Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-01-24; Encina Joint Advisory Committee Ad Hoc; MinutesCITY CLERK ENCINA JOINT POWERS MINUTES OF THE JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24, 1978 AT THE ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY CONFERENCE ROOM Ed Stiles, Chairman Stanley Mahr, Vice Chairman 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Ed Stiles called the meeting to order at 9:05 &.M. ROLL CALL Present; County of San Diego Buena Sanitation District San Marcos County Water District Vista Sanitation District Leucadia County Water District Encinitas Sanitary District City of Carlsbad JAC Counsel Encina Joint Powers League of Women Voters Absent: Chuck Oldsen, Jim Frandsen Ed Stiles, Bill Dominguez Stanley Mahr Joe Zapotocky, Bob Foo Richard Hanson, Stan Van Sickle Mark Schneider, Jack Kubota Mary Casler, A. J. Skotnicki Ron Beckman Roy H. Gann, Esq. Les Evans Ruth Honnold, Jane Skotnicki San Marcos County Water District Jim McKay Guests: Brown and Caldwell CM Engineering Associates Leucadia County Water District Calavera Hills BPZA Vista Press Graham Fraser, Garr Jones John Murk Regina Ash, Eric G. Elliott Ted Donald Fred Wilson Lori Weisberg JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MUNITES - JANUARY/*", 1978 2. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 21, 1977 Chairman Stiles asked for the approval of the December 21, 1977 minutes as submitted. On motion by Mr. Mahr. seconded by Mr. Zapotocky, the motion carried. PRESENTATIONS 3. CPO - INSTITUTIONAL ALTERNATIVES FOR AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT Mr. Evans introduced Hadley Johnson of the Comprehensive Plan- ning Organization who spoke on the "Institutional Alternatives for Areawide Water Quality Management". Mr. Johnson outlined the status of the Areawide Water Quality Management Study. His remarks included comments on runoff, re- clamation and salt balance studies which are nearing completion. He summarized runoff problems as created more by agricultural activities than urban development. Mr. Johnson then discussed reclamation possibilities in the San Diego region and outlined four potential projects in the Encina area including reactivation of the Leucadia County Water District and San Marcos County Water District treatment plants. The salt balance studies indicate basins as having favorable and unfavor- able balance depending on whether the salt concentrations are decreasing or increasing. Mr. Johnson continued with an explanation of the alternatives for institutional arrangements as presented by the management consultant. Essentially, the alternatives include a modified arrangement of existing organization, a county plan, a cities plan and an areawide government approach. The consultant's final recommendation is to be available in early February. INFORMATION 4. HEADWORKS UPGRADE Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for a report on the Headworks Upgrade. Mr. Evans stated that, because of the reaction to his comments on the headworks area deficiencies at the December 21, 1977 JAC meeting, he had researched the files and found a letter from Brown and Caldwell dated June 27, 1975 in which some of the problems were discussed. - 2 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY >K 1978 Q The letter describes the corrugated metal pipe that was in- stalled in the influent structure and designed for a short term service of about 5 years or at least 2^ years prior to when we can expect to have the major construction work com- pleted on Phase III. Also, of importance is the grit struc- ture which is already overloaded. We know that grit is get- ting into the digesters, reducing their capacity, and our pumps suffer because the grit wears the impellers. Mr. Evans did not think that these problems would stop us from rerating the plant if we were able to get the solids hand- ling portion up to speed. However,' he said the headworks is causing some kind of limitation and is definitely caus- ing maintenance problems. Mr. Evans estimated $1 million for improving the headworks area. He recommended that we immediately move towards de- sign of upgrading the headworks area and that, if we cannot get grant money to assist us, we go ahead and spend our own money. Mr. Zapotocky asked if the work done to design the headworks would then be a portion of the ultimate design for Phase III. Mr. Evans said that it would but that it would not be eli- gible for grant funding. Mr. Van Sickle asked if there had been any consideration of the possibility of including as part of the headworks design and revisions concept, additional solids handling, such as digestion? Mr. Evans replied that if we did proceed with additional digestion capacity, we might run into some problems with Coastal Permit approvals and Environmental Impact approvals because we would be increasing the capacity of the plant. Mr. Mahr questioned if additional digestion capacity would correct the problems with the foaming digesters. Mr. Evans stated that it would not. Mr. Kubota suggested that, if our digesters are working satisfactorily at 50% capacity, we could use that as a design parameter and double the amount of digestion capacity since we are only 50% efficient. We could do so as an O & M item and that would not constitute any kind of enlargement. Discussion on the recently approved 1977 Clean Water Act Amendments ensued. Garr Jones stated that the law provides for the EPA administrator to grant a waiver of requirements for secondary treatment for marine dischargers. After the - 3 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY f 1978 law was signed, the State Water Resources Control Board mod- ified the ocean plan to require a level of treatment which is not primary and is somewhat less that one would expect from a secondary treatment plant. The new law provides that any application for modification be in the EPA's hands 270 days after the date of the enactment of the bill. The law also indicated that substantial amounts of evidence must be submitted if one is to obtain a modification. He further stated that information, from people within EPA and the State, indicates that it will be very difficult to obtain a modifi- cation. Mr. Jones did not want to discourage the JAC from trying but he suggested that the JAC could go forward in the planning of the secondary project. The strategy, that he suggested to the JAC, is if they were successful in obtaining a waiver of modifica- tion of secondary treatment requirements and the State Ocean Plan became the discharge limitation, l^hat we wouldn't have to build all of the planned secondary ]ilant. We would only build one or two modules. The effluent of the secondary plant, when co-mingled with the effluent from the primary plant, would meet the State Ocean Plan requirements. It would also provide backbone system for any water reclamation scheme that may be attractive in the near future. It is also apparent, from the wording of the new law, that EPA will probably not allow a modi- fication to secondary treatment requirements to any increases in capacity. Mr. Jones suggested that, given the capacity crunch the agency is facing, it might be a good idea to go forward with the design of a secondary treatment plant and, at the same time, go ahead with the application for waiver. Chairman Stiles agreed that it would be good to have the appli- cation on file. Mr. Skotnicki asked for a clarification of Mr. Jones' statement that the only modification we could get would be to existing capacity but that anything in excess of that capacity, which we now have, would still have to meet the secondary requirements. Mr. Jones' stated that the way the law reads is the existing permit volume of 18 mgd would be the capacity limit and he believed that the EPA is going to draw a hard line on it. Mr. Evans stated that he would like to have permission to go ahead with the headworks area and not worry about the grant funds. Mr. Skotnicki stated that it would be difficutlt to make a decision on any part of the project without knowing - 4 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY/*"^!, 1978 everything because if we were to act on the headworks area, how would it fit in with the total expansion. He did not feel that he wanted to do this in isolation and could not under- stand how the improvement in headworks was going to fit into the Phase III expansion with what Mr. Jones had to say about the primary and secondary requirements. Mr. Evans stated that there would be no difference in Phase III no matter what happened in the headworks area. Mr. Jones agreed. Mr. Oldsen recommended that the Phase III project be split into two parts; that of the headworks area and the remainder. He suggested that such a proposal was being made for the San Elijo project and the State Water Resources Control Board had indicated that they would consider such a proposal. Mr. Jones mentioned that Brown and Caldwell was working with the State on a project for Santa Barbara which wouj.d essen- tially allow the engineers to proceed with the design of those portions of the project that would not be affected should a waiver of secondary treatment requirements be granted. Mr. Zapotocky made the motion that we defer action until the next regular meeting and that the manager be authorized to investigate the possibility of going into a two step plan. Seconded by Ms. Casler, the motion carried. 5. ENCINA EFFLUENT METER Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans to report on the effuent meter. Mr. Evans reported that he had received a letter from McCrometer Corporation who had spent a half day at the Encina plant test- ing the meter. McCrometer feels that the meter is functioning well within its specified limits. They feel that the problem is that the meter was not used in the right application; that the pipe walls are not smooth enough. Mr. Evans noted the Hirsch & Koptionak study recommended that, if we couldn't get the propeller meter to read correctly, we put in a flume type meter. Mr. Evans researched the various types of meters available and their costs. The Palmer-Bowlus flume, which was sug- gested by the Hirsch & Koptionak report, would cost about $5,000. The Encina operators would like to see a Venturi meter because it is simple and they could do the adjustment. It would cost about $14,000. San Marcos County Water District _ 5 _ JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY /**% 1978_ _ _ has had good luck with Sonic meters and have replaced their two main meters with Sonic meters. The Sonic meter, that would work in our 42" pipe, would cost about $19,000. Regardless of which of these three meters we decide to install, it would mean some major work. We would have to build a sep- arate channel, by-pass the flow and then install one of these meters. We estimate about $15,000 for the by-pass structure, necessary valves and the contractor's share of installation. Another alternative is that we stick with the existing meter and put in a perfectly smooth 35 or 40 ft. section of pipe with straightening vanes similar to the installation at San Elijo. McCrometer feels they could guarantee an accuracy of plus or minus 2% in that kind of installation. Mr. Evans discussed the above possibility with Graham Fraser who feels that a manhole could be installed someplace in the effluent pipe line and sections of smootih pipe inserted in the existing pipe in hopes that it woulq eliminate the prob- lem. The cost would probably run in the neighborhood of $2,500 and may or may not work. Mr. Evans further stated that if we chose one of the alter- natives, as mentioned above, a specification could be written which would include a testing procedure informing manufacturer that he would have to guarantee his meter to be accurate. Another possibility is that perhaps one of the agencies might want to by-pass the plant and do some work near the outfall structure and end up doing enough construction that we could put in one of these meters without too much extra cost. The final alternative is to decide to do it and spend the $17,500 to $34,000 and start doing it right away. Motion made by Mr. Foo that there be no action taken on the meter until Mr. Evans reports back on the possibility of the headworks being divided into a second project. Seconded by Mr. Van Sickle, the motion carried. 6. COASTAL PERMIT STATUS Mr. Evans distributed the letter from the Coastal Commission staff dated January 19, 1978. The letter verified that the Coastal Pemit issue had been removed from the January Coastal Commission agenda. It also stated that the Coastal Commission staff felt that the differences of opinion over statements of conditions for the Encinitas Sanitary District and the Leu- - 6 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY |**^ 1978 cadia County Water District were basic issues and probably would not be able to be worked out through further negoti- ation. Mr. McGrath recommended that Leucadia and Encinitas take their case directly to the Commission. Chairman Stiles asked if Leucadia County Water District had a chance to analyze the letter and take a position on the pro- posed conditions. Mr. Hanson indicated that they had not. Mr. Van Sickle discussed the conversations that the Leucadia County Water District board had had with Mr. McGrath and indicated that Mr. McGrath expressed the condition in terms of "the Leucadia County Water District will not provide sewer service unless a Coastal Permit had been received". Mr. Van Sickle felt that the wording should be "the Leucadia County Water District will provide sewer service when a Coastal Per- mit is issued". Mr. Gann suggested that the Coastal Conjmission staff seems to want the matter heard at the February Commission meeting and that, if at all possible, we should be prepared to make our presentation at that time. It was determined that a strategy meeting be held prior to the February 15 Coastal Commission hearing. The date of the strategy meeting is to be determined by the dates of the Leu- cadia County Water District and City of Carlsbad special meet- ings. 7. PILOT DIGESTER PROGRAM Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for a report on the pilot digester program. Mr. Evans called on John Murk of CM En- gineering Associates who discussed the status of the program. Mr. Murk reviewed the operation since November 16, 1977 and indicated that, after about 4 weeks of operation, all diges- ters suddenly died. He indicated that the digester failure seemed to be due to introduction of a toxic substance and related the miniature digester failure to a failure of di- gester #1 about a week later. An attempt to analyze for the failure was unsuccessful. One digester was reseeded on about December 22 and the data contained in the agenda packet refers primarily to that digester. On about January 22, Mr. Murk indicated that the reseeded miniatrue digester began to foam. He indicated possible causes of the foaming were the recycling of fines and a buildup of toxic substances. Mr. Skotnicki expressed his concern that we could not realize - 7 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY, 1978 ^,W the greatest benefit from this study because a lack of an- alytical ability. Mr. Evans indicated that the additional testing for the pilot digesters should have been sent to an outside laboratory rather than over-burdening the Encina laboratory with the testing. INDEPENDENT MANAGEMENT AND REORGANIZATION Chairman Stiles reviewed the history of the managenent pro- posals. He mentioned that, in 1975, a meeting with Dave Spear and Lee Taylor was held to discuss the possibility of increasing the service to the plant and also the JAC's grave concern of the expense of operating the plant. As a result of that meeting, the County suggested creation of an independent agency and dispensing with the County ser- vice. The County offered assurance that they would help us in every area during the changeover. Chairman Stiles mentioned that, as time went on, there was more discussion and we all seemed to be going in one di- rection which was an independent agency. The reason for it (independent agency) is that, in addition to saving money, the County has a very cumbersome operation. Mr. Stiles explained that we have always been going along with the idea of an independent agency and he did not believe that it was the intent of any individual on the committee that it be operated by any one of the entities. Now, we have a letter from the City of Carlsbad in which there are two things that he would like Mr. Skotnicki to explain. "Would you explain the phrase in the letter which says 'management by whatever agency the joint members agreed on1?" Mr. Skotnicki responded that it refers to one of the six member agencies of the Encina Water Pollution Control Fa- cility. Chairman Stiles then asked if there was an advantage to hav- ing one of the agencies take over while we were deciding what to do. Mr. Skotnicki replied that there must have been some ad- vantage since that was the intent of that proposal and there would be that kind of arrangement. Chairman Stiles' second question to Mr. Skotnicki referred to the statement that the City will not agree to any changes which would create another layer of government - "what would Carlsbad propose then as far as the operation of the plant?" - 8 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY/*S, 1978 Mr. Skotnicki referred to the first paragraph of the letter which suggested giving the JAC greater control in operations without giving them policy authority. Chairman Stiles asked why that change couldn't be made with the County as operator. Mr. Skotnicki replied that he guessed it could. Mr. Schneider expressed his opinion that if Carlsbad is not going to go along with the reorganization under a SERRA type organization, then we should continue to have the County of San Diego operate the plant and there would be no further need for Mr. Evans' services. Mr. Skotnicki expressed his opinion that this would be a change from the agreement, under which we are presently operating, but he would would be willing to take Mr. Schneider's proposal back to the City of Carlsbad. Chairman Stiles asked Counsel whether Mr. Skotnicki's state- ment was correct. Mr. Gann replied that he would have to study the issue and return with an answer. Chairman Stiles explained that the original concept was that we would eventually and hopefully operate as an independent agency and that the Maynard report recommended this. Mr. Skotnicki interjected that Carlsbad did not go along with that. Mr. Schneider said "Yes, but we didn't know". Mr. Skotnicki said "Just read our resolution". Mr. Schneider answered "But we never got it". Mr. Skotnicki said that the resolution is a matter of record and is in the City of Carlsbad's archieves and will stand up to the test of law. "It was passed in open session, openly voted on, openly discussed. It was not something that was done behind closed doors." Mr. Schneider asked "But why were we not informed that it was changed"? Mr. Skotnicki said "I haven't the vaguest idea." Mr. Schneider said "Your representatives come to all of these - 9 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY /*"\ 1978 meetings. If we had known, we would have stopped then". Mr. Skotnicki recommended that we proceed on the reorgan- ization in a step-by-step basis instead of trying to go whole hog. "I thought when we sent that letter we offered you the opportunity to proceed at least a step or two in the direction that we consider to be the ultimate solution", Mr. Schneider said that Carlsbad had not really told us what they want to do, what type of agency they want to con- trol the plant. Mr. Skotnicki replied that right now we want the agency to remain just exactly the way it is. "The way it is now with some improvement over the way the JAC operates. Give it more authority rather than keeping it strictly advisory; and one of us accepting the administrative responsibility of handling the things that this entity cannot because it doesn't have the overhead personnel". Mr. Kubota asked Mr. Skotnicki whether Carlsbad would con- sider an offer from the Encinitas Sanitary District. Mr. Skotnicki replied "I don't care, if Mark wants to take over Carlsbad's position as administrator." Chairman Stiles said there was one area which he wished to question at this time. This is that "the City will not agree to any changes which would create another layer of government. It is not a Carlsbad agency but a six entity agency". He felt that the theory that Carlsbad is pre- ferred here isn't a fair theory for all of the agencies. Chairman Stiles asked if there was a motion to accept Mr. Skotnicki's recommendation to go back to his council with the proposal to eliminate the manager position and go back to full County operation. Mr. Hanson suggested that the matter be tabled until the next meeting. It was finally decided that the subcommittee would meet between now and the next meeting to discuss the matter. REPORTS - ROUTINE 9. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REPORT Chairman Stiles asked for a report on the Operations and - 10 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY *S. 1978 Maintenance. Mr. Evans reported that there was nothing sig- nificant that had not already been covered other than another decrease in the amount of septage dumped by haulers. He com- mented briefly on the effect of the rains on the Encina oper- ation and mentioned that there had been no significant damage or problem but that peaks up to 25 mgd had been received at the plant and average daily flows as high as 17 mgd per day. 10. FLOW REPORT Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for his comments on the Flow Report. Mr. Evans reported that there was nothing signifi- cant in the Flow Report with the exception that the flow re- flects a 7% meter error at the plant. 11. SULFIDE CONDITION REPORT Mr. Evans reported that there was no significant change over j. the period of the report. 12. EXPENDITURE REPORT Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Evans for his comments on the Ex- penditure Report. Mr. Evans noted that we are now $70,000 underspent against the pro-rated budget. $40,000 can be accounted for as un- spent contingency funds. Additionally, over $55,000 in capital outlay funds are not yet obligated. OTHER BUSINESS 13. TRI-CITY BOXING CLUB Chairman Stiles asked Ms. Taylor to discuss an upcoming event involving one of the Encina Operators who is doing an exceptional job with the youngsters of the Oceanside and Vista areas. Ms. Taylor reported as follows: Mike Adame (an Operator I at Encina for the past 9 years) formed a boxing club about 2 years in an attempt to help get youngsters off of the streets by teaching them boxing. Recently, contact was made with the Oceanside Elks who agreed to foot the bill for the trophies which will be presented to Mike's boys at a dinner on Thursday, February 23. Also, the Elks have formed a committee to help Mike 11 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - JANUARY ^\ 1978 with the business end of the club, etc. so that he can devote his time to teaching boxing. This dinner is brought to the attention of the JAC members be- it would certainly help the morale of the club to see some of our members in attendance. The dinner is to be held at the Oceanside Elks Club on Thursday, February 23, 1978 at 7:00 P.M. Tickets are available from Ms. Taylor at $6.00 each. 14. GENERAL MANAGER'S VACATION Chairman Stiles mentioned that Mr. Evans would be on vacation during the week of January 30 through February 3. 15. FINAL AUDIT - PHASE II Mr. Oldsen reported that the review of $75,000 of Phase II costs is proceeding through the State and, if reviewed favorably, would result in the distribution of $65,000 of additional grant funds to the agencies. 16. NEXT MEETING Chairman Stiles announced that the next JAC meeting would be held on Wednesday, February 22 at 9:OO A.M. at the Encina Water Pollu- tion Control Facility. There being no further business, Chairman Stiles adjourned the meeting at 12:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Mary F. /Taylor Recforclrng Secretary^ecforclrnc - 12 -