The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-02-13 w COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS $ ` AREA CODE 7 TELEPHONES4 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 9 6 2-2 9 1 96 -241 1 oe_ �t P. O. BOX B127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 9270B 10644 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP, SAN DIEG❑ FREEWAY) February 7, 1980 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS , 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 & 11 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. 1084LI ELLIs AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA The next regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5,. 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above hour and date. ecr ary JWS: jc Scheduled Upcoming Meetings : EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING - Wednesday, February 27th at 5 : 30 p.m. SPEChNL COMMITTEE TO STUDY REORGANIZATION OF DISTRICTS - Tentatively scheduled for Thursday, March 20th at 5 :30 p.m. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)540-2910 (714)962-2411 JOINT BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DATES JOINT BOARD MEETINGS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETINGS February Feb 13, 1980 Feb 27, 1980 March Mar 12, 1980 Mar 26, 1980 April Apr 9, 1980 Apr 23, 1980 May May 14, 1980 May 28, 1980 June June 11, 1980 June 25, 1980 July July 9, 1980 July 23, 1980 August Aug 13, 1980 Aug 27, 1980 September Sep 10, 1980 Sep 24, 1980 October Oct 8, 1980 Oct 22, 1980 November Nov 12, 1980 Nov. 261 1980 December Dec 10, 1980 None Scheduled January Jan 14, 1981 Jan 281 1981 February Feb 11, 1981 Feb 25, 1981 n BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area JOINT BOARDS 962 24e 111 14 IIAGENDA SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - 7 :30 P .M. DISTRICTS 1, 6 & 7 (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpt from the Costa Mesa Sanitary District re seating new members of the Boards, as follows: District(s) Active Alternate 1 & 6 Elvin Hutchison Orma 0. Crank 7 James Wanner Robert Hanson ALL DISTRICTS (14) (a) Consideration of actions. relative to Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, pursuant to the Districts' Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Initial Study and Environmental Impact Assessment. See pages "I" and "II" (2) Consideration of motion directing staff to prepare Negative Declaration declaring that Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, will not have a significant effect on the environment and directing filing of notice thereof (b) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to send two staff members to the Autocon training facility in Minneapolis, Minnesota, for training on use of computer system being installed as part of Major Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-6, and authorizing reimbursement for travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred in connection therewith DISTRICT 2 (17) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-42-2, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 253.002 acres of territory to the District in the Anaheim Hills area, subject to developer executing annexation agreement prior to District ordering final annexation, proposed Annexation No. 28 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 7 to County Sanitation District No. 2 See page "III" DISTRICT 5 (22) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-43-S, electing to withdraw from membership in Newport-Irvine Waste-Management Planning Agency (NIWA) See page "IV" -2- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS r Of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708 (714)540.2910 (714)962-2411 �,, INITIAL STUDY EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS This form shall be completed to comply with the Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 As Amended and as adopted by the County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, dated April 25, 1978. Title and Location of Project Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1 - Fountain Valley, California Description of Project Installation of Districts' rebuilt gas engines, new gear boxes, new pump impellars, new grit- removal equipment and raising of side walls all at the headworks facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1 to allow and to insure hydraulic reliability. �d GUIDELINES 1. Does the proposed activity qualify as a project as defined in Section 28. Yes No X (If activity does not qualify as project, do not complete remainder of form) 2. Does the project qualify as : a. Ministerial (Section 6) Yes No X b. Emergency (Section 13) Yes No X c. A feasibility or planning study (Section 33) Yes No x d. Categorically exempt pursuant to Article 8 of the State Guidelines (Section 40) Yes No X e. Involves another agency which constitutes the lead agency (Section 36) Yes No X If yes, identify lead agency: (If yes has been checked for- any of the above, an Environmental Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Report or Negative Declaration need not dd be prepared. Complete and certify Exhibit A as set forth in Guidelines Manual.) If there is no affirmative action to Items 2.a. through 2.d.I/above, Items 3 and 4 are not applicable and, therefore, need not be completed. "I-1" AGENDA ITEM #14(A) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "I-1" r 3. Initial study procedures A. Evaluating Environmental Significance (See Section 34) \Wool' 1. Will the project have any significant effect on the environment as per the following: a. Is it in conflict with environmental plays and goals that have been adopted by the community where the project is to be located? Yes No x b. Does it have a substantial and demonstrable aesthetic effect? Yes No x c. Will it substantially effect a rare or endangered species of animal or plant, or habitat of such a species? Yes No x d. Does it cause substantial interference with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species? Yes No X e. Does it breach any published national, state or local standards relating to solid waste or litter control? Yes No X f. Will it result in a substantial detrimental effect on air or water quality, or on ambient noise levels for adjoining areas? Yes No X g. Does it involve the possibility of contaminating a public water supply system or adversely affecting ground water? Yes No x h. Could it cause substantial flooding, erosion or siltation? Yes No X i. Could it expose people or structures to major geologic hazards? Yes No x j. Is it likely to generate growth? Yes No x If the answer is yes to any of the above, describe in detail. If there is affirmative action on any of the foregoing, an Environmental Impact Report may be required. 4. If there is no significant impact as set forth in Item 3; a through j , a Negative Declaration shall be prepared in accordance with Exhibit "C" as shown in the "Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as Amended" v AGENDA ITEM ##14(A) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS -2- f S. If an Environmental Impact Report is required, explain below procedures in causing preparation of same. �.d Evaluation made by February 13, 1980 Si re Date r.d ' V „I-3" AGENDA ITEM #14(A) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "I-3" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 \� (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT . Name of Project: Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1 Location: OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 - Fountain Valley, California Entity or Person Undertaking Project: A. District: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer, Donald Bogart, Project Engineer B. Other: - Staff Determination: The District's staff, having undertaken and completed an Initial Study of this project in accordance with Section 37 of the District's Local Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposed project might have a. significant effect on the environment, has reached the following conclusion: X 1 . The project could not have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration should be prepared. 2. The project could have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, an EIR will be required. February 13, 1360 r Date General Manager Y "II" AGENDA ITEM #14(A) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS "II" i RESOLUTION NO. 80-42-2 AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS RE ANNEXATION NO. 28 - ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO DISTRICT 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 28 - ANAHEIM HILLS ANNEXATION NO. 7 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2) * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: That an application for annexation of territory to itself be made to the Local Agency Formation Commission as follows: Section 1. * That this proposal is made pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California; and, ,w� Section 2. That this application is for the purpose of annexing approximately 253.002 acres in the Anaheim Hills area, to provide sanitary sewer service to said territory, as requested by Anaheim Hills, Inc. , owners of said property; and, Section 3. That the territory to be annexed is uninhabited; and, Section 4. That the designation assigned to the territory proposed to be annexed is "Annexation No. 28 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 7 to County Sanitation District No. 211, the boundaries of which are more particularly described and delineated on Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B", attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section S. That all of the territory within the proposed annexation to the District shall be concurrently annexed to the City of Anaheim; and, v "III-1" AGENDA ITEM #17 - DISTRICT 2 "III-1" Section 6. That prior to completion of annexation proceedings and ordering of said annexation to the District, the owner/developer of said property shall execute an agreement between themselves and County Sanitation District No. 2 relating to the deferred payment of annexation acreage fees and establishing terms and conditions of proposed Annexation No. 28 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 7 to County Sanitation District No. 2; and, Section 7. That request is hereby made that such proceedings as required by law be taken to complete this annexation. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. y "III-2" AGENDA ITEM #17 - DISTRICT 2 "III-2" RESOLUTION NO. 80--43-5 WITHDRAWAL FROM NIWA �..✓ A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ELECTING TO WITHDRAW FROM MEMBERSHIP IN NEWPORT-IRVINE WASTE-MANAGEMENT PLANNING AGENCY (NIWA) WHEREAS, on March 26, 1975, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 approved Resolution No. 75-51-5, authorizing participation in the Joint Powers Agreement Creating The Newport,.Irvine WasterManagement Planning Agency (NIWA) established for the purpose of Section 208 Planning for the San Diego Creek Watershed/Newport Bay Area pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which said Joint Powers Agreement has been revised from time to time; and, WHEREAS? it is now deemed desirable to reorganize NIWA to restrict membership to those public agencies directly affected by wastewater planning and other studies relative to water quality in the San Diego Creek Watershed tributary to Newport, Bay; and, WHEREAS, County Sanitation District No, 5 is not directly involved in such planning and studies relative to the San Diego Creek Watershed. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. S of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY, RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That pursuant to Section X, paragraph 31, of the First Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Creating Newport-Irvine Waste-Management Planning Agency, notice is hereby given by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of its election to withdraw from membership in NIWA. Section 2. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to execute all necessary documents to effect said withdrawal from membership in NIWA. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. y "IV" AGENDA ITEM #22 - DISTRICT 5 "IV" -BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Past office Box 8127 of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain-Volley, Calif., 92708 Tekpi+one:: A Cade JOINT BOARDS �1 714 lIAGENDA MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 13.0 1980 - 7:30 P.M. ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON �~ ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENI HEAD$ IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE AT /:00 P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS BOARD ROOM. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Recognition of special guests - (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any See supplemental agenda (6) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving minutes of the following meetings, as mailed: District 1 - January 9, 1980, regular District 2 January 9, 1980, regular District 3 - January 9, 1980, regular District 5 - January 9, 1980, regular and January 15, 1980, adjourned Distract 6 January 9, 1980, regular District 7 . - January 9, 1980, regular - District 11. - January 9, 1980, regular (7) ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General Manager (c) General Counsel Cd) Chairman o DtherSpecial Committee to Study Reorganization of the (8) ALL DISTRICTS _ Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of the joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shall be called only once and that vote will be regarded as the same for each District represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for any District.) See pages "A" and "B" 01 t5 80 01/29/80 ALL DISTRICTS _. Joint Operating Fund - S 93,718.66 $134,121.04 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 120,453.63 69.344.57 Joint working Capital Fund - 37,888.87 39,529.07 DISTRICT NO. 1 - - - DISTRICT NO. 2 - 10,095.31 307.05 . DISTRICT NO. 3 - 1,904.47 46,777.86 DISTRICT NO. 5 - 296.47 15,706.21 _ DISTRICT NO. 6 - .50 _-- DISTRICT 40. 7 - 1,681.63 2,654.35 DISTRICT NO. 11 - 8,797.36 5,742.82 _ DISTRICTS NOS. 5 6 6 JOINT - 3,033.33 v_ . DISTRICTS NOS. 6 6 7 JOINT - 189.59 $274,836.90 $317,405.89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS _ _ CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS. 9(A) THROUGH 9 Z ) All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state .their name, address and designate by letter the item to be removed from the consent calendar. Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- 9 (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) ALL DISTRICTS i Ca) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-24, approving plans and specifications for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of i bids. See page "C" (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-25, approving plans and specifications for Installation of Raw Sludge Pumps at Primary Sedimentation Basins D, E, F, G, H, I & J, Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-079, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See page „D" (c) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in issuing Purchase Order No. 2218 to Bird Machine Company in the amount of $4,919.78 plus freight for proprietary parts i for repair of Bird centrifuges at -Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to ' issue a purchase order to Orange Turf Supply in the amount of $7,091.40 for purchase of a turf and pavement sweeper 's for use at Districts' plant sites 1 (e) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in issuing Purchase Order No. 1633 to Don Greek &.,Associates in the amount of $4,806.50 for construction surveying services in connection with the Wet Weather Contingency Plan at Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site and Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-069-1 } (f) Consideration of motion authorizing the Joint Chairman and General Counsel to attend the Association of Metropolitan i Sewerage. Agencies annual meeting on April 26-30, 1980, in { Nashville, Tennessee, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred in connection with said meeting (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-28, amending Resolution No. 78-24, approving Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Southern California Regional Reclamation Study with the City of Los Angeles, et al. , increasing Districts' total disbursement for said study from $84,000 to $100,000. See page "E" (h) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-26, amending Positions and Salaries Resolution No. 79-20, as amended, increasing the maximum salary for the Part-Time Construction Inspector position from $9.25/hr. to $10.50/hr. See page • "F" (i) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order for acquisition of phototypesetter for engineering document printing for an amount not to exceed $10,000 (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- q (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (j) Consideration of motion authorizing payment to M. C. Nottingham in the amount of $10,135.76 and to Chancellor $ Ogden in the amount of $10,995.80, for use of vacuum trucks for leachate control at the Coyote Canyon sludge processing site during January (k) Consideration of motion to exercise option to extend purchase order agreement one year with American Cyanamid for purchase of Polyelectrolyte Chemical Flocculent at an adjusted rate of $1.569 per pound to reflect freight and fuel increases, as provided in Specification No. P-033, for an increased maximum from $87,089.54 to an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 from February 14, 1979 , to December 31, 1980 (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 8 to the plans and specifications for Major Facilities for 7S-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-6, authorizing an addition of $74,066.00 to the contract with H. C. Smith. Construction Co. for miscellaneous modifications, relocation of facilities and additional work required, and granting a time extension of 13 calendar days due to inclement weather. See page "G" (m) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committee Certification re final negotiated fee with K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for consulting services re preparation of Supplement s to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, to. add Flow Equalization Facilities � at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25. See page "H" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-27, approving agreement with K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for consulting services re preparation of Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, to add Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25, on a per diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $11,000. See page "I" DISTRICT 2 (n) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-31-2, approving plans and specifications for Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor, Contract No. 2-21, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 3/25/80) See page "J" DISTRICT 3 (o) Consideration of motion approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the plans and specifications for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, providing for inclusion of the State Encroachment Permit and making a change in the type of bedding for VCP pipe (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 5) -4- v (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 4) I..r/ DISTRICT 3 (Continued) (p) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-33-3, approving plans and specifications for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16 and Reach 16A, Contract No. 3-22-3, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 5/6/80) See page "K" (q) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-34-3, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Manhole Repair, Miller-Holder Trunk, Contract No. 3-2R-1, to Peter C. David Co. in the amount of $83,610.00. See pages "L" and I'M" ' DISTRICT 5 (r) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-35-5, approving Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with ECOS Management Criteria, for engineering services in connection with preparation of Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report for the Jamboree Drive-Big Canyon Drainage Area, on a per diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $3,485.00. See page "N" DISTRICTS 5 & 6 (s) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in issuing purchase order to John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $29,000 for emergency repairs to date on "A" and "B" Trunk at Plant No. 2, and authorizing further repairs, if necessary, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 (Dist. #5 share 73.470 , Dist. #6 share 26.530) (t) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-36, approving plans and specifications for Construction of "A" and "B" Trunk Sewer Facilities, Schedule A - Alternative Alignment Within Plant No. 2, Schedule B - Junction Structure Connection East Side Santa Ana River, Contract No. 5-21-1, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 3/11/80) See page 110" DISTRICT 6 (u) Consideration of motion to receive and file Ordinance No. 79-25, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Approving and Adopting a Redevelopment Plan for Project Area No. 2 (Wallace Neighborhood Strategy Area) in the City of Costa Mesa, as the Official Redevelopment Plan for Such Project Area (deferred from January 9th Board Meeting) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 6) -5- a (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 5) DISTRICT 7 (v) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-37-7, ordering annexation of 3.55 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity southwesterly of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 88 - Harc Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (w) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-38-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 1.40 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of San Juan and Catalina Street in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 90 - Everly Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (x) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-39-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 1.19 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Orange Park Boulevard and Amapola Street in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 91 - Smith Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7, (y) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-40-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 8.29 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity southeasterly of Main Street and Jamboree Road adjacent to the San Diego Freeway in the City of Irvine, proposed Annexation No. 93 - Main Street/Jamboree Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) i DISTRICT 11 �! (z) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications for Coast Trunk Sewer, Reaches 1 and 2, Portion of Newland Street Interceptor Sewer and Lake Avenue Relief Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2, authorizing an addition of $38,633.00 to the contract with John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. and John A. Artukovich, Jr. , J.V. for three manholes, rerouting of clarifier drains and replanting of palm trees, and granting a time extension of 20 calendar days for completion of said additional work. See page "P" END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any -6- (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items relative to protests by vendors that have been disqualified by Districts' engineers as suppliers of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: (a) Open hearing (b) Verbal report of General Counsel re hearing procedures (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file engineer's report on evaluation of belt filter presses for Job No. P2-24-2 (NOTE: Report includes correspondence with protestants prior to agenda mailing. See separate package enclosed with agenda material.) (d) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and legal opinion of General Counsel (enclosed with agenda material) (e) Consideration of protest of Ralph B. Carter Company: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Ralph B. Carter Company re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See item (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Oral testimony - on behalf of Ralph B. Carter Company (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Ralph B. Carter Company (4) Close hearing re Ralph B. Carter Company protest (f) Consideration of protest of Euramca, Inc. : (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Euramca, Inc. re protest of disqualification as belt filter supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See item (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Euramca, Inc. (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Euramca, Inc. (4) Close hearing re Euramca, Inc. protest ` (g) Consideration of protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation: Cl) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See item (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Oral testimony on behalf df Komline-Sanderson Engineering • Corporation (3) Engineer's rebuttal o£ testimony by Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation (4) Close hearing re Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation protest (h) Determination by Board re protest of Ralph B. Carter Company (i) Determination by Board re protest of Euramca, Inc. (j) Determination by Board re protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation -7- (12) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Committee's written report (13) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-29, advising Congress that the Districts support the elimination of the industrial cost recovery (ICR) provisions from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-30, expressing appreciation to the following Congressmen for their efforts to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) , which said amendments will result in substantial savings in future operating costs to the taxpayers of Orange County: Harold T. Johnson, Chairman Committee on Public Works and Transportation Northern California Don H. Clausen Northern California Norman Mineta, Chairman Oversight Committee, House Public Works Committee San Jose Glenn M. Anderson San Pedro (c) Consideration of motion directing the General Counsel to advise Chino Basin Municipal Water District, in writing, as to the delinquency of their agreement assigned to the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (14) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (15) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (16) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn (17) DISTRICT 2 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (18) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn -8- (19) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of items relative to award of contract for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter dated February-5, 1980;.•from Mark Dakovich,. Inq. ; low,bidder, requesting to be allowed to withdraw bid for the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, due to a failure to include the cost of pipe in said bid. See page " " (b) Verbal reportsof General Counsel and Chief Engineer (c) Consideration of motion granting request of Mark Dakovich, Inc. to be relieved of bid on the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2 (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-32-3, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, to Meyers Constructors in the amount of $1,112,090.00. See pages "R" and "S" (20) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (21) DISTRICT 3 �••' Consideration of motion to adjourn (22) DISTRICT 5 Other business. and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (23) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (24) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any C25) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn (26) DISTRICT 6 Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities: (a) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present) See page "T" (b) Discussion and comments, if any (c) Consideration of roll call vote adopting Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities -9- (27) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (28) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (29) DISTRICT 7 Public Hearing re proposed.Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7: (a) Open hearing (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Report -and. Summary of Actions. See page $full Cc) Consideration of motion to receive and file written protests, if any (d) Oral protests, if any (e) Determination of sufficiency of protests, if any (f) Close hearing (30) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 80-42-7, ordering annexation of 99.02 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Chapman Avenue and Newport Boulevard in the County of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See page "V" (31) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (32) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjourn -10- BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Par Otfia 9mc 8127 of Orange County, California 108" Ellis Avenue Fountain Volley, Calif., 92708 T.I.onon.c Area Coie 714 JOINT BOARDS �=24,1 IIAGENDA MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - 7;30 P.M. ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENz H5AD. IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL BE AVAILABLE A', /;DU P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY,S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS' BOARD ROOM, (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Recognition of special guests (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any DISTRICTS 1, 6 Fr 7 (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpt from the ITE.usoN Costa Mesa Sanitary District re seating new members of the Boards, _ SUP;IL!!.F4TA1 AGENDA as follows: District(s) Active Alternate 1 & 6 Elvin Hutchison Orma 0. Crank 7 James Wahner Robert Hanson (6) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving ainutes of the following meetings, as mailed: District 1 - January 9, 1980, regular District 2 - January 9, 1980, regular District 3 - January 9, 1980, regular District 5 - January 9, 1980, regular and January 15, 1980, adjourned District 6 - January 9, 1980, regular District 7 - January 9, 1980, regular District 11 - January 9, 1980, regular (7) ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General !tanager (c) General Counsel Cd) Cha-irtionfD-he Special Committee to Study Reorgani=ation of the SanCn. (8) ALL DISTRICTS OLL CALL VOTE•,.•...,,, Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of the joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shall be called only once and that vote will be regarded as the same for each District represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for any District.) See pages "A" and "B" 01/15/80 01/29/80 ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund - $ 93,718.66 $134,121.04 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 120,453.63 69,344.57 Joint Working Capital Fund - 37,888.87 39,529.07 DISTRICT NO. 1 - - - DISTRICT NO. 2 - 10,095.31 307.05 DISTRICT NO. 3 - 1,904.47 46,777.86 DISTRICT NO. 5 - 296.47 15,706.21 DISTRICT NO. 6 - .50 - DISTRICT NO. 7 - 1,681.63 2,654.35 DISTRICT NO. 11 - 8,797.36 5,742.82 DISTRICTS NOS. 5 & 6 JOINT - - 3,033.33 DISTRICTS NOS. 6 6 7 JOINT - - 189.59 $274,836.90 $317.405.89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS, 9W THROUGH 9 ( Z All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter the item to be removed from the consent calendar. Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from the consent calendar. R03 Call Vote or Cast Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing Unanimous Ballot on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. -2- r , (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-24, approving plans and specifications for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See page "C" (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-25, approving plans and specifications for Installation of Raw Sludge Pumps at Primary Sedimentation Basins D, E, F, G, H, I & J, Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-079, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See page "D" (c) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in issuing Purchase Order No. 2218 to Bird Machine Company in the amount of $4,919.78 plus freight for proprietary parts for repair of Bird centrifuges at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order to Orange Turf Supply in the amount of $7,091.40 for purchase of a turf and pavement sweeper for use at Districts' plant sites t (e) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in issuing Purchase Order No. 1633 to Don Greek & Associates in the amount of $4,806.50 for construction surveying services in connection with the Wet Weather Contingency Plan at i Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site and Plant No. 1, Job = No. PW-069-1 (f) Consideration of motion authorizing the Joint Chairman and General Counsel to attend the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies annual meeting on April 26-30, 1980, in Nashville, Tennessee, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred in connection with said meeting (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-28, amending Resolution No. 78-24, approving Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Southern California Regional Reclamation Study with the City of Los Angeles, et al. , increasing Districts' total disbursement i for said study from $84,000 to $100,000. See page "E" (h) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-26, amending Positions and Salaries Resolution No. 79-20, as amended, increasing the maximum salary for the Part-Time Construction Inspector position from I $9.25/hr. to $10.50/hr. See page "F" (i) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order for acquisition of phototypesetter for engineering document printing for an amount not to exceed $10,000 f � ' (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) (j) Consideration of motion authorizing payment to M. C. Nottingham in the amount of $10,135.76 and to Chancellor $ Ogden in the amount of $10,995.80, for use of vacuum trucks for leachate control at the Coyote Canyon sludge processing site during January (k) Consideration of motion to exercise option to extend purchase order agreement one year with American Cyanamid for purchase of Polyelectrolyte Chemical Flocculent at an adjusted rate of $1.569 per pound to reflect freight and fuel increases, as provided in Specification No. P-033, for an increased maximum from $87 089.54 to an amount not to exceed $200,000.00 from February 14, 1979 , to December 31, 1980 (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 8 to the plans and specifications for Major Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-6, authorizing an addition of $74,066.00 to the contract with H. C. Smith Construction Co. for miscellaneous modifications, relocation of facilities and additional work required, and granting a time extension of 13 calendar days due to inclement weather. See page "G" (m) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committee Certification re final negotiated fee with K. P. Lindstrom $ Associates for consulting services re preparation of Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, to add Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25. See page "H" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-27, approving agreement with K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for consulting services re preparation of Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, to add Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25, on a per diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $11,000. See page "I" DISTRICT 2 (n) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-31-2, approving plans and specifications for Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor, Contract No. 2-21, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt' of bids (tentative bid date 3/25/80) See page "J" DISTRICT 3 (o) Consideration of motion approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the plans and specifications for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, .Contract No. 3-22-2, providing for inclusion of the State Encroachment Permit and making a change in the type of bedding for VCP pipe (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 5) -4- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 4) �.r� . DISTRICT 3 (Continued) (p) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-33-3, approving plans and specifications for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16 and Reach 16A, Contract No. 3-22-3, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 5/6/80) See page "K" (q) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-34-3, to receive and file bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Manhole Repair, Miller-Holder Trunk, Contract No. 3-2R-1, to Peter C. David Co. in the amount of $83,610.00. See pages "L" and "M" DISTRICT 5 (r) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-35-5, approving Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with ECOS Management Criteria, for engineering services in connection with preparation of Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report for the Jamboree Drive-Big Canyon Drainage Area, on a per diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $3,485.00. See page DISTRICTS 5 & 6 (s) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in issuing purchase order to John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $29,000 for emergency repairs to date on "A" and "B" Trunk at Plant No. 2, and authorizing further repairs, if necessary, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 1 (Dist. #f5 share 73.47% , Dist. #6 share 26.53%) (t) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-36, approving plans and tV specifications for Construction of "A" and "B" Trunk Sewer Facilities, Schedule A - Alternative Alignment Within Plant No. 2, Schedule B - Junction Structure Connection East Side Santa Ana River, Contract No. 5-21-1, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 3/11/80) See page 110" r DISTRICT 6 (u) Consideration of motion to receive and file Ordinance No. 79-25, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, California, Approving and Adopting a Redevelopment Plan for Project Ared No. 2 (Wallace Neighborhood Strategy Area) in the City of Costa Mesa, as the Official Redevelopment Plan for Such Project Area (deferred from January 9th Board Meeting) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 6) -5- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 5) DISTRICT 7 (v) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-37-7, ordering annexation of 3.55 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity southwesterly of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 88 - Harc Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (w) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-38-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 1.40 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of San Juan and Catalina Street in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 90 - Everly Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (x) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-39-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 1.19 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Orange Park Boulevard and Amapola Street in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 91 - Smith Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7. (y) ' Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-40-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 8.29 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity southeasterly of Main Street and Jamboree Road adjacent to the San Diego Freeway in the City of Irvine, proposed Annexation No. 93 - Main Street/Jamboree Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) DISTRICT 11 (z) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans and specifications for Coast Trunk Sewer, Reaches 1 and 2, Portion of Newland Street Interceptor Sewer and Lake Avenue Relief Sewer, Contract No. 11-13-2, authorizing an addition of $38,633.00 to the contract with John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. and John A. Artukovich, Jr. , J.V. for three manholes, rerouting of clarifier drains and replanting of palm trees, and granting a time extension of 20 calendar days for completion of said additional work. See page "P" END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any \../ -6- SEE GOL2E113ROD PACKAGE FOR REVISED AGENDA LISTING FOR ITEM N0. 11 (11) ALL DISTRICTS Co sideration of items relative to protests by vendors that have been di ualified by Districts' engineers as suppliers of belt filter presses for ewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: I...! (a) en hearing (b) Ve al report of General Counsel re hearing procedures (c) Cons eration of motion to receive and file engineer's report on evalu ion of belt filter presses for Job No. P2-24-2 (NOTE: Report includ correspondence with protestants prior to agenda mailing. See sepa ate package enclosed with agenda material.). (d) Considera 'on of motion to receive and file report and legal opinion of General ounsel (enclosed with agenda material) (e) Consideration of protest of Ralph B. Carter Company: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted b Ralph B. Carter Company re protest of disqualification as belt filt press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if (See item (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda maili .) (2) Oral testimony o behalf of Ralph B. Carter Company (3) Engineer's rebutta of testimony by Ralph B. Carter Company (4) Close hearing re Ral B. Carter Company protest (f) Consideration of protest of uramca, Inc. : (1) Consideration of motion receive and file written documents submitted by Euramca, Inc. re protest of disqualification as `✓ belt filter supplier submit d subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See item (c) above r documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Oral testimony - on behalf of Eu mca, Inc. (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony" y Euramca, Inc. (4) Close hearing re Euramca, Inc. prot t (g) Consideration of protest of Komline-Sander n Engineering Corporation: Cl) Consideration of motion to receive and 'le written documents submitted by Komline-Sanderson Engineeri Corporation re protest of disqualification as belt filter press s plier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See em (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing. (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Komline-Sanderson ngineering Corporation (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Komline-Sand son Engineering Corporation (4) Close hearing re Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corpo tion protest (h) Determination by Board re protest of Ralph B. Carter Compan (i) Determination by Board re protest of Euramca, Inc. (j) Determination by Board re protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineer g L.✓ Corporation -7- (12) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Committee's written report (13) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-29, advising Congress that Ron Call Vote or Cast the Districts support the elimination of the industrial cost n Unanimous Ballot recovery (ICR) provisions from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-30, expressing appreciation to the following Congressmen for their efforts to amend the Federal Cast Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), which said amendments will Unanimous Ela Roll fail Vote orltot g result in substantial savings in future operating costs to the taxpayers of Orange County: Harold T. Johnson, Chairman Committee on Public Works and Transportation Northern California Don H. Clausen Northern California Norman Mineta, Chairman Oversight Committee, House Public Works Committee San Jose Glenn M. Anderson San Pedro (c) Consideration of motion directing the General Counsel to advise Chino Basin Municipal Water District, in writing, as to the delinquency of their agreement assigned to the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (14) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any ,1111111110, (14) (a) Consideration of actions relative to Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, pursuant ITEMS ON to the Districts' Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA Quality .Act of 1970, as amended: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Initial Study and Environmental Impact Assessment. See pages "I" and "II" (2) Consideration of motion directing staff to prepare Negative Declaration declaring that Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, will not have a significant effect on the environment and directing filing of notice thereof (b) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to send two staff members to the Autocon training facility in Minneapolis, ITEMS ON Minnesota, for training on use of computer system being installed SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA as part of Major Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-6, and authorizing reimbursement for travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred in connection therewith (15) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (16) DISTRICT 1 ` Consideration of motion to adjourn (17) DISTRICT 2 Other Fusiness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any I>T.MSON (17) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-42-2, authorizing initiation of surnimunAL AoINVA proceedings to annex 253.002 acres of territory to the District in the Roll Call Vote of Cast Anaheim Hills area, subject to developer executing annexation agreement Unanimous Ballot prior to District ordering final annexation, proposed Annexation No. 28 - Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 7 to County Sanitation District No. 2 See page `r (18) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn (19) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of items relative to award of contract for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter dated February- 5, 1980,•from Mark Dakovich, Inc. , low bidder, requesting to be allowed to withdraw bid for the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, due to a failure to include the cost of pipe in said bid. See page 11Q11 (b) Verbal reportsof General Counsel and Chief Engineer (c) Consideration of motion granting request of Mark Dakovich, Inc. to be relieved of bid on the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2 (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-32-3, to receive and file bid Roll Call Vote or Cast tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for Orangethorpe Unanimous Ballot Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, to Meyers Constructors in the amount of $1,112,090.00. See pages "R" and "S" (20) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any r _ (21) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of motion to adjourn (22) DISTRICT 5 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any ITEMSON (22) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-43-5, electing to withdraw from- SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA membership in Newport-Irvine Waste-Management Planning Agency (NIWA) Roll Call Vote or Cast Unanimous Ballot —,, See. ��page IV" (23) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn, (24) DISTRICT 11 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (25) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn ' (26) DISTRICT 6 Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities: (a) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present) See page "T" (b) Discussion and comments, if any (c) Consideration of roll call vote adopting Ordinance No. 604, an ROLL CALL VOTE. Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603,, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities -9- (27) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (28) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn (29) DISTRICT 7 Public Hearing re proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7: (a) Open hearing (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Report and Summary of Actions. See page "U" (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file written protests, if any (d) Oral protests, if any (e) Determination of sufficiencyof protests, if any (f) Close hearing I 0 3 T (30) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of Resolution No. 80-42-7, ordering annexation of 99.02 acres Roll call Vote or cast of territory to the District in the vicinity of Chapman Avenue and Newport Unanimous Ballot Boulevard in the County of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See page "V" (31) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (32) DISTRICT 7 Consideration of motion to adjournwo,S I • i -10- ► t � BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Par Oftin 5= 8127 of Orange County, CAlifornis 1084A Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 T.konorwc: A,= Cnd. 71a JOINT BOARDS �z4;; AGENDA MEETING DATE FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. ADIOURN�1`_PITS POSTED�,' ANY DIRECTOR DESIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON FILES SEA UP........... ANY AGENDA ITEM, PLEASE CALL THE MANAGER OR RE ;1.I i;;d�S CEfti:FtcD.l,/ APPROPRIATE DEPARTMEN H8AD. IN ADDITION, STAFF LE1iE.S ., •ltci;_.... WILL BE AVAILABLE AT �:DU P.M. IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING WEDNESDAY'S MEETING IN THE CONFERENCE hilidUTE� 1':R! l'N•••• ROOM ADJOINING THE DISTRICTS' BOARD ROOM. MIIQTES HUD.......(1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Recognition of special guests (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts, if any DISTRICTS 1, 6 & 7 (5) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpt from the - 17TusoN Costa Mesa Sanitary District re seating new members of the Boards, •• .,� SUPPt`.k%:NTAL AGENDA as follows: ............. District(s) Active Alternate A/C ....Ti:LR .... — 1 5 6 Elvin Hutchison Orma 0. Crank 7 James Wahner Robert Hanson v. (6) EACH DISTRICT Consideration of motions approving minutes of the following meetings, m, as mailed: District 1 - January 9, 1980, regular District 2 - January 9, 1980, regular District 3 - January 9, 1980, regular District 5 January 9, 1980, regular and January 15, 1980, adjourned District 6 - January 9, 1980, regular District 7 January 9, 1980, regular District 11 - January 9, 1980, regular (7) ALL DISTRICTS Reports of: (a) Joint Chairman (b) General Manager FILE (c) General Counsel airman of the Special Committee to Study Reorganization of the LETTER ... _ Sanitation Distritts A/C ....T:CLR e (8) ALL DISTRICTS XL CALL VOTE...-- Consideration of roll call vote motion ratifying payment of claims of the joint and individual Districts as follows: (Each Director shall be called only once and that vote will be regarded as the same for each District represented, unless a Director expresses a desire to vote differently for dd any District.) See pages "A" and ''B" 01 15/80 01/29/80 ALL DISTRICTS Joint operating Fund - $ 93,718.66 $134,121.04 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 12o,453.63 69.344.57 Joint Working Capital Fund - 37,888.87 39,529.07 DISTRICT NO. 1 - - DISTRICT NO. 2 - 10,095.31 307.05 DISTRICT NO. 3 - 1,904.47 46,777.86 DISTRICT NO. 5 - 296.47 15,706.21 DISTRICT NO. 6 _ .50 - DISTRICT NO. 7 _ 1,681.63 - 2,654.35 DISTRICT NO. 11 - 8,797.36 5,742.82 DISTRICTS NOS. S & 6 JOINT - - 3,033.33 DISTRICTS NOS, 6 6 7 JOINT - - 189.59 $274,836.90 $317.405.89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS NOS. 9(A) THROUGH 9 Z ) All matters placed upon the consent calendar are considered as not requiring discussion or further explanation and unless any particular item is requested to be removed from the consent calendar by a Director, staff member, or member of the public in attendance, there will be no separate discussion of these items. All items on the consent calendar will be enacted by one action approving all motions, and casting a unanimous ballot for resolutions included on the consent calendar. All items removed from the consent calendar shall be considered in the regular order of business. Members of the public who wish to remove an item from the consent calendar shall, upon recognition by the chair, state their name, address and designate by letter the item to be removed from the consent -calendar. �1wQ Chairman will determine if any items are to be deleted from -v(A the consent calendar. Rog Call Vote or Cast Consideration of action to approve all agenda items appearing unanimous Ballot on the consent calendar not specifically removed from same. (VA 1� -2- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 2) ALL DISTRICTS F,LE ---------•-•---- (a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-24, approving plans LETTER ....-- and specifications for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements A/C _.IKLR .... at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, and authorizing _ L� �, the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See page 'ICII(b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-25, approving plans FILE ---------------- and specifications for Installation of Raw Sludge Pumps at LETTER .............. Primary Sedimentation Basins D, E, F, G, H, I 4 J, Treatment A/C ....TKLR ---- Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-079, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. See .._ _._._.._... page I'DII I (c) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager F.LE .........__..... in issuing Purchase Order No. 2218 to Bird Machine Company i in the amount of $4,919.78 plus freight for proprietary parts LETTER •-'-'--- for repair of Bird centrifuges at Plants Nos. 1 and 2 A/C ....TKLR .... --- - (d) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to . .._ -•-- I issue a purchase order to Orange Turf Supply in the amount of $7,091.40 for purchase of a turf and pavement sweeper I'AE -............... for use at Districts' plant sites LETTER .......__ A/C ....TKLR . I (e) Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager :-171.--� in issuing Purchase Order No. 1633 to Don Greek 4 Associates in the amount of $4,806.50 for construction surveying services FILE -- I in connection with the Wet Weather Contingency Plan at LETTER ... ? Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site and Plant No. 1, Job A `7 No. PW-069-1 .............. (f) Consideration of motion authorizing the Joint Chairman and FILE ........... General Counsel to attend the Association of Metropolitan LETTER ... _ - Sewerage Agencies annual meeting on April 26-30, 1980, in A/C ....TKLR _. i Nashville, Tennessee, and authorizing reimbursement of travel, I meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred in connection ... with said meeting FILE .._.Y- - YW (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-28, amending Resolution No. 78-24, approving Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for Southern California Regional Reclamation Study with the City ,1C ....TKLR -.L/ of Los Angeles, et al. , increasing Districts' total disbursement for said study from $84,000 to $100,000. See page "E" f LETTER ...... ...,. + (h) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-26, amending Positions and Salaries Resolution No. 79-20, as amended, increasing the maximum A/C ....TKLR - salary for the Part-Time Construction Inspector position from ................---•• $9.25/hr. to $10.50/hr. See page 'IF" _._.......----------- FILE .................. (i) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to issue LETTER ...____ a purchase order for acquisition of phototypesetter for engineering •/' A/C ..-TKLR c document printing for an amount not to exceed $10,000 (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 4) -3- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 3) ALL DISTRICTS (Continued) `d FILE ...... (j) Consideration of motion authorizing payment to M. C. Nottingham LETTER ..._........ in the amount of $10,135.76 and to Chancellor & Ogden in the A/c ....TKLR ._ amount of $10,995.80, for use of vacuum trucks for leachate control �t'.:C):y %/,/ at the Coyote Canyon sludge processing site during January -- - (k) Consideration of motion to exercise option to extend purchase order FlE _.. •---•-___ agreement one year with American Cyanamid for purchase of Polyelectrolyte . LETTER ._ Chemical Flocculent at an adjusted rate of $1.569 per pound to reflect freight and fuel increases, as provided in Specification No. P-033, A/C ....TKLR _. for an increased maximum from $87 089.54 to an amount not to exceed - "� - $200,000.00 from February 14, 1979 , to December 31, 1980 (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 8 to the plans and specifications for Major Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment FILE _--- -, at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-23-6, authorizing an addition of $74,066.00 LETTER ... to the contract with H. C. Smith. Construction- Co. for miscellaneous modifications, relocation of facilities and additional work required, A/c .wTKLR _. and granting a time extension of 13 calendar days due to inclement weather. See page "G" (m) (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Selection Committee Certification re final negotiated fee with K. P. Lindstrom $ Associates for consulting services re preparation of Supplement LETTER ............- to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact A/c ....TKLR Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation -W. Districts of Orange County, to add Flow Equalization Facilities - " at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25. See 'page "H" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-27, approving agreement with K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for consulting services re ...... / preparation of Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities A/C�....TKLR -. Flan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, to add 9..--- Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25, on a per diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $11,000. See page "I" DISTRICT 2 FILFJ---- - (n) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-31-2, approving plans and LETTER -•--•- specifications for Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor, Contract No. 2-21, A/C .-.TKLR� and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt" of bids (tentative bid date 3/25/80) See page "J" DISTRICT 3 FILE (o) Consideration of motion approving Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to the plans and specifications for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, LETTER •••--• Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, providing for inclusion A/c .-_TKLR ....--' of the State Encroachment Permit and making a change in the type —---------------- of bedding for VCP pipe (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 5) -4- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 4) DISTRICT 3 (Continued) FILE LETTER .............. (p) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-33-3, approving plans and A/ —� specifications for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16 and Reach 16A, Contract No. 3-22-3, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 5/6/80) See page "K" /�------- (q) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-34-3, to receive and file ��....... bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for A/C ...TKLR .... Manhole Repair, Miller-Holder Trunk, Contract No. 3-2R-1, to pC, Peter C. David Co. in the amount of $83,610.00. See pages "L" and "M" DISTRICT 5 (r) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-35-5, approving Amendment No. 1 FILE to Agreement with ECOS Management Criteria, for engineering services LETTE in connection with preparation of Supplement to the Environmental A/A/C TKLR ---- Impact Report for the Jamboree Drive-Big Canyon Drainage Area, on a per diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $3,485.00. See page "N" DISTRICTS 5 & 6 OTTER .............. (s) 1 Consideration of motion ratifying action of General Manager in A/c ....TKLR .... '�/ issuing purchase order to John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $29,000 for emergency repairs to date on "A" and "B" Trunk at Plant No. 2, and authorizing further repairs, if necessary, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 (Dist. #5 share 73.47% , Dist. #6 share 26.53%) FILE v: {t) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-36, approving plans and specifications for Construction of "A" and "BitTrunk Sewer LETTER -- Facilities, Schedule A - Alternative Alignment Within Plant No. 2, A/c -..TKLR Schedule B - Junction Structure Connection East Side Santa Ana River, Contract No. 5-21-1, and authorizing the General Manager ........ to establish the date for receipt of bids (tentative bid date 3/11/80) See page 110" DISTRICT 6 (u) Consideration of motion to receive and file Ordinance No. 79-25, FILE ................. an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Costa Mesa, LETTER ...._........ California, Approving and Adopting a Redevelopment Plan for A/c ....TKLR .... Project Area No. 2 (Wallace Neighborhood Strategy Area) in the City of Costa Mesa, as the Official Redevelopment Plan for Such Project Area (deferred from January 9th Board Meeting) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued on page 6) -5- (9) (CONSENT CALENDAR continued from page 5) DISTRICT 7 uq/ -LEWE c (v) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-37-7, ordering A/C .-.TKLR` annexation of 3.55 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity southwesterly of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 88 - Harc Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (w) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-38-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 1.40 acres of territory to A/C ....TKLR _ the District in the vicinity of San Juan and Catalina Street in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 90 - Everly Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 _. . (x) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-39-7, authorizing FILE initiation of proceedings to annex 1.19 acres of territory to ETre� C_ the District in the vicinity of Orange Park Boulevard and Amapola A/C ..-TKL- Street in the City of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 91 - Smith � P .3, Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (y) Consideration of Standard Resolution No. 80-40-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex 8.29 acres of territory to the FILE District in the vicinity southeasterly of Main Street and Jamboree L Road adjacent to the San Diego Freeway in the City of Irvine, A/C ....TKLR .... proposed Annexation No. 93 - Main Street/Jamboree Annexation to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the 7th Sewer Maintenance District) DISTRICT 11 (z) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 2 to the plans FILE .._.••_-•— and specifications for Coast Trunk Sewer, Reaches 1 and 2, Portion LETTER ...... of Newland Street Interceptor Sewer and Lake Avenue Relief Sewer, A/C ....TKLR .... Contract No. 11-13-2, authorizing an addition of $38,633.00 to .. .............. the contract with John A. Artukovich Sons, Inc. and John A. Artukovich, Jr. , J.V. for three manholes, rerouting of clarifier drains and replanting of palm trees, and granting a time extension of 20 calendar days for completion of said additional work. See page "P" END OF CONSENT CALENDAR (10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items deleted from consent calendar, if any i i I -6- SEE GOLDENROD PACKAGE FOR REVISED AGENDA LISTING FOR ITEM NO. II (11) ALL DISTRICTS Co sideration of items relative to protests by vendors that have been di ualified by Districts' engineers as suppliers of belt filter presses for ewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: �..'. (a) en hearing (b) Ve al report of General Counsel re hearing procedures (c) Cons eration of motion to receive and file engineer's report on evalu ion of belt filter presses for Job No. P2-24-2 (NOTE: Report includ correspondence with protestants prior to agenda mailing. See sepa ate package enclosed with agenda material.). (d) Considera "on of motion to receive and file report and legal opinion of General ounsel (enclosed with agenda material) (e) Consideration of protest of Ralph B. Carter Company: (1) Considerat•on of motion to receive and file written documents submitted b Ralph B. Carter Company re protest of disqualification as belt filt press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if (See item (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda maili .) (2) Oral testimony o behalf of Ralph B. Carter Company (3) Engineer's rebutta of testimony by Ralph B. Carter Company (4) Close hearing re Ral B. Carter Company protest (f) Consideration of protest of uramca, Inc. : (1) Consideration of motion receive and file written documents submitted by Euramca, Inc. re protest of disqualification as `mod belt filter supplier submit d subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See item (c) above r documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Eu mca, Inc. (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony" y Euramca, Inc. (4) Close hearing re Euramca, Inc. prot t (g) Consideration of protest of Komline-Sander n Engineering Corporation: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and 'le written documents submitted by Komline-Sanderson Engineeri Corporation re protest of disqualification as belt filter press s plier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing, if any (See em (c) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing. (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Komline-Sanderson ngineering Corporation (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Komline-Sand son Engineering Corporation (4) Close hearing re Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corpo tion protest (h) Determination by Board re protest of Ralph B. Carter Compan (i) Determination by Board re protest of Euramca, Inc. (j) Determination by Board re protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineer g Corporation -7- (12) ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Executive Committee and consideration of motion to receive and file the Committee's written report \� (13) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items recommended by the Executive Committee: ///(a) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-29, advising Congress that fu .• I call vote or can the Districts support the elimination of the industrial cost unanimous Ballot recovery (ICR) provisions from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act A/C _.-TK1.R . (b) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-30, expressing appreciation to the following Congressmen for their efforts to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), which said amendments will Unanlmous Ballot�--- Ron can Vote a llot Cast result in substantial savings in future operating costs to the taxpayers of Orange County: FILE .,_--._ Harold T. Johnson, Chairman Committee on Public Works and Transportation LETTER •-"' Northern California A C ..-�KLR n'' Don H. Clausen _ 1' I'( Northern California Norman Mineta, Chairman Oversight Committee, House Public Works Committee San Jose Glenn M. Anderson FILE ._.. ._.._.— San Pedro LETTER _: -'� (c) Consideration of motion directing the General Counsel to advise A/c ....TKLR _. Chino Basin Municipal Water District, in writing, as to the _. delinquency of their agreement assigned to the Santa Ana Watershed .................. Project Authority - — (14) ALL DISTRICTS Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any TILE .......,:ac _ (14) (a) Consideration of actions relative to Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. PI-3-2, pursuant LETTER to to the Districts' Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental ITEMS ON Quality Act of 1970, as amended: A/CTKLR-PLSMENTAL AGENDA Q y c �- (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Initial Study and C` Environmental Impact Assessment. See pages L. and IL. (2) Consideration of motion directing staff to prepare Negative Declaration declaring that Hydraulic Reliability Improvements h� at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, will not have FILE --------- a significant effect on the environment and directing filing of notice thereof LETTER -- A/c TKLR - (b) Consideration of motion authorizing the General Manager to send two staff members to the Autocon training facility in Minneapolis, ........ Minnesota, for training on use of computer system being installed I-rrMS ON as part of Major Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA No. 2, Job No. P2-23-6, and authorizing reimbursement for travel, meals, lodging and incidental expenses incurred in connection therewith (15) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (16) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn I, (17) DISTRICT 2 v FILE rITEMS � Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any '* ITEMS0N (17) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-42-2, authorizing initiation of V- proceedings to annex 53.002 acres of territory to the District in the UPPIFMENTAI AGENDA p g 2 A/C TKL LRWI can vote or Cast Anaheim Hills area, subject to developer executing annexation agreement vt�j unan us Ballot prior to District ordering final annexation, proposed Annexation No. 28 - 1T I�� Anaheim Hills Annexation No. 7 to County Sanitation District No. 2 `/ See page (18) DISTRICT 2 Consideration of motion to adjourn/L'' L 7 (19) DISTRICT 3 Consideration of items relative to award of contract for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file letter dated February- 5, 1980, .from Mark Dakovich, Inc. , low bidder, requesting rliTTER .•-- --- to be allowed to withdraw bid for the Orangethorpe A/C ._.TKLR �!s Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, due to a failure to include the cost of pipe in said bid. See page I IQI I (b)� Verbal reportsof General Counsel and Chief Engineer (c) Consideration of motion granting request of Mark Dakovich, Inc. �f- to be relieved of bid on the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, �'•• - - Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2 �•J. (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 80-32-3, to receive and file bid _.._ B lLta4 Vote or Cast tabulation and recommendation, and awarding contract for Orangethorpe Unanimous Ballot Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, to �.�.�. MeyeTA Constructors in the amount of $1,112,090.00. See pages "R" and "S" (20) DISTRICT 3 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (21) DISTRICT 3 F.L.. Consideration of motion to adjourn (22) DISTRICT 5 A/c TKLR .— Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any 4vamrroN (22)L�Consideration of Resolution No. 80-43-S, electing to withdraw from- SUPPLEMENTAL AGEND membership in Newport-Irvine Waste-Management Planning Agency (NIWA) Roll Call Vote or Cast Unanimous Ballot 1 I cJ See page "IV" (23) DISTRICT 5 (! Consideration of motion to adjourn )Ole 9 (24) DISTRICT 11 Other business- and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any C25) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of motion to adjourn /D:3-4' (26) DISTRICT 6 v Second reading of proposed Ordinance No. 604 an Ordinance Amending (F(LE).... g P P � g Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of IETTE District Sewage Facilities: CC (t,�i (a) Consideration of motion to read Ordinance No. 604, an Ordinance --- •� - Amending Ordinance No. 603, Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities, by title only, and waive reading of said entire. ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present) See page "T" (b)) Discussion and comments, if any %one (c) Consideration of roll call vote adopting Ordinance No. 604, an ROLL CALL VOTE Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 603,. Establishing Sewer Connection Charges for Use of District Sewage Facilities -9- (27) DISTRICT 6 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any -� (28) DISTRICT 6 Consideration of motion to adjourn ) ."'3.3 (29) DISTRICT 7 Public Hearing re proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7: ..----....—._ LETTER . (a) Open hearing �-` j A/C ....TKLR _ (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file Report and Summary of Actions. See page "U" (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file written protests, if any (d) Oral protests, if any (e) Determination of sufficiency of protests, if any (f) Close hearing (30) DISTRICT 7 �# f Consideration of Resolution No. 80-4S-7, ordering annexation of 99.02 acres Roll Call Vote or Cast of territory to the District in the vicinity of Chapman Avenue and Newport Unanimous Ballot Boulevard in the County of Orange, proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7 (to also be annexed to the `t `.`A 7th Sewer Maintenance District) See page "y" A/C --7K .(31) DISTRICT 7 Other business and communicationsor supplemental agenda items, if any (32) DISTRICT 7� Consideration of motion to adjourn 10: * -10- MANAGER'S AGENDA REPORT Post office box 8127 i County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue of Orange County, California Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: Area Code 714 540-2910 JOINT BOARDS 962-24111 Meeting Date February 13 , 1980 - 7 : 30 p .m. The following is a brief explanation of the more important , non-routine items which appear on the enclosed agenda and which are not otherwise self-explanatory. Warrant lists are enclosed with the agenda material summarizing the bills paid since the last Joint Board meeting. To minimize the amount of redundancy and duplication in the agenda material and reduce the number of comments in the Manager' s Report, we have expanded the description of the agenda items in the agenda itself, particularly with regard to change orders and contracts which have been publicly bid and are within the contract budget or engineer"s estimate. Detailed change orders are included in the supporting material as well as the bid tabulations for the contracts being recommended for award. Joint Boards No . 9-a —Approving Plans and Specifications for Job No . P1-3-2. This is a non-grant funded project for the Hydraulic Reliability Facilities at Reclamation Plant No . 1 . Included in this project is the installation of rebuilt Districts ' engines , new gear boxes , new pump impellers , new grit removal equipment and the raising of the side walls on the headworks facilities to allow additional hydraulic capabilities . With the completion of this project, Plant No . 1 will be better equipped to handle increased flows to maximize use of our secondary treatment facilities and improve the quality of the effluent discharged to the ocean. These improved facilities are part of our program for the waiver request of secondary treatment requirements . The engineer's estimate for this project is $1 . 2 million. This project was included in this year's budget in an amount of $1 . 5 million. The staff recommends approval of the plans and specifications and setting of a tentative date for receipt of bids for Tuesday, March 25th. � r j No . 9-b - Approving Plans and Specifications for Job No . PW-079 . The staff has prepared plans and specifications for the re- placement of seven sludge pumping units at Plant No . 2 and requests approval of the plans and specifications . These new sludge pumps are for the replacement of seven existing centrifugal pumping units , many of which were installed in the early 1960s . A positive dis- placement sludge pump provides a better method of removal and pumping of sewage sludges which will improve the operation and handling of sludge at Plant No. 2 . The engineer' s estimate for this job is $250, 000. No . 9-c - Purchase of Repair Parts for Bird Sludge Dewatering Machines . The Districts have several sludge centrifuge machines supplied by Bird Machinery Company. The staff is requesting, ratification of the action issuing purchase Order No . 2218, "in the amount of $4, 919 . 78 , for repair parts which include gears and other miscellaneous parts for the repair and maintenance of this solids dewatering equipment . No. 9-d - Purchase of Turf and Pavement Sweeper. In this year' s budget , $10 ,000 was approved for the purchase of a yard sweeper and a pickup mower for the maintenance of the Districts ' landscaped and pavement areas at the two treatment plants . The Districts have purchased a pickup mower in the amount of $2 , 395 . 60 , leaving a budget balance of $7 , 604. 40 . The Purchasing Department has contacted suppliers of sweepers from seven equipment manufacturers and have received a low bid from Orange Turf Supply for a turf and pavement sweeper in the amount of $7 , 091 . 40 . It is , therefore, recommended that a purchase order be issued to Orange Turf Supply in the amount of $7 , 091 . 40 , including sales tax. No . 9-e - Construction Survey Services in Connection with Job No. PW-069- . et Weather Coritingency Plan at Coyote Canyon Tu ge Processing Site. Don Greek & Associates was issued a purchase order by the staff for construction surveying services pursuant to our purchasing resolution for a maximum amount not to exceed $2 , 500 . During the construction, it became apparent that additional surveys were re- quired for the construction staking for the berms , dikes and roadway systems to complete our wet weather contingency plan at Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site . The engineer has sustained additional costs beyond the original authorization. The staff recommends issuance of an amended purchase order for work performed in the total amount of $4, 806 . 50 . -2- r- No . 9-f Attendance at AMSA's 1980 Annual Meeting. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) has scheduled their annual meeting for the latter part of April in Nashville, Tennessee. This meeting will bring together elected officials and managers of the major sewerage authorities through- out the United States . Attendees include Senator Muskie, EPA Administrator Costle, and several members of Congress involved in water pollution control legislation. AMSA recently formed a Legal Affairs Committee and our counsel is a member. This committee will be meeting during this conference . It is recommended that the Joint Chairman and General Counsel be authorized to participate . No. 9-g - Regional Water Reclamation and Water Reuse Study. In October , 1977 , the Boards approved a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Los Angeles , Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis- trict, Metropolitan Water District, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the Orange County Water District to conduct a regional water reclamation and water -reuse study in the L.A. /Orange County metropolitan area. The study, estimated to cost between $2 and $4 million, is grant funded with 872% of State and Federal monies with the remaining 12k% to be funded locally by the members of the Joint Powers Agreement. The agreement provides for the establishment of an operating revolving fund in which all local agencies participate , with the maximum extent of the Districts ' participation to be $200, 000 . In February, 1978 , the Directors approved participation in an amount not to exceed $84, 000. This study is under way and it is now re- quested that the authorization be extended from $84, 000 to $100,000, an increase of $16, 000 . No. 9-h - Adjustment of Part-Time Inspectors ' Salaries . Part-time inspectors are retained by the Districts to assist in the construction inspection of Master Plan facilities . These inspectors are not part of the permanent work force and are only retained during a period necessary to complete construction pro- jects . In February of 1978 , the maximum hourly rate was established by the Board at $9 . 25 per hour . It is becoming increasingly more difficult to retain part-time construction inspectors at this rate. The staff is recommending that the maximum hourly salary rate be increased from $9. 25 to $10 . 50 per hour to be more competitive . -- -3- No . 9-i - Purchase of Direct Entry Phototypesetter. The Engineering Department has investigated numerous ways to improve the efficiency of updating our record maps and to com- plete the as-built drawings of completed construction projects . It was found that the manpower efficiency can be much improved with a direct phototypesetter which would allow the automation of printing on the required documents , specifications , reports and maps maintained by the Engineering Department. Several competi- tive units are available and it is recommended that the General Manager be authorized to issue a purchase order for a direct entry phototypesetter in an amount not to exceed $10 , 000 . No . 9-j - Authorizing Payment for Vacuum Trucks for Leachate Control at Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site . As a part of our operational procedure, it is required by the Regional ?later Quality Control Board that all rainfall be collected and disposed of for leachate control at Coyote Canyon. Plastic lined catchment areas were constructed last fall for this purpose. During the recent rains , we have disposed of 3 million gallons of collected runoff by vacuum trucks and disposed of the material in the sewer system for treatment. We have had to employ vacuum trucks from several companies . The cost of using the vacuum trucks for transporting of this runoff water was approximately $23 ,000 for the month of January. No . 9-k - Extension of Specification No . P-033 for Purchase of Polyelectrolyte Chemical F occu ant for Sludge Dewatering . At the February, 1979 meeting, the Directors approved a contract with American Cyanamid Company to furnish polyelectrolyte chemical flocculant used in the dewatering of sewage sludges for a unit price of $1 . 46/pound for a maximum amount not to exceed $87 , 089 . 54 plus applicable taxes . There is a provision that the contract could be extended on an annual basis for a maximum of three additional contract years . American Cyanamid has offered to extend the contract at their unit price as stipulated in their bid of last year, with an adjustment of 0 . 109C for increases in freight rates and fuel surcharges which equates to an equivalent cost of $1 . 569 per pound of chemical delivered, plus applicable taxes . The staff has reviewed the company' s proposal and feels that it is in the best interest of the Districts to extend the contract to December 31, 1980 at the revised cost of $1. 569/pound plus taxes for an amount not to exceed $200 , 000 for the period February , 1979 through December, 1980. The chemical furnished by American Cyanamid proves to be the most effective and economical flocculant tested by the Districts ' staff and very competitive considering other chemicals available . -4- No . 9-1 - Change Order No . 8 to Job No . P2-23-6 . This change order to H. C . Smith Construction Company, prime contractor on the Major Facilities for 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, is in the amount of $74,066 plus thirteen days extension of contract time for inclement weather. This change order includes twelve changes to the original contract and covers items such as relocation of electrical cable trays in a tunnel which interfered with process piping, relocation of a six-inch propane line because of interference with existing subsurface structures , modifications to master control panels for the primary effluent pumps , addition of floor drains , revision in the door schedules and the addition of water stop to insure the integrity of a leak-proof structure at high water levels developing during peak flow periods . All items have been discussed with the Corps of Engineers who are now involved with the review of our EPA grant funded projects . The staff recommends approval of this change order and the time extension. No . 9-m - Consultinz Services re EIR for Flow Equalization Facilities at PI-ant No. 2 . The Directors will recall that for several years the Districts , in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency of San Francisco , jointly prepared an Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) addressing the primary and secondary impacts for the construction of the treatment plant facilities including capacities to serve our service area to the year 2000. This EIS/EIR was completed in a draft form only, but two secondary impact issues could not be resolved because of other conflicting regulations related to the air mitigation concerning growth and the low-cost housing element . It became apparent that the EIS/EIR procedure was not the best instrument for the resolution of these secondary impacts . The State and EPA have collectively offered to support a grant funded project to provide flow equalization facilities at Plant No . 2 in order that the Districts can maximize the treatment pro- cesses at this plant. Before the issuance of a grant for the estimated construction costs of approximately $8 . 5 million, it is necessary that the CEOA requirements be met . Request for proposals were sent to three firms with two firms submitting positive responses to the Districts ' request. The Selection Committee has reviewed the proposals submitted and recom- mends that a supplemental EIR be prepared to the EIS/EIR for the purpose of securing $8 . 5 million grant for flow equalization at Plant No . 2 . The Selection Committee recommends that the proposal submitted by K. P. Lindstrom & Associates be accepted in an amount not to exceed $11, 000 on a per diem basis . -5- District No . 2 No . 9-n - Approving Plans and Specifications for Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor, Contract No. - This proposed contract is the last of the major Master Plan facilities for District No . 2 . The trunk sewer extends from the intersection of Carbon Canyon Creek and Palm Drive , thence easterly to Rose Drive, thence northerly to the downstream side of Carbon Canyon Dam. This contract contains approximately two miles of 24-inch and 27-inch vitrified clay pipe with an engineer' s estimate of $1 . 35 million. The staff recommends approval of plans and specifications and establishment of a tentative bid date of March 25, 1980. District No. 3 No. 9-o - Approval of Addenda 1 and 2 for Contract No . 3-22-2 , Orangethorpe Relief Sewer. Two addenda were issued to this contract for which bids were received on February 5 , 1980 , to transmit the encroachment permit issued by Cal Trans and to clarify the type of bedding for the vitrified clay pipe on this contract . The staff recommends approval of these addenda . No . 9-p - Approving Plans and Specifications for Orangethorpe -' Relief Sewer, Reach A, Contract No. -The engineer has completed the plans and specifications for this portion of the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, extending from Thomas Street in the City of Buena Park, to Brookhurst Street in the City of Fullerton. This contract will essentially complete the Master Plan trunk sewers for the District . The engineer' s estimate for this project is $1 . 6 million. The staff recommends approval of the plans and specifications and the establishment of a tentative bid date of May 6 , 1980 . No. 9-q - Award' of Manhole Repair on Miller-Holder Trunk , Contract No. 3- R- Bids were received on January 8th for the repair of 19 man- holes on the Miller-Holder Trunk. Three bids were received which ranged from a low of $83 , 610 to a high of $108 , 720 . The engineer 's estimate for this repair project was $55 , 000 . The staff has care- fully reviewed the scope of this remodeling work and finds that the low bid submitted by Peter C. David Company of Garden Grove is a responsive bid and reflects the cost of the project . The staff recommends award to Peter C . David, Inc. , of Garden Grove in the bid amount of $83 , 610 . -6- District No . 5 No . 9-r - A rovinZ Amendment No . 1 to Agreement with ECOS Management Criteria re SupplementaT EIR tor Jamboree Roa -Big Canyon Drainage Area. In 1979 , ECOS Management Criteria was retained by the Dis- trict to prepare an Environmental Impact Report to analyze the primary and secondary impacts for the alternative systems to provide addi- tional collection and disposal capacity for this drainage area. Since this initial EIR was completed, additional information and updating has occurred. Pursuant to the Directors ' instructions , the staff has solicited a proposal from ECOS Management Criteria to prepare a supplement to the EIR. It is recommended that ECOS Management Criteria' s proposal for amendment to our initial con- tract be accepted in the amount of $3 , 485 . Districts 5 and 6 No. 9-s - Emergency Repairs of A & B Trunk Within Plant No . 2 . When the new Headworks "C" was placed into operation at Plant No . 2 in 1965 , a portion of the 54-inch Bushard Trunk in District No. 3 was utilized to convey the sewage from the A & B Trunk to the new Headworks "C" . In August of last year, a portion of this concrete sewer collapsed requiring emergency repairs in the amount of approximately $4,400. A subsequent failure occurred on Sunday, January 13 , again requiring emergency repairs estimated to be approximately $29, 000. Inspection of this trunk sewer reveals that there is approximately another 100 feet of this 54-inch unlined RCP nearing failure . The realignment of the A & B Trunk is not anticipated to be complete and operational until the first part of next year. The staff is , therefore , requesting an authorization in an amount not to exceed $100 , 000 above the cost already incurred for emergency repairs , in the event that such emergency procedures are required. No . 9-t - A roving Plans and Specifications for Contract No . 5-21-1 - Rep acement Within Plant No . 2 ot A & B Trun . The engineer has completed the preparation of plans and speci- fications for the replacement of A & B Trunk within the Plant No . 2 site. This project includes three major structures including a meter vault within the plant and a new diversion structure on the east side of the Santa Ana River. The engineer' s estimate for this project is $950 ; 000. The staff recommends approval of the plans and specifications and establishment of a tentative bid date of March 11, 1980 . -7- J ^^ District No . 6 No . 9-u - Redevelopment Plan in the City of Costa Mesa. The action appearing on the agenda receives and files the City`s ordinance approving a redevelopment plan for the Wallace Neighborhood Strategy Area. This item was deferred from the January 9th meeting at the request of Director Hutchison to permit him time to check with the Costa Mesa Sanitary District ' s position on this matter. District No . 7 No . 9-v - Ordering Annexation No . 88 to District No . 7 . The LAFC has approved the Board' s request for the annexation of 3 . 55 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Santiago Canyon Road and Orange Park Boulevard in the City of Orange . The proponents of this annexation have paid all necessary fees and the staff recommends adoption of Resolution No. 80-37-7 ordering this annexation to the District . The land use is in con- formance with the District ' s Master Plan. No. 9-w - Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No . 90 . Edward E. Everly has requested annexation of 1 .4 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of San Juan and Catalina Streets in the City of Orange . This property will be used for a single-family residence. The staff recommends initiation of pro- ceedings for this annexation. No. 9-x - Initiation of Proceedings for Annexation No . 91 . Eliza V. Smith has requested annexation of 1 . 19 acres of territory to the District in the vicinity of Orange Park Boulevard and Amapola Street in the City of Orange . There is an existing home on the property and annexation is to eliminate an existing private disposal system. The staff recommends initiation of this annexation. No . 9-y - Initiation of Proceedings - Annexation No . 93 . The Irvine Company has requested annexation of 8 . 29 acres of territory to the District lying southwesterly of the San Diego Creek on the south side of Main Street in the City of Irvine . The District' s boundary presently cuts through an existing parcel of land which is proposed to be rezoned from agricultural usage to general industrial. The staff is recommending initiation of proceedings for annexation of the 8 . 29 acres to the District , plus adjacent area of the San Diego Freeway, and that the property owner be responsible for annexation fees only for his property and that he not be charged for land within the State freeway right of way. -8- District No. 11 No. 9-z - Change Order No . 2 to Contract No . 11-13-2 . This change order includes two 48-inch manholes to be con- structed within Treatment Plant No . 2 to accommodate drain lines for future flow equalization basins , a 60-inch manhole to be con- structed on the existing 24-inch Coast Trunk Sewer for diverting flows from the Coast Trunk to the Coast Highway Interceptor, the rerouting of primary clarifier drains within Plant No . 2 , the replacing of 45 affected palm trees within the City of Huntington Beach parking lot facility and other miscellaneous work. The staff recommends approval of this change order in the total amount of $38 , 633 and a time extension of 20 days . Joint Boards No . 11 - Hearing of Protests by Vendors Disqualified b the Districts ' Sta an Engineers re Belt Filter Presses or Jo No . P -T4- Included in the agenda material is a separate staff report with supporting material pertaining to the evaluation of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No . 2 . The protest hearing for disqualified vendors is required on grant funded projects . Nos . 12 and 13 - Report of the Executive Committee . The Committee met on January 29th and enclosed for Board members is a written report of their discussions and recommended actions for consideration by the Boards . District No. 3 No . 19 - Award of Contract No. 3-22-2 , Portion of Reach 16 , Orangethorpe Relief TrUER Sewer. Twelve bids were received on February 5th for a portion of the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer extending from Western Avenue to Thomas Street in the City of Buena Park. The engineer' s estimate for this project was $1. 2 million. Eleven of the twelve bids re- ceived ranged from a low of $1 , 112, 090 to a maximum of $1 , 576 , 287 . It appears the low bid submitted by Mark Dakovich, Inc . , of Brea, in the amount of $787 , 705 was in error. He failed to include the cost of the pipe materials which is estimated to be in excess of $300 , 000 in his bid. Dakovich has filed a letter which is included with your agenda material requesting that his bid be rejected be- cause of the error in the preparation of his bid proposal . -9- It is the staff' s and engineer' s recommendation that the bid of Mark Dakovich, Inc . , of Brea, be rejected and that the award be made to Meyers Constructors Pipeline Contractors of Highland, California, in the total low bid amount of $1 , 112 , 090 . District No. 6 No . 26 - Ordinance Establishing Sewer Connection Charges . On January 9th, the Board approved the first reading of proposed Ordinance No . 604 which establishes connection charges for the purpose of capital financing . The proposed charges are set at the same rates as District No . 7 to simplify administration which is proposed to be handled by the Costa Mesa Sanitary District. As of February 6th, no communications have been received for or against the ordinance. District No . 7 Nos . 29 and 30 - Public Hearing on Proposed Annexation No . 82 . The Baldwin Company has requested annexation to the District of approximately 99 acres in the vicinity of Chapman Avenue and Newport Boulevard in the unincorporated area of the County. In- cluded within the annexation are four private residences that will not be developed as part of Tract 9606 . It was a require- ment of the annexation that these four properties be included within the annexation to avoid islands within the District. The developer has agreed to pay for all annexation fees associated with the four properties not included in the Baldwin Company ' s development . The public hearing is required by the statutes in order that all affected persons can be heard. Fred A. Harper General Manager -10- RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS FEBRUARY 13, 1980 - 7:30 P.M. .r rr•�� FUND 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAIIIAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/80 PAGE 1 r -�1 REPORT NUMBER AP43 . --COUNTY SANITATION- DISTRICTS- OF ORANGE COUNTY CLAIMS PAID 01�15/80 ~ , WARRANT-NO. INBO-R - -----AMOUNT-- -- ---- ----DESCRIPTION ------- - 048658 ADVANCED ELECTRONICS $116.76 ELECTRICAL REPAIRS -018659 ----AME"CAN-"ANAM-iB-POMP-ANY- - ;i i47.42 --- - _-CHEMICALS - „ 048660 THE ANCHOR PACKING CO. i469.43 ENGINE PARTS ,� 048661 ANN ARBOR SCIENCE PUBLISHERS $26.32 WASTEWATER PUBLICATION „��--- 048662- -- - "ASSOCIATES-CONCRETE-PROD.-*- IRE- -- -- --- - - s597.84 -- --- --CONCRETE--SUPPLIES- - - 048663 ASSOCIATED OF LOS ANGELES $414.43 SMALL TOOLS 048664 ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWAGE AGENCIES 13$375.00 MEMBERSHIP „ - 048665 --8AFKFI-Qq-"E1lI:N31ON-DE111 6245t00 -TESTING PEVICES 048666 BANK OF AMERICA i4.60 BOND AND COUPON PROCESSING �� 048667 BANKAMERICARO i74.21 TRAVEL EXPENSES M --048668 BitNNi-N -3 3� -.6' rn,�Z 048669 BASIN VALVES $170.84 VALVE PARTS u 048670 BEARING SPECIALTY CO. $52.72 PIPE SUPPLIES --048671 §E-AR-lNGSj-bkjjb E CHAINS LECTRISAL--SUPPLIES --•• 048672 JANES BENZJE $43.30 EMPEOYEE MILEAGE 04P673 JAMES Gt PIDDLE CO. T 363.I0 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES M,: -048674 BOBK-& A35B 1-7-GO69 PAI N"UPPti ES -------------------- 3 048675 Y.C. BROOKE $32.58 EMPLOYEE MILEAGE 048676 E.O. DULLARD CO. 1158.43 SAFETY SIGNS �.a --948677---- --p41T#EH-EN&IN�f*T'N6riN . i25i699�13------ EPHTRAfr�MGN�:--p2�23--- -... . .Y.EL 048678 C & R RECONDITIONING CO, 4675.00 490HANICAL REPAIRS 10 048679 CALEASCOI INC, $21226.00 CONSTRUCTION TRAILER MODIFICATIONS 048680----- e ft 5gr49-- BRILL=A6GESSOR I ES= -- _.. �.n 048681 CHARLES W. CARTER CO. $100.68 TRUCK PARTS r 048682 CASTLE COMPANY $382.02 LAB SUPPLIES � ;, ----048683 -- ---9HANE-EIaOR-8-O60Wf-iNC-4 14-1595-�6j VACUUM TRUCKING 048684 CHEVRON U,S,Att INC, i109051.55 GASOLINE 048685 CLARK DYE HARDWARE 492.06 SMALL i00L5 048686- ---a L_L-EGE-L_UMBER- _Bsf_v INE. 048687 COMMERCE STATIONERS AND PRINTERS, INC. $366.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES 048688 COMPRESSOR & INDUSTRIAL ENGINE SUPPLY 11021.84 COMPRESSOR PARTS 048689-------EO0S4-IBA�G$-EtEETRTEAt-6IS�F- - 313i.6$----- ELECTRICAL SUPPI IE4 . .._. .. 048690 1036.54 CHLORINE ::: f _048691 - -----CONTROLCOALGCHENICAE CO iV1$35.61 -CONTROLGAL-SUPPLIES- - ,, .. 048692 8@OPER-EHEff Y-3ERV1 E 41 048693 COSTA MESA AUTO PARTS. INC. S571.32 TRUCK PARTS ,l . 018694 DANIELS TIRE SERVICE S7.201.77 TRUCK TIRES „ -018695 - -_.__.._..-0UNN-EDWAfiDS-CORP. ------ -fR41•8;----------PAINT- SUPPLIES „F-046690 048696 ELECTRIC MACHINERY MFG. CO, $199015 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048697 ELLIOTT MTCEr & INSPECTION $172.08 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING REPAIRS -- ~ ----ENCHANiERr-IN@.= ---139000.-08-------OEEAN MONITORING 048699 FISCHER & PORTER CO. $79367.66 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048700 FLO-SYS7EMS $917.39 IMPELLER PARTS - 048701 - ---FOUNTAIN-VALLEY-6AMERA 4419.65------CAMERA--EQUIPMENT AND PHOTO PROCESSING 048702 THE FOXBORO COMPANY *435.00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048703 PARRETT INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. $58,.58 SMALL TOOLS a 1 �� FUND NO 9199 - JT UIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/80 PAGI. 2 REPORT NUMBER AP43 -------- --- GGUNTI-SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY 1 CLAIMS PAID 01/15/80 N WARAAlff-NO DESCRIPTION _. „ 048704 GENERAL ELECTRIC SUPPLY $936.19 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES - --0 4 8 7 0 5-----$IFN£-RAL-{-1:L-EPHOIwE-GG-9----- --- --;ir1T3.-70----- ---•TELEPHOIIE 048706 GENERATOR EQUIPMENT CO. $79422.12 GENERATOR SET i 048707 GOLOENWEST FERTILIZER CO. $36*531,25 SLUDGE HAULING 04B708-------HSK-3ALEG- -- - - ---- --- -- iGl.b9----- ---ELECTRICAL- SUPPLIES 048709 GEORGE T. HALL CO. 145.58 VALVES 048710 HALSTED i HOGGAN9 INC. $19698.80 PUMP PARTS „ 0987i1-------FIARTTiE-Ei16{NE R N6-AN6- Q14{�RULTI.0l1-CO- ��SO.dO-- -- - P-1-16 AS GUILTS 048712 HEATHKIT ELECTRIC CENTFR $79.45 SMALL TOOLS GiB713 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL $615.79 CRANE RENTAL ,C7 04871.4 6"N SIE'roo- ENPL-OYEE-MILEAGE--- m „ 04871E• HOOKER CHEMICALS i PLASTICS CO $3.542.55 CAUSTIC SODA :21-1 048716 HOUSE OF 6ATTERIES $559.46 BATTERIES d rn Al ,• ---0187li---------1t9YAR11-'SUPPL�'Ep- 636.96--- -SMALL--•TOOLS .--- ._ .._._..._... D U 048718 HUNOLEY COMPANY! INC. ;525.56 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES �--� N 048719 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH $974.62 WATER USEAGE m , , ---B487Q0-------1RVI•NE-R-ANC-tI-WIF;f-R--B•I-SCR-I-0-T `3.,2-0 WATER-USfiAGE----•------------- --- ----._._.._._..--- ..__ .. _._ . 3 , 048721 KAMAN BEARINGS B SUPPLY $450.50 BEARING SUPPLIES z, 048722 KEITH 8 ASSOCIATES $29591.90 SURVEY 11-13-2 zit: W. --o4a72a-- --K€Yc,{gNk-yAH�' -;&.t4-97-.as VALVES 00 .� 048721 KING BEARING1 INC. S336.31 BEARING SUPPLIES 048725 KLEEN-LINE CORP $216.72 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES -048726 -NOX--1-NDU6-T"A --SUPPL%E8 S-72-.37 SNAL-L--COOLS--- --_,- --_- - - ,ro 018727 L 8 N UNIFORM SUPPLY CO $29597.55 UNIFORM SERVICE 1-''. 048728 L.D.W.S-9 INC. $773.39 WELDING SUPPLIES _ 048730 LEE $ RO CONSULTING ENGRe $241710081 HYPRAULIC RELIABILITY ENGR. P1-3-2 048731 LEWCO ELECTRIC CO, *209.32 ELECTRICAL REPAIRS 048732--- L+GHTIN"144-RIOU40Rb-t-ING. 3IV4-14.83 ------ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048733 LOWRY 8 ASSOCIATES $79500.00 ENGR. 2-21 4 :w 048734 MCMASTEP-CARR SUPPLY CO- $399.37 MAGNETIC DRIVE PUMP a- C-) 048735-- -------jlrU•-Mlkks-sAl+ --4149,21%- -1001.-40ARREHING- - _ - 048736 NEWARK ELECTRONICS $15441 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048737 NOTTINGHAM PACIFIC CO. $66.25 EQUIPMENT RENTAL .,r 048738- --------ORANGE-EOUNTK--F-AitM-SUPPL-Y-FA -- Sur -08- CHEMTCALS----- „ 048739 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY $29154.71 REPLENISH WORKER5' COMP. FUND 048740 ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT $120.00 WATER PRODUCTION TAXES ---OJ6741 - - .. --F=ARTS-UNL-JNITE:P- ---- ---i;-t1-Or59-- -TRUCK.-PARTS -- .... ....._.... __ . _ .. ..._. ..� 048742 M.C. PATTEN CORPf S500.28 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048743 PETTIBONE CORP. *67.02 TRUCK PARTS --- 048744 -- -- ---HAHOLD-I+R�NROS�IG€ --$42.00 INDUSTRIAL--WASTE- SAMPLING ICE.-----41 048745 PROCESS FOUR 14*764.70 PRINTING WAIVER APPLICATION to 048746 RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. $107.10 TRASH DISPOSAL -048747.____-_..._-T -- ---THE - - -.-- - 4316.00 -----LEGAL--ADVERTISING 3=2R=1 . �� 048748 SARGENT-WELCH SCIENTIFIC CO, i19.76 LAB SUPPLIES 048749 SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS $661.45 LAB SUPPLIES sa Dr Mi :f I - wr1 Fl1Nk J 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAFIYAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/80 VAG[ 3 ~ ...JJ REPORT NUMBER AP43 ------EOUNIY---SANITATION DISTRICTS--OF ORANGE COUNTY - - - r E CLAIMS PAID 01/15/80 W '� YARRANfi NB. ENB-0 --AHOUNT---------------------GESGRIP-TION b 048750 SEAL ENGINEERING CO. $206.57 ENGINE PARTS SMALL TOOLS _.... 048752 SHAMROCK SUPPLY i1*283.97 SAFETY SUPPLIES 0JO753 SMITH-EMERY CO. 1700.00 TESTING 11-13-2 048754 --- --- -SOUTH-ORANBE SUPPLY- - -----------3Bi.61---- -----PLUMBING SUPPLIES--- _ 048755 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. 110 087.38 POWER 048756 SO. CAL. GAS CO. $59340.86 NATURAL GAS - 018753----SfiARO"f"I - - s233.9i----- STEEL STOCK 046758 SUPELCOI INCt *166.30 LAB SUPPLIES 048759 THE SUPPLIERS $681.58 SMALL HARDWARE m 848760 AYNE--"t-V£5TE }iT.B ET-TY-CASH-RE IHBURSEMENT---•----- 2 1. „ , 046761 TFI BUILDING MATERIALS S757.77 VALVE PARTS d ,e 048762 DEBBIE TAYLOR $97.50 SECRETARIAL SERVICES D �yJ 048,65---_-TAV"R UN fag 8r-g'8----TRUCK-PARTS-------Al C048764 THOMPSON LACQUER Co. i50,22 TRUCK PARTS 21 048765 THOR TEMPORARY SERVICES $365,88 TEMPORARY HELP — T M ., 048766--- FR-I-A"EeffA-NieAL, I-N 49-936-1-.jJ9 —RffffflON-PV-17-AND-PW-05-7 3 _, 048767 TRUCK 9 AUTO SUPPLY9 INC. $376.08 TRUCK PARTS =l, 048768 UNION OIL CO. OF CALIF. $22.55 GASOLINE 00 [--Q 4 8 769— UNDO-PARi.'fL---§"yJl E--- 46i i6 --pEL11►ERY SERYIEE- - 048770 VWR SCIENTIFIC 4256,78 LAB SUPPLI€S 1 048771 CARL WARREN t CO. 1450.00 LIABILITY SELF-INSURANCE ADMINISTRATORS D .b - 048172 ---YEBfifRtt-ifTR1-8-Att0YS 3i3.f3WI RE-SUPPLI ES --- -- - - -- 048773 XEROX CORP. $68.90 XEROX REPRODUCTION 048774 ZIP TEMPORARY PERSONNEL $276.00 TEMPORARY HELP d '--' TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 01/15/130 $2741836.90 Cn ,, - 1.771.,.., N 1� f7 - -- SUMMARY AMOUNT iZ OPER FUNP S $,595.31 — - - 1ZEL9_ELNo 7150II-00 ------- — - - -- - - - "' /3 OPER FUND I ,904.47 15 OPER FUND 296.47 •'� 97 OPER FUNPFON 1,681.63 505.46 All OPER F4Np 5,5o5.4b '" JT. OPERATING FUND 93,718.66 " CORF 120,453.63 9 w TOTAI. CLAIMS PAID 1/15/80 g2�4,836.90 ------------ ---------------- 1 w V`1 si sv i FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/24/80 PAGE 1 # Rf.PORT NUMBER AP43 DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CLAIMS PAID 01/29/80 . l .�1lOUNi__._-_ . DESCRIPTION = ARRANT-• NG _----- IIENOOR __._...--_-- -- _------_-•--. _._.------ .__.-_.._ _. 046787 A-1 INSTITUTIONAL EQUIP. CO. s333.77 MAGNETIC SCHEDULING BOARD ° ACB--REFLCC40ILIZING 4104.1I-..._._ ..__._ SAFETY SUPPLIES 048789 ALHAMBRA FOUNDRY C099 LTD. 479950.00 MANHOLE AND COVER 048790 AMERICAN AIR FTLTERv INC. $799.74 AIR FILTERS --048791 - -----------AMERICAN-COMPRESSOR-CO----_ ____..._.____._..- --._. ---- _.. 33s748.BO---.------.COMPRESSOR-.KARTS.. ___ - � 048792 AMERICAN CYANAMID COMPANY $572.40 CHEMICALS 048793 THE ANC11OR PACKING CO. $190.80 GASKETS 048794-- ----- Y.B"NOERSIIN 119_—_.1J LO I NG SUPPLIES ' 1-8 048795 ANDREWS INDUSTRIAL HARDWARE $37.04 TRUCK PARTS 048796 ARROWHEAD ELECTRIC CORP, *498.66 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 4879-7--- 1SSOC.IAIED-0- � n- eu- -_ cc s1.211.57 ELECZRLLAL_.SllRPLIES.-_—.,SUP -.._.-----.-- _._ -_ .._._. _ 048798 B 8 8 MOTORCYCLE $175.53 SAFETY GOGGLES b 048799 BACON DOOR CO.• INC. $252.32 BUILDING SUPPLIES 3;� -64RUOC •- _-_-- BpNdIING 1#AT fPT--DO. --- ---1434#25__ 1@UG4t.86ITEHJES--------- ._..__ . ... . 046801 BEARINGS TNC, i231,16 BEARING SUPPLIES D46802 BIERLY 4 ASSOCIATES♦ INC, 490U.00 WORKERS' COMP. SELF-INSURANCE ADMINISTRATORS -048803 ---- --.8LUE_SEAL_.LlNElA__SUPPl Y I011EL__RENTAL- 048601 BOCK 8 ASSOCIATES $82.17 PAINT SUPPLIES 048805 BOAAR MAGNETO SERVICE• INC. $181.47 ENGINE PARTS 048806. .---- -BOYLE-EN6-I.NEERI4o CDIIP 339t646,b2_ SUBVE"=20=1.,-1=22_2_.AHD...ENGB. 3=2272, 3-1272 . C? 046807 E,O. UULLARO CO, $549953 SAFETY SIGNS 046808 C 6 R RECONDITIONING CO, *165.00 COMPRESSOR REPAIRS I1 ir _ CS--CIIMRANY s93.6.3 UALYES-----_.--.----.__.-_ a'il 048810 CALEASCO. INC. $185.50 TRAILER RENTAL 048811 CALIF. ASSOC. OF SAN. AGENCIES $10610000 MEMBERSHIP _.046812. .--.---._- -_cA!-IED6fI1�Ea IliIIaklEll�a� - .4355.*b0 048813 JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS $311627969 ENGR. P2-24 +-� 048811 JOHN CAROLLb ENS/ GREELEy HANSEN 46089.84 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES P2-23 048815 -___-_____._CHABLES_W.-LA@iER_.GII. -AAAa.3 SHALL_TOOLS.._..___. 048816 CASE POWER S EQUIPMENT s895.57 TRUCK PARTS 04E817 CHLORINE SPECIALITIES, INC. $164.79 CHLORINE GAS FILTERS --098818 ___.__CIItltlE@CE_SLALI9dI:8S_6d0�NI$LE¢5_LD¢P.— — __�42:25----.IIE�JCE-SURRLIES.._. --.-----_ 048819 COMPRESSOR 6 INDUSTRIAL ENGINE SUPPLY 4368,54 COMPRESSOR PARTS i 04E820 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTt 43,35 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES I _0A8821 _.__..---__-CONLIN ENT AL_CHE& UAL._CO_ -_sill"Aa-S66 CHLIIBJNE--- -------.-----..---.. __ _ . . 04b822 CONTROL DATA CORP. $145.60 PRINTED FORMS 046823 COSTA MESA AUTO PARTS• INC. $308.17 TRUCK PARTS _.096829 .-..-COS A_8ESA_T pATSila 018625 MR. CRANE $29499900 CRANE RENTAL 048826 CHARLES P. CROWLEY CO. $320.51 MACHINE PARTS 1_.098827....___-- -------_-cUBTIa_1lAIUESON_sC1ENL1EiC- --�2.Y2--_-_LAB. SUPPLIES-------------___ 048826 C.R. DAVIS SUPPLY CO. $45.08 SAFETY SUPPLIES " 1048829 DECKER INSTRUMENT SUPPLY CO. i194.88 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES DAB@30 .--. ____-DUNN EEIVARDS.-CORPI 'I 048831 EASTMAN9 INC. 4690.38 OFFICE CHAIRS I ' I. 046832 ENGINEERS SALES-SERVICE COt 32t528,10 IMPELLER PUMP J :l ^� FUND NO 1199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/24/80 PAGE 2 REPORT NUMBER AP43 --- COUNT-Y-SANIT-ATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNT? CLAIMS PAID 01/29/40 ' N RRANT-NO E-NDOR S 048833 ENVIROTECH-SPARLING $266.38 INSTRUMENT TIMER .REFUND CONNECTION PERMIT OVERCHARGE -• n 048835 FEDERAL ENVELOPE CO. i17T,49 OFFICE SUPPLIES _ 048836 FEDERAL PUBLICATIONSI INC. S196.00 PERSONNEL PUBLICATION -049837.. __ __ FILTER--SURRLV--CO.•----- -------..___- ._.._ -._...._ _ ._...$39.69.----- --TRUCK-PARTS 048838 FISCHER 6 PORTER CO. $19014.26 PIPE SUPPLIES 048839 FLUOR ENGINEERS 6 CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 119415.07 JPL- ACTS. '� -048840---- FOR€TIO.S{-jHlIE40ED-�RL}DUCLS -- -i3I2�2D-------. .SMALL-IIAROVARE ...- - . 048841 CLIFFORD At FORK€RT 44.881.88 ENGR. 5-22 11 048842 FORMULABSt INR. $132.92 TESTING SUPPLIES a)i ; 0 4 8 84 3------- VALA.Z4-CAMERA 3120..b6 611M-PROCESSING---- ---- _-.-___._-.- - .-_ • m 048844 FOUNTAIN VALLEY STA71ONERY $91.20 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES Z tJ�p � 048845 PRICK-GALLAGHER MFG. 32o422.99 WAREHOUSE STORAGE RACKS 048846 --CTT-"F-FUI LEP-TPN. 435t2$ WATER--USEAGE-____ ' ��04884 GENERAL TELEPHONE CD• I3?13�.91 TELEPHONE - - -- ------- - - -- 048848 GOLOENWE$T FERTILIZER G0t 419t069l05 SLUDGE HAULING 1 048849- 60ULD"-NC.--WARACTI t-8A1LCY i ;.51 RJ2E-SUPkI.IES f'I'I 646850 GOVERNMENT TNSTITUTES, INC. $19.97 INDUSTRIAL WASTE PUBLICATION ' 048851 M.E. GRAY CO. $303.32 PLUMBING SUPPLIES fir, � 04886a--- -GR�H--�I1��R�44:�-�, �3.!•2z- -?ROCK-KARTS-----------_.-._......--- . . . 00 ' � 048853 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS $699#82 VALVES 048854 HASTY LAWN 9 GARDEN $76.54 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES (14886ra- --HAULrAJ1A CONTAINERS i165.D0_ TRASH-DISPOSAL---_-._. A` 018856 HOUSE OF BATTERIES $73.14 BATTERIES r ' ; 048657 HOUSE OF HYDRAULICS• INC. $556.65 VALVES r" !--0488s@_..__. ---1400490-�4F44--0-t *s4449 --p L Um 0 14 6-S U 9 A I.I f 5 d �048859 CITY OF HUNTINGTPN DFACH 410t13 WATER USEAGE t 048860 HUNTINGTON SUPPLY . $73906 SMALL HARDWARE C/).. � 048861- --IUS•IANT-AERL.AY r UIRMENT CO i3,723.63- VIDEO TAPE EQUIPMENT 048862 E. J. JARVIS $100.00 CONNECTION PERMIT OVERCHARGE i ,_,�• 046863 KING BEARING• INC. $572.97 BEARING SUPPLIES . n. -048464----- KLFE•AI'LT#I:-SNP 444-07 -JAa.I-TORIAL--SURPLI��-- -1' 048865 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIES 410 470 7 $HALL TOOLS C/) 048866 LtB.W.S.• INCt 42t866.10 WELDING SUPPLIES 048867----- U+-R.-LJIOCWIG CO. :222.8s GAUGES ---------- .---_ _ _ _ 048868 THE CHARLES LOWE CO. $374.72 PUMP PARTS `.• 4" 048869 MASTER dLUEPRINT• 9 SUPPLY $280.35 DRAFTING TABLE 048879-- - aAT-T--=-cHLoA 101C Pump_PARTS---- - [048871 MCCALLA BROS?-CARR PUMP E DRILL NG - - $250.44*344t47 --- PUMP PARTS I 048872 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. s250.ib SMALL HARDWARE I Q48873-----------%ECHAN.ICAI--DRIVE--SYSTEMS ils3yl.B6- MOTOR AND-.REDUCER-----.-..-------.------. _ 048874 MESA CONSOLIDATED WATER $6.00 WATER USEAGE' 048875 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO. $19147.12 SAFETY SUPPLIES a : ,048876..... - NI-ItAKEcLEECIWOP-ASSOC;A�.�S _-sTT.6.Q0------ENGR.-J={$=R -- 8877 MOORE PRODUCTS Cot $507.27 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES [ 04 046878 MORGAN EQUIPMENT CO. $3589-12 TRUCK PARTS ,+ s� i jUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/24/80 PAGE 3 REPORT NUMBER AP43 COUNT-t-SANI TAT ION-.DISTRICTS.-DE ORANGE COUNTY ... _ . : � CLAIMS PAID 01IR9(80 W � r1=ARRANT--NO. - --11EN00R ----•--•------ _._---__----SMOUNi_-��----------.-----...._.__ _..__:QESCRIPIIQIfI ._. . .• ._ ._.. 048879 NASCO S111.92 SMALL TOOLS i--o4a8a0- _-_.NALCn_--Cli[IiICA lCO:�--- ----_-__.---•--•.S3}�65------_--fflE1GUT...__ .. 048881 NEWARK ELECTRONICS 5106.37 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES ° � 048882 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH $14.90 WATER USEAGE -NOLAND RAPE&-LD.-- ----_----.-SITS.82-__-_--_PaJdT1NG_._.___._._ lu 048884 ORANGE TURF SUPPLY $29395.60 MOWING EQUIPMENT 048685 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY $19077,30 REPLENISH WORKERS' COMP. FUND " 048886 DAAiyGE-COU#� =T--�AT�fl• • -O-I.��tT :2Y4T8�.04..____-.1lATER.f8QQ1lCIIQN.TAXES 048887 PEC OFFICE MACHINES $29951 OFFICE CALCULATOR T� 048B88 PACIFIC ELECTRONIC SALES $221.54 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES .� G7 -048889 - :9"4 L�WE :02%.42 IELEPIiOdE -.----------.--.--_.. I"t••'I'" 048890 PADGETT - THOMPSON $95.00 TRAINING SEMINAR ff, 048891-' PASCAL 3 LUDWI69 INC. $500.00 RETENTION P2-23-5 �„ ' a4a892- r ORguoA k-pAagAu 048893 PET71PONE CP. ;I.63122 TRUCK PARTS ►�+'" 048694 PHILLIPS ENGINE L EQUIPMENT CO $?5.79 9NGINE PARTS . -j" 048855 ---_______•-kICKW1Llf-RAPER_PBIImirls i252_.8S JAWTORLAL-SUBBILE.S-- m'` 046896 PITNEY BOWES $66.78 POSTAGE MACHINE RENTAL 3" 048897 POWER MACHINE CO. $49125.07 ROTORY PUMP 4h O48a96 �,_ HARPI P 90.40R�F IEE *2I..4A.Q- _i-ND USIA JAL.4AS.TI`_5AHPLJNG-CE. .. OClyi 048899 PROCESS FOUR $2j274#j2 PRINTING ANNUAL REPORT 1 i 048900 THE REGISTER i678.72 LEGAL ADVERTISING PW.-081 AND 3-22-2 t-0469al_ -- AEX-t a" h1 llmim"m SUBRI X CII, 3251-22 S EEL-SIUK 048902 R08ERTSHAW CONTROLS CO. $405.23 CONTROLS 048903 S 8 C ELECTRIC CO. i235.33 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048904 c ¢ c aff44 y�[ll-ICES S2 (j5 OFFICE SUEELLES_-_.--- 046905 SANTA ANA ELECTRIC MOTORS $153.93 ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIRS i--4 r 048906 SARGENTTWELCH SC;ENT{FIC GDt 570.9R LAB SUPPLIES J-4, 048508 SEARS* ROEBUCK d CO. $66.51 SMALL TOOLS 048909 SEE OPTICS $27.83 SAFETY GLASSES 1••EIi---¢-W � -��R-i4�--- E�IGB._5_2L_PLANI_�. - -- --- -- .__ . .. ._. .._ _... ._ . __ . 048911 SHAMROCK SUpPl- 7 SMALL TOOLS �t4 048912 SHEPHARO MACHINERY For 429930.5L TRUCK PARTS ' .048913._ Skill Huy-co Si R40 f1� 1FSTING I 1=13=.2-------•-•--------..-----.----.__..._ ..-•---__._ ... ' i 048914 SOUTH ORANGE SUPPLY S86.77 PLUMBING SUPPLIES 41 ' 048915 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. i97i656.59 POWER 4l I • 04a916 •'U 48917 SO. CALIF, TESTING LAB $95.63 TESTING P2-23-6 ' 48918 $0. CALIF. WATER CO. 476.OQ WATER USEAGE 4: 9691s-_.,.-.-.._SnuIHERN_CIIUttT1ES nit re. s6.121:12 OIESEL_...FUEL�-. � 1 046920 SOUTHWfST SEWER EQUIPMENT $136.52 PIPE SUPPLIES . v1 048921 SPARKLETTS DRINKING WATER $280.63 BOTTLED WATER 81U922--- --...._ ._---SUPER-CHElLGIZRP -laUsio HEM CAL S-.-__ 048923 IERS $636,till 4n T SUPPLIES 048924 -_ J. WAYNELSAFETY SYLVESTER ¢191.23 PETTYPETTYCASH RE.IMPURSEMENT-- -'-__ -----�-_-_--_-____.____•_---_ _ FUND` 9199 - JT OLST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/24/80 PAGE. 4 REPORT NUMBER AP43 CDUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY ' - CLAIMS PAID 0I/29180 i ARRANT- NO.-- —V"DOR ------ AMOUNT-----------------._ .__. _.-DESCRIPTION .. i 048925 TFI BUILDING MATERIALS $461.90 CHECK VALVE 048926--- -TFG TRA}WING S1fSTEk15 --- -------•---_ ..__. _. --•----•--5340.95.-, ---- ELECTRICAL PUBLICATIONS - n { 048927 DEBBIE TAYLOR $303.75 SECRETARIAL SERVICES 048928 THOMPSON LACQUER CO. $199.20 PAINT SUPPLIES ' 048929 - -- - THOR•TEAPORARY-SERVICES _..._............ . ..... _ _ -_. . $131.75._ .-.___-_-._TEMPORARY HELP - �� ' 046930 J. T. TIiORPE. INC. $193.20 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES + 048931 70OLS FOR INDUSTRY $154.19 SMALL TOOLS . 046932 ...--- -..._..TRANS-AME-91 37161----....-- CONTROLS _ 048933 TRAVEL BUFFS $19290.00 AIR FARE 048934 TRUCK 3 AUTO SUPPLY• INC. *387.57 TRUCK PARTS 046935 -----------UN1�ED-RARCELrSERVICE i93�TL OEt1 VERY-SERV ICE ----...--- --- - -- --_ __ 046936 UNITED STATES ELEVATOR CORP. S531.00 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE CONTRACT Z 046937 UNITED STATES EQUIPMENT CO.• I $641.81 COMPRESSOR PARTS C� 048938 --------UTIL}T4ES--SURP-LV--" 048939 VWR SCIENTIFIC i731. 7 � LAB SUPPLIES 048940 VALLEY CITIES,SUPPLY CO. $761.69 SMALL TOOLS ..� .. 04 8941---------JOHN-R.-4APLE:-=- tale-AO ODOR-CONSULT-I NO--- I' _.— _ —_.__.__._._...._..... .._...--_ --.._- , n 048942 WATERMAN INDUSTRIES $1.004.68 EE gg pp LL11 048943 WAUKESHA ENGINE SERVIC£NTER $531.65 pp ENGINEUPARTSS °, { 048944 - -----UF:STCN"I-grc N7C-COeRr iL55.83 —El€LT�►.C9L_SUf?PL.IES— - — 00, { 048945 WESTERN STATE MEASURES $15.90 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 048946 THOMAS L. NOODRUFF 43,427080 ,LEGAL SERVICES 1 -048947- -------WOODWARDj-CIXDE-CONSULT-ANTS -S906..73 —ENGR._COYOTE CANYON D48948 XEROX COMPUTER $29543.63 DATA PROCESSING F---, 048949 XEROX CORP. S291,85.70 XEROX REPRODUCTION ----------------- �--�... . ' � i- - _ ----------_-_--- TO-T-AL-GLA-IMS-RAID_O1L23Le0 —1317.SU5.89.----__ r y-� ...----------SUMMARY _— -AMOUNT --I 12 MR FUND 5 307.05 - - ---_—�I3-4PER-FUND . 6,547.36 "' 13 ACO FUND 533.88 do 13 F/R FUND 39,696.62 .. _-- --,- __ -- l5_4P€B..1QII.Q - _ IQ.��4.33------- --...._----------- -- - - --- - 115 F/R FUNK 4,881.86 " 17 OP€R FUNP 2,Q16.03 - _ - --- lZ�l.B_fl!!ID _ — — f13ls32 --- . --- ----...- - - -_ 111 OPER FUND 543.20 " 11) ACO FUND 5,199.62 _1566 opt R_ F0O_ ___ _ _ 1566 sus SF FUND 1 ,900.00 1667 OPER FUND 189.59 t311,12 L,Qh CORE 69,344.57 ' WORKING CAPITAL FUND 39,529.07 Z' TPTAL CLAIMS PAID 1129/8Q 31 05-$9 -------.__.- RESOLUTION NO. 80-24 APPROVING. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR HYDRAULIC _.. RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS AT RECLAMATION PLANT -- - — NO. 1, JOB NO. P1-3-2 _--- A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, S, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR HYDRAULIC RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENTS AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. P1-3-2 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 the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by Lee and Ro Consulting Engineers, Districts' engineers, for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-3-2, are hereby approved. and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That the General. Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Boards and the Districts' Chief Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "c" AGENDA ITEM #9(A) - ALL DISTRICTS licit RESOLUTION NO. 80-25 APPROVING. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF RAW SLUDGE PUMPS AT PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS D, -- ------- E, F, G, H, I & J, TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2,, JOB NO. PW-079 --'- A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICA- TIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF RAW SLUDGE PUMPS AT PRIMARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS D, E, F, G, H, I $ J, TREATMENT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. PW-079 The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the. Boards of Directors by Districts' Chief Engineer for Installation of Raw Sludge Pumps at Primary Sedimentation Basins D, E, F, G, H, I & J, Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. PW-079,. are. hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Boards and Districts' Chief - Engineer: be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "D" AGENDA ITEM #9(B) - ALL DISTRICTS "D" RESOLUTION NO. 80-28 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78-24, APPROVING JOINT - EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RECLAMATION STUDY, INCREASING DISTRICTS' TOTAL DISBURSEMENT FOR SAID STUDY A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 78-24, APPROVING JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. REGIONAL RECLAMATION STUDY WITH THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL. , INCREASING DISTRICTS' TOTAL DISBURSEMENT FOR SAID STUDY * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6; 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE., DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Section 3. of Resolution No. 78-24 be amended to read as follows: "Section 3. That the total net cost of said study shall be shared equally by the parties to said agreement, not to exceed a total disbursement of $100,000 for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County; and," PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "E" AGENDA ITEM #9(G) - ALL DISTRICTS "E" RESOLUTION NO. 80-26 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79-20 (POSITIONS AND SALARIES) A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS -_-- OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, - 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION RESOLUTION NO. 79-20, AS AMENDED — — J — -- - The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Exhibit "B" of Resolution No. 79-20, as amended, is hereby further amended to adjust the salary range for the position classification therein, as set forth below: Approximate Monthly Equivalent Classification Position Classification Range No. Hourly Salary EXHIBIT "B-3" ENGINEERING POSITION CLASSIFICATIONS -- �--- 90960 Part-Time Construction Inspector -- $10.50/hr. Max. -- Section 2. That this resolution become effective February 15, 1980. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "F" AGENDA ITEM #9(G) - ALL DISTRICTS "F" FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CAL! " 0:7,ti1h 9 ::70S CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. C-06-1073-140 C .O . NO. 8 CONTRACTOR: H. C. Smith Construction DATE January 31 , 1980 JOB : MAJOR FACILITIES - 75 MGD of Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2-Job No. P2-23-6 Amount of Change Order Add: $ 74,066.00 In accordance with contract provisions , the following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefore, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved: Item A Contract bid drawing "Door Schedule" drawing- No. 1G26 was revised by Design Engineer after bid per Plan Change Letter dated May 30, 1978. The changes resulted in increased size and type of door modifications. The Plan Change was issued by Design Engineer to reconcile the discrepancies between specifications, door schedule and architectural drawings. Certain of changes were based on code requirements and others to provide adequate access for equipment housed in the facilities. (Reference: PCH-6-6 -Door Modifications) Added Costs: $ 3,805.00 • Extension of Time: . 0 Calendar Days Item B Approximately 800 LF of required water stop- was omitted from the Primary Effluent Pump Station construction joints in the wet well roof slab and upper wet weel wall joints to elevation 10. In addition, a necessary floor drain system for pump station dry well had been omitted. Both of these items would have been required as original construction for proper function. (Reference: PCH-6-33 & 35 - Water Stop & Drain Gutter PEPS) Added Costs: $ 7,263.00 Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item C Equipment floor drains detailed on P2-23-6 drawings for the plant compressor facility were based on an anticipated compressor manufacturer's requirements. The actual unit furnished to be installed by the P2-23-2 Contractor required an additional floor drain and moving the originally detailed floor drain to be compatible with furnished equipment. The actual unit to be furnished was not known at the time of bidding of the P2-23-6 contract. Added Costs: $ 2,436.00 Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days "G-1" AGENDA ITEM! #9 W - ALL DISTRICTS "G-1" FOUNTAIN VALLEY, ChLi r02tsi.� 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO . C-06-1073-140 C .O. NO. 8 CONTRACTOR :— H. C. Smith Construction DATE January 31 , 1980 JOB : MAJOR FACILITIES - 75 MGO of Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2-Job No. P2-23-6 Item D A latent subsurface condition existed in the as- constructed footings of the existing sedimentation basin "G" and service center buildings between which the Headman Tunnel was to be constructed. Contract required steel sheet piling was driven adjacent to footings as possible, however, the remaining width was insufficient to construct the tunnel as designed. The tunnel width was shortened, but several of the steel sheet piles had to be cut and abandoned in place to accomodate the changed field condition. (Reference: PCH-6-45 - Realign Headman Tunnel ) Added Cost: $ 2,807.00, Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item E The contract drawings for the existing Primary Power Building indicated the existence of a. terminal enclosure as to be "installed by others". This panel did not exist as shown. The Districts directed the Contractor to provide the panel and necessary conduit to complete the proper installation for required function. (Reference: PCH-6-48 - Digital System Conduit-Terminal Enclosure) Added Cost: $ 7,300.00 . Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item F The digital system contract drawing routing of 2" PVC coated digital conduit at Foster Booster Pump Station could not be installed in the originally contemplated location due to a conflict with. existing piping and equipment. The conduit was rerouted to fit the changed field con- dition. (Reference: PCH-6-49 - Rerouting Conduit Foster Pump Station) Added Cost: $ 253.00 Extention of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item G Latent subsurface concrete structures unknown at bid time were encountered during isntallation of new 6" propane lines adjacent to travelling water screen structure at the east property line at designed invert grades. . The as-designed profile was revised at several locations for approximately 200 LF to permit construction of the line to accomodate the changed subsurface condition. (Reference: PCH-6-50 - Revise Profile 6" Propane Line) Added Cost: $ 2,712.00 Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days "G-2" AGENDA ITEM #9 W - ALL DISTRICTS "G-2" C . 0 . e.Oi AVE U,E FOUi•d T AIN `ALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. C-06-1073-140 C.O. NO. 8 CONTRACTOR • H. C. Smith Construction DATE January 31 , 1980 U O g : MAJOR FACILITIES - 75 MGD of Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2- Job No. P2-23-6 Item H Approximately 325 LF of an originally designed 36" electrical cable tray had to be changed to approximately 650 LF of two 18" cable trays in Scott Tunnel . The as designed location of the 36" tray could not be constructed in the space indicated because of interference of the aeration tank 30" effluent pipe structural support frame. This revision, if it had been recognized prior to bid, would have been required in the original contract bid documents. (Reference: PCH-6-58 Revisions to Scott Tunnel Cable Tray) Added Costs: $ 22,590.00' Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item I The portion of the existing adjacent concrete slab located between the new plant air compressor foundation and existing utility conduit trench had to be removed and replaced to accomodate the actual removal lines in the field. The limits of removal were extended. to properly fit field conditions. (Reference:. PCH-6-59 - Concrete Slab Removal and Replacement) Added Costs: $ 498.00 Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item J The design plan *locations and portion, of profile of the 6" and 8" plant water lines in the vicinity of the cold boxes were. revised in .the field from proposed crossings of the existing 78" RCP outfall line. The lines must pass over the outfall . The outfall line. has raised bell joints. The designed locations had to be moved to miss the raised bell sections of the outfall and to minimize effect of traffic wheel loads for the minimal cover of approx- imately 1 foot. These revisions would have been required in the original documents. The raised joint locations were subject to field verification. (Reference: PCH-6-69 Division Crossings 78" RCP) Added Costs: $ 7,078.00 Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days "G-3" AGENDA ITEM #9 W - ALL DISTRICTS "G-3" ;�Ou't-:TAIN VALLEY, ;.;_ir;,-;:ii y2708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO . C-06-1073-140 �.a - -- - —--- - C.O. NO. 8 CONTRACTOR: H. C. Smith Construction DATE January 31 , 1980 JOB : MAJOR FACILITIES - 75 MGD of Improved Treatment P1ant.No. 2 - Job No. P2-23-6 Item K The controls for the New City Water Pump were. designed to maintain a constant city water system pressure during normal operation conditions but did not provide a means for a lab pump (existing pump) to come on in the event of a failure of the new pump. The Contractor was directed to provide the additional control . (Reference: PCH-6-70 - City Water Pump Control ) Added Costs: $ 231 .00 Extension of. Time: 0 Calendar Days Item L The Master Control Panel* for the Plant Water Pumps and the Master Control Panel for the Primary Effluent Pumps were modified to conform to the plant operational requirements not addressed in the original specifications and to reconcile compatibility of control systems specified. In addition, the instrumentation for control of future plant, water pump- No., 4 was incorpr.ated in the Plant Water Pump `d►' Master Control Panel . (Reference:. PCH-6-73 - Changes to PW PEP Control Panels) Added Costs: $ 17,093.00 Extension of Time: 0 Calendar Days Item M Time Extensions. The contract has been delayed for inclement weather and unsuitable site conditions as follows: January 7, 1980 1 Work Day_-..- January 8, 1980 1 Work Day January 9, 1980 1 Work Day January 10,. 1980 1 Work Day January 11 , 1980 1 Work Day January 12, 1980 1 Calendar Day January 13, 1980 1 Calendar Day January 14, 1980 1 Work Day January 15, 1980 1 Work Day January 28, 1980 1 Work Day January 29, 1980 1 Work Day January 30, 1980 1 Work Day January 31 , 1980 1 Work Day Total 11 Work Days 2 Calendar Days 13 Calendar Days Extended "G-4" AGENDA ITEM #9(L) - ALL DISTRICTS "G-4" �: - • SANITATION GISTK; CTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P . O . SOY. 8127 - 10844 ELLI S AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. C-06-1073-140 C .O . NO. 8 CONTRACTOR : H. C. Smith Construction DATE January 31 , 1980 J 08 MAJOR FACILITIES - 75 MGD of Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2 - Job No. P2-23-6 Contract Time Adjustments Original Contract Date December 29, 1977 Original Contract Time 1000 Calendar Days Original Completion Date September 23, 1980 Time Extension This C.O. 13 Calendar Days Total Time Extension 131 Calendar Days Revised Contract Time 1131 Calendar Days Revised Completion Date January 25, 1981 It is mutaully agreed by both parties to this contract that by execution of Chance Order No. 8, all time extensions agreed and allowed by Change Order No. 1 through Change Order No. 8, inclusive, do adequately and fairly adjust the contract completion time for the contract work. Original Contract Price $ 30,670,000.00 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 470,879.00 This Change (ADD) (RUMIRT-k $ 74,066.00 Amended Contract Price $ 31 ,214,945.00 Board authorization date: Approved: COUNTY SANITATION: DISTRICTS of Orange County, California By Chief Engineer By . Contractor "G-5" AGENDA ITEM #9(L) - ALL DISTRICTS "G-5" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TELEPHONES: AREA CODE 714 540 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA -291 962-2411 y_ � 9621 P. O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 1OB44 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLIO OFF-RAMP. SAN OIEra FREEWAY) February 5, 1980 Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Certification of Negotiated Fee for Engineering Services in Conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No.. 2, Job No. P2-25 In accordance with the Districts' procedures for selection of professional engineering services, the Selection Committee, as authorized by the Districts Boards of Directors pursuant- to minute- order of December 12, 1979, has negotiated with K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for engineering services in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Floor Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25, for a per diem rate not to exceed- $11,000. The Selection Committee hereby certifies the above final negotiated fee as-reasonable-for -the services to be performed, and that said fee will not result in excessive profits for the consultant. /s/ Donald L. Fox ---------------_- Donald L. Fox, Chairman Selection Committee /s/ Bill Vardoulis Bill Vardoulis, Vice-Chairman Selection Committee Approved Isl Fred A. Harper \Moll Fred- A. Harper —. - -- -- - - -- -- — General Manager "H" AGENDA ITEM #9(M) (1) - ALL DISTRICTS 411 RESOLUTION NO. 80-27 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH K. P. LINDSTROM & ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RE SUPPLEMENT TO EIR TO ADD FLOW EQUALIZATION FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-25 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH K. P. LINDSTROM & ASSOCIATES FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RE PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENT TO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR WASTEWATER FACILITIES PLAN FOR COUNTY SANI- TATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY TO ADD FLOW EQUALIZATION FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. P2-25 WHEREAS, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 53 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County have heretofore adopted a policy establishing proce- dures for the selection of professional engineering and architectural services; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to said procedures an agreement has been negotiated with K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for consulting engineering services in connection with preparation of a Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact• Statement/Environmenta' Impact Report for Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, prepared jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency, to add Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, in order to meet the CEQA requirements to be eligible for funding under the State and Federal construction grant program; and, WHEREAS, the Selection Committee established pursuant to said procedures has certified the final negotiated fee for said services, which said certification has been approved by the General Manager. NOW, THEREFORE,. the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the certain agreement dated by and between County Sanitation District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, and K. P. Lindstrom & Associates for consulting engineering services in connection with preparation of a Supplement to. the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for "I-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(M) (2) - ALL DTSTRiCTS eft-1 " Wastewater Facilities Plan for County Sanitation-Districts of Orange County, prepared jointly with the Environmental Protection Agency, to add' Flow Equalization Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-25, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That payment for said services is hereby authorized in accordance with the provisions set forth in said agreement on a per diem fee basis for a maximum amount not to exceed $11,000.00; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and on behalf of Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement, in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. �.d "I-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(M) (2) - ALL DISTRICTS "I-2" RESOLUTION NO. 80-31-2 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CARBON CANYON �d DAM INTERCEPTOR, CONTRACT NO. 2-21 , A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA,. APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CARBON CANYON DAM INTERCEPTOR, CONTRACT NO. 2-21 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications -and contract documents- this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Lowry and Associates, District's engineers, for Carbon Canyon Dam Interceptor, Contract No. 2-21, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section_ That the Secretary of the Board and the Districts' Chief Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of' Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13,. 1980. "J" AGENDA ITEM ##9(N) - DISTRICT 2 "J" RESOLUTION NO. 80-33-3 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ORANGETHORPE. �..✓ RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, PORTION OF REACH 16 AND REACH 16A', CONTRACT NO. 3-22-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR ORANGETHORPE RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, PORTION OF REACH 16 AND REACH 16A, CONTRACT NO. 3-22-3 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and--contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Boyle Engineering Corporation, District's engineers, for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16 and Reach 16A, Contract No. 3-22-3, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed-to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to- the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That the General Manager be authorized to esfaGlish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Board and the UiBtricts' Chief Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "K" AGENDA ITEM #9(P) - DISTRICT 3 "K" i RESOLUTION NO. 80-34-3 AWARDING MANHOLE REPAIR,—MILLER-HOLDER TRUNK, - CONTRACT NO. 3-2R-I _ _ ._._ _ ✓, A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COMM, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR MANHOLE REPAIR, MILLER-HOLDER TRUNK, CONTRACT NO. 3-2R-1 The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of Directors by the Districts' Chief Engineer that award of contract be made to Peter C. David Co. for Manhole Repair, Miller-Holder Trunk, Contract No. 3-2R-1, and the bid tabulation and proposal submitted for said work are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That the contract for Manhole Repair, Miller-Holder Trunk �Iw) Contract No. 3-2R-1, be awarded to Peter C. David Co. in the total amount of $83,610.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of the District are hereby -authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said contractor for said work pursuant to the specifications and contract documents therefor, in form approved by the General Counsel; and, Section 4. That all other bids for said work are hereby rejected. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "L" AGENDA ITEM #°(o) - DISTRICT 3 "L" B I D T A B U L A T I O N S H E E T January 8 , 1980 11:00 A.M. CONTRACT NO. 3-2R-1 _-- -----.____ -- PROJECT TITLE Manhole Repair, Miller-Holder Trunk PROJECT DESCRIPTION Repair 19 manholes on the Miller-Holder Trunk ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $ 55 ,000. 00 BUDGET AMOUNT $ REMARKS CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID I. Peter C. David Co. Garden Grove,. CA $83,610.00 2. G. R. Frost, Inc. Los Alamitos, CA $93,400.00 3.. Rewes-ScbDck, JV Santa Ana, CA $108,720.00 4. I have reviewed the proposals submitted for the above project and find that the Engineer's estimate was low and that the low bid is a responsible bid. I, therefore, recommend award-ta--Peter C. David Co. of Garden Grove, CA, in the bid amount of. $83, 610. 00 as the lowest and best bid. 4�t 6 . Thomas M.- Dawes Senior. Engineer I. concur with the- above recommendation to. award Contract No. 3-2R-1. Ray L is, Chief Engineer "M" AGENDA ITEM #9(Q) - DISTRICT 3 "M" RESOLUTION NO. 80-35-5 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH ECOS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENT TO THE EIR FOR JAMBOREE DRIVE-BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA -- A RESOLUTION OF- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT WITH ECOS MANAGEMENT CRITERIA FOR PREPARATION OF SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR JAMBOREE DRIVE- BIG CANYON DRAINAGE AREA WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, has heretofore entered into an agreement with .ECOS Management Criteria for preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Jamboree Drive-Big Canyon Drainage Area; and, WHEREAS, it has now been determined that additional information and updating of said Environmental Impact Report is necessary; and, WHEREAS, it is deemed appropriate to amend the agreement with ECOS Management -Criteria to prepare a Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report / for Jamboree Drive-Big Canyon Drainage Area to incorporate -said changes. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Amendment No., 1 to that certain Agreement dated December 1, 1977, by and between County Sanitation District No. 5 and ECOS Management Criteria, for preparation of Supplement to the Environmental Impact Report for Jamboree Drive- Big Canyon Drainage Area, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That payment for additional services be authorized in accordance with the provisions set forth in said amendment on a per .diem fee basis for an amount not to exceed $3,485.00; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of the District are hereby authorized and directed to execute said amendment in form approved by the General Counsel. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "N" AGENDA ITEM #9(R) - DISTRICT 5 "N" RESOLUTION NO. 80-36 `.� APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF "A" AND "B" TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES, CONTRACT NO. 5-21-1 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF "A" AND "B" TRUNK SEWER FACILITIES, SCHEDULE A - ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT WITHIN PLANT NO. 2, SCHEDULE B - JUNCTION STRUCTURE CONNECTION EAST SIDE SANTA ANA RIVER, CONTRACT NO. 5-21-1 * * * * It * * It * * * * * * * * IF The Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by Shaller and Lohr, Inc. , Districts' engineers, for Contruction of "A" and "B" Trunk Sewer Facilities, Schedule A - r.d Alternative Alignment Within Plant No.. 2, Schedule B - Junction Structure Connection East Side Santa Ana River, Contract No. 5-21-1, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 2. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California; and, Section 3. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 4. That the Secretary of the Boards and the Districts' Chief Engineer be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "0" AGENDA ITEM #9(T) - DISTRICTS 5 & 6 "0" Page 1 of 2' COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P . 0. 80X 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. C-06-1073-510 —---.IOFt--A.---ARTUKOVICH SONS, INC. & JOHN A. C .O . N 0. 2 _ CONTRACTOR : ARTMOVICH. JR• ► A JOINT VENTURE DATE February 6, 1980 COAST TRUNK SEWER, REACH 1 & 2, PORTION OF NEWLAND STREET INTERCEPTOR JOB SEWER AND LAKE AVENUE RELIEF SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 11-13-2 Amount of th i s Change Order (ADD) WEbtlst $ 38,633.00 In accordance with contract provisions, the following changes in the contract and/or contract work are hereby authorized and as compensation therefor, the following additions to or deductions from the contract price are hereby approved. 1. Construct two (2) 48-inch manholes in accordance with District specifications within Treatment Plant No. 2 for the price of $4,169.00 each $ 8,338.00 2. Construct a 60-inch manhole on the existing 24-inch Huntington Beach Trunk for diverting flow to the Coast Trunk Sewer at Huntington Street in accordance with District specifications for the lump sum of 5,567.00 3. Reroute existing primary clarifier drain lines within Plant No. 2 in accordance with District specifications and instructions and connect to new manholes for the lump sum of 5,517.00 4. Replant 45 palm trees removed from the City of Huntington Beach parking facility for the constructing of the Coast Trunk Sewer. Replant within parking facility in accordance with City standards at a cost of $365.00 per tree 45 trees maximum at $365/each 15,525.00 S. Remove and field adjust existing flanges for meter spools to correct alignment problems for the lump sum of 3,242_00 6. Change size of water service for State Beach facilities- from 4" A.C. to 6" A.C. and make alignment changes in accordance with City of Huntington Beach request for lump sum of 444.00 TOTAL ADD $ 38,633.00 "P-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(z) - DISTRICT 11 lip-in Page 2 of 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY P . 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO . C-06-1073-510 JOHN A. ARTUKOV ICH SONS, INC. & JOHN A. C .0 . N 0 . 2 C O N T-R A Cfi0 R-: ARTUKOVI£H-, JR. , A JOINT VENTURE DATE February 6 1980 COAST--TRUNK SEWER, REACH 1 & 2, PORTION OF NEWLAND STREET INTERCEPT-OR - - --- U O B : SEWER AND LAKE AVENUE RELIEF SEWER, CONTRACT NO. ll-13-2 TIME EXTENSION Original Contract Date November 1, 1979 Original Contract Time 400 calendar days Original Completion Date December 4, 1980 Time Extension this C.O. 20 calendar days Total Time Extension 20 calendar days Revised Contract Time 420 calendar days Revised Completion Date December 24, 1980 It is mutually agreed by both parties to this contract that by execution of. Change Order No. 2 all time extensions agreed and allowed by Change Orders No.. 1 and 2, inclusive, do adequately and fairly adjust the contract completion time- for the contract work. Original Contract Price $ 7,488,964.53 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 98,030-27 This Change (ADD) O $ 38,633.00 Amended Contract Price $ 7,625,627.80 Board authorization date: Approved: COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF Orange County , California By BY Contractor Chief Engineer "P-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(z) - DISTRICT 11 "P-2" * GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR CONTRACTOR'S LAC. #2742". 50 W. Lambeft JUL 0. Phom (212) 6914M (714)52.94m 0- Bma, California 92e21 February 5, 1980 Attn: Ray Lewis Orange County Sanitation: District No. 3 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Re: Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer Portion of Reach 16 Contract No.. 3-22-2 Dear Sir: We-would like to withdraw our bid- from Contract No. 3-22,2.. This job was bid at- ll.- A.M. on February 5,. 1980. When- we- filled. in- the bid amounts we failed to include. the price of purchasing the pipe.. This figure- should have- been added at the bottom of the bid- ow the Addition (+) cr Deduction (-) - line, before the Total Amount of Bid line. We, are, sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused. - Thank you, we- remain, Yours truly, XME, MC«ch, esident "Q" AGENDA ITEM #19(A) - DISTRICT 3 "Q" RESOLUTION NO. 80-32-3 AWARDING ORANGETHORPE RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, PORTION OF REACH 16, CONTRACT NO. 3-22-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR ORANGETHORPE RELIEF TRUNK SEWER, PORTION OF REACH 16, CONTRACT NO. 3-22-2 WHEREAS, on February 5, 1980, County Sanitation District No. 3 received sealed bids for construction of Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, in accordance with the prescribed procedures; and, WHEREAS, Mark Dakovich, Inc. , the apparent low bidder on. said project, by letter dated February-5, -1980, .requested,to be allowed to withdraw their bid for the Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, due to a failure to include the cost of pipe in said bid; and, - WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has considered the request of Mark Dakovich, Inc. to be relieved of their bid on said project and have heretofore granted said- request. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation- District No. 3. of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Board of Directors by Boyle Engineering Corporation, District's -engineers,--and-- concurred in by the Chief Engineer, that award of contract be made to Meyers Constructors for Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer, Portion of Reach 16, Contract No. 3-22-2, bid tabulation. and. proposal submitted for said work are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 2. That award of contract to Meyers Constructors in the total L, amount of $1,112,090.00, in accordance with the terms of their bid and the prices contained therein, be approved; and, "R-1" AGENDA ITEM #19(D) - DISTRICT 3 "R-1" Section 3. That the Chairman and the Secretary of the.-District are hereby authorized and directed to enter into and sign a contract with said �} contractor for. said work pursuant to the provisions of the specifications and contract documents therefor; and, Section 4. That 11 other bids for said work are hereby_sej-ected. PASSED AND ADOPTED. at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. �.d "R-2" AGENDA ITEM #19(D) - DISTRICT 3 "R-2" B I D T A B U L A T I O N S H E E T February 5 , 1980 CONTRACT N0 . 3-22-2 _11: 00 A.M. ORANGETHORPE RELIEF TRUNK SEATER, PORTION OF REACH 16 �►' PROJECT TITLE (FROM WESTERN AVENUE TO THOMAS STREET) PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of a sewer line and appurtenances in Orangethorpe Avenue from Western Avenue to Thomas Street ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE 1 , 2,00 o 00 . oo BUDGET AMOUVT---$� REMARKS CON'1*SACTOR SUB-TOTAL ADD (DEDUCT) TOTAL BID 1. Mark Dakovich, Inc. Brea $ 787,705.00 - 0.00 $ 787,705.00 2. Meyers Constructors Pipeline Contractors Highland 1,162,090.00 - 50,000.00 1,112,090.00 3. K.E.C. Company Corona 1,242,596.00 - 0.00 1,242,596.00 4. Prkacin Co. & 'r✓ Runje Corp. , J.V. Pasadena 1,314,750.00 - 20,000.00 1,294,750.00 5. Sully-Miller Contracting Company Long Beach 1,353,425.00 - 13,000.00 1,340,425.00 6. Colich & Sons, J.V. Gardena 1,353,056.00 + 12,000.00 1,365,056.00 7. Petar Artukovich Construction Co. , Inc. Whittier 1,389,390.00 - 0.00 1,389,390.00 8. Bebeck Company Irvine 1,554,604.00 - 125,000.00 1,429,604.00 9. Andrew Papac & Sons South El Monte 1,448,565.00 - 0.00 1,448,565.00 10. Vido Artukovich & Son, Inc South E1 Monte 1,520,859.00 - 50,000.00 1,470,859.00 11. Nick Didovic Construction Co. Anaheim 1,669,749.00 - 160,000.00 1,509,749.00 12. Pascal & Ludwig, Inc. Upland 1,565,180.00 + 11,107.00 1,576,287.00 "S-1" AGENDA ITEM #19(D) DISTRICT 3 "S-1" 1501 Quail Sheet consultlnq enolneers / arcnitects P.O. Box 3030 Newport Beach, California 92663 714/ 752-0505 Telex 68-5561 Board of Directors February 7, 1980 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Orangethorpe Relief Trunk Sewer Portion of Reach 16 Contract No. 3-22-2 On February 5, 1980, twelve bids were received for construction of this project. Bids ranged from a low of $787,705 to a high of$1,576,287. The engineer's estimate was $1,137,910. The low bidder was Mark Dakovich, Inc., of Brea. Tuesday afternoon, February 5, Mr. Ray Lewis received a telephone call from Mr. Dakovich requesting that his bid be rescinded. He claims that he omitted the cost of the pipe material in his bid. In analyzing the other bids, especially of the second and third bidders, and comparing the unit prices for installation of the pipe, it appears that a legitimate mistake has been made by Mark Dakovich, Inc. We base this on the fact that if we take the price informa- tion which was given to us for pipe material by the manufacturers for preparing our engineer's estimate, the difference between the Dakovich and Meyer bids is the material for the job. We concur with the Chief Engineer's recommendation to the board that con- sideration be given to Mark Dakovich, Inc., for rescission of their bid. The principals of Meyer Constructors, Mr. Edward J. Meyer and Mr. John A. Artukovich, have stated they are willing to undertake the project at their bid price if the Dakovich bid is permitted rescission. Mr. Meyer and Mr. Artukovich have been in the underground contracting business for 19 and 25 years, respectively. They have just completed for the Aliso Water Management Agency (AWMA) construction of two reaches of the Aliso Creek Effluent Transmission Main, each totaling approximately $750,000. Favorable performance has been expressed by AWMA inspection representatives with both projects being completed on schedule. Also, they have recently completed a $1,600,000 pipeline project for the Big Bear Area Regional Water Management Agency and a $1,200,000 pipeline project for the Simi Valley Water District. John A. Artukovich has constructed many large projects "S-2" AGENDA ITEM #19(D) - DISTRICT 3 "S-211 Board of Directors -2- February 7, 1980 for the Sanitation Districts over the past 20 years as John A. Artukovich and Sons, Inc. The District staff has always commented favorably on his work. His most recent project with the District was the Knott Interceptor, Contract No. 3-20-4, for $1,500,000. A telephone conversation was held with Mr. Edward Meyer to discuss the project. Mr. Meyer stated he fully understood the intent of the plans and specifications, was satisfied with his bid, and wished to proceed with the project. We recommend that the board of directors give consideration to rescinding the bid of Mark Dakovich, Inc., and awarding Contract No. 3-22-2 to Meyer Constructors. BOYLE ENGINEERING CORPORATION Conrad Hohener, Jr., PE Regional Vice President I concur with the above recommendation. Ra , Cie Engineer B-0O3-125-50 "S-3" AGENDA ITEM #19(D) - DISTRICT 3 11S-3" ORDINANCE NO. 604 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 603, ESTABLISHING SEWER CONNECTION CHARGES FOR USE her' OF DISTRICT SEWERAGE FACILITIES The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, does hereby ORDAIN as follows: Section 1. Section 402 of Ordinance No. 603 is hereby repealed. Section 2. Section 402 is hereby added to Ordinance No. 603 to read: 11402. DISTRICT NO. 6 CONNECTION CHARGES 1. District Connection Charges No application for a permit for a connection to a District sewerage facility or to any sewerage facility which dis- charges into a District sewerage facility shall be considered. until a District connection charge is paid by the applicant, provided, however, that such fee shall not be payable when a permit is issued for the reconnection or alteration of an existing connection for the same use made by the District or at the request of the District. No connection permit shall be issued unless there is an established use of the property to be served or a valid building permit issued which established the use of said property. - The following District connection charges are hereby established. and shall be paid to the District or to an agency designated by the District: (a) Regular Connection Charge, Residential Uses. (1) Single family dwelling - $2SO per dwelling unit. "T-1" AGENDA ITEM #26(A) - DISTRICT 6 "T-1" (2) Multiple dwellings - $250 per dwelling unit. A multiple dwelling is any structure designed or used for residential purposes, other than a motel or hotel, which would require use zoning of a greater density than R-1 zone as R-1 is defined in the Orange County Zoning Code, Section 78.0214.1 through 78.0214.6 inclusive, if such zoning classifieat-on--would be required to make the use of the sub-j-ect-p-roperty in conformity with applicable zoning standards of the County of Orange. (b) Regular Connection Charge, Commercial or Industrial Establishments - $625.00 per acre of area (computed to the nearest 1/10th of an acre) provided that such charge shall.__ not be less than $250.00. The term "commercial or indus- trial establishments" as used herein shall include motels, hotels and property owned or occupied by governmental agencies and non-profit organizations." Section 3. The effective date of this Ordinance shall be March 14, 1980. Section 4. The Secretary of the Board is directed to certify to the -adoption of this Ordinance and- cause it to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the County. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California, at a_ regular meeting held February 13, 1980. Chairman of the Board of Directors, County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California Secretary of the- Board of Directors, County Sanitation District No. 6 of Orange County, California "T-2" AGENDA ITEM ,#26(A) - DISTRICT 6 "T-2" February 7, 1980 REPORT AND SUMMARY OF DISTRICT NO. 7's AND LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION's ACTIONS RE PROPOSED ANNEXATION NO. 82 - TRACT NO. 9609 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 PURPOSE OF ANNEXATION The purpose of this annexation is to provide public sanitary sewer service for approximately 99.02 acres of territory proposed to be annexed in the vicinity westerly of Newport Boulevard and southerly of Chapman Avenue in the unincorporated territory of the County of Orange. PURPOSE OF HEARING Because petitions requesting annexation of said territory have not been signed by 100% of the property owners, it is necessary to hold this public hearing to determine if there is a majority protest against annexation. If less than 2S% of the number of landowners within the territory owning not more than 25% of the assessed valuation of land therein, and less than 2S% of the voting power of voters entitled to vote as a result of residing in or owning property within the territory protest, then following the hearing, the Board may order annexation of the territory without election. If more than 25% but less than SO% of the number of landowners within the territory, or more than 2S% but less than 50% of the voting power protest, then an election must be held. . If more than 50% of the assessed valuation or more than 50% of the voting power protest, then the annexation must be abandoned. ASSESSED VALUATION Assessed valuation of the territory has been determined to be $212,620. PROPOSED ACTION IF PROTESTS ARE INSUFFICIENT If it is determined that protests, if any, are insufficient, the Board may proceed with adoption of Resolution No. 80-41-7, setting forth the Boards' findings re Proposed Annexation No. 82 and ordering said annexation. "U-1" AGENDA ITEM #29(B) - DISTRICT 7 "U-1" TO DATE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS HAVE TAKEN PLACE: On May 9, 1979, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 79-63-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex the territory to the District. On October 10, 1979, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 79-160-7, approving agreement with The Baldwin Company, the majority property owner of the territory, for deferral of annexation acreage fees and conditional reimbursement for island parcels within Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606. On January 9, 1980, the Local Agency Formation Commission adopted Resolution No. 80-4, declaring its findings regarding the proposed annexation, approving said annexation, and directing County Sanitation District No. 7 to proceed with the annexation, On January 9, 1980, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 80-23-7, fixing the date, time and place of hearing on proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606 to County Sanitation District No. 7, and establishing the procedures for filing of written protest. Notice of Public Hearing has been posted in the Districts' office since January 17, 1980. On January 17, 1980, documents were mailed to owners of record within the territory proposed to be annexed, containing the following information: Official Notice of Public Hearing Map indicating area to be annexed Resolution No. 80-23-7 fixing the hearing Legal notice of the hearing was published in the Tustin News on January 23 and January 30, 1980. To date, no written protests have been filed with the Secretary. "U-2" AGENDA ITEM #29(B) - DISTRICT 7 "U-2" RESOLUTION NO. 80-41-7 ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 82 - TRACT NO. 9606) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT (ANNEXATION NO. 82 - TRACT NO. 9606) TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 7 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, on May 9, 1979, adopted Resolution No. 79-63-7, authorizing initiation of proceedings to annex Tract No. 9606 to the District; and, WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7, on January 9, 1980, adopted Resolution No. 80-23-7, fixing the time, date and place of hearing regarding Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606, providing for notice thereof, and establishing proceedings for filing of written protest; and, WHEREAS, after due notice provided by law, a public hearing was held on February 13, 1980, bythis Board of Directors on proposed Annexation No. 82 - Tract No, 9606. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE; DETERMINE AND ORDERY Section 1. That application has heretofore been made to County Sanitation District No. 7 for annexation of territory to the District by means of a letter from the developer, The Baldwin Company, the majority of property owners; and, Section 2. Pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Act of 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code of the State of California, application has heretofore been made to the Local Agency Formation Commission for annexation of said territory to County Sanitation District No. 7 by means of Resolution No. 79.63-7, filed with said Commission by the District, which said Commission has approved said annexation by adoption of its' Resolution No. 80-4; and, "V-1" AGENDA ITEM #30 - DISTRICT 7 "V-1" Section 3. That the designation assigned by said Commission to the '.� territory to be annexed is "ANNEXATION NO. 82 - TRACT NO. 9060 TO COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 711, the exterior boundaries of which are described on Exhibit "A" and shown on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by reference made a part of this resolution; and, Section 4, That the territory hereinbefore referred to is uninhabited; and; Section S. That the reason for annexing said territory is to obtain and provide public sanitary sewer service to said territory; and, Section 6. That provision for payment of annexation fees in the amount of $128,626.98 has been satisfied in accordance with the terms of the Annexation Agreement; and, Section 7. Pursuant to public hearing on February 13, 1980, on said Annexation No. 82 - Tract No. 9606, during which—. protests were filed, either written or oral, the Board of Directors hereby finds that protests filed represent less than 25 percent of the number of landowners within such territory owning not more than 25 percent of the assessed value of land therein; and less than 25 percent of the voting power of voters entitled to vote as a result of residing in or owning property within such territory; and, Section 8. That, as authorized by resolution of the Local Agency Formation Commission and pursuant to Division 1 (District Reorganization Actof 1965) of Title 6 of the Government Code, Section 56320 and 56322, inclusive, the territory hereinbefore,referred to and described hereinabove, be, and it hereby, ordered annexed to County Sanitation District No. 7. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 13, 1980. "V-2" AGENDA ITEM #30 - DISTRICT 7 "V-2" 'TOTICE TO DIRECTORS: Attached is the portion of minutes regarding protests of disqualified suppliers of belt filter presses for Job No. P2-24-2, which was omitted from the minutes mailed with agenda pending approval by the General Counsel, Mr. Woodruff will review the minutes prior to consideration of approval by the Boards. A/13/80 ALL DISTRICTS The Chairman declared that this was the .Hearing and denial ofprotests— time and place set for hearing of protests by disqualified vendors re belt of vendors that have been disqualified by. filter:_presses.for Job P2-24-2 the Districts' engineers as suppliers of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, and declared said hearing open at 8:08 p.m. The General Counsel verbally reported on the P2-24-2 prequalification process and briefly summarized the activities to date by staff, consulting engineer and his office. After a review of the hearing procedures for the protest, the following actions were taken: Receive and file communi- Moved, seconded and duly carried: cation from Passavant Corporation That the letter dated February 11, 1980, from Passavant Corporation relative to disqualification as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering ancI Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Receive and file communi- Moved, seconded and duly carried: cation from Performance Systems, Inc. That the letter dated February 8, 1980, from Performance Systems, Inc. relative to disqualification as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewater- ing and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No, P2-24-2, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Receive and file reports Moved, seconded and duly carried: of the General Counsel re �.d protest of Passavant and That the General Counsel's memoranda Performance Systems, Inc. dated February 13, 1980, relative to protests of Passavant Corporation and Performance Systems, Inc, concerning their disqualification as sup- pliers of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No, 2, Job No. P2-24.-2, recommending that said protests be disallowed for failure to meet time limitations, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed. Disallowing protest of Moved, seconded and duly carried: Passavant Corporation That the protest of disqualification as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No, 2, Job No. P2-24-2, submitted by Passavant Corporation, be, and is hereby, disallowed for failure to meet time limitations established by Code of Federal Regulations, the adopted EPA Guidelines and the notice provided by the District dated January 29, 1980, as recommended by the General Counsel. The Chair directed that the record reflect that no one was present at the hearing from Passavant Corporation. Disallowing protest of Moved, seconded and duly carried: Performance Systems, Inc. That the protest of disqualification as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, submitted by Performance Systems, Inc. , be, and is hereby, disallowed for failure to meet time limitations established by Code of Federal Regulations, the adopted EPA Guidelines and the notice provided by the Districts dated January 29, 1980, as recommended by the General Counsel. -8- J � 2/13/80 The Chair directed that the record reflect that no one was present at the hearing from Performance Systems, Inc. ALL DISTRICTS- The Districts' Chief Engineer, using Receive and file engineers' re- visual aids, described the proposed ports re prequalification of sup- installation of belt filter presses for pliers of belt filter presses Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No, P2-24-22 and sum- marized the actions of his office and the consulting engineer's activities in connection with prequalification of suppliers for said belt filter presses and submitted his final written report thereon. Following a general discussion regarding the action expected by the Boards and further explanation by the General Counsel, Mr. Walt Howard of John Carollo Engineers, Districts' consulting engineers, summarized the con- sulting engineer's report and the prequalification evaluation process, following which it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Chief Engineer's final report on the prequalification of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24.-2, incorporating the staff's summary, the consulting engineer's evaluation and the General Counsel's legal opinion along with other documentation and correspondence in connection with said prequali- fication, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the consulting engineer's summary report prepared by John Carollo Engineers re prequalification of the belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24_2, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive and file General Counsel's legal opinion That the General Counsel's legal re protests opinion dated February 7, 1980, regard- ing protests by vendors disqualified as suppliers for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2_24T2, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. ALL DISTRICTS It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Consideration of protest of Ralph. B. Carter Company That the written documents submitted by Ralph B. Carter Company re protest of the disqualification as a belt filter press supplier for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, subsequent to agenda mailing, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed as follows: - Letter from Ralph B. Carter Company, dated January 20, 1980 - Letter from Betty, Neuman, McMahon, Hellstrom 8 Bittner, Attorney for Ralph B. Carter, dated February 6, 1980 The Chair then recognized Mr. Harold W. Johnson, representing Ralph B. Carter Company, who presented verbal testimony in support of Ralph B. Carter Company's protest of the engineer's disqualification of his firm as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2r24-2. Following rebuttal of Ralph B. Carter Company's testimony by Mr. Walt Howard of John Carollo Engineers-, the Districts' consulting engineers for Job No, P2-24-2, and a discussion of the sufficiency of the protest and testimony of the respective parties, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: -9- • `2/13/80 That the hearing and protest of Ralph B. Carter Company re disqualifi- cation by Districts' engineers as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, �.d be closed; whereupon the Chairman declared said hearing closed at 9:12 p.m. ALL DISTRICTS It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Upholding engineer's disqualifi- cation of Ralp B. Carter ompany That the staff's recommendation be sus- as sypplier of belt filter gresses stained and that the engineer's decision re Job No- P2-24-2 and denying to disqualify Ralph B. Carter Company as protest thereof a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be, and is hereby, upheld; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the protest of Ralph B. Carter Company re said dis- qualification as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be, and is hereby, denied. ALL DISTRICTS It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Consideration of protest of Euramca, Inc. That the letter submitted by Euramca, Inc. , re protest of the disqualifica- tion as a belt filter press supplier for Dewatering and Dry Storage .Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, subsequent to agenda mailing, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. The Chair then recognized Mr. John A. Drozda, representing Euramca, Inc. , who presented verbal testimony in support of Euramca, Inc. 's protest of the engineer's disqualification of his firm as a supplier of belt filter resses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-34-2. �d Following rebuttal of Euramca, Inc. 's testimony by Mr. Walt Howard of John Carollo Engineers, the Districts' consulting engineers for Job No. P2-24-2, and discussion of the sufficiency of the protest and the testimony of the respective parties, it was moved, seconded and duly carried: That the hearing and protest of Euramca, Inc. , re disqualification by Districts' engineers as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be closed; whereupon the Chairman declared said hearing closed at 9:39 p.m. ALL DISTRICTS It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Upholding engineer's disoualifi- cation of Euramca. Inc. . as sup- That the staff's recommendation be sus- plier of belt filter presses re tained and that the engineer's decision Job No. P2-24-2 and denying to disqualify Euramca, Inc. as a supplier protest thereof of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2: Job No. P2-24-2, be, and is hereby, upheld; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the protest of Euramca, Inc., re said disqualifica- tion as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be, and is hereby, denied. ALL DISTRICTS It was moved, seconded and duly carried: Consideration of protest of Komline Sanderson Engineering That the letter submitted by Komline/ Corporation Sanderson Engineering Corporation, dated • February 6, 1980, re protest of their -10- 2/13/80 Jy disqualification as a belt filter press supplier for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, subsequent to agenda mailing, be, and is hereby, received and. ordered filed. The Chair then recognized Mr. Raymond J. Ikola, 'attorney representing Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation, who presented verbal testimony in support of Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation's protest of the engineer's disqualification of his firm as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2. Following a rebuttal of Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation's testi- mony by Mr. Walt Howard of John Carollo Engineers, Districts' consulting engineers, the Boards entered into a discussion of the protests of Komline/ Sanderson Engineering Corporation, Ralph B. Carter Company and Euramca, Inc. , during which it was requested that the Boards consider declaring Euramca, Inc. and Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation, and possibly Ralph B. Carter Company, eligible to submit bids for supplying belt filter presses for Job No. P2,,24-2. Also discussed were the Environmental Protection Agency prequalification regulations, the intent of the pre- qualification process and the responsibility of the protesting firms and responsiveness of .their prequalification submittals. It was then moved, seconded and duly carried: That the hearing and protest of Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation re disqualification as a supplier of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be closed; whereupon the Chairman declared said hearing closed at 10:22 p.m, ALL DISTRICTS Following a brief comment on the pre- Upholding engineer's disgualiT qualification process it was moved and fication of Komline/Sanderson seconded: Engineering Corporation as supplier of belt filter presses That the staff's recommendation be sus- re Job No. P2-24-2 and denying tained and that the engineer's decision protest thereof to disqualify Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation (and Ralph B. Carter Company and Euramca, Inc.) as supplier(s) of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be upheld; and that the protest of Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation (and Ralph B. Carter Company and Euramca, Inc.) re said disqualification as supplier(s) of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2, be denied. The Boards then further discussed reconsideration of allowing disquali- fied vendors to bid on supplying belt filter presses for Job No. P2-24-2. Also discussed were the technical review meetings conducted with the Pro- testants by the staff and consulting engineer subsequent to receipt of the protests and the evaluation criteria used in the prequalification process. After a call for the question, Directors were polled by roll call vote, following which the General Counsel announced that the motion to uphold the engineer's disqualification of Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation Cand Ralph B. Carter Company and Euramca, Inc..) as supplier(s) of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage. Facilities at Plant No. 2, l Job No. P2-24-2 and denying Komline/Sanderson Engineering Corporation (and Ralph B. Carter Company and Euramca, Inc.) protest(s) thereof, had passed. -11- !,EV I SED AGENDA ITEM mli (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items relative to protests by vendors that have been disqualified by Districts' engineers as suppliers of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: (a) Open hearing 4 r g (b) (1) Verbal report of General Counsel re hearing procedures (2) Consideration of communications received subsequent to agenda mailing from other disqualified vendors re belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file communication from Passavant Corporation dated February 11, 1980. See page "A" (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file commumication �J from Performance Systems, Inc. dated February 8, 1980. See page "B" 1�11'(c) Consideration of motion to receive and file Report of General Counsel. See page "CII n✓�ti�' (d) Determination by Board re late protest of Passavant Corporation I(e).tn�,Determination by Board re late protest of Performance Systems, Inc. cc) Cl) Consideration of motion to receive and file engineer's report re Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatered and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job Nor. P2-24-2 (Mailed with agenda material. Note - the package included correspondence with protestants prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Summary re Prequalifi cation of Belt Filter Presses, Job No. P2-24-2, revised February 13, 1980. See page "D" - (3) Consideration of motion to receive and file Summary Report for Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses dated February 13, 1980, prepared by John Carollo Engineers. See page "I" (d) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and legal opinion of General Counsel (included with package mailed with agenda material under item 11 Cc) (1) above) (e) Consideration of protest. of Ralph B. Carter Company: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Ralph B. Carter Company re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing: (see item (c) (1) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) a. Receive and file letter from Ralph B. Carter dated January 30, 1980. See page "E" b. Receive and file letter from Betty, Neuman, McMahon, Hellstrom G Bittner, Attorney for Ralph B. Carter, dated February 6, 1980. See page "F" c. Receive and file other communications , if any (CONTINUED ON PAGE 7-b) 7-a (11) (e) Continued from page 7-a c( ' ' (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Ralph B. Carter Company (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Ralph B. Carter Company C (4) Close hearing re Ralph B. Carter Company protest (f) Consideration of protest of Euramca, Inc. : (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Euramca, Inc. re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing: (see item (c).(1) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) a. Receive and file letter from Euramca, Inc. dated February 7, 1980. See page "G" b. Receive and file other communications, if any �O (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Euramca, Inc. ,, p� (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Euramca, Inc. A<.- }�,�,�r (4) Close hearing re Euramca, Inc. protest � � � / �!i•1�_, (g) Consideration of protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Komline-Sanderson Engineeing Corporation re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing: (see item (c) (1) above for documents �.r submitted prior to agenda mailing.) a. Receive and file letter from Komline-Sanderson-Engineering Corporation dated February 6, 1980. See page "H" b. Receive and file other communications, if any �(2)l Oral testimony on behalf of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation (4) Close hearing re Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation protest '617 . ' " i1"e-c-(�tsar�� ! r (h) Determination by Board re protest of Ralph B. Carter Company (i) Determination by Board re protest of Euramca, Inc. (j) Determination by Board re protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation v 7-b 7 3 MER .(.: titre':. ' 'I^'t.�•' ..� .. i PASSAVANT CORPORATION P. O. BOX 2503 BIRMINGHAM• ALABAMA 35201 TELEPHONE 205/853-6290 TWX 810/733.5547 r, ECE I\/c !, February 11 , 1980 '80 FEB 13 A 8 :52 C.S.5 The Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 ATTENTION: The Secretary SUBJECT: Prequa,lification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering And'Dry Storage Facilities at Plant #2 Job No. P2-24-2, Grant No. C-06-1973-330 Gentlemen: This is to inform you that we received your certified mail communication dated January 23, 1980, on January 28th, advising us that Passavant Corporation's timely submittal did not qualify to be included as part of the dewatering equipment to be furnished on the referenced project. It is acknowledged that we did not respond to such notification within the prescribed period for lodging a protest (frankl-y;. because the re- levant persons were out of town) but we should like to avail ourselves of the opportunity that the Board of Directors might consider our written position as an interested party none the less. The reason given to us by notification of our disqualification states that it was based upon the inability of the proposed equipment to meet the 130 gallons per minute minimum capacity requirements and our pro- posal to provide thirteen machines to potentially compensate for this did not meet the physical restrictions of the proposed structure. We feel the sketch we submitted with our November 7th, 1979 prequalifi- cation package is very reasonably and adequately housed in the building dimensions stated to be available. Most important, however, is that it was deemed necessary for us to propose these additional machines because we were being invited to subsequently submit a bid with a performance v 2, i PRSSRVRNT -z- specification on which we were afforded no opportunity to assess or predict the behavior of your particular sludges on our machines. Had the approach adopted by Detroit City (who recently ordered a similar number of belt presses) been followed, and the low bidding suppliers given the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with their own claims, then everybody's interests, including that of Orange County Sanitation Districts, would have been much better served. It is a well established fact that no two sludges will behave exactly in the same manner with respect to amenability to dewatering and, sometimes, sludges which might otherwise be categorized as being similar will be startlingly different when subjected to dewatering. If this were to occur in this instance without the potential bidders having been granted the opportunity to assess the risk and, at least, establish experience with the particular sludge compositions, then a substantial pecuniary penalty could ensue through no fault of the equipment supplier. Our recognition of these circumstances had a direct influence on the context of our November 7th submittal . Had prequalification been determined by actual testing of the sludge under supervised, controlled and witnessed (by the Engineer) circumstances, then many of the imponderables and consequent surmising would be precluded and the Owner know what to expect from the competi-' tively bid equipment. We are still very much interested in your project and trust that,tfie.' aforementioned comments will receive your consideration. Yours truly, PASSAVANT CORPORATION . Frank F. Gre nshields Marketing Man er Solids Division eww cc: EPA Region IX Headquarters, Grant Division EPA Region IX, Legal Division State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Grant Program Section State Water Resources Control Board, Legal Division All Other Bidders John Carollo Engineers v r►n_�yu hhll GG nA_2„ �.- PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, INC. , P.0. Box 4653 ■ 8933 Roebuck Blvd..Suite F. ■ Birmingham,Alabama 35206 (205)833.7123 Telex No.59.871 February 8, 1980 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention: Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer Subject: Prequalifications For Belt Presses Job No. P2-24-2 Letter of January 23, 19.80 Gentlemen: We have reviewed your letter and request that you please review the Engineer's report, our submittal and prequalify PST as a supplier. Apparently, due to incorrect information in-the analysis or data from some other submittal of another manufacturer, we were incorrectly evaluated. We would like to point out the following: 1. Our prebid submittal was for ten units, Model BP325. There was no'limitation on the flow rate as mentioned in your letter. 2. We recommend that for maximum solids in the cakes, that you consider the rotary prethickener. This will provide for even higher performance than the base offering. 3. We do not know where your reference to, ". .. the proposed fifteen thickeners. .." comes from. Our Alternate 2 clearly states ten Belt presses with rotary thickeners attached. Thus, there would be ten thickeners for ten filters: one on one. These three items should clarify the misconception that you stated PSI would not have the capacity of an integrated system. Other Items: 1. Belt life - The life is based upon a variety of items such as, a. grit content of the sludge; b. normal maintenance or guides c. Normal shower water pressures •• d. operator attention to instructions e. inclusion of tramp materials in sludge V "B-1" „B_1„ PSI County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, CA February 8, 1980 Page Two Since the specification makes no mention of the willingness of the county to guarantee the inlet sludge content of these abrasives, etc. , we can only advise you that we try to be extremely conservative. "Normal belt life of 1,000 hours" is the normal "worst" condition. PSI belt life should' equal that of all other quality builders. 2. Moment of inertia - No requirement was made to submit this information. We will meet this requirement. 3. We have full scale equipment in operation in the USA. We have a one meter unit in New York state. Data from operating installations was included with our submittal. We also submitted an alternative system which greatly exceeded the performance of the specified equipment. We did not see any evaluation of alternate=3. Why were these alternates requested if they were not to be evaluated? We hereby request that the District prequalify PSI as we do indeed meet the requirements and did so submit in our prebid submittal. Whatever data which was used which indicated such things as "15 thickeners" was apparently attached to our_ bid by mistake. Yours very truly, PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, INC. C. Robert Steward;.P. E. President hrs Y „B-211 „B-211 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS / of ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 108" ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFOPNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 February 7, 1980 (714) 962-2411 Revised February 13, 1980 STAFF SUMMARY PREQUALIFICATION OF BELT FILTER PRESSES Job No. P2-24-2 There are fourteen separate contracts for the 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, for which seven separate State and EPA grants have been offered. These projects are as follows: Construction Job No. Description Cost Status P2-23-1 Flood Wall & Site Development $ 2,279,868. Complete 5-9-78 P2-23-2 Oxygen Generation & Storage Facilities and Oxygen Dissolution Facilities 8,273,000. 78% complete P2-23-3 Electrical Reliability at Plant No. 2 3,024,196. Complete 5-2-79 P2-23-5 Operations Center 1,246,270. Complete 3-12-79 P2-23-6 Major Facilities 31,140,879. 65% complete P2-24-1 Digestion & Wet Storage Facilities for 13,350,000. Authority to Award the Solids Handling & Dewatering mailed by State Facilities at Plant No. 2 2-4-80•.'"�' - P2-24-1A Solids Transport & Composting Equipment 1,263,280. Awarded 1-19-80 1B, 1C Purchase Partial delivery of equipment P2-24-2 Dewatering Facilities at Plant No. 2 12,800,000* Scheduled to award at May, 1980 Board TOTAL $73,377,493. Meeting *Engineer's estimate The key equipment to the Solids Handling and Dewatering Contract, Job No. P2-24-2, is the furnishing and installation of ten belt presses for the dewatering of digested sewage sludges. A considerable amount of investigation has been done by the consulting engineers and Districts' staff in reviewing the performances of the belt presses presently utilized in this industry. In addition, much of the work conducted by the LA/OMA sludge study team was incorporated in the develop- ment of prequalification specifications for this project. On October 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16, 1979, a legal notice was published inviting bids for Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses. Prequalification Specifications were mailed to known equipment suppliers of belt filter presses. Receipt of responses to the Prequalification Specifications was established as November 9, 1979. All responses were promptly referred to John Carollo Engineers for their evaluation. Their report was submitted to the Districts' staff on December 5, 1979. After careful review of the consulting engineers report, along with the responses from the equipment suppliers, the Districts' Chie; Engineer did, on January 23, 1980, notify all respondents whether or not they qualified to submit a proposal to prospective bidders for Job No. P2-24-2. i The EPA regulations have developed a procedure to prequalify certain major equipment prior to the receipt of bids in order that the bids received reflect the quality and performance of the key equipment to be supplied. Prequalification Specifications were mailed to several known equipment manufacturers and public notice was given through publication. Nine equipment suppliers submitted responses to the Prequalification Specifications which were carefully reviewed by the consulting engineer and subsequently by the Districts' staff. In accordance with the EPA regulations, all respondents to the Prequalification Specifications were notified as to the acceptance or non-acceptance of their equipment for this project. Of the nine respondents to the Prequalification Specifications, seven suppliers were disqualified for failure to meet the technical requirements of the Specifications and two suppliers were qualified to submit proposals to prospective prime contractors for this project. Of the seven firms disqualified, three firms have filed written protests in conformance with the EPA regulations for consider- ation by the Boards of Directors. The Directors will be required to officially rule upon the protests of the equipment suppliers at a formal public hearing to be held at the February Board Meeting. The Districts' staff, along with the consulting engineers, met with the individual protestants on Thursday, February 7 and on Monday, February 11, to receive and consider any additional technical information which the protestant wishes to submit. Staff, along with the consulting engineers, felt that the Technical Review Meetings. were very informative and that all representatives from the three protestants conducted themselves 'i.n a very professional -manner. Minutes of these meetings., along with- supplemental information supplied by the protestants, are included in the Chief Engineer's Report. After careful review of all information supplied by the protestants, including the supplemental information submitted at the Technical Review Meetings, the staff, along with the consulting engineers, concur that the qualification and disqualification determinations which were mailed to all respondents to the prequalification specifications on January 23, 1980, should be sustained by the Boards of Directors. It is, therefore, recommended that the Boards of Directors disqualify the following: Ralph B. Carter Company 192 Atlantic Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07602 Euramca, Inc. 40 Fay Avenue Addison, Illinois 60101 Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation Holland Avenue Peapack, New Jersey 07977 Additionally, the staff would like the Boards of Directors to consider the following: 1. The VIA memorandum (PRM 79-10) describing the prequalification procedures- for major equipment states that this is a system that may be used to ease the administrative burden of diater- mining responsive, responsible bidders on equipment. The -z 2. D-2 procedures should be used to screen bidders, but the EPA said that the new guidance will not help provide a "conclusive determination of responsibility" and should not be used to restrict competition. The EPA policy on prequalification of major equipment is an attempt to end what is commonly called "bid shopping". Prime contractors shopping around for low priced equipment hurts municipalities because the EPA rules often require the purchase of substandard equipment or results in having equipment purchases tied to enforceable contract terms. 2. At a March 20, 1979 Water Pollution Control Federation Government Affairs Seminar, former EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator, John T. Rhett, said that the EPA was extremely concerned about the operational and maintenance problems in the wastewater program. EPA believes the problems are caused by improper design and by influent problems such as industrial waste or excessive flows, as well as operation and maintenance problems. Rhett warned that the responsibility of compliance rests with the municipal plant owners and that -the EPA will enforce the conditions of the discharge permits on a non- political basis. REL:hjb V p-3 3. D- 3 RALPH Be CARTER COMPANY TELEX: 134419 192 ATLANTIC STREET CABLE. CARTERCO HACKENSACKNJ HACKENSACK. NEW JERSEY 076OZ (2O1) 342. 3030 January 70 , 1980 uer t l erlen : I. i s letter Serves as not i Ce alld conf i rmat ion of the ma i loran) seat to: 1 ) County Sanitation Districts of Orange County , Fountain Valley , CA, Attn: Ray E. Lewis , Chief Engineer; 2) John Carollo Engineers , Wal - nut Creek, CA.. Attn : Walter Howard; and 3) Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX , San Francisco, CA, Attn: Paul De Falco, Jr. , Regional Administrator hereby serving notice of the Ralph B. Carter Cwnpanvls action in reply to the letter received as written by Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California on January 23 , 1980. The Ralph B. Carter Company protests pursuant to 40CFR35.939 the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California decision. The decision to not qualify the Carter Series 25/32 belt aces-s per the specification for Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant Number 2 , Job Num6i'r P2-24-2, Grant Number C-06-1073-330 has resulted in a direct and indirect monetary loss to the Ralph B. Carter Company. Carter Company exercises its right to request a formal -hearing pur- suant to the provisions of 4C'.FR35.939. Carter Company maintains that the 2.5 meter Series 32 Belt Filter Press to be supplied can and will process in excess of 130 gallons per minute of sludge as specified. Very t ru i y yours , 1: Harold W. Johnson 'roduct Manager ilp V ,. RALPH B. CARTER COMPANY Paoe 2 Januar�' 30 . 1980 cc Ashbrook, Simon, Hartley Komiine-Sanderson Ene. Corp. '•,.✓ P . C. Box 16327 P. 0. Box 257 Houston , Texas 77022 Peapack, NJ 07977 Atn : Mr. Morris E. Jett Attn: Donald Updike James Louden icr- i itche11 314 Rosecrans Avenue Manhattan Beach , CA 90266 T. H. Creears -ttn . tT " ; -cnei ? :920 Sou:'r. i no 1 e:tood. r-;- At t��: Douc M*^re L . Z7 Road San Carlos . f= 54070 Attn: .pack- Tooley r, C. Box M1:9 Pleasanton. --A 0'4566 Tait-Andr-itz Attn: Jack Pillow 4601 Locust Lubbock, TX 79404 Parkson Corporation. Attn : Joe Rose P. 0. Box 2440' Fort Lauderdale, FL 33307 MISCO Attn: Michael Schill 1720 East Garry G. Picciotti Suite 213 Santa Kna, CA 92705 ' Hardy Herman, Phinney ar,c Yoamur Attn: "a • 3607 Seneca Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90039 J-M Squared Attn: Don Her-an P. C. Box 2,101 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: Jim MacNichols Passavant Corporation P.O. Box 2503 Birminchar, 3520 Enviro-Tech Process Eqpt �ttn: Wi i ? aT 3anko�:ski 171G Sou:n Amprlett Street 330 John loo_ , Jr. San. Mateo. C-. 94402 Frank Greensnield_ Performance Systems . Inc. . . RALPH B. CARTER COMPANY Page 3 January 30, 1580 cc Jonr. Ca rot 1 o Eng i nee rs 450 North Wiget Lanz Walnut Creek, C* �L558 Attn: Walter Howard General Council 1055 North Main Ixecionai �L: LI'%/OMA Frc.;ec- v. `vnitt :er , Attn: William Davis Environmental Protection r,,;en c`r Recion in 215 Frer•on t San. Francisco, Attn: Mr. Paul Oe=alto, J-. , P. 0. Box 3iZ- 10844 Ellis nvenu= Fountain Valle . :2?:1F Attn: Mr. Ray E. =e::is, �hief lotLAW OFFICES '. \� 0 t(� (� \ BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER - ,� n�ILV\ ov \ 800 UNION ARCADE BUILDING MARRY B.BETTY 157A-19all DAVENPORT, IOWA FRANK F.BETTY ta80-1974 HENRY N.NEUMAN ZIP CODE 37801 RICHARD M.MCMAMON JOHN A.MELLSTROM TELEPHONE R.RICHARD Bf7TNER 326-"91 THOMAS F.DALEY.JR. 1930-197O February 6 , 1980 AREA CODE 319 RALPH D.SAUER LARRY L SMEPLER MENRY G.NEUMAN STEVEN M.JACOBS - ROGER A.LAT14ROP ROBERT D.LAMBERT GREG A.EGBERS CRAIG A.LEVIEN County Sanitation District of Orange City, California P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Ray Lewis Dear Mr. Lewis : We have been contacted by the Ralph B. Carter Company of Hackensack, New Jersey relative to their prequalification proposals which were submitted to your district recently. As you are aware, the Carter Company filed a written protest on January 29, 1980 contesting their disqualification .from submitting bid proposals on certain digesting equipment . On February 4, 1980, at 4: 06 p.m. , Attorney Thomas L. Woodruff, acting on behalf of the Sanitation District, sent a telex communication to Ralph B. Carter Company notifying Carter that any written technical material which the company wished to have the Board consider in connection with its protest had to be filed at the Board offices by February 7 , 1980. Mr. Woodruff' s telex communication was received by the Ralph B. Carter Company on February 5 , 1980 at 3 : 22 p .m. Receipt of that telex was Carter' s first indication that written technical material would have to be filed in your California office on February 7, 1980 . I am sure that you can well appreciate the serious problems posed by a filing deadline which gives Carter Company only a scant two days notification of a filing deadline. Putting aside the difficulties associated with preparing any written v ' BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER DAVENPORT,JOWA•• February 6 , 1980 Page 2 document on such short notice, the geographical separation makes it impractical to even attempt to comply with that filing requirement . Therefore, Ralph B. Carter Company will be unable to supply any additional written comments or technical points within the time constraints set out in Mr. Woodruff' s telex. However Mr. H.W. Johnson of the Ralph B. Carter Company does plan to be in attendance for the February 11 , 1980 technical presentation or review meeting with Messrs . Walter Howard and J. L. Dimer. Mr. Johnson also plans to give a verbal presentation during the February 13, 1980 hearing before the Board of Directors at 7 : 30 p .m. We assume that Mr. Woodruff' s telex was issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 35. 939 (d) (2) (ii) of the applicable Rules and Regulations . Since Section 35 . 939 (d) (2) (i) contemplates either the presentation of arguments in writing or at a conference, we are confident that the unusually short filing period will not be used in any manner to preclude full and adequate presentation of Carter' s position. We feel that the technical data, when adequately reviewed, will shoes that the Carter press has capabilities to more than satisfy your process requirement of 130 gallons per minute. If you have any questions , please do not hesitate .to call. Very truly yours , BETTY, NEUMAN, McMAHON, ' HELLSTROM & BITTNER Larry /L. Shepler je For distribution, see attached list. V F-z F-z BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER DAVENPORT, IOWA February 6 , 1980 Page 3 Copies to : Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc. P . O. Box 16327 Houston, TX 77022 Attn: Morris E. Jett, Vice-President Tait Andritz 4601 Locust Lubbock, TX 79404 Attn: Joe A. Rose, Sales Engineering R. B. Car 1000 Lake St. Louis Boulevard Lake St. Louis , MO 63367 Attn: Marc Salmi r, EnviroTech Process Equipment 1710 South Amphlett Suite 300 San Maleo, CA 94402 Attn: Bob Simonds Euranca Ecosystems , Inc. P.O. Box 349 Allison, IL 60101 Attn: John A. Drozda Konline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation P.O. Box 257 Peapack, NJ 07977 Attn: Donald C. Updike James Louden, Jr. Gierlich-Mitchell, Inc . 314 Rosecrans Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Attn: Jim Mitchell T W Associates 727 Industrial Road San Carlos , CA 94070 Attn: Jack Tooley v -.3 Pr3 BETTY, NEUMAN, McMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITrNER DAVENPORT, IOWA February 6 , 1980 Page 4 MISCO 1720 East Garry Suite 213 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Attn: Ray Hardy J-M Squared Equipment P.O. Box 2401 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: James MacNichols Flo System, . Inc. 3010 F1oyd. Street Burbank, CA 91504 Attn: Lou Giordano T H Creears 9920 South La Cienega Boulevard Inglewood, CA 90301 Attn: Doug Moore Frank Levin Parkson Corporation P .O. Box 24407 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307 Attn: Michael G. Schill, Sales Manager Gene Picciotti Passavant Corporation P.C. Box 2503 Birmingham, AL 35201 Attn: William A. Bankowski John F. Igoe, Jr. Frank Greenshields Performance Systems , Inc. P.O. Box 4653 Birmingham, AL 35206 Attn: C. Robert Steward, President J. H. Pillow Company P.O . Box 1209 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Attn: Mr. Jack Pillow v ,. / BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER DAVENPORT, IOWA February 6, 1980 Page 5 Herman-Phinney-Kodmur 3607 Ceneca Avenue Los Angeles , CA 90039 Attn: Don Herman John Carollo Engineers 450 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Attn: Walter Howard Mr. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel 1055 North Main Suite 1020 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Regional Water Quality Control Board 6809 Indiana Suite 200 v Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: James Anderson LA/OMA Project P. O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607 Attn: Bill Davis Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 9.4105 Attn: Paul DeFalco, Regional Administrator v ' t_`r it _� . _ 7 Z February 7, 1980 FEDERAL EXPRESS COURIER-PAK Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Prequallfication of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering and and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2 Job No. P2-24-2, Grant No. C-06-1073-330 Ref: Notice of Decision Not To Prequalify the Euramca/Roediger Ecopress Model 25.3 - 2.5 Meter Belt Width Belt Filter Press Hillary Baker's comments concerning protest dictated to Euramca'.s. -- Word Processing Center on Wednesday, February 6, 1980, and .transcribed by Euramca personnel (copy enclosed) Gentlemen: The aforementioned verbal transmission of the Orange County rules for the protest hearing from the County, was necessary because the formal notification from the County, by Certified Mail , has not been received as of Thursday, February 7, 1980. The original letter of notice of disqualification states the- primary reason for disqualification is a lack of long term U.S. installations. We quote from the EPA - Sludge Treatment and Disposal Manual on Sludge Treat- ment, Volume 1 , EPA-625/4-78-012, October 1978 published by Environmental Research Information Center, Cincinnati , Ohio 45268. Page 117 and Page 118; "U.S. installations of the latest and best models are just now coming onstream. To review actual operating performance on particular sludges, useage of available mobile pilot test units, coupled with site visits is in order. There is considerable operating experience available at existing European sites. The old conundrum that European sludges are different and results are not applicable should be treated with the contempt it deserves, since it is inaccurate." The verbal transmission of Wednesday, February 6, 1980, states several points jnot previously mentioned in the January 23, 1980 letter from Mr. Rai E. Lewis. ' � ` - continued - Gr—, Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer February 7, 1980 Page 2. We call your attention to the fact this cause for rejection was not part of your prequalification requirement specification. Our data may not be delivered to the District as demanded by the County, by Western Union on February 7, 1980 at 12:00 Noon. If the County expects us to honor verbal instructions (not in conformance with the "Rules and Regulations") Euramca expects equal consideration by the County under the same circumstances, to accept our data whenever it arrives. Basis of disqualification given verbally on February 6, 1980 by Hillary Baker. These are our comments. 1 . The number of pilot runs made in 1979 by the 1 .5 Meter Ecopress Mobile Units is 36 U.S. Municipal waste treatment plants and Industrial waste treatment plants. Results met or exceeded all design performance re- quirements for this type of equipment. 2. References supplied deal with dewatering Anaerobically Digested Sludge. Installations of Ecopresses in Europe, which we provided with our pre- submittal , list 35 permanent installations of 5 years or more. Of these, 35 installations 22 are successfully dewatering anaerobically digested sludge. V 3. Euramca/Roediger are specialists in anaerobic digestion as .a form of stabilization for sludge. We assisted the City of Los Angeles in 1973 in the process design for Terminal Island. We are a major supplier of digester equipment and services for this project. We know anaerobic sludge not just dewatering. We are still providing assistance to the Los Angeles Sanitary District, in these areas. 4. There are two (2) 1 .2 meter, one (1 ) 1 .5 meter and three (3) 2.5 meter Ecopresses on order at this time for installations on EPA funded projects. We are in a competitive position for 20 more presses, "pending notice of aware". 5. We point out that most pilot tests run by our competitors are never longer than a week, most tests are not paid for and only Contracted and paid tests run for periods of time longer than one week. These are advertised and generally part of Step 1 201 Studies. We recommend the County evaluate tests not by how many days the equipment was physically on site but how many conclusive tests were run during that time. We have piloted equipment for LA/OMA and are very familiar with testing process system and how it works in your area. �,,,,✓ Do not judge quality by quantity. By testing with a 1 .5 meter Ecopress our clients have the benefit of full scale results not the results of .5 (1/2) meter presses which must be scaled up. y _ Z - continued - - 2,. Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer February 7, 1980 Page 3. 6. The County did not clarify what they mean by an "inline mixer" . This and some other points of your specification are restrictive anyway, and legally subject to challenge not only by our firm, but others. 7. The vacuum zone of our Ecopress is an optional extra. It is supplied or not supplied based on the sludge quality. We can prove 3%-4% drier cake solids for difficult to dewater sludge by using the vacuum zone. We can also prove lower polymer consumption using the vacuum zone. 8. The "hand held" unit referred to weighs 45 pounds and is a scaled down unit 14" wide belt used (in the case of Puerto Rico) where our full size mobile press is not required. This test refers to a 50 gallons per day aerobic treatment pilot plant which produced the sludge to be dewatered. 9. Your comment about the lack of long term history is out of order. Operation in the U.S. was not part of your requirements nor was a definition of long term. You cannot, by precedent, disqualify us on this basis. Our first belt filter press was. installed in 1971 in Germany. All U.S. Belt Filter Presses have undergone major design changes—in the past three years. It is quite impossible for you to have.-seen any belt filter presses of the type you have qualified which have been in service for a "long term" ; whatever that means. The press, any press, you have seen will not be the same press delivered to you one year from today. 10. Your plant is no larger than projects where we have already prequalified; 20 meters of belt width means eight (8) 2.5 meter Ecopresses; this is the same number of Ecopresses bid on February 6, 1980 to Nassau County, Cedar Creek Waste Treatment Plant for dewatering anaerobically Digested Sludge at a rate of 140 gpm at 2% dry solids sludge. The consultant and the County prequalifed us and confirmed our mass and hydraulic load rates. 11 . A flocculator is a flocculator whether it sits on the floor or on a Belt Filter Press. 12. The vacuum zone as previously stated is optional and can be supplied with a new press or added at little cost later if sludge conditions change at the waste treatment plant. If the dry solids expected are less, increasing the hydraulic load, a static extended gravity zone will be of precious little help to you if you still want to dewater the same amount of dry solids per hour. - continued v Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer February 7, 1980 Page 4. v.✓ We point out one major supplier offered 26 presses to do the same job 8 of our Ecopresses could do (verified, we might add by the consultant) . This supplier provides an extended gravity zone. The sludge is an anaerobic digested sludge. Obviously the assumption or implication that an extended gravity dewatering zone results in the same effect is well founded, but at the expense of more or larger machines versus dynamic gravity dewatering systems which are high capacity presses. To be frank the ambiguities of the process and design specifications indicate the client has no concrete idea of what he can expect from his digesters in terms of the type of sludge to be dewatered. Our reply to your February 6, 1980 telephone dictated comments prove conclusively you have no grounds for disqualification. You have made serious assumptions. We point out that prequalification data was assembled at your request at great expense to the suppliers to avoid incorrect assumptions by the people reviewing the data. We are concerned the prequalification data was not reviewed thoroughly before the January 23, 1980 letter from the County. The follow-up data from the County to which we now reply has not been received in the time and manner required by the Rules and Regulations. Euramca has not on this basis been given the prescribed .time to reply. Our reply, at additional expense to Euramca will have to be sent via Federal Express Courier-Pak to arrive in time to be considered. This conditional"agreement to accept our data is also irregular. Very truly yours, EURAMCA ECOSYSTEMS INC. 4ohn A. Droz President JAD:ni cc: EPA Region IX Headquarters, Grant Divison John Carollo Engineers Enclosures V GT-4 G '- 4 Dictated to Word Processing Center, Wednesday, February 6, 1980, by Hillary Baker, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California. Certified letter has not arrived from Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer. Report on Belt Filter Press Evaluation Introduction: The purpose of the report is to provide a recommendation to the County Sanitation District of Orange County with regard to those manufacturers who we feel have successfully qualified their particular belt filter presses under the prequalification guidelines. It is also our objective to present our reasons for not qualifying the remaining manufacturers. The following is a list of the manufacturers which submitted prequalification proposals: 1 . Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc. 2. Ralph B. Carter Co. 3. EIMCO PMD-Envirotech Corporation 4. Euramca Inc. 5. Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation 6. Parkson Corporation 7. Passavant Corporation 8. Performance Systems Inc. 9. Tait-Andritz Inc. Basis of Evlauation: One of the major considerations. in the evaluation of the belt presses was the performance capabilities of the various models. This relates directly to such characteristics as hydraulic throughput, sludge cake dryness, solids capture and polymer useage. While many of the manufacturers stress their abilities to meet these performance requirements as stipulated in the prequalification specifications we felt that an equally important parameter was the mechanical integrity and reliability of the various manufactured belt presses. This is especially true when considering the fact that the County Sanitation District will be installing 10 belt presses to dewater approximately 93 tons of sludge daily. In addition to .evaluating each of the individual manufacturers prequalificaton submittals firsthand experience in the form of plant visits and phone conversations were also used to help in making the determination of qualified equipment. These contacts helped to provide the needed back up information for each equipment's performance under field conditions. Analysis of Belt Presses: As mentioned earlier each of the manufacturers were evaluated on the submitted proposals and personal contacts with various treatment facilities. However, since some of the material presented by the manufacturers in their submittals was not clearly documented the equipment analysis was divided into two portions each analysis deals with the specifics of construction and operation for each belt press as supplied by the manufacturer. The analysis also discussed the ambiguities and oral missions for each manufactures ' submittal . v ' Euramca, Inc. : Euramca has proposed to provide a 2.5 meter Roediger Ecopress belt filter press . The Roediger press has only been piloted at several United States plants. No full scale units are operating (nor are there any on order as far as we know) in this country. The pilot tests have been very short in nature (1-5 days) and therefore no conclusions can be reached based on this limited test work. One of the "pilot" tests was simply a hand held unit which was used to size up to a full scale press . The Roediger utilizes a rotating conditioning drum and a reactor screen (same principle as Carter press) for pre-thickening the sludge prior to the high pressure rollers (no inline mixer is provided) . A vacuum chamber is also provided to aid gravity drainage. It appears that the Roediger unit is a well constructed belt press,however the lack of any long term history of operation in the United States makes this a questionable choice for a large installation as proposed for the Sanitation Districts. The use of the flocculator reactor tank and vacuum zone seem more complicated than necessary when the same effect can be achieved with an extended gravity zone. For these reasons we. recommend that the Euramca/Roediger Ecopress should not be qualified as an approved belt press. End. �d v ' WU INFOMASTER • EURAMCA ADIS 010 91 1 CO 38 1 243EST ZCZC 0 541 ADDISON IL FEBRUARY 7, 1980 FON 714-540-2910 MR- RAY E- LEWIS, CHIEF ENGINEER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 BT SUBJECT: PREQUALIFICATION OF BELT FILTER PRESSES FOR DEWATER ING AND DRY STORAGE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB NO- P2-24-2, GRANT NO- C-06-107 3-330 REF: NOTICE OF DECISION NOT TO PREQUALIFY THE EURAMCA/ ROEDIGER ECOPRESS MODEL 25. 3 - 2. 5 METER BELT WIDTH BELT FILTER PRESS PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION' OF TODAY, THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1990, AT 11 : 20 CST WE ARE SENDING OUR REPLY TO THE POINTS RAISED IN HILLARY BAKER' S COMMENTS DICTATED TO OUR WORD' PROCESSING CENTER ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1980- OUR REPLY WILL REACH YOU AT 12:00 NOON, FEBRUARY 8, •1980 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS COURIER-PAK- WE HAVE NOT AS OF TODAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1980, RECEIVED YOUR CERTIFIED LETTER DETAILING THE ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE EURAMCA/ROEDIGER ECOPRESS- IT IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR TO DEMAND A REPLY TO A LETTER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY RECEIVED• IN THE EVENT OUR REPLY IS NOT RECEIVED WE EXPECT THAT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE ACCEPTED AND• REVIEWED BY THE SANITATION DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- JOHN DROZDA 'EURAMCA ECOSYSTEMS INC- NNNN (EURAMCA ECOSYSTEMS INC- 40 FAY AVENUE ADDISON IL 60101 )- ACCEPTED . 00 541 v ' 1 -PC G-1 G- 7 SERVICE CONTRACT FOR*SLUDGE DEWATERING'EQUIPMENT Option: A, B or C r•. { This Service Contract, after approval and signatures, entitles the client to (one - two - three) service calls by a Komline-Sanderson factory- �I-o''trained employee during a twelve (12) month period from the date of signing. Each call will cover a period of one - two day(s) and will be scheduled so that no less than four (4) months, nor more than twelve (12) months will elapse between calls. Each service call will include any necessary operating adjustments to Komline-Sanderson built equipment, a review of the operating records, a presentation of new techniques and procedures, as well as a written report of the call. The charge for this service will be paid annually in advance for the. total amount of the service option chosen. If more than one day is authorized on any one call, the additional charge will be $300. 00 for each additional day or fraction thereof. Terms _ and pride of this contract are based on furnishing the service when we are In t e area of the plant. If a special trip is necessary from the Home Office, the above terms do not apply. These are chargeable at our regular rate of $350. 00 plus living and traveling expenses, for each eight-hour (8) day, plus transportation round trip from Komline-Sanderson service office. This Service Contract may be cancelled at any time by either party giving the other ninety (90) days' prior written notice. SCHEDULING OF CALLS — Calls will be made to suit the operating schedule of the plant. ' The Plant Superintendent should request specific dates as soon as possible after the signing of the contract. Komline-Sanderson should have at least three (3) weeks' advance notice prior to a service call. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES Option: A - One (1) call per year of 1 day $310. 00 B - Two (2) calls per year 1 day each $590. 00 C - Three (3) calls per year 1 day each $870. 00 Accepted: Customer: K0MLINE - SANDERSO_ N_ ENGINEERING CORPORATION Address: f-. By: By: Name ana T it le Date: = 2 - Floorm:SER:018:0677, Rev. 11/79 �� 8 MANUFACTURERS OF EQUIPMENT FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES MAIN OFFICE AND WORKS PZ"ACK, NEW 1IMSEY 0Z9TT AREA CODE 201 TELEX PHONE 234-1000 February 6, 1980 1 3 e-32 8 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92 708 Attention: Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer Reference: Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilit at Plant No.2, Job No. P2-24-2 Grant No. C-06-1073-330 Gentlemen: Komline-Sanderson has received a copy of the Districts' Belt Filter Press Evaluation Report relating to Komline-Sanderson's prequalification submittal for the referenced project. . The Districts' comments relative to our submittal were included under paragraph E, K omline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation, and we would like to take the opportunity to respond to those comments point bye point. Some of the items have already been addre s sed in our letter,-of January 31, 1980. Item 1: As stated in our January 31 letter, the perforated rollers will be type 31;sta.ialess steel. This was an error on our part in that specification page 5 of our submittal should have read 316 ss not 304 ss. As was pointed out, the materials of construction shown on page 1 did correctly specify the roller material to be type 316 s s. Item 2: As stated in our January 31 letter, Komii nee Sander son will furnish type 316 ss anchor bolts and fasteners in lieu of using type 18-8 as shown on page 1 of our specifications. We pointed out that it was normal for us to use type 18-8 sim- ply because that fastener system does not have the tendency to gall as do fasteners made of type 316 s s. Item 3: The Districts' specifications do require epoxy paint on all galvanized sur ces. Normally it is not customary for us to paint over a galvanized surface hence the inadvertent orris Sion of that paint on our part. We will paint the framing as required. The prime coat will be Tnemec #66-1211 Hi-Build Epaxoline primer at 4 mils dry film thickness. This will be followed by a finish coat of Tuemec #66 Hi-Build Ep oxoline at 6 mils dry film thickness. y H _ 1 PERFORMANCE COUNTS 1 ` +1 KOM =-SAXD=S0X ERGLMMUG CORPOnTION PSAPAMNswJMMY 079TT Orange County, CA , February 6, 1980 Items Vortex mixer can be provided. See drawing-.TJN-7088-C. Ite... Once again, the matter of pillow block type bearings was discussed in our January 31 letter. We pointed out that all proposed bearings are housed in cast .iron housings with seals. Some of the housings are pillow blocks, some are flanged cartridges, some are take-up mounted cartridges, some are cylin- drical cartridges, etc. Whether the housing is a pillow block housing or not should not make any difference relative to the bearing's performance or its ease of lubrication. Item 6: Komline-Sanderson's standard belt tensioning system consists of two (2) naa;uaIly activated (handwheel) ball screw jacks pushing a spring-loaded take-up bearing. Take-up roll position and spring compression are measured by an indicator next to the take-up bearings. A pneumatic belt tensioning system can be provided by replacing each jack with a pneumatic cylinder with appropriate controls. A pressure regulator can then be used to control belt tension, which will be proportional to cylinder pressure. This is the same system now being furnished for-the twelve presses at the City of Detroit. Item 7: Calculation sheet 1 enclosed shows that maximum beam stress-is well �...� below one-half yield stress of A-36 steel. Note that while the moment of inertia is less than specified, so to is the-beam span. A shorter span.;allows a lower moment of inertia while maintaining acceptable stress levels. Item 8: Komline-Sanderson is aware of the Districts' 130 GPM throughput requirement.meat. Most of our January 31 letter was addressed to that subject. We spoke of the knowledge gained from three sources, actual installations, full- scale pilot plant testing and bench scale laboratory testing. Three pilot plant test reports were submitted; reference was made to our successful pilot plant test program at Detroit, Michigan. Based on the above, we concluded that the Districts' performance requirements were well within the. capabilities of the proposed Model GMD-2/2 press. Further, KomU.ne-Sanderson offered to con- duct a five day on-site performance test using one of our full-scale one-half meter wide trailer mounted pilot units on a no charge basis. The purpose of that offer was to settle the protest on the basis of facts gained from testing and not on the Districts' judgements or on. Komline-Sanderson's claims. It is known that others have pilot tested, and we trust that the same opportunity, previously denied, will now be given to us. -3- KOiMM-S 0DRRSM ENGLYBBEL'1TG CORPORATION PE"ACK,'kYXW J=SZT OT9TT Orange County, CA February 6, 1980 Item 9: Kornline-Sanderson offers either electric or pneumatically actuated belt t tracking systems. Pneumatic tracking was proposed to meet your speci- fications. Both systems have proven to be simple and reliable means of belt control. With either system some adjustment is required at start-up, but thereafter the system requires little attention. During normal operation, with the belt centered, there is no contact with the limit valve lever-greatly extending its life and minimizing wear on the edges of the belt. Continuous contact sys- tems are required with higher belt speeds but not with the relatively low belt speeds used on the K-S belt press. Item 10: The Districts' report mentions that nip rollers provided on the drums have not proved successful on sludge mixtures containing activated sludge. These rollers are included in our presses for two reasons. The first reason is to apply point pressure as -vas noted on page 2 of our November 7, 1979 prequali- fication submittal. The second reason is that they act -as-wipers to remove sur- face water from the pressure belts. Surface tension holds a film of water on the belts. The rolls help remove this water. The amount of pressure that can be applied depends on the sludge characteristics. If the sludge tends to extrude out of the edges of the cloth-cake sandwich, the roller has to be backed off. In the case of 100016 waste activated sludge very little pressure can be applied with the rolls, if any, and their function is limited in such cases to wiping only. Item 11: Problems with spray nozzles clogging was mentioned in the Distri report. Komline-Sanderson provides some presses with self cleaning-nozzle and some without. The Districts' specifications required nozzles..with a built- in self cleaning feature. Referring to specification pages 2 an'd 5 of our Novembe: 7, 1979 submittal material, you will note that we propose using Albany self cleaning nozzles with pneumatically operated purging. We could furnish nozzles with the wire brush cleaning feature if required by the Districts, but prefer the Albany type since they can be arranged for automatic type purging whereas the ott type requires manual operation to clean the nozzles. Item 12: Finally, the Evaluation Report mentioned several instances of poor follow-up service. We respond to our customer's requirements for service and are not aware of those specific instances to which the report refers. Our service capabilities were discussed on page 7 of our November 7, 1979 prequalification submittal. Once again, let us reiterate our belief that the proposed Model GMD-2/2 press is wholly suitable for the Orange County project based on the Districts' prequalifi- ca.tion specifications and that Komline-Sanderson should have been granted approval based on its November 7, 1979 submittal. Accordingly, we have pro- Kemm-Swmnsow EFGEmBiNG COEPO mmf PBAPAGK WNWJXRMM,otsTT Orange County, CA February 6, 1980 tested the Districts' decision not to grant us that approval. It is believed that this letter.fully responds to the Districts' reservations expressed in their Evaluation Report and once again, we request the opportunity to conduct an on-site pilot test program to prove the performance capabilities of our offering. Very truly yours, KOMLME-SANDE SON ^� \ Ja=e A. Louden f Vide President, Sales j ' JAL/kas Enclo sure s cc: copies sent.to all parties on the attached list. v ' H-q �� `� of ORANGE COUNTY,CAUFORNIA P.C. BOX 8127 loses ELUS-AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CAUFORMA 92708 c7u) seos9lo ' January .28, 1980 (714) 962-241: �.J PBEQUALIFICATION OF BELT PMTEB PRESSES MANUFA=MM Aim 0°.Z°HF,B Ashbrook-Simon-Bartley, Inc. Gierlich-Mitchell, Inc. Post Office Boa 16327 314 Bosecraas -Avenue Houston, Texas 77022 'Manhattan :Beach, CA 90266 Atta: Morris E. 'Jett, 'O.P. Attu: Mr.. Jim Mitchell T. W. Associates 727 Industrial Road San Carlos, -CA 94070 .Attu: Mr. Jack Tooley Tait AndrI ry- -MISCO 4601 Locust 1720 East Garry, Suite 213 Lubbock, .Texas 79404 -Santa Ana, CA 92705 Atta: Joe A. Rose, Sales-Engineering Attn: Mr. Bay lArdy .J-H .-Squared Equipment :Post .Office .Boa 2401 -South :San Francisco., -CA -94080 Atta.: James -MacNichols , Ralph .B. Carter Company Ralph .B. Carter ; -dmpany 1000 -Lake Saint Louis Blvd. 192 Atlantic :Street Suite 1.3 3ackensack, New Jersey .07602 Lake .Saint Louis, Missouri .63367 Attn: 'Ms.. Chuck Tbarp Flo 'Systems, Inc. 3010 Floyd -Street Burbank, CA .91504 Envirotech Process Equipment 1710 South Amphlett, St. 330 San .Mateo, CA 94402 Attu: Bob Simonds Euramca .Ecosystems, Inc. Post Office Box 349 .Addison, Illinois 60101 Attn: Mr. John A. Drozda Komline- Sanderson Engineering Corp. Bom].iae-Sanderson -Eng'r Corp. P. 0. .Box 257 100 Holland Avenue Peapack, New .Jersey 07977 Peapack, New Jersey 07977 .Attu: Donald C. Updike Attu: Mr. James louden, Jr. T. H. Creears 9920 South La Cienega Blvd. Inglewood, CA 90301 Attn: Mr. DougvMoore Mr. Frank Levin . '. Prequalification of Belt Filter .Presses '" . January 28, 1980 Page .Two MANUFACTURER 'REPRESENTATIVE AND OTHER Romline-Sanderson -Engineering .Corp,. J. H. Pillow Company (Continued) 'P. 0. Box .1209 Measaaton, CA 94566 _ — Atta: Mr. Jack Pillow Parkson Corporation Parkson .Corporation Post Office Box 24407 P. 0. Box .24407 _Fort Iauderdale, .Florida 33307 Fort 'Lauderdale, 'Florida _33307 Attn: Michael G. Schill, Sales Manager Attn: Mr. Gene Picciotti Herman-i'hinney-&our 3607 Seneca -Avenue Los Angeles., .CA 90039 Attn: Mr. Dora Herman Passavant Corporation .'Passavant Corporation .Post Office Box 2503 Post Office Box 2503 Birmingham, Alabama 35201 Bi=miugham, .Alabama 35201 Attn: William A. .Bankowski Attn: .John .F. Igoe, Jr. Frank Greenshields Performance :Systems, Inc. Post Office Box 4653 .Birmingham, .Alabama 35206 Attu: -C. 'Robert Steward, President .OTHER John Carollo :Engineers 450 North Wiget Lane Walnut .Creek:, :CA 94598 Attn: Mr.. Walter Howard Mr. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel 1055 North Main, Suite 1020 Santa Ana., CA 92701 Regional Water Quality -Control Board 6809 -Indiana, .Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: Mr. James Anderson LA/0MA Project P. 0. Box -4 998 Whittier, CA -90607 Attn: Mr. Bill Davis �� (0 L- � A 120t A �l 4 a�£ Z 97 pool/ . C�t/4- = 4i o 9 i41 C%.Z hh� hV t 4(02 .8,o'�1,C•2 �3�hl x �,Og j i 4, 5.51 x A4 02 - S �'4?'A 0£Lt ,A 5/ t6 .5's 4 KGB fat a �'•8� ��°Zd2 .:. �G�,►� �. s 1, 2 x GCS£ fS w#a ro-a -2-2y,7 'ON 90r _. _ _ .=Vc AS 'CHIN An •ow 112 "a =»runs Tit MATERIAL LIST UN •J-: jtt PART/CAT.N0. ITEM DESCRIRIOII .t.i..:,. tl t 1 VN-7009-C Ot MIXER WELOMENr 1 P10000/ 02 ELBOW FL6V-.PVG SCllE00LE 80 W 1 1 7 �'• a 1 I010000t 03 BALL VALVE,IRUC VAIUVI,PVC,3'4 TOP CC,A^• I. t 10000 y 04 rlt/ri.S4•Not S.S V1 w rp COND. -+-- - - TANK I t 2 D/A. 29 /2 • S�LUDOE INLET � ; ;•� 4¢tAN6E0 • COW ! DRAIN + A H LIA • +i y y \. .N`w+1•��W.iN.I� ±M•.+WM.•Y+•N NMMM+M Nw��~r• I f•M••N N•a.i+1a..N.�� wr..•.t.•M• •M•ti i-•1a.w•..•M-.•tiw�w I � .wa Ni•.l•a+{+{Maw w•K+++..a.+-.I N+•A•+•.Y+- ' + � � , I rlrt/ lwlawwwKaa.l.wlap wf wt++.st f•ft••w 11 WRTEX MIXER ASS%Y ....... ,i..tY•i. z 1 pi.••a .+p ... PO�.YMER � ` � �� r•.ci+•aa ..w r•u r r i 1 i IMLEr _.J� yy ..._.l..r,..-«...- . " l N.•WJ,, p.0 M•S. .!1•ra t.:•t.....t�:rr •Nr4r yeti rq be44m;#W.. RAM i;/ •wovuw to•.c M.•tf OO II ai.� tfI«i ieitw el.w.lwi i 7s KOMUNE-SANDERSON eaa'wt tN01Ntk0lt Cl COkP011At10N 8 SUMMARY REPORT FOR PREQUALIFICATION OF BELT FILTER PRESSES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY FEBRUARY 13, 1980 JOHN CAR® LLO ENGINEERS PHOENIX WALNUT CREEK FOUNTAIN VALLEY VISALIA ARIZONA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA JOHN A.CAROLLO, P.E. (1806-1971) H. HARVEY HUNT,P.E. HOWARD M.WAY,P.E DONALD R. PREISLER, P.E. V �• GAIL P. LYNCH, P.E. WALTER R.HOWARD. P.E. J. DAVID GRIFFITH, P.E. G.WILLIAM KNOPF. P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. BACKGROUND HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . 10 V. PREQUALIFICATION PROTESTS. . . . . . . . . 15 APPENDICES Y �- z =-z I. INTRODUCTION In November of 1978, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) authorized John Carollo Engineers to proceed with the design of additional sludge digestion and wet storage facilities for CSDOV s Plant No. 2 to be closely followed by the design of sludge dewatering and dry storage facilities. During the initial stages of the dewatering design, an evaluation and subsequent decision was made to utilize belt filter presses as the mode of dewatering for the sludge produced from the existing primary clarifiers and proposed secondary treatment facilities (now under construction). However, because the belt filter press represented a relatively new tech- nology and because of the large number of manufactured presses available on the market, it was determined that an evaluation procedure prior to the ' bidding process would be required to narrow the choices to only those presses which could produce equipment to meet requirements for this participation project. In the U.S. Federal Register of August 18, 1979, a procedure was outlined for the prequalification of major items of equipment under the Construction Grant Program for public treatment works. Based on these guide- lines, a prequalification package was made available to all interested manufacturers for their responses. Nine submittals were received and of these nine received, only two manufacturers met all the necessary requirements for qualification. Three of the non-qualified manufacturers have protested the CSDOC`s decision to not qualify their equipment for the Plant No. 2 sludge dewatering expansion. The purpose of this report will be to summarize all the information - 1 - v =-3 z-3 which led to the decision to prequalify and also all pertinent facts that led to the selection of the qualified and non-qualified belt presses. A discussion of the prequalification protests will also be presented. V ' II. SUMMARY �4r% The CSDOC is currently in the process of constructing a 75 MGD pure oxygen activated sludge secondary treatment plant at Plant No. 2. Sludge produced from this process exceeds the capacities of the existing digestion and dewatering facilities. CSDOC authorized John Carollo Engineers to design digestion and dewatering facilities to handle the projected sludge quantities. The first phase of this project (identified as P2-24-1) , which includes the digestion and wet storage facilities, was just awarded this past January. The second phase (P2-24-2) , which includes the dewatering and dry storage facilities, is currently being prepared for bidding. During the initial stages of the dewatering design work, it was determined that the existing high-speed centrifuges did not have the capacity for future dewatering needs. For this reason an evaluation of various -types of dewatering devices was made, which included plate and frame filter presses, low-speed centrifuges, and belt filter presses. This preliminary screening showed that belt presses and centrifuges were comparable in cost, with the belt presses having a slight overall edge. The belt press had the advantages of (1) producing a slightly drier cake, (2) utilizing less power and (3) ease of operation and maintenance. Although the belt press appeared to be the favorable of the two alternatives, concern was expressed because of the belt presses' relatively short operating history in the United States. For this reason, a field trip was proposed to evaluate field installations of various manufacturer's belt presses. These installations included both municipal and industrial facilities. The results of the field trip supported the claims that many �d different versions of the belt filter press were being marketed. Most of v the process design features of the various presses were somewhat similar, but there were more obvious discrepancies in the quality of materials and construction and in each of the press designs. The trip did show that some of the better designed and constructed belt presses were able to operate in very severe operating conditions for long periods of time without significant downtimes. It became apparent that the belt press market was divided into two categories: the higher quality press designed for long years of service versus tht lower quality and lower priced machines. Treatment plants which had installed these lower quality machines have had to pay higher operation and maintenance costs, or have actually replaced these existing units with one of better quality. For this reason it was decided that a prequalification process was required to identify those better designed and constructed presses. The_EPA prequall ication procedures were reviewed and a package was made available to all interested manufacturers. Nine submittals were received for review. Table 1 lists all the manufacturers, belt press trade names, and physical descriptions of the belt presses which were proposed. Each press was evaluated for. performance (both full-scale and pilot testing) , overall construction, materials of- construction, and ease of operation and-maintenance. Field trips and phone contacts to various operating installations proved another means for obtaining first-hand information. An evaluation was also made of the modifications necessary for each press manufacturer to meet the project re- quirements.. An early decision was made to avoid accepting a"belt press that had to be modified to the extent that it became essentially a proto-type unit, �►' with no actual operating history. V ' (p - 4 - 1� 10 1 Table 1 PREQUALIFICATION SUBMITTALS Manufacturer Brand Name Length, ft. Width, ft. Weight, lbs. Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley Winklepress 17'-5" 10'-5" 24,250 i `" Ralph B. Carter Co. Series 25/32 15'-1" 10-'4" 19,200* i Eimco- Envirotech Corp. EVT 24'-9" 7-10" 19,500 Euramca, Inc. Ecopress 15'-1" ll'-2" 18,600* Komline-Sanderson Corp. Unimat 15'-6" 9'-4" 15,200 Parkson Corp. Magnum Press 14'-10" 9'-1" 15,600 Passavant Corp. Vac-U-Press 13'-4" 8'-2" 10,800 Performance System Inc. BP325 19'-0" 12'-0" Unknown Tait Andritz, Inc. SDM 2200 S7 20'-3" 12'-2" 40,000 *Includes weight of reactor conditioning and mixing. drum. i 1 •. Based on the evaluation, of submitted information, two manufacturers `.d were able to qualify: Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley and Tait Andritz, Inc. The re- maining manufacturers failed to qualify for reasons such as inability to meet material specifications, lack of conclusive information that performance criteria could be met, and lack of full-scale operating; experience with the proposed equipment. Table 2 lists the seven manufacturers along with general categories for their deficiencies. Three manufacturers, Ralph B. Carter Co. , Euramca, Inc. ; and Romline- Sanderson, each filed protests claiming that their equipment could meet all the requirements outlined in the prequalification specification. Post prequalifica- tion meetings were held with each manufacturer in order that each might present further information which might make it possible for each of these respective presses to qualify. This information was carefully reviewed along with additional details obtained from contacts with operating facilities and other agencies who had tested their equipment. It was determined that the information supplied by these manufacturers was in some cases contrary to reports obtained from existing facilities. New information is being developed almost daily, particularly with regard to performance through pilot testing. Some existing facilities are currently in start-up stages. In some cases, the manufacturers have recently obtained contracts with other agencies to furnish equipment. After carefully reviewing the additional information which was furnished and re-evaluating all the previous information supplied, it is recommended that CSDOC not prequalify any of the three manufacturers who have filed a protest. V - 6 - Table 2 BELT PRESS EVALUATION Failure To Failure To Failure To Field Lack Of Lack of U.S. Meet Material Meet Perfor- Meet Physical Operating Follow-Up Operating Manufacturer Spec. mance Spec. Limitations Problems Service Experience Carter X X X v Eimco X X X Euramca Unclear Unclear Unclear X Komline X X(1) X X Parkson Unclear X(l) X X Passavant X X(l) X X PSI Unclear Unclear X �(1) Possible hydraulic limitations. ` III. BACKGROUND HISTORY The existing dewatering facilities at CSDOC's Plant No. 2 consist of -three high-speed centrifuges. A fourth low-speed centrifuge will be installed to provide additional capacity to dewater the digested primary sludge. The CSDOC is -currently constructing a 75 MGD pure oxygen activated sludge secondary treatment plant. CSDOC authorized John Carollo Engineers to design anaerobic digestion and mechanical dewatering facilities to handle the anticipated secondary sludges produced by the activated sludge system. An evaluation was made of three types of dewatering devices: plant and frame filter presses, low-speed centrifugres, and belt filter presses. Total costs for dewatering and disposal were calculated and in the final analysis, the belt presses and centrifuges were fairly equivalent. The belt press option was actually slightly lower in costs due to a lower' power consumption and slightly drier cake discharge. The belt presses 'were also considered to be simpler to maintain as well as being an easier process for the operator to understand. The CSDOC had reservations, however, concerning the use of belt presses,. because they seemed to be a relatively unproven process with minimal operating history, especially in California. There also seemed to be numerous manufacturers providing a confusing array of presses. For these reasons, a preliminary investigation was begun to determine the status of belt press technology in the United States. The research and development group conducting the studies for the LA/OMA Project was consulted because of its experience.in the operation of two belt presses at the Los Angeles County Carson Plant. One of the presses, a Parkson "Magnum Press," had numerous mechanical problems and operated only V ' 8 - S., 10 briefly during their test work. Howevet., the other belt press, an Ashbrook Vinkle Tess" was operated during the entire test p p g period with relatively little mechanical problems. As a preliminary test of dewatering ability, a mixture of primary and secondary sludge from CSDOC's Plant No. 1 was trucked over to L.A. Carson for testing on the Ashbrook Winklepress. The test work showed that the CSDOC sludge was very amenable to belt press dewatering. The research group published a series of monthly reports discussing the operation of these presses, copies of which can be found in Appendix A. In addition to working with LA/OMA, an independent survey of belt press manufacturers was made to determine what the status was of existing belt press installations (i.e. , length of service, operational and maintenance problems incurred, etc.). A copy of the belt press report is provided in Appendix B. Based on preliminary findings, it was decided to obtain first-hand information by visiting some on-going belt press installations (both,mutiicipal and industrial). It was found that the belt press installations with the most operating experience were located in industrial applications. Five different manufacturers' presses (Parkson, Carter, Ashbrook, Komline-Sanderson, and Tait Andritz) were observed in various types of environments. It became very apparent that there were significant differences in the way -each of the various belt presses were design and constructed (i.e. flocculation systems, belt tracking and belt tensioning, etc.) . One of the considerations in evalua- ting these field installations was not so much performance-related but_inyplved _ an evaluation of the presses' capability to operate a minim= of ten years. Based on observations, not all the belt presses would meet that criteria. A summary of all the trip reports taken in connection with the belt press evaluation are presented in Appendix C. \„J V IV. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS As more information was accumulated, it became increasingly apparent that many belt presses being currently installed were not of the highest quality. This was a result of each competing manufacturer attempting to provide as inexpensive a belt press as possible to compete in today's low-bid atmosphere. Evidentially some projects did not have strict requirements with regard to quality of material in the specifications. However, even tightly written specifi- cations will not always present lower quality equipment from- being bid after the plans and specifications reach the contractor. There are in the area of 30 man- ufacturers of belt presses from whom the Contractor could receive bids. After numerous discussions with CSDOC, it was decided that if belt presses were to be used in- the proposed dewatering expansion, a preliminary screening would have to be prepared to eliminate manufacturers who did not have a satisfactory experience record. This would avoid having a multitude of belt presses of varying quality bidding the job yet claiming to be equivalent to the published specifications. The August 18, 1979, Federal Register provides the mechanism necessary for prequalification of equipment. It provides guidelines for the "Pre- qualification of Major Equipment Items" for Federally funded treatment works. A- copy of these guidelines can be found in Appendix D. A prequalification package was assembled which included preliminary specifications for the belt presses along with a detailed request for information on the manufacturer and their experience in this field (i.e. manufacturing facilities, number and qualifications of personnel involved in this product, listing of existing installations, etc.) . A copy of this prequalification package has been included in Appendix D. The request for prequalification submittals was advertised on October 9, 1979; and nine submittals were received by CSDOC by the vll. a.m. November 9, _1979 deadline. __ ! - 10 These nine submittals were reviewed on the following basis: 1. Performance evaluation a. Full-scale installations b. Filot studies 2. Equipment evaluation a. Overall construction b. Materials of construction c. Ease of operation d. Ease of maintenance 3. Experience in existing U.S. treatment plants (municipal and industrial) 4. Type of modifications necessary to meet specifications and project requirements. The fourth item was a very important one because most of the suppliers who sent submittals claimed the ability to meet the project specifications. However, in many cases the press which would be provided would essentially be a "proto-type" unit with no actual operating history. It was considered important due to the number of presses required for the CSDOC needs (ten presses will be required7; only a belt press with proven operating history should be allowed to:-Qualify. Any significant design defiency inherent to a belt press would be multi- plied ten-fold in a large installation such as one proposed for CSDOC. All the manufacturers claim that they would make good on any belt press sold. However, the CSDOC, not the Suppliers, must live with the day to day busines of dewatering approximately 100 tons per day (dry solids) of sludge. As a result of the evaluation, only two suppliers qualified their belt presses: Ashbrook-Simon-Bartley, Inc. and Tait Andritz, Inc. Both these manufacturers qualified because they not only met the required material specifi- cations, but both suppliers have had presses operating in the most severe environments inaginable with little or no reported downtime due to mechanical failures.. This is noteworthy in that even though some of the presses currently in operation are considered to be older models or earlier versions of `the current ' units, such design features and components as bearings and bearing housings, belt tracking and belt tensioning systems, and belt spray wash systems have remained the same throughout all the model changes. The other seven manufacturers' presses did not qualify for a wide range of items, as summarized in the following discussion: A. Ralph B. Carter Co. 1. Do not supply all rollers with lubricatable bearings. They have had many problems with bearings locking up (even those bearings which can be lubricated). 2. They did not meet 316 SS requirements for perforated drum. 3. Several installations have had problems with the belt tracking systems. 4. Belt wash system does not have a self-cleaning feature as required in the specifications. 5. _Rotating reactor-conditioner used for sludge flocculation has proven to be a high maintenance item:. 6.. Currently provide plastic scraper blades which do not meet specifications. 7. Did not provide information to show that 2.5 meter unit will meet performance specifications. They had no operating "2:5 `d•� meter presses anywhere in the U.S. B. Eimco-Envirotech Corp. 1._ Major problem is that length of their press makes it impossible to fit into proposed dewatering facilities. 2. They have no belt presses of any kind operating in the U.S. C. Euramca, Inc. 1.. They also utilize a reactor-conditioner for polymer conditioning, similar to the Carters' . Operational history for this- equip- ment is not good. 2. Only have European installations with no operating (or even installed) U.S. installations to date. Only experience has been with trailer-mounted pilot wait. D. Romline-Sanderson Corp. 1. Did not provide the proper in-line mixer for polymer system. 2. Did not meet all the stainless steel requirements for perforated roller and anchor bolts. V 3. Apparently all rollers do not have lubricated bearings. �� T - 12 - Z- � 4. Belt tension is applied by manually adjusted "pressure bars." . No explanation as to how these are operated is given. 5. No calculations were made to show compliance with moment of inertia requirements. 6. No operating installations were given where the K-S unit is meeting the 130 gpm flow rate requirement. 7. Some complaints were registered by several treatment plants that K S had not been responsive to problems. E. Parkson Corp. 1. Roller life on bearings called out as 60,000 hours versus 100,000 hours in specifications. 2. Two meter Parkson press appears to have a hydraulic limita- tion (LA/OMA showed similar limitations). 3. Standard belt wash and belt tracking system do not meet specifications. 4: Numerous operating installations have had problems with belt tracking systems, plugging of wash nozzles, bearing failures, and belt wrinkling problems. F. Passavant_Corp. 1. Proposed to provide thirteen belt presses (100 gpm) however, only ten presses will fit into the proposed faciLlties. G. Performance Systems, Inc. 1. Materials of construction not described. Submittal was generally very brief in nature. 2. Predicted only 1,000 hours of belt life as opposed to 3,000 hours predicted in the specifications. 3. Recommended use of a rotary thickener for polymer conditioning. However, thickener capacity is rated only at 90 gpm, whereas capacity of belt press is 130 gpm. 4. Have no full-scale operating plants in the U.S. The report submitted for the review of the submittals can be found in Appendix E. One of the sources of information-(along with the previously mentioned trip- reports) in evaluating all the belt presses came through the use of phone conversations with various treatmeat.plants and agencies, therefore copies of all the telephone memoranda have been included in Appendix F. As was noted in 13 - M- this report, it was apparent that not all the manufacturers took the pre- qualification process seriously. There were many ambiguities and omissions which made the evaluation process much more difficult. Many of the manufacturers assumed that by submitting some sort of report, they would automatically qualify. Also many suppliers stressed performance capabilities, but it is felt that quality of workmanship and simplicity of operation were also important parameters in the selection process. This 'is the reason that the Ashbrook and Tait Andritz units were selected over the other manufacturers. y �p - 14 V. PREQUALIFICATION PROTESTS , Three of the seven suppliers who were not named as qualified to 1 supply their belt presses filed an official protest with the CSDOC. Each claimed that their press met all the requirements stipulated in the prequalification package. The three suppliers were Ralph B. Carter Co. ; Euramca, Inc. ; and Komline- Sanderson Engineering Corporation.. The CSDOC scheduled meetings with these three suppliers to allow each an opportunity to submit additional information for prequalificatioa. A summary of these meetings and the subsequent decision involving each is presented in the following discussion. Komline-Sanderson. A meeting was scheduled for 7 February 1980 at the CSDOC offices with representatives from Komline-Sanderson, CSDOC, and John Carollo Engineers. Komline brought pilot test information from three installations (Northeast Philedelphia, Beaumont Texas and Cleveland, Ohio) to show that their 2.0 meter belt press would be able to handle a 130 pgm minimum flow rate. These test reports predicted an anticipated flowrate of 75 gpm/meter for the Philedelphia�pifot, and 40-60 gpm/meter for the Bpaumount and Cleveland pilots. Based on these test results, only the Philadelphia flow-rates would scale-up to the m-Irj="n 130 gpm performance criteria. Konline insigts that their_scale-up factors from their 0.5 meter test unit are accurate, but they have never proven this in actual comparis©u testing (they wish to bring their pilot unit on site) . They have no existing facilities that operate at these high flow rates. In fact, one of the installations contacted (Pottstown, Pennsylvania) was not able to operate at the design flow rates projected by Komline. The test work at LA/OMA also showed that the scale-up factors provided by some suppliers during LA/OMA's pilot testing phase did not in fact, represent actual operating conditions for the full-scale units that were eventually tested. y _�� - 15 P1 Komline claimed that they can meet all requirements for 316 SS fasteners, 316 SS perforated drums, and epoxy painting of all galvanized sur- faces (at additional cost of course) . They also will provide either their self cleaning "Albany" nozzles or a brush• cleaned unit as manufactured by "Appleton". Komline said that while all their bearings are not of the "pillow- block" lubricated type, they all can- be lubricated. Komline also claims that all their bearings are externally mounted on the frame. However, unless their press design has recently changed, we observed on our field trip in March 1979 that their bearings are in such a position where they will be subject to water contact. Even properly sealed and lubricated bearings cannot withstand water contact. Several operating installations where bearing failures had occurred included Abitibi Paper in Ontario, Canada; E.I. Dupont in Clinton, Iowa; and Crown-Zellerbach in S. Glen Falls, New York. A municipal installation in Columbia, Tennessee had several bearing failures because the bearings were _ �..✓-- situated. such that they could not .be lubricated. Komline claimed theft_-Ab se installations have presses where the bearing life was designed for 60,000 hours - (instead of the 100,000 hours specified) . However, even these bearing failures should not have occurred this prematurely, since the units had' only been oper- ating for less than one year. Komline said that they could provide a pneumatically operated belt -- - tensioning system as called for in the preliminary specifications (they normally provide manually activated ball screw jacks pushing a spring-load take-up bearing)._ However, they have never used a pneumatic tensioner on a full-scale unit (only tested on their 0.5 meter pilot unit) . Komline said that they can provide either an electronic or pneumatic belt tracking systems. Their pneumatic belt tracking system is not a modulating system (as called for in the preliminary specifications) . Their system makes V ' — 18 - 16 - �' �g adjustments only when the belt contacts a limit switch. Parkson uses a similar type of tracking system and has had a great deal of problems with them. Komline claims that their belt speeds are lower than other presses so they can afford to use this type of system. However, both Tait and Ashbrook have similar belt speeds to the Komline press and both of these units use a modulating tracking system. Several industrial users (Abitibi Paper, Crown Zellerbach, E.I. Dupont) of the Komline press have taken it upon themselves to add a pneumatic belt tracking system of their own design. Komline claims that they require the nip rollers for applying point pressure to the sludge cake and also to act as wipers for excess water which may accumulate on the belt. During the March 1979 visit to the Komline facilities, they said that the nip rollers were provided so that the belt could be run at lower tension than other comparable belt presses. They also claimed that because of these lower applied tensions, that a lighter-weight frame could,-be employed. However, the drawing which they submitted (dated 25 January, 1980) has fewer nip rollers shown than on the drawing submitted in their November sub- mittal, which indicates a change in design philosophy as depicted in their pre- qualification proposal. Komline explained that actually the belt tension had not changed but that they had decided to remove several of the nip rollers because CSDOC's mixture of primary and- secondary sludge does not lend itself .to .the application of point pressure. The nip rollers depicted on Komline's most recent drawing are acting only as wipers. The nip rollers are manually adjusted (screw adjustment on each side) . This would to make it somewhat difficult for the operator to set these properly. - 17 - - � °1 =-Iq Komline has just been selected to supply twelve belt presses for the City of Detroit. Komline claims that the belt presses which they will provide \.✓ for Detroit will essentially meet all the preliminary specifications in the request for prequalification information. However, they indicate that they are building features into these presses which have not been tested on a full- scale basis (they see no problem with this, however) . Also all of the manufacturers against whom they were competing failed to qualify under CSDOC's prequalification requirements. Although it appears that Komline-Sanderson has been making improvements in their belt press design since the trip last March and even since prequalification information received this past November, most of these improvements are untested. in full-scale operations. Most of the references contacted were having several operational problems of one kind or another. Abitibi Paper in Ontario, Canada ' has had so many -process problems (have been unable to achieve cake solids ,prddicted by Komline) and mechanically-related problems with the IInimat that they-"have decided to purchase one of the two qualified presses. KAmline said that they were at the about 85-percent point on the learning curve as far as belt-press design. It appears however that theremairui`g 15-percent of development is in the areas which directly affect day to day operation and maintenance (i.e. belt tracking, bearings, etc.) . Evaluation of all newly supplied information has not changed the opinion that the Komline press at this time has not demon- strated reliability under CSDOC specifications in a full scale operating installation, and therefore should not be qualified. for use in the proposed dewatering facilities at CSDOC's Plant No. 2. Ralph B. Carter. A meeting was scheduled for 11 Feb=uwy_.1980_. at the CSDOC offices with representatives from. Carter, CSDOC and John Carollo Engineers. \"owl v ' —z - 18 - Carter presented data to show that their latest model 25/32 could meet the performance criteria as specified (this model is designed for greater hydraulic capacity and 'belt tension than their previous models) . Carter claims that their sludge conditioning and pre-dewatering system is as good or better than the in-line venturi mixer provided for in the prequalification specifications. Their claims are that the rotating reactor- conditioner provides much more dewatering area than just a standard gravity belt and more overall flexibility. However, there are no concrete data to show that their system is any, better or any, worse than the in-line venturi mixer described in the prequalifications specifications. However in contacting various plants (i.e. Oceanside, California; Tennessee Eastman; Owensboro, Kentucky and Rome Georgia) where the Carter press is located, this piece of equipment appeared to be one of the highest maintenance items. A check of Carter's prequalification submittal shows that the drum and reactor-conditioner are made up of approximately 80 different parts. The in-Line mixer has no moving parts except fo:e`the adjustable flap which controls the opening of the venturi throat. (Allows the operator a change in mixing energy according to the sludge being dewatered) . The design of the reactor system also makes proper clean-up difficult (improper clean-up results in screen blinding) . There is also a potential of screen blinding caused by the build-up of magnesium ammonium phosphate. Carter says that the reactor screen wears out in a similar fashion to the polyester belts, however they, did not specify, a life for these screens (they estimated they would last as long as the polyester belts) . Carter incorporates inbound bearings (all lubricated) with fixed shafts as part of their press design. They claim that this type of design makes for an overall stronger frame design. However it was noted in the various trips to v ' - 19 - — z1 �-z1 • v belt press installations that the inboard bearings were exposed to much more water and/or sludge coming off the belt (even if they are lubricated) , as opposed to the outboard bearings. Carter can supply outboard bearings, however outboard bearings require a stiffer frame. Carter did not indicate that they would redesign the frame to accomodate this change in bearing housing location. Carter does not normally supply the perforated drum that is called out in the prequalification specifications. They claim they will provide one if so required (although they said that they had never used a perforated drum before) . They will also provide a belt wash system which provides for internal cleaning of the spray nozzles (not normally provided) . Carter claims that the 25/32 (series 32 represents their latest model) is designed for much more rugged duty than their previous models. Four of these units (25/32) are just starting-up, however Carter claims that these units have _ had along history of operation in Europe. Carter does have a facility (Tennessee _Eastman) , however, in which seven of their models 15/32's (same desiga�.oaly belt is 1.5 meters instead of 2.5 meters wide) have been currently operating for the - last year. This plant was contacted and the following information was obtained: (1) flocculation drum and reactors are literally breaking-up; ' (2) new belt tensioning system was causing polyester belts to prematurely tear (Carter has supplied them 15 belts at no charge) ; (3) have already had several bearing failures (lubricated bearings) ; (4) have had rapid wear of the scraper blades (are currently experimenting with a new material) and; (5) have had the gear drives fail on both the main drive motor and reactor motor. These are some of the same failures observed in the older Carter models (Series 30 and 31) . Although this represents only one operating facility with any extensive operating - 20 - =- zz_. s -zz Y . history, (Wire Rope Mfg. in St. Joseph, Missouri has had a Model 8/32 operating since April 1979 without any, major difficulties. However the press only operates 15 hours per week which equates to only 600 total hours of operation since start-up) , it appears that the new Carter Model 32 is not a proven press with satisfactory, operating experience. Evaluation of all the newly supplied information has not changed the opinion that the Carter press should not be qualified for the proposed CSDOC dewatering expansion. Euramca, Inc. A meeting was scheduled for 11 February, 1980 at the CSDOC offices with representatives from Euramca, CSDOC and John Carollo Engineers. The prequalification package did request information on existing installations. .There are no full-scale installations of Euramca presses operating in the U.S. at this time, so it is very difficult to evaluate anticipated operation and maintenances problems. Euramca says that they have numerous operating installations in Europe and claim that U.S. experience was not stipulated as an evaluation criteria. We reviewed in detaa•the installation list provided by Euramca. The list showed 34 installations in Europe operatLig' cii various type sludges. All installations had only one press 'shown except one plant which had- two presses. It would appear that most of the ' ' plants must be of small size when compared 'to the CSDOC project. We were not provided with detailed information on the European installations and have not been is a position to^verify actual operating experience. U.S. operating experience would be useful to CSDOC since the operating practices of European facilities cannot be easily verified. Much discussion was had with regard to ability of the Euramca press to meet performance criteria. Based on recent pilot testing results Euramca feels their press would be able to meet the preliminary specifications with regard to performance. This is primarily based on side by side testing with other presses at other locales. Some of these other pressesVwete tested at CSDOC. T—z 21 - � Euramca has recently redesigned their press to utilize two belts as opposed to their three belt design (2 years ago) . They cldiu- they do have successful operating experience with the new two belt design in Europe. Euramca .claims they are currently being considered for a large project in Nassau County and that they have been selected to furnish a belt press for an installation being designed in Puerto Rico. Preliminary specifications require a gravity type pre-dewatering system. Euramca provides a sludge conditioning system (conditioning drum followed by a reactor) similar to that provided by Carter. Although it is not implied that the two systems are identical, there are definite .indications that the Carter system is a very high maintenance item. It is felt that this more complicated pre-dewatering system is not necessary for handling CSDOC sludges and would pose a serious maintenance problem as well as. a serious clean- up problem. There is also potential for blinding of the screen caused-by magnesium ammonium phosphate. CSDOC has had several bad experiences with various types of new- equipment, equipment which the suppliers had claimed extensive operating history in Europe (or elsewhere) . This is not to say that the Euramca unit is in someway inferior, but until some long-term U.S. operating history can be- obtained and due to the more complicated mechanical pre-dewatering system, we. feel that it. is in the CSDOC's best interests not to qualify the Euramca belt press for the CSDOC dewatering project. y z. z� - 22 - ---z� �LY 1JI�U Iil][ejjJ/-f 1 I tin ,r"11 (11) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of items relative to protests by vendors that have been disqualified by Districts ' engineers as suppliers of belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: .— (a) Open hearing (b) (1) Verbal report of General Counsel re hearing procedures (2) Consideration of communications received subsequent to agenda mailing from other disqualified vendors re belt filter presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-24-2: (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file communication from Passavant Corporation dated February 11, 1980. See page "A" (b) Consideration of motion to receive and file communication from Performance Systems, Inc. dated February 8, 1980. See page "B" (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file Report of General Counsel. See page "C" (d) Determination by Board re late protest of Passavant Corporation (e) Determination by Board re late protest of Performance Systems , Inc. Cc) Cl) Consideration of motion to receive and file engineer's report re Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatered and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2, Job Nor. P2-24-2 (Mailed with agenda material. Mote - the package included correspondence with protestants prior to agenda mailing.) (2) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Summary re Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses, Job No. P2-24-2, revised February 13, 1980. See page "D" (3) Consideration of motion to receive and file Summary Report for Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses dated February 13, 1980, prepared by John Caroilo Engineers. See page "I" (d) Consideration of motion to receive and file report and legal opinion of General Counsel (included with package mailed with agenda material under item 11(c) (1) above) (e) Consideration of protest of Ralph B. Carter Company: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Ralph B. Carter Company re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing: (see item (c) (1) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) a. Receive and file letter from Ralph B. Carter dated January 30, 1980. See page "E" _ b. Receive and file letter from Betty, Neuman, McMahon, Hellstrom Bittner, .attorney for Ralph B. Carter, dated February 6, 1980. See page "F" c. Receive and file other communications , if any (CONTINUED ON PAGE 7-b) -a (11) (e) Continued from page 7-a (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Ralph B. Carter Company (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Ralph B. Carter Company (4) Close hearing re Ralph B. Carter Company protest (f) Consideration of protest of Euramca, Inc. : (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Euramca, Inc. re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing: (see item (c) (1) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) a. Receive and file letter from Euramca, Inc. dated February 7, 1980. See page "G" b. Receive and file other communications, if any (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Euramca, Inc. (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Euramca, Inc. (4) Close hearing re Euramca, Inc. protest (g) Consideration of protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file written documents submitted by Komline-Sanderson Engineeing Corporation re protest of disqualification as belt filter press supplier submitted subsequent to agenda mailing: (see item (c) (1) above for documents submitted prior to agenda mailing.) a. Receive and file letter from Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation dated February 6, 1980. See page "H" b. Receive and file other communications, if any (2) Oral testimony on behalf of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation (3) Engineer's rebuttal of testimony by Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation (4) Close hearing re Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation protest (h) Determination by Board re protest of Ralph B. Carter Company (i) Determination by Board re protest of Euramca, Inc. (j) Determination by Board re protest of Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation 7-b A a -i-I MW�E E! , E PASSAVANT CORPORATION P.O. BOX 2503 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35201 TELEPHONE 205/853.6290 TWX 810/733.5547 I V _ ;. February 11 , 1980 '80 FEB 13 A :52 The Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708 ATTENTION: The Secretary SUBJECT: Prequa.lification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering An.d,Dry Storage Facilities at Plant #2 Job No. P2-24-2, Grant No. C-06-1973-330 Gentlemen: This is to inform you that we received your certified mail communication dated January 23, 1980, on January 28th, advising us that Passavant Corporation's timely submittal did not qualify to be included as part of the dewatering equipment to be furnished on the referenced project. It is acknowledged that we did not respond to such notification within the prescribed period for lodging a protest (frankly.;. because the re- levant persons were out of town) but we should like to avail ourselves of the opportunity that the Board of Directors might consider our written position as an interested party none the less. The reason given to us by notification of our disqualification states that it was based upon the inability of the proposed equipment to meet the 130 gallons per minute minimum capacity requirements and our pro- posal to provide thirteen machines to potentially compensate for this did not meet the physical restrictions of the proposed structure. We feel the sketch we submitted with our November 7th, 1979 prequalifi- cation package is very reasonably and adequately housed in the building dimensions stated to be available. Most important, however, is that it was deemed necessary for us to propose these additional machines because we were being invited to subsequently submit a bid with a performance v • „A_1„ ' � r RR55RVRNT _2e specification on which we were afforded no opportunity to assess or predict the behavior of your particular sludges on our machines. Had the approach adopted by Detroit City (who recently ordered a similar number of belt presses) been followed, and the low bidding suppliers given the opportunity to demonstrate compliance with their own claims, then everybody's interests, including that of Orange County Sanitation Districts, would have been much better served. It is a well established fact that no two sludges will behave exactly in the same manner with respect to amenability to dewatering and, sometimes, sludges which might otherwise be categorized as being similar will be startlingly different when subjected to dewatering. If this were to occur in this instance without the potential bidders having been granted the opportunity to assess the risk and, at least, establish experience with the particular sludge compositions, then a substantial pecuniary penalty could ensue through no fault of the equipment supplier. Our recognition of these circumstances had a direct influence on the context of our November 7th submittal . Had prequal ifi cation been determined by actual testing of the sludge under supervised, controlled and witnessed (by the Engineer) circumstances, then many of the imponderables and consequent surmising would be precluded and the Owner know what to expect from the competi tively bid equipment. We are still very much interested in your project and trust that ,t'he> aforementioned comments will receive your consideration. Yours truly, PASS?AVANT CORPORATIOIN . Frank F. Gre nshields Marketing Man er Solids Division eww cc: EPA Region IX Headquarters, Grant Division EPA Region IX, Legal Division State Water Resources Control Board, Clean Water Grant Program Section State Water Resources Control Board, Legal Division All Other Bidders John Carollo Engineers v ' ►,A-211 „A_2„ q PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, INC. P.O Box 4653 ■ 8933 Roebuck Blvd..Suite F. ■ Birmingham.Alabama 35206 '--il"'(205)833-7123 Telex No.59.871 February 8, 1980 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention: Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer Subject: Prequalifications For Belt Presses Job No. P2-24-2 Letter of January 23, lR80 Gentlemen: We have reviewed your letter and request that you please review the Engineer's report, our submittal and prequalify PST as a supplier. Apparently, due to incorrect information in the analysis or data from some other submittal of another manufacturer, we were incorrectly evaluated. We would like to point out the following: 1. Our prebid submittal was for ten units, Model BP325. There was no, limitation. on the flow rate as mentioned in your letter. 2. We recommend that for maximum solids in the cakes, that you consider the rotary prethickener. This will provide for even higher performance than the base offering. 3. We do not know where your reference to, ". . . the proposed fifteen thickeners. .." comes from. Our Alternate 2 clearly states ten belt presses with rotary thickeners attached. Thus, there would be ten thickeners for ten filters: one on one. These three items should clarify the misconception that you stated PSI would not have the capacity of an integrated system. Other Items: 1. Belt life - The life is based upon a variety of items such as, a. grit content of the sludge; b. normal maintenance or guides c. Normal shower water pressures •• d. operator attention to instructions e. inclusion of tramp materials in sludge v ' „B_1„ PS! County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, CA February 8, 1980 Page Two Since the specification makes no mention of the willingness of the county to guarantee the inlet sludge content of these abrasives, etc. , we can only advise you that we try to be extremely conservative. "Normal belt life of 1,000 hours" is the normal "worst" condition. PSI belt life should equal that of all other quality builders. 2. Moment of inertia - No requirement was made to submit this information. We will meet this requirement. 3. We have full scale equipment in operation in the USA. We have a one meter unit in New York state. Data from operating installations was included with our submittal. We also submitted an alternative system which greatly exceeded the performance of the specified equipment. We did not see any evaluation of alternate43. Why were these alternates requested if they were not to be evaluated? We hereby request that the District prequalify PSI as we do indeed meet the requirements and did so submit in our prebid submittal. Whatever data which was used which indicated such things as "15 thickeners" was apparently attached to our. . bid by mistake. Yours very truly, �! PERFORMANCE SYSTEMS, INC. r C. Robert Steward,.P. E. President hrs V 11B-21' „B-211 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS of ORANGE COUNTY,CALWORNIA P.O. BOX 8127 108" ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 (714) 540-2910 (714) 962-2411 �. February 7, 1980 Revised February 13, 1980 STAFF SUMMARY PREQUALIFICATION OF BELT FILTER PRESSES Job No. P2-24-2 There are fourteen separate contracts for the 75-MGD Improved Treatment at Plant No. 2, for which seven separate State and EPA grants have been offered. These projects are as follows: Construction Job No. Description Cost Status P2-23-1 Flood Wall & Site Development $ 2,279,868. Complete 5-9-78 P2-23-2 Oxygen Generation & Storage Facilities and Oxygen Dissolution Facilities 8,273,000. 78% complete P2-23-3 Electrical Reliability at Plant No. 2 3,024,196. Complete 5-2-79 P2-23-5 Operations Center 1,246,270. Complete 3-12-79 P2-23-6 Major Facilities 31,140,879. 65% complete P2-24-1 Digestion & Wet Storage Facilities for 13,350,000. Authority to Award the Solids Handling & Dewatering mailed by State Facilities at Plant No. 2 2-4-80•. .' P2-24-1A Solids Transport & Composting Equipment 1,263,280. Awarded 1-19-80 1B, IC Purchase Partial delivery of equipment P2-24-2 Dewatering Facilities at Plant No. 2 12,800,000* Scheduled to award at May, 1980 Board TOTAL $73,377,493. Meeting *Engineer's estimate The key equipment to the Solids Handling and Dewatering Contract, Job No. P2-24-2, is the furnishing and installation of ten belt presses for the dewatering of digested sewage sludges. A considerable amount of investigation has been done by the consulting engineers and Districts' staff in reviewing the performances of the belt presses presently utilized in this industry. In addition, much of the work conducted by the LA/OMA sludge study team was incorporated in the develop- ment of prequalification specifications for this project. On October 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16, 1979, a legal notice was published inviting bids for Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses. Prequalification Specifications were mailed to. known equipment suppliers of belt filter presses. Receipt of responses to the Prequalification Specifications was established as November 9, 1979. All responses were promptly referred to John Carollo Engineers for their evaluation. Their report was .submitted to the Districts' staff on �.d December 5, 1979. After careful review of the consulting engineers report, along with the responses from the equipment suppliers, the Districts' Chief Engineer did, on January 23, 1980, notify all respondents whether or not they qualified to submit a proposal to prospective bidders for Job No. P2-24-2. The EPA regulations have developed a procedure to prequalify certain major equipment prior to the receipt of bids in order that the bids received reflect the quality and performance of the key equipment to be supplied. Prequalification Specifications were mailed to several known equipment manufacturers and public notice was given through publication. Nine equipment suppliers submitted responses to the Prequalification Specifications which were carefully reviewed by the consulting engineer and subsequently by the Districts' staff. In accordance with the EPA regulations, all respondents to the Prequalification Specifications were notified as to the acceptance or non-acceptance of their equipment for this project. Of the nine respondents to the Prequalification Specifications, seven suppliers were disqualified for failure to meet the technical requirements of the Specifications and two suppliers were qualified to submit proposals to prospective prime contractors for this project. Of the seven firms disqualified, three firms have filed written protests in conformance with the EPA regulations for consider- ation by the Boards of Directors. The Directors will be required to officially rule upon the protests of the equipment suppliers at a formal public hearing to be held at the February Board Meeting. The Districts' staff, along with the consulting engineers, met with the individual protestants on Thursday, February 7 and on Monday, February 11, to receive and consider any additional technical information which the protestant wishes to submit. 7. Staff, along with the consulting engineers, felt that- the Technical Review Meetings. were very informative and that all representatives from the three protestants conducted themselves in a very progessional-manner. Minutes of these meetings., along with supplemental information supplied by the protestants, are included in the Chief Engineer's Report. After careful review of all information supplied by the protestants, including the supplemental information submitted at the Technical Review Meetings, the staff, along with the consulting engineers, concur that the qualification and disqualification determinations which were mailed to all respondents to the prequalification specifications on January 23, 1980, should be sustained by the Boards of Directors. It is, therefore, recommended that the Boards of Directors disqualify the following: Ralph B. Carter Company 192 Atlantic Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07602 Euramca, Inc. 40 Fay Avenue Addison, Illinois 60101 Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation Holland Avenue Peapack, New Jersey 07977 Additionally, the staff would like the Boards of Directors to consider the following: 1. The EPA memorandum (PRM 79-10) describing the prequalification l�„J procedures for major equipment states that this is a system that may be used to ease the administrative burden of dIeter- mining responsive, responsible bidders on equipment. The D—z 2• D-Z procedures should be used to screen bidders, but the EPA said that the new guidance will not help provide a "conclusive determination of responsibility" and should not be used to restrict competition. The EPA policy on prequalification of major equipment is an attempt to end what is commonly called "bid shopping". Prime contractors shopping around for low priced equipment hurts municipalities because the EPA rules often require the purchase of substandard equipment or results in having equipment purchases tied to enforceable contract terms. 2. At a March 20, 1979 Water Pollution Control Federation Government Affairs Seminar, former EPA Deputy Assistant Administrator, John T. Rhett, said that the EPA was extremely concerned about the operational and maintenance problems in the wastewater program. EPA believes the problems are caused by improper design and by influent problems such as industrial waste or excessive flows, as well as operation and maintenance problems. Rhett warned that the responsibility of compliance rests with the municipal plant owners and that the EPA will _ enforce the conditions of the discharge permits on a non- political basis. REL:hjb D-3 3. D~3 RALPH H. CARTER COMPANY TELEX: 134d19 192 ATLANTIC STREET CABLE. CARTERCO HAGKENSAGKNJ HACKENSACK. NEW JERSEY 07602 (201) 342. 3030 January 30 , 1980 Ger:tIemen : tiis letter serves as notice and confirmation of the mailcram sent to: 1 ) County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Fountain Valley , CA, Attn: Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer; 2) John Carollo Engineers , Wal - nut Creek, CA,..Attn : Walter Howard: and 3) Environmental ?rctection Agency, Region IX , San Francisco, CA, Attn: Paul De Falco, Jr. , Regional Administrator hereby serving notice of the Ralph B. Carter Company ' s action in reply to the letter received as written by Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer of County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California on January 23 , 1980. The Ralph B. Carter Company protests pursuant to 40CFR35.939 the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California decision. The decision to not qualify the Carter Series 25/32 belt press per the specification for Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for- Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant Number 2 , Job Number P2-24-2, Grant Number C-06-1073-330 has resulted in a direct and indirect monetary loss to the Ralph B. Carter Company. Carter Company exercises its right to request a formal hearing pur- suant to the provisions of 4CSFR35.939 • Carter Company maintains that the 2.5 meter Series 32 Belt Filter Press to be supplied can and will processz in excess of 130 gallons per minute of sludge as specified. Very t ru i y yours, Harold W. Johnson ?roduct Manager i1G RALPH B. CARTER COMPANY Paae 2 Januar, 30 , 198C cc Ashbrook, Simon, Hartley Komline-Sanderson Enc. Corp. u. Box 16327 P. 0. Box 257 Houston. , Texas 77022 Peapack, NJ 07977 Atn: Mr. Morris E. Jett Attn: Donald Updike Janes Louo_n G;er' t;hell 314 Rosecrans Avenue Manhattan Beach , CA 90266 T. H. Creears 1 20 South La2ienc; Attn: DOuc M!,cre t:v .75cC�. �a_`': mac'...^K �.. . • '.7 In;,:._ . ri . . Soar! 5a n CerIos . 5L07an '%t:n. JaciK Too ley v 3 P. . Sox i2%^; �Ileasantor•, ZA 94'566 Tait-Andr.itz Attn: Jack Fi 1 logy 4601 Locust Lubbock, TX 79404 Attn: Joe Rose Parksor, Corpora: ior: P. 0. Box. 24407 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33307 MISCO Attn: Michael Schill 1720 East Garry C. Picciot: i Suite 213 Santa Are , CA 92705 Hardy Ferman , Phirne; an!! Koamur Attn: Ray 3607 Seneca Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90039 J-M Squared .4ttr.: Don Herr-an P. 0. Box 2401 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Passavant Corporation, Attn: Jim MacNichols P.O. Box 2503 5irminahar, rLL 3520'. Envi ro-Tech Process Eqpt. Attn: Wi i 1 iaT Ban ko�:ski 1710 South ,=Amphlett Street 330 John laoe , Jr. Sar• Matec. C=•. 94402 Frank �reensnielcs r.t t e-+ . ��7: � i me n-i S Performance Systems . Inc. 1� E -z �_z RALPH B. CARTER C-OMPANY Page 3 January 30. 1980 cc John Caro 1 1 o one i nee rs 450 North Wiaet Lane � Walnut Creek, C. °45503 Attn: Walter Howard �J': L. ir1JJC'�•: General Council 1055 North Main suite 11012_" 17 Lr„'OMA Prue;.: 0. Box 4q_o Attn: William Davis �nvi ronmental Protect ion r,c;e.^.cv Recion iX 215 Fremor+t =tree San Francisco, ; . 9-. iC5 Attn: Mr. Paul De aico. Jr. . Regional :,c;— =t= a_cr Count Jar.t _L_ IJr .. .. L C_ _ �. _'�. •'� l-..�+. , . lr J1 F. 0. BOX 317 10844 El 1 i s Avenux- ` Fountain Valle; , CA ;271- r%ttn: Mr. Ray E. --h;ef V ' LAW OFFICES �� BETTY. NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER 600 UNION ARCADE BUILDING (V� HARRY e.BETTY 1874-1233 DAVENPORT, IOWA FRANK F.BETTY 13e0-1974 _ HENRY N.NEUMAN ZIP CODE 32E01 RICHARD M.MCMA44ON JOHN A.HELLSTROM TELEPHONE R. BITTNER February 6 , 1980 AREA 91 THOMAS OMAS F..DALEY.JR. 1930-1979 A GODS 319 RALPH D.SAUER LARRY L.SHEPLER HENRY G.NEUMAN STEVEN H.JACOBS ROGER A.LATHROP ROBERT D.LAMBERT GREG A.EGBERS CRAIG A.LEVIEN County Sanitation District of Orange City, California P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attn: Ray Lewis Dear Mr. Lewis : We have been contacted by the Ralph B. Carter Company of Hackensack, New Jersey relative to their prequalification proposals which were submitted to your district recently. As you are aware, the Carter Company filed a written protest- on January 29, 1980 contesting their disqualification .ffrom submitting bid proposals on certain digesting equipment . On February 4, 1980, at 4: 06 p.m. , Attorney Thomas L. Woodruff, acting on behalf of the Sanitation District , sent a telex communication to Ralph B . Carter Company notifying Carter that any written technical material which the company wished to have the Board consider in connection with its protest had to be filed at the Board offices by February 7 , 1980. Mr. Woodruff' s telex communication was received by the Ralph B . Carter Company on February 5 , 1980 at 3: 22 p .m. Receipt of that telex was Carter' s first indication that written technical material would have to be filed in your California office on February 7, 1980 . I am sure that you can well appreciate the serious problems posed by a filing deadline which gives Carter Company only a scant two days notification of a filing deadline. Putting aside the difficulties associated with preparing any written ,'Nor/ V ' BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM 8c BITTNER DAVENPORT, IOWA February 6 , 1980 Page 2 document on such short notice, the geographical separation makes it impractical to even attempt to comply with that filing requirement . Therefore, Ralph B. Carter Company will be unable to supply any additional written comments or technical points within the time constraints set out in Mr. Woodruff' s telex. However, Mr. H.W. Johnson of the Ralph B. Carter Company does plan to be in attendance for the February 11 , 1980 technical presentation or review meeting with Messrs . Walter Howard and J. L. Dimer. Mr. Johnson also plans to give a verbal presentation during the February 13 , 1980 hearing before the Board of Directors at 7 : 30 p .m. We assume that Mr. Woodruff' s telex was issued pursuant to the requirements of Section 35 . 939(d) (2) (ii) of the applicable Rules and Regulations . Since Section 35 . 939 (d) (2) (i) contemplates either the presentation of arguments in writing or at a conference, we are confident that the unusually short filing period will not be used in any manner to preclude .full and adequate presentation of Carter' s position. We feel that the technical data, when adequately reviewed, will shook that the Carter press has capabilities to more than satisfy your process requirement of 130 gallons per minute. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate .to call. Very truly yours , BETTY, NEUMAN, McMAHON, • HELLSTROM &AITTNER Larry�L. Shep ler je For distribution, see attached list. v ' BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER DAVENPORT, IOWA February 6 , 1980 Page 3 Copies to : Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc. P .O. Box 16327 Houston, TX 77022 Attn: Morris E. Jett, Vice-President Tait Andritz 4601 Locust Lubbock, TX 79404 Attn: Joe A. Rose, Sales Engineering R. B. Car 1000 Lake St. Louis Boulevard Lake St. Louis , MO 63367 Attn: Marc Salmi `••' EnviroTech Process Equipment 1710 South Amphlett Suite 300 San Maleo, CA 94402 Attn: Bob Simonds Euranca Ecosystems , Inc. P .O. Box 349 Allison, IL 60101 Attn: John A. Drozda Konline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation P.O. Box 257 Peapack, NJ 07977 Attn: Donald C . Updike James Louden, Jr. Gierlich-Mitchell, Inc . 314 Rosecrans Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Attn: Jim Mitchell T W Associates 727 Industrial Road San Carlos , CA 94070 Attn: Jack Tooley '-3 F-3 BETTY, NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM Sc BITTNER DAVENPORT, IOWA . February 6 , 1980 Page 4 MISCO 1720 East Garry Suite 213 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Attn: Ray Hardy J-M Squared Equipment P.O. Box 2401 South San Francisco, CA 94080 Attn: James MacNichols Flo System, . Inc. 3010 Floyd. Street Burbank, CA 91504 Attn: Lou Giordano T H Creears 9920 South La Cienega Boulevard Inglewood, CA 90301 / Attn: Doug Moore Frank Levin Parkson Corporation P.O. Box 24407 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33307 Attn: Michael G. Schill, Sales Manager Gene Picciotti Passavant Corporation P.O. Box 2503 Birmingham, AL 35201 Attn: William A. Bankowski John F. Igoe, Jr. Frank Greenshields Performance Systems , Inc. P .O. Box 4653 Birmingham, AL 35206 Attn: C. Robert Steward, President J. H. Pillow Company P.O. Box 1209 Pleasanton, CA 94566 Attn: Mr. Jack Pillow �_ Fr-4 BETTY. NEUMAN, MCMAHON, HELLSTROM & BITTNER DAVENPORT, IOWA February 6, 1980 Page 5 Herman-Phinney-Kodmur 3607 Ceneca Avenue Los Angeles , CA 90039 Attn: Don Herman John Carollo Engineers 450 North Wiget Lane Walnut Creek, CA 94598 Attn: Walter Howard Mr. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel 1055 North Main Suite 1020 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Regional Water Quality Control Board 6809 Indiana Suite 200 u Riverside, CA 92506 Attn: James Anderson LA/OMA Project P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607 Attn: Bill Davis Environmental Protection Agency Region 9 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Attn: Paul DeFalco , Regional Administrator February 7, 1980 FEDERAL EXPRESS COURIER-PAK Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Subject: Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering and and Dry Storage Facilities at Plant No. 2 Job No. P2-24-2, Grant No. C-06-1073-330 Ref: Notice of Decision Not To Prequalify the Euramca/Roediger Ecopress Model 25.3 - 2.5 Meter Belt Width Belt Filter Press Hillary Baker's comments concerning protest dictated to Euramca'.s.-- Word Processing Center on Wednesday, February 6, 1980, and .:transcribed by Euramca personnel (copy enclosed) Gentlemen: The aforementioned verbal transmission of the Orange County rules for the protest hearing from the County, was necessary because the formal notification from the County, by Certified Mail , has not been received as of Thursday, February 7, 1980. The original letter of notice of disqualification states the- primary reason for disqualification is a lack of long term U.S. installations. We quote from the EPA - Sludge Treatment and Disposal Manual on Sludge Treat- ment, Volume 1 , EPA-625/4-78-012, October 1978 published by Environmental Research Information Center, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268. Page 117 and Page 118; "U.S. installations of the latest and best models are just now coming onstream. To review actual operating performance on particular sludges, useage of available mobile pilot test units, coupled with site visits is in order. There is considerable operating experience available at existing European sites. The old conundrum that European sludges are different and results are not applicable should be treated with the contempt it deserves, since it is inaccurate." �J The verbal transmission of Wednesday, February 6, 1980, states several points not previously mentioned in the January 23, 1980 letter from Mr. Ra� E. Lewis. ,. ^ — t - continued - G Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer February 7, 1980 Page 2. We call your attention to the fact this cause for rejection was not part of your prequalification requirement specification. Our data may not be delivered to the District as demanded by the County, by Western Union on February 7, 1980 at 12:00 Noon. If the County expects us to honor verbal instructions (not in conformance with the "Rules and Regulations") Euramca expects equal consideration by the County under the same circumstances, to accept our data whenever it arrives. Basis of disqualification given verbally on February 6, 1980 by Hillary Baker. These are our comments. 1 . The number of pilot runs made in 1979 by the 1 .5 Meter Ecopress Mobile Units is 36 U.S. Municipal waste treatment plants and Industrial waste treatment plants. Results met or exceeded all design performance re- quirements for this type of equipment. 2. References supplied deal with dewatering Anaerobically Digested Sludge. Installations of Ecopresses in Europe, which we provided with our pre- submittal , list 35 permanent installations of 5 years or more. Of these, 35 installations 22 are successfully dewatering anaerobically digested sludge. 3. Euramca/Roediger are specialists in anaerobic digestion as .a, form of stabilization for sludge. We assisted the City of Los Angeles in 1973 in the process design for Terminal Island. We are a major supplier of digester equipment and services for this project. We know anaerobic sludge not just dewatering. We are still providing assistance to the Los Angeles Sanitary District, in these areas. 4. There are two (2) 1 .2 meter, one (1 ) 1 .5 meter and three (3) 2.5 meter Ecopresses on order at this time for installations on EPA funded projects. We are in a competitive position for 20 more presses, "pending notice of aware". 5. We point out that most pilot tests run by our competitors are never longer than a week, most tests are not paid for and only Contracted and paid tests run for periods of time longer than one week. These are advertised and generally part of Step 1 201 Studies. We recommend the County evaluate tests not by how many days the equipment was physically on site but how many conclusive tests were run during that time. We have piloted equipment for LA/OMA and are very familiar with testing process system and how it works in your area. `✓ Do not judge quality by quantity. By testing with a 1 .5 meter Ecopres s our clients have the benefit of full scale results not the results of .5 (1/2) meter presses which must be scaled up. y �.z - continued - �— z Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer February 7, 1980 Page 3. 6. The County did not clarify what they mean by an "inline mixer" . This and some other points of your specification are restrictive anyway, and legally subject to challenge not only by our firm, but others. 7. The vacuum zone of our Ecopress is an optional extra. It is supplied or not supplied based on the sludge quality. We can prove 3%-4% drier cake solids for difficult to dewater sludge by using the vacuum zone. We can also prove lower polymer consumption using the vacuum zone. 8. The "hand held" unit referred to weighs 45 pounds and is a scaled down unit 14" wide belt used (in the case of Puerto Rico) where our full size mobile press is not required. This test refers to a 50 gallons per day aerobic treatment pilot plant which produced the sludge to be dewatered. 9. Your comment about the lack of long term history is out of order. Operation in the U.S. was not part of your requirements nor was a definition of long term. You cannot, by precedent, disqualify us on this basis. Our first belt filter press was. installed in 1971 in Germany. All U.S. Belt Filter Presses have undergone major design changes—in the past three years. It is quite impossible for you to have,-seen any belt filter presses of the type you have qualified which have been in service for a "long term" ; whatever that means. The press, any press, you have seen will not be the same press delivered to you one year from today. 10. Your plant is no larger than projects where we have already prequalified; 20 meters of belt width means eight (8) 2.5 meter Ecopresses; this is the same number of Ecopresses bid on February 6, 1980 to Nassau County, Cedar Creek Waste Treatment Plant for dewatering anaerobically Digested Sludge at a rate of 140 gpm at 2% dry solids sludge. The consultant and the County prequalifed us and confirmed our mass and hydraulic load rates. 11 . A flocculator is a flocculator whether it sits on the floor or on a Belt Filter Press. 12. The vacuum zone as previously stated is optional and can be supplied with a new press or added at little cost later if sludge conditions change at the waste treatment plant. If the dry solids expected are less, increasing the hydraulic load, a static extended gravity zone will be of precious little help to you if you still want to dewater the same amount of dry solids per hour. b.rJ - continued - v -3 G--3 Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer February 7, 1980 Page 4. We point out one major supplier offered 26 presses to do the same job 8 of our Ecopresses could do (verified, we might add by the consultant) . This supplier provides an extended gravity zone. The sludge is an anaerobic digested sludge. Obviously the assumption or implication that an extended gravity dewatering zone results in the same effect is well founded, but at the expense of more or larger machines versus dynamic gravity dewatering systems which are high capacity presses. To be frank the ambiguities of the process and design specifications indicate the client has no concrete idea of what he can expect from his digesters in terms of the type of sludge to be dewatered. Our reply to your February 6, 1980 telephone dictated comments prove conclusively you have no grounds for disqualification. You have made serious assumptions. We point out that prequalification data was assembled at your request at great expense to the suppliers to avoid incorrect assumptions by the people reviewing the data. We are concerned -the prequalification data was not reviewed thoroughly before the January 23, 1980 letter from the County. The follow-up data from the County to which we now reply has not been received in the time and manner required by the Rules and Regulations. Euramca has not on this basis been given the prescribed .time to reply. Our reply, at additional expense to Euramca will have to be sent via Federal Express Courier-Pak to arrive in time to be considered. This conditidnai''agreement to accept our data is also irregular. Very truly yours, EURAMCA ECOSYSTEMS INC. 4ohn A. Droz President JAD:nI cc: EPA Region IX Headquarters, Grant Divison John Carollo Engineers Enclosures v Dictated to Word Processing Center, Wednesday, February 6, 1980, by Hillary Baker, County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California. Certified letter has not arrived from Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer. Report on Belt Filter Press Evaluation Introduction: The purpose of the report is to provide a recommendation to the County Sanitation District of Orange County with regard to those manufacturers who we feel have successfully qualified their particular belt filter presses under the prequalification guidelines. It is also our objective to present our reasons for not qualifying the remaining manufacturers. The following is a list of the manufacturers which submitted prequalification proposals: 1 . Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc. 2. Ralph B. Carter Co. 3. E.IMCO PMD-Envirotech Corporation 4. Euramca Inc. 5. Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation 6. Parkson Corporation 7. Passavant Corporation 8. Performance Systems Inc. 9. Tait-Andritz Inc. Basis of Evaauation: One of the major considerations. in the evaluation of the belt presses was the performanc capabilities of the various models. This relates directly to such characteristics as hydraulic throughput, sludge cake dryness, solids capture and polymer useage. While many of the manufacturers stress their abilities to meet these performance requirements as stipulated in the prequalification specifications we felt that an equally important parameter was the mechanical integrity and reliability of the various manufactured belt presses. This is especially true when considering the fact that the County Sanitation District will be installing 10 belt presses to dewater approximately 93 tons of sludge daily. In addition to .evaluating each of the individual manufacturers prequalificaton submittals firsthand experience in the form of .plant visits and phone conversations were also used to help in making the determination of qualified equipment. These contacts helped to provide the needed back up information for each equipment's performance under field conditions. Analysis of Belt Presses: As mentioned earlier each of the manufacturers were evaluated on the submitted proposals and personal contacts with various treatment facilities. However, since some of the material presented by the manufacturers in their submittals was not clearly documented the equipment analysis was divided into two portions each analysis deals with the specifics of construction and operation for each belt press as supplied by the manufacturer. The analysis also discussed the ambiguities and oral missions for each manufactures ' submittal . v G-s G-. Euramca, Inc. : Euramca has proposed to provide a 2.5 meter Roediger Ecopress belt filter press. The Roediger press has only been piloted at several United States plants. No full scale units are operating (nor are there any on order as far as we know) in this country. The pilot tests have been very short in nature (1-5 days) and therefore no conclusions can be reached based on this limited test work. One of the "pilot" tests was simply a hand held unit which was used to size up to a full scale press. The Roediger utilizes a rotating conditioning drum and a reactor screen (same principle as Carter press) for pre-thickening the sludge prior to the high pressure rollers (no inline mixer is provided) . A vacuum chamber is also provided to aid gravity drainage. It aPPears that the Roediger unit is a well constructed belt press,however the lack of any long term history of operation in the United States makes this a questionable choice for a large installation as proposed for the Sanitation Districts. The use of the flocculator reactor tank and vacuum zone seem more complicated than necessary when the same effect can be achieved with an extended gravity zone. For these reasons we- recommend that the Euramca/Roediger Ecopress should not be qualified as an approved belt press. End. v WU INFOMASTER EURAMCA ADIS 010 91 1 CO 38 1 243EST ZCZC 0 541 ADDISON IL FEBRUARY 7, 1980 FON 714-540-2910 MR- RAY E- LEWIS, CHIEF ENGINEER COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 BT SUBJECT: PREQUALIFICATION OF BELT FILTER PRESSES FOR DEVATER ING AND DRY STORAGE FACILITIES AT PLANT NO. 2 JOB NO- P2-24-2, GRANT NO- C-06-107 3-330 REF: NOTICE OF DECISION NOT TO PREQUALIFY THE EURAMCA/ ROEDIGER ECOPRESS MODEL 25- 3 - 2. 5 METER BELT WIDTH BELT FILTER PRESS PURSUANT TO OUR TELEPHONE CONVERSATION' OF TODAY, THURSDAY* FEBRUARY 7, 1980, AT 11 : 20 CST WE ARE SENDING OUR REPLY TO THE POINTS RAISED IN HILLARY BAKER' S COMMENTS DICTATED TO OUR WORD" PROCESSING CENTER ON WEDNESDAY* FEBRUARY 6, 1980- OUR REPLY WILL REACH YOU AT 12:00 NOON, FEBRUARY 8, •1980 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS COURIER-PAK. WE HAVE NOT AS OF TODAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1980, RECEIVED YOUR CERTIFIED LETTER DETAILING THE ADDITIONAL POINTS FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF THE EURAMCA/ROEDIGER ECOPRESS- IT- IS HIGHLY IRREGULAR TO DEMAND A REPLY TO A LETTER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN FORMALLY RECEIVED• IN THE EVENT OUR REPLY IS NOT RECEIVED WE EXPECT THAT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROVIDED WILL BE ACCEPTED AND• REVIEWED BY THE SANITATION DISTRICT OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA- JOHN DROZDA •EURAMCA ECOSYSTEMS INC- NNNN CEURAMCA ECOSYSTEMS INC. 40 FAY AVENUE ADDISON IL 601013. ACCEPTED 00 541 1 -PC G-� Gr- 7 ` SERVICE CONTRACT FOR SLUDGE DEWATERING"EQUIPMENT tion: A, B or C This Service Contract, after approval and signatures, entitles the .\,,,,�client to (one - two - three) service calls by a Komline-Sanderson factory- trained employee during a twelve (12) month period from the date of signing. Each call will cover a period of one - two day(s) and will be scheduled so that no less than four (4) months, nor more than twelve (12) months will elapse between calls. Each service call will include any necessary operating adjustments to Komline-Sanderson built equipment, a review of the operating records, a presentation of new techniques and procedures, as well as a written report of the call. The charge for this service will be paid annually in advance for the. total amount of the service option chosen. If more than one day is authorized on any one call, the,additional charge will be $300. 00 for each additional day or fraction thereof. Terms and pride of this contract are based on furnishing the service when we are in the area of Me-plant. If a special trip is necessary from the Home Office, t e above terms do not apply. These are chargeable at our regular rate of $350. 00 plus living and traveling expenses, for each eight-hour (8) day, plus transportation round trip from Komline-Sanderson service office. This Service Contract- may be cancelled at any time by either party giving tEie other ninety (90) days' prior written notice. _`..� SCHEDULING OF CALLS Calls will be made to suit the operating schedule of the plant. ' The Plant Superintendent should request specific dates as soon as possible after the signing of the contract. Komline-Sanderson should have at least three (3) weeks' advance notice prior to a service call. SCHEDULE OF CHARGES Option: A - One (1) call per year of 1 day $310. 00 B - Two (2) calls per year 1 day each $590. 00 C - Three (3) calls per year 1 day each $870. 00 Accepted Customer: KOMLINE - SANDERS ON _ ENGINEERING CORPORATION Address: By_: By: f Name and Title Date: - 2 - Form:SER:018:0677, Rev. 11/79 �� A KOMM-SAIMIERSON E NGMENUCY CORPORATION MANUFACTURERS OF EOUIPMENT FOR THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES MAIN OFFICE AND WORKS PE"ACs,YBW d=8EY 079TT AREA CODE 201 TELEX PHONE 234-1000 February 6, 1980 136-328 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California P. O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Attention: Mr. Ray E. Lewis, Chief Engineer Reference: Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses for Dewatering and Dry Storage Facilit at Plant No.Z, Job No. PZ-24-2 Grant No. C-06-1073-330 Gentlemen: Komline-Sanderson has received a copy of the Districts' Belt Filter Press Evaluation Report relating to Komline-Sanderson's prequalification submittal for the referenced project. . The Districts' comments relative to our submittal were included under paragraph E, K omline-Sanderson Engineering Corporation, and we would like to take the opportunity to respond to those com=ents.point bye point. Some of the items have already been addressed in our letter,.-of January 31, 1980. Item 1: As stated in our January 31 letter, the perforated rollers will be type 316 ;Mnless steel. This was an error on our part in that specification page 5 of our submittal should have read 316 s s not 304 s s. As wa s'p ointed out, the materials of construction shown on page 1 did correctly specify the roller material to be type 316 s s. Item 2• As stated in our January 31 letter, Komline-Sanderson will furnish type 31C ssaanchor bolts and fasteners in lieu of using type 18-8 as shown on page 1 of our specifications. We pointed out that it was normal for us to use type 18-8 sim- ply because that fastener system does not have the tendency to gall as do fasteners made of type 316 s s. Item 3: The Districts' specifications do require epoxy, paint on all galvanized sur ces. Normally it is not customary f or us to paint over a galvanized surface hence the inadvertent omission of that paint on our part. We will paint the framing as required. The prime coat will be Tnemec #66-I211 Hi-Build Epoxoline primer at 4 mils dry film thickness. This-will be followed by a finish coat of Tnemec #6 6 M-Build Epoxoline at 6 mils dry film thickness. v H _ 1 PERFORMANCE COUNTS 1 KOMM-SAIMERSOR ERGLVBEMG COBPOSATIOF PsAPACY,ftWJZR T O119Tt Orange County, CA February 6, 1980 \.dl Ite� m- 4: . Vortex mixer can be provided. See drawing UN-7088-C. Items Once again, the matter of pillow block type bearings was discussed in our January 31 letter. We pointed out that all proposed bearings are housed in cast .iron housings with seals. Some of the housings are pillow blocks, some are flanged cartridges, some are take-up mounted cartridges, some are cylin- drical cartridges, etc. Whether the housing is a pillow block housing or not should not make any difference relative to the bearing' s performance or its ease of lubrication. Item 6: Komline-Sander souls standard belt tensioning. system consists of two 2) manually activated (handwheel) ball screw jacks pushing a spring-loaded take-up bearing. Take-up roll position and spring compression are measured by an indicator nest to the take-up bearings. A pneumatic belt tensioning system can be provided by replacing each jack with a pneumatic cylinder with appropriate controls. A pressure regulator car, then be used to control belt tension, which will be proportional to cylinder pressure. This is the same system now being furnished for the twelve presses at the City of Detroit. Item 7: Calculation sheet 1 enclosed shows that. beam stress-is well below one-half yield stress of A-36 steel. Note that while the moment of inertia is less than specified, so to is the-beam span. A shorter span:allow.s a lower moment of inertia while maintaining acceptable stress levels. Item 8: Komline-Sanderson is aware of the Districts' 130 GPM throughput requirement. Most of our January 31 letter was addressed to that subject. We spoke of the knowledge gained from three sources, actual installations, full- scale pilot plant to sting and bench scale laboratory to sting. Three pilot plant test reports were submitted; reference was made to our successful pilot plant test program at Detroit, Michigan. Based on the above, we concluded that the Districts' performance requirements were well within the. capabilities of the proposed Model GMD-2/2 press. Further, Komline-Sanderson offered to con- duct a five day on-site performance test using one of our full-scale one-half meter wide trailer mounted pilot units on a no charge basis. The purpose of that offer was to settle the protest on the basis of facts gained from testing and not on the Districts' judgements or on Komline-Sanderson's claims. It is known that others have pilot tested, and we trust that the same opportunity, previously denied, will now be given to us. e. y -3- KOMLM-SAINDBRS(1P ENGL\TB MG CORPORMCK, PEAPAC .NEW JERSEY079ZT Orange County, CA February 6, 1980 Item 9: Komline-Sanderson offers either electric or pneumatically actuated belt tracking systems. Pneumatic tracking was proposed to meet your speci- fications. Both systems have proven to be simple and reliable means of belt control. With either system some adjustment is required at start-up, but thereafter the system requires little attention. During normal operation, with the belt centered, there is no contact with the limit valve lever-greatly extending its life and minimizing wear on the edges of the belt. Continuous contact sys- tems are required with higher belt speeds but not with the relatively low belt speeds used on the K-S belt press. Item 10: The Districts' report mentions that nip rollers provided on the drums have 7t proved successful on sludge mixtures containing activated sludge. These rollers are included in our presses for two reasons. The first reason is to apply point pressure as -vas noted on page 2 of our November 7, 1979 prequali- fication submittal. The second reason is that they act as-wipers to remove sur- face water from the pressure belts. Surface tension holds a film of water on the belts. The rolls help remove this water. Ths amount of pressure that can be applied depends on the sludge characteristics. If the sludge tends to extrude out of the edges of the cloth-cake sandwich, the .roller has to be backed off. In the case of 10056 waste activated sludge very little pressure can be applied with the rolls, if any, and their function is limited in such cases to wiping only. Item ll: Problems with spray nozzles clogging was mentioned in the District �uJ report Komline-Sanderson provides some presses with self cleaning-nozzle W and some without. The Districts' specifications required nozzles..with a built- in self cleaning feature. Referring to specification pages 2 and S of our Novembe2 7, 1979 submittal material, you will note that we propose using Albany self cleaning nozzles with pneumatically operated purging. We could furnish nozzles with the wire brush cleaning feature if required by the Districts, but prefer the Albany type since they can be arranged for automatic type- purging whereas the oth type requires manual operation to clean the nozzles. Items Finally, the Evaluation Report mentioned several instances of poor follow-up service. We respond to our customer's requirements for service and are not aware of those specific instances to which the report refers. Our service capabilities were discussed on page 7 of our November 7, 1979 prequalification submittal. Once again, let us reiterate our belief that the proposed Model GMD-2/2 press is wholly suitable for the Orange County project based on the Districts' prequalifi- cation specifications and that Komline-Sanderson should have been granted approval based on its November 7, 1979 submittal. Accordingly, we have pro- PMPACB,NR W J=MT,OT 9TT Orange County, CA February 6, 1980 �.d tested the Districts' decision not to grant us that approval. . It is believed that this letter. fully responds to the Districts' reservations expressed in their Evaluation Report and once again, we request the opportunity to conduct an on-site pilot test program to prove the performance capabilities of our offering. Very truly yours, KOMLME-SAND SON Darr A. Louden Vice President, Sales JAL/ka.s Enclo sure s cc: copies sent.to all parties on the attached list. v ': of ORANGE Cowry, CAUFORNIA ` P.O. Box 8127 10944 ELus-AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 OVA) 340-,"10 January .28, 1980 (714) %2-2411 PBMUALIFI"CATION OF -BELT FILTER PRESSES MANUFACTURER REPRF MATIVE AND OTHER Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc. Giesl.icb-Mitchell, 3.nc. Post Office Box 16327 314 Rosecrans Avenue Houston, Texas 77022 -Manhattan :Beach, CA 90266 Attn: Morris E. 'Jett, 'V.-P. Attn: Mr.. Jim Mitchell T. W. Associates 727 Industrial Road Sao Carlos, CA 94070 Arta: Mr. Jack Tooley Tait Andritz -MISCO 4601 Locust 1720 East Garry, Suite 213 Lubbock, Texas 79404 Santa Ana, CA 92705 At=: Joe A. Rose, Sales-Engineering Attn: Mr. Bay -Hardy J-M .-Squared Equipment :Post .Office .Boa 2401 'South :Sam Francisco.., CA ,94080 Attn.: JamesMacNichols , -Ralph 1. Carter Company Ralph R. Carter -Ldmpany 1000 Lake Saint .Louis Blvd. 192 .r ant c :Street Suite 13 .Hackensack, New Jersey 07602 . Sake Saint Louis, -Missouri -63367 Attu: Mr.. Chuck Tharp Flo 'Systems, Inc. 3010 Floyd Street Burbank, CA .91504 Znvirotech Process Equipment 1710 South Amphlett, St. 330 San .Mateo, CA 94402 Attn: Bob -Simonds Euramca Ecosystems, Inc. .Post Office Box 349 .Addison, Illinois 601D1 Arta: -Mr. John A. Drozda - Komliae-Sanderson Engineering Corp. Ka Line-Sanderson Eng`r Corp. P. 0—Box 257 100 Holland Avenue Peapack, New .Jersey 07977 Peapack, New Jersey 07977 Attn: Donald C. Updike Attn: Mr. James Louden, Jr. T. H. Creears 9920 South La W enega Blvd. Inglewood, CA 90301 At=: Mr. Dougv Moore , Mr. Frank Levin - ` Prequalification of Belt Filter Presses January 28, 1980 Page 1wo MANUFACTURER :REPRESENTATM- AND-OTHER Komline-Sanderson. .Engineering Corp... J. R. Pillow Company (Continued) 'P. 0. Box .1209 :Pleasanton, CA 9456.E Attn: Mr. Jack P111ow_ Parkson Corporation -Parkson .Corporation Post Office .Box 24407 P. 0. Box 24407 Fort Lauderdale, .Florida 33307 Fort .Lauderdale, 'Florida -33307 Attn-: Michael G. Schill., Sales Manager Attn: Mr. :Gene Picciotti Herman-Phiaaey-Kodmnr 3607 Seneca -Avenue Los Angeles., .CA 90039 At": Mr. Dan Herman Passavant Corporation Passavant Corporation .Post Office Boa 2503 .Post Office Box 2503 Birmingham, .Alabama 35201 Birminghsm, .Alabama 35201 -Attn: William A. .Bankowski Attn: Joha .F. Igoe, Jr. Frank Greenshields Performance :Systems, Inc. - Post Office Boa 4653 .Birmi=gbam,. Alabama 35206 Attn: C. '.Robert Steward, President .OTHER John Carollo Engineers 450 North Wiget Lane Walnut .Creek, ,CA 94598 Attn: Mt.. Walter Howard Mr. Thomas L. Woodruff General Counsel 1055 North Main, Suite 1020 Santa Ana., CA 92701 Regional Water Quality Control •Board 6809 Indiaaa, .Suite 200 Riverside, CA 92506 At=: Mr. James Anderson LA/OMA Project P. 0. Box -4 998 Whittier, CA •90607 ✓ At=: Mr. Bill Davis �1-� H- to SUBJEC7 SHEET NO.-, OF HKD. BY DATE .» JOB Ne .�. ..��..� . G�G G� � GA. r r✓1 y �✓�'�f�O r'� �� . 3 r 10, g-��,. 3 �o y ,c �� S = 3 .Z 3 3 3Ilk Al a 1730 Zo77 /oib G Vol ti f7 . T i 6 c�z 3Ca 0,0 v �� ` I1E �T. I Tll MAT01IA6 LIST 9t PART CAT•N0. M pF5tR11?I011 a+*►1 •..• 1 VN-7009- G Ot MIXER WEIOMENf I PfO000/ 02 ELBOW FL60•.PVC JCHE0ULV 80 i 1 ' I ` � •!`i � ( Nl0000L 03 8AlL YAIVE,►RUE t%NIQH,P1'C�3t�•TNClGN'. C30000y O?• PtU6,3a•Hat,SS �2w } I I I ro COND. f1 ! TANK 29 s..LUDGE S ��! r- II \ INLET oaAlN CO � I!s. ■r •. .S vnRtEX MIXER ASS`Y .•.,t.t.�,. t•. . POLYMERfff Rtw.t ••, .•: .t• � j fl ptttrW .�M t�tt t• INLET _. -_ LL_ .__.-.1..• ---»- 1 .• • ..•.w AM e a •on / tan•..t•n •on.to••.:.t.avt.:�• • f •MMst �1��MM ttlu•N�• .� � f;�r Q!I •tqut.w tort M.•tf .►L.r btwi:etllq atw.�.lial 2 7e •Ittarct KOMLINE-SANOERSON � t N; !'/+! t. •#10 11HOINIVONd CORPORATION . . , w:.�io�l.b'it �' .. .�t,.A��.N.,. UN-7088-C SUMMARY REPORT FOR PREQUALIFICATION OF BELT FILTER PRESSES COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY FEBRUARY 13, 1980 `ad JOHN CAROLLO ENGINEERS PHOENIX WALNUT CREEK FOUNTAIN VALLEY VISALIA ARIZONA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA JOHN A.CAROLLO.P.E. (1908-1971) H. HARVEY HUNT, P.E. HOWARD M.WAY, P.E. DONALD R. PREISLER.P.E. V GAIL P. LYNCH. P.E. WALTER R.HOWARD.P.E. J. DAVID GRIFFITH, P.E. G.WILLIAM KNOPF,P.E. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 III. BACKGROUND HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 IV. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . 10 V. PREQUALIFICATION PROTESTS. . . . . . . . . 15 APPENDICES v T. INTRODUCTION In November of 1978, the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (CSDOC) authorized John Carollo Engineers to proceed with the design of additional sludge digestion and wet storage facilities for CSDOC-Is Plant No. 2 to be closely followed by the design of sludge dewatering and dry storage facilities. During the initial stages of the dewatering design, an evaluation and subsequent decision was made to utilize belt filter presses as the mode of dewatering for the sludge produced from the existing primary clarifiers and proposed secondary treatment facilities (now under construction). However, because the belt filter press represented a relatively new tech- nology and because of the large number of manufactured presses available on the market, it was determined that an evaluation procedure prior to the bidding process would be required to narrow the choices to only those presses which could produce equipment to meet requirements for this participation project. In the U.S. Federal Register of August 18, 1979, a procedure was outlined for the prequalification of major items of equipment under the Construction Grant Program for public treatment works. Based on these guide- lines, a prequalification package was made available to all interested manufacturers for their responses. Nine submittals were received and of these nine received, only two manufacturers met all the necessary requirements for qualification. Three of the non-qualified manufacturers have protested the CSDOC's decision to not qualify their equipment for the Plant No. 2 sludge dewatering expansion. The purpose of this report will be to st*mmArize all the information Z-3 =-,3 which led to the decision to prequalify and also all pertinent facts that led to the selection of the qualified and non-qualified belt presses. A discussion of the prequalification protests will also be presented. V '' II. SUMMARY ,! The CSDOC is currently in the process of constructing a 75 MGD pure oxygen activated sludge secondary treatment plant at Plant No. 2. Sludge produced from this process exceeds the capacities of the existing digestion and dewatering facilities. CSDOC authorized John Carollo Engineers to design digestion and dewatering facilities to handle the projected sludge quantities. The first phase of this project (identified as P2-24-1), which includes the digestion and wet storage facilities, was just awarded this past January. The second phase (P2-24-2) , which includes the dewatering and dry storage facilities, is currently being prepared for bidding. During the initial stages of the dewatering design work, it was determined that the existing high-speed centrifuges did not have the capacity for future dewatering needs. For this reason an evaluation of various -types tarp of dewatering devices was made, which included plate and frame Later presses, low-speed centrifuges, and belt filter presses. This preliminary screening showed that belt presses and centrifuges were comparable in cost, with the belt presses having a slight overall edge. The belt press had the advantages of (1) producing a slightly drier cake, (2) utilizing less power and (3) ease of operation and maintenance. Although the belt press appeared to be the favorable of the two alternatives, concern was expressed because of the belt presses' relatively short operating history in the United States. For this reason, a field trip was proposed to evaluate field installations of various manufacturer's belt presses. These installations included both municipal and industrial facilities. The results of the field trip supported the claims that many different versions of the belt filter press were being marketed. Most of the process design features of the various presses were somewhat similar, but �../ there were more obvious discrepancies in the quality of materials and construction and in each of the press designs. The trip did show that some of the better designed and constructed belt presses were able to operate in very severe operating conditions for long periods of time.without significant downtimes. It became apparent that the belt press market was divided into two categories: the higher quality press designed for long years of service versus tht lower quality and lower priced machines. Treatment plants which had installed these lower quality machines have had to pay higher operation and maintenance costs, or have -actually replaced these existing units with one of better quality. For this reason it was decided that a prequalification process was �,..� required to identify those better designed and constructed presses. ,The'EPA prequalification procedures were reviewed and a package was made available to all interested manufacturers. Nine submittals were received for review. Table 1 lists all the manufacturers, belt press trade names, and physical descriptions of the belt presses which were proposed. Each press was evaluated for performance (both full-scale and pilot testing) , overall construction, materials of construction, and ease of operation and maintenance. Field trips and phone contacts to various operating installations proved another means for obtaining first-hand information. An evaluation was also made of the modifications necesrsary for each-press manufacturer to meet the project re- quirements.. An early decision was made to avoid accepting a belt press that had to be modified to the extent that it became essentially a proto-type unit, `..� with no actual operating history. v =— �p - 4 N Table 1 PREQUALIFICATION SUBMITTALS Manufacturer Brand Name Length, ft. Width, ft. Weight, lbs. Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley Winklepress 17'-5" 10'-5" 24,250 i "' Ralph B. Carter Co. Series 25132 15'-1" 10-14" 19,200* Eimco- Envirotech Corp. EVT 24'-9" 7-10" 19,500 Euramca, Inc. Ecopress 15'-1" ll'-2" 1811600* Komline-Sanderson Corp. Unimat 15'-6" 91-4" 15,200 Parkson Corp. Magnum Press 14'-10" 91 -1" 15,600 Passavant Corp. Vac-U-Press 13'-4" 8'-2" 10,800 Performance System Inc. BP325 19'-0" 12'-0" Unknown Tait Andritz, Inc. SDM-'2200 S7 20'-3" 12'-2" 40,000 *Includes weight of reactor conditioning and mixing. drum. N Based on the evaluation, of submitted information, two manufacturers were able to qualify: Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley and Tait Andritz, Inc. The re- maining manufacturers failed to qualify for reasons such as inability to meet material specifications, lack of conclusive information that performance criteria could be met, and lack of full-scale operating; experience with the proposed equipment. Table 2 lists the seven manufacturers along with general categories for their deficiencies. Three manufacturers, Ralph B. Carter Co. , Euramca, Inc. ; and Komline- Sanderson, each filed protests claiming that their equipment could meet all the requirements outlined in the prequaliftcation specification. Post prequalifica- tion meetings were held with each manufacturer in order that each might present further information which might make it possible for each of these respective presses to qualify. This information was carefully reviewed along with additional �.r✓ details obtained from contacts with operating facilities and other agencies who had tested their equipment. It was determined that the information supplied by these manufacturers was in some cases contrary to reports obtained from existing facilities. New information is being developed almost daily, particularly with regard to performance through pilot testing. Some existing facilities are currently in start-up stages. In some cases, the manufacturers have recently obtained contracts with other agencies to furnish equipment. After carefully reviewing the additional information which was furnished and re-evaluating all the previous information supplied, it is recommended that CSDOC not prequalify any of the three manufacturers who have filed a protest. - 6 - A i Table 2 BELT PRESS EVALUATION Failure To Failure To Failure To Field Lack Of Lack of U.S. Meet Material Meet Perfor- Meet Physical Operating Follow-Up Operating Manufacturer Spec. mance Spec. Limitations Problems Service Experience (1) Carter X X X v Eimco X X X Euramca Unclear Unclear Unclear X Komline X X(1) X X Parkson Unclear X(1) X X Passavant X X(1) X X PSI Unclear Unclear X <(1) Possible hydraulic limitations. 1 III. BACKGROUND HISTORY The existing dewatering facilities at CSDOC's Plant No. 2 consist of three high-speed centrifuges. A fourth low-speed centrifuge will be installed to provide additional capacity to dewater the digested primary sludge. The CSDOC is -currently constructing a 75 MGD pure oxygen activated sludge secondary treatment plant. CSDOC authorized John Carollo Engineers to design anaerobic digestion and mechanical dewatering facilities to handle the anticipated secondary sludges produced by the activated sludge system. An evaluation was made of three types of dewatering devices: plant and frame filter presses, low-speed centrifugres, and belt filter presses. Total costs for dewatering and disposal were calculated and in the final analysis, the belt presses and centrifuges were fairly equivalent. The belt press option was actually slightly lower in costs due to a lower' poaer consumption and slightly drier cake discharge. The belt presses were also considered to be simpler to maintain as well as being an easier process for the operator to understand. The CSDOC had reservations, however, concerning the use of belt presses, because they seemed to be a relatively unproven process with minimal operating history, especially in California. There also seemed to be numerous manufacturers providing a confusing array of presses. For these reasons, a preliminary investigation was begun to determine the status of belt press technology in the United States. The research and development group conducting the studies for the LA/OMA Project was consulted because of its experience. in the operation of two belt presses at the Los Angeles County Carson Plant. One of the presses, a Parkson "Magnum Press," had numerous mechanical problems and operated only V 8 - S-- 1v briefly during their test work. Howevez,, the other belt press, an Ashbrook "Winklepress" was operated during the entire test period.with relatively little mechanical problems. As a preliminary test of dewatering ability, a.mixture of primary and secondary sludge from CSDOC's Plant No. 1 was trucked over to L.A. Carson for testing on the Ashbrook Winklepress. The test work showed that the CSDOC sludge was very amenable to belt press dewatering. The research group published a series of monthly reports discussing the operation of these presses, copies of which can be found in Appendix A. In addition to working with WOHA, an independent survey of belt press manufacturers was made to determine what the status was of existing belt press installations (i.e. , length of service, operational and maintenance problems incurred, etc.). A copy of the belt press report is provided in Appendix B. -_ Based on preliminary findings,. it was decided to obtain first-hand _ information by visiting some on-going belt press installations (both,'==icipal - and industrial). It was found that the belt press installations with the most operating experience were located in industrial applications. Five different manufacturers' presses (Parkson, Carter, Ashbrook, Komline-Sanderson, and Tait Andritz) were observed in various types of environments. It became very apparent that there were significant differences in the-way •eaeh of the _ various belt presses were design and constructed (i.e. flocculation systems, belt tracking and belt tensioning, etc.) . One of the considerations in evalua- ting these field installations was not so much performance-related. but_Inyo17red _ an evaluation of the presses' capability to operate a mi„i„"„a of ten years. Based on observations, not all the belt presses would meet that criteria: A summary of all the trip reports taken in connection with the belt press evaluation are presented in Appendix C. IV. PREQUALIFICATION PROCESS r� As more information was accumulated, it became increasingly apparent that many belt presses being currently installed were not of the highest quality. This was a result of each competing manufacturer attempting to provide as inexpensive a belt press as possible to compete in today's low-bid atmosphere. Evidentially some projects did not have strict requirements with regard to quality of material in the specifications. However, even tightly written specifi- cations will not always present lower quality equipment from being bid after the plans and specifications reach the contractor. There are in the area of 30 man- ufacturers of belt presses from whom the Contractor could receive bids. After numerous discussions with CSDOC, it was decided that if belt presses were to be used in- the proposed dewatering expansion, a preliminary screening would have to be prepared to eliminate manufacturers who did not have a satisfactory experience record. This would avoid having a multitude,of, belt presses of varying quality bidding the job yet claiming to be equivalent to the published specifications. The August 18, 1979, Federal Register provides the mechanism necessary for prequalification of equipment. It provides guidelines for the "Pre- qualification of Major Equipment Items" for Federally funded treatment works. A copy of these guidelines can be found in Appendix D. A prequalification package was assembled which included preliminary specifications for the belt presses along with a detailed request for information on the manufacturer and their experience in this field (i.e. manufacturing facilities, number and qualifications of personnel involved in this product, listing of existing installations, etc.) . A copy of this prequalification package has been included in Appendix D. The request for prequalification submittals was advertised on October 9, 1979, and nine submittals were received by CSDOC by thevll. a.m. November 9, -19T9 deadline. _- l ;L - 10 These nine submittals were reviewed on the following basis: 1. Performance evaluation a. Full-scale installations b. Filot studies , 2. Equipment evaluation a. Overall construction b. Materials of construction c. Ease of operation d. Ease of maintenance 3. Experience in existing U.S. treatment plants (municipal and industrial) _ 4. Type of modifications necessary to meet specifications and project requirements. The fourth item was a very important one because most of the suppliers who sent submittals- claimed the ability to meet the project specifications. However, in many cases the press which would be provided would essentially be a "proto-type" unit with no actual operating history. It was considered important due to the number of presses required for the CSDOC needs (ten presses will be required-; only a belt press with proven operating history should be allowed to=-qualify. Any significant design defiency inherent to a belt press would be multi- plied ten-fold in a large installation such as one proposed for CSDOC. All the manufacturers claim that they mould make good on any belt press sold. However, the CSDOC, not the Suppliers, mast live with the day to day busines of dewatering approximately 100 tons per day (dry solids) of sludge. As a result of the evaluation, only two suppliers qualified their belt presses:. Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley, Inc. and Tait Andritz, Inc. Both these manufacturers qualified because they not only met the required material specifi- cations, but both suppliers have had presses operating in the most severe environments imaginable with little or no reported downtime due to mechanical failures.. This is noteworthy in that even though some of the presses currently in operation are considered to be older models or earlier versions of the current units, such design features and components as bearings and bearing housings, belt tracking and belt tensioning systems, and belt spray wash systems have remained the same throughout all the model changes. The other seven manufacturers' presses did not qualify for a wide �•+� range of items, as s+—Arized in the following discussion: A. Ralph B. Carter Co. 1. Do not supply all rollers with lubricatable bearings. They have had many problems with bearings locking up (even those bearings which can be lubricated). 2. They did not meet 316 SS requirements for perforated drum. 3. Several installations have had problems with the belt tracking systems. 4. Belt wash system does not have a self-cleaning feature as required in the specifications. 5. Rotating reactor-conditioner used for sludge flocculation has proven to be a high maintenance item. 6. Currently provide plastic scraper blades which do not meet specifications. 7. Did not provide information to show that 2.5 meter unit will meet performance specifications. They had no operating .2:5 �..� meter presses anywhere in the U.S. B. Eimco-Envirotech Corp. 1. Major problem is that length of their press makes it impossible to fit into proposed dewatering facilities. 2. They have no belt presses of any kind operating in the U.S. C. Euramca, Inc. 1. They also utilize a reactor-conditioner for polymer conditioning, similar to the Carters' . Operational history for this equip- ment is not good. 2. Only have Europe" installations with no operating (or even installed) U.S. installations to date. Only experience has been with trailer-mounted pilot unit. D. Romline-Sanderson Corp. 1. Did not provide the proper in-line mixer for polymer system. 2. Did not meet all the stainless steel requirements for perforated roller and anchor bolts. v , I. Apparently all rollers do not have lubricated bearings. 12 - =. 14 4. Belt tension is applied by manually adjusted "pressure bars.19 No explanation as to how these are operated is given. 5. No calculations were made to show compliance with moment of inertia requirements. 6. No operating installations were given where the K S unit is meeting the 130 gpm flow rate requirement. 7. Some complaints were registered by several treatment plants that R--S had not been responsive to problems. E. Parkson Corp. 1. Roller life on bearings called out as 60,000 hours versus 100,000 hours in specifications. 2. Two meter Parkson press appears to have a hydraulic limita- tion (LA/OMA showed similar limitations). 3. Standard belt wash and belt tracking system do not meet specifications. 4: Numerous operating installations have had problems with belt tracking systems, plugging of wash nozzles, bearing failures, and belt wrinkling problems. F. Passavant_Corp. 1. Proposed to provide thirteen belt presses (1DO gpm) however, only ten presses will fit into the proposed faci#ties. G. Performance Systems, Inc. 1. Materials of construction not described. Submittal was generally very brief in nature. 2. Predicted only 1,000 hours of belt life as opposed to 3,000 hours predicted in the specifications. 3. Recommended use of a rotary thickener for polymer conditioning. However, thickener capacity is rated only at 90 gpm, whereas capacity of belt press is 130 gpm. 4. Have no full-scale operating plants in the U.S. The report submitted for the review of the submittals can be found in Appendix E. One of the sources of information-(along with the previously mentioned trip- reports) in evaluating all the belt presses came through the use of phone conversations with various treatment plants and agencies, therefore copies of all the telephone memoranda have been included in Appendix F. As was noted in v ' 13 this report, it was apparent that not all the manufacturers took the pre- qualification process seriously. There were many ambiguities and omissions which made the evaluation process much more difficult. Many of the manufacturers assumed that by submitting some sort of report, they would automatically qualify. Also many suppliers stressed performance capabilities, but it is felt that quality of workmanship and simplicity of operation were also. important parameters in the selection process. This is the reason that the Ashbrook and Tait Andritz units were selected over the other manufacturers. - 14 - 1- 1 to V. PREOIIALIFICATION PROTESTS Three of the seven suppliers who were not named as qualified to supply their belt presses filed an official protest with the CSDOC. Each claimed that their press met all the requirements stipulated in the prequalification package. The three suppliers were Ralph B. Carter Co. ; Euramea, Inc. ; and Komline- Sanderson Engineering Corporation.. The CSDOC scheduled meetings with these three suppliers to allow each an opportunity to submit additional information for prequalification. A summary of these meetings and the subsequent decision involving each is presented in the following discussion. Komline-Sanderson. A meeting was scheduled for 7 February 1980 at the CSDOC offices with representatives from Komline-Sanderson, CSDOC, and John Carollo Engineers. Komline brought pilot test information from three installations (Northeast Philedelphia, Beaumont Texas and Cleveland, Ohio) to show that their 2.0 meter belt press .would be able to handle a 130 pgm minim;= flow rate. These test reports _ predicted an anticipated flowrate of 75 .gpm/meter for the Philedelphia;�pilot, and 40-60 gpm/meter for the •Beaumount and Cleveland pilots. Based on these test results, only the Philadelphia flowrates would scale-up to the mi,;i,mnn 130 gpm performance criteria. Komline insi$ts that their-scale-up factors from their 0.5 meter test unit are accurate, but they have never proven this in actual comparison testing (they wish to bring their pilot unit on site) . They have no existing facilities that operate at these high flow rates. In fact, one of the installations contacted (Pottstown, Pennsylvania) was not able to operate at the design flow rates projected by Komline. The test work at LA/OMA also showed that the scale-up factors provided by some suppliers during LA/OMA's pilot testing phase did not in fact, represent actual operating conditions for the full-scale units that were eventually tested. v Z�� - 15 Komline claimed that they can meet all requirements for 316 SS fasteners, 316 SS perforated drums, and epoxy painting of all galvanized sur- faces (at additional cost of course) . They also will provide either their self cleaning "Albany" nozzles or a brush cleaned unit as manufactured by "Appleton". Komline said that while all their bearings are not of the "pillow- block"--lubricated type, they all can- be lubricated. Komline also claims that all their bearings are externally mounted on the frame. However, unless their press design has recently changed, we observed on our field trip in March 1979 that their bearings are in such a position where they will be subject to water contact. Even properly sealed and lubricated bearings cannot withstand water contact. Several operating installations where bearing failures had occurred included Abitibi Paper in Ontario, Canada; E.I. Dupont in Clinton, Iowa; and Crown-Zellerbach in S. Glen Falls, New York. A municipal installation in Columbia, Tennessee had several bearing failures because the bearings were situated- such that they could not be lubricated. Komline claimed that.•these installations have presses where the bearing life was designed for 60,000 hours (instead of the 100,000 hours specified) . However, even these bearing failures should not have occurred this prematurely, since the-units had only been oper- ating for less than one year. ,- Komline said that they could provide a pneumatically operated belt tensioning system as called for in the preliminary specifications (they normally provide manually activated ball screw jacks pushing a spring-load take-up bearing) .. However, they have never used a pneumatic tensioner on a full-scale unit (only tested on their 0.5 meter pilot unit) . Komline said that they can provide either an electronic or pneumatic belt tracking systems. Their pneumatic belt tracking system is not a modulating �'✓ system (as called for in the preliminary specifications) . Their system makes y Z� 18 - 16 adjustments only when the belt contacts a limit switch. Parkson usess -a similar type of tracking system and has had a great deal of problems with them. Komline claims that their belt speeds are lower than other presses so they can afford to use this type of system. However, both Tait and Ashbrook have similar belt speeds to the Komline press and both of these units use a modulating tracking system. Several industrial users (Abitibi Paper, Crown Zellerbach, E.I. Dupont) of the Komline press have taken it upon themselves to add a pneumatic belt tracking system of their own design. Komline claims that they require the nip rollers for applying point pressure to .the sludge cake and also to act as wipers for excess water which may accumulate. on the belt. During the March 1979 visit to the Komline facilities, they said that -the nip rollers were provided so that the belt could be run at lower tension than other comparable belt presses. They also claimed that because of these. lower applied tensions, that a lighter-weight frame could.-be 1�,1 employed. However, the drawing which they submitted (dated 25 Januery 1980) has fewer nip rollers shown than on the drawing submitted in their November sub- mittal, which indicates a change in design philosophy as depicted in their pre- qualification proposal. Komline explained that actually the belt tension had not changed but that they had decided to remove several of the nip rollers because CSDOC's mixture of primary and- secondary sludge does not lend itself to .the application of point pressure. The nip rollers depicted on Komline's most recent drawing are acting only as wipers. The nip rollers are manually adjusted (screw adjustment on each side) .. This would to make it somewhat difficult for the operator to set these properly. 17 — k ci Komline has just been selected to supply twelve belt presses for the City of Detroit. Komline claims that the belt presses which they will provide for Detroit will essentially meet all the preliminary specifications in the request for prequalification information. However, they indicate that they are building features into these presses which have not been tested on a full- scale basis (they see no problem with this, however) . Also all of the manufacturers against whom they were competing failed to qualify under CSDOC's prequalification requirements. Although it appears that Komline-Sanderson has been making improvements in their belt press design since the trip last March and even since prequalification information received this past November, most of these improvements are untested in full-scale operations. Most of the references contacted were having several operational problems of one kind or another. Abitibi Paper in Ontario, Canada - has had so .many process problems (have been unable to achieve cake solids .predicted by _. Komline) and mechanically-related problems with the Unimat that they- have decided to purchase one of the two qualified presses. Komline said that they were at the about 85-percent point on the learning curve as far as belt press design. It appears however that therema ni=g 15-percent of development is in the areas, which directly affect day to day operation and maintenance (i.e. belt tracking, bearings, etc.) . Evaluation of all newly supplied information has not changed the opinion that the Komline press at this time has not demon- strafed reliability under CSDOC specifications in a full scale- operating installation, and therefore should not be qualified. for use in the proposed dewatering facilities at CSDOC's Plant No. 2. � Ralph S. Carter. A meeting was scheduled for 11 Feb=uary 1.980 at the CSDOC offices with representatives from. Carter, CSDOC and John Carollo Engineers. y � �Z. a - 18 - =_zo Carter presented data to show that their latest model 25/32 could meet the performance criteria as specified (this model is designed for greater �✓` hydraulic capacity, and *belt tension than their previous models) . Carter claims that their sludge conditioning and pre-dewatering system is as good or better than the in line venturi mixer provided for in the prequalification specifications. Their claims are that the rotating reactor- conditioner provides much more dewatering area than just a standard gravity belt and more overall flexibility. However, there are no concrete data to show. that their system is any better or any worse than the in-line venturi mixer described in the prequalifications specifications. However in contacting various plants .(i.e. Oceanside, California; Tennessee Eastman; Owensboro, Kentucky and Rome Georgia). where the Carter press is located, this piece of equipment appeared to be one of the highest maintenance items. A check of Carter's prequalification submittal shows that the drum and reactor-conditioner are made up of approximately `a 80 different parts. The in-line mixer -has no moving parts except fa . i:he adjustable flap which controls the opening of the venturi throat. (Allows the operator a change in mixfng energy according to the sludge being dewatered) . The design of the reactor system also makes proper clean-up difficult (improper clean-up results in screen blinding) . There is also a potential of screen blinding. caused by the build-up of magnesium ammonium phosphate. Carter says that the reactor screen wears out in a similar fashion to the polyester belts, however they did not specify a life for these screens (they estimated they would last us long as the polyester belts) . Carter incorporates inbound bearings (all lubricated) with fixed shafts. as part of their press design. They claim that this type of design makes for an overall stronger frame design. However it was noted in the various trips to V - 19 belt press installations that the inboard bearings were exposed to much more water and/or sludge coming off the belt (even if they are lubricated) , as r..' opposed to the outboard bearings. Carter can supply outboard bearings, however outboard bearings require a stiffer frame. Carter did not indicate that they would redesign the frame to accomodate this change in bearing housing location. Carter does not normally supply the perforated drum that is called out in the prequalification specifications. They claim they will provide one if so required (although they said that they had never used a perforated drum before) . They-will also provide a belt wash system which provides for internal cleaning of the spray nozzles (not normally proviaed) . Carter claims that the 25/32 (series 32 represents their latest model) is designed for much more rugged duty than their previous models. Four of these units (25/32) are ,just starting-up, however Carter claims that these units have had a long history of operation in Europe. Carter does have a facility (Tennessee Eastman) , however, in which seven of their models 15/32's (same desig#only belt is 1.5 meters instead of 2.5 meters w1de) have been currently operating for the last year. This plant was contacted and the following information was obtained: (1) flocculation drum and reactors are literally breaking-up; ' (2) new belt tensioning system was causing polyester belts to prematurely tear (Carter has supplied them 15 belts at no charge) ; (3) have already had several bearing failures (lubricated bearings) ; (4) have had rapid wear of the scraper blades (are currently experimenting with a new material) and; (5) have had the gear drives fail on both the main drive motor and reactor motor. These are some of the same failures observed in the older Carter models (Series 30 and 31) . Although this represents only one operating facility with any extensive operating - 20 - - zz_ = —zz history (Wire Rope Mfg. in St. Joseph, Missouri has had a Model 8/32 operating since April 1979 without any major difficulties. However the press only operates 13 hours per week which equates- to only 600 total hours of operation since start-up) , it appears that the new Carter Model 32 is not a proven press with satisfactory operating experience. Evaluation of all the newly supplied information has not changed the opinion that the Carter press should not be qualified for the proposed CSDOC dewa.tering expansion. Euramca, Inc. A meeting was scheduled for 11 February 1980 at the CSDOG offices with representatives from Euramca, CSDOC and John Carollo Engineers. _ The prequalification package did request information on existing _ installations. .There are no full-scale installations of Euramca presses operating in the U.S. at this time, so it is very difficult to evaluate anticipated operation and maintenances problems. Euramca says that they have numerous operating installations in Europe and claim that U.S. experience was not stipulated as an evaluation criteria. We reviewed in de"-;i 'the installation list provided by Euramca. The list showed 34 installations in Europe operatiiig'on various type sludges. ' All installations had only one press shown except one plant which had two presses. It would appear that most of the ' ' plants must be of small size ashen compared *to the CSDOC project. We were not provided with detailed information on the European installations and have - not been in a position to verify actual operating experience. U.S. operating experience would be useful to CSDOC since the operating practices of European facilities can not be easily verified. Much discussion was had with regard to ability of the Euramca press to meet performance criteria. Based on recent pilot testing results Euramca feels their press would be able to meet the preliminary specifications with regard to performance. This is primarily, based on side by side testing with other presses at other locales. Some of these other pressesvwere tested at CSDOC.=- , .3 - 21 - �"'�T '_ Z3 Euramca has recently redesigned their press to utilize two belts as opposed to their three belt design (2 years ago) . They claim- they do have successful operating experience with the new two belt design in Europe. Euramca .claims they are currently being considered for a. large project in Nassau County and that they have been selected to furnish a belt press for an installation being designed in Puerto Rico. Preliminary specifications require a gravity type pre-dewatering system. Euramca provides a sludge conditioning system (conditioning drum .followed by a reactor) similar to that provided by Carter. Although it is not implied that the two systems are identical, there are definite indications that the Carter system is a very high maintenance item. It is felt that this more complicated pre-dewatering system is not necessary for handling CSDOC sludges and would pose a serious maintenance problem as well as a serious clean- up problem. There is also potential for blinding of the screen caused by magnesium ammonium phosphate. , CSDOC has had several bad experiences with various types of new equipment, equipment which the suppliers had claimed extensive operating history in Europe (or elsewhere) . This is not to say that the Euramca unit is in someway inferior, but until some long-term U.S. operating history can be obtained and due to the more complicated mechanical pre--dewatering system, we feel that it is in the CSDOC's best interests not to qualify the Euramca belt press for the CSDOC dewatering project. - 22 - �— -z � -z 7 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS r TELEPHONES: �ngAREA CODE 714 540-2910 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA S.S. 962-2411 P. O. ,BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9270B 10644 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) February 13, 1980 Daon Corporation c/o Dennis O'Neil, Esq. 4041 MacArthur Blvd. Suite 190 Newport Beach, Ca. 92660 Gentlemen: In accordance with Section 11 of that certain agreement between County Sanitation District No. 5 and the Daon Corporation providing for,advance payment of connection charges, the District hereby advises that as of this date, we are able to guarantee to Daon Corporation that the District will have adequate sewer connection and pipeline facilities to accept all proposed sewerage flows emanating from the 300 residential units and ancillary facilities to be developed on the land described as Tentative Tract Map No. 10391 of Orange County, subject to the following conditions: •• 1. . That the agreement between Daon Corporation and County Sanitation District No. 5 remain in full force and effect. �i 2. That County Sanitation District No. 5 enter into an agreement with The Irvine Company, wherein the District receive advance payment of the sum of $600,000.00 from The Irvine Company as advance connection charges. 3. That the District, by utilizing the total sum of $1,000,000.00 as contributed by Daon Corporation and The Irvine Company, constructs additional sewerage collection facilities to serve the Big Canyon - Jamboree Road Drainage Area. The District reaffirms to you that in order to carry out its proposed project for construction of additional facilities for the Big Canyon - Jamboree Road Drainage Area, that it must first secure additional approvals from the California Regional Coastal Commission and other regulatory bodies and that no project can be undertaken until all such approvals have been received. This conditional letter guaranteeing service to your tract will be deemed satisfied, and all conditions removed as of the effective date of award of a construction contract by County Sanitation District No. 5 for the additional facilities described above. y truly yours, " )�- C C-G Fred A. Harper �, FAH:pj General Manager }KV70y COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS TE LA CPH ONODE 7 4 AREA CODE 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 962-2911 -241 P. 0. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 10844 ELLIS AVENUE (EUCLID OFF-RAMP. SAN DIEGO FREEWAY) February 21 , 1980 The following is an excerpt from the minutes of the regular Joint Meeting of the Boards of Directors of the County Sanitation Districts held February 13, 1980: ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly ati inAction of the - carried: General Manager 'in -Issuing Purc asp Order to Don Gree That the action of the General & Associates re Job PW-OT971 Manager in issuing Purchase Order No. 1633 to Don Greek & Associates in the amount of $4, 806. 50 for construction surveying services in connection with the Wet Weather Contingency Plan at Coyote Canyon Sludge Processing Site and Plant No. 1, Job No. PW-069-1 is. :hereby approved and ratified. I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and accurate copy of Minute Order on record in this office. Fred A. Harper General Manager 40 NIEW k6� 0 L 0 &1� A",0 Ll-k-s-cax� `1 4/nT e3 L 0 U d 2✓I `1 ,l �l©Hz e `z Jer so'At U 6 Pt-PI & C AR-e y, Co. v� �jo,P�f►M-� � �� .s i�MS �v��s �Q U�PMr�7 DRUz D A-_4) __ __�'Ul_L/�i�c.��YJ�.vS, INC, h7) r �i CO MEETING DATE Feb. 13, 1980 TIME 7:30 "DISTRICTS. 1,2,3,5,6,7411 DISTRICT 1 ,�„ JOINT BOARDS SCHUSTER ..... SHARP •••••. YAMAMg TO)••••• WARD ........ _ SVALSTAD)-••••ADLER••••--- CLARK CLRK) •• ANTHONY•• •• K • C • •••••- HUTCHISON•••• GCRAM )FERRY •..... CULVER••••• DISTRICT 2 KIRKPATRICK)••FINLAYSON•• GAMBINA) •••FOX•• •••• ✓ FRIED)•• ... WEDAA •••••••_� NYBORG) -•-••FRESE••••••� CORBETT). •• •-GRAHAM•• ✓ RASHFORpp)-•... HOLT....• • •••_� RASHFORD)• • •-HOLT•• •- ✓ GAM INA)......FOX ......I� WELLS : •• •. •• -HOUSTON•- -•�� WELLS:.-• ••••HOUSTON.. .... LL CRANK •• -- HUTCHI SON••_lG. CLARK •-•..MILLER... .. .. / GAMBINQQ)• •• •• •LE BARON-. .. CULVER •.-•- PERRY•••--. .. - MANDIC).. .... .MACALLISTER�G GRAH�MUR): ..• ROGET••.•.•• RYCKOEF)- - 44G-�MWN.SEYM ••••• ROTH •.•.•• • CLARK)..... . . ..MILLER..• - HOYT •-••.... SMITH•• •• • ••• ✓ 0�- --�G SVALSTAD).. .•. STANTON•- •-•. CULVER)STER). .PERRY.. ...•_�G WINT RS)...... 8&Ii .. .. GR CULVER) .::::.PERRY•• ::: WARD.. .......YAMAMOTO •• . ✓ CLIRK N.. •RILEYEESE.• . ✓ --� CLARK� •. .-.•RILEY• ••••:� DISTRICT 3 GRAHAM)•.. . ....ROGET••••• SEYMOVR)-.. .• -ROTH....... EVANS).... ... .ROWAN...... �C NYBORG).......FRESE. ....... ✓ HUMMEQ.. .. •• •RYCKOFF••• EVANS •••.ROWAN• •-• ••••yL LASZLO' .....SEITZ....... SVALSTAD)•••••ADLER......••.V SCHUSTER)• ••••SHARP......_] MACALLISTER)••BAILEY.. . . ..• .L _�` HOYT).. . .. .SMITH•.••. ✓ �PER ) -•-••CULVER-•- • • • • SVALSTA+).... ..STANTON...• ✓ KIRNA-i�i�K)••FINLAYSON••••� RYCKOFFI.... ..STRAUSS....� CORBETT)••••-•GRAHAM.. ..... ZOMMI K)))))).. .. ..SYLVIA..... J/ GAMBINA ..-•-•LE BARON.... . SILLS VARDOULIS..J� GRIFFIN •....REESE•• ••••• SEYMOUR ...ROTH•••••••••� HANSON), .. ..WAHNER.....sG LASZLO)• •••••SEITZ•••- •••-JG YAMAMOTO)• ••••WARD... ....J� OMMICK. ......SYLVIA.-••••••_/� _ FRIED)••••••••WEDAA••••••JG WHEEL R�•.••••WEISHAUPT••-.J� �_ SHEELEP,)-•-• ••WEISHAUPT••�G ERD) ARK�... ....WIEDER.......�� SCHUS7ER)•••••WELSH••••••�G LA��SSOUEZ)....WINTERS......� CLARK ......WIEDER••••• .........YAMAMOTO..... _ J RYCKOFF)-•• •••WILLIAMS•••� VELASQUEZ)••••WINTERS.... DISTRICT 5 WARD). ........YAMAMOTO• ••�G �RRUNKOFF EL) .....RYCKOFF. .....�L OTHERS �-::::•STRAUSS:::::• -••LARK). •RILEY-• •JG HARPER. . DISTRICT 6 a LEWIS .. .... (RYCKO F)••••• �:...�� Y CLARKE .. ... BROWN - �CRANK :::::::•HUTCHISON:::•� � Y_ CLARK)) •ANTHONY•• •_ �� WOODRUFF -•• I DISTRICT 7 HOHENER •••• HOWARD ••••- HOYT) •-•••SMITH••••••••.jL �� HUNT....... RYCKOFF)••••••WILLIAMS..... � KEITH ...... I CLAP.K •• ••MILLER•• •• KENNEY ••••. SILLSJ•.......VARDOULIS. .. .� LYNCH ...... HANSON). . . . ...WARNER.. . . . . .J� MADDOX RTINSO •.• ••••.WARD•-••-• •• : MARTINSON -• YAMAMOTO PIERSALL ••• SCHUSTER •••••WELSH........ ✓ �n STEVENS •- DISTRICT 11 TRAVERS .... (MACALL STER)..PATTINSON....�� 0, SMANDIH.......MACALLISTER..--� (CLARK).. ......WIEDER- ------ ;7 2/13/80 M MEETING DATE Feb. 13, 1980 TIME 7'30 p.m- DISTRICTS. 1,2,3,5,6,7$11 DISTRICT-1 �� v�r JOINT BOARDS SCHUSTER�••-•• SHARP ••••• •• • Y TO WARD •••.... . _ �SVALSTAD)• ••••ADLER-••••AMAM C ANTHONY••• RK)• • • •• • •ANTHONY•• • --BAILEY.....•CRANK ........ HUTCHISON ... !TER) M •CULVER--••FERRY �✓✓ _ ✓ DISTRICT 2 KIRKPATRICK)••FINLAYSON•- GAMBINA •- -• -FOX••••••• ✓ • FRIED).. .•• • WEDAA ••••-• t NYBORG) ••••••FRESE••••• ✓ RASHFOR )••• � HOLT•• ✓ CORBETT)+• •• ••GRAHAM••-• v pp RASHFORD)- :• ••HOLT•• GAMBINA)... .' FOX ....... + WELLS •• •• •• •HOUSTON•-• WELLS•-•• •-= HOUSTON..... ✓ ICRANK)- -- -- -- -HUTCHISON-- CLARK • •.-.�MILLER..... . ✓ + GAMBIN6). •. .. .LE BARON-• . CULVER?.•... PERRY........ ✓ �� MANDICY.. .. .. .MACALLISTER GRAHAM .! ROGET•• ✓ 1 RYCKO F). - MG—I-NN-i-6.. SEYMQUR)•-•-•• ROTH .... .. .. CLARK).... . ...MILLER-• v HOYT) •• .. ... SMITH••• • •• . ✓ cl MACALR9L.�STER). •PATTINSON.. SVALSTAD}•• •• • STANTON•• ✓ — CULVER) . .. ..PERRY.. ... WINT�RS)•••• ••VEtk6QUE2-- • •� r GRIFF�N).• .. ..REESE.. .... WARD .. ...... .YAMAMOTO •• • — CLARK . .. .• ..RILEY. .... ✓ DISTRICT 3 GRAHAM) . ..... .ROGET... .. SEY1 i.O 1R) . ...ROTH.....- EVANSII.. .. . ...ROWAN...... ✓ NYBOR[g).... k. FRESE....... ✓ - HUNMEQ.• •. .•.RYCKOFF••• — EVANS)•• ••I•ROWAN•••••--- ✓ LASZLO' . ...SEITZ••••- SVALSTAD}•• r-ADLER......• ✓ + [SCHUSTER). ....SHARP...... V MACALL.ISTER)--BAILEY•• •• •.• ,r c HOYT-)...... .. .SMITH..• •-• ✓ PERRY)•••-•••-CULVER•••••-• c. SVALSTA ).... ..STANTON.... ✓ KIRKPATRICK)•"FINLAYSO ✓ RYCKOFF .. .. ..STRAUSS•... ✓ CORBETT ••••-Z GRAHAM••1�ti '••-7- ZOMMI K)))))) . .. ..SYLVIA..... ✓ GAMBINA •••--TLE BARON..... ✓ SILLS. - .. ...VARDOULIS.. ••••�REESE• •-••--• INTERS). .. .. .VEL.ASAUE7_.. GRIFFIN '� HANSON)... .. ..WANNER.. SEYMOU)R •••--ROTH---• •• Q- u YAMAM TO)•••••WARD•• .- LASZLO)•••.. SEITZ........ p •••• OMMICK. ....�-SYLVIA....... ✓ FRIED)• •••••WEDAA•.... WHEELFR�••-•--WEISHAUP .. v SHEELER)•••-••WEISHAUPT•• ✓ ERD ARK WIEDER.. . ... J r SCHUS77ER)• ••••WELSH•••••• v LA DUEZ5....WINTERS... .. _ CLARK).. ......WIEDER. .... �. ........YAMAMOTO... ..�V RYCKOFF)••• • •WILLIAMS•• DISTRICT 5 VELA�SQUEZ)...-WINTERS... ✓ , WARD). .YAMAMOTO. . ✓ UMMEL) .....RYCKOFF. ..... - yOTHERS YCKOFF)••••••STRAUSS• •••• �; N CLARK)•• ••-••RILEY---••-- HARPER .•••• ✓ DISTRICT 6 � SYLVESTER - . ✓ LEWIS . CLARKE .•.• ✓ �RYCKOEEF)•• ••• MG-I-N lS• •- `� - ` \ BROWN ..... . CRANK1.....:.•HUTCHISON:.. ✓ CLARK)) •ANTHONY.. . s r�� [I' L 41.J WOODRUFF -•- ✓ DISTRICT 7i HOHENER •••- I� &e v HOWARD ..... [RYCKOFF) OYT) - ......SMITH-•••-- • ✓✓ Nt` HUNT ...... . ••-•••WILLIAMS••... ✓ . - KEITH ••••.• LAPK -- •MILLER.•.• .' KENEY..... ILLS1. .......VARDOULIS.. N ••••• ANSON). .. . . . .WAHNER. . . . . . . MADDOX ••••• AMAMOTO� ••••WARD•........ MARTINSON - PIERSALL ••- . ✓✓CHUSTER .....WELSH... ..... STEVENS •... DISTRICT 11 TRAVERS .•.- (MACALL STER).-PATTINSON...- �MANDIC�.......MACALLIS,T5R.- v r U:LARK).. ......WIEDER. 2/13/80 2-13-80 REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN I ATTENDED AN AMSA NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER QUALITY CRITERIA WHICH WAS A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN EPA REGULATION-MAKERS AND STATE, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES . WHILE THE PRESENTATIONS WERE SOMEWHAT TECHNICAL. IN NATURE, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE PROBLEMS THE TECHNICIANS WERE HAVING IS EPA IS INTERPRETATION OF THEIR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE LAWS PASSED BY THE CONGRESS. THE HYSTERIA OVER CANCER-CAUSING SUBSTANCES APPEARED TO ME TO BE EPA IS WAY OF HIDING BEHIND SOMETHING WHEN LOGIC BEGAN TO PREVAIL. A STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL FROM LOUISIANA MADE A VERY POINTED OBSERVATION CONCERNING OVER-REGULATION WHEN HE ADDRESSED THE GROUP AND DESCRIBED DELAYS AND PROBLEMS THE CITY OF �..J NEW ORLEANS HAD WHEN EPA WOULD NOT PERMIT THEM TO RETURN THE MISSISSIPPI MUD TO THE RIVER FROM THEIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT SETTLING BASINS BECAUSE THE NATURAL OCCURRING ARSENIC WOULD BE TOO HIGH. IT WAS APPARENT TO ME AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ATTENDED THIS MEETING THAT WE MUST DO MORE AS LOCAL OFFICIALS IN WASHINGTON TO GET SOME SENSE INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. I ALSO ATTENDED THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SANITATION AGENCIES (CASA) MID-YEAR WORK CONFERENCE THIS PAST MONTH. IT WAS ONE OF THE LARGEST ATTENDANCES THEY HAVE EVER HAD - 254 MEMBERS AND REPRESENTA- TIVES WERE THERE. THE DIRECTORIS COMMITTEE WAS ATTENDED BY SOME 50 ELECTED PEOPLE AND THE MANAGER S COMMITTEE WAS ATTENDED BY ABOUT 45 MANAGERS. ONE OF THE MAIN SUBJECTS WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE r } IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GANN INITIATIVE -PROPOSITION 4. IT APPEARS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL PASS A MINIMUM OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION FOR THE GANN INITIATIVE TO AVOID DISTRUST BY THE PUBLIC CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF JARVIS 2. ONE OF THE GUEST SPEAKERS WAS CARLA BARD, THE NEW CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD , ONE COMMENT SHE MADE I BELIEVE IS WORTHWHILE PASSING ON TO YOU , SHE DOES NOT SEE THE STATE BOARD APPROVING ANY STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS FOR OCEAN DISCHARGE COMMUNITIES WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE OCEAN PLAN. THIS MEANS THE STATE BOARD IS EXPECTING FEDERAL WAIVERS OF THE SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS , IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $200 MILLION IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT LAST YEAR S PRICES, WE WERE ALSO TOLD THERE IS A NEW LAW CALLED CHAPTER 627, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE STATIONERY FOR ANY AGENCY MUST INDICATE THAT IT IS A PUBLIC AGENCY, EFFECTIVE JANUARY j, 1980. I AM CALLING A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27TH AT 5:30 P .M, (INVITE TO OF THE FOLLOWING DIRECTORS TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS) : LOUIS VELASQUEZ E T WIEDER INTE HARRY YAMAMOTO REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN - Agenda Item 7a) Chairman Fox called a meeting of the Executive Committee for February 27, 1980, at 5:30 p.m. and invited Directors Harriett IVieder and Duane Winters to attend and participate. He then asked Don Winn, the Districts' representative on the Board of Directors of CASA, to report on the recent CASA meeting. Mr. Winn reported that as the Chairman indicated, the meeting was very well attended by Directors, Committee Members and Attorney Committees. Discussion centered around Jarvis Proposition 2. It is boiling into self-distruct laws so if Jarvis 2 goes through, they are ready. CASA has spent time getting SIVRCB to get out deficiencies in regional board. It was attempted to put bill in Assembly to transfer powers of the regional board to various county Boards of Supervisors which CASA endorsed at the particular time. This Committee feels regional was doing drastic changes. Expressed concern that the Boards' staff had the most power. Each consultant would be appointed by the Boards of Supervisors already are partially contained by the Governor. He personally thinks it is a good move but hasn't got that far yet .for `r Assemblyman Leonard withdrew. There is concern with CASA that the Regional Board be more responsible to all the people they serve, The State is trying to clean that up. Legislation meets in Sacramento on the 29th of this month. Need input from Directors throughout the state whether to support bills or not, There is a bill in the sub-committee which will allow Special Districts to increase compansation for meetings to a maximum up to 4 meetings per month, subject to individual Boards, REPORT OF THE GENERAL MANAGER - Agenda Item 7b FAH reported on supplemental agenda items. Under all Districts Item 14a - we have included in the supplemental agenda material the CEQA requirements for Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Plant No. 2. This will receive negative declaration. Primarily a repair Job in the Plant Grounds. Another item is Item 14b - requesting authority to send two of our engineering personnel to computer training facility in Minneapolis, We are having Autocon computer installed at facility at Plant 2 as part of the construction and we need to send men to get basic training on this f particular computer. On Item 17 - District No. 2, This is annexation No. 28, which has been pending for some time. It is part of the Anaheim Hills development and we have now got all paper work so we can proceed. For District No. 5, Item 22, the Chairman asked that this be placed on the agenda which is to withdraw from membership of NIWA Planning Agency under 208. District 5 has been a member of this group for about five years and it appears that it would function better with smaller number of member agencies. Also for District 5 in folders is a request from the Daon Corporation applying for interim service and that we sould recommend this matter be referred to staff at the next meeting. REPORT OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL - Agenda Item 7c NO REPORT REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO REORGANIZE THE DISTRICTS - Agenda Item 7d Don Smith reported on Special Committee to Study Reorganization of Sanitation Districts. It was determined that it would not seem feasible at this time to reconsolidate into one special district. It would possibly ..be feasible for one or two Districts to consider joining and also the boundaries of the Districts should be looked at to see if there should be adjustments... He asked that a meeting of the Special Committee be held on March 20th at 5:30 p.m. Would like to review where we are at this time and ask the staff to put together a final report. Hope to have in April. Would like-to ask members of the committee to be at that meeting to go over final report. Director Smith asked staff to provide more information on one or two Districts possibly joining and also the boundary adjustments to better serve the people. Y Feb. 13, 1980 Joint Mtg. M-a) Report of the Joint Chairman See attached Joint Chairman' s notes . Also asked Don Winn, who serves on Board of Directors of CASA, to speak about CASA Conference. He reported it was very well attended by three sections--directors, managers and attorneys. Said he had talked with Executive Committee of CASA and Attorneys Committee and spent a great deal of time trying to get SWRCB to realize the trouble with the local regional boards. Advised that Assemblyman Leonard was able to introduce a bill that would transfer rights of Regional Board to County Board of Supervisors . Read what Committee said. 9 members on Regional Board would be appointed by Board of Supervisors. Leonard withdrew bill. Thought the Governor would veto it anyway. Said they are very concerned in CASA that Regional Boards be more responsive to all of the people that they serve. State Board is quietly trying to clear that up. Advised there would be a Legislative Committee meeting this month which he would attend. Said one of the things that is going to be submitted is a bill that will allow individual Districts and Boards within the District to increase compensation from $50 to $75 with a maximum of 4 meetings per month. The increase will be at the pleasure of the individual Districts or individual_ Boards. ( b) Report of the General Manager FAH reported on Supplemental Agenda items . Item 14 (a)-have included the CEQA requirements for the Hydraulic Reliability Improvements at Plant No. 2. Said these are the plans you will approve tonight. This project will receive a negative declaration. Primarily a repair job here within the plant grounds. 14 (b) - are asking for authority to send two employees to computer training facility in Minneapolis . We are having an Autocon computer facility at Plant 2 and need basic training on this computer. Re Item 17 - this annexation has been pending for some time. Part of the Anaheim Hills development. Said we have now got all of the paperwork completed so we can proceed with that annexation. Re Item 22 - Chairman of Dist. 5 has asked that this be placed on the agenda to withdraw membership in NIWA formed under Section 208 . District 5 has been a member of this group for about 5 years. Said it appears that it would function better with a smaller number of member agencies . Also advised that in District 5 Directors ' folders was a request from Daon Corp. for interim service. At the present time their property is within area where there is no sewer connections permitted. Said staff is recommending this item be referred to staff for report at the next meeting. (7-c) No report from General Counsel (7-d) Report of Chairman of Reorganization Committee Don Smith stated that as reported in the Executive Committee minutes of January 29th, it was the consensus of opinion that it wouldn' t seem feasible at this time to reorganize into one special district. Said it is possible that it would be feasible for one or two Districts to consider joining. Also, the boundaries of some of the Districts should be looked at by the engineers to see if there should be adjust- ments to see if the services could be provided better by a different District. He then called a meeting of this committee for Thursday, March 20th, at 5 : 30 p.m. to review where they are at this time and asked for a final report from staff which they hope to give sometime in April to the Joint Board. (9) CONSENT CALENDAR Staff removed items (s) and (t) for clarification. REL reported on some of the problems we have had with A and B Trunk and showed slides to help illustrate the problem areas . Mentioned to District 3 that there could be a possibility of a problem in their District also because they had the same type of unlined pipe. Items (s) and (t) moved and seconded. (11) Protest Hearing re P2-24-2 (b) (2) (d) & (e) Chair asked that it be made a matter of record that no one was present from Passavant Corp. or Performance Systems, Inc. It was moved and seconded to deny or reject protests of Passavant and Performance Systems on the basis that they are not timely. (c) (2) REL showed slidges explaining total project and explanation of how belt filter presses would be used. Williams commended staff for the visual aid for this complex process. Did an excellent job. REL thanked Ray Young. Wedaa asked REL what staff was looking for from Directors. Said he didn't feel competent to rule whether engineers made a correct decision or not. TLW clarified that the issue before Directors was to determine whether or not the engineering staff and consulting engineers have, in fact, afforded an equal and fair opportunity to all manufacturers to submit equipment based on a responsible, non-proprietary set of specifications. If they have done so, seems issue is resolved. Also have to determine whether or not engineer' s judgement call on the part of the recommending engineer shows any basis that engineer' s decision was not unsupported for any reason. If you see that, will be well to uphold the decision of technical staff. -2- 0 (h) , (i) & (j ) - Sustained staff' s recommendation re disqualification of Ralph B. Carter Company, Euramca, Inc. and Komline-Sanderson Engineering Corp. Stanton spoke against motion. Graham agreed with him. (19) Re Contract 3-22-2 award (b) REL referred to page "S-l" of Supporting Documents . Said in reviewing Dakovich' s bid, it became apparent that on the line item to add or deduct, Mr. Dakovich did not put the price of the pipe in. Would be very competitive with low bidder. Said he felt it is in the best interest of the District to award to second bidder. (22) District 5 Other business (b) Staff recommended that letter from Daon Corporation be referred to staff for report at next meeting. Moved and seconded to do so. (26) District 6 - Ord. 604 Hutchison discussed briefly with Mr. Harper (Couldn't hear what was said) -3- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GANN INITIATIVE - PROPOSITION 4 . IT APPEARS THAT THE LEGISLATURE WILL PASS A MINIMUM OF IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION FOR THE GANN INITIATIVE TO AVOID DISTRUST BY THE PUBLIC CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF JARVIS 2. ONE OF THE GUEST SPEAKERS WAS CARLA BARD, THE NEW CHAIRMAN OF THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD . ONE COMMENT SHE MADE I BELIEVE IS WORTHWHILE PASSING ON TO YOU . SHE DOES NOT SEE THE STATE BOARD APPROVING ANY STATE AND FEDERAL GRANTS FOR OCEAN DISCHARGE COMMUNITIES WHICH WOULD EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE OCEAN PLAN. " THIS MEANS THE STATE BOARD IS EXPECTING FEDERAL WAIVERS OF THE SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS, IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $200 MILLION IN CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT LAST YEAR S PRICES. WE WERE ALSO TOLD THERE IS A NEW LAW CALLED CHAPTER 627, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE STATIONERY FOR ANY AGENCY MUST INDICATE THAT IT IS A PUBLIC AGENCY, EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1980. I AM CALLING A MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE FOR WEDNESDAY., FEBRUARY 27TH AT 5:30 P.M, (INVITE TWO OF THE FOLLOWING !DIRECTORS TO ATTEND AND PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSIONS) : LOUIS VELASOUEZ ARRIETT WIEDER DUANE WINTE HARRY YAMAMOTO 2-13-80 REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN I ATTENDED AN AMSA NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WATER QUALITY CRITERIA WHICH WAS A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN EPA REGULATION-MAKERS AND STATE, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRY OFFICIALS THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES . WHILE THE PRESENTATIONS WERE SOMEWHAT TECHNICAL IN NATURE, IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE PROBLEMS THE TECHNICIANS WERE HAVING IS EPA'S INTERPRETATION OF THEIR ROLE IN IMPLEMENTING THE LAWS PASSED BY THE CONGRESS . THE HYSTERIA OVER CANCER-CAUSING SUBSTANCES APPEARED TO ME TO BE EPA'S WAY OF HIDING BEHIND SOMETHING WHEN LOGIC BEGAN TO PREVAIL. A STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL FROM LOUISIANA MADE A VERY POINTED OBSERVATION CONCERNING OVER-REGULATION WHEN HE ADDRESSED THE GROUP AND DESCRIBED DELAYS AND PROBLEMS THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS HAD WHEN EPA WOULD NOT PERMIT THEM TO RETURN THE MISSISSIPPI MUD TO THE RIVER FROM THEIR WATER TREATMENT PLANT SETTLING BASINS BECAUSE THE NATURAL OCCURRING ARSENIC WOULD BE TOO HIGH . IT WAS APPARENT TO ME AND OTHER ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ATTENDED THIS MEETING THAT WE MUST DO MORE AS LOCAL OFFICIALS IN WASHING,TON TO GET SOME SENSE INTO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS. I ALSO ATTENDED THE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SANITATION AGENCIES (CASA) MID-YEAR WORK CONFERENCE THIS PAST MONTH, IT WAS ONE OF THE LARGEST ATTENDANCES THEY HAVE EVER HAD - 254 MEMBERS AND REPRESENTA- TIVES WERE THERE. THE DIRECTOR S COMMITTEE WAS ATTENDED BY SOME 50 ELECTED PEOPLE AND THE MANAGER'S COMMITTEE WAS ATTENDED BY ABOUT 45 MANAGERS . ONE OF THE MAIN SUBJECTS WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE AGENDA ITEM #11(g) - 2/13/80 Would like to reconsider all three protesters and let them submit formal bids. Wanted to consider only last two. , Fox said a motion would be out of order at this time. Miller asked about EPA regulations. TLW explained EPA guidelines. Talked about "or equal". Discussed responsive and responsible. Explained they wanted to know the equipment that was going to be used. Thought they were responsive to criteria so should be allowed to bid. Stopped everything and closed hearing on Komline-Sanderson. Director in electronics business - Would have to let everyone bid and would become a circus. Shouldn't do it. MOVED TO SUPPORT STAFF. Voice vote - ayes only taken and someone said, wait a minute, we haven't had discussion. spoke against motion. Wanted to let the three back in but not the rest, or just let the last two. (lady) We didn't have enough information to disallow the protesters. Fox explained that the motion was based on the fact that the three did not respond to the specs. Said motion was to sustain the staff. Said protest period is for reconsideration and we should reconsider. TLW explained protest process and that they made changes at the conference. Were basically denied for lack of experience. Miller wanted to know if the protest period was to tell if there was any wrong doing in the process. Staff explained that the two meet the specs and they had experience. Discussion re machines being tested. Was the protest period for companies to clarify and revise their initial input? Staff explained re technical review meeting. Read letter that was sent to them that said if they could prove at the review session that they can meet the specs, that they would ems_ recommend that they be qualified. If they couldn't prove it, they would recommend that the position be sustained. MOVED TO SUSTAIN THE STAFF. ROLL CALL VOTE. MOTION CARRIED. t.:°t� cc.l�jle tl� ;soh BOARD OF DIRECTORS COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Consideration of Protests of: ) Uj ) RALPH B. CARTER COMPANY ) EURAMCA, INC. ) KOMLINE-SANDERSON ENGINEERING ) CORPORATION. ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ) LW DATE: February 13, 1980 Awj TIME : 7 : 30 P .M. LOCATION: 10844 Ellis Avenue ` Fountain Valley, Californi REPORTER: PATRICIA J. SANDERS Macauleg & Himing Court & Deposition Reporters sz 1630 E.Palm St. C Santa Ana,Calif. (714) 553 9400 (213) 437.1327 1 MR. THWMAS WOODRIff'F : The protest hearing materials 2 have all been delivered to you. The initial packet of materials 3 iras sent by mail and delivered to your home or office and the 4 supplement i•:as handed out to you tonight which was covered. 5 by the goldenrod sheet . 6 Just for the record, I would urge everybody 4 7 to be following the agenda on the goldenrod sheet because 8 it does contain some major revisions . 9 Just as a brief overview of the procedures , : 1 10 I do wish to indicate to you that the bid, the pre-qualification 11 of suppliers is a procedure that is expressly authorized by 12 Federal regulations and in this case it is an E .P .A. grant 13 program and it is also governed by the pulished guidelines of i 14 E. P.A. In accordance with that , the Design Engineer, John 15 Carollo Engineering , did in .fact develop the plans and 16 specifications and the notice inviting bid proposals to all 17 known manufacturers was sent to the industry requesting that 18 the bid proposals be received. 19 I would indicate to you that of the proposals ,rr 20 that were received that the response was prepared by an 21 evaluation report that was prepared by John Carollo Engineers . 22 It was then determined in that report , as you have seen in 23 vour materials , that two of the nine proposals were recommended 24 for being qualified and seven were recommended for low 25 disqualification. 26 The notice of- intent to disqualify was in fact WW• 1V1 & M Certified Court Reporters r,;. (213) 637-3550 `i-\( v ! I-). RARRF[J.CR \%1 DAWSON & %IFI \I�`~ (7141 `_58-94'10 3 1 mailed on January 23rd to each of the seven oarties deemed 2 disqualified. That is within the time frame permitted by I 3 E . P .A. reg1.11,1tions . That notice to each of the seven disqua.liFied 4 parties provi-led that a protest rlust be filed within seven 5 days of receipt . 6 We received three protests approximately two 7 weeks ago ; namely the three which are on your agene-a by the 8 Ralph B. Carter Company, Euramca and Komline-Sanderson 9 Engineering, respectfully. We have determined that all those 10 protests were in fact filed in a timely manner and they are �i 11 here properly before you for this hearing. 12 Upon receipt of those protests we then ' 13 forwarded. to each of those bidders a letter that calve from 14 my office dated February 4th and it specified certain other 15 additional time requirements and procedural hearing dates and 16 limitations that would be held at this hearing tonight . They 17 are also set forth in your materials that were forwarded 18 to you on Tuesday . 19 The basic rules for the hearing are , for those 20 of you who have not been on the Board since we had the last 21 one about a year and a half or two years ago , we are not boun 22 by rigid rules of evidence . You will be receivint , in ^ 23 addition to the written report , an oral presentation by the 24 District ' s Chief Engineer, Hr. Ray Lewis . You will also 25 get a report of evaluation from representatives from Jolin 26 Carollo Engineers . Those reports basically will be a M & M Certified Court Reporters ad (213) 637-3550 \1 I f 1. Ii\i'R I 1 1, CR \�I 1) r VI I \\ (714) 552-9:00 4 1 capsulized summary of the materials that ivere given to you as 2 a supplement tonight . They are an outgrowth of staff level 3 conferences that were held Friday of last week and Monday of 4 this week with each of the three protesting parties . Each 5 bid protestor and our staff and our design consultants met 6 for purposes of reviewing the technical materials related to 1 7 their bid. The summary of that is provided- to you and you 8 will receive a verbal . In addition , thereafter the bid protestors 9 will be afforded the opportunity to make their presentation 10 of materials and, if any rebuttal is necessary, the 11 representatives from John Carollo are here as well as our 12 whole staff. I13 At the conclusion the Board is being asked 14 to make a determination as to whether or not the bid protestors 15 should in fact be disqualified and , if so , then the bid will 16 go out on the basis of the equipment that is deemed to be I 17 nreaualified. 18 I would point out to you that in addition to 19 thes-e procedures that if any party deems that the decision 20 by your Board tonight is unfair or without sufficient +� 21 basis of support , they do have a right of review with the 22 Regional Director for Region 'Dine of the E . P.A . That is the 23 court of last resort subject only to their right of filing an 24 action to challenge any proceedings . 25 As I have indicated to the Board in my 26 memorandum of February 7th , in my opinion the procedures have M & M Certified Court R-.-porters ay (213) 63,•3550 MACH T F1. HVIRI"TT CR \%I. 1>VXS0\ ,k \1f 1 V \\ (714; 553-24"0 � 1 S 1 been complied with on behalf of both the District and the 2 bidding parties in all respects . 3 The last item mentioned, if you will look to 4 Items 3 (d) and (e) we did receive - - that is n(2) 5 and then a, b , c, d and e , the District received two addition 1 6 protests today . I have then submitted in two letters dated - 7 today to your Board my opinion that the protests are clearly 8 not timely and failed to comply with our notice . One of them 9 acknowledged that they were late and just asked the Board to i 10 consider it . I reviewed the matter with our engineering staff 11 and consulting engineers and there was no other contact . It 12 is our recommendation that the Board find that those ?protests j 13 are not timely and that they be disallowed. 14 Are there any procedural concerns or questionsmoo 15 CHAIRMAN DONALD FOX: For those speaking to these 16 items , we will try to limit each of the protests to 20 minute- . i 17 I believe that will give ample time to present your case 18 along with any rebuttal that the engineering staff for the - 19 District might have . 20 So at this time the Chair would entertain a .� 21 motion to - - first might I ask if we have anyone here from the 22 Passavant Corporation? 23 Performance Systems? 24 MR. WOODRUFF : I thank the record should reflect th• t 25 there was no appearance on behalf of either of these protesti g 26 parties . These were the two protests received this morning. M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \t.\c-\1•t EY. R\K�7EF1 CR \m. r)\',%soN P. \!Et.\1 \` (714) 553-91G0 VW 6 CHAIR [AN FOX: Whose protests were not timely. 2 Then the Chair will entertain a motion on Item 3 2 (a) . i k 4 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved . 5 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. 6 CHAIR%ta_N FOX : All those in favor? 7 THE ATTENDEES : Aye . 8 CHAIRI'L4N FOX: Opposed? 9 The motion carries . 10 Item 2 (b) ? 11 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved. 12 AN UNIDEiNTIFIED ,SPIiAKER: Second. 13 CHAIRM1i11N FOX: The Chair casts a unanimous ballot I 14 unless otherwise directed. 15 Item 2 (c) ? 16 AN UN.IDENT [FIED SPEAKER: So moved. , ' 17 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. 18 C[[AItiA`d FOX : The Chair will cast a unanimous 19 ballot unless otherwise directed. Uwe 20 At this time we need a motion relative to the 21 recommendation of the General Counsel on item 2 (b) . 22 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPF.AKF.R: Vove to reject . 23 A'.R.. WOODRUH : The basis of the rejection is that it 24 is not timely? 25 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. � 26 CHAIRMAN FOX : The Chair will cast a unanimous ball. t ldl AA �' p'QG A �1V1 Certified COL HI Reporters _ _ __ WPW (213) 637-3550 \t \C\I'I F1' R\RRFTI• CR \\1. 1)VA A, (714, 55P-9400 7 �+ 1 unless otherivise directed. 2 On 2 (e) ? tW 3 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : Move to reject on the 4 basis it is not timely. 5 !1N UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. 6 CHAIR`tAN FOX: The Chair casts a unanimous ballot 7 unless otherwise directed. 8 Item C(1) . Item C(l) is the large report that 9 we received from the consulting engineers . Did all the 10 Directors receive that report? Fine . Thanks . pa 11 Ray, at this time would you make a presentatio 12 relative to C(2) ? 13 MR. RAY LF.IVIS: Mr. Chairman, Directors , included f 14 with your agenda material was a portion of the Chief Engineez 15 report which I have completed - - my secretary , I should say, 16 has completed in blood, sweat and tears and bless her heart 17 for doing such a marvelous job . Put this is the Chief 18 Engineer' s retort regarding the qualification procedures for 19 the belt presses for Job Number P2-24-2 at Treatment Plant 20 Number 2 which is part of the 7S P-IGD for improved treatment 21 at Plant !Number 2 . 22 With your indulge.nce ,I would kind of like to 23 nut the whole job in perspective to show you how this massive 24 project fits together. 25 The blue area that you see here is our contract 26 P2-23-2 . It is approximately an $8 million project to furnis_ M & M Certified Court Reporters m (213) 637-3550 %1AC R\RRFTT. CRAM. I)•\1 SON & MFI \1 \\ (714? 558-9400 _I 8 1 the defilteri.zation which provides the oxygen for the 2 purification of the wastewater. Not shown on this overlay are 3 three other contracts which have been completed which is the 4 floorlwall which is approximately a i2 milli.on electrical reliability I5 project and an operations center. 6 This is the maior facility , a S30 million 7 contract which is approximately S6 percent completed at this 8 time. j 9 This is the aeration tanks , the secondary 10 clarifiers , the pLlmpstations which will treat 75 million 11 gallons of wastewater to the secondary limitations imposed 12 by E.P.A. 13 Next slide . We have just awar(led a contract 14 - - in fact , it will be dated February 18th for solid'. digestion 15 facilities at Plant Number 2 . This is a .1.3'i Trillion contract 16 which provides for five additional digestion facilities , gas 17 depression facilities , truck washing facilities . That ' s the 18 little orange dot over there on the far side. This contract 19 ties into the total integral part of just handling the solids . d f 20 Next slide. The contract before you this 21 evening is what we designate as Contract P2 - 24-2 . This is 22 the dewatering facility for this contract . All the solids 23 that are produced will be collected in the digestion facilities 24 and dewatered and trucked away oEEsite to the landfill area 25 for processing . 26 We have the overlay. This shows you the 1V1 & M Certified Court Reporters �.er (213) 637-3550 \UI L). B\??R i I T'. CR \\I h V'. -0% & MII \I AN (714) 5 2-9400 9 1 massive project that we have underway. The construction costs - 2 as reported in the staff report were approximately $73 million . 3 You add the incidentals , the engineering, the inspection, 4 evervthina , it is in excess of $85 million . 5 This kind of gives you an overview of the 6 project and the importance of this one last remaining contract 7 to this 75 MCD for improved treatment at this facility. g That ' s the end of it.. 9 MR. RAY WILLIAMS : I just want to make a comment . 10 I would like to commend the staff for the visuals , I think 11 they are excellent in helping us to understand the complex 12 process . It makes it exceedingly clear. Very good job . I 13 MR. LEWIS : Thank you. 14 The report that you have, as I said, is only 15 a portion of the Chief Engineer's report . This report , which 16 I will turn over to the Clerk for the file , does include, 17 as General Counsel stated, the prequalification specification 18 that was prepared after a lengthy review by the consulting 19 engineering crews and our staff alona with a lot of the tow 20 effort that was done through the LA/01•LA sludge study work. 21 The orequalification specifications were maile 22 to known vendors and published in accordance with the 23 regulations . 24 We received. the responses from nine equipment 25 manufacturers around the first part of November, November 7 , tool 26 g and 9 . These responses were turned over to the consulting, M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \1.xc xrI rY. B 1RR E f r, cR.Nm. I).\v:so &. \IFI MAN (714) 558-9�00 10 1 engineer for their evaluation . 2 Within the confines of the regulations the 3 Engineer did return to the District , the grantee , within SM 4 30 days their eval.ution . The evalution report is also 5 contained herein. 1 �q 6 This report by the consulting engineer was 7 turned over to staff around the first part of December. 8 Through the Month of December and through January staff went 9 through all the submittals from the equipment supoliers , the 10 review of the consulting engineer and we confirmed the 11 consulting engineer' s findings to qualify two manufacturers 12 and disqualify seven . 13 On January 23 notices were mailed to all of th 14 respondents to the prequalification specifications and of the 15 seven disqualifiecd equipment suppliers three have protested 16 our evaluation . Those three t.,ere within the timely seven l 17 days after notice as required by the specifications . ' 18 Contained in this report is also the results 19 of meetings that were held last Thursday and this Monday 20 with the three nrotestants . 1�'e did want to allow the protesta is 21 to file any suhSCgUent technical. information that could be 22 considered by the technical review personnel of the staff and 23 the consulting engineer in order not to belahor tonight ' s 24 meeting. All of that is also contained in this report along 25 with the prequalification submittals .from the three +� 26 protestants this evening . Ar ldl & lyl Certified Court Reporters r..� (213) F37.3550 `tAC VI F Y I1\RRF 1 I. CR k'.I. P-%%%S0N & ♦111 MAN (714) 558 9400 11 f I Are there any questions of the Chief Engineer ': j 2 report at this time? 3 Mr. Chairman , with your permission now I would 4 like to turn the meeting over to Mr. 11.1alt 1-toward., consulting 5 engineer for John Carol.lo , .for the consulting engineer' s 6 report . 7 CHATP1 AN FOX : Item C (3) . 8 MR. HENRY WEDAA: May I ask a question? What are 9 you looking for from us tonight? 10 MR. LFWIS : To sustain the staff and consulting 11 engineer' s determination of disqualification of the three 1 12 protestants . i13 MR. WEDAA: Okay. I don ' t feel I have any 14 competence to rule on or judge whether you made a proper 15 decision or not . 16 I wonder if our Legal. Counsel would comment 17 on that? 18 i [q r i AR. OO[).ZUFf� : Mr . Chairman , Directors , I understanr 19 you well . I don ' t believe that it is imperative that any one 20 of the Directors , much less all of you, have to have a level 21 of engineering skill and expertise to be able to evaluate the ` 22 particular data contained in the engineering report . It eF' 23 seems to me that the issue before you simply can be stated as : 24 you have to determine two things . One , whether or not the 25 engineering staff and the consulting design engineers , John 26 Carollo Engineers , have in .fact afforded a fair and equal M (.3C. M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \I \CAI I I5 R\RR:'rr. (RAV. 1) R \1 12 1 opportunity to all manufacturers to submit equipment based 2 upon a reasonable non-proprietary set of specifications . If 3 they have done so , then I think the first issue is resolved. 4 The second is I would say simply that you have 5 to determine whether or not it is an engineering Judgement 6 call on the part of the recommending engineers , whether there is any basis to believe that the engineering decision is 8 unsupported for some other reason . Unless you see evidence 9 to support that, then you would be well within your legal 10 bound.s to simply uphold the decision of your technical staff. 11 MR. WEDAA: Well , I guess the thing that bothers me 12 is that I see the drawings on the wall and I have seen what 13 is behind the wall and I gLiess I am asking myself how are we 14 to judge whether our technical staff provided the opportunity, 15 and I am sure they have provided the opportunity to each of the 16 Protestants to provide that information to the technical 17 staff and I am asking myself why are we going to look at it 18 and, if we are going to look at it , how are we going to judge - 19 whether the technical staff has in fact looked at it adeouately. 20 Obviously we understand our technical staff. They have been m 21 here for vears anti they know their job and so on and I don ' t l 22 understand how we are going to make that kind of a conclusion 23 out of what you just said.. 24 MR . WOODR(1FF : Well ., if I might , I suggest as a 25 matter of supposition on my part , but I anticipate that the 26 one or all three of the protesting manufacturers will probably M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637 3550 \1 \C\1 r EY. B.\KRIJ . CR\\I. DAASo ; & MIA-\1 \N' (714) 558-0»00 l.ti I raise one or more points which say, "Ildell , the decision of 2 ,Mr. Lewis ' staff and John Carollo Engineers just doesn ' t I 3 make sense because they say our equipment does up and down an(' 4 really our equipment goes side to side ," whatever they are 5 going to say . 6 AIR. TVEDAA: And they expect us to judge? 7 MR. 1'100DP.0 F: No , I do not believe that it is 8 imperative or necessary for you in .reaching your decision to 9 pass judgement on what is a better engineering design or 10 better engineering decision , but SiIT11)ly whether you think the le 11 has been a miscarriage of justice, I would call it , in terms 12 of whether the engineering decision of John Carollo Engineers 13 is simply unsupported. I £ there is any reason to believe l 14 that what they did is right , then you are within your legal 15 limits to support them. 16 MR. R',:DAA: Well , during a public hearing we 17 normally stick very strictly to the subject under discussion . 18 I wonder if you will. enforce that kinct o F. a rule tonight so l - 19 we don ' t go wandering all over. Obviously I ail not convinced 20 of the merits of the entire issue anyway, as you can tell fro 21 what I said. So I would request that staff keep all the �I L 22 speakers on track . mot+ 23 AN IINIDENFIED SPEAKER: 11hat Hank is talking about , 24 I was going to ask the same question about giving; this to the 25 Board at a public hearing and if in fact there had been 26 representatives from one or all. of the protestors , our not M & M Certified Court Reporters (2131 637-3550 �I v \1 I FY R\RR rI. CR \\1 0%W�;W\ & \III V NN (714) 553-0400 t i 14 +� I knowing the details of the dral�ings and the engineering :facts, - 2 we would be making our decision then on an emotional decision : 3 is this not true? 4 CHAIR�M--kN FOX: Are you asking me the Question? 5 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: iyhy present it to WS 6 the Board? 7 CF{AIRI'OAN FOX: Well , because these people have an 8 opportunity to be heard by the Board. 9 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That is correct , but 10 then the Board making the decision, it seems to me not knowin 11 exactly what is involved engineering-wise we would actually 12 be making an emotional decision. I 13 CHAIRMAN FOX: I think the conclusion we are hoping 14 to come to this evening - - I can only speak for myself, is 15 that the proponents or *protestors will present their case , 16 there will be a rebuttal from the engineering staff, and from 17 that you should be able to - - I certainly wouldn ' t think that 18 would be an emotional thing. It either is or it isn ' t , it is 19 either black or white. I don ' t have any problem with the 20 decision after each group has had an opportunity to make thei 21 presentation. You do it every week in your Council meetings , 22 you know. 23 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 11r. Chairman , I would li.b: 24 to have the hearing. 25 NIS . RUTH BAILEY: Mr. Chairman , isn ' t it a matter 26 of whether or not they met the specifications? Isn ' t that M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %1 \C\1'1 Fl H\k1?F1-1. CR-\\1, OVk'CON e %II l MAN (714) 558-0410 i 15 I that really what we are talking about? I 2 MR. LHIIIS: That is correct . 3 dr. Chairman , if I may direct your attention 4 to the goldent-od packet and it is actually pages D(2) and 5 D(3) of the staff report where the staff is recommending that 6 the Board of Directors disqualify Ralph R. Carter 7 Euramca and Komlinc-Sanderson Engineering Corporation , the 8 three nrotestants to the notification . Along with that I 9 think it should be read into the record that the E . P .A. 10 memorandum describing the prequalif.ication procedures which 11 we are proceeding under this evening for major equipment 12 states that this is a system that may be used to ease the 13 administrative burden of determining responsible bidr?ers on �j 14 equipment . The procedure should be used to screen bidders 15 but the E . P .A . said that the new guidance will not help the 16 conclusive determination of responsibility and should not 17 be used to restrict competition. That is part of the statement '°d 18 by E . P .A. 19 The second part I think is very -- which T20 underlines the whole decision here before you that the �+ 21 E . P .A. is saying that the operation and maintenance reliability -L 22 of these facilities rests strictly with the municipal plant 23 owners , that ' s us . That ' s why our recommendation is to 24 sustain the decision of .January 23rd, 25 CHAIWAIAN FOX: Okav: Walt , would you give the .� 26 consultant 's report? Certified Court Reporter~ i.a (213) 517-3�30 11 \( \!'I FY 11\1::?fi 1 F. CR \\I 1)\\\S(�\ A. 111 1 11 \\ (714) F-58-9400 i 16 1 MR. HOV!ARD : Mr. Chairman and Directors , I will 2 try to make this brief. . I am going to give a summary of this 3 report that I will turn over to the Clerk at the conclusion . 4 Basically we have - - (inaudible) . This will 5 not perform on the new additional sites which will be produced . T6 Ile made a detailed review of the dewatering equipment which 7 could be utilized for the dewatering project . We looked at T8 the plant and frame presses , low-speed. centrifuges and the 9 belt filter presses which were ultimately selected. Our T10 preliminary screening showed the belt filter press looked 11 promising. T 12 At that point we made an extensive investigation , T 13 made a number of trips to existing operating installations . 14 We viewed operating belt presses in several industrial plants , r15 wastewater treatment plants and were very impressed with 16 their capabil-ity to overate under very severe operating 17 conditions , high loadings and on a continuous basis . We also 18 found that there were a number of presses which were not as 19 durable as others . Some of them were very good quality, where r20 with the others there were a lot of problems with maintenance , kmi 21 variant failures , various types of maintenance problems which 22 in some cases the presses had to be replaced.. 23 Our indications at that time were within the 24 area of 20 to 30 manufacturers of the belt filter r25 presses . This is a new technology in this country, developed 26 in Europe many years ago , just now being developed here and M & M Certified Court Reporters (213. 637 3550 NIAC-\U1 I t. 13\RR! 1 I. CRAM D�'•�if�� g �1E I �t �� (lt�) 553-9=00 1 17 1 there are a lot of changes being made . In order to be sure 2 that the District got a facility which would. be a long-term 3 installation with as little maintenance as possible we made 4 a considerable amount of effort investigating existing 5 manufacturers . We visited 16 treatment plants where these 7 6 facilities were in operation. We visited three press 7 manufacturing facilities , made over 50 contacts with agencies 8 who had Dresses in operation in various parts of the country. L 9 I would like to give you just a quick picture 10 of what these presses look like . The sludge comes in at 11 about two and a half percent flocculated (phonetic) , spread 12 onto the p am.ress I going to show you two different T13 approaches to the belt press design . This one is basically 14 the type that we have called for in the specification. It T15 has a gravity predewate'ring zone . I believe this is important . . 16 (Inaf.l ible . ) It is very simple . It is not prone to maintenanc T17 problems . It does not require operator attention. It is not 18 Drone to maintenance problems . I - 19 The sludge is predewatered on this belt , this T20 gravity belt , comes down and is wedged in and then goes under 21 pressure . This big roller is between the belts here . It com s 22 out and the dewater is discharged here and the water is 'au 23 returned to the plant process . The sludge comes in at about 1 24 two and a half percent and comes out about 25 percent . It is I25 concentrated about ten times . This is the specified press . 26 Another concept which we saw that is quite I M & 1Vl Certified Court Reporters rr (213) 637-3550 M \CAI'I FY. R\RRFT-I.C'RA%I. OA%%SON & %IF1 (714) 553-94CO 18 1 commonly used is the system where the predewatering is 2 accomplished with a mechanical device . The sludge comes in. 3 There is a preconditioning mixing drum where the polymer' is r 4 mixed in , the sludge is flocculated, the sludge enters a L 5 reactor thickener basically to do the predewatering step. 6 The sludge is then adequate' on the belt and goes through the I' 7 same increasing pressure to the rollers starting with the big 8 roller and tapering to the smaller -roller as the increased 9 pressure goes through and the sludge is discharged the same 10 as before . 11 Ray pretty well covered the prequalification 12 s W did this in order to narrow the manufacturers process . e r u 13 down that the contractor had to select from in his bidding j 14 process so that he knew that the people that were bidding to r15 him' had the capability to meet the specifications . Understan 16 they still have to bid and meet the specifications that 17 are written. 18 1_ The basis for our evaluation once we received 19 the prequalification submittals were _basically performance C20 evaluation , but just as important to us was durability and r 21 reliability of the equipment that was furnished so that the i- 22 District wouldn ' t be stuck with high maintenance items to be 23 paid .for through the years . Ile need to get performance as 24 well as a durable , maintenance- free facility. C25 As Ray indicated, as a result of the evaluation 26 we prequalified two suppliers and seven did not meet the r M & Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-35`_.0 %1.\C•\('I rY. H\RRFT-1, CRAM. n.\u�n\ & \11I \1:\N (714) 558-3100 L 19 1 specifications for various reasons w1iich are contained_ in the 2 report . I won' t go into that in detail . 3 We feel it is very important to get a Dress 4 which has previous experience and a press that has the r5 modifications on it which have previously proven in operating 6 installations to be maintenance- free and successful operation;. J7 Just briefly I have summarized on this chart T8 the two presses which we did prequalify and the three presses 9 which have protested. We have shown the weights of the 10 presses . These are various sizes of presses . They are all 11 in the area of two meters wide. This is a 2 . 2 meter press , 12 a 2 meter press , a two-and-a-half meter press , and this is 13 a 2 meter press . This is the type of predewatering system l 14 I spoke of earlier. That two that are prequalified have r15 the gravity system. Two of the protestors have a mechnical - 16 type of predewatering system and one Protestor has a gravity- 17 type predewatering system. 18 With that I would like to just summarize L 19 and again emphasize the importance of - - our specifications 20 were framed around presses which had Proven themselves in th 21 field under adverse operating conditions and presses which 22 we considered could meet the Oranae County Sanitation Distri is 23 requirements . 24 With that I would like to file this report r25 and answer any questions you may have . 26 CHAIRMAN FOX : Are there any questions of k`alt at Certified Court Reporters �r (213) 637.3550 %f AC I'i F Y. HARY" If. CRAM, DXX«So,,, A \1171 \1 (714) 558-94C0 t ?0 i 1 this time? 2 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. Mr. Chairman , one questio . 3 Walt , you mentioned that you visited three 4 press manufacturers . titlere any of the people that are here 5 tonight those same plants that you visited.? 6 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 7 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER. All three of them? 8 MR. MIARD: No. 9 CHAIRJNLAN FOX: Thank you, 'Walt . 10 MR. LEIVIS : Mr. Chairman , I have one final comment 11 to the egineering report . 12 The Board should -- for perspective, this is 13 a total job which is around $13 million estimated. The I 14 portion that we are discussing tonight is the furnishing of 15 ten belt presses for delgatering and that is estimated somewhere 16 between .1 . 5 to $2 million for the ten presses . So that vives 17 you an idea of what we are talking about magnitude-wise in 18 dollars . 19 MR. BILL VARDOULIS: Mr. Chairman , I move Item C(1) 20 C (2) , C (3) and C(D) to he received and filed in the various 21 reports . 22 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: SeconO . 23 CHAIRkTAN FOX: All those in favor? 24 THE ATTENDF,ES: Aye . T25 CHAIULAN FOX: Opposed? I� 26 The Chair casts a unanimous ballot unless L [_ M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACNIA F1 BARRFF f. ('R-%\I DAWSO N & Ml l %I X\ (714) 558-9-00 1 1 21 1 otherwise directed. 2 Tom, do you have any comments at this point 1 3 in time prior to moving to - - 4 MR. 1+100DKUFF: No , Air. Chairman. T5 CHAIRP•4AN FOX: At this time we will consider a moti n T6 to receive and file the documents from Ralph B. Carter Company . 7 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: 1.loved. 7 8 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: • Second. 9 CHAIW4AN FOX: Those in favor? T10 THE ATTENDEES: Aye . T11 CHAIRYAN FOX: Opposed? 12 The motion carries. " 13 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman , I think it 14 might be appropriate to move to receive and file the Counsel.' T15 report also . I so move . 16 CHAIRMAN FOX: I think Bill did that . That was 17 covered under the last motion . T18 There is no action then until Item 11 (e) . 19 At this time we will have a representative of 1- 20 the R. B. Carter Company to make their presentation. r21 Give your name to the Secretary. l 22 MR. JOHNSON: TlY name is Harold Johnson . I am 23 Product Manger for filter presses for Ralph B. Carter Company �- 24 I would first like to take the opportunity T25 to thank you and Ralph B. Carter Company thanks you for the al 26 opportunity to talk to you tonight about our press . L M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACALA FY H\RRFI I CRAM• & %IEI MAN (714) 558-9400 L 22 7 1 I cannot specifically reply to the engineer' s _1 2 report submitted today, February 13th , since we didn 't receiv 3 it until 4 : 30 this afternoon , but I do feel that a_.brief 4 history of the belt filter press will enable you to understand. 1 5 our company better. 6 The Ralph B . Carter Company was the first 7 American manufacturer of belt filter presses in the U.S . in Y8 1971 . Our licensor, Albert Kline , a company in Vilest Germany, 9 was the first manufacturer and the inventor of the belt fiilte 10 Dress in Vilest Germany in the mid-60 ' s . Together the Ralph 11 B. Carter Company and Kline had in excess of 1500 units 12 installed worldwide . Carter alone has designed, shipped and 1 13 has operating 145 presses in North America. There are at 1 14 present over 175 presses ordered and shipped in the U.S. alone . 15 Carter has the only three large -scale operatin€ 16 installations in the United States , two municipal installations 17 of eight machines each and one industrial installation of eight g g 18 machines . There are over 40 units similar to this machine 19 being considered now shipped in the field. There are eight 20 units operating in Tennessee- Eastman , 8 units operating in Clayt n 21 County, Georgia , three two-and-a-half meter machines identical 22 operating in the City of Philadelphia, one two-and-a-half meter P g Y ._ y� 23 machine at London , Ontario , and numerous other one- and two- 1 24 machine installations . 25 The eight units at Tennessee-Eastman r 26 in less than one year of operation have averaged over 8 ,000 L. L_ M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %1A('x1 1 FY. BXRR! fY CRA%I I)A\ttiOti & %II'I %I \\ (714) 558 9400 r i 23 aim ft 1 hours of operation on a ,yearly basis for a. service factor 2 well in excess of 90 percent . For those of you who are not 3 familiar with a service factor, if you Qo out to start your 4 car you want it to run . Your car you use for a few hours a 5 day , and during the whole lifetime of the car you may 6 accumulate a couple thousand hours . Carter' s machines run 7 24 hours a day, seven days a week , 52 weeks a year and during 8 the year 90 percent of the time and all auxiliary systems we 9 operate . 7 10 The 2 . 5 meter unit at London , Ontario is just 11 starting up as are one of the Tait-Andritz presses which hasn 't T 12 been qualified and one of the Winkle presses which hasn ' t T13 been qualified. 14 Another city was faced with the same problem you T15 are . London, Ontario , a number of vears ago tested six presses r16 that we know that prequalified for your submittal and your L 17 nrequalifications . As a result of testing and the mechanical T18 evaluation the City of London purchased three presses , one 19 Carter 2 . 5 meter press , one Win'.<1e press and one Tait-Andritz 20 press . At startup , which is now occurring , Carter is processing 21 over the 130 gallons permitted requested for Orange County . T22 As a matter of fact , Carter is processing 167 gallons per T23 minute . The other presses selected by the District are 24 processing at London , Ontario , less than the 100 gallons a 25 minute . As a matter of fact , one of the presses is operating 26 at less than 60 gallons a minute . r rM & M Certified Court Reporter, (213) 63'-3550 \ri F1' tr-\R!'r11. CRAM DAV',O\ X MH \1 \N (714) 558-94-0 r 24 Since Carter is no1.: processing in excess of - 2 the required performance at London , Ontario , Carter will be 3 spending its time reducing the single-most expensive ooeratin 4 cost the District will have and that is chemical conditioning 5 costs . Rased on the numbers given to us by the -I 7 engineer, in Orange County the Sanitation Districts will 8 be in 1983 processing in excess. o.f .400 tons Der day with this II 9 mechanical equipment . That ' s at $18 a ton up . The ten presses 10 only cost and they will cost based on today' s standards =, 11 approximately $2 . 5 million. 12 The most costly expense allowed by the Distric 13 is for the chemical conditioning. At $18 a ton sludge , 14 400 tons per day processed, you have an annual yearly cost 15 of $2 . 6 million based on 1979 oil prices . During the ten-yea aid 16 lifetime of this :project , assuming the price of oil does 17 not increase you will have and you will pay in excess of 18 $26 million for chemicals . 19 By prequalifying and voting to accept the Carter 20 proposal the District would experience lower chemical costs 21 than the project as it now is and he purchasing and working 22 with the only American company who have been actively engaged 23 is now actively engaged and will be engaged in belt press 24 research, design , operation and maintenance . The Ralph B. 25 Carter Company is the only manufacturer with over 125 machine 26 operating in the U. S . The Ralph B. Carter Company is the onl _1 M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637:3550 %1-\CAt ( FY. R\RRE1_F CRAM D\\%'>0\ & \trt M AN (714) 553-9400 2S ' 1 manufacturer being considered who has never failed to process 2 guarantee. 3 I don 't know if you know what a process guarantee 4 is , but ,you have asked �18 a ton .for your sludge . Mlost belt 5 manufacturers , although they have excellent mechanical 6 reputations are exhibiting chemical costs two and three times 7 their guarantees . That is the cost you will nay. The Ralph 8 B. Carter Company is the only manufacturer being considered 9 whose presses at all our installations operate at less than 10 the chemical costs we have guaranteed. 11 The Ralph B. Carter Company is American-made. 12 Not one of the two nrequal.ified presses are constructed of 13 American parts . In .fact , one of the presses nreaualified, 14 must be assembled in test Germany of. West German parts . 15 The engineering report stated that the 16 District wants the machine to last at least ten years . The t 17 Ralph B. Carter Company is the only manufacturer being consid red 18 who has presses operating in North America for over eight year_ . 19 Of these machines operating for over eight years one very aoo( 20 customer is Exxon. Exxon purchased in 1972 and has just now 21 repurchased again . They have made a total of six purchases Z2 from the Carter Company for 20 machines . 23 The Kline Company, our licensor in Europe, 24 is the only company worldwide whose presses have been in 25 operation for over 14 years . 26 The District has elected to use the presubmitt• l r 1_ M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %11C•1l'l FY BARRY If. CRa\f D,VA!i N & MF1 '. VN (714) 553-9:00 26 �} 1 vehicle to guarantee the District can purchase and will I 2 purchase a high quality belt filter press . The Carter Series 3 32 is a high quality press . If price is an indication of 4 quality then most certainly the District would consider the 5 Series 32 . The present municipal market does not allow 6 Carter to sell this high quality machine . As a matter of 7 fact , in the last three belt filter press projects in Southerl 8 California, of the two qualified machines one manufacturer I 9 has been lower than Carter twice, the other manufacturer has 10 been higher than both of us by at least 25 percent . Across 11 the country, of all the other presses in recent bid during th 12 last six months there have been considerably. - - they have bee 13 considerably below the high quality Series 32 press . 14 The engineer, the District nor any representative 15 of Orange County to our 'knowledge have ever visited our 16 manufacturing facility in Hackensack , New Jersey . ?Neither 17 the engineer nor the District visited to our knowledge any 18 installations of the model proposed. I 19 In summary, by preaualifying the Ralph R. 20 Carter Company local money would be saved in operation costs . 21 By prequalifying the .Ralph B. Carter Company there will be 22 real competition among the higher quality machines . This 23 saves local tax dollars , state tar dollars and federal tax 24 dollars . The present situation allows for little , if any, 25 savings to the local , state and .federal taxpayer. Rased. on r 26 present market developments , a third responsible bid.d.er , M & 1Vll Certified Court Reporters (213) 63--3550 %1ACAUI I Y. B\it!,rl r CR AM r1\`ASON & MVIA1 \% (714) 552-94-00 27 1 Ralph B. Carter Company, who will meet the specifications , 2 will ensure real competition thereby saving local , state and 3 federal tax dollars . 4 Thank you for your time . 5 MR. PHILIP ANTHONY: Mr. Chairman , could I ask 6 one question of Mr. Johnson? 7 CHAIR�MAN FOX : Yes . 8 MR. ANTHONY: Do you know. why your proposal was not 9 qualified? Do you have the specific reason? 10 MR. JOHNSON : We were told because we couldn' t 11 handle 130 gallons per press . We have one -- 12 MR. ANTHONY: We11 , you made a very nice general 13 presentation, but we have information here that our staff I 14 tells us that you did not meet the specifications and they 15 have summarized seven specific areas . 16 MR. JOHNSON: That is correct . 17 MR. ANTHONY : You are aware of those? 18 MR. JOHNSON : I got those areas this afternoon . 19 I do know originally we were disqualified for hydraulic canac ty. T20 We have machines doing in excess of 130 gallons per minute . 21 MR. ANTHONY : You at least knew of those seven 22 areas? Apparently you chose not to really comment specifical y 23 on any of those . 24 MR. JOHNSON: No. We have commented - - we asked to 25 comment in a written document . We were told we had to do tha 26 by last Thursday at 12 noon. We have written a letter to the M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 537-3550 Mi ACAVI FY. B\RRFT1 CR-\\i hAWSON X %1FL\IA\ (714) 558-9•100 r f 28 1 District telling them that that was impossible to do that 2 based on the time we had. We did come to the District 's 3 office on Monday and we thought we had resolved most of these 4 problems . 5 The report that we got today was not available 6 to us at 4 :30 . I can ' t really Qualify those seven statements . 7 To do so Would be doing so without preparation or without any 8 looking at them really. 9 MR. ANTHONY: It seems pretty simple as to whether 10 or not you are going to put 316 steel in your drums or not , 11 isn 't it? 12 MR. JOHNSON: Very simple . You build with 316 stee 13 if that is what the bid says . If that is what the specification I 14 says , that is what you bid. 15 MR. ANTHONY: 'And you didn' t bid that? 16 MR. JOHNSON : We said that we would meet the 17 specifications for the materials . 18 MR. ANTHONY: I will wait for rebuttal on that . 19 MR. VARDOULIS : Mr. Chairman, I would also like to i 20 ask Mr. Johnson one Quick Question. 21 CHA1Rt4!1N FOX: Yes . 22 MR. VARDOULTS : How many of the two-and-a-half mete ^� 23 presses have you sold and operated? I 24 MR. JOHNSON : Of the two-and-a-half meter presses? 25 We have sold four in the U. S. and we have sold over 500 worldside . 26 In the U. S . of the four - - we have got four in the U.S . , we T M & m Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \1\CAVI FY. R\PR1 l 1. CR \\1 r \1FI \1\\ (714) 55?-9400 i 29 1 have one in London , Ontario , three in the City of Philadelphi 2 and one at General Electric. 3 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAI:ER: Mr. Chairman. 4 CHAIRMAN FOX: Yes . 5 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Johnson, you said 6 in your comments here that the operational costs , chemical I 7 costs with your unit , would be less than what we now have 8 before us . Hot:, much less? You used a figure of $2 . 6 million. 9 MR. JOHNSON: That is correct . Rased on $18 a ton 10 it would be $2 . 6 million. That is 400 tons . Tennessee Eastm n, 11 for example , evaluated us and Tait -Andr. itz and purchased our 12 machine even though at that time their capital cost was some 13 30 percent higher because our operating cost was over 20 percent 14 lower. I can ' t say exactly how much cheaper it would be on 15 your particular sludge because we have not had the opportunity 16 to test your sludge . We did have a mobile_in Southern Califor is 17 last year and at that time -- (inaudible) . 18 SVIE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right . You also 19 said that you were the only American company - - your statement 20 was that you were the only American company that did design 21 and maintenance . Are you saying that the other companies that 22 we have before us tonight don 't do maintenance? 23 11R. JOHNSON : No, no , not at all . The design , the 24 operation and research and the maintenance of the machines . 25 The other two companies that you have prequalified, one is 7 26 taken out of Lubbock, Texas . They are designed in Austria, I M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 N1 1CAl'I.EF, B A R R F F I. CR F)\%k SON \1 F 1.\1AN (714) 553.3,100 30 1 they are not designed in the U. S . The second machine that 2 prequalified is the Winkle Type 3 machine that is built in 3 Europe by a company called Belber (phonetic) . Ashbrook 4 Simon Hartley is a marketing company. Ashbrook Simon Hartley 5 does build the machine in the U. S . The machine they build 6 in the U.S . is called a clamp press . Your District has rightly 7 and justly so decided not to prequalify the clamp press . 8 I think it is important to realize -- I don' t 9 know whether you understand it and I don' t know whether we ha e 10 really made it clear to the engineer or allowed the engineer 11 the opportunity to understand that there are more than one 12 type of press manufacturer. Carter makes more than one press , 13 we have four different models . The model we are ofEering to 14 the District is the high-priced model . The model that they 15 visited in Clayton County , Georgia was not a high-priced. 16 model , it was a low-priced municipal model . To our knowledg 17 they have not visited any of the machines that we would like 18 to supply the District . 19 SMIE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The one you quoted is 20 a Series 32? 21 MR. JOFINSON: It is a 2S/32 . It will have the r22 material and construction the District has required. 23 The materials of construction are : if you boug t 24 a car you may get it rust coated or not , that is up to you. T25 The manufacturer does not rust coat it at the factory. The 26 rust coat normally , if you require we do it , if you write it r 1 M & 1V1 Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-355G MACA1 I FY. 11XRKf I r. CR BSI. [I.\WSON Z %IFIAI-V 1714) 55d-341u r i 31 1 down it is a very good idea to buy a car that way . 2 CHAIRMAN FOX: Any questions? 3 Would you respond to some of the comments of i 4 Mr. Johnson? 5 MR. HOV.ARD: Yes , Mr. Chairman. 6 We met with representatives of Carter, Mr. 7 Johnson and his local representatives , here on February llth 8 and discussed additional information which he furnished to us I 9 at that time with regard to our disqualification of his 10 company' s press . He did have the list of seven or eight 11 items which we had based our disqualification on at that time . 12 At that time we cleared up a number of these items . 13 Based on information provided to us at that time 14 it does appear that the Carter two-and-a-half meter press 1 15 would be able to meet th'e performance specifications based 16 on pilot plant testing information which fir. Johnson describe 17 to us . 18 The Carter press does utilize the more 19 complicated mechanical predewatering system which I talked i 20 to you about earlier , the rotating drums . As a matter of fact , 21 theirs has two rotating drums , screen drums on the press . 22 Carter promotes the use of inboard bearings with thick shafts 23 although they did indicate that they would furn-i.sh a press 24 per the specifications with the outboard bearings and the 25 rotating shafts . 26 We reviewed in detail each of-t-he items r 1 1V1 & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MAC%i'LF1'. B\RRF! r. CR V.I. D\\%SO N & \I! 1 '1 \% (714) 558-9:00 i 32 1 for the preq_ualification submittal did not indicate compliance r2 and in general Carter indicated verbally in our meeting on 3 Monday that they could build a press to meet the specification requirements although they do not have operating experience 4 5 with such a press in the United States . We did contact -- at that time it was established r 6 that two of these facilities which Mr. Johnson mentioned to you 7 8 this evening, the one in London, Ontario , the test installation 9 they are testing there was in a start-up phase . He also mentio ei 10 the locale of Philadelphia where there are three presses in the11 start-up phase . These are the model 32 press which they have 12 offered' to you. We did contact Tennessee Eastman where they 13 14 have a number of presses which have been in operation I 15 anproximately a year. These are Model 15/32 , evidently the 16 same model but rather than two-and-a-half meter press a 17 one-an(i-a-half meter press and we found that they were 18 having a lot of problems with those presses . Of particular 1s importance to us was the problems with the reactor thickener 20 breaking up and causing problems . 21 All of this information , our telephone 22 contacts is in minute detail in our report . I could read 23 some of these if you would like . 24 I was , frankly, disappointed after talking with 25 Mr. Johnson with what we found when we talked to the users 26 that were actually using their newest r,4odel 32 press . At the M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACAIA FY BARPI I I CRAM. I) & \IFI %IAN (714) 553-9440 33 1 time 1ve made our visit almost a year ago I don ' t believe there I 2 were any Model 32 presses available for us to look at at that �p 3 time . We have done our best to contact the people who are I 4 currently using them and are just no:v in the start-up phases 5 and I , based on information we have to date, r10 not feel that 6 they have the experience to comply with our specifications . 7 In our judgement the Carter press should not 8 be qualified due to lack of successful operating experience 9 with the press and the high expense and due to recent 10 problems experienced with the newest and most modern Series 11 32 press and because the Carter press utilizes the more 12 complicated mechanical predewatering system as opposed to the 13 specified predewatering system. It is our opinion that the 14 press that Carter is offering does not meet the prequalificat 'on r15 specifications . If anyone has any questions - - 16 AN UNIDENTfFIFU SPEA.KER: Do you feel that you have 17 had adequate time to come to this conclusion? 18 MR, HOINFARD: Yes . 19 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would just like the staff 20 to comment on the operating costs the proponent here made some 21 comments on , the lower operating costs over the life of the 22 machines and I would like to just knoly if that is considered �+ 23 in our overall bid package proposal and just a response on I 24 that . l 25 MR. HONARD: !9e relied quite heavily on test work l 26 that was done by LA/OP.I1 early on in this phase 'of our program i 1 M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %1 \C:\t'l F:Y. B\PR1 I I C'R \\I r)\\%soN R \fl I m \\ (714) 553-1400 r 1 34 1 and we are concerned that the press with the gravity dewateri g 2 system would be able to produce the sludge at a reasonable 3 cost . 4 We took some sludge up to LA/ONIA and tested it 1 5 and it looked promising and we got a couple of prices in here �p 6 which we asked to come in and test and, in addition, a couple I 7 of other manufacturers brought them in and tested them and 8 our conclusions were that this press with the gravity 9 dewatering system was a reasonable choice for the District 10 to make . 11 Does that answer - - 12 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes . You looked at the 13 operating costs along with just materials , you know, you have 14 to add to it and everything else as part of the whole bid 15 package? 16 MR. HOWARD: Yes . 17 MR. NORMAN CULVER: Walt in our booklet that was 18 mailed to our house- - Pair. Anthony said there were seven 19 items . I read 12 items anJ we are at a disa'lvantage , like 20 flank said, because we don 't have any cross reference because 21 we don ' t have a copy of the specs . Are these 1.2 items being 22 met b the other two approved suppliers? ^ Y PP .PP 23 I am just going to tell you that some of the ` 24 things like drip aprons were called out as plastic. The 25 plastic was falling off, et cetera, et cetera. r26 You have got 12 item--,; here. Did. the other M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3553 %1ACAUt FA. B\RRC1-1. CRAM. DA\ %So% & MH ` AN (714) 556-14-00 i 35 1 manufacturers have exactly what your specifications required? 2 MR. HOWARD: Yes . It is our opinion , Mr. Culver, 3 that the two manufacturers that we prequalified could meet 4 those specifications and they have demonstrated that in 5 existing operations , facilities that are in operation. 6 They would still have to design their machine and build it to the specifications , but based upon what we have seen we 8 feel they are capable of doing that. and they indicated that 9 they would in their prequalification submittal . 10 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKEP,: But what we have before 11 us in this book is that in essence Carter is really not 12 responsive. They were responsive after the fact then. 13 MR. HONARD: Partially. Of the number - - a cozen f 14 or so items , whatever it was , in our initial response , in 15 our meeting on Monday Mr . Johnson cleared up and in -fact 16 indicated they could meet many of these items that we based 17 our disqualification on . at that time but we felt that some 18 of the items that we have discussed tonight - - even though 19 they have indicated. they will meet most of the items , we 20 are concerned that they have a successful operating belt press 21 with the modifications they Would have to make and the fact 22 that they are using this more complicated screen-type 23 predewatering system. 24 CHAIRtIAN FOX: Any further questions? 25 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You are saying then that 26 without that predewatering system you are using less chemical r 1 M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \I.\C.\1'1 f Y R;\RRE rI CR \\1. 11-\%\SON & \IFI MAN (714) 558-9400 1 36 1 in the dewatering process? 2 MR. HOIVARD: I am not making any one way or the other. 3 I consider that with the gravity dewatering system, the one 4 I showed you earlier, this is the ono that we tested in 5 detail and we were very impressed with on our trip , the 6 simplicity of operation , that this system could be designed 7 and operated to use not more than 18 dollar' S worth of I 8 chemical per ton of sludge processed. So this is the 9 basis for which we drafted our specification s and we have don 10 our design studies . 11 We did not assess in detail Mr. Johnson' s 12 system, the system with the mechanical -type prethickening 13 system, although there was a .system on-site operated here 14 with a mechanical-type predewatering system . It was T15 brought on for demonstration during the conference a 16 couple of years ago . There was no detail in the test work 17 done at that time . 18 SA F UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Isn ' t it a regular 19 sort of mechanical process any time you add a coagulant or a 20 conditioner that there is a reaction chamber in other parts 21 of the treatment where you might want to get rid of solids? 22 I J don ' t understand. You are just mixing the o fi 23 solids directly with the sludge and laying it on the belts? 24 11R. H01,11ARD : Yes . In this particular system I 1 25 didn't get into that much detail but you asked the question. 26 This is the pipe coming up from the pump . We r TM & M Certified Court Reporters r (213) 637-3550 N1ACAV1 FY. R\RRFTI. CRAM. &t mi t \I \` (Its. 71,3-9:00 1 37 t 1 enter this chemical with our specified system -- (inaudible) . 2 Upstream of the discharge point coagulation takes place in the 3 pipe prior to distribution on the belt . It is a very simple 4 system. It works very well for Lis here in the LA/0MA systems . 5 Plow, sludges are different in a lot of cases 6 and that system will not work. It desludges a different 7 characteristic . 8 SAIME iINIDFNTIFIFD SPEAKER.: Sometimes the reaction 9 time is longer or shorter depending upon the chemicals - - 10 Cinaud.ible) . I was wondering if a perconditioner or a 11 preexisting chamber wouldn ' t be more efficient in the use 12 of chemicals . 13 MR. HOWARD: In some cases I think it is . 14 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is it the case here at 15 this particular plant ? 16 MR. 1-10WARD: We were satisfied with the test result 17 that we got . LA/Or(A - - (inaudible) . 18 SAVE: UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So they compared a I 19 reactor or a vessel or a container against just putting on the 20 belt? r 21 CHAIRMAN FOX : I believe that at this point in time 22 I think I would like to move on and get out of the technical 23 process of this particular operation because we are moving 24 into areas that I believe the expertise was questioned here 1 25 earlier in the evening where there are several ways of skinning 26 a cat and that is already been deckled many years ago and we r M & M Certified Court Reporters • (213) 637-3550 MACAULEY, B\RRf-1-1 CRAM. U\\\SON & \ ULM \V (714) 5:;-9400 i l .f I do have a Court Reporter ('who is husily typing way over here 2 so we will have one more question. T 3 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Chairman , we have a I 4 motion to close the hearing on Ralph R . Carter ' s protest and 5 sustain the staff' s recommendation . 6 AN tINIPENTIF'I'?D SPEAKER: Second. 7 CHAIR MIT FOX . Okay . All those in favor? I 8 THE ATTENDEES: aye. r 9 CHAIRMAN FOX : Opposed? 1 10 The motion carries and the hearing was closed. 11 We will open the Item ll (f.) , consideration 12 of protest of Euramca . 13 Is there a motion to receive and file the 14 original documents? r15 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved. 16 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAI:ER: Seconri. 17 CHAIWIAN FOX . The motion carries . 18 (f)a, (f)h , is there a motion for those? 19 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved. 20 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKFIZ: Second. 21 CHAIR`IAN FOX : All those in favor? 22 THE A'CII;NDI-*[:5 : Aye . 23 CHAIR-�LAN FOX : The motion carries . 24 We will go to the oral testimony we have for ! 25 Euramca Cor!)orat i on . 26 MR. JOHN DROZDA: Gentlemen , my name is .John Drozda . r 1V1 & 1V1 Certified Court Roporters (21:31 i'A-3, 0 `r \, \I I I Y R VO- 11 t R X\I (71 ., 5� r J k) Lill 1 i 1 I am the President of Euramca Ecosystems Corporation out of 2 Chicago, Illinois . 3 The history of our company goes back to 1976 4 where we were retained by the firm of Roediger, the Roediger 5 group of companies in Germany , to develop the beltfilter ,. 6 press market for the belt filter presses they had made in 7 Germany and manufactured and designed beginning in 1968 . 8 We worked very well with the consulting engineering community 9 and municipalities over these last four years . 10 In our first year we were able to be very 11 closely scrutinized by various consulting engineering firms 12 around the country and we have found our way into prequalific _ tIMI 13 specifications and have been considered by the engineering 14 community overall as a qualified supplier of belt filter presses . 15 'faking into consideration the fact that our period of time 16 that is required for design concept , step one , two , three and 17 four and five and six and all the other steps that come afte j' 18 it we will not be delivering our first machines in the United l 19 States until this year. 20 In this area we have two machines being delive ed 21 to - - (inaudible) probably around June of this year. We just 22 signed a contract with the town of New Canaan, Connecticut , 23 for one one -and-a-half meter . 3 machine and we are in the 24 final. stages of negotiation for three two-and-a-half meter I25 machines for an industrial waste treatment plant in Puerto Rico. r 26 In the meantime there are several n_ rojects which we have bid I M & M Certified Court Reporters r (213� 637.3550 MAC%( I FY PARRrrT. CRAM. D\\%SO% 3 Mi I MAN (714) 558-9400 I i 40 1 and due to the waiting and delays of awards we are in a 2 competetive position and could very well secure orders for 3 this business as well . 1 4 ti+,e are one of two companies from Europe who l5 are making the same machine in the United States that they have 6 been making since 1968. We are not a licensee . We are a i 7 manufacturer of extremely high quality and are in good repute 8 and we have done testing in the United States to the tune of 9 34 waste treatment plants in the year 1979 as a whole . !_ 10 I am not going to bother you with any of the 11 technical side of our equipment .for this reason: we have a 12 meeting with your consultants and your technical committee on 13 Monday. It lasted three hours . So there is no possible way 14 in the world we can cover even a brief portion in the 20 minutes 15 I have , but it is part of the record and we would certainly 16 appreciate an open-minded view to reviewing that data. 17 Now, one thing I can say for sure that belt 18 filter presses are not made in heaven, that engineers are not 19 infallible because they, aren' t Cod. I am a very outspoken 20 individual . I have very, very defined purposes in mind in 21 being here this evening and one of those is to be sure as a 22 businessman that the true spirit of competition is maintained - 23 in strictly the American style. 24 I .feel we have started an industry in the 25 United States . We have built a factory, we have people working, 26 and I think we have as much a right to bid a quality piece M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \1-\C IA E.Y. BAR itE"rF.CR \M. D\W SO\ S \1El \1\\ (714) 558-94CO l 41 1 of equipment as anyone in this room. I think there are 2 some businessmen here and I think they will appreciate that . 3 I have to say that I am not really happy to be here tonight 4 because I am only adding another 20 minutes to your time . I r5 do have to say that I do have to commend you for being here 6 in support of your technical committee and the decisions that 7 they made for the District. 8 Now, I am just going to touch on a few points I g and I am going to go back - - was it Mr. Wedaa who made the 10 opening remark about the qualifications of the present body 11 to make the decision? r12 -I think , Counsel , your reply was extremely well 13 put and very much in order only from the standpoint that we 14 have to be sure that the consultants did not write a proprietary 1 15 specification, and please correct me if I am wrong, and if 16 there are any other reasons involved in selecting two of the 17 nine subscribers to the prequali.f.ication submittal . Furamca 18 apparently has to be a little bit flattered because we only 19 had two conditions we had to reply to and these were the r20 Euramca Company also utilizes a reactor conditioner similar 21 to Carter' s . That' s probably because the Roediger factory 22 in Germany is not very far from the Kline .factory and I imagi.11 23 once in a while everybody looks over the wall to see what is 24 going on. 25 We have a very direct statement that says that r 26 operational history for this equipment is not good. That ' s the 1 M & ly1 Certiried Court Reporters „r (213) 637-3550 MACAU[E1, BARREr1, CRAM [)WSON & \11.1 MAN (714) 558-9400 I 1 42 1 first and pertinent point. V.'e supplied in our presubmittal 2 a list of 11 places where we have tested and, bear in mind, T3 we have no operating installations in the United States . 4 We received our letter of disqualification on 5 January 26th. We responded immediately, and a few weeks later 6 -- I am sorry, the following week we had a call from a 7 consulting engineering firm that wanted to know how we made 8 out on the prequalifications of Orange County. 9 Now, we have the feeling, and it may be a 1_ 10 coincidence of time , and I am fully respectful of the fact 11 that consultants are busy, we are busy people. We have about 12 60 pages of prequalification data here . 13 But it is my contention that we were disqualified, 14 number one , because we have no long-term installation. That 1 15 was not a part of the prequal.i.fication requirements . That is 16 easily defendable . 17 Secondly, although John Carollo did not contact 18 in a two-month period of time the representatives of the 19 references that we gave , after we filed the protest they were 20 able to call all of them. That is something that is defendable . 21 Now , the second point is , only have European 22 installations with no operating or even installed in the 23 United States . That is correct . And the only experience has 24 been with the trailer-mounted unit in the United States . That 25 is correct . * 26 The fact that we have 35 installations in Euro e r M & M Certified Court Reporters y� (213j 637-3rti0 `1 \C-\('I F.Y. B\RRF1 1. CRAM. DAWSON & MEA M\\ (714) 558-9400 43 too 1 where we offered as a reference where we are dowat e ring 2 anaerobically digested sludge apparently is of no interest or 3 maybe it is unchecka')le , but I have to say that the handling 4 of this whole business has really not been very professional 5 in our estimation. That 's a matter of my opinion. .r 6 I think we are in a defensible position and I 7 am very sorry to really kind of throw myself at the mercy of d. 8 the court . I think that a better job really could have been 9 done , _. 10 I think that your executive committee has 11 taken the recommendation of the consulting engineer for what 12 they consider a job very well done and I have to say that we 13 have had more experience in belt press equipment construction 14 than the consulting engineer has had in his business . 5o, 15 for whatever it is worth , ladies any? gentlemen, I would like 16 to say that there was not very much pounding around in the 17 materials of construction or equipment and we suffer for not 18 having an American installation . But I think that every 19 manufacturer has a right to be reviewed on an equal basis and. 20 we have not seen any Carollo engineers at our office, at our low 21 factory. We have not seen or heard frpin any Carollo engineer 22 from the time that this presuhmittal was supplied. I really 23 have to question if that was really giving the manufacturer 24 an opportunity to assist the consultant with any questions or 25 answers that he might require before the final decision is 26 made . M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 m \C\1 1 F1 It\!(Pk'r"r. CK \\1 1)\%k'lO\ & \11 1 161 NN (714) 558-0400 �i 44 I �+ 1 Thank you. 2 CHAIWJAN FOX: Do we have any questions? 3 Would you respond to the points? 4 MP . HOWARD: Yes , Mr. Chairman . 5 As Mr. Drozda indicated, we did meet on Februa y 6 11 and we received additional information from Euramca dated 7 January 26th and February 7th. 8 On the llth we discussed the Furamca experience 9 capabilities based on Pilot testing and capabilities to provide 10 service and spare parts , et cetera, which we were concerned �q 11 with due to their lack of operating installations in the 1 12 United States . J13 We believe that the Euramca press can meet the 14 performance requirements with its two-and-a-half meter press 15 based on the results of* pilot testing which was described 16 by Mr. Drozda. 17 It should be pointed out that C .S.D.O.C . �( 18 specifications do call for ten presses not less than titto mete s 19 in width. I think that Mr . Drozda came to our meeting on the 20 llth with some question as to whether the ten was required 21 or perhaps he could furnish a lesser number since his press was22 a half a meter wider. But we do want less not le_ 5 than ten 23 presses not .less than two meters in width . 24 Euramca , as Mr. Drozda indicates , has recently 25 sold some belt presses in the United States and is reportedly 26 in a competitive position for several others . However, M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACNV! F1, HARRfTF. CRAM DA%%Sc)N g \IF[ %t\N (714) 558-9400 45 1 there are no installations in operation with the exception of 2 their one-and-a-half meter pilot unit . 3 We did review in detail the Euramaca installation 4 - - list of their installations in Europe , many in Germany, 5 some in England, some in Japan. These are evidently in 6 small plants as there are 34 plants listed and all of them ha 7 one - - only one press shown as being installed with only 8 one of the plants having two presses . This was in accordance 1 9 with the list that was provided. 10 As he indicated, we have not checked firsthand 11 the operating experience of these European installations . We 12 have seen pictures of their press , pictures of their presses 13 in fabrication in their shop in Pennsylvania. 19e actually 14 haven 't seen in person or an actual press in order to - - other 15 than seeing pictures of 'it . We saw a picture of the pilot unit . 16 Euramca is offering the more complicated 17 mechanical predewatering and mixing system as opposed to the 18 specified gravity predewatering system. We consider this to 19 be a significant variance from the specifications . 20 P4R . DROZDA: May I interrupt you just a second? 21 That point was not an original part of the 22 reasons for disqualification I would like to add and that ^ 23 point should have been raised at . the tir;te of disqualification. 24 MR. HONARD: I don' t understand. 25 P .R. DROZDA: We had a letter saying that we were 26 rejected primarily for not having any long-term installations . M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 `1AC%VI FN' H\RRF 1 I. CR \fit. I) & Mi I .MAC (714) 550-9,100 46 1 A week later we received another list after we filed our 2 protest of several other reasons for disqualification. That 3 wasn ' t one of them, the one you just mentioned. In our 1 4 reply we didn ' t reply to that point . 5 MR. HOWARD: The one I just mentioned was in our 6 December 4th report to the Sanitation District . If you revieTA 7 it , you will see it . �p 8 In conclusion, it is. our judgment that the 9 Euramca press should not be qualified due to lack of actual 10 operating experience which can be verified in the United 11 States and primarily because the proposed system uses a more 12 complex mechanical predewatering system as opposed to the 13 specified gravity predewatering system. 14 If anyone has any questions - 15 AN UNIDENT [ FIF.D SPEAKER: One short question . Is r 16 the venturi premixer a part of the original specs? J_ 17 MR. HOWARD: Yes. 18 MR. WOODRUFF: I would draw your attention to those 19 0£ you who are following the report to the December 4th 20 evaluation report from John Carollo Engineers on page six 21 makesthe evaluation of the Euramca process and there it reacs , 22 "The Roediger utilizes a rotating conditioning drum and 23 reactor screen - - same principle as Carter press - - for 24 prethickening of sludge prior to the high-pressure rollers . r25 No in-line mixer is provided. " 26 MR. DP.OZDA: We respectfully call your attention to M & M Certified Court Reporters r (2131 631-3550 MACM1 I-Y, B%PlU I [. CP \`.I [).%%%sl.\ A \if I %I \N (714) 558-4401.) 47 1 the fact that we did not have access to that December 4th 2 report and it was not mentioned in the original reasons for 3 disqualification. 4 I would like to - - I don ' t want to cut any 5 more of your time off. The points that our competitor, Mr. �► 6 Ralph B. Carter, made are very similar, they make very simila 7 machines to ours . I consider three representatives of the 8 protesters being qualified manufact-urers and I respect them 9 as strong competitors in the industry. I cannot see the . 10 benefit of relying on materials and equipment made in Germany 11 to come to the United States . We are a German firm, we make - 12 our own machines , .we build diem here in the United States . ' 13 I am going to read., if I may, an excerpt from 14 a report . I am not going to mention any names because I a 15 am not here to hack our competition . This is from a LA/OMA „6 16 report which we have access to because we were testing at 17 LA./OMA at the same time as some of the belt filter presses 18 were ,being tested there . We were composting their sludge. 19 This has to do with one of your accepted suppliers . 20 "Several operational problems were encountered 21 during this test on the press . Unscreened sludge clogged the 22 machine in the wash water, housing and scraper blades . Chang- s 'a' 23 in sludge flow and solids concentration resulted in unstable 24 operation . Small areas of the belt became frayed and torn 25 which led to failure . .� 26 "Operating a blank press under conditions to -- M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 \I \C\I'I F Y R\RRIAT, CRAM. D V� So)% \I \\ (714) 558-9400 i 48 1 maximize caked solids , low belt speed and. high belt speed in 2 the high pressure zone . Wrinkles and creases were noted in 3 both belts . At this time it was also noted that the 4 scraper blades were worn out . The press had two-and-half mop fist 5 operation time at this point . While installing new scrapper 6 blades representatives of blank apparently misaligned the 7 blades catching one of there on the wrinkles . This section 8 of the belt was completely ruined. Blank provided free of 9 charge for one week the one-meter press . This is blank' s 10 less expensive municipal press with performance of a 7030 11 _ - (inaudible) lowered the blank's recovery to less than 12 75 percent . " This press is now recommended for the Sanitatio 13 District . 14 "Since its installation in September, 1978 , 15 the blank press has operated approximately 1460 hours . During 16 April three significant events occurred.tt 17 MR. PAUL RYCKOFF : I am oinp to interrupt here . g _ 18 no you want to give the extra time this man is using? 19 CHAIRMAN FOX : Well , he is not taking any extra 20 time . � 21 MR. DROZDA.: I still have five minutes . 22 CHAIRMAN FOX: Fie has three minutes to go , Paul . 23 MR. DROZDA : "A side-by-side run was also made 24 between the two dewatering devices using a batch of 60 percen 25 primary. Wrinkles and tears appears in the blank press upper 26 belt ultimately rendering the belt useless . The doctor blade M & M Certified Court Reporter~ (213) 637-3550 MAC NI t F5 H\1?PFr-r. CR \\1. D-Vt ';ON & %IFI fit ',` (714) 553-9,100 49 1 1 were found to be worn out . " 2 are have never had in our history a report like 1 3 this and this is one of the machines that you are recommeding 4 youbuys ,and that's about a].1 I am going to say about the system. 5 CHAIR-MAN FOX: Are there any questions? 6 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes , Mr. Chairman . I am 7 kind of at a loss here . I think that - - tell me if I am 8 wrong. The qualifications came because of a procedural matte 9 or a, say, equipment or lack of equipment . Is this what the 10 disqualification was all about? 11 I heard twice from this company and. the other 12 company and from our engineer that there is a lack of experie ce P Y 13 involved. Now, is that also a qualification? 14 MR. DROZDA: No . 15 CHAIW,!AV FOX: Walt , would you respond to that? I 16 can read out of the book as well as anyone but - - 17 MR. NOWARD : The p_ requalification package was 18 basically broken into two sections . One had to do with the 19 type 'of information that we wanted submitted on the rr.anufactu ers 20 who wanted to be considered. There we asked for actual 21 operating experience , location , telephone number, size of pla t , 22 capacity of the units this type of thin as well as we asked P Y � Y_ g 23 .for a pilot plant experience. 24 Then the other portion of the Drequalification 25 specifications were the actual specifications which talk abou 26 the size of the unit , performance characteristics , the type M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 NIACA LFY. R\RRF11. CR\\1. D\\%1 9\ It. \11'1 M\N (714) 553-9.100 50 1 of materials that were specified, basically the technical 2 specifications . So the technical specifications will be 3 the information which is the specifications to which a press 4 is built . In that portion following the prequalifications 5 there will not be any specific thing with regard to experience . 6 But we did ask for experience to be submitted but it will not 7 be apart of the technical specifications . We wanted experie ce 8 to know where we could talk to people that had these facilities 9 in operation. This was part of the submittal . 10 CHAIRMAN FOX: Okay. Tom, would you like to comment ? 11 MR. WOODRUFF : Air. Chairman ., I would just point out ecifications did not identify with any particularity 12 that the sp 13 that a manufacturer had to have a fixed quantum of experience 14 or fixed number of installations or fixed number of years in 15 business . The reason for that is , I think that is perhaps 16 one ofthe major reasons we could be legally challenged for 17 writing a proprietary spec. 18 If, [or example , we had said nobody could bid the 19 job unless they had been in business or manufacturered these 20 units for less than five years , Euramca would on its face 21 have been unqualified because they have only .three plus as 22 I understand it and yet they could have in those three years �+ 23 maybe built a lot of units , put them on line and performed 24 perfectly well in other respects . To specify any particular 25 item is what gets the District in trouble. 26 I would also advise you that the District has M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 N1 E Y BARRE 1-1. CR \M. DA\\'Sod & MI l ` AN (714; 553-9400 S1 the absolute right when they are writing the specs or, more 1 2 particularly , making their decision regarding whether a bidde 3 qualifies or not that we really have , number one , no legal 4 obligation to go to Europe in case that issue is sometime W 5 before us as far as the engineering obligation to check out 6 the performance . We have no obligation to go to Europe or 7 around the world to check these . We don' t have an obligation �p 8 to go to Carden Grove , Newport Beach or anywhere else and 1 9 realistically not to go to Europe . But most important it 10 seems to me , the District has no legal obligation to 11 accept equipment that is untested or unproven . We can, you 112 can make a decision if you c'iose to set the standards provide 13 they are not proprietary, they are not written so that everyb dy 14 is excluded but one or two and in my opinion, as I have 15 indicated to you in my report , I don ' t believe the specifications 16 are proprietary . A lot of manufacturers could have met them 17 ifthey had made variations according to the engineer. 18 life can set the specifications at as high 19 duality as we chose and the engineer' s report indicated that 20 they did choose to develop a system to provide what appears 21 to be a guarantee of low maintenance and good reliability . 22 If you want to buy that type of system it is within your 23 prerogative to do so . 24 AN i! 'IDF.NTIFIED SPEAKER: A point of information 25 from Counsel . 26 Per. Woodruff, when we started out you indicate MCMG M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %1 \C\t l E1. R\RR1 Fr.CRAM. 11\N';ON & %11'1 MAN (714) 55&94^0 52 1 two things that we should be sure of because I think making 2 any kind of technical judgement or getting involved in 3 technical conversations is ridiculous on our part even if 4 we are qualified and I am not . But you mentioned two things , - 5 fair and equal opportunity to submit equipment for consideration -d 6 and, number two , we make a judgement as to whether or not - 7 we support our staff. 8 With regard to that first item, a fair and 9 equal opportunity to submit equipment for consideration , in 10 examining that are we also to examine or make a judgement abot t 11 or get a feeling about whether or not the individual has had 12 a right to respond to the objections raised? 13 MR. WOODRUFF : I think absolutely. In my opinion 14 I think that there has been a .fair opportunity on behalf 15 of every manufacturer first of all to submit his proposal 16 which they did in the Month of November and then Carollo - 17 Engineers reviewed it for about a month or six weeks . Then .a 18 in January they .finally gave notice based on their evaluation 19 renort . � y 20 The time frame in the last two weeks admittedl 21 has been very tight . I,re sent them a letter on February 4th 22 out of my office . We wired the letter to them direct Telex 23 advising them that we wanted the written reports on Thursday. 24 That is not an awful lot of time on its face but they had. 25 all been exchanging material by and large and the reason bein .. 26 in order to ensure there was no misunderstanding and the M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 6:37-3550 `f \CAl'l l Y BARRF I V. CRA\4 DAWSON 4 \1r1 MAN (714) 558-9400 53 1 decisions were not based solely Carollo ' s office looking at 2 the paper work. Your 'Manager and Chief Engineer and Carollo 3 deciderl what we really should do is sit down with the people 4 who are protesting and try to sit down and see if there is laid 5 some miscommunication or misunderstanding on the technical 6 data before your Board hears it tonight . -- 7 I would tell you that the code of Federal PW 8 regulations in the E. P.A. guidelines urge moving these with 9 ultimate due speed because if we defer a month here we are 10 going to untrack the bidding process by at least a month 11 and every month on the construction it is costing probably 12 one or one and a half percent . . E. P .A. is encouraging us 13 to keep it moving. You are now in a program with grant funds 14 and don ' t delay it. 5o it has been tight but they were given 15 an opportunity . 16 I am not here to point out - - but I have to take 17 issue with Mr. Drozda . On page G-6 of the supplemental met 18 package tonight I believe is a cony of the letter that was 19 dictated by birs . Baker to their office and it specifically 20 pointed out at that time the same information that I quoted 21 to you a few moments ago with regard to - - it is MG-6 , quote 22 „the rotary utilized for the rotating condition drum," et 23 cetera, et cetera and then they replied on February 7th and 24 in paragraph six they make reference to our letter of. the 5th . 25 I am sorry, Mr. Drozda , but I think the record should 26 be clear that they did in fact have the information that M & 1V1Certified Court Reporters rd (213) F17.3550 `I.kC.\1 11 N R\Rh} I'I. CRAM. I1A1 S0% 4 'f1 i \1 \N (714) 558-94-00 r 5-1 s 1 Vr. Howard commented on a he time of the technical hearing. 2 M.R. DROZDA: I would like to disagree. 3 CHAIRMAN FOX: I would ask now if we have - - 4 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I would like to move the 5 closing of the hearing if that ' s the next proper step . — 6 CHAIRMAN FOX: Could I have a second? 7 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. 8 CHAIRMAN FOX: All those in favor? 9 THE ATTENDEES : Aye . 10 CHAIRMAN FOX: Opposed? 11 The motion carries . 12 At this point we would like a motion sustaining 13 the staff' s position . 14 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved. 15 AN UNIDEN'riFIED SPEAKER: Second. 16 CHAIRMAN FOX: Those in favor? 17 THE ATTENDEES : Aye . r 18 CHAIRMAN FOX : Those opposed? 19 The motion carries , 20 G(1) and G(2) . One motion ought to do it . 21 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: r,tr. Chairman , a point of 22 delayed information . Really I am not asking for information 23 but directing it to one director - - to the General P-!anager 24 that the engineers involved here make sure that if they don ' t 25 have that report by blank comnany to make sure that they get r 26 it -and analyze it thoroughly who blank is . M & M Certified Court Rep(mers (213) 6n7-3550 MACk[A FY RARRFrr r)A%1`+j ++ ` (71aj 55;.9:nn SS MR. DR07DA: Ma comment? 2 SA!1,IE UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I don ' t need a comment . 3 MR.. HOWARD: I am very disturbed by Mr. nrozda' s 4 quote from the LA/0141A report . We have the LA./0MA progress 5 report here , and I am not going to use "blank. " 6 He indicated one of the prequalified Dresses , 7 there was one prequalified press that was used up there . 8 It was a Winklenress . Under heading "Winklepress , since 9 it 's installation in September of 1978 the Winkelpress has 10 operated- approximately 1400 hours . It has experienced very 11 little down time due to machine problems . The only problems 12 encountered thus far are a broken valve in early October an,' v 13 the occasional breaking of one hydraulic hose . The machine 14 has required little time maintenance-wise. " 15 That ' s in your report . 16 SA_MF. UNIDENT [FIED SPEAKER: My only question was 17 to make sure that you are aware of it and you are . That 18 answers it , I didn' t need a quote . 19 C('.AIRMAN FOX: Okay. We now need a motion for G (1) 20 2l AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So moved. 22 AN I1NIDF.NTIFIED SPEAKER: Second. 23 CHAIR^AN FOX: All those in favor? 24 THE ATTENDEES : Aye . 25 CHAIRP-1AN FOX: Opposed? 26 The motion carried. '_ 7 he have representatives from Komline-Sanderson M & M Certified Court Reporter~ Mod (211) 637-2550 M \CAI If N. H%VTJT 1 1,C R:A%l D-%%%Sly\ & WA \1 \\ i I i S } 1 Engineering Corporation . 2 MR. IKOLA: ?'r. Chairman, members of the Board , 3 name is Ray Ikola. I am an attorney representing Komline- 4 Sanderson Engineering Corporation who is one of the disqualified 5 bidders on this project and one of the manufacturers who has 6 filed a protest . 7 Just a very brief background about Komline- 8 Sanderson. They have been in business in the sludge dewateri g 9 business for 30 years . For the past three to four years they 10 have been- in the business of manufacturing belt filter 11 presses which , as you have heard this evening, is a relativel 12 new technology in the sludge dewatering business . 13 As this hearing opened tonight with the first 14 protest you heard Counsel I think defined for you very well 15 the standards which you must apply in reviewing the protest 16 of Komline -Sanderson together with the others here this eveni g. 17 I believe if I quote Mr. !"loodruff accurately he stated. that 18 this Board ' s job is to determine whether the engineers had 19 supplied a reasonable non-proprietary standard. Secondly, 20 pIr. Woodruff suggested to you that you must make a determination 21 that your engineers , both staff and consulting, have in fact 22 a rational basis for the decision they made to disqualify these 23 presses . 24 I believe , ladies and gentlemen of the Joint 25 [ioards , the comments made here this evening demonstrate 20 }.,eyond any shadow of a donl)t conclusively in my mind that M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-1550 » ac:�; E t. H\Q e rr CRAM. n It %II 1 %IAN (714) 558-9 ;0 l r57 1 Carollo has specified a proprietary specification . You saw 2 Mr. Walter No:,rard standing at the charts he has over there 3 and in particular the chart that is not now before you but th 4 one immediately behind. it . I believe you all heard P!r. Walte 5 Howard point to that chart and state "This is the press we t 6 specified. " 7 Now, we can Y Y sales produce testimony b the P 8 representative , the Vice President of Sales of Komline-Sanderson 9 that that press represented schematically in that chart is , i 10 in fact , one of the qualified presses ; it ' s the Winklepress . 11 Mr. Howard stated before you all that "This is the press 12 we specified. " 13 Mr. Howard sail that one more time this evenin . 14 fie later said?, This is the machine we used to design our ML 15 spec. " That machine again is the Winkle machine, one of the 16 two presses which the engineers have qualified. 17 Desnite the fact that we feel very clearly - - '�' 18 Komline -Sanderson feels very clearly that that is a proprieta y 19 spec, the 'fact of the matter is that at the technical review 20 session held last week we believe all the auest.ions raised 21 by the engineers were in fact answered by Komline and despite 22 the fact it is a proprietary spec , that specification has bee 23 met in all respects , very simply met . 24 'lie are not here suggesting that we are going 25 to make modifications in our machine to meet the specificatio . 26 Iwo M & M Certified Court Reporters ISO (213) 637-3550 MACAUI FA, R\RRF FF. CRAM. DAWSON & MF1 %I \N (714) 553-9»00 58 1 Our position is that our machine meets the specification . 2 Just a little background on the kinds of. 3 installations Kon.line-Sanderson now has in the United States . 4 In the relatively short time in which the belt filter press 5 industry has been going Komline-Sanderson either has built or 6 is in the process of building 40 two-meter presses . That ' s tie 7 size press specified by the District . None of those presses ry g are currently in operation with anaerobically digested 9 sludge. 11 of the Komline-Sanderson presses are in fact Now 10 in operation with other types of sludges . 17 of the two-mete a, 11 presses have been delivered but are not yet operational . In 12 addition, 12 presses are currently in the process of being E WOL 13 manufactured .for the City of Detroit . 14 I think the Board would. be interested in am 15 learning of the Komline-Sanderson experience in the City of Detroit . In Detroit the district there specified that ,� 16 �. 17 following the bidding procedure the successful bidders or V Wo 18 those which were found to be qualified would meet in a head-t - 19 head competition to find out which of these presses were the 20 best press . Detroit wanted to know "Are these manufacturers 21 selling us a bill of goods? Are our engineers correct in 22 determining which of the presses can meet the specifications?' - ; 23 Komline-Sanderson participated in that 24 post -bid testing procedure and they were the only press found 25 to meet the Detroit specifications . Accordingly, Detroit ord red 26 12 of --the Komline -Sanderson two-meter presses , a press which W" M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 `1 %CA(A FY, H• M-1 1 CRAM DAWSON R %M MAN (714) 553-9400 ar 59 Now 1 is essentially the same as has been disqualified by the 2 engineers in this District . 3 In addition, just a few weeks ago there was cone 4 preliminary testingin Nassau County, New York. Nassau County, 5 New York found the Komline-Sanderson press to be a qualified 6 press . 7 The main objection made by Carollo to the Law 8 submission of Komline-Sanderson was that it could not meet 9 what they call the throughput requirement of 130 gallons per r 10 minute . . 130 gallons per minute , ladies and gentlemen , is not 11 a significant number. What this Board should be interested 12 in and what the engineers should be interested in is how much 13 solid comes out of that press . Knowing how iruch water goes 14 through the press is really irrelevant until you know how muc 15 solid that water is carrying and hot,; much solid the press 16 delivers at the output . 17 To meet that objection of the District Komline- 18 Sanderson on February 7th in the technical review session 19 produced pilot test reports of the Komline press at three 20 locations , Cleveland, Beaumont , Texas , and Philadelphia. 21 IE you translate the District ' s 130 gallons -per 22 mintite into pounds of solid per hour, which is really a more m 23 significant number, you find that the District has specified 24 that the press will process 8.13 pounds of solid per hour, per 25 meter width of press . The pilot test reports submitted by 26 Komline-Sanderson indicate that with equivalent deconcentrati n bw M &_ Certified Court Reporter~ �.d (213) 637-3550 MACMITY. R 1RR1 I I. CRAM DA%VtiO`. .t- \11-1 MAN (714; 553-9»CO i 60 two 1 rates the press can process 158 gallons per minute per meter 2 in one case and 127 gallons per minute per meter in the other I=d 3 case. That 's running at the rate of 2 ,000 pounds of solid pe 4 hour per meter. MW 5 There is no rational basis , ladies and gentlem n , too 6 for Carollo Engineers or the District to determine that the Komline-Sanderson press is not qualified to bid. The E .P.A. 8 regulations under which this hearing is taking place specifie 9 that the bid shall be non-proprietary. I believe that an 10 admission by Mr. Howard this evening indicates that they 11 specified the machine according to the Winkle specification. 12 The E .P.A. regulations also require that the 13 Dsitrict should promote free and open competition. 14 Ladies and gentlemen , here we have a .r 15 manufacturer in the business for 30 years , was the only one 16 found to be suitable to provide Detroit with their 17 dewatering .facilities , recently was qualified in Nassau 18 County, New York, and they come to Orange County and they fin 19 without any rational basis that the engineers have determined 20 that their press is not qualified. 21 I am not going to attempt to describe the 22 technical defects which the District allegedly found. I thin Now 23 the record is clear on its face that those defects do not 24 exist , that Komline-Sanderson has met the specification despite MM 25 its proprietary nature . 26 One final comment I .would like to bring to you M & M Certified Court Reporters .a (213) 637-3550 MAC\1_'1 FY. B\RRrl7 CRAM. D-N%\S(1` & MH \I•\\ (714) 553-9400 61 1 attention. The Carter Company representative made a point 2 that the preconditioning tank allows a lower chemical cost . 3 Komline-Sanderson does not use a preconditioning tank, it use 4 a gravity feed. But with that gravity device they built a 5 better mousetrap. They use a separate clog and it is 6 very difficult to visualize, you know, without looking at the 7 drawings but they use 'a separate clog with a different weave 8 for the gravity section . This is the section where the sludg 9 is first nut on the belt . The other manufacturers used the 10 same clog throughout the press with the result that they 11 cannot get as much water through the clog in the gravity section 12 as they would like to for the reason that when that same clog 13 is passed through the pressure rollers the sludge tends to 14 extrude through the clog. The net result , by using a r 15 separate clog and a gravity feed the Komline-Sanderson press m+ 16 can process at greater rates and. -greater throughput than thei 17 comnetitors and we believe the pilot test reports bear that 18 out . 19 One final comment . Two presses were tested 20 by this District last year and it may not surprise you to 21 know that those are the only two presses who are qualified 22 by the engineers , the only two out of all those who submitted ~ 23 proposals . 24 I would also like fo point out that Komline- 25 Sanderson did request of the District permission to test thei 26 machine . That permission was denied, ladies and gentlemen, M & M Certified Court Reporters Iwo (213) 637-3550 .1V ACAI I F1 N-\RRFI I CRA`•L r NW\ O\ & \111 \1 \`. (714) 558-9-1-0 6? 1 denied. Now Komline-Sanderson submits a bid which meets 2 the specification, which was qualified in other major metropolitan 3 areas , and they are told by Orange County that "No, your pres. 4 is not going to be qualified. " _ 5 There is no way this Board, of course, can a 6 review that technical data. They haven ' t either. And you do }M 7 not have the technical expertise and background to do that . 8 But I think, ladies and gentlemen, as a matter of fairness 'you can take note of Mr. Howard's remark when he pointer? fi 9 s; 10 to the Winklepress . I would like the recorO to reflect 11 that he was pointing to the Winklepress when he said that 12 was the press that was specified. I think you can take note tow 13 too that the District denied permission for test and the only 14 two machines they tested were the ones qualified. We thinklaw 15 it is a basic element of fairness to promote competition 16 and ultimately to save the District and the taxpayers some 17 tax dollars because , after all , you are going to get better 18 bidding if there are more than two competitors ;gutting in their 19 bids . 20 We are not asking that you award the bid to 21 Komline-Sanderson for heaven ' s sake . All we are saying is 22 that we would like to be able to bid. We are not asking to 23 award the contract to Komline at this point , just ,give us 24 the opportunity to bid. 25 I have Tyr. Jim Louden, the Vice president or 26 Sales of Komline -Sanderson , who will be available to answer MCertified Court Reporters T„ (213) 637.3550 `1ACAL'I FY, BARRF1 1. CRAM. DAWSO N & "OF I.\I•\\ (714) 558-9400 63 -� 1 any technical questions . I thank you for your time . 2 CHAIRKAN FOX: Do we have any questions? 3 Walt , do you have any comments? 4 MR. HOWARD: Yes , Mr. Chairman. aw 5 Per. Chairman , the Komline-Sanderson Company di -e 6 submit additional information dated January 31st and February 7 6th which we discussed in a meeting with them on February 7th. 8 With regard to performance , it does appear 9 that the Komline two-meter press will be able to meet process add 10 requirements although this is not conclusive . This press was 11 not piloted on Orange County sludge. Komline is using a 12 direct scale factor which has not always been proved in other 13 scale-up comparisons which we are familiar with. 14 However, assuming the press could meet the 15 performance specifications, we did review in detail other point 16 of question. In general , Komline has agreed 'that they could 17 meet most of the details of the specifications such as using 18 stainless steel perforated drums , using stainless steel bolts 19 and .fastners , epoxy coating and these types of things includi g 20 providing a vortex mixer prior to their preconditioning drum 21 which they have offered. 22 Existing Komline press installations have had 23 problems with the belt tracking system and variant failures . 24 Komline has designed a press which would be provided with a 25 pneumatic belt tracking system. This was not indicated in 26 their original proposal and they came back in on - - I guess i MCertified Court Reporters F r (2131 617.3550 MACH I FY. BARRF 1 I. CRAM, DAWSM 3c \11 I \I 1\ (714) 558-9400 4 64 1 was last Thursday and they did agree that they could furnish Md 2 the press with this system, a pneumatic belt tracking system 3 and self-cleaning screening element . These were all not 4 originally indicated but they indicated they could build a icy 5 press . The belt tracking system would not be the modulating 6 type as specified. It would be a system which, when it got the notice of correction, would move , would not be i 8 continually planning to stay in position. �++ 9 The other items , though not standard today, i� 10 could be furnished by Komline . These are other items that 11 we disqualified them on. 12 We discussed actual operating experience of the 13 press with each of the required features and these were 14 additional items that they said they could furnish . Komline low 15 does not have actual. operating experience with many of the .r 16 other specifies'•. features . These are the additional items 17 that they agreed they could furnish. ar 18 Komline has recently been successful in gettin 19 an order for 12 belt presses in Detroit which they indicate 20 will be similar to the C . S . D .O.C . requirements . They showed 21 to us a drawing last Thursday dated January 25 , 1980 - - this 22 was after they had received the notice of being; disqualified - - - 23 that indicated the press that they said they were offering in 24 Detroit . This press drawing did show many of the features that 25 we have previously specified for which we felt were required 26 to meet C . S .D.O.C. requirements . M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MAC DUI FY. R\RRF[1, CR M. I)AWSO N & MI I M \N (714) 558-9400 65 1 I would like; to clarify for the Directors 2 that my reference to this schematic drawing of a belt filter 3low press was merely to indicate the difference between the gravity i� 4 dewatering area of this press as opposed to the predewatering 5 mechanical type dewatering area of the other type press . In 1 6 this category it is the Komline-Sanderson press as well {{ 7 as a Tait-Andritz press , the particular press which could I� 8 meet the specification and a Winklepress which Air. Ikola URI 9 mentioned. It is strictly a schematic drawing of a type 10 of dewatering system. 11 It is our judgement that the Komline-Sanderson 12 equipment should not be 'qualified due to a lack of proven 13 operating experience with many of the specified. features 14 that Komline has incorporated into their latest belt Dress 15 design which they are now offering. We would be very 16 concerned about an investment such as C. S.D.O. C . will be 17 making in belt presses which is not based on a good record 18 of operating experience for the equipment to be furnished 19 to C. S.D.O.C , specifications , 20 That 's the end of my comments , Mr.I Chairman . 21 CHAI RIIAN FOX : Thank You. 22 MR. IKOLA: With respect to the belt tracking 23 system, I think Mr. Howard will agree that the Komline-Sanders n 24 press operates at a very much lower belt speed and it is for 25 that reason we do not use continuous monitoring of the belt 26 tracking. Quite frankly, that saves on the wear of the belt . M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %1ACXI'1 EY BARRE:T1.CRAM. D•k%\'SO\ is %1H.`1:\\ (714) 553-4400 i 66 i 1 With respe tito the lack of. operating 1 ' 2 experience , we are in the same position I suppose as the r 3 rest of the manufacturers and I believe in effect that 's ! 4 exactly the problem we are having here this evening. I 5 MR. HENRY FRESE : Tor. Chairman , I would like to ask r 6 a question of Mr-Woodruff. f 7 Do we have to - - when these people submit a 8 bid and they might be considered a low bid but maybe one 9 or two of - the specifications in that total bid can be { 10 rejected; is that not correct? 11 MR. NICIODRUFF: We could reject it? . 1 12 MR. FRESE: Yes . 13 MR. WOODRUFF : Surely. If this specification were e' called for and Contractor A submits a bid s 14 for the con. tructio 15 job including equipment that didn ' t meet the specs or barely 16 could, then it could or likely would be rejected. 17 MR. FRESE : I. would. like the Roarc! to kind of 18 take consideration of this because we have listened to 19 testimony and we have turned the other two down and to male 20 it competitive I would like to have the Board reconsider r 21 to allow all three of the manufacturers who protested, allow; 22 them the opportunity to compete with the other two that Carol o 23 Engineers has submitted and allow these three individuals to 24 submit formal bids . 25 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: IN-ir. Chairman, I would. 26 support Mr. Frese on the last two because I think the last two M & IV1 Certified Court Reporters (213) 637 3550 \1 \C.\l'l FY R\RRIAT, CRAM. [)\\\tic�\ 4 \III \1 \\ (714) 5�8-9400 �.. 67 1 addressed the points raised specifically. I think Carter 2 did not address any of the 11 points mentioned, but I will ~ 3 support you on the last two very strongly. 4 CHAIRMAN FOX: Did you make a motion? I think at 5 this time a motion is really out of order. We want to close 6 the hearing and then we can take some action but to start 7 a debate while the hearing is still open would not be too 8 vise. 9 MR. EDISON MILLER: Just briefly maybe someone on 10 the staff can explain to me . I am referring back to nave 11 E-2 where they call their attention to PR79- 10 of the E . P .A. 12 memorandum and that is basically to eliminate not only ow' 13 administrative burdens but to pick bidders that are 14 responsive - - responsible on the equipment and also to 15 prevent bid shopping . I think the bidders here tonight 16 have gone to a great deal of trouble to at least present 17 their position and that seems to take them out of some of 1,3 this category. Is there something we are missing in the E . P .A. 19 memorandum that would explain more why these people are not 20 heing responsive? 21 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We can ' t hear . 22 CHAIRMAN FOX: fie was asking Tom a question and the 23 question was , is staff missing something relative to the 24 l: . P.A. regulations that have been referred to? 25 Tom, would you respond to that? 26 M & M Certified Court Reporters (21s) 63%-3550 MAC WI.FY. HARM 1 1.CRN.M. D-%%%SO` & `iFt.%11\ (714) 558-9.100 wow 68 vow 1 IMR. WOODRUFF: It is kind of difficult to respond 2 to precisely, Mr. biller. The E.P.A. guidelines are really 3 very vague and general in nature and they do not provide 4 anything which you can itemize out with any degree of 5 particularity. They are designed as an aid. The best V 6 reference is that the specs shall be Performance specificatio s - 7 where possible and in all other cases conformance to the 8 two brand names or equal requirement . That is kind of. a 9 standard bidding language as you have probably heard, some 10 technical jargon "or equal . " 11 In other words , if there is a general acceptan e 12 in the industry of a pitcher manufactured by Jones Company or 13 its equal . That's what they are referring to here . In 14 addition to plans and specs and description of the package , 15 the equipment sources submitted for qualification should be 16 included, but basically those are the guidelines . I don ' t 17 think that the engineering staff - - and maybe Mr. Howard 18 can comment , I don ' t think they particularly overlooked anyth ng 19 at all . -` 20 F; MIR. MILLER.: I guess what I am asking is is it - 21 really basically just to narrow down the field, to get rid 22 of unresponsive bidders? 23 MR. C100DRUPFF : No . I don ' t think there is any 24 =. inference whatsoever that there was any unresponsive , or 25 non-responsible , they all responded. They have been F' 26 responsive to the request for bids . I don ' t think there is = M & M Certified Court Reporters e.y (213) 637-3550 MACH I EY. B%RRE 1 I. CRAM, n\wSO N g 11PIAI \\ (714) 558-9,100 69 1 any inference at all that any of the manufacturers are 2 nonresponsible as we sometimes occasion in our construction 3 contracts . That is not the idea of the language. The langua e 4 and the purpose of the regs , it says the qualification 5 assistance may be used to ease the administrative burden 6 of determining responsible and responsive bidders on 7 equipment , namely that when we go out on the construction 8 awards in May we want the various contractors to be able to 9 come in and build those plants and use some filter Dresses 10 and we don ' t want the contractor to then come up with a 11 piece of equipment manufactured by "X'' that the District ? 12 engineer doesn 't really know about . That 's a very expensive 13 propisition to go to bid and to review the bids not only 14 to the District but to the individual contractors and, r15 therefore , the design purpose is to try to narrow down j� 16 the equipment so they all are shopping the same hardware prio 1 17 to the construction award on the assumption that anybody 18 that does it is responsible. 19 CHAIRMAN FOX: Jahn_. 20 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKEP : Along the lines that 21 .you are discussing , the two contractors that we have on the 22 approved list now, do they have to come back and go through 23 the same laundry that the others did? Were they nonresponsiv 24 as the people that we have before us with a laun(lry list of 25 things that they had to come back and correct , the stainless 26 steel, and so on and so forth? M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACAl LEY RARRIA-T. CRAM D WSM & %1FI IA\ (714) 558-9a00 70 MW K, 1 MR. WOODRUFF: No. They received a letter likewise 2 dated January 23rd and the letter to them simply said that r 3 they were deemed to be aualifed. ` .a 4 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER : So therefore they were 5 responsive then to the criteria that we established? 6 MR. WOODRUFF: That 's correct . ; 7 S.01E UNIDIENTIFIF.D SPEAKER: So therefore the Mao 8 other contractors could be rejected.- because they were not 9 responsive. Otherwise then they should all be allowed to bid a 10 and if you are saying that they were all responsive, then I 11 would go along with what Mr. Frese is talking about. 12 MR. WOODRUFF: I said, "responsible. " tow 13 SAME. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I know you said 14 •responsible . " You also said "responsive ," too. 15 MR. WOODRUFF: I don ' t make any judgement at all aw 16 that - - I didn 't make the determination . I didn 't make the F. 17 determination but there has been no inference or statement 18 that any bidders were not not responsive either because of °R 19 financial capability - - that was not an issue . 20 The Carollo Engineers ' report strictly goes 21 to whether the bid proposals in fact responded technically 22 to the called for specification . 23 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. I guess we ' re 24 getting involved in semantics. 25 MR. RYCKOFF : Mr . Chairman, can we close the hearing : 26 and go on? M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 537-3550 \1ACALA FY. B\RRI 1"I. CRMO. DAWSO�N Pc `1F1 I1AN (714) 558-9400 1 1IR. WOODRUFF : Yes;, go ahead and close the hearing. 2 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second . .. 3 CHAIRMAN FOX : 14e have a motion and a second to 4 close the hearing . All in favor? 5 THE ATTENDEES: Ave . 6 CHAIRIMAN FOX: Opposed? 7 The motion carries . 8 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAI;F.R: I am in the electronics 9 business and I am very active in bids and pronosals like vjw 10 this and if we allow these three people now , after they have 11 come back in , and two people were responsive and met the a, 12 qualifications to code back in I think we almost have an 13 obligation to let everybody else come back in whether they di. 14 it or not and to me that become a circus going around and 15 around and around. If you are not responsive the first 16 time , sorry, Charlie , you are out , and that ' s the way I have 17 to live in my business and I don ' t go along. with the 18 suggestion of letting one or two of these people who are here 19 tonight do it . I think they made the fair shake and we have 20 to go by our engineering staff that is here . They sent out 21 a bid , people bid back on it and either they were or were 22 not responsive on a technical basis . j 23 I am ready to support the staff in what they 24 did and would like to move that motion if there is a second. own 25 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Second.low � 26 CHAIRI'•LAN FOX : All those in favor. M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 M \c\f I 1-Y. R\RR! ri. CR VO DAWS0% & W1 \1 \N (714; 5f,8.9400 72 1 � 1 1 THE ATTENDEES: Aye . 2 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do we have discussion? 3 CHAIP.AMAN FOX: Okay. 4 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The motion then is to 5 deny this last - - 6 CHAIRMAN FOX: Sustain the staff report . 7 SAME UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I am doing to speak 8 against this in my part of the discussion. I think there 9 is really very little logic to considering people who didn ' t 10 file their protest in the prescribed period of time . We have 11 three people that were considered and we are not considering 12 the rest of them that didn ' t bother to file a protest so I 13 don ' t accept that logic at all . 14 Number two , according to what our attorney 15 laid out for us - - and I just went through it again a few 16 minutes ago , we can look at each case individually and in tha 17 regard again - - if there is a substitute motion coming from 18 Mr. Frese to consider the last two , I think that is within ou 19 right to do so . If it isn ' t , I am sure the Counsel will correct % 20 Lis . 21 AN UNIDENT MED SPEAKER: I would agree vlith Roger ' s 22 comments . I think that we have been asked here to make a 23 decision precluding companies from bidding on a multi -million 24 dollar project and we are being asked to keep these companies 25 out on the basis of very little information that was provided 26 to us . I don ' t think it is fair. M & M Certified Court Reporters (2131 637-3550 \tAC\l'l FY. BARItU 1 I.('R.\\1, g MFI \1 \\ (714) 558-9400 I- 73 r 1 CHAIRI!AN FOX: Okay. As I understand the motion - - 2 Don , you correct me , your motion was based on the fact that 3 the three protestors did not respond to the specs . 4 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: A motion to support the S staff recommendation. 6 CHAIR14AN FOX: Is there further discussion? 7 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes , Mr. Fox. I think th t 8 would be the normal process but our. specifications did includ 9 this period of protest so is it logical or is it possible 10 .for our engineers to reconsider and that is the whole process 11 that we are going through now. I think that was part of our �- 12 own specifications that we could reconsider. Our engineers 13 if they found justification of this whole process , they could i 14 have recognized another firm. 15 CHA I R1"4AN FOX : ' Let Tom respond to that . 16 MR. h1OODRUFF : Well , as far as the protest period, I- 17 the protest period is required by the Federal Code and 18 the E . P .A. guidelines bu t we did put out in our own - - in 19 everything , the notice inviting the proposals as well as the j 20 direct letter notice of qualification or disqualification 21 the specification advising that there was a protest period. �- 22 That is precisely why we are here tonight is because they, i 23 fact responded by letter saying, "I want a reevaluation. " 24 In the interim step or in between the notices 25 of disqualification and this hearing tonight , of course, as 26 you heard, there was a very technical staff and bidder r rM CAL. M Certified Court Reporters ow (213) 637-3550 MAC%L'I FY. BAR ItFIf. CR VM. DAt\Sn� & MFI.MAN (714) 518-9400 I 74 1 conference whereby they went through the material in detail �. 2 and your consulting engineers did in fact then take - - and „r 3 made some adjustments . I think that has become clear in the record tonight that several of these manufacturers did effect . vely 4 `w` 5 change their proposal at the time of the conference either Thursday afternoon or Monday and did indicate to the engineer .. 6 that they, by making changes , that they could comply with the specs in several or a few or ---everaI or most of the deficiencies . 8 But then the engineers for other reasons have recommended - - 9 10 continued to recommend disqualification primarily based. _ on lack of experience. IML 11 ` AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could we have further 12 clarification of the protest period? It would be my "" 13 interpretation that the protest period is if there has indeed 14 15 been any wrong-doing or errors on the Part of the staff. Is 16 that not the reason for the protest period, to protest a. 17 judgemental decision? 18 MR. WOODRUFF : Well , okay, but I would draw the 19 distinction between a judgemental decision, i ..e. , which is low 20 exactly what the engineers have done and error on the part 21 of the staff. I don' t see any error along the way. A judgement has been made and now you are being asked to22 _ 23 review the judgement of your consulting engineer. 24 M.R. MILLER: Just a quick point of clarification . ' 25 What you are telling us is that the two accepted bidders met 26 all of the qualifications and specifications? lore are not tal. ing M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 %&AC.XtTFY. BARRE i 1. CR \%1. D•\\VS0\ ,& Mf I \t\N (714) 553-9400 4 r. ed 75 1 degrees of pregnancy or anything like that? 2 MR. WOODRUFF : Ashbrook Simon Hartley and Tait-Andr' tz 3 are the two who qualified. 4 MR. 14ILLER: The two qualified companies met all th _ 5 qualifications? 6 MR. HOWARD: Well , of course they have furnished 7 a piece of equipment and they have to meet the specification_ 8 when they furnish the equipment but in our opinion they have god 9 the capability of meeting the technical specifications and th y 10 have the experience with their previously operating installations . 11 i t a MR.VARDOULIS: Mr. Chairman, on the same point an 't 12 issue was raised regarding two firms being invited to test th it F-- 13 equipment, their presses on-site and these happen to be the 14 only two that were qualified in this procedure and I guess y 15 I would ask - - Ray probably would be the appropriate one - t; 16 to enlighten us on that . '{ 7•; 17 MR. LEWIS: Well , contrary to the statements made , .� 18 the two qualified presses were not tested here. We tested 19 : four machines . Two of the machines did not respond to the 20 prequalification specifications -- one did, I am sorry. Only 21 one of the four that were on-site here resronded to the 22 pre qualification specifications . The two that were_ q p qualified No` 23 were not tested at this site. They were tested through the 24 LA/OMA work in L .A. County. 25 MR. RYCKOFF: Mr. Chairman , can we put the matter t = 26 a vote and resolve it? M & M Certified Court Reporters r, (213) 637-3550 \1.\C•\l l FY. BARRETr. CRAM. DAWSON & MF1A1•\` (714) 558-9400 76 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is the protest period f 2 which Mr. Holt tried to clarify , which I think was an 3 excellent issue to raise on his part - - is the protest period 4 a period in which these individual companies can use to clari y � •s 5 and/or revise their initial input? - 6 MR. WOODRUFF: I would say yes . 7 MR. LE�VIS: May I read from the minutes of the - - '�' 8 and this was a prepared statement that was given to all three 9 protestants at the technical review meetings held last Thursd y Mae 10 and this Monday. 11 "The technical review meeting is scheduled 12 to allow you to submit any additional information which you a- 13 wish to be considered before the formal protest hearing to 14 be held before the District 's Board of. Directors . Let me .d 15 assure you that after today' s meeting" - - this is myself. 16 speaking, "I.f. you furnish additional information that does 17 satisfy the District staff and consulting engineers that your 18 equipment will meet the District 's preq ualif.ication 19 specifications , as Chief Engineer for the Districts , I will 20 not hesitate to recommend to the Directors at the February 21 13th meeting that we have found your equipment - - that your 22 equipment does qualify to submit proposals to the prospective r 23 bidders on job number P2 -24-2 . If the information submitted 24 in our opinion still does not qualify your equipment for this f � E 25 job , then the• recommendation will be to sustain the original 26 position. " r,. M & M Certified Court Reporters r�r (213) 637-3550 M AC.\Ul r.Y. R\RR1-11• CRAM. DAWSO N g 461H \1.\\ (714) 558-9400 A WM 77 7 1 Sa That was made clear to every one of the 2 protestants at the technical review meeting held. 3 MR. VARDOULIS: Mr. Chairman , based on the innut 4 you do not choose then to change your mind? 5 DER. LE►VIS : That is correct . i • r xM 6 AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Call for the question. 7 CHAIRMN FOX: The motion now is to sustain the 8 engineering staff's recommendation. 9 All those in favor? 10 THE ATTENDEES : Aye „r 11 CHAIR14AN FOX: Opposed? 12 THE ATTENDEES: Aye . 13 CHAIRMAN FOX: Let' s have a roll call . Vie; 14 THE CLERK: District 1 . 15 Sharp? „d 16 MR. SHARP : Aye . 17 THE CLERK: Ward? 18 MR. WARD: No . 19 THE CLERK: Anthony? 20 Hutchison? ' �.r 21 MR. HUTCHISON : Yes . 22 THE CLERK: District 2 . 23 Wedaa? 24 �- e.i PIR. WEDAA: Yes . 25 THE CLERK: Holt? 26 MR. HOLT : Yes . M & M Certified Court Reporters art (213) 637-3550 M-XCAI'I FY. BARRF11. CRAM. D,4\\SOS & %IF I,MAN (714) 558-9400 78 ,e 1 THE CLERK: Fox? 2 MR. FOX: Yes . 3 THE CLERK : Houston? 4 MR. HOUSTON : No. 5 THE CLERK : Miller? 6 14R. MILLER: Yes . 7 THE CLERK: Perry? 8 Roget? 9 MR. ' ROGET: Yes . 10 THE CLERK: Roth? 11 Smith? 12 Stanton? 13 Winters? 14 MR. WINTERS: No. BMW 15 THE CLERK: Yamamoto? Not 16 PUR. YAPtA iOTO : No. 17 THE CLERK: District 3. 18 Frese? 19 MR. FRESE : No . .d 20 THE CLERK: Rovan? 21 MR. ROI?'AN : Yes . } 22 THE CLERK : Adler? Mel 23 14R. ADLER: Yes . 24 THE CLERK: Bailey? 25 Culver? 26 Finlayson? M & M Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACA(TFY. RNJtJ2f?l-r. CRAM. DA\VS0N & %1FI.N,IAN (714) 558-9400 79 1 MR. FINLAYSON: Yes . 2 THE CLERK: Graham? Imw 3 MS. GRAHAM: No. 4 THE CLERK: Le Baron? 5 MR. Le BARON: No. # 6 THE CLERK: Reese? 7 MR. REESE: Yes . 8 THE CLERK: Roth? 9 Seitz? Nei r 10 11R. SEITZ : Yes . a d, 11 THE CLERK: Sylvia? 12 MR, SYLVIA: Yes . 13 THE CLERK : Weishaunt? 14 1lieder? ; b. 15 Winters? 16 MR. WINTERS: No. 17 THE CLERK: Yamamoto? r 4k= 18 MR. YAMAMOTO: No. �4 19 THE CLERK: District 5 . `t 20 Rycko.ff? 21 MR. RYCKOFF: No. 22 THE CLERK: Strauss? 23 MR. STRAUSS: No. 24 ` THE CLERK: Riley? 25 MR. RILEY: Yes . 26 THE CLERK: District 6 . t. �. M & M r Certified Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 MACAUI FY, BARRE I-r,CRA`I. DAWSON & \,IFI `IA\ (714) 558-9400 � .;:H.,�a. .i-K � .:^F -x a iu -cdt.ire E..._4 y ,�k:vn.F'.. S...ram wa�'�;r"ttt !�A:.�.,. tn;�$e�zu,�' #.'p• � ';.a!+;+d'�t."��`f"w�ax�+.9.ian—t3.�a ru w•=;cv w 'ram-.=� zti I Ryckoff? kid 2 MR. RYCKOFF: No. 3 THE CLERK: Hutchison? 4 MR. HUTCHISON: Yes . 5 THE CLERK: Anthony? 6 District 7 . 7 Smith? 8 Williams? 9 Miller? 10 MR. MILLER: Yes . 11 THE CLERK: Vardoulis? 12 MR. VARDOU.LIS : Yes . 13 THE CLERK: Wahner? •� 14 MR. WAFINER: Yes . 15 THE CLERK: Ward? (� 16 MR. WARD: No . i 17 THE CLERK: i+lelsh? 18 District 11 . 19 Pattinson? 20 PdacAllister? 21 MR, MacALLISTER: Yes . 22 THE CLERK: lVieder? 23 MR. WOODRUFF: The vote was four distracts in 24 support , one. district in opposition. District 5 and District 25 11 have no vote - - they have a vote, strike that . District 26 6 has a one/one tie vote and District 11 has only one vote v • M & M Certified Court Reporters 3550 N1ACA1'I FY. RARR1=1-I C•RA%1. 1)A%1 e0\ A %I F I %I NN (714) 558-9400 81 1 CHAIRMAN FOX: The motion Carrie.' . 2 3 - 4 5 .— 6 7 8 9 10 11 12. J 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 _. 20 21 22 23 24 25 . 26 i i M & M Certifted Court Reporters (213) 637-3550 S1AC.\I'I FY. R\RRI 1 1. CR\M. I)AWSO\ g %II 1 %I \% (714) 558-9100 1 , 2 3 4 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE � � r 5 i . �, 6 I , Patrici? J. Snr.d.ers a Shorthand 7 Reporter and a Notary Public of the State of California with i 8 principal office in the County of Orange , do hereby certify 9 that the foregoing proceeding was written by me in Stenotyty , 10 and transcribed into typewriting and that the foregoing is a 11 true and correct copy of my shorthand notes thereof. r ' 12 13 i 14 ,1 15 OFFICIAL SEAL 16 Dated . March 6 1980 (may PATRICIA J SANDERS ra � ii '10 riY PUSLiC - Cal_t`CpNt11 �> LIM-— ORANSE CC1IXTY 17 MY C-wn. ezpi7CS NOV 12. W.] , _ . a 18 I i 19 i 20 21 22 r 23 24 s 25 26 12171 437 1327 MACAULEY tlr MANNING SANTA AN• CALIF 17141 Sig 9a00 r r PM Fm pw on WK ON vm wo IV off q. lom