Loading...
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-