Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-29COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) October 23, 1975 NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1975, 7:30 P.M. 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of October 1, 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. JWS.: rb EXEClf!'IVE CO~~J1TTEE -October 29, 1975, at 5:30 p.m. (immediately preceding Adjouii-1ed Regular Meeting) TELEPHDN ES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 .MANAGER'S AG ENDA REPORT Coun ty Sa ni tati on Districts of Orange County, California ~ JOINT BOARDS Ad j ourned Regular Meeting Oc t ober 29, 1975 -7:30 p.m. Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ell is Avenue Fountai n Vo lley, Ca lif., 927 08 Tele phones: Are a Code 71 4 540-29 10 9 62-2411 No. 6 -Consideration of Proposed Ordinances Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts ' Sewerage Facilities. October 29th was established by the Boards several months ago as the hearing date for the Districts ' proposed ordinances establishing new industriql waste charges and a source-control program. The effect of the ordinances will be to improve the quality of the wastewater discharged to the sewer system and provide procedure& for establishing equitable fees for use of the Districts' sewerage facilities. . Copies of t h e draft ordinances were mailed to the Districts ' Directors and approximately 600 affected firms and individuals on Sep~ember 17th. Notices of the October 29th hearing were published October 15, 16, 22 , and 23 in two local newspaper~. To date, no written comment s have been received. If any Director has any questions concerning the ordinances or. the enclosed revisions , please call us. No. 7 -Amen dme nt to Resolution Np. 75-1 42, Awarding Contract for Job No . PW -045 . At the last Joint meeting , the Boards authorized award of a contract to J. Putnam Henck, a corporation, and Henck Pro, a joint venture , for the erection of the 1 mgd JPL Acrs process facility. This contract provides that the contractor will furnish manpower and necessary materials to erect and connect the special e quipme nt which has b ee n ordered by numerous purchase orders . Under the terms of the contract, the Districts will pay the contractor 's direct costs e xclusive of overhead s and profit, plus a l ump sum fee in the amou nt of $50,000 . The reso l ution adopted awarding the contract failed to provid~ for the payment of the contractor 's direct costs and merely approv ed the lump sum fee of $50,000. The action appeari n g in the agenda amends Section 2 of Resolution No . 75-42, to provid e paym en t of the lump sum fee plus t he contractor's direct costs in accordance with the terms of their bid and t he c6ntract specifica- tions . To date , the Districts have awarded purchase orders for $900,000 of major equipment to make the facility operational. The contract which has been entered into between the Districts and the contractor is unusual~ in that, the contractor is bank- rolling the project whicp is being constructed on an accelerated schedule for completion in January. The Districts will reimburse the contractor's direct costs monthly upon presentation of paid bills. The costs of the necessary labor and materials to make the facility operational will be in the neighbor ho od of $1 million. These procedures have been approved by the State Water Resources Control Board Grant Team, the Environmental Protection Agency, and our General Counsel. ~ We _are pleased with the progress the contractor has made to date. Fred A. Harper General Manager II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts. of Orange County, California JOINT BOARDS ADJOURNED REGULAR ·MEETING OCTOBER 29~ 1975 -7:30 P.M. (1) Pledge ·of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary Post Office Box 8127 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA r:~-~~ :~~·_r '_'..-j : :' .·~ c:~:n1r1::.D.~ \ L.~:. .. . : ;U! .......... . 111 1'.;.<·, .. : .• ,.::1 ... ~~ M!~:J. ;_:; I iL:D ................. . (4) · GeBsiaePatiea ef metieB te Peeei¥e a.BS file minl:fte exee~ts, if 8:ft). See st1pplemental agenda (5) ALL DISTRICfS Reports of: @ Joint Chairman ~ General Manager @ General Comse 1 (6) EACH DISTRICT Proposed Ordinanc.e Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities (Draft copy previously mailed to Directors) (a) -..\S ® (c) /f\}S ·Open hearing Report of Secretary. See page -----"A" R"'~~ DISTRICT 1 -Consideration of motion to read brdinance No. 103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Dis.trict Sewerage Facilities) by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). DISTRICT 2 -Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 204, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of s~id entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). ' DISTRICT 3 -Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 305, an Ordinance Establishing regulations for Use of Di$trict Sewerage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). DISTRICT 5 -Consideration of motion fo read Ordinance No. 508, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Direct~~s present). DISTRICT 6 -Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 603, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Fadlities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). ·DISTRICT 7 -Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 716, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). DISTRICT 11 -Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 1103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present). -2- (6) EACH DISTRICT (Continued) ~Connnents by general public, if any M\ > (1) Receive and file written comments, if mty -Sw Q.t.i ~ -~ F (2) Oral comments, if any (e) (f) (g) !YJ /s ft1 Is Consideration of incorporating final suggestions and other changes in wording of staff, general public and Directors, as the Boards may direct Close hearing DISTRICT 1 -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the District's administra- tive office. DISTRICT 2 -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 204, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, .and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the District's administra- tive office. DISTRICT 3 -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 305, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.ru. in the District's administra- tive office. DISTRICT 5 -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 508, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the. District's administra- tive office. DISTRICT G -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 603, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the District's administra- tive office. DISTRICT 7 -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 716, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the District's administra- tive office. DISTRICT 11 -Consideration of motion to introduce Ordinance No. 1103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and pass to second reading on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the District's administra- tive office. -3- unications or supplemental agenda i tems, if any (10) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn tf :~e (11) DISTRICT 2 (Jith"iif""bus~ aRd e~unications or supplemental agenda items, if any (12) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn 9: 3o (13) DISTRICT 3 . I ~and communications or supplemental agenda itens , i: c.:.y (14) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn t(: 30 (15) DISTRICT 5 or supplemental agenda items, if ar:r (16) DiSTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn 1 : ~ "() (17) ag enda items , i f any DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn Q ;3 c . (19) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion approving the following warrant: DISTRICT NO. 7 FACILITIES REVOLVIN G FU ND WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF 27 334 McGuir e C o~struction, Inc . $58 ,1 7 4.9~ (21) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn 9 : ~I (22) DI~ V'dther bu s i~nd communications or suppleme nt al ag end.<0 i t e=s. :: -• (23) DI STRICT 11 Considera tion. of motion to a djourn 9 ; ..$ J -4- . . "A-1" SUMMARY OF DISTRICTS' ACTIONS RE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DISTRICTS' SEWERAGE FACILITIES October 29, 1975 October 23, 1975 THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING, pursuant to provisions of Section 25131 of the Government Code, is to consfder final changes to the proposed Ordinances Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities. Final adoption of each ordinance will be considered on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Distr i cts' Administrative Offices. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED SOURCE CONTROL ORDINANCE ls to provide ma~imum public benefit from the use of sewerage facilities within the County \ San .itation Districts of Orange County, to improve the quality of waste~ water being received for treatment by regulation of wastewater discharges, and t6 provide a method of procedures for establishing equ(table use charges for District sewerage facilities as required by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. ACTIONS TO DATE CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING: In February, 1974 , the Boards of Directors adopted Resolution No. 74-24 declaring their intent to adopt industrial waste discharge requirements pursuant to state and federal regulations and establishing an Implementation schedule theref.or. I~ ~ov c mbc~: ~97 ~, t~e Dlst~Jcts' staff me t wit~ t~c Ch a ~bc r c f C o~me r cc Industrial Waste Task Force Committee to review the proposed ordinances. During January and February, 1975, the draft ordinance was submitted to State Water Re sources ·control Board, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Boards of Director s . The Boards referred the ordinance back to the staff and General Counsel for revision. In Febru a ry, 1375, the propos e d requirements were also reviewed with repre- sentatives of the f ood proc e ssing, circuit bo a rd, a nd plating Industri e s . In March, 1975, the revise d draft ordinance was r ece ived, filed, and taken und e r advis e me nt by the re s pective Board s. At that time , the Boards authorized staff to circulate the propo se~ ordinance and conduct informal hearings thereon. Notices we r e the n place d in the following newspaper s regarding informal public hearings : Huntingto n Bea ch Ind e pe nd e nt Orange County Evening Ne ws Anaheim-Full e rton-Bue na Pa rk Ne ws La Mirada Lamplighter Times Dally Pll-0t The Re gister Anaheim Bulletin La Habra Star Progress Tustin News AGENPA ITEM #6 (B) -EACH DISTRICT "A-1" "A-2" At the March 12, 1975 meeting of the Joint Boards, a _letter from Kerr Glass Manufacturing Corporation, da~ed February 13, 1975, was · received and filed. In March and April, 1975, the staff conducted informal open public hearings with the following groups: Chambers of Commerce Conservation Groups Local Public Agencies Class I Users Class II Users Manwfacturing Associations Genera 1 Pub 1 i c In addftlon, meetings -were held with specific -permittees and Chambers of Commerce upon request. I On April 9, 1975, a revised draft ordinance incorporating viable suggestion5 from the informal hearings was submitted to the Boards of Directors. The •. . Boards declared their intent to introduce the Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities at their regular meeting on May 14, 1975, and established Hay 29, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' Administrative Office as 'the time and place for adoption of Said ordinance. At the Apri 1 9, 1975 meeting, the following communications were Included with the draft ordinance considered by the Boards: City of Huntington Beach, dated February 19, 1975 State \·later :::es0urces Ce nt.re l Bo a rd 7 d=t e d n a rch 18, 1975 Sunkist Cooperating Citrus Growers of California and Arizona, dated March 25, 1975 City of Tustin, dated March 27, 1975 The Arnold Engineering Co., dated March 31~ 1975 Rutan & Tucker, dated April 1, 1975 On April 10, 1975, formal notice of hearing and copy of revised draft ordinance with comments were mail e d to 540 interested parties, including the fol lowing: Districts' Directors · News media Governing body of local sewering agencies ·_ within the Districts Staff of sewering agencies within the Districts Conservation groups and other agencies Existing District permittees Chambers of Commerce Industrial and Manufacturing Associations Libraries within the Districts ·AGENDA ITEM #6(B) -EACH DISTRICT "A-2" : rr On May 9, 1975, the final draft of the proposed ordinances.were malled to Dlrectors for their consideration on May 14, 1975. . On May 14, 1975, the following communications were received and filed by the Boards: City of Seal Beach, dated March 27, 1975 City of Cypress, dated March 28, 1975 City of Cypress, dated April 3, 1975 Embee Plating, dated May 1, 1975 Kraftco Corporation, dated May 1, 1975 Kraftco Corporation~ dated May 6, 1975 Shur-Plate Company, dated May 8, 1975 All Metals Processing, Inc., dated May 12, 1975 Case-Swayne, dated May 14, 1975 At their regular meeting on May 14, 1975, following length¥ consideration of both written and oral remarks of the public on the proposed ordinance, and comments.of Directors, staff and the General Counsel, the Boards of Directors authorized more than eight amendments to the draft ordinance and declared their intent to adopt said ordinance at an adjourned meeting on May 29, 1975. On May 29, 1975, the following written communfcations on the proposed draft ordinance were received and filed: National Technology, dated May 15, 1975 Shur-Plate, Inc., dated May 16, 1975 Litronic Industries, dated May 22, 1975 W. E. Snyder or1 behalf of Orange County Liaison, Metal Finishers Association of Southern California (MFASC), dated May 28, 1975 Following further oral remarks from the public,· and comments from Directors, staff, and the General Counsel, the Joint Chairman appointed a Special Committee of Directors and referred the draft Industrial Waste Ordinance to said committee for review and report back to the Joint Boards. On June 4, 1975, the Special Committee on Industrial Waste Ordinance met with representatives from the industrial ~ommunity and reviewed six alternatives for the capital recovery provision of the proposed ordinance. At the regular June 11, 1975 meeting of the Boards of Directors, the Special Committee on Industrial Waste Ordinance recommended a modified user charge . employing a revenue program which continues to utilize ad valorem taxes as the major source of revenue but collects maintenance and operation costs plus a capital recovery charge from dischargers exceeding 2.5 million gallons per y.ear. Credits would be allowed for ad valorem taxes paid the District. This approach would appear to provide substantial equity among users as well as promote water conservation. The Boards of Directors concurred with the committee recommendation and authorized the staff to hold informal heari~gs with representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and the Industrial community for their input and reaction to the modified user charge revenue system c·s recommended by the Special Committee. 'AGENDA ITEM #6(B) -EACH DISTRICT II A-4" On August 13, 1975, the Boards were presented wtth a summary of proposed modtflcations to the May 29, 1975, draft of the ordinance and a time schedule for adoption of the Ordinance Establishing Regulations for the Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities. During August proposed revistons were malled to, and Informal hearings were held with, existing permittees, conservation groups, public agencies, Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations, and other interested persons. Meetings were also held with the larger dischargers for which the ordtnance would impose a substantial economic impact. On September 10, 1975, a revised draft of the ordinance incorporating suggestions from the informal hearings was submitted to the Boards of Directors. The Boards declared their intent to iritrcduce their respective Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities and repealing ordinances in conflict therewith, for first reading at an adjourned Joint Board meeting on October 29, 1975, and established November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., in·the Districts' administration offices, as the time and place for final hearing and adoption of said ordinances. On September 17, 1975, formal notice of hearing and a copy of the revised draft ordinances of the respective Districts, along with comments, were mailed to approximately 600 interested parties, including the following: Districts' Directors News media Governing body of local sewering agencies within the Districts Staff of sewering agencies within the Districts Conservation groups and other agencies Existing District permittees Chambers of Commerce .Industrial and Manufacturing Associations Libraries within the Districts On October 15 and October 22, 1975, notices appeared in the Register news- paper informing the general public of October 29 Public Hearing. On October 16 and October 23, 1975~ notices appeared in the· Times newspaper informing the general public of October 29 Public Hearing. The ·week of October 20th additional proposed refinements to the draft ordinances were mailed to Directors, existing permittees, conservation groups, public agencies, Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations and other interested persons. To date, no additional writtem corrrnents on the proposed ordinance have been· received since the May 29, 1975 meeting. AGENDA ITEM #6(B) -EACH DISTRICT. II A-4 II ' ... "B" RESOLUTION NO. 75-144 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-142, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR JOB NO. PW-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF.ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-142, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF JPL-ACTS PROCESS PLANT, JOB NO. PW-045 e* * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7, and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Section 2 of Resolution No. 75-142 is hereby amended to read as follows: "That the contract for said Job No. PW-045 be awarded to J. PUTNAM HENCK, A.CORPORATION, Ai~D HENCK PRO, A JOINT VENTURE, for the lump sur.i fee of $50,000.00 plus Contractor's direct costs, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, gnd the contract documents · therefor." PASSED AND ADOPTED at an adjourned regular meeting held October 29, 1975. AGENDA ITEM #7 -ALL DISTRICTS "B II ' CouNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX Bl 27. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALI FOR.NIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-R~MP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) October 23, 1975 NOTICE TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Donald Winn, Joint Chairman Norma Gibbs, Vice Joint Chairman Kerm Rima Michael Callahan Phillip Cox Don Mcinnis John Store John Garthe Laurence Scr..mi t Subject: Committee Meeting -Wednesday, October 29: 1975 S:30 p.fri .. Chairman Winn has asked us to notify you that there will be a meeting of the Committee in the Districts' office at the above hour and date, as discussed at the October 1st Joint Boo~d meeting .. A brief report on items to be dis- cussed is attached. Dinner will be served immediately at 5·:30 p.m., because of the Joint Board meeting at 7:30 p.m. c;7£a_~-~, Pred A. Harper General Manager ·Enclosures cc: Director Robin Young Director Vernon Evans Tom Woodruff TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 October 23, 1975 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CA.LIFORNIA P. 0 . BOX 8127 108-4-4 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92 708 (714) 540-29 10 (714) 962-2411 MANAGER'S REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE • October 29, 1975 The purpose of the Executive Committee meeting is to review the progress of the preparation of the Districts' Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement , for improved treatment and the status of the construction of the 1 mgd. JPL activated carbon process uni~. Attached is a memorandum from Ray Lewis outlining some alternatives which we believe should be considered at a meeting of the Executive Committee and representatives of the State and EPA. The staff will be prepared to go into more detail next Wednesday evening. Enclosure Fred A. Harper General Manager ,~ M·E M 0 RAND UM October 23, 1975 TO: F_red A. Harper, General Manager FROM: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE • FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714). 962-2411 SUBJECT: Status of Step I Grant -Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Improved Treatment of the Joint Facilities At a special Boar·d Meeting in March of this year, staff presented to the Boards scheduling for preparation of a Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Improved Tre~tment at the Joint Facilities which included the construction of a 1-MGD JPL Activated Carbon Treatment System for the purpose of the evaluation of the performanc~ and t.hE; cost effectiveness of this new waste t;~.~a~.ment p1·ocess. The schedule presented to the Boards and as shown on the attached chart delineates, by colored arrow, certain key decision points that must be made in order that the Districts will be eligible to share.in the State and Federal funding prior to the expiratio~ of these funds on September 30, 1977. This status report is to inform you and the Boards that the construction and the anticipated operation of the 1-MGD activated carbon process is on schedule as presented, and barring any unforeseen delays, sufficient operational data should be available by February 1, 1976 to make the decision of whether to continue with the JPL process or to abandon the process and proceed to meet our requirements employing conventional processes. Because of the magnitude of the improved treatment program which has been estimated between $200 and $300 million, and since that .commitment by the State and Environmental Protection Agency for grant funds must be made on or before September 30, 1977, I feel it is only prudent that we reexamine our implementation of this schedule in the event other courses of action may develop which would be to the advantage of the Districts. Some of the alternatives·that should be discussed are as follows: A. Double Tracking Design Concept This procedure would direct the engineer to commence concurrent design on both the JPL-ACTS Process and the Conventional Treatment Process for .required facilities at Plant No. 2. The Step I Grant which was received in March of this year authorized this "double tracking" for design if necessary in an amount not to exceed $350,000. There does appear to be a need for clarifi- cation from the State and EPA whether the Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement need to be completed.prior to commencing of any design for any type of facility. The double t· . \ To: Fred.A. Harper October 23, 1975 Page Two tracking design procedure would allow sufficient time to receive concept approval for grant monies prior to September 30, 1977. It would require design of facilities that may not be used and, therefore, a loss of engineering time and monies associated therewith. B. Two-Stage Facilities Approach This alternate would require a portion of the total 175-MGD of improved treatment at Plant No. 2 to be constructed by the utilization of conventional treatment processes. If the Districts' consultants preparing the Facilities Plan and Environmental Impact Statement were directed to prepare ilmini reports". which included a report for 50-75 MGD improved treatment for activated sludge at Plant No. 2, and an Environmental Impact Report was prepared concurrently, the State and EPA could conceivably declare a negative declaration on this phase of improved treatment and subsequently give concept approval to this first phase of additions at Plant No. 2. Redirecting the consultants to prepare these "mini reports" could delay the final preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement and Facilities Plan for a period of approximately 60-days, but it would have the advantage that it would allow more time for the operation ei.:ild evaluation of the JPL-ACTS Process. It is the staff's understanding that no additional facilities for capacity can be commenced until the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement. The Al ter.nate B presented above will delay the final preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement, but could allow the Districts to proceed in a more orderly manner · as far as improved treatment at Plant No. 2. It does appear advisable at this time that members of the Boards meet with the top executives of the State and Environmental Protection Agency along with staff to discuss these alternatives. A similar meeting was held in December, 1974 which did prove to be very informative and beneficial to both parties. It is my personal recommendation that a meeting be set as soon as possible, perhaps sometime in the later part of November, in order that the Boards may have sufficient time at the December Board Meeting to redirect the scheduling if it is necessary. REL:hje 1· j COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF .ORANGE COUNTY SCHEDULING FOR IMPROVED "TREATMENT . · I I I I ·I AUTHORIZE E .t.S. FACILITI ES PLAN JPL PILOT WORK I I I I J !SU BMIT E .L S . ANDI FACILITIES PLAN I MARCH 1974 ---IFAC ILITIES PLAN*~~ • ~__J DEC ISION REQUIRED I ---, ON JPL I I I I I ~ I I I I I I SUB MIT PLANS ANO SPECIF ICATIONS FOR IMPROVED TREATMENT • ____ 1 PI LO T AIR AND IM---+---4t-r ....... --+-+---+--+-4 DES I GN OF SECOND ARY! I REVIEW a I I CONS TRUCTI ON I I I XYiEN IA.Si I Li REVIEW I I I TR,EA,MENT 11-+-_ ....... ~ ~ ........ (BIDDll NGI I t l,___I -~ p-_ __jEN V IR 0 0 NMENTAL IM PACT L..... COMPLETE I STATEMENT I .JPL TESTING 1 SEPT. 30, 19n I I I I S 9 BILLION IMPOUNDED I I I I I FUN DS M UST BE A~O CATED ~ H-. DE SIGN AND coNsTRucT OPERATE JPL Li--o ' ~ JPL 'PILOT PLANT ----PILOT PLANT I *FACILITIES PLAN TO INCLUDE TWO RECOMMENDED PLANS JPL ANO CONVENTIONAL A .S . I I I I I I I -1 I .l f Iii A Iii J J A 9 0 N ll J FM A Ill J J AS 0 N 0 J irN AM J .I A I 0 ND 1175 1977 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY; CALIFORNIA P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) • TELEPHONES: AR EA CODE 714 540-2910 962-2411 Subject: P~oposcd Revisions to September 10, 1975, Draft of Ordinance ·Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities Please be advised that the Sanitation District~ a~e proposing to modify the . existing draft of the subject Ordinance.· These modifications will be presented to the Sanitation Districts' Boards of Directors ~t tl:e Octcbcr 29: !975, public hc::.rin; on the Orclir..ance. T!:is hearing will be held at 7:30 p.m. at our Administration Offices, 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley. These proposed changes are attached for your review and comments. If there are any questions, please contact this office. JDT/bb Enclosure 91--:QJ. cdr~ John D. Thomas Chief of Industrial and Permit Division PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES 1. Section 504, 1st Paragraph, 2nd Sentence A service fee of 25 percent of District's costs shall be added to the~e charges and shall be payable within ~$ thirty ·(30) days of invoicing by the District. 2. Section 507, 1st ParagraP,,h, 2nd Sentence All such charges shall become delinquent ~$ thirty (30) days after mailing notice thereof to the mailing address of the discharger subject to such charges. 3. Section 303, 1st Paragraph, Add: ; and whose aharge for use, as determined by Sea~ion 303 . l, below, is greater than the ad valorem tax paid to the District, exclusive of debt service. 4. Section 302.6, Last Paragraph, Add: When wastewater from sanitary facilities is discharged se parately from · the other wastewaters of a discharger, the charge for use for discharging the sanitary wastewater may be determined by using the following: a. l0,000 gallons per employee per year; b. 20 pounds of suspended solids per employee per year; a. 20 pounds · of biochemical oxygen demand. (BOD) per employee per year . (The number of employees will be considered as the average nv.mber of people employed fuU time on a daily basis. This may be determined by averaging the nwnber of people employed at the beginning and ending of eriah quarter, or other period that refleats normal employment fluctuations.) 5. Section 402.l(d), District No. 5 only! In the case of structures where further new construction or alteration is made to increase the occupancy of family dwelling build.ings or the area of buildings to be used for other than family dwelling buildings, the connection charge shall be $170 for each dwelling unit added or created and in the case of new constructicn· other than family ·dwelling buildings , it shall be $87. 50 per 1000 square feet of additional floor area contained within such new con- struction provided that new construction shall contain additional fixture units. 10/17/75 . ' PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES -Continued 6. Section . 402.2(a)(4), Connection Charge, Offsite Sewers not a Part of Master Plan Relative to Reimbursement Agreements; District No. 7 only: The cha:rges for connections to offsite sewers uJhich are not included as a part of the District Master Plan and for which a Non-Master Plan Reimlw..rsement Agreement ho.s been entered into between the District and the property owner shaU be in the amount provided for in said agreement. The amount set forth in said agreement shalt be the amount due whether the original agreement is stilt. in force, has been e.:ctended or has expired. These connection charges shall be in addition to any other charges hereinabove established for ~he property connecting to .said facilities. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES ..AGENCY .~~~~============================================================================= EDMUND C. BROWN JR., Go .. .,n(,)r STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD Agenda Item No. (,p DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY P. o. Box 100 · Sacramento, CA 95801 ~ '.6) 445-7971 I ., ... _ ;· OCT 2 4 1975 Mr. Fred Harper General Manager County Sanitation Districts of Orange County P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 In Reply Ref er to: 510: RAG COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, STEP 1, PROJECT NO. 75-1073, SEWER USE ORDINANCE We have reviewed the "Ordinance Establishing Regulation for Use of District Sewerage Facilities", dated May 29, 1975 and modification as contained in the hearing notice of September 17, 1975. This Ordinance still does not comply with the State and Federal requirement as delineated in Mr. Dendy's letter of ~.3.~C h l SJ l 97 5 • . The Ordinance has been slightly revised and the.comments in Mr. Dendy's letter on Item 2, Sections 102-7, 102-14 and 403 are in compliance with requirements. The major concerns spe- cifically continued use of ad valorem taxes, heavy metal discharge concentration and compliance date, Federal Pre- treatment Requirements and the definition of an industry have not been complied with. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Robert Gillette at (916) 322-6484. . . ,/. . f I ·-·, .-... /' .. ""I. .. , \-.~:;J---;''.' 4--· I •-· . -_ Larr'y F. Walker Division Chief Manager -Clean Water Grant Program Mr. Fred Harper Page 2 cc: Mr. Fred Krieger, ~PA, Region IX CRWQCB, Santa Ana~Region (8) REPORT OP THE JOINT CHAIPJ/Il\l'T EAHLIER fJ.1 HIS IvION'l1H, i'IIR. HAHPEH, r.m. SYLVES'I1ER AND I AT 1I1 EJ:~DED TEE 48TH YJPCP ANNUAL CONF. IN ~HAMlE BEACH. WHILE MUCH OF Trill CONF'J~ffE:l'TCE V·l1\S 0111 A MOI~E TECHNICAL NNrurrn:, THEHE V'TCHJ~ smm HFrI'.:BES'ITNCr COMMENTS }·.,iAD:r~: BY MIL HUSSEL~··.,THAIN (EPA ADrHNISTRA~L10H) A::.'rn RKP JIM 1."·JRIGHT. NIH. THAIN SAID THAT 18 BILLIOH IS TO BE cm.rnnTTED BY SEPT OF 197:7 AND AN ADDITIOHAL 1+2 BILLION Wil~L HE:GDED lJ.1 TiillJ 1983. HS SAID Im IS fl~ESONALLY cm~J::YI'I1 ~T~D TO DELJ~Gl~.TIOU 0.0' nBSPON- ' -- SIBILrPY: 'Pb TrIE S1IA'l1ES FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS· TO GET Tm~ COi~TROL IN THE: PIELD WHERE 1rm~: PHOBLEl~IS A :.1E. HE ALSO SAID THAT 97~{) 01? WATER DISCHARGERS AHE EI1:L1In'.":H IN COMPLIANCE on IN AJ>i IMPHOVl~D CONDrrro·:\:. HIS PINAL cmtd~NT WAS THAT IS MAIN EFFORT IS TO PRESENT TO Tl-ill LOCALLY ELECTED 01?F1IC IAL r.rim OP~rIOlTS AVAILABLE TO CLEAN UP OUH ENVIORNNIENT A~m LET us MAKE 1rirE DECISIONS. PUBLIC LAW 92-)00 WOULD EOT BE SUBJ:E:CT TO CHANGJ~ AND DID ESTABLISH 'l1I-m EATIOHAL COhll\1 ON WATE0 "UALITY TO COWTilTUALLY sm.·n~: OF1 'l1 I·E~ BASIC DEFI:0~NCIES OF THIS AC'J: AHE: 1. 2. ~: 5. 'NIE 18 BILLION AUTHOHIZED DECAM.E BOGGED DOWN IN !'QE_,D rn 11' ''T";1 ~.,i-n T-I Qi'iLY 6c/ C 0 11 ,.r~.,. n ·v Jffi·F~1 0"11 lL97L • ..l. .t-... 1 b " 11 .. . 'i -/V '-H.ld " .u .. .l~ LI 1 I-.. l11AHY COiiMUWITIES HAVE BEEN POHCED TO RE SUBMIT APPLICATIONS UP il'O 9 THIE~_; • . SOME COSTS Hl\\TE :?AH E:WEEDBD THI~ BEiIBPr.i:1S. IT HAS 3ECOME i1 G1LB BAG 1:1rn; ;-;il.\.EY CITIEJ, s1v1rGs ;·:~ AGENCIES. 1.10s T DEADLii~ES c~~I1r' '11 BE ~·.mir HE CONCLUDED SAYIHG Tlild C01SGHESS :,'/ILL HAVE TO ..:WT ON SOJ\iE Ar.~MFJ.NDMEW~S TO THIS LAW 'ro HEALIZE GOALS THAT ARI~ PHltCTICAL. I \ "A-1" A tv·) .. ,(. ,..1 SUMMARY OF DISTRICTS' ACTIONS RE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR USE OF DIST~ICTS' SEWERAGE FACILITIES , ~~~IS 'Mr.·;~f! .. ~ ~ fA4'1.t "A'' 0 C, .t~JA October 29, 1975• ~ October 23, 1975 THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING, pursuant to prov1s1ons of Section 25131 of the Government Code, is to consFder final changes to the proposed Ordinances Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities. Final adoption of each ordinance will be considered on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 ~~· in the Districts' Administrati~~-~-f_f_~~~-s_:_) THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED SOURCE CONTROL ORDINANCE is to provide maximum public benefit from the use of sewerage facilities within the County ' Sanitation Districts o:f Orange County, to improve the quality of waste·~ wat~r being received for treatment by regulation of wastewater discharges, and to provide a method of procedures for establishing equ~table use charges for District sewerage facilities as required by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. ACTIONS TO DATE CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING: In February, 1974, the Boards of Directors adopted Resolution No. 74-24 declaring their intent to adopt industrial waste discharge requirements pursuant to state and federal regulations and establishing an implementation schedule therefor. In NovernLer, 1974, the District~• :itaff met with the Cha1uber of Commerce lndustriai Waste Task Force Committee to review the proposed ordinances. During January and February, 1975, the draft ordinance was submitted to State Water Resources Control Board, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Boards of Directors. The Boards referred the ordinance back to the staff and General Counsel for revision. In February, 1975, the proposed requirements were also reviewed with repre- sentatives of the food processing, circuit board, and plating industries. In March, 1975, the revised draft ordinance was received, filed, and taken under advisement by the respective Boards. At that time, the Boards authorized staff to circulate the proposed ordinance and conduct informal hearings thereon. Notices were then placed in the following newspapers regarding informal public hearings: Huntington Beach Independent Orange County Evening News Anaheim-Fullerton-Buena Park News La Mirada Lamplighter Times Dai 1 y Pi lot The Register Anaheim Bulletin La Habra Star Progress Tustin News AGENPA ITEM f6CB) -EACH DISTRICT "A-2 11 At tne March 12, 1975 meeting of the Joint Boards, a letter from Kerr Glass Manufacturing Corporation, dated February 13, 1975, was received and filed. In March and April, 1975, the staff coQducted informal open public hearings with the following groups: Chambers of Commerce Conservation Groups Local Public Agencies Class I Users Class I I Users Manufacturing Associations Genera 1 Pub 1 i c In addition, meetings were held with specific permittees and Chambers of Commerce upon request. On April 9, 1975, a revised draft ordinance incorporating viable suggestions from the informal hearings was submitted to the Boards of Directors. The Boards declared their intent ·to introduce the Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities at their regular ~eeting on May 14, 1975, and established Hay 29, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' Administrative Office as the time and place for adoption of said ordinance. At the April 9, 1975 meeting, the following communications were included with ·the draft ordinance considered by the Boards: City of Huntington Beach, dated February 19, 1975 St~tc Water. Re~ources Control Board, cl~t~d March 1C, 1975 Sunkist Cooperating Citrus Growers of California and Arizona, dated March 25, 1975 City of Tustin, dated March 27, 1975 The Arnold Engineering Co., dated March 31, 1975 Rutan & Tucker, dated April 1, 1975 On April 10, 1975, formal notice of hearing and copy of revised draft ordinance with comments were mailed to 540 interested parties, including the following: Districts' Directors News media Governing body of local sewering agencies within the Districts Staff of sewering agencies within the Districts Conservation groups and other agencies Existing District permittees Chambers of Commerce Industrial and Manufacturing Associations Libraries within the Districts AGENDA ITEM f6(B) -EACH DISTRICT "A-2 11 . ,, On M~y 9, 1975, the final draft of the proposed ordinances were malled to Directors for their consideration on May 14, 1975. On May 14, 1975, the following communi~ations were received and filed by the Boards: City of Seal Beach, dated March 27, 1975 City of Cypress, dated March 28, 1975 City of Cypress, dated April 3, 1975 Embee Plating, dzted May 1, 1975 Kraftco Corporation, dated May 1, 1975 Kraftco Corporation, dated May 6, 1975 Shur-Plate Company, dated May 8, 1975 All Metals Processing, Inc., dated May 12, 1975 Case-Swayne, dated May 14, 1975 At their regular meeting on Hay 14, 1975, following lengthy consideration of both written and oral remarks of the public on the propose~ ordinance, and comments of Directors, staff and the General Counsel, the Boards of Directors authorized more than eight amendments to the draft ordinance and declared their intent to adopt said ordinance at an adjourned meeting on May 29, 1975. On May 29, 1975, the following written communications on the proposed draft ordinance were received and filed: National Technology, dated May 15, 1975 Shu_r-P~ate, Inc., dated May 16, 1975 Litronic Industries, dated May 22, 1975 W. E. Snyder on beh:: 1f of 0 range County Li a i son, ~eta 1 Finishers Association of Southern California (MFASC), dated May 28, 1975 'Following further oral remarks from the public, and comments from Directors, staff, and the Geneial Counsel, the Joint Chairman appointed a Special Committee of Directors and referred the draft Industrial Waste Ordinance to sai.d committee fo_r review and 1r:;eport b,ack to the Joint Boards. ~ 11 1q7( . """-<tjlA.•'V'N'A-P ~,...,CA.. -\-{,,'-w,,.-v·t-1' 0 ~ ""'-'-?""".w-..t-:. oN -tL.: l?Y-~70' .• ..,.J t>v;J'"'~·---t:.1v -i..~"'l-' ~Si ~rt... ~ 0 '\o-w,'-li' \M..... ~I~"'~\~ ,+iJJ ~~u\J ~ v-u,.l '~ ~ ~~ell "wsu~ ~ ~tVf"' "-'.A..l b'I Oi.-J A cit:1Ae 11, 197§, tRe Special Committee on lndustrial~~aste Ordinance met with • f h • d • 1 • O'-' 'll.»-\• L1-. '7 d • 1 • representatives rom t e rn ustrra commun1ty~ana revrewe six a ternat1ves for the capital recovery provision· of the proposed ordinance. At the regular June 11, ~·meeting of the Boards of Directors, the Special Committee on Industrial Waste Ordinance recommended a modified user charge employing a revenue program which continues to utilize ad valorem taxes as the major source of revenueJbut collects maintenance and operation costs plus a capital recovery charge from dischargers exceeding 2.5 million gallons per ·year. Credits would be al lm-.Jed for ad valorem taxes paid the District. This approach would appear to provide substantial equity among users as well as. promote water conservation. The Boards of Directors concurred with the committee recommendation and authorized the staff to hold informal hearings with representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and the Industrial community for their input and reaction to the modified user charge revenue system as recommended by the Special Committee. f "A-3" AGENDA ITEM #6(B) -EACH DISTRICT "A-3" On August 13, 1975, the Boards were presented with a summary of proposed modifications to the May 29, 1975, draft of the ordinance and a time schedule for adqption of the Ordinance,<stabl f&tili121! REgalatlOllS 161 Ell@ tJsc of f'\• • I 5 ......s:. •p i .., 1 st1 1 ~ ts_ewere~SJJ'' •. s' &5. During August proposed revisions were mailed to, and informal hearings were held with, existing permittees, conservation groups, public agencies, Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations, and other interested persons. Meetings were also held with the large# dischargers for which the ordinance would impose a substantial economic impact. On September 10, 1975, a revised draft of the ordinance incorporating suggestions from the informal hearings was submitted to the Boards of. Directors. The Boards declared their intent to i~trcduce their respe~tive Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities and repealing ordinances in conflict therewith, for first reading at an adjourned Joint Board meeting on October 29, 1975, and established November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' administration offices, as the time and place for final hearing and adoption of said ordinances. On September 17, 1975, formal notice of hearing and a copy of the revised draft ordinances of the respective Districts, along with comments, were mailed to approximately 600 interested parties, including the following: Districts' Directors News media Governing body of local sewering agencies within the Districts . Staff of sewerir.g agencies within the Districts Conservation groups and other agencies ExistJng District permittees Chambers of Commerce Industrial and Manufacturing Associations Libraries within the Districts On October 15 and October 22, 1975, notices app,red in the Register news- paper informing the general public of ~ober 2,...-Publ ic Hearing. ~IN .. f•~y-• On October 16 and October 23, 1975,Anotices appeared 1n the Times newspaper, i Rform i r:l9 th 0 geRe Fa 1 pdb 1 i c o~obe 1 2#Ptt"*1 i c Ilea I I ii§". The week of October 20th additional proposed refinements to the draft ordinances were mailed to Directors, existing permittees, conservation groups, public agencies, Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations and other interested persons. ;f. /' Ot-l~ wvA.\-~N ~MP-N · ~~ 1r1 To date, A0 aeaitieRa] .. hrittUI! C.vrnme.nt:s on the proposed ord~nance~ been f'H. · · received sinFe th~ ~1ay 29f~ meeting. It !.t ~IM .1-tc S~A ... l., uJA~o., e~O'J~S ~ c,Jy, I ~~.J ~ ..... .::,_ o.-.. 1:... •1, '°'..., < ..4tJJ is ,.,, 1 u lrJ , .., .IL '\)!.,).,., , /iAMJ.,~, 1-u l ~...... . \ l~ ':~ ~ ~ 0 VJ'' t CiJM \,•D 4 ~) .\-Lt \~}k I/ Vt."1-~., I ~s(J)(e) l ___ o~ ~;~ b 1 ____ _ "A-4" AGENDA ITEM #6(n) -EACH DISTRICT II A-4" USE ORDINANCE HEARING 10/29/75 FIRM ADDRESS · .. NAME ...,, __ FIRM Dt-(!/1E1-I S!?r~~~RV 1rIECCJHI SUITE 103 VERNON, CALIF. 90058 STUART E. SALOT, Ph.D. (213) 583·6897 ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING water reclamation services Inc. (805) 963-1841 T. J. LAGEMAN Engineer 702 east montecito street p.o. drawer mm santa barbara, california 93102 STEVEN H. LAZERSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Environmental Coalition of Orange County Inc 206 W. 4th Street, S~ite l 16 511111 &ec C.fif. !270 f 10/29/75 ADDRESS ~ ,,t' ~/[,_~-c:--X-' / v.12,,,v""-( :----- /1/fC?A_; / H 7 ~ rmrewoowe COALTON OF~~· l\C. f1EET ING DATE October 29, 1975 T I i"1 E 7 : 3 0 p . rn. DISTRICTS l,Z,3 ,5 ,6 ,7 & 11 DISTRICT 1 RIMA •• JL -+---U IEDR~CH) ••• ··BATTIN···· ------ VANS •••••••• GARTHE • • • • + ---- SHARP ••••.••• SALTARELLI· ------ DISTRICT 2 L VONS · • • • • • • ·CALLAHAN· • • __L_ ---- EWING •••••••• CHAPUT ••••• ~ -- DIEDRICH) ••••• CLARK •••••• _fl::_ ---- GARTtiE) •••• • •• EVANS •••••• _'1. ___ -- THO~) ••••••••• KAYWOOD •• • .. · • _v ____ _ FOX) ..•..••••• MAC KAIN·_e· _'-____ _ PERRY •• .f Vf.I. _:L_ ___ _ !SVALSTAD) • • • • • SCOTT ••• /1 '-.: ----"r-___ _ PEREZ) • • • • • • • • 'fEM"Pt-E • .)(.{ • • __ __ __ DUNN~).·.·.··· WINN •••••• • _./ ____ _ WARD) ••••••••• WOOD ••••••• -"-___ _ GRAHAM) ••••••• YOUNG •••••• _./ ____ _ DISTRICT 3 (HOMRIGHAUSEN). COX········ -" ----- AMO. • • • • • • • -" ----- (CO LL I NS).····· BYRNE······ _" _ ---- CULVER··.·. _,, ____ _ f-~IFFIN)· ·····DAVIS······ -" _ ---- RTHE). • • • • • • EVANS······ _ •. ____ _ MAC KrI N) ••••• FOX· ••••••• _v ----- SONJU • • • • • • • • FRANKIEWICH _ .. ____ _ NEV ll-• • • • • • • • GRAHAM· • • • • _~· ____ _ THOM)········. KAYWOOD. •f!. _i ____ _ BLACKMAN) ••••• MC KNEW. let. __::t_ ___ _ DIEDRJCH) ••••• SCHMIT ••••• _.; ____ _ GIBBS).: •••••• SHIPLEY •••• _ .. ____ _ STANTON) •••••• SVALSTAD ••• wooD) ••••••••• ..WARD. • • • • • • --:;;-· ---- ARB I so) ••••••• WEISHAUPT. ~ = = DISTRICT 5 ~RYCKOFF). • • • • • MC INN! S. ·. _-v ____ _ DIEDRICH).···· RILEY • • • • • ._.; ____ _ ROGERS • • • • -"'-___ _ DISTRICT 6 (Mc INN Is) ••••• STORE • • • • • • I (DIEDRICH) ••••• BATTIN ·r£ . . ~ = = RIMA •• .IL~~ •• _../ ____ _ DISTRICT 7 ~· /ANS) • • • • • • • GARTHE. • ••• _..; ____ _ mNTHONY) • • • • • BURTON.· ••• ~. __ IEDRICH) • • • • CLARK • • • • • __£::__ ___ _ MC INNIS)···· DOSTAL·· ·,rJ> _.1 ____ _ GLOCKNER .f/il~ v' (TEMPLE) • • • • • • JACKMAN •••• -.;----- (SHARP) • • • • • • • SALTARELLI • .; = == DISTRICT 11 •' DIEDRJCH •••• SCHMIT..... " GIBBS) •.••.•• DUKE ••• J.6J •• -Y-== == WIEDER)· ••••• GIBBS •• J"."'-•• ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 8 MITCHELL··· (JOHNSoNi • • • • • HOLM ••••••• ----- (DIEDRICH) • • • • RILEY •••••• = = = 5/29/75 JOINT BOARDS AMO • • • • • • • • __ _ DIEDRIC~) ••••• BATTIN • • • • • ___ _ ANTHONY •.•••• BURTON • • • • • ___ _ COLL I ~S •••••• BYRNE· • • • • • • ___ _ L VONS •••••••• CALLAHAN • • • ___ _ EWING •••••••• CHAPUT· • • • • • ___ _ DIEDRICH) ••••• CLARK· • • • • • • ___ _ HOMR I GHAUSEN) ·COX· • • • • • • • • ___ _ CULVER······ ___ _ GRIFFIN) ••••• -DAVIS······· ___ _ MC INN Is) ••••• DOSTAL·· • • • • ___ _ GIBBS) •••••••• DUKE.······· ___ _ GARTHE) •••••• ·EVANS·· • • • • • ___ _ MAC Kr I N) ••••• F 0 X. • • • • • • • • __ __ SONJU •••••••• FRANKi EW ICH. ___ _ EVANS ~ ••••••• GARTHE •••••• ___ _ WI EDERJ ••••••• GIBBS ••••••• ___ _ GLOCKNER •••• NEVIL)~ ••••••• GRAHAM •••••• = ~ TEMPl-EJ ••••••• JACKMAN ••••• ___ _ THOt91) ••••••••• KAYWOOD ••••• ___ _ FOX).·~··· •••• MAC KAIN •••• RYCOFFJ.~ ••••• MC INNIS •••• ==== BLACKMANJ ••••• MC KNEW ••••• ___ _ PERRY ••••••• (DIEDRICH). ····RILEY·······== RIMA •••••••• __ -- ROGERS •••••• ___ _ SHARP) •••••••• SALTARELLI.. ---- DIEDRICH). •••• SCHMIT •••••• ---- SVALSTAD) ••••• SCOTT ••••••• ---- GIBBS) •••••• • • SH I PLEY • • • • • ---- MC INN Is)· • • ··STORE· • • • • • • ---- STANTON)· • • • • • SVALSTAD· • • • __ -- PEREi) • • • • • • • ·TEMPLE· • • • • • ___ _ WOOD) •••••• • • ·WARD· • • • • • • • ___ _ ARB I so) ••••••• WEI SHAU PT· •• ---- DUNNE)· • • • • • • ·WINN· • • • • • • • ___ _ WARD) ••••••••• WOOD.·· • • • • • ___ _ GRAHAM) ••••••• YOUNG· • • • • • • ___ _ OTHERS HARPER SYLVESTER LEWIS CLARKE TAYLOR BROWN t J -' •.:._t ,_ WOOD.RUFF EWING HOHENER HOWARD. HUNT ·? KEITH KENNEY LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON.~ PIERSALL STEVENS v' -"- ./ -..,,-. v MEETING DATE October 29, 1975 T I i--1 E 7 : 3 0 p • m. DISTRICTS 1.2.3.S.6.7 & 11 DISTRICT 1 RIMA •••••• _iL_ ---- . HEDR~CH) ••• ··BATTIN···· ~ ---- ~VANS •••••••• GARTHE • • • • V ---- (SHARP •••••••• SALTARELLI·~ ---- DISTRICT 2 L VONS · · · • • • • ·CALLAHAN· • • ~ ----EWING •••••••• CHAPUT ••••• ~ ___ _ DIEDRICH) ••••• CLARK...... CU ___ _ GARTtiE) •.••. ·.EVANS •••••• ~ ___ _ THO~) •••.••••• KAYWOOD •••• ~ ___ _ FOX) •••.••••• ·MAC KAIN ••• ~ ___ _ PERRY •••••• ~ ___ _ ISVALSTAD) • • • • ·SCOTT •••••• ~ ___ _ PEREZ). • • • • • • • ~Ml"tl! ••••• .....l£:_ ___ _ DUNNE).··.··· .WINN ••••••• ~ WARD) ••••••••• WOOD ••••••• ~ GRAHAM) •• ·····YOUNG •••••• ~==== DISTRICT 3 (HOMRIGHAUSEN). COX.·.··· •• ~ ---- AMO •••••••• ~ ___ _ (COLL I NS)·· • • • ·BYRNE ••• • • • ~ ___ _ CULVER··.·. ~ ___ _ GRIFFIN)······ DAVIS······ ~ ___ _ GARTHE)· ······EVANS······ ~ ___ _ MAC K!IN). ····FOX····· ••• ~ ___ _ SONJU • • • • • • • • FRANKIEWICH ~ ___ _ NEVIL-• ·······GRAHAM ••••• ~ ___ _ THOM)·······.· KAYWOOD •••• ~ ___ _ BLACKMAN~.···· MC KNEW •••• ~ ___ _ DIEDRJCH • • ••• SCHMIT ••••• ~ ___ _ GIBBS) •••••••• SHIPLEY •••• ~ ___ _ STANT)ON) •••••• SVALSTAD ••• ~ ___ _ WOOD • • • • • • ••• ~ • • • • • • ~ __ __ ARBISO) ••••••• WEISHAUPT • ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 5 ~RYCKOfF). ·····MC INNIS.·· -iL'°--__ ~IEDRICH). ····RILEY • • • • • ~ ___ _ ROGERS • • • • ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 6 (MC INNIS) ••••• STORE •••••• ---1L... ___ _ (DIEDRICH) ••••• BATTIN ••••• ~ ___ _ RIMA ••••••• ~ ___ _ DISTRICT 7 (EVANS) • • • • • • • GARTHE • • • • • ~ ---- NTHONY) • • • • • BURTON·····~ __ -- \15IEDRICH) • • • • CLARK • • • • • 0.-__ -- (MC INNIS)···· DOSTAL·····~ __ -- GLOCKNER • • • ~ __ -- ( T Ell f' t y) · · · · · · J AC KMAN • • • • ____i..::::::_ __ -- (SHARP •• • • • • • SALTARELLI • ~--__ DISTRICT 11 (DI EDR J CH) • • • • SCHMIT •• • •• __JL_ ___ _ (GIBBS) •.••••• DUKE •• ·.··.~ ___ _ (WIEDER) · .•••• GIBBS.·.··· --4.L-___ _ DISTRICT 8 ( J 0 0 N ~ • • • • HOLM • • • • : • • ---- (DI EDR • • • • RILEY······ ____ -- 5/29/75 JOINT BOARDS AMO • • • • • • • • ___ . DIEDRICr) ••••• BATTIN ••••• __ _ ANTHONY •••••• BURTON····· __ _ COLLI ~S •••••• BYRNE·· • • • • • ___ _ LYONS •••••••• CALLAHAN··· __ _ EWING •••••••• CHAPUT······ __ _ DIEDRICH) •• • • • CLARK· • • • • • • ___ _ HOMR I GHAUSEN). COX· • • • • • • • • ___ _ CULVER······ GRIFFIN) ••••• ·DAVIS······· ---- MC INNIS) ••••• DOSTAL······ ---- GIBBS) •••••••• DUKE········ GARTHE) ••••••• EVANS··· • • • • ---- MAC K~ IN) ••••• FOX ••••••••• ---- SONJU •••••••• FRANKIEWICH.== == EVANS~·· ••••• GARTHE •••••• WIEDER1 ••••••• GIBBS ••••••• == == GLOCKNER •••• NEVIL)~ ••••••• GRAHAM •••••• == == TEMPL-EJ. •••••• JACKMAN ••••• ___ _ THOtv1J. •••••••• KAYWOOD ••••• ___ _ FOX) •• \ ••••••• MAC KA IN •••• RYCOFFJ.\ ••••• MC INNIS •••• ==== BLACKMANJ ••••• MC KNEW ••••• p ERRY ••••••• ---- (DIEDRICH)· ····RI LEY·······=== === RIMA •••••••• ___ _ ROGERS •••••• ___ _ SHARP) •••••••• SALTARELLI.. ___ _ DIEDRICH) ••••• SCHMIT •••••• ___ _ SVALSTAD) ••••• SCOTT ••••••• ___ _ GIBBS) •••••• • • SH I PLEY. • • • • ___ _ MC INN Is)· · · ··STORE· • • • • • • ___ _ STANTON)· • • • • • SVALSTAD· • • • ___ _ PER El)·· • • • • • ·TEMPLE·· • • • • ___ _ WOOD) •• • • • • • • ·WARD· • • • • • • • ___ _ ARB I so) ....... WE I SHAU PT ••• ---- DUNNE}······ ··WINN.······· ___ _ WARD) ••••••••• WOOD. • • • • • • • ___ _ GRAHAM)· • • • • • ·YOUNG. • • • • • • ___ _ OTHERS HARPER _Jt::::._ SYLVESTER __J=:::::_ LEWIS ~ CLARKE TAYLOR BROWN ~ WOODRUFF ,,,.,,,,,, EWING HOHENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH KENNEY LYNCH MADDOX MARTINSON PIERSALL STEVENS -- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING October 29, 1975 -7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting held October 1, 1975, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts ~os. 1, 2, 3, S, 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. DISTRICT NO. 1 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 2 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 3 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. S Directors present: Directors absent: ROLL CALL Kerm Rima (Chairman), Robert Battin, John Garthe, and Donald Saltarelli None Michael Callahan (Chairman), Dale Chaput, MacKain, Bob Perry, George Scott, Jess Perez, Donald Winn, Frances Wood, and Robin Young Ralph Clark Phillip Cox (Chairman), Lowell Amo, Edward Byrne, Norman Culver, Jesse Davis, Vernon Evans, Donald Fox, Alice Frankiewich, Beth Graham, Miriam Kaywood, Thomas McKnew, Laurence Schmit, Donald Shipley, Bernie Svalstad, Frances Wood, and Martha Weishaupt None Don Mcinnis (Chairman), Thomas Riley, and Howard Rogers None 10/29/75 DISTRICT NO. 6 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 7 Directors present Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 11 Directors present: Directors absent: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Chairman John Store (Chairman), Robert Battin, and Kcrm Rima None John Garthe (Chairman), Milan Dostal, Francis Cleckner, James Jackman, and Donald Saltarelli John Burton and Ralph Clark Laurence Schmit (Chairn:an), Henry Duke, and Norma Gibbs None Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, William Clarke, John Thomas, Rita Brown, and Hilary Eitzen Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel, Walt Howard, Harvey Hunt, Milo Keith, Gail Lynch, Vinton Sheffield, Ed Black, George TinC~ll, .3 ... r;. J-=nEings, C~ I.~ Harper, Dale H. Price, W. P. Hussey, Gordon Walker, Thomas Russell, John Stillman, Jerri Ar.ies, Steven Hergy, T. J. Lageman, Bob Webber, Ed Gallardo, Bill Snyder, Frank Elwell, Wayne Berd, Thomas F. McGuinncss, Steven Lazerson, Stuart E. Salot, R. H. Cain, S. Macomber, and Robert C. Gell * * * * * * * * * * * The Joint Chairman reported on his attendance at the 48th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Fe2eration held earlier in the month in Miami Beach, Florida. He commente'd on remarks made at the conference by Russell Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Congressman Wright, Chairman of the Oversight Committee, who observed that Congress never intended that PL 92-500 (1972 Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act) would not be subject to change, and, in fact, established a National Cmmni ttee on Water Quality to monitor the Act. He also noted that Congress would have to amend the law to recognize the practicality of the goals established by the Act. -2- AI.L DISTRICTS Report of the · General Manager 10/29/75 The ·General Manager reported further on the Water Pollution Control Federation's Conference in Miami Beach an<l noted the attention given New York City's fiscal crisis because of its impact on all public agencies' financial sources, particularly as it relates to funding of the local share of water quality projects. Mr. Harper also commented on the problem being faced by sewering agencies throughout the country because of the restrictions on use of ad valorem taxes for meeting requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency and State regulations on user charges. Our Districts and the Association of Metropolitan Sewering Agencies have been working vigorously on this amendment to PL 92-500. Unless the provision is changed, our Districts as well as most other large agencies face the possible withholding of the final 20% on grant funded projects which could result in a serious cash deficit position, and a substantial increase in operating costs if it is necessary to implement a billing system for user charges in lieu of ad valorem taxes. Mr. Harper also commented on the impact of the Environmental Protection Agency's delays in approving projects and allocating funds which have been appropriated by Congress for the Clean Water Grant program, particu- larly as it relates to the employment situation. ALL DISTRICTS Report of the General Counsel The General Counsel reported briefly that the Districts had been dismissed out of the matter of litigation regarding alleged flooding of a trailer park in the vicini tr of RTco!chuTst Street and G~rficld :\-.,,·cr.:!c; in th~ d tics ~f Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. ALL DISTRICTS First reading and introduction of Proposed Ordinances Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities The Joint Chairman requested a report from the Secretary in connection with first reading and introduction of the proposed ordinances of the respective Districts establishing regulations for use of districts' sewerage facilities. The Secretary reported that since the hearing of the Boards of Directors on the proposed ordinances on May 29, 1975, the following actions had taken place. Pursuant to appointment by the Joint Chairman, a Special Committee on Industrial Waste Ordinance met with representa- tives from the industrial community on June 4, 1975, and reviewed six alternatives for the capital recovery provision of the proposed ordinance. At the regular June 11, 1975 meeting of the Boards of Directors, the Special Committee on Industrial Waste Ordinance recommended a modified user charge employing a revenue program which continues to utilize ad valorem taxes as the major source of revenue, but collects main- tenance and operation costs plus a capital recovery charge -3- 10/29/75 from dischargers exceeding 2.5 million gallons per year. Credits would be allowed for ad valore~ taxes paid the District. 1nis approach would appear to provide substantial equity among users as well as promote water conservation. The Boards of Directors concurred with the Committee recommendation and authorized the staff to hold informal hearings with representatives of the Chambers of Commerce and the Industrial community for their input and reaction to the modified user charge revenue system as recommended by the Special Committee. On August 13, 1975, the Boards were presented with a summary of proposed modifications to the May 29, 1975, draft of the ordinance and a time schedule for adoption of the ordinance. During August proposed revisions were mailed to, and informal hearings were held with, existing permittees, conservation groups, public agencies, Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations, and other interested persons. Meetings were also held with the large dischargers for which the ordinance would impose a substantial economic impact. On September 10, 1975, a revised draft of the ordinance incorporating suggestions from the informal hearings was submitted to the Boards of Directors. The Boards declared their intent to introduce their respective Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facili~ic~, ~~ repealing ordinances in conflict ther~with: for first reading at an adjourned Joint Board meeting on October 29, 1975, and established November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' administrative offices, as the time and place for final hearing and adoption of said ordinances. On September 17, 1975, formal notice of hearing and a copy of the revised draft ordinances of the respective Districts, along with comments, were mailed to approximately 600 interested parties, including the following: Districts' Directors News media Governing body of local sewering agencies within the Districts Staff of sewering agencies within the Districts Conservation groups and other agencies Existing District permittecs Chambers of Conunerce Industrial and Manufacturing Associations Libraries within the Districts -4- 10/29/75 On October 15 and October 22, 1975, notices appeared in the Register newspaper informing the genera·! public of the October 29th Public Hearing. On October 16 and October 23, 1975, similiar notices appeared in the Times newspaper. The week of October 29, 1975, additional proposed refine- ments to the draft ordinances were mailed to Directors, existing permittees, conservation groups, public agencies, Chambers of Commerce, manufacturing associations and other interested persons. The purpose of this hearing, pursuant to provisions of Section 25131 of the Government Code, is to consider final changes to the proposed Ordinances Establishing R~gulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities. Final adoption of each ordinance will be considered on November 12, 1975, at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Following the report, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the Summary of D.istricts' Actions re Proposed Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities dated October 29, 1975, be received and ordered filed. The Joint Chairman then declared the hearing on Proposed Ordinances Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities open at 8:10 p.m. DISTRICT 1 Reading proposed Ordinance No. 103 by title only Moved, seconded, and unanimously carried: That Ordinance No. 103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, be read by title only, and that reading of said ordinance in its entirety be waived. DISTRICT 2 Reading proposed Ordinance ~Jo. 204 by title only Moved, seconded, and unanimously carried: That Ordinance No. 204, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, be read by title only, and that reading of said ordinance in its entirety be waived. DISTRICT 3 Reading proposed Ordinance No. 305 by title only Moved, seconded, and unanimously carried: That Ordinance No. 305, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, be read by title only, and that reading of said ordinance in its ~~irety be waived. -5- 10/29/75 DISTRICT 5 Reading proposed Ordinance No. 508 by title only Moved, seconded, and unanimously carried: That Ordinance ~o. 508, nn Ordinance Establishing Regulntions for Use of Districts' Sewerage Pncilities, be read by title only, and that reading of said ordinance in its entirety be waived. DISTRICT 7 Reading proposed Ordinance No. 716 by title only Moved, seconded, and unanimously carried: That Ordinance No. 716, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, be read by title only, and that reading of said ordinance in its entirety be waived. DISTRICT 11 Reading proposed Ordinance No. 1103 by title only Moved, seconded, and unanimously carried: That Ordinance No. 1103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, be read by title only, and that reading of said ordinance in its entirety be waived. ALL DISTRICTS Receive and file letter from the Stette Water Resources ConTrol Board, Division of Water Quality, re proposed ordinances The Secretary then reported that since the May 29th hearing on the proposed ordinances, one communication had been . . -.. """'"""' rcccivcc on uc~ccer ~c, read said communication from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality; whereupon, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the communication dated October 24, 1975, from the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, regarding Proposed Ordinances Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, be received and ordered filed. ALL DISTRICTS Oral Comments and discussion re proposed ordinance The Joint Chairnan recognized William Snyder representing the electro-plating industry, \\ho spoke in favor of adoption of the proposed ordinance; Frank Elwell of Shur-Plate, Inc., who spoke against adoption of the proposed ordinance; and Vinton Sheffield representing Kraft Foods Corporation, who read a telegram from his corporation's manager of environmental control objecting to certain provisions of the proposed ordinance. The Board then entered into a general discussion concerning the State Water Resource.s Control Board's comments on the ordinance provisions -6- 10/29/75 regarding use of ad valorem taxes, heavy metal discharge concentrations and compliance dates, federal prc-treatm~nt requirements and the definition of industry. It was observed that certain of the areas of concern expressed by the State would be resolved if amendments to PL 92-500 (1972 Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act) currently pending before .Congress are forthcoming. The General Counsel stated that merely because the ordinance docs not meet the specific require- ments of the State's letter, it would not, in fact, he invalid. It may, however, require amendments to the ordinance in the future. The State may also seek to enforce their position by imposing restrictions on the Districts' construction grants. Following staff remarks on the oral comments on the proposed ordinances, the Boards of Directors entered into a lengthy discussion during which it was pointed out that the proposed ordinance is considered an interim measure toward achieving the ultimate requirements established by PL 92-500 (1972 Amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act) and to protect the integrity of the Districts' sewerage system by establishment of a source control program. It would also provide for distributing costs more equitably among users as required by the State Water Resources Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency. It was further pointed out during the discussion that the regulatory agencies have been encouraging the Districts to adopt an ordinance in this regard and would consider non- adoption of the ordinance as an interpretation that the Districts wish to 0.0 nothing tc coT'lply with. the re~ilritions; ~nd then~fore of more serious consequence than adoption of the ordinance as proposed. The major impact of the ordinance is., of C:Ourse, on the industrial community. However, the Board has amended the ordinance to the industrial community's apparent satisfaction. It is the considered judgement that many of the State's require- ments will have to be revised because they are either unrealistic or not based on sound scientific data. M1en and if this is done, the basis for the State's objections to certain provisions of the proposed ordinance would be eliminated. The Directors then discussed the propriety of communicating with the State Water Resources Control Board requesting a clarification of the concerns expressed in their letter of October 24 in order that the Districts' position on each point could be more fully explained. This would further provide an opportunity for the SWRCB to indicate \•;hat action they might consider in the event certain provisions of the adopted ordinance did not satisfy their office. Following further discussion on the final recommended amendments to the draft ordinance, the Joint Chairman declared the hearing closed at 8:47 p.m. -7~ 10/29/75 DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordinance No. 103 That Ordinance No. 103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, amended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on November 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordinance No. 204 That Ordinance No. 204, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, amended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on November 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordinance No. 305 That Ordinance No. 305, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, amended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on November 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordinance No. 508 That Ordinance No. 508, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, amended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on November 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordinance No. 603 That Ordinance No. 603, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, amended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on Hovember 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordinance No. 716 That Ordinance No. 716, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, a.mended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on November 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. -8- 10/29/75 DISTRICT ll Moved, seconded, and duly carried: Introduce Ordin3nce No. 1103 That Ordinance No. 1103, an Or<lin~mcc Establishing Regulations for Use of District Sewerage Facilities, amended to include the ordinance changes of September 10, 1975 and October 17, 1975, be introduced and passed to second reading on November 12, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. ALL DISTRICTS Amending Resolution No. 75-142, re Job No. PW-045 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the Bo2rds of Directors adopt Resolution No. 75-144, a.mending Resolution No. 75-142, awarding contract for Construction of JPL-ACTS Process Plant, Job ~o. PW-045. Certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Certification of the General Manager received and ordered filed Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That certification of the General Manager that he has checked all bills appearing on the agenda, found them to be in received order, and that he recommends authorization for payment, be and ordered filed. ALL DISTRICTS Conv~ne session ALL DISTRICTS Reconvene in regular session DISTRICT 1 Adjournment At 9:13 p.m., the Boards convened in e~ecutive session tu consider· 1'~1'~011.nel matters. At 9:29 p.m., the Boards reconvened in regular session. Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Boa.rd of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the rr.eeting so adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DISTRICT 2 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DISTRICT 3 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:30 p.m. -9-.. 10/29/75 DISTRICT 5 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DISTRICT 6 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and <luly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:30 p.m. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded, and duly <arried: Approval of check register That the District's Facilities Revolving Fund accounts payable check register be approved for signature of the Chairman, and that the County Auditor be authorized and directed to pay $58,174.99 in accordance with the claim listed below: WARRANT NO. 27334 DISTRICT 7 Adjounlment IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT McGuire Construction, Inc. $58,174.99 Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be acljuumed. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:31 p.m. DISTRICT 11 Adjournment Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That this meeting of the noard of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 9:31 p.m. -10- ds of Directors, ion Districts Nos. , 7 and 11 . ' John Thomas: From his comm e nts it is qu ite apparent that I was under th e i mp ression that Mr. Watson understood exactly how we operate our mass emission requirements and it is quite apparent that he does not. I don't know how to respond to this directly other than to ask Mr. Watson to fly out from Chicago and sit down and discuss the points with us. Let me deal with a couple of points--for instance, the grab samples. We will not enforce any mass emission rates on only a grab sample. It is spelled out in the ordinance that that will only be an indication. We will enforce mass emission rates on composites from anywhere from one to five days, which is exactly what the gentleman said. It is not the ordinance . It is written that way; so I don't know where the misunderstanding is on that point. As far as compatible pollutants--, suspended solids, oil and grease, things of this nature--the only time you are going to set mass emission rates on these constituants is when there is a particular problem with a particular company and a particular constituant. For instance, we have a company right now that we are having problems with suspended solids . They will receive a mass emission rate on suspended solids in their permit; only because we are having a problem . It will not be a flat rate for every industrial discharger on suspended solids. That is a compatible pollutant; we remove it down here at our facilities. If you are willing to pay for it , we are willing to receive it from you in concentrations that we can normally handle. But if we can't, we will have to say look--as far as the contents in Section 208 and 302 are concerned, it is not our intent to write in the permit to allow you to discharge beyond one of our limits. I believe he requested that we do this. It is not the intent of this ordinance to do that and I don't believe that our Legal Counsel would even go along with that type of an idea. So what you are asking us to do is give you a permit to pollut e and I don't believe we can do that. John , may I ask a question: Is this the first time tha t Kraft Foods has attende d any of the meetings? John Thomas: I am surprised because I thought Mr. Watson was well aware of what was in the ordinance. He has received numerous copies from the time we started to develop the ordinance and this does catch me off-guard. I was surprised. Have they attended any of the previous meetings or public hearings? John Thomas: Not from the local facilities I don't believe. I have met with Kraft on one ocassion just recently. Most of the communication has been through correspondence . Can you summarize some of the things there? We want to let the gentleman have the answers. But if he isn't really sure of what he is asking in his questions, I am not sure we should take up the Directors' time to go over it now. We have had ample opportunities to do this for months and months. John Thomas: What I would suggest is in the morning I will contact Mr. Watson personally and set up a meeting out here with him so we can clarify this. I believe this is coming up again, if it is passed tonight, on our November agenda. They would have an ocassion to protest again at that time if they have time to review those changes. Do you have a few more quick observations on that one. John Thomas: On the previous gentleman's comments, Mr. Elwell, I believe they were just general comments questioning regulations we are trying t o meet on our ocean discharge. I have no comment on that at all . Joint Chairman: Anybody else care to be heard? We will close the public hearings at this time. Vice-Chairman Gibbs : In hearing the three gentlemen speaking, I really wonder, and I am asking this of our counsel, do we really have a choice as Boards of Directors not to go ahead and pass this ordinance? In going back through it, it has been 20 months since we started talking about it and it seems to me it is a very impressive list of everything the staff has done in contacting people and getting all of the input from the various companies. If we don't adopt it, what will happen for example to our grants? l lf\J\~l I guess the question is kind of ·compoun,--do you have v ~ a choice. Well nobody can force anybody to vote yes without any arguments . It is technically possible not to do anything, to take no action. I think what you are basically asking, your second question, is if the Directors do not act what, if any, will be the reprocusions. We do have ordinances presently enforced; but as was pointed out earlier in the hearing and the hearings in May, the thrust of the ordinance is getting at the source of control power;and ~ back to the question that was raised earlier i n the evening by Director Saltarelli, I think it is more likely that the State would choose to come to the District and try to stop our federal grants if we did not commence action on improving the source control. I think they are more likely to do that. That is my personal opinion. I don't know whether Fred shares that or not. But it is my opinion that they are quite likely to get involved and lean on us and try to block grants or stop pipeline money right now if we don't get on the source control and bring those, if at least not to their standards, substantially to what they think standards should be. Comparing that with whether or not we put the ad valorern tax in. I don't think at least for the time being that they are going to start a fight with us because the ordinance still provides for ad valorem tax. Every major agency in the state still has ad valorem tax-- I think L. A. does. But I think they could get get pretty rough and block our grants. Does it put the motion on the floor and if there should be some further discussion, I would like to make the motion to introduce Ordinance 1103. Joint Chairman: John, are there any final suggestions and and other changes in the wording of the staff or Directors that should be incorporated in this in your opinion? John Thomas: Not at this time. Director Byrne: When the safety proposed ordinance changes, what is your intent on the original ordinance? As I understand it, the Directors should all have in their possession a full package, 41-page ordinance. Joint Chairman: We did have at one time. ~ ~~ Sta rting with the 41 -p age ordinance and thereafter, .. there was submitted the two modifications, specifically dated Septemb er 10 and October 17. The language contained on the two supplemental documents, one being five pages, and the one dated October 17 being two pages, that language will supercede the language as printed in the 41-page document. As I understand it the motion would be all inclusive up to the latest mailing of the proposed ordinance. I had in mind all of the modifications that had been submitted to it including that. Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the motion on the floor. Joint Chainnan: I think we will pick it up be each District and we will be talking about District 1 first and working our way down the list hopefully. In our agenda package, we have a page that says Proposed Ordinance Changes. It should be dated on the bottom October 17 and the preceded that is dated on the bottom September 10. In any event, the language set forth in the supplemental pages, where the language is in conflict with the booklet package of 41, this language will be d eemed to be the language contained in the ordinance for adoption. I do point out that the supplementals do in fact add a couple of subsections. But where there is conflict in the language under consideration and that will be included in the adopted ordinance is the language on the supplements. ·. What is the reasoning to switch from 45 days to 30 days on payment in Section 507 and 504. Does it mean 45 days is just too long? To be consistent throughout, there are other provisions in there for 30 days, and and this is to be consistent with other collection periods throughout the ordinance. We had one conflict so we put them all in the same time period for collection. Joint Chainnan: We will take Vice-Chairman Gibbs motion first, which is District 11. We do have mation and a second to introduce Ordinance 1103, an Ordinance Establishing Regulations for .Use of District Sewerage Facilities, and passed to the second reading on November 12 at 7:30 p.m. in the Districts' administrative office. Under discussion for District 11 only, is there any further discussion for District 11. All in favor please signify by saying aye. Continuing up the page, District 7. Director Saltarelli: I wonder if we can take two or three more minutes of discussion. There are a couple of conflicting things here. In the beginning we received a letter from the State and it says that if we pass this in violation of these items we were told that this could cause the State to come in and play havoc with our federal grant program. Then a question at the end is asked, if we don't pass this ordinance then the State could come in and play havoc with our federal grant program. So what I am asking now is which risk is greater to our federal grant program. Passage or non- passage? The same answer was given for both questions . Mr. Harper : I would say for those questions, that non-passage of an ordinance would be in the State Board's eyes that we are doing nothing, and we do have these conflicts . They know it; we have discussed it with them. But I recommend that we pass it rather than not do anything at this point. Generally an ordinance would become effective 30 days after the passage of the ordinance, correct? In this case it would be eight months,correct? Right now we are just going to the second reading. If I read the letter correctly, the problem is that we have very slightly revised it ............. . Mr. Harper The first things that have to be done, what we consider housekeeping, procedures with the different industries. The second phase is what we feel is environmentally correct. We have to have restrictions. If we don't, a lot of things could be put into the sewer system that could, first of all, upset our system here, and certainly cause some problem in the ocean. An that is why we put that other number off until the 1983, assuming that in the intervening time, hopefully the next couple of years, those numbers might be changed. In other words, made more lenient. And so industry is looking at this time at some general housekeeping. The next step is certainly some cost but to what we have considered environmentally correct. I think that we would recommend that even if there were no EPA or State . Mr. Pe rez: Isn't it pos s ible that we coul d in t h e meantime put the on Mr . Walker and have him come up with to our legal counsel that ~~~~ we may discuss briefly at the Nov ember 12 meeting. Not that we would ch ange it but at least we would know what specific items they are objecting to or if we already know that perhaps they should be stated and put in a report to the Directors prior to November 12 ..••...••......•... but at least we will have been advised of what the deficiences in the eyes of the State people are. I think it is a good recommendation. We can provide that . ~~~~~~~~~ . Part of what I was going to say ...... I don't know where this ordinance leads towards impacting industry at the present . We have heard the plating industry representatives say that it's been worked our to his s a tisfaction, at least one of the representatives of that industry. Another one doesn't like it. Kraft Foods presentation ...•..... I am concerned as to what we are ....... :pushing any industry to the brinks point. Fred is saying we are only requiring general housekeeping o f industry--that is rather a general brush. I am not sure if that is true in every case . Are we going to over-tax beyond what is an economical practicality of any form of industry within our jurisdiction as a result of the adoption of this ordinance. Don has been reading through this, plus the conversation before, he will probably read it tonight, and I am not really certain I have ever had a satisfactory answer. I would like to support it •.•.................. Mr. Harper: First of all, this is kind of an interim s tep towa rds what may be required ultimately. And at the time that we did have the discussions with the St a te Board members, there were four State Board members, we h ad •. quite a discussion a bout industrial waste ordinances and they a ctually accused .us of dragging our feet because of not moving a h ead with the adoption of the ordinance. Of course we want to keep our industry in a competitive position with other industries and that is why we came up with this phasing concept rather than jumping in using., .•...... criteria . So we think this is an interim step to what might be ultimately required once all these things shape out. There are industries that are actually discharging to the sewer system that we would like to clean up their ~ It is nQt a good situation. One of t 'he serious things that we see here that if we do not get an ordinance that has source control, we are going to have a lot of industry moving in here, the type tha t we really don't want in our system. Or if they do come in, then they are g oing to have to clean up afterwards when they think they have saved som e money by moving into Orange County. This is to protect the t axpayers so that we don't get a lot of industries that aren't desirab le because we don't h a ve restrictions. John ·has the problem everyday o f people coming in and saying, "Let me see your ordinance, we're thinking about moving in." At the. present time he has to say "Well, we really don't have very many restrictions ." Joint Chairman: Director Duke was appointed to head a special committee to investigate basically the same things you just asked and this was don e many months ago and he and his committee sat in with industry. Dire ctor Duke: One of the bigges t reasons we did meet with industry wa s because originally when the ordinance changes were p rop osed, there was a lot of people complaining about the ordinanc e and it was at tha t time tha t we did meet with industry and even after we met with industry , a t the meetin gs we said we're looking for and we are going to ------- ·. let all industry in the County of Or~nge know about the ordinance we are dealing with. And I think it is a compliment to staff to see that we have three people speak, one representing the industry, another one representing himself who was more or less against the ordinance, and only another person after that speaking against the ordinance and in this case it was mentioned by staff that possibly the reason why Kraft was against the ordinance is that possibly they were not understanding the ordinance. I really think that if we put it in perspective, how many people in the County were told about this ordinance to come and speak against or for it, whatever. I think that is really a compliment. I don't want to try and over-simplify it Don, but Mr. Saltarelli and I have talked about it before. The think that we are concerned with is the little guy in industry. How much does he gear up for now? Does he gear up to meet the requirements of 1783? Does he spend all that money or does he just go along half way? How much does he have to spend? Mr. Harper: The way it was written·in the ordinance on the 1983 numbers, we have written in there tentative. And the State objects to that; we have written tentative because .we feel those numbers are going to be changed. The way we are approaching the ordinance is that we can't give industry what those numbers are in 1983 because we don't know what our process here will remove and what it will not remove. So it could go either way with those· 1983 numbers. We have the word tentative on thos numbers so that industry realizes that they really have nothing to do about it today. They are looking at the numbers that we feel are rather simple procedures for July 1, 1976 and in 1978 they will have to have equipment to meet that number in many cases. The 1983 number we're saying tentative; so you might say we are suggesting, don't gear up for that now because that might not be the number. And the State doesn't like us to do that becaus e that is their number. I t hink I ought to clarify one thing. My position on this matter--! am in_ favor of a source control ordinance and I think really this is one of the finest jobs that has been done by the Directors and by staff in meeting with industry and corning out with a better solution than what we originally started with and I think we have done a marvelous job with that. My question at this point really is the advisability of taking action--! have never been asked to vote on an ordinance that take ~fect eight months later before in my life. And will we know anything more if we waited three months or four months as to of these things. If we are not going to, then there is no reason not to pass it. It's been modified to death and it is probably as good as it can get at this point. My question is I guess really procedural to that degree and the affects on the grant programs. Evidently, we are between a rock and a hard place and as Mr. Perez suggested maybe we ought to take a breath and write to the State and say if we pass this ordinance, because it has these things that you don't like, are you going to inteTIIpt our grant program. And also write another letter and say if we don't, are you going to. Where do we stand? What do you want us to do? Because we have done all the homework and I don't think anybody can really say that we are not proceeding in a manner that shows we are making progress at this point. ·we have been working for a year and a half on this. It's been a marvelous procedure. The results are here but if it is going to break up our grant program, maybe we ought to have an answer on that beforehand. So I am not objecting to the ordinance. I really think we ought to have 45 days in it if I want to have one more change but that is a minor problem. Director Perez: Regarding the letter of inquiry on those points raised by Mr. Walker of the State, it will be sent without the necessity of a motion? Joint Chairman: That is correct. That is the direction you gave our Legal Counsel and everybody, and it was well in order. You need a motion to that?--you don't need a motion to that. 10/29/75 Adjourned Mtg. (l>) Report of the Joint Chairman See attached report. (Sb) Report of the General Manager Reported further regarding WPCF Conference in Miami Beach. Said most of the conversation the first day or so was having to do with financial status of New York City and ramifications of the folding of their obligations. Discussed funding the local share of the program. 75% federally funded and 12~% funded by State. We really just have to pick up 12~% of construction cost. Because of New York City situation, municipal bond market looks bleak now. Another point was that some cities are very concerned with increased operating costs for new facilities that are being constructed now. FAH said he reported at last meeting that this was quite a concern and that EPA is withholding 20% of construction funds at the end of the project until you have an approved revenue program including industrial cost recovery. Agencies will be required to collect from industries based on their proportionate cost of construction to be collected over a 30-year period and return one-half to the U.S. Treasury. Complicated program. No one has approved program yet. Re project out in back, we could be holding $5.4 million and LA has $8 million that they will be out until they get their revenue program in. Svalstad askP.d if we had signed an agreement to this. FAH answered no, that these regulations were just published in the Federal Register and they have asked for comments within 30 days. AMSA people are getting out information on this now and will be bombarding our Congressmen to tell them what has happened. Said Governor's office called today and wanted to know how many employees our contractor has working for him. Wants project to create more jobs. We just got this information and haven't had a chance to dig into it. Will be getting back to the Board. Harper said another committee was formed at WPCF Conference called Ad Hoc Committee on Marine Water Quality. They are actually advising EPA on regulations concerning the ocean. Spent about 4 hours one afternoon going through some regulations being considered by EPA. Has some very devastating rules concerning ocean outfalls and ocean dumping. FAH is on Committee and will be working with them and trying to watch this so the regulations don't become international agreements. Re: Wastewater Solids Management Study we are doing with City of LA and LA Co. San., Regional Administrator sent a letter and said we are not to consider the ocean in the solids management study. That is immediately eliminated so just have air or land left. Said one of the concerns on this funding is financial situation in EPA. Appears doubtful that they are going to get all of the funding they are asking for. Effectiveness of the program has not been that great in providing new jobs. They are looking for projects that will employ a lot of people. Commented on newspaper or magazine article regarding using water hyacinths for sewage treatment . Ta1ces 4 acres for 150,000 gallons. We would need about 10 square miles for our operation. :::1EP Oi\ T O:·' T HL J . IHT CH.Ar:-::.:,:·:~ \'l!IIL:S :.~CH OP TiB COl'.?E::E1ICE ·;;;;S OF A !f.O T~ TECff l ICAL ~.rn . ·~uss:o~L THAI N {:;-;PA AD:.:I!.HS'l1 Rf..TOR ) ; .. ;,rn i1E P J I:''t ".!RIGHT . ~.!R . T :,i>.IN 0 li.ID TH:.'l' 1 8 I3 ILLIOiJ I S TO Bl?: C 07,L~I TTED In SSPT OF 197.7 AND AN ADD ITI OJJAL 42 BILLIOI~ H ILL Jm-:rnm TTmJ 1983 . SIBILrl'Y TO T I-ill 3Tii.'l'ES F OR CONSTRFCTION GRAN TS T O GET T HE IiE i i.L SO Sil.I v T !-Ih T 97 ~~ OF ~'!AT ER DI SCHA RGERS ii.fl ::: :;;r 7i.L~R IN COkiP Lii-~JCb o;~ II~ A!·I I:.IPRO V=D c o::DI':'IO::. H I ~ FI ~\A L cor.: .SI'T '.'.1AS T!lAT I S ;.LAIN EFFOR T r s T O P ~ES E!iT T O Tlf.l.'.: LOC ALLY ~~LL:CTED OV.?IC Iii.L T iD: OPT I OHS 1'.. VAIIJ.:J L1~ 'l'O CL:CAN s o:::_. 1)F 'l1 iL vA::>I C :JJ;;FI :CHCr~s OF '.I'II IS AC1' A!C : 1 . T i-IS 1 8 B I LLI ON AUT HO~I ZED BECAr.m BOGGED nor.'!~ D I rtE:U '£.t->.1)~ ·.;r ~:I o~~L Y 6 ~; c o;.1;,:. Ir." J m~:; OF JL97~-· 2 . iii.A t·'iY c Oi ,iiftU1f IT I .C:0 !iii. v;;,: BZ~:·~ FO ;~CED TO RE su:a;JIT AP ~I.ii i:hTIOifS iJ P 1'0 9 TI;.Ll:::;. ~Lt~ c; :::.~C L VDEJ.J S1 ;Y J::~iu '.i1ifo:i. C v _,t.LCE ..;s '.'!I.L.,L i-L-. ,;:~ 'J.'v -CT OH S O:.i.E Ar.F-'.10>JD,.~NTS T O T HI S LAW T O ·::,:..:ALI ~~E GOA L S TIIAT A P.:'~ p ;~lI CTICi~L . -' (Sc) Report o f th e General Col.Ill s el Woodruff sta ted that he really didn't have a r eport. No litigation items . Regarding claim that we denied Application to Submit Late Claim on last month, they filed a Superior Court action but we were not notified Wltil last Friday . Appeared Monday and so far we are staying out of it. Has to do with trailer park flooding at Brookhurst & Garfield. Joint Chairman Winn then commented regarding Director Temple's resignation and said the staff would work something up to be presented to him later. Announced Jackman new mayor. (6) Industrial Waste Ordinance (b) JWS read Summary of Districts' Actions Re Proposed Ordinance Establishing Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities. It was moved, seconded and carried to receive and file said report. (d)(l) JWS read letter from SWRCB dated October 24, 1975. It was moved, seconded and carried to receive & file letter. Question was asked, what does this mean? John Thomas responded to letter regarding continued use of ad valorem taxes. Is our understanding that there is pending le gislation to modify PL 92-500~ and we are proceeding under that philosophy that l e gislation will be passed. Saltarelli asked if that was legal. Woodruff then stated that this question was brought up_ in May. This is the opinion of the State and their recommendation . We are not bound to accept it. There isn't any terrible disagreement with the law at this time but l aw is being amended. We are proceeding with ad valorem taxes. If law is not changed, we would have to consider i change somewhere down the road. Don't have a great amollll.t of choice. This doesn't make this ordinance invalid. Question asked, what is the estimated time of change of federal law? FAH said House Public Works Committee has held hearing on this bill. Would have hurendous(??) billing problem if ad valorem tax not passed. Associations liie AMSA are lobbying and trying to push bill through. Hopefully will have something this fiscal year. Woodruff reiterated that by incorporating this into the ordinance, would not make ordinance inva lid. Some calculated risk but well within limits. For the record, SWRCB had to come out and say that this is not in compliance. Culver asked what the mechanics would be of the credits for ad valorem taxes for dischargers over 2 ~ million. John Thomas said would take amo\lllt of tax paid Sanita tion Districts and this credit would be applied to their use charge. Saltarelli then asked what the ramifications were of not taking action on this ordinance at this time. FAH said we have several arguments with the State and EPA. If we don't adopt, then we are not going to get our source control program under way. At the same time, we will have a program for services that are rendered by the District. Adoption of this ordinance would be effective July 1, 1976. At that time the minimum requirements for our phasing program on the heavy metals would begi n. The first part of tha t would be a housekeeping approach. The 19?7-78 he~vy me t~ls requirements b e come mor e s tri ngent and 198 3 requirements are to b e in compliance with Sta t e . -2- Sta te wants everything moved to 19 77 . We are sugges ting phasing p rogram. We will not have our facilities c onstructed until 1983. Also is provision in State regulations wh e r e they can give waiver until 19 8 3, so is another r eason why we selected 19 8 3 for waiver for industry in Orange County. Saltarelli asked if we are being required by Federal or State government to do this now? FAH said he would say yes. We have been criticized by SWRCB be caus e we haven't been moving ahead with something like this before. Duke made his statement regarding the Special Committee's previous actions and recommendations. It was then moved & seconded to receive & file the written communic a tion fro m SWRCB. Motion carried. John 'lbomas reported that he had met with 100-150 industries regarding ordinances. Most of the industries are receptive to the program. 'Ibey have realized that something like this was coming. Their only plans now are to reduce their water discharge and improve wastewater. One of the larger dischargers has reduced their water by 40% already. (d2) William Snyder spoke as representative of electroplaters. Said last spring he came here to make a plea for electroplaters and came with certain amount of cyn1c1sm. Pleasantly surprised when we listened and more pleasantly surprised when we took positive action. Said he was here tonight to urge passage of the ordinance as now written, and thanked each one personally for restoring his personal faith that the Democratic organization still works. (No. 335 on tape ) Frank Elwell, Shur Plate Corp. gave his op1n1ons . (Se e No. 370 on tap e) Said Directors were being asked to approve ordinance that has no basis in fact. No scientific facts to show pollution. If ordinance approved, would put him out of business and many others like him. Ur ged Directors to cast a no vote on this ordinance. Vinton Sheffield, Kraft Foods read telegram from Manager of Environmental Control in Ch i cago, Robert E. Scheible . (See No . 570 on tape) -3 -