City of Laguna Beach AGENDA BILL No. Meeting Date: 11/6/01 WASTEWATER GREASE CONTROL POLICY SUMMARY OF THE MATTER:

Transcription

1 City of Laguna Beach AGENDA BILL No. Meeting Date: 11/6/01 SUBJECT: SUMMARY OF THE MATTER: Grease is the second most frequent cause of sewer overflows in Laguna Beach and must be addressed to keep the beaches open and maintain clean ocean water quality. The following is an outline of the ongoing process to establish a grease control policy for the City of Laguna Beach: May 5, 2000 City Council receives a report on grease problems in the sewer system. Staff is directed to prepare an ordinance to control grease discharges in restaurants. March 14, 2001 A workshop is held on the first proposed grease control policy, one person attended. May 1, 2001 City Council considers the first proposed policy. Staff is directed to hire a consultant, inspect restaurants and return with a new policy. June 12, 2001 City Council awards a contract to ECIS to inspect restaurants and provide technical expertise on policy development. August 28, 2001 Restaurant inspections are complete. The City Council approves a new proposed policy for public comment and input through a workshop. September 25, 2001 A workshop is held to review the proposed grease control policy. Over 100 people attend and provide input and comments. November 6, 2001 Comments from the workshop are reported to the City Council and a public hearing is held. The comments from the workshop and the accompanying analysis and recommendations are shown on the following pages. (Continued) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1) Review the comments from the workshop and conduct the public hearing; and 2) Direct staff to make any necessary changes to the proposed policy, specifically in regard to recommendations #1 9 and I III. Appropriations Requested: $ Fund: Submitted by: Coordinated with: Attachments: Attachment A Proposed Wastewater Grease Control Report and Policy; Attachment B- ECIS report on technical questions Approved: City Manager

2 Page 2 On September 25, 2001, a workshop was held to review the proposed Wastewater Grease Control Policy, as revised by the City Council on August 28, Over 100 participants attended the workshop and many comments were received. In general, the comments focused on the short time frame for compliance; the cost to comply; the status of the economy; and questions regarding why cheaper technologies, such as grease traps and biological processes are not accepted. A copy of the proposed policy reviewed at the workshop is provided as Attachment A to this report. The following is a summary of the issues raised at the workshop. Comments and questions are grouped as General or Technical. GENERAL QUESTIONS: Month Requirement to install a Grease Interceptor and Remove Food Grinders Comments: More time is needed due to the current recession. Businesses are already getting hit with increases in workers compensation costs, insurance costs, minimum wage costs, etc. The terrorist activities of September 11, 2001, have made the economy even more uncertain. Contractors will take advantage of businesses because of the short time frame. The cost to install grease interceptors could put some small business owners out of business. Why does the City of Laguna Beach have to be first? A reference was made to the smoking policy previously adopted. After the meeting, comments were also made that the policy ultimately adopted should be applied fairly to all establishments. Staff recommends that the City Council consider these comments and determine if any changes to the time frame for compliance are necessary. 2. Should a Business Improvement District be formed to install grease interceptors? Staff analysis: Business Improvement Districts are generally formed for public improvements. Grease interceptors are an extension of the private plumbing for an establishment; therefore, private improvements. 3. Are low cost loans available to finance the cost of installing grease interceptors? Staff has contacted the State Resources Water Quality Control Board. There are some state programs that could provide some low interest loans, if the Board approved the loan application. The loans would have to be administered by the City or a local bank. The cost of administration is generally recovered through the loan process. It is not known how much administrative costs would be or how many businesses would be interested in such a program. If the City were to administer the loans, additional staff or a consultant would be necessary.

3 Page 3 TECHNICAL QUESTIONS REFERRED TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE INSPECTION SERVICES (ECIS): The following technical questions were referred to the City s consultant, ECIS, for analysis and recommendations. The recommendations follow the questions and are referenced in italics. Attachment B is the full report from ECIS explaining the basis for the recommendations. Should enzyme products and treatments be used? Recommendation #1 Should dishwashers be connected to grease control devices? Recommendations #2 & #3 Should bacteria products and treatments be used? Recommendations #4 A & B Should an effluent level be established? Recommendation #5 How effective are grease interceptors? Recommendation #6 Can more than one establishment use community or gang interceptors per the Uniform Plumbing Code? Recommendation #7 How effective are grease traps in comparison to grease interceptors? Recommendation #8 Should grease barrels be required? Recommendation #9 RECOMMENDATION # 1: It is the recommendation of this consultant that the use of Enzymes in any form or amount be prohibited from the introduction into the sewer collection system, either through a grease interceptor or grease trap, from any and all food establishments, either directly or indirectly. RECOMMENDATION # 2: It is the recommendation of this consultant that pre-rinse dishwasher discharge, be routed to the grease interceptor, and final rinse be prohibited from discharge into the grease interceptor. RECOMMENDATION # 3: It is the recommendation of this consultant that all dishwasher discharge be prohibited from being routed through an under-sink grease trap. RECOMMENDATIONS # 4 A & B: (A) That the City of Laguna Beach allow the use of bacteria as a means of treatment for wastewater containing food grease-oil, within an outdoor, underground, approved size and type grease interceptor only, contingent upon the full adherence to, and compliance with, all rules and regulations covered within the City of Laguna Beach Sewer Ordinance. (B) If the City chooses to explore the use of bacteria products, in the absence of grease interceptors or traps, it is recommended that an extensive testing process be conducted by a third party to determine if the bacteria is effective or not. If recommendation number 4 (B) is accepted by the City Council, City staff further recommends that: 4 B (1) The cost of any exploratory testing be borne solely by the vendor and establishments requesting to use the alternative technology; 4 B (2) An independent lab retained by the City, at the vendor or establishments cost, be set up to conduct the appropriate testing; and 4 B (3) That no time extensions be granted for testing alternative technologies.

4 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION # 5: It is the recommendation of this consultant that the City of Laguna Beach use the existing effluent limit of 300(mg/l), as set forth in the existing City pretreatment ordinance ( ), for Oil and Grease to evaluate alternative products and methods to remove grease from wastewater. RECOMMENDATION # 6: It is the recommendation of this consultant that the City of Laguna Beach consider an outdoor, underground, Grease Interceptor as defined by the UPC, constructed of pre-cast concrete, or other acceptable material, as the Best Available Technology and preferred method of installation and use, in order to effectively treat wastewater containing food grease and oil. RECOMMENDATION # 7: It is the recommendation of this consultant that the City of Laguna Beach allow the installation and use of Community Grease Interceptors. RECOMMENDATION # 8: It is the recommendation of this consultant that the City of Laguna Beach allow the installation and use of under-sink grease traps, as a last resort, and only when the installation of an outdoor, underground grease interceptor is proven to be not possible, or other circumstances defined and approved by the city, and all other methods, or Best Management Practices, have been exhausted. RECOMMENDATION # 9: It is the recommendation of this consultant that the City of Laguna Beach require the installation and use of a grease barrel for those establishments that also require a grease interceptor or grease trap. STAFF SUMMARY OF THE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM ECIS: One of the most difficult issues to address regarding grease control is the effectiveness of alternate treatment processes, such as biological (bacteria) and enzymes processes. These processes can be substantially cheaper than grease interceptors, but have not withstood the test of time and vendors can produce only limited evidence of their effectiveness on other wastewater collection systems. The City s consultant (ECIS), staff at the EPA and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, and staffs in the Cities of San Diego, Los Angeles and Riverside, have cautioned Laguna Beach to be skeptical of alternate treatment products. Grease interceptors are widely believed to be the Best Available Technology. Biological products are proclaimed to be different by each vendor. If the City Council adopts the recommendations from ECIS, the resulting policy will establish an effluent limit on oil and grease of 300 mg/liter of wastewater and a stringent testing process for new technologies claiming to meet this level. Staff further recommends that an independent third party do the testing and that the cost for testing be borne solely by food establishments and vendors seeking to utilize the new products. No time extensions are recommended for establishments experimenting with alternate treatment programs. This policy modification would allow for the possibility of new technologies to remove grease from the wastewater by establishing performance standards and a thorough evaluation process. Additionally, the risk and burden of proof is placed on the food establishments and vendors willing to experiment with new products to save money.

5 Page 5 Enzymes temporarily break down grease and allow it to reform further along in the collection system, resulting in a possible blockage. ECIS recommends that enzymes be completely prohibited from the wastewater collection system. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CITY STAFF: Planning Commission Exemption Process When the City Council revised the proposed grease control policy on August 28, 2001, it was determined that requests for an exemption to installing a grease interceptor be referred to the Planning Commission for action. Staff is concerned that exemption requests are going to be unique for each establishment and involve site and economic issues. Given the complexity of the requests, and the costs involved, staff believes a majority of exemption requests will be appealed to the City Council anyway. Any opportunity to streamline the process will help both staff and businesses. City staff will already be challenged to implement the grease control program within existing resources. RECOMMENDATION I: Staff recommends that the City Council modify the proposed policy to have exemption requests heard directly by the City Council. Revocable Encroachment Permit (REP) Currently, Revocable Encroachment Permits are approved by the City Council. The proposed policy allows the issuance of an REP by the City Council if necessary to encroach into the public right-of-way to install a grease interceptor. RECOMMENDATION II: In order to streamline the approval process and minimize the administrative burden on staff, it is recommended that the proposed policy be modified to allow the issuance of REPs by staff. Waiving Permit Fees Installing grease interceptors is an expensive proposition for food establishments, but interceptors are the Best Available Technology proven to remove grease from the wastewater system. Staff is proposing that a $60 fee be set to recover the cost of plan checking and inspection for installation of a grease interceptor. A revocable encroachment permit (REP), if necessary, currently costs $260. Additionally, a plumbing permit and a Public Works permit are estimated to cumulatively cost $60, depending on the size of the job. The estimated cost of plan checking and permit fees, not including a revocable encroachment permit, is $120. If a REP is needed, the estimated cost increases to $380. RECOMMENDATION III: Staff recommends that the fees for checking grease control plans be set as described above. Also, as an incentive to install grease interceptors, it is recommended that these fees be waived for interceptors installed and functional within 18 months.

6 Page 6 ALTERNATIVES: 1. Modify the recommendations on the current grease control policy as appropriate. 2. Rather than mandate grease interceptors, the lines could be cleaned more frequently and grease interceptors could only be required from establishments producing the most grease on troubled lines. Food grinders would still be eliminated from all establishments. It is difficult to determine what level of cleaning would be necessary to appropriately mitigate sewer spills and how many grease interceptors would be required. Staff would have to approach the problem on a trial and error basis to determine the appropriate cleaning frequency. The following chart describes various cleaning frequencies and the additional estimated cost to the establishments deemed to be discharging grease: Additional Estimated Annual Cost to each Establishment Cleaning Frequency (High - Low) Monthly $2,700 $2,100 Every 2 Months $1,200 $900 Every 3 Months $700 $600 The above chart assumes costs are applied equally to each establishment and does not take into account the cost of grease interceptors required for specific establishments. The risk in this approach is that if additional cleaning is not effective, or not considered aggressive enough by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City could face expensive fines. 3. Seek grants to assist with the cost of installing grease interceptors. This alternative has no guarantee that funds in any significant amount will be available. Grant funding often comes with restrictions and can take months or years to get approved.