Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-09-13COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) September 8, 19~{2 'I'O: MEMBERS OF THE BOAHDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DIS 1LHICTS NOS. l.z_ 2, 3, _ _?, 6 1 7, P.ND 11 Gentlemen: '1 1he next regular meeting of the Boards of' Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5) 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, Ca1:1.f'ornia, will be held: \'lednesdc:.y evening, September 13, 19r{2 at 7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley: Califo~nia Tentative adjournments prior to next regular meeting: District No. 1 -5:00 p.m., September 26 Executive Committee -5:30 p.m., September 26 TELE PH ON ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 ll I II II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS 1 County Sanitation Districts 1 of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS September 13, 1972 -7:30 p.m. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call P. 0. Box 8127 10844 ~llis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 AGENDA / ADJOURNMENTS •••• ~ COMP & MILEAGE ... ~ ...... FILES SET UP ......• ~"'"' RESOLUTIONS CERTIFlED,k""' LETIERS WRITTEN ...... ~ MINUTES WRITTEN .... ~ MINUTES flLED ........ ~ ~.~ :#-~ (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary .·~J·· --- (4) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving minutes of the following meetings, as nrailed: <"I .District .1 August 9, 1972 regular ·*'' .!I•:' District 2 August 9, 1972 regular, F August 30, 1972 adjourned, and September 6, 1972 adjourned ,.,{ .. ~i;~ .;.:-~·i· ,. District 3 August 9, 1972 regular District 5 August 9, ·1972 regular and August 29, 1972 adjourned District 6 August 9, 1972 regular District 7 August 9, 1972 regular District 11 August 9, 1972 regular ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Chairman (6) ALL DISTR.Icrrs Report of the General Manager (7) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the General Counsel \ (8) ALL DISTRICTS ---·-··············-- * * * * * * * *·* * * CONSENT CALENDAR All matters placed on the consent calendar are cqnsidered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered separately in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the CQnsent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter the item to be removed from the consent calendar. * * * * * * * * * * * The Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. (b) Consideration of motion approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the plans and specifications for Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. I-8-3. See pages "D" and "E" Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue purchase orders for acquisition of the following: FILE .................. { ~(I v Two (2) Automatic Sewage Samplers (Vacuum Type), Specification No. E-063, to Sirco Controls Company in the amount of $5,077.50. LETTER ••••• :........ . "'> ') A/C •••• TKLR •••• fl'' \.J) --··-iiii~~=~=--:··.--·· ./ \ -~ \o D L ... \'9 LETTER + ....... ~... It A/C .... TKLR .••. Three (3) Automatic Sewage Samplers (Peristaltic Type), Specification No. E-064, to R. C. Hoffman Company in the amount of $8,080.80. -··············· (c) Consideration of motion to ]'eqeive and file Stop Notice --··-·················F1LEh •••..••.•.•••..•• from Envirotech Corporation, Municipal Equipment Division, LETTER······---in the amount of $29, 673. 40, plus interest thereon at ·the A/C .•.. TKLR •••• :J...,ate of 8% per annum from August 1, 1972, in connection with construction of Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester -·········-······-· "K" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-l 7 ---··················· ~ (d) FIL'E ····\ .......... . LETTER ···\·········· A/C •... TKLR •••• Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 5, to the plans and specifications for Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester "K" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-17, authorizing an addition of $1,316.03 and granting an extension of time of 38 calendar days to the contract with J. Putnam Henck, a Corporation. See page "F" -2- PILE ............ .,, :( e ) lEtrER ......... . Consideration of Resolution No. 72-120, accepting Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester "K" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-17, as complete and authorizing execution I A/C •••• TKLR .... I ~---········-....... of a :Notice of _Co_I!!i:Ll-_~t_ion. See page "G" I --·-·--er) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 4, FILE ·······-··-····· LETTER __ .:. •• -.. ... A/C •••• TKlR ... . ··--····--........... ~~-..'i--•• ':.- ·-------···-·······=·==-=::~ FILE ············fg) LETIER .............• A/C •••• TKLR •••. FILE •••• , •••••• of.ft) LmER •• L ....... . A/C \~ ••• TKLR •••• -·-···-~·-··········· -·-·········· .. ··-rr) ~--:2: AIC .... TKLR •••• -············· .. ·····- -~ .. -.............. ___ to the plans and specifications for Sedimentation Basins "L" and "M" and Digesters "L" and "M" at Plant No. 2, _Job No. P2-19, authorizing an addition of $16,017.25 and granting an extension of time of 67 calendar days to the contract with J. E. Hoagland & W. W. Hoagland, a Joint Venture. See page "H" Consideration of Resolution No. 72-121, accepting Sedimentation Basins "L" and "M" and Digesters "L" and "M" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-19, as complete and authorizing execution of a Notice of QQm~letion. See page "I" Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 5, to the plans and specifications for Interplant Influent Interceptor, Job No. I-8, with Kordick ' Rados, a Joint Venture. See page "J" Consideration of Resolution No. 72-122, approving License Agreement with Orange County Water D~strict for right of way and injection well sit~ in connection with previously executed agreement for supplying secondary treated effluent to the Water District and the return of an approximate equivalent amount of concentrated brines from Water Fa~tory 21. See page !! K". (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any (10) ALL DISTRICTS FILE .......... ;·/(\\ \ s ::::~:..:~-s Consideration of items re Activated Sludge Pilot Plant work -·········j#' ( \ i.;1> FILE .......... Et. LETTER \:~E .. ~ .... (a) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order to East Bay Municipal Utility District for purchase of Contact Stabilization Package Sewage Treatment Plant rated at 30,000 gallons per day, for the amount of $15,005.00 plus tax. See pages "L" and "M'' (b) Consideration of motion authorizing the staff to issue a purchase order for transportation of the Contact Stabilization Package Sewage Treatment Plant from Oakland to Huntington Beach A/C •••. TKLR .••. -·-····················· ,,.Jc) Consideration of Resolution No. 72-123, approving plans · FILE).t.··~·····c--7 and specifications for piping and appurtenant work for ···-····--·--········O .. LETTER~-~-----Installation of Pilot Activated Sludge Plant, Job No. AJc •... TKLR .... Pl-16-P, authorizing advertising for bi-ds, and authorizing --··-················· District No. 1 to award contract at its discretion. (-11.~D .V" --·············-······ See page "N" r=---- ,-). ~11_) ALL DISTRICTS ~-" " · . i-Consideration of report of Special Flood Prevention Committee. --~ See page "O" .. ···~ (12) ALL DISTRICTS :f\J\ \ s Consideration of motion to receive and file certification of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the agenda, found them to be in order, and that he recommends authorization for payment (13) ALL DISTRICTS Considera:~on of roll call vote motlon approving Joint Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving fund warrant books for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing payment of claims listed on page "A" -3- ~14) ALL DISTRICTS i Other business and communications, if any (a) File~ .. :!. .. ~~-~ Consideration of motion authorizing the participation of a Board member and a staff member of the Districts at a meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' Special Committee on Federal Ocean Disposal Regulations -1.ETTER ••••••••.•..•. A/C ••.. TKLR .••. in Washington, D.C. or a location to be determined, to be scheduled in September or October; and authorizing reimburse- ment for travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred for said meeting. (See Memorandum in meeting folder) ----·············· (15) 1t\\ \ s (16) (17) '111.e ~-..Jl8) ..-->--....___ r~c.... ~R-••••••• ~ •• .,WC .... TKLR .• "!\\ \ s (19) (21) (22) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any See page "B" R{STRICT 2 ~ Obher busines~ and commun-~ons, if any DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn q:~o DISTRICT 3 Considera~ion of motion accepting proposal of Moore & Taber, dated August 18, 1972, for soils investigation in connection with construction of Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract No. 3-18, for a lump sum fee of $3,500. See page "P" DISTRICT 3 Progress report of Special Committee .Studying Connection Charge Policy ~ --/::_dB , --;:'? ;-~ DISTRICTS 3 & 11 Consideration of motion approving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "B" DISTRtCT ·3 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any. See page "B" DI§.TRICT -:3 Ot~r business ~d comm"ttn.ications, if any (23) DISTRICT 3 (24) FILE ........... -- LETTER ···---ffl \ s A/C •... TKLR •••• Consideration of motion to adjourn fj: i::>"Z DISTRICT 1 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-124-1, to recetve and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract --ror-Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. I-8-3, to E.T.I. and Kordick, a Joint Venture, in the amount of $1,290,000. See page "Q" ~ DISTRICTS 1 & 7 Consideration of motion approving suspense.fund warrants, (26) N\ \S ( 27) (28) if any. See page "C" DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any See page "B" NSTRIC,T 1 Other biisirte,ss and"C9mmunic-ations, ~any DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn to September 26, 1972, at 5: 00 p-:m. q·, 5 3 (29) DISTRICTS 5 & 6 Consideracion of motion approving suspense fund warrants, if any. See page "B" -4- ) . I (30) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any See page "B" (31) DI§±~ICT 5 ~ ~ Other business and communications, ----u any (32) DISTRICT 5 ·consideration of motion to adjourn 'f'. ::S~ DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any See page "C" ( 3lt) 15)§.TRICT 6 ------- Otfier business8:nd comm~Qns, ·if any (35) (37) (38) ,FILE __ ,k,, .. m ( 4 0 ) LETTER ---····· A/C _.TKLR --·· N\ \ S (41) FllE~"h\ \S LETTER--- A/C .•.. TKLR ··t 4 2 ) ~----···· -----·-···-···· (It 3) (It 4) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn Cf~ -5 $ . DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion approving warrants, if any See page "C" DI§TRICT 11~ ""'' Other business and communid-ations, if any DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn Cf· .5_3 DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from City of Tustin, dated August 8~ 1972, authorizing the transfer of $276~000 from the City's County Sanitation District Number Seven Main Trunk Fund to District No. 7 for construction of the West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR; and authorizing the General Manager to issue a letter of agreement accepting the stipulations set forth by the City that they be authorized to use uncommitted District No. 7 main trunk funds for further-repairs to Red Hill Avenue, and other streets in which District sewer facilities have been installed, caused by trunk sewer trench subsidence, subject to approval by the District's staff as to the methods of said repair. See page 11 R" DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-125-7, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR, to Bo-Mar Construction Company in the amount of $1!72,680.00. See page "S" DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 72-126-7, authorizing and directing the condemnation of certain real property requifed for construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR. See page "T" DIS~RICT 7 ConSlderation of motion approving warrants, if any See page "C" DIST}\ICT 7 Other bu~in~s and c~unications, if any DISTRICT 7 j/ Consideration of motion to adjou~r. 9~-"5; -5- MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain· Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS REGULAR MEE TING Wednesday, September 13, 1972 7:30 p.m. Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 September 8, 1972 The following is a brief explanation of the mo re important non- rout ine item s which appear on the enclosed age nda and which are not otherwi se self-explanatory. Wa rrant lists are not attached to the a ge nda since they are made up i mmed iately preceding the meeting but will appear in the complete agenda availab le a t the me eting . Joint Boards Nos . 5 and 6 -REPORTS OF JOIL-i'"T CRl\IRMAN AND GE NERAL :ViANAGER : Un d er these items , Mr . Win Adams and Mr . Bill Dendy , Chairman and Exe cutive · Officer, r espectively, of the State· Water .Resources Control Board; will be here to discuss the rec e ntly adopted Water Quali ty Control Plan, Ocean Wa ters of California. Joint Chairman Finnell and I met with these gentlemen .at Sac r amento on Au gust 16 wi th respect to the Districts' recent r equest for a hearing on the p l an . As a result of our meeting$ Mr . Adams and Mr. Dendy agreed to meet with t he full Boards of Directors next Wednesday . A copy of a pre ss clipp ing about this matter is attached to this report. No. 8 -CONSENT CALE NDAR : Th e following agenda items fall into this category in accordance with the definition established by the Bo a rds: (a) (b) Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to Plant Job No. I-8-3 . Thi s job ,. Influent Me tering and Divers ion St ructure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, is scheduled to be awarded by District No. 1 (Agenda Item No . 24). During the bidding period it was necessary to issue two addenda to clarify c e rtain techni- cal points. We rec ommend adoption of the addenda as included with the agenda ma ter_ial. Purchase o f Automatic Samplers . In connection with experimental work to be conducted to improve treatment (see Items· 8(e) and 9) it will be necessary to install a total of five automatic samplers of two different t ype s, one for raw wastewate r and the other for treated waste - water. Principally because Federal guide lines on the operation of treatment plants fin anc i a lly as sisted b y the (c' Environmental Protection Agency require accurate automatic sampling, there has been a great interest in developing samplers which are reliable and accurate. Two types have shown considerable s uccess at other treatment facilities, a peristaltic type for raw wastewater and a vacuum type for treated wastewater. At the present time there is only one manufacturer of each type which have proved to be satisfactory elsewhere and, accordingly, there was only one bid for each type. We recommend the award of purchase of three peristaltic samplers to R. C. Hoffman Company at their bid price of $8,080.80 and two vacuwn type samplers to Sirco Controls Company at $5,077.50. These samplers will give us a chance to evaluate both types and makes in order to determine which to purchase in the future as required by the Federal guidelines . d, & e) Completion of Plant Job No. P2-17. This job, Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester 11 K11 at Plant No. 2, was successfully completed by the contractor, J. Putnam Henck, this week. It will become operational immediately and enable us to carry out the planned experimentation on improved treatment through physical chemical means as previously discussed with the Boards. This research effort is expected to be supported by the State Water Resources Control Board on a matching basis and, in fact, the State Board 's staff is quite anxious to see the exp e rimental work proceed as rapidly as possible . An agreeme nt for support of the project by the State will be prepared and presented to the Boards in the very near future. In order to close out this contract, we recommend that the three actions appearing on the agenda be adopted by the Boards. Item (c) is a routine action to make a public record of the filing of a Stop Notice against the contractor which apparently resulted from a dispute over payment for equipment supplied . Item (d) is Chang e Order No. 5 adding a total amount of $1,316 .03 and g r anting an extension of time of 38 days to the contract for re asons detailed .in the formal change order included with the agenda material. Item (e) is the customary resolution accepting the job as comple te on · September 8 and authorizing filing of a Notice of Comp l etion. The construction of this project is receiving 80% State and Federal funding. (f & g) Completion of Plant Job No. P2-19 . This job, Sedi- mentation Basins L & M and Di geste rs L & :M at Plant No. 2, was also successfully completed by the contractor, J, E. Hoagland and W. W. Hoa g land, A Joint Venture, this week. Construction of this project is also being supported by 80 % State and Federal funding. Its completion will provide additional primary treatment capacity at Plant No. 2 to -2- match the increasing flow of wastewater being treated at that plant. In order to close out the job we recommend the adoption of Change Order No. 4 (Item (.f)) adding $16,117.25 to the contract price and granting an extension of time of 67 days for the reasons set forth in the formal change order included ·with the agenda ma terial. It will be noted that the two largest items in Change Order No. 4 are for change s recomme nded by the engineers and staff involving extra worlt caused by a change in the grading plan and the installation of gunite surfacing rather than asphalt paving on the berms of four sedimentation basins, including those constructed under the contract. Item (g) is the customary resolution accepting the work as complete as of September 8 and authorizing filing of a Notice of Completion. (h) Change Ord er No. 5 to Job No. I-8. This large contract, Int erp lant Influent Interceptor, is rapidly nearing comp letion many months ahead of schedule. During the past month very unstable peat lenses were encountered in sub- grade for approximately 1100 feet requiring over-excavation as much as 8 feet and replaceme nt of the unstable material with bedding gravel. Accordingly, the contractor was instructed to proceed w:l.th the additional ivork at his unit price bid of $7.50 per yard. In addition, two changes were necessary with respect to the connection of the existing Ellis Avenue Force Main to the job as de sc ribed in the forma l change order included with the agenda material. We therefore recommend adop tion of the change order at a total additional cost of $13,365.50. . ( i) License Agreement for R:Lght of_ Way for Orange Cou nty Water Di strict Facilities . The recently executed agreement between the Sanitation Districts and the Water District which provides for supplying of sec ondary treated effluent to the Water District and the return of an approximate equivalent amount of concentrated brines from 11 Wate r Factory 21" also provid es that the District will supply, at no cos t, right of way across Districts' property for connecting pipelines and a site for one injection well. Th e license agreement h as been c are fully drawn to protect the Sanitation Districts' interes ts, now and in the future, and it is recommended for approval. No. 10 -ACTIVATED SLUDGE PILOT PLANT: The Directors will recall that at the time the design of the 46 mgd activated sludge plant at Plant No. 1 was authorized earlier this summe r, the engineers strongly recom- mended that the Districts undertake a pilot plant activated sludge operation prior to reaching decisions on the final design of the full scale plant. At that time, it was known that the East Bay Municipal Utility District had a surplus 30,000 gallon per day pilot unit which was available for sale to the highest bidder. At the June Joint Board meeting I was authorized to enter a bid not to exceed $10,000 for the -3- .. unit and, subsequently, a bid for this amount was tendered to EBMUD . Unfo~tunately, another party submitted an identical bid . The EBMUD Procurement and Supplies office determined that the two tie bidders should submit new bids for the unit. On the recommendat ion of our enginee rs (se e letter included with the agenda material) I entered a n ew bid of $15,005 which we have been notified was successful. Accordingly, I ·am r ecommending that the staff be aut horized to issue a purchase order in this amount for the unit (Item lO(a)). The unit will r equire trucking to Plant No. 2 (Item lO(b)) where it will be set up and connected under cont rac t (Item l O(c)). It is planned that the Pilot Plant will be operated for several months under various loadings and types of influent. The design enginee rs ar e quite anxious to undertake this test work as soon as possible and acc ording ly we a r e expediting the acquisition and installation of the unit as much as we can. During the period it is operating the require d l aboratory work will be performed by our · personnel. The pilot program will be under the direction of John Carollo Engineers . This project will have a ve r y important side b enefit in that it will prov ide our operators the opportunity of gaining experience in the actual operation of an activated sludge proces s after the pilot ·work is completed .. No. 11 -REPORT OF SPECIAL F LOOD PREVENTION COMMITTEE: This Comm ittee, composed of Directors Just (Chainnan), Caspers, Coen, Davis and Porter, has been meeting with the staff and representatives of the eng ineering st a ffs of the cities represented by the above Directors . A memorandum from our Depu ty Chief Engineer summar i zing findings to date is included with the agenda material . The Commi ttee i s a lso meeting at 7 :00 p .m., i mmediate l y prior to the Board meeting, and it is anticipated that recommendations from the Committee will be forth- coming at the meeting . District No . 3 No. 18 -SOILS INVESTIGATION FOR CONTRACT NO. 3-18: This project, now under design by Boyle Engineering, will carry the Knott Inter- ceptor to We stminster Avenue and is expected to be ready for bidding shortly after the f irst of next year . The d e sign engineers have requested that a limited soils investiga tion be undertaken prior to final design and the staff has according ly requested a proposal from Moor e and Taber of Anah e im for an investigat ion and professional report on subsoil conditions (see memorandum f rom Deputy Chief Eng i- ne er included with the agenda material). We recommend the proposal be accepted . No. 19 -PROGRES S REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON CONNECTION CHARGES : This r ecently appointed Committee is. compo sed of Chairman Culver and Directors Fox, Green, Herrin and Stephenson . It is anticip ated that Chairman Culver will wish to make a brief report, bringing the othe r Directors up to date on the Committ ee 1 s activities . -4- District No. 1 No . 24 -AWARD OF PLANT JOB NO. I-8-3: The next scheduled Plant project to be constructed is the Influent Me tering and Diversion Structure at Plant No. 1 . Bids were op ene d on August 17 (see bid tabula tion attac hed to the agenda material) and we are r ecommen ding that the job be awarded to E.T.I. and Kordick, A Joint Venture, at their low bid price of $1 ,290,000 which is exactly $200,000 below the eng ineer 1 s estimate . This project is a vital link in our inter- plant transf er and me tering syst em and together with the Interp lant Influent Interceptor, now unde r construction, will provide the me ans for diverting poor qua lity wast ewa ter to Plant No. 2 in order to make Plant No. 1 sec ondary effluent more desirable for reclamation and will also allow construction of further primary treatment faci lities and a new headworks a t Plant No. 1 to be deferred for approximately eight years. We have been assured that this project will receive 80 % State a nd Federal financial assistance. No. 28 -ADJ OURNMENT : Bids for the installation of the activated sludge pilot plant unit (Item No . 10) will b e opened on September 25 and it is r ecomme nded that the Board adjourn to September 26, immedi- ately preceding the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Executive Committee, for consideration of award of a contrac t . District No. 7 No. 39 -·LETTER FROM CITY OF TUS'I11N REGARDING FUNDI NG OF WEST RELIEF TRU NK SEWER: As rec ent ly direct e d by the Board l etters were sent to the cities o f . Tustin and Santa Ana r equesting funding of this project, which is now ready for a1·mrd (s ee It em No . 40), from their re spec ti ve District No. 7 connection charge funds. Such a letter from Santa Ana agreeing to this funding was r eceived and filed at the Au gust Joint Board meeting. · We are now in r ece ipt of a letter dated August 8 from the City of Tustin (copy include d with the agenda material) also agreeing to the funding proposal. It will be noted that the letter proposes a stipulation providing that the City be authorized to use District No. 7 sewer funds for further repairs to Red Hill Avenue and possibly other streets caused by trunk sewer subsidence . The s taff recommen ds acceptance of this stipulation in the form of a letter of agreement which should also provide that the District 's staff would be consul ted as to methods of repair prior to the City 's undertaking s u ch work . 'No . lta -AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR : Bids for this project, the West Relief Trunk Sewer, ·were op ene d on August 24 (see bid tabulation included with the agenda material). A record number of 18 bidders submitted proposals, ten of which we r e under the engineer's estimate of $605,687. The staff and engineers are recommending that the job be awarded to Bo -Ma r Construction Company at their low bid of $472,680 . No . 41 -ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR CONTRACT NO . 7-5-l R: Construction of this project will require the acquisition of ease- ments at several locations, principally through the Mabu r y Ranch -5- and the Santa Fe Land and Improvement Company property near Edinger Avenue and the Newport Freeway. We recommend that the General Counsel be authorized to file a court action for immediate possession of the necessary easements in order that construction may proceed while we are ne g otiating with the landowners. Attachment -6- Fred A. Harper General Manager B2 The REGl STER F_ri dc:y (s) Sep tember 1, 1972 ST t\iE PRO JECT ........... · .. · PB ii sc· ~ I 1an ~ o uea n ,,,. .... "t y ·' Ocean Given O!, ay , SACRAMENTO (UPD -The to pay for up to 80 per cent Of fo deraJ, E nviro nmental Protec-the cost of new facili.tic s. · . ' tion Agency (EPA l has ap-A bout 85 to 95 per c ent of proved a comprehensive plan to subs tances such as a r se nic , . clean up California's ocean mercury 2nd DDT will be waters an d preven t their required to be removed from poll ution by ·sewage, m ercury waste with no variances per- and DDT. mitted. ' The new stringent standa rds I Barred outright will be are desig~ed to m ake th e d!sc ha_rges. of high-leve_l r~­ wa ters pure enou ah to swim d1oac ti ve waste, r ad1ologi.c ~afely anywhere al;na the coast chemic al_s, biologica l watiare up to 1,000 feet out to sea and age nts and municipal indu strial SO feet under the water. sludge. ! The sta te Water Hesour ces · The ~ew s~an~ards will be· Co ntrol Board, which d-:veloped phased m begi~rung ne xt year. t he plan over an 13-mo nt h Enfo rcement will be up to the . period , estimated that $870 s~ate. EPA approv al of th~ new ! m illion would be ret1uired for p.an was announced 'I1m r sday.:J c onstruction of sewai;e treat" m ent and otht!r polluti on control facilitie s. J\lost of th e sum will be borne by local governments with private indu stry carrying $100 milli on of the burden. "This plan . greatly streng~ t hens California's water quality stand ards and has set a l pr ecedent for far-sighted stan· d ards development," Paul De- Falco Jr., r zgion al EPA direc- t or, said in a letter to Gov. Ron ald Reagan. "The ocean plan will prove to be of gre a t value in co nse rving t he hi gh quality of coastal \waters for future ge nerati ons of Californians," DeFalco said . Currently, 55 m un icipa l plants and 34 industries each day dump more than 1.2 billion gallons of waste into the ocean, about 30 per cent of the nationa l tota l, t he state wate r b oard said. The new standards require ge condary treatment of sewage b efore it can be pum ped into the ocea n. Mun icipalities may 2pply for state and feder al aid County c ~c Di slikes Parts Of VVate r Plan By JOE CORDERO Re gister Staff Writer ..... ,., ORANGFJ-A stand against some provisions of the Wate r Quality Plan for Ocean Waters l()f Californ ia, recently adopted ·by the state Water Re so ur ces :co ntr o l Board, was voted !Thursday by directors of the 'o ran ge County Chamber of Commerce. . "We're b e in g a sked to achieve standards that for ex- ceed practical lim its at a sub- stantial co st ($96 million),'1 re- 'rna rked director Jim Workman. Board members ci ted pro vi- sio ns or the pla n which are more r estrictive for waste out- fall in~o the ocea n than the \ a ll owable sta.ndards for drink- ing water . Specifically men - . tion ed were the content criteria fo r arsenic , chromium and zinc . The pla n's s tand ards ru.1d the n the drinking wa tet• standards for these subs tanc es are: AJ.'- senic, 10 parts per billion in sewage, 50 in drinking wa~er; chro"mlum, 5 and 50, and zm c, .300 and 5,000. . . "I sup port \,he ·general intent I of the plan but not some of the . proposed limits," said Car l Kyml a , bo ard chairman. Allud-· · in g to t his count);'s r ecognized . . state leadership in the water sanita tion field di rector Be au ~Clemens added , "We're being ! pe nalize d for others' shodcom- . ings ." The board approved what sev- . eral called a "guts out" presen- . tation against multiple parts of · the plan to be made by a cham· ber task force at the 7:30 p.m. Sept. 13 meeting o{ the County SaI'Jtation Di s tricts board of directors. Scheduled to present an ex- planati on of the pl an c.t that m e e t i n g are Wilm Adams , chairman, and Bill Dendy, exec· utive officer, of the state Water Resources Cuntrol Board . The meeting is slated for the sanita- tion dis trict offices, 108 44 Ellis Ave ., Fountain Valley. MEETI NG DATE Sept . 1 3 , 1972 TIME 7 :3 0 p .m . DISTRICT S 1 ,2 ,3,5 ,6 ,7 &1J ' I D 1 ST RICT, 1 ACTIVE DIRECTORS (HE RR IN)··· .CGRISEf:> · • • ~ __ -- (CA S PERS) •••• ~A l II ~ .... (W-ELSH) •••••• MI LLER..... 1/ === == l~NGER) •.••• !KOWA L.SK I) • • • GR I S ET).···· HOLLIND~N) • • RO BER TS)···· !CASPERS) •••• RE I NHARD T) •• DU TTON) ••••• (CASTR O) ••••• (POTTER) ••••• DIST RICT 3 PORTER • • • • • 1 / ___ _ FO X .•• · • · · · HE RR IN····· JUST •• • • · • • NEV IL • • • • • • PHILLIPS ••• ROOT ••••••• S TEPHENSON. WEDAA •.•••• WINN ••••••• ~ .. :. / ___ _ (CAS PERS ) •••• ~.... ,:;7--__ _ !HINES) ...... DAVIS ...... -~ KOWALSKI) ••• FOX........ ~--__ COEN) ••••••• GREE N •••••• _____ _ (GR I SET) ••••• HERRIN····.: :::;;----- {FRANKIEWICH). LACAYO····· ~--- (NUIJEN S ) •• • • LHHS • • • • • • V ---- (M ILLE R) ••••• LONG •••••• I !:::::::...~ -- MC WH I NNEY • t.../"/ __ -- 1 . ) l7 )REINHARD T I. ~OO T: ••••• I C;7 ----. l BLAC KMA N) •••• SALES .•••••• _____ _ (HO LL I NPEN ) •.• SCOT T • • • • • • --b.L;--__ !DUTTON) ••.••• ST EP HENSON. +--__ ROBERTS) ••••• STEVENS ~~ •• __ __ BYRNE) .•••••• VANDERWAAL • _1 / __ _ DISTRICT 6 ~ ~ -_ (Pf1 ILLI PS) .. ~:::: v (M~ Hff8 1 ... ·~ · ·. ·. · ~ ___ _ DIST RICT 7 ~ . (WEL SH) .. • .. MILLE ..... ~---- (CA SPERS ) • • • • C • • • • · • ~-- (H ERRIN) • • • • • GR I SE T····· ~---- PORTER •••• • ------ (FI S CH BACH) ••. QUI GLEY ). •• ~--__ (M c INN Is) •.•. ROGERS ••••• -4----(P~REZJ •••.•• SMITH •••••• ~ ___ _ Dl"'S'f RI CT 11 .). (COE~) ...... ~ ...... (CA St--f:RS ) ..• ~ .•.••• ( C 0 EN ) • • • • • • • DU KE • • • • ._,. • DI STRICT 8 . BOYD ••••••• (CLARK ) .•••.•• CASP ERS • • • • MITCHE LL •• -. ?/31/7 2 JO I NT BOARDS ACTIVE DIRECTORS LANGE R" •.••• FI NN ELL ••••• ~ _·_ CASPE RS) •••• BAKER ••••••• ~ CASPERS ) •••• BATTIN •••••• ~=== CA SPERS ••••• (CASPERS) •••• CL ARK ••• _.... ~ == CUL VER •••••• .J..L_ __ !HINES) ....... DAVIS ....... 1/ __ COEN) ........ DUKE ........ _LL __ KO WA LS KI). • • • FOX .•••••••• ~ __ (COEN) ........ GIBBS • .. • .. • , _--__ (COEN) •••••••• GREEN •••• • • • -1...L --- (HERRIN) •••••• GR I SE T •••••• ~__....----- (GRISET) •••••• HERRIN ••• ·.·~-­ (HOLLI NDE N) ••• JUST •••• • ••• ~-- (MC INNI S). • • • KYM LA • • • • • • • L _../' -- (FRANK I EW I CW· LAC AY O······~-­ (NUIJENS) ••••• LE WI S······· ~ - (MI LLER ) ...... -LO NG ••••• • • • -1....::::::::. -- ( CROU L) ...... ,rf4€=z::I tm"i S •••• ~-- MC WH I NNEY • • ~-- (WELSH) ••••••• MILLER ••• • • • ~--- (ROBERTS) .•••• NEVIL .•• •••• ~-­ (CASPERS) ••••• PHILLIPS····~-- PO RTER ••• ···~ -- (F ISCHB Act-J) ••• QUI GLEY ····· ~ -- (MC I NN IS ) ••• • ROGERS······ ~ __ (REINHA RD T).·· ROOT········ ~ -- (BLACK MAN ) • • • SAL.ES • • • • • • • ~ -- (HOLLI NDEN). • · S COT T ······· ~ --- (PEREZ ) ....... SM I TH ...... ·~-­ (DUTTO N) ••..•• S TE PHE NSO N.. ~ -- (ROB ERTS) ..... STEVENS ·.··· ~ -- (MC IN N I s) .... STORE •••••• 1fk a__.. __ (BYRNE ) ••••••• VANDERWAA L •• ~-- (CASTRO)·· • • · • vJEDAA • • • • • • • ~ -- (POTTER) ...... WINN .... • .. • ~-.- OTHERS * * * * * · BOYD········ ---- MITCHELL • · • • ---- HARPER BROWN SYLVE STE R LEW I S DUN N CL ARKE SIGLER NISS ON TAYLOR BROYlN BOETTNER CARLSON FINSTE R GALL OWA Y HO HENER HO WARD HUNT KE I TH LYNCH MADDOX MARTI NSON MU RO NEY PI ERSA LL STEV ENS RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS September 13, 1972 -7:30 p.m. WARRANT NO. 18628 18629 18630 18631 -"632 ~633 18634 18635 18636 18637 18638 18639 18640 18641 18642 18643 18644 18645 18646 18647 186J.+8 18649 18650 18651 18652 18653 18654 18655 18656 18657 18658 18659 18660 18661 18662 18663 18664 18665 18666 18667 18668 18669 18670 18671 18672 18673 18674 18675 18676 18677 18678 18679 18680 18681 682 ~683 18684 18685 18686 18687 18688 18689 JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Ace Automotive Equipment Co., Auto Parts $ Advance Electric, Equipment Repair All Bearing Service, Inc., Bearings, Couplings Alpine Aromatics, Inc., Odor Control Chemicals Ameron, Sealer Arnot Controls, Valves City of Anaheim, Power Anaheim Dodge, Truck Repair Anaheim Sewer Construction, Lateral Repair The Anchor Packing Co., ·Pump Parts Bank of America, Bond & Coupon Collection Barnes Delaney Industrial Products, Belting, MO 3-8-72 Bell Pipe & Supply Co., Valves Bells Radiator Service, Truck Repair Black & Decker Mfg. Co., Equipment Repair Bomar Magneto Service, Inc., Magneto Repair Bristol Park Medical Group, Inc., Pre-employment Exams Brooks Instrument Division, Metering Equipment Burke Engineering Co., Tools Cal Glass for Research, Inc., Lab Supplies Cal State Seal Co., Engine ·Parts California Auto Collision Inc., Truck Repair California Collator Sales, Reproduction Supplies California Motor Express Ltd, Freight State of California, Safety Manuals Certified Laboratories, Inc., Solvents Chemical Rubber Co., Manual Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., Engine Parts Brian Chuchuas, Truck Parts Clayton Manufacturing Co., Equipment Parts College Lumber Co., Inc., Building Materials Connell Chevrolet, Truck Parts Consolidated Electrical Distr., Electrical Supplies Constructors Supply Co., Rope, Hardware Paul A. Cooper, Grit Removal Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Costa Mesa County Water Dist., Water County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of L. A. County, Disposal Fee Crosby & Overton Transportation Co., Oil Removal Clarence S. Cummings, Employee Mileage C. R. Davis Supply Co., Water Hose John M. Deck, Equipment Parts Deckert Surgical Co., First Aid Supplies Del Chemical Corp., Solvents · Dennys Refrigeration & Heating, Equipment Repair Diamond Core Drilling, Core Drilling Diesel Control, Governor Repair Dominguez Marine & Industrial Supply Co., Valves Ducommun Metals & Supply Co., Steel Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Industrial Report Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies Electric Supplies Distr., Electrical Supplies Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Research & Monitoring Fischer & Porter Co., Telemetering Supplies Fisher Controls Co., Regulator Parts Freeway Machine & Welding Shop, Machining Larry Fricker Co., Weed Oil City of Fullert-::m, Water Garden Grove Lumber Co., Building Materials General Electric Supply Co., Electric Supplies General Telephone Company Georgia Pac~fic Corp., Chlorine A-1 AMOUNT 20.90 . 30 .00 766.73 546.oo 298.73 113.40 17.62 177.78 75.00 17.99 473.41 2,171.40 122.35 115.49 22.25 224.39 25.00 1,999.00 157.55 388.46 31.72 106.30 118.08 7.86 33.60 241.62 37.41 26.46 25.64 192.58 824.23 6.21 1,037.07 192.09 i,128.00 275.67 6.oo 33.04 76.80 30.42 59.85 25.20 71.74 144.65 62.20 38.00 16.43 150.53 236.62 743.88 206.26 204.12 2,550.00 94.93 782.97 24.oo 110.25 4.97 225.44 474.43 l_,780.69 1.)258.61 WARRANT NO. 18690 18691 18692 18693 18694 18695 ,0 696 »I#697 18698 18699 18700 18701 18702 18703 .... 18704 18705 18706 18707 18708 18709 18710 18711 18712 18713 18714 18715 18716 18717 18718 18719 18720 18721 18722 18723 18724 18725 18726 18727 18728 18729 18730 18731 18732 18733 18734 18735 18736 18737 18738 18739 18740 18741 18742 18743 18744 18745 J8746 ~747 J.0748 18749 18750 18751 18752 1875-3 18754 IN FAVOR OF Graybar Electric Co., Inc., Electrical Supplies $ Hadleys, Office Supplies Hanson, Peterson, Cowles & Sylvester, Audit Services Fred A. Harper, Various Mtg. & COD Expense Harrington Industrial Plastics, Piping Supplies . Hewlett Packard, Lab Supplies Honeywell Industrial Division,· Telemetering Supplies House of Trophies, Engraving Howard Supply Co., Piping Supplies City of Huntington Beach, Water Huntington Beach Equipment Rentals, Paving Equip. Rental Industrial Water Conditioning, DI Lab Water Inland Nut & Bolt Co., Hardware Ingersoll Rand, Compressor Parts J & M Service, Equipment Repair Johnston Pump Co., Pump Parts Kar Products, Electric Supplies, Hardware Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipe Supplies, Valves King Bearing, Inc., Bearings, Belts Kingmann White, Inc., Telemetering Supplies Kleen Line Corp., Janitorial Supplies Knox Industrial Supplies, Hardware LBWS, Inc., Welding Supplies, Tools, Hardware L & N Uniform Supply Co., Uniform Rental The Lacal Company, Inc., Pump Packing Larry's Building Materials, Inc., Building Supplies Judy Lee, Employee Mileage Lewis Bros. Battery, Truck Parts, Batteries A. J. Lynch & Company, Hardware Mc Camey-Jones, Inc., Chlorinator MO 6-14-72 R. W. Mc Clellan & Sons, Inc. Building Materials Mc Donnell Douglas Automation Co., Reproduction Mc Coy Ford Tractor, Tractor Repair Majestic Fasteners Co., Hardware Mesa Supply, Groundskeeping Supplies Metermaster, Inc., Parts Moore Products Co., Compressor Parts E. B. Moritz Foundry, Manhole Ring & Cover Mutual Callis Propane, Welding Supplies NCR Systemedia Division, Forms, Programming Nalco Chemical Co., Cleaners Nates Saw & Lawnmower Shop, Inc., Saw Sharpening City of Newport Beach, Water c. Arthur Nissan, General Counsel Retainer Noland Paper Company, Reproduction Paper Oakite Products, Inc., Cleaner Occidental College, Ecology Trawl Orange County Chemical Co., Solvents Orange County Radiotelephone Oreo Plastics, Tubing Pacific Telephone Palm Stationers, Office Supplies Parker Supply Co., Gauges John J. Phillips, Employee Mileage Lee Potter Co., Inc., Maintenance Supplies Douglas E. Prebie, Employee Mileage The Register, Subscription Relief & Control Valve Mtce., Compressor Repair Richey Electronics, Telemetering Supplies Robbins & Myers, Inc., Pump Parts Santa Ana Blue Print Co., Printing Santa Ana Book Store, Inc., Manual Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Repair Sargent Welch Scientific Co., Lab Supplies Security Iniustri~lt Supply Co., Vahres . A-2 AMOUNT 749.43 15.75 759.00 192.53 35.54 177.92 289. 7.0 27.35 752.32 46.37 117.60 40.00 256.16 670.42 50.61 1,872.63 273.47 281.03 464.54 l.J5.16 126.42 142. 54 664.35 1,562.08 1,167.85 79.02 44.46 172.46 76.39 2,373.00 49.70 36.00 819.99 386. 91.i 78.75 88.52 40.53 131.20 91.49 209.15 1,782.48 6.55 208.74 700.00 332.33 ·199.82 325.00 21.74 49.46 19.85 399.12 18.90 132.30 118.50 142.96 53.70 16.50 537.52 157.08 306.32 113.16 5.09 211.76 205.18 1,585.40 WARRANT NO. 18755 18756 18757 18758 18759 18760 -'"'761 .~62 18763 18764 18765 18766 18767 18768 18769 18770 18771 18772 18773 18774 18775 18776 18777 18778 18779 18780 18781 18782 18783 18784 18785 18786 18787 18788 18789 18790 18791. 18721 18722 18723 18795 18796 18797 18798 18799. 18800 18801 18802 . '<303 ~04 18805 18806 18807 18808 18809 IN FAVOR OF S. F. Serrantino, Employee Mileage Sherwin Williams Co., Paint Supplies A H ~h;n~~y Tnc Tru~k ~;r 0 s · 4. .. • u ... l:' ..... ._ ' -'-• ' "-"' \-..1.. .1-....... John Sigler, Employee Mileage Smith Bros. Co., Pipe Supplies · South American Aquarium, Ecological Research Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Company Southern California Water Company Southern Marine Supply, Hose Southwest Processors, Oil Removal Sparkletts Drinking Water Corp., Bottled Water Speed E Auto Parts, Truck Parts Standard Oil Company, Gasoline & Oil Standard Ready Mix Concrete, Concrete John W. Stang Corp., Pump Parts Dutch Stark Co., Equipment Parts Starow Steel, Steel Steverson Bros., Oil Removal Sully Miller Contracting Co., Paving Materials Surveyors Service Co., Survey Supplies Bruce Taylor, Employee Mileage Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Manual Thayer Steel Rule & Die Co., Die Cutting Transport Clearings, Freight Tustin Plumbing & Heating, Lateral Repair Harry Twining, Employee Mileage US Equipment Co., Inc., Compressor & Pump Parts Union Oil Company of Calif., Gasoline Vaniman Camera, Photo Supplies & Processing John R Waples R.S., Odor Consultant Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Inc., Engine Parts Robert A. Webber, Employee Mileage Western Salt Co., Salt Wilson Engine & Equipment, Filters, Seals World Travel Bureau, Inc., Meeting Travel Expense Donald J. Wright, Employee Mileage Xerox Corp., Reproduction Service Zep Manufacturing Co., Janitorial Supplies Zodiac Paper Co., Reproduction Supplies TOTAL JOINT OPERATING CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF $ Bruning Division, Office Equipment $ Carollo and Keith, Survey I-8 John Carollo Engineers, Eng5neering -Plant Constr. Daily Pilot, Bid Notice PW-024, E-062, E-063 .& E-064 ETI & Kordick, Contractor P2-ll-l Ficker Architects, Architectual Services Pl-9-1 & J-4-1 J.E. Hoagland &·w.w. Hoagland, Contractor P2-19 Kordick & Rados, Contractor I-8 Metermaster, Inc. , Tools B. H. Miller Corp.: Contractor J-7-2 & J-12 Monroe, Office Equipment Perkin Elmer, Lab Equipment Tiernans Office Equipment, Office Equipment Twining Laboratories J. Putnam Henck, Contractor P2-17 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTIJ'ltY REVOLVING $ AMOUNT 11.85 294.74 117.87 25.65 10.07 20.73 22,363.25 1,764.43 3.20 15.90 191.60 110.72 299.15 4,184.78 137.00 1,127.89 288.79 259.07 141.85 787.96 41.76 11.10 15.50 52.98 14.71 100.00 26.46 722.93 81.21 175.37 210.10 3,529.29 30. 36 74.56 395.72 532.00 37.50 1,003.92 116.55 395.99 84,292.36 309.75 3,682.00 33,328.52 20.27 36,840.00 633.37 57,507.25 761,223.00 413.70 38,554.51 441.79 281.35 168.58 39.20 13,225.67 .946 _. 668. 96 ======= TOTAL JOINT OPERATING & CORF $ 1,030,961.32 A-3 DISTRICT NO. 1 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT 18809 18810 18811 18812 18813 18814 18815 18816 18817 18818 18819 18820 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Services, 1-13 Freedom Newspapers, Inc., Bid Notice, 1-13 DISTRICT NO. 2 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Lowry and Associates, Engineering Services, 2-14-2 Richard Terry & Associates, Environmental Impact Study, 2-14-2 DISTRICT NO. 3 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF $ 2,115.00 72.76 $ 2,187.76 $ 15,994.09 4,343.83 $ 20,337.92 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Services, 3-17, 3-17-1, and 3-18 . $ 21,603.50 Southern California Water Co., Facility Relocation 3-14 ~~2~'~5~0-~_._0_J DISTRICTS NOS. 3 & 11 SUSPENSE FUND WARR.ANTS IN FAVOR OF Boyle Engineering,Survey 3-17 Joseph R. Callens, Temporary Easement 3-17 J. F. Shea Co., Inc., Contractor 3-17 DISTRICT NO. 5 OPERATING FUND WARR.ANTS IN FAVOR OF City of Newport Beach, Connection Administration FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Fairbanks Morse, Inc.,Sewage Pump & Drive,Co~t. The Irvine Co., Loan Agreement Payment -B- 5-12-B $ 24,103.50 $ 1,431.25 1,050.0~ 263,880.0J $ 266,361.25 $ 408.00 $ 11,343.36 182,628.JO ~ 193z971.36 ~ 194,379.36 1 DISTRICTS NOs-·5 & 6 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR O~ 18821 Shuirman~-Simpson, State Highway Permit 5-19 -B-1- AMOUNT 192.14 DISTRICT NO. 7 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF 18822 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Services 18823 FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Donald F. Shaw, Refund Connection Fee -c- $ $ $ AMOUNT 194.oo 4,036.25 4,230.25 A. PLANS . •-,-~. ~-J.'"I."--.... --~ August 4, 1972 ADDE1IDUM HO. 1 TO SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS FOR INFLUENT METERING AND DIVERSIOH STRUCTURE AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 JOB NO. I-8-3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA .. . Page 1 of 2 I. Drawing G-5 Not· withstanding notes to contrary, the Contractor shall remove and relocate within Reclamation Plant No. 1 the trees shovm to be removed. The Contractor shall take such measures as necessary to ensure that the trees disturbed by the removal and relocation remain alive. The Contractor shall ~eplace with a sinilar size and kind any tree that dies within one hundred and eighty (180) days after being relocated. The Contractor should allow for up to 20 additional trees, other than those shown on the Plans, to be removed. The trees will not include any of the eucalyptus type. The Districts will pay the Contractor One hundred Dollars ($100) for each of the additional trees directed by the Engineer to be relocated over and above those shm·m on the Plans to be relocated. II. Drawing S-1 et. al. Comp~cted sand fill material has been detailed under the metering and diversion structure. The Contractor may supply gravel. fill material .as specified in the STANDAF.D SPECIFICATION in lieu of the sand fill material. III~ Drawing P-1 Add to the table "D-Load for R.C.P. Design" 36" R.C.P. bypass pipe D load shall be 2800 11 • IV. Drawing S-10 Should the stem size shown as a minl.Imun on the drawing not be compatible with the operator model number, the operator shall be sized to suit the stem. V. Drawing G-5 All new areas of asphalt paving shall receive a Agenda Item #8(a) D-1 All Districts Augu~t 4,-1972 Page 2 of 2 ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO SPECIFICATIOIJS AlID PLAHS FOR INFLUENT r.mTERING AITD DIVERSIOii STRUCTURE AT FECLPJ1ATIOil PLANT NO. 1 -JOB HO. I-8-3 COUNTY SAl'aTATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA minimum of four inches of aggregate base course and a minimum of three inches of asphaltic concrete in ac- cordance with the STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. Pavement shall be placed to elevations indicated and all areas shall be sloped to drain a minimum of one percent. Entrance roads shall be C!rm·m~d two J-nches. B. DETAILED SPECIFICATIONS. ' I. Page 44-2, Section 44-2(a) General. In the fifth paragraph change r:The meters shall be constructed with polyurethane liners, ... "to "The meters shall be constructed with neoprene lin~rs, •.. 11 II. Pag~ 33-2 Section 33-5 SEQUENCE OF WORK Add after the first sentence in limitation nwnber one the following: ·"The existing Allis Chalmer' s pump in the Sunflower truI1k pwnping station shall be removed by the Contractor and delivered to the Districts. Engine pump units in the dry well of the pwnp station will be removed by others after temporary bypass is complete and bulkhead removed. It shall be the Contractor 1 s responsibility to provide necessary means to dewater·the 36-inch bypass pipe during repair of the Sunflower Trunk and putting into service. Agenda Item #8(a) Add after the first sentence in limitation number four the foliowing: "Sewage flows· will not be inter- cepted .into the Santa Ana River Trunk within the t.L~e allowed for this .. project." JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS ·w~~ Vfalter Howard D-2 All Districts ·. August 11_, 1972 Page 1 of 1 ADDENDUM NO. 2 ·TO SPECIFICATIONS AND PLANS FOR INFLUENT METERIHG AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE A. PLANS AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 JOB NO. I-8-3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF · ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I. Drawing J-7 The 84-inch RCP Santa P.na River Trunk shall be ~onstructed with the upper 300° lined with PVC liner in lieu of 240° indicated on Detail C of Drawing J-7. II. Drawing S-11 Agenda Item #8(a) Not withstanding notes to the contrary, all handrail shall be fabricated from·l 1/2-inch Schedule 40 alwninum pipe. All handrail and 2-inch walk-way support piping shall be given a 215-Rl anodized finish following fabrication. Detail E on Drawing S-11 shall be modified to incorporate a standard splice assembly complete with stainless steel fasteners. Splice assembly detail shall be subject to the Engineer's approval. .. -. .. ' County Sanitation Districts · of Orange County ~.~~?:£~ General Manager . ------·---------- -E-All Districts COU!~TY S.:\:;ITATIO:~ DISTRICTS Of ORA~~GE cou;rry P. O. Box 3127 -108~4 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHANGE OIWER C.O. NO. 5 __ .:;.,__ ______ _ DATE Seotember 13, 1972 COi~TPv\CTOR: J. PUTNAfl[ HENCK, A corporation JOB: Sedimentation Basin K and Digester K at Plant No. 2, Job No·. P2-17 Amount of this Change Order (ADD) ~~KDliG~~ In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the' c6ii'tract and/or contract Hark are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from tl1e contract price are hereby approved. .. REFERENCES: Contractor's letters dated 6/30/71; 1/14/72 (2); 3/21/72; 3/31/72 (2); 4/3/72; 4/6/72; 6/15/72; 8/23/72; 9/7/72 ADD Districts' correspondence dated 1/25/72; 3/31/72; 4/5/72; 6/11/72 Remove and relocate undisclosed utilities near Digester E & H as directed by the Engineer Rental of temporary boiler capacity due to de- lays in electrical connection requirements ADD 316.03 ADD TOTAL ADD 1,000.00 ·1, 316. 03 TIME EXTENSION To accomplish the above items the Contractor is hereby granted an extension of contract time of 38 calendar days. SUMMARY Original Contract Date Original Contract Time Original Completion Date TOTAL TIME EXTENSION 38 cale!!dar days March 10, 1971 365 calendar days March 9, 1972 Time Extensions Previous Change Orders Time Extension This Change Order Revised Contract Time 145 calendar ~ays 38 calendar days 548 calendar days September 8, 1972 Revised Completion Date Hoard authorization date: ~tember 13, 1972 J. PUTNAM HENCK Agend~ Item #8(d) Original Contract Price Prev. Auth.·Changes $i, 164 t 540 I 00 This ·Change (ADD) (.XNID~ $ __ 1 .... __,_3 _..1 6..., ....... 0"'-3.....__ __ Amended Contract Price $i .. 199, 440. 00 -F- Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California By _________ ~~~--~~------------..---C]n e f Eng1nee1 JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS All Districts ·RESOLUTION NO. 72-120 ACCEPTING JOB NO. P2-17 AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING·SEDIMENTATION BASIN "Ktt AND DIGESTER "K" AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-17, AS COMPLETE * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINED AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, J. Putnam Henck, a corporation, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for SEDIMENTATION BASIN "K" AND .DIGESTER "K" AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-17, on September 8, 1972; and, Section 2. That by letter, John Carollo Engineers, District's engineers, have recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract; and, Section 3. That the Chief Engineer of the District has concurred in said engineers' recommendation, which said recommenda- tion is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 4. That Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester "Kn at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-17, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated March 10, 1971; and, Section 5. That the Chairman of District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13, 1972. Agenda Item #8(e) -G-All Districts cou:;ri S,\:;1T,\TIO:~ urs1;~ICTS OF O~\~:GE cou:;ry P. O. Box 3127 -108~4 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHA~~GE OIWER l C.O. ;;o. L~ CO~TRACTOR: J.E. Hoagland & W.W. Hoagland ~~~~~~~~~~-DATE September 1 ~, 197.2 JOB: SEDH1ENTATION R\SINS "L" & 11 M11 AND DIGESTERS 11 1 11 & "M" AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB uO. P2-19 T!ME EXTENSION ~ For the above ·additional work the Contractor is hereby granted an extension of contract time of 67 calendar days. SUMMARY Original Contract Date Original Contract Time Original Completion Date TOTAL TIME EXTENSION 67 calendar days June 24, 1971 Time Extensions Previous Change Order (3) Time Extension This Change Order 330 calendar days May 19, 1972 45 calendar days 67 calendar days September 8, 1972 Revised Completion Date ·... .... - Board authorization date: ~~ptember 13, 1~72 ~ JOID~ CAROLLO ENGINEERS Agenda Item #8(f) Original Contract Price $1,~83,000.00 Prev. Auth. Changes $ __ .-:.5~6~,6~4~7~.o~o~~- CO' s 1,2 & 3 This Change (ADD) ~tm.Tu $ __ 1 __ 6;;..._;;,...;o;..,,.1....,1 ...... _2 __ 5 __ Amended Contract Price S1,455,664.25 H-2 Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California J .. E. HOAGLAND & W.W. HOAGLAND By~-----~~~~~~--,:;-=-::-:r:-:-~:-r.-:::~~­Con tractor All Districts cou:~TY S:\:nT,\TIO:\ DISTi~ICTS or-O!·~\::G!: cuu:~TY P. O. Box 3127 -lOS·•·i Ellis ,\venue Fountain Valley, California 92708 CHANGE OIWER c. 0. :-:o. 4 CONTRACTOR: J.E. HOAGLArm & W.W. HOAGLAND A Joint DATE S_e_p_t_e_!Tl_.b_e_r ____ l_,,3,.....,-1-9-7-.2-- Venture JOB: SEDH:ENTATION BASINS 11 L11 & "M 11 AND DIGESTERS "L" & 11 11111 AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-19 Amount of this Change Order (ADD) ~mNMl!k() $ 16,017.25 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the co"'!T'fract and/or contract h·ork arc hereby authorized and as conpensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. . .. References·: Contractor's letters dated (7)-August 25, 1972, July 19, 1972, July 17, 1972, July 6, 1972, June 1"3, i972, May 30, 1972~ April 4, 1972, April 3, 1972, March 22, 1972, March 21, 1972, December 9, 1971 Districts' letters dated July 18, 1972, July 12, 1972, April 11, 1972 March 31, 1972, March 10, 1972, December 29, 1971 Drawings II Proposed· ·Guni te Berm" E-1 Rev. 1 and E-2 Rev 1 ADD' Raise twelve inch drain line cleanouts and manholes "B", II C11 ' 11 D11 and "E" to new paving grade Delete asphalt paving and install 3-inch rei.nforced gunite surfacing on berms of Sedimentation Basins 11 I 11 , 11 K 11 , 11 L 11 and 11 M 11 Install pressure reducing valves in Sedimentation Basin water system Relocate dewatering system· from Flood Control Channel to in-plant drainage Install additional light fixtures in Ella and Harris Tunnels Overl·ay existing paving to provide required drainage Install fabricated pipe supports for the 6-inch digester gas back flow prevention loop . 2eroute steam piping in Scott and Harris Tunnels ~.Provide surveying for project tunnel layout, paving, berms and piping as directed by the Engineer ADD ADD ADD .ADD ADD ADD ADD ADD ADD TOTAL ADD Agenda Item #8(f) H-1 $ 4,737.00 . 337.00 929.50 202.40 190.00 182.00 2,000.00 $16,017.25 All Districts RESOLUTION NO. 72-121 ACCEPTING JOB NO. P2-19 AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING SEDIMENTATION BASINS 11 L" AND 11 I"'i'' AND DIGESTERS "L" AND "M" AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-19, AS COMPLETE * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, J. E. and W. W. Hoagland (A Joint Venture), has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of' the contract for SEDIMENTATION BASINS "L" AND "M 11 AND DIGESTERS "L" AND "M" AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-19, on September 8, 1972; and, Section 2. That by letter, John Carollo Engineers, District's engineers, have recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms o.f the cont.ract; and, Section 3. That the Chief Engineer of the District has concurred in said engineers' recommendation, which said recommenda- tion is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 4. That Sedimentation Basins "L" and "M" and Digesters "L" and "M'' at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-19, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefore, dated June 2~, 1971; and, Section 5. That the Chairman of District No. 1 is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13, 1972. Agenda Item #8(g) -I-All Districts cou:~TY S:\:~I'L\Tic:; DISTi~lC!S OF O!·~.\.<GE cet;::TY P. 0. l::ox 3127 -1Q(.).i4 Ellis .-\venue Fountain Valley, California 92708 l C.O. hO. 5 CONTRACTO;t: KORDICK & RADOS, A ·Joint Venture ----=--~~----~~~~-DATE Seotember 13, iq72 . JOB:~ ___ __. __ ~I_I_~T~E_R_P~L-~_N_T __ I_N_F_L_U_E_:_~T.__;I~i-~T~·E~R.;;...;,...;_C~E~P~T~O~R~,.~J~O~B~r-TO~.:--;I~--8...__ __________________ ~~--- Amount of this Change Order (ADD) X12~lmtt) $13,365.50 ~· In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract an<l/or contract Hork arc hereby authorized and as cor:1pcnsation therefor, the following additions to or dcc.luctions f~om the contract price are hereby approved. .. .. -References: Unit Prices for Unanticipated Work. ADD ·- Contractor's letters and invoices to the District dated July 25, 1972 Change Order No. 2 The contractor was instructed to place additional bedding material due to deep layers of peat from Station 165+00± to Station 176+20±. The peat in this area reached a depth ·o:f as much as 8-feet below· the pipe, making a total of 1564 cubic yards additional bedding at a unit cost bid price of $7.50/cu. yd. ADD The contractor was directed to remove and relay four sections of 36-inch RCP due to a grade change that would better match the force main extension junction box.shown on Sheet 44 of the plans. The contractor was directed to clean.the force main ex- tension junction box shown on Sheet 44 of the plans and a portion .of the ·36-inch RCP force main which was filled with se·wage inadvertently by the District's personnel. ADD TOTAL ADD Original Contract Price Prev .. Auth. Changes CO's 2, 3 & 4 $11,730.00 1,444.12 191.38 $13,365.50 $6,387,5i1.oo This Change (ADD) ~CfX):: $ __ 1--=3:::...,~3;._6~5_. ~50 __ _ Amended Contract Price $6,466,201.84 Board authorization date: Approved: S~e~ber 13, 1972 CAROLLO & KEITH Agenda Item #8(h) -J- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of Orange County, California KORDICK & RADOS, A Joint Venture By -------~~--~~---------~~~----- All Districts ·RESOLUTION NO. 72-122 AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND INJECTION WELL S~TE A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR RIGHT OF WAY AND INJECTION WELL SITE * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain License Agreement for Right of Way and injection well site, dated ·hereby approved; and, Section 2. That County Sanitation District No. 1, as agent for itself and County Sanitation Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, is hereby authorized and directed to enter into said agreement granting pipeline and injection well site right of way at Treatment Plarit No. 1 to Orange County Water·District>in connection with previously executed agreement dated August 9, 1972 for supplying secondary treated effluent to the Water District and the return of an approximate equivalent amount of concentrated brines from Water Factory 21; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1 are hereby authorized and directed to execute said License Agreement for Right of Way and injection well site, in form acceptable to the District's General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13, 1972. Agenda Item #8(1) -K-All Districts JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS PHOENIX ARIZONA JOHN A. CAROLLO, P.E. < 1906-1971 > H. HARVEY HUNT, P.E. HOWARD M. WAY, P.E. ROBERT G. WILLIAMS, P.E. DONALD R. PREISLER, P.E. GAIL P. LYNCH, P.E. LAFAYETTE CALIFORNIA Mr. Fred A. Harper, General Manager County Sanitation Districts .. of Orange County P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Pilot Plant Purchase SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA 3690 MT. OIABLO BOULEVARD LAFAYETTE, CALIF. 94549 AREA CODE: (415) 283-3895 August 21, 1972 Following notification that the $10, 00-0 bid that the Districts entered for the pilot plant owned by EBMUD was high but exactly equal to a bid submitted by another party, we have reevaluated the worth of the pilot plant to the Districts. Our reevaluation is based, not on the market value of the equipment which we had previously estimated to be $10, 000, but rather on the cost to the Districts of alternate methods of obtaining or constructing a pilot plant and the delays that would be involved. This reevaluation indicates that $15, 000 would be a realistic cost that c~uld be focurred. We understand that the two tie bidders may resubmit bids which will be opened Thursday, August 24, 1972. We have no way of knowing what the other bidders will bid, but we recommend that the Districts bid a dollar or two more than $15, 000 to attempt to avoid another tie bid. A portion, or maybe all, of this cost should be recovered by the Districts as we understand part of the costs of the pilot plant work will be borne by the grant program; in addition, the pilot plant equipment should be resalable following completion 9£ the project. Very truly yours, JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS ~M.l ~·Yul /~p Howard M. Way HMW:kp Agenda Item #lO(a) -L-All Districts EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT County Sanitation District&. of Orange County, California P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 <'_; EAST BAY I WATER 2130 ADELINE STREET. OAKLAND. CA 94623 • (415/ 835·3000 August 30, 1972 Attention: Mr. Fred A. Harper, General i1anager Dear Mr. Harper: Your b~d to purchase the sewage treatment plant in the amount of $15,005.00 plus sales tax $750.25 for a total amount of $15,755.25 has been accepted. It is understood that you will be taking possession of the plant approxi.ilately the week of September 18th. Any further questions or assistance in regard to this transaction may be directed to .a.. O. S;·:endsen. / truly yours, ~--~Q s .S ;.,.~ C-\\:;r ~( aul S. Lindquist} Supervisor Procurement and l-'la. terials _________ ..._ ............... _~ ____ .. __ ,..,..._...,-.._..-_ __ ~-{:.----. .,,.--.. ------ ROS:mm BOARD OF DIRECTORS DEWITT w. ~RUE:Gc""· PR£SIO£,.,T. ROBERT T. NAHA.S. Vice PR£~1L>£NT •.• c. CARRINGTON. G HOWARD ROE>INSCN. CHA."H.~ ~ J WRIGHT Agenda Item #lO(a) -M-All Districts RESOLUTION NO. 72-123 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR JOB NO. Fl-16-P A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFI- CATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF PILOT ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT, JOB NO. Pl-16-P * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by John Carollo Engineers for INSTALLATION OF PILOT ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANT, JOB NO. Pl-16-P, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That said bids will be received until 11:00 a.m., September 25, 1972, at which time said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Boards and the Districts' Engineers be authorized to open said bids on behalf of these Boards of Directors; and, Section 5. That District No. 1 be authorized to award contract for said Job No. Pl-16-P on behalf of these Boards of Directors, pursuant to Section 4755 of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California as their judgment is best. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13, 1972. Agenda Item #lO(c) -N-All Districts ME M·O RAND UM TO: Flood Hazard Prevention Ad Hoc Committee FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Deputy Chief Engineer SUBJECT: Status Report No. 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 September 8, 1972 On July 12, 1972 the Ad Hoc Committee for Flood Hazard Prevention met to define the flood hazard problems affecting the joint works of the Districts. In attendence at this meeting were Directors Just, Porter, Davis and Coen; George Dsborne, Chief Engineer, Orange County Flood Control District; H. Harvey Hunt and Walt Howard from John Carollo Engineers and Ray E. Lewis of the Districts. General discussion centered around a recent report from the Corps of Engineers stating that the areas of Huntington Beach ard Fountain Valley where Plants Nos. 1 and 2 are located would be inundated with storm in excess of a 50 year frequency flood. This inundation would result from upstream breaching of the Santa Ana River levees. The present capacity of the Santa. Ana River in the reach adjacent to the Plants will accommodate approximately a 40-45 year frequency flood. Director Just, with the concurrence of Directors Davis, Porter and Coen, suggested that the City engineers of the cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa. Mesa and Buena Parki along with the Districts' staff meet to define the problem, recommend steps and pro- cedures to mitigate the flood hazard potential. Subsequently on July 24th, a meeting was held with Mr. ·James Wheeler · and_Bill Hartge of the City of Huntington Beach and M.r. Bud Ya.berg of the City of Buena Park, plus three members from the Districts' Engine- ering Department. Based on this meeting an6 subsequent information and data obtained by the Districts' engineering staff, the following is transmitted herewith for the Committee's consideration. Agenda Item #11 0-1 All Districts FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS GENERAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8 I 27 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 The reach of the Santa Ana River adjacent to Plants Nos. 1 and 2 has a present capacity of approximately 9200 cubic feet per ~econd (cfs). Mr. George Osborne of the Orange County Flood Control District reported that the capacity of the River in this reach can be increased to approximately 20,000 cfs if the present geometric section is concrete lined. A recent report submitted by the Corps of Engineers stated that a standard project flood which is defined as the maximwn flood that c~n be anticipated for the Santa Ana River runoff area would discharge approximately 65,000 cfs in this rearh if no modifications were made to the Prado Dam catchn1ent area. Modifications of Prado Dam and the Santa Ana. River Channel to increase the existing protection level are under study by the Corps of Engineers but it is estir:ia.ted that ·imple- mentation of any plan would not be completed until 1995. The largest flood producing stonn since completion of Prado Dam occurred in 1969. This stonn was gauged to have a frequency of occurrence of 25 ·to 30 yea.rs. The joint works of the Districts are subje~ted to two causes which would cause inundation and damage to the facilities. If the drainage area was subjected to a storm which would generate a runoff in excess of the capacity of the River, the levees would breach and inundate the Plants. For a 50 year frequency flood, Plant No. 1 would be sub- jected to a flooding condition of 2.25 feet and Plant No. 2 to 2.50 feet. A second cause would be a break in the levee which could occur even if the storm frequency was less than the capacity of the levee. This type of failure would cause a wave action and could r~sult in more severe damage than breaching of the levees. · ANALYSES OF THE PROBLEM 1. Mr. Osborne reports that the reach of the Santa Ana River from the San Diego Freeway to Seventeenth Street is the weakest portion of the Santa Ana River. Most of the Flood Control District ef- forts have been directed in the upper reaches, (i.e. in the Santa Ana Canyon area) in the past years. Most of the Flood Control District's obligations .in these ~reas have been met. It would seem prudent that the cities in the lower reaches of the Santa Ana River strongly urge the Board of Supervisors and the Flood Control District to concentrate future efforts to strengthening this portion of the Santa Ana River to avoid washouts in this reach of the River. 2. To avoid inundation from breaching of the levees it would be possible to consider earthen benns or constructing retaining walls around the periphery o"f the Plants to keep the Plant areas rela- tively dry. -·-----·---...... ..-__ ... __ .. _ -- Agenda Item #11 0-2 All Districts FLOOD HAZARD ANALYSIS ANALYSES OF THE PROBLEM (Continued) 3. Consider additional protective structures or devices around essential units in the Plants such as electrical distribution centers, transfonners, influent and effluent pumping system, gas engines, etc., so these units can be maintained in operation during the flood periods. 4. John Carollo Engineers are presently analyzing some of the areas mentioned in Items 2 and 3 above and will be including them in their Master Plan Report which is scheduled to be submitted to the Board in January, 1973. 5. In conjunction with John Carollo's analyses, the staff is seek- ing additional information from the Corps of Engj_neers and the State Division of Highways to better define the flood plane corridors and develop preventive measures which can be done to protect the facilities and also satisfy State and Federal guide- lines from the standpoint of flood protection. Emergency pro- cedures are also bein~ studied which could be implemented if apparent flooding seems imminent. · REL:hjm 9/8/72 ---~-~__.. ... ___..,.._ ___ . _ _,,_ ____ ·-... ~---~ ... Agenda Item #11 0-3 ,· All Districts MEMORANDUM CouNTY SANITATION D1srR1c·cs of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 September 8, 1972 TO: Paul G. Brown, Assistant General Manager & Chief Engineer FROM: Ray E. Lewis,. Deputy Chief Engineer . ·suBJECT: Soils Investigation for Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract No. 3-18 Attached herewith is a proposal solicited from Moore and Taber, Soil Consultants, to perform th~ necessary soil investigation for Contract No. 3-18. The scope of the work to be performed by the soils engineer has been greatly reduced because of the information previously collect- ed on other District sewer facilities in the vicinity of Contract No. 3-18. It is therefore recommended that Moore & Taber be retained to perform the necessary soils investigation for this project for their stipulated lump sum amoun:t o.f $3,500. . As you will recall, I took the opportunity appl'oximately one year ago to interview and solicit prof2ssional proposals from six to eight soils consulting firms in the Orange County and Los Angeles County areas. As a result of these interviews, a list of six firms was compiled who could perform the work within the par~neters as expected on District trunk sewer projects and also be competitive on a fee schedule basis. Subsequent to the compilation of this list I have requested on each project, proposals from these consulting firms and when the fees are equal or very comparable the recommendations have been based on the frequency of service contracts with the District. 4 This is the case in this recommendation. Since the compilation of this list the most representative proposals have been recommended and for your information the following have been the soils consultants on the following projects. Interplant Influent Interceptor I-8 Santa Ana River Interceptor 2-14-1 Knott Interceptor 3-17 Maurseth Howe Lockwood & Assoc. Geotechnical Con- sultants, Inc. Converse & Davis The solicitation of this proposal from Moore & Taber has been in confonnance to the recorrunended procedures for the selection of consulting ~ engineers as recommended by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Manual Practice No. 45. Agenda Item #18 P-1 District 3 MOORE & TABER CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS 4530 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 • (7141 524-3350 O!HCR Of"F"ICCS: WOODLAND HILLS WEST SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA Orange County Sanitation Districts P. 0. Box 8127 Fotmtain Valley, California 92~98 Attention Mr. Ray Lewis Deputy Chief Engineer KNOTT INTERCEPTOR -REACH 4 August 18, 1972 Proposal No. 72-170 As you requested,·we are pleased to present the following proposal to conduct a subsurface investigation for this project. The trunk sewer will extend from Newland Street and Bolsa Avenue to Edwards Street and Westminister Avenue, a distance of approximately 16,000 feet. Objectives The subsurface investigation would have two primary objectives: (1) to provide necessary design information on the distribution and properties of the sub- -surface material, and (2) to provide information on the soils and construction conditions for bidding. The first objective will aid the design engineer to produce the most servicable and economical design and second to help reduce bid costs often associated with incomplete information on subsurface conditions. Field Study Six soil borings would be drilled along the alignment ~o log the subsurface materials and procure soil samples for subsequent laboratory testing. All borings will penetrate to a depth of at least five feet below invert elevation. Reference would be made to borings from previous investigations by others, · which are near the proposed alignment. Samples would be procured by means of a 2.5-inch I.D. thin wall soil sampler and a standard penetration sampler. In this latter case, sampling would con- form to ASTM 1586-67 procedure. Samples of the groundwater will also. be obtained for chemical tests. The drilling and sampling operations would be performed under the direct supervision of a soil engineer experienced in soil investigations for subsurface conduits. Agenda Item #18 P-2 District 3 Mr. Ray Lewis Orange County Sanitation Districts -2-August 18·, 1972 Laboratory Testing All soils would be visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification System. These classifications would also be visually checked in the laboratory, and confirming tests would be conducted if there were any disagreement or doubt on the correct classification. Soil strength would be determined in the laboratory for all major soil types by means of direct shear tests. Strength parameters would be reported in each case. Consolidation tests would be made on any organic soils or soft clays that would undergo adverse volume change because of design loads or construc- tion procedures. Moisture content and density would be determined on all 2.5-inch undisturbed samples. Sand equivalent tests would be conducted on all granular soil layers (classified SM, SP," SW, GM, GP, or GW) having·a thickness of more than three feet. Chemical test would be made on groundwater samples from the borings to determine the concentration of sulfates, chlorides, and the pH of the sample. Engineering Report Based on an engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, a written report would be prepared. It would summarize the physical data acquired ·during the investigation in a convenient form for reference and present reconnnendations to aid in the design and construction of the project. Recom- mendations for the following specific items would be covered in the report: Allowable bearing pressure and uplift Allowable lateral bearing pressure Earth pressure on permanent structures Earth pressure on temporary bracing Slope stability Pipe bedding Trench excavation Groundwater control Trench and structural backfill Chemical corrosion of concrete Necessary conferences would be held with the design engineer during the investigation to ensure coordination. Proposal No. 72-170 Agenda Item #18 P-3 District 3 ' l Mr. Ray Lewis Orange County Sanitation Districts -2-August 18, 1972 Costs and Schedule The complete investigation, as outlined above, can be performed for a total lump sum amount of $3500.00. The work could be completed· in five to seven weeks after authorization is received. The field investigation will require an estimated one week, the laboratory testing an additional two weeks, and the analysis and report preparation will require an additional two to three weeks to complete. If you have any questions concerning our work or this proposal, please call. We are looking forward to working with you on this project. MOORE & TABER 'R~~ R. F. Moore · · President vc Proposal No. 72-170 Agenda Item #18 P-4 District 3 , I RESOLU~ION NO. 72-124-1 APPROVING AWARD OF JOB NO. I-8-3 INFLUENT METERING AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE AT RECLAI'fiAT.iON PLANT NO. 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1, OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AWARD OF INFLUENT METERING AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 - JOB NO. I-8-3 * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section i. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of Directors by John Carollo Engineers, District's Consulting Civil Engineers, and concurred in by the Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made to E.T.I. & Kordick, a Joint Venture, for INFLUENT METERING AND DIVERSION STRUCTURE AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1 -JOB NO. I-8-3, and the tabulation of bids and the proposal for said work; are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That award of contract to E.T.I. & Kordick, a Joint Venture, in the total amount of $1,290,000.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, be approved; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received for said work are hereby rejected,and that all bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13, 1972. Agenda Item #24 Q-1 District 1 Engineer's Est: ,-f,, Jir"\o 01'"\A .PJ.., '+'.:;j , vv • B I D TABULATION SHE KT Date August l 7, 1972 11: 00 .--· ------------ Contract For: INFLUENT I· .. ~ETERII~G A?'TD DIVERSION STRUCTUrtE AT RECLAl 1IATim~ PLAHT NO. 1 -J03 NO. I-8-3 CONTRACTOR 1. E.T.I. -Kordick Baldwin Park = .2. Hemisphere Constructors Bellflower 3. J.E. Hoagland & Hoagland Engineering Co. Long Beach 4. Margate Construction, Inc. Wilmington, California 5. Ziebarth & Alper Carson 6. c. Nonnan Peterson Berkeley 7. Tutor Co., Inc. & Saliba Co. North Hollywood 8. Gene Fuller, Inc. San Diego, California 9. Zurn.Engineers Upland 10. Agenda Item #24 Q-2 TOTAL BID $1,290,000. 1,372,450. 1,438,800 1,452,981. 1,550,000. 1,582,000. 1,648,398 1,777,000. 1,833,000. District 1 August 8, 1972 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County 10844 Ellis Avenue Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 Attention: Fred A. Harper, General Manager Subject: West Relief Trunk Sewer Con.tract # 7-5-lR Gentlemen: The City Council of the City of Tustin is very pleased to approve a forty-six percent participation in the West Relief Sewer construction project (but not to exceed $276,000) from the City's Sewer Main Trunk Fund. This approval, however, is subject to one small condition. As you are aware, there are apparently locations on Red Hill Avenue and possibly other streets where compaction of fill after a sewer trunk project may be substandard. We believe that it is appropriate for the Board of the Sani- tation District to agree to authorize the City to correct such compaction deficiencies as located in the future from City of Tustin Sewer Trunk Funds. This authorization would be subject to the availability of uncommittea funds in the City's Sewer Main Trunk Fund, and to a separate application of the City for each such location to the Sanitation District Board of Directors, with soil tests frbm an independent qualified engineer indicating that improperly compacted fill over the sewer trunk line appears to be the cause. The City recognizes that there is a possibility the need for such compaction correction might be avoided by termina- ting further development of landscaped center islands such as the City has developed in the past. The City Council finds this alternative unacceptable both from the element of risk of future sudden pavement failure and from the impact on the aesthetics of our community. CITY HALL !40 WEST SBCOND STREET T U S T I N, C A L I F 0 R N I A 9 2 6 8 0 . (7141 54.4·~89•1 Agenda Item #39 R-1 District 7 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County August 8,1972 Page two Subject to the acknowledgment of your Board that the above condition is acceptable, the City Council has approved the project and has authorized progress payments up to the total ·amount of $276,000 from City Sewer Trunk Funds. Please indicate if you prefer an~~greement or letter of understand- ing outlining the procedure and basis for our use of funds for compaction corrective work. Sincerely yours, c~c.~ Clif~on C. Miiler . I Mayor CCM:km Agenda Item #39 R-2 District 7 , I I RESOLUTION NO. 72-125-7 APPROVING AWARD OF CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR WES'I RELIEF TRUNK SEWER A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NO. 7, OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AWARD OF WEST RELEF TRUNK SEWER, REACHES 19, 20 & 22, CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of birectors by Boyle Engineering, District's Consulting Civil Engineers, and concurred in by the Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made to Bo-Mar Construction Company, for WEST RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, REACHES 19," 20 & 22, CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR, and the tabulation of bids and the proposal for said work, are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section·2. That award of contract to Bo-Mar Construction Company, in the total amount of $472,680.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, be approved; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That all other bids received for said work are hereby rejected, and that all bid bonds be returned to the unsuccessful bidders. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13·, 1972. Agenda Item #40 S-1 District 7 Engineer's Estimate: $605,000.00 BID "TABULATION SHEET Da.te August 24, 1972 -11:00 A.M. Contract For: WEST RELIEF TRUNK SEWER Reaches 19, 20 & 22 from Red Hill to Tustin Contract No. 7-5-lR l. 2. 4. 5. 6. 8. CONTRACTOR Bo-Mar Construction Company Blue Jay Colich Construction Company Los Angeles McGuire Construction, Inc. Placentia Wal-Con Construction Corporation Sherman Oaks Vella & Capella, A Joint Venture San Dimas Vido Artukovich & Son, Inc. South El Monte Kordick & Son, Inc. Baldwin Park M. P. Mitrovich Arcadia 9 • Sala.ta-Zurn, A J.oint Venture Covina 10. Zarubica Company Sun Valley Agenda Item #40 S-2 TOTAL BID $472,680.00 503, 497. 20. 508,595.45 534,303.00 547,284.oo 550,761.50 564,304.oo 590,976.00 596,163.48 District 7 B I D TABULAT·ION SHEET Contract For: VJ:EST RELIEF TRUNK SEWER Page Two CONTRACTOR 11. Mark Dakovich, Inc. Brea · ~2. Gallacher Company, Inc. Costa Mesa 13. Steve Kral Corporation Baldwin Park ·. 14 · Three-D Construction Company, Inc. Los Angeles 15. W. H. Ebert Corporation San Jose 16. Charles L. Burch & Son, Inc. South El Monte 17. Vido Samarzich Company Arcadia 18. Ban Brothers Arcadia 20. Agenda Item #40 S-3 Date August 24, 1972 -11:00 A.: TOTAL BID $610,806.00 611,793.80 659,318.59 689,567.00 694,033.00 717,944.oo 774,287.00 803,151.62 District 7 RESOLUTION NO. 72-126-7 AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION IN CONNEC11 ION WITH WEST RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY .SANITA11ION DISTRICT NO.. , OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CONDEMNATION OF CERrrAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUA'.I1ED IN THE COUN'rY OF O:PtANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RE: WEST RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, REACHES 19, 20 & 22, CONTRACT NO. 7-5-lR * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DE~rERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, has found and determined, and hereby does find and determine, that the public interest and necessity require for public use the acquisition~ constr·uctj_on, completion, operat.ion and maintenance by said County Sanitation District of certain public improvements, to wit: A sanitary sewer and all facilities and appurtenances necessary or incidental thereto including manholes, me~suring devices, pumping stations, and other s~ructures for the trans- porting and recei.pt of sewage and industria 1 wastes f'or the purpose of transportation, treating and disposing of said sewage and industrial wastes arising within the territories of said County Sanitation District and such other territories as said District may have contracted to serve pursuant to law; and that certain real property~tuated in the County of Orange, State of California, is necessary therefor. Section 2. That the real property, the acquisition of which is required by the public interest a~d necessity for the uses and purposes set forth in Section 1 hereof, is situated in the County of Orange, State of California, and is more p~rticularly .. described on Schedule "A'' and shm·m on maps marked Exhibit "A'i attached hereto 1.nd made a part hereof .a~· though set out in full herein. Agenda Item #41 T-1 Distrj.ct 7 • .· Section 3. That· the permanent easements and rights of way above dtscribed and necessary to be acquired shall be acquired subject to the rights of the owners, their successors and assigns, to lise the surface of the land within the boundary lines of such easements and rights of way to the extent compatible with the full and free exerc~se of said easements and rights of way; provided, however, that: {a) No building or structure of any kind shall be placed, erected or maintained thereon; {b) No streets, alleys nor roadways shall be constructed upon, over, or along said ease- ments and rights of way to a grade less than four feet above the top of any pipe or pipes located within the lines of said easements or rights of way; {c) No fill shall be placed or maintained over the surface of the ground as it shall exist within the lines of said easements and rights of way upon. the completlon of the improvements to be constructed therein greater than six feet in depth. Section 4. That the permanent easements and rights of way to be acquired shall include: {a) The right to construct manholes, air valves, blowoffs, pumping wells, pumping stations, metering stations, standpipe and servic~ connection structures appurtenant to sai9 line or lines of trunk sewer pipe, which structures shall not extend above the surface of the ground; {b) The right during construction to use all existing private roads within the properties of the 0wners for ingress to an0. egress from t ·. Agenda Item #41 T-2 District 7 4 I • 1 I the work, together with the right, upon completion of the construction of the pipe- line or pipelines or other works, to con- struct and maintain an access road upon, over, and along such permanent easements and rights of way as may be in the public interest from time to time. Section 5. That the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 , of Orange County, California, hereby declares its intention to acquire the property described in Section 2 hereof by proceedings in eminent domain. That the law firm of Miller, Nissen and Kogler, 2014 Nor·th Broadway, Santa Ana, California, be and it is hereby authorized and directed to commence an action in the Superior Court of. the State of California in and for the County of Orange in the name and on behalf of County Sanitation District No. 7 , of Orange County, California, against all owners and claimants of the above-desc~ibed properties for the purpose of condemning and acquiring said properties· for the use of said County Sanitation Distr·ict;_ that said condemnation actions hall be prosecuted in accordance with the provisions of law applicable thereto. That said attorneys are authroized and instructed to make application to said Court for an order fixing the amount of security by way of money deposits as said Court may direct and for an order permitting County Sanitation District No. 7, of Orange County, California, to take immediate possession and use of said real property for the uses and purposes herein described. Section 6. That the Auditor of the District is authorized upon receipt of a Court order and demand from C. Arthur Nissen, 'General Counsel of the District, to pay to the County Clerk of the County of Orange such sum or sums of money from District funds as may be required from time to time to be deposited upon order of the Court granting immediate possession of easements and rights of way to the District. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held September 13, 1972. Agenda Item #41 T-3 District 7 September 15, 1972 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Boards of Directors FROM: Fred A. Harper, General Manager COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ot ORANGE Courffr; CALiFORNiA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 (1) Chairman Finnell has asked that a copy of W. W. Adams' (Chairman, State Water Resources Control Board) formal remarks which he presented at the September 13th Joint Meeting, be mailed to each of the Directors. (2) In view of the Boards' discussion and concern regarding the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project final report, enclosed is a tentative schedule presenting the anticipated dates the report will be sent to the printer. WATER QUALITY' CONTROL PLAN OCEAN WATER OF CALIFORNIA by W. W. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this group to discuss with you our recently adopted Ocean Plan. I am well aware that there has been, to say the least, a communication gap-- a misinterpretation of the provisions of the plan and the intent of the Board in its development and adoption. Development of the plan and the need for action in these areas are occasioned by several things. (a) Currently 1,100 mgd of municipal discharges are going into the ocean off the shores of California, and an additional 150 mgd of industrial waste. These wastes contain 4,600 tons per year of toxic metals. The amount of additional toxic waste from nonpoint sources is unknown. (b) The Environmental Protection Agency requires as a condition for a grant to build a sewage treatment plant with an ocean outfall that it accomplish 85 percent BOD removal. This is generally considered secondary treatment. The federal legislation now in the Senate-House Conference has provisions, if it is not changed in the Conference, for a zero discharge by 1983. Presented to the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles and the county Sanitation Districts of Orange County, September 13, 1972-: in the Los Angeles area. (c) The scientific evidence obtained from studies around the outfalls in California on the effects of these waste loads on the marine biota indicates that toxic metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons have had a detectable effect on the marine organisms within the area. Of course, the dilution ratio at the end of the outfall would naturally make the accumulated effect of nondegrad- able toxic metals very slow in developing. (d) we do not believe that we can wait until there has been aemonstrated extensive damage to the marine environment before we can justify more stringent controls than we have now. we do know that a few years ago San Diego and Los A~geles Harbors were dead areas as far as marine life is concerned. When the municipal and industrial waste were eliminated, these harbors recovered to a ~tartling degree and are now healthy bodies of water. (e) The Porter-Cologne Act requires that the Board develop ~nd adopt water quality policies and plans for the State. Since we adopted the Q.cean Plan on July 6 this year, I have heard much talk that the requirements are more stringent than the public health standards for drinking water. I have several re- actions to this allegation. I live in Southern California and I can testify to the fact that some pretty lousy water is served up for human consumption. The data I have seen to support the allegation shows only borderline excesses for some metals and com·· pliance with most. Marine organisms are susceptible to toxic poisoning to a much greater degree than the human animal, and t.hvst3; organisms are very low on the food chain. Humans are at the top--· -2- for the present. These comparisons can be brought home more directly if you will put a fish in a cocktail shaker of martinis or a glass of bourbon. The limits for heavy metals in the Ocean Plan were arrived at after a thorough and rational analysis which took into consideration the following factors: 1. natural concentrations in ocean water; 2. concentrations which cause acute toxicity; 3. concentrations which cause chronic toxicity; 4. biological magnification tendencies; and 5. wastewater disposal system capabilities for reducing concentrations. Obviously, the ideal condition would be to discharge waste- water having exactly the same heavy metals concentrations as natural seawater. This would eliminate any possibility of toxic stress from metals. A review of available data indicates the d.ifficulty and extreme cost·of such a program. However, all m-:?tals except silver exhibit strong tendencies toward biological magnification, underscoring the need for maximum reasonable control. Thus, in order to arrive at limits which give protection at an economically reasonable cost, we selected fran among the following~ 1. Concentration which would be safely below the estimab:·~ acute toxicity level for fish in the mandatory initial dilut.ior~ zone. 2. Concentration which would be safely below the estimate~ chronic toxicity level for any organisms which would be con- tinuously exposed to the diluted wastewater in or near the ini.tic1 dilution zone. -3- 3. Concentration presently being achieved by well operated wastewater disposal systems and the concen.tratioii which we feel could be attained with a secondary level treatment system and a sound source control program. (f) I do not think you have given the State Board credit fc-.::.: reasonableness. If, in the 5-year program to meet the requirem~:::.~s of the plan it is demonstrated that some of the requirements cannot be completely met because of factors which are beyond cont:rol, the Board will make revisions at that time. Testimony presented at the hearing by the larger municipal dischargers indicated that previously proposed levels of control ·.::~n certain biodegradable substances would not be necessary to meet water quality objectives and give sufficient assurances on reduction of environmentally hazardous substances. Thus, the OcP.an Plan contains a waiver provision whereby the larger dischargers can get less restrictive effluent requirements for biodegradable materials. We fully expect major municipal dischargers to develop the data necessary to support a request for a waiver so that they will not have to construct biological secondary treatment systems~ There simply is not enough public money to allow the luxury of excessive and unnecessary treatment facilities. As to the provision for a major municipal discharger tc 4equ~st a waiver on the effluent requirements, here is the way the Board anticipates it to work: 1. Every major municipal system already has considerable inf""rrr~tti.cL on what can be achieved with certain alternative treatmer..t processes and their relative costs. -4- 2. This existing information should be augmented as much as possible within the time available, and it should be includ~d in the technical report due January 15, 1973. 3. If, in the light of this information the discharger hone9tly believes that the ocean quality objectives can be fully T..t.:!t with a variance in effluent requirements, then he should say so in his report. 4. If the existing data does not clearly support a varia~cz, ·tmt the discharger still holds a firm belief that supporting in- formation _£!!! be developed in a reasonable time, then the report should say so. Included would be a proposed timetable for the presentation of such supporting information. S. In any event, the technical report must state the vario11s alternatives available based on both assumptions: that a. waiver (1) may or (2) may not be found to be justified by the Board. 6. Also, in any event, the overriding premise must be that treatment is to be upgraded, and that the first phase t0\11/ard this end must be in the design stage by 1973. The entire process obviously cannot wait to be started until all of the necessary support for a waiver is in and accepted. I would like to discuss for a minute the approach, the rationale, and the intentions of the Board in adopting the Ocean Plan. There was extensive discussion of the need and the cost c,f requiring biological secondary treatment. All of the Board Members concurred that we did not intend for all dischargers along the -s- ·~ entire coast to go to the degree of treatment that is biological secondary or activated sludge, whichever term you prefer to use< It was. the belief of the Board that the Ocean Plan requirements could be met by a combination of physical chemical tre~tment or other systems plus a realistic and effective source control system~ We certainly believe that you will need a higher degree of treatment than the primary treatment that is currently being used. I would like to reiterate, it was not the intention of the Board to require across the board biological secondary treatment fer major dischargers. The enactment and enforcement of an effective source con.trol plan to eliminate most of the heavy metals at the source ·is a ver~ difficult problem and one that local government is reluctant to undertake because of the possible adverse reactions from indust~y~ But we believe this a reasonable approach and that it is economi.·.=a.J.l·:. feasible. Profit is not a dirty word in my vocabulary. I realize that a company makes a profit only by creating more value than it cot!tmJmeG. The company which operates at a profit after paying its costs is doing a service on behalf of society. In most instances, businessmen are realists. They t.al:e prid1:, in being realists, and properly so. The history of the free··· enterprise system has shown that in the long run, those who are not realists are weeded out by the competitive pressures of t~z market place. Many business~en are realistaabout environmental' mattera. ~~t a distressing number are not. A die.tressing number have gullibl~~ -6- ' believed some very wild rumors about pollution control activities-- have not even gotten straight the most fundamental facts regardin~ the pollution control law and agencies. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that these busiraessr::&~·n are at least frustrated, if not frightened, concerning pollu.tiC"·n control matters. Pollution control problems can be compl~x enough without their solutions being impeded by rumors and r.isinform~t.ion., . There are bound to be differences of opinion as to whz.t. ~iho~Jd be done, when it should be done, and occasionally who ahould clo it .. But ways are provided for you to get these resolved--machinery i·3 available to protect your interests. And the realistic businessman is taking advantage of these provisions, and not wasting his time and that of others pursr.uing avenues that lead to dead ends. The Porter-Cologne Act has established excellerat protection. against unreasonable and arbitrary actions by government officials by providing full judicial safeguards, open hearings and riqhts of appeal. These are the portions of the Act which insure the rights of businessmen when standards are set, when variances are sought. when permits are applied for, and when enforcement cases are brought . In summation, I would like to make several points again. 1. The volume of discharges of waste into the nearshore ocean waters and the fact that the ocean is one of California's major natural resources makes the protection of this resource not only common sense but absolutely essential. -7- • 2. Too much attention and criticism have been leveled at the limits for toxic substances in the effluent~ w~ believe that we should be more concerned with upgrading treatment ~ather than quibbling about certain numbers. 3. Lf.t is not the intention of the Board to require unifonr; biological secondary treatmeni;l The Board believes that the requirements can in most cases be met with a combination ~f an additic,nal physical chemcial ·treatment or other method~ with .-.;:n effective source control system. 4. This is a 5-year staged program and is not of an emergency nature. If we find somewhere down the road that a.~~,l of the numbers in the plan cannot be met for reasons that ax-e ntJi: controllable, such as the quality of a water supply, then the Soard would certainly reconsider the numbers in those cases. S. With the current state and federal financing, where the local communities pay 20 percent, we believe that it does not place an intolerable burden on local government. 6. The system we are talking about will serve the people for ~ considerable number of years in the future, and a financlng phu'1'. should take that into consideration. Pay as you go, in this case ~.~:: least, is not practical because all of the people who use thiR system in the future would be getting a free ride~ Poor f.inanc:i.n:; pjlans are not a valid reason for postponing environmen.tal clean-up. If, after hearing the rationale and the intent of the Board, Y"'1 •- s1till believe it is an unreasonable plan, you have the right t-·. petition the Board for reconsideration. I would suggest that "?"Ct~ -8- first complete the technical reports. I am asking you to work with us under this plan to see the degree of compliance we cau achieve with the resources and knowledge that we currently have ·b~fore us and the ingenuity we can apply to the problem in the futur·s. It is the belief of the Board that we must adopt the most stringent plan possible to accomplish the objectives. It i~ more reasonable to take this approach than to try to creep up or.. the; problems as more information becomes available or damage occu~e. There certainly is room within the law and within the Bear.d's ocean plan itself to recognize unworkable, unreasonable, ox impracticable requirements and do something about them. -9- CO'JIMIS510N 1.1NP5LEY PAliSOt~S. VICE f'JH'.!llOl:N'I' HELFN COBO THOMAS E. l.AlJE'ACHER L E. TIMIJl.:fll.11.KE PPOJC:CT MANAGER GF:ORCE £. tlLll.Vt<A. PH.0. C.ONSUL Tll~c; OOARD P1>cr. JOHN [). 15AACS. CHAIJH•Ari HICllAl'{O K C. LEE. MD. t:HMAN A. PEARSON, 5c.D. DONALD W. PRITCHARD, PH.0. JOHN H. RYTHLR, P•l.0. '-"'' .~ . Sep~ember 13, 1972 All Commissioners and Commission. Alternates of the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project . Subject: ·status of SCCWRP Three-Year-Report ·Gentlemen: This letter indicates the status of the report on the first three years work at SCCWRP, as discussed at the project review meeting Sunday, August 27, and the SCCWRP Commission meeting on Friday, September 8. Also discussed are some of the actions being taken to accelerate the effort on the report, the early publication of which is considered to be of the utmost importance. The report is expected to consist of 11 or 12 chapters listed by provisional title in Table 1. In addition,· there are to be many ancillary documents including detailed appendices; these are generally not expected to be published or made available until later and are not discussed further here. Issuance of the report in several volumes is anticipated. The following schedule shows the present- ly anticipated dates when .each volume will be sent to .the printer. Volume ChaEters Date to Printer I 1 through 5 or 6 Oct. 31, 1972 II 6 or 7 through 10 Dec. 31, 1972 Separate lland 12 Jan. 31, 1973 Volume .. (but note below) I ' ~ I ·. •, • F I --· .,-, ..... -,--·-·-.--' ·-........ _..........--~---· SCCWRP Co~mission -2-September 13,_ 1972 Draf~s of the first 10 chapters have been written, but the last two chapters have not yet been outlined or drafted and are strongly dependent on further progress on the earlier chapters. The date indicated above for the "separate volume" is thus the most difficult to estimate of the three. Although· the earlier cha?ters are now expected to include many conclusions and recommen- dations, the separate volume may be th~t which is ultimately called "the SCCWRP Three-Year-Report". Effor.ts to verify the estimated date for the separate volume, and to move the schedule ahead senerally are discussed below. At the project review sessions held August 25-27, the Project Manager and Consulting Board agreed that working meetings should be arranged to allow more direct participation in the report effort by the Con- sul ting Board. The current chapter assignments are indicated in Table 2. The working sessions are being held at various locations including SCCWRP headquarters where the entire Consulting Board is to be present o~ September 15-16. At its Septerr.ber 8 meeting the SCCWRP Commission directed that all possible steps be taken to accellerate the publication schedule indicated above, including use of outside consultants wherever possible. As a result, the further participation of Mr. Philip Storrs has been arranged, a consulting agreement has been executed with Dr. Gerald Wick, discussions are underway with Mr. Charles Gunnerson, and other steps are contemplated. Additional information regarding progress at moving the publication schedule forward will be transmitted to the Conunission later. S~rycerely, I() ~ ~~·· Hfk~, P~( Project Manager GEH:es cc: SCCWRP Sponsors SCCWRP Consulting Board Mr. B. Richard Marsh Mr. James R. Foster Table 1 Provisional Chapter Titles fo~ SCCWRP Three-Year-Report 1. Introduction 2. A Perspective for Consideration of the Southern California Bight 3. The Southern California Coastal Region 4. Sources and Magnitudes of Constituent Inputs 5. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Nearshore Waters and Sediment 6. Fates of Constituents following Discharge 7. Public Health Aspects of Coastal Water Quality 8. Plankton in the Southern California Bight 9. Benthic Invertebrates and Intertidal Organisms of the Bight 10. Inshore Demersal Fishes (a) Demersal Fish Populations (b) Diseases in Nearshore Demersal Fish Populations 11. Summary and Discussion 12. Conclusions and Recommendations .. Table 2 . ' ! Chapter Assignments for Consulting Board and SCCWRP Staff ChaEter Subject 1 Introduction 2 Perspective 3 Region 4 Inputs 5 Water/Sediments 6 Fates 7 Puhl.Health 8 Plankton 9 Benthos 10 Fish 11 Summary & Discussion 12 Conclusions & Recommendations Consulting Board Member Primar:t Secondary Isaacs Isaacs Isaacs Pritchard Pearson Pritchard Isaacs Pritchard Lee Pearson Ryther Isaacs Isaacs Pritchard Isaacs Lee I Staff Hlavka Hlavka f t t Hlavka, Hendricks,· ( D. Young .[ ·r.: C.Young, D.Young Hendricks, D. Younsr C. Young Hendricks Haydock Mearns I. r b L t' ~ ·1 ' .. ·~ September 12, 1972 WATER QUALITY PLAN FOR THE OCEAN WATERS OF CALIFORNIA Items to be discussed with the representatives of the State Water Resources Control Board Wednesday evening, September 13th. 1. WE ARE INTERESTED IN THE STATE RATIONALE A"ND INTENT. (A) A-List. We understand that it is the State Board's intent that for all agencies who discharge less than 40 mgd, biological secondary treatment will be required. For those agencies who discharge more than 40 mgd, they will be expected to submit requests for exceptj_ons or exemptions to the A-List; in other words_, something less than biological secondary treat- ment. Why is this? What scientific information dictates a lesser degree of treatment for the major dischargers. (B) B-List, which covers the heavy metal requirements • . We understand there will be no exceptions to Table B of the. Plan. However, it is the intent of the State Board that there will be a phasing (allow a time schedule) to meet these require- ments, such as, within two years the concentrations will be cut to a certain nwnber, and within five years, they will be reduced further, and possibly within ten years, the discha.rgers would meet the numbers aetually established in Table B. If this is the intent of the State Board, why wouldn't this time schedule or phasing be made uniform throughout the State? 2. ACCEPTANCE OF THE STATE PLAN BY THE ENVIROI'nIBNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. We have received an official notice from the Executive Officer of the State Board that the Environmental Protection Agency has approved the State Plan for the Ocean Waters of Californiao We also have a newspaper clipping announcing this. However, in the newspaper it states that to comply with the Plan, communities along the Pacific Ocean will be required to invest $870 million in treatment facilities. The question is, did the Environmental Protection Agency accept the State Plan expecting the coastal communities to go to a high degree of secondary treatment by spending $870 million while the State Board does not intend this kind of treatment or capital expenditure? For our Districts to accomplish the high degree of treatment that probably is contemplated by the Environmental Protection Agency, our best estimate today is $105 million and a time schedule of approximately 5 years to accomplish it if financing is available. Our cash-flow projections based on a pay-as-you-go basis indicate that some Districts will be required to at least double their tax rates. This does not occur because the Districts are not well financed. The tax increase will occur because the State and Federal Grant payments (presently 80%) lag considerably behind (6-9 months) the actual construction of the projects. If the State and Federal construction payments could be paid in a timely manner (30-60 days), the Districts would not experience the con- templated cash flow problems. 3. B-LIST -HEAVY METAL RESTRICTIONS (NO EXCEPTIONS ARE ALLOWED). (A) It is obvious that the State Board did not consider the existing water supply constituents when they decided on the levels of concentrat1ons exhibited in the B List. For example, the Owens River water supply for the City of Los Angeles currently contains twice the concentration of arsenic which is permitted to be discharged to the ocean. (B) Also, we do not believe that discharges to the ~arine environment other than sewage outfalls were examined. For example, during this past winter, the concentrations of the Santa Ana River· dischar@s to the ocean exceeded the State Board's requirements for chromium, lead, nickel, silver, and zinc. (C) Because of the background levels of some of the con- centrations of the restricted metals in the water source of our area, we question the ability of industry to comply with the re- strictions. Again, we do not believe the State has any scientific rationale for the concentration restrictions established in the B Llst. (D) These restrictions place California industries in a poor competitive position. We are concerned about the economic impact on the industrial community in California when we compq~re the adopted State requirements with the proposed Environmental Protection Agency restrictions on industry in the New York-New Jersey area. For example, the concentration of chromium which will be allowed to be discharged by industry into municipal systems on the east coast is 50 times that which we will be able to permit here in Orange County •. Cadmium discharge will be 10 times more restrictive here in·Orange Countyo Zinc, twice as restrictive, and nickel, 4 times as restrictive~ The industrial discharge restrictions on the east coast are based on plating waste treatment technology investigated by the Environmental Protection Agency at their Na~ional Environmental Research Center at Edison, New Jersey. The State of Illinois adopted heavy metal restrictions in March of this year which are acceptable to EPA; many of the requirements are far less restrictive than those appearing in the adopted California policy. For example, for California dis- charges the chromium requirement is 60 times more restrictive than that for the industrialized Chicago area, cadmium 7! times more restrictive, copper 5 times, nickel 10 times, silver 5 times, zinc 3 times, and arsenic 25 times. What is the rationale for the numbers established by the California State Board? Why did the State Board hold hearings on one set of n~bers and adopt more restrictive nwnbers that had not been considered during the hearingse 4. Our Districts are one of five agencies funding an extensive $1.1 million study of the effect of man on the Southern California marine environment.. We expect a final report on the findings of the first three years of work by the end of this year. How will this report be used by the State? If the findings indicate that the regulations should be more restrictive or less restrictive, what will be the State Board's position? 5. The Water Quality Plan was adopted on July 6th, which re- quires each ocean discharger to submit technical reports before January 15, 1973. The State Board staff has published guidelines dated August 17, 1972, for the Preparation of Technical Reports on Waste Discharges to the Ocean and For Monitoring the Effects of Discharges on the Ocean (Water Quality Control Plan -Ocean Waters of California). Our staff estimates that the cost to comply with these guidelines will add between $150,000 and $300,000 per year to our current monitoring program. This ex- tensive program which is being required by the State Board staff was not anticipated when the annual budgets were prepared for the Districts. If this work is to be commenced during this fiscal year, other District activities, possibly construction, will have to be deferred. e, •' ~------· WATER OCEAN STATE OF CALIFORNIA -THE RESOUf(CES AGENCY STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD· QUALI'l'Y CONTROL PLAN 1 Resolution No. FOR WATERS OF ) 72 CALIFOHNIA )_ PETITION FOR HEl~RING ON BEHALF OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTIUCTS NOS. -45 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY ·. COMES NOW COUNTY Sfu'HTATION DIS'I1 RICTS NOS. 1, 2 I 3 I 5 I 6 I ·7 and 11 of Orange Counti, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California 92708, hereinafter called "Districts", and file this Petition for a hearing concerning the State Water Resources Control Board's Resolution No. 72-45 establishing a Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California for the purpose of ~eeking a rescission thereof or modification of the standards set forth therein: INTEREST. OF THE DISTRICTS The Districts are the.principal sewer and sanitation agencies serving the County of Orange .. The Districts serve an area of approximately 320 square miles, and a population of 1.4 million. The Districts' facilities consist of over 400 miles of sewer pipe- lines, together with related waste treatment plants, and other facilities of an approximate value of $94 million. The Districts have present annual operating budgets totaling approximately ~-$14.8 million supported principally by revenues derived from ad valorem .. property taxes imposed upon residents and property owners of the Districts, and from residential, commercial, and industrial sewer service, and waste discharge fees. On an average day the Districts ·. discharge 15 million gallons "per day of secondarily treated sewage effluent and 129 million gallons per day of primarily treated sewage effluent. These discharges are made through a sewer.outfall line extending 5 miles into the waters of the Pacific Ocean of which the ocean waters of California are a part. The Board's Resolutio~ establishing a Water Quality Plan for the Ocean Waters of California will have a serious, costly and unnecessary impact on the Districts' projected and future operations ~mposin9 large, unncc~ssary and unwarranted costs upon the Districts' residents and property owners without known benefits to the ocean waters of California. POSITION OF THE DISTRICTS Bxiefly, it is the position of the Districts that the Board's Water ·Quality Plan, as adopted,.should be modified to provide waste water discharge regul~tions that are based upon reasonably ~redictable or known benefits to the ocean waters of California as they relate to the total environment of the State of California. First, the Board's Resolution and accompanying Plan constitutes a "project" which requires the filing of a detailed environmental impact statement (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 211001; Second, the Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth no discussion of the alternatives to the Board's Plan, nor any evidentiary basis for the Board's adoption of its Resolution or supporting Plan; .. -2- Third, the Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth no discussion of the cost of implementing the Resolution and Plan (as required under California Environmental Quality Act) ; Fourth, the Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth rio evidentiary basis supporting the specific limits on ocean discharges Cfor chromium, mercury, suspended solids, etc.) adopted by the Board; Fifth, there was no public hearing as required by Water Code Sections 13244 and 13147; and Sixth, ~he existing regulations appear to have been adopted without compliance with the water quality objec- tives specified in Water Code Section 13241 and required by Water Code Section 13170. Generally, the Board's Resolution and Plan is a mere statement of the Board's conclusions (1) without any reference to any evidence before the Board supporting its conclusions, or (2) without any discussion of the Board's rea~oning leading to its conclusions. Without such evidentiary support the Board's Resolution an~ Plan can~ not be sustained. It is respectfully urged that the Board rescind ~ts pre~en~. Resolution and Plan and hold public hearings on such ~~gulations as it deems to be in the public's interests as described in Water Code Section 13241 setting forth water quality objectives and beneficial uses. Evidence to support any proposed regulations should be presented at such a public hearing which should be fair and impartial. Saks & Co. vs City of Beverly-Hills (1951) 107 CA 2d 260 Prior to the public hearing, the Board has a legal duty to issue a detailed environmental impact statement, consider the ~lternatives before it and to provide an evidentiary basis support~ng '"'3-. ., any findings which it may then make. THE BOARD'S PLAN REQUIRES THE FILING OF A DETAILED ENVIRON11ENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT At the outset, there is no doubt that the Board's com- prehensive Plan constitutes a major "project" which could have a "significant effect 11 on the environment of the state, as set forth in the recently adopted Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (Public Resources Code, Sections 21000, et. seq.). Thus, today, the Environmental Quality Act provides and declares that: "It is the int~nt of the Legislat~re that all agencies of the state government which regulate activities of private individuals, corporations, and public agencies which are foun~ to affect the quality of the environ- ment, shall regulate such activities ~o that major consideration is given· to preventing environmental damage. (Public Resources Code 21000 (g}." (Emphasis supplied) In furtherance of th~se policies and this intent the Public Resources Code provides: 1. .uAl~ state agencies, boards, and commissions shall include in any report on any proj~ct they propose to carry out which could have a significant effect on the environment of the state, a detailed statement by the responsible state. official setting forth ... " "(a) The environmental impact of the proposed action."- See: Orange County Water District v. State Water Resources Control Board, Case No. 102462, Superior Court, Riverside County, filed May 25, 1972 1 The attorney for the Orange County Water District is John J. Murphy, Rutan & Tucker, 401 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, California, 92702, Telephone: (714) 835-2200 -4-- Desert Environment Conse·rvation Association, et. al. v. California Public Utilities Commission, Supreme Court, S. F. Case No. 22898, Petition granted July 5, 19721 The Attorney General for the State of California has taken the position that the California Environmental Quality Act does apply to decisions of individual State boards and agencies. (Brief of California Attorney General, Friends O'f Mammoth v. Mono County Board of Supervisors) 2 In light of the expressions of public policy and legislative intent, there can be no doubt that the plain meaning of Public Re- sources Section 21100 requires the preparation and consideration of a "detailed statement'' (sometimes referred to as an environmental impact report) before waste discharge requirements can be validly established, modified, or reviewed by a California Regional Nater Quality Control Board or by the State Water Resources Control Board. If there were any doubt as to the va~idity of this con- clusion, that doubt could be quickly resolved by reference to the National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190, 83 Stat. 852), after which the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 was pa.tterned. Wilderness Society v. Hickel, 325 F. Supp. 422 (D. C. Cir., 1970} Department of Interior Permit to construct trans-Alaska oil pipeline 1. The attorney for the Desert Environment Conservation Associ- ation is John R. Phillips, Center for Law in.the Public Interest, 10203 Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90067, Telephone: (213) 879-5588. 2. The Deputy Attorney General assigned to this proceeding is Mr. Nicholas C. Yost, 600 State Building, 217 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Telephone: (213) 620-3175. -5- Kalur v. Resor, 355 F. Supp. 1 (D. C. Cir. 1971) - issuance of water discharge permits under Refuse Act of 1899 Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission, 449 F 2d 1109 (D. C. Cir. 1971) THE BOARD IS SUBJECT TO GUIDE- LINES ESTABLISHED BY LAW. The provisions of Water Code Section 13170 make the Board subject to the provisions of Water Code Sections 13240 to 13244, in- elusive, insofar as they are applicable. Section 13241 sets forth the quality objectives which shall include but not be limited to: •t(a} Past, present, and probable future beneficial uses of water. "(b) Environmental characteristics of the hydrographic unit under consideration, including the qu~lity of water available thereto. ·11 (c) Water quality conditions that could reasonably ·be achieved through the coordinated control of all factors which affect water quality in the area. "{d) Economic considerations." Section 13244 provides that no Water Quality Control Plan shall be adopted unless a public hearing is first held after published notice to each affected county. THE BOARD'S PLAN REQUIRES A DISCUSSION OF THE ALTERNATIVES TO BE CONSIDERED. In adopting its Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California, it is clear that, before adoption, the Board must appropriately consider the 11 alternatives 11 to the proposed action. The California Environmental Quality Act is specific in this regard. Thus, the law requires that the "detailed statement" set forth ... -6- "(d) Alternatives to the· proposed action.11 (Public Resources Code, Section 21100.1" No such alternatives have been set forth by the Board, and the Board's Resolution, and Plan, as adopted, is therefore, in- valid until such· a time as an analysis of the alternatives to the Board's action has been made. THE. BOARD'S RESOLUTION REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN. In adopting its Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean W~ters of California, the Board must also consider the "costs and benefitsu to be derived from the Board's action. Again, the Environ- mental Quality Act of 1970 sets forth the policy of the State to: 11 (g) Require governmental agencies at all levels to consider qualitative factors as well as economic and tech- nical factors and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short~term benefits and costs and to consider· alternatives to proposed action affecting the environment." (Public Resources Code 21001, emppasis supplied.) S~nce the Board's Resolution and Plan are totally devoid of any consideration of the extraordinarily large costs involved in im- plementing the required action, the Board's action is invalid in not complying with the relevant statutory requirements. THE BOARD'S PLAN SETS FORTH NO EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR THE SPECIFIC LIMITS SET ON OCEAN DISCHARGES. The Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth the quality -requirements for waste discharges t6 th~ ocean (Chapter IV, Quality Requirements for Waste Discharges, Effluent Quality Requirements, Tables A, B} . .....7-.. In addition, the Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth the quality requirements for waste discharges to the ocean of a.number of other substances, including grease and oil, floating particulates, settleable solids, turbidity, and a number of minerals (arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, ·nickel, silver, and zinc, etc.) In no instance is any evidence pointed to which supports the Board's establishment of any of these individual specific limits, or quality requirements for waste discharges to the ocean. In this regard, the Board's finally promulgated specific limits bear no relation to the.generally less stringent, and more realistic limits tentatively recommended by the ·Board on April 20, 1972. General1y speaking, it is fundamental that an agency must make findings that.are clear enough to inform the part~es of the basis for its decision, so the.parties can· decide whether additional proceed~ngs. are warranted. The findings of fact must also be clear enough to enable a reviewing Court to determine if the law was correctly applied. Savelli v. Board of Medical Examiners, 229 CA 2d 124, 134 (1964 )· Hansen v. Civil Service Board, 14 7 CA 2 d 7 3 2 I 7 3 6 (19 5 7) If the findings are unclear the appropriate procedure is for the agency to reconsider the case and clarify the basis for its holding. -8-- Facination Inc. v. Hoover, (1952} 39 C. 2d 260, 268 Temescal Water Co. v. Department of Public Works, (1955) 44 c 2d 90, 102 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION In sununary, the Districts are seriously aggrieved by the failure of the Board to comply with the statutory basis for its action. First, the Board's Resolution and accompanying Plan constitutes a nproject" which requires the filing of a detailed environmental impact statement (pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21100); Second, the Board's Resolution and Plari sets forth no discussion of the alternatives to the Board's Plan, nor any ~videntiary basis for the Board's adoption of its Resolution or supporting Plan; Third, the Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth no discussion of the cost of implementing the Resolution and Plan ·(as require~ under the California Environmental Policy Act) ; Fourth, the Board's Resolution and Plan sets forth no evidentiary basis supporting the specific limits on ocean discharges (for chromium, mercury, suspended solids, etc.) adopted by the Board; Fifth, there was no public hearing as required by Water Code Sections 13244 and 13147; and Sixth, the existing regulations appear to have been · adopted without corr.pliance with the water quality objec- tives specified in Water Code Section 13241 and required by Water Code Section 13170. The Board's Resolution and Plan is an expressed philosophy and statement of the Board's conclusions. The specific implementation of those conclusions appears to be: (1} without any reference to any -9-- evidence before the Board supporting its conclusions, or (2) with- out any discussion of the Board's reasoning leading to its conclusions. Without such evidentiary support the Board's Resolution and Plan can- not be sustained. Accordingly, the Board shou1a·rescind or suspend the operation of the present Resolution and Plan and hold. such hear- ings, and take such evidence as may be necessary to support whatever modified Resolution and Plan which the circumstances warrant. Before doing so, the Board must issue a detailed environmental impact state- ment, consider the alternatives before it, and provide an evidentiary basis supporting the findings which it m~y then make. DATED: August 9, 1972. MILLER, NISSON & KOGLER Attorneys at Law 2014 North Broadway Santa Ana 1 California ..,. ·', ') ,. By ~-( ( 7i (.-!.<,. /1_./. -:-;~-.. C.<Arthur Nissan, General Counsel COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By .ih-z-'{_/ ~,,./.'TL Don Smith, Chairman COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA By~~C".~~ Donald Mc Innis, Chairman COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ~10-. Respectfully submitted, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 1 . OF ?~GE ~OUNETY; c.A.LIFOHNIA. B-. ,..-~/._ .....-\ ~ . . . ~ --I y (.,; ,.,-~-\~-{~....-.1-.,.,·/ Lorin Griset, Chair~an SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OUNTY~I~A Vl'o<r ff / / ~{h__ ~. Culver, airman ~· COUNTY SANITATION.DISTRICT No. 6 . OF ORANGE couwry-,.:.-·cALIFORNIA <:_---.? ---/ .. / ,. . By ~....c-:---.;o-1 t'r:~_.L_../"' \ Ellis N. Porter, Chairman GOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 11 OF ORANGE.COUNTY{[,, ~~LIFORNIA By 71~ /;1-<Y~..J Norma Gibbs, Chairman ( }/s._+_ ~'(""lly Occ. iA't'i;~J ~r.. Se.(>.... t/.J().,Cc,y 0,,-in k i 11d !/Ja:t'l.Y- .S·t c..fi.J.. ay-~S '.,) --,...) '\1 ~ <.0 ' ~ ' "' -.,.1 c t) ') J'u/y ~ /'??~, n A Do PTED (_ I __ ._._.,...,. ________ _ • 0 o 'it~ •• • ' 0 .. I • ' ' '• -:; ,0: • ' 0 • 0 ., • •' • , :-o '• ••,,; •' ', 0 '"' '~ 0 • • • , • • .. t t • ~' --.• • : I ~ • I : • • ~ o • ~-'• • , • ,.•, t ',. t .. oJ' ._. # o ' • . . .• ~ .· . .. . ~. .... . . ·:.· .:. . ... : ... ,.. . . ...:.;"'00 .. . :... . . ., .. . . .. . . ..._...,·· "-· .. ____ · .. ~.:..:..-:.· __ . ...____· . : ::.:.\~~·~~~~·~·~·:.::.. .. .:~:_::.:::::_~.::.:..-~· ... ~._:.~·:l_~_ .. :~: .. ~~' .:::---·~.·~~..:·~~~~-.. ~~·2:::.:~~:-~._.._._::~ t~-~~j~' ~~~~~~-~~~ f .--·. : ,. · 1 L·so._< 0 JO . '· .... ( ~r~t. ":.,.."' lly o c.c 1m'»( <.n Seo.-w~l:;c.y ·· Dr-ink i Yld VJa.-te.y- S-l:a..(\clarcls C-a ... J. ra i um ( ·. II ·11 ____________ ......................... _ _. ...... ,_...- I :·.:..~;: ...... ···.-· ... ·-.... -.... ·.·· .. : ....... · ....... __ .. .. .. ............. ~ ................. · .. ·. ...... . .... ....... .......... ~L • 0 0 ·~~.-> .... ·~ ·:.-: "' 0 ·~ I~·~~--->· • 0 .. , ... ~ ... ~·~:~".: ·.: •.. <.·. • .·:~ .. " . ·. '·' .• ,:, · .. • .. ~ .. · ~.:.~·.·~.··.~ ·,• :: .. ~·.·., :.~:~.:':·.·~.·. ·:.:: .. : '.:.:: ':':. .. :._·:'.·:.~·.· .. " ~.,· ~ .,• 0 ° 0 ...... , •• ·.' :·.:·.' •· •• 2, ..• o. • ' ,, " • ~ , ..... o •, • • •o'll' -· •. • ' ' '• I ... •' o •• 'o ... • • ', I Oo ~ ,... - .• .· ,. f. J. './ . ( J , . ·,..· .......... .-... • ... • • ... ...... " .. · ·.' • .. ~. ~ ........ , .• ,.,,... .... ···.. •. . '. .... •• . ..r. "· •• ··'· ··~··,.... • 1:,·.·r\..1 .... 1on~Ccnsic.~ei'n•:: .. "·i' · .. · / ,· ... :· ~-· · . .-·.,": .... ~, .. ··.· .. ·::·· .···.' //. ·.· · .. _ .... :.,-. ·. · ... "'. . ''"· . . . . . . . ~ ... •··. A If c:<)CA-h Jc,, ~\ht..s·c \? W;\ic,r r:·~-::-.-'1Alo...s.±.e7"'".~t.Co<.i::.;~·-:-·,=-~.· . :r:-:-::::-:: ...... ~· ... ~;(1.,,.7Jilp7-t.e: '0 ~ ... -··" • ,.. -• · I , • (}) l~ :.,,·:"·" ' . 0 ..... " '·· ... :··•: "... . . •. ' • :"· · ". . •. : " ..• 7'.'.' ~_, . '.:.' . . .. :. ' ·. "'. '. ~.-. "· . /., .100 1~,-' ''"t D 1 1 .. (.:f:cJ'(') · -· ...... --· ·· ·· ····. ·-. . . ~. ... . ... . . .. .. . .. . .... . ... . .•· .. ·:· .. . .. . . . . •. '"" "' 1ii.'l, J t.. . ~....,,.,. ...... _ ... ........___ _..._,...,.,..._.,,._ ........... --•.-A·•-·--··-----~ .. _..._......,_..,.._.... .........----------• •• 11 .. 2.} ppb .. 1: ( C n r:o rtliL~ va ( /(;_../:. u.-r."fly Occ v..~1·n( c./e, , .os ~r~ Seo--. Wo.,tcy · '------------------------------------- D,..inkind w~-tc..,­ s-t:D-11:1 a r-J....s . 0 ' I,; 19-i. 1 . (}:_, "JJ 11~: I ' 8:7?01 -:f o,A. ·2<.1 m2\. . j?~· : ~:., :·~0 I ••••• '• c. _ .--~~---~~--~----~~~~~--~~----~--------~~~--~~------- .. To-1:.o.-I = ·075.ppb ,. . . . . . ( ll4..t v..-ro..lly Occv.rtni ~n Seo-w().,t~..,,- o .... ;r; k j rid l!JJ..ter-- $1:c-,,J.aY"cls J0-/y 6., 1172 u ADOPTED' ( 1····: ·: . .:. · .. :·~ ·. ........... · 1 ~·--·.-:-: ~ :.· ... '.· ... 160 . ' .. • -......... ' . . . . . . • . ... .. . , l ( ( .__., __________ ------~-----___..;..-·------··----r~1 '0 Jb ... +.. ~-r<>-lly Occ ~Y"tY.f i.n Seo.-wo..t~.., D,.i n k i t1d !JJ a.-l::e.r' S-t0-~c.la.rt£s )/o l i m£-t. set: 9d:..15J 1971 ~ .. (,i' . 1 · _H_o__U.ffl ii::.~-pr~ posed. L-.--~----~------~-----------~--' . 'I\ ~ ~ ;Jcut. 'n 1?'7.2. · l i· : '<. ·, . .'. · . . . ···~.= ".. ·-_ ··; .. · .. .. .. ... . . •. .,_ :. ::'".i ':;:·:::-: ·:,..,._. :: ... ; '. ' . I ooo l . ~ ,) . . • J \ •. L:>~~· .....:. .. ..:....·~~...:....:· ·.:....:.· . ·~· .. _· ..,.:__~· ;.:_·. ·:____.:....;· ·:_:·~·· ·~.-· _ __:_:,._.,;._.,.:··:..:..· ·~· ._.: ,.;__·: ·....:....· .....;...:· _. :...:.· . ·....:.... .. -·~ ·_ ... _.·_·...;..... :: _.:.., .. ·_ ... :._=--· .. _ .. ~·..;.._:.~·.;,·. -·~: "'_. -·_-··_· _·_ ----- V? . ~~ I ..n ~ ~ Arri I ?.o; 1772.···. }k_ . / r'rri (, i:. pro p~ ed · ~\) ~ ~ L. -------------7-_:_------:------------~ ~ 0 VJOc~· ~ ;; du.!y ~ 197~, I )/tJ ... L 1'.M i"1r ..... p r.o. po.s<1d ~ ~ n A Do PTED ,L-----~:__:__ __________ -:---:-----:---------":> - .. ' ··. ' . , · ... ( Le. ad~ ( J,/l.:l:. ":"'o.lly O~c. v.r-ini c.n Seo-W~C.c.y b .. J 3.5 -r-----···-······---- Df'in k i YlJ VJa:tc.-r S-f:o...nJ..ay-J...s . _1· . ....-·_:· .. »_···_ ......... :.;:_· · ... -·~ --5~--- ·...:,..""' ·~I. j (i·-17 . ~~µ1 • .t-~?.,J ' /.;.... I • i 'J~/y ~ 1972 . n A Do PTE!Y '- . E< .. : .. · ·. .. .. ... ~.:·:., .... ·:· ·:· .. : . . :.._ "":.~<·:"' · .'.: .. ioo:: · ·1 • .~· o to, ,o •"' •• •.• o • '•._ .. 0 ' 0 o1 ,.'0 I 0 :',•' 00 a 0 •I' I • -·-·-··, _., ----- ___________ _.......,,_._,.,. __ . 1 ·.·: • > > > ., '. >u > J . . . . \ . . ........... .,...o· :· . . . . I 1··-' 1, .... : ......... ~" -•• : . . . i:· -,: ....... , .. '. .... , .. · ·-· ...... -.......... . I ! ::::: : " . . ": .. · . . ·5p l ·.. . ... . .. . . . . ·I~ ......... :' ...... : ... ··~·. ' .... ...... ·'. . ··. ..... '. . .. . : . . ( Jb.-1:. u...-.. ny Occv.r-1'11! i.n Seo-... w~t,c,y-·· Orin kind W.:tfe.y-- S-t:c...'f'\Ja.,.-d._s 9ct.1s) 1971 .. ; I ' \ . l j~. '2r,.,19"72, I \ ;f{)..fy ~ 19?2 nADoPTcD 1 · .1.03 I j/o . .. ... : -.• I . . I /{l{l"C. . . . ,. .... . .... . . se-f: I ; . : .... . . ' . ~ . . . . . . .•.. -· _ .. _,_._· ....... , __ .. _. ··-.. -· . ___ ._._. · .. :..:.:.".:.:_.· __ ... _:_. f. . ,,. ... . . . .'/~ ·:·# A.···· .•. · •.• . ~ . . -. . '• .. .. , . ·: · .. •' ..... :· ·.' , . ' .... :-.· .. .· .. •e I '".• . .·.· ...... ·. .. . . . . . j .·-·d· ........ · . ·i t ~< ~:.. . . . . : . ·~.> .~· ., . : , .... .. ..... -. . ; .... · . . . . . . . . . . . • .. ( '.· .··.· ..... . .· .. ·. .. .. ·. . -:· .·· .· .. · . . ... . r_. . . . ·• . -.... • .. ·· · ... :· ... ·. ~.: .: ~ ·. .. . :..; . . _. _, _·._·.·_. ·_ .. __ .. _. -----· ·-~:...:.:..:.~~-~-..:::..·_ .. · _:__ __ ...:..._ ... ,,·.-: ··-.·:' ·~·· .. ·, .... ..,, -·· ..... ~ ·.' .• ':•'''· .... · .... ·· .... , ' .·.· .... ·" ~.,, · ... • .·· ... •. . ... ... • ..... . ',11 • ,· ':'• .:• :• •• • I . ...... o ·:,•'' :! ,'I . ...... · .. '· . . "' ( --~h__....I /_c_k e L ( J{ ;.J:. u.-ro.11 y 0 c.c u.6n( .. ·'.~ .1:'·1 5 . '-/ tn Se~ w~t~~ ~-'~-~~~~----~~---------------------------~--~-------------- ---------------.. ---·-··-·----- Drink i Y1d Wa.tc.r-- S-tc...t).J,arcls . ·. I 116 l/m tt ~ c:-t ·~ 9ct.1s; 1971:·; .1 j/o ___ L im.it ·, propo.s~cP ---- . /~· ,~._.~·~:.:.· ::: _· :·.:://~) .·; ·~·~::.·:~ .. ::-.::.:I,~~.~ .. ~. . , .. I .. ·-. . .. I I . • ·' •• . " •. ~ • • • :'· ..• ~ •• ·· I :.'·.... . ' ..• '" L . ______ __.._ __________ _ I • •. . .; . . . • • .. ' ' . . • '• . ··. . '• . ,_ ; • . ·.. . • •· • •. ·: . . '. • '. • . • • 1 jl .· ··": ./.::·: . : . o.:· .· :---~ .. ~. . . .. : . : .· .·'. . .> >: , ..... ·.·. _.: ·: ~.;_ ~-. <--" .;··2.~C? .. :.: .. ~ ,· .. -... · ,,;_ ·,. ~. . ' . . . : ··._· --------------·+------ I .,.··· 7:.-·,· ....... ~ .. , .. · .... · •... ·.·: .. · .. · .. ·'··.·· . ····--:i .: .: . . : .... : ...... · .·. ;··.. . : . '.. : j () .0. . .-.: : ... : .... :·: ..... : .• . .. : ~. . . . .' ... -: . : . . . . . . " . . . . , .. ~ ·~; ----~~~~~;._;..;.. __ __; ______ -;-------------------------------------- I• .. ( lfs....J:.. ~-r~Ily Occv-Yi'llJ- i.n Sc.o... !/J~Cc,y .· 9():.115). J971 .. ( ------------~-----------·--- . .. · · ............ , ..... :· . ' . . .· . :· . . I .. .· ... · . . : . , · .... ' . ·~··;: : ... ·.::...-:..:· . . . . ' •.. . . . '-.. .. . . . ~· .. . . . . . . . ---- l ti o I im i-!:. . . . . · ..... . c:2:• ·:: . l·.· .·. -~· . ·. .·. . ·.·•.. . ·. : ------ ~~~----~~~~ ; . :. ":. " .. ,.. : ... . . · ..... · ...... :, .·~ .. ! ·:j. ·< i . ~·· 1 · . . . . , . . . . . . :·· :: . . .. . ; . ...... ·. ·,·. ·· ... :-·· •."' ... . .' .... · , .. · ... ' . . ·.· . . . . . t -, ,t • '• t, '. I ....... • ' o t ._5;'.T. ___ _ ... . .. . ..... · .... ·' . . . : ·.· ' . .·· . ·. . . . ........ ·'·~ ....... , ... ..... .. ·-·. . --------------- ·. ·.· . ... · ... Alk~~GJ~ ~v~st~ \~ic~-~~e--~~±~-~·~~~~~~-~-·~+~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ f. /:,{ i t1c1r1 ( cvns; J ~ v, r. g [~: · • 1 , I . · .. · --.·::· 0 3 .; · -:~: i:-::~ ~:,/::/:...s'. . I; ~OD lll i·L;~ .. / D; l !cU:.;~1) ;:~--'-~---'"· .. --·· ....... -... -·· t._........:....:_ .. _:__ _......._ ___ -...:..----·--------- Jot~ l -~/-/ ,, ( f-.f>.b __ _ ( ... J(s...+. u....-c.lly Occ v.rin( . ~". !l JO tn Seo--w~t~y ~.i __ _:_~------------i----~~~-----~--~--~------------------------~ ... .. ·· 1·-~ . .-..... ··.· .. ·.:: . :· .... •,":. : . '.. ·: .. ·.· ... :·.:.:-.: ·-: .... : ···. :· .... " .. ··.-~:·:: ..... · .·:. . .. . . .... , '• ·..... ..... •• I ." ' . '• ": " ·• " ',._ · 1 r • ;, • " • • ,· • " • • . • •' '"• .' ' • • '• 5 0 0 0 •. '\ . "• • ' • \ ~ • • • • •·• •. • • ' .. ,··; •. e • I.-., e ...........•.. ·.··.:·: ........ , .. -:.' ... ~---~·· ........... • ....... ""·:·:·· ... ·.· •. ·.:":·A.···· .. ~_._. ----------- pct.15) 1971. ;.· .i:::~·:;~~·J. ____ .:...__ ____________ · · ____ _ • 4. • • •• • • • • ~~~~~~;~ c~::~Je~~;;v-[6'~1Y;~i::t~~§2:~~ ·< ·-····\· < ...... ~w/1~.:-0 .. v:-:~~~.r<·:.?: ··:~.?~~-:~·e:'· .. ::.:'.' . . · .. ·~. . . . v ) 0 ~ • .. . • • • ' • -• • • • • • . • . . • • • • ~ • • • • ... I'. ..... • ... • ~ .... : . •• •. J '. •. : ,-, • ... ;:; • •• •• • • .J... . .. I :200 1'1?ilit .. } D;Lit:tJ(l'() •.· . . ... . , . . ··: .. _:· .. · .-·· ...... "·>.-·-.· .• ·"· .· ···:'"; ·.,;___:: .· .······ .... -.· .. :. -'·· .. :· .. ·• -.. ··'·· .. . . •.... l.o L ~r = 11. s P.Pb. . t'' ~ SUIVIMA.RY -----JOINT BOARD MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13, 1972 COMMENTS ON DISCUSSION WITH STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD The State cannot wait until devastating effects demand the need for more stringent controls. The marine organisms are more susceptible than man to toxic substances. The SWRCB feels that the "B" list is both fair and rational. In the development of the "B" list, factors such as natural occurrence,.acute toxicities, chronic toxicities and biological capa- bilities were considered. No credit has been given the State for reason- ableness, as revisions in the "A" list may be made if conditions can not be met. ~n meeting the proposed plan, the State has not recommended biological treatment for municipalities. The State has had discussions with the metal finishing industry and found their attitude very positive, aware of the problem and are voluntarily moving forward with a plan for corrective action. "The plan as proposed is a five year program not of an emergency nature, and if within this time these guidelines can not be met, modifications in the plan will be considered". It is estimated that between $150,000 to $300~000 will be required by the Districts in the preparation of the technical report to be submitted by January 15th, 1973. It was strongly emphasized by Bill Dendy for the necessity of an effective source control program. If chemical treatment is employed to meet the proposed standards, what will be done with the accumulated sludge volume? "Hopefully, some young Engineer will come up with the solution." It is.forseeable that unless improvement in the discharge quality can be made damages similar to those seen in San Diego Harbor will occur in the ocean. The expenses of the technical report is reimbursable through the grant program at greater than or equal to 80%. -1- Adams stated that a pay-as-you-go basis is a poor financial structure as compared to general obligation bondso "People should not pay for future improvements to benefit future residents". With reference to the physical requirements: "The burden of proof is on the discharger to demonstrate that no detrimental affect is occurring in the ocean resulting from these discharges". "Los Angeles Harbor has improved because discharges have been taken from the Harbor and put into the ocean with no apparent affect on the ocean". It is the feeling of the State Board that they do not object to putting sludge into the ocean if it does not contain toxic metals. Why are there variations on the East Coast and the West Coast? "Different requirements may depend on receiving water qualityo" Is it true that the Pacific Ocean is a better receiving water? ."It has the best dilution factor~ Why then are standards more stringent for California? No comment by the State. pCCWRPA has failed to provide any answers to the problems of the marine environment. "The program has been in trouble and has totally bogged down". The State intimated that municipalities do not have to expenq large sums of money to improve treatment. The toxic metals must be removed (by industry at no cost to the State). Personal impression is that the entire program is specifically aimed at industry for the following reasons: 1 Sludge may be discharged to the ocean without toxic metals. 2 "A" list may be revised. 3 No revision anticipated in the "B" list. 4 State hedged on BOD requirements. 5 Greater latitude given to larger municipalities Ron Robie commented that similar requirements will be adopted for -2- inland areas within the next year and a half to two years. He further stated that "mountain streams are pristine". Industrial representatives present at the meeting were: Wil Lindsay, Jr. Merle Skilling Douglas Moore Alex Grinkevich Van Summers Don Wilkens Dick Zevnik -3- _/ _......_')JESTIONS & ANSWERS -STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROT_, BOARD AND ORANGE COUWI'Y .::~NITATION DISTRICTS, WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, SEPT·. 13, 1972 ..,,_..., I have tried to stick pretty close to the text of the program because I am sure there has been a communications problem and the meaning of what we are doing has to be precise. But, I would like to add, (and this is not a part of the prepared remarks), that the Porter-Cologne Act was passed in mld-1959, effective in 1970 and passed unanimously by the State Legislature. I think that was a reflection of the concern of the people of the State of Califbrnia for their environment and concern for clean water. In 1970, there was ~· Clean Water Bond Act passed by an unprecedented 7frfo. I think this, again, is a reflection of the determination of the people of California to protect their environmento A lot of discussion with people about the fact'that 11 we dorlt know all the answers" ... well, no one knows all the answers, but, we believe that if we wait until we have all the answers, we would never act. .And, I believe people of California want action and they are not going to wait indefinitely to get it. Now, the ocean is one of. the major resources of this State: We have to prote~t it and if we wait, if the State waits, until there is demonstrated ocean damage, it would be too late to act~ Thank you, I would like to answer questions if you have any. Our executive officer, ·who is an engineer is available, Mr. Robie in the back is an attorney. Feel free to call on them. Now just to make sure of what we have here, the State Board is made up of five people, two of those people· are engineers, one is a chemical engineer with wj_despread, long term municipal sanitation experience~ The other is a civil engineer with water quality experience. Mr. Robie is an attorney who has had a great influence and hand in writing many of the water laws of California. There are two other members of the Board who don't know anythlng and I am one of them. Question: Mr. Finnell stated '' I was pleased to note that the Board states its objectives and that they have talrnn a positive approach for water quality, -1~- I think that in talking to some of the other Directors, we agree that our intention here is to meet whatever has. to be met~ where other Districts are going only half-way and hope that you will settle for half-way., I think that is the reason for the concern for your plan. You have indicated that the first step would be to submit our report in January, but, that presents a problem. Our estimate of preparing that plan is between $150,000 to $300,000. This is more than what our initial plan in the budget anticipated. That means that certain capital funds are going to have to suffer. We feel that with the public hearings we had established some rational basis for some numbers. The last time we met, you had just received some interpretations and we have not seen them yet. -Maybe that is an area whereby after we see these interpretations ... it would be helpful ·to us. Answer: ML Ada1~1s replied .. "Well, generally, the requirements for heavy metals in this plan are 100 times of the natural background of the existing background of ocean waters. Now, this is the beginning of the basis Of· rationale for theexisting plan. We had three public hearings on this program for this plan beginning last year. The first was up North, the second in .c •((.< San Diego and the third in Los Angeles. I would like to ask Bill, :_~ho is the Chief of Sta.ff and Engineer to come up and give the rationale for the nwnbers we have selected ... " The major consideration for the background as far as heavy metals are concerned is that the tendency of heavy metals is to accumulate in the food chain; and, although they may not be toxic when first discharged because of the dilution factor, they can become toxic." W. Adams remarked that there are many problems as to how to accomplish our plan as to whether you go to activated sludge or biodegradable secondary treatment. As I unders·tand it, this does not remove the heavy metals to the extent that we feel is necessary without a source control program. Now, it also is true, if you use the physical chemical treatment, you have a much magnified sludge problem so then you are faced with a sludge problem .. What do you do with the sludge? -13- , .. Tl-le answer would probably be incineration, but then you have the problem with the 11 air people 11 • Hopefully, some young, bright engineer will come up with the answer to this problem, but we are not counting on that sort of thing. We have to look at it with the knowlege that we have before. I think that really the basic thing that is overriding with the Board is that there has to be an improvement in what is happening now. Up and down the Coast, the major dischargers and the secondary discharges are putting primary treated effluent into the ocean. This type of stuff is Joa.ded with every type of toxic substances. The ocean is important to California, and this can not be tolerated. One thing for sure, there will never be less amounts going out there and this is the future of California. Question: One of the major problems in Newport Beach is our tax problem and therefore we felt the pay-as-you-go basis would be best. We would like to find out from you the reasonableness of a heavy tax program. Answer: I am very much against the pay-as-you-go program. I don't see wh;-{ the current tax payers should have to pay for what is going to benefit people 30 years from now. It should be spread out possibly in form of bonds. Question: Mr. Finnell --faced with the deadlines of the State plan, the issue that the Directors are faced with is in getting bond issues passed, we have to worry about the cash flow problems. After lengthy examination by our technical staff this seems to be the only way to go. Answer: Conventionally, bond issues have had a very favorable approval. A bond issue in Santa Barbara was very poorly handled. People were not fully informed as to what the issue was. In 1970, our own bo~d issue, which . . was passed on a 76% basis(and, incidentally, your Co~ty was just about a State average on same), you went for it. I think that if you put up a bond issue in Orange County you might be suprised with the results. Question: My understanding is that the Board is positive that the same '-"" requirements will not be made of the major dischargers as would be of the smaller dischargers. -14- Answer: It gets down to basic economics~ We have made a decision that with -~a 40 to 45 MGD plant the difficulty in the technical knowhow to operation of these plants is greater and it is probably better to go to secondary treatment or biodegradable treatment. We do not gj_ve than any choice. We said this is where· you have to go. But, we did give them a choice of some leeway in the plan as I described earlier. Question: We would not be required to go to 85~.6 BOD removal? Answer: You would have to have supporting data proving that you can not meet the water quality requirements. As to major dischargers ln this plan, if they can prove that they are not going to cause any environmental problems, then a waiver will have to be granted. As far as heavy metals or non-degrad- able substances;are concerned, there are no waiver provisions. Question: You commented that the harbors of San Diego and Los Angeles are now back to normal condition. To what do you give credit for this? Apparently there has been no degree of action such as what is happening hereo Answer: They no longer put municipal and industrial wastes and discharge into the harbor, but out into the ocean. Question: And then, did they experience any degrading effect in the ocean or do you know? Answer: There is some detectable changes in the ocean a1~ound the outfall. Now, you can get a great deal of scientific argument. In fact, it has been said .that the sludge had had a great deal of affect on the ocean, unless all the sludge with the toxic substance had been removed. Question: There is a disparity between the industrial dischargers between the Fast, MidWest and Western parts of the country and what requirements each has. Answer: There is a great deal of difference between receiving wafers in the ~Atlantic Ocean, Pacific Ocean and inland lakes and streams, and, of course, the other thing is that the federal program wants to assure that there not be pollution in any part of the United States. Everyone is going to have to -15- . .. meet the minimum requirements.. It will vary, because of the types of receiving waters each area has. If you remember, the Muskie Bill passed ·~ in the United States· senate with an 86% vote to nothing required no discharge into all receiving waters by 1985. Question: Is is true that the Pacific Ocean is the best receiving water in the United States? Answer: I don't know, I am not really qualified. We have the best dilution factor in the Pacific Ocean because of the currents. Question: Why then are the industrial users in the East subject to less stringent requirements than the users in Californ;a? Answer: We have not had an opportunity to see the E.P .A .. report·s.. We did get a report from New York and New Jersey and one from Chicaco which is showing that chromium, for instance, has standards which are 60 times more restrictive than the industrial area of Chicago. We have not had· an oppor- tunity to see the reports. Your concern naturally is ... are we hurt .in our ar~more than other areas? This is a good question to ask the Feds and find out. The federal concept has been to try to equalize so that one area is not restricted more than others. Question: We have taken a great deal of pride and concern in the marine .environment with regard to this Southern California Coastal Waters Research Program. Answer: The SCCWRP is a very commendable effort by the five southern counties to spend money·to answer a lot of unanswered questions. It is unfortunate that the program has not proved out. We would have been very delighted about 2-1/2 yrs ago to depend upon SCCWRP to supply a lot of data that was not available anywhere else .. It has not come out. SCCWRP is too slow. We can nnt wait. The point is that the pr"'ogram has been in trouble, is in trouble, ~ and we can not count on it. $3,000,000 is being spent on that program and -16 very frankly, you are not getting your money's worth. The program is bogged down. Jhat is my opinion. Someone might dispute that. ~ Question: Are you suggesting that it is not a worthwhile program? Answer: My suggestion is that you reorganize it. It could be very worthwhile. Question: My question is two-fold. 1. Are we on record at this time as to what the discharge should be at this time? And, why can 1 t we have a set program to meet such standards. Answer: At this time we are working on technical reports. I would like to have Bill tell you what the shortcomings are i~ this program .... :~·· "Basically, the approach of the study has been to answer .. what is the effect of the waste discharges on the marine life in Southern California. /. / .. ' ~ .~ _., \ (v::/~fJ._~/' ;I'..(~~. r?Z t:!l·. {: _. c·.J' .. ;~.;~;:,·ti / :c .. ~-c) Mr. Adams stated .. maybe I should have been more tactful, but we realize that the County has put one hell of a lot of money into this program, and remember, we are a regulatory agency and we want specific answer~ where we can not make rational decisions as to what should be controlled and to what degree. Now, not being a scientist.and engineer, that may not be a practical thing and they may think other things are more important. I don't know, but I do know one thing and that is that we have to have gotten a lot more.out of the program than we have been able to get. Question: The way things appear to me, the way these regulations came· out, they were unsupported; however, things you have said here tonight have made me feel a little better. But, you make reference to these hearings that have taken place and yet we have not received any data on which our people can act. I still do not feel very good about it. Maybe we will not be able to meet these standards after the money is spent and gone. This does not seem quite fair. ~ Answer: There has certainly been a communications gap. I certainly disagree with your opinion. The three public hearings were held. The range was from -17- zero up. ·charts ·with series of numbers were discussed submitted by San Diego C0unty, Orange County and others. These plans r·ecei ved considerable ·~· time in being presented three times in hearingse Your impression is wrong.' Much time has been. given to this. Question: -------stop. -18- Agenda ltern ltlfj4 laj September 13, 1972 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Boards of Directors FROM: Fred A. Harper, General Manager COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 We have just been notified by telephone this morning that arrangements are being.made by the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies for its Special Committee on Federal Ocean Disposal Regulations to meet with high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency officials to discuss and make recommendations concerning a number of requirements the EPA administrator will be defining following the adoption of pending federal legislation to amend the .Federal Water Poliution Control Act. Our Districts have been active on this Special Committee, ·and we b-=lieve it would be in our best interests to have a Director and staff member present at the proposed meeting. ~ (J_)J,_.,~ Pred A. Harper General Manager RECOMMENDED ACTION: [See Agenda Item No. 14(a)] Consideration of motion authorizing the participation of a Board member and a staff member of the Districts at a meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' Special Committee on Federal Ocean Disposal Regulations.in Washington, D.C. or a location to be determined, to be scheduled in September or October; and authorizing reimbursement for travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred for said meeting. MEMBER AGEN21t.S (April, 1972) Allegheny County Sanitary Authority, Pa. City of Atlanta City tf Baltimore ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES 410 \\'ESl HARRISON STREET, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 (206) 284-5100 September 6, 1972 ~ . Bergen County Sewer TO : · · Authority, N. J. Bob Bargman Alan PrL~dlar.c Walt Gar~ison City of I,os Angeles City & County of S;in Francisco Count~i Sa_hi tatlou Districts of 'Metropolitan District Commission (Boston) Metrapolitan Sanitary District cf Greater Chicago Metropolitan Sewer District tf Greater Cincinnati City of Cleveland City·ef Columbus City of Dallas Metropolitan Denver Sewage Dis0posal District No. 1 Detroit Metre Water Dept. Fred Harper Ch71ck l{znry D:ick Kinq To.r:y Po;1ovmki Sol· Sed.d · Los l'~ngclc::: C ot•'""\.,_,. c:;~,1i.· +:--... .;on r>; strich3 of u •• '"'.l .... '-"-._,,_ .... _ -. -~ -, Orangc_Connty: California Munic~pal~ty of Metropolitan Seatlle City of 5dH DieSJO M..i.d.dle=sex •.~ount.y Sewe::age .~.uthori ty .l'iiddle3::.:h C~unty Se\ver-age Authorj_ ty East B:ay Municipal 141 ROM. : Utility District, Oakland, Cal. Pr8s Tack City of Fort Worth SUBJECT: Hampton Roads S:anitation District, Ya. City of Houston City of K:anus City, Mo. City of Los Angeles louinille ·and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District City of Memphis Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, N. J. Metropolitan Sewer District 1f the County of Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewer Board (Minneapolis-SL Paul) Metropo Ii tan Government of Nashville and Davidson County · City of Omaha County Sanitation Districts If Orange County, Cal, City of Philadelpftia City of Phoenix City of Portland, Ore. Metropolitan Sacramento City of San Diego City and County of Saa Francisco City af Su Jose Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District City of Tucson Wullington (D.C.) Suburh:i Sanitary Commission County ef Westchester, H. Y. City of Wichita ,•.,' _. .. ,.~1;"):!f11n. 0 C. Off.{~ Sui~.~ :~! 115S·i~:h q NW. '1....i~iiir.~u,i. [t_C. ~C-CJ : L :~·:~1 .t~·~·1 ~:J P. ~~oP.r.a·L dc~;cript . .ion C·f E~c-.. c~1 '7.ger1cy' s syste:a wu.s S'ii'.>c1:. l:·y 't!-.;~ !·epz::e.scr!t3. tiV·? presPnt, with .i;; :_.:icci..11 6t1pbasis en d.!.::p~~.::l to the o~e~n cf tre~bnc~t pl~nt 0f flueat. nepo~t~ and · tc;;s·ci1r1onics ider.:.tif ien Qnd/o:: !r~dc v:o:.tt:ilc..bls h·?.'.V8 beer! i11.;.;;ornorute:d i~t:c the followi!l·=' :;_~·~Sl" h~ll~tir.s: • ... J ~;2.,...40 (3-15-72/ Subject:· Wc:d:er Q11'3.U.ty Control Plan for Oc<:;~!1 l·iat'3:.i:s of C5.lif0~ni-?t {·Xr~clu~2s SCCl.YH2 tes ~lmc\11y at De-ceiaj::8r 2, 1971 hc~.u:ing) i72-45 (S=-·6-<!2) Subject~ Oc~2~: Dispos~ . .l cf .\·:t:!::-:.e'::·?l.t~r Tre~tJut;ni: P 1M: t EL( luE~r..t Dr. George r:.. Hl.3:·.:!:c.' n di.?.·':'.OU!"f P on t:hP. Sout.hPrn Ca.15 . .i~ox-r.1.i<J. · Coa.sta~ i'?:iter R(=;s;:?;,-..rc~ Project. {SCCWt<l?) centF-;~2d c~ tr:.~ I).,..~o "1r·--?·? c~ nHi·t·,,..,~-=-::: ~':"\d -:--t-1-:x •··~~;.Jc .. r.,{" :...l·.n -fJ0 l 1 (~.l.· r.05 -;-illl'• i.,.). ·"-_. ..... \.....,. ._. '= ... _ ..••. -..... _,.~ ""'·'' ...... •_, ...... '-.,..•4.""-:v ....... -. '-•---·-...... J ~ ... .::> ·"-~·• (See hi$· l:.estinony b·:?forA th€ C<Jliforni'1. St:~tc ~-Ic.ttez: R'=.'SOPYCA-S Cor.t r.ol Boar.cl Oh Dec~.1ii!:.•2~:-2, l9·n. i:-:(::11.1~~~ in. AN.SA B-ul:.eti,,~ #77-40 cit:F.d :lbO"/C).. .~n 1.111.ru..:·!0.ed .bl.:t r2~0';­ :r.iz~rl l·~.~~d is U·!e c:o1:vr~rsh:in ;.ir~c. t7..·ansrri.~.sior. of the SC:C\·JP..E' :Csport ·:o tbe ':!t:r:·e.-r-al pub:ti-::. ·l'h~ ·~·~~t~~ PoL!_u(.:\.on Ccn7.rol Fedc~Cit.i.{.~!'"i a.n<l J\_~SA w~r~~ ci i.:ed as orga·,1.;..za~i.04:3 whi~!-! co:...:1'6. h~ of help ::..:--, thi.z process-.. AMSA Me':!~nrandum Septem!Jer 6, 197 2 Page 1\vu Some general observations: Chemical physical treatment generally not looked on favorably because of the sludge disposal and air p~llution problems generated. -Insufficient scientific data are.available to justiiy stringent regulations on \-;astcwater trcr.ttn~nt plant effluent, particularly.in view of the a~parent magnitude of other contributing sour::cs. ' Restrictions o~ heavy metal effluent values will rE=quire the Lnposition of ~ccordingly rcst.J:ictive controls on the sources. J.:n response to the question of how AN.SA could best serve its me~)ers regarding ·ocean disposal, twd bQsic activities were · generally recorum?rded. le w'ork for clcnrlv stated policies for 0crwn di~pc~~i·~nd de~ine any differences beiwe~n a~e~s. The ~YSA ~ask force approach was ~ug­ ges.tcd wit!~ the recmmnendati0!1 that inuli:;."'uid.i.:.e st~ps be taken to request a meeting with EPA. (Tom's letter of 1~::.:tg'-1st 7, 1972 to Ru.cl~cl.shaus has been re£e~red to Gene Jensen and action to airange the meeting appears to be underway.) 2. Prov·ide a means whereby l'J1SA r:'.embers can be made aware of ocean dispo:;jal research and development activities of other agencies. The inference was-made that this kind of service might be extended to R & D not specifically related to ocean disposal. Other points brought up at the meeting: -Pending· federal legislation to a.mend the Federal •.- ·Water Pollution Control Act contains a nuinber of req\dremcnts for the EPA ACL·ninistrator to. provide 11 6efinitions 11 \-lithin a short period of . time. Many of these are of critical importance and it was !:'cquested "that Fl1SA ,. perhaps throQgh the 'fechn.i.cCll Advisot"y Group,. de everything possible to i:lvolve i.t:sclf in the fonnulation of these definitions. ! . I ! AMSA Memorandum September 6, 1972 Page 'l'hree -AMSA 1 s k.cy role in serving its members lies in activity at the national level to influence legislatio~ and regulations. Special emphasis was placed on knmdng the decision making process at the federal level so that member agencies could be at maximum effectiveness in presenting their suggestions on new· legislation and regulations. Each agency representative· was invited-to furnisl1 a written :summary of information relative to his syGtem together with points he felt would be of general interest ~nd sign!fica~cc. Those available are enclosed. PBT/vb Enclosures . cc: 'l'om Gibbs •.- Lee White Martin Lang Stewc.rt Brehm Carmen Guarino .. \ Chairman Finnell Report of the Joint Chairman Present Gavel Plaque to former Joint Chairman Edward Just. Call meeting of the Executive Committee for 5:30 p.m., Tuesday September 26th. Invite Directors Frank Sales and Otto Lacayo, or Director Carl Kymla. SEPTE MBER 13, 197 ?. Joint Mtg. Following wr i t ten remarks of W.W. Adams : I would like to add to th e ~re11a red remar ks. ~he Pollut i on Control ~~ Act,whi c~ was passed in 1 96 9 effe ctive 1970 , was passed u n i mous l y by state legislation . I think t hat was a reflection of the concern of the people of Californ i a for t h ei r e n vironment . In 1970 there was a Clean Water Pollution Act and it passed by 76%. Again , this is a reflec tio n of the people of Califor ni a to p rot ec t its environment . I have had a lot of discussion with peop le abo ut the f ac t that we don't know all the a nswers , and I am the first to a dmit it . No one has all the answers . We believe that if we wait until you have all the answers, you would n e v er act . I believe the people of California want action and they are not going to wa it indefinitely to g et it. The ocean is a major natural resource o f the nation and we have to protect it. If we wait unti l demonstrated wide -spread damage to the ocean occurs, it would be too late to act. Mentione d tha t the State Boar d is ma de up of 5 people --a chemical engin eer , a civil engineer with wate r quality e x perience , Robie is an attorney and has had a hand in writ ing many of t h e water laws of th e State , and two o th e r men, one of which is Mr . Ad ams . . . ~ F i nne ll me ntio ned that these Districts have shown by their actioris th e p ast few years that th ey have a l ways taken a positive approach. Our attempt will be to meet what we have to meet while others may think of g oing halfway and hoping that you will settle for halfway. That is the r eason why these Districts were so concerned with th e p l an. The first step will be the techn ical report due in January . Even that wiiix~~ presents a problem . I j u st want to mak e sure that you are aware of our estimate of preparing that report is ab out $1 50,000-300 ,000; more than the monitoring p l an and our budgets anticipated. We felt that at the pr oject hearing s that we had established what we felt was some rational basis for some numb ers . The l a s t t ime we met you had just received some interpret a tion of the n u mber s and we have n't seen them yet . Maybe after we have seen them, we can better understand . Adams: The requir eme nts for heavy meta ls are generally 100 t i mes the natural background in o c ean waters . Th is is the beginning basi s of the background in accumulating these numb ers . We had three public hearings on this plan. Asked Bill Den~ to comment on the rationa le of the numbers . Dend~: Ma j o r consideration is acc umul atio n of chro n i c to x icity of h~avy metals . May not be toxic at first b ut can b e c ome toxic to some animal s low in the f ood chain by accumu l at i on . Al so to ok a l ook at what present water disposal systems are doing and what we f ee l the good water disposal treatMent and secondary treatment with s ource control could accomplish . If we d i sagreee, it is not so much what t he numbers a r e , but as to how much could be accompl ished by thi s program. Finnell : This program would not include activated sludge f ac ilities . Is this correct? Adams: There is disa g reement as to how you can acco mplish this. Act ivat ed sl u dge or biological secondary treatment does not do it p. 2 without flow control. If you use a physical-chemical program, you have a magnified sludge problem. Most effective way of getting rid of it is incineration but then would have trouble with air people. I think the basic thing and one point which was overriding with the Board is there has to be an improvement over what is happening now. Secondary dischargers are putting treated water into the ocean loaded with toxic metals by the tons, and this can not be tolerated. One thing for sure, there are never going to be less amounts and are going to be continued increases in amounts of metals going into ocean. Is it the State's intent to provide funds for those that are going to be deferred from our research and other areas in order to provide this technical report? Dende: The technical report is reimbursable under the grant program. 80% reimbursement under construction grant later on. Kymla: One of our problems is the tax rate, particularly in line of the fact that perhaps one of the ways is a pay-as-you-go program. We would like to explore grant anticipation warrants but would like to find out from you as to what type of commitments we can receive from your Board to know whether we can issue these grant anticipation warrants. Adams: I am incompetent on anticipation warrants. Don't believe pay-as-you-go basis is good. Financing should be spread over many years. What type of method can you suggest? Adams: General obligation bonds are recommended. Finnell: The uncertainty of passing the bonds is a problem. The issue Directors have been facing in the past few months is that if they had to have the money in 1976 and possibly couldn't get bonds passed, and with the payment schedule on grants being 90 days behind in the past, and because of cash flow, we have an astronomical task. Decision was not one that was put up as an emotional issue. We feel, after a pretty lengthy examination, that was the only way of ensuring we could meet all of the law if adopted. As indicated before, if we couldn't get it changed by a rehearing, these Directors will comply to the law. Adams: Bond issues for schools etc. have had a dismal record for the last 10 years. Bond issues,_ state or local, for environmental improve- ment have generally had favorable approval--about 99%. Santa Barbara case was badly handled and people were not fully acquainted as to what issues were. Our own bond issue was 76%. You might be surprised with results of a bond issue. Would all Districts have to approve a bond issue? Finnell: Would have to have seven bond issues-~one for each District . ./ Griset: Board is positive that same requirements would not be made of the major dischargers as . they would be made of the smaller dischargers. p. 3 Adams: We considered a 40 mgd plant, because of technical difficulty and know-how, more logical to go to secondary treatment. Would give some leeway for larger dischargers. Griset: Your conviction is that a discharger like we in Orange County would no~ be required to go to an 85% BOB removal. This would not be necessary. Is that correct? Adams: 85% BOD is a requirement of the state but if you can furnish some data, there is a possible waiver on this. Have put waiver provision for certain biodegradeable substances into this plan. Burden of proof is on you. If you can prove you are not going to cause any environ- mental harm, you can get a waiver. On non-biodegradeable substances there is no waiver provision. You indicated harbors in San Diego again are coming back to life. Under what controls is this happening? Adams: In San Diego they took the discharge that was received and put it out into the ocean. Did they experience degrading in ocean or do they know yet? Adams: Yes, were detectable changes in ocean. Have heard sludge could have a very beneficial affect on ocean, but first you have to remove all the toxic substances out of it. Griset: There is a diparation between industrial dischargers of the East, Midwest and here under the restrictions which are imposed under this new plan. Are you aware of this? Adams: We are aware of what other states are doing. This becomes a complicated thing. There is a great deal of difference in characteris- tics of waters such as comparing the Atlantic and Gulf waters with many of the lakes and streams. Federal participation will ensure that there will be no pollution havens. Everybody will have to meet minimum requirements. Muskie Bill required zero discharge in receiving water by 1985. Is Pacific Ocean the best receiving water in the United States? Adams: Don't know. Think we have the best dilution effect in the Pacific Ocean because of the currents. Why then are the industrial users in the East subject to less stringent requirements than the State of California? Finnell: Mr. Adams perhaps has not had an opportunity to see the EPA report that we have seen. Adams: No, have not seen EPA report. Finnell: Are we hurting our industry be being more restrictive than the East? Adams: We are just as resentful at state level of federal impositions on us as you are. Somewhere along the line we have to come to certain basic requirements. Can not be pollution havens where industry dis- charges what they want. - p. 4 Griset: · We have taken a gr_eat deal of pride in achievements of SCCWRPA with regard to marine environment and discharge and these regulations which have come through your organization have been an apparent disregard as to what is imminent to the entire coastal program. Adams: I am not going to be tactful. SCCWRPA program has not proved out. We were depending on SCCWRPA to furnish a lot of data and reports that we were suppose to publish this fall, and now have learned it will be sometime next year. This program can not wait for that. The information will be valuable but can not wait. That program has been in trouble and don't see how it is going to pull itself out to furnish information. Wedaa: Are you suggesting that we stop wasting our money? Adams: No, it i ·s a worthwhile program but should reorganize program. Culver: Are we on record at the present time as to what our discharges are from this plant, and if so, why can't we, instead of spending $300,000 on a report, have a report typed from your Board to tell us what we do meet and what we don't. Dende: Have quite a bit of information on hand but .some technical data lacking. There is no way that we can have a record of what your discharges are. Smith: Regarding SCCWRPA would you explain what you mean by wasting our money. Dende: Shortcomings of SCCWRPA: Basically, the problem is that the approach of the study has not been to answer the questions that bother us most. They are studying a lot of things that are not of top priority. Not the type of study we would like to see. What is the effect of the waste discharge on the quality of water and the marine biology of the waters of California? Adams: Counties have put a lot of money into $3 million program. We are a regulatory agency. We want specific answers to specific questions so we can make decisions as to what should be controlled and to what degree. We had hoped we would get it out of this program. Miller: Would like to comment about this process and don't know any more than what our engineers have told us. The way it appears is that standards were arbitrary, capricious and unsupportable. Not having received any information as to how supportable these standards are, don't think it is good to spend these funds until people can understand. Adams: There has been a communication gap. Thoroughly disagree with statement that these were arbitrary and that everybody didn't get a chance to put his feelings in. You saw a bunch of charts. All of those numbers were discussed at public hearings. This plan received 2/3 more consideration than any other plan. It has been implied that the Board locked itself in and came up with these figures. p . 5 I have taken data concerning fresh water and requirements into Pacific Ocean . Took copper -1/10 of what requirements are . Nickel -70% Zinc -50% Chromium requirements are 400 times stricter than what we drink. Cadmium -45 0% more strict that what we use. We are in trouble if 400 t i mes o f f from the Ja w. Do you have any info rmation as to what effects o f waste - water are on marine biology? Dende: Have quite a bit of information. Do you have enough inform a tion on al l minerals to put restr ictions on them? I s it sufficient en ough to set the n u mb ers? Just: Suggested that comments on SCCWRP be postponed unt i l another meeting . Adams: We don't have a ll the answers but have to take the best info rmati on we have. You shou l d have water supp l y i nformation also . If your wa~er supply is far beyond the limits that we a r e going to put into the ocean, then I think that your whole c oncept is off . Would cause problems if we tell people we have to add more to tax r ate than for water coming i nto the house to put it i~to the ocean . What if we reversed the flow of our system and sent everything into San Bernardino County . Would we still b e the object of your rath? Adams: Yes, it is going to be tough all over . Report due January 1 and we are talking about tax increase for our people that you say we may have to modify . Adams: The mod ification· we are talking about is in the event yo u · are going to h ave to upgrade your treatment . The number is a minor thing . The important fact is that you are go ing to have to upgrade your treat ment . As f ar as the money is conce r ned , I think the financing picture is ext r emely fa v orable in the loc al concept. Is up to you as to whethe r you want to go out next year and hit your peop l e with a 100 % tax increase . I don't think it is necessary . Finnell : If a District pr e sents its p lan that does not include biological secondary treatment but presents a plan that says th is is the way we wi ll go , will this be acceptable? Adams : Board will not be receptive to a plan that i s not going to drastically reduce toxic substances going into the ocean of California . Yo u have indicated that you are starting at the coast and sometime in the f u ture would have more stringent requirements in Mid west, etc. Should start i n the mi ddle or at the source r ather than at our end . Are putting the cart before the hor se . ( p. 6 Adams: To begin with , don't believe it works that way . When we get our water from the State Water Proje ct, it is good water. All dischar gers into inl and waters are already under very strict re gulations. Inland dischargers have been under this since 1959 . The idea that we are starting at the coast and going in l and is not the . fact.- Quigley: Your statement that inland dischargers have to be equiva le nt is differe nt in this case. If we were inland , could d u mp back into the same stream , the same level that we were taking in. Robie: I have traveled around the state a lot and have been asked "When are you go i ng to take care o f the o cean?" Almost al l of the Sierra streams have no discharge and also toward the val l ey and coast . Have been significant improvements in San Francis co and East Bay areas . Believe we are the ones putting the cart before the horse . Th is ocean plan is the only time we have taken the entire coast i nto consideration . Adams: One thing I sai d in my formal remarks is: Th is is a five -year program. This is not o f an em e r ge ncy nature . If we fi nd that al l of the numbers in the plan can not be met for reasons that are not controllable, then the Boa rd will certainly cons i der this . -- Green: Has your Board develop ed a popula t i on growth projection for the grant program? Adams: Have developed a pop u lation projection cyc l e for our grant program. Took actual population for l ast 10 years and projected it over the next 20 . We tried to prevent th i s by adopting a formula in our grant program which would b e based on these figures . Finnell: We have h ad a thorough discussion on this and think we should stop with the grant subject. Mr . Adams s tated previously that honest men could diffe r. Appre c iat e the time you and the Boa rd have taken to come down , etc. Adams: My f eelings in association with Orange County and its people have always been pleasant . Neve r occurred to me that Orange County would take a negative view . You have some of the best techn i cal people available i n yo ur organization and once you start applying your ability to solve problems , the n you will find . solut ions to this one . I have a positive feeling abo ut this . I h ave found Orange County people to be r easonable people. By working to geth e r and understanding each other, we can solve thi s prob l em . Joint Chairman called a recess at 9 :00 p .m., and reconvened at 9 :08 p .m. Finnell mentioned displ ay o u t i n _ entry. Said difference in $41 mil l ion and $105 million figure is bio l ogical secondary treatment . $4 1 million is plan Districts are p roceeding upon and included in our budgets and will represent a much better discharge that what we have at the pres ent time but does not inc lude biologi cal secondary t r eatment . $105 mi llion plan would include bio l ogical treatment and is the p l an that is the basis of the extremely high r aises i n tax -rates that we show. The point made toni g ht relative to biological sec ondary t re atment h as a g reat aff ect on what the Districts do . Ffnnell called a short meetin g of the Committee for Rehearing on the ocean po licy for immediately after the Joint Me eting. r Mr. Finnell then presented Gavel Plaque to former J oint Chairman Edward Just . p .7 Called a meeting of the Executive Committee for Tuesday, September 26, at 5:30 p.m. and invited Directors Frank Sales and Otto Lacayo to a ttend. At 9:12 p.m . adjourned to Executive Session to consider personnel matters . Reconvened at 9 :28 p.m. #7 -Report of General Counsel . Reported on item of general interest to all and specific interest to Di strict 3. Have had a suit going on manhole coating failure . Were ruled against in the trial court and we appealed. Got appeal today a n d judgement is reversed . Are now back where we started from with new guide l ines. Hopefully, we will get some kind of an offer of a settl ement . Will keep you informed. #11 -F l ood Prevention Committee report Ed Just r~ported that Committee has had a couple of meetings and decided to assign Public Works Directors of various agencies to work t ogether to determine exactly what the problem was to have some idea to te ll what can be done. I n 1969 it got pretty bad and were very c l ose to losing some of the faci l ities because the wal l s of the river were close to breaking. There are several things that can be done and should be·:done. Those on low reaches of river are more concerned than those above. If it should get wiped out, wou l d have at l east a six month per i od before it could be put back i nto operation . Very s e r ious prob l em . Have had rain in August and again this month which is out of normal pattern so could have har d winter again this year . Ray Lew i s thinks we are talking about $60 ,000 but can't say exactly. Wa ll s or banks of river are one of the most serious problems. Co mm ittee recommends to this group for yo u r consideration that all of the agencies prepare and submit a resolution to the Board of Supervisors and Flood Control District , urging that they spend whatever is considered n ecessary to reinforce the walls of the river from at least 17th Street on down. Am not sure al l problems can be solved. Freeway would act as b arrier and force all water in underpass and shoots it right here. Dykes could be used and also strengthen .the river . Concerned about this particular winter . Asks that this group submit a resolut i on aski ng that immediate .action be taken to strengthen the sides of the ri ver along this area from 17th Street on down and asking that . a ll of t he agencies , particularl y the Flood Control Ci strict , find out what is necessary to take -the steps for correction; and further, to direct the staff to get some cost figures on whatever would be necessary for retaining walls around the equipment . Have no idea of cost . George Osborne should have some ideas . Could run into a b att l e because there has been a lot of work done on Greenbelt Plan . Capacity of the river could be expanded greatly but goes against the g r ain of a lot of work that has been done. Costs are insignificant compared to the consequences . Phillips: Should draft a strong r esolution asking for investigation and report . p. 8 Request for resolutions was made into a motion , and seconded. Question was asked if a model resolution could be pr epared wi th exact wording that i s recommended. Mr . Just indicated that timing was a problem and if we were to wait for that , it wuld take to long to act. It .was stated that we may have to ask for state funds so should take serious action. George Osborne has i nd i cated'·that this i s no t as serious to them and not a top prior ity project. Asked how much J o int Board prepared to put up and the answer was whatever is needed. Gibbs: Since we have 4/5 of the Supervisors here, I wou l d think that at their next meeting they can go ahead and do something. Should be top priority. Motion regarding resolutions was passed. #14(a) Smith moved that Supervisor Ralph Clark be appo i nted to represent the Board at Washington, D.C. meeting. Amendment to motion was made that we also a ut horize the Joint Cha irman or Vice Chairman to attend the meeting. Finnell furth er amended motion to r ead : Participation of a Board member se lect ed by the Joint Chairman . Smith retracted his original mot ion re Supv. Clark and Griset made a n ew motion: Moved that we authorize Joint Chairman to accompany our General Manager on thi s mission, and in his inability to go , our Vice Ch airman, and ih his inab ilit y to go , that the appointment be made by the Joi nt Ch a irman. Motion was seconded and carried . Miller comment ed that it was his be lief that we have to keep up or intensify our po l itical and l egal efforts on the water qualit y program . Finnell: Asked i f it was still the Committee's f ee ling that we shou ld continue to p r e ss for a meeti n g to exp l a in our position? I s that the general concensus? What is our position right now? Finne ll: We have formally requested a rehearing on the plan. Smith moved that we confirm position. Mot i on was seconded and carried : Mee ting of Spec ial Comm ittee fo llo win g Joint Meeting was then called off . WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN OCEAN WATER OF CALIFORNIA by W. W. ADAMS, CHAIRMAN STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this group to discuss with you our recently adopted Ocean Plan. I am well aware that there has been, to say the least, a communication gap-- a misinterpretation of the provisions of the plan and the intent of the Board in its development and adoption. Development of the plan and the need for action in these areas are occasioned by several things. (a) currently 1,100 mgd of municipal discharges are going into the ocean off the shores of California, and an additional 150 mgd of industrial waste. These wastes contain 4,600 tons per year of toxic metals. The amount of additional toxic waste from nonpoint sources is unknown. (b) The Environmental Protection Agency requires as a condition for a grant to build a sewage treatment plant with an ocean outfall that it accomplish 85 percent BOD removal. This is generally considered secondary treatment. The federal legislation now in the Senate-House Conference has provisions, if it is not changed in the Conference, for a zero discharge by 1983. Presented to the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles and the county Sanitation Districts of Orange County, September 13, 1972-: in the Los Angeles area. (c) The scientific evidence obtained from studies around the outfalls in California on the effects of these waste loads ! on the marine biota indicates that toxic metals and chlorinated hydrocarbons have had a detectable effect on the marine organisme within the area. Of course, the dilution ratio at the end of the outfall would naturally make the accumulated effect of nondegrad- able toxic metals very slow in developing. (d} We do not believe that we can wait until there has been demonstrated extensive damage to the marine environment before we can justify more stringent controls than we have now. We do know that a few years ago San Diego and Los Angeles Harbors were dehd areas as far as marine life is concerned. When the municipal and industrial waste were eliminated, these harbors recovered to a ~tartling degree and are nOW' healthy bodies of water. (e) The Porter-Cologne Act requires that the Boar~ develcp ~nd adopt water quality policies and plans for the State. Since we adopted the Q.cean Plan on July 6 this year, I have heard much talk that the requirements are more stringent tr.an th;;.;· public health standards for drinking water. I have several re- actions to this allegation. I live in Southern California and r can testify to the fact that some pretty lousy water is served up for human consumption. The data I have seen to support the allegation shows only borderline excesses for some metals and com- pliance with most. Marine organisms are susceptible to toxic poisoning to a much greater degree than the human animal, and tho2~- organisms are ver:y low on the food chain. Humans are at the ·cop--, -2- for the present. These comparisons can be brought home more directly if you will put a fish in a cocktail shaker: of martinis or a glass of bourbon. The limits for heavy metals in the Ocean Plan were arrived at after a thorough and rational analysiH which took into consideration the following factors: 1. natural concentrations in ocean water; 2. concentrations which cause acute toxicity1 3. concentrations which cause chronic toxicity; 4. biological magnification tendencies1 and 5. wastewater disposal system capabilities for reducing concentrations. Obviously, the ideal condition would be to discharge ~~ast~~ water having exactly the same heavy metals concentratione ~a natural seawater. This would eliminate any possibility of toxic stress from metals. A review of available data indicat~s the difficulty and extreme cost of such a program. However, all n;.at-:~.~ except silver exhibit strong tendencies toward biologica.l magnification, underscoring the need for maximum reasonable control. Thus. in order to arrive at limits which give protection at an economically reasonable cost, we selected fran among the followingz 1. Concentration which would be safely below the estimat~·~ acute toxicity level for fish in the mandatory initial dilut.;_(Jr~ zone. 2. Concentration which would be safely below the estimated chronic toxicity level for any organisms which would be con- tinuously exposed to the diluted wastewater in or near the initia·~­ dilution zone. -3- 3. Concentration presently being achieved by well operated wastewater disposal systems and the concentration which we feel could be attained with a secondary level treatment syst.er.-, and a sound source control program. ( f) I do not think you have given the state Board crad.!. t. "Ee-.:. reasonableness. If, in the 5-year program to meet the requiremer:t~ of the plan it is demonstrated that some of the requiremente cam~"-1 be completely met because of factors which are beyond control, th~'~ Board will make revisions at that time. Testimony presented at the hearing by the larger municipal dischargers indicated that previously proposed levels of cont,.ol c.1~ certain biodegradable substances would not be necessary to m.eet. water quality objectives and give sufficient assurances on reduction of environmentally hazardous substances. Thus, the OC~'!'.'."~ Plan contains a waiver provision whereby the larger dischar-ger~ ca~ get less restrictive effluent requirements for biodegradable materials. We fully expect major municipal dischargers to de~relci the data necessary to support a request for a waiver so that they will not have to construct biological secondary treatment systems. There simply is not enough public money to allow the luxury of excessive and unnecessary treatment facilities. As to the provision for a major municipal discharger to :.:equi3t a waiver on the effluent requirements, here is the way the Board anticipates it to work: 1. Every major municipal system already has considerable i.nfnrrr~tt.r.··: on what can be achieved with certain alternative treatmen.t processes and their relative costs. -4- 2. This existing information should be augmented as much as possible within the time available, and it should be includ~d in the technical report due January 15, 1973. 3. If, in the light of this information the discharger hohe~t.;ly believes that the ocean quality objectives can be fully m~t with a variance in effluent requirements, then he should say so in his report. 4. If the existing data does not clearly support a variance, ·~nt the discharger still holds a firm belief that s-upporti11i3 ir~ .... formation ~ be developed in a reasonable time, then the report should say so. Included would be a proposed timet~blc for the presentation of such supporting information. 5. In any event, the technical report must state the various alternatives available based on both assumptions: that a waiver (1) may or (2) may not be found to be justified by the Board. 6. Also, in any event, the overriding premise must be that treatment is to be upgraded, and that the first phase t~ard this end must be in the design stage by 1973. The entire process obviously cannot wait to be started until all of the necessary support for a waiver is in and accepted. I would like to discuss for a minute the approach, the rationale, and the intentions of the Board in adopting the Ocean Plan. There was extensive discussion of the need and the cost cif requiring biological secondary treatment. All of the Board Member~ c:oncurred that we did not intend for all dischargers along the -s- entire coast to go to the degree of treatment that is biological secondary or activated sludge, whichever term you prefer to use., It was the belief of the Board that the Ocean Plan requirements could be met by a combination of physical chemical treatment or other systems plus a realistic and effective source control syste:11~ We certainly believe that you will need a higher degree of treatment than the primary treatment that is currently being used. I would like to reiterate, it was not the intention of t.h~ Board to require across the board biological secondary t:rea't1~~~rit !~~ r major dischargers. The enactment and enforcement of an effective sourc.:e cor.•.t ro.l plan to eliminate most of the heavy metals at the source ·is a v~r difficult problem and one that local government is reluctent to undertake because of the possible adverse reactions from ~.nd~~1 t.(:.: - But we believe this a reasonable approach and that it is; economi-::h.LJ feasible. Profit is not a dirty word in my vocabulary. I reali~e th~, .. ~­ company makes a profit only by creating more value than it co1~:·n.m~'> ..... The company which operates at a profit after paying its costs is doing a service on behalf of society. In most instances, businessmen are realists. They take pridP in being realists, and properly so. The history of the free·~ enterprise system has shown that in the long run, those who are not realists are weeded out by the competitive pressures of e.1z market place. Many businessmen are realists about environmental· matters. Fu,~ a distressing number are not. A die.tressing number have gullibl·· -6- believed some very wild rumors about pollution control activities-- have not even gotten straight the most fundamental facts regardiw;; the pollution control law and agencies. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder that these busines~1~ten are at least frustrated, if not frightened, concerning polluti~n control matters. Pollution control problems can be complex enough without their solutions being impeded by rumors and misinfonnatio~~ There are bound to be differences of opinion as ta what ;:;hoL:l..! be done, when it should be done, and occasionally who ahoulC't do it,., But ways are provided for you to get these resolved--machinery is available to protect your interests. And the realistic businessman is taking advantage of these provisions, and not wasting his time and that of others pur~uing avenues that lead to dead ends. The Porter-Cologne Act has established exceller ... t protecti.on, against unreasonable and arbitrary actions by government o:Cf5 .. c.~.a_! ;:,; by providing full judicial safeguards, open hearings and rights oi appeal. These are the portions of the Act which insure the rights of businessmen when standards are set, when variances are sought. when permits are applied for, and when enforcement cases are brmlgJ~"'. In summation, I would like to make several points again. 1. The volume of discharges of waste into the nearshor.e ocea~ waters and the fact that the ocean is one of California's major natural resources makes the protection of this resource not only common sense but absolutely essential. -7- 2. Too much attention and criticism have been leveled at the limits for toxic substances in the effluent'9 We believe that we should be more concerned with upgrading treatment·rather than quibbling about certain numbers. 3. Lft is not the intention of the Board to require uniform biological secondary treatmeni;7 The Board believes that the requirements can in most cases be met with a combination of an additional physical chemcial treatment or other methods with an effective source control system. 4. This is a 5-year staged program and is not of an emergency nature. If we find somewhere down the road that all of the numbers in the plan cannot be met for reasons that ara not controllable, such as the quality of a water supply, then th~ Boa.u: would certainly reconsider the numbers in those cases. 5. With the current state and federal financing, wh~""."~ th~ local communities pay 20 percent, we believe that it does not place an intolerable burden on local government. 6. The system we are talking about will serve the people for a considerable number of years in the future, and a financing p~_aH should take that into consideration. Pay as you go, in this case at least, is not practical because all of the people who use thi~ system in the future would be getting a free ride. Poor f.inar'.c:h1g plans are not a valid reason for postponing environmental clean-up. If, after hearing the rationale and the intent of the Board, ycm still believe it is an unreasonable plan, you have the right t .. petition the Board for reconsideration. I would suggest that. Y0'.'.1. -a- first complete the technical reports. I am asking you to work with us under this plan to see the degree of compliance we can achieve with the resources and knowledge that we currently have before· tLs and the ingenuity we can apply to the problem in the future. It is the belief of the Board that we must adopt the most stringent plan possible to accomplish the objectives. It is more reasonable to take this approach than to try to creep up on the problems as more information becomes available or damage occu~s. There certainly is room within the law and within the Boar.d's ocean plan itself to recognize unworkable, unreasonable, or impracticable requirements and do something about them. -9- EXCERPTS FROM THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, OF O~NGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA A regular joint meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, was held at the hour of 7:30 p.m., September 13 , 19 72 , 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California. The Chairman of the Joint Administrative Organization called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for each District's Board. DISTRICT 1 Adjournment * * * * * * * * * Moved, seconded and duly carried: . That this meeting of the Board of . Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned to September 26, 1972, at 5:.00 p.m. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:53 p.m., September 13, 1972. STATE OF CALIFORNIA~ SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE I, J. WAYNE SYLVESTER, Secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing to be full, true and correct copy of minute entries on m~eting of said Boards of Directors on the 13th day of September , 19 72 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of September, 1972. S-107 Secretary of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitatioh Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11 i COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, AND 11 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING September 13, 1972 -7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue DISTRICT NO. 1 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 2 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 3 Directors present: ·Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 5 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 6 Directors present: Directors absent:· DISTRICT NO. 7 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 11 Directors present: Directors absent: Fountain Valley, California ROLL CALL Lorin Griset (Chairman), Robert Battin, Clifton Miller, and Ellis Porter None Don Smith (Chairman), Norman Culver, Robert Finnell, Donald Fox, Wade Herrin, Edward Just, Robert Nevil, Willia.m Phillips, Robert Root, Mark Stephenson, Henry Wedaa, and Donald Winn None Norman Culver (Chairman), Robert Battin, Jesse Davis, Donald Fox, Jack Green, Wade Herrin, Otto Lacayo, Alicita Lewis, Charles Long, Derek McWhinney, Robert Root, Frank Sales, George Scott, Mark Stephenson, Charles Stevens, Jr., and Cor Vanderwaal None Carl Kymla (Chairman pro tern), Richard Croul, and David Baker None Ellis Porter (Chairman) and William. Phillips John Store Clifton Miller (Chairman), Ralph Clark, Lorin Griset, Ellis Porter, Henry Quigley, Howard Rogers, and Don Smith None Norma Gibbs (Chairman), David Baker, and Henry Duke None 9/13/72 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, Paul G. Brown, Assistant General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, Ted Dunn, William Clarke, Bruce Taylor, Robert Webber, and Rita Brown C. Arthur Nissan; Harvey Hunt, Milo Keith, Donald Martinson, Jack Kenney, Joe Muroney, Howard Way, Walt Bishop, Gail Lynch, John Zaller, Sam Peterson, Walt Howard, Will Lindsay, Jr., Merle Skilling, Douglas Moore, Alex Grinkevich, Van Summers, Don Wilkens, Dick Zevnik, W. W. Adams, Ronald B. Robie, Mrs. Carl H. (Jean) Auer, and Bill Dendy A regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, of Orange County, California, was held at 7:30 p.m. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation, the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for each District's Board. DISTRICT 5 Appointment of Chairman pro tern * * * * * * * * * * Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Director Kymla be appointed Chairman pro tern in the absence of Chairman.Mcinnis. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: ~roval of minutes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, be approved as mailed. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of minutes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, the adjourned regular meeting held August 30, 1972, and the adjourned meeting thereof held September 6, 1972, be approved as mailed. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of minutes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, be approved as mailed. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of minutes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, and the adjourned regular meeting thereof held August 29, 1972, be approved as mailed. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of minutes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, be approved as mailed. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of minutes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, be approved as mailed. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of mi~utes That the minutes of the regular meeting held August 9, 1972, be approved as mailed~ -2- ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Chairman 9/13/72 Joint Chairman Finnell introduced invited guests, W. W. Adams, Chairman of the State Water Resources Control Board, State Board members Ronald B. Robie and Mrs. Carl H. (Jean) Auer, and Executive Officer Bill Dendy who discussed the intent of the recently adopted State Water Quality Plan for the Ocean Waters of California. The Directors expressed their concern that the plan, ~hich would require a District capital outlay of $105 million during the next five years, establishes standards far more stringent than what is required environmentally to protect the ocean and further that the regulations had been promulgated without sufficient scientific evidence to support the levels established. Following presentation of his prepared remarks, Mr. Adams and Bill Dendy, Executive Officer of the State Board, discussed numerous questions posed by members of the Boards of Directors. Chairman Finnell then presented a gavel plaque to Director Edward Just in recognition of his service as Joint Chairman during 1971-72. The Joint Chairman called a meeting of the Executive Committee for 5:30 p.m., Tuesday, September 26th, and invited Directors Frank Sales and Otto Lacayo to attend and participate in the discussions. ALL DISTRICTS Recess ALL DISTRICTS Reconvene ALL DISTRICTS Convene in executive session ALL DISTRICTS Reconvene in regular session ALL DISTRICTS Report of the General Counsel Board that he would keep ALL DISTRICTS Approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to plans and specifications for Job No. I-8-3 At 9:00 p.m. the Joint Chairman declared a recess. At 9:10 p.m. the Boards of Directors reconvened. At 9:10 p.m. the Boards convened in executive session to consider personnel matters. At 9:28 p.m. the Boards reconvened in regular session. The General Counsel reported on the law suit brought by District No. 3 against Amercoat Corporation in connection with manhole coating failures and advised the them informed of further developments. Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the plans and specifications for Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. I-8-3, be approved. Copy of Addenda is on District. file in the office of the Secretary of the ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing purchase of ·equipment, Specifications Nos. E-063 and E-064 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the bid tabulations and recommendations be received and ordered filed: and that purchase of the following equipment be awarded: Two (2) Automatic Sewage Samplers (Vacuum Type), Specification No. E-063, to Sirco Controls Company in the amount of $5,077.50. Three (3) Automatic Sewage Samplers (Peristaltic Type), Specification No. E-064, to R. C. Hoffman Company in the amount of $8,080.80. I -3- 9/13/72 ALL DISTRICTS Receive and file Stop Notice from Envirotech Corporation, re Job No. P2-17 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Stop Notice from Envirotech Corporation, Municipal Equipment Division, in the amount of $29,673.40, plus interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum construction of at Plant No. 2, from August 1, 1972, in connection with Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester "K" Job No. P2-17, be received and ordered filed. ALL DISTRICTS Approving Change Order No. 5 to plans and specifications for Job No. P2-17 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 5 to the plans and specifications for Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester "K" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-17, authorizing an addition of $1,316.03 and granting an extension of time of 38 calendar days to the contract with J. Putnam Henck, a Corporation, be approved. Copy of this Change Order is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. P2-17 as con:plete That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-120, accepting Sedimentation Basin "K" and Digester "K" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-17, as complete and authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Approving Change Order No. 4 to plans and specifications for Job No. P2-19 Moved, seconded and d~ly carried: That Change Order No. 4 to the plans and specifications for Sedimentation Basins "L" and "M" and Digesters "L" and "M" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-19, authorizing an addition of $16,017.25 and granting an extension of time of 67 calendar days to the contract with J. E. Hoagland & W. W. Hoagland, a Joint Venture, be approved. Copy of this Change Order is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Job No. P2-19 as complete That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-121, accepting Sedimentation Basins "L" and "M 1' and Digesters "L" and "M" at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-19, as complete and authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Approving Change Order No. 5 .t£__£lans and sEecifications for Job No. I- Moved, seconded and duly carried: That Change Order No. 5 to the plans and specifications for Interplant Influent Interceptor, Job No. I-8, with Kordick & Rados, a Joint Venture, be approved. Copy of this Change Order is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing the General ·Manager to issue a purchase order for Contact Stabiliza- tion Package Sewage Treat- ment Plant Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the General Manager be authorized to issue a purchase order to East Bay Municipal Utility District for purchase of Contact Stabilization Package Sewage Treatment Plant rated at 30,000 sallonz per tax. day, for thr amount of $15,005.00 plus -4- ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing staff to issue purchase order for transportation of Contact Stabilization Package Sewage Treatment Plant 9/13/72 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the staff be authorized to issue a purchase order for transportation of the Contact Stabilization Package Sewage Treatment Plant purchased from East Bay Municipal Utility District, from its location in Oakland, California, to Treatment Plant No. 2 in Huntington Beach for an amount not to exceed $1,700.00. ALL DISTRICTS Approving License Agreement with Orange County Water District for right of way and injection well site at Plant No. 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-122, approving License Agreement with Orange County Water District for right of way and injection well site at Water Reclamation Plant No. 1, in connection with previously executed agreement for supply~ng secondary treated effluent to the Water District and the return of an approximate equivalent amount of concentrated brines from Water Factory 21. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Approving plans and specifications for Job No. Pl-16-P Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-123, approving plans and specifications for piping and appurtenant work for Installation of Pilot Activated Sludge Plant, Job No. Pl-16-P, authorizing advertising for bids, and authorizing District No. 1 to award contract at its discretion. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Report of Special Flood Prevention Committee and adoption of resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors to improve portions of Santa Ana River to mitigate potential inundation of Districts' treatment faciliites Director Just, Chairman of the Special Flood Prevention Committee, reported on the activities of his committee for studying means of protecting the Districts' treatment facilities from flood waters. It was the Special Committee's recommendation that the Joint Boards, and each of the agencies represented on the Boards, adopt a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors to direct the Orange County Flood Control District to take measures to ensure the integrity of the Santa Ana River levees from 17th Street to the ocean and that the Districts' staff be directed to develop cost figures for installation of protective walls around the treatment plant sites. Following a general discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-127, requesting the Orange County Board of Supervisors to improve portions of the Santa Ana River to mitigate the potential inundation of the Districts' Treatment Plants Nos. 1 and 2; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be directed to develop cost estimates for construction of retaining walls around the treatment plant sites to protect said facilities from inundation. -5- 9/13/72 ALL DISTRICTS Certification of the General Manager received and ordered filed Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the certification of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the agenda, found them to be in order, and that he recorrunends authorization for payment, be received and ordered filed. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried by roll call vote: Approval of Joint Operating and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund warrant books That the Districts' Joint Operating Fund and Capital Outlay Revolving Fund warrant books be approved for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay: Joint Operating $ Capital Outlay Revolving 84,, 292. 36 946,668.96 $1,030,961.32 in accordance with the warrants listed on page "A-1" through "A-3", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Authorizing participation of Board me~ber and staff merr.ber at the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' Special Committee on Federal Ocean Disposal Regulations Meeting Following a brief discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Joint Chairman be authorized to appoint one Board member to accompany the General Manager and participate in a meeting of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage . . Agencies' Special Committee on -Federal Ocean Disposal Regulations in Washington, D.C. or. a location to be determined, to be scheduled in September or October; and, FURTHER MOVED: That reimbursement for travel, meals, lodging and inc~dental expenses incurred for attandance of said meeting, be authorized. ALL DISTRICTS Reaffirming position on petition for hea_ring on Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California Following a brief discussion, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 11, hereby reaffirm their intent to pursue their petition to the State of California -Resources Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, requesting a hearing on the Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of warrants That the District's Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay $20, 337 ._92, in accordance with the warrants . ·~ listed on page "B", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 2 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:50 p.m., September 13, 1972. -6- 9/13/72 DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting proposal cf Moore & Taber for soils That the proposal submitted by investigation for Contract Ho. 3-18 Moore & Taber, dated August 18, 1972, for soils investigation in connection with construction of Knott Interceptor, Reach 4, Contract No. 3-18, for a lump sum fee of $3,500.00, be received, filed and accepted. DISTRICTS 3 & 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of suspense fund warrants That the Districts' Suspense Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman of District No. 3, and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay $266,361.25, in accordance with the warrants listed on page "B", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 3 Moved~ seconded and duly carried: Approval of warrants That the District's Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay $24,103.50, in accordance with the warrants listed on page "B", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 3 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:52 p.m., September 13, 1972. DISTRICT 1 Award contract for Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job· No. I-8-3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-124-1, to receive and file bid tabulation and recom- mendation, and awarding contract for Influent Metering and Diversion Structure at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. I-8-3, to E.T.I. and Kordick, a Joint Venture, in the amount of $1,290,000. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of warrants That the District's Accumulated Capital Outlay Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay $2,187.76, in accordance with the warrants listed on page "B", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT·l Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned to September 26, 1972, at 5:00 p.m. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:53 p.m., September 13, 1972. DI'STRICTS 5 & 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of suspense fund warrants That the Districts' Suspense Fund warrant book be approved for signature of the Chairman of District No. 5, and that the County Auditor be authorj·'.ed and directed to pay .'.,192.14, in accordance with the warrants listed on page "B-1", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. -7- 9/13/72 DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of warrants That the District's Operating Fund and Facilities Revolving Fund warrant books be approved for signature of the Chairman and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay: Operating Fund $ 408.00 Facilities Revolving Fund 193,971.36 $194,379.36 in accordance with the warrants listed on page "B", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 5 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:53 p.m., September 13, 1972. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:53 p.m., September 13, 1972. DISTRICT 11 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:53 p.m., September 13, 1972. DISTRICT 7 Receive and file letter from City of Tustin re funding for Contract No. 7-5-lR; and authorizing City's use of uncommitted Main Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the letter from the City of Tustin, dated August 8, 1972, authorizing the transfer of $276,000 from the City's County Sanitation District Number Seven Main Trunk Trunk Funds for certain repairs. Fund to District No. 7 for construction of the West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract No .. 7-5-lR, be received and ordered filed: and, FURTHER MOVED: That the General Manager be authorized to enter a letter of agreement accepting the stipulations set forth by the City that they be authorized to use uncommitted District No. 7 Main Trunk Funds for further repairs caused by trunk sewer trench subsidence to Red Hill Avenue, and other streets in which District sewer facilities have been installed, subject to approval by the District's staff as to the methods of said repair. DISTRICT 7 Awarding contract for West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-125-7, to receive and file bid tabulation and recom- mendation, and awarding contract for West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract 7-5-lR, to B~-Mar Construction Company in the amount of $472,680.00. Certified ~opy of this resolution 1~ attached hereto and matle a part of these minutes. -8- into DISTRICT 7 Authorizing condemnation proceedings for right of way required for Contract No. 7-5-lR 9/13/72 Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 72-125-7, authorizing and directing the condemnation of certain real property required for construction of West Relief Trunk Sewer, Reaches 19, 20 & 22, Contract No. 7-5-lR. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approval of warrants That the District's Operating Fund and Facilities Revolving Fund warrant books be approved for signature of the Chairman and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay: Operating Fund Facilities Revolving Fund $ 194.oo 4,036.25 $4,230.25 in accordance with the warrants listed on page "C", attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 Adjournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned, The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:54 p.m., September 13, 1972. -9-I WARRANT NO. 18628 18629 18630 18631 ~ '"'532 ~33 18634 18635 18636 18637 18638 18639 18640 18641 18642 18643 18644 18645 18646 18647 18648 18649 18650 18651 18652 18653 18654 18655 18656 18657 18658 18659 18660 18661 18662 18663 18664 18665 18666 18667 18668 18669 18670 18671 18672 i8673 18674 ,18675 18676 18677 18678 18679 18680 1R681 ~~~ 18684 18685 18686 18687 18688 18689 JOINT OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Ace Automotive Equipment Co., Auto Parts $ Advance Electric, Equipment Repair All Bearing Service, Inc., Bearings, Couplings Alpine Aromatics, Inc., Odor Control Chemicals Ameron, Sealer Arnot Controls, Valves City of Anaheim, Power Anaheim Dodge, Truck Repair Anaheim Sewer Construction, Lateral Repair The Anchor· Packing Co., Pump Parts Bank of America, Bond & Coupon Collection Barnes Delaney Industrial Products, Belting, MO 3-8-72 Bell Pipe & Supply Co., Valves Bells Radiator Service, Truck Repair Black & Decker Mfg. Co·., Equipment Repair Bomar Magneto Service, Inc., Magneto Repair Bristol Park Medical Group, Inc., Pre-employment Exams Brooks Instrument Division, Metering Equipment Burke Engineering Co., Tools Cal Glass for Research, Inc., Lab Supplies Cal State Seal Co., Engine Parts California Auto Collision Inc., Truck Repair California Collator Sales, Reproduction Supplies California Motor Express Ltd, Freight State of California, Safety Manuals Certified Laboratories, Inc., Solvents Chemical Rubber Co., Manual Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co., Engine Parts Brian Chuchuas, Truck Parts Clayton Manufacturing Co., Equipment Parts College Lumber'Co., Inc., Building Materials Connell Chevrolet, Truck Parts Consolidated Electrical Distr., Electrical Supplies Constructors Supply Co., Rope, Hardware Paul A. Cooper, Grit Removal Costa Mesa Auto Parts, Inc., Truck Parts Costa Mesa County Water Dist., Water County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 of L. A. County, Disposal Fee Crosby & Overtan Transportation Co., Oil Removal Clarence S. Cummings, Employee Mileage C. R. Davis Supply Co., Water Hase John M. Deck, Equipment Parts Deckert Surgical Co., First Aid Supplies Del Chemical Corp., Solvents . Dennys Refrigeration & Heating, Equipment Repair Diamond Core Drilling, Core Drilling Diesel Control, Governor Repair Dominguez Marine & Industrial Supply Co., Valves Ducommun Metals & Supply Co., Steel Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., Industrial Report Eastman, Inc., Office Supplies Electric Supplies Distr., Electrical Supplies Enchanter, Inc., Ocean Research & Monitoring Fischer & Porter Co., Telemetering Supplies Fisher Controls Co., Regulator Parts Freeway Machine & Welding Shop, Machining Larry Fricker Co., Weed Oil City of Fullerton, Water Garden Grove Lumber Co., Building Materials General Electric Supply Co., Electric Supplies General Telephone Company Georgia Pacific Corp., Chlorine A-1 AMOUNT 20.90 30.00 766.73 546.oo 298.73 113.40 17.62 177.78 75.00 17.99 473.41 2,171.40 122.35 115.49 22.25 224.39 25.00 1,999.00 157.55 388.46 31.72 106.30 118.08 7.86 33.60 241.62 37.41 26.46 25.64 192.58 824.23 6.21 1,037.07 192.09 i,128.00 275.67 6.oo 33.04 76.80 30.42 59.85 25.20 71.74 144.65 62.20 38.00 16.43 150.53 236.62 743.88 206.26 204.12 2,550.00 94.93 782.97 24.oo 110.25 4.97 225.44 474.43 1,780.69 J~258.61 rTARRANT NO. 18690 18691 18692 18693 18694 18695 18696 18697 18698 18699 18700 18701 18702 18703 18704 18705 18706 18707 18708 18709 18710 18711 18712 18713 18714 18715 18716 18717 18718 18719 18720 18721 18722 18723 18724 18725 18726 18727 18728 18729 18730 18731 18732 18733 18734 18735 18736 18737 18738 18739 18740 18741 18742 18743 18744 187li5 18746 18747 18748 18749 18750 18751 18752 18753 18754 IN FAVOR OF Graybar Electric Co., Inc., Electrical Supplies $ Hadleys, Office Supplies Hanson, Peterson, Cowles & Sylvester, Audit Services Fred A. Harper, Various Mtg. & COD Expense Harrington Industrial Plastics, Piping Supplies Hewlett Packard, Lab Supplies Honeywell Industrial Division, Telemetering Supplies House of Trophies, Engraving Howard Supply Co., Piping Supplies City of Huntington Beach, Water Huntington Beach Equipment Rentals, Paving Equip. Rental Industrial·Water Conditioning, DI Lab Water Inland Nut & Bolt Co., Hardware Ingersoll Rand, Compressor Parts J & M Service, Equipment Repair Johnston Pump Co., Pump Parts Kar Products, Electric Supplies,. Hardware Keenan Pipe & Supply Co., Pipe Supplies, Valves King Bearing, Inc., Bearings, Belts Kingmann White, Inc., Telemetering Supplies Kleen Line Corp., Janitorial Supplies Knox Industrial Supplies, Hardware LBWS, Inc., Welding Supplies, Tools, Hardware L & N Uniform Supply Co., Uniform Rental The La.cal Company, Inc., Pump Packing Larry's Building Materials, Inc., Building Supplies Judy Lee, Employee Mileage Lewis Bros. Battery, Truck Parts, Batteries A. J. Lynch & Company, Hardware Mc Camey-Jones, Inc., Chlorinator MO 6-14-72 R. W. Mc Clella.n & Sons, Inc. Building Materials Mc Donnell Douglas Automation Co., Reproduction Mc Ccy Ford Tractor, Tr~ctor Repair Majestic Fasteners Co., Hardware Mesa Supply, Groundskeeping Supplies Metermaster, Inc., Parts Moore Produc.ts Co., Compressor Parts E. B. Moritz Foundry, Manhole Ring & Cover Mutual Callis Propane, Welding Supplies NCR Systemedia Division, Forms, Programming Nalco Chemical Co., Cleaners ~ates Saw & Lawnmower Shop, Inc., Saw Sharpening City of Newport Beach, Water C. Arthur Nisson, General Counsel Retainer Noland Paper Company, Reproduction Paper Oakite Products, Inc., Cleaner Occidental College, Ecology Trawl Orange County Chemical Co., Solvents Orange County Radiotelephone Oreo Plastics, Tubing Pacific Telephone Palm Stationers, Office Supplies Park~r Supply Co., Gauges John J. Phillips, Employee Mileage Lee Potter Co., Inc., Maintenance Supplies Douglas E. Preble, Employee Mileage The Register, Subscription Relief & Control Valve Mtce., Compressor Repair Richey Electronics, Telemetering Supplies · Robbj_ns & Myers, Inc., Pump Parts Santa Ana Blue Print Co., Printing Santa Ana Book Store, Inc., Manual Santa Ana Electric Motors, Motor Repair Sargent Welch Scientific Co., Lab Supplies Security Irdustrial Supply Co., Valves A-2 AMOUNT 749.43 15.75 759.00 192.53 35.54 177.92 289.7r- 27 .3~ 752.32 46.37 117 .60 . 40.00 . 256.16 670.42 50.61 1,872.63 273.47 281.03 464.54 45.16 126.42 142.54 664.35 1,562.08 1,167.85 79.02 44.46 172.46 76.39 2,373.00 49.70 36.00 819.99 386.94 78.75 88.52 40.53 131.20 91.49 209.15 1,782.48 6.55 208.74 700.00 332.33 199.82 325.00 21.74 "' 49.46 19.85 399.12 • 18.90 132.30 118.50 142.96 53.70 16.50 537 -5~ 157.08 306.32 113.16 5.09 211.76 205.18 1.585.40 WARRANT NO. 18755 18756 18757 18758 18759 18760 ,()761 ~762 18763 18764 18765 18766 18767 18768 18769 18770 18771 18772 18773 18774 18775 18776 18777 18778 18779 18780 18781 18782 18783 18784 18785 18786 18787 18788 18789 18790 18791 18721 18722 18723 18795 18796 •18797 18798 18799. 18800 18801 18802 , '"''303 .l!Wdo4 18805 18806 18807 18808 18809 IN FAVOR OF S. F. Serrantino, Employee Mileage Sherwin Williams Co., Paint Supplies A. H. Shipkey, Inc., Truck Tires John Sigler, Employee Mileage Smith Bros. Co., Pipe Supplies South American Aquarium, Ecological Research Southern California Edison Southern California Gas Company Southern California Water Company Southern Marine Supply, Hose Southwest Processors, Oil Removal Sparkletts.Drinking Water Corp., Bottled Water Speed E Auto Parts, Truck Parts Standard Oil Company, Gasoline & Oil Standard Ready Mix Concrete, Concrete John W. Stang Corp., Pump Parts Dutch Stark Co., Equipment Parts Starow Steel, Steel Steverson Bros., Oil Removal Sully Miller Contracting Co., Paving Materials Surveyors Service Co., Survey Supplies Bruce Taylor, Employee Mileage Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Manual Thayer Steel Rule & Die Co., Die Cutting Transport Clearings, Freight Tustin Plumbing & Heating, Lateral Repair Harry Twining, Employee Mileage US Equipment Co., Inc., Compressor & Pump Parts Union Oil Company of Calif., Gasoline Vaniman Camera, Photo Supplies & Processing John R Waples R.S., Odor Consultant Waukesha Engine Servicenter, Inc., Engine Parts Robert A. Webber, Employee Mileage Western Salt Co., Salt Wilson Engine & Equipment, Filters, Seals World Travel Bureau, Inc., Meeting Travel Expense Donald J. W~ight, Employee Mileage Xerox Corp., Reproduction Service Zep Manufacturing Co., Janitorial Supplies Zodiac Paper Co., Reproduction Supplies TOTAL JOINT OPERATING CAPITAL OUTLAY REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF $ Bruning Division, Office Equipment $ Carollo and Keith, Survey I-8 John Carollo Engineers, Eng5neering -Plant Constr. Daily Pilot, Bid NDtice PW-024, E-062, E-063 & E-064 ETI & Kordick, Contractor P2-11-l Ficker Architects, Architectual Services Pl-9-1 & J-4-1 J.E. Hoagland & W.W. Hoagland, Contractor P2-19 Kordick & Rados, Contractor I-8 Metermas ter, Inc. , Tools B. H. Miller Corp., Contractor J-7-2 & J-12 Monroe, Office Equipment Perkin Elmer, Lab Equipment Tiernans Office Equipment, Office Equipment Twining Laboratories J. Putnam Henck, Contractor P2-17 TOTAL CAPITP.L OUTLAY REVOLVING $ AMOUNT 11.85 294.74 117.87 25.65 10.07 20.73 22,363.25 1,764.43 3.20 15.90 191.60 110. 72. 299.15 4,184.78 137.00 1,127.89 288.79 259.07 141.85 787.96 41.76 11.10 15.50 52.98 14.71 100.00 26.46 722.93 81.21 175.37 210.10 3,529.29 3-J. 36 74.56 395.72 532.00 37.50 1,003.92 116.55 395.99 84,292.36 309.75 3,682.00 33,328.52 20.27 36,840.00 633.37 57,507.25 761,223.00 413.70 38,554.51 441.79 281.35 168.58 39.20 13,225.67 946~668.96 TOTAL JOINT OPEF.ATING & CORF $ 1,030,961.32 A-3 DISTRICT NO. 1 WARRANT NO. ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT 18809 18810 18811 18812 18813 18814 18815 18816 18817 18818 18819 18820 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Services, 1-13 Freedom Newspapers, Inc., Bid Notice, 1-13 DISTRICT NO. 2 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Lowry and Associates, Engineering Services, 2-14-2 Richard Terry & Associates, Environmental Impact Study, 2-14-2 DISTRICT NO. 3 ACCUMULATED CAPITAL OUTLAY FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF $ 2,115.00 72.76 2,187.7~ $ 15,994.J9 4,343.83 $ 20,337.92 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Services, 3-17, 3-17-1, and 3-18 $ 21,603.50 Southern California Water Co., Facility Relocation 3-14 ~~2~,~5~0_J_._0_J DISTRICTS NOS. 3 & 11 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF. Boyle Engineering,Survey 3-17 Joseph R. Callens, Temporary Easement 3-17 J. F·. Shea Co., Inc., Contractor 3-17 City of DISTRICT NO. ~ <' OPERATING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Newport Beach, Connection Administration FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Fairbanks Morse, Inc.,Sewage Pump & Drive,Cont. The Irvine Co., Loan Agreement Payment - -B- . $ 24,103.5J $ 1,431.25 l,05J.0J 263,880.0J $ 266.?361.2!2 $ 408.00 ~ 5-12-B $ 11,343.36 182,628.JC> ~ 1932971.36 ~ 194,379.36 WARRANT NO. DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 SUSPENSE FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR'OF 18821 Shuirman~-Simpson, State Highway Permit 5-19 -B-1- $ AMOUNT 192 .14 DISTRICT NO. 7 OPERATING FUND WARRANTS WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF 18822 Boyle Engineering, Engineering Services 18823 FACILITIES REVOLVING FUND WARRANTS IN FAVOR OF Donald F. Snaw, Refund Connection Fee -c- $ $ $ .AMOUNT 194.QO 4,,036 .25 . 4,230.25 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 1 08 44 EL LIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) ( .1f ~'.? N011 ICE TO EXECUTIVE COMMIT'I'EE I/ Ro be rt F i.nne 11 ~ Chairman Jesse Davis, Vice Chairman -!Lorin Griset v'Don E . Smith tL.Norman E . Culver °'---Don Mc Innis v'Ellis N . Porter tl--C li.fton Co Mi ller ./Norma B . Gibbs l'.1--Supv . Ronald Caspers Septemb e r 20 , 1972 TELEPHO NES: AREA CODE 714 ;540-2910 962-2411 ,S ub ject: Com:mitt ee Meeting -Tuesday . Seut.~rnber 26 . 197"2 ·5: 3 o _y:ln 0 --__ :__~------'·----- Chairman Finne ll has ast:ed us to not:Lfy you that there wL Ll be a meeting o f the Com.mi ttee :L n the Distr5_cts 1 office 2.,t the above hour and dat e _, as d:Lscu ssed at the S eptember Joint Board meeting. A brief r eport on it ems to be discussed is attachedo The meeting is scheduled to begin at 5 :30 p .m._, and dinner will be served at approxima tely 6 :30 p .m. FAH:j / / cc : Directors Otto Lacayo and F r ank Sales