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