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 -