 I'll call the meeting of the Board of Public Utilities for the City of Santa Rosa to order. If we may have a roll call, please. Chairman Galvin. Here. Vice Chair Anoni. Here. Board Member Badenfort. Here. Board Member Dowd. Here. Board Member Grable. Here. Board Member Mullen. Thank you. I'm sad to report that Board Member Mary Watts is no longer with us, but we want to thank her for her three or four years of service, and we will arrange to have her come back at some point to see us so that we can properly show our appreciation for her. So we'll look forward to an appointment being announced, hopefully, pretty soon by Council Member Drona Colms. Colms. Alright, we have no study session. We have the minutes for June 7th approved, and we have two staff briefings. 5.1 is a Laguna Treatment Plant Disinfection Improvements Project Update. Chair Galvin, I just wanted to ask if the Board had any abstentions. I don't know if we hit that. Any abstentions by Board Members? The process, it doesn't come to a vote on the minutes, but I would be abstaining on that item if it did happen to come to a vote because I wasn't present. Thank you. I'll move to the staff briefings. Director Hornstein. I'll introduce this item. This is an update on where we are with an important project that's been under development for some time, the Disinfection Improvement Projects at the Laguna Treatment Plant. This is probably the biggest project the department has undertaken, perhaps since the Geysers, and as you'll hear today, and many of you know, it's a very complex project with a number of intersecting issues and opportunities. So it has gone on for a while, and the planning and pre-design and things continue to evolve a bit as you'll hear. So with that, I'll turn it over, I think, Emma Walton, who is our new Interim Deputy Director of Engineering Services, Engineering Resources, will start it off. Mr. Mangalvin, members of the board, I am Emma Walton, the Interim Deputy Director of Engineering Resources. I am joined today by Tanya Mokvitz, who is an associate civil engineer. As Mr. Hornstein mentioned, the Laguna Treatment Plant Disinfection Improvement Project, it's a project that was awarded to Corolo engineers in 2016 for the design of a new UV system, a supplemental hypochlorination system, as well as an on-site diversion system. So to provide a little context, I will go over the project background. I'll be reviewing the project itself and highlighting some of the complexities that staff have been grappling with over the planning process. To bring the board up to speed, we will be providing a current update on the project status, as well as going over some of the next steps to move the project forward. Plant originally used gaseous chlorine to disinfect its effluent, and in 1998, a 67 million gallon per day ultraviolet light system was commissioned. And we have been using UV for disinfection ever since. In 2012, the Division of Drinking Water required that we evaluate the effectiveness of our UV system. And through that process, the system was derated from the original 67 MGD capacity to 48 and a half MGD capacity. Shortly after that, to address not only the capacity deficiency, but as well as start thinking about the fact that we do have an aging UV system, we undertook numerous efforts to understand and evaluate our alternatives for moving forward. These alternatives analysis, design surets, pre-design reports were not casual efforts. And as reflected by the timeframe from 2013 to 2017, these were extensive reviews of the alternatives and really reflect staff desires to understand the complexity of this issue and really get it right. So in all of our planning and pre-design efforts, it was clear that replacing our existing UV system with a new UV system was the preferred alternative. And each time we evaluated, it seemed that we were grappling with also trying to understand whether or not a supplemental hypochlorination system would also add value. So in essence, we are trying to figure out, should we move forward with just a single disinfection system that is comprised of UV alone, or should we consider operating a dual disinfection system where we operate a UV system that is supplemented by hypochlorination. One of the outfalls in taking our time to really understand this issue and reassess where we are is that the agreement we entered into with Calgon for the UV equipment that was brought to the board last year, that agreement has lapsed. We don't see this as a huge issue as we anticipate we will be able to re-engage in conversations with Calgon and renegotiate that agreement at some point when we're ready. So as I mentioned, the project is a UV replacement project as well as the potential for a, that's shown in green there, the most recent pre-design efforts have indicated that the green area there would be the preferred location for a new UV system. There's also the potential for a supplemental hypochlorination system. As I mentioned, the treatment plant used to operate with a gaseous chlorine disinfection system so we do have existing chlorine contact basins that could be utilized for a hypo, for a supplemental hypochlorination system. The project also includes an onsite diversion project that would take plant effluent that didn't meet spec and re-diverted it to our flow equalization basins for re-treatment. And Ms. Munkiewicz will go into a little more detail on the status of that component and what that component involves. So the UV and hypo component of this project is what we really are still grappling with at this time and there's a number of complexities and issues at hand that we are thinking about and considering as we move forward with finalizing our approach to whether or not we're going to move forward with a single disinfection system or if we're going to move forward with a dual disinfection system. We do want to maximize the use of our existing infrastructure. As I mentioned, we have existing chlorine contact basins. If we could utilize those in a manner that is beneficial, that would make sense. We also have a very diverse end use scenario. As you are aware, we send water to the geysers for injection. We have agricultural reuse and in some circumstances we discharge water to receiving water bodies. Each of these end uses come with their own regulatory requirements and considerations. It's something we really need to be cognizant about moving forward when selecting a disinfection system. UV technology continues to advance. It's becoming more and more energy efficient, easier to operate. It's important to be aware of what's happening in the industry with respect to UV technology when making this decision. The life of our existing UV system, as I mentioned, it's nearly 20 years old. We ideally want to maximize the useful life of our system and not prematurely discontinue use of that system, but we also want to be proactive in thinking about when is the appropriate time to replace that system. Similarly with replacement parts, as our system ages, replacement parts become harder and harder to get. At this point, we don't find ourselves in that circumstance, but it's something we need to be aware of when making decisions on how we're going to move forward and the timing of how we're going to move forward. Of course, the economics play a role in our decision. The new UV equipment offers substantial energy savings, but that comes at a high capital cost, where a hyposystem comes at a much lower capital cost with lower complexities, but potentially has higher operating costs through purchase of chemicals and operation of pumps and those kinds of things. It's important to think about how we balance operating costs and capital costs in moving forward. We are experiencing algae buildup in the geysers infrastructure, particularly up at Calpine. They're experiencing biofouling on their injection wells, making them less efficient. A hyposystem could potentially benefit this problem and help alleviate some of that algae buildup in that system. We are also faced with growing concerns regarding pathogen regrowth in the ponds that we operate for agricultural reuse, and a hyposystem may provide benefit in alleviating some of the concern surrounding those regulatory requirements as well. Chlorine contact, disinfection byproducts, and changing regulatory environment. I'm going to get into this a little bit in more detail, but in general, with the changing regulatory environment, there may be a potential for us to decrease our chlorine contact time, which would increase the value of our existing chlorine contact basins, adding additional capacity than originally thought, and also it would decrease the formation of disinfection byproducts, which would help alleviate some of the concerns surrounding hypochlorination since we are regulated on our discharge of disinfection byproducts. To further understand the opportunities that a combined system versus a single disinfection system may offer, and to better understand the chlorine contact and disinfection byproduct issue that I just referenced, further investigation needs to happen. And we are currently doing that through a number of pilot tests. So we are moving forward with a full-scale pilot test of our chlorine contact basins to better understand the capacity that those basins could potentially offer, and from there we will then move into bench-scale testing to really understand the potential of disinfection byproduct formation and any potential concern that may cause from a discharge standpoint since we are regulated on our disinfection byproducts, and we need to be thoughtful about if we are creating disinfection byproducts, how we might manage those. So these pilot tests will help inform both the opportunities as well as the potential constraints associated with our reuse opportunities, our discharge opportunities, and this is really the key issue at hand that we're dealing with at this time, and understanding how those things might impact our decision to move forward with a combined system or a single just UV system. As part of the overall project, we are moving forward with the diversion component while we continue to understand the UV and hyposystem component, we are continuing to move forward with the disinfection or the diversion component, and Ms. Mochvitz is here to talk in some detail about what that component entails. Good afternoon, Chairman Galvin, members of the board. My name is Tanya Mochvitz. I'm with the Capital Improvement Projects Division, and I'm here to address the diversion component of the project. As Emma mentioned earlier, it is part of the original project and is not affected by the UV and hypoanalysis, and it is an initial step of the overall project. The benefit of the diversion component, the benefits are as it will improve the system reliability, it will capture the off-spec water from the downstream of the disinfection, and will return the off-spec to the plant for further treatment, and therefore it will reduce our chances for effluent violation. On the next slide, you can see the site plan and the proposed improvements. In the southeast corner of the plant, in red, shown the proposed 0.6 million gallons wet well and 35 million gallons per day pump station. We are planning to provide electrical system modification, install connection to the chlorine contact basin and UV effluent channel. We are planning to design and construct a 42-inch HDPE diversion pipeline within the existing pavement on a south and east perimeter of the Laguna treatment plant, as shown in red. And finally, we will modify the flow-equitalization basin to accept the diversion pipeline discharge. I will conclude my part of presentation by addressing the cost and schedule of the project. The design cost is approximately 600,000, and it is included in the regional project work order with Corolla. The construction cost is $6.7 million. At this point, we are planning to complete the design by mid-2019 and complete our construction in early 2021. This project is fully funded. Now I will turn the presentation back to Emma so she can address our next steps and answer any questions you might have. Thank you. As I mentioned, we are moving forward with pilot testing to better understand how we might optimize the benefits of both a UV and a hypo system. We're going to use this pilot testing to refine our approach to whether or not we are going to include a hypo system, as well as the sizing of the future UV system and potential hypo system. As Ms. Mukvitz mentioned, diversion will be complete in early 2021. And after we kind of refine our approach to UV and hypo, we will be returning to the board with a recommendation on how to move forward with that component of the project. And as always, we will keep you apprised on the project status. And with that, I will open it up for any questions. Board Member Questions. Vice Chair Arnone. You probably covered this and I just missed it when you said it, but what's the primary reason for considering both the hypo and the UV? Is it to have redundancy or is it to deal with the insufficient capacity of UV alone? It really is both. It is nice to always have redundancy in an operation like this. Hypo also provides just so much additional capacity that the sizing of the UV system doesn't have to be so precise and so nailed down if we have the ability to rely on a supplemental hypo system. Thanks. Board Member Dowd. Following your presentations, the question comes to mind as are you factoring into the design process potential exit off ramps if you find information as you're preparing the designs that there might be a better solution? And is that being thought of as you prepare the design contracts? Absolutely. We always have the ability to pause a design contract and renegotiate the scope of work that we would like the consultant to undertake and we will absolutely do that in this circumstance for right now. We're using this time to understand the approach that we want to take and then as I mentioned we will come back to the board with a recommendation and likely an amendment or a modification to the existing scope with our consultant to better define what we're asking them to do. Thank you. Can you describe for me the bench scale pilot? What's that process compared to the full scale pilot? So the full scale pilot is we actually put one of our existing chlorine contact basins into operation. We pump water into it. We add tracer and we track how long water takes from the beginning of the basin to the end of the basin and that's one of the design parameters that goes into how you determine the capacity of your system. The bench scale testing then takes the information that we learned from the full scale test and narrows in on the exact dosing that we would be required to meet in order to achieve title 22 compliant water and then it also gives us an idea of what the potential for our disinfection byproduct formation would be. So based on exactly how much we have to dose we have a differing potential for producing disinfection byproducts which then we know will be incorporated into our pond system and we need to consider how those disinfection byproducts might interact in our pond system so that we aren't under the risk of discharging disinfection byproducts. Thank you. Any other board member questions? Hearing none. Thank you for your presentation. We know this is going to be a long process but you guys are working hard to keep it up. Thank you for your time. Thanks. The next item 5.2 is the staff briefing on the development of revised local limits for the city of Santa Rosa regional water reuse facility. Director Hornstein. This is a briefing. Martin St. George our environmental services supervisor that is providing an update on a regulatory process that we have to go through periodically to review our local limits. Our local limits as you'll hear is one of the mechanisms that we use that we're required to use to control the discharge of industrial discharges into the sewer. So with that Mr. St. George. Welcome. You have to excuse me my eyes aren't what they used to be and I lose that cursor so much more often now on the screen so I think we're hot here now so let's get it going. Let me start that over again. Chairman Galvin members of the board good to be back here again my name is Martin St. George I'm the environmental compliance supervisor for the city of Santa Rosa in the regional system. I'm here to talk to you today about reinvestigating reestablishing local limits. Initially I want to go back to Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin you know they landed on the moon in July 20th 1969 and there was a lot going on at that time 69 after the summer of law that we're celebrating now but in 1969 this was a pinnacle of a space program and the things that were coming and the technologies that were going to spin off this and the future that that was going to come out of this nation. So many things were thought were going to be possible you know the space shuttles flying between planets and who knows transporters like Star Trek or even something simpler like that we've seen in our lifetime like the advancement of computers which we're seeing phenomenal gains in now so some of the things that played out the dreaming some not so much and it's somewhat like that in local limits and the EPA pretreatment program when we were back in 1990 when the local limits study was performed by CH2M Hill we had presuppositions then we had ideas about the future we had many things that we thought local limits were going to entail and take care of along with the growth of Santa Rosa and the regional partners well then there were some changes as time went on. We see that there is an inventory change in 1990 we had 30 significant industrial users we had 20 categorical industrial users and those are classifications by the EPA of a federal pretreatment program there are just classifications in this that we use every day in our group. The inventory change we went from metal finishers and porcelain enamelers and chip manufacturers and there was a heavy shift from those 20 categories that we had 20 representing facilities we went down to five representing facilities now. We had ten significant industrial users that were the hospitals, the landfill, linen cleaning and our large food producer was going to come on and now we've only got three of those significant industrial users so there's a big inventory change and as you can see in 2018 we've seen a large increase in our beverage industry, our wineries, our breweries and even some distilleries that exist so that's one of the changes since the last local limits study. Additional changes the Sonoma County Water Agency implemented corrosion control to reduce metals. Copper and zinc were larger the larger reduced metals as a result of that corrosion control. Copper so much so that they predicted it would be a 53% reduction in copper after corrosion control it actually ended up being an 83% reduction in copper at the headworks learning or the influence coming into the plant of total pounds so you know again back to those initial studies those initial thoughts were not always carried through so what else have we see happen? A change in our industrial technology something is in the printing industry or the x-ray industry where we had developer and silver involved now it's digital so we've had the substitution of different technologies. We also have product substitution you don't need to design a product to last a hundred years if it's only if the internal mechanism is only gonna last for 15 so something like a refrigerator or washing machine you're gonna you're gonna put a coating on the outside that lasts for a hundred years and only needs to last for 15 so those are some of the changes in technology. Another change in technology actually happened with sampling and the lab running tests and the instrumentation our data has gotten so much better due to technology advances the instrumentation can measure much down much lower in their concentrations and we've seen that because in some of the results in the initial study they were just working with non-detects now we have this data that we're actually working with numbers when we work through some of these local limit studies now so these advances have really given us the ability to have a much more accurate view of what we have now. Just to give you a quick shot of where we are with the industry the industrial flow now is 1.44 percent of the total flow it's decreased from 2.71 and the years I looked at the flows are actually fairly fairly the same from the average years flow from 1990 compared to 2016 both around 17 and a half MGD so really you're getting a really good snapshot of the industry is roughly half of what used to contribute to the headworks. So we have regulatory strategies and we'll be getting into the local limits right after this slide but I thought it was important to go over as part of an EPA program which came into being in the 1980s and we got brought into the EPA program and part of that program is permitting facilities sampling facilities inspecting facilities and then also applying these EPA program categorical limits. These categorical limits are developed for each category that was deemed by the EPA a category that needed to have uniform control of their discharge throughout the United States. Again what we have a lot of here as our metal finishers and porcelain enamelers and chip manufacturers. So we applied these categorical limits in the program back in the 1980s and 90s and then another requirement of our NPDS discharge permit if you discharge over 5 million gallons a day you have to have a pre-treatment program. Well we fell under that and then part of that was having a local limit study so when the pre-treatment program was initiated we had to have this local limit study the initial one by CH2M Hill. Well a lot of the Bay Area dischargers are also having similar studies and we had several different limits and requirements that were historical some were based on just historical literature some were based on sampling and some of it was just hey somebody else did it so we're gonna do it too. So there's a lot of different ways that these local limits came into being and I'll get more into that on the tail end of this. And then there's prohibitions from the EPA. As you can see in a local program you have some of the same tools and what the purpose of local limits is it going up potentially above and beyond categorical limits is that local limits allow you to account for what's happening here in the local watershed or local uses. By way of example you know we have the Laguna de Santa Rosa and it's an impacted impaired waterway for mercury so a local limit was developed for mercury. A lot of mercury there is well I won't go there but the local limit for mercury was developed which is much more stringent than any categorical limit you may find in the categorical standards. Part of the local strategy for implementing controls on discharges is also surcharging and that is we do that for conventional pollutants like solids if industry discharges a lot of solids above an average residential load we charge them for that and then we also have best management practices. A good example of that is when we did do the x-ray and had silver recovery units we would inspect the facilities that had x-ray technology and if they were keeping up their x-ray filtering units per se then we'd say okay you're following our best management practices that we ask you to do and you know we're not measuring the discharge coming out of them we're just saying okay you're doing with technology teams as a good way to take care of your discharge and then we could we also have locally prohibitions just like the federal and one of our local again prohibitions as an example would be for chloral ethylene or dry cleaning surface dry cleaning solvent okay this this may not be too easy here going through the local limits method but I know we'll do it we'll get through it the local limits method you start with how you're gonna use or reuse your water as we you know heard a little bit about with the being concerned about how we're gonna disinfect and what those end results are gonna be it's the same thing with local limits we have a use criteria we need to be concerned about our end results of whether it's drinking water quality quality if it's land application for the biosolids quality or whether it's geysers standards or whether it's discharge criteria each one of the most stringing criterias and the in the individual categories was used to evaluate local limits so our starting point if we screened the constituents and what I mean by constituent is every metal or every data point that showed up for a certain constituent like zinc or nickel or benzene as an organic we would screen it and say okay two criteria has there been a local limit for it and if it has we're gonna continue and do another local limit study on it and the other criteria is if it reach 50% of the maximum contaminate level or the use criteria so with the screening we had pretty much the as you can see from the study from RMC and wooden current and right that we had do our study this time they screened out a bunch of constituents that just we don't have in our in our wastewater our sampling has gotten better as I alluded to earlier and the ability to run the test has gotten much better so we're able to screen out a lot of criteria and move move from there so using that end to use as a beginning point we work backwards in the methodology and you look at the Laguna treatment plant facility removal efficiency and so that's basically saying whatever comes in the head works of the influence say if you have a 90 percent removal efficiency for solids if a hundred hundred pounds come in the head works and you're gonna have ten pounds leaving the plant very simply so for each metal there is an associated removal efficiency and that's based on the sampling data of these past done past decade where we've had the more modern instrumentation and sampling techniques so and then you keep working backwards to you have the influence and headworks loading which you have a maximum allowable headworks loading and as a reminder that maximum allowable headworks loading is the load from your industrial base and your residential and commercial and the industrial base again is only 1.44% of your total flow coming into the plan so the busy slide what we have here is determining the maximum allowable industrial loading and your maximum allowable industrial loading is what as an example copper is what your plant can have come to the plant and through all the efficiency and the end use criteria that's the maximum allowed in pounds that you can have at the headworks for your maximum allowable headworks loading now you take that maximum loading and you subtract these other factors from it you have a safety factor safety factors 40% for most of the criteria that we had on this and some are 20% if they're not considered as high a threat or maximum contaminate levels are not primary drinking water quality concerns and then you subtract out the loading for uncontrolled sources which is domestic and commercial you subtract out a growth allowance which is 1% we looked around in the Bay Area and looked at some census and growth curves and we're looking at about a 1% growth per year now and residential and then halt waste is also subtracted out and this all follows the 2004 EPA methodology for developing a local limits this is this is a methodology that's used throughout the United States so the results of our of our study the study that RMC put together for us no changes for the total dissolved solids arsenic cyanide and lead we're not changing mercury we're not changing and total chromium isn't going to be changed either and total chromium will be incorporating chrome 6 but the chrome 6 we just don't even have industries that discharge chrome 6 who are not already under the federal categorical program so there you'll see later that we are suggesting to do away with chrome 6 changed or increase these are the constituents or metals that were changing and want to increase the local limit and the cadmium of 0.04 milligrams per liter to 0.2 copper from 0.2 to 0.1 milligrams per liter and nickel from 1.5 milligrams per liter to 3.0 milligrams per liter silver 0.1 7 to 0.5 to 0.5 and zinc from 1.6 3 to 2.0 the copper and the zinc those are direct results of that corrosion control we talked about earlier plus changes in our inventory of industry the cadmium and nickel those are changes in some of it was corrosion control but more so to the inventory changes and loss of inventory of certain manufacturers that would produce that so it stands to reason if if you lose your contributing businesses that were contributing to the cadmium total and they leave without affecting your water quality you should be able to increase the total effluent discharge of certain constituents without affecting the water quality and silver was that's a direct result of that technology change I had mentioned earlier with x-ray and digital change to remove we had the three conventionals biochemical oxygen demand total suspended solids and total Keldall nitrogen which is nitrogen the plant is very much under capacity for these constituents coming in biochemical oxygen demand the plants about 40 let's see I want to get this right the plant is at 45 46 percent of what it can handle the solids coming into the plant it's 61% of what it can handle and nitrogen is at 35% as far as from a pretreatment industrial waste standpoint and there's room for us to expand that so we're going to remove we don't have that many dischargers they're only again 1.44% of the total so to allow them to discharge and we still surcharge for them by how many pounds they put into the system this is we're not allowing industry to get away with anything with us there because we have plenty of buffer room to allow more discharge of these conventional pollutants the antimony beryllium and thallium we just don't have them in our system so we to clean up our local limits we just want to get rid of them those were limits that were installed are put in included in the initial study to just include and as it turns out we don't we don't have any great sources of that in our system hexavalent chrome as I discussed earlier we're including in total chrome and selenium is again not appreciable on any and any appreciable levels present there was some literature based issues and for standardization purposes we made some changes to the literature values of the pH 5 that's a federal limit it was 5.5 we lowered it down to 5 to coincide with the federal limits and it's not putting the system at risk in any way with such a low industrial flow and we've increased the federal's top end of the pH from 11.9 to 12 again just to be consistent with other standards so there wouldn't be confusion we've removed total toxic organics because the total toxic organics were not let's see statistically derived in that original local limits study it was just taken as a literature value and put in and when I my discussions with the local EPA I was so potentially that they could be a liability now as a local limit because they were not technically derived so that was why we're opting to get out of that total toxic organic limit in the local limits and then we also corrected site specific limits and these are on gas and diesel and halogenated organics and benzene toluene ethyl xylene and xylene they were very vague in the initial study and how they should be implemented in the program was very vague so the decision was made to clean them up and correct them moving forward so that the industry and business could understand and also the staff could use these limits and a much more easier way the next steps after this is to submit to the North Coast Regional Board and the Environmental Protection Agency if so we'd be going to the board after meeting with you and then we'd be back to the Board of Public Utilities with the findings of what the Regional Board has for us as the result of their study of our submitted study and their concerns and comments and with that we'll have a potentially an ordinance change any questions thank you questions it's a lot to palette I saw that bill timing so when when do you submit to the Regional Board we'd be moving to the board with within a month from now and but there is some question as to what the turnaround time would be from the local Regional Water Quality Control Board so this process is going to take some time still there's there's going to be some discussions I'm I would imagine based on my previous discussions I've already had with the local EPA and local regional water quality control board representatives yes any other board member questions Vice Chair Arnone I guess I expected to see the word phosphorus in here somewhere phosphorus loading discharging well in a pre-treatment group we are directed to take care of the what's been when there's been a decision to to be made about what's going to happen to a certain constituent and then we move with it and we work on it but right now phosphorus is still being worked through especially with this report a waste discharge going in and what's going to be the outcome of the new permit and those factors it's it's premature to determine or even talk about what a phosphorus limit should be right now from an environmental compliance standpoint and I'll just add to that that as you may imagine the dominant massive phosphorus along with nitrogen comes from residential it comes from us so it doesn't typically fall into a local limits or even categorical limits it's not something that you have a great deal of success with source control so generally it's treated as we're looking at it you try and treat it at the plan or deal with it post treatment thank you any of the board member questions or moved out on your next steps it indicates here submit to the North Coast Regional Board and the Environmental Protection Agency is is that us giving them your work product at this point or is that a give-and-take situation as you go through getting their approval of those agencies I think it's both it is a presenting our work product to them and hoping that that will be something that they'd be willing to sign off on because as part of a local limits study you have to have approval because approval of your control authority which is the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board in our case and because we need it's important that we get their approval because it's it's considered a major program change in the EPA pre-treatment program and as a major program change we have to get their approval so if there is something that raises an eyebrow on their end or is it concerned for them we do have to work through it with them some of these steps as far as raising limits that is this is not something that's done every day but and if there was ever a case where this should be done it would be here in the city of Santa Rosa's regional system because of the change in our inventory of industries and because of the change and technologies and because of the change of just about everything that's existent is happening here in this in this area I mean there's we can be relatively assured you're gonna not get a dirty discharging industry coming into this area because the local constraints to keep it from happening aren't even from the wastewater standpoint or the water department standpoint as from outside of us that would keep that from happening this is a process that is similar throughout California as the shift occurs it's not just here of course from heavy industry to more commercial and service industries the regulators do take a close look at as Mr. St. George mentioned on limits that are recommended to go up so all of those will be reviewed and scrutinized and they'll be some back and forth so it will be interesting how that plays out and what we bring back to the board as part of the ordinance and the ordinance change certainly is a public process and at times based on what you're doing you do get public input on that as well that we may or may not have so that's kind of how the process would flow out part of the part of the reason for my question has to do with the fact that it as I read through the in preparation for this meeting there's it was the discussion by staff about impacts on businesses that are here or businesses that might want to be here and I certainly support us as this water department has always done is making sure that what we do is environmentally sound at the same time I would hate to make our area both unsatisfactory for a business that has been here or one that might want to move into the area so I I hope that we're looking at all those things and the North Coast Regional Board and EPA will also look at them. I appreciate those comments I know some agencies go through this and they're reluctant to bring increases because it's not always understood why you would allow more pollutants into the system what we're doing and I think you do understand it is the analysis indicates you have treatment capacity to increase these and lessen the burden on your existing and potentially new businesses coming in. Thank you. Board Member Baden-Fordon. Thank you my question and comments actually are very similar to Board Member Dowds. The staff report mentions that we've had some prospective businesses opting out of coming to the area and just wondering if someone can help me understand maybe what that looks like over the last handful of years and why specifically. I think it's easier well we get questions in the pre-treatment section they'll say okay what are your local limits and we get phone calls and it's like oh that's more prohibitive than somewhere else and the local limits that we're projecting now are actually in line with what you find throughout the Bay Area and also more in line with our very immediate neighbors around us so if there was a choice to come into the area with these changes to our local limits it would be much more conducive to bring somebody potentially into the city of Santa Rosa maybe a small metal finisher to support some of the machining that needs to be supported at some of our larger facilities around here you know there's harvesting going on there's equipment that needs parts machined rather quickly and you can do that locally if you have that infrastructure of machine shops and so and we also have you know an owner of a business that's here locally right now on the regional system and they've expressed that they're really holding on to one of the limits potentially changing and that that would go a long way with them and potentially not so much in their short term term and short term decision-making as far as where they're going to reside as a business but it definitely will affect their mid-range decision-making so it not to be too broad there but that's that's how we interpret them and just a quick follow-up I don't I don't feel like I have a sense of what is even the scope about you know 1.44 percent of of users can you give me an estimate of what that actually looks like as far as industrial users I just don't have a any any number in my head okay able to our industrial dischargers there's what's considered the industrial base that's going to be driven are the main contributing factors to those industrial businesses there's eight we're talking about eight businesses and when we consider impacted stakeholder outreach and possibly holding workshops is that the population of stakeholders we're thinking about doing some outreach I just I'm just always concerned about how does public policy impact both our and of course our environmental goals but also the people that do business and live in the city and how can we do the best possible job taking their expertise input through stakeholder process and communicating throughout and so is it that bucket of eight industrial users or would it be a larger process we'd be we'd be discussing when we come back to the board of utilities we have to we'll be discussing this again and at that point we're gonna have to present it and there will be opportunity for the stakeholders to have to contribute to the conversation and partake in not just industrial but also members of the community fantastic thank you board member Grable I guess following those comments and sort of clarifying for me what that means in comparison to other cities and departments the the guiding document is it is a 2004 EPA yes it is that's you know it's a while ago where are we on the innovation curve there are we are we behind in the middle ahead should we have done this in 2006 what you know what what are the reasons why we are now looking at doing this in 2018-2019 when the report is from 2004 where are we on that curve okay the the guidance document to actually on how to perform a local limit study and implement perform it is the document from 2004 in our recent pre-treatment audits or inspections by the EPA their recommendations and the findings just came right out and said you need to you need to do a local limit study we hadn't done one in over 25 years because we didn't have pollutants of concern that were being discharged from the water reuse facility we were doing a good job at pre-treatment and businesses were leaving and you know they're they were implementing technologies of pre-treatment to clean up their discharge and you know things of that nature in a sense this is a reward the local limits study is a reward for businesses in the area to getting it right so we are ahead on the innovation curve is what you're saying yes I would say compared to other cities is what I'm asking compared to other cities some cities do a local limit study every pre-treatment permit cycle or five years approximately because maybe they have more to be concerned about or you know yes seems like I mean it'd be a costly endeavor if there wasn't a reason for it and if they have a lot more businesses then and the larger percentage of your overall flow if it's industrial flow then there's more risk to your plan so the idea of doing the study more often is is generally more considered a more risk averse thing to do if you do it more often right so so that would be there's a number of triggers they could lead an agency to do this sort of study you could be having planned upsets from suspected toxic pollutants that you would want to look at you could have new receiving water limits that are more stringent that you need to take a look and make sure your local limits align with new regulations could be air regulations or biosolids regulations or you could see some a departure of a very large industry that you know would change your calculus and going through the process so here I think it's been a more gradual shift it does feel timely and the results were significant in terms of the changes and providing relief to the businesses that are here the numbers were changing to if that's part of your question as well would vary throughout the state because again they're driven by your local receiving water limitations for the southern California has more stringent air regulations that may drive it certain constituents down so it won't look the same everywhere but I do think everyone in California is looking at doing this sort of effort many have done it and many are looking at doing it reflecting that slow shift in the industrial base we're all saying and the industries you're talking about it really is confined to metal finishing machining that's sort of thing or is there a wider scope of businesses and industries that just have a far more minimal impact or the what with the exception of the last slide I was right where I was talking about the pH which would be uniform for for all discharging businesses commercial or otherwise and also the groundwater numbers on that last slide as well that we cleaned up all the rest of it the metals that's all just the industrial base that we were talking about those the select few industries that we have and I think you know Martin mentioned in this we all know has been a big shift but silver is a great example how it used to be used in printing and digital and it's I mean printing and it's just not in photographs it's not used anymore so again that creates some measure of capacity for the facilities that are still here but really the dominating change as Mark noted did come from the corrosion control that the water agency put in that really dropped the copper the zinc but also lead and other really to the benefit of you know our residents into the environment but it also did create a bit of capacity from a treatment situation as well and also you know back in the day you had an automotive industry that would have their parts cleaners and dump it to the sewer you know that was all kinds of metals going on that and well with the relationships that my predecessors have billed because I'm just coming on the backs of others I mean I've got inspectors in this room I now here with 33 years here and they've seen it from the beginning till now and you know it's up it's the relationship that they have developed with everyone in this community and that's the biggest thing when you know with these local other pre-treatment programs around the Bay Area they talk to us and they say you're doing what and it's and we tell them how we get along with our industries how you know I hear my inspectors talking exchange asking about how that son is doing or how the daughter is doing and and the anniversary of the couple and it's like that stuff is invaluable and that's that's the type of relationship that we have here with our business community and you know they they call us they self-report us they're not afraid to call us when something goes wrong they know we'll help them we're an asset to them you go around the Bay Area and not and not every municipality with a pre-treatment program can can claim that and and and we're very fortunate here and blessed to have an environmentally conscious community and that also plays into this it's not as though we have a bunch of rogue players all over here we have we have a really great industrial commercial base here and it's great to work with them you know and the board's always been exceptional and guiding us through that thanks I just want to be clear on exactly which businesses and industries we're looking at from that first inventory slide it was look like a pretty clear change from industrial to food and beverage for instance I just wanted to make sure that I understood who was affected in the the the food and beverage will stay commercial as long as their flows stay low but if they start getting up into higher flows over 25 million gallons of 25,000 gallons well 25,000 gallons a day a discharge then we will start treating them like a significant industrial user as well but most of our industries in that area or commercial businesses that are producing wine or beer aren't even close to that you know they're not even half halfway there thank you very much mr. st. George for the presentation thank you board okay the consent calendar I would like to pull item 6.2 off the consent calendar so we can have a discussion on that one okay so we'll pull six point two we can take care of six point one if anybody's ready I'll move six point one I'll move the balance of the consent calendar a second motion by Vice Chair Arnone seconded by board member battenfort to approve item 6.1 all in favor say aye aye any opposed any abstentions great so item 6.2 is the request for additional contract contingency on the advisory zone repairs so in brief as the board knows we are now proceeding to replace all the service lines in the advisory area and that contract is going very well a lot of tremendous work by staff coordinating contract coordinating traffic issues and all the tie-ins that need to be done as part of replacing service lines so a big capital effort as well as a lot of operational support as we're doing this work of course we continue to sample and the data has indicated that there's three courts where the results are not dropping precipitously like we're seeing throughout the other area and the indications are that those areas may for whatever reason have gotten a relatively high amount of contamination into the system and even though likely they're releasing it similarly it's not happening as quickly as what's occurred in the other places so we're recommending in this item to proceed and through a change order with the existing contractor replace the mains on these three courts relatively small we believe it'll be very quick and not much impact to do that and that will give us a much clearer message to the community without accept here accept here and we think it's the right thing to do given the path we're on I do want to note that by taking this action we're recognizing that it will add one additional complication for FEMA reimbursement on this piece the everything we're finding with FEMA and I've shared this before is a process and this will just add one more process so the original contract was developed to ensure it's a FEMA compliant contract to get reimbursement this sort of change order will require us to make the assertion and support that this is not a material change to the scope we're just adding on some small additional infrastructure that the data has indicated that needs replacement but we do want the board to be aware that it just again raises one more difficulty in ensuring this piece does get reimbursed by doing it via change order we think if it ends up being our money but also our discussions with FEMA will indicate we have the contractor mobilize so this in fact is the most cost-effective way to get this work done and certainly most expeditious which is our interest to get this work done and go out and start moving to lift the advisory so with that I don't know if there's any additional questions I appreciate that clarification because the reason I wanted to at least have it pulled for discussion purposes is I was concerned about how this was going to impact our claims with FEMA since it's not part of the original scope it certainly makes total sense to me with the contractor already there and mobilized and doing the work that if this is in fact work that needs to be done have it done by the contractor now and not have to put it out to bid and delay getting those services repaired or replaced so thank you for that any other yes board member down now my reason for having that request to pull this off so we could have a discussion about it is I'm supportive of this doing this for the reasons that you said director Horenstein and you chair galvin what I wanted to get a clarity on is that what is the status of the water sampling in the other areas of the advisory area where we are changing services because what I don't want is every meeting we get another four cul-de-sacs and another four cul-de-sacs and another four cul-de-sacs or whatever so do and it's not that there that we've gotten every single thing cleaned up when we get these three cul-de-sacs and the services done but is there some confidence that we have made great progress in clearing up the water and there might be a few minor additional changes required or do we know that yet I'm fortunate to have deputy director Burke here that knows all things benzene related so can you sure good afternoon chair galvin and members of the board and board member dad with regard to your question so I just want to make sure I was understanding correctly are you talking about inside the advisory area outside the advisory area or both well I think you could address both okay my real concern because this is concerned with the advisory area but it would go city-wide but specifically I would like to get some answers on the advisory or sure so this we have been doing a very robust sampling and analysis of the water inside the advisory area since June before we started the water service line replacement we began flushing and sampling all 65 hydrants within the advisory area on a weekly basis as well as taking samples from other locations and appartances but that's been the main focus of looking at the data and we've seen since June that the overwhelming majority of those hydrants are coming back non-detect and then we have a few that are coming back with the very very trace elements that we're looking at in the 0.1 and 0.2 range but these particular courts these three courts have consistently come back right around the reporting limit which is 0.5 parts per billion so we've been watching those very closely to really understand if that was coming from the mains or somewhere else what we did was did a recent flushing exercise where we moved pretty much water through the length of the service line so that we could get what would come initially from the main and tested that at every single property in each of those three courts and that data came back consistent with what we're seeing at the hydrants so it really is leading to us that these are the areas where we have some additional contamination going on most likely in the gaskets in those mains it makes sense to replace the mains in those courts the rest of the advisory area we're not seeing anything like this and as we're replacing the service lines we are flushing those service lines letting them sit and then we'll be resampling them outside the advisory area we are doing the same process it is a bit of a slower project with hopefully the service lines being replaced in maybe by the end of next month but as those service lines are being replaced we're flushing letting it sit for seven days and then sampling and so far those results have shown that by doing that process we're in essence eliminating the contamination part of part of my concern here is that especially within the advisory area we have a lot of property owners up there waiting to get some clarification and some confidence that they're going to be able to sit down with their mortgage lenders get going in the home rebuilding process and I want us to be very cautious about giving proper information out there so that they can do their planning at the same time make sure they know where we're at so it's a kind of a give-and-take thing but I this community needs that rebuilding to get started and but at the same time we can't allow them to move in if there's an unsafe water supply so it's a matter of keeping them informed and making I'm very supportive of this given the feedback from you deputy director Burke and director Horenstein but I just want to be sure that we keep that that advisory area population informed as to what's happening and why we're doing it and the progress we're making and what we see yes absolutely and that's great feedback and we are communicating with that area and taking every opportunity that we can to reach out to folks we will be continuing we do a newsletter every two weeks that provides updates there's updates on our website there's updates on the CIP website as well as you know any opportunity yesterday we asked we were asked for an update on KSRO and so we did that so we're trying to take not only avenues through you know radio TV any way we can reach people but social media websites email any any avenue that we can reach folks and we're going to be continuing to communicate and get that information out and I think the good news too is that as I mentioned the data that we are seeing I just want to reinforce that everything that we are seeing is below the regulatory limit so that is really good and and so that's just continuing to lead us down a direction that we think is is a positive direction that this is moving in the right direction thank you any other board member questions or comments very none I'll entertain a motion on item 6.2 I move for approval second motion by board member Dowd seconded by board member Grable to approve items 6.2 all in favor say aye aye any opposed the abstentions great we have no report items any public comments on non-agenda matters see no one rise we have no referrals no written communications subcommittee reports any vice-chair yes I just like to report that the the ag committee took a field trip we had a chance to go out and meet some of the local farmers that are actually using the reuse water that we have so that we can get a better feel for what their operations are like what their needs are like we were hosted graciously by the Beretta Ranch the Mellor Ranch to show us how they use the recycled water the mechanism for distribution the issues that impact them on a day-to-day basis cost-wise and we were able to share some of the questions about the process the city is going through now to look at its inventory of different contracts and and try to create a level playing field for everybody so I thought there was a lot of good information exchanged in both directions and appreciated the hospitality we received from the local ranchers and farmers who use the use the water that senator Rosa produces and thank you for making the time to be able to go on that field trip I should mention that mr. Grable was with us on the tour and also was asking their their Nancy questions too so he joined us on the tour any other subcommittee reports any board member reports we're member down I want to let secretary Perez know that I will not be in attendance at the September 20th board meeting I'll be out of town but I also have a question about the joint City Council BPU meeting which is set up tentatively for December 7th and I just want to be sure whether that is a confirmed time and date or not director Hornstein will make those comments as part of his report I'm sure any other board member reports I don't know if this is the proper time for board member comments on not agenda items on a personal note would this be the time to okay but I just wanted to express my personal gratitude to board member Mary Watts for her service and I know there will be another time to do this but since this is fresh I do think it deserves a little bit of attention and I would like to speak to it very appreciative and I just wanted to show gratitude for her service shoot it's not the only thing that she does for this community she's very committed to public service in a number of realms and I wanted to make sure that that was that was said but also you know the work of this board is is sometimes obscure and thankless and technical and I think it is really important that that there's a recognition of the depth of this work and the long-term effects that it has you know I think the lasting importance of the work of this board I think transcends the politics of election cycles and this is exemplified by beyond measure by the service and tenure of a board member doubt and others who teaches that there's just no substitute for experience continuity and a silver commitment to the public good and I think our commitment to people and and really good thoughtful policy should always come before politics and I just wanted to make sure that that was said I think that was very well said thank you and I think the full board knows how hard former board member Watts worked and how hard she will continue to work in whatever capacity within the community and we're going to miss her here on this board but we wish her the best and we will have her back here for some sort of a presentation so thanks for those comments directors report I do a few items chair Galvin you may have caught in the press Democrat this morning that yesterday the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency voted to enter into negotiations with renewable Sonoma to construct an operated facility to process organic waste generated within Sonoma County renewable Sonoma is one of the four teams that were provided with the BPU authorized letter of intent to negotiate to use city property adjacent to the Laguna treatment plant for this facility now that the decision was made we do anticipate working with the ad hoc committee that helped us bring forward the initial item with the letters of intent to the full board the negotiations rolling up our sleeves and getting into the details this is a complex partnership and we'll be getting underway very shortly and you know with the attention of course of staff and I'm sure the ad hoc members of something that works regionally but also not but and also maximizes the benefit to the water department in the city through synergies of use of this property so more to come on that and certainly we'll keep the full board apprised as we begin to work through the negotiations following on the field trip that board member Noni mentioned yesterday we did have our follow-on ag user group meeting that was one of three scheduled maybe they'll be more I think fairly it went well and we had an open discussion and dialogue on interests of the city and interests of the ad community we had good representation and it was a very active and I believe fruitful discussion we'll have some follow-on meetings the plan is in the next meeting taking their input from this first one and bringing and presenting alternative approaches for how we could look at rates and bring that to get their feedback and then bring those ideas to the ad hoc committee to hear the board feedback and that will continue for some time wanted to note operationally that we do have a wet well at one of our sewer lift stations a Mohawk lift station removed and we have a temporary one during a construction project where the contractor put in a monitoring level indicator for this so we believe we're in the next three weeks we're in good shape fortunately but plan that way getting this work done before wet weather hits us the interior and exterior coating on two reservoirs three and seven are just about complete and again the timing of this project and this is part of the broader seismic upgrade project is to do the coding and curing while we're still in the hot weather because we need to have the heat to help the curing of the epoxy coating wanted to also note in response to director Dowd's question the September 7th joint BPU City Council meeting did not go as originally conceived I tried to explain that in a note I sent I do accept responsibility and I mean it is great to have a board that is so engaged and interested to be able to attend a meeting like that and understanding in fact the two council meetings in the middle of September are canceled there's a lot of vacations and other plans of the council so we were faced with the one date of the 7th or holding off until October and as you're aware there's a lot of interest in this pressure issue and releasing the report and we felt we just couldn't wait until October given that we won't have a BPU quorum at the meeting it will now be a special City Council meeting certainly board members that are able and interested to attend are still invited you would be in the audience given it's no longer a joint meeting so future joint meetings of this sort I will be personally sure to make sure we have adequate time to coordinate calendars and schedules to ensure we have both groups present and then lastly wanted to know that our Laguna dream of plan annual title 5 which is our air permit was submitted and as part of that process we did get caught up on some testing that had not been meeting the prescribed time frame but we did explain that to the regulator and we don't believe it'll be a major concern to them but I just want to give you a heads up on that that concludes my remarks any questions for the director if not assistant city attorney McLean yes we'll be convening to close session in the mayor's conference room we have two items both conference with real property negotiator items 14.1 14.2 thank you we will adjourn to the mayor's conference room and I believe vice chair Arnone has to leave so it'll just be the four of us what's that we do we're good thank you