HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-29 }twral,
COUNTY SANITATIO-N DISTRICTS ;�✓ TELEPHONES:
AREA CODE 714
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-29,❑
d' � 96 -2411
P. ❑. BOX B127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B
1❑B44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY
May 22 , 1975
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS , 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11
THURSDAY, MAY 29, 1975, 7: 30 P. M.
10844 ELLIs AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, UALIFORNIA
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of May 14 ,
1975, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts
Nos . 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7 and 11 of Orange County , California,
will .meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour
and date.
I '
Sectary
JWS :rb
MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT Post Office Box 9127
County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue
of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
Area Code 714
540-2910
JOINT BOARDS 962 24111
Adjourned Regular Meeting
Thursday, May 29,
7:30 P.M.
The following is a brief explanation of the more important,
non-routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are
not otherwise self-explanatory.
No. 6 - Adoption of Ordinances Second ReadinZ of the Proposed
Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use o District Sewerage
Faci 1 zes.
Enclosed are customized ordinances for each District Director
depending on the District(s ) represented. The Boards held a public
hearing on their respective ordinances on May 14th, at which time
each Board declared its intent to adopt, on May 29th, their respective
ordinances as amended relative to the comments received at the public
hearing. The green cover sheet on each ordinance describes the
authorized changes to the May 14th draft ordinance approved by the
Directors . If anyone has any question concerning the provisions of
the ordinances, please feel free to call John Thomas, the Districts '
Chief of the Industrial and Permit Division, telephone (714) 540-2910.
Districts 5 and 6
No. 16 - Completion of Contract No. •5-14R-5R.
This project completes the manhole replacement and repair work
in the Coast Highway prior to the summer season. This contract was
completed for $35,365. 53• There were no change orders . It is
therefore recommended that the action appearing on the agenda autho-
rizing a Closeout Agreement with the contractor and recordation of a
Notice of Completion, be approved.
District No. 2
No. 21 - Request for Annexation.
We have received a request from Anaheim Hills, Inc. , to annex
approximately 10 acres to the District . We recommend that the matter
be referred to the staff for study and recommendation.
No. 22 - Air Mitigation Measures re Reach 3 of the Santa Ana
River Interceptor.
At the request of the Governor's Environmental Quality Office,
the staff is meeting with representatives of the Governor ' s staff,
State Water Resources Control Board, State Air Resources Board,
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board May 28 to discuss possible
additional air mitigation requirements as a State construction grant
provision for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River Interceptor.
Enclosed for the Directors ' information are the conditions that
were negotiated with this group, headed by the .Governor 's Environmental
Quality office, with regard to a Yucaipa County Water District Project.
The Directors will recall that in April, the State Water
Resources Control Board called for public hearings on a proposed
construction grant condition which would restrict the number of new
sewer connections for an 18-month period ending December, 1976, in
"Air Quality Maintenance Areas ". Prior to the May 12th hearing date,
the State Board cancelled the hearings as a result of the protests
of. many communities throughout California.
On April 29th, the Sanitation Districts ' Executive Committee
met with Paul DeFalco, the EPA Regional Administrator, concerning the
State ' s proposed grant restrictions . He advised those present that
EPA would not require this restriction if his 'staff had previously
written a negative declaration concerning their preparation of an
environmental impact statement.
On February 27th, 1975, EPA issued a negative declaration
concerning the need for an Environmental Impact Statement for Reach 3
of the Santa Ana River Interceptor; therefore, we question if the
Board is required to agree to any further grant conditions relative
to secondary impacts .
We will report the results of our May 28th meeting with State
agency representatives at the Boards ' meeting next Thursday.
Fred A. Harper
General Manager
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127
of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708
Telephones:
JOINT BOARDS Area 6 14
540-2910
IIAGENDA
AD10U R.N''•.ENDS.......-........
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING FILES
& AI!i`A^E..,,,//.,,,
FILES s,r:r ;;I'..._ ........1�.....
MAY 29, 1975 - 7.30 P. M.
LETi i FS WP1T i:'J...............
WINUTEs W7:—Tci1...........�
MIN-TES HLED..................
(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation
(2) Roll Call
(3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary4�, y
(4) DISTRICTS 3 & 11
Consideration of motion to receive and file minute
excerpt from the City of Huntington Beach regarding
election of mayor and appointment of alternates to
serve on the Districts ' Boards as follows : ( *Mayor)
District Active Alternate
3 Donald D. Shipley Norma B. Gibbs*
11 Norma B. Gibbs* Harriett M. Wieder
11 Henry H. Duke Norma B. Gibbs`*
__`,`i '`.. . O U raj.
( 5) ALL DISTRICTS
Reports of:
(a) Joint Chairman
(b ) General Manager
(c) General Counsel
(6) EACH DISTRICT
Second reading on following proposed Ordinance(s ) Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities (Final Draft
mailed with agenda)
..� FILE -._ .. (a) Further comments by general public, if any
LETTER ..............
A/C ...�R .._ 6�m Receive and file written comments received
since first reading, if any (Copies in
---•-......... - Directors ' Board Meeting folders )
(2 Oral comments , if any
(b) Each District ' s consideration of respective ordinances :
DISTRICT(1) 1
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No. 103, An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
ROLL CALL VOTE.----. (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No. 103, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities ; and directing that said ordinance
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
(2) DISTRICT 2
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No. 204, An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
ROLL CALL VOTE.,,, — (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No. 204 , An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities ; and directing that said ordinance
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
( 3) DISTRICT 3
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No . 305, An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
ROLL CALL VOTE (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No . 305 , An Ordinance Establishing
v Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities ; and directing that said ordinance,
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
-2-
(6) EACH DISTRICT (Continued)
(b) (Continued)
(4) DISTRICT 5
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No. 508, An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
ROLL CALL VOTE............, (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No. 508, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities ; and directing that said ordinance
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
(5) DISTRICT 6
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No. 603, An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
ROLL CALL VOTE,..- (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No. 603, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities ; and directing that said ordinance
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
(6 ) DISTRICT 7
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No. 716 , An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present)
ROLL CALL VOTE................. (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No. 716 , An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities ; and directing that said ordinance
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
v
-3-
( 6) EACH DISTRICT (Continued)
(b) (Continued)
(7) DISTRICT 11
(a) Consideration of motion waiving reading of
entire Ordinance No. 1103, An Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for Use of District
Sewerage Facilities (Must be adopted by
unanimous vote of Directors present )
ROLL. CALL VOTE.•.•,,,,•,•_„^ (b) Consideration of roll call vote approving
Ordinance No. 1103, An Ordinance Establishing
Regulations for Use of District Sewerage
Facilities; and directing that said ordinance
be published in the
newspaper pursuant to provisions of Section
25124 of the Government Code
FAE (Z2ALAZ�,or••
LETTER ........ ALL DISTRICTS
A/C ....TKLROther business and communications , if any
. 9 :S/o - lO•.2 0
`-••-----------------( 8) DISTRICT
--- -...... usiness -dPiff—c ommunications , if any
(9) DISTRICT 1
Consideration of motion to adjourn 11 -01,P
(10) DISTRICT 3
Ot usine and communications , if any
(11) DISTRICT 3
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(12) DIST�S�C�-
er business and communications, if any
(13) DISTRICT 7
Consideration of motion to adjourn 11 ' 0(0
(14) DI
STRICT ���o
mmun ca ons , if any
(15) DISTRICT 11
Consideration of motion to adjourn ll :o(to
(16) DISTRICTS 5 & 6
Roll Call Vote or Cast Consideration of Resolution No. 75-83, accepting Manhole
Unanimous Ballot
rt.. ................. Replacement and Repair, Contract No. 5-14R-5R, as complete ;
LETTI:a .. � -1; authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion; and
A/C ....TKLR .... approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page "A"
(17) DIS RICT 5
- -- Oth r bu ss and communicat any
(18 ) DISTRICT 5
Consideration of motion to adjourn 1J : D'y
-4-
(19) DISTRIC�b'
ness Oth r -and communications , if any
(20) DISTRICT 6
Consideration of motion to adjourn
DISTRICT 2
LETTER ..--....... Consideration of motion to receive and file letter from
A/C -.-.TKLR .... Anaheim Hills , Inc. requesting annexation of approximately
10 .556 acres of territory to the District in the Anaheim
Hills , Inc. development area, and refer to staff for study
- and recommendation. See page "B"
FILE ......... .....�22 DISTRICT 2
LETTER ........... Verbal staff report and consideration of action re additional
A/C ---.TKLR .... air mitigation measures in connection with Reach 3 of the
M( s Interceptor project . See page licit
DISTRICT
siness and communications, if any
(24) DISTRICT 2
Consideration of motion to adjourn
-5-
RESOLUTION NO. 75- 83
ACCEPTING CONTRACT NO. 5-14R-5R AS COMPLETE
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6 OF
..w ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CONTRACT
NO. 5-14R-5R AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL
CLOSEOUT AGREEMENT
The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos . 5
and 6 of Orange County, California;
DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER:
Section 1. That the contractor, Rewes-Schock, a Joint Venture,
has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the
contract for MANHOLE REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR, CONTRACT NO. 5-14R-5R,
on the 30th of April, 1975; and,
Section 2. That the Districts ' Chief Engineer has recommended
acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with
the terms of the contract, which said recommendation is hereby
received and ordered filed; and,
Section 3• That Manhole Replacement and Repair, Contract
No. 5-14R-5R, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with
the terms of the contract therefor, dated March 6, 1975; and,
Section 4. That the Chairman of District No. 5 is hereby
.authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and,
Section 5. That the Final" Closeout Agreement with Rewes-Schock,
a Joint Venture, setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance
of Manhole Replacement and Repair, Contract No. 5-14R-5R, is hereby
approved; and,
Section 6 . That the Chairman and Secretary of the Board of
Directors of District No. 5 are hereby authorized and directed to
execute said agreement on behalf of itself and County Sanitation
District No. 6 of Orange County, California.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held May 29, 1975 .
AGENDA ITEM #16 -A- DISTRICTS 5 & 6
anahEim hills, inc,
A Subsidiary of Grant Corporation
April 30,' 1975
Board of Directors
Orange County
Sanitation District No. 2
10844 Ellis Avenue
Post Office Box 8127
Foutain Valley, California 92708
Attention: Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager
Regarding: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION
Gentlemen:
Anaheim Hills, Inc. and Texaco Ventures Anaheim Hills, Inc. respectfully
request the annexation of 10.556 acres as described in the attached map
and legal description into Sanitation District No. 2. Also enclosed is a
check in the amount of $325.00 to cover the filing fees.
We understand that the present fee for annexation into Sanitation
District No. 2 is $428.00 per acre for a total of $4,518.00. We further
understand that the fee charged by the State Board of Equalization for
this action is $180. 00. These fees will be paid at the time requested by
the respective agencies.
Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 3 has been requested both by the Cities
of Anaheim and Orange so the boundaries of the annexation to the
City of Anaheim currently before the Local Agency Formation Commission
will also be the boundaries for orange County Sanitation District No. 2.
The City of Anaheim intends to construct an access road and reservoir on
this parcel.
A copy of the environmental impact report for Anaheim Hills Development
was transmitted to you in July of 1974 for Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 2.
This report adopted by the City of Anaheim in the latter part of 1972 was
written on the entire Nohl Ranch. The report is in conformance with all
State and local legislation guidelines and procedures. As such, it is a
valid representation of the environmental considerations for the overall
project and so covers any action requiring an environmental impact
AGENDA ITEM #21 B-1 DISTRICT 2
380 ANAHEIM HILLS ROAD, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806, PHONE (714) 998-2000
April 30, 1975
Attention: Mr. Fred Harper
Page Two
report. This procedure is being used by the City of Anaheim in actions
involving the Local Agency Formation Commission concerning the annexa-
tion of areas of Anaheim Hills into the City of Anaheim.
Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated. If you should need
any additional information, please feel free to contact our engineer,
Mr. Don Seitz, at (714) 523-4702 or the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
ANAHEIM HILLS, INC._
M. Sickler, President
and
Erik Berg, Assistant Secretary
Enclosures
JMF/EB: ss
JN 2199
.s
AGENDA ITEM #21 B-2 DISTRICT 2
CLAYSON, STARK, ROTHROCK 61 MANN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DONALD D.STARK LAW BUILDING WALTER S. CLAY50N
E.SPURGEON ROTHROCK 1887-1972
ROY H. MANN 601 SOUTH MAIN STREET
ERLING C.AREND POST OFFICE BOX 670 AREA CODE 714
DERRILL E.YAEGER
GEORGE G.GROVER CORONA,CALIFORNIA 91720 737-1910
EUGENE A.NAZAREK 689-7241
EVAN G.EVANS
ALBERT J.WOJCIK May 20 , 1975
DON FREDERICK SHEFTE
IVAN L.HOPKINS
EDWARD F.ALLEBE5
County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Attn: Fred A. Harper
Re: Air Quality Maintenance Areas
Conditions for Grant Funds
Dear Fred:
In accordance with your request, I have set forth
the conditions negotiated in behalf of the Yucaipa Valley
County Water District to obtain concept approval of its
sewage project:
1. The District shall render all reasonable assis-
tance within its statutory authority for the
development and adoption of an Air Quality Main-
tenance Plan and regulations pursuant thereto
within the sphere of influence of the District,
under and pursuant to the provisions of the Clean
Air Act of 1970 and regulations pursuant thereto.
2. Upon adoption of an Air Quality Maintenance Plan
and regulations pursuant thereto, the District
shall render all reasonable assistance within its
statutory authority for the implementation of said
Plan and regulations pursuant thereto.
Based upon the foregoing conditions, it is my
understanding that the Air Resources Board has "signed off"
the project and that the Environmental Protection Agency has
issued a negative declaration; consequently, the Yucaipa
Valley County Water District is supposed to receive concept
approval any day.
If there is anything further that I can do to
assist you in your forthcoming meeting, please do not hesi-
tate to contact me.
Very truly yours ,
Eugene A. Nazarek
EAN/gp
AGENDA ITEM #22 -C- DISTRICT 2
Agenda Item No. 6 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
J0844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-29)0
(714) 962-2411
S T A F F R E P O R T
May 29, 1975
SUBJECT: Excess Capacity Connection Charges - Section 402 of Ordinance
Establishing Regulations for the Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities
Considerable discussion has centered around the excess capacity charges which
.are part of the existing ordinance and are included in the new proposed Use
Ordinance. In review of the reports and data used in the establishment of this
section of the ordinance, the basic rationale for this provision is to establish
equity in the use of the Districts ' sewerage facilities to insure that high
volume users are not subsidized by other segments of the community.
One of the principal requirements of the State and Federal revenue regulations
Is that each discharger pay their equitable share. Without this provision in
the ordinance, some of the high volume users would be subsidized by other
taxpayers, particularly the single family resident. The staff is presently
engaged in the development of a revenue program to meet the State and Federai
requirements and it is anticipated that this will be finalized within two to
five years. One of the major difficulties at this time is that ad valorem tax
has been ruled out as a part of the Districts' revenue program. We expect this
provision will be allowed in a future amendment to the Federal Act.
The revenue program will provide for a credit for excess capacity charges levied
and paid under the provisions of Section 402 toward the applicable capacity
charges which will be incorporated in the forthcoming program.
Set forth below are the staff's comments with examples of how the excess capacity
charges are calculated:
Determination of Excess Capacity Connection Charges
For New Connections
An excess capacity connection charge is payable by a user when the peak
flow rate is expected to exceed 25,000 gallons per day, unless such peak
flow rate is a •reasonable use; reasonable use is considered to be 25,000
gallons per $100,000 of assessed valuation.
The excess capacity connection charge is computed at the rate of $350 per
1 ,000 gallons of peak flow rate, when the peak flow exceeds reasonable use.
Staff Report
May 29, 1975
Page Two
For Connections Existing Before January 1 , 1971
Excess capacity connection charges are payable for existing connections
when:
a. The peak flow exceeds 25,000 gallons per day; or
b. The peak flow exceeds reasonable use; or
c. The user's discharge exceeds by more than 5,000 gallons per day
the highest peak .flow rate experienced by the user during the
1970 calendar year.
If an excess capacity connection charge is due, then it is computed at
the rate of. $350 per 1 ,000 gallons.
REL:hje
EXAMP- LE
COMPANY "A"
1974-75 Assessed Valuation = $25,000
Average Discharge* Peak Flow, Thousand"
Thousand Gallons Gallons Per Day
Water Purchased Per Day (1 .6 times Ave. Discharge)
Million Gallons (Inc. 5% Loss)
1970 9.2 24.3 38.9
1971 11 .7 30.9 49.4
1972 13.7 36.2 57.8
1973 16.5 43.5 69.7
1974 19.2 50.7 81 . 1
Based upon 360 days per year
Average flow multiplied by 1 .6 peaking factor
1970 Base Capacity = 38.9 Thousand Gallons Per Day
1974 Peak Flow = 81 . 1 Thousand Gallons Per Day
Difference (excess) = 42.2 Thousand Gallons Per Day
Excess Capacity Connection Charge 42.2 x $350 = $14,470.
G
E X A M P L E
Company "B"
1974-75 Assessed Valuation = $296, 190
1974-75 Reasonable Use = 74.047 Thousand Gallons Per Day
An existing company was taken over by a new owner. The existing company
had established a previous peak of 448,000 gallons per day. The new peak
as shown by a one year occupancy of the new owner was 747,000 gallons per
day. The difference was 299,000 x $350/1 ,000. gallons = 0,04,650.00
Average Discharge`
Thousand Gallons Peak Flow, Thousand*
Water Purchased Per Day Gallons Per Day
Million Gallons ( Inc. 5% Loss) (1 .6 times Ave. Discharge)
1974 235. 1 620.0 992.0
Based upon 360 days per year
Average flow multiplied by 1 .6 peaking factor
1974 Peak Flow = 992 Thousand Gallons Per Day
1973 Peak Flow = 747 Thousand Gallons Per Day (as previously purchased excess capacity'
Excess Cap. Chg 245 x $350 = $85,750.
E X A M P L E
COMPANY "C"
1974-75 Assessed Valuation = $157,370
1974-75 Reasonable Use = 39,250
Average Discharge-
Thousand Gallons Peak Flow, Thousand**
Water Purchased Per Day Gallons Per- Day
Million Gallons (Inc. 5% Loss) 0 .6 times Ave. Discharge)
1971 5. 1 13.5 21 .6
1972 8.3 21 .9 35.0
1973 12.0 31 .6 50.6
1974 16.6 43.8 70. 1
1974 Excess Capacity Charge = 70. 1 Thousand Gallons Per Day_
Reasonable Use = 39.2 Thousand Gallons Per Day
Excess Cap. Charge 30.9 x $350 = $10,815.
AGENDA ITEM NO. (6) (a) (1) ALL DISTRICTS
RE: Proposed Ordinance (s) Establishing
Regulations for Use of District(s)
Sewerage Facilities
The following additional communications
have been received re proposed ordinances ,
copies of which are attached hereto:
From Date
National Technology May 15, 1975
Shur-Plate Corporation May 16 , 1975
Litronic Industries May 22, 1975
NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
"Where Design Ends and Quality Begins"
r
May 15, 1975
ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, California 92708
Attn: John D. Thomas
Subj: Waste Water Discharge Ordinance
Article 4, Section 402
Dear Mr. Thomas:
During the meeting of May 14, at your facility, a question was raised by
a Mr. Bill Snyder of Embee Plating in regard to "Excess Capacity
Discharge" covered in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Ray Lewis, a member of the Sanitation District staff answered Mr.
Snyder's question thus: Although Article 4 has been in existence since
1970, it has not been enforced, but was there to be used if needed. Mr.
Lewis gave an example: "If a new Industry built a large facility that
would require a larger sewer to be installed to accomodate their excess
water, then the ordinance would be used to pay for the larger sewer. "
Being acknowledged by the General Manager, I asked Mr. Lewis the
following question: "If a company has occupied their present facilities
for 3 to 4 years, and has not been charged for excess capacity, can
we assume that the capacity of the existing serer is of sufficient size
to handle the flow, and therefore would not expect to be charged excess
capacity?
Mr. Lewis' answer to my question was yes. If we have not been charged,
he sees no reason why we should be charged in the future.
.One more point I would like to bring to the District's attention, and that
is the $350. 00 per 1000 gallon per day penalty. This is outrageous.
National Technology has 3 plants. One plant in 1974 working 2 shifts used
38, 100, 000 gallons . This divided by 260 days equals 146, 538 gallons
per day. The other two plants used 56, 538 and 36, 154 gallons respect-
fully. To our type of Industry this is a reasonable use. flow would you
apply the excess capacity of $350. 00 per 1000 gallons to National
I wish to have this letter noted and served as a document in regard to
..� my question and Mr. Lewis's answer for future reference.
VW. C,
yOY: --
Tf �
220 WEST CENTRAL AVENUE / SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 / TELEX 655373 / 714 546-6186
Ur1g. Thom
Copy: JWS
SHUR-PLATE CORPORATION
375 W. TRUSLOW
FULLERTON, CALIF. 92632
... May 16, 1975
To: The Directors of The County Sanitation
Districts of Orange County, Calif.
From: Frank H. Elwell
Shur-Plate Corp.
Fullerton, Calif.
Re: Proposed Ordinance No. 1103
The Director's meeting of May 14, 1975 turned out to be a rather long
meeting and it was not possible for all comments regarding Ordinance No. 1103 to
be heard. This ;,rdinL.nce i= e::tre^,ely im7oLtcnt and has many long-term ramifica-
tions - many of them not to the benefit of the community. The comments should be
heard so you may consider them in passing judgement on the proposed Ordinance.
The comments contained herein are necessarily somewhat lengthy, but, I beg
your patience' to read them through.
It should be kept in mind throughout this Ordinance thatth e sewerage system
was built with public money. Also to be kept in mind is the State Water Resources
Control Board letter with the date 'March 18, 1975' stamped on it which states . . .
. . . . (EPA) prohibits the use of ad valorem taxes to recover the costs of operation
and maintenance. . . . . What becomes of the ad valorem taxes when they can no longer
be used for the district?
With these thoughts in mind, I would like to bring the following to your
attention;
Page 2 101. Par. 4 . . . . . treatment processes may necessitate more stringent quality
requirements. . . . . . . This clause is tantamount to no Ordinance at all. If you
will look closely, you will find more of this throughout the Ordinance. You are
being asked to approve an ordinance that has more loopholes than a knotty pine fence.
It should be noted that the coitaminents already in the inflow water to a
business will not be taken into account for the Discharge Limits (Page 12, Table I).
An idea of the problem is illustrated by the finding of 1.0 Mg/L of chrome in the
discharge water of a bakery I
- 1
- 2 - ,
Page 13 301. Par. 1 No vested rights shall be given by issuing permits. . . . . . .
If one pays one's money for a permit to use a system that he has already helped
pay for with his tax money and abides by the ordinance, he should have some
vested rights - at least, some guarantee that the permit will not be frivolously
revoked.
Page 20 302.21 7. Confidential Information Conditions This notes that "confi-
dential" information is open to just about anyone who wants it. This "confidential"
aspect should be specifically spelled out and should be truly confidential. See
' United States Constitution, Ammendment V ". . . . . . nor shall private property be
taken for public use without just compensation."
Page 16 302.21 (b) (2) This amounts to a double penalty and should be reconsidered.
If a user is hard-put for cash to pay the User Charge and goes beyond 45 days, he
is subject to $6000.00/day fine every day he is late because he is in violation
of the Ordinance. ( Or assume he is served his mail in the somewhat erratic
manner frequently observed by the "highly efficient" U. S. mail service. ).
Page 18 202.21 Par, 4, Page 24 303. 3 Par. 1 & 2. 1h e wording in these paragraphs
"shall allow", "District shall have "the right to" and "shall make" cannot be used
in view of the United States Constitution, Ammendment IV. " The right of the people
to be secure: in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
search and seizures shall not be violated. . . . . " I suggest the wording be changed
to 'should ' . 302.21 Par 5 (b) covers the refusal to allow reasonable access to
user' s premises. The mandatory wording is unnecessary.
Page 20 302.21 It seems that the District is relieving itself of responsibility
by levying fines against the user because the District violates it's discharge
requirements. The section has some merit, but, also allows for shoddy operation
and "buck-passing". If it can be shown that a violation was truly accidental,
why is there a fine levied at all. Is this an ordinance for the use of the District's
r
facilities or is it a means of inflicting punishment?
.Page 21 302.4 Par. 2, Page 23 303. 1 2. If ad valorem taxes can be utilyzed
(which I doubt) the credit for ad valorem tax paid should be given to the user who
i .
_, .w� _1. 4 �00 Thn ordinance discriminates 'an_ainstthose who lFncP the
- 3 -
property upon which their business is located.
..r Page 22 302.5 ! & 2 Where the Ordinance calls out "laboratory approved b*y the
District", the call-out should also be 'or State Certified Laboratory'. This
will eliminate possibilities of favoritism.
Page 23 303. Par. 2 ( This, amonr, other items,was not included in the copy
of the Ordinance that many of- us received. ) I presume by this statement that every
household within the District's boundries - will be subject to a fee. I wonder how
the General Public will react to this? At this time, I am sure that not 1% of the
public is aware of this Ordinance. Perhaps they will be expecting a reduction in
taxes?
Page 29 401. Introduction. On the copy I received, this item was quite different
from the way it is shown in your copies. My copy stated " No revenue derived from
this Ordinance shall be used for the acquisition or construction of new local street
sewers or laterals as distinguished from main trunk interceptor and outfall sewers.".
Admittedly, this appeared to be in conflict with Art. 1 101. Par. 1. These two
statements have caused some confusion in determining the credability of the Ordinance.
Page 29 402. The Excess Capacity Charge is still in great confusion. The copy
I received is considerably different from the copies you received. As an example,
"Deferral of Excess Capacity Connection Charges" is not included in my copy. It
is said that this is a one-time charge for a new user connection. I do. not read
it this way. See 402. 1. (a), (b) & (c.).
This item was not submitted to the public in the same form as was submitted
to you and is of such controversial nature ( and obviously misunderstood) that I
urge you to take no action on the Ordinance until it is completely aired, publicly,
and made clear.
Connection Charges. As a curious note, I observe differences in connection charges
for a single-family unit vary from $0.00 to $650.00 among the districts. This seems
to be a rather large spread for the same service.
Page 34 503.2. A penalty of $6000.00/day in which such violation occurs is an
excessive fine. Is the the spirit of the Ordinance? As you- can see, a violation
4 -
t
of a" provision of this Ordinance subjects the violator to a penalty (fine) of up
to $6000.00/ day. I assume this includes a housewife or a worker in industry. If
it is the "person", then a worker who causes a violation is in jeapordy and not the
employer. The employer can be totally unaware of the violation (perhaps willfully
caused), so he is not at all liable?
In view of the entire Ordinance and the possible violations, this fine violates
the United States Constitution, Ammendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be
.required nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted. "
I urge you to require this section be deleted or completely re-written with specifie
so as to be in line with the violation.
Page 34 503.3 Criminal Penalties. We now -have the businesspeople where we want
them - criminals! O. S.H.A. has done an excellent job of making businesspeople into
criminals - as has the E.P.A. . If you murder your brother-in-law (or whoever), you
are a poor, misguided person who has been maligned by society and should be treated
to a free college education or a job as parole officer, but, if you are a business-
person and violate an E.P.A. mandate - you are a criminal. This is somewhat factitous,
but, the point I am trying to make is that this Ordinance appears to be aimed at being
more punitive than regulatory.
Page 35 506. Appeals. As I pointed out at the Board Meeting on 5/14/75, there
was no time limitations set on the presentation of the General Manager' s appeal
decision. It was suggested that this time period be established at 15 days.
Assume an appeal is filed immediately after a permit is withdrawn. The G.M.
hands down a negative reply in 15 days and an appeal is immediately filed with the
Secretary of the Board of Directors. 60 days is now allowed for a decision by the
Board. A minimum of 75 days have elapsed and the User - a small businesf - is n•,v
bankrupt. In view of the nature of the District' s service, I submit that this is
entirely to long a period for a decision. I suggest a maximum of 30 days for the
appeal process and an appeals group to consist of the Directors of the users
NOW
district along with the Directors of 2 adjascent districts. It should not be
necessary to involve the entire Board and to request the entire Board to assemble
on special occasion is asking a bit too much.
• - S -
Nothing is stated as to the status of the original ruling by the G. M. Is
it to continue in force? Is it set aside during the appeal? On my copy of the
Ordinance, there is the suggestion that the following wording was considered; "The
General Manager's decision, action or determination shall be held in suspension
during such period of reconsideration, providing the permittee will not violate
any other provisions of this ordinance." This section has been crossed out by
'cross-out type' and by hand. This appears to be a reasonable approach. Why was
it not entered in your copy of the proposed Ordinance?
City of Tustin letter. I concur with the concern indicated by the City of Tustin
as regards prevention of economic hardship. If you will consider for a moment
just one industry - the metal finishing industry. This is a key industry in our
industrial society. Metal finishing is a major process in the manufacture of
nead y all metal products. If this industry is crippled, the entire economy is
crippled. Can you imagine an automobile with no paint, your eating utensils made
of unplated iron, your washingmachine with no protection for the steel or iron
parts or your golf clubs with no chrome plating. Makes a pretty rusty world!
After this dissertation on the proposed Ordinance, I still must bring up
the major point concerning waste disposal.
The details and general plan for the entire program are a direct result of
pressure being brought to bear by the Environmental Protection Agency. If this
was not so, an entirely different - and reasonable-approach could be made to the
problems of waste disposal.
It is not necessary that we comply with the rules or whatever laid down by
the E.P.A. because the E.P.A. is an unconstitutional entity. The loth Ammendment
to - the United States Constitution states " The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States, respectively, or to the people.."
You will find that the Constitution does not give the United States the power
, to impose the E.P.A. upon us.
Today, there are many violations of our Constitution by the Federal Government
6
and, fortunately, the public is becoming more and more aware of these blatent
violations and will, increasingly, demand that our constitutional form of government
be restored.
We, the people of Orange County have the opportunity of making a major step
in the direction of restoring these constitutional provisions to the federal
Government by rejecting the theory that the E.P.A. has jurisdiction in this or any
other State.
This is not just another ordinance. It is a very serious matter that has to
'do with the control of our economy and our lives. This will become even more
obvious to you on June 30th of this year when the E. P.A. commences the control over
private land by virtue of the notice published in the Federal Register on 2/25/74,
page 7276. You, as officials of our communities, will wind up, being mere rubber
stamps for whatever comes down from Washington, D.C. .
I urge you to give this entire matter the serious consideration it deserves.
Sinc y,
i
Frank H. Elwell, Pres.
Shur-Plate Corp.
Orig. J. Thomas ✓
Copy; JWS
LITRONIC INDUSTRIES
17791 Sky Park • X.)b)(X&X4XA1 • Irvine, CaliforniaNW 92707
= Suite H
(714) 557-4482
High Density Complex Inter and Intra Connect Systems
May 22, -1975
Orange County Sanitation District
P. O. Box 8127
Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708
Attention: Mr. John D. Thomas
Subject : Waste Water Discharge Ordinance Article 4,
Section 402.
Dear Mr. Thomas,
This letter briefly outlines the synopsis of the meeting
conducted at your facility on May 14, 1975 regarding the
new ordinance on waste water discharge.
The same question, in regard to "Excess Capacity Discharge",
was asked by several individuals. Specifically, Mr. Ray
Lewis, a member of the staff, replied to Mr. Bill Snyder ' s
(Embee Plating ) question as follows :
"Although Article 4 has been in existence since
1970, it has not been enforced, but was there
to be used if needed. That ir:, if a New indus-
try built a large facility that would require
a larger sewer installation to accomodate their
excess water, then the ordinance would apply to
pay for the larger sewer. "
Mr. Bob Clark, National Technology, then asked Mr. Lewis:
" If a company has occupied their present
facilities for 3-•4 years, and has not been
charged for excess capacity, can it be assumed
that the existing sewer discharge is adequate
and that there would be No Charges For Excess
Capacity Discharge?"
Mr. Lewis answered the question "Yes".
LITRONIC INDUSTRIES
17791 Sky Park • KQX%*X4 X • Irvine, California 92]0]
Suite H (714) 557-4482
High Density Complex Inter and Intra Connect Systems
Orange County Sanitation District
Attention: Mr. John D. Thomas
May 22, 1975
Page 2 of 2
Another subject of discussion was the $350. 00 per 1 , 000
gallons per day penalty. This is absolutely unheard of.
Since we are a Service Organization, our output, and there-
fore water usage, is strictly predicated on the customer ' s
requirements, which vary from day to day.
Won ' t you please confirm or deny my comments?
Yours truly,
LITgONIC INDUSTRIES
Kris Shah
President
KS: nm
NOW
AGENDA ITEM #22
NNW
RESOLUTION NO . 75-84-2
RE AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO ASSIST THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD RE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF AN AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN COVERING THE
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
WHEREAS, Orange County is a part of an Air Quality Maintenance
Area because of present and projected future air pollution problems ;
and,
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act requires that Air Quality Maintenance
Plans be prepared for all air quality maintenance areas ; and,
WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board intends to develop and implement
such Air Quality Maintenance Plans within the next two and one-half
years in cooperation with local government ; and,
WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board plans through a joint State and
local task force in the South Coast Air Basin to develop by December,
1975, a detailed process for air quality maintenance planning.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED:
Section 1. That County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange
County shall render all reasonable assistance to the Air Resources
Board, to include providing information and data, within its
statutory authority for the development and adoption of an Air
Quality Maintenance Plan and regulations pursuant thereto covering
the South Coast Air Basin, under and pursuant to the provisions of
the Clean Air Act of 1970 and regulations pursuant thereto; and,
Section 2 . That upon adoption of an Air Quality Maintenance
r.► Plan and regulations pursuant thereto, the District shall render
all reasonable assistance within its statutory authority for the
implementation of said Plan and regulations pursuant thereto .
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
,�. (714) 540-2910
(714) 962-2411
A PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR THE USE OF DISTRICTS' SEWERAGE FACILITIES
The Board of Directors has declared their intent to adopt this Ordinance as amended
May 14, 1975, at an adjourned meeting to be held May 29, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. at the
Districts' administrative offices, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California.
' If anyone has any questions concerning the provisions of this Ordinance, please call
Mr. ,John Thomas, the Districts' Chief of the Industrial and Permit Division, at
(714) 540-2910.
THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE MAY 14, 1975 DRAFT OF THIS ORDINANCE HAVE BEEN
AUTHORIZED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND ARE INCLUDED IN THIS ORDINANCE:
Section 302. 1, 2nd Paragraph, Item 2
Number and-type of employees and average hours of work per employee.
Sect .on 302.21, Item 5, 2nd Dara;;r.aph
Each user shall provide protection from accidental discharge of prohibited
materials or other wastes regulated by this Ordinance. Such protection will
be designed to secure the discharges to prevent them from entering into the
system in accordance with reasonable engineering standards. Such facilities
shall be provided and maintained at the user's expense.
Section 302.21 , Item 8
Wastewater discharge permits are issued to a specific user for a specific
operation at a specific location and create no vested rights. A Class I
wastewater discharge permit shall not be transferred to-a-new-ewxer;-different
premise-er-to-a-new-er-ehanged-eperatiex- for an operation at a different
location nor for a new or changed operation without prior approval of the
General Manager.
Section 303.S
Wastewater discharge permits are issued to a specific user for a specific oper-
ation at a specific location. A Class II wastewater discharge permit shall not
be transferred to-a-new-owneP -different-premise-oF--to-a-Hew-or-changed-oHeratiox-
for an operation at a different location nor for a new or changed operation
without prior approval of the GcneraZ Manager.
CONTINUED-
Section 506, 1st Paragraph
Any user, permit applicant, or permit holder affected by any decision, action,
or determination, including cease and desist orders, made by the General
Manager, interpreting or implementing the provisions of this Ordinance or in
any permit issued herein, may file with the General Manager a written request
for reconsideration within ten (10) days of such decision, action, or determin-
ation, setting forth in detail the facts supporting the user's request for
reconsideration. lf-tke-rH�iRg-made-ky-tke-6eReral-t�aRager-is-t�Rsatisfaetery
te-tke-perseR-requesting-reeeRsideratieR;-ke-may-witkiR-ten-kig)-days-a€ter
netifieatieR-ef-tke-General-Manager's-aetien;-file-a-written-appeal-with-the
seeretary-ef-the-Beard-ef-Bireeters- The General Manager shall render a
decision on the request for reconsideration to the user, permit applicant or
permit holder in writing within 15 days of receipt of request. If the ruling
on the request for reconsideration made by the General Manager is unsatisfactory,
the person requesting reconsideration may, within 10 days after notification of
the General Manager's action, file a written appeal with the Secretary of the Board.
Section 506, 2nd Paragraph
A fee of $100 shall accompany any appeal to the Board of Directors of the District
for a ruling of the District. This fee shall may be refunded if the appeal is
sustained in favor of the appellant.
Add Section 509
Waiver of Ordinance Provisions
In the event of any declared local, state or federal emergency, the provisions of
this Ordinance may be waived by resolution of the Board of Directors.
Add Section 510
Local Agency Exemption from Charges
No excess capacity charges or use charges as specified herein; shall be payable
for the discharge of sewage or industrial waste from property in the District
owned or leased by elementary, high school, andjunior college school districts,
special districts, the County of Orange, and cities, provided however, that such
property is not used for proprietary purposes. (NOTE: local agencies are not
exempt from District 's connection charges - See Section 403).
ORDINANCE NO. 103
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
FOR USE OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES
The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 of Orange
County, California, does ordain as follows:
ARTICLE, 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
101. PURPOSE AND POLICY
The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the maximum public
benefit from the use of District' s facilities. This shall be
accomplished by regulating sewer use and wastewater discharges, by
providing equitable distribution of District's costs, and by
providing procedures that will allow District to comply with
requirements placed upon the District by other regulatory agencies.
The revenues to be derived from the application of this Ordinance
shall be used to defray all costs of providing sewerage service by
the District, including, but not limited to, administration,
operation, monitoring, maintenance, financing, capital construction,
replacement and recovery, and provisions for necessary reserves.
This Ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the definitions
set forth in Section 102. The provisions of the Ordinance shall apply
to the direct or indirect discharge of all liquid wastes carried to
facilities of the District.
To comply with Federal and State of California policies and to
permit the District to meet applicable standards of treatment plant
effluent quality, provisions are made in this Ordinance for the regu-
lation of wastewater discharges. This Ordinance establishes quantity
and quality limitations on all wastewater discharges which may
v
adversely affect the District' s sewerage systems, processes, or
effluent quality. It is the intent of these limitations to improve
May 29 , 1975
the quality of wastewater being received for treatment; an implication
of this intent is the District's policy of discouraging an increase
in the quantity (mass emission) of waste constituents being discharged.
This Ordinance also provides for regulation of the degree of waste pre-
treatment required, the issuance of permits for wastewater discharge and
connections, and other miscellaneous permits, and the establishment of
penalties for violation of the Ordinance.
Since the District is committed to a policy of wastewater renovation
and reuse in order to provide an alternate source of water supply,
the renovation of wastewater through secondary and tertiary wastewater
treatment processes may necessitate more stringent quality requirements
on wastewater dischargers than those required by other governmental
regulatory agencies.
102. DEFINITIONS
Unless otherwise defined herein,. terms related to water quality shall be
as adopted in the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, published by the American Public Health
Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution
Control Federation. The testing procedures for waste constituents and
characteristics shall be as provided in 40 CFR 136, (Code of Federal
Regulations; Title 40; Protection of Environment; Chapter I, Environmental
Protection Agency; Part 136, Test Procedures for the Analyses of
Pollutants) , or as specified. Other terms not herein defined are defined
as being the same as set forth in the International Conference of Building "•
Officials Uniform Building Code, 1973 Edition.
1. Ad Valorem Tax. shall mean the tax levied for the benefit of an
individual District on the assessed value of land and improvements
within its boundaries.
2. Agency. shall mean an administrative division or group.
3. Assessed Value. shall mean that portion of the total assessed value
of the land and improvements (excluding personal property) upon r
which District taxes are levied.
2.
May 29, 1975 ' '
4. Board. shall mean the Board of Directors of the County Sanitation
�„ District No. 1 , of Orange County, California.
S. B.O.D. (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) . shall mean the measure of
biodegradable organic material in domestic or other wastewaters
as represented by the oxygen utilized over a period of five days
at 20 degrees centigrade and as determined by the appropriate
testing procedures.
6. Class I User. shall mean any user who:
(a) has a discharge flow of 50,000 gallons or more per normal
work day; or
(b) is found by the General Manager to have a detrimental impact,
• either singly or in combination with other contributing
industries, on the sewerage facilities.
7. Class II User. shall mean a user who discharges more than its
proportionate share of wastewater, suspended solids and/or
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, but less than 50,000 gallons of waste-
water per day. The user's proportionate share shall be based
upon ad valorem taxes paid for District's services.
8. C.O.D. (Chemical Oxygen Demand) . shall mean the measure of
chemically oxidizable material in domestic or other wastewaters
as determined by appropriate testing procedures.
9. Compatible Pollutant. shall mean a combination of Biochemical
Oxygen Demand, suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform bacteria,
plus other pollutants that the Districts' treatment works are
designed to remove.
10. Developments. shall mean parcels of land on which dwelling units,
commercial or industrial buildings, or other improvements are built.
11. Discharger. shall mean any person that discharges or causes a
discharge of wastewater directly or indirectly to a public sewer.
3.
May 2% 1975
12. Districts. shall mean any individual or combination of individual
County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 or 11 of
Orange County.
13. District Connection Charge. shall mean a fee imposed by District
No. 1 for connecting directly to a District sewerage facility
or to a sewer which ultimately discharges into a District sewerage
facility.
14. District Sewerage Facility. shall mean any property belonging to
the District used in the treatment, reclamation, reuse, trans-
portation, or disposal of wastewater.
15. Domestic wastewater. shall mean the liquid and water borne wastes
derived from the ordinary living processes in a dwelling- unit of
such character as to permit satisfactory disposal, without special
treatment, into the public sewer or by means of a private disposal
system.
16. Dwelling Unit. shall mean one or more habitable rooms which are
occupied or which are intended or designed to be occupied by one
family with facilities for living, sleeping and cooking.
17. Family Dwelling Building. shall mean a structure designed and used
to house families and containing one or more dwelling units.
18. Floor Area. shall mean the area included within the surrounding
exterior walls of a building or portion thereof, exclusive of
ramps, docks, vent shafts and courts. The floor area of
. a building, or portion thereof, not provided with surrounding
exterior walls shall be the usable area under the horizontal
projection of the roof or floor above.
19. General Manager. shall mean the individual duly designated by the
Board of Directors of .the District to administer this Ordinance.
4. r
May 29, 1975
20. Incompatible Pollutant. shall mean any pollutant which is not a
compatible pollutant as defined herein.
21. Industrial Wastewater. shall mean all water carried wastes and
wastewater of the community, excluding domestic wastewater, and
shall include all wastewater from any producing, manufacturing,
processing, institutional, commercial, service, agricultural, or
other operation. These may also include wastes of human origin
similar to domestic wastewaters.
22. Inspector. shall mean a person authorized by the General Manager
to inspect wastewater generation, conveyance, processing and
disposal facilities.
23. Local Sewering Agency. shall mean any public or private corporation
duly authorized under the laws of the State of California to
construct and/or maintain public sewers.
24. Mass Emission Rate. shall mean the weight of material discharged
to the sewer system during a given time interval. Unless otherwise
specified, the mass emission rate shall mean pounds per day of a
particular constituent or combination of constituents.
25. May. shall mean permissive.
26. New Construction. shall mean any structure under construction for
which a connection permit has not been issued.
27. Normal Working Day. shall mean the period of time during which
production and/or operation is taking place.
28. Person. shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, association,
corporation, or public agency including the State of California
and the United States of America.
May 29, 1975
29. Pollutant. shall mean any constituent or characteristic of
wastewaters'on which a discharge limitation may be imposed either
by the District or the regulatory bodies empowered to regulate
the District.
30. Pre-treatment Facility. shall mean any works or devices for the
treatment or flow limitation of wastewater prior to discharge into
a public sewer.
31. Public Agency. shall mean any City, District, or other public body
duly organized under the laws of the State of California.
32. Public Sewer. shall mean a sewer owned and operated by the District,
a City or other local sewering agency, which is tributary to
treatment facilities operated by the District.
33. Sampling and Evaluation Program. shall mean the determination of
mass emission of constituents or other conditions specified in the
user's permit over a period of not less than one normal working
day, or more than five normal working days.
34. Sewage. shall mean wastewater.
35. Sewerage Facilities. shall mean any and all facilities used for
collecting, conveying, pumping, treating and disposing of
wastewater.
36. Shall. shall mean mandatory.
37. Standard Industrial Classification (S.I.C.) . shall mean a system of
classifying industries as identified in the S.I.C. Manual, 1972,
Office of Management and Budget.
38. Standard Methods. shall mean procedures described in the current
edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, as published by the American Public Health Association,
the American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control
Federation.
6.
May 29, 1975
39. Suspended Solids. shall mean any insoluble material contained as
a component of wastewater and capable of separation from the liquid
portion of said waste by laboratory filtration as determined by the
appropriate testing procedure.
40. Temporary User. shall mean any discharger who is granted temporary
permission by the District to discharge unpolluted water, storm
drainage or ground water to the District's sewerage facilities.
41. T.O.C. (Total Organic Carbon) . shall mean the measure of total
organic carbon in domestic or other wastewater as determined by
the appropriate testing procedure.
42. Unpolluted Water. shall mean water to which no constituent has
been added either intentionally or accidentally.
43. User. shall mean any person that discharges, or causes a discharge
of wastewater directly or indirectly to a public sewer.
44. Waste. shall mean sewage and any and all other waste substances,
liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human
habitation, or of human or animal origin, or from any producing,
manufacturing or processing operation of whatever nature, including
such wastes placed within containers of whatever nature, prior to
and for the purpose of disposal.
45. Wastewater. shall mean waste and water, whether treated or -
untreated, discharged into or permitted to enter a public sewer.
46. Wastewater Constituents and Characteristics. shall mean the
individual chemical, physical, bacteriological and radiological
parameters, including volume and flow rate and such other parameters
that serve to define, classify or measure the quality and quantity
of wastewater.
7.
e
... ARTICLE 2
REGULATIONS
201. PROHIBITIONS ON DISCHARGES
No person shall discharge wastewaters directly or indirectly to sewerage
facilities owned by the District which cause, or are capable of causing,
either alone or by interaction with other substances:
1. A fire or explosion;
2. Obstruction of flow in the sewer system or damage to the sewerage
facilities;
3. Danger to life or safety of any person;
4. Prevention of the effective maintenance or operation of the sewerage
system;
S. Air pollution by the release of toxic or malodorous gas producing
substances;
6. Interference with the wastewater treatment process;
7. The Districts' effluent or any other product of the treatment process,
residues, sludges, or scums, to be unsuitable for reclamation and
reuse;
8. Discoloration or any other condition of the quality of the Districts'
treatment works effluent in such a manner that receiving water
quality requirements established by regulatory agencies cannot be met;
9. Conditions at or near sewerage facilities which violate any statute
or any rule, regulation, or ordinance of any public agency or state
or federal regulatory body.
9.
May 29 1975 .
202. PROHIBITIONS ON STORM DRAINAGE AND GROUND WATER
Storm water, ground water, street drainage, subsurface drainage or
yard drainage shall not be discharged directly or indirectly -to the
District's sewerage facilities. The District may approve the
temporary discharge of such water only when no alternate method of
disposal is reasonably available.
If a temporary permit is granted for the discharge of such water into
a tributary sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges for use
and fees, and shall meet such other conditions as required by the
District.
203. PROHIBITION ON UNPOLLUTED WATER
Unpolluted water such as single pass cooling water, will not be
discharged through direct or indirect connection to a District sewer.
The District may approve the discharge of such water only when no
alternate method of disposal is reasonably available.
If a temporary permit is granted for the discharge of such water into
a public sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges for use and
fees, and shall meet such other conditions as required by the District.
204. LIMITATIONS ON RADIOACTIVE WASTES
No person shall discharge, or cause to be discharged, any radioactive
waste into a public sewer except:
1. When the person is authorized to use radioactive materials by
the State Department of Health or other governmental agency
empowered to regulate the use of radioactive materials; and
2. When the waste is discharged in strict conformity with current
California Radiation Control Regulations (California Administrative
Code, Title 17) and the Atomic Energy Commission's regulations
and recommendations for safe disposal; and
10.
May 29, 1975 .
3. When the person is in compliance with all rules .and regulations
of all other applicable regulatory agencies.
205. LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF GRINDERS
Waste from grinders shall not be discharged into a public sewer, except
wastes generated in packing or preparing food or food products. Such
grinders must shred the waste to a degree that all particles will be
carried freely under- normal flow conditions prevailing in the public sewer.
206. LIMITATIONS ON POINT OF DISCHARGE
No person, excluding local sewering agencies involved in maintenance
functions of sanitary sewer facilities, shall discharge any wastewater
directly into a manhole or other opening in a sewer other than through
an approved building sewer, unless upon written application by the user
and payment of the applicable charges for use and fees.
207. LIMITATIONS ON SEPTIC TANK AND CESSPOOL WASTES
A user proposing to discharge septic tank and cesspool wastes into a
District sewer must have a valid'Orange County Health Department permit.
Such wastewaters shall be discharged at a location specified by District.
If such wastewaters are from developments not within the District's
boundaries, a fee adopted by Resolution of District's Board of Directors
shall be paid. This fee shall be based upon the cost of providing District
services.
208. LIMITATIONS ON WASTEWATER STRENGTH
208.1 No person shall discharge, after the date specified, wastewater containing
in excess of the quantities listed in Table I.
208.2 No person shall discharge any wastewater:
1. Having a temperature higher than 140 degrees Fahrenheit
(60 degrees Centigrade) ;
2. Containing more than 100 mg/L of oil or grease of mineral or
petroleum origin;
3. Having a pH less than 6.0 or greater than 12.0;
11.
May29 1975
4. Containing in excess of 0.02 mg/L total identifiable chlorinated
hydrocarbons.1
S. Containing in excess of 0.5 mg/L dissolved sulfide.
6. Other materials, including but not limited to, ammonia, 'Biochemical
Oxygen Demand, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Total Organic Carbon,
suspended solids, oil or grease of animal or vegetable origin, total
dissolved solids, and phenolic compounds, in quantities that may
cause or are found to cause problems in the sewerage facilities.
TABLE I
DISCHARGE LIMITS, mg/L
December July 1 July 1 (Tentative)1
CONSTITUENT 31, 1975 1978 1983
Arsenic 2.0 2.0 2.0
Cadmium 5.0 3.0 1.0
Chromium (total) 6.0 2.0 0.5
Copper 10.0 4.0 2.0
Lead 2.-0 2.0 2.0
Mercury 0.03 0.03 0.03
Nickel, 10.0 10.0 10.0
Silver 5.0 5.0 5.0
zinc 15.0 10.0 10.0
Cyanide (total) 10.0 5.0 5.0
Cyanide (free)2 1.0 1.0 1.0
1 July 1, 1983 discharge limits are tentative; these limits will be evaluated in
the future to determine the removal effects of future improvements to the
treatment facilities of the District.
2 The term "free cyanide" shall mean those cyanides amenable to chlorination as
described in the 1972 Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1972, Standard D 2036-72
Method B, page 553.
1 To include at least the following: DDT (diclilorodiplienyltri.chloroethane, both
isomers) , DDE. (diclilorodiphenylethylene) , DDD (dichlorodiplienyldichloroethane) ,
Aldrin, Benzene Hexachloride (alpha, beta V,, gamma isomers) , Chlordane, Endrin,
lieptachlor, Dieldrin, and PCB's (Polychlorinated biphenyls: Aroclors 1221, 1228,
1232, 1242, 1248,- 1254, 1260 and 1262) .
12.
May 29, 1975 ,
ARTICLE 3
WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
301. INTRODUCTION
To provide the maximum public benefit from the use of District facilities
written authorization to use said facilities is required. This written
authorization shall be in the form of a permit. No vested right shall
be given by issuance of permits provided for in this Ordinance.
The wastewater discharge permit shall be in one of three forms and is
dependent upon the volume and characteristics of wastewater to be
discharged. The three wastewater discharge permits are:
1. Class I Permit;
2. Class II Permit;
3. Temporary Permit.
302. CLASS I WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
All Class I users proposing to discharge into a public sewer must obtain
a wastewater discharge permit before discharging into a public sewer.
All existing Class I users connecting to or discharging into a public
sewer must obtain a wastewater discharge permit within 180-days after the
effective date of this Ordinance. For purposes of this Ordinance, a
Class I user is any user who:
1. Has a discharge flow of 50,000 gallons or more per normal working day;
or
2. Has wastewater producing operations that are in a Standard Industrial
Classification Group whose wastewater is deemed by the General Manager
to have a significant impact on the District's sewerage facilities.
The S.I.C. groups considered significant and which have been adopted
by the General Manager shall be published prior to the adoption of
this Ordinance and shall be updated as necessary; or
13.
May 21 1975
3. Involves the discharge of components which may exceed the parameters
as specified in Section 208, Limitations on Wastewater Strength.
302.1 CLASS I PERMIT APPLICATION
Users seeking a Class I wastewater discharge permit shall complete and
file with the District an application on the form prescribed by the
General Manager. The applicant shall be required to submit, in units and
terms appropriate for evaluation, the following information:
1. Name, address, assessor's parcel number(s), assessed valuation
and S.I.C. number(s) of applicants;
2. Volume of wastewater to be discharged;
3. Wastewater constituents and characteristics as deemed necessary
by the District, including, but not limited to those mentioned in
Section 208. These constituents and characteristics shall be
determined by a State certified laboratory or by a laboratory of
the discharger approved by the District;
4. Time and duration of discharge.
The applicant may be required to submit for evaluation the following
information:
1. Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans and details
to show all sewers and appurtenances by size, location and elevation.-
2• Number of employees and average hours of work per employee.
Other information may be required to properly evaluate the permit
application. After evaluation and acceptance of the data furnished,
the District may issue a Class I wastewater discharge permit subject
to terms and conditions provided in this Ordinance.
14.
May 29 , 1975
302.2 CLASS I PERMIT CONDITIONS
Class I wastewater discharge permits shall be expressly subject to all
provisions of this Ordinance and all other regulations, charges for use
and fees established by the District. The conditions of wastewater
discharge permits shall be uniformly enforced by the District in
accordance with this. Ordinance and applicable State and Federal
regulations.
Conditions that shall be in all permits, include the following:
1. Maximum mass emission rates;
2. Pretreatment requirements, if applicable;
3. Permit duration;
4. Inspection and sampling conditions;
S. Permit revocation conditions;
6. Procedure for accidental discharge;
7. Confidential information conditions;
8. Permit transfer prohibitions.
Conditions that may be in a permit, include the following:
1. Flow limitations;
2. Plant record requirements;
3. Monitoring facility requirements.
302.21 CLASS I PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT SHALL BE IN ALL PERMITS
1. Maximum mass emission rates
(a) Rate determination. Maximum mass emission rates for incompatible
and/or compatible pollutants that are present or anticipated in the
user's wastewater discharge shall be set for each user and made
an applicable part of each user's permit. These rates shall be
v
based on Section 208, Limitations on Wastewater Strength, and
15.
May 29 , 1975 '
the user's average daily wastewater discharge for the past three
years. When discharge data for three years is not available,
data for a year, or that which is mutually acceptable to the
user and the District shall be used.
(b) Preliminary determination of, and fees for, non-compliance with
permit requirements. Non-compliance with permit requirements may
be determined by an analysis of a grab sample of the effluent of
a discharger for any constituent or condition specified in the
user's permit. If the effluent of a user is found by the analysis
of the grab sample to be in excess of the concentrations or
conditions specified in Section 208, then a Sampling and
Evaluation Program may be initiated by the District.
If the Sampling and Evaluation Program reveals non-compliance by
the discharger with the mass emission rates or conditions specified
in the user's permit, the user shall pay the fees as specified in
Tables II and III. The fees specified shall become retroactive
to the date the Sampling and Evaluation Program started. The
fees for non-compliance, based on the mass emission rate determined
in the Sampling and Evaluation Program, shall continue to accumu-
late on a daily basis until the discharger can show corrective
action has been taken or compliance achieved, but for a period
not to exceed ten normal working days. If the period of non-
compliance continues for more than ten consecutive normal working.
days, the District may proceed with one of the following:
(1) Amend the existing permit. This may be done only when the
discharger has shown good faith in trying to comply and
requires additional time for construction and/or acquiring
equipment. The permit may be amended for a period not to
exceed 180-days, provided however, this period may be extended
upon determination by the General Manager for good cause.
(2) Proceed with .enforcement action as outlined in Article S.
The payment of non-compliance fees will not relieve the
discharger of the penalties as specified in Article S.
16.
May 29 , 197S
TABLE II
FEES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS
AND MASS EMISSION RATES
Dollars per Pound per Day
In Excess of Limit
Arsenic $100.00
Cadmium 100.00
Chromium (Total) 100.00
Copper 30.00
Lead 40.00
Mercury 100.00
Nickel 40.00
Silver 100.00
Zinc 20.00
Cyanide (Total) 40.00
Cyanide (Free, amendable to chlorination) 100.00
Total Identifiable Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 100.00
Phenols 50.00
Dissolved Sulfides 50.00
TABLE III
FEES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS
AND MASS EMISSTON LlMiIS
Dollars per Hundred Pounds
per Day in Excess of Limit
B.O.D. $ 15.00
Suspended Solids 15.00
Oil and Grease (Animal or Vegetable Origin) 200.00
Oil and Grease (Mineral or Petroleum Origin) 200.00
Total Dissolved Solids 20.00
Ammonia 20.00
17.
Mav 29 . 197S
2. Pretreatment Requirements
Users shall make wastewater acceptable under the limitations
established in this Ordinance before discharging to any public
sewer. Any facilities required to pretreat wastewater shall be
provided and maintained at the user's expense. Detailed plans
showing the pretreatment facilities and operating procedures may be
requested by District for review. The .review of such plans and
operating procedures will not relieve the user from the responsibility
of modifying the facility as necessary to produce an effluent accep-
table to the District under the provisions of this Ordinance.
3. Permit Duration
Permits shall be issued for a period not to exceed three years. A
permit may be issued for a period less than three years, or may be
stated to expire on a specific date. The terms and conditions of
the permit may be subject to modification and change by the District
during the life of the permit as limitations or requirements as
identified in Article 2 are modified. Users shall be informed of any
proposed changes in their permit at least thirty (30) days prior to
the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in the
permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance.
4. Inspection and Sampling Conditions
The District may inspect the wastewater generating and disposal
facilities of any user to ascertain whether the intent of this
Ordinance is being met and the user is complying with the require-
ments. Persons or occupants of premises where wastewater is created
.or discharged shall allow the District or its representatives ready
access during the normal working day to all parts of the wastewater
disposal facilities for the purposes of inspection and sampling.
The District shall have the right to set up on the user's property
such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling or metering
operations. Where a user has security measures in force, the user
shall make necessary arrangements so that personnel from the District v
will be permitted to enter without delay for the purpose of performing
their specific responsibilities.
18.
May 29 , 1975
..� S. Permit Revocation Conditions
(a) Procedure. When the General Manager has reason to believe that
any one of the conditions enumerated in Subsection (b) below exists,
he shall give written notice thereof to the permittee. Said
notice shall set forth the time and place where the charges shall
be heard by the General Manager. The hearing date shall not be
less than (15) days from the mailing of such notice by certified
mail to the permittee at the address shown on the permit. At
the hearing, the permittee shall have an opportunity to refute
the allegations set forth in the proposed permit revocation
notice.
If after the hearing, the General Manager finds that any one of
the conditions hereinafter enumerated in Subsection (b) exists,
he shall have the right to revoke the permit.
(b) Any one of the following is reason for permit revocation.
(1) Failure of a user to factually report the wastewater
constituents and characteristics of his discharge.
(2) Failure of the user to report significant changes in
operations or wastewater constituents and characteristics.
(3) Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for
the purpose of inspection or monitoring.
(4) Violation of permit requirements and/or this Ordinance.
(5) Failure to pay fees and charges for use established
pursuant to this Ordinance.
6. Procedure for Accidental Discharge
In the event the discharger is unable to comply with any of the
permit conditions due to a breakdown of waste treatment equipment,
accidents caused by human error or acts of God, the discharger
shall notify the District by telephone as soon as he or his agents
rr have knowledge of the incident. Confirmation of this notification
shall be made in writing within two weeks of the telephone
19.
May 29, 197S
notification. The written notification shall include pertinent
information explaining reasons for the non-compliance and shall
indicate what steps were taken.to correct the problem and the date
of the incident, as well as what steps are being taken to prevent
the problem from recurring.
Each user shall provide protection from accidental discharge of
prohibited materials or other wastes regulated by this Ordinance.
Such protection will be designed to secure the discharges to prevent
them from entering into the system in accordance with reasonable
engineering standards. Such facilities will be provided and maintained
at the user's expense.
If it can be shown that the accidental discharge is the cause of the
District violating their discharge requirements or incurring extra-
ordinary operational expenses or suffering loss or damage to the
facilities, then that discharger may be responsible for any costs
or expenses, including assessments by other agencies or the court,
incurred by District.
7. Confidential Information
All information and data on a user shall be available to the public
and governmental agencies without restriction unless the user
specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the District that the release of such information would divulge
information, processes, or methods which would be detrimental to the
user's competitive position.
8. Permit Transfer Prohibitions
Wastewater discharge permits are issued to a specific user for a
specific operation at a specific location and create no vested rights.
A Class I wastewater discharge permit shall not be transferred for an
operation at a different location nor for a new or changed operation
without prior approval of the General Manager.
302.22 CLASS I PERMIT CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE IN A PERMIT
1. Limits 'on rate and time of discharge or requirements for flow
regulations and equalization.
20.
May 29, 1975
2. Requirements for maintaining plant records relating to wastewater dis-
charge as specified by District, and affording District access thereto.
..� 3. Requirements for the user to construct and maintain, at his own
expense,' monitoring facilities. (See Sect. 507 for delinquent payments)
302.3 CLASS I PERMIT FEE
The Class I permit fee shall be adopted by resolution of the Board of
Directors. The permit fee shall be payable within forty-five (45) days
of invoicing by the District.
302.4 CLASS I CHARGE FOR USE
The purpose of a charge for use is to insure that each recipient of
services within the District's service area, including those outside the
District's boundaries, will pay its reasonably proportionate share of all
costs of providing sewerage service by the District. Charges for use are used
for recovering the cost of conveying., treating and disposing of sewage in District
facilities and are exclusive of any fees levied 'by local sewering agencies.
A discharger who is issued a Class I wastewater discharge permit under
the provisions of this Ordinance shall pay an annual charge for use. The
District may require the user to pay estimates of the annual charge for
use. The charge for use is payable within 45 days of invoicing by the
District. The annual charge for use shall consider the volume of waste-
water, B.O.D. (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) and suspended solids discharged
by the user. A credit will be allowed for that portion of the total
charge that is paid by the discharger through ad valorem tax.
The charge for use shall be computed by the following formula:
Charge for use = V 0 V + B 0 B + S 0 S
Where V = total annual volume of flow, in millions of gallons
B = total annual discharge of Biochemical Oxygen Demand,
in thousands of pounds
S = total annual discharge of suspended solids, in
thousands of pounds
Vo,B0,S0 = unit charge rates adopted annually by Resolution of
the District Board of Directors, based upon the funding
requirements of. providing sewerage service, in dollars
per unit as described below;
21.
May 29, 1975
The unit charge rate parameters for flow, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
suspended solids, respectively designated 'IV Q" (in dollars per million
gallons) , "Bo" (in dollars per 1000 pounds of B.O.D.) , and "So" (in
dollars per 1000 pounds of suspended solids) , shall be determined by
totaling the funding requirements for providing sewerage service by the
District for the fiscal year and distributing said requirement among the
three parameters in accordance with the General Manager's determination
as to the costs associated with each parameter and pursuant to applicable
requirements of State and Federal regulatory agencies.
Other measurements of the organic content of the wastewater of a discharger
such as C.O.D. or T.O.C. , may be used instead of B.O.D. However, the
discharger must establish for the District a relationship between the B.O.D.
of his wastewater and the other measured parameter. This relationship shall
be used by the District in determining the charge for use.
302.5 CLASS I MONITORING CONDITIONS
1. Monitoring for Annual Charge for Use
The wastewater characteristics of the Class I discharger needed for
determining the annual charge for use shall be submitted by the dis-
charger to the District. The frequency of analyses and reporting
shall be set forth in the permit. The analyses of these character-
istics shall be by a laboratory approved by the District. Analyses
performed by District personnel may be used in the determination of
the annual charge for use.
2. Monitoring for Compliance with Permit Requirements
The wastewater constituents and characteristics having maximum mass
emission rate requirements as specified in the user's permit may be
monitored by the discharger. Monitoring reports on these constituents
and characteristics may be requested by the District. The frequency
of determination and reporting shall be set forth in the permit. The
analyses of the constituents and characteristics shall be by a
laboratory approved by the District. The preparation of the monitor-
. �./
ing report, if by other than the discharger, shall be by a firm
approved by the District.
22.
May 29, 1975
..� 303. CLASS II PERMIT
A Class II permit shall be required for users who discharge more than
their proportionate share of wastewater, suspended solids, and/or
Biochemical Oxygen Demand, but less than 50,000 gallons of wastewater per
day. The user's proportionate share will be based on the user' s ad
valorem taxes paid for District's services.
(Dischargers of domestic waste, by virtue of occupancy of a dwelling unit, ,
may not be required to obtain a permit. However, said users shall be
subject to payment of their reasonably proportionate share of all District's
funding requirements) .
303.1 CLASS II USE FEE AND CHARGE FOR USE
Class II users shall be classified by assigning each one to a use category"
according to the user's principal wastewater producing activity and the
user's Standard Industrial Classification (S.I.C.) for that activity.
1. Use Fee
For each user category, a fee shall be developed based on the typical
suspended solids and B.O.D. in the wastewater of that category and
the District's funding requirements for conveying, treating and disposing
of these wastewater constituents. This fee shall be in the form of cost
per million gallons of wastewater discharged, and shall be updated
annually. The fee shall be adopted by Resolution of the District's
Board of Directors.
2. Charge for Use
The Class II charge for use shall be determined by multiplying the
user fee for the user's category by the volume of wastewater dis-
charged. The volume of wastewater discharged may be determined from
the volume of water purchased, taking into account losses. The charge
for use is due and payable annually within 45 days of invoicing by the
District. A credit will be allowed for that portion of the total charge
NEW that is paid by the discharger through ad valorem taxes.
23.
May 29, 1975
Charges for use are used to recover the costs of conveying, treating %Noe
and disposing of sewage in District facilities and are exclusive of
any fees levied by local sewering agencies.
303.2 CLASS II PERMIT APPLICATION
Users required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit shall file an
application on the forms prescribed by the District.
303.3 INSPECTION AND SAMPLING
The District may inspect the wastewater generating and disposal facili-
ties of any user to ascertain whether the intent of this Ordinance is
being met and the user is complying with all requirements. Persons or
occupants of premises where wastewater is created or discharged shall
allow the District or its representatives ready access during the normal
working day to all parts of the wastewater generating and disposal facil-
ities for the purposes of inspection and sampling. The District shall
have the right to set up on the user's property such devices as are
necessary to conduct sampling or metering operations.
Where a user has security measures in force, the user shall make
necessary arrangements so that personnel from the District will be
permitted to enter without delay for the purpose of performing their
specific responsibilities.
303.4 PRETREATMENT
Users shall make wastewater acceptable under the limitations established
herein before discharging to any public sewer. Any facilities required to
pretreat wastewater shall be provided and maintained at the user's expense.
Detailed plans showing the pretreatment facilities and operating procedures
may be requested by the District for review. The review of such plans and
operating procedures will not relieve the user from the responsibility of
modifying the facility as necessary to produce an effluent acceptable to
the District under the provisions of this Ordinance.
24.
May 29, 1975
..i 303.5 PERMIT TRANSFER PROHIBITIONS
Wastewater discharge permits are issued to a specific user for a specific
operation at a specific location. A Class II wastewater discharge permit
shall not be transferred for an operation at a different location nor for
a new or changed operation without prior approval of the General Manager.
303.6 REVOCATION OF A PERMIT
1. Procedure. When the General Manager has reason to believe that any
one of the conditions enumerated in Subsection 2 below exists, he
shall give written notice thereof to the permittee. Said notice
shall set forth the time and place where the charges shall be heard
by the General Manager. The hearing date .shall not be less than
fifteen (15) days from the mailing of such notice by certified mail
to the permittee at the address shown on the permit. At the hearing
the permittee shall have an opportunity to refute the allegations set
forth in the proposed permit revocation notice.
If after the hearing the General Manager finds that any one of the
conditions hereinafter enumerated in. Subsection 2 exists, he shall
have the right to revoke the permit.
2. Any of the following is reason for permit revocation:
(a) Failure of a user to factually report the wastewater constitu-
ents and characteristics of his discharge.
(b) Failure of the user to report significant changes in operations
or wastewater constituents and characteristics.
(c) Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for the
purpose of inspection or monitoring.
(d) Violation of permit requirements and Ordinance conditions.
(e) Failure to pay fees and charges for use established pursuant
to this Ordinance.
• 25.
May 29, 1975'
303.7 DURATION OF PERMITS
Permits shall be issued for a period not to exceed three years. A permit
may be issued for a period less than three years or may be stated to
expire on a specific date. The terms and conditions of the permit may be
subject to modification and change by the District during the life of the
permit as limitations or requirements as identified in Article 2 are
modified. The user shall be informed of any proposed changes in his
permit at least 30 days prior to the effective date of change. Any
changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a reasonable time
schedule for compliance. `
303.8 RECLASSIFICATION
A Class II user may be reclassified to a Class I user by the District or
at the request of the user.
304. TEMPORARY PERMIT
A permit shall be required of all users granted temporary permission by
the District to discharge unpolluted water, storm drainage, and ground
water directly or indirectly to the District's sewerage facilities. (See
Sections 202 and 203) . This temporary permit is normally granted when no
alternate method of disposal is reasonably available.
304.1 TEMPORARY PERMIT APPLICATION
Users seeking a temporary wastewater discharge permit shall complete and
file with the District, prior to commencing discharge, an application in
the form prescribed by the General Manager. This application shall be
accompanied by the applicable fees. .
26.
May 29, 1975
304.2 CHARGES FOR USE AND FEES
A non-refundable fee of $250 and a. deposit to be determined by the
District sufficient to pay the estimated charges for use shall accompany
the temporary permit application, and said deposit shall be applied to
the charges for use. A charge for use to cover all costs of the District
for providing sewerage service and monitoring shall be adopted by annual
Resolution of the District.
304.3 MONITORING FACILITIES
The District may require the user to construct and maintain at his own
.expense, monitoring facilities.
304.4 INSPECTION AND SAMPLING
The District may inspect the facilities of any user to ascertain whether
the intent of this Ordinance and all requirements are being met. Persons
or occupants of premises where wastewater is created or discharged shall
allow the District or its representatives access during normal working
days to all wastewater generating and disposal facilities for the
purposes of inspection and sampling. The District shall have the right
to set up on the user's property such devices as are necessary to conduct
sampling or metering operations. Where a user has security measures in
force, the user shall make necessary arrangements so that personnel from
the District will be permitted to enter without delay for the purpose of
performing their specific responsibilities.
304.5 DURATION OF PERMIT
A temporary permit shall be issued for a definite period and shall
expire on a specific date. This period may be extended, however, upon
determination by the General Manager for good cause.
304.6 CONDITIONS OF PERMIT
'The District shall specify and make part of each temporary permit
specific conditions and pretreatment requirements.
' 27.
May 29, 1975
ARTICLE 4
CONNECTION PERMITS
401. INTRODUCTION
Connection permits may be required of dwelling units, buildings, and
developments connecting directly or indirectly to District's sewerage
facilities. Included are the connections of laterals to local municipal
sewerage facilities and the connection of local municipal sewerage
facilities and laterals to District 's facilities.
No permit shall be valid unless the real property to be served by use of
the permit is included within the boundaries of the District and within
the boundaries of a local sewering agency authorized to maintain public
sewerage facilities. However, a permit may be issued for property to be
served outside the boundaries of a local sewer•ing agency if a local
sewering agency makes application for the issuance of such permit.
402. EXCESS CAPACITY CHARGE FOR USE GREATER THAN REASONABLE USE
1. Terms
(a) Excess Capacity. The hydraulic use of a District facility for
peak flow rate greater than reasonable use.
(b) Peak Flow Rate. The annually determined highest flow rate of
wastewater discharged to a public sewer over a period of at
least 15 minutes at any time during the preceding 12-month
period. In the absence of actual peak flow rate data, peak
flow rate may be considered at 1.6 times the average discharge
for the normal working day for the preceding 12-month period.
(c) Reasonable Use. The rate of discharge of wastewater to which
a user connected to a public sewer shall be entitled to discharge
to said sewer without payment of excess capacity connection
charges by virtue of the assessed valuation of said property and
other criteria. For the purpose of computing excess capacity
connection charges, reasonable use is hereby established at
29.
May 29, 1975
25,000 gallons per day peak flow rate per $100,000 of assessed
valuation. In the event a person producing wastewater maintains
more than one operation in the District, peak flow rate, annual
flow and assessed valuation shall be combined for all such
operations for the purpose of determining reasonable use and
computing excess capacity connection charges.
2. Excess Capacity Connection Charges for Use Greater than Reasonable Use
Prior to commencement of use and upon invoicing by the District, an
excess capacity connection charge shall be payable by a user when,
during the 12-month period after commencement of use, the peak flow
rate may be reasonably expected to exceed 25,000 gallons per day t
unless such peak flow rate is a reasonable use as defined in
Paragraph l(c) of this Section. No excess capacity connection
charge shall be made for connections in use on January 1, 1971 (as
provided for by Ordinance No. 102 , adopted by the Board of Directors
on April 8, 1970) .unless there is, or has been since January 1, 1971,
an increase in peak flow rate of wastewater which exceeds, by more
than 5,000 gallons per day, the highest peak flow rate previously
determined for user.
Subject to the provisions above, excess capacity connection charges
payable shall be computed at the rate of $350 per 1,000 gallons of
peak flow rate. In the case of connections in use on the 1st day
of January, 1971, excess capacity connection charges shall be payable
on the lesser of the following amounts:
(a) The amount by which the current peak flow rate exceeds that
determined for each preceding 12-month period commencing
January 1, 1971 (Effective date of Ordinance No. 102 ) .
(b) The amount the latest determined peak flow rate exceeds the
reasonable peak flow rate determined at the time of the increase.
30. v
May 29, 1975
New 3. Deferral of Excess• Capacity Connection Charges
Upon application by any person to the Board of Directors, which
application demonstrates a financial hardship, the Board of
Directors may allow the payment of excess capacity connection
charges to be made over a period of not more than two years with
conditions to be determined by the Board of. Directors.
4. Refund of Excess Capacity Connection Charges
It is the policy of the Board of Directors to encourage water
conservation and reuse. In furtherance of this policy, application
may be made to the Board of Directors by any user who has paid
excess capacity connection charges to the District of more than
$5,000, which application certified that the peak flow rate has
permanently been decreased by 25 percent or more and which
application is not disputed by the General* Manager, the Board of
Directors may authorize a refund to the applicant. The refund will
be computed to maintain the total remaining excess capacity con-
nection charge paid to an amount corresponding to the excess
capacity connection charge payable at the time of the decrease.
The amount of the refund shall be directly proportional to the
decrease in peak flow rate. In no event shall the refund be
greater than the amount collected from the applicant for excess
capacity connection charges.
403. DISTRICT NO. 1 CONNECTION CHARGES
There are no connection charges currently in effect in Sanitation District
No. 1.
31.
May 29, 1975
.r
ARTICLF. 5
ENFORCEMENT
501. ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS
The District can require compliance with permit conditions or
limitations by issuing administrative orders that are enforceable in a
court of law or by directly seeking court action.
502. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
1. Cease and Desist Orders
When the District finds that a discharge of wastewater has taken
place in violation of prohibitions or limitations of this
Ordinance or the provisions of a wastewater discharge permit, the
General Manager may issue a cease and desist order and direct that
those persons not complying with such prohibitions, limitations,
requirements or provisions:
(a) Comply immediately; or
(b) Comply in accordance with a time schedule set forth by the
District.
2. Public Nuisance
Discharges of wastewater in any manner in violation of this
Ordinance or of any order issued by the General Manager as
authorized by this Ordinance are hereby declared a public nuisance
and shall be corrected or abated as directed by the General
Manager. Any person creating a public nuisance is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
3. Termination of Service
The District may revoke any wastewater discharge permit, or terminate
sewerage service to any premise if the permittee is in violation of
any provision of this Ordinance. All costs for terminating service
shall be paid by the permittee; all costs for reinstituting service
shall be paid by the permittee.
33,
May 29, 1975
r
503. CIVIL ACTION
1. Injunction
Whenever a discharge of wastewater is in violation of the
provisions of this Ordinance, the District may petition the
Superior Court for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent
injunction or both, as may be appropriate in restraining the
continuance of such discharge.
2. Civil Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance or
permit condition or.who violates any cease and desist order,
prohibition, or effluent limitation, shall be liable civilly
for a penalty not to exceed $6,000 for each day in which such
violation occurs. The legal counsel of the District, upon
order of the District' s Board of Directors, shall petition the
Superior Court to impose, assess and recover such penalties.
3. Criminal Penalties
Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance or permit
condition or who violates any cease and desist order, prohibition
or effluent limitation, is guilty of a misdemeanor, which, upon
conviction, is punishable by a fine not to exceed one hundred
dollars ($100) , or imprisonment for not more than thirty (30)
days in the County Jail, or both.
504. DAMAGE TO FACILITIES OR INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL OPERATIONS
When a discharge of wastes causes an obstruction, damage, or any
other impairment to District's operation or facilities, the District
may assess a charge against the discharger for the work required to
clean or repair the facility or costs incurred to resume normal
operations. A service fee of 2S percent of District's costs shall
be added to these charges and shall be payable within 4S days of
invoicing by the District.
34. May 29, 1975
505. FALSIFYING INFORMATION
Any person who knowingly makes any false statements, representation,
..� record, report, plan or other document filed with the District or
who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required under this Ordinance, shall
violate this Ordinance.
506. APPEALS
Any user, permit applicant, or permit holder affected by any decision,
• action, or determination, including cease and desist orders, made by
the General Manager, interpreting or implementing the provisions of
this Ordinance or in any permit issued herein, may file with the
General Manager a written request .for reconsideration within ten (10)
days of such decision, action, or determination, setting forth in
detail the facts supporting the user's request for reconsideration.
The General Manager shall render a decision on the request for
reconsideration to the user, permit applicant or permit holder in
writing within 1S days of receipt of request. If the ruling on the
request for reconsideration made by the General Manager is unsatis-
factory, the person requesting reconsideration may, within 10 days
after notification of the General Manager's action, file a written
appeal with the Secretary of the Board.
A fee of $100 shall accompany any appeal to the Board of Directors
of the District for a ruling of the District. This fee may be refunded
if the appeal is sustained in favor of the appellant.
The written appeal shall be heard by the District within 45 days from the•
date of filing. The District's Board of Directors shall make a final
ruling on the appeal within 60 days from the date of filing.
507. PAYMENT OF CHARGES AND DELINQUENCIES
Except as otherwise provided, all charges and penalties made pursuant
to the provisions of this Ordinance are due an payable upon receipt of
notice thereof. All such charges shall become delinquent 45 days after
mailing notice thereof to the mailing address of the discharger subject
to such charges.
35.
May 29. 197S
Any charge that becomes delinquent shall have added to it a penalty
charge equal to ten percent of the charge that became delinquent and
thereafter an additional penalty shall accrue on the total charge
due, including the ten percent basic penalty at the rate of one-half
of one percent per month until paid.
508. COLLECTION
Upon motion by the Board of Directors of the District, any charge and
all penalties thereon shall be collected by lawsuit in the name of the
District. Any such action for collection may include an application
for an injunction to prevent repeated and recurring violations of this
Ordinance.
509. WAIVER OF ORDINANCE PROVISIONS
In the event of any declared local, state or federal emergency, the
provisions of this Ordinance may be waived by resolution of the Board
of Directors.
510. LOCAL AGENCY EXEMPTION FROM CHARGES
No excess capacity connection charges or use charges, as specified
herein, shall be payable for the discharge of sewage or industrial
waste from property in the District oi%med'or leased by elementary,
high school, and junior college school districts, special districts,
the County of Orange, and cities, provided however, that such
property is not used for proprietary purposes.
36.
May 29, 1975
ARTICLE 6
SEVERABILITY
If any provision of these regulations or the application to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the regulations or the applica-
tion of such provision to other persons or other circumstances shall not be
affected.
37.
May 29, 1975
ARTICLE 7
REPEAL
Ordinance No. 102 is hereby repealed on the effective date hereof and all
Ordinances or parts of Ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent that they are inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance.
39,
May 29, 1975
40.
•./ ARTICLE 8
EFFECTIVE DATE
The effective date of this Ordinance shall be July 1, 1975.
i
x
41.
May 29, 1975
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
May 2`3,`11975 P.O. BOX 8127
10844 ELLIS AVENUE
FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708
(714) 540-2910
M E M 0 R A N D U M (714)'962-2411
TO: Boards of Directors
REFERENCE: Recission of Contract with Jeanne L. Eddows dba Alart
Company, Contract for Sale of Digested Sewage Solids
Joint Chairman Winn has provided us with a copy of a letter from
the Alart Company dated 17 May, 1975, which he believes has been or
is being mailed directly to Board members by the Alart Company repre-
sentatives . Attached is a copy of the Alart Company letter for those
who may not have received it . Chairman Winn has requested comments
from the staff and the General Counsel.
In the staff' s opinion, at no time did the contractor have
adequate equipment and manpower on the site to process the sludge
material for removal as provided in the agreement . The Districts
produce approximately 100 yards per day of centrifuge cake which
accumulated in large quantities throughout the Plant No. 2 grounds .
This resulted in a public nuisance by reason of odors and a health
hazard developed from the accumulation of centrifuged sludge which
was not being processed.
Following the staff' s recission of the contract , Mr. Clark, the
Districts ' Superintendent , and I met with Miss Eddows, the owner of
the company, and her General Manager, Norman Card, on several occasions
prior to the May 14th Board meeting, in an attempt to ascertain if they
could convince us that they had, in fact , the know-how, manpower and
equipment necessary to process and remove the sludge as it became
available, in accordance with the contract terms . We received two ,
possibly three, written submittals from them which were totally unsatis-
factory. Essentially, their claims to future performance were general
and incomplete and hardly a basis by which we could recommend that
the Boards permit the contractor to proceed with the execution of the
contract . Lacking a precise plan from the Alart Company , I directed
our Superintendent , Mr. Clarke , to prepare a memorandum detailing the
priorities of the sludge-handling operation to clean up the mess which
had been created at Plant 2 and to establish a continual operation in
the area designated for drying sludge. A copy of this memorandum was
given to Miss Eddows and Mr. Card with the comment that if they could
convince the Board members that. their company could and would accomplish
the tasks listed. in the memorandum by the dates specified with a
detailed plan of action, that we, the staff, would not oppose them.
At no time have we received from the Alart Company representatives a
detailed work plan to process the sludge .
Based on the foregoing, the staff could not recommend reinstating
the contractor.
Fred A. Harper
FAH:rb General Manager
Enclosures -
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE JOINT CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: GENERAL COUNSEL
DATE: May 23, 1975
SUBJECT: Agreement for Sale of Digested Sewage
Solids - Alart Company
I have reviewed the correspondence dated May 17,
1975 addressed to the Districts Directors from Alart Company
pertaining to the actions of the Board of Directors on
May 14, 1975 . Additionally, I have reviewed the entire
file of this matter, including the original agreement and
the notice of recission that was sent to Alart, dated
May 6, 1975. Based upon a review of this, it is my opinion
that the actions of the Board of Directors ratifying the
action of the staff rescinding said agreement as of May 6,
1975 were done in accordance with all legal requirements.
With respect to the several general allegations
of the letter of May 17, 1975, I feel certain that the
Directors are fully aware of the nature and extent of the
hearing that was held on May 14, 1975, and that any claims
of failing to act in accordance with the •principles of due
process are totally without merit. The letter has been
signed by Mr . Norman R. Card and, while he did not speak
to the issue, he stood aside of Miss Eddows during her
presentation to the Directors in general. Additionally,
Miss Eddows was represented at the hearing by Mr. Carl
Kane, her attorney, who addressed the Directors and
responded to several questions . The record will also
reflect that Miss Eddows, Mr . Card and Mr . Kane were all
present at the time of the roll call vote, which was
publicly announced by the Chairman. The fact that sub-
sequent to the Chairman ' s closing the public hearing Mr.
Card was refused an opportunity to make further comments
is not a deprivation of due process.
With respect to the comments in the Alart Company
letter of May 17, 1975 concerning the notice of recission,
I can indicate to you that there are certain legal require-
ments in order to effectively rescind an otherwise valid
NOW agreement . Specifically, the grounds are a matter of
statutory law and the notice by the Districts of May 6,
1975 is in strict accordance with those requirements.
The staff report addressed itself both in the written
memorandum preceding the meeting, as well as the verbal
reports during the course of the meeting, to the recita-
tions set. forth in the notice of recission. A more
detailed explanation of the staff analysis is contained
in a separate report being forwarded to the Directors on
this date.
Finally, with respect to the Districts ' right to
remove any existing sludge currently located upon our
properties, I •have advised the staff to continue to proceed
with necessary negotiations and award of a long range
contract after bids because of the effectiveness of the
notice of recission. The Districts are under no obliga-
tion to allow Alart Company to remove any sludge upon
the properties and full title thereto rests exclusively
with the Districts. It may be disposed of in any manner
we determine.
Thomas L. Woodruff
General Counsel
TLW:ab
-2-
c,4LART COMPANY
17 May, 1975
To: All Members, Boards of Directors
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
At this writing we do not have full information as to which Directors were present on ':tied-
nesday night., 14 i•,ay, 1975, at the Joint Aeeting of the Boards of Directors, County Sani-
tation Districts of Crange County, nor do we know fully who voted for or against the motion
to ratify the staff 's recission of Jeanne L. Eddows ' (DBA/Alart Company) contract for the
sale of digested sewage solids. No Director could be faulted for voting for the recission
in the light of the testimony which was permitted by the Chairman. However, we submit that
full disclosure of hiss Eddows' side of the story was not allowed, while the staff was en-
couraged to make several statements in opposition to her; an individual was allowed to cloud
the issue of the ownership of Alart Company, and his wild allegations were not denied by Counsel
for the Districts until damaging floor discussion had occurred. while we are fully aware
that the meeting did not constitute a court of law, little semblance of common courtesy to
Miss Eddows, let alone due process, was apparent.
The Directors have been exposed to a written staff recommendation and (those who were
present) to several oral attacks by Mr. William Clarke, Superintendent as well as the en-
dorsement of Yr. Clarke 's subjective opinions by Mr. Fred Harper, General Manager. The
Directors should have the benefit of opposing testimony. I was personally appalled at
Chairman Winn's refusal to permit me to speak on behalf of Jeanne Eddows. Since that
time, on Friday, 16 May, Chairman Winn has reaffirmed his position and further stated that
he felt there was entirely too much discussion as it was and that in his opinion the board
should have followed the recommendations of the staff without hesitation. He stated in a
telephone conversation with Jeanne rddows that he considered the matter closed unless MIr.
Fred Harper should recommend reconsideration. An interested party has observed that in view
of Mr. Harper's attitude on 14 May, this possibility would be akin to "expecting the fox to
recommend tighter security for the chickens." However, although we sharply disagree with
the staff in the present instance, both Jeanne Eddows and I have a great deal of respect for
staff members, and particularly, Mr. Harper. We believe he felt he should back up the actions
of a subordinate which actions were instigated during hr. Harper's absence on inportant busi-
ness. Our impression is that it would be entirely in character for Yx. Harper voluntarily
to ask for a complete and fair disclosure of our side of the question. Nevertheless, we
respectfully submit that a more judicious approach by Nr. Harper, or a failure thereof,
should not be the criterion for a full review by the Board. It is our own feeling that if
any board of directors were to follow, without thorough investigation, controversial recom-
mendations of staff, then that board of directors is unnecessary. As it stands, we maintain
that the allegations made in the Notice of hecission are not only inaccurate and misleading,
but libelous.
There is a great deal more to this matter than meets the eye. There exists, unbelievable
as it may seem, a conspiracy to put Jeanne Eddows out of business. Legal action is being
prepared relative to this conspiracy. A portion of the Notice of tecission, when coupled
with prior staff actions, allows the inference to be drawn of an accessory position, if not
outright collusion, on the part of whoever was responsible for the drafting thereof, and
the parties thereto. ?-1e do not at this time make any such allegations..
Page Two
Directors, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County
May, 1975
.r
Our contention is that there is no valid basis in fact for the statements made in the Notice
of recission and no weight was given to mitigating circumstances. We must therefore conclude
that Piss Lddows was discriminated against merely because she is a woman. we have been ad-
vised that among other avenues of recourse, there may be a cause for action under Title VII
of the 1964 Civil rtights Act. Such an action is not presently contemplated.
Jeanne Eddows and I, as General Manager of Alart Company, most respectfully ask, for a meeting
with the Directors at the earliest opportunity and most certainly while there is still a
chance to avoid litigation and to forestall further damages. If the sludge which alart Com-
pany has worked on at great expense is removed from County property under a "negotiated sale"
to others; or if a contract is awarded to others for the removal of the same, then the
problems of possible reconciliation and the damages to Alart will be greatly increased.
We will be prepared to present a written memorandum brief refuting the allegations made
as grounds for recission, a most revealing chronological sequence of events leading up
to the recission, photographic evidence of compliance with certain staff directives where
non compliance has been alleged, written evidence of our marketing abilities, documents
solicited and acknowledged by staff, but ignored,and testimony bearing directly and indirectly
on the controversy.
We solicit the support of any Directors who may not eventually agree with what representa-
tives of Alart Company would like to say, but because of their positions of leadership in
their communities, would be expected vigorously to defend our right to say it.
We may be reached as follows: Alart Company
Box 6263
Buena Park, Cal. 90622
Tel. Message Center: 71L•-°94-1808
Very truly yours,
Norman R. Card
General Manager
rlhc/wg
cc/Counsel
Crganitation list
ar
May 29, 1975
Mr. Donald Winn, Joint Chairman
of the Board of Directors
Orange County Sanitation Districts
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
RE: Appointment of Alternate
Dear Mr. Winn :
Please be advised that on this date through a telephone
poll, Councilman Robert E. Root was appointed by a majority
of the Council members to attend the Sanitation District
meeting on May 29, 1975 with full voting rights on behalf'
of the City of Fullerton.
Very truly yours,
Virginia Fitzsimmonz
City Clerk
cc : Mayor 'Ware
/Nr-
A
42-383
%7'
t
1
G'
1
' Gf
� Z
f
A
A
NA>IONA/.
42-383
olt
loe—
AZI
Q � t
-dam
The budgetary forecast shall be made by the general manager
for the ensuing calendar year and the users thereof shall be
advised of such estimates and quarterl
y y payments may be
made thereon by the users.
The unit charge rate parameters for flora, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
suspended solids, respectively designated "Vol' (in dollars per million
gallons) , "Bo"; (in dollars per 1000 pounds of B.O.D.) , and "So" (in
dollars per 1000 pounds of suspended solids) , shall be determined by
totaling the funding requirements for providing se%�erage service by the
District for the fiscal year and distributing said requirement among the
three parameters in accordance luith the General Manager's determination
as to the costs associated with each parameter and pursuant to applicable
requirements of State and Federal regulatory agencies.
Other measurements of the organic content of the %%•astewater of a disc►:arrer
such as C.O.D. or T.O.C. , may be,used instead of B.O.D. However, the
discharger must establish for the District a relationship between the: B.O.D.
of his wastewater and the other measured parameter. This relationship shall
be used by the District in determining the charge for use.
504 Payment of Use Fees The use fee is an annual charge Payable
within 45 days of invoicing by the district. The district
may require the user to pay estimates of the annual charge
for use.
t
1 K
1
May 28 , 1975
To : Directors of the Fountain Valley Sanitation District
Subject: Transmittal of Requested Changes to Proposed Sewerage
Regulatory Ordinance.
Gentlemen:
Transmitted herewith is a two page summary of changes to the
subject ordinance requested by the electroplating industry in
Orange County. Attached to the summary are exhibits of suggested
rewrites for the applicable sections of the ordinance.
As you will note, one of our major concerns is the attempt on the
part of the district to collect fees for "use-greater-than-
reasonable-use" on a retroactive basis by virtue of existing
Ordinance 102, and a combination of that document and the propsed
ordinance. This issue has to some extent, become clouded in our
minds based upon statements made during the public hearing on
May 14, 1975 (as documented by Mr. R. Clark, National Technology,
letter to staff dated May :15, 1975 , addressee J. Thomas) , and the
existing wording of the Ordinance Section 402. Further, the intent
of Section 402 as explained in a meeting with staff held on
May 21, 1975, is not at all well defined in the section as written.
In some cases, the apparent retroactive costs mentioned above
would be sufficient to cause serious damage to the user. The word
apparent is used in that we are still not clear on the calculation
of charges .
Please give this matter your earnest attention. We the electroplaters
are not reluctant to pay our fair share of district costs. We are
not reluctant to expend the monies we must for pre-treatment equip-
ment. But , in view of the fact that there will be yet another
revenue program to be imposed above and beyond the subject ordinance,
we are most reluctant to see enacted legislation that contains finan-
cial impositions that nre either poorly defined, or are so stringent
as to be prohibitive.
Z,/-
W.E. yder
Oran a Co . Liason
MFASC
SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING
REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES
1- 102. 3. Assessed Value be amended to read as follows :
Assessed Value shall mean that portion of the total
assessed value of the land and improvements including
personal property of the user upon which county and city
taxes are levied.
Reason for change - Many persons in the metal finishing
and other businesses may not own the property upon which
their business is located, they merely rent the premises .
The personal property assessment is generally greater
than the land and improvement assessment so long as the
ordinance bases "reasonable use" upon the amount of
assessed valuation it is only fair that all of the assets
upon which a business pays taxes should be included.
The fact that the Sanitation District does not derive any
benefit from personal property assessed is immaterial as the
assessed value is being used merely as a guideline for the
determination of reasonable use .
2- The second paragraphs of sections 202 and 203 could be deleted
for if same are not already covered in 304 satisfactorily , they
should be included therein.
Reason for change - To eliminate duplication and repetitious
matter.
3- Article 3 should be rewritten - its complexity could be removed
by having just 1 Class instead of 1 and 11 - the same standards
could be incorporated but with their applicability to be
administered by the grantor of the permits . See Exhibit A '
attached hereto for a suggested form.
Reason for change - mainly for clarification and to place
applicable provisions to-gether; necessary to simply to
aid in interpretation.
4- Article 4 - paragraph 402 - Excess Capacity Charqe for Use
Greater Than Useable Use. See Exhibit B attached hereto for a
suggested form.
Reason for change -This paragraph needs clarification - it
should definitely eliminate the retroactive provisions for
the collection of excess capacity charges back to January 1 '
1971 - as Per Lewis definitely stated, "That if you have not
been charged, he saw no reason; why he would be charged in
the future- statemett made to Mr Clark at public hearing .
Reasonable use should he, eliminated and in lieu thereof,
`we allowable use. Assessed valuation should not be any
criteria for rea§onable use there is no relationship.
3
5- Article� 5 should deal only with Use Fees- which should be
totally divorced from Permit fees - they are separate and
distinct subjects and should be dealt with individualiv- this
tends toward clarification of ordinance- See Exhibit C for
suggested provisions .
Reason for Change- for purposes of clarification- necessity
for budetary forecast so that business may anticipate costs
and began paying same as they incur . Never should mix
Permit Feesiwith Use fees in the same Article .
6- Article , 6 would then be Enforcement as it is written but
with the following changes :
a)' 503. 2 Civil Penalties- should be reduced from $6 , 000 . 00
to $100, 00 per day.
Reason: such a clause imposing $6 , 000. 00 pet day is confiscato-
and probably would not hold up in court anyway.
b) 506 , „Appeals - Suggest that all requests and notices be for
10 days instead of some 15 and others 10 . No reason for
there to be any appeal - the time taken from business is enouqh
punishment for the average executive.
Reason: simplification is a must for a good ordinance -
Should the user win on appeal then his appeal is returned -
why should riot staff who necessitated the appeal by penalized
if there position was not well taken?
-- i
c) An appeal "is made to the Board of Directors of the District.
It would seem that the matter should be heard by the Directors
of the District wherein the incident occurred instead of
troubling the entire District' s directors .
d) A final ruling on any appeal should be above to be made
by the directors with 30 days . . . there may easily be too much at
stake for the directors to take 60 days to make such a aecision .
Respectfully submitted
Embee Plating, by 1001 ' e,
Anodyne,, Inc. , b
- 2 ,-
'# ARTICLE 3, ,
t .. DISCHARGE PERMITS
301 Introductione' To provide toe maximum public benefit from
rom the use of District facilities written authorization to
use skid facilities is requi'red. This written authorization
shall be in- the form of a permit.
302 Permits Perrdits are of two classifications , temporary discharge
permits and discharge permits . Any user who proposes to
connect to or discharge into: a public sewer of the ni strict. must
obtain! a permit therefore before connecting to or discharging
into .such sewer Excepting an existing user who must obtain such
a permit- within 180 days after the enactment hereof . Discharge
of domestic waste, by virtii-� of occilnanry of a dwelling unit
may' not be ' required to ' obtain a permit.
303 Discharge Permits A permit must be obtained by any user who:
1- Has ay' dischar e flow in excess of 25 000 g gallons per
i dayt...and in addition thereto 1 , 000 gallons per day for
eac4. $4, 000. 00 assessed valuation or fraction thereof -
this' 'is in excess of the allowable use. . . . . .or
2,' Has wastewater producing operations that are in a
Stande r_d Industrial Classification Group whose
wastewater is deemed by the General Manager to have
a. significant impact on the District ' s sewerage
facilities. The S . I .C. groups considered significant
and which have been adopted• by the General Manager
shali-be published prior to the adoption of this
ordinance and shall be updated as necessary ; or
3- Involves the discharge of components which may
exceed the parameters as specified in Section 208 ,
Limitations on Wastewater Strength.
304 Temporary Discharge Permits A temporary discharge permit
shall be .required of all users granted temporary permission
by the District to discharge unpolluted water, storm drainage,
and ground water directly or indirectly ' to ' the District ' s
sewerage facilities. The temporary discharge permit is
normally granted when no discharge permit is reasonably
available ; A' temporary permit shall specify therein specific
conditions anal pretreatment .requirements, if any, and shall
expire, upon a,,specific date unless extended, upon good cause ,
by theOGenera} Manager.
K s
`O,
-, EXHIBIT " ."
305 Application for Permit A user seeking either a Discharge
`./ Permit or Temporary Discharge Permit shall complete and
file with the District an application on the form prescribed
by the General Manager including such other information as
may be required to properly evaluate the permit application .
306 Permit Fees The Discharge Permit Fee shall be $
payable within 45 days of invoicing by the district. The
Temporary Discharge Fee shall be $ payable
upon issuance of same.
307 Conditions for Permits All Discharge Permits and Temporary
Discharge Permits shall be expressly subject to all pro-
visions of their ordinance and other regulations , charges
for use and fees established by the District. Each permit
shall include the applicable conditions pertinent for
such user. The conditions which may be imposed are as
follows:
307. 1 Maximum mass emission rates
(a) Rate determination. Maximum mass emission rates
for r ncompatible and/or compatible pollutants that
are present or anticipated in .the user' s wastewater
discharge shall beset for each user and made an
applicable part of each user' s permit. These rates
' shall be based on Section 208, Limitations on
Wastewater Strength, and '
the user's .average daily wastewater discharge' for the, past-three '
years. When discharge data for three years is not, availabjq.; +s
.� data for a'year, or that which is mutyally acceptable to the•
ty fr , .f ;. ,
pser'.and the District shall be used. { ` a
�b) Preliminary, determination of, and fees for, non compliance with
perm it ''requirements. ,Non-compliance with permit requirements may'
be determined by an `analysis of a grab sample of :the effluent of
Ji F. x a Aischargei for any constituent or condition..specified in the
M ? user's'permit. If the effluent of.a user is found by the analysis
of the. grab`, sample. to be in .excess of .the concentrations or
conditions specified in Section 208, then a Sampling and
Eyaluation. program may be;initiated by the District.
51
t - __
If the:Sampling and Evaluation 'Program reveals non-compliance by
the discharger with the mass emission rates or conditions specified
•
iri'the user's permit, the user shall pay the fees as specified in
}.
Tablds II and III. The fees specified shall become retroactive
to the cute the Sampling and Evaluation Program started. The
fees -,'for nor -compliance, based on the mass emission rate determined
in the Sampling and Evaluation Program, shall continue to accumu-
late "on a daily basis until the discharger can show corrective
action has bg,en taken or compliance achieved, but for a period
not to exceed ten normal working days. If the period of non-
compliance continues for more than ten consecutive normal working*.
days,, the District may proceed with one of the following:
(1) Amend the existing permit. This may be done only when the
discharger has shown good faith in trying to comply and
requires additional time for construction and/or acquiring
equipment. The permit may be amended for a period not to
exceed 180-days, provided however, this period may be extended
upon determination by the -General Manager for good cause.
V A
(2) Proceed'with .enforcement action as outlined in Article S. ,
.-The payment of non-compliance fees will not relieve the
discharger of the penalties as specified in Article 5.
A
i •
1 'M'*
ti
t
4
. r -
,1
TABLE II
FEES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS
AND MASS EMISSION RATES
Dollars per Pound per Day
In Excess of Limit
Arsenic $100.00
Cadmium 100.00
Chromium (Total) 100.00
Copper 30.00
Lead 40.00
Mercury 100.00
Nickel 40.00
Silver 100.00
Zinc 20.00
Cyanide (Total) 40.00 '
Cyanide (Free, amendable toychlorination) 100.00
Total Identifiable Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 100.00
Phenols 50.00
Dissolved Sulfides ' 50.00
TABLE III
FEES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS
AND MASS EMISSION LIM115
t Dollars p er Hundred Pounds
per Day in Excess of Limit
B.O.D. { $ 15.00
Suspended Solids 15.00
Oil and Grease (Animal or Vegetable Origin) 200.00
..� Oil and Grease (Mineral or Petroleum, Origin) 200.00
Total Dissolved Solids 20.00
Ammonia 20.00
t
30 7 .2_ Pretreatment Requirements
Users shall make wastewater acceptable under the limitations
established in this Ordinance before discharging to any public
sewer. Any facilities required to pretreat wastewater shall be
provided and maintained at the user's expense. Detailed plans
showing the pretreatment facilities and operating procedures may be
requested by District for review. The review of such plans and
operating procedures will not relieve the user from the responsibility
of modifying the facility as necessary to produce an effluent accep-
table to the District under the provisions of this Ordinance.
307.3.- Permit Duration
Vermits shall be issued for a period not to exceed three years. A
permit may be issued for a period less than three years, or may be
stated to expire on a specific date. The terms and conditions of
the permit may be subject to modification and change by the District
during ,the life -of the permit as limitations or requirements as
identified in Article 2 are modified. Users shall be informed of any
proposed changes in their permit at least thirty (30) days prior to
a
the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in the
.permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance.
307.4 Insyection and Sampling Conditions
The District may inspect the wastewater generating and disposal
facilities of any user to ascertain whether the intent of this
Ordinance is being met and the user is complying with the require-
ments. Persons or occupants of premises where wastewater is created
.or discharged shall allow the District or its representatives ready
access during the normal working flay to all parts of the wastewater
disposal facilities for the purposes of;inspection and sampling.
The District shall have the right to set up on the user's property
such• devices as`are necessary to 'conduct sampling or metering
! ,
operations. Whe�e `a user has security measures in force; the user •
shall make necessary arrangement$`•so thgv personnel from the District
will be. permittdd to enter without: delay for the purpose .of performing
u,
their speci£ic .responsibilities. '
307. 5 Permit Transfer Prohibitions Wastewater discharge permits
are issued to a specific user for a specific operation at
a specific location. No wastewater discharge permit shall
be transferred for an operation at a different location nor
for a new or changed operation without prior approval of.
the General Manager. .
307. 6 Procedure for Accidental Discharge
In the event the discharger is unable to comply with any of the
permit conditions due to a breakdown of waste treatment equipment,
accidents caused by human error or acts of God, the discharger
shall notify the District by telephone as soon as he or his agents
have knowledge of the incident. Confirmation of this notification
shall be made in writing; within two weeks of the telephone
307.7 ConfAential I formatio
All information and data on a user shall be available to the public
and governmental agencies without restriction unless the user
specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction
of the District that the release of such information would divulge
information, processes, or methods which would he detrimental to the.
user's competitive position. }
307 . 8 Miscellaneous Conditions The following additional conditions
may be included:
1. Limits on rate and time of discharge or
requirements for flow regulations and
equalization.
2 . Requirements for. maintaing plant records relating
to wastewater discharge as specified by District,
and affording District access thereto.
,3. Requirements for the user to construct and maintain ,
at his own expense, monitoring facilities .
.4 ' ''
308 REVOCATION OF A PERMIT
1. Procedure. When the General Manager has reason to believe that any
..� one of the conditions enumerated in Subsection 2 below exists, he
shall give written notice thereof to the permittee. Said notice
shall set forth the time and place where the charges shall be heard
by the General Manager. The hearing date shall not be less than
fifteen (15) days from the mailing of such notice by certified mail
to the permittee at the address shown on the permit. At the hearing
the permittee shall have an opportunity to refute the allegations set
forth in the proposed permit revocation notice.
If after the hearing the General Manager finds that any one of the
conditions hereinafter enumerated in.Subsection 2 exists, he shall
have the right to revoke the permit.
2. Any of the following is reason for permit revocation:
(a) Failure of a user to factually report the wastewater constitu-
ents and characteristics of his discharge.
(b) Failure' of the user to report significant changes in operations
or wastewater constituents and characteristics.
(c) • Refusal' of reasonable access to the user's premises for the
purpose of inspection or monitoring.
(d) Violation of permit requirements and. Ordinance conditions.
(e) Failure to pay fees and charges for use established pursuant
to this Ordinance.
a
x
A
r ,; �
402 EXCESS CAPACITY CHARGE:
..i 1- Terms:
a) Average Flow Rate the average flow rate of discharge of
waste water -to a public sewer shall be the greatest metered discharge
for any eight-hour .natural day or night use during the preceding
12 month period. The -average flow rate shall always be applicable
except when the District may prove a variation in the flow in
excess of 10%.
b) Metered Discharge metered discharge shall be determined
by the use of water billings of the user less a deduction of 15%
for absorption, evaporation, domestic use, etc. The District may
prove that said deduction of 15% is too high and the user may
prove that said deduction of 1501-3 is too low, and adjustment shall
be made accordingly. Nothing herein is intended to preclude either
the District or user from metering the discharge.
c) Peak Flow Rate The peak flow rate of discharge of waste
water to a public sewer is determined over a period of at least
15 minutes during any preceding 12 month period. Upon the flow rate
being determined to be more than 10% of the average flow rate at
any one period of 15 minutes or more, then in the absence of any
exact data, the peak flow rate may be considered to be 1 . 6 times the
average flow rate.
d) AlloWable Use In the determination of what should be the
allowable use for the metered discharge of waste water in a public
sewer consideration was given to the kind and type of discharge
and its effect upon, the environment correlated with the maximum
public benefit, the need by certain industries and their dependence
for such discharge,• the intent for each user to pay for his
proportionate share; together with the possible effect such an
ordinance may have upon the economy of Orange County. Predicated
upon the above facets, it was determined:
1- Allowable use is hereby established at 25 ,000 gallons
per day and in addition thereto 1, 000 gallons per day for each
$4, 000. 00 assessed valuation or fraction thereof.
2= Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, this ordinance
shall not be -retroactive and the rletered discharge of any established
business prior to the enactment of this ordinance shall be, allowable .
Any new or additional use in excess of 5 ,000 gallons per day,
after the enactment of this ordinance, : shall be subject to the
excess capacity charge.
a _
EXHIrBIIT B
V V
2- Excess Capacity Charge:
a) All excess capacity useage over said allowable use
shall be subject, to an excess capacity charge of $350.00 per
-� 1, 000 gallons for the amount of such excess discharge flow rate
for the preceding 12 month period, commencing from the enactment.
of this ordinance. The excess capacity charge is a one assessment
charge and after the payment thereof the user is annually entitled
to the additional metereddischarge he has paid for; any new or
additional use thereafter will be subject to the same excess
capacity charge and upon the payment thereof the user will be
entitled to such additional discharge.
- 3- Miscellaneous Provisions :
a) Determination of Flow Rate In the determination of the
`ry average or peak flow rate, tests shall be made under normal operati
and shall not be ' the result of extrordinary circumstances .
b) Combination of Operations In the event a person has
more than one operation in the district, the computation of useage,
assessment, and allowable use shall all be combined in the
determination of the amount of discharge subject to said excess
capacity charge.
c) Regulatory Provisions for Established Businesses
The District may make such regulatory provisions it may deem
nenessaryp provided it does not effect the standard for producing
' quality work, whenever a business established prior to the
enactment of this or dinance has refused, Palled, or neglected
to cooperate in the conservation of the discharge.
E
!i
f
A_RTICL_E V
USE FEES
k
500 Use Fee The purpose of a charge for u'se is to insure
that each recipient of services within the District ' s
service area, including those outside the District 's
boundaries, will pay its reasonable proportionate share
of all costs of providing sewerage service by the District.
Cost of conveying, treating and disposing of sewage in
District facilities are exclusive of any fees levied by
local sewering agencies.
501 Classification of Users Discharge Permittees and Temporary
Discharge Permittees shall be classified by assigning each
permittee to a use category according to the user 's
principal wastewater producing activity and the user 's
Standard Industrial Classification (S . I .C) for that
activity.
502 Bases for Use Fee For each user category, a fee shall
be developed based on the typical suspended solid and B.O.D.
in the wastewater of that category and the District' s
funding requirements for conveying, treating and disposing
of these wastewater constitutents . This fee shall be
determined annually by the District' s Board of Directors
and in the form of cost per million gallons of wastewater
discharge.
503 Determination of> Use Fee The use fee shall be determined
by multiplying the user feefor the user' s category by the
volume metered discharge less a credit for that portion of
the total charge that is paid by discharger through ad
valorem tax.'
The charge for use shall be computed by the following
formula: :;
Charge for use ,:=. V0V + B 0 B + S 0 S
Where V = total annual volume of flow, in millions of
gal{ons
B = total annual discharge .of Biochemical Oxygen
• Demand, in thousands of pounds r
S = total annual discharge of suspended solids ,
in thousands of pounds
Vo,Bo, So }= unit charge rates are adopted annually by
Resolution of the District Board of Directors ,
based upon the budgetary forecast of the funding
requirements of providing sewerage service , in
dollars per unit as described below.
,*Al' EXHIBIT C
CO
1 ,
f
The budgetary forecast shall be made by the general manager
for the ensuing calendar year and the users thereof shall be
advised of such estimates and quarterly payments may be
made thereon by the users.
The unit charge rate parameters for flow, Biochemical Oxygen Demand and
suspended solids, respectively designated "Vol' (in dollars per million
gallons) , "Bo"; (in dollars per 1000 pounds of B.O.D.) , and "So" (in
dollars per 1000 pounds of suspended solids) , shall be determined by
totaling the funding requirements for providing sewerage service by the
District for the fiscal year and distributing said requirement among the
three parameters in accordance with the General Manager's determination
as to the costs associated with each parameter and pursuant to applicable
requirements of State and Federal regulatory agencies.
Other measurements of the organic content of the wastewater of a discharger
such as C.O.D. or T.O.C. , may be, used instead of B.O.D. ffowever, the
discharger must establish for the District a relationship between the B.O.D.
of his wastewater and the other measured parameter. This relationship shall
be used by the District in determining the charge for use.
504 Payment of Use Fees The use fee is an annual charge payable
within 45 days of invoicing by the district. The district
may require the user to pay estimates of the annual charge
for use.
r
4
C
MEETING DATE _ May 29 , 1975 TIME 7 : 90 p.m. DISTRICTS 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 & 11
DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS
RIMA + AMO • • • • • • • -
DIEDR CH)• • • • • BATTIN • • • • - DIEDRIC )• • • • • BATTIN • • • • •
EVANS . . . . . . . . GARTHE • • • • ANTHONY . . . . . . BURTON • • - • •
SHARP . . . . . . . . SALTARELLI • _ - COLLI( S BYRNE. . . . . . .
LYONS)• • • • • • • • CALLAHAN • • •
DISTRICT 2 iEWING). . . . • . CHAPUT• - • • • •
LYONS • • • • • • • • CALLAHAN• • • SDIEDRICH) • • • • • CLARK• • • • • • •
"TNG • • • • • • • CHAPUT. . ✓ 1 _ HOMRIGHAUSEN) • COX• • • • • • • • •
1rrtDR ICH) • . . . . CLARK. . . . . . CULVER. . . . . .
GARTrE) . . . . . . . EVA-N-8 . ✓ GRIFFIN) . . • • • DAVIS• • • • • • •
THO�I1 . . . . . . . . . KAYWOOD• • - . ✓ + MC INNIS) . . . . • DOSTAL• • • • • •
FOXI • • • • • • - . • . MAC KAIN. . . - GIBBS) . . . . . . DUKE• • • • • • • •
GARTHE) • • • EVANS•
PERRY. . . . . . �-
MAC K INj . — FOX. . • • • • • -
SVALSTAD) • • • • . SCOTT. . . . . . ✓ SONJU . • . . . . . . FRANKIEWICH.
PEREZ • • • . . • • TEMPLE. . . . . A, c4- EVANS , . GARTHE. .
DUNN • • • • • • • • WINN• -r - `" lWIEDER) '. * .* .* *. . . GIBBS. .. • • •. . . WOOD. d ,. ✓ _ * * .
GRAHAM)• • • - • • . 6ttf�P. . . . . . ✓ - GLOCKNER. . .
NEVIL) t . . . . . . . GRAHAM, • • •
DISTRICT 3 �f TEMP E) . . . . . . . JACKMAN. . . . .
THOT) . . . . . . . . . KAYWOOD. . . . .
HOMRIGHAUSEN)• COX• • • • • • • • �/ 4 a FOX . . . . . . . . . .MAC KAIN. . . .
AMO. . . . . . . ✓ + + RYCOFF) . MC INNIS. . . .
(COLLINS)• • • • • • BYRNE• • • • • • ✓ BLACKMAN5 . . . . .MC KNEW. . . . .
CULVER. . . . . PERRY. . . . . . .
GRIFFIN)• • • • • • DAVIS• • • • • • ✓ -+ (DIEDRICH) • • • • • RILEY• • • • • • •
GARTHEJ. . . . . . . E-VkkS-- - . . . . + RIMA. . . . . . . .
MAC K IN)• • • • • FOX• • • • • • • • — — ROGERS. .
SO1VJ • • • FRANK EWICH < w SHARP) . . . . . . . . SALTARELLI . .
NEVIkk . . . . . . • { Gf �- . . ✓ + s DIEDRICH) . . . . . SCHMIT. . . . . .
T�FfOM1• • • • • • KA-Y-WOOD• • ✓ + �' SVALSTAD) . . . . . SCOTT. .
BLACKMAN�. • • • • MC KNEW- �� q ��- GIBBS) • • : : : • SHIPLEY: : : : .
DIEDRICH • • • • SCHMIT. . � _ 6 �, MC INNIS) • • STORE-
GIBBS . . . . . . . . SHIPLEY.Q . . �/ -t STANTON)• • • • • • SVALSTAD• • • •
STANTON). . . . . . SVALST —7 - y PEREZ). . . . . . . . TEMPLE• •
Wes). . . . . . . . . . .69 / - - WOOD)- . . . . . . . WARD. . . . . . . .
ARBISO)• • • • • • . WEISHA- PT ✓ -� -!- ARBISO) • • • • • • • WEISHAUPT• • •
DUNN ) • • • • • • • • WINN• - • • • • • •
DISTRICT 5 WARD• . . . . . . . WOOD• - • • • • . •
RYCKOFF • - IGRAHAM). . . . . . . YOUNG. . . . . .
ROGERS • - -� OTHERS
DISTRICT 6
HARPER
/MC INNIS . . . . . STORE • • , . . ✓ ` SYLVESTER
�i-.rV� LEWIS v
(DIEDRICH • • • • • BATTIN • . • - . Y — �� �' ? CLARKE ✓
R IMA • . . . . . . -�- - - TAYLOR ✓
DISTRICT 7 BROWN
FDIEDRICH�
S • • • • • GARTHE . . . . . ✓ }
ANTHONY) BURTON . . . . . ✓ - WOODRUFF
• • • • CLARK • • • • • G- . "" EWINGNNIS • • • • DOSTAL • • • • • ✓ - - HOHENER
GLOCKNER • • • HOWARD
TEMPL ) • • • • • • JAC KMAN • • • • �� G �= HUNT
SHARP • - • • • • • SALTARELLI • ✓ — KEITH
KENNEY
D r -i*R I CT 11 � x >• LYNCH� MADDOX
H • • • �' �CHMI�• • • • • �� I Q
DIEDRIC MARTINSON
�GIBBS) • . • . . . DUKE - . . . . . . ✓ +
WIEDER) . . . . . . GIBBS . . . . . . ✓ + 1 PIERSALL
STEVENS
DISTRICT 8
MITCHELL • • -
�JOHNSON1 • • • • • HOLM . . . . . . .
DIEDRICH) • • • • RILEY . . . . . .
5/29/75
i
f � �
• ��._ -yr. -�.�
MEETING DATE _ May ' 29 , 1975 TIME 7 : �Q p .m. DISTRICTS
DISTRICT 1 mjtZtAOINT BOARDS
RIMA . . . • • • —� � � AMO DIEDRIC )• - • • • BATTIN• • • . • .DIEDR CH)• • • . . BATTIN • • • • —� — - • • • • •
EVANS . . . . . . . . GARTHE • • - • ✓ ANTHONY . . . . . . BURTON • • • • •
SHARP . . . . . . . . SALTARELLI • N COLLI S . • • • • • BYRNE. • • • • • •
LYONS . . . . . . . . CALLAHAN • • •
DISTRICT 2 EWING . . • • . • . CHAPUT• • . . . .
• • • • •
`YONG DIEDRICH) • • • CLARK• • •
: : : : • • • • CHAPUT• • - • •• • • • CALLAHAN• • - _� �— �L_ IHOMRIGHAUSEN) -* COX. . . .�� � � CULVER•
iImEDRICH) . . . . . CLARK. . . . . . _., �_ GRIFFIN) . . . . - • CULVE • . • .
GART�iE) . . . . . . . EY,4PI . . . . . . _� � � MC I NN I S) . . . . . DOSTAL• • . • . -
THOTo . . . . . . . . . KAYWOOD. . . . �/ _� MC IN . . - . . . . . DUKE• - . . . . . .
FOXI • • • • • . . . . . MAC KAIN• • • _� _� _� GARTHE) . . . . . EVANS• • • • • • •
PERRY. . . . . . � �+�•- �SVALSTAD) . . . . . SCOTT. . . . . . MAC K IN) . . . . . FOX. . . . . . . . .
�� � Z SONJU . . . . . . . . FRANKIEWICH.
PEREZ • - • . . . . TEMPLE. . . . . �o _ �L 0.� EVANS .
DUNN • • • • . • . . WINN. • • • • • ✓ _�1 —L IWIEDER5 *. * * .* '. * * GARTHE
, GIBBS . • • . .WARB • . . . . . . WE) RoPT. . �/ N � . . . . . .
GRAHAM). • . . . . . *64+ME. . . . . . �I GLOCKNER. . .
NEVIL) . . . . . . GRAHAM . . .
DISTRICT 3 TEMP E) . . . . . . . JACKMAN. . . . .
THOO) . . . . . . . . . KAYWOOD. . . . .
HOMRIGHAUSEN). COX• • • • • • • • ✓ FOX) . . . . . . . . . MAC KAIN. . . .
AMO• • • • • • . • _� RYCOFF5 . . . . . MC INNIS. . . .
(COLLINS)• • • • • . BYRNE• . • • • . �� _ BLACKMAN5 . . . . .MC KNEW. . . . .
CULVER• • • • • _a Q. PERRY. . . . . . .
GRIFFIN)• • • • • • DAVIS• • • • . . _�/ (DIEDRICH) • • • • . RILEY• . • • • • •
GARTHE). . . . .ems. . . . . . ✓ — RIMA. . . . . . . .
IMAC IN)• • • • • FOX• • • • • • • • _�/ _mil N ROGERS. . . . . .
SONJU . . . . . . • • FRANKIEWICH 0. SHARP) . . . . . . . . SALTARELLI . .
NEVI• . . . . . . • P . . . . _� DIEDRICH) . . . . . SCHMIT. .
THOM • • • . . . KAYWOOD• _L,, -YL SVALSTAD) . . . . . SCOTT. . . . . . .
BLACKMAN�. . . . . MC KNEW. . . . (-A- �_ c� GIBBS) • . . . . . . SHIPLEY• • . . .
DIEDR CH • • - . SCHMIT. . . . . �� �. 0.. MC INNIS) • • • - • STORE• • • • • • •
GIBBS�. . . . . . . . _� ISTANTON) • • - • • • SVALSTAD• • • •
STANTON)• • • • . . SVALS AD. . . i/ N � PERE ) • • • • • • • • TEMPLE• • • • • •
WOOD). . . . . . . . WPrR'H: Qf7 ✓ WOOD. . . . . . . . WARD. . . . . . . .
ARBISO). . . . . . . WEISHAUPT -1� ARBISO) • . • . • • • WEISHAUPT• • •
DUNN ) . . . . . . • • WINN. . . . . . . •
DISTRICT 5 WARD • . . . . • • . WOOD. . . . . . . .
RYCKOFF . . _�� /�_ �(_ lGRAHAM)- - o - - - - YOUNG. . . . . . •
D I EDR I CH)• • • . • RILEY • • • • . C,- a-
ROGERS • • • • _� OTHERS
DISTRICT 6 HARPER
MC I NN I S • . . . . STORE . . . . . . �� SYLVESTER
(DIEDRICH)• • • • • BATTIN . . . . . . N _ LEWISCLARKE
RIMA . . . . . . . _� TAYLOR
DISTRICT 7 BROWN
EVANS GARTHE • • • • • �—
ANTHONY) • • • • • BURTON • • • • • _�� w WOODRUFF
DIEDRICH� • : • • CLARK • • • • • 0 - �G .� �L ., EWING
MC INNIS • • DOSTAL . . . . . _� _1 N HOHENER
GLOCKNER • • • -lil —' HOWARD
TEMPL€) . . . . . . JACKMAN • • • • �- �� _� HUNT
SHARP) • • • • • • . SALTARELLI • _yam _� �J KEITH
Dry RICT 11 KENNEY
LYNCH
,IIEDRJCH • • . . SCHMIT • • • . . 0- 0.. . MADDOX
GIBBS 0.
. • • . . . . DUKE • . . . . . . MARTINSON
W I EDER) - • . . . . G IBBS • . . • . . PIERSALL_�� , /�. STEVENS
-ISTRICT 8
MITCH L - - •
OHNSONI • • : : : HOLM . . . • •
EDRI RILEY . . . .
5/29/75
5/29/75 Adjourned Joint Mtg.
(5a) Report of the Joint Chairman
See attached Chairman's Report
(5b) Report of the General Manager
Regarding the hearing to be held by EPA in San Francisco on the 19th , will be
conducted by the Assistant Administrator for Water and Program (?) as well as
three top assistants to him. Listed several matters that would be heard. Also
AMSA is going to be making presentations at each of these hearings--four hearings
to be held around the country. These items were brought to hearing by Office of
Management and Budget. Land survey conducted last year. Currently, goal is for
750 local or official participation. One way to help them is to suggest that they
change requirements or definition of secondary treatment. Also concerned re
allowing ad valorem taxes as means of revenue-in revenue program. EPA already
has this position and will be supporting that.
Reported re visit of Mr. DeFalco at CASA meeting. Re "208" designations, these
designations will probably be made this week or next week. Also, before the
delegation of the construction program, they are going to try an experiment in
this region and for California to assume the responsibility for construction grant
program. Mr. DeFalco reported that California has $1 billion in federal funds to
be allocated and are about one year behind. We have to be concerned with Pure
Drinking Water Act just passed with regard to programs in this river basin,
particularly brine line out of upper basin, will be within provisions of this Act.
Administrator said they are giving authority to State of California but he will
still maintain sign-off authority on the grant, as well as EIS responsibility.
(5c) Report of the General Counsel
Reported re: (Was interrupted by a Director and didn't hear this part)
Also said there was no other litigation pending.
Also reported on negotiations with Southern Pacific Railroad Company re right of way
for Tustin-Orange Trunk Sewer.
(6a) Further comments re proposed Ordinances
(1) SEE taped comments recorded on this item.
Agenda item moved & seconded.
(2) SEE tape
Chairman proposed formation of committee to report back in two weeks to Joint Boards
on excess capacity charge. FAH indicated that two week's deferrment on this reading
will not affect schedule. Said it was the consensus of opinion of the Chairman,
Vice Chairman and Legal Counsel that in all probability an equitable solution could
not be agreed to tonight within a reasonable time. Appointed committee and invited
participation from industry:
Henry Duke, Chairman Dale Chaput
Howard Rogers Bernie Svalstad
John Burton Michael Callahan
Duke moved that they definitely invite industries to every meeting if they would like .
Chair so ordered.
CHAIRMANtS REPORT
ON TUESDAY OF LAST WEEK MR. HARPER AND I MET WITH MR. WIN
ADAMS (CHARIMAN OF STATE WATER RESOURCES BDARD) AND MR. ROY
DODSON ALSO OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS OUR PROPOSAL TO FORM A
C0131ITTE OF LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENTING THE TRI-
TAC ORG. AND THE CO. SUPERVISORS ASS OF CALIF. FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REVIEWING PROPOSED REGULATIONS INVOLVING POLICY MATTERS
AFFECTING LOCAL ENTITIES.
MR. ADAMS AND MR. DODSON BOTH ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSED THE
THE PROPOSAL AND MR. ADA14S SAID HE WOULD CONFIRM THIS IN
WRITING IN 2 or 3 WEEKS WITH A FEW THOUGHTS OF HIS OWN.
THE SUGGESTED COMPOSITION OF THE MEMBERS ALSO MET WITH THEIR
APPROVAL. THEY AGREED THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE BEALL AND
INFORMAL IN NATURE AND MEET ONLY AS REQUIRED.
THE SUGGESTED COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE IS:
WE WILL PROBABLY ASK THE ASS. TO SUBMIT NAMES THROUGHOUT THE
. STATE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT COULD SERVE AND THEN REVIEW
THE FINAL COMPOSITION WITH MR. ADAMS.
I ALSO ATTENDED THE SPRING EX. COMM. MEETING OF CASA LAST
SATURDAY IN NEWPORT BEACH. PAULD DEFALCO JR. , REG. ADMIN.
OF EPA, FLEW DOWN SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THIS GROUP. HE
ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE FORPP,ATION OF THE ABOVE COTE4ITTEE
AND SAID HE WOULD BE GLAD TO SERVE ON BEHALF OF EPA.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE PERSONAL CONTACT THAT
WE DIRECTORS HAVE HAD WITH THE EPA AND STATE OFFICIALS SEEM
TO HAVE OPENED A LINE OF COM.-,,?UNICATION THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE.
MR. DEFALCO ALSO RDVISED THE GROUP OF A PUBLIC HEARING
THAT EPA IS HAVING IN S.F. ON JUNE 19 to DISCUSS POSSIBLE
AMMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUCTION CONTROL ACT.
�T.1T n mm
MR. DEFALCO INDICATED THAT SOME 1500 INVITATIONS HAVE BEEN
SENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND STRONGLY ASKED THAT ALL
INTERESTED PARTIES ATTEND. z� I
A.
Recess from 9:33 - 9:39
Executive Session from 9:40 - 10:20 re Alart Company
't'7) Chairman Winn advised Alart Company that the Board would allow 10 minutes to
make representation. Mr. Card spoke and when asked why they did not perform,
he read their reply. (SEE attached) .
Norma Gibbs moved that consideration of the ratification of the staffs recission
of the Jeanne L. Eddows dba Alart Company contract be reopened and Jeanne Eddows be
permitted to make full disclosure and be allowed to go ahead and continue their
contract.
Some question on whether she could make this motion because of the way she voted
on original motion of 5/14 mtg. Directors agreed to let her make the motion.
If not, Graham said she would move to reconsider Boards of Directors action of
May 14, 19 75.
Gibbs added that the Alart Company enter into new agreement prepared by General
Counsel to be commenced as soon as possible.
FAH advised we have solicited for sale of 3500 yards of sludge and Burton asked what
we would do about that amout now. Gibbs said that would be part of the agreement
to indicate which sludge was to be theirs. Gibbs also added that this motion
was for the balance of the contract.
Woodruff indicated that there are certain fundamental things to be determined
by the Board:
(1) Condition of joint execution by District and Alart and acknowledgement of
first recission.
(2) Definition of ownership of existing sludge--3500 yards .
(3) Basic terms and conditions of old contract should be reincorporated and must
be changed in some parts.
(4) As far as equipment, if Board wants to, can determine that General Manager
approve equipment on site before execution of agreement.
Question asked regarding length of time of new contract.
Svalstad moved amendment to motion that this agreement be for a 30-day probationary
period.
Woodruff stated that they should consider a 30-day contract with provisions that it
will be extended for X-amount of time.
Svalstad restated the motion for a 30-day contract which could be extended then.
Burton seconded motion. Voice vote on amendment to motion. Motion carried.
-2-
1
THE NOTICE OF ACISSION
(dated) May 6, 1975
The NOTICE OF UECISSION which was issued unilaterally by the staff of County Sanitation
District # 1, of Orange County, without prior approval by the Boards of Directors,
was given to Jeanne L. Eddows on May 5, 1975. It should be noted that the Notice of
Intent to Rescind was given to Jeanne L. F.ddows on Friday, May 2, 1975, three days
before the deadline given to her by Mr. Fred Harper to show "diligent progress"
in the cleaning of the south bed "and the provisions of the subject contract,..."
The NOTICE OF kECISSION alleges as grounds for the recission:
� 1. Mistake - Said mistake being that of your ability to provide the labor, materials
and equipment to remove the solid wastes in the manner contemplated by the agreement
to prevent the creation of a public nuisance. ft
We respectfully submit:
No "materials" per se are required.
The equipment which has been used by Jeanne L. Eddows., together with the manpower
to operate it includes;
(a) A Model 977 Caterpillar Traxcavator. This is a very large front end
loader on tracks. It has a 2 1/2 cubic yard bucket, so rated. It is
larger and far more capable than any equipment owned by the Sanitation
District itself. Miss Eddows is personally an expert operator and in
a time test she bettered the performance of an experienced male operator
by more than 25%.
(b) x late model %5-A articulated Michigan loader on rubber. Again, newer,
larger and more capable than the smaller Michigan loader owned by the
District.
(c) A John Deere model 450-B bulldozer with angle blade with the capability
of moving and aligning the sludge in windrows for the purpose of roto
tilling and aeration in the manner approved by the Superintendent.
(Please note that because of weather conditions combined with a stop
work order from the District and the emphasis placed on the cleaning
of the wet bed, the windrow operation had been scheduled to go into
effect the week of May 5. Staff was so advised).
(d) A model 775 New Holland loader. This equipment was brought in on the
strong recommendations of staff. It became mired in sludge upon its
first demonstration by the dealer. It was given a two week trial in
the cleaning of the wet bed and was found to be woefully inadequate
in comparison to the 977. In a time test it was found to take five
times as long to load a truck with this equipment as it did with the 977.
(e) An older, but operative "bobtail" dump truck. This equipment has a 15
cubic yard capacity and is suitable for moving sludge from one area to
another, as in the cleaning of beds, but can be and has been used for
the delivery of dry sludge to customers.
(f) Two late model, rated 5 cu. yd. dump trucks. Suitable and used for
the cleaning of wet beds.
(g) Two rated 10 cu. yd. dump trucks. Suitable for and used for the
cleaning of wet beds.
2
(h) Delivered on site and ready to go as at Monday, May 12, 1975; a new
Kubota diesel tractor, model L-285, outfitted with a new Kubota
roto tiller, model FS-1000. This equipment was originally scheduled
for delivery on May 6, but rescheduled until counsel for the County
had indicated the County would permit its delivery despite the existence
of the Notice of kecission. This equipment is smaller than that used
by the County, but has certain very advantageous features. Th6 tiller
is hydraulically controlled and can be set 9 varying depths. It can
be offset and angled, depending on terrain. In a thorough test, it
was found that the tr,*ctor can be stuck in heavy going, as can that of
the County. However it has the demonstrated capacity of roto tilling
new wet sludge and dry or partially dry sludge whether in windrows
or otherwise. Staff was advised of the pending arrival of this equipment
in advance of either the Notice of hecission or the Notice of Intent to
hescind.
(i) A late model GMC diesel truck-tractor W/ approximately 40 cu. yd.
capacity aluminum dump semi-trailer. This equipment is on call on a .
24 hour notice basis and canrnove a minimum of 120 dry cubic yards
daily. This is the equivalent of 240 wet yards daily, or 1200 wet
cubic yds. weekly. This is twice the weekly production of new sludge
from both plants, no. 1 and no. 2. On Wednesday, April 30, while making
a delivery from Jeanne L. Eddows to one of her customers, the equipment
was overturned and damaged. Staff was and is aware of this accident.
The tractor has since been repaired and we are assured by our contract
carrier that a substitute dump trailer is readily available pending the
repair of the standard equipment. There is no reason to assume that other
contract carriers could not be obtained for any additional cartage.
There is no lack of ability to provide the labor and equipment necessary to remove the
solid wastes in the manner contemplated by the agreement. Q.E.D.
�+ 2. Fraud - Consisting of your representation as to your capabilities to provide labor,
materials and equipment necessary and required to remove the sludge as it became
available and prior to the creation of a public nuisance and health hazard by reason
of your failure to cause said sludge to be removed. it
,ve respectfully submit:
This is a re-statement of the allegations in 11111, supra. It is difficult to understand
how the sane "representations" can be both a "Mistake" and a "Fraud." The use of
catch phrases such as "public nuisance" and "health hazard" would appear to be useful
devices designed to cloak a questionable document with an aura of nobility of purpose.
It is the nature of sludge, considering its source, that it tends to be offensive
as to odor and its attractiveness to flies. It is particularly offensive when it
is wet; when it comes from digesters in the process of being cleaned or from digesters
that may be temporarily malfunctioning. There is, admittedly, a great accumulation
of sludge owing to the following reasons and not to any lack of capability on the
part of Jeanne L. Eddows:
3
(a) Sludge must be dried before it can be marketed. Orange County has
experienced a very wet spring. According to government statistics,
there was more rainfall during this past April in Orange County than
there has been for ten years. It is the action of dry wind and sunshine
that accounts for the drying of aerated sludge far more than the method
of aeration. Jeanne L. Eddows and her associates have made great efforts
to aerate the sludge and speed its drying in accordance with methods
she has successfully employed elsewhere for years. Neither she nor anyone
else can control the weather. She was delayed in her efforts by;
(1.) Continual rainfall.
(2. ) Lack of proper preparation of the land prior to the placement
of new sludge which preparation should have taken place before
her contract was executed. Inadequate drainage in areas where
sludge was dumped before the signing of the contract resulted
in pools of water in and around that sludge and all but im-
possible working conditions. When drainage was finally effected
by employees of the District,(at the behest of Jeanne L. Eddows),
drying and therefore removal of sludge was greatly improved.
(3. ) Consideration by Jeanne L. Eddows for the well-being of nearby
homeowners. She would not permit aeration of sludge with its
concomitant odors, unless the wind was blowing away from resi-
dential areas.
(4. ) Frequent admonitions from employees of the District not to
disturb piles of sludge on certain days.cf. #3, supra.
(5.) Direct action by the staff itself in refusing to permit
Jeanne L. Eddows to work from April 4 until approximately
April 16 pending receipt of insurace ". . .in a form acceptable
to the District. . ." (Emphasis supplied). All applicable
insurance coverage was bound as of March 18, 1975, except
for excess limits relating to Public Liability and Property
Damage. This coverage was bound in the amount of $1,000,000.
as is now customary, rather than in the amount of $3,000,000.
(for more than one person). Staff was notified of the insurance
coverage on March 19, 1975 and a binding letter was offered
pending receipt of the actual policies. Without prior notice,
Jeanne L. Eddows was told on April 4, that a binding letter was
not acceptable and given the directive to cease and desist all
work. On April 10, the Board of Directors voted to amend the
contract to reduce the limi*s, but Jeanne L. Eddows was not
advised of this action nor permitted to resume work until
approximately April 16. It is respectfully submitted that, for
whatever reason, in the actions of the staff relative to insurance,
form took precedence over substance.
(6. ) Direct action by the staff itself in serving upon Jeanne L. hddows,
on April 11, 1975, while she was under a cease and desist order,
an ultimatum to make "diligent progress" in removing sludge from
the 'south' Plant No. 2 open-air drying beds Mend in complying
with. ..the provisions of subject contract," or. .."said contract
will be terminated April 28, 1975." This deadline was later
extended to May 5, 1975 ".. .due to (sic) inclement weather."
Luring the last two weeks in April, Jeanne L. Eddows was con-
stantly reminded by staff members of the urgent need for the
south bed and verbally advised to concentrate on that to the vir-
.i tual exclusion of all other activities. It was only when the
bed was within three working days of completion that the staff
made an issue of odors allegedly arising from her ".failure to
remove sludge" from the north area.
4
(6. Continued) At that time the Notice of Intent to Rescind
was given to Jeanne L. Eddows, This was on Friday, May 2,
1975. It should be noted that is not in accordance
with generally accepted methods within the industry to
clean open-air drying beds when they are wet. Despite
the Herculean task of cleaning a wet bed, "diligent
progress" had already been made on May 2. Because
it was felt that common sense would eventually prevail,
and to demonstrate both good faith and ability, work
was continued on the bed over the weekend. By Sunday
night, May 4, 1975, the bed was within one working day
of being completely clean. This procedure would ordinarily
take about a month. Interestingly, after delivery of
the Notice of hecission on May 5 (dated May 6) when
Jeanne L. Eddows stopped working, little or nothing was
done by District personnel to finish the job until
Monday, May 12, a full week later.
(b) Some of the prospective sludge customers have requirements
as to moisture content and acceptable levels of foreign
material, such as sand, and demand sample loads before executing
purchase orders or contracts. Jeanne L. Eddows knows the market
well and was carefully segregating areas of sludge and grading
it in her mind so that she could deliver samples which would
be suited to the individual needs of her prospects. The good
weather which arrived at the very end of April had enabled her
to bring the product to a point where she was ready to deliver
the samples. Additional and substantial purchase orders were
all but assured.
(c) without the above additional Purchase orders, and prior to
any of the misunderstandings with staff, Jeanne L. Eddows had
obtained signed purchase orders for the equivalent of 10,000
cubic yards of wet sludge or more than 5000 cubic yards of dry
sludge. This is close to the total of all sludge on the ground
and in the open-air drying beds at Plant # 2. hecently, in
order to demonstrate her willingness to cooperate with staff,
she obtained purchase orders for 15,000 cubic yards of dry
sludge, sacrificing part of her profits in order to be certain
that the excess sludge could be removed just as quickly as it
was marketable. The total production of sludge at both plants,
according to the contract is approximately 15-16,000 cubic yards
of dry sludge per year. (31,000 wet yards shrinks 50%) In other
words, at the time the Notice of Hecission was ratif ied, Jeanne
L. Eddows had already sold practically all of the existing sludge
and all of the future production a year in advance.
There has been no failure to remove sludge as it became available (marketable).
There has been no fraud.
5
3. Failure of consideration as follows :
..r (a) Failure to remove sewage solids from Plant No. 1 in your trucks or equipment,
ne respectfully submit:
It had been and continued to be the custom of the management of the District to
transport the sludge between Plants 1 and 2. Although the contract does call for
this transportation by "the company," at no time did staff indicate that this would
be considered as partial grounds for recission. Quite the contrary. Staff assured
Jeanne L. Eddows that this was "no great problem," and that District vehicles would
continue to be used at least for the time being. At no time was Jeanne L. Eddows
reeuested by staff to take over this chore. Actually, in the opinion of Counsel,
the contract has been "modified through practice." For the District, in effect,
to offer or to show a willingness to transport the sludge and then to use this
matter as partial grounds for recission of the contract approaches entrapment.
(b) Failure to remove the sludge from open-air drying beds at Plant No. 2"
We respectfully submit:
The contract states: "All 'sludge' placed in open air drying beds at Plants Nos. 1
and 2 by District will be cleaned and maintained by Company. The frequency of re-
moval of 'sludge' by Company shall be determined by District. Said determination
shall be based upon the elimination of any nuisances associated with open air drying
sludge beds. "
(a) There are only two beds which the District has asked to be cleaned. They
are both "south beds," and are the only "south beds." The first was
cleaned in cooperation with the District, at the District's specific
request, prior to the signing of the contract. Jeanne L. Eddows '
equipment was used and the effort took from January 10, 1975 until
the end of February. No recompense was offered by the District, nor
was any asked by Jeanne L. Eddows.
(b) The first notice of the need for cleaning another bed was given orally
to Jeanne L. Eddows by Mr. William Clarke on April 4, at precisely the
same time he handed her a stop work order.
(c) The particular bed under discussion was brought to within one working
day of being completely cleaned in two weeks from the time Jeanne L. Eddows
was permitted to resume work. When work was started, the bed was under
water and pumping was necessary. The cleaning could have been completed
within the time given and work was only halted because the Notice of hecission
was presented before the time was up. Photographic evidence of the "diligent
progress" that had een made on this bed as at early morning, Monday, May 5,
is available.
(d) The requirement that beds be cleaned in a wet condition is contrary to ordinary
and customary practices within the industry.
(e) As testimony to the degree of cleanliness that existed when Jeanne L. Eddows
was required to stop work, it should be noted that District personnel finished
the Job in approximately one working day, using only one truck.
(c) The creation of a public nuisance by reason of odors and health hazard. if
We respectfully submit that this is a repetition of the catch phrases employed in "grounds"
numbered "1" and 112"
6
(a) This allegation has been answered in our response to the accusation of
fraud.
(b) Anticipating a possible question as to whether or not the method of
aeration of sludge which includes the use of windrows and roto-tilling
would have precluded any significant odors, we quote directly from the
staff's "Evaluation of Bids heceived for the Sale of Digested Sewage
Solids Specification No. S-012."
"The method as proposed by the bidder (Jeanne L. Eddows) if
successful would help the Districts to achieve (the) long range
planning goal of eliminating our present composting operation
and the odors associated with the current methods. .."
p asis supplied)
Obviously, by the staff's written admission, odors must be expected
in the processing and handling of digested sewage solids, unless and
until Jeanne L. Eddows ' proposed new method is implemented.
(c) Jeanne L. Eddows stands ready, willing and able to put into effect
the specific windrow and roto tilling method of aeration of sludge
so highly recommended by staff. Although this interim method will not
eliminate odors, it will result in a more marketable product, as the
roto tilling does reduce the size of lumps of sludge, which lumps are
objectionable to certain customers.
11(d) Your loss of capability to perform by reason of altered financial circumstances...
We respectfully submit:
This allegation calls for careful analysis.
(a) It is contradictory to the prior allegation of "fraud." If there were
a loss of capability to perform by reason of altered financial circumstances,
then there had to have been such a capability at the time of the execution
of the contract, and therefore there could have been no "fraud."
(b) A certain banking interest did indicate willingness to finance the
enterprise, but after the contract was signed. Subsequently, when
Jeanne L. Eddows re used to give up control of her company, the offer
was withdrawn. Since that time, this banking interest incredibly has
participated in a conspiracy to put Jeanne L. Eddows out of business.
Until the appearance of the "altered financial circumstances" allegation
in the Notice of hecission, this conspiracy had all the characteristics of
a comic opera. Unless there has been dialogue between staff members and
this banking interest there could be no possible basis for the within dis-
cussed allegation. The conspiracy is of importance only in regard to what
effect it has had on her contract with the Sanitation Districts.
The enterprise possesses sufficient equipment, man and woman power, orders
and immediate cash flow to carry on a highly successful small business.
The only persons who have the power to destroy Jeanne L. Eddows ' business are the staff
and Directors of the various Sanitation Districts of Orange County.
There has been no failure of consideration.
Conclusion: The contract of Jeanne L. Eddows should be reinstated forthwith.
"The influence of popular disaproval works most adequately with those who have
`� a strong sense of responsibility." - Max Radin
ORIGINAL MOTION RESTATED:
Motion is to award a new 30-day agreement with Jeanne Eddows dba Alart Company
subject to the following conditions :
(1) That the Notice of Recission for the first agreement dated February 20. 1975,
jointly executed by both parties effectively cancels that agreement and
waives all liability therefor.
(2) All sludge materials that have been prepared by Districts' staff until date of
new execution of agreement is not within terms of the new contract and belongs
to the Districts.
(3) Equipment list of necessary equipment to perform under terms and conditions
must be presented and approved by General Manager prior to execution.
(4) General terms and conditions relative to liability insurance and miscellaneous
general provisions of old contract shall be reincorporated.
Discussion - Called for the question.
Roll Call vote. Five Districts in favor - Two Districts against motion. Motion
carried. _
(21) Re Anaheim Hills request for annexation
Kaywood asked why the delay and was told that we want to talk to them regarding
their future plans rather than keep annexing piecemeal.
(22) Re Air Mitigation measures
FAH reported re additional air mitigation for Reach 3 of the Santa Ana River
Interceptor. Said after two hours of discussion in meeting yesterday, have asked
for comment from this Board re declaring intent to assist the Air Resources Board
re development and implementation of an air quality maintenance plan covering the
South Coast Air Basin. Officials from SAWPA, Executive Officer of Regional Board
and our staff were in attendance at meeting. Mr. Woodruff added that a resolution
declaring our intent to assist would be in order. It was so moved and seconded to
adopt this resolution. Motion carried. (Resolution No. 75-84-2 attached) .
-3-
AGENDA ITEM #22
RESOLUTION NO. 75-84-2
RE AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN
..r
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY
SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, DECLARING INTENT TO ASSIST THE AIR
RESOURCES BOARD RE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
OF AN AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN COVERING THE
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
WHEREAS, Orange County is a part of an Air Quality Maintenance
Area because of present and projected future air pollution problems ;
and,
WHEREAS, the Clean Air Act requires that Air Quality Maintenance
Plans be prepared for .all air quality maintenance areas; and,
WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board intends to develop and implement
such Air Quality Maintenance Plans within the next two and one-half
years in cooperation with local government ; and,
WHEREAS, the Air Resources Board plans through a ,joint State and
local task force in the South Coast Air Basin to develop by December,
1975, a detailed process for air quality maintenance planning.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED:
Section 1 . That County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange
County shall render all reasonable assistance to the Air Resources
Board, to include providing infformation and data, within its
statutory authority for the development and adoption of an Air
Quality Maintenance Plan and regulations pursuant thereto covering
the South Coast Air Basin, under and pursuant to the provisions of
the Clean Air Act of 1970 and regulations pursuant thereto; and,
Section 2 . That upon adoption of an Air Quality Maintenance
i
Plan and regulations pursuant thereto, the District shall render
all reasonable assistance within its statutory authority for the I,
implementation of said Plan and regulations pursuant thereto .
CHAIRMANIS REPORT
ON TUESDAY OF LAST WEEK MR. HARPER AND I MET WITH MR. WIN
ADAMS (C HARIMAN OF STATE WATER RESOURCES BDARD) AND MR. ROY
DODSON ALSO OF THE BOARD TO DISCUSS OUR PROPOSAL TO FORM A
COMMITTE OF LOCALLY ELECTED OFFICIALS REPRESENTING THE TRI-
TAC ORG. AND THE CO. SUPERVISORS ASS OF CALIF. FOR THE PURPOSE
OF REVIEWING PROPOSED REGULATIONS INVOLVING POLICY MATTERS
AFFECTING LOCAL ENTITIES.
MR. ADAMS AND MR. DODSON BOTH ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSED THE
THE PROPOSAL AND MR. ADAMS SAID HE WOULD CONFIRM THIS IN
WRITING IN 2 or 3 WEEKS WITH A FEW THOUGHTS OF HIS OWN.
THE SUGGESTED COMPOSITION OF THE MEMBERS ALSO MET WITH THEIR
APPROVAL. THEY AGREED THE COMMITTEE SHOULD BE BEALL AND
INFORMAL IN NATURE AND MEET ONLY AS REQUIRED.
THE SUGGESTED COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE IS:
WE WILL PROBABLY ASK THE ASS. TO SUBMIT NAMES THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT COULD SERVE AND THEN REVIEW
THE FINAL COMPOSITION WITH MR. ADAMS.
I ALSO ATTENDED THE SPRING EX. COT.A. MEETING OF CASA LAST
SATURDAY IN NEWPORT BEACH. PAULD DEFALCO JR. , REG. ADMIN.
OF EPA, FLEW DOWN SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THIS GROUP. HE
ALSO STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE FORMATION OF THE ABOVE C0111 TTTEE
AND SAID HE WOULD BE GLAD TO SERVE ON BEHALF OF EPA,
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE PERSONAL CONTACT THAT
WE DIRECTORS HAVE HAD WITH THE EPA AND STATE OFFICIALS SEET,7
TO HAVE OPENED A LINE OF COM^,4UNICATION THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE.
MR. DEFALC 0 ALSO ZDVISED THE GROUP OF A PUBLIC HEARING
THAT EPA IS HAVING IN S.F. ON JUNE 19 to Di3CUSS POSSIBLE
AMMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUCTION CONTROL ACT.
MR. DEFALCO INDICATED THAT SOME 1500 INVITATIONS HAVE BEal
SENT THROUGHOUT THE STATE, AND STRONGLY ASKED THAT ALL -t-
INTERESTED PARTIES ATTEND. dYt
1 A.
COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
..i MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
May 29, 1975 - 7:30 p.m.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held May 14, 1975, the Boards
of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange
County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting-at the above hour and date,
in the Districts' offices.
The Chairman called the meeting to order 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.
• ROLL CALL
DISTRICT NO. 1
Directors present: Kerm Rima (Chairman) , Robert Battin,
John Garthe, and Donald Saltarelli
Directors absent: None
DISTRICT NO. 2
Directors present: Michael Callahan (Chairman) , Dale Chaput,
John Garthe, Miriam Kaywood, Leonard
MacKain, George Scott, Donald Winn, Robert
Root, and Beth Graham
Directors absent: Ralph Clark, Bob Perry, and Joe Temple
DISTRICT NO. 3
Directors present: Phillip Cox (Chairman) , Lowell Amo,
Edward Byrne, Jesse Davis, John Garthe,
Donald Fox, Robert Nevil, Miriam Kaywood,
Donald Shipley, Bernie Svalstad, Robert
Root, and Martha Weishaupt
Directors absent: Norman Culver, Alice Frankiewich,
Thomas McKnew, and Laurence Schmit
DISTRICT NO. 5
Directors present: Howard Rogers (Chairman pro tem) and Paul
Ryckoff
Directors absent: Thomas Riley
DISTRICT NO. 6
Directors present: John Store (Chairman) , Robert Battin, and
Kerm Rima
Directors absent: None
01,2,3,5,6,7 & 11
5/29/75
DISTRICT NO. 7
Directors present: John Garthe (Chairman) , John Burton, Milan *4=01
Dostal, Francis Glockner, and Donald
Saltarelli
Directors absent: Ralph Clark and James Jackman
DISTRICT NO. 11
Directors present: Henry Duke and Norma Gibbs
Directors absent: Laurence Schmit
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne
Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, William
Clarke, Bruce Taylor, Rita Brown, and
Hilary Eitzen
OTHERS PRESENT: Director Carolyn Ewing, Thomas L. Woodruff,
General Counsel, Donald Martinson, Sam
PQterson, Al Eddows, Jeanne Eddows, Norman
Card, Ted Reynolds, Don Perkins, Quinn
Rogers, Bob Clark, Frank Elwell, Walker
Downs, Bill Snyder, Ralph Williams, Beau
Cleurens, Ronald Randall, Kris Shah,
and George L'Africain
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Appointment of
Chairman pro tem That Director Rogers be appointed Chairman
pro tem in the absence of Chairman McInnis.
DISTRICTS 3 $ 11 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Excerpt re Board
Appointments received That the minute excerpt from the City of
and filed 'Huntington Beach be received and ordered
filed, and that the following representatives
be seated as members of the Boards:
District Active Alternate
3 Donald D. Shipley Norma .B. Gibbs
11 Norma B. Gibbs Harriett M. Wieder
11 lienry 11. Duke Norma B% Gibbs
DISTRICTS 2 $ 3 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Letter re temporary,Board
appointment received and That the letter from the City of Fullerton
filed dated May 29, 197S, appointing Robert E.
Root to attend the Boards of Directors
meeting on May 29, 1975, with full voting rights, be received and ordered filed.
\we
-2-
• s
N1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11
5/29/75
ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman reported •that he and
Report of the the General Manager had met with Chairman
Joint Chairman Win Adams and Roy Dodson of the State
Water Resources Control Board regarding
the proposed formation of a committee of locally-elected officials representing
the TRI-TAC organizations (League of California Cities, California Water
Pollution Control Association, and California Association of Sanitation
Agencies) and the County Board of. Supervisors Association, for the purpose
of reviewing proposed regulations involving policy matters affecting local
entities. The Board members endorsed the concept and agreed to confirm
same in writing with their suggestions as to its composition.
Chairman Winn also reported on his attendance at the quarterly executive
meeting of the California Association of. Sanitation Agencies, at which he
discussed the proposed committee with Paul DeFalco, Regional Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator, who also endorsed the concept.
ALL DISTRICTS The General Manager reported that the
Report of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
General Manager will conduct a public hearing in
San Francisco on June 19, 1975, regarding
proposed amendments to the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
following topics will be considered at the hearing:
1) A reduction of the Federal share;
2) Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of existing
population;
3) Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance;
4) Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards;
5) Delegating a greater portion of the management of the construc-
tion grants program to the States.
The matter of changing the definition of secondary treatment is noticeably
absent from the hearing. With regard to the ad valorem tax issue, an
amendment has already been offered by the Administration.
Mr. Harper further reported on Regional EPA Administrator Paul DeFalco's
remarks at the recent executive meeting of the California Association of
Sanitation Agencies. California is the first state which EPA will delegate
grant construction program administration authority, except for the items
of sign-off approval of the grant and Environmental Impact Statement
responsibility.
ALL DISTRICTS The General Counsel reported that the
Report of the court had ruled in favor of the Districts,
General Counsel denying the Petition for Writ of Mandate
in connection with the suit brought
against the Districts by the AFL-CIO regarding representation of Districts'
employees. A second hearing has been requested by the petitioner and is
scheduled for June 27.
The General Counsel also reported briefly on the negotiations with Southern
�.r Pacific Railroad Company regarding right of way for the Tustin-Orange Trunk
Sewer, Contract No. 7-6-7.
-3-
#1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11
5/29/75
EACH DISTRICT This being the time and place heretofore
Continuing hearing on proposed established for hearing and second reading
use ordinances, and referring of the following proposed Ordinances
to Special Committee of Establishing Regulations for Use of
Directors Districts' Sewerage Facilities for each
respective District, the Chairman declared
the hearing open.
District No. Ordinance No.
1 103
2 204
3 305
5 508
6 603
7 716
11 1103
The Secretary then reported that in addition to written comments previously
review6d by the Boards of Directors, the following additional communications
had been received regarding the proposed ordinances, copies of which had been
supplied to the Directors:
From Dated
National Technology May 15, 1975
Shur-Plate Corporation May 16, 1975
Litronic Industries May 22, 1975
He further reported that a communication from IV. E. Snyder on behalf of
Orange County Liason, Metal Finishers Association of Southern California
(MFASC) , dated May 28, 1975, had been submitted at the opening of the hearing.
It was then moved, seconded, and duly carried:
That said communications be received and ordered filed.
Following comments by the staff and General Counsel on the written communica-
tions, the Chair recognized Bill Snyder, speaking on behalf of the MFASC,
T. R. Clark of• National Technology, and Dan Cavenaugh of Ano D-Art, who
addressed the Boards regarding the proposed ordinances.
-4-
a1,2,3,5,6,7 $ 11
5/29/75
The Board then entered into a lengthy discussion concerning the proposed
ordinances with particular consideration given to the provisions for excess
*Awe capacity charges. Following the discussion, it was the consensus that a
committee be formed to review the matter of excess capacity charges and
report back to the Joint Boards. The Joint Chairman then appointed Directors
Henry Duke, Chairman, John Burton, Michael Callahan, Dale Chaput, Howard
Rogers, and Bernie Svalstad to said Special Committee on Industrial Waste
Ordinances.
It was then moved, seconded, and duly carried:
That hearing and further consideration of the proposed Ordinances establishing
Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities be continued to the
regular meeting of the Joint Boards of Directors on June 11, 1975.
ALL DISTRICTS At 9:40 p.m. , the Boards convened in
Convene. in executive executive session to consider litigation
session matters.
ALL DISTRICTS At 10:20 p.m. , the Boards reconvened in
Reconvene in regular regular session.
session
ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman reported several
Authorizing new Agreement Directors .had requested that the rescission
with Jeanne L. Eddows, dba of the agreement with Jeanne L. Eddows,
Alart Company, re Sale of dba Alart Company, be reconsidered by the
Digested Sewage Solids Boards. Pursuant to their request,
Jeanne L. Eddows, or her representative,
would be allowed ten minutes to present the firm's position, following which
further reconsideration would be at the Boards' pleasure.
The Chair then recognized Norman Card, General Manager of the Alart Company,
who addressed the Boards in connection with the rescission of the Agreement
with Jeanne L. Eddows for Sale of Digested Sewage Solids.
Following a brief discussion regarding parliamentary procedures on
reconsideration of a previous action of the Boards, it was moved and seconded
that the action of the Boards of Directors on 'May 14, 1975, ratifying
rescission of the contract for Sale of Digested Sewage Solids between
District No. 1 and Jeanne L. Eddows, dba Alart Company, authorizing the
General Manager to negotiate sale of processed solids on a interim basis
and to advertise for bids on a long-term contract for sale of digested sewage
solids, be reconsidered by the Boards of Directors.
Following a roll call vote, the General Counsel reported that the motion
to reconsider the action of the Boards of Directors on May 14, 1975, had
passed by virtue of four Districts voting in favor thereof, and three
Districts voting against• said motion.
A motion was then made and seconded to execute a new agreement, prepared
by the General Counsel, with Jeanne L. Eddows, dba Alart Company, for Sale
of Digested Sewage Solids, to be executed as soon as possible.
-5-
#1,2,3,5,6;7 & 11
5/29/75
The Board then entered into a lengthy discussion regarding the proposed
new agreement during.which the motion was restated and the points of
consideration clarified by the General Counsel as follows:
1) That as a condition of execution of a new agreement,
Jeanne L. Eddows, dba Alart Company, acknowledge the
validity of the rescission of the Agreement for Sale
of Digested Sewage Solids dated February 20, 1975; and,
2) That definition of the ownership of approximately 3,S00
yards of sewage solids processed by the Districts since
rescission of the original agreement -be set forth; and,
3) That basic terms and conditions of the original contract
as modified be reincorporated into the new agreement; and,
4) That the General Manager be authorized to approve the
equipment to be used on the site prior to the execution
of a new agreement.
The Board then entered into further deliberations regarding the term of
the proposed new agreement, whereupon an amendment was moved, seconded,
and duly carried:
To provide that the new agreement with Jeanne L. Eddows, dba Alart Company,
be for a 30-day period, with provision that said agreement may be extended
by mutual consent following a review by the Boards.
After an expression of confidence in the staff, and further discussion and
a restatement of the main motion to authorize execution of a new agreement
with Jeanne L. Eddows, dba Alart Company, for sale of digested solids, in
foam approved by the General Counsel, subject to the following conditions:
1) Said agreement be for a period of 30 days with provision
for extension thereof, following a review by the Boards
of Directors; and,
2) That Jeanne L. Eddows, dba Alart Company, agrees that the
Notice of Rescission dated May 6, 1975, rescinding the
agreement between District No. 1 and said firm dated
February 20, 1975, for sale of digested sewage solids,
is valid, and effectively cancels said agreement and
waives any and all District liability therefor; and,
3) That all sludge materials which have been processed by the
Districts from the date of rescission to the date of execu-
tion of a new agreement, not be incorporated within the
terms of said new contract, and that said processed sludge
be recognized as the property of the Districts; and,
#1,2,3;5,6,7 & 11
5/29/75
4) That a list of necessary equipment to perform under the
�.r terms and conditions of the new agreement be presented
and approved by the General Manager prior to execution of
said agreement; and,
5) That the general terms and conditions relative to liability
insurance and miscellaneous general provisions of the
original contract be incorporated into the new agreement,
roll call vote was taken. The General Counsel then reported that the motion had
passed by virtue of five Districts voting in favor thereof, and two Districts
voting against said motion.
DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
• Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of Directors
of County Sanitation District No. 1-be adjourned. The Chairman then declared
the meeting so adjourned at 11:06 p.m. , May 29, 1975.
DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded; and duly carried:
Adjournment
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 11 :06 p.m. , May 29, 1975.
DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Adjournment
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 11:06 p.m. , May 29, 1975.
DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded', and duly carried:
Adjournment
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 11 :06 p.m. , May 29, 1975.
DISTRICTS 5 & 6 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Accepting Contract No.
5-14R-SR as complete That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution
No. 75-83, accepting Manhole Replacement
and Repair, Contract No. 5-14R-5R, as complete; authorizing execution of a
Notice of Completion; and approving Final Closeout Agreement. Certified copy
of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes.
DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Adjournment
That this meeting of the Board of Directors
of County Sanitation District No. S be adjourned. The Chairman then declared
the meeting so adjourned at 11:0 pp.m. , May 29, 1975.
-7-
#1,2,3,5,6,7 $ 11
5/29/75
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 11 :07 p.m. , May 29, 1975.
DISTRICT 2 Following a brief discussion, it was
Receive and file letter from moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Anaheim Hills, Inc. requesting
annexation of territory, and That the letter from Anaheinillills, Inc.
refer to staff dated April 30, 1975, requesting annexation
of approximately 10.556 acres of
territory to the District in the Anaheim Hills, Inc. development area,
be received, ordered filed, and referred to staff for study and recommendation.
DISTRICT .2 The General Manager- reported that the
Declaring intent to assist staff had met with State and Federal
Air Resources Board in air officials regarding air mitigation measures
mitigation measures re grant which must be undertaken in connection
on Reach 3 of the Santa Ana with construction of the Santa Ana River
River Interceptor Interceptor from La Palma Avenue to the
Orange County boundary. The Air Resources
Control Board has requested that the Boards adopt a resolution declaring their
intent to assist in the development and implementation of an air quality
maintenance plan covering the South Coast Air .Basin.
Following a brief discussion, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried:
That the Board of Directors adopt Resolution No. 75-84-2, declaring their
intent to assist the Air Resources Board re development and implementation
of an air quality maintenance plan covering the South Coast Air Basin, subject
to receipt of a letter from the State assuring our agency that the action
taken by the Board complies with the air mitigation requirements.
DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded, and duly carried:
Adjournment
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 11 :12 p.m. , May 29, 1975.
S et.ry Boa of Directors,
my S itati Districts Nos. 1,
, 3, 5 6, 7 & 11
\./
-8-