The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAdopt Resolution No. 2022-05 - Approving City of Huntington 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach. CA City of Huntington Beach 92648 R1"l9 YED 6-0-/ I MT51PSEW-i W017) File #: 21-666 MEETING DATE: 3/15/2022 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Sean Joyce, Interim City Manager VIA: Sean Crumby, Director of Public Works PREPARED BY: Alvin Papa, Deputy Director of Public Works Subject: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-05 approving the City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Update Statement of Issue: Per State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Order No. 2006-003-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (Order), the City of Huntington Beach is required to develop, implement, and adopt a written SSMP. Financial Impact: Adoption of the SSMP does not require funding. Programs described in the SSMP are included in the Sewer Service Fund (511) and Sewer Development Fund (210) approved budgets. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2022-05, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Updating the Sewer System Management Plan." Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the recommended action and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: The City of Huntington Beach owns, operates, and maintains a wastewater collection system comprised of approximately 360 miles of wastewater pipelines and 27 sewer lift stations that transport a combined, estimated 20.3 million gallons of wastewater per day. The size of these pipelines range from 6 to 30 inches in diameter and convey the wastewater to Orange County Sanitation District regional trunk lines for wastewater treatment and resource recovery at Reclamation Plant No. 1 in Fountain Valley or Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach. On May 2, 2006, the State Water Board adopted the Order that required all public entities that own or City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of 2 Printed on 3/9/2022 ,:se'e:AQ Le:;var"' File #: 21-666 MEETING DATE: 3/15/2022 operate sanitary sewer systems greater than 1 mile in length to develop and implement a system- specific SSMP. The SSMP serves as a document that describes the activities an agency uses to manage its wastewater collection system effectively. The required elements of an SSMP include the following: 1 . Goals 2. Organization 3. Legal Authority 4. Operations and Maintenance Program 5. Design and Performance Provisions 6. Overflow Emergency Response Plan 7. Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program 8. System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) 9. Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications 10. Program Audits 11. Communications To be effective, the SSMP includes provisions to provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of our sanitary sewer system while also taking into consideration risk management and cost benefit analysis. The SSMP also contains 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. To ensure long-term program effectiveness, the SSMP includes provisions for monitoring, measurement, and program modifications for each required program element. On April 6, 2009, City Council adopted Resolution No. 2009-20 approving the City of Huntington Beach SSMP to comply with the Order. As part of the Order, the SSMP must be updated every five years, and needs to include any significant program changes. Adoption of this resolution approves the City of Huntington Beach SSMP Update that City staff will submit to the State Water Board for re- certification. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Non Applicable - Administrative Item Attachment(s): 1. Sewer System Management Plan Update 2. Resolution No. 2022-05 City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 2 Printed on 3/9/2022 oowerec$y legistar" ATTACHMENT # 1 Sewer System Management Plan 4ft City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department California State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-003-DWQ PREPARED BY: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 MARCH 2O22 City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Management Plan 1 82 Contents C%2CUT|Y5 SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................................6 8ockcn/vod...............................................................................................................................................h City Service Area and Sewer System ............-- ....................................................................................6 Purposeand Need .................. ............ — ........ — ................................................................................6 0r.,,unizu`inno[the SS&jP........................................................................................................................6 Aboutthe SSNI|' .......................................................................................................................................7 PROHIBITIONS AND PROVISIONS.........................................................................................................S Prohibitions................................................. ............... ............................................................................S Provisions..................................................................................................................................................8 SS[T|0x | — GOALS ................. ............................................................................................................. |2 Purposeand Need ................................................................................................................................... |I Goals................................................................................................ ...................................................... \Z SECTIONl — ORGANIZATION .............................................................................................................. |4 Authorized Representative...................................................................................................................... |4 w1una3eoocn` and Administration............................................................................................................ |4 Nlain/enuxce................................. .................. ....................................................................................... |5 Chainvf Communications ........................................ ............................................................................. |6 ()r.-unizuhon Chart............................................... ....... .......................................................................... |S SECTION 3) — LEGAL /\UTH(}K|TY ....................................................................................................... |0 Prevention of illicit disckur-,cx.......___..... ........... ............................................................................. |9 Require that sewers and connections he properly designed and constructed.......................................... |9 Ensureaccess..........................................................................................................................................lO Limit the discharge o[|a(x. oils, and &reasns..........................................................................................20 Enforce any violation o[im sewer ordinances ........................................................................................2| ComplianceDocuments.................................................................................................. .......................l| SECTION 4 —OPERATIONS AND NIA)NTEN/\NCE............................................... ---------�lI General Information............................................................................................................. —.....'2l >JoP m"'~.~----------------------------------------------2� yr,veou|ivv >Joinucouuoc.......................................................................................................................27 LineC|exniu8.................................................................. ...................................................................28 Lift Station Nlxintcuanoc........ ................................ ..,. ..................................................................29 ManholeiMnnimhn.,, System ....... ........... .......................................................................................— 3V Closed [ircuitTc|ovision | rogxrn.... ................................................................................................32 Ci,v (if Hon,in ,xm Beach Sn`xrJi-sreo/ Management Plan 2 83 Sewer Lateral Program............................................. ................................................................... Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan.....................................................................................................33 Training...................................................................................................................................................35 Equipment and Replacement ................................... ................. ...._...................................I.....I............36 SECTION 5 — DESIGN AND PFRFORNIANCE PROVISIONS .............................................................35 Design and Construction Standards and Specifications. and Standards for the Inspection and Testing of NewSewer Facilities..............................................................................................................................38 'GREENBOOK" Standard Spccifications for Public Works Constntction, latest edition.................35 City of Huntington Beach Standard Plans, Section 500 .......... City of Huntington Beach Sewer Niaster Plan.............. .......... ..........................................................35 City of Huntington Beach Sclecr Lift Station Design I'v9anual ...........................................................38 Standard Plans and Specifications for Private Sewer Lift Stations.................. ..............................39 Compliance DOCnillen[s............................................................... .................. .......................................19 SECTION 6—OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN ............................................................40 ComplianceDocuments..........................................................................................................................41 SECTION 7 — FATS. OILS. AND GREASE CONTROL PROGRAM ....................................................42 FOG Pro._ram Development and Implementation ................._...............................................................42 Assessment of Sources of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)................................................................43 Inventory of Grease Producing Food Service Establishments................................................................43 Adoptionof'FOG Ordinance ..................................................................................................................43 Adoptionof Fee RCSOIn[ion....................................................................................................................44 Identifying Resources R Staff to Develop and Implement the FOG Control Program..........................44 Implementation of FOG Control Inspection Program ............................................................................44 Identification of FSEs to Enroll in FOG Control Inspection Program................................................45 Inspection of FSEs in the FOG Control Inspection Program.............. ...............................................45 ,btininuun FOG Best Nlanagement Practices (Bij9Ps).........................................................................45 Outreachto the Public................................................................................ ........................................45 Record Keeping and Reportingg........................................__..__.........................................................46 ComplianceDocmnCms......................................................................................................................46 SECTION S — SYSTEi I EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN ...............................47 Evaluation ............................................................................................................................__...........47 DesignCriteria....................................................................................................................................48 Capacity Enhancement Nleasures .......................................................................................................45 Schedule.........................................................................._.._.........................................................................49 SECTION 9 — MONITORING. MEASURE,ti9ENT. AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS...................50 Cif of Huntinglon Beach .Sevvei Si-stem Management Plem 3 84 Peroornance \Measure Identification.._...............................................................................................50 Goals...................................................................................................................................................50 Oreanization............................. ..........................................................................................................51 Le.-al Authority.............................. ........... ........................................................................................51 Operation and Nlaintenance Program .................................................................................................51 Overflow Emergency Response Program (OERP).................................................................I...........;2 Fats. Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program...................................................................................52 Dcsien and Performance Provisions...................................................................................................52 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP)...............................................................52 \-Monitoring. Program Modifications and Program Audits..................................................................52 Communication Program....................................................................................................................52 Prot-,ram \Jodification Plan.............................................._.._.......... ..................................................53 SECTION 10 - SSIAP PROGRA\9 AUDITS............................................................................................54 ComplianceSununary.............................................................................................................................54 Schedule of Program Audits and Updates ..............................................................................................54 SS\9P Audit and Update Schedule.........................................................................................................54 Program Audit and Update Process........................................................................................................54 SECTION 11 - CONI\9UNICATIONS......................................................................................................56 ComplianceSummary..................................................................._........................................................56 ComplianceDocuments..........................................................................................................................56 A1313REVI.ATIONS / ACRONYNiS................... .......................................................................................57 APPENDICES ................................. ......................................................................................................... APPENDIX A - SWRC13 Order No. 2006-003 ....................................................._................................._60 APPENDIX 1.3 - Municipal Codes ..... ....__._........................................ APPENDIX C - Enhanced Cleaning Locations........................................................................................_62 APPENDIX D - Sewer Lateral Program....................................................................................._......_..__63 APPENDIXE - Certifications ....................................................................................................................64 APPENDIX F - Sewer \taster Plan (2003) ................................................................................................65 APPENDIX G - Sewer Capacity Analysis (2009)......................................................................................66 APPENDIX 1-1 - Sewer Lift Station Priority List........................................................................................67 APPENDIX I - Overflow Response Plan .__..............................................................................................68 APPENDIX J - FOG Impact Study.....................................................................................................__....69 APPENDIX K - FOG Training Nianual............................................................................................... ......70 City of Huntinkton Beach .Sewer Svsrem Management Plan 4 85 City of IIuntim,Ion Bench Sewer Svsiew Alanagement Plan 5 86 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background On Alay 2, 2006, the State Water Board adopted Water Quality Order 2006-0003-DVVQ, Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements (\VDR) for Sanitay Sewer Systems (Order) which required that every public agency in California with more than one (I) mile of sanitary sewers that collect and/or convey untreated or partially treated wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility in the State of California are required to prepare a Sewer System Nianagentent Plan (SSNIP) outlining the management. operation, and maintenance practices needed to prevent and mitigate the impact of sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). Public agencies that meet this criteria are required to develop a systenrspecific SSNIP per the provisions set forth in the \VDR and comply with \lonitoring and Reporting Program (NIRP) attached therein. A copy of the Order, along with the Amended \1RP for Sanitary Sewer Overflows. NIRP Order AVQ 2013-0058-EXEC (Amended NIRP), is included in Appendix A. City Service Area and Sewer System The City of Huntington Beach (City) is a coastal city in Orange County covering approxiniatcly 2S.33 square miles_ According to the United States Census Bureau, the City holds an estimated population of 199.223 residents as of,luly I, 2019. The City's wastewater collection system consists of approximately 360 miles of City-owned sewer lines and 27 sewer lift stations, which transport a combined, estimated 20.3 million gallons of wastewater per day. Regarding service laterals, the City is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the lower portion of the service laterals located within the City public right-of- way from the property line to the connection at the City's sewer main. Purpose and Need The purpose of the City's SSNIP is to document system-specific activities utilized by the City to effectively operate, maintain, and manage its wastewater collection system to reduce the number and frequency of SSOs. This approach will in turn decrease the risk to human health and environment caused by SSOs. The SSNIP includes provisions for proper and efficient management, operation. and maintenance, while also takinn_ into consideration risk management and cost benefit analysis. The SSNIP also contains a SSO 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. Ora_aniration of the SS\9P The structure of this document follows the section numbering and nomenclature specified in the AVDR. The SSNIP includes eleven elements as listed below: i. Goals ii. Organization iii. Legal Authority iv. Operations and \laintenance Program V. Design and Performance Provisions Vi. Overflow Emergency Response Plan vii. Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program viii. System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan ix. \lonitorin._, \lcasurcntcnt, and Program \lodifications Citv of lluntington Beach Surer System Management Plat 6 87 X. SSS9P Program Audits xi. Communication Program About the SSMP The SSMP serves as the City's guidance document to ensure compliance with the various provisions of the Order and provides references to supporting documentation. Appendices within the SS,NIP contain reference information and support materials. Due to physical constraints. some references, i.e. large format drawings, relational databases, voluminous documents. etc., are not physically included in the SS\SIP. In these instances, documents links and references have been provided within the SSMP to indicate the type, owner, and location of the reference and support material. The City's first SSMP was completed and certified by the City Council in 2005, with an update to the SSMP conducted in 2009. This document constitutes the latest update to the SSMP and reflects current information on the City's sewer system management, operation, and maintenance programs. Per the requirements of the Order, this SSMP was developed by technically qualified and experience personnel. Update of this SSMP has been conducted by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works per the requirements of the Order and the Amended M RP. Cite of Huntington Beach SewerSrrrern Management Plan 7 B8 PROHIBITIONS AND PROVISIONS Prohibition; (In accordance with Section C of the Order) 1. Any SSO that results in a discharge ojunn'ecrterd or partinlh�weaed wastewater to waters ojthe United States is prohibited. 2. :Irtv,S.S0 that results in a discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater that creates a rnaisance cis defined in Calijornia Water Code Section 13050(m) is prohihited. Provisions (In accordance with Section D of the Order) L The Enrollee must c•oinph- with all conditions of this Order. An 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 I rater Board that sanitary sewer systems be re,,ulated in a manner consistent with the general iiaDRs. Nothing in the general WDRs shall be- I. Interpreter/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 oclniinistratiye/judicial order of Consent Decree. ii. Interpreted or applied to authori_e an SSO that is illegal under either the Clean fi'ater Act, an applicable Basin Plan prohibition or water yuoli lv standard, or the California Water Code: ill. Interpreted or applied to prohibit a Regional Water Hoard from issuing an inelividual NPDBS permit or WDR, superseding this general IIrDR,for sanitary sever sistem, authorized under the Clean Water Act or California 6Pater Code: or it'. Interpreted or applied to supersede am:more specific•or more stringent !i'DRs or ei fbrcement order issued by a Regional I Pater Boarcl. 3. The Enrollee shall take all fadble 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 S.W. 4. 111 the event of an .S.SO, the Enrollee shall take all feasible steps to pi-evem untreated or partially treated wastewater from discharging f tom storm drains,food cono-ol channels or eaters of the United States by blocking the storm drainage systern and by reproving the it usteocaer fi om the storm drains. S. AIt SSOs must be reporter/in accordance with Section G of the general fYDRs. 6. In any enfbrcentent action, the Scale andlor Regional Water Boards will consider the appropriate frctars under the duly adopted State Water Hoard Enforcement Policy- And, consistent with the Enforcement Policy, the State and/or Regional Water Boards must consider the Enrollee's e/Jbrts to contain, control, and iitigate.S.SO.r when considering the California I Pater Code Section 1327 f actors. In assessing these factors, the State and/or Regional Water Hoards will also consider whether: Citc of liuntinguin Beach SewerSystent Management Plan S 89 i. The Enrollee has complier/with the requirements of this Order, including requirements fhr reporting, developing and implementing a SSAIP: ii. The Enrollee can identify the cause or likely cause of?he discharge event: iii. There +ver•e no feasible alternatives to the discharge, such as temporary storage at-retention of untreated wastewater, reduction of in flmv and infiltration (I&I), use of adequate backup equipment, collecting and hauling of mureated wastewater to a trennnent facility-, or an increase in capacity of the system as necessmy to contain the design storm event identijied in the S•SAIP. It is inappropriate to consider the luck of fixisihle alternatives, if the Enrollee does not implement a periodic or continuing process to idewt lv and correct problems. iv. The discharge was exceptional, unintentional, tenrporarr, and causer/by.factors bevoml the reasonable controlofthe Enrollee: v. The discharge could have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable control described in a certfied SSd9P for: • Proper management, operation and maintenance: • Adequate treatment facilities, sanitary server system fircilities, and/or components' with an appropriate design capacity, to reasvrnabl prevent SSOs (e.g., adequately enlarging treatment or collection fircilities to accommodate growth, i&I. etc.): • Preventive maintenance (including cleaning and FOG control): • Installation of adequate hackup equipment: and • W prevention and control to the extent practicable. vi. The sanaary se+versystent design capacity is appropriate to reason ably 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 at-partial(v treated wastewater discharged, Z) terminate the discharge, and 3) recover as much of the wastewater discharged as possihle for proper disposal, including arr_y it down water. The Enrollee shall implement all remedial actions to the extent they may be applicable to the discharge and not inconsistent with an emergencv response plan including the following: i, interception and rerouting of untreated or partially treated wastewater lows around the it line failure: ii. Vacuum truck recovery of sanhitary sehver over/lows and it donate water: iii. Cleanup of debris at the overflow site: iy. Sustenh 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. Citv offiuntimgurn Beach •SeiverSvetem Xlana,,ement Plan 9 90 R. The Enrollee shall properly manage, operate, and maintain till parts of the sanitary sesver'system owned or operated by the Enrollee, and shalt ensure that the system operators (including employees, Contractors, or otter agents) are adequately trained and possess adequate knowledge, skills and abilities. 9. The Enrollee shrill allocate adequate resources for the operation, maintenance. and repair of its saninny sewer system. by establishing a proper rate structure, accounting mechanisms, raid auditing proceehtr'es to ensure at adequate measure of revenues and expenditures. These procecho'es must he in compliance with applicable laws and rcgul«lions and comply it Agenerally acceptable accounting pr«cticew. 10. 77te Enrollee shall provide adequate capacity to convev base flows and peakfow.s, including.flows refined to wet weather events. Capacity shall meet or exceed the design criteria as defined it? the Enrollee's System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan for till parts of the sanirary sewer s.vstenr owned or operated by the @'nrollee. 11. The Enrollee shall develop and implement a written Sewer Svstem Alanagennent Plan (SSAIP) and make it available to the State and/or Regional I rater Board upon request. A copy of this document must be pubhc•!v available at the Enrollees office and/or available on the Internet. This SSAIP must be approved by the Enrollee's governing board at a public meeting. 12. In accordance with the California Business and Professions Code sections 6735, 7835, and 7835.1 all engineering and geologic evaluations anc!jucl,;ments-shall be performed by or under the direction ofa registered professional, competent and proficient in the fields pertinent to the required activities. Specific: elements of the SSAIP that require professional evalrtation crud judgments shall be prepared by or untler the direction of appropriately qualified professionals, and shall bear the professionals sl.gnature and stamp. ! 3. The mandatoi-v elements ofthe SSAIP ore specified below. However, ifthe Ernollee believes that unv element of this section is not appropriate or applicable to the Enrollee's sam.tary sewer sv.atenr, the S,SrLlP prrgranr sloes tat need ro «ddres's that element. 7Tce Enrollee nurse jus7ifi wlry thus alenrent is nut applicable. The SSAIP must be approved by the deadline listed in the SSAIP Time Schedule below. The SSAIP includes eleven elements as lister!below. Each of these elements forms a section of this document that contains detailed in formation regarding each element. i. Goals ii. Organization iii. Legui`Authority iv. Operation and Maintenance Program v. Design and Performance Provisions vi. Ovetflow Emergency Response Plan vii. FOG Control Program viii. Ssstem Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan Cits of IIuntim,ton Beach Server System Alanagement Plan 10 9t ix. Alonitorittg, Measurement, and Program dlodifrcations X. .SS,I-/P Program Audits ri. Communication Program 14. Discharges Caused by Other Factors — For SSOs other than those covered under these provisions, the Pcnoittce 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 Pennittee can identify the cause or likely cause of the discharge event: ii. The discharge was exceptional, unintentional, temporary, and caused by factors beyond the reasonable control of the permittee: iii. The discharge could not have been prevented by the exercise of reasonable control, such as proper management, operation and maintenance, preventive maintenance: or installation of adequate backup equipment; and iv. The Permittec took Al reasonable steps to stop, and mitigate the impact of the discharge as soon as possible. City of Huntington Beach SeiverSvsfem ,blanagement Plan I I 92 SECTION 1 - GOALS This chapter describes the goals of the Sewer System Nlanagement Plan (SSMP). The goal of the.SStIdP is to provide a plan amd scheehde to pi operh nurtutge. operate. and maintain all purrs of the sanitary cen'er s.naicm. Than n'il1 help reehice and pre/cnt S.SOS. as we//as nriti utr uttt SSOV Mat tit, occur. Purpose and Need The City is required to comply with Order No. 2006-0030-DNVQ on General Waste Discharge Requirements, the 201 3) Amended i\9RP, and any future amendments for publicly owned sewage collection agencies having more than one (I) mile of collection pipelines. The coal of the SS\1P is to serve as it guidance document for City staff. It provides it documented plan that describes all wastewater collection activities and programs employed by the City to ensure proper management of all wastewater collection system assets. Implementing the SS\9P helps reduce and prevent SSOs, as well as mitigate any SSOs that do occur, including meeting all applicable regulatory notification and reporting requirements. Goals As it living and sustainable document, the SSVIP is regularly reviewed and updated to address any changes to the City's needs. The City's current SSMP goals are as follows: it. Protect public health and the environment through proper management, operations, and maintenance of all portions of the City's wastewater collection system; b. Provide needs-based maintenance, including line cleaning, closed-circuit television (CCTV) inspection and evaluation. sewer lift station maintenance and repair. replacement, and rehabilitation of the City's entire sanitary sewer system to prevent, reduce, or eliminate preventable SSOs. At it minimum, the City shall clean all of its sewer pipelines every two (2) vears, and annually review its operation and maintenance practices and procedures: c. Maintain it CCTV Inspection Program to assess maintenance effectiveness and identify system deficiencies. CCTV re-inspections of the entire wastewater collection system. including manholes, shall he performed a minimum of every 5-10 years (10-20% per year). CCTV re-inspection videos are to replace current system inspection videos. Spot CCTV inspections will be conducted during line cleaning operations to ensure line cleaning quality. d. Respond to and mitigate all SSOs discharging from the City's sanitary sewer system and provide accurate reporting of all SSOs as described by the Order and the Amended 1MRP: e. Properly fund, manage, operate. and maintain the City's sanitary sewer system with adequately trained staff and/or contractors. blaintain adequate reserves for future sanitary sewer system rehabilitation and/or replacement. Periodically review the City's Sewer Service Fee to ensure that the fee is adequate to fund the need of the City's sanitary sewer system. Cih' of lluntim ton Beach Seicer System Management Plat 12 93 Also included are the following specific goals: a. Incorporate Standard Plans and Specifications for the development of privately owned sewer lift stations that discharge into the City's wastewater collection system. b. Continue to improve the ability to provide real time monitoring to the City's collection system. The first step in this process is to capture data from the City's emstimg facilities by monitoring wastewater flow at kev locations. such as sanitary sewer lift stations and select manholes: c. Regularly obtain flow data from the Orange County Sanitation District (OC San). for sewers downstream of Huntington Beach. in order to capture and trend overall sewage flows coming From the Citv; and d. Update the City's Sewer Nlaster Plan every ten (10) years to review for capacity for new developments, and changes in industry standards for design and operating capacity. Cih' of Fluntin!gton Beach Sewer Svsrem d9anagenient Plan 13 94 SECTION 2 - ORGANIZATION This chapter describes the City's organization and chain of communication. 77ne SS'MP must idenmfr: a. The name of the responsible or authorized representative cis described in Section.1 ojthis Order, b. The manes and telephone numbers for management, administrative, and maintenance positions responsible for implementing specific measures in the.S.S:b/P program. The S:SMI'must identify lines of authority through an organization chart or similar documen with a narrative explanation: and c. The clruin ofcumnuuricaionn far reportnrg SSos. Jirnnn receipt ufu cnnrplaim nr other inJrtrnation, including the person responsible for reporting S.SOs to the State and Regional IVater Board and other agencies if applicable (such xis County Health O/ficer, County- Environmental Health rlgencv. Regional 11 ater Board, and/or State Office ojF-mergenct,Services (oh' )). Authorised Represcntati�e The authorized representative and Legally Responsible Official (LRO) for the City of Huntington Beach is Alvin Papa. Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities. \lanai-,emem and Administration Sean Crumby, Director of Public Works, Alternate LRO, 714-374-5348 Under administration of the City Manager, the Director of Public Works is responsible for directing, planning, organizing, and managing the Public Works Department and its five (5) divisions: Administration. Engineering, Maintenance and Operations. Transportation, and Utilities. Alvin Papa, Deputy Director of Public Works— Utilities, LRO, 714-536-5503 Under administration of the Director of Public Works, the Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities is responsible for directing, planning, organizing, and managing the Utilities Division and its five (5) sections: Wastewater, Water Distribution, Water Production, Water Quality, and Utilities Technology. The Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities provides oversight to the Wastewater Supervisor who is the primary person responsible for implementing all sewer related operations and niaintenarice activities outlined within the SSNIP. Chan Vu, Deputy Director of Public Works, 714-375-5345 Under administration of the Director of Public Works, the Deputy Director of Public Works is responsible for directing, planning, organizing, and managing the Engineering Division and Transportation Division. The Deputy Director of Public Works provides oversight to the City Engineer. who is responsible for engineering design and consuRuction of all sewer related capital improvements, and to the Environnient-.il Services ,Manager, who is responsible for the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Program, the Food Service Establishment (FSE) Inspection Program, and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDFS) compliance citywide. Cite of Huntington Beach Seiner System Management Plan 14 95 Tom Herbel, CRY Engineer, 714-375-5077 The City Engineer works under the administrative direction of-the Deputy Director of Public Works and manages the Engineering Division. The City Engineer is responsible for the all engineering design, inspection. construction administration. surveying, right-of-way encroachment permitting, development plan review and approval processes. This work includes planning, design, and construction of all sewer related capital improvement program (CIP) projects. Five (5) fill-time equivalent (FTE) engineering positions comprise the Water and Sewer Engineering Section and report directly to the City Engineer. Jim Merid, Environmental Services Manager, 714-374-1548 The Environmental Services Manager works under the administrative direction of the Deputy Director of' Public Works and manages the Stortmvater Quality Section. The Environmental Services Manager is responsible for the FOG Program, the FSE Inspection Program. and NPDES compliance citywide. Two(2) administrative environmental specialists report directly to the Environmental Services \lanaeer. `4aintenance Mark Birchfield, Wastewater Supervisor, 714-375-5041 Under general direction from the Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities, the Wastewater Supervisor plans, supervises, and coordinates the operation, maintenance and repair of the City's wastewater and stormwater collection systems. This Wastewater Supervisor is responsible for exercising supervisory authority over field crews assigned to wastewater collection, trmsmission. and pumping systems, while the Wastewater Operations Crewleader determines daily priorities, issues assignments, and provides on-site training for personnel within the Wastewater Operations section. The Wastewater Supervisor also serves and the primary coordinator of the Citywide CCTV Inspection Program. Enrique Lemus, Wastewater Operations, Crewleader, (714) 375-5054 Under general supervision from the Wastewater Supervisor, oversees the work of crews in the maintenance and repair of sanitary sewer and storm drain systems. The Wastewater Operations Crewleader serves as the working supervisor who monitors and oversees the work of the section and crews, which includes SSO response and reporting. The Wastewater Operations Crewleader determines daily priorities, issues assignments, and provides on-site training for personnel within the Wastewater Operations section. Harry Bessa, \N'astewater Leadworker, (714) 374-1706 Under general supervision front the Wastewater Operations Crewleader, performs a variety of skilled and semi-skilled tasks in the maintenance of the City s wastewater systems. Wastewater Operations I-eadworkcrs differs from the Wastewater Operations Crewleader in that Wastewater Operations Leadworkers are responsible for coordinating and assigning the daily activities of other crewntentbers This position is responsible for overseeing the maintenance activities of the sewer lift stations and response to/and immediate reporting of SSOs. City of Huntington Beach Seim-Si-stem A,femagemem Plat 15 96 Paul Boucier, Wastewater Leadworker, (714) 916-8620 Under general supervision from the AVastewater Operations Crewleader, performs a variety of skilled and semi-skilled tasks in the maintenance of the City's wastewater systems. Wastewater Operations Leadworkers differs from the Wastewater Operations Crewleader in that Wastewater Operations Leadworkers are responsible for coordinating and assigning the daily activities of other crewntembers This position is responsible for overseeing the maintenance activities of the sewer line cleaning and response to/and immediate reporting of SSOs. This position is also responsible for leading CCTV inspections and evaluations for spot locations. .Mason ,larosek, Wastewater Leadworker, (714) 375-5040 Under general supervision from the Wastewater Operations Crewleader, performs a variety of'skilled and semi-skilled tasks in the maintenance of the City's wastewater systems. Wastewater Operations Leadworkers differs from the Wastewater Operations Crewleader in that Wastewater Operations Leadworkers are responsible for coordinating and assigning the daily activities of other crewmembers This position is responsible for overseeing the maintenance activities of'the sewer lateral program and response to/and immediate reporting of SSOs. Chain of COn1nlUlllCatlOnS Durintz business hours, reports of SSO's are initially referred to the Public Works Department, Utilities Division. followed by immediate communication to the Wastewater Supei-visor, the Wastewater Operations Crewleader, or to a Wastewater Leadworker. After the initial report is received. it work order is generated in the Huntington Beach Service Pvlanagement System (HBS,AMS) and a wastewater crew is dispatched to investigate and respond in accordance with the City's Overflow Emergency Response Plan, e.e. Section 6 of the SS\MP, included herein. The Wastewater Supervisor is responsible for immediately notifying the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). California Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES), and other agencies as applicable. The Wastewater Supervisor is also responsible fir submitting the draft SSO report to the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards via the California Integrated Water Quality System Project(CI\VQS). The Wastewater Supervisor shall notify the Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities immediately thereafter. The Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities, via the Director of Public Works, is responsible for notifying the City \Manager in instances where the SSO poses an immediate threat the public health and/or the environment. The Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities. as LRO. will submit and certify the Final SSO report to the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards via CIWQS. After hours, SSO concerns are received by the City of Huntington Beach, Police Department, who notifies the Wastewater Crew stand-by personnel, and a wastewater crew is dispatched to investigate and respond in accordance with the City's Overflow Emergency Response Plan, c.g. Section 6 of the SS\MP. The Wastewater Leadworker is responsible for immediately notifying the Orange County Health Care Agency (OC IMCA), the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SAR\VQCB). California Office of Emergency Services (Cal-OES), and other agencies as applicable. The Wastewater Leadworker shall notify the Wastewater Operations Crewleader and/or Wastewater Supervisor immediately thereafter. City of Huntington Beach Sewer System adanttgemew Plat 16 97 If the SSO poses an immediate threat to public health and/or the environment, the Wastewater Leadworker. through the Wastewater Operations Crew leader and/or Wastewater Supervisor. shall notify the Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities immediately. The Deputy Director of Public Works- Utilities, via the Director of Public Works. is responsible for immediately notifying the City Manager in instances where the SSO poses an immediate threat the public health and/or the environment. The nest business clay. the Wastewater Supervisor is responsible for collecting all information related to the SSO and submitting the draft SSO report to the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards via the California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CI\VQS). The Deputy Director of Public Works -Utilities, as LRO, will submit and certify the final SSO report to the Suite and Regional Water Quality Control Board via CIWQS. Citv of Huntington Beach Sewer Si-stem Alunagement Plan 17 96 On_ani-r_ation Chart rr City of Huntington Beach Public Works Adopted — FY 2021/22 Director of Public Works MaNiENANCE„� O Deputy cWor s of Deputy DQacwor of aFcw-lor:s +�uWSiMiION Pubic Works Puhlie Wake �maM+� w5,a.ei5w 5.c.Y>vr UillilES LWJ:�ORi4ipN FNaNEERWG ,Vn.maw 5tau.rr N.erm AT.aaL'Y`w Wral(2) FF Rr M.,NIrN4:rF ` ,anu.mr�wA .(3) S.e MSKveK.$m..m S4.W=:.S W.ar Srt Avu�ry T.Cnmin w.iM.q_y g Mu MF _.y r�Mr cty Fry— So-.a Mr�sc.laalw..a RI A'W'E T.s Wm Gamvml Lmmrubr E S4eR O.Pm.eMMm R) MK.@aCw Anlvi NLtlne.a.Ca FNnN�FRYfJrN r'(Y.Icim N'FNll cru'sccR14: S. wavl)l Ammcaew• .r'y Sne O.+ RmmCwl Er�rr vG:V+zalp Fe Snc.Pb .rKa. �m.vw Se.sy Srm 13I McS�MlwcNMCC p Er n M..I TRec E�ryi.e..m+ EamnclmlKp U I M.M'IaM' 9lperwa mn waew a 151 v.n.�Yx c,m�<v crane bnr.am o) ta.ea�lFnw..L G..(7) Iryma TaenolyycmeRmr .rwN s�.R.T.M.:NiFwrrF (a+crm w.v.l.w.ar Tl SGpn T.o..oa( TCc SpaILgKG r2) pEFY`JYFNn.INFFRIrf. laxbmp Egaalae Op.rm seas Tm.cen ol]I :oOc5Yr9wv:RI R.n 0.1 1, ne(2 PN rma� me DS MMIva5 R1 iRCc wK Swm Wills Rl Sav OYI E.P'w RI YId11Oi sPr3l9 W.L�RP�rI riYYlr Plk�IpM.rNt�OG pO �m SIF[M.MTcw N'F Wm Pm Spr.vY iK.MrWW..C. Wa1K�O ., pF4ElN C ENGPFFRNp ine W.Yrene.L .,w W ODD' IasO� M() RmYI GU En (7 in.Ma..�vo L Naar Wm S W T. . 1(5) Sao O•I T. R) T.Eogrtru O�vao RI wm sr�ma r.e.ma�.(s1 Sam Eryrwrnp i.e..mn (z) C.I 4.eav ViWO$I`.N.Yfp'1/ w.i42 MTTa.ffIa1 r VLTCrS� � safN MNMFN.r![ I AL MY W.iFR.�h CLY<R e.am OymeS.}tv Was e.mlem Sgnrume FNOKmIY ere+M..tara[.Grrrm RI wr OFL Maei Gwls.en 1�1 Rmp.l O.I Fq sr,ccIe ua.uauc.T.(2I Wm per laa.ra O.Je.m Sam 0.1 Ea 3�m Egapma cm.R) EnpsR M. Ae.rm.LNI Etyma Be.m Mwsry seam va..a 1Y.r pat MwLL It%w.e ISI -1 E Gr Erpree Way o.LMr.,IO. ( ) cMlEry.wrry r.,r.. n[FT 1AV NiFuw4FF wale ES. Opaw lal Flex C{VKSEK SWa.a. wm sswwT..a(:]) SrcRuwAiFR .ILL 1iy Ea4..m 1/H G..uva R) w-'u Nrr R.m ic�.mn Isl ER.11OevOl Ss+Fa w EauV'Ab MM IeaSOYa()1 Fd!"slc.MPrJaFav ATn EmVvnsY/9C.R"YiI m Eo�Ran Src M[5) a War M.1a Ream RI M.esc 15) / ,T.er.mn a M.os1coal Wm i wy bcem F. In M .NT wN!F wiYIC m. SKaNm F¢10R VlYtlT1C.$t{v'.IIl Wm O W maN1YII Fdfm 4aK Ge.etler IZI Ys OWIy .e.. Fziew VaMav im..a�f5) Goa Wn.cm+Gaed Spu.ar IT Eh[ararl NASj '.icq Waae.cs Sp.nad W.m..r OM Gwrema waa...r EOAPI. owm15) S.ry VQ9wm PuT M.tlmK Wv7w'Ya Rnp pMnrc Yrvwm S.Wu vbna Rl City of HunIimoton Beach SeTverSvslem Management Plan Is 99 SECTION 3 — LEGAL AUTHORITY 'This chapter describes the legal authority required to implement the SS;\IP plans and procedures. Each Enrollee meet demonstrate, through sanitary surer system rise ordinances, service agreements, or other legally binding procedures, that it possesses the legal authority to: a. Prevent illicit discharges into its sanitcoy server system (e.camples mar include 1/1, storm water, Chemical drunping, unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.).- b. Require that.cowers and connections be properly designed and constructer!: c. Ensure access for maintenance, inspection, or repairs for portions of the lateral oit-ned or maintained by the Public Agenv: el. Limit the discharge c ffins, oils. and grease and other debris that may cause blockages, and e. Enforce any violation of its seiner ordinances. Prevention of, illicit dischal-Les Resolution No. 2003-52 adopted the City's 2003 Sewer iAMaster flan. which includes an analysis of the need for replacement of existing saver facilities and construction of new facilities needed to serve new development and additional capacity demands. To deal with the uncertainty of Future development at the time. extra pipeline capacity was added to allow for the possibility of actual wastewater flows being slighthl higher than anticipated flows. The Sewer i laster Plan also included probable locations of Ifil to assist with future CIP project planning. Additionally, the pipe capacity criteria therein reserved it portion of the capacity for Ifi1, ventilation, and hydraulic instability. \Municipal Code 14.36.030 requires submission of plans and specifications for new sewer mains and/or connections for approval by the Director of Public Works. As part of said approval, any ncvv illicit connections are prohibited. \lunicipal Code 14.25.030. as well as Section 306.0 — 306.2 of the Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by \Municipal Code 17.44, prohibits discharge of inflow other than sewage. which includes existin, illicit connections. It should be noted that the City storm water infrastructure has low flow diversions (LFD) at most of its flood control stations. l'hese LI--Ds are not considered illicit connections-. A LFD is a structural system that diverts urban dry weather now into the wastewater system for the purpose or reducing pollution in the ocean. Flow is only diverted during non-peak wastewater flow periods and is monitored and remotely controlled via supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems at each Flood control station to ensure that the diverted stormwater flow remains within the wastewater collection systems operational capacity. In addition. LFDs are permitted by OC San to ensure rc_ulatory and operational compliance with their wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment facility. 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 for approval by the Director of Public Works. In addition, Municipal Code 12.10 adopts the Standard Specifications For Public Works Construction together with adopted Standard flans of the Department of Public Works, as well as the Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by iAMunicipal Code 17.44, outline design criteria and construction methods. Citv of Hwttin!oton Beach Sewer System Mana;entem Plan 19 100 Ensure access The entire City's wastewater collection system is already within the public right-of-way, on City-owned property, or within maintenance and access easements. For new developments. Municipal Code 1436.030 requires submission of plans and specifications for Ile", sewer stains or connections for approval by the Director of Public Works. Conditions of approval are written to require that ingress/egress for maintenance of the sewer main and any connecting laterals is provided. Maintenance and access easements are conditioned as needed to ensure adequate access for maintenance and repair of all sewer infrastntcturc. Regarding service laterals, the City took ownership of the portion of the sewer service laterals within the public right-of-way in 2005. As service laterals are repaired, replaced, and/or rehabilitated, clean-outs are being added at the public right-oG\vav as part of the Sewer Lateral Program to enhance and ensure access to all sewer service lateral connections. Limit the discharge of fats. oils. and L`reases In 2004. the City adopted Municipal Code 14.56. the Control and Regulation of Fats. Oils. & Grease (FOG Ordinance), and developed the FOG Control Program to address this element. 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 front entering the sower system. In 2013, the FOG ordinance was revised by City staff and adopted by City Council. The major revisions to the FOG ordinance include: • FOG pre-treatment required for all existing FSEs that produce FOG upon change of ownership or change in operation which would involve the onsite cooking of'beef, poultry, or Fish: • FOG pre-treatment required for FSEs that undergo it remodel exceeding S50.000 in costs or invoivin o one or it combination of the following: o Under slab plumbing in the food processing area: 0 30% increase in the net public seating area: 0 30`U increase in the kitchen area: o Any changes in the sire or type of food preparation equipment: • Clarification Of language regarding employee training for FSEs in the FOG Control Inspection program. Revised ordinance requires existing employees to be trained at least once every six (6) months and all new-hires within two weeks of hire; and • Require periodic maintenance of'private sewer laterals to prevent blockages: no more than 25% of sewer lateral capacity can be impacted. The FOG Control Program as coordinates with the Line Cleaning Program to add problematic FOG locations to the "Enhance Cleaning Locations" list to ensure more frequent cleaning of the sewer pipe at these problematic locations. Cleaning frequency is determined based on FOG severity at the location. City of Huntington Beach Setter Svsrem Management Plan 20 101 Lnforce 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. City staff also has the authority to issue enforcement actions for SSOs under the City's Stone Water and Urban Runoff Management ordinance (Municipal Code Section 14.25). Enforcement actions include Notice of Non-Compliance (formal written warning) that are issued for minor violations and Administrative Civil Citations. ranging from S 125 to S I MO. that arc issued for more severe or repeat violations. City staff also has the authority to issue Administrative Compliance Orders requiring the repair and/or replacement of private sewer laterals that are in poor condition due to structural deficiencies or lack ofmaintcnance. Compliance DOCLIMent The aforementioned \Municipal Codes are included in Appendix B. and can also be accessed on the City's wcbsitc at the followine link: hup:/Iwww.�eode.us/codes/huntim_tonheach/view.php?tonic=munici1 al_code&frames=on Enhanced Cleaning Locations as pan of the FOG Control Program is included in Appendix C. Citv of 1-1un it w(on Beach Setter Si-stem ,blanagement Plait 21 102 SECTION 4 — OPERATIONS .AND MAINTENANCE Per the Order, Enrollees 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. The SSAIP must include those elements listed below that are appropriate and applicable to the Enrollee's sys'tem: a. Maintain an up-to-date map of the sanitary,seiwer crstem, showing all grunitl:line segments and manholes,pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and upplicabl storm wuter conve.vance facilities: b. Describe routine preventive operation and maintenance activities lm stuff and contractors. including .s a vs'tern fit-scheduling regular maintenance and cleaning of the s'anitaty surer s stem with more frequent cleaning and maintenance targeted at known enhanced cleaning service areas. The Preventative d/aintenance (PAf)program should have a.sretem to document scheduled aid conducted activities, such as work-orders: c. Develop a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identifi!and prioriti=esvvem deficiencies and implement short-term and long-term rehabilitation actions'to address' each dcfciencv. The progr'ant will include regular visual and TV inspections of manholes and selves pipes. and a system fbr ranking the condition ofselver pipes and scheduling rehabilitation. Rehabilitation and replacement should f rats on server pipes that are ct risk of collapse or prone to more frequent blockages elite to pipe defects. Finally. the rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a capital improvement plan that addresses proper management and protection of the htfastr ictur'e assets. The plan shall include a time schedule for implententing the short- and long-teen plans plus it schedule fin-developing the fiauls needed Jbr the capital improvement plat, d. Provide training on a regular basis fur stff in sanitan,sewer system operations and maintenance, and r equir-e cono-actors to be appropriately trained: and e. Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including identification of critical replacement parts. General Information The City of Huntington Beach is an urban city with it population of 199.223 residents. as of July I, 2019 per the United States Census Bureau. The City encompasses approximately 17.730 acres, or 27.32 square miles. of which 97 percent is developed for residential, conunercial, industrial, institutional, public, and street/highway use. Residential use is the largest single land use in the City. The City of Funtington Beach is surrounded by the City of Wesuninster to the north, the City of fountain Valley to the nou7hcast, the City of Costa Mesa to the east, the City of Newport Beach to the southeast, Sunset Beach to the northwest. and the Pacific Ocean to the west. Elevations vary from below sca level to approximately 200 feet above sea level. The City owns, operates, and maintains a wastewater collection system consisting of 27 sewer lift stations, .160 miles of sewer pipelines, and 10.091 manholes. Pipe sizes range from 4 to 30 inches in diameter, and collectively transport approximately 20.3 million gallons of wastewater a day. The lift Cite of Huntington Beach Server System dlanagement Plan 22 103 stations vary in capacity from approximately SO to 1.800 gallons per minute, and assist in transporting roughly a third of the city's wastewater_ The remaining amount is conveyed via gravity Flow. \4appine The requirement for this section is to 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 stone water conveyance facilities. The City of Huntington Beach currently utilir_es a Geographic Information System (GIS) based mapping system for its sanitary sewer system. The GIS database was developed to assist with compliance for GASB-34 requirements to inventory and assess the current value and depreciation of the sewer collection system. At a minimum, the following information is continuously maintained within the City's GIS Utilities database for all public sewer lines and sewer manholes: a. Type of sewer pipe installed (e.g. vitrified clay, cast iron, etc.) b. Date of installation or replacement based on the date of record drawings c. Sire of pipe (based on diameter in inches) d. iNlanholc rim invert elevations Detailed information is stored within the general description fields of the point and line elements of the Sewer GIS database as follows: Points Depth Depth of entity in inches Source Source of spatial accuracy (GPS, digital orthophoto. CAD, plans, field crew) Sewerindex Unique system index number EntityType Point feature entity (manhole. cleanout, plug/cap... etc.) Drawlnfo Record drawing reference number in document imagine software (Laserfichc) Owner Owner(City. county, private... etc.) Arterial Yes/No value related to arterial lines DateAlter Date of spatial revision in GIS Lined Yes/No value for slip lining/slceving LincdSource Source of lining information LinedYear Year of lining Problems Comments Lines Sewerindex Unique system index number Slope Slope of pipe GreaseCon Grease concentration for FOG study GreaseCln Grease cleaning for FOG study Deficient Deficient lines for FOG study FOGlndex FOG studv index reference number FieldAtlas Rounded length of pipe segment Cih of Huntington Beach SeiverSlSrem ddaeagemen! Man 23 104 Diameter Diameter of pipe in inches SewerType Gravity, Force iMain, Siphon Drawlnfo Record drawing reference number in document imaging software (1-aserfichc) DateRecorded Year of record drawim, Owner Owner(City, county, private...etc.) Material Material of pipe (VCP, PVC. HDPL'... etc.) Label For Atlas pipe labelling Arterial Yes/No value related to arterial lines DateAlter Date of spatial revision in GIS CCTV Yes/NO value for CCTV camera inspection CCTVYear Year of latest inspection Lined Yes/No value for slip lining/sleeviIII, LinedMaterial Lining material (PVC/CIPP) LinedSource Source of lining information LinedYear Year of lining PipeRunlnsp Yes/No value for CCTV camera inspection documentation Calcium Yes/No value for calcium deposits from field crew All wastewater collection system G IS database information is housed and maintained by the Public Works GIS Section, who are overseen by the utilities 'rechnology Coordinator. The City's wastewater collection system maps accurately reflect pipe locations and are useful tools for planning maintenance activities. The maps are checked by line cleaning crews as they are being used with any changes coordinated with GIS personnel and updated as needed. All updated information is submitted to the GIS section for correction on all future printed maps. In addition to the electronic database. the GIS Section also maintains up-to-date hardcopy map books for reference by maintenance field personnel. Copies of these hardcopy maps are also distributed to various departments citywide. Tract As-Built maps showing both the sanitary sewer system and storm drain systems are stored via document imaging with hardcopies housed in the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department for the City. The maps include the locations of manholes and their ID tags, siphons, easements, property parcels, pipelines, their depth and direction of flow, and other details. The GIS section also creates and maintain "atlas books"that serve to provide map reference of the City through "reporting districts". Each reporting district is a half-mile by half-mile square that makes refcrcncing easier for field personnel. Original sanitary sewer and stone drain system maps are owned and maintained by the Engineering Division ofthe Public Works Department. The documents supporting compliance with the requirements for mapping are as follows: • Tract Maps—available at the Engineering Division of the Public Works Deparunent. • Sewer Atlas Maps— located within first responder's vehicles, at the Public Works Utilities Yard. and at the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. • Storm Drain Atlas Maps — located within first responder's vehicles, at the Public Works Utilities Yard. and at the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. • Sewer and Storm Drain GIS —Access available at City Hall and the Public Works Utilities Yard. • 2009 Sewer Master Plan— located at the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. City of Hunfinvion Beach .Sewer.Srarem Management Plan 24 105 The GIS Section also maintains the GIS information for the City's storm drain system. Like the sewer atlas maps, the storm drain atlas maps are housed in the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. Similar to the wastewater collection system maps, the storm drain system maps are regularly reviewed and updated as needed. The GIS databases can be accessed via the City's intranet. These databases are maintained via nightly server backup by the City's Information Services Division. Local copies of the databases are backup up Oil a monthly basis by the GIS Section. The hardcopy map books are available for reference either at City Hall, City Corporate Yard, City Utilities Yard, and the Emergency Operations Center. Copies of both the sewer atlas and storm drain atlas maps are kept in each Public Yorks maintenance Field personnel/first responder's vehicles and Updated as needed. A sample copy of the digitized mapping data is attached (Figure III-1). Cite of Huntington Beach Semen System A,fanagement Plan 25 106 Figure 111-1 —Sewer Facilities GIS Map(sample) V T ' y �I �'�'►'�iil i � {�,�111,1 � � � '1 , T CN ... %J! j Jill, d• r " s—� r I ..��._.� � ,t_t .a is_ .. ". ,. ... • `_.i;.`{ JI d rnr x� 1, } _ use 1 r S f .f L�t�r�Y � � 'r• II t - � � ram" � •�. Cih of Huntington Beach Sewer System Management Plan Preventative Maintenance The Order requires the City to 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 enhanced cleaning service areas. The Preventive Maintenance(PM)program should have a system to document scheduled and conducted activities, such as work orders. Funding for the operation and maintenance of the City's sanitary sewer system is provided by the City's sewer service fee. The sewer service fee was last adjusted the City Council in April 2019 and is dedicated to providing necessary funds for the sanitary sewer system. The Wastewater section is composed of 19 full time employees. The organizational structure of the section is as follows: Wastewater Supervisor Wastewater Crewleader COLLECTION SYSTEMS Wastewater Wastewater Wastewater 1; Senior Pump Equipment Equipment Mechanic • .- Operator Pump Mechanic Maintenance Service Worker Cih of Huntington Beach Sewer System Management Plan 27 108 Line Cleaning Currently, the majority of the City's sewer system is proactively cleaned with all gravity sewer pipe segments routinely cleaned and serviced every two (2) years. 'file Wastewater Section owns and operates one (1) hydro-jester truck, one (1) hydro jeucr trailer, three Q) combination high-velocity, hydro-cleaning trucks, and one (I) CCTV equipped truck. Routine preventative maintenance of the Wastewater equipment is performed by the Fleet Maintenance Personnel in the Operations and Aaintenance Division of the Public Works Department. Traffic control devices are established by the Equipment Operator and conform to the requirements of the latest California Manual oil Uniform Traffic Control Dcvices (CA MUTCD) issued by the State of California. or the latest Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH) Manual. Line cleaning work is primarily performed by City forces with contractors utilized on an as-needed basis- Hydro-jetting is the primary method utilized to remove grease, roots, debris. and other obstructions from the sewer lines. \\'hen necessary. additional methods, such as the use of a chain-flail. are used to remove calcium buildup and other obstructions. The Lead\VOrker is responsible for ensure the proper cleaning method used is appropriate for the hype of server pipe being cleaned, i.e. vitrified clay pipe (VCP), polyvinyl chloride(PVC), etc. Sanitary sewer grit is disposed of in a grit chamber waste receptacle housed at the City Yard. It should also be noted that the City historically treats root cutting as a normal part of line cleaning operations. A root cutter is carried on one (I) of tile four(4) hydro-jet cleaning trucks, and is routinely used in the field. In addition. a contractor is scheduled to treat certain root locations in two-_year treatment cycles, as needed. At the beginning of each year, one of the Wastewater Leadworkers is assigned to manage the Line Cleaning Program and is responsible for scheduling line cleaning work for the rest of year. Under the general guidance of the Wastewater Crewleader, the Wastewater Leadworker develops a cleaning schedule that plans routine maintenance activities based on the results of the CCTV inspections. field observations, associated GIS data, and historical SSOs. Generally, work is planned by scheduling work via Repotting Districts (RD), and going from North to South and West to East. The Leadworker refers to progress made in the previous year as pan of the planning process for scheduling of work in the current year. The three (3) cleaning crews generally follow the sewer systeni's gravity flow. from the northeast part of the City to the southwest. Data gathered by CCTV inspections and entered into the GIS database is analyzed to establish the most effective cleaning schedule in each basin. Once the schedule is developed, the Wastewater Leadworker develops it cleaning schedule that includes an estimated breakdown on a day-by-day basis. Work is scheduled such that cleaning begins at the far Upstream end of the sewer segment and proceeds in a downstream direction until all work on the subject sewer segment has been complete. In the event the crew cannot access a manhole for cleaning procedures, the Equipment Operator shall immediately notify the Leadworker and document the occurrence on their Daily Worksheet. Even with a regular cleaning schedule, sonic locations may still develop problems. These locations are placed on an "enhanced cleaning" location list and are cleaned more frequently. A list of the City's enhanced cleaning locations is included in Appendix C. The frequency of the cleaning cycle varies based on the severity of the problem or the possible impact to the surrounding area. These cycles are Cify of Huntington Beach SeiverSnstem Management Plan 28 109 reviewed by Wastewater personnel during the cleaning of the line and adjusted as necessary to ensure the prevention of future blockages. The City currently has 235 enhanced cleaning locations and assigns two (2) full-time employees to their maintenance. Regardin documentation of schedule and conducted work activities, the City uses an in-house. computerized maintenance management system called 1IBSNIS for recordkeeping and reporting purposes. These records are kept and maintained by the Wastewater Supervisor. Lift Station Maintcnance The City's 27 sewer lift stations are generally reliable. To maintain their reliability the City performs preventative maintenance on daily, monthly, quarterly, and yearly schcdulcs. Lift stations are inspected weekly at a mininwm. This includes visual inspection of all lift stations, exercising of valves and replacement of worn parts. Based on system design and capacity, some stations may require more frequent inspoctionS. In addition to scheduled visits, emergency maintenance is performed on an as needed basis. Lift station maintenance and repair is performed by a combination of City Forces and specialty contractors. Wet wells are typically pumped down and cleaned at least four(4) times a year, or more often if necessary to prevent solids and grease build-up. Inspection of pumps (submersible and dry) and impellers are typically performed quarterly. but may be adjusted depending on pump motor hours. Inspection and exercising of all gate and check valves are also performed quarterly to ensure proper working order. Cleaning and inspection of transducers and back-up floats are performed six (6) times a year to ensure proper performance. Inspection of fighting and alarm systems are performed weekly. Alarm system inspections and repairs are coordinated with the Utilities Technology Coordinator. Hour meters on each motor is reviewed with lead pumps alternated at least weekly. A logbook of motor hour readings. dates, and maintenance performed is kept at each station. It is the responsibility of staff to enter any work performed at the station prior to leaving the station. A quarterly inspection of all electrical motor control equipment is performed to identify poor connections and worn parts. This inspection includes infrared testing and panel maintenance. Inspection work is performed by the City Electrician or an appropriately licensed Contractor. Any deficiencies are reported to the Wastewater Supervisor for attention. For emergency situations, the City owns 14 portable generators and five (5) onsite, emergency generators to provide power to the sewer lift stations in the event of an unforeseen power failure and/or planned SCE outages. A copy of the SCE Rotating Outages Nlap is included in Figure IV-I. As part of routine weekly inspections, the onsite emergency back-up gencrauor is visually inspected. At Icast quarterly, the generator is operated under load to ensure proper operation per operating permit requirements. This test conducted by tripping power to the station and observing a successful transfer to generator power for at least 15 minutes. The City's warehouse maintains adequate stock of essential parts and equipment along with additional pumps and motors for all 27 sewer lift stations. Each lift station is design to be redundant and can 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. 'file Wastewater Section owns two (2) 6-inch bypass pumps and six (6) 3- inch bypass PUMPS available for emergency use. Cil of' Huntimton Beach .SenerSvsrern Management Plan 29 110 Float switches are also set up to run the pumps in the event of a control panel failure. Lastly, an automated telemetry system monitors the stations 24-hours a day and reports any potential issues to standby personnel. At the beginning of each year, one of the Wastewater Leadworkers is assigned to manage the Lift Station Program and is responsible for scheduling lift station cleaning to ensure continued and proper operation. Under the general guidance of the Wastewater Crewleader, the Wastewater Leadworker develops a cleaning schedule and/or repair schedule that plans routine maintenance activities based proactive, preventative maintenance practices the help reduce costs and increase equipment reliability and lifespan. Regarding documentation of schedule and conducted work activities, the City uses an in-house, computerized maintenance management system called hf 13SIMS for recordkeeping and reporting purposes. These records are kept and maintained by the Wastewater Supervisor. As part of lift station inspections the following information is collected: date, time, initials of City Personnel or contractor performing inspection, nuter/hour readings for each pump-motor, general appearance, any maintenance and/or repairs performed, (late of maintenance and/or replacement of pump and equipment. and other remarks as needed for future reference. In addition, all work performed is recorded in a written "Daily Log" that is collected and compiled by the Leadwork at the end of the year. The Annual Daily Log Book for each year is kept for a minimum of five (5)years, or per the Citv's Record Retention Policy, whichever is longer in duration. Manhole Nlonitorine Svstem The City of Huntington Beach, Utilities Division installed 27 Smart Cover with sensor technology at strategic locations in the sewer system pipelines to generate an alert with any potential capacity constraints and manholes with potential for vandalism or illegal dumping. The sensors trigger alarms in the case of surcharging beyond preset levels or in the case of intrusion. The Smart Covers are placed in areas with historic high maintenance and at the area of first discharge proximate to a lift station. Nlaintenance is performed in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations and is contracted out directly to the Smart Cover vendor. Maintcnance is performed on an annual basis and involved inspection of the unit and replacement of the battery. Defective Units are replaced and/or repaired on an as-needed basis. ReplacemenUrepair records arc kept and maintained by the Wastewater Supervisor. Cite of Ifuntinoton Beach Sewer Si-stem ,4anagement Man 30 ttt Figure IV-1 -SCE Rotating Outages Map SCE CAISO Rotating Outage Groups 38 ,3s l • co sss l P mo smr •2 • Ca Yw Wr{ 1tB .41 • Resarw.600sW 51Mon{ —CRY mrew - - - r i5? 2_ RYp"V Dard apt] 155 15 \ Nr 1E' 167. 1 9 �„ 51 2 263 2L4 175 t 1 W -c •I t 188 p� 281� 2821 1 4n ! 42 '� oe 4�3 1'. 436 onrrnlrrr.rwwrwwwrf � 4 1 rwwrr..l.Ys.r rwrr..rrrrr ♦ '��',L�r,� r .. �♦. -.. at�yp_J 345 M8 T" r•- rcf r 55 45e 465 475 475 44 9 r PUWK Wafts Depart 'f r fIYIIp1 MEMM YB11wOTl YM l �l `` AMW20D �`Mr{r�"rr�r�r�`r...rrnrsl�irrrrr./f wrir�rww.rrurprlryr�rrr. r. rsrrr +rw.rrwrwrwr rwroa�s�wlrr�•rrfrrr.�ir�i� arwrsir�.�rrwr.ri.�irr�i{:�.rr. rwrrrl{rY F.wYwrYwrY.r�rrar.prr{�rrArrrrwrlMrasl l{rYrYr�rrl�Yr�rl M.wr rrrrrr�l .rolrrrwrrlrwr.rrrrrr.r.mwrrr rr rrrr rrrrrrlr n.l�rrwr{rrl{rlrrrYrrrrrrrr w rYW�r I.Y�Yrrrrrrrrr�rw.n p^w r 4Yr1 rrwm�brA w�ry�rr�nw.rlrr.rrY{�r Ir r r.J I rNl NII Ip��Yr�re Ir�Ir.O q.Ptib� City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Management Plan 31 112 Closed Circuit Television Program The Wastewater Supervisor oversees the CCTV Inspection Program. All CCTV inspection work is completed by certified National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment and Certification Program (PACP) trained operator(s) using established PACP coding and observations. The City intends to CCTV its entire system over the next five (5) years via Contractors. with the king—term goal of updating Citywide CCTV inspections every 5-10 years. Based upon these CCTV inspections and evaluations, routine maintenance is tailored to meet the actual needs of the system including updating the City's capital improvement program (CIP) for system rehabilitation and replacement. The City owns, operations, and maintains one (I) CCTV [nick for localized CCTV inspections or sewer pipeline. The Leadworker overseeing the Line Cleaning Program also serves as the lead coordinator of the CCTV crew. For large-scale CCTV inspections. certified Contractors are used. Prior to CCTV inspection, sewers are cleaned by removing grit, loose solids. grease, and any construction debris that are present. Cleanings are typically completed within 72 hours, and no less than one hour, prior to inspection. The City crew and/or Contractor traps all debris at the downstream manhole and properly disposes of debris within the pipeline. All CCTV cameras have pan-and-tilt capabilities with a minimum of 460 lines of resolutions and meet Cal-OSHA requircnlents for operating in the sanitary sewer environment. Video inspection is conducted at a rate that does not exceed it traverse rate of 3O feet per minute. Video inspections for each pipe segment, c.g.. manhole to manhole, are identified with an initial test screen and completed in accordance with PACP standards with inspection and reported submitted in a NASSCA-compatible format. All observations and defects are documented in a database that included the digital video recordings and digital photographs. Each video clip and photograph provided corresponds to inspection data in the database and is properly linked to the appropriate video clip and photos. The severity of each defect or observation is recorded and rated using PACP codes as outlined in NASSCO's PACP Reference Nlanual. A minimum of two (2) photographs of each defect is taken. one (1) with a perspective view and one (1) with a close-up Vicw. One (I) photograph is required for each lateral connection looking directly at the connection and from each manhole, from the bottom of the manhole looking up. Digital photographs in JPEG format are made for all recorded defect observations. JPEG images are captured at a minimum resolution of 640x480 pixels per inch. At a minimum, all photographs shall be named consisting of the following descriptions: "from manhole station number', "to manhole station number', and eight digit inspection date. After CCTV inspections are complete, as submittal review package consisting of a hard drive or DVD(s) and printed report is prepared. The hard drive or DV D(s) contain the inspection database, videos, and photo files. The printed report contains the footage calibration report for each camera used and PACP certificate copies for all CCTV equipment operators. Once the final review is complete, a 1-trial report and submittal is prepared that includes all video recordings, image files, and databases on a maximum of20 DV Ds or one(1) external hard drive. If a hard drive is submitted, the submittal shall include the power cord and US13 connection cable. DVDs or the external hard drive, binder cover, and binder spine label shall include the following computer- generated labels: Public Works Utilities Division — Wastewater Section, City Crew or Contractor Name. Project Name. Start Date of CCTV Inspections,and Finish Date of CCTV Inspections. Cit of Nuntim,ton Beach Server Slstem Nlanagemenr Plan 32 113 Setter Lateral Program The City of Huntington Beach has a Sewer Lateral Program which has been in place since January 2008. Per Section 14.54,035 Maintenance and Repair of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the: Cin mill pat,the coat of cpair and maintenunce ol ct//lateral lines lion? dre Cin'- otrrted sen'er main through dre public rigla-ofnvar to the private property litre. The owner is responsible litr all costs ol*repair and maintenance o%all lateral lines on prirme propery not within the puhlic right-u%ntrn. Historically, it was the property owner's responsibility maintain and repair the entire sewer lateral up to the point of connection to the public sewer stain. This differed from standard municipal practice where cities take full or partial responsibility for maintaining the public portion of the lateral, with the property owner responsible for the private side of the lateral. In January 2008. the Municipal Code was updated to match standard municipal practice and transferred responsibility for maintaining the public portion of the lateral from the main to the property line to the City of Huntington Beach. The Sewer Lateral Program is a response driven program that facilitates the repair or replacement of sewer laterals on an as-needed basis. As part of the Sewer Lateral Program, homeowners experience problems with their sever lateral can notify the Public Works Department, Utilities Division, to coordinate a repair. CCTV inspection of the sewer lateral is conducted by the property owner as pan of the investigation process. Depending on the situation, there are typically two options for repair, e.g. slip lining or lateral replacement, which is completed by City forces. As part of the repair, tree roots are cut and a sewer cleanout is added at the property line. typically just behind the sidewalk. The sewer cleanout designates the transition between the public and private portion of the sewer lateral and facilitates easier maintenance in the future. The City is responsible for the replacement. repair, and/or lining of the portion of the sewer within the public right-of-way. Any sewer replacement. repair, and/or lining on private property remains the responsibility of the owner. The Sewer Lateral Prognun is scheduled on a daily basis by the Leadworker under the general oversight of the Wastewater Crewleader. A four(4) man crew with four(4) service u-ticks, one (I) backhoe, and one (I) trailer fetter implement the Sewer Lateral Program four(4) clays a week. 10 hours per day. All maintenance and repair work conducted as pan of the Sewer Lateral Program is documented via the City's I-113\1S Work Order \Management System. A copy of the Sewer Lateral Program and procedure is included in Appendix D. Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan Every Enrollee is responsible for developing a rehabilitation and replacement plan to identify and prioritize system deficiencies and implement short-terin and long-term rehabilitation actions to address each deficiency. The program should include regular visual and CCTV inspections of manholes and sewer pipes, and a system for ranking the condition of sewer pipes and scheduling rehabilitation_The rehabilitation and replacement plan should include a CIP that addresses proper management and protection of the infrastntcture 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. The City has an adopted Sewer :\faster Plan dated May 2003 that was recently updated by the fine of Kennedy-Jenks Consultants. The Sewer \lastcr Plan evaluates the comprehensive condition of the Cih of Huntington Beach .Selrer System ,tlanagement Plan 33 114 Wastewater system including lines and equipment. Update of the City's Server Master Plan is currently planned to start in 2022 with completion scheduled for Summer 2023. Per the current Sewer Afaster Plan, the City's primary collection system generally appears to have adequate hydraulic capacity. The short term rehabilitation and replacement plan is focused primarily on sewer lift station replacement and sewer lining. The City currently has 27 sewer lift stations and budgets to replace one (I) sewer lift station per year. The current FY 2021-22 budget for sewer lift station replacement is approximately S4 million per year. The scope of work for each sewer replacement project includes the full replacement of the sewer lift station. which includes but is not limited to: wct well, PUMPS, motors. electrical equipment, telemetry. and appurtenances. Onsite emergency power is included in projects when feasible. For sewer lining projects. the City dedicates approximately SI million per year toward sewer lining. Pipeline sections scheduled for replacement are guided by CCTV inspections and per feedback received front the Wastewater Supervisor and Wastewater Operations Crewleader based on current field conditions. Long-term CIP development is guided by the City's Sewer ;faster Plan. Identification of structural deficiencies in the sewer lines is perfonned via television inspection of the City's sewer lines. Damaged or broken sewer lines-, which could result in a sewage spill, are designated as high priority. The lines in need of repair are evaluated and scheduled to either be slip-lined or replaced. 'File 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, server lift stations, and sewer related facilities. This is in accordance with the California Health and Safety Code Section 5470. and is included in Ordinance Title 14 — Water and Scwers. which adds Chapter 1454 to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Public lVorks is the City of Huntington Beach's department responsible for the selvage collection system. The maintenance program consists of a recordkeeping and reporting system. a program to address requests for service fi om the public, all established cycle fftr regular cleaning as well as an "Enhanced cleaning list". a 24- hour emergency response program, an inspection program, a GIS mapping progrant. cmd a sei+'er lift station maintenance program. Table VI-I denotes the budget for the Wastewater section operations and capital improvements. The FY 2021-22 budget includes S4.000,000 for sewer lift station reconstruction of the Humboldt Lifr Station. TABLE VIA -- FY 2020-21 Budget 5 1 1 1 S5201 Sewer Service Maintenance 0051 1 Sewer Service Fund 51000 Personnel Services 3.898,354 60000 Operating Expenses 4.323.395 40000 Capital Expenditures 5.097.500 TOTAL 1 1 13.319,252 Cit) of 11untiit�-,toit Beach .Seiner System Management Plan 34 115 T railll[lH The City is required to provide training on a regular basis for staff in sanitary sewer system operations and maintenance, and to ensure that contractors to be appropriately trained. The City has an ongoing training program for its Public Works employees. As pan of this program, the Wastewater Section personnel have received safety training that includes the following: • Traffic Flagger - CalTrans Flagger Training Traffic and Driver Safety • Use of Personal Protective L'quipment • Lockout-Tagout Programs Confined Space Entry -OSHA 29 CFR 1910.146 • Permit-required Confined Space standards for general industry - OSHA Compliance • Confined Space Rescue • Confined Space Entry Fall Protection - OSHA Compliant Safety Training • NFPA 70e Are Flash • SCBA & Respiratory Training • Sanitary Sewer Overflows - Waste Discharge Requirements Training • Trenching fi Excavation Safety • OSHA health precautions related to working around and with raw sewage including blood-borne pathogens. The Wastewater Supervisor, with support from the Utilities Division Secretary, is responsible tar keeping training records and ensuring that training and refresher courses are scheduled as needed. Wastewater personnel have current certificates fir the following, with current copies of all required certificates and training doctunentation maintained and stored by the Wastewater Supervisor at the Public Works Utilities Yard Administration Building: • California Water Environment Association (CWEA) (13 employees) • Grade I Collection System Maintenance Certification (5 employees) • Grade 2 Collection System Nlaintenance Certification (2 employees) • Grade 3 Collection System Maintenance Certification (2 employees) • Grade 4 Collection System Maintenance Certification (3 employees) Copies of each employees' certifications are included in Appendix E. LastIv, contractors working on wastewater infrastructure within the City of Huntington Beach are required to have the appropriate licenses and permits are required by law. For C111 projects. contractor license requirements are included in the Notice Inviting Bids and within the Project Bid Documents. For Cih of Huntington Beach SewerSrstem ddan(Weinenr Plan 35 tts contractors utilized for sewer maintenance or repair work, the Wastewater Supervisor or Wastewater Crewleader is responsible for verifying that the contractor is appropriately licensed and certified. I-quipment and Replacement Each Enrollee is required to provide equipment and replacement pan inventories, including identification of critical replacement pans for the operation and maintenance of its sanitary sewer system. A copy of the Wastewater Asset List in included in Table VH-I below. In addition. the City's warehouse maintains adequate stock of essential parts and equipment along with additional pumps and motors for all 27 sewer lift stations. The Wastewater Section also owns two (2) 6- inch bypass pumps and six (6) 3-inch bypass pumps available for emergency use. For emergency situations. the City owns 14 portable generators and six (6) onsite, emergency generators to provide power to the sewer lift stations in the event of an unforeseen power failure and/or planned SCE outaees. Cih of Huntington Beach SewerSpstem Management Plan 36 117 Table V11-1 —Wastewater Asset List City of Huntington Beach Utilities Wastewater Asset List 8/31/2020 Asset Number met Desuiption Serial Number Plate Meter er Tvoe Reaof Aquire Date 100017 2006 I gersoll Rand PISS W1D 4FVCABOA76U362372 Not Re2Iv Hours 509 12113/2005 100336 2007 Ford E-450 IFDXE45527DA47532 1301152 Hours 4,669 07J22/2007 100356 2008 Ford F-350 1FDWX36Y08EB01392 1257880 Miles 91,531 06/26/2007 100361 2D07 Godwin CDISOM 47835 Not Receiv Hours 164 08/22/2007 100371 2D07 Sterling Condor 55YAANDHO7RZ22237 12-2828 Hours 5,907 W12/2007 100375 2D07 MuRiquip DCA-70SSN 4GIIFU122X7B022076 Not Receiv Hours 653 1Z/2012007 100383 2008 Ford F-2 SO IFTNF20508ED45734 1260718 Miles 103,051 0312Sf2OO8 100392 2007 Godwin CD150M 0748121!24 Not Receiv Hours 137 07/14/2008 100412 2008 Muhpulp DCA-70SSRJ2C 4GNFU122888024488 Not Receiv Hours 591 0411512009 100425 2009 GMC 5500 IGOE5C1G99F411665 1367636 Miles 57,061 08/122011 100789 2001 Zleman 1165 IZCE235261ZP23483 1082438 No Meters N/A 12/052001 100951 2011 Caterpillar 430E CAT0430EVSWC00398 Not Requir Hours 51 06/27/2011 100962 2012 Zieman 2725A 1ZCE34A21CZP28887 1381210 No Meters n/A 06/19/2012 100964 2009 Ford F-350 1FD8X3G62CEC32208 1349878 Miles 40,159 10/03/2012 100966 2012 Highway Safety Prod.Arrowboard IM98A0912CC570311 Not Reoeiv No Meters n/A 06/30(2012 100995 2014 Frelghtllner 11450 IFVHG3DX4EHFM3729 None Mlles 10,865 06/20/2013 101007 2013 Solar Tech Silent Messenger II 4GMlM0916014 54 1 71 Not Pi No Meters II/A 11/192013 101009 2013 Mulllqulp DCA-70SS1U4i SSLBG1423DL013099 Not Receiv Hours 528 10/O32013 101010 2013 Multlquip DCA-70551U4i 5SLBG1423DL013104 Not Re0ely Hours 139 10/03/2013 101011 2013 Multiqulp DCA-70SSIL14i SSLBG1420DL013027 Rot Receiv Hours 209 10/03/2013 101012 2013 MuNpuip DCA-70SS1U4i 55LBG1425DL013105 Not Reotiv Hours 174 10/03/2013 10102C 2014 National Signal Corp Arolite Curve I119AL1015EF272011 Not Receiv No Meters U/A 03/03/2014 101021 2014 Mulliqulp DCA-1505SCU 5SLBG1727DLO13585 Not Redev Hours SS 02/12/2014 ]01036 2014 Ford F-350 IFDBX3G64EEB67493 1391839 Miles 42,262 07/29/2014 f01(185 2014 Ford F-550 iFDUF5GY8EEB87695 1476323 Miles 19,357 02/10/2015 101088 2015 Bobcat 5630 AHGL11819 Not Requir Hours 122 03/02/2015 101092 2014 Look VRLC6X 12TE2 533LTEA21FF013302 Not Receiv No Meters U/A 03/15/2015 101093 2015 MuRiquip DCA-70SS)LJ4i 5SLBG142XELD15949 Not Reoeiv Hours 103 03/272015 I01094 2015 Multpulp DCA-70SS1U4i 5SLBG142XEL015952 Not Receiv Hours 148 031272015 101095 2015 MuRiquip DCA-70SSIU41 5SLBG1426EL015950 Not Reoeiv Hours 64 03/27/2015 101096 2015 MuRpuip DCA-7055IU4i SSLBG1428EL015951 Not Receiv Hours 41 03/27/2015 101099 2015 Ford F-550 IFDUF5GY6FEB81668 1468824 Miles 33,673 04/0912015 101134 2015 Sevier Equip Mongoose Model 184 IS9KUI511FD381385 1476596 Hours 119 05/13/2015 101139 2016 Freightliner 114SC IPIAG3DXXGHGX1963 1466573 Hours 4,219 06/042015 101140 2015 Chevrolet C3500 IGC4CYCGOFF590058 1478717 Miles 45,985 07/07/2015 101141 2015 Chevrolet C2500 IGC1CUEG9FF588415 1478718 Miles 58,870 07/07/2015 101166 2016 Ford Explorer IFM5K7D85GGC92265 1398726 Miles 23,559 05/13/2016 101170 2016 Muhpulp DCA70SSILMF 55LBG1422FL017759 TBD Hours 41 05/1912016 101171 2016 MuN'gulp DCA70SSIL14F 5SLBGl420FL017758 TBD Hours 86 05/192016 101172 2016 National Signal Corp LIGHT TOWER lN9LX1016GF272289 1423438 No Meters NIA 06/16,12016 101173 2017 Freig nthner 11450 IFVAGOX9HH1W6502 1495303 Hours 3,022 06242016 101245 2016 GMC 2500HD IGTI IREG5GF239420 IS08951 Miles 29,317 05/0/2017 101250 2017 Ford F-550 IFDOX5GY4HED45448 1518172 Miles 29,869 10/062017 101338 2016 Triton Trailer Kohler 4TCSUI l20GHLI2370 TBD Hours 10 05/092019 101351 12020 Freightliner 11450 lF`IAG3FT9LHLB2956 11575511 1 °p' 1 213012 0 1 9 Cit (it' liDntingloif Beach Selzer Sligenl Xfanagement Plan 37 118 SECTION 5 — DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE PROVISIONS This chapter references the design and construction standards and specifications for new sewer systems, pump stations, and other appurtenances, and for the rehabilitation and repair of existing sewer systems. Also included are the procedures and standards for the inspections and testing of these facilities. The Order requires the following design and performance provisions: a. Design and construction ,standards and.vpecijicatio ns jiv the installation of nem sanitary sen er s_vsvems, pump stations, and other appurtenances: mud for the rehabilitation and repair of e.visting sanitcnvsewers.mems: and b. Procedures and standards jbr inspecting and testing the installation of new seiters, pumps, and other appurtenances curd for rehabilitation and repair projects. Cesium ofthe Citv's sanitary sewer system is performed by licensed California registered civil engineers under the general oversight of the City Engineer. Construction management. inspection, and testing is performed by qualified City personnel or consultant firms, also under the general oversight of the City En mneer. Contractors must be appropriately licensed and insured. Design and Construction Standards and Specifications, and Standards for the Inspection and Testing of New Sewer Facilities "GREENBOOK- Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, latest edition The City utilizes the latest edition of the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" or "Greenbook" specifications for general construction and inspection of sewer facilities. 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 its large size and regular update every three (3) years. it B not included in this Plan. City of Huntington Beach Standard Plans, Section 500 The City's Standard Plans and Specifications provides specific design criteria for construction and inspection for the sanitary sewage system. The City Standard Drawings (Section 500) can be accessed on the Citv's website at the following link: hnpr.//www.huntinatunbeachca.gov/government/ilepartntents/public works/srmdard planicfill City of Huntington Reach Sewer Master Plan The City utilizes the City of Huntington Beach Sewer i laster Plan. Final Report. May 2003, by Kennedy Jenks Consultants. to prioritize Sewer Lift Station replacement and gravity sewer segments that are considered to be hydraulically deficient. City of Iuntington Reach Scorer Lift Station Design Manual The City utilizes the City of Huntington Beach Sewer Lift Station Design Manual. by Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.. August 2001, to provide a consistent and uniform design criteria for the replacement of City owned Sewer Lift Stations. At Sewer Lift Stations, wherever possible, the City has installed natural gas powered site generators to provide a redundant energy supply in case of electrical power outage. The City also has mobile trailer Cif% of Hunlim,,ton Reach .Setter Si-stem X[anagernent Plan 3S n9 mounted generators available to power the Sower Lik Stations that lack onske backup generators. The City also has the capability to pump sewage with mobile diesel powered pumps, which couple to the existing force mains at cash Sewer Lill Station. City of Huntington Beach, Design Standards for Instrumentation, Controls, and Electrical The City recently developed design standards for instrumentation, controls, and electrical cquipmenl installations for SCADA equipment for Utilities Division facilities. The purpose of the document is to standardize controls system design and implementation across- Utilities Division infrastructure. Standard Plans and Specifications for Private Sewer Lift Stations The Citv has drafted a set of requirements for privately owned sewer lift stations. These standards are not yet incorporated into a City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan, or Standard Specification. However, the City anticipates the adoption of these Standard Plans and Specifications in the near future. These standards will allow the Citv's sewer maintenance personnel to respond to emergency disruptions of service at private facilities, with standard City equipment, such as portable pumps and generators. Compliance Document; The City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan, prepared by Kennedy-Jenks Consultants in 2003 can be found in Appendix F. The Sewer Capacity Analysis, prepared by AKNI Consulting Engineers in 2009 can be found in Appendix G. The Sewer Lift Station Priority List. which is a "living" list, subject to change. can be found in Appendix H. Cite of Flunlimgton Beach SewerSvstenr Manrrgenrent !'larr 39 120 SECTION 6 - OVERFLOW EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN Under the Order, each Enrollee shall develop and implement an Overflow Emergency Response Plan that identifies measures to protect public health owl the environment, Al a minimton, this plan must inchrcle the following: ar. Proper notification procechu-es so that the printnry responders marl regulcomy agencies are informed of all SSOs in a timely manner; b. A program to ensure at? appropriate response to all ovetflows. c. Procedures to ensure prompt nottfcation to appropriate regulatory agencies and other potentially affected entities (e.g. health agencies, regional water boards, mazer suppliers, etc.) of all SSOs that potentially r affect public health o reach the Ranters of the State itr accordance with the J4RP. All SSOs shall be reported in accordance with this MR)", the Califbrn o Heater Code, other State Law, and other applicable Regional Neater Romd IVDR.s of A'PDES permit requirements. The SSXlP should identify the o�cials who will receive lmmedicue notification d. Procedures to ensure that appropriate stall and conu'ctcvor personnel are aware of aid follow the F_mer,encv Response Plan and are appropriately trainecl, e. Procedure to ataddr'css enter'_oene_v operations, such as u'uf is and crowd control whd ntlter necessary response activities; and f. A progrcnn to ensure than all reasuncrblc.ctep.c ore token !o cnnrcrirr crud prevmu the di.rc/tcrrge u/ untreated and portially u'eareil mistetruter to IVaters of the United States canal to minimi_e or correct cmv adverse impact on the environment resulting from the SSOs, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may he neces.sary to determine the nature cmd impact of the discharge. In 2001 the City developed an SSO Emergency Response Plan, to meet the aforementioned criteria. All public spills. and any known private spills that reach storm drain facilities, are reported to the State Water Resources Control Board via the California Integrated Water Quality SVSCCnt Project(CIWQS) online reporting program. All discharges of sewage, whether a sanitary sewer overflow or it subsurface server leak, shall be first be reported to the Public Works Department, Utilities Division. Leadworkers or it higher position will make the initial data submission to CIWQS. The Wastewater Section Supervisor or his/her designee, will be responsible for reporting all discharges of sewage immediately to applicable Federal, State, regional and local agencies. The California Emergency i lanagement Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board are contacted by telephone. If the spill enters at county channel, the County of Orange Environmental Resources Department is notified by telephone. The Orange County Health Care Agency and the Regional Water Quality Control Board are also provided it copy of the spill report, normally via facsimile copy. After the draft SSO report is input into CIWQS by the Wastewater Section Supervisor, the Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities certifies the final report and submits it to the SWRCB. Any discharge caused by defects in the system that cannot be corrected by the Utilities Division through normal maintenance efforts will be referred to the Engineering Division for assessment and recommended action. City of Huntington Beach SewerSvstem L4anagentent Plan 40 121 Discharges that are determined to be caused by activities on private property will be directed to the Public Works Department, Wastewater Section for cleanup, billing and agency notifications. Compliance Documents The SSO Emergency Response Plan is documented as Administrative Regulation ARSOS, a copy of which is included in Appendix I. Citv of IIuntim,Ioit Beach Seiner Svsrem dfanagement Plan 41 122 SECTION 7 — FATS. OILS, AND GREASE CONTROL PROGRAM Under the Order, each Enrollee is required ur evaluate its service area to determine whether a FOG Program is needed. If an Enrollee determines Mot a FOG program is not needed, the Enrollee must provide justification f r wlty it is not needed. If FOG is found to he a problem, the Enrollee must prepare and implement a FOG source control program to reduce the amount of tlrese substances discharged to the sanitary sewer system. !'his plan slrrrl!irrclurlc the follo+ring us«pprupriute: a. An itnplententrrtion plan aii d schedule jnr a public education outreach progirani that promotes proper disposal of FOG: h. A plan and schedule for the disposal of FOG generated within the s'unitarr seller•cvstem service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or udditiomd facilities needed to adequately dispose of FOG generated within a sanitury sewer system service are«: c. 77te legal authorirn to prohibit discharges to the.system cold idenifi?measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG: d. Requirements to install grease removal devices• (such as trups or interceptors), design standards far the removal devices maintenance requirements, BdJP 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 ei farce the FOG ordinance: f. An identification of s'anitarr sewer .system sections subject to FOG blockages and establishment of a cleaning maintenance schedule fin-each section, and g. Development mid implementation of source control nrerrsures far all sources oJ'FOG clischcu-t;cd to the sanitary sewer s,vstem Jbr each section identified in f above. FOG Program Development mid Implementation The City of Huntington Beach FOG Control Program was initially developed and implemented in 2004 as a preventative measure to reduce the potential for SSOs. The development of the FOG Control Program included the following elements that were the foundation of the program development and implementation phase: • Assessment of the sources of sanitary sewer overfloves: • Inventorying grease producing food service establishments (FSEs); • Adoption of a FOG ordinance (Control and Regulations of Fats, Oils. &,. Grease ordinance); • Adoption of a fee resolution to fund the program: • Identifying resources and staff to develop and implement the FOG Control Program: • Implementation of FOG Control Inspection program: and • Outreach to the public. City of Huntington Beach .Sever System Management Plan 42 123 The program was developed in collaboration with the OC SAN and member agencies as it shared-cost cooperative effort to develop and implement FOG Control Programs that nut the requirements of the 2004 SSO WDR and that were consistent between the member agencies. The cooperative collaboration included the development of the FOG Control Program Best Management Practices (BdJPs) Tmining Manual fa, Food Service h..stablishments (Appendix .1) and the FOG Impact Stuck, (Appendix K). The program has under gone some minor changes since its inception in 2004 with adoption of the amended FOG ordinance (Municipal Code Section 14.56) as the most notable programmatic change. Assessment of Sources of Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) In 2004. City staff conducted an informal review of SSOs from the City's sanitary sewer system in the previous three years (2001-2003) to determine the cause of the SSOs. Although at the time of the informal review there were no formal records kept regarding the source of the SSOs, it was estimated that FOG related blockages resulted in more than half of the SSOs. This estimate was based on anecdotal evidence and historical knowledge of-enhanced cleaning areas" that were known to accunwlate grease. Inventory of Grease Producinra Food Service Establishments The City continually updates its inventoryv of grease producing FSEs on a monthly basis. This process is initiated at the beginning of every month by staff reviewing all business licenses issued to FSEs the previous month and assessing the need to include the FSE(s) in the FOG Control Inspection program. The basis for inclusion in the program is whether the FSE processes and/or prepares beef, poultry, or fish. This may require a site visit by City staff to confirm if the menu is not available online. The inventory of FSEs in the FOG Control Inspection program ranges between 270 to 300 FSEs. The inventory is divided into two categories; FSEs with a grease control device (GCD), which includes mechanical grease interceptors and/o gravity grease interceptors, and FSEs without a GCD. The current inventory of FSEs in the FOG Control Program has 286 FSEs of which 70% (201 FSEs) have a GCD and 30% (85 FSEs) do not have a GCD. Adoption of' FOGOrdinance The City adopted the Control and Regulation of Fats. Oils. and Grease Ordinance in 2004 (rMunicipal Code Section 1456) to grant the legal authority to: i. Declare sewer system overflows as it public nuisance; it. Require FOG pre-treattrtent for FOG producing FSEs. iii. Grant City staff authority to conduct inspections Under the FOG Control Inspection program; iv. Establish a minimum frequency for maintenance of FOG pre-treatment devices; v. Require the implementation of FOG best management practices (BMPs); vi. Establish enforcement penalties and cost recovery procedures for violations of the FOG ordinance and/or SSOs. In 2013, the City amended the Control and Regulation of Fats. Oils, and Grease ordinance to include the following provisions: i- FOG pre-treatment required of existing FSEs that under-go it change in ownership; City of Huntington Reach ,Server System 49airagement Plat 43 124 ii. FOG pre-treatment required of FSEs that apply for building permits in excess of S50.000 in improvements or involving one or it combination of the following: a. Under slab plumbing in the food processing/preparation area; b. 30% increase in the net public seating area; c. 30% increase in the kitchen area; d. Any change in the size or type of food preparation equipment. iii. Authorizes the Director of Public Works to require FSEs that have two or more SSOs with a one year period or three within a five year period to install FOG pre-treatment; iv. Require routine cleaning of private sewer laterals at a minimum frequency that prevents SSOs from occurring and that no more than 25% of the sewer lateral capacity is to be impacted by the accumulation of FOG or other substances. Adoption of Fee Resolution In 2004. the City adopted a Fee Resolution (Resolution No. 2004-89) to establish it fee structure to charge FOG producing FSEs enrolled in the FOG Inspection program a monthly fee (FOG Control Fee) to fund the FOG Control program. The FOG Control Fee is it two-tiered monthly fee that is assessed in it similar fashion to the utility user fee. The first tier is for FSEs that have FOG pre-treatment. These FSEs are charged it lower rate of approximately S0.40/day. The second tier is for FSEs that do not have a FOG pre- treatment device. These FSEs are charged approximately S 1.05/clay. The higher rate f'or FSEs without FOG pre-treatment was established to fund the additional inspection costs of these facilities as they are inspected biannually year versus FSEs that have FOG pre-treannent that are inspected annually. Identif,'in<_ ReSOnrCCS & Staff ro Develop rand Implement the FOG Control Program Following the initial assessment 2004 of the FSEs that would be enrolled in the FOG Control Program, the City identified the stalling and resources required to develop and administer it FOG Control Program. The initial assessment in 2004 identified approximately 300 FSEs as potential enrollees in the FOG Control Program. This initial assessment was used as a baseline to assess the stalling and other required resources. Based on this initial assessment. the City identified the need to hire at least one full time employee and augment the hiring of the new employee with assistance from Wastewater staff from the Department of Public Works' Utilities Division. In 2005. the City hired an Environmental Specialist to develop and administer the FOG Control Program. Over the years, the program has dovetailed with the Storm Water/Urban Runoil'program and now has two Environmental Specialists that report to the Environmental Services Nianager administering the FOG Control Program. The Environmental Specialists coordinate with the Wastewater Section staff to respond to SSOs. identify potential "enhanced cleaning areas" in the sanitary sewer system, conduct CCTV inspections of sewer mains and laterals, and conduct training and outreach to the public. Implementation of FOG Control Inspection Program The FOG Control Program consists of the following elements: Identification of potential FOG Control Inspection Program enrollees; Cit of Huntington Beach Sewer Si-stem Adanagemenr Plan 44 125 • Inspection of FSEs in the FOG Control Inspection Program: • CCTV inspection of sewer laterals. Identification of FSEs to Enroll in FOG Control Inspection Proorant On a monthly basis, Environmental Specialists administering the FOG Control Program review the City's business license database to identify new FSEs that would potentially need to be enrolled into the FOG Control Inspection Program. Staff confirms the status by reviewing the menu (if available) or conducting it site visit once the FSE has opened for business. Once confirmed, the new FSEs are enrolled and inspected at least once a calendar year. Inspection of FSEs in the FOG Control Inspection Program The FOG Control Inspection Program consists of two tiers: high priority and low priority. The FSEs that have a GCD are considered a lower threat to introducing FOG to the City's sanitary sewer system and are thus desi"nated a low priority facility and inspected only once a calendar year. The FSEs without any FOCI pre-treatment are categorized as high priority since there is a greater potential for these FSEs to introduce FOG into the City's sanitary sewer system. These facilities are inspected at least twice a calendar year. Minimum FOG Rest Management Practices (Bi\IPs) All FSEs in the FOG Control Program are required to implement the minimum FOG BMPs. These include proper disposal of waste oil/grease, dry wiping cookware/serving utensils to remove food and grease, wiping down of hood filters prior to washing, using absorbent to clean grease spills, and training staff every six months and all new hires within two weeks of hire. In addition to the minimum IINIPs, FSEs with FOG pre-treatment are required to service the GCD on a quarterly basis at minimum This is the minimum requirement and FSEs that consistently have FOG percentages above 25% of the total hydraulic volume of the GCD are required to increase the service frequency to every two months or even monthly in order to prevent exceeding the 25% FOG threshold. Other additional BMPs include requiring FSEs to service internal (kitchen) and external sewer laterals on a routine basis to remove FOG build-up in the lines. The most important element of all of the B\II's is the employee training. City staff provides FSEs a copy of the FOG Training Manual at the time of the initial inspection. The FOG Training Manual (Appendix .1) is a three ring binder that includes all of the minimum BMPs required and an Employee Training Log to document all training. The FOG Training Manual also includes a DVD with all of the training materials and BNIPs in four languages; English, Spanish, Mandarin, and Vietnamese. Outreach to the Public The City has developed a FOG Program webpage on its website hops://www.humingtonbcachca.gov/government/depar menu/nuhlic works/foe/. the webpage targets both the general public and FSEs enrolled in the FOG Control Inspection Program. The webpage contains information for the general public on methods of how to properly dispose of FOCI, and how to prevent FOG blockages. For FSEs in the FOG Control Inspection Program, the webpage includes links to the FOG Training Manual that FSEs can download and/or print and links to the FOG training videos in English and Spanish. City of Huntington Beach Seaver System Man(wentent Plan 45 126 Record Keepim, and Reporting FSE's are responsible for maintaining trainim, logs, GCD service records, and grease collection/disposal records for a minimum of four(4) years. All records are kept onsite by FSE's and made available during their routine inspections. Although not a mandatory requirement. the City provides regular reports on the FOG program to the SIVRCB as part of its Annual NPDES Report submittal. Compliance Documents The FOG Training tN9anua1 for Food Service Establishments is included in Appendix J and FOG Impact Study is included in Appendix K. Cite of Huntinuton Reach Se%ter SYstem Management Plan 46 127 SECTION 4 — SYSTEM EVALUATION AND CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLAN '['he Order requires that each Enrollee shall prepare and implement a capital improvement program (CIP) that it provide hvdraulc capacity of kev sanitary sewer srstenr elentents fctr d cco Bather peak floe conditions, as well as the appropriate design storm or wet weather e ent. At a minitnum, the plan east include: a. Evaluation. Actions needed to evaluate those portions of the sanitary serer system that are experiencing or contributing to an .S.SO discharge caused 1m h-vdraulic de/iciencv. The evaluation must provide estimates of peak flows (including float-s fi-om .SSO.a that escape from the si-stem) associated with conditions similar to those causing overflow events, estimates of the capacity of kev.system components, Inaba ulic deficiencies (including components of the s.nstenh with limiting capac'in-) and the nhajor s'ourees that contr-ibite to the peak flottcs associated n=ith overflow events: b. D %Yign Criteria: Where design criteria aho not crost or are deficient, undertake the evaluation identified in (ar) above to establish appropriate design criteria: and c. Capaciry Enhancement dleasures: The steps needed to establish a short- cord long-term C11'to address identified hvdraulic deficiencies, inclyding prioritization, alternative analysis, and schedules. The CIP may include increases in pytie size, 1/1 reduction programs, increases and redunlanc,v in Pumping capacitv, and storage facilities. The CIP shall include an implementation schedule and shall identify sources offending. d. Schedule: The enrollee shall develop a schedule of canpletion dates fur all portions of the capital improvement program developed in (a) — (c) above. This schechtle shall be reviewed and updated consistent with the SSAIP review and update requirements as described in Section D_ 14. Evaluation The City utilizes the City of Huntington Beach Sewer blaster Plan, Final Report. Hav 2003, by Kennedy Jenks Consultants, to prioritize sewer lift station replacement and the replacement of those gravity sewer segments that are considered hydraulically deficient. The evaluation included a limited field flow monitoring program to obtain actual field measure wastewater data and a desktop W analysis to assess potential IBC I areas of the City. The recommended capital improvements within the report were developed to correct system deficiencies, provide the ability to serve future growth, and to replace aging infrastructure to improve system reliability. The City's 27 sewer lift stations were also analyzed as part of the Sewer Nlaster flan. Based on this analysis, and with input from the City's maintenance staff.. a priority list was established for rehabilitation and/or replacement of these lift stations. Although the City is approximately 97%built out with only a minimal increase in future wastewater flows pro'jected, the Sewer Master Plan identified possible deficiencies for further site specific evaluation in approximately nine miles (or less than 3%) of the entire gravity system. In 20W the City completed an evaluation of those segments that exceeded the design criteria for "new" servers. It was found that in all but two cases, the actual flow in the pipes was less than identified in the Sewer \faster Plan's desktop analysis. One segment, located on Beach Blvd., was upsized in 2016. The other segment was located City of lluntim,arn Reach Server Svsten Management Plan 47 128 immediately downstream of the Edinger Lift Station. A9odifications to that sewer lift station were made to limit the amount of flow discharged to this segment- With these two improvements, the City's gravity sewer system does not exhibit any capacity issues, based on existing uses. In the event properties are redeveloped to a higher density that might impact the downstream sewer system, those property owners are required to provide an engineering analysis and make the necessary downstream improvements as a condition of approval of those projects. Design Criteria The City utilizes industr}, standards as the design criteria for its sanitary sewer system. All design work is conducted by registered California professional engineers and all contractors are required to be appropriately license and insured. The City required that all sewer infrastructure design be compliant with the"Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" or''Greenbook", current edition, the City of I-funtington Beach Standard Plans, the City of Huntington Beach Sewer Lift Station Design Manual, and City of Huntington Beach Design Standards for Instrumentation. Controls, and Electrical, along with all other relevant building code standards and regulations. Wastewater flow criteria such as, but not limited to. land use wastewater generation factors. peaking factor, ICI, design capacity, pumping capacity. wet well sizing; and other design criteria is detailed and includin" within the City's Sewer N-lastcr flan, included as Appendix F. Capacity Enhancement Measures The City has incorporated several capacity enhancement measures into its sanitary sewer system. The City has an I&I program that rehabilitated existing sewer pipe via in situ lining technology to prevent stone water and groundwater from entering the system. The City's CCTV Inspection Program and proactive Line Cleaning Program ensure the sanitary sewer system can handle its wastewater flows as design- The CCTV Inspection Program provides the City with visual data on internal deficiencies while the Line Cleaning Program keeps the sanitary sewer lines free of accunnlations of FOG. roots, and other debris. The City also updated its CIP to regularly Fund a sewer lining projects as part of the IRI program. Approximately, S I million is dedicated annually toward this program. Furthermore, the City budgets for the replacement of one (I) sewer lift station per year to ensure that every sewer lift station is appropriately sized and in good working condition to handle its design Flow. As a result of-the City's sewer Toaster planning efforts. Chapter 14.36 of the City's rl4unicipal Code was Updated to increase the sewer connection fee commensurate with the necessary capital improvements. The projects identified within the 2003 Sewer Master Plan report as being hydraulically deficient have already been replaced or remediated. The City considers the 2003 Sewer I'vlaster Plan viable, since trends in the generation of sewage in Huntington Beach have shown a decrease in sewa�,c per capita and an overall decrease for the City as a whole even though the City's population has increased since 2003. Data from the OC San supports this conclusion. The decline in sewage flows- can be attributed to it trend towards water conservation and a decline in infiltration and inflow resulting from the City providing aggressive sewer lining projects. To further substantiate the adequacy of the 2003 Sewer Master Plan, the City will undergo a flow analysis study in key segments of the collection system and compare the actual flows to the flows and capacities provided in the 2003 dOCUmem. The study is currently planned to be implemented as part of the City's 2022 Sewer Master Plan Update. Citv of lluntimgton Beach Sewer Si-stem ddtmagemcnt Plan 43 129 Schedule The City's current CIP lists improvements to the sanitary sewer system for the next five (5)years. The CIP is periodically reviewed with changes being made to the project list and start dates to meet the changing needs of the City. The CIP also contains budgetary cost projections for the listed projects. Funding is provided for the replacement and rehabilitation of the City's sanitary sewer by the Sewer Enterprise 1:11nd balance. Since adoption ofthe Sewer Master Plan, sewer lift stations B and #IS have been eliminated and twelve lift stations have been rebuilt. The City has sufficient sewer funding and plans to continue with replacing aged sewer lift stations at an average rate of one(I) sewer lift station per year, as needed. In addition to the replacement of aged sewer list stations, the City has also installed magnetic flow meters, and the SCADA capability adequate to capture flow data from these newer lift stations. Regarding sewer pipelines. the City regular allocates funds for sewer lining every year. Replacement and/or upsizing of sewer pipe is performed on an as-needed basis. The City is currently plans to update its Sewer Master Plan starting in 2022. Future CIP budgets will be adjusted in consideration of CIP project recommendations provided as part of the Sewer \faster Plan Update. 8.1 Compliance Documents The City s 2003 Sewer Afaster flan, prepared by Kennedy-Jenks Consultants in 2003 can be found in Appendix F. The Sewer Capacity Analysis, prepared by AK\f Consulting Engineers in 2009 can be found in Appendix C. The Sewer Litt Station Priority List. which is a "living' list, subject to change. can be found in Appendix FI. City of Fluntington Beach SeircrSrslem Nfanagement Platt 49 130 SECTION 9 - MONITORING, MEASUREMENT, AND PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS Under the Order. Enrollees shall monitor and measure the effectiveness of the SSN1P and shall make modifications as necessary to maintain the program's effectiveness. This section describes City of Huntington Beach's monitoring, measurement and program modification program. Under the Order, the Enrollee shall: a. Maintain relevant ul/brmation to establish and prioritize appropriate S.S,b/P activities; b. blonaor the implementation and. where appropriate. measure the effectiveness of each element of the SSAIP: c. Assess due success ofpreventive maintenance activities; d. Update program elements, as appropriate, based on monitoring of performance evaluations; card e. Identifi,and illustrate 'NO trends, including fr'equencv. location and volume. Performance Measure Identification Improved wastewater infrastructure performance is a core task of any properly managed utility. The City of Huntington Beach is committed to continuous improvement by: • Utilizing a forntalized program for continuous improvement • Institutionalizing continual evaluation of its performance • Identifying opportunities for continuous improvement To accomplish the above goals, the City of Huntington Beach has established a number of performance measures and routinely monitors progress in meeting those performance measures. The performance measures relating to each SPOP program element are listed in the following subsections. Goals The overall goal of the SSNlP is to achieve zero preventable SSOs. While the City of Huntington Beach recognizes that US EPA and State of California regulatory agencies are encouraging a zero SSO goal, the random and unexpected nature of many SSO events make it challenging to achieve a goal of zero. SSOs that are caused by such acts as vandalism, contractor or property owner"hits." excessive customer discharge of FOG or extreme weather events that are potentially able to be minimized by the utility, cannot always be prevented or totally eliminated. Consequently, the City of Huntington Beach has established a perfonnance measure of zero preventable SSOs. SSO events will continue to be tracked by the City of Huntington Beach for cause and for location to identify "enhanced cleaning service areas' for additional preventive maintenance activities. but overall success of the program will be measured by progress in reducing the number of preventable SSO events towards an ultimate _oal of zero preventable SSOs. C itN of H untim,ton Beach .Server System iWanagement Plan 50 131 Organization The City of Huntington Beach has established an effective organizational structure for sever management. operations and maintenance. The success of this structure depends, however, in retaining existing staff and in filling those staff positions that do become vacant with skilled and talented individuals. To measure organizational Success, the City of Huntington Beach will monitor: • Starr resignations as a percent of filled positions • Staff vacancy rate as a percent of budgeted positions • Staff training and certification expiration and renewals Establishment of a performance goal associated with the performance measure for staff resignations may need to take unavoidable resignations, such as those clue to retirements or disability, into account. Legal Authority The City of Huntington Beach has well-defined legal authority in place for the SS\,I programs. No additional goals or performance measures are needed in this area at this time. Operation and ,Maintenance Program The City of funtington Beach has established a number of performance measures for collection system O&IM. The following lists the key performance measures for the SSMP program: • Nliles of sewer cleaned • Miles of laterals cleaned • A9iles ofsevers inspected • Nf iles of sewer repaired replaced • Number of laterals repaired • Number of sewer cleanouts installed • Number of sewer investigations • NLtnlhe of manholes treated (roach control) • Number of stoppages cleared • Number of SSOs • Number of wet wells cleaned • Number of pump station inspections • \9iles of force mains walked for visual inspection • Number of force main air relief valves inspected City of Huntington Beach SeirerSistem Afanagemeut Plan 51 132 These performance measures are reported in the Annual Sewer Service Fund Performance Audit as codified by Huntington Beach Municipal Code 14.54.070. Overflow Entergenev Response Program (OERP) The following performance measures will be tracked to monitor OERP performance. • Time elapsed from SSO notification call received to time responders arrive on-site • Time elapsed until overflow is controlled Fats. Oils and Grease (FOG) Control Program The following performance measures will be tracked to monitor FOG control effectiveness: • Number of grease-related SSO events • Number of Food Sm-icc Establishment (FSE) inspections performed • Number of FSE enforcement actions initiated • Number of FSE enforcement actions resolve Design and Performance Provisions The following performance pleasures will be tracked to monitor the effectiveness of the City of Huntington Beach's design and construction standards and specifications: • Number of warranty inspections completed • Percent of warranty inspections requiring follow-up work by the contractor Svstem Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) The following performance pleasures will be tracked to monitor SECAP performance: • Number of capacity-related SSO events (including wet weather-related SSOS) • Number of reconuncnded Capacity Enhancement CIP Projects completed Monitoring. Program Modifications and Program Audits The following perforniance measures will be tracked to monitor the effectiveness of the Monitoring program: • Ou-time completion of bi-annual SSNIP program review and self-audit Communication Program The following performance measures will be trucked to monitor the effectiveness of the Communications program: • Number of public information brochures, newsletters. or similar materials distributed • Number of public education events attended Cih of Huntington Beach Sen erSlstem Nfanagemeta Plan 52 133 • Number of public education presentations completed Program Modification Plan The success of the SSIMP program elements should lead to it reduction of SSOs within the City of Huntington Beach collection system. If no reduction in SSOs is seen, the program elements will be critically reviewed to determine areas for improvement. Those program elements will be modified as needed to improve performance. Citc of Huntington Beach Seiner System Management Plan 53 134 SECTION 10 - SSMP PROGRAM AUDITS As a part of the SS,WP, the permittee shall conduct periodic internal audits, appropriate to the size of the s_rctem and the number of SSOs. At a mininuon, these audits must occur every tiro vearc and a report m uct be prepared and kept on file. this audit shall focus on evaluation the gljectiveness of the SSAIP and the Enrollees compliance with due S:S',idP reyuirernents identified in this subsection (D./_iJ, including irlentificntion of anv de/iciencies in the SSMP and steps to correct them. Compliance Summary The City uses the SSMP update process to identify actions for improving how it manages. operates. and maintains the collection system. This process identifies the tasks and actions that are required to meet SSNIP goals and defines and prioritizes them. Resourcing and planning for delivery of the actions identified in the SSMP audit are incorporated into the City's strategic planning process, described in Section 9 - Monitoring, .Measurement and Program Nlodifications. Schedule of Program Audits and Updates The City monitors the performance of the collection system on an on-going_ basis through performance reviews. It also performs a formal audit of its SSi`IP every two years in accordance with the WDRs. The two-year frequency is the maximum allowed by the regulation; however this frequency is appropriate to the size of the City's collection system and the historical number of overflows, and should be sufficient to identify any necessary improvements to the SSMP. The City will assess the need to audit the SSMP more frequently based on the perfornance of the sanitary sewer system using information from the key performance indicators and input from the wastewater Department staff. Every five years, the City formally updates and recenifies the SSMP. Table 10-1 shows the timeline for SSMP audits and updates for the last five years and the anticipated schedule for the next five years. SSiMP Audit and Update Schedule Year Task �0�0 ? year SSMP update. Project/task commenced in 2019 and completed February 2021, revised in November 2021. 2023 Biennial self-audit to continence in late 2022. 2025 Biennial self-audit to commence in late 2024. Commence review and update of SSMP. 2026 i year SSMP update. Program Audit and Update Process A team composed of City staff and management directly involved in the development and administration of the elements of the SSi IP will be formed once every two (2) years to perform biennial self-audits in accordance with regulatory requirements for SSN113 Program Audits. The team will be led by the Deputy City of Huntington Beach Seiner Svsient Management Plat 54 135 Director of Public Works-Utilities and will meet in a series of in-person meetings over the course of approximately three months to evaluate the effectiveness of each SSNIP element. identify any deficiencies, and make recommendations for improvements and updates. This will be conducted by ansaerin,, a set of questions developed specifically for the purpose of the audit for each element of the SSi IP. It also includes referencing and reviewing performance reports and capacity reports, flows, and other important metrics gathered in the past two years. These findings will be documented in an audit report. Upon completion of the audit, a quality control review of the audit report will be performed, with a focus on consistency, completeness, and inclusion of references and attachments as appropriate. The final audit report will be reviewed by the City's LRO (Deputy Director of Public Works-Utilities) before final acceptance. Audit reports and related materials will be maintained in a hard copy and an electronic copy. City of Hunthwton Beach Setter Svstem iWanagement Plan 55 136 SECTION I I — COMMUNICATIONS The Enrollee.shall communicate on a regular-basis with the public on the development, implementation and perforrnancc ufits.S'S:b/P. The communication srctem shall provide the public the opportunity to provide input to the Enrollee as the program is cleveloped and implemented. The Enrollee.shall also create a plan of communication with systems that are tributary and/or satellite to the En ollee's sanacn-v sewer system. Compliance Summary The City maintains a website ! tt rs:/lwwtt.11u tit im,tonbcach.eov/SSNIP) to inform the public about the Sewer System Nanagement Program. The website provides a full version of the SSNIP. including all attachments, for public review. The City's website is an effective communication source for providing information and news to the public. The website also provides information on reporting sewer system issues: includes phone numbers for reporting purposes during and after business hours. The City uses an electronic application called MyH13 for use with both iPhones and Android systems. This application is a work-order system that allows the public to report issues of concern anywhere in the City (sewer non-emergency, storm drain non-emergency, odor issues. etc.). The City's SSNIP website includes a direct link to report sewer non-enlcrnsency issues. During FOG inspections, City staff provides information to business operators on protecting the sewer system, avoiding sever overflows. and how to report sewer related issues. The City's plan of communication with systems that are tributary consists of maintaining constant communication with neighboring agencies. Throughout the year, the City has several opportunities to regularly meet and communicate with local agencies through the CA WDR Group Nlectings. The Wastewater Supervisor attends these meetings. The focus of the CA WDR Group is share information on evemliintz related to sanitary sewer systems, including SSO notification, ntouitoring. reporting and requirements. Compliance Documents The FOG Control Program Best Management Practices Training Manual for Food Service Establishments is included in Appendix J. Examples of Public Outreach are included in Appendix L. Cite of Huntington Leach Sewer System Nlanagement Plan 56 137 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 tmprovemcnt Program Cb1 Corrective Maintenance C1A11NIS Computerized Maintenance Management System C\V[A Cali fornia Water Environment Association ERP Emergency Response Plan FSE Food Service Establishment FOG Fats, Oils, and Grease GPS Global Positioning System 1/1 Inflow / Infittation IERP Inte*rated Emergency Response Plan MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program OfiM Operation and Maintenance OCHCA Orange Countv Health Care Agency OC SAN Orange County Sanitation District OES Office of E..mergency Services Order State Water Resources Control Board (S\VRCB). 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 sewa(c SSiMP Sewer System Management Plan Cite of Iluntin,ton Beach Sewer System A9mmgement P/cm 57 138 WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant City of Huntimgtnn Beach Sewer Svstem dlanagemem Plan 58 139 APPENDICES CiIv of Huntington Bench Surer Srstent ,Nnnugentent Plan 59 140 APPENDIX A - SWRCB Order No. 2006-003 CiI of Huntington Beach Sewer Svstem Xfanec Bement Plan 60 141 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. 2006-0003-DWQ 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 organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic compounds, oil 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. 142 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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-DWQ, 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 143 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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 144 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 4 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 water quality in the area, costs associated with compliance with these 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 145 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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. 146 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWO Page 6 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06 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://ciwqs.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. 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 147 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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 148 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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 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. 149 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 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. 150 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 10 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 5/2/06 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 professional(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 1/1, stormwater, chemical dumping, unauthorized debris and cut roots, etc.); 151 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 11 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 152 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 12 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 (e) Provide equipment and replacement part inventories, including 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. 153 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 13 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 154 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 14 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 shall focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the 155 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 15 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. 156 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Page 16 of 20 Statewide General WDR For Wastewater Collection Agencies 512106 Sewer System Management Plan Time Schedule 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 afterZ 12 months afte z WDRs WDRs Nos ecific Section WDRs Adoption WDRs Adoption Adoption 2 Adoption 2 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 36 months after 39 months after Operation and 24 months after z 30 months after WDRs WDRs Maintenance Program WDRs Adoption WDRs Adoption Adoptionz AdoptionZ 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 13 157 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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, and 3 12 months after WDRs Adoption 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, 158 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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 . 159 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWO Page 19 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 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 160 State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 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 161 GEo.ru,n G. B .a.•Jn. o•u m%. Mm-.w Roaanuc Water Boards State Water Resources Control Board July 26, 2013 All Enrollees Subject to the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems Dear Enrollees: AMENDMENT OF STATEWIDE MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MRP) REQUIREMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOWS; MRP ORDER 2006-0003-DWQ Effective September 9, 2013, the MRP for the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (Order 2006-0003-DWQ) are amended. The amendments to the MRP set forth in Order 2013-0058-EXEC address compliance and enforceability in the existing MRP. The amendments additionally address stakeholder concern regarding cost of compliance issues. A copy of the amending Order and corresponding Fad Sheet describing my Executive Officer action, are enclosed. Monitoring and reporting requirements in MRP Order 2008-0002-EXEC that have been effective since 2008 are superseded by the amended requirements set forth in Order 2013-0058-EXEC. If you have any questions regarding these amendments, please contact Russell Norman, Water Resource Control Engineer at (916) 323-5598 or rnorman@waterboards.ca.gov. Sincerely, hw0 � Thomas Howar Executive Director Enclosures cc: Regional Water Quality Control Board Executive Officers FEL m I *A ;uS.cX\O I T Hoi A Hc9.\P0. EIECUVIE DIRECTp INN I$bee:.SwaMel.:o.CA 9MIJ I M"g AECrp :P.O.9o. 1W.Sapamanto.Ca P5912-DIN 14 xx.vata.:b &rEa.Gi.9pv 162 STATE OF CALIFORNIA WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC AMENDING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS The State of California, Water Resources Control Board (hereafter State Water Board) finds: 1 . The State Water Board is authorized to prescribe statewide general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for categories of discharges that involve the same or similar operations and the same or similar types of waste pursuant to Water Code section 13263(i). 2. Water Code section 13193 et seq. requires the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) and the State Water Board (collectively, the Water Boards) to gather Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) information and make this information available to the public, including but not limited to, SSO cause, estimated volume, location, date, time, duration, whether or not the SSO reached or may have reached waters of the state, response and corrective action taken, and an enrollee's contact information for each SSO event. An enrollee is defined as the public entity having legal authority over the operation and maintenance of, or capital improvements to, a sanitary sewer system greater than one mile in length. 3. Water Code section 13271 , et seq. requires notification to the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), formerly the California Emergency Management Agency, for certain unauthorized discharges, including SSOs. 4. On May 2, 2006, the State Water Board adopted Order 2006-0003-DWQ, "Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems"' (hereafter SSS WDRs) to comply with Water Code section 13193 and to establish the framework for the statewide SSO Reduction Program. 5. Subsection G.2 of the SSS WDRs and the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) provide that the Executive Director may modify the terms of the MRP at any time. 6. On February 20, 2008, the State Water Board Executive Director adopted a revised MRP for the SSS WDRs to rectify early notification deficiencies and ensure that first responders are notified in a timely manner of SSOs discharged into waters of the state. 7. When notified of an SSO that reaches a drainage channel or surface water of the state, Cal OES, pursuant to Water Code section 13271 (a)(3), forwards the SSO notification information' to local government agencies and first responders including local public health officials and the applicable Regional Water Board. Receipt of notifications for a single SSO event from both the SSO reporter and Cal OES is duplicative. To address this, the SSO notification requirements added by the February 20, 2008 MRP revision are being removed in this MRP revision. Available for download at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board decisions/adopted orders/water quality/2006/wqo/wgo2006 0003.pdf 2 Cal OES Hazardous Materials Spill Reports available Online at: http://w3.calema.ca.gov/operationad/malhaz.nsf/Sdefault%Aew and http://w3.calema,ca.gov/operational/malhaz.nsf 163 Monitoring and Reporting Program No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems Paoe 2 of 2 8. In the February 28, 2008 Memorandum of Agreement between the State Water Board and the California Water and Environment Association (CWEA), the State Water Board committed to re- designing the CIWQS3 Online SSO Database to allow "event" based SSO reporting versus the original "location" based reporting. Revisions to this MRP and accompanying changes to the CIWQS Online SSO Database will implement this change by allowing for multiple SSO appearance points to be associated with each SSO event caused by a single asset failure. 9. Based on stakeholder input and Water Board staff experience implementing the SSO Reduction Program, SSO categories have been revised in this MRP. Inthe prior version of the MRP, SSOs have been categorized as Category 1 or Category 2. This MRP implements changes to SSO categories by adding a Category 3 SSO type. This change will improve data management to further assist Water Board staff with evaluation of high threat and low threat SSOs by placing them in unique categories (i.e., Category 1 and Category 3, respectively). This change will also assist enrollees in identifying SSOs that require Cal OES notification. 10. Based on over six years of implementation of the SSS WDRs, the State Water Board concludes that the February 20, 2008 MRP must be updated to better advance the SSO Reduction Program' objectives, assess compliance, and enforce the requirements of the SSS WDRs. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: Pursuant to the authority delegated by Water Code section 13267(f), Resolution 2002-0104, and Order 2006-0003-DWQ, the MRP for the SSS WDRs (Order 2006-0003-DWQ) is hereby amended as shown in Attachment A and shall be effective on September 9, 2013. homas Howard Date Executive Director 3 California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) publicly available at httip://www.waterboards .ca.gov/ciwqs/r)ublicrel)orts.shtmI 4 Statewide Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program information is available at: httr)://www.waterboards.ca.aov/water issues/prog ram s/sso/ 164 ATTACHMENT A STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ORDER NO. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC AMENDING MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR STATEWIDE GENERAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SANITARY SEWER SYSTEMS This Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) establishes monitoring, record keeping, reporting and public notification requirements for Order 2006-0003-DWQ, "Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems" (SSS WDRs). This MRP shall be effective from September 9, 2013 until it is rescinded. The Executive Director may make revisions to this MRP at any time. These revisions may include a reduction or increase in the monitoring and reporting requirements. All site specific records and data developed pursuant to the SSS WDRs and this MRP shall be complete, accurate, and justified by evidence maintained by the enrollee. Failure to comply with this MRP may subject an enrollee to civil liabilities of up to $5,000 a day per violation pursuant to Water Code section 13350; up to $1,000 a day per violation pursuant to Water Code section 13268; or referral to the Attorney General for judicial civil enforcement. The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) reserves the right to take any further enforcement action authorized by law. A. SUMMARY OF MRP REQUIREMENTS Table 1 — Spill Categories and Definitions CATEGORIES DEFINITIONS (see Section A on page 5 of Order 2006-0003-DWQ, for Sewer Overflow (SSO) definition] Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of any volume resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition that: • Reach surface water and/or reach a drainage channel tributary to a surface water; or CATEGORY 1 • Reach a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) and are not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system or not otherwise captured and disposed of properly. Any volume of wastewater not recovered from the MS4 is considered to have reached surface water unless the storm drain system discharges to a dedicated storm water or groundwater infiltration basin (e.g., infiltration pit, percolation pond). Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of 1,000 gallons or rg eater resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow CATEGORY 2 condition that do no reach surface water, a drainage channel, or a MS4 unless the entire SSO discharged to the storm drain system is fully recovered and disposed of properly. CATEGORY 3 All other discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition. 165 CATEGORIES DEFINITIONS [see Section A on page 5 of Order 2006-0003-DWQ, for Sewer Overflow (SSO) definition] PRIVATE Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from blockages LATERAL or other problems within a privately owned sewer lateral connected to the SEWAGE enrollee's sanitary sewer system or from other private sewer assets. PLSDs that DISCHARGE the enrollee becomes aware of may be voluntarily reported to the California (PLSD) Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) Online SSO Database. Table 2 — Notification, Reporting, Monitoring, and Record Keeping Requirements ELEMENT REQUIREMENT METHOD NOTIFICATION Within two hours of becoming aware of any Call Cal OES at: (see section B Category 1 SSO greater than or equal to 1.000 (800) 852-7550 of MRP) gallons discharged to surface water or spilled in a location where it probably will be discharged to surface water, notify the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and obtain a notification control number. REPORTING Category 1 SSO: Submit draft report within three Enter data into the (see section C business days of becoming aware of the SSO CIWQS Online SSO of MRP) and certify within 15 calendar days of SSO end Database date. (http://ciwgs.waterboar • Category 2 SSO: Submit draft report within 3 ds.ca.gov/), certified by business days of becoming aware of the SSO enrollee's Legally and certify within 15 calendar days of the SSO Responsible Official(s). end date. • Category 3 SSO: Submit certified report within 30 calendar days of the end of month in which SSO the occurred. • SSO Technical Report: Submit within 45 calendar days after the end date of any Category 1 SSO in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters. • "No Spill" Certification: Certify that no SSOs occurred within 30 calendar days of the end of the month or, if reporting quarterly, the quarter in which no SSOs occurred. • Collection System Questionnaire: Update and certify every 12 months. WATER • Conduct water quality sampling within 48 hours Water quality results QUALITY after initial SSO notification for Category 1 SSOs are required to be MONITORING in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to uploaded into CIWQS (see section D surface waters. for Category 1 SSOs in of MRP) which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters. 166 RECORD . SSO event records. Self-maintained KEEPING . Records documenting Sanitary Sewer records shall be (see section E Management Plan (SSMP) implementation and available during of MRP) changes/updates to the SSMP. inspections or upon Records to document Water Quality Monitoring request. for SSOs of 50,000 gallons or greater spilled to surface waters. • Collection system telemetry records if relied upon to document and/or estimate SSO Volume. 167 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 4 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems B. NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS Although Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) and the State Water Board (collectively, the Water Boards) staff do not have duties as first responders, this MRP is an appropriate mechanism to ensure that the agencies that have first responder duties are notified in a timely manner in order to protect public health and beneficial uses. 1 . For any Category 1 SSO greater than or equal to 1.000 gallons that results in a discharge to a surface water or spilled in a location where it probably will be discharged to surface water. either directly or by way of a drainage channel or MS4, the enrollee shall, as soon as possible, but not later than two (2) hours after (A) the enrollee has knowledge of the discharge, (B) notification is possible, and (C) notification can be provided without substantially impeding cleanup or other emergency measures, notify the Cal OES and obtain a notification control number. 2. To satisfy notification requirements for each applicable SSO, the enrollee shall provide the information requested by Cal OES before receiving a control number. Spill information requested by Cal OES may include: i. Name of person notifying Cal OES and direct return phone number. ii. Estimated SSO volume discharged (gallons). iii. If ongoing, estimated SSO discharge rate (gallons per minute). iv. SSO Incident Description: a. Brief narrative. b. On-scene point of contact for additional information (name and cell phone number). c. Date and time enrollee became aware of the SSO. d. Name of sanitary sewer system agency causing the SSO. e. SSO cause (if known). v. Indication of whether the SSO has been contained. vi. Indication of whether surface water is impacted. vii. Name of surface water impacted by the SSO, if applicable. viii. Indication of whether a drinking water supply is or may be impacted by the SSO. ix. Any other known SSO impacts. x. SSO incident location (address, city, state, and zip code). 3. Following the initial notification to Cal OES and until such time that an enrollee certifies the SSO report in the CIWQS Online SSO Database, the enrollee shall provide updates to Cal OES regarding substantial changes to the estimated volume of untreated or partially treated sewage discharged and any substantial change(s) to known impact(s). 168 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 5 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems 4. PLSDs: The enrollee is strongly encouraged to notify Cal OES of discharges greater than or equal to 1 ,000 gallons of untreated or partially treated wastewater that result or may result in a discharge to surface water resulting from failures or flow conditions within a privately owned sewer lateral or from other private sewer asset(s) if the enrollee becomes aware of the PLSD. C. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 1. CIWQS Online SSO Database Account: All enrollees shall obtain a CIWQS Online SSO Database account and receive a "Username" and "Password" by registering through CIWQS. These accounts allow controlled and secure entry into the CIWQS Online SSO Database. 2. SSO Mandatory Reporting Information: For reporting purposes, if one SSO event results in multiple appearance points in a sewer system asset, the enrollee shall complete one SSO report in the CIWQS Online SSO Database which includes the GPS coordinates for the location of the SSO appearance point closest to the failure point, blockage or location of the flow condition that caused the SSO, and provide descriptions of the locations of all other discharge points associated with the SSO event. 3. SSO Categories i. Category 1 — Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater of any volume resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition that: a. Reach surface water and/or reach a drainage channel tributary to a surface water; or b. Reach a MS4 and are not fully captured and returned to the sanitary sewer system or not otherwise captured and disposed of properly. Any volume of wastewater not recovered from the MS4 is considered to have reached surface water unless the storm drain system discharges to a dedicated storm water or groundwater infiltration basin (e.g., infiltration pit, percolation pond). ii. Category 2 — Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition that does not reach a surface water, a drainage channel, or the MS4 unless the entire SSO volume discharged to the storm drain system is fully recovered and disposed of properly. iii. Category 3 — All other discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from an enrollee's sanitary sewer system failure or flow condition. 4. Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reporting to CIWQS - Timeframes i. Category 1 and Category 2 SSOs — All SSOs that meet the above criteria for Category 1 or Category 2 SSOs shall be reported to the CIWQS Online SSO Database: a. Draft reports for Category 1 and Category 2 SSOs shall be submitted to the CIWQS Online SSO Database within three (3) business days of the enrollee becoming aware of the SSO. Minimum information that shall be reported in a draft Category 1 SSO report shall include all information identified in section 8.i.a. below. Minimum information that shall be reported in a Category 2 SSO draft report shall include all information identified in section 8.i.c below. 169 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems Page 6 of 12 b. A final Category 1 or Category 2 SSO report shall be certified through the CIWQS Online SSO Database within 15 calendar days of the end date of the SSO. Minimum information that shall be certified in the final Category 1 SSO report shall include all information identified in section 8J.b below. Minimum information that shall be certified in a final Category 2 SSO report shall include all information identified in section 8.i.d below. ii. Category 3 SSOs — All SSOs that meet the above criteria for Category 3 SSOs shall be reported to the CIWQS Online SSO Database and certified within 30 calendar days after the end of the calendar month in which the SSO occurs (e.g., all Category 3 SSOs occurring in the month of February shall be entered into the database and certified by March 30). Minimum information that shall be certified in a final Category 3 SSO report shall include all information identified in section 8.i.e below. iii. "No Spill" Certification — If there are no SSOs during the calendar month, the enrollee shall either 1) certify, within 30 calendar days after the end of each calendar month, a "No Spill" certification statement in the CIWQS Online SSO Database certifying that there were no SSOs for the designated month, or 2) certify, quarterly within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter, "No SpiIP' certification statements in the CIWQS Online SSO Database certifying that there were no SSOs for each month in the quarter being reported on. For quarterly reporting, the quarters are Q1 - January/ February/ March, Q2 - April/May/June, Q3 - July/AugusUSeptember, and Q4 - October/November/December. If there are no SSOs during a calendar month but the enrollee reported a PLSD, the enrollee shall still certify a "No SpiIP' certification statement for that month. iv. Amended SSO Reports — The enrollee may update or add additional information to a certified SSO report within 120 calendar days after the SSO end date by amending the report or by adding an attachment to the SSO report in the CIWQS Online SSO Database. SSO reports certified in the CIWQS Online SSO Database prior to the adoption date of this MRP may only be amended up to 120 days after the effective date of this MRP. After 120 days, the enrollee may contact the SSO Program Manager to request to amend an SSO report if the enrollee also submits justification for why the additional information was not available prior to the end of the 120 days. 5. SSO Technical Report The enrollee shall submit an SSO Technical Report in the CIWQS Online SSO Database within 45 calendar days of the SSO end date for any SSO in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters. This report, which does not preclude the Water Boards from requiring more detailed analyses if requested, shall include at a minimum, the following: i. Causes and Circumstances of the SSO: a. Complete and detailed explanation of how and when the SSO was discovered. b. Diagram showing the SSO failure point, appearance point(s), and final destination(s). c. Detailed description of the methodology employed and available data used to calculate the volume of the SSO and, if applicable, the SSO volume recovered. d. Detailed description of the cause(s) of the SSO. 170 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 7 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems e. Copies of original field crew records used to document the SSO. f. Historical maintenance records for the failure location. ii. Enrollee's Response to SSO: a. Chronological narrative description of all actions taken by enrollee to terminate the spill. b. Explanation of how the SSMP Overflow Emergency Response plan was implemented to respond to and mitigate the SSO. c. Final corrective action(s) completed and/or planned to be completed, including a schedule for actions not yet completed. iii. Water Quality Monitoring: a. Description of all water quality sampling activities conducted including analytical results and evaluation of the results. b. Detailed location map illustrating all water quality sampling points. 6. PLSDs Discharges of untreated or partially treated wastewater resulting from blockages or other problems within a privately owned sewer lateral connected to the enrollee's sanitary sewer system or from other private sanitary sewer system assets may be voluntarily reported to the CIWQS Online SSO Database. i. The enrollee is also encouraged to provide notification to Cal OES per section B above when a PLSD greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons has or may result in a discharge to surface water. For any PLSD greater than or equal to 1 ,000 gallons regardless of the spill destination, the enrollee is also encouraged to file a spill report as required by Health and Safety Code section 5410 et. seq. and Water Code section 13271, or notify the responsible party that notification and reporting should be completed as specified above and required by State law. ii. If a PLSD is recorded in the CIWQS Online SSO Database, the enrollee must identify the sewage discharge as occurring and caused by a private sanitary sewer system asset and should identify a responsible party (other than the enrollee), if known. Certification of PLSD reports by enrollees is not required. 7. CIWQS Online SSO Database Unavailability In the event that the CIWQS Online SSO Database is not available, the enrollee must fax or e- mail all required information to the appropriate Regional Water Board office in accordance with the time schedules identified herein. In such event, the enrollee must also enter all required information into the CIWQS Online SSO Database when the database becomes available. 171 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WO 2013-0058-EXEC Page 8 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems 8. Mandatory Information to be Included in CIWQS Online SSO Reporting All enrollees shall obtain a CIWQS Online SSO Database account and receive a "Username" and "Password" by registering through CIWQS which can be reached at CIWQS(a)waterboards.ca.gov or by calling (866) 792-4977, M-F, 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. These accounts will allow controlled and secure entry into the CIWQS Online SSO Database. Additionally, within thirty (30) days of initial enrollment and prior to recording SSOs into the CIWQS Online SSO Database, all enrollees must complete a Collection System Questionnaire (Questionnaire). The Questionnaire shall be updated at least once every 12 months. i. SSO Reports At a minimum, the following mandatory information shall be reported prior to finalizing and certifying an SSO report for each category of SSO: a. Draft Category 1 SSOs: At a minimum, the following mandatory information shall be reported for a draft Category 1 SSO report: 1 . SSO Contact Information: Name and telephone number of enrollee contact person who can answer specific questions about the SSO being reported. 2. SSO Location Name. 3. Location of the overflow event (SSO) by entering GPS coordinates. If a single overflow event results in multiple appearance points, provide GPS coordinates for the appearance point closest to the failure point and describe each additional appearance point in the SSO appearance point explanation field. 4. Whether or not the SSO reached surface water, a drainage channel, or entered and was discharged from a drainage structure. 5. Whether or not the SSO reached a municipal separate storm drain system. 6. Whether or not the total SSO volume that reached a municipal separate storm drain system was fully recovered. 7. Estimate of the SSO volume, inclusive of all discharge point(s). 8. Estimate of the SSO volume that reached surface water, a drainage channel, or was not recovered from a storm drain. 9. Estimate of the SSO volume recovered (if applicable). 10. Number of SSO appearance point(s). 11. Description and location of SSO appearance point(s). If a single sanitary sewer system failure results in multiple SSO appearance points, each appearance point must be described. 12. SSO start date and time. 13. Date and time the enrollee was notified of, or self-discovered, the SSO. 14. Estimated operator arrival time. 15. For spills greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons, the date and time Cal OES was called. 172 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 9 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems 16. For spills greater than or equal to 1 ,000 gallons, the Cal OES control number. b. Certified Category 1 SSOs: At a minimum, the following mandatory information shall be reported for a certified Category 1 SSO report, in addition to all fields in section 8.i.a: 1 . Description of SSO destination(s). 2. SSO end date and time. 3. SSO causes (mainline blockage, roots, etc.). 4. SSO failure point (main, lateral, etc.). 5. Whether or not the spill was associated with a storm event. 6. Description of spill corrective action, including steps planned or taken to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the overflow; and a schedule of major milestones for those steps. 7. Description of spill response activities. 8. Spill response completion date. 9. Whether or not there is an ongoing investigation, the reasons for the investigation and the expected date of completion. 10.Whether or not a beach closure occurred or may have occurred as a result of the SSO. 11.Whether or not health warnings were posted as a result of the SSO. 12. Name of beach(es) closed and/or impacted. If no beach was impacted, NA shall be selected. 13. Name of surface water(s) impacted. 14. If water quality samples were collected, identify parameters the water quality samples were analyzed for. If no samples were taken, NA shall be selected. 15. If water quality samples were taken, identify which regulatory agencies received sample results (if applicable). If no samples were taken, NA shall be selected. 16. Description of methodology(ies) and type of data relied upon for estimations of the SSO volume discharged and recovered. 17.SSO Certification: Upon SSO Certification, the CIWQS Online SSO Database will issue a final SSO identification (ID) number. c. Draft Category 2 SSOs: At a minimum, the following mandatory information shall be reported for a draft Category 2 SSO report: 1. Items 1-14 in section 8.i.a above for Draft Category 1 SSO. 173 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 10 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems d. Certified Category 2 SSOs: At a minimum, the following mandatory information shall be reported for a certified Category 2 SSO report: 1 . Items 1-14 in section 8.i.a above for Draft Category 1 SSO and Items 1-9, and 17 in section 8.i.b above for Certified Category 1 SSO. e. Certified Category 3 SSOs: At a minimum, the following mandatory information shall be reported for a certified Category 3 SSO report: 1 . Items 1-14 in section 8.i.a above for Draft Category 1 SSO and Items 1-5, and 17 in section 8.i.b above for Certified Category 1 SSO. ii. Reporting SSOs to Other Regulatory Agencies These reporting requirements do not preclude an enrollee from reporting SSOs to other regulatory agencies pursuant to state law. In addition, these reporting requirements do not replace other Regional Water Board notification and reporting requirements for SSOs. iii. Collection System Questionnaire The required Questionnaire (see subsection G of the SSS WDRs) provides the Water Boards with site-specific information related to the enrollee's sanitary sewer system. The enrollee shall complete and certify the Questionnaire at least every 12 months to facilitate program implementation, compliance assessment, and enforcement response. iv. SSMP Availability The enrollee shall provide the publicly available internet web site address to the CIWQS Online SSO Database where a downloadable copy of the enrollee's approved SSMP, critical supporting documents referenced in the SSMP, and proof of local governing board approval of the SSMP is posted. If all of the SSMP documentation listed in this subsection is not publicly available on the Internet, the enrollee shall comply with the following procedure: a. Submit an electronic copy of the enrollee's approved SSMP, critical supporting documents referenced in the SSMP, and proof of local governing board approval of the SSMP to the State Water Board, within 30 days of that approval and within 30 days of any subsequent SSMP re-certifications, to the following mailing address: State Water Resources Control Board Division of Water Quality Attn: SSO Program Manager 1001 1 Street, 151h Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 D. WATER QUALITY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS: To comply with subsection D.7(v) of the SSS WDRs, the enrollee shall develop and implement an SSO Water Quality Monitoring Program to assess impacts from SSOs to surface waters in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters. The SSO Water Quality Monitoring Program, shall, at a minimum: 174 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 11 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems 1. Contain protocols for water quality monitoring. 2. Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible (e.g. safety, access restrictions, etc.). 3. Require water quality analyses for ammonia and bacterial indicators to be performed by an accredited or certified laboratory. 4. Require monitoring instruments and devices used to implement the SSO Water Quality Monitoring Program to be properly maintained and calibrated, including any records to document maintenance and calibration, as necessary, to ensure their continued accuracy. 5. Within 48 hours of the enrollee becoming aware of the SSO, require water quality sampling for, at a minimum, the following constituents: i. Ammonia ii. Appropriate Bacterial indicator(s) per the applicable Basin Plan water quality objective or Regional Board direction which may include total and fecal coliform, enterococcus, and e- coli. E. RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS: The following records shall be maintained by the enrollee for a minimum of five (5) years and shall be made available for review by the Water Boards during an onsite inspection or through an information request: 1 . General Records: The enrollee shall maintain records to document compliance with all provisions of the SSS WDRs and this MRP for each sanitary sewer system owned including any required records generated by an enrollee's sanitary sewer system contractor(s). 2. SSO Records: The enrollee shall maintain records for each SSO event, including but not limited to: i. Complaint records documenting how the enrollee responded to all notifications of possible or actual SSOs, both during and after business hours, including complaints that do not result in SSOs. Each complaint record shall, at a minimum, include the following information: a. Date, time, and method of notification. b. Date and time the complainant or informant first noticed the SSO. c. Narrative description of the complaint, including any information the caller can provide regarding whether or not the complainant or informant reporting the potential SSO knows if the SSO has reached surface waters, drainage channels or storm drains. d. Follow-up return contact information for complainant or informant for each complaint received, if not reported anonymously. e. Final resolution of the complaint. 175 Monitoring and Reporting Program Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC Page 12 of 12 Statewide Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems ii. Records documenting steps and/or remedial actions undertaken by enrollee, using all available information, to comply with section D.7 of the SSS WDRs. iii. Records documenting how all estimate(s) of volume(s) discharged and, if applicable, volume(s) recovered were calculated. 3. Records documenting all changes made to the SSMP since its last certification indicating when a subsection(s) of the SSMP was changed and/or updated and who authorized the change or update. These records shall be attached to the SSMP. 4. Electronic monitoring records relied upon for documenting SSO events and/or estimating the SSO volume discharged, including, but not limited to records from: i. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems ii. Alarm system(s) iii. Flow monitoring device(s) or other instrument(s) used to estimate wastewater levels, flow rates and/or volumes. F. CERTIFICATION 1 . All information required to be reported into the CIWQS Online SSO Database shall be certified by a person designated as described in subsection J of the SSS WDRs. This designated person is also known as a Legally Responsible Official (LRO). An enrollee may have more than one LRO. 2. Any designated person (i.e. an LRO) shall be registered with the State Water Board to certify reports in accordance with the CIWQS protocols for reporting. 3. Data Submitter (DS): Any enrollee employee or contractor may enter draft data into the CIWQS Online SSO Database on behalf of the enrollee if authorized by the LRO and registered with the State Water Board. However, only LROs may certify reports in CIWQS. 4. The enrollee shall maintain continuous coverage by an LRO. Any change of a registered LRO or IDS (e.g., retired staff), including deactivation or a change to the LRO's or DS's contact information, shall be submitted by the enrollee to the State Water Board within 30 days of the change by calling (866) 792-4977 or e-mailing help@ciwgs.waterboards.ca.gov. S. A registered designated person (i.e., an LRO) shall certify all required reports under penalty of perjury laws of the state as stated in the CIWQS Online SSO Database at the time of certification. CERTIFICATION The undersigned Clerk to the Board does hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true, and correct copy of an order amended by the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board. 13 Date nine Townsen Jlrk to the Board 176 APPENDIX B - Municipal Codes Cih' of IIuntino(on Beach Sei+er Sivem dlanagement Plan 61 177 11/29/21,4:55 PM Chapter 12.10 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION Huntington Beach Charter and Codes Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames MUNICIPAL CODE Title 12 STREETS AND SIDEWALKS Chapter 12.10 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION 12.10.010 Adoption of Standards There is hereby adopted by the City Council certain standard specifications known as the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, as most recently published by Building News ('latest edition') and the whole thereof, including all supplements and amendments, of which standard specifications not less than one copy of the latest edition has been and is now on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach. Such standard specifications are hereby adopted and incorporated pursuant to Government Code Sections 50022.2 ct seq. for the purpose of providing ----........---.....----.... -........ just, equitable, objective and practicable standard specifications whereby administrative procedures, construction materials. construction methods and requirements shall be established for all public works construction, and from the date on which this section takes effect, the provisions thereof shall be controlling within the corporate limits of the City of Huntington Beach. (2684-4/84, 2813-2/86, 3122-10/91, 3513-11/01) 12.10.020 Administration The Director of Public Works, or his or her duly appointed representative, is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the standard specifications as herein adopted or as may be amended hereafter from time to time. (2684-4/84) 12.10.030 Application The provisions of the standard specifications, together with adopted standard plans of the Department of Public Works, adopted by resolution of the City Council, shall apply to all existing or new public works construction. Such standard specifications shall also apply whenever there exists, in the opinion of the Director of Public Works, any condition which constitutes an active or immediate hazard to life, limb, health, property, safety or the general welfare of the public. (2684- 4/84) View the mobile version. 178 v w.gcode.us/codes/hunlingtonbeach/ 1/1 11/29/21,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT Huntington Beach Charter and Codes Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames MUNICIPAL CODE Title 14 WATER AND SEWERS Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT 14.25.010 Purpose A. The United States Congress passed the Clean Water Act 33 USC Section 1251 et seq., as amended, including Section 402(p) therein as a mandate, in part, that municipal separate storm sewer systems, such as in Orange County, obtain permits to "effectively prohibit non-stornnvater discharges into the stone sewers" and "require controls to reduce the discharge of pollutams to the maximum extent practicable."This permitting authority has been delegated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to the State of California, which has authorized the State Water Resources Control Board and its local regulatory agencies, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. to control non-point source discharges to California's waterways. B. The Santa Ana and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards have addressed the obligation to implement the Clean Water Act by issuing waste discharge requirements governing stormwater runoff for the County of Orange, Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated cities of Orange County. These pemlits shall be referred to collectively herein as the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit or "NPDES Permit." C. The City of Huntington Beach has adopted and amended this chapter to comply with the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System permit ("MS4 permit") the California Water Quality Control Board-Santa Ana Region issued Orange County. The MS4 permit requires the City to demonstrate through ordinances the necessary legal authority to enforce prohibited discharges to the storm drain that would have a negative impact on the water quality and aesthetic value of downstream receiving water bodies such as the Santa River and the Pacific Ocean. D. Stormwater runoff is one step in the natural cycle of water. However, human activities, such as agriculture. construction and the operation and maintenance of an urban infrastructure may result in undesirable discharges of pollutants and certain sediments, which may accumulate in local drainage channels and waterways and eventually may be deposited in the waters of the United States. E. The purpose of this chapter is to participate in the improvement of water quality and comply with federal requirements for the control of urban pollutants to stormwater runoff, which enters the network of storm drains throughout Orange County. (3364-8/97, 4206-7/20) 14.25.020 Definitions "Authorized inspector" shall mean the Director of Public Works, the Fire Chief and the Director of Community Development, and persons designated by and under his or her instruction and supervision, who are assigned to investigate compliance with, detect violations of, and/or take actions pursuant to this chapter. "Best Management Practices ("BMPs")" shall mean schedules of activities, pollution treatment practices or devices, prohibitions of practices, general good housekeeping practices, pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices or devices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly to stornnvater, receiving waters, or the stormwater drainage system. Best Management Practices also include, but are not limited to, treatment practices, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or water disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. Best Management Practices may include any type of pollution prevention and pollution control measure that can help achieve compliance with this chapter. "City"shall mean the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County. California. "City Attorney" shall mean the City Attorney of the City of Huntington Beach and his or her designee, which counsel is authorized to take enforcement action as described herein. For purposes of criminal prosecution, only the 179 �.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 1112 11/29/21,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT City Attorney, or his or her designee, shall act as the City Attorney. "Co-permittee" shall mean the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, and/or any one of the 31 municipalities, including the City of Huntington Beach, which are responsible for compliance with the terms of the NPDES Permit. "DAMP" shall mean the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. as the same may be amended from time to time. "Development project guidance" shall mean DAMP Chapter V II and the appendix thereto, entitled Best Management Practices for New Development Including A'onresidential Construction Projects, as the same may be amended from time to time. "Discharge" shall mean any release, spill, leak, pump, flow, escape, leaching (including subsurface migration or deposition to groundwater). dumping or disposal of any liquid, semi-solid or solid substance. "Discharge exception" shall mean the group of activities not restricted or prohibited by this chapter, including only: I_ Discharges composed entirely of stormwater; 2. Discharges subject to regulation under current EPA or Regional Water Quality Control board issued NPDES permits, State General Permits, or other waivers, permits or approvals granted by an appropriate government agency; 3. Emergency firefighting flows (i.e., Flows necessary for the protection of life and property). Where reasonably feasible, however, and without interfering with health and safety, the use of BM Ps should be considered; 4. Diverted stream flows, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, rising groundwater, and de,minbnis ground water infiltration to the stormwater drainage system (from leaks in joints or connections or cracks in water drainage pipes or conveyance systems); 5. Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, dechlorinated to a concentration of 0.I ppnt or less, pl-1 adjusted and reoxygenated if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent causing hydrologic conditions of concern in receiving waters(cleaning wastewater and filter backlash discharges, however are prohibited). 6. Discharges to the stornnvater drainage system from passive foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, seater from crawl space pumps, passive footing drains, non-commercial vehicle washing; 7. Discharges of waters not otherwise containing waste as defined in California Water Code Section ..........I....._............. 13050(d); S. Discharges from portable water sources, including water line flushing, super-chlorinated water line flushing, fire hydrant system flushing, and pipeline hydrostatic test water: Planned discharges shall be dechlorinated to a concentration of 0,1 ppm or less, pH adjusted if necessary, and volumetrically and velocity controlled to prevent causing hydrologic conditions of concern in receiving waters. pl l must be no less than 6.5 and no greater than 3.6; 9. Other types of discharges identified and recommended by the pemlittees and approved by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. In any action taken to enforce this chapter, the burden shall be on the person who is the subject of such action to establish that a discharge was within the scope of this discharge exception. "EPA" shall mean the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States. "Fugitive dust" shall mean very small panicles suspended in the air, the source of which is primarily the earth's soil but can include dust generated from cutting stone and concrete. "Hearing officer" shall mean the Director of Public Works, Planning Director, Fire Chief or Director of Building and Safety, or his or her designee, who shall preside at the administrative hearings authorized by this chapter and issue final decisions on the matters raised therein (or) shall mean the appeals board established by separate resolution of the City Council, which shall preside at the administrative hearings authorized by this chapter and issue Final decisions on the matters raised therein. 180 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 2/12 11/29121, 5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT "Illicit connection"shall mean any man-made conveyance or drainage system, pipeline, conduit, inlet or outlet through which the discharge of any pollutant to the stormwater drainage system occurs or inay occur. The term "illicit connection" shall not include legal nonconforming connections or connections to the stormwater drainage system that are hereinafter authorized by the agency with jurisdiction over the system at the location at which the connection is made. "Imminent clanger" shall mean, but is not limited to, exigent circumstances created by the dispersal of pollutants, which present a significant and immediate threat to the public safety or the environment. "Invoice for costs" shall mean the actual costs and expenses of the City of Huntington Beach, including but not limited to administrative overhead, salaries and other expenses recoverable under state law, incurred during any inspection conducted pursuant to this chapter or where a notice of noncompliance, administrative compliance order or other enforcement option under this chapter is utilized to obtain compliance with this chapter. "Legal nonconforming connection" shall mean connections to the stormwater drainage system existing as of the adoption of this chapter that were in compliance with all federal, state and local rules, regulations, statutes and administrative requirements in effect at the time the connection was established, including but not limited to any discharge permitted pursuant to the terms and conditions of an individual discharge permit issued pursuant to the industrial waste ordinance, County Ordinance No. 703. "New development" shall mean all public and private residential (whether single-family, multi-unit or planned unit development), industrial, commercial. retail, and other nonresidential construction projects, or grading for future construction, for which either a discretionary land use approval, grading permit, building permit or nonresidential plumbing pennit is required. "Nonresidential plumbing permit" shall mean a plumbing pemlit authorizing the construction and/or installation of facilities for the conveyance of liquids other than stormwater, potable water, reclaimed water or domestic sewage. "NPDES Permit' shall mean the currently applicable municipal discharge perntit(s) issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (and/or the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, as appropriate), which pernlit(s) establishes waste discharge requirements applicable to stormwater runoff in the City of Huntington Beach. "Nuisance" shall mean any discharge permitted as a discharge exemption but identified by the authorized inspector as a nuisance and a threat to water quality, either due to the nature of the discharge, volume of the discharge, and/or potential negative impact to the receiving water body. "Person" shall mean any natural person as well as any corporation, partnership, government entity or subdivision, trust, estate, cooperative association,joint venture, business entity, or other similar entity, or the agent, employee or representative of any of the above. "Pollutant" shall mean any liquid, solid or semi-solid substances, or combination thereof, including, and not limited to: 1. Trash and debris, (such as, but not limited to, floatable plastics, wood products or metal shavings). 2. Domestic sewage. 3. Sediment due to construction or landscaping activities or due to lack of effective erosion and sediment controls. 4. Metals and non-metals, including compounds of metals and non-metals (such as cadmium, lead, zinc, copper, silver, nickel. chromium, cyanide, phosphorus and arsenic) with characteristics which cause an adverse effect on living organisms. 5. Petroleum and related hydrocarbons (such as fuels, lubricants, surfactants, waste oils. solvents, coolants and grease). 6. Animal waste and wash-water resulting from cleaning activities to areas affected by animal wastes (such as discharge from confinement facilities. kennels, pens and recreational facilities, including, stables, show facilities, or polo fields). 7. Substances having a pH less than 6.5 or greater than 8.6, or unusual coloration, turbidity or odor. 181 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeachl 3112 11129/21, 5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT S. Waste materials and wastewater generated on construction sites and by construction activities (such as painting and staining; use of sealants and glues; use of lime; use of wood preservatives and solvents; disturbance of asbestos fibers, paint flakes or stucco fragments; application of oils, lubricants, hydraulic, radiator or battery Fluids; constriction equipment washing; concrete pouring and cleanup: use of concrete detergents; steam cleaning or sand blasting: use of chemical degreasing or diluting agents: and use of super chlorinated water for portable water line Flushing). 9. Materials causing an increase in biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand or total organic carbon. 10. Materials which contain base/neutral or acid extractable organic compounds. 11. Those pollutants defined in Section 1362(6) of the Federal Clean Water Act. 12. Any other constituent or material, including, but not limited to, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, fecal colifonn, fecal streptococcus or enterococcus, or eroded soils, sediment and particulate materials, in quantities that will interfere with or adversely affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters, flora or fauna of the City and State. 13. Washwater resulting from cleaning activities of outdoor surfaces such as patios, sidewalks, walkways, building exteriors, balconies, roofs, windows and decks. 14. Discharge resulting from cleaning activities, repair. or maintenance of any type of equipment, machinery, or facility, including, but not limited to, motor vehicles, concrete mixing equipment, portable toilet servicing. etc. 15. Washwater from mobile auto detailing and washing, steam and pressure cleaning, carpet cleaning, and other such commercial and industrial mobile washing activities. 16. Water from cleanino of municipal, industrial, and commercial facilities, locations and area, including, but not limited to, parking lots, streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios. refuse enclosures, plazas, work yards, and outdoor eating or drinking areas, etc. 17. Runoff from material storage areas including, but not limited to, receptacles that contain chemicals, fuels, grease, oil, hazardous materials, fond waste, and trash/debris. 18. Non-storrnwater discharges defined as Discharge Exception but identified by the authorized inspector as a nuisance due to the nature of the discharge, volume of the discharge, and/or potential negative impact to quality. 19. Discharges of pool or fountain water containing chlorine, biocides, or other chemicals; pool filter backwash containing debris and chlorine. 20, Food service establishment or food processing facility wastes including, but not limited to, food waste, crease oil, lvashwater from floor mat, equipment, and trash enclosure cleaning activities, etc. 21. Fugitive dust. Any pollutant which is duplicative of another shall not be construed to exclude either item, as the same pollutant may be described more than one time. "Prohibited discharge" shall mean any discharge which contains any pollutant, from public or private property: I. The stormwater drainage system: 2. Any upstream flow, which is tributary to stornnvater drainage systems; 3. Any groundwater, river, stream, creek, Wash or dry weather arroyo, wetlands area, marsh, coastal slough; or 4. Any coastal harbor, bay or the Pacific Ocean. The tern "prohibited discharge"shall not include discharges allowable under the discharge exception unless declared it nuisance by City staff. "Receiving Haters" shall mean a "water of the United States' within the scope of the California Water Code. including, but not limited to, natural streams, creeks, rivers, reservoirs, lakes.. ponds, water in vernal pools, lagoons, 182 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 4/12 11129/21,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT estuaries, bays, the Pacific Ocean and groundwater. "Significant redevelopment" shall mean the rehabilitation or reconstruction of public or private residential (whether single-family, multi-unit or planned unit development), industrial, commercial, retail, or other nonresidential structures, for which either a discretionary land use approval, grading permit, building permit or nonresidential plumbing permit is required. "State General Permit" shall mean either the State Industrial General Permit or the State Construction General Permit and the terms and requirements of either or both. In the event the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") revokes the in-lieu permitting authority of the State Water Resources Control Board, then the term "State General Permit" shall also refer to any EPA administered stormwater control program for industrial and construction activities. "Stormwater drainage system" shall mean street gutter, channel, storm drain, constructed drain, lined diversion structure, wash area, inlet, outlet or other facility, which is a part of or tributary to the Countywide storm water runofTsystem and owned, operated, maintained or controlled by the City, the County of Orange, the Orange County Flood Control District, or any co-permtttec city, and used for the purpose of collecting, storing, transporting, or disposing of stormwater. (3364-8/97. 3620-12/03, 4206-7/20) 14.25.030 Prohibition on Illicit Connections and Prohibited Discharges A. No person shall: 1. Construct, maintain, operate and/or utilize any illicit connection. 2. Cause, allow or facilitate any prohibited discharge. 3. Act, cause, permit or suffer any agent, employee, or independent contractor, to construct, maintain, operate or utilize any illicit connection, or cause, allow or facilitate any prohibited discharge. B. No person shall cause, facilitate or contribute to a discharge into the stormwater drainage system, or into an area or in a manner that will result in it discharge into the stormwater drainage system of: I. Any substance causing, or threatening to cause, a condition of pollution, contamination, or a nuisance, as that terns is defined in Section 13050 of the California Water Code. ................................... 2. Any substance causing or contributing to an excecdance of any water quality standard for surface water or groundwater. C. The prohibition against illicit connections shall apply irrespective of whether the illicit connection was established prior to the date of enactment of this chapter, however, legal nonconforining connections shall not become illicit connections until the earlier of the following: 1. For all structural improvements to property installed for the purpose of discharge to the stormwater conveyance system, the expiration of five years from the adoption or amendment of this chapter establishing the rely standard. 2. For all nonstructural improvements to property existing For the purpose of discharge to the stormwater conveyance system, the expiration of six months following delivery of a notice to the owner or occupant of the property, which states a legal nonconforming connection has been identified. The notice of a legal nonconforming connection shall state the date of expiration of the use under this chapter. D. .A civil or administrative violation of Section 14.2 .030 shall occur irrespective of the negligence or intent of the violator to construct, maintain. operate or utilize an illicit connection or to cause, allow or facilitate any prohibited discharge. E. If an authorized inspector reasonably determines that a discharge, which is otherwise within the discharge exception, may adversely affect the beneficial uses of receiving waters, then the authorized inspector may give written notice to the owner of the property or facility that the discharge exception shall not apply to the subject discharge following expiration of the 30-day period commencing upon delivery of the notice. Upon expiration of the 30-day period, any such discharge shall constitute a violation of Section 1425.0 30. 183 vreay.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 5/12 11/29/21,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 BTORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT F. The owner or occupant of property on which a legal nonce»lfornling connection exists may request an administrative hearing, pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 14.25.060 for an extension of the period allowed for continued use of the connection. A reasonable extension of use may be authorized by the Director of Public Works or City Engineer, upon consideration of the following factors: I. The potential adverse ef7ects of the continued use of the connection upon the beneficial uses of receiving waters; 2. The economic investment of the discharger in the legal nonconforming connection; and 3. The financial effect upon the discharger of a termination of the legal nonconforming connection. (3364- 8/97. 4206-7/20) 14.25.040 New Development and Significant Redevelopment A. All new development and significant redevelopment shall be undertaken in accordance with: I. The DAMP, including, but not limited to, the Orange County Technical Guidance Document; 2. Any conditions and requirements established by the Community Development Department and/or the Public Works Department, which are reasonably related to the reduction or elimination of pollutants in stornnvater runoff front the project site; and 3. Conformance with the Statewide Miter Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California to control trash, also known as the Trash Provisions- B. Prior to the issuance of a grading pennit, building permit or nonresidential plumbing permit for any new development or significant redevelopment, the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department shall review the project plans and impose terms, conditions and requirements on the project in accordance with this section. If the new development or significant redevelopment will be approved without application for a grading permit. building permit or nonresidential plumbing permit, the Community Development Department and/or the Public `.forks Department shall review the project plans and impose terms, conditions and requirements on the project in accordance with this section prior to the issuance of a discretionary land use approval or, at the City's discretion, prior to recordation of a subdivision map. C. Notwithstanding the foregoing subsections, compliance with the development project guidance shall not be required for construction of a (one) single-family detached residence unless the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department determines that the construction may result in the discharge of significant levels of a pollutant into a tributary to the stormwater drainage system. D. Compliance with the conditions and requirements of the DAMP shall not exempt any person from the requirement to independently comply with each provision of this chapter. E. If the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department determines that the project will have a de rninimis impact on the quality of stormwater runoff, then it may issue a written waiver of the requirement for compliance with the provisions of the development project guidance. F. The owner of a new development or significant redevelopment project, or upon transfer of the property, its successors and assigns, shall implement and adhere to the terns, conditions and requirements imposed pursuant to this section on a new development or significant redevelopment project. Each failure by the owner of the property or its successors or assigns to implement and adhere to the terms, conditions and requirements imposed pursuant to this section on a new development or significant redevelopment project shall constitute a violation of this chapter. G. The Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department may require that the terms, conditions and requirements imposed pursuant to this section be recorded with the County Recorder's office by the property owner. The signature of the owner of the property or any successive owner shall be sufficient for the recording of these terms. conditions and requirements and a signature on behalf of the City shall not be required for recordation. 164 uwwv.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 6/12 11129121,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT 1-1. Cost Recovery. The City shall be reimbursed by the project applicant for all costs and expenses incurred by the Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department in the review of new development or significant development projects for compliance with the DAMP. The Community Development Department and/or Public Works Department may elect to require a deposit of estimated costs and expenses, and the actual costs and expenses shall be deducted from the deposit, and the balance, if any, refunded to the project applicant. 1. Litter Control 1. No person shall discard any waste material, including, but not limited to, common household rubbish or garbage of any kind (whether generated or accumulated at a residence, business or other location) upon any public or private property, whether occupied, open or vacant, including, but not limited to. any street, sidewalk, alley, right-of-way, open area or point of entry to the stormwater drainage system. 2. Every person occupying or having charge and control of property on which it prohibited disposal of waste materials occurs shall cause the proper collection and disposal of same. 3. A prohibited disposal of waste materials creates a danger to public health, safety and welfare, and othenvise threatens the environment, surface waters and groundwater; therefore, any owner or occupant of property who fails to remove waste material within a reasonable time may be charged with creating a nuisance upon the property. (3364-8/97, 4206-7/20) 14.25.050 Scope of Inspections A. Right to Inspect. Prior to commencing any inspection, the authorized inspector shall obtain either the consent of the owner or occupant of the property or shall obtain an administrative inspection warrant or criminal search warrant. B. Entry to Inspect. The authorized inspector may enter property to investigate the source of any discharge to any public street, inlet, gutter, storm drain or the stornnvater drainage systcm located within the jurisdiction of the City. C. Compliance Assessments. The authorized inspector may inspect property or business activity for the purpose of verifying compliance with this chapter, including, but not limited to: I. Conducting inspections as mandated by an NPDES permit and/or other State or Federally mandated inspections: 2. Identifying products produced, processes conducted, chemicals used and materials stored on or contained within the property; 3. Identifying point(s) of discharge of all wastewater, process water systems and pollutants: 4. Investigating the natural slope at the location, including drainage patterns and man-made conveyance systems; 5. Establishing the location of all points of discharge from the property, whether by surface runoff or through a storm drain system; 6. Locating any illicit connection or the source of prohibited discharge: 7. Investigating the condition of any legal nonconfornming connection. D. Portable Equipment. For purposes of verifying compliance with this chapter, the authorized inspector may inspect any vehicle, trek, trailer, tank truck or other mobile equipment. E. Records Review. The authorized inspector may request and inspect all records of the owner or occupant of property relating to chemicals or processes presently or previously occurring on-site, including material and/or chemical inventories, facilities maps or schematics and diagrams, material safety data sheets, hazardous waste manifests, business plans, pollution prevention plans, state general permits, stormwater pollution prevention plans, monitoring program plans and any other record(s) relating to illicit connections, prohibited discharges, a legal nonconforming connection or any other source of contribution or potential contribution of pollutants to the storm\\ater drainage system. 185 w .gcode.us/codesthuntingtonbeachl 7/12 11/29/21,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT F. Sample and Test. "Elie authorized inspector may inspect, sample and test any area runoff, soils area (including groundwater testing), process discharge, materials within any waste storage area (including any container contents), and/or treatment system discharge for the purpose of determining the potential for contribution of pollutants to the stonnwater drainage system. "Elie authorized inspector may investigate the integrity of all storm drain and sanitary sc\vcr systems, any legal nonconforming connection or other pipelines on the property using appropriate tests, including, but not limited to, stoke and dye tests or video surveys. The authorized inspector may take photographs or video tape, make measurements or drawings, and create any other record reasonably necessary to document conditions on the property. G. iN9onitoring. "Elie authorized inspector may erect and maintain monitoring devices for the purpose of measuring any discharge or potential source of discharge to the stormwater drainage system. 11. Test Results. The owner or occupant of property subject to inspection shall, on submission of a written request, receive copies of all monitoring and test results conducted by the authorized inspector. 1. Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Footage. In the event of a sanitary sewer overflow, the authorized inspector may request the owner to conduct a CCTV inspection of the sanitary sewer line and sewer laterals and provide the CCTV footage to the inspector. (3364-3/97, 4206-7/20) 14.25.060 Enforcement A. Administrative Remedies I. Notice and Service of Orders. Orders for Noncompliance, Administrative Compliance, Cease and Desist and Cost Recovery may be issued to and served upon the property owner pursuant to the following procedure: a. The Notice shall be served and delivery shall be deemed complete upon the property owner or occupant by: i. Personal service: ii. Seven days after deposit in the U.S. mail, postage prc-paid for first class delivery. \\'here the recipient of notice is the owner of the property, the address for notice shall be the mailing address from the most recently issued equalized assessment roll for the property, or the address as it appears in the current records of the City: iii. Via electronic mail: or iv. Where the owner or occupant of any property cannot be located after the reasonable efforts of the authorized inspector, notice shall be deemed delivered after posting on the property for a period of 10 business days. b. Notice may be served upon any or all of the following parties: i. The owner or occupant of any property requiring abatement of conditions on the property that cause or may cause a prohibited discharge or an illicit connection in violation of this chapter. ii. The owner of property subject to terms, conditions or requirements imposed on a project in accordance with Section 14.25.040 to ensure adherence to those terms, conditions and requirements. .............................. iii. A pennittee subject to the requirements of any permit issued pursuant to Section 14.25.070 to ensure compliance with the terns, conditions and requirements of the permit. iv. Any person responsible for an illicit connection or prohibited discharge. c. The Notice shall state that the property owner or occupant has a right to appeal the matter by filing a written request for an administrative hearing with the office of the City Clerk, within 30 days of the date of the Notice. The appeal shall be accompanied by an administrative hearing fee as established by separate Resolution of the City Council. 2. Notice of Noncompliance. The authorized inspector may deliver to the owner or occupant of any property, or to any person responsible for an illicit connection or prohibited discharge a Notice of Noncompliance. The Notice of Noncompliance shall: 186 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 8/12 11/29/21, 5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT a. Identify the provision(s) of this chapter or the applicable pennit which has been violated. The Notice of Noncompliance shall state that continued noncompliance may result in additional enforcement actions against the owner. occupant and/or person. b. The Notice of Noncompliance shall state a compliance date that must be met by the owner, occupant and/or person: provided. however, that the compliance date may not exceed 90 days unless the authorized inspector extends the compliance deadline an additional 90 days where good cause exists for the extension. 3. Issuance and Terms of Administrative Compliance Orders. The authorized inspector may issue an Administrative Compliance Order. The Administrative Compliance Order may include the following terms and requirements: a. Specific steps and time schedules for compliance as reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent threat of a prohibited discharge, including, but not limited to, a prohibited discharge from any pond, pit, well, surface impoundment, holding or storage area: b. Specific steps and time schedules for compliance as reasonably necessary to discontinue any illicit connection: C. Specific requirements for containment, cleanup, removal, storage, installation of overhead covering, or proper disposal of any pollutant having the potential to contact stomnvater runoff: d. Any other terns or requirements reasonably calculated to prevent the imminent threat of or continuing violations of this chapter, including, but not limited to, requirements for compliance with best management practices guidance documents promulgated by any Federal, State of California or regional agency: C. Any other terns or requirements reasonably calculated to achieve full compliance with the terns, conditions and requirements of any permit issued pursuant hereto. 4. Issuance and Terms of Cease and Desist Orders. The authorized inspector may issue a Cease and Desist Order directing the noticed party responsible for a violation of this chapter to: a. Immediately discontinue any illicit connection or prohibited discharge to the stornmvater drainage system: b. Comply with the terms, conditions and requirements of, and immediately cease any activity in violation of any Discharge Permit issued pursuant to Section 14,25.070: C. Immediately contain or divert any flow of water off the property, where the flow is occurring in violation of any provision of this chapter: d. Immediately discontinue any other violation of this chapter. and/or c. Clean up the area affected by the violation. 5. Issuance of Order for Recovery of Costs. The authorized inspector may deliver an Order for Recovery of Costs to the owner or occupant of any property, any perniatee or any other person who becomes subject to a Notice of Noncommpliance or Administrative Compliance Order. An Order for Recovery of Costs shall be delivered in accordance with this section. An Order for Recovery of Costs shall be immediately due and payable to the City for the actual costs incurred by the City in issuing and enforcing any notice or order. If any owner or occupant, permittee or any other person subject to an Order for Recovery of Costs fails to either pay the Order for Recovery of Costs or successfully appeal the Order for Recovery of Costs in accordance with this section, then the City Attorney may institute collection proceedings. 6. Administrative Hearing for Notices of Noncompliance, Administrative Compliance Orders, Invoices for Costs and Adverse Determinations. Except as set forth in subsection (A)(S) below, any person receiving a Notice of Noncompliance, Administrative Compliance Order, Order for Recovery of Costs, or any person who is subject to any adverse determination made pursuant to this chapter, may appeal the matter by filing a written request for an administrative hearing with the office of the City Clerk within 30 days of the Notice. The appeal request shall be accompanied by an administrative hearing fee as established by separate 187 vM .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 9/12 11129/21,5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT City Council resolution, with a copy of the request for administrative hearing mailed on the date of tiling tothe City Manager. Thereafter, a hearing on the matter shall be held before the hearing officer within 45 days of the date of filing of the written request unless, at the reasonable discretion of the hearing officer and pursuant to a written request by the appealing party, a continuance of the hearing is granted. 7. Administrative Hearing for Cease and Desist Orders and Emergency Abatement Actions. A request for an administrative hearing shall not be required from the person subject to the Cease and Desist Order or an Emergency Abatement Action. An administrative hearing on the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order or following an Emergency Abatement Action shall be held within five business days following the issuance of the Order or the Emergency Abatement, unless the hearing (or the time requirement for the hearing) is waived in writing by the party subject to the cease and desist order or the emergency abatement. 8. Hearing Proceedings. The authorized inspector shall appear in support of the Notice of Noncompliance. Compliance Order, Cease and Desist Order, Order for Recovery of Costs or Emergency Abatement Action, and the appealing party shall appear in support of withdrawal of the same. The City shall have the burden of supporting any enforcement or other action by a preponderance of the evidence. Each party shall have the right to present testimony and other documentary evidence as necessary for explanation of the case. 9. Final Decision and Appeal. The final decision of the hearing officer shall be issued within 10 business days of the conclusion of the hearing and shall be delivered by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the parties. The final decision shall include notice that any legal challenge to the final decision shall be made pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1094.5 and 1094.6 and shall be commenced within 90 days following issuance of the final decision. The administrative hearing fee paid by a prevailing party in an appeal shall be refunded. Notwithstanding this subsection (A)(9), the final decision of the hearing officer in any preceding determining the validity of a cease and desist order or following an emergency abatement action shall be mailed within five business days following the conclusion of the hearing. 10. City Abatement. In the event of an illegal discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system, the responsible party(property owner, contractor, business owner, etc.) shall be responsible for the cleanup of affected areas including all downstream conveyance structures, atTeeted public/private property, and receiving water bodies. However, the authorized inspector may assign responsibility of the cleanup/abatement to City staff or contract staff if the size, nature, and or complexity of the cleanup is beyond the capability of the responsible party. If in the event of an illegal discharge of pollutants. the operator of a facility, property owner or any other person fails to comply with any provision of a Compliance Order issued to such owner, operator, permittee or person pursuant to this chapter, the authorized inspector may request the City Attorney to obtain an abatement warrant or other appropriate judicial authorization to enter the property, abate the condition and restore the area. Any costs incurred by the City in obtaining and carrying out an abatement warrant or other judicial authorization may be recovered pursuant to this section. 13. Nuisance. Any condition in violation of the prohibitions of this chapter, including, but not limited to, the maintenance or use of any illicit connection or the occurrence of any prohibited discharge, shall constitute a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and is declared and deemed a nuisance pursuant to Government Code Section 38771. At the request of the City Manager, the City Attorney may seek a court order to enjoin and/or abate the nuisance pursuant to the following procedure: I. Notice to Owner and Occupant. Prior to seeking any court order to enjoin or abate a nuisance or threatened nuisance, the authorized inspector shall provide notice of the proposed injunction or abatement to the owner and occupant, if any, of the property where the nuisance or threatened nuisance is occurring. 2. Emergency Abatement. In the event the nuisance constitutes an Imminent Danger to public safety or the environment, the authorized inspector may enter the property from which the nuisance emamatcs, abate the nuisance and restore any property affected by the nuisance. To the extent reasonably practicable, infornial notice shall be provided to the owner or occupant prior to abatement. If necessary to protect the public safety or the environment, abatement may proceed without prior notice to or consent from the owner or occupant, of and without judicial warrant, provided that an administrative hearing pursuant to this section shall follow the abatement action. lea �.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 10/12 11/29/21, 5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT 3. Reimbursement of Cnsts. All costs incurred by the City in responding to any nuisance, all administrative expenses and all other expenses recoverable under State law, shall be recoverable from the person(s) creating, causing, committing, permitting or maintaining the nuisance. f. Nuisance Lien. All costs shall become a lien against the property from which the nuisance emanated and a personal obligation against the owner in accordance with Government Code Sections 38773.1 and 38773.5. ....--....................-- The owner of record of the property subject to any lien shall be given notice of the lien prior to recording as required by Goh cmment Code Section 38773.1. At the direction of the authorized inspector, the City Attorney is authorized to collect nuisance abatement costs or enforce a nuisance lien in an action brought for a money judgment or by delivery to the County Assessor of a special assessment against the property in accord with the conditions and requirements of Government Coale ...................................................... Section 38773.5. C. Criminal Sanctions 1. Prosecutor. The City Attorney may act on the request of the authorized inspector to pursue enforcement actions in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. 2. Infractions. Notwithstanding Chapter 1 16 of this Code, any person who may otherwise be charged with a misdemeanor under this chapter may be charged, at the discretion of the City Attomey, with an infraction punishable by a tine of not more than S100.00 for a first violation. S200.00 for a second violation, and a fine not exceeding S500.00 for each additional violation occurring within one year. 3. Misdemeanors. Any person who negligently or knowingly violates any provision of this chapter, undertakes to conceal any violation of this chapter, continues any violation of this chapter after notice thereof, or violates the terms, conditions and requirements of any permit issued pursuant to this chapter, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than S 1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six months, or both. D. Administrative Citations. Violations of this chapter are subject to the issuance of administrative citations under the provisions of Chapter 1.18 of this Code. E. Consecutive Violations. Each instance in which a business, property owner, or other persons fails to comply with the correction due clatc(s) and time(s) established in a Notice of Noncompliance, an Administrative Citation, an Administrative Compliance Order, or a Cease and Desist Order, shall constitute a separate violation of this chapter punishable by fines or sentences issued in accordance herewith. F. Nonexclusive Remedies. Each and every remedy available for the enforcement of this chapter, shall be nonexclusive and it is within the discretion of the authorized inspector or City Attorney to seek cumulative remedies, except that multiple monetary fines or penalties shall not be available for any single violation of this chapter. G. Citations. Pursuant to Penal Code Section 836.5, the authorized inspector shall have the authority to cause the ................................ arrest of any person committing it violation of this chapter. The person shall be released and issued a citation to appear before a magistrate in accordance with Penal Code Sections 853.5, 853.6 and 853.9, unless the person demands to be taken before a magistrate. Following issuance of any citation the authorized inspector shall refer the matter to the City Attorney. Each citation to appear shall state the name and address of the violator, the provisions of this chapter violated, and the time and place of appearance before the court, which shall be at least 10 business days after the date of violation. The person cited shall sign the citation giving his or her written promise to appear as stated therein. If the person cited fails to appear, the City Attomcy may request issuance of a warrant for the arrest of the person cited. 1-1. Violations of Other Laws. Any person acting in violation of this chapter also may be acting in violation of the Federal Clean Water Act or the State Porter-Cologne Act and other laws and also may be subject to sanctions including civil liability. Accordingly, the City Attorney is authorized to file a citizen suit pursuant to Federal Clean Water Act Section 505(a), seeking penalties, damages, and orders compelling compliance and other appropriate relief The City Attorney may notify EPA Region IX, the Santa Ana or San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Boards, or any other appropriate state or local agency, of any alleged violation of this chapter. 189 u w.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 11/12 11/29121. 5:06 PM Chapter 14.25 STORMWATER AND URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT I. Injunctions. At the request of the authorized inspector, the City Attontey may cause the filing in a court of competent jurisdiction of a civil action seeking an injunction against any threatened or continuing noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter. J. Order for Reimbursement. Any temporary, preliminary or permanent injunction issued pursuant hereto may include an order for reimbursement to the City of all costs incurred in enforcing this chapter, including costs of inspection, investigation and monitoring, the costs of abatement undertaken at the expense of the City, costs relating to restoration of the environment and all other expenses as authorized by law. K. Civil Damages. The authorized inspector may request the City Attorney file: I. An action for civil damages in a court of competent jurisdiction seeking recovery of: (a) all costs incurred in enforcement of this chapter, including, but not limited to, costs relating to investigation, sampling, monitoring, inspection, administrative expenses, all other expenses as authorized by law, and consequential damages: (b) all costs incurred in mitigating harm to the environment or reducing the threat to human health, and (c) damages for irreparable harm to the environment. 2. The City Attorney is authorized to file actions for civil damages resulting from any trespass or nuisance occurring on public land or to the stormwater drainage system from any violation of this chapter where the same has caused damage, contamination or harm to the environment, public property or the stomtwater drainage system. 3. The remedies available to the City pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall not limit the right of the City to seek any other remedy that may be available by law. (3364-8/97, 3620-12/03. 4206-7/20) 14.25.070 Interagency Cooperation A. The City intends to cooperate with other agencies With jurisdiction over stonncvatcr discharges to ensure that the regulatory purposes underlying stormwater regulations promulgated pursuant to the Clean Water Act(33 USC Section 1251 et seq.) are met. B. The City may, to the extent authorized by law, elect to contract for the services of any public agency or private enterprise to carry out the planning approvals, inspections, permits, abatements, and enforcement authorized by this chapter. (3364-8/97,4206-7/20) 14.25.080 Miscellaneous A. Compliance Disclaimer. Full compliance by any person or entity with the provisions of this chapter shall not preclude the need to comply with other local, State or Federal statutory or regulatory requirements, which may be required for the control of the discharge of pollutants into stonmvater and/or the protection of stormwater quality. 13. Severability. If any provision of this chapter or its application to any circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the chapter shall not be affected. (3364-8/97, 4206-7/20) 14.25.090 Judicial Review The provisions of Sections 1094 and 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure set forth the procedure forjudicial review of any act taken pursuant to this chapter. Parties seeking judicial review of any action taken pursuant to this chapter shall file such action within 90 days of the occurrence of the event for which review is sought. (3364-8/97, 4206-7/20) View the mobile version. 190 w .gcode.us/codes[huntingtonbeach/ 12112 11129/21,5:09 PM Chapter 14.36 SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTIONS, FEES,CHARGES AND DEPOSITS Huntington Beach Charter and Codes Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames MUNICIPAL CODE Title 14 WATER AND SEWERS Chapter 14.36 SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTIONS, FEES, CHARGES AND DEPOSITS Note Sate: §§ 14.36.030 and 14.36.050 repealed by Ord.3613-9/03: § 14.36.050 repealed by Ord.3795-1/09. [Ordinance. 0.3 327(cepired 4/15110)and Ordinance No. 3379.effective from 5/3/10 to 5/3/I I,temporuri ly deferred the payment of certain Development Impact Fees.] 14.36.005 Intent and Purpose A. This chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach Genera[ Plan, by ensuring the long-tenn adequacy of the City's sewer facilities are maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. Fly imposing a fee or charge that is reasonably related to the burdens created by ncNv development on the City's sewer system, together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan. B. It is the intent of the City Council that the charge required by this chapter shall be supplementary to any conditions imposed upon it development project pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, other state and local laws, ordinances or Charter provisions which may authorize the imposition of conditions on development. (3613-9/03) 14.36.006 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as follows: "Applicant" shall mean any person or legal entity that applies for a permit or other entitlement for a new development project. -City" shall mean the City of Huntington Beach- "Equivalent dwelling unit (EDU)" shall refer to the unit cost assessed to it non-residential development. "Multiple family dwelling unit" shall mean a building or buildings designed with two or more dwelling units. "Public Works Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works or the Director's designee. "Sewer connection fee,""fee" or"charge" shall mean the fee imposed on new development projects pursuant to this chapter. "Single-family unit" shall mean a detached building designed primarily for use as a single dwelling, no portion of which is rented as a separate unit, except as permitted by this Code.Attached single-family dwellings shall be considered as multifamily. (3613-9/03) 14.36.010 Service Application—Form All persons requesting service frorn the City sewer system shall file a written application, signed by the applicant, or his or her agent, containing the following information: A. The address or location of the premises to be served; B. Whether the applicant is owner, developer, occupant or lessee, or agent of any of the foregoing: C. The name and address of the applicant if such person is not the occupant or lessee of the premises: D. Any additional information which the Director may require. (2931-4/88, 3613-9/03) 191 warw.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 1/3 11129/21,5:09 PM Chapter 14.36 SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTIONS, FEES,CHARGES AND DEPOSITS 14.36.030 Encroachment Permit—Connection by Applicant A. No person shall install any pipe, apparatus, appliance or connection to any part of the City sewer system without first obtaining an encroachment permit to do so. The applicant shall bear the cost for all labor and materials, and shall be a licensed contractor or shall employ a contractor duty licensed under the laws of the State of Califomia to perform such work. The applicant shall also be responsible for the cost of constructing, maintaining, or replacing any part of a sewer system on private property, required by the Director, front the sewer main line to and including any on-site structure. B. Applicant shall comply with all relevant portions of Title 12 of this Code not inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter. (2931-4/88. 3613-9/03) 14.36.040 Change of Occupancy—Installation of Separate Lines Whenever occupancy on a parcel of land is chanced from one to two or more, and more than one occupancy on such parcel is served by the City sewer system, an additional connection fee shall apply. The Director, at his or her discretion, may require the owner of such a parcel of land to install separate sewer lines for each occupancy. (29314/88, 3613-9/03) 14.36.060 Private Premises—User/Owner Responsibility The City shall in no way whatsoever be responsible for any damage to persons or property because of any leakage, breakage, or seepage from, or accident or damage to, any sewer pipe or its appurtenances located on any private premises; nor shall the City be responsible for or on account of any damage, injury or loss caused directly or indirectly by the existence on private premises of any sewer pipe or its appurtenances. (2931-4/88, 3613-9/03) 14.36.070 Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Established—Fees and Charges A. 'there is hereby established, pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66013 and 66483 et seq., a sanitary sewer facilities fund. As a condition precedent to granting applications for sewer connections, or an increase in an applicant's water meter size, the Department of Public Works is hereby authorized to collect fees and charges in amounts which shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing a City sewer system, maintaining same, and for future replacements or extensions thereof('sewer service charge"). All monies collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited into the sanitary sewer facilities fund. B. Except as otherwise provided in Chapter 14.44, the sewer service charge authorized by this chapter shall be collected and expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of sanitary sewer facilities within the City's service area, and to reimburse the City for the cost of engineering and construction services to rehabilitate existing facilities or construct new sewer facilities. C. The monies collected pursuant to this chapter and deposited into the sanitary sewer facilities fund account shall be used solely for the purposes specified in this chapter. All monies deposited into the sanitary sewer facilities fund shall be held separate and apart front other City funds. All interest and other earnings on the unexpended balance in the sanitary sewer facilities fund shall be credited to the sanitary sewer facilities fund. D. Within 180 days aller the last day of each fiscal year, the City Council shall review the status of compliance with this chapter, including the amount of funds collected, expenditures front the sanitary sewer fund facilities reserve account, and the degree to which the fees and charges collected pursuant to this chapter have been expended on existing sewer system facilities or new facilities that benefit the applicant or the development for which the fee or charge was collected. At least every five years after the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, the Public Works Director shall prepare, and the City Council shall consider, the fee formula established to implement this chapter, whether any adjustment in the fee forula or use of fee proceeds is warranted, or any other changes are needed to the procedures established by this chapter, to fulfill the goals, objectives or policies of the City's General Plan and the sewer master plan. Each year between periodic reviews of the fee formla, the fee shall be increased by a factor to account for inflation in construction costs, as provided for by Section 14.36.110. (2931-4/88, 3(b3-9/03) w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 2/3 11129/21,5:09 PM Chapter 14.36 SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTIONS, FEES,CHARGES AND DEPOSITS 14.36.085 City Sewer Service Area—Fee Schedule The City operates and maintains a City-wide wastewater collection and pumping system. The City's planned local sanitary service area is as described in the City's sewer master plan and consists of a City-wide sanitary sewer system. The sewer master plan evaluates the capacity of this City-wide sewer system and identifies a plan to provide sewer service to existing and anticipated future users as a result of new, development. The sewer master plan also contains an estimate of total costs of constructing the City's sewer facilities required by the sewer master plan to serve new, development, a map of the City's sewer service area and the location of the City's sewer facilities. The sewer service charge authorized by this chapter shall be set by resolution of the City Council, which resolution shall set forth the sewer system charge for single family dwelling units, multiple family dwelling units and for equivalent dwelling units ("EDU') as defined by this chapter. (2931-4/88, 361 1-9/03) 14.36.090 Payment A. The sewer service charge and all other applicable sewer fees, including county sewer fees, shall be paid to the City prior to recording the final subdivision map with the County Recorder's Office, or prior to issuance of a building permit by the City if a subdivision map is not required. B. The subdivider or person to whom a building permit has been issued may enter into a standard reimbursement agreement with the City, pursuant to Chapter 14.44 of this Code. (2931-4/88. 2985-3/89. 3613-9/03, 3827-4/09, 3879-6/10) (Ordinance No.3827(expired 4115110)and Ordinance No.3879,effective from 513110 to 513111.temporarily deferred the pa�mcm of certain Devclopt um Impact Fees.1 14.36.100 Fee Adjustments Any applicant subject to the sewer service charge authorized by this chapter may apply to the Director of Public Works for a reduction, adjustment or waiver of the fee. Circumstances that may justify a fee adjustment include an applicant's proposal to increase to a larger water meter size and sufficient information about the prior use is available to determine that credit for the existing meter size is warranted. A decision of the Director of Public Works to deny an applicant's request for a fee adjustment or waiver may be appealed by filing a fee adjustment application with the Director of Public %Vorks. Such application shall be made on a form provided by the Director of Public Works and shall be filed with the Director of Public `.Yorks at the time of the application for building permit. Bach application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested fee reduction, adjustment or waiver. The Director of Public Works shall determine if the fee adjustment application is complete. The Public Works Commission shall consider the fee adjustment application at a hearing within 60 clays after the fee adjustment application is deemed complete by the Director of Public Works. The decision of the Public Works Commission will be final with respect to City action on the appeal. (2931-4/88, 3613-9/03) 14.36.110 Annual Construction Cost Index Adjustments A. Each sewer system charge shall be adjusted to reflect the annual percentage adjustment in the Construction Cost Index ("CCI") established by Engineering(Yews Record as published by :McGraw Hill Construction/McGraw Hill Companies as of July I st each year. B. Adjustments based on these criteria will be determined on July I st of each year. The adjustments will be implemented effective the following October Ist, which is the beginning of the City's fiscal year. (2931-4/88, 3613- 9/03) Vicw the mobile version. 193 w v+.gcode.us/cocies/huntingtonbeach/ 313 11f29121,4:56 PM Chapter 14.44 SEWER MAIN EXTENSIONS Huntington Beach Charter and Codes Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames MUNICIPAL CODE Title 14 WATER AND SEWERS Chapter 14.44 SEWER MAIN EXTENSIONS 14.44.010 Application Any person, as owner or subdivider of a single lot, subdivision, or tract of land, who desires the extension of sewer mains and connections to such lot, subdivision. or tract of land, shall file a written application lvith the Department of Public Works. Any number of persons owning or subdividing contiguous lots or tracts of land mayjoln In a single application. (2931-4/88) 14.44.020 Plans and Specifications Plans and specifications, as required by the Director, shall be prepared and submitted at the sole cost of the applicant prior to approval of an application for extension of any sewer main or connection. (2931-4/88) 14.44.030 System Requirements Determined Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66485, the Director of Public Works may determine that it is in the best interests of the City that the improvements to be installed by the applicant shall include supplemental sizes. capacities, numbers or lengths for the benefit of property not within the subdivision. Supplemental length may include minimum size offsite sewer Tines necessary to reach it sewer outlet in existence at the time application is made. Such improvements shall be dedicated to the City, and the cost therefor shall be bore by the applicant. (2931-4/88) 14.44.040 Reimbursement Agreement Pursuant to Government Code Section 66485, the applicant shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City under the following terms and conditions: A. Reimbursement shall be made for it period of 10 years only, and shall commence from and after the date all basic and any required supplenmental improvements have been completed, approved by the Director, dedicated to and accepted by the City. B. Reimbursement to the applicant shall be made for that portion of the cost, including an amount attributable to interest, in excess of the actual construction required for the subdivision. C. Reimbursement shall be made only to the original applicant or applicants. The right to reimbursement shall terminate upon the death of applicant(s). In the event applicant is it corporation, company, firm. association, organization, partnership,joint venture, or syndicate, dissolution shall terminate the right to reimbursement. D. Reimbursement shall be made from the sanitary sewer area fund for which fees from subsequent development comprising such fund are collected for the planned sanitary sewer area in which the sanitary server facilities constructed by applicant are located_ (2931-4/88) 14.44.050 Liability A. Neither the City nor the department shall be liable for failure to reimburse fees to an applicant by reason of its omission to collect or receive fees from any person connecting to or utilizing supplemental improvements made or paid for by an applicant. 13. The City's refusal to allow a connection or connections to a main line or supplemental improvements, constructed and paid for by an applicant, shall not make the City or the department liable for any reimbursement of 194 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 1/2 11/29/21,4:56 PM Chapter 14.44 SEWER MAIN EXTENSIONS fees which might have accrued if such connection and utilization had been permitted. C. The City reser-ves the right to exempt another public agency from paying fees for connecting to or using supplemental improvements, and shall not be liable to an applicant for any failure to collect fees therefrom. (2931- 4/83) View the mobile version. 195 H .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeacht 212 11/29121, 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS,OILS AND GREASE Huntington Beach Charter and Codes Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames MUNICIPAL CODE Title 14 WATER AND SEWERS Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS, OILS AND GREASE 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 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: "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. "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. "Establishment" shall mean commercial or industrial establishments, including but not limited to retail food service establishments, that may discharge fats, oils and grease. "FOG" shall mean fats, oils and grease. Any substance such as a vegetable or animal product that is used in, or is a byproduct of, the cooking or food preparation process, and that turns or may tum viscous or solidifies with it change in temperature or other condition is included in this definition. "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. "Food service establishment"shall mean facilities defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 113255 or which has any process or device that uses or produces FOG, grease vapors, steam, fumes, smoke, or odors that are required to be removed by a Type I hood, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 113235. A limited food preparation establishment is not considered a food service establishment nor 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 font flavor, or consistency of food. "Gravity grease interceptor(GGI) or grease trap" shall mean it water-tight receptacle receiving and retaining waste containing fats, oils, and grease from food service establishments, and in all cases shall be located outside a place of business or any structure. Minimum size shall be 750 gallons. Additional sizing criteria are set forth by the current adopted plumbing code. "Grease control device" shall mean any gravity grease interceptor, hydrotnechanical 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. "Hydromechanical grease interceptor(HGI) or grease trap" shall mean a water-tight receptacle receiving and retaining waste containing fats, oils and grease from food service establishments. The HGI is generally located inside a business or structure. Sizing criteria are set forth by the current adopted plumbing code. "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. "Inflow" shall mean water entering a sewer system through a direct stornlwater runoff connection to the sanitary sewer, which may cause an almost immediate increase in wastewater flows. 196 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach! 1/8 11/29/21, 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS,OILS AND GREASE "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. "New construction" shall mean any structure planned or under construction for which a sewer connection permit has not been issued. "New food service establishment" shall mean any new or existing food service establishment that has undergone change in ownership or change in operation which would involve animal products in the cooking or food preparation process or as a byproduct of the cooking and preparation of food. "Person" shall mean anv individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation or public agency, including the State of Califomia and the United States of America. "Private sewer lateral" shall mean that part of the sewer lateral that is solely owned and required to be maintained by the property owner. "Remodeling" shall mean a physical change or operational change causing the generation of the amount of FOG that exceeds the current amount of FOG discharge to the sewer system by the food service establishment in an amount that alone or collectively causes or creates a potential for sewer system overflows to occur: or exceeding a cost of'S50,000.00 to food service establishments that requires a building permit, and involves any one or combination of the following: I. Under slab plumbing in the food processing area; 2. A 30% increase in the net public setting area: 3. A 30% increase in the size of the kitchen area: 4. Any change in the size or type of food preparation equipment. "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. "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. "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. "Sewer lateral" shall mean a building sewer as defined in the latest edition of the California Plumbill Code. It is ................... .................. the wastewater connection between the building's wastewater facilities and a public sewer system. "Sludge" shall mean any solid, semisolid or liquid decant, subnatc or supemate from a manufacturing process, utility service, or pretreatment facility. "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. "Wastewater" shall mean the liquid and water-carried wastes of the community and all constituents thereof, whether treated or untreated, discharged into or permitted to enter a public server. (3683-12/04: 3979-7/13) 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. (3689-12/04) 14.56.030 Enforcement of Chapter 197 w .gccde.us/codes/huntingtonbeach! 2/8 11/29/21, 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS,OILS AND GREASE The City's Director of Public Works and the Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee is responsible for enforcement of this chapter and for all detenninations of compliance with it. (3688-12/04: 3979-7/13) 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 140`F to any grease control dcvicc, 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 from the Director is obtained. G. Discharge of wastes frorn toilets, urinals, leash basins, 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 wastehauled periodically as part of the operation and maintenance requirements for grease interceptors. Licensed wastehaulers or an approved recycling facility shall be used to dispose of FOG, including waste cooking oil. (3688-12/04, 3979-7/13) 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. (3688-12/04) 14.56.060 FOG Fee All food service establishments shall pay a monthly fee as set by resolution of the City Council to offset the costs of enforcing this chapter. (3688-12/04: 3979-7/13) 14.56.070 FOG Pretreatment Required A. All new food service establishments are required to install, operate and maintain an approved type and adequately sized grease control device necessary to maintain compliance with the objectives of this chapter. Existing food service establishments with no grease control device 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. 13. The grease control device 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. (3688-12/K 3979-7/13) 14.56.080 Single Parcels 198 �.gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 318 11/29/21, 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS,OILS AND GREASE Properly 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. (3688-12/04) 14.56.090 New Construction This section shall not be interpreted to allow new construction, remodeling or change in operations without an approved gravity grease interceptor unless it is determined by the Building and Safety Division of the Planning and Building Department that it is impossible or impracticable to install or operate a gravity grease control interceptor for the subject facility under the provisions of this chapter. In instances whereby a gravity grease interceptor is impossible or impractical to install or operate, a properly sized hydrornechanical grease interceptor can be installed in lieu of a gravity grease interceptor. (3688-12/04; 3979-7/13) 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 owncr 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. Food facilities that experience two or more SSOs within a one-year period or three within a five-year period may be required at the behest of the Director of Public Works to install a FOG pretreatment unit if the food establishment does not have one or upgrade to a larger unit to prevent future SSOs. (3688-12/04; 3979-7/13) 14.56.110 Nuisance Declared Sewer system overflows may cause threat and injury to public health, safety, and welfare of life and property and arc hereby declared public nuisances. (3688-12/04) 14.56.120 Grease Interceptor Requirements All grease interceptors must comply with all relevant City ordinances, and the current edition of the California 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 Planning and Building and shall have a minimum of two compartments with fittings designed for grease retention and a sampling box. 13. 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 inches, 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. (3688-12/04; 3979-7/13) 14.56.130 Grease Interceptor Maintenance Requirements 1ss www.gcode.us/codesthuntingtonbeach/ 418 11/29121,5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS,OILS AND GREASE 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 it 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 it 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 three months. Grease interceptors shall be fully pumped out and cleaned quarterly when the frequency described in paragraph I Of this subsection 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 said paragraph. 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. 3. If the grease interceptor, at any time, contains FOG and solids accumulation that does not meet the requirements described in paragraph I of this subsection, 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. 4. Food service establishments that operate on a seasonal basis can apply for a variance in writing to the Director of Public `.Yorks from the minimum grease interceptor service requirements provided that records for the past year indicate FOG accumulation levels of less than 25% of the total hydraulic volume of dtc grease interceptor. (3688-12/04: 3979-7/13) 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. C. 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. (3688-12/04) 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. (3688-12/04) 14.56.160 Requirements for Best Management Practices 200 w .goode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 518 11/29121. 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS, OILS AND GREASE 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. 13. All establishments shall be required, at a mininwm, to comply with the following best management practices: 1. Installation of Drain Screens. Drain screens shall be installed on all sanitary sewer 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. Employees of the food service establishment shall be trained once every six months, and all new-hires must be trained within two weeks of employment, on the following subjects: a. How to 'dry wipe' pots, pans, dishware and work areas before washing to remove grease. b. How to properly dispose of food waste and solids prior to disposal in trash bins or containers to prevent leaking and odors. C. The location and use of absorption products to clean under fryer baskets and other locations where grease may be spilled or dripped. d. 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/her 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 of properly. 6. Kitchen Signage. Best management and waste minimization practices shall be posted conspicuously in the food preparation and dishwashing areas at all times. (3683-12/04: 3979-7/13) 14.56.170 Monitoring and Reporting Conditions A. Monitoring for Compliance with Ordinance and Reporting Requirements. I. The Director of Public Works may require of the establishment periodic reporting of the status of implementation of best management practices. 2. The Director of Public Works may require visual monitoring at the sole expense of the establishment which generates FOG to observe the actual conditions of any establishments, including food service establishments that generate FOG, sewer lateral and sewer lines downstream. 3. The Director of Public Works may require written reports from a certified laboratory 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 undertaking such monitoring analyses and preparation of reports. 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 201 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 6l8 11/29/21, 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS, OILS AND GREASE disposal site location for no less than four years. The establishment shall, upon request, make the manifests, receipts and invoices available to the Director or his/her designee These records may include: I. A logbook of grease control device cleaning and maintenance practices. 2. A record of best nhanaeement practices being implemented including employee training. 3. Copies of records and manifests of wastchauling 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"Pampering 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. (3688-12/04: 3979-7/13)) 14.56,180 Inspection and Sampling Conditions A. The Director of Public Works 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 of Public Works 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 representatives of the City shall be permitted to enter 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 of Public Works. 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, or any other reasonable time. D. In order for the Director of Public Works 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 tninimum of four 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 detennined 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. (3688-12/04: 3979-7/13) 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. (3688-12/04) 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 inhmediatelv20ptifv the w ,.gcode.us/cDdes/huntingtonbeach/ 7/8 11/29121, 5:10 PM Chapter 14.56 CONTROL AND REGULATION OF FATS,OILS AND GREASE Utilities Division of the Public Works Department. If the material discharged to the sclver 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 of Public Works no later than five 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 front 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. (3688-12/04: 3979-7/13) 14.56.205 Private Sewer Lateral Maintenance Requirement All private sewer laterals must be periodically cleaned at a minimum frequency that prevents SSOs from occurring or blockages of more than 25% of the now capacity of the private sewer lateral. (3979-7/13) 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 lines, penalties, and assessments made by other agencies or a court. (3688-12/04) View the mobile version. 203 w .gcode.us/codes/huntingtonbeach/ 8/8 11/29/21,4:53 PM Chapter 17.44 PLUMBING CODE Huntington Beach Charter and Codes Up Previous Next Main Collapse Search Print No Frames MUNICIPAL CODE Title 17 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Chapter 17.44 PLUMBING CODE Note :Note: $§ 17.44.030 and 17.44.095 repealed by Ord.3790-1/08: y§ 1 7A4.040. 1 7.44.050 and 17.44.090 repealed by Ord.3022-12/89; � 17.44.061 7.44.OSO repealed by Ord.3147-7/92: y 17.44.100 repealed by 3309-12/95. _....._._............ ._........_........... ........................ 17.44.010 Adoption The 2019 Calitbrnia Plunlbina C - provided, but excluding Chapters 1, entitled "Administration' (codified in Part 5 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations), as published by the International Code Council and the California Building Standards Commission, is _........................ . hereby adopted by reference, subject to the amendments, deletions or additions set forth in this chapter and incorporated in the Huntington Beach Building and Construction Code. Such code and amendments thereto, are hereby adopted and incorporated, pursuant to California Government Cock Section 50022.2 et seq., and Ilealth and Safcty_Code Section 18941.5 as fully as though set forth at length herein for the purpose of prescribing regulations governing the installation, alteration, repair and maintenance of plunlhing and drainage systems. From the date on which this chapter takes effect, the provisions of said code, together with amendments thereto, shall be controlling within the corporate limits of the City of Huntington Beach. (1937-t0/74. 2089-8/76, 2431-7/80, 2747-2/85, 2976-12/88, 3022-12/89, 3 147-7/92, 3426-7/99, 3790-1/08, 3896-12/10, 4000-12/13, 4111-12/16, 4190-12/19) 17.44.020 Section 1.01.1—Amended CPC Chapter 1. Section 101.1 is hereby amended to read as follows: 101.1 Title.This document shall be known as the "Huntington Beach Plumbing Code," may be cited as such, and will be referred to herein as "this Code." (1409-5/68, 1630-2/71, 1937-10/74, 243 t-7/80, 2747-2/85, 2976-12/88, 4190-12/19) 17.44.022 Administration The administrative provisions shall be as provided for in the California Building Code, Chapter 1 Division II. Scope And Administration as adopted pursuant to Chapter 17.04 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. (3896-12/10, 4190-12/19) 17.44.040 Section 312.1—Amended Section 312.1 of-Section 312 of CPC is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 312.1 General.All underground copper piping and PEX tubing installed in a potable water system throughout the City limits must be completely sleeved with a minimum six millimeter polyvinyl sleeve. (3147-7/92, 3309-12/95, 3426-7/99, 3575-10/02, 3790-1/08, 3896-12/10, 4000-12/13, 4190-12/19) View the mobile version. 204 w .gcode.uslcodes/huntingtonbeach/ ill RESOLUTION NO_200 t-52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR SEWER SYSTEM SERVICE CONNECTIONS, FEES, CHARGES AND DEPOSITS WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 14.36 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, the City Council is authorized to collect fees and charges as a condition precedent to granting an application for sewer connection or an increase in water meter size. The fees and charges authorized by Chapter 14.36 may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing facilities for the City's sewer system that will benefit the person being charged; and The City Council has reviewed a report dated May 2003, entitled `Sewer Master Plan" prepared by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, ("Sewer Master Plan") which evaluates the impacts of future users on existing sewer facilities within the City and details the City's operation and maintenance of a City-wide wastewater collection and pumping system. The Sewer Master Plan includes a description of the City- wide sewer system, an analysis of the need for replacement of existing sewer facilities and construction of new facilities needed to serve new development and additional capacity demands, and sets forth the estimated costs of these improvements; and The Sewer Master Plan 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. The Sewer Master Plan is hereby adopted. 2. The Sewer System Charge of$1,579.00 shall be imposed for a sewer connection for a Single Family Dwelling Unit as defined in Chapter 14.36- 1 . The Sewer System Charge of$1,292.00 shall be imposed per sewer connection for a Multiple Family Dwelling Unit as defined in Chapter 14.36. 4. The Sewer System Charge for a sewer connection for a new non-residential project, shall be based on the water meter size relationship to an Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU"), as defined in Chapter 14.36, as follows: Meter size (inches)and type EDUS Charge 5/8 1 1,795 3/4 1 1,795 1 2 3,590 1.5 3 5,385 2 5 8,976 11 19,747 03reso/wwu feey5f30/03 1 205 Resolution No. 2003-52 Meter size(inches)and tvae EDUS Charge 4 Compound 17 30,517 4 Domestic and Turbine 33 59,240 6 Compound 33 59,240 6 Domestic and Turbine 67 120,275 8 Domestic 117 210, 032 10 Domestic 183 328,512 5. The Sewer Master Plan establishes that the Sewer System Charges authorized herein are charges for existing facilities and new facilities to be constructed in the future that will benefit the person being charged. 6. California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental.Quality Act ("CEQA") under Section 15273(a)(4) of the California Code of Regulations, commonly known as the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that this exemption applies because the charges authorized herein are for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas, and there is no reasonable possibility that the modification of the Sewer System Service Connection Fee and Charges authorized by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 could negatively affect the physical environment. Any environmental impacts associated with specific projects that may be undertaken with the monies collected pursuant to this resolution and Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 14.36 will be assessed as each project is formulated. The City Council also hereby finds that the adoption of this Resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the Supplemental Environmental Categorical Exemptions adopted by the City Council pursuant to Resolution No. 4501, which provides that information collection which does not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource are exempt as a Class VI exemption. 'PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7 day of July 2003. ATTEST. City Clerk Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Adolhistrator ity Attorney ,�A��P ,VED: Director of Public Works C— 03r Wsesv feeJ5r30/03 2 206 Res. No. 2003-52 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, 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 an regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of July 2003 by the following vote: AYES: Sullivan, Coerper, Green, Boardman, Cook, Hardy NOES: None ABSENT: None (Houchen out of room) ABSTAIN: None City Clerk Clerk and ex-officio Q& of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 207 APPENDIX C - Enhanced CleaninC7 Locations Cite of 11untint,Uro Beach Seiner System Alanagement Plan 62 208 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION 128 128-200 2 IARCHWOOD WEST OF NORTHRIDGE... JET EAST 400' SIPHON 128 128-001 2 GLENWOOD & EDGEVIEW...JET EAST 400' (SIPHON ) 138 138-040 2 THOR 625' (SIPHON) 138 518-090 3 SOUTHEAST CORNER SPRINGDALE & MCFADDEN JET NORTH 350' SIPHON 139 520-170 2 OXFORD & GOLDENWEST...JET NORTH150' 139 139-230 2 OXFORD & YORKSHIRE ..JET EAST 500' 139 139-240 2 CANTERBURY & YORKSHIRE.. JET NORTH 275' 139 502-050 3 HANOVER AT MC FADDEN... JET EAST...275' 149 149-230 2 MCFADDEN & DAWSON...JET SOUTH 800' 149 149-030 2 REDCOACH AND DAWSON...JET WEST 800' 154 154-040 2 HUMBOLDT & WEST OF WAYFARER...AT THE WET WELL JETWEST 875' 155 155-020 3 EDINGER & WAIKIKI..JET SOUTH 500' 155 503-010 3 EDINGER FROM MELODY TO BOLSA CHICA 1,375' 156 156-060 2 SISSON EAST OF WARREN...JET SOUTH UNDER THE CHANNELTOWARD MEADOWALARK 450' (SIPHON) 157 518-160 2 SPRINGDALE SOUTH OF EDINGER...JET SOUTH 250' AND EAST 30' 158 158-070 2 BRADBURY & CHRISTY...JET EAST 525' 158 158-080 3 HEIL& BRADBURY JET NORTH 500' 165 165-150 2 VISTA &GREEN...JET EAST 175' 165 165-090 2 PEARCE FROM LYNN TO BOLSA CHICA 1,475' ( CCTV Green 655' only) 165 165-100 2 GREEN & PEARCE... JET NORTH 525 AND SOUTH 400' CCTV 525' N only) 165 504-010 2 HEIL FROM GREEN TO ALGONQUIN 2,125' 165 529-020 2 ALGONQUIN ONE MANHOLE SOUTH OF HEIL JET NORTH 325' 165 516-305 3 BOLSA CHICA FROM SOUTH PEARCE TO HEIL 1,675 166 504-270 3 REGINA & HEIL...JET WEST 1,175' (TWO LNES) 169 169-305 2 DIANE & SYLVIA...JET TOWARD WEST THRU-PARK 700' 169 169-170 2 MARILYN & DIANE...JET NORTH 575' 169 169-180 3 MARILYN & GOLDENWEST...JET WEST 875' (CCTV 161'only) 169 519-085 3 EDWARDS & MARILYN...JET EAST 700' 169 518-080 3 EDWARDS SOUTH OF MARILYN &THE CHANNEL JET NORTH 800 SIPHON 169 505-080 3 WARNER FROM POST OFFICE TO GOLDENWEST 1,175' 173 173-055 2 CORAL CAY & PCH ...JET NORTH EAST 375' 174 174-135 2 WARNER ACROSS FROM HUNTINGTON HARBOR BAY & RACQUET CLUB ...JET NORTH TOWARD THE CLUB 150' 177 177-210 2 NORDINA FROM FORBES TO SLATER LIFT STATION..1,225' 176 176-080 2 ST ANDREWS & KENILWORTH...JET NORTH 700' 176 176-090 3 GRAHAM & KENILWORTH...JET WEST 875' 176 517-020 3 GRAHAM & GRAHAM SEWER LIFT STATION JET NORTH 325' 1 209 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION 176 517-200 3 GRAHAM & GRAHAM SEWER LIFT STATION JET SOUTH 75' 177 177-001 3 GERSHWIN JET 175' 179 179-120 2 ARGO JET 375' 179 179-090 2 CAPSTONE & DREY...JET EAST 300' 179 179-160 2 KURT AT MANHATTAN---JET SOUTH 275' 179 179-170 2 MANHATTAN FROM GIBSON TO MAYOR...JET 925' 179 179-240 2 MAYOR & SLATER AT THE COUNTY LINE JET NORTH 575' 179 179-290 3 SHENLYN & EDWARDS...JET EAST 525' (SIPHON) 187 187-340 2 WRIGHTWOOD FROM SOUTH OF PINON TO PRICE JET 1,425' 187 187-360 2 SPRINGDALE SOUTH OF SLATER..JET WEST 250' TOWARD PRICE. 188 188-050 2 FENLEY FROM EAST OF COLLIE TO SPRINGDALE JET 1,075' 188 518-220 2 SLATER LIFT STATION...JETSOUTH 275' 188 178-080 2 SLATER LIFT STATION...JET EAST TOWARD POINT LOMA 600' 189 189-020 2 FRONTAGE ROAD OFF EDWARDS SOUTH OF ARMADA JET EAST TOWARD VILLA NUEVA 500' 189 189-210 3 EDWARDS NORTH OF ARMADA...JET TOWARD EAST UNDER THE CHANNEL TOWARD SABBICAS 550' SIPHON 252 252-030 2 ALLEY BEHIND APT AT AMAZON & GANGES...JET EAST TOWARD AMAZON 875' 252 252-040 2 ALLEY BEHIND APT AT AMAZON AND GANGES NEXT MANHOLE JET NORTH 100' RHONE BETWEEN ALHAMRA & NANCY...JET NORTH 500' 252 252-001 2 SOUTH 175' BEHIND HOUSE NORTH OF HEIL..JET NORTH THEN EAST TOWARD RHONE 200' 253 523-150 2 NEWLAND 2 ND HOLE SOUTH OF EDINGER JET NORTH 275' 262 262-160 2 IVIEWPOINT AND DAMASK ...JET NORTH 875' 262 262-170 2 DAMASK...JET 500' 262 499-000 2 BEACH SOUTH OF DAMASK JET NORTH 200' (SIPHON) 263 263-275 2 ALLEY BEHIND NORMS SOUTH OF HEIL AND EAST OF BEACH LAST MANHOLE...JET TOWARD NORTH 400' 263 263-275 2 WAITE & BRUSH JET WEST TOWARD ALLEY BEHIND NORMS 175' 263 263-150 2 WAITE ...JET 425' 263 263-140 2 BRUSH FROM WAITE TO NEWLAND 2,125' 263 523-170 3 NEWLAND FROM LOIS TO LAMAR 825' 263 523-180 3 NEWLAND FROM LAMAR TO THE SOUTH 150' 263 523-140 3 NEWLAND NORTH OF WARNER...JET NORTH 800' & SOUTH 100' ( SIPHON ) 263 263-030 3 "A"&WARNER...JET NORTH 625' 292 292-130 2 DELAWARE SOUTH OF FRANKLIN...JET NORTH 350' 292 292-100 2 DELAWARE WEST BETWEEN HOUSE TOWARD YUKON 525' 292 1 292-305 2 IDELAWARE EAST INTO ALLEY 700' 2 210 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION 292 292-130 2 DELAWARE & ELLIS...JET NORTH 275' 292 508-030 2 HUNTINGTON & ELLIS-JET EAST 675' 292 532-060 3 MAIN FROM FLORIDA TO BEACH 1,025' 292 499-000 3 BEACH NORTH OF ELLIS TO ELLIS 950' 293 1 508-060 3 1 ELLIS WEST OF NEWLAND...JET WEST 275' 293 508-050 3 ELLIS WEST OF NEWLAND...JET EAST 250' 412 412-060 2 AMBERLEAF...JET 575' 412 536-080 2 DELAWARE FROM ELLIS TO MAIN 1,000' ( CCTV 346' only ) 412 536-090 2 DELAWARE FROM MAIN TO SOUTH ..JET 475' 412 508-070 3 ELLIS & MAIN ...JET NORTH 175' 412 499-000 3 BEACH NORTH OF MAIN...JET SOUTH 325' 413 1 508-050 3 BEACH & ELLIS...JET EAST 875' 413 499-000 3 BEACH & ELLIS...JET SOUTH 800' 423 510-020 3 YORKTOWN WEST OF NEWLAND...JET EAST 325' & WEST 600' CCTV 442" only 423 523-280 3 NEWLAND NORTH OF BRIDGEPORT TO SOUTH OF YORKTOWN JET 2,125' SIPHON 423 423-290 3 DANBURY & NEWLAND...JET WEST 525' (SIPHON) 423 423-280 3 GILFORD & NEWLAND...JET WEST 450' (SIPHON) 423 423-280 3 GILFORD & NEWLAND...JET North 600' HOME DEPOT SHOPPING CENTER SOUTH OF GARFIELD WEST 424 424-340 2 OF MAGNOLIA...JET WEST TOWARD LUSS 400' AND NORTH 50' AND EAST 625' 424 524-130 3 MAGNOLA SOUTH OF GARFIELD TO GARFIELD 650' 424 424-220 3 YORKTOWN WEST OF MAGNOLA...JET NORTH TOWARD CORALWOOD 500' 424 510-030 3 YORKTOWN WEST OF MAGNOLA...JET EAST 175' FROM THE FIRST MANHOLE 424 510-160 3 YORKTOWN WEST OF MAGNOLA...JET WEST 800' FROM THE FRIST MANHOLE 425 510-130 3 YORKTOWN WEST OF BUSHARD JET EAST 875' SIPHON 426 526-160 3 BROOKHURST FROM GARFIELD TO KAMUELA 1,875' SIPHON DO THE EVERY 3 MONTHS!!! 427 427-170 3 KAMUELA EAST OF BROOKHURST...JET WEST 30' 432 511-010 3 HUNTINGTON & ADAMS...JET WEST 450' 433 433-060 2 ROTHERT FROM FLAXMAN TO NORTH NEWBRITAIN 550' 435 435-130 2 CRAWFORD JET 500' (DO NOT JET LOTUS) 435 435-250 3 CHESAPEAKE AND ADAMS ...JET NORTH 500' 435 435-230 3 BUSHARD SVS RD WESTSIDE...JET NORTH 600' 435 510-140 3 YORKTOWN AND HONEYWOOD JET 800' ( SIPHON) 435 435-001 3 HONEYWOOD...JET 175' 436 436-450 2 CHARING CROSS...JET 200' (DO NOT GET ON THE SIDE WALK !) 436 436-490 2 SUTTON &ADAMS...JET NORTH 200' 436 511-060 3 SUTTON & ADAMS...JET EAST 875' 3 211 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION 436 436-690 3 ADAMS TWO MANHOLES EAST OF BUSHARD...JET NORTH TOWARD LURES 400' 436 511-050 3 ADAMS & BUSHARD WEST SIDE... JET EAST 875' SIPHON 437 437-230 2 FRONTAGE ROAD &ADAMS SEWER LIFT STANTION JET EAST 500' 442 442-370 2 JOLIET &ALLEY EAST OF ENGLAND...JET EAST 675' 442 442-300 2 INDIANAPOLIS AND ALLEY EAST OF ENGLAND JET NORTH 800' 443 511-020 2 ADAMS & NORTH NEW BRITAIN WEST TOWARD THE STATION 100' 443 443-030 2 SOUTHPORT & CAPE COTTAGE...JET NORTH 500' 443 443-030 2 SOUTHPORT & CAPE COTTAGE...JET SOUTH THEN EAST THRU THE PARK 375' 443 443-050 2 SOUTH NEW BRITAIN...JET 700' USE 600LB PRESSURE 4TH HOUSEII 443 443-040 2 SOUTHPORT...JET 500' 444 444-190 2 NEWBY...JET 250' 444 444-310 2 MEANDER SOUTH OF BURLCREST...JET WEST BETWEEN HOUSE 275' 444 444-310 2 BURLCREST FROM CROFT TO MAGNOLIA 1,075' 446 526-200 3 INDIANAPOLIS & BROOKHURST EAST SIDE JET NORTH 425' & SOUTH 100' 451 532-001 2 ALLEY BETWEEN 5TH & MAIN AT WALNUT JET SOUTHWEST 25' & JET NORTHEAST 400' 451 532-135 2 WALNUT SOUTH EAST OF MAIN AT ALLEY JET SOUTH WEST 200' 451 497-290 2 ALLEY BETWEEN 12TH & 13TH SOUTHWEST OF ORANGE JET NORTHEAST 400' 452 512-135 2 FLORDIA & INDIANAPOLIS---JET WEST 250' 452 452-040 2 GENEVA & FLORIDA...JET NORTH 275' 452 452-060 2 FRANKFORT & ALLEY EAST OF DELAWARE JET NORTH 800' 452 536-001 2 ALLEY & DETROIT EAST OF CALIFORNIA JET NORTH 800' 452 452-100 2 CALIFORNIA& DETROIT...JET EAST 175' 455 455-140 2 CARROLTOWN WEST OF HOPETOWN JET EAST 325' SIPHON 455 524-050 3 ATLANTA & MAGNOLIA...JET NORTH 650' 456 457-030 3 BROOKHURST SOUTH OF ENDEVER JET EAST150' SIPHON 456 526-220 3 BROOKHURST AND ATLANTA JET NORTH 500' 457 457-150 3 BROOKHURST SOUTH OF INDIANOPOLIS JET EAST TOWARD SUBURBIA 175' 457 526-110 3 BROOKHURST& INDIANAPOLIS WEST SIDE 175' JET NORTH, 457 446-260 3 THEN WEST BETWEEN HOUSES TOWARD HOTSPRINGS 600' 4 212 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION 457 512-060 3 INDIANAPOLIS AND BROOKHURST JET EAST JET FROM BOTH SIDES 150' SIPHON 464 464-095 2 ST AUGUSTINE & BRETON...JET NORTH SOUTH 375' 464 464-090 2 ST AUGUSTINE & BRETON...JET NORTH 600' 464 464-080 2 ST AUGUSTINE FROM BRETON TO SEAFORTH 525' 464 464-085 2 ST AUGUSTINE FROM SEAFORTH TO NEWLAND 625' 464 523-320 2 NEWLAND NORTH OF ST AUGUSTINE...JET SOUTH 100' AND WEST 15' 475 523-190 2 RAMBLER & BUSHARD WEST SIDE..JET NORTH 675' 475 475-020 2 RHODESIA WEST OF KANEOHE...JET EAST 100' (SIPHON) 467 467-050 3 BROOKHURST AND SPAR...JET EAST 475' (SIPHON) 475 475-210 2 RAMBLER AND BUSHARD JET WEST 575' (SIPHON) 475 475-020 2 RHODESIA WEST OF KANEOHE...JET EAST 100' (SIPHON) 475 475-100 2 ALOHA WEST OF KANEOHE...JET EAST 75' (SIPHON) ONCE A MONTH CLEANING 138 138-186 3 COLUMBIA & MC FADDEN...JET NORTH 475' (SIPHON) 138 502-040 3 COLUMBIA & MC FADDEN...JET EAST 800' 242 242-000 3 CENTER FROM EAST OF HUNTINGTON VILLAGE TO HUNTINGTON VILLAGE...JET 975' SIPHON 253 253-001 2 STARK EAST OF BEACH...JET 625' 253 253-040 2 ALLEY FROM STARK EAST OF BEACH TO STARK AND MALAGA SIPHON ...JET 1025' 253 253-020 2 BEHIND WESTMONT SCHOOL...JET NORTH 750' SIPHON CLEANED EVERY TWO MONTHS 445 445-280 2 HARBOR ISLE AND BROWNING ...JET EAST UNDER THE CHANNEL TOWARD RAMONA...JET 400' SIPHON 151 151-001 2 IMARINER...JET 1150' ( CODE FOR GATE " 2468) 151 151-001 2 BEHIND SAM'S SEAFOOD PARKING LOT BY SAM'S SEAFOOD..JET N.W 300' 151 151-001 2 SAM'S & PCH ...JET N.E. INTO PARKING LOT 150' 151 498-000 2 PETER'S LANDING AT PCH...PCH FROM SAM'S TO LAST HOLE IN THE GRASS AT PETER'S LANDING...JET 1,625' 166 505-250 3 GRAHAM ACROSS FROM MEADOW CIR ...JET TOWARD THE SOUTH 600' CCTV 290' Onl 166 517-030 3 ION WARNER FROM O.C.S.D M/H...JET TOWARD THE NORTH 350' 281 281-030 2 CENTRAL PARK ......................1400' 412 412-070 2 FLORIDA FROM SOUTH OF MAIN TO SHAFFER JET 975' 462 540-010 2 BEACH FRONTAGE ROAD...JET 1750' 462 540-010 2 BEACH PARKING LOT...JET 900' 461 540-010 2 PIER...JET 1725' Call Bait Shop 24 HRS a head 714-960-1392 426 426-040 3 VELARDO AND BUSHARD JET EAST 800' (SIPHON) 465 465-020 3 HAMILTON AND BUSHARD JET TOWARD NORTHWEST...JET 100' (SIPHON) NOTE TWO SIPHON 476 526-049 2 BROOKHURST SOUTH OF HAMILTION JET SOUTH ...375' 5 213 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION CLEANED EVERY THREE MONTHS 272 272-120 2 SYCAMORE AND ASH...JET EAST 450' 158 158-199 1 MYRTLE AND MERCIER JET WEST 550' 137 518-100 3 SPRINGDALE SOUTH OF BOLSA JETT TOWARD THE NORTH 925' 443 511-020 4 ON BEACH BLVD & OCEAN HILL JET WEST 500' 443 511-020 3 ON ADAMS AVE JET SOUTH 200' (SIPHON) 443 511-020 4 ON BEACH BLVD & ADAMS AVE JET SOUTH 300' (SIPHON)( NEED TO SCHEDUL EARLY MORNING 453 453-339 2 ATLANTA LIFT STATION THE MANHOLE NEXT TO THE WET WELL JET...TOWARD NORTH 300' CLEANED EVERY FOUR MONTHS 166 501140 3 BOLSA CHICA & WARNER MANHOLE NUMBER 2 LANE...JET NORTH 800' 232 232-060 2 COLGATE & CASCADE...JET WEST NEXT TO SCHOOL 150' AND JET SOUTH 500' 272 499-000 2 BEACH AND CYPRESS...JET NORTH 300' 272 499-000 2 BEACH AND CYPRESS...JET SOUTH 800' 272 272-110 3 CYPRESS AND ELM JET EAST 425' 272 272-173 3 ELM AND SCYAMORE...JET SOUTH 450' 262 505-200 3 WARNER FROM WEST OF BEACH TO OAK...JET 775' 264 505-160 3 WARNER & MAGNOLIA...JET WEST 475' 264 524-120 3 WARNER & MAGNOLIA...JET SOUTH 30' 262 505-200 3 LYNDON AND WARNER ...JET EAST 800' 262 262-220 3 LYNDON...JET 400' 271 271-200 2 BACK OF THE CITY YARD...JET ? 271 271-140 2 FORD AND CANNA JET EAST CLEANED EVERY SIX MONTHS 242 242-000 3 CENTER FROM HUNTINGTON VILLAGE TO RAIL ROAD TRACKS...JET 700' 157 157-190 3 PAR AND SPRINGDALE...JET WEST 800' 152 152-001 2 PARKING LOT OFF OF COUNTESS FROM PORTOFINO CONDO'S TO SEABRIDGE CONDO'S 625' 157 157-160 2 CHIPPER AND SNEAD...JET TOWARD THE NORTH BETWEEN THE HOUSES TOWARD THE STORE 150' 157 157-150 2 JET SNEAD...JET 575' 253 253-020 2 AROUND WESTMONT SCHOOL YARD FROM TO HEIL 1300' 253 504-140 2 HEIL FROM WESTMONT SCHOOL TO NEWLAND 1,050' 349 532-001 3 ON MAIN ST TO PCH JET 1,700 441 497-300 2 ALLEY BETWEEN 11TH AND 12TH AT PALM...JET 300' NORTH TO THE START AT CREST 463 463-001 3 SURFWOOD &ATLANTA...JET SOUTH 750' 463 513-010 3 ATLANTA FROM EAST OF SURFWOOD TO THE EAST OF BEACH...JET 1,100' 463 513-190 3 ATLANTA EAST OF BEACH...JET WEST 125' 453 513-010 2 ENTRANCE TO ATLANTA STATION...JET SOUTH 100' 457 513-030 3 ATLANTA AND NEWLAND...JET EAST 800' 6 214 City of Huntington Beach Utilities Division Wastewater Section Enhanced Cleaning 2022 DIST STREET# MEN LOCATION 457 523-030 3 ATLANTA AND NEWLAND JET NORTH 500' 457 523-320 3 ATLANTA AND NEWLAND SOUTH 25' TOWARD THE COUNTY 463 463-150 2 NEWLAND NORTH OF DONCASTER AT ALLEY JET WEST 800' CLEANED ONCE A YEAR 154 499-000 3 EDINGER & BEACH...JET SOUTH 875' 252 503-150 3 EDINGER FROM BEACH TO RR TRACKS...JET 2,700 327 327-015 3 SEAPOINT FROM GARFIELD TO SUMMIT..JET GOLDENWEST FROM TALBERT THROUGH (SIPHON) 189 520-060 3 AT RIO VISTA...JET 1,375 & JET BACKWARD FROM TALBERT 7 215 APPENDIX D - Sewer Lateral Protoram City of Huntington Beach Seiner Ststem Management Plan 63 216 AUn�e4 � a.r a 'Nwr R©vly floe R4Y MY,I4v YF .'�F 4rI0rYw lalN FETIMI F.n�..•e�rgn.06NwnapbnF�.n N• rt.e�4�F'M1Fw�V F�� Parkway Tree Root Intrusion Into Sewer Lateral - Policy and Procedures Section 14.54.035 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code addresses responsibilities for the operation, maintenance and repair of sewer laterals. The City is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the portion of the sewer lateral within the public right-of-way that extends from the City-owned sewer main to the private property line. The property owner is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the portion of the sewer lateral located on private property. Reminder- liquid grease solidifies as it travels from your sink to the collection system down-stream and many items such os baby wipes, feminine hygiene products, eggshells and coffee grounds should not be flushed. Sewer Lateral Program Procedure: 1. A property owner experiencing problems" with the sewer lateral calls the Public Works Utilities Division at (714) 536-5921, to notify them of the problem. 2. The property owner secures the services of a qualified contractor to clean and video tape the interior of the sewer lateral from the house cleanout to the public sewer main. While cleaning and/or video taping the lateral, it is important for the contractor to locate and mark the actual sewer lateral location at the property line, on the sidewalk, at the curb and at the connection with the sewer main. The use of water soluble spray paint to show the location of the sewer lateral is highly recommended as laterals are often at different angles and locations than portrayed on many record drawings. 3. The property owner submits a copy of the video to the Utilities Division staff at 19001 Huntington Street between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday. 4. The Utilities Division staff will review the video to determine the cause of the blockage, if and what type of repair is needed and whether the location of the blockage and repair are within the City's right-of-way. S. Depending on the situation, there are typically two options for repair: 1) Slip Lining the sewer lateral within the public right-of-way and on the private property leaving the parkway tree intact. In this case, the city arborist needs to determine that the integrity of the tree will not be impacted by the repairs made to the sewer lateral. The property owner is responsible for the cost of slip lining the sewer lateral on their private property. 2) In a case where it is determined that the tree must be removed to complete the repair, and it falls within the City's responsibility, the City will initiate repairs at the City's cost and reimburse the cost of the video to the property owner. Questions regarding the Sewer Lateral Program should be directed to the Public Works Utilities Division at (714) 536-5921. This information can also be reviewed at the City's website: www.surfcity-hb.org `The first course of action for a blocked or clogged sewer line is a call to a qualified plumber or sewer contractor. Often times, cleaning of the line is needed immediately and residents should not wait for the claim process to be completed. The need for frequent cleaning/rooting of the line is an indication of a possible sewer lateral break or tree root intrusion. 217 APPENDIX E - Certifications Cih of HunIin;ton Beach ServerSvslem Alanagemenr Plan 64 218 CALI F O RN IA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Jesus Martinez-Ruiz HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade I Expires: 6/30/2021 Certificate Number 1308215068 Kevin Calderwood,President Gilbert G. Barela,Chair California Water Fnvironment Association Technical Certification Program WEATECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM le"4� A~ This is to certify ■ David F Having submitted acceptable evidence of qualifications by education, training and experience, this individual is hereby granted this certification of competency in COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE GRADE 1 Certificate number: 80121077 Expires: 1/31/2023 Arvind Akela, President ✓ Abigail Gomez, Chair California Water Environment Association 411 Technical Certification Program 220 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION g THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Pedro Vasquez Gonzalez HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade 1 Expires: 9/30/2021 Certificate Number 1308216076 4 4 '0�--j ZJ Wendy Wert,President Abigail Gomez,Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Tony Gomez HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade 1 Expires: 7/31/2021 Certificate Number 2072131 Wendy Wen, President Abigail Gomez,Chair California Water linvironment Association Technical Certification Program 222 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Paul Boucier HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY Plant Maintenance Technologist Grade 1 Expires: 1/31/2021 Certificate Number 3015124 1nt�ntkr Kevin Calderwood, President 192 Gilbert G. Barela, Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program WEATECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM C/ � 1 5 60? -1166 This is to certify Mark Having submitted acceptable evidence of qualifications by education, training and experience, this individual is hereby granted this certification of competency in COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE GRADE 2 Certificate number: 3072202 Expires: 7/31/2022 Wendy Wert, President Abigail Gomez, Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program 224 TECHNICAL CERTIFICATION V%rEAPROGRAM le"4� This is to certify ■ Enrique Lemus Having submitted acceptable evidence of qualifications by education, training and experience, this individual is hereby granted this certification of competency in COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE GRADE 2 Certificate number: 267 Expires: 1/31/2022 Wendy Wert, President Abigail Gomez, Chair California Water Environment Association jib Technical Certification Program 225 WEATECHNICAL CERTIFICATION PROGRAM C/ This is to certify Brent Having submitted acceptable evidence of qualifications by education, training and experience, this individual is hereby granted this certification of competency in COLLECTION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE GRADE 3 Certificate number: 1308213183 Expires: 12/31/2022 Arvind Akela, President Abigail Gomez, Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION THIS IS TO CF.RTI F3' THAT Antonio Duartc-Avala HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUA1_IFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATInN OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade 3 Expire: 6/30/2021 Certificate Numbcr 008218582 Wcad) wat r1cw0t Abdul(som i,Clsar t af,t.,fnu water I nvi u mtat Ak:,ksat"v Tvchnxal CMtttca m tva�paln CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Harry Bessa HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade 4. Expires: 1/31/2021 Certificate Number 70124022 Kevin Calderwood, President Gilbert G. Barela,Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Jason Jarosek HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE IS HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade 4 Expires: 11/30/2021 Certificate Number 1308213102 Wendy Wert, President Abigail Gomez,Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program 229 1 CALIFORNIA WATER ENVIRONMENT ASSOCIATION 4 '1. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT Paul Boucier HAVING SUBMITTED ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE OF QUALIFICATIONS BY EDUCATION, TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE 1S HEREBY GRANTED THIS CERTIFICATION OF COMPETENCY IN Collection System Maintenance Grade 4 Expires: 7/31/2021 Certificate Number 50724003 Wendy Wert, President Abigail Gmne4 Chair California Water Environment Association Technical Certification Program APPENDIX F - Sewer Master Plan (2001) Cih of Huntim{ton Beach Seater Sretem a-lanageniew Plan 65 231 FINAL REPORT Sewer Master Plan Volume 1 of 2 I Vrt K t �1 City of Huntington Beach California May 2003 K/J 014641 .00 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 232 Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 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 systern. 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 (1&1) 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 Roger D. Null, V. P. Project Manager r 233 � I ( 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 A 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 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&1 Problem Areas 4.9 Summary of Findings 4.11 TC.1 014641.00 234 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 Opeiational 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 014641.00 235 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 014641.00 236 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 AugusUSeptember 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 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 014641.00 237 ' . 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 181 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& 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 1 TC.5 014641.00 238 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 Systern Correlation Study D Hydraulic Analysis Support Information E Sewer Service Charge Ordinances Volume II — Wastewater Flow Monitoring Program TC.5 014641.00 239 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 (1&1) 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 11 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 systern to manholes at higher locations. I ESA 014641.00 240 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 ovens, 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 I 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. i ES.2 014641.00 241 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 Piaster 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 1&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 014641,00 242 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 014641.00 243 �1 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 floods. 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 pourer 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 014641.00 244 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 component should be scheduled as a medium to medium-high priority, depending on implications of additional local IM 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 i 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 014641.00 245 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 014641.00 246 • Alternative 1 - TQlal SysLem ReplacemeIIt_C.ost - Include the total cost of all capacity improvements based on the replacement cost of each facility • AlLernatue2=_TotaLSystem 11 sizing-CDst - 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 014641.00 247 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 014641.00 248 Chapter 1 Introduction 249 CHAPTERI 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 frorn present to the year 2020. The City is responsible for operating and maintaining approximately 350 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 1.1 014541.00 250 • 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 { 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 Facilitv Data Subtask 1.A. — Establish Project Goals Subtask 1.B. — 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 014641.00 251 r--. k Task 2 - Flow Criteria Development and Flow Projections Subtask 2.A. - Review Previous Population Projections Subtask 2.8. - 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 W 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 i 1.3 014641-00 252 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 014641.00 253 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 r 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 i� VCP vitrified clay pipe 1.5 014641.00 254 Chapter 2 History and Study Area Characteristics 255 CHAPTER 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 boorn of the 1920's, to its current status as California's 11 th largest city. Through a series of annexations, the City has grown to approximately 27 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 014641.00 256 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 014641.00 257 - I hp� CIIV OI INNTINGTON BEACH t t r o°.tav nr„wo vu w. NC •^iNOE vE •°. �;, �"'` LEGEND CMYRwOYWnwr F � � I u d° _ camwoY lMpoMwa CmMFOY 0°Apr Cal cm Ragwnal � _ � fn �CamwruY NLe• � ®YWYt•W IWop.:u L NYvO�..MwupntY :u •�l• I.awel:a.VY GARf�EIDAVr %v.1�pRM$DlU-CaMMWIR 1• ', riven so. CMY _ 1fUPR �9.D Swd" YY N Lx' n i d• •y ul ?rn Own sow...Snar WOW R. wn �f''�.�/y. l� fy1 RraYlMYrI MrrYrn Orn.t° ~,ya 11AMr Avc i °• ""r'R.f 'Y MrCurn h,h U my ve R. law .&B,wg,, .a.0 ,n.a.w.«c.w.w:•wwr N ' � CITY OF HUNTINGTGN BEACH I e MAVt . I .<.,k.,e LEGEND Fully-Davem➢aa Puub "OLA I F S ;➢ '. `, 2 odor-Developod Parcel N na 0.25%Ucreb ed �•. 1 w+nndn Apt � ➢ u 76-50%Developed f ArO � 51 .75 . psvelo ed It } .�:• �,. t E aAer¢lo Arc a' I CA lst N N �D t 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 buildoul 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 (and 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. 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 Development. 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 014641.00 260 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 261 Tl�Cossings_at_Huntington BParh_S�if13 - 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. PaknLGD denw.est-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-2a - 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 Balsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue. McDonnell Centre Business Pad-SP#11 - Adopted October 6, 1997. The McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan covers 507 gross acres located in the northwestern e portion of the City. The area is generally bounded on the north by Rancho Road and the U.S. Navy railroad right-of-way (excluding the City's water reservoir site), on the east by Springdale Street, on the south by Balsa Avenue and on the west by Balsa 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 Balsa Chica Specific Plan is located within the sphere of influence of the City. Balsa 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 Balsa 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 Balsa Chica Specific Plan, this area was not evaluated in this study. 2.5 014641.00 _ 262 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 Buildo t. 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 l\ 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 014641.00 263 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 we factors, the increase in persons per household is projected to have the greater impact on future infrastructure requirements. 2.7 014641.00 264 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 0.44 Source: 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 U.S. Census 265 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. (SLAG) -- 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 j 266 Chapter 3 Existing Wastewater System Description 267 CHAPTER 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 EiWino 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 Utlity-Ripet e_Qata - 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. i 3.1 014641.00 268 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 f 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 polyvinyichloride (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. C- 3.2 014641.00 269 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Ho' AtN MITI PIPELINES BV BASIN 7 �- LEGEND BASIN A 'l NDf AP.p I AVE4r , 1 S l r E S I U< I ✓�• y Il-f DARFIELDAVE •U'• A - r to Ri Lou e _ 31E3I� 71 V• \ I� AtrtTVll l�L ll Tip Honnody/Jenks Consultants — •f Engineers A Scloottats t•i t sewer Spam Nsslar Nan NJ OIa4a I,4e NOT TO SCALE Pipelines by Basln Figure 3-i N V O Ham ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND DL`A nvt: WASTEWATER FADILRIEs 9Y UV'.METER b1M PIPELINE DIAMETER a -- Nbn-City Pipel,na IF -- "_ -' M1'o GtS Data D6vCE 4- 10, '� �' r n' ❑AVE n I T' ' LL aS nvE _ ___-_ 21. S .. .-_.. .. 24.' E Is kvE o T t --.__.__._.- 27.' 14 cnaFlEIA AVF. �JI I � f. D' ♦J' 6 r� 1 1- i "'k PW AVI S. �� IJII ,1 n' I I(unnurJy/Junks C....I rants w 1 �rt EnuinuonRSuiunJua G e59ruma Plan NJ OIa6a 1.a0 NOT TO score N'as l owator Facllilios ey D'Moto, Fig uro 3.2 N V t TABLE 3-1 WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM PIPELINES BY DIAMETER Sewer Line Size Length (in.) (LF) No Data ' -F 4,190 6 8,280 8 1,568,100 10 112,490 12 72,770 15 5 1,110 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 014641.00 272 • Wet-W!21 my W.e)f_Lif 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. • S.ubmeisible_Lifl_Siatioas. 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 014641.00 273 TABLE 3-2 LIFT STATION INFORMATION Impeller Rated Pump e of Manufacturer Motor Data Mama, Capacity umber Name Number and Name Pumps 8 Model No. (H.P.@ RPM) (in) (gam @ T0H) 1 Graham b:{eniIvw;h 41 Graham 2 Wemm 4 x 11 20 @ 18M 9" 580 @ 56 2 Humtxil b Wayfarer k2 Huni 2 Wemco 4 x 11 3 @ 1170 7-519" 155@ 22 3 Gilbert b Peale 93 Station'E" 2 Wemco 4 z 11 3 @ 1160 7-112' 100 @ IB' 4 PCH in Sunset Beach 94 Statism'A" 2 W'emm 4 x 11 10 @ 1160 1IT 750 @ 20 5 Daterpon 8 Baruna e5 Davenpon 2 V'larnm 4 z t 1 3 @ 1200 B" 106 @ 12' 6 Edgewater b Davenport q5 Edgewater 2 'Nernco 4 x 11 5 @ 1170 9" 450 @ 12 7 PCH West of Warner o7 Slalion"9" 2 I Wemco 4 x 11 7.5 @ 1170 S-WX 750 @ 10' 8 Warner North N PCH u8 Smitten"C'. 2 Wemm 4 x 11 25 @ 1800 I 8412" 1350 @ 15- \h'emco 4 x 11 25 @ 1763 9-1IT 900 @ 50' 9 Warner at Edgewater"D'Station 49 Station"D" 4 I 10 Algonquin b Boardwalk a 10 Ai2onquin 2 Wemm 4 x 11 40 @ 1745 0-314' 1000 @ 60' 11 Lark b Warmer 911 Lark 2 Wemeo 4 x 11 2 @ I t70 B" 125 @ 12' \ 13 Staten b Spnngdale 413 Slater 2 Wemco 6 x 11 I 20 @ 1750 9' 1070 @ 24' 14 EISs b Golhard 914 Ellis 3 Wemm 6 x 11 20 @ 1800 8.112' 950 @ 34' t 5 Oceanhi0 8 Beach 915 Beach Z Garman Rupp 75 @ 1000 9-3V 150 @ 30' 16 Adams b Ranger N16 Adams 2 WemoO 4 x 11 3 @ 1170 I a" 270 @ IT Wemco 6 x 11 30 @ 1750 I 9' 1230 @ 28' 17 Brookhurst a Effingham 917 Brookhuret 2 I 18 Atlanta East of Beach a18 Atlanta 2 Wemco 5 x 12 25 @ 1170 6- 350 @ 25- 19 Bushard 8 Peuswood k 19 Swmard 2 Wemm 4 x 95 3 @ 1170 6-3/8' -I 338 @ 10r 20 --_Speer 8 Crabb 020 Speer 2 Wemm 6 z I 1 15@ 1170 9' I 500 @ 14' 21 McFadden b D.-ruson 921 tAcFadden 2 VYarnoo 4 x t tk 5 @ 1170 9. 550 @ 23' 22 Saybrook b Heil :33 Sayb:uck 2 Wemm 4 x 11M 15 @ 1170 9.3/4' 550 @ 23' 23 New Bnu m b Adams I 023 New Britain 2 Wemco 4 x I is 5@ 1170 6.314" 179 @ 11. 24 Edwards 8 Balmoral 924 Edwards 2 Wemm 6 x 11M 20 @ 1750 S` 800 @ 38' t 25 Edinger 4 x 11M 5 @ 1750 e' 300 @ 12'nger b Santa Barbara e25 Edinger 2 ' 26 Brighton b Shorehom 926 Bnghtcn 2 vJemco 4 x 95 3 @ 1170 7' 220 @ 16 28 Coral Cay +28 Coral Coy 2 Wemco 4 x 95 3 @ 1155 6' 80 @ 14' 29 Trinidad 8 Aquarius 429 Trinidad 2 Wemco 4 x 1 IM 10 @ 1750 8" - Notes:The City of Huntington Beach does not have a lift station n 12 or is 27. Lift 9lation 49 is under design as of June 2002. Source: Data provided by the City Maintenance Uepartment. 3.5 014641.00 274 RA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEAC� LEGEND �AU LIFT STATION LOCATIONS L.n sM.on Oct SA AVE 1dllOn NamOa GRAKA, AICFAO CA AVC O1 21 92 HUMBOLDT 925 LUNGE LAVEy _ I _ aS DAVENPORT #29 a1 I 1II e6 ECGEWATER #4 ,3 u22'� a O_U I HEILA E I -7 STATION-6' us u C9 STATIDN-G' tt 8.,#7 — I$1 A n I10 ALGONOLIN #13 ¢ SLATEHjwv( v{I;ARK 26 i x �� ]� II]SLATER e� x243 2 I .Ia Eels TAL 3 OFR AVE a15 BEACH p e16 ADAMS ELLIS WE1_JQ dV 917 OROOKIIURS1 4 E I e16 ATIANTA GARFILLDAVE aIY 8USHARD / I� O 120 SPEER YUAB OWrvA , < 121 MCFADOEN e22.SAYBROOK #GJ *1 e23 NEW 9RITAIN 15�3 AO AVC D1 Al RA EDWARDS S UurvAeOLis s25 CCIKGER 126 BRIGHTON GAF I Si cl .26 CORAL GAY IATI AV Ti.AVE ti $20 TRINIDAD >r191 IN 17 Now nn Car eeu A.l n.w L•1151.1-11111 a.22 H A1.10N vc NN AVE �KonnOdy/Jenks Consultants ^ / En9inea.R ScienLlen a of -401 maxi Gann „Ql Wanewalar Maslen Pbn K,I a2sn.cc NOT TO SCALE LIFT STATION LOCATION MAP Fiauro OC N V LIFT STATION CONNECTIVITY 3 4 7 8 • 29 2 28 9 &-(!2:2 6 5 FLOW SPLIT: 100 k 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 6 Warner North of PCH 9 Warner at Edgewater'D-Station 10 Algonquin&Boardwalk 22 Saybrook& Heil 25 Edinger P,Santa Barbara 24 Edwards&Balmoral 26 Brighton&Shoreham 28 Coral Cay 29 idnidad 3 Aquarius ee^nedyoenhs eon:munvr En9'^ern 8 Sumuna % of Huntington Beach t Y Seewer System Master Plan ( KJ 014641.00 E� LIFT STATION CONNECTIVITY Figure 3-4 276 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 I OS ANSFJ-FS COUNTY ! SAN BERNAP.GINO COMITY LOS ANGELES A COUNTY - ,- - ryi 1 SEAL BEACH •T ;2 • .9�ty yii: q ' PACIFIC _ a� OCEAN dy- OCSD's regional wastewater pipelines generally range in size from 21 to 108 inches In diameter and collect the Clty'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 upslzing 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 014641.00 277 Private Wastewater Facilities Private wastewater facilities within the City fall into two categories: onsile 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 p ivate pipelines may not be included 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 014641.00 278 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGEND 901,9A A-h '-j,7;TT OWNER'A CCSD MCFAOt FNAQE 9 N��l CITY h. I'ANAFF OF Aviii N! �, - I a MOMM) 17 n= Mum 41 R�VE TEN 1E J'A FIT I El s VE [v q ao L -9N LM 1, —1 IU Kutnudy/Jorn Its Consultants ANN City el stew, S...r S,nern i nirn J� RIB Kj 01464I.Co NOT TO SCALE SOURCE, CITY GIS VV.,Iii F..,litlin, try Owner Fg.,.9 6 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 �I Sewer Line Size Length II (in.) (LF) 6 1,770 8 139,310 ,l 10 24,080 12 3,200 15 590 16 4,360 18 150 Grand Total 173,460 Wastowater 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 014641.00 280 ` CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � LEGEND O e REH UILITATED FACILITIES A/AP [R�HA9141TATED e\u F I R — J REHABILITATED PIPE Le PIP. ngre of Dbmm.r Pipe ^ 1 }C V I I l (q r l WaArr gAVE_ v f ff '1 C' t)It 24,078 anm Is sq IV a,V 1 AVE A VA I' 1 I GI FIELD.k I 11�1 i ®-'.IF UU1 VEc I t E _.I1 N Lrb �1C IITin Nons.dV/Janlcs Consultants ,wp,fi' En Vinum.R GcienJm / Cuer ysil l0 N bee Sower Synrm master Plan NOT TO SCALE \ C1 {I h1<641,00 Summary of RohaallValion Aclivily Figure 3.7 N 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 014641.00 282 Chapter 4 Desktop Inflow & Infiltration Study 283 CHAPTER 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 W 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 in filtration 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://weII-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 "http://vrww.wrh.noaa.gov/sandiego/climate.htmi" • Wastewater lift station run times and pumping characteristics provided by the City 4.1 014641.00 284 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 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 014641.00 285 I 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 014641.00 286 "aAAYE,: • cuyA4n•dwuuwn.r•lu. - - ..:^ ....r • raw' MCF ENAVEp '�'`�' '� • S MOMeriny^W.IU • O .•wa u.. AYE wr f. • H..Uneton B..ce Oroww Wait,S.r...Mod l MICAk 1 � "a .�j1� "� Walsall RAW _J I - it k Is 1. LI :r jGl-- w;3C • Pi WItHM]0'o/GrounOWN•r _ k p • • • materia1 01Mnotw Ip•s npl • • VCP 8 Sm 123,627 • Is • VCP 10 11 2,763 :. i +•1(ti - • • VCP 12 10 1.578 • • • VCP 1e 7 Z642 .. . .•.• lit Ow16l0Av[ VCP 19 a 2•061 • VCP 21 6 1•046 VCP 27 J 1,61e 1 VCP 30 3 1.1.2 9 ! TOW 661 137,355 if+f ; r f�.d{�%(tr �'�'s♦ ° mil Its t.. -•�V•l/x��'1tt j 1iM1U' 5 :rrl- � ;11 1 MET Kennedy/Jenks Consultsinu `\4 E.•Ilr.m 6 Srilotln. NOT TO SCA1E \ j, 4 OI rn.- l•n Be•rli O * 5.wrm 014 Im Plan lu dl.eat.Eo POI•nll.l Oroondwaler Infiltration Analysis Fig...4.1 N J 1 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. 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. _ i 4.4 014641.00 288 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 station O&M run time data was only available on a daily basis. Since daily lift station volumes do not have the precision to shove 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 014641.00 289 4-50 — --- 4.00 --- --- --- -- -- 3.50 ---'-- 3.00 2.50 — —— - - " --- `c a 2.00 — — — 1.50 — — 0.50 I 0.00 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c> o U U 6 CJ O O Date —Avalon —LAX Long Beach Airport Anaheim —Santa Ana —Newport Beach Knnnudy/Jenks Consultants Enolnears 6 Scientists city oi Hunth9too Beach FORSnwar System man KJ 01a641.0(3 Muniingllun©each Vicinity Nalnlxll 2001 Figure 4.2 N U) O 5.e0 O m b ` r , 4.00 3.50 I b r ' 3.00 W i 0C3eO 2.50 b (D 2.00 Q O LL O.©O 1.50 ,.Do 0.50 c.co 08/01/01 08/11101 0MIA)l 08/31101 09/10/01 09120101 09/30/01 Dale KonnnJy/Jenlu Consulmnts — fl— Daily Hgh Title Eugf...,.s s.wmleu ry ofn.Mngl.n Beam Ses"Imw.r Q014641. .' Plan KJ Ol eia l.q', Daily Illgi,Title Port of LA Flguro:4 N r0 t 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 014641.00 292 Table 4-1 Lift Station Dry Weather Baseline Conditions Au ust/Septernber 2001 Gross Gross Net Net Net Net Station Station Weekday Average Weekend Average Weekday Average Weekend Average Difference Z-valuer') Number Name (g d) ( pd pd ( pd) (/ 1 Graham 149,261 166,549 149,281 166,549 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") Station "A'Y"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 Brookhursl 440,975 472,747 440,975 472,747 7 3 18 Altanta 135,610 126.911 135,610 126,911 -6 1 19 Sushard 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 328.983 348,283 156,788 166,800 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. N (O W 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 (gpd) 8/1 712 0 01 (gpd) 8/9/2001 (gpd) 811712001 (gpd) (%) 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'T B" 510,540 486,420 483,184 452,100 -5 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. N O A 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 014641.00 295 Santa Monica Pier o Legend 0 NW5 Rain Slanons OLAX E::= Huntington Boom Anaheim O Lung Beach Airport 0 N Santa Ana 1 I jNewport Beacn O NOT TO SCALE I<annonly/Junks Consultants Enginean F,Sciumine e,y, ,I.- lanaeeN Q Smvee System Mapar Plan r�oue.,.00 Ur- Avalon O NVIS Rain Gauge Stations Figure 4.4 N m 4.50 4.00 3*00 2.50 ZC 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 O.OD p p Ca Date I(an-ody/Junks Consultants Eryinuars s scientists —AvalCity Of Irtunmoton Una= SO�Q:S,511.1.Melair�a, in LAX Long Beach Airport -Anaheim Sawa Ana IQI 01 4e4 1,W Huntingdon Bantu vicinity Fairing J.uIF,b 2001 Figure 4.5 Table 4.3 Dry Weather vs Wet Weather Comparison Net Net Gross Gross Gross Net Not Net Wet Weafhor Wet Weather Station Station Average Weekday Wet Weather Wet Weather Average Weekday Wet Weather Wet Weather Difference Difference Number Name Dry Weather 1/1112001 2/13/2001 Dry Weather 1/11/2001 2/13/2001 111112001 2/13/2001 (gpd) (gpd) (9pd) 9pd) (gPd) (gPd) (%) (% 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% 417"' Station "A"I"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 45% 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% 1i 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 Beacn 45.662 53.091 53,091 45.662 53,091 53.091 16% 16% i6 Adams 62,516 71,280 92,400 62,516 71.280 92400 14% 48% 17 Brookhursl 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 57% 33% 23 New Britain 74,667 84.661 92,162 74.667 84,661 92,162 13% 23% 24 Edwards 328.983 460.821 455,021 156,788 21,7,778 i9 i,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 19,6GG 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. N O 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. � i 4.11 014641.00 299 I l TABLE 4-4 PRECIPITATION-INFLUENCED POTENTIAL I&I RANKINGS Station Pipe Average Weekday Increased Pumping Inch- Normalized Increased Rank Number Length Dry Weather Response(') Diameter Miles Pumping If (gpd) (gpd) idm) d/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. w 0 0 D BOLSA AK MCY EI:AVE' 2 1 :D.rc_cp avE BV Legend 1e - City-Owned Wastewater PiPas �, S1 I Kt4 A'k lrrWlar/Alea 6r1 Nan.j p LWnr/Aran 6 Nenla �1 PT u I{ i W `:efl aVE - II L'ule�Y Arva9 yanll —� I �_ y it tlulaq arm PP Da 4iM 1 in.YulafY Arm:l HYUS .STATE. AVE i%L S:afuer l0 Fm=6 LIT: :aLofS ' p 1'AC9EniAVC 5 VL m F i ` f,MIIF104VE O.K W A NbhADA\EL. m \4l II K _ O s r1M1, 1'In1M L4 V Y Y - I CFLI I 11 � . ml1 VE f NOT TO SCALE A.ti,lil AVE I(onnoAy/Junks Cnnsultanm .� Enylnaara 5 Sciantbu I' � CAY VI I...arngron peorh Sewu Sysum d.mmr Plan KJ o lava i.m Rank of Lift Stallon Trlbwary grtlas W th Apparent Infiltration N,Ulir 4-6 O \ I 117 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 verity 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. .i 4.13 014641.00 302 Chapter 5 Wastewater Loads and Design Criteria C 303 CHAPTERS 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 now 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 "T City's 1995 Wastewater System Master Plan. in addition to these master plans, current 5.1 014641.00 304 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 j 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 (1&1) 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 014641.00 305 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 014641.00 306 �F- E of wlLVCF A V w ,I AVE HB 11 — HB- i E A HOEP AVE 5 vi r' U GAPHElO Ave n F '1E D'� •iNA 7-.< tC {y :[lIAN4:'-0t15 AV ILA"�' lLAN1�AVEo s ;HB H an l0:< E "H 5 MMN AVE LEGEND �I FLOW MONITGRS MONITOR BASINS 1 2 3 a 5 0 T Kennedy/Jenks Consultants g Engineers&Scientists 10 11 City of Huntingtonath Be MODELED PIPE S wr,System Master Plan —DPI I ! �j KI 01464 1.00 —Ent —PRE ��_ LOCAL CITY FLOW MONITORING PROGRAM NOT TO SCALE Figure 5-1 {/ 307 CO6f i, 3-- -;10. 2-1w TEN E 71 E S'VE, GARFIELD AlT Drib SAVE 8 A 2OCO'5 O 073 O�074 LEGEND AIMMI AVE I ADSCOUNTYMETER MODELED PIPE ON PPI IRE ADSICOUNTY ME i ER BASIN =00062 1-1 00063 OC%7 Ocoss Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 00069 Engineers&Scientists ocolo 00071 00072 Cty.1 H.nh.,gw Beaci 00073 N S"er System Masser Pon 00074 Kj 014641 CC 00075 CI OC 139 NOT TO I SCALE LOCAL OCSD MONITORING PROGRAM _j Fig.re 5-2 308 1 \ Rainfall�eoendent Wastewater FIow_-,_ 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 (1&1) 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. l and 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. 5.4 014641.00 309 TABLE 5-2 RAINFALL DURING WASTEWATER MONITORING PROGRAM Rain Events Rainfall Monitoring Stations 3l1712002 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 Dales of Rainfall Events 311712002 lit 312312002"' 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 0.523 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 8 Adams 0.664 1.143 0.676 1.169 0.67 1,156 4 Warner 8 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 0.31C 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 t2 Ofella&Palm 0.166 0.311 0.176 0.329 0.171 0.32 Dry Weather Weekend (Dates: 3/16, 3124,3130,31311 Wet vs.Dry Weekend Flows Monitor Nearest Major Avg, Flow Peak Flow Avg.Flows Peak Flows Site# Intersection (MGD) (MGD) (MGD) (%)j°7 (MGD) (%)t'I 1 Graham&Edinger 0.4525 0.7055 0.0165 3.51s 0.084 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& 6ushard 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 C.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 O '''Since 3/17102 and 3123/02 were weekends,only weekend flow values were used in this analysis t°INegalive 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. V hile 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. Av�and Peak Critpria 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 a, with full data in Volume II of the Appendices. The development of the City's peaking factor for evaluating the wastewater system is further discussed in a 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 014641.00 311 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 II Generation Factors Residential Low Density (0-7 Du/Ac) 1,600 gpad 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 j 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 now 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. S.7 014641.00 312 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_-_Eulure. 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 v.ere increased based on increases in pph and future residential dwellings. As such, residential wastewater generation factors were increased by six percent. UDn_Res dEnlial_Unit_EaUors—F_uhue_ 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. .V3caaLLan Psigri 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 floe 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 6.8 014641.00 313 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: OPT,, = 1.78 (Q.,v)o.9x (Q in mgd) This peaking factor equation was initially developed during preparation of the 1969 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: Qpcak = 1.704 (Qa,g)0.e9z (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: Qp �k = 1.93 (Q„y)oe9e (Q in mgd) 1 5.9 014641.00 314 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 flares. To supplement the quantifiable results of afield 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 014641.00 315 a -- - - - - - - ---'- r;� 3.5 i 2.5 1.5 i JI a, i CJ t. • '� • Qpy— 1.9J0 avg.89b a 1 -' J 0.5 --'— _— - .—_ --- - 0 — 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Kennedy/Junks Consultants El,m....A Sam..I.ts p,nt;p Q�y o;4unwpion BcuUi "v Sov:ar SYuem Ylan •� Kl C1a841a1.00e0 t OCSD — --HB1978 --T-Peak Dry Curve . Flow Monitoring Data Peaking Factor Figure 5-] u rn RELATIONSHIP SCHEMATIC Ot(AVERAGE) FpVOERAGE) FOPfr OF IN FLOWINT OF IN FLOW 06AVERAGE) TRIRd1(SEWER REACH 1 REACH 2 REACH 3 O A10 O O AV60 r0 O 1 O Aq&*0*00 1 2 0 Pf�0 XPIA 0 0 Pt�(O r0)KP6A 1 O Pl�(O-0 b b P"N 2 OHO zP1A AVG OHO yP/AAVG OPICO >P/AAVG LEGEND _ ❑Q,44 AVERAGE GAILY FL0W 0 Aq&VERAGE FLOW FOR REACH O PIC PEAK FLOW FOR REACH PIA =PEAK TO AVERAGE RELAT)ONSMP Kennedy/Jenks Conwhsnts Engineent&Scientists LCity of HurEinl n Beach Serer Systom Master Ptan �.' K.1014641.00 AVERAGE AND PEAK DESIGN FLOW RELATIONSHIP SCHEMATIC Figure 54 C- i 317 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 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. c 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 014641.00 318 =i.GD ARE- OF hrDRauuC :r;SIABIutt P=0 85 r AREA NEEDED FOR VFNTILAiIO..N =G.75 ' AND FOR EVERGENCI CAPACITI (I&I) i 1 E, — f 1 _ SAFE LDnDING CAPACITY FOR GENERAL DESIGN I EXISTNC 'h'AStEWATER LINES CAPACITY Fo.R v:ASTEwnIER r TYPICAL PIPELINE LOADING CONDITIONS FOR NASIE'NATER LINES > IF- Dik A D/c AS LARGE AS 0.75 IS C,NCRALLy CCNS:GERED 'SAFE. Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers A Scientists City of Huntington Beach J � �•? Sewer System MaVer Plan KJ 014641.00 TYPICAL PIPELINE LOADING CONDITIONS Figure 5-5 319 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 I&I, 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 014641.00 320 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 (0) 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) R'S" where: f 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) Miomum_VelQQ4. 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 (fiat pipelines, low spots, or pipelines with low flow) should be given priority status in the City's pipeline cleaning program. 5.13 014641.00 321 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. eumniag 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 Al, reserve capacity contingency, and variation in wastewater flow. Standby power provisions are also an integral element of the lift station reliability. NeL-Nell-SizeLCyding_Bequi[ement. Wet well adequacy for fixed speed pumps is analyzed in terms of maximum pump cycles per hour. A typical 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 014641.00 322 Chapter 6 Wastewater System Evaluation 323 t 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. i 6.1 014641.00 324 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 014641.00 325 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 014641.00 326 The corresponding location, acreage and tributary sub-basin for each accounUdischarger 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 flours 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 014641.00 327 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 now 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. \ 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 014641.00 328 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 flov✓ 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 grapi ically shown in (i Figure 6-1, with the tabular 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 014641,00 329 ,Dq CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SYSTElv1 DEFICIENCIES FLEGEND !M.FAD NI'VE ° :Aooelee RINGER nVF Borderline .DiO:iCICn1 5!!ySILA c V � p N p I VIARp'crR AVE U p , u 0 r 4 l � f x ° C ALeEfl AVE U 0 El S vC j a IF u V GnRCIELD AVE O o- YCFFTOH'N P\• ; AD $AVE � N N r (� iNJIgNd VOL15 AV p °fy a 8 I .�LL_gNtq AVE z u f Y 1.•ILTON vE II I(onnaey/Janh. Consultonls ,Null AVE Enelneerf 8 SCIawiLf NOT TO SCALE ~� sa..Tl sfu.,W.I.,Ruo P.:maMLW SYSTE.V DEFICIENCIES Figure 61 u u Cl 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 initialing 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 lour 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. C 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 PVWVF 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. 6.7 014641.00 331 Lift Station Capacity Evaluation As previously discussed in Chapter 3, the City's standard lift station configuration is comprised of two identical purnps 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. l he 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. ( 1 6.8 014641.00 332 TABLE 6-1 PUMP CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Lilt Station Modeled Pump PD'WFFirm Number Existing Ultimate Existing Ultimate Capacily1O Design Capacityl�1 OI PDWF PDWF Capaclry Capacity (a Name) I 19p.@TDHJ Igpm) Pumps _ m I'r n� _ P (_yP _) 19pm1 De[iciency_ Denclenc 1 Graham 580 ® 55 435 2 361 379 NO NO x2 bd:d( 155 @ 22 116 2 i 131 138 YES YES v3 Staeon'E" 1W 3 18 75 2 48 51 NO VO d$tatbin"A' 572 ® 20 d29 2 282 292 NO NO -5 Devenpon 105 0 12 80 2 93 9a YES YES 46 Edgewater 450 @ 12 338 2 732 977 YES YES 7 Slation'19' 670 (P 10 503 2 460 462 NO NO :.9 Stalidrt"C 1170 Q 15 9]8 2 660 668 NO NO 9 Slabon'O" 900 '@ 50 2700 4 1541 2147 NO NO 10A anquin 1000 a 60 7W 2 475 SC9 NO NO C11 Lark NO NO 9:3 slater 1070 @ 2.4 803 2 691 713 NO NO 14 Ellis 850 ® 34 1215 I 3 444 466 NO NO 15 Beach 150 ® 30 112 2 125 133 YES YES .16 Adams 220 '� 1J 165 2 196 244 YES YES 117 BrooV'tvrsl 72E0 C 28 9ra0 2617 710 NO NO 18 AIIIIma 350 25 263 2 308 1 358 YES YES a:9 Buznard 3:5 ID 236 2 93 97 NO NO l'20$ eer 400 g 14 300 2 44 47 NO NO -21.McFadden 160 @ 32 120 2 i 111 1;] NO NO ?22 Saybr 73 550 @ 23 413 2 619 9 YES YES i.3 NCwar.i1 179 ?} 11 134 2 997 2C8 YES YES 24 Edwards 800 38 500 2 552 574 NO NO [- 'a25 Edinger J00 ® 12 221 1 2 415 423 YES Ad 26 Brig.�lon 220 16 16 2 188 200 YES29CoralCay80 < 50 68 72 YES29 Trinidad 250 15 1B8 7 1a5 153 NO Source data provided by City. (11 Capacity is defined per City maintenance department data as one pump in each station designated standby. (2)PDWF firm design eapaetly is calculated using individual pump capacJy at 75%of design.leaving 25%of design capacty for peak wet weather Ito,. One pump in each station.•xas designated standby. (3)Station deemed deficient when PDWF 6rm design capacity was below PDWF. (4)These stations have been recently improved o.are currently in design for improvement. 333 f, 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 potentialty 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 currenUfuture demand conditions. Prior to the design and construction of the findings derived herein, the \, City 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. -�J 6.10 014641.00 334 TABLE 6-2 WET WELL OPERATIONAL CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES Wet Well Wet Well Modeled Pump Number Operational Pump Operational Pump Station Capacity ]'I 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 1114 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 LCoralCay tlanta 350 @ 25 2 470 6 NO shard 315 @ 1D 2 470 5 NO eer 400 @ 14 2 846 4 NO cFadden 160 @ 32 2 188 6 NO ybrook 550 @ 23 2 294 14 YES w Britain 179 @ 11 2 564 2 NO wards 800 @ 38 2 909 7 NO inger 300 @ 12 2 211 11 NO ighton 220 @ 16 2 188 9 NO ral Cay 80 @ 14 2 211 3 NO inidad 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. 335 Chapter 7 Costs of System improvements 336 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 i i 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 014641.00 337 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 and 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 i 7.2 014641.00 338 • 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 (5/LF) 8 100 10 � 130 12 155 15 180 18 200 21 250 24 _I 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. 7.3 014641.00 339 TABLE 7-2 FORCE MAIN UNIT COSTS Pipe Diameter (inches) Pipe Unit Cost (S/LF) 4 45 6 70 g 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 014641.00 340 n 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 3200 2800 n 2400 > i [0 2000 --- — —� 1200 — soo I I I <ao -- _. 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 C/* 7.5 014641.00 341 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 - I 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 J Note: Costs include Engineering and Administration and contingencies �J 7.8 014641.00 342 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 remedialed 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. 1 7.7 014641.00 J 343 f 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 $3.0 million per year for pipeline repair and replacement activities. This ongoing investment/reinvestment in the City's wastewater system reflects the proactive philosophy of the City's Integrated Infrastructure Management Program. A copy of the adopted sewer service charge ordinances is provided in Appendix E. Existing and Future Hydraulic Deficiency Cost Estimates Wastewater collection system pipeline improvements have been evaluated based upon meeting projected peak wastewater Flows in accordance with the design criteria established in Chapter 5. Gravity sewers have been evaluated utilizing the HYDRA hydraulic model developed as part of this Sewer Master Plan. All proposed sewer pipeline improvements are conservatively assumed to replace the existing gravity sewer main. In addition to the need to rehabilitate aging infrastructure, it is recommended that the City construct new pipelines to eliminate identified hydraulic capacity deficiencies and increase system capacity. The estimated construction costs of these deficiencies are itemized in Table 7-5. The identified "borderline" facilities are also included in Table 7-5. 7.8 014641.00 344 TABLE 7-4 ANNUAL WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM FACILITY DEPRECIATION Replace Repair Replace Repair Replace Repair Annual Pipeline Length Unit Cost Unit Cost Length Length Cost Cost I otal cost Depreciation Size (in) (LF) ($) (b) (ft) {ft) {$) (S) (S) (S/yr)' No Data' 1,4901 g100 S60 745 745 g74,500 $44,700 $119,200 $2,384 4 2,700 $1002 N/A1 2,700 0 $270,000 $0 $270,0001 $5,400 6 8,280 $1001 N/A'I 8,280 0 $828,000 $o $828,0001 $16.560 8 1,568,100 $100 S60i 784,050 784,050 $78,405,000 $47,043,000 $125.448,000 $2,508,960 10 112,490 $130 S801 56,245 56,245 $7.311,850 $4,499,600 $11.811,4501 5236,229 12 72,770 $155 $90 36.385 36,385 55,639,675 $3,274.650 $8,914.3251 5178,287 15151,ti0 $180 $95, 25,555 25,555 $4.599,900 $2,427,725 $7.027.6251 5140,553 16 4,360 $180 595 2,180 2,180 $392,400 $207,100 5599,500 511,990 18 16.920 $200 5130 8,460 8,460 692,000 $1.099,800 $2.791,800 555,836 21 6,730 g250 $155 3,365 3,365 $841,250 $521,5751 $1,362,825 $27.257 24 1,320 52751 $180 660 660 $18i500 $118,800 $300,300 $6,006 27 5,400 $300 $190 2,700 2,700 5810,000 $513.000 $1,323,0001 $26,460 30 1,310 $330 $2001 6551 655 s216,150 $131,000 $347,150 $6,943 Totals 1 1,852,980 - 931,9801 921.0001 $101,262,225 S59,880,9501 $161,143,175 $3,222,864 'Pipelines with No Data are assumed to be 8-inch pipelines 'All pipelines less than or equal to 6-inches are asswned to be replaced with 8-inch pipelines 'Based on 50 Year Useful Life w n TABLE 7- 5 i COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement Length Unit Cost ID # Category Diameter Diameter (fit) (Slit Cost (in) (in) 1 ) $ 10131 Deficient 18 21 373r $250 _ 593,25CI 10141 Deficient 18 21 100 $250 $25,000 1015 Deficient 18 21 226 $250 $56,500 10161 Deficient i821 201 $250 $SQ 250 1017 Deficient 18 21 336 $250 $84,000 1019 1 304 $250 576,0001 474 Deficient 12 18 301 5200 $60.200 476 Deficient 12 18 345 $200 $69,000 4771 Deficient 12 18 345 $200 $69'000 478 Deficient 12 18 345 $200 S69,000 531 Deficient __ 12 18 329 $200 _ 565,800 547 Deficient 12 18 330 _ $200 $66,000 2586 Deficient 12 18 299 $200 $59,800 294 Deficient 12 15 335 5180 $60,300 295 Deficient 12 _ 15 330 $180 559,400. 296 Deficient 12 t 15 168 _ $180 S30,240 165 Deficient 10 15 324 $180 $58,320 166 Deficient 10 _15 347 $180 $52.460 167 Deficient 10 ( 15 314 $180 $56,5201 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 5180 $19.260 194 Deficient 10 15 138 $180 $24,8480I 202 Deficient 10 15 136 $160 524,48_0 206 Deficient 10 15 226 $180 $49,680 211 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 1 $43,200 221 Deficient 10 15 110 $180 $19,800 2221 Deficient 1 10 15 213 5180 $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 1D 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 I $53.100 543 Deficient 10 15 307 $180 $55,260 544 Deficient 10 15 306 $180 _ $55.080 5451 Deficient 10 15 306 $180 555,080 548 Deficient 10 15 309 $180 $55.620 549 Deficient 10 15 14 $180 $2.5201 550 Deficient 10 15 155 $180 $27,900 590 Deficient 10 15 293 $180 $52,740 598 Deficient 10 15 289 $180 $52.020 974 Deficient _ 10 15 331 $180 $59.58 980 Deficient 10 15 330 $180 $59.40 H Deficient 10 15 46 5180 $8.28Deficient 10 12 294 $155 $45.57 Deficient 8 12 255 5155 $39,52 Deficient 8 12 210 $155 $32.55 Subtotal "Deficient" = 13,697 $2,600,165 346 Page 1 of 4 TABLE 7- 5 COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES 1, Existing Replacement Dia Replace ent 1 Length Unit Cost JI ID # Category I meter Diameter Cost I (nl fn) (fq I ($Ift) _ f51 362 Borderline 15 18 157j $200 $31,400, 368 Borderline 15 18 246 $200 S49,200 379 Borderline 15 18 315 $200 $63,000, 486 Bordedine 15 18 127 $200 $25.400 488 Borderline 15 18 725 $200 $25,000 493 Borderline 15 18 206 5200 $41.200 495 Borderline F 15 18 1 329 $200 1 $65,800 33 Borderline 12 15 350 $760 $63,0001 I 361 Borderline 12 _ 15 320 $180 S57,600 L 4 Borderline 12 15 I S780 $47.160 50 Borderline 12 15 2.99 $180 $53.820 1151 Borderline 12 15 150 —$1-8-0 —T $27,000 1161 Borderline 12 15 105 S180 $18,900! 117 Borderline 12 _ 15 75 $180 $13,500 118 Borderline 12 15 330 $180 $59.400 119 Borderline 12 I 15 330 $180 $59.400' 120 Borderline 12 t` 15 341 $180 $61.380 121 Borderline 12 15 259 $760 $46,620, 175{{II Borderline 12 i5 335 $180 S60,300 1821 Borderline 12 15 270 $180 $48.600 183111111 Borderline 12 15 259 $180 S46,620' Ji 1851 Borderline 12 15 1 275 $180 I $49,500 2391 Borderline 12 i5 _ 302 $180 $54,36C; i 256 Borderline 12 15 _ 573 $180 $92,340 11 261 Borderline 12 15 246 5180 $44.280 297 Borderline 12 15 166 $180 $29,880 298 Borderline 12 15 317 $180 $57,060 299 Borderline 12 151 341 5180 $61.380 300 Borderline 12 15 309 $180 $55,620 312 Borderline 12 15 251 _ $180 _ $45.180 366 Borderline 12 15 326 $180 _ $58,6801 375 Borderline 12 15 216 1180 $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 $32,0401 610_ Borderline 12 15 253 $180 545,540 6190 Borderline 12 15 226 S180 $40,680 623 Borderline 12 15 267 $180 $118.060 634 Borderline 12 _ 15_ 235 $180 $42.300 635 Bordedine 12 15 144 $180 _ $25,920 639 Borderline 12 15 140 $180 _ $25.20 7421 Borderline 12 15 _ 286 $180 $51,480 932 Borderline 12 15 682 $180 $122.76 1068 Borderline 12 15 221 $180 $39.780 1134 Bordedine 12 _ 15 141 $180 $25,380 1135 Borderline 12 15 30_ $180 $5,400 _1181 Borderline 12 _]::::::15 301 $180 $54.180 43 Bo rd erl—in e 10 12 325 $155 S50,375 205 Bordedine_ _ 10 12 261 $155 $40,455r 207 Borderline 10 12 347 $155 $53,785 2081 Borderline 10 12 i05 $155 $16,275 2101 Borderline 10 12 149 $155 $23.095 220 Bordedine 10 12 1 292 $155 $45,26 223 Bordedine 10 12 1 107 $155 $16,585 Page 2 of 4 347 TABLE 7- 5 ( COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement Length Unit Cost ID k Category Diameter Diameter (ft) ($/ft) Cost _(in)_ (in) SL__ 231 Bonledine i0 12 223 $155 $34.565 242 Borderline 10 ( 12 _ 330 515E $51,150 245 Borderline 10 12 350 $155 $54,250 254 Borderline 10 12 330 $155 $51.150. 262 Borderline 10 12 ( 330 $155 551,150 301 _ Borderline 10 12 350 $155 $54.250 302 Borderline _1 10 12 23 5155 $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 20 __ 12 282 5155_ S4_3,710 522 Borderline 10 12 259 515E $40,145 523 Borderline 10 12 299 $155 $46.345 524 Borderline 10 12 314 $155 $48,670 525 Borderline 10 12 255 $155 539,52E 533 Borderline 10 12 265 $155 541,07E _ 5461 Borderine _ 10 12 264 $155 $40,920 5511 Borderline 10 12 160 $155 $24,800 819 Borderline 10 12 _ 673 $155 _ $104.3151, 824 Borderline 10 12 261 $155 $40,455 868 Borderline 1 10 12 328 $155 1 $50,840 901 Borderline 10 12 175 $155 $27,125 I 917 Borderline 10 12 388 5155 $60,140; 953 Borderline 1 10 12 331 $155 $51,305', 954 Borderline 10 12 168 $155 $26,040 957 Borderline 10 1?. 326 $155 $50.530 962 Borderline 10 12 162 $155 $25.110 963 Borderline 10 12 _ 330 5155 $51,1501 964 Borderline 10 i2 158 $155 $24 490 956 Borderline 10 12 332 $155 $51.460 975 Borderline _ 10 12 329 $155 $50,995 978 Borderline 10 12 168 $i55 526,040 981 Borderline 10 12 171 $155 $26,505j 1041 Borderline 10 12 301 $155 $46,655 1118 Borderline 10 12 150 5155 $23,250 1121 Borderline 10 _ 12 277 $155 $42,935 1130 Borderline 10 12 40 $155 $6,200 _ 1131 Borderline 10 12 326 $155 $50,530 1136 Borderline 10 12 81 $155 '"'512,5551 2566 Borderline 10 _ 12 349 5155 $54.095 2569 Borderline 10 12 349 $155 $54,095 2576 Borderline 10 12 352 515E $54,56 4003 Borderline 10 12 309 $155 $47,895 233 Borderline a 10 35 $130 $4,550 240 Borderline 8 10 91 $130 511.830 313 Borderline 8 1 10 _ 226 $130_ $29,38 318 Borderline 8 10 91 $130 $11.83 347 Borderline 8 10 341 $130 $44,33 832 Borderline 8 10 77 5130 $10.01 833 Borderline 8 10 105 5130 $13,6E0 .i' 2541 Borderline 8 10 181 5130 $23,5301 2543 Borderline 8 10 36 $130 $4 94 $130 22 ,680� 2545 Borderline a 10 2 538 2547 Borderline 8 10 275 $130 535,7E 2579 Borderline 8 10 IA 162 $130 $21.06 348 Page 3 of 4 TABLE 7- 5 COLLECTION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATES Existing Replacement Replacement (in) in Lerf Unit C)st (S) ID # Cate o Diameter Diameter Cost($/ft Cost t) 2581 Borderline 8 ( 10 217 5130 $28.21 3331 Borderline 15 18 130 $200 $26,00011 3411 Borderline I 15 18 1951 $200 $39,000l 351 Borderline 15 18 197 $200 $39.400 1 168 __Borderline 12 15 335 $180 _ $60,300 3991 Borderline 10 12 290 $155 _ $44,950, 4341 Borderline 10 12 300 _ $155 $46,500 �147 8ordodine 10 _ 12 170 $155 $26.350 563 Borderline 10 12 332 $155 $51.460 7751 Borderline 1 10 _ 12 363 $155 $56,26 779 Borderline 10 12 400 $155 562,0 785_Borderline 10 12 401 $155 $62,155, 811 Borderline 10 12 171 $155 $26.505 618 Borderline 10 12 1462 5155 5226,610 903 Borderline 10 12 206 $155 $31.930 1055 Borderline 10 12 206 $155 _ $31,93C' 311 Borderline 8 10 _ 75 $130 $9,750 5009 Borderline 8 10 225 $130 11 $29,250 50041 Borderline 1 _8 10 171 $130 522.230 Subtotal "Borderline" = 32,830 $5,383,046 Total Collection System Improvements = 46,527 $7 983 205 349 Page 4 of 4 �l 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. 1.71 7.11 014641.00 350 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 01 Pumps Ratio Deficiency[') 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 #2 2 Saybrook 15 2 184% Yes $1,922,485 #23 New Britain 5 2 156% Yes 51,478,168 #25 Edinger 5 2 190% Yes $1.805,260 426 Brighton 3 .2 123% Yes $1.143,837 #28 Coral Cay 3 2 121% Yes 51,119.455 Deficient Subtotal $16,607,733 Non-Deficient Lift Stations 91 Graham 20 2 87% No $1,028,000 #3 ••E""r 3 2 68% No $919,200 47 Station "B"") 8 2 92% No $972,000 #8 Station"C••'`) 25 2 76% No $1.140.000 410 Algonquin 40 2 68% No $656.000 .411 Lark 2 2 94% No $912,800 #13 Slater 20 2 96% No $1.028,000 #14 Ellis 20 3 37% No 51,028,000 #19 Bushard 3 2 41% No $919.200 #20 Speer 15 2 16% No $996.000 #21 ;ACFadden 5 2 98% No $932.000 #24 Edwards 20 2 96% No $1,028.000 929 Trinidad[`) 10 2 62% No $96000 Non-Deficient Subtotal $12,523,200 Recently Improved Lift Stations #4 •'A'aa)(') 10 2 68% N/A N/A #9 'D-t3)'`) 25 4 79% NIA N/A #17 Brookhursl(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. [)Capacity deficiencies ate considered high priority improvements. (3)-rhese stations have been recently improved or are currently in design for capacity improvement- ["[It is recommended the pump output capacity of all harbor lift stations be field evaluated. L/ 351 F' I 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 014641.00 352 Chapter 8 Sewer Facility Charges 353 CHAPTERS 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. 4'. I 8.1 014641.00 354 • 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. 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 014641.00 355 Incremental Ap rp oath. 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 r 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 014641.00 356 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 vaith 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. / - l ' 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 custorners. 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 014641.00 357 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% 5879,082 37% 5328,394 #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 r ! Total Replacement Cost $17,147,733 - $9,641,313 Source: Table 7-6. t. . 358 Similar to the approach used for the lift station cost allocation, discussions with City staff 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 $8.0 million, and 84.0 million for Alternatives 1 and 2, respectively. r. 8.6 014641.00 359 TABLE 8-2 ( I COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES Existing acement Replacement Sliplining Upsizing Repl Leng[h ED# Diameter Cost cost Cost n Diameter I ($) (s) ($) 1013 18 21 3731 593,250 _ $48.490 $44.760 1014 18 21 100 $25.000 $13.000 $12,0001 _ 1015 18 21 2261 $56.500 $29,3801 $27.120 10161 18 21 201 J $50,250 $26,130 $24,120 1017 18 21 1 36 $,000 $43,680 $40.320 1019 18 21 304 $76,000 $39,520 $36,480' 474 12 _ 18 301 $60,200 $27.090 533,11 476 12 18 345 $69.000 $31.050 $37,95 _ 477 12 18 345 $69,000 531,050 $37,950 478 12 18 _ 345 S69.0001 $31,050 $37,950' 531 12 18 329 $65.8001 $29,6101 $36.190' 547 12 18 330 $66.000 $29,7001 536,30 2586 12 18 299 $59,800 $26.910 $32,890 294 12 15 335 $60.300 530,150 $30.1,n 2951 12 15 330 $59,400 $29,700 $29,700' 296 12 15 168 $30,240 $15.120 S16.1201 165 10 15 324 $58,320 $25.9201 532,400 166 10 1 15 1 3471 562,460 $27,7601 $34,700 1671 10 1 15 314 556,520 125.120 $31,400'; 168 10 15 339 $61,020 $27,120 $33,9C 169 10 _ 15 _ 308 $55,440 $24,640 530,800 170 10 15 1 304 $54,720 $24,320 530,400 174 10 1 15 1071 $19,260 $8.560 510,700 194 10 15 138 $24,840 $11,040 $13,80 202 10 _ 15 136 $24,480 $10,880 $13,600 206 10 15 226 $40,680 $18.080 522,600 211 10 15 204 $36,720 $16,3201 $20,40C 213 10 15 113 $20,340 $9,040 $11,30 216 10 15 240 $43.200 _ $19,200 $24,00 219 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 $21,30Q 232 10 15 239 $43,020 $19,120 $23.9DO 2371 10 15 246 $44,280 519,680 $24,600 2931 10 15 251 $45,180 $20,080 $25,100 3081 10 15 290 $52,200 $23,200 $29,000 321 10 ) 15 3001 $54.000 $24,000 A$30700 335 10 15 301 $54.180 $24,080 345 _ 10 15 295 553,100 $23,600 543 10 15 307 $55.2601 524,560 544 10 15 306 $55.080 _ $24.480 530,60 545 10 15 i 306 $55,080 $24.480 $30.60 548 10 15 1 309 $55.620 $24.720 $30.900 549 10 15 14 $2.520 $1,120 51,400 550 10 _ 15 155 $27.900 312.400 $15.500 590 10 15 293 $52,740 523,440 $29.300) 598 10 15 289 $52,020 $23,120 $28,90 974 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_ $4,60 1080 10 12 294115,570 523,520 122,050) 5005 8 12 255 539,525 515,300 $24.22 50131 8 12 1 210 $32,5501 S12,6001 $19,950 Page 1 of 4 360 TABLE 8-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES 'r EIDExistingReplacement Slipiining upsizinpngth Diameter Cost Cost Cost P (ft)nl (S) (S) I (S) 362 l5 18 157 $31.400 $14.915 $16.485 368 15 18 I 2a6 $49.200 523,370 $25.830 379 15 18 315 So3,000 $29,925 $33 0751 486 15 18 127 $25.400 $12,065 $13,33 488 l5 18 I 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 $63,0001 331.500 $31,500 36 12 15 320 557,600 $28,800 $28.800 _46 _ 12 _ 15 262 $47,160 $23,580 523,580 50 12 15 299 $53,820 $26,910 $26,910i 115 12 15 1501 $27,000 $13,5001 513,5001 116 12 15 105 $18.900 59,450 $9,450 117 12 15 76 513.500 $6,750 $6.750 118_ 12 15 330 $59,400 $29,7001 $29,700 _ 119 12 15 330 $59,4001 $29,700 $29,700 120 12 15 341 S61.3801 $30,690 $30,69G' 121 12 15 I 259 $46,620 $23,310 $23,31 175 12 15 335 $60.300 $30.150 530,150 1321 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 $24,756 239 12 15 302 $54,360 $27.180 S27,18 / 256 12 15 513 $92,340 $46,170_$46,170 l 261 12 15 246 Y� $44,280 $22.1,10 522,140 297 12 15 166 $29,88G $14,940 $14,9401 298 12 15 317 $57,0601 $28.530 $28,53 299 12 15 341 $61,3801 530,690 $30,69 300 12 15 309 $55,620 $27,810 $27.810 312 12 15 7.51 545,180 $22,590 $22,590 366 12 15 326 558.680 $29,340 $29,3a0 3751 12 15 210 $37,800 $18.900 $18,90 377 12 15 120 _ $21.600 $10,800 $10,80 389 12 15 2201 539,600 $19,800 519,800 5081 12 1 15 _ 9 51,620_ $810 $810 607I 12 15 178 $32.040 $16,020 _$16.020, 610 12. 15 253 $45.540 522,770 $22.7701 619 12 15 226 $40,580 $20,340 520,34 _ 623 12 15 267 $48.060 $24,030 524.030 634 12 15 235 $42,300 $21.150 521,150 635 12 15 _ 144 $25.920 $12,960 $12,960 639 12 15 _ 1.10 $25,200 $12,600 $12.60 742 12 15 286 $51,480 $25,740 $25.74 932 12 15 682 $122,760 $61,3801 $61.38 1068 12 15 I_ 221 $39,780 $19.890 519,890 _ 1134 12 15 141 $25.380 512,690 S12,690 1135 12 15 _ 30 55,400 $2.700 52,700i 1181 12 15 301 554,180_ $27,090 $27,09 431 10 12 325 $50,375 $26,000 $24,375 2051 10 12 261 $40,455 $20.880 $19,575 207 10 12 347 $53.785 $27,760 $26,025 208 10 12 105 $16,276 $8,400 $7,875 ! C 2101 12 149 $23,095 $11.920 $11,175 Page 2 of 4 361 TABLE 8-2 I COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES Existing Replacement Length Replacement Sliplining Upsizing ID# Diameter Cost Cost Cost Diameter (in) (ft) 1$) $) ($L- 2201 10 12 2921 $45.260, $23.3601 $21.900' 223 10 12 107 $16.585 $8,560 58,025 231 10 12 2.23 534,565 $17.840 $16,725 242 10 12 330 $51,150 _ $26,400 524,750 245 10 72 _350 $54,250 $28,000 $26,250� 254 10 _ 12 3301 551,150 $26,400 $24.750; 2621 10 12 330 $51,150 526,400 $24,750� 301 10 12 350 $54.259 $28,000 $26,25 302 10 12 23 $3.5651 $1,840 51,725 449 10 12 129 $19,995 SlD,3201 $9,675 462 10 12 301 $46,655 524,080 $22,575 465 10 12 287 $44,485 $22,960 $21,525! 470 10 12 282 543,710 $22,560 $21,15d 522 10 12 259 $40,145 $20,720 $19,42 523 10 12 299 _ $46.345 $23.920 $22.425 524 10 12 314 $48,670 $25.120 $23,550 525_ 10 12 255 $39,525 520.400 $19,12 533 10 12 265 $41,075 $21,2D0 $19,875 546 10 12 264 $40,920 $21,120 $19,800 551 10 12 160 $24.800 $12,13 512,000 819i 10 12 _ 5731 $104,315 $53,840 $50.47 8241 10 12 2611 540.455 $20,880 $19.57' 868 10 12 3281 550,840 $26,240 $24,600 901 10 12 175 $27,125 $14.000 $13,125 917 10 12 388 $60,140 $31,0401 $29,100 953 10 12 331 $51,305 525,480 $24,825 954 10 12 168 $26,040 _ $13.440 $12,600' 957 10 12 326 _ $50,530 526,080 $24,45 962 10 12 162 $25,110 $12.950 $12.15 963 10 12 330 $51,150 $26,400 $24,750 9" 10 12 158 $24.490 $12,640 $11,850 966 10 12 332 $51,4601 $26,560 $24,900 975 10 12 329 $50,995 $26.3201 $24,675; 978 10 12 168 $26.040 $13,4401 $12,60 981 10 12 171 $26,505 $13,680 $12.62 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 $6,200 _ $3,200 $3.000 1131 10 12 326 $50,530 $26.080 $24,450 1136 10 12 81 $12.,555 � S6A80 $6.Oi51 2566 10 12 349 $54,0951 $27.920 $26,1751 2569 10 12 349 $54,0951 527,920 $26.175 2576 10 12 352 $54.560 $28.160 $26,40 4003 10 12 309 $47.895 524,720 $23.175 233 8 10 35 54,550 $2,100 $2.450 240 8 10 91 $11.830 $5.460 $6,370 52541 3 8 10 226 $29,380 $13.560 $15.820 8 8 10 91 $11.830 $5,460 $6,370 ^, 7 8 10 _ 341 544,330 520.460 $23.870 2 8 10 77 $10.010 $4,620 $5,390 3 8 10 105 $13,650 $6,300 $7,350 8 10 181 523,530 $10,860 $12.670, Page 3 of 4 362 TABLE 8-2 COLLECTION SYSTEM EXPANSION COST ALTERNATIVES Existing Replacement Sliplining Upsizing Replacement Length ID p Diameter Cost Cost Cost Diameter (in) (ft) 2543� '8 10 36 (g�54,560-�5$2.160 $2.5201 2545 8 10 294 538,220 517,640 $20,580 2547 8 10 { 275 $35,750 $16,500 519,250 2579 8 10 162 $21,060_ $9,720 $11.340 2581 8 10 217 $28,210 $13,020 $15,190 11 333 15 18 130 526,000 $12,350 $13,650 341 15 18 195 539,000 $18,525 $20,47�j 351 15 18 197 $39,400 578,715 $20,685I 1168 12 15 335 $60,300 $30,150 $30,150, 399 10 12 290 544,950 $23,200 $21,75 434 10 12 300 $46,500 $24,000 $22,500 447 10 12 170 $26,350 $13,600 $12,750 563 t0 12 332 S51,460 526,560 $24.90 f 775 10 12 363_ $56,265 $29,040 $27,225 779 10 12 400 $62,000 $32,000 $30.000•' 785 10 12 a01 $62,155 532,080 $30,075 811 10 _ 12 171 $26,5051 $13.680 $12,825 818 10 12 1462 $226,6101 $116.9501 5109,650' 903 10 12 206 $31.9301 $16.480 $15450 1055 10 12 206 $31.930 S16A80 515,450 311 8 10 75 $9.7501 54,500 $5,250 5009 8 10 225' $29.250 $13,500 515,750 5004 8 10 177 .$22.230 Si0,260 $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 Upsizing Cost $3,979,490 Page 4 of 4 363 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. �J 8.8 014641.00 364 TABLE 8-3 ESTIMATED UNIT WASTEWATER FLOWS Account Units/ Usage Return Wastewater Wastewater UsageN Type EDUs (HCF/Yr) To Sewer (HCF) {MGD) (qpd) ES,nglmemily (SFD) 41,718 6,765,222 0.67 4,532,699 9.4 226 ily (MFD) 32,326 3.378,013 0.85 2.871,311 6.0 185 ial/Industrial 13,308 1,829,100 0.90 1,646.190 3.4 257 Source: Sewer Service Charge Approach, DCA 7/01 °I Single Family and Multi Family are per unit, Commercial/Industrial is per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU). 365 i 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 014641.00 366 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 59.641 313 $9,641,313 Total Cost to Future Users $17,624,518 $13,620,803 Estimated Wastewater Flows Projected Wastewater Flows at Suildout(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 ($11000 gpd) $9.038 $6,985 Alternative 1 - Total System Replacement Cost Alternative 2 - Total System Upsizing Cost 367 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 S9.641.313 $9.641,313 Total Cost to Future Users $17,624,518 $13,620.803 Estimated Unit Wastewater Flows t"1 Estimated Flows from a SFD (gpd) 226 226 Estimated Flows from a MFD (gpd) 185 185 Estimated Flows from a Non-Res EDU (gpd) 257 257 Unit Costs of Service Unit Costs of Service ($/1000 gpd) $9.038 $6,985 SFD Unit Cost S2,043 $1,579 MFD Unit Cost $1,672 $1.292 Non-Res Unit Cost per EDU $2.323 S T,795 Non-Residential Meter Size Equivalency Alternative Charge Per Meter Size (Inches)and Type EDUstat Meter Size/Tyoe 5 / 8 1 $2,323 $1,795 314 1 $2,323 S1,795 1 2 $4,646 $3.590 1.5 3 $6,968 $5,385 2 5 $11.614 $8,976 3 11 $25,550 S19,747 4 Compound 17 $39.487 $30,517 4 Domestic and Turbine 33 $76.651 $59,240 6 Compound 33 S76,651 $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 Source: Sewer Service Charge Approach, DCA 7/01 Alternative 1 - Total System Replacement Cost Alternative 2 -Total System Upsizing Cost f 368 � . 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. C i 8.13 014641.00 369 i TABLE 8- 6 RESIDENTIAL SEWER FACILITY CHARGE SURVEY Single Family Mu1it Family Description (SFD) (MFD) Representative Agencies Orange County Sanitation Districtr'r $1,620 to $1,965 $1,275 to $1,620 City of Santa Ana $1,500 to $2.000 $1,200 to $1,500 City of Fountain Valley") $1,500 - City of Anaheim t0t $1,470 $1,476 City of Huntington Beach Charges Current Fee, Adopted 4/88 $220 $220 Calculated Fee Alternatives 2003 Studv 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 + S4.65 per Front Footage (basis used was 4 DU/Ac, and 300 LF (d) Varies by service Area. Values are estimated averages 370 Appendix A Lift Station Support Information C_a 371 TABLE A-1 SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PUMP STATION OBSERVATIONS-I995 REQUIRES UNDERSIZED CORRODED RECLINES OBSERVED DR EXCESS ELECTRICAL DRYWELL- NPING.DRY PAINTINGi INADEQUATE POSSIBLELEAKING AMVa ELECTRICAL EXPOSED COA'DUIT RESTRICTED WELL.ANDIOR PROTECTIVE NEEDS NUMBER NAVE NUMBER A NALIE PIPE SUPPORT DRY WELWAULI VAIVF:S CABLE WIRING PAINT AREAS HARDWARE COATING CLEANING 1 Groeam L Honl.a:N Al GRAHAM % % % x 2 HNinoWIE Waylaror 12 HUMBOLDT x X A A p. x A ! Gloula Peale 10'E' A % % x x x x Ic PC",m Suuel Beacn I1W % z X x % % x 5 On...p,,N a Bdrwa 15 DAVENPORT % a % x 6 Ed, W L Daayron M EDGE WATER X % A x x I PCH Walt OI WAA,, 12 STATION-0 x A x x A x B Wyfrtlbrlp Ol PCX IB STATION-C- % % A % % l: 0 41'YMrdl EaglwJlef'U $laaan A9'D. X A A % % 10 Algonquin It BailavNk I10 ALGO.YCUIN x x x A I L.k L VM,ner all LARK % A % A 12 MN L MYuo!I A q HFIL x % A % A U SIM.,6 SpmgJala .13 SLATER x A A A x x lA Gaara6 E9u A IA GOTNA3D % A x X t5 OceaM6G Beam A158EAC- A t6 Ayms 8 0.segtt n6 ADAMS % A x % X :x I x 17 Ur"ArI.'I L EILNRam 217 BRGD"URSI Y A % x % Y. '.9 auenlaEssl o!BAuli all AILANTA x x x 19 Dmnsa L pn;bwooa A19 BUSHARO x x % 0 Spear L Crepp 0205PEER % x x x x 11fFaaam L O.u .A 021 NCFADUEN % A X k % A 22 S.'O'. k a net A22 SAYUROOK A A h x x 23 Now&,aan L Aaaina N21 HEW BRITAIN x 8 A X X a E..1.A Balmoral .24 EOWAROS x x A x % x 25 Ea ng., S..BIIERO .25 EDINGER x X I x X xI % 6 8.lMiT l Snvapam .25 BRIGHTON % x x A % A % 29 Cmel Cay .28 CORAL CAY X A A x A A q A 9 Tnnaea a Aauerma .22 TRINIDAD S % x A x W V N n WaAtnaAninryn Bra:MpNa11.CC NY.Vryy]dN NroaKnrpriS.:aurA' FROM SEWER I I � I I Y:ET WELL SUMP PUMP - - Lj o I SUMP— PUMPS, — it T--W '1 L1 E - I DRY PIT f i1 Ii STAIRS III - lfi TO FORCE MAIN I NOT TO SCALE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TYPICAL WET WELL/DRY PIT LAYOUT Figure 5-1 I I I 373 K I,MHOLE (IF IN STREFT) ACCESS HATCH ACCESS HATCH ,n, G✓z i M I I DRY PIT - -3 TO FORCF.6J:JN WET WELL c TRO E SEW S R --- HIGH 'WATER LEVEL SEW _ o Ii NEIJCO _ — Y 1 TORQUE—FLOW 1 0 o PUMP 1 LOW WATER LEVEL r _ SUMP PU!dP NOTES: I. FIGURE DOES NOT SHOW HVAC EOUIPmENT. 2. ACTUAL LOCATION OF PIPING MAY VARY DEPENDING UPON LIFT STATION SITE AND CONFIGURATION. NOT TO SCALE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TYPICAL WET WELUDRY PIT ELEVATIONS Figure Fr2 374 LIFT STA11019 V,'ET WELL �VALVE VALLI Jf, L \_VALLT OPLA!x 0 y FORCE MAN ACCESS HATCii .......... Pvc CHECI 't 0'�! l' T VALVE IJFTER r m4E ME m- 7 Lo ws EXTEND PVC L114CR CROUP — V-11" 5ELOW LOW FILL WATCR LEVEL .ZZ. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SUBMERSIBLE LIFT STATION O .Figure 5-3 375 1 1\ Appendix B Wastewater Flow Monitoring Summary 376 REFER TO MASTER DOCUMENT (\F I 377 r� e Appendix C Assessor Parcel Number and Billing System Correlation 378 REFER TO MASTER DOCUMENT i.. 379 Appendix D Hydraulic Analysis Support Information i C �i 380 APPENDIX D COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES - ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS f' Existing Replacement PDWF Existing New Length [1:D » Category (c fs) Diameter - Dld Di{meter D!d t t (in) (f 1013 Deficient 3.447 _ 18 1.00 21 0.60 373 1014 Deficient 3.402 18 1.00 21 ' 0.60 100' 1015 11,e m 3.396 18 1.00 21 _ 0.60 226 1016 Deficient 3.253 18 ' 0.78 21 0.58 201 1017 Deficient 3249 _ 18 0.78 21 0.58 336 1019 Deficient 3.143 18 0.75 21 Q57 304 474. Deficient 2.313 12 1.00 18 1 0.41 __ 301 476 Deficient 2.344 12 1.00 i8 O.41 345 477 Deficient 2.388 12 1.00 _ 18 0.42 345 478 Deficient 2.443 12 100 I 18 0.42 345; 531 Deficient 2.107 12 _ 075 18 0.40 329 [44 7 Deficient 2.104 _� 12 1.00 18 0.41 _ 330 6 Deficient 1.693 12 0.75 18 0.39 _ 2991 Deficient 1.295 12 0.54 15 0.47 335 2951 Deficient 1.291 12 0.54 15_ 0.47_ 330 296 Deficient 1288 12 0.54 15 0.47 1681 165 Deficient _ 0.852 10 0.70 15 0.38 324 i 166 Deficient 0.853 10 0.70 15 0.38 347; 167 Deficient i 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 t Q852 10 0.70 15 0.38 138' 202 Deficient 0.988 10 0.71 1 15 _ 0.38 _ 136 k137 Deficient 0.996 10 _ 0.72 15 0.39 226 Deficient 1.006 10 0.74 I 15 0.39 204 Deficient 1.014 10 0.74 I 15 039 113 Deficient 1.021 10 0.74 15 0.39 240, Defi> cient 1.033 10 0.75 15 0.39 240 Deficient 1.031 10 0.7515 0.39 110 Deficient 1.106 10 0.79 l_15 0.41 213 Deficient 1.122 10 100 -I 15 0.41 239Deficient 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 t 15 0.38 290 321 Deficient 0.861 10 0.68 15 0.38 300. 335 Deficient 0.867 _ 10 0.67 ` 15 0.38 301 345 Deficient 0.862 10 0.68 15 0.38 295 11 5431 Deficient 1.146 10 0.69 15 0.37 307 544 Deficient 1.251 10 0.73 15 0.38 306 545 Deficient 1.268 10 0.73 15 0.39 306 548 Deficient 1,260 10 0.74 15 0.39 30e 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. 55 _ 15 0.37 29 598 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 O.a4 255 t! 5013 Deficient 0.585 8 1 1.D0 12 O.a3 210,, C� Subtotal "Deficient" = 13,6971 Page 1 of 4 381 APPENDIX D i� COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES - ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS Existing Existing Replacement PDWF New Length ID Category (cts) Diameter Did Diameter Dld (ft) 362 Borderline 2,057 _ 15 0.67 18 0.50 ( 157 368 eordedine 2.142 15_ 0.68 18 0.51 l 246 3791 Borderline 2.164 15 0.69 1 18 0.52 315 486 Borderline 1,768 15 0.67 1 18 0.51 127 488 Borderline 1.773 15 0.65 18 0.51 125 493 Borderline 1.834 15 0.69 ( 18 0.53 i 206 495 Borderline 1.844 15 0.69 18 0.53 329 33 Borderiine 0.620 12 0.50 15 0.38 350 36 Borderline 0.658 12 0.52 15 0.39 320 46 Borderline 0.804 12 0.50 15 0. 00 �29 50 Borderline 0.846 12 0.52 _ 15 0.42 115 Borderline 1.242 12 0.52 15 0.39 116 Borderline 0,972 12 0.65 15 0.46 105' 117 Borderline 0.943 12 1 0.64 15 j 0.45 75 118 Borderline j 0.943 12 _ 0.63 15 0.45 330 119 Borderline 0,934 12 0,63 15 0.45 330' 1201 Borderline 0.930 12 0.63 15 0.45 __ 341 121 Borderline 0.720 12 0.54 15 0.39 259 1751 Borderline 0.706 12 0.54 _ 15 0.41 335, 182 Borderline 0.698 12 0.49 15 0.39 27 183 Borderline 0.702 12 0.49 15 0.39 259 _ 185 Borderline 0.673 12 0.48 15 0.31 275 239 Borderline 1.407 12 0.65 15 0.46 302 255 Borderline 1.601 _1 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 1661 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 309i 312 Borderline 1.314 12 _0.61 15 0.44 251 366 Borderline 0.952 12 0.52 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 12 389 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 17 610 Borderline 0.685 12 0.51 15 0.38 253 619 Borderline 0.715 12 0.53 15 0.39 226 623 Borderline 0.540 12 0.46 j 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 6391 Borderline 0.927 1 12 0.62 15 0.45 140 742 Bordedine t141 12 0.52 15 0.39 286i 932 Borderline 0.854 12 0.51 15 0.38 682 10681 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 0A3 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 0.46 10 210 Borderline 0.585 10 0.55 12 0.42 149 ___220 Borderline 0.634 10 0.58 12 0A4 292 2231 Borderline 1 0,635 10 0.58 12 0.44 167 Page 2 of 4 382 APPENDIX D COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES -ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS I-] Existing Replacement PDWF Existing New Length ID# Category (cfs) Diameter Diameter (in) I I (in) 231 Borderline 0.659 70 0.59 l 12 OA5 223 242 Borderline 11.660 10 0.59 f 12 0.45 _ 33C' 245 9orderline 0.489 0 o 6l 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 0.44 129 452 Borderline 1.028 10 0.62 12 0.47 301 465Borderline 1 1.034 10 0.62 12 0A8 _ 287 _470 Borderline 7.040 10 0.63 12 0.48 282 522 Borderline 0.711 10 0.60 12 0.47 259 E551 Borderline 0.670 _ 10 0.57 12 0.45 299 Borderline 0.662 10 0.61 12 0.48 314 Borderline 0.582 10 0.56 12 0.45 255 � Borderline 0.577 10 0.56 12 0.44 265 Borderline 0.574 10 0.55 _12 0.44 26411 Borderline 1.133 10 066 12 0.49 1 Borderline0.571 10 0.48 12 0.39 67 Borderiine 0.544 10 0,47 12 0.41 _ 261 868 Borderline 0.463 10 _ 0.55 12 __OA5 328 901 Borderline 0.518 10 _ 0.50 _' 12 _� 0A0 175 917 Borderline 0.518 70 0.50 12 _ 0.40 1 388 953 Borderiine 0.790 10 0.59 12 0.46 331' 954 Borderline 0.793 70 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 _i2 0.41 332 975 Borderline 0.679 70 0.53 _ 12 0.42 329 978 Borderline 0.703 10 0.51 12 0.41 16B 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 0.55 12 0.42 150 7121 Borderline 0.703 10 0.59 12 _ 0.46 _ 277 1130 Borderline 0.611 10 0.59 12 0 43 40 1731 eordedine 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 __ DA7 349� 25761 Borderline 0.785 10 0.64 12 0.47 352 4003_ Borderline 0.589 10 0.50 12 0.39 1 309 233 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 10 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 ! t0 0.42 275 2579 Borderline 0.350 8 0.57 10 0.42 162 Page 3 of 4 383 7 APPENDIX D ( COLLECTION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES - ULTIMATE LOADING CONDITIONS Existing Existing Replacement PDWF New Length ID X Category Diameter Diameter (cfs) (in) D/d (in) Dld (ft) 25811 Borderline 0.350 8 0.57 10 0.42 217 3331 Borderline 2.015 15 0.66 �_ 18 0.50 13 341 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 0.37 335 399 Borderline 0.717 10 0.50 12 h 0.39 29 434 Borderline 0.717 10 0.50 12 0.39 300 447 Borderline 0.718 10 0.50 I 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 2203- 7791 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 1 0.47 I 12 0.39 1462 903 Borderline 0.501 10 0.49 j 12 0.39 206 1055 Borderline 0A94 10 0.49 12 0.39 ) 206 311 Borderline 0.275 _ 8 0.50 10 0.37 75 5009 Borderline 0.285 B 0.49 10 0.37 225, 5004 Bordedine 0.360 8 0.57 10 11 0.42 171 ( Subtotal "Borderline" = 32,8301 Total Collection System Improvements = 46,527 Page 4 of 4 384 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 i 385 APPENDIX D_2 GIS BASED LAND USE GENERATION FACTORS LAND USE FLOW GENERATION DESCRIPTION CODE FACTORS ad 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 Love 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 1 120 General CG 1040 Visitor CV 1020 Regional CR 690 Industrial 1 820 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-Cfi) 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'slacre Schools loads were based on actual billing data 386 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 104 108.596 115,181 CO 22 43.203 45.787 CR 49 93,356 98,903 CV 30 51.133 54.191 1 928 890,623 943.843 rn 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(I) 7 4,443 4.710 P(OS-CR) 3 526 557 P(OS-P) 4 1,647 1,756 P(RL) 11 60.794 64442 P(RL-3) 3 923 978 P(RL-6.5) 1 3.825 4.055 P(RL-7) 4 9.924 10,521 ,I P(RM-15) 11 16,778 17,781 P(RMH-25) 9 8,904 9.436 f 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 VMH 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_RH-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 541,404 806.653 Total (GPD) 48,653 18,368,653 20,319,193 Total(MGD) 18.37 20.32 Total Incremental Flow(MGD) 1.95 387 APPENDIX D 4 f - SIGNIFICANT DISCHARGERS /SCHOOLS Parcel Ultimate SID or SCHOOL Service (Name) APN Account No. Service Type Acreage Landuse Flow j (AC) (gPd) SID 145-531-24 1 961240 INDUSTRIAL 1.15 1 33,606 SID 145-473-23 909580 I INDUSTRIAL 1.111 I 1_ 10,340 SID 1145-473-09 909480 1 INDUSTRIAL 0.56 1 _ 9,048 SID 165-364-Z1 615020 COMMERCIAL 0.721 CIS i 47,178 AREVALOS 1155-043-01 1 14,00 P(RL) 23,746 CIRCLE VIEW 145-381-01 I j _ 13.59 P(RL) 23,054 CLARA COOT( 195-081-24 9.861 P(RL) it 16,723 COLLEGE VIEW j 146-372-15 13.84 1 P(RL) 23,476 CRESTVIEW 157-481-08 I 13.86 CG 23,510 DR RALPH E HAWES j 151-261-17 7.79 P(RL) 13,219 DIANER MULTI _A4ULTI MULTI 9.40. P(RL) 15,946 EADER MULTI I MULTI I MULTI 10.701 P(RL) 18,151 GISLER 749-302-17 1 1 14.06 P(RL) 23.847 GLEN VIEW _ 145-422-19 1 1 13.39 P(RL) 22,709 HARBOR VIEW 178-761-02 1 15.78 SCHOOL I 26,770 HAVEN VIEW }I 178-091-01 13.49 P(RL) 22,872 FIB UNION HIGH I MULTI MULTI MULTI { 36.921 P(RL) HELEN STACEYIA.DA 195-091-01 31.54 SCHOOL 1I 53,488 HOPE VIEW 1 165-171-02 I 14.711 SCHOOL I 24,946 _ ISAAC BOWERS I MULTI _ MULTI I MULTI 1 14.24 P(RL) 24,146 LANIB MULTI I MULTI I MULTI 14.261 P(RL) 24,183 LARK VIEW MULTI MULTI I MULTI 15.09 P(RL) 25,599 LEBARD 155-151-01 1 10.16 P(RL) _17,225 MARINE VIEW MULTI MULTI MULTI 13.74 P(RL) 23,298 MEADOW VIEW 146-131-01 I 13.531 SCHOOL 22,945 NEWLAND MULTI I MULTI MULTI 14.28 P(RL) 24,224 OAK VIEW MULTI MULTI I MULTI I 14.08 P(RL) 23,878 oKA 153-181-02 8.46 P(RL) 14,346 PARK VIEW 142-441-23 I � tI 11.98 P(RL) 20,313 PERRY 1153-012-20 1 10.15 P(RL) 17,214 PLEASANT VIEW MULTI MULTI 1 MULTI j 10.81 P(RL)_ _16,335 RANCHO VIEW MULTI MULTI J WU-LTIJ 18.20 MV_1 30,862 ROSERi BURKE 151-372-01 I 7.73 P(RL) 13_102 ROBINNfOOD 145-042-24 f 10.721 P(RL) ""73 SCHROEDER I 145-191-01 _• I__ i 8.82 P(RL) 14,966 SIAITH 023-100-08 I _ 9.67 P(RL) 16,395 SPRING VIEW 73.90 P(RL) 23,574 SPR'NGDALE 195-214-23 j i 8.75 P(RL) 14,832 ST BON,4VENTURE _� 146-431-10 7.331 P(RL) 12,433 ST FRANCIS PVT MULTI I _ MULTI _MULTI __ 951j P(RL-6.5) 16,132 _ TALBERt 1 153-132-19 1 j 13.83 P(RL) 23,456 UNK SCHOOL.SITE MULTI MULTI 1 MULTI 8.00 P(RL) 13,570 VILLAGEVIEW 146-072-12 1 I 1 12.63 P(RL) 1 21.412 WARULOW 153-271-02 1 14.52 P(RL) 1 24,628 Lh4NIERSBURG I 111-010-01 ( 1 54.40; CG 92,256 388 - 11J / i- c=1 L�T1TQJ 11 1�I; ,t1rOpY,pa Ic Sunsla r= clr. g I1 I i Verde Mar Dr, - 1014 1015 1016 Ton I 1010 Ham -- ) U -- 0 Q n-brook Dr. --J NOT TO SCALE d U --�--- ----! CU N _ I E U Kennedy/Jenks Consultants S Engineers & Scientists I� City of Huntington Beach �''"$ Sewer Master Plan I .�i. KJ 014641.00 U — i � I m Sewer Line Deficiency Figure D_1 w m I -� - •vo�,�or. t � - I I I I ^Lv PeU ro.e C. f`ffLlr Ufa -- _' V..mn.Dr. --_ ELZ5 i— I t a�nFgr.p. C� L O1 grme C4� LUW CY �'�T TT-��j�� t / '�� -- `-x93 56051 a ._/ �.1_I_[ I II ro.� f _ 1,—',-!r!r- Heil Ave. ��2�95 —219966 97 298 —299--300�3 Sim 1 I L i I - �- �' ro 0 1..0.0f Ell I��-- ALECn.Dr. N y� can or. S� a very..ee� e ff { 3 TT PE I I a \ ' I Y yYY b IT S L yM.IA. �— r[rJrir 1 r I _U I Kennedy/Jenks Consultants !! II II II � Engineers & Scientists �1 "Tn I City of Huntington Beacn Legend Sewer Master Plan f-�--- KJ 014641.00 Lines V Motleletl J aortledm -Dcliciem Sewer Line Deficiency Figure D- 2�._�t r� 1 J I A=n p r w m 0 I I Iin �I al Q) r_� Rosemont Dr. I I I Freeborn Dr., @ I Dohrn Cir. F--r IH ; __. --LinesM --i UJ L UI I �I CL — Palo AltoAlto Dr. _ odeled A:hena D �—1 .�I(n 1 ( I'�9orocrlin IU — 5r. T Kiltla Cir. L v� �I f— _ Uellci m i I_ _ I q to � O I J i � I O u a I I I I � I— Rennrick Cir. �I �, 0 n rdarce9ena Dr. _ I Ivluhai C:, a� Dome Dr. ° Sonoma pr. _ _ Kirkiund Cir. MirlVOSa I Ei O She. or. I� INap Cir I ll--� �' U Point Lora Cr. Santa Ynez Or. — I e Slater Eve`_ $ i-� Ci�2FI-.:%Z1 LET 0 �---- N \\/ DTI=C= I ^ _Cri Kennedy/Jenks Consultants M Moss Dr, _ I_— Engineers 2 Scientists Nulwood Cir, �rQ City c(Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan NOT TO SCALE KJ 314641.00 Mc canny Or, — C.--. I I t -- ' l JJ Kelley Cir. I —.� �_ �I Sewer Line Deficiency —� I I I `_- Figure D_3 w Slaters Ave.. �f nes 5— FAA— E BCD .'1m)in—Avj.•Y. —1 A N.O.C, - U-- N Kennedy/Jen�kb[ s 5�C R!o ovnnnsa Uutr , ltaona�tsI i NtryJGeq p ____JII I Engineers & Scientists — �¢ —� City of Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan Talbert Ave. 0 It F Sewer Line Deficiency L Figure 0_4 N avenj Windsor Dr, _ o P Aladdin Dr. J V { C i 474 476 4/7 1�1 J --- - _ "78 _ Warne _Ave. egend N Kennedy/Jenks Consultants (Lines Engineers & Scientists aoreenierlin mo b F City of Huntington Beach �� .@ Sewer Master Plan Deficient KJ 014641.00 NOT TO SCALE Sewer Line Deficiency Figure D_5 w w 3 Legend _ N O C04' J Lines Modeled i3ortlerlrhmp � n� Deficient �1� 0 I� Cy :.mnL M mi Dr i — NOT TO SCALE PickZj C@. - - fii1'19 fit' ® i _ lllllll 11 �-• rM 'YEa� I L _+ OMsnn co, I \ e i' Dia410 myR�` Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Engineers R Scientists 40 r City of HuntingtonBeach Sewerer Master Plan C p��;l � e �7 U��/1 •r`i �� KJ 014641.00 — / Sower Lane Deficiency Figure D_6 T a Edinger Ave. Legend Lines Modeled Boruedin I o Oeficienl I � \ I h, �'1rbQ I /> � za0 i zi9L F Wl E1.1 NOT TO SCALE VIICa LID �11�Ii _ LIA Kennedy/Jenks Consultants Q � Engineers 3 Scientists City of Hantingion Beach Sewer Master Plan Q 014,641.00 SeweFigllureDOefi�iency w m N 1 ----------L rk )MeadoWla --- I t055 Legend N Orlando Dr. I AAoceletl — ----- eoroeriin 1(ennedy/Jenlcs Consultants Oelidcnt � Engineers Z Scientists City of Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan NOT TO SCALE Q 014641.00 Sower Line Deficiency Figure D_8 w m m Appendix E Sewer Service Charge Ordinances C! 397 � t REFER TO MASTER DOCUMENT r 1 398 APPENDIX G - Sewer Capacity Analysis (2009) Citc of'Huntin,,ton Beach Sewer Sistem Management Phan 66 399 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SEWER CAPACITY ANALYSIS t r I� I � 1 1 1 M _ 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 401 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paqe 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 D 2003 Master Plan Capacity Analysis LIST OF TABLES Table No. Paqe ES1 2003 Master Plan Identified Deficiencies...................................................................................... ES-2 ES2Flow 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 KpHuntington Bean uniington_Bea Capauy_study Capacity Analysis 402 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. Paqe 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 TOC-2 City of Huntington Beach .K. unhngton Be.chlHuntington_Beacn Capauty_study Capacity Analysis 403 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 K%Huntington BeachV'.untington_Beach_Capaaty_study Capacity Analysis 404 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Table ES1 2003 Master Plan Identified Deficiencies Deficiency Location Hydraulic Modal Pipe um ors 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" 15' 1 692 _ 2 Heil Avenue From Edwards Street to Oakmont Lane 293.5005 toll,8"_ _15'. 12" _ 3 Heil Avenue From Sabot Lane to Golaenwest Street 296.295,294 12" 15" 833 4 Speer Avenue Jaceuelyn 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 SOt 3, 7080.598,590 8', loll 12', 75" 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 10 Humboldt Drive 232,237 10" 15" 9 Edinger Avenue ro Fm Tnnidadlan-el 0 Santa Barbara Can 194,155'1166.167, 168, 169_170, 174 10" 15' 7,95j Total Lan th 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 Summa General Data 2003 Sewer Master Plan Data I Flow Monitoring Data Ave Peak Existing Total Min ADWF PDWF Max Site# Location GPM GPM Size Sloe Da s GPM GPM GPM De th I d/D 1 Hamilton Ave West of John Ln 807 1,533 18 1 0,001 12.5 137 1 520 1 928 1 9.29 10.52 2 Edwards St Peggy Cir Removed from Flow Monitorin 3 Heil Ave Goldenwest St 186 411 12 0.002 14.0 40 149 256 5.54 0.46 4 Seer 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 Removed from Flow Monitorin 10 Edinger Ave Trinidad Ln 190 419 10 0.002 14.0 67 157 277 5.18 0.52 11 Santa Barbara Ln Shorebreak Dr 198 434 10 1 0.002 1 14.0 1 2 205 1 520 1 8.67 10.87 12' Saybrook Ln Fisher Dr 190 758 12- 1 1 21.0 1 58 247 517 1 7.01 1068 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 d1D The City's 2003 Sewer Master Plan used the following peaking relationship to develop the peak dry weather flow (Q.) from the average dry weather flow (Qad,,): Qpdw = 1.93(Qaaw)0.898 ES-2 City of Huntington Beach K:Wuntingion BeachUiuntington_Beach Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 405 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 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 N.Uiuntington BeacnWuntington Beams Capacrty_study Capacity Analysis 406 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. ES-4 City of Huntington Beach K'.uiuntington Beach%Huntington_Beach_Capacdy_stu y Capacity Analysis 407 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. Al any 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. Q,d„ = 1.93(Qan, 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 K%Huntinglon Bea[1 Huntington_Bear _CapaoD/_stuCy Capacity Analysis 408 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 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: 0 = 1.486AR'J'S12/ 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) sewer lift stations. 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 Existing Proposed Length Location Hydraulic Model Pipe Numbers No. Size Size loot 1 Hamilton Ave Broolmurst 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" 1 652 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 Jacduelyn 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 5 Beach Boulevard From South of Talbert Avenue to Ronald Road 5013. 1080.598,590 _ _ 8",10" 12", 15" 1 086 7 Saybroo's Lane South of Heil Avenue to-Morning-star Drive 2586 12" 18 299 -— — Saybrook - — - - - -- — -- 202.206,211.213.216.219.221,222. --- 2.181 8 Mandalay Circle Fm Edinger Avenue to Humboldt Drive _ _ 232.237 _ _ 10"__ _15"_ _ 9 Edinger Avenue Froror n T iiridad-Lane to Santa Barbara Lane 194.165, 166,167. 168,169,)70 174 10" 15, 1.967 Total Length 11,654 1-2 City of Huntington Beach K:Wuntington Beach\Hunting;on_Beaw_Capaci:y_s:udy Capacity Analysis 409 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 K:1Huntington Beach\Huntington_Beach Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 410 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS The locations of the flow monitoring sites are described in Table 2. and shown in Appendix B. Table 2 Initial Flow Monitoring Locations Site Location Size 1 Hamilton Ave Between Archer Circle and St 18" John Lane 2 Removed due to diverted flow 3 Heil Avenue East of Goldenwest Street 12" 3 Seer 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" north 7 Saybrook Lane Mornina Star Drive 12" 8' Mandalay Circle lNorlh of Humboldt Drive 101, 9 Removed due to m)sta nupgrade 10 Edinger Avenue Monte o Drive 10" 11 Santa Barbara Lane South of Shorebreak Drive 101, 12' Saybrook Lane Fisher Drive 12" Additional flow monitoring performed January 16, 2008 to February 5, 2008 Initially, eleven (11) sites were selected for flow monitoring. Prior to the installation of the flow monitoring equipment. field verifications were made on June 6. 2007 to 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 realized that the study sewer no longer exists at the location. The 2003 Sewer Master Plan shows that there are three (3) manholes on Edwards Street, between Brad Drive and Heil Avenue The field crew could not locate any of 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 City of Huntington Beach K'.Huotngton Beach,Huntngton Beall Capacity Analysis q'1 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 11:45 P.M. June 27, 2007. Subsequent flow monitoring was performed between 12:00 A.M. January 16, 2008 and 11:45 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 Monit ring Summary General Data 2003 Sewer Master Plan Data Flow Monitoring Data Ave Peak Existing Total Min ADAT I PDWF I Max Site# Location GPM GPM Size Sloe Days GPM GPM GPM Depth d1D 1 Hamilton Ave West of John Ln 807 1,533 18 0.001 12.5 137 520 1 928 1 9.29 10.52 2 Edwards St Peggy Cir Removed from Flow Monitorin 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 21.0 29 228 500 10.00 1.00 9 Edinger Ave Santa Barbara Ln Removed from Flow Mon ifor in 10 Edinger Ave Trinidad Ln 190 419 10 ,2 20 14.0 67 157 277 5.18 0. 22 11 Santa Barbara Ln Shorebreak Dr 198 434 10 0.002 14.0 2 1 205 1 520 ji 8.67 10.87 12' Saybrook Ln Fisher Dr 190 758 12- 21.0 58 1 247 1 517 1 T01 10.68 -Additional Flow Monitoring performed between January 16,2008 to February 5,2008 "At Flaw Monitoring Location the height of the inflow pipe was 11"which is used to calculate the dID 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 BeachWuntington_Beach_Capanty_study Capacity Analysis 412 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 Preci itation 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 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 233 508 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 1000 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' 1 238 672 10 1 8:30 261 772 11 17:55 Sun 1/27/2008 0.31 243 1 511 10 9:15 281 1 512 7.27 10,30 Mon 1/28/2008 0.53 244 482 10 7:35 283 513 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 10 820 263 504 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 0.21 238 547 10 10:55 276 569 7.52 11:45 Mon 2/4/2008 0.26 227 525 10 11:20 265 510 7.05 8:35 Tues 2/5/2008 225 508 10 7:25 262 504 7 HO '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 Summa Disregards Wet Weather Includes Wet Weather ADWF F PDW 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 1 517 7.01 0.64 260 569 1 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 K'.1Huntington Beach\Hunting;on_Beach CapaCty_study Capacity Analysis 413 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Qw. = 1.93(Qatlw)0.89e 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 Monitor in Data General Data Flow Monitoring Data Calculations Minimum Average Maximum Coefficient= Site# Location MGD MGD MGD Qave A0.898 Qmax/ Qave A0.898 1 Hamilton Ave West of John lane 0,197 0.749 1.337 0.77 1.73 2 Edwards St Peggy Cir Not Flow Monitored 3 Heil Ave Goldenwest St 0.058 0.214 0.368 0.25 1.47 4 Seer 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 11 Santa Barbara Ln Shore break Dr 0.003 0.295 0.75 Excluded' 12" Saybrook Lane Fisher Drive 0.084 0,356 0.744 Excluded' Average Peaking Coeficient ' 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.1Hunfington BeachSHuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 414 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 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 Mngt Depth d/D Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 1 1013 0.001 1:.".VCP 370 807 1.533 Full Full 1,547 Full Full V 1014 0.001 VCP 100 795 1.514 Full Full 1.527 Full Full 520 928 9.29 052 1 1015 0.001 18"VCP 226 794 1,512 Full Full 1,524 Full Full 1 1016 0.001 18"VCP 200 758 1,451 Full Full 1,460 Full Full 1 1017 0.001 18"VCP 330 757 1 448 14.28 0.79 1,458 14 A0 0.80 1 i019 0.001 18"VCP 304 731 1,403 13.92 0.77 1,411 13.92 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:1Huntingion BeachlHuntington_Beach_Capacity_smdy Capacity Analysis 415 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 PDWF Depth WD Site ID Slope Material length GPM GPM Depth dID GPM Depth WD (GPM) (GPM) 3 294 12"VS P 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 5.54 046 3 296 0.002 12'VCP 165 186 1 410 1 6.60 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 Pow (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 existing flows, the peak dry weather flow would be 354 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 K 1Hunnngton BeachlHunting;on Beach Capauty_sludy Capacity Analysis 416 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 Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth dID Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d!D GPM Depth dID (GPM) (GPM) 4 543 0.002 8"VCP 300 239 513 Full Full 514 Full Full 4 54 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 ;4p a.35 0.54 4 548 0.002 8"VCP 300 205 449 Full Full 566 Full Full 4 549 DD02 8"VCP 15 237 511 Full Full 512 Full Full 4 550 0.002 8"VCP i50 237 511 Full Full 512 Full Full 'Location of Flow Moniror 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 now 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 KAHuntington BeachWuntinglon_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 417 SEWER 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 Pip. Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimata Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring ADWF PDWF PDWF Depth d/D Sito ID Slope Material Leng[h GPM GPM Depth dID GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 5 531 0.002 12'VCP 329 453 974 Full Full 946 Full Full 5' S47 0.0032 R'VCP 328 453 912 Full Fuli 944 Full Full 284 508 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 flaw 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 d)D 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.B4 0,68 234 431 7.67 0,77 6 1080 0,002 8-VCP 294 149 336 Full Full 357 Full Full 6 5013 0.D02 8-VCP 209 104 244 Full Full 263 Full Full Location of Flow Monitor 1-11 City of Huntington Beach <Muntington Seach%Huntinglon_Beach_Capauty_study Capacity Analysis 418 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 Qilln Qin Qin Qin Qin FM Edinger • FM FM FM aybrook FM #10 Lift Station #11 #8 #12 Lift Station #7 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 K:\Huntington BeacMHuntingion_Beach Capacrty_study Capacity Analysis 419 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS Figure 3 SCADA Data at the Edin er Lift Station, June 14, 2007 :• :c e• ea e• co e: :: e C Blue line represent the -Pump Trend" Value= 1 is when Pump I is turned on. Value=2 is when Pump No. 2 is turned on. During the testing period, Flow Monitoring Site No.'s 7, 8 and 11 experienced higher Flow rates, as can be seen on the flow versus time graphs for these sites in Appendix C. The Saybrook Lift Station also showed abnormal behavior at this time. Beginning at roughly 10:00 am, this station was incapable of pumping the entire inflow. Figure No. 4 shows the rise in the wet well water level during this time period. Figure No. 4 SCADA Data at the Saybrook Lift Station, June 14, 2007 :: 5.1 Pump''-I and"_ arc tamed on. Pumps rcnim to Pump#I is nnmtal pumping tumcJ on. I c c- :: c• •c :: c c_ :: Green line represent water surface elevation in the wet well. Blue line represent the"Pump Trend" Value = 1 when Pump No. 1 is turned on. Value=2 when Pump No. 2 is turned on. Value=3 is when both Pumps are on. 1-13 City of Huntington Beach K:6luntingion BeachWuntington_Beach_Capacrty_study Capacity Analysis 420 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 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:Wuntington BeachWuntington Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 421 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 be 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: (ACCUlnUlaled Volume) (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-fool 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 KAWunUngton BeachlHuntington Beach_Capacdv_study Capacity Analysis 422 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS different elevations in the wet well affect the pump discharge rate. The discharge flow rate was calculated as follows: (Discharge V01uo1c) Qdi,chargr = t Qaccunula¢J (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,«um.....e=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 flaw 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) (gpm Watch Flow (gpm) (gpm 5 0:1:18 494 0:30:18 476 419 4.5 0:2:18 485 415 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 06:41 451 395 0:37:15 425 395 2 0:7:52 0:38:54 390 Maximum 494.48 415.00 476.48 424.00 Average 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) (gpm Watch Flow (gpm) (gpm 5 0:15:44 493 440 0,4530 510 440 4.5 0:16:51 486 435 0:46:40 494 430 4 0:18:0 470 415 0:47:55 485 421 3.5 019:14 450 415 0*49:13 477 422 3 0:20:35 455 412 0:50:34 458 412 2.5 0:21:54 436 405 0:52:3 463 407 2 02321 0:53:30 397-402 Maximum 493.39 440.00 509.74 440.00 Average 463.15 420.33 479.69 422.00 Minimum 435.64 405.00 458.41 407.00 1-16 City of Huntington Beach K 9Huntington 0eacMHuntington aeach_Capaoty_study Capacity Analysis 423 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 dID 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 7908 0.71 382 7.20 0,72 10, 166 0.002 10-VCP 347 169 376 LOB 0.71 383 7.20 0.72 157 277 5.18 0.52 10 167 0,002 10"VCP 314 169 377 7.08 0.71 383 7920 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 304 190 a18 7.80 0.78 427 7.92 0.79 10 174 0.002 10"VCP 105 190 419 7.80 0.78 a28 7.92 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 KUiuntington BeachUHuntington_6each_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 424 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 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 K 1Huntingion BeachVIuntingion Beach_Capacity_stuoy Capacity Analysis 425 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 dID Site ID Slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth d/D GPM Depth d/D (GPM) (GPM) 11' W 0.002 10"vcP 136 198 a3a 6.04 0.80 aa3 Full Full 205 520 0,67 0.57 Location of Flow Monrtor 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 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. 1-19 City of Huntington Beach K?Huntington BeachlHuntington Beall Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 426 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 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 ID"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 ID"VCP 112 204 447 Full Full 455 Full Full 8 216 0.002 10"VCP 240 205 449 Full Full 458 Full Full 6 219 0.002 10"VCP 240 208 453 Full Full 464 Full Full LDO 221 0,002 10"VCP 108 208 453 Full Full 463 Full Full 222 0002 10"VCP 213 223 483 :jFu11Full 496 Full ±Full 0,002 10"VCP 239 226 490 504 Full 455 878 088 232 0002 10"VCP 239 226 490 SO4 Full 500 Full Full 237 0.002 10"VCP 246 229 494 509 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. 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 K'.Wuntington BeachWuntington_Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 427 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 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 Monitorin Site 12 Master Plan Data Data Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Ultimate Ultimata Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimate Ultimate ADWF PDWF ID Slope ADWF ADWF PDWF Depth d/D Site ope Material Length GPM Oep[h tl/D GMP GPM Depth dID (GPM) (GPM) 12 239 72"VCP 302 300 632 Z80 0,65 12 256 72"VCP 513 347 715 7.20 0.60 12' 261 12"VCP 246 368 758 6.50 0,55 247 517 7.01 0.56 l.ecnlion 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 P.M. where the flow level reached the lop 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 K:Wuntington BeachlHunfington_Seach_Caparaly_study Capacity Analysis 428 SEWER SYSTEM CAPACITY ANALYSIS 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 Flow Monitoring Data Flow Existing Existing Ultimate Pipe Report Size Model Existing Existing Ultimata Ultimate ADWF PDWF Monitoring Existing PDWF PDWF Depth dID Site ID slope Material Length GPM GPM Depth dID GPM Depth tl/D (GPM) (GPM) 7' 2586 0,002 12"VCP 299 311 652 1 9.00 1 075 760 Full I Full 1 346 1 642 7.10 0.59 Location of Flow ldomtor 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'SHumington BeachWuntington Beach_Capacity_study Capacity Analysis 429 0, rkboti Gr Sunamr _ Cv. . U r l U P r J i I � 8 Verde Mar Dr. 10 1014 1015 1018 1017 1018 - - _ Ham Deficient Location #1 p Il0 L 0 N Zcn Cl) l.. r G rbrook [Sr. c � NOT TO SCALE o! m E egend City of Huntington Beach Lines Modeled Sewer System 9ordorbn �o,� Capacity Analysis Unor"ear June, 2008 Cc r � FIGURE A-1 m m, MasteLoc�ati Deficient 0 p i C ms zz599s. o u Heil Ave. '_2yy_ 295. 296 1 298 I—�+- 299 Jee I- ___._� n t bi Deficient Location #2 :Deficient Location #3. Y N I V •----4a w. gl smaa� iyn,-r. ,� .' �i III 1 I NOT TO SCALE .• .. 1 puma o�. .a .3' City of Huntington Beach 0 r Sewer System legend, Capacity Analysis Lines June, 2008 n I Motlolod b +,.' 'r en.aarra FIGURE A-2 Master Plan Deficient �CI Locations 2 & 3 I o a3tatl rAv� o 00 0— o —e--u` Slater Ave. I L1r end �I Deficient Location #5. ' Modalod fbOM) r r r I Nmvr,A rx ra _ I utroer ar 0 --0159.2_ $ Deficient,Location #4 �, ��:j 10 login.AM- A ' I 5 1 rm. > Fr�q4 N.+mm�AM. CDN--� AM �i Deficient Location #6 f .l, 1 N A, nr a City of Huntington Beach J.: o F."'"""'•.� Sewer System __ In Capacity Analysis Talbert Ave. o June, 2008 NnT Tp � " I o —' ^I FIGURE A-3 Master Plan Deficient Locations 4, 5, & 6 N Pump Station #22 Bend 5 _ 'N j d Lines Modeled BordMti Mtn �t Deficient Location #7gs 2b4l � a' W Wnn�cllr ry 1 _ NOT TO SCALE I j Fill 1�(IIII➢ IF.-{ ffil .�`, � 1laanfrral�o.. .t City of Huntington Beach m 19F Sewer System ' � Capacity Analysis June, 2008 FIGURE A-4 Master Plan Deficient Location 7 ass 106 67 iss ts9 >7,D —pump-Station-#2-5 •. - T _ ,. �i Edinger Ave. �Ill.�� _ ,-,., 'Defwient Location #9 ; �• � , aid fu `4%;, ` , J � �._. .,...,.,. . IJI 'i � ; •��`�'�� ✓�` , •, geed Deficient'L'ocation'#8 IN Bordedin F 240 Huniboldt-Dr.l_"�,f, 39L NOT TO SCALE �' '`��, ,� � •, I I(:�LDF it �''�w;; � � .a-- :..�,�;c' _ •`�: ! II- [Il)� Glliili' ��•, i L_krP I CIfIIJI'.Ii.11 H City of Huntington Beach Sewer System 9k\� v Capacity Analysis June, 2008 IFIGURE A-5 r Master Plan Deficient — — - - I I Locations 8 & 9 . .O.wknuy Gr ... •IINLIf IC•v c Verde Mar Dr. FM Site #1 10 1014 1015 1016 1017 1019 Te?��..-o� Ham I c=i ° IN Q w . J o rbrook Dr. � c NOT TO SCALE of E ' mi U — -- egend City of Huntington Beach Lines Modelod ,.�" �� Sewer System Bo,ded,,, Capacity Analysis i' �`�, V rxrriam June, 2008 :° c FIGURE B-1 w m' Flow Monitoring Site 1 c 16i {i1 I 1. , . . . . .•' vaelmr n, t I �, r' n (X.4YOro l'!. i U41a C# . IV.L"-mvlM. • � 111 �( � II--j ) • .I 0-0--61-0- o Heil Ave. ." -29 295 296 7 298 I—F t 299 NO 7 :FM Site #3:1I -- a H Auvl a. uml a ' �ti ' ' tevv iY. , j �—• I I— N I 5 )n n,ai v. {Ni t � I1Wptu. � .e � I�✓ - yr:�...ly I ' I NOT TO SCALE .„ • � gip, IS, 1$. I _t.!..-.vuC. _ _ wa. City of Huntington Beach M , Sewer System (Leyenc9 fir . Capacity Analysis Lines June, 2008 Nudo1ad ° FIGURE B-2 e 1anrff 91 Flow Monitoring Site 3 I • o OS r l�, Av,10 0 00 •o0---0-0 Slater Ave._ ` I I gantl Lines '� FM Site #5 iooaco-. 1 Pump Station #20 xi r�C?CrIC41rrt � Ykloel!), - � NneTnw Dr. T 598 I mill I:i ! FM Site #4 '�' I I Dw:i Dr. u t _ em4npn Dr. I gym. a FLr,a . N.uTpn am. i� - -_ Na. n Am r _ _ � _ •. , �Cv I - FM Site#6 N u Nl 1 1 D. . City of Huntington Beach Sewer System Capacity Analysis Talbert Ave. o—o NOTTOS , June, 2008 FIGURE B-3 t j s W Flow Monitoring Sites 4, 5, & 6 Pump Station #22 geed 5 N I LwOI x£ —Modeled Borderli F, (NI;CMar 1 FM Site #7 I 4amr�.GL..r1 N 1 NOT TO SCALE mac— t �-�or FI I 1 INS 0d r D• r 1 r- -_. I . •�' Dale Dr. nM "— _ Il!I1,�ll �I..Ywuv 5 3 INN `�Illl I i+uudwoli or. � � .II 1 5� \I�1i ,•1 S City of Huntington Beach SPORS" Sewer System Capacity Analysis June, 2008 't WfIQW I),. • •2FIGURE B-4 m _' w,, o _ - m Flow Monitoring Site 7 ts6--�cs�t67 169-169 -- tro—Z-.—Pump-Station-#2� _ �. Edinger Ave. i,� FM'Site #10,,,!._i. L 1 d FM'Slte #11 ��i'r• t t 1 I 1 1 .�]]t �r DIrdd ^v Invw � I •t, _IL.I "/I• r I I � IN'l �i� ,� `�., r , d '� � I 1 r ;. '�•/\'• ' � ` t , .. {fiend —Madclod C �,', s $ I oorldom ail �2 y' e4 2uo :1 1 : � )�,FM'Site O�iI j�Humbo idtjDl.1 If�� N 4. a F I[�]'' NOT TO SCALE fill 'P• i fI_ 8 �f it II'n iWr LV. FM Site #12 City of Huntington Beach Sewer System �r Capacity Analysis ,4. / �, June, 2008 FIGURE B-5 c, i. . pvu' C'I.25 w.ny c 5 .� Flow Monitoring Sites 8, 10, 11, & 12 Pump Station #22 Site #1, Flow VS. Time 1000 900 800 700 buu CL a 500 3 0 200 100 0 m rn rn m m m m m rn m rn m m 440 Site #3, Flow VS. Time 300 250 200 f a 150 3 0 LL 100 50 0 S S S S S S S S S S S S 8 S 8 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S S O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O o n g r o n o r o n g g S o S $ S o S o 0 o e g 8 g g g g O o 0 0 0 0 o O o N O N O N O N O N O N N O N (V O N O N O O N N t0 n m N O, O N C ip tD 10 f0 t0 441 Site #4, Flow VS. Time 120 100 I a 3 0 iL 40 20 0 S S S 8 8 S S S S S S S S S S o S S 8 S S S S S S S S S S n n n n r � r � r r r S rp g pn 8 pn g rp g pn g np g pn g rp g rp g pr oo pn 8 np S pn 8 np 8 N O {V O N O N O � {V O �V O N N O N O td � m Of O N N N l� � Nf N < l�V N N tip r n N 442 Site #5, Flow VS. Time roo - - - - Soo 400 a 300 3 0 LL 200 1Ul - 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 8 8 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 O N O N O f O f O N O ^ O ' O n r n n n n n n n � r n � r � r n � n 8 s s 8 8 s 8 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 8 s 443 Site #6, Flow VS. Time 450 400 350 300 a 250 (7 3 ° 200 U. 150 100 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O � r n n o n o n O n O n O n o r O n O r o n o n O h r0 n O 0 0 0 Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o b' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N O ry O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O V Yl IO h W m N O N N N N (7 ry Y N N N �D N r N ZO i0 (O tp �D tD t0 1O �O �p (O ip �D �D cD 444 Site #7, Flow VS. Time • Sig f a �? 400 0 U. 300 200 100 - - 0 8 S S 8 8 8 8 8 8 S O O 8 8 O 8 8 S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S O O O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O O 77 ' z f3 7 r GD N O N 64 N t3 N O N �5 iV 0 N n N 445 Site #8, Flow VS. Time (Before Edinger Lift Station Improvements) 700 -- - 600 500 400 a 0 3 300 200 100 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O O h o I o n 0 O n O 1 O r O r o f O f O O O o 0 0 0 0 r O O O O O o O O o O O O O O o o O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N N N (D N ^ N m N m N N N N N M N V N N (D N r N W IT In CDh CD m N O N N N N M N O N (D N (D N r` N (O N 0 N 0 N D N ID N D N 0 N 0 N W (D (D (D (D (D D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D (D 446 Site #8, Flow VS Time (After Edinger Lift Station Improvements) 700 -- ------ a c� 0 LL 2ou 100 0 � 8 S 8 $ 8 0 0 8 o S 8 S S S o o S $ $ 8 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 447 Site #10, Flow VS. Time 200 I CL a 150 3 _o LL 100 50 0 O C O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O n n n n n n n n n n n n n n o n O n O n O n O n O n O n O n o n O n O n O n C)O n O n o 0 O O O o 0 O O O 0 O O 0 o O O O O O O O O o O o 0 0 o O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N N N N ^ N N N _O N N N N N LO N N N ^ N 35 V LO t0 f� 00 OJ N O N N N N M N C N u] N 0 (D (D (D (D cD (O tD CD � fD N (D N W N M N (p N (D CD (O 0 <O (D cc cD (D cD (D cD (O 448 Site #11, Flow VS. Time 600 700 600 500 0. a 400 3 0 LL du, 200 100 0 8 8 8 S S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S S S S S 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O N O ry O N O N O N O N N O 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 g 8 0 8 2 3 io m m �0 3 C m ^' m N 3 " �3 �3 '�' �3 N in e `3 vi vi 3 3 iD m 3 � 3 � m m 449 Site #12. Flow VS Time (After Edinger Lift Station Improvements) 800 700 -- - 600 500 - o 0a 400 LL � 300 200 I 100 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 s s s s s s g s s s N N m r m m o Q N N N LV C Q Q Q� Q! M Q N C� N 450 Appendix D 2003 Master Plan Capacity Analysis Size. Elevation Elevation Model Peak INVERT INVERT PEAKUII. ID M SLOPE A1at0rial GRN UP GRN DN Length Exist.CFS Dawn UP CFS 1013 0.001 18"wE 8.11 7 53 i170 3.416 -2.17 -1.6 3.447 1014 0.001 10 ✓.p 7.31 3.1 1001 3.373 -1.6 -1.5 3.402 1015 OAnI 18" B.03 7,1 225.D7 3,3F:6 -1.3 -1.07 3.1s4ti 1016 0.001 18"tar 9.33 B.G3 2110 3.232 -0.87 -0.67 3.253 1017 0.001 18"v 9.86 9.33 330 13926 -4.7 .0.14 3249 1019 07101 18"vc;w 10.17 9.66 3413.7 3.127 OA6 0.37 3.142 ail 0.002 12"vcn 25.02 2B.16 329.13 2.030 12.8E 14.12 2.107 47 II.W32 12"t*i1 27 25.02 328 2.033 14.12 15.17 2.104 2566 0 007 8"vr.,t nC in rno I 294 0.002 12"vc* not in rnodel 995 0.002 12"w:u 12.7E 12.4 330 0.915 1.71 2.3G 1.291 298 0.002 12"v D 11.49 12,7E IBS 0.914 Z.66 9 1.28B 1G5 0.002 10" vC0 10.1 F. 9.2 320 .1 RV -D.73 -0.0 0.652 166 0.002 10"vuu 9.15 .4.6. 347.01 0.83E -1.63 -0.93 0-853 167 0.002 ID'vc O.G7 077 313.55 0.3•. 2.46 I.h41 0.853 169 0.002 If;, .p 8.77 10.47 335 0.90R -3.33 -2.W 0.925 169 0.002 1D"vep 10.47 10.85 307.53 9,914 .4.15 -3.53 D.931 170 0.702 11"vrp 10.85 9.54 304 0.032 -4.96 4.35 0.951 174 O.0O2 IU"vc. 9.54 12.:6 105 :IJY34 -5.37 -5.16 0.953 104 O.G02 10'vc• m ound 202 0.L.Mv IFi vcp 12.15 11.OB 135.51 0.9613 3.4 3.75 DRM 20G O.0O2. 1 D'vc0 11.08 10.9 225.97 11.476 2.B3 3.4 D.996 2',1 0.0021 10'vCp 10.9 16.4 203.73 0.D86 2.33 P.Fial 1.00G 213 0.002 10*'OUP 1DA if) 112 C.995 2-05 2.331 1.014 2161 0,CO2 10'vcp 10 0.4 240 1 1.116 2.05 1,0'L1 219 O.0O2 10'vCP 4.4 9.7 240 1.01 0.K5 I.4B 1.033 n O.Cil2 10' OCIP 0.7 9.U2 108 131 0.5E 085 1.031 222 C.CW1 10' vcp 9.02 11.39 212.6 1.077 0.5 0.58 1.I W 232 C.002 10'vc 10.72 10.72 239 1.007 {I.LZA 1.122 2.37 tl.CM 10'vC P 10.72 9.71 246.261 1.101 -125 -0.64 1.185 cn GIs 308 01 uI GIs 321 Ul on GIS NV, 01 m GIS 345 DI on G I s S=J 0.002 8' •r 29.01 29.8 MI) 1.144 20.E 21.8 1.1445 f,44 0.002 8' W. 29.94 20.7 300 1.244 19.4 1110.9 1.2a1 545 0.002 8' "r-1 29.8 '19.62 300 1.25 113.21 19,4 1.2SH 548 0.002 8' lrc 29.62 2r 300 1 17 19,2 1.JH 549 0.4102 8'vcP 29.83 29.9 15 1.1?9 21.91 21.66 1.14 550 0.002 6'vcp 27.44 29.83 150 1.1-ad '1 72.H 1.14 599 0.002 10''a: 45.17 43.4 283-F;2 0.003 30.B 31.37 UAYJ3 974 not tound 980 not touna 3002 Pat tound 108D ❑1ft12 8'vcp 39.02 42.331 294.02 0 7481 29.03 ^9.82 0.796 600G it nr.GIS �013 0.002ia.F.o 21'1B.64 0,441 34.5 34.91 0,5U'--i 451 APPENDIX H - Sewer Lift Station Priority List Cite of Iluntington Beach Surer Svstem Alanmement Plan 67 452 SEWER LIFT STATION PRIORITY LIST Priority No Station No. Station Name Year Built 1 1 3 Slater& Springdale 1966 2 2 2 Saybrook & Heil 1965 3 2 3 New Britain & Adams 1972 4 2 1 McFadden & Dawson 1972 5 1 9 Bushard & Pettswood 1969 6 1 8 Atlanta & Beach 1973 7 1 1 Lark & Warner 1964 8 2 Humboldt & Wayfarer 1964 9 5 Davenport & Baruna 1963 10 3 E Station 1962 11 20 Speer& Crabb 1968 12 14 Gothard & Ellis 1992 13 17 Brookhurst& Effingham 2000 14 4 A Station 2000 15 31 Boeing 2003 16 28 Coral Cay 2006 17 25 Edinger & Santa Barbara 2006 18 9 D Station 2007 19 32 Brightwater 2008 20 26 Brighton & Shoreham 2009 21 24 Edwards & Balmoral 2010 22 16 Adams & Ranger 2012 23 10 jAlgonquin & Boardwalk 2013 24 7 C Station 2014 25 30 Trinidad & Edinger 2016 26 1 Graham & Kenilworth 2019 27 6 Edgewater & Davenport 12019 453 APPENDIX I - Overflow Response Plan Gh or Huntington Beach Sewer Snstem Alan(gement Plan 68 454 ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATION Office of the City Administrator Number 808 Sections 1-7 Effective Date 8/1/07 Responsible Department Public Works Review Date 8/1/12 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 will be performed in the following order. 455 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 Penelope Culbreth-Graft, DPA, City Administrator 808 456 Page 3 ATTACHMENT A: Detailed Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Procedures 808 457 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 property, or has the potential of reaching City property, the Public 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. 808 458 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. 808 459 Page 6 ATTACHMENT B: Detailed Subsurface Sewer Leak Response Procedures 808 460 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 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 Supervisory). 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. 808 461 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 Street/Wastewater 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. (') 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. 808 462 Page 9 ATTACHMENT C: Sanitary Sewer Overilow report Form (Delivery by Facsimile and Certified A7ail/Return Receipt) 808 463 Page 10 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SANTA ANA REGION 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. REPORTED TO: (ENTER FAX, VOICE MAIL, OR NAME OF REGIONAL BOARD STAFF) 4. DATE REPORTED: / (MM/DD/YY) 5. TIME REPORTED: (MILITARY OR 24-HOUR TIME) 6. REPORTED BY: 7. PHONE: ( 1 8. REPORTING SEWER AGENCY: 9. RESPONSIBLE 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) 808 464 Page 11 SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: 16. ADDRESS: CITY: ZIP CODE: 17. COUNTY: (SB, RV, OR) 18. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW STRUCTURE I.D.: 19. NUMBER OF OVERFLOWS WITHIN 1000FT. OF THIS LOCATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 20. DATES OF OVERFLOWS WITHIN 1000FT. OF THIS LOCATION IN PAST 12 MONTHS: 21. OVERFLOW CAUSE - SHORT DESCRIPTION - CHECK ONE: ❑ ROOTS ❑ GREASE ❑ LINE BREAK ❑ INFILTRATION ❑ ROCKS ❑ BLOCKAGE ❑ POWER FAILURE ❑ PUMP STATION FAILURE ❑ DEBRIS ❑ VANDALISM ❑ FLOOD DAMAGE ❑ MANHOLE FAILURE ❑ OTHER ❑ UNKNOWN ❑ CONSTRUCTION ❑ PRIVATE PROPERTY 22. OVERFLOW CAUSE - DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF CAUSE: 23. SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW CORRECTION - DESCRIPTION OF ALL PREVENTATIVE AND CORRECTIVE MEASURES TAKEN OR PLANNED: 24. WAS THERE MEASURABLE PRECIPITATION DURING 72-HOUR PERIOD PRIOR TO THE OVERFLOW? INITIAL AND SECONDARY RECEIVING WATERS: 25. DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW ENTER A STORM DRAIN? (Y OR N) 26. DID THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW REACH SURFACE WATERS OTHER THAN A STORM DRAIN? (Y OR N) 808 465 Page 12 27. NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF INITIAL RECEIVING WATERS: (IF NONE, WRITE `NONE") 28. NAME OR DESCRIPTION OF SECONDARY RECEIVING WATERS: (IF NONE, WRITE "NONE") 29. IF THE SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW DID NOT REACH SURFACE WATERS, DESCRIBE THE FINAL DESTINATION OF SEWAGE. NOTIFICATION: 30. WAS THE LOCAL HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY NOTIFIED? (Y OR N) County of Orange, Health Care Agency (714) 667-3751 After Hours (714) 628-7008, FAX (714) 667-3754 Date of Call: I I Time of Call: Repoi Date Faxed: 31. WAS THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES (OES) NOTIFIED? (Y OR N) State Office of Emergency Services (800) 852-7550 Date of Call: / / Time of Call: Reported To: Control #' ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATIONS: Regional Water Quality Control Board (909) 782-4130 After Hours (916) 262-1621 or (800) 962-8179 FAX (909) 781-6288 Date of Call: / / Time of Call: Reported To: Dale Faxed: Public Facilities & Resources Department (714) 567-6363 (If the spill enters a county channel) Date of Call: / / Time of Call: Reported To: Utilities Manager(714) 536-5921 Date of Call: / Time of Call: Director of Public Works (714) 536-5437 Dale of Call: ! / Time of Call: City Attorney Investigator (714) 536-5257 Date of Call: / Time of Call: 808 466 Page 13 AFFECTED AREA POSTING: 32. WERE SIGNS POSTED TO WARN OF CONTAMINATION? (Y OR N) 33. LOCATION OF POSTING (IF POSTED): 34. HOW MANY DAYS WERE THE WARNING SIGNS POSTED? 35. WERE SAMPLES OBTAINED OF CONTAMINATED WATER? (Y OR N, IF YES ATTACH RESULTS) 36. OTHER REMARKS: 1 swear under penalty of perjury that the information submitted in this document is true and correct, and that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in this document, including all attachments. Based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, 1 believe the information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment. SIGNATURE: NAME: DATE: TITLE: 808 467 Page 14 ATTACHMENT D: Calculation of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Volumes (Excerpt from Irvine Ranch Water District Operations Manual) 808 468 Page 15 SEWER SPILL PROCEDURE CALCULATING SPILLS The purpose of this report is to take the mystery out of calculating spills. Almost all spits can be calculated using the two examples discussed in this section. You can use the orifice equation when trying to figure out the volume of a spill. Understanding the orifice equation is not as complex as it may sound. If you know the diam—eter 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 now out of that hole. The equation is Q = Ca 2gh. W here: Q = flow of fluid from the hole, C = coei dent of discharge, a = a_ea of the hole (measured in feet), g = gravity (32.2 fJsec), and h = height of the fluid above the cover (measured in feet). The coef=c:er:t of discharge (C) is the product of the coefficient of velocity (Cc) multiplied by the coefficient of contraction, (Cc). The values for Cv have been found to vary from 0.554 for ''X-inch orifices to O.S91 for 2.5 inch orifices. The values for Cc have been found to va , from 0.67 for % inch crime ces to 0.614 for 2.5 inch orifices. Example i You receive a report of a spill occurTing 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 fro=: two i4 inch pick hales in the manhole cover, and when they arrived on the scene, •^e flow appeared to be coming out of the holes approximately 4 inches above the lid. Vmat is the total flow that you are to repo.' to the Regional Boa-rd? A.ssamptiors for Example 1 spill: 1. Flow started at noon and was stopped at 2:30 p.m. Total time of spill was 2.5 hours (150 minutes). 2. Flow was coming from two '/, inch pick holes. The area of each 'G inch hole is 0.44179 in. (see Table 1-2). To convert ;.,' to fiz multiply by 0.006944. Therefore, a = 0.44179 inch2 x 0.006544 = 0.0031 8 z for each hole. InWD Technical Ooeratiens Manual t.;4E March 2000 808 469 Page 16 SEWER SPILL PROCEDURE 3. Flow was cocaine out of each hole at a height of 4 inches. Ifoor To convert inches to feet, multiply by 12 inches 1 foot Therefore, H= 4 inches x = 0.33 f, 12 inches 4. The ceefftient of discharge, C = Cv x Cc. For a : inch bole, Cv = 0.954, Cc = 0.67. Therefore, C = 0.954 x 0.67 = 0.639 5. using the orifice equation Qh = Ca`2 hg the flow Lrom each hole is: Qh = 0.639 {(,0031ft'-) 2(32.2fr/scc')(0.33ft) 6. Total flow, Qt = Qh x mu=ber of holes x length of spit (minutes) Qt = 4.099 gpm/hole x 2 holes x 150 minutes =_1.230 gallor_s. Example 2 In this next Example, the fats are Similar to Example 1, except in addition to the flow coming cut of the two pick boles, it is also coming out of the % inch gap between the ring and cover at a height of 4 inches. 7. I❑ addition to steps 1 through 6 in Example 1, you also need to figure the total area where the flow is coming out between the ring and cover. We know that the relationship between the ring and cover probably looks like this: FIGURE 1.14.2 SEWER SPILL CALCULATION EXAMPLE 36" ' Y.'GAP RING I RING IR%VD Technical Oper-tons !Aanual 1.;4-i ,."arch 2CGG 470 Page 17 SEWER SPIV.PROCEDURE 'j This problem is made simple if you take the ID 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 he 36" - /" = 37T5�.15-� inches). Since both of these areas are circles, we know that the formula :s A = ]I(D/2)2, Therefore: A =A nng -A Cover = (l(36/2)2] - []I(35.5/2 r] 1-1=3.1416 = (3.1416 (324)]- (3.1416(315.1)] = 1017.9 - 989.8 28.1 in2 x 0.006944 = 0.195 ft2 8. From Example 1: A = 0.33 ft. g = 32.2 ,/sec, C = 0.639 9. U=_;^g ori=ce equation Q = CaJ2gh Q = 0.639 ((0.195ft2) 2(3222ti/sec'- (0.3!ji) = 0.574 CFS = 257.82 gpm = 257.82 gum x 150 mi- = 38,673-ga logs 10. In t .is example, Sow was coning from two pick holes and the space between the ing and cove:. So in this example we must add the flow calculated in Step 6 above to the flow calculated in Step 9 above - malti.ng the total flow of t:^.e spill izi this example: Qt = 1230 gallons _ 38,673 gallons = 39,903 gallons InWJ Technics!Ooera;icr,s htanual 1.1:-P. Mar7z 2000 471 Page 18 V1'ASTEWATER SPILL CALCULATOR How high in inches was the water coming out of the pick 1 inches 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? How many manhole lids? manholes The spill rate is: 7.28 gallons per minute The amount spilled is: 109 gallons 808 472 APPENDIX J - FOG Impact Study City ofl IunIinglon Beach Seiner Siwlem Alanagement Plan 69 473 ,- Orange County Sanitation District x� , Mill t}.a_ -1k tits r { \ I :4 h 'f F 1 ii• r: l ��'� 1 1 st t' �'i r ` �'� ' � •11 . Prepared by: November 2002 BROWN AND E CALDWELL 11 --- --- 16735 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92606-4953 Acknowledgements Brown and Caldwell would like to acknowledge and thank the individuals listed below for their support and contributions to the success of this stud),. 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 ream provided beneficial input that has resulted in a vastly improved product. Orange Count)• Sanitation District Staff Nick Arhontes, P.E., Manager Collections Facilities O&M and Facilities Services Adriana Reuescn, P.E., Engineering Supervisor Source Control Division Nlichellc Hetherington, Associate Engineer III, O&M Division Mark H. Kawamoto, Associate Engineer, Source Control Division Deirdre E Huntcr, Principal Environmental Specialist, Environmental Compliance and Monitoring Division Brown and Caldwell Staff Pervaiz Anwar, P.E., Senior Vice President, Principal-in-Charge Harvey Gobas, P.E., Supervisory Engineer, Project Manager Ken Fonda, P.E., Principal Engineer, Project Engineer William McCarthy, P.E., Supervisory Engineer Associate I-Ienryk Melcer, P.E.,Senior Process Engineer Associate "Porn Williams, Senior Construction Inspector Eassic Miller, P.E., Technical Advisor Woodie Muirhead, P.E.,Technical Advisor • 475 IN-PLANT FOG IMPACT STUDY Prrpnred for.• ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ' 1 Novenwbcr 2002 Prep nrd by: BROWN AND C A L D W E L L I6735 Von Kamian Avenue, Suite 200 FROFE$S/Q,\ In-inc, California 92606-4953 c� O � h �` y �PJ 476 CONTENTS APPENDICES........................................................................................................................._.....................-.ii TABLES......._................_................................__....................................................-.........-......_............_.......... FIGURES...........................................................................................................................................................ii INTRODUCTION-....... .............................................................. Problem Overview............................................. ProjectObjectives................................................................................................................................1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................................1 FOG Composition, Sources, and Chemical Characteristics..........................................................I Methodfor Conducting Study ................................................................................_.........................3 Related Studies............. ............................................ FOG Best Management Practices Study .................................4 Advanced Digestion Study.................................-........................................................... ._...-{ Protect I_m,uauons and Assumptions..........................._............................__..................................=1 FOG Quantities and Treatment...................... ......................................__.._....................... 1 FOG REMOVAL PRACTICES............................ .............................. CurrentFOG Quantities.................................................................................-.................................5 Current FOG Process Description..................................__._...........................................................6 In-Plant FOG Impacts and \-0ugntion Nlea,ures....................................._.........---.....................7 In-Plant FOG Impacts ..................----...............................................................................7 In-Plant FOG Impact Nfitigation.......................................... ..............................................8 Future FOG Collection Practices...___......................_.....................................................................8 DEV ELOPMENT OF PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL AL:TERNATI V ES ......__.........................8 Alternative IA - Base Case (Status Quo).......................................................................................10 Alternative 113-D -On-site Tremment Using Anaerobic Digestion..........................................t0 Alternate 113 - Modified FOG Receiving and Digestion.........................................---]1 Ahemate IC - Modified FOG Receiving,"Iliickening anti Digestion....................-.-15 Alternate ID - Dedicated Digestion.... .....................................................................16 Alternative 2 -Off-site Treaunent at a Grease Rendering I acilin.................................. _.__._17 Alternative 3 - Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel.............................................................................17 Alternative4 - Landfill Disposal............................_................................................ ......................19 EVAL.UAIION OF :\I.:TERN:\"["[\'ES._............_._.................................................................................19 Alternative I A - Base Case (Status Quo)_................._................---...............................................19 Alternative 113-D - On-site"Treatment Using:\nacrobic Digestion..........................................20 Alternative 2 - Off-site Reacting at a Grease Rendering Facility.............................................20 Alternative 3 - Off-site Rccn cling as a Bio-fuel.........................................................................._.'0 Alternnuvc -1 - Off-site Disposal of FOG at a Landfill...............................................................20 Comparison of Alternatives......... ._... ...................................................................................... Evaluation Crite ia Weighting........................................................ _0 Non-Monctan Comparison...................................................................... .._...................... B R O W Y AID C A L D W E L L �. , P r \_urJ7\IiQliR fUG Iny+aa?mJcJ�rc tirec,axc2003 477 CONTENTS (continued) Capital Cost Comparison .............. ..................................... ............................ ....... 22 RECONINIFNDATI ONIS...........---...................................................................... REFERENCES... ......--........ .............................—.............—............ ...... . . . . .... ......... ...........25 APPENDICES APPENDIX A ALTERNATIVE.IVE CAPITAL COSTESTINIATRS TABLES Lagi. Table I OCSD FOG Hauler Sample Summary.....I................. .................... ............ ......-.............3 Table 2. FOG Collection Companies...................... ................................ . ...... .......................6 Table 3. Evaluation of Afternitives....................................................................... ?? Table 4. Comparison of Alternate Impacts...........—........................................................................23 Table 5. Alternative Capiud Costs.......................................... ........... . . ... . . . ... ... ..............24 FIGURES No. page Figure1. TYpicil Grease ...................................................................................? Figure 2. Alternative IA — Base Case (Status Quo).........._............................ ....................... ...........9 Figure 3a. Packaged FOG Receiving System............................................................—..... .................I I FigUi c 3. Alternative I —Combined Digestion with Primar), Sludge or WAS--.....................12 Figure -1. Alternative I C — Combined Digestion FOG, Primary Sludge & WAS with Preheating......... ................................................ ....... . .. ......... . . . . .....................-13 Figure 5. Alternative I D — Dedicated Digestion.......................... .................................... ..............1.1 I'*igLIYC 6. Heated Sludge Blending Tank Schematic......_—.......................................... .......... .....Is I"IgUrc 7. Advanced Digestion Schenintic... .. ....... . . .. ... ... .. . . .... . ....... ........ .......................16 Figure 8. Evaluation Criteria Nfitm.---.............................................................—..........................?l B R 0 W N k 4 D C A L D W E L L N.......L,,2002 478 INTRODUCION Problem Overview The Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) serves the northwest and central regions of Orange Count)', trcaung wastewater from 21 different cities and 3 special districts that have a combined population of approximately 2 A miGon. Flows treated by the two OCSD wastewater treatment planes, Plant I and Plant 2, come from sources including residential, commercial, recreational and industrial users. As the OCSD sewer collection system has grown, there has been oui 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 R8-2002-0014 issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, (R\VQCB). Tlie objectives of this project are to evaluate disposal options for fats, oil and grease (FOG) generated in the sever system service area and assess in-plant impacts of these disposal options. Disposal opuons considered include use of existing anaerobic digestion and other off-site recycling methods. / f' Brown and Caldwell has been rerained as a part of its \\'DR support contract, to (I) 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, «6thin 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 Eats, vegetable fats, and food solids of vats 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 r% ically discharged by businesses such as automotive repair facilities, gas stations and car washes. Petroleum-based FOG is relatively simple to rc,gulatc and control through industrial discharge and pretreaunenr permits. Food-based FOG is more difficult to control because of the large number of restaurants and Cast food establishments. The focus of this report evaluates the impact of the FOG that would be controlled under new 13i\IPs from restaurants and other food establishments. BROWN AND C A L D W E L L PA,,p\pIr'UVITi\I0275 FUG Impart 2002 479 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 ear}'ing densities, generahy less dense than water, it separates easily into several layer floating on the water when placed in a quiescent vessel like a grease trap or a grease interceptor (See Figure I). Because of this natural tendency m Rom, 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 Dr1F thickening process. AIR INTAKE LOCK AND LIFT CLEANOUT ,"VENT /'RING {I:�,V,7a4 �C3^.iIT.-a.::•s'.l":am_.=::4'ti/,r-'{.Y:S£_�_L'iG3.-v�vr__'1i1��,"-�� INLET.F9O11-.I� I Cb (lJli OUTLET FLOW I rb•?, +.�F' r "'�F" � SAMPLE REOULATOR7 y ��' OEG W -T POINT DEVISE FI ,-I I E ACCUTAtLA yo! - �•� ICI f A"'\- ft L � Ur w- (• x tt�G'}t�. RELIEF REMOVABLE i k'. .''wi'i._"-y",<- RAFFLES l f � ell soups ACCUMULATION Figure 1. "Typical Grease Interceptor FOG from animal fats conlains 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 general]) considered to he polar. FOG that is petroleum-based is nonpolar in nature. Lipids, including phospholipids, are generally defined by biochenvsts as compounds that, upon hydrolysis (addition of water), wrill produce fatty acids. FOG fact), 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 .kids (VFrl), commonly acetate. Methanogens, in Iurn consume VFas to produce methane, etc., resulring in the formation of hvdrogcn, acetate, fornhate 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 AN1I C A L D W ELL P.bt, i\i"tn\�+bT1\It12-sit FOG lmpan Snxlc.Juc Not cininr 3003 480 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study _ 3 Table 1 — OCSD FOG Mauler Sample Summary Sample Date Chromium Fit.- V$ % PIf __tune 10, 2002 0.49 6.2 6.85 tune 12, 2002 0.69 1 6.06 6.85 June 13, 2002 0.37 6.77 5.48 :lvera c 0.52 6.34 639 ' Chronuum etas recon+.rnended by OCSD source control staff as an indicator for heave metals. Chronuum is not an clernent that is found commonly in "smwarcr,Much mike it a good indicator. Method for Conducting Sau1y Brown and Caldwell collected and reviewed data in order to develop alternatives for handling FOG and assessing in-plan[ impacts of FOG treater] on-site. Information sources include: • OCSD staff and plan[ 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. • FOG samples collected from random FOG haulers and analyzed for volatile solids, total suspended solids, pH and total chromium (as an indicator for heavy rnerals). 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)une 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 alternauve by OCSD staff as a result of bench scale testing that had been performed many years before. .Alternatives have been developed for both on-sire 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 \rmh OCSD staff. 'Ifhcse cri[crin included: Operational/process impacts, maintenance task impacts, staffing impacts, traffic impacts, economic/hfecvcle impacts and environmental impacts. A workshop o as held oat October 9, 2002 with OCSD staff to detcrnunc which impacts hold greater weight, [hen rank each alternative by evaluating them and summing the weighted values for each evaluation criteria. When OCSD confirms sciccrion of a preferred alternative an implementation schedule will be developed. axowx A N v C A L D W 8 L L r:b�,\itn\>.wr7l\ne75s tt rc onp,a>uac..6< :e Lllbcr 2002 481 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 ar the source and keep FOG from entering the collection system. They will he developing Best Management Practices (BI\iPs) and evaluating chemicals or other materials that break down FOG, as well as other ucW technologies. Phase I 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 quanuues 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 rank that would blend primary solids and thickened waste activated sludge. One of the alternative advanced digestion processes recommended was a series thermophilic/ncsophilic arrangement. This blending tank would also serve as a 'we[ well" to feed the digesters and provide a place for heat recovery from the thertophilic phase of digestion prior to the mesophilic phase. The thermophilic phase operates at approximately 135 ° F and the mesophilic phase operates :u 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 mcsophilic 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 plains as a result of FOG quantities diverted front entering (he collection system and discharged dircculy at the treatment facility. -1'he future FOG load being diverted from the collection system could vary from =45,000 to 180,000 gallons a day or 30 to 120 necks per day asst.tming an average truck Size of 1,500 gallons. This estimate assumes FOG is collected from approximateh 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 of when they are closed. This could result in peak FOG [loves which are considerably higher than average, and occurring on Mondays or Tuesdays when some restaurant are closed. The BMP studs- 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 stud} will be given to OCSD and contributing B R 0 W N AND C A L D W E L L I' '-+rY)\I@;SF PUG Impa<i?nJr Jrc N�wcmL•cr 2002 482 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant HOG Impact Study agencies to pass ordinances to control the discharge at'FOG to the collection system. Installation of FOG interceptors and periodic inspection of these intercepors will ensure that they are being properly maintained and pumped out. This in-planr FOG impact sntdy assumes that future FOG ordinances would be passed requiring FOG interceptors and FOG being hauled to the OCSD durmping station. This would result in the greatest impact to the planr site. Since the BtMP study- will not be completed until the beginning of 2003, no esdimate 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 quannues 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 BNP study- The on-going BNIP 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 treatmenr facility is available, the number used in this study will need to be revised. Future FOG quantities play a small part in development oFtreaument and disposal alternatives. Future FOG quantities only factor in to the assessment of in-plant impacts on various processes that may be called upon to treat the FOG. Alternatives utilizing existing anaerobic digestion capacity %till not be impacted because there is substantial excess cligester capacity and FOG quantities are small in relation to projected future sludge flows. As noted above, depending on how well the BDIP plan is implemented and enforced, truck traffic both inside and outside the plant could be significantly impacted. Since Plant No. I has the facility to receive trucked FOG, on-site treatment of FOG will be limited to Plant I where the FOG haulers currently discharge their loads with the exception of Alternat ve I A that continues current disposal practices. FOG RENIOVAL PRACTICES Current FOG Quantities Currently, several FOG haulers throughout the OCSD collect FOG from existing grease naps and interceptors. OCSD Operations staff reported that most FOG collected is not rmixed %vith 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 be CalTrans and local road tveight limits. Plant I typically receives 27 trucks a clay or approximately 10,000 gallons per day. As noted in this table, two of the permitted FOG haulers are also FOG processors (rendering companies). B R 0 W N AS n I C A L D W RLL �, „ `� 2��p\M� \'li lJ\102-iY P(�G impact,nulr'.dm .Voccmlxr_OU_ 483 Orange County Sanitation District fry-Plant FOG Impact Study G t "fable 2. FOG Collection Companies Permit Number Waste Hauler 2 Ora❑ e County Septic S Inland pumping 29 i linuteman Pumping 34 The FOG Company/Biker Commodities (Rendering company) 52 _ Primer Proccssors 92 Ryker 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 I adjacent to the Ellis Avenue efllIanCe. Haulers enter the plant at this location, drop off a copy of their manifest outside the plant gate, and then proceed to the clumping sration. The dumping station can acconnnodate two uvcks at a time in two separate waste hookups. Each waste hookup has a solid metal cover over a 4-inch quick connect fitting. When 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 fining at the dump station and finally open their discharge valve allowing the load to flow by gravity. All trucks are equipped with reversible pumps chat 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 purnp 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 Li tick at the dumping station and flows to the influent diversion structure by gravity. City water is used to flush the solids along the line, sinular 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 [Wink 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 Elie discharged FOG combines- with other wastewater now and proceeds through the normal treatment process at Plant 2. Some FOG has a tendency Eo form grease balls and chunks that are removed mceliauically ,u the barscreens or manually removed at the aerated grit tanks. AfEcr screening and degritdng at the 6cadworks, floatable material is removed in the primary sedimentation tanks by the scum collection S srem. The collected scum consists of the FOG that was dumped by the FOG haulers as \ecll as FOG transported to the plant from the wastcwzncr collection system. The scum is periodicallc pumped and combined with primary sludge This rnisntre then flows to the anaerobic digesters. Grease present in the scurn/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 bypass piping has been provided to allow for periodic steam cleaning of the primary sludge line. �l B R O W N AND C A L D W E L L rt to tmpaa s.ud,d,. N..o„.b,,2002 484 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 7 Operations staff indicated that gas production at the digesters increases somewhat \vhcn FOG, mixed in with the pitman- sludge, reaches the digesters, although no specific data was provided. The City of Oxnard which uses similar methods for receiving FOG has cited it figure of approximately an additional 50 cubic feet of methane gas per 1,400-gallon truckload of FOG. Unless a digester is well mixed and has a \\,ay of removing surface floating material, digesters have it 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 \\dth matting in the anaerobic digesters. This Would imply [liar 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 oil 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 ill aerated grit temks and primary sedimentation tanks. Grease balls that form in these locations may need to be manually removed when surface-shimming 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 systetrt, FOG can also coat and clog conveyance pumping systems and the plant piping. This can result in more frequenr 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 gencrally 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 problem; will 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 131\I11 program to reduce. the amount of FOG entering the collection system mac increase the quantirV of FOG being collected and hauled to Plant \o. 1. A,, mentioned earlier, this could result in over 100 trucks per da\ delivering FOG to the dumping station or other discharge point. "Traffic both on and off site could be significantly impacted by the increased nuunbcr of trucks. 3 R D W N AND C A L D W 8 L L ttrt;Impact tiuJcJ,, x..canJxr 2002 485 Orange County Sanitation District It In-Plant FOG Impact Study S In-Plant FOG Impact Mitigation. There are several ways to midgace 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 upping troughs and surface sprays may be needed. I-lot water sprays may also be advisable. As with thickened sludge lines,glass-fined 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 ocher waste streams (septage., primvuY sedimentation and secondat)' clarifier scurn 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 crest 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 do 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 B7 fP program to reduce the amount of FOG being discharged into [he sewer collection system in an effort to reduce sewer systan overflows (SSOs). This program may result in an increased amount of FOG diverted from the collection systern and elisposed of at the OCSD treatment facility. DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL AIJERNATIVES 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 I3MP study. OCSD source control staff indicated that any alternative that brings FOG on site must include a card access system for plant cntrY control and load documentation. A separate gate for FOG haulers may also be considered. .\Itcrnatiwcs that have been developed include: B R O W N AND C A L D W E L L R\.,\rib.\—arty toa;- 2002 \ o-1 f(]f I I:nps�tiu;l,'.J:c Knccmbct 486 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CURRENT F.O.G. TREATMENT FOG DIVERSION STRUCTURE HAULER �u~ PLANT I PLANT 2 SCREENING AERATED GRIT REMOVAL PRIMARY PRIMARY SLUDGE PRIMARY EFFLUENT SEDIMENTATION (TO SECONDARY TREATMENT) SCUM & FOG SCUM B PUMPS DIGESTER GAS (TO COGENT « ter DEWATERING THICKENED WAS °GS ALTERNATIVE IA - BASE CASE (STATUS Q 0) PR°JECT euuBDz DATE s BROWN AND SCALE NONE 22160 C A L D W E L L "°� ' FIGURE 2 LOCIi°v ORANG_ COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT f.MG.lnEATU T A IERNATIVE SAN DIEOO.CALIFORNIA 1 487 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 10 I A. Base case —status quo (continue current practices of receiving FOG and disposal) I - D. On-site ueatmenr 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 IA — Basc 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 cligesters with the primary sludge and anacrobically digesting it. Divert other waste oils, such as waste olive oil or cooking oil, directly to a cligester(partial implementation of Alternative 1 D). New glass tined 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 113-D — On-site Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion These alternatives would rnodifv 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 I B Modified FOG Receiving and Digestion (Sec 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 liqucry the grease solids and reduce the possibility of fouling the hear exchangers. Locating a dedicated dumping station closer to the digesters would rcducc the: plating of FOG on the sludge Feed lines. IC Modified FOG Receiving, WAS thickening and Digestion (See Figure -1 for schematic) - Receive FOG at a new clumping station closer to the digesters, pumping it to the DAF rhickcncr after thickening followed by anaerobic digestion. I D Dedicated Digestion (.,cc 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 R L L r:b�t+\wt�•\'-wr'r'r\InryY HNl t.npzn S'W'A'c 2002 488 Orange County Sanitation District In Plant FOG Impact Study ]1 Alternate 113 —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 31 shows a typical FOG pretreatment system. 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. CROWN Attu !\ CALDWELL 3002 489 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.O.G. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOG HAULER 0 1 NEW FOG PRETREATMENT ROUGH SCREENING GRIT & ROCK REMOVAL iOPTION I OPTION 2 PRIMARY DAE wA5 SEDIMENTATION THICKENING PRIMARY A B THICKENED SLUDGE WAS DIGESTER GAS (TD COGEN) e / TO DEWATERING ALTERNATIVE IB - COMBINED DIGESTION f4U� WITH PRIMARY SLUDGE OR WAS - I / PRDIEC1 -UREA De1E J d SCALE : NONE BROWN AND 22160 C A L D W E L L OTC i`ON ORANLE COUNTY SANITATION 06iElCr FIGURE 3 F.D.D. rRCATw T ALTERRn 9VE SAN DIEOO.CALIFORNIA 490 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.O.G. TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES FOG HAULER 1 NEW FOG PRETREATMENT ROUGH SCREENING GRIT & ROCK REMOVAL PRIMARY THICKENED PRIMARY SLUDGE BLENDING 9VAS DAF SEDIMENTATION TANK THICKENING HEX DIGESTER GAS (TO COGEN) fi e BLENDED SLUDGE AND FOG -TO DEWATERING ALTERNATIVE IC - COMBINED DIGESTION FOG, PRIMARY SLUDGE & WAS WITH PREHEATING PRDJEU nuuRFJt De IE B R OWN AND SCALE . NONE 22160 C A L D W E L L CDT FIGURE 4 Dweimx ORMU CODNTr SANTATION DSTMCT � SAN DIEOO,CAI,IFORNIA f.aG.TREITUENT AL1ERNanvE 491 i ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT F.O.G_ TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES DIGESTER GAS ITD COGEN) FOG HAULER DEDICATED DIGESTER GAS FOG (TO COGENT DIGESTER PRIMARY j SLUDGE ► TWAS 1 COMIXED DEWATERING DIGESTER I � e ALTERNATIVE ID - DEDICATED DIGESTION PROJECT YUYRCR MIE d B R 0 W N LC.ALE NONE AND 22i60 C A L D W E L L 0f FIGURE 5 oR ORWCE COUNTY SEMT&TIOM D6TA:CT y EAA. 1RE TYENT J'EIERNAnVE 3AN DIEOO,CALIFORNIA 492 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 15 Alternate IC — Modified FOG Receiving, Thickening and Digestion. This alternative would involve the following new structures and equipment: 1. New receiving station with coarse solid/grit removal, odor control and FOG pumping located along the bast Perimeter road south of Secondan Clarifier 2 adjacent to the D A Fs. 2. F-lesned sludge blending tank (heat to approximately 85 ° F) to receive raw Primary sludge, thickened WAS and FOG. Figure G 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 i 95 deg F Heat Exchanger Heat Exchanger No(c:Tenapaanves shown to represent the concept of ram sludge preheating. .\eual tUlTpCvatutns may.ran'. Figure 0. Heated Sludge 13lerttling 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). "Ibis heated sludge blending tank would add a small amount to the !seat load for mesophilic digestion clue to some hear losses at (he 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. C ;I B R O W N AND C A L D W E L L \i„b, , uY7 In275s P(IC Impact>:uJy.dne M,,,,b,,2002 493 Orange County Sanitation District j In-Plant FOG Impact Study 16 Heated Blending tank Thermophilic Mesophitic Anaerobic Digester Anaerobic Digester Pmn+'sludge,min.ow WAS aleneee relief end me COG@>6 degr FOG@as eeyF 1-e/egF�' 1]S mqF Sludge to Sludge `J Hot Watch Hvat Exch.ngvr Hcat Exchanger ��__1]iCte ecn� Note:Temperanves shown to represent the concept of raw sludge preheating. Acrnaf tcmpotatnres may x^toy. Figure 7. Advanced Digestion Schematic j- Alternate ID — Dedicated Digestion. This alternative would involve using Digester 7 for dedicated anaerobic digestion. Digesters S 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. "fliey stated that it took about 2 weeks for the process to be established, but solids destmction 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, vets 6tde 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 direct]): 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 becht received in chi; 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 rr]ay be nccessat to facilitate increased traffic flow in the area and caputic possible liquid spills. Injection clownstreant of rile heat exchanger would require sonic piping modifications to the sludge recirculation piping. B R 0 W N AN D C A L D W E L L r:brt+\pub.\ParPl\he:iN Pt u:bnpaa?unl\.Jfic N.....nbcr 2002 494 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 17 /- i ' 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 uaps may also be recycled 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 I and 15 cents a gallon. Ali article published by the Farm But Federation dared December 20, 2000' described the crisis chat 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 hio-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 trcauncnt plant. Adding 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 300% of the current cost. These costs may vary significantly due to changes in the marker, 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 u'affic to and from the site would double. Alternative 3 — Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel [n 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 [har has emc•ged in the last decade is clean-burning NO-fuel called bio-diesel, produced from recycled vegetable oils. Bio-diesel has physical and chemical properties very similar to penolcum diesel. However, because it is non-toxic, biodegradable and essenti:dly free of sulfur and carcinogenic benzene, it produces a significantly improved emissions profile. In addition, the additional oxygen in bio-diesel improves Souza,Christine,"High energy prices send daim indusm into tailspin,"California Farr tlnrearl Federation Ag-\]err, ee��c tl Le m aoalerd 199td10/2000/aa-L220��htm,December 20,2000 B R 0 W N e x o C A L D W E L L r:\"n\6't�,\-'NYP/\Iu21iM1 FUG Impact,nwlcS,c 495 Orange County Sanitation District -1 In-Plant FOG Impact Study 18 i cornbusuon and makes for a significantly cleaner burn. Bio-diesel is a very effective furl addiuve mixing readily with pctrolcurn diesel. In a 20% blend with diesel, emissions are signiftcandy reduced. Pacific Bio-diesel located in Hawaii has reported using 100% bio-diesel xvith no reduction in engine performance. No engine modifications are needed to burn bio-diesel. Bio-diesel also has improved luhricity 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 locornotive euginr- test): • Reduce NOx by 5 to 1.1 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-cliesel is produced predominantly from waste cooking oil. Since FOG collected from grease traps typically his 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 compam CO 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 Iacibry to handle grease trap waste and would like to open discussions with the District to place a pilot facility at the plant sire. pilot testing of this process should confirm feasibility of producing yellow grease from grease trap waste within the nest six months. Other technologies are emerging to conccnuate 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 gl)'cerin that must still be landfilked. No commercial operations using this technology handling grease trap wastes are currenty in business on the mainland. B R O W N AND CA LDWflLL I':\�� Pc R 1 input Smd'.d.a \...cnaxr 2003 496 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 19 Alternative 4 — Landfill Disposal Landfill disposal could be done by combining solidified grease k idi grit and rags removed at the headworks at the Count), landfill disposal site. This alternative is less desirable than others because it would be contrary to California's regulations requiring diversion of rcc�clable 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 suvctures 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 it thc)une 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 rniffic • Economy Impacts (treatment costs) — Impact on cost for treating FOG including revenue gained or lost by.beneficial btproducts of FOG treatment (such as methane gas generation) • Lnvironmental 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,ctc. Alternative 1A— Base Case (Status Quo) The impacts of continued operation of the facihn' as it currcnth exists is proyiLICd as a basis for comparison to the other alternatives. lmpacts of maintaining the current mode of operation are well known. \Veekly sludge line cleaning is done of the pritnar% sludge lines and periodic manual removal of grease balls is done in the aerated grit chambers and bar screen influent channels. Increased FOG quantities Avill increase the frequency of maintenance already occurring and possibly require additional maintenance attention in the primary scam collection and punpint; as well. s R o W N AND C A L D W E L L P:\,+P\w�\2aM)7\iu2Sis POG I ...,,,;b�r 3003 497 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 20 Alternative 1B-D — On-site Treatment Using Anaerobic Digestion As described above, this alternative mar be implemented in several different ways: each having its own impacts. Because the current practice of FOG treatment in the anaerobic digesters appems 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 cloublc. Due to fluctuations in the market there could be significanr economic risk associated with [his alternative. Alternative 3 — Off-site Recycling as a Bio-fuel This alternative could require a process to separate useable bellow 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 i3\Ii�s 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 I-OG 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 -1 provides a more detailed comparison of impacts of all four alternativca including the four variations of Alternative I. Comparison of Alternatives Evaluation Criteria Weighting. To better dcfinc the rela[iyc importance of each criteria, a .workshop was held on October 9, 2002 with operations, compliance and source control staff(See Figure 8 for cyaluation matrix). In order of perceived importance be OCSD staff the impact criteria rated as follows from least important to most important. 8 R 0 W N AND C A L D W B L L P:\.gyp\n,bs\'vrP�\ai7ii>;FOG hnrur 2002 498 Orange County Sanitation District In-Pl:mt FOG Impact Study 21 1. F_cononuc Impact 2. Environmental Lnpact 3. Staffing Impact 1. TrICIIC linpact 5. Maintenance task Lnpact 6. Operation;/process Impact Equiv A B C D E F Score % 2 3 3 3 1 A 1 1 1 1 t 5 13.0% 2 1 2 2 B 1 1 1 1 6 16.0% 1 3 2 C 2 I 1 9 24.0% 2 2 D J 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!o the TOTAL 38 100.0 corresponding criterion for that box. 0=Insignificant: 1 =Equal Significance;2=Slightly More hnportant; 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- Environmenlal Impacts FiI�urC 8. Evaluation Criteria rVl ltrix Non-Monetary Comparison. 'I he a;ternativcs det-clopcd for treauncnt and disposal of I'OG were compared based on the impacts to the treatment CaciGny as noted above. The impact criteria factors were rarccl oil a scale of 5 to I For each alternauve with 5 being [he most desirable and I being The [cast desirable The basis of the thing was degree to which the OCSD ueatmeni facility would be impacted. ""able 3 shows a comparison oFalterna!ive Factoring in the criteria weighting rioted above. \; .I BROWN nna -- C AL DW ELL I•:\v a�i6s\'_:TnJ'1\lug?SY I'l H I L�rpaa AuJpJoc Nnrcnib�r 20D2 499 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 22 'fable 3. Evaluation of Alternatives Opemdonal ht:unrcn:mcc S.M.g I ticonomic 6mironmcmal In1 act Im art Im act Im au Im act In,P'Ct "]'oral Rama,% C.u"ia advh:6m L 5 J 1 .\Immvivc Ib,c R'd•h�•J IL.c \(•dghwd it., W6th"d Haw %Vn� ud I(a.c W6,1ucJ It., ,lc•d-hwJ IA Ilasc't.iec ' 12 ' III 9 3 '2 J 1 .1f 51 5 (?alas(h:u) IR On-.im J 21 J 211 J 12 5 J 5 111 ;g 2 digcslinn- _ \IoJir"d Lnluid Read,in• _ IC (Jn- 4, 3 is 3 15 , 9 2 N 3 3 J N 61 I dis"m'n- .NlWi6cJ IiyuiJ li¢a,mg. 'Ihickcnin� ID O.,-silc A 21 1 21) J 12 "+ fi J 4 i W I iX Jigc:liun- DcJIomJ lion _ 2 O(f-.i:c '_J 1 31I .1 I? I 1 2 ( (s 3 I lCalntonl- 19)(; rcuJcnn� _ 5 31, 5 25 5 15 _ .i A 1 'S 111 92 unxnl-x.Z. i od J Of-,in• _ L' _ lu 2 6 2 4 ] _ 1 >_ 11) 6 di.ry.al- L nJfill 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 arc considered to be "Order of Magnitude" cstirnates. Tie American Association of Cost Engineers defines nn Order of 6[agnitude cost estiunte as having an accuracy of within -1-30% or—30%: B R 0 W N A 4 D CA L D W ELL P:\, \'•b.< \ I 0 P M \=i1YY) InJ-+14)G lm,aa TmJcJm \�wrnl6cr� 03 500 Q= 1 a •V t _ _ _ _ _ 3 jE _ 501 Orange Counry Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 24 ,Actual project costs from similar wastewater projects, budget prices obtained from vendors, and cost cun•e data have been used to complete this analysis. A list of general (!cononnc and process assurptions for the treatment and disposal options is provided below. "These assumptions, which arc consistent with the recent advanced digestion study, IIICInd C: • Electrical and control costs are edual to 12 percent and 20 percent of mechanical and structural modifications respectivcl)'. • Cepiml Cost mark ups: o Modification and coordination %Vith CXisting facilities 10 percent o Contractor overhead and profit 15 percent o Permits, bonds, and insurance 2.5 percent o Fstimator's contingent) 40 percent o Sales tag 7.75 percent o Engineering and adnvnistrative Costs 30 percent o Markup for piping materials and installation in 15 percent the esistiug tunnel systems at Plants I Clue to congestion. Table 5, Alternative Capital Costs. (Millions) Alternative Ca ital Cost Ahernative IA —Base Case (Status Quo) $ 5.7 Alternative 16 — Modified FOG receiving Option I — tie in FOG line at digesters $ 1.1 Option 3— tie in FOG line at DAF feed $ 0.9 Alternative 1 C — ,Modified FOG receiving, thickened slucli�c blending $ -1.6 Alternative 1 D — Dedicated digestion (Includes future digester cost) $ 4.8 (Without fume digester cost) $ A Alrernetive 2— Of-site treatment at grease rendering facibiv S 1.1 Alternative 3 —Oft-site rccvcling as bio-fuel $ 0 Alternative 4 — Off-site disposal at landfill (solid disposal) S 3.1 Detailed capital cost estitriwes for each alternaurc arc included in Appendix A. i B R O W N A i D C A L D W E L L I':\.<p\rib>\>llrJ9\In�-i9 Pt H: Imp:ai�uWaJ.c N—,,.bcr 2002 502 Orange County Sanitarion District In-Plant FOG Impact Study 25 T _ RECONI N1 ENDAT IONS The seven alternatives developed for treating or disposing of FOG in the OCSD arc Alternative 1 —Onsirc Digestion o Alternative IA — Base Case (Stints Quo) o Alternative lB — \codified Liquid Receiving o Alternative l C — \lodified liquid Receiving and Thickening o Alternative 1 D — Dedicated Digestion Alternative 2 —Off-site treatment at a FOG rendering facility • Alternative 3 — Of[-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 faeilirv. 'rile ranking results indicate that Alternative 3 ranked the best, followed by Ahernatives l D and 13. Although Alternative 3 ranked the highest, the risk associated with .Alternative 3 depends heavily on a third p„rtv th:u currently is in the development stages. Brown and Caldwell recommends that Alternate D be implementer) 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 trip waste should be performed. 1'o 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 [ A. REFERENCES Ahring, Bugittek, Environmental Biotechnology Lecture Notes, Lecmrc 10, University of California, Los Angeles, Spring 199S Brown and Caldwell, FOG B:VP Manual for Oregon 2000, association of Clean W ater Agencies, )rca%Va.orn Brown and Caldwell, Grease Disposal Snick for\C nstewater Division, Department of Public \\'orks, Counn of I Iawnii, Ocinbcr 1998 Brown and Caldwell, City of Ki.csinunce — lspansion of South Bermuda \CRF 2000— GrCaFe/Pumpou[ Receiving Station, Nlay 2001 t B R O W N A N D C A L D W E 1. L 10(; mL,,'_00° 503 Orange County Sanitation District In-Plant FOG Impact Sntdv 26 Chapelle, F, Groundwater %Lctobiology and Geochemistn•, 1993 Jo\ce, Charles, P.L., Brown and Caldwell, Grease Impact Assessment Rehabilitation Pilot Project Counn Sanitation District, SaCr:llnCNIO Count)', Gilifornia,Junc 2000 :Mehui, B, Unieemity Chemisuy, 3°' Ed, Chapter 13, 1975 Metcalf& Eddy, \\`astewater Engineering Treatment/Disposal/Reuse, 3"' Edition, 1991 OCSD, TPOD Annual report database,July 2000 to June 2001 Souzi, Christine, "High energy prices send clairy industi), into tailspin," California Finn Bureau Federation Ag A!ert, %%nv v.cfbfcotn/apala't/1996-00/2000/ai-1220c.htrn, December 20, 2000 StrcilAvieser, Introduction to Organic Cheinistty, Chapters 19, 20, 28, and 29, 2"" edition, 1981 Van Opstal, B., :;\LE., P.E., Organic Resource Technologies Inc., et al, "Use of Pat, Oil and Grease Wiste as an Agricultural Soil Conditioner,"WEIF 12�` Annual Resicluais and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings,July 1998 B R O W N A N D C A L D W E L L '_:nv�VP(xl I... 5i,,J,6� 2002 504 APPENDIX A AL 1 ERNA TIVE CAPITAL COST Es izji/A TES 505 OCSD Grease impact study Alternative capital cost estimates total,:":clug o 'OPU AlffFhAtiVd.71 0000 0 demo Glass lined DIP primary sludge piping- 6" (including 10000 2001 $2,000,000 Modify existing primary scum collection (allowance) $500,000 Subtotal $2,500,000 Modifly and coordinate with existinQ $250,000 Controls so Electrical $0 lutist Contractor indirects $175,000 Subtotal $425,000 Contractor overhead S438,750 Permits, bonds and insurance $73,125 Estimator's contingency SI.170,000 Sales tax $226,688 Engineering and Administration $B77,500 total $5,711,063 Rounded Estimate $5,700,000 Alt-eTHMCV B.M6difie-c! Re-ceivin-g- 0 t i-6 fi l M,&.B;-'.t i e in rease I j hid�61 di i e $'I"10 01000 Grease receiving station- packaged system 2 $100,000 S200,000 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 S13,738 Estimator's contingency $219,800 .Sales tax $42.586 Engineering and Administration 5164.850 total S1,072,899 Rounded Estimate $1.1 00.�O�;-01 506 .tie'jW.q?ease jme,at D'.AF.Jddd< X$900;000 Grease receiving station -packlged.system 2 $100,000 $200,000 Grease pumping - 300 Qpm 2 $15,000 $30,000 Grease piping to DAFs- 8" Glass lined 600 S120 $72,000 Subtotal $302,000 Modifty 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 r. $ 00--,0 0 Grease receiving station - packaged system 2 $100,000 $200,000 Grease pumping - 300 gpm 2 $15.000 330,000 Heated blendign tank 1 S650,000 $650,000 Blended sludge heating and pumping equipment 1 $320,000 $320,000 Blended sludge & grease piping 1 1500 $200 $300,000 Subtotal $1,500,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $150,000 Controls `2 02 Electrical MUM 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 total $4,598,138 Rounded Estimate S4,600,0001 507 $4-00000 MIZ I- '66i 6n-t'd@6- , 4 -i OT M,J,,�,.- Wo.repi ii 6�fdf, t� 000 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 R diameter* 1 $1.500,000 $1,500,000 Subtotal $1,622,100 Modify 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 S197,369 frjq_Ln2eri2q and Administration $764,009 total S4,972,426 Rounded Estimate $4,800,000 Digester included for capacity lost from dedicated digestion for grease Alternative -0 000 80,000 gal storage tank w/mixing pumps 1 $500,000 $500,000 Modifiy and coordinate with existing $50,000 Controls $0 EJectfical so Misc Contractor indirects $35,000 Sutotal 385,000: Contractor overhead $87,750 Permits, bonds and insurance $14,625 Estimator's contingency $234,006 .Sales tax S45,338 Engineering and Administration $175,500 Total $1,142,213 iRounded Estimate S1,100,000 Al Udirha tiye..TOffzsitd bi6f6lej.- -9t6-6il- ej.4- So lid-.& Obs�6 ......... 530 00 wo 0 80,000 gal storage tank w mixing pumps, FOG concentrator I s1,000,006 51.000,000 Modjfiy and coordinate with existing $100,000 Controls $100,000 Electrical $300,000 Misc Contractor indirects $70,000 Sutotal $570,000 Contractor overhead S235,500 Permits, bonds and insurance $39,250 Estimator's contingency $623,000 Sales tax $121,675 Enqineerin2 and Administration $471.000 Total $3,065,425 Rounded Estimate S3,100,000d 509 APPENDIX K - FOG Traininu Manual Cih of I untinglon Beach SexerSvstem Alanagement Plan 70 510 ity 1 • ! i I lkach / 049 andGre4ase070G) Controf ftwam HB A � l 1 , Table of Contents Section1 What is FOG? ............................................................................................1 1.1 How Does FOG Affect You? .........................................................................................................................1 1.2 The City of Huntington Beach FOG Control Program ..................................................................................1 Section 2 How to Achieve Compliance with the Food Service Establishment FOG ControlProgram .........................................................................................2 Section 3 Employee Training and Awareness .............................................................2 3.1 "Dry Wiping' Pots, Pans, Dishware and Work Areas to Remove Grease....................................................3 3.2 Spill Prevention and Proper Clean-Up Methods..........................................................................................3 3.3 Drain Screening............................................................................................................................................4 3.4 Dishwashing and Equipment Cleaning ........................................................................................................4 3.5 Recycling FOG..............................................................................................................................................5 3.6 Maintenance of Kitchen Exhaust Filters......................................................................................................5 3.7 Post "No Grease" Signs................................................................................................................................6 Section 4 Grease Control Devices; Grease Trap vs. Grease Interceptor......................6 4.1 Grease Trap Maintenance ...........................................................................................................................9 4.2 Grease Interceptor Maintenance ................................................................................................................9 Section5 Recordkeeping.........................................................................................11 Attachments Attachment I Employee Training Record Attachment II Grease Trap Maintenance Log Attachment III Grease Recycling and Grease Control Device Service Providers Attachment IV Hood Filter Service Vendor 512 The City of Huntington Beach has developed the "Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Food Service Establishments" Training Manual to assist Food Service Establishments in developing simple, easy-to-follow steps and procedures to prevent Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) from entering the City's sewer system. This manual covers all the basic elements to eliminate FOG and is a helpful tool to convey the message to your staff and achieve compliance with the FOG Control Program. 1. What is FOG? FOG is a combination of fats, oils, and grease used in food preparation, and is generated by Food Service Establishments (FSEs). Products that contain and create FOG include cooking oil, fat, grease, butter, shortening, and cooking meat. 1.1 How Does FOG Affect You? Food waste, as well as water that has been used to wash kitchen equipment, dishes, and floors, contains FOG. When FOG is washed or poured down the drain and into the sewer, it cools and solidifies causing sewer pipes to become clogged. Over time, FOG builds up and eventually blocks entire sewer pipes, causing sewage backups and overflows. Property damage can result from sewage backing up into the building leading to expensive cleanup and plumbing repairs that you are responsible for. Sewage spills and backups FOG Blockage in Sewer Pipe can also result in Health Department code violations that can lead to the closure of your business operations. If a sewer spill occurs, immediately stop using water, call a plumber, and the City of Huntington Beach at (714) 536-5921 or (714) 960-8825 after hours. If sewage is released and enters a storm drain, the sewage will flow to the ocean causing an immediate public health hazard and possible beach closure. 1.2 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 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 achieve this goal, the City adopted Municipal Code 14.56, Control and Regulation of Fats, Oils, and Grease, a FOG Control Program that regulates FSEs and provides a 1 513 mechanism to help control and minimize the introduction of FOG into the City's sewer system. The City's FOG Control Program implements a three-part approach: o 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 implementation of FOG BMPs. o Food Service Establishment 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. o Enhanced Sewer Maintenance and Cleaning Enhanced sewer maintenance activities are scheduled as a result of the City's inspection of the sewer system using a closed circuit television (CCTV) inspection system. 2. How to Achieve Compliance with the Food Service Establishment FOG Control Program Achieving compliance with the City's FSE FOG Control Program requires the implementation of all of the following BMPs by the owner/operator of the FSE through an Employee Training and Awareness Program. o "Dry Wiping" Pots, Pans, Dishware, and Work Areas to Remove Grease o Spill Prevention and Proper Clean Up Methods o Drain Screening o Proper Dish Washing and Equipment Cleaning o Recycling FOG o Maintenance of Kitchen Exhaust Filters o Posting "No Grease" Signs o Maintenance of Grease Control Devices (Grease Traps and Grease Interceptors) The above BMPs are designed to reduce or eliminate FOG into the sewer system. Other BMPs not listed may be necessary to further reduce or eliminate FOG. 3. Employee Training and Awareness Program The success of your establishment's BMP program to eliminate FOG from entering your sewer system is largely dependent upon your employees. The City requires the training of all employees at least twice a calendar year and all new hires within two calendar weeks of hire on the following subjects: 514 o "Dry wiping" pots, pans, dishware, and work areas to remove grease o Spill prevention and proper cleanup methods ` S o Drain Screening o Dishwashing and Equipment Cleaning • _• o Proper FOG Recycling/Disposal ® • o Maintenance of Kitchen Exhaust Filters o Post "No Grease" Signs o Employee training must be documented in the Employee Training Record (Attachment 1) and include employee signatures indicating each employee's attendance and understanding of the practices reviewed. All training records must be kept on site at all times and made available for review by the City. The following sections cover training elements required by the City of Huntington Beach. The italic/bold texts are recommendations for restaurant managers/supervisors to train employees. These are only recommendations that may or may not work and should be used or modified accordingly. 3.1 "Dry Wiping" Pots, Pans, dishware, and Work Areas to Remove Grease Remove food waste with paper towels or a spatula from dishes, pans, and work- areas by "dry wiping" before washing will prevent FOG from entering your sewer system. Washing food waste and FOG into the drains will eventually cause FOG to build up and create costly blockages in your sewer lines. Train employees how to "dry wipe" food waste from pots, pans, and dishware by: o Using rubber scrapers or paper towels to remove food waste, fats, oils and grease from cookware, utensils, pots, and pans before washing. Food waste should be disposed in a double bagged trash can. o Keep "dry wipe" tools by the dish washing area for easy access and use. o Using food grade paper to soak up oil and grease under fryer baskets prior to mopping floors. 3.2 Spill Prevention and Proper Clean-Up Methods All employees shall be trained on spill containment and proper spill cleanup methods. Preventing spills will help prevent slips and fall hazards as well as clogged drains. 515 J For spill prevention: Empty containers before they are full to avoid spills. Place lids on all containers when transporting liquids, particularly containers with liquid wastes containing FOG. Provide employees with proper tools. e.g.. carts with wheels, and ample containers to transport materials without spilling. Practice effective spill containment and clean up. Sweep or vacuum spills of dry products. Establishments that use large amounts of cooking fats, such as deep fryers, should post their spill response procedures and have a spill kit in an easily accessible well known location The spill kit shall contain absorbent material, like absorbent pads or kitty litter for liquid spills. To clean FOG spills employees should be trained to: Block off all sinks and floor drains near the spill. Use absorbent material in the spill kit to completely surround the spill. Sweep up used absorbent material and throw it away. Mop with a degreaser only to remove trace residues. 3.3 Drain Screening Keeping food particles containing FOG out of the sewer system can prevent clogged drains and pipe blockages. To implement this, install screens that have 1/8-inch or 3/16-inch screen openings in each floor, mop and hand sink. Train employees on the following: How to clean drain screens frequently and dispose of the collected material in a trash can. How to replace damaged or missing screens. 3.4 Dishwashing and Equipment Cleaning Proper dishwashing and cleaning methods will prevent food solids and FOG from clogging drains and causing backups. 4 516 Train employees to: Use a rubber spatula to scrape the sides of deep fryers and large pots then wipe with paper towels before washing All excess grease and oil should be placed into a waste grease container and throw paper towels in the trash. Empty grill and broiler drip pans into a waste grease container and then wipe down with paper towels prior to washing. Dispose of the paper towels in trash. 3.5 Recycling FOG All waste fryer oil and cooking grease must be disposed into designated waste FOG containers. A list of suggested recycling companies is provided in Attachment III. To recycle FOG. train your employees to: Never throw waste oil down any drain. Collect and store deep fryer waste oil in a designated recycling container. Please see Attachment Ill of this manual for a suggested list of vendors that may provide this service. Keep FOG waste containers covered at all times and promptly clean all spills and residue. o H FOG waste containers are stored outside. lock and secure lids to prevent theft and/or vandalism. and rain from getting into the container. Keep containers in good working order and free of leaks. o if possible store waste FOG containers indoors. This will minimize the risk of theft and spills. 3.6 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 accumulate on the roof of your establishment and eventually enter the storm drain system when it rains. Hood filters can be cleaned by a company or employees. 5 517 If employees clean hood filters train your employees to: Place the hood filters over a double bagged trash can. Spray degreaser on the dirty hood filters to loosen the grease and allow the excess degreaser to drip into the trash can. o Use a paper towel to wipe down the hood filters once the degreaser has been applied. o Dispose of the paper towel in the trash can. o Wash the hood filters with soap and hot water once all the excess grease has been removed. Spraying filters with hot water using 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 be placed into the dishwasher. 3.7 Post "No Grease" Signs DO NOT Post No Grease signs near three compartment POUR FATS,OILS OR GREASE sinks and mop sinks to remind your staff that DOWN THE DRAIN FOG should never be poured down the drain. This will serve as a constant reminder to your employees to properly recycle FOG and to dispose of food waste in the garbage, not down the drain. The City will provide your facility with "No / Grease" signs and other FOG related information that you can use to educate your staff. 4. Grease Control Devices; Grease Trap vs. Grease Interceptor Grease Trap vs. Grease Interceptor Grease traps and grease interceptors are both considered grease control devices. Grease traps are smaller devices, usually 25-100 gallon capacity, that are typically located inside a food service facility. A grease interceptor is a larger Typical Grease Traps device, usually 750 to 2,000 gallon capacity, which is located underground and outside of a food service establishment. 6 518 Grease control devices are v a. designed to collect, contain and Vr . ' remove food solids and grease from wash water while allowing the remaining liquid waste to discharge to the sewer system. Grease Interceptor Manholes Maintenance of Grease Control Devices For grease control devices to be effective, the units must be properly sized and maintained to allow adequate time for food solids and FOG to settle and accumulate. Inspecting and cleaning a grease control device is critical to ensure that it is functioning properly. Grease Control Devices are required to be cleaned at minimum on a quarterly basis. Proof of maintenance shall be retained in the training manual. The maintenance frequency for your grease control device depends on the volume of FOG your facility generates. Your FSE will save grease control device maintenance costs by implementing the BMPs detailed in this manual. Here are some basic maintenance requirements for grease control devices: The total FOG and solids in the grease control device should never be over 25% of the capacity of the tank. Always review the maintenance record to see that it is less than 25%. If the grease control devices is greater than 25 percent of the holding capacity you are required to perform a full cleaning of the device. FSEs that choose to service the grease traps on their own are required to maintain a record that documents the cleaning activities in the FOG Training Manual. Records should include the name of the 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 a minimum, quarterly by a licensed service provider and service records must be kept onsite for review by City staff. A suggested list of service providers is in Attachment III - Grease Recycling and Grease Control Device Service Providers. 7 519 It is important to review the grease control device maintenance record. Often, the grease service provider performing the cleaning will indicate repairs that need to be made if something is broken, missing, and requires additional cleaning or repair. va<ur,•• DARLING I c CA 01 oo aa0-sttn ,*I;cuuMr a. 71M D PRO ,�s 429N {. - — r o+► . lOiH� t_.L.. .11rnt coc/tw.. , 9~Iwo 'Wo Two Dow got fee �•1• rr Off•nNvl.ffMl elnf �"- ._ ,__ - Nrrr1�11fOfHtRC.iq•1.Hor .!- cawi.*x `, 'r �F= li !i iry t"••o •e ^qti �:r_.__ c - 1, r 417to aswww wN be- kr :.t� s.lgr«y3�s.wAn•.CA�2ror 41=1; -� w.•a. 4 t SW957 /DrAnrr 11d � us" QrdY.p sr....Itq Pr iY. VIIfM/ SI.1�T� O jj711 i 66VA"St %#+U M• C-A 47707 GATE ri • y7l -. .: --of% r i� 4.1 Grease Trap Maintenance When inspecting and/or cleaning your grease trap, confirm that the grease traps contain their internal baffles and inlet piping flow restrictors/air relief during every inspection and cleaning. These components aid in grease removal by reducing turbulence and increasing holding time within the trap. AIR INTAKE LOCK AND UFr CL.EAMOUT VENT RIlM NLE`T,,,.� OUTLET FLOW SAWLE REGULATORY MWE DEVICE / AIR RELIEF REMOVABIF i BAFFLES 0600 SOLIDS ACCUMULATION The proper maintenance procedure for a grease trap is outlined below: Steps Actions 1 Remove water in the trap to facilitate cleaning. The water should be disposed of in the sewer system. 2 Remove baffles, if possible. 3 Remove the accumulated grease out of the interceptor and deposit in a FOG container. 4 Scrape the sides, lid, and baffles to remove as much of the grease as possible, and deposit the grease into a FOG container. 5 Replace the baffle and lid. 6 Record the volume of grease removed on the maintenance log (see Attachment ll). 7 Contact a hauler or recycler for grease pick-up. 9 521 4.2 Grease Interceptor Maintenance Grease interceptors, due to their size, will usually be cleaned by licensed grease haulers. WTERCEPTOR AN 1M / COVER INLET ' � �,1 :WLET i\ is � Y.� P'^ Utl k t.rt v .I �� 1�E 4 a,„ula.,n FLOW Oil&Grcax ��_•. .i) POW REOULATORY, Accumulation •1 DEVICE ... r . `. ,. 1•ITTT. 1{ SOLIDa. ACCUMILATION The proper maintenance procedures for a grease interceptor are outlined below: Steps Actions 1 Contact a licensed grease hauler for cleaning (Attachment III). 2 Ensure that all flow is stopped to the interceptor by shutting the isolation valve in the inlet piping to the interceptor. The Following Steps Should Be Performed By a Licensed Grease Hauler 3 Remove the lid and bail out any water in the interceptor to facilitate cleaning. The water should be discharged to the sanitary sewer system. 4 Remove baffles, if possible. 5 Remove 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 and wash the walls, lid, and baffles to remove as much of the grease as possible, and deposit the grease into a watertight container. 8 Replace the lids. 9 Record the volume of grease removed on the maintenance log. 10 522 5. Recordkeepin4 Recordkeeping and documentation is an important element to successfully implementing a FOG elimination program. The City requires that each FSE retain the following records and documents on-site for at least three (3) years, and be available for review during normal operating hours: • Employee Training Records (Attachment 1) • Grease Trap Cleaning and Maintenance Log (Attachment 11) • Grease Interceptor Cleaning and Maintenance Invoices and manifests Management should inform all supervisory staff where FOG related documents are located so they can be reviewed upon request by City inspectors. 523 II Employee Training Record Training Required Every 6 Months Business Name: Training Topic(s): Trainer: Employee Name I Employee Signature Date 524 GREASE TRAP MAINTENANCE LOG Service Company used (if contracted): DAl'E CLEANED BY GALLONS GREASE DISPOSAL REMARKS/CODLUEN'GS PUMPED SITE (i.e..grease barrel) -IF F L F 1� I F I F I F --1 I F F �F ]=F 525 Grease Recycling and Grease Control Device Service Providers Grease is the number one cause of sewer line blockages. Grease from restaurants and other food service establishments clogs the lines and blocks 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 Orange County Pumping www.bakercommodities.com http://ocpumping.com 4020 Bandini Blvd. P.O. Box 10415 Los Angeles, CA 90023 Santa Ana, CA 92701 (800) 427-0696 (714) 836-6258 Eco-Fry (Grand Natural) Darling International www.grandnaturalinc.com www.darlingii.com 1415 E. McFadden St., Suite H 2624 S. Hickory Santa Ana, CA 92705 Santa Ana, CA 92707 (855) 519-5550 (714) 556-7867 R.E. Commodities Martinez Pumping Grease Trap Service www.recommoditiesandpumping.com P.O. Box 39144 31650 Rockridge Circle Downey, CA 90239 Lake Elsinore, CA 92532 (626) 625-6051 (951) 830-7315 S.M.C. Grease Specialists Triple A Pumping & Jetting Services www.smcgrease.com www.tripleapumping.com P.O. Box 1343 P.O. Box 1147 Corona, CA 92878 Orange, CA 92856 (951) 788-6042 (714) 628-0900 525 Hood Filter Cleaning Service & Soak Tank Service Providers Grease is the number one cause of sewer line blockages. Grease from restaurants and other food service establishments clogs the lines and blocks the flow, causing backups and sewer spills. These spills can enter the storm drain and pollute the ocean, causing beach closures. The following is a listing of businesses in the area that provide hood filter cleaning and tank services. Please note that the City of Huntington Beach does not endorse the following contractors and their services: _ I Hood Filter Cleaning Diversified Kitchen Solutions (DKS) alan@DKSsolutions.com www.DKSsolutions.com Alan Inselberg Kitchen (866) DKS-1033 Cleaning Service (866) 357- 1033 Ricky Tejada (818) 481-2629 Super Clean Inc CMS—superclean@yahoo.com Flue Steam Inc Jerry Suh www.fluesteam.com (800) 700-0404 Contact@fIuesteam.com Kathy Corona Royal Exhaust Hood Cleaning Services 1-800-700-3583 (ext. 208) www.royalexhaustcleaning.com Henry Beltran Jerry Suh 1-323-582-7443 Soak Tanks (Used to clean stainless steel kitchen equipment by soaking in 6w cleaning/degreasing solution) ., Diversified Kitchen Solutions (DKS) alan@DKSsolutions.com Hyginix www.DKS .com info@hyginix.com Alan Inselberg www.fogtank.com (866) DKS-1033 Katrina (866) 357- 1033 (858)566-6212 527 ATTACHMENT #2 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH UPDATING THE 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 Cin� of Huntington Beach dated March 2022 ("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 SSMPI-lB 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 SSMPf-IB has been available for public inspection and review on the City website prior to consideration of this resolution by the City Council, 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. 2. That the Seaver System lbfanagement Plan of the City of Huntington Beach dated March 2022, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, is hereby accepted and approved. RESOLUTION NO. 2022-05 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15A' day of 02 ° Mayor RL' IE\VED r\N APPROVFD: INITIr ED AN r PPR0, E City Manager Director of Public Works APPROVED ,, ORi'v4: t Attomev 21-10223R66071 2 Res. No. 2022-05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, 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 March 15, 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Bolton, Delgleize, Carr, Posey, Moser, Kalmick NOES: None ABSENT: Peterson RECUSE: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California