Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-07-25; Encina Joint Advisory Committee Ad Hoc; MinutesENCINA JOINT POWERS MINUTES OF THE JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 25, 1979 AT THE ENCINA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITY CONFERENCE ROOM Ed Stiles, Chairman Stanley Mahr, Vice Chairman 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Stiles called the meeting to order at 9:07 A.M. ROLL CALL Present; Vista Sanitation District City of Carlsbad Buena Sanitation District San Marcos County Water District Leucadia County Water District Encinitas Sanitary District County of San Diego JAC Counsel Encina Joint Powers Absent: City of Carlsbad Buena Sanitation District Leucadia County Water District Guests: Blade Tribune Brown and Caldwell C M Engineering Associates Encina Chief Operator Encinitas Sanitary District League of Women Voters Joe Zapotocky, Dan Carr A. J. Skotnicki, Ron Beckman Ed Stiles Jim McKay, Stanley Mahr Stan Van Sickle, Eric Elliott Mark Schneider, Jack Filanc Jim Frandsen Roy H. Gann, Esq. Bob Goodman, Mary Taylor Mary Casler Bill Dominguez Dick Hanson Gil Davis Graham Fraser Jerry Frieling Clyde Dietrich Jack Kubota Ruth Honnold, Jane Skotnicki JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEE-KEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Guests (continued); Leucadia County Water District Regina R. Ash Lowry & Associates Harry Newport Planktonics Cecelia Bridges Private Citizens Lee Kahn, Harold Shapiro 2. MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 1979 JAC MEETING Chairman Stiles asked for the approval of the June 27, 1979 minutes as sub- mitted. Mr. Zapotocky moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Carr, the motion carried. Mr. Mahr abstained. 3. MINUTES OF MAY 23, 1979 JAC MEETING Chairman Stiles asked for the approval of the May 23, 1979 minutes as sub- mitted. Mr. Skotnicki said that there was a reference made at the May 23, 1979 meet- ing by Mr, Beckman which he considered significant. He referred to a report costing $30,000 which might be required if Brown and Caldwell were asked to do an in-depth report on solids handling. He felt that the error could be corrected by making reference to it in a greater discussion on a report from the Engineering Subcommittee. He felt that particular report hasn't been heard of since it was first mentioned at the Engineering Subcommittee level six months ago. He said he had heard the tape but the minutes did not re- flect the information about this report. Chairman Stiles said that he would call on Mr. Skotnicki at the time the sol- ids handling issue was discussed by the JAC. Mr. Zapotocky moved that the minutes be approved as submitted. Seconded by Mr. Filanc, the motion carried. INFORMATION 4. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF JUNE 27, 1979 Mr. Goodman said he was not at that meeting but, according to the notes in the agenda packet, there was quite a bit of discussion on the solids hand- ling as to the impact of Leucadia and other plants. Graham Fraser was to go back and prepare a report which he would submit to the JAC prior to the July meeting. Also, Messrs. Fraser and Gann were supposed to get together with Mr. Goodman and prepare a preliminary draft on solids discharged to the Encina facility. Mr. Fraser said that C M Engineering helped prepare a preliminary report - 2 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTElwnEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 for him but he has not had the opportunity to edit it. At the request of Mr. Skotnicki, Mr. Fraser explained the term "fixed film sludges". It's the sludge that comes out of a trickling filter which attaches itself to a fixed surface as opposed to activated sludge. Mr. Skotnicki said that, since he was at the Design Review Committee meet- ing, he would like to give the JAC his feelings. 1) Brown and Caldwell felt that the impact of the additional solids on Encina WPCF were difficult to predict. Mr. Fraser had suggested that, in order to provide for regional solids handling at this facility, there be a solids handling management order to regulate the flow of solids to this activity so this activity could protect itself against such unknown hazards as could possibly occur; i.e., that we here at JAC could say "cease and desist" until further word and he noted that the committee was not able to arrive at a satisfactory solution. 2) if we were going to open the door to a new philosophy here to provide for handling of solids at this facility from anyone, we would need to increase from 95 to a 105 ft. digester in Phase III which would cost $50,000 more. He was concerned what this redesign would have on construction as to delays. Mr. Fraser said that designing a 105 ft. digester as opposed to a 95 ft. digester would be no extra design cost because that phase of the work has not begun as yet. Construction would cost a little more money, approximately 3% for 16% volume increase. Mr. Van Sickle said that Mr. Skotnicki foresees that the sludge from Leucadia possibly could interfere with the proper operation of the plant. He said that a cease and desist order would not make them remove the sludge from the system. The sludges would just come here in a different form. Mr. Skotnicki said that Leucadia may want to send all 750,000 gal./day down here because they couldn't handle the solids by themselves and that would result in Leucadia exceeding their contractual capacity. Mr. Zapotocky said he was disturbed because he had raised this question several meetings ago as to what the impact would be on the plant if we did treat these solids. Whoever answered the questions said it would be vir- tually no impact. Now, we're talking abut a substantial change in design. He asked why we were now getting different information than when the ques- tion was raised earlier. Mr. Mahr said that John Murk had answered the question and Mr. Murk had also said it would probably be a benefit to the plant to have additional gas to operate the gas powered equipment. Mr. Filanc said that we were being counter productive. If we had the per- mits or authority to make a 30 mgd plant out of this, we would do it. Now, because of other regulations, we are limiting our capacity and trying to restrict a method that could accommodate the increased capacity with a satellite concept in trying to throw everything we can against this concept to stop any type of development. - 3 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTE&dSffiETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979^ He continued that the concept is to build a regional plant here to take care of this certain North County area. Since we can't get a permit through the Coastal Commission, the EPA or whoever to increase above a certain capacity, we can accommodate it. He personally felt that we were not doing the job that we were here to do. Mr. Skotnicki said the point he was trying to make is that this is not something we can do in a nonchalant manner. It is something that needs to be done in a formal manner so that all of us know what is happening. He repeated that it's a change in philosophy and requires a change in our formal written agreements for the operation of this plant. Mr. Filanc said that we had been talking about this for over a year and we're not any further along with it today than we were then. Mr. Skotnicki said that we had only been talking about it since May and there have got to be some management moves to protect the City of Carlsbad. Mr. Filanc said that Mr. Fraser couldn't guarantee it, but the additional sludge should not cause a problem. Mr. Skotnicki said the fact that you can't guarantee it doesn't mean that we should throw all caution to the wind and not provide some kind of rules to take care of the situation. Carlsbad wants its interests safeguarded. If it means using a management ordinance to specify how solids would be handled here, it should be done. Mr. Beckman said that the committee discussed and made a recommendation that satellite plants be built with their own aerobic digestion capabilities so, if we should have problems here, the satellite facilities could fire up and ';~-dle their own sludges. Mr. Filanc asked if it were feasible to immediately turn on an aerobic di- gester. He thought a culture would have to be generated which would take Mr. Fraser said aerobic digestion could operate very quickly. At the last meeting, he wasn't prepared and did not have studies on the issues of solids in other plants. He has some limited experience and, since that time, he has done some studying and spoken to a number of people. His feeling, at this time, is that he's not as concerned about sludge coming to this plant as he was at the last JAC meeting. He felt there were precautions to be taken; that there will be some effects on the primary treatment; that there will be some effects on the secondary; that there will be more sludge pro- duced and there are some design considerations to be made in the trunk sewers. A monitoring program should be established to regulate the way the sludge is discharged to those sewers. He didn't think the problems were insurmount- able and he didn't think we should really be all that alarmed about it. He thought with some design, planning and monitoring, we can watch the effects on the plant. All we're trying to determine is what those effects are so we can plan on them for Phase III and during operation and determine who - 4 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITI\^MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 should pay for any additional treatment or any additional capacity that is used up. Mr. Gann said it was his opinion that we gave Leucadia conceptual approval after we heard John Murk's statement that the effects of the solids sent down here would actually be immeasurable. Since then, evidently, the pic- ture has changed somewhat dramatically and all the things that Mr. Fraser had mentioned, he felt, had to be incorporated into some kind of agreement that would, in fact, not only protect Carlsbad but also the other member agencies. Mr. Elliott thought that what came out of the last meeting was that C M would prepare a position paper outlining the way it would work. Leucadia prepared and communicated to Brown and Caldwell a method that the agreement could be structured to allow solids handling on a regional basis and to answer all of the questions and to come up with a program with which all of the agencies could feel comfortable and could have their interests protected. He felt that this was what came out of the last Design Review Committee meet- ing. He thought that, when this was finalized, it would probably answer most the the questions if not all of them. Mr. Fraser said his report should be ready within two weeks. Mr. Elliott said that the latest word on the SWRCB as of July 24 is their staff at the State meeting, where the appeal was first considered, felt that the Board was directing a hearing to be heard on that appeal. After reviewing the tapes and writing the resolutions, SWRCB staff realized that there is not a hearing to be held on that appeal but a review of that appeal. Staff felt that they probably can have that item on the August 2 workshop of the board and a final decision could be made by the SWRCB on August 16. Instead of 60-90 days, Leucadia is looking at a very short time. Chairman Stiles thought it was a serious enough thing that some action be taken in a shorter time than two weeks. He suggested that JAC counsel give it some thought as to whether it should be approved by each of the agencies individually. Mr. Gann said that the problem was not addressed in the Basic Agreement or any of the Supplements or Amendments to the Basic Agreement. If it is go- ing to change the Basic Agreement, he recommended that it go to each member agency. Mr. Schneider didn't think that JAC should hold Leucadia up because Leu- cadia does have the capabilities in the event Encina has a problem. Mr. Skotnicki said that Carlsbad understood that Leucadia had the capabil- ities but to put it back into operation is not an overnight matter. Con- sequently, if the problem cannot be predicted sufficiently in advance, we may be waiting months for them to get on line. In the meantime, Carlsbad - 5 - j^*S JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTB^IEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 will be suffering. He felt that they needed to have some assurances that the stand-by facility can be cranked up in a reasonably expeditously man- ner otherwise there is no great amount of guarantee to Carlsbad. Once that effluent starts flowing, you cannot stop it. He continuted that Carls- bad would like to see Leucadia's stand-by provision in writing. Mr. Elliott said they would certainly promote that regional handling of sol- ids at Encina be.done on a case by case situation and each facility, as it was discharging its sludge, would undergo a thorough review in terms of whether or not it would have potential impacts on Encina. Also, Leucadia believes that the problem, if there is a problem that occurs at Encina, should be corrected at Encina. He felt that we should make the committment of being a regional sludge handling facility. In considering our discus- sions of the Engineering Meeting and where those discussions were coming from, the concept is if there's a problem at Encina, let's cut off the flow at Encina and handle it some place else wasn't really addressing the prob- lem and it's not the most practical way although it could be the saving grace that, perhaps, the City of Carlsbad is looking for and Leucadia does have the physical capability at their location. He didn't think that was the answer. He thought the answer was good planning, good engineering on the front end and then correcting the problem if it arises at Encina. Chairman Stiles said it was a little discouraging at this time to get too much enthusiasm ot correct the problem here. We've been trying to correct the problem for over eight years. He said that, at least for now, we were off the hook. Mr. Zapotocky said he saw in the report that the change has already been authorized and he questioned if the $50,000 was grant eligible and would this require a change order to accomplish. Is Vista going to have to pick up a third of the cost of the increased capacity of the digester? Mr. Goodman said that the §50,000 would be proportioned to those agencies using the facility as a regional solids handling facility and, if Leucadia was the only one using the facility, they would have to pay the $50,000. Mr. Zapotocky said that this was something that would have to be spelled out because, according to the minutes of the Design Review Committee, it's already been authorized to be done and the lead agency has never authorized it. He felt that there were a lot of things that seemed to be disconnected at this point. Mr. Mahr asked if Leucadia paid the $50,000, would it mean that, if any other agency wanted to dump sludge, they would have to go to Leucadia? Mr. Zapotocky asked if what we were discussing here was an outline of what will be coming before us at a subsequent meeting? There will have to be a draft agreement which will define all of this and lay the costs where they should logically be placed. - 6 - JOINT ADVISORY MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Mr. Goodman said that, during the Engineering Committee meetings, the expan- sion of the tank from 95 ft. to 105 ft. envisioned all solids that could be send into the plant in 1990 contemplating all satellite treatment plants that may be constructed within the JAC agencies responsibility, not just Leucadia. He has responded by letter to the City of Carlsbad, at the re- quest of Recon, on a proposed environmental engineering report for the de- velopment of satellite reclamation plants within the City of Carlsbad. At this point and time, he felt it was necessary that we address not only Leu- cadia but what the role is going to be for 1990 so that we can provide mean- ingful comments on the policy of the JAC to each individual agency that might come in and ask for expansion. If we are going to do the design, the design should be done now with all safeguards that are necessary to operate the plant and to handle any problems that might develop as a result of the solids. He thought that the costs should be proportioned to those agencies that would either ultimately benefit or let the one, that would be Leucadia at this point and time as they were the only one sending things in, pay the entire bill and then, as other people come in, buy back from Leucadia Leucadia's investment for the regional solids handling concept. Mr. Carr asked, if by changing the diameter, did he understand Mr. Goodman to say that this anticipates all of the satellite reclamation plants that may be planned in the North County area, such as Lake Calaveras in Carlsbad or Daon in Vista that may want to send solids down here if this is available as an alternative to them. Mr. Goodman said that this was his understanding after reading the minutes and having spoken with Bob Hanson, Libby Tortorici, Jerry Frieling and John Murk. Mr. Frieling confirmed that C M's report does envision all discussed potential satellite plants. Mr. Carr said that, perhaps, we should increase the digester to 125 ft. Mr. Beckman said 105 ft. was the maximum size digester that could be built on that site. Once you build it, you can't make it any bigger. Rather than build four 95 ft. tanks, you could increase it to 105 ft. at a minimum cost for each tank. You've then maximized your ability to handle sludge in any instance. The question was raised if we're talking about increasing to four? Mr. Goodman said that we were increasing by only one tank. Mr. Fraser said there was enough room between the existing digesters and the flood channel for three large digesters, either 85 ft. or 105 ft. In the Engineering Subcommittee meeting, we reasoned that it would be logical to put in the largest tank, that you could put in there, because a 105 ft. tank opposed to the 95 ft. tank is something like 3% increase for 17% increase in capacity. It would be of value to put in a larger tank at this time and then plan for the other two to become 105 ft. tanks in the future. — 7 — JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTW MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Mr. Carr asked if we were putting in three 105 ft. tanks and would that be $50,000 or $50,000 each? Mr. Eraser explained that, under Phase III, there was just one digester go- in. With this 17% increase in capacity, we will have the capability to take the sludge from all of the satellite plants which have been projected through the year 1990. Whereas, the two other remaining digesters are projected to the year 2030. Mr. Skotnicki said he thought Mr. Evans had indicated that there were four satellite plants possible during that time frame. Mr. Eraser said that C M figured quantities up to 1990 and one new digester could accommodate whatever satellite plants were planned up to 1990. Mr. Zapotocky asked if the satellite plants were identified in the 201 report? Mr. Skotnicki said the Lake Calaveras, Encina, Palomar Road and El Camino Real are identified. Mr. Beckman did not think the plant was listed in the 208. Chairman Stiles felt that we were at the point where we could pretty much decide what to do to alleviate the problem. Mr. Zapotocky said he didn't think we could do anything until we saw the draft agreement and no action can be taken until we have that in hand. Mr. Elliott said it would seem to him, if we would consider the basic con- cept, that we would go forward on a case by case situation no matter what the final agreement came out to and if we were going to agree that this was going to be a partial regional solids handling facility or it could just handle Leucadia and whatever is here now. It seemed to him that the JAC could go ahead and authorize Leucadia to discharge its solids to this fa- cility on the assumption that they proceeded ahead with their plans. Mr. Mahr thought there should be a wide enough scope on this agreement that it would fit every agency that could be involved in discharging. All six agencies should fit into this same agreement and it shouldn't be made for any one particular agency. Mr. Beckman said that wasn't anything the JAC could do until they saw the draft agreement and the crux of the matter is that there are some policy changes. Mr. Schneider asked what is going to change as far as Leucadia discharging sludge into the system? Mr, Elliott answered that, basically, it was a change in capacity to about - 8 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTE^f-MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 700 Ibs./day. He continued that he agreed with Mr. Zapotocky and Mr. Beckman that the policy is very important but as long as the physical ability is here to handle the solids and as long as it can be done in a safe manner, can Leu- cadia not go ahead and commit to that knowing in every instance it's a case by case situation? Mr. Skotnicki said the stink at Encina has been at a political level for a long time. Solids and stinks are associated. He would not commit Carlsbad to an agreement at the non-political level. If JAC wants Carlsbad's approval to Leucadia using this to dump its solids, they will have to go to the Carls- bad City Council. He didn't want to get caught in that wringer. Mr. Gann said that it seems before we can prepare an agreement, we have to have some criteria such as to what percentage does the flow have to reach be- fore it will require special consideration, 5%, 20% or 40%? He thought that this was the basic primary question that we have to address before we es- tablish any policy becuase the agreement does not address the problem at all. We will have to incorporate into the agreement by supplement a new policy or a new agreement. Maybe the engineers of this committee can tell us, if we're going to prepare a draft, what the flash point that they want the cri- teria to be. Mr. Zapotocky thought this was exactly what the Engineering Subcommittee was supposed to come back with at one of JAC's earlier meeting; the volumetric flows of sludge as related to the water that it would take to transport these things. He agreed that there has to be some basis for determining when we're treating solids and when we're treating sewage. Mr. Fraser said that C M Engineering was consulted to determine the volumes of sludge vs the volumes of flow and try to determine whether this was going to be a problem. John Murk of C M had stated that, with the volumes contem- plated, it wasn't a problem. At -.hat point, Mr. Skotnicki said he was invited to a Subcommittee meeting. Out of that meeting, C M prepared another report for Brown and Caldwell's review which he received about a week ago. Mr. Schneider asked if the Basic Agreement had to be changed, Mr. Gann said, at this point, the Agreement is worded to require a person to stay within his allowed capacity. Unless we interpret the word sewage differently, we would be hard pressed to stop any particular person from Jumping his solids into the plant, because that problem was not addressed as part of the Agreement. Mr. Skotnicki said that whatever the consistency is of the stuff that comes down from Leucadia, and it may be pure as snow, but if you start treating 750,000 gals, of sewage more upstream, you're going to skim off the stuff that's lighter and you will be putting more down here in the way of solids — 9 — JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEJLMEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 197<<""<s and when you mention solids to Carlsbad, you mention stink. If you're going to start quibbling about words in the contract, you're not impressing Carls- bad very much because Carlsbad has to suffer. Mr. Gann said that, apparently, the point we're reaching is that we must ad- dress the issue of governing the quality of sewage as sewage is defined in the Basic Agreement. The basic element is such that if we're going to regu- late it, there will be a new element in the new agreement that has never heretofore been agreed upon. He continued that if Leucadia's unwanted products fall within the definition of sewage and is within their capacity, they are complying with their Basic Agreement. If the JAC decides, as a whole, for the future operation/pro- tection of the plant that they want to address the problem, notwithstanding the additional solids, it can still be addressed and regulated. Mr. Zapotocky asked Mr. Elliott what is is specifically Leucadia wants of the JAC now since they already have approval to discharge the solids into the plant. Mr. Van Sickle answered that Leucadia just wanted to be sure if there would not be any strong opposition to going ahead. If there was opposition, they wanted to get a chance to speak up. He hadn't heard any overwhelming op- position to going ahead with their present plans. Mr. Zapotocky said the volumetric proportions are in a report form now and he suggested that Mr. Gann and Mr. Goodman be instructed to prepare the agree- ment and get back at the earliest possible date. Mr. Skotnicki said that this matter had not yet surfaced at the Council level but he planned to surface it one way or another at the next regular meeting of the Council to advise them of this development. He pointed out that the JAC had no authority to provide conceptual approval for anything. It is purely and simply an advisory committee, is powerless and does not have the authority to authorize a change in policy. He wanted to make it clear, and hoped that the minutes would make it clear, that this is, in fact, a policy matter that has to be resolved by the six member agencies before Leucadia discharges 1 oz. of solids in excess of what it presently has in the present configuration of the sewage operation in this sewage district. Leucadia has come to the altar several times. He thought this was the third time for special use of these facilities and, in each case, he believed that JAC has given them the authority. JAC doesn't have any authority and it certainly doesn't have any authority to allow Leucadia to start this kind of change in policy without getting membership authorization. Mr. Zapotocky said what he saw happening was really a clarification of our whole Basic Agreement and he agreed with Chairman Stiles that there was no way that we could prohibit Leucadia from doing what they proposed because the Basic Agreement and its many Supplements are silent on the issue. What we're proposing now is an Agreement that will limit a person's ability to - 10 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTE^^IEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 discharge solids in some fashion subject to the approval and ratification by all the member agencies' directors. Mr. Skotnicki said he would not support before the City Council of Carls- bad anything less than a change in the Basic Agreement associated with a solids management handling order which will safeguard the interests of Carlsbad through cease and desist orders or whatever techniques are avail- able to make certain the prior stinking conditions of this plant are not repeated in the near future. This is particularly true in view of the fact that this plant is going to undergo 2% years of construction. Nobody has assured him that there would be no complication during that construction period. Mr. Goodman said that we would have to agree on the legal definition of the term "sewage", and with three consultants present, the definition he remem- bered was that "sewage is the water and water borne waste sent to a treatment plant or to an outfall" and does not include any type of treatment that has been rendered to it and injected again. Once the sewage has been handled at a satellite plant, the solids that would be discharged from that no longer fit in the normal definition of the term sewage in a pure generic term since that is a treated effluent. In order to develop a policy to submit to the JAC for approval to take back to the member agencies, he felt that counsel and he would have to define sewage. From an overall policy point of view, he asked if we were going to look at a regional solids handling or is this going to be for Leucadia only. When we prepare safeguards to satisfy everyone, the safeguards should be sufficient to take care of Leucadia as well as for the regional concept of the 1990 operation. He felt that he and Mr. Gann needed to know the policy JAC wanted to follow. Mr. Kubota said that in the Metro system in San Diego, the term "sewage" in- cludes raw or treated sludge that is a part of upstream reclamation facility and this is the definition in the Metro system in San Diego. Hopefully, here again, all of us who are involved in these things and whatever we have in the way of needs, he hoped that the regional facility can accommodate each one of us and all of us collectively. Mr. Filanc said that he would like to know if the policy would be for raw or treated sewage. Chairman Stiles said this would be discussed and if we, as an advisory com- mittee, did not get together and consider it as a six unit operation cover- ing North San Diego County area, the State or Federal government could take over this plant and make it a regional facility. If that happens, we won't be sitting here as an advisory committee representing each of the agencies. Mr. Elliott asked the JAC to direct counsel to make this a #1 priority to review the report which is going to provide the basis for the legal agree- ment and to expedite this as rapidly as possible. If possible, call a Special JAC meeting or whatever is necessary to come to a resolve on this - 11 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEWteETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 issue and get this before the various agencies as soon as possible. Mr. Skotnicki said he wanted to inject in the minutes of May 23 something that had been left out. That was a remark by Mr. Beckman that a $30,000 report on regional solids handling was considered about six months ago. Brown and Caldwell had recommended that report during a discussion by the Engineering Subcommittee on this matter. The Engineering Subcommittee was told that it would take a $30,000 report to really come to grips with re- gional solids handling. We, at JAC, at this point said to forget it. We didn't want to handle that matter because it may have an adverse impact on Phase III. This was essentially as he remembered it. Mr. Elliott said that C M Engineering did do a regional solids handling report about three months ago. Mr. Skotnicki said he had another question for the Design Review Committee which involved construction of a failsafe connection. He didn't understand "allow Leucadia to construct a temporary above ground pipeline". He as- sumed that what this meant was that they were asking the subcommittee for O.K. to construct a direct connection to the ocean outfall. The remarks made state that this temporary line would be impractical because it would create severe problems for the grading contractor. Was there a solution to the problem? Mr. Fraser responded to Mr. Skotnicki's questions. Leucadia, through En- gineering-Science, is interested in getting a failsafe line into the efflu- ent pumping station and connected into the outfall. Engineering-Science proposed laying it on the ground. He and the Construction Manager felt that it would be impractical. They went back to Engineering-Science to see if they could provide a buried line into the outfall. Engineering-Science hasn't got back to Mr. Fraser. 5. STATUS OF VALUE ENGINEERING Mr. Goodman referred to his memo dated July 20, 1979. He said that the ^hase A study at the 20-30% stage had been completed. The Phase B study, that would normally be done at the 60-75% stage, will be split and one study set up for the week of August 6 because we are "fast-tracking" and have received the grants for three of the equipment purchases and site de- velopment. If we wait for the 60-75% design stage completion on the total design, we will already be under contract for the three equipment purchases plus the site development contract. We determined the best way to proceed is to have two Phase B meetings, which will discuss the equipment purchases, site development, etc. and this will be set up for August 6. The next review, that will be done for the balance of the contract, will have a constraint placed up the VE team that all VE considerations for the equipment purchases and site development have already been completed and they are forbidden to look into those areas. This should meet all the - 12 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITT\^EETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 criteria as required by the EPA and the State. He will send a letter to the State telling them that phase and ask for their written concurrence so we do not end up with any surprises later on. Splitting Phase B into two increments could possibly cost us more money. If so, Arthur Beard would evaluate it and would inform us in advance that there would be a change in the scope of the contract and we would have to amend the contract before they could complete the total Phase B review. Mr. Zapotocky said we wouldn't have received any grant monies unless we had satisfied the EPA's concerns. Mr. Goodman thought the ambient noise study is still a requirement as well as submission of the new Financial and Revenue Package be for grants applications submitted after June 30. Brown and Caldwell is preparing the Financial and Revenue Programs and it should be complete sometime in August. Mr. Goodman said we had a good understanding between the value engineering firm, the designers and construction management as to how we are going to proceed on Study B. 6. C M ENGINEERING OPERATIONS REPORT Mr. Goodman said that, according to C M Engineering Operations report, all plant operations from June 15 to the present time are satisfactory. They note that their direct involvement with the plant operations terminated on July 1 with the changeover to Leucadia. They did continue the inspection of Digester No. 3 while the contractors worked on that. The work on Digester No. 3 was completed on July 12 and accepted. The digester has been filled and we have started some recirculation and gas circulation through the di- gester. However, we have to use Digester No. 2 pumps and operate on a part time basis by cross-connecting the piping. The reason for this is we do not have the explosion-proof fittings and all the cables necessary to provide the permanent wiring on Digesters Nos. 1, 2 and 3. He continued that the County has ordered the material but it has not been received. There's one explosion-proof control box and that is still out- standing. If we go ahead and put in any temporary wiring, we're looking at about $500 in material plus the labor to hook it in for a very short period of time which could be one or two weeks. We are going to circulate enough to keep Digester No. 3 properly operating. Tests have been run on all three digesters and everything is operating right on a steady line on all parameters at the present time. On Digester No. 1, there is one remaining piece of work which is that the contractor has to come in and complete sealing the top of the digester. Mr. Frieling said that this sealing was completed. - 13 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTE^EETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Mr. Goodman continued that C M has completed the plans and specifications for the interim dewatering system and the cost estimate for the construc- tion portion of it is $34,200 which is an increase over the previous es- timate they had of about $25,000 because of the change in location so that it will better fit in with the Phase III expansion. The Carter filter press was ordered by the City of Carlsbad and will be shipped and delivered within the 2 weeks specified. We are paying rental on it even though it's sitting at the factory and not in operation. The plans and specs will be reviewed and we will advertise for bids which he estimated would be perhaps mid-October for final completion. He said it was up to 30 days to advertise and award, then 30-45 days completion time. ROUTINE REPORTS 7. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE REPORT Mr. Goodman said that the 8th, 10th, llth Supplements and the Agreement terminating the services of the County have been approved by all agencies and will be conformed as soon as original documents are received. He noted that the 8th Supplement has a 1978 date and since the conforming will be com- pleted in 1979, the conformation documents will reflect 1979 as the date. Mr. Gann said that the 8th Supplement, even though it had been sent out in 1978, would have to reflect the date the last agency signed. It's simply a matter of formality of putting the correct date in which is the effective date. Mr. Goodman said that, during June,, a finish coat was applied to the top of Digester No. 2. On June 15, a 16" force main under Jefferson Street sprung a leak. That leak has been repaired and the force main returned to normal operations. Mr. Skotnicki asked how large a leak, how long did it take to repair, where did the raw sewage go to and how much of it went where it wasn't supposed to go. Mr. Dietrich answered that the 16" line was evidentally defective when they put it in. There was approximately a 12" crack across the hub of the force main. The problem didn't arise until we closed off one of the force mains in order to make necessary repairs and maintenance to the Buena Vista pump station. When they did this, this increased the pressure on this line. With the additional head pressure, the thing finally broke through and that's when the leak was noticed. We had both lines down for approximately 24 hours and the estimated spillage was approximately 4.6 million gallons which went into the Buena Vista lagoon. The Health Department, all agencies and the - 14 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTEDMEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1974 State people were notified. There was monitoring at the lagoon right after the spill and a week after the spill with no sign of any difficulty. Mr. Frandsen congratulated County staff for their immediate response to that problem and also the cooperation received from the City of Carlsbad in closing that road and getting this done in a most expeditious manner. He also con- gratulated the contractor that was hired. In response to Mr. Skotnicki's inquiry, Mr. Dietrich said the cost was $17,932. Mr. Goodman continued with the Operations report. On July 10, we had a repre- sentative of the RWQCB here and no violations under any phase of the operation was detected. For information, he said that he drove the road shoulder at 5 MPH and did not detect any odor at all but, coming back at 55 MPH, he could detect the odor and the reasons being is that there is a dispersion of the odors in the air. When you're traveling at 5 MPH, you're entering this dis- persion area at such a rate that your nose adjusts to the smell. Mr. Skotnicki said he had mentioned, perhaps as long as a year ago, that we ought to get us a odor sniffing device so it can be scientifically determined where there is an odor. He said he would look for the article which described such a device. Mr. Goodman said we had no odor complaints during July and that he had spoken to several Altamira residents and they have not complained. He said that we had one of the Altamira residents present and introduced Mr. Kahn. Mr. Kahn said he lived in Altamira and he noticed a complete absence of odor during the past several months. He said he was present as an observer hoping that the JAC's actions would enable him and others like him to build a home in La Costa. His observation, during the last couple of years, is that some- body is throwing a lot of road blocks at him. He has been dealing with Leu- cadia County Water District, attending meetings, etc. He is being frustra- ted at every twist and turn. 8. EXPENDITURE REPORT Mr. Goodman stated that the County has not completed any documentation for the June operation and it will be another three weeks before something comes out. Mr. Elliott said that Leucadia billed the agencies one-fourth of the approved budget just to get the cash flow flowing. ACTION 9. MINIATURE DIGESTERS - DEFERRED MOTION JUNE 27, 1979 Mr. Goodman stated that, at the June JAC meeting, he was asked as the new - 15 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTMEETING MINUTES - JULY 25 ,1979**'' Manager, to look into the miniature digesters if, in fact, they should be re- paired and operated and make his recommendations to the JAC. The cost for materials would be about $200 plus the labor to reactivate them and the operational cost would be approximately 1/2 man day of effort each day the digesters are operated. In order to provide any meaningful type of re- sults from it, we would have to load 2 pilot digesters in the same proportion- ate loading at the same rate we're loading Digesters Nos. 1 and 2 so we have a control of the pilot being fed at a proportionate rate as opposed to a batch feed with the third pilot digester receiving food from the other two digesters. We would also then have to take the grease which we're collecting and feed the grease to pilot digester No. 1 only in order to have on pilot digester No. 2 a control to find out what the impact the grease is. The result, he felt, would be a nice model study as to what a 1 cu. ft. pilot digester would accept in the way of grease. The results would have to be extrapolated up to full scale mathematical modeling which would give us a nice, theoretical report as to what our digesters might do if we were putting the grease back into the digesters. His recommendation, based upon elimination of problems by avoiding and hauling the grease away at a cost of $55/load for one or two loads per week, was that we continue to haul the grease away and that we not reactivate the pilot di- gesters. He felt that the manpower that would be expended on the pilot di- gesters would be better utilized to go out and do an industrial source moni- toring control program. He further recommended that, if the JAC wanted to operate the digesters, we could make them available to a chemistry or engi- neering graduate student who is performing graduate thesis work and let them come in here on the provision that we get all the beneficial results of all their tests as they perform them and a copy of the thesis when presented in a group. He did not recommend reactivation of the digesters. Mr. Skotnicki said the City Council was interested in the reactivation of the pilot digesters in an effort to achieve something conclusive. However, in light of the evidence presented by Mr. Goodman, he would not endeavor to con- tinue the program since Mr. Goodman feels that it would not provide anything particularly conclusive to our situation. Consequently, he will advise Mrs. Casler and not oppose the recommendation. Mr. Skotnicki moved that the Manager's recommendation be acceptable. Second- by (voice not distinguishable), the motion passed. 10, CLEAN WATER ACT 301 (h) WAIVER OF SECONDARY TREATMENT Mr. Goodman said this waiver was discussed at the last JAC meeting and that Mr. Elliott had attended the workshop in San Francisco on July 9. He referred to Mr. Elliott for a report. Mr. Elliott said he had been in touch by phone calls to Washington, D.C, Dallas - 16 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITT^^MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979^ and San Francisco to what is the impact on seeking the secondary waiver. The response that he's getting is that we should definitely go forward with the Phase III at the same time as we go forward with the waiver of secondary treatment. The application for the waiver will not jeopardize Phase III; but could, in the future, modify it so that it could be less expensive. Mr. Zapotocky asked Mr. Elliott to explain the time frame involved for the waiver and how that might delay the Phase III project. Mr. Elliott didn't think it would delay the Phase III project because the ap- plication for the waiver has to be submitted by September 13 and it does not mean that we have to stop moving forward on Phase III. It could mean, some- where in the future, that we might have the ability to modify our contracts to downgrade or maybe build two of the secondary clarifiers rather than four to meet ocean water discharge requirements rather than secondary discharge requirements. The ocean plan is between primary and secondary. There may be a possibility, that if we apply and were granted the waiver and we have a secondary plant, that in the future we can enlarge the plant at a less of quality of water than what we would be discharging at the secondary level. In other words, we could tack the waiver on top of our secondary capacity. There were many unanswered questions but he felt we should not stop the appli- cation for secondary waiver at this time. We don't know for sure that we would have to operate our secondary plant at a secondary level. They have not come back and told us that we couldn't operate it at somewhat less than a secondary level. Mr. Goodman answered Mr. Zapotocky's question about time frame and the only firm date in there is September 13, 1979 which is the date the application for waiver must be submitted. There is up to a 2\ year period for review and com- ments back and forth between EPA and the agencies requesting it. Mr. Elliott saidthat from the date they grant the waiver, it's good for 5 years unless you show some detrimental effects in the meantime at which time ••-hey would come in and say that we have to go to secondary. Chairman Stiles said that everything is geared for secondary treatment. We've been enthusiastic about secondary treatment not only for the additional few millions of gallons of capacity, but also because it provides a facility that will eliminate odors. He asked the JAC if they had any objection to contin- uing this program. Mr. Zapotocky said he thought, if the minutes were checked, that it would show that the JAC had agreed to go both ways at once. Mr. Skotnicki did not recall going both ways at once but did recall that the JAC had taken a position of proceeding with Phase III without modification; one of the reasons being that the eventual possibility of changing Encina to all or partially reclamation plant which would be better served by the sec- ondary treatment. - 17 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTO >1EETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Mr. Zapotocky said at the same time we had agreed to go ahead with the waiver request. Mr. Skotnicki asked how much it would cost to go ahead with the waiver. Mr. Elliott said that they had developed four small contracts to develop the data base for the waiver. All of the contracts have been completed and all of the data base gathered but it does need some modification because of the latest regulations. In discussions with Les Evans, that modification is relatively minor and Les Evans was going to be the person to actually bring these units together and write up the application for the waiver and submit it. With the data base already gathered, we are in the position of putting together the application. The question now arises as to who is going to do it. Mr. Goodman asked if the JAC should apply and, if so, who is going to prepare the actual application and can it be prepared with people in the JAC agencies. Since Les Evans is the only one, at the moment, who has the familiarity to put together this report and submit it by the September 13 deadline, the City of Carlsbad would have to make him available to submit this report by the dead- line. Mr. Elliott said that Les Evans had indicated that it would take about 20 hours of his time. If Les is not comfortable with the submittal, a consultant who is preparing applications for Northern California cities could review it in a context of somebody who has been with the problem right along and not somebody who has just moved into a new job. Chairman Stiles asked how Mr. Evans would be reimbursed. Mr. Beckman said Carlsbad was having a related problem also. They were making a conscious effort of trying to change all operations to the new arrangements. He would favor having Les Evans spend a little extra time in getting present operational staff familiar with the program so they could continue it on be- cause he didn't want Les to have to be answering waiver questions for 2^ years. He would rather have Bob Goodman answer questions about JAC. Mr. Goodman said that Les1 estimate of 20 hours is based on his familiarity with the files from which he could extract data since he set up the files. The application proposed by Les is simple. The City of San Diego is going in with an application weighing 55 Ibs. so it's a relative indication of the report qualities that will be submitted. Mr. Eraser said that Brown and Caldwell was preparing a report for Goleta and he questioned the 20 hours. He thought it would take at least a month full time. Mr. Filanc said that JAC would be remiss in their duty if they didn't con- tinue with the waiver application and that the potential benefits far exceed - 18 - I****H JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTlWMEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 any effort or expense necessary over this next two or three month period. If we can't utilize Les' effort, then we should go to outside help to do it. Chairman Stiles asked what would happen if we didn't send the application in. Mr. Elliott said this was a one-time shot and, if we didn't send it in, we would lose the chance to establish the position that our discharge is not detrimental to the environment. Whether we accept the waiver when we get it or whether we do anything else, we will lose this particular chance. It seemed to him that it's encumbent upon every discharger along the coast which honestly believed that they're not doing anything to deteriorate the environment out there and, as a matter of fact, maybe improving it to apply. Once you lose that chance, it is going to be virtually impossible to ever establish it again with the EPA. Mr. Pilanc moved that we continue with the waiver efforts if it will not in- terfere with the Phase III expansion and the mechanic efforts should be up to Mr. Goodman. Seconded by Mr. Van Sickle, the motion passed. Mr. Skotnicki said continuation of this effort on the basis of the fact that we've already spent a lot of money and on the basis that there might be some benefit to individual agencies and the agencies up and down the coast and, on condition that our application will have no adverse impact on Phase III, Carlsbad will support that motion. Mr. Frandsen said he would definitely support everything that had been said and added that we definitely had to go forward. However, he was under the impression that this would be grant eligible and now he has been told that it won't be. Mrs. Bridges of Planktonics presented her report on the biological effects on our dischage. She commented on the motion and said that her most recent contacts with the EPA is that questions of this sort have to be submitted in writing before they will be answered. The procedure is that you call the San Francisco office, ask the question, send the questions in writing and they send, via teletype, the question to Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. gives a written answer to the Region and they provide you the answer. Her last year's work tells her that this procedure could possibly take a month to six weeks. She said that you can't delay work on putting the waiver to- gether waiting for an answer to the question or you won' t be able to meet the September 13 deadline. She continued that it may take \h to 2*3 years. EPA is giving no guarantee how long it's going to take once they get waiver applications to respond. For the new manager to get into this whole set of regulations and to prepare the application, she felt would be impossible. She also questioned that it would take 20 hours. They have, under a contract, prepared the biological section. Brown and Caldwell prepared the physical section for the applica- tion and Pomeroy Johnson prepared the chemical analyses for the chemical - 19 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTft^MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 section. The draft regulations that came out a year ago and the final reg- ulations that came out six weeks ago are basically the same. The format has been changed and the questions have been changed. They want the same basic information but they're asking it differently. Some of the questions have been deleted and some new questions have been added so it's not a matter of taking the three sections and stapling them together. She stated that the application that was filed last year was a postcard ap- plication. It was not, in any way, the application that must now be filed. The final application will, in her opinion, take a week's worth of work by someone totally familiar with the regulations and EPA's interpretation of the words. Data on the biological conditions at the outfall and the effect of our dis- charge has been kept for a number of years. In 1962, the Department of Fish and Game and a well-known kelp biologist did studies. In 1968, our NPDES permit started requiring biological monitoring at seven stations. The kind of data that has been gathered is critters, sand and organisms. In 1970, the outfall was extended and the monitoring stations were also extended. So, we have basically good quantative data from 1968 to 1971 but it's variable. From 1971, we have good quantitative data to provide for EPA as to what the effects of the discharge at the outfall. The EPA application basically re- quires documentation of a "balanced indigenous population" of shell fish, fish and wildlife. When she began gathering data, she started from scratch and what she found was that we had very good information on our outfall and prior to the install- ation of the outfall. We are in a much better situation than most of the dis- chargers up and down the coast. There can be three kinds of comparisons made; 1) subjective non-quantitative comparison of what was there before 1962 and what's there now. Basically, this kind of comparison shows there have been no discernible adverse impacts including the kelp resources, 2) statistical comparison which is based on the monitoring data, and 3) "control stations" that are located two miles down and two miles north comparing those to the outfall vicinity. The one south shows a difference from the outfall area. The one north definitely shows a difference. She had no question in her mind, as a biologist, that that difference is assignable to the proximity of the Encinas Canyon which is an area naturally in the state of flux and will create a situation quite dif- ferent from what we have immediately at our outfall. She recommended continuation of a semi-annual monitoring program of biological conditions. We have data through 1977. In 1978, the Regional Board came in with the revised NPDES and took the biological monitoring out of the NPDES. She felt this was very ill advised when you think to the future and possible evaluation of future changes in our facilitis and possible changes in the ca- pacity of facilities. Based on biological conditions information, a BIP does exist at the outfall and its vicinity. Based on that, she believed we should - 20 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTlQ^MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 pursue the waiver application. Mr. Skotnicki asked if the presence of the sewer outfall harmed the environ- ment. Mrs. Bridges answered that if you have a BIP comparable to a control area then it has not harmed the environment. Another indication is that we have kelp growing on the outfall. She continued that she had an administrative summary which could be distributed to the JAC if they are interested in details. Mr. Skotnicki said that he realized that Carlsbad is again in a pinch in this case and referred to Mr. Beckman's comments regarding the use of Les Evans. He said that Mr, Evans is doing a lot of fine work at the City and has a lot of catching up to do. He would hate to see him detracted from his primary mission. He said he would take Mr. Beckman with him to see the City Manager and discuss with him about making Mr, Evans available for this task. He may want to take it to council but, at least, the JAC will kow that Mr. Skotnicki has tried. Mr. Goodman said that, in addition to the biological monitoring program, we also have to have a toxic control monitoring program which will be addressed in the waiver application. That talks about the chemical analyses of all the toxic pollutants and pesticides in the effluent, a proposed industrial pre- treatment program and a non-industrial source control program. This will also include the industrial source program which will be brought up later on in the meeting. Mrs. Bridges said the EPA has contracted a consultant to review the applica- tions and it is a 2^ to 3^ year contract, 11. MISCELLANEOUS CONTRACTS FOR PHASE III Mr. Goodman referred to section 11 of the Tenth Supplement which authorizes VSD to enter into one or more miscellaneous contracts for less than $50,000 each or a cummulative total of $200,000. This is for the advance work or any other work that is necessary such as the railroad, Lowry & Associates have been conducting discussions with the railroad, Southern California Gas, Pacific Telephone and other property owners. The railroad re- quires $150 for a license for Fugro, Inc. to conduct soil borings, $1,500 for license fee for the construction and maintenance of the 72" outfall, and $100,000 for the actual false work of the drainage channel underneath the rail- road. The $101,650 exceeds the individual limit for a contract authorized by the Tenth Supplement. Pacific Telephone wants $25f000 to relocate their lines and that's within the individual authority, Southern California Gas wants $100,600 to relocate the 12" gas line. The ag- gregate total of these three is $227,250 exceeding the $200,000 authority, - 21 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTE/>"*HEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979^'*' It's necessary, at this point, to give the money to the railroad and telephone companyin order to proceed in a timely manner and not delay the Phase III work. They want their money before they start and they will bill for additional costs or return funds based on the actual costs. Mr. Schneider asked where the gas and telephone lines were located. Mr. Newport answered that the gas and telephone lines are in the present Santa Fe right-of-way and they go down under the existing channel now and when we come in with our fill, we will be putting our fill too high on top of them for their maintenance purposes. Therefore, once the fill is in, they will recon- struct the gas line to their nominal 40-48" depth so they can maintain it. The utilities are located at the west end of the plant. The new 72" outfall line will actually cut through the gas line. Mr. Gann said that we had a problem since we have an agreement among all of the members that this is the authority. In order to exceed that, we must go back to each individual agency. He recommended that we draft a very short agreement and get it to the agencies immediately. Mr. Filanc asked what the $100,000 for the railroad was buying. Mr. Newport answered that it's buying $70,000 for a false work bridge if the grading contractor decides to go by excavation method. Mr. Filanc asked why we didn't pay the contractor instead of the railroad. Mr. Newport answered that the railroad won't deal with the contractor. They will only deal with the agency, Mr. Newport said we could go with the $150 which is a separate agreement. The only thing the railroad wants is a resolution from the board saying that whoever signs the agreement has the authority to sign the agreement which would cover all three agreements. The initial package is for $150 which allows Fugro to go in and do the soil boring and also allows the contractor the ingress/egress to do the fill on their property; the second license if for $1,500 for construction and main- tenance of the 72" outfall; the third license will be for the ingress/egress of the contractor to build the box and for the railroad to build the false work bridge if required. Also, for the railroad to relocate their communi- cations and power lines on their poles which have to be raised out of the way for the contractor to get into the area and for miscellaneous administrative costs for their flagmen and inspectors on the job. Mr. Goodman said we could go with a portion of the work to include $150 for the first license; $1,500 for the second license; $10,000 is for administra- tive costs and $20,000 is for relocating the communication lines. We can go - 22 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITTE^rtEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 with a portion of the work and keep it under $50,000 and give the contrac- tor the option in the bidding documents to jack underneath or use the false work bridge. If the contractor determines that he does not want to jack, then we have to go back in and renegotiate with the railroad at that time and have administrative delays with the railroad. He added that anything he had ever done with the railroad has been a minimum of three months. He said that we were gambling at that point and time that there will not be a delay and the site contractor will not say that we have caused a delay because he does not have the authority to go on the railroad's property and, therefore, would want more money for the owner caused delays to his operation. Mr. Newport again stressed the fact that the railroad does not want to deal with the contractor but with the owner agencies. Mr. Filanc moved that we request counsel to prepare the necessary documents to take back to the individual agencies for approval to implement Item c of the July 20, 1979 memo in the agenda packet. Seconded by Mr. Skotnicki, the motion carried. Mr. Goodman said that Item c only increases the cummulative total to $300,000 which still does not change the individual limit of $50,000. Mr. Skotnicki move that we go back to the member agencies to authorize an increase of the individual contracts to provide for an individual contract of $125,000 and a cummulative limit to $300,000. Seconded by Mr. Beckman, the motion carried. The above motion changes Section 11 of the Tenth Supplement and Mr. Gann will prepare the necessary documents for each of the agencies' approval. 12. EQUIPMENT PURCHASE TO REPLACE COUNTY EQUIPMENT Chairman Stiles said that it was good of the County to let us use their equip- ment. Mr. Goodman said the County had sent a letter dated July 11 saying they would remove all of their construction and transportation equipment on September 1. Leucadia County Water District, at their last board meeting, approved the pur- chase of the replacement equipment with two Chevrolet LUV pickups, a dump truck from the County at a cost of $2,500 and a rebuilt deisel powered skip- loader subject to the concurrence of the JAC that we purchase this equipment to replace the County's rolling stock. He said that if we do have any down time on the skiploader, Leucadia has one which we can borrow. Mr. McKay asked if budget money was available to purchase this equipment or does this require some special allocation. - 23 - JOINT ADVISORY MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Mr. Elliott answered that it was not identified in the approved budget. The redraft of the budget, which he did prior to Mr. Goodman's coming on board, he stuck these in there hopeful that the JAC Budget Committee would be able to review that prior to actually purchasing the equipment. When he was talk- ing about the budget before, it is within those parameters that he had re- drafted. In moving the money around in the prior budget, there is money to buy this equipment. Mr. McKay moved, subjec to having the legal ability to do so, that we ratify the Leucadia board to purchase these items. Seconded by Mr. Mahr, the motion carried. Mr. Mahr asked who the owner of this equipment would be. Mr. Elliott answered that Encina Joint Powers would be the owner. Mr. Filanc asked if we had insurance for these things. Chairman Stiles said that this would be another subject matter at another meeting. Mr. Elliott questioned the motion's "subject to the legal ability to do so". Mr. Gann said that if it's within any category of the budget, it was his opinion to do so. However, if it exceeds or increases the budget in any man- ner, the agreement specifically says that you would have to have prior approv- al of all member agencies. So, if it's a matter of shifting categories within the budget and would not increase the overall budget, it is legal. OTHER BUSINESS 13. INDUSTRIAL WASTE ACTIVITIES Mr. Skotnicki said he had made a motion at the June JAC meeting which had been seconded and approved that we retain industrial waste activities with County until such time that we felt capable of taking it over. A copy of - a letter came to the City of Carlsbad from Houson to Leucadia saying that County was going to cut it out in October. He asked how we were going to take it over in October. Mr. Goodman said he had spoken to Mr. Beckman about this and the letter says that County would propose to provide industrial waste activities until Octo- ber 1, 1979. He said that the letter was softly worded and he wasn't sure if the County was asking if we would like to take it over or if they were saying that they would cease as of October 1, 1979. Mr. Frandsen said the County would cease as of October 1, 1979. - 24 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITT^MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 Mr. Schneider said he felt that if County was still using our lab they should extend our industrial waste surveillance until that time. This will give JAC or Leucadia, as operator, time to develop their own industrial waste program. Mr. Goodman said that we have been performing laboratory services for the County and can identify labor associated with that. Vie have identified a separate account number and Leucadia will be billing the County for all labor- atory services that we render. We are, in effect, running a consolidated lab- oratory . Mr. Frandsen said that since the two were so closely tied together and Leu- cadia was operating the lab, they could readilly set up an industrial waste control program. He added that they were actually giving us four months to set up this program. Chairman Stiles asked Mr. Elliott how Leucadia felt about this. Mr. Elliott replied that it would probably be more expensive to Encina than identified in the budget because it was a $11,250 item in the budget. What we're talking about is hiring an individual who is knowledgeable in the area, who has us well under control and who could walk in and establish the program in very short order. That will probably cost more than $11,250. But then that individual who is selected may be able to perform other dutues than simply industrial waste. It would probably be an increase in the Encina staff or an increase in the Leucadia staff and he hasn't reviewed that with their board. Mr. Skotnicki moved that the JAC direct the manager to come back to JAC with a cost approximation and whatever else it takes to establish our own indus- trial waste activities. Seconded by Mr. Schneider, the motion carried. Mr. Frandsen said there has always been a problem in the Industrial Waste Ordinance as it is now written. The problem is that the person doing the industrial waste work has no enforcement responsibility within each district. If you're going to have the industrial waste activity, you have to have the enforcement responsibility too and a number of agencies were never willing to give that. Mr. Elliott pointed out that their water district does not have enforcement capabilities and he assumed that a joint powers organization, that included people that did not have those capabilities, also would not have those capa- bilities. That is one reason that the County performed this because they do have inherent capabilities whether it's been given to them or not. Mr. Skotnicki asked if what we had to do was to get general purpose govern- ments, that have jurisdiction within the regional service agency, to produce ordinances that will give us and Leucadia and its industrial waste individual the authority to enforce. Mr. Elliott didn't know if they would give it to an agency that isn't capable - 25 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITT^^IEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 of having it. Mr. Gann thought that what would be required is that each agency adopt its own ordinance and, if it is to be used to an individual, implement that pol- icy within their district and there would be no problem. Mr. Skotnicki agreed that there had to be some enforcement. Mr. Goodman referred to the June JAC meeting at which Mr. Evans had brought up the Sewer Ordinance letter which he suggested be taken back to each of the member agencies . A sewer ordinance should be drafted and passed by each of the agencies and this will enforce the industrial waste discharging. That is the only vehicle available for whoever is doing industrial waste monitoring enforcement to have this ordinance passed. In January, 1980, he would have to certify to the State that each member agency has, in fact, adopted the ordinance to continue on the grant program for the Phase III expansion. Having looked at some of this operation, we must also perform a source con- trol program which we have not been doing. There's only one person right now capable of going in and who has the confidence of the people within the plant so that he can walk through and not divulge any of their company trade secrets of industrial waste processes to any outside agency. That person is Jack Thomas. He felt that Jack Thomas would be the logical person to offer employment in this position and then supplement his time and effort with our chemist who has actually worked in industrial laboratories. Mr. Goodman continued that the motion made was for him to come back in August and make his recommendation. In order to make sure that we are not being affected by industries who perform self-policing only, we need to do an in- dustrial waste monitorying program. 14. TOPO OF ENCINA Mr. Skotnicki said he had offered to find out what it would cost to build a model for the new plant. He had spoken with Mr. Ward who said he would give Mr. Skotnicki the necessary information and contacts. However, Mr. Ward left on a month's vacation and hasnt't provided the data. Mr. Goodman said that Brown and Caldwell is also investigating the cost of a model. He felt this would be very beneficial, on a public relations standpoint, to be able to bring in John Public and the newspapers and have the model avail- able for indoctrination in the new Operations Building after completion of construction. Mr. Skotnicki said it was mentioned at the last meeting that the manager would investigate the business of holding an open house. Mr. Goodman said it was also in the newspapar that we would have a "sniff in" but it was after Digester No. 3 was in operation. We just got it operating July 24 with gas circulation and we're still within the time frame. - 26 - JOINT ADVISORY COMMITT^^MEETING MINUTES - JULY 25, 1979 15. ALARM SYSTEMS Mr. Elliott said that the other service that the County is providing is the alarm systems and he thought that, administratively, they were going to go ahead and buy a dialer system for the two pump stations that now have radio alarm systems. It will cost about $1,400 to convert those to dialer systems. Instead of sending the sensor probes to a transmitting unit that sends out a radio signal, it will dial out on a telephone line to probably their office. When there is nobody in their office, it is automatically answered by the answering service who, in turn, will call whoever is on duty. It's proven to be very effective for Leucadia. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 P.M. The next regularly scheduled JAC meeting will be held on Wednesday, August 22, 1979 at 9:00 A.M. at the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility. Respectfully submitted, M. Gunn Taylor Secretary—CP the JAC - 27 -