4. SSOs are a frequent occurrence in the portions of Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. The chief causes of sanitary sewer overflows include grease blockages, root blockages, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station mechanical failures, power outages, storm or ground water inflow /infiltration, debris blockages, collection system age and construction material failures, lack of proper operation and maintenance, lack of capacity and contractor caused damages. Most of these SSOs are preventable with adequate and appropriate source control measures and operation and maintenance of the sewage collection system. 5. In Orange County, from January 1, 2000 through August 30, 2001, there were approximately 250 SSOs. SSOs from publicly owned sewage collection systems accounted for almost 75% of these sewage spills, with the remainder occurring on private property. On 31 occasions during this time period, beach waters were closed to body contact recreation resulting in a loss of 16.5 beach mile days (beach mile days = miles of beach X number of days of closure) of beneficial uses. Seventeen of these beach water closures were caused by sewage spills from systems owned by public agencies, and the other 14 closures resulted from sewage spills on private property that were not contained and resulted in a discharge to waters of the State. Areas where beach water was closed to body contact recreation include portions of Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, Crystal Cove State Park, Newport Bay, and Huntington Harbor. Many of these SSOs that caused beach water closures also caused violations of water quality standards in other surface water bodies, such as the San Gabriel River, Coyote Creek, San Diego Creek and other surface water bodies in Orange County. Order No, R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 4 of 18 6. The beach water closures occur when sewage is present (closures), and warnings are posted when any water quality standard is exceeded (postings). In addition to SSOs, urban runoff and storm water generally contain elevated levels of bacteria. Therefore, warning signs are posted at storm drain outlets to the ocean during storm events along the beach and a rainfall advisory is issued for all storms. During the January 1, 2000 through August 30, 2001 period, the Orange County Health Care Agency ( OCHCA) also posted many of the same beach areas warning the public that concentrations of indicator bacteria at one of OCHCA's monitoring stations exceeded the State health standards. The OCHCA has posted notices of exceedances of water quality objectives that has resulted in 99.4 beach mile days of violations of water quality standards during January through August 2001. 7. A revised "Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (8)" (hereinafter Basin Plan) became effective on January 24, 1995. The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses, narrative and numerical water quality objectives, and prohibits certain types of discharges. The Basin Plan establishes body contact recreation as a beneficial use of the Pacific Ocean and other surface water bodies within Orange County, including Serrano Creek, San Diego Creek, Bonita Creek, Santa Ana Delhi Channel, the Santa Ana River, Talbert Marsh, Newport Bay, Huntington Harbour, and Newport Slough. The Basin Plan also includes a numeric water quality objective for coliform to protect and maintain this beneficial use. This objective is specified as a 30 -day geometric mean of no more than 200 MPN /100 ml of fecal coliform. The Basin Plan also includes, by reference, the California Ocean Plan standards for ocean waters in the Region. 8. The Basin Plan contains the following prohibition: "The discharge of untreated sewage to .y surface water stream, natural or man- made, or to any drainage system intended to convey storm water runoff to surface water streams, is prohibited." 9. California Water Code Section 13243 provides that a Regional Board, in waste discharge requirements, may specify certain conditions or areas where the discharge of waste, or certain types of waste, is not permitted. The requirements specified in this order are consistent with the Basin Plan prohibition and Water Code Section 13243. 10. The issuance of a single general waste discharge requirement to the dischargers will: a) Reduce the administrative burden of issuing individual waste discharge requirements to each discharger; and Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 5 of 18 General WDR, SSO b) Provide for a unified regional approach for the reporting and database tracking of sanitary sewer overflows. c) Provide consistent and uniform standards of performance, operations, and maintenance of sewage collection systems. d) Provide statewide consistency in reporting as per Assembly Bill (AB) 285 (adopted on October 4, 2001) and the State Water Resources Control Board's reporting requirements per AB 285. e) Facilitate uniform enforcement for violations. (The State Water Resources Control Board, Office of the Chief Counsel, issued a questions and answers paper on April 17, 2001 stating that SSOs are not subject to minimum mandatory penalties." However, the California Water Code provides for penalties for unauthorized discharges.) 11. This project involves a prohibition of discharge, and as such, is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3, Section 15308. 12. The Regional Board has notified the dischargers and all known interested parties of the intent to prescribe waste discharge requirements to prohibit unauthorized discharges from sanitary sewer systems. 13. The Regional Board has, at a public meeting on April 26, 2002 heard and considered all comments pertaining to the terms and conditions of this Order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the dischargers, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, shall comply with the following: A. PROHIBITIONS The discharge of untreated sewage to any surface water stream, natural or man- made, or to any drainage system intended to convey storm water runoff to surface water streams, is prohibited. 2. The discharge of chlorine, or any other toxic substance used for disinfection and cleanup of sewage spills, to any surface water body is prohibited. (This prohibition does not apply to the chlorine in the potable water used for final wash down and clean up of sewage spills.) Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 6 of 18 General WDR, SSO B. IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF PROHIBITION A.1 In any enforcement action the Regional Board will consider the efforts of the discharger to contain, control, and clean up sewage spills from its collection system as part of its consideration of the factors required by Section 13327 of the California Water Code. The discharger shall make every effort to contain sewage spilled from their collection systems and prevent the sewage from entering storm drains and surface water bodies. The discharger shall also make every effort to prevent sewage from discharging from storm drains into flood control channels and open ditches by blocking the storm drainage system and by removing the sewage from the storm drains. The use of the storm drain pipe system to contain the sewage by blocking the drain pipes, and recovering and cleaning up the spilled sewage, in order to prevent the sewage from being discharged to a surface water body, is not a violation of Prohibition A.1. C. PROVISIONS The discharger must comply with all conditions of this Order. Any noncompliance with this Order constitutes a violation of the California Water Code and is grounds for enforcement action. 2. Discharges Caused by Severe Natural Conditions — The Regional Board may take enforcement action against the permittee for any sanitary sewer system discharge caused by natural conditions, unless the permittee demonstrates through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (i) the discharge was caused by severe natural conditions (such as hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, earthquakes, tsunamis, and other similar natural conditions); (ii) there were no feasible alternatives to the discharge, such as retention of untreated wastewater, reduction of inflow and infiltration, use of adequate backup equipment, or an increase in the capacity of the system. This provision is not satisfied if, in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment, at the time that the facilities were planned, the discharger should have installed auxiliary or additional collection system components, wastewater retention, adequate back- up equipment or should have reduced inflow and infiltration. This provision is also not satisfied if the agency does not undergo a periodic or continuing planning process to identify and correct problems. 3. Discharges Caused by Other Factors - For SSOs other than those covered under this section, the permittee may establish an affirmative defense to an action Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 7 of 18 brought for noncompliance if the permittee demonstrates through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (i) the permittee can identify the cause or likely cause of the discharge event; (ii) the discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporary and caused by factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee; (iii) the discharge could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable control, such as proper management, operation and maintenance; adequate treatment facilities at OCSD's two regional treatment plants or collection system facilities or components (e.g., adequately enlarging treatment or collection facilities to accommodate growth or adequately controlling and preventing infiltration and inflow); preventive maintenance; or installation of adequate backup equipment; and (iv) the permittee took all reasonable steps to stop, and mitigate the impact of, the discharge as soon as possible. 4. Burden of proof - In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee has the burden of proof to establish that the criteria in this section have been met. 5. In an enforcement action, it shall not be a defense for the discharger that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with this Order. 6. Upon reduction, loss, or failure of the sanitary sewer system resulting in a sanitary sewer overflow, the discharger shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with this Order, take any necessary remedial action to 1) control or limit the volume of sewage discharged, 2) terminate the sewage discharge as rapidly as possible, and 3) recover as much of the sewage discharged as possible for proper disposal, including any wash down water. The dischargers shall implement all remedial actions to the extent they may be applicable to the discharge, including the following: a. Interception and rerouting of sewage flows around the sewage line failure; b. Vacuum truck recovery of sanitary sewer overflows and wash down water; C. Cleanup of debris of sewage origin at the overflow site. Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 8 of 18 7. The discharger shall properly fund, manage, operate and maintain, with adequately trained staff and /or contractors possessing adequate knowledge skills and abilities as demonstrated through a validated program at all times, all parts of the sewage collection system owned and /or operated by the discharger. 8. The discharger shall provide adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak flows, including wet weather related events to the minimum design criteria as defined in the discharger's System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan, for all parts of the collection system owned or operated by the discharger. 9. The discharger shall take all feasible steps to stop, and mitigate the impact of, sanitary sewer overflows in portions of the collection system owned or operated by the discharger. 10. The discharger shall provide notification to the OCHCA and the Regional Board so that they can notify parties with a reasonable potential for exposure to pollutants associated with the SSO. 11. The discharger shall develop and implement a written plan, a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP), for compliance with these waste discharge requirements and make it available to any member of the public upon request in writing. 12. The essential elements of the SSMP are specified below. If the discharger believes that any element of this section is not appropriate or applicable for their SSMP program, the program does not need to address it, but the SSMP must explain why that element is not applicable. The Regional Board will consider the quality of the SSMP, its implementation and effectiveness in any relevant enforcement action, including, but not limited to, any enforcement action for violation of the Clean Water Act, the Basin Plan prohibition, or these waste discharge requirements. The SSMP must include the following components, with the exception of non - applicable components, as discussed above: Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) (i) Goals: The main goal of the SSMP is to prevent SSOs and to provide a plan and schedule for measures to be implemented to prevent SSOs. (ii) Organization: The SSMP must identify: (A) Administrative and maintenance positions responsible for implementing measures in the SSMP program, including lines of authority by organization chart or similar document; and Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 9 of 18 (B) The chain of communication for reporting SSOs, from receipt of a complaint or other information, including the person responsible for reporting SSOs to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Orange County Health Care Agency, and State Office of Emergency Services (OES); reporting to the OES is required if the discharge is 1,000 gallons or larger. (iii) Legal Authority: The SSMP shall include legal authority, through sewer use ordinances, service agreements or other legally binding procedures, to: (A) Control infiltration and connections from inflow sources, including satellite systems; (B) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed; (C) Ensure proper installation, testing, and inspection of new and rehabilitated sewers (such as new or rehabilitated collector sewers and new or rehabilitated service laterals); (D) Limit fats and-greases and other debris that may cause blockages in the sewage collection system. (E) Implement the general and specific prohibitions of the national pretreatment program under 40 CFR 403.5. (iv) Measures and Activities. In order to provide an adequate and appropriate SSO reduction plan, the SSMP must address the elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the discharger's system and identify the person or position in the organization responsible for each element: (A) Provide adequate operation and maintenance of facilities and equipment; (B) Maintain an up -to -date map of the collection system showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and stormwater conveyance facilities; (C) Maintain relevant information to establish and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities (such as the immediate elimination of dry weather overflows or overflows into sensitive waters, such as public drinking water supplies and their source waters, swimming beaches and waters where swimming occurs, shellfish beds, designated Outstanding National Resource Waters or Areas of Special Biological Significance, National Marine Sanctuaries, waters within Federal, State, or local parks, and water containing threatened or endangered species or Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 10 of 18 their habitat), and identify and illustrate trends in overflows, such as frequency and volume; (D) Routine preventive operation and maintenance activities by staff and contractors; including a system for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the collection system with more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem areas. The Preventative Maintenance (PM) program should have a system of tracking work orders and assessing the success of the PM program. (E) Establish a program to assess the current capacity of the collection system owned by the discharger or where the discharger has operational control; including diversions of urban runoff to the sewer system during dry weather periods and control of infiltration and intrusion during both wet weather events and dry weather periods; (F) Identify and prioritize structural deficiencies and implement short-term and long -term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. This shall include a rehabilitation plan including schedules for the entire system. As with the PM program, sewer rehabilitation and replacement is crucial for the prevention of spills. Among the provisions that should be specified in this section is the need to direct rehabilitation and replacement at sewer pipes which are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to pipe defects. The program should also include regular visual and TV inspection of sewer pipes and a system for assessing and ranking the condition of sewer pipes. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a financial plan that properly manages and protects the infrastructure assets. (G) Provide training on a regular basis for staff in collection system operations, maintenance, and monitoring and determine if contractors' staffs are appropriately trained; (H) Provide equipment and replacement parts ir.ventories, including identification of critical replacement parts. (1) Establish an implementation plan and schedule for a public education outreach program that promotes proper disposal of grease and fats. (J) In accordance with the County of Orange's Drainage Area Management Plan, establish a plan for responding to SSOs from private property that discharge to public right of ways and storm drains, to prevent discharges from SSOs to surface waters and storm drains; and Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 11 of 18 General WDR, SSO (K) Develop a plan and a schedule for providing an analysis of alternative methods of disposal for grease and fats, and an implementation plan and a schedule for providing adequate disposal capacity for grease and fats generated within the sewer system service area. This plan shall include an evaluation of the feasibility of using sludge digesters at the OCSD treatment plant for grease disposal and treatment, recycling, rendering, and other disposal alternatives. (v) Design and Performance Provisions: (A) Develop design and construction standards and specifications for the installation of new sewer systems, pump stations and other appurtenances; and for rehabilitation and repair of existing sewer systems; and (B) Develop procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for rehabilitation and repair projects. (vi) Monitoring, Measurement and Program Modifications (A) Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate, measure the effectiveness of each element of the SSMP; (B) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring or performance evaluations; and (C) Modify the SSMP program, as appropriate, to keep it updated and accurate and available for audit at all times. (vii) Overflow Emergency Response Plan - The dischargers shall develop and implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies measures to protect public health and the environment. At a minimum, this plan should include the following: (A) Ensure proper notification procedures so that the primary responders are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner (to the greatest extent possible); (B) Ensure that all overflows (including those that do not discharge to waters of the State) are appropriately responded to, including ensuring that reports of overflows are immediately dispatched to appropriate personnel for investigation and appropriate response; (C) Ensure immediate notification of health agencies and other impacted entities (e.g., water suppliers) of all overflows. Report all SSOs to the Regional Water Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 12 of 18 Quality Control Board and the Orange County Health Care Agency, and report to the State OES, if the overflow is 1,000 gallons or larger. The SSMP should identify the public health agency and other officials who will receive immediate notification; (D) Ensure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of and follow the plan and are appropriately trained; (E) Provide emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control and other necessary emergency response; (F) Take all reasonable steps to contain sewage and prevent sewage discharges to surface waters and minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting from the SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to determine the nature and impact of the discharge; (G) Develop and implement a plan for the use of portable aerators where complete recovery of the sanitary sewer overflows is not practicable and where severe oxygen depletion in existing surface waters is expected; and (H) Develop and implement a plan to respond in a timely manner to spills and other emergencies. Collection system staff should be able to respond to a sewage spill in less than an hour from the first call. The system should be capable of meeting this response time day or night, every day of the week. The system must own or have ready access to spill and emergency response equipment such as vacuum trucks, hydroflushers, pumps, temporary bypass hoses, and portable generators. (viii) Fats, Oils, and Grease Control Program: Prepare and implement a grease, fat, and oil source control program to reduce the amount of these substances discharged to the sewer collection system. This plan shall include the legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent SSOs caused by fats, oils, and grease blockages of sewers. The elements of an effective grease control program may include requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or, preferably, interceptors), design standards for the removal devices, maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping and reporting requirements. An effective grease control program must also include authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the grease ordinance. Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 13 of 18 (A) The grease control program shall identify sections of the sewer system subject to grease blockages and establish a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section; and (B) The program shall develop and implement source control measures, for all sources of grease and fats discharged to the sewer system, for each section identified in (A) above. (ix) System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan: Prepare and implement a capital improvement plan that will provide hydraulic capacity of key sewer system elements under peak flow conditions. At a minimum, the plan must include: (A) Evaluation: Steps to evaluate those portions of the collection system which are experiencing or contributing to an SSO discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from SSOs that escape from the system) associated with conditions similar to those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of key system components, hydraulic deficiencies (including components of the system with limiting capacity) and the major sources that contribute to the peak flows associated with overflow events; (B) Capacity Enhancement Measures: Establish a short- and long -term capital improvement program to address identified hydraulic deficiencies including prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules; and (C) Plan updates: The plan must be updated, at a minimum annually, to describe any significant change in proposed actions and /or implementation schedules. The updates should include available information on the performance of measures that have been implemented. (x) SSMP Program Audits - As part of the SSMP, the permittee shall conduct an internal audit, appropriate to the size of the system and the number of overflows, and submit a report of such audit, evaluating the SSMP and its compliance with this subsection, including its deficiencies and steps to correct them. (xi) Communications: - The discharger should communicate on a regular basis with interested parties on the implementation and performance of its SSMP. The communication system should allow interested parties to provide input to the discharger as the program is developed and implemented. 13. The discharger shall develop and implement the SSMP according to the following schedule. Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Sewer System Management Plan Time Schedule Task Completion Date Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Effective on Adoption SSMP Development Plan and Schedule September 30, 2002 SSO Emergency Response Plan January 1, 2003 Preventative Maintenance Pro ram June 15, 2003 Legal Authority July 30, 2004 Grease Disposal Alternatives December 30, 2004 Grease Control Program December 30, 2004 Capacity Evaluation July 30, 2005 Sewer Rehabilitation Plan for Entire System September 30, 2005 Final SSMP September 30, 2005 C. PERMIT AVAILABILITY Page 14 of 18 A copy of this Order shall be maintained at appropriate locations and shall be available to sanitary sewer system operating and maintenance personnel at all times. D. ENTRY AND INSPECTION The discharger shall allow the Regional Board, or an authorized representative, upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to: a. Enter upon the discharger's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records are kept under the conditions of this Order; b. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this Order; Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 15 of 18 c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Order; and d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring compliance with this Order or as otherwise authorized by the California Water Code, any substances or parameters at any location. E. GENERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS The discharger shall furnish to the Executive Officer, within a reasonable time, any information which the Executive Officer may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Order. The discharger shall also furnish to the Executive Officer, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order. 2. Pursuant to California Water Code Section 13267(b), the discharger shall comply with the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No.R8- 2002 -0014 and ,future revisions thereto,-as specified by the Executive Officer.. Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified in Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014. 3. Any person who, without regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any sewage or other waste to be discharged in or on any waters of the State, or discharged in or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged in or on any surface waters of the State, as soon as that person has knowledge of the discharge, shall immediately notify the local health officer and the Regional Board of the discharge. Discharges of sewage to storm drains and drainage channels, whether man made or natural or concrete lined, shall be reported as required above. All SSOs greater than 1,000 gallons shall also be reported to the Office of Emergency Services. The discharger shall propose, as part of it's SSMP, a plan and schedule for reporting and evaluating subsurface discharges of sewage from it's sewage collection system. F. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP This Order is not transferable to any person, except after notice to the Executive Officer. The discharger shall submit this notice in writing at least 30 days in advance of any proposed transfer. The notice must include a written agreement between the existing and new discharger containing a specific date for the transfer of this Order's responsibility and coverage between the existing discharger and the new discharger. This agreement shall include an Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 16 of 18 acknowledgement that the existing discharger is liable for violations up to the transfer date and that the new discharger is liable from the transfer date on. G. INCOMPLETE REPORTS Where the discharger becomes aware that it failed to submit to the Regional Board any relevant facts in any report required under this Order, it shall promptly submit such facts or information. H. REPORT DECLARATION All applications, reports, or information (except for 24 hour Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reports) submitted to the Executive Officer shall be signed and certified as follows: a. All reports, including disks, (except for preliminary Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reports submitted as soon as possible) required by this Order and other information required by the Executive Officer shall be signed and certified by a person designated, for a municipality, state, federal or other public agency, by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official, or by a duly authorized representative of that person, as described in paragraph b. of this provision. b. An individual is a duly authorized representative only if: (1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described in paragraph a. of this provision; (2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity; and (3) The written authorization is submitted to the Executive Officer. C. Any person signing a document under this provision shall make the following certification: Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 17 of 18 "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under,my direct supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment." I. REGIONAL BOARD ADDRESS The discharger shall submit reports required under this Order, or other information required by the Executive Officer, to: Executive Officer Santa Ana Regional Board 3737 Main Street, Suite 500 Riverside, CA 92501 -3348 Phone No.(909 -) 782 -4130 Fax No.(909) 781 -6288 J. CIVIL MONETARY REMEDIES FOR DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS The California Water Code provides that any person who violates this Order is subject to civil monetary remedies. 2. The California Water Code also provides that any person failing or refusing to furnish technical or monitoring program reports, as required under this Order, or falsifying any information provided in the technical or monitoring reports is also subject to civil monetary penalties. K. SEVERABILITY The provisions of this Order are severable, and if any provision of this Order, or the application of any provision of this Order to any circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this Order, shall not be affected thereby. 2. This order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privileges. The requirements prescribed herein do not authorize the commission of any act causing injury to persons or property, nor protect the discharger from Order No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO Page 18 of 18 liability under federal, state or local laws, nor create a vested right for the discharger to continue the waste discharge. L. ORDER This order becomes effective on the date of adoption by the Regional Board. I, Gerard J. Thibeault, Executive Officer, do hereby certify the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, on April 26, 2002. A d'�&* and J. Thibeault cutive Officer CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM NO. R8- 2002 -0014 FOR GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEWAGE COLLECTION AGENCIES IN ORANGE COUNTY This Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) establishes monitoring, record keeping, reporting and public notification requirements for Order No. R8- 2002 -0014, "General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sewage Collection Agencies in Orange County within the Santa Ana Region." Revisions to this MRP may be made at any time by the Executive Officer, and may include a reduction or increase in the monitoring and reporting. A. DEFINITIONS 1. Sanitary Sewer Overflow - A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is any overflow, spill, release, discharge or diversion of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSOs include: (i) overflows or releases of wastewater that reach waters of the United States; (ii) overflows or releases of wastewater that do not reach waters of the United States; and (iii) wastewater backups into buildings and on private property that are caused by blockages or flow conditions in a sanitary sewer, other than a building lateral. Wastewater backups into buildings caused by a blockage or other malfunction of a building lateral that is privately owned is a SSO when sewage is discharged off of private property into streets, stormdrains, or waters of the State. 2. Sanitary Sewer System — Any system of pipes, pump stations; sewer lines, etc., used to collect and convey sewage to a treatment plant. Temporary storage and conveyance facilities (such as vaults, temporary piping, construction trenches, wet wells, impoundments, tanks, highlines, etc.) are considered to be part of the sanitary sewer system, and discharges of sewage to these facilities are not sanitary sewer overflows, Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 2 of 11 General WDR, SSO B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS If samples are collected, monitoring results must be reported on discharge monitoring report forms approved by the Executive Officer. 2. Records shall be maintained by the discharger for a minimum of five years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended during the course of any unresolved litigation regarding a discharge or when requested by the Regional Board Executive Officer. 3. All records shall be made available for review upon RWQCB staffs request. 4. All monitoring instruments and devices that are used by the discharger to fulfill the prescribed monitoring program shall be properly maintained and calibrated as necessary to ensure their continued accuracy; 5. The discharger shall retain records of all SSOs, including, but not limited to: a. All original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation; b. Service call records and complaint logs of calls received by the discharger; C. Spill calls; d. Spill records; e. Copies of all reports required by this Order; f. The location of the overflow and the receiving water if any (street address or GPS coordinates); g. An estimate of the volume of the overflow; h. A description of the sewer system component from which the release occurred (e.g., manhole, construc -�d overflow pipe, crack in pipe); i. The estimated date and time when the overflow began and when it stopped; j. The cause or suspected cause of the overflow; k. Steps that have been and will be taken to prevent the overflow from recurring and a schedule to implement those steps. I. Work orders from the previous 3 years which are associated with responses and investigations of system problems related to sanitary sewer overflows; M. A list and description of complaints from customers or others from the previous 3 years; and n. Documentation of performance and implementation measures for the previous 3 years. Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 3 of 11 General WDR, SSO 6. If monitoring is conducted of any SSO, records of monitoring information shall include: a. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements; b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; C. The date(s) analyses performed; d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses; e. The analytical technique or method used; and, f. The results of such analysis. 7. All monitoring reports shall be signed by an authorized person as required by Provision H of the Order. C. . SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REPORTING All discharges of sewage that occur from the discharger's sanitary sewer system, that results in a discharge to a storm drain, drainage channel, and surface water body shall be immediately reported to the Regional Board as soon as the discharger's field staff is aware of the discharge, by telephone, voice mail, e-mail, or FAX. Regional Board office hours are between 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding state holidays. Regional Board voice mail and Fax machine are on -line 24 -hours a day, 7 days a week. Regional Board office has voice mail to enable 24 hour /7 days a week reporting at (909) 782 -4130. Fax Number is (909) 781 -6288. 2. The discharger shall report all SSOs using the attached Sanitary Sewer Overflow Report Form, or equivalent, within 5 -days of the immediate notification. The information reported to the Regional Board in the initial telephone, voice mail, FAX, or e -mail report should include, if known at the time: a. The name and phone number of the person reporting the sanitary sewer overflow; b. The responsible sanitary sewer system agency or private property owner; C. An estimated date and time when the overflow began and when it stopped; Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 4 of 11 General WDR, SSO d. Whether the sewage discharged to a storm drain or surface water body, how the spill was contained and treated, and how wash waters were disposed; e. The estimated total sewer overflow volume, along with a description of how the volume was tabulated. (The discharger shall take photographs of the SSO for submittal as part of the quarterly report); How much of the spilled sewage was returned to the system and how much of the wash waters and any water that has come into contact with the spilled sewage was returned to the sanitary sewer and how much sewage, wash water, and sewage contaminated water was discharged to waters of the State; g. The location of the overflow and the location of the potential blockage or problem point. A description of the sewer system component from which the spill occurred. (e.g. manhole, constructed overflow pipe, crack in pipe); h. The cause or suspected cause of the overflow; A notation of whether or not the sewer overflow is still occurring at the time of the report; Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the overflow and a schedule of major milestones for those steps; and, k. Confirmation that the local health services agency was or will be notified as required under the reporting requirements of the local health services agency. 3. Sanitary sewer overflows to storm drains tributary to Waters of the United States shall be reported as discharges to surface waters. 4. The Discharger shall report all sanitary sewer overflows greater than 1,000 gallons to the Office of Emergency Services (OES), in accordance with California Water Code Section 13271. Office of Emergency Services Phone (800) 825 -7550 Use the Fax for follow -up only. Fax (916) 262 -1677 Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page S of 11 General WDR, SSO 5. The discharger shall submit monthly reports of all SSOs. The monthly report shall provide the following information for each SSO. a. All the information requested in C. 2, above and listed on Sanitary Sewer Overflow Form attached to Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014; b. How the SSO volume was tabulated; C. Picture(s) of spill required in C.2 e, above; d. Cause or suspected cause of the overflow. Choose all that apply from a list of standardized causes: infrastructure failure (specify leak, insufficient capacity, damaged /broken pipe), blockage (specify grease, roots, debris, vandalism, or identify which multiple causes), pump station failure, significant wet weather event, natural disaster, or other. e. Where the spill entered any storm drain inlet; f. Steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the overflow, and a schedule of major milestones for those steps; g. Steps taken or planned to mitigate the impact(s) of the overflow, and a schedule of major milestones for those steps. h. Any additional correspondence and follow -up reports, as necessary, to supplement the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Report Form and to provide detailed information on cause, response, adverse effects, corrective actions, preventative measures, or other information. i. Enter the data on a computer disk or spreadsheet attachment to e-mail in the format described below for submission to the Regional Board at the end of the month. An IBM -PC DOS compatible disk or e-mail, containing the data described below on all sanitary sewer overflows for the month shall be submitted monthly with a certification statement described in Provision No. H.1 of Order R8- 2002 -0014. k. The disk shall be 3 1/2 inch, double sided, high density formatted for 1.44 MB or a CD -ROM. The information submitted shall be fully compatible with Microsoft EXCEL version 5.0. In order to safeguard the integrity of the information submitted on disk against errors caused by accidental changes, all information should be write - protected. This can be done with Microsoft EXCEL version 5.0 by choosing "Protection" from Tools Menu, and choosing "Protect Sheet". If more than one sheet is created, protect every sheet with the same password. Any form of data protection may be used which will allow Regional Board staff to open the file and copy the data to a new file. This procedure will safeguard the integrity of information submitted on computer disk to the Regional Board. An EXCEL template of the database will be supplied. Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 6 of 11 General WDR, SSO I. The disk shall be labeled with: 1. The dischargers name; 2. Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014; 3. The month and the year; and, 4. The software format. M. Each sanitary sewer overflow shall be reported in a separate record in the file. Nonnumeric data shall be entered in capital and lower case letters. n. The required fields for each record shall be in a format compatible with the SWRCB's SSO database. 6. A statement certifying that there were no sanitary sewer overflows for the quarter may be submitted in lieu of a floppy disk or e-mail attachment. 7. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Summary Reports and certification statements shall be submitted to the Executive Officer by the 30th day of the month following the spill reporting period. The first monthly summary report will be due July 30, 2002, for spills occurring during April through June 2002. Reports will be due monthly thereafter. 8. The discharger shall report SSOs resulting from pipe breaks, leaking sewer pipes and joints, and other subsurface discharges of sewage as part of the SSMP, based upon a methodology developed by the Steering Committee. Subsurface discharges of sewage, that reach the ground surface, shall be reported immediately, in accordance with C.1, above. 9. Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 will become effective on the date of adoption by the Regional Board. Ordered by: erard Thibeault Executive Officer Dated: 26 April 2002 Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 7 of]] General WDR, SSO CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REPORT FORM April 26, 2002 ALL ITEMS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED. 1. THIS REPORT IS (CIRCLE ONE): PRELIMINARY FINAL REVISED FINAL 2. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW SEQUENTIAL TRACKING NUMBER: 3. REPORTED TO: (ENTER FAX, VOICE MAIL, OR NAME OF REGIONAL BOARD STAFF) 4. DATE REPORTED: / / (MM /DD/YY) TIME REPORTED: (MILITARY OR 24 -HOUR TIME) 5. REPORTED BY: 6. PHONE:( ) - 7. REPORTING SEWER AGENCY: 8. RESPONSIBLE SEWER AGENCY: 9. OVERFLOW START: DATE: / / (MM /DD/YY) TIME: (MILITARY OR 24 -HOUR TIME) Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO 10. OVERFLOW END: DATE: / / (MM /DD/YY) Page 8 of 11 TIME: (MILITARY OR 24 -HOUR TIME) 11. ESTIMATED OVERFLOW FLOW RATE: MINUTE) 12. TOTAL OVERFLOW VOLUME: (GALLONS PER (GALLONS) 13. DESCRIPTION OF HOW VOLUME WAS DETERMINED /CALCULATED, ATTACH PHOTOGRAPH(S) /DIAGRAM(S): 14. OVERFLOW VOLUME RECOVERED: (GALLONS) 15. OVERFLOW VOLUME RELEASED TO ENVIRONMENT: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: 16. STREET: CITY: ZIP CODE: 17. COUNTY: _ (SB, RV, OR) 18. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW STRUCTURE I.D.: (GALLONS) 19. NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS WITHIN 1000 FT. OF THIS LOCATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS 20. DATES OF OVERFLOWS WITHIN 1000 FT OF THIS LOCATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS Y } Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8 -2002 -0014 General WDR, SSO 21. OVERFLOW CAUSE - -SHORT DESCRIPTION -- CIRC ROOTS GREASE LINE BREAK ROCKS BLOCKAGE POWER FAILURE DEBRIS VANDALISM FLOOD DAMAGE OTHER UNKNOWN CONSTRUCTION Page 9 of 11 LE ONE INFILTRATION PUMP STATION FAILURE MANHOLE FAILURE PRIVATE PROPERTY 22. OVERFLOW CAUSE -- DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CAUSE 23. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW CORRECTION -- DESCRIPTION OF ALL PREVENTATIVE AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN OR PLANNED. 24.WAS THERE MEASURABLE PRECIPITATION DURING 72 -HOUR PERIOD PRIOR TO THE OVERFLOW? _ (Y OR N) Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 10 of I I General WDR, SSO INITIAL AND SECONDARY RECEIVING WATERS: 25. DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW ENTER A STORM DRAIN? (Y OR N) 26. DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REACH SURFACE WATERS OTHER THAN A STORM DRAIN? _ (Y OR N) 27. NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF INITIAL RECEIVING WATERS. (IF NONE, TYPE NONE) 28. NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF SECONDARY RECEIVING WATERS. (IF NONE, TYPE NONE) 29. IF THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW DID NOT REACH SURFACE WATERS, DESCRIBE THE FINAL DESTINATION OF SEWAGE. NOTIFICATION: 30. WAS THE LOCAL HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY NOTIFIED? _ (Y OR N) 31. IF THE OVERFLOW WAS OVER 1,000 GALLONS, WAS THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (OES) NOTIFIED? _ (Y or N) (NOT APPLICABLE, ENTER NA) AFFECTED AREA POSTING: 32. WERE SIGNS POSTED TO WARN OF CONTAMINATION? _ (Y OR N) 33. LOCATION OF POSTING (IF POSTED): Monitoring and Reporting Program No. R8- 2002 -0014 Page 11 ojll General WDR, SSO 34. HOW MANY DAYS WERE THE WARNING SIGNS POSTED? 35. WERE SAMPLES OBTAINED OF CONTAMINATED WATER? (ATTACH RESULTS) 36. REMARKS: 1 August 30, 2004 Mr. Rob Harriers Costa Mesa Sanitary District 234 East 17th Street Suite 205 Costa Mesa, California 92627 ENGINEERING & CONTRACTING, INC. 501 Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone (714) 667 -2300 Fax (714) 667 -2310 Subject: Proposal and Cost Estimate to Provide Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program Development and First Year Implementation Services Dear Rob, Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) is pleased to present this proposal to provide Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) control program development and first year implementation services for the Costa Mesa Sanitary District (District). A FOG control program is a requirement of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. R8- 2002 -0014. The District's FOG control ordinance (soon to be modified) and the FOG Characterization Study will serve as the basis for the FOG control program development and implementation. The services described in this proposal intend to provide the remaining elements needed to develop and implement an effective FOG control program, which will result in a reduction in the District's grease - related sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), blockages, and maintenance. This proposal is for services provided by EEC from October 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. Inspections of FSEs that have already been identified as sources of FOG and those FSEs upstream of hot spots will begin October 1, 2004. The bulk of the other field inspections will begin January 1, 2005. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work for the proposed FOG control program development and implementation for District will include the following tasks: 1. Program Management Developing program forms and program guidance documents Providing FOG control program management, including database management Providing a FOG control program assessment and recommendations no 2. Inspections Conducting permitting /registration inspections Conducting grease removal equipment (GRE) inspections Conducting kitchen best management practices (BMP) inspections Conducting combined kitchen BMP and GRE inspections Conducting compliance inspections Conducting CCTV Source Inspections 3. Enforcement Conducting enforcement inspections Providing enforcement management The specific details to these tasks are as follows: 1.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 1.1 PROGRAM GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS 1.1.1 FSE FOG Control Program Policies and Procedures Manual Based on the findings and recommendations of the Orange County FOG Control Study and the District's FOG control ordinance and FOG characterization study, EEC will develop a FOG control program policies and procedures manual. The manual will include all program forms (e.g., inspection forms, NOVs) and provide an overview of the District's program implementation such as sewer hot spot prioritization, hot spot source identification, FSE inspection methods and forms, enforcement guidelines, database management and GIS management. The first draft of the manual will focus primarily on program forms, flow charts, and other conceptual diagrams to simplify the manual and to keep costs low. A preliminary draft of the manual will be distributed to District staff for review and comment by November 30, 2004. EEC will incorporate the staff comments and develop a final draft manual which will be updated over time based on the recommendations provided in 1.3. 1. 1.2 Residential, Industrial, and Grease Hauler FOG Control Program Guidance Document Based on the findings and recommendations of the Orange County FOG Control Study and the FOG characterization study, EEC will develop a residential and grease hauler FOG control guidance document. The document will outline the steps that the District will follow to control residential grease and grease - related hot spots, and improve sewer line cleaning. This will include the education and outreach elements designed to limit the amount of grease that single- family and multi- family housing discharge to the sewer. t R The document will outline the steps that the District will follow to control industrial discharge of FOG. This will include coordinating with Orange County Sanitation District on their industrial source control program. These documents will be brief and to the point to simplify the manual and to keep costs low. A preliminary draft of the manual will be distributed to District staff for review and comment -by November 30, 2004. EEC will incorporate the staff comments and develop a final draft manual which will be updated over time based on the recommendations provided in 1.3. 1. 1.3 Permitting /Registration EEC will assist District staff in developing specific FOG control permits or an FSE registration for the District to distribute to each of the FSEs. EEC will develop a permit or registration tracking module for the existing FOG Characterization FSE database to be utilized to assist in managing the program. 1.2 FOG CONTROL PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING DATABASE MANAGEMENT EEC will review and update the results of the FSE and hot - spot inspections into the associated databases, and will develop database forms and reports, as appropriate, to summarize the findings of these inspections. EEC will conduct regular meetings with District staff to provide recommendations and to prioritize required activities. On a monthly basis, EEC will report the activities conducted during the month, identify findings, and provide recommendations to the FOG Control Program Manager. In the first 3 months, the program will be ramping up and there will be less program management than in the following 6 months. This is reflected in the cost estimate as the equivalent of 7.5 months of full service program management. 1.3 FOG CONTROL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the end of the year, EEC will conduct a FOG control program assessment and provide recommendations for program enhancement and resource management. This will include hot spot mitigation, FSE compliance status, and grease - related SSO status. 2.0 INSPECTIONS 2.1 PERMITTING /REGISTRATION INSPECTIONS EEC will physically inspect the FSEs in the District based on the prioritization scheme developed in Task 1.1. Based on current estimates, there are approximately 400 FSEs in the District. For the sake of this proposal, in the first year of the program, EEC will plan to 3 perform initial permitting /registration inspections at 30% of the FSEs, focusing first on those FSEs identified as concerns in the FOG characterization study and those FSEs that are upstream of known hot spots. For those FSE that were identified as FOG sources in the FOG Characterization Study, EEC will present the CCTV evidence to the FSE management and will discuss the enforcement options that are available to the District and the steps that the FSE can take to avoid additional enforcement. 2.2 GREASE REMOVAL EQUIPMENT (GRE) INSPECTIONS EEC will physically conduct GRE inspections for FSEs with a grease interceptor or grease trap and is projecting to perform approximately 100 GRE inspections during the first year. 2.3 KITCHEN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) INSPECTIONS EEC will physically conduct kitchen BMP inspections for FSEs and is projecting to inspect approximately 40 FSEs during the first year. 2.4 COMBINED KITCHEN BMP AND GRE INSPECTIONS EEC will physically conduct combined kitchen BMP and GRE inspections for FSEs and is projecting to inspect approximately 20 FSEs during the first year. 2.5 COMPLIANCE INSPECTIONS Compliance inspections are FSE inspections that are required to follow -up on an identified compliance issue. Although it is difficult to estimate the amount of non - compliance at this time, EEC will plan to perform compliance inspections at 90 FSEs in the first year of the program due to non - compliance issues or on -going hot spot source identification. This may include the issuance of written warnings or notices of violation (NOVs) to FSEs that are found to be in non - compliance of the FOG control ordinance or permit. The detailed enforcement procedures will be outlined in Task 1.1.1. 2.6 CCTV SOURCE INSPECTIONS EEC will assess hot spots to identify FSEs that are discharging FOG to the sewer collection system utilizing District's CCTV staff or subcontractor. It is projected that 12 days of CCTV Source Inspections will be conducted during the first year of the program. e- 3.0 ENFORCEMENT 3.1 ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS Although it is difficult to estimate the amount of enforcement required at this time, EEC will plan to perform two enforcement inspections at 12 FSEs each (total of 24) in the first year of the program. Due to the serious nature of these inspections, EEC will attempt to meet with the FSE manager or property owner to discuss the enforcement and the FSE's plans to come into compliance. 3.2 ENFORCEMENT MANAGEMENT Based on the results of the CCTV Source Inspections and continued NOVs, EEC will review, provide recommendations, and assist the District staff and FOG Control Program Manager in the enforcement process identified in Task 1.1.1. For the sake of this proposal, EEC is assuming that enforcement management will be required for 12 FSEs. COST ESTIMATE Based on the aforementioned scope of work, EEC has identified the projected costs (identified as a time - and - material estimate, a fixed cost, or a unit based cost) for each of the tasks as follows: October 1, 2004 — June 30, 2005 TITLE Units RATE TOTAL Program Documents T &M 1 $ 10,000 $10,000 Program Implementation Fixed 7.5 $ 7,088 $53,160 Annual Assessment Fixed 1 $ 5,415 $5,415 $68,575 FSEs Registration Inspections Unit 400 0.3 $ 121 $14,520 GRE Inspections Unit 100 1 $ 52 $5,200 BMP Inspections Unit 40 1 $ 74 $2,960 GRE BMP Inspections Unit 20 1 $ 84 $1,680 Compliance Inspections Unit 90 1 $ 124 $11,160 CCTV Source Inspection Oversite Unit 12 $ 1,190 $14,280 $49,800 T &M 12 $ 1,490 $17,880 Enforcement Inspections T &M 12 2 $ 251 $6,024 Enforcement Project Management $23,904 Total $142,279 5 T &M 12 $ 1,490 $17,880 5 1s The total projected cost is $142,279 to complete the aforementioned scope of work. The payment terms are net 30 -days and progress invoices will be submitted on a monthly basis. These costs do not include CCTV contractor, printing or mailing associated costs and the time - and- materials portion of the work will be based on EEC's 2004 Fee Schedule (attached). EEC looks forward to this opportunity to assist the Costa Mesa Sanitary District in implementing a successful FOG Control Program and will be available to start immediately upon issuance of a purchase order. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please call Stan Steinbach or John Shaffer at (714) 667 -2300. Sincerely, Environmental Engineering and Contracting, Inc. Stan Steinbach Senior Project Engineer II Attachments: Environmental Engineering and Contracting, Inc., 2004 Fee Schedule COSTA 9YESA SAiVTARTqXSMCT Memorandum ... an Independent SpecialTlistrict To: Board of Directors From: Robin B. Hamers, Manager /District Engineer Date: September 28, 2004 Subject: Consideration of New Policy - Variable Trash Collection Rate Program and Resident Contribution for Cost of Standardized Containers I. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the adoption of a simplified variable rate trash collection program for the remainder of the 2004 -2005 fiscal year and for subsequent fiscal years with provisions for resident contributions towards the cost of new or replacement containers. Certain parameters of a comprehensive variable rate program are extremely difficult to achieve and others will require significant Staff time to manages A simplified program will reward residents who generate small amounts of trash by rebating a portion of their_ trash collection charge. The simplified program may be evaluated each year to determine its effectiveness and whether it meets the goals of a variable rate program to a satisfactory level. The Board always has the flexibility to revise the program. The recommended program is based on discussions between the Manager /District Engineer and the Assistant Manger and Board Secretary/Program Manager. The Manager /District Engineer met with Director Perry who also supports a simplified . program. Director Worthington was out of town during the days these discussions were held. II. Background The implementation of a variable trash collection rate program is a goal of AB939 and the City of Costa Mesa's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The Sanitary District also adopted this goal during its yearly strategic planning workshops. Proposition 218 requires proportionality for charges subject to the provisions of the proposition and the Sanitary District's General Counsel recommends District charges include a measure of proportionality as an affirmative defense against challenges to the charges. Agencies responsible for trash collection typically support a variable rate structure where those who leave out less trash pay less and those that leave out large volumes of trash pay more. Protecting our community's health 6y providing solid waste and sewer collection services, costamesasanitarydi trict.org Consideration of New Policy - Variable Trash Collection September 28, 2004 Rate Program and Resident Contribution for Page 2 for Cost of Standardized Containers - Ill. Components of a Comprehensive Variable Rate Program A complete variable rate program for the District requires a comprehensive effort by District Staff, Costa Mesa Disposal, CR Transfer, and all 21,000 residences served by the District. A preliminary outline of a full variable rate program is as follows: 1. The base amount of containers for a residence is two containers of any size. 2. Residents with one container are allowed to obtain a second container of any size at no cost. 3. Residents shall contribute to the cost of all replacement containers by paying $45, $55 or $65 respectively for a 35, 60 or 90 gallon container. Residents with two or more containers shall pay this rate for all additional containers. 4. The variable rate program should be implemented on July 1 of the desired year. The variable rates will be reflected on the trash collection charges shown on the special line item on the property owner's tax bill. The variable rate structure shall have four categories: • Residents with one 35 gallon or one 60 gallon container • Residents with two containers of any size • Residents with three containers • Residents with four or more containers 5. Beginning on the designated July 1, residents requesting additional containers shall be able to pay by separate payment for the cost of the additional containers and the appropriate higher service level at any time. 6. Because the District places charges or, the tax bill once per year, and because instituting a refund program ,during the fiscal year will place an extreme burden on Staff, residents will not be entitled to refunds for decreasing their service level during the fiscal year. 7. Beginning on the designated July 1, excess trash left outside the container will not be collected unless a special District tag is affixed to the bag. The Board of Directors will establish the charge for the tags and the tags will be available at various locations throughout the District. As an option, or in addition to the special tags, a special colored bag may be used. The use of a special tag allows a resident the extra convenience of being able to acquire the tag after the trash is bagged in heavy duty bags. Use of a special bag requires a resident to have the bag on hand prior to requiring its use. 8. All multifamily developments will be required to participate in the District's 'Container ID Tag Program' run by the District's Ordinance Enforcement Officer. In order for the variable rate program to be successful, Costa Mesa Disposal and the Ordinance Enforcement Officer must be readily able to determine the number Consideration of New Policy - Variable Trash Collection September 28, 2004 Rate Program and Resident Contribution for Page 3 for Cost of Standardized Containers of containers being used at each residence at a multifamily location. An existing limitation that must be resolved is that as the Container ID Tag Program is currently being managed, the driver of a fully automated collection vehicle will not be able to read the tags from inside the truck. To determine the number of containers at each residence, the driver will have to exit the truck thereby slowing down the collection process. 9. District Staff, working with Costa Mesa Disposal, will be required to 1) insure the computer data base accurately reflects the number and size of the containers at each residence, 2) analyze the yearly District trash collection program costs and determine the appropriate charge for each category, 3) program the data base to accept a variable rate for each parcel, 4) field resident phone calls, and 5) handle mid -year special circumstances. 10. The variable rate program will require the Assistant Manager, Permit Processing Specialists and Costa Mesa Disposal to handle resident phone calls and provide the details of the program. There will be complaints addressed to the Board of Directors that will appear on the monthly regular meeting agenda. Because there is a designated date for terminating the previous program that allowed an unlimited number of free containers at each residence, it is expected that certain residents who are being required to pay for new containers will protest because a neighbor already may have extra containers but received them for free. Complaints are also expected regarding the trash outside the container policy. Residents who do not have all their trash collected typically call the District. 11. The Assistant Manager of the District, with the approval of the Manager /District Engineer, shall have the authority to make final decisions in circumstances relating to the above policy. IV. Components of a Simplified Variable Rate Program Sv o F 7akc M 9-do IV/0 A simplified variable rate program will be easier for District Staff and Costa Mesa Disposal to manage and will also include a reduced trash collection rate for residents utilizing a low service level. The components of a simplified variable rate program are as follows: 1. By increasing the trash collection rate 1.3 %, or $3 per year, the District should be able to provide additional and replacement containers at no additional cost to residents. 2. The $3 per year charge should cover the cost of the containers, however, it is recommended that a $25 resident contribution for each new container provided be adopted. A resident contribution will instill a sense of responsibility for the care of the containers. A residence with one container may obtain the second container of any size at no charge. Consideration of New Policy - Variable Trash Collection September 28, 2004 Rate Program and Resident Contribution for Page 4 for Cost of Standardized Containers 3. Near the end of the fiscal year, District Staff will determine whether the residents with one 60 gallon container or one 30 gallon container have minimized or never had trash outside the container. Residents meeting this standard shall receive a 10% rebate of the trash collection charge. 4. It is also recommended that the Board of Directors consider a policy requiring that all trash shall be left inside the containers or bagged in District - supplied bags or have a District - approved tag affixed to a heavy duty trash bag. This policy will result in residents paying their fare share for excess trash — another component of a variable rate program. This policy may be instituted six months to one year after items 1 through 3 above are instituted. This allows time for an education program to notify residents as well as time to acquire special bags and tags. V. Accompanying Ordinance Revisions The Attorney for the District will need to review the District's existing ordinances and recommend revisions or additions to reflect the District's adoption of a variable rate program. September 17, 2004 RECEIVE CITY OF COSTA MESA SEP2 12001, P.O. BOX 1200, CALIFORNIA 92628 -1200 COSTA MESA F;�{!IgAv Big it FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER Board of Directors Costa Mesa Sanitary District 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, California 92628 Honorable Board Members: As you are all aware, the respective staff of the District and the City has worked very hard to draft a new operating agreement between our respective agencies. This has been a long and tedious process as might well be expected following a 50 -year relationship. It has caused both parties to look at every detail of the agreement in a decidedly different manner than in years past. And while some of this has not been especially comfortable at times, I believe it has been a healthy re- examination of how we conduct business on behalf of the public. It is with this in mind that I formally request to be placed on your agenda of Thursday, October 14, 2004 to request Board action on the matter of the proposed Refuse Franchise Fee. In` so doing, 1 am - mindful of the Board's action. of Wednesday, September 8, 2004 in providing direction to District Manager Rob Hamers and District Legal Counsel Alan Burns on this subject and the operating agreement. In complete honesty, we were taken aback by the Board's direction given our recent discussions with District representatives. During, our negotiations and at the insistence of District representatives,, City staff supported the idea of .deleting reference to the Refuse Franchise - Fee in the operating agreement. 'Upon reflection and careful reconsideration of the points expressed by the District Manager and District Legal Counsel, we concurred that this agreement is not the,forum by which this matter should be addressed.. As you might then well understand, we were very surprised to see that the District now insists on placing the matter back in the agreement. I am concerned that in some fashion, my expressed interest in addressing the Board on the matter of the Refuse Franchise Fee may have been taken incorrectly — hence the Board's direction on this subject. My intent is simply in fulfilling my obligations to the City Council and it's ,prior direction on this subject. As you may be aware, we are scheduled to return to the City Council with the implementing ordinance for the. Refuse Franchise Fee by Monday, October 18, 20,04. Your position on this subject is important and valuable to the City Council:, 77 FAIR DRIVE PHONE: (714) 7545327 • TDD: (714) 754 -5244 • FAX: (714) 7545330 • www.d.costa- mesa.cams Board of Directors Costa Mesa Sanitary District September 17, 2004 Page 2 I appreciate your consideration of the above request and look forward to addressing the Board. Sincerely, Allan L. Roeder City Manager alr /ko c: Rob Harriers, District Manager Alan Burns, District Legal Counsel Tom Wood, Acting City Attorney Linda Nguyen, Deputy City Attorney Bill Morris, Public Services Director Marc Puckett, Finance Director •' 'Jievt�+� _ +'d Q,,l� ('CHI � - Vvo-�t „�,,,�..cP H+ 7 to cower' . • GU �- Tw; r: : p �0 CIf C� C� fQ CC CIA -/' •v � e mSIO COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT MINUTES OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 4, 2004 The Board of Directors of the Costa Mesa Sanitary District attended a duly noticed Special Meeting on Monday, October 4, 2004 at 6:00 p.m., in Conference Room 1A at the Civic Center, 77 Fair Drive, Costa Mesa. Directors Present: Arlene Schafer, Greg Woodside, Jim Ferryman, Arthur Perry, Dan Worthington Staff Present: Robin B. Hamers, Manager /District Engineer; Thomas A. Fauth, Assistant Manager; Joan Revak, Board Secretary/Program Manager; Alan Burns, Legal Counsel; Wendy Davis, District Treasurer; Sherry Kallab, Accountant; Debbie Bjornson, Permit Processing Specialist; Gerry Vasquez, Maintenance Supervisor Others Present: John Shaffer and Jim Kolk, Representing Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., 501 Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92706 I. Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Mr. Hamers provided a review of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's Waste Discharge Requirements, including the requirement for the adoption of a grease control program by the Sanitary District and other agencies tributary to the Orange County Sanitation District by December 30, 2004. Mr. Hamers reviewed CMSD Project #172, the fats, oils, and grease (FOG) study performed by Environmental Engineering and Contracting, Inc. (EEC) for the Sanitary District and how it provides a basis for the grease control program. Mr. Hamers introduced John Shaffer and Jim Kolk of, EEC and explained the CMSD Staff's recommendation that the Board consider EEC's proposal to provide first year services for program development, program management, and inspections for the CMSD program. Mr. Hamers also recommended the Board consider. Attorney Alan Burns' analysis of the WDR, the existing CMSD grease control ordinance, and the EEC proposal. Mr. Burns responded to President Schafer's request and gave a brief review of the options available to the Board. Mr. Shaffer and Mr. Kolk then gave a powerpoint presentation of the EEC proposal. Protecting our comnuun.it y's (eah.h 6y providing soridwaste andse -user coffection. SCIVIces. cOSh7 mcsaSiM I h I1)1d rict.oaf Costa Mesa Sanitary District Page 2 Minutes of Special Meeting Held October 4. 2004 After questions and answers, motion made by Director Perry, seconded by Director Ferryman to approve EEC proposal dated August 30, 2004 for first year services in the amount of $142, 279 subject to 1) Staff preparing a standard professional services agreement for signature by both parties, 2) a Special Meeting shall be held for Board approval of program parameters and documents prior to the continuation of services by EEC, and 3) as requested by Director Ferryman, to include the analysis of establishing financing for small food service establishments faced with having to install a grease interceptor. Motion carried 5 -0. II. Trash Collection Program Mr. Hamers reviewed a memorandum dated September 28, 2004 to the Board of Directors analyzing the components of a comprehensive variable rate trash collection program and a simplified variable rate program. Mr. Hamers reviewed the extensive time required of Staff, the District's ordinance enforcement officer, and Costa Mesa Disposal drivers and office personnel for the implementation and management of a comprehensive program. Mr. Hamers also reviewed the components of a simplified program. After discussion, motion made by Director Perry, seconded by Director Ferryman, to direct staff to implement the components of a simplified variable trash collection rate program as outlined in said memorandum, subject to additional staff analysis and Board of Directors review of potential end of year rebates. Motion carried 5 -0. III. City /District Agreement Mr. Hamers and Mr. Burns provided a review of events to date regarding the City of Costa Mesa's desire to add a residential trash collection franchise fee to the City /District operating agreement currently under consideration by both parties. The City followed the deletion of this provision from the proposed agreement by the inclusion of a residential franchise fee in a new City ordinance schedule for first reading on October 4, 2004. After discussion, the Board directed Staff to prepare a letter for President Schafer's signature to the City Council opposing a residential trash collection franchise fee and to have said letter delivered to the City prior to the Council meeting that evening. The Board also requested that Director Worthington attend the meeting and speak in opposition to the ordinance on behalf of the District. IV. Tour of CR Transfer Director Worthington suggested the District consider providing a tour of the CR Transfer recycling facility to the candidates for Costa Mesa City Council prior to the November election. Director Worthington explained the candidates are more likely to accept the invitation for a tour and the benefits of utilizing the comprehensive facility prior to the election because after the election their schedules will be full. President Schafer 1totecting our community's health by providing soW waste andsewer coffection services. costam.esasanitarydistrict. org Costa Mesa Sanitary District Minutes of Special Meeting Held October 4. 2004 Page 3 agreed that the invitation for a tour of the facility is an excellent suggestion but requested the tour be offered after the election due to the candidates' busy pre - election schedule and to insure the attendees are City Council members. Mr. Worthington agreed to postpone the recommendation until after the election. V. Public Comments There were no members of the general public in attendance. President Schafer adjourned the meeting at 1:15 p.m. Secretary P11. � 0 t. a I r reside t 1totecting our community s health by providing soWivaste andsewercolrection services. costa mesasanitarydistrict. org