The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution No. 2009-20 - Sewer System Management Plan for th T fi\ Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: App ved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Ci er 's gnature Council Meeting Date: 4/6/2009 Departme D Number: PW 09-12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINIST PREPARED BY: TRAVIS K. HOPKINS PE DIRECTO OF �CWORKS SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Approving the Sewer System Management Plan S tatement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 requires local governing board adoption of the Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) . Funding Source: No funding is necessary for this action. Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt Resolution No. 2009-20 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting a Sewer System Management Plan. Alternative Action(s): Do not adopt the resolution and direct staff on how to proceed. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/6/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PW 09-12 Analysis: In 2002, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) issued Order No. R8-2002-0014 which required the City to develop several programs to prevent sanitary sewer overflows. The final deliverable to meet this Order was the development of a Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) which was completed on September 30, 2005. In 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board issued Order No. 2006-0003, which is substantially verbatim to the SARWQCB Order, to cover the entire state. By virtue of the City's compliance with the SARWQCB Order, only minimal effort was required to meet the requirements as stipulated in the State's Order. However, the State Order requires that the SSMP be adopted by the local governing board, while the SARWQCB Order did not. Therefore, the previously prepared SSMP has been updated to bring it in compliance with the State Order. A copy of the Sewer System Management Plan of the City of Huntington Beach dated April 2009, is on file in the office of the City Clerk, and at the Public Works Department. Public Works Commission Action: No action required. Strategic Plan Goal: (1-1) Improve the City's plan for funding and completing infrastructure needs, and develop strategies for resolving crucial infrastructure problems to preserve the physical foundation of the community and enable the community's value to grow. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachment(s): NumberCity ClerWs Page ® -Description, 1. Resolution No. 2009-20 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting a Sewer System Management Plan. -2- 3/20/2009 8:33 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2009-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, all sewer treatment and collection agencies must develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan which must be approved by the governing board at a public meeting; and The City Council has received and reviewed the document entitled Sewer System Management Plan for the City of Huntington Beach dated April 2009 ("SSMPHB"), a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. The SSMPHB contains elements which provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of the sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and cost benefit analysis. Additionally, the SSMPHB contains a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to a sanitary system overflow in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions; and The SSMPHB has been available for public inspection and review prior to consideration of this resolution by the City Council after a public hearing, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the above recitals are true and correct, and are hereby accepted and approved. 09-1984/31118 1 Resolution No. 2009-20 2. That the Sewer System Management Plan of the City of Huntington Beach dated April 2009, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of April , 2009. ayor REVIEWED PPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Ad for Director of Public orks APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1/0 �- City Attorney 09-1984/31118 2 Res. No. 2009-20 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on April 6, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Dwyer, Green, Bohr, Coerper, Hardy, Hansen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City cUrk and ex-officio CIM of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared by: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 April 2009 ABBREVIATIONS /ACRONYMS AB Assembly Bill BAT Best Available Technology BC Brown and Caldwell BMP Best Management Practice CCTV Closed-Circuit Television CFR Code of Federal Regulations CIP Capital Improvement Program CM Corrective Maintenance CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System CWEA California Water Environment Association ERP Emergency Response Plan FSE Food Service Establishment FOG Fats, Oils, and Grease GPS Global Positioning System I/I Inflow/ Infiltration IERP Integrated Emergency Response Plan MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program O&M Operation and Maintenance OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OES Office of Emergency Services its Order State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No. 2006-0003 Pd Predictive Maintenance PM Preventative Maintenance PMP Preventative Maintenance Program R&R Rehabilitation and Replacement RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SOP Standard Operating Procedure or Standard Maintenance Procedure SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow and any sewer spill or overflow of sewage SSMP Sewer System Management Plan WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant EXECUTIVESUMMARY ............................................................... ...................................I l PROHIBITIONS AND PROVISIONS............................................................................................2 SECTION1 —GOALS ......................••---.....................----...•--................-•.-------•--•-•----•--••-••..............6 SECTION2 —ORGANIZATION......................•............................................................................7 SECTION 3 —LEGAL AUTHORITY............................................................................................9 SECTION 4—OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM..........................................11 SECTION 5 —DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS ................................................13 SECTION 6—OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN...............................................14 SECTION 7— FOG CONTROL PROGRAM...............................................................................15 SECTION 8 — SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN..................16 SECTION 9—MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, & PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS...........18 CHAPTER 10—PROGRAM AUDITS.........................................................................................19 CHAPTER 11 —COMMUNICATIONS...................................................................................................20 Appendicies SSW Development Plan Outline Appendix A - State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No. 2006-0003 Appendix B - Municipal Codes Appendix C - FOG Control Program Appendix D - Preventative Maintenance Program Appendix E - Training Certificates Appendix F - Overflow Emergency Response Plan Appendix G - FOG Impact Study Appendix H - BMP Training Manual for Food Service Establishments Appendix I - 2003 Sewer Master Plan Appendix J - 2008 Sewer Capacity Analysis Appendix K - Sewer Lift Station Priority List Appendix L - Public Outreach EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) addresses the prevention and cleanup of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). All sewage collection agencies in the State of California are required to comply with the"State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No. 2006-0003" (Order) Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems. The purpose of the Order is to prevent SSOs, and to provide a plan and schedule for measures to be implemented to prevent SSOs, as well as measures to effectively clean up and report the spills. The Order requires that we properly fund, manage, operate, and maintain the sewage collection system for which we are responsible. We must use trained staff(and/or contractors) possessing adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities to complete necessary collection system work. The essence of this Order is as follows: ® Agencies must proactively manage the systems they operate in a way that prevents spills. N In the event of a spill, lack of funds, failure to acquire infonnation that could have been collected, failure to apply the latest practicable technology, poorly trained staff, or ignorance should not be a defense. Agencies must fully comply with this Order, and failures could bring about SWRCB action, regardless of whether or not a spill has occurred. This SSMP report is organized to correspond to the sections of the Order. The report consists of 11 Sections. In general, each chapter begins with a summary of Order requirements, followed by ,- these subsections: ® Compliance Summary—A description of how compliance was achieved a Compliance Documents—A listing of source documents that support compliance and their locations In 2005, the City prepared an SSMP plan in compliance with Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. R8-2002-0014. That order was subsequently rescinded on December 1, 2006 by Order R8-2002-0014. This document has been updated to bring the City's SSMP in compliance with the State Order. 1 PROHIBITIONS AND PROVISIONS Prohibitions (Section C of the Order) 1. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States is prohibited. 2. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater that creates a nuisance as defined in California Water Code Section 13050(m) is prohibited. Provisions (Section D of the Order) 1. The enrollee 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. It is the intent of the State Water Board that sanitary sewer systems be regulated in a manner consistent with the general WDRs. Nothing in the general WDRs shall be: i. Interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the Federal clean Water Act, or supersede a more specific or more stringent sate offederal _--- requirement in an existing permit, regulation, or administrative/judicial Corder of Consent Decree; ii. Interpreted or applied to authorize an SSO that is illegal under either the Clean Water Act, an applicable Basin Plan prohibition or water quality standard or the California Water code; iii. Interpreted or applied to prohibit a Regional Water Board from issuing an individual NPDES permit or WDR, superseding this general WDR,for sanitary sewer system, authorized under the Clean Water Act or California Water Code; or iv. Interpreted or applied to supersede any more specific or more stringent WDRs or enforcement order issued by a Regional Water board. 2. Discharges Caused by Other Factors—For SSOs other than those covered under these provisions, the permittee may establish an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance if the discharger 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 2 maintenance,preventive maintenance; or installation of adequate backup _T equipment; and iv. The permittee took all reasonable steps to stop, and mitigate the impact of, the discharge as soon as possible. 3. The Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to eliminate SSOs. In the event that an SSO does occur, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate the impacts of an SSO. 4. In the event of an SSO, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to prevent untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging from storm drains, flood control channels or waters of the United States by blocking the storm drainage system and by removing the wastewater from the storm drains. S. All SSOs must be reported in accordance with Section G of the general WDRs. 6. In any enforcement action, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will consider the appropriate factors under the duly adopted State Water Board Enforcement Policy. And, consistent with the Enforcement Policy, the State and/or Regional Water boards must consider the Enrollee's efforts to contain, control. and mitigate SSOs when considering the California Water Code Section 1327.factors. In assessing these factors, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will also consider whether: i. The Enrollee has complied with the requirements of this Order, including requirements for reporting and developing and implementing a SSMP; ii. The Enrollee can identify the cause of likely cause of the discharge event; iii. There were no feasible alternatives to the discharge, such as temporary storage or retention of untreated wastewater, reduction of ii flow and infiltration, use of adequate backup equipment, collecting and hauling of untreated wastewater to a treatment facility, or an increase in capacity of the system as necessary to contain the design storm event identified in the SSMP. It is inappropriate to consider the lack of feasible alternatives, if the Enrollee does not implement a periodic or continuing process to identify and correct problems. iv. The discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporarv, and caused by factors beyond the reasonable control of the Enrollee, v. The discharge could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable control described in a certified SSrVP-for-: • Proper management, operation and iaintenance; 3 • Adequate treatment facilities, sanitary sewer system facilities, and/or components with an appropriate design capacity, to reasonably prevent SSOs (e.g., adequately enlarging treatment or collection facilities to accommodate growth, infiltration and inflow(III), etc_); • Preventive maintenance (including cleaning and fats, oils, and grease (FOG) control); • Installation of adequate backup equipment; and • Inflow and infiltration prevention and control to the extent practicable. vi. The sanitary sewer system design capacity is appropriate to reasonably prevent SSOs. vii. The enrollee took all reasonable steps to stop and mitigate the impact of the discharge as soon as possible. 7. When a sanitary sewer overflow occurs, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps and necessary remedial actions to 1) control or limit the volume of untreated or partially treated wastewater discharged, 2) terminate the discharge, and 3) recover as much of the wastewater discharged as possible for proper disposal, including any wash down water. 8. The Enrollee shall properly, manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee, and shall ensure that the system operators (including employees, contractors, or other agents) are adequately trained an possess adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities. 9. the Enrollee shall allocate adequate resources for the operation, maintenance and repair of its sanitary sewer system, by establishing a proper rate structure, accounting mechanisms, and auditing procedures to ensure an adequate measure Of revenues and expenditures. These procedures must be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and comply with generally acceptable accounting practices. 10. The Enrollee shall provide adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak flows, including flows related to wet weather events. Capacity shall meet or exceed the design criteria as defined in the Enrollee's System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan for all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee. 11. The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting. 4 12. In accordance with the California business and Professions Code sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1 all engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments shall ` be performed by or under the direction of registered professional competent and proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Specific elements ofthe SSMP that require professional evaluation and judgments shall be prepared by or under the direction of appropriately qualified professionals, and shall bear the professionals signature and stamp. 13. The mandatory elements of the SSMP are specified below. However, if the Enrollee believes that any element of this section is not appropriate or applicable to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system, the SSMP program does not need to address that element. The Enrollee must justify what that element is not applicable. The SSMP must be approved by the deadline listed in the SSMP Time Schedule below. The elements of the SSMP are elaborated on in the Sections following. i. Goals ii. Organization iii. Legal Authority iv. Operation and Maintenance Program V. Design and Performance Provisions vi. Overflow Emergency Response Plan vii. FOG Control Program viii_ System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan ix. Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications X. SSMP Program Audits xi. Communication Program 5 SECTION 1 —GOALS �1 The goal of the SSMP is to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system. This will help reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur. The City of Huntington Beach completed its first SSMP in 2005 in compliance with the "California Regional Water Quality Board (RWQCB), Santa Ana Region, Order No. R8-2002- 0014" (Order) on General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sewage Collection Agencies in Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. Many elements of the SSMP were already in practice and continue to date. However the formalization of the SSMP has resulted in a heightened awareness by both City staff as well as the public. This awareness has resulted in a decrease in SSO's to date. About This Document The City of Huntington Beach has prepared this SSMP to ensure compliance with the State Order. The SSMP provides a general description of how we comply with the various provisions of the Order and provides references to supporting documents. The Appendices of the SSMP contains specific information and support documents. Some support materials, such as large format drawings, relational databases, and voluminous documents may not be physically included in the SSMP. In these cases, a reference will be provided within the SSMP that indicates the type, owner, and location of these support materials. A copy of the "State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Order No. 2006-0003" Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems is located in Appendix A. 6 - SECTION 2—ORGANIZATION The SSMP must identify: a. The name of the responsible or authorized representative as described in Section J of this Order The authorized representative for the City of Huntington Beach is Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works. b_ The names and telephone numbers for management, administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for implementing specific measures in the SSMP program. The SSMP must identify line of authority through an organization char or similar document with a narrative explanation; and Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works—(714) 374-5348 This position assumes general responsibility for the personnel and activities associated with implementation of the SSMP. The City Engineer and Utilities Manager report directly to the Director of Public Works. Engineering Tony Olmos, City Engineer—(714) 375-5077 This position is responsible for the design, construction inspection and enforcement staff. The Principal Civil Engineer (Environmental) reports directly to the City Engineer Terri Elliott, Principal Civil Engineer—(714) 536-5580 This position is responsible for the day-to-day management of the SSMP program. Two Administrative Environmental Specialists report directly to the Principal Civil Engineer. Jim Merid, Administrative Environmental Specialist— (714) 374-1548 This position is responsible for inspection and education outreach and will have direct contact with the FSEs. Judy Keir, Administrative Environmental Specialist—(714) 375-8445 This position is responsible for inspection and education outreach and will have direct contact with the FSEs. Maintenance Howard Johnson, Utilities Manager— (714) 536-5503 This position is responsible for maintenance of the sewer, storm drain and water system as well as monthly reporting of SSOs. The Supervisor(Sewer/Storm Drains) reports directly to the Utilities Manager. Chris Gray, Supervisor - (714) 375-5040 This position is responsible for the day-to-day management of the wastewater operations including the Crewleader and subordinate activities. Mark Birchfield, Crewleader - (714) 375-5041 This position is responsible for overseeing the maintenance worker activities and response to and immediate reporting of SSOs. Ronn Rathbun, Lead Worker—(714) 374-1706 This position is responsible for overseeing the maintenance worker activities of the sewer lift stations and response to and immediate reporting of SSOs. Enrique Lemus, Lead Worker—(714) 375-5054 This position is responsible for overseeing the maintenance worker activities of the sewer line cleaning and response to and immediate reporting of SSOs. c. The chain of communications,for reporting SSOs,from receipt of a complaint or other information, including the person responsible for reporting SSOs to the State and Regional Water board and other agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water board, and/or State Office of Emergency services (OES)). s 1 ) During business hours concerns of SSO's are received by the Utilities Department. At such time, the information is transferred to the Wastewater Supervisor, the Wastewater Crew Leader or one of two Wastewater Lead Workers and a crew is dispatched to respond to the spill. The Wastewater Supervisor, the Wastewater Crew Leader or one of two Wastewater Lead Workers will be responsible for reporting SSOs to the State and Regional Water board and other agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water board, and/or California Emergency Management Agency(OES)). After hours SSO concerns are received by the Police Department and they notify the wastewater stand-by personnel and a crew is dispatched to respond to the spill. The lead person on the stand- by crew will be responsible for reporting the SSO, the day of the spill by telephone, to the State and Regional Water board and other agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water board, and/or California Emergency Management Agency(OES)). The next business day the Wastewater Supervisor,the Wastewater Crew Leader or one of two Wastewater Lead Workers will do a written report and will fax the report to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of Orange, Health Care Agency. They will also report the spill to the CIWQS web site. 8 SECTION 3—LEGAL AUTHORITY Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary sewer system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary legal authority to: a. Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system (examples may include III, stormwater, chemical dumping, unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc); Resolution No. 2003-52 adopts the City's Sewer Master Plan, which includes probable locations of infiltration for identification of capital improvement projects. In addition, the pipe capacity criteria have been modified to allow for adequate capacity for infiltration. Municipal Code 14.36.030 requires submission of plans and specifications for new sewer mains or connections be approved by the Director of Public Works. This would prohibit any new illicit connections. Municipal Code 14.24.030, as well as, Section 306.0 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by Municipal Code 17.44, prohibits discharge of inflow other than sewage, which would cover any existing illicit connections. b. Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed; Municipal Code 14.44.020 requires submission of plans and specifications for new sewer mains or connections be approved by the Director of Public Works. In addition, Municipal Code 12.10 adopts the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction together with adopted standard plans of the Department of Public Works, as well as the Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by Municipal Code 17.44, outline design criteria and construction methods. c. Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Public Agency; In 2008, the City took ownership of the sewer laterals (that portion within the Public Right-of Way). As laterals are repaired, replaced, or rehabilitated, clean-outs are being added at the Right-of-Way to allow for easier access. d. Limit the discharge offats, oils, and greases and other debris that may cause blockages, and In 2004, the City adopted a FOG ordinance, Municipal Code 14.56 and FOG Control Program to address this element. Previous to that and in addition to; Municipal Code 14.24.035 (f) limits fats, oils, and grease, to 200 parts per million. Municipal Code 17.44 adopts the Uniform Plumbing Code, which requires the installation of a grease control device as required. Further, Section 306 of the Uniform Plumbing Code prohibits grease and other debris from entering the sewer system. 9 e. Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances. As adopted, the FOG ordinance gives the authority to the inspector to cite FSE's that are found to be in violation of the FOG ordinance. A Notice of Non-Compliance (formal written warning) is issued for minor violations and Administrative Civil Citations ranging from $100 to $500 are issued for more severe or repeat violations. 3.1 Compliance Documents The aforementioned Municipal Codes are included in Appendix B, and can also be accessed on the City's website at the following link: http://www.surfcity-hb.org/Government/charter_codeslnztinicipal_code.cfm The FOG Control Program is included in Appendix C. 10 SECTION 4— OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM The SSMP must include those elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee's system: a. Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity line segments and manholes,pumping facilities,pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater conveyance facilities: The City has been proactive in implementing a Geographic Information System (GIS) beginning in the late 1990's. The sewer and storm drain infrastructure were fully populated in the early part of this decade. At least two GIS staff are dedicated to keeping the GIS data base updated to reflect any changes. Maps of these infrastructure are accessible to staff in both hard copy as well as through a GIS portal. In addition, in 2008, all record drawings were scanned and are readily accessible to City staff. b. Describe routine preventive operation and maintenance activities by staff and contractors, including a system for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted an known problem areas. The Preventative Maintenance (PM)program should have a system to document scheduled and conducted activities, such as work orders: In 2003, the City documented its preventative maintenance program entitled, "City of Huntington Beach, 2003 WDR Preventative Maintenance Program". The Plans was updated in 2009. c. Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and implement short-term and long term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The program should include regular visual and TV inspections of man holes and sere pipes, and a system for ranking the condition of serer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and replacement should focus on sewer pipes that are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a capital improvement plan that addresses proper management and protection of the infrastructure assets. The plan shall include a time schedule,for implementing the short-and long-term plans plus a schedule for developing the fitnds needed,for the capital improvement plan: From a non-capacity related program, the City began rehabilitating its gravity sewer system by trenchless methods in 1999. The original priority locations were those adjacent to the ocean and harbor, which have now been completed. The focus to date will now be on identifying additional pipe segments through CCTV, beginning with the oldest parts of the City. To date approximately 74 miles of sewer mains and the associated manholes have been rehabilitated. d. Provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer system operations and maintenance, and require contractors to be appropriately trained: and Although the City does not require certifications as a prerequisite for employment, it is highly encouraged. Fourteen employees currently hold certificates in Collection System Maintenance from the California Water Environment Association. One employee also holds a certificate as a Plant Maintenance Technologist and one employee also holds a certificate as a Mechanical Technologist from the California Water environment Association. e. Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including identification of critical replacement parts. This information is contained in the aforementioned "City of Huntington Beach, 2003 WDR Preventative Maintenance Program" 4.1 Compliance Documents. The documents supporting compliance with the requirements for Operations and Maintenance Program are as follows: City employees currently have access to "GIS Surfer" which allows the review of pertinent infrastructure in the GIS database. At least two GIS analysts are located at the Utilities Yard. The Preventative Maintenance Program is located in Appendix D. Training certificates are located in Appendix E. C 12 SECTION 5—DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS a. Design and construction standards and specifications for the installation of new sanitary sewer systems,pump stations and other appurtenances; and for the rehabilitation and repair-of existing sanitary sewer-systems; and b. Procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for rehabilitation and repair projects. The City utilizes the"Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" or"Greenbook" specifications for general construction and inspection of sewer facilities. In addition, supplemental City approved design criteria, specifications and standard drawings have been produced by City staff. 5.1 Compliance Documents The "Greenbook" is a readily available document, which is utilized by the majority of public agencies in Southern California and throughout the United States. Due to the size and yearly update, it is not included in this Plan. The City's supplemental specifications to the "Greenbook" are in digital format and can be provided upon request to the City's Engineering Division. The City standard drawings can be accessed on the City's website at the following link: http://www.surfcity-hb.org/Government/Departments/Public—Works/ kJ 13 SECTION 6—OVERFLOW EMERGENCE' RESPONSE PLAN Each Enrollee shall develop and implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies measures to protect public health and the environment. At a minimum, this plan must include the following: a. Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner; b. A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows; c. Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health agencies, Regional water boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State in accordance with the MRP. All SSOs hall be reported in accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDRs of NPDES permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who will receive immediate notification; d. Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained; e. Procedure to address emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control and other necessary response activities; and f. A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States and to 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. In 2002, the City developed an SSO Emergency Response Plan, to meet the aforementioned criteria. All public spills and any known private spills are reported via the CIWQS internet reporting program. In addition the County of Orange,Health Care Agency, the California Emergency Management Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board and if the spill enters a county channel the Public Facilities &Resources Department are all notified by telephone. The County of Orange, Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board are also faxed a copy of the spill report. 6.1 Compliance Documents The Response Plan is documented as Administrative Regulation AR808, a copy of which is included in Appendix F. 14 SECTION 7—FOG CONTROL PROGRAM Each Enrollee shall evaluate its service area to determine whether a FOG control program is needed. If an Enrollee determines that a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must provide justification for why it is not needed. If FOG is found to be a problem, the Enrollee must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to reduce the amount of these substances discharged to the sanitary sewer system. This plan shall include the following as appropriate: a. An implementation plan and schedule for a public education outreach program that promotes proper disposal of FOG; b. A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of FOG generated within a sanitary sewer system service area; c. The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG; d. Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors), design standards for the removal devices maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record (( keeping and reporting requirements. e. Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sits cient staff to inspect and enforce the FOG ordinance;; f An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section; and g. Development and implementation of source control measures for all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for each section identified in (/) above. In 2004, the City developed a Fats, Oils, and Grease Control Program to address the elements described above. The City also contributed financially to the Orange County Sanitation District "In Plant FOG Impact Study" to identify disposal options for FOG. In addition, the City has developed a Best Management Practices Training Manual for Food Service Establishments (FSEs). 7.1 Compliance Documents The FOG Control Plan is included in Appendix C, while the FOG Impact Study is included in Appendix G. The Best Management Practices Training Manual for Food Service Establishments is included in Appendix H. 15 SECTION 8—SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN The Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. At a minim, the plan must include: a. Evaluation:Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary sewer system that 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. Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist of are deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to establish appropriate design criteria; and c. Capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to establish a short-and long-term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternative analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size, III reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding. d. Schedule: The enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion dates for all portions of the capital improvement program developed in (a) —(c) above. This schedule shall be reviewed and updated consistent with the SSMP review and update requirements as described in Section D. 14. The City's Sewer Master Plan was updated in 2003. As a result, Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code was updated to increase the sewer connection fee commensurate with the necessary capital improvements. The Master Plan identified possible deficiencies for further site specific evaluation in approximately nine miles (or less than 3%) of the entire gravity system. In 2008, the City completed an evaluation of those segments that exceeded the design criteria for"new" sewers. It was found that in all but two cases, the actual flow in the pipes was less than identified in the Sewer Master Plan's desktop analysis. One segment, which exceeds the"design" capacity but does not flow full at peak discharge, is identified to be re-evaluated as part of the City's Beach/Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. The other segment is located immediately downstream of the Edinger Lift Station. Modifications to that lift station are underway to limit the amount of flow discharged to this segment. The City's 29 sewer lift stations were also analyzed. Based on this analysis and with input from the City's maintenance staff, a priority list has been established for rehabilitation and/or 16 replacement of these lift stations. Since adoption of the Sewer Master Plan, three lift stations have been rebuilt with two additional lift stations under construction as of this writing. The City has also programmed the reliabilitation/replacement of one sewer lift station per year moving forward. 8.1 Compliance Documents The City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan, prepared by Kennedy-Jenks Consultants in 2003 can be found in Appendix I. The Sewer Capacity Analysis, prepared by AKM Consulting Engineers in 2009 can be found in Appendix J. The Sewer Lift Station Priority List, which is a "living" list, subject to change, can be found in Appendix K. t` 17 SECTION 9—MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS The Enrollee shall: a. Maintain relevant information that can be used to establish and prioritise approbriate SSMP activities; b. Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate, measure the effectiveness of each element of the SSMP; c. Assess the success of the preventative maintenance program; d. Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring or performance evaluations; and e. Identify and illustrate SSO trends, including:.frequency, location, and volume. 9.1 Compliance Summary As the SSMP is a "living document", it is subject to change as standards, procedures, technology, and system evaluation or condition dictate. The City intends to adhere to the t aforementioned. Changes will be made as necessary to continually improve this document. �s CHAPTER 10—SSMP PROGRAM AUDITS As a part of the SSMP, the permittee shall conduct periodic internal audits, appropriate to the size of the system and the number of SSOs. At a minimum, these audits must occur every two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. This audit shall focits on evaluation the effectiveness of the SSMP and the Enrollees compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in this subsection (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies in the SSAVIP and steps to correct them. 10.1 Compliance Summary The City intends to conduct periodic audits of the SSMP. 19 CHAPTER 11 —COMMUNICATIONS The Enrollee shall communicate on a regular basis with the public on the development, implementation and performance of its SSMP. The communication system shall provide the public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the program is developed and implemented. The Enrollee shall also create a plan of communication with systems that are tributary and/or satellite to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system. 11. 1 Compliance Summary The City intends to adhere to this requirement through its education outreach program. Outreach includes FSEs, the City's Public Works Commission, City Council, and the general public through periodic ad campaigns. 9.2 Compliance Documents The FOG Control Plan is included in Appendix C, while the Best Management Practices Training Manual for Food Service Establishments is included in Appendix H. Examples of Public Outreach are included in Appendix L. 20 p dcJ f 7, Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved C] Denied City rk's igna e Council Meeting Date: 7/16/2007 Department ID Number: 07-042 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND I COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: P ELOP CULBRETH-GRAF , DPA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR PREPARED BY: TRAVIS HOPKINS, PE, ACTING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC ENGINEERING SUBJECT: Approve the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Development Plan and Schedule Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 requires local governing board approval of the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) Development Plan and Schedule. Funding Source: No funding is necessary for this action. Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve the General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Sewer System Management Plan Development Plan and Schedule dated September 30, 2002. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the General Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) Sewer System Management Plan Development Plan and Schedule dated September 30, 2002 and direct staff on how to proceed. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 7/16/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: 07-042 Analysis: In 2002, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued Order No. R8-2002-0014 which required the City to develop several programs to prevent sanitary sewer overflows. The final deliverable to meet this Order was the development of a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP) which was completed on September 30, 2005. An intermediate deliverable, the SSMP "Development Plan and Schedule," which described how the City would meet the various other deliverables and their associated due dates, was also prepared and submitted to the RWQCB on September 30, 2002. In 2006, the State Water Resources Control Board issued Order No. 2006-0003, which is substantially verbatim to the RWQCB Order, to cover the entire state. By virtue of the City's compliance with the RWQCB Order, only minimal effort is required to meet the requirements as stipulated in the State's Order. The State Order requires that the SSMP Development Plan and Schedule be approved by the local governing board, while the RWQCB Order did not. Therefore, the previously prepared Development Plan and Schedule is being submitted for approval to meet this requirement. Strategic Plan Goal: (1-1) Improve the City's plan for funding and completing infrastructure needs, and develop strategies for resolving crucial infrastructure problems to preserve the physical foundation of (f" the community and enable the community's value to grow. '� } Public Works Commission Action: No action necessary. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachment(s): 1. General Waste Discharge Requirements Sewer Management Plan Develo ment Plan and Schedule -2- 7/2/2007 11:32 AM � VIACHMENT # '! RWQCB, SANTA ANA REGION ORDER NO. R8-2002-0014 GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (WDRs) SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER 30, 2002 Prepared By. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTRODUCTION The table below has been prepared to translate the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for Sewers (Order No. R8-2002-0014), into a list of deliverables to facilitate understanding of the requirements.This document is meant to serve as a comprehensive status checklist for Departments within the City of Huntington Beach,which are affected by the conditions of this Order. WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates C. PROVISIONS 2. Discharges Caused by Severe Natural ✓ SSO Emergency Response Plan City enacted Rdnunistrative Regulation 808 SSO Emergencyy Conditions ✓ Sewer Master Plan,which identifies effective January 1,2002,which describes the Response Plan due Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response by January 1,2003 The Regional Board may take enforcement redundant systems and potential areas of Procedures. action against the permittee for any sanitary Inflow/Infiltration. sewer system discharge caused by natural conditions,unless the perrrmittee demonstrates In the Summer of 2002,the City updated the Capacity Evaluation through properly signed, contemporaneous Sewer Master Plan including an I/I study, due by July 30, 2005 operating logs,or other relevant evidence which identifies potentially deficient sewer that: infrastructure. Each component will be further evaluated as part of our Capital (i) The discharge was caused by severe natural Improvement Plan. 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,the permittee 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 to identify and correct problems. G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\%VDR\HB SSMP Development Plan.doc 2 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates 3. Discharges Caused by Other Factors 0 Sewer System Management Plan (SSW) Through adherence to the WDR, the City SSMP completed by For SSOs other than those covered under this can establish an affirmative response. September 30,2005 section, the perrrittee may establish an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance if the permittee demonstrates through properly signed,contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that; (i) The pernuttee can identify the cause of the discharge event; 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 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 pernvttee took all reasonable steps to stop,and mitigate the impact of, the discharge as soon as possible. GARrigin�e�e�ring Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\FIB SSMP Development Plan.doc 3 7_3 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates 4. Burden of Proof No Action Required 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. G. Upon redaction, loss,or failure of the ✓ SSO Emergency Response Plan City enacted Administrative Regulation 808 SSO Emergency sanitary sewer system resulting in a effective January 1,2002,which describes the Response Plan due sanitary sewer overflow, the discharger Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response by]anuaryl,2003 shall, to the extent necessary to maintain Procedures. compliance with this Order, take any necessary remedial action to: (1) Control or limit the volume of sewage discharged, (2) Ternunate 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. G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\HB SSMP Development Plan.doc 4 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates 7. The discharger shall properly fund, O Sewer System Management Plan Funding and training to be reported in the SSMP completed by manage, operate and maintain,with SSMP. September 30, 2005 adequately trained staff and/or contractors possessing adequate In the Summer of 2001,City Ordinance 3504 was adopted to implement a Sewer Service knowledge skills and abilities as demonstrated through a validated User Charge for die maintenance and repair program at all times, all parts of the of Sewer Infrastructure. sewage collection system owned and/or 8 out of 10 City sewer maintenance workers operated by the discharger. hold certifications for wastewater collection systems through CWEA. 8. The discharger shall provide adequate ✓ Sewer Master Plan,which evaluates In the Summer of 2002, the City updated the Capacity Evaluation capacity to convey base flows and peak capacity. Sewer Master Plan including an I/I study, due by July 30, 2005 flows, including wet weather related which identifies potentially deficient sewer events to the minimum design criteria as infrastructure. Each component will be defined in the dischargers System further evaluated as part of our Capital Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan, Improvement Plan. for all parts of the collection system owned or operated by the discharger. 9. The discharger shall take all feasible steps ✓ SSO Emergency Response Plan City enacted Administrative Regulation 808 SSO Emergency to stop, and mitigate the impact of, effective January 1,2002,which describes the Response Plan due sanitary sewer overflows in portions of the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response by January 1, 2003 collection system owned or operated by Procedures. the discharger. 10, The discharger shall provide notification ✓ SSO Emergency Response Plan City enacted Administrative Regulation 80S SSO Emergency to the OCHCA and the Regional Board so effective January 1,2002,winch describes the Response Plan due that they can notify parties with a Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response by January 1, 2003 reasonable potential for exposure to Procedures. pollutants associated with the SSO. GAEnginecring Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\%UDR\HB SSNfP Development Plan.doc 5 01 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates 11. The discharger shall develop and O Sewer System Management Plan Engineering staff will be responsible to SSMP completed by implement a written plan, a Sewer System gather the required information and compile September 30,2005 Management Plan (SSMP), for the report. A Draft SSMP with available compliance with these waste discharge information shall be prepared by June 1, requirements and make it available to any 2003 or sooner. member of the public upon request in writing. 12. The essential elements of the SSMP are D Sewer System Management Plan The City currently has in place the majority SSMP completed by specified below. If the discharger believes of the components required. Those September 30,2005 that any element of this section is not components,which are not complete, shall appropriate or applicable for the SSMP be noted below with anticipated time frame program, the program does not need to for completion. address it,but the $SMP must explain why that element is not applicable.The Regional Board will consider the quality of the SSMP,its implementation and effectiveness in any relevant enforcement action,including but not limited to any enforcement action for violation of the Clean Water Act, the Basin Plan prohibition,or these waste discharge requirements.The SSMP must include the following components,with the exception of non-applicable components, as discussed above: E _ a • �k`. •ni,ns,1W A Y`Ne� P Y.!' t t r♦.••;�,,,...='�.r�':;;.�;V :..v:r`:``3,•:. { ..,f�:e�•"'`+:.',sF`. ,ra$ `lax _ ;'.F"`'` ..� ' ,.:=:r. Nu�': `r `•SEWER::SYSTEM�MANAGEMEIVT%PLAIN t• tip ,. ry", ,v SSMP\ 4 .r�i •",a r`"•", t •dY „tlr!,i I ..a'.ii�,'.SS•,p,:hl,1 i� 2 Y >':+'w�[ '..r• tii .4.+N"1:.Lr •�^ •'k�." "a�P .L .r ,91`,w'. ',��, V•:';VLh ', ..,iy. . ..:I,- `'�V r',.," .NI:a:T.O..�jG-:��'�_.. . ..r•. =.'F:••�r' 'Mi`4 Xr ,. r✓ . ...,,• ,v'.nv, xF..'. ..4._ ..r. :•.:Y..:.,.•.a.•i....,.q .. ....;.+ +::..+:.�4�., ;fit:'.'. ;rv!iY,ry, (i) Goals.The main goal of the SSMP is to ✓ Prepare an SSMP Development Plan and This document SSMP Development prevent SSOs and to provide a plan and Schedule Plan due by schedule for measures to be implemented to September 30,2002 prevent SSOs. G:\Engineeruig Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\HB SSMP Development Plan.doc 6 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates (ii) Organization.The SSMP must identify: ❑ Overall organizational chart,including Engineering Staff to prepare Org. Chart by SSMP completed by (A) Administrative and maintenance governing body January 1,2003 September 30, 2005 positions responsible for implementing measures in the SSMP program,including lines of authority by organization chart or similar document; and (B) The chain of communication for `� SSO Emergency Response Plan SSO Emergency Response Plan details chain SSO Emergency reporting SSOs,from receipt of a of communication. Response Plan due complaint or other information including by January 1,2003 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) if the discharge is 1,000 gallons or larger. (iii)Legal Authority.The SSNfP shall include ✓ Sewer use ordinance that defines and Municipal Code 14.36 requires the review Legal Authority due legal authority, through sewer use ordinances, controls discharges to the collection and approval by the City to unsure proper by July 30,2004 service agreements or other legally binding system, connections from inflow sources use. documents, to: such as;sump pumps,roof leaders,yard (A) Control infiltration and connections from and stairwell drains or any other materials inflow sources; that adversely affects the performance of (B) Require that sewers and connections be the collection system. Municipal Code 14.36 requires the review ✓ properly designed and constructed; Design and construction specifications and approval by the City to insure proper based on current engineering and design and construction methods. (C) Ensure proper installation, testing, and construction practices All permitted sewer construction is inspected inspection of new and rehabilitated sewers (such as new or rehabilitated City Specifications,which supplement the by City Inspectors. collector sewers and new or rehabilitated Greenbook. service laterals); ❑ A grease control program for commercial, City is currently participating both monetarily FOG Control (D) Limit fats and greases and other debris, industrial,and institutional users that and as a member of the FOG Steering Program due by which may cause blockages in the sewage combines source and field control to Committee. (See item viii) 12/30/04 collection systetn. reduce SSOs caused by the discharge of FOG to the collection system. (E) Implement the general and specific prohibitions of the national pretreatment ❑ Statement to be added identifying the City program under 40 CFR 403.5. b a collection Agency with pretreatment by the OCSD. G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\HB SSMP Development Plan.doc 7 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates (iv)Measures and Activities: In order to ❑ List of dedicated staff and material Under the direction of the current Preventive provide an adequate and appropriate SSO resources (equipment and spare parts) Maintenance Operations Manager, Maintenance reduction plan, the SSMP must address the needed to operate and maintain the system maintenance staff currently maintains an org Prograin due by elements listed below that are appropriate and assets so the intended function chart with duties and a current list of 06/15/03 applicable to the dischargers system and (conveyance capacity)is maintained. equipment and spare parts. (Submit to identify the person or position in the ✓ Complete and accurate set of maps of the Engineering by January 1,2003) organization responsible for each element: collection system that is available for The City currently maintains maps of its (A) Provide adequate operation and management,operation and maintenance collection system through its GIS system maintenance of facilities and equipment; of the collection system and an established under the direction of the Deputy Director (B) Maintain an up-to-date map of the process to maintain and update map of of Public Works and the Engineering staff. collection system showing all gravity line the collection system including,all gravity Digital Maps currently available to segments and manholes,pumping lines and force-mains,manholes,pumping Engineering Staff with hard copies to facilities,pressure pipes and valves,and facilities, siphons and other Maintenance Staff stormwater conveyance Facilities; appurtenances. (C) Maintain relevant information to establish Capacity Evaluation and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities Update the Sewer Master Plan to identify In the Summer of 2002 the City updated its � PProgram due by (such as the immediate elimination of dry any capacity issues with special attention Sewer Master Plan and will evaluate priorities 07/30/05 weather overflows or overflows into given to that infrastructure in close accordingly. sensitive waters,such as public drinking proximity to sensitive environs. water supplies and their source waters, ❑ A proactive maintenance program that Maintenance staff currently adheres to a swimming beaches and waters where consists of a balance of planned and planned maintenance schedule. (Submit to swimming occurs,shellfish beds, scheduled preventive/predictive Engineering by January 1,2003) (D) Outstanding National Resource Waters, maintenance (pumping station electrical National Marcie Sanctuaries,waters and mechanical systems,hydraulic and within Federal,State,or local parks, and mechanical cleaning,inspection and water containing threatened or condition assessment,Rights-of-Way and endangered species or their habitat),and Easements,etc.) and corrective identify and illustrate trends in overflows, maintenance by staff and contractors. such as frequency and volume; ✓ Capacity management program that provides an accurate i In the Summer of 2002, the City updated its (I-) Routine preventive operation and p current capacity t' Sewer Master Plan,which includes potential maintenance activities b staff and analysis of the system and compares to y capacity deficiencies. (Engineering Staff to contractors;includingstem for capacity needs. a s y prepare a priority list by June 1,2003 or Sewer Rehab. Plan scheduling regular maintenance and sooner) cleaning of the collection system with due by 09/30/05. more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem areas.The Preventative Maintenance (PM) program should have a system of tracking work G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\HB SSMP Development Plan.doc 8 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates orders and assessing the success of the PM program; (F) Establish a program to assess the current capacity of the collection system owned by the discharger or where the discharger has operational control;including ❑ System condition assessment, based on City has video inspected over 40% of its diversions of urban runoff to the sewer priorities established through a structured System. Beginning October 1,2002,our system and control of infiltration and intrusion during Uothwet weather events asset management plan. Inventory of video inspection program will be resumed in defects that require periodic preventive order to provide for a Sewer Rehabilitation and dry weather periods; maintenance to maintain capacity. Plan to be prepared by Engineering Staff. (G) Identify and prioritize structural Prioritized list of defects been that require deficiencies and implement short-terra spot repair,rehabilitation or replacement and long-term rehabilitation actions to to restore capacity. Program for short and address each deficiency.This shall include long term repair,rehabilitation or a rehabilitation plan including schedules replacement. for the entire system. As with the PM program,sewer rehabilitation and By Ordinance 3504, the City must annually replacement is crucial for the prevention ✓ Analysis of financial resources necessary evaluate its Sewer Service User Charge. of spills.Among the provisions that to operate,maintain and execute short and should be specified in this section is the long term repair,rehabilitation or need to direct rehabilitation and replacement program identified and replacement at sewer pipes which are at funded. 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; (Id) Provide training on a regular basis for staff in collection system O&M and Operations Manager shall investigate monitoruig and determine if contractors' ❑ Training program for City Operations and requirement of Certification for existing and staff are appropriately trained; Maintenance staff and assurance of future employees. (Recommendation by training by the contractors engaged by the June 1,2003) city to for performance of O&M functions. G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\I-IB SSMP Development Plan.doc 9 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates (I) Provide equipment and replacement parts O Inventory of replacement parts. Maintenance Staff to provide Inventory to inventories including identification of Engineering by Januaty 1,2003 critical replacement parts. Q) Establish an implementation plan and Public education program focused on schedule for a public education outreach reducing residential disposal of FOG Engineering Staff to coordinate public program that promotes proper disposal outreach with recommendation by June 1, of grease and fats. 2003. ✓ Established procedures to investigate SSO Emergency Response flan currently (K) In accordance with County of Orange's (service request) and assist in the Drainage Area Management Plan, mitigation of discharges from private details private property response. establish a plan for responding to SSOs property. 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 (I) Develop a plan and a schedule for O FOG program to monitor the City is currently participating both monetarily providing an analysis of alternative maintenance of commercial,industrial, and as a member of the FOG Steering methods of disposal for grease and fats, and institutional source control systems Committee,and will incorporate the tools and an implementation plan and schedule for providing adequate disposal capacity (grease interceptors, traps,skimmers,) developed from the study to establish for grease and fats generated within the maintenance and disposal of FOG from appropriate control methods to reduce FOG sewer system service area.'Ilus plan shall these sources. in the collection system (See item viii.) include an evaluation of the feasibility of using sludge digesters at the OCSD treatment plant for grease disposal and treatment,recycling,and rendering,and other disposal alternatives. (v) Design and Performance Provisions: Ensure the following: (A) Develop design and construction ✓ Design and construction specifications as The City currently maintains Supplemental standards and specifications for the well as inspection,based on current Specifications to the"Standard Specifications installation of new sewers,pump stations engineering and construction practices for Public Works Construction"or better and other appurtenances;and for known as the"Green Book"as well as rehabilitation and repair of existing sewer Design standards for its Sewer Infrastructure. systems;and (B) Develop procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation of new sewers,pumps, and other appurtei ances and for rehabilitation and G:\Eriginceriig Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\I-iB SSMP Development Plan.doc 10 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates repair projects. (vi)Monitoring, Measurement and Program O Annual evaluation and update of the Updates and evaluation to be performed by Annual update due Modifications SSIVfP. maintenance and engineering staff by September 30, of (A) Monitor the implementation and, where amendment identifying any revisions to the each year, appropriate, measure the effectiveness of SSM1'. each element of the SS1\,fP; (I3) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring or performance evaluations;and (C) Modify the summary of the SSMP program, as appropriate, to keep it updated and accurate and available for audit at all tunes. (vii) Overflow Emergency Response Plan: ✓ SSO Emergency Response Plan City enacted Administrative Regulation 808 SSO Emergency The dischargers shall develop and implement effective January 1,2002, which describes the Response Plan due an overflow emergency response plan that Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures. by January 1, 2003 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 discharger is informed of all SSOs in a timely manner (to the greatest extent possible) (B) Ensure that all overflows (uicluding 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; G:\Engineering Division\Ilroussard\Sewer\RWQCB\%VDR\HB SSiviP Development Plan.doc 11 y � WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates (C) Ensure immediate notification to the ✓ SSO Emergency Response Plan City enacted Administrative Regulation 808 SSO Emergency public,health agencies and other effective January 1,2002,which describes the Response Plan due impacted entities (e.g.,water suppliers) of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures. by January 1, 2003 all overflows. Report all SSOs to the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Orange County Health Care In addition,the City currently has on hand Agency,and report to the State OES if several portable generators for the express use the overflow is 1,000 gallons or larger. of its 28 sewer lift stations. 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 emergency response;and (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. (Ii 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 i i less than an hour from the GAEngineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\HB SSMP Development Plan.doc 12 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates first call.'I'lic system should be capable of meeting this response time ay or night, every day of the week.The system must own or have ready access to spi11 and emergency response equipment such as vacuum trucks, hydroflushers,pumps, temporary bypass hoses,and portable generators. (viii) Fats,Oils and Grease Control Program. ❑ FOG Control Program. City is currently participating both monetarily FOG Program due Prepare and implement a grease,fat,and oil and as a member of the FOG Steering by 12/30/04 source control program to reduce the amount of Committee, and will incorporate the tools these substances discharged to the sewer developed from the study to establish collection system.This plan shall include the appropriate control methods to reduce FOG legal authority to prohibit discharges to the in the collection system. system and identify measures to prevent SSOs caused by fats,oils, and grease blockages of Upon release of Ph. 1 FOG Study, begin to sewers.The elements of an effective grease evaluate "tools"with report to P.W. Director control program may include requirements to by Junc 1,2003. install grease removal devices(such as traps, or preferably, interceptors), design standards for Prepare"Draft"FOG Control Program the removal devices,maintenance requirements, incorporating Legal Authority and submit to BMi' requirements,record keeping and P.W.Director by September 1,2004 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 grease ordinance. (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 ❑ Capacity Evaluation Plan,which In the Summer of 2002, the City updated its Capacity Evaluation G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\HB SS,%fP Development Plan.doc 13 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates Assurance Plan: Prepare and unplement a prioritizes CIP relative to sensitive Sewer Master Plan,which includes potential Plan due by capital improvement plan that will provide environs. capacity deficiencies. (Engineering Staff to 07/30/05 hydraulic capacity of key sewer system prepare a priority list by June 1,2003 or elements under peak flow conditions. At a sooner) n-nimum, 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 lun dng 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. G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\I-iB SSMP Development Plan.doc 14 WDR Reference Deliverables Notes Due Dates (x) SSMP Program Audits.As part of the 0 Report of Audit of SSNFP with level of Engineering Staff shall coordinate with Annual update due SSMP, the permittee shall conduct an internal compliance and deficiencies,and maintenance staff to prepare the Audit by on September 30,of audit, appropriate to the sfie of the system programs to eliminate deficiencies, an annual basis to be included with the each year. and the number of overflows,and submit a annual update. report of such audit, evaluating the SSI\,P and its compliance with this subsection,including its deficiencies and steps to correct them. (xi)Communications.The discharger should O Establish communication plan for the Fngineering Staff to recommend communicate on a regular basis with dissemination of requested information to conununication plan(by January 1, 2003) uiterested parties on the implementation and interested parties. performance of its SSMP.The communication system should allow interested parties to provide input to the discharger as the program is developed and implemented. GAE-ngineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\RWQCB\WDR\I-IB SSMP Development Plan.doc 15 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public works SUBJECT: Approve the Sanitary Sewer Management Plan Development Plan and Schedule COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2007 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable El Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over$5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable I( } Staff Report (If applicable) Attached L1 t Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION-FOR MISSING'ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Deputy City Administrator(Initial) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: RCA Author: T. Broussard jq Appendix A SWRCB Order No. 2006-0003 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 1 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. 2006-0003 STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS The State Water Resources Control Board, hereinafter referred to as "State Water Board", finds that- 1. All federal and state agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities that own or operate sanitary sewer systems greater than one mile in length that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to comply with the terms of this Order. Such entities are hereinafter referred to as "Enrollees". 2. Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are overflows from sanitary sewer systems of domestic wastewater, as well as industrial and commercial wastewater, depending on the pattern of land uses in the area served by the sanitary sewer system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended solids, pathogenic rr organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic compounds, oil t( / and grease and other pollutants. SSOs may cause a public nuisance, particularly when raw untreated wastewater is discharged to areas with high public exposure, such as streets or surface waters used for drinking, fishing, or body contact recreation. SSOs may pollute surface or ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. 3. Sanitary sewer systems experience periodic failures resulting in discharges that may affect waters of the state. There are many factors (including factors related to geology, design, construction methods and materials, age of the system, population growth, and system operation and maintenance), which affect the likelihood of an SSO. A proactive approach that requires Enrollees to ensure a system-wide operation, maintenance, and management plan is in place will reduce the number and frequency of SSOs within the state. This approach will in turn decrease the risk to human health and the environment-caused by SSOs. 4. Major causes of SSOs include: grease blockages, root blockages, sewer line flood damage, manhole structure failures, vandalism, pump station mechanical failures, power outages, excessive storm or ground water inflow/infiltration, debris blockages, sanitary sewer system age and construction material failures, lack of proper operation and maintenance, insufficient capacity and contractor- caused damages. Many SSOs are preventable with adequate and appropriate facilities, source control measures and operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer system_ State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 2 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLANS 5_ To facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, each Enrollee must develop and implement a system-specific Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). To be effective, SSMPs must include provisions to provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems, while taking into consideration risk management and cost benefit analysis. Additionally, an SSMP must contain a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to an SSO in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions. 6. Many local public agencies in California have already developed SSMPs and implemented measures to reduce SSOs. These entities can build upon their existing efforts to establish a comprehensive SSMP consistent with this Order. Others, however, still require technical assistance and, in some cases, funding to improve sanitary sewer system operation and maintenance in order to reduce SSOs. 7. SSMP certification by technically qualified and experienced persons can provide a useful and cost-effective means for ensuring that SSMPs are developed and implemented appropriately. 8. It is the State Water Board's intent to gather additional information on the causes ' and sources of SSOs to augment existing information and to determine the full extent of SSOs and consequent public health and/or environmental impacts occurring in the State. 9. Both uniform SSO reporting and a centralized statewide electronic database are needed to collect information to allow the State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) to effectively analyze the extent of SSOs statewide and their potential impacts on beneficial uses and public health. The monitoring and reporting program required by this Order and the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003, are necessary to assure compliance with these waste discharge requirements (WDRs). 10.Information regarding SSOs must be provided to Regional Water Boards and other regulatory agencies in a timely manner and be made available to the public in a complete, concise, and timely fashion. 11.Some Regional Water Boards have issued WDRs or WDRs that serve as National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to sanitary sewer system owners/operators within their jurisdictions. This Order establishes minimum requirements to prevent SSOs. Although it is the State Water Board's intent that this Order be the primary regulatory mechanism for sanitary sewer systems statewide, Regional Water Boards may issue more stringent or more State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 3 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 prescriptive WDRs for sanitary sewer systems. upon issuance or reissuance of a Regional Water Board's WDRs for a system subject to this Order, the Regional Water Board shall coordinate its requirements with stated requirements within this Order, to identify requirements that are more stringent, to remove requirements that are less stringent than this Order, and to provide consistency in reporting. REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 12. California Water Code section 13263 provides that the State Water Board may prescribe general WDRs for a category of discharges if the State Water Board finds or determines that: • The discharges are produced by the same or similar operations; • The discharges involve the same or similar types of waste; • The discharges require the same or similar treatment standards; and • The discharges are more appropriately regulated under general discharge requirements than individual discharge requirements. This Order establishes requirements for a class of operations, facilities, and discharges that are similar throughout the state. 13.The issuance of general WDRs to the Enrollees will: a) Reduce the administrative burden of issuing individual WDRs to each Enrollee; b) Provide for a unified statewide approach for the reporting and database tracking of SSOs; c) Establish consistent and uniform requirements for SSMP development and implementation; d) Provide statewide consistency in reporting; and e) Facilitate consistent enforcement for violations. 14.The beneficial uses of surface waters that can be impaired by SSOs include, but are not limited to, aquatic life, drinking water supply, body contact and non- contact recreation, and aesthetics. The beneficial uses of ground water that can be impaired include, but are not limited to, drinking water and agricultural supply. Surface and ground waters throughout the state support these uses to varying degrees. 15.The implementation of requirements set forth in this Order will ensure the reasonable protection of past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water and the prevention of nuisance. The requirements implement the water quality control plans (Basin Plans) for each region and take into account the environmental characteristics of hydrographic units within the state. Additionally, the State Water Board has considered water quality conditions that could reasonably be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors that affect State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 4 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 water quality in the area, costs associated with compliance with these } q Y requirements, the need for developing housing within California, and the need to develop and use recycled water. 16.The Federal Clean Water Act largely prohibits any discharge of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States except as authorized under an NPDES permit. In general, any point source discharge of sewage effluent to waters of the United States must comply with technology-based, secondary treatment standards, at a minimum, and any more stringent requirements necessary to meet applicable water quality standards and other requirements. Hence, the unpermitted discharge of wastewater from a sanitary sewer system to waters of the United States is illegal under the Clean Water Act. In addition, many Basin Plans adopted by the Regional Water Boards contain discharge prohibitions that apply to the discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater. Finally, the California Water Code generally prohibits the discharge of waste to land prior to the filing of any required report of waste discharge and the subsequent issuance of either WDRs or a waiver of WDRs. 17.California Water Code section 13263 requires a water board to, after any necessary hearing, prescribe requirements as to the nature of any proposed discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge. The requirements shall, among other things, take into consideration the need to prevent nuisance. 18.California Water Code section 13050, subdivision (m), defines nuisance as anything which meets all of the following requirements: a. Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. b. 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. c. Occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes. 19.This Order is consistent with State Water Board Resolution No. 68-16 (Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California) in that the Order imposes conditions to prevent impacts to water quality, does not allow the degradation of water quality, will not unreasonably affect beneficial uses of water, and will not result in water quality less than prescribed in State Water Board or Regional Water Board plans and policies. 20.The action to adopt this General Order is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) because it is an action taken by a regulatory agency to assure the protection of the environment and the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15308). In addition, the action to adopt State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 5 of 20 Statewide General WDR for Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 this Order is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Cal.Code Regs., title 14, §15301 to the extent that it applies to existing sanitary sewer collection systems that constitute "existing facilities" as that term is used in Section 15301, and §15302, to the extent that it results in the repair or replacement of existing systems involving negligible or no expansion of capacity. 21.The Fact Sheet, which is incorporated by reference in the Order, contains supplemental information that was also considered in establishing these requirements. 22.The State Water Board has notified all affected public agencies and all known interested persons of the intent to prescribe general WDRs that require Enrollees to develop SSMPs and to report all SSOs. 23.The State Water Board conducted a public hearing on February 8, 2006, to receive oral and written comments on the draft order. The State Water Board received and considered, at its May 2, 2006, meeting, additional public comments on substantial changes made to the proposed general WDRs following the February 8, 2006, public hearing. The State Water Board has considered all comments pertaining to the proposed general WDRs. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that pursuant to California Water Code section 13263, the ! Enrollees, their agents, successors, and assigns, in order to meet the provisions (. contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted hereunder, shall comply with the following: A. DEFINITIONS 1. Sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) - Any overflow, spill, release, discharge or diversion of untreated or partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSOs include: (i) Overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated wastewater that reach waters of the United States; (ii) Overflows or releases of untreated or partially treated 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 within the publicly owned portion of a sanitary sewer system. 2. Sanitary sewer system —Any system of pipes, pump stations, sewer lines, or other conveyances, upstream of a wastewater treatment plant headworks used to collect and convey wastewater to the publicly owned treatment facility. Temporary storage and conveyance facilities (such as vaults, temporary piping, construction trenches, wet wells, impoundments, tanks, etc.) are considered to be part of the sanitary sewer system, and discharges into these temporary storage facilities are not considered to be SSOs. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 6 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 For purposes of this Order, sanitary sewer systems include only those systems owned by public agencies that are comprised of more than one mile of pipes or sewer lines. 3. Enrollee - A federal or state agency, municipality, county, district, and other public entity that owns or operates a sanitary sewer system, as defined in the general WDRs, and that has submitted a complete and approved application for coverage under this Order. 4. SSO Reporting System — Online spill reporting system that is hosted, controlled, and maintained by the State Water Board. The web address for this site is http-Hciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov. This online database is maintained on a secure site and is controlled by unique usernames and passwords. 5. Untreated or partially treated wastewater—Any volume of waste discharged from the sanitary sewer system upstream of a wastewater treatment plant headworks. 6. Satellite collection system — The portion, if any, of a sanitary sewer system owned or operated by a different public agency than the agency that owns and operates the wastewater treatment facility to which the sanitary sewer system is tributary. r . 7. Nuisance - California Water Code section 13050, subdivision (m), defines nuisance as anything which meets all of the following requirements: a. Is injurious to health, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. b. 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. c. Occurs during, or as a result of, the treatment or disposal of wastes. B. APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 1. Deadlines for Application —All public agencies that currently own or operate sanitary sewer systems within the State of California must apply for coverage under the general WDRs within six (6) months of the date of adoption of the general WDRs. Additionally, public agencies that acquire or assume responsibility for operating sanitary sewer systems after the date of adoption of this Order must apply for coverage under the general WDRs at least three (3) months prior to operation of those facilities. 2. Applications under the general WDRs — In order to apply for coverage pursuant to the general WDRs, a legally authorized representative for each agency must submit a complete application package. Within sixty (60) days of adoption of the general WDRs, State Water Board staff will send specific instructions on how to State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 7 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 apply for coverage under the general WDRs to all known public agencies that own sanitary sewer systems. Agencies that do not receive notice may obtain applications and instructions online on the Water Board's website. 3. Coverage under the general WDRs — Permit coverage will be in effect once a complete application package has been submitted and approved by the State Water Board's Division of Water Quality. C. PROHIBITIONS 1. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States is prohibited. 2. Any SSO that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater that creates a nuisance as defined in California Water Code Section 13050(m) is prohibited. D. PROVISIONS 1. The Enrollee 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. It is the intent of-the State Water Board that sanitary sewer systems be regulated in a manner consistent with the general WDRs:; Nothing in the general WDRs shall be: (i) Interpreted or applied in a manner inconsistent with the Federal Clean Water Act, or supersede a more specific or more stringent state or federal requirement in an existing permit, regulation, or administrative/judicial order or Consent Decree; (ii) Interpreted or applied to authorize an SSO that is illegal under either the Clean Water Act, an applicable Basin Plan prohibition or water quality standard, or the California Water Code; (iii) Interpreted or applied to prohibit a Regional Water Board from issuing an individual NPDES permit or WDR, superseding this general WDR, for a sanitary sewer system, authorized under the Clean Water Act or California Water Code; or (iv) Interpreted or applied to supersede any more specific or more stringent WDRs or enforcement order issued by a Regional Water Board. 3. The Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to eliminate SSOs. In the event that an SSO does occur, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to contain and mitigate the impacts of an SSO. 4. In the event of an SSO, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to prevent untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging from storm drains into State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 8 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 flood control channels or waters of the United States by blocking the storm drainage system and by removing the wastewater from the storm drains. 5. All SSOs must be reported in accordance with Section G of the general WDRs. 6. In any enforcement action, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will consider the appropriate factors under the duly adopted State Water Board Enforcement Policy. And, consistent with the Enforcement Policy, the State and/or Regional Water Boards must consider the Enrollee's efforts to contain, control, and mitigate SSOs when considering the California Water Code Section 13327 factors. In assessing these factors, the State and/or Regional Water Boards will also consider whether: (i) The Enrollee has complied with the requirements of this Order, including requirements for reporting and developing and implementing a SSMP; (ii) The Enrollee can identify the cause or likely cause of the discharge event; (iii)There were no feasible alternatives to the-discharge, such as temporary storage or retention of untreated wastewater, reduction of inflow and infiltration, use of adequate backup equipment, collecting and hauling of untreated wastewater to a treatment facility, or an increase in the capacity of the system as necessary to contain the design storm event identified in the SSMP. It is inappropriate to consider the lack of feasible fr alternatives, if the Enrollee does not implement a periodic or continuing process to identify and correct problems. (iv)The discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporary, and caused by factors beyond the reasonable control of the Enrollee; (v) The discharge could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable control described in a certified SSMP for: • Proper management, operation and maintenance; • Adequate treatment facilities, sanitary sewer system facilities, and/or components with an appropriate design capacity, to reasonably prevent SSOs (e.g., adequately enlarging treatment or collection facilities to accommodate growth, infiltration and inflow (1/1), etc.); • Preventive maintenance (including cleaning and fats, oils, and grease (FOG) control); • Installation of adequate backup equipment; and • Inflow and infiltration prevention and control to the extent practicable. (vi)The sanitary sewer system design capacity is appropriate to reasonably prevent SSOs. State Water Resources Control Board Order No_ 2006-0003 Rage 9 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 (vii) The Enrollee took all reasonable steps to stop and mitigate the impact of the discharge as soon as possible. 7. When a sanitary sewer overflow occurs, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps and necessary remedial actions to 1) control or limit the volume of untreated or partially treated wastewater discharged, 2) terminate the discharge, and 3) recover as much of the wastewater discharged as possible for proper disposal, including any wash down water. The Enrollee shall implement all remedial actions to the extent they may be applicable to the discharge and not inconsistent with an emergency response plan, including the following: (i) Interception and rerouting of untreated or partially treated wastewater flows around the wastewater line failure; (ii) Vacuum truck recovery of sanitary sewer overflows and wash down water; (iii) Cleanup of debris at the overflow site; (iv) System modifications to prevent another SSO at the same location; (v) Adequate sampling to determine the nature and impact of the release,- and (vi) Adequate public notification to protect the public from exposure to the SSO. 8. The Enrollee shall properly; manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee, and shall ensure that the system operators (including employees, contractors, or other agents) are adequately trained and possess adequate knowledge, skills, and abilities. 9. The Enrollee shall allocate adequate resources for the operation, maintenance, and repair of its sanitary sewer system, by establishing a proper rate structure, accounting mechanisms, and auditing procedures to ensure an adequate measure of revenues and expenditures. These procedures must be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations and comply with generally acceptable accounting practices. 10.The Enrollee shall provide adequate capacity to convey base flows and peak flows, including flows related to wet weather events. Capacity shall meet or exceed the design criteria as defined in the Enrollee's System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan for all parts of the sanitary sewer system owned or operated by the Enrollee. 11.The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional Water Board upon request. A copy of this document must be publicly available at the Enrollee's office and/or available on the Internet. This SSMP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 90 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 12.In accordance with the California Business and Professions Code sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1, all engineering and geologic evaluations and judgments shall be performed by or under the direction of registered professionals competent and proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Specific elements of the SSMP that require professional evaluation and judgments shall be prepared by or under the direction of appropriately qualified professionals, and shall bear the profession aI(s)' signature and stamp. 13.The mandatory elements of the SSMP are specified below. However, if the Enrollee believes that any element of this section is not appropriate or applicable to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system, the SSMP program does not need to address that element. The Enrollee must justify why that element is not applicable. The SSMP must be approved by the deadlines listed in the SSMP Time Schedule below. Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) (i) Goal: The goal of the SSMP is to provide a plan and schedule to properly manage, operate, and maintain all parts of the sanitary sewer system. This will help reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur. (ii) Organization: The SSMP must identify: (a) The name of the responsible or authorized representative as described in Section J of this Order. (b) The names and telephone numbers for management, administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for implementing specific measures in the SSMP program. The SSMP must identify lines of authority through an organization chart or similar document with a narrative explanation; and (c) The chain of communication for reporting SSOs, from receipt of a complaint or other information, including the person responsible for reporting SSOs to the State and Regional Water Board and other agencies if applicable (such as County Health Officer, County Environmental Health Agency, Regional Water Board, and/or State Office of Emergency Services (OES)). (iii) Legal Authority: Each Enrollee must demonstrate, through sanitary sewer system use ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures, that it possesses the necessary legal authority to.- (a) Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitary sewer system (examples may include 1/I, stormwater, chemical dumping, unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.); State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 9 9 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 (b) Require that sewers and connections be properly designed and constructed-, (c) Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the lateral owned or maintained by the Public Agency; (d) Limit the discharge of fats, oils, and grease and other debris that may cause blockages, and (e) Enforce any violation of its sewer ordinances. (iv) Operation and Maintenance Program. The SSMP must include those elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee's system_ (a) Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary sewer system, showing all gravity line segments and manholes, pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and applicable stormwater conveyance facilities-, (b) Describe routine preventive operation and maintenance activities by staff and contractors, including a system for scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the sanitary sewer system with more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known problem areas. The Preventative Maintenance (PM) program should have a system to document scheduled and conducted activities, such as work orders-, (c) Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and implement short-term and long- term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The program should include regular visual and TV inspections of manholes and sewer pipes, and a system for ranking the condition of sewer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and replacement should focus on sewer pipes that are at risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages due to pipe defects. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a capital improvement plan that addresses proper management and protection of the infrastructure assets. The plan shall include a time schedule for implementing the short- and long-term plans plus a schedule for developing the funds needed for the capital improvement plan; (d) Provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer system operations and maintenance, and require contractors to be appropriately trained-, and State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 12 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 (e) Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including i? identification of critical replacement parts. (v) Design and Performance Provisions: (a) Design and construction standards and specifications for the installation of new sanitary sewer systems, pump stations and other appurtenances-, and for the rehabilitation and repair of existing sanitary sewer systems-, and (b) Procedures and standards for inspecting and testing the installation of new sewers, pumps, and other appurtenances and for rehabilitation and repair projects. (vi) Overflow Emergency Response Plan - Each Enrollee shall develop and implement an overflow emergency response plan that identifies measures to protect public health and the environment. At a minimum, this plan must include the following: (a) Proper notification procedures so that the primary responders and regulatory agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner,- (b) A program to ensure an appropriate response to all overflows-, (c) Procedures to ensure prompt notification to appropriate regulatory . agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health agencies, Regional Water Boards, water suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs that potentially affect public health or reach the waters of the State in accordance with the MRP. All SSOs shall be reported in accordance with this MRP, the California Water Code, other State Law, and other applicable Regional Water Board WDRs or NPDES permit requirements. The SSMP should identify the officials who will receive immediate notification-, (d) Procedures to ensure that appropriate staff and contractor personnel are aware of and follow the Emergency Response Plan and are appropriately trained-, (e) Procedures to address emergency operations, such as traffic and crowd control and other necessary response activities-, and (f) A program to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to contain and prevent the discharge of untreated and partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States and to 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. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 93 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 (vii) FOG Control Program: Each Enrollee shall evaluate its service area to determine whether a FOG control program is needed. If an Enrollee determines that a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must provide justification for why.it is not needed. if FOG is found to be a problem, the Enrollee must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to reduce the amount of these substances discharged to the sanitary sewer system. This plan shall include the following as appropriate- (a) An implementation plan and schedule for a public education outreach program that promotes proper disposal of FOG; (b) A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of FOG generated within a sanitary sewer system service area-, (c) The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG,- (d) Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors), design standards for the removal devices, ( ) maintenance requirements, BMP requirements, record keeping and reporting requirements, (e) Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the FOG ordinance; (f) An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section, and (g) Development and implementation of source control measures for all sources of FOG discharged to the sanitary sewer system for each section identified in (f) above. (viii) System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan- The Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement plan (CIP) that will provide hydraulic capacity of key sanitary sewer system elements for dry weather peak flow conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather event. At a minimum, the plan must include.- (a) Evaluation: Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary sewer system that are experiencing or contributing to an SSO discharge caused by hydraulic deficiency. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows (including flows from SSOs State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 94 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 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) Design Criteria: Where design criteria do not exist or are deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (a) above to establish appropriate design criteria; and (c) Capacity Enhancement Measures: The steps needed to establish a short- and long-term CIP to address identified hydraulic deficiencies, including prioritization, alternatives analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pipe size, 1/1 reduction programs, increases and redundancy in pumping capacity, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources of funding. (d) Schedule: The Enrollee shall develop a schedule of completion dates for all portions of the capital improvement program developed in (a)-(c) above. This schedule shall be reviewed and updated consistent with the SSMP review and update requirements as described in Section D. 14. (ix) Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications: The Enrollee shall: (a) Maintain relevant information that can be used to establish and prioritize appropriate SSMP activities; (b) Monitor the implementation and, where appropriate, measure the effectiveness of each element of the SSMP; (c) Assess the success of the preventative maintenance program; (d) Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring or performance evaluations; and (e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends, including: frequency, location, and volume. (x) SSMP Program Audits - As part of the SSMP, the Enrollee shall conduct periodic internal audits, appropriate to the size of the system and the number of SSOs. At a minimum, these audits must occur every two years and a report must be prepared and kept on file. This audit shalt focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 95 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 Enrollee's compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in this subsection (D.13), including identification of any deficiencies in the SSMP and steps to correct them. (xi) Communication Program —The Enrollee shall communicate on a regular basis with the public on the development, implementation, and performance of its SSMP. The communication system shall provide the public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the program is developed and implemented. The Enrollee shall also create a plan of communication with systems that are tributary and/or satellite to the Enrollee's sanitary sewer system. 14. Both the SSMP and the Enrollee's program to implement the SSMP must be certified by the Enrollee to be in compliance with the requirements set forth above and must be presented to the Enrollee's governing board for approval at a public meeting. The Enrollee shall certify that the SSMP, and subparts thereof, are in compliance with the general WDRs within the time frames identified in the time schedule provided in subsection D.15, below. In order to complete this certification, the Enrollee's authorized representative must complete the certification portion in the Online SSO Database Questionnaire by checking the appropriate milestone box, printing and signing the automated form, and sending the form to: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality Attn: SSO Program Manager P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95812 The SSMP must be updated every five (5) years, and must include any significant program changes. Re-certification by the governing board of the Enrollee is required in accordance with D.14 when significant updates to the SSMP are made. To complete the re-certification process, the Enrollee shall enter the data in the Online SSO Database and mail the form to the State Water Board, as described above. 15.The Enrollee shall comply with these requirements according to the following schedule. This time schedule does not supersede existing requirements or time schedules associated with other permits or regulatory requirements. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 16 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 Sewer System Management Plan Time Schedule t. Task and Completion Date Associated Section Population > Population Population Population < 100,000 between 100,000 between 10,000 2,500 and 10,000 and 2,500 Application for Permit Coverage 6 months after WDRs Adoption Section C Reporting Program 6 months after WDRs Adoption' Section G SSMP Development 15 months after 18 months after Plan and Schedule 9 months after 12 months after Nospecific Section WDRs Adoption WDRs Adoption Adopt one Adopti n2 Goals and Organization Structure 12 months after WDRs Adoption 18 months after WDRs Adoption Section D 13 i & ii Overflow Emergency Response Program Section D 13 vi Legal Authority Section D 13 iii 24 months a 36 months after 39 months after after 30 months after { Operation and WDRs Adoption2 WDRs Adoption2 WDRs 2 WDRs 2 Maintenance Program Adoption Adoption Section D 13 iv Grease Control Program Section D 13 vii Design and Performance Section D 13 v System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance 36 months after 39 months after 48 months after 51 months after Plan WDRs Adoption WDRs Adoption WDRs Adoption WDRs Adoption Section D 13 viii Final SSMP, incorporating all of the SSMP requirements Section D 13 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 17 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 1. In the event that by July 1, 2006 the Executive Director is able to execute a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the California Water Environment Association (CWEA) or discharger representatives outlining a strategy and time schedule for CWEA or another entity to provide statewide training on the adopted monitoring program, SSO database electronic reporting, and SSMP development, consistent with this Order, then the schedule of Reporting Program Section G shall be replaced with the following schedule: Reporting Program Section G Regional Boards 4, 8, 8 months after WDRs Adoption and 9 Regional Boards 1, 2, 12 months after WDRs Adoption and 3 Regional Boards 5, 6, 16 months after WDRs Adoption and 7 If this MOU is not executed by July 1, 2006, the reporting program time schedule will remain six (6) months for all regions and agency size categories. 2. In the event that the Executive Director executes the MOA identified in note 1 by July 1, 2006, then the deadline for this task shall be extended by six (6) months. The time schedule identified in the MOA must be consistent with the extended time (( ) schedule provided by this note. If the MOA is not executed by July 1, 2006, the six (6) month time extension will not be granted. E. WDRs and SSMP AVAILABILITY 1. A copy of the general WDRs and the certified SSMP shall be maintained at appropriate locations (such as the Enrollee's offices, facilities, and/or Internet homepage) and shall be available to sanitary sewer system operating and maintenance personnel at all times. F. ENTRY AND INSPECTION 1. The Enrollee shall allow the State or Regional Water Boards or their authorized representative, upon presentation of credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to- a. Enter upon the Enrollee'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; State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 18 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 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. G. GENERAL MONITORING AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. The Enrollee shall furnish to the State or Regional Water Board, within a reasonable time, any information that the State or Regional Water Board may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or terminating this Order. The Enrollee shall also furnish to the Executive Director of the State Water Board or Executive Officer of the applicable Regional Water Board, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order. 2. The Enrollee shall comply with the attached Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003 and future revisions thereto, as specified by the Executive Director. Monitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified in Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 2006-0003. Unless superseded by a specific enforcement Order for a specific Enrollee, these reporting requirements are intended to replace other mandatory routine written reports associated with SSOs_ 3. All Enrollees must obtain SSO Database accounts and receive a "Username" and "Password" by registering through the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). These accounts will allow controlled and secure entry into the SSO Database. Additionally, within 30days of receiving an account and prior to recording spills into the SSO Database, all Enrollees must complete the "Collection System Questionnaire", which collects pertinent information regarding a Enrollee's collection system. The "Collection System Questionnaire" must be updated at least every 12 months. 4. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 5411.5, any person who, without regard to intent or negligence, causes or permits any untreated wastewater 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 of the discharge. Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater to storm drains and drainage channels, whether man-made or natural or concrete-lined, shall be reported as required above. Any SSO greater than 1,000 gallons 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 shall also be reported to the Office of Emergency Services pursuant to California Water Code section 13271. State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 99 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 H. CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP 1. This Order is not transferable to any person or party, except after notice to the Executive Director. The Enrollee 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 Enrollee containing a specific date for the transfer of this Order's responsibility and coverage between the existing Enrollee and the new Enrollee. This agreement shall include an acknowledgement that the existing Enrollee is liable for violations up to the transfer date and that the new Enrollee is liable from the transfer date forward. I. INCOMPLETE REPORTS 1. If an Enrollee becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in any report required under this Order, the Enrollee shall promptly submit such facts or information by formally amending the report in the Online SSO Database. J. REPORT DECLARATION 1. All applications, reports, or information shall be signed and certified as follows- (i) All reports required by this Order and other information required by the State or Regional Water Board shall be signed and certified by a person C l designated, for a municipality, state, federal or other public agency, as either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official, or by a duly authorized representative of that person, as described in paragraph (ii) of this provision. (For purposes of electronic reporting, an electronic signature and accompanying certification, which is in compliance with the Online SSO database procedures, meet this certification requirement.) (ii) An individual is a duly authorized representative only if: (a) The authorization is made in writing by a person described in paragraph (i) of this provision; and (b) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated facility or activity. K. CIVIL MONETARY REMEDIES FOR DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS 1. The California Water Code provides various enforcement options, including civil monetary remedies, for violations of this Order. 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 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003 Page 20 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 _ falsifying any information provided in the technical or monitoring reports is subject to civil monetary penalties. L. SEVERABILITY 1. 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 Enrollee from liability under federal, state or local laws, nor create a vested right for the Enrollee to continue the waste discharge. CERTIFICATION The undersigned Clerk to the State Water Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of general WDRs duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the State Water Resources Control Board held on May 2, 2006. AYE: Tam M. Doduc Gerald D. Secundy NO: Arthur G. Baggett ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Song Her Clerk to the Board Appendix B Municipal Codes 2,U t1c�e pA-) �I �li 7, Z)20u ! � Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Approved El Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied (emu 7 y ity Cle s Sig a re Council Meeting Date: 10/18/2004 Depart ID Number: 04-085 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1 o SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR CITY COUNCIL E S SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULB TH!jFFT, CITY ADMIN TRAT'DR�E --r PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, PE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC W-;R .S Q- SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance to Control and Regulate Fats, Oils ariif Grease into Sewer System Qr�, 36ded' Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: An ordinance is required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB) to control and regulate Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) discharged into the sewer system. Funding Source: No funding needed for this action; however, the ordinance authorizes a fee for Food Service Establishments that generate FOG. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Adopt Ordinance No.J6 8� an ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 14.56 entitled Control and Regulation of Fats, Oils and Grease Discharged into the Sewer System. Alternative Action(s): Do not adopt the ordinance and direct staff on how to proceed. The SARWQCB requires an ordinance to be adopted by December 31, 2004. Failure to adopt a program in compliance would violate Order No. R8-2002-0014 titled "General Waste Discharge Requirements" and subject the City to sanctions by the Board. D r REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 10/18/2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:04-085 i Analysis: On April 21, 2004, the draft FOG Control Ordinance was presented to the Public Works Commission (PWC) as an information item. The City Council received a presentation of the draft Fog Control Ordinance at the May 17, 2004 Study Session. The draft ordinance was based on a sample prepared by the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) that included a FOG Program Manager as well as a complex discharge permit system. Since the previous presentations, Public Works and City Attorney's staffs have worked to simplify the process and reduce administrative costs while maintaining the integrity of the program. The original intent of the ordinance, to regulate the discharge of fats, oils and grease into the sewer system remains the same as the revised version. The revised ordinance and proposed fee structure will have been presented to the PWC on October 6, 2004. This ordinance is necessary to implement and enforce an effective FOG Control Program as required by the SARWQCB. In conjunction with the ordinance, FOG Control Fees are being proposed to fund the cost of the program. Costs include inspection and oversight, program administration and required record keeping. These new fees, as proposed, will be assessed on food service establishments (FSE), which generate a significant amount of FOG. A monthly fee of $10.50 is proposed for those FSEs with a grease control device such as a grease interceptor. Those with no such device would be charged a monthly fee of $29.00 to cover the cost for increased cleaning and inspection, including City video camera inspection. A study has been prepared to substantiate these fees, which are proposed to be adopted by resolution and will be submitted for Council approval at the November 1, 2004 meeting. Public Works staff has performed outreach communication with the Huntington Beach Chamber, Huntington Beach Restaurant Association and individually mailed notices to all affected food service establishments. Public Works Commission Action: This item will have been presented to the Public Works Commission at a special meeting held on October 6, 2004. Due to schedule conflicts and required lead times on agenda items, staff will report on the Commission's action at the October 18, 2004 City Council meeting. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachment(s): 1. Ordinance No. &,/.Fs;l 2. PowerPoint Presentation GAR C A\2004\04-085 Oct 4 Brousssard(FOG Ordinance).doc-2- 10/5/2004 2:52 PM AlILl'ACFiN9 EVT # 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3688 `! AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 14.56 ENTITLED CONTROL AND REGULATION OF.FATS, OILS AND GREASE DISCHARGED INTO THE SEWER SYSTEM The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 14.56 is hereby added to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, said Chapter to read as follows: Chaffer 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS OILS AND GREASE Sections: 14,56.010 Definitions 14.56.020 FOG discharge requirement 14.56.030 Enforcement of Chapter 14.56.040 Prohibitions . 14.56.050 FOG wastewater discharge :14.56.060 FOG fee : I 14.56.070 FOG pretreatment required 14.56.080 Single parcels 14.56.090 New construction 14.56.100 Sewer system overflows and cleanup costs 14.56.110 Nuisance declared 14.56.120 Grease interceptor requirements 14.56.130 Grease interceptor maintenance requirements 14.56.140 Monitoring facilities requirements 14.56.150 Best management practices required 14.56.160 Requirements for Best Management Practices 14.56.170 Monitoring and reporting conditions . 14.56.180 Inspection and sampling.conditions . . 14.56.190 Right of entry 14.56.200 Notification of spill 14.56.210 Penalty imposed on City by regulatory agencies 14.56.010 Definitions. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms related to water quality shall be as adopted in the latest edition of Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, published by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Environment Federation. Other terms not herein defined are defined as being the same as set forth in the latest adopted applicable editions of the California State Codes applicable to building construction as adopted 04ord/FOG scs changes/10/18104 1 Ordinan No. 3688 r1 by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code or Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Subject to the foregoing provisions,the following definitions shall apply in this Chapter: (a) Best Management Practices shall mean schedules.of.activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance .procedures and .other management practices .to.. prevent or reduce the introduction of FOG to the sewer facilities: (b) Discharger shall mean any person who discharges or causes a discharge of wastewater directly or indirectly to a public sewer. Discharger shall mean the same as User. (c) Establishment shall mean commercial or industrial establishments, including but not limited to retail food service establishments, that may discharge fats,oil and grease. (d) FOG shall mean fats, oils and grease. Any substance such as a vegetable or animal product that is used in, or is a by product of, the cooking or food preparation process, and that turns or may turn viscous or solidifies with a change in temperature or other condition is included in this definition. (e) Food Service Establishment shall mean facilities defined in California Health & Safety Code Section 113285 or which has any process or device that uses or produces FOG, or grease vapors, steam, fumes, smoke or odors that are required to be.removed by a.Type I hood, as defined in Health 8c Safety Code Section 113285. A limited food preparation.,. establishment is not considered a Food-Service Establishment or are establishments that generate FOG when engaged only in reheating, hot holding or assembly of ready to eat food products and as a result, there is no wastewater discharge containing a significant amount of FOG. A limited food preparation establishment does not include any operation that changes the form, flavor,or consistency of food. (f) Food Grinder shall mean any device_installed in the plumbing or sewage system for the purpose of grinding food waste or food preparation by products for the purpose of disposing it in the sewer system. Also means a garbage disposal. (g) Grease Control Device shall mean any grease interceptor, grease trap or other approved mechanism, device, or process, which attaches to, or. is applied to, .wastewater plumbing fixtures and lines,the purpose of which*is to.trap or collect or treat FOG prior to it being discharged into the sewer system. (h) Grease Interceptor shall mean a multi-compartment device that is constructed in different sizes and is generally required to be located, according to the current edition of the California Plumbing Code, underground between any establishment, including food service establishments that generate FOG, and the connection to the sewer system. (i) Grease Trap shall mean a grease interceptor that is designed to retain grease from one to a maximum of four fixtures. Grease traps serve individual fixtures. 04ord/FOG scs changes/10/1 8/04 -..2... Ordina No. 3688 (j) Infiltration shall mean' water entering a sewer system, including sewer service connections, from the ground through such means as defective pipes, pipe joints, connections, or manhole walls. (k) Inflow shall mean water entering a sewer system through a direct stormwater runoff connection, to the _sanitary..sewer, which may cause an .almost immediate increase in wastewater.flows. . (1) Manifest shall mean that receipt which is retained by the generator of wastes for disposing recyclable wastes or liquid wastes as required by the City. (m) New Construction shall mean any structure planned or under construction for which a sewer connection permit has not been issued. (n) Person shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation or public agency, including the State of California and the United States of America. (o) Sample Point shall mean a location approved by the City, from which wastewater can be collected that is representative in content and consistency of the entire flow of wastewater being sampled. (p) Sampling Facilities shall mean structure(s) provided at the user's expense for the City or user to measure and record wastewater constituent. mass, concentrations, collect a representative sample, or.provide access to plug or terminate the discharge. r (q) Sewer or Sewer System shall mean any and all facilities used for collecting, conveying, pumping, treating, and disposing of wastewater and sludge. This definition includes but is not limited to any property belonging to the City used in the treatment, reclamation, reuse, transportation, or disposal of wastewater, or sludge. (r) Sewer Lateral shall mean a building sewer as defined in the latest edition of the California Plumbing Code. It is the wastewater connection between the building's wastewater facilities and a public sewer system. (s) Sludge shall mean any solid, semisolid or liquid decant, subnate or superriate from a Manufacturing process, utility service, or pretreatment facility. (t) Waste shall mean sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous or radioactive, associated with human habitation or of human or animal nature, including such wastes placed within containers of whatever nature prior to and for the purpose of disposal. (u) Wastewater shall mean the liquid and water-carved wastes of the community and all constituents thereof, whether treated or untreated, discharged into or permitted to enter a public sewer. 04ord/FOG scs changes/10/18/04 c Ordinance No. 3688 14.56.020 FOG discharge requirement. No establishment shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the sewer system FOG that accumulates and/or causes or contributes to blockages in the sewer system or at the sewer system lateral, which connects the Establishment to the sewer system. 14.56.030 Enforcement of Chapter, The Director.of Public Works.of the City (the"Director")or his/her.designee is responsible.:for.'enforcement of this_Chapter and for all-.determinations of . compliance with it. 14.56.040 Prohibitions. The following prohibitions shall apply to food service establishments that generate FOG: (a) Installation of food grinders in the plumbing system of new construction of any food service establishments that generate FOG, is prohibited. Furthermore, all food grinders must be removed from existing food service establishments that generate FOG, as determined by the Director, within 90 days of written notice to remove. (b) Introduction of any additives into any establishment's wastewater system for the purpose of emulsifying FOG is prohibited. (c) Disposal of waste cooking oil into drainage pipes is prohibited. All waste cooking oils shall be collected and stored properly in receptacles such as barrels or drums for recycling or other acceptable methods of disposal. (d) Discharge of wastewater from dishwashers to any grease trap or 'grease interceptor is prohibited. (e) Discharge of wastewater with temperatures in excess of 1407 to any grease control device, including grease traps and grease interceptors,is prohibited. (f) The use of biological additives for grease remediation or as a supplement to interceptor maintenance is prohibited, unless written approval for the Director is obtained. (g) Discharge of wastes from toilets, urinals, wash basins, and other fixtures containing fecal materials to sewer lines intended for grease interceptor service, or vice versa, is prohibited.. (li) Discharge into the sewer system of any waste which has FOG as well as solid materials removed from the grease control device is prohibited. Grease removed from grease interceptors shall be wastehauled periodically as part of the operation and maintenance requirements for grease interceptors. Licensed wasthaulers or an approved recycling facility must be used to dispose of FOG, including waste cooking oil. 14.56.050 FOG wastewater discharge. No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, any wastewater from any establishment, directly or indirectly into the sewer system without complying with this Chapter. 04ord/FOG scs changes/10/I8/04 —4— Ordin,nce No. 3688 i 14.56.060 FOG fee. All food service establishments must pay a monthly fee as set by resolution of the City Council to offset the costs of enforcing this Chapter. 14.56.070 FOG pretreatment required. All new food service establishments are required to install, operate and maintain an approved type and adequately sized grease interceptor necessary Jo maintain compliance with the objectives of this Chapter. Existing food service.establishments with no grease interceptor shall pay a FOG Control fee surcharge, which shall be established by resolution of the City Council and shall be based on the estimated annual increase and costs of inspecting and monitoring the sewer system, resulting from the lack of a grease interceptor or grease-control device. The grease interceptor shall be adequate to separate and remove FOG contained in wastewater discharges from any establishment prior.to discharge to the sewer system consistent with the grease interceptor requirements of this chapter. 14.56.080 Single parcels. Property owners of commercial properties or their official designee(s) shall be responsible for the installation and maintenance of the grease interceptor serving multiple establishments that are located on a single parcel or for paying the FOG fee surcharge if there is no grease interceptor. 14.56.090 New construction. This Section shall not be interpreted to allow new construction, remodeling or change in operations without an approved grease interceptor unless the Director has determined in writing that it is impossible or impracticable to install_ or operate a grease control interceptor for the subject facility under the provisions of this Chapter: 14.56.100 Sewer system overflows and cleanup costs. Establishments found to have contributed to a sewer blockage, sewer system overflow (`-SSO"), or any sewer system interferences resulting from the discharge of wastewater or waste containing FOG, may be ordered to install and maintain a grease interceptor, and may be subject to a plan to abate the nuisance and prevent any future health hazards created by sewer line failures and blockages, SSOs or any other sewer system interferences. If the City must act to contain and/or clean up an SSO caused by blockage of a private or public sewer lateral or system, or at the request of the property owner or operator of the Establishment, or because of the failure of the property owner or Establishment to abate the condition causing a threat to the health, safety, welfare, or property of the public, or because of an unauthorized discharge of FOG, the City's costs for such abatement will be entirely borne by the property owner or operator of the Establishment, and said cost will constitute.a debt to the . City and become due and payable upon the City's request for reimbursement of such costs. 14.56.110 Nuisance declared. Sewer system overflows may cause threat and injury to public health,safety, and welfare of life and property and are hereby declared public nuisances. 14.56.120 Grease interceptor requirements. -All grease interceptors must comply with all relevant City ordinances, and the current edition of the Califomia Plumbing Code, if applicable. (a) Grease interceptor sizing and installation shall conform to the current edition of the California Plumbing Code. Grease interceptors shall be constructed in accordance with the design approved by the City's Director of Building and Safety and shall have a 04ord/FOG scs changes/10/18/04 —5,..., Ord_ nce No. 3688 minimum of two compartments with fittings designed for grease retention and a sampling box. (b) The grease interceptor shall be installed at a location where it shall be at all times easily accessible for inspection, cleaning, and removal of accumulated grease. (c) Access manholes, with a minimum diameter.of 24 iriches,:shall..be`provided over each grease interceptor chamber and sanitary tee. The access manholes shall extend at least to finished grade and be designed and maintained to prevent water inflow or infiltration. The manholes shall also have readily removable covers to facilitate inspection, grease removal, and wastewater sampling activities. 14.56.130. Grease interceptor maintenance requirements. (a) Grease Interceptors shall be maintained in efficient operating condition by periodic removal of the full content of the interceptor which includes wastewater, accumulated FOG, floating materials, sludge and solids. (b) All existing and newly installed grease interceptors shall be maintained in a manner consistent with a maintenance frequency approved by the Director pursuant to this section. (c) No FOG that has accumulated.in.a grease.,interceptor shall be.allowed.to.pass-into.any sewer lateral,.sewer .system, storm .drain, or.public-'right of :way :during maintenance activities. (d) All establishments with grease interceptors may be required to submit data and information necessary to establish the maintenance frequency of the grease interceptors and shall be determined in one of the following methods: (1) Grease interceptors shall be fully pumped out and cleaned at a frequency such that the combined FOG and solids accumulation does not exceed 25% of the total liquid depth of the grease interceptor. This is to ensure that the minimum hydraulic retention time and required available volume is maintained to effectively intercept and retain FOG discharged to the sewer system. (2) All establishments with a grease interceptor shall maintain their grease interceptor not less than once every. 6 months. Grease interceptors shall be fully pumped out and cleaned quarterly when the frequency described in paragraph (1) of this section has not been established. The maintenance frequency shall be.adjusted when sufficient data have been obtained to establish an average frequency based on the requirements described in paragraph (1). The City may change the maintenance frequency at any time to reflect changes in actual operating conditions. Based on the actual generation of FOG from an establishment, including food service establishments that generate FOG, the maintenance frequency may increase or decrease. 04ordlFOG scs chanses/10119/04 6, Ordi ice No. .3688 (3) If the grease interceptor, at any time, contains FOG and solids accumulation that l does not meet the requirements described in (1), any establishment, including food service establishments generating FOG. shall be required to have the grease interceptor serviced immediately such that all fats, oils, grease, sludge, and other materials are completely removed from the grease interceptor. If deemed necessary, the Director may also increase the maintenance frequency of the grease . interceptor frorri the current frequency. 14.56.140 Monitoring facilities requirements. (a) The City may require establishments to construct and maintain in proper operating condition at the establishment's sole expense, flow monitoring. constituent monitoring and/or sampling facilities. (b) The location of the monitoring or metering facilities shall be subject to approval by the Director. (e) Establishments may also be required by the Director to submit waste .analysis plans, contingency plans, and meet other necessary requirements to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the grease control device or grease interceptor and compliance with this Chapter. (d) Establishments shall not increase the use .of water or in any other manner attempt to dilute a discharge as a partial or complete substitute for treatment to achieve compliance with this Chapter, 14.56.150 Best management practices required. All establishments shall implement Best Management Practices in its operation to minimize the discharge of FOG to the sewer system. 14.56.160 Requirements for Best Management Practices. (a) All establishments shall implement Best Management Practices in accordance with the requirements and guidelines established by the City in an effort to minimize the discharge of FOG to the sewer system. (b) All establishments shall be required, at a minimum, to comply- with the following Best Management Practices: (1) Installation of drain screens. Drain screens shall be installed on all drainage pipes in food preparation and kitchen areas. (2) Segregation and collection of waste cooking oil. All employees must comply with all provisions of this Chapter relating to segregation, disposal and recycling of FOG. (3) Disposal of food waste. All food waste shall be disposed of directly into the trash or garbage, and not in sinks or toilets. Word/FOG scs changes/10/18/04 —7— Orr :ance No. 3688 (4) Employee training. Employees of the food service establishment shall be trained within 180 days of the effective date of this Chapter, and twice each calendar year thereafter,on the following subjects: (i) How to "dry wipe"pots, pans, dishware and work areas before washing to remove grease. (ii) How to properly dispbse of food waste and solids prior to disposal in trash bins or containers to prevent leaking and odors. (Ili) The location and use of absorption products to clean under fryer baskets and other locations where grease may be spilled or dripped. (iv) How to properly dispose of grease or oils from cooking equipment into a grease receptacle such as a barrel or drum without spilling. Training shall be documented and employee signatures retained indicating each employee's attendance and understanding of the practices reviewed. Training records shall be available for review at any reasonable time by the Director and/or his designee. (5) Maintenance of kitchen exhaust filters. Filters shall be cleaned as frequently as necessary to be maintained in good operating condition. The wastewater Qenerated from cleaning the exhaust filter shall be disposed properly. - (6) Kitchem signage. Best mariageinent and waste minimization practices shall be posted conspicuously in the food preparation and dishwashing areas at all times. 14.56.170 Monitoring and reporting conditions. (a) Monitoring for Compliance with Ordinance and Reporting Requirements (1) The Director may require periodic reporting of the status of implementation of Best Management Practices. (2) The Director may require visual monitoring at the sole expense of the establishment which generates FOG to observe the actual conditions .of any establishment's; including food service establishments that generate FOG, sewer lateral and sewer lines downstream. (3) The Director may require reports for self-monitoring of wastewater constituents and FOG characteristics of the establishment needed for determining compliance with this Chapter. Failure by the establishment to perform any required monitoring. or to submit monitoring reports required by the Director constitutes a violation of this Chapter and be cause for the City to initiate all necessary tasks and analyses to determine the wastewater constituents and FOG characteristics for compliance with any conditions and requirements specified in this Chapter. The Establishment shall be responsible for any and all expenses of the City in v undertaking such monitoring analyses and preparation of reports. o4 WFOG scs chan2es110/1W4 .,,g._., Ordi- ice No. 3688 r (4) Other reports may be required such as compliance schedule progress reports, FOG control monitoring reports, and any.other reports deemed reasonably appropriate by the Director to ensure compliance with this Chapter. (b) Record Keeping Requirements. The Establishment shall be required to keep all 'manifests, receipts and invoices of all cleaning, maintenance, grease removal of/from the grease control device, disposal carrier and disposal site location for no less than four years. .The Establishment shall, upon request, make the manifests, receipts and invoices available to the Director of his designee. These records may include: (1) A logbook of grease control device cleaning and maintenance practices. (2) A record of Best Management Practices being implemented including employee training. (3) Copies of records and manifests of wastehauling interceptor contents and/or waste cooking oil disposal. (4) Records of sampling data and sludge height monitoring for FOG and solids accumulation.in the grease interceptors. (5) Any other information deemed appropriate by the Director to ensure compliance with this Chapter. (c) Falsifying Information or Tampering with Process. It shall be unlawful to make any false statement, representation, record, report, plan or other document that is filed with the City, or to tamper with or knowingly render inoperable any grease control device, monitoring device or method or access point required under this Chapter. 14.56.180 Inspection and sampling conditions. (a) The Director may,inspect or order the inspection and sample the wastewater discharges of any establishment subject to this Chapter to ascertain whether the intent of this Chapter is being met and the establishment is complying with all requirements. The establishment shall allow the City access to the premises, during normal business hours, for purposes of inspecting the establishment's grease control devices or interceptor, reviewing the manifests, receipts and invoices relating to the cleaning, maintenance and inspection of the grease control devices or interceptor. (b) The Director shall have the right to place or order the placement on the establishment's property or other locations as determined by the Director, such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling or metering operations. Where any establishment has security measures in force, the establishment shall make necessary arrangements so that Dior fFOG scs changes/10/18/04 —9— Ordi ice No. 3688 representatives of the City shall be permitted tolenter without delay for the purpose of performing their specific responsibilities. (c) Persons or occupants of premises where wastewater is created or discharged shall allow the Director, or City representatives, reasonable access to all parts of the wastewater generating and disposal facilities for the purposes of inspection and sampling during all times the discharger's facility is open,operating, of ariy other reasonable time. (d) In order for the Director to determine the wastewater characteristics of the discharger for purposes of determining the annual use charge, the establishment shall make available for inspection and copying by the City all notices, monitoring reports, waste manifests, and records including, but not limited to, those related to wastewater generation, and wastewater disposal. All such records shall be kept for a minimum of four(4) years. (1) Sampling and inspection of any establishments, including food service establishments, that generate FOG shall be conducted in the time, place, manner, and frequency determined at the sole discretion of the Director. (2) Any sample taken from a sample point is considered to be representative of the discharge to the public sewer. 14.56.190 Right of entry_. No person shall interfere with, delay, resist or refuse entrance to City representatives attempting to inspect any facility involved directly or indirectly with a discharge of wastewater to the City's sewer system. 14.56.200 Notification of spill. (a) In the event an establishment is unable to comply with any permit condition or provision of this Chapter due to a breakdown of equipment, accidents, or human error or the establishment has reasonable opportunity to know that his/her/its discharge will exceed the discharge provisions of this Chapter, the discharger shall immediately notify the Director by telephone. If the material discharged to the sewer has the potential to cause or result in sewer blockages or SSOs, the discharger shall immediately notify the local Health Department or County,and the City. (b) Confirmation of this notification shall be made in writing to the Director no later than five (5) working days from.the date.of the incident. The.written notification shall state. the date of the incident, the reasons for the discharge or spill, what steps were taken to immediately correct the problem, and what steps are being taken to prevent the problem from recurring. (c) Such notification shall not relieve the establishment of any expense, loss, damage or other liability which may be incurred as a result of damage or loss to the City or any other damage or loss to person or property; nor shall such notification relieve the establishment of any fees or other liability which may be imposed by this Chapter or other applicable law. 04ord/f OG scs changes/t 0/t 8/04 ---10— Ordini e No. 3688 14.56.210 Penalty imposed on City by regulatory agencies. Any person who discharges a waste which causes or contributes to the City violating its discharge requirements established by any Regulatory Agency with jurisdiction over the City incurring additional expenses or suffering losses or damage to the facilities, shall be liable for any costs or expenses incurred by the City, including regulatory fines, penalties, and assessments made by other agencies or a court. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day_of November 2004. Ma for ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r, IU City Clerk I City Att'mey - 5G� REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ITIATE AND A`PP D: City Administrator Director of Public Works 04ord/FOG scs changes/927/04 —1 1 `l Ord. No: 3688 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN,the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of-the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of October,2004, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of November,2004, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Green,Boardman, Cook,Winchell C NOES: None ; ABSENT: Hardy, ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on November 11,2004. In accordance with the City Charter of said City 6z(N P"'J L Joan L. Flynn,City Clerk CU Clerk and ex-officio&1erk Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California � ;�}G � Cam,-"l • i- .� - t � A Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved 0 Denied C' erk' Sig t e Council Meeting Date: November 15, 2004 Departme4 Number. PW 04-086 CITY:OF-HUNTINGTOR-BEACH c REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION z SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ME S q=+ C-_ ,- SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPE CULB 7 ET H-G FT, CITY ADMIN ISTIRATORS = i PREPARED BY: ROBERT F. BEARDSLEY, PE, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WeRa O A SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION SETTING THE FATS, OILS,AND GREASE CONTROL PROGRAM FEES `gyp. apa�_ �9 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: A:resoliltion has`been'.prepared'tb adopt rtew fees:to:ftand�--a Fats;- Oils,. 'd-Grease (FbG). ! -Control Program: The`new fee will'apply`to-Food Service Establishments that generate FOG. Funding Source: s Annual revenue is estimated at $78,000. Revenues will offset anticipated program costs as indicated in the table below. j ANNUAL PROGRAM REVENUES AND EXPENSES i Estimated Revenue € 120 FSE x$10.50 x 12 months= $15,120 _180 FSE x.$29,00 x. months- 62 640 TOTAL - -$77,760.: ES mated Expenses Basic Inspection 300 hrs. x$84.11*_ $25,233 Enhanced Inspection 90 hrs. x$84.11*_ $ 7,570 Enhanced Sewer Camera Inspection 180 hrs. x $179.68= $32,342 i Program Management 150 hrs. x$84.11*= 1$ 2,615 TOTAL = $77,760 *hourly rate rounded i Alternative Alternative Actions : ' i Deny adoption and absorb the costs of the FOG Control Program in the General Fund. i i • 1 i I . - t Y i REQUEST FOR CiTY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 15, 2004 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW 04-086 , Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. .Conduct,a Public Hearing;and 2.Adopt Resolution-No.'�60 (/- S`IF a resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach setting the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program Fee. Analysis: On October 18, 2004, a FOG Control Ordinance was introduced at the City Council Meeting. This ordinance is necessary to implement and enforce an effective FOG Control Program as required by- the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, (SARWQCB). In conjunction with the ordinance, FOG Control Fees are being proposed to fund the cost of the program. Costs include inspection and oversight, program administration and required record keeping. These new fees will be assessed on food service establishments (FSE), which generate a significant amount of FOG. A monthly fee of$10.50 will be assessed on those FSEs with a grease control device such as a grease interceptor. Those with no such device will be charged a monthly fee of $29.00 to cover the cost for increased cleaning and inspection, including in line video camera devices. Exhibits A and B to the Resolution incorporate the study prepared to substantiate these fees. To date, only two cities within the Santa Ana Regional VVater. Quality. ..Control-Board area..: a have:progressed to the'level;of deVelopment.and adoption°of.t FOG:contral fee:.:=These two . .:cities a€e Fuflerton and Newport Beach: The=City of Fullertonhas set fees of $100 per year plus a surcharge based on water usage for all FSEs. The City of Newport Beach is proposing fees of between $115-$175 per year. Public Works staff has performed outreach communication with the Huntington Beach Chamber and the Huntington Beach Restaurant Association. Individual notices were sent to the approximately 300 affected FSEs to make them aware of the SARWQCB requirements, J as well as the proposed fee structure. i Public Works Commission Action: The Public Works Commission reviewed and i recommended the action on October 6, 2004, with a vote of 4-0-3. Environmental Status: Not applicable. _ Attachment(s): i 1. Resolution No. a216,�-'S ` RCA Author. T. Broussard:jg s GAR C AA2004104-086 Nov 1 Broussard(FOG Fee Reso).doc 2- 11/3/2004 2-48 PM t RESOLUTION NO. 2 0 0 4—8 9 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SETTING THE FATS,OIL AND GREASE(FOG)CONTROL PROGRAM FEE i WHEREAS, in 2002 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Order No. 2002-0014("Order No. 2002-0014")requiring the City of Huntington Beach to increase the level of maintenance,operations and capital repair to the sewer systems,to maintain stricter controls on materials placed into the sanitary sewer system,and to have in place a Fats,Oils and Grease ("FOG") Control Program; and The Santa Ana Regional Water Control Board has focused on Food Service Establishments ("FSEs")as a primary source of FOG. FSEs include restaurants,food manufacturing and processing facilities and related businesses; and The purpose of a FOG Control Program is to prevent blockages of the sanitary sewer line that cause sanitary sewer overflows by establishing control mechanisms that will establish regulations and policies for the disposal of FOG by FSEs; and Where it is the desire of the City Council to comply with Order No.2002-0014 and adopt a FOG Control Program that sets forth policies that FSEs operating within the City must follow to be (% l allowed to continue to operate,which policies are intended to eliminate as much FOG from ( discharge to the City sewer system as possible; and The City Council has reviewed a report entitled the"Fog Control Program Fee Study", which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. The Fog Control Program Fee Study sets forth the estimated costs to the City of Huntington Beach of administering the FOG Control Program mandated by Order No. 2002-0014; The City Council has considered this matter and desires to recover from FSEs operating within the City of Huntington Beach the costs of administering the FOG Control Program by levying a FOG Control Program Fee in an amount consistent with the findings of the FOG Control Program Fee Study NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: i 1_ After reviewing the FOG Control Program Fee Study, the City Council finds that the following fees do not exceed the cost to the City of Huntington Beach to administer the FOG Control Program mandated by Order No.2002-0014: I 04resa'£ats oil a casc/9 0/0 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-89 FSE Category Base Fee Additional Fee Total Daily Rate mo.} (Mo.) (Mo.) FSE's with grease control device $10.53 - $10.50 $0.3452 FSE's without grease control $10.53 $18.48 $29.00 $0.9534 device 2. All Food Service Establishments operating within the City shall pay a FOG Control Program Fee as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular fmeeting thereof held on the 1 5TH day of NOVEMBER , 2004. IV or REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Addinistrator Wly Attorn h IN ED AND ROVED: Director of Public Works 04reso/fats oil sreasd930I04 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2004-89 EXHIBYT A FOG CONTROL PROGRAMM FEE STUDY September 2004 i NARRATIVE In 2002, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board issued an Order(No. 2002-0014)which included a requirement to implement a Fats, Oils, & Grease(FOG) Control Program. As this program is an un-funded mandate, this study has been prepared to estimate the costs to administer, this program on a yearly basis. This cost will then be assessed to the Food Service Establishments (FSE), which generate FOG. The City proposes to adopt a FOG Control Ordinance, which defines the affected FSE's as follows: Food Service Establishment shall mean facilities defined in California Health &Safety Code Section 113285 or which has any process or device that uses or produces FOG, or grease vapors, steam,fumes, smoke or odors that are required to be removed by a Type I hood, as defined in Health &Safety Code Section 113285. 4 limited food preparation establishment is not considered a Food Service Establishment or are establishments that generate FOG when engaged only in reheating, hot holding or assembly of ready to eat food products and as a result, there is no wastewater discharge containing a significant atrrount of FOG A limited food preparation establishment does not include any operation that changes the form,flavor, or consistency offood. The industry recognizes that properly maintained grease control-devices such as grease traps and grease interceptors provide the best method of controlling the amount of FOG that reaches the sewer system. In addition,kitchen best management practices(BMP)can add to the effectiveness of a grease control program. However, all of these activities must be monitored and enforced by City staff for compliance with the aforementioned ordinance and Order. FOG CONTROL PROGRAM FEE It is proposed to assess a fee to all FSE's, as afore-defined, in order to recover administrative costs associated with the State mandated FOG Control Program_ The City has identified approximately 300 FSE's,which will require some level of administration by City staff. It is proposed to assess a "base"fee to all of these FSE's. In addition, we have also identified approximately 180 of those 300 FSE's that do not have a grease control device. As such, they will have to rely on kitchen BMP's to control the amount of FOG they produce. Since kitchen BMP's are generally not as effective as a grease control device,an elevated effort by City staff will be required to monitor those 180 FSE's. Therefore an additional fee wrill be assessed to those particular FSE's to cover increased administrative and inspection costs. Q4rzsolfats oil grcase/9r0iO4 fRESOLUTION NO. 2004-89 I Base Fee for all FOG Generating FSE's This fee will be assessed to all 300 FSE's that generate FOG to cover the cost of City staff to administer the FOG Control Program,which may include but not limited to; site inspection of grease control devices and kitchen BMP's as well as general administrative activities. Time to manage FOG Control Program 0.5 hrs/FSE/yr.x 300= 150 hrs. Time to inspect FSE 1 hr/FSE/yr. x 300= 300 hrs Total time 450 hrs Annual Cost 450 hrs x $84.27*/hr= $37,921.50 Annual Cost per FSE $37,921.50/300 = $126.40 Monthly Cost per FSE $252.81/12= $10.53 *Fully Burdened Rate for Administrative Environmental Specialist Additional Fee for FOG Generating FSE's with no FOG Control Device This fee will be assessed on 180 current FSE's with no FOG Control Device in addition to the "Base" fee. This will cover the cost to perform an elevated level of administration and inspection including one additional CCTV inspection per year more than normal. Additional administration/inspection(A/I) time 0.5 hr/FSE/yr x 180 = 90 hrs ' Additional Annual Cost(JI)90 hrs x $84.27/hr= $ 7,584.30 Additional CCTV inspection $179.68**/FSE/yr x 180 = $32.342.40 $39,926.70 Additional Annual Cost per FSE $39,926.70/180= $221.81 Additional Monthly Cost per FSE $221.32/12 = $18.48 **Fully Burdened Rate of$57.34 for two person crew plus CCTV Truck @ S65.00/br. for one hour FEE SUMMARY FSE Category Base Fee Additional Fee Total (Mo.) (mo.) (Mo.) FSE's with grease control device $10.53 - $10.53 FSE's without grease control device $10.53 $18.48 $29.01 * For simplification, Fees of$10.50 and$29.00 are recommended. Any additional sen-ices provided by the City, not listed above,such as spill response or additional sewer main line cleaning due to accumulation of FOG will be billed directly to the responsible party on a time and material basis as provided for in the Ordinance. 04reso/fats oil orcasa-9/30/04 I RESOLUTION NO. 2004-89 3 EXHIBIT B FSE Category Base Fee Additional Fee Total Daily Rate (Mo.) (Mo.) (Mo.) FSE's with grease control device $10.53 - $10.50 $0.3452 FSE's without grease control $0.9534 device $10.53 $18.48 $29.00 04reso/fats oil geasd9/3C 04 �P Res. No.2004-89 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly appointed, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-ofltcio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at !east a majority of all the members of said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of November, 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Hardy, Green, Boardman, Cook,Winchell NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Cit#lerk and ex-officio erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Appendix C FOG Control Program Su. i' Hwy, j��o E City of Huntington Beach xty:r Fats, Oils, and Grease Control Program Prepared by: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 December 2004 As Required by: RWQCB, SANTA ANA REGION ORDER NO. R8-2002-0014 GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS (WDR) G:\Engineering Division\Broussard\Sewer\WDR\FOG\Fog Control Program.doc CONTENTS `L 1. PURPOSE 1 2. FOG CONTROL PROGRAM 1 2.1. Inventory 1 2.2.Education 2 2.3.Regulation 2 2.3.1. Requirements for Installation of a Grease Interceptor 2 2.3.2. Requirements for Grease Interceptor Maintenance 3 2.3.3. Prohibitions 4 2.3.4. Requirements for Implementing BMPs 4 2.3.5. Requirements for Record-keeping 6 3. APPENDIX 3.1.1.1.1. FOG Ordinance 3.1.1.1.2. FOG Fee Resolution f; 1. PURPOSE The 2000-01 Orange County Grand Jury investigated sewer backups, more commonly known in the industry as sanitary sewer overflows, (SSO) and concluded the primary cause for SSOs was due to sewer pipes clogged with fats, oils and grease (FOG). In 2002, the Regional Water Quality Control Board issued Order No. 2002-0014 which requires sewer agencies to implement programs to reduce SSOs and' their potential impacts. Specifically, the Order states the following: (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 a grease ordinance. (A) The grease control prograin shall identify sections of the sewer system subject to grease blockages and establish a cleaning maintenance schedule for each section; and �r (B)The program shall develop and implement source control measures, for all sources of l grease and fats discharged to the sewer system,for each section identified in (A) above. As Food Service Establishments (FSEs) have been identified as the major generator of FOG, this FOG Control Program focuses on those facilities. A three-tiered approach of Inventory, Education, and Regulation has been used to develop this program. 2. FOG CONTROL PROGRAM 2.1 Inventory An inventory of all FSEs within the City of Huntington Beach has been completed to ascertain those establishments, which produce significant amounts of FOG. Each FSE was visited to determine whether it utilized a grease control device such as a grease trap or interceptor. The location of those FSEs were then input into the City's Geographical Information System (GIS) with links to the inventory database. To better understand the issue, known "hot spots", which are locations of the sewer system that, require above average cleaning due to FOG were obtained from the City's sewer maintenance staff. These "hot spots" were input into our GIS and color coded to identify the necessary cleaning schedule as low, medium, or high. Also input, were any known past SSOs. As new FSEs obtain a permit and business license, their pertinent information will be added to the inventory database and GIS. City staff will have the ability to monitor this collection of data as a tool to identify local trends and areas of concern as time goes by. FOG Control Program 1 2.2 Education Educating the public, specifically the owner of the FSE is key to the understanding of the issue. At the onset of the program, or when a new business is opened, City staff will review with the owner/manager, the causes of FOG related SSOs and their implications as well as Kitchen Best Management Practices (BMP) that can be used to limit the amounts of FOG from entering the sewer system. A training video, which describe, these practices will be supplied to the owner in several different languages to share with their employees. In addition, literature and posters will be given out to the establishment to reinforce these BMPs on a daily basis. By City code, the owner/manager is required to review these procedures with all existing and new kitchen staff. As part of the City's inspection program, evidence of this training in the form of the employees signature attesting to the training, will be requested. 2.3 Regulation The most complex component of this program is the regulations and requirements imposed on FSEs to establish FOG control mechanisms. These regulations have been codified through an ordinance to insure proper legal authority to impose as well as enforce them. A copy of the ordinance and fee resolution to support this program is included in the appendix of this Plan. There are two essential elements for effectively controlling the discharge of FOG: • Pretreatment through installation, operation, and maintenance of a properly designed and adequately sized grease control device. The use of a properly maintained grease control device has been shown to be the most effective conventional FOG control technology. • Implementation of kitchen BMPs are practical measures and operations, that when implemented will significantly reduce the quantities of FOG released from FSEs. When practiced consistently, BMPs help reduce FOG loading on the grease control device. As a result, the performance of the grease device is optimized and improved in addition to its maintenance frequency being reduced, as well. BMPs include proper grease disposal and handling and proper kitchen practices for minimizing the discharge of FOG at the source. Examples of these BMPs are given in Section 2.3.4. 2.3.1 Requirements for Installation of Grease Control Devices A new FSE is required to install a grease control device, since there is a full opportunity to plan for the new installation with the cost component being part of the facility's initial FOG Control Program 2 EMMUNBUMEW f capital investment. Any FSE conducting a major remodeling may have a similar ' opportunity and therefore the same requirement would be implemented. Although it would be ideal to require all FSEs to install an adequate grease control device, considerations should be made for existing FSEs with no such device. These existing FSEs may have not been required to install a grease control device when their facilities were constructed, and therefore, it is anticipated that retrofitting problems may be encountered. Therefore, this program allows existing FSEs with no grease control device be allowed to continue operations using only BMPs to reduce FOG. However, a monthly fee surcharge will be assessed on those FSEs without a grease control device in order to cover the City's costs for an elevated level of inspection and cleaning. Any costs incurred by the City above and beyond for additional inspections, administration and cleaning will be charged directly to the FSE on a time and material basis. Visual inspection of the FSEs lateral and connecting sewer main is the most accurate indicator of a facility's impact as a result of discharging FOG at significant levels that might cause a sewer blockage. This inspection can also be used to establish action levels that would trigger the requirement for installation of a grease control device on an existing FSE. Visual inspection is accomplished through the use of CCTV technologies. This monitoring method has proven to be useful in controlling FOG discharge. There are occasions, however, when a clean lateral may not necessarily represent the absence of FOG discharge. The use of additives or discharge of solvents that emulsify grease can camouflage a significantly high FOG discharge. ? 2.3.2 Requirements for Interceptor Maintenance Interceptor maintenance shall conform to the following requirements as outlined in the City's ordinance: (a) Grease Interceptors shall be maintained in efficient operating condition by periodic removal of the full contents of the interceptor, which includes wastewater, accumulated FOG, floating materials, sludge and solids. (b) All existing and newly installed grease interceptors shall be maintained in a manner consistent with a maintenance frequency approved by the Director pursuant to this section. (c) No FOG that has accumulated in a grease interceptor shall be allowed to pass into any sewer lateral, sewer system, storm drain, or public right of way during maintenance activities. (d) All establishments with grease interceptors may be required to submit data and information necessary to establish the maintenance frequency of the grease interceptors and shall be determined in one of the following methods: (1) Grease interceptors shall be fully pumped out and cleaned at a frequency such that the combined FOG and solids accumulation does not exceed 25% of the total liquid depth of the grease interceptor. This is to ensure FOG Control Program 3 that the minimum hydraulic retention time and required available volume is maintained to effectively intercept and retain FOG discharged to the sewer ? system. (2) All establishments with a grease interceptor shall maintain their grease interceptor not less than every 6 months. Grease interceptors shall be fully pumped out and cleaned quarterly when the frequency described in Section 2.3.2.d.1 has not been established. The maintenance frequency shall be adjusted when sufficient data have been obtained to establish an average frequency based on the requirements described in paragraph (1). The City may order a change to the maintenance frequency at any time to reflect changes in actual operating conditions. Based on the actual generation of FOG from an establishment, including food service establishments that generate FOG, the maintenance frequency may increase or decrease. (3) If the grease interceptor, at any time, contains FOG and solids accumulation that does not meet the requirements described in Section 2.3.2.d.1, any establishment, including food service establishments generating FOG, shall be required to have the grease interceptor serviced immediately such that all fats, oils, grease, sludge, and other materials are completely removed from the grease interceptor. If deemed necessary, the Director may also increase the maintenance frequency of the grease interceptor from the current frequency. ' 2.3.3 Prohibitions The following prohibitions shall apply as they may affect the performance of a grease control device: (a) Installation of food grinders in the plumbing system of new construction of any FSE that generate FOG is prohibited. Furthermore, all food grinders must be removed from existing FSEs that generate FOG, as determined by the Director, within 90 days of written notice to remove. (b) Introduction of any additives into any establishment's wastewater system for the purpose of emulsifying FOG is prohibited. (c) Disposal of waste cooking oil into drainage pipes is prohibited. All waste cooking oils shall be collected and stored properly in receptacles such as barrels or drums for recycling or other acceptable methods of disposal. (d) Discharge of wastewater from dishwashers to any grease trap or grease interceptor is prohibited. (e) Discharge of wastewater with temperatures in excess of 140°F to any grease control device, including grease traps and grease interceptors, is prohibited. FOG Control Program 4 (f) The use of biological additives for grease remediation or as a supplement to interceptor maintenance is prohibited, unless written approval from the Director is obtained. (g) Discharge of wastes from toilets, urinals, washbasins, and other fixtures containing fecal materials to sewer lines intended for grease interceptor service, or vice versa, is prohibited. (h) Discharge into the sewer system of any waste, which has FOG as well as solid materials removed from the grease control device, is prohibited. Grease removed from grease interceptors shall be waste hauled periodically as part of the operation and maintenance requirements for grease interceptors. Licensed waste haulers or an approved recycling facility must be used to dispose of FOG, including waste cooking oil. 2.3.4 Requirements for Implementation of BMPs In addition to pretreatment, another basic component of the FOG control program is the application of BMPs to control generation of FOG from the source. At a minimum, all FSEs should be required to implement enforceable BMPs. Acceptable BMPs are defined in the City's ordinance as follows: (a) All establishments shall implement Best Management Practices in accordance with the requirements and guidelines established by the City in an effort to minimize the discharge of FOG to the sewer system. (b) All establishments shall be required, at a minimum, to comply with the following Best Management Practices: (1) Installation of drain screens. Drain screens shall be installed on all drainage pipes in food preparation and kitchen areas. (2) Segregation and collection of waste cooking oil. All employees must comply with all provisions of this Chapter relating to segregation, disposal and recycling of FOG. (3) Disposal of food waste. All food waste shall be disposed of directly into the trash or garbage, and not in sinks or toilets. (4) Employee training. Kitchen staff of the food service establishment shall be trained within 180 days of the effective date of this Chapter, and twice each calendar year thereafter, on the following subjects: (i) How to "dry wipe" pots, pans, dishware and work areas before washing to remove grease. FOG Control Program 5 (ii) How to properly dispose of food waste and solids prior to disposal in trash bins or containers to prevent leaking and odors. i (iii) The location and use of absorption products to clean under fryer baskets and other locations where grease may be spilled or dripped. (iv) How to properly dispose of grease or oils from cooking equipment into a grease receptacle such as a barrel or drum without spilling. Training shall be documented and employee signatures retained indicating each employee's attendance and understanding of the practices reviewed. Training records shall be available for review at any reasonable time by the Director and/or his designee. (5) Maintenance of kitchen exhaust filters. Filters shall be cleaned as frequently as necessary to be maintained in good operating condition. The wastewater generated from cleaning the exhaust filter shall be disposed properly. (6) Kitchen signage. Best management and waste minimization practices shall be posted conspicuously in the food preparation and dishwashing areas at all times. 2.3.5 Requirements for Record-keeping FSEs are required to keep all manifests, receipts and invoices of all cleaning, maintenance, grease removal of/from the grease control device, disposal carrier and disposal site location for no less than four years. These records may include: (a) A logbook of grease control device cleaning and maintenance practices. (b) A record of Best Management Practices being implemented including employee training. (c) Copies of records and manifests of waste-hauling interceptor contents and/or waste cooking oil disposal. (d) Records of sampling data and sludge height monitoring for FOG and solids accumulation in the grease interceptors. FOG Control Program 6 APPENDIX � t FOG Control Program 7 Appendix D Preventative Maintenance Program City of Huntington Beach 2009 WDR Preventative Maintenance Program Prepared by City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works Utilities Division, Waste Water Section (714) 536-5921 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1. General Information..............................................................2 Section If. Facility and Equipment Operation and Management........................4 Section 111. Mapping of Collection System..................................................6 Section IV. Routine Preventative Operation and Maintenance...........................8 Section V. Capacity Assessment............................................................16 Section VI. Prioritization and Rehabilitation of Structural Deficiencies...............17 Section V11. Equipment and Replacement Inventories....................................18 City of Huntington Beach WDR 2 Section I. General Information The City of Huntington Beach is an urban city with a population of 201,000 residents. It contains approximately 17,730 acres or 28 square miles of which 97 percent is developed with residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, public uses and streets/highways. It is surrounded by Westminster to the north, Fountain Valley to the northeast, Costa Mesa to the east, Newport Beach to the southeast, Sunset Beach to the northwest, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Elevations vary from sea level to approximately 200 feet above sea level. Residential use is the largest single land use in the City. The City is responsible for operating and maintaining 28 sewer lift stations, 635 miles of sewer line (includes 275 miles of lateral lines) and 10,091 manholes that comprise the Wastewater Collection System. Pipe size ranges from 4 to 30 inches in diameter and collectively they transport the 32 million gallons of wastewater generated each day in Huntington Beach. The lift stations vary in capacity from approximately 80 to 1,800 gallons per minute and assist in transporting roughly a third of the city's wastewater. The average age of the collection system is now 38 years after rehabilitation of the city's oldest pipelines and structures. The legal authorities and ordinances governing use of the sewage collection system are found in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code: 14.24.010 Enforcement and administration 14.24.020 Definitions 14.24.030 Prohibited deposits 14.24.035 Storm drain and sewer use 14.24.037 Swimming pool wastewater disposal 14.24.040 Industrial waste disposal-Permit required 14.24.050 Industrial waste disposal-Permit application 14.24.060 Industrial waste disposal-Permit decision 14.24.070 Industrial waste disposal-Permit issuance 14.24.080 Industrial waste disposal-Limitation 14.24.090 Industrial waste disposal-Act prohibited 14.24.100 Industrial waste disposal-Permit term 14.24.1 10 Industrial waste disposal-Permit transfer 14.24.120 Compliance tests and inspections 14.24.130 Cooperation by other departments 14.24.140 Enforcement 14.24.150 Notice of violation 14.24.160 Continued violation-Activity cessation 14.24.170 Permit suspension 14.24.180 Permit revocation 14.24.190 Permit-Revocation proceedings 14.36.010 Service application-form City of Huntington Beach WDR 3 14.36.020 Encroachment permit-Plans and specifications 14.36.030 Encroachment permit-Connection by applicant 14.36.040 Change of occupancy-Installation of separate lines 14.36.050 Maintenance and repair 14.36.060 Private premises-User/owner responsibility 14.36.070 Sanitary sewer facilities find established-fees 14.36.080 Planned local sanitary sewer areas-Fee schedule 14.36.090 Fee Payment 14.44.010 Sewer main extensions-Application 14.44.020 Sewer main extensions-Plans and specifications 14.44.030 Sewer main extensions-System requirements 14.44.040 Sewer main extensions-Reimbursement agreement 14.44.050 Sewer main extensions-Liability City of Huntington Beach WDR 4 f _ Section II. Facility and Equipment Operation and Management C.7. The discharger shall properly fund, manage, operate and maintain, tvith adequately drained staff and/or contractors possessing adequate knowledge skills and abilities as demonstrated through a validated program at all times, all parts of the selvage collection system owned and/or operated by the discharger. Public Works is the City of Huntington Beach's department responsible for the sewage collection system. The City of Huntington Beach adopted a Sewer Service Charge in 2001 and created a Sewer Service Fund. The Sewer Service Fund revenue is designated solely for the rehabilitation, replacement, repair and maintenance of City-owned sewers and lift stations. This is in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 5470, and is included in Ordinance Title 14 — Water and Sewers, that adds Chapter 14.54 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The wastewater division is composed of 16 full time employees. The organizational structure of the division is as follows: Wastewater Supervisor Crewteader Telemetry Instrument Technician Sewer Leadworker Line Maintenance Sewer Leadworker Lift Stations CCTV Operator Equipment Operator Equipment Operator Equipment Operator Sewer Pump Mechanic Sr Mamtenance Semite Maintenance Set,IC Worker i Iiintenance w`otker Maintenance Service\Yorker Maintenance Service Worker SCN\er Pump Mechanic The Wastewater section has had safety training that includes confined space training, traffic control and driver safety, use of personal protective equipment, health precautions related to working around and with raw sewage that includes blood borne pathogens training. Al I of the Wastewater staff has a current certificate for confined space entry. Six staff members are Haz Mat trained to the First Responder Operations Level as described in Title 8 CCR section 51929 (e) and Title 29 CFR Part 1910.120. Twelve members have a California Water Environment Association (CWEA)Grade I, Collection System Maintenance certificate, eight members have a Grade 2 Collection System Maintenance Certificate and three members have a City of Huntington Beach WDR 5 Grade 4 Collection System Maintenance Certificate. All training documentation will include the actual material covered in the trainings, date and time of training, name of the instructor and attendees. These documents are maintained and stored at the Utilities Yard administration building by the Operations Manager. All Wastewater employees currently take part in the City's emergency response program. Each week a person is designated as the "standby"employee. All calls are routed through the Police Department to a pager carried by this standby employee. He is provided with a fully equipped vehicle while on standby and can respond directly to the concern, usually within 20 minutes. The employee assesses the situation, dispatches additional personnel if necessary and notifies other agencies when appropriate. If the event is a sewage spill it will be documented on an 1-1 Incident Response Form, then telephoned, fared and e-mailed to regulatory agencies and stored by the division as a permanent record of the incident. } City of Huntington Beach WDR 6 (` I Section III. Mapping of Collection System The City of Huntington Beach currently utilizes a GIS based tracking and mapping system for its sanitary sewer collection system and storm water conveyance facilities. This tracking is based on a GASB-34 requirement to inventory and assess the current value and depreciation of the sewer collection system. We also track locations of all sewer spills, sewer pipes with high concentrations of grease and the frequency they are cleaned. The following information was gathered and entered into the GIS database for all public sewer lines and sewer manholes: Type of sewer pipe installed (i.e. vitrified clay, cast iron Date of installation or replacement Size of pipe Depth of pipe The City's collection system maps accurately reflect pipe locations and are adequate for all maintenance tasks. The maps are checked annually by line cleaning crews and updated as necessary. All updated information is submitted to the GIS section for correction on all future printed maps. This information is housed and maintained by the City's Public Works G.I.S. Section. A $ facsimile of the digitized mapping data is attached (Figure 111-1). City of Huntington Beach WDR 7 K ) v ' Section IV. Routine Preventative Operation and Maintenance C.12.(iv)(D) Routine preventative operating lied mliiiiletllltice activitiL's by staff and c•outractors; itichutina a systeni for scheduling regular mautletuutee and cleattrtig of the collection system with more frequent cleaning and maintenance taib eted at known problem areas. Tlie Preventative Maintenance (PM)program should have as system of tracking work orders and assessing the success of the PM program The maintenance program consists of a record keeping and report system, a work order program to address requests for service from the public, an established cycle for regular cleaning as well as "hotspots", a 24 hour emergency response program, an inspection program, a GIS mapping program and a lift station maintenance program. Line Cleaitin.(, Currently the majority of the City's sewer system is cleaned on a twelve to eighteen-month cycle. Lines that develop problems within this period are placed on a"hotspots" list and are cleaned more frequently. Depending on the severity of the problem or the possible impact to the surrounding area, the new cleaning cycle may vary from monthly to annually. These cycles are i reviewed by wastewater personnel during cleaning of the line and adjusted as necessary to ensure the prevention of future blockages. Historically the City has treated root cutting as a normal occurrence during the cleaning of sewers. Root cutters are carried on all hydro jet cleaning trucks and are used in the field as needed. We also treat sewer lines with a history of root infestation with a chemical root killer that works for two years. Trouble spots or"hotspots" are cleaned anywhere frorn monthly to annually. The City currently has 228 hot spots and assigns two full time employees to their maintenance. The City uses a computerized maintenance management system for record keeping and report purposes that are kept by the Wastewater Crew Leader. The City has a fats, oil and grease (FOG) program with an inspector that monitors food service establishments (FSE) for compliance with the prograrn goals of putting no fats, oils or grease into the sewer system. Our closed circuit television camera truck (CCTV) video tapes the City sewer line where the FSE lateral sewer line connects, looking for any evidence of a grease buildup. Any FOG concern found is given to the FOG inspector for remediation. The Wastewater section has four combination high velocity hydro-cleaning and vacuum removal trucks and a CCTV truck. All maintenance on vehicles is done in house under the supervision of the Vehicle Maintenance Supervisor. City of Huntington Beach WDR 9 Lift Station Maiweirance In general, the City's sewer lift stations are very reliable. To maintain their reliability the City performs preventative maintenance on daily, monthly, quarterly, and yearly schedules. These activities are tracked with a work order system that generates reports. In addition to scheduled visits, emergency maintenance is performed as needed. The City owns enough portable generators to operate all lift stations during a power outage. Also, the telemetry system monitors the stations 24 hours a day and reports developing problems in as little as two minutes to standby personnel. Redundancy is achieved by installing at least two pumps in all City sewer lift stations. The lift stations are designed to handle normal incoming flows with only one pump. The secondary Pump is utilized if the primary pump fails to operate or is down for repair. Float switches are also set up to run the pumps in the event of control panel failure. TABLE IV-1 Di;S Street , � x LOCi4Tl0lV PER YEAR 499-000 EDINGER& BEACH...JET SOUTH 875' 503-150 EDINGER FROM BEACH TO RR TRACKS...JET 2,700 1 `'° GOLDENWEST FROM TALBERT THROUGH (SIPHON) AT RIO VISTA...JET 1,375 & 520-060 JET BACKWARD FROM TALBERT 1 327-015 SEA POINT FROM GARFIELD TO SUMMIT. JET 1 513-030 ATLANTA AND NEWLAND...JET EAST 800' 1 523-030 ATLANTA AND NEWLAND JET NORTH 500' 1 411-030 STEWART NORTH OF GARFIELD...JET 800' 1 ATLANTA AND NEWLAND SOUTH 25' 523-320 TOWARD THE COUNTY 1 PARKING LOT OFF OF COUNTESS FROM 157-001 PORTOFINO CONDO'S TO SEA BRIDGE CONDO'S 625' 2 157-190 PAR AND SPRINGDALE...JET WEST 800' 2 CHIPPER AND SNEAD...JET TOWARD THE NORTH 157-160 BETWEEN THE HOUSES TOWARD THE STORE 150' 2 CENTER FROM HUNTINGTON VILLAGE TO RAIL 242-000 ROAD TRACKS...JET 700' 2 AROUND WESTMONT SCHOOL YARD FROM (SIPHON) 253-020 TO HEIL 1300' 2 157-150 JET SNEAD...Jet 575' 2 BEHIND ATLANTA SEWER LIFT STATION FROM SUNSET 453-340 TO STATION 1409 2 513-010 1 ENTRANCE TO ATLANTA STATION...JET SOUTH 100' 2 City of Huntington Beach WDR 10 ATLANTA FROM EAST OF SURF WOOD 513-010 TO THE EAST OF BEACH...JET 1,100' 2 513-190 ATLANTA EAST OF BEACH...JET WEST-125' 2 504-140 HEIL FROM WESTMONT SCHOOL TO NEWLAND 1,050' 2 ALLEY BETWEEN 11TH AND 12TH AT PALM...JET 300' NORTH 497-300 TO THE START AT CREST 2 463-001 SURFWOOD &ATLANTA...JET SOUTH 750' 2 ON BROOKHURST FROM TO HAMILTON JET NORTH AND 526-050 SOUTH 2 505-200 LYNDON AND WARNER ...JET EAST 800' 3 262-220 LYNDON...JET 400' 3 505-160 WARNER&MAGNOLIA...JET WEST475' 3 524-120 WARNER&MAGNOLIA...JET SOUTH 30' 3 272-110 CYPRESS AND ELM JET EAST 425' 3 272-173 ELM AND SCYAMORE Ave...JET SOUTH 450' 3 499-000 BEACH AND CYPRESS...JET NORTH 300' 3 499-000 BEACH AND CYPRESS...JET SOUTH 800' 3 505-200 WARNER FROM WEST OF BEACH TO OAK ...JET 775' 3 LARCHWOOD WEST OF NORTHRIDGE... JET EAST 400' 128-200 (SIPHON) , 4 128-040 GLENWOOD& EDGEVIEW...JET EAST 400' SIPHON 4 138-040 THOR 625' (SIPHON) 4 ( ll SOUTHEAST CORNER SPRINGDALE& MCFADDEN t l 518-090 JET NORTH 350' (SIPHON) 4 520-170 OXFORD& GOLDENWEST...JET NORTH 150' 4 520-170 OXFORD &YORKSHIRE ..JET EAST 500' 4 139-240 CANTERBURY&YORKSHIRE.. JET NORTH 275' 4 139-080 HANOVER AT MC FADDEN... JET NORTH 875' 4 502-050 HANOVER AT MC FADDEN... JET EAST...275' 4 149-230 MCFADDEN & DAWSON...JET SOUTH 800' 4 149-030 REDCOACH AND DAWSON...JET WEST 800' 4 HUMBOLDT&WEST OF WAYFARER...AT THE WET WELL JET 154-040 WEST 875' 4 155-020 EDINGER FROM MELODY TO BOLSA CHICA 1,375' 4 SISSON EAST OF WARREN...JET SOUTH UNDER THE CHANNEL 503-010 TOWARD MEADOWALARK 450' (SIPHON) 4 503-030 EDINGER AT WARREN...JET EAST 875' 4 SPRINGDALE SOUTH OF EDINGER...JET SOUTH 250' 518-160 AND EAST 30' 4 158-070 BRADBURY&CHRISTY...JET EAST 525' 4 158-080 HEIL& BRADBURY JET NORTH 500' 4-. 158-200 MYRTLE AND MERCIER JET WEST 550' 4 165-150 VISTA&GREEN...JET EAST 175' 4 165-090 PEARCE FROM LYNN TO BOLSA CHICA 1,475' 4 165-100 GREEN & PEARCE... JET NORTH 525'AND SOUTH 400' 4 504-010 HEIL FROM GREEN TO ALGONQUIN 2,125' 4 City of Huntington Beach WDR 1 1 ALGONQUIN ONE MANHOLE SOUTH OF HEIL 529-020 JET NORTH 325' 4 516-001 BOLSA CHICA FROM SOUTH PEARCE TO HEIL 1,675' 4 BOLSA CHICA SOUTH OF HEIL...JET WEST TOWARD 165-170 RUDDER 700' 4 504-270 REGINEA& HEIL...JET WEST 1,175' TWO LINES) 4 DIANE&SYLVIA...JET TOWARD WEST 169-305 THRU-PARK 700' 4 169-170 MARILYN & DIANE...JET NORTH 575' 4 169-180 MARILYN &GOLDENWEST...JET WEST 875' 4 519-085 EDWARDS & MARILYN...JET EAST 700' 4 EDWARDS SOUTH OF MARILYN &THE CHANNEL JET 518-080 NORTH 800(SIPHON ) 4 WARNER FROM POST OFFICE TO 505-080 GOLDENWEST 1,175' 4 173-055 CORAL CAY& PCH ...JET NORTH EAST 375' 4 WARNER ACROSS FROM HUNTINGTON HARBOR BAY& 174-135 RACQUET CLUB ...JET NORTH TOWARD THE CLUB 150' 4 NORDINA FROM FORBES TO SLATER LIFT 177-210 STATION..1,225' 4 176-080 ST ANDREWS & KENILWORTH...JET NORTH 7,00' 4 176-090 GRAHAM & KENILWORTH...JET WEST 875' 4 517-020 GRAHAM & GP-A.HAM SEWER LIFT STATIONJET NORTH 325' 4 GRAHAM &GRAHAM SEWER LIFT STATION 517-200 JET SOUTH 75' 4 177-210 SLATER LIFT STATION...JET WEST TOWARDNORDINA 250' 4 177-001 GERSHWIN JET 175' 4 179-120 ARGO JET 375' 4 179-090 CAPSTONE & DREY...JET EAST 300' 4 179-160 KURT AT MANTHATTAN...JET SOUTH 275' 179-170 MANHATTAN FROM GIBSON TO MAYOR...JET 925' 4 MAYOR &SLATER AT THE COUNTY LINE 179-240 JET NORTH 575' 4 179-290 SHENLYN & EDWARDS...JET EAST 525'(SIPHON) 4 WRIGHTWOOD FROM SOUTH OF PINON TO PRICE 187-340 JET 1,425' 4 SPRINGDALE SOUTH OF SLATER..JET WEST 250' 187-360 TOWARD PRICE. 4 FENLEY FROM EAST OF COLLIE TO SPRINGDALE 188-050 JET 1,075' 4 518-220 SLATER LIFT STATION...JETSOUTH 275' 4 SLATER LIFT STATION...JET EAST TOWARD 178-080 POINT LOMA 600' 4 505-060 SPRINGDALE SOUTH OF WARNER JET WEST 35'(SIPHON) 4 FRONTAGE ROAD OFF EDWARD SOUTH OF ARMADA JET 189-020 , EAST TOWARD VILLA NUEVA 500' 4 City of HUntington Beach WDR 12 C: CLEANINGS DistlStreet �y.�:. . LOCATION ,_ ,PER=YEARa EDWARDS NORTH OF ARMADA...JET TOWARD EAST UNDER 189-210 THE CHANNEL TOWARD SABBICAS 550'(SIPHON) 4 COLGATE&CASCADE...JET WEST NEXT TO SCHOOL 232-060 150'AND JET SOUTH 500' 4 ALLEY BEHIND APT AT AMAZON & GANGES...JET EAST 252-030 TOWARD AMAZON 875' 4 ALLEY BEHIND APT AT AMAZON AND GANGES NEXT 252-040 MANHOLE JET NORTH 100' 4 SAME MANHOLE...JET WEST TOWARD 252-030 THE COUNTY 25' 4 RHONE BETWEEN ALHAMRA& NANCY...JET NORTH 500' SOUTH 175' BEHIND HOUSE NORTH OF HEIL..JET NORTH 252-001 THEN EAST TOWARD RHONE 200' 4 NEWLAND 2 ND HOLE SOUTH OF EDINGER 523-150 JET NORTH 275' 4 RHONE NORTH OF RHINE...JET WEST BETWEEN THE 262-001 HOUSES 150'THEN JET NORTH 500'AND SOUTH 500' 4 262-160 VIEWPOINT AND DAMASK ...JET NORTH 875' 4 262-170 DAMASK...JET 500' 4 BEACH SOUTH OF DAMASK 499-00 JET NORTH 200' (SIPHON) 4 ALLEY BEHIND NORMS SOUTH OF HEIL AND EAST OF ( - 263-275 BEACH LAST MANHOLE...JET TOWARD NORTH 400' 4 WAITE & BRUSH JET WEST TOWARD ALLEY BEHIND NORMS. 263-275 175' 4 263-150 1 WAITE ...JET 425' 4 523-170 NEWLAND FROM LOIS TO LAMAR 825' 4 523-180 NEWLAND FROM LAMAR TO THE SOUTH 150' 4 263-140 BRUSH FROM WAIT TO NEWLAND 2,125' 4 NEWLAND NORTH OF WARNER...JET NORTH 800' & SOUTH 523-140 100' SIPHON 4 263-030 "A"&WARNER...JET NORTH 625' 4 292-140 FRANKLIN 525' 4 292-130 DELAWARE SOUTH OF FRANKLIN...JET NORTH 350' 4 DELAWARE WEST BETWEEN HOUSE TOWARD 292-100 YUKON 525' 4 292-305 DELAWARE EAST INTO ALLEY 700' 4 292-130 DELAWARE & ELLIS...JET NORTH 275' 4 508-030 HUNTINGTON & ELLIS..JET EAST 675' 4 532-060 MAIN FROM FLORIDA TO BEACH 1,025' 4 499-000 BEACH NORTH OF ELLIS TO ELLIS 950' 4 508-060 ELLIS WEST OF NEWLAND...JET WEST 275' 4 508-050 ELLIS WEST OF NEWLAND...JET EAST 250' 4 412-070 FLORIDA FROM SUTH OF MAIN TO SHAFFER JET 975' 4 412-060 AMBERLEAF...JET 575' 4 536-080 DELAWARE FROM ELLIS TO MAIN 1,000' 4 536-090 DELAWARE FROM MAIN TO SOUTH ..JET 475' 4 City of Huntington Beach WDR 13. istlSfreet LOCATION° PER YEAR -,D 508-070 ELLIS & MAIN ...JET NORTH 175' 4 499-000 BEACH NORTH OF MAIN...JET SOUTH 325' 4 508-050 BEACH & ELLIS...JET EAST 875' 4 499-000 BEACH & ELLIS...JET SOUTH 800' 4 YORKTOWN WEST OF NEWLAND...JET EAST 325' 510-020 &WEST 600' 4 NEWLAND NORTH OF BRIDGEPORT TO SOUTH OF 523-280 YORKTOWN JET 2,125' (SIPHON) 4 423-290 DANBURY& NEWLAND...JET WEST 525' (SIPHON) 4 423-280 GILFORD & NEWLAND...JET WEST 450' (SIPHON) 4 HOME DEPOT SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH OF GARFIELD WEST OF MAGNOLIA...JET WEST TOWARD LUSS 400'AND 424-340 NORTH 50'AND EAST 625' 4 MAGNOLA SOUTH OF GARFIELD TO 524-130 GARFIELD 650' 4 YORKTOWN WEST OF MAGNOLA...JET NORTH TOWARD 424-220 CORALWOOD 500' 4 YORKTOWN WEST OF MAGNOLA...JET EAST 175' 510-030 FROM THE FIRST MANHOLE 4 YORKTOWN WEST OF MAGNOLA...JET WEST 800' 510-160 FROM THE FRIST MANHOLE 4 YORKTOWN WEST OF BUSHARD 510-130 JET EAST 875' SIPHON 4 BROOKHURST FROM GARFIELD TO KAMUELA 526-160 1,875' (SIPHON DO THE EVERY 3 MONTHS!!!) 4 427-170 KAMUELA EAST OF BROOKHURST...JET WEST 30' 4 ALABAMA&ADAMS...JET NORTH 875'AND SOUTH 800 423-180 . '(442-001) 4 432-170 HUNTINGTON &ADAMS...JET NORTH 650' 4 511-070 HUNTINGTON &ADAMS...JET WEST 450' 4 433-070 FLAXMAN &EDGEWOOD...JET NORTH 700'AND SOUTH 275' 4 433-040 ROTHERT& FLAXMAN ...JET EAST 275' 4 433-060 ROTHERT FROM FLAXMAN TO NORTH NEWBRITAIN 550' 4 435-130 CRAWFORD JET 500' DO NOT JET LOTUS) 4 435-250 CHESAPEAKE AND ADAMS ...JET NORTH 500' 4 435-230 BUSHARD SVS RD WESTSIDE...JET NORTH 600' 4 510-140 YORKTOWN AND HONEYWOOD JET 800' 4 435-001 HONEYWOOD...JET 175' 4 436-410 CHARING CROSS& COVENTRY...JET NORTH 350' 4 CHARING CROSS...JET 200' 436-450 (DO NOT GET ON THE SIDE WALK !) 4 436-490 SUTTON &ADAMS...JET NORTH 200' 4 511-060 SUTTON &ADAMS...JET EAST 875' 4 ADAMS TWO MANHOLES EAST OF BUSHARD...JET NORTH 436-690 TOWARD LURES 400' 4 City of Huntington Beach WDR 14 xv- LOCATION � � t FER.YEAR;p ADAMS & BUSHARD WEST SIDE... 511-050 JET EAST 875'(SIPHON) 4 BUSHARD SEWER LIFT STATION AND FRONTAGE ROAD JET 436-150 NORTH 875'AND SOUTH 100' 4 CONSITITUTION & CANBERRA...JET NORTH 700'& SOUTH 437-110 275' 4 437-060 CONSTITUTION & MATSONIA...JET EAST 275' 4 437-080 MATSONIA...JET 525' 4 437-090 CUTTYSHARK& RANGER...JET EAST250' 4 437-180 RANGER...JET 1,150' 4 FRONTAGE ROAD &ADAMS SEWER LIFT STANTION 437-230 JET EAST 500' 4 442-380 JOLIET&ALLEY EAST OF ENGLAND...JET WEST 800' 4 442-370 JOLIET&ALLEY EAST OF ENGLAND...JET EAST 675' 4 INDIANAPOLIS AND ALLEY EAST OF ENGLAND 442-300 JET NORTH 800' 4 443-001 ADAMS& NORTH NEWBRITAIN ...JET SOUTH 450' 4 ADAMS& NORTH NEWBRITAIN WEST TOWARD THE 511-020 STATION 100' 4 443-030 SOUTH PORT& CAPE COTTAGE ...JET NORTH 500' 4 SOUTHPORT&CAPE COTTAGE...JET SOUTH THEN EAST 443-050 THRU THE PARK 375' 4 SOUTH NEW BRITAIN...JET 700' 443-050 JYSE 600LB PRESSURE 4TH HOUSE!! 4 443-040 SOUTHPORT...JET 500' 4 444-150 MASTERS& NEWBY...JET WEST 775' 4 444-190 NEWBY...JET 250' 4 MEANDER SOUTH OF BURLCREST...JET WEST BETWEEN 444-310 HOUSE 275' 4 444-425 SWANSEA&BURLCREST...JET NORTH 400' 444-310 BURLCREST FROM CROFT TO MAGNOLIA 1,075' 4 INDIANAPOLIS& BROOKHURST EAST SIDE 526-200 JET NORTH 425' &SOUTH 100' 4 ALLEY BETWEEN 5TH &MAIN AT WALNUT 532-001 JET SOUTHWEST 25'&JET NORTHEAST 400' 4 532-130 WALNUT& MAIN...JET SOUTHWEST 275' 4 WALNUT SOUTH EAST OF MAIN AT ALLEY 532-135 JET SOUTH WEST 200' 4 ALLEY BETWEEN 12TH & 13THH SOUTHWEST OF ORANGE 497-290 JET NORTHEAST 400' 4 512-135 FLORDIA& INDIANAPOLIS...JET WEST 250' 4 452-040 GENEVA&FLORIDA...JET NORTH 275' 4 GENEVA FROM FLORIDA TO ALLEY EAST OF 452-020 DELAWARE 700' 4 FRANKORFORT &ALLEY EAST OF DELAWARE 452-060 JET NORTH 800' 4 City of Huntington Beach WDR 15 CLEANINGS-_ j, ALLEY& DETROIT EAST OF CALIFORNIA 536-001 JET NORTH 800' 4 452-100 CALIFORNIA& DETROIT.-.JET EAST 175' 4 CARROLTOWN WEST OF HOPETOWN 455140 JET EAST 325' (SIPHON) 4 524-050 ATLANTA& MAGNOLIA...JET NORTH 650' - 4 BROOKHURST SOUTH OF ENDEVER 457-030 JET EAST1 50'(SIPHON ) 4 526-220 BROOKHURST AND ATLANTA JET NORTH 500' 4 BROOKHURST SOUTH OF INDIANAPOLIS JET EAST 457-150 TOWARD SUBURBIA 175' 4 BROOKHURST& INDIANAPOLIS WEST SIDE 526-110 175'JET NORTH, 4 THEN WEST BETWEEN HOUSES TOWARD 446-260 HOTSPRINGS 600' 4 INDIANAPOLIS AND BROOKHURST 512-060 JET EAST JET FROM BOTH SIDES 150- (SIPHON) 4 INDIANAPOLIS NORTH OF DONCASTER AT ALLEY JET WEST 463-150 800' 4 464-095 ST AUGUSTINE & BRETON...JET NORTH SOUTH 375' 4 464-090 ST AUGUSTINE & BRETON...JET NORTH 600' 4 ST AUGUSTINE FROM BRETON TO 464-080 SEAFORTH 525' 4 464-085 ST AUGUSTINE FROM SEAFORTH TO NEWLAND 625' 4 NEWLAND NORTH OF ST AUGUSTINE...JET SOUTH 100' 523-320 AND WEST 15' 4 467-050 BROOKHURST AND SPAR...JET EAST 475'(SIPHON) 4 475-020 RHODESIA WEST OF KANEOHE...JET EAST 100' (SIPHON) 4 475-020 RHODESIA& MAGNOLIA...JET EAST 875' 4 475-100 ALOHA WEST OF KANEOHE...JET EAST 75' (SIPHON) 4 IN THE ICE PLANT NORTH OF BANNING EAST OF MAGNOLIA 475-100 JET EAST TOWARD ALOHA 700' 4 523-190 RAMBLER & BUSHARD WEST SIDE.,JET NORTH 675' 4 475-210 RAMBLER AND BUSHARD JET WEST 575' 4 485-001 SUSAN NORTH OF CHRISTINE...JET SOUTH 175' 4 151-001 MARINER...JET 1150' ( CODE FOR GATE -2468) 6 BEHIND KONO'S SEAFOOD PARKING LOT BY 151-001 KONO'S SEAFOOD..JET N.W 300' 6 151-001 KONO'S & PCH ...JET N.E. INTO PARKING LOT 150' 6 PETER'S LANDING AT PCH...PCH FROM SAM'S TO LAST 498-000 HOLE IN THE GRASS AT PETER'S LANDING...JET 1,625' 6 REDROCK NORTH OF WARNER...JET TOWARD EAST 350' 166-110 TOWARD TENNIS COURTS. 6 (PIPE OFFSET- MIGHT GET STUCK) 505-250 WARNER WEST OF GRAHAM...JET TOWARD NORTH 600' 6 505-250 GRAHAM &WARNER...JET TOWARD THE WEST 200' 6 City of HUntington Beach WDR 16 �p GLEANINGSz, 'LOCATION, PER,,�YE AR, 517-030 GRAHAM &WARNER-JET TOWARD THE NORTH 600' 6 VELARDO AND BUSHARD JET EAST 800'(SIPHON) 6 HARBOR ISLE AND BROWNING ...JET EAST UNDER THE 445-280 CHANNEL TOWARD RAMONA...JET 775' 6 540-010 BEACH FRONTAGE ROAD...JET 1750' 6 426-040 VELARDO AND BUSHARD JET EAST 800'(SIPHON) 6 540-010 BEACH PARKING LOT...JET 900' 6 BUSHARD NORTH OF HAMILTON EAST SIDE JET WEST BETWEEN HOUSES TOWARD PIER...JET 400' 465-020 ( USE SMALL NOZZLE) SOUTH SIDE ONLY! 6 540-010 PIER...JET 1825' 6 136-186 COLUMBIA& MC FADDEN...JET NORTH 475' (SIPHON) 12 502-040 COLUMBIA& MC FADDEN...JET EAST 800' 12 CENTER FROM EAST OF HUNTINGTON VILLAGE TO 242-000 HUNTINGTON VILLAGE...JET 975' (SIPHON) 12 253-001 STARK EAST OF BEACH...JET 625' 12 BEHIND WESTMONT SCHOOL...JET NORTH 750' 252-020 (SIPHON) 12 ALLEY FROM STARK EAST OF BEACH TO STARK AND 253-040 MALAGA(SIPHON) ...JET 1025' 12 272-120 SYCAMORE AND ASH...JET EAST 450' 12 City of Huntington Beach WDR 17 Section V. Capacity Assessment C]2.(iv)(E) Establish a program to assess the current capacity of the collection system owned by the discharger or where the discharger has operational control; tncludmg diverslotis of urbatr runoff to the sewer system durhig thy weather periods and control of infiltration and intrusion (luring both wet weather events and dry weather periods. Currently nine of the twenty-eight lift stations have diversions of urban runoff to the sewer system during dry weather periods. The City has adopted a Sewer Maintenance Plan dated May 2003 that was recently updated by the firm of Kennedy-Jenks Consultants. This updated plan evaluates the comprehensive condition of the Wastewater system including sewer lines and equipment. \ 3 Drainage Channels& Pumping Stations 'Tq' r "` '{ " ,��ripa`C� v � �-...>E V-•.tangy 0q ., '•�.... t_...r ^�., van n - i }hks . Pumping Station Type • City Pumping Slahon �Gty 9ounJarf st i ' ® County Pumping Station Major Street Cenierims Channel Types ;........ ...,,,, city - County City of Huntington Beach WDR 1 S Section VI. Prioritization and Rehabilitation of Structural Deficiencies C.12 (iv)(F) Identify rind prioritize structural deficiencies and irtrpletnerat short-terns and lortg- terfn rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. This shrill 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. Aanong 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 clue to pipe defects. The program should also include regular visual and Tip inspection of sewer pipes. Finally, the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a financial plan that properly manages curd protects the infrastructure assets. The City of Huntington Beach owns one Closed Circuit T.V. truck for inspecting sewer pipes. The City's video inspection program began in 1994 and was halted in 1998 due to a lack of personnel. During this period, 142 miles of sewer pipe or 25%of the collection systern was inspected. The CCTV inspection program was started again in 2004 with the addition of video taping sewer lines for the presence of fats, oil and grease, hot spot areas for concerns in the sewer line, sewage spill sites for cause of the spill and location of lateral lines for the new sewer lateral line repair program. Identification of structural deficiencies is performed with closed circuit television inspection of sewer lines. Damaged or broken sewer lines, which could result in a sewage spill, are considered a very high priority. These lines are slipped lined or point break repaired. In 2003 two sewer lift stations were completely reconstructed. In 2005 a new sewer lift station was built and added to our inventory. In 2006 two sewer lift stations were completely reconstructed. In 2008 one sewer lift station was completely reconstructed. In 2009 one sewer lift station is under construction with another one being designed for reconstructing in 2010. The City completed its Sewer Master Plan in 2003 and it addresses all capacity, as well as structural deficiencies. Copies are available upon request. Table V I-1 denotes the budget for the Wastewater Section operations and capital improvements. The 2008-09 budget includes a sewer fee for all buildings connected to the City sewer system. TABLE VI-1 FY 2008-09 Budaet 511185201 Sewer Service Maintenance 00511 Sewer Service Fund 51000 Personnel Services 1,699,886 60000 Operating Expenses 3,276,109 80000 Capital Expenditures 7,948,995 50000 Expenditures 12,924,990 City of Huntington Beach WDR 19 Section VII. Equipment and Replacement Inventories C.12. (iv)(H) Provide equipment and replacement parts inventories, including itlentlfcation of critical replacement parts. Vehicle Description 2004 Ford E 450 Camera Truck 2006 GMC 2500 2000 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2000 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2068 MQ POWER GENERATOR 1990 ONAN GENERATOR 2007 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2001 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2001 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2001 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2001 MQ POWER GENERATOR �F 2001 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2001 MQ POWER GENERATOR 2006 GODWIN PUMP 6 INCH 1997 WACKER PUMP 6 INCH 2001 1/R BOBCAT 2001 ZIEMAN 2003 FORD F250 2002 GMC ONE TON DUMP 2008 FORD F350 2005 CHEVROLET 2500 2006 FORD F450 2006 VACTOR COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER 2007 VACTOR COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER 2001 VAC-CON COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER 2002 AQUATECH COMBINATION SEWER CLEANER 2005 CHEVROLET 2500 City of Huntington Beach WDR 20 f ` TABLE VII-1 Warehouse Inventory 2009 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Pump Parts: Bearing 6 in. Top 8 Bearing 6 in. Bottom 7 Bearing 4 x 9 Top 4 Bearing 4 x 9 Bottom 4 Bearing Seals 4 x 9 35 Bearing Seals 6 in. 76 Shaft Sleeves 6 in. 20 Shaft Sleeves 4 x 9 9 Shaft Clips 6 in. 10 Shaft Clips 4 x 9 7 Lovejoy Gasket 17 Grease Cap Gasket 30 Lovejoy Cou ling 1.125 9 Lovejoy Cou ling 1.375 3 Lovejoy Coupling 1.625 5 Lovejoy Coupling 1.875 6 Grease 29 Silicone - 5 Packing Cans 13 Cord Rolls 5 lbs. 4 Gortex Boxes 50 ft. 9.5 Shafts 4 x 9 3 Shafts 6 in. 9 Backing Plates 6 in. 8 Complete Pumps 6 in. 8 Complete Pumps 4 x 9 in. 2 Impellers 10.5 in 2 Impellers 10 in. 3 ImpeHers 9 in. 3 Impellers 8.5 in. 1 Impellers 7.75 1 Plumbing Parts: Check Valve 4 in. 9 Check Valve 6111. 6 Check Valve 8 in. 3 City of Huntington Beach WDR 21 t ` t. . CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Gate Valve 4 in. I 1 Gate Valve 6 in. Gate Valve 6111. 11 Bowl's 9 in. 4 Bowl's 6 in_ Motor Stand 1 1 in. 7 Pedestal 6 in. 2 Suction Elbow 4 in. 3 Suction Elbow 6 in. 3 Mechanical Coupling 6 x 12 4 Mechanical Cou ling 6 x 7.5 6 Mechanical Cou ling 4 in. 2 Bolt Flanges 4 in. 9 Threaded Flanges 6 in. 4 Weld on Flanges 4 in. 2 Weld on Flanges 6111. 8 Electrical Parts: Phase Monitor SLA-440-ALE 1 I Phase Monitor SLA-230-ALE 10 Alternator ARA-24-ACA 8 AC-Magnetic Starter A 1 OENOAB 2 _ AC-Magnetic Starter A 1 OCNO2 2 AC- Magnetic Starter A 1 OCNOA-0 5 Overload Relay 10-5650-5 4 Overload Relay 10-5009- Overload Relay C3OOCN3 1 Time Relays 1 1-PIN-TCRZX 5 Time Relays 1 1 OA-CO4 Time Relays 8-PIN-OARZU 6 Time Rela s 1 I OA-2394 Warwick Relay 1.61 E+02 1 Gems Safe Pak PW 144600 1 Clocks 710-0032 8 Plug in Relay Al-0796 5 Plug in Relay D-5 rbt 2 Coil RLY 1045 4 Coil RLY 2543 4 Fuses KT3 10 Contacts C32OK B 1 6 Contacts C32OKK A I I City of Huntington Beach WDR 22 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE, AMOUNT Contact Kit 3691 1 Motor 3 HP 2 Motor 7 HP I Motor 10 HP 2 Motor 15 HP Motor 10 HP I Motor 15 HP 1 Motor 40 HP 3 Motor 20 HP 1 Motor 50 HP 1 Sump Pumps I Vent Motor 5 Blower(Ventilator) 2 Control Panel I Mercury Switch 6 Float Switch 1 Complete Station TOOLS: Sandblaster 1 Bench Grinder 1 Bearing Heater 1 rr Drill Press 1 t ) Compressor 80 gal. 1 Ventilator(Honda) I Sm. Honda Generator 1 Gas Pump 3 in. I Water Blaster 1 Lincoln Welder 1 Ridged Shop Vacuum 1 Exterior Ladder 10 ft. 1 Ladder 8 ft. 1 Pipe Cutter 2 Metal Detector 1 Bolt Cutters Large I Loppers 1 Crimper 1 Compressor Sm. /4gpr. 1 Nail Gun 1 Gas Detector 1 Air Pack 30 min. 1 Belt Sander 1 City of Huntington Beach WDR 23 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Electric Band Saw 1 Palm Sander 1 Electric Grinder 1 Electric Grinder Small 1 Derma Tool 1 Roto Zip 1 Jig Saw 1 Cordless Hammer Drill 1 Orbital Buffer 10 in. 1 Drill Press Large 1 Cutoff Saw 1 Electric Cutoff Saw I Grinder Large 1 Skill Saw 1 Plastic Welder 1 Cordless Skill Saw I Measuring Wheel 1 Misc. Concrete Tools ? Folly Rep Grinder 1 Hand Held Radio 2 _ TE35 Combihammer Drill 1 MISC.: %2 Round Material 10 ft. 47 T.V. Truck Winch 1 T.V. Truck Ext. Cord 1 Full Circle Clam 3 Air Bags 14 Plugs 9 Shoring 7 Clay Spade I Tripod Set I Long Grit Grabber 4 Jet Hose '/4 in. 1 Jet Hose 1 in. /600 ft. 6 Leader Hose '/4 in./4 ft. 2 Leader Hose 1 in./4 ft. 4 Hose Guide 5 T.V. Cable 1300 ft. I Telemetry Panel 3 City of Huntington Beach WDR 24 CATEGORY PART'TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Behind Shed: Ring/Cover Storm 3 Ring/Cover Sewer 10 Riser Rings 60 Catch Basin Cover 4 Storm Drain Box Grate Small 5 Storm Drain Box Grate Large 3 Station door Small I Station Door Large I Store Room: Telemetry System 5 Battery Back Up 9 Telemetry System 12 56K Modem 1 Camera Truck Parts TV Truck# 601 Toolbox: Chisel 2 Nut Driver I Screw Driver 2 or 3 Philfi s Screw Driver 2 or 3 Channel Locks Small 1 Channel Locks Large 1 Camera Koala Ques Small 1 Camera Koala Ques Medium 2 Camera Koala Ques Large l Allen Sets 3 Crescents 2 or 3 Pliers 2 or 3 Cordless Drill 9.6 V 1 Wrench Set I Hack Saw 1 20 oz. Hammer 1 3/4 Socket Driver 1 Box of Parts 1 Respiratory Escape Pack 5 min. 1 Ques VCR, T.V., Printer Equip. Electrical Cords Controls Sewer Plu-s 8 in. 2 Portable Air Tank 5 gal. 1 UNIT# 674 Polaroid Camera 1 Socket Set 1 Ilk City of Huntington Beach WDR 25 �l CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Screw Driver Set 1 Trailer Hitch I Pliers I Needle Nose Pliers 1 Open End Wrench Set 1 Claw Hammer I Sledge Hammer I Pick 1 Jumper Cables I Flashlight MPG 1 Flashlight Candle Power I Flashlight 6 Volt 1 Hydrant Wrench I Crescent Wrench Small I Crescent Wrench Medium 1 Pry Bar 1 Hand Saw 1 Razor Knife 1 UNIT # 675: Toolbox 1 Light 1 Paddle Sign 1 Hammer -- - 20 oz. I ) Screw Drivers 3 Phillips Screw Driver 2 Channel Locks 2 Pliers I Crescent Wrench 8 in. 1 Crescent Wrench 12 in. I UNIT # 677: Nut Driver Set I Open End Wrench Set 20 1 Socket Set 40 1 Mag-Light Flashlight 3 Generator 1 Chaixi Pulley 1 Tap/Die Set 1 Electrical Extension 2 Box of Fittings 1 Dolly 1 Come Along 1 Oscilloscope 1 Ear Protection 2 City of Huntington Beach WDR 26 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Hard Hats 2 First Aid Kit 1 Rubber Mallet 1 Sledge hammer 1 Blower 1 Safety Harness 1 Jum er Cables 1 Weld Mask 2 Face Shield 1 Torches Small 1 Torches Large 1 Air Drill l Air Gun MedlUm/Large 3 Air gun Small 3 Air chisel 3 Air Ratchet 2 Air Grinder Small 2 Air Wire Wheel 2 Crescent Wrench Small 1 Crescent Wrench Medium 1 Crescent Wrench Large I Crescent Wrench X-Large 1 Pie Wrench Small I Pie Wrench X-Large 1 Allen Wrench 2 Grease Gun 1 Crow Bars Small 1 Crow Bars Medium 1 Crow Bars Large 1 Crow Bars X-Large 1 Channel Locks 2 Wire Stripper 1 Side Cutter 1 Hammers 1 Vise Grips 1 Hack Saw 1 Wire Brush I Scrappers 3 Screwdriver 1 Drill Set 1 Tape Measure 25 ft. 2 City of Huntington Beach WDR 27 I CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Wood Saw 1 Fire Extinguisher 1 2 R.T.0 2 Air Packs 10 min. 2 Bolts %2 - 1 1/8 Oxy Settling 2 Safety Strobes I Water Tank w/Mot. 1 Water Hose 50 ft. 1 Pole choppers 3 Rubber Bucket 1 UNIT# 678: Mag-Light I Socket Set I Cones Manhole Pick I Shovel Small I Scraper 1 Clam Digger I Fire Extinguisher 1 Grease Gun I Safety Triangles I Rechargeable Flashlight I Hack Saw I Pipe Wrench 3 Screw Drivers 8 Crescent Wrench 3 Tape Measure I Razor Knife I Hex Key Set/Allen Wrench I Open/Closed Wrench Set I Hammer I Channel Locks 2 Sledge Hammer Small /3 lb. 1 Nut Driver Set 1 UNIT #679: Mag-Light Flashlight I Socket Set I Cones 6 Manhole Pick 2 Shovel Small I Scraper 1 Clam Digger 1 City of Huntington Beach WDR 28 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE ' AMOUNT Grabber 1 Fire Extinguisher 1 Safety Triangles 1 Grease Gun 1 Flashlight 1 Hack Saw 1 Wire Brush 1 Sledge Hammer 3 lb. 1 Sledge Hammer 8 lb. 1 Pipe Wrench 1 Screwdrivers 2 Crescent Wrench 2 Tape Measure l Razor Knife 2 Hex Key Set/Allen Wrench I UNIT# 680: Pipe Wrench 18 in. 2 Socket Set 24 Duct Tape Rolls 5 lbs. 3 Grease Gun 2 Hand Sledge I Nut Drivers 10 Plastic Flashlight 1 Black Mag-Light I Hand Held Mirrors 2 Razor Knife 2 Hex Sets 2 Crescent Wrenches 12 in. 2 Pliers 2 Channel Locks Small I Channel Locks Large 1 Needle Nose Pliers Small 1 Hammer 1 Wire Brush I File 1 Phillips Screw Driver Large 3 Picks 2 Sledge Hammer I "Stop" "Slow" Sign 1 Nozzles 6 Vacuum Tubes 7 Hydrant Wrench 1 City of Huntington Beach WDR 29 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Scraper 1 Push Broom I Rake 1 Clams 6 Chopper 1 Fire Extinlyuisher 1 WD40 1 Clam Digger 1 Grabber 1 Rubber Bucket 1 Cones 6 Roe 6 First Aid Kit 1 UNIT#681: Mai-Light Flashlight 1 Spotlight 1 Water Screen Wrench 1 Safety Pole Lock 1 Pole For Vacuum Screen 1 Grease Nozzle 65 tr m. 3 Nozzles 2 in. 2 Buzz Bomb 65 m. 1 Sand Nozzle 4 in. 3 Hand Gun Sprayer 1 Hose 2 Sledge Hammer 1 Sledge Hammer Mini 1 Pick 1 Grease Gun 1 Rubber Bucket 1 Chopper Head I Chopper Extension 5 Chopper Connection 5 Hook Head 1 Grabber 1 W D40 1 Glass Cleaner I Tubes I Tubes I Tubes 2 Crescent Wrench 2 Hex Key Set/Allen Wrench Set 1 City of Huntington Beach WDR 30 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Phillips Screwdriver 2 Screwdriver 1 Razor Knife 1 Hack Saw 1 Pliers 1 Channel Locks 1 UNIT# 683: Air Tools—Drill GP 3 x 8 x 24 1 Air Tools—Drill '/2 in. 1 Air Tools—Grinder 4 in. 1 Air Tools— Impact Wrench % in. 1 Air Tools—Chisel Gun 1 Set Drill Bits 1 Level 6 in. 1 Level 2 ft. 1 TOOLBOX: Nuts/Bolts/Drill Bits 1 Screw Driver 2 Phillips Screw Driver 2 Channel Locks Small 1 Files Small 3 I Allen Sets Ekland # 20911 1 Hammer 20 oz. 1 Chisel Small 1 Putty Knife 1 Crescent Proto 8 in. 1 IN TRUCK: Light 1 Millionth LP 1 Mag-Light 4 in. 1 Tie Down Strap 2 Face Shield 1 Safety Goggles 1 Tape 16 in. 1 Tape 25 in. 1 Roe 25 ft. 2 Set Easy Out I Tap/Die Set I Socket Set Min 1 Socket Driver Set '/2 in. 1 Socket Driver Set 3/4 in. 1 Electrical Cord 50 ft. 1 Screw Driver Set 1 City of Huntington Beach WDR 31 CATEGORY PART TYPE SIZE AMOUNT Phillips Screw Driver Set I Channel Lock Set 4 Long Nose Pliers 3 Pliers 2 Vise Grips 3 Crescent Wrench 8 in. 1 Crescent Wrench 10 in. I Crescent Wrench 12 in. 1 Crescent Wrench 24 in. I Combination Wrench Set 1 1 PC. I Wrench Set 8 PC. I Hack Saw 1 Wire Brush 2 Files Baster 5 Mallot Hammer # 3 I Hammer 20 oz. 1 Pry Bar Small 1 Pry Bar Large 1 Pie Wrench 14 in. 2 Pie Wrench _ 24 in. 1 Pie Wrench 36 in. I E Hand Broom I Push Broom Large 1 Brass Hammer Small 1 Sledge Hammer Size 12 1 Matte Knife I Pick 1 Pry Bar 1 Compressor Large 1 Bolt Cutters 24' 1 Footage Wheel 1 Hand Saw 1 Air Bottle 30 in. 2 Face Mask 2 Escape Mask 5 min. 1 Multi-gas Detector 8 Talk-about Radio 2 Pelican Case 1 Hand Pump I City of Huntington Beach WDR 32 Appendix E Training Certificates dt r.a s: 1 '/ T3� 3U.i 1? 1'"„i ! il..-, •.y �T u14 k- 1 I A„ :� , 9 w�Yi �, .�o ) : t i v •��:, t'Y .,�t f:a � i'ux)�` "�n � �v 9 r y�.�" �.'x � p',A'• W ;�t y ig�z;��n,.1ti Sl 'i' •� -��-,'� r✓'p,F!� •eM1 r � t� •eS- ) huv. b^ rtr s a.( ti � t) r d, 4�k L st ALIF WATER ENVID s CA N ENT tt ASSOCIATION �t I_ THIS M TO ICELYtHAT =' John Arrollado HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS ,;; 4�. BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY AS A GRADE I .r:,z COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE Expires On Thursday, July 31 2008 Certificate No. 04072106 Kn:' Maura A. Bonnarens, President Michael J. Creel, Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program •7t ,.�?ry`�� ' 1�. .�''�' �vD ".�+, :Y:" „ir� ;:gin, r.,:zF,:;i� „�•, .,n.,. dUb v "' a S:'S Yµ,} ��jF��F -.. ,....�.'?<...,.- .v. : .:�.'d e �o,,w% ks•,:.;;„t?.s. _.., -2-r.4:fc Rd.- 'ty.. ,:�: ., T.t`v i=s:�;..T, 5 �jn 1S®R rg M. N"M f"I A LIFORNIA WATER E 0 "'NMENT AS A .......... THIS IS Haii y Ble#ik essa HA B D A 'LE EVIDENCE OF III ICATIONS VING;SUMTTECCEPTA BLF BY EDUC ISIMREBY ri D` 'SrC-,E "�T GRANTETffl-.,� RTIFIC�A.,, IO.N,OF60,MPETENCYA.--SA GRADE H COLLECtION SY;---'8TEM MAINT -V Expires On Sunday, July 31� 2005 Certificate No. 04072213 6-1teven Agor, Preldent Paul California Water Enviromnent Association Technical Certification Program N r � •va4gy t� .� �r Y -E. ,��.,, «:J,,iy,.i{„3 a "%�r,`..;i''i r' k_.rILIFORNIA T�, =>i WAT Eff K" ET"J9 RO N M"N ASSC1AT1"N THIS IS'TO eERTIFY T AT , 3: } N a. Mark Birchfield ' HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS A u. BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXP-ERIENCE'IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY AS A' s. GRADE II COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE >>„ Expires On Sunday July 31 2005 Certificate No. 03072202 or p�;t`' ,l s ,jarde ,q teven Agor,Pres(ent N, .,,") Paul L California Water Environment Association 4y ., j Technical Certification Program �� 3h"zy....a ��.t'%%: ?:i,. •��'Si.,��,,.";�';a:.Y,.'..� `:�/„,.FPS'. �, ,t< ,�id,nii• t- .°�'�M1,t��S w'T .a=. F, J�,�, ,� 4�,,v,,, a�V`,.,1. :t,�., #', a� �r ��' * Sl- ,.,y�.. i, n � s i,.-.i^'�'YL:'�§N'1.Y(.a,v......i', 't� , ,.»....". ..,- ...- ...-. i, .. ., ..,..,... .. .� ., ,., .. - - • +nv a ,r.-...�„�......- re .symmrcs ., � / � ` � � � Water /I Ash, Environment i AM Association 7677 Oakport Street,Suite 525, ! Oakland, "^=""``^^ | S/3/l0U4 ' Puu|Boucier CITY 0FHUNllN6TON BEACH � 21388VVAVECRE8TCIRCLE ` HUNT|NQTON BEACH CA9264G Dear Paul.- . Congratulations!— _ .--Score Report: ha � ! � | Candidate: ' kY i / � ' I'e � the the � ^ -- Ml- | ' � / Ceitifipate Your�bew certificate%' ff'.jWal1eF6arcVwilI�,,be mailed to you in ! ' ... / � "np ' .—.~. renew%dfdt�the expiration NW:11_00 NO Rex,e ` ON- Please QM AM . .....`�~. if .~ � " � '— ''—, ,-- -v ' v�~ `~~~':. � Sincerely, � ! ' ' Chris Lundeen. CAE �-----'— / Certification Director � / ` � Protecting our water environment through education and training. ' Member association athe0mm Environment Federation California Water Environment Association 7677 Oakport Street,Suite 525, Oakland,CA 94621-1935 214/2005 Kenneth Brown City of Huntington Beach 32966 Serena Way Lake Elsinore CA 92530 7, -7 Dear Kenneth: Congratulations! You have-peissed the.janUary 22,2005-Tec'finical,Certi ication Exam. Score Report: Candidate: Kenneth Brown COLLECTION-SYSTEM MAINTENANCE GRADEJ Your Overall Score: 84 i.o Bassi Result:,Pass Your ib6itiiiciate Nurril5erj!i:05012110 P ss"Po,i n' e"t'e"r'mination: a t D 'The!!Pass'Point"is:the.,minimum,point§requiredtopass Wt6tt.:Pass--'poinis are determined by the M6d'i,fjedAngoff'rh-ethodWh6re the p4 s,point i 6'h�-'t6st,is_--'dependent 6n the:difliculty1ovel.,of the.fes�f.-,A more-diitic6it test-will have a lower,pass,point'thbh-onr"easier"test_,-Test-.items(ciu6sfiohs)that arejUdge'd to be ina_pp_r'.cjipAa1:e are not included.,in'th ejina*'l:sc6n g.l. Cekificate and,_Wa116i Card ..,.. 4 Your new certificate and Wallet ca'rdvvill be mailed to you in abbi.A�3 to 4 weeks.`-;,-"' CdMfication Ren6w'ak Your certification is valid f9r,ohe yba'ffrom the'date of the test. You will receive renewal notices by-mail approximately one month before.tHe.renewal'date-Atis your responsibifity-to"6'n'sure*, at,yourcertificate remains I valid. To avoid h avi'ng;to're-'test,'please be sure to notify CWEA of any and renew before the expiration dateRe-view of Tast- Please note'tfiat,,exam reviews 4e�not available to-certificate candidates Who have:Dassdd the written examination. Thank you for you- Program.. h questions, or if C.participation in the Technical Prog you aye any: we help you any f6fthe'r", lease contact the CWEA office at 510-382-7�800,,:br'em'ail.tcp@cwea.org. Sincerely Chris Lun een, CAE Certification Director Protecting our water environment through education and training. Member association ci the 4%Iate,Envircnmerll Fe&.-ation &,�.��ii•5 9_ Y .�: lf•l,". �.'.) �.'th�trC. :y Yy ux, 5� F' tZ ^'f T.A. 1 Y 4 ty. •.,.2' k..,}'„ L. .�- ..H. 1 's,r '7 •�...,:qp:. �i,t 4 C`{ �:V �' � -1 T.. Y F.. f n i I K :p 1:r .� r "•:•. „.'i .Y rds�....e.,rl {.. .�. .h:-. r t� � 7 .. .,� x +� t k` �...1. .:, -.,. ..d h7;�. S' .d• ,..t.. s -' a ,...?..a..-r.i.,r.,,..rtr- .!s,. k .; x.. 'ki -'a t H .a-. tr !. i �• t �Y ttih•fi ,hfS tb .(. 'a. S 4. �:r _• s �. ra Ni o O 0 • ,Jr �r not ♦::, �{ �Y .fir. ft sv'4 I'?ti tt t; F 1 ,',- _•\� �\` .�� :,. ;wig t�,•° 1 � es`� .os;_lc:..+a� Su1,• p,.v• ,� •.+�P 1. 5 4trvk l-s�rJ•�i��rtT' .r•.! .;'al �.. �c '.0 �Li.i.•' '' y +?.it s�ois� �t Fi'_ •o �1 h l} .`CI yy 31:wy�.h^ ,:;f •�'�i`Y:l r1 tn,,•` t .\•.i>"i'�,,.....c•.., +,k,' �,. J' 1 .'`�ri 'v:F�-"i` r �h. �,` >r ,�,,, .rF.•.:"$`:i.Ci:�'i4.�a-'j,Y.",,: •!,:,,, � �', ,Sr� «�� +.l�..s,� '4l:"K ;;,.t,lii„ a:+•-:c ,y~s, 'i'r�.}z ,t..;'+3'l�"i' -,s.,`4"',;.}��.�.,�, ,-�",��-�: ,;." ��Y .'�J, y,� a '�.�j �F.t, r� �n�t+• ,}r, ._��os�+>,, a.., r�',„.,,v.. r,.� £,�":•+#r>:,�'ze�,�.,,;�,�'��y',.;.`�tst� �' r,:P,< ;rasa ',•�.yy�.-.. ,. ., a"Y+.' ��G '. !� �'�+.�:?' G�` 3-.� i•,v.,�w+4 +�^.11,•'w'v'„"''1��:�i�'':�..,J`;%';T^.�'r:^%'.a, Y,rr'•i1�:.:', .v,f�+w Y✓ r.' �"' '� ��.''4' •a;,✓,.',1��j ��'ya�' .t{,,� r�:Krs„1::�i,,,,c'..A�;:'. J_:r Yr C L I F®R N I A WATER El�T ,I�Z.®Nl�ENT r� :'.t .;.�s:.t-S�?�;ry_f;,"#�:Fi'rilk';�1�'riyi¢il�kq�•y�i'{� , ANT!" 'y�.G{ v J,i .M Yw,�\ p,+' x+ .irr•...q ^};';,, .,%;,A; ',r>:' .-y�''�:, �• ;j"t,• .-�,vb. irk`*.�"tH'-'��,�i.'al�j,4ts r,4':-?'�r�+4%%}l�}a,}:.. {,\U'g :r• '`-`h7:E,;.,*�+- ,f!3;�"1.,.u'":r,'. .gi43 ,;'.>"'z(",'",,'�itfr�S.n'3*.i}--a'"."R;r`Yi.*�. 'ri2i,�fyhlq. ✓' ' /•:, 'n *7 ;t" .�i+:�Jry F.'=^ .,,^NI')i,l''�'I.:�rw f�:yilulY ra :;'.ss�..�rv�'-'':,�1.��3 .1;:°:s-•!t r.��Al;;.�.�'+�T:)tE:yei":;r,b'r`'7r,:ltn-;' } ea,:q•: .,t "�•I`f:,a.<,,.,' -C,;c;+-K m 1%R:'-'ti'r1Ya;Sy��''Cc?��?��``ttyv , :',GCi,:-wx Y4„,, orta u;.,;•+. j'f�,:G4;:a,�'f.S.<';'s'�K:R,+Si,{`;, `,� rin .e<: THIS ; SA��l4'In rrh.;l.,.p:l.• ,ark,. « w,,.,;w „Snry.,r...,..,r Tf:.,:3z eaa.E:a"F;,.•.,,: ,� -i l',F.a, ', t '°;M;d'i;k'{ - :<a< a;w,rr.,��vi) t:i;',e\,x: ,i ;,c,.; :==,r'.?tlir•' ".�a,a,-Ei ,.nl'• ;p;�:�:;. K f-.. q::`.`� :i�': :;:t.0 '(gg r e,,s rtu-;°�;I 9.,ar!>.,..=1'�.�'::s,.,;.,i.,..SY,!:'.t'3 T,'�,,.Pa:/.,.n.-ri��i�'�•r'e�r,,.,rr9� .;4:F:Y' ;.'I; rr:` "L%^n ':S,S.• ;"f<wk j� Y-."„+. .,.F�,J .a,�l +y:+;� '�, d'{i ,,�;_ ~;tiS:�`:.j .agrt,.,. - .y „v.r;;>s;,cytgv,.:nrprn•seS..�G.. ,{,-1!;'e:. t H1�"i'.S�<. -''r�1.�-, '�•N`,�G.?.,�., v:r�,3a(� ' '` y�'!IJ $/'t �:':ir, )-i :1.,.., t�:i:.;j ir>;��:e ,:.)..i!'i;k�� `:Si i' _ - ii(� ' �,y'`1!,,•!i.•' j _ _ fi.�,,,...0 d,"_. kl .fep,... s, ''-£ 4Rr r.l„ J,o.,,�;^. .•,� (;, .,rr,.�a", :;t.,tr_ - .S�t 'er•'w.rr. - - .,6.�• .,a„-lt..lm+ .'7n.s Il: - if>- dtt' l r•r• k, t it:If 9: 1 r'7!i �•�l�i�iY;l n1'"T %Yl ,k- x. TT f .1�C.M1 S B'; _ � �''d �t Cyr„ X," , 7. CEP � r ,.�. ..i4-. ,x � s.:�,i:r; �;: .�.� �� .,IONS +, •Y - '\%.. �: 1:,,,''"'-•''�eel•',`,'.•'i,v.i5T4b^ uk .M.Q� .1;4�; 'Sn„ 4r„r - s 4',:. ...i i✓I.kr'SrsY. , ,�.y�R, {. � UC ,!f JP+ 11\I�'•� (y�, tea� .Li:,t;�,`i 1 Ii �'�t" L� +.'.97!x, r>;Y ...1,,;. ..F..;��)..,, %!:'"•cij ,t �,�„ t ":.i fLJ ,r i11n 2 D '°:`f:+� i!t`� e��;:lii�p ..FZti�,.nr:i::-•,G',;.r�:lP�ar .1.f ,..L7, aryr:.;t,, ' �!•' '�}r d}. R+;.P.�.y�: ,€,::. r'��n;,,j;:et:'a,��";,1;lsr; ;,iERTO TIFICA I : -.,• ,:,_ :,f.,' _ -4..} s\IA,.,. �i iv.f, 't'i• i7']I`:� :.T'�r Ur, - ',y),5' r,,l',i' ±!:��4�2-Cr.".:,e'1'2.'-Y?` - 1 1Y.�+v,8'++'bYv» .iv,4••:4:.f•c�.iy':'.1'1 •!:•','t` Iji/t„' n,f.!,.:1:..��`^'yr.'.'hi�ins'r��',, „,.M.,3�!L":^;'„ .:,F,:,rp'neli.wr.,.�#+?•,v,`ia%�,�\a,. -'I� rtl{�'Ia�` ,I �:� 'i:�'�':1"u:�:,s °i•`71;' �.,r�i;j;..,�a4�lt;-i;,~�. +r;yes!�;ils.s"'l.:.aFdp's�:t;.:7'fy,,,+;;,.u:.$..., ',:3\„m��,,�,;h,,;�.•75�9{r.: �,y� t,.J:: '�.�3k:.�.+&'x,w`�w3'4£.f 9i,1 1d Si};kV1.'i.?y,r.,VIItrP�N.�.�< eidyi;?7-,,�Ptl'-*�i'I:I{:Ic1r'>^� ,YI ;Pf.. Al ,.':f,';.(:S'r a ;i:.1�s .� , ^.R' 11 , h •� CRA.DE I ., ,r-;� ;;}; ``;rpiq,.'r :E,,.va.. ar.- `"!:'_�'a, ;y.i;:;•},'•;W...lgsk Ha.ar SS �5:,'-t{[;`'��Y,..:i.n j'.�:," �+t�rll'L4t1'i-',.iu �P S`•.:.f e,. }e fr.,>:i';.�fi�[SS ti,,;•.,. .:^��[f; 4•,i(t�; '.,.{ .H.:, c-i);r.,1"1:.•"zi�;J.t;;i,'":;_J''$1 COLLECTIO �. N 5 I` r. *T TENANCE:,'r I ..�; .CC�E�. iIST a Leo."n�t7(r:'i' `,i•.�-s`ti1�$.,- •„A�:r�14.,a ett.�Ji`�x��i .rfi;:. ;a�,t:��!1:4":v'm.., of{!•,{y:.,l.}�yra �Pq:r6f��fir,:�, :,\.vl.`fn,�:., -!f?'.:��'!"t":lt;'i�1n-+�";T,nf.p..yr,upF;�:.+T.��:`-� ?';i: '.1`� ' :Mr;;; .:ti.: sx.:7 rp,�:vn•r� ,��:,?,,'t-s;� ..:a:r .a�'r,.,�ryt rw��• '}... ,,.pit,. ayati�„1^:'��,d:,` ,,4�"'C,�m,�iy.7c�q�Ir�:, v ;,n„r,;FS;, �'v'i",mot..'-�E'aatn�..,Q:;t+ ,.Fq `g5Lr "nii' o.!iN, issi,-„4;.:a:�:k.:ak�>"i�<�iil;�i�,�r,.7,.•,b:.,rx.y.*As.11 y, "'�„ ,rru�`:r,Hiu�,;,ai ;t!�:e•61x}�o' Issued on this 31" day :of July 2002 'T,Cei�tY ii�a'' '4 6 1 ." t I.: r�1 �o. 02072131 Expires on the 31" da `�:a�Jul 2003 'h "a.:j,��G l^;:: f itgtikl•��iri�E'y";�.i; ..ac,.�La�rfv;E�n ��1:7i, .fi rama,. 1�Yir: tt <�;, :p.',: '." .j'Q.lu a;4fnt1.A.Y'�il%" :ol'z1-:�'F•"� ` f President F„4 California Water Environment Association Chair 'Technical Certification Program {_ :',h:- �j,, ,.T,^ k-S.,.,fl,•4�,1' ,-{"s,,.,K r:�.� a,.;Y,_ ./x9.rL ;th. ;,r. .�-)',r v."''�n. ,r,. Sl,' r.a+„ `'f?� '•I' '7,,,.'�:ti.. ,y.,:,7. 4` rr y;&. ,c G..'r' .':r.,'r`.. �?>'- 1 J.�, .`�'`c .•f, .,S- `.>• N. ,.yJ. 4' I�"l,. �[ ✓..>:),-. r?�- .,f. :.�.`;: :t� .J,r4r�c" .:>t, ,;%• 'P., .Yc'r .1 "'C, ,a w�.: .>.., t'.:i.,. :l9 ..t. =IN ;n„ ,.51��A' '�:�.>r tom::. � m"g, Srt n�-. ,.hS 'ap.:1.9.rs 1 �i.v>1a,7 '" -.s "•s'✓uti'Y' `l"'..�+"t. r=7° ,."., iR 1 'c ,. 'r'�"t`�'fe �N,, "3 r•'tiWi.i'•q dxk''. 'u' S i aS1",; i'"syF t'd.k '� §' "4'3 S &:" s�'aa'`,t ' fi" ,>"Via.• { t�. t st•-p3' 5c ,��i}. •7�' n k�.rjF�. y ; R N Iw A CAL P WAT E R h" N V I R 0 N ME"N T h11 AS�o uiATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY HAT , ; > Christopher Gray ;k HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HERE-BY; 3. 'A GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY AS" A �,a �}i GRADE IV , COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 4� Fl. -F3 Expires On Thursday, July 31, 2008 Certificate No. 050724013 _ Maura A. Bonnarens, President Michael J. Cr e1, Chair j California Water Environment Association Technical CertifjdatioD Program ' ,fa�5a kt": ea .i�;� ';'y•,�.,;:f'.:1��„`�f�.. ,L L y 4�1� .C ,.!Vy', .ra�::ii:;."%�,q��i'r.. �,,�..:?.,�,{:1�„+•,', a�r �;r C $j.` _ �'''.,...J.,•.,a. ';;:;y.�5:,vn>.:�:��':.:��"`Y�•,::f!:`?�..4`�.,.Y.+ f..-li` xr�r.2r - -. •:y\.., .?;a,I� %:1:i4'."'7?.��tr,.,y„ !r°�3... :.i -, , _i,.".+ s `,�, •�:�'�+:-'..:,:e.:;:.,.. ,. '�� N,In-,'1 f.. .�:'-: '. . .e. Qr'.J'r•f1"' ;Ir`s!;. ..•,.,; .... .. .,, ,..a.-.-; :..,4,.,.,r,......[' .,. .,�.,f{nl.,.r h..1,:.,..,r-, ,,. ., �. - }3v,5 .`,J:r :.rdi.; ,I.., <i. G\ ... ,,..,T,; .- - . .....:.:�.:.... ":d. � _ .^-�•T :,FFF..JI is '{^y:�l> i��Fy r',i43,,H'i�y..:.,: tea S im `? .\ r r' 7ti:"~ ,Ytk::, art. nE .{'.> ,Y '� '�t n res• �,.c.,. ry i9' 4 f'v t ;a4.� .A• .�. .i- .R :7 �'E. 1,:1'+' x, .c�. L ;�.�i�r`,;�. t ,..� <;f'\.:.:i'.4,TM..a. .a: :A'" .,,eG ,'�g 4,S�<�sC .,`,� <,r*.: ??41� s, d' 'i5 ;) w c; Y;. u „-',�. { 1•�� ,j �.` ' ��'L .t, ':� 'fit r,�Fy��yy` .� ,,�,f�'N�k�'v�sr �"�.:��jvt�,fn•r +,k�.l„��.�rY�Fk6 � �.R '�4t�:..,,, y .�� ' �.ly\ ��rrkti 11 � y CAL RNIA WATE"R -ENVIRONME'"N"I" A,3,3UC...1AT10N A, ;u ' THIS IS TO CERTIFY HAT " Ronald Rathbun f .. HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING-AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATTON.OF`COMPETENCY AS A GRADE II wx, COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE Expires On Thursday, July 31, 2008 : � Certificate No. 02072230 o ;^fro ' , �il•^]l. �/ f i~'�/,i �l f'�. 4�..=-%=.+40I"^'�l S.,p?,rY'�\. I Maura A. Bonnarens, President Michael J. Creel, Chair "r as�E� California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program "`' "�'F�t7;,x,+�>�' .,.�h,n,a{k`>iii,3',6•, `;-,at p�-t=',e%;:�:;h`Ir'• >-' "'>,E � ; ,�`�� .,J�;<'Mfr nt' "ag?,_..a. .\44, ,a,3'iaa'",'ii:;,..'s',.::xr-Cn. ;;v, 2• -'I'r:' a' _ �d.s;i,:.,_..,,Ra,:.%•{ ..,..,,�,,.;..r,�:,..,,..... �'` ail,_+. - d ri'_ ,.,r- .a5-,,,- s..; ..E l., a,, h, c ,c,..,,-.. r.. ., .. 'S •„;+.,. .s7i 30"'1}feni.;?;V: L p;r�:v �,`+N� �1's H 1 S+,i if 61 B ..h;5,:1.v. t:,, � 'rn'.-1.y ,c �;-y, •r�,�'.,�':.,,r.,f..• .�. ,.A ,:4 � 1 r N�j ..} .,x. rEv:"u J.'�.,,a, y , �.,7s»; �,{ ?r.,. #. .�'�rr,� f 3\$, S�:. I .t "4d„ �'•'yt •^.�t. r .Y'� t .z� .r:, �r Y � ,�o, ...(, �+ h�,.0 �r.;`s rn >� ��}} .f +r •l .9�. • ., a. •, :. .E of . ... �.�i .v .,.... ,.r. 1'<--... � .r s:.:. . :z.. r . , c„� r. ... ... ..r... v. ..atr,t,' , � .i ::.,. � �', ^'„ -, ,.fs t +, ..�` ..w. f,., f3 .,.. .., ,,". .. . . *t,.. ,, J. i• i� ., ..; iII, 'G�:.'.s. ,J: .«.. r ;'<. ,., t.',.s S :., :� 3. ,•. { r..i. u � ..iti i...-,t s. c. I .. ;, i .�. t....::.... . :...I......, t. ..r`.Az.,. L:,.,.,,1.>,K� ,.,t'.s:`k,.,.,,4.�-,,rci;.k'rx:.....t •,..aclsvr.iCr Ssa$.,.Jc...,r..ri.T"�,;irw,.rr:.:u"'�i;R..F'�i,v rrk;:.4i71Aif.3x4F,nk�J)k....,..J:..Y',,ra,6'H��t'� t 1.:WATER ENVIRONME"N"I" , ra ASS 14fr- � d_ty 1 •�• r � �S 1 CIA i t Rick Stadnick a f ^ HAVING SUBMITTEDACCEPTABLE i / QUALIFICATIONSy EDUCATION,BY �• HEREBY GRANTEDiIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY AS A // 41f': 5 GRADE fY f} COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE Certificate f !1it(E. 001 1 1.1 ,(,k J C : f� r,, k ufi , :ti: ...:," �..0•,.::,,. •,.. , , �. :i. ...,. 4'1: .1" -n. � '::. F , .. :. f;,•Y c' �:i ,!. 1 , vt ,_i:1!`.¢,kv„�fiy" v:•^ .. �. y..,Cf r i ,J", �.,� 1:.H,; P, ,,, I,s}'':f. ...F ��' :ff. ro x. rN','ri.r,� ?C .:...F•l.`S?:1:. r. .,,�,r.p v8 {1 $.,.:.,_ ,.�S' .y..,,. �...5 r.l „Y'( I JF"a�'r"?L .'�, t j-ru... o, N� I).. l' ++ gft.a.yi ��r.1+ l:j. � �r �� a? a C '45r:,.at 1 r.r>i,:,y .t�� r,f,ry�„�u.@ 4 j Fi"I :a.•,. d. a �,' �'i `, '�' `,��5.�islr*'� l?J rj �n � �r, ,.�! �w ;•ds,:E}i t E �r. �� t,,,� a s P tv, x;,�, �. 7 California Water Environinent.Association Technical Ceffi icatian;Frogramr 7677O;6kportSC Ste 525 Oaklattil'G(=94Gllx Tel 510 382 7,800 fax,Sld 3827810v j W66 www Wy 16rg s Cory.Wekerle COLLECTION VSTF.iM;I AINTEIVANVCE'y Cert#: 070a-23032_ � Grade. Expires: 09/31/2008CoM$& H0urs`Due 01/31/2009 Signa(ure"`tit'Ceftifcaie'Holder.' t Appendix F Overflow Emergency Response Plan ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION Office of the City Administrator Number 808 Sections 1-7 Effective Date 8/1107 Responsible Department Public Works Review Date 811/12 SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Overflow and Subsurface Sewer Leak Response Procedures 1. Purpose: To minimize the impact of an accidental discharge from the City's wastewater collection system. 2. Authority: Section 401 of the Huntington Beach City Charter 3. Application: This regulation applies to all officers and employees of the City of Huntington Beach. 4. Definitions: ( 4.1. An above-ground release of untreated sewage from the City's wastewater collection and/or pumping system. 4.2. Subsurface Sewer Leak: A release of untreated sewage through collection system pipe and/or pumping system defects below the ground. 5. Responsibilities: 5.1. All discharges of sewage,whether a sanitary sewer overflow or a subsurface sewer leak, shall be reported to the Public Works Utilities Division. 5.2. The Public Works Utilities Division, Wastewater Section Supervisor or his designee, will be responsible for reporting all discharges of sewage immediately to applicable Federal, State, regional and local agencies. 5.3. Any discharge caused by defects in the system that cannot be corrected by the Public Works Utilities Division through normal maintenance efforts will be referred to the Engineering Division for assessment and recommended action. 5.4. The Director of Public Works shall be notified of all discharges of sewage. 5.5. Records of discharges shall be kept for a period of not less than five years, subject to the latest adopted version of the City's records retention policy. 6. Procedures: 6.1. A representative of the Fire Department, Public Works Department, or both,will respond to all reported discharges to identify the responsible party. 6.2. Discharges that are determined to be caused by activities on private property will be directed to the Public Works Department Wastewater Section for enforcement of cleanup, billing and agency notifications. 6.3. Discharges that are determined to be caused by activities on City property, or which responsibility cannot be established, will be directed to the Public Works. 6.4. Department Wastewater Section for cleanup and agency notifications. Actions to alleviate discharges wilt be performed in the following order. Page 2 6.4.1. Contain and/or minimize the discharge_ 6.4.2. Identify and notify the responsible party. 6.4.3. Collect information, estimate discharge volumes and capture photo documentation. 6.4.4. Begin cleanup of the discharge (concurrently with 7.4.3.) 6.4.5. Notify all applicable Federal, State, regional and local agencies. 6.4.6. Notify Public Works management up through the Director of Public Works. 6.4.7. Inform the Public Works Department, Engineering Division for an assessment and recommended course of action if the problem cannot be corrected through normal maintenance efforts. 6.5. Private property owners will be billed for all City costs, including overhead, associated with the response or cleanup of a spill caused as a result of activities on their property. 7. Attachments Attachment A: Detailed Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures Attachment B: Detailed Subsurface Sewer Leak Response Procedures Attachment C: Sanitary Sewer Overflow Report Form Attachment D: Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Volumes 1 Penelope Ct+lbreth-Graft, ppA, City Administrator 808 Page 3 ATTACHMENT A: Detailed Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures 808 Page 4 Detailed Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures Notification: Notification of a sewage spill on public or private property typically will be received by telephone, either through Police Dispatch (9-1-1) or through the Public Works Department Utilities Operations Division. A call received via 9-1-1 will result in Fire Department response. Calls received by the Public Works Department will initiate dispatch of trained response crews to the site where the spill will be evaluated and other, appropriate City departments will be notified as necessary. Incident Response: Fire Department and/or Public Works Department will respond to all reported sewage spills to identify the responsible party and provide clean-up protocol procedures for sewage that has been discharged into the environment on public or private property. Assessment Process: The Fire Department/Public Works Department Incident Commander will investigate the incident and determine if the sanitary sewer overflow is on public or private property. If the overflow is on City -ro ei-t or has the potential of reaching City the Public YN P Y p 9 Y Works Department Wastewater Section will respond. Notification schedule: Utilities Yard 7:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. (714) 536-5921 or Wastewater Section after hours callout at (714) 296-9295. The Public Works Department Utilities Division Wastewater Section Supervisor or his/her designee shall be responsible for immediately notifying applicable Federal, State, regional and local agencies noted in Attachment C by phone, Internet—based reporting to the State Water Resources Control Board, facsimile and certified mail/return receipt. If the overflow is on private property, the Fire Department Incident Commander and/or Public Works Department Utilities Division Wastewater Section Supervisor or his designee will contact the responsible party for proper removal of the sewage. The responsible party shall be advised that the substance must be removed immediately under the applicable Federal, State, regional and local codes and regulations. The Fire Department and/or Public Works Department Wastewater Section Supervisor or his designee shall immediately notify applicable Federal, State, regional and local agencies by phone, Internet—based reporting to the State Water Resources Control Board, facsimile and certified mail/return receipt. In addition; the State Water Resources Control Board also shall be notified by and Internet-based reporting system established for such purpose. The City may initiate cleanup if deemed appropriate to protect the public health, safety and welfare. 808 Page 5 Incident Action Plan: Action taken at the scene by Public Works Department or private contractor pertaining to sewage spills on public or private properties: 1. Contain and/or minimize the discharge. 2. Identify and notify the responsible party. 3. Collect information, estimate overflow volumes and capture photo documentation. 4. Begin cleanup of the overflow (concurrently with step 3). 5. Notify all applicable Federal, State, regional and local agencies by phone, facsimile and certified mail/return receipt. 6. Notify management up through the Director of Public Works, 7. Inform the Engineering Division for an assessment and recommended course of action if the problem cannot be corrected through normal maintenance efforts. 8. Send billing information to Administrative Services Department to invoice '.� responsible private property owners for any City costs associated with the responses/clean-up of the overflow caused as a result of activities on private property. 808 Page 6 E` �1 ATTACHMENT B: Detailed Subsurface SeNver Leak Response Procedures z 808 —} Page 7 Detailed Subsurface Sewer Leak Response Procedures Notification: Notification of a subsurface sewer leak is typically made during routine cleaning or robotic camera inspection by Public Works Department crews but may also be received from the public via calls to Fire or Police. All notifications shall be referred to the Public Works Utilities Division 7:00 a.m. — 4:00 p.m. at (714) 536-5921 or Wastewater Section after- hours callout at 714-206-9295. Incident Procedure: The Public Works Department, Wastewater Section crews shall respond to all suspected subsurface sewer leaks that are within the public right-of-way and will take appropriate action as determined by an assessment process. If the suspected subsurface leak is in a service lateral to a privately-owned building, regardless if said lateral is in the public right- of-way, it is the responsibility of the building owner and said owner will be notified to repair the line immediately. Assessment Process: The Public Works Wastewater Supervisor, or his/her designee, shall investigate all F y , reported subsurface sewer leaks within the public right-of-way. If the Supervisor determines that a crack or leak could be in violation of applicable water quality and/or health care regulations, he/she shall immediately report the incident to the County of Orange Health Care Agency, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, and the Public Works Street/Wastewater Supervisor'). Outside agency notifications shall be made by phone, facsimile and certified mail/return receipt. The Public Works Wastewater Supervisor shall immediately notify the Utilities Manager and submit an Incident Report to the Public Works Department, City Engineer. The Utilities Manager, via the Director of Public Works, shall immediately notify the City Administrator. Upon receipt of an Incident Report, the City Engineer shall immediately cause the leak to be assessed and, if deemed appropriate, develop a Corrective Action Plan, which may include excavation and repair/replacement, slip lining or other appropriate techniques. 808 Page 8 Incident Action Plan: Continuous communication shall be established with the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board with regard to all findings, decisions and timetables pertaining to repair and/or monitoring of possible subsurface leaks. Subsurface leaks, at the determination of the Public Works StreetlWastewater Supervisor, may require the immediate diversion of sewage until the repair of the damaged infrastructure may be affected by the City Engineer; however the Street/Wastewater Supervisor, in consultation with the City Engineer, may determine that the extent of the damage is not susceptible to immediate violations of applicable laws and repair may be deferred, or deemed unnecessary, but subject to a specific monitoring schedule to be determined at that time. (1) Subsurface sewage leaks of less than 1,000 gallons per day are not subject to immediate repair and reporting to regulatory agencies unless there is a potential for contamination of Waters of the State. Nonetheless, documentation and any necessary repair of the damaged line shall be affected pursuant to the City Engineer's Corrective Action Plan and included in the sewer system audit and routine reports to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. 808 Page 9 ATTACHMENT C: Sanitary Selmer Overflow report Form (Deliv,ery by Facsimile and Certified Mail/Return Receipt) 808 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION � z SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REPORT FORM ALL ITEMS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDRESSED. 1. THIS REPORT IS (CHECK ONE): ❑ PRELIMINARY ❑ FINAL ❑REVISED FINAL 2. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW SEQUENTIAL TRACKING NUMBER: 3. NAME OF CITY EMPLOYEE REPORTING SPILL TO REGIONAL BOARD: 4. PHONE NUMBER OF CITY EMPLOYEE REPORTING SPILL TO REGIONAL BOARD: 5. REPORTED TO: DATE OF CALL: TIME OF CALL: (NAME OF REGIONAL BOARD STAFF) 6 DATE THE SPILL WAS REPORTED TO THE CITY: (MM/DD/YY) TIME THE SPILL WAS REPORTED TO THE CITY: (MILITARY OR 24 HOUR TIME) 7. WHO REPORTED THE SPILL TO THE CITY: ( ) (NAME OR AGENCY) 8. RESPONSIBLE PARTY OR SEWER AGENCY: 9. OVERFLOW START: DATE: (MM/DD/YY) TIME: (MILITARY OR 24 HOUR TIME) . `` - 10. OVERFLOW END: DATE: (MM/DD/YY) TIME: _(MILITARY OR 24 HOUR TIME) 11. ESTIMATED OVERFLOW FLOW RATE:_(GALLONS PER MINUTE) 12. TOTAL OVERFLOW VOLUME:_(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:_(GALLONS) 16. CONTAINMENT METHOD OR INFORMATION: 17. WASH WATER USED:_(GALLONS) RECOVERED:_(GALLONS) LOST:_(GALLONS) 18. WASH WATER DISPOSAL METHOD: 'SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: F : . CRWQCB SPILL FORM_rev012109 Page 1 of 4 19. ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW: 20, ADDRESS OR LOCATION OF BLOCKAGE OR PROBLEM POINT: CITY: City of Huntington Beach ZIP CODE: �p 21. COUNTY: OR (SB,RV, OR) 22. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW STRUCTURE I.D.: 23. DESCRIPTION OF COMPONENT FROM WHICH THE OVERFLOW OCCURRED: 24. NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS WITHIN 1000FT. OF THIS LOCATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 25. DATES OF OVERFLOWS WITHIN 1000FT. OF THIS LOCATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 26. OVERFLOW CAUSE—SHORT DESCRIPTION—CHECK ALL THAT APPLY: ❑ ROOTS ❑ GREASE ❑ LINE BREAK ❑ INFILTRATION ❑ ROCKS ❑ BLOCKAGE ❑ POWER FAILURE ❑ PUMP STATION FAILURE ❑ DEBRIS ❑ VANDALISM ❑ FLOOD DAMAGE ❑ MANHOLE FAILURE ❑ OTHER ❑ UNKNOWN ❑ CONSTRUCTION ❑ PRIVATE PROPERTY 27. OVERFLOW CAUSE—DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CAUSE: 28. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW CORRECTION—DESCRIPTION OF ALL PREVENTATIVE AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN OR PLANNED: 29. WAS THERE MEASURABLE PRECIPITATION DURING 72-HOUR PERIOD PRIOR TO THE OVERFLOW? (Y OR N) INITIAL AND SECONDARY RECEIVING WATERS: 30. DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW ENTER A STORM DRAIN? (Y OR N) IF YES,AT WHAT LOCATION OR ADDRESS DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW ENTER THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM'? 31. DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REACH SURFACE WATERS OTHER THAN A STORM DRAIN? (Y OR N) 32. NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF INITIAL RECEIVING WATERS: (IF NONE,TYPE NONE) CRWQCB SPILL FORM_rev0I2109 Page 2 of 4 33. NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF SECONDARY RECEIVING WATERS: (IF NONE,TYPE NONE) 34. IF THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW DID NOT REACH SURFACE WATERS, DESCRIBE THE FINAL DESTINATION OF SEWAGE. NOTIFICATION: 35. WAS THE LOCAL HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY NOTIFIED? Y (Y OR N) County of Orange,Health Care Agency(714)433-6000 Date of Call: Time of Call: After Hours (714)628-7008,FAX (714)433-6481 Reported To: Date Faxed: 36. WAS THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (OES)NOTIFIED? Y (Y OR N) California Emergency Management Agency(800) 852-7550 Date of Call: Time of Call: Reported To: Control#: ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATIONS: Regional Water Quality Control Board (951) 782-4130 Date of Call: / / Time of Call: After Hours(951)782-4130(Voice mail) Reported To: After Hours(O.E.S)(800) 852-7550 c FAX(951) 781-6288 Date Faxed: Public Facilities&Resources Department (714) 567-6363 Date of Call: / / Time of Call: (If the spill enters a county channel) Reported To: Howard Johnson (714)536-5503 Date of Call: / / Time of Call: Travis Hopkins (714)374-5348 Date of Call: / / Time of Call: AFFECTED AREA POSTING: 37. WERE SIGNS POSTED TO WARN OF CONTAMINATION? _ (Y OR N) 38. LOCATION OF POSTING (IF POSTED): 39. HOW MANY DAYS WERE THE WARNING SIGNS POSTED? 40. WERE SAMPLES OBTAINED OF CONTAMINATED WATER? _ (Y OR N, IF YFS ATTACH RESULTS) 41. OTHER REMARKS: CRWQCB SPILL FORM_rev012109 Page 3 of 4 �i I swear under penalty ofperjury that the information submitted in this document is true and correct. 1 certify under penalty of perjury that I have personnaly examined and am familiar ivith the information submitted in this document and all attachments and that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe that the information is trite, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there ai-e significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility offine and imprisonment. SIGNATURE: NAME: DATE: TITLE: j CRWQCB SPILL FORM_rev012109 Page 4 of 4 Page 14 ATTACHMENT D: Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Volumes (Excerpt from Irvine Ranch Water District Operations Manual) t A�: 808 Page 15 SEWER SPILL PROCEDURE CALCULA i iNG SPILLS The purpose of this report is to take the mystery out cf calculating spills. Almost all spills can be calculated using the two examples discussed in this section. You can Use the orifice equation when trying to 591ire out the volume of a spill. Understanding the orifice equation is not as complex as it may sound. If you know the diameter of the hole (i.e., pick hole or annual space between the ring and cover) and the height at which the fluid is coming out of the hole, then you can figure the . flow out of that hole. The equation is Q= Cav2gh, Where: Q = flow of fluid from the hole, C = coefficient of discharge, a = area of the hole (measured in feet), b = gravity (32.2 fG`sec), and ( h = height of the fluid above the cover (measured in feet). € The coeftcier_t of discharge (C) is the product of the coefncient of velocity (Cv) multiplied by the coefficient of contraction (Cc). The values for Cv have been found to vary from 0.954 for '/.=inch orifices to 0.991 for 2-5 inch orifices. The values for Cc have been found to vary from 0.67 for X i.ch orifices to 0.614 for 2.5 inch orifices. Exa-my1e 1 You receive a report of a spill occurring at 12 noon, Your crews respond to the spill and relieve the spill at 2:30 p.m. In addition, they inform you that the flow was coming from two X inch pick holes in the manhole cover, and when they arrived on the scene, the flow appeared to be coming out of the holes approximately 4 inches above the lid. What is the total flow that you are to report to the Regional Roard? Assu.mptiors for Example 1 spill: 1. Flow started at noon and was stopped at 2:30 p.m. Total time of spill. was 2.5 hors (150 minutes). 2. Flow was coming from two 24 irch pies holes. The area of each is inch hole is 0.44179 (see :'able 1-2). To convert in= to ft'- multiply by 0.006944. Therefore, a= 0.44179 inch2 x 0.006944 = 0.0031 R 2 for each hole. IR`NC Tech!-;cal Gperl:c;,s Marual ?r,5 March 2003 It i 808 Page 16 t SEVNER SPILL PROCEDURE 3. Flow was coming out of each hole at a height of 4 inches_ Tc convert inches to feet, multiply by hoof I2 inches l foot Therefore, H= 4 inches x = 0.33 `t 12 inches 4. The ccefcient of discba-rge, C = Cv x Cc_ For a % inch hole, Cv = 0.954, Cc= 0.67. Therefore, C= 0.954 x 0.677 = 0.639 5. Using the.orifice equation Qh= CaV.2,-,� the flow from each hole is: Qh = 0.639 ((.0031 fc') V2(32.2fr/scc')(0.33fir) 6. Total icw, Qt= Qh x number of holes x leng-th of spill (minutes) f. Qt= 4,099 gpmlhole x 2 holes x 150 minutes = 1,230 gallons. 4� Example 2 in this next Example, the facts are sirniiar to Example 1, except in addition to the Low co5me cut of the two pick holes, it is also coming out of the % iueh gap between the ring and cover at a height or 4 inches. 7. In addition to steps 1 through 6 inn Example 1, you aLo -need to figure the total area where the flow is corning out between the ring and cover. We k1ow that the relationsh<p between the ring and caner probably looks 1 4 e this. FIGURE 1.14.2 SEWER SPILL CALCULATION EXAMPLE t 36' t t E i i IiI i } RING i MING I !FL'VD Tec`.mcai OFe-_cns i.:arch�CGQ Page 17 SEWER SPILL PROCEDURE j This problem is made simple if you take the 1D of the ring (shown here to be 36 inches), figure out its area and subtract it from the area of the cover (shown here to be 36"— u" = 35.5 inches). SL.ce both of these areas are circles, we know that the formula is A= rl(D/2)2- 'Therefore: A =A ring—A Cover = [-(j(36/2)2] — [H(35.5/2 2] II=3.1416 = [3.1416 (324)] —[3.1416(315.1)] = 1017.9—959.8 28.1 iM2 x 0.006944=0.195 h2 8. :rpm Example 1: H= 0.33 fr, g = 32.2 ft sec, C = 0.639 _ 9 Using orifice equation Q = Ca42gh Q = 0.639 11(0.195 fc'-) 2(32?fr/sec' (0.33fs) =0.574 Cr rJ=257.82 gpin = 257.82 150 mir= 38,6 3-gallcns 10. 1n this example, fow:vas coming from two pick holes and the space between the r�r:g amd cover. So in this example we :~Lust add the flow calculated in Step 6 above to the flow ca,c*.:fated in Step 9 above—making the total flow of the spill in this example: Qt = 1230 -aliens '- 38,673 gallons = 39,903 gallons lRL4 ;ec nica':0peia;i..�s b;anua' ?.1� March 2000 Page 18 NVASTENVATER SPILL CALCULATOR How high in inches was the water coming out of the pick 1 i inches i hole? How many pick holes (there are two per manhole)? 2 pick holes How many minutes was the water running? 15 minutes Complete the following if water was also coming out around the manhole lid. (Leave these fields blank if the above condition does not apply) How high was the water coming out around the manhole inches lid? j How many manhole lids? manholes The spill rate is: 7.28 gallons per minute The amount spilled is: 109 gallons ) 808 Appendix G FOG Impact Study m 7--my"00 WON ! v ({.,,r-»emu F€i ,�° N2�y&e,• C! CL w E MA t P , ' 13 7.1 OEM � {Ft z OWN CIO f n .� '�",wry..• w'y��p',.ski%� -�� ,n" �•y .,, 3p` ,�« ".1'' �v] A `. � L Fv'' {3,�i$:i`rvz i:';7r•: �.; ;r�ia:r*'�n,,,;ZS:•�`.�.*-F.Y'y � =f '• rr a� pl ��' &'' b r��yt�SV•''� _ at X Q r� -`,� _� y-rt„_.,•,..,,-, ,,,+ e... —1:�n'yho x a °.a r ,�"=3ii'f ,,, <� ,;;=>•-�ra r;ti" 'k�-._=.r.'.t,r�'"::y.,.�y;«s=„ ;•;a�, ,,,ry;'�:-.��z-y �ry�,xq. Acknowledgements Brown and Caldwell would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals listed below for their support and contributions to the success of this study. Information and insights into process operations,maintenance,regulatory compliance, and source control from Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) staff provided valuable background information for development and evaluation of various on-site treatment alternatives. Peer review by Brown and Caldwell staff from outside the core project team provided beneficial input that has resulted in a vastly improved product. Orange County Sanitation District Staff Nick Arhontes,P.E.,Manager Collections Facilities O&M and Facilities Services Adriana Renescu, P.E., Engineering Supervisor Source Control Division Michelle Hetherington,Associate Engineer III, O&M Division Mark H. Kawamoto,Associate Engineer, Source Control Division Deirdre E Hunter, Principal Environmental Specialist, Environmental Compliance and Monitoring Division Brown and Caldwell Staff Pervaiz Anwar, P.E., Senior Vice President, Principal-in-Charge 1 Harvey Gobas, P.E., Supervisory Engineer,Project Manager Ken Fonda, P.E.,Principal Engineer, Project Engineer William McCarthy,P.E.,Supervisory Engineer Associate Henryk Melcer, P.E., Senior Process Engineer Associate Tom Williams, Senior Construction Inspector Eassie Miller,P.E., Technical Advisor Woodie I\Iuirhead, P.E.,Technical Advisor IN-PLANT FOG IMPACT STUDY Prepared for.• ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT November 2002 Prepared by: BROWN AND CALDWELL 16735 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, California 926064953 D. cn J.0 c CONTENTS APPENDICES..................................................................................................................................................11 TABLES............... .................................................................................... .........................................................imi FIGURES......................................... .................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION.................................................... ......................................................................................I ProblemOverview...............................................................................................................................1 ProjectObjectives........................................................................... ....................................................1 BACKGROUND..................................................... ........................................................................................1 FOG Composition, Sources, and Chemical Characteristics..........................................................1 Methodfor Conducting Stud)............................................................................................................3 RelatedStudies........................... ...... ............................................................................. ....................A FOG Best Management Practices Stud)........................................................................ .....4 AdvancedDigestion Study....................................................................................................4 Project Limitations and Assumptions...............................................................................................4 FOG Quantities and Treatment........................................................ ..................................4 FOGREMONT AL PRACTICES.....................................................................................................................5 CurrentFOG Quantities.....................................................................................................................5 Current FOG Process Description......................................................................................... ..........6 In-Plant FOG Impacts and Mitigation Measures............................................................................7 In-Plant FOG Impacts ................. ...................................................................................7 In-Plant FOG Impact 1\1itigation.........................................................................................8 Future FOG Collection Practices......................................................................................................8 DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES...................................8 Alternative 1A —Base Case (Status Quo)............................... ...................... ................................10 Alternative 1B-D— On-site Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion..........................................10 Alternate 1B—Modified FOG Receiving and Digestion........................................__-.1 1 Alternate 1C—Modified FOG Receiving,Thickening and Digestion.........................15 Alternate 1D —Dedicated Digestion.................................................................................16 Alternative 2—Off-site Treatment at a Grease Rendering Facility............................................17 Alternative 3 —Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel........... .................................................................17 Alternative 4—Landfill Disposal.....................................................................................................19 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES.....................................................................................................19 Alternative IA —Base Case (Status Quo).......................................................................................19 Alternative 113-D —On-site Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion.........................................20 Alternative 2—Off-site Rccy cling at a Grease Rendering Facility..............................................20 Alternative 3 —Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel.............................................................................20 Alternative 4—Off-site Disposal of FOG at Landfill...............................................................20 Comparison of Alternatives..............................................................................................................20 Evaluation Criteria XY'eighting......................................................... ...................................20 Non-INIonetaty Comparison................................................................................................21 BROWN AND C A L D W E L L PA%\.P\i',bs\23099\102758 I,()G, I'llp-,lCt StUd.\.doc November 2002 CONTENTS (continued) ii Capital Cost Comparison.................................................... ...............................................22 RECO1\,M,IENDATIONS............................................................................... ................. ............................25 REFERENCES................................... ..................... ............................. ........................................................25 APPENDICES APPENDIX A ALTERNATIVE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES TABLES No. Page Table 1 OCSD FOG Hauler Sample Summary........................ ......................................................3 Table 2. FOG Collection Companies.................................................... ............................................6 Table 3. Evaluation of Alternatives................................................ ..................................................22 Table 4. Comparison of Alternate Impacts......................................................................................23 Table 1, Alternative Capital Costs... ......**,,*.......*,**,,*,,*,*.......*24 FIGURES No. Ekge Figure 1. Typical Grease Interceptor....................................................................................................2 Figure 2. Alternative 1A —Base Case (Status Quo)............................................................................9 Figure 3a. Packaged FOG Receiving System......................................................................................11 Figure 3. Alternative 1B—Combined Digestion xvith Primacy Sludge or WAS..........................12 Figure 4. Alternative 1C —Combined Digestion FOG,Primary Sludge &WAS with Preheating..............................................................................................................................13 Figure 5. Alternative 1D—Dedicated Digestion..............................................................................14 Figure 6. Heated Sludge Blending Tank Schematic.........................................................................15 Figure 7. Advanced Digestion Schematic.................................................. .......................................16 Figure S. Evaluation Criteria Matrix............................................................... ...................................21 B R 0 W N AND C A L D W E L L P:\\xp\jobs\23099\102T55 I�0(;Impact Stud .doc N(,x-cnilx.r 2002 INTRODUCTION Problem Overview The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) serves the northwest and central regions of Orange County, treating wastewater from 21 different cities and 3 special districts that have a combined population of approximately 2.4 million. Flows treated by the two OCSD wastewater treatment plants, Plant 1 and Plant 2, come from sources including residential, commercial, recreational and industrial users. As the OCSD sewer collection system has grown, there has been an increasing awareness of the impact that fats, oils and grease (FOG) have on the proper operation of the collection system. FOG builds up in layers in the gravity sewers and collects in manholes. This has the effect of reducing available sewer capacity, and can ultimately result in blocked lines causing sewage system overflows (SSOs). For this reason, the OCSD is developing a plan to reduce the amount of FOG discharged into the sewage collection system. Project Objectives This project addresses conditions for compliance with OCSD's Waste Discharge Permit order Number R8-2002-001 1 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, (R\WQCB). The objectives of this project are to evaluate disposal options for fats, oil and grease (FOG) generated in the sewer system service area and assess in-plant impacts of these disposal options. Disposal options considered include use of existing anaerobic digestion and other off-site recycling methods. Brown and Caldwell has been retained as a part of its WDR support contract, to (1) develop a plan to evaluate the feasibility of digesting FOG in existing anaerobic digesters and (2) assess alternate methods of recycling FOG, grease rendering and other disposal alternatives, including land filling, etc,within current codes and permit requirements. The purpose of this study is to identify alternative disposal and recycling options for handling FOG in the future and assess in-plant impacts of receiving greater quantities of FOG. BACKGROUND FOG Composition, Sources, and Chemical Characteristics FOG present in wastewater is composed of animal fats,vegetable fats, and food sohds of vale ing densities, and water and petroleum based oils and grease. Food based fats and grease are commonly discharged from restaurants and other food preparation facilities. Two common discharges of this type of FOG are in the form of waste cooking oil,grease trap and interceptor wastes. Petroleum- based oils and grease are thpicalh- discharged by businesses such as automotive repair facilities,gas stations and car washes. Petroleum-based FOG is relatively simple to regulate and control through industrial discharge and pretreatment permits. Food-based FOG is more difficult to control because of the large number of restaurants and fast food establishments. The focus of this report evaluates the impact of the FOG that would be controlled under new BTMPs from restaurants and other food establishments. BROWN AND CALDWELL I':\\�p\jobs\23099\I02758 V06,Impact Srut4.doc Novcmbcr 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 2 Fats,whether food-based or petroleum-based, can be saturated or unsaturated and can be in either liquid or solid form. Because FOG is composed of materials of varying densities,generally less dense than water,it separates easily into several layers floating on the water when placed in a quiescent vessel like a grease trap or a grease interceptor(See Figure 1). Because of this natural tendency to float,when combined with other solids such as primary solids or waste activated sludge, FOG can provide an adhering effect that will capture these solids and float them as well. Until the density of the combined grease and solids is equal to or greater than water, this combined mass will float_ This effect is like a reverse shear floc process which is used in water treatment—in a DAF the floc matrix moves upward and collects (or shears) particles,incorporating air and solids in a matrix This adhering effect can be beneficial to the DAF thickening process. AIR INTAKE LOCK AND LIFT CLEANOUT f VENT RING 44 INLET -�:`;s�,., i! �E ry _ 'OUTLET' .'_. FLOW ;l } ( SAMPL REGULATORY' ft � i 4 ;YgC, <^ POINT DEVICE ! i [J - . kA "r' AIR 0- RELIEF REMOVABLE ii BAFFLES OLIDS ACCUMULATION Figure 1. Typical Grease Interceptor FOG from animal fats contains esters (compounds of alcohol) or glycerol (glycerin) and lipids (phospholipids). Phospholipids have long nonpolar"tails" and a small highly polar"head." Although FOG molecules contain both polar and nonpolar components they are generally considered to be polar. FOG that is petroleum-based is nonpolar in nature. Lipids, including phospholipids, are generally defined by biochemists as compounds that,upon hydrolysis (addition of water),will produce fatty acids. FOG fatty acids are generally longer chain molecules. In an anaerobic environment,these longer chain fatty acids are metabolized by hydrogen-producing acetogenic bacteria. Acid-loving(acetogenic,acetophilic) bacteria consume long chain fatty acids to produce Volatile Fatty Acids (VFA), commonly acetate. hlethanogens,in turn consume VFAs to produce methane, etc., resulting in the formation of hydrogen, acetate, formate and carbon dioxide. One of the important end products from metabolism of these products is methane To verify chemical characteristics of FOG being hauled to the Plant 1 dumping station, samples were collected on three separate days from randomly selected FOG haulers. Results of this sampling are summarized in Table 1 BROWN AND C A L D W E L L P:\\,'p\lobs\33099\l02758 FOG Impact Srudc.doc Noccmbcr 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 3 e \ l Table 1—OCSD FOG Hauler Sample Summary Sample Date Chromium m /1' VS % PH June 10,2002 0.49 6.2 6.85 June 12,2002 0.69 6.06 6.85 June 13, 2002 0.37 6.77 5.48 Average 0.52 1 6.34 1 6.39 Chromium was recommended by OCSD source control staff as an indicator for heavy metals. Chromium is not an element that is found commonly in wastewater,which make it a good indicator. Method for Conducting Study Brown and Caldwell collected and reviewed data in order to develop alternatives for handling FOG and assessing in-plant impacts of FOG treated on-site. Information sources include: ■ OCSD staff and plant data. ■ Brown and Caldwell archives and other related literature (see references for other related literature used in preparation of this report). • Statement from commercial recyclers,rendering and landfill disposal companies. r ■ FOG samples collected from random FOG haulers and analyzed for volatile solids, total suspended solids, pH and total chromium (as an indicator for heavy metals). Future samples may want to be analyzed for copper since copper sulfate,when found in septic tanks,is commonly seen as an indicator of a mixed load. A kick-off meeting was held in June 2002 to define some of the process issues related to on-site treatment of FOG and establish evaluation criteria. This meeting also served as a brain storming session to begin to develop alternatives. Dedicated anaerobic digestion was introduced as an alternative by OCSD staff as a result of bench scale testing that had been performed many years before. Alternatives have been developed for both on-site and off-site disposal options. These alternatives address the issues noted in the\Waste Discharge Permit renewal requirements. Capital cost estimates have been prepared for each alternative for economic comparison. A non-economic comparison of each alternative has been made based on criteria established at the kick off meeting held%nth OCSD staff. These criteria included: Operational/process impacts, maintenance task impacts, staffing impacts, traffic impacts, economic/lifecycle impacts and environmental impacts. A workshop was held on October 9, 2002 «zth OCSD staff to determine which impacts hold greater weight, then rank each alternative by evaluating them and summing the weighted values for each evaluation criteria. When OCSD confirms selection of a preferred alternative an implementation schedule will be developed. �t BROWN AND C A L D W E L L 1':\\\r\pbs\23099\IO2,58 FOG Imract Stud.\.d0c \o\-cmbcr 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 4 Related Studies Orange County FOG Control Study. A parallel study is being conducted by another engineering firm under contract to the OCSD by Environmental Engineering and Contracting, Inc. to investigate ways FOG can be controlled at the source and keep FOG from entering the collection system. They«ill be developing Best 1\4anagement Practices (BI\IPs) and evaluating chemicals or other materials that break down FOG, as well as other new technologies. Phase 1 of this investigation is scheduled for completion by February 2003 with a subsequent Phase 2 study dependant on the results of Phase 1. To mitigate SSOs and other operational challenges,it is important that a comprehensive pretreatment ordinance, enforcement and grease trap sizing be implemented. Future FOG quantities collected and disposed of at the Plant No. 1 will likely increase as a result of implementing any new ordinances. Advanced Digestion Study. Brown and Caldwell recently prepared a report for OCSD, Project No. 5809003, that evaluated alternative advanced anaerobic digestions methods. That report has been used for background data relative to digester performance,digester capacity and future digester expansion needs. To simplify digester feeding and provide homogeneous solids loading to the digesters, Brown and Caldwell proposed a heated solids blending tank that would blend primary solids and thickened waste activated sludge. One of the alternative advanced digestion processes recommended was a series thermophilic/mesophilic arrangement. This blending tank would also serve as a "wet well" to feed the digesters and provide a place for heat recovery from the thermophilic phase of digestion prior to the mesophilic phase. The thermophilic phase operates at approximately 135 ° F and the mesophilic phase operates at approximately 95 ° F. To cool the sludge going from the thermophilic digester to the mesophilic digester, sludge cooling heat exchangers would recapture heat energy. Since the recommendations of the Advanced Digestion Study have not been adopted yet by the OCSD,it is assumed that the current mesophilic mode of - digestion will continue for several more years. Project Limitations and Assumptions FOG Quantities and Treatment. The OCSD Strategic Plan written in 1999 only addressed FOG that enters the plant under normal flow via the collection system. This present study supplements the 1999 plan to address process and other impacts on the treatment plants as a result of FOG quantities diverted from entering the collection system and discharged directly at the treatment facility_ The future FOG load being diverted from the collection system could vary from 45,000 to 180,060 gallons a day or 30 to 120 trucks per day assuming an average truck size of 1,500 gallons. This estimate assumes FOG is collected from approximately 7500 restaurants with 750-gallon FOG interceptors pumped out from 2 to 12 times per year. Typically restaurants will have their interceptors pumped out when business is slow or when they are closed. This could result in peak FOG flows which are considerably higher than average,and occurring on Mondays or Tuesdays when some restaurant are closed. The BI\IP study is intended to reduce FOG flow entering the sewer collection system through the use of FOG interceptors,use of chemicals or enzymes to break down FOG or other FOG reduction methods. Recommendations from that study will be given to OCSD and contributing VA i BROWN AND CALDWELL P:\\Nr\job>\'-.iU99\IU3;58 FOG Impact titudy.Joc November 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Stud}' S agencies to pass ordinances to control the discharge of FOG to the collection system. Installation of FOG interceptors and periodic inspection of these interceptors will ensure that they are being properly maintained and pumped out. This in-plant FOG impact study assumes that future FOG ordinances would be passed requiring FOG interceptors and FOG being hauled to the OCSD dumping station. This would result in the greatest impact to the plant site. Since the BhIP study will not be completed until the beginning of 2003,no estimate is available currently for future FOG quantities in the collection system. A gross estimate of increased FOG quantities could be assumed to be parallel to the projected wastewater flow growth rate of 4%used in the OCSD Strategic Plan. Increase future FOG quantities being hauled is assumed to be a direct result of number of restaurants in business and improved compliance and enforcement of any FOG ordinance issued as a result of the B1\1P study. The on-going BMP study will include projections of FOG quantities diverted from the sewer system as a result of implementing various BMP plans When a more accurate estimate of FOG delivered to the treatment facility is available, the number used in this study will need to be revised. Future FOG quantities play a small part in development of treatment and disposal alternatives. Future FOG quantities only factor in to the assessment of in impacts on various processes that may be called upon to treat the FOG.Alternatives utilizing existing ity will not be impacted because there is substantial excess digester capacity digestion capac and FOG quantities are small in relation to projected future sludge flows. As noted above, depending on how well the BNIP plan is implemented and enforced, truck traffic both inside and outside the plant could be significantly impacted. Since Plant No. 1 has the facility to receive trucked FOG, on-site treatment of FOG will be limited to Plant 1 where the FOG haulers currently discharge their loads with the exception of Alternative 1A that continues current disposal practices. FOG REMOVAL PRACTICES Current FOG Quantities Currently, several FOG haulers throughout the OCSD collect FOG from existing grease traps and interceptors. OCSD Operations staff reported that most FOG collected is not nuxed with other liquid waste such as septage, however, some mixed loads do come in from time to time. Companies that collect and are permitted to discharge FOG are listed in Table 2. Some of these FOG haulers also handle septage. Typically, FOG hauler trucks have a capacity of approximately 1,500 gallons as regulated by Cal brans and local road weight hi-nits. Plant 1 typically-receives 27 trucks a day or approximately 40,000 gallons per day. As noted in this table, two of the permitted FOG haulers are also FOG processors (rendering companies). a BROWN AND C A L D W E L L \\. v< r '\ P\t \�i119')\IU2�Ss hOG Impact Studc.dac Nnvcmbc•c 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 6 Table 2. FOG Collection Companies Permit Number Waste Hauler 2 Orange County Septic 5 Inland Pumping 29 Minuteman Pumping 34 The FOG Company/Baker Commodities (Rendering company) 52 Primer Processors 92 R yker Commodities 117 Darling International (Rendering company) Current FOG Process Description Liquid waste (septage) and FOG are presently disposed of at a dumping station located at the north end of Plant 1 adjacent to the Ellis Avenue entrance. Haulers enter the plant at this location, drop off a copy of their manifest outside the plant gate, and then proceed to the dumping station. The dumping station can accommodate two trucks at a time in two separate waste hookups. Each waste hookup has a solid metal cover over a 4-inch quick connect fitting. \Vhen a haulers arrive at the dump station, they connect one end of their discharge hose to their truck and the other end to the quick-connect fitting at the dump station and finally open their discharge valve allowing the load to flow by-gravity. All trucks are equipped with reversible pumps that can vacuum the waste from ._ grease traps and pressurize the tank to discharge faster or discharge into a receiving tank. Operations staff reported that an occasional load of spoiled olive oil is received from a local olive processing facility. The haul truck's reversible pump can be used to discharge this spoiled olive oil directly into a digester through a pipe fitting on the cleaning hatch on the side of the digester. FOG-laden wastewater is typically discharged from the haul truck at the dumping station and flows to the influent diversion structure by gravity. City water is used to flush the solids along the line, similar to flushing a toilet. At the diversion structure, the FOG is diverted to Plant 2. Operations staff reported that there is sufficient flow in the trunk line to Plant 2 to prevent FOG from coating this line. Figure 2 shows a schematic of current base case FOG treatment practices. At the diversion structure the discharged FOG combines with other wastewater flow and proceeds through the normal treatment process at Plant 2. Some FOG has a tendency to form grease balls and chunks that are removed mechanically at the barscreens or manually removed at the aerated grit tanks. After screening and degritting at the headworks, floatable material is removed in the primary- sedimentation tanks by the scum collection system. The collected scum consists of the FOG that was dumped by the FOG haulers as well as FOG transported to the plant from the wastewater collection system. The scum is periodically pumped and combined with primary sludge. This mixture then flows to the anaerobic digesters. Grease present in the scum/primary sludge has a tendency to coat the primary sludge lines. Consequently constrictions in the pipe results in higher head loss, which reduces flow to the digesters. To alleviate this problem, parallel by-pass piping has been provided to allow for periodic steam cleaning of the primary- sludge line. BROWN AND C A L D W E L L P:\�p\jabs\2;u99\lo2758 FOG ImPact SRidr.d(u November 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 7 Operations staff indicated that gas production at the digesters increases somewhat when FOG, mixed in with the primary sludge, reaches the digesters, although no specific data was provided. The Cite of Oxnard which uses similar methods for receiving FOG has cited a figure of approximately an additional 50 cubic feet of methane gas per 1,400-gallon truckload of FOG. Unless a digester is well infixed and has a way of removing surface floating material, digesters have a tendency to form mats at the top from a combination of hair, rags and scum. Operations staff reported that there is not a noticeable problem with matting in the anaerobic digesters. This would imply that the existing digesters have adequate mixing or good scum removal or both and are suitable for treating FOG discharged at the treatment plant. In-Plant FOG Impacts and Mitigation Measures In-Plant FOG Impacts. Depending on how and where FOG enters the treatment system, there can be greater or lesser degrees of impacts on the plant process operation and maintenance. FOG that enters the treatment system at the head of the plant would have the greatest impact effecting each process it goes through. Because of its natural tendency to float, FOG would separate easily in aerated grit tanks and primary sedimentation tanks. Grease balls that form in these locations may need to be manually removed when surface-skimming equipment isn't provided such as aerated grit chambers. Primary scum troughs and scum pumping pits can also become clogged with grease as well. Just as FOG can plate gravity sewer lines in the collection system, FOG can also coat and clog conveyance pumping systems and the plant piping. This can result in more frequent maintenance of sludge pumps and piping to remove FOG plated on equipment. Typically, lines that convey FOG are small in size (4 to 6 inches) and are routed behind larger piping. This arrangement makes these lines less accessible for cleaning and could result in less frequent maintenance. The number of joints, bends and elevation changes of lines conveying FOG can also have a negative effect on FOG accumulation. Joints and fittings are generally grooved and gasketed which provide an ideal for grease to get "caught on." When the ultimate treatment process to handle FOG is anaerobic digestion, the distance between the point of application and the digesters is also a contributing factor to plating FOG on pipelines. Odors can also be a major consideration, especially in Southern California where warmer temperature prevails. The greatest odor problems «-ill occur during cleaning operations because these lines and equipment are generally inside buildings or pipe tunnels that need to be properly ventilated. Implementation of a BI\IP program to reduce the amount of FOG entering the collection system may increase the quantity of FOG being collected and hauled to Plant No. 1. _1s mentioned earlier, this could result in over 100 trucks per day delivering FOG to the dumping station or other discharge point. Traffic both on and off site could be significantly impacted by the increased number of trucks. BROWN AND CALDWELL I'Amp\iobs\23099\102758 F06I111pactStudc.duc NoNanbcr2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study- 8 In-Plant FOG Impact Mitigation. There are several ways to mitigate the impacts described above. Selection of the discharge point for FOG is an important factor to consider when developing alternatives for treating FOG on-site. As noted above, FOG that is discharged at the head of the plant would have the greatest impacts on the treatment system. To avoid clogging primary scum collection and pumping systems, changes to increase the capacity of tipping troughs and surface sprays may be needed. Hot water sprays may also be advisable. As with thickened sludge lines,glass-lined steel piping has proven to be the most resistant to accumulations. Making individual pieces of pipe as long as possible to reduce joints would lessen the sites that grease could be caught on. Providing dedicated steam lines for cleaning is advisable as well as placing cleanouts in places that are easily accessible would facilitate more efficient maintenance. Reducing the distance between the application point and the digesters will reduce the possibility of FOG plating. To maintain the "food product" classification of FOG,it should be kept separate from other waste streams (septage,primary sedimentation and secondary clarifier scum lines,grit and screening wash water lines). The sole purpose of doing this would be to allow the plant the option of contracting with a rendering contractor to remove it and allow them to recycle or treat it. The cost of this "insurance" would be a"rock solid"way to ensure the plant's ability to handle a wide array of possibilities. The surest way to reduce the amount of odors is to keep the FOG contained, have direct connection to odor collection equipment where FOG is discharged and arrange for portable �- odor control facilities during maintenance activities. Traffic impacts could be mitigated by having a separate entrance dedicated for FOG deliveries only. The entrance could also be equipped with a card reader to control access and document loads as they enter the plant site. Careful consideration of other traffic patterns on the plant site as well as truck staging will reduce the impact of increased truck traffic. Future FOG Collection Practices As noted earlier, the OCSD is in the process of developing a BI`IP program to reduce the amount of FOG being discharged into the sewer collection system in an effort to reduce sewer system overflows (SSOs). This program may result in an increased amount of FOG diverted from the collection system and disposed of at the OCSD treatment facility. DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES Processing and disposal alternatives for FOG received directly at the OCSD treatment plants are developed and discussed below. Impacts associated with their implementation are addressed in a subsequent section of this report. Each alternative assumes compliance with new FOG ordinances passed as a result of the BLIP study. OCSD source control staff indicated that any alternative that brings FOG on site must include a card access s)�stem for plant entiv control and load documentation. A separate gate for FOG haulers may also be considered. Alternatives that have been developed include: BROWN AND CALDWELL P:\.Nvp\job.\2;o99\10238 F UG hnpect Saalc.doc Novrmbcr 2002 } ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CURRENT F.O.G. TREATMENT FOG DIVERSION STRUCTURE HAULER 0 0 o PLANT I PLANT 2 SCREENING AERATED GRIT REMOVAL PRIMARY PRIMARY SLUDGE PRIMARY EFFLUENT SEDIMENTATION (TO SECONDARY TREATMENT) SCUM & FOG SCUM PUMPS e DIGESTER GAS (TO COGENT dy AILIERDBC �DE �TE �NG (� THICKENED WAS °"S"°" ALTERNATIVE IA - BASE CASE (STATUS QUO) PRDJECT NUNBER GATE B R. Q W N AND SCALE e NONE 22160 C A L D W E L L �ATc. FIGURE 2 .-- Eocenoa GRANGE COUNTY SGNITATIC D5TRICT f.O.C.TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE SAN DIEOO.CALIFORNIA Orange County Sanitation District ' 1 In-Plant FOG Impact Study 10 1A. Base case—status quo (continue current practices of receiving FOG and disposal) 113 - D. On-site treatment using anaerobic digestion 2. Off-site recycling at a grease rendering facility 3. Off-site recycling as a bio-fuel 4. Off-site landfill disposal Alternative 1A—Base Case (Status Quo) This alternative would continue receiving FOG at the existing dumping station, removing FOG and scum at the primary sedimentation tanks,pump it to the digesters with the primary sludge and anaerobically digesting it. Divert other waste oils,such as waste olive oil or cooking oil,directly to a digester(partial implementation of Alternative 1D). New glass lined piping is recommended to replace existing primary sludge piping. As noted in the mitigation measures discussed earlier upgrades to the scum collection system may be required to reduce expected increased maintenance. The plant would also continue their maintenance procedure of switching to a parallel primary sludge line while the other line is steamed cleaned. Increased maintenance of these sludge pipes is expected with the increased FOG quantities delivered to the site. Some change to traffic control or receiving schedules may be needed to ( accommodate increased truck traffic on City streets. Alternative 1B-D— On-site Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion These alternatives would modify the current processing of FOG in the anaerobic digesters and assumes that the existing digesters are adequate to handle FOG without modifications. Possible variations of this alternative would include: 113 Modified FOG Receiving and Digestion (See Figure 3 for schematic) - Receive FOG at a new dumping station located closer to the digesters, pumping it to the digesters after the digester heat exchanger followed by anaerobic digestion. Injection at this point would liquefy the grease solids and reduce the possibility of fouling the heat exchangers. Locating a dedicated dumping station closer to the digesters would reduce the plating of FOG on the sludge feed lines. I Modified FOG Receiving, W"AS thickening and Digestion (See Figure-1 for schematic) - Receive FOG at a new dumping station closer to the digesters,pumping it to the DAF thickener after thickening followed by anaerobic digestion. 1D Dedicated Digestion (see Figure 5 for schematic) - Pumping FOG directly into a dedicated digester followed by anaerobic digestion. A discussion of each variation is further described below. B R O W N AND C A L D W E L L P:\x�p\jobs\'-3t)99\Iu2;5xIOG ImpactStudc-doc Nrncmbcr2OO2 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 11 i Alternate 1B —Modified FOG Receiving and Digestion. This alternative would involve the following new structures and equipment: 1. New receiving station with coarse solid/grit removal and FOG pumping located along the East Perimeter road north of Secondary Clarifier 2. Figure 3a shows a typical FOG pretreatment system. RA Figure 3a. Packaged FOG Receiving System Note: The FOG receiving system shown above may be equipped with an automated logging system to keep track of loads and haulers for billing purposes. Grit,rocks and other material would be scrolled up an inclined screening channel and dewatered prior to dumping in a roll off container. The new receiving station could be covered with foul air withdrawal and treatment to reduce odor control needs. 2. Glass lined ductile iron FOG distribution piping to existing digesters in existing pipe trenches. B R O W N AND C A L D W E L L 1':\•x-p\it>bs\231)99U0-�-5s rex;1111p.ict`nidc.doc Nm-ember 2002 Y . ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.D.G. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOG HAULER 0 NEW FOG PRETREATMENT ROUGH SCREENING GRIT & ROCK REMOVAL OPTION I OPTION 2 PRIMARY DAF WAS SEDIMENTATION THICKENING PRIMARY A B THICKENED SLUDGE WAS DIGESTER GAS (TO COGEN) e TO DEWATERING ALTERNATIVE IB - COMBINED DIGESTION (sQ�� WITH PRIMARY SLUDGE OR WAS PROJECT NUMBER DATE BROWN AND SCALE o NONE 2216D OCATIION ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT FIGURE 3 C A L D W E L L LL F.O.G.TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE SAN DIEOO,CALIFORNIA ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.D.G. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOG HAULER a 0 0 NEW FOG PRETREATMENT ROUGH SCREENING GRIT & ROCK REMOVAL PRIMARY THICKENED �� PRIMARY SLUDGE BLENDING WAS DAF WAS SEDIMENTATION TANK THICKENING HEX DIGESTER GAS (TO COGEN) E� e� BLENDED SLUDGE AND FOG DIGESTER DEWATERING ALTERNATIVE IC - COMBINED DIGESTION FOG, PRIMARY SLUDGE & WAS WITH PREHEATING r ROJECT NUN6ER DATE BROWN AXD SCALE o NONE22160 C A L D W E L L PRO,fCT FIGURE 4 IOCAl:0N ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT _ F.O.G.TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE SAN DIEBO,CALIFORNIA —I ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.D.G. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES DIGESTER GAS (TO COGEN) FOG HAULER 0 0 0 DEDICATED DIGESTER GAS FOG (TO COGEN) DIGESTER PRIMARY SLUDGE TWAS COMIXED DEWATERING DIGESTER e ALTERNATIVE ID - DEDICATED DIGESTION / PRO.IECT NUMBER DOTE BROWN AND SCALE e NONE 22160 =° C A L D W E L L ems« FIGURE 5 -= LOCATION ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.D.C.TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE SAN DIEQO,CALIFORNIA Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 15 Alternate 1C— Modified FOG Receiving,Thickening and Digestion. This alternative would involve the following new structures and equipment: 1. Ne-,v receiving station with coarse solid/grit removal, odor control and FOG pumping located along the East Perimeter road south of Secondary Clarifier 2 adjacent to the DAFs. 2. Heated sludge blending tank (heat to approximately 85 ° F) to receive raw Primary sludge, thickened WAS and FOG. Figure 6 shows a heated sludge blending schematic. 3. Glass lined ductile iron FOG piping to new heated blending tank, blended sludge pumps and piping to digesters. Heated Blending tank Anaerobic Digester Primary sludge,thickened WAS Blended solids and and FOG P 76 deg F FOG @ 85 deg F 85 deg F 95 deg F �-04- -0 1 Heat Exchanger Heat Exchanger Note:Temperatures shown to represent the concept of raw sludge preheating. _actual temperatures rnay van'. Figure 6. Heated Sludge Blending Tank Schematic The heated sludge blending structure will contain one shell and tube heat exchanger centrifugal sludge pumps and sludge grinders (if chopper pumps are not used for raw solids circulation). This heated sludge blending tank would add a small amount to the heat load for mesophilic digestion due to some heat losses at the blending tank. The heat load at the digesters would be less because the inconung sludge would be preheated prior to digestion. If advanced digestion is implemented in the future, it could be used as a part of heat recovery following thermophilic digestion. Figure 7 shows a possible advanced digestion schematic. B R 0 W N AND C A L D W E L L P:\\\p\jnbs\23099\l02758 V0(;ImpactStudc.doc Noxcmbcr 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 16 Heated Blending tank Thermophilic Mesophilic Anaerobic Digester Anaerobic Digester Primary sludge,thickened WAS Blended solids and and FOG @ 76 deg F FOG @ 85 deg F 85 deg F 135 deg F Sludge to Sludge Hot Water Heat Exchanger Heat Exchanger Note:Temperatures shown to represent the concept of raw sludge preheating. _actual temperatures may vain-. // Figure 7. Advanced Digestion Schematic Alternate 1D—Dedicated Digestion. This alternative would involve using Digester 7 for dedicated anaerobic digestion. Digesters 5 and 6 are currently used for sludge holding prior to dewatering and Digester 8 currently doesn't have adequate automation to make it suitable for this alternative. Operations staff indicated that a bench scale pilot test of this alternative was performed about 20 years ago, but no data was kept from that test. This pilot test was fed exclusively from scum box material. They stated that it took about 2 weeks for the process to be established, but solids destruction and gas production continued thereafter_ Once the culture was established digestion became rapid. About 65% of volatile solids in raw sludge digestion is converted to gas. Because of the high level of volatile solids destroyed,very little sludge production is expected. However, there is no empirical data to support this assumption. Before this alternative would be implemented,it would be wise to conduct this pilot test again using samples taken from FOG haulers to determine process performance and other design considerations. FOG could be pumped directly into the existing digester via a nozzle connection located on the removable access hatch located near ground level or injected downstream of the existing heat exchanger. Operations staff stated that waste olive oil had been received in this manner in the past. It would be preferable to inject the FOG downstream of the heat exchanger to ensure the FOG is in liquid form when it enters the digester. No modifications to the existing digester are anticipated, however some paving and drainage modifications may be necessart- to facilitate increased traffic flow in the area and capture possible liquid spills. Injection downstream of the heat exchanger would require some piping modifications to the sludge recirculation piping. BROWN AND CALDWELL I':\.xp\jobs\23099\I02758 I()G Imract Snulc.iloc \occmlxr 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 17 f ,\ Alternative 2—Off-site Treatment at a Grease Rendering Facility FOG rendering is a process that converts animal processing wastes,including bone and fat,into usable products such as soap, cosmetics and animal feed. FOG collected from grease traps may also be recS,cled in this manner as a raw feed material. As noted earlier,Baker Commodities, one of the FOG haulers listed in Table 3,is one of the largest rendering facility operators in the Los Angeles area. Baker Commodities and Darling International indicated that there may not be sufficient capacity at their facility to handle all the FOG and that the tipping fee would be between 11 and 15 cents a gallon. An article published by the Farm Bureau Federation dated December 20, 2000' described the crisis that faced the agriculture industry as a fallout of the national energy crisis. Rendering facilities use natural gas to heat slaughterhouse byproducts to separate the solids,liquids and fat. Skyrocketing gas and electricity prices could make the rendering business economically unfeasible or they will have to pass on these increased operating costs to their customers. One solution to this crisis could be using yellow grease, as a bio-fuel to run the boilers at the plant. If OCSD chose this alternative, they may be forced to raise their dumping fee to offset the cost of disposal in this manner. Currently OCSD charges FOG haulers 3.5 cents a gallon to discharge at the treatment plant. ridding the cost of the rendering plant tipping fee of up to 15 cents per gallon would increase the cost of dumping at the treatment facility to 500% of the current cost. These costs may van, significantly due to changes in the market, making cost control for this alternative difficult to predict. This may have an adverse effect on the FOG haulers and may discourage collection of grease trap wastes. Implementation of this alternative would involve constructing a storage tank at the plant to allow rendering companies to withdraw FOG waste for subsequent hauling to the rendering facility. If the rendering facility will not provide FOG waste pickup, OCSD would either have to contract this hauling operation to another FOG hauler or enter the hauling business at additional expense. Because there would be no reduction in liquid volume the amount of truck traffic to and from the site would double. Alternative 3— Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel In response to the worldwide energy crisis, to reduce the United States' dependence on foreign fuels, and to promote a cleaner environment, the US government has provided incentives for development of other clean renewable fuel sources. One product that has emerged in the last decade is clean-burning bio-fuel called bio-diesel, produced from recycled vegetable oils. Bio-diesel has physical and chemical properties ven- similar to petroleum diesel. However, because it is non-toxic,biodegradable and essentially free of sulfur and carcinogenic benzene, it produces a signifcantly improved emissions profile. In addition, the additional oxygen in bio-diesel improves Souza,Christine,"High eneeg}-prices send lain-inclustn-into tailspin,"California Farm Bureau Federation_fig_\lert, �r��w.ctbEcom/agalert/1996-00/2000/aa-1220g hrm,December 20,2000 B R 0 W N AND CALDWELL 11:\,vp\Iobs\23099\102758 NX;Impact Studv.duc November 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 18 combustion and makes for a significantly cleaner burn. Bio-diesel is a very effective fuel additive mixing readily with petroleum diesel. In a 20% blend with diesel,emissions are significantly reduced. Pacific Bio-diesel located in Hawaii has reported using 100% bio-diesel with no reduction in engine performance. No engine modifications are needed to burn bio-diesel. Bio-diesel also has improved lubricity reducing maintenance of injectors and injector pumps. When compared to diesel fuel,bio-diesel may produce the following results (results are based on side by side diesel locomotive engine test): ■ Reduce NOx by 5 to 14 percent, • Lower particulates up to 65 percent,virtually eliminating black smoke • Improve fuel efficiency by 5 to 13 percent_ • The same additive in gasoline can improve fuel efficiency and reduce NOx by proportionate amounts while reducing CO &HC by 60 to 70 percent. Two bio-diesel companies,American Bio-Fuels, LLC and Southern States Power Company, Inc., have expressed an initial interest in forming a partnership with OCSD to produce useful bio-diesel fuel that could be used in OCSD's and other nearby cities' fleet of diesel powered vehicles and stationary equipment. OCSD could reap the benefits of improved engine performance,reduced air % = emissions, and reduced diesel consumption while doing its part in supporting this emerging } technology. Bio-diesel is produced predominantly from waste cooking oil. Since FOG collected from grease traps typically has a lower concentration of oil, this alternative would be most feasible if waste cooking oil could be collected separately. Currently Darling International has placed containers at a number of restaurants to collect waste cooking oil for their rendering process. The Bio-diesel refiner could offer the same service to these businesses or form a partnership with the rendering company to obtain this oil. Such an arrangement would be of no economic benefit to the District. It would be more economical for the refiner to pick up waste oil at a central location such as one of the treatment plants, however this would involve another handling step for a liquid waste hauler. American Bio-diesel is currently exploring opportunities in Mexico to operate a pilot facility to handle grease trap waste and would like to open discussions with the District to place a pilot facility at the plant site. Pilot testing of this process should confirm feasibility of producing yellow grease from grease trap waste within the next six months. Other technologies are emerging to concentrate the yellow grease portion of FOG for use as a feed stock for the bio-diesel refining process. A byproduct of this process is a dark glycerin that must still be landfilled. No commercial operations using this technology handling grease trap wastes are currently in business on the mainland. f_:_,, B R 0 W N AND CALDWELL 11;\\vp\i„b�\23099\103758 FOG Impact Smdc.duc No ember 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 19 Alternative 4—Landfill Disposal Landfill disposal could be done by combining solidified grease with grit and rags removed at the headworks at the County landfill disposal site. This alternative is less desirable than others because it would be contrary to California's regulations requiring diversion of recyclable wastes from landfills. Disposing of FOG at a landfill would require other recyclable solids to be diverted. Implementation of this option would require the same structures and equipment as Alternative 2. This would require some form of FOG concentrator, such as a gravity settling tank or a DAR Increased odor emissions would be expected as well as increased traffic. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES In this section each of the alternatives listed above are further evaluated based on the following criteria established at the June 2002 kickoff meeting. A workshop was held in October 2002 with OCSD staff to rate the relative impacts listed below: ■ Operational impacts —Impact on treatment process unit operation and changes to Standard Operating Procedures • Maintenance task impacts —Impact on type and number of maintenance tasks in the treatment facility • Staffing impacts—Impact on staffing ■ Traffic impacts—Impact on facility vehicular traffic • Economic Impacts (treatment costs) — Impact on cost for treating FOG including revenue gained or lost by.beneficial byproducts of FOG treatment (such as methane gas generation) ■ Environmental Impacts—Permitting and other impacts on the environment at the plant site and point of discharge in the form of increased odors,increased oils to the ocean, exhaust emissions from trucks, etc. Alternative 1A—Base Case (Status Quo) The impacts of continued operation of the facility- as it currently exists is provided as a basis for comparison to the other alternatives. Impacts of maintaining the current mode of operation are well known. Weekly sludge line cleaning is done of the primary-sludge lines and periodic manual removal of grease balls is done in the aerated grit chambers and bar screen influent channels. Increased FOG quantities will increase the frequency of maintenance already occurring and possibly require additional maintenance attention in the primate scum collection and pumping as well. BROWN AND CALDWELL PA,%P\iu6,V1i099\102?D5S i 06 Imr;tct SRIJ\.JOC November 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 20 Alternative 113-D— On-site Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion As described above, this alternative may be implemented in several different ways: each having its own impacts. Because the current practice of FOG treatment in the anaerobic digesters appears to have no adverse process impact it's assumed that any variation of this alternative would have no adverse digestion process impact either. Alternative 2— Off-site Recycling at a Grease Rendering Facility This alternative would require additional equipment that would add complexity to the operation and maintenance of the plant. While removing FOG from the treatment system may have a beneficial impact on treatment process operation and maintenance, added tipping fees and costs due to loss of a valuable product,methane gas,may make this alternative less desirable. Traffic in the plant could be significantly increased. Because there would be no reduction in liquid volume, traffic to and from the site would double. Due to fluctuations in the market there could be significant economic risk associated with this alternative. Alternative 3—Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel This alternative could require a process to separate useable yellow grease from the grease trap waste. One of the bio-diesel companies has expressed an interest in siting a pilot facility for removing yellow grease at one of the treatment plants. If the BhIPs currently being developed encourage separation of waste cooking oil from the rest of the FOG this alternative would be more desirable. Implementation of a pilot study for yellow grease separation and market analysis would require approximately six months to complete. Alternative 4—Off-site Disposal of FOG at a Landfill This alternative would require some additional facilities that would increase the complexity of the operation and maintenance of the treatment facility. Combining solidified or concentrated FOG with grit and screenings would add another handling step that would complicate the disposal process and increase the amount of residuals hauled off site. Meeting the "paint filter" test for landfill disposal may also be difficult to accomplish. Table 4 provides a more detailed comparison of impacts of all four alternatives including the four variations of Alternative 1. Comparison of Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Weighting. To better define the relative importance of each criteria, a workshop was held on October 9, 2002 with operations,compliance and source control staff(See figure 8 for evaluation matrix). In order of perceived importance by OCSD staff the impact criteria - rated as follows from least important to most important: BROWN AND CALDWELL PAk%-p\jobs\23099\1(1275X POG Impact'�njj%.J((c N`mumbcr 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 21 _ 1. Econon>;c Impact 2. Environmental Impact 3. Staffing Impact 4. Traffic Impact 5. INIaintenance task Impact 6. Operations/process Impact Equiv A B C D E F Score % 2 3 3 3 2 A 1 1 1 1 1 5 13.0% 2 1 2 2 B 1 1 1 1 6 16.0% 1 3 2 C 2 1 1 9 24.0% 2 2 D 1 1 7 18.0% 2 E 1 11 29.0% F 10 26.0% � In each box,provide a score for the pertinent criterion when compared directly to the TOTAL 38 100.0% corresponding criterion for that box. 0=Insignificant, 1 =Equal Significance;2=Slightly More Important;3=Significantly More Important Criteria Description A Operational/Process Impacts B Maintenance Task Impacts C Staffing Impacts D Traffic Impacts E Economic/Life cycle Impacts F Environmental Impacts Figure 8. Evaluation Criteria Matrix Non-Monetary Comparison. The alternatives developed for treatment and disposal of FOG were compared based on the impacts to the treatment facilit- as noted above. The impact criteria factors were rated on a scale of 3 to 1 for each alternative with 5 being the most desirable and 1 being the least desirable. The basis of the rating was degree to which the OCSD treatment facility would be impacted. Table 3 shows a comparison of alternative factoring in the criteria weighting noted above- ICY B R 0 W N AND C A L D W E L L P:\\tp\jnbs\23099\102-55 1•OG Impact Studc.duc Nueember 2002 Orange Count),Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 22 Table 3. Evaluation of Alternatives Operational Maintenance Staffing Traffic Economic Environmental Im pact Impact Impact Impact Impact impact Total Ranking Cotena wcighting 6 S i 4 1 2 \Itcrnativc Raw jWcighted Raw kyVeightcd Raw Wcightcd Raw W'cighted Raw Weighted Raw k"'cightcd I.\ Base Casc 2 12 2 111 3 9 3 12 4 4 3 6 53 5 ("tatu>Quo) I B On-site\ 4 24 4 20 4 12 2 8 4 4 5 10 78 2 digcsnon— Modi ficd Liquid Recck in 1C (fin-site 3 18 i 15 3 9 2 8 3 3 4 8 61 4 digcstion— Modificd Liquid llccciviny, Thickcnin', Ili On-site 4 24 4 20 4 12 2 8 4 4 5 10 78 2 digestion— Dcdicatcd dwesnun 2 ()ff-sttc 4 24 4 20 4 12 1 4 2 2 3 6 68 3 treatment— FOG rendering 3 Off-site 5 30 5 25 5 15 2 8 4 4 5 10 92 1 trcatnicnt—a� Big-fuel 4 Off-site 2 12 2 10 2 6 2 8 2 2 1 2 40 6 disposal- landfill Capital Cost Comparison. Estimated capital costs have been prepared for each alternative. Table 6 shows the estimated capital costs for implementing each alternative. Estimated construction cost are considered to be "Order of Magnitude" estimates. The American Association of Cost Engineers defines an Order of Magnitude cost estimate as having an accuracy of within +50% or—30%: BROWN AND CALDWELL p:\N%p\jobs\2099\102;58 h(1G Impact Study.doc November 2002 ()f:InCc(d0.1n1\'till Olt',16Ulf DISItiC'I II.H tnl O(; hllpilL' 'Snl(I�' 23 Table4. ComparisonofAltcin;ttcLtnp:tcts h:,•alunlion Coterie Ahonlalive IA Ah,,mlrive III Alternative IC Al-nmivc ID Alternative 2 Ahcnl.rtice s Altenl1-1,4 S,.nus Q B."t,C.rc" III lificd FOG Receiving 1uuI Modif-I PUG Itecciviug, Dedm:ued Dlgevinn Off-srte Tm:u I-1 a,Iieodering Off-site Recycling us Ifio-Jmscl I..ul Vill Disposal D,ge in I T1• kening and Dig-,L I Paeihly (11...n,.,n,Lop,, I'I,n.1ua..I mo„d.u, nn•d l Ip,1 t...\l ,:Al ulA. Up(urom of uc,c.,I(cning; npLunnu duL,.neJ dlAr,rcl llpclAn„n of nc\,FUG,n,qqe No JIA nI L111 n,nnlenr npinwm II n,u\ Ana dvr n nd punq,u ,'I PO(; d(vunnl,q nd p..... „�•t 1 1.1011 L,Inpin,uv plod Durk f.,,1-WI,h,rLndenng Pdrn„ mg II)-on 1m (1pr,.ono"I"w"I,rr Ins;,' f 1p,.nut nt Ina•nlnrloul,•,I r.h'1nGe 1„dl,g, ,,,up(.u1nn , tA,LI IVII—,Ion of ullo,v pl(.1, Up(an m ni n\,ndn,umnnl r;11,1 I d�ceav,i(l Jnp; ..\rn hlcudvlA Anal,u, I(nlvlod d-A a,ApA In Iin Op 1 um„I m\v ndnl unnrnl hum s;Io., rnp,,.Ln Up(I,unm of ti-l" r „pe ILL „ ,I , 1A 1011, �e, vlaun 6""'Itd upnnn o1rn,n ,,uv u � , 1 u • R,d,rI ll I.md l01........ • Lupnnrd Ifni dLlnhum,n and • III,".0 d L,k loam udu,.A1 Ite(ILL Led IAnd f.",vonulAn \dd ,i ,;,I hit Ilmg rn hlcud of,Inl,m , Itd,nrd ,,d!ce,a„ Ldund.nl„ m.Inn,nr vuh l Ind I I,[,urll (,I D\1 Ruhlud IAnd I'n,l>unml.uv p(,innl,l,e t1 111I O(; An,,bL ,II nlJn,,,, ncllnram nldmu..r•...II I,It'd dls;r,Ior f n,•din 11 H(dt,d and L,r........ Ir uuutr \1,11nnn,,n,v 11111,A,1- 1nul,u„I,lull.','lul,',I,IIIIn1', • Itcdm Ld-lade,Ime Ll,amns•, • 1411-ed>luds;e 11u1 Lh"AnII, R,du,,al,IudL:,hn„1,•11I1o,•, • R,'dn,.,'I'WIP;e lent•cl,,Ip • IteduLed s11111,L;11111c,1(Auu,s; Iledu,Ld rin,Igt,lmu donting nl lv n n Itrduual In loaf ,loll Iieduu'd pmn.ln•alto R,dL—I pulnLr, n1m R"'It' d pnn u1m Itodm ed prm „"t, Redu+ed pnln.uv xum lo,nL Rauh„u d,It II I pun,pn puny,l„g pump„g pu"yl,tA 1.ns I'LL c I`un,lnnA \1 um.......,�I��0�11,nnd Itvdullld u1vLII 1Iu,'.d 111.Il Mg Kcdmed 1-11.I1-al LI,'.11 Ink; ,. � r•n IIIecIt All I c .lnlnA cll':Ullp n Ar rAn mh(and It I„ 1A ddln,n.11d,s; ,m,uu \ddw u',I,L1Lu ndq PUG ruu\ nd b4od"'g • I n nn,.Il nn6 \IAI11,r1....a nr grc'asc n•I 1b1."lid,gninn ?r.111uq;Itly.nL .,,1 „olning,h.lm;,w6AnJL I'..„1LIc m, (J., nut,I ltl I'u>,1It[,,1I, ...I ' Ill It I'u„Ibh•In, eII ura,,,AFI ,unm eLdfiug<h•Ingr .u11 >I•ddng,hLttg, . nnr rlailiug Jl.ulya .I cd(1,\'\I I•.I n(,11.Inlr.,l r , n1n„r1.11f,rin��u;gh rhr r"n,�nlrr1l rtr.Itr,,rh1+'uch rIt, n,In Lahr nillo, It l��u',It d" pa-I I AnhopIrid AnnclpArr I f ON'M I,f ,JI 11 nd,J,.l,„nn..I plAn pl.lm pl mr Pn,rlhlc nu,,.n(d nn mu,nln}; L(1 id,n nly;c,udr,l a nn„I anJ In....l„ nU,(\I v.IFlingm Im Led UrlAf,raft ro uhvl an Ins led UtVI,IAII r,•,que,1L ,c1c 1, unu'vl,nnl ..pn.m aLrd m.nn.AUl lu\, And maou,l,u I,,.pma'.. Aud m.unr un dlcc,nl,uuunll cqulpm,m cyulpmen! r•,F>u\Iu' . nni,low-', Iu,Al.Lr11„n n,n 1111, In, cd pl lnr I..u,. I,dr;1 Ina eJ pl.uv pax rani, In,n.,(J pl mr prof,., r.,Ih, InaL Il n pI.mr 1, ,,rr.III; P-A&hu',c.nc m phn, III,'o c to Am,pra—.1 h:,16c n,1'P(x,dun�,lnA I.Il 11111 ! n„c 1 0(;da1111"IF;fudin „ l I'UG dunq,ulc,Ia,Ahrc a du,to pickup floral undeong pnf,'„".0k,If .I du•,n'r. (A,J1n 1nuLde rtnraAr I>ran roe, I'„„ddc"mllu I",It>I Ig, h-kng n.111i1 I.ronunln'hnl,al n <I1:•h, „Im vJ n,unl d YJ Reduced Ila l(Il al S•L+purchase Itedu,rd I.-MI K.11 pmdMIC RL I ILL Llv1 n„m m 11r.II gA,puhar, In, .I(d n 'A ga, rage due huu'A,vJ n.rtulAl g s II•o du,' Inclr.ucd nu L1111A gill LIIA 11ue p1n LJln,c dIn m1 a n,d du na e to ieneed melh;mI, II IL I. ,'Lune due n.ulc,eu.(I nI,d"It r,c o b„ of"'oh:mc pv lducrmn In Ill,,uF nmhanc p,ndt rnm r,I.--If m rWn prude'n n (rl1.l (pn ldu, Ixudo,m,rl pindt Addm�LtA tc,. P-Abl'.nI,n.n(,u'1,,nuo,.nr Add,L nil rypul,L;l(v \h,d,rnl,AInI.11 c0sl 10, 1,(-d pvranng„<r Ln In, .ed.1" 1nnq,uv 6 C.y,ir'.11 co"lu1'ncm("da— Iin H K;h'aulrn Ina,A eJ c1 cl}p'Inr heaved .I,1Ju,„n ul nJ•I.........l nc\\FOG dumping ay wpnlanl v h(I(I dump g and IddIn mat di.-, I Co,r cunn'ullcd I)e m.Ilker Ralu,ed d'—I purcha, ru 1 y;, Capltill cost fol no„hiC111116s blcnding rank I \,I,I lA nuulc dl,g,aor In,rand er aLAr onr Fur It,ar(d 1(plau•d by I In'r,l C,lpual,1>r Gn n„c(a,d1a<, (:Apo d, tar new IArlllne, ne(d,d xm Age, 6,rr„ Lulled L, .raker .\,III foal,hunt,•Il,L-d i Ir In,pmvcd I-I orrt"'Ict oI or Ln Ind ,I J1y;c.r,r Itedu—I veLlrlc nl.n...... u' IAn n•.nnu'unl luy,A,o. hn n.ncJ,.wplul, In,uA ed,•nlphn„ LuL a,od,.u»phng In„AvJ hulk unl nm> In,rea.vd lulLk L- 11I4ulu Redu,rJ he ,ul.m',\'Un.(:U Itedul ed 6e lotiu.d ux .LeJ nluk and„unl. Inu,a,ul malt Lm wn, licrn'r,nl,.gm,rc du,Illle ovckmA LL.n„d1 dI'LL eahktc Rrduud lAndGll r.yluun I'.•„d•Ir n„u.I,d•.,I 1,.,.,,.nl It(m1 nl,.gnuu. licuol nl c.lpnl:, , L: ,L.1 v(h,ck,ope1A Ins; „ilh Liu-du';cl G r,•on cneLa;c pinduLllun BROWN eao C A L D W 8 L L b _;s I"t'.,nq..1 1 ,11d,,1,1 J.,, .v,,,nlh,r 2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 24 Actual project costs from similar wastewater projects, budget prices obtained from vendors, and cost curve data have been used to complete this analysis. A list of general economic and process assumptions for the treatment and disposal options is provided below. These assumptions,which are consistent with the recent advanced digestion study,include: • Electrical and control costs are equal to 12 percent and 20 percent of mechanical and structural modifications respectively. • Capital Cost mark ups: o Modification and coordination with existing facilities 10 percent o Contractor overhead and profit 15 percent o Permits, bonds, and insurance 2.5 percent o Estimator's contingency 40 percent o Sales tax 7.75 percent o Engineering and administrative Costs 30 percent o Markup for piping materials and installation in 15 percent the existing tunnel systems at Plants 1 due to congestion. 1 Table S.Alternative Capital Costs. (Millions) Alternative Capital Cost Alternative 1A—Base Case (Status Quo) 5.7 Alternative 1B—Modified FOG receiving Option 1 — tie in FOG line at digesters 1.1 Option 2—tie in FOG line at DAF feed $ 0.9 Alternative 1C—Modified FOG receiving, thickened sludge blending 4.6 Alternative I —Dedicated digestion (Includes future digester cost) 4.8 (Without future digester cost) $ .4 Alternative 2—Off-site treatment at grease rendering facility $ 1.1 Alternative 3—Off-site recvchn as bio-fuel $ 0 Alternative 4—Off-site dis osal at landfill (solid disposal) $ 3.1 Detailed capital cost estimates for each alternative are included in Appendix A. BROWN AND CALDWELL P:\"T'\Wbs\2;n9`I\1u275xH)G Impact Stud.\_ c \rnrmlxr2002 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 25 RECOMMENDATIONS The seven alternatives developed for treating or disposing of FOG in the OCSD are: ■ Alternative 1 —Onsite Digestion o Alternative 1 —Base Case (Status Quo) o Alternative 1B—Modified Liquid Receiving o alternative IC—Modified Liquid Receiving and Thickening o alternative 1D —Dedicated Digestion ■ alternative 2—Off-site treatment at a FOG rendering facility • alternative 3—Off-site recycling as bio-fuel ■ alternative 4—Off-site disposal at a landfill The alternatives were ranked based on various impacts to the OCSD treatment facility. The ranking results indicate that alternative 3 ranked the best, followed by alternatives 1D and B. Although Alternative 3 ranked the highest, the risk associated with alternative 3 depends heavily on a third pai ry that currently is in the development stages. "- Brown and Caldwell recommends that alternate D be implemented until pilot testing and market analysis of Alternative 3 is completed. To verify performance and process design requirements for dedicated digestion, a pilot test using grease trap waste should be performed. To inject FOG downstream of the digester heat exchanger some minor piping changes would be necessary. Until this work can be completed, the OCSD can continue its current practice of receiving FOG, Alternative 1A. REFERENCES Ahring, Birgittek, Environmental Biotechnology Lecture Notes, Lecture 10, Universitti.of California, Los Angeles, Spring 1998 Brown and Caldwell, FOG Bi\IP -Manual for Oregon 2000,Association of Clean \Cater Agencies, ww\v.orca,,va.or Brown and Caldwell, Grease Disposal Study for\X`astewater Division, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, October 1998 Brown and Caldwell, City of Kissimmee—Expansion of South Bermuda WRF 2000— Grease/Pumpout Receiving Station, Mav 2001 B R 0 W N AND C A L D W E L L 1):\\%p\it'hs\23099\IO2?581�0(;1mp.tct SwJ%tduc N%-ember 2002 Orange County Sanitation District 1 In-Plant FOG Impact Study 26 Chapelle,F,Groundwater Microbiology and Geochemistry, 1993 Joyce, Charles, P.E., Brown and Caldwell, Grease Impact Assessment Rehabilitation Pilot Project County Sanitation District, Sacramento County, California,June 2000 i\Iehan, B, University Chemistry, 3"' Ed, Chapter 18, 1973 Metcalf& Eddy,\Wastewater Engineering Treatment/Disposal/Reuse, 3"' Edition, 1991 OCSD,TPOD Annual report database,July 2000 to June 2001 Souza, Christine,"High energy prices send dairy industry into tailspin," California Farm Bureau Federation Ag Alert,\v«,\v.cfbf.com/agalert/1996-00/2000/aa-1220g.litm, December 20, 2000 Streitwieser, Introduction to Organic Chemistry, Chapters 19, 20, 28, and 29,2""edition, 1981 Van Opstal, B., NI.E.,P.E., Organic Resource Technologies Inc., et al, "Use of Fat, Oil and Grease Waste as an Agricultural Soil Conditioner,"\WEF 12"' Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings,July- 1998 B R 0 W N AND C A L D W E L L P:\\�p\Nob<\23099\102758 FOG ImpactSndYA)c Nuecmbcr 2002 APPENDIX A AL TE-RNA TivE CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES OCSD Grease impact study Alternative capital cost estimates quantity Altbirn"a"Oej -0--site,didestiorl., ,,,,p, Baqp" St atUs, up 0 Glass lined DIP primary sludge piping-6"(including demo) 10000 200 $2,000,000 Modify existing primary scum collection (allowance) $500,000 Subtotal $2,500,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $250,000 Controls $0 Electrical $0 Misc Contractor indirects $175,000 Subtotal $425,000 Contractor overhead $438,750 Permits, bonds and insurance $73,125 Estimator's contingency $1,170,000 Sales tax $226,688 Engineering and Administration $877,500 total $5,711,063 Rounded Estimate $5,700,000 AlternativeaB:ModifetlRe¢eiv�rlg Grease receiving station-packaged system 2 $100,000 $200,000 Grease pumping-300 gpm 2 $15,000, $30,000 Grease piping to digesters-8"Glass lined 1000 $120 $120,000 Subtotal $350,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $35,000 Controls $35,000 Electrical $105,000 Misc Contractor indirects $24,500 Subtotal $199,500 Contractor overhead $82,425 Permits, bonds and insurance $13,738 Estimator's contingency $219,800 Sales tax $42,586 Engineering and Administration $164,850 total $1,072,899 Rounded Estimate $1,100,0001 0066*12` fie in greaszoihe'atDAFf6ed."K-III." vg $9,00zoqg Grease receiving station -packaged system 2 $100,000 $200,000 Grease pumping - 300 gpm 2 $15,000 $30,000 Grease piping to DAFs- 8" Glass lined 600 $120 $72,000 Subtotal $302,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $30,200 Controls $30,200 Electrical $90,600 Misc Contractor indirects $21,140 Subtotal $172,140 Contractor overhead $71,121 Permits, bonds and insurance $11,854 Estimator's contingency $189,656 Sales tax $36,746 Engineering and Administration $142,242 Total $925,758 Rounded Estimate $900,000 Alter abve P,Mddirjbd,,R6c6Mfiq- 'B" 'di-'--,":,---`-,- 09 Op Grease receiving station - packaged system 2 $100,000 $200,000 Grease pumping -300 gpm 2 $15,000 $30,000 Heated blendign tank - 1 $650,000 $650,000 Blended sludge heating and pumping equipment 1 $320,000 $320,000 Blended sludge &grease piping 1500 $200 $300,000 Subtotal $1,500,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $150,000 Controls $150,000 Electrical $450,000 Misc Contractor indirects $105,000 Subtotal $855,000 Contractor overhead $353,250 Permits, bonds and insurance $58,875 Estimator's contingency $942,000 Sales tax $182,513 Engineering and Administration $706,500 Itotal $4,598,138 Rounded Estimate I t $4,600,000 A eFri lb' 40"PPOcli' 0,04 Wft r J,ep F 6--r6plat6m6nt Modify existing recirculation piping 1 2000 $2,000 Asphalt paving-sq yds 2200 $50 $110,000 6 inch drain 200 $50 $10,000 6 inch concrete curb 140 $15 $2,100 Digester- 90 ft diameter* 1 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 Subtotal $1,622,100 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $162,210 Controls $162,210 Electrical $486,630 Misc Contractor indirects $113,547 Subtotal $924,597 Contractor overhead $382,005 Permits, bonds and insurance $63,667 Estimator's contingency $1,018,679 Sales tax $197,369 Engineering and Administration $764,009 total $4,972,426 Rounded Estimate $4,800,000 * Digester included for capacity lost from dedicated digestion for grease Alt 80,000 gal storage tank w/mixing pumps 1 $500,000 $500,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $50,000 ..-Controls $0 Electrical $0 -Misc Contractor indirects $35,000 Sutotal $85,000 Contractor overhead $87,750 Permits, bonds and insurance $14,625 Estimator's contingency $234,006 Sales tax $45,338 Engineering and Administration $175,500 Total $1,142,213 Rounded Estimate $1,100,0001 Aitemabve it 1,( Arf0rhatiV6'+'Pff-' i d i o-s-"a 00 80,000 gal storage tank w/mixing pumps, FOG concentrator 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 Modifly and coordinate with existing $100,000 Controls $100,000 Electrical $300,000 Misc Contractor indirects $70,000 Sutotal $570,000 Contractor overhead $235,500 Permits, bonds and insurance $39,250 Estimator's contingency $628,000 Sales tax $121,675 Engineering and Administration $471,000 Total $3,065,425 Rounded Estimate $3,100,0001 Appendix H BMP Training Manual for FSEs h. /tz k-11 IN MA 6 ik "',TN 40. "RAiT pi 7.1,4�, �,Nl- N ollad J A�R�P'Ajp,�.1 131 ��l�Ilr llz� 14 C-0 ;rw AM= Flq iss yy t. �40 IJ� kv ytr llt-ly ;ilk jM.0�1 M il rw� M 71 t. ""art,"'j., I• i. ,•s'� `r�. c''�'a `uh�'�'��''td ? 5'k' ''b",•r•'K:y+�;r,-., ;:>: . -.'",Ei tr. �{�*� o kTigkl� ks Contents SECTION1.0 What is FOG?...................................................................... 2 1.2 How Does FOG Affect You?................................................................ 2 1.3 The City of Huntington Beach FOG Control Program................................ 2 SECTION 2.0 HOW TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOOD SERVICE ESTABLISMENT (FSE) FOG CONTROL PROGRAM............... 3 SECTION 3.0 EMPLOYEE TRAINING & AWARENESS................................ 3 3.1 "Dry Wiping" of Pots, Pans, Dishware and Work Areas.............................. 4 3.2 Proper Disposal of Food Wastes & Solids to Prevent Leaking & Odors......... 4 3.3 Spill Prevention and Proper Clean Up Methods....................................... 5 3.4 Drain Screening................................................................................ 5 3.5 Dishwashing and Equipment Cleaning................................................... 5 3.6 Recycling FOG................................................................................. 6 3.7 Maintenance of Kitchen Exhaust Filters.................................................. 3.8 Post "No Grease" Signs...................................................................... 7 SECTION 4.0 GREASE TRAP & GREASE INTERCEPTOR DEFINITIONS & MAINTENANCE................................................................. g 4.1 Grease Trap Maintenance................................................................... g 4.2 Grease Interceptor Maintenance........................................................... 10 SECTION 5.0 RECORDKEEPING............................................................. 11 ATTACHMENTS Attachment I Employee Training Record Attachment II Grease Trap Maintenance Log Attachment III Grease Recycling/Rendering and Grease Trap and Grease Interceptor Service Providers 1 1.0 What is FOG? OG is a combination of fats, oils and grease used in food processing and in preparation of meals. FOG bearing materials, among others, include: cooking oil, fat, lard, grease, butter, tallow, shortening, and margarine. 1.1 How Does FOG Affect You? Kitchen waste as well as water that has been used to wash kitchen equipment and floors, contains waste FOG. When waste FOG is poured down the drain and into the sewer lines, it cools and solidifies restricting or clogging sewer lines. All too often, fats, oils and grease from cooking and food preparation are washed into the plumbing system, (usually through kitchen sinks and floor drains found in food preparation areas) and stick to the insides of sewer pipes both on your property and in the streets. Over time, fats, oils and grease build up and eventually block the entire pipe causing sewage backups and overflows. As sewer pipes back up, sewage and food particles that accumulate can attract insects and other vermin and create potential health hazards. Property damage can result from sewage backups leading to expensive cleanup and plumbing repairs that may have to be paid for by you. Sewage spills and backups can result in County Health code violations that can lead to the closure of your business operations. FOG Blockage in Sewer Pipe l� . J.2 The City of Huntington Beach FOG Control Program To eliminate FOG related sewer spills and backups, the City has adopted an aggressive maintenance program to frequently inspect and clean the City's sewer lines. However, the City has determined that the most effective way to minimize FOG accumulation in sewers is to prevent the introduction of FOG into the sewer system in the first place. To realize this goal, the City has developed a FOG Control Program that regulates restaurants and other food service establishments (FSEs) and provides them with a mechanism to help control and minimize the introduction of FOG into City sewers. The City of Huntington Beach FOG Control Program uses a three-pronged approach: • Public outreach and education ® Public outreach programs educate commercial business operators/owners and residents on the problems associated with improper disposal of FOG and encourage the application of Best Management Practices (BMPs) in handling of waste FOG. • Food Service Establishment (FSE) FOG Control Program The FSE FOG Control program provides the City, through the FOG ordinance, with the authority to inspect and monitor the implementation of BMPs. • Enhanced sewer maintenance and cleaning Enhanced sewer maintenance activities are scheduled as a result of the City's inspection of the sanitary sewer system using a closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection system. 2 2.0 How to Achieve Compliance with the Food Service Establishment (FSE) FOG Control Program As an owner or operator of a restaurant or other food service establishment, achieving compliance with the City's FSE FOG Control Program will require the implementation of the following BMPs that are designed to eliminate or limit to the maximum extent practical, the introduction of FOG into the sewer system: • Employee Training and Awareness program • "Dry Wiping" Pots, Pans, Dishware and Work Areas to Remove Grease • Proper Disposal of Food Waste and Solids to Prevent Leaking and Odors • Spill Prevention and Proper Clean Up Methods • Drain Screening • Proper Dish Washing and Equipment Cleaning • Recycling FOG • Maintenance of Kitchen Exhaust Filters • Posting "No Grease" Signs • Maintenance of Grease Traps and Grease Interceptors The "Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Food Service Establishments" Training Manual has been developed by the City of Huntington Beach to assist you in developing simple easy to follow steps and procedures to prevent FOG from entering the sanitary system. The manual covers all the basic elements of FOG elimination and is a helpful tool for you to use to convey the message to your staff and achieve compliance with the FOG Control Program. 3.0 Employee Training and Awareness Program The success your establishment's Best Management Practices (BMPs) program to eliminate Fats, Oils, and Grease or FOG from entering your sewer system is largely dependent upon employees. The City of Huntington Beach requires the training of all employees at least twice a calendar year on the following subjects: • How to "dry wipe" pots, pans, dishware and work areas before washing to remove grease • How to properly dispose of food waste and solids prior to disposal in trash bins or containers to prevent leaking and odors • Spill Prevention and proper cleanup methods, - including training employees on the location and ` use of absorption products to clean under fryer --__ baskets and other locations where grease may be spilled or dripped. • How to properly dispose of grease or oil from cooking equipment into a grease receptacle such as a grease collection barrel or drum without spilling Employee training must be documented and employee signatures retained indicating each employee's attendance and understanding of the practices reviewed. Please use the Employee Training Record (Attachment 1) to document all employee training related to the FOG program. 3 All training records must be kept on site at all times and made available for review at any reasonable time by the City of Huntington Beach. i [he following sections cover the required training elements as required by the City of Huntington Beach. The italic bold texts are recommendations for restaurant managers/supervisors on methods to convey the message/training to employees. These are only recommendations that may or may not work for your food service establishment and should be used accordingly. 3.1 "Dry Wiping" Pots, Pans, Dishware and Work Areas to Remove Grease Removing food waste by implementing "dry wiping" methods such as scraping, wiping or sweeping before using wet methods that use water will prevent FOG from entering your sewer system where it could eventually cause an expensive blockage. Wet methods typically wash the water and waste materials into the drains where it eventually collects on the interior walls of drainage pipes. By "dry wiping" food waste and oil into garbage receptacles, the material will not be sent to the grease traps and interceptors. This will also reduce the amount of material going to grease traps and interceptors, which will require less cleaning and reduce maintenance costs. Train employees on how to properly "dry wipe"pots, pans, and dishware and to dispose of food scraps into trash receptacles. Use rubber scrapers (squeegees), paper towels or other disposable non-washable material to "dry wipe" greasy kitchenware and utensils. Cloth towels or other washable materials should not be used to "dry wipe". To practice "dry wipe"clean-ups: ( � Use rubber scrapers to remove food particles, fats, oils and grease from cookware, utensils, chafing dishes and serving ware. Place the removed food particles and FOG in the garbage. • Use paper towels to wipe down all work areas and all greasy pots, pans, and other kitchen before washing or soaking. • Use food grade paper to soak up oil and grease under fryer baskets. 3.2 Proper Disposal of Food Waste & Solids to Prevent Leaking & Odors Leaking trash receptacles are a common problem that invites vermin such as roaches, rats, and flies. To prevent leaking trash receptacles and odors, all liquid waste .,--- and food scraps should be properly containerized in leak-proof , containers or in sealed bags. Train employees on how to: • Double bag all liquid wastes to prevent leaks. • Call your waste hauler(Rainbow Disposal) at (714) 847- 3581 to replace leaking and/or damaged refuse bins. • Contact Rainbow Disposal to increase your refuse service - frequency if you have over-flowing refuse bins. • Keep the lids to refuse bins closed at all times when refuse bins are not actively in use. _;: • Clean the trash enclosure on a frequent basis. 4 3.3 Spill Prevention and Proper Clean Up Methods Preventing spills reduces the amount of waste on food preparation and serving areas that will require clean up. In addition, a dry workplace will help to avoid slips, trips and falls. For spill prevention: • Empty containers before they are full to avoid spills. • Use a cover when transporting spillable materials, particularly liquid wastes containing fats, oils and grease. • Provide employees with proper tools, e.g., ladles, ample containers, to transport materials without spilling. Practice effective spill containment and clean up. Spills of dry . ingredients should be swept up or vacuumed to prevent them from being washed into sinks or floor drains. For FOG spills, train employees on how to: • Block.off all sinks and floor drains near the spill. • Cover the spill with absorbent material, e.g., sand, saw dust, kitty litter, salt, paper towels. • Sweep up spilled material and place it in the garbage. • Use wet cleanup methods only to remove trace residues. ( Establishments that use large amounts of cooking fats, such as deep fat fryers, should develop and post their spill response procedure, in addition to maintaining spill containment and absorbent supplies. All employees should be trained on spill containment and on proper spill clean-up methods. 3.4 Drain Screening Excluding food particles from the wastewaters stem can eliminate a large Y .- amount of FOG from an establishment's discharge. To implement this, install a fine meshed screen (1/8-inch or 3/16-inch screen openings are recommended) in the drain of each kitchen, mop and hand sink. Train employees on the following: • How to clean drain screens frequently and dispose of the collected material in the garbage. • How to replace damaged or missing screens. 3.5 Dishwashing and Equipment Cleaning Proper dishwashing and cleaning methods can reduce the entry of solids and FOG into the wastewater system. These methods include: • Posting "No Grease" signs above sinks and on the front of dishwashers. Signs should be written in the language(s) that are commonly spoken by employees. Signs will be provided to you by the City of Huntington Beach. 5 'irain employees on how to: • Use a rubber spatula to squeegee down the sides of deep fat fryers before washing while grease and oil are still warm then wiping the fryer down with paper towels. All excess grease and oil should then be placed into a waste grease container and the paper towels should be disposed of in the garbage. • Empty the contents of grills and roaster/broiler drip pans into a waste grease oils container and then wiping them down with paper towels prior Dispose of fats to washing. Dispose of the paper towels in the garbage. aad grease where Pour all liquid grease and oil from pots and pans into a waste they belong. grease container and how to'scrape out the solidified grease if present. • Capture accumulated oil during the cleaning of stoves and ' ventilation/exhaust hoods with paper towels and how to dispose of it in the garbage after absorbing all free liquid. 3.6 Recycling FOG Think of oil and grease as a valuable commodity. When using deep fat fryers or any process that requires or produces large amounts of plant or animal byproducts, collect the oils and fats. Recycle the oils and fats through one of the area's recycling companies (see Attachment III for a listing of waste cooking oil and grease recycling companies). This is the required method of disposal for food service establishments that produce any volume of food waste. To recycle FOG, train your employees to: • Never dispose of fryer vat waste oils and fats down the drain. • Collect and store fryer vat waste in a rendering tank. Most recycling companies will provide outside receptacles for storage until pickup. • Secure FOG collection receptacles. These receptacles (or barrels/drums) must be covered at all times and the area(s) around the : 5 receptacles must be free of spills and residue. The receptacles must also be maintained in i" good working order and be free of leaks. If located in an area exposed to the general public (i.e., alleyway, side- lot), the receptacles must be securely fastened or tied down to prevent spills due to accidents or vandalism. 6 3.7 Maintenance of Kitchen Exhaust Filters Routinely clean kitchen exhaust system filters. If filters are not cleaned on a regular basis, grease and oils escape through the kitchen exhaust system, and can fa accumulate on the roof of your establishment and ' eventually enter the storm drain system when it rains. 3 For cleaning and maintaining exhaust filters, train your employees to clean the filters before there is an excessive buildup of grease. If the filters are cleaned on the premises, make sure the runoff from the filters flows through the grease trap or interceptor if your facility has one. If not, contract with a service company to professionally clean your kitchen hood filters. However, if this is not feasible, the filters can be cleaned using the following method: When cleaning hood filters, train your employees on how to: • Place the hood filters over a kitchen garbage bin making sure that the bin is double lined(use two or more garbage liners). • Spray minimal amounts degreaser on the dirty hood filters to loosen the grease. Allow the excess degreaser to drip into the garbage bin. • Use a paper towel to wipe down the hood filters once the degreaser has been applied. • Dispose of the paper towel in the garbage. r • Wash the hood filters with soap and hot water once all the excess grease has been removed. Spraying hot water with little or no detergent over a mop sink connected to a grease trap or interceptor can also effectively clean hood filters. After a hot water rinse (drain must be connected to a grease trap or interceptor), filter panels can go into the dishwasher. For hoods to operate properly in the removal of grease-laden vapors, the ventilation system will also need to be balanced with sufficient make-up air. 3.9 Post "No Grease" Signs POUR FATS,OILS OR GREASE Post "No Grease" signs at all drains and sinks to remind your staff DOWN THE DRAIN that no FOG is to be poured down the drain. This will serve as a constant reminder for your employees to properly recycle waste oil ; and grease and to dispose of food waste in the garbage and not down the drain. Ya �_- As part of the educational for FSE's, the City of Huntington Beach will provide your facility with "No Grease" signs and other posters and informational brochures that you can use to educate your staff on proper recycling and disposal methods for FOG. _ 7 4.0 Definition of Grease Trap and Interceptor and Maintenance Requirements ,r_,#or Grease Traps and Grease Interceptors What is a Grease Trap? , Grease traps are devices that are typically located inside a food service facility and are designed to collect, contain or remove food wastes and grease from the waste stream while allowing the balance of the liquid waste to discharge .to the wastewater •°• - • collection system by gravity. What is a Grease Interceptor? . ••• - - • • A grease interceptor is a device that is located underground and outside of a food service facility designed to collect, contain or remove food wastes and grease from the waste stream while allowing the balance of the liquid waste ("gray water") to discharge to the wastewater collection system by gravity. Maintenance of Grease Traps and Grease Interceptors For grease traps and/or grease interceptors to be effective, the units must be properly sized, and Maintained to allow for adequate retention time for settling and accumulation of FOG. Inspecting and _ "• ° cleaning of your grease traps and/or interceptor is critical to ensure that your grease interceptor/trap is functioning properly and should be conducted on a frequent basis. Typically, grease traps will need _ _• , to be cleaned at least once a week and grease interceptors will need to be cleaned at least once every three months (or quarterly). However, the required maintenance frequency for your grease interceptor and/or grease trap depends greatly on the amount of FOG your facility generates as well as any BMPs that your establishment implements to reduce the FOG discharged into the sanitary sewer system. In many cases, an establishment that fully implements BMPs will realize financial benefit through a reduction in their required grease interceptor and grease trap maintenance frequency. Here are some basic maintenance requirements for grease traps and grease interceptors: • FSEs are required to inspect and clean indoor grease traps weekly and outdoor grease interceptors should be serviced at least once a quarter (every three months) regardless of size and capacity. These devices are less effective if the grease occupies greater than 25 percent of the holding capacity. If the grease occupies greater than 25 percent of the grease interceptor's/trap's holding capacity, FSEs are required to perform a full cleaning of ' the grease interceptor/trap (removing all liquids and solids and scraping the walls). For grease traps, if less than 75 percent of the trap capacity remains, the trap should be cleaned more often than once per week. When inspecting and/or cleaning your grease trap, confirm that the grease traps contain their internal baffles and inlet piping flow 8 restrictors/air relief during every inspection and cleaning. These components aid in grease removal by reducing turbulence and increasing holding time within the trap. • FSEs are required to maintain a record that documents the cleaning activities for indoor . grease traps. Records should include the name of employee who performed the cleaning, date/time of cleaning, amount of grease removed and the disposal location for the grease. A sample maintenance log (see Attachment II — Maintenance Log) has been provided for your use and should be utilized to document the inspection and cleaning of your grease trap. • Grease interceptors should be serviced at least once every three months by a licensed grease hauler. A list of service providers in your area has been provided (see Attachment III - Grease Recycling/Rendering and Grease Trap and Grease Interceptor Service Providers). AIR INTAKE LOCK AND LIFT CLEANOUT VENT RING i� d if INLET I OUTLET 4.1 Grease Trap Maintenance - - FLOW s _ SAMPLE REGULATORY .'� POINT DEVICE -A proper maintenance procedure for a grease trap _, _ - - - t AIR is outlined below: - = REF REMOVABLE BAFFLES SOLIDS ACCUMULATION Steps Actions 1. Bail out any water in the trap or interceptor to facilitate cleaning. The water should be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. 2. Remove baffles if possible. 3. Dip the accumulated grease out of the interceptor and deposit in a watertight container. 4. Scrape the sides, the lid, and the baffles with a putty knife to remove as much of the grease as possible, and deposit the grease into a watertight container. 5. Replace the baffle and the lid. 6. Record the volume of grease removed on the maintenance log (see Attachment II). 7. Contact a hauler or recycler for grease pick-up. 9 �- j2 Grease Interceptor Maintenance AIR INTAKE INTERCEPTOR Grease interceptors, due to their size, will AIR COVER usually be cleaned by grease haulers or recyclers. Licensed septic haulers can IN Y, OUTLET also pump out grease interceptors and - haul the waste to a treatment plant. -_ SAMPLE FLOW JtY6 POINT REGULATORY _ DEVICE The proper maintenance procedures for a grease interceptor are outlined below: soups ACCUMULATION Steps Actions 1. Contact a grease hauler or recycler for cleaning. See Attachment III for a listing of grease haulers and interceptor maintenance service providers, 2. Ensure that all flow is stopped to the interceptor by shutting the isolation valve in the inlet piping to the interceptor. .M1\' The Following Steps Should Be Performed By a Licensed Grease Hauler 3. ! Remove the lid and bail out any water in the trap or interceptor to facilitate cleaning. The water should be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. 4. Remove baffles if possible. 5. Dip the accumulated grease out of the interceptor and deposit in a watertight container. 6. Pump out the settled solids and then the remaining liquids. 7. Scrape the sides, the lid, and the baffles with a putty knife to remove as much of the grease as possible, and deposit the grease into a watertight container. 8. Replace the baffle and the lid. 9. Record the volume of grease removed on the maintenance log. 10 5.0 Recordkeeping Recordkeeping and documentation is an important element to the success of implementing a FOG elimination program. The City of Huntington Beach requires that each FSE retain on-site the following records/documents: • Employee Training Records (see Attachment 1) • Grease Trap Cleaning and Maintenance Log (see ooww= Attachment 11) • Grease Interceptor Cleaning and Maintenance ® r. Invoice(s) and manifest(s) Additionally, all records of any self- inspections should be retained and kept along with City of Huntington Beach and the Health Care Agency inspection reports. All the records listed above must be retained on-site for a period of at least three (3) years, and made available for inspection and copying during normal operating hours. 11 Employee Training Record Training Topic(s): Trainer: Employee Name Employee Signature Date r` a ATTACHMENT 11 GREASE TRAP MAINTENANCE LOG Service Company used (if contracted): DATE CLEANED BY GALLONS GREASE DIS SAL IF IL lic) Grease Recycling/Rendering and Grease Trap and Grease Interceptor Service Providers Grease is the number one cause of sewer line blockages. Grease from restaurants and other food service establishments clogs the lines and blows the flow, causing backups and sewer spills. These spills can enter the storm drain and pollute the ocean, causing beach closures. Renderers are companies that collect Fats, Oil, and Grease (FOG) from food service establishments. The renderer then properly recycles or disposes of the grease. The two most common products rendered from a food service facility are yellow grease and brown grease. • Yellow grease: from bulk deep fat frying operations and oil/water separator units. • Brown grease: from grease traps and grease interceptor waste. The following is a listing of businesses that provide rendering services. Please note that the City of Huntington Beach does not endorse the following contractors and their services: Baker Commodities Coast Packing Company 4020 Bandini Blvd. P.O. Box 58918 i Los Angeles, CA 90023 Vernon, CA 90058 (323)-269-6177 (323) 277-7700 Darling International Martin Feed & Cattle, Inc. P.O. Box 58725 7080 Summer Ave. Los Angeles, CA 90058 Corona, CA 92880 (323) 680-8963 (909) 737-7617 Martinez Pumping Grease Trap Service Southwest Processors P.O. Box 39144 4120 Bandini Blvd. Downey, CA 90239 Los Angeles, CA 90023 (626) 625-6051 (323) 269-9876 S.M.C. Grease Specialist Triple "A" Pumping & Jetting Services, Inc. P.O. Box 1343 P.O. Box 54026 Corona, CA 92878 Irvine, CA 92619 (951) 788-6042 (949) 855-7836 Appendix I 2003 Sewer Master Plan FINAL REPORT Sewer Master Plan Volume I of 2 Rom - _ - .� x�� • .,.� eY,• City of Huntington Beach California May 2003 K/J 014641 .00 == Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Kennedy/Jenks Consultants .�f Engineers&Scientists 2151 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, California 92612-1311 949-261-1577 949-261-2134 (Fax) 14 May 2003 Mr. Todd Broussard, P.E. Engineering Division, Public Works Department City of Huntington Beach, City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Subject: Final Report— Sewer Master Plan Dear Mr. Broussard: In accordance with our discussions, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants is pleased to present the final report of the City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan. This report is intended to serve as a plan for the capital requirements of the City's sewer utility system. The findings contained in this master plan are based on an evaluation of the City's collection and pumping system. This evaluation included a limited field flow monitoring program to obtain actual field measured wastewater data and a desktop inflow and infiltration (I&I) analysis to assess potential I&I areas of the City. The recommended capital improvements are developed to correct current system deficiencies, provide the ability to serve future growth, and replace aging infrastructure requirements to improve system reliability. An updated Sewer Facility Charge is prepared to assure that future customers pay their share of the costs of system capacity. We have enjoyed working with you on this interesting project. Please contact us if you have any questions or need additional information_ Very truly yours, KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS q12 Roger D. Null, V. P. Project Manager TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background 1.1 Authorization and Objectives 1.1 Scope of Work 1.2 Conduct of Study 1.4 Abbreviations and Definitions 1.4 2 HISTORY AND STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 History 2.1 City Boundary and Study Area Description 2.1 Geography and Climate 2.2 Land Use 2.2 Existing Land Use and Development 2.2 Future Land Use and Development 2.3 (� Population and Growth 2.6 C 3 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION 3.1 Geographic Information System (GIS) 3.1 General System Overview 3.2 Drainage Basin and Sub-Basin Delineation 3.2 City Wastewater Pipelines 3.2 City Wastewater Lift Stations 3.3 Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater Facilities 3.6 Private Wastewater Facilities 3.7 Summary of Wastewater Facilities 3.7 Existing System Condition and Deficiencies 3.7 Wastewater Pipelines 3.7 Lift Stations 3.9 4 DESKTOP INFLOW& INFILTRATION STUDY 4.1 Overview 4.1 O&M - Identified Potential Problem Areas 4.2 Groundwater- Influenced Potential I&I Problem Areas 4.2 Tidal- Influenced Potential I&I Problem Areas 4.4 Precipitation- Influenced Potential I&I Problem Areas 4.9 Summary of Findings 4.11 TC.1 014641.00 5 WASTEWATER LOADS AND DESIGN CRITERIA 5.1 Development of Wastewater Flow Criteria 5.1 Prior Master Planning and Surrounding Community Criteria 5.1 Temporary Flow Monitoring Program 5.2 Water to Wastewater Return Factors 5.6 Unit Design Flow Factors 5.7 General Criteria 5.8 Peaking Factor Criteria 5.9 Inflow and Infiltration 5.10 Design/Capacity Criteria 5.11 Calculation of Design Capacity-Gravity Pipelines 5.12 Calculation of Design Capacity- Lift Stations 5.14 6 WASTEWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION 6.1 Overview 6.1 Collection System Evaluation 6.2 Model Overview 6.2 Computer Modeling 6.4 Collection System Hydraulic Deficiencies & Recommended Improvements 6.5 Lift Station Evaluation 6.7 Lift Station Capacity Evaluation 6.8 Wet Well Cycling Operational Evaluation 6.8 Lift Station Hydraulic Deficiencies & Recommendations 6.10 _ 7 COSTS OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 7.1 Project Prioritization 7.1 Capital Cost Estimates 7.2 Unit Costs 7.2 Unit Cost Estimate for Force Mains 7.3 Unit Cost Estimate for Lift Stations 7.4 Wastewater Collection System Pipeline Cost Estimates 7.5 Repair and Replacement of Existing Facilities 7.5 Existing and Future Hydraulic Deficiency Cost Estimates 7.8 Pumping System Cost Estimates 7.11 Capital Improvement Program Prioritization 7.13 8 SEWER FACILITY CHARGES 8.1 Regulatory Requirements 8.1 State Government Codes 8.1 Revenue Program Guidelines 8.2 City Ordinances 8.2 Calculation Methodology 8.2 Costs of Future Capacity 8.3 Lift Station Replacement Costs 8.4 Collection System Replacement Costs 8.4 TC.2 014641.00 Future Incremental Wastewater Flows and Unit Flow Factors 8.8 Development of Estimated Future Incremental Wastewater Flows 8.8 Development of Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows 8.8 Unit Costs of Service 8.10 Alternative Sewer Facility Charges 8.10 Sewer Facility Charges 8.10 Sewer Facility Charge Comparison 8.13 TC.3 014641.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) LIST OF TABLES Table Title Paqe 2-1 Existing Land Use 2.4 2-2 Population Comparisons 2.8 2-3 Population Projections 2.9 3-1 Wastewater Collection System Pipelines by Diameter 3.3 3-2 Lift Station Information 3.5 3-3 Summary of Sliplining Activity 3.8 4-1 Lift Station Dry Weather Baseline Conditions August/September 2001 4.7 4-2 Tidal Influence on Lift Station Volume August/September 2001 4.8 4-3 Dry Weather vs. Wet Weather Comparison 4.10 4-4 Precipitation — Influenced Potential I&I Rankings 4.12 5-1 1995 Wastewater Design Flow Factors 5.2 i 5-2 Rainfall During Wastewater Monitoring Program 5.5 5-3 Recommended 2002 Wastewater Design Flow Factors 5.7 6-1 Pump Capacity Deficiencies 6.9 6-2 Wet Well Capacity Deficiencies 6.11 7-1 Gravity Sewer Unit Costs 7.3 7-2 Force Main Unit Costs 7.4 7-3 Pipeline Repair/Replacement Unit Costs 7.6 7-4 Annual Wastewater Collection System Facility Depreciation- 7.9 7-5 Collection System Cost Estimates 7.10 7-6 Lift Station Cost Estimates 7.12 8-1 Lift Station Future Expansion Cost Allocation 8.5 8-2 Collection System Expansion Cost Alternatives 8.7 8-3 Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows 8.9 8-4 Sewer Facility Charge Unit Costs of Service 8.11 8-5 Sewer Facility Charge Alternatives 8.12 8-6 Residential Sewer Facility Charge Survey 8.14 TC.4 014641.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) LIST OF FIGURES Figures Title Following Page 2-1 General Plan Land Use Map 2.2 2-2 Vacant Land 2.2 3-1 Drainage Basin Schematic 3.2 3-2 Wastewater Facilities by Diameter 3.2 3-3 Lift Station Location Map 3.5 3-4 Lift Station Connectivity 3.5 3-5 OCSD Service Area 3.6 3-6 Wastewater Facilities by Owner 3.7 3-7 Summary of Sliplining Activity 3.8 4-1 Potential Groundwater I&I Analysis 4.3 4-2 Huntington Beach Vicinity Rainfall 2001 4.5 4-3 Daily High Tide Port of L.A. 4.5 4-4 NWS Rain Gauge Stations 4.9 4-5 Huntington Beach Vicinity Rainfall Jan/Feb 2001 4.9 4-6 Lift Station Tributary Areas With Apparent I&I Rank 4.12 5-1 Local City Flow Monitoring Program 5.3 5-2 Local OCSD Monitoring Program 5.3 5-3 Peaking Factor 5.9 5-4 Average and Peak Design Flow Relationship Schematic 5.10 5-5 Typical Pipeline Loading Conditions 5.11 6-1 System Deficiencies 6.6 7-1 Lift Station Equipment Unit Costs 7.5 TC.5 014641.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) APPENDICES Volume I Appendix Title A Lift Station Support Information B Wastewater Flow Monitoring Summary C Assessor Parcel Number and Billing System Correlation Study D Hydraulic Analysis Support Information E Sewer Service Charge Ordinances Volume II —Wastewater Flow Monitoring Program TC.6 014641.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Huntington Beach (City) has embarked on this sewer master planning effort in recognition of the need to identify the areas of hydraulic deficiencies, assess the potential for inflow and infiltration (I&I) problems, and establish the level of capital required to maintain and upgrade the wastewater system to ensure reliable and uninterrupted wastewater service. The general scope of work includes: Data Collection and Review Criteria and Flow Projection Development Wastewater System Description Desktop I&I Study Field Flow Monitoring and I&I Evaluation Assessor Parcel Number(APNs) and Utility Billing Account Correlations Wastewater Master Plan Document Preparation The focus of this master planning effort is to evaluate the capability of the important elements of the City's existing wastewater collection and pumping system and to develop a plan to provide service through a planning period that extends beyond the year 2020. The primary byproduct of this effort is the development of the wastewater utility's capital improvement requirements. A limited field Wastewater Flow Monitoring Study was also performed and is submitted as Volume II of this Master Plan project. GENERAL SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The City owns, operates and maintains a wastewater collection and pumping system. The collection system is comprised of approximately 360 miles of wastewater pipelines ranging in size from 6 to 30 inches in diameter. Approximately 85 percent of the City's wastewater pipelines are 8 inches in diameter. The predominant material of these pipelines is vitrified clay pipe (VCP). Due to the City's generally flat conditions, the City also operates and maintains twenty-seven lift stations. These facilities lift sewage from low points in the collection system to manholes at higher locations. ES.1 014641.00 Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for receiving, treating, and disposing of the wastewater generated in central and northwest Orange County, including the City's wastewater. In this regional management capacity, OCSD owns, operates and maintains the majority of the "backbone" wastewater collection trunk pipelines. As such, the City's local system generally discharges to larger OCSD facilities to convey wastewater to the local treatment plant. Construction of the City's collection system began before 1900. However, the majority of the system appears to have been constructed to support the rapid growth that began in the 1960's. Although the City is approximately 97 percent built out and only a minimal increase in future wastewater flows is projected, the City has recognized that the condition of the infrastructure needs to be further quantified and additional proactive provisions for long-term reliability implemented. In accordance with this need, in August 2001 the City adopted a new sewer service charge to provide the necessary funds for ongoing reinvestment. Increased funding is now available for ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) activities and capital investment -- in infrastructure. A comprehensive video inspection of the entire underground wastewater utility system and a methodical rehabilitation of the City's lift stations are some of the components of the City's infrastructure management activities that are designed to promote long term system reliability. WASTEWATER FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM To assess the wastewater characteristics in the City, a limited field flow-monitoring program was conducted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants in association with ADS Environmental, Inc. (ADS). This temporary flow-monitoring program was implemented to obtain actual field measurements of specific wastewater characteristics in the City. Field measurements were obtained during March 2002 in an attempt to also measure the impact of a wet weather event, and quantify the level of inflow and infiltration (I&I) on the City's collection and pumping system. ES.2 014641.00 Twelve monitoring locations throughout the City were identified and metering facilities were installed, tested, and calibrated to record minimum, average, and peak wastewater flows. The monitoring program recorded flow values at a 15-minute frequency throughout the 28- day program duration. Detailed results of the flow-monitoring program for each of the monitored sites are provided as Volume II of this Master Plan documentation. Summary monitoring data results are contained as an appendix in Volume I. INFLOW AND INFILTRATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS An important consideration in the City's management of the wastewater system is the need to integrate the effects of I&I on system hydraulic capacity. Since a significant rainfall event did not occur during the conduct of the field flow-monitoring program, actual rainfall dependent I&I factors could not be derived. In lieu of actual data, most communities integrate I&I through a reserve capacity allowance in their design criteria. This reserve allowance was utilized in the City's prior master planning projects and is recommended for continuation. To supplement the field flow-monitoring data, a desktop I&I study was performed in an attempt to further quantify the potential for local I&I. The desktop study utilized available data to assess the potential for non-sanitary sewer flows into the system. The results of this study provides additional support for the City's wastewater system lining program in the harbor area to minimize seawater intrusion, identified several isolated pockets where shallow groundwater has a higher potential for infiltration, and isolated six sub-basin areas that appeared to be adversely influenced from two rainfall events that occurred in the winter of 2001. Based on these findings, it is recommended the City conduct a continuous dry weather flow metering analysis through a high/low tide cycle to precisely evaluate the response to daily low and high tide conditions in the harbor area, perform a video inspection program to verify underground utility pipeline conditions and document the presence of any illegal storm drainage connections to the wastewater system, coordinate with OCSD for additional data and findings of its ongoing I&I evaluation in the City's service area, and perform additional I&I flow isolation analysis in the six identified areas of the City. ES.3 014641.00 f 'I The combination of these proactive activities by the City would provide an effective and methodical implementation strategy for the City's I&I Reduction Program. The implementation strategy integrates the master plan work activities, focuses on the identified potential I&I problem areas in a prioritized manner, and concludes with the need to conduct specific subsequent Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Studies (SSES) to mitigate potential sources of I&I in the collection system. This activity could be scheduled during the winter of 2003-04 to better utilize the OCSD and video inspection data. COLLECTION SYSTEM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hydraulically, the City's primary collection system generally appears to have adequate capacity as this master plan identified a minimal number of facilities with inadequate hydraulic capacity. It is recommended that approximately 13,700 linear feet of the evaluated collection system be upsized to increase local capacity. The estimated cost to replace the primary hydraulically inadequate collection system pipelines is approximately $2.6 million (Table 7-5). Approximately 33,000 linear feet of additional pipelines were identified to have restricted capacity under future build out conditions and conservative evaluation design criteria. While these facilities are not programmed to be replaced, the City should consider increasing the capacity of these pipelines during its scheduled systematic facility repair and replacement program. In light of new Federal and State regulations, criteria for determining pipe capacity has been conservatively set to allow for unanticipated blockages or diversion of other flows such as storm water. A second important consideration of the collection system evaluation is the need to further define system condition and proactively plan for infrastructure reinvestment. As previously discussed, the City has recognized this need, has programmed for a comprehensive video inspection of the entire underground wastewater utility system, and has adopted a dedicated funding source to assure its implementation. Implementation of the video inspection findings will be in the form of annual collection system repair or replacement projects. It is presumed that most of these facilities will be rehabilitated through applicable trenchless rehabilitation technologies. ESA 014641.00 PUMPING SYSTEM FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS While the City has been proactive in the ongoing maintenance of its wastewater lift stations, many of these facilities are beginning to show their age. As such, the City has programmed for the methodical replacement of all of its wastewater lift stations. This activity is one of the integral components of the City's infrastructure management program and is designed to promote long term system reliability. Similar to that of the collection system evaluation methodology, lift station improvements can generally be classified as improvements required to increase system hydraulic capacity and improvements to facility condition or reliability. Capacity related improvements are considered priority project elements that are required to maintain the City's ability to pump wastewater flows. Based on the current and projected wastewater flows, 11 facilities were found to have future pumping capacity deficiencies. The- estimated cost of improvements to these priority lift stations is approximately$16.6 million (Table 7-6). An important component for major reconstruction is the City's goal to convert all of its lift stations to the wet well/dry well configuration, wherever feasible. Reliability would also be enhanced should the City decide to provide dedicated standby power with automatic transfer switches at each facility instead of the current portable generator strategy. Since dedicated standby power provisions requires additional on-site facilities, the feasibility and cost effectiveness of this decision should be made on a site specific basis. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM SUMMARY Capital improvements are prioritized to meet the short- and long-term goals of the wastewater utility. Short-term project priorities are based on facilities, with severe capacity deficiencies, system safety concerns, and other utility management objectives. The improvements and recommendations derived during the conduct of the City's Sewer System Master Plan are summarized as follows: ES.5 014641.00 Collection System — Overall, it is recommended that the City continue its proactive annual investment in the collection system in a methodical manner. Video inspection of the system to identify actual field conditions, potential for failure, and actual underground material is suggested to be a medium-high priority, with identified significant deficiencies a high priority. Additionally, the hydraulic capacity deficiencies are generally high priority, while the I&I component should be scheduled as a medium to medium-high priority, depending on implications of additional local I&I studies. Lift Stations — Lift station improvements are generally important priority projects as their failure often has a high potential for sewer spills. Accordingly, lift station capacity, reliability, and safety improvements are high priority. Prioritization of the recommended improvements should be based on the degree of deficiency, facility reliability related to the potential for and implications of failure, the potential for higher future flows, coordination with other utility needs and objectives, and funding availability. As such, the City should balance its capital improvement program - between the lift station replacement program, collection system facilities identified with a high potential for failure, and hydraulic pipeline deficiencies, with the lift station replacement program and potential pipeline failures receiving the most attention. Due to the nature of the improvements, most of these projects should be constructed during the next 10 years. SEWER FACILITY CHARGES The City utilizes a Sewer Facility Charge (SFC), commonly referred to as a connection fee, to recover the costs of facilities to be constructed in the future that will benefit new development. The purpose of this charge is to assure that future customers pay their fair share of the costs of the system's capacity. As such, a Sewer Facility Charge equitably distributes facility costs to future users based on their anticipated demands on the wastewater system. The assets that collect and pump the City's wastewater are the basis for the cost of capacity in the sewer system. ES.6 014641.00 The City ordinance applicable to SFCs is contained in Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code. The current and updated residential sewer facility charges are based on an "equivalent dwelling unit" or EDU. For consistency with the current sewer user charge rate schedule, the updated non-residential charge is also proposed to be converted from a cost per 1000 square feet to an EDU basis. There are several generally accepted methods commonly used to develop capital facility charges. A common approach selected by the City for the development of this fee is referred to as the incremental approach. The incremental approach is based on quantifying the future costs of additional capacity and unitizing these costs by the incremental quantity of additional demand served by these costs. Accordingly, the capital improvement program provides the primary basis of costs, while the estimation of future flows provides the basis for future incremental wastewater flows. Costs of Future Capacity Under the incremental approach, the cost of future capacity in the City's wastewater system is based on two facility components. These include the future replacement costs of the sewer lift stations and new local sewer collection system improvements. Several key considerations were discussed with City staff related to assessing the cost of lift station improvements to future customers. Since the ongoing sewer user charge was designed to provide for the methodical replacement of the City's lift stations, only the specific portion of the capacity related facility improvement costs and metering enhancements is un-funded. As such, the costs allocated to future customers are limited to these cost elements. The total cost of lift station improvements that is included in the cost of future capacity is approximately $9.6 million (Table 8-1). Similar to the lift station cost allocation approach, a discussion focused on the level of collection system improvements that should be borne by future services. Through these discussions, several alternatives were developed to recover collection system costs from future services. The basic alternatives derived herein are as follows: ES.7 014641.00 ® Alternative 1 — Total System Replacement Cost - Include the total cost of all capacity improvements based on the replacement cost of each facility • Alternative 2 — Total System U sp izin Cost - Include the total cost of all capacity improvements and reduce this cost by the estimated cost to slipline each pipeline segment (at original diameter) The resulting collection system costs associated with these alternatives are approximately $8.0 and $4.0 million for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively(Table 8-2). Estimated Future Incremental Wastewater Flows and Unit Flow Factors Consistent with the study methodology, the estimated wastewater flow was derived from the output of the hydraulic model under current and future wastewater loading conditions. The incremental value that is the result of future growth is the difference between the future and existing wastewater flows. Based on the findings of the hydraulic model, the incremental increase in future wastewater flow was estimated to be )' approximately 1.95 million gallons per day (MGD). In addition to the development of future incremental flows, wastewater flows factors are -derived for each of the residential and commercial/industrial user classes. The City's 2001 Sewer Charge Study estimated that the average wastewater discharge of a Single Family dwelling (SFD) is 226 gallons per day (gpd). Additionally, the 2001 Sewer Charge Study estimated the discharge for a Multi Family dwelling and a commercial/industrial customer to be 185 gpd and 257 gallons per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU), respectively. ES.8 014641.00 Unit Costs Of Service and Alternative Sewer Facility Charges The development of unit costs of service is an essential step in deriving cost of service based Sewer Facility Charges. Unit costs of service are obtained by correlating the costs associated with future growth with the incremental addition of future sewer system discharges (Table 8-4). Sewer Facility Charges are calculated by correlating the wastewater demand characteristics of the City's primary residential and non-residential user classes with the estimated unit costs of service (Table 8-5). The resulting alternative Single Family Dwelling charges are as follows: • Alternative 1 -$2,043 • Alternative 2- $1,579 To evaluate these charges, a comparison of the City's current and alternative residential Sewer Facility Charges with neighboring communities was performed. The alternative �( Sewer Facility Charges compare favorably with the rates of surrounding communities as the findings ranged from approximately $1,400 to $2,000 (Table 8-6). As discussed with City staff, it is recommended the City adopt one of the alternative facility charges so that growth cost are adequately recovered from future wastewater system customers. ES.9 014641.00 E Chapter 1 Introduction o.� CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the background, authorization, objectives and scope of work for the Sewer System Master Plan and associated Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Study. BACKGROUND The City of Huntington Beach (City) is an urban city with a population of approximately 200,000 residents. Although the City last conducted a Wastewater System Master Plan in April 1995, the last study approved by the City Council was in 1978. Based on the need to routinely re-evaluate the infrastructure's to meet future demands, the City has requested this update to the 1995 Wastewater System Master Plan. The planning period will be from present to the year 2020. ~ 1 The City is responsible for operating and maintaining approximately 360 miles or 1,900,000 feet of wastewater collection system. This system predominately consists of 8-inch pipelines supported by 27 lift stations varying in capacity from approximately 80 gallons per minute (gpm) to 1,350 gpm. By contract, sewage collection, treatment, and disposal are the responsibility of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). AUTHORIZATION AND OBJECTIVES In recognition of the need to plan for future development and provide uninterrupted wastewater service, the City authorized Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (K/J) to prepare this 2002 Sewer System Master Plan and associated (1&1) Study. This planning effort incorporated the following key objectives: • Develop a project approach with the City as a key team member to support project data gathering, criteria development and wastewater system evaluation. • Conduct sufficient data review to verify adequacy of existing data for evaluation of the existing wastewater and pumping systems. 1.1 014641.00 • Evaluate the adequacy of the existing collection and pumping system to meet current and future wastewater flows. • Develop a correlating linkage between the City's customer accounts as listed in the utility billing system and the Assessor Parcel Number (APN) as listed in the County Assessor database. • Prepare a desktop I&I study to review and evaluate available data to assist in identifying potential I&I problem areas. • Perform a limited flow monitoring program to obtain actual field measurements of wastewater flow conditions in various sites in the city. Analyze the input of rainfall dependent I&I based on wet weather data obtained during this program. • Utilize actual billing system demand data in the development of a schematic hydraulic model for system evaluation. • Formulate an easily implemented master plan with prioritized capital improvements. SCOPE OF WORK l= The scope of work for this Sewer System Master Plan and associated I&I Study are organized by tasks summarized as follows: Wastewater Master Plan Task 1 — Review New or Revised Planning and Facility Data Subtask 1.A. —Establish Project Goals Subtask 1.13. — Evaluate Current Planning and Engineering Documents Subtask 1.C. —Evaluate Current Sewer Flow Criteria Subtask 1.D. —Assess Non-Huntington-Beach-Generated-Sewage Flows 1.2 014641.00 Task 2—Flow Criteria Development and Flow Projections Subtask 2.A. — Review Previous Population Projections Subtask 2.13. — Review Flow Criteria and Flow Projection Subtask 2.C. — Develop Design and Unit Cost Criteria Task 3—Sewer System Configuration and Model Development Subtask 3.A. — Revise Sewer System Modeling Schematic Subtask 3.13. — Update Tributary Area Map Subtask 3.C. — Develop Sewer Flows and Model Calibration Task 4— Sewer System Analysis Subtask 4.A. — Identify Sewer System Deficiencies Subtask 4.13. — Model and Analyze Existing Sewer System Subtask 4.C. —Compile Existing System Deficiencies Subtask 4.D. — Model and Analyze Future Sewer System Subtask 4.E. — Recommend Sewer System Improvements Subtask 4.F. — Recommend Lift Station System Improvements Task 5—Submit Sewer Master Plan Document Perform Desktop I&I Study Task 1 — Data Collection and Review Task 2— Overlay Analysis Program Subtask 2.A. —Overlay Lift Station Evaluation Subtask 2.13. —Overlay Sewer Pipelines/Manholes Evaluation 1.3 014641.00 Task 3 —Perform Assessor Parcel Number Based Flow Evaluation Program Subtask 3.A. — Perform Assessor Parcel Number/Utility Account Correlation Subtask 3.B. —Contrast Evaluation of Water/Sewer Demands with Known Discharges Task 4— Prepare Desktop Evaluation Report of Findings Perform Field Flow Monitoring and I&I Evaluation Programs CONDUCT OF STUDY The information used to prepare this study includes review of existing information, development of new and/or updated data, City-provided data from its Geographical Information System (GIS), and discussions with City staff. Initial study tasks focused on collecting and evaluating relevant data, reports, and other available information to define existing conditions and identify future considerations. Based on this information, an assessment of the adequacy of the existing primary system was made and improvements were recommended to meet current and future requirements. ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS The following abbreviations are used within the report: ac acre ADD Average Day Demand ADWF Average Dry Weather Flow APN Assessor Parcel Number AWWFAverage Wet Weather Flow cf cubic feet cfs cubic feet per second City City of Huntington Beach D/d Depth to diameter 1.4 014641.00 t� ? dia. diameter DU Dwelling Unit DWR California Department of Water Resources EDU Equivalent Dwelling Unit ENR Engineering News Record EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency GIS Geographic Information System gpad gallons per acre day gpm gallons per minute gpd gallons per day HGL Hydraulic Grade Line hp horsepower I&I inflow and infiltration in inches idm inch-diameter miles K/J Kennedy/Jenks Consultants � LF linear foot MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day NOAA National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration NWS National Weather Service O&M Operations and Maintenance OCSD Orange County Sanitation District PDWF Peak Dry Weather Flow RPM Revolutions Per Minute pph persons per household psi pounds per square inch PWWF Peak Wet Weather Flow RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SFC Sewer Facility Charge sf square feet _ TDH Total Dynamic Head VCP vitrified clay pipe 1.5 014641.00 Chapter 2 History and Study Area Characteristics CHAPTER 2 HISTORY AND STUDY AREA CHARACTERISTICS This chapter presents the growth history of the City and identifies key study area characteristics such as geography, climate, boundary limits, land use, and population. Information sources include the previous wastewater master planning efforts performed for the City, the City's Water Master Plan dated December 2000, and updated land use planning information provided by the City. HISTORY Founded in the late 1880's, Huntington Beach was incorporated on 17 February 1909. The history of Huntington Beach extends from the early days of Orange County as a cluster of Spanish ranchos, through the oil boom of the 1920's, to its current status as California's f_ 11th largest city. Through a series of annexations, the City has grown to approximately 27 (t ? square miles. As the City has become one of the leading commercial, industrial and recreational centers of Orange County, the population has swelled from 11,000 in 1960 to approximately 200,000. CITY BOUNDARY AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION The City is located on the shore of the Pacific Ocean in northwestern Orange County. It is surrounded by Westminster to the north, Fountain Valley to the northeast, Costa Mesa to the east, Newport Beach to the southeast, Seal Beach and the U.S. Naval Weapons Station to the northwest, and the Pacific Ocean to the west. The City of Los Angeles is located approximately 35 miles to the northwest and the City of San Diego is approximately 95 miles to the southeast. The study area includes areas within the City boundary and small tributary portions of the Cities of Westminster, Seal Beach, Newport Beach, and Fountain Valley. These small areas are served through direct connections to the wastewater collection system of the City, and have been included for evaluation purposes. Due to local topography, some 2.1 014641.00 areas within the City are served through a connection to the wastewater system of the City of Fountain Valley and are not included in the evaluation. Geography and Climate The City contains approximately 17,206 acres, or 27 square miles, of land. Ninety-seven percent of the land is developed with residential, commercial, industrial, public, mixed uses, open space, and right-of-ways/bridges. The remaining three percent of land is vacant. The terrain is essentially flat and generally slopes westward to the white sand beaches of the Pacific Ocean. Elevations vary from sea level to approximately 200 feet above sea level. The City has a mild Mediterranean-type climate. Prevailing westerly and southwesterly winds off of the Pacific Ocean help maintain pleasant weather year-round. The mean annual temperature is 62 degrees Fahrenheit, mean annual humidity is 64.7 percent, and annual rainfall is slightly less than 12 inches. LAND USE Residential use is the largest single land use in the City. Most residential uses are single- family homes located within super blocks. The major commercial areas in the City are the Huntington Beach Center, Lohmann's Five Points Plaza, Old World Village, Guardian Center, Peter's Landing, the Beach Boulevard corridor, and Downtown. Industrial centers are generally located in the northwest area of the City and along Gothard Street. Vacant land is minimal in the City, as evidenced by the reclaiming and remediation of oil production land for residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Existing Land Use and Development While the land use element of the City's General Plan has changed over time, the existing land use generally corresponds to the General Plan guidelines. The exception to this condition is vacant land. 2.2 014641.00 J, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH IGENERAL PLAN LAND USE.7A1 rain H)lWdERfAVE LEGEND th A"E Commercial General < Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Office Z: �E Commercial Regional < 'W commercial visitor Industrial M LI E Mixed Use Mixed use Horizontal Mixed Use Vertical GARFIELDAVE Open Space-Commercial Recreatior low Open Space-Conservation '� r. P"'-1,", WN 0 open Space-Park A� Open Space-Shore A A Open Space-Water Recreation Public �ANAPPLISL —KI Residential Low Density n Residential Medium Density ' TLANT AVE L Residential Medium High Density Residential High Density E — yf Alb AV Right of Ways&Bridges BAN�NRNG AVE KWF!i%w4j,1Jvnk&C0000ltants ......... SOURCE CITY OF HUNT$NGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN ��'Q,RO`s5•";, CITY OF HUNTING TON BEACH 1 BOLSA AVE - VACANT SAND N. MCI LA%�'E LINGE Z AV ,' ' f LEGEND Fully-Developed Parcels s h"I HEI�,A E` Y:,t;:,= .r'!'°•;.,: Under-Developed Parcel 0-25%Developed WARN R AVE' +, �'+T'' 26-50%Developed a 151-75%Developed w` zsurERAve,.i ��Q''z �fix- V'�'`,`„,"vt'a•' (:,c`„`o" GARFIELD AVE 4,y,N T�•., •sou: �;= z`��+,>.;a:�,_-�c:"s:w..,':ti't'..'• ;ir4;?s p < _ X YORK GWN A :. ;!•I ? �"ADA +,.`' 9�AVE^ y�t iet.�F':¢ii. �'tiy;n;?m'q::�.�,\;¢`�i`},`j•,j,xs::u m 3,'': VI.',-%kT.4'AN'f"AVER o -;l; ? '7'f•:x, Ttt H MILTON 11 'ANNIIy (t y��`wr .mnn A representative map of the City's General Plan land use is shown on Figure 2-1. This map illustrates the land usage type of all City land at buildout conditions_ The location of vacant land is graphically depicted on Figure 2-2. Existing acreage within the City is partitioned among the major land use categories in accordance with the General Plan. The City's existing land use information is summarized in Table 2-1. As shown, residential usage is the predominant land use type and comprises approximately forty-six percent of the total usage. Industrial, commercial, and mixed use land use categories account for an additional fifteen percent, while public, open space, and right-of-ways and bridges represent an additional thirty-nine percent. As shown, approximately twenty-four percent of the vacant land is planned to be built out as residential land uses. Future Land Use and Development Although nearly all land within the study area is developed (ninety-seven percent), there is still potential growth in two forms: development of vacant land and land use intensification. P 9 P When all areas are developed to maximum allowable densities, "buildout" will occur. As discussed, the future land usage type according to the City's General Plan is shown on Figure 2-1. Vacant Land Develo m _n . As previously discussed, there is minimal vacant land within the City. Vacant land is anticipated to develop in accordance with the General Plan and should have minimal impact on future wastewater utility service requirements. Based upon discussions with the City's Planning Department, there are four noteworthy Specific Plans (SP) within the City that will impact local development/redevelopment. These are the Crossings at Huntington Beach SP, the Palm/Goldenwest SP, the Meadowlark SP, and the McDonnell Centre Business Park SP. These specific plans are summarized as follows: 2.3 014641.00 TABLE 2-1 ` EXISTING LAND USE Total % of Total % of Total Planned Vacant Vacant Land Land Use Type (Alphabetical) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Commercial General 614.61 2.30 13.00 3.57 Commercial Neighborhood 93.64 0.41 2.30 0.54 Commercial Office 41.29 0.00 0.00 0.24 Commercial Regional 136.84 0.00 0.00 0.80 Commercial Visitor 73.47 3.83 21.65 0.43 TOTAL COMMERCIAL 959.85 6.54 36.95 5.58 Industrial 1,171.78 5.84 32.98 6.81 Mixed Use 176.53 0.00 0.00 1.03 Mixed Use Horizontal 201.74 9.98 56.40 1.17 Mixed Use Vertical 52.67 0.28 1.56 0.31 TOTAL MIXED USE 430.94 10.26 57.97 2.50 Open Space-Commercial Recreation 237.72 0.00 0.00 1.38 Open Space-Conservation 127.07 18.01 101.80 0.74 ) Open Space- Park 638.73 26.51 149.79 3.71 Open Space-Shore 342.51 0.00 0.00 1.99 Open Space-Water Recreation 242.79 0.00 0.00 1.41 TOTAL OPEN SPACE 1,588.82 44.52 251.59 9.23 Public 1,639.88 9.21 52.06 9.53 Residential Low Density 5,681.46 1.87 10.57 33.02 Residential Medium Density 1,123.36 16.77 94.74 6.53 Residential Medium High Density 104.36 1.14 6.43 0.61 Residential High Density 1,004.69 3.86 21.81 5.84 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL 7,913.87 23.63 133.55 46.00 Right of Ways& Bridges 3,501.01 0.00 0.00 20.35 CITY TOTALS 17,206.15 100.00 565.10 100.01 Source: City of Huntington Beach GIS Data, 2001 The Crossings at Huntington Beach SP #13 - Adopted July 5, 2000, Designated Commercial Regional — 63 acres. The area is generally bounded on the north by Center Avenue, on the east by Beach Boulevard, on the south by Edinger Avenue, and on the west by Southern Pacific railroad right-of-way. Palm/Goldenwest SP #12 - Adopted February 7, 2000, 50 acres. The Palm/Goldenwest Specific Plan Area encompasses the 150 acre site bounded by Palm Avenue to the north, Pacific Coast Highway to the south, Goldenwest Street to the east and Seapoint Street to the west,with approximately 4 acres located on the west side of Seapoint. Meadowlark SP #8 - Adopted March 15, 1999. The Meadowlark Specific Plan encompasses approximately 65 acres of land located approximately 600 feet north and east of the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. McDonnell Centre Business Park SP #11 - Adopted October 6, 1997. The McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan covers 507 gross acres located in the northwestern portion of the City. The area is generally bounded on the north b Rancho Road and the P Y 9 Y Y U.S. Navy railroad right-of-way (excluding the City's water reservoir site), on the east by Springdale Street, on the south by Bolsa Avenue and on the west by Bolsa Chica Street. The McDonnell Centre Business Park is presently zoned limited industrial ("IL") and limited industrial with a high rise overlay ("IL-H"), in designated areas. In addition to these areas, the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan is located within the sphere of influence of the City. Bolsa Chica encompasses 1,654 additional acres of unincorporated land. When developed, this area will not utilize any City owned wastewater facilities. As wastewater flows from Bolsa Chica it will discharge directly into OCSD pipelines and be conveyed to the existing OCSD Slater Avenue Lift Station. Since the Slater Lift Station has already been redesigned to accommodate the future development of the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan, this area was not evaluated in this study. 2.5 014641.00 Land Use Intensification. Land use intensification occurs in undeveloped areas that are designated for urban/suburban uses and on sites where existing uses were developed at densities below those permitted by the City. Nonconforming uses occur when existing parcels were developed with uses not permitted by current zoning. For master planning purposes, future City redevelopment from intensification rather than conformance to zoning is most likely to affect future wastewater loading conditions. Maximum General Plan Ri ildo rt. Maximum buildout is defined to occur when vacant parcels develop and existing parcels redevelop to their maximum permitted densities. This theoretical condition almost never occurs, as the majority of developed parcels are physically stable and the future economic viability of redevelopment to increase land use density is unlikely. Accordingly, maximum general plan buildout must be considered for utility master plans and results tempered with engineering judgment when assessing potential impacts of redevelopment. The implication of buildout conditions is integrated in future wastewater generation factors derived in subsequent chapters. POPULATION AND GROWTH The population of the City has increased by 4.3 percent between 1990 and 2000, as indicated by the 2000 U.S. Census of Population. At last count in 2000, the City had approximately 190,000 residents. This value represented an increase of approximately 8,000 people since 1990. As shown in Table 2-2, the City has experienced a lower rate of growth over the last twenty years than both Orange County (County) and the State of California (State). While the average annual population increase in California was 2.1 percent from 1970 to 1980, 2.3 percent from 1980 to 1990, and 1.3 percent from 1990 to 2000, Orange County experienced annual growth rates of 3.1, 2.2, and 1.7 percent respectively. During these same time periods, the City experienced average annual increases of 3.9, 0.63, and 0.44 percent respectively. In contrast, the City's growth was substantially greater than the County or the State during the 1970 to 1980 time period. 2.6 014641.00 Table 2-3 provides a summary of projected population, dwelling units and persons per household (pph) for the City through the year 2020. While several sources of projection were reviewed, evaluation of the projection findings indicates a general consensus between the City's Water Master Plan dated December, 2000, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Based on these data, the population of the City is expected to grow from approximately 200,000 to approximately 225,000 by the year 2020. This increase in population is projected to occur from the construction of an additional 1,000 dwelling units and an overall increase in the number of persons residing in each household. Of these two factors, the increase in persons per household is projected to have the greater impact on future infrastructure requirements. s 2.7 014641.00 TABLE 2-2 POPULATION COMPARISONS Population by Year Location 1970 1980 1990 2000 California 19,241,000 23,668,145 29,760,021 33,871,648 Orange County 1,421,000 1,932,709 2,410,556 2,846,289 Huntington Beach 115,960 170,505 181,519 189,594 Compound Annual Growth Rate 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 California 2.09 2.32 1.30 Orange County 3.12 2.23 1.68 Huntington Beach 3.93 0.63 0.4411 Source: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 U.S. Census TABLE 2-3 CITY POPULATION PROJECTIONS Population Projections By Year Source of Data 2005 2010 2015 2020 Ctr. for Demographic Research, CSUF 209,203 210,612 210,021 210,053 So. Cal Association of Gov. (SCAG) -- 215,800 220,100 223,100 City Dept. of Economic Development 204,500 -- -- -- City Water Master Plan, Dec. 2000 211,412 216,020 220,554 224,410 #of Dwelling Units Per Year So. Cal Association of Gov. (SCAG) -- 74,400 75,200 75,700 City Water Master Plan, Dec. 2000 78,376 78,937 79,664 79,819 Persons Per Household (PPH) By Year So. Cal Association of Gov. (SCAG) -- 2.9005 2.9269 2.9472 City Water Master Plan, Dec. 2000 2.6974 2.7366 2.7686 2.8115 % Increase in#of DU From Year 2005 TO 2020 2010 TO 2020 So. Cal Association of Gov. (SCAG) -- 1.0175 City Water Master Plan, Dec. 2000 1.0184 1.0112 % Increase in PPH From Year 2005 TO 2020 2010 TO 2020 So, Cal Association of Gov. (SCAG) -- 1.0161 City Water Master Plan, Dec. 2000 1.0423 1.0274 Source: As noted t y u Chapter 3 Existing Wastewater System Description �f CHAPTER 3 EXISTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION The focus of this chapter is a discussion and description of the City's existing wastewater system. Key elements and features of these wastewater facilities are described and evaluated in subsequent chapters of this study. In addition, a narrative summary of the developments and enhancements to the City's Geographic Information System (GIS) performed within this study is provided herein. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) A supplemental element of the project focused on the development of additional information to support the City's GIS. The City's GIS uses Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ARC/INFO on the SUN Solaris platform with supporting functionality provided on the Intel/Microsoft platform. Data was received from the City's GIS group for the beneficial use of this study. In consideration of the overall project requirements, the primary objective of this element of the project was to utilize available City-provided GIS information and expand or enhance the depth and breath of the data delivered back to the City. This information could then be utilized to enhance future GIS activities and provide additional wastewater utility management information. The information provided back to the City through the conduct of this project is summarized below. APN to Utility Billing System Linkages — The development of a linkage between City parcel polygons by Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and the utility billing system by Account Number. Parcels with APN source data discrepancies were also identified. Wastewater Utility Pipeline Data - New or updated data related to pipeline length, slope, diameter, inverts, ground elevation, system connectivity, estimated available capacity, and a parcel to pipeline linkage that could be used to schematically represent lateral connections. 3.1 014641.00 GENERAL SYSTEM OVERVIEW The City owns, operates and maintains a wastewater collection system that includes gravity pipelines, manholes, lift stations and force mains. This system serves over 95 percent of the areas within the City, and several small areas within the Cities of Westminster, Seal Beach, Newport Beach, and Fountain Valley. Collected wastewater is conveyed to the Orange County Sanitation District's (OCSD's) system at multiple connections within the City. The collected wastewater is ultimately conveyed to OCSD's local wastewater treatment plant. The facility evaluation elements of this master plan focus on a hydraulic evaluation of the existing collection system pipelines and lift stations, and a general reliability assessment of these facilities through the assessment of an appropriate on-going capital repair and replacement program. The City's wastewater system and facilities are discussed in the following sections including those of OCSD and private systems. Drainage Basin and Sub-Basin Delineation, ` City and non-city areas that are served by the City's collection system are located within four (4) major geographical drainage basins. The general relationship of these basins within the City and their direction of flow to OCSD facilities are indicated in Figure 3-1. City Wastewater Pipelines The City's gravity collection pipelines vary in size from 6 to 30-inches in diameter, with most pipelines being 8-inches in diameter. Approximately 1.9 million lineal feet of city-owned wastewater collection pipelines are in service. Pipeline materials are predominantly vitrified clay pipe (VCP) with some polyvinylchloride (PVC), and ductile iron pipe (DIP). A small percentage of the system has also been rehabilitated or lined to increase facility life. A summary of the length and diameter of the City's underground wastewater collection system is shown in Figure 3-2 and listed in Table 3-1. This information is based primarily on the data provided in the City's GIS_ 3.2 014641.00 gENE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PIPELINES BY BASINLEGEND BASIN A D NGF ~ U C A R AVE _ OCSD Line _ o f ?7_ — 1L '1 ;2T1 jj AVE 4 i Y' U y tI k' GARFIELD AVE .Tp El r- fi A .1 LL11 1 17 t ti3 11 HMILT��NI Kennedy/Jenks Consultants NI r 'y� Engineers&Scientists 'gyp* p City of Huntington Beach I,f•'1,'t Sewer System Master Plan ++ KJ 014641.00 NOT TO SCALE Pipelines by Basin Figure 3.1 R CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND 130E AA E WASTEWATER FACILITIES BY DIAMETER MAP PIPELINE DIAMETER Non-City Pipeline N'1Y� No GIS Data 4" .DINGE 2 T 8„ 10" �!) » 12,E WA RAVE iP4 �N16" �{ AVE 2i _.— —.____.. 21" 24" E IS AVE_ m y<i ..... . .... ..... 27" T Y G uw ----- 30" GARFIELD AVE •."*1 y f .Em U A l _ a t•UZI E J H MILT r, = Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Tf1Tl NI Engineers&Scientists / :,�yq City of Huntington Beach �"' .y Sewer System Master Plan I KJ 014641.00 NOT TO SCALE Wastewater Facilities by Diameter Figure 3.2 ) TABLE 3-1 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINES BY DIAMETER Sewer Line Size Length (in.) (LF) No Data * 4,190 6 8,280 8 1,568,100 10 112,490 12 72,770 15 51,110 16 4,360 18 16,920 21 6,730 24 1,320 27 5,400 30 1,310 Grand Total 1,852,980 * Includes pipes with no data or uncertain 4"values. Two basic types of manholes were used in the construction of the City's wastewater collection system. The older manholes were constructed of brick and were founded on cast-in-place concrete bases. This manhole type was typical of the downtown area. More recent manhole construction projects used precast concrete sections also founded on cast-in-place bases. City Wastewater Lift Stations The City owns, operates and maintains twenty-seven (27) wastewater lift stations that lift sewage from low points in the collection system to manholes at higher locations. As reflected in the City's 2001 Sewer Lift Station Design Manual, there are two types of approved lift station facilities. A typical sketch of each type of lift station as provided in the City's design manual is provided in Appendix A. Each facility type is described in the following sections. 3.3 014641.00 Wet Well/Dry Well Lift Stations. This type of lift station is the most commonly used type of lift station in the City's collection system. Wet wells are generally constructed of concrete manhole rings and generally vary from 4 to 8 feet in diameter. Dry wells are typically constructed of concrete and are either round or rectangular in shape. Round dry wells are usually comprised of two levels separated by metal grating. The pumps, motors, and valves are located on the lower level and the electrical equipment is situated on the upper level. One lift station, Oceanhill & Beach, is an exception to this and is a round fiberglass lift station with all the interior equipment on one level. Recent modifications and upgrades at some of the lift stations include above ground panels, adapters for portable generators, automatic lighting, entry alarms, continuous ventilation, and interior coating of the wet wells. Submersible Lift Stations. There are three submersible lift stations in the City's collection system (Atlanta east of Beach, Algonquin/Boardwalk, and PCH in Sunset Beach). The lift station at PCH in Sunset Beach, Lift Station 'A," was recently reconstructed with the submersible configuration due to site constraints. All submersible lift stations are - , constructed of concrete and are eight feet in diameter. Each lift station is equipped with two submersible pumps, above ground control panels, and a valve vault. Table 3-2 presents the general information and the rated pump capacity of the City's lift stations, based on data provided by the City's Maintenance Department. It should be noted that the actual pump capacity of a given station may vary from the rated capacity due to factors such as the age and condition of the impellers, motors, and piping in each facility. The location of these facilities is shown on Figure 3-3. The connectivity of the lift stations that are influenced by upstream facilities is depicted on Figure 3-4. 3.4 014641.00 TABLE 3-2 LIFT STATION INFORMATION Impeller Rated Pump #of Manufacturer Motor Data Diamter Capacity Number Name Number and Name Pumps &Model No. (H.P.@ RPM) (in) (gpm @ TDH) 1 Graham&Kenilworth #1 Graham 2 Wemco 4 x 11 20 @ 1800 9" 580 @ 55' 2 Humbolt&Wayfarer #2 Humboldt 2 Wemco 4 x 11 3 @ 1170 7-5/8" 155@ 22' 3 Gilbert&Peale #3 Station"E" 2 Wemco 4 x 11 3 @ 1160 7-1/2" 100 @ 18' 4 PCH in Sunset Beach #4 Statioin"A" 2 Wemco 4 x 11 10 @ 1160 10" 750 @ 20' 5 Davenport&Baruna #5 Davenport 2 Wemco 4 x 11 3 @ 1200 8" 106 @ 12' 6 Edgewater&Davenport #6 Edgewater 2 Wemco 4 x 11 5 @ 1170 9" 450 @ 12' 7 PCH West of Warner #7 Station"B" 2 Wemco 4 x 11 7.5 @ 1170 8-3/4" 750 @ 10' 8 Warner North of PCH #8 Station"C" 2 Wemco 4 x 11 25 @ 1800 8-1/2" 1350 @ 15' 9 Warner at Edgewater"D"Station #9 Station"D" 4 Wemco 4 x 11 25 @ 1760 9-1/2" 900 @ 50' 10 Algonquin&Boardwalk #10 Algonquin 2 Wemco 4 x 11 40 @ 1745 0-3/4" 1000 @ 60' 11 Lark&Warner #11 Lark 2 Wemco 4 x 11 2 @ 1170 8" 125 @ 12' 13 Slater&Springdale #13 Slater 2 Wemco 6 x 11 20 @ 1750 9" 1070 @ 24' 14 Ellis&Gothard #14 Ellis 3 Wemco 6 x 11 20 @ 1800 8-1/2" 850 @ 34' 15 Oceanhill&Beach #15 Beach 2 Gorman Rupp 75 @ 1000 9-3/4" 150 @ 30' 16 Adams&Ranger #16 Adams 2 Wemco 4 x 11 3 @ 1170 8" 270 @ IS 17 Brookhurst&Effingham #17 Brookhurst 2 Wemco 6 x 11 30 @ 1750 9" 1280 @ 28' 18 Atlanta East of Beach #18 Atlanta 2 Wemco 6 x 12 25 @ 1170 6" 350 @ 25' 19 Bushard&Pettswood #19 Bushard 2 Wemco 4 x 95 3 @ 1170 6-3/8" 338 @ 10' 20 Speer&Crabb #20 Speer 2 Wemco 6 x 11 15@ 1170 9" 500 @ 14' 21 McFadden&Dawson #21 McFadden 2 Wemco 4 x 11 M 5 @ 1170 9" 550 @ 23' 22 Saybrook&Heil #33 Saybrook 2 Wemco 4 x 11 M 15 @ 1170 9-3/4" 550 @ 23' 23 New Britian&Adams #23 New Britain 2 Wemco 4 x 11S 5@ 1170 6-3/4" 179 @ 11' 24 Edwards&Balmorol #24 Edwards 2 Wemco 6 x 11M 20 @ 1750 9" 800 @ 38' 25 Edinger&Santa Barbara #25 Edinger 2 Wemco 4 x 11M 5 @ 1750 8" 300 @ 12' 26 Brighton&Shoreham #26 Brighton 2 Wemco 4 x 95 3 @ 1170 7" 220 @ 16' 28 Coral Cay #28 Coral Cay 2 Wemco 4 x 95 3 @ 1155 6" 80 @ 14' 29 Trinidad&Aquarius #29 Trinidad 2 Wemco 4 x 11 M 10 @ 1750 8" 250 @ 15' Notes:The City of Huntington Beach does not have a lift station#12 or#27. Lift station#9 is under design as of June 2002. f, Source: Data provided by the City Maintenance Department. 3.5 014641.00 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND R CNO RD '' Llll Station LIFT STATION LOCATIONS Station Names BOLSA AVE #1 GRAHAM N #2 HUMBOLDT MCFADI EN AVE 21 #3 E tt 3 #4"A" #25 0 #50AVENPORT DINGE 2 AVE #29 # #6 EDGEWATER a #7 STATION"B" #4 #3 #22 n HEIL A E #8 STATION"C" #5# it s'D" a WAf?"N r)AVE N N #10 ALGONOUIN m ? #1 tttt LARK #9 w #13 Q. w = SLATER AVE a13 SLATER 26 Le w o ;b#2 #14 ELLIS #24 0 o_ TALBER AVE #15 BEACH a #16 ADAMS ELLIS VE o #17 BROOKHURS `•# 4 m w #18 ATLANTA U Z #19 BUSHARD < GARFIELD AVE m FAVE n #20 SPEER o021 MCFADDEN #22 SAYBROOK #23 NEW BRITAIN 15"# 3 ADA1 #24 EDWARDS #25 EDINGER OI NDIANAP LIS AV #26 BRIGHTON #28 CORAL CAY TLANT AVEO #29 TRINIDADNote' The City does not have #18 LIfl Station 012 or#27 N H Kennedy/Jenl<s Consultants Engineers&Scientists City of Huntington Beach 7 Wastewater Master Plan KJ 014541.00 LIFT STATION LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE Figure 3-3 LIFT STATION CONNECTIVITY 3 4 7 8 29 2 28 9 i 25 22 6 5 FLOW SPLIT: 100%OR 0% 10 26 24 NUMBER NAME 2 Humbolt&Wayfarer 3 Gilbert&Peale 4 PCH in Sunset Beach # = Lift Station Number 5 Davenport&Baruna 6 Edgewater&Davenport 7 PCH West of Warner 8 Warner North of PCH 9 Warner at Edgewater"D"Station 10 Algonquin&Boardwalk 22 Saybrook&Heil 25 Edinger&Santa Barbara 24 Edwards&Balmorol 26 Brighton&Shoreham 28 Coral Cay 29 Trinidad&Aquarius Kennedy,/Jenks Consultants Engineers&Scientists P11 City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Master Plan 4 KJ 014641_00 _ LIFT STATION CONNECTIVITY Figure 3-4 Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater Facilities Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) is responsible for collecting, treating, and disposing of the wastewater generated in central and northwest Orange County. OCSD owns, operates and maintains the majority of the "backbone"wastewater collection trunk pipelines within a 470 square mile area, including the City. OCSD's service area is shown in Figure 3-5. FIGURE 3-5 OCSD SERVICE AREA LOS A.NGELES COUNTY SAN EERNARUINO `m= QCOUt•1TY 'NGELES >' � <w v COUNTY R :.<.3'_ ;,E.:L17fREnFULCE ;!•&. 's'z•�;•'>, FLACENf0 LINC�a � � 1 �s w Et Y x. °'s P5E5� AM1J7ON 1%.;n.. M>"»r+Az=-=�c{. 1 _E.AL 1 YE�TIitIN3TErs CsPOVE t, �:"'� �;,xs;=? - rd J� BE.d.0 Ham:, a:,°aarjeM 5, ti :` F:TiJST_1Nr utrx �'_t3:- —a,t Fw'ri�`;•'.'_ ,''= car �` -�''�,' -ti!}N71hk�lY?T• ��?.v,�%s `. S�'R Jn wj•' �r�;:- - i _ :e3'=':vim;� cc_, i.':`. v ,ryt-,:-c ;. i =li-3i'x•,X a.-_Es / � $ COrTF !k?U Nam` �� t t�E A ' ti``J._(rA"`- sy`o.'-fir;,'x' �`',37 'i•'�.. _-"W.i `.= PAC IFICOCEAN OCSD's regional wastewater pipelines generally range in size from 21 to 108 inches in diameter and collect the City's wastewater at multiple connections. In addition to these collection facilities, OCSD has two lift stations and Wastewater Treatment Plant No. 2 located within the City. Given the growth within OCSD's service area, OCSD is currently upsizing a number of collection system pipelines to provide additional capacity. One of these key facilities is the new 108-inch Bushard Trunk Sewer, which runs through the City to OCSD's Plant No. 2. 3.6 014641.00 Private Wastewater Facilities Private wastewater facilities within the City fall into two categories: onsite services and offsite wastewater pipelines. Maintenance of all private facilities is the responsibility of the owner. Onsite service pipelines are considered private from the point of connection to the City's main pipelines. Typically, private onsite pipelines include 4-inch diameter residential services, and 4 through 18- inch diameter commercial, industrial, and other non-residential uses. There are no private offsite wastewater pipelines maintained by the City. Summary of Wastewater Facilities A summary of the wastewater facilities located within the City service area is shown in Figure 3-6. This information is based primarily on the information provided in the City's GIS and summarizes the ownership of the underground wastewater system. While the vast majority of the City-owned facilities are contained in the City's GIS, a number of the OCSD trunk facilities and private - pipelines may not be incl uded in the geographic data and are therefore not reflected in this figure. EXISTING SYSTEM CONDITION AND DEFICIENCIES This section discusses the general physical condition of facilities and equipment, within the City's existing wastewater system. This assessment is based on field inspections, discussions with City Operations & Maintenance and Engineering staff, and review of record drawings. Wastewater Pipelines The actual physical condition of underground infrastructure is generally assessed through video inspection. In recognition of this need, the City is proactively implementing a comprehensive citywide video inspection program. The result of this evaluation will be an integral element of the City's infrastructure management plan and will classify facilities by priority of condition. Upon the completion of this program, the City will be able to develop a comprehensive underground utility inventory with identified deficiencies, estimate remaining useful life, and prepare for the methodical reinvestment in its aging infrastructure. 3.7 014641.00 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND Ai FACILITIES By OWNER MAP OWNER OCSD MCI=AOC EN 7-] CITY ITY PRIVATE I Ttf_ City GIS L -Tt! P I L d WASTEWATER FACILITIES BY OWNER I%) WAR hE RAVE I ... ' 1! -I I I PM.lc SM, V j, JE Jo E?R A 1?__E1 ill-Ir 7-, LSERI AVE 80% EIS AVE_ Z Ilrl, GARFIELD AVE 4, I;'S';}^• l. _+tea4 yo -:--a -�. a Mal - K IN .414 DIA Lis_v LT z 'TI]V'farF 'J H,MILTU(4. Kennedy/Jenics Consultants 111 It) A" Engineers&Scientists lik City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Master Plan Ft"'M KJ 014641.00 Wastewater Facilities by Owner NOT TO SCALE SOURCE: CITY GIS Figure 3-6 4F��! l \s 1 Pursuant to the 1995 Wastewater System Master Plan, the City implemented a replacement and rehabilitation program to prevent pipeline breakage and reduce the City's potential for sewage spills and leakages. The focus of this effort was in the downtown/oldtown and harbor areas. Trenchless rehabilitation was the remediation methodology utilized to repair these facilities. The location of the facilities that have undergone trenchless rehabilitation by the City since the 1995 master plan is shown in Figure 3-7. Table 3-3 provides a summary of the length and diameter of the trenchless rehabilitation activity. TABLE 3-3 SUMMARY OF PIPELINE REHABILITATION ACTIVITY Sewer Line Size Length (in.) (LF) 1� 6 1,770 8 139,310 10 24,080 12 3,200 15 590 16 4,360 18 150 Grand Total 173,460 Wastewater System Age In addition to a video inspection of the wastewater system, system age may provide a general assessment of facility condition. Although no detailed inventory of physical assets by type and age is available, historical population provides an indication of probable system age_ 3.8 014641.00 R CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND REHABILITATED FACILITIES MAP k30 ------ REHABILITATED ........— NO I YES j REHABILITATED PIPE pLength of arc Diameter lPe Pipe If 6 1,771 4 WAR. 8 139,330 10 24,078 12 3,201 15 593 IL16 4,356 1 18 151 Q At 7-11 AVE E IS VE— r �t j GARFIELDAVE V 1�v j LEE 41 Sa j ra KI Ij Lion...........It A VEo•�h MILT& Kennedy/Jenks Consultants N Engineers&Scientists t' R City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Master Plan K NOT TO SCALE J 014641.00 Summary of Rehabilitation Activity Figure 3.7 Because the City was founded in the late 1880's, a small percentage of the City's system may exceed 100 years old. Since the majority of the City's growth occurred since 1960, it could be concluded that the majority of infrastructure is approximately forty years old. Accordingly, system age and projected useful life tends to support the City O&M staffs assessment that the wastewater pipeline system is in generally good condition. According to the State of California Controller's Office, the suggested useful life of wastewater utility fixed assets is 50 years for pipelines, manholes, and lift station structures, while the useful life of lift station equipment is generally approximately 20 years. It should be noted that the actual useful life of fixed assets may extend beyond the "book value" used for asset depreciation. Due to the inert nature of Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP), it is generally considered to provide the longest useful life of most materials commonly used in wastewater pipeline construction. Lift Stations While the focus of this plan is a hydraulic assessment, the condition of the City's lift stations is an important element of its system reliability. The condition of these facilities was evaluated during the conduct of the 1995 WastevQter Master Plan. A summary table of the 1995 condition assessment is included in Appendix A. The assessment indicates that timely maintenance and repair provided by the City have left the lift stations in generally good condition. However, the advancing age of the facilities warrants significant attention. Due to both the age of the lift stations and their importance to the reliability of the City's wastewater system, they should receive a high priority in the City's ongoing wastewater Capital Improvement Program (CIP). 3.9 014641.00 Chapter 4 Desktop Inflow & Infiltration Study CHAPTER 4 DESKTOP INFLOW AND INFILTRATION STUDY This chapter incorporates the results of the Desktop Inflow and Infiltration Study (I&I Study) performed for the City. An I&I element was included in the 2003 Sewer System Master Plan update to assist the City in identifying potential I&I problem areas and to prepare a prioritized implementation program. OVERVIEW As a desktop study, no fieldwork was performed to generate new data for this analysis. As such, the focus of this study was to utilize previously generated and/or readily available data to reach broad quantitative conclusions about the potential for inflow and infiltration throughout the City's wastewater system. These conclusions can be used in the future to direct investigative and remedial fieldwork and focus future fieldwork on apparent potential problem areas. This methodical procedure will minimize the high cost of expensive field investigation and promote an efficient use of City resources. In order to determine these apparent potential problem areas, the I&I Study made use of the following data: • Wastewater system GIS layers provided by the City • Discussions with City Operations and Maintenance (O&M) staff • California State monitoring well data available at"http://well.water.ca.gov" • Boring log data provided by the City • National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2001 tidal data available at "http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/data_res.html" • NOAA 2001 rainfall data at "hftp://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sandiego/climate.html" • Wastewater lift station run times and pumping characteristics provided by the City 4.1 014641.00 1 Analysis of these data sources, alone and in combination, produced four separate evaluations of potential inflow and infiltration areas of concern within the City. These areas include: • O&M-identified areas • Groundwater-influenced areas • Tidal-influenced areas • Precipitation-influenced areas The resulting analysis of these areas of concern is detailed in the following sections of this study. O&M-IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS Conversations with City Operations and Maintenance staff indicated that the City's harbor area has been identified as an area with great potential for inflow and infiltration. Having been previously identified by the City, the pipelines in this area have all I undergone trenchless rehabilitation. Figure 3-7 in the previous chapter shows all City- owned wastewater pipelines within City borders and indicates which of these pipelines have been included in the City's trenchless rehabilitation project. As the figure shows, the O&M-identified potential inflow and infiltration problem areas have currently been addressed in the harbor area. GROUNDWATER-INFLUENCED POTENTIAL I&I PROBLEM AREAS Groundwater encroachment into City wastewater pipelines was identified at the beginning of the I&I study as a possible contributing factor to inflow and infiltration within the wastewater system. The potential for this area of concern was evaluated by comparing groundwater elevations with the wastewater system invert elevations provided by the City's GIS. 4.2 014641.00 The production of such comparisons required a 3-dimensional model of the groundwater surface beneath the City. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) maintains records for 20,000 groundwater monitoring wells across the state. Wells not proximate to Huntington Beach were discarded through GIS analysis. Inactive and suspect wells were identified and discarded also. The location of the remaining wells, which were used to provide reliable groundwater surface elevations in the Huntington Beach area, can be seen in Figure 4-1. Because the groundwater elevation readings for each well were recorded at varying times and on varying cycles throughout the years, it was necessary to consolidate readings in order to incorporate the maximum amount of available data. The winter of 1999 was the latest winter season for which a large amount of data could be used. All wells with readings for this time period (October of 1998 to April of 1999) were included in the analysis to provide a data-intensive groundwater model. As shown in Figure 4-1, the DWR wells do not provide full coverage for the City. In ' } particular, they provide no data near the coast and harbor areas, areas that would be prime suspects for high water table and low sewer pipeline elevation combinations. The City _provided boring logs taken at Lift Station "A" in Sunset Beach and farther south along PCH. The ground water surface elevations taken from these logs supplement the DWR data. These boring log points are identified as "City Boring Log." From groundwater surface elevations taken at each of the points in Figure 4-1, a groundwater surface model was interpolated using GIS software. The software used an "Inverse Distance Weighting" algorithm to create the 3-dimensional surface from the known elevations of the wells and borings. The modeled groundwater surface is shown as a color-coded image, with different colors representing various groundwater surface elevations taken from mean sea level. In order to compare the groundwater surface model to the City's wastewater pipeline system, the pipe system's GIS layer was overlaid on the surface model. Record drawing extraction was used to establish reliable upstream and downstream invert elevations for pipes in areas where the groundwater table was within 20 ft. of the ground service. With these areas used as a reliable datum, all other inverts throughout the system were 4.3 014641.00 e o 00 0 R • • Legend • ® o -Owned Wastewater Pipes 0 City e ° mmGw 11-1 Monitoring Wells MCFAD EN AVE ""� .F ° 0 HB 8.,1,Lop, 5 0 DWR W,IIa Huntington Beach Ground Water Surface Model • Value 48 It 77, HEII AfE `.,.,,. Mean Sea level .247 it !a WARNE R AVE e ., E AVE:" • Pipelines Within 20'of Groundwater ° Material Diameter Pipes Length ".'0 ,TALBER AVE".d•= o 0 o ° (in) (Number) (If) b VCP 8 502 123,627 -��.� ."'t ® o VCP 10 11 2,763 ELLISAVE °�,r;,gJ.,4 e • 'z • • VCP 12 10 1,578 ;fz • o VCP 15 7 2,642 o VCP 18 8 2,861 GARFIELD AVE it- VCP 21 6 1,048 VCP 27 3 1,519 10 dWN:A VCP 30 3 1,142 a" '\c � � �^I, -r:�;t.;ti`�;`re�'�Ysr `t Total 551 137,955 Nyam' ADA S, ^��9,F,9';`• >±;, rti;rl DIANAFS LISAV ilo. ate • TLANT AVEb H MILT` �- Kennedy/Jenks Consultants / N! Engineers&Scientists NOT TO SCALE /: `z.; City of Huntington Beech Sewer System Master Plan KJ 014641.00 Potential Groundwater Infiltration Analysis Figure 4.1 t vertically smoothed using pipeline length and slope calculations to adjust the City's wastewater facilities to a reliable datum. GIS analysis was used to determine the distance between the downstream invert elevation and the groundwater surface model at the same location. The results of the pipeline network and groundwater overlay analysis are also shown on Figure 4-1. As shown, there are four pockets within the City where it is believed that the groundwater surface is within 20 feet of the City's wastewater pipelines. These areas have a reasonable potential for infiltration during times of particularly high groundwater, as might be created by a significant wet weather event. A summary table of pipeline length, diameter, and material of the identified facilities is also depicted in this figure. TIDAL-INFLUENCED POTENTIAL I&I PROBLEM AREAS While the O&M-identified and groundwater-influenced areas of concern were qualitative in nature, potential tidal-influenced problem areas can be more quantitatively evaluated. i This evaluation can be performed in specific areas by correlating the tidal influence in each tributary area to the estimated volume of wastewater pumped through each of the lift stations that serve the harbor area of the City. The City provided daily run times for each of its lift stations for calendar year 2001. By correlating this run time with the City-provided lift station capacities, an estimate of daily wastewater pumped for each facility can be derived. To identify the pipeline systems that may be under the influence of tidal conditions, an analysis of the gravity tributary flow to each lift station must be identified. As such, the analysis subtracts out the estimated upstream lift station flows so that only gravity tributary flow in each tributary area is evaluated. This procedure prevents double counting the estimated pumped wastewater volume, avoids the misinterpretation of data associated with the potential transfer of an I&I problem from an upstream to a downstream system, and isolates the potential I&I problem to the local gravity-based tributary area served by each lift station. The location and connectivity of the City's wastewater lift station network, previously shown in Chapter 3 as Figure 3-3, was used to identify the impact of upstream lift station facilities. s 4.4 014641.00 1 Two important factors were derived during the conduct of this analysis. First, It should be noted that for the second half of 2001, Lift Station No. 4, Station 'A," was being rebuilt. During this time, all flows entering this station were pumped by temporary pumps, for which no records were kept. Thus, part of the study period includes no data for Lift Station "A." However, because Lift Station "A" pumps directly into Lift Station "B," all flows from Lift Station "A" are accounted for in the latter's flow. For the purposes of this study, the tributary areas of these two lift stations have been merged. Because precipitation was anticipated to be an inflow and infiltration influence, it was necessary to utilize a dry-weather time frame to isolate tidal influence on daily volumes pumped by each station. Analysis of the NOAA National Weather Service data given in Figure 4-2 (see following section for more complete description of this data) indicated that August and September of 2001 were dry-weather months for the City. As discussed, the City's lift station run time was a key component of the tidal influence analysis. To provide a high correlation to daily diurnal tidal activity, continuous recording data during a 24-hour period for each lift station was desired. However, the City's lift f station O&M run time data was only available on a daily basis. Since daily lift station volumes do not have the precision to show the influence of daily tidal fluctuation, the daily high tide lift station volumes were analyzed in comparison to the average monthly fluctuations in daily high tide. Figure 4-3 shows the plot of daily high tide that was used in the analysis. Detailed tide records are not kept at every harbor; Huntington Harbour has no publicly available tide records. The Port of Los Angeles (LA) had 6-minute tidal data available, as did the pier at La Jolla in San Diego County. Comparison of the data from these two sources showed that tide magnitude did not differ, but that tide phase differed by about 15 minutes. From this comparison, it was concluded that the tidal magnitude in Huntington Beach is comparable to that of LA, and the phase would differ by less than 15 minutes, leaving LA tidal data as a suitable proxy. A core component of the tidal analysis is the establishment of a low-tide, dry-weather baseline volume for each lift station. Plotting the daily lift station volumes indicated that there were statistically significant differences between weekend and weekday pump 4.5 014641.00 Rainfall(in) O O N N W W A O (31 O {Jl O UT O Ui O CT O O OO O O O O O O I/1/2001 1/15/2001 i 1/29/2001 v 2/12/2001 1 2/26/2001 D 3/12/2001 x 3/26/2001 a 4/9/2001 cc co 4/23/2001 v 5/7/2001 D 0 5/21/2001 6/4/2001 v 6/18/2001 `D o 7/2/2001 3 m 7/16/2001 7/30/2001 v 8/13/2001 v 1 8/27/2001 9/10/2001 9/24/2001 v 10/8/2001 0 10/22/2001 11/5/2001 < 11/19/2001 m d W m m N 12/3/2001 S qo O N ' 12/17/2001 N N' 12/31/2001 - N N �n d S T. 5.00 4.50 b 4.00 3.50 o GG CD Q?\ 3.00 Q m i cQ c E 2.50 bee 0� 2.00 - t �� e V LL bob 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 08/01/01 08/11/01 08/21/01 08/31/01 09/10/01 09/20/01 09/30/01 Date Kennedy/Jenks Consultants —-O—•Daily High Tide Engineers&Scientists City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Master Plan KJ 014641.00 Daily High Tide Port of LA Figure 4-9 volumes. A summary of the numerical differences is provided in Table 4-1. Each station's weekday volumetric average over the period August 1 to September 30 is shown in the first column. The weekend average for the same period is shown in the second column, followed by the percentage difference between the two. The final column is a Z-value assigned to the difference between the weekday and weekend average, based on a two-grouped Z-test. Although the conditions of a statistical Z-test do not strictly apply to this data, the Z-value for a given lift station gives broad indication of the degree of randomness of the difference. The high number of Z-values above three for this data indicates that lift station patterns are significantly different between weekends and weekdays in the City. Accordingly, an analysis that is based on lift station volumetric totals should recognize this variation and incorporate the appropriate data set in any analytical comparisons. As shown on Figure 4-3, the days with the lowest and highest daily high tides for the ? August/September period are August 9 and August 18, respectively. Since August 18 is a weekend, August 17 was used in the comparison to maintain the weekday-to-weekday consistency of the two data sets. Utilizing the day prior to highest daily tide should have minimal impact on the tidal influence analysis. The lift station volumes for August 9 and August 17 are provided in Table 4-2. August 9 represents the lowest daily high tide of the study period, August 17 the highest. The percentage difference between the two can be seen in the third column. As highlighted in the table, Lift Stations No. 3, No. 8, and No. 25 indicate a noticeable increase in pump volume between the lower and higher tide cycles. As can be seen in Figure 3-3, these lift stations serve the harbor area, in which the trenchless rehabilitation program had not been completed as of August 2001. As such, the analysis performed herein confirms the apparent need to rehabilitate these areas and provides a general baseline methodology to measure the effectiveness of future facility improvements. 4.6 014641.00 Table 4-1 Lift Station Dry Weather Baseline Conditions August/September 2001 Gross Gross Net Net Net Net Station Station Weekday Average Weekend Average Weekday Average Weekend Average Difference Z-value Number Name (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (gpd) (%) 1 Graham 149,281 166,549 149,281 166,549 12 10 2 Humoldt 96,517 105,677 96,517 105,677 9 1 3 Station "E" 14,552 13,772 14,552 13,772 -5 1 5 Davenport 51,467 52,432 51,467 52,432 2 0 6 Edgewater 327,066 334,703 327,066 334,703 2 3 4/7(2) Station "A'T'B" 470,433 536,893 444,219 512,196 15 1 8 Station "C" 774,498 831,493 304,064 294,600 -3 0 9 Station "D" 2,737,172 2,755,680 1,584,141 1,537,052 -3 1 10 Algonquin 830,037 971,133 396,012 524,966 33 2 11 Lark 22,373 24,399 22,373 24,399 9 2 13 Slater 433,126 470,443 433,126 470,443 9 7 14 Ellis 261,879 272,567 261,879 272,567 4 3 15 Beach 45,662 50,291 45,662 50,291 10 7 16 Adams 62,516 68,860 62,516 68,860 10 7 17 Brookhurst 440,975 472,747 440,975 472,747 7 3 18 Altanta 135,610 126,911 135,610 126,911 -6 1 19 Bushard 101,664 105,924 101,664 105,924 4 1 20 Speer 25,786 11,067 25,786 11,067 -57 5 21 McFadden 73,567 77,072 73,567 77,072 5 2 22 Saybrook 434,026 446,167 152,376 152,601 0 0 23 New Britain 74,667 80,672 74,667 80,672 8 4 24 Edwards 328,983 348,282 156,788 166,800 6 2 25 Edinger 185,133 187,889 57,073 70,747 24 2 26 Brighton 172,195 181,483 172,195 181,483 5 2 28 Coral Cay 11,663 10,926 11,663 10,926 -6 3 29 Trinidad 128,060 117,142 128,060 117,142 -9 2 (1) Z-value higher than 3 reflects strong potenial for non-random variation (2) Pumping statistics combined because no data available for Station#4 during study period. Note: Net values reflect local tributary gravity flows only. Gross values include upstream lift station flows. See Figure 3-4 for station connectivity. Table 4-2 Tidal Influence on Lift Station Volume August/September 2001 Gross Gross Net Net Net Station Station Lower Tide Cycle Higher Tide Cycle Lower Tide Cycle Higher Tide Cycle Difference Number Name 8/9/2001 ( pd) 8/17/2001 (g d) 8/9/2001 ( pd) 8/17/2001 ( d) (%) 2 Humoldt 80,885 83,674 80,885 83,674 3 3 Station "E" 14,405 22,808 14,405 22,808 58 5 Davenport 49,739 47,826 49,739 47,826 -4 4/7"' Station "A"/"B" 510,540 486,420 483,184 452,100 -6 8 Station "C" 772,212 807,313 261,672 320,893 23 9 Station "D" 2,732,400 2,829,600 1,578,296 1,647,709 4 10 Algonquin 1,014,000 990,000 598,091 557,586 -7 25 Edinger 176,305 183,501 68,097 76,796 13 28 Coral Cay 12,951 11,512 12,951 11,512 -11 29 Trinidad 108,208 106,705 108,208 106,705 -1 (1) Pumping statistics combined because no data available for PS#4 during study period. Note: Net values reflect local tributary gravity flows only. Gross values include upstream lift station flows. �I PRECIPITATION-INFLUENCED POTENTIAL I&I PROBLEM AREAS Inflow and infiltration studies are generally performed by analyzing measured wastewater flow data for the impact of wet weather conditions. The City's field flow monitoring program is discussed in Chapter 5. For a desktop study that does not install rain gauges or flow monitors into the field, such data must come from routinely measured parameters within the City. As discussed in the previous section, lift station data provides a baseline of pump output. This run time data for wet weather conditions provides the basis for changes in dry versus wet weather flows. Precipitation information must be taken from routinely monitored rain gauges as close as possible to the City. As the volume pumped in each lift station is available on a daily basis, the precipitation information should be as well. No source providing such data within the City limits was found. The only sites found providing daily precipitation back to 2001 were those monitored by the National Weather Service (NWS). Since the NWS had several sites in communities surrounding the City, a composite reading of six NWS rain gauges from around the City would provide the ' best representative data. The composite reading is accurate enough to determine when - ) the City is under wet weather conditions, but not accurate enough to determine I&I as a function of depth of rainfall. Figure 4-4 shows the location of these rain gauges relative to the City. As shown, the six gauges geographically surround the City. Figure 4-5 shows daily rainfall for the six gauges, plotted for January and February 2001. Based on the location of these gauges, it can be reasonably assumed that precipitation events that left significant amounts of precipitation at each of the six meters on a particular day also left precipitation within the City that day. January 11 and February 13, both weekdays, met these criteria and were chosen to represent the wet weather data utilized herein. Data limitations require the assumption that uniform rainfall was received across all applicable tributary areas in the City. Lift station totals for these two days were contrasted with the totals for the weekday dry weather baselines established in the previous section (Table 4-1). The percentage difference between the two wet weather events and the baseline conditions are included. The percentage difference columns demonstrate the varying degrees of lift station response to the wet weather conditions. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 4-3. 4.9 014641.00 Santa Monica Pier Legend ® NWS Rain Stations LAX (� ® �_`J Huntington Beach Anaheim Long Beach Airport N Santa Ana Newport Beach NOT TO SCALE Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers&Scientists City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Master Plan KJ 014641.00 Avalon ® NWS Rain Gauge Stations Figure 4.4 Rainfall(in) O O N N W p A A O Cfl O O U7 O U1 O U7 O O O O O O O O O O 1/1/2001 D 1/3/2001 o0 i/5/2001 ] I 1./7j2001 I I I X 1;9/2001 1/il/2001 1 � o 1/13/2001 73 a, 1/15/2001 m v 1/17/2001 D 1/19/2001 0 1/21/2001 D 1/23/2001 E 1/25/2001 m 3 1/27/2001 f 4 1/29/2001 1/31/2001 ;v v 2/2/2001 2/4/2001 2/6/2001 0 0 2/8/2001 2/10/2001 CD 2/12/2001 2/14/2001 2/16/2001 2/18/2001 € co 2/20/2001 a 21221201, M CD m Cam. 2/24/2001 A T E ' H _ 0 2/26/2001 N 7 n'< a35 2. C c I _ —' f� 2/28/200 1 (p N V m N � Table 4-3 Dry Weather vs Wet Weather Comparison Net Net Gross Gross Gross Net Net Net Wet Weather Wet Weather Station Station Average Weekday Wet Weather Wet Weather Average Weekday Wet Weather Wet Weather Difference Difference Number Name Dry Weather 1/11/2001 2/1312001 Dry Weather 1/11/2001 2/13/2001 111112001 211312001 ( pd) ( pd) (gpd ( pd) ( pd) pd %) %) 1 Graham 149,281 187,977 167,091 149,281 187,977 167,091 26% 12% 2 Humboldt 96,517 128,300 120,862 96,517 128,300 120,862 33% 25% 3 Station"E" 14,552 21.007 19,207 14,552 21,007 19,207 44% 32% 5 Davenport 51,467 97,566 70,783 51,467 97,566 70,783 90% 38% 6 Edgewater 327,066 626,500 550,888 327,066 626,500 550,888 92% 68% 4/7") Station"A"/"B" 470,433 944,700 775,860 444,219 900,669 736,987 103% 66% 8 Station "C" 774,498 1,389,982 1,116,197 304,064 445,282 340,337 46% 12% 9 Station "D" 2,737,172 5,767,200 4,590,000 1,584,141 3,653,153 2,852,132 131% 80% 10 Algonquin 830,037 1,188,000 1,200,000 396,012 524,526 609,145 32% 54% 11 Lark 22,373 38,183 26,952 22,373 38,183 26,952 71% 20% 13 Slater 433,126 609,900 642,000 433,126 609,900 642,000 41% 48% 14 Ellis 261,879 306,000 290,700 261,879 306,000 290,700 17% 11% 15 Beach 45,662 53,091 53,091 45,662 53,091 53,091 16% 16% 16 Adams 62,516 71,280 92,400 62,516 71,280 92,400 14% 48% 17 Brookhurst 440,975 599,040 714,240 440,975 599,040 714,240 36% 62% 18 Atlanta 135,610 176,449 205,858 135,610 176,449 205,858 30% 52% 19 Bushard 101,664 102,060 103,950 101,664 102,060 103,950 0% 2% 20 Speer 25,786 715,200 182,400 25,786 715,200 182,400 2674% 607% 21 McFadden 73,567 149,678 113,218 73,567 149,678 113,218 103% 54% 22 Saybrook 434,026 663,474 590,855 152,376 229,339 201,937 51% 33% 23 New Britain 74,667 84,661 92,162 74,667 84,661 92,162 13% 23% 24 Edwards 328,983 460,821 456,021 156,788 217,778 191,843 39% 22% 25 Edinger 185,133 305,835 268,056 57,073 75,894 84,704 33% 48% 26 Brighton 172,195 243,044 264,178 172,195 243,044 264,178 41% 53% 28 Coral Cay 11,663 23,024 19,666 11,663 23,024 19,666 97% 69% 29 Trinidad 128,060 229,942 183,352 128,060 229,942 183,352 80% 43% (1) Pumping statistics combined because no data available for PS#4 during study period. Note: Net values reflect local tributary gravity flows only. Gross values include upstream lift station flows. As shown, the tributary areas serving six lift stations appear to have been significantly influenced by the representative rainfall events. To assist the City in prioritizing further field I&I investigation, the tributary area pipeline characteristics associated with each of these six facilities are evaluated and reflected in Table 4-4. Figure 4-6 displays the lift station tributary areas for which the characteristics were calculated. Each lift station was assigned a priority ranking based on the degree of potential I&I. This potential was based on the amount of increased volume pumped. The data from whichever of the two wet weather events produced the most response was used in the calculation. To check the sensitivity to the prioritized ranking based on pumped volume to basin characteristics, the additional volume pumped was subsequently normalized. The normalization process was performed by dividing the additional volume of flow by the amount of pipe in the tributary area, expressed in inch-diameter miles. Since the normalized analysis resulted in an identical ranking as the non-normalized data, it is concluded that the prioritized ranking derived herein is based on both the degree of the potential I&I problem areas (normalized findings) as well as the total quantity of the potential I&I values (total increased pumped volume). { SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Based on the preceding desktop analysis, it recommended that the City pursue the following actions concerning each area of potential inflow and infiltration: 1. O&M-Identified — The City has a trenchless rehabilitation program underway that is designed to remediate the potential problem areas identified by City O&M staff. An element of this program includes an evaluation of the effectiveness current and forthcoming trenchless rehabilitation activities. 2. Groundwater-Influenced — It is recommended that the City confirm the depth of the wastewater pipelines and attempt to further quantify the groundwater levels. Upon completion of this activity, the City may need to conduct additional localized I&I studies in these areas. City staff performing video inspections during known high groundwater conditions may provide a cost effective approach to resolving this area of concern. 4.11 014641.00 TABLE 4-4 PRECIPITATION-INFLUENCED POTENTIAL I&I RANKINGS Station Pipe Average Weekday Increased Pumping Inch- Normalized Increased Rank Number Length Dry Weather Response(l) Diameter Miles Pumping (If) (gpd) (gpd) (idm) gpd/idm) 4/7 9,530 510,565 525,935 14.44 36,425 2 6 14,132 327,014 299,386 24.60 12,168 4 9 13,578 96,604 459,488 24.15 19,023 3 28 7,390 11,663 11,361 11.07 1,026 6 20 3,414 32,233 861,767 5.13 167,865 1 21 10,298 73,607 76,153 15.60 4,880 5 (1) Represents increased pumping due to the greater of the two wet weather events shown in Table 4-3. (2) Pumping statistics combined because no data available for Station#4 during study period. R Cy SOLSA AVE in N MCFAD EN AVE LINGE AVE Legend N City-Owned Wastewater Pipes Arc.417 Rank 2 N u HEIL A E ' = U Tributary Area fi Rank 4 JI �aa Tributary Area 9 Rank 6 S WARNIE R AVE' Tributary Area 20 Rank 1 uo e7 t- m Tributary Area 21 Rank 5 W w Tributary Area 28 Rank 6 SLATER AVE Lift Stations o a - (7 )AAL6'ER1 AVE N O ELLISAVE i.o '< m L _ ^Z ' U r ¢ I GARFIELDAVE Q0 �n ^ - p YORK OWN AV ¢ �1' �• ADA SAVE N I DIANAPLIS AV O �CF_ h _ 0 'H TLANT gVEO eX � H MILTON VE NOT TO SCALE ANNI J`AVE Kennedy/Jenks Consultants / Engineers&Scientists / �"•�7� City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Master Plan KJ 014641.00 Rank of Lift Station Tributary Areas With Apparent Infiltration Figure 4.6 3. Tidal Influence — For subsequent studies, it is recommended that continuous metering be performed at each of the three harbor lift stations (Lift Stations No. 3, No. 8, and No. 25) that indicated a potential tidal influence. Continuous dry weather metering through a typical high/low tide cycle should provide the necessary data to more precisely evaluate the response to daily low and high tide conditions. As previously discussed, a comprehensive lift station evaluation and flow isolation testing of the harbor area facilities is recommended to verify configuration and flow values. 4. Rainfall Influence— It is recommended that additional wet weather flow monitoring be performed for basin flow isolation in the six areas identified as potential I&I problems. 5. General - Prior to encumbering the necessary funds to implement the Desktop I&I Study findings, the City should verify the accuracy of the cornerstone data used herein. Verification of the accuracy of the pump output capacity and pump run time data will provide additional confidence to the lift station based findings and recommendation presented in this chapter. It is recommended that the City perform a comprehensive evaluation of the pump capacities and efficiencies at each of the City's lift stations. A budget of$75,000 is estimated to perform this analysis. s 4.13 014641.00 4 Chapter 5 Wastewater Loads and Design Criteria L ) CHAPTER 5 WASTEWATER LOADS AND DESIGN CRITERIA This chapter outlines the development of wastewater loadings and design criteria used to evaluate the City's wastewater system. These parameters are based primarily on information provided by the City, other surrounding municipalities, and engineering standard practices. The data developed and evaluated herein was used to establish flow rates for various types of land uses within the City. It subsequently provides support for the calibration of the wastewater system hydraulic model, and the projection of future wastewater system flows within the City's service area. The future wastewater flows are used in subsequent chapters to evaluate the adequacy of existing collection/pumping system facilities and to identify the need for additional facilities to meet future loading conditions. �- DEVELOPMENT OF WASTEWATER FLOW CRITERIA The development of wastewater loading factors is an important element of this master plan. These factors are essential components of a capacity analysis and provide the basis for future demands on the utility system. Various sources and methods were used to develop these loading factors and appropriate wastewater criteria to be used in this study. The sources and results of this analysis are discussed in the following sections. Prior Master Planning and Surrounding Community Criteria A fundamental consideration in the development of the updated master plan wastewater loadings is the use of prior studies and the criteria used. These data sources provide a historical perspective of loading conditions and establish a benchmark for the development of updated values. During the conduct of this master plan, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants reviewed the 1977 and 1978 Master Plans for the City, the 1989 OCSD Trunk Sewer Conveyance Study, and the City's 1995 Wastewater System Master Plan. In addition to these master plans, current 5.1 014641.00 criteria were also obtained and reviewed for the OCSD and the City of Newport Beach. Since Kennedy/Jenks Consultants performed the City's prior Wastewater System Master Plan in 1995, this research was focused on updated values related to changing local conditions. The wastewater generation factors derived in the 1995 Wastewater System Master Plan are shown in Table 5-1. TABLE 5-1 1995 WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW FACTORS Land Use Category Average Wastewater Flow Generation Factor Residential Low Density (0-7 Du/Ac) 1,800 gpad Medium (8-15 Du/Ac) 3,300 gpad Medium - High (16-25 Du/Ac) 3,800 gpad High - (25+ Du/Ac) 4,900 gpad Commercial 3,000 gpad Industrial 3,900 gpad Open Space 200 gpad Schools 3,600 gpad or 20 g/st/d Temporary Flow Monitoring Program A focused wastewater flow monitoring program was conducted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, in association with ADS Environmental, Inc. (ADS), to assess wastewater flow conditions in the City. There were three objectives of the temporary flow monitoring program: 1) obtain measured data during wet weather conditions to evaluate the impact of rainfall dependent inflow and infiltration (I&I) on the system, 2) derive existing wastewater generation factors for specific residential and non-residential land uses, and 3) establish average and peak wastewater values at key locations within the system for calibration of the computerized hydraulic model. 5.2 014641.00 Based on these prescribed purposes, a flow monitoring program was prepared using available City land use maps, sewer system atlas maps, GIS digital utility configuration data, discussions with City staff, and an integration of the I&I program underway by the OCSD in the City sewer service area. The program specified the appropriate locations (manholes) and purpose for each of the 12 temporary monitoring stations. The location of these monitoring stations and the graphical representation of its tributary area is shown on Figure 5-1- The location and tributary areas of the OCSD flow monitoring program is provided on Figure 5-2. Facility maps and field conditions were used to finalize the flow monitoring plan. The 12 temporary flow monitoring sites were field reviewed for physical and hydraulic suitability by ADS prior to installation. All meters were installed and operational by 13 March 2002 and remained in place for 28 days in an effort to obtain wet weather data. As previously discussed, since 2002 had been a relatively dry winter., the March/April time period was_ perceived as the final opportunity to capture wet weather data for this study. The 12 ( monitoring facilities were installed, tested, and calibrated to record minimum, average, and peak wastewater flows. The monitoring program recorded flow values from 14 March through 10 April 2002 at a 15-minute frequency throughout the 28-day program duration. Due to equipment difficulties, the monitoring program was extended to 19 April for two of the monitoring locations. Although data obtained from temporary flow monitoring stations may provide inconsistent measurements associated with physical and environmental conditions, it is a common method of developing wastewater flow data. The industry standard of flow monitoring results is +/- 5 to 10 percent of actual flow values. This variance is typically attributed to the cleanliness of the pipeline facilities and the frequency and degree of localized solids deposition. The results of the flow monitoring program for each of the 12 monitored sites is summarized in Appendix B. A discussion of findings associated with the key objectives of the temporary flow monitoring program is provided as follows: 5.3 014641.00 F 1 R 4O R N N E W DINGE N < HB 11 = W NR AVE N N H B- W w o a ATER A E c� w - _z ap c O ALBER AVE N z z E S avE a m w x z U a GARFIELD AVE m N B- OORK OwN^A'„ a �I HE AD AVE O::'h"• Y ti I DIANAF LIS AV TLANT AVE iO < HB H ILTO VE 6H 5 ANNIN AVE LEGEND © FLOW MONITORS MONITOR BASINS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants s 9 Engineers&Scientists 10 11 2-Ye f City of Huntington Beach N �, # MODELED PIPE Sewer System Master Plan DPI KJ 014641.00 --EPI -PRE LOCAL CITY FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM NOT TO SCALE Figure 5-1 011, Ar. 06 s�cg ........... A )71 A EJER AVE 4, S Vey a GARFIELD AVE I OWN M AD SAVE 7 DIANAP)LIS AV 0 r" kAVEdm OCO 15 , .00 073< H MILTON WE 00074 LEGEND MNIN( AVE ADS/COUNTY METER MODELED PIPE ®DPI —EPI —PRE ADS/COUNTY METER BASIN 00062 00063 00067 00068 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 00069 00070 Engineers&Scientists 00071 00072 14& City of Huntington Beach 00073 N Sewer System Master Plan 00074 KJ 014641.00 00075 OC 139 LOCAL OCSD MONITORING PROGRAM NOT TO SCALE Figure 5-2 Rainfall Dependent Wastewater Flows One purpose of the temporary flow monitoring program was to obtain measured data during wet weather conditions to evaluate the impact of rainfall dependent I&I on isolated areas of the City's wastewater system. Unfortunately, the winter of 2002 was relatively dry. While February, March, and even early April are typically wet-weather months in the City, only minimal rainfall was recorded during the flow monitoring program. Rainfall gauges were installed to quantify rainfall values for this project at three locations. Rainfall occurred on two occasions during the study period: March 17, and March 23. The results of these events at each of the three rain gauge monitoring stations installed for this study are shown in Table 5-2. To assess the impact of these events on wastewater flows, monitoring data was evaluated to identify changes in average daily flows. The results of this evaluation are also shown in Table 5-2. As shown, there was little or no change in wastewater flows associated with these recorded rainfall events. As such, the data obtained during this field study did not provide conclusive evidence regarding the potential for significant inflow and infiltration (I&I) on the City's wastewater utility system. Given that one of the purposes associated with the temporary flow monitoring program was to assess the impacts of rainfall on the City's wastewater system, these minimal rainfall events yielded statistically insignificant results. The appropriateness of incorporating I&I allowances in the evaluation of the City's wastewater system is discussed in a subsequent section of this chapter. Land Use Wastewater Generation Factors- As previously discussed, one purpose of the flow monitoring program is to quantify wastewater generation factors for specific land uses within the City. Given the significant cost of field flow monitoring, no monitoring stations were specifically dedicated to accomplishing this purpose. Rather, the monitoring program was mostly focused on gathering basin information for I&I. As such, this purpose was integrated with the other monitoring objectives. 5A 014641.00 TABLE 5-2 RAINFALL DURING WASTEWATER MONITORING PROGRAM Rain Events Rainfall Monitoring Stations 3/17/2002 3/2312002 Site# General Location (in) (in) 1 Springdale&405 Freeway 0.11 0.040 2 Maryland&Goldenwest 0.13 0.10 3 Banning&Magnolia/Bushard 0.070 N/A Monitoring Results on Dates of Rainfall Events 3/17/2002(a) 3/23/2002 a) Wet Weather Weekend Monitor Nearest Major Avg.Flow Peak Flow Avg.Flow Peak Flow Avg.Flow Peak Flow Site# Intersection (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) 1 Graham&Edinger 0.407 0.623 0.531 0.916 0.469 0.7695 2 Edgewater&Courtney 0.837 1.444 0.862 1.587 0.8495 1.5155 3 Shorewood&Adams 0.664 1.143 0.676 1.169 0.67 1.156 4 Warner&PCH 0.741 1.187 -- -- 0.741 1.187 5 Hamilton&Bushard 0.91 1.597 0.983 1.579 0.9465 1.588 6 Goldenwest&Slater 0.357 0.818 0.341 0.827 0.349 0.8225 7 Bushard&Hamilton 0.151 0.296 0.147 0.310 0.149 0.303 8 Lola&Yorktown 0.625 1.197 0.680 1.167 0.6525 1.182 9 Newland&Compton 0.193 0.351 0.190 0.334 0.1915 0.3425 10 Ofella&Palm 0.523 1.013 0.514 1.012 0.5185 1.0125 11 Newland&Warner 0.223 0.347 0.215 0.361 0.219 0.354 12 Ofella&Palm 0.166 0.311 0.176 0.329 0.171 0.32 Dry Weather Weekend (Dates:3/16,3/24,3/30,3/31) Wet vs.Dry Weekend Flows Monitor Nearest Major Avg.Flow Peak Flow Avg.Flows Peak Flows Site# Intersection (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (%)(b) (MGD) (%)(b) 1 Graham&Edinger 0.4525 0.7055 0.0165 3.518 0.064 8.317 2 Edgewater&Courtney 0.8284 1.5715 0.0211 2.484 -0.056 -3.695 3 Shorewood&Adams 0.66925 1.1945 0.00075 0.112 -0.0385 -3.330 4 Warner&PCH 0.7413 1.3307 -0.0003 -0.0450 -0.1437 -12.103 5 Hamilton&Bushard 0.90825 1.508 0.03825 4.041 0.08 5,038 6 Goldenwest&Slater 0.3505 0.872 -0.0015 -0.430 -0.0495 -6.018 7 Bushard&Hamilton 0.14945 0.2845 -0.00045 -0.302 0.0185 6.106 8 Lola&Yorktown 0.639 1.15825 0.0135 2.069 0.02375 2.009 9 Newland&Compton 0.194 0.351 -0.0025 -1.305 -0.0085 -2.482 10 Ofella&Palm 0.51425 0.94425 0,00425 0.820 0.06825 6.741 11 Newland&Warner 0.221 0.42625 -0.002 -0.913 -0.07225 -20.410 12 Ofella&Palm 0.16675 0.33725 0.00425 2.485 -0.01725 -5.391 (')Since 3/17/02 and 3/23/02 were weekends,only weekend flow values were used in this analysis )")Negative value indicates less flow during the wet day weekend than during the dry day weekend. To accomplish this objective, the resulting flow monitoring data for each site was correlated with the acreage of each tributary land use. The land use loading factors (variables) were calculated by simultaneously solving the flow equations for each monitoring site. While the simultaneous equation process is a commonly used practice to calculate flow generation factors with mixed land flow data, it can result in variable results. The presence of pumping facilities that were located in some of the sub-basins further increased the calculation variability. As such, the results derived from this process must be considered with other general criteria to produce reliable results. Average and Peak Criteria. In addition to providing supporting information to the development of land use generation factors, the temporary flow monitoring data provided additional data for the development of the City's peak wastewater conditions. The resulting average to peak relationship (weekend only) for each monitoring site was previously reflected in Table 5-2. The complete peak to average relationship for each monitoring site is summarized in Appendix B, with full data in Volume II of the Appendices. The development of the City's peaking factor for evaluating the wastewater system is rr hti�� k further discussed in 2 subsequent section of this chapter. Water to Wastewater Return Factors The City's 2000 Water System Master Plan was reviewed to further evaluate the findings of the temporary flow monitoring wastewater generation factors. To perform this test, the Water System Master Plan loading factors for each land use type were reviewed for conversion to wastewater factors using typical return-to-sewer factors. This review resulted in lower duty factors for the lower density residential categories than anticipated. Since the Water System Master Plan methodology was based on using eight billing system categories to create its general demand factors, it is believed that the duty factors derived herein based on account-level water demands and field measured information provides a more appropriate representation of wastewater duty factors in the City. 5.6 014641.00 UNIT DESIGN FLOW FACTORS Based on the previous evaluation, the flow monitoring findings and prior study results were used as the primary data source to establish the City's design land use wastewater loading factors. The proposed land use loadings for average dry weather flow was based on a compilation of all of the evaluated data sources. The resulting 2002 wastewater flow generation factors are grouped and summarized in Table 5-3. The specific flow generation factors derived for the 35 land uses utilized herein is provided in Appendix D. TABLE 5-3 RECOMENDED 2002 WASTEWATER DESIGN FLOW FACTORS Land Use Category Summarized Wastewater Flow Generation Factors Residential Low Density (0-7 Du/Ac) 1,600 gpad ' j Medium (8-15 Du/Ac) . 3,200 gpad Medium- High (16-25 Du/Ac) 4,200 gpad High - (25+ Du/Ac) 5,400 gpad Commercial 2,000 gpad Industrial 3,500 gpad Open Space 200 gpad Schools 3,600 gpad or 20 g/st/d The development of these design unit flow factors utilizes flow monitoring data, water utility billing data, prior planning studies, and discussions with the City. Correlating these unit flow factors with the City's GIS-based land use data file provides a simple means of generalizing the distribution of sewage flows within the City's collection system under design loading conditions. Utilizing the land use categories and flow values provided in Appendix D and point load input values of high dischargers will provide a representative simulation of the loading data for input to the collection system model. 5.7 014641.00 While the City is virtually built-out, it is important to integrate changes in current conditions into future loading factors. As such, the future loading factors were developed that integrated the following criteria: Residential Unit Factors - Future, Existing developed units were compared to maximum allowable units based on individual parcel zoning. Accordingly, where appropriate, unit flow factors were increased to simulate allowable increases in DU densities. Consistent with City planning data and the 2000 Water System Master Plan findings, future loadings were increased based on increases in pph and future residential dwellings. As such, residential wastewater generation factors were increased by six percent. Non-Residential Unit Factors - Future Changes in non-residential unit factors are subject to many factors. Among these are the allowable changes in building heights, redevelopment trends associated with interior water use, changes in local employment, and changes in local population using local commercial services. While the future non- residential duty factors were held constant in the City's 2000 Water System Master Plan, it = , is recommended herein that future non-residential unit factors be increased by the change in local population. Accordingly, the six percent increase was also applied to future non- residential wastewater generation factors. Vacant Land Design Criteria Vacant land was developed based on the maximum allowable zoning and projected person per household factors that are incorporated in the future design loading factors. These flow factors were subsequently input into the computer model to simulate future ADWF flow conditions. A discussion of the hydraulic modeling analysis is contained in Chapter 6. GENERAL CRITERIA The hydraulic analysis described in Chapter 6, compares collection system pipeline flows and lift station flows to calculated design capacities for those facilities to identify hydraulic deficiencies within the City's collection and pumping system. Accordingly, the design 5.8 014641.00 . t capacities and criteria developed in this section are used for system analysis in subsequent chapters. Peaking Factor Criteria Average flows entering the trunk collection systems are assessed by correlating the area of each land use type with its associated wastewater flow generation factors. However, a determination of the adequacy of the wastewater system is based upon the ability of the system to convey peak flows. Peak flow in any reach of the wastewater system is equivalent to the summation of all average flows upstream of the point in question and converted to peak flow by an empirical peak-to-average relationship. This relationship as expressed in the OCSD 1989 Master Plan Study is as follows: Qpeak = 1.78 (Qavg)0.92 (Q in mgd) This peaking factor equation was initially developed during preparation of the 1969 t :) Districts No. 3,and No. 7 (Huntington Beach) master plans and was reconfirmed by flow metering data gathered through the conduct of the 1989 study. This equation is nearly identical to the equation developed in the City's 1978 Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan. The City's 1978 Master Plan equation is as follows: Qpeak= 1.704 (Q.vg)0 892, (Q in mgd) The OCSD peaking equation was selected for the City's 1995 Wastewater study as it was based on more recent data and yielded slightly higher peak flows, resulting in a more conservative peak to average flow relationship. To accommodate future growth, today, OCSD utilizes a 2.5 factor for 8-inch pipe and a 2.0 factor for all other diameters. An equation that represented the current peak to average relationship within the City was derived based on the flow monitoring data obtained through the conduct of this study. This relationship is expressed as follows: Qpeak = 1.93 (Qaj-"98 (0 in mgd) 5.9 014641.00 �t This equation is proposed for the City's wastewater system and is illustrated in Figure 5-3. This equation is based on the data obtained during the recent flow monitoring activity performed for the City. As shown, the 2002 peaking factor provides additional peaking under low flow conditions. Figure 5-4 illustrates the application of the peak-to-average relationship to a hypothetical reach of the wastewater system. Inflow and Infiltration There are several commonly accepted practices used to estimate I&I. These practices include estimating I&I based on tributary area served (1,000-1,500 gpd/ac), tributary linear feet of pipeline based on diameter (14-28 gpd/inch dia/100 LF), or as a percentage of the average flow or pipeline capacity (typically 10-25 percent). The age and condition of underground facilities, groundwater elevation conditions relative to the location of underground utilities, and surface water drainage patterns are typical considerations used in developing appropriate I&I factors. I&I is generally quantified based on measured wastewater flows preceding, during, and following a wet weather event. As previously discussed, the temporary flow monitoring program conducted during this study was performed during a typically wet weather period. Unfortunately, only trace levels of rainfall were recorded during the conduct of the temporary flow monitoring program, resulting in negligible change in wastewater flows. To supplement the quantifiable results of a field flow monitoring program, a desk top I&I study was performed. This evaluation, described previously in Chapter 4, identified the potential for I&I in localized areas of the City. The premise of this finding is the fact that several of the City's lift stations incurred a significant increase in daily lift station run time on the day of a substantial rainfall event. In consideration of this finding, it is recommended that the City: Coordinate with OCSD for additional data and findings of its ongoing I&I evaluation in the City's service area. Wet weather data should be available from OCSD in the 5.10 014641.00 q ........ .__-.. ......._._.... .....- ----- ---------------- ----- 1.� 3.5 tat---- a 3 a , Qpk= 1.93Qav 0.898 LL a y. 0.5 ------ 0 —-- 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers&Scientists --- ; City of Huntington Beach ICU may Sewer System Master Plan —i—OCSD HB 1978 -�r•- Peak Dry Curve • Flow Monitoring Data KJ 014641.00 t Peaking Factor Figure 5-3 RELATIONSHIP SCHEMATIC Q,(AVERAGE) 02(AVERAGE) POINT OF IN FLOW POINT OF IN FLOW QdAVERAGE) TRUNK SEWER REACH 1 REACH 2 REACH 3 Q AV'& O Q A1O+Q O 1 Q AVGQ+Q+010 1 2 Q PlZ Q xP/A O Q PK(Q+Q)xP6 , Q PK(Q+Q+06xP/Al 2 Q Q xP/AAVG Q PK Q xP/AAVG Q w Q xP/AAVG LEGEND Q Q.q =2AVERAGE DAILY FLOW Q AVGAVERAGE FLOW FOR REACH Q PIZ PEAK FLOW FOR REACH PIA =PEAK TO AVERAGE RELATIONSHIP Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers&Scientists M�, City of Hun ingmn Beach � Sewer System Master Plan OO KJ 014641.00 AVERAGE AND PEAK DESIGN FLOW RELATIONSHIP SCHEMATIC Figure 5-4 l fall of 2003. • Perform a video inspection program to verify underground utility pipeline conditions and document the presence of any illegal storm drainage connections to the wastewater system, and • Perform additional I&I analysis during a future wet weather event to further quantify and isolate the rainfall dependent I&I condition in the City. This activity could be scheduled during the winter of 2003-04 to better utilize the OCSD and video inspection data. The combination of these proactive activities by the City should provide an effective and methodical implementation strategy for the City's I&I Reduction Program. The implementation strategy integrates the study work activities, focuses on the identified potential I&I problem areas, proceeds based on the prioritization of these potential problem areas, and concludes with the need to conduct specific subsequent Sanitary Sewer Evaluation Studies (SSES)to mitigate sources of I&I in the collection system. DESIGN/CAPACITY CRITERIA In analyzing a wastewater system, it is necessary to derive standards regarding the amount of flow that may be efficiently conveyed by a given wastewater pipeline. A cross- section of such a pipeline is shown in Figure 5-5. The area of the pipe has been divided into four sections, indicating the ratio of the depth of flow to the diameter of the pipe (D/d) at various locations. In general, the design and analysis of wastewater pipelines is based upon a D/d that will safely and efficiently convey wastewater from its point of origin to the treatment facilities. At the time of wastewater pipeline design, there is often some uncertainty as to future development patterns within the area to be served. To deal with this uncertainty, provision is usually made for some extra pipeline capacity to allow for the possibility of actual wastewater flows being slightly higher than the anticipated flows. 5.11 014641.00 =1 00 LY D F - AREA OF HYDRAULIC NSTABU Y d 085 ' AREA NEEDED FOR VENTILATION =0.75 AND FOR EMERGENCY CAPACITY (I&I) II D =050 c SAFE LOADING CAPACITY FOR GENERAL DESIGN EXISTING WASTEWATER LINES I CAPACITY FOR WASTEWATER LINES <18" DIA.* TYPICAL PIPELINE LOADING CONDITIONS * FOR WASTEWATER LINES > 18" CIA. A D/d AS LARGE AS 075 IS GENERALLY CONSIDERED SAFE. Kennedy,/Jenks Consultants Engineers&Scientists ° s City of Huntington Beach --�� Sewer System Master Plan P KJ 014641.00 TYPICAL PIPELINE LOADING CONDITIONS Figure 5-5 The National Clay Pipe Institute (NCPI) recommends that smaller pipelines generally be designed to flow at levels not exceeding half-full (D/d=0.50) during peak conditions, as shown in Zone I on Figure 5-5. For larger wastewater pipelines having an internal diameter greater than 18 inches, the tributary area is larger. Local deviations from design wastewater flows tend to balance one another for larger areas, resulting in a closer correlation of actual and design wastewater flows. Consequently, the NCPI recommends that these larger wastewater pipelines should be designed for a D/d not to exceed 0.75. In analyzing existing wastewater pipelines, it is usually unnecessary to allow for a large factor of safety. This is because tributary areas are largely built out, future development patterns are relatively certain, and flow rates can be attained by flow monitoring these facilities. Therefore, the wastewater pipelines may be flowing at levels above a design D/d of 0.50 and still be operating satisfactory. Zone III on Figure 5-5, has been reserved to handle emergency flows, such as storm water W, and provide for ventilation within the pipe. Zone IV, on Figure 5-5, should not be considered as an integral component of the pipeline capacity. This area is subject to variable hydraulic instability because the additional volume for flow is counteracted by the additional friction that occurs between the top, or soffit, of the wastewater pipeline and the fluid. Calculation of Design Capacity-Gravity Pipelines Design capacity of a pipeline shall be the calculated capacity of the pipeline using the Manning Equation. ADWF for each pipeline is derived from the computer model. The peaking factor is applied to ADWF to obtain peak dry weather flow (PDWF). Consistent with the criteria used for most built out communities, the design criteria used to evaluate the City's existing pipeline conditions are based on a PDWF that does not exceed 0.75 D/d. These criteria implicitly reserve the remaining pipeline capacity to accommodate flow variations and PWWF incurred during wet weather conditions. As discussed with City staff, the City's design criteria are used to evaluate and size the future facility requirements. These criteria are essentially based on the NCPI and 5.12 014641.00 acknowledge the potential for flow variations and levels of safety based on pipe size_ The City's wastewater flow design criteria is stated as follows: "The design peak flow rate inpipes 12" and smaller will be limited by the depth ratio of D/d = 0.5, 15" pipes D/d = 0.67, and 18" and larger pipes D/d = 0.75, where D/d is the ratio of calculated flow depth to pipe inside diameter. The hydraulic and financial implications of applying these evaluation criteria are evaluated in Chapter 6. The design capacity (Q) of collection system pipelines will be established using the continuity equation, the Manning Equation, and criteria as follows. The continuity equation for flow is Q =V A, where: Q = flow in cubic feet per second V= velocity in feet per second A= cross-sectional area of flow in square feet The Manning Equation used to estimate the flow velocity in gravity pipelines is V= (1.486/ n) R2j3 S112 where: V= velocity of flow in feet per second A= cross-sectional area of the pipe in square feet R = hydraulic radius in feet S = pipeline slope in feet of rise per foot of length n = Manning friction factor (for existing vitrified clay pipe is 0.013) Minimum Velocity. From an operational perspective, a minimum peak flow velocity of 2.0 feet per second (fps) at PDWF is desirable to adequately scour the pipeline and prevent significant solids deposition. Pipelines in the system that do not develop adequate cleansing velocity (flat pipelines, low spots, or pipelines with low flow) should be given priority status in the City's pipeline cleaning program. 5.13 014641.00 Calculation of Design Capacity—Lift Stations The evaluation of a wastewater lift station is based on two primary criteria. These criteria include the ability of the lift station to reliably pump the PWWF and wet well adequacy for pump cycling. Pumping Capacity. The design pump capacity requirement is consistent with the methodology used in the collection system model. A lift station will be considered over capacity if it cannot pump the PDWF with one pump out of service and the remaining pumps operating at 75 percent of the station's maximum pumping capacity. The remaining 25 percent capacity is allocated for I&I, reserve capacity contingency, and variation in wastewater flow. Standby power provisions are also an integral element of the lift station reliability. Wet Well Size/Cycling Requir .m .nt. Wet well adequacy for fixed speed pumps is analyzed in terms of maximum pump cycles per hour. Atypical pump motor is designed for a maximum of six starts or cycles per hour. If the motor is started more than six times in an hour, it may overheat the motor starters, causing them to wear prematurely and fail. The maximum number of cycles per hour corresponds to the minimum cycle time, which is calculated using the pumping rate, the wet well dimensions, and the pump on/off control points. The cross-sectional area of the wet well and the pump control points determine the operational wet well volume. For example, when the wastewater in the wet well reaches the pump's upper control point, the pump turns on and draws down the wet well wastewater level. When the wastewater level reaches the pump's lower control point, the pump turns off and the wet well begins to refill. The time between pump starts is the cycle time. The minimum cycle time occurs when the flow rate into the wet well is half the pumping rate. Under these conditions, the water level in the wet well rises between pump control points in x minutes, would be pumped down in x minutes, and the cycle time would be 2x minutes. 5.14 014641.00 Chapter 6 Wastewater System Evaluation CHAPTER 6 WASTEWATER SYSTEM EVALUATION This chapter evaluates the City's existing wastewater collection system's ability to convey existing peak wet weather flows from current land uses, and future peak wet weather flows associated with potential redevelopment and new development of vacant lands at the maximum permitted zoning densities. As previously discussed, flexibility for future redevelopment is established using a system-wide design contingency. The concept of a capacity contingency is a common consideration to account for the undefined size and location of future redevelopment projects. OVERVIEW The primary backbone wastewater infrastructure within the City limits is owned and operated by the OCSD. Consistent with the City's prior 1995 Master Plan and current City direction, the OCSD facilities were not included in the evaluation portion of this study as this plan was designed to assess the hydraulic adequacy of City-owned pipelines. Since the OCSD system provides the overall basin connectivity between City-owned pipelines, the City's wastewater system is hydraulically modeled as if it were a number of disconnected sub basins. Accordingly, the modeling hydraulic calculations were performed without the effect of a backwater analysis associated with OCSD connections. A combined City and OCSD analysis may be warranted during a future master plan update. The wastewater collection system is evaluated for existing and future conditions using a hydraulic model called Hydra, a steady state computer simulation model developed by Pizer, Inc. The model is developed using the physical system information obtained from the wastewater utility system and land use data defined in the City's GIS and further developed herein. Collection pipelines and lift stations are evaluated based on their ability to convey the projected peak wet weather flow. Land use type and acreage tributary to system manholes are then linked and average flows are calculated using the general and specific flow generation criteria presented in Chapter 5. 6.1 014641.00 Although the City's lift stations are included in the model for connectivity when appropriate, they are not evaluated by the hydraulic model. These facilities are evaluated separately, using the flow information developed by Hydra and City-provided facility data. Hydraulic deficiencies within the existing system are identified for current and future flow conditions and planning level recommendations are suggested to remediate these deficiencies. As discussed, a system-wide reserve capacity contingency is established in the model to provide flexibility for variations in flows and to accommodate future redevelopment projects. This contingency should provide flexibility for redevelopment within the City. Actual redevelopment projects should be evaluated by the City on a case-by-case basis. As such, some especially large or high density projects may require capacity improvements to provide adequate service. COLLECTION SYSTEM EVALUATION Model Overview ) The wastewater system hydraulic model (Hydra) transforms physical system information, flow generation criteria, and analytical criteria into a mathematical model that simulates hydraulic conditions in the wastewater system. Hydra is a steady state computer model that simulates the hydraulic conditions of the gravity flow collection system. The model calculates flows at each manhole from the associated tributary area and sums the flow along each flow path._In addition, the model calculates the capacity of each pipeline within the system and compares the pipeline capacity with the calculated flow to identify hydraulically deficient conditions and to size necessary improvements. Constructing a hydraulic model requires the development and integration of three basic system elements. These elements include the wastewater facility data file, the drainage basin data file, and the demand data file. Hydra is designed to utilize the unique linkage among these data elements and develop the hydraulic simulation of the wastewater conveyed throughout the collection system. Each of these three modeling data elements is discussed in the following sections. 6.2 014641.00 Wastewater Facility Data. The facility data element is comprised of the physical elements of the wastewater system to be modeled. Physical elements include pipeline diameter and roughness, the length and slope between manholes, manhole invert elevations, and the output capacity of the City's lift stations. As previously discussed, these physical elements were provided by the City O&M and GIS staff. This data was supplemented with record drawings of the sewer system to resolve data conflicts. The updated data was provided to the City to enhance its GIS database. Specific wastewater pipelines were identified for simulation through the use of the computerized hydraulic model based on discussions with City staff and our research and understanding of the collection system. Drainage Basin Data. To support the hydraulic simulation and evaluation of the selected facilities, the identified areas were divided into smaller service areas or sub-basins. Integration of these interconnected subsystems provides a more realistic simulation of actual field conditions and increases the accuracy of the hydraulic evaluation findings. Demand Data. The demand data establishes the wastewater flows within each of the sub- basins derived within the drainage basin data. The flows associated with these demands are calculated by correlating land use flow generation factors with the acreage/units of each land use within each sub-basin. Peak wastewater flows are derived by applying the peaking factor equation previously discussed In addition to the general loading criteria by acres/units per land use type, actual flow conditions were integrated into the modeling simulation through the use of parcel level loadings. Through this process, all parcels in the City were correlated with their respective account in the City's utility billing system through an Assessor Parcel Number (APN) to utility billing system account number linkage. Actual account-level water consumption data was subsequently converted to wastewater in the hydraulic model. The digital results of the APN to billing system linkage were provided to the City under a separate cover. A copy of the summary analysis is provided in Appendix C. 6.3 014641.00 The corresponding location, acreage and tributary sub-basin for each account/discharger were established using the City's GIS. The results obtained through this approach generally have a high correlation with known wastewater flow data. Computer Modeling An important element of computerized hydraulic modeling simulations is the calibration of the model to actual field conditions. Calibration is a multi-step process by which planning level values are reviewed and adjusted to known demand conditions, increasing the confidence level in the results of the hydraulic simulations, engineering analysis, and resulting recommendations. The process and results of calibrating the wastewater system hydraulic model is described herein. Upon completion of the three data elements, the model is run to integrate the data and construct a hydraulic simulation. The model input/output was further reviewed and data discrepancies resolved in the appropriate data element of the model. To accomplish model calibration, the wastewater flows developed by the hydraulic model (Hydra) are compared to actual flow monitoring station data obtained during the conduct of this study. Through a review of this data, variances are analyzed and appropriate land use discharge values are adjusted to correlate the model-developed flows with known wastewater monitoring station values. As previously discussed, the monitoring program was implemented with several purposes, resulting in a narrow set of focused data for each objective. An important consideration in the calibration process is the need for the flow monitoring data to be derived from gravity flow and void of the storage and discharge impact associated with upstream pumping facilities. While the pumping facilities were an important element of the I&I study, their unknown on/off time-of-day operational status imposes a complex variable in the data interpretation process. After deleting the sites with lift station or extraneous flow contributions, four monitoring sites (1, 7, 10, and 11) remained for focused support of the calibration process. 6.4 014641.00 The results of the calibration process indicated that the integration of the land use loading factors/parcel level demand loadings with the system drainage basin and land use data files achieved a high correlation with the flow conditions of these basins/sub basins. A summary of the temporary flow monitoring station average wastewater measurements in contrast with the estimated flows predicted by the model is provided in Appendix D. A tabular listing of various factors used in the model calibration process is also provided in Appendix D. In addition to this localized calibration result, it should be noted that overall City-wide calibration was also confirmed. The City-wide calibration process focused on the use and summary analysis of the account level loadings from the water billing data. As such, the model was spatially loaded based on the physical connection of the parcel to the modeled pipeline and the actual water usage/wastewater discharge. The number of dwelling units being served at that water connection was integrated, irrigation accounts were excluded, and the characteristics of non-residential and public open space accounts were integrated in the model with their actual loading values. � I The results of this calibration and quality control review process confirmed the appropriateness of the City-wide modeling analysis. Model input evaluation confirmed that citywide demands were reflected in the spatial parcel-level demand data and that approximately ninety-nine percent of the City's land was accounted for in the acreage loading values of the model. Based on this correlation and supporting information, it is believed the established hydraulic model is calibrated to a reasonable level of confidence and provides an appropriate simulation of current citywide wastewater flow conditions. As such, the model can serve as an appropriate tool for predicting potential areas of future hydraulic deficiency and performing various "what if' scenarios. Collection System Hydraulic Deficiencies & Recommended Improvements The updated model was subsequently loaded with the 2002 design loading factors previously derived and the City's wastewater system analyzed for hydraulic deficiencies 6.5 014641.00 under current conditions. As previously discussed, localized pipeline facilities were evaluated based on the prescribed design criteria. As a base line analysis, the pipelines that exceed the design capacity criteria based on the flow depth to pipe diameter ratio or exhibiting surcharge conditions under peak flow values would be considered deficient. In addition to the above analysis a modeling simulation was performed to evaluate future flow conditions. The future flow analysis was performed by incorporating the future land use wastewater generation factors for both developed and vacant land. The City's hydraulic capacity design criteria based on a D/d that varies by pipe diameter. This analysis is performed to simulate build out conditions. An important consideration in the evaluation of the modeling analysis is the relative degree of deficiency. For example, while a facility that has a future estimated D/d of .52 may be "deficient" in accordance to the design criteria, this facility would probably not warrant a near-term investment for additional capacity. As such, a level of engineering judgment is necessary to segregate between "deficient" and "borderline conditions." The results of the hydraulic analysis and interpretation of findings are graphically shown in f Figure 6-1, with the iabuiai findings presented in Appendix D. Based on the output from the collection system model for existing (calibration), short- term, and future (2020) loading conditions, hydraulic deficiencies are identified and generally prioritized within the existing system. Two options were considered for remediation of the hydraulic deficiencies: construction of a parallel pipeline to relieve flow from the overcapacity pipelines, or construction of a larger replacement pipeline with adequate design capacity for the projected peak flows. Generally, the benefit of using a parallel pipeline is lower material and construction cost. This is because a parallel pipeline requires a smaller pipeline diameter, fewer service reconnections, and may eliminate or reduce bypass pumping requirements. The disadvantage of using a parallel pipeline is that it increases overall O&M costs by adding new pipelines to the system that require cleaning and maintenance, and in some cases, existing utilities may not provide an adequate corridor for construction. For purposes of this master plan, pipeline replacement is used as the basis for estimating the 6.6 014641.00 R D CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH R 0 SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES LEGEND Category N MCFAD EN VE Modeled o Borderline w DINGE VE Deficient N ~ u IL A Z U N z y Q O -' = WARN_RAVE O m O N ti N H O w SLATER A E z w Z o ¢ OJ O ALBER AVE rn 0 E S VE >j z m w U z w GARFIELD AVE m N YORKTOWN AV ,3 F- �y1 „AD SAVE m N ,1� N 9 INDIANAPOLIS AV Y N = O ffiCf Q j m T{�LANTq AVE O m z = a H MILTON VE Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers&Scientists ANNIN AVE �i,..dp City of Huntington Beech NOT TO SCALE '' of Sewer System Master Plan KJ 014641.00 SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES Figure 6-1 t. improvement costs presented in Chapter 7. Using the pipe replacement concept for planning provides the City with the flexibility to decide on paralleling or pipeline replacement at the time of final design. Prior to initiating final design, the Engineering and Operations staff should field verify the PDWF in these pipelines to validate that they operate at or near the prescribed level of existing capacity. Prioritization of identified hydraulic deficiencies is based on a comparison of the results from the modeling evaluations. In general, deficiencies identified under existing ADWF conditions should be a high priority, deficiencies identified under existing PDWF (but not under existing ADWF) should be a medium to medium high priority and deficiencies identified under future PDWF conditions only should be a low priority. The recommended replacement diameter for all projects was based on maximum future wastewater flow conditions (2020). Replacement diameters for the identified deficient pipeline segments are included in Appendix D. Cost estimates for these projects are presented in Chapter 7. ; LL l LIFT STATION EVALUATION Each of the City's twenty-seven lift stations was evaluated to assess its ability to convey the future peak flow. The future-peak flow was compared to each facility's pumping capacity and an evaluation of the wet well operational performance was performed to verify that pump motors do not cycle (start/stop) too frequently, resulting in excessive electrical costs and premature motor failure. The evaluated criteria, results, and recommendations are presented in the following sections. The evaluation of each lift station is based on two criteria. These are 1. The ability of a single pump to accommodate PWWF conditions; relative to maximum pump operating capacity. 2. The adequacy of wet well and pump sizing based on pump cycling rates without modification or replacement of pump intervals or motors. Ell 6.7 014641.00 Lift Station Capacity Evaluation As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the City's standard lift station configuration is comprised of two identical pumps operating in parallel. Accordingly, one pump operates while the second pump serves as a backup, either to assist the first pump or operate alone if one pump becomes inoperable. A lift station will be considered over capacity if it cannot pump the PDWF with one pump out of service and the remaining pumps operating at 75 percent of the station's rated capacity without modification. The remaining 25 percent capacity is allocated for I&I, reserve capacity contingency, and variation in wastewater flow. Table 6-1 provides the lift station capacities using this firm pump capacity criteria. The adequacy of each lift station capacity was evaluated based on the estimated future PDWF from the hydraulic model and the capacity criteria for each facility. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 6-1. As shown, this analysis indicates those facilities where the estimated PDWF exceeds the single pump operating criteria. Wet Well Cycling Operational Evaluation Using the calculated operating wet well volume (V) and the design pump output (Q), minimum cycle times (CT)were calculated with the following equation: CT =4V/Q where: V is in gallons. Q is in gpm. CT is in minutes. 6.8 014641.00 s TABLE 6-1 PUMP CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Modeled Pump PDWF Firm Number Existing Ultimate Existing Ultimate Lift Station Capacity", Design Capacity(Zt Of PDWF PDWF Capacity Capacity (#Name) (gpm@TDH) (gpm) Pumps {gpm) (gpm) Deficient (3) Deficiency t31 #1 Graham 580 @ 55 435 2 361 379 NO NO 92 Humboldt 155 @ 22 116 2 131 138 YES YES 3 Station"E" 100 @ 18 75 2 48 51 NO NO #4 Statioin"A" 572 @ 20 429 2 282 292 NO NO #5 Davenport 106 @ 12 80 2 93 98 YES YES #6 Edgewater 450 @ 12 338 2 732 977 YES YES #7 Station'B" 670 @ 10 503 2 460 462 NO NO #8 Station"C 1170 @ 15 878 2 660 668 NO NO 9 Station"D" 900 @ 50 2700 4 1541 2147 NO NO #10 Algonquin 1000 @ 60 750 2 475 509 NO NO #11 Lark 125 @ 12 94 2 83 88 NO NO 13 Slater 1070 @ 24 803 2 691 713 NO NO #14 Ellis 850 @ 34 1275 3 444 466 NO NO #15 Beach 150 @ 30 112 2 125 133 YES YES #16 Adams 220 @ 13 165 2 196 244 YES YES #17 Brookhurst 1280 @ 28 960 2 617 710 NO NO 18 Atlanta 350 @ 25 263 2 308 358 YES YES #19 Bushard 315 @ 10 236 2 93 97 NO NO #20 Speer 400 @ 14 300 2 44 47 NO NO #21 McFadden 160 @ 32 120 2 111 117 NO NO #22 Saybrook 550 @ 23 413 2 619 739 YES YES #23 New Britain 179 @ 11 134 2 197 208 YES YES #24 Edwards 800 @ 38 600 2 552 574 NO NO /- #25 Edinger 300 @ 12 225 2 415 423 YES YES 926 Brighton 220 @ 16 165 2 188 200 YES YES #28 Coral Cay 80 @ 14 60 2 68 72 YES YES #29 Trinidad 250 @ 15 188 2 145 153 NO NO Source data provided by City. (1)Capacity is defined per City maintenance department data as one pump in each station designated standby. (2)PDWF firm design capacity is calculated using individual pump capacity at 75%of design,leaving 25%of design capacity for peak wet weather flow. One pump in each station was designated standby. (3)Station deemed deficient when PDWF firm design capacity was below PDWF. (4)These stations have been recently improved or are currently in design for improvement The cycle time calculated by this equation is based on one pump operating at a time. However, since each lift station contains multiple alternating pumps, the number of pumps must be integrated in the cycle time analysis for each facility. The analysis of the pump cycle time operational analysis is shown in Table 6-2. As shown, the analysis indicates those facilities that cycle in excess of the generally accepted six cycles per hour criteria. It should be noted however, that the excessive cycling may also be related to the quantity of operational wet well volume associated with the on/off pump control settings at each facility. As such, the City should consider the benefit of increasing the operational wet well volumes of these facilities versus the potentially adverse impact of additional localized odors that may result from increased wet well storage time. Lift Station Hydraulic Deficiencies and Recommendations As shown, the City's lift stations require additional improvements to meet current/future demand conditions. Prior to the design and construction of the findings derived herein, the CCity should perform additional field investigation and perform related ,engineering calculations during pre-design activities. Field confirmation of actual pump capacities, operating conditions, and influent flow requirements should be included in this design effort. Alternatively, it may be more desirable to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the pump capacities and efficiencies at each of the City's lift stations. In support of this evaluation and provide ongoing wastewater pump station performance information, the City should also consider the installation of permanent metering equipment that provides ongoing lift station influent and output data through telemetry. Cost estimates of the recommended improvements are provided in Chapter 7. 6.10 014641.00 TABLE 6-2 - WET WELL OPERATIONAL CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Wet Well Wet Well Modeled Pump Number Operational Pump Operational Pump Station Capacity(') Of Capacity(2) Cycling Capacity Number& Name (gpm@TDH) Pumps (gal) (cycles/hr) Deficiency(') #1 Graham 580 @ 55 2 318 14 YES #2 Humboldt 155 @ 22 2 117 10 NO #3 Station"E" 100 @ 18 2 70 11 NO #4 Statioin "A" 572 @ 20 2 558 8 NO #5 Davenport 106 @ 12 2 133 6 NO #6 Edgewater 450 @ 12 2 184 18 YES #7 Station "B" 670 @ 10 2 310 16 YES #8 Station"C" 1170 @ 15 2 745 12 NO #9 Station"D" 900 @ 50 4 509 7 NO #10 Algonquin 1000 @ 60 2 282 27 YES #11 Lark 125 @ 12 2 94 10 NO #13 Slater 1070 @ 24 2 211 38 YES #14 Ellis 850 @ 34 3 355 12 NO #15 Beach 150 @ 30 2 465 2 NO #16 Adams 220 @ 13 2 94 18 YES #17 Brookhurst 1280 @ 28 2 441 22 YES #18 Atlanta 350 @ 25 2 470 6 NO #19 Bushard 315 @ 10 2 470 5 NO #20 Speer 400 @ 14 2 846 4 NO #21 McFadden 160 @ 32 2 188 6 NO #22 Saybrook 550 @ 23 2 294 14 YES #23 New Britain 179 @ 11 2 564 2 NO #24 Edwards 800 @ 38 2 909 7 NO #25 Edinger 300 @ 12 2 211 11 NO #26 Brighton 220 @ 16 2 188 9 NO #28 Coral Cay 80 @ 14 2 211 3 NO #29 Trinidad 250 @ 15 2 220 9 NO (1) Capacity is defined per City maintenance department data for one pump in operation only. Multiple pumps within a station are considered to alternate start/stop cycles equally. (2) Capacity is based on wet well dimensions and multiple pump start/stop settings, provided by City staff. (3)Although new pump stations are designed for no more than 6 cycles/hr, the existing stations were not considered deficient until they exceeded 12 cycles/hr. Chapter 7 Costs of System Improvements 4 } CHAPTER 7 COSTS OF SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS This chapter incorporates the findings of the previous chapters and outlines the estimated costs of the recommended collection system and pumping station capital improvements. The identified improvements are subsequently prioritized into a capital improvement program based on the facility condition and the hydraulic analysis under current and future loading conditions. These capital improvement costs, schedules and assumptions are contained herein. Wastewater system improvements are generally established based on two distinct categories: facility condition and hydraulic adequacy. Facility condition improvements are required to upgrade/improve aging facilities and are corrected by replacement or repair- related rehabilitation activities. Hydraulic improvements are required to accommodate the current and projected flows within the City's wastewater facilities. The identification of these improvements is based primarily on the results of the computerized hydraulic model r discussed in Chapter 6, and the evaluation criteria discussed in Chapter 5. The costs of the recommended collection system capital improvements are separated into these two categories and discussed in the subsequent sections of this study. PROJECT PRIORITIZATION As previously discussed, hydraulic modeling simulations were conducted under current conditions and projected maximum loading conditions at the year 2020. This process resulted in the identification of specific deficiencies and the associated remedial measures. Prioritization of the recommended improvement should be based on the degree of deficiency, facility reliability related to the potential for and implications of failure, coordination with other utility needs and objectives, and funding availability. As such, the City should balance its capital improvement program between the hydraulic pipeline deficiencies and the sewer lift stations, with the lift station replacement program receiving the most attention. CAPITAL COST ESTIMATES 7.1 014641.00 This section presents the capital construction costs for the proposed wastewater collection system and pumping facilities. Details of the development of the capital cost estimates are discussed in the following sections. Unit Costs The capital cost estimates for the proposed facilities were developed based on the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) 20-city national average. The ENR-CCI is an inflation index used to adjust prices from one time period to another. The cost estimates presented in this master plan are based upon an ENR-CCI cost index of 6462 for January 2002. Cost estimated herein for recommended facilities should be adjusted in the future either by making new estimates or by comparing the future ENR-CCI-20-City index to 6462. The capital costs derived herein are based on unit costs obtained from recently } designed and constructed projects. These unit construction costs are approximate planning costs and include miscellaneous work such as manholes, that are necessary for complete acid operable facilities, but they do not include right-of-way acquisition. Unit cost estimates are based on pipe materials, size, depth of construction, manhole spacing, trench width, etc. These defined cost parameters are used to estimate the design and construction costs of underground facilities. Engineering, administration services and contingencies have been included as a percentage of total construction costs. A factor of 20 percent of total construction cost has been used for engineering and administration, which include but are not limited to the following: • Planning and design reports • Design • CEQA Compliance • Permits • Surveying w- 7.2 014641.00 ram: • Services during construction (submittals, as-builts) • Inspection In addition to these items, a 20 percent contingency was added. Table 7-1 presents gravity sewer unit costs useful in the development of capital costs. TABLE 7-1 GRAVITY SEWER UNIT COSTS Pipe Diameter(inches) Pipe Unit Cost ($/LF) 8 100 10 130 12 155 15 180 18 200 21 250 � 24 275 27 300 30 330 36 400 Note: Costs include Engineering and Administration and contingencies Unit Cost Estimate for Force Mains The unit cost estimates for force mains were determined using an estimate of approximately $8 per pipe diameter per linear foot, which was based upon recently designed and constructed projects of similar scope and magnitude. The estimate included excavation, bedding, backfill, pipe material, and pavement. In addition, a 20 percent Engineering and Administration fee and a 20 percent contingency were added. Table 7-2 presents force main unit costs useful in the development of capital costs. aJ 7.3 014641.00 TABLE 7-2 FORCE MAIN UNIT COSTS Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Unit Cost ($/LF) 4 45 6 70 8 90 10 110 12 135 Note: Costs include Engineering and Administration and contingencies Unit Cost Estimate for Lift Stations Lift station capital costs are estimated based on the total capacity (not including standby capacity) of the lift station. The unit cost for lift stations includes pumps and motors (not including standby), grading, miscellaneous piping and valving, fencing, landscaping, instrumentation, controls engineering, administration and - contingencies. These equipment estimates are based on recently designed and constructed projects of similar scope and magnitude. In addition, a 20 percent Engineering and Administration fee and a 20 percent contingency were added. Figure 7-1 presents a lift station unit cost curve useful in the development of lift station equipment costs. Given the age of the City's lift stations, the City is methodically modernizing and replacing each of its older stations. As such, in addition to the equipment cost curve shown in Figure 7-1, the City's 2001 Sewer Lift Station Design Manual specifies the structural requirements for wet well/dry pit and submersible facilities. Based upon a review of the City's recent improvements to Lift Station No. 4 ("A") and Lift Station No. 17 (Brookhurst), a fixed unit cost of $900,000 is recommended for the construction of new wet well/dry pit lift stations and a fixed unit cost of $400,000 for the construction of new submersible type lift stations. Since the City is replacing submersible lift stations with wet well/dry pit stations wherever possible, the wet well/dry pit costs will generally be applied to the derived construction cost estimates. As discussed with City staff, the 7.4 014641.00 existing submersible type lift stations in the harbor area are assigned to remain as submersible facilities due to high groundwater conditions and localized site constraints. FIGURE 7-1 LIFT STATION EQUIPMENT UNIT COSTS 3600 3200 2800 a 2400 L fq v 2000 c 7 0 1600 .m { j 1200 t4 800 400 0 - 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 Lift Station capacity(hp) Note: Costs include Engineering and Administration and contingencies WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINE COST ESTIMATES Repair and Replacement of Existing Facilities The decision to repair or replace existing facilities is based primarily on facility condition. Eroding pipelines with reasonable structural integrity are often repaired using various 7.5 014641.00 trenchless rehabilitation techniques, such as "sliplining", "cured-in-place", or pipe bursting process. Most communities utilize each of these rehabilitation methodologies depending on the selective applications. This is common rehabilitation approach as it is less disruptive and usually more cost effective than pipeline replacement. Facility replacement however, is generally considered as the most cost effective solution for extremely deteriorated pipelines and facilities that have exceeded or are approaching their presumed useful life. Accordingly, facility condition and probable life expectancy must be accurately assessed to establish the appropriate remedy for each pipeline segment. Current unit costs to replace versus repair different diameters of wastewater pipelines are provided in Table 7-3. These estimated costs include all materials, labor, and engineering required for pipeline repair or replacement. TABLE 7-3 PIPELINE REPAIR/REPLACEMENT UNIT COSTS Unit Cost ($/LF) Pipe Diameter(inches) Pipeline Repair Pipeline Replace 8 60 100 10 80 130 12 90 155 15 95 180 18 130 200 21 155 250 24 180 275 27 190 300 30 200 330 33 220 360 36 230 400 Note: Costs include Engineering and Administration and contingencies 7.6 014641.00 S. Since the actual condition and age of each wastewater pipeline is often unknown, it is indeterminable whether a repair or replacement strategy is the appropriate application for each segment of pipeline that may need rehabilitation. As such, the City is undertaking a comprehensive video inspection program as part of its infrastructure management program. While investment in new facilities that are required to serve new customers is generally a proactive practice, reinvestment in the existing assets is an often overlooked or under funded component of a utility's infrastructure management plan. Given that the majority of the infrastructure is estimated to be approximately 40 years old, the City's GIS wastewater inventory data was utilized to develop and estimate of the level of capital rehabilitation cost. This information is intended to supplement the City's infrastructure management and video inspection program, and provide an estimate of ongoing wastewater investment requirements. The remaining useful life of the wastewater collection� system facilities is a necessary � element of the infrastructure investment decision process. As discussed in Chapter 3, according to the State of California Controller's Office, the suggested useful life of utility fixed assets is 50 years for pipelines, manholes, and lift station structures, while the useful life of lift station equipment is generally less, approximately 20 years. Due to the inert nature of VCP, it is generally considered to provide the longest useful life of most materials commonly used in wastewater pipeline construction. While the actual useful life of wastewater pipeline systems may extend beyond the "book value," annualized depreciation provides a reasonable estimate of the City's re-investment requirement. As such, the annual depreciation for the collection system has been developed using a 50 year suggested useful life. Since the majority of the collection system is approximately 40 years old, it is assumed that when existing facilities reach their presumed useful life, they will be remediated based on a 50% repair and 50% replace strategy. For the purposes of this analysis, all pipelines less than or equal to 6-inches in diameter are assumed to be replaced with 8-inch facilities and all pipelines that did not contain a diameter within the GIS were assumed to be 8-inch pipelines. I 7.7 014641.00 The estimated replacement cost new and annual depreciation of the City's wastewater collection system pipelines is derived by applying the inventory of collection system facilities with the repair and replacement unit costs provided in Table 7-3. The resulting analysis is shown in Table 7-4. As shown, the City would need to fund approximately $3.2 million per year to cover the annual depreciation of existing infrastructure(at current costs). In recognition of this need for ongoing reinvestment, on 21 August, 2001, the City adopted ordinances establishing a new sewer service charge and a schedule of rates and charges. The adopted rates are budgeted to generate approximately $5.6 million per year with an additional $700,000 from the General Fund. The $6.3 million per year is scheduled to be allocated between the capital program and operation and maintenance activities based on $4.5 million for annual capital projects and $1.8 million for annual O&M and video inspection activities. Consistent with the analysis performed herein, the City has programmed approximately $3.0 million per year for pipeline repair and replacement activities. This ongoing investment/reinvestment in the City's wastewater system reflects the proactive philosophy of the City's Integrated Infrastructure Management Program. A copy of the adopted sewer service charge ordinances is provided in Appendix E. Existing and Future Hydraulic Deficiency Cost Estimates Wastewater collection system pipeline improvements have been evaluated based upon meeting projected peak wastewater flows in accordance with the design criteria established in Chapter 5. Gravity sewers have been evaluated utilizing the HYDRA hydraulic model developed as part of this Sewer Master Plan. All proposed sewer pipeline improvements are conservatively assumed to replace the existing gravity sewer main. In addition to the need to rehabilitate aging infrastructure, it is recommended that the City construct new pipelines to eliminate identified hydraulic capacity deficiencies and increase system capacity. The estimated construction costs of these deficiencies are itemized in Table 7-5. The identified "borderline" facilities are also included in Table 7-5. 7.8 014641.00 TABLE 7-4 ANNUAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY DEPRECIATION Replace Repair Replace Repair Replace Repair Annual Pipeline Length Unit Cost Unit Cost Length Length Cost Cost Total Cost Depreciation Size(in) (LF) ($) ($) (ft) (ft) ($) ($) ($) ($/yr)' No Data' 1,490 $100 $60 745 745 $74,500 $44,700 $119,200 $2,384 4 2,700 $1002 N/A2 2,700 0 $270,000 $0 $270,000 $5,400 6 8,280 $1002 N/A2 8,280 0 $828,000 $0 $828,000 $16,560 8 1.568,100 $100 $60 784,050 784,050 $78,405,000 $47,043,000 $125,448,000 $2,508,960 10 112,490 $130 $80 56,245 56,245 $7.311,850 $4,499,600 $11,811,450 $236,229 12 72,770 $155 $90 36,385 36,385 $5,639,675 $3,274,650 $8,914.325 $178,287 15 51,110 $180 $95 25,555 25,555 $4,599,900 $2,427,725 $7,027,625 $140,553 16 4,360 $180 $95 2,180 2,180 $392.400 $207,100 $599,500 $11,990 18 16,920 $200 $130 8,460 8,460 $1,692,000 $1,099,800 $2,791,800 $55,836 21 6,730 $250 $155 3,365 3,365 $841,250 $521,575 $1,362,825 $27,257 24 1,320 $275 $180 660 660 $181,500 $118,800 $300,300 $6,006 27 5,400 $300 $190 2,700 2,700 $810,000 $513,000 $1,323,000 $26,460 30 1,310 $330 $200 655 655 $216,150 $131,000 $347,150 $6,943 Totals 1,852,980 - - 931,980 921,000 $101,262,225 $59,880,950 $161,143,175 $3,222,86411 'Pipelines with No Data are assumed to be 8-inch pipelines 2All pipelines less than or equal to 6-inches are assumed to be replaced with 8-inch pipelines 3Based on 50 Year Useful Life TABLE 7-5 ( V COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement Length Unit Cost ID# Category Diameter Diameter (ft) ($fft) Cost (in) (in) ($) 1013 Deficient 18 21 373 $250 $93,250 1014 Deficient 18 21 100 $250 $25,000 1015 Deficient 18 21 226 $250 $56,500 1016 Deficient 18 21 201 $250 $50,250 1017 Deficient 18 21 336 $250 $84,000 1019 Deficient 18 21 304 $250 $76,000 474 Deficient 12 18 301 $200 $60,200 476 Deficient 12 18 345 $200 $69,000 477 Deficient 12 18 345 $200 $69,000 478 Deficient 12 18 345 $200 $69,000 531 Deficient 12 18 329 $200 $65,800 547 Deficient 12 18 330 $200 $66,000 2586 Deficient 12 18 299 $200 $59,800 294 Deficient 12 15 335 $180 $60,300 295 Deficient 12 15 330 $180 $59,400 296 Deficient 12 15 168 $180 $30,240 165 Deficient 10 15 324 $180 $58,320 166 Deficient 10 15 347 $180 $62,460 167 Deficient 10 15 314 $180 $56,520 168 Deficient 10 15 339 $180 $61,020 169 Deficient 10 15 308 $180 $55,440 170 Deficient 10 15 304 $180 $54,720 # 174 Deficient 10 15 107 $180 $19,260 194 Deficient 10 15 138 $180 $24,840 202 Deficient 10 15 136 $180 $24,480 206 Deficient 10 15 226 $180 $40,680 211 Deficient 10 15 204 $180 $36,720 213 Deficient 10 15 113 $180 $20,340 216 Deficient 10 15 240 $180 $43,200 219 Deficient 10 15 240 $180 $43,200 221 Deficient 10 15 110 $180 $19,800 222 Deficient 10 15 213 $180 $38,340 232 Deficient 10 15 239 $180 $43,020 237 Deficient 10 15 246 $180 $44,280 293 Deficient 10 15 251 $180 $45,180 308 Deficient 10 15 290 $180 $52,200 321 Deficient 10 15 300 $180 $54,000 335 Deficient 10 15 301 $180 $54,180 345 Deficient 10 15 295 $180 $53,100 543 Deficient 10 15 307 $180 $55,260 544 Deficient 10 15 306 $180 $55,080 545 Deficient 10 15 306 $180 $55,080 548 Deficient 10 15 309 $180 $55,620 549 Deficient 10 15 14 $180 $2,520 550 Deficient 10 15 155 $180 $27,900 590 Deficient 10 15 293 $180 1 $52,740 598 Deficient 10 15 289 $180 $52,020 974 Deficient 10 15 331 $180 $59,580 980 Deficient 10 15 330 $180 $59,400 3002 Deficient 10 15 46 $180 $8,280 1080 Deficient 10 12 294 $155 $45,570 5005 Deficient 8 12 255 $155 $39,525 5013 Deficient 8 12 210 $155 $32,550 Subtotal "Deficient"= 13,697 $2,600,165 Page 1 of 4 TABLE 7-5 COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement ID i# Category Diameter Diameter Length Unit Cost Cost (in) (in) (ft) ($/ft) ($) 362 Borderline 15 18 157 $200 $31,400 368 Borderline 15 18 246 $200 $49,200 379 Borderline 15 18 315 $200 $63,000 486 Borderline 15 18 127 $200 $25,400 488 Borderline 15 18 125 $200 $25,000 493 Borderline 15 18 206 $200 1 $41,200 495 Borderline 15 18 329 $200 $65,800 33 Borderline 12 15 350 $180 $63,000 36 Borderline 12 15 320 $180 $57,600 46 Borderline 12 15 262 $180 $47,160 50 Borderline 12 15 299 $180 $53,820 115 Borderline 12 15 150 $180 1 $27,000 116 Borderline 1 12 15 105 $180 $18,900 117 Borderline 12 15 75 $180 $13,500 118 Borderline 12 15 330 $180 $59,400 119 Borderline 12 15 330 $180 $59,400 120 Borderline 12 15 341 $180 $61,380 121 Borderline 12 15 259 $180 $46,620 175 Borderline 12 15 335 $180 $60,300 182 Borderline 12 15 270 $180 $48,600 183 Borderline 12 15 259 $180 $46,620 185 Borderline 1 12 15 275 $180 $49,500 239 Borderline 12 15 302 $180 $54,360 256 Borderline 12 15 513 $180 $92,340 261 Borderline 12 15 246 $180 $44,280 297 Borderline 12 15 166 $180 $29,880 298 Borderline 12 15 317 $180 $57,060 299 Borderline 12 15 341 $180 $61,380 300 Borderline 12 15 309 $180 $55,620 312 Borderline 12 15 251 $180 $45,180 366 Borderline 12 15 326 $180 $58,680 375 Borderline 12 15 210 $180 $37,800 377 Borderline 12 15 120 $180 $21,600 389 Borderline 12 15 220 $180 $39,600 508 Borderline 12 15 9 $180 $1,620 607 Borderline 12 15 178 $180 $32,040 610 Borderline 12 15 253 $180 $45,540 619 Borderline 12 15 226 $180 $40,680 623 Borderline 12 15 267 $180 $48,060 634 Borderline 12 15 235 $180 $42,300 635 Borderline 12 15 144 $180 $25,920 639 Borderline 12 15 140 $180 $25,200 742 Borderline 12 15 286 $180 $51,480 932 Borderline 12 15 682 $180 $122,760 1068 Borderline 12 15 221 $180 $39,780 1134 Borderline 12 15 141 $180 $25,386 1135 Borderline 12 15 30 $180 $5,400 1181 Borderline 12 15 301 $180 $54,180 43 Borderline 10 12 325 $155 $50,375 205 Borderline 10 12 261 $155 $40,455 207 Borderline 10 12 347 $155 $53,785 208 Borderline 10 12 105 $155 $16.275 210 Borderline 10 1 12 149 $155 $23,095 2201 Borderline 10 12 292 $155 $45,260 2231 Borderline 10 12 107 $155 $16,585 Page 2 of 4 TABLE 7-5 COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement Length Unit Cost ID# Category Diameter Diameter (ft) ($Jft Cost (in) (in) ) $) 231 Borderline 10 12 223 $155 $34,565 242 Borderline 10 12 330 $155 $51,150 245 Borderline 10 12 350 $155 $54,250 254 Borderline 10 12 330 $155 $51,150 262 Borderline 10 12 330 $155 $51,150 301 Borderline 10 12 350 $155 $54,250 302 Borderline 10 12 23 $155 $3,565 449 Borderline 10 12 129 $155 $19,995 462 Borderline 10 12 301 $155 $46,655 465 Borderline 10 12 287 $155 $44,485 470 Borderline 10 12 282 $155 $43,710 522 Borderline 10 12 259 $155 $40,145 523 Borderline 10 12 299 $155 $46,345 524 Borderline 10 12 314 $155 $48,670 525 Borderline 10 12 255 $155 $39,525 533 Borderline 10 12 265 $155 $41,075 546 Borderline 10 12 264 $155 $40,920 551 Borderline 10 12 160 $155 $24,800 819 Borderline 10 12 673 $155 $104,315 824 Borderline 10 12 261 $155 $40,455 868 Borderline 10 12 328 $155 $50,840 901 Borderline 10 12 175 $155 $27,125 r ) 917 Borderline 10 12 388 $155 $60,140 953 Borderline 10 12 - 331 $155 $51,305 954 Borderline 10 12 168 $155 $26,040 957 Borderline 10 12 326 $155 $50,530 962 Borderline 10 12 162 $155 1 $25,110 963 Borderline 10 12 330 $155 $51,150 964 Borderline 10 12 158 $155 $24,490 9661 Borderline 10 12 332 $155 $51,460 975 Borderline 10 12 329 $155 $50,995 978 Borderline 10 12 168 $155 $26,040 981 Borderline 10 12 171 $155 $26,505 1041 Borderline 10 12 301 $155 $46,655 1118 Borderline 10 12 150 $155 $23,250 1121 Borderline 10 12 277 $155 1 $42,935 1130 Borderline 10 12 40 $155 $6,200 1131 Borderline 10 12 326 $155 $50,530 1136 Borderline 10 12 81 $155 $12,555 2566 Borderline 10 12 349 $155 $54,095 2569 Borderline 10 12 349 $155 $54,095 2576 Borderline 10 12 352 $155 $54,560 4003 Borderline 10 12 309 $155 $47,895 233 Borderline 8 10 35 $130 $4,550 240 Borderline 8 10 91 $130 $11,830 313 Borderline 8 10 226 $130_ $29,380 318 Borderline 8 10 91 $130 $11,830 347 Borderline 8 10 341 $130 $44,330 832 Borderline 8 10 77 $130 $10,010 833 Borderline 8 10 105 $130 $13,650 2541 Borderline 8 10 181 $130 $23,530 2543 Borderline 8 10 36 $130 $4,680 2545 Borderline 8 10 294 $130 $38,220 2547 Borderline 8 10 275 $130 $35,750 25791 Borderline 8 10 162 $130 $21,060 Page 3 of 4 TABLE 7-5 COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement Length Unit Cost ID# Category Diameter Diameter ft Cost (in) (in) ( ) ($/ft) ($ 2581 Borderline 8 10 217 $130 $28,210 333 Borderline 15 18 130 $200 $26.000 341 Borderline 15 18 195 $200 $39,000 351 Borderline 15 18 197 $200 $39,400 1168 Borderline 12 15 335 $180 $60,300 399 Borderline 10 12 290 $155 $44,950 434 Borderline 10 12 300 $155 $46,500 447 Borderline 10 12 170 $155 $26,350 563 Borderline 10 12 332 $155 $51,460 775 Borderline 10 12 363 $155 $56,265 779 Borderline 10 12 400 $155 $62,000 785 Borderline 10 12 401 $155 $62,155 811 Borderline 10 12 171 $155 $26,505 818 Borderline 10 12 1462 $155 $226,610 903 Borderline 10 12 206 $155 $31,930 1055 Borderline 10 12 206 $155 $31,930 311 Borderline 8 10 75 $130 $9,750 5009 Borderline 8 10 225 $130 $29,250 5004 Borderline 8 10 171 $130 $22,230 Subtotal "Borderline" = 32,830 $5,383,040 Total Collection System Improvements = 46,527 $7,983,205 Page 4 of 4 �1 PUMPING SYSTEM COST ESTIMATES Similar to that of the collection system evaluation methodology, lift station improvements can generally be classified into two categories: 1) improvements required to increase system hydraulic capacity or reliability, and 2) improvements to correct unsafe conditions or meet code requirements. Both of these categories are important and expose the City of Huntington Beach to operational deficiencies if the identified problems are not corrected. Capacity/reliability related improvements are considered priority projects that are required to maintain the City's ability to pump wastewater flows. One important element of system reliability is standby power. While the City provides standby power through portable generators, a more reliable approach is to utilize dedicated standby power generators with automatic transfer switches at each lift station. As such, the City should consider implementing this approach as its facilities are rehabilitated, depending on funding and facility site availability. The cost of these standby power improvements is not included the following capital cost estimates. As discussed, the lift station evaluation performed herein was based on original lift station design parameters and model simulated flows and may not precisely depict current field conditions. Therefore, the cost estimates prepared herein are conceptual in nature. Final costs would require additional field verification, flow testing, and pre-design analysis. In recognition-of the need for reliable and ongoing lift station performance data, it would be desirable to perform a comprehensive evaluation of the pump capacities and efficiencies at each of the City's lift stations. As an early action item, it is recommended that permanent metering facilities be constructed at each lift station to provide telemetry influent and output data so as to improve efficiency of the entire system and meet future conditions. Both of these elements would provide valuable support information in the magnitude and prioritization of lift station improvements. The cost of the comprehensive analysis is estimated at approximately $75,000, while the cost of the metering improvements is approximately $20,000 per station. The estimated costs for the reconstruction of the City's lift stations are presented in Table 7-6. 7.11 014641.00 TABLE 7-6 LIFT STATION REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Influent Lift Number To Station Lift Station Rated Pump of Capacity Capacity Replacement Number and Name Horsepower 0) Pumps Ratio Deficiency(2) Cost Deficient Lift Stations #2 Humbolt 3 2 119% Yes $1,104,833 #5 Davenport 3 2 123% Yes $1,141,201 #6 Edgewater 5 2 288% Yes $2,727,561 #15 Beach 75 2 118% Yes $1,910,979 #16 Adams 3 2 148% Yes $1,374,873 #18 Atlanta 25 2 137% Yes $879,082 #22 Saybrook 15 2 184% Yes $1,922,485 #23 New Britain 5 2 156% Yes $1,478,168 #25 Edinger 5 2 190% Yes $1,805,260 #26 Brighton 3 2 123% Yes $1,143,837 #28 Coral Cay 3 2 121% Yes $1,119 455 Deficient Subtotal $16,607,733 Non-Deficient Lift Stations #1 Graham 20 2 87% No $1,028,000 #3 "E"(4) 3 2 68% No $919,200 #7 Station"B 8 2 92% No $972,000 #8 Station"C"(4) 25 2 76% No $1,140,000 #10 Algonquin 40 2 68% No $656,000 #11 Lark 2 2 94% No $912,800 #13 Slater 20 2 96% No $1,028,000 #14 Ellis 20 3 37% No $1,028,000 #19 Bushard 3 2 41% No $919,200 #20 Speer 15 2 16% No $996,000 #21 MCFadden 5 2 98% No $932,000 #24 Edwards 20 2 96% No $1,028,000 #29 Trinidad"' 10 2 82% No $964 000 Non-Deficient Subtotal $12,523,200 Recently Improved Lift Stations #4 "A"(3)(4) 10 2 68% N/A N/A #9"D"(3).(4) 25 4 79% N/A N/A #17 Brookhurst(3) 30 2 74% N/A N/A Metering Facilities $540,000 Total Replacement Cost $29,670,933 Source data provided by City. Note, there is no station No. 12 or No. 27. ')Capacity is defined per City maintenance department data for one pump in operation only. (2)Capacity deficiencies are considered high priority improvements. (3)These stations have been recently improved or are currently in design for capacity improvement. (4)lt is recommended the pump output capacity of all harbor lift stations be field evaluated. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PRIORITIZATION Implementation of the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) should be based on improvement priorities. When possible, improvements should be phased to equalize annual capital/debt service requirements and minimize user charge impact. Due to the nature of the improvements, most of these projects should be constructed during the next 10 years. 7.13 014641.00 Chapter 8 Sewer Facility Charges CHAPTER 8 SEWER FACILITY CHARGES The City utilizes a Sewer Facility Charge (SFC), commonly referred to as a connection fee, to recover the costs of facilities to be constructed in the future that will benefit new development. The purpose of this charge is to assure that future customers pay their fair share of the costs of the system's capacity. As such, a Sewer Facility Charge equitably distributes facility costs to future users based on their anticipated demands on the wastewater system. The assets that collect and pump the City's wastewater are the basis for the cost of capacity in the sewer system. In recognition of the need to remain current and integrate the new Master Plan costs of system capacity, the City desires to update its Sewer Facility Charges. This chapter is intended to update the current cost of sewer system capacity, reflect these costs in the development of new facility charges, and document these charges in the City's Master Plan report of findings. REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS The regulations that govern SFCs generally fall into three areas: compliance with State government codes, adherence to the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) Revenue Program guidelines, and City ordinances. State Government Codes Government Code Sections 66000 - 66024 and 66483 are the primary government codes applicable to the development and recovery of capital facility charges. The focus of these sections are summarized below: • The City must establish a nexus between the cost of capacity and the facility charge. 8.1 014641.00 f � t ? • The facility charge revenues must be segregated from operating and maintenance funds. • The revenues must be committed or assigned to a capital project within five years. In summary, these sections of Government Code require the basis for Sewer Facility Charges be consistent with new development's impact on the cost of capacity in the City's wastewater system. Revenue Program Guidelines The SWRCB Revenue Program guidelines apply to all recipients of Federal Clean Water Grants for water pollution control facilities. The guidelines require that facility charges not be used as an assured revenue source for revenue planning and that the facility charge revenues be segregated from other rate-based revenues. r , City Ordinances The City ordinance applicable to SFCs is contained in Chapter 14.36 of the City's Municipal Code. The current and updated residential sewer facility charges are based on an "equivalent dwelling unit" or EDU. For consistency with the current sewer user charge rate schedule, the updated non-residential charge is also proposed to be converted from a cost per 1000 square feet to an EDU basis. CALCULATION METHODOLOGY As discussed with City staff, there are two generally accepted methods commonly used to develop capital facility charges. These methods are based on an incremental approach or a system capacity buy-in approach. These two calculation methodologies are discussed in the following sections. 8.2 014641.00 J Incremental Approach. The incremental approach is based on quantifying the future costs of additional capacity and unitizing these costs by the incremental quantity of additional demand served by these costs. Accordingly, the capital improvement program derived in chapter 7 provides the primary basis of costs, while the estimation of future flows derived in Chapter 6 provides the basis for future incremental wastewater flows. Capacity Buy-In Approach. Similar to the incremental approach, the capacity buy-in approach is based on the cost of future wastewater system capacity and is unitized based on the quantity of demand served by those costs. However, the capacity buy-in method includes the value of the existing system assets in the basis of costs. In doing so, the quantity of demand served by the value of the existing system plus the future costs of the proposed CIP is represented by the total projected ultimate demand in the City's wastewater system. Recommended Approach. Based on discussions with City staff, the incremental approach was used as the basis for developing the City's SFC's. This approach was selected because it more closely coincided with the City's general guidelines for the development and use of the sewer service charge revenues. The incremental approach is also easily understood, provides a documented nexus between the cost of capacity and the proposed sewer facility charges, and complies with current Government Code. COSTS OF FUTURE CAPACITY A study of capital facilities charges is performed to develop and/or identify the costs of facilities used by future wastewater customers. Under the incremental approach, the cost of future capacity in the City's wastewater system is based on two facility components. These include the future replacement costs of the sewer lift stations and new local sewer collection system improvements. While the cost of these improvements was previously developed in Chapter 7, the allocation of these costs to future customers is discussed in the following sections. 8.3 014641.00 Lift Station Replacement Costs As shown in the Lift Station Replacement Cost Estimate of Table 7-6, lift station costs are segregated into two primary categories. These include the cost of improvements necessary to replace capacity deficient facilities and the costs associated with the replacement of facilities that have adequate capacity, but should be eventually be replaced due to long-term wear and tear. Additional metering improvements are also designated for all lift station facilities to improve reliability and monitor capacity performance. Several key considerations were discussed with City staff related to assessing the cost of lift station improvements to future customers. Since the ongoing sewer user charge was designed to provide for the methodical replacement of the City's lift stations, only the specific portion of the capacity related facility improvement costs and metering enhancements is un-funded. As such, the costs allocated to future customers are limited to these cost elements. The estimated cost of lift station improvements for future customers is shown in Table 8-1. As shown, the capacity required for future customers is the percentage of the influent that is greater than the facility capacity. This percent assigned to future users is multiplied by the lift station replacement cost to calculate the estimated cost of capacity assigned to future customers. Since the metering facility improvements enhance the efficiency of all lift stations, 100 percent of the cost of these improvements is assigned to future customers. The total cost of lift station improvements that is included in the cost of future capacity is approximately $9.6 million. Collection System Replacement Costs As previously discussed, a hydraulic model of the City's collection system was used to evaluate the need for capacity improvements. The model identified a number of pipeline segments that did not have adequate capacity to meet future conditions. The length, existing diameter, replacement diameter, and replacement cost was developed for each segment and was shown in Table 7-5. These findings are used as the basis of collection system costs for future customers. _ 8.4 014641.00 TABLE 8-1 LIFT STATION FUTURE EXPANSION COST ALLOCATION Influent Lift Cost To Station %Assigned Assigned Lift Station Capacity Replacement to Future to Future Number and Name Ratio Cost Users Users Deficient Lift Stations #2 Humbolt 119% $1,104,833 19% $209,396 #5 Davenport 123% $1,141,201 23% $260,974 #6 Edgewater 288% $2,727,561 100% $2,727,561 #15 Beach 118% $1,910,979 18% $343,243 #16 Adams 148% $1,374,873 48% $660,308 #18 Atlanta 137% $879,082 37% $328,394 #22 Saybrook 184% $1,922,485 84% $1,617,694 #23 New Britain 156% $1,478,168 56% $826,663 #25 Edinger 190% $1,805,260 90% $1,632,465 #26 Brighton 123% $1,143,837 23% $264,823 #28 Coral Cay 121% $1,119,455 21% $229,791 Deficient Subtotal $16,607,733 - $9,101,313 Metering Facilities $540,000 100%-• - $540,000 Total Replacement Cost $17,147,733 - $9,641,313 Source: Table 7-6. Similar to the approach used for the lift station cost allocation, discussions with City staff t l focused on deriving the cost of collection system improvements that should be borne by future customers_ Through these discussions, several approaches were developed to allocate collection system costs to future services. While each of the alternative methods complies with appropriate cost allocation procedures, the basis of approach does affect the resulting level of applicable costs and charges. The focus of the collections system cost allocation alternatives is based on the following key cost recovery questions. • should future customers pay for all capacity deficiencies • should the replacement pipeline costs be "discounted" to recognize that the City would have incurred costs to slipline or rehabilitate these facilities if they were not overcapacity Since there is no discreet answer to each of these questions and the questions are not mutually exclusive, City staff decided to include the development of each alternative scenario in the cost allocation analysis. The basic alternatives derived for the collection system cost component are as follows: • Alternative 1 — Total System Replacement Cost - Include the total cost of all capacity improvements based on the replacement cost of each facility • Alternative 2 — Total System Upsizing Cost - Include the total cost of all capacity improvements and reduce this cost by the estimated cost to slipline each pipeline segment (at original diameter) The resulting collection system costs are developed in Table 8-2. As shown, the costs associated with these alternatives are approximately $8.0 million, and $4.0 million for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. 8.6 014641.00 TABLE 8-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES Existing Replacement Length Replacement Sliplining Upsizing ID# Diameter Cost Cost Cost (in) Diameter (in) (ft) $ ($) ($) 1013 18 21 373 $93,250 $48,490 $44.760 1014 18 21 100 $25,000 $13,000 $12,000 1015 18 21 226 $56,500 $29,380 $27,120 1016 18 21 201 $50,250 $26,130 $24,120 1017 18 21 336 $84,000 $43,680 $40,320 1019 18 21 304 $76,000 $39,520 $36,480 474 12 18 301 $60,200 $27,090 $33,110 476 12 18 345 $69,000 $31,050 $37,950 477 12 18 345 $69,000 $31,050 $37,950 478 12 18 345 $69,000 $31,050 $37,950 531 12 18 329 $65,800 $29,610 $36,190 547 12 18 330 $66,000 $29,700 $36,300 2586 12 18 299 $59,800 $26,910 $32,890 294 12 15 335 $60,300 $30,150 $30,150 295 12 15 330 $59,400 $29,700 $29,700 296 12 15 168 $30,240 $15,120 $15,120 165 10 15 324 $58,320 $25,920 $32,400 166 10 15 347 $62,460 $27,760 $34,700 167 10 15 314 $56,520 $25,120 $31,400 168 10 15 339 $61,020 $27,120 $33,900 169 10 15 308 $55,440 $24,640 $30,800 170 10 15 304 $54,720 $24,320 $30,400 174 10 15 107 $19,260 $8,560 $10,700 194 10 15 138 $24,840 $11,040 $13,800 202 10 15 136 $24,480 $10,880 $13,600 206 10 15 226 $40,680 $18,080 $22,600 211 10 15 204 $36,720 $16,320 $20,400 213 10 15 113 $20,340 $9,040 $11,300 216 10 15 240 $43,200 $19,200 $24,000 219 10 15 240 $43,200 $19,200 $24,000 221 10 15 110 $19,800 $8,800 $11,000 222 10 15 213 $38,340 $17,040 $21,300 232 10 15 239 $43,020 $19,120 $23,900 237 10 15 246 $44,280 $19,680 $24,600 293 10 15 251 $45,180 $20,080 $25,100 308 10 15 290 $52,200 $23,200 $29,000 321 10 15 300 $54,000 $24,000 $30,000 335 10 15 301 $54,180 $24,080 $30,100 345 10 15 295 $53,100 $23,600 $29,500 543 10 15 307 $55,260 $24,560 $30,700 544 10 15 306 $55,080 $24,480 $30,600 545 10 15 306 $55,080 $24,480 $30,600 548 10 15 309 $55,620 $24,720 $30,900 549 10 15 14 $2,520 $1,120 $1,400 550 10 15 155 $27,900 $12,400 $15,500 590 10 15 293 $52,740 $23,440 $29,300 598 10 15 289 $52,020 $23,120 $28,900 974 10 15 331 $59,580 $26,480 $33,100 980 10 15 330 $59,400 $26,400 $33,000 3002 10 15 46 $8,280 $3,680 $4,600 1080 10 12 294 $45,5701 $23,520 $22,050 5005 8 12 255 $39,525 $15,300 $24,22 5013 8 12 210 $32,550 $12,600 $19,950 Page 1 of 4 TABLE 8-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES Existing Replacement Sliplining Upsizing ID# Diameter Replacement Length Cost Cost Cost (in) Diameter (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) 362 15 18 157 $31,400 $14,915 $16,485 368 15 18 246 $49,200 $23,370 $25,830 379 15 18 315 $63,000 $29,925 $33,075 486 15 18 127 $25,400 $12,065 $13,335 488 15 18 125 $25,000 $11,875 $13,125 493 15 18 206 $41,200 $19,570 $21,630 495 15 18 329 $65,800 $31,255 $34,545 33 12 15 350 $63,000 $31,500 $31,500 36 12 15 320 $57,600 $28,800 $28,800 46 12 15 262 $47,160 $23,580 $23,580 50 12 15 299 $53,820 $26,910 $26,910 115 12 15 150 $27,000 $13,500 $13,500 116 12 15 105 $18,900 $9,450 $9,450 117 12 15 75 $13,500 $6,750 $6,750 118 12 15 330 $59,400 $29,700 $29,700 119 12 15 330 $59,400 $29,700 $29,700 120 12 15 341 $61,380 $30,690 $30,690 121 12 15 259 $46,620 $23,310 $23,310 175 12 15 335 $60,300 $30,150 $30,150 182 12 15 270 $48,600 $24,300 $24,300 183 12 15 259 $46,620 $23,310 $23,310 185 12 15 275 $49,500 $24,750 $24,750 239 12 15 302 $54,360 $27,180 $27,180 l 256 12 15 513 $92,340 $46,170 $46,170 \ 261 12 15 246 $44,280 $22,140 $22,140 297 12 15 166 $29,880 $14,940 $14,940 298 12 15 317 $57,060 $28,530 $28,530 299 12 15 341 $61,380 $30,690 $30,690 300 12 15 309 $55,620 $27,810 $27,810 312 12 15 251 $45,180 $22,590 $22,590 366 12 15 326 $58,680 $29,340 $29,340 375 12 15 210 $37,800 $18,900 $18,900 377 12 15 120 $21,600 $10,800 $10,800 389 12 15 220 $39,600 $19,800 $19,800 508 12 15 9 $1,620 $810 $810 607 12 15 178 $32,040 $16,020 $16,020 610 12 15 253 $45,540 $22,770 $22,770 619 12 15 226 $40,680 $20,340 $20,340 623 12 15 267 $48,060 $24,030 $24,030 634 12 15 235 $42,300 $21,150 $21,150 635 12 15 144 $25,920 $12,960 $12,960 639 12 15 140 $25,200 $12,600 $12,600 742 12 15 286 $51,480 $25,740 $25,740 932 12 15 682 $122,760 $61,380 $61,380 1068 12 15 221 $39,780 $19,890 $19,890 1134 12 15 141 $25,380 $12,690 $12,690 1135 12 15 30 $5,400 $2,700 $2,700 1181 12 15 301 $54,180 $27,090 $27,090 43 10 12 325 $50,375 $26,000 $24,375 205 10 12 261 $40,455 $20,880 $19,575 2071 10 12 347 $53,7851 $27,760 $26,025 2081 10 12 105 $16,2751 $8,400 $7,875 2101 10 12 149 $23,0951 $11,920 $11,175 Page 2 of 4 TABLE 8-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES Existing ReplacementFLe(nh Replacement Sliplining Upsizing ID# Diameter Cost Cost Cost (. ) Diameter (in ($ $) ($) m 220 10 12 292 $45,260 $23,360 $21,900 223 10 12 107 $16,585 $8,560 $8,025 231 10 12 223 $34,565 $17,840 $16,725 242 10 12 330 $51,150 $26,400 $24,750 245 10 12 350 $54,250 $28,000 $26,250 254 10 12 330 $51,150 $26,400 $24,750 262 10 12 330 $51,150 $26,400 $24,750 301 10 12 350 $54,250 $28,000 $26,250 302 10 12 23 $3,565 $1,840 $1,725 449 10 12 129 $19,995 $10,320 $9,675 462 10 12 301 $46,655 $24,080 $22,575 465 10 12 287 $44,485 $22,960 $21,525 470 10 12 282 $43,710 $22,560 $21,150 522 10 12 259 $40,145 $20,720 $19,425 523 10 12 299 $46,345 $23,920 $22,425 524 10 12 314 $48,670 $25,120 $23,550 525 10 12 255 $39,525 $20,400 $19,125 533 10 12 265 $41,075 $21,200 $19,875 546 10 12 264 $40,920 $21,120 $19,800 551 10 12 160 $24,800 $12,800 $12,000 819 10 12 673 $104,315 $53,840 $50,475 824 10 12 261 $40,455 $20,880 $19,575 868 10 12 328 $50,840 $26,240 $24,600 901 10 12 175 $27,125 $14,000 $13,125 917 10 12 388 $60,140 $31,040 $29,100 953 10 12 331 $51,305 $26,480 $24,825 954 10 12 168 $26,040 $13,440 $12,600 957 10 12 326 $50,530 $26,080 $24,450 962 10 12 162 $25,110 $12,960 $12,150 963 10 12 330 $51,150 $26,400 $24,750 964 10 12 158 $24,490 $12,640 $11,850 966 10 12 332 $51,460 $26,560 $24,900 975 10 12 329 $50,995 $26,320 $24,675 978 10 12 168 $26,040 $13,440 $12,600 981 10 12 171 $26,505 $13,680 $12,825 1041 10 12 301 $46,655 $24,080 $22,575 1118 10 12 150 $23,250 $12,000 $11,250 1121 10 12 277 $42,935 $22,160 $20,775 1130 10 12 40 $6,20Q $3,200 $3,000 1131 10 12 326 $50,530 $26,080 $24,450 1136 10 12 81 $12,555 $6,480 $6,075 2566 10 12 349 $54,095 $27,920 $26,175 2569 10 12 349 $54,095 $27,920 $26,175 2576 10 12 352 $54,560 $28,160 $26.400 4003 10 12 309 $47,895 $24,720 $23,175 233 8 10 35 $4,550 $2,100 $2,450 240 8 10 91 $11,830 $5,460 $6,370 313 8 10 226 $29,380 $13,560 $15,820 318 8 10 91 $11,830 $5,460 $6,370 347 8 10 1 341 $44,330 $20,460 $23,870 832 8 10 77 $10,010 $4,620 $5,390 833 8 10 105 $13,650 $6,300 $7,350 2541 8 10 181 $23,5301 $10,860 $12,670 Page 3 of 4 TABLE 8-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES ' Existing Replacement Length Replacement Sliplining Upsizing ID# Diameter(in) Cost Cost Cost Diameter (in) (ft) ($) ($) ($) 2543 8 10 36 $4,680 $2,160 $2,520 2545 8 10 294 $38,220 $17,640 $20,580 2547 8 10 275 $35,750 $16,500 $19,250 2579 8 10 162 $21,060 $9,720 $11,340 2581 8 10 217 $28,210 $13,020 $15,190 333 15 18 130 $26,000 $12,350 $13,650 341 15 18 195 $39,000 $18,525 $20,475 351 15 18 197 $39,400 $18,715 $20,685 1168 12 15 335 $60,300 $30,150 $30,150 399 10 12 290 $44,950 $23,200 $21,750 434 10 12 300 $46,500 $24,000 $22,500 447 10 12 170 $26,350 $13,600 $12,750 563 10 12 332 $51,460 $26,560 $24,900 775 10 12 363 $56,265 $29,040 $27,225 779 10 12 400 $62,000 $32,000 $30,000 785 10 12 401 $62,155 $32,080 $30,075 811 10 12 171 $26,505 $13,680 $12,825 818 10 12 1462 $226,610 $116,960 $109,650 903 10 12 206 $31,930 $16,480 $15,450 1055 10 12 206 $31,930 $16,480 $15,450 311 8 10 75 $9,750 $4,500 $5,250 5009 8 10 225 $29,2501 $13,500 $15,750 5004 8 10 171 $22,2301 $10,2601 $11,970 { Total Collection Improvements= 46,527 $7,983,205 $4,003,715 $3,979,490 Alternative 1 -Total System Replacement Cost $7,983,205 Alternative 2 -Total System U.psizing Cost $3,979,490 Page 4 of 4 FUTURE INCREMENTAL WASTEWATER FLOWS AND UNIT FLOW FACTORS As previously discussed, the incremental approach is based on quantifying the future costs of additional system capacity and unitizing these costs by the incremental quantity of additional wastewater demand served by these costs. Accordingly, the incremental quantity of wastewater flows and the unit flows per customer type are important considerations in the development of the City's updated SFCs. The development of each of these wastewater flow values is discussed in the following sections. Development of Estimated Future Incremental Wastewater Flows Consistent with the study methodology, the estimated wastewater flow was derived from the output of the hydraulic model under current and future wastewater loading conditions. The incremental value that is the result of future growth is the difference between the future and existing wastewater flows. Based on the findings of the hydraulic model, the incremental increase in future wastewater flow was estimated to be 1.95 MGD. The results of this analysis are performed as an element of hydraulic modeling simulation tasks and are shown in Appendix D. Development of Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows In addition to the development of future incremental flows, wastewater flows factors are derived for each of the residential and commercial/industrial user classes. These values were estimated during the conduct of the City's 2001 Sewer Service Charge Study and are reflected herein as Table 8-3. As shown, water consumption values are correlated to the calculated return to sewer factors to develop the average wastewater discharges for the Single Family dwelling (SFD) and Multi Family dwelling (MFD) and a commercial/industrial customer. The City's 2001 Sewer Charge Study estimated that the average wastewater discharge of a SFD is 226 gallons per day (gpd). Additionally, the 2001 Sewer Charge Study estimated the discharge for a Multi Family dwelling and a commercial/industrial customer to be 185 gpd and 257 gallons per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU), respectively. 8.8 014641.00 TABLE 8-3 ESTIMATED UNIT WASTEWATER FLOWS Account Units/ Usage Return Wastewater Wastewater Usage(a) Type EDUs (HCF/Yr) To Sewer (HCF) (MGD) (gpd) Single Family(SFD) 41,718 6,765,222 0.67 4,532,699 9.4 226 Multi Family (MFD) 32,326 3,378,013 0.85 2,871,311 6.0 185 Commercial/Industrial 13,308 1,829,100 0.90 1,646,190 3.4 257 Source: Sewer Service Charge Approach, DCA 7/01 (a) Single Family and Multi Family are per unit; Commercial/Industrial is per Equivalent Dwelling Unit(EDU). C UNIT COSTS OF SERVICE The development of unit costs of service is an essential step in deriving cost of service based Sewer Facility Charges. Unit costs of service are obtained by correlating the costs associated with future growth with the incremental addition of future sewer system discharges. The resulting unit costs of service for each of the three alternatives is shown in Table 8-4. As shown, given the variation in the collection system replacement costs allocated to future customers, the estimated unit costs for Alternative 1 is $9,038 per 1000 gpd. The resulting unit cost of service for Alternative 2 is $6,985 per 1000 gpd. ALTERNATIVE SEWER FACILITY CHARGES Sewer Facility Charges are a source of income from growth-induced new sewer connections or charges to the use of existing accounts with respect to wastewater - discharge characteristics. The revenues from SFCs are restricted to the financing of } growth-related capital improvements. The Sewer Facility Charges are based on the City's projected costs of additional wastewater system capacity, the cost of service allocation analysis, and the estimated discharges from the three key customer classes. Sewer Facility Charges Sewer Facility Charges are calculated by correlating the wastewater demand characteristics of the City's primary residential and non-residential user classes with the estimated unit costs of service. As shown in Table 8-5, the resulting charges for a Single Family Dwelling (SFD) is $2,043 for Alternative 1 and $1,579 for Alternative 2. 8.10 014641.00 TABLE 8-4 ' SEWER FACILITY CHARGE UNIT COSTS OF SERVICE Alternative Alternative Description 1 2 Capital Costs to Future Users CIP Projects-Collection System $7,983,205 $3,979,490 CIP Projects- Lift Stations $9,641,313 $9,641,313 Total Cost to Future Users $17,624,518 $13,620,803 Estimated Wastewater Flows Projected Wastewater Flows at Buildout(MGD) 20.32 20.32 Estimated Current Wastewater Flows (MGD) 18.37 18.37 Incremental Future Wastewater Flows (MGD) 1.95 1.95 Unit Costs of Service Unit Costs of Service ($/1000 gpd) $9,038 $6,985 Alternative 1 -Total System Replacement Cost Alternative 2-Total System Upsizing Cost (� I TABLE 8- 5 SEWER FACILITY CHARGE ALTERNATIVES Alternative Alternative Description 1 2 Capital Costs to Future Users CIP Projects- Collection System $7,983,205 $3,979,490 CIP Projects- Lift Stations $9,641,313 $9,641,313 Total Cost to Future Users $17,624,518 $13,620,803 Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows (a) Estimated Flows from a SFD (gpd) 226 226 Estimated Flows from a MFD (gpd) 185 185 Estimated Flows from a Non-Res EDU (gpd) 257 257 Unit Costs of Service Unit Costs of Service ($/1000 gpd) $9,038 $6,985 SFD Unit Cost $2,043 $1,579 MFD Unit Cost $1,672 $1,292 Non-Res Unit Cost per EDU $2,323 $1,795 Non-Residential Meter Size Equivalency Alternative Charge Per Meter Size (Inches) and Type EDUs(a) Meter Size/Type 5/8 1 $2,323 $1,795 3/4 1 $2,323 $1,795 1 2 $4,646 $3,590 1.5 3 $6,968 $5,385 2 5 $11,614 $8,976 3 11 $25,550 $19,747 4 Compound 17 $39,487 $30,517 4 Domestic and Turbine 33 $76,651 $59,240 6 Compound 33 $76,651 $59,240 6 Domestic and Turbine 67 $155,625 $120,275 8 Domestic 117 $271,764 $210,032 10 Domestic 183 $425,066 $328,512 (a) Source: Sewer Service Charge Approach, DCA 7/01 Alternative 1 -Total System Replacement Cost Alternative 2 -Total System Upsizing Cost Consistent with the City's existing sewer user charge rate structure, the non-residential customers are charged based on the number of EDU's for each of the City's water meter sizes and types. The number of EDU's for each meter size/type was derived in the City's 2001 Sewer Charge Study. Correlating the previously derived number of EDU's with the unit costs of service derived herein, provides the basis for the non-residential Sewer Facility Charges. The results of this analysis are show in the bottom portion of Table 8-5. Sewer Facility Charge Comparison Table 8-6 is a comparison of the City's current and alternative residential Sewer Facility Charges with neighboring communities. As shown, the alternative Sewer Facility Charges compare favorably with the rates of surrounding communities. These charges are based on the recovery of only the City's incremental local costs of future capacity. As discussed with City staff, it is recommended the City adopt one of the alternative facility charges so that growth cost are adequately recovered from future wastewater system customers. 8.13 014641.00 TABLE 8-6 RESIDENTIAL SEWER FACILITY CHARGE SURVEY Single Family Mulit Family Description (SFD) (MFD) Representative Agencies Orange County Sanitation Districea) $1,620 to$1,965 $1,275 to$1,620 City of Santa Ana(b) $1,500 to$2,000 $1,200 to$1,500 City of Fountain Valley(`) $1,500 - City of Anaheim(d) $1,470 $1,476 City of Huntington Beach Charges Current Fee, Adopted 4/88 $220 $220 Calculated Fee Alternatives 2003 Study Alternative 1 - Total System Replacement Cost $2,043 $1,672 Alternative 2 - Total System Upsizing Cost $1,579 $1,292 (a) Based on number of Bedrooms (b) Based on Fixture Units. Values are City average estimates (c) $406/Gross Acre + $4.65 per Front Footage (basis used was 4 DU/Ac, and 300 LF (d) Varies by service Area. Values are estimated averages Appendix A Lift Station Support Information •;try ;� ;i "3 TABLE A-1 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PUMP STATION OBSERVATIONS-1995 REQUIRES UNDERSIZED CORRODED REQUIRES OBSERVED OR EXCESS ELECTRICAL DRY WELL- PIPING,DRY PAINTINGI - INADEQUATE POSSIBLE LEAKING AWWA ELECTRICAL EXPOSED CONDUIT RESTRICTED WELL,AND/OR PROTECTIVE NEEDS NUMBER NAME NUMBER&NAME PIPE SUPPORT DRY WELLNAULT VALVES CABLE WIRING PAINT AREAS HARDWARE COATING CLEANING 1 Graham&Kenilworth #1 GRAHAM X X X X X 2 Humboll&Wayfarer 102 HUM80LOT X X X X X X X 3 Gilbert&Peale 13"E" X X X X X X X 4 PCH in Sunset Beach #4"A" X X X X X X X 5 Davenport&Baruna #5 DAVENPORT X X X X X 6 Edgewater&Davenport #6 EDGEWATER X X X X X 7 PCH West of Warner #7 STATION"B" X X X X X X 8 Warner North of PCH #8 STATION"C" X X X X X X 9 Warner at Edgewater"D"Station #9"D" X X X X X 10 Algonquin&Boardwalk #10 ALGONQUIN X X X X 11 Lark&Warner #11 LARK - X X X X 12 Heil&Mycroft #12 HEIL X X X X X 13 Slater&Springdale #13 SLATER X X X X X X 14 Gothard&Ellis #14 GOTHARD X X X X 15 Oceanhill&Beach #15 BEACH X 16 Adams&Ranger #16 ADAMS X X X X X X X X 17 Brookhurst&Effingham #17 BROOKHURST X X X X X X 18 Atlanta East of Beach #18 ATLANTA x X X X 19 Bushard&Pettswood #19 BUSHARD X X X X X X X X 20 Speer&Crabb #20 SPEER X X X X X 21 McFadden&Dawson #21 MCFADDEN X X X X X X 22 Saybrook&Hell #22 SAYBROOK X X X X X 23 New Britian&Adams #23 NEW BRITAIN X X X X X 24 Edwards&Balmorol #24 EDWARDS X X X X X X 25 Edinger&Santa Barbara #25 EDINGER X X X X X X X X 26 Brighton&Shoreham #26 BRIGHTON X X X X X X X - 28 Coral Cay #28 CORAL CAY X X X X X X X X 29 Trinidad&Aquarius #29 TRINIDAD X X X X X P'1ProfaCWHvnhnl/ron BeaChk014641.00 WWMP12002 Draft Raport%ChapterMTab1eA-1 FROM SEWER I I WET WELL SUmp PUMP \ o SUMPPUMPS J DRY PIT i I STAIRS III I I TO FORCE MAIN NOT TO SCALE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TYPICAL WET WELLIDRY PIT LAYOUT Figure 5-1 I I MANHOLE (IF IN STREET) ACCESS HATCH ACCESS HATCH I I --- -- --------- 71 TO DRY PIT T FORCEMAIN WET WELL I c I I FROM SEWER r HIGH WATER LEVEL WEMCO TORQUE—FLOW - o o PUMP ®. LOW WATER LEVEL a SUMP PUMP NOTES: 1. FIGURE DOES NOT SHOW HVAC EQUIPMENT. 2. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PIPING MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON LIFT STATION SITE AND CONFIGURATION_ NOT TO SCALE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TYPICAL WET WELL/DRY PIT ELEVATIONS Figure 5-2 I --LIFT STATION WET WELL �VALVE VAULT 4 VAULT DRAIN , FORCE MAIN ACCESS HATCH ACCESS HATCH OR MANHOLE COVER PVC LINING CHECK -Ft OW I VALVE METER -o� I 0 u HI WS of 0 0 o LO WS EXTEND PVC LINER GROUT— 1'-0" BELOW LOW FILL \ WATER LEVEL J ' n In v CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 n 0, SUBMERSIBLE LIFT STATION / Figure 5-3 Appendix Wastewater Flow Monitoring Summary REFER TO MASTER DOCUMENT k�j Appendix C Assessor Parcel Number and Billing System Correlation REFER TO MASTER DOCUMENT b Appendix Hydraulic Analysis Support Information , j APPENDIX D COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES -ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS E } Existing Replacement PDWF Existing New Length ID# Category (cfs) Diameter D/d Diameter D/d (ft) (in) (in) 1013 Deficient 3.447 18 1.00 21 0.60 373 1014 Deficient 3.402 18 1.00 21 0.60 100 1015 Deficient 3.396 18 1.00 21 0.60 226 1016 Deficient 3.253 18 0.78 21 0.58 201 1017 Deficient 3.249 18 0.78 21 0.58 336 1019 Deficient 3.143 18 0.75 21 0.57 304 474 Deficient 2.313 12 1.00 18 0.41 301 476 Deficient 2.344 12 1.00 18 0.41 345 477 Deficient 2.388 12 1.00 18 0.42 345 478 Deficient 2.443 12 1.00 18 0.42 345 531 Deficient 2.107 12 0.75 18 0.40 329 547 Deficient 2.104 12 1.00 18 0.41 330 2586 Deficient 1.693 12 0.75 18 0.39 299 294 Deficient 1.295 12 0.54 15 0.47 335 295 Deficient 1.291 12 0.54 15 0.47 330 296 Deficient 1.288 12 0.54 15 0.47 168 165 Deficient 0.852 10 0.70 15 0.38 324 166 Deficient 0.853 10 0.70 15 0.38 347 167 Deficient 0.853 10 0.70 15 0.38 314 168 Deficient 0.925 10 0.75 15 0.39 339 169 Deficient 0.931 10 0.75 15 0.39 308 170 Deficient 0 951 10 0.77 15 0.40 304 174 Deficient 0.953 10 0.77 15 0.40 107 194 Deficient 0.852 10 0.70 15 0.38 138 1 202 Deficient 0.988 10 1 0.71 15 0.38 136 206 Deficient 0.996 10 0.72 15 0.39 226 211 Deficient 1.006 10 0.74 15 0.39 204 213 Deficient 1.014 10 0.74 15 0.39 113 216 Deficient 1.021 10 0.74 15 0.39 240 219 Deficient 1.033 10 0.75 15 0.39 240 221 Deficient 1.031 10 0.75 15 0.39 110 222 Deficient 1.106 10 0.79 15 0.41 213 232 Deficient 1.122 10 1.00 15 0.41 239 237 Deficient 1.133 10 1.00 15 0.41 246 293 Deficient 0.641 10 0.65 15 0.37 251 308 Deficient 0.860 10 0.68 15 0.38 290 321 Deficient 0.861 10 0.68 15 0.38 300 335 Deficient 0.861 10 0.67 15 0.38 301 345 Deficient 0.862 10 0.68 15 0.38 295 543 Deficient 1.146 10 0.69 15 0.37 307 544 Deficient 1.251 10 0.73 15 0.38 306 545 Deficient 1.258 10 0.73 15 0.39 306 548 Deficient 1.260 10 0.74 15 0.39 309 549 Deficient 1.140 10 0.68 15 0.37 14 550 Deficient 1.140 10 0.68 15 0.37 155 590 Deficient 0.804 10 0.65 15 0.37 293 598 Deficient 0.802 10 0.65 15 0.37 289 974 Deficient 0.930 10 0.66 15 0.37 331 980 Deficient 0.947 10 0.67 15 0.37 330 3002 Deficient 0.846 10 0.66 15 0.37 46 1080 Deficient 0.796 10 0.65 12 0.50 294 5005 Deficient 0.562 8 1.00 12 0.44 255 50131 Deficient 1 0.585 8 1 1.00 1 12 0.43 1 1911 Subtotal "Deficient'= 13,697 Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX D COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES -ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS Existing Replacement ID# Category PDWF Diameter D/d Existing Diameter New Length (cfs) (in) (in) D/d (ft) 362 Borderline 2.057 15 0.67 18 0.50 157 368 Borderline 2.142 15 0.68 18 0.51 246 379 Borderline 2.164 15 0.69 18 0.52 315 486 Borderline 1.768 15 0.67 18 0.51 127 488 Borderline 1.773 15 0.66 18 0.51 125 493 Borderline 1.834 15 0.69 18 0.53 206 495 Borderline 1.844 15 0.69 18 0.53 329 33 Borderline 0.620 12 0.50 15 0.38 350 36 Borderline 0.658 12 0.52 15 0.39 1 320 46 Borderline 0.804 12 0.50 15 0.40 262 50 Borderline 0.846 12 0.52 15 0.42 299 115 Borderline 1.242 12 0.52 15 0.39 150 116 Borderline 0.972 12 0.65 15 0.46 105 117 Borderline 0.943 12 0.64 15 0.45 75 118 Borderline 0.943 12 0.63 15 0.45 330 1191 Borderline 0.934 12 0.63 15 0.45 330 120 Borderline 0.930 12 0.63 15 0.45 341 121 Borderline 0.720 12 0.54 15 0.39 259 175 Borderline 0.706 12 0.54 15 0.41 335 182 Borderline 0.698 12 0.49 15 0.39 270 183 Borderline 0.702 12 0.49 15 0.39 259 185 Borderline 0.673 12 0.48 15 0.38 275 239 Borderline 1.407 12 0.65 15 0.46 302 256 Borderline 1.601 12 0.60 . 15 0.43 513 261 Borderline 1.689 12 0.55 15 0.40 246 297 Borderline 0.916 12 0.41 15 0.39 166 298 Borderline 0.914 12 0.41 15 0.39 317 299 Borderline 0.910 12 0.41 15 0.39 341 300 Borderline 0.905 12 0.41 15 0.39 309 312 Borderline 1.314 12 0.61 15 0.44 251 366 Borderline 0.952 12 0.52 1 15 0.40 326 375 Borderline 0.954 12 0.53 15 0.40 210 377 Borderline 0.995 12 0.54 15 0.41 120 389 Borderline 0.996 12 0.54 15 0.41 220 508 Borderline 1.291 12 0.51 15 0.38 9 607 Borderline 0.668 12 0.50 15 0.38 178 610 Borderline 0.686 12 1 0.51 15 0.38 253 619 Borderline 0.715 12 0.53 15 0.39 226 623 Borderline 0.540 12 0.46 15 0.38 267 634 Borderline 0.728 12 0.53 15 0.40 235 635 Borderline 0.752 12 0.54 15 0.40 144 639 Borderline 0.927 12 062 15 0.45 140 742 Borderline 1.141 12 0.52 15 0.39 286 932 Borderline 0.854 12 0.51 15 0.38 682 1068 Borderline 1.058 12 0.57 15 0.42 221 1134 Borderline 1.482 12 0.58 15 0.42 141 1135 Borderline 1.481 12 0.53 15 0.39 30 1181 Borderline 1.143 12 0.52 15 0.39 301 43 Borderline 0.431 10 0.50 12 0.43 325 205 Borderline 0.696 10 0.61 12 0.46 261 207 Borderline 0.584 10 0.55 12 0.42 347 208 Borderline 0.694 10 0.61 12 1 0.46 105 210 Borderline 0.585 10 0.55 12 0.42 14 220 Borderline 0.634 10 0.58 12 0.44 292 2231 Borderline 1 0.635 10 0.58 12 0.44 107 Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX D COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES -ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS Existing Replacement PDWF Existing New Length ID# Category (cfs) Diameter Did Diameter D/d (ft) (in) (in) 231 Borderline 0.659 10 0.59 12 0.45 223 242 Borderline 0.660 10 0.59 12 0.45 330 245 Borderline 0.489 10 0.61 12 0.46 350 254 Borderline 0.684 10 0.61 12 0.46 330 262 Borderline 0.737 10 0.64 12 0.48 330 301 Borderline 0.745 10 0.64 12 0.48 350 302 Borderline 0.747 10 0.63 12 0.47 23 449 Borderline 0.985 10 0.57 12 0.44 129 462 Borderline 1.028 10 0.62 12 0.47 301 465 Borderline 1.034 10 0.62 12 0.48 287 470 Borderline 1.040 10 0.63 12 0.48 282 522 Borderline 0.711 10 0.60 12 0.47 259 523 Borderline 0.670 10 0.57 12 0.45 299 524 Borderline 0.662 10 0.61 12 0.48 314 525 Borderline 0.582 10 0.56 12 0.45 255 533 Borderline 0.577 10 0.56 1 12 0.44 265 546 Borderline 0.574 10 0.55 12 0.44 264 551 Borderline 1.133 10 0.66 12 0.49 160 819 Borderline 0.511 10 0.48 12 0.39 673 824 Borderline 0.544 10 0.47 12 0.41 261 868 Borderline 0.463 10 0.55 12 0.45 328 901 Borderline 0.518 1 10 0.50 12 0.40 175 917 Borderline 0.518 10 0.50 12 0.40 388 953 Borderline 0.790 10 0.59 12 0.46 331 954 Borderline 0 793 10 0.56 12 0.44 168 957 Borderline 0.598 10 0.49 12 0.40 326 962 Borderline 0.914 10 0.61 12 0.47 162 963 Borderline 0.796 10 0.60 12 0.46 330 964 Borderline 0.799 10 0.56 12 0.44 158 966 Borderline 0.642 10 0.51 12 0.41 332 975 Borderline 0.679 10 053 12 0.42 329 978 Borderline 0.703 10 0.51 12 0.41 168 981 Borderline 0.950 10 0.62 12 0.48 171 1041 Borderline 0.986 10 0.61 12 0.46 301 1118 Borderline 0.584 10 1 0.55 12 0.42 150 1121 Borderline 0.703 10 0.59 12 0.46 277 1130 Borderline 0.611 10 0.59 12 0.43 40 1131 Borderline 0.585 10 0.58 12 0.42 326 1136 Borderline 1.041 10 0.52 12 0.41 81 2566 Borderline 0.784 10 0.64 12 0.47 349 2569 Borderline 0.785 10 0.64 12 0.47 349 2576 Borderline 0.785 10 0.64 12 0.47 352 4003 Borderline 0.589 10 0.50 12 0.39 309 233 Borderline 0.341 8 0.55 10 0.41 35 240 Borderline 0.308 8 0.51 10 0.38 91 313 Borderline 0.316 8 0.54 10 0.40 226 318 Borderline 0.326 8 0.55 10 0.40 91 347 Borderline 0.373 8 0.54 10 0.42 341 832 Borderline 0.340 8 0.57 10 0.41 77 833 Borderline 0.340 8 0.57 10 0.41 105 2541 Borderline 0.503 8 0.57 10 0.42 181 2543 Borderline 0.505 8 0.56 10 0.41 36 2545 Borderline 0.505 8 0.58 10 0.42 294 2547 Borderline 0.506 8 0.58 10 0.42 275 2579 Borderline 1 0.350 1 0.57 10 0.42 162 Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX D " COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES - ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS Existing Replacement ID# Cate D/d gory PDWF Diameter Existing Diameter New Length (cfs) in) (in) D/d (ft) 2581 Borderline 0.350 8 0.57 10 0.42 217 333 Borderline 2.015 15 0.66 18 0.50 130 341 Borderline 2.035 15 0.65 18 0.50 195 351 Borderline 2.045 15 0.66 18 0.50 197 1168 Borderline 1.938 12 0.51 15 0.37 335 3991 Borderline 0.717 10 0.50 12 0.39 290 4341 Borderline 0.717 10 0.50 12 0.39 300 447 Borderline 0.718 10 0.50 12 0.39 170 563 Borderline 1.000 10 0.49 12 0.39 332 775 Borderline 0.498 10 0.47 12 0.39 363 779 Borderline 0.501 10 0.47 12 0.39 400 785 Borderline 0.504 10 0.47 12 0.39 401 811 Borderline 0.492 10 0.40 12 0.39 171 818 Borderline 0.508 10 0.47 12 0.39 1462 903 Borderline 0.501 10 0.49 12 0.39 206 1055 Borderline 0.494 10 0.49 12 0.39 206 311 Borderline 0.275 8 0.50 10 0.37 75 5009 Borderline 0.285 8 0.49 10 0.37 225 50041 Borderline 0.360 8 0.57 1 10 0.42 1 171 Subtotal "Borderline" = 32,830 Total Collection System Improvements = 46,527 Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX D_1 MODEL CALIBRATION FINDINGS MONITOR MODEL RESULTS CALIBRATION ID ADWF (MGD) (MGD) % 1 0.767 0.769 0 7 0.137 0.138 1 10 0.506 0.505 0 11 0.211 0.211 0 APPENDIX D_2 4i GIS BASED LAND USE GENERATION FACTORS LAND USE FLOW GENERATION DESCRIPTION CODE FACTORS (qpq�dL Residential High Density RH-30 4800 Medium High Density RMH 4800 Medium High Density RMH-25 3600 Medium Density RM-25 3600 Medium Density RM-15 2200 Low Density RL-7 1600 Low Density RL-6 1350 Low Density RL-5 1100 Low Density RL-4 900 Low Density RL-3 750 Commercial Neighborhood CN 1190 Office CO 1120 General CG 1040 Visitor CV 1020 Regional CR 690 Industrial I 820 Public Medium High Density P(RMH-25) 970 Medium Density P(RM-15) 920 Low Density P(RL-7) 1030 Low Density P(RL-6.5) 1030 Low Density P(RL-3) 100 Schools P(RL), OTHER varies Open Space- Park P(OS-P) 60 Open Space-Com Rec P(OS-CR) 200 Industrial P(I) 1000 Commercial Neighborhood P(CN) 1000 Commercial General P(CG) 1000 Public(Utility ROW ) P 0 Open Space Shore OS-S 200 Park OS-P 140 Commercial Recreation OS-CR 10 Commercial OS-C 150 Mixed Use M 2170 Mixed Use Horizontal MH 2150 Mixed Use Vertical MV 2490 Notes: Excludes high dischargers Load variations for residential uses reflect DU's/acre Schools loads were based on actual billing data APPENDIX D_3 ESTIMATED FUTURE INCREMENTAL WASTEWATER FLOWS Modeled Parcel Total Existing Total Future Landuse Count Flow (gpd) Flow (gpd) CG 669 596,243 631,789 CN 104 108,696 115,181 CO 22 43,203 45,787 CR 49 93,356 98,903 CV 30 51,133 54,191 1 928 890,623 943,843 M 250 383,059 406,008 MH 80 121,733 129,037 MV 124 80,049 84,839 OS-C 14 5,053 5,356 OS-CR 22 2,377 2,615 OS-P 235 68,853 72,787 OS-S 22 68,503 72,613 OS-W 120 0 0 P 142 0 0 P(CG) 3 22,735 24,099 P(CN) 1 2,787 2,954 P(1) 7 4,443 4,710 P(OS-CR) 3 526 557 P(OS-P) 4 1,647 1,756 P(RL) 11 60,794 64,442 P(RL-3) 3 923 978 P(RL-6.5) 1 3,825 4,056 P(RL-7) 4 9,924 10,521 P(RM-15) 11 16,778 17,781 P(RMH-25) 9 8,904 9,436 RH-30 436 353,256 374,451 RL-3 479 97,888 103,761 ` - RL-4 115 37,356 39,598 RL-5 1 44,678 47,358 RL-6 53 8,373 8,875 RL-7 34235 8,694,334 9,215,994 RM-15 3888 2,254,600 2,389,876 RM-25 1 346 366 RMH 1 2,678 2,839 RMH-25 5974 3,485,959 3,695,117 ROW 32 0 0 V CG 25 0 14,329 V_CN 5 0 2,898 V_CV 5 0 23,403 V_I 37 11,402 40,720 V_MH 8 190,082 330,713 V_MV 9 0 4,122 V_OS-C 8 0 21,581 V_OS-P 316 134 20,252 V_P 2 0 0 V_P(OS-P) 1 0 889 V_R H-30 19 0 110,985 V_RL-3 47 0 3,009 V_RL-7 15 0 11.512 V_RM-15 44 0 220,936 V_RMH-25 29 0 24,518 SIDS-SCHOOLS 541,404 806,853 Total(GPD) 48,653 18,368,653 20,319,193 Total(MGD) 18.37 20.32 Total Incremental Flow(MGD) 1.95 APPENDIX D 4 SIGNIFICANT DISCHARGERS/SCHOOLS j I Parcel Ultimate SID or SCHOOL APN Service Service Type Acreage Landuse Flow (Name) Account No.i (AC) (gpd) SID 145-531-24 961240 1 INDUSTRIAL 1 1.151 I 1 33,606 SID 145-473-23 909580 INDUSTRIAL 1.111 1 10,340 SID 145-473-09 909480 INDUSTRIAL 0.56 1 9,048 SID 165-364-21 615020 COMMERCIAL 0.72 CG 47,178 AREVALOS 155-043-01 14.00 P(RL) 23,746 CIRCLE VIEW 145-381-01 13.59 P(RL) 23,054 CLARA COOK 195-081-24 9.86 P(RL) 16,723 COLLEGE VIEW 146-372-15 13.84 P(RL) 23,476 CRESTVIEW 157-481-08 13.86 CG 23,510 E RALPH E HAWES 151-261-17 7.79 P(RL) 13,219 ER MULTI MULTI MULTI 9.40 P(RL) 15,946 ER MULTI MULTI MULTI 10.70 P(RL) 18,151 ER 149-302-17 14.06 P(RL) 23,847 N VIEW 145-422-19 13.39 P(RL) 22,709 HARBOR VIEW 178-761-02 15.78 SCHOOL 26,770 HAVEN VIEW 178-091-01 13.49 P(RL) 22,872 HB UNION HIGH MULTI MULTI MULTI 36.92 P(RL) 62,623 HELEN STACEY/ADA 195-091-01 31.54 SCHOOL 53,488 HOPE VIEW 165-171-02 14.71 SCHOOL 24,946 ISAAC BOWERS MULTI MULTI MULTI 14.24 P(RL) 24,146 LAMB MULTI MULTI MULTI 14.26 P(RL) 24,183 LARK VIEW MULTI MULTI MULTI 15.09 P(RL) 25,599 LEBARD 155-151-01 10.16 P(RL) 17,225 MARINE VIEW MULTI MULTI MULTI 13.74 P(RL) 23,298 MEADOW VIEW 146-131-01 13.53 SCHOOL 22,945 NEWLAND MULTI MULTI MULTI 14.28 P(RL) 24,224 OAK VIEW MULTI MULTI MULTI 14.08 P(RL) 23,878 OKA 153-181-02 8.46 P(RL) 14,346 PARK VIEW 142-441-23 11.98 P(RL) 20,313 PERRY 153-012-20 10.15 P(RL) 17,214 PLEASANT VIEW MULTI MULTI MULTI 10.81 P(RL) 18,335 RANCHO VIEW MULTI MULTI MULTI 18.20 MV 30,862 ROBERTBURKE 151-372-01 7.73 P(RL) 13,102 ROBINWOOD 145-042-24 10.72 P(RL) 18,173 SCHROEDER 145-191-01 8.82 P(RL) 14,966 SMITH 023-100-08 _ 9.67 P(RL) 16,395 SPRING VIEW 146-392-01 13.90 P(RL) 23,574 SPRINGDALE 195-214-23 _, 8.75 P(RL) 14,832 ST BONAVENTURE 146-431-10 I 7.33 P(RL) 12,433 ST FRANCIS PVT MULTI �_ MULTI MULTI 9.51 P(RL-6.5) 16,132 TALBERT = 153-132-19 13.83 P(RL) 1 23,456 LINK SCHOOL SITE MULTI MULTI MULTI j 8.00 P(RL) 13,570 VILLAGE VIEW 146-072-12 ( 12.63 P(RL) 21,412 WARDLOW 153-271-02 14.52 P(RL) 24,628 WINTERSBURG 1 111-010-01 j 54.401 CG 92,256 _ . __._.._.. 1 --- --••--- :MLqokVYCir. _. - Sunsta � Cir. I c m d _ I a Verde Mar LLL M11 101 1014 1015 1016 1017 1019 H a m — -...._..__ .. i............ o` N QU) rbrook Dr. — _......... NOT TO SCALE o - -- E c� U -'�- Kennedy/Jenks Consultants ....... l .... Legend -• -. Engineers & Scientists Lines _._.._ • 5r City of Huntington Beach Modeled �' Sewer Master Plan -- L - Borderline KJ 014641.00 U Deficient Sewer Line Deficiency m •.-...... Figure D_1 _V-7 to Cir Auburn Dr. S: —----- — _ 1`I`--� Moonlight Cir. fit , I iL LLI........ J, cv. Edg—. ont Or .1a Dr. /' _--_ ___ H F1Valentine Dr., .......... y CIT grove Cir. 0 Delia—Dr. Red When ci, .............. --.I I T J Sunlight Or, r Oak rove Cir ele C rIewaeI.—z 295 296 97 298 ..........300 Heil Ave. ...... Abbott Or Bonnie Dr. '0 — ........... I Li Z Mars Or S OC Bishop Or. Mason Dr. Lenis C". ............ M.dd.�Dr. Ruth Dr. to Corrine Cir Verlene Cir. E �TFTI I Or E E-- Peggy C,r n Pa Saturn Or. PrE. 1.c" 2 kR 4 0 d Dr. 0 Sylvia Dr. c.c". P- E p (a.ALE 0 ..........z .................... Lydia Dr. E Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Marilyn Dr. T— Engineers & Scientists n i -I City of Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan Legend KJ 014641.00 Lines Modeled o� u1 SorderlinE Sewer Line Deficiency Figure D-2 Deficient Ul sun Dr. F1 < H`EE ......... Rosemont Dr. Freeborn Dr. Doh Cir. FF1 11 Legend 2v Lines ............ Modeled Ito Ur. .......... Athena Dr. Kilda Cir, BorderlinE Deficient � iL NO 0 E ............ Rennrick Cir. Q) 1-1 ............ ............ C� 0 Marcellena Dr. Mukai 6t. 0 > F18J (D Dorita Dr. 0M......- Sonoma Dr. ....... Kirklund Cir. U -11" E- .......... ......... > ..........— mF C: L -1. 0 Mariposa a Os,a.Dr. Napa Cir Shenlyn Dr. ........... E E Point Loma Dr. ........ Santa Ynez Dr. ff ............= M 77 M <.......... Coll CD ........ ..... slate... _yam__..._. .___............ ........... o 0 . .................... -A 522. N _j "-NnE.......... L ............ �1111.*].[�=111 4 .......... Cr: ............. l(ennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers & Scientists Moss Dr. ........... L_J 7(: City of Huntington Beach Nutwood Cir. Sewer Master Plan .......... KJ 014641.00 —J9 NOT TO SCALE Mc Carthy Dr ---------- Kelley Cir. Sewer Line Deficiency ................1 ....... C "[pill Figure D-3 ........... .......... .................... ................. Slater Ave. ................ Legend Lines Modeled ............ Deficient Michael Dr. osanna Dr L .Y--* ......................... 545........... k48 0 0 MFT c D Dars Dr. -S Dr 0 Cir '6 .............. Benjamin Dr. ..... .......... 2 bbeny Ave, Noble Or ............ ...............Li I Newman Ave. Newman Ave, ............ ...... — U -.1........................ cir" ............ .......... ............ LU t C.-U, ............. .............................. N < c� Ronald Rd I ............. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants ndfield_qr�........_.....I Engineers & Scientists .......... Do City of Huntington Beach CD Sewer Master Plan ........... Talbert Ave. 0 N.01-=CALE T KJ 014641.00 E—.Dr. Sewer Line Deficiency .5 Figure D 4 I_L0)t__ averif L)0� e en Windsor Dr. 0 2 ......- ----- C . ........ ....... ........... ........ ........ ws 2, 'p Alad 0 q > ........... 0 0 ....... ----- din Dr.... i ............ c ................... 474 476 477 478 ....... ....... ............... ................................. __.......... _n_0............ Warner Ave. Legend N Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Lines Engineers & Scientists Modeled 0 TI(_ — each Borderline City of Huntington B Deficient Sewer Master Plan KJ 014641.00 NOT TO SCALE Sewer Line Deficiency Figure D-5 C: � 26 / ^:.^'pep i I Legend ............ .......... o . ........... Lines F I Bo derlin Modeled Fo Deficient I T-F-- l Morni r"Star Dr NOT TO SCALE J L Pickwick Cir. ci Y ndine Cir. 01� E, ........... F.jgaro Cir. ?\e�soo Dale Dr. Ranchvie� ---------- c Diablo Cir. 9 Pinecrest C3 m .......... Kennedy/Jenks Consultants ....... ..... --"javen - Engineers & Scientists e City of Huntington Beach J. Sewer Master Plan -0 10 KJ 014641.00 0 W J Windsor Or. r Line Deficiency -11D Sewer D 6 65— —16&—.. 1-&1..................... 0 .......... 0 ........... ............. ........... Edinger Ave, .................... .......... E ci- Tortola k,-C., ........... ITEM ZZ? Legend X Lines L Modeled Dr. N Borderline 0 r- Deficient i t >01 lty p—, Monterey D,. 24o-.1 C, Ln UT] '0/0 0 NOT TO SCALE FIT [.T7 ....... JI Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers & Scientists City of Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan KJ 014641.00 t"I 4. A M01-9 St"Dr Sewer Line Deficiency Figure D-7 ,doNNW\<, Or -------........ ............. ............... ------ -— /1055 ------ 1055 '-24-5------ -------- — *:=I - Im r ............L....... Legend —------ ................... Lines Orlando Dr. Modeled Borderlin Deficient- Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers & Scientists City of Huntington each Sewer Master Plan NOT TO SCALE KJ 014641.00 T Sewer Line Deficiency - -TFigure 0_8 ri Appendix E Sewer Service Charge Ordinances REFER TO MASTER DOCUMENT Appendix�� J 2008 Sewer Capacity Analysis CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS C-) I ell 'VIA 4- INE Prepared by: AKM Consulting Engineers October 2008 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS Submitted to City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 { Submitted by AKM Consulting Engineers 553 Wald Irvine, California 92618 October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................ES-1 ES-2 Criteria..................................................................................................................................ES-1 ES-3 Existing System....................................................................................................................ES-1 ES-4 System Analysis...................................................................................................................ES-2 1 SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1-1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 1-1 1-2 Criteria................................................................................................................................. 1-1 1-3 Existing System................................................................................................................... 1-2 1-4 System Analysis................................................................... .............................................. 1-3 APPENDICES A Deficient Locations B Flow Monitoring Locations C Diurnal Curves s D 2003 Master Plan Capacity Analysis LIST OF TABLES Table No. Page ES1 2003 Master Plan Identified Deficiencies...................................................................................... ES-2 ES2 Flow Monitoring Summary............................................................................................................ ES-2 1 2003 Master Plan Identified Deficiencies......................................................................................... 1-2 2 Initial Flow Monitoring Locations...................................................................................................... 1-4 3 Flow Monitoring Summary............................................................................................................... 1-5 4 _ Precipitation and Flow Monitoring Summary................................................................................... 1-6 5 Dry and Wet Weather Summary...................................................................................................... 1-6 6 Peaking Coefficients per Flow Monitoring Data............................................................................... 1-7 7 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 1 ........... 1-8 8 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 3........... 1-9 9 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 4......... 1-10 10 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 5......... 1-11 11 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 6.........1-11 12 Pump No 1 Discharge Rate Summary.................. ........................................................................1-16 13 Pump No 2 Discharge Rate Summary.......................................................................... ................1-16 14 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 9.........1-17 TOC-1 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington Beach\Huntington_Beach Capacity_study Capacity Analysis j 15 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 8 (Flow Monitoring Site 11)................................................................................................... .......... 1-19 16 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 8 (Flow Monitoring Site 8).................................................................................................................1-20 17 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No 8 (Flow Monitoring Site 12)................................. ........................................................................... 1-21 18 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data—Deficient Location No. 7......... 1-22 LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Page 1 Manhole on Edwards Street and Brad Drive(Photo) ...................................................................... 1-4 2 Flow Pattern Schematic for Site No.'s 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12............................................................ 1-12 3 SCADA Data at the Edinger Lift Station, July 14, 2007.................................................................1-13 4 SCADA Data at the Saybrook Lift Station, July 14, 2007.............................................................. 1-13 5 SCADA Data at the Edinger Lift Station, July 20, 2007................................................................. 1-14 r , TOC-2 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_capacity_study Capacity Analysis �1 City of Huntington Beach SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 Introduction The City of Huntington Beach's Sewer Master Plan was completed in May 2003. The Master Plan conducted a capacity analysis of the collection system and determined that out of approximately 360 miles of sewer reaches, only several reaches were found deficient based on the model results and criteria. The calculated deficiencies are based upon somewhat conservative unit flow factors and peaking relationships. Therefore it is prudent to verify the calculated deficiencies before investing in replacement or relief projects. The objective of this study is to conduct flow monitoring along the reaches that were identified as deficient by the 2003 Sewer Master Plan in order to ascertain whether a deficiency exists, and to provide recommendations for eliminating the verified deficiencies. ES-2 Criteria Sewer Design Criteria The 2003 Master Plan analysis of sewer pipes was based upon the depth to diameter ratio (d/D), resulting ` from peak dry weather flows. The criteria used for the 2003 Master Plan are as follows.. - Depth to diameter ratio (d/D) less than or equal to 0.5 for pipes 12-inch and smaller in diameter - d/D less than or equal to 0.67 for 15-inch diameter pipes - d/D less than or equal to 0.75 for 18-inch diameter and larger pipes Reaches that do not satisfy the City's d/D criteria are considered deficient and require additional capacity analyses. The 2003 Master Plan flow depths were calculated utilizing estimated peak dry weather flows. Average dry weather flows, which are calculated based upon the product of the tributary land use areas and unit flow factors, and a peaking relationship were used to estimate the peak dry weather flows. The depth of flow and design capacity of gravity pipes were calculated based on the Manning formula with a friction factor(Manning's n)of 0.013. ES-3 Existing System The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified nine (9) areas as deficient, which are listed in Table ES1. The locations of the deficient reaches are shown in Appendix A. ES-1 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table ES1 2003 Master Plan Identified Deficiencies Deficiency Existing Proposed Length Location Hydraulic Model Pipe Numbers No. Size Size feet 1 Hamilton Ave Brookhurst Street to extension of Archer Circle 1019,1017,1016,1015,1014,1013 18" 21" 1,540 Edwards Street, From Brad Drive to Heil Avenue; 345,335,321,308 10" 15" 1,692 2 Heil Avenue From Edwards Street to Oakmont Lane 293,5005 10",8" 15",12" 3 Heil Avenue From Sabot Lane to Goldenwest Street 296,295,294 12" 15" 833 4 Speer Avenue Jacquelyn Lane to Beach Boulevard 550.549,543,544,545,548 10" 15" 1,397 5 Beach Boulevard From Speer Avenue to Slater Avenue 547,531 12" 18" 659 6 Beach Boulevard From South of Talbert Avenue to Ronald Road 5013,1080,598,590 8",10" 12",15" 1,086 7 Saybrook Lane South of Heil Avenue to Morning Star Drive 2586 12" 18 299 202,206,211,213,216,219,221,222, 2,181 8 Mandalay Circle From Edinger Avenue to Humboldt Drive 232,237 10" 1 151, 9 Edinger Avenue From Trinidad Lane to Santa Barbara Lane 194,165,166,167,168, 169,170,174 10" 1 15' 1,967 Total Length 11,654 ES-4 System Analysis Flow Monitoring Locations The flow monitoring locations were chosen to analyze the capacity deficient sewers that were identified in the 2003 Sewer Master Plan. Extensive flow monitoring near the Edinger Lift Station was required to analyze the effects the pumped flows have on the existing sewer system. Initially, eleven (11) sites were selected for flow monitoring. Flow monitors were installed at nine (9) of the eleven (11) sites. Data was collected between 12.00 A.M. June 14, 2007 and 11:45 P.M. June 27, 2007. Two (2) additional flow monitoring sites were selected and monitors were installed between 12:00 A.M. January 16, 2008 and 11:45 P.M. February 5, 2008 to analyze the flows with the improved Edinger Lift Station. The flow monitoring results are summarized in Table ES2. Table ES2 Flow Monitoring Summary General Data 2003 Sewer Master Plan Data Flow Monitoring Data Ave Peak Existing Total I Min ADWF PDWF Max Site# Location GPM_ GPM Size Slope Days GPM GPM GPM Depth d/D 1 Hamilton Ave West of John Ln 807 1,533 18- 0.001 12.5 1 -137 520 928 9.29 0.52 2 Edwards St Peggy Cir ;x ';; :;i,.:;r';; '.?,?.'` Rer`itoved;from Flow Moniforiri - .p 3 Heil Ave Goldenwest St 186 411 12 0,002 14.0 40 149 256 5.54 0.46 4 Speer Ave Beach Blvd 263 561 8 0.002 14.0 3 41 140 4.35 0.54 5 Beach Blvd Slater Avenue 453 914 12 0.002 14.0 100 284 508 9.38 0.78 6 Beach Blvd Talbert Ave 149 336 10 0.002 14.0 64 234 431 7.67 0.77 7 Saybrook Ln Heil Ave 0 12 0.002 14.0 46 346 642 7.10 0.59 8 Mandalay Cir Humboldt Dr 229 494 10 0.002 14.0 29 227 455 8.78 0.88 8* Mandalay Cir Humboldt Dr 0 494 10 0,002 1 21.0 1 29 228 1 500 10.00 11.00 9 Edinger Ave Santa Barbara Ln ��'T'- . Remdved,from Flodii Monitorin' ' 10 Edinger Ave Trinidad Ln 190 419 1 10 0.0021 14.0 67 1 157 1 277 5.18 0.52 11 ISanta Barbara Ln Shorebreak Dr 198 434 10 0.002 14.0 2 205 1 520 8.67 10.871 12* 1 Saybrook Ln Fisher Dr 190 758 12** 1 21.0 58 247 1 517 7.01 10.681 *Additional Flow Monitoring performed between January 16,2008 to February 5,2008 **At Flow Monitoring Location the height of the inflow pipe was 11"which is used to calculate the d/D The City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan used the following peaking relationship to develop the peak dry weather flow(Qpdw) from the average dry weather flow(Qadw): Qpdw= 1.93(0adw)0.898 ES-2 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS i This relationship was evaluated with the use of the flow monitoring data, maintaining the exponent 0.898. Flow Monitoring Sites No.'s 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 were excluded from this analysis because they are downstream of lift stations. The coefficient used in the Master Plan (1.93) is higher than the values calculated from the flow monitoring data, which average approximately 1.60. Therefore, the peak dry weather flow estimates used in the 2003 Master Plan were conservative, which is appropriate for planning level studies. Capacity Analysis and Recommendations During the initial field verification at Flow Monitoring Site No. 2, the field crew realized that the Sewer Master Plan Deficiency No. 2 was no longer in existence. The Orange County Sanitation District installed a 30-inch diameter trunk sewer on Heil Avenue, and the City was able to divert its wastewater directly into this facility. This also allowed the City to abandon the sewers on Heil Avenue from Torjian Lane to Oakmont Lane, and on Edwards Street from Heil Avenue to Brad Drive. Deficient Location No. 2 was part of these abandoned pipes and does not require further analysis. Assuming that the normal maximum flow recordings from the flow monitoring effort represent the peak dry weather flows, the flow monitoring results were analyzed based on the 2003 Sewer Master Plan criteria. • Sewer Master Plan Deficiency No.'s 1 and 3 meet the existing depth to diameter(d/D)criteria and are not recommended to be replaced for capacity. • Deficiency No.'s 4 and 9 do not satisfy the City's d/D criteria. However, these deficiencies are minor and do not warrant replacement of the existing pipes for capacity. If the tributary land use is } proposed to be changed significantly in the future, resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be re-evaluated. • The flow monitoring measurements at Sewer Master Plan Deficiency No. 5 show a maximum depth to diameter ratio of 0.78. Based on a pipe slope of 0.002 and Manning's n of 0.013, the Master Plan estimated that the ultimate peak dry weather flow would require a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches to meet the City's depth to diameter design criteria of 0.67. These reaches will require further evaluation by the City. • At Sewer Master Plan Deficiency No. 6, the flow monitoring shows the four reaches of sewer pipes flowing at a maximum depth to diameter ratio of 0.77. Based on the record slope of 0.002, Manning's n of 0.013 and the ultimate peak dry weather flow, the existing sewers would require a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches to meet the City's depth to diameter criteria of 0.67. These reaches will require further evaluation by the City. • Sewer Master Plan Deficiency No. 7 is downstream of the Saybrook Lift Station, which is scheduled to be replaced in the next 3 to 8 years. The flow monitoring shows the reach flowing at a depth to diameter ratio of 0.59, which does not meet the City's criteria. Based on a slope of 0.002, Manning's n of 0.013 and the anticipated Saybrook Lift Station discharge of 826 gpm, a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches in needed to meet the City's depth to diameter design criteria of 0.67. This reach will require further evaluation by the City when the Saybrook Lift Station is improved. • The Edinger Lift Station underwent improvements during the recent sewer capacity analysis. Sewer Master Plan Deficiency No. 8 is downstream of this lift station and required additional analysis, which ES-3 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS included flow monitoring before and after the pump station improvements were completed as well as ` pump capacity tests at the Edinger Lift Station. The flow monitoring performed after the Edinger Lift Station was replaced indicated maximum flow rates of 500 gpm. Pump capacity tests conducted in May 2008 estimated similar flows of 510 gpm. Based on this flow rate, the record slope of 0.002, and Manning's n of 0.013, a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches would be necessary to meet the City's depth to diameter criteria of 0.67 for the ten (10) reaches identified as deficient in the 2003 Sewer Master Plan. During the Edinger Lift Station pump capacity testing, the existing peak inflow into the lift station was measured as 285 gpm. To reduce the depth to diameter ratio in the ten (10) downstream sewers, the City may decrease the pump capacity from 500 gpm to 400 gpm. In doing so, approximately 37% of the ultimate PDWF will remain available for wet weather inflow.and infiltration. By reducing the flow to 400 gpm, the downstream sewers are expected to flow at a depth to diameter ratio of approximately 0.744. • The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified three (3) "Borderline" deficient reaches just downstream of Deficiency No. 8. During the master planning effort, "Borderline conditions" were the reaches that had calculated d/D values which were close to the deficiency criteria d/D values, but were not determined "Deficient" by engineering judgment. For this current analysis, these reaches were evaluated with the relevant Edinger Lift Station flow monitoring data. While the d/D ratios for these reaches were 0.59, which is deficient according to the master plan standards, it does not warrant replacement of the existing pipes for capacity. If the tributary land us is proposed to be changed significantly in the future, resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be reevaluated. I - ESA City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis City of Huntington Beach SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1-1 Introduction The City of Huntington Beach's Sewer Master Plan was completed in May 2003. The Master Plan conducted a capacity analysis of the collection system utilizing a computer hydraulic model. Out of approximately 360 miles of sewer reaches, only a few reaches (less than 0.6 percent) were determined to be deficient. The calculated deficiencies are based upon-somewhat conservative unit flow factors and peaking relationships. Therefore it is prudent to verify the calculated deficiencies before investing in replacement or relief projects. The objective of this study is to conduct flow monitoring along the reaches that were identified as deficient by the 2003 Sewer Master Plan in order to ascertain whether a deficiency exists, and to provide recommendations for eliminating the verified deficiencies. 1-2 Criteria The 2003 Sewer Master Plan generated the average dry weather flows by summing the product of tributary land uses and their corresponding unit flow factors. The land use was designated based on the general plan. The flow factors were created using the flow monitoring results as well as previous studies. (( The adequacy of a sewage collection system is based upon its ability to convey the peak flows. At any l ? individual point in the system, peak dry weather flow(PDWF) is estimated by converting the total average dry weather flow upstream of the point in question to peak dry weather flow by an empirical peak-to-average relationship. The peaking relationship used in preparing the 2003 Master Plan was developed based upon the flow monitoring conducted at 12 locations throughout the City. Qdw' adw p 1.93(O )o.898 - Flowrates are in million gallons per day(mgd). Sewer Design Criteria Design criteria are established to ensure that the sewer system can operate effectively under all flow conditions. Each sewer reach must be able to carry peak wet weather flows without surcharging the system. Low flows must be conveyed at a velocity that will prevent solids from settling and blocking the system. The design and analysis of sewer pipes were based upon the depth to diameter ratio (d/D), resulting from peak dry weather flows. The criteria used for the 2003 Master Plan are as follows.- Depth to diameter ratio (d/D) less than or equal to 0.5 for pipes 12-inch and smaller in diameter d/D less than or equal to 0.67 for 15-inch diameter pipes d/D less than or equal to 0.75 for 18-inch diameter and larger pipes 1-1 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS !1 The remaining area above the maximum dry weather flow depth is primarily reserved for the selected design wet weather flows-, however, this space also keeps the sewage aerated which reduces the possibility of septic conditions and odors. The 2003 Master Plan flow depths were calculated based on peak dry weather flows. The design capacity of gravity pipes is calculated based on the Manning formula: Q = 1.486 A R"S112/n Q =flow in cubic feet per second R = hydraulic radius in feet=A/P• A=cross-sectional area of the pipe in square feet P =wetted perimeter in feet S = slope of pipe in feet of rise per foot of length n = Manning's friction factor(n=0.013 was used for vitrified clay pipe in the 2003 Master Plan) The peak flow velocity should be greater than 2 feet per second to prevent deposition of solids in the pipe. 1-3 Existing System The City's existing sewer collection system is made up of a network of gravity sewers, consisting of approximately 360 miles of pipe, and twenty-nine(29) sever lift Stations. r The general direction of flow is from north to south and west to east. The majority of the City sewers tie into the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD)trunk sewers for conveyance to the local treatment plant. The sewers are primarily constructed of vitrified clay pipe with sizes ranging from 6-inches to 30-inches in diameter. Approximately 85 percent of the pipes are 8-inches in diameter. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified nine (9) areas as deficient, which are listed in Table 1. The locations of the deficient reaches are shown in Appendix A. Table 1 2003 Master Plan Identified Deficiencies Deficiency Location Hydraulic Model Pipe Numbers Existing Proposed Length No. Size Size feet 1 Hamilton Ave Brookhurst Street to extension of Archer Circle 1019,1017,1016,1015,1014,1013 18" 21" 1,540 Edwards Street, From Brad Drive to Heil Avenue. 345,335,321,308 10" 151, 2 Heil Avenue From Edwards Street to Oakmont Lane 293,5005 10",8" 15",12" 1,692 3 Heil Avenue From Sabot Lane to Goldenwest Street _296,295,294 12" 15- 833 4 Speer Avenue Jacquelyn Lane to Beach Boulevard 550,549,543,544,545,548 101, 15" 1,397 5 Beach Boulevard From Speer Avenue to Slater Avenue 547.531 12- 18" 659 6 Beach Boulevard From South of Talbert Avenue to Ronald Road 5013,1080,598,590 10- 12".15" 1.086 7 _Saybrook Lane South of Heil Avenue to Morning Star Drive 2586 12" 18 299 202,206,211,213,216,219,221,222, 8 Mandalay Circle From Edinger Avenue to Humboldt Drive 232.237 10" 15" 2.181 9 Edinger Avenue From Trinidad Lane to Santa Barbara Lane 1194.165.166,167,168,169,170.174 10" 15' 1,967 Total Length 11,654 1-2 City of Huntington Beach K:1Huntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS There are four (4) sewer lift stations that are upstream of the identified deficient sewer pipes. Speer Lift Station (LS No. 20) affects Deficient Location No. 4; Saybrook Lift Station (LS No. 22) affects Deficient Location No. 7; Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25) affects Deficient Location No.'s 8 and 9; and Trinidad Lift Station (LS No. 29) affects Deficient Location No_ 9. Speer Lift Station (LS No. 20) is located at Speer Avenue and Crabb Lane. It has two (2) Wemco 6 x 11 pumps with 9-inch impellers. Each pump has a rated capacity of 400 GPM at 14 foot total dynamic head (TDH). The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimated the peak dry weather flow at 300 gpm, and did not recommend any capacity improvement at this lift station. Saybrook Lift Station (LS No. 22) is located on Saybrook Avenue, north of Heil Avenue. It has two(2) Wemco 4 x 11 M pumps with 9.75-inch impellers. Each pump has a rated capacity of 550 GPM at 23 foot TDH. The estimated ultimate peak dry weather flow is 739 gpm. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan recommended that the firm capacity of this pump station be increased to 1,000 gpm to accommodate the peak wet weather flows. Firm capacity is the total pumping capacity at the lift station when the largest pump is not in operation. The Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25) is located on Edinger Avenue and Santa Barbara Drive. According to the 2003 Sewer Master Plan, the estimated ultimate peak dry weather flow is 423 gpm. Prior to the recent improvements, the lift station had two (2) Wemco 4 x 11 M pumps with 8-inch impellers. These pumps were rated at 300 GPM capacity and 12 foot TDH. Recent improvements increased the design capacity of the Edinger Lift Station pumps from 300 gpm to 400 gpm each. It currently contains two (2) Wemco 4 x 11 S pumps with 8.5-inch impellers. As shown in Tables 16 and 17, the flow monitoring conducted in January and February 2008 indicated that the flows recorded at Site No.'s 8 and 12 respectively, are notably higher than `- ' the improved pump station design capacity. Further testing at the pump station was performed to verify the actual pumping capacity, as detailed in Section 1-4. The downstream sewer facilities were analyzed based upon the actual pump capacities. Trinidad Lift Station (LS No. 29) is located on Trinidad Lane and Aquarius Drive. It has two (2) Wemco 4x11M pumps with 8-inch impellers. Each pump is rated at 250 gpm and 15 foot TDH. The estimated ultimate peak dry weather flow is 153 gpm. Since the existing firm capacity is greater than the expected peak wet weather flow, the 2003 Sewer Master Plan did not recommend any capacity improvement at this lift station. 1-4 System Analysis Flow Monitoring Locations The flow monitoring locations were chosen to analyze the capacity deficient sewers that were identified in the 2003 Sewer Master Plan. Ideally, the flow monitoring locations would have smooth flows with sufficient depth and velocity that could be detected by the flow monitoring equipment. Manholes with multiple inflow pipes or sharp turns are generally avoided because the turbulent flows cannot be accurately measured by the flow monitors. Extensive flow monitoring near the Edinger Lift Station was required to analyze the effects the pumped flows have on the existing sewer system. 1-3 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachUiuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS The locations of the flow monitoring sites are described in Table 2, and shown in Appendix B. r '' Table 2 Initial Flow Monitoring Locations Site Location Size 1 Hamilton Ave Between Archer Circle and St. 18" lJohn Lane 3 Heil Avenue East of Goldenwest Street 12" 4 Speer Avenue West of Beach Boulevard 101, 5 Beach Boulevard South of Slater Avenue 12" Between Talbert Ave and 6 Beach Boulevard Ronald Road(line flowing to the 10" 7 Saybrook Lane Morning Star Drive 12" 8- Mandalay Circle North of Humboldt Drive 101, 10 Edinger Avenue Montego Drive 101, 11 Santa Barbara Lane South of Shorebreak Drive 101, 12* Saybrook Lane lFisher Drive 1-i-71 Additional flow monitoring performed January 16, 2008 to February 5. 2UO8 /niUu||y. eleven (11) sites were selected for Umm monitoring. Prior to the installation of the flow monitoring equipment field verifications were made on June 8. 2007to ensure that the locations would provide useful — \ data Following the review of Flow Monitoring Site No 2 at Edwards Street and Brad Drive the field crew /y /. realized that the study sewer no longer exists ag the location. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan shows that there —' are three (8) manholes on Edwards Street, between Brad Drive and Heil Avenue. The field crew could not locate any cf these manholes. The inspection of the manhole at the intersection of Edwards Street and Brad Drive shows that the inlet pipe from the north had been blocked off, as shown on Figure 1. Figure 1 Manhole on Edwards Street and Brad Drive Blocked North 1-4 City m,Huntington Beach mm"oonwnnena,hm.nn"nmn-Bea"h-oap,u'y_smur Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS The Orange County Sanitation District installed a 30" diameter trunk sewer on Heil Avenue. The City was able to divert its wastewater directly into this OCSD facility at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Torjian Lane from the southwest and at the intersection of Heil Avenue and Oakmont Lane from the northeast. In doing so, the City abandoned the sewers on Heil Avenue from Torjian Lane to Oakmont Lane and on Edwards Street from Heil Avenue to Brad Drive. Since the sewers at Deficient Location No. 2 are included in this abandoned pipe set, there will be no need for improvements. Furthermore, while reviewing the flow monitoring Site No. 9 at Edinger Avenue and Santa Barbara Lane, the field crew became aware that the Edinger Lift Station was undergoing construction. The sewers that are upstream of the Edinger Lift station were inaccessible due to the construction of the improvements. Therefore, flow monitoring at Site No. 9 was not possible. Following the field verification, nine (9)flow monitoring sites were selected for the capacity analysis study. The improvements to the Edinger Lift Station were finalized after the initial flow monitoring was completed. Since the new pumps have higher capacities, further flow monitoring was required to accurately evaluate the capacity of the downstream sewer reaches with the new pumps. Flow monitoring was performed between January 16, 2008 and February 5, 2008 at two locations. One flow monitor was installed at Site No. 8, and another was installed at Saybrook Lane and Fisher Drive (Site No.12). The initial and additional flow monitoring data at Site No. 8 will be utilized throughout this report for various purposes-, however, the final recommendations are based on the most recent flow monitoring data which reflect the current sewer system. General Flow Monitoring Results The initial-flow monitors were installed and data was collected between 12:00 A.M. June 14, 2007 and 11 A5 P.M. June 27, 2007. Subsequent flow monitoring was performed between 12:00 A.M. January 16, 2008 and 11A5 P.M. February 5, 2008. Flow vs. time graphs are located in Appendix C. The flow monitoring results are summarized in Table 3. Table 3 Flow Monitoring Summa General Data 2003 Sewer Master Plan Data Flow Monitoring Data Ave Peak Existing ITotal Min ADWF PDWF Max Site# Location GPM GPM Size Slope Days GPM GPM GPM Depth d/D 1 Hamilton Ave West of John Ln 807 1,533 18 0.001 12.5 1 137 520 928 9.29 In.52 2 Edwards St Peggy Cir " ::> ::,?.;., ;:.;; ",Removed frdiri FIow,Monii rin°f.,:° 3 Heil Ave Goldenwest St 186 411 12 0.0021 14.0 1 40 149 256 5.54 0.46 4 Speer Ave Beach Blvd 263 561 8 0.002 14.0 3 41 140 4.35 0.54 5 Beach Blvd Slater Avenue 453 914 12 0.002 14.0 100 284 508 9.38 0.78 6 Beach Blvd Talbert Ave 149 336 10 0.002 14.0 64 234 431 7.67 0.77 7 Saybrook Ln Heil Ave 0 12 0.002 14.0 46 346 642 7.10 0.59 8 Mandalay Cir Humboldt Dr 229 494 10 0.002 14.0 29 227 455 8.78 0.88 8' Mandalay Cir Humboldt Dr 0 494 10 0.002 21.0 29 228 500 10.00 1.00 9 Edinger Ave Santa Barbara Ln :.`b� `,;,�;t'?' ;�> ;;Removed fr6m'F1 Ai Monitonrid 10 Edinger Ave Trinidad Ln 190 419 10 0.002 1 14.0 67 1 157 1 277 1 5.18 10.52 11 Santa Barbara Ln Shorebreak Dr 198 434 10 1 0.0021 14.0 2 205 1 520 1 8.67 10.87 12` Saybrook Ln Fisher Dr 190 758 12" 1 1 21.0 58 247 1 517 1 7.01 10.681 Additional Flow Monitoring performed between January 16,2008 to February 5,2008 At Flow Monitoring Location the height of the inflow pipe was 11 which is used to calculate the d/D For the most part, the flow monitoring results appear to be reasonable. The sites experienced flow patterns typical of their tributary sewersheds throughout the day, with the low flows occurring in the very early morning 1-5 City of Huntington Beach K:Wuntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS hours. High flows for residential areas occur around 8:00 AM during weekdays and 11:00 A.M. during weekends. High flows in commercial areas occur roughly near 12:00 P.M. The flow monitoring between January 16, 2008 and February 5, 2008 included periods of wet weather. The precipitation data at Station 219, Costa Mesa, was obtained from Orange County Public Works (OC Public Works), Watershed and Coastal Resources Division. Table 4 shows the daily flow monitoring results and precipitation data at Site No 8. and Site No. 12. Table 4 Precipitation and Flow Monitoring Sum ma Precipitation Flow Monitoring Site#8 Flow Monitoring Site#12 at Station (10"Pipe Diameter) (12" Pipe Diameter) Day Date #219, Costa Daily Daily Max Time of Daily Daily I Max Time of Mesa (in) Average Max Depth Max Average Max Depth Max GPM GPM in Depth GPM GPM in Depth Wed 1/16/2008 226 499 10 7:25 245 499 6.86 8:35 Thu 1/17/2008 229 512 10 7:25 249 511 6.92 8:20 Fri 1/18/2008 220 508 10 7:30 245 505 7.01 8:40 Sat 1/19/2008 229 499 10 9:05 251 460 6.64 10:20 Sun 1/20/2008 233 1 508 10 9:10 250 517 6.9 9:35 Mon 1/21/2008 222 508 10 8:30 243 502 6.8 9:50 Tues 1/22/2008 0.11 226 508 10 7:05 246 497 6.83 10:00 Wed 1/23/2008 235 490 10 8:20 264 495 7.06 8:25 Thu 1/24/2008 0.7 237 482 10 7:25 258 537 6.97 13:05 Fri 1/25/2008 0.34 262 517 10 7:15 284 524 7.11 7:20 Sat' 1/26/2008" 238 672 10 8:30 261 772 11 17:55 Sun 1/27/2008 0.31 243 511 10 9:15 281 512 7.27 10:30 1 Mon 1/28/2008 0.53 244 482 10 7:35 283 1 513 7.02 9:45 Tues 1/29/2008 0.04 232 490 10 7:45 265 509 7.15 7:50 Wed 1/30/2008 226 474 10 8:20 263 504 6.84 8:30 Thu 1/31/2008 218 465 10 7:25 258 526 6.85 7:20 Fri 2/1/2008 217 521 10 7:40 254 553 7.09 7:45 Sat 2/2/2008 222 508 10 9:55 256 499 6.85 10:25 Sun 2/3/2008 021 238 547 10 10:55 276 569 7.52 11:45 Mon 2/4/2008 0.26 227 525 10 11:20 265 510 7.05+7308-35 Tues 2/5/2008 225 508 10 7:25 262 504 7 "Saybrook and Edinger Lift Stations were out of operation due to a power outage Table 5 summarizes the average and peak flow conditions at these sites. For the purposes of this report, the dry weather conditions will be utilized for the pipe capacity analysis. Table 5 Dry and Wet Weather Summary Disregards Wet Weather I Includes Wet Weather ADWF PDWF Max Ave Max Max Site# GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM GPM Depth d/D 8 228 500 10.00 1.00 231 546 10.00 1.00 12 247 517 7-01 0.64 260 569 7.52 0.68 As described in the criteria section, the City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan used the following peaking relationship to develop the peak dry weather flow(Qpdw)from the average dry weather flow(Qadw): 1-6 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Qpdw= 1.93(0adw)0.898 This relationship was evaluated with the use of the flow monitoring data, maintaining the exponent 0.898. Flow Monitoring Sites No.'s 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12 were excluded from this analysis because they are downstream of lift stations_ This review shows that the coefficient used in the Master Plan (1.93) is higher than the values calculated from the flow monitoring data, as shown in Table 6. Therefore, the peak dry weather flows calculated by the Master Plan are estimated conservatively, which is appropriate for planning studies. Table 6 Peaking Coefficients per Flow Monitoring Data General Data Flow Monitoring Data Calculations Minimum Average Maximum Coefficient= Site# Location MGD MGD MGD (Qave)^0.898 Qmax/(Qave)^0.898 1 Hamilton Ave West of John lane 0.197 0.749 1.337 0.77 1.73 2 Edwards St Peqqy Cir Not Flow Monitored 3 Heil Ave Goldenwest St 0.058 0.214 0.368 0.25 1.47 4 Speer Ave Beach Blvd 0.005 0.059 0.202 Excluded* 5 Beach Blvd Slater Avenue 0.144 0.409 0.731 0.45 1.63 6 Beach Blvd Talbert Ave 0.092 0.337 0.62 0.38 1.65 7 Saybrook Lane Heil Ave 0.066 0.498 0.925 Excluded* 8 Mandalay Cir Humboldt Dr 0.042 0.327 0.656 Excluded* 8** Mandalay Cir Humboldt.Dr 0.042 0.329 0.720 Excluded* 9 Edinger Ave Santa Barbara Ln Not Flow Monitored 10 Edinger Ave Trinidad Lane 0.096 0.226 0.399 0.26 1.52 �j 11 ISanta Barbara Ln Shorebreak Dr 0.003 0.295 0.75 Excluded* �( } 12** ISaybrook Lane Fisher Drive 1 0.084 0.356 0.744 Excluded* Average Peaking Coeficient = 1.60 *Downstream of Pump Station **Additional Flow Monitoring Capacity Analysis and Recommendations The hydraulic analysis for the 2003 Sewer Master Plan is included in Appendix D. It includes the calculated existing peak dry weather flow and the ultimate peak dry weather flow. Deficient Location No. 1 This location includes six (6) reaches of 18-inch diameter sewer located on Hamilton Avenue, from Brookhurst Street to Archer Circle with a total length of 1,530 feet. The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 1014, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 1013 and 1014. This location is near the downstream end of the deficient pipe, with nearly the largest tributary area of the six segments. The comparison of the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan data is shown in Table 7- 1-7 City of Huntington Beach K:\Huntington BeachXHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS r Table 7 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No. 1 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) M0.001 18"VCP 370 807 1,533 Full Full 1,547 Full Full 0.001 18"VCP 100 795 1,514 Full Full 1,527 Full Full 520 928 9.29 0.52 0.001 18"VCP 226 794 1,512 Full Full 1,524 Full Full 0001 18"VCP 200 758 1.451 Full Full 1,460 Full Full 0001 18"VCP 330 757 1,448 14.28 0.79 1,458 14 40 0.80 0.001 18"VCP 1 304 731 1 1,403 1 13.92 077 1,411 13.92 1 0.77 `Location of Flow Monitor With the Master Plan calculated peak dry weather flows, four(4) of the six (6) reaches would flow full, and the depth to diameter ratio would exceed 0.75 in the other two reaches. The Site 1 flow monitor recorded average dry weather flow, peak dry weather flow, and depth values that are much lower than those calculated by the Sewer Master Plan. The Sewer Master Plan average dry weather flow(795 gpm) is larger than the flow monitoring average dry weather flow (520 gpm) by a factor of 1.5. The Sewer Master Plan peak dry weather flow (1,514 gpm) is larger than the flow monitoring peak dry weather flow (907 gpm) by a factor of 1.7. According to the flow monitoring data, this 18"sewer is flowing at a d/D of 0.52,which is considered sufficient. The sewers in this location are not recommended to be replaced for capacity. If the tributary land use is proposed to be changed in the future resulting in higher wastewater flows, these sewers should be re- evaluated. Deficient Location No. 2 Appendix D of the 2003 Sewer Master Plan shows that the ultimate d/D's for the reaches of sewer on Edwards Street from Heil Avenue to Brad Drive and on Heil Avenue from Oakmont Lane to Edwards Street were calculated from 0.67 to full, which is deficient according to the master plan criteria. When these sewers were reviewed in the field for selecting flow monitoring locations, the field crew concluded that the sewer on Edwards Street was removed because the City sewers upstream have been diverted to the OCSD's trunk sewer on Heil Avenue. The OCSD records show that the City facilities have been diverted to the OCSD trunk sewer on Heil Avenue at Torjian Lane and Heil Avenue at Oakmont Drive. The 2003 Master Plan indicates that none of these pipes are on the City's Sewer GIS. Deficient Location No. 3 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified capacity deficiencies in three (3) reaches of 12-inch diameter pipe located on Heil Avenue between Sabot Lane on the east and Goldenwest Street on the west. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flows, the d/D's of these three (3) reaches are approximately 0.68, which is deficient per the master plan criteria. The total length of these reaches is approximately 830 feet. The flow direction is from east to west. The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 295, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 294 and 295. It measures nearly the entire flow tributary to the most downstream pipe. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan data is shown in Table 8. 1-8 City of Huntington Beach K:1Huntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table 8 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No.3 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM PDWF Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) Depth d/D 3 294 12"VCP 335 579 8.16 0.68 3' 295 0.002 12"VCP 330 186 411 6.60 0.55 579 8.16 0.68 149 256 5.54 0.46 3 296 1 0.002 12"VCP 165 186 1 410 6.60 1 0.55 578 8.16 0.68 *Location of Flow Monitor The Pipe 294 data is missing the slope value in the Master Plan. However, this value can be estimated as 0.002, which is representative of the slopes for the nearby pipes. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimates a depth to diameter ratio of 0.55 for all three reaches of 12" pipe. According to the 2003 Sewer Master Plan Criteria, these pipes are considered deficient. However the average dry weather flow from the flow monitoring (149 gpm) was lower than the calculated 2003 Sewer Master Plan existing average dry weather flow (186 gpm). Likewise, the peak dry weather flow from the flow monitoring (256 gpm) was far lower than the calculated 2003 Sewer Master Plan existing peak dry weather flow(411 gpm). The flow monitoring data shows that these pipes are flowing at a depth to diameter ratio of about 0.46 with the actual peak dry weather flows. Therefore, these reaches of pipe are currently sufficient per the 2003 Sewer Master Plan criteria, and are not recommended to be replaced for capacity. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan shows the ultimate peak dry weather flow at 579 gpm, an increase of nearly 41 percent. Based upon review of the aerial photographs, the tributary area does not seem to include significant vacant land. However, assuming a similar increase over the existingflows, the peak d weather flow would be 354 p dry gpm, and the depth to diameter ratio would be approximately 0.5, which is still sufficient. If the tributary land use is proposed to be changed in the future resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be re-evaluated. Deficient Location No.4 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified capacity deficiencies in six (6) reaches of 8-inch diameter sewer on Speer Avenue between Jacquelyn Lane to the west and Beach Boulevard to the east. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flows, these six (6) reaches will flow full. The total length of these reaches is approximately 1,365 feet. The flow direction is from west to east. These reaches convey the wastewater flow pumped by Speer Lift Station (LS No. 20), which is located at Crabb Lane and Speer Avenue, as well as the wastewater collected from the tributary area to the east of the lift station. The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 545, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 545 and 548. It measures nearly the entire flow tributary to the most downstream reach of the deficient sewers. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan data is shown in Table 9. 1-9 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachXHuntinglon_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table 9 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No.4 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF ID Slope aterial Length Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site M GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 4 543 0.002 8"VCP 300 239 513 Full Full 514 Full Full 4 544 0 002 8"VCP 300 262 558 Full Full 561 Full Full 4' 545 0.002 8"VCP 300 263 561 Full Full 565 Full Full 41 140 4.35 0.54 4 548 0.002 8"VCP 300 205 449 Full Full 566 Full Full 4 549 0.002 8"VCP 15 237 511 Full Full 512 Full Full 4 550 0.002 8"VCP 150 237 511 Full Full 512 Full Full Location of Flow Monitor The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimates peak dry weather flows of over 500 gpm near the pump station, and 449 gpm at the most downstream reach. All six reaches of pipe would flow full with the Master Plan estimated flows. However, the average dry weather flow from the flow monitoring (41 gpm) is approximately 25 percent of the Master Plan flows. The peak dry weather flow from the flow monitoring (140 gpm) is also approximately 25 percent of the Master Plan flows and the reported pump capacity of 500 gpm. Available aerial photography shows the lift station tributary area to be industrial. The flow monitoring results are clearly of an industrial land use with weekend flows significantly lower than the weekday flows. The discrepancy between the measured and calculated flows is most likely due to the high industrial unit flow factors used in the Master Plan, and the selected peaking relationship. The discrepancy between the reported pump capacity and measured flows may be due to the attenuation in the gravity pipe system, infrequent pump operation, and short duration of pumping. The tributary area is fully developed, and the ultimate flows are not expected to be greater than the existing flows. The flow monitoring data shows that these pipes are flowing at a maximum depth to diameter ratio of 0.54. While this is deficient per the City's criteria, it does not warrant replacement of the existing pipes for capacity. If the tributary land use is proposed to be changed significantly in the future, resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be re-evaluated. Deficient Location No. 5 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified capacity deficiencies in two (2) reaches of 12-inch diameter sewer on Beach Boulevard between Speer Avenue to the south and Slater Avenue to the north. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flows, both reaches will flow full. The total length of these reaches is 657 feet and the flow direction is from south to north. The Deficient Location No. 4 flows, including the Speer Lift Station are tributary to this area. The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 547, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 531 and 547. It measures nearly the entire flow tributary to the most downstream reach of the deficient sewers. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results is shown in Table 10. 1-10 City of Huntington Beach K1Huntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEINER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table 10 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No. 5 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 5 531 0.002 12"VCP 329 453 914 Full Full 946 Full Full 5' 547 0.0032 12"VCP 328 453 912 Full Full 944 Full Full 284 1 508 9.38 0.78 Location of Flow Monitor The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimates existing peak dry weather flows of about 912 and 914 gpm in the two reaches of pipe. Both of these reaches would flow full with the Master Plan estimated flows. The average dry weather flow from flow monitoring (284 gpm) is approximately 63 percent of the Master Plan estimated existing flow. Likewise, the peak dry weather flow from the flow monitoring (508 gpm) is approximately 56 percent of the Master Plan estimated existing flows. The Master Plan estimates only a 3.9 percent increase in the average dry weather flows and 3.5 percent increase in the peak dry weather flows with the ultimate development of the tributary area. The discrepancy between the estimated and measured flows is most likely due to the high industrial unit flow factors, and the peaking relationship used in the Master Plan. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimated peak dry weather flow exceeds the capacity of the pipe, and both pipes would flow full under these conditions. The flow monitoring data shows a maximum depth to diameter ratio of 0.78. Based upon a pipe slope of 0.002, and Manning's n of 0.013, the Master Plan estimated that the ultimate peak dry weather flow would require a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches to meet the City's depth �( to diameter design-criteria-of 0.67. These reaches will require further evaluation by the City. Deficient Location No. 6 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified deficiencies in two (2) reach of 8-inch and two reaches of 10-inch diameter sewer on Beach Boulevard between south of Talbert Avenue to the south and Ronald Road to the north. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flows, two (2) of the four (4) reaches flow full and the d/D's exceed 0.66 in the other two (2) reaches. The total length of the four reaches is 1,086 feet. The flow direction is from south to north. The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 598, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 590 and 598. It measures nearly the entire flow tributary to the most downstream reach of the deficient sewers. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results is shown in Table 11. Table 11 Comparison of Master Plan and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No.6 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d1D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 6 590 10"VCP 293 360 6.96 0.69 6' 598 0.002 10"VCP 284 149 336 6.48 0.65 357 6.84 0.68 234 431 7.67 0.77 6 1080 0.002 8"VCP 294 149 336 Full Full 357 Full Full 6 50131 244 1 Full Full 263 Full Full Location of Flow Monitor 1-11 City of Huntington Beach KiHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS } The Pipe 590 data is missing the slope value in the 2003 Sewer Master Plan. However, this value can be estimated as 0.002, which is representative of the slopes for the nearby pipes. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimates existing average and peak dry weather flow of 149 gpm and 336 gpm respectively in Pipe 598. The average dry weather flow from flow monitoring (234) is approximately 57 percent higher than the Master Plan estimated existing average dry weather flow. The peak dry weather flow from flow monitoring (431 gpm) is approximately 28 percent higher than the Master Plan estimated existing peak dry weather flow. The discrepancy between the measured and estimated flows may be due to the presence of some high water users in the tributary area. A detailed study of the water use in the tributary area should be conducted to identify the reason for the difference. The Master Plan estimates only a 7.3 percent increase in the average dry weather flows with the ultimate development of the tributary area. Applying the same increase to the measured flows,the ultimate peak dry weather flow would be 460 gpm. The flow monitoring shows these pipes flowing at a depth to diameter ratio of 0.77. Based on the slope of 0.002, Manning's n of 0.013 and the ultimate peak dry weather flow of 460 gpm, the four (4) existing sewers would require a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches to meet the City's depth to diameter design criteria of 0.67. These reaches will require further evaluation by the City. Site No.'s 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 - Flow Monitoring Sites No.'s 8, 10, 11, and 12 are tributary to Flow Monitoring Site No. 7. These five flow monitoring sites will be described together for clarity. The flow pattern is shown on Figure 2. Figure 2 Flow Pattern Schematic for Site No.'s 7, 8. 10, 11 and 12 Qin Qin Qin Qin Qin Qin 1 Edinger 1 1 1 1 Saybrook Lift Station #11 #8 #12 Lift Station #M S No.25 LS No. 22 Since the flow monitoring sites are tributary to one another; a variation at one site could affect all of the sites. Prior to the installation of the flow monitors, it was understood that the Edinger Lift Station (Lift Station No. 25) was undergoing replacement. During the period when the flow monitors were initially installed (June 14, 2007 to June 28, 2007), the City ran tests on this lift station. These tests might have altered the initial results at Flow Monitoring Sites No.'s 7, 8, and 11. To analyze the flow monitoring data at these three unique sites, the flow monitoring must be done simultaneously. Therefore, the Site No. 8 flow monitoring data described hereon will refer to the initial flow monitoring that took place in June 2007. The flow monitoring at Site No. 8 performed in January, 2008 will be analyzed later. The Edinger Lift Station underwent testing at roughly 10:30 AM on July 14, 2007. According to Dudek Engineering, the existing lift station (before capacity improvements) was temporarily shut down to test the capacity of the new pumps. The SCADA data at the Edinger Lift Station, illustrated on Figure 3, shows that the existing pumps were not in operation at 10:30 A.M. 1-12 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis • T3Me ,errC�cr19 ksec: • > �? r 'i a14-Jun"9? 08 ©0 'fl8 s � Scale: ALL•DRTA a Trend"Plot - _14 un-07�12:00:00 r; d 69 "07 rs slkia- o 1.2e ' 4 `��`� � .. iz fig •, ;y "4 qqk y { 3'.e :eta,y r ue ?a. t - } e:. 06/14/87 r06/ii477B7 06/14/87 06/14L87 J36/.14/04 06/14/e7,- a "08 DO 80 08 48:00 `09 36:80 18:24:08 11112:80 12 00 00,, Tag Description DataMln DataMax -EuMin IuMax Se5Wb1L EDINMR'WETWELL NSA WA00 1Z0 0, m_J'T l RJ�E�=PUNC r 0 0 c rF39 c� 3 0i TiMe'error 14 sec: un 87 08 00 08 Scale ALL DATA Trend Plot un 87 12 00 88 ty 0 PS t v s ;c ;;^' °""'� �a 31 3 x � y �,� � � fix. �_•-`�°`"". �"'.' �� . gN r:aF-c trr 1„ z� �"��. ;. ��+� .r:a.�a'SP s- .r. �.•""v' >L,� .. ,� 1 06/14/87r �06/i4/87 06ii4/8?? 86/14/87+ 86/14i82r 06l14/07 .. 08 am"80 j 08 48:80 09 ,36 80 18 24..80 li 12 00w „12:,fl0 00, Tag Descriptior► '� DataMin 'DataMax "EuMinJ `, FuMaxp 52Z AJE. SAYBROOK W -=-' 2 9Z 39 12 0 80� 120:0]' SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS The Edinger Lift Station underwent testing at roughly 9:00 AM on June 20, 2007. According to the City, the flow was diverted around the Edinger Lift Station during this period. The flow data does not reflect normal operating conditions. Figure No. 5 SCADA Data at the Edinger Lift Station,June 20,2007 O C C: C- 0 C_ C The increased flows during the Edinger Lift Station testing must be analyzed in further detail before analyzing the downstream sewer lines. During these two periods, the Site No.'s 7, 8 and 11 flow monitors recorded abnormally high flow rates. These abnormalities can be seen on the flow versus time graphs for these sites in Appendix C. These high flow rates are more representative of the improved pump station conditions, not the conditions during that time period. The additional flow monitoring was performed at Site No. 8 and Site No. 12 following the completion of the improvement to the Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25) in order to analyze the capacity of the downstream system. Prior to the improvements, each pump at the Edinger Lift Station had a design capacity of roughly 225 gpm. With both pumps running, the lift station has a capacity of about 450 gpm. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan calculated the existing PDWF at the Edinger Lift Station at 415 gpm. The pumped flow was measured at Site No. 11, which is directly downstream of the existing lift station. Not including the high flow values related to the pump station testing, the peak dry weather flows were measured to be roughly 460 gpm during the initial flow monitoring. These various flows are consistent and are representative of the Edinger Lift station flows before the improvements were completed. The existing pumps at the Edinger Lift Station were designed for a capacity of 400 gpm. Under normal circumstances, one pump will be in operation. The pumps currently alternate to avoid wear-and-tear on one single pump. However, during extreme wet weather conditions and/or emergencies, both pumps may be required to operate simultaneously when the wet well level exceeds the maximum set level. The results at the downstream Flow Monitoring Sites No. 8 and 11 exhibited flows that are greater than what the pumps were designed for. The maximum daily flows at these flow monitoring sites were frequently greater than 500 gpm, which is higher than what was expected if the Edinger Lift Station were in operation with one pump at a capacity of 400 gpm. During the flow monitoring period, the Edinger Lift Station required both pumps to run 1-14 City of Huntington Beach K:\Huntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacily_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS simultaneously on only one occasion, which occurred when wastewater accumulated in the wet well during a power outage. Since the measured flows from the flow monitoring study were considerably higher than the design pump capacity, pump tests were performed to verify the actual capacity of the pumps. The testing was performed when the wastewater flows were expected to be largest. The City crew informed AKM Consulting Engineers that the testing should be performed at approximately 7:00 a.m., which is when the City generally observes peak dry weather flows. The tidal affects on the inflow to the lift station were also taken into consideration. The different tide levels affect the groundwater levels, which contribute to the amount of infiltration into the wastewater system. Since the Edinger Lift Station tributary area is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, a tide analysis was conducted before performing the pump tests. The average daily flows from the recent Flow Monitoring Sites No. 8 and 12 were analyzed with the daily tide history during the same period. It was concluded that larger average day flows occurred approximately 5 days after a spring tide, which is when a tide's range is at a maximum. The tide tables showed that the next spring tide occurred on May 5, 2008. The Edinger Lift Station testing was performed on Friday May 9, 2008 between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. when the wastewater flows were anticipated to be at its highest. The flow rates determined during the field testing were compared to the readings at the existing flow meter at the Edinger Lift Station, which may bd too low. The field testing consisted of measuring the time it takes to fill the wet well, every 0.5-foot increment between wet well levels of 2 feet to 5 feet. The time it takes each pump to lower the depth of wastewater in the wet well, every 0.5-foot increment between wet well levels of 5 feet to 2 feet was also measured. The wastewater levels in the wet well are constricted because the tributary sewer system will experience backflow conditions once the waste water level reaches an elevation of-8.50 feet amsl. The average incoming flow rate was calculated as follows: (Accumulated Volume) Qaccmnulated = (Accumulated Time) Accumulated Volume=(L*W*H)*(7.48 gallons/cubic foot) L=Length(7.5-feet) W=Width(10.0-feet) H=Height(0.5-feet) Accumulated Time=Time to fill the wet well 3.0 feet(min) During the testing period, the wet well filled from the 2-foot elevation to 5-foot elevation at a minimum time of 6 minutes and 15 seconds which corresponds to a flow rate of 269.3 gpm. The minimum time it took to raise the wet well level 0.5 feet was measured to be 59 seconds, which corresponds to a flow rate of 285.3 gpm. This value is used as the peak dry weather flow into the Edinger Lift Station. The rate at which the flow is discharged is calculated in a similar manner-, however, the flow into the wet well also needs to be accounted for. The flow rates were measured at every half foot increment to see how the 1-15 City of Huntington Beach K\Huntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS { different elevations in the wet well affect the pump discharge rate. The discharge flow rate was calculated as follows: (Discharge Volume) Qdischar�e= +Qacaunulatal (Discharge Time) Discharge Volume=(L'W'H)'(7.48 gallons/cubic foot) L=Length(7.5-feet) W=Width(10.0-feet) H=Height(0.5-foot) Discharge Time=Time to lower the wet well every 0.5 Feet(min) Q- la,ed=Flow coming in to the wet well while pumps are on The discharge time was recorded at each 0.5 foot wet well depth increment. The flow reading from the lift station flow meter was also logged at most of the 0.5 foot increments. The results show that the flow meters indicate flow rates lower than those measured by the testing. Tables 12 and 13 show the measured discharge rate as well as the flow meter readings for each pump. Table 12 Pump No. 1 Discharge Rate Summary Test No. 1 Test No.2 Reading Flow Meter. Reading Flow Meter Level on Stop Calculated Reading on Stop Calculated Reading Watch Flow(gpm) m Watch (gp Flow(gpm) m 5 0:1:18 494 0:30:18 476 419 / 4.5 0:218 485 415 0:31:34 474 424 4 0:3:20 477 0:32:51 460 417 3.5 0:4:24 465 403 0:34:13 442 407 3 0:5:31 454 402 0:35:43 438 402 2.5 0:6:41 451 395 0:37:15 425 395 2 0:7:52 0:38:54 390 Maximum 494.48 415.00 476.48 424.00 Avera a 470.27 403.75 450.73 407.71 Minimum 451.01 395.00 425.03 390.00 Table 13 Pump No. 2 Discharge Rate Summary Test No. 1 Test No. 2 Reading Flow Meter Reading Flow Meter Level on Stop Calculated Reading on Stop Calculated Reading Watch Flow(gpm) m Watch (gpFlow(gpm) m 5 0:15:44 493 440 0:45:30 510 440 4.5 0:16:51 486 435 0:46:40 494 430 4 0:18:0 470 415 047.55 485 421 3.5 0:19:14 450 415 0:49:13 477 422 3 0:20:35 455 412 05034 458 412 2.5 0:21:54 436 405 0:52:3 463 1 407 2 1 0.23.21 0:53:30 397-402 L mum 493.39 440.00 509.74 440.00 age 463.15 420.33 479.69 422.00 mum 1 435.64 405.00 458.41 407.00 1-16 City of Huntington Beach K:1Huntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Pump No. 1 has an average discharge rate of 461 gpm, while Pump No. 2 has a discharge rate of 471 gpm. On average Pumps 1 and 2 are pumping 15% and 18% more flow than the rated 400 gpm. The maximum calculated discharge rate at Pump No. 1 is 494 gpm or 124% of the design flow rate of 400 gpm. The maximum calculated discharge rate at Pump No. 2 is 510 gpm or 128% of the design flow rate of 400 gpm_ The pump testing appears to validate the recent flow measurements at Flow Monitoring Site No. 8 and 12. For the purposes of this study, the Edinger Lift Station is rated at the maximum output of 510 gpm. Deficient Location No. 9 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified deficiencies in one (1) reach of 10-inch diameter sewer on Trinidad Lane south of Edinger Avenue; and seven (7) reaches of 10-inch diameter sewer on Edinger Avenue between Trinidad Lane to the west and Santa Barbara Lane to the east. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flows, the d/D's exceed 0.70 for all eight (8) reaches, which is deficient according to the master plan criteria. The total length of these deficient reaches is 2,171 feet. The flow direction is from south to north and west to east. These deficient sewers are downstream of the Trinidad Lift Station (LS No. 29), which has two pumps with rated capacities of 250 gpm, and upstream of the Edinger Lift Station(LS No. 25). The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 166 on Edinger Avenue west of Bimini Lane, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 167 and 166. It measures most, but not all, of the flows tributary to the most downstream reach of the deficient sewers. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results is shown in Table 14. � Table 14 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No. 9 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d!D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d!D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 10 194 0.002 10"VCP 138 382 7.20 0.72 10 165 0.002 10"VCP 320 169 376 7.08 0.71 382 7.20 0.72 10' 166 0 002 10"VCP 347 169 376 7.08 0.71 1 383 7.20 0.72 157 277 5.18 0.52 10 167 0.002 10"VCP 314 169 377 7.08 0.71 383 7.20 0.72 10 168 0.002 10"VCP 335 184 408 7.68 0.77 415 7.80 0.78 10 169 0.002 10"VCP 308 186 410 7.68 0.77 418 7.80 0.78 10 170 0.002 10"VCP 1 304 190 418 7.80 0.78 427 7.92 0.79 10 174 0.002 10"VCP 1 105 190 419 7.80 0.78 428 7.92 1 0.79 Location of Flow Monitor The Pipe 194 data is missing the slope value in the Master Plan. However, the value can be estimated as 0.002, which is representative of the slopes for the nearby pipes. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimates existing average dry weather flows of about 169 gpm in Pipe 165 to 190 gpm in Pipe 174. The average dry weather flow from flow monitoring (157 gpm) in Pipe 166 is approximately 92 percent of the Master Plan estimated existing average dry weather flow of 169 gpm in Pipe 166. The average dry weather flows estimated in the Master Plan are relatively similar to the average dry weather flows recorded by the flow monitors; however, the relationship between the peak dry weather flows is not as close. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimates existing peak dry weather flows of about 376 gpm in Pipe 165 to 419 gpm in Pipe 174. The peak dry weather flow from flow monitoring (277 gpm) in Pipe 166 is approximately 74 percent of the _ Master Plan estimated existing peak dry weather flow of 376 gpm in Pipe 166. The discrepancy between the measured and estimated flows may be due to the high coefficient used in the Master Plan peaking 1-17 City of Huntington Beach K:\Huntington Beach\Hunlington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS relationships. The Master Plan estimates only a 1.9 percent increase in the peak dry weather flows with the ultimate development of the tributary area. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan calculated similar flow values through Pipes 194, 165, 166, and 167. The peak dry weather flows from the Master Plan calculations were exceeding the capacity of these pipes with both the existing and ultimate peak dry weather flows- The Master Plan also calculated the depth to diameter ratios at 0.72. The flow monitoring data shows that these four (4) pipes are flowing at a maximum depth to diameter ratio of 0.52. While this is deficient per the City's criteria, it does not warrant replacement of the existing pipes for capacity. If the tributary land use is proposed to be changed significantly in the future, resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be re-evaluated. According to the 2003 Sewer Master Plan, the four(4) reaches along Edinger Avenue between Bimini Lane to the west and the Edinger Lift station to the east, experience higher flows than the upstream reaches. The average dry weather flows from the lift station are a conservative estimate of the average dry weather flows through these four (4) reaches. The Master Plan calculated the average dry weather flow rates for Pipes 168, 169, 170, and 174 between 184 gpm to 190 gpm. The average dry weather flow from Flow Monitoring Site No. 11 (205 gpm) is approximately 8 percent higher than the Master Plan estimated average dry weather flow at Pipe 174 (190 gpm). During the pump testing on Friday May 9, 2008, the existing peak dry weather flows were measured to be approximately 285 gpm at the Edinger Lift Station. The Master Plan estimates only a 2.1 percent increase in the average dry weather flows with the ultimate development of the tributary area. Applying the same increase to the measured flows, the ultimate peak dry weather flow would be 291 gpm. Based on a slope of 0.002, Manning's n of 0.013 and the ultimate peak dry weather flow, the four (4) existing 10-inch sewers are ry flowing at a d/D of 0.59. While this calculated d/D is deficient per the City's criteria, it does not necessarily warrant replacement of the existing pipes for capacity. If the tributary land use is proposed to be changed in the future, resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be re-evaluated. Deficient Location No. 8 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified capacity deficiencies in ten (10) reaches of 10-inch diameter sewers located on Santa Barbara Lane and Mandalay Circle between the Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25) and Humboldt Drive. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flows, all ten (10) reaches were flowing full. The total length of these reaches is 1,964 feet. In order to evaluate the effect of Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25) flows on the downstream sewers, two flow monitors were initially installed on June 14, 2007. Two additional flow monitors were installed once the improvements to the Edinger Lift Stations were finalized. On June 14, 2007, the first flow monitor was installed in the downstream end of Pipe 202 at the manhole between Pipes 206 and 202 on Santa Barbara Lane and Shorebreak Drive (FM Site No. 11). Pipe 202 is the first pipe downstream of the Edinger Lift Station force main. The comparison of the initial flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results for the area tributary to the flow monitoring site is shown in Table 15. 1-18 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table 15 Comparison of Master Plan and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No.8 (Flow Monitoring Site 11) Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 11' 202 0.002 T16-vcP 136 198 434 8.04 0.80 443 Full Full 205 520 8.67 0.87 Location of Flow Monitor The 2003 Sewer Master Plan estimated the existing and ultimate peak dry weather flows at 434 gpm and 443 gpm, respectively. During pump operations before the improvements were implemented, the flow monitor recorded the peak dry weather flow at 520 gpm, which was significantly higher than both master plan values. During the Edinger Lift Station testing on June 14, 2007, the flow monitor recorded the peak dry weather flow at 900 gpm,which is significantly higher than all values. The Master Plan also estimated that this pipe would flow at a depth to diameter ratio of 0.80 with the existing peak dry weather flows and full with the ultimate peak dry weather flows. With the normal pump operations during June 2007, the flow monitoring equipment recorded the maximum depth to diameter ratio at about 0.87 which verifies that this 10" diameter sewer does not meet the existing criteria. When the Edinger Lift Station testing was performed, Site No 11 experienced full flow conditions. The design flow for the Edinger Lift Station is roughly 400 gpm; however, the pumping tests performed on May 9, 2008 show that the actual pumping rate is as high as 510 gpm. The measured pumping rate is i capable of conveying both the existing and ultimate peak dry weather flows, and this value (510 gpm) will be used to evaluate the downstream sewer capacities. Based on a slope of 0.002, and a Manning's n of 0.013, the required pipe size would be 15-inch diameter. Flow monitoring was performed at the downstream end of Pipe 232 at the manhole between Pipes 237 and 232 on Mandalay Circle north of Humboldt Drive (FM Site No. 8). The flow monitoring was performed in June, 2007 to analyze the affect the Edinger Lift Station had on the downstream sewer system. However, the Edinger Lift Station capacity was recently increased, and additional flow monitoring was necessary to analyze the downstream system based on the new pump capacities. A flow monitor was installed at Site No. 8 in January, 2008. The comparison of the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results is shown in Table 16. This table shows the flows at Site No. 8 before and after the improvements to the Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25) were completed. For the purposes of this report, the downstream reaches will be analyzed with the most-recent flow monitoring data because it represents the existing flow conditions. It j- 1-19 City of Huntington Beach K:\Huntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS i Table 16 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No. 8 (Flow Monitoring Site 8) Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 8 206 0-002 10"VCP 226 200 438 8-04 0.80 447 Full Full 8 211 0 002 10"VCP 204 202 443 Full Full 452 Full Full 8 213 0.002 10"VCP 112 204 447 Full Full 455 Full Full 8 216 0 002 10"VCP 240 205 449 Full Full 458 Full Full 8 219 0.002 10"VCP 240 208 453 Full Full 464 Full Full 8 221 0.002 10"VCP 108 208 453 Full Full 463 Full Full 8 222 0 002 10"VCP 213 223 483 Full Full 496 Full Full 8'(June 0.002 10"VCP 239 226 490 Full Full 504 Full Full 227 455 8.78 0.88 2007) 232 8'(January 0.002 10"VCP 239 226 490 Full Full 504 Full Full 228 500 Full Full 2008) 8 237 0.002 10"VCP 246 229 494 Full I Full 509 Full I Full Location of Flow Monitor The 2003 Sewer Master Plan existing and ultimate peak dry weather flows exceed the capacities of the nine (9) reaches of sewers listed above. The existing peak dry weather flows varied from 438 gpm to 494 gpm, with the ultimate peak dry weather flows approximately 3 percent higher. With the upgraded Edinger Lift Station in operation, Flow Monitoring Site No. 8 recorded the peak dry weather flow as 500 gpm, which is similar to the Master Plan values. The Peak Dry weather flow (500 gpm) at flow monitoring Site No. 8 is less than the measured discharge at the Edinger Lift Station, due to the attenuation of the flows in the upstream gravity system. ff.° For the most part, the flow monitoring data at Site No. 8 consistently displays typical flow patterns during the three (3) weeks that the flow monitor collected data. However, on January 26, 2008, there was a power outage which shutdown'both the Edinger Lift Station (#25) and the Saybrook Lift Station (#22). The power outage lasted between 5:45 P.M. to 7:10 P.M. As shown in Appendix C, Site 8 displays an abnormally high flow rate at 7:30. Once the power at the pump station was restored, the two (2) pumps were both automatically turned on to discharge the wastewater that accumulated in the wet well. This flow rate (656 cfs) at 7:30 illustrates the scenario when both pumps are running. During normal operations, the flow monitor recorded full or near full levels between 7:00 A.M. and 10:30 A.M, which coincides with normal peak wastewater production periods. Although it does not appear that two (2) pumps are running simultaneously during this time, the pumps are required to operate more frequently since the wet well fills at a faster rate during the peak period. The detailed flow monitoring results show the daily depths rise to full or near full levels at Site No. 8 for 1 to 4 hour periods. Based on the slope of 0.002, Manning's n of 0.013 and the flow monitoring maximum flow of 500 gpm, a minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches would be necessary to meet the City's depth to diameter design criteria of 0.67 for the nine (9) study reaches. The 15-inch pipe would also have the capacity to convey the measured flow rate of 656 cfs during the case when both pumps were in operation. The maximum inflow into the Edinger Lift Station was measured to be approximately 285 gpm and the pumps are discharging roughly 500 gpm. To reduce the depth to diameter ratio in the ten (10) downstream sewers, the City may decrease the pump capacity from 500 gpm to 400 gpm. In doing so, approximately 37% of the ultimate PDWF will remain available for wet weather inflow and infiltration. By reducing the flow to 400 gpm, 1-20 City of Huntington Beach KiHuntington BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1 the downstream sewers are expected to flow at a depth to diameter ratio of approximately 0.744. While this is deficient according to the City's standards, the sewers will no longer experience full flow conditions. To evaluate the effects of the improvements to the Edinger Lift Station (LS No. 25), an additional flow monitor was installed between Site No. 8 and the Saybrook Lift Station (LS No. 22). The flow monitor was installed in Pipe 256, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 256 and 261. It measures nearly the entire flow tributary to the Saybrook Lift Station. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results is shown in Table 17. Table 17 Comparison of Master Plan Results and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No. 8 Flow Monitoring Site 12) Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Ultimate Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF ADWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM Depth d/D GMP GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 12 239 12"VCP 302 300 632 7.80 0.65 12 256 12"VCP 513 347 719 7.20 0.60 12' 261 12"VCP 246 1 368 758 6.60 0.55 247 517 7.01 0.58 Location of Flow Monitor Like Site No. 8, the flow monitoring results at Site No. 12 are fairly typical, however, the site experienced high and low flows when the power outage left the Saybrook Lift Station (LS No. 22) and Edinger Lift Stations (LS No. 25) inoperable. As Shown in Appendix C, Site No. 12 experienced back water conditions at about 6:00 r P.M. where the flow level reached the top of the pipe and the flow rate is zero. Site 12 is just upstream of the \ Saybrook Lift Station; therefore, the flow accumulated in the pipe once the wet well had reached_its maximum capacity. During the power outage, Site No. 8 did not experience these backwater conditions because it is further upstream. Once the power at the lift station was restored, the two (2) pumps were automatically turned on to discharge the wastewater that accumulated in the wet well during the power outage. This flow rate (771 cfs) at 7:30 illustrates the scenario when both pumps are running. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan considered Pipes 239, 256, and 261 to be"Borderline conditions", with ultimate average dry weather flows between 300 gpm and 368 gpm. During the master planning effort, "Borderline conditions" were the reaches that had calculated d/D values which were close the deficiency criteria d/D values, but were not determined"Deficient" by engineering judgment. During normal dry weather conditions the flow monitoring shows that the average and peak dry weather flows are 247 gpm and 517 gpm respectively. The Sewer Master Plan peak dry weather flow (758 gpm) is larger than the flow monitoring peak dry weather flow (517 gpm) by a factor of 1.47. According to the flow monitoring data, this 12" sewer is flowing at a d/D of 0.58. While this is deficient per the City's criteria, it does not warrant replacement of the existing pipes for capacity. If the tributary land use is proposed to be changed significantly in the future, resulting in higher wastewater flows, then these reaches should be re-evaluated. Deficient Location No. 7 The 2003 Sewer Master Plan identified a capacity deficiency in one (1) reach of 8-inch diameter sewer on Saybrook Lane between Heil Avenue to the north and Morning Star Drive on the south. With the master plan calculated peak dry weather flow, this reach is flowing full. The total length is 290 feet, and the flow direction 1-21 City of Huntington Beach KAHuntington Beach\Huntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS o { is from north to south. This reach conveys the wastewater flow pumped by Saybrook Lift Station (LS No. 22), ` located on Saybrook Lane north of Heil Avenue. The flow monitor was installed in the downstream end of Pipe 2586, upstream of the manhole between Pipes 312 and 2586 at the intersection of Saybrook Lane and Morning Star Drive. It measures the entire flow tributary to the deficient sewer. The comparison between the flow monitoring data and the 2003 Sewer Master Plan results is shown in Table 18. Table 18 Comparison of Master Plan and Flow Monitoring Data Deficient Location No. 7 Master Plan Data Data E(GPM) onitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate UltimateWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D PM)7- 2586 0.002 12"VCP 299 311 652 9.00 0.75 760 Full Full42 7.10 0.59 Location of Flow Monitor Based upon information contained in Appendix D of the 2003 Sewer Master Plan, the existing peak dry weather flow is 652 gpm, and the ultimate peak dry weather flow is 760 gpm. The Master Plan calculated a depth to diameter ratio of 0.75 in this 12-inch pipe with the existing peak dry weather flows. The flow monitoring equipment recorded a peak dry weather flow of 642 gpm, which is nearly the firm capacity of the Saybrook Lift Station. The flow monitors recorded the maximum depth to diameter ratio at 0.59 which verifies that this 12" diameter sewer does not meet the City's existing criteria. The City anticipates that the Saybrook Lift Station will be replaced within the next 3 and 8 years. To reduce ) the length of time that the pumps are running, it is anticipated that the City will double the firm capacity of the pumps. Each pump's existing design capacity is 413 gpm. The City recommends that the future design capacity of the downstream sewers will be 826 gpm. A minimum pipe diameter of 15 inches is needed to meet the City's depth to diameter design criteria of 0.67. These reaches will require additional evaluation by the City. The system downstream of this reach should also be evaluated for this planned increase in the flows. 1-22 City of Huntington Beach K:iHuntington BeachlHunttngton_Beach Capacity_study Capacity Analysis .... .Sun6Gar Verde 'tar Dr, 4 T, :;k;�. ',:ff�•"fuse .,�ut,�<., Hann ! Deficient Location #1 0 c irbroo-k Dr. j NOT TO SCALE 0 0 r- ttJ City of Huntington Beach Lines ---Modeled � � a Sewer System °� Eiarderimr, r : Capacity Analysis r «6pnt June, 2008 FIGURE A-1 r Master Plan Deficient .. .__._..,_ _....� Location 1 ..__a. _....... x Amwn Ur. I .... .^ �Y F i - t t a ,. mrnnw Dr W++Nrg Dr CY 4 < F,ilAve. �{`� 294. .°_„295,,:;._„»,.,=,�95,. t7137': i r i3} 300 tf 3 �:i-.-xi °:.:,✓..''`'•--"�-r.;�...t.;J`:".�:y v�c�'1�'""'".�(!�w.n�.xae>:�i.�d,r�y.:rani„'�-a,�.w..�j•"u�.'�m"m�{. ; >fy AbWU Or Deficient Location #2 11 Deficient Loq'ati on'#,3 ; NR"G:JiI or ,t7 Cnnr+q l7r �. Vp.nmo Cic (�f .... � .. � .. •� � it .. .. Pa Wit Or... vl _ e V.}F wa rtl 0l, _ ,�i rivia or, OD NOT 3W rrna Gc N%Mlyr,U, City of Huntington Beach .a Sewer System Capacity Analysis June, 2008 t_iaae.�a ;� f_ UiDCI©tit# d FIGURE A-2 Cordell,ri Master Plan Deficient Locations 2& 3 ............. , Slater Ave, Deficient Location #5; Modoled ! l: t}t'r11r.7,rit pk4nab Mkhael Di. n^a z ki r J1A Deficient,Location #4 "'. .r;:Dr. Ave 11 .N.;di Cir_• o .� FI A"- >Ilr New'n�N,i Ave ctS M fl.wald Rd. x � Deficient Location #6 r 1 lRT'r, City of Huntington Beach t , & . n -' Sewer System' = Capacity Analysis June, 2008 j Talbert AVG. NOT T � FIGURE A-3 ` Master Plan Deficient �` r Locations 4, 5, &6 Pump Station #22 7 IL'ies, Niodoled Z �4 -sirdeflim" ficient Location #7 NOT TO c3CALE —6 Plck.wick Cir Gir 9 by Dale Or. 9Y HoarclwalA Dr. aF- City of Huntington Beach < VO Sewer System Capacity Analysis June, 2008 Whirtuor Dr FIGURE A-4 tt Master Plan Deficient Lccation 7 ta:y?'re;t tmma r m .......------ sa �t7J' x �tlQiJw'+ ^' Edinger Ave. — Deficient Location49 m� , , t ^ d r yJa'v• wa '..d( — —^Modeled ,§7: c, N k,o, �� Qeflclent'Loc%atlOn �' ' .� s}ty.,, � r';.. - 1^> Borden'ine� � � t } "Ede° Qj %- DeficiAnt J,....Humboldt,D� rr.s;°„ia?A rv.: v. ,:. L! NOT T0SCALE City of Huntington Beach Sewer System .A*ter Capacity Analysis June, 2008 FIGURE A-5 �,cN.:";�s�•�s��le:�w" � ' , Master Plan Deficient �^ Locations 8 &9 t t7 Vo,rde Mar Dr_ FM Site #1 01 1fl15 tll18 ,sa 301' 1Qt9 Harn 0 i < r^ � 1 - a City of Huntington Beach I Modeled Sewer System ?y Borae,fin t $, ., ', Capacity Analysis June, 2008 �e FIGURE B-1 a Flow Monitoring Site 1 A-all Or. ltaoon.w1c,ir j-, G.,vomal Dr Dr. rMl— n, Cj (.fr 295 NG� �gq�7 ,7�q�fj � .......... > Hei�Ave. ADWU Of. TIVI Site S M— Lwu.Or. LV. wwlwx r.k. K"ith(N. a) (xurnn Or, Vno,.no Ck. iv Dr. 31 SvMa Dr, Carta 0r, N.'oa Dr. NOT ,, Lo'An-". City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Capacity Analysis 'A June, 2008 Modeled FIGURE B-2 X-,; Flow Monitoring Site 3 .............. Stater Ave. y aeon rr„ [Lutes FM Site #5 c,r,rclr. _, r _ Bordeilinq Pump Station #26 ;u J"rA ..� Mkhael Dr. Row,"rn nr 1 ..� � ,l� �'•� �r�� ;Nlt' vF7 I r FM Site #4 o«Ie�„Illnr. FI A ti j. m ---raa A,% Ci New:—Ave _ .. . 1 � Idw Wd Rd FM Site #6 City of Huntington Beach s' Sewer System r. Capacity Analysis Ikaert Avc. ; �` MOTTO i June, 2008 FIGURE B-3 Flow Monitoring Sites 4, 5, & 6 .......... Pump Station #22 Modeled z "k FM Site #7 NOT TO SCALE Ptckwick CI, ot, 11 4, H oa rdwaikDr. t 4 City of Huntington Beach 11W 1 Sewer System Capacity Analysis June, 2008 FIGURE B-4 ...... ........... Flow Monitoring Site 7 i01i Ave _ �l' t!T1 tClt w Edinger 9S ., • FM Site 1.0 ... FM Site.#.1;�'.:'� .dry$ Limes Modeled Borduhn F .a� M"'Site #8,, ° a._.. Humboldt'Dr.. "'I °' NOT TO SCALE n Fishes L`r.., .�a FM Site #12 City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Capacity Analysis June, 2008 FIGURE B-5 Flow Monitoring Sites 8, 10, 11,& 12 Pump Station #22 Flow(GPM) N W A Cn 6) V co co O O O O O Co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 39246 — i 39246.5 39247 i I 39247.5 I I 39248 39248.5 I 39249 39249.5 - 39250 39250.5 � cn 2 . r, 39251 n - y ... —a 39251.5 } CQ 39252 Clj 39252.5 39253 _ (D 39253.5Ox q 41, 3 39254 G asp i � —j'_ 39254.5 � - t r 39255 rY�:.;,:,.- 39255.5 - � I 39256 I39256.5 39257 39257.5 39258 f 39258.5 I` 3 Flow(GPM) N IV W (T O CT O Un O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 6/14/2007 12:00 6/15/2007 0:00 96 �. 6/15/2007 12:00 6116l2007 0:00 "i 6/16/2007 12:00 6/17/2007 0:00 6/17/200712:004. 6/18/2007 0:00 6/18/2007 12:00 III 6/19/2007 0:00 cn 6/19/2007 12:00CD ;,�,' 6/20/2007 0:00 6/20/200712:00 :1 6/21/2007 0:00 I C �-3cn- 6/21/200712:00 —� 6/22/2007 0:00 CD - CD 6/22/200712:00 6/23/2007 0:00 014, x I 6/23/2007 12:00 6/24/2007 0:00 +- 6/24/2007 12:00 ,r 6/25/2007 0:00 � 6/25/2007 12:00 6/26/2007 0:00 6/26/200712:00 F 6/27/2007 0-00 6/27/200712:00 � I 6/28/2007 0:00 - - Flow(GPM) N A m Oo O N O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 i 6/14/2007 12:00 6/15/2007 0:00 6/15/200712:00 6/16/2007 0:00 6/16/2007 12:00 6/17/2007 0:00 6117/200712:00 j 6/18/2007 0:00 - 6/18/2007 12:00 y 6/19/2007 0:00 Cn 6/19/2007 12.00 CD 6/20/2007 0:00 , r r -n 6/20/200712:00 _._ O 6/21/2007 0:00 C cn 6/21/200712:00 4 —i 6/22/20070:00 CD 6/22/2007 12:00 6/23/2007 0:00 4 k. k 6/23/200712:00 .sr 6/24/2007 0:00 I - . 6/24/2007 12.00 6/25/2007 0:00 6/25/2007 12:001;- 6/26/2007 0:00 - i 6/26/200712:00 1 6/27/2007 0:00 6/27/200712:00 6/28/2007 0:00 — Flow(GPM) N W A (.71 O') O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 i I 6/14/200712:00 6/15/2007 0:00 I � 6/15/200712:00 6/16/2007 0:00 6/16/2007 12:00 6/17/2007 0:00 6/17/200712:00 6/18/2007 0:00 6/18/2007 12:00 `I } 6/19/2007 0:00 � " 6/19/2007 12:00CD '' 6/20/2007 0:00 I CA s 6/20/2007 12:00 O t I- t r' J I, 6/21/2007 0:00 C cn 6/21/2007 12:00 —� 6/22/2007 0:00 , ;"..": (D 6/22/2007 12:00 x, k 6/23/2007 0:00 t - 6/23/2007 12:00 F 6/24/2007 0:00 6/24/2007 12:00 ` 6/25/2007 0:00 6/25/200712:00 r 6/26/2007 0:00 6/26/2007 12:00 - j 6/27/2007 0:00 6/27/2007 12:00 ' 6/28/2007 0:00 Flow(GPM) 0 N N W W A A O (T O Ul O CD O O O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 � I 6/14/2007 12:00 6/15/2007 0:00 6/15/2007 12:00 6/16/2007 0:00 I 6/16/200712:00 6/17/2007 0:00 6/17/2007 12:00 6/18/2007 0.00 " I• 6/18/2007 12:00 6/19/2007 0:00 '^ Rt 4 6/19/2007 12:00 ` v - tD `t 6/20/2007 0:00 �. x —n 6/20/200712:00 ( O 6/21/2007 0:00 6/21/2007 12:00 6/22/2007 0:00 cD j 6/22/2007 12:00 6/23/2007 0:00 WEs -_ 6/23/2007 12:00 " 6/24/2007 0.00 l k 6/24/200712:00 6/25/2007 0:00 r 6/25/2007 12:00 1 6/26/2007 0:00 6/26/2007 12:00 - 6/27/2007 0:00 6/27/200712.00 6/28/2007 0:00 — — — — Flow(GPM) N w A cn O v pp O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 6/14/2007 12:00 � 6/15/2007 0:00 ` 6/15/2007 12:00 I ((( 6/16/2007 0:00 i l 6/16/200712:00 i 6/17/2007 0:00 6/17/2007 12:00 - I 6/18/2007 0:00 6/18/200712:00 ' 6/19/2007 0:00 � �` 6/19/200712:00 ,& a CD 6/20/20070:00 �` V 6/20/2007 12:00 O 6/21/2007 0:00 < <�- cn 6/21/2007 12:00 - 6/22/2007 0:00 (D It.. 6/22/2007 12:00 I. 6/23/2007 0:00 6/23/2007 12:00 6/24/2007 0:00 , S 6/24/2007 12:00r - 6/25/2007 0:00 6/25/2007 12:00 6/26/2007 0:00 "` l 6/26/200712:00 ' � 6/27/2007 0:00 , 6/27/200712:00 6/28/2007 0:00 - �I Flow(GPM) N W A cn v a. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 i 6/14/200712:00 6/15/2007 0:00 � 6/15/200712:00 6/16/2007 0:00 6/16/2007 12:00CD al, I 6/17/2007 0:0000 6/17/2007 12:00 6/18/2007 0.-00 x` 6/18/2007 12:00 6/19/2007 0:00 3 m 6/19/200712:00 ': "�� ' 4 W ' CD 6/20/2007 0:00 E i CD 6/20/2007 12:00 6/21/2007 0:00 -- CD 6/21/2007 12:00 6/22/2007 0:00 ( cn �« 6/22/2007 12:00 f 6/23/2007 0:00 6/23/2007 12:00 u o 6/24/2007 0.00 k M r CD 6/24/2007 12 00 1 , (n 1 6/25/2007 0:00 6/25/2007 12:00 6/26/2007 0:00 , 6/26/2007 12:00 I =-e 6/27/2007 0:00 6/27/2007 12:00 " 6/28/2007 0:00 — — Flow(GPM) N W A ul O v O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1/16/2008 0:00 I 1/17/2008 0:00 1/18/2008 0:00 1 .. 1/19/2008 0:00 1/20/2008 0:00 - CD co 1/21/2008 0:00 I -1 1/22/2008 0:00 1/23/2008 0:00 �.� 1/24/2008 0:00 � ;�;��.:; CD HOW CD 1/25/2008 0:00 1/ /26 2008 0:00 _- izCD 1/27/2008 0:00 I" 1 1/2 /2 0 a oos o o ^ Pi. 1/29/2008 0:00 � ^ � r 'a 1/30/2008 0:00 I „� ' CCD 1/31/2008 0:00 :. 2/112008 0:00 2/2/2008 0:00 � 2/3/2008 0:00 2/4/2008 0:00 I I } 2/5/2008 0-00 2/6/2008 0:00 J Flow(GPM) C" O U O (T O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 I i 6/14/200712:00 ;1 6/15/2007 0:00 6/15/2007 12:00 i 6/16/2007 0:00 - ~ 6/16/2007 12:00 6/17/2007 0:00 u 6/17/2007 12:00 6/18/2007 0:00 6/18/2007 12:00 ( _ 6/19/2007 0:00 cn F 6/19/2007 12:00 - m y it 6/20/2007 0.-00 6/20/2007 12:00 p 6/21/2007 0:00 � - 6/21/200712.00 � 6/22/2007 0:00CD 6/22/2007 12.00 6/23/2007 0:00 6/23/2007 12:00 - .^ tv 6/24/2007 0:00 N 6/24/2007 12:00 6/25/2007 0:00 : J.. 6/25/2007 12:00 1 = 6/26/2007 0:00 ( • , 6/26/2007 12:00 6/27/2007 0:00 6/27/2007 12.00 6/28/2007 0:00 - — Flow(GPM) co 41 CT) co O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6/14/2007 0:00 i 6/14/200712:00 I I 6/15/2007 0:00 I j I i 6/15/2007 12:00 I 6/16/2007 0:00 6/16/200712:00 I ' 6/17/2007 0:00 . 6/17/200712:00 6/18/2007 0:00 6/18/2007 12:00 � 6/19/2007 0:00 6/19/200712:00 lD 6/20/2007 0.00 <` ,. 6/20/2007 12:00 0 6/21/2007 0:00 < C_ <'^ V/ 6/21/2007 12:00 �h b 6/22/2007 0:00 CD 6/22/200712:00 I f 6/23/2007 0:00 �' 6/23/200712:00Pi 4 6/24/2007 0:00 6/24/2007 12:00 6/25/2007 0.00 r� 6/25/2007 12:00 6/26/2007 0:00 _ 6/26/200712.00 6/27/2007 0:00 Tr 6/27/200712:00 6/28/2007 0:00 - --- Flow (GPM) N CO A cn m 00 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1/16/2008 0:00 — 1/17/2008 0:00 1/18/2008 0:00 I I i 1/19/2008 0:00CD " Cn 1/20/2008 0:00 1/21/2008 0:00 , O 1/22/2008 0:00 i t N 1/23/2008 0:00 CD 1/24/2008 0:00 � 1/25/2008 0:00 1/26/2008 0:00 f ( CD 1/27/2008 0:00 1/28/2008 0:00 f � >" r ' 0 s 1/29/2008 0:00 1/30/2008 0:00 ffi 0 f" < ' CD 1/31/20080:00 , _ .: t �D 2/1/2008 0:00 r 2/2/2008 0:00 " 41 2/3/2008 0:00 �., 2/4/2008 0:00 '� � I ' 2/5/2008 0:00 ' 2/6/2008 0:00 - " Appendix D 2003 Master Plan Capacity Analysis 3aa. E1.ofati_c-i Eicvzdka„ I ndifE Peak INVERT ifii ERT PEAM):'.t, O;;: :SL.-a' 1t`c7'.:•r111 t1fi'd UP 1,RN -R^1 ngi-i Ex �E : C ll'--S Si%:F3 F CF$ 717 - -1.9 1-1,7 1011 O.�G1 V3, vrrl -1.F -1.5 ;.402 101 5 t'.il[i i 1,9'"yvup 0[S_3 7.3 22:).97 J itfFJ L17 1015 0"-IDI I W vm 9.33 C C 1 11ii; 3. 3' -0.67 7 =2G3 - 1017 0.001 1 v" 9 113 -30! :3.:' 1? -(J.14 101 O-OD 1 15"wca 1 C.1' 9.Ili 5 :7+'3 i 27 13,1;« 0 37 3.143 0.002 1= '•n- i �J32 �E+.15 :x3.13 _'.CfLV 1'7 ErL 14-1e I() :47 11JYJ:;'2 12"tti7j 27 0-1 },f 14.1 15.1 i 2,1 r)J q4 0.002 12"voo f'.1.'.in it-odel ? 5 0,002 12" �:o {12:76 twat' 2.3+1 0. 15 3.7 2 20 1:291 _LIU fJ,;102 11,.,E�- 11.•49 12"7F_: Itic; 3.:)1._ Q-_,F F1w 1�7�3e, 16S n.0C12 1:1_I"of--o 11),1f.- � 'h Y:38 .3 t ` 16b O.002 10-v-::u :xv, 4.i- 3�7.41 0.83y 4,6:31 41.33 .0.653 107 0 Co.,- IV,"v-P T67 0.77 13.3' -2,40 1-W 1 m 0 8:5:3 1ba 0 r:n? 101„TT, 9.77, 10.17 :,t5 1.90A 0.3 2.f#; " r:rangy. - 1 E;9 (I.00i2 10'arc, - 10.4. 10,8*, " 307_&3 1 aria -41 IS -:i'S13 0-931 1 F} ID IS1'- I[-t-l; 111.8C 9.54 Ili r)--1---s1..1 ? -4.06 _+S 0.951 1 17 UJ.'Cr2 i[} ,1:c ?. 4 12. 105 !1.!ki4 i.:it -S.16 l0-9 i ''[J" J!iii2 3.4 0. 201 fJ,C1i�I 1G''n _ .1t.Uc; 11!9 2'2>r_I7 114/, 2.83 �c .,I flI 2 1 i].0021 10 /Cp t0.9 1 F,.A '203173 r fl CC, 10'vr. IC'.•1 101 112 1-4:)5 2.051 2,33 .. 1".014 `- l 2113 O.OV 10'vr.: 10 U.41240 1 1.05 ?.Ci: j;()?1 21;)r 13 DOZ, lo,vCP 4,4 P.7 " - 240 1.01 11,1?5 1 AS 1.o-ga 1 t3.XJ2 10-yr p B,7 9.02 " 108 1.31 v,3 21 f'tOP I(',' rcp Fl. 1'.33 �1�< uq 1,077 p.S r';.a$d }+ C.C,(C) 1U`vr IiJ.T' liJ. ?39 i.i);11 Cl_F1 I1.y 1.122 37 [1.1:Ht;? 1C�'vc- 1 CI 246.26, 1.1(17 -1.25 -O.C4 I.t-IJ 03_of u41 GIs 21 RI u9'1 C;IS 3aS'41 r.n G I_} - 5o1cgiGIS - v-gj C'.0Ct2 8`VC , 23-131 2�i 9 ;S;lU 1. i 1- 2U.0 ..,._ `1,-8 1:143 ?3 1:�4 20.7 TO 1,244 1 v,6 -- 515 0.002 8' ' q.y, ' E:. KC) 1. 10 2 19 4 =Ni S'14 0.902 1" ',CP 2e, ;301 f7. 1 17 549 1.11rJ2 8'vr{; •Tr.;33i _ �i_9 1= F.?". :'1.E?.: 12C, 1,11 55i, O.UO'l 5`)9 4l-002 10'vu` 45.17 43 4 1123_F-2 O.0O3 a).b 31. _7 C[YID 9 3 not tcw•ie 48t not 1Ounu : Ac)P rnttounc 8' =P 2!--1 2 4'33 2'_+4.C12 :I :i 3C"1 D.C'1'' 4' (: `!.a 3:a_;-- T:le•.r' 4 34.5 Appendix K Sewer Lift Station Priority List SEWER LIFT STATION PRIORITY LIST 4/17/2008 Priority No Station No: Station' Arne ,: Year Built 1 26 Brighton&Shoreham 1963 2 24 Edwards&Balmoral 1967 3 1 Graham&Kenilworth 1962 4 16 Adams&Ranger 1963 5 10 Algonquin&Boardwalk 1963 6 6 Edgewater&Davenport 1964 7 13 Slater& Springdale 1966 8 22 Saybrook&Heil 1965 9 29 Trinidad&Edinger 1976 10 23 New Britain&Adams 1972 11 21 McFadden&Dawson 1972 12 19 Bushard&Pettswood 1969 13 15 Oceanhill &Beach 1964 14 18 Atlanta&Beach 1973 15 11 Lark&Warner 1964 16 2 Humboldt&Wayfarer 1964 17 5 Davenport&Baruna 1963 18 3 E Station 1962 19 20 Speer&Crabb 1968 20 14 Gothard&Ellis 1992 21 17 Brookhurst&Effingham 2000 22 4 A Station 2000 23 30 Boeing 2003 24 28 Coral Cay 2006 25 25 Edinger&Santa Barbara 2006 Demo ? 7 B Station 1962 Demo ? 8 C Station 1962 Under Const. 9 D Station 2007 Under Const. 31 Brightwater 2008 Appendix L Public Outreach 1 � Proper dishwashing and cleaning methods Public Works ' To prevent FOG related sewage backups, can reduce the entry of solids and FOG into Wastewater Sectionr FSEs are required to implement the the wastewater system. Proper dishwashing (714)536-5921 (Mon-Fri,8am-5pm) °�� ..:-. •• �•�, following Best Management Practices and equipment cleaning t g (BMPs)which are designed to control FOG practices include: HB Police Department '` , HUNTINGTON•fJAI' at the source. . Pre-washing dishes (714)960-8825(24hrs) and cookware with t 4i- . • �� e• i, hot water and no soap prior I using the dishwasher An effective employee training program is Prior to washing fryers, use a rubber Public Works Department one of the ritical elements of a spatula to squeegee down the sides 2000 Main Street succe ful B. Ali in tOn-P ogram' due while grease and oil are still warm then Huntington Beach,CA 92648 to th fac a reEntil FOG from wi a the f er down with a er towels. Monday-Friday,8 a.m.to 5 p.m.enterin is largely p ry p p E16rr�oa�ating (714)374-1548 depen Therefore, r emplo ine - • "Nsi .• ' • Hoci " t dishware t -• • • r an r as hing to r e. ,..;, For indoor grease traps and outdoor grease ;f r' • er aste interceptors to be effective, the units must California Fats,Oils,and ! J `n and p 'or t 's �al in b prevent be properly sized, and maintained. The Grease Work group p le ing an'• • www.calfoci.orci inspection and cleaning of your grease traps • Spi ention and proper cleanup and/or interceptor is critical to ensure that methods. your grease interceptor/trap is functioning State Water Resources Control Board • How to properly recycle cooking oil. properly and should be conducted on a www.swrcb.ca.aov/sso/lndex.html From Our frequent basis. Typically, grease traps will need to be I<$ SEWERS Install a fine meshed screen in the drain of cleaned at least once a week and grease interceptors will need to be cleaned at least e each kitchen, mop and hand sink.Clean HUNTINGTON MACH once every three months. Maintenance drain screens frequently and dispose of the records for your facility's grease interceptor collected material in the garbage. or grease trap should be kept on-site and The City of Huntington Beach gratefully r ' available for review by Orange County acknowledges the Bureau of Sanitation of the City Health Care Agency inspectors and the City of Los Angeles,Department of Public Works for of Huntington Beach's FOG Inspectors. the concept,content and artwork of this brochure. �Bi. Mur Sewage backups and overflows are typically f i) ix,ti• . To Your Business: the result of grease buildup,which can cause property damage, environmental problems, As your sewer Pipes back up, ° $ and health hazards. FOG gets into the sewage and food particles �ii+uz sewers mainly from Food Service '@ that accumulate can attract "9i[lat rst; Establishments (FSEs) that either do not insects and other vermin and may create have adequate grease control measures in potential health hazards. place such as grease interceptors or do not implement Best Management Practices <� iau, �, r., n;., .• .day' Property damage can result from (BMPs) that minimize the amount of FOG `.- ;<" f ewaga backups leading to that enters the sewer. expensive cleanup and plumbing 4repairs that may have to be paid FOG is the byproduct of cooking and is :a ;_,, or by you. usually found in such things as: iocu�or ctoeua• t( Sewage backups can --•�;saw"',r� * Food scra s Butter&margarine ,;;, ;; "^' .. :,' result in health code P g ;r2'?~;'�wti v?ySt. �y.-: ,PrCY...,'i�1);�"Y`.,,,�,!'' �.-....... o'{:ram' violations and the closure * Meat fats * Baking goods f your o business. 9 * •r.t"x�",.. �. �?,y a i�nY✓��; 1. �+ �5��.., '�va�`'"�� ...r �`"� Lard * w 4 r „r; ,,.,,::.�;: . ,;.•.,, Sauces ,�i��` � '•:°�` To the Environment: * Cooking oil * Dairy products h`• "; (<' ,. ¢n�;:��,Er,;��,�� Clogged sewers can lead to 71 overflows, which can enter the storm drains stem. All too often, fats, oils and grease are :�1w '+ Y washed into the plumbing system, (usually The sewage is through kitchen sinks and floor drains found g Wawa in food preparation areas) and stick to the :: ;;;; ,;. then carried to insides of sewer pipes both on your property :` our local beaches, creating a health risk for swimmers, marine and in the streets. $ ;, life and causing beach closures. Over time,fats,oils and einnc,a,rt�t grease builds up and To the City: eventually blocks the 4 Increased sewer blockages and entire pipe causing as overflows lead to excessive and sewage backups ands5 yc costly maintenance and can FOG Blockage in �` µ.� . result in severe fines from overflows. Sewer Pipe regulatory agencies which can increase your sewer fees. Don't Let FOG Clog Your Drains FOG (fats, oils and grease) can be a major problem for the City of Huntington Beach's sewers and the Ocean. FOG comes from meat, lard, cooking oil, butter and shortening. You can find them in fryers, pots and pans, food scraps, and spoiled food, and on floors and cooking surfaces. The trouble starts when FOG gets into the sewer through sinks and floor drains. When not disposed of properly, FOG forms thick layers inside sewers and constricts flow -- similar to the way cholesterol FOG Blockage in affects blood flow in your arteries. Clogged sewers can result in Sewer Pipe backups of your pipes that connect to the City's sewer system - this can lead to costly clean up and repair, as well as public health concerns. Grease blockages can also cause back ups in the City sewer system itself and can lead to sewer overflows onto City streets or into Ocean. FOG also attracts flies and vermin and causes odor problems, which creates environmental and public health concerns. Restaurants, and other food service establishments, are a significant source of FOG because of the amount of grease used in cooking and other food preparation work. Residents can also contribute to the problem if they do not properly manage and dispose of the fats, oils and grease they generate. To address sewer overflows related to FOG blockages, the City of Huntington Beach has developed a FOG jj Control Program t� l to prevent FOG from entering the sewer the system. This program is designed to assist restaurants and other food service establishments to develop and implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to manage their fats, oils and 1. grease wastes. Below are the objectives of the FOG Control Program. Objectives of the FOG Control Program • To reduce the number of grease related sanitary sewer overflows and maintenance actions, thus protecting public health and property, the environment, and reducing maintenance costs. 1 • To educate residents and restaurant owners and operators regarding the importance of implementing proper FOG control BMPs. • To provide restaurants and other food service establishments the methods and means to developed a FOG control program for their establishment. To protect the City's sewer system from FOG relate pollutants that may interfere with operation of the sewer system. As a resident of Huntington Beach, here are just a few simple tips that you can follow to prevent FOG related blockages: Do not put dairy products, fats, oil, grease or greasy foods down the garbage disposal or ...., drain. . Mix cooking oil with an absorbent material ' . such as cat litter or coffee grounds, place it in X'Yk` a lidded container and dispose of it in a trash receptacle. �`� For greasy pans that need to be soaked, first ;:, pour excess grease into a container as mentioned above. Then wipe the greasy pan with a paper towel (not a cloth towel) to remove the grease. Dispose of the paper towel in a trash receptacle. For large quantities of cooking oil and other fats, call your local household hazardous waste collection at (714) 834- 4000 for guidance on disposal. ,n. '..':•rn "::e �t��f�,;.: r.v>.'-fir r .. -, ,.. _ - ,... � r..r,rr�.,.. ,.i'x4tgw;t,�, ...��....4.. :?.'4.ta �Ja'�+.�..;e.. 1Bd? ,.. .:.:t� 4 ,t-r.�i..: a .. .:,..:Na ,, a";.'s,; : ,r• a a.s.:hx �+ t 't -:r � -�...,.r:...._.._,__.:....__.. .._ ,a. ..�.� .. .a::,:.. ., ,;. _ ,,,x� !•.e._-, f.,a,w• p t.. _n r .,Ate as q,<l* N'� r �,.z �ffyS ip � Nr ,.r n pp v?1 y, ,1 I Yam'' • i + r • 1- '1., '' � {i��f4A)arr� r�th�" 3t'r{ � ?� � + � r x s'a,�=� I ,I r, +� .r.1 � t.� a7�n �' Y I"� ,� ',Aq �� .�,�� i ��:. r��``tM1r�M1 r)M1�'�{��kxVl krd?F t��' ,:` �.•.,... 'I ",.; •� :•`',<+ I. �:, :.�4 a"",, -�z.7 -•, �� 1�'� _ •fl �� x it � �� " a.,-;"�. 1 a'�!"'t,,f{{'qq{hEt�M14r��', ,t"�'s��2�` n'�: �� —I � •erF y.::. `.� a, *tr�� '�� .y ��. e M1p�'�ply,,Sf't • N • �}` _. � +*fi t)f� -'� J .:. N' � 6��d 11Y C .Pn + - .. "� ..� ��-ti;a ��y. ��', '. �:.. -t _..�xt!!f e, � � ' @��M1��r�'.��".l. ^'"r ay 3�;i _�4 •t f�_iw'�� f�"'., s hY 4 k S —,I � 4 t 'rt„ st�^+qy Vr�t e `Y �: 1►, � r; x ti ,xn`.`'�� _ } 4 • �i M1 � � 1 � A M1 Q;.�.M � 4 �Sk v` — �1�i I'.�'S>�: �-� ` T'�y' 4:k ,... n • "�' 3`' h�f �M�'tv sM1 �i v' {"' +Nn��it�i3{A j�k'�� -� � _.— e,, �;4+ i �j.:, ;� �, i� .° _,`_ _... r,. } r �. 4 e �, �.h.�l i K"�'i � t} � 4v'� y!)t{F�Sr�i��lf jf,{,yx�n t-�i�ryf�t�kt } 'r •I _- �{,� � I�',' +,;� ��x` „T,,. t. s� .:.,d,. l �, 'tip t.d¢x4 .n ckt ,.I ,-� ; � r r�_..� P•-- �.E*..; , �,I ��c., �_ d n � qq f •,1.. «r%%&Y«.r....,�G,�C..,:a.4 w.:,f 1:9d-"x.C. �. • ., r ._,. ._,A... ,��__.... {'xa:.p., _ __ R`'--. `� ti.�.. �i•.�...�.n .-r.Gv:'�,XS�h:�'9i�+�wlri�+3M'!�L.s� #, u.�'::t�j �,...�, '�a.:..',x�xrs�, �`.�"rv''... 44 Don't Let Sewer Backups Drain Your Holiday Spirit r The Holidays are a time of great cheer and good spirits where family and friends gather to celebrate and be merry. A southern-style deep-fried Thanksgiving turkey with gravy drippings and onions sauteed in butter or oil to make the perfect stuffing are all mouth- watering holiday traditions. But most homeowners may be surprised to learn that pouring the remains of these culinary delights down the kitchen sink can cause costly, unpleasant sewer blockages and overflows. What happens is pretty simple: fats, oil and grease build up in pipes and cause problems. All year long, people pour byproducts of cooking down their sink drain. During the holiday season, it is expected that larger quantities of these fats will make their way to the sanitary sewer system via the kitchen sink. And just as excess fat isn't good for our health, it isn't good for our sewer system. In fact, over time the build-up can block an entire pipe. This can lead to the overflow of untreated sewage into your home at the most inconvenient time possible. Besides the mess, untreated sewage can cause health hazards and threaten the environment and overflows can also require expensive cleanup. Here are just a few simple tips to prevent_grease related blockages: Do not put dairy products, fats, oil,grease or greasy foods down the garbage disposal or drain. Mix cooking oil with an absorbent material such as cat litter or coffee grounds, place it in a lidded container and dispose of it in a trash receptacle. p p For greasy pans that need-to be soaked, first pour excess grease into a container as mentioned above. Then wipe the greasy pan with a paper towel (not a ` cloth towel) to remove the grease. Dispose of the paper towel in a trash receptacle. For large quantities of cooking oil and other fats, call ` ` your local household hazardous waste collection at (714) 834- 4000 for guidance on disposal. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Public Works SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Approving the Sewer System Management Plan COUNCIL MEETING DATE: April 6, 2009 RCA'ATTACHRIIIE;NTS' S`TATIYS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorne ) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached Not 'cable Staff Report (If applicable) Notached El t Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable ` Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR IVIISSING ATTACHMENTS, REvpEWED' RETURNED ` . :FOR ARDED`. Administrative Staff ( ( ) Deputy City Administrator Initial City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETI,JRN_OF;'ITEfVI:' • RCA Author: T. Broussard:jg