Loading...
Resolution No. 8696 ---- -, .... '4 1 RESOLUTION NO. 8696 2 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF VERNON APPROVING AND RATIFYING THE EXECUTION OF A DELEGATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES AND THE CITY OF VERNON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR USE OF RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM 4 5 6 7 WHEREAS, the City of Vernon ("City") is in the process of 8 developing a 134 MW Combined Cycle Power Plant officially named the 9 Malburg Generating Station (the "Malburg Project") for the purpose of 10 installing additional generating capacity that will yield an efficient, 11 cost-effective, and reliable source of electric generation to the City 12 of Vernon; and 13 WHEREAS, the cooling water supply for the Malburg Project is 14 being provided by reclaimed water; and 15 WHEREAS, on May 22, 2002, the City Council of the City of 16 Vernon adopted Resolution No. 7973 approving an Agreement Between the 17 City and the Central Basin Municipal Water District ("CBMWD") Regarding 18 the Buying and Selling of Recycled Water to the Malburg Project; and 19 WHEREAS, Section 13554.2 of the California Water Code allows 20 the California Department of Health Services ("CDHS") to delegate all 21 or part of the duties the CDHS performs in connection with the proposed 22 use of recycled water to local health agencies under specified 23 conditions, regulations and criteria established by the CDHS; and 24 WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Health Department and the 25 CDHS have completed negotiating the general parameters under which the 26 City's Environmental Health Department will assume responsibility for 27 the review of proposed recycled water use areas, use site distributions 28 plans for cross connection testing and for use site inspections and ~ ~ 1 reinspections; and 2 WHEREAS, in order to meet the urgent need to perform the 3 required inspections at the sites using reclaimed water, the Director 4 of Environmental Health executed a Delegation Agreement on February 17, 5 2005, subject to ratification by the City Council; and 6 WHEREAS, by letter dated March 7, 2005, Bruce V. Malkenhorst, 7 City Administrator/City Clerk, recommended that the actions of the 8 Director of Environmental Health in executing the Delegation Agreement 9 with the California Department of Health Services be ratified; and 10 WHEREAS, the City Council desires to approve and ratify the 11 Agreement as executed by the Director of Environmental Health; and 12 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Vernon has 13 determined that, pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a) of 14 Section 2.27 of the Vernon City Code, it is in the public interest and 15 necessity to enter into an agreement with the CDHS defining the roles 16 and responsibilities between the City and CDHS respecting a recycled 17 water program to enhance services provided to the Vernon community. 18 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 19 CITY OF VERNON AS FOLLOWS: 20 SECTION 1: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby 21 finds and determines that the recitals contained hereinabove are true 22 and correct. 23 SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Vernon hereby 24 approves and ratifies the execution of the Delegation Agreement with 25 the California Department of Health Services, a copy of which is 26 attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference. 27 / / / 28 / / / - 2 - .. 1 SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Vernon shall 2 certify to the passage of this resolution, and thereupon and 3 thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. 4 APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March, 2005. 5 6 7 8 9 ~ " , :CC~~6-u/ ~ . ./ tE NIS c. :~G,lMayor /~~ ATTEST: ~ 10 BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 3 - 23 24 25 26 27 28 c ... 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 5 6 ss COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk of the City of Vernon, do 7 hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution, being Resolution No. 8696, was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Vernon at a regular meeting of the City Council duly held on Wednesday, March 16, 2005, and thereafter was duly signed by the Mayor of the City of 8 9 10 11 12 13 (SEAL) Vernon. /-/~ BRUCE V. MALKENHORST, City Clerk 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 - 4 - EXHIBIT , A .. .. DELEGATION AGREEMENT Between the California Department of Health Services and the City of Vernon Environmental Health Department For Execution of a Recycled Water Program Section 13554.2 of the California Water Code allows the California Department of Health Services (hereinafter Department) to delegate all or part of the duties the Department performs in connection with the proposed use of recycled water, as defined in Section 13050 of the California Water Code, to local health agencies under specified conditions if, in the judgment of the Department, the local hea1th agency demonstrates that these duties can be performed adequately. The Department has adopted regulations specifying the minimum treatment and use requirements for recycled water. In addition, the Department has developed criteria, policies and procedures relating to the delegation of water reclamation responsibilities to local health agencies (Water Reclamation Program Guidance Manual, January 1996), included herein as Appendix NO.1. The City of Vernon Environmental Health Department (hereinafter City) has agreed to assume responsibility for the review of proposed recycled water use areas and use site distribution plans, for cross-connection testing, and for use site inspections and reinspections. The Department has reviewed information submitted by the City in support of its proposed recycled water program and determined that the City is capable of conducting the program in compliance with the regulations and criteria established by the Department. Based on these facts and findings, the Department hereby delegates the performance of certain duties in connection with water recycling projects to the City of Vernon, Department of Environmental Health. . This delegation is made pursuant to Section 13554.2 of the California Water Code and shall be subject to the following provisions: 1. The designated local health agency for the City of Vernon shall be the City of Vernon Environmental Health Department. 2. This delegation shall not apply to projects that a. require processing of a new master permit to be issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); b. involve planned groundwater recharge or surface supply augmentation; c. involve indirect potable reuse; d. involve the addition or modification of wastewater treatment facilities, including facilities for the production of disinfected tertiary recyctedwater; e. involve the addition of transmission lines; . . .... f. involve nonrestricted recreational impoundments; g. relate to any use not prescribed in Title 22, California Code of Regulations (CCR); h. do not have the written concurrence of the project proponent. 3. The City shall comply with all applicable policies and procedures set forth in the Department's Water Reclamation Program Guidance Manual, dated January 1996 (Appendix No.1), and all applicable provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the Department and the State Water Resources Control Board (Appendix No.2). 4. The City shall comply with all procedures and deadlines set forth in the law, regulations, and Department policies. 5. The Department will not provide routine technical assistance with respect to delegated projects, but may provide appropriate water reclamation training for City staff. 6. No cost reimbursement shall be provided by the Department. The City may establish its own cost recovery system pursuant to Sections 116800 through 1'16820, California Health and Safety Code; Section 13554.2, California Water Code; and local ordinances. However, the Department does not guarantee that all project~ delegated to the City under this agreement will be fully billable to the project proponent. 7. The City agrees that Title 22, CCR will serve as the basis for project approvals or denials and for establishing requirements on water recycling projects, and that standards more stringent than those set forth in Title 22 will not be imposed without the concurrence of the Department. 8. This agreement notwithstanding, the Department may withhold delegation of a particular project in the interest of public health and safety or any other overriding state interest. 9. The Department will mediate any disputes between the City and the RWQCB where the City is acting under the terms of this agreement. 10. The City shall maintain a program for annual education of user supervisors at all recycled water use areas. 11. The City shall inform the project proponent in writing of the approval or denial of each project. The City shall send copies of all project approvals or denials (whether to a project proponent or a RWQCB) to the Department. 12. The City shall develop, for review and approval by the Department, a policy and procedures manual to guide City staff in reviewing proposed recycled water projects. The Department. will provide the City with. a list of recommended documents to aid in preparing the manual. c;.. . ... 13. The installation of on-site recycled water distribution systems shall be inspected by qualified City staff to ensure adherence to approved plans. Potable water systems that are being converted to recycled water systems shall be inspected before and after the retrofit. Any significant changes to the proposed distribution system will require the submittal of amended plans to the City. Backfilling over pipes and underground appurtenances shall not be permitted until the City has inspected the site and approved the installation. After the final site inspection and any required cross-connection testing, the City shall prepare an inspection report documenting its findings. The City shall maintain each inspection report in its fifes for at least 25 years, and submit a copy of the inspection report to the project proponent, the Department, and the RWQCB. 14. For all new projects involving dual-plumbed recycled water systems as defined in Section 60301.250, Title 22, CCR, the project proponent must submit an engineering report pursuant to Sections 60314 and 60323, Title 22. The project 'proponent shall submit copies of the report to the City, the Department, and the RWQCB. . The City and the Department shall each review the report independently and provide comments to the project proponent and the RWQCB. 15. The City shall ensure that dual-plumbed recycled water systems are inspected and tested for possible cross-connections in accordance with Section 60316, Title 22, CCR. For each dual-plumbed system, inspections shall occur before initial operation and at least annually thereafter; cross-connection testing shall occur before initial operation and at least once every four years thereafter. 16. Before initial operation and at least annually thereafter, recycled water use areas involving irrigation, impoundments, and other outdoor applications shall be inspected visually for overspray, ponding, runoff impact, and all other criteria set forth in Section 60310, Title 22, CCR. 17. Independent of the provisions of this agreement, the City may conduct a cross- connection control program pursuant to Sections 116800 through 116820 of the California Health and Safety Code. ~ . .. As witnessed by the signatures below, the Department and the City hereby agree to accept and abide by the terms and conditions of this agreement. Should any provision of this agreement be determined to be in conflict with the provisions of the Health and Safety Code or the California Code of Regulations, the provisions of those codes shall prevail. This agreement shall remain in effect unless terminated by either agency following 30 days written notice, and may be amended at any time by mutual agreement between the agencies. The Department reserves the right to revoke this agreement if the provisions of the agreement are not met. Director City of Vernon Environmental Health Department Chief Souther. California Drinking Water Field OperatIOns Branch . California Department of Health Services Dated/.f~ Date: '2-/7/0S- I "" . APPENDIX NO.1 -;" Department of Health Services Division of Drinking Water and Environmental Management WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE MANUAL January 1996 (Retyped August 2002) "', WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE Table of Contents Paf!e I. Background 1 II. Review of Projects 1 a. Esti~ates of Review Costs b. Determination of Completeness c. Responding to Direct Requests for Assistance d. Responding to RWQCB Referrals III. Delegation to Local Health Departments a. Delegation Criteria b. Delegation Process c. Delegation Agreements 9 IV. Billing and Invoicing 14 Appendices A. Memorandum of Agreement B. Time Accounting Procedures ... WATER RECLAMATION PROGRAM GUIDANCE I. Back2round The DepaI1ment has specific authorities in the regulation of water reclamation granted to it by the Legislature. Traditionally, these have included the establishment of criteria to protect public health and advising the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) with respect to the issuance of water reclamation requirements. SB 1722 (statutes of 1994, now codified as Section 13554.2 of the Water Code) clarified the Department's authority by adding provisions requiring the Department to approve or disapprove projects submitted to it for review and allowing the Department to recover its costs of conducting project reviews. This legislation, which went into effect on January 1, 1995, also allows the Department to delegate its review authority to local health departments. SB 1722 did not change the basic structure for regulation of water reclamation activities. For example, the department does not have any authority to enforce its regulations establishing the reclamation criteria. While it now has some authority to approve projects, this is only a one-time event at the time the project is proposed There is no ongoing oversight authority give.n to the Department. As in the past, all of the enforcement authority remains with the R WQCBs. In other words, the water reclamation requirements issued by the RWQCBs are the only vehicle for implementing and enforcing the Department's regulations (criteria) or the Department's project approvals. Similarly there is no statutory requirement for follow-up inspections of water reclamation facilities by the Department. Since this is discretionary on the part of the Department, and no resources have been provided for this purpose, it is the policy of the Department that routine follow-up surveillance inspections of existing water reclamation facilities will not be conducted by Department staff unless a serious public health threat has been identified. Due to the close relationship between the Department's interests and responsibilities and those of the RWQCBs, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) has been developed and signed by the agencies to avoid conflicts and establish effective and efficient working relationships. A copy of the MOA is included in the Appendix to this document. This guidance document is based largely on that agreement. ll. Review of Proiects Section 13554.2 of the Water code requires that the Department approve or disapprove proposed uses of reclaimed water within specified time periods when a request for review 1 is received by the Department. This statutory section raises several questions which are addressed in this staff guidance document. All of the Department's review responsibilities are in response to "proposals" received from producers or distributors of reclaimed water. This brings up the first question which is "what is a proposal"? A proposal should be construed by staff as any type of formal or informal request for Department assistance, advice, review, or action with respect to a proposed reclamation project, modification of an existing reclamation project, or a proposed use of reclaimed water. Examples include: (1) a request to review a report or a portion of a report (such as a project study, draft EIR, health effects study, or engineering report), (2) a request to attend a meeting to discuss a potential or proposed project, or (3) a request from a RWQCB to review for comment on a report submitted by an applicant for proposed water reclamation requirements. Staff should be aware that there is nothing in the law that requires a project proponent to submit any type of proposal to the Department for review and/or approval. If a project proponent wishes to develop the project without the involvement of the Department, that is their choice. The law, however, does require that no person may distribute or use reclaimed water without having submitted a report to the RWQCB and receiving water reclamation requirements (or a waiver of such requirements) from the Board. This same statutory section requires that the RWQCB obtain comments from the Department with respect to the issuance of such reclamation requirements. Some of the RWQCBs are considering adoption of master orders whereby the Board would no longer receive requests for discharge requirements from users of reclaimed water. Under this arrangement, the users would simply obtain a use permit from the entity named in the master permit or order (usually a producer). Therefore, the Department will become involved with most proposed reclamation projects that teach the permitting stage whether such involvement is in response to a direct request from a project proponent or indirect via referral from the RWQCB. The review process and response for each ofthese two approaches are discussed below. While the law requires all uses of reclaimed water to receive water reclamation requirements from the RWQCB, not all entities that submit proposals must reimburse the Department for the cost of its review. The law is quite clear that only a producer or distributor of reclaimed water is required to reimburse the Department for project reviews. Therefore, time expended by staff responding to requests from {(users" is not reimhursable and, therefore, should be discouraged. Where possible, such requests should be submitted by the producer or distributor on behalf of the proposed user. Whenever possible, staff should make it a point to inform project proponents of the cost reimbursement requirements to avoid later surprises, disputes and conflicts. 2 (a). Estimates of Review Costs Section 13554.2 allows (but does not require) a project proponent to request an estimate of the Department's cost of review prior to submission of a proposal for review. Presumably, the purpose of this is to provide the project proponent with cost information to allow them to d~cide whether or not they want to involve the department. If a request for a cost estimate is received, the department is obligated to provide such an estimate within "a reasonable amount of time" (where possible, this should be done within 10 working days). This may be a bit of a problem since the Department has little documentation as to typical times needed to review various types of proposals. If a request for an estimate is received, Districts are encouraged to contact other districts that may have already reviewed a similar project. If no information is available, staff will have to do the best they can based on a quick evaluation of the complexity of the project. . Giving the proponent a reasonable range of possible cost may also be acceptable. The law does not specify any consequences if the Department's cost estimate turns out to be significantly lower than actual cost. In developing a cost estimate, district staff should contact headquarters for the current hourly rate to be used. It is the policy of the Department not to charge the project proponent for the cost of developing the estimate. Therefore, it is suggested that district staff not spend a large amount of time trying to develop an accurate cost estimate. Be as realistic as possible but if in doubt, staff should err on the high side. (b). Determination of Completeness The law requires that whenever a proposal is received by the Department, a determination as to whether the proposal is complete or incomplete must be made (and the project proponent informed in writing) within 30 days. If such a determination is not made within this time frame, the proposal is automatically deemed to be complete. In responding to direct requests, such as those described in subsection ( C ) below, it should be made clear that the Department is commenting on or responding to an "incomplete proposal". The criteria to be used to determine if a proposal is complete will depend to a large degree on the type of proposal. Various sections of the existing (section 60323) and proposed (section 60313) Title 22 regulations require certain information to be submitted as part of the engineering report. Fulfilling these criteria would be one yardstick to determine completeness. Staff should be aware, however, that a proposal should not be rejected because the engineering report does not include information that is not related to a specific requirement spelled out in the Title 22 regulations. Additional, or more detailed, information may be needed for unusual or complex proposed uses or where an alternative treatment process ,or technology is being proposed. Some judgement will have to be exercised to determine if what has been submitted is in 3 sufficient detail for the department to render a decision regarding the project. The key is whether or not there is sufficient information to determine if the project as proposed can comply with all of the title 22 requirements. If an engineering report referred to the Department by the R WQCB contains some relatively minor missing information that does not impact the decision regarding approval or disapproval of the project, the comments to the RWQCB should simply contain a request that the missing information be supplied by a specified date. In other words, staff should not hold up projects based on minor technicalities regarding "completeness". Minor clarifications or questions should be obtained or answered by telephone with the project proponent where possible. ( c ). Respondin~ to Direct Requests for Assistance A request for assistance relating to a reclamation project may come in many forms. For example, staff may be asked to (I) attend a meeting to discuss the feasibility of a particular project or proposed use, (2) participate on a committee or task force to evaluate health effects of a proposal, (3) review a draft EIR for a particular project, (4) review and comment on a groundwater model, (5) review any portion of a preliminary or completed engineering report, or (6) respond to issues contained in correspondence relating to a particular project. All of these activities are likely to be billable. It is important, therefore, that each request be made in writing. Having a written request in the file eliminates any disputes, that may arise later when the invoice is received as to whether or not an actual request was made. For example, if staff receives a phone call from a project proponent asking the Department to attend a meeting about a potential project, they should be asked to put the request in writing. The request should also be clear that the proponent is requesting the department's assistance. Letters transmitting a report to the department simply for the department's information does not constitute a request for review and is not billable. Similarly, an "invitation" to attend a meeting without a specific request that the Department attend is also not billable. If it is not clear that the Department's participation for involvement is desired, staff should clarify the matter with the project proponent. As stated earlier, requestors should be reminded that they will be billed for the Department's time. In a similar vein, it is important that any request for assistance come from the existing or potential producer or distributor of the reclaimed water. For example, a request to attend a meeting or review a groundwater model that comes from the engineering consultant to the project rather than from the project sponsor is not billable to the project. If the written request comes from a third party, such as a consultant, it must include an acknowledgement that the project sponsor concurs with the request and recognizes that they will be billed for the time. 4 Yes FIGURE 1 Direct Written Request From Project Proponent Estimate requested? .. No Provide Cost Estimate Within 10 Working Days. No Charge. .. Receive Go-ahead From Proponent In Writing Complete . .. . Assign Project or Agency Code .. ~ .... Determine if Proposal Is Complete .. . Incomplete I <30 days Advise Proponent of Completeness except for WR reqmt's. This step not Necessary if review and Approval is completed <30 days. .. Provide Proponent with Preliminary Comments And/or approval <another 30 days .. Provide Final Project Approval when draft WR Reqmt's are received from RWQCB. P ..1 . 0 I arttclpatlon n y .. partial'Report .. Proponent Requests DHS Participation in Preliminary Project Activity. Incompleteness Acknowledge by Both Parties. Proponent Acknowledges Incompleteness But Requests DHS review of Partial Proposal .. .. , I Full Report .. Advise Proponent of Additional Info Needed <30 days ~ Additional Info Submitted .. DHS Participates in DHS Reviews Activity. No written Partial Proposal DHS Completes Notice ofIncompleteness & Provides Review and is Required. Comments Comments Provides Are Informal and Pre- (Approval comments or Iiminary. Deferred until tentative I Complete Pro- approval .. POsal..~iVed I ~ DHS Bills Proponent At end of Fiscal Year 5 In order to track and record all time expended on reclamation projects, it is necessary that they be given a code number. This code number should be assigned by staff as soon as it is determined that the request is appropriate and that a response will entail staff time. All requests should have an assigned code number even if the request is only for a one-time meeting for which there is no follow-up. All time subsequently expended on this particular project should be charged to the code number and entered into the time accounting system as indicated in the time accounting attachment (Appendix B). Most of the activities carried out in response to direct requests from project proponents constitute "technical assistance". The Department encourages and is willing to provide technical assistance, but only if the time is reimbursed pursuant to SB 1722. Therefore, it is important that all requests that staff intends to respond to (1) be in writing, (2) originate from a producer or distributor, and (3) have an assigned project code number. (d). Respondine: to RWOCB Referrals Except for complex projects that may entail preliminary participation, most project reports will likely come as referrals from: the R WQCBs. These referrals mayor may not include draft water reclamation requirements. The MOA encourages R WQCBs to refer project reports to the Department prior to drafting water reclamation requirements so that the department's comments can be addressed in the drafting of the requirements. All of these referrals should be considered legitimate "requests" for which staff time may be billed. The sequential steps and process for responding to R WQCB referrals is outlined in Figure 2 and described below: Step I. Determine if the referral is in fact a request or simply transmittal of material for information only for which a response is not expects (the MOA requires both agencies to share information relating to projects). /fit is a request, then a project code number should be immediately assigned. Step 2. If the request is to provide comments on an engineering report for which. no reclamation requirements have been drafted, step 2 would be to determine if the report is complete or incomplete using the general criteria described earlier in this section. The assumption is that this would likely occur whenever the RWQCB wanted our comments before preparing the draft reclamation requirements (which the MOA encourages). This could most likely happen for the more complex or unusual projects. If the report is incomplete and our review cannot be completed without the missing information, staff should advise the R WQCB in writing (with a copy to the project proponent) as soon as possible and indicate the additional information that is needed to complete the review. Even if the report contains all of the information required, no finding should be made in our response to the R WQCB that the report is "complete" since our position is that no report is complete until water reclamation requirements have been drafted and proposed. Unless accompanied by draft requirements~ there is no statutory time limit as to when comments must be returned to the R WQCB but, where 6 possible, this should be done within 30 days. Copies of any comments on the report submitted to the RWQCB, including identification of any missing information, should also be sent to the project proponent. Step 3. If the referral from the RWQCB includes draft or proposed water reclamation requirements, the process is similar except that statutory time limits now come into play. The RWQCBs generally allow 30 days for comments on draft requirements which is consistent with the time limits allowed by SB 1722. The review and response for incompleteness is the same as indicated in step 2. The understanding is that if the report accompanying the draft requirements to is incomplete, the 30 day comment period will be held in abeyance until the additional information is received. If the report is deemed to be complete, the response to the R WQCB should contain that finding. Step 4. If the proposal is complete, staff must decide whether (1) the project should be approved without conditions, (2) the project should be denied, or (3) the project should be approved subject to specific conditions (contingencies). The response to the RWQCB. must be made within 30 days. The response should indicate whether the Department approves or disapproves the project. If staff determines that the project can only be approved subject to special conditions, those conditions must be clearly identified in the response. "Conditions of approval" are only those conditions that staff feels are important enough that if they are not complied with, the potential risk to public health is great enough that the project should not proceed. In addition to conditions of approval, staff may also include other recommendations for RWQCB consideration. A copy of the Department's response to the board should be sent to the project proponent. Step 5. If necessary, staff should meet with the RWQCB staff (at the RWQCB's request) to explain, discuss, or defend any of the staff's recommendations or conditions. Similarly, upon request, staff should attend any RWQCB hearing to defend any of the Department's conditions or recommendations. Step 6. As soon as. the water reclamation requirements have been issued, district staff should notify headquarters so that a billing invoice can be prepared and sent to the project proponent. Current law allows the RWQCBs to issue a "master permit" to a reclamation entity. The purpose of this is to avoid the necessity of a water reclaimer that serves multiple users having to come back to the RWQCB each time a new user or a new use is added to the system. The Department concurs with this concept and prefers the use of master permits in lieu of numerous individual water reclamation requirements issued to users. The only potential problem is that there is no way to check compliance with Title 22 regulations if there is no subsequent review of user proposals by the RWQCB. For this reason, it is important that specific language or conditions be included in the master permit that requires the reclaimer or producer to submit plans and specifications, reports,. etc. for specified new uses or new users to the department for review and approval. The master permit should also require that these proposals be submitted by the producer or 7 t Complete (except For WR reqmts) . Review & Provide Comments to RWQCB ~ <30 days. cc: Proponent . Meet with RWQCB Staffif~ecessary . Receive Draft WR Reqmt's From RWQCB . Provide Comments and Final Project Approval to RWQCB <30 days . Attend RWQCB Hearing If~ecessary FIGURE 2 R WQCB Request . Assign Project Code . Review Report For Completeness. I 8 + Incomplete . Advise RWQCB of Missing information ASAP (<30 days) . Receive Additional Material (Report nOw complete) . Bill Project Proponent distributor of the reclaimed water, not the potential user. It is not necessary or desirable, for the department to review all new users, particularly those of a routine nature. Generally, the Department should only require that reports be submitted for uses that are not covered under the proposed Title 22 revisions and uses requiring disinfected tertiary reclaimed water. III. Deleeation to Local Health Departments Section 13544.2 ( c ) allows the Department to delegate all or a portion of its duties under this section to a qualified local health department. Unlike the Local Primacy Delegation concept in drinking water, however, this is not a program delegation. Each project must be delegated separately and then only with the concurrence of the project proponent. The delegation is voluntary on the part of both parties. The local health agency, in addition to being willing, must also have the staffing and technical capabilities to conduct the necessary project reviews. Furthermore, unlike the drinking water program, delegation is not mandatory even if a county submits an application and meets the criteria for delegation. Delegation should only be considered if the delegation, in the opinion of the Department, will result in greater program efficiency or that project reviews will be expedited. a. Delee-anon Criteria In order to be considered for delegation of certain project review activities pursuant to AB 1722, the local health agency must demonstrate to the Department that it possesses . the following capabilities: (a) Experience in reviewing or regulating water reclamation treatment, distribution and reuse. This means a minimum of two years of conducting or active participation in a water reclamation program that included reviewing and commenting on various types of water reclamation projects. (b) Adequate staffing and staff technical capability in water reclamation and cross connection control. The demonstration would need to show that the staff on board has had experience in reviewing, or participating in the review, of water reclamation projects including cross connection control, wastewater treatment, distribution system operation, and onsite water reclamation management. The Department could not be used routinely as a technical resource to bolster local staff since Departmental resources are not available for this purpose. 9 ( c ) Knowledge of water reclamation laws, regulations, guidelines. and roles of the various agencies involved in water reclamation. This could be established through experience or evaluated through an interview process. The Department has determined that only certain types of water reclamation projects or activities should be considered for delegation to local agencies. Other types of projects, due to their technical complexity or other factors will be retained by the Department. The types of projects that are not subject to potential delegation include the following: (l) Any proposal that includes a new disinfected tertiary treatment process or facility, or a modification of an existing disinfected tertiary treatment process or facility (as defined in section 60301.230), as part of the . proposal. (2) Any proposed use of reclaimed water involving: (a) Planned groundwater recharge (b) Unrestricted recreation (c) Indirect potable reuse (d) An use not covered by Title 22 Regulations (3) Any referral from a R WQCB involving the issuance of a master permit. Subsequent reviews (i.e. specific use sites) following the issuance of the master permit, however, could be delegated. b. Deleeation Process . Section 13554.2 (c) allows (but does not obligate) the Departmentto delegate all or pari of its duties with respect to water reclamation to a local health department pursuant to specified conditions. The process for entering into a delegation agreement with an interested local health agency would go through the following steps: 10 FIGURE 3 Project Review Process Pursuant to Delegation Agreement Project Proposal Received From Proponent or R WQCB ~ Can propo~al be delegated pursuant to agreement? Yes ... ~ "~o Contact proponent in writing and seek concurrence .. ~o concurrence ~ Concurrence Received l DHS revIews proposal and responds to Proponent Proposal referred to COO in writing ~ COO reviews proposal and responds directly to proponent. cc: DHS Project Proponent . billed 11 (1) The local health agency would have to submit an application to the Department describing its ability to comply with the qualification criteria established by the Department. A local health agency may request delegation for a full range of projects (except those not subject to delegation) or may specify the types of projects for which it seeks delegation. (2) The Department would evaluate the county's capabilities (as outlined in subsection a.) and the benefit to the program and determine which, if any, types of projects could be delegated. (3) A general delegation agreement would be signed between the two agencies describing the process, types of projects to be delegated, and agreement conditions. (4) After the District obtains written concurrence from project proponents, individual projects (or portions of projects) would be referred to the local health agency in writing. (5) The local health agency would review the project and either respond to the Department, the RWQCB, or the project proponent as designated in the delegation agreement. c. Delee-ation Atrreements Delegation to a local health agency wiU be made by means of a written document (similar to drinking water delegation) signed by both agencies. If a local health agency accepts delegation from the Department, the local agency is acting as an agent of the Department and is subject to all of the requirements set forth in Section 13554.2. In addition, each delegation agreement would contain conditions of delegation that the local health agency would be required to adhere to. . If a local health agency does not sign a delegation agreement with the Department, it does not mean that the local agency cannot be involved with the review of water reclamation projects. A local agency may still be involved with water reclamation in accordance with county ordinances but would not be operating under the authorities of SB 1722. Similarly, if the Department only wishes the local agency to review a portion of the project and merely obtain the "recommendations" of the local agency, concurrence of the project proponent is not necessarily required. However, without the concurrence of the 12 project proponent, the local agency could not bill the proponent for is costs pursuant to SB 1722. Each delegation agreement shall incorporate all of the following delegation principles: (1) The local agency must comply with all applicable provisions of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) signed by the Department and the State Water Resources Control Board. (2) The local agency must comply with all procedures and deadlines set forth in the law, regulations, the MOA or specifically set forth in the delegation agreement. (3) The Department would not provide routine technical assistance with respect to delegated projects but would provide appropriate water reclamation training for local agency staff. (4) No reimbursement would be provided by the Department. The local agency would have to establish their own cost recovery system pursuant to SB 1722 or local ordinances. (5) The local agency must agree that Title 22 regulations and criteria would be used as the basis for project approvals or denials and for establishing requirements on water reclamation projects and that standards more stringent than those set forth in Title 22 would not be imposed without the concurrence of the Department. (6) The delegation agreement notwithstanding, the Department may withhold delegation of a particular project for good cause. (7) The delegation agreement may be withdrawn by either the Department or the local agency at any time upon written notice. (8) A project proponent may appeal a decision of a local agency operating under a delegation agreement to the Department (this would constitute a "billable" request). The Department, however, would only review the action of the local agency to determine if it acted in accordance with the delegation agreement. Any decision made by the local agency pursuant to delegation that was not in accordance with the delegation agreement could be overruled by the Department. (9) The Department would agree to mediate any disputes between the local agency and the RWQCBs where the local agency is acting for the Department. . 13 (10) The only projects that the local agency would review pursuant to delegation (and that would be billable under SB 1722) would be those projects referred to the local agency in writing by the Department. No project proposals received by the local agency directly from a project proponent would be accepted for review as a delegated project without prior approval from the Department. . (II) The local agency must send copies of all approvals or denials (whether to a project proponent or a R WQCB) to the Department. (12) There would be no assurances or guarantees that any project referred to the local agency would necessarily be fully billable to the project proponent under the provisions of SB 1722. DHS would refer all projects covered under the delegation agreement whether they are billable or not. IV. BILLING AND INVOICING Section 13544.2 (a) allows the Department, or a local delegated agency, to recover its cost for reviewing water reclamation proposals by billing the project proponent for its actual time. As indicated in the introductory section of this document, however, not all time expended on water reclamation can be billed. There are specific limitations, the most significant of which are (1) only time expended reviewing proposals submitted by producers or distributors of reclaimed water can be billed, and (2) only proposals for which a review by the department has been. requested (or required as in the case of RWQCB referrals) can be billed. The following outline describes the types of activities that can or cannot be billed. Billable time. This generally includes all time expended that directly relates to reviewing a proposal submittedfor review as indicated above. Staff must be aware that material, such as a report, submitted to the Department merely for the Department's information does not constitute a request for review of such material. Activities that may be billed include: . Telephone time · Attending meetings with (or at the request of) the project proponent . Travel time · Reviewing materials related to the project · Preparing correspondence or comments · Attending RWQCB hearings or meetings 14 · Discussions with technical staff or local health agencies. · Field work associated with review of the project proposal · Responding to an appeal from a producer to review an action of the county regarding a delegated project Nonbillable time. This includes time expended: · Developing statewide criteria, regulations, policies or guidelines · Work related to the water reclamation committee · Work expended reviewing proposals submitted by users of reclaimed water (rather than producers or distributors) · Time expended reviewing information material that is not part of a request to review a specific proposal · Attending meetings, etc., to which staff was not specifically requested to attend by a project proponent · Reviewing environmental impact reports submitted to the department by the State Clearinghouse pursuant to CEQU (a comment on a proposed EIR for a project is billable) · Giving speeches, attending industry association meetings or conventions, etc. · Inspecting existing or completed projects or evaluating ongoing compliance with water reclamation regulations or permit conditions · Assisting RWQCBs in an enforcement action · Mediating a dispute between a R WQCB and a delegated agency · Staff training or training of local agency staff · Telephone contacts from the public 15 .. Beginning July 1, 1995, Department staff should begin tracking and recording their time spent on reviewing water reclamation proposals. Billable time should be recorded using the project code assigned to each proposal as they are received and entered into the program's time accounting system at the end of each month. The appropriate codes and procedures for time accounting are detailed in Appendix B attached to this guideline. Headquarters will develop an invoice to be submitted to the project proponent. These invoices, in most cases, will be sent to the project proponent at the end of the fiscal year (including multiyear projects). In certain cases, however, an invoice may be sent out before the end of the fiscal year upon receiving a note from the District that the review of the project is completed. A project review shall be deemed completed when the final approval has been given by the Department (generally when the RWQCB has issued the water reclamation requirements). Many project proposals extend into more t4an one fiscal year. For example, a complex groundwater recharge project may require Department involvement during preliminary discussions, review of various reports covering portions of the project, etc., with final approval several years down the road. For these types of projects, as well as preliminary projects that never come to fruition, the staff time will simply be billed at the end of each fiscal year. In some situations, a public water system may be a project proponent or a portion of the proposed project may involve a public water system. This may make it difficult to determine whether the system should be billed under the water reclamation program reimbursement authority or the large water system (PICME) billing authority. In most cases, the proponent of a water. reclamation project should be billed under water reclamation, even if the proponent is a public water system. This provides a more accurate accounting of time expended on water reclamation activities and does not create potential conflicts with PICME goals and revenue caps. An example of when a public . water system should be billed under PICME would be if a reclamation proposal submitted by a third party would impact a public water system (i.e. due to potential cross- connection hazards) and the public water system (not the project proponent) requests us to review the proposed program or project for purposes of compliance with drinking water requirements. 16 APPENDIX NO..2 ! ! J .. ~r . .: i. )0. 0 010 t i · o I 0 , J I r 010 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES o AND 0 THE 81 ATE W ATERRESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ON USE OF RECLAlMED WATER ---~ (-;'00>OQ:2728~"'; ~::o . ~V'o o ',{)'V + ~\ ~.. FED . 2004 ~ N W \ ~ RECEI'KO ~o , ~ 0 DE" Of ~r:.l\.lH SEIMC(S Q7 \~ owroe-LoS AtlCRES 0) __ 0,-' " . :'Z~L $. . o.o::~/ ..... o 0 This Memorandum of Agreement (ber.eafter MOA) is made between the Depanment of H~th Services (hereafter Department) and the State Water Resources.Conti'oJ Board (hereafter SWRCB) onbeha)f ofitselfandthe nbieCaJifornia Regional Water Quality Control Boards (bereafter RWQGBs).oThis MOA sets foJ1hoprintipJes;oprO(:edures, and agreements to whichtbese.a$enciC$ conUnit themselveS relative to Use of reclaimed water in California It is effective upon 0 the date that it is ~xecuted by both parties. . 0 I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OFMOA . . . . o 0 Water r<<:lamationinvolves several activities that have potential impacts on public health. The primal)' activitie,sare the introduction ofpollutaiits into the wastewater colJecdon syStem, 0 . wastewater treatment, storage and odistribution ofr<<laimed warer, :and the use ~f the reClaimed water. The planning, desIgn, constrUc1ion. and operation ofthevanous f~illtiesMSOQiatedowitho these 0 activitieS alloreqUire ov~gbt by oTegulatoI)' agencies to ensure protection oof public health. 0 . . . . . . . . . .' . ." .., . . . This MOA is intended too~1hat the respec1iveauthority oftheDepcu1nien~tbe SWRCB~ and the RWQCBs re!4ltiveto uSe ofJJcl~ed water will be exerc;ised in a coordinated and cohesIve 0 o manner designed to oeliininate ov~lap;of a<:tivities, duplieauQn Qf effoJ't,sap$ oin reguJ~tion"and o 0 inconsist~cy of actioi1~ 0 To 1hat ~~ this establi$bes l>asic pnncipJCs0 rcJativeto. actiVities Qf the 0 o agencies hereto atid 1he OR WQCBs,ocJanneS p~iaS of mpp~1>Uity and i~thority.be.tWten : · these agenclcs, and provides for-methods and mechanisms neCessary to. asMC ong~ing, continuous future coor~tionof activitie$.relative touse of leclainl~d water'in this State. o 0 , . . . o 0 o The MQA is ~ten~ed to serve as an l1D1btella 88teement beOtween Jhe ~8.ncteshereto. It will be :. . SlJppJefJienttd, as appropriate, by addenda .w~eh willoreflectanyo ~tiQna1 aBTOemerJUl'J 0000 . j: cammitsnenlS and widerstan.din8~oalriovt~ at.hyothe.aacnl,1ieos bereta. ~ ~OA~p,lacestheoprevioll:S MOAQ~:\1$eoffeci8imcdwtlterexCtut~donoSDecember 1988~0~ 0 0 0 0 000 Il. . GENERAL BACKG~OUND A. 0 J~~ic AythQrinJla il),dol!~sjbilili~~ 0 o 0 00 0 00 JIiorde! 10 $uppJem~nt e~Stins sutfate and ground water supplies to heJp m~t w~t.r needS : in me State, it is State poliCy that use. of recJai~ed wat<<in the State be promoted to the ma"<imum extent (California Water Code~ SectionsJ3.510{).. 135 12). On(oftheprimary o conditions on the use ofrecJaimed water is protectian ofpubJic health (WaterCodco Sections l3S2.1, 1352~ 13SSO(a)(3)). 0 The Department is the primcuy State agency iesponsible for protection of public health and the regulation of drinking water. The Legislature has defined several specific regulatory . responsibilities of the Department related directly or indireotJy to water reclamation actjvities including: establisJunentof statewide waterreeJamation criteria; advising . RWQCBs in the drafting of water reclamation requirements (permits); review and approval of certain proposed water reclamation projects; abatement. of contamination resulting 110m . .. use of reclaimed water where public health is seriously threatened; and control of cross . . connections.betweenpotable and nonpotablewater systems. . . . ". . . . The SWRCB and the: RWQCBs are the primaJy State ~gendes chatgedwith thc:protection, coordinationt and control of water quaJiiyand theassigmnent of~t~ rights intbe S~e. .Specific regulatory responsibilities affecting water reclamation ~cl,Ud~ approval of . poJ]uUUlt source control plOgraJns for wastewater collection systemst isSuance and cnforoemeiltof water reelamation requiremems to producers and users of reclaimed W;.tert . . . defmition ofbeneficlal uses of surfa~e and ground watc! bodies through .the es1abij~ent . of viaterquaJity control plans, regulation of operato~ of.WMtewaterand .water r<<IMlltion treatment plants, and water right detenn.inations regard1ng water reclamation. . ", . . , . . .. . . . . To assure pIotection of public heaith wheJ:e recJahnCdwater. use. is involved, the Department bas been ~tutoJily ditectoo to e$Uiblish uniform statewide reclamation criteria ... for the various uses of reclaimed Water (Water Code Sedion J3521). The Department has . . . prom:ulgated regulatol)' mt~riawhich. are cuiTentJy set forth hi TItJe22t DivisiOn 4t Section . :. .60301 et seq., California CQdc .0fReguJations. The ~ent2sreguJatol)' mterla . .include $peCi1ied approved uses pf reclaimed watertnuroerieaJ lhnitations and .requ.iremehts, treatment m~thod requirements and perfonnancc standards. The . ~~t2$reguJations allow Use of alternative methods ()ftreatment, in some casesl $0 . . long as the.8Jternative methods~ed arc.determined bY the De_entto assure equivalent . treatmentarid:reliabillty.. . .. 8.. '1.l4JV' :S~)iJ1!lQtiQtl ~iwwt)~ ilJd l!~m2~ "0 !'.' . . All persons whQ reclaim' or pro.j>oseto reeJahn Water; ofwboU$t or propose to~ .. recJaitncd~tef2 mUst ,file a.nport.with. the appropriate.RWQCB (\VatetCodo S<<tio.n . .. 13522;5). If a R WQCB detcmrlnes that itisneceS$a1Y to protect publi~ health, $aftty,or . welfare, it maY prescribe wateueclaInation requirement$. where reclaimed water i$ URdor . propoied to be used (Water COde Section )3523). Where iegulatoJ')'<:riteria have bee.n . . adopted, no peJ'$On may eitherreclami" ,vater ot ~e ~Jaimedwat~r until the appropriate . J{ WQCB has either issued:rec:]~tion icqub:ements or Waived the necmity for $UCh . .requirements (Water Codo Section 13524). Inlhe.proces.s ofissuin, reclamation .require.ti1~nts, Q1e RWQCB.s must consult with and cOJ1$ider :rec:ommendatiOi:l$ of the .: DeParuilc:nt(Water CodeSecti.Qil )3523). Anyreclamation.1CqUirem~ts which are issued .. . by the R WQCBs>> whether applicable to 'the feClaimer or to.the USCi of tecllimtd water, . . must be in confo~e with any regulatory reclamation criteria edoptedby 'the -2- L Department. Water reclamation requirements for a proposed Use or recJaimedwater that is . not specificallyadd1essed.in the Title 22 water tet]amation criteria adopted by the: Department are considered on acase-by-case basis. I .j ! The R WQCBs have tbeoption of issuing a master reclamation permit in lieu ofindividual water reclamation requirements for a project involvingm\dtipJe users. Such pennits would combine the .waste discharge requirements pursUant to Water Code Sections 13260 c;tseq. and water reclamation requirements. A master permit may be. issued to a supplier or distributor, Or bQth, of reclaimed water. The procedures for adoption by ~ RWQC.Bs arc the. same as forwa~er reclamation requiremel1ts and incJudethc,same tonsultatio~ with the Department (Water Code Section 13523.1). Exceptupon written request nom a kWQCB,. . . the repoI1ingrequireinc':\t in Section l3S~;S .iswaived for ~rs $Upplied with leclahned water nOma supplier or distributor oJX:rating under a Diaster permit (Water Code Section ] 3522.5). Howevef,Qtber :reporting and plan review requirem~nts, su~as those specified in the Titl~ 22 reclamation.criteria, maybe included as reqUirements in the master permit :In addition the RWQCBs have the option of i$subig general waste di$<:lwge requirements or general water reclamation requi1em:ents, under which all producers of ~Ia.imcd water may apply to be covered, in lieu ofindiviOual Qrde.ra. . . ~ t:.. 4 . . .Water, CQde S~tion 13SS~.2(e) requires' 1h~ Deptbnei1t to review an4.appr~ve proposed. . . water reclamation. projects (within specified time frames) that are submitted to the . De.pai1ment by prodqcers or distributolS of reCJaimed water for review~ . The pepartni~t . may delegate some or aU of its le$pOnsibilities~ with respect to review and apptoval of a . .propose4 project, to a loc~l health departmtnt with the concurrenCe of the project proponent. .. (W~tef Code &ction 13SS4.2(c)). The' Jtclaime<J watet prodllCet Of disuibutot submitting. . . . .. ,the proposed project for review m"USt .JCbnburse the ~patimQt for its C<m of co~g : the reView and issuins.the approval or denial (Wtl~er COde Sec1ion.13SS42(a)). .. -. .. . ... Where tecJaimedwater use is involvCQ or proposed~.lhe RWQCBs have the authority to. .. . req\li~ construction ieports. and su(;h other repoJ1$ as may be ~CS$8.J')' to assure protection of both public health and water qualily(Water Code Section 13S~). . Additional .... ... . engineering;construcUio~'aild oj1elatJonal reports.are $pecified in 1he ;fitle.22 criteria . adopted by the Department. . . - -. . . ... . . . .. - : ... . ,. C.~mtRJ:Y Eo~s;rnlllt . . . - . .. - . Where use of recl~ed water is involved, the RWQCBs have me exclusive autl10rity to . enforce water reclamation "requirements. In extrem~ cases .involving .serlQUS pubU~ health threats, the Department may take steps to abate any contamination which may result iom. use of:reclai.med water (Water Code Section )3522)~ Tlle RWQCBs may undeJ1ake various enforc.ement actionSi both of a civil nat.Urcand relative to (riminal sanctiOIl$, fot failure to '. file necessary repot1$.; for reclamation or use of ie~laim.~d water Without recl$ation . . .. . . ..3- . . .f - .'. .... . . -" ,.- -f ~;~.- . requirements, or fOI violation of any reclamation requirements imposed bya RWQCB (Wat.er Code Sections 13522. 13522.7. and 13525). ln addition to the authority vested in the SWRCB, the RWQCBs, and the DepartmeiJt. relative to the use of reclaimed water,.varlouslocai health agencies have an independent and autonomousroJe and authority to impose additional requirements and take enforcement actions with respect to water recJamationpursU8JJt to local ordinances. D. CW1i CQnv~c;tiQo CQDtrQI . . . . . . . . . .. The; Department has responsibility for protection 'of potable water systems through cross connection control and back1lowprevention. (Health ~d.Sa(e1Y C<<1e Division 5, Part 1 , . . . a..ptcr.1.9, Sections 4049.50 et seq.; California Code ofReiuJations, Title 17~ Diflsion 1, . . Chapter 5,. Group 4, Article 2. Sections 760 1. ct'scq.). The DepmmeJit ha$ specified 1hC . . bacld]ow protec.tion mea$Ufesrequiredat sitesw~re reclaimed water is used. . '. . E. &o~e Co~ttQl . . . - . .- . The federai Clean Water Act tnan<hltes muiucipalwastewaterdi~hafger$ ,0fS.MOD or. . more into Surface waters have an industrial pretrea1Dientprogram{ClCiPl.Water Act, . .. Sections30J a"ndJ07). The.purpose of this program is to contJOl U1e iIlput of constituents into sewer systems that could be hamrlUl to wastewater trQtment pr~. treatment plam . . personnel, or the ability of a planlto meet efflUent limitationS.. .These requh'emen1sare . impJementedthrough the NatioDalPolJUtantDischarse Eliniination. SYS'tein (NPDES) :. pennits iuued :by aWQCBs. AnnUal JCPOrl$.~m thepretreamic.l1~ programs $UbmiUedby. .. . the discharsm ale Jeviewed.by1he RWQCBs. .In addition, R WQCBs cOnch1ct ~ons periodically tomonito.r thescprosrams- . . . . . . . '. . "... . . - In the case of lnostwater r~Jamation projects, all af theconsti1Uellts ofconcemfoi'public health protection .wecOvere4 by tui7ent pretreatment progranis. 1here is the potential that. . fof. (eJ1ain ~ or .reuSe, j>anJculw-Iy inditect potable reuse, some constituents would llo.t . . come under ~ authoriiy"(rl' the .fedend siatutes .10 control through a pretrUunent program_ . -However, RWQGBJhave1bt:authorit),.to include addhionalptttJeattnentpiograin.. . . requirements or brOctdef sOtircecoiltrol requirements in. permits. Once $Ucb te.quiferi1ents.. . . . are a part of a pCimit, me wasteWater ajency wouJdbe obligated to .comply ~.~ the pennit . . and the RVlQCBwOuJd have authority to rnforcctbe requireiIlent. .. . F.PQ~Q)~ ~e~r $QJll1ly .SQ\JI~.~ ~~ntW Planned indire(lt.potable TC\lSO ofrecJaimed wattris commonly pra~ced in ~alifoi:Qia througharti.fitiaJ8Tound water lechalae with :reclaimed water.:F~ennore..iiid~t potable feuseis bein8propo~d throuih 1he intr9duction .of r~laimtd water into a water supplyrescJ'Voir ~t would "rYe as a raw water supply for a potabJe .wattt system. The . . .4.. . .. Department has the responsibiHty to identify when and under what conditions a raw water . supply is suitable for potable purposes. G. ~lor Cert1ficatiQO ! . The qualifications of operators of wastewater treatment plants are detennined by the S~CB (Water Code S<<tion 13627; California Code of ReguJationsTitJe 23~ Chapter 26, Sections 3670 et seq.).. Where water reclamation is involved, the SWRCB may require . operators to be certified wastewater treatnient plant operators. The water rei:Jamation .. criteria proznuJ&ated by the Deparlment states that operators of water recJ~tioi1 plants . shaH meet1he requirements for wastewatertrCatnlentpJant. operators ~ified by 1he . SWRCB (Califo1Dia Code ofReguiations, Section 60325). .. .. H. WaJ~ Rie\ta . Under certain conditions the use ofpotabJe water.for nonpotable purposes:is a ~. or . unreasonabJe use of watedfteeJaimed.wateris available (Water COde Sections .13550 et .seq.). Ifis the responsibility :oftheSWRCB to make detenniJultioils underthis.prQvisiQlL ..... The SWRCB.doesnot a$ a matter. of COuTsC make 1hi$ deier.mina.tkin;such detenriination . typicallYoc~ura ill ~ adversarial proce~ding after a cOmpJaint is filed. One of the .. . . .. . condjti~ of~ dde.iminatioi1.is that ~'is c:onCU11'fmCe with the Depam.nent that the use . . ; . ofreclWmed water. Will not be. detrimentaJ to public ~th. . . . - . Prior tomakinS;Q1y. cha.n&e in the point of discharge, .place of use or PlI!PO". of ~ of treated wastewater, the ()\VDtJ' of any wasteWater treatment pJanlmu$11>btainapprovaJ of. . . the SWRCB{Wat.r Co(te sections 12Io-1212}.1he Division ofWat"RiplS of the SWRCB revieW, and a~.tS on~h changes pwS\umt to the pl'Ovisions of~tiOn ..~ tt seq. of the California Wat~Code. If a chaDgcin. di~l:wBe Of use of.treattd ~ewater would CXCUl duCto a.wa1er.reclamation project \UldC~enin response to a discbarat . . re$tricti~ or oUleiaetion.by a.RWQCB .exercislng it$ regulatory authoritY under Di:vjsion 7 . (commenclng With SeCtion 13000) oftbe.WaterC9de, priot approvahmder Sections:]2JO-. .. 1212 is tlOhequired;~ ... . m. GENERAL PRINCIPUS: .. '. . . . . . -. - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . .. . .- . The seneraJ principles .hereby ~d to by the D~paronent,the S\VRCB, and the RWQCBS are as .. tollows: . . .. '.. . . .. . ... .. .... . . . . . . . . . . . ..A. All iequ~(o:rWaterreclam:ation requi.rementssubmined toa RWQCB PWluanttO.:. . . Section. 13.522.5 .$halJbe cOJ1$idered to be a itquest for revie'Jiby the ~partmentPUlSuarit . to Section:J 3554;2, since Depa.rtinental r~e'" and recommendationS are required by . .... Section .]3523. . -5- . B. Wh<:rever feasible. the D<:partm<:nt shaH u~ the issuance of water reclamation n:quirements . by a R WQCB as the preferred m<:tbod of granti,r;1g Departmental approval to a proposed project to avoid the issuance of separate project approvaJsby the Department. C. Reclamation requirements issued by the R WQCBswiJ) impose all applictble statewide reclamation criteria adopted by the Department and set forth in Title 22n:guJations. . .. D; The Department wiJJ identify in itsrecommcndations to a RWQCB with respect to . proposed water recJ~on requireJl)<:nts any conditions upon which .its approval ofa.. proposed.project is based. The RWQCB staffwiJJ incOlpOlilte any 14conditions of . apProval" .submittedaspart of the Department's recommendations into the.",ater . iecJamation requirem<:ntspropoml for adop1ion:by th<: RWQCB. . . . . - .. E.Each agency hereto, when cvaJuatingpolicies and procedures ofits programs that affect . water reclamation, shall wi1sult withtheothe:r agency before adop..ting new policies or . . procedUres. . . . . . F. Each agencyheteto Uall, tothC ~\un extent compatible with fulfillment of.its prjaw:y responsi~ility to protett and ~e public health and water quality, promote and facilitat~ .use of reclaimed \Valer in this S~e. . : - J . . . . - . . . ". . - . . ..;a~.Asthe primary enforoementagendes, the.RWQCBs will enforce all aspects of the water . tecJamationJ'equi.remenu mcJuding the Title 22regUla1ory reqtUrements.~ The Departmellt ... . will provide tecMiCal.J$$iSUU1Ce to the RWQCB$ in canyingout 1heenfofCem~t program. Where. a pul>tic water system is Involved in the.supplying or di.$lJ'ibution of the recJaUned Water~ the Departineut will U$e its enfofCement ~uthQiityovcr pubJi~ ~er syStems (such ~ ., . .. cro~ connection tOntrol) to assJst the R WQCBs 'in theu.enforcementeffortS." . . .. . . . . . . . :lV. PROGRAM PROVlSI.oNS.AND COMMITMENTS .' ..1Q~sutefu]fiJlmcnt .ot.:tbe p~ and'principles set forth in this MOA,1he agencies h~to ' . . CQnurUt themselves to'. the fQUoVt1.Da ~ticapproache,~d PToc.cchu'e.s: . . . ~ . i . . . ".' . . A..-The.RWQCjJs will.Submit copiCsQfproposedproject ~poJ1S or proposals 10 lise.reclaimed. \"'tlter.as.~ey.are receive.d rather.than w8iringW1til dt~ water1~1amation pentlit . . requirements are completed h1 orckt to allow adequate time for ",view a.nd, if necoS$al)'~ . . preliminary dbcusslon ~tween th.o.asencles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The De_ent asiees to review ~ respond to Water re<;Jamation pro~Sals and proposed wal~r l<<lamation .requirenienta Wi1hin 30 days of receiviD8.suchref~rraJ$ nom lhe R WQCB. . ShouJd the Department determin~ that the p10ject n:port is incolJlple1e: (per . \Vatet Code Section 1 35S4.2(e)], it Will hnm~diatelyirifonn th.c RWQCB and.indic~te the .additionaJinfomiation needed in.ofder to complete the review of the pJ'Qposedj)(Oject. . - 6- . . , I C. In the event a recommendation of the Department is deemed by the RWQCB staff to be inappropriate for indusion into water reclamation requirements. itwiU advise the appropriate District Office of the Department. The two agencies agree to meet andtl')' to resolve any differences. . . . D. When requested by the Department, the RWQCB slaffwUl incoIpOTate a condition into a proposed master pennit requiring the producer or distributor of the reclaimed water to . submit plans, specifications, reports, or other specified material, to the Depatmeill for . review and approval for speeified new uses or new use areas that 81CadQed .subsequent to . .. the issuance of the master pennit . . . . . E. uTheDepartment will incotpOrate into .any local delegation a requirement that the local asency abide by the tenns and co}1ditiOJl$ of this MOA in the same manner as .the . Department. ' . . . .: F. Wbend~emednece~bytheRWQCB,1he Departmerit will attend anyRWQCB meeting. or hearing to explain or defend any of the DepartmeJ1t'scondition$ of approval or . reconUnendations.. . .. . . G. TbeR WQCBs wiJldefer to the Department.with rCspecttQ any qJ,1cs:tionsmvolvmg . mterpretation of any TitIC 22crit~. . H. RWQCB Staffs wiJJoot Waive recl~tion n.:quirem~nts ~or propose waiver .ofreclamatio~. . reqWtements fotany proposed use ofrecJaim~d witm: WithoUt consultation with the . Dep~ent. ... ... . . - . .- - -. .,. l . The .agenciesWiU work jointly to dtvclop a d~n~1ive~tepl~t ofpo1iOY and appropriate.. . pidtlines-Tesarding th~ij)pUcabilityof1hesro~ water ietharg,rcgulatioJlS. to various . reclamalioJ). Ql \Va$~ewat" diJposal f4l.ciUties... . . 1. The agelicies agrectO keep each other info~ed of any a~ti9nS "latin,to specific PfoJccts ~d wUl1send copi" of ell correspondence with project-proponents or otbeJ'$ that relate to a _ . ~ci1ic project 10 1he ok asm.G)'~. .. .. ... . . . . K~. The De~e~t aarcts to try to Cooi4~t~ its efforts with .thQse ofJ()(a) heaith department$. . in order:to foatet a c;loser wOJtingrelationship)viUf loCal ,sendcs and to reduce an)'. . . . .potential con11icts for tho RWQCBs.. . . . . . . . . . ..' L. Jnrecognition of budget and staff llinitatlon$, tht asen~ies hereto may be Wlible to fulfill . ~l of the faS~ oU1Un~ herein and ~etefore, agree to commit to setting prioritieS that asSure public bealth protection~. . . . . ..1- . . f M. The R V;QCBs wi)) expeditiously notify the Department of ail signiflcantvioJationsof. reclamation requirements or improper reclamation uses within their jurisdictions. The Department will expeditiously notify the appropriate RWQCa of improper recl~ion uses or violation of rechunation requirements which beco~known to the Departmeilt . V.DISPUTE A. 'iD CONFLICT RESOLUTION .!tis the desire of the agencies hereto to ~blisha speedy, efficient, infonnal method for resOlution ofinteragtncy dispu1es~.pfoblems or cQn11icts. To that.end; except as otherWise provided ijJ.this .". . MOA,and to the extent not. inconsistent with anyJonn,u adminisua1ive appeals which may be : pending, the agencies agree that: _ . . . . . - . A. . Any concerns, isSues 01 disputes, arising between the RWQCB staffs and the Department . that cannot be resolved by meetings and diseussions between the RWQCBExecu1iVe Officet and the DepaItment's District Engineer win be. brought t6 the atte.ption of l!1e ExtcutiveDirector of the SWRCB. The Exe~utive DirectofwiJ] auempttoJeSO]ye the - matter to the satisfaction.ofbothpartics and wilJ, ifJieCe$Sal'y, meet and confer with the . Chief oftbe Departinent's DiviSion of Drinking Water ~d EnviromnentaJ Mqagement . . .B. NOUllngcontained hefeb! shall be.constnled to:depnve the Departnientoffonilal appeal. . .right.$-relativetoany $I1eged'RWQCB action .or jtiacuon. In the event o.fsuch an appeal, . the SWRCB willexped1te any review proceSs. - . V), MODIFICATION AND.PERlODIC REVIEW . .. . . . . - - . . This MOA.may be mOOintd in wri1ing at any time by mutual agreemenl.of the agencies hereto. . . . Propos~. Dl.odiflcations may.besuggested by any agency hereto atany1ime. . . - . . . The o8eJlcies hereto Win m,ct peljod.icaUy, noUess than once each. year, to di~ ~e actiollS of .! each. "tncy.telative 10 this. agreement,toC devlseand agree to appropriate activities for tl1e . . , forthcoming fis~ yqr~ and to cOnsldot additional actions and. ac1ivitie.s wltich each aeei1cy cM.take . .: .to beUer cootdinate theit.ac:tivitieS and.Mtber promote use of reclaimed water.in.the State. -". //~l~ . . ~&ri- .:. . . L,itector . . ~ .. ... ... . Executive Director. -.. . . ;7 Department of He31th Services. . state .Vlater Resource~Conirol Board .. Date: .. h~ lC{~ j" . Th.1C: .~r)~ fC, .. -8. .;-:." .' . .. d:\owr\moaJo.9$.wp JIlJ96 jo .' '. ..9.. . .' :tEo: ..... · oe v; MaIkenhorsI, City Adminislrata F ewis J. Pozzebon, Director . ebruary 28, 2005 Re: State Department of Health Services Delegation Agreement /7J) ". ~-- Environmental Health Depa ~~~(ll,loC; . D6 Memo As you are aware, reclaimed water will be utilized at the Malburg Generating Station (MGS) for cooling purposes. In order for the City of Vernon Environmental Health Department (VEHD) to perform required inspections at any Vernon site that uses reclaimed water, the California Department of Health Services must delegate inspectional authority to the VEHD. Required inspections include annual visits to confirm regulatory compliance, and thorough investigations every four years to probe for cross..connections. If it weren't for this delegation the State, or another local agency such as the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, would perform these inspections. Attached is a copy of the delegation agreement that was promulgated by the State. Generally speaking, this agreement does not obligate the City to perform regulatory activities relative to reclaimed water that are not already addressed in the City of Vernon/Central Basin Municipal Water District agreement already approved by the City Council. As we agreed, I already signed the agreement due to the urgency brought about by the fact that construction at MGS has progressed to the point where reclaimed water piping . . . To complete the delegation process, I request you schedul an item on an upcoml City Council meeting agenda for the Council to consi f'8titYing this aglfoo.lRefd. If ou have any questions, or require further inform . n g. Attachment Cc: Eric Frasch, City Attorney 4cIp:mydocslReclaimedWater/CBMWOAgreeApprov THOMAS A. YBARRA Mayor Pro-Tern WM. "BILL" DAVIS Councilman D/{~ JOHN KARNS Karns & Karabian General Counsel CITY COUNCIL LEONIS C. MALBURG Mayor KEVIN WILSON Director of Community Services & Water H. "LARRY" GONZALES Councilman STEVEN E. PARKER Fire Chief W. MICHAEL McCORMICK Councilman SOL BENUDIZ Police Chief BRUCE V. MALKENHORST City Administrator / City Clerk Chief Executive Officer of Light & Power ERIC T. FRESCH City Attorney LEWIS J. POZZEBON Director of Environmental Health CITY HALL 4305 SANTA FE AVENUE, VERNON, CALIFORNIA 90058 TELEPHONE (323) 583-8811 RORY BURNETT Gursey, Schneider & Co. LLP City Accountant March 7, 2005 / ~ q(, City Council City of Vernon Honorable Members: Reclaimed water piping will soon be installed at the Malburg Generating Station (MGS). In order for the City of Vernon Environmental Health Department (VEHD) to perform required inspections at any Vernon site that uses reclaimed water, the California Department of Health Services must delegate inspectionalauthority to the VEHD. The Delegation Agreement has been signed by the Director of Environmental Health. This has been reviewed by the City Attorney and it is hereby recommended that the executed agreement be ratified. Very truly yours, /-/~ Bruce V. Malkenhorst City Administrator/City Clerk BVM!ke "Exclusively Industrial"