The URL can be used to link to this page

Agenda Packets - Sewer System - 2011-03-15 4 � 4 COMMITTEE SEWER SYSTEM March 15, 2011, 10:30 .m. Costa Mesa Sanitary District 626 W. 1 1h Street Costa a, California Directors ctor Doted and Ferryman All Directors Weloorned I. Monthly Spill Statistics II. SCADA-- Necessity of Standby Generators III, Potholes and Sinking Streets above CMSD Sewers Iv. SPCS Annual Report V. South Coast Plaza Pumiping Station Irustallation of New Pumps-3114111.3116111 -Oral Deport VI. Earthquake Assessment of Pumping Stations-Oral Report vll. CMSD SSMP Self Audit-Consultant Contract with IFPC vlll', Education Seminar-Innovations in Sewer Maintenance, 3-16-11 IX, Emergency Services Agreements with Traffic Control Companies DR Individual Agency Performance Report--May 2011 {oral Report I. WD,R"triennial Review-Adoption by SWRQB prier to 6130111 -Oral Deport Il, Canyon Pumping Station Force Main--Soliciting Proposals for F.M. Rehabilitation III. CMSD Projects: A. Project#1 Q1 _Westside Pumping Station Abandonment B. Project#129-Bristol Street Sewer(Phase II C. Project#164--Miscellaneous Sewer Work 0. Project#171 -Irvine Pumping Station Force fain Rehabilitation F. Project#1163-System-Wide Sewer Reconstruction F. Project#166--Sewer(Lateral Assistance Program G, Project#,189--Rehabilitation of Six Sewers'Transferred to CMSD I''V, Next(Meeting:April 19,2011, 110:30 a.m. Xv. Public Comments Dated: (March 9, 2011 P0 Clerk of the District o W CD m c � y m r- 2 0. 0 W -° cn.' v ow. cu ` m ° rwm ° 0- C? c C7 c: a O a I+ q P CS N im V 1 4 N Co C"i LEI r r of ice. L 1 in CO E M rte' E a c o N c a o ui CD E M E- 3 M } c, a zzrZ7-zz>-zzz>-zz>->-> cO1a a zz > > ? Y °m ? E C @ r r U ° E U C]c7Q�c70C]F-aoo�s to o'o aaa ppCa 0 CD N.6n L f7 m co CIL co m r _ o dp r Lf'A N o7 r M Q y N; N' rna , o wL G O W o �"' O � ° a-1 N, w� N w O U V cD m t+'r 4n N '- U !� � � 'C V p cocc co co co cc co p � , rnmdi0 z _ z 2 Z .- ? y N ,Ni'a�mr, Mann smD r-- LO °1 CD '-,c;V TY, 7 L a N�Y*7 V cA 4 m in O LU N L M co W W N �-- m..'co � J ca cv m+n w w n. m - y J o N to �.c=- 0 co c+o: w co w co 0 co y a` rn a a 'esr rn L Q N U) r r U U V U C C L L G ,_ V p c U3 f'll c V Q {� > dxl [fj q�j Q G OtV E4 C U ; '90 3 aC Led W T r a 17 d m v a mi0. ca -�' m ffi °nlc mci v�~i Uj t?c°ti C6 m 0 c�a cA 0.L _ M O,a c w ° Q o�S c rD of, .� L �JM +�> �w� V) 3N,ao mU. L p¢pyy u�gg� �¢ro�4 r t`.� c7 m CL cx 22 E �a ,O d .'��,.� (� to 4l) 3 N = N;Il1 ID N c © �pUV c wax mi_ o ao c mKT co i3 I-w ra 0,_ ®Y a r a,c (A m `m=o ti g�.r. a4 v ci m y— 4-- W �_ o V) ai � tgg� ta `w mco �msi @- �� roncC7 ca o mF o � wdO c VJ rn m $ m� �� F cc 0 U sad ,- �,..� mm LL 5w U�LL �Uy.� C7 y fl c q 0 G �° 7 r uja� W Cb d aa� $ � a b- cs F-�, ' a e U c C]'m y � CI o.7. ° m maz c 0- 3 1-C7pCo c = cde to c -° a w ai 0.m d m `° y, Cry :3 ae m dm's'c a GY�' . C1 U 3 ltl OI �-- a� � .a w Q-tti!��Q H' �� ;� � � � sit C7 GO o ot1 fl m k'-A7 uc orf Mt Gq v.. a n. p Q F-F- a d1 Iro md� F ` m $ 0 - y 27 ra y saf7C7C9y S� t� c� c � -C7 m }° asynrY o4S�,a �C7 �� E°- a ; L aCER5:d. � a M a No y, c�3o r � �O NScR`Netcv co a ��@ O O O 8 a o r a 4 a`®O¢ iR +°cR c°v� RR N er N E 1. $Y m o Z . cp s-N.t[`d N r cwl(vfN NNN c'n F- N NNM N N„r, £�7 W F c� c�MC� r�r a`a <sNC7' www - U) Q) r� r�r r. r �- r Q' F [3. Q w0 =a W W O O W O 0 YC7IKC bF Yt aa. pF TI N rl O G o 0 4 0 o C..D C7 ci a w Q G O a CW a GW ec o a C7 C7 c 0 0 a c a° rio o � G `o O # o o OaE P35 w cam w = J w c Tom, �yN 0 pp V U V Cj vq�r�a°r� o4i x°n`° m vQ7 �, tnc p Ttl p itl e d FC7 °o r F (7 l� w cq, W M In r d C-4 I M cc' N N 00 N N G7 d'� a N (� E ❑ o uj C � � _ LJ O (q CL J p a J 'C7 aly 3 D N OON ; N t3 OO CVN L L m m G1 o m Q1 3 ' 9Y N ro W 6�i d a , c o 7 w df a � m t7 S4 v+ U .dC m r_ m � m O LT9 � O N C NNE f7 I7 f'J i (D U 0 � ra 8S Fa o' cR000 C) r - a i(o 0 00 r caNCV _ c`QO N ctiv:n� �' m w a`'m F R Yll F y R w M Q Q W X Q�O W w0Z, `.00 aa of Y W- CL o-w I!. 1� r U 1 � ti^r 1 Ills �r uu i l� ,III � IPPI w 8 / I m' j� V 1 Ii +A! V I* 1Nf r��l Ulf ei2 Ki a , .L C a - Q 3 �l c: ++ _ � Jr rw' R M V O Ln [V rl > pp O Z ri ri r—I N t H off H LAW OFFICES OF HARPER & BURNS LLP A LIM=LI.NBILITY PARTNERSHIP TKCLU WNC A AROFESSION'.L CORPORATION 433 S.GLASSELI.STREET ALAN R.BURNS ORANGE,CALIFORNIA 92666 0 nM4SMF 1 CAN RFRNARDINC) JOHN HARPER' (951) 674-0695 COLUN R.BURNS (714)771-7728 OFCOUNSEL FAX (714) 741-3350 7UMI A-CURTCNI MICHAEL MONTGOMERY' •A PROFESSIONAL CORPORAT(ON To: Manager/District Engineer and Assistant Manager From: District Counsel Date: September 15, 2005 Re: The District's responsibility for sinking streets Facts The District caused to be constructed sewer lines in city streets. Some of these lines were installed in 1953. There have been no problems with the streets until recently, when some of the pavement began sinking in the area of the sewer line. The City is taking the position that it is the District's fault that such sinking occurred and they have implied that the District is liable for the repair. lss I , Is the District liable under the above factual scenario? Analysis Briefly, the law of negligence will be discussed, Generally, to be liable in negligence, there must be a duty, a breach of that duty, causation, proximate causation, and damages. Most critical in the above scenario is whether the District breached a duty (to properly construct the sewer line) and whether some breach of that duty caused the damage. From your memo, it appears that the construction must have been adequate since the street remained defect free for 50 years. Also, there is more than a slight issue about causation. Your explanation for how the damage occurred is more plausible than the City's, which seems to be a [ea ip-aa loc ittoor ("the thing speaks for itself') argument. Having said that, it must be remembered that the liability of the District is not basedon common law but on the California Tort Claims Act, adopted in 1963. That Act provides that all government liability is statutory. Examining the Act, one can only guess what theory the City might consider (if theygave it this much thought). Dangerous conditions of public property is the most obvious. Sinking streets Page 2 I have prepared a draft letter to the City outlining these issues so that it could serve as a road map for our position. We do not have to send the letter, but it saves writing it twice, in case we do. Conclusions 1. The District can only be liable under certain statutory theories and cannot be liable under common negligence theories. 2. The District does not appear to be liable under any theory. 3. Before the City could sue the District, it would first have to file a timely claim with the District. Respectfully submitted, Alan R. Burns District Counsel DEC-19-2005 11: 11 FROM COSTA MESA SAN DIST TO ROD P.01/82 I S�ci.MjT R Usta Mesa Sanity Dst rict � ��4 ak1 1�10epef svlt Spec1QE District OKA" December 16, 2005 Beard u�f DiredurS Jurrre6 hi r n nrurr �+r'P� 11'r7nCf.[lr,lN Ar7 Perry flrr�rtc S'cfrrrJ�r Mr. William J. Morris T)r�r7 ti44rr7 tlrr rrJr Directof of Public Services City of Costa Mesa 77 Fair Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SruJJ f nhi+r i;. uerrrre rr Re: Sinking Streets Dear CMSD Sewer- Lines Esther Street and Aliso Avenue l)i,�rr'!Cr �Ir�irzE'Nr (!)4V)�I-173! Dear Bill: TIUPrr a� A. Pu:crlr In accordance with your request at the City of Costa Mesa Utilities ,t C6lcrrir7r tYlrrr,rr�c r Coordination Meeting on September 13, 2005, and as reiterated by City Engineer Ernesto Munoz at the December 13, 2005 meeting, this Jima Hcvok letter explains the Costa Mesa Sanitary District's position regarding Pr'lrrrz'l,SCZ,c•rar� street paving failures in and around CMSD sewer fines. Peogrcurr rllarra�rrr Clerk orllw nisl+rcr A previous letter from the District dated July 11 , 2005 was sent to Ile Tran and outlined a brief history of the varying trench bapkfill ellon R. Rtrrrr.c requirements that the City imposed on sewer contractors over the L.e ,rrr Crjrr�ISC! years- The sewer lino was constructed over 50 years ago and after the line was installed the City specified the trench replacement material, inspected the backfill and paving, and accepted ownership Treasurer of the finishod street. The CMSD sewer line has performed as intended and is intact with no apparent leafage, holes or cracks as evidenced by a recent video Phone-.0 inspection performed on September 2, 2005, FO 1949)(,iO,22.,; The City is indicating that the District is liable for the settling of the street because it is caused by a sewer lino that was constructed over 50 years ago. Thera has been no apparent settlement of the pavement during this tune but the recent settlement is near the Address CMSD sewer line and the City is indimtincg this is the Sanitary lV Sono District's fault_ One potential cause of the sinking street is Water from c"`r" r4fNS" (A last year's record rainfall migrating under the street and causing 92(27-2716 settlornent, howavor, this is not the District's fault, another potential cause is that the street paving has reached its life expectancy, sf* rr,'rr (� ff !!rr �� r'rrrcrcrr nr PrOt� 6110 0147'C0)Y11-H 1i(N15�jC fd) � j77'OV131Yuj Si7 O Y"CISLe atio Se p-r collection SCt'CJ�Lr 5. 1St•crrlcrr Ycrpa r CYHS(�C R.f�O'U DEC-19-2005 11- 11 FROM COSTA MESA SAN DIST TO RDS P.02/02 S[nking Strooks Tear CMSD Sowor Linux DQcember 16,2005 Esther Strout And Al'sssa Avenue Page 2 Common law negligence is not available as a Lheory of liability against; a public entity since the California Tort Claims Act was enacted in 1963. Under the Act, all liability is statutory. Although the City has not stated the theory of[lability it is alleging, property-related claims are usually brought under the "clangorous conditions of public property" theory. Government Code Section 835 provides that to prevail under this Theory, a plaintiff must show that the District's property Was in a "dangerous condition" and thaL ale dangerous condition caused the damage. It must also be shown that the District was on notice of the condition or should have been aware of it. The District is also entillod to the defense that the design was reasonable (obviously it was since the sewer line was constructed over 50 years ago and is still intact) and that the District had a reasonable inspection program (the District performs a periodic video inspection of the sower lines.) The District may also use a defense of design immunity until the City proves the District created a dangerous condition of public property. The District is unaware of facts that may support this theory. Upon notification by the City of similar paving problems occurring throughout the City, Lhe District will video the sewer line to determine if the line has any leaks or holes that may be causing the problem and will notify the City accordingly, Any additionai discussion regarding this information should be directed to Alan Burns, General Counsel for tho District. Harper and Bums may be reached at (714) 771-7728_ Thank you for your consideration in this matter_ Sincerely, Rabin B_ Hamers Manager/District Engineer cc, Board Staff District Counsel TCT94L P-02 IV. Statewide Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program Annual Compliance Update y 4 " ' ✓i �1 A r 1�� i ' � !il ri �� //Air � /i// � i f5 Y D o r; i EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT State Water Resources Control Board May 2010 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. STATEWIDE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WDR IMPLEMENTATION 4 A. SSO Reduction Program Outreach 4 B. SSO Database and External Users Group 5 C. Enrollee Training 5 D. Regional Water Board SSO Reduction Program Training 6 E. SSO Incident Maps 6 F. Enforcement of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR 7 G. Recent Enforcement Activities 8 H. Sanitary Sewer System WDR Review and Update 8 3. STATEWIDE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WDR COMPLIANCE SUMMARY 9 A. Enrollment for Coverage 9 B. SSO Reporting 10 C. Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Development and Certification 11 D. Collection System Questionnaire 11 4. SPILL DATA SUMMARY 12 A. Statewide Reported Spill Data 12 B. SSO and Private Lateral Sewage Discharge Trends 13 C. Spill Causes 15 D. Sewage Spills by Pipe Characteristics 17 E. Regional Spill Trends 18 F. Summary of Reported Spill Data 19 5. CONCLUSION 19 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -- Overall Statewide SSO and PLSD Reports (from 112107 to 1131110) 12 Table 2 —Top Twenty Enrolled Collection Systems Ranked by Volume of Sewage Spilled 19 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -- CWEA Training Attendance 5 Figure 2 — SSO GIS Incident Map 7 Figure 3 — Enrollee Month-to-Month Compliance with Spill and No-Spill Reporting 10 Figure 4 — 2007 to 2010 Annual SSO Trends 13 Figure 5 — Percentage of Total Number of Spills that Reached Surface Water by Size Class 14 Figure 6 — Percentage of Total Volume of Spills that Reached Surface Water by Size Class 14 Figure 7 — Percentage of Total Number of Spills by Size Class 15 Figure 8 — Percentage of Total Volume of Spills by Size Class 15 Figure 9— Percent of Reported SSOs and Percent of Total Volume Spilled by Cause 16 Figure 10 — Percent of Reported PLSDs and Percent of Total Volume Spilled by Cause 16 Figure 11 — Regional SSO Trends 18 2 of 20 BSOReduction 0 1. INTRODUCTION This report provides an update on the Statewide Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program (S5{J Reduction Program). |t updates information conf iDed in the May 2008 Executive Director's Report and the . The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) requested the May 2010 Executive Director's Report and the update to address statewide compliance with the General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDFls)for Sanitary Sewer Systems Sewer System \. This updated report contains detailed information on the 3SO Reduction Program implementation efforts, compliance, and enforcement actions. /\sanitary sewer overflow (SS[)) in any overflow, spill, release, disohorge, or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from o sanitary sewer system. Asmnitmry sewer system is any system of pipes, pump stations, sewer |ines, or other conveyances used to collect and convey vvan1ovvatgr to a treatment facility. SG{}$ do not include overflows from privately- owned service laterals when these overflows are caused by blockages or other problems within the privately-owned lateral but do include overflows from privately-owned laterals when the cause in a problem within the publicly-owned portion of the sanitary sewer system. Overflows from privately owned service laterals are referred to as private lateral sewage discharges /PL8On\. SS{}o and PLSOs contain high levels of suspended so|ids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oil, and grease. 8SOs and F,LSDn pollute surface and ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. SS[}s and PLSOe also can result in o|oeum* of beaches and other recreational mnams, inundate proportiea, and pollute rivers and streams. The Sanitary Sewer System VVORwas developed and implemented in 2006-2007 to address these issues. The objective of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR is to reduce the number of SSOs and the volume of sewage spilled across the state through the proper operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems. The basic requirements of the Sanitary Sewer System VVDR are that any publicly-owned agency with more than one mile of sewer lines connected toa pu blicly-owned treatment facility must enroll for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer System VVOR, develop and implement a sewer system management plan (SSMP), and report all SSOa or no-spill certificate each month 1oestatewide SS{Jdatabase. Prior editions of this annual report contain detailed information on the history and requirements of the S5O Reduction Program. In addition to the statewide requirements of the Sanitary Sewer System VVOR' collection systems owned by public agencies in the Gan Francisco Bay and San Diego regions are subject to additional Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) requirements. Although it is the State Water Board's intent that the Sanitary Sewer System VVOR be the primary mechanism for regulation of sanitary sewer systems statewide, per the Sanitary Sewer System VV[}Fl, Regional Water Boards may issue more stringent or prescriptive requirements for sanitary sewer systems. The Regional Water Boards have implemented the following requirements for sanitary sewer eystanno that are above and beyond the requirements of the statewide Sanitary Sewer System VVOR: 3 nf2O SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 _San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board fSan Francisco a Re iona9 Water Board' Sanitar Sewer Overflow Reduction Program) 1) Requires spills to be reported to a San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board online reporting system in addition to the State Water Board's California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) online reporting system as the mechanism to provide the Regional Water Board notification required per State Water Board Water Quality Order No. 2008-0002-EXEC, the Monitoring and Reporting Program for the statewide Sanitary Sewer System WDR. 2) Requires submittal of an annual report to the Regional Water Board detailing spills that occurred from the collection system during the year. 3) Requires collection system agencies to develop and implement an SSMP similar to the SSMPs required under the Sanitary Sewer System WDR but, with different development deadlines than the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. San Die-go Regional Water Board (grder No. R9-2007-00051 1) Prohibits all discharges of sewage from a sanitary sewer system at any point upstream of a sewage treatment plant. 2) Requires that sewage collection agencies notify the Regional Water Board of all PLSDs in their service area that they become aware of and that the PLSDs be reported to the State Water Board online SSO database. 2. STATEWIDE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM D- Over the past three years, staff has primarily focused its resources in the following areas to achieve successful statewide implementation and compliance with the Sanitary Sewer System WDR requirements. A. SSO Reduction Program Outreach Outreach continues to play a key role in both increasing enrollee participation in the SSO Reduction Program and reaching other interested stakeholders such as environmental groups and the general public. Specific outreach has been varied to provide information about the Sanitary Sewer System WDR to as many different audiences as possible. Specific tasks include the following: 1) Giving external presentations for trade and non-profit associations such as the California Water Environment Association (CWEA), Southern California Alliance of POTWs (SCAP), Bay Area Clean Water Association (BCWA), Central Valley Clean Water Association (CVCWA), Ca1FOG, Southern California Chapter of the American Public Works Association (APWA), California Sanitation Risk Management Authority (CSRMA), and the California Rural Water Association (CRWA); 2) Providing CIWQS Help Line assistance; 3) Assisting in the development of the SSO Public Reports Website; 4) Developing and maintaining the SSO website; 5) Broadcasting list-serve email announcements. 4 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 B. SSO Database and External Users Group Staff developed the SSO database and enrollees are using it to report SSOs and PLSDs. The SSO database is part of the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). The SSO database allows online submittal of information by enrollees and makes this data available to the public through the use of the public reports. The SSO database was created in collaboration with an advisory group of enrollees with the goal of achieving accurate and consistent data collection. Staff continues to maintain and enhance the SSO database with available resources. Staff coordinates enhancements with an SSO external users group comprised of enrollees. In addition, staff is coordinating and participating in a CIWQS SSO module Data Review Committee comprised of State Water Board, Regional Water Board, and enrollees as part of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR Review and Update process. This committee is evaluating SSO spill data collected to date in CIWQS with the goal of developing collection system performance indicator(s) and refining the CIWQS spill report form and data content. C. Enrollee Training State Water Board staff continues to use the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the California Water Environment Association (CWEA) to offer Sanitary Sewer System WDR training to enrollees. This MOA is in effect until December 2010. CWEA created, in cooperation with staff, training courses for how to report a spill to the SSO database, how to develop an SSMP, and how to communicate with the media during and after spill events. CWEA has offered these classes statewide and will continue to do so under the terms of the MCA. The number of enrollees that have participated in the CWEA classes for electronic reporting, SSMP preparation, and media communication are illustrated on Figure 1 below. CWEA Training Attendance (Since Inception of Training) 1200 1000 800 ._._ __ .. ................ 600 400 200 0 M#of Enrolled Collection Systems with staff who attended °��° o #of Enrolled Collection ss C Q O Systems with staff who did 5 not attend Figure 9 —CWEA Training Attendance 5of20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 One of the challenges with enrollee training continues to be reaching small agencies that either cannot afford to pay for training or cannot attend the training because of limited staff size. A wastewater industry organization, California Rural Water Association (CRWA), is providing separate Sanitary Sewer System WDR training and outreach effort to address the needs of small sanitary sewer system agencies. Staff continues to participate, in a consultative role, in the production of new SSO Reduction Program education materials and in the periodic review and update of existing educational materials via the established MOA with CWEA. This task includes participation in a regular monthly Training Task Force meeting and communication with education and marketing staff at CWEA. D. Regional Water Board SSO Reduction Program Training State Water Board staff, with technical assistance from outside consultants, has delivered customized training in the past in northern and southern California for Regional Water Board staff that covers the requirements of the statewide Sanitary Sewer System WDR and proper sanitary sewer system operation and maintenance. The class curriculum included information on how to conduct audits of sanitary sewer systems, the Sanitary Sewer System WDR requirements, evaluating SSMPs, and procedures for responding to and investigating SSOs. Additional advanced training classes on this subject matter are planned for development and will be presented to applicable Water Board staff in the future. E. SSO Incident Maps Staff released GIS spill incident maps to the public in May 2009 that depict SSO and PLSD incidents that have been reported to CIWQS by enrollees This tool shows CIWQS certified spill data (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml#ssomaps).on Google maps and was developed in-house The spill maps include spills from sanitary sewer systems only and do not include spills from wastewater treatment plants at this time. The GIS maps serve to implement the requirements in CWC section 13193 which require the State Water Board to make reports available to the public, using GIS maps where possible. In addition, the GIS maps support the Water Board's Strategic Plan goal of communicating public information regarding the state's waters in an easily understood form. The mapping tool incorporates numerous recommendations from the External Users Group including the capability to search by spill date, spill size, enrolled agency, county, Regional Water Board, and spill street address. Future enhancements are planned and will be made as staff time permits. Figure 2 below is a view the incident map for SSOs for certified spill incidents in CIWQS provided by enrollees over the past 4 months- 6 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 A^6b tedWR ^y^{°u F'&mWlt°s ibdR Helm lu.r'''w ...M�fi+m mn� IwM1yr"klHnit,.v u,tiu GOyrCS ta.p4.,:e�mawss°{yi.tla 9w ITn ..... .. +� Gi.. tY`{.'+ h~ao ph°1° Tera+n VVWUN�'�UI�N'�a� �a�� r " .Nna ✓P ` r" r"h w all as a 8 h , h,�only t a ivll.981od / CPS CWdlnal _ Fqc 6yv t me(gatloncl.�. OOO.DW+&a +CY n ca. w _._.__ .. ...... ..,._ Fnt l AaY darn: T7srs%kvo8-041/1612009 d. 4 I'Da,.gm_evr - ,e. w find APnE 7; xl r Yrtna:: .�'l. tare 'LJ 0 db E EA u�0� �? s'..;>G"A :.... wt .,.p.f�`^��abc°porn c;,r��,�.,�HmoasnrtTlt!ct!jI rid Figure 2—SSO GIS Incident Map F. Enforcement of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR Current compliance and enforcement tasks are,focused on addressing violations of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR in the following areas: a. Evaluating compliance and implementing enforcement actions for failing to provide required reporting elements, and b. Evaluating the accuracy and completeness of required reporting elements. The first area is being handled solely by State Water Board staff. The second area is to be handled jointly with State Water Board and Regional Water Board staff, working together where possible, by way of scheduled collection system field audits. Due to limited staff resources, a phased approach is being utilized in implementing the proposed enforcement tasks. Phase I Staff is addressing collection system agencies that have not submitted applications for enrollment into the Sanitary Sewer System WDR or that are enrolled but have not submitted any reports first. During this phase, State Water Board staff are identifying enrollees not meeting the basic program participation requirements (e.g., enrollment, reporting, SSMP development). Staff is conducting enforcement actions to bring identified noncompliant enrollees into compliance. Staff is currently preparing approximately 160 Notices of Violation (NOVs)that will be mailed to these agencies. These NOVs are scheduled to be sent in May 2010 and will require agencies that are not enrolled in the Sanitary Sewer System WDR to submit applications for enrollment. The NOVs will also require the agencies to submit all of the spill reports for their collection systems dating back to the effective date on which they were required to start reporting. In addition, the NOVs will require these agencies to submit their questionnaire, a schedule for 7 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 completion of their SSMP, and maintain future compliance with the Sanitary Sewer System WDR requirements. Phase II In the second phase, staff plan to address enrollees having some violations of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR reporting or implementation requirements. Initially, these agencies will be provided a compliance reminder and directed to correct their reporting deficiencies. Enrollees who fail to respond to the compliance reminder would be sent NOVs directing them to correct their reporting deficiencies and maintain compliance with the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. Additional enforcement letters and actions would be initiated against agencies who failed to respond to the NOVs. Phase III The third phase includes evaluation of all enrollees for completeness and accuracy of their SSMPs and spill reporting. Staff plan to use targeted and random collection system audits. To ensure a fair and consistent approach to achieve statewide compliance, staff will use the Sanitary Sewer Reduction Program Compliance and Enforcement Plan. This plan identifies the specific enforcement actions to be undertaken over the next year to comprehensively address noncompliance with the Sanitary Sewer System WDR requirements. G. Recent Enforcement Activities During Fiscal Year 2009-2010, CIWQS data show that 14 formal enforcement actions have been taken by Regional Water Boards for violations, in whole or in part, related to the statewide Sanitary Sewer System WDR. These actions resulted in approximately $5,767,000 in assessed liabilities for SSOs throughout the state and consisted of four administrative civil liability (ACL) actions issued by the North Coast Water Board; five ACLs and one cease and desist order issued by the San Francisco Bay Water Board; one ACL issued by the Central Valley Water Board; one ACL issued by the Santa Ana Water Board; and two ACLs issued by the San Diego Water Board. In addition, San Diego Water Board staff sent seven NOVs in February 2010 to medium and large collection systems in their region to address missed SSMP deadlines. Also, State Water Board staff sent 50 NOVs in Fiscal Year 2009-2010 to address non-payment of WDR fees. H. Sanitary Sewer System WDR Review And Update The review and update of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR was initiated in September 2009. Progress to date on the review and update of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR is summarized below. Staff Public Meetings — Staff held informal public meetings on September 15, 2009 in Orange County (82 participants) and on September 29, 2009 in the City of Oakland (101 participants). Comments received have been compiled for response in a comment database. Comment Letter Solicitation — In follow-up to the staff workshops, comment letters were solicited. A total of 36 comment letters were received from the public and 3 comment letters were provided by Regional Water Boards (The San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, and San 8 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 Diego Water Boards responded.). Comments received have been compiled for response in a comment database. Workshop with Regional Water Board Staff—A workshop with Regional Water Board staff from the North Coast, San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, Central Valley and San Diego Water Boards was conducted on January 19, 2010. Comments received have been compiled for response in a comment database. Data Review Committee —As part of the staff workshops, formation of a Committee to Review CIWQS SSO data collected to date was offered to interested participants. The purpose of the Committee is: (1) to review the SSO data collection process and to make improvements to it that will enhance the value of collected spill data for all stakeholders; (2) to redesign the spill database and report forms to be an event based versus the current location based reporting system; and (3) to evaluate and develop indices of collection system performance to be used in California. A total of 129 stakeholders registered for the committee. Committee meetings are being held every two weeks and will continue through approximately July 2010. California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) Coordination - A meeting was held with Cal EMA staff on March 4, 2010 to discuss statewide spill notification procedures in relation to the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. State Water Board staff gained information on how the SSO notification procedures can be streamlined in the update of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. Cal EMA staff agreed to let State Water Board staff comment on their internal spill notification procedures. Cal EMA confirmed that they are notifying focal health department staff and Regional Water Board staff when they receive spill notifications. The Sanitary Sewer System WDR also requires the enrollee to notify their local health department staff and Regional Water Board staff when a spill occurs. These notifications result in local health department staff and Regional Water Board staff receiving multiple notifications for a given spill event. Local Health Department Coordination — Local Health Department staff are providing input on the Sanitary Sewer System WDR to State Water Board staff via a survey form that State Water Board staff distributed to the California Conference of Directors of Environmental Health, Land Use Committee. State Water Board staff is currently awaiting return of the surveys. Upcoming Activities — Upcoming activities include drafting a response to comments document and presenting an Information Item to inform the State Water Board of the comments received and staff recommendations. This Information Item is currently scheduled for the State Water' Board's meeting on August 3, 2010. 3. STATEWIDE l 4 , COMPLIANCE The following section provides an update on enrollee compliance with requirements of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR including enrollment for coverage, monthly reporting, SSMP certification, and completion of the collection system questionnaire_ A. Enrollment for Coverage The Sanitary Sewer System WDR requires any public entity that owns or operates a sanitary sewer system comprised of more than one mile of pipe or sewer lines that conveys wastewater 9 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 to a publicly owned treatment facility to apply for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. Since January 2008, the number of enrollees covered under the Sanitary Sewer System WDR has varied between 1090 and 1100 enrollees. Currently, 1091 agencies are enrolled for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. The total number of enrollees varies due to new applications for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer System WDR and cancellations of enrollment. Reasons for cancellations of enrollment include: (1) agency does not meet the application criteria (i.e., greater than one mile of sewer pipe and/or public entity) and enrolled erroneously; (2) duplicate enrollment due to submittal of multiple applications; or (3) errors in CIWQS data entry. Staff occasionally receives notifications from Regional Water Boards of sanitary sewer systems that were not notified of the requirements to apply for coverage under the Sanitary Sewer System WDR and that are therefore not enrolled. Staff is following up on these notifications with enforcement activities as described in section 2.F above. B. SSO Reporting A monthly SSO reporting compliance rate can be established by determining how many individual enrollees submitted either an SSO report or no spill certification for a given calendar month. Monthly reporting compliance rates are shown in Figure 2 below for the months of September 2007 to January 2010 and equals 68% since program inception. The monthly reporting compliance rate during the past year averages 79%. Enrollees Reporting SSOs or No Spill Certifications (Average: Overall = 68%, Feb. 09' to Jan. 10' = 79% } 100% 80 60 40% 20% 0% r. h N � co 00 m m m G Go m co m CO co rn a, rn rn rn rn rn rn rn o C? q O O O O O O O O O O O O O q q O q c 0 � L� a c 3 0) Cx G c fi 4 U o � Q ¢ ozQ } � Q � Q oz �� 11.1 d o Sap- Oct- Nov- Oec- Jan- Fe6- Mar- Apr- Mey- Jua- JW- Aug- Sep- Ocr- Nov- Dec- lan- Feh- Mar- Rpa May- Jun- .1W- aag- sep- Oct- Nav- Dec- .las- 07 07 07 a7 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 08 OB 08 08 08 09 OB O9 08 09 09 09 09 09 09 09 10 O Canpugnce 3g% 39% 40% 40% 41%1406162% 64% 796 806 79% 78% 77% 73% 75% 74% 58% 8f% 82% 81% 80% 80%180% 80% 79% 785' 77% 75% 71% Figure 3 — Enrollee Month-to-Month Compliance with Spill and No-Spill Reporting The current average monthly reporting compliance rate for the past year of 79% is less than the target level of 100%. Enforcement activities described in section 2.F above are being conducted to improve this compliance rate. 10 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 C. Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Development and Certification A reasonable amount of time is provided in the Sanitary Sewer System WDR for enrollees to develop their SSMPs with smaller communities having more time to complete their online CIWQS certification of required SSMP task elements than larger communities. Enrollees are required to certify that the final SSMPs are in compliance with the Sanitary Sewer System WDR within specified time frames. This certification is done electronically in the SSO database. Enrollees are required to obtain their governing board's approval at a public hearing for the plan for developing the SSMP and for the final SSMP certification. Enrollees do not send their SSMP to the State or Regional Water Boards for review or approval; however, they must make them available for review upon request. The CIWQS online certification system for the SSMP provides State and Regional Water Board staff the ability to continuously monitor compliance of enrollees with SSMP development deadlines. The current status of the SSMP certification requirements in the Sanitary Sewer System WDR is as follows: 39% of enrollees (425) have SSMP elements for which certification is not yet due. These will all be due on August 2, 2010. • 53% of enrollees (510) have certified some, but not all of their SSMP elements. • 13% of enrollees (147) have met all SSMP certification deadlines. • 17% of enrollees (184) have not certified any of their SSMP elements and these elements are now past due. * 38.6% of enrollees (421) have not met certification deadlines for one or more SSMP elements. Enforcement activities described in section 2.F above are being conducted to improve the SSMP compliance rates. D. Collection System Questionnaire The Sanitary Sewer System WDR requires enrollees to complete collection system questionnaires and update them every 12 months. The collection system questionnaire is a survey of an enrollee's organization and facilities. Enrollees are required to submit information on operating and capital expenditure budgets, miles of pipe, number of employees, and population served on the questionnaire. The purpose of this survey is to put the enrollee's SSMP and reported SSOs into context with organizational and facility characteristics. This is important because these characteristics have a significant impact on how an enrollee operates and maintains its sanitary sewer system. For example, population served represents the size of the rate paying base an enrollee has available from which to collect fees to operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system. Currently, 83% of enrollees (906) have completed the collection system questionnaire and updated it annually, 4% (37) have completed the questionnaire but have failed to annually 11 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 update it, and 13% (148) of enrollees have never completed the questionnaire. Enforcement activities described in section 2.F above are being conducted to improve the Questionnaire compliance rates. 4. SPILL DATA SUMMARY A. Statewide Reported Spill Data A summary of statewide SSO and PLSD discharge data reported by participating enrollees since reporting requirements became effective on January 2, 2007 is presented in Table 1 below. The Sanitary Sewer System WDR does not prohibit all SSOs, only those that reach surface water or that cause a nuisance. As defined in the California Water Code section 13050 (m) (2), to be considered a nuisance an SSO would have to affect an entire community or neighborhood. State Water Board staff are actively conducting checks and taking necessary actions to ensure the accuracy of the approximately 16,000 reported spill data records. Steps taken to ensure quality assurance and control include analysis of reported spills to identify erroneous data. When erroneous data are identified, the enrollee responsible for the data entry error is contacted and requested to correct it. #of Volume Total miles SSos Reaching Total Volume Percent Total of Laterals per Surface Total Volume Reached Percent Reached Total Miles Miles Enrollee 100 Water per #of Volume of Recovered Surface Water Recovered Surface Pressure Gravity Responsible miles 100 miles (� ,I SSOs ssos al al al Water Sewer Sewer far Sewer Sewer 15,718 55,340,238 13,783,909 45,381,460 25 82 17,619 177,033 17,673 7.4 21,374 Volume Volume Percent Reaching Total Total Volume Reached Percent Reached Total Miles #SSOs per 1 D Surface Water Number of Volume of Recovered S urface Water Recovered Surface Private miles of Private pe r 100 miles PLSI)s PLSps(gal) (gal) (gal) Water Laterals Laterals Private Laterals 2„244 1,579,156 555,234 795,277 35 50 4,478,506 0.05 18 Table 1 —Overall Statewide SSO and PLSD Reports (from 112107 to 1131110) The data summaries presented below are from analyses of data that staff has checked and have a high degree of confidence in. Staff will examine additional metrics when ongoing data cleanup by enrollees is completed, efforts to increase reporting become effective, and additional data is collected. Overall SSO Reduction Program performance from September 2, 2007, when all Water Board regions in the state were required to start reporting, to January 31, 2010 is illustrated in Figure 4 below. As illustrated on this figure, there was a significant reduction in the "spill volume” and "spill volume reaching surface water" from September 2, 2008 to September 1, 2009 compared 12 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 to September 2, 2007 to September 1, 2008. Currently, for the partial year from September 2, 2009 to January 31, 2010, both "spill volume" and "spill volume reaching surface water" are on track to exceed the volumes spilled from September 2, 2007 to September 1, 2008. The exact cause(s)for the reversal of the downward trend in spill numbers and spill volume after September 2009 is being evaluated by staff. This trend reversal may be due to a number of issues including changes in staffing due to the economic recession, changes in precipitation rates, and more thorough reporting. Annual SSO Rates r- .2 M 25 _........ O 9 20 ..._.............__ .... S E 15 Cd N a 5 ip c� a 5 �� o ........ _... �r 19 9/2/2007 - 9/1/2008 �o 59 9/2/2008 - 9/1/2009 0 1:19/2/2009 - 1/31/2010 Figure 4—2007 to 2010 Annual SSO Trends B. SSO and Private Lateral Sewage Discharge Trends The percentage of reported sewage spills that reached surface water by spill size class is presented in Figure 5 below. Of 15,718 reported spills, 2,980 reached surface water. Of these, 2,189 or approximately 74% were less than 1,000 gallons. The percentage of total sewage spill volume by spill size class that reached surface water is presented in Figure 6 below. Comparing Figures 5 & 6, 1.9% of spills account for 80.7% of the volume spilled to surface waters in the state since spill reporting was required. Also, 91.2% of the spills that occurred in the state since spill reporting was required account for only 4.5% of the spill volume that reached surface waters. 13 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 Percentage of Total Number of Spills Reaching Surface Water By Spill Size Class (Total =2,980 Spills Reaching Surface Water, 1/2/2007 to 113112010) 80.0% 73.5% ° N 70.0 Io '� 60.0 o , 50.0 40.0% 30.0% 17.7% � 20.0% Q z 10.0% 7.0% 1.6% 0.3% 0.0% -- E:1 F""�71 - I 0 to 999 Gallons 1,000 to 10,000 10,001 to 100,001 to >1,000,000 Gallons 100,000 Gallons 1,000,000 Gallons gallons Spill Size Class (Gallons) Figure 5— Percentage of Total Number of Spills that Reached Surface Water by Size Class' Percentage of Total Spill Volume Reaching Surface Water By Spill Size Class (1/2/2007 to 1/31/2010) 60.0% � 50.0% p y 50.0% rn 40.0% 30.7% a) 30.0% 20.0% ° c o 3.4% d > 10.0% 1.1 0.0% 0 to 999 Gallons 1,000 to 10,000 10,001 to 100,000 100,001 to >1,000,000 Gallons Gallons 1,000,000 Gallons gallons Spill Size Class (Gallons) Figure 6 — Percentage of Total Volume of Spills that Reached Surface Water by Size Class Examining the percentage of total number and volume of reported SSOs and PLSDs in the State by size class further illustrates the trends shown above for the SSOs and PLSDs reaching surface water. Ninety two percent of all SSOs and PLSDs in the State are less than 1,000 gallons, as illustrated in Figure 7 below. 14 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 Percentage of Total Number of Spills By Spill Size Class (11212007 to 113112010) 100% 92% F�0 •Q 80% d o 60% a� 40% 20% 6% ° W Z 2/0 0.4% 0.04% 0% 0 to 999 Gallons 1,000 to 10,000 10,001 to 100,000 100,001 to >1,000,000 Gallons Gallons 1,000,000 Gallons gallons Spill Size Class(Gallons) Figure 7 — Percentage of Total Number of Spills by Size Class Percentage of Total Spill Volume By Spill Size Class (11212007 to 113112010) 45% 41% ;? 40% 34% �° Q 35% o fn 30% - d o 25% 20% ° 15% 6% 10% 3% IL m ° 5 0% 0 to 999 Gallons 1,000 to 10,000 10,001 to 100,000 100,001 to >1,000,000 Gallons Gallons 1,000,000 Gallons gallons Spill Size Class (Gallons) Figure 8—Percentage of Total Volume of Spills by Size Class Of the total percentage of reported volume of SSO and PLSD spills in the State, 75% of the total volume results from just 0.44% of the SSO and PLSD events as illustrated in Figures 7 & 8. Also, only 9% of the reported volume of SSOs and PLSDs in the State results from 98% of SSO and PLSD spill events. C. Spill Causes The percentage of total SSO and PLSD spills reported by spill cause are presented in Figures 9 and 10 below. The data indicates that common and manageable causes (root intrusion, grease 15 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 deposition, debris) are responsible for 78% of all SSO spills and 60% of all PLSD spills. Number & Volume of SSOs by Cause 45% 40% — 35% . ........ ..... 30% ......... ........ ._ 25% .......- 20% 15% -- 10 5% ..............- -_ 0% oat @ `•° ¢ o c @ �@ M%° of Total #of SSOs ID% of Total SSO Volume Figure 9-Percent of Reported SSOs and Percent of Total Volume Spilled by Cause Number & Volume of PLSDs by Cause 40% .. 35% _. 30% u_ .... .... 25% 20% ......... ............... 15% — _ .............._..... 10% - 5% --. 0% ¢o 05 � 1 4, ao CQ'� i % of Total#of PLSDs of Total PLSD Volume Q`Q@ Figure 10- Percent of Reported PLSDs and Percent of Total Volume Spilled by Cause The "other" category noted in the charts includes the following causes for SSO and PLSD spills: unknown cause, multiple causes, vandalism, operator error, maintenance, improper 16 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 installation, valve failure, failure from diversion during construction, siphon failure, inappropriate discharge, and non-collection system related. D. Sewage Spills by Pipe Characteristics Pipe Diameter— SSO and PLSD report data indicates that 1) many enrollees are not reporting the sewer diameter in their reports (67% for SSOs and 73% for PLSDs) and 2)that at least 30% of SSOs and at least 27% of PLSDs occur in pipe sizes of 1-8". It is expected that smaller diameter pipes would be affected to a higher degree by the common causes of SSOs and PLSDs noted above (i.e., root intrusion, grease deposition, and debris). Sewer Age —SSO and PLSD report data indicates that 1) many enrollees are not reporting the sewer age in their reports (84% of SSOs and PLSDs reported) and 2) that at least 40% of the volume of SSOs and PLSDs occurs in pipes 11-45 years of age. In light of the common causes of SSOs and PLSDs noted above (i.e., root intrusion, grease deposition, and debris), it is expected that the rates and voumes of SSOs and PLSDs may not be closely correlated with pipe age versus if pipe failure where a leading cause. Pipe Material — SSO and PLSD report data indicates that 1) many enrollees are not reporting the sewer age in their reports (73% of SSOs and PLSDs reported) and 2) that at least 21% of the reported SSOs and PLSDs occur in vitrified clay pipes (VCP). This result is likely due to the prevalence of VCP in sanitary sewer systems piping in the state. increased thoroughness in reporting would help to clarify any relationship between pipe material and SSOs and PLSDs. Completeness of reporting by enrollees can be addressed by requiring submission of pipe characteristics in the Sanitary Sewer System WDR. At this time, this information is submitted voluntarily to the online reporting system. 17 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 E. Regional Spill Trends The reported percentage of total state population served by collection systems in each region is presented in Figure 11. The data indicates that the San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles, Central Valley (Sacramento), Santa Ana and San Diego Water Board regions account for most of the population served by collection systems in the state. The percentage of reported SSOs and PLSDs and spill volumes by Regional Water Board is also presented in Figure 11. The data indicates that: (1) the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley (Sacramento)Water Boards account for 64% of reported spills in the state (San Francisco Bay = 34%, and Central Valley (Sacramento) = 30%); and (2)that 91% of the reported spills occur in San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles, Central Valley, Santa Ana and San Diego Water Board regions. This result is consistent with the population served by sanitary sewer systems in these regions. This data indicates that increased compliance efforts in the San Francisco Bay, Los Angeles, Central Valley (Sacramento)Water Board regions may yield the best results for reduction of the number of SSOs and the volume of sewage spilled. Ongoing data quality control, cleanup, and collection efforts by staff are expected to improve the quality of spill data reported in the SSO online reporting system and allow additional trend analyses to be conducted with the data. These efforts will assist staff and enrollees in understanding the causes of sewage spills and in identifying collection system management and regulatory efforts yielding the greatest reductions in SSOs. REGIONAL SSO SPILL DATA (9/212007 to 1/3112010) 70% - E 60% _....................._ 50% ............ 3 40% - 30% ......_........ 0 20% 10% .................................. ...w 0% �4- �y� X05 �° \fig Go G*�G� v�\Co e� 5 �ea� �o� a�� z� c~mom a4 0 5 5 ` `' �° �° ❑ Population Served # of SSOs Region ®Volume of SSOs Figure 11 — Regional SSO Trends 18 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 F. Summary of Reported Spill Data SSO data collected to date indicates that 90% of the volume of sewage spilled in the State has occurred from only 52 out of 1,091 collection systems enrolled in the Sanitary Sewer Systems WDR. A summary of the top 20 collection systems responsible for the largest spill events (i.e., spills greater than 50,000 gallons) ranked from highest volume of sewage spilled to lowest volume of sewage spilled in the State since reporting was required is presented in Table 2 below. The change in ranking since the 2009 Annual Compliance Report is also noted. Where a "-" is noted in the 2009 rank, this indicates the collection system was not in the top twenty list in 2009. • of 2010 2009 Region Collection System Events Rank* Rank 2 Richmond City CS 21 1 4 9 Carlsbad MW D CS 1 2 1 2 San Mateo CS 19 3 2 5S Angels Camp CS 2 4 - 2 Town Of Hillsborough CS 6 5 3 2 San Bruno City CS 6 6 5 6A Susanville CSD CS 1 7 6 9 San Diego City CS 4 8 16 9 Rainbow Municipal Water Dist CS 1 9 8 9 City Of Laguna Beach CS 2 10 9 5S Sacramento Area Sewer District CS 1 11 - 2 Mt. View SD CS 1 12 11 5F City Of Visalia CS 1 13 12 5S Dry Creek, Zone 173 C5 1 14 13 2 Sonoma Valley County S.D. CS 5 15 14 5F City Of Bakersfield CS 1 16 15 9 City Of Vista C5 1 17 17 7 Coachella Valley Water District CS 2 18 18 2 Novato And Ignacio CS 3 19 19 9 Santa Rosa WRF-Recycled Wtr CS 2 20 20 * Rank 1 = highest volume spilled, Rank 20 = lowest volume spilled Table 2—Top Twenty Enrolled Collection Systems Ranked by Volume of Sewage Spilled 5. CONCLUSIONS Continuing outreach and education along with issuance of enforcement actions for Sanitary Sewer System WDR enrollment and reporting violations are being conducted to correct current enrollment and reporting deficiencies and achieve full participation of all applicable collection system agencies in the SSO Reduction Program. Current activities being conducted for the Sanitary Sewer System WDR review and update are expected to result in improved enforceability and clarification of elements of the Sanitary Sewer System WDR that will aid in its implementation by staff and stakeholders. Ongoing enhancements to the CIWQS SSO Module that are being developed by staff and 19 of 20 SSO Reduction Program: Annual Compliance Report, May 2010 stakeholders are expected to improve the quality of spill data collected and aid in analyses of spill trends and causes. These activities, along with current efforts to establish good indices of collection system performance, are expected to provide additional insight to direct staff actions that will reduce the number of SSOs and volume of sewage spilled in the state in the most efficient manner given available resources. Once full SSO Reduction Program participation is achieved, increased resources will be needed to fully address accuracy and completeness of spill reporting by enrollees_ These resources will be required either at the State or Regional Water Board level to conduct collection system audits. Currently, the limited staff resources provided for the SSO Reduction Program do not allow for extensive auditing activities. 20 of 20 V11. Attachment B t "14 PRICING QUOTE Vendor/Contractor Use for Purchases >$5,000 #1 #2 #3 Company dame: EEC RMC 2400 Broadway Location: 501 Parkcenter Dr Ste300 Santa Ana, CA Santa Monica, CA Phone: 714-667-2300 310-566-6460 Contact: Jim Kolk Michael Flores Date Contacted: 2.16-11 2-16-11 Qty Product/Service Price SSMP Self Audit $15,725.00 $20,240.00 VENDOR/CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDED: Environmental Engineering & Contracting (EEC) Supplies/Equipment— If the low bidder is not recommended, give reason(s) below: Due to time constraints for completinci the audit by April 28, a third bid was not obtained Services—Attach a summary of qualifications of person/company selected. Authorized Signature Date General Manager Signature Date ENGINEERING CONTRACTING, INC. 501 Parkcenter Drive,Santa Ana, CA 92705 Phone (714)667-2300 Fax (714)667-2310 www.eecworld.com February 21, 2011 Mr. Scott Carroll General Manager Costa Mesa Sanitary District 628 W. 19' Street Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Subject: Proposal for SSMP Program Audit Services Dear Mr. Carroll, Pursuant to your request, Environmental Engineering& Contracting, Inc. (EEC)is pleased to present this proposal to provide Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) audit services to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District(District). In compliance with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements(GWDR)for Sanitary Sewer Systems (State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-003-DWQ),-the District developed and implemented a comprehensive SSMP,with the primary objective of reducing and preventing Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs). A key requirement of the SSMP is that routine internal audits be performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSMP as well as the District's compliance with the SSMP elements. Based on our experience in the development and assessment of SSMPs in California, EEC is uniquely qualified to provide the internal self-audit services required to help ensure the District's continued compliance with the GWDR. SCOPE OF SERVICES EEC Proposed the following scope of services: Preparation for Internal Audit EEC will coordinate and facilitate a Kick-Off meeting with District Management and relevant Staff to discuss the purpose and intent of the audit.The Kick-Off meeting will provide an explanation of the audit process and offer an opportunity for staff to ask questions. EEC will identify the initial documents and data necessary for the audit and the group will identify the appropriate Staff responsible for providing the documents/data. It is anticipated that a single two-hour Kick-Off meeting will be required. Deliverables: + Facilitate Audit Kick-Off Meeting • Initial documentation and data request Documentation/Data Review (Desktop Review) EEC will review all provided documentation and data including: Soil Groundwater + Audits + Wastewater + Stormwater + US a Engineering + Remediabon a Construction EEC—CMSD SSMP Internal Audit February 23,2011 • Historical SSO Data • Sewer Maintenance Data(line cleaning, inspections, repair,etc.) • SSMP • Municipal Code • Master Plans • Other Relevant Documents (Design Standards,Procedures, etc.) This desktop review is intended to provide the audit team with an overview of the District's SSMP program. Through this review,EEC will identify the areas that appear to be in compliance with the GWDR as well as any areas that may be deficient. This review will serve as the basis for the development of staff interview needs and questionnaires. Deliverables: • Questionnaires to be utilized for Staff interviews Staff Interviews and Operations/Work Practice Review EEC will work with District staff to develop and coordinate a schedule for audit interview sessions. Interviews will be conducted with Management,Engineering Staff,Field Staff,Data Management Staff,Plan Review Staff,and other support staff as needed. Staff interviews will focus on the procedures,documents and records as well as the work practices and operations supporting the SSMP program. It is anticipated that 6- 10 interview session will be needed(approximately 1 session per SSMP section),with each session lasting 1- 2 hours. An additional 2-4 field interview sessions will be conducted to make observation of field activities and procedures. These sessions are anticipated to last from 2-4 hours. Deliverables: • Interview Schedule • Conduct 6-10 Interview Sessions • Conduct 2-4 Field Interview Sessions Report EEC will compile the notes,observations and findings gathered through the audit process into a draft report for management review and comment. In addition to the strengths and program elements in full compliance with the program, the report will identify any areas of nonconformance with the SSMP and/or GWDR. Recommendations for corrective actions to address the identified deficiencies will be provided in a format suitable for on-going tracking of corrective actions by the District. Where applicable, the draft report will also include identified"non-regulatory"recommendations for improvements that could further enhance the efficiency or effectiveness of the CMSD SSMP program. EEC will prepare a fnaI report,including incorporation of comments received from the District's review. The"non-regulatory"recommendations for program enhancements will be excluded from the final. report. EEC will also prepare and conduct a presentation of the final report to the District Board of Directors. Deliverables: • Draft Report 2 EEC—CMSD SSMP Internal Audit February 23.2011 + Final Report + Corrective Action Tracking Spreadsheet • Presentation of Final Report to District Board of Directors COST ESTIMATE EEC will provide the aforementioned scope of work on a Fixed Fee basis of$15,725 that will be billed upon completion with payment terms of net 30 days. This work will be conducted pursuant to EEC's Standard Terms & Conditions (attached). If there is an authorized change in scope, the additional services will be billed according to the Fee Schedule(attached). It is anticipated that this work can be completed within.4-6 weeks and EEC is available to start within 2 weeks of District approval(signed acceptance,purchase order or contract). Thank you again for this opportunity to provide these professional services to the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. If you have any questions,please call me at(714) 667-2300. Sincerely, Environmental Engineering and Contracting,Inc. Jim Kolk Project Manager II ACCEPTANCE If the proposed scope of work,costs of services,and payment terms stated herein meet with your approval, please acknowledge acceptance of same and initiate authorization to proceed by signing and faxing a copy of this document to 714-667-2310 or scanning and e-mailing a signed copy to jkolk(a7eecworld.corn. Print Name Print Title Signature Date 3 EPc GINEERING & CO T"I AC'1"I$G, INC. 501 Parkoenler Drive,Santa Ana,CA 92705 Vii' 9 Phony(714)667-2300 Fax(714)867-2310 2411 Fee Schedule Prior to the commencement of services provided by EEC a Professional Service Agreement, Contract, Purchase Order,or Commitment Letter must be executed by both parties engaged. PERSONNEL CHARGES Travel The charge for all time required for the performance of Vehicles used on project assignments will be the Scope of Work, including office, field and travel charged at $50 per day. Mileage is billed at the time, will be billed at the hourly rate according to the current rate established by the Internal Revenue labor classifications set forth below: Service plus mark up. Per Diem is billed at a unit cost of$50 per day. Airfare, lodging, rental cars and associated expenses are billed at cost plus mark up. Labor Classification hourly Rate Staff Engineer/Geologist/Scientist $95 Sr Staff Engineer/Geologist/Scientist $105 Field Equipment Project Engineer/Geotogist/Scientist-1 $125 Field Equipment is billed at standard unit costs. Rate Project Engineer/Geologist/Scientist-11 $135 schedules are available upon request. Sr Project Engineer/Geologist/Scientist-1 $160 Sr Project Engineer/Geologist/Scientist- 11 $180 Principal Geologist $205 Subcontractors and Reimbursables Principal $205 The costs of subcontractors, materials, equipment Project Assistant $75 rental and costs Incurred will be charged at cost plus Technician $85 15%. Drafter $95 Sr Technician $95 Compliance Inspector $95 Other Project Charges GIS Analyst $95 The cost of additional report reproduction and GIS, IT Supervisor $125 special project accounting will be billed as Construction Technician $65 appropriate. Plotting plans are charged by size, Construction Field Supervisor $85 black and white or color, and by the number of Construction Manager $90 copies supplied. Sr Construction Manager $115 Shipping and Postage Emergency response and client requested work during Shipping charges include couriers and the postage non-standard business hours will be charged at a rate necessary will be charged at cost plus markup. of 1.25 times the standard hourly rate. Interest Charges When EEC Staff appear as expert witnesses at court Interest on late payments will be charged at the rate trials, mediation, arbitration hearings and depositions, of 1.5%per month. their time will be charged at 2.0 times the standard rate. All time spent preparing for such trials, hearings, and depositions,will be charged at the standard hourly rate. Payment Terms Net 30 days apply to all work performed and invoiced unless superseded by a specific executed contract. This Fee Schedule is adjusted each subsequent year to reflect the economic changes for the new year.The new schedule will apply to existing and new assignments. Sal + Grouidwater + Air + 'AJBs(mler s Storrnvialer 4 GIS 0 Erdneerii.g + Remedla ion 41 CG.%s rucboi Scope of Services frfhi e� w, er an cnc E??vironm eii COSTA MESA SANITARY DISTRICT Subject: Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Audit Prepared For: Scott Carroll, CMSD Prepared by: Michael Flores Date: February 22, 2011 This documegt describes RMC's proposed Scope of Services to assist with the implementation of the District's SSMP and other strategies in FY11-12 to comply with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements(WDR)issued by the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB). 1 Scope of Services Task 1 —Project Management and Quality Assurance/Quality Control—$1,830 RMC will monitor project budget, labor hours expended, and schedule on a weekly basis throughout the project; prepare invoices on a monthly basis; and administer sub-consultant and any vendor contracts, to the extent they are needed. A kickoff meeting will be held with District staff at the beginning of the project,and telephone and email communications will be conducted to address project status and issues. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC) procedures will include review of all key deliverables by senior RMC staff not involved in the day-to-day work on the project. Task 2—SSMP Audit -$18,410 The purpose of this task is to prepare an audit of the District's Sanitary Sewer Management Plan to satisfy the requirements of the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements(WDR)for Sanitary Sewer Systems(Order No. 2006-003-DWQ). A summary of the work to be performed includes: Document Review: RMC will review the following documents.Note that RMC is already familiar with the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for Sanitary Sewer Systems(Order No. 2006-003-DWQ)and best management practices. This background will be used in conjunction with the District's specific documents. 1) Sewer System Management Plan 2)Applicable SOPS and references from the SSMP 3)Previous reports and findings Audit Process Review Meeting: At the beginning of the audit,the procedures,schedule and additional planning will be discussed with the District project manager and appropriate personnel.The proposed audit checklist will be discussed and RMC will incorporate comments into the final audit process. Staff Interviews: Staff interviews will be over three consecutive days. RMC may follow up with District staff to ask for clarification on information provided. Audit Report: RMC will consolidate comments and complete audit reporting as follows: 1)RMC will prepare a draft audit report for the District. One approach that RMC has used successfully is to prepare a detailed audit report for internal use only. This can present more detail and discussion than Febuary 20,2011 1 Costa Mesa Sanitary District SSMP Audit Scope of Services required by the WDR requirements,with identification of the information that would typically be included in the official report. 2)District staff would review and provide comments on the draft audit report 3)RMC prepares final audit report for District. Audit Findings Presentations: RMC will present the audit findings to District staff and the District Board: 1)RMC will present findings to District staff at a closing conference. 2)RMC will present final findings to District Board, Task 2 Deliverables • Draft SSMP Audit Report • Final SSMP Audit Report 2 Project Schedule This scope of services will be conducted from March 1, 2011 through April 28, 2011. The tentative schedule for the scope of services is listed below. Task Project Schedule Task 1 --Project Management March 2011 —Apri[2011 Task 2—SSMP Audit March 20*11 —April 2011 3 Budget The total estimated level of effort and cost for the SSMP Audit services is$20,240. February 22,2011 2 o m C, � to �-, m _ S]fp 1n v)N fN U4 f9 69 EH 69 Wp C mm V- U3 N .. CD r ! r ^! m4ro N cLp tQp oN LO n W y Nr QNN� Cc ca Q � L i Lo � @mQ} C N CS th V N W ` a 7 ,.,,..fit......;.. c _ � I N U N C m S71 ai w 9 m h to 8 2 04 T � E m 0 L a m mW m mo L @� � OMM m N > D cn ,b � o� d �o L Q ¢ C: d, U Wa ca' iT ro m fps Or ,w 0 o m z 2 m cl) Q'g [V IV N�V - [J(V U h V r r a ri VIII. Innovations Sewer in Maintenance i MEMO / Presented By: Jose L. Villalobos, P.E. V&A Consulting Engineers Inc. P.O.Box 509 Eau Claire.Wl 54702-0509 r This manual was created for online viewing.State specific information in this manual is used for illustration and is an example only. Learning Objectives At the end of this program,participants will be able to: You will be able to review best practsces of sewer maintenance past and present. You wilt be abie to identify recent innovations in the field of sewer condition assessment, operation and maintenance. You will be able to describe proact€ve measures in the areas of condition assessment, operation and maintenance of sanitary sewers. You will be able to explain the recent interest in looking at sanitary sewers in terms of asset management. � o z 0� Topics Covered i 1 4 i Cleaning Equipment I J � i t 4 1 i Cleaning Equipment i g 6 Cleaning Equipment r un 1r Cleaning Equipment I . .�... i -. 7 Digital Data 1 E I� l Digital Data P.� i s�iraafiryiw cmy�e.on 8 Digital Data Hydraulic Models Cdr 9 Sulfide Modeling i I �ffI If 1 °A rmuiwe0re.alvw som�yloaml gas a=aa. ai mae a ay P o 16 0.B tFW 0,2 10 Sulfide Modeling i ��,� �� r ✓ �r/k / '%i/'i� r�j'j'�i% p pD.7-Q7 D.6-a7 0.3-0.6 ��iJ y'''�� j j��%i � dnij//✓i ffi Suicide Production in Sewer Systems Transfer of H2 to PlPe wall Oxidation to Sulfuric Acid H2St202 H2SO4 D H2S E;ntertng The Air °° P e wall 11 Flow Monitoring Equipment II i 4 1 Sewer System Evaluation - a marwe h j Ve1ccRY Sensor 1 Nomd Wpslreo=)Pmfflcn I l FLOW 12 Flow Monitoring Bill i l l 1 l; Basin W51 Real[ima I!I FIOw Baseline M Hovoy R.", 4 0 Storm Event No.1:3.79 inches 000 i Site E30 Total III;1.Zd1,000 Gallons 070 - a - t i 1 - r - _ - 010 060 f , _ 1 020 1 ! i s o.30€ is DSO i 0.40 D40 v 030 0 69 0 20 000- 090 12128 12129 r1 rN30 12+31 IN 112 V3 M 1!5 116 117 118 179 �I 13 Inflow/infiltration - Basin Selection 9a5"n o a. I� Areas of High Ground Water lJ� / i l 14 Pipe Age/Material �Vuu� 4 ,� a IIIIIIIIIIIII �, y� 1� Condition Assessment 112 111 r 1 r 15 Condition Assessment ibo i; M � A Condition Assessment ti 1 1 16 Condition Assessment —W'W 99 — — — S 33 7� iZ -, .... __.._.. 6 �ryy 3 p HM ZR �#ZIS765{8� �n 9t qr w a s a s s a I.., 88800� 88k38ffi = m = ^- 73RRfBS6 ��3 r. st�x�x uMa „ Initial Reconnaissance III, IN � � 1 17 Condition Assessment it b�,� r D . ✓,��;a Vtt ,- � �� '%A(t�� r Typical Flow Monitoring Data w.RdlRp�blsa L•lv.W1aM4 Mnch 91 ildu AeYil7.m65 Tu N SH it Im W MN M .4 k R I2PGAdE6f1'iN. 4.16 MOD _ Peak Rtca56ed Flprr 607 MOD _-.�_.._. PezktuBasrJiz Ra16 176 L P+x x.w,nx nn,en x lI _ R h A hM.n m� u I.ai,rr M: s .,... U U -J `li 4 x� : �: n•»tea:. uau uum �u 18 Condition Assessment ®� -7 -> 52-0 0-6 i fy RCP 73 I p � u &. Condition Assessment r 1 i �y t �f 19 Inversion Linings ( � I � � ) { } Concrete Structures « �\ .mom w �\ 20 Concrete & Steel Structures 4' E�di Concrete Structures 1 m/ 21 Concrete Structures �t Ji + µ 1 Flit,ll' � � ' �: f Concrete Structures 1 u � '� 22 Levels of Corrosion - Concrete Conti Men tM rlpllon Nnpto g.pba !. RaSng Fhpipgnpb NolA W—)Damage b C—.t. 1 1 HartlM='ne loss b hareness M mprlar Laral i 9mno:hness no loss o<smaalhnns I cmNang no maaxa 8oxbng na sgai ng wi Damage to cpn—Menar Hardncaa•epmp loaa�habrc•:..m manar Laval s smnoUnnas emaneamelar a�wes.tl aggn;pate SpSp aYng IhumbnalFa¢otl ands of mintmal keaursr¢y I. elling.shallow spaNrq of mrNma[Ir yuer y,no mlaletl rcbar tlanuge RGMarCirg sleep mey c9 es�xeJ but rcl aarra lea awrraaea Lars d Gancrete McJanDamnga la Rsinfordrp Steal6r /. 7 iiaMrcss mq�ele loss of ha*tlnes of molar I � I gmaalnness-largwdiametal earp:eJ aggega+a bl Level 3 CraGd g'%.Ircn b%.inch craskc.motleraln S fregWW ( 1 pallirg:Jeep apa6 ng o[motlercle lrcquamY,relale6 rebar tlamage R4res0"tl2n sleek es +i.tlamSgeJ arW weeded.but relrsd Table � !s� .r.,,�" J Wbar Baver¢3y COrrotlndNlgnMUOl Dnmage as 8aunurc 1C�rta I Hardness wmpkte lost of hertlness of mater Lavnl d Smoothness;largedaanelor eaersed aggregate Ga Fuggy%dmn oa zor greater.high keanen-� Spalllrg donp spalhngal high Irequanry,mW.rebsr damage , ReNlmamg¢leer mnetleJ n mnSU+nea.lp55 I singwmi�lue9^0' 7d T01#Y&4 CansuHing E�grnearc,ma.Nlhghi reserv¢a Condition Assessment M I I f t rl 23 Confined Space Entry with CCTV y> %� a�3 : . . , 22,131 Condition Assessment uCa. lj Sonar r b. _d w, 25 Laser Pro-Filing IN f a Y Technologies ,r I 26 PPIC - Sahara P"im Dm r , a ware a aan i ri r "i o n, i ,r, �n w . l a I Pure Technologies - SmartBall peCection System P�r swplr raKroprocasnor Memory VI{'�fl Il r P-W li 4'empttatiiro RWOtia+ , 8c»or Senor A¢aees.�hc Srne,o 27 Future Technologies r T i I r. 28 IX. -CT COS 9YESA. t-5-A9VYTAR(YD1YVR1 . . . Pct Memorandum To: Sewer System Committee Via: Scott Carroll, General Manager ° -- From: Robin B. Hamers, District Engineer Date: March 15, 2011 Subject: Proposed Emergency Services Agreements for (2) Traffic Control Companies Summary The District's emergency response plans include implementing traffic control to insure workplace safety and to satisfy the requirements of the governing agencies owning the streets where District sewers are located. These agencies include the City of Costa Mesa, City of Newport Beach, County of Orange and Caltrans. To properly design and implement traffic control during an emergency, staff recommends executing the CMSD standard emergency services agreements with two local traffic control companies. Staff Recommendation That the Sewer System Committee approves the recommendation of executing the enclosed standard Costa Mesa Sanitary District Emergency Services Agreements with Coastal Traffic Systems and California Barricade AnalVsis Successful emergency response begins with the ability to quickly mobilize Costa Mesa Sanitary District staff and licensed and qualified contractors who have expertise in the appropriate areas of work. In 1998-1999, the District entered into emergency services agreements with small and large pipeline construction companies, pumping station contractors, manhole contractors, and sewer cleaning and televising companies. Protecting our community s health and tfie environment by providing soizdwaste andse-wer codectioii services. uww.crosdca,gov Sewer Committee March 15, 2011 Page 2 of 2 In the last few years, governing agencies have imposed stricter traffic control requirements and specialty traffic control companies have grown from this requirement. During the March 8, 2011 force main break on the Canyon Pumping Station force main, the break was in a driving lane on Wilson Street and large 5,000 gallon tanker trucks were driving up and down Wilson Street emptying the wet well while the line was being repaired. Had the necessity arisen of closing the street and detouring traffic onto side streets, the District would have required the services of a traffic control company. Besides the ability to quickly mobilize a talented work force, entering into an emergency services agreement is in the best interest of the District because we will now have proper insurances on file, indemnification provisions in force, and other protections for the District. Strategic Plan Element & Goal This item complies with Strategic Plan Element 1 .0, Sewer Infrastructure and it complies with the strategy of this element, which states: "We will do this be the careful management of the collection infrastructure using prudent planning and maintenance, with financial strategies to maintain sufficient capacity and respond to changing regulatory demands." Legal Review District counsel has reviewed and updated the 1998 version of the agreement and has signed the proposed agreements attached hereto. Financial Review The cost for traffic control measures from California Barricade is $770 per day and $1,330 per night. The cost for Coastal Traffic System is $1,770 per day or night. Public Notice Process Copies of this report are on file and will be included with the entire agenda packet for the March 15 Sewer System Committee regular meeting at District Headquarters and on the District website. Alternative Actions 1 . Do not enter into emergency services agreements. 2. Refer the matter back to staff for additional information. Attachment B `i PRICING QUOTE Vendor/Contractor Use for Purchases>$5,000 #1 #2 #3 Company Name: Coastal Traffic California No Other Systems, Inc. Barricade Bidders 1550 E. St. Location: 1261 Logan Avenue Gertrude Place, Costa Mesa,CA Santa Ana, CA 92626 92705 Phone: 714-352-8318 714-558-3821 Contact: Scott Reynolds Julie Escobar Date Contacted: March 9,2011 March 9,2011 Qty Product/Service Price Provide traffic control on Bristol St. between Irvine and Birch C--HhD-'10 R P3-1-,-ro $1,770.00 $1,330.00 y VENDOR/CONTRACTOR RECOMMENDED: California Barricade Supplies/Equipment—If the low bidder is not recommended, give reason(s) below: Services r, Attach a summary of qualifications of person/company selected. -T41 10 �! Autho ized Signature Date General Manager Signature Date 1550 E. Saint Gertrude Place CA L 1 F 0 #? M 1A Santa Ana, CA 92705 RRICADE Toll Free (800)327-8844 Phone (714)558-8474 Fax (794)558-3821 Proposal — February 8, 2011 Yefim Tsalyuk Costa Mesa Sanitary District Re: CMSD#129 Bristol St. Sewer Replacement Bristol St. Between Irvine Ave. & Birch St. 2 Borings) Prevail➢1n Wa a Service Item. Price Monitored Single Lane Closure Includes 1 technician, 1 arrow board and all necessary traffic control devices $ 770.001 day based upon the scope of work. -or- Please note overtime ex lana6on below $1330.00 I night Overtime Rate—Prevailing Wage Prevailing Wage overtime rates apply if job exceeds 8 hours on the job site. $ 85.001 hour I tech Overtime Rate—Standard Standard overtime rates apply to off site hours if job exceeds 8 hours including $ 70.001 hour travel time for mobilization and demobilization, port to port. !tech • bay Work: Between the hours of 7AM-4PM. Night Work: Between the hours of 4PM-7AM. • This quote is a preliminary quote based on the details provided. It is subject to revision if the scope of work changes. • This quote is valid 30 days. Thank you. Yefim, thank you for contacting California Barricade for your traffic control needs. We are pleased to present this proposal and cook forward to the opportunity of working with you on this project. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call. Sincerely, J I' scobar r,, s "Yefim 1"Jeff1"Tsalyuk"<itfeng @verizon.net> Fwd:CMSD#129 Bristol St.Sewer Peplacement February 9, 2011 2:12:05 PM PST a: Rob Hamers<robh2@cox.neb Rob, here is the second quote for traffic control. Yefim. ------ Forwarded message--------- From: Scott Reynolds <scott(Pcoastaltraffic.com> Date:Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:41 PM Subject: Re:CMSD#129 Bristol St. Sewer Peplacement To: itfen @verizon.net Hi Jeff sorry our system has been down today and I was out yesterday. But as for pricing it will be$650 for the single lane closure and $1,120.00 for the two techs for up to 8hrs. So a grand total of$1,770.00 for one night/day for up to 8hrs. I can type something up as soon as our server is back up if you need me to. Please call me if you have any questions.Thank you. Scott Reynolds Project Manager Cell 714) 824-0604 Coastal Traffic Systems, Inc. Sent from my HTC on the Now Network from Sprint! ----- Reply message----- From: "Yefim 1"Jeff1"Tsalyuk"<itfenq @verizon.net> Date:Tue, Feb 8, 2011 1.29 pm Subject: CMSD #129 Bristol St. Sewer Peplacement To: "Scott Reynolds"<scott @coastaitraffic.com> Please revise the quote for traffic control supporting the soils investigation. The soils engineer will provide 2 borings along Bristol St. between Irvine Ave& Birch St. closer to the curb on the southerly side of the road. Two borings will be somewhere close to both intersections but can be far enough to minimize the cost of traffic control. The work can be done at night or morning.Once again,the prevailing wages do apply to this quote. Yefim Tsalyuk Costa Mesa Sanitary District cell 94-468-9840 On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Scott Reynolds<scott@coastaltraffic.com>wrote: > Is this project Prevailing Wage? > Xll. Canyon PS f=orce Main Rehabilitation Method Open Cut CIPP Pipe Bursting GCI $166,610 $117,429 $181,596 Spiniello none >$150,000 $149,500 Charles King Co. $187,989 $98,953y7 none w/o traffic control w/o traffic control plan plan Sancon none $35,200 none w/o traffic control & bypass WA Rasic Const. $255,746 none $234,048