Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-02-08 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O.SOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 927284127 �uc�cw fir 10844 ELLIS,FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (7141 962-2411 February 1, 1989 NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING DISTRICTS NOS, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 & 14 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1989 - 7 :30 P .M. 10844 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, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, will be held at the above hour and date. secretary Tentatively-Scheduled Upcoming Meetings: SELECT COMMITTEE TO - Thursday, February 9th, at 5: 30 p.m. ADVISE THE STAFF FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE - Wednesday, February 15th, at 5: 30 p.m. BUILDING COMMITTEE - Thursday, February 16th, at 5: 30 p.m. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - Wednesday, February 22nd, at 5: 30 p.m. .,� SELECT COMMITTEE TO - Thursday, February 23rd, at 5: 30 p.m. ADVISE THE STAFF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS a ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA PA BO%81P FW WAIN VW .CALIFORNIA B 92)28-81I. 1 11 ELLI9 AVENUE �/ F TAW VALLEY.CAIYORN1A 92JOB.MIE 17141Wb 910 0141962.2411 JOINT BOARD AND EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING DATES Joint Board Meetings Executive Committee Meetings February Feb 08, 1989 Feb 22, 1989 March Mar 08, 1989 Mar 22, 1989 April Apr 12, 1989 Apr 26 , 1989 May May 10, 1989 May 24, 1989 June Jun 14, 1989 Jun 28 , 1989 July Jul 12, 1989 Jul 26, 1989 August Aug 09, 1989 None Scheduled September Sep 13, 1989 Sep 27, 1989 October Oct 11, 1989 Oct 25, 1989 November Nov 08, 1969 None Scheduled December Dec 13, -1989 None Scheduled January Jan 10, 1990 Jan 24, 1.990 February Feb 14, 1990 Feb 28, 1990 BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts P.O. Box 8127.40844 Ellis Avenue of Orange County,California fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Telephone:(714)962-2411 JOINT BOARDS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 8, 1989 - 7:30 P .M. In accor aace with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2, this agenda is posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All written materials relating to each agenda item are available for public inspection in the Office of the Board Secretary. In the event any matter not listed on this agenda is proposed to be submitted to the Boards for discussion and/or action, it will be done in compliance with Section 54954.2, or as set forth on a supplemental agenda posted not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date. (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll call ( 3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tem, if necessary (4) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts of member agencies relating to appointment of Directors, if any. (See listing in Board Meeting folders ) (5) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards on specific agenda items or matters of general interest should do so at this time. As determined by the Chairman, speakers may be deferred until the specific item is taken for discussion and remarks may be limited to five minutes . (6 ) The. Joint. Chairman, General manager and General Counsel. present verbal reports on miscellaneous matters of general interest to the Directors. These reports are for information only and require no action by the Directors. (a) Report of Joint Chairman (b) Report of General Manager (c) Report of General Counsel �V 2/08/89 (7) EACH DISTRICT ACTIN no corrections or amendments are made, the following minutes will be deemed approved as lam/ mailed and be so ordered by the Chairman: District 1 - January 11, 1989 regular District 2 - January 11, 1989 regular District 3 - January 11, 1989 regular and January 26, 1989 adjourned District 5 - January 11, 1989 regular District 6 - January 11, 1989 regular District 7 - January 11, 1989 regular District 11 - January 11, 1989 regular District 13 - January 11, 1989 regular District 14 - January 11, 1989 regular (8) ALL DISTRICTS ConsiTer-aTio-n 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" 1/04/89 1/18/89 ALL DISTRICTS Joint Operating Fund - $ 765,696.74 $ 666 ,750 .46 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 4,232,406 .62 81,467 . 71 Joint Working Capital Fund - 108,789 .09 111 ,472.71 Self-Funded Insurance Funds - 10,959 .41 6 ,216.51 DISTRICT NO. 1 - 99 .80 1,083, 305 . 91 DISTRICT NO. 2 - 697 ,073 .02 1,953,827 . 94 DISTRICT NO. 3 - 102,624 .18 2,118,970.83 DISTRICT NO. 5 - 15,769 .73 21 ,079 .84 DISTRICT NO. 6 - 13,961.00 42.68 DISTRICT NO. 7 _ _ - 5, 671 .27 12,223 .06 DISTRICT N Il, - - - 8,626 .51 - 2-2,349 .91 .: -DISTRICT No. 3 _. . _ - -0- 88. 32 DISTRICT NO. 14 - 2, 313.00 68. 64 DISTRICTS NOS . 5 & 6 JOINT - - 43 ,995 .89 23 ,713 .62 DISTRICTS NOS. 6 & 7 JOINT - 3 ,102.22 -0- DISTRICTS NOS. 7 & 14 JOINT 4,569 .40 171.18 $6,015,657 .88 $6,101 ,749 . 32 -2- 2/08/89 (9 ) CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS 9(a) THROUGH 9(p) All matters placed on 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. The 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, as follows: ALL DISTRICTS (a) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 5 to the plans and specifications for Administration Building Addition, Job No. J-7-4, authorizing an addition of $11,774.00 to the contract with J. R. Roberts Corp. for removal of brick veneer and stucco from existing buildings and for replacement of laboratory sidewalk. See page C. (b) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 12 to the plans and specifications for Ocean Outfall Booster Station "C" at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-15, authorizing an addition of $69,267 .00 to the contract with Advanco Contructors, Inc. for three items of additional work including the attachment of intake vent protective screens to five centrifugal ventilation fans to prevent internal damage from debris, upgrading the welding and testing required on pump suction inlet lines for better seismic strength, and modification of an existing 42-inch VCP influent sewer manhole; and granting a time extension of six calendar days for completion of said additional work. See page "D" -3- 2/08/89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS (CONSENT CALENDAR Continued) (c) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 14 to the plans and specifications for Headworks No. 2 at Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-20, l I and Demolition of Digesters Nos. 1, 2 and 4; �••✓ Replacement of Boiler; Piping Cleanouts; and Grading and Paving at Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-31, authorizing an addition of $19,405.56 to the contract with Aiewit Pacific Co. for additional chemical drain piping, modifications to strengthen cable tray supports for anticipated future loadings, and modifications to boiler vent stack to comply with SCAQMD monitoring requirements. See page .'E.' (d) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-8, approving plans and specifications for new Central Laboratory, Job No. J-17, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (Tentative bid date is March 21, 1989) . See page "F" (e) Consideration of the following actions relative to warehouse and Maintenance Building and Oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20: (1 ) Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 1 to the plans and specifications for said project transmitting supplemental detailed specifications and making minor technical clarifications. (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-9, receiving and filing bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for said project to J. R. Roberts Corp. in the total amount of $3,266,000.00. See page "G" (f) Consideration of the following actions relative to Installation of waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Job No. J-21: (1) Consideration of motion rescinding the Boards- action of November 18, 1987 authorizing staff to negotiate an agreement for Purchase of Three waste Digester Gas Flares for use at Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 (Specification No. M-031) for a total amount not to exceed $350,000.00 (2) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to negotiate and issue a purchase order to Sur-Lite Corporation for Purchase of Five waste Digester Gas Flares, Job No. J-21A, for an amount not to exceed $284,216 .00 plus sales : tax. (3) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-10, approving plans and specifications for Installation of Waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Job No. J-21 , and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (Tentative bid date is April 18, 1989) . See page "H" _4_ 2/08/89 (9) ALL DISTRICTS (CONSENT CALENDAR Continued) (g) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-11, approving �..✓ plans and specifications for Sludge Handling Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-34-2, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids, subject to receipt of Permit to Construct from_ SCAQMD. See page "I" (h) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to issue purchase orders to Continental Graphics in a maximum amount not to exceed $41,500.00 plus tax for printing the draft Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan; and to Sierra Copy in a maximum amount not to exceed $3,995.00 plus tax for printing the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on the Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan. (i) Consideration of motion approving one-year renewal agreement with CPT Corporation, or its successor entity, for maintenance and periodic system upgrades of the Districts' office automation system beginning February 13, 1989 , for a total amount not to exceed $33,000 .00 plus tax. �./ (j ) Consideration of motion approving Amendment No. 2 to Agreement..for Removal, Processing and Disposal of Sewage Solids with Recyc, Inc. , providing for a one-year extension of the term of said agreement from February 12, 1989 to February 11, 2990, with no change in the current agreement provisions and cost ($380.00 per truck load) . (k) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-12, amending Resolution No. 88-44, authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with CALTRANS to include Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall, Job No. J-22, in CALTRANS' Pacific Coast Highway improvements, providing for an increase in the estimated cost of the Districts ' portion of the construction project from $1,100,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00, to reflect the final estimate by the CALTRANS' engineers. See page "J" DISTRICT 2 (1) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-13-2, approving plans and specifications for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, v.J Contract No. 2-14R, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids (Tentative bid date is April 18, 1989) . See page "R" -5- 2/08/89 (9 ) DISTRICT 2 (CONSENT CALENDAR Continued) (m) Consideration of the following actions relative to the project for construction of Portion of Euclid Interceptor Sewer, between Edinger Avenue and Lampson Avenue, Contract No. 2-26-2, and South Anaheim Relief Sewer, on Ball Road between Euclid Street and Walnut Street, Contract No. 2-27: (1 ) Consideration of motion approving Addendum - No. 1 to the plans and specifications for said project, changing the bid date from January 17, 1989 to February 21, 1989. (2) Consideration of motion approving Addendum No. 2 to the plans and specifications for said project, providing for the inclusion of City of Garden Grove drainage improvements. ( 3) Consideration of motion authorizing the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with Willdan Associates to provide for revisions in the sewer alignment to accommodate City of Garden Grove drainage improvements on Nelson Street between Pearl Street and Stanford Avenue and traffic control revisions requested by the City of Santa Ana. DISTRICTS 5 6 6 (n) Consideration of the following actions relative to Addendum No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with Robert Hein, William Frost and Associates for design and construction services required for Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Contract No. 5-29, providing for additional services required, including additional traffic control plans, for the realignment of the southerly force main between the Rocky Point Pump Station and Dover Drive to avoid undisclosed utilities: (1) Consideration of motion to receive, file and approve the Selection Committee certification of the final negotiated fee for said services. See page "L" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-14, approving Addendum No. 3 to said agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for said services, on an hourly-rate basis for labor including overhead and direct expenses, for a total amount not to exceed $11,000.00, increasing �..✓ the total authorized compensation from $139 ,011.00 to an amount not to exceed $150,011.00. See page "M" , -6- 2/08/89 (9 ) DISTRICT 5 (CONSENT CALENDAR Continued) (a) Consideration of the following actions relative to Rehabilitation of Balboa Trunk Sewer, between Lido Pump Station at Short Street and "A" Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-27 : (1) Consideration of motion approving Change Order No. 1 to the plans and specifications for said project authorizing a total deduction of $3,000.00 from the contract with Coastline Construction Company, granting a time extension of 21 calendar days due to delays resulting from District revisions to the plans, specifications and shop drawing relative to the manhole rings, covers and coating system, and assessing liquidated damages at the rate of $500/day for completing the project six days late. See page "N" (2) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-15-5, accepting said contract as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. See page 110 `..� (p) Consideration of Resolution No. 89-16-5 , approving Agreement with the City of Newport Beach relative to a cooperative project to include Improvements to Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer, Phase I, Contract No. 5-34-1, in the City's road improvement project on Pacific Coast Highway. See page "P" END OF CONSENT CALENDAR ( 10) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of action on items deleted from Consent Calendar, if any -7- 2/08/89 (11) ALL DISTRICTS Closed Session: During the course of conducting the usiness set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Boards, the Chairman may convene the Boards in closed session to consider matters of pending or potential litigation, or personnel matters, pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956 .9 or 54957.6 . Reports relating to (a) purchase and sale of real property; (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employee compensation; or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Boards during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as final actions are taken by the Directors on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. (a) Convene in closed session, if necessary (b) Reconvene in regular session (c) Consideration of action, if any, on matters considered in closed session. (12) ALL DISTRICTS 0 he�ness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (13 ) DISTRICT 2 O EH---Su— er business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (14) DISTRICT 2 Con�tion of motion to adjourn (15 ) D STz RIc I O er usiness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (16 ) DISTRICT 5 Consideration of motion to adjourn (17 ) DISTRICT 6 oth— eeriness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any - (18) DISTRICT 6 consi eration of motion to adjourn ( 19 ) DISTRICT 7 �+✓ other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any -8- .� 2/08/89 (20) DISTRICT 7 Conssi eration of motion to adjourn (21) DISTRICT 13 OEE—er—BEF-iness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (22) DISTRICT 13 ConsIderaEion of motion to adjourn (23) DISTRICT 14 OEher BusTness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (24) DISTRICT 14 Conte e�raflon of motion to adjourn (25) DISTRICT 3 Con�tion of the action on items relative to proposed Ordinance No. 309, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges: See page I.Q. (a) Report of General Counsel re proposed Ordinance No. 309 (b) Consideration of motion to read said Ordinance No. 309 by title only, and waive reading of entire ordinance (must be adopted by unanimous vote of Directors present) . `..� (c) Consideration of motion to introduce said Ordinance No. 309 and pass to second reading on March 8, 1989. (26) DISTRICT 3 O h—f ei u-siness and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any (27) DISTRICT 3 Con�tion of motion to adjourn (28) DISTRICT 11 Consideration of the following actions relative to the District's master planned conveyance facilities: (1) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report dated February 1, 1989 on recommended actions to expedite implementation of needed master planned Slater Avenue Pump Station sewage system improvements for serving the northwest portion of District 11 (Copy enclosed with Directors- agenda material) . (2) Consideration"oY motion authorizing the Selection Committee to solicit proposals from qualified engineering firms for preparation of Phase I Preliminary Project Report for Slater Avenue Pump Station Sewage System Improvements and to negotiate a professional services agreement for said work for consideration by the Board. (3) Consideration of motion authorizing staff to negotiate an agreement with General Telephone Company for the necessary right-of-way needed for the Slater Avenue Pump Station project for consideration by the Board. -9- 2/08/89 (29) DISTRICT 11 OfHer business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any ( 30) DISTRICT 11 Considera ion of motion to adjourn ( 31 ) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of the appeal of Universal Circuits #1 regarding staff denial of their request not to be classified as a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company pursuant to federal EPA regulations, in connection with Industrial Waste Permit No. 1-1-346 : (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file said appeal filed by Pinto a Gromet, Attorneys At Law, dated December 8, 1988, on behalf of Universal Circuits #1 (Copy included in Staff Report enclosed with Directors ' agenda material) . (b) verbal staff report (c) Consideration of motion to receive and file Staff Report dated February 2, 1989 regarding Universal Circuits #1 appeal of CVS status (Copy enclosed with Directors' agenda material) . (d) Response by Universal Circuits #1 (a) Discussion (f) Consideration of action on appeal of Universal Circuits #1 ( 32) DISTRICT 1 Other business and communications or supplemental agenda items, if any ( 33 ) DISTRICT 1 Consideration of motion to adjourn -10- MANAGERS AGENDA REPORT County Sanitation Districts P.O. Box 8127• 108" Ellis Avenue of Orange County,California Fountain Valley,CA 9272"'!27 Telephone;(714)962-2411 JOINT BOARDS Meeting Date February 8, 1989 at 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. �s ALL DISTRICTS 9(a): APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 TO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITION, JOB NO. J-7-4. Job No. J-74, Administration Building Addition, includes the construction of a new administration building facility and remodeling of the existing administration building, addition of two new parking areas and associated work at a cost of approximately $3.6 million. Change Order No. 5 adds $11,774.00 to the contract with J. R. Roberts Corp. The first two items include removal and disposal of brick veneer and removal and disposal of existing stucco from the exterior of the existing administration building to accommodate joining of the new south wing for an additional cost of $9,912.00. This work was not included in the contract plans but subsequently requested by the architect. The third itern is replacement of a sidewalk on the south side of the laboratory at a cost of $1,862.00. Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 5 adding $11,774.00 to the contract with J. R. Roberts Corp. There is no contract time extension- . -. . .. associated with this work. 9(b) : APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 12 FOR OCEAN OUTFALL BOOSTER STATION "C" AT PLANT NO. 2, JOB NO. J-15. .� The master-planned Ocean Outfall Booster Station "C" at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-15 is nearing completion. The new $28.5 million booster station complex is being built under several contracts. It includes five pumps, each capable of -1- February 8, 1989 pumping 120 mgd to the outfall . The capacity of the station is 480 mgd with four pumps operating (the fifth pump is a standby, spare pump). Change Order No. 12 adds $69,267.00 to the contract. The first Item is the attachment of 42-inch galvanized intake vent protective screens to the five centrifugal ventilation fans located in the lower floor area to prevent debris from damaging fans, at a cost of $4,369.00. The second item upgraded welding and weld testing for assured quality in the fabrication of the five pump suction inlet liners for added seismic strength, at a cost of $60,000.00. The third Item is modification to an existing 42-inch VCP influent sewer manhole due to a discrepancy in elevation between actual and the design plans, at a cost of $4,898.00. Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 12 for a net addition of $69,267.00 and six calendar days to the contract with Advanco Constructors, Inc. 9(c): APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 14 TO HEADWORKS NO. 2 AT PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. P1- ; AND DEMOLITION OF DI E T R N 1 AND 4• REPLACEMENT OF BOILER; PIPING LEANOUT • AND RADING AND PAVING AT PLANT N 1, JOB NO. P1- 1. Job No. P1-20, Headworks No. 2 at Plant No. 1; and Job No. P1-31, Demolition of Digesters No. 1, 2 and 4; Replacement of Boiler, Piping Cleanouts; and Grading and Paving at Plant No. 1, Includes the construction of a new 140 million gallon per day influent pumping plant and preliminary treatment facilities at a cost of $31,458,000.00, the largest single project ever awarded by the Districts. Change Order No. 14 adds $19,405.56 to the contract. This change order includes two items for Job No. P1-20 and one item for No. P1-31. Job No. P1-20: Item No. 1 is the addition of 22 feet each of 18-inch ductile iron polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 6-inch PVC chemical drain piping systems in Tunnel No. 1, necessary to drain the sump, at a cost of $14,919.84. Item No. 2 is the strengthening of supports for the cable tray systems in Tunnels Nos. 1 through 4 to accommodate anticipated future cable loads, at a cost of $1,396.12. Job No. P1-31: Item No. 3, in the amount of $3,089.60, is to add sample ports too the�ler-vent stack to comply with SCAOMD monitoring requirements. The stack's outer shell thickness was also increased to a heavier gauge material in order to satisfy the self-supporting requirement that was originally specified. Staff recommends approval of Change Order No. 14 adding $19,405.56 to the contract with Kiewit Pacific Company. There is no contract time extension associated with this work. 9(d): APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CENTRAL LABORATORY, JOB NO. J-17. The plans and specifications for a new Central Laboratory, Job No. J-17, have been completed by Boyle Engineering Corporation. The Directors awarded the design contract in August 1986, and modified the contract in 1987 changing the size and location of the laboratory to accommodate the identified laboratory and \/ industrial waste management needs, and the master-planned support facilities -2- February 8, 1989 siting considerations. Space originally envisioned for future use has been �..i fully developed and the building has also been designed to accommodate group tours as part of our public information program. The building will be a two-story steel frame and stucco structure of approximately 36,000 square feet and will contain the central laboratory facilities and staff, and the industrial waste field staff and industrial waste sample processing facilities. The engineer's final estimate is $7,400,000. Construction is scheduled for ` completion in the summer of 1990. Staff recommends approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization for the General Manager to establish the bid date for Job No. J-17 (a tentative bid date of March 21, 1989 is scheduled). 9(e): APPROVAL OF ADDENDUM NO. 1 AND AWARD WAREHOUSE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND OIL STORAGE AND DISPENSING IMPROVEMENTS, JOB NO. J- 0. The ongoing construction of treatment facilities at Plant No. 1 is eliminating large areas previously used for storage in the plant and some old maintenance shops and offices. In October, the Directors approved plans and specifications for Warehouse and Maintenance Building and oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20. This project provides additional vehicle storage shed space, an oil storage and dispensing dock, additional maintenance shops and office space as well as added storage for warehouse items and reusable equipment. The project includes four three-sided warehouse storage sheds with a .i total of approximately 37,000 square feet, two shop buildings totaling 22,700 square feet with maintenance employee locker rooms and showers, a lunch/training roam, offices for shop supervisors, a three-sided vehicle storage shed of about 9,000 square feet, and the oil storage and dispensing dock of about 3,000 square feet. The eight new structures are located in the warehouse and shop complex area in the northwest corner of the plant and are part of the master-planned support facilities previously approved by the Boards. (1) Addendum No. 1 Addendum No. 1 to the Plans and Specifications for Warehouse and Maintenance Building and Oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20, adds supplemental specifications for millwork, doors, fencing, fixtures, finishes and utility piping and adds miscellaneous clarification of technical details including the door identification schedule. Staff recommends approval of Addendum No. 1. (2) Award of Job No. J-20 On January 17, 1989, six bids were received for Warehouse and Maintenance Building and Oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20. The bids range from a high of $4,625,000.00 to a low of $3,266,000.00 submitted by J. R. Roberts Corp. A complete bid tabulation is attached to the agenda. -3- February 8, 1969 Staff received an estimate of $1,400,000 to $1,600,000 from Pulaski and Arita, the consulting architect for this project. When plans and specifications were approved by the Directors in October, the estimate was $2,000,000. The receipt of six bids, the lowest by an on-site contractor, clearly indicates the discrepancy between the estimate and the low bid and is the result of poor estimating, not high bid prices, as the fairly well clustered bids demonstrate. Staff's review following the receipt of the bids indicates that the consulting architect apparently omitted the extensive site and foundation work necessary for this project. Staff therefore recommends award to J. R. Roberts Corp. for their low bid amount of $3,266,000.00. 9(f): REVISING AUTHORIZATION FOR PURCHASE AND CONSTRUCTION OF WASTE DIGESTER GAS FLARE FACILITIES AT PLANTS1 AND 2. JOBS N . J-21 AND J-21A. In November 1987, the Boards authorized staff to negotiate with Sur-Lite Corporation for the purchase of one additional waste digester gas flare at Plant No. 2 to handle rising volumes of digester gas, and two replacement flares for Plant No. 1, Specification No. M-031, at a cost not to exceed $350,000. In addition, the Boards authorized staff to negotiate agreements with on-site contractors for installation of said equipment, for consideration by the Boards. Digester gas is a natural by-product of the sewage treatment process and is a tremendously valuable resource that we use as an energy source to power our �. engines. However, we cannot presently use all of the gas and must flare (burn) gas to the atmosphere. When the proposed Central Power Generation Systems are constructed and operational , in three to four years, we will be able to utilize all of the digester gas but the flares will still be needed in times of system maintenance or equipment malfunction. In the meantime, the consulting engineers preparing plans and specifications for expanding our Plant No. 1 sludge handling facilities have determined that two additional flares are needed to handle future sludge digester gas production from the six new digesters being installed under Job No. P1-34-1, presently under design. The facilities must be permitted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which has indicated that the permit to construct the six additional digesters to be constructed under Job No. P1-34-1 will be conditioned to require the new flares. Sur-Lite manufactures state-of-the-art equipment known by the Districts to be able to consistently meet SCAQMD requirements. Although there are other manufacturers of flares, they are more costly and have not demonstrated that they can adequately and consistently handle digester gas and satisfy current SCAQMO requirements. In addition-to purchase of the flares,-_ it. is necessary to engage a contractor for site work, foundation and piping, to supply the sophisticated control system necessary to meet the SCAQMD operational and monitoring requirements, and installation work. Plans and specifications for this work have been completed. Staff is therefore recommending that the November 1987 action authorizing purchase and installation of three digester gas flares from Sur-Lite Corporation (Specification No. M-031) be rescinded and replaced with the following actions: -4- February 8, 1989 (1) Authorize the General Manager to negotiate and issue a purchase ..i order contract to Sur-Lite Corporation for Purchase of Five Waste Digester Gas Flares, Job No. J-21A, for an amount of $284,216 plus tax. (2) Approve plans and specifications and authorize the General Manager to establish the bid date for Installation of Waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Job No. J-21, for site work, foundations, piping control system and installation of the digester gas flare facilities. A tentative bid date of April 18, 1989 is scheduled. The engineer's estimate for this work is $450,000. 9(g): APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. P1- - The Districts are replacing sludge conveyors, storage bins and truck loading facilities which have exceeded the useful life expectancy of the equipment or, due to new seismic standards, need to be rebuilt. This modernization of the sludge facilities will meet master-planned requirements. Plans and specifications have been completed by John Carollo Engineers for Job No. P1-34-2, Sludge Handling Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1, although the job will not be advertised until a Permit to Construct is received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District. In February 1988, the Directors originally authorized the preparation of plans and specifications for this project as part of Job No. P1-34, which Included construction of four new digesters and digester gas handling �..i facilities. In November, the project was amended to increase the number of digesters from four to six and to split the project into two construction contracts. Plans and specifications for the other portion of the project, digesters and gas handling facilities (Job No. P1-34-1) , at a preliminary cost estimate of $40 million, should be complete in late summer 1989. Staff recommends approval of plans and specifications and authorization for the General Manager to establish the bid date for Job No. P1-34-2, subject to receipt of a Permit to Construct from South Coast Air Quality Management District. The engineer' s estimate for this work 1s $22,400,000. 9(h): AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF PURCHASE ORDERS FOR PRINTING OF DRAFT ACTION PLAN DOCUMENTS. The comprehensive "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental Management: Preserving Orange County's Coastal Ocean Waters" is being prepared by a team of consultants. It includes three main elements; the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan (including the Financial Plan) , the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report and the Financial Plan. The documents are nearly complete and printing of the draft is necessary.. For expediency .dnd quality ... control , printing proposals were solicited by the EIR consul tents, Janes 8 Stokes, in Sacramento for the environmental documents (where the EIR consultants are headquartered) and by Carollo-Boyle from local firms for the Facilities Master Plan and Financial Plan. -5- February 8, 1989 The quotes are as follows: Facilities Master Plan 1. Continental Graphics, Irvine, CA $41,500.00 2. OCB Reprographics, Inc. , Irvine, CA $45,000.00 3. Consolidated Reprographics, Inc. , Costa Mesa, CA $59,050.00 Programmatic EIR 1. Sierra Copy, Sacramento, CA $ 3,995.00 2. Copy Mat, Sacramento, CA $ 4,677.61 3. The Copy House, Sacramento, CA $ 4,870.00 4. Overnight Copies, Sacramento, CA $ 5,694.00 Staff recommends issuance of purchase orders in the maximum amounts Indicated below for printing the draft Action Plan documents. (1) Issuance of purchase order to Continental Graphics of Irvine in the maximum amount of $41,500 plus tax for printing the Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan. (2) Issuance of purchase order to Sierra Copy of Sacramento for the Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan, in the maximum amount of $3,995.00 plus tax. 9(1): OFFICE AUTOMATION SYSTEM ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. Over the past several years the Districts have purchased approximately $300,000 worth of sophisticated office automation equipment from CPT Corporation. This equipment includes 14 word processors, a graphics system and a shared central resource system which allows each of the word processors to network and provides considerable data storage and retrieval for documents and several other features. Installation of this system has allowed us to avoid adding several clerical employees. The Districts have had an annual maintenance agreement with CPT Corporation for several years. This agreement, which expires on February 12, 1989, provides for routine preventive maintenance, on-call remedial maintenance, replacement parts, system upgrades, and specifies a response time of no more than four hours. Without a maintenance agreement, the response time is up to two days. This office automation system is an integral part of our operation and our activities would be severely hampered by the two-day response time which Is the standard for clients without a maintenance agreement. CPT Corporation is in the process of a corporate reorganization, merger, or sale. Therefore, staff is requesting authority to negotiate and to execute an annual maintenance contract with CPT Corporation, or its successor, for an amount not to exceed $33,000.00 plus tax. -6- February 8, 1989 9(j): APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT WITH RECYC INC. , FOR REMOVAL, PR E 9YRG AND DISPOSAL OF EWAGE LUDGE. The Districts are presently disposing of residual solids (dewatered sludge) by combining them with municipal refuse in various landfills in Orange and Los Angeles Counties, or by recycling portions of the sludge. About 50% of the sludge solids are disposed of at landfills and 50% processed and recycled as a compost material or directly applied to agricultural land for beneficial reuse. Because of the difficulty of disposing of sludge and the tenuous nature of disposal alternatives, the Boards have adopted a policy of practicing multiple disposal options. Accordingly, the Districts have entered into contracts with several firms for sludge disposal and/or reuse under varying terms. Last year the Boards entered into a contract with Recyc, Inc. to remove, process and dispose of sewage solids at a cost of $380.00 per truck load. Recyc presently takes about nine loads per day (our total production is 35+ loads per day) and makes a compost material out of it. Recyc's present one-year contract expires in February 1989. Staff is recommending that Amendment No. 2 to the present contract with Recyc, Inc. be approved extending the contract for an additional year at the same price for disposal of $380.00 per truck load. The extension will provide continued disposal for the Districts' sludge while Recyc's alternative long-term sites are developed. Recyc's facility is presently in Ontario, however they are in the process of developing other processing sites in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and, if successful , will probably then close the Ontario facility. If that should occur, then it will be necessary to renegotiate the contract at which time staff will return to the Boards for authorization. 9(k): AMEND AUTHORITY RE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS FOR REPLACEMENT OF PORTIONS OF STANDBY OCEAN OUTFALL, J B NO. J-22. In April , the Directors authorized the General Manager to execute an agreement with CALTRANS in a form meeting General Counsel 's approval for reimbursement of costs for the initial portion of the standby ocean discharge line replacement in an amount not to exceed $1.1 million. The project is a replacement of a portion of a 78-inch standby outfall constructed circa 1954 with a new 120-inch pipe from a point just south of the Talbert Flood Control Channel to a junction structure on the beach, including the portion within the Pacific Coast Highway soon to be rebuilt under a CALTRANS contract. The pipe replacement will be done by CALTRANS within traffic detours necessary for the construction of a new bridge over the Santa Ana River. The design has been completed by Moffatt and Nichol , designers of the CALTRANS -project; and their estimateis now $2.0 million. The new estimate - - - reflects the actual design as approved by CALTRANS and higher costs associated with a delay in the project. The project will be bid in the spring, however, Sanitation Districts' work will probably be done early in 1990. Inclusion of the work within the CALTRANS project eliminates the need to structurally support the 78-inch outfall at an estimated savings of some $500,000 (the existing ,�. outfall is planned for complete replacement under the Joint Works planning effort nearing completion as part of the Action Plan). -7- February 8, 1989 The recommended action is to amend the authorization authorizing the agreement with CALTRANS to reflect the final estimated amount not to exceed $2.0 million for reimbursement of the work associated with replacement of a portion of the Districts' standby ocean outfall. DISTRICT 2 9(1): APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR SEWER MANHOLE REHABILITATION, CONTRACT NO. -14R. The Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) , constructed mid-197015, extends from the Fountain Valley Reclamation Plant generally along the Santa Ana River to the Riverside County line and includes capacity allowances to receive high saline wastewater from the upper watershed areas within Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, limited to 30 million gallons per day (mgd). The upper basin capacity is part of a cooperative program for protecting the underground fresh water supplies of the Santa Ana River Basin. During construction, the concrete portions of the line including the concrete pipe and the manhole access structures were protected by the installation of polyvinylchloride (PVC) liner, however, the grade rings (three-foot diameter shafts extending above the manhole structures that place the manhole covers at surface grade) were not lined. Last summer staff entered each structure and documented needed improvements. On nearly all of the manholes, the grade rings and covers need to be rehabilitated. Staff believes the grade rings can be salvaged by sandblasting and coating them with a polyurethane liner, however, many of the covers need replacement. Making the necessary repairs now should preclude much more expensive replacements which would be needed within ten years. In October 1988, the Directors approved a professional services agreement with DGA Consultants to provide the necessary engineering design and construction support services for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2-14R. The consulting engineer has now completed preparation of the plans and specifications. Staff recommends approval of the plans and specifications for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2-14R and authorization for the General Manager to establish a date for receipt of bids. A tentative bid date of April 18, 1989 is scheduled. The engineer's estimate for Contract No. 2-14R is $350,000.00. 9(m): APPROVAL OF ADDENDA NOS. 1 AND 2 TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZATION FOR SELECTION COMMITTEE TO NEGOTIATE ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING ERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, RE CONTRACTS N05. -26-2-AN0 - 7. In October 1988 the Directors approved the plans and specifications for the construction of a portion of the Euclid Interceptor Sewer, between Edinger Avenue and Lampson Avenue, Contract No. 2-26-2 and South Anaheim Relief Sewer, Contract No. 2-27. Two other portions of the Euclid Interceptor Sewer are now under construction. The first, from Orangethorpe Avenue to Broadway Street in the City of Anaheim, is a joint project with the city. The second is from Lampson Avenue to Orangewood Avenue and includes a joint project with the City of Garden Grove. -8- February 8, 1989 Contract No. 2-26-2 will construct an interceptor sewer beginning at Edinger Avenue, the terminus of a project completed in May 1986, with the northerly termination of the new line at Lampson Avenue and Euclid Street. The South Anaheim Sewer, Contract No. 2-27, will connect the Euclid Interceptor Sewer to the South Anaheim Sewer, extending from Euclid Street about 1-1/2 miles east to Walnut Street in Ball Road. (1) 8 (2) Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to Plans and Specifications for Project Construction Addendum No. 1 changes the bid date from January 17, 1989 to February 21, 1989. About a week after Contracts Nos. 2-26-2 and 2-27 were advertised (December 21 and 28, 1988) , the City of Garden Grove advised staff that they plan to construct a storm drain on Nelson Street between Pearl Street and Lampson Avenue. The project was delayed to accommodate the City drainage facility. Addendum No. 2 transmits the revised alignment and includes scheduling revisions to coordinate the sewer work with the City' s project. Staff recommends approval of Addenda Nos. 1 and 2. (3) Addendum No. 1 to Professional Engineering Services Agreement for Pro ec es n Additional engineering services were required to accommodate late requests from both the Cities of Garden Garden and Santa Ana. In Garden Grove, the alignment of the sewer line was revised both horizontally and vertically and the siphon details changed to avoid additional siphons and accommodate the City's storm drain project (See above Addenda Nos. 1 and 2 to plans and specifications for project construction). In Santa Ana, traffic control revisions requested by the City necessitated the preparation of additional detailed traffic sheets. Staff is recommending that the Selection Committee be authorized to negotiate an addendum for the additional engineering services required for the changes requested by the Cities. Following the Selection Committee's negotiations, the proposed addendum will be presented to the Board for consideration. Staff recommends approval of the Addenda to the plans and specifications, and the authority for the Selection Committee to negotiate with Willdan Associates for necessary changes to the engineering design services contract. DISTRICTS 5 AND 6 9(n): RECEIVE AND FILE SELECTION COMMITTEE CERTIFICATION AND APPROVE ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH R BERT REIN, W LLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES RE REPLACEMENT F PORTIONS OF CAT HIGHWAY FORC MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER. CONTRACT NO. 5-29. In December, the Directors authorized the Selection Committee to negotiate Addendum No. 3 to the professional services agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF), to incorporate additional design work -9- February 8, 1989 required by the realignment of the southerly force main between the Rocky Point Pump Station (at the Balboa Bay Club) and Dover Drive. The contract, now under construction, includes force main and gravity sewer improvements for the Sanitation Districts, and under a cooperative agreement with the City of Newport Beach for sotrm drain and water facilities. The relocation of the force main was necessary because of undisclosed utilities. The proposed addendum covers additional design work for the preparation of traffic control plans and additional surveying associated with the realignment of the sewer to the center of Pacific Coast Highway, necessitated by the discovery of the undisclosed utilities which prevented the original alignment. The Selection Committee has negotiated Addendum No. 3 in the amount of $11,000.00 based on hourly rates including overhead and direct expenses, (there is no additional profit allowed for this work) for engineering and surveying work, which will increase the total authorized compensation from $139,011.00 to an amount not to exceed $150,011.00. The actions appearing on the agenda are to receive and file the Selection Committee's certification of the final negotiated fee for Addendum No. 3 and adoption of a resolution approving Addendum No. 3 to the professional services agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates. Copies of the certification and resolution are attached with the supporting documents. DISTRICT 5 9(o) : APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 TO REHABILITATION OF BALBOA TRUNK SEWER, BETWEEN LIDO PUMP STATION AT SHORT STREET AND "A" STREET PUMP TATI N. CONTRACT NO. 5-27, AND ACCEPTING CONTRACT AS COMPLETE. In April , the Directors awarded Contract No. 5-27 for the rehabilitation of the Balboa Peninsula trunk sewer system. The rehabilitation included pressure testing and chemical grouting of sewer pipeline joints as well as the installation of manholes, liners and appurtenances within existing Newport Boulevard and Balboa Boulevard right-of-way. The work is now complete. (1) Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 1 grants a twenty-one day time extension for delays encountered due to necessary revisions to the plans and specifications and shop drawings for the manhole rings and covers and coating system. Nonetheless, the work was completed six days late, on December 21, 1988. Therefore, the second change order item is the assessment of liquidated damages at the rate of $500 per day in the total amount of $3,OOD.00. Staff recommends approval -of Change Order No. 1 to the contract for ' a net deduction of $3,000,000. (2) Acceptance of Contract as Complete Coastline Construction Company has now fulfilled all contractual obligations. Therefore, staff recommends adoption of the resolution attached to the agenda material , authorizing acceptance of the work as complete, execution of the Final Closeout Agreement and filing of the Notice of Completion as required. The final project cost is $88,200.00. -10- February 8, 1989 9(p) : APPROVAL OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE ...� IMPROVEMENTS TO BAYSIDE DRIVETRUNK SEWER, PHASE I , CONTRACT NO. 5-34-1. In May 1988, the Directors approved a professional services agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for design and construction services for Improvements to Bay Bridge Pump Station, Contract No. 5-33, and Improvements to Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 5-34, in Newport Beach. Contract No. 5-34, now under design, includes sewer improvements in the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Bayside Drive. This same section of PCH is being widened with a joint project between CALTRANS and the City of Newport Beach. Staff of both the City and the District recommend including that portion of the sewer improvements in the intersection of PCH and Bayside Drive into the City's construction contract. This will avoid digging up this intersection for a new sewer only months after the new highway widening job Is completed. The recommended action is to authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with the City of Newport Beach to include this portion of the District's sewer project in the joint CALTRANS/Newport Beach highway improvement Job and to provide for the District to reimburse the costs for said work, in a form approved by the General Counsel. The estimated cost is $300,000.00. 11: AGENDA FOR CLOSED SESSION. From time to time it is necessary for the Boards to convene in closed ..i session to consider purchase and sale of real property, potential or pending litigation, personnel matters or other matters which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act. In order to avoid a situation where a closed session is needed but does not appear on the agenda, this standing item is placed on the agenda each month providing for a closed session at the regular meeting, if deemed necessary by the Boards. DISTRICT 3 25: INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 309 ESTABLISHING ANITARY SEWER SERVICE In 1986 and 1987, following considerable study and review, the Board of Directors modified the District's long-range financial plan by taking several actions. These included issuance of $48,000,000 of Certificates of Participation to partially finance District trunk sewer and sewage treatment facilities needs; increased the capital facilities connection fees charged to new development for sewage system capacity from $250 per dwelling unit and $50 per 1000 sq. ft. for non-residential developments, to $1500 and $300 per 1000 sq. ft. , respectively; by Jgty 1, 1989; ,and.declared intent.to implement a supplemental sewer-service charge effective-July 1, 1989. These measures have been necessary to protect the District's financial Integrity and provide the necessary long-term funding for sewerage facilities Improvements and expansion, and ongoing operations and maintenance costs. Property taxes have historically been the major source of local financing of District's activities. However, the costs of providing service continue to rise -11- February 8, 1989 beyond the ability of the property tax apportionments to keep pace because of the environmental requirements imposed by state and federal regulatory agencies requiring more advanced wastewater treatment, new air quality requirements, and the need to provide additional capacity to meet the increasing demands on the sewerage system. At the adjourned meeting on January 26, the Board again reviewed the long-range financial plan and reaffirmed the need to implement the supplemental sewer service fee effective with the 1989-90 fiscal year, directed staff to proceed with the implementation plan and to agendize consideration of Ordinance No. 309 Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges at the February 8 Board Meeting. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 309, attached to the supporting agenda material , will be introduced for first reading at the February 8 meeting; and passed to second reading and consideration of adoption at the March 8 meeting. DISTRICT 11 28: CONSIDERATION OF ACTIONS TO EXPEDITE IMPLEMENTATION OF NEEDED MASTER-PLANNED SLATER PUMP STATION SEWERAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEM—EffTT F R SERVING THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF DISTRICT NO. 11. Enclosed with the Directors' supporting agenda material is a separate staff report recommending that certain urgently needed improvements, identified in the pending Action Plan master plan of sewerage facilities, for serving the northwest portion of the District be expedited. The recommended actions appearing on the agenda are to authorize the Selection Committee to solicit proposals for a preliminary engineering report for rebuilding of the Slater Avenue Pump Station; and to authorize staff to enter into preliminary negotiations with General Telephone for necessary right-of-way acquisitions for the pump station. DISTRICT 1 31: CONSIDERATION OF UNIVERAL CIRCUITS #1 APPEAL RE CLASSIFICATION AS A SIGNIFICANTLY TIN OMPLIAN E COMPANY. Pursuant to EPA regulations and District's procedures, Universal Circuits #1 has been classified as a Significately Violating Compliance company (SVC) because they exceeded discharge limits contained in their industrial waste permit on three out of four samples last year. Universal Circuits #1 has appealed the staff' s denial of their request not to be classified as a SVC com- pany. Attached with the agenda material is a staff report-which explains why Universal Circuits #1 was classified as an SVC company, and the basis of their appeal . -12- nE; AGENDA ITEM #28 - DISTRICT 11 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS 41 ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA February 1, 1989 10946 ELLIS AVENUE GO BDF 9127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 9272E 8127 n141962.2411 STAFF REPORT County Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan Conveyance Facilities County Sanitation District No. 11 (CSD 11) basically includes two distinct service areas: the southeasterly portion bounded by Garfield Avenue, Newland Avenue and Atlanta Avenue to the Santa Ana River; and the northwesterly portion, generally bounded by the areas north of Talbert Avenue to the 405 Freeway and west of Gothard Street to the coast except for the Naval Weapons Station at Bolsa Chica (see attached map). The areas include approximately two-thirds of the City of Huntington Beach. The northwesterly portion is served by the Slater Avenue Pump Station, and trunk sewer lines in Golden West Street, Slater Avenue and Springdale Street. As the Directors will recall , the joint venture team of Carollo-Boyle is preparing the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan as part of the Districts' "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental Management: Preserving Orange County's Coastal Ocean Waters". The master plan work includes both the joint treatment and disposal facilities, as well as the sewer conveyance systems for each of the sanitation districts. The consultants have found that Slater Avenue Pump Station and certain trunk sewer facilities will be deficient for meeting short-term and long-term capacity requirements; the most notable deficiency being the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The long-term solution has been identified in previous master plan reports as the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer from its present terminus at Golden West Street in Orange Avenue northwesterly through the Bolsa Chica area to Edwards Street at Slater Avenue. Under this plan a line extending easterly in Slater Avenue would relieve the Slater Avenue Pump Station, while a line extended north in Edwards Street would relieve the Springdale Street sewer collection facilities, all at an estimated cost of $21.9 million. The new master planning team reviewed this and other alternate ways to provide the needed sewer improvements. The alternates included diverting a portion of the area tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station easterly to the Knott Interceptor, thereby reducing the quantity of flow through the Slater Avenue Pump Station at an estimated cost of $16.6 million; and rebuilding of the Slater Avenue Pump Station at an estimated cost of $14.2 million. The latter is the most economical method. -1- The Slater Avenue Pump Station is currently operating at capacity. With continuing development taking place within the drainage area served by the pump —� station, a project to correct the deficiencies is urgently needed and staff believes that it would be prudent to authorize preliminary engineering work in advance of the Action Plan completion in order to ensure that the CSD 11 can continue to provide adequate sewer service. The pending Master Plan recommends that the Slater Avenue Pump Station be rebuilt at essentially the same location. It appears that the station could best be built adjacent to the existing station on lands now owned by General Telephone (GTE). Three phases of work are envisioned: Phase I would include preparation of a project report detailing the size and construction requirements of the pump station elevations and the trunk sewer improvements tributary to the station. The engineering documents would also provide the necessary data for acquisition of a site from GTE. Phase II would include preparation of detailed construction plans and specifications. Phase III would be the actual construction of the facilities. The California Environmental Quality Act requirements are being addressed in the Environmental Impact Report being prepared as part of the Action Plan Master-Planning effort. It will be presented to the Boards and distributed for public comment in March. Proceeding with the Phase I work ahead of final approval of the Master Plan and certification of the EIR would allow the project to be expedited and proceed in a timely fashion while still complying with CEQA requirements. Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Selection Committee to solicit proposals from qualified engineering firms for the Phase I preliminary project report, and negotiate a professional services agreement for consideration by the Board; and authorize staff to negotiate with GTE during the development of the project report so that right-of-way needs and considerations can be incorporated Into the document. TMD:jt ENG/D11:STFRPT3 -2- �.- •�, n.lt. iinl�5q�� I - WR ILL .jr iRi \ rt-rRE71 21 low EDINGER PS INCR 33 ' "- 12" CAP TO 715 MGO �1.3•� L* 24 27 f 4 ��?1 i17R l.7V tIwA . 3 Lllll .le6lrRrrr(1(�r�� � __ 33 s tv , ' r• .... •.r•1 1�11 i•i wit....der , a 3Cf SLATER P.31NCfl t" •'- s. f y0�, CAP TO 2S MGD k 9 t' M1 , surf. P-a." t� DISTRICT 11 BOUNDARY - 1 r - EXISTING FACILITIES • r ! '7"`_'7"""` . .. — EXISTING PUMP STATION •�'f.. �_(' mnn1.... MILLER HOLDER TRUNK •,.� _.. �_ ._ nuu ..... KNOTT INTERCEPTOR ......•••.•• COAST- NEWLAND-DELAAARE SYSTEM '•••••••••••• SLATER-SPRINGDALE-EDINGER SYSTEM '� �'•�,/•' '- IMPROVEMENT FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FACILITY • • •• PARALLEL FACILITY DISTRICT NO. 11 NEW FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE #1 361' DIAMETER OF PIPE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN REPORT FIGURE 11 — 1 RE: AGENDA ITEM #31 - DISTRICT 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS February 2, 1989 "1 GRANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA REF #514 10SAA ELLI9 AVENUE Pa BOX 8127 FW NTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92128-8121 171A1962-2A11 STAFF REPORT UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS #1, PERMIT NO. 1-1-346 APPEAL OF SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE COMPANY STATUS SUMMARY In accordance with Federal regulations, the Districts have for the last three years published in The Register the names of those firms that are determined to be Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) companies. Prior to publication, the Districts inform companies that have been identified as SVC companies that their name will be published and that staff will proceed with additional enforcement action to bring them into compliance. Universal Circuits, Inc. S1 (UCI #1) , Permit No. 1-1-346, has appealed their identification as an SVC company for 1987-88 (see Exhibit 1, buff and Exhibit 2, grey). The appeal hearing was rescheduled from the January meeting to the February meeting at the request of ... UCI #I. BACKGROUND The Districts' NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit requires us to have an EPA-approved pretreatment program. Among the requirements for such a program is that the Districts comply with provisions of Volume 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 403.8(f)(2)(vii). Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the following: . "Provision for at least annually providing public notification in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POT'21 is located, of industrial users, which during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating pretreatment standards or other requirements. For the purposes of this provision, a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is art of a atteEn of non-com liance over a 12-m2nth eriod; which involves the ai ure to accurate y report non-comp lance; or which results in the POT'd exercising its emergency authority (as defined) under paragraph (f)(1)(vi )(b) of this Section". (emphasis added) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard 3 out of 4 quarters during the fiscal year as SVC, because these companies have violations which are part of a pattern of 1 non-compliance over a 12-month period. The compliance record of UCI #1 for 1987-88 was as follows: TABLE 1 UCI #1 Non-Compliance for 1987-88 Pounds Lead Date Over Limit September 24-25, 1987 0.35 December 28-29, 1987 0 March 30-31, 1988 0.1 June 16-17, 1988 1.13 On August 23, 1988 the Districts sent 41 letters notifying companies, including UCI #1, that they had been classified as an SVC company according to EPA and District' s policies (see Attachment A, blue) . UCI #1 appealed the decision in a letter dated August 25, 1988 (see Attachment B, yellow) . District' s staff removed the name of UCI #1 from the SVC list that was published September 20, 1988 pending the processing of the appeal . Federal regulations require publishing by October 30th each year. The District' s staff set forth the basis for inclusion of UCI #1 as an SVC company in a letter dated September 7, 1988 and received a reply from UCI #1' s attorney on September 9, 1988. District's Office of General Counsel responded to the objections made by UCI #1 in a letter dated October 13, 1988. See Attachment C, green, for the above three letters. These attempts to reach agreement failed and a hearing was held on November 8, 1988 with the Director of Technical Services acting as the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer' s decision was set forth in a letter dated November 23, 1988 (see Attachment D, tan), and the original staff decision to publish UCI #1 as an SVC company was upheld. BASIS FOR SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE STATUS During the 1987-88 fiscal year, UCI #1 was sampled four times and found in non-compliance of the lead limitation 3 of those 4 times as shown in Table 1 above. Samples were collected using samplers prepared according to EPA guidelines and the discharge sampled using a time-composite sample. The samples were analyzed by the Districts' Laboratory. Notices of Violation were sent on each occasion notifying the company of the non-compliance and requiring them to take action to correct the problem. All non-compliance fees assessed UCI 11 for the violations were paid without appeal . UCI #1 did not initiate any appeal actions until the company was informed that they were an SVC company. 2 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL UCI #1 has cited two grounds for their appeal: 1. UCI #1 contends the sampling method used by the Districts was not accurate enough for the purposes of establishing an SVC designation claiming there is a margin of error and, further, that one sample exceeds the limit by a very minimal amount. 2. UCI #1 contends the Districts failed to follow its own internal procedures for sampling frequency pursuant to 601.1B of the District's Ordinance, and, had the Districts followed its procedures, UCI #1 would not be considered an SVC company. STAFF RESPONSE 1. The sampling of a company's effluent using time-composited samples has previously been reviewed by the District No. 1 Board of Directors on an appeal brought forth by UCI #1 on September 25, 1985 relative to a separate non-compliance fee assessed UCI #1 in the amount of $1,168.00 for copper and lead violations. UCI #1 contended that the samples taken from their facility were not representative. The Board found that this sampling method is representative and appropriate. The Districts' Industrial Waste Ordinance states that any sample taken from a sample box or other representative location is presumed to be discharging ..� into the public sewer. In 1983 this sampling method was discussed by the Industrial Waste Advisory Committee, of which Mr. Ryan of UCI #1 was an active member. Alternatives, including the flow-proportional method of sampling, were discussed but the Committee concluded that the time-composite method was representative, economical, and the most desirable method of sampling. However, all permittees have the option of installing an effluent flow-monitoring system so that flow-proportional sampling can be conducted by the Districts. General comparison of the time-composite method currently being used by the Districts and the flow-proportional method are as follows: TIME COMPOSITE FLOW PROPORTIONAL ADVANTAGES - Can detect batch dumps - More representative - Samples taken at regular intervals for highly variable - Inexpensive, simple flows DISADVANTAGES - Less representative for highly - Expensive,-complex .._.. .. variable flows - Difficult to detect batch dumps The Districts have been using time-composite samples at UCI #1 since 1981. The composite sampler takes samples at 15-minute intervals over a 24-hour period. Unless there is a production cycle that is as short as 15 minutes, 3 then every sample would appear to be representative. There was no evidence that the firm has a 15-minute cycle, neither is it the norm for production in the industry. Thus it could be concluded that the samples of UCI #1's flow were representative. The cost of installing a flow-proportional system is estimated at $10,000 per firm versus about $100 for installation of a sample box for the time-composite method. In either case, the cost is borne by the discharger, and it is the firm's decision. The Districts would not object to UCI #1 designing and installing a flow-proportional system for future sampling. UCI #1 has not pursued this option, however, and, as a result, the Districts and UCI #1 have relied on time-composited samples to determine compliance with limitations. UCI #1 also argues that the sample taken on March 30-31, 1988 (see Table 1) showing a 0.1 pound of lead exceedance is minimal (de minimus) and should not be considered in making the determination of a pattern of non-compliance. However, the de minimus argument is specifically excluded under Section 3.4.2 of EPA's "Pretreatment Compliance, Monitoring, and Enforcement Guidance" manual, which states that an exceedance of any magnitude constitutes violation. 2. The second ground for appeal by UCI #1 is that the District failed to follow its own internal procedures with respect to follow-up sampling after the original routine sampling event. UCI #1 contends that resampling did not occur because the Districts did not consider the non-compliance significant; and, if resampling had occurred and the results showed compliance, UCI #1 would have showed non-compliance less than 50% of the time and thus not be classified as an SVC company. It is true that the Districts did not sample UCI #1 within 30 days as set forth by Section 601.B of the Ordinance because the staff resources were allocated to other companies identified as significantly violating compliance (in 1988 staff increased major enforcement actions such as Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreements, permit revocation, and civil charges against 35 companies compared to 14 in 1987). The Districts did, however, routinely sample UCI #1 within 75 days of each notice of violation giving ample time to correct the non-compliance. UCI #1 failed twice and passed once. No factual basis was provided by UCI #1 to substantiate either assertion that additional sampling of UCI #1 would have shown compliance with discharge limitations or that the Districts did not believe the violation to be significant. No self-monitoring data was supplied to support the speculation that additional sampling by the Districts would have shown compliance. The Districts mailed Notices of Violation to UCI #1 after each non-compliant event with a request to take immediate action to correct the problem on each notice. BOARD ALTERNATIVES The District No. 1 Board of Directors can make two possible findings: A. To uphold the staffs and Hearing Officer' s decision to classify UCI #1 as a �... 4 Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company. To do so, the Board must: o Find that the samples collected and analyzed by the District are representative of UCI #1 discharge. o Find that the frequency of sampling was sufficient to make the determination that the discharge levels exceeded their limits and is in accordance with the EPA guidelines. o Find that the frequency of non-compliance as determined by the staff and Hearing Officer is adequate to assure representative sampling and is sufficient to make an SVC determination in accordance with Federal regulations. B. To reverse the decision of the staff and Hearing Officer and find that UCI #1 is not an SVC company. To do so, the Board should determine that it is unable to make the findings set forth in A above. RECOMMENDATION Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 was sampled quarterly during 1987-88 using EPA-approved and standard Districts' sampling procedures. Three of the four .� composite samples showed violations of the discharge limitation for lead, establishing a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period and, thus, classifying UCI #1 as a Significantly Violating Compliance company pursuant to EPA regulations. Staff recommends that the decision to classify Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 as a Significantly Violating Compliance company be upheld and that Universal Circuits, Inc. #1' s name be published in the paper in accordance with Federal regulations. CPT:30 Attachments 5 EXHIBIT 1 PINTO & GBOMET w ORN8Ys " LAW SnD B. P. 2901 DUI DH , 5II 160 OQ8 PILB NO. S".J. Ge . I lV . CALTMO 92715-1510 �� KsNN6ia A RTDaO Caelea ..M. DAaoarc ralaPaoxs xo. Ina, one•un• JOBHPa A R0001 =B COPIBa NO. 1714) 800•YOn1 168-0424-01 December 8 , 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 Attention: Blake P. Anderson, Director of Technical Services Re: Notice of Determination re: Universal Circuits #1 Appeal from Designation as a "Significantly Violating Compliance Company" During Fiscal Year 1987-88 (Permit No. 1-1-346 ) Dear Mr. Anderson: We have received and reviewed the determination of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (the "Districts" ) denying Universal Circuits #1 appeal of the Districts ' designation of Universal Circuits #1 as a "significantly violating compliance company" during fiscal year 1987-88. We disagree with the Districts ' analysis of the evidence and issues presented and its final determination denying Universal Circuits #1 appeal . Accordingly, on behalf of Universal 'Circuits #1 we are hereby notifying you of Universal Circuits #1 desire and intent to further appeal the Districts ' determination of it as a "significantly violating compliance company" during fiscal-year 19.87-88 . . . . It is our understanding that the next step in the appeal process will be a hearing before J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager at the Districts. However, to save everyone ' s time and taxpayer dollars, Universal Circuits #1 is willing to waive its rights to appeal to Mr. Sylvester, and would prefer to proceed directly to the further appeal to the Board of Directors of the Districts. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California December 8, 1988 Page 2 Kindly undertake the necessary actions to schedule the next appeal as expeditiously as possible. Of course, until we accept a final determination in this matter, you are not to publish the name of Universal Circuits #1 as a "significantly violating compliance company" . Very truly yours , Kenneth A Ryder KAR:par cc: Mr. Gary Ryan Mr. Raymond Esser ATTACHMENT A COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 108"ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714)962.2411 August 23 , 1988 REF #167 Universal Circuits #1 1800 Newport Circle Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit No: 11346 Attn: Gary Ryan, President Subject: Industries Significantly Violating Compliance During 1987-88 Universal Circuits #1 has been identified by the Districts as significantly violating compliance during the time period of July 1, �..i 1987 through June 30, 1988. As required. bythe United States Environmental Protection Agency, your name will be included in a list of similarly identified industries to be published in The Register on or about September 10, 1988. A company significantly violating compliance is one which had: a) a major violation (discharge of heavy metals greater than 1 pound over their limit or a pH less than 5.0) left uncorrected for more than 45 days; b) showed a consistent pattern of non-compliance during the fiscal year; or c) had. a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority. It is the Districts ' philosophy to work cooperatively with industries who show by practice and attitude they are willing to correct process deficiencies and install necessary pretreatment equipment. However, should it be necessary, the Districts will use whatever enforcement actions are required to bring your company into compliance with discharge requirements. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Mr.- James Benzie at extension 365. ..i Richard W. von Langan, P.E. Chief of the Industrial Waste Division RVL:bam ATTACHMENT B � d r _ C/�i1 T UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS INCORPORATED August 25, 1988 County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 3127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Attention: Richard W. Von Langen Dear Mr. Von Langan: Universal Circuits has been investigating and will continue to investigate the validity of the alleged violations, ref- erence your letter dated August 23, 1988, Ref. #167. Universal Circuits has concluded that these alleged violations are in- correct. Please consider this letter as notification of our appeal. Any proposed publication of the alleged violations during appeal will be considered inappropriate by any standard. Sincerely 4_� Gary Ryan General Manager GR/blb �2uJ:aet ne.vccn:.:ce 530 ATTACHMENT C COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA gA P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 108"ELLIS,FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714) 962-2411 September 7, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL REF #218 P 730 099 402 Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 1800 Newport Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 . Permit No: 1-1-346 Attention: Mr. Gary Ryan, General Manager Subject: Appeal of Significantly Violating Compliance Status The Districts are in receipt of your request for reconsideration dated August 25, 1988 that Universal Circuits, Inc;- #1 is a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company. The sampling information for lead discharges from Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 is shown below: Pounds Per Day Non-Compliance Date In Non-Compliance $ September 24-25, 1987 0.35 28.00 December 28-29, 1987 0 0 March 30-31, 1988 0.1 8.00 June 16-17, 1988 1.13 90.40 Representative samples were taken onsite in accordance with Districts' sampling procedures and Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 was issued a Notice of Violation for each non-compliance. One of the EPA and Districts' standards for determining whether a company is SVC is a compliance status that demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period. Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 was in non-compliance three of four quarters with the maximum permitted limit for lead, and the v average of.the four samples exceeded the permitted 4-day average limit. Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 .September 7, 1988 Page 2 In accordance with 40 CFR 403.8.f.2(vii), the Districts must publish in • Orange County's largest daily newspaper industrial users that were significantly violating applicable pretreatment standards or requirements. Your request for reconsideration contains no newly-discovered relevant facts. If you have any additional information concerning the above, please provide it for my review by September 15, 1988; otherwise, the staff decision will be sustained. Richard W. von Langen, P.E. Chief of the. Industrial Waste Division RVL:lab CPT:28 cc: Clark Ide, Esq. Joe Rogoff, Esq. PINTO & GROMMT `J A3T ZT9 " LAW S..B. PI. aa01 OCMNT D6lV$. 9L 76 OCa RLE VO. $49TAII J. Gaoxsr MVTN74 CALlFORYU Sena-lala xa.`m8zn A Rxn9s Tzou N.➢wea�x xai.9paoera .ro. ,no, eae•urf Taoxwa F.. Srawwas ta`xcornDi 90. Ana, eoa•aoe7 168-0424-01 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPY County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Fountain valley, California 92708-7018 Attention: Richard von Langen, P.E. Re: Allegation of Significantly Violating Compliance During 1987-88 against Universal Circuits 11 NOTICE OF APPEAL , Gentlemen: This office represents Universal Circuits, Inc. in connection with its operations in Orange County, California. we have been forwarded your letters of August 23 , 1988 and September 7, 1988 regarding allegations that Universal Circuits n1 ("UC-1') be classified as a ^Significantly violating Compliance" company ('Violating company') during the period of July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988 ('Compliance Year") , and of your intention to include the name of UC-1 in a list to be Published in the Orange Countv Recister on or about September io . 1988. This letter is meant to serve as a clarification and restatement of the appeal in connection with the foregoinc by VC-1, and to set forth our position with respect to publication of the name of UC-1 prior to the resolution of this matter. A. Grounds for Anpeal: 1. UC-1 Cured the Alleged Sune 16-17 1985 Non Compliance Within 45 Days of Sucri Alleged Nen-ComDliance: The only sample found to be significantly in ro r,-compliance from the UC-1 facility during the entire Compliance Year was that taken June 16-17, 1988, which was only 7.3 days cr'_or tp the June 30, 1988 expiration of the Compliance Year. Notice of this alleged non-compliance was net even rece-ived =v GC-_ County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 2 until after June 30, 1988. Your letter of August 23 , 1988 claims that the alleged non-compliance was left uncorrected for more than 45 days; however, 45 days were not available to do any retesting and correcting prior to the expiration of the Compliance Year. Indeed, had the alleged non- compliance of June 16-17, 1988 rather occurred on the September 24-25, 1987 sampling, the subsequent compliance on December 28-29, 1987 would have completely exonerated UC-1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a resamnling at the UC-1 facility was taken by the Districts on July IS- 19, 1988, which is within the 45-day cure period. The results of this sampling revealed lead discharge from the UC-1 facility to be in full compliance with discharge requirements. Accordingly, the alleged non-compliance of June 16-17, 1988 was fully corrected within the required 45-day period, thereby exonerating UC-1 with respect to this matter. A copy of your report reflecting these resamnling l../ results is enclosed for your review and information. 2. The Standards for Determining, that a Cccoanv is "Significantly Violating Compliance" are Subiective and Unenforceably Vague: Pursuant to your August 22 , 1988 letter, a company may be found to be "Significantly Violating Compliance' if it (a) had' a discharge of heavy metals greater than one pound left uncorrected for more than 45 days, (b) showed a 'consistent pattern of non-compliance" during the Compliance Year, or (c) had a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority. These standards are not contained in anv fcrmal regulations of the districts, and rather are apparently the informal guidelines followed by the Districts. We have addressed the cure of the standard set forth in subparagraoh (a) in Subsection A. 1. above. At no time during the Compliance Year did UC-1 have a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority, pursuant to the standard set forth in subparagraph (c) . Your September 7, 1988 letter alleges that UC-1 showed a pattern of non-compliance over the Compliance Year. This is disputed for the following reasons: (i) The alleged non-compliance on September 24-25, 1987 and March 30-31-, 1988, is `...� County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 3 de minimus, and indeed the sampling and testing methodology utilized by the Districts is not accurate enough to rule out an error within the range of plus or minus 0.1 pounds. As you are aware, UC-1 in the past has suggested that the Districts' modify its sampling procedure pursuant to EPA guidelines so as to provide more accurate readings. Accordingly, it is our contention that for purposes of determining whether UC-1 is a violating company, only the sampling taken on June 16-17, 1988 should be considered. As previously stated, this non-compliance was corrected within 45 days. (ii) The claim in your September 7, 1988 letter that the average of the four samples during the Compliance Year exceeded the permitted four-day average `.►� limit for UC-1 assumes a four-day average limit for UC-1 of 0.30 lbs. for lead discharge, which UC-1 has challenged ever since its current proposed permit was issued. The current proposed permit issued for UC-1 is based on .090 mgd flow, as opposad to the . 140 mgd flow basis utilized in prior permits issued to UC-1. Since the current flow rate is approximately . 140 mgd despite extensive water conservation efforts, the present proposed permit does not reflect the actual water usage or give consideration for water conservation. Based upon the prior permit flow level (which is in fact the actual flow level) , the four-day average permitted for lead discharge is 0.47 lbs. , and under this four-dav average limit, the four samples averaged during the Compliance Year did not exceed .the limit. B. Publication. Publication that a company is "Significantly Violating Compliance" is obviously an unwanted stigma, and could be very _. damaging to a company's reputation in its industry and community. It is because of this concern that Universal Circuits has always cooperated with the Districts in attempting to follow all applicable rules and guidelines with respect to its waste discharges, and has raised the instant appeal with respect to the Districts' current allegations. As set forth hereinabove, we believe that the criteria which has been utilized in classifying UC-1 as a violating company has been unfairly applied to UC-1 in this instance, and that UC-1 was not a violating company during the Compliance Year. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 4 Accordingly, on behalf of UC-1 we are hereby notifying you that if you attempt to publish the name of UC-1 as a -significantly Violating Compliance• company, UC-1 intends to hold the Districts responsible and liable for any damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall UC-1 and/or Universal Circuits. By separate letter to the Orange County Register, a copy of which is attached hereto, we are also placing that newspaper on notice that should it publish the name cf UC-1 as a "Significantly Violating Compliance" company, Uc-1 may also seek to hold that newspaper responsible and liable for such damages as well. Universal Circuits is very desirous of having this _ matter remedied in the most expedient manner possible to reinstate its good name with the Districts. We therefore look forward to hearing from you in the very near future so as to resolve this matter to the mutual satisfaction of the Districts and UC-1. In addition to the foregoing, in an attempt to alleviate future problems of this kind, we request that the Districts and Mr. Ghry Ryan of Universal Circuits meet in an attempt to resolve their differences with respect to (i) the flow level basis for the proposed permit currently issued to UC-1, and (ii) the sampling methodology for future testing at Universal Circuits facilities in Orange County. Very truly yours, Kenneth A.Ryder KAR:par enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Ryan Mr. Raymond Esser COUNTf SANITATION M . d Osaaes MUM 40 \O WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 1a aua Avery rn rm�na ' muwnr Vyan.GiilottAc INDUSTRY: OATE: g'—y� myw-s,e /800 A/GWz7oYl /.err/- or, PERMIT M0. .Sa.r,fa%Ha. /a9 9Z�oS ATTN: Ti UG_ �e/yfln tMy11P1PPy11PtYP111Ht11i1P1N1PH111t1yfy111HHfA1111P1111tt1tHyytllt v Your wastewater dlicharge was 'samplad and the results are as follows: sample 7ata('s) : 7-4 /9—Af Time: /5'15� Lxatlon: SRG Cancans ltian Ofscy arse 9e it Limits ppqunds Over Rate Per Unatitsants sq/i �ss/ca3 s/"_ar L.mitatlCn r^-una C`ar CAOMIUH . 00 7 S — 6 CHROMIUM . 00 — i, SO C C1.12M /.JY /. 36 Z..& — MICX^- / /,Y. /• 36 3•0$ E LEAD v.J ZIMC SiLYEi _ TSS _ 5013 CYANIDE(T)� /• � Value TT'me. Date 1.1M rations •:`ar PH -7 /S/S 7-171;-8,? 5.0 • I2.0 -E ttaall�• .Mass Emission Rata Flow Use MGO Ac-ual Oiscnar:s Please address any questions cance.^+ing :ris reccrt tC Mr, ,:ame<_ 2enr e, or to fn ;. :.9cus:rial 'Aa"s Oivisi0n at eXtansion :5?. 'A. VCn :arcen , i'lL:as Cy!ar'of :is :P':A52 _nsteet:c- r /0995 Q9�rn6 's Pn'ITO & GRox= A ORxRYR wT isw S.m a. Pt 0101 Dn X? nxly W=Leo 0M 9Tiv.N J. OiONxt lgplNR, CA OaNI 927104515 Cnal=esoano 6 Rvnex exsa N.DwnowN saavxol+a W. ma, eaa�nf Tmxw E. S=N.xr =B COPnix No. 4I 1 80N=O 168-0424-02 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPIER Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager Classified Ads - Legal Orange County Register 625 North Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Publication of Companies 'Significantly Violating Compliance' During 1987-88 as Identified by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange Countv Dear Mr. Griffin: This office represents Universal Circuits, Inc. with respect to its operations in Orange County, California. we have been advised by the County Sanitation Districts of orange county, California that it has classified our client as a 'Significantly Violating Compliance' company during 1987-88, and intends to include its name in a list of similarly identified industries to be published in the Orange County Register an or about September 10, 1988. It is our understanding that to date this list has not yet been published. We have researched the matter and believe the Districts is erroneous in classifying Universal Circuits, Inc. as a 'Significantly Violating Compliance' company. we have brought the results of our research to the attention of the Districts and are currently appealing its classification. We believe that when - - the Districts have fully analyzed this information, it will agree -- - that Universal Circuits, Inc. should not be included on this list. we have further demanded of the Districts that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be immediately removed .from the list and not be published by your newspaper until this matter has been resolved to our satisfaction. By this letter we hereby demand that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be removed from the list and not be published by the Orange County Register. This letter. shall Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager `..� Classified Ads - Legal September 9, 1988 . Page 2 further advise you and place you on notice that should you erroneously publish the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. when it is not a -Significantly Violating Compliance^ company, it is the intention of Universal Circuits, Inc. to hold both you and the Districts responsible and liable for any and all damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall Universal Circuits, _ Inc. as a result of such erroneous publication. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT SUCH AN ERRONEOUS PUBLICATION WILL BE LIBELOUS TO OUR CLIENT AND RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES TO ITS GOOD REPUTATION IN ITS INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY. Very truly yours, PINTO & GROMET By: \./ Kenneth A.,,Ryder, Attorneys for Universal Circuits, Inc. KAR:par cc: Cathy Taylor, Editor - Business Section Mike Kolbenschlag, Editor - Metro Section Chris Anderson - Editor in Chief County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Attn: Richard W. van Langen �rJ LNw OFFICES OP Rourke Lit tiVoodruff •NLa °.wouwnL w n .ITC.wol[moN3L cow ro..�on or qa L.w000wurl .n[vvrtP vi. f S TO 00 •CN x.PO w.lN.wT,JP. GLL[a0°vtl3 v vwOC] NEXUS PINwN OIwL OErvTER W xi[L A.lv9.°4N TOI SOLTN is RNCp STREET •['[3.9C-a Ba v ol. a.Lnln IV L C-1 a..TMIn! ORiNG E.ULIPCR NI< 9288d LOI! 4JLIIRCY TNO N.! I IXON TL KPNOML hIa a!B•T000 C P.16 O.I1w wIx OTON ON.•w P FT /October 13 1988 O GL6n. Kenneth A. Ryder, Esc. Pinto 6 Gromet Suite 750 2201 DuPont Drive Irvine, CA 92715-1515 Re: Dniversal'.Circults #1 Appeal from Designation As a Significantly Violating Compliance Company During Fiscal Year 1987-88 Dear Mr. Ryder: Our office , acting as General Counsel for the Countv Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, has been asked to assist in processing your appeal on behalf of Universal Circuits All from its designation as a significantly violating compliance company (SVC) for the fiscal year 1987-88 . As you were previously informed by Districts ' staff, the name of Universal Circuits 31 will not �be published on the SVC list pending the appeal. In order to define the issues that would arise during a hearing on the appeal, I thought it might tie helpful to provide you with some background on the significantly violating compliance (SVC) list. The Countv Sanitation Districts of Orange County overate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) - Ocean Discharge Permit which is issued by the California Regional .. • - - Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and the United States.. ._ Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) . The Districts are referred to as a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (=O-W) , and as such, have a permit that requires them to have an Approved POT71 Pretreatment Program. Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. Page 2 October 13 , 1988 Among the requirements far a POTW pretreatment program is that the Districts comply with the provisions of 40 C. F. R. , Section 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) . Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the following: " (P]rovision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POTW is located, of Industrial Users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating pretreatment Standards or other Pretreatment Requirements. For the purposes of this provision , a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is part of a oattern of non-compliance ove_a 122 month oeriod; which involves failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which resulted in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph ( f) (1) (vi) (B) of this Section. " (Emphasis added.) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard three out of four quarters during a fiscal year as significantly violating compliance because these companies have violations which are- part of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12 month period. The EPA recommends, in Section 3 .4.2 of its "Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance" manual, twat all companies that have "chronic" violations he listed on the SJC list. The EPA' s definition of "chronic" violations is "si.xt•I-six percent or more of the measurements exceed the same dailv maximum .limit or the same average limit in a six month cericd (any magnitude of exceedance ) A company violatinc , however slightly, the same standard in three out of the four cuarters during a year, would fit that description. - - At the hearing which you have request'ev,= the issues. would - appear to be as follows: 1 . Has Universal Circuits 31 been in violation of discharge standards for three out of the four quarters during the 1987-88 fiscal year? Kenneth A. Ryder, Esc. Page 3 October 13 , 1988 2 . If so , does this constitute "a pattern of non. compliance over a 12 month period" within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) ? If Universal Circuits all still desires to pursue the appeal process, it may do so by contacting Mr. Rich von Lancen who will then arrange a hearing before Mr. Blake Anderson, Director of Technical Services of the Districts. Please contact Mr . von Langan before October 19, 1988 , if Universal Circuits 1 wishes to proceed with the appeal. If the Districts do not hear from you by that time, the Districts will assume that Universal Circuits all wishes to abandon its appeal. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter, Please advise. Very truly yours, ROURKE 6 WOODRUFF Clark F. Ida CFI :cjs :Cll33 cc: vMr . R. van Langen Thomas L. Woodruff, Esc. ATTACHMENT D COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA - / P.O. BOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92729-8127 108"ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714)962-2411 November 23, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL REF #447 P 367 379 681 Universal Circuits #1 1800 Newport Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit No: 1-1-346 Attention: Mr. Gary Ryan, Engineering Manager Subject: Notice of Determination re: Universal Circuits #1 Appeal from Designation as a Significantly Violating Compliance Company During Fiscal Year 1987-88 On November 8, 1988, a hearing was held at the offices of the County Sanitation .... Districts of Orange County (Districts) on Universal Circuits #11s appeal regarding their designation as a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company during fiscal year 1987-88. The hearing was attended by Gary Ryan of Universal Circuits #1 and Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. of Pinto & Gromet, attorneys for Universal Circuits #1; Districts' staff Richard von Langen and ,Mahin Tal=_bi ; Districts' Hearing Officer Blake Anderson; and Clark Ide, Esq. of Rourke .S Woodruff, General Counsel for the Districts. BACKGROUND The Districts operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Ocean Discharge Permit which is issued by the California Regional 'Water Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Districts are referred to as a Publicly Owned Treatment 'Works (POTW), and, as such, have a permit condition that requires them to have an approved POT'W pretreatment program. Among the requirements for an EPA-approved POT'J pretreatment program is that the POT'W comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii). Under this Section, the Districts' procedures :oust include the following: "Provision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which. the POT'.J is located, of industrial users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating pretreatment standards or other prehroa'aen' requirements. For the purposes of this provision, a Universal Circuits #1 November 23, 1988 Page 2 is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is art of a attern of non-com "ance over a 12-month eriod; which invo ves a ai ure to accurate y repor non-camp iance;. or which results in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f)(1)(vi)(b) of this section." (emphasis added) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard 3 out of 4 quarters during a fiscal year as significantly violating compliance, because these companies have violations which are part of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period. The EPA recommends in Section 3.4.2 of its "Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring, and Enforcement Guidance" manual that al companies that have "chronic" violations be listed one list. The EPA's definition of chronic violation is "66n or more of the measurements exceeding the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit in a 6-month period (any magnitude of exceedance)." And so, a company violating, however slightly, the same standard in 3 out of 4 quarters, would fit this description. This is the standard that the Districts used for determining that Universal Circuits #1 was an SVC company for fiscal year 1987-88. The record of Universal Circuits #1' s discharge was as follows: Pounds Lead Date Over Limit September 24-25, 1987 0.35 December 28-29, 1987 0 March 30-31, 1987 0.1 June 16-17, 1987 1.13 The following two issues were the subject of the hearing: 1. Has Universal Circuits #1 been in violation of discharge standards for 3 out of the 4 quarters during the 1987-88 fiscal year? 2. If so, does this constitute "a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period" within the meaning of 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii )? During the hearing, Universal Circuits #1 provided oral and written testimony. A copy of Universal Circuits #1' s written testimony is included as Attachment 1. Districts' staff provided a staff report as well as oral testimony. The Districts' staff report is included as Attachment 2. v Universal Circuits #1 November 23, 1988 Page 3 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Universal Circuits #1 cited two grounds for their appeal . The first one was that the testing methodology utilized by the Districts was not accurate enough for the purposes of establishing SVC designation because there is a margin of error. The second grounds for appeal was that the Districts failed to follow its own internal procedures with respect to the frequency of measurements taken at the Universal Circuits #1 facility, and, had the Districts followed its procedures, Universal Circuits #1 would not be considered an SVC company. With regards to the first grounds for the appeal , Universal Circuits #1 in their oral testimony stated that laboratory accuracy was not at issue. However, Universal Circuits #1 did argue that the sampling method was not adequate for accurately characterizing their discharge. Universal Circuits #1 argued that the Districts' use of a time-composited sample did not accurately reflect the actual discharge conditions at Universal Circuits K. No evidence to support this allegation was provided by Universal Circuits #1 either in written or oral testimony, or in responses to questions by the Hearing Officer. The Districts have utilized time-composited samping since 1976 for determining the compliance status of industrial dischargers. The issue of time-composited versus flow-weighted composite sampling was the subject of a Universal Circuits #1 appeal on September 25, 1985. At that time, Universal Circuits #1 argued that the Districts had used time-composited samples and the accuracy was insufficient to levy non-compliance fees totalling $1,168.00. After lengthy discussion, the Directors for Sanitation District No. 1 determined that time-composited samples were sufficient to adequately characterize the discharge quality of Universal Circuits #1 and denied the appeal. Testimony by Districts' staff at that time included a recounting of discussions between the industrial Ad Hoc Committee (of which Gary Ryan was a member) and the Districts in 1983. Alternatives, including the flaw-proportional method, were discussed but the Committee concluded that the time-composited method was representative, economical , and overall the most desirable method of sampling. However, all permittees had the option of installing an effluent flaw-metering system so that flow-proportional sampling could be conducted by the Districts. At the time of the 1985 appeal, Districts' staff indicated that they would not object to Universal Circuits #1 designing and installing a flow-proportional system for future sampling. Universal Circuits #1 has not elected to avail themselves of this option. As a result, the Districts and Universal Circuits #1 have relied on time-composited samples to characterize the industrial discharge of Universal Circuits #1. Universal Circuits 91 November 23, 1988 Page 4 Universal Circuits S1 also made a de minimus argument regarding the level of non-compliance that occurred on March 30-31, 1988. Universal Circuits S1 argued that because the violation was so minimal, it should not be considered in making the determination of a pattern of non-compliance. However, the de minimus argument is specifically excluded under Section 3.4.2 of EPA's "Pretreatment Cam fiance Monitdrin and Enforcement Guidance" manual which states that an exceedance o any magnitude constitutes violation. - Universal Circuits #I 's second ground for appeal was that the Districts failed to follow its own internal procedures with respect to follow-up sampling following the original routine sampling event. Within Universal Circuits *I 's written testimony, the claim is made that: "Resampling was not conducted, however, ostensibly because the non-compliant measurements did not appear to be significant, even in the view of OCSO." No factual basis was provided by Universal Circuits 41 to substantiate this assertion: The facts actually contradict this assertion. The Districts mailed Notices of Violation to Universal Circuits d1 after 'each non-compliant event (see copies included as Attachment 3). Immediate action to correct the problem was requested in each notice. Within Universal Circuits S11s written appeal , it was stated that: "Had resampling been taken as required after the two de minimus non-compliant measures. in September, 1987 and March,—L98$, and such resampling showed compliance with discharge requirements (as the July, 1988 resampling demonstrated), then there would have been a total of seven measurements (rather than four) taken by OCSD with respect to fiscal year 1987-88, of which only three (i .e. less than 50%) showed non-compliance." This scenario is purely speculative as confirmed by Universal Circuits 71 in response to a question by the Hearing Officer. It has no factual basis. Because Universal Circuits S1 had clear information from the Districts that violations were occuring (the Notices of Violation of October 15, 1987, April 18, 1988, and June 29, 1988), Universal Circuits =1 should have had sufficient information to understand its compliance status. In any case, it is the responsibility of Universal Circuits #1 to maintain compliance with their discharge standards and to collect sufficient process information to determine, for their own purposes, whether consistent compliance is being achieved. The purpose of the Districts' sampling is to confirm compliance or non-compliance of the sampled firm. Universal Circuits #1 November 23, 1988 Page 5 DETERMINATION After careful consideration of the facts before me, I, Blake Anderson, Hearing Officer, find insufficient grounds to overturn the findings by Districts' staff that Universal Circuits #1 was a Significantly Violating Compliance company during 1987-88 and, therefore, deny Universal Circuits #1's appeal . Furthermore, I direct the Districts' staff to publish Universal Circuits #1' s name as an SVC company in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii) within 30 days of the date of this determination. Aw ..� Blake P. Anderson Director of Technical Services BPA:lab CPT:29 Attachments (3) cc: Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. Clark F. Ide, Esq. J. Wayne Sylvester Richard von Langen ATTACHMENT 1 UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS #1 APPEAL FROM DESIGNATION AS A 'SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE" COMPANY DURING FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 Hearing Date: November 8, 1988 I. Facts: The Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California ('OCSD') have designated Universal Circuits $1 (-UC- 11) as a 'significantly violating compliance' company for fiscal year 1987-88, on the grounds that discharge measurements taken from the UC-1 facility during said fiscal year resulted in pattern of non-compliance during that year. The measurements at issue are as follows: Pounds Per Day Date In Non-Compliance September 24-25, 1987 0. 35 December 28-29, 1987 0 March 30-31, 1988 0. 1 June 16-17, 1988 1. 13 It is apparently the practice of OCSD to designate a company to be 'significantly violating compliance- if it is in non-compliance on the same standard three out of four quarters during a fiscal year. It should be noted that UC-11s discharge of lead is the only standard at issue with respect to this designation; with respect to discharge under all other standards for which UC-1 has obtained a permit from OCSD, UC-1 is not considered to be in non-compliance. II. Grounds of Appeal: A. The Testing Methodology Utilized At The UC-1 Facility By OCSD Is Not Accurate Enough To Be Utilized Without A 'Margin Of Error- For Purposes of a -Significantly Violating Compliance' Designation: OCSD apparently follows the EPA recommendation with respect to whether or not a pattern of non-compliance exists, based upon whether sixty-six percent (66%) or more of the measurements taken exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit in a six (6) month period (any magnitude of exceedance) . (See Section 3.4 .2 of EPA's 'Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Guidance' Manual. ) Utilization of such a standard, however, must presuppose that the measurements are also obtained in accordance with EPA guidelines; simply put, OCSD cannot fairly follow the EPA's recommendations with respect to a pattern of non-compliance without also following EPA's guidelines for the measurements upon which that pattern is to be based. 168-0424-01/19 ' jak:11/7/88 In EPA's -Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater- (relevant portions of which are attached hereto) , EPA recommends a -flow proportion' sampling technique be utilized for discharge flow rates of moderate to high variability during a sampling period (such as is the case with UC-1) ; where the rate of flow is virtually uniform throughout sampling, composite sampling is usually adequate. Composite sampling is the method utilized by OCSD in its measurements of the UC-1 facility. Because of the variability in UC-11s flow rates, however, this methodology is not as accurate as a flow proportion sampling technique would be, and is not the recommended sampling methodology for a facility such as UC-1. We understand that the expense involved in flow proportion testing at the UC-1 facility may make it cost- prohibitive at this time. However, if the designation of a company as -significantly violating compliance- is to be based upon a percentage of measurements taken with are in non- compliance, regardless of the margin of exceedance, then the most accurate testing methodology recommended by the EPA should be utilized. If the most accurate methodology is not to be utilized, then for purposes of such a classification, then a 'margin of error' tolerance should be incorporated to fairly judge the measurements. With respect to the fiscal year 1987-88, since the testing methodology of choice recommended by the EPA guidelines was not utilized by OCSD in taking measurements at the UC-1 facility, it is impossible for OCSD to fairly or accurately claim that UC-1 was in non-compliance in three out of four quarters. B. OCSD Failed To Follow Its Own Internal Procedures With Respect To The Frequency Of Measurements Taken At The UC-1 Facility: Had OCSD Followed Its Procedures, UC-1 Would Not Be Considered A -Significantly Violating Compliance' Company: Section 601B. 'of OCSD's own policies and procedures manual (a copy of which is attached hereto) provides that whenever any measurement taken during routine sampling by OCSD is found to be in non-compliance, subsequent sampling and measurement will be taken within thirty (30) days. With the exception of the last routine sampling taken at the UC-1 facility on June 16-17, 1988 (which produced the only measurement appearing to be significantly in non-compliance) , following no other alleged non-compliant sampling was a subsequent sampling taken within thirty (30) days. For the one re-sampling which did take place, on July 18-19, 1988, the results revealed cure and compliance with discharge requirements. -2- If OCSD considered the non-compliant measurements obtained during the routine samplings in September of 1987 and March of 1988 to be anything but de minimus, then it should have followed its own procedures and conducted subsequent re-samplings within thirty (30) days, and if such additional samples revealed further non-compliance, then subsequent actions as set forth in OCSD's policies and procedures guidelines could have been initiated. Re-sampling was not conducted, however, ostensibly because the non-compliant measurements did not appear to be significant, even in the view of OCSO. It is certainly inconsistent for OCSD to now claim that such non-compliance would be significant for purposes of classifying UC-1 as a 'significantly violating compliance" company. Had re-sampling been taken as required after the two de minimus, non-compliant measures in September, 1987 and March, 1988, and such re-samplings showed compliance with discharge requirements (as the July, 1988 re-sampling demonstrated) , then there would have been a total of seven (7) measurements (rather than four (4) ) taken by OCSD with respect to fiscal year 1987-88, of which only three (i.e. , less than fifty percent (508) ) showed non-compliance. Clearly, this would have placed the UC-1 facility well below both the OCSD practice and the EPA recommendations with respect to whether a pattern of non- compliance has been demonstrated. The designation of a company as "significantly violating compliance" is too important for OCSD to have ignored its own internal policies and procedures with respect to re- sampling and cure. III. Conclusion: Despite OCSD's claim that its designation of UC-1 as a -significantly violating compliance- company is based upon the guidelines and recommendations of EPA, OCSD has in fact failed to follow EPA recommendations with respect to sampling methodology of UC-1, or OCSD's own internal policies and procedures with respect to frequency of measurements, both of which are critical components to the recommendations and guidelines of EPA with respect to whether or not a company is "significantly violating compliance.- It is therefore respectfully submitted that with respect to the fiscal year 1987-88, OCSD cannot fairly designate and stigmatize UC-1 as a ^significantly violating compliance^ company, and therefore should not do so. As has been stated in the past, UC-1 takes very seriously its obligations and requirements with respect to wastewater discharge, and does not believe that it is ^significantly violating compliance." -3- NOV 07 'ES 10:19 UCI•CP1 P9-259 1�6 ire HANOBCOK FOR MONITORING INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER 1aL U. & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Tethndogy Tn vhr !L: Augu+t Ign N� NATIONAL A NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE at?YrIWp'O, ILA IIJIr4 ChaparE SAMPLING 6.1 Introduction The basis far any plant pollution abatement program rests upon information obtained by sampling.Thus, i all subsequent decisions may be band upon incorrect information if this step It not accurately pursued. —� Them ate several pitfalls which can occur if sampling Is performed In a carelw or ralvc manner. If a few bulc principles are followed and if than responsible for =piing are forewarned, reliable results can bar obtained without axtansive and costly reseripiing, Obtaining load results will depend upon certain details.Among than ate the following: 1. Insuring that the sample taken is truly representative of the wastastream. 2. Using proper sampling techniques. 7. Protecting the samples until they are analysed. The first of than requirements,obtAirdng a sample which it truly representative of the wutmreun,may be 1 the source of significant ertors.This It especially apparent in the can of"grsb'or nanKamposlted samplea. j It must be remembered that waste Bows an very widely both In magnitude and composition over a 24-hour period. Also, composition can very within a given arm=it my single time due to a pilau willing of suspended wilds or the Bating of light materials.Because of the lower velocities next to the wells of the Bow channel, mataWs will tend to deposit to than areas. Samples should therefore be taken from the wutastmam what the Bow Is wall mixed. Since suitable points for sampling In sewer systems us limited, numerous Ideal locations as not usual. The outlets of well mixed ranks as excellent tempi* points. In addition, the now most be messured and the tool watts load calculated by multiplying the flaw fits time the concentration.A discussion of flow measurement techniques Is presented in Chapter 7. The usual method'for accounting for variations in flow and watts constituents and minimising the analytical effort Is by compoiting the samples. Basically, sufficient samples should be taken w that,when mixed together (before analysis), the results which us obtained will be similar to taking a sample from a completely-mixed tank which had collected an the flow from the fire= In question.Greater accuracy Is ` obtained If rose amount of sample In the composite Is taken in proportion to the flow. In general, the 1 greater the frequency of samples taken for ths composite,the more accurate the result. 1 If batch processes which"slug"the system w present,wmpoaiting ran lead to enonwtu results unless the umpnal is done at a very high frequency(possibly continuously)or unless the flow is'amooined vet"by SJ7 am equalisation wchnlqua. Obtaining a representative sample should be of major resistant In a monitoring program.A thorough analysis of the wan news its the plant must be made and a responsible staff member should be assigned to insure that the samples taken arc repreuntative. As a general rule, closer attention must be given to waste aampling than in the sampling of a manufacturing process strew. t After a pmpttiy compoelted representative simple has bean collected,It is essential that It be maintained in a ttste Out will not Introduce offer prim to analysis. Beauty jams sampler us preserved only with difficulty, it L desirable w provide analysis as quickly as possible. For this reason, it may be naccuary to abandon a compositing technique for jams paamnan. in the" cans; It will be necusary, to take gets i swpies fa Immediate analysis. 1 6.1 Obvious precautions, such as avoidana of contamination throuSh ditty ample battles, apply to waste monitoring a wall u to umpling from a manufacturing procen.One very timple required procedure which is often overlooked it the tuabliahment of a ample muking and recording method which prevents switching of samples or confusion as to their origin.It it win,of warn,to insure that waste ample bottles not be ued for procen sampling. Good sampling technique is important enough to warrant the following discussion of umpdng details to assist in an uwyds and monitoring program. 6.2 Typo of Semples The two most common types of samples ve known u grab samples and composite samples and either may be obtained manually or automatically. 6.3.1 Grab Samples Grab samples may be taken manually or automatically from the wutestreama.Earls temple shows the waste chstwerntia at he time the temple is taken.Automatic sampling I etuntitlly the came IS tilting a canes of grab samples at regular intervals. The volume of a grab wnpie m be taken depends on the total number of upuste uulysn that must be made;however,a quart is usually sufficient.Wide mouth Jan us preferred for sunple collecticnin order to facilitate he rapidity of sample collcMm.A grab sample may be preferred ovsr a composite =Pie when: 1. The wiser m be templed does not flow on a continuous basis, inch a awn at an intermittently dry dlach" outlet or when minumlruted proan Lanka us periodically dumped A gnb aunple from such a dltehuga is wMcient m obaln the waste chuac:eristla of a batch dump. It Is Important to make certain that he intermittent dump I well mixed when the temple is taken. S. The waste chuactarlaia an relatively constant. For inch wastes,a complex sampling Program is not neosuuy slam an occasional grab temple may be entirely adequate to esuohih waste 3. It Is desired to determine whehn or not a composite sunple obaeurn extreme conciltioru of the waste. A classic aunpie is he Possible variation of PH. A composite sampic may have a Mtral pH while Individual grab samples nay exhibit a wide PH range,it may be impossible to Inns a widely nrying waste bidegiully without pnueumant or neutralludon,yet then clteraaedida may not be apparent from a properly composited sample. An example of PH varying with time oacun in the textile Industry when the PH In he moving may be u Iw u 3.3,while in the afu ncon, he wastewater PH may be a high as 11. Gab temples an rtqulmd when analyzing westews" for paemetan such n dissolved gun, resduai chlorine,soluble sulfides,tempeamn,and PH. 6.3.3 Composia Sulpla In order to minim to the number of samples to be anafymd,It is usually desirable a mix severs individual remples. The amount of the individual smple that may be added to the tout mixture depends on he law rj at he time he sample war ukan.For axampia,for every geilon per minute of flaw at the time of sunpieng. I mi is added to the composite temple. Judgment ebouid be used in deciding upon the quannry of cub Individual ample. As long te he ratio of now n individual sunpie volume remum he same, the bI NOV 07 '6y 10:21 UCI•CPLIF � S compaaiting should be valid. The total amount of composite sample dapcnds an the number and type of analysts to be made; the minimum quantity being about 2 titers. the ndNmum uaouat of an individual simple should be about 200 ml, if the tempi,is telexes with time intervals of about 1 hour.When continual sanpling is employed at ianrvsla of about 3 to 5 minutes, she minimum amount of sample should be not less than 25 ml. Depending on the time and viability of plant operation, 2. 4, 8, 16, or 24-hour composites may be collected. Whan the wow cherintaristics see variable,the sample should be compcsitad over a Norte,period of time.Sample,may be comported on the basis of either time or flow. I. Flow-The amount of nmplas collected,or added to the mixture during the sampling period is proportional to the vote dow at the time of stripling. Samplas an available that automatically composite an the basis of flow. 2. Time • Another approach to sample compaiting is the collection of samples with a fixed volume after a certain quantity of waste flow has paned the amPlbsg stadon. Composite temples provide sufficiently accurate data if the variability of the wore characteristics it ' moderate; however, variability of waste chugswrisucs must be determined by the analysis of yob samples. The time length of a composited simple it limited by the time he sample can be stored without changing the waste ehanenrlaucs. For example, it is recommended that the analysis for 50D be initiated within 8 hours after sampling. Composite sampling should be avoided when cyanide and acid wastes may pan :he arnpling point at different times during he compmiting period. 6S MansW Sampling Manuel sampling is recommended during the preliminary survey. The prolunvary survey should determine when and when automatic simpim as needed, the portion of the wastestream samples that should be pumped, etc. Manual sampling has the advantage that the sample collector an observe unusuel conditions. Grab samples from batch dump,are usually performed manually. 6.4 Automatic Sampling When several points an to be ampled at frequent intervals,or when a continuous record ls required,it may be mom convenient On instal automatic samplcss.The Wtailation cost of automatic ampler, is offset by he savings on labor required for manual collection. An added advantage to automatic sampling is the Feasible rsduction of,man Itinerant In manuel collation. Continuous s mplen an marketed conhmercially and must be examined carefully to see that they an suitable (or the waste characteristics in question. For example, a sampler intended to collect scid wastes should be conawctod of noncorrosive materials. To be reliable, continuous sanplm require frequent inspection and denting. Automatic simpiers ara available that will obtain composite simples either at a function of time or flow. 6S Frequency of Sampling and Duration of Sampling Program During a Waste Survey The frequency of sampling depends on he now rate and the w]atewaer characmnaics.The expec:d range in flow rate and waste concentration should be determined during he preliminary survey.The frequency of grab samples is often ones per hour. When he results of tltt survey indicate low variabdiry. the grab samples may be taken at longer intervals of 2. 4, 8, 16, or ever, 24 houn. For hignfy vazubie waste concentrations, the installation of an automatic ampler should be considered.Tree n-' over which ninnies should be cempmitcd aim depends on he variability of the wareseream. For Fugh visibility, individual samples for compositing should be taken as frequently as 1 every 3 minutes up to I per hour. The 6.3 6.10 Equlpment AveOable for Sampling 6.10.1 Manual Sunplbq A wide mouth bottle with an opening of it ]cast two inches is recommended far manual tarnpllns. Commercially available polyethylene supple bottles with a volume cf about 111tar are acceptable for most sampling and hive the advantages of economy and safety. The wide mouth of the bottle is important A order to obtain the supple as rapidly as possible. If the caw" location does not permit obtaining a direct ample from the wastesucuts, a bucket and rope can be used to obtain a larger quantity of waste from which a direct simple may be taken. A long-hundlad, wide•maath cirllndriW dipper of corrosian resistant material could aim be used in order to obtain suMclent wastewater for sampling. A weighted container nay be used to hold and wbmergs a bottle while it is lowered into a wasmumun. Point sunplen us weighted bottle wed to collect umplas at a desired depth. In operation, a weighted bottle Is corked and lowered Into the wumatream,at the desired depth the cork u removed by another line and the ample Is obtained.For suatifled waste holuticns,a graduated glass or plastic cylinder,open at both ends, may be lowered into the solution in order to obtain a crouAection of the ample. In the sampling MItIon,the cylinder is corked at both ends by a level arrangement. Another method of obtaining a simple at in inacceuible location is by ua of a handoperucd pump.A who fixed to this motion end of an ordinary pump may be lowered into the wsitestmam from which ins 1 sample Is is be removed. h The Sir= Vninoop Uquid Sampler is a simple, mutwllyaperated device in which the ampler is lowered into a liquid to the desired level, then by pulling on the handle, a ball plug opens which admits the wastewater into a ample rasp. 6.10.2 AutomWe Simprs. A wide rang of automatic sunplan are commucially avulable. Some automatic samplers us designed to Like composite tampas proportional to to flow and acres an not. In theory, practically all automatic samplers can be connected to flow devise in order to obtain proportionate temples. For all samples, the sampling Una should be kept as short u paoSls and raps and pockets in the lines white dude can cattle 4,owd sae svaided.A,tyuhytans,uflon or other plastic conuinorra as preferred for c mpla irorap. 6.10.2.1 Nomporpartboai Utopia" — S d" h � 4,Aa. TiL " C-0 . When the now is nearly constant. the non-proportional ampler Is sullicient for collecting a composite simple. A simple system Is shown in Figure 6.1, whereby a umpis is drawn from the wismstnam as a continuous flow rate. As water drum from the upper atboy, a vswum Is created which nphom waste into the Iowa conuina.The me of now is regulated by the screw camp, If desired, the sample bottle could be lcuted In a nfrig ator. Since the flow ran is low, muntemnu of the line Li required to prevent dogutg by solids or bacterial growth. Another typo of nonlroportionu ampler contains an air vent control is shown in Figure 6.2. The speed with which the ample tank is filled depends on the setting of a verve handle. Ali aamplan discussed in the next section us sew applicable far non•proporoonsie sunpiing. Instead of connecting the =pier with a now measuieni device, the sampiar could be connected with a timer,cilaraprding proportionate sampling. 3 6.10 i3 . SEP 09 '88 15:51 UCI•CPL" P.2 w ARTICLE 6 L ENFORCEMENT 601. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND -APPLICABLE FEES P. Routine Sampling If routine Composite sampling reveals non-compliance by the discharger with the mass emission rates or conditions specified in the user's permit, then the user shall pay to the District fees as specified in Tables II and III, pursuant to the provisions in Section 601(8) and (C). TABLE 11 FEES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS AND MASS EMISSION RAToES orsPer Pownc Per Day in Excess of Limit During and After ..i Routine After ECSA Batch Sampling S & E Exoiration Dumps Arsenic S 100.00 S 200.00 S 300.00 S 300.00 Cadmium 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Chromium (Total ) 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 _ Copper 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Lead 80.00 160.00 240.00 240.00 Mercury 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Nickel 50.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 Silver 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Zinc $0.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 Cyanide (Total ) 50.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 i Cyanide (Free, amenable to chlorination) 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 orB' s, Pesticides and Taal Toxic Organics 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 j Phenols 50.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 I I Dissolved Sulfides $0.00 :00.00 150.00 150.00 I I _ B. Preliminary Determination of Mon-Compliance with Permit Requirements NOn-compliance with permit discharge requirements may be determined by an analysis of a grab (for pH only) or composite sample of the effluent of a discharger for any constituent or condition Specified In the user's permit. If the effluent of a user is found by the ai.alySis of the sample to be in excess of the concentrations or conditions specified in Section 204 or Section 208,•routine sampling charges as set forth in Tables II and III shall be levied. A subseduent composite sample will be taken within thirty (30) days, which will also be subject to routine sampling charges if found to be in non-compliance. If the second sample reveals non- compliance, then a Sampling and Evaluation Program may be initiated by the District. , C. Sample and Evaluation Program 1 . If the Sampling and Evaluation ME) Program reveals non- Compliance by the permittee with the mass emission rates or conditions specified in the user's permit, the permittee shall pay the fees as specified in Tables II and III and may be assessed all other costs incurred during the SLE Program for sampling and analysis, including labor, equipment, materials and overhead. The fees specified Shall become retroactive to the date the Sampling and Evaluation Program �... started. The fees for non-compliance shall continue to accumulate for each day sampled, not to exceed ten (10) normal working days. 2. If non-compliance by the permittee with mass emission rates Or conditions as specified in the user's permit is determined, the District's Chief Engineer may proceed with one of the following: a) Amend the existing permit through an Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreement (ECSA). This may be done after consultation with the permittee and when the discharger has shown good faith in trying to comply but requires additional time for construction and/or acquisition of equipment related to pretreatment. The permit may be amended with the ECSA for a period of up to 180 days, however, this period may be extended for a period not to exceed an additional 180 days upon determination by the Chief Engineer that good cause exists for an additional period. No further extensions shall be granted except upon approval of the Board of Directors. Any condition of the ESCA not acceptable to the=Permi.ttae.may.be = sled under the provisions Of Section 601 .8 of this Ordinance. b) If corrective action is not taken within a easono Is veluation time after completion o. the Sampling and s Program and notification to the Permittee of the expiration Of the Er-SA and the discharger is stilt not `� in compliance. tnen a 'ease and Desist OrOer may be issued. -36- - ATTACHMENT 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT November 8, 1988 d ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA REF #421 I="EW5 AVENUE 20.80.8127 MUNTAiN VAU V.tlUFCAN1A 22M-a C 91aI N2-tan STAFF REPORT UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS, INCORPORATED ;1 - PERMIT NO. 1-346 APPEAL OF SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE STATUS BACKGROUND Universal Circuits, Incorporated ?1 (UCI 41), has been discharging to County Sanitation District No. 1 since 1976, and has been located at 1800 Newport Circle Drive, Santa Ana, California, since 1981. Based an flow, UCI 41 is the fourth - largest printed circuit board manufacturer in Orange County, and uses a batch treatment system as their means of meeting discharge standards. There is no pretreatment system for the continuous discharge of over 120,000 gallons per day of wastewater. • During the 1987-88 fiscal year, the Districts composite sampled UCI 41 on-site 4 times. The results are shown below: Lead (Lbs/Day) Over Limit Non-Cgmoliance Date Discharged* (Lbs/Day) Fee Dollars September 24-25, 1987 1.05 0.35 29.00 December 28-29, 1987 0.44 0 0 March 30-31, 1988 0.80 0.1 8.00 June 16-17, 1988 1.33 1.13 90.40 4-Day Average = 1.03 * Permit limit = 0.70 lbs/day maximum, 0.47 lbs/day 4-day averace. Cn .august 23, 1988 UCI =1 was sent a letter informing them that they we'e identified as significantly violating compliance (SVC) .ana, as sucn, tne'.r name would be published in The Register. An appeal was lodged on .august 25, '_98S by UCI #1 and the Districts' response containing the above information was returned ._.tA UCI 'I on September 7, 1988. The Districts received a letter from Mr. Kenneth A. Ryder on September 9, 1988 stating UCI 41' s grounds for appeal ( see Attachment 1) and on October 13, 1988 Mr. Clark Ide of the Districts' Office_ of General Counsel responded (see Attachment 2) . 1 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL �s The grounds for appeal by UCI #1 are summarized below: 1. UCI #1 corrected the major violation of June 16-17, 1988 within 45 days after notification. 2. Standards for determining that a company is subjective, and unenforceably vague: a) The sampld results from September 24-25, 1987 and March 30-31, 1988 are too small to be considered and the sampling and testing methods used by the Districts are not accurate enough to determine non-compliance when there is only a 0.1 pounds average. b) The violation of the 4-day average limit is not correct as the limits should be based on a flaw of 0.140 MGD, not 0.090 MGD, as in the proposed permit limit. STAFF'S POSITION The Districts' identification of UCI all as an SVC company is based on a consistent pattern of non-compliance, not on the premise that they had a major violation which remained uncorrected for more than 45 days. The Districts' EPA-audited and approved sampling program provides an accepted means of determining non-compliance as reaffirmed to UCI #1 by the District No. 1 Board of Directors on September 25, 1985. ,,, The Districts' Laboratory has a State of California reviewed quality assurance/ quality control (QA/QC) program to assure the accuracy and precision of the samples. These two programs provide results to determine compliance with permit limitations and to determine whether a company is identified as an SVC. As part of the Districts' EPA-approved pretreatment program, and in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8.f.2(vii), the Districts must publish the names of those companies that have been identified as significantly violating compliance as shown below: "[PIrovision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POTW is located, of Industrial Users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating Pretreatment Standards or other Pretreatment Requirements. For the purposes of this provision, a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; whiclr-is part of a pattern of non-comnliance over a 2-month period; whichwhich involve failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which resulted in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f)(1)(vi )(B) of this Section." (Emphasis added. ) 7 Using these regulations as a basis for determination, since 1986 the Districts have annually published the list of SVC companies using the following definitions: 1. A major violation is a per sample violation of a heavy metal limitation equal to or greater than 1.0 pound/day; or a pH less than 5.0. This criteria is ' used to require correction by the company within 45 days after notification of the major violation. 2. A minor violation is a per sample violation of a heavy metal limitation less than 1.0 pound/day; or a pH between 5.0 to 5.9. This criteria and No. 1 above are used to determine a pattern of non-compliance. 3. A pattern of non-compliance is defined as a company violating the same constituent standard 3 or more quarters during the reporting period. 4. The exercise of emergency powers is defined as the Districts' issuing a Cease and Desist Order or being granted a Temporary Restraining Order or similar injunctive relief to stop the company's discharge to the sewer. The Districts' staff wishes to clarify UCI #11s violation of the 4-day average. The maximum and 4-day average permit limits used by the Districts to calculate the effluent limits during 1987-88 was based on 0.140 MGO. Although UCI #1 did exceed the 4-day average as shown in the table above, this average was not used .� by the Districts to determine ,the identification of UCI #1 as an SVC. RECOMMENDATION Because UCI #1 was found to be in non-compliance with their lead discharae limit 3 of 4 quarters, UCI #1 meets the criteria showing a pattern of non-compliance and therefore should be classified as an SVC company. The staff recommends that Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 be published in The Register pursuant to the EPA requirements in 40 CFR 403.8.f.2(vii) . RVL:lab CPT:29 Attachments(2) i ATTACHMENT 1 Pr.VTO 8: GROMET AITORNRYS AT LAW SAu1 B. Pl'. 2201 DUPONT 0111". SCISS 700 OCR Pl1 yM STR"4.T J. GNOMES IRVINE. CALIFORNIA B27304010 RBNNRTR A. RYDRR CRRI]TOPNRB N. DAB.. TRLEPRON$ NO. I'%a, BDD`YTT THONAB F. ST.. TZL COP[ER NO. (714) 030.2087 168-0424-01 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPY County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 Attention: Richard von Langan, P.E. Re: Allegation of Significantly Violating Compliance During 1987-88 Against Universal Circuits „1 NOTICE OF APPEAL Gentlemen: This office represents Universal Circuits, Inc. in connection with its operations in Orange County, California. We have been forwarded your letters of August 23 , 1988 and September 7, 1988 regarding allegations that Universal Circuits #1 ("UC-10) be classified as a "Significantly Violating Compliance" company ("violating company") during the period of July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988 ("Compliance Year-) , and of your intention to include the name of UC-1 in a list to be published in the Orange Countv Register on or abnrt September 70.. 1988. This letter is meant to serve as a clarification and restatement of the appeal in connection with the foregoing by UC-1, and to set forth our position with respect to publication of the name of UC-1 prior to the resolution of this matter. A. Grounds for Appeal: 1. UC-1 Cured the Alleged June 16-17 , 1988 Non- Compliance Within 45 Dave of Such Alleged Non-Cc❑oliance: The only sample found to be significantly in non-compliance from the UC-1 facility during the entire Compliance Year was that taken June 16-17, 19sa , which was only 13 days prior to �. the June 30, 1988 expiration of the Compliance Year. :lotice of this alleged non-compliance was not even rece'_ved by UC-1 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 2 until after June 30, 1988. Your letter of August 23 , 1988 claims that the alleged non-compliance was left uncorrected for more than 45 days; however, 45 days were not available to do any retesting and correcting prior to the expiration of the Compliance Year. Indeed, had the alleged non- compliance of June 16-17, 1988 rather occurred on the September 24-25, 1987 sampling, the subsequent compliance on December 28-29, 1987 would have completely exonerated UC-1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a resammling at the UC-1 facility was taken by the Districts on July 18- 19, 1988, which is within the 45-day cure period. The results of this sampling revealed lead discharge from the UC-1 facilitv to. be in full compliance with discharge requirements. Accordingly, the alleged non-compliance of June 16-17, 1988 was fully corrected within the required 45-day period, thereby exonerating UC-1 with respect to this ... matter. A copy of your report reflecting these resampling results is enclosed for your review and information. 2. The Standards for Determining, that a Companv is 'Significantly Violating Compliance" are Subiective and Unenforceably Vague: Pursuant to your August 23, 1988 letter, a company may be found to be "Significantly Violating Compliance" if it (a) had" a discharge of heavy metals greater than one pound left uncorrected for more than 45 days, (b) showed a -consistent pattern of non-compliance- during the Compliance Year, or (c) had a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority. These standards are not contained in anv formal regulations of the Districts, and rather are actarently the informal guidelines followed by the Districts. We have addressed the cure of the standard set forth in subparagraph (a) in Subsection A. 1. above. At no time during the Compliance Year did UC-1 have a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority, pursuant to the standard sat forth is subparagraph (c) . Your September 7, 1988 letter alleges that UC-1 showed a pattern of non-compliance over the Compliance Year. This is disputed for the following reasons: (i) The alleged non-compliance on September 24-25, 1987 and March 30-31, 198o is County Sanitation Districts of orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 3 de minimus, and indeed the sampling and testing methodology utilized by the Districts is not accurate enough to rule out an error within the range of plus or minus 0 . 1 pounds. As you are aware, UC-1 in the past has suggested that the Districts' modify its sampling procedure pursuant to EPA guidelines so as to provide more accurate readings. Accordingly, it is our contention that for purposes of determining whether UC-1 is a violating company, only the sampling taken on June 16-17, 1988 should be considered. As previously stated, this non-compliance was corrected within 45 days. (ii) The claim in your September 7, 1988 letter that the average of the four samples during the Compliance Year exceeded the permitted four-day average limit for UC-1 assumes a four-day average limit for UC-1 of 0.30 lbs. for lead discharge, which UC-1 has. challenged ever since its current proposed permit was issued. The current proposed permit issued for UC-1 is based on . 090 mgd flow, as opposed to the . 140 mgd flaw basis utilized in prior permits issued to UC-1. Since the current flow rate is approximately . 140 mgd despite extensive water conservation efforts, the present proposed permit does not reflect the actual water usage or give consideration for water conservation. Based upon the prior permit flow level (which is in fact the actual flow level) , the four-day average permitted for lead discharge is 0.47 lbs. , and under this four-day average limit, the four samples averaged during the Compliance Year did not exceed the limit. B. Publication. Publication that a company is "Significantly Violating Compliance" is obviously an unwanted stigma, and could be very damaging to a company's reputation in its industry and community. It is because of this concern that Universal-Circuits has always cooperated with the Districts in attempting to follow all applicable rules and guidelines with respect to its waste discharges, and has raised the instant appeal with respect to the Districts' current allegations. As set forth hereinabove, we believe that the criteria which has been utilized in classifying UC-1 as a violating company has been unfairly applied to UC-1 in this instance, and that UC-1 was not a violating company during the Compliance Year. county Sanitation Districts -� of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 4 Accordingly, on behalf of UC-1 we are hereby notifying you that if you attempt to publish the name of UC-1 as a "Significantly Violating Compliance- company, UC-1 intends to hold the Districts responsible and liable for any damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall UC-1 and/or Universal Circuits. By separate letter to the Orange County Register, a copy of which is attached hereto, we are also placing that newspaper on notice that should it publish the name of UC-1 as a -significantly Violating Compliance" company, UC-1 may also seek to hold that newspaper responsible and liable for such damages as well. Universal Circuits is very desirous of having this matter remedied in the most expedient manner possible to reinstate its good name with the Districts. We therefore look forward to hearing from you in the very near future so as to resolve this matter to the mutual satisfaction of the Districts and UC-1. In addition to the foregoing, in an attempt to alleviate future problems of this kind, we request that the Districts and Mr. Gary Ryan of Universal Circuits meet in an attempt to resolve their differences with respect to (i) the flow level basis for the proposed permit currently issued to UC-1, and (ii) the sampling methodology for future testing at Universal Circuits facilities in Orange County. Very truly yours, Xenneth A.Ryder XAR:par enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Ryan Mr. Raymond Esser cauNTY SANITATicm cis, d OMNI Caux". Gcvas' WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 1v, A e1,. Pam OW '� / �,�wy/�ruwvey�. INDUSTRY: UNfVP,YSnr ( /YCl�I7S #� OAi`e: Yd mrw9e 1800 A/GwDo✓f /err/i /fir, PERMIT NO. ATTN: TiUG ��/vfa uarruwgsrrurrrrurrrrrrraoa ..................... Your wastewater dischare waa 'sampled and tlu re0U1tS are as Yalla'we: Sample Oata(s) : T1me: /S/S Lccatton: SR,G Cancent stion Dtjsc/ar-a Pe nds.Qver R to PerCanstituents Tq/ 1 :sCa Nun A on cuna C`arce CADMIUM CHROMIUM CDPPSIR A1"/ /. 96 275 - B NICM /, yl/ /• 3G 3.08 — LEAD 0 ZINC SILVER -�— TSS SOD CYANIOE(T)� /• O a Value T'me . ^ate L'mitat!ons C1:arae PH 7 7-/9/�y-gP TC-AL C,;AdGE .........., mass =misslan Rate Flaw Base . Oq0 ',AGO Actual Oiscnar:a 1//3 MG0 Please adaress any questions cence.rnirg :n' e recort to Mr. James ?enzie, ar ae in the Lncustrlal 'Waste Division at extension 362 . 2':-are 'W, ven Laccen , �"" R'lUas Ch+e! of toe :."eus:r' a: ^gas:a 3: 4' 37:a �..i :P7:ASZ _a: No . /099S C9�ra6 ya ,,P/z PINTO & GROKaT wTIORHHYs " "w Sw. B. PoHTO HHOI DVP nn1VH. HvT 750 0. RSS HO. Sr6v.%J. GH6%Hi IHVI2+H. CALIYORYIA HHT18.1010 HEYHarH & RvOEE CHHIHSOP%EH M. GnHO.W i =PHON VO. (734) 966NT THO.`awH F. STHw 21 COVMR VO. 4714, 500-2067 168-0424-02 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPIER Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager Classified Ads - Legal Orange County Register 625 North Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Publication of Companies 'Significantly Violating Compliance' During 1987-88 as Identified by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange Countv ..r Dear Mr. Griffin: This office represents Universal Circuits, Inc. with respect to its operations in Orange County, California. We have been advised by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California that it has classified our client as -a 'Significantly Violating Compliance- company during 1987-88, and intends to include its name in a list of similarly identified industries to be published in the Orange County Register on or about September 10, 1988. It is our understanding that to date this list has not yet been published. We have researched the matter and believe the Districts is erroneous in classifying Universal Circuits, Inc. as a "Significantly Violating Compliance^ company. We have brought the results of our research to the attention of the Districts and are currently appealing its classification. We believe that when the Districts have fully analyzed this information, it will agree that Universal Circuits, Inc. should not be included on this list. We have further demanded of the Districts that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be immediately removed .from the list and not be published by your newspaper until this matter has been resolved to our satisfaction. By this letter we hereby demand that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be removed from the list and not be published by the Orange County Register. This letter shall Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager Classified Ads - Legal September 9, 1988 Page 2 further advise you and place you on notice that should you erroneously publish the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. when it is not a -significantly violating Compliance" company, it is the intention of Universal Circuits, Inc. to hold both you and the Districts responsible and liable for any and all damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall Universal Circuits,. Inc. as a result of such erroneous publication. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT SUCH AN ERRONEOUS PUBLICATION WILL BE LIBELOUS TO OUR CLIENT AND RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES TO ITS GOOD REPUTATION IN ITS INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY. Very truly yours, PINTO & GROMET By: Kenneth A.�Ryder, Attorneys for Universal Circuits, Inc. KAR:par cc: Cathy Taylor, Editor - Business Section Mike Kolbenschlag, Editor - Metro Section Chris Anderson - Editor in Chief County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Attn: Richard W. von Langan ATTACHMENT 2 �;e� Cc S�L•� �� uw errlcia or Rourke LF Woodruff Jwnca a.Pouwxc . ..ercaua..•<e.wR.Nen r.e..a L.weoo.urr +cupncw n•.: •u. R.w.rTa awrE oo°o ueu•oe.el a. .c.we: •LN M.wO .!M•RT.Jw. NEXUS rIN•ry Cl•L CCNiEP L1.1A I.ILLVI N•aUn >CI SCUT. PwPNLP .TPE ET .Uiwn.L 0.wrMw! OPANGE.CALIFCPNIG 9266a LOI! i.J""c'IX � rvO.w! O. Tcle....L 'TI I lam..... ewwro a.rAwma+o. October 13 aoA.in. Lo.w-wlwnr , 1988 Kenneth A. Ryder, Esc. Pinto S Gromet Suite 750 2201 DuPont Drive Irvine, CA 92715-1515 Re: Universal 'Circuits #1 Appeal from Designation As a Significantly Violating Compliance Company During Fiscal Year 1987-88 Dear Mr. Ryder: - Our office , acting as General Counsel for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, has been asked to assist in processing your appeal on behalf of Universal Circuits #1 from its designation as a significantly violating compliance company (SVC) for the fiscal year 1987-88 . As you were previously informed by Districts ' staff, the name of Universal Circuits #1 will not be published on the SVC list pending the appeal. In order to define the issues that would arise during a hearing on the appeal, I thought it might Lie helpful to provide you with some background on the significantly violating compliance (SVC) list. The Countv Sanitation Districts of Orange County operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ocean Discharge Permit which is issued by the California Recional Water Quality Control Board ' (CRWQCB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . The Districts are referred to as a Publicly Owned Treatment Works (?OT!P) , and as such, have a permit that requires them to have an approved POTW Pretreatment Program. Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. �.. Page 2 October 13 , 1988 Among the requirements for a POT'R pretreatment program is that the Districts comply with the provisions Of 40 C. F. R. , Section 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) . Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the following: " [P]rovision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POTW is located, of Industrial Users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating Pretreatment Standards or other Pretreatment Requirements. For the purposes of this provision , a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is part of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12 month period; which involves a failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which resulted in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f) (1) (vi) (B) Of this Section. " (Emphasis added.) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard three out of four quarters during a fiscal year as significantly violating compliance because these companies have violations which are• part of a pattern Of non-compliance over a 12 month period. The EPA recommends, in Section 3 .4 .2 of its "Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance" manual, tat all companies that have "chronic" violations be listed on t: e SVC list. The EPA' s definition Of "chronic" violations is "six=v-six percent or more of the measurements exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same averace limit in a six mont'n per?cd (any magnitude of exceedance ) " A company violating , however slightly, the same standard in three Out of the four quarters during a year, would fit that description. At the hearing which you have requested, the issues would appear to be as follows: 1 Has Universal Circuits 01 been in violation of discharge standards for three Out Of the four quarters during the 1967-88 fiscal year? �. 1 Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. Page 3 October 13 , 1988 2 . If so , does this constitute " a pattern of non- compliance over a 12 month period" within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) ? If Universal Circuits 41 still desires to pursue the appeal process, it may do so by contacting Mr. Rich van Langen who will then arrange a hearing before Mr . Blake Anderson, Director of Technical Services of the Districts. Please contact Mr. von Langen before October 19, 1988, if Universal Circuits 41 wishes to proceed with the appeal. If the Districts do not hear from you by that time, the Districts will assume that Universal Circuits la1 wishes to abandon its appeal. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter , please advise. ver.1 truly yours, v RCUM & WOODRUFF C'Lxx'g 5• n0 • Clark F. Ida CFI :cjs :C1133 cc: �Mr . R. von Langan Thomas L. Woodruff, Esc. ATTACHMENT 3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA •'@t •• P.O. a0%8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 927282127 q�aecW� 108"ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714)902-2411 II f NOTICE OF VIOLATION • 3 f October 15, 1987 REF#368 Universal Circuits #1 1800 Newport Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit #: 1-346 Attention: Gary Ryan, Engineering Manager Subject: Non-Compliance with Discharge Requirements • ( 9/24 - 25/37 ) As shown on the attached Wastewater Analysis Report(s) , your company was discharging lead in excess of your permit limitations. Please take immediate action to correct this problem. An invoice in the amount of $32.a0 is being prepared and will be sent in the near future for non-compliance fees applicable to this discharge. Please advise your accounts payable office to process this invoice promptly when received to- avoid penalties. Should you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact me at extension 365. C / is Benzi - - - - Industrial Waste Division Supervisor JPB:as IBM:FL#1 Enclosure cc: Accounts Receivable Alison Shannen Marcia Simpson V COUNTY SANRATION OIS,:+IC w ORANGE COUNTY. CAIIFOANIA WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT r¢9pY em I RtIMtLN v41FY.y!K'P,a.ii:.3e•a NDUSTRY• l.� / c:,, l/{/�•7 vu 9na.. I ✓:'Jtc^5�:'L G%� ' .� � DATE: �� / n.n sw.ay.a / RIP -OR, PERMIT NO I -�jq /Aup 9?-7115 ATTN: MwL ;.. S;M �,v Cap / E4; -' T� ammaaaaaaaaaaaaaaoaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaama Your wastawatzr discha Se was ampled and the results are as follows: Sample Oata(s) : a�'/--'S $ 7 Time: Z / /C30 Location: 5I36, i Cancan; atian D c arge Pe it limits �ounds Over Rge Per Constituents mq/S gas day 7bs day imitation dune Cha re CADMIUM , 01 C/ % , / 7 CHROMIUM . PLC = . 33 COPPER SC NICKEL 0,7[ 4/: 7C1 LEAD y . lQ 7LI "'52 ZINC el ,0i SILVER TSS S Bn0 CYANIDE(T) L /. C Value Time, Oata_ Limitations PH —7 . CI o.0 - 12.0 _ , . . ,/ TOTAL CHARGE rY _ Mass Emission Rate Flow Base , 0 MG0 Actual Oischarge � I j j a a aa'AGya Please address any questions concerning this repor ea Mr. James Bantle, or me in the Industrial 'daste Division at extansion 363. Richard 'd. van Lancen , P .E. RVL:as Chief of tie Industrial CPT:AS2 Basta Oiv' s idn n , l - v,n COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS .. y,f •..: OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX ELLIS.. FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIACALIFOANI9212&9127 y+n°wna lOEaa ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY. UFOPNIA 92]OB-tOtfi ptq 98]4al • • i NOTICE OF VIOLATION April 18, 1988 REF,#946 Universal Circuits #.1 1800 Newport Circle Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit $: 1-346 Attention: Marcia Simpson, Operations Manager Subject: Non-Compliance with Discharge Requirements ( 3/30 - 31/88 ) As shaven on the attached Wastewater Analysis Report(s) , your company was discharging lead in excess of your permit limitations. Please take immediate action to correct this problem. An invoice in the amount of $8.00 is being prepared and will be sent in the near future for non-compliance fees applicable to this discharge. Please advise your accounts payable office to process. this invoice promptly when received to avoid penalties. Should you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact me at extension 365. es Benzie Industrial Waste. Division Supervisor JPB:bam IBM:FL$1 Enclosure - cc: Accounts Receivable Bea Mitchell �.s COUNTY SANITATION OIS TIC i 1 aaANae G7aett, Ul1FdaNl: WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT +v,,,,-1,.Q,,,. rn am e+a ' +WNfuN vuLLr.GW wnw 3al:sa 1 �pp INDUSTRY: �J14 4n swL C/L�LJ+-/Y1 4/ DATE: Y /7 S8 n+a vaas+a - //gG0 PERMIT N . 5ayrP• /�.J�r. I CIL 9Z� 70S ATTN: Maces .t SM a S/,Js Olvinl Your wastewater disch ge was/sampled and the res s are as Mallows: Sample Oate(s): 30-31/ eS Time: 2W 1030 Location: 53G Coneent align Di{schharge Pe it Limits pounds Over Rate Per Constituents ma lbs/aav Ibs/dav Limitaii on Pauna Chaff=e CADMIUM CHROMIUM COPPER , �7� D. 9W �— NICKEL LEAD 7 , (PC. -70 O, / ZINC _ SILVER TSS Soo _ CYANIDE(T) Value Time. Date Limitatians Charge PH -7 , 0 a.O - 1 Mass Emission Rate Flow 8ase I y0 MGO Ac:ual Discharge / 3r» "MCC Please address any questions concerning : ^eoor: to Nr. James menzie, or me in -ne Inaustrial 'Waste Division at ex"ens'_n S^ ,cn Langen , P,E, RVl:as ,� . - :'- :-ca--•�' ;asa ]rr s•cn CPT:.ASZ Lao Yd. 9 J." , inspector ;+na_ /� WUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA erg.'• F.O. BOX 8127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 927254127 ° `�• 108"ELLIS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708.7018 17141 962-2411 * • • NOTICE OF VIOLATION • + June 29, 1988 REF#1165 universal circuits 41 1800 Newport Circle Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92665 Permit #: 1-346 Attention: Marcia Simpson, .Operations Manager Subject: Non-Compliance with Discharge Requirements ( 6/16 - 17/88 ) As shown on the attached Wastewater Analysis Report, your company was discharging lead in excess of your permit limitations. Please take immediate action to correct this problem. An invoice in the amount of $90.40 is being prepared and will be sent in the near future for non-compliance fees applicable to this discharge. Please advise your accounts payable office to process this invoice promptly when received to avoid penalties. Should you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact me at extension 365. James Benzie Industrial Waste Division Supervisor i JPB:bam IBM:FLnl - Enclosure ee: Accounts Receivable Bea Mitchell CDUNT'f $ADIRAnON Ois,;,� r aRANQ CmanT. GUuae:rt WASTE'iIATE4 ANALYSIS REPORT ra�na ' iawnMvran.rYaaru ors • maao•arn INDUSTRY: r Ci K[v4s ! DATE: Z9 /Q9j mr su.�+a lsco NewpO A Kl�d, be. PERMIT NO. /- 3 SA,w-a ,5yi . cw- 4z70.S ATTN• rtvc MNu i,. i.-Psor a.aaaaaa.a.......a....................>_ Your wastewater discharge was sampled and the results are as (allows: Sample Oate(s) : /(o—i9/a8 Time: Tli//030 Location: 5*[ie concenL ation 0{9cyarge Pe i` Limits pounds Over R to Per Constituents ma/I los/aav SEsydav Limitation tuna C:iare CADMIUM CHROMIUM COPPER / , S2 � . L ( 3• SO NICc1_' l , /09 l , 9S �f,79 LEAD 1 . 57 1 . G3 . 70 1113 �— ZINC SILVER TSS 9 Sao 61 CYANIDE(T) Value Time. Date Limi_at:ons Cara PH -7 , 0 6.D - / TOTAL CHARGE �90 1C saoa.a. .Mass Emission Rate Flaw Base , 1410 NGO Actual Oischare Please aaaress any questions concerning tnis reaor- to Mr. James Ben.',a, or me in :ne Inaustrial Waste Division at extension 36% . " Ricnard W. on -arcen , %'IL:as chiaf or the .^cus.r:al ,as;a .: v' s::n CPT:AS2 '_aa 10. - .nscec:ar rl e COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY •�,•� P.O.BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728.8127 10844 ELLIS AVENUE °•..,11e,,•" FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708.7018 (71 41 9 62-241 1 INVOICE UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS al INVOICE DATE: =/I5/'= 1800 NEVFORT CIRCLE DRIVE INVOICE NO.:45337 SANTA ANA CALIF CHARGES THROUGH: -27.05 DUE DATE, ;/31 rg: PERMIT NO.1 .3 4 5 I.O.NO.q : ?98 CONSUMPTION LOSS: DESCRIPTION OF CHARGES - _ BASIS '. RATE. EXTENSION VC CC"PLIs LCE— SEE ATTAC—EC TO ?ETTER SERVE YOU AND AS ONE OF Y4UR PERMIT CONOITTO."1S , T4E DISTRICTS REQUEST ?'+AT YOUR FSP:e SUBMIT COFIES OF YOUR PATER At13 Tag ? ILLS AS ORTAIVE7 . THANK YOU I v TOTAL AMOUNT NOW DUE ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE .T i INVOIC . REDIT EF10 REQjEST INVOICEE: MOUNT: DATE DUE: �c�✓ Y//�� PREPARED BY:Z- DATE: cc�� /PA,� e fe f Z/�S AMC= BY: CCl!/�. 1) Z� U DEBIT FUND: AcM CREDIT FUND: ACCT: REFERENCE: ,/lam PURPOSE: (7n,/PC '7' ��U AP✓ 7 /o-,t 43. ?. d0 //S /J r 7 j /6 S T .`; : COMMENTS/CALCULATIONS: V Feces (A-110 3/75) j RESOLUTIONS AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1989 - 7:30 P.M. -FUND NO 9199 JT DIST NORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/2P/BP PAGE. 1 ;.J ri REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS PRIG 01/04/09 POSTING GATE 01/04/09 R P97OV AGK CORPORATION $1.000.79 GAUGE ° ..97043 ACTION INSTRUMENTS. INC. $1.256.68 TRANSMITTER 097044 ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS. INC. $1.543.483.12 CONSTRUCTION P1-25626,P2-32�33634 2a CATIONIC _ _ �ry 197P46 ALL PURE CHEMICAL 5500.00 CHLORINE M.0.10-14-87 097047 AMERICAN DISTRICT TELEGRAPH $60.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT ' AM CAHERAS 3. 097949 THE ANCHOR PACKING CO. 53.250.91 HARDNARE yy 4 097951 BLAKE P. ANDERSON $433.80 NETTING EXPENSE E t . ° 2 097142 ARATEN SERVICES, INC. 371573.48 EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS n C97953 ASSOCIATED OMOLESALE ELECTRIC 11.062.76 ELECTRIC PARTS SEMINAR REGISTRATION 097055 AUTO SHOP EQUIPMENT CO. - $392.20 TRUCK PARTS r ' m P97L•56 BC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY. INC. $352.49 POOLS 9 497?58 ON/IP INTERNATIONAL l703.99 PUMP PARTS it ne705? BACON DOOR CO.. INC. 196.55 BUILDING MATERIALS - 1 097661 P.N. BARO7TI AND ASSOC. S12.210.00 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES P1-26,P2-336341.V' Q 97062 B. BATEMAN $565.00 DEFERRED COUP DISTRIBUTION a n r +.rtz f' C97064 FAKTER SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS $1.275.73 LAB SUPPLIES L17P.. BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS 3819.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES CJ N 097.11 BON-A-RUES - $111.80 TRUCK PARTS " ° —4 09716R STEVE BUBALO CONSTOUC710H CO. - 2677,789.36 CONSTRUCTION 2-26-1 wy ("f 09777B BUSH AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 12.031.00 SURVEYING SERVICES —I C-7071 GARY G. STREED $309.79 PETTY CASH REINBURSIUENT F97573 CAL-GLASS FOR RESEARCH. INC. 3139.77 LAB SUPPLIES 907074 COL SOUTH EQUIPMENT CO. 5212.00 RENTAL EQUIPMENT f 532 92 REGULATOR PARTS C•97076 CALIFORNIA ENVIPOMMENTAL 1T,.72 SALES TAX SV7P77 CAPOLLO-SOVLE.A JOINT VENTURE 398.720.95 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 07-131 091079 CENTEL SYSTEMS 5505.64 PHONE SYSTEM MODIFICATION$ . 9-70P4 CHEN SERVICE 5343.79 LAB SUPPLIES B t97981 CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. 36.3?3.16 OIL 6 GREASE P'41'R3 CHLOPIRE SPECIALITIES. INC. - 1231.94 TOOLS 0971J85 C.L.E.S. . CO. . INC. $1,334.79 MECHANICAL PARTS 097986 COMPRESSOR COMFONINTS OF CALIF 17.244.01 COMPRESSOR PARTS -FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/28/88 PAGE P ] D REPORT NUMBER 093 CLAIMS PAID 01/04/89 POSTING DATE.01/04/89 �. 097087 COMPUTER DATACOM 6976.5R OFFICE SUPPLIES - .097089 CONSOLIDATED FREIGHTWAYS $380.46 - FREIGHT 1A, 097090 CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS S2r29I.03 BLUEPRINTING ° 097092 COSTA MESA AUTO SUPPLY S829.06 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES 097093 COUNTY WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $169.52 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 7 1;097095 DAVID. WILLIAM CRAPNCLL / 5619 60 BROCHURE ARTNOPR °�.;.097096 JERRY' CROSS PAYING 53.285.00 " PAVING SERVICES D97098 LARRY CURTI TRUCK S EQUIPMENT $260.00 TRUCK PARTS 097099 C.R.W.G.C.B. $150.00 TRAINING REGISTRATION DCIdRrAf097101 OAN[ELS TIRE SERVICE $537.89 , A]: TIRES _ 097102 DAYTON FOUNDRY $5,891.20 -PUMP PARTS I 097104 DIATEC POLYMERS 52.978.34 ANIONIC POLYMERM.O.B-10-88 'i 097105 DIFILIPPO ASSOCIATES $1.941.18 PRINTING GO 097107 DORR-OLIVER. INCr. $209 JO MECHANICAL PARTS P97198 EASTRA N.]INC. ,i Sr223 89 OFFICE SUPPLIESTRUCK IN 1 r Y U97113 W. H. EBERT CORP. $35,501.29 CONSTRUCTION 5-29 097111 MARSHALL FAIRRES 5330.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION C921 097113 FARR SALE9'1SERVICE S3Y7.37 FILTERS 1 `may, 097119 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. $33.75 AIR FREIGHT, •'.'� e- ('1 097116 FILTER SUPPLY CO. $2.115.10 FILTER 097117 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 59.750.00 LITIGATION REPORTS" 097119 GE LEER PUMPS. INC. S117.78 PUMP PARTS 097120 DONALD L. FOX 6 ASSOCIATES $3,650.00 SAFETY CONSULTING SERVICES (y 097122 GARRATT-CALLAHAN COMPANY' $2,275.02 CHEMICALS 097123 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION 678.958.17 CONSTRUCTION G-15A >'. 097125 GERARDS .PHOTO LAB $65.67 PHOTO SERVICES I 097126 GIERLICH-MITCHELL. INC. $266.87 PUMP 097128 GREAT LAKES HYDRAULICS $704.91 CONTROL PART 0971-29 GRINNELL CORPORATION $857.50 VALVE 097131 NARCO CORPORATION 411,270.32 MECHANICAL PARTS 097132 FRED A. HARPER 91,360.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION ° D i t FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/29/BB PAGE 3 REPORT NUMBER AP43 I. CLRINS P410 11/01111 POSTING DATE 01/09/89 - x� 1 • n • 097133 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 36RO.d3 METER PARTS lA `.'097135 ) HEK IM IAN 1 ASSOC.,' INC. - 1111.517*11 CONSTRUCTION R-027-162 k :� Y. '�.097136 ' HOERSIGER C.V.S. CALIF. • INC. $2,405.02 MECHANICAL PARTS ' t .�� 097138 P.S. NUGHES.CO.• INC. $587.09 HARDWARE 097139 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH $2,998.84 SEWER REPAIRS "t:097141 INCON SYSTEMS. INC./ f3.306.70 MACHINE SUPPLIES ..2 ,�.097142 INDUSTRIAL iM PEpOED PRODUCTS . f2.617.18 . FITTINGS 14 TlK 097144 INLAND EMPIRE EQUIPMENT CO. fM2.86 TRUCK PARTS 097145 INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 5350.00 COMPUTT.KPTER SUPPORT IIMEt,091147 RIVIERA FINANCE $23.65 - JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 7 gI¢�097148 '-. KAMANBEpRIgSS 6: SUPPLY l987.92 ' FITTINGS # 097150 KAY-RAY. INC. $2.384.59 INSTRUMENT REPAIRS -` 00 197151 KEENAN A ASSOCIATES $2.875.00 WORKERS COMP ADMINISTRATIVE PEE "h097153 9p ` KEN!S!D ILr INC. {lli 80 * WASTE OIL REMOVAL 'Mrv•i- Sn057159 TnA p, r KIEWIT-PACIFIC CO. SIr689.809 81fln B;.^ fir'' CONSTRUCTION P1-27 MErHANTrAT, PARTS f- 097156 DONALD E. KINNEY $805.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION 0 097157 KTRST PUMP f MACHINE WORKS f6.588.29 PUMP PARTS �:097159 ' MARTIN. MORB RK. SP $2,269.20 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES S 29 ,p . A$:'09 tt6O LORAIN PRODUCTS $1,473.00 RELIANCE POWERTRAWLING '^'< n 097162 M.G. INDUSTRIES $18.44 SPECIALTY GASSES N 097163 MPS 1100.17 PHOTO SERVICES 097165 HARDEN SUSCO $321.10 ADAPTORS +� I 097166 _ 144RINE 6 VALVE SUPPLY $126.23 VALVE 4� 5. 097168 ASTER ER TOOLS SEPYICES $271.30 TOOL REPAIRS 097169 MATT - CHL OR. INC. $429.82 CHLORINATION PARTS 097171 - - . MCKINLFY EQUIPMENT CORP 3118.28 TRUCK PARTS J 097172 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO. $3.076.98 SAFETY 6UPPLIES 897174 SERPENTIx 33.338.46' MECHANICAL PARTS 097175 MITCHELL MANUALS. INC. 377.38 PUBLICATION -'097177 MONITEK. INC. $836.64 PC BOARD REPAIR 097178 MOORE 6 TABER $9.862.25 GBOTECHNICAL SERVICES D _FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PaOCESSING DATE 12/25/BP PAGE 4 y REPORT NUMBER AP43 , R CLAIMS PAID 01/04/89 POSTING DATE .01/04/89 WARRANT NO. �.n wrmnnR 097179 MOTION INDUSTRIES. INC. $5,253.62 HARDWARE INSTRUMENT PART ° 1+ 'T'r.097181 MOTOROLA. INC. $309.10 INSTRUMENT ` a r 097182 XO TOROLA+CELLULAR SERVICES $86.29 CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICES a -'Lk-HARDWARE `y 097184 NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES, INC. $210.00 VACUUM SERVICES 097185 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION S600.00 PUBLICATIONS PIPEST <5'097187 ;'CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH CE4.00 lyl, :..HATER USEAGE 4 097188 ' NOVUS WINDOW REPAIRING 339.00 TAUCN REPAIRS 2 097190 OCEAN SALT CO.. INC. $919.50 SALT a Y 097191 OLYMPIC CHEMICAL CO. $37,692.48 CHLORINE M.0.10-12-88 027122 EMPLO EE MILEAGE t�:097193 'OR AN6ECOA3T ELECiR It SUPPLY 5310.9f ELECTRIC SUPPLIES ,Q4 T199 bRgN6E LO AET VIN DOY CLEANING $935.00 WINDOW CLEANING , o- n . •+ : :. 097196 COUNTY OF ORANGE $40,804.00 DISPOSAL GATE FEE it D97297 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT $03.92 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION - INS. 00 -16 "`{ uo 97199 +A• % iPACIFIC HEIGHTS ARTS ' M $4,446.80 � :,. �1 z REFUND CONNECTION FEE ' rn �� 097200 �. PACIF IC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO f T ., 63 r259s45 A'n.( Ilk' .1 SAFETY SUPPLIES r tlTELEPHONE 097202 r PAX WEST $332.42 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 697203 PARTS UNLIMITED $903.39 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS l7 '15519 HA '097205 * ';,ROY PENSERBRAFT 1435.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION 097206 t` ` PHOTOA SOUND CO. S901.00 RENTAL EQUIPMENT �• y f71 097200 PIMP GPO SYSTEMS. INC. A42.926.90 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.O. 5-11-88 "1 097289 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS $1.125.28 SAFETY SUPPLIES rBULK MAILING CBS t � '097211 ` HAROLO PRIMROSE ICE - 966.00 ICE v •' 097212 THE PROJECTS SOLUTION CO. $3,950.00 INSTRUMENTATION INSPECTION M.O. 8-30 C97214 PUMP ENGINEERING CO. 32.820.67 PUMP PARTS °1 697215 PYRAMID FENCE COMPANY AI.4N4.0G FENCING 097217, ' RECYC. INC. $76,769.00 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.0.2-30-88 - 097218 P.A. REED ELECTRIC $1,745.25 METER REPAIR C97220 REMOTE METER RESE77ING SYSTEM S3.000.9C POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT 09722I THE REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. $1.138.52 FITTINGS -4 097723 ROSEMONT ANALYTICAL $1.781.06 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES. 097224 RYAN-NERCO 321.04 HARDWARE 3- _FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORMING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12Y28Y88 PAGF 5 REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS PAID 01109I89 POSTING 0A7E -1009189'. 4 a 097225 JOSEPH T. RYERSON L SON, INC. $1.331.93 BUILDING MATERIALS 097227 SANTA ANA ELECTRIC MOTORS' -12,908.13 ELECTRIC REPAIRS y '?i,;. A -D97228 SANTA FE BAG CO. $186.83 BUILDING MATERIALS 7. 097230 CITY OF SEAL BEACH fT0.51 WATER USEAGE 097231 SENSOREX. INC. 1213.61 INSTRUMENT PART 697231 SMITH-EMERY CO. - $450.00 SOIL TESTING ° „09723 9 SMITH PIPE8 SUPPLY. INC $658.92 PLUMBING SUPPLI65 097236 SOUTH COAST DODGE f97.89 TRUCK PARTS 17 097237 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDISON CO. S253.010.15 POWER .097239 ' SOUTHERN COUNTIES OIL CO.' $6.971.28 - DIESEL FUEL .,097290 SPACE SPRING ING 8 STAMPING Co. - $}73.52 MECHANICAL PARTS 3 x I v 097242 SPARLING INSTRUMENT CO..INC. SIr221.23 INSTRUMENT REPAIRS Cq 097243 SPEC TECH WESTERN S823.37 WELDING SUPPLIES Mk007298 ' STAR TOOL' 6 SUPPLY CO. $/r256.59 q ;} f TOOLS .,49T296 " SUB IA. INC, 5530.00 y e: PHOTO SERVICES Rom.. i'Jrrl a f— RTRPT 097248 SUNSET FORD f171.05 TRUCK PARTS 097249 SUPELCOr INC. 12.059.99 LAB SUPPLIES UAGEW� LT,DI3 097251 .SUP-LITE CORPORATION ;B61.15 MONITOR REPAIR -1 097252 SWEETLAND CO. S7G.63 HARDWARE m e A . ..- A r. 097254 TAYLOR-DUNN S47.72 TRUCK PARTS ti 097255 TECHNOMIC PUBLISHING CO.. INC. $153.20 PUBLICATION `09729? TICOR TITLE INSURANCE 23.950.00 LITIGATION REPORTS AA 097258 TOTAL EQUIPMENT PENTAL. INC. $2,095.60 EQUIPMENT RENTAL s 097260 TRAVEL TRAVEL $799.00 TRAVEL SERVICES 097261 TRUCK B 'AUTO SUPPLYr INC. $249.95 TRUCK PARTS 097263 TWINING LABORATORIES S4.773.50 LAB INSPECTIONS 097264 U.S. AUTO GLASS CENTER.INC. $51.91 TRUCK REPAIRS 097266 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE $293.05 PARCEL SERVICES 47 097287 URBAN ALTERNATIVES f5.190.0U CONSULTING SERVICES FEES 88-28 597269 V.S. SYSTEMS. INC. $223.40 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 097270 VALLEY CITIES SUPPLY CO. f6.657.79 PLUMBING PARTS 71 17 li/2N/BN PAGE 6 zFUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE REPORT NUMBER AP43 y CLAIMS PAID O1109/89 POSTING GATE 01/04/89''. WARRANT ME, VENDOR AMQlJNT e x 097271 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE. INC. $98.679.13 CONSTRUCTION P2-35-1 097273 VIKING INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY $446.07 SAFETY SUPPLIES 197274 VORTEX INDUSTRIES 51.745.36 .BUILDING REPAIR GUARD SERVICES. 097276 WESTERN STATE CHEMICAL SUPPLY 130.007.09 CAUSTIC SODA M.0.8-10-08 097277 ROURKE L WOODRUFF $29,549.81 LEGAL SERVICES M.0.10-14-87 �I''597879 XEROX CORP.- f638.12 ' COPIER LEASES { `'t G97200 GEORGE YARDLEY ASSOCIATES $743.31 VALVES 097262 2IEBARTH AND ALPER $131.148.90 CONSTRUCTION P2-37 n ----------------- a TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 02/04/89 S6rO1S.657.88 '? � ,.-. Dacca aeeececeee Sr 7t co SUMMARY hYA r 42 OPER PUND 1.805.91 w p A2 F/R FUND - 695,267.11 : r .A3'AC0 FUND 9467276 "i u 45 PER FUND -' 8:865:73 �F. Y Cl 16 OPER FUND ,120.00 N 46 ACO FUND 9,396.00 `.A7 OPER FUND 4,774.27 ' 47 ACO FUND 897.00 A11 ACO FUND 71 998.84 014 OPER FUND 36.00 A 566 OPER FUND 5,267.38 `'. A566 ACO FUND 38,729.51 A7614rOPER FUND 4,569.40 .7T OPER FUND 765,696.74 ' SELF FUNDED WORKERS COMP.INSURANCE FUND °lJX 10 959.41 ' ST WORKING CAPITAL FUND 108:789.09 � $6 015`.657.88 °1 I MIND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PpO CESSING DATE I/II/P9 PAGE 1 I AEPORT NUMBER AP43 I - r D Dljye{B?` POSTiNG DATE 4E a` I c,'- s • 1A l r , ...,�F '31.a.S r { 4 A • 097303 AT&T DATA SERVICES '�fi�tt � $480.00 LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE ^ • '0973981 tr °„ •4IRFRf:#BHT PNER7Cp A%" 4 I` I Ati'7 P�� . 599:00 tl L yrd;.}; :PRBIGNT <09T306 .. .,AEOOflN FEaCE EO n 't 'f.Y f8.74}.00 097306 LEASING ASSOCIATES/ALLSTATE $1,532.98 AUTOMOBILE LEASES 097309 ALLERGAN PHARMACEUTICAL s4.130.10 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT 9] 1-11-RA P97311 }4PP�Y col , ;+ iy ;,�, � �"d sT1e:x6.; i�r,�+.�� T...:VALVE . • +IP 9.731R k V94TA:SACLS. INC 7t lotp. _ .2 }y .' :. . t64:90"`1 c; A_LS 1, . ..METER t r' 097314 THE ANCHOR PACKING CO. $1,055.24 MECHANICAL SUPPLIES `I n 091115VTV L I' ANILLO INDUSTRIES $4.850.00 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT 109731, 97317' Oq Net �1 97318 "II'�AP". 'AS$OCIA705801(•S ENGINEERINO 1/'�{+' 3I r� D "63 t,921.50 SOIL550.00 RTESTIN�PAIRS a 097320 FALCON DISPOSAL SERVICE $3.336.79 GRIT REMOVAL M.O. 7-13-89 F l co 097321 BANK OF ,AMERICA NT & SA $5.117.296.76 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION PAYMENT i - y ,09732SP' ; T»5 BATTERIFS'9EOT4 TNC!" ' 9' az }..;T. 00}Oi81T r •,J- A 'vYa_.j.EATTERIES '. j `. ' . 09t3g4 , , e9kTEN,r.S N lflE vpdoeD Q„s^ ` '� , ftiz3R�99 _. LAB HUPPLise-`. * y •� T— 097326 ROBERT BEIN.NILLIAM FROST 4 AS 618.890.45 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5-33634 097327 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $1.625.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES A 097324 S^sA BOYLFg ENOINEE ING CORP a . t"'U'66�1D2.98 a p 4J{ A 'T'x;: ENGINEERING:SERVICBS'7.10-1 :097330 S p IBRONN F,0R4-OW CONSULTING Ada f3B�032.45 1 ,i,u S+ ;,6NGINBeRING,BERVICe8 P1=35AP2 39 ' n 097332 BUILDING NEWS, INC. 655.90 PUBLICATION —F 097333 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRAC710E $91.92 PUBLICATION n r T;497}SS y. GARY G. 'STREEO 3 7-t ;f1.A183.09 / g " 'PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1 0 97336 ur C 6 R RECONDITION IN 6' CO 4 'A ,.,w{ c f1.S90.00 PUMP PARTS .9,[" 097338 CAL-GLASS FOR RESEARCH. INC. $869.20 LAB REPAIRS J ' 097339 CALTROL . INC. s1.777.82 REGULATOR PARTS 1A 97341 CAMBRIDGE FILTER CORP + `< � <. f11156.3B - . FILTER x"^' J ?. 097342 CAREY.SIGN GRAPHICS $597.84 - SIGNS a 097344 MONTIE CARTER CONSTRUCTION f3.000.00 3EWBR REPAIRS -� 097345 CASTLE CONTROLS. INC. 6557.44 VALVE �C,19734T CHE XVEST INDUSTRIES. INC. ` 350.158.e1 FERRIC C=RIDE M.0.11-18787 097348 CHEVRON U:}d:, INC. 0I9.47 GASOLINE I i Q �.YJND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1111169 PAGE 2 ;. REPORT NUMBER AP93 ¢Lp ¢ P•A ID' oi11E/e4i Po9TINP PATE i1 S(i9 't''' �,r • WARRANT Nfl, a ° 097349 CHLORINE SPECIALITIES. INC. $116.88 TOOLS 9 511 ' '• '.0971511 COAST FIRE EQUIPMENT M";"� „ $14292.19 BAFSTY SUPPLIES 09735$ bi.EL 6. • CO. • INC, iS20.00 PUMP PAPT9 -11 897354 CONNELL G.K. PARTS / DIV. 32697.73 TRUCR PARTS 0.7355 CON-WAY WESTERN EIPRESS S20S.50 FREIGHT 1.9 [ -y 097357 ROSS COOM. INC. ii t�, < <'*S1.0B9 02 Ei;v' L •1sFiSLOWER SEPAIRS I E19 097350 CO SNOTP ONICS COMPANY CORP ut '� ;.311622 63 %7q'rt y :REFUND USES PRE OVBRPAYMBIPl' f + 5; ? . Z. V... n. . . n t 097360 A. E. COULTER CRANE RENTAL S918.50 RENTAL EQUIPMENT n .97361 COUNTV WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $185.50 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES fEl 0973 DECO �iA $577 P6 `•. ELECTRIC SUPPLIES i 1 3 297364 DEW-PAR SALES 9 SERVICE ;19189 5J TRUCK PARTS 097366 DIFILIPPO ASSOCIATES $637.27 PRINTING .f CO 097367 DORADO ENTERPRISES, INC. $23.090.60 PLANT MAINTEMACE 6 REPAIRS WHO SEE UATTRU RR,hTgq e 697369 DUCTILE IRON PIPE RESE APCr Pi§N '�'Tk; 7 T, ,. �, 88MINAR.REi IISETS RATI011: u 09T370 DUNKEDYPRDS CORP, }401 ,PAINT SUPPL All i G97372 EAGLE ENTERPRISES $5,495.04 LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES 091373 EA$TMAN. INC. $1.427.33 OFFICE SUPPLIES ED ' 4 097175 . ENCHANT EP. INC. ',./ t i . T •;gA200 00 f ',OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH A- 097]76 - jrFF ESSER - ° $229 6S ","� 1 '.EMPLOYBE NILSAOR y M1 EST SAND AND ARkYri INC �--i I'll JOHN e. FALNENSTEIN P.C. $2r950.OJ CONSTRUCTION 6ERVICES O77-0 097279 FAIR SALES 8 SEBYICE C75.93 PILTER 097381 FENRELLGAS $16 96 PROPANE t {' 057782 FI GCHER 8 PORTER CO.. 'fL 67E.R2 CHLORINATION PARTS t '` n . 097384 GELBER PUMPS. INC. $415:70 PUMP PARTS 097385 CITY;Oi FOUNTIIN VALLEY 15S 2 75 PERMITS 097387 GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. $1.I93.29 TELEPHONE SERVICES 097P00 OCR AIDS PHOTO LAB $26.61 PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES 991790 GOA DONS. INC. s76.71 SECURITY SUPPLIES 097351 DON GREEN L ASSOCIATES ST.P75.'e5 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES BE-02 097393 MACPP IN SUPPLY [0. - 5328.50 FAN PJART9 t•o 09739A 'ARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS $44.74 METER PARTS n eYr. ° I 1 %UND NO 9199 - JT GIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE I711/69 PAGE 3 W REPORT NUMBER AP43 AAND i A 497395 HATCH L KIRK. INC. $3.622.58 MECHANICAL PARTS .9719A, HARTF-HANKS MARKETING OVERPAYMENT • "'097397 HILLVIEW�NDROE LAUNDRY i32.B9 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT ' {` ^" • 097390 HILTI0,IN HARDWARE A2B9.0� HARDWARE 797400 R.S. HUGHES CO., INC. $1,752.64 PAINT 6 SUPPLIES 097401 HUGHES AIRCRAFT 12,600.17 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT 397409 CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH 097403 ' HUNTINGTON HONDA t' ELECTRIC PARTS '! I T,'gg7g04 "HYOROTE RF14L9 SERVICE ' f737 50 MECHANICAL" PARTS `p"1'` 2.. ' ]a 097406 INDUSTRIAL THREADED PRODUCTS S737.76 FITTINGS I 097407 INLAND EMPIRE EB U IF MC NT CO. 1B32.TO EQUIPMENT RENTAL lEEQSUBSCRIPTIO! '.' 097909 ` IRVINE RA NCH .YA TEP OISTR ICI 172 64 I'?C� 4 ".WATER USEAGB 097410 1AVINE SV EEPINO SEA VI CE $90 T.50 `'STREET SWEEPING SERVICEOF 097412 RIVIERA FINANCE 11.256.49 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES GO 097413 JENSEN TOOLS L ALLOYS $208.40 INSTRUMENT PARTS 097415 KAMAN,B[ARINOS L SUPPLY -' $501 4B : "+4 YA FITTINGS t ,! hr1 1O. '`r I 097416 , X AN ER..COMPANY k:HARDWARE •n., yi �'C t,;.:r 'I r� 197410 KIM ST PUMP L MACHINE WORKS 52.023.50 PUMP PARTS 197419 MARTIN MONDICN. SR A2r213.20 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 5-29 REFUND I)SERL 097421 ' L M RESEARCH ..'t 5336 01 '. INSTRUMENT REPAIRS i4Pot •i 1 97922 : JUOT LEE $15.76 EMPLOYEE MILEAGE r.'N,°dY rot .- 097424 LiMITOROUE CORP. A627.06 MECHANICAT. PARTS C97425 MPS 1125.01 PHOTO SERVICE6 e .'!09742T MALCOLM PIRNIE A INC. $1,575.83 INDUSTRIAL WASTE.RESEARCH ( 097420 HARDEN SUSCO $181.62 ADAPTORS097410 MARINE L VALVE SUPPLY L97430 MARTIN LUTH ER HOSPITAL 10rI99.31 REFUND USER FEB OVERPAYMENT y ' 097431 MARTIN SUPPLY CO. $40.69 TOOLS "IRIA 097433 MATT - CHLOq. INC. $1,147.08 CHLORINATION PARTS' 497434 0. A. MATTHEWS L ASSOCIATES 12,564.00 ALARM SYSTEM' C97036 MICRO NOTION 32.53440 'REPAIRS 3974317 MIDLAND MFG. CORP. $1.u53..OJ CHLORINATION PARTS FAMP 097439 MITA WNSLE NURSERY. LTD. 1141.]5 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 097440 MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. $733.30 REFUND USER PEE OVERPAYMENT I 177 ..x.r- . ...+.w�•�.... �,.-.u�...�-.. �-. �...a.w�. ...-..... r r- .... •. .•r ... -. ..... .. .. .�.�.,. y..�...-�.�.-��a.u.-tee../ DIYUND NO 9199 JT DIET YOAN[NB CAPITAL PROCESSING GATE 1/11/09 PAGE r♦ f ,p REPORT NUMBER AP41 St PI PCR STILLO9i ING DATE , e r�• r AmnLIMT 097441 MONITEK. INC. f1.023.94 INSTRUMENT kk • ¢ ' e097944 r UF._A` NOTIONORO /INDUSTRIE$, INCT k,;. 4916e 03 MECHANICAL PARTS ( lrl, + �a w r� ql u 097446 NATIONAL INFORMATION DATA CIA. $53.45 PUBLICATION " D97447 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL $260.00 SAFETY SUPPLIES lift'AL SAKIII lu N-P_97949 5 r1qsz{' NE AL' SUPPLY CO. " 7 r�:. s *+I�, r 0147.00 14 3: t ':PIPE 4 FITTINGS r,Q97950 , 5a NEWPORT/COSTA MESA YMC{e e r"ti '$130.92 ii'} + 'REFUND USER'PER OVERF74YNeNTS' l e• a L nG air [' M, M.0 ,A Hatt + r ' A97452 NORLAS $44.90 ` DYE t� ' n 097453 OLYMPIC CHEMICAL CO. $49.932.78 CHLORINE M.O. 10-12-80 7 '097490 T, +>L'. ORANGE COAST.EL4CTRj Sq Y. " i a .f262.05 °t *'L , `'.ELECTRIC EUPPLIEB ri:6R t0979S6 tA71AR 7 ib1 ORPNO:;.CONNTT,CN[NIQe1l CO• . ,, JOJ ,'e?P k 693.47 /lu';k lid HYDROCHLORIC ACID 'r y;• °9k 1 ,d P, r r- a y,.i5 , i 71+y + 3t 097458 OXYGEN SERVICE $1.482.97 SPECIALTY GASSES 4}" W 117451 COUNTY OF ORANGE $253.10 PERMITS fVVP URSE WORKER COMP INSURANCE FUND 1Q97462 !R �' PSONSC�tR4NTY'WA7R',DI( ,���i,i pl Vr i ft91'}7 {s a ',SRDUNO WATER AEPLQSN�l�gp�E�gi`2C? A6 :� .• ll.. K SE YI¢E i::lMC"'?Q: ` r '8 .. . }ktgSQ t, M :tX.; ` , r TV. INAPBCT10N.. r ;'K'Y„':r$se.�,.9�' , 097464 PACIFIC PARTS 6339.07 DEWATERING PART C7 897465 PACIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. $1,125.63 SAFETY SUPPLIES q ..1 e �,n,097460 wX11,097461 lttrPACTEL Ci. I11LpR , 2. . tp >5� BLEPHONE PAN Yg j69759 JANITORIAL 'S-QBRIVPPILCEIBBB' PARTS IVE � 09N 71 PHOWSNSOUNDE CO. NO2.00 RENTALTEQUIPMENT Q97471 PIMA GRIT qyqTrnq. 'me- 097A73 s v °v.'�"POLYCCA O. LAMINATES IN{ja r9ii�+ nY t it 'Ylr i, $1,729.27 g ;k u r ;'. REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT + i I'J097470 y THE,PROJECTS'SOLUTION COler � 4'_',A° y ' SST 900100 „pi INSTUMENTATION INSPECTION N Oeoil 097476 RMG ENGINEERING. INC. $1.100.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 097477 RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. S696.27 TRASH REMOVAL ae, 097479 REO WING.SHOES ` 135.64 SAFETY SHOES T "� I A .;OR1181 Rd. REED ELECTRIC f13.517.70 % INSTRUMENT ,y . 097482 THE REGENTS f1.060 00 TRAINING 09794] REMOTE MEYER RESETTING NG SYSTEM 13.101:01 POSTAGE ,,rr77 -097g03 RICOH.CORPORATION 6144.70 ` COPIER LEASES 7406 ROSEMONT.ANALYTICAL fD79.b2r INSTRUMENT PAST f41�Ad. ', CO r . rr 1 FUND NO 9199 JT OISE WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/89 FAGS 5 f Ilrl REPORT NUMBER AP43 4 BE hq/e9"PDS11 TINO DATE OI/i /B¢ WARRANT NO, 0974P7 SACKETT.S AMERICAN CONCRETE 5162.50 CONCRETE 99 P A e6522 a "• 097409 SC ICNCE APPLICATIONS INTaL `'.P3319T86.79 '- ';". ^"OCEANOGRAPHIC RBSBAACX M.O 8-10-88' - T 097.0 SEA COAST DESIGNS 64S�00 OYPICBEptlIl'NENT REPAIN ;t ',i 097492 SOIL ANO TESTING ENGINEERS 17C6.00 SOIL TESTING 097A 93 S0. C0457 AIR QUALITY fS3.00 SUBSCRIPTION 'r 74q i C7. 091195 S0. CALIF. CD ISON CO. :$16 H79.02 POWER RELOCATION t Z: 057156 SiPPT00L 6 SUPPLY CO IL` 14 6.69 I . TO0I3 '. 9 7 097190 SUPER ANTE NpENi OF OOCUNCNTS 329.OY PUBLICATION 097499 TAK TAKAMINE -52.440.00 CONTRACT LANDSCAPE MAINTENACE q • ' 097501 T.S. TRIPP 't95.00 'BUILDING MAINTENACS ^ 3 Og75C'2 TRUCK S AUTO SUPPLY, INC f1,000.24 ' TRUCE PAAT9yl li 'is BE Op 997501 UNITE PARCEL SERVICE f29B.46 PARCEL SERVICES g97505 UNITED WESTERN ELEVATOR 5319.75 MAINTENACE AGREEMENT '97-nA 1 -097507 - JOHN 8. VAPLES* -"Ny 1 'I , $533.52 ya'" N.�, y ti':ODOR CONPROL'CON$OLfI}tiT .lj Ir. 097508 CARL WARREN 8 CO. . ,. : It-,. q K 1 yrf, 'A.y¢ ;i$31.99 1 L`x T`�v INSURANCE_86RVICE6 g - elk, ...1�."`•] ... Rid .... [J 197510 VILLDAN ASSOCIATES $3.021.61 ENGINEERING SERVICES 2-26-1 091511 PEROK:CORP. ------ $3,792_86 COPIER LEASES ! : Fes.: TOTAL CLAIMS PAID Qlf?8/89 06,1014799.7E } '' I +a�T1 f . u1( (n I i • 1 I In 'I FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/89 GAGE 6 ItPf py REPORT NUMBER AF43 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY S CLAIMS PAID 01 18 89 POSTING DATE �y� ^xr e r ry r , • 4't 11i r>4� `) `�A.". .iAT"0' .W'R' 'ui} . �u• i .w52,�Ph' .71rv . yl 'i. _ V:Z 1*"4n -.�,i �Ft r1tt�W ,.. ' tt • r • SUMMARY MOUNT • i �`w' J 7Px f t tv, r twN, f k y • 'Il OPER ."%-W. •L .wd ,ai, '„ivrX',��"Errk+°r iia�.70w Sh+F'ss , 12 OPER FUND 3,996 63 (� U 12 ACO FUND 5,180 59 '( u 'i2 D C OPER,ONST.FUND i �t } ry y (937}572 61 , 1 y '4 IiyP t� ., ',.i{. ^i ' 3 FNf1 C7 13 CONST FUND 2,099,333.84 .4 n 15 OPER FUND 3,868.39 } i6 OPER FUND f APIi�3'��,��'bH1t +�pYlA 42 4B� tn4l� ,x xt An %F9 -X �'., i7 OPER FUND ,a.4;S, v ., fl� 41120 OB ` j P", Will OPER FUND 107 91 ill ACO FUND 22,242:.0 'a R14 OPER FUND xvA 1 1' Y . .-. t : f ••58.aa4', R,.,pl v, + b ,,y" x ,` 1 'i5d6 OPER FUND ,,�4..P VFid 6 ki:'878.14;+ 9.9 Ben WINDF�{N}; lk .t A ::?y ; ? F weµ i 17614 OPEN FUND 171.16 ' �y JT OPER FUND' 666,750:46 d ELF FUNDED WORKERS C I N p +`�! • R '6'216 5 l �. d i�JT WORKING CAPITAL "NO r 4 S a5 I ,� (, v.,} ,. . sl � , 1",+�'� S ;y11 ( ..4v w�r}r ;i ..{` yw.{. rvM1: ,'R�,? 3n�, w 11472 71 r +. �lGYt"'1c..7 w'y; f ' v ,6 6,101,749.32 N } 1 , �a ✓ �w b t J u a+xk �I { I, i14wh : x `i!'{ ,t":.3 ^ i w�11 41tE,�R �2Dw� a .:.I F 'q ''ov ' u'%;?., � 'N„ .3 $ , {� 1,htio� .•u1t9 ��.. �5ra� ,� 4".i.'+Y, >.' � ( t �27, .�. a • I j • W i �..� COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 1 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO. Five 5) CONTRACTOR: J. R. Roberts Corporation DATE January 19, 1989 JOB: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITION, JOB NO. J-7-4 Amount of this Change Order (Add) (Dew) $ 11,774.00 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. Item 1 REMOVAL OF EXISTING BRICK VENEER The Contractor was directed to remove and dispose of exterior brick veneer on the `....� south side of the existing administration building along plan reference line "E". The removal was requested by the architect and structural engineer in order to complete new shear paneling and installation of a second floor support ledger on the existing framed wall in back of the brick veneer. Removal of the existing brick veneer was not included in the contract plans and specifications. (Reference: FCO #16). This work was negotiated pursuant to Section 10-6(b)2(A) of the General Provisions. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 5,609.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days Item 2 REMOVAL OF EXISTING STUCCO The Contractor was directed to remove and dispose of exterior stucco on the south side of the existing administration building along plan reference lines "E" and 3. The removal was requested by the architect in order to expose the existing building framing to' provide a smooth surface for attachment of drywall on the "interior" where the new south wing joins the existing administration building. Removal of the existing exterior stucco was not included in the contract plans and specifications. (Reference: FCO #18). This work was negotiated pursuant io Section 10-6(b)2(A) of the General Provisions. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 4,303.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days C-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(a) - ALL DISTRICTS C-1" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 2 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92798 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N A C.O. NO. ve (5) CONTRACTOR: J. R. Roberts Corporation DATE January JOB: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITION, JOB NO. J-7-4 Item 3 LABORATORY SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT The Contractor was directed to remove and replace the sidewalk on the south side of the laboratory. The sidewalk as designed and built, collected water and did not drain properly. This resulted in a pedestrian safety hazard for personnel and visitors entering the building from the east parking lot. This additional work was not included in the contract plans and specifications. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: S 1,862.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days TOTAL ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER: $ 11,774.00 TOTAL TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER: 0 Calendar Days The additional work contained in this Change Order can be performed incidental to the prime work and within the time allotted for the original Contract and any revisions to the Contract Time made by any previously issued Change Orders. It is therefore mutually agreed that no time is required for this Change Order, and no direct or indirect, incidental or consequential costs, expenses, losses or damages have been or will be incurred by Contractor. SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME . Original Contract a e July 11, 1988 Original Contract Time 602 Calendar Days Original Completion Date March 4, 1990 Time Extension this C.O. 0 Calendar Days Total Time Extension 19 Calendar Days Revised Contract Time 621 Calendar Days Revised Completion Date March 23, 1990 "C-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(a) - ALL DISTRICTS "C-2- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 3 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C.O. NO. Five CONTRACTOR: J. R. Roberts Corporation DATE January 19, 1989 JOB: ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ADDITION, JOB NO. J-7-4 Original Contract Price $ 3,549,000.00 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 84 628.00 This Change (Add) (De4uet) $-1T,99T00 Amended Contract Price Board Authorization ate: February 8, 1989 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �..J RECOMMENDED BY: -x-�, 1/19/89 onst uction Manager (CONTRACTOR) ACCEPTED BY: APP V BY: yL�,y.: o.Fg' 1/19/890 1/19/89 ontractor c or o ngineering "C-3" AGENDA ITEM #9(a) - ALL DISTRICTS "C-3" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 1 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO.Twe ve CONTRACTOR: ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS INC. DATE �anuar 1�-T4rI� JOB: C UTE L OUSTER STAT2 Al"C'. PLANT N J N J-13— Amount of this Change Order (Add) (Beduet) $ 69,267.00 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. Item 1 FAN INTAKE SCREENS The five centrifugal ventilation fans located in the lower floor area of the Outfall Booster Station had no protective screen over the intake opening. The Contractor was directed to provide a 42-inch galvanized screen for each fan to protect same from drawing in debris and damaging the internal moving parts. This work was negotiated pursuant to Section 10-6(b)2A of the General Provisions. (Reference PCH 071). ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 4,369.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days Item 2 UPGRADE WELDING AND TESTING To insure the quality of the welding in the fabrication of the five 7'-0 x 7'-0 x 45' long pump suction inlet liners for the Outfall Booster Station, the welding code and inspection requirements were upgraded. The Contractor was directed to use the American Welding Society code instead of the initially specified American Water Works Association Code thus resulting in an increased cost. The upgrade was deemed necessary in the event of seismic actions. The costs include additional shop labor, materials, inspection and testing. This work was negotiated pursuant to Section 10-6(b)2A of the General Provisions. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 60,000.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 6 Calendar Days "D-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(b) - ALL DISTRICTS "D-1" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 2 of 3 `..' P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO. rwelve 1 CONTRACTOR: ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. DATE anu�ar19,—R JOB: OCEAN OUTFALL BOOSTER STATION AT PLA `B Item 3 SEWER MANHOLE MODIFICATIONS The elevation of the manhole cover on an existing 42-inch vitrified clay pipe influent sewer located 200 feet south of the Outfall Booster Station differed from the elevation shown on the plans. The Contractor was directed to lower three 12- inch storm drain connections to clear the existing lid and corbel , remove existing rectangular riser and provide additional polyvinyl chloride lined 54-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe to extend the manhole to proper elevation. This work was accomplished pursuant to Section 10-6(b) 28 of the General Provisions. (Reference PCH 029). ADDED COST THIS CHARGE ORDER ITEM: $ 4,898.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days TOTAL ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER: $ 69,267.00 TOTAL TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER: 6 Calendar Days The additional work contained within this Change Order can be performed incidental to the prime work and within the time alloted for the original contract and any revisions to the Contract Time made by this and any previously issued Change Orders. It is therefore mutually agreed that a six day extension of time to perform the work is required for this Change Order, but that no direct or indirect, incidental or consequential costs, expenses, losses or damages have been or will be incurred by Contractor, except as expressely granted and approved by this Change Order. "D-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(b) - ALL DISTRICTS "D-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 3 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO. Twelve CONTRACTOR: ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS INC. DATE �anuar 1 . TSB JOB: L B AT PLAITT AO2��8�. J--15 SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Date July 20, 1988 Original Contract Time . 940 Days Original Completion Date February 13, 1990 Time Extension This C.O. 6 Calendar Days Total Time Extension 46 Calendar Days Revised Contract Time 986 Calendar Days Revised Completion Date March 31, 1990 Original Contract Price $18 476,243.00 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 33�.79 This Change (Add) (gedust I— 6-9,2T7---6(T Amended Contract Price �8,866.69�:79 Board Authorization Date: February 8, 1989 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDED BY: L 4F /-za-,)y on ruction Manager —bafe ADVANCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC. ACCEPTED BY: APPROVED BY: ll' on c or Date D rector of Engineering Date "D-3" AGENDA ITEM #9(b) - ALL DISTRICTS "D-3" �.J COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 1 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO. Fourteen CONTRACTOR: Kiewit Pacific Company DATE January 19, 1989 JOB: HEADWORKS NO. 2 AT PLANT N0. 1 JOB N0. P1-20 AND DEMOLITION OF DIGESTERS A L L OU , D DIN AND AlN NO. Pl-31 Amount of this Change Order (Add) (Deduet) $ 19,405.56 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. Job No. P1-20 Item 1 CHEMICAL DRAIN PIPING SYSTEMS MODIFICATION The Contractor was directed to install an additional 22 feet each of 18-inch Ductile Iron, 8-inch Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) and 6-inch PVC chemical drain piping systems in Tunnel No. 1. This added piping was not shown on the contract drawings and was necessary for the flows in the piping to drain to the specified sump. (Reference FCO #88). This item was negotiated with the Contractor pursuant to Section 10-6(b)2(A) of the General Provisions. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 14,919.84 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days Item 2 CABLE TRAY SUPPORTS MODIFICATION The Contractor was directed to strengthen the supports for the cable tray systems in Tunnels Nos. 1 through 4. The specified support system would not accommodate the weight of anticipated future cable loading. (Reference: PCH #54). This item was negotiated with the Contractor pursuant to Section 10-6(b)2(A) of the General Provisions. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 1,396.12 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days "E-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(c) - ALL DISTRICTS ^E-1- COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 2 of 3 �✓ P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO. Fourteen CONTRACTOR: Kiewit Pacific Company DATE January 19, 1989 JOB: HEADWORKS NO. 2 AT PLANT N0. 1 JOB NO P1-20 AND DEMOLITION OF DIGESTERS NOS. ND M T F B L PIN L AN UT AND G N N NPLAN] NU. i, JUB NU. Jab No. PI-31 Item 3 BOILER VENT STACK MODIFICATION The Contractor was directed to add sample ports to the boiler vent stack in order to comply with AQMD monitoring requirements. The stack's outer shell thickness was increased to a heavier gauge material in order to satisfy the self-supporting requirement that was originally specified. This is done to resolve a conflict between specifications. (Reference: Sub. #120-077, FCO #105). This item was negotiated with the Contractor pursuant to Section 10-6(b)(2)A of the General Provisions. �✓ ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 3,089.60 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days TOTAL ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER: $ 19,405.56 TOTAL TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER: 0 Calendar Days The additional work contained within this Change Order can be performed incidental to the prime work and within the time allotted for the original Contract and any revisions to the Contract Time made by this and any previously issued Change Orders. It is therefore mutually agreed that no time is required for the Change Order, and no direct or indirect, incidental or consequential costs or expenses have been or will be incurred by Contractor. SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Ur-iginal Contract Date October 21, 1987 Original Contract Time 920 Calendar Days Original Completion Date April 27, 1990 Time Extension this C.O. 0 Calendar Days Total Time Extension 63 Calendar Days - Revised Contract Time 983 Calendar Days Revised Completion Date June 29, 1990 "E-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(c) - ALL DISTRICTS "E-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 3 of 3 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92798 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C.O. NO. Fourteen CONTRACTOR: Kiewit Pacific Company DATE January 9, 989 JOB: HEADWORKS 10. 2 AT PLANT N0. 1 JOB NO: P1-20, AND DEMOLITION OF DIGESTERS N AND LA M N L IN L N S; AN DING N PAVINGSAT PLANT NO. B NO. P -3 Original Contract Price S 31,458,000.00 Prev. Auth. Changes P. This Change (Add) (BeduEt) 8— 93�0 F . Amended Contract Price S 32,997,334� Board Authorization ate: February 8, 1989 `..i COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RECOMME DED BY: 7 1/19/89 ons ruc ion Manager KIEWIT PACIFIC COMPANY ACCEPTED BY: APPRO E 1/19/89 1/19/89 ontractor erector o Engineering 'E-3„ AGENDA ITEM #9(c) - ALL DISTRICTS "E-3" RESOLUTION NO. 89-8 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR JOB NO. J-17 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CENTRAL LABORATORY, JOB NO. J-17 Y Y f R tt Y f Y f Y Y Y f Y Y ! WHEREAS, Boyle Engineering Corporation, Districts' engineers, have completed preparation of the plans and specifications for Central Laboratory, Job No. J-17. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 119 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, 00 HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the proposed project for construction of Central Laboratory, Job No. J-17, is hereby approved. Said project was included in the Supplement to Joint Treatment Works Wastewater Master Plan EIR approved by the Boards of Directors on November 18, 1987. A Notice of Determination was filed by the Secretary on November 25, 1987, in accordance with the Districts' Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and, Section 2. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by Boyle Engineering Corporation, Districts' engineers, for construction of Central Laboratory, Job No. J-17, are hereby approved and adapted; and, Section 3. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Public Contracts Code of the State of California; and, Section 4. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, �✓ "F-1," AGENDA ITEM #9(d) - ALL DISTRICTS "F-1" Section S. That the Secretary and the Districts' Director of Engineering or his designee be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "F-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(d) - ALL DISTRICTS "F-2" RESOLUTION NO. 89-9 AWARDING JOB NO. J-20 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR WAREHOUSE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND OIL STORAGE AND DISPENSING IMPROVEMENTS, JOB NO. J-20 k ! k k k Co: * k k k k k k k k The Boards of Directors of unty Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the proposed construction contract is for a project which is included in Amendment No. 1 to the Master Plan of Support Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1. The project is to be constructed as per the Master Plan approval. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 15090 of the Districts' Guidelines, a Final Supplement to the Joint Treatment Works Wastewater Master Plan Environmental Impact Report covering this project was approved by the Boards of Directors on November 18, 1987; and, Section 2. That the written recommendation this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by the Districts' Director of Engineering that award of contract be made to J. R. Roberts Corp. for Warehouse and Maintenance Building and oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20, and bid tabulation and proposal submitted for said work are hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. That the contract for Warehouse and Maintenance Building and Oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20, be awarded to J. R. Roberts Corp. in the total amount of $3,266,000.00 in accordance with the "G-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(e)(2) - ALL DISTRICTS "G-1" terms of their bid and the prices contained therein; and, Section 4. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 1, acting for itself and as agent for Districts Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14, 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 5. That all other bids for said work are hereby rejected. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "G-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(e) (2) - ALL DISTRICTS "G-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS Er ORANGE COUNTY. CAUPoNNIA January 17, 1989 ,OEY EW AVENUE 11:00 a.m. ,a S„x,E7 One (1) ADDENDUM w W.N vauFV.cu6axxu xznea� n,n Eszx+, BID TABULATION SHEET JOB NO. J-20 PROJECT TITLE WAREHOUSE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING, AND OIL STORAGE AND DISPENSING IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Construction of maintenance shops, warehousing and office buildings ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE $ 2,000,000 BUDGET AMOUNT $ 2,100,000 ..........._....._____......... _________________ CONTRACTOR TOTAL BID 1. J. R. Roberts Corp., Fair Oaks, CA $ 3,266,000.00 2. A. R. Willinger Company, Inc., Newport Beach, CA $ 3,588,000.00 3. Cates Construction, Inc., Lancaster, CA $ 3,735,500.00 4. John R. Hundley, Inc., Garden Grove, CA $ 3,835,680.00 Link Properties, Inc. , dba S. Linkletter Construction, Inc., $ 4,174,134.00 Costa Mesa, CA 6. FTR International , Inc., Marina Del Rey, CA $ 4,625,000.00 I have reviewed the proposals submitted for the above project and find that the low bid is a responsible bid. The number and range of bids received confirm that the Engineer's Estimate was 1n error. I-, therefore, recommend award to J. R. Roberts Corp. in the bid amount of $3,266,000.00 as the lowest and best bid. 4/i rLf,.., , bl �6 t fir✓ Thomas M. Dawes Director of Engineering ^r,-3" AGENDA ITEM #9(e)(2) - ALL DISTRICTS "13-3" RESOLUTION NO. 89-10 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR JOB NO. J-21 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF WASTE DIGESTER GAS FLARE FACILITIES AT PLANTS 1 AND 2, JOB NO. J-21 WHEREAS, Districts' engineers have completed preparation of the plans and specifications for Installation of Waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Jab No. J-21. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, S. 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: �..J Section 1. That pursuant to the Districts' Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, the Districts have concurrently undertaken an environmental review of the proposed project and hereby determine that said project is categorically exempt from further CEQA requirements; and, Section 2. That the project for Installation of Waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Job No. J-21, is hereby approved, and that the Secretary be directed to file any documents required by said Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and, Section 3. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by Districts' engineers for - Installation of. Waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Job No. J-21, are hereby approved and adopted; and, "H-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(f)(3) - ALL DISTRICTS "H-1" Section 4. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise For bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Public Contracts Code of the State of California; and, Section 5. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 6. That the Secretary and the Districts' Director of Engineering or his designee be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "H-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(f)(3) - ALL DISTRICTS "H-2" RESOLUTION NO. 89-11 APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS F R JOB NO. PI-34-2 A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS'. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SLUDGE HANDLING FACILITIES AT RECLAMATION PLANT NO. 1, JOB NO. P1-34-2 f i f i i f i i i i i i f f i f WHEREAS, John Carollo Engineers, Districts' engineers, have completed preparation of the plans and specifications for Sludge Handling Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-34-2. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3. 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: `...' Section 1. That the proposed project for construction of Sludge Handling Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-34-2, is hereby approved. Said project was included in the 1985 Joint Treatment Works Wastewater Master Plan approved on July 10, 1985. A Notice of Determination was filed by the Secretary on July 18, 1985, in accordance with the Districts' Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and, Section 2. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Boards of Directors by John Carollo Engineers, Districts' engineers, for construction of Sludge Handling Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-34-2, are hereby approved and adopted; and, Section 3. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Public Contracts Code of the State of California; and, Section 4. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, "I-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(g) - ALL DISTRICTS "I-1" Section 5. That the Secretary and the Districts' Director of Engineering �✓ or his designee be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Boards of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "I-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(g) - ALL DISTRICTS "I-2" RESOLUTION NO. 89-12 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-44 AUTHORIZING GENERALGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN v, AGREEMENT WITH C L RANS F R 0 STRUCTI N - ST CTS' JOB NO. J-22 IN CONJUNCTION WITH RO EMENTS A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-44 AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS TO INCLUDE REPLACEMENT OF PORTIONS OF STANDBY OCEAN OUTFALL, JOB NO. J-22, IN CALTRANS' PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS, PROVIDING FOR AN INCREASE IN THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE DISTRICTS' PORTION OF THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on April 13, 1988, the Boards of Directors adopted Resolution No. 88-44, authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with CALTRANS to include Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall , Job - No. J-22, in CALTRANS' Pacific Coast Highway improvements; and, WHEREAS, final design of the project has been completed by CALTRANS' consultants, Moffatt and Nichol , which reflects an increase in the original estimate for construction of Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean Outfall, Job No. J-22. NOW, THEREFORE, the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, DO HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That Section 2. of Resolution No. 88-44 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Section 2. That the Districts shall pay all costs in connection with construction of the modifications to the land section of the 78-inch standby ocean -outfail, in a total amount -not to exceed $2,000,000.00, in accordance with the provisions set forth in said agreement; and,- PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "J" AGENDA ITEM #9(j ) - ALL DISTRICTS "J" RESOLUTION NO. 89-13-2 �✓ APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTRACT NO. -1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 2 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR SANTA ANA RIVER INTERCEPTOR SEWER MANHOLE REHABILITATION, CONTRACT NO. 2-14R WHEREAS, DGA Consultants, District's engineers, have completed preparation of the plans and specifications for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2-14R. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That pursuant to the District's Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, the District has concurrently undertaken an environmental review of the proposed project and hereby determine that said project is categorically exempt from further CEQA requirements; and, Section 2. That the project for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2-14R, is hereby approved, and that the Secretary be directed to file any documents required by said Guidelines Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended; and, Section 3. That the detailed plans, specifications and contract documents this day submitted to the Board of Directors by DGA Consultants, District' s engineers, for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2-14R, are hereby approved and adopted; and, "K-1" AGENDA ITEM #90 ) - DISTRICT 2 "K-1" Section 4. That the Secretary be authorized and directed to advertise for bids for said work pursuant to the provisions of the Public Contracts Code of the State of California; and, Section 5. That the General Manager be authorized to establish the date and time at which said bids will be publicly opened and read; and, Section 6. That the Secretary and the District's Director of Engineering or his designee be authorized to open said bids on behalf of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "K-2" AGENDA ITEM #9( 1 ) - DISTRICT 2 "K-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 8m"�d P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 10844 ELLI8, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714)992.2411 January 30, 1989 Board of Directors County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708-7018 Subject: Certification of Negotiated Fee for Addendum No. 3 to the Engineering Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates in Connection with Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Contract No. 5-29. In accordance with the Districts' procedures for selection of professional engineering services, the Selection Committee has negotiated the following fee with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for Addendum No. 3 in connection with the design of Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Contract No. 5-29, on an hourly basis, including labor plus overhead in an amount not to exceed $11,000, as follows: Engineering Services, (hourly rates including labor plus overhead at 130% not to exceed $11,000 TOTAL ADDENDUM NO. 3, 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. Wahx / Jam ener/oh C CoxC ames War, Chairman o a District No. 5 District No. 6 Selection Committee Selection Committee s/Thomas M Oawes homas M. Dawes Director of Engineering Selection Committee / "L" AGENDA ITEM #9(n)(1) - DISTRICTS 5 & 6 "L" RESOLUTION NO. 89-14 APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTWITH ROBERT REIN FR 8 AT F R OtbIUN UP k;UN1KAUi . 5- A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 5 AND 6 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT WITH ROBERT REIN, WILLIAM FROST 8 ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN OF REPLACEMENT OF PORTIONS OF COAST HIGHWAY FORCE MAIN AND GRAVITY SEWER, CONTRACT NO. 5-29, PROVIDING FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE REALIGNMENT OF THE SOUTHERLY FORCE MAIN BETWEEN ROCKY POINT PUMP STATION AND DOVER DRIVE t t # t t t t t # # t # t t # # # WHEREAS, the Districts have heretofore entered into an agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost 8 Associates for design of Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Trunk, Contract No. 5-29-1 (900 feet west of Arches Bridge to Old Newport Boulevard) , and Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main, Contract No. 5-29-2 (Old Newport Boulevard to east of Dover Drive) ; and, WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 expanded the scope of work to include additional work relative to relocation of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer facilities at Bitter Point Pump Station, as required by CALTRANS, and accellerated replacement of portions of the force main and gravity sewers between Bitter Paint Pump Station and Plant No. 2; and changed the contract designation for the entire project from "Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Farce Main and Gravity Trunk, Contract No. 5-29-1, and Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main, Contract No. 5-29-2" to "Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Contract' No. 5-29"; and, WHEREAS, Addendum No.. 2 expanded the scope of work to include certain cooperative public works improvements requested by the City of Newport Beach and the Districts' staff; and, "M-1" AGENDA ITEM k9(n) (2) - DISTRICTS 5 3 6 "M-1" WHEREAS, it is now deemed appropriate to further amend the agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates to provide for additional services required, including additional traffic control plans, for the realignment of the �..� southerly force main between the Rocky Point Pump Station and Dover Drive to avoid undisclosed utilities; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to authorization of the Boards of Directors on December 14, 1988, the Selection Committee has certified the final negotiated fee for said additional services, in accordance with established procedures for selection of professional engineering and architectural services. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 Addendum No. 3 dated February 8, 1989, to that certain Professional Services Agreement dated June 10, 1987, by and between County Sanitation Districts Nos. 5 and 6 of Orange County and Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates, for design of Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Contract No. 5-29, providing for additional services required, including additional traffic control plans, for the realignment of the southerly force main between Rocky Point Pump Station and Dover Drive to avoid undisclosed utilities, is hereby approved and accepted; and, Section 2. That the contract provision for fees be increased, on an hourly-rate basis for labor including overhead at 130% and direct expenses, by an amount not to exceed $11,000.00, increasing the maximum authorized compensation from $139,011.00 to an amount not to exceed $150,011.00; and, Section 3._.Thdt the-Chairman. and Secretary-of-District No. 5, acting for - itself and on behalf of District No. 6, are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Addendum No. 3 in form approved by the General Counsel . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. �✓ "M-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(n) (2) - DISTRICTS 5 & 6 "M-2" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 1 of 2 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C. 0. NO. One CONTRACTOR: Coastline Construction Company DATE January JOB: REHABILITATION OF BALBOA TRUNK SEWER LOCATED BETWEEN LIDO PUMP STATION AT SHORT A" STREET PUMP STATION, CONTRACT Amount of this Change Order (A O (Deduct) $ (3,000.00) 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. Item 1 TIME EXTENSION `✓ The Contractor is granted a twenty-one calendar day time extension for delays encountered while plans, specifications and shop drawings had to be revised. The revisions were necessary for the manhole rehabilitation. The preformed manhole fiberglass liners were not available, therefore a suitable coating system was devised along with proper sized manhole rings and covers. ADDED COST THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $ 0.00 TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 21 Calendar Days Item 2 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES The contract specified a $500.00 per day liquidated damages for late completion of the contract work. The completion date of November 25, 1988 was extended to December 16, 1988 for completion of the work (see Item 1 above). The Contractor actually completed the work on December 22, 1988. Therefore, liquidated damages in the amount of $500.00 per day for a total of six days are assessed for the period between December 16 and December 22, 1988. DEDUCTED COSTS THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: $(3,000.00) TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER ITEM: 0 Calendar Days TOTAL DEDUCTED COSTS THIS CHANGE ORDER: $(3,000.00) TOTAL TIME EXTENSION THIS CHANGE ORDER: 21 Calendar Days "N-1'" AGENDA ITEM #9(0) (1) - DISTRICT 5 "N-1" COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY Page 2 of 2 P. 0. BOX 8127 - 10844 ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92798 CHANGE ORDER GRANT NO. N/A C.D. NO. One CONTRACTOR: Coastline Construction Company DATE January 9, 9 99 JOB: REHABILITATION OF BALBOA TRUNK SEWER LOCATED BETWEEN LIDO PUMP STATION AT SHORT STREET AN MP STATION, CONTRACT—NO-.- 5-27 The additional work contained within this Change order can be performed incidental to the prime work and within the time allotted for the original Contract and any revisions to the Contract Time made by this and any previously issued Change Orders. It is therefore mutually agreed that 21 days extension of time to perform the work is required for this Change Order, but that no direct or indirect, incidental or consequential costs, expenses, losses or damages have been or will be incurred by Contractor except as expressly granted and approved by this Change Order. SUMMARY OF CONTRACT TIME Original Contract Date June 28, 1988 Original Contract Time 150 Calendar Days Original Completion Date November 25, 1988 Time Extension this C.O. 21 Calendar Days Total Time Extension 21 Calendar Days Revised Contract Time 171 Calendar Days Revised Completion Date December 16, 1988 Original Contract Price $ 91,200.00 Prev. Auth. Changes $ 0 This Change (Add-) (Deduct) $ (3.000.00) Amended Contract Price $ 68,200.00 8oard Authorization ate: February 8, 1989 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA RECOMMEj DED BY: '^ 9 �� 1/19/89 onstruction Manager COASTLINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 0 ACCEPTED :APPR E :BY: 1/19/89 o ya for rector of Engineering "N-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(o)(1) - DISTRICT 5 "N-2" RESOLUTION NO. 89-15-5 v..' ACCEPTING CONTRACT NO. 5-27 AS COMPLETE A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING REHABILITATION OF BALBOA TRUNK SEWER, BETWEEN LIDO PUMP STATION AT SHORT STREET AND "A" STREET PUMP STATION, CONTRACT NO. 5-27, AS COMPLETE AND APPROVING FINAL CLOSEOUT AGREEMENT The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 of Orange County, California, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER: Section 1. That the contractor, Coastline Construction Company, has completed the construction in accordance with the terms of the contract for Rehabilitation of Balboa Trunk Sewer, between Lido Pump Station at Short Street and "A" Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-27, on December 22, 1988; and, Section 2. That by letter the Districts' Director of Engineering has recommended acceptance of said work as having been completed in accordance with the terms of the contract, which said recommendation is hereby received and ordered filed; and, Section 3. That Rehabilitation of Balboa Trunk Sewer, between Lido Pump Station at Short Street and "A" Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-27, is hereby accepted as completed in accordance with the terms of the contract therefor, dated June 28, 1988; and, Section 4. That the Districts' Director of Engineering is hereby authorized and directed to execute a Notice of Completion therefor; and, Section 5. That the Final Closeout Agreement with Coastline Construction Company, setting forth the terms and conditions for acceptance of Rehabilitation "0-1" AGENDA ITEM #9(o)(2) - DISTRICT 5 "0-1" of Balboa Trunk Sewer, between Lido Pump Station at Short Street and °A° Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-27, and assessing the contractor for liquidated damages for six days in the amount of $500.00 per day for a total liquidated damages assessment of $3,000.00, as provided in the plans and specifications for said contract, is hereby approved and accepted in form approved by the General Counsel ; and, Section 6. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 5 are •hereby authorized and directed to execute said agreement on behalf of the District. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting held February 8, 1989. "0-2" AGENDA ITEM #9(o)(2) - DISTRICT 5 " 0-2" RESOLUTION NO. 89-16-5 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RE COOPERATIVEPROJECT TO INCLUDE DISTRICT CONTRACT N . 5- 4-1 IN Y'S P H IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 'A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 5 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH RELATIVE TO A COOPERATIVE PROJECT TO INCLUDE IMPROVEMENTS TO BAYSIDE DRIVE TRUNK SEWER, PHASE I, CONTRACT NO. 5-34-1, IN THE CITY'S ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY f t t * * f k t t k k k k f k k k f WHEREAS, the District has identified the need for improvements to Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer which includes sewer improvements in the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive, designated as Improvements to Bayside Drive Sewer, Phase I, Contract No. 5-34-1; and, WHEREAS, a joint project between the City of Newport Beach and CALTRANS proposes to widen Pacific Coast Highway including the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Bayside Drive; and, WHEREAS, public inconvenience can be minimized and a cost savings can be realized by the joint construction of the District's sewer line project and the CALTRANS/City proposed road improvement project on Pacific Coast Highway, 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 the certain Agreement dated by and between County Sanitation District No. 5 and the City of Newport Beach, relative to a cooperative project to construct District's Improvements to Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer, Phase I, Contract No. 5-34-1. and CALTRANS/City proposed road improvement project on Pacific Coast Highway, is hereby approved and accepted; and, "P-1" AGENDA ITEM #°(p) - DISTRICT 5 P-P, Section 2. That said cooperative project shall be administered by the City, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The �.. District shall pay all costs associated with Improvements to Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer, Phase I, Contract No. 5-34-1, including excavation, surveying, Inspection and contract administration, estimated not to exceed $300,000.00; and, Section 3. That the Chairman and Secretary of District No. 5 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 8, 1989. "P-2" AGENDA ITEM #90) - DISTRICT 5 "P-2" ORDINANCE NO. 309 `....' AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CHARGES The Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, does hereby FIND: A. That a financial and engineering report has been prepared setting forth the financial projections for providing sewer service to properties within the District; and B. That the financial and engineering reports have been made available to the public in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 54992; and C. Revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the sewage collection facilities and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities of the District, together with costs of administration and provisions for necessary reserves; and D. That the properties upon which the fees established by this Ordinance are levied discharge wastewater to the District's collection, treatment and disposal facilities. The costs of operating and maintaining said facilities has constantly increased due in part to increased regulatory requirements to upgrade the treatment process and said costs now exceed the amounts of any ad valorem tax revenues received from said properties; and E. That the need for upgraded and improved treatment of all wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities is required to protect the public health and safety to preserve the environment without damage; and Q-1"" AGENDA ITEM #25 - DISTRICT 3 F. That the new fees established by this Ordinance do not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the sewer service for which the fee is levied, as provided in Government Code Sections 54991 and 54992; and G. The establishment of the charges herein are for the purpose of (1) meeting operating and maintenance expenses of the District, including employee wages and benefits; (2) purchasing and leasing of supplies, materials and equipment; and (3) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, all as more particularly set forth in the Staff Report dated January 18, 1989 and attached Schedules, and the current fiscal year Joint Operating and District Budgets, considered by the Board as a part of the proceedings to adopt this Ordinance. Based thereon, the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 21080(8). NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, does hereby ORDAIN: Section 1: Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to establish a system of sanitary sewer service charges required to be paid by property owners for the services and facilities furnished by the District in connection with its sanitation treatment works and sewage collection system. Revenues derived under the provisions of this Ordinance shall be used for the acquisition, construction, reconstruction, maintenance and operation of the sewage collection facilities and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities of the District, together with costs of administration and provisions for necessary reserves. Section 2: Annual Sanitary Sewer Service Charge. Commencing July 1, 1989, each parcel of real property located within the District which is improved with structures designed for residential , commercial or industrial use and connected "G-2" AGENDA ITEM #25 - DISTRICT 3 "Q-2" to the District's system, shall pay a sanitary sewer service charge based on the average volume of wastewater discharged by a class of users in the sum or sums as set forth in Table A of this Ordinance. Section 3: Application of Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance shall be in addition to Ordinance No. 306 of the District establishing regulations for use of District's sewage facilities, including provisions for payment of charges or fees related thereto. Section 4: Exceptions. The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all properties in the District, and no exception shall be provided for properties otherwise deemed exempt from payment of taxes or assessments by provisions of the State Constitution or statute, including properties owned by other public agencies or tax exempt organizations, except as expressly provided in Section 5 hereof. Section 5: Exemptions and Appeals. In recognition that certain legal parcels of real property exist within the District which are not connected to the District system and that other properties acquire considerably greater potable water than is ultimately discharged to the District's system, it is the intent of the District that said parcels be exempt totally or in part from the payment of charges as prescribed herein. Any property owner may appeal the assessment of the charges and submit a claim for rebate to the District on the forms prescribed and provided by the District, within one hundred twenty (120) days after the annual bill is mailed. All applications for rebate of the annual sewer service charge will be determined by the General Manager of the District or his designee, who may grant a partial or full rebate or adjustment of the charge based on receiving satisfactory proof that an inequity exists between the amount and the amount of "0-3" AGENDA ITEM #25 - DISTRICT 3 "0-3" wastewater discharged to the District's systems. Such inequities may include, but are not limited to the following instances: (a) the use of the parcel differs from the use indicated by the charge; (b) no service connection to the District system exists from the parcel charged; (c) the principal water use is agricultural ; (d) any other use wherein the amount of wastewater discharged to the District's system is significantly less on a regular basis than the amount that would normally be expected to be discharged by the class of property in question. Section 6: Annual Charge Based on Fiscal Year. The sanitary sewer service charge established by this Ordinance shall. remain in effect until such time as the rates adopted by the District ordinance are changed, and there shall be no proration of such charges in any fiscal year. Section 7: Method of Collection. Pursuant to the authority granted by California Health and Safety Code Section 5473, all charges established herein shall be collected on the County Tax Roll in the same manner, by the same persons and at the same time as, together with and not separately from, its general taxes. The County Tax Collector is authorized and hereby ordered to make said collections in accordance with the terms and conditions of agreements between the County of Orange and this District. In the event District determines that errors or inequities exist in the amount of charges to be collected by the County Tax Collector, District may submit a bill for any difference directly to the property owner. Said invoiced amount shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of invoice date. Section 8: Credit for Industrial Pennittees. A credit shall be allowed to "0-4" AGENDA ITEM #25 - DISTRICT 3 "0-4" all dischargers permitted pursuant to Article 3 of Ordinance No. 306 in an amount equal to the annual sanitary sewer service charge established by Section 2 of this Ordinance in the same manner as credit is allowed for ad valorem taxes pursuant to Section 302.6, 303.6 and 304.5(B)(4) of Ordinance No. 306. Section 9: Severability.. If any provision of this Ordinance or the application to any person or circumstance is held invalid by order of court, the remainder of the Ordinance or the application of such provision to other persons or other circumstances shall not be affected. Section 10: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective July 1, 1989. Section 11: The Secretary of the Board shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the District as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, at a regular meeting held Chairman of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California ATTEST: Secretary of the Board of Directors County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California "Q-5" AGENDA ITEM #25 - DISTRICT 3 "Q-5,, COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 52 6, 7, 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES. OF THE REGULAR MEETING ON JANUARY 11, 1989 �NITA71oN �i � `iapalima Or oIs i Siae�1990 y oaq'�GE COV - ADDIINISTRAME OFFICES 10844 PIT AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was held on January 11, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts- Administrative Offices. Following the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 as follows: ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chairman Or me Crank =Dan Griset, Chairman pro tam —Dan Young =Ronald B. Hoesterey —Richard B. Edgar _Roger Stanton -7-Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 2: x A.B. "Buck° Catlin, Chairman _Chris Norby =William D. Mahoney, Chairman pro tem —HenryBeth Graham =Roland E. Bigonger W. Medea =Dan Griset —Dan Young =Ron Isles Currey Nelson _ =James Neal _George Scott a Arthur G. Newton _Carol Downey =Bob Perry _Norman Culver =Iry Pickier Fred Hunter =Mayne Silxel _James T. Fasbender =Dan E. Smith Fred Barrera =Roger Stanton =Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 3: x Richard Polls, Chalrman Orbrey Duke x Currey Nelson _Wayne Wedin =Edward L. Allen _Paul Verellen 7—A.S. -Buck" Catlin Chris Norby -7—No man Culver —_Bob Perry %William Davis John Kenai =John Erskine des Bannister =Don R. Griffin —Donna L. Chessen =Dan Griset —_Dan Young =William 0. Mahoney Beth Graham =James Neal —George Scott =Iry Pickier _Fred Hunter -7—J.R. -Bob-- Siefen Dewey Wiles =Roger Stanton =Don R. Roth x Charles Sylvia —Robert Wahlstrom =Edna Wilson —Joe Hunt DISTRICT NO. 5: x John C. Cox, Jr., Chairman Evelyn Hart Donald A. Strauss, Chairman pro tam =Evelyn Hart =Don R. Roth —Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 6: x James Wahner, Chairman Eric Johnson =Ruthelyn Plummer, Chairman pro tam —Evelyn Hart =Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton DISTRICT NO. 7: x Richard Edgar, Chairman Ursula Kennedy =Sally Anne Sheridan, Chai man pro tam —Larry Agran =Dan Griset =Dan Young =Don R. Roth ---Fred Stanton =Don E. Smith Barrera Donald A. Strauss =John C. Cox, Jr. =James Wahner _Harry Green DISTRICT NO. 11: x Tom Mays, Chairman Jim Silva Roger Stanton =Don R. Roth x Grace Winchell __�e3 Bannister DISTRICT NO. 13: x Henry W. Wades, Chairman Roland E. Bigonger =Iry Pickier, Chairman pro tam —Fred Hunter =Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton =Don E. Smith Fred Barrera x Wayne Wedin —Ron Isles DISTRICT NO. 14: x Peer A. Swan, Chairman Darryl Miller =Ursula Kennedy, Chairman pro ten =Richard B. Edgar =Don R. Roth =Roger Stanton =Sally Anne Sheridan Larry Agran =Don E. Smith =Fred Barrera -2- 01/11/89 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Board Secretary, Blake P. Anderson, William N. Clarke, Thomas M. Dawes, Corinne Clawson, Gary Streed, Penny Kyle, John Linder, Chuck Winsor OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel , Clark Ide, Jamel Demir, Conrad Hohener, Jr., Steve Hough, Walt Howard, Harvey Hunt, Bill Knopf, Phil Stone, Sarwan Wason x x x x x x x x x x x x x DISTRICTS 2, 3 & 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and agce t resi na- tion of Ma or ene Le ton of the That the letter from Mayor Gene Leyton City of Brea and seating first and resigning from the Boards of Directors second alternates to the Mayor of District Nos. 2, 3 and 13, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the following first and second alternates to the mayor be seated as members of the Boards: Districts Active Director Alternate Director 2 Ron Isles Carrey J. Nelson _ 3 Carrey J. Nelson Wayne Wedin 13 Wayne Wedin Ron Isles DISTRICTS 2 & 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and accept resigna- tion of Ma or Fred Voss of the That the letter from Mayor Fred Voss City of Foun ain Valley and seating resigning from the Boards of Directors first and second alternates to the of District Nos. 2 and 3, be, and is Mayor hereby, received and ordered filed; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the following first and second alternates to the mayor be seated as members of the Boards: Districts Active Director Alternate Director 2 & 3 James Neal George Scott , DISTRICTS 2 & 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and accep res igna-_ tion of Ma Br Moll Mc lanahan OT That the letter from Mayor Molly the it of Fullerton and seatingMcClanahan resigning from the Boards of rs and second alternates to the Directors of District Nos. 2 and 3, be, Mayor and is hereby, received and ordered filed; and, FURTHER MOVED: That the following first and second alternates to the mayor be seated as members of the Boards: Districts Active Director Alternate Director 2 & 3 A.B."Buck" Catlin Chris Norby , -3- 01/11/89 DISTRICTS 2, 3 5 8 it Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive an fle minute excerpts re Board Appointments That the minute excerpts from the following re election of mayors, appointment of alternate Directors, and seating new members of the Boards, be, and are hereby, received and ordered filed, as follows: (*Mayor) City Districts) Active Director - Alternate Director Cypress 3 William Davis* John Kanel _ Huntington 3 John Erskine Wes Bannister* Beach 11 Tom Mays Jim Silva 11 Grace Winchell Wes Bannister* La Habra 2 & 3 William D. Mahoney* Beth Graham La Palma 3 Richard Polis Orbrey Duke* Newport Beach 5 John C. Cox, Jr. Evelyn Hart Placentia 2 Arthur G. Newton Carol Downey* The Joint Chairman welcomed new Director Wayne Wedin and returning Directors Ruthelyn Plummer and Ron Isles to the Sanitation Districts' Boards. DISTRICT 3 The Joint Chairman announced that the Election of Chairman pro tem office of Chairman pro tem of County Sanitation District No. 3 had been vacated by a change in Board representation and that election of a new Chairman pro tem for the District would, therefore, be in order. Director Carrey Nelson was then duly nominated and elected Chairman pro tem of District No. 3. DISTRICT 5 The Joint Chairman announced that the Election of Chairman and Chairman offices of Chairman and Chairman pro tem pro tem of County Sanitation District No. 5 had been vacated by a change in Board representation and that election of new offices for the District would, therefore, be in order. Director John C. Cox, Jr. was then duly nominated and elected Chairman of District No. 5 and Director Donald A. Strauss was duly nominated and elected Chairman pro tem of District No. 5. DISTRICT 6 The Joint Chairman announced that the Election of Chairman pro tem office of Chairman pro tem of County Sanitation District No. 6 had been vacated by a change in Board representation and that election of a new Chairman pro tem for the District would, therefore, be in order. Director Ruthelyn Plummer was then duly nominated and elected Chairman pro tem of �../ District No. 6. 4 01/11/89 DISTRICT 13 The Joint Chairman announced that the Election of Chairman and Chairman offices of Chairman and Chairman pro tem pro tem of County Sanitation District No. 13 had been vacated by a change in Board representation and that election of new offices for the District would, therefore, be in order. Director Hank Wedaa was then duly nominated and elected Chairman of District No. 13 and Director Iry Pickler was duly nominated and elected Chairman pro tem of District No. 13. ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chairman called a meeting of Report of the Joint Chairman the Executive Committee for Wednesday, January 25th, at 5:30 p.m., and invited Directors Iry Pickler and Ruthelyn Plummer to attend and participate in the discussions. He also noted that District No. 3 would adjourn to Thursday, January 26th, at 7:30 p.m. , to consider the District's long-range financial plan. ALL DISTRICTS The General Manager reported that staff Report of the General Manager would be focusing a lot of attention on the Districts' "Action Plan for Environmental Management: Preserving Orange County's Coastal Waters" over the next several months. This comprehensive study will produce information needed ford✓ the Boards to make decisions that will take the Districts wastewater management plan into the 21st century. It will also be used to prepare the Districts' application to the Environmental Protection Agency and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for renewal of the ocean discharge permit which expires in 1990. Mr. Sylvester briefly reviewed the upcoming Action Plan schedule for consideration and approval of the 30-year Facilities Plan, Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report. The initial review of the draft documents will be considered by the Boards' Select Committee in February, and by the Joint Boards at the regular March Board Meeting. Several, public meetings will be held between February and July and a public hearing is scheduled for April . Following public commentary a final decision by the Boards is required by the end of June in order to meet the deadline for submittal of the application for renewal of the Districts' ocean discharge permit in August. Executive summaries of the plans will also be prepared. DISTRICT 1 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 2 There being no corrections or amendments Xp_pr_oy_aT­of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. , -5- 01/11/89 DISTRICT 3 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting �./ held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 5 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 6 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 7 There being no corrections or amendments Dprova I of MPufii to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved. as mailed. DISTRICT 11 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 13 There being no corrections or amendments Dprova of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 14 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held December 14, 1988, the Chaim an ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ratification of a n of Joint anIndividuals ric a ms That payment of Joint and individual District claims set forth on pages "A" and "B" attached hereto and made apart of these minutes, and summarized below, be, and are hereby, ratified by the respective Boards in the amounts so indicated. 12/07/88 12/21/88 ALL DISTRICTS �Jomating Fund - E 780,167.09 E 634,738.66 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 4,609,724.79 453,762.96 Joint Working Capital Fund - 97,836.19 107,013.97 Self-Funded Insurance Funds - 68,802.80 1,019.77 DISTRICT NO. 1 - 14.63 4.20 STIiTRRYLT NO.2 - 659,570.49 24,959.65 DISTRICT 0. 3 - 182,807.28 15,812.04 DI ICY CT� - 17,244.52 21,495.74 DITT_RI N 7T - 30.50 27.70 Uff I T N - 6,.517.47 56,850.48 DI ICT 1 - 45,612.81 38,074.15 02 DI FT—RI NO. _ 11 02 443.85 46.81 DIST T . 5 8 6 JOINT - 711,611.97 111,896.81 DI NOS. J NT - 1,611.97 -0- `.� TRI TS a 14 T - 1,477.16 523.07 E7,186,025.46 $2,126,649.07 -6- 01/11/89 ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 4 to the plans and specification for That Change Order No. 4 to the plans and Job No. J-7-4 specifications for Administration Building Addition, Job No. J-7-4, authorizing an addition of $16,457.00 to the contract with J. R. Roberts Corporation for additional electrical conduit and outlets to accommodate alternative Board Room utilization configurations, additional Board Room audio-visual equipment and for heavier gauge sheet metal for the parapet coping cap, be, and is hereby, approved.ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 11 to the plans and specifications for That Change Order No. 11 to the plans Job No. J-15 and specifications for Ocean outfall Booster Station "C" at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-15, authorizing an addition of $32,943.00 to the contract with Advanco Constructors, Inc. for eight items of additional work including grouting on two overflow structures in the Santa Ana River levee, modification of 42-inch meter line, additional vibration monitoring circuits for five pumps and motors, additional lighting in the lower level of the Booster Station, chlorine line encasement and additional sealing and modifications required for bulkheads; and granting a time extension of seven calendar days for completion of said work, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 13 to the plans and specifications for That Change Order No. 13 to the plans Job Nos. P1-20 and P1-31 and specifications for Headworks No. 2 at Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-20, and Demolition of Digesters Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Replacement of Boiler; Piping Cleanouts; and Grading and Paving at Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-31, authorizing an addition of $89,376.01 to the contract with Kiewit Pacific Co. for ten items of additional work including replacement of precast tunnel lids, removal of a conflicting sump pump to accommodate new construction, the addition of concrete steps to Power Building No. 3A, rerouting of a 6-inch plant water line, modification of screw conveyor connections, relocation of light standards to accommodate new construction, the addition of generator operational status inputs to programmable controller, modification of pump room stairway landing, and the addition of 763 linear feet of augered pile, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: A rovin lams and specifications for 05 No. PS- 5-1 That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 89-1, approving plans and specifications for Rehabilitation of Digester 7 and 8 at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-35-1, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: A rovin ans and specifications for Job No. P -4 That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 89-2, approving plans and specifications for Instrumentation Improvements at Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-40, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. 7- O1/11/89 ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: A rovin tans and s ecifications for ecification o. R-03 �1 and That the Boards of Directors hereby pecification No. R- -2 adapt Resolution No. 89-3, approving plans and specifications for Fuel System Improvements at Plant No. 1, Specification No. R-033-1, and Fuel System Improvements at Plant No. 2, Specification No. R-033-2, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing staff to issue Change Order No. 1 to Purchase Order That staff be, and is hereby, No. 33678 issued to IMO Delaval , authorizied to issue Change Order No. 1 Inc. Specification No. R-034 to Purchase Order No. 33678 issued to IND Delaval , Inc. , in the amount of $30,701.86, for additional repairs required beyond the original scope of work for the Major Overhaul of the No. 1 Delaval Blower Engine at Plant No. 1 (Specification No. R-034) that were unable to be determined until the engine was dismantled, increasing the total authorized amount, on a time-and-materials basis, from $35,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $65,701.86. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Receive, file and den claim of GTE alifornia, Inc. re Job That the claim submitted by GTE No. P2-35-1 California, Inc. dated December 13, 1988, in the amount of $454.51 for alleged damage to telephone equipment in connection with construction of Phase I Improvements of Master Plan of Support Facilities, Site & Security Improvements at Treatment Plant No. 2, Job No. P2-35-1, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and denied; and, FURTHER MOVED: That said claim be, and is hereby, referred to the Districts' General Counsel , liability claims administrator, contractor and contractor's insurance company for appropriate action. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizin renewal of membershi s in CASA and AMSA for 1918 That renewal of memberships in the California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) and the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) for the 1989 calendar year, be, and are hereby, approved. DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11 & 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement That the Boards of Directors hereby with Arthur Young Company for adopt Resolution No. 89-4, authorizing design and redevelopment of the the General Manager to negotiate and Districts' supplemental user fee execute an agreement with Arthur Young & data processing programs Company for the functional design and redevelopment of the Districts' supplemental user fee data processing programs to interface with the County Assessor's and County Auditor's new data base management systems, and for �..J training services and oversight necessary to implement the new programs for billing and collecting the Districts' supplemental user fees on the annual property tax bill , to replace the services previously provided by the County Assessor, for a total amount not to exceed $161,882.00. A certifies copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. -8- 01/11/89 DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: ournment That the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 1 to the tans and specifications for That Change Order No. 1 to the plans and contract No. -1 specifications for Portion of Euclid Interceptor Sewer between Lampson Avenue and Orangewood Avenue, Contract No. 2-26-1, authorizing an addition 'of $18,5oo.00 to the contract with Steve Bubalo Construction Co. for installation of 30 feet of 24-inch steel casing and grout fill for a 10-inch, City of Garden Grove sewer, and 80 feet of 84-inch steel casing for the District's sewer line construction to allow tunneling of intersection at Orangewood Avenue and Euclid Street to minimize traffic disruption; and granting a time extension of 10 calendar days to complete said additional work, plus an additional 18 calendar days due to labor strike delays, for a total time extension of 28 calendar days, be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m., January 11, 1989. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned to 7:30 p.m., Thursday, January 26, 1989 to consider the District's long-range financial plan. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. DISTRICTS 6 7 8 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing staff to negot a e agreements with property owners to That staff be, and is hereby, authorized obtain sewer easements necessary to negotiate agreements with property re Contract No. 14-1-1 and owners to obtain sewer easements Contract No TrT 2 necessary for construction of the Baker-Gisler Interceptor, Contract No. 14-1-1, and the Baker Force Mains, Contract No. 14-1-2, for consideration by the Boards at a future meeting. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then . declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m., January 11, 1989. -9- 01/11/89 DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: AuthorTz—ing staff to ne of ate and execute an agreement with TRANS That the Board of Directors hereby for upsizing and relocating adopts Resolution No. 89-5-7, District sewers in conjunction with authorizing staff to negotiate and project to widen Interstate 5 execute an agreement, in form approved by the General Counsel , with the California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) for upsizing District sewers to be relocated by CALTRANS in conjunction with their project to widen Interstate 5, and providing for reimbursement to CALTRANS for the upsizing cost in an amount not to exceed 35% of the bid amount for the sewer relocation work. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 7 . Moved, seconded and duly carried: journment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 3 to the lane and s ecifications for That Change Order No. 3 to the plans and Contract No. 11-1 and specifications for Rehabilitation of Contract No. 11-10- R Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 11-16, and Urgency Repairs to Slater Pump Station, Contract No. 11-10-3R, authorizing an addition of $22,242.00 to the contract with Christeve Corporation for removal and replacement of undisclosed electrical utilities and additional concrete gutters and asphalt paving, be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 4 to the tans and specifications for That Change Order No. 4 to the plans and Contract No. 11-16 and specifications for Rehabilitation of Contract No. 11-10-3R Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 11-16, and Urgency Repairs to Slater Pump Station, Contract No. 11-10-3R, authorizing an adjustment of engineer's quantities, for a net addition of $3,060.55 to the contract with Christeve Corporation, be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Accepting Contract -No. 11-16 and Contract No. 11-10-3R as complete That the Board of Directors hereby adopts Resolution No. 89-6-11, accepting Rehabilitation of Ocean Avenue Trunk Sewer, Contract No. 11-16, and Urgency Repairs to Slater Pump Station, Contract No. 11-10-3R, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. -10- 01/11/89 DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:48 p.m. , January 11, 1989. becretary, Boards of Directors County Sanitation District Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 8 14 -11- i FUND NO 91R9 - JT DIST WORKING CAFITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/0I/40 PAGE I REPORT NUMBER AF13 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY K .p 3. WARRANT NO. - VENDOR AMOUNT DESCRIPTION } • 096536 ACTION INSTRUMENTS, INC. f2.979.85 INSTRUMENT PART O96537 A9VANCED CONFUTER PRDOUCIS.INC 127h.93 OFFICE SUPPLIES • 096539 e a AIR COLD SUPPLY INC. $200.63 ELECTRIC PARTS 096510 ALLIED CORPORATION $23,341.84 CATIONIC POLYMER M.O. 3-11-88 fi. INC. HNNICAL PAHTs 13 096542 THE ANCHOR TACKING CO. f5.939,12 SOFTWARE 095513 SLAVE P. ANDERSON f215.09 EMPLOYEE MEETING 6 TRAVEL h IG '. 096E15 ARENS INDUSTRIES INC. $2,041.09 INSTRUMENT PART 096546 ARIZONA INSTRUMENT $290.00 ANALYZER 1e b96547 ARROWHEADCORP. S.91.1. ELEMIC REPAIRS x n 096510 ASSOCIATED CONCRETE PROD.. INC 360.71 ELECTRIC PARTS 1. C96549 ASSOCIATED LABORATORIES f525.C9 LAII SERVICES 996559 BC LRUUS.NJAL SUPPLY. 1955.04 TOOLS (4 , a 096551 FALCON DISPOSAL SERVICE $116,191.65 GRIT REMOVAL M.O. 7-13-88 096552 SW/IP INTERNATIONAL f1.012.36 PUMP PARTS ac r'6553 BACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICE11 .c RF rA A 096554 DATTERIES WEST. INC. $240.00 BATTERIES 0 a6 y55 BAXIER SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTS $7.594.99 LAB SUPPLIES 996556 0 ' S 096557 PIRG MACHINE CO. $6.563.32 MECHANCIAL 'PARTS 096556 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $1.341.07 OFFICE SUPPLIES ~ 096559 BON-A-RUC $175.00 CK PARTS 09656P BPOW% L CALPWELL CONSULTING $26.762.62 ENGINEERING SERVICES P2-37 096561 STEVE BUBALD CONSTRUCTION CO. $451,917.69 CONSTRUCTION 2-25-1 096562 BURKE SCAFFOLDING 12.169.44 096561 GARY G. STREED 9255.67 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 09F 561 BUTLER PAPER COMPANY ef3.58T.01 OFFICE SUPPLIES A 9h.65 C A R RECONDITIONING CO. f675.n0 ROTOR REPAIR 99E566 CNC MOPILE SPEEDURETEP f110.79 TRUCK REPAIRS 9-6567 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL $1,656.96 VALVE PARTS s 65 .R G P 2 ('+,f 096.69 CARLETON ENGINEE PS 3175.CB ENGINEERING SERVICES - EMISSION OFFSET 09657C CARMENITA FORD TRUCK SALES, 1N 3108.09 TRUCK PARTS r965 1 —� CONTROLS, INC. $135.54 ALUS s Isi•' C96572 CENTEL SYSTEMS 2 992.67 PHONE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS C96573 CENTURY PAINT 1176.72 PAINT SUPPLIES 996574 CA.... 36F129•UP ROLLER PART !a 096575 CHERWEST INDUSTRIES. INC. 372.799.39 FERRIC CHLORIDE M.O. 11-16-87 096576 CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. $3.725.25 OIL 6 GREASE T V S43.0S6.10 05FINTRuffrow—rr-Tr- Q!. ERE`iB C.I.E.S. . CO. . INC. f7+.39 n,21 MECHANICAL PARTS C96579 COMPRESSOR COMPONENTS OF CALIF S8056r PG MECIANICAL PARTS $�,. •096581 CONNELL G.A. PARTS / DIV. 131.90 TRUER PARTS FUND NO -I-- - JT P.IS1 WORK]"(. CAPITAL PROCFSSING RATE 12/ 11/88 PAGE ' REPORT NUM7FA AP93 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE CDO NTY J • • WARRANT NO. YFNDOR AMOUNT DESC^1•TION T • 0965A2 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICIL DI57. $5,161.14 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES • C9f`.P3 CONSOLIDATE^ RFRRCGRAFNICS SI.F44.31 BLUEPRINTING ECIIARICAD-110 TS S • C96585 CONTROL DATA CORPORATION f753.9G INSTRUMENT REPAIR 096RB6 CAL WATER f13.11 RENTAL EQUIPMENT V TIRES- --"' _"'-- ? .. P965AP DE GUCLLC S SONS GLASS CO. f2.273.12 GLASS C965A9 DENVER IMSTFUMENI CO. f203.n1 LAB REPAIRS . DDITIOLTS'[O'Pf7tM'1�2"MODE E. 096591 PEZUPIH S534.02 VALVE 696 E92 O16TEC POLYMERS $27.539.39 ANIONIC POLYMER M.0.8-10-68 D96593 ULTERIGH - FFICESUPPL'IES---'- .`�. 99E599 DIF ILIPPO ASSOCIATES f2T3.69 PRINTING 396'95 DORADO ENTERPRISES. INC. $13,314.37 PLANT MAINTENANCE 5 REFERS 096596 EASIMAMo FIc"UPFUCE '! 1 096597 EBENMARD CQUIPMENT $136.19 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 096598 W. H. EBERT CORP. 9697,369.15 CONSTRUCTION 5-29 as 696599 ENCHANTER, INC. 94.2).J.19 OCEANOGRAPHIC-RESEARCII'M:0:6-10-87- - FI ' 096699 ENGINEERING-SCIENCE $3,143.64 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 87-150 .196661 ENGINEERS SALES-SERVICE CO. f37T.64 MOTOR PARTS 2 JAMES FALCONER SI.Loo.peSOLTIMG-SERPIDEC--SCAQMO-PERMST y' = 09EC03 JOIIN B. FALKENSTEIN P.C. 12.485.90 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES J-7-/ 19f EO9 FEDERAL ENVELOPE COMPANY S-49.02 OFFICE SUPPLIES 6 c aEXPRESS CORP. 1 IR-FR 79 EE 06 FERRELLGAS f77.92 PROPANE 094677 FI'9 ER GLASS STRUCTURAL CNGP. f6 N71.72 ENGINEERING SERVICES n096108 FILTER SUPPLY CO. $155.69 SCRUBBER PARTS 096f.09 FI$CHER 6 PORTER CO. f11.13'9.52 N 096EIO FLAT L VERTICAL CONCRETE f2/0.90 CORE DRILLING L 5FE�—fL11 UMPe• IN . f • MP"FAIA --""" j C9E E12 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY I188.012.34 CONSTRUCTION BEING. M.O. 5-13-85 09,613 f UN THIN VALLEY P1IN1 l711.R1 PAINT SUPPLIES RA J96615 FRANCE COMFPESSOR •ROOUCT f1.1/7.53 MECHANICAL PARTS 096616 FREEWAY TRUCK PARTS 599.69 TRUCK PARTS SFTY----iR11,554.sl PA STSTEM f%,41 09F6It GANAML LUMPFR F.O. f1,061.03 BUILDING MATERIAL 096619 GAS TCCH K78.66 PLANT REPAIRS 7. 116671) GATES FIBERGLASS INSTALLERS 9110.94 EAR-SUPP=ES 396621 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPDP ITION $1.443.15 ENGINEERING SERVICES J-15A G9RE22 GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. $6,939.15 TELEPHONE 47: i�CELl`h & ASSOCIATES F.AT—EGECTRIC-PARTS----.- F� 096f2/ TOM GERLI46FR 521.0f EMPLOYEE MEETING 6 TRAVEL F966..25 GIERLICH-MITCHELL. IN'. 96.199.33 MECHANICAL PARTS TEES �9R5PT DON GREEN L ASSOCIATES f11.13S.P7 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 88-72 . _— _ 73 FUND NO 919g - JI DIST WORKING CAPI7AL PPOCESStfIC VATE 12/IIIVPA PAGE REPORT NUMIEP Arg3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANfE COUNTY � A WARRANT NO. VENDOR A4304t OESC41-TION ?,: • 096628 MACH COMPANY 1111.27 LAD SUPPLIES • 0961.25 HAHEY 6 ASSOC. SI23.9P FILTER ° ° 111.90 09A631 MARRISONS S CROSSFIELD FACIrIC $93.59 LAB SUPPLIES S 096632 HASTY ALIGNMENT $67.00 TRUCK PARTS ° g9ri131 HER MAN-FH INNEY-M DIMON 53.995.°V MECHANICAL PARTS 046635 HIL71. INC. s22S.6f HARDWARE 6 P96657 HUFFY COPPORAt10N TRg R.52 BIKE APARTS P9663B R.S. HUGHES CO.. INC. t338.81 PAINT SUPPLIES L I Y OF HUNTING70N BEACH $19.47 PATER-USEACE— Q�R : 09664: HUNTINGTON BEACH RUP.BER STAMP 126.A1 RUBBER STAMPS 096E41 HUN71NOTOR SUPPLY fll6.41 HARDWARE ELECTRIC-SUPPLIES" (Y 996603 INC DELAVAL INC. • IIA3.86 GASKETS ^9f644 INDUSTPIAL THREADED PRODUCTS Ss.694.96 FITTINGS N. --IR�LTtY"PiLRIAiA€-E'er $1.0v.4q RACIIIRIRC--'--"---"-' (L3 ° 096.E46 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACIIINE $955.91 OFFICE SUPPLIES IRVINE SWEEPING SERVICE 124N.Pg STREET SWEEPING N"'N • >< to E3UP CK • 2 096649 RIVIERA FINANCE 1686.78 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES C96657 JOE°S SWEEPING SERVICE 1752.P0 STREET SWEEPING Fr 596A I JONFS A STOKES A530C..INC. 116.36 .50 -CONSULTING SERVICES RES 88-27 4'P • 1 096652 KAMAN BEARINGS S SUPPLY T3,599.5P FITTINGS L 9E663 KAMER COMPANY $594.55 TOOLS I -LLY SERVICES $1,205.76 TEMPORARY-SERVICES--- �;•u W 096655 KC-MASTER $76.36 SECURITY TAGS 59AE96 NCB°S OIL, INC. 3202.90 WASTE OIL REMOVAL "wre-P—TTEwly PACIFIC . . iSPSTRIRTIOA-FI=71—_.__.. E1 • 09fb50 KING FEARING. INC. $2.H2.13 MACINE SUPPLIES ^9A659 KOHL°S HALLMARK CENTER. Ass Go OFFICE SUPPLIES ONSTRUCTry -SSERVICE9 -2 0 ° 99C661 L.A. LIOUID HANDLING SYSTEMS 3111.85 PUMP PARTS P96662 LEE L RO CONSULTING INCA• 335.495.00 CONSUTING SERVICES RES 88-108 -93nS3-----JO r sSg.nA EHLC5VZE-RIEEACE---"'--'--"' h"?s • 096664 LEWCO ELECTRIC CO. s2gt.91 TRUCK REPAIR 096f65 LIMITORGUE CORP. T931.99 INSTRUMENT REPAIR K INC: 3 .9 . 0 COMPUTER CONSULTING eg• 0966.67 JOMN LISEE rUMPS, . 116,027.20 PUMP 096668 LOS ANGELES TIMES $2.328.12 ADVERTISING u f 6 --�—'ems T11..2P ROTOGRAPIIIL SERVICES--' (f! • n96R7C MALCOLM FIRNIE A INC. 14,250.12 ENGINEERING SERVICES P1-21 09f671 MANVAC ELECTRONICS sst.ES INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES $709.10 MEC 09FA73 MCBAIN INSTRUMENTS 331P.90 LAB MAINTENANCE 73 �• fq FUND NO 9lg9 - JT DIST MORNING CLI'IIAL PROCESSING DAIT 12/01/0+ PAGF 4 klJ REP0P1 kUMq ER AF43 kL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF OPANGE COUNTV ql • [ WARRANT NO. VENDOR ANOU14T Dr SCRIP110N LTN • A96674 MCKFNNA ERGS. t FOUIF. 52.444.5q PUMP PARTS 996675 MCMIRLET EGUIPMEN7 CUFF 4146.27 TRCUK PARTS • 196671 MECHANICAL SEAL REPAIR I7g R.61 MECHANICAL PARTS O9f678 MENSCO. INC, 513.23 FILTER PARTS 6 6 WATER-USEAGE— (Pyn 096f BR MIDLAND'MFG. CORP. 3.S1 LUP VALVE 096681 HIME SAFETY APFLIANCE3 CO. $6g2.90 PUMP PARTS OMP (;.• 096683 PLADEN BUNTTEM COMSIRUCTION CO 9153,442.00 CONSTRUCTION 3-28R-1 096LA4 MOORE G TABER 59.192.47 GEOTECNNICAL SERVICES 1 5 . EDT o INDUSTRIES. 7—MEC7IANICAL-PARTS--" ' -- -"— - f�' � 69668E MULTI M SYSTEM CO. $197.9R PUMP PARTS 496607 MA71ONAL PLANT SERVICES, IFC, 56.f5q.P0 ENGINEERING SERVICES ]IPETI-EQUrPNE - �1 O96FP9 NCAL RUPPLV CO. 5537.60 PIPE/FITTINGS P96011 NORTH CENTRAL ENGR. $232.48 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES R966 �2F mAVISION srpvlcrR S423.pq SAFETY =SSES - (FO 096692 OLYPPIC CHEMICAL CO. 15-1,554.74 CHLORINE M.O. 10-12-88 09f 593 OLYNFIC CONTROLS. INC. 54R9.5T INSTRUMENT PRY 2 C96695 ORANGE COUNTY CHEMICAL CO. 51.113.43 HYDROCHLORIC ACID 79f696 PRANGE COUNTY FARM SUFFLY CO. $153.42 FERTILIZER 096697 ORANGE USTR U SCRUBBER-PRAY - (FjE 09f f98 ORANGE VALVE S FITTING CO. t640.42 FITTINGS 1. 096699 OPIICV CORP 5119.6E FILTER PART 96 N ECI 996701 CSUOC SELF-FONDER MEDICAL INS 55C.107.00 - PREMIUM ADVANCE 696702 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT 518.842.9E REIMBURSE WORKERS COMP INSURANCE 046703 R6BENT . C ON 5410.60 EPRERED-COMP'---- .,§• Aq(704 FSI t233.20 ROSE 196705 PACIFIC ELECTRIC, INC. t47r?75.94 CONSTRUCTION J-16 A L 6 (4 r Y L96107 PACIFIC FARTS 5412.79 INSTRUMENT PARTS 09f708 PACIFIC SAFETY EOUIFNCNT CO. 1363.10 SAFETY SUPPLIES 96 $154.34 TELEPHONE—'--'--" u 09f719 FARTS UNLIMITED $45.33 TRUCK PARTS 12 796711 PENWLL COMPANY S397.56 CORE DRILLING INC, Ty C96T13 PETRO-FUNP t.EQUIP. CO.CV. lg24.79 PUMP 096714 PHOTO t SOUND CO. 4598.°0 RENTAL EQUIPMENT HAFER Tr.rT --JANITORIAL'SUPME9---""-"--- ;j.[. 096716 PIMA 4R0 SYSTEMS. INC. 144.192.6N SLUDGE REMOVAL M.O.5-11-58 49f 711 PLASTIC INDUSTRICS 176.57 BOTTLES . ' rG9E]19 IMF' PPO JCCIS SOLUTION [A. /11.0r.63 INSTRUMENTATION INSPECTION M.O. 8-10-88 FUND NO 91^9 - JT DISt MORNING CAPITOL POOCESSIUG DATE 12/d1100 PAGE AC NUI'BCF APR} COUNTY SANITATION UISTPf C 13 OF ORENCE "UNIT WARRANT h0• VENGOR _ PMOUYT CISCii>IION 09E72P PULASKI R ORITA APCHIIE,CTi 12.573.6E ARCHITECTURE J-7-3 9 096721 PUNT ENGINEERING CO. 12.155.17 PIMP PARTS SLUIi :OTID=88' Z • 09E T23 RED WING SHOES �559.76 SAFETY SHOES C9E729 R.A. REED ELECTRIC 54.214.42 ELECTRIC REPAIRS N S.i7fai7" _-ADVERTISING--- - " — -- ltu 09E726 TXf REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. 12.b51.74 HARDWARE U96727 PICOP CORPORATION 575.91 COPIER LEASES 096728 X f.. NSPE C96729 J. R. ROBERTS CORP. $292,426.65 CONSTRUCTION J-7-6 09f730 GEORGE ROBERTSON 311.1U EMPLOYEE MILEAGE G PARKING a RU c S . INC. $10569.56 rr�• •-396732 ROMACSUPPLY COMPANY $1,623.95 ELECTRIC PARTS 09f T33 POSCHOUNT/UNILOC f1.165.R2 INSTRUMENT PARTS INSTRUMENT- 91Ic r 096735 "VAN-NERCO $036.62 ELF6'ITIIC PARTS G96736 JOSEPH T. RYERSON 9 SON. INC. t9.636.72 STEEL . u SOFTRARE - f96734 SAFETY-XLEEN CORP. 5132.110 PARTS CLEANER 09E739 SANCON ENGINEERING . INC. 55.975.Rf REPAIRS u CTp $0 e 2 096791 SANTA RNA RIQER EASIN SECTION f16U.30 TRAINING CONFERENCE 096742 SEA COP SI DES)10NS f1113.10 OFFICE FURNITURE 09r. 93 bLARSo ROEBUCK A CO. 5592.20 GS :b'I• _I 096744 S.F. SERRANTIND 5291.30 EMPLOYEE MEETING 6 TRAVEL C56745 SHAMROCK SUPPLY $127.71 HARDWARE 6 96 SHEPHERD C CO. 6 .10 096747 SRYPPRR MALK-0N MEDICAL CLINIC 3916.RF PHYSICAL EXAMS 69679E SNI TM-EMEBT CO. $1.427.50 SOIL TESTING tl 9f 7a SOUTH CALIF. EO SON CO. 5233.829.R1 POWER ^? IU9E751 SOUTXERN COUNTIES OIL CO. $3,457.37 DIESEL FUEL 096751 SPARLING INSTRUMENT CO..INC. $292.3C INSTRUMENT REPAIRS H V $ f2 9. DING-PART 19 . 096753 SPEEDO SPEEDOMETER $94.73 DRIVER TESTING 096754 SPIRAL RINGING CO.. INC. $141.57 OFFICE SUPPLIES 096755 CO. 51.055.U9 TOOLS i6 09E756 SUMMIT STEEL f1.016.0P STEEL C96757 TUE SUPPLIERS 32.938.66 TOOLS/IIARDWARE (71 f 55 SAILTL Co. $103.27 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 096761 TAILOR-OUNN 5103.21 096761 TELPPPOOUCTS CORP. 33.169.00 INSTRUMENT REPAIRS 096 --TFLR 0 LTT a . INC. ld9 FCaL .Cm• ILE� �33.530.JP 63, J9ETE2 TOMIE ADVERTISERS ILING NOTICES 096763 TRAVEL TRAVEL 11.577.:f TRAVEL SERVICES '096765 TRIDAIR INDUSTRIES $1.611.32 ENGINE PARTS ee FUND NO 919° - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/41/68 FAGE 6 REPORT NUMBER IF43 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY' T� CLAIMS WARRANT NO. VENDOR AMOUNT PE_CRIPTION 8: . 096.766 J.G. TUCKER S SON. INC. S96I.IP INSTRUMENT PARTS • 19(767 ULT>A SYSTEMS II.A61.0. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES y • 5177.09 IGN (P • 096769 THE UNISOURCE CORP. 5273.P6 OFFICE SUPPLIES 096T71 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 5191.19 PARCEL SERVICES -U'�I7E NAIRTENARCE-AGREEMENT. F{n 196772 UNIVERSITY SALES L SERVICE S20.10 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 196773 U4PAN ALTERNATIVES 513.792.JL CONSULTING SERVICES AM 88-28 �I.J46.75E-EOPPLIES ._— F... 69f773 VALLEY CITIES SUPFLV CO. S7.395.66 FITTINGS 096776 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPF• INC. 5196.031.39 CONSTRUCTION P2-35-1 --VYR LAD SUPPLIES—_-_.. n P9677P VCAILON PRODUCTS CO. 5939.46 BUILDING MATERIALS 496779 GUY L. WAROLN A SONS $429.35 VALVE w (`}'• 096101 WEST COAST IILE $730.00 TILE INSTALLATION C96782 WESTERN STATE CHEMICAL SUPFLV SP9.324.31 CAUSTIC SODA M.O. 8-10-89 G9b !J ---MOLD R ENSINEERING. INC2 .W­—TIMINEERING-SERVICIRS''WASTE ENS -- A • 696799 ROURKE A WOODRUFF 5191.O11 LEGAL SERVICES M.O.30-16-87 696785 YEPOK CORP. 51.598.17 COPIER LEASES P9E 6 TASSOCIATES • = 0967M1 2IEPARTN AND ALPER St78.391.08 CONSTRUCTION P2-37 CO Eta TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 12/07/48 S7.186.025.96 FUND NO ` .199 - JT DISf WORKING CAPITAL ` PPOCP,SSING DATE 12/01/88 PAS i nEMRT NUMBER AP43 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY CWIMS PAID 12 0] BB POSTING DATE 12/07/88 a • SUMMARY AMOUNT .� I1 OPER FUND S 14.63 12 OPER FUND 303.48 >, 12 F/R FUND 655,515.14 13 OPER FUND 29.364.48 15 DIES FUND 11.637.24 5 ACO FUND 5.607.28 17 OPBR 49 FUND 6. 1. 1 /7 ACO FUND /91.81 ,k. III OPER FUND 1,756.71 Ill ACO FUND 43.056.10 1LPI10D__— •L52 ' /596 OPEN FUND 1.982.49 1566 ACO FUND 712.613.75 /7634 OPER FUND 1,477.16 JT OPER FUND 780.167.09 24-79 T SELF FUNDED WORKERS COMP INSURANCE FUND 68,802.80 JT NURSING CAPITAL FUND 97'.836.19 9�7.186.025.46 fT, I 6J FUND NO 914'I - JI UIST BUNK IN6 CAPITAL PNIICI SS IFL OAII I</IS/Pq PPf.I: 1 1 Ml [II :R NITAT CON DISTRICTS OF ARAALI CODUTY CLII � CLf I:S PAIN IL/Zl/Ofl 1.O1T U,G 1'ATF 12/21/88 ' (q! • RARFAIIT LD. VENDOR AMI.111.I Iq tLl II-T INI -- -1 -- 7:00- DEPOSIT-REFUND-- ('.1 . 09661!• A.A. FF,ST COMPANY 14,5U SALES TAX 09681C AT L T 16.24 LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE , T.-it:71- ----- 'WHO DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE -'-- (5a O9M1Olf AIAHI:FY HE UEFEMSIVI LP.I3'IIIL /In0.00 DRIVER TRAINING 096819 LI IL(:LJ C1.0ETS L INTIRII01 tlrllt.62 BUILDING REPIARS ICE"SOPPL'I85 --_._—. 0 096821 ALGV9t. F1,I.CE CD. 113,726.00 CHAIN LINK FENCE 096E 22 ALL ALERICA6 ASPHALT 127.56 ASPHALT •17Ft-ASTTTCIIRF'S7FCC3'TRT ,57I pIlr RUTOMOAILE-LEASE.9—'-" ' -'- EC r 096P 7a AI[PILAI, TECHNICAL SUPPLY 11146M.14 FILM 096625 Al.k I:I ETCH 1194.R2 COPIER LEASES, a ,. APPJIL DISTRIBUTOR= r IRES_ 0 096827 LPAI•C1M SCNLR CONSTRUCTION 110,000.00 SENER REPAIRS DIST 7 09667f TIIk ALGHUR PACKING CO. F2,136.95 HARDWARE — V4'r R DAB SUPPLIES--_ 096C30 A-PLUS SYSTEMS 168.50 NOTICES 6 ADS 09M1A31 tI PLII.0 FILTRATIOA 185.00 FREIGHT NIFORM-RRIITpt (T. X 096933 AZIZBHA INSTRUMENT 1540.00 ANALYZER 096834 FALCON DISPOSAL SERVICE 1103,4811.93 GRIT REMOVAL M,0.7-13-88 AFE I-SUPP2IIES- ----- Q 096031. �rL/IP IKTFFIIATIONAL 11,21C.70 PUMP PARTS 096P37 i:AKIR PL YKULD CU.. IfX.. 1543.4tl LONBER OR IK-CARDS 1 096639 BEACON SCIEf.TIF,IC PRODUCTS t667.61 LAB SUPPLIES 09664L BEACON BAY ENTERPRISES, INC. 1107.35 CAR WASTES 1 •.9Z-- CENTRIFUGE-PARTS tl(�y1 096642 • 1IS1 CASCADE UFFICE P44ULCTS 156.37 OFFICE SUPPLIES 096R43 FC`.•-A-kUES 16M1.20 TRUCK PARTS NBLICATING'SERVFCE6'-T!H)-awl 096845 I:ORIAV LF ENGINEERING PRACTICE 1149.O0 PUBLICATION 096046 II I:kKE ENGINEERING CO. w24.48 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 2R.Z2 "PETTY-CASII-EEIMBURSEMENT--- - -- A; 096B4P CAL-CUEP SALES 111E .PJ LAB SUPPLIES 046844 CALIRI'L , ILL. 13.16F.)0 REGULATOR PARTS EETINCYEES— (1'}u 096LS1 CALIF. ASSUL, OF SAN1131IItN 1440.00 DIRECTORS MEETING FEES 096F52 CALI I: IKIA OES ISN GU UP,IhC. tt,IM1 1,5q REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT . TOiTS ENGINERRINC-SERVICES-0-15)P1-34 096654 C1 '.711 SYSTEMS a14,%55.55 PHONE MODIFICATIONS 09051, Cla.r:.l ST 1111•USTRIES, VIC. 1`1-1,1 )4.71 FERRIC CHLORIDE M.O.11-18-87 1 L'-G-GRRRSR— -� G3 096857 CI I01 GAME FISH FARP .25 151 LAB SUPPLIES 096ESP CI-lIS1k3I:• CIIRP, 4)4,1 A`,.3.1 CONSTRUCTION 11-16 1 .. .. -. .a 'Ti^7-n' INSTRUMENT-PARTS— CA a FUND NO 1199 - Ji klSi rI:NK ING C9Y1T/L PKPCFSS IhG 9:.11 11/15/MB PfGF ) Qa + CUU:I7Y SANITATION DISTRICTS PF O1AI.T.F COUNTY (LAI'S PAID 11/21/88 1'415TIV6 UAIF 12/21/86 tea, • NARPAhT NO. VEAUUR _- _-- ARMIN.I II51{ 11'I I IIY --_ - s �svl MECHANICA RTS-.. (;t • 096661 L'61I'RLSSIIY COMPOMENTS OF CAL❑ 166.034 .00 MECHANICAL PARTS U96662 Cl .h ULL U.N. PARTS / OIV. 114.56 TRUCK PARTS + flo(A-2 'MM-17't ED tcre R - vTT- -12i'757aTP- LLFCTPIC SOPPLIES_.._._...____. 2 (0.. 096P4A L1-a111LIVA1ED REPPVGLAPOICS V9.17.4h BLUEPRINTING 096P.65 Cl lPfk E'4N6Y SENVILFS 13I(..38 PUMP PART LDECTRICSOPPL2E5 -'"'-� 0966h7 CtL .ATEP. 112D.D0 RENTAL EQUIPMENT 09h61.1 Ltkl:V CURTI TRUCK 6 EPIIIPKEkT S23040.00 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.0.4-13-88 -'S7 -- -YIAO:PO-CBE PROCESSING-FEF;- - ------ L('I �a 096PT( DAILY PLLNT le,156.00 ADVERTISING 096971 71'1, DA 4LS 155.U0 MEETING EXPENSE IONLC-POCTMER'M;O:B=10=88 "' VL- 096873 )IEIEh1Cll - POST Co. 15.b3 OFFICE. SUPPLIES 196A74 116w/AU ENTERPRISES, IUC. 130,784.96 PLANT REPAIRS 6 MAINTENANCE mete* fom a 9CttKllftE-- t1'1597:4h-- INSTRUMENT-PART-- Q5 094676 IT PP.Ah 11.6 BOARD. list. 190.57 PAINT SUPPLIES 096877 6N1:S 51 R-KANL %396.31 COMPRESSOR PARTS TSU4T28- MECHANICA"ART9 ----"'--"- �, X 096879 EASIMIN. INC. %434.92 OFFICE SUPPLIES � 096880 9. 11. ENERT CORP. $767,513.71 CONSTRUCTION 5-29 IDEOS 0961.9) I:F VIkUSF.ENTAL RESDUYCE ASSOC. 116U.00 LAB SERVICES 096E112 .1111h 6. FALKENSTEIN P.F. S3.290.130 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES J-7-4 R-PREIGIII V4 09htNS FII11R GLASS STRUCTURAL EMLk. $3,703.68 ENGINEERING SERVICES N 096PP( FILTEF SUPPLY CO. $2,719.10 MECHANICAL SUPPLIES I`T 49T.0T -.NSTRUMMVPAM L. 096MM1 H.nl L VF.k TICAL CUIILRFTI 1450.00 CORE DRILLING 096P+9 FLE%11'LI SYSTEMS LI.951.03 TRUCK PARTS PUMP PARTS -- L. ([} 096P91 LILVE1 PUMPS. INC. %44.32 MECHANICAL PARTS 096E97 Fl•UI.TAI1. VALLEY CAMIRA 127.99 FILM -TR-F 77V;?A-1NSTRUHENT --"- '- (jt 1 096r.94 ELAhlA CURPP.FSSOR PVBJUCT 12.12P.41 COMPRESSOR PARTS U991;o` CITY LF FULLEAION %7).11 WATER USEAGE Zc"07..P REPAIRS'---'"- (%) 096C'17 hI LLFf'S 'LADY-M I% %345.94 CONCRETE 09h691' UI+N'RAL TELEPHONE .CU. In.78S.7+ TELEPHONE SERVICE • : -'TCl STCITTFS- -T59T;T.+--' SLECTRIC-SUPPDIEE---`- - - ; 7y U96v0( 1.1!:IL ICI:-F17CHELL. ITN . 121.117.1•1 MECHANICAL PARTS 096991 61,IIK L ASSUCIATFS L1.1n4.••n ENGINEERING SERVICES 2-14R .9T2TTT- VALVES- --- --' fy 096903 1:L11T11 ELIUPNENT CC.Rl.. 1715.PM SAFETY SUPPLIES 0969CA 111011U0 FAGINFERING 1b.P/7.1:11• BEARINGS -Ot T, .... .___._ .. T'1i:72.. ._._ _-MECHANICAL-'PARTS--.-._.... ___ FUNI• NIT yl4l - ]1 LIST WIIkLING CAPITAL PROCESSING 11411 11/IS/6R PpGI 3 P,l A L000 Y SINITATIUN DISTRILIS DI'. IWAU61 COUNTY (LAIRS PAIN 12/21/t0 1'IISTING PATF 12/21/0P WARRANT 61•. VFNOOK AM6111I II%(:111'IInI AROMATIC U. � 096907 'W FR11IUK C.V.S. CALIF . , II.C. 1245.P2 MECHANICAL PARTS 094901. 111-PI1('M NIGI:REACH 5311.4U TRUCK PARTS . TTc121"OF ._ Si:9nn ter_.._.. BATTERIES IIUG.US CO., IML. fld9t,47 PAINT SUPPLIES U96411 1:)E1 ,11F HIINTIkGTUN PFACI' S11 .71 WATER USEAGE PAIRS -- Q , 096913 IIU HILAVAL INC. 4224.22 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 096914 IPO Ut LAVAL INC. \465.39 MECHANICAL PARTS 096911. 11'COH SYSIEYS, INC./ 14,474.17 MECHANICAL PARTS 196917 1tAKSINIAL 711REAVEII PNUI'OCTS f419a9 FITTINGS MR ANITORIATI UPPIdE9--- --- �'� 096919 II.TLRI.AI10r1AL I.M.S., FAT. fId.45.55 TOOL REPAIR 09692O IFVVIL RAY.CI' RATER LIST&ICT S47.A5 WATER USEAGE 'TP -, r-S-JrrrTWG-TrRTSt£"—'— fG•IP:00---- STRERT SWEEPING SERVICES - ---- 0 D96922 1 L M SCHIIIIFIC 165.1U LAB SUPPLIES p96923 91410 A FINANCE 43M7.51 .JANITORIAL SUPPLIES uoe --"--- ',—, =04692! NI.AIN REARING$ L SUPPLY 145.16 FITTINGS � '-+09692L KPIIER CUAPAIIT $1,161.37 TOOLS NSTROMP.NT-RBPAIIF— �> ' �096y 2f IIIE AT IT" CUMPANIES SIO.7111.32 ENGINEERING SERVICES 096429 91116 14 ARIN4. INC. 53054.03 HARDWARE PUMP-PARTS ' W046931 P,A971h RIIFUICK4 SR' 13.237.00 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 5-29 096932 Ll.e C RU CONSULTING F.AGR. f2t,430.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES R-033-02 ., I TO1737 TRUCK REPAIRS ._ 09491n A.Y. LINDSTROM• INC. S15071.94 CONSULTING SERVICES-ACTION PLAN 0.643`. YALA LIPIIAkUT L ASSUC. 47,525.p0 COMPUTER CONSULTING SERVICES no PROOBSBINe-PBB— - 1� 096937 MPS 1I35.75 PNOTO SERVICES a 09693C MI41AE C VALVE SUPPLY S34M.46 CHLORINATION PARTS � , TF.. -Fll-.H7INSTRUMENT-SUPPIrIR9 --._._ . _."__ 096940 ,,7.>11:P FOULS SERVICES SI25.001 TOOL REPAIR 096941 ❑LKIUGA EVGF. L ELUIP. $1,163.90 PUMP PARTS RUeK -PAR 096943 M(.PA51ER-GAFIT SUPPLY III. S2R'I,7/ HARDWARE 096944 NICPUIGE CUI.PUTER ♦510.41 TRANSFORMER T -----' — rCT FTnn MARMIARE !jp 0969nI •II.IPPLLA LLLLULARr SIRVICFS IY.1 ,3A INSTRUMENT SERVICE 0969+7 LI L11F. Iki. I4h+.93 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT NPLATOR 096949 'ALL SUPPLY CO. 11.365.4p FITTINGS 096950 :.I . IICP,111'hS CUMPL'TFQ CI,Iikl t191..00 COMPUTER TRAINING _TRASH BIN-REMOVAL,_.—.__. 3 FUND RD 914'1 - .11 1111 JI•KL ING CAPITAL IRVCFSSING HAII Ilfl•./1A PAY.F 4 \ A COUNTY SPIITAIIIIN LISTPICTS IIF INLNF,F CIIUI41Y • +r CLAIKS 1'f.11' IJIZI/tO IIISTIIII: IIAIE 121211MB A ' l• NARRAI:T NO. SF.h0Ok ANIIUCT ---_ Vt5F.1 IPT I'll' _-- .' '. • 094954 PI.ALG1 COUNT ELECTRIC SIII 5399.29 ELECTRIC ESUPPLIES ARTS 096954 i'1AGG1 Gi1DYlY AUTO PAS IS CO.[II. t2 C0.Sd AUTOMOTIVE PARTS �• � nral-0t-'YA _._ + 044951• 61,11L> CIOP $3,123.71 GEARS L CRAIN ,• 096957 CI9LTY of Ok ANGE f39.491, 00 DISPOSAL GATE FEE ,• EIMBURSE-NBRMER9�:OMP-iNSURAMCB-PUN S. OR6959 vL PAC.111 E 13107 SUBSCRIPTION , f • 096460 PL 11 LotC Jl•UANIL 119,47 SUBSCRIPTION �• ti•itl'l I ft126".11 INSTRUMSNT UPPLIETS-- 0969f,3 PALIIIG SAFETY fOVi PNI NT CU. 1159.1 , SAFETY SUPPLIES . .� 096914 1 K LL IIiLLULAR 159.46 TELEPHONE SEAVICE 09001 � MECXANICAfrPARTB— -.. .._...__ )� 096965 PCKUICK PAPER 170.112 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0969 I 6/. PMA GFL'SYSTENS. INC. f42,642.15 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.0.5-11-88 09040 -NPC-PID3t( 5 s omTYDIi-(.'1`: -"- -"TIOU':t10'-——INSTRUMENT -INSPECTION A 1 09694E I'laI. INGII.ELRING Co. 111,U94,70 PUMP REPAIRS •,� 096969 LOALITY uUILDING SUPPLY S-?A.47 BUILDING MATERIALS • i NSTRUME""EPAI'RS ----- I =096971 kAINNUR UISPUSAU'C06 $771.27 DISPOSAL SERVICES 7 M 0969T2 R.0 SYSTEP.S, INC. f23,995.00 CONTRACT SERVICES T•�st-----AovertT3s: �09074 vl'411by 1F.NP f95.42 TEMPORARY' SERVICES 09697!• 1111: Rk PVHL It SUPPLY CO. 13.091.R'1 FITTINGS eR L 1096977 PO.CCU•S TKULK WRECKING $143.10 TRUCK PARTS • 09697E 1:15EMIRIT ANALYTICAL tB1B.45 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES S 7q. PARTS-CLEANOR 09A9R0 SAIIIA ALA ELECTRIC MOTORS t256.00 ELECTRIC REPAIRS 096981 51L(U PIAN UCTS CO. $212.57 INSTRUMENT BPUNB­uSBR-PBB-8 EIRPAYMEN5 '> • 0969R) SRYPAFK XALk-IN NEDICAL CLINIC f04P.00 PHYSICAL EXAMS 096984 SI'Illl-k Nl'PY Co. f225.OU SOIL TESTING 'S7'1 Ttr P'7PPR-S0PF1;Ti•-1C T770:•Il PLUMBING SUPPE.IES __.__.._- 0969111. SI IL I.ND IF$T ING ENGI/'FT RS 1449.L•U SOIL TESTING 0969117 'd . It-AST AIR VUALI7Y t7071.00 APPLICATION FEE .90T0" F0NBR-'- 0949P9 M . CAL. GAS CO. S6,A40.95 NATURAL GAS 09699C 5011111FRN COUNTIES OIL CO. f11.0 31-.37 DIESEL FUEL S7T.TLW1. TCU-- METER REPAIR ---- 4. 096997 SILI 11C., •IISIERN Si nf..i7 TOOLS 096993 51Ak 11N1L L SUPPLY GO. ♦20t.1•i TOOLS fl.TIT"1 MBETING EXPENSES ---- 096999 S4MR17 Stitt 147.4U STEEL 09699f f6, 6VPPLIEF.S S3.II1.97 HARDWARE • LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE - --- FUND 1.0 vt49 - JI NISI VORRING CAPITAL PkPLISSIhG lull 1;1165/114 PAGE RE OP Fr4T F3a UNUtIY WAITATION LISIFICTS uF 11PAF.61 COUNTY a CLAIMS 1'A10 12121111E POSTIU4 PAIF 12121/NB �a WARRAt.T Nl:. VENDOR ANDII1,I 1 1 IF I11.1 IT TAB SUPPLIES— --'-"' -"— �' • 096999 IILAUTOLRAPN•CORPORATIOM 12.211.22 OFFICE MACHINES - 097000 iLFt BI AWILITICA.L, I6C./NDRCAL 164.DO LAB SERVICES __T43r:TR"-- '- -OFFICE SUPPLIES-'- u 097Cr.2 110'S LULR C SAFI 1ETVICE 16P.U0 SECURITY SERVICES 1 097CP3 TIAVEL Tk4VLL t].254.40 TRAVEL SERVICES ?:4�INSTRUMEMT-PARTS--"- -` -' -'- (y. 097CA.5 11UCR L AU1L SUPPLY. 141. 161.94P.81 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 09700E U.S. LENIALS $132.00 RENTAL EQUIPMENT UVIUUI .P0 nI:."-- GASOLINE (a. 0970OF IH IUW Slop. CO. 1211.M6 SIGNS 097004 N:r Ut.ISOUWCE CORP. 41.41.55 OFFICE SUPPLIES BFUND USER'FEE-OVERPAYMENT -' 097011 01.11 E0 rAFLEL SERVICE. $03.22 PARCEL SERVICES 097012 1311"; 6ES1ERN ELEVATOR t119.74 ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT "'TC. 7CTFTrrrrTC_ W071477— 'LAB SUPPLIES - e! 047014 VILELY CITIES SUPPLY UI. t13.212.10 VALVES 6 FITTINGS 097L'L' YA;NC DIVI"Uh 135.49 MECHANICAL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES ----- �9 =097017 VIIRCE SEEYICE C. t2.500.00 LANDSCAPING 09101P VIAIYG INPOSTR/AL SUPPLY 13I5.51 SAFETY SUPPLIES w _ A T7—BOOR'CORTROC"C0113ULTING--" Q 097121 HELLS FARGO GUARD SERVICE $?054.34 GUARD SERVICES �097G21 6U1 LUASl INSTALLAII[.HS 1230.r0 OFFICE FURNITURE USTIC"SOVX-M-.O 8-10-88 et 'I 097023 'IF51-LITE SUPPLY CU. ,123.A ELECTRIC SUPPLIES �097024 wILLDfN ASSOCIATES S1N.163.72 ENGINEERING SERVICES 2-26 6 2-27 .'-.I. L PIER LEASES --"--' Ei1 047C21 4161,G1 YARDLEY ASSUCIP.TTS $499.1.5 MARINADE fy11 70TAL CLAIF.S PAID 12/21/BB 12,126.1,49.07 GL ' E4 FUND NO 9199 - GT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/15/88 PAGE 6 REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS PAID 12/21/88 POSTING DATE 12/21/88 -�. SUMMARY AMOUNT _--_ N4.20 :\ 12 OPER FUND 9,201.43 12 ACO FUND 2,594.50 FUND 13 OBER FUND 15,603.04 13 ACO FOND 209.00 N — 1}� 15 F/R FUND 10,710.32 16 OPER FUND 27.70 e"UND-- 157343-.29 _ 17 ACO FUND 801.92 17 F/R FUND 40,725.27 ilt Pel FUND ' ill ACO FUND 30,784.33 113 OPER FUND 426.02 BR-FUNU— 9c8 y 1566 OPER FUND 55.39 1566 ACO FUND 771,841.42 X JT OPER FUND 634,738.66 CORP 453,762.96 .ERSYOMINSURANCE POID 1,019.77 - JT WORKING CAPITAL 107,013.97 H ' Ei326,649.07 .1 41 C), rs COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO. 3 OF RANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING .�/ January 26, 1989 - 7:30 p.m. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of January 11, 1989, the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT: Richard T. Polis, Chairman, Edward L. Allen, Norman E. Culver, William Davis, Don R. Griffin, Dan Griset, William Mahoney, James Neal , Carrey J. Nelson, Iry Pickler, Bob Siefen, Roger R. Stanton, Charles E. Sylvia and Edna Wilson DIRECTORS ABSENT: A.B. "Buck" Catlin and John Erskine STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, Rita J. Brown, Secretary, Thomas M. Dawes, Gary G. Streed and Jeff Esber OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel , Paul Carver and Bob Vilker Review of Master Plan of Trunk The Director of Engineering reviewed Sewers the status of the District's sewer rehabilitation program and previewed the new Master Plan of Trunk Sewers which staff and consultants have been working on for the past two years as part of the Districts' comprehensive "Action Plan". The draft "Action Plan", which includes a facilities master plan and EIR, will soon be completed by the consultants and submitted to the Board for consideration. Mr. Dawes pointed out that District No. 3 comprises 65,000 acres basically west of Euclid and encompasses all or portions of 15 cities and unincorporated portions of the County of Orange. Almost all of the District is tributary to the Huntington Beach treatment plant. Land use plans and population projections were used in determining the projected trunk sewer needs of the District. The General Plans of the various cities -wtthfn-the-Dtstrict-and the County of Orange have been thoroughly reviewed and incorporated into the District's Master Plan. Mr. Dawes indicated that several sewers were projected to be deficient because of significant land use changes taking place. There are currently 13 miles of anticipated deficient sewers in District 3 plus 51l miles that may be- marginally deficient. Costs to correct these deficiencies total approximately $63 million over the next 30 years. A major portion of this total is for the Bushard Street Trunk ($28 million) which will be upgraded from a 54-inch .line to a 102-inch line. He also reported on the condition of several other sewer lines and reviewed the proposed schedule for their correction. 1/26/89 District 3 Update on long-range financial The General Manager reported that for lam/ plan and approving implementation years staff has been providing the of supplemental user fee program Directors with 5-10 year budget projections to determine when funding shortfalls might occur in time for the Board to consider and act on alternative revenue sources. For some time projections have indicated shortfalls in 1989-90. This is a result of the rising cost of higher treatment standards imposed by the state and federal government. The property tax, the historical revenue source used to finance the Districts' activities, is insufficient to cover the advanced treatment costs. In 1986 and 1987, after several meetings, the District 3 Board modified its long-range financial plan and took the following actions: 1. Issued $48,000,000 in Certificates of Participation for partial capital financing 2. Raised the connection fee schedule from $250 per dwelling unit to $500 per dwelling unit for residential property, and from $50 per square foot to $300 per square foot for commercial property to fund capital facilities for new development 3. Declared their intent to implement a supplemental user fee program for operation, maintenance and capital replacement costs effective July 1, 1989 The supplemental user fee would be collected on the annual property tax bill as it is the most cost-effective method of collection. This is similar to actions previously taken by Districts Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 11. Mr. Sylvester then reviewed staff estimates which show a projected deficit of $3,338,000 in the District's Operating Fund in 1989-90, accumulating to a deficit of approximately $103 million by 1998 if additional revenues are not forthcoming. It was pointed out that in 1987, when the Board last considered this plan, the minimum supplemental user fee in other Districts that had implemented them was $26.40 per year. However, it is now expected that the other Districts' will increase their minimum fee this year to $30.36 per year, and staff recommended that District 3 implement that same fee ($30.36) on July 1, 1989. The General Manager advised that if the $30.36 fee is implemented and increased approximately 10% per year, the District' s Operating Fund is projected to remain solvent through the next 10 years. He then reviewed the necessary steps to be taken in order to implement this fee and the proposed timetable for these actions. The user fee ordinance would - - - be introduced at the February 8th Board meeting and pass to second reading - - - � and adoption at the March 8th Board meeting. Following adoption of a user fee ordinance, notices would be sent to all - property owners in the District, pursuant to statute, advising them of the -2- 1/26/89 District 3 Board's intent to collect the user fee on the tax bill. Three workshops Are proposed to be conducted by staff to explain the proposal to collect the fee on the tax bill , as follows: Date Time Location 1. Tuesday, March 28, 1989 7:30 p.m. Hunt Branch Library Gallery Room 201 S. Basque Fullerton 2. Wednesday, March 29, 1989 7:30 p.m. Districts' Board Room 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley 3. Thursday, April 6, 1989 7:30 p.m. Stanton City Hall 10660 Western Avenue Stanton On April 27, 1989 the Board would conduct a hearing (tentatively scheduled at the Garden Grove City Hall ) and consider utilizing the annual property tax bill to collect the user fee. This is the same procedure followed by Districts 1 and 11, the last two Districts to implement user fees, with one exception in the procedure. The �...' user fee ordinance would be published between introduction on February 8th and adoption on March 8th, for reasons described by the General Counsel in his Memorandum dated January 17, 1989, included in the Staff Report mailed with the Directors' agenda material . The General Manager also reviewed alternative procedures which were used by Districts 5 and 6, the first two Districts to implement supplemental user fees. The General Manager also commented on the impact of the pending "Action Plan" on District 3's long-range financial requirements. This plan is a comprehensive update of the Districts' wastewater management plan for the next 30-year period. The financial impact could be significant and will depend on the level of treatment required by state and federal regulatory authorities. Mr. Sylvester noted that under any scenario, it will be necessary to implement a supplemental user fee of at least $30.36 for operation and maintenance costs. He further advised that in the future the connection fees will also have to be increased and additional debt financing will have to be employed for capital financing. Proposed revisions to the connection fees and debt financing will be addressed during the "Action Plan" proceedings. Following a discussion relative to the proposed fee structure for various types of properties, the relationship of user fees to connection fees, the procedures for adopting the user fee program and future revisions to the fee structure, and the method of collecting the fees on the annual property tax bill , it was then MOVED, SECONDED AND DULY CARRIED: That the Staff Report on Long-Range Financial Plan and Implementation of Supplemental User Fee Program dated January 18, 1989, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved; and, -3- 1/26/89 District 3 FURTHER MOVED: That the staff be directed to proceed with implementation of the supplemental user fee program effective July 1, 1989, in accordance with the revised implementation plan; and, FURTHER MOVED: That staff be, and is hereby, directed to agendize proposed Ordinance No. 309, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, for introduction on February 8, 1989. Review of ol on feeio re local a Has The General Manager reported that the exempt on rom connect s new development pays connection fees for sewage system capacity capital costs for both the District's trunk sewers and its share of the Joint treatment plant facilities. However, local agencies, such as cities, special districts and the County of Orange, are exempt from connection fees. State and federal agencies are not exempt. Last June the Executive Committee reviewed the issue of local agency exemptions at the request of District No. 13. District 13 had Just revised their policy to eliminate the exemption for local agencies because of their concern that large regional public facilities could place an undue financial burden on the District. The Executive Committee did not recommend any change in the current overall District policy at that time. The Committee did note that connection fee ordinances do allow each District to amend its ordinance to remove the exemption for local agencies if they determine that local government facilities place an inordinate demand on the District's system and does not equitably distribute the financial burden of sewerage service for that District. Accordingly, they directed the staff to submit this matter to each District the next time they considered their respective financial plans. The Board then entered into a discussion of the issue. In response to an inquiry relative to the possibility of considering these exemptions on a case-by-case basis, the General Counsel pointed out that this may be viewed as discriminatory. He stressed that all fees imposed must be fair and equitable and cannot exceed the actual cost of service. Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the Board that no changes be made to the current connection fee ordinance relative to local agency exemptions. Adiournment Moved, seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared. the meeting so adjourned .. at 8:23 p.m., January 26, 1989. it $ecre ofof D County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California -4- BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts P.O. Box 8127. 10844 Ellis Avenue of Orange County, California Fountain Valley,CA 92728-8127 Telephone:(714) 962.2411 JOINT BOARDS AGENDA WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1989 - 7 : 30 P .M. RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 A Minute excerpt has been received as set forth below. Pursuant to Regular Agenda Item No. 4, it is appropriate to receive and file said excerpt. DISTRICTS 1 , 7 B 14 (4 ) (a) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpt from the City of Tustin re election of mayor and appointment of alternate Directors: ( *Mayor) District Active Director Alternate Director 1 Ronald B. Hoesterey Ursula E. Kennedy* 7 Richard B. Edgar Ursula E. Kennedy* 14 Ursula E. Kennedy* Richard B. Edgar RE: AGENDA ITEM NO. 25 - DISTRICT 3 TABLE A (listed below) was inadvertently omitted from Ordinance No. 309 V included in the Supporting Documents mailed with Directors' Agenda material and labeled as page °Q". TABLE A - ORDINANCE NO. 309 Basis of Minimum Annual Charge Annual Rate Charge Per Unit Single-Family Charge per $30.36 $30.36 Dwellings/ dwelling unit Condominiums Multi-Family Charge per 18.22 18.22 Dwellings/Mobile dwelling unit Homes/Apartments Commercial/ Charge per 1,000 21.71 21.71 Industrial/Other square feet of (government building buildings, utilities, non-profit organizations, etc.) REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN FEBRUARY 8 , 1989 ( 1 ) UPCOMING MEETINGS : (A) SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF - THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF IS SCHEDULED TO MEET ON THURSDAY , FEBRUARY 9TH, AT 5 : 30 P .M. AND AGAIN ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23RD, AT 5 : 30 P .M. (B) FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE - THE FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15TH, AT 5 : 30 P .M. (C) BUILDING COMMITTEE - THE BUILDING COMMITTEE IS SCHEDULED TO MEET ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16TH, AT 5 . 30 P.M. (D) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 22ND, AT 5 : 30 P.M. ( INVITE TWO OF THE FOLLOWING DIRECTORS TO ATTEND. INVITE THE SAME PERSONS AS LAST MONTH [IRV PICKLER & RUTHELYN PLUMMER) INASMUCH AS THE JANUARY E.C. MTG. WAS CANCELLED. ) IRV PICKLER SALLY ANNE SHERIDAN AND OR OR RUTHELYN PLUMMER BOB SIE EF N HOOt3ng Date Feb. 8, 1989 Tim 7:30 p.E.UTstKietB 1,2,3.5,6,7,11,13 a 14 DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS .....HANSON...... (VERELLEN I.........ALLEN.......JC (YOUNG)...... ..GRISET...... — _ (WBDAA)............BF6BW�.... _ (KENNEDY)•••• ••HOESTEREY...ZT— _ (WORRY)............CATLIN...... ;C (ROTH).........STANTON.....JC — _ (HART).............iBM.........JL DISTRICT 2 (PERRY)............CULVER...... (KANEL)............DAVIS........ (KENNEDY)..........EDGAR......... �_ (WORRY)........CATLIN...... ✓_ _ (BANNISTER)........ERSKINE....._� (GRAHAM).......MAHONEY....._� (CHESSEN)..........GRIFPIN....._�� (WEDAA)........B o"m.... (YOUNG)......... . WIEST... (YOUNG)........GRISET...... (CRANK).... . . .HANSON........._ (NELSON).......ISLES....... (KENNEDY).... .. . HOESTEREY.. — (SCCTT)........NEAL......... (NELSON).... .....I5LS....... .. (DOWNEY)....... NEWTON......_at (EDGAR)..... KENNEDY..... (CULVER).... •PERRY....... _ (GRAHAM)......... .MAHONEY..... (NUNE ).... .• PICKIER .. (SILVA)....... MAYS......... (FASBNER)....SIL2EL...... SCTT)......... ..NE ........�G (BANRERA)......SMIT ....... NIN)............ NELSON......�G (RUTH).........STANTON.....Je-_ (DOWNEY)......... NEWTON......�C (CULVER).....••••••PERRY.......J. DISTRICT 3 (HUNYTER)...........PICKLER.....Jc (HART).............PLUMMER...... (DUKE).........POLLS ......J� (DUKE I.............POLIS.......� (WEDIN)........NELSON......- (STANTON)..........ROTH........JG (VERELLEN).....ALLEN.......�- _ (AGRAN I............SHERIDAN.... ✓ (MONEY)........CATLIN...... ✓_ (WILES)............SIEFEN...... � (PERRY)........CULVER...... _�_ (FASBENDER)......••SILZEL...... Q� IKANELI......•.DAVIS..:.... (BARREN)•.........SMITH.......✓ _ (BANNISTER)....ERSKINE..... (ROTHI.............STANTON..... ✓ (CNESSE()••••••GRIFFIN..... (HART/COX).........STRAUSS..... ✓ (YOUNG)........GRISET......_✓ _ (MILLER)...........SWAN........ (GRANAN).......MAHONEY....._✓_ (WANLSTROW)........SYLVIA...... (SCOTT)••••••••NEAL........ (GREEN/JOHNSON)....WARNER...... _ (HUMTER).......PICKLER.....� (BIGONUEl).........WE)AA.......� (WILES)........ SIEFEN......�' —_ (ISLES)............WEDIN....... (RUTH).........STANTON..... ✓ (HUNT).............WILSON...... _ (MAELSTROM)....SYLVIA......�7_ (BANNISTER)........WINCHELL.... _ (HUNT).........WILSON...... \� DISTRICT 5 STAFF: SYLVESTER...J/ (HART)..... ...,flBR ........ BROWN....... (HART).........STRAUSS..... ANDERSON.... (STANTON)......RUTH........J 41_ CLARKE...... CLAWSON.....JG DISTRICT 6 DAWES........U� DEBLIEUX.... (JOHNSON)••••••WARNER......Jg_ FILECCIA...._ (HART).........PLUMMER.....yG_ HODGES....... (STANTON)......ROTH........JC_ KYLE......... LINDEI......JG DISTRICT T OOTEN....... SINSED....... (KENNWYI...•..EOGAR.......� _ VON LANGEN,.y , (AGRAN)........3HERIDAN....,�_ WINSOR......J/ (YOUNG)........GRISET......,�_ �� JJ_^�^ (STANTON)......ROTH........�_ WORK (EARREIA)......SMITH.......JC (COX)......••••STRAUSS.....J (GREEK)........WARM......... OTHERS: NOODRU...... e DISTRICT 11 IDE.........� AENIS....... (BANNIS ER)..••MAYS........ ✓_ OENIR.......� (BANNISTER.....WINCHELL ��•_ HOXBNEt..... (ROTNI•••••••••STANTON.....JC_ _ HOUGH....... HOWARD......✓ DISTRICT 13 HUNT........ (BIGONGER).....WEDAA....... ✓_ KNOPF....... (HUNTER).......PICKLER..... EITH LIND3�.OM..._ (STANTON)......ROTH........_ _ LYNCH....... (BARRERA)......SMITH.......�_ STONE....... (ISLES).•......NEDIN.......JC_ MASON....... YOUNG....... DISTRICT 14 (MILLER).......SWAN........ ,.. o (EDGAR).... ...KENNEDY.....�— (STAMTON).......ROTH........ � (BARRERA)......SHIM.......�_ QD'� 2/08/89 WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1989 - 7: 30 P.M. Please Sign In NAME/ FIRM/AGENCY <,/L 4A)f T:JPE ltwr* 4 Ar�i�dr�fi� /Sr64 rk L 491*t e5'OGC 1J uuu4 + G,4 " . iro RyA,1*- 1'Nro + QRow,iT 2-08-89 JOINT MEETING NOTES #6(a) - Report of the Joint Chairman SEE ATTACHED REPORT #6(b) - Report of the General Manager The General Manager reported that the Districts were advised that afternoon by SCAQMD staff that they will issue the Permit to Construct for the $60 million, power generation system project tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. This project is to Install nine state-of-the-art, clean-burn generator plants that will utilize digester gas as a fuel and will save between $8-10 million per year in purchased energy costs. The other major benefit is that they will significantly reduce air emissions as we phase-out 25 internal combustion engines and replace them with electrical motors. We will proceed immediately with design engineer and hope to have the first unit operational by 1992. He added that he would like to acknowledge Hank Wedaa for all his assistance in getting this through the permitting process. Director Catlin then moved adoption of a resolution of commendation to the staff for the professional way they followed this process through and kept the Directors apprised. Motion seconded and unanimously carried. (Reso. No. 89-_? or just motion ??) #6(c) - Report of the General Counsel ..i No report. #9(m) - (CONSENT CALENDAR) Supervisor Roth indicated that he wished to abstain from voting on this item. #25 - DISTRICT 3, Ordinance No. 309 Tom Woodruff reported that this ordinance was presented to the Board a couple weeks ago and no changes have been made since then. #28 - DISTRICT 11, Master-planned conveyance facilities Tom Dawes on the master plan for District 11 and commented on Huntington Beach's development plans. He indicated that the Slater Pump Station was originally built as an interim facility. It has reached capacity and is in need of repair. The Districts' long-term plan was to construct the Coast Trunk Sewer. The over last year the Districts' have been preparing the "Action Plan" and those studies are nearing completion. They will soon be presented to the Directors; however, tonight is a preview of what those studies found for District 11. They have found several ways to improve the capacity of District 11: (1) Long-term plan: extension of Coast Trunk (2) Construction of new interceptor in McFadden that will collect the northerly �.s portion of drainage area and divert it into the Knott Interceptor system. (3) Construction of new pump station replacing Slater Pump Station with 50% Increase in capacity. Cost estimates were run on all alternatives and the lowest cost is construction of new pump station. It would cost over $15 million but Coast Trunk would cost over $20 million. Based on economics, Slater Pump Station replacement is the recommended plan in the new Master Plan. Time is of the essence. Staff is ..i requesting authority for preparation of preliminary project report to find the correct spot and aquire necessary rights-of-way and get cost estimates in a more detailed form. It wil save staff several months if the Board authorizes these studies now. There would be no design work nor any construction work prior to adoption of EIR scheduled for June of this year. Tom Mays asked, when Bolsa-Chica area is developed, will that require the Coast Trunk system? TMD replied, no, it will not. There will be capacity in the system as outlined. He added that it will require some paralleling of lines buty the $15 million includes all of the needed trunk sewer facilities shown in red on map included with staff report. Winchell inquired about capacity of the Knott Interceptor. TMD advised that this isn't an interim solution but a permanent plan. Mays then asked if the Coast Trunk Sewer extension were built, would it add more sewage that Slater Pump Station? Tom replied yes. Could go either way capacity-wise but it is a matter of cost. Winchell asked if the Knott Interceptor could handle the other part of the plan? TMD said yes, because the master plan looked at all of the Districts and there will be a redirection of flows for all the Districts. Mays also asked if this will handle the developing areas of the northern part of Huntington Beach? Tom replied yes. We have used the latest land use plans of Huntington Beach. This plan will handle the complete development of that site �.s to the highest densities that we and the City can imagine. Directors then asked if new development would be paying for the system. TMD said yes, through connection charges. He added that the Slater Pump Station will serve the tributary area which is a bit different from the political boundaries. #31 - DISTRICT 1, Universal Circuits M1 fib) Verbal staff report The Chairman recognized Rich von Langen, Source Control Manager of the Industrial Waste division, who is responsible for entire I.W. program. Mr. von Langen stated that the item of discussion is the appeal of Universal Circuits p1 not to be classified as a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company. The basis for this designation is federal regulations. They require the Districts to publish names of users who were significantly violating our standards if: - uncorrected with 45 days; - requires POTW to use its emergency authority; - is part of a pattern of non-compliance over 12 month-period. The Districts have taken these requirements and established their own procedures. The Districts collect composite samples and have done so since 1976. They are analyzed four times a year. A SVC company is sampled 12 times a year, once per month. If a company is a major violator or has been issued a Cease and Desist Order or has a pattern of non-compliance, they are considered a Significantly Violating Compliance company. ..i Mr. von Langen then reviewed the compliance record of Universal Circuits (See attached report). He advised that Universal Circuits' grounds for appeal was the sampling method used and that the staff did not fallow procedures. Staff did not use full proportional sampling, and they were required to sample again within 30 days after non-compliance sampling pursuant to Section 601(b). -2- Rich then explained the composite sampling procedure. He admitted that they did not sample again with 30 days. Whether Universal Circuits would have been in compliance then is purely speculative. When samples were found to be in non-compliance, they were given between 54-75 days to correct the problem and they failed to do so. He stated that it is not the Districts' responsibility to have the industries in compliance; it is their responsibility to be in compliance at all times. The letter given to them along with their invoice said that they must make corrections immediately. Possible findings of the Board are: (1) Uphold staff's decision finding that the sample was a representative sample in accordance with EPA regulations, and (2) Sample frequency was sufficient to determine non-compliance. Sampled four times instead of twice as EPA requires. Staff recommendation is that the decision to classify Universal Circuits bl as a SVC company shall be upheld and their name be published in accordance with federal regulations. (d) Response by Univeral Circuits Gary Ryan, General Manager of Universal Circuits, addressed the Board. He stated that they had been manufacturing in Orange County since 1970. Have six plants throughout the nation. Between 130-160 people are employed at he O.C. plant. Flow is approximately 200,000 gallons per day but varies greater than 200%. Plant is 50,000 sq. feet. New plant being built is expected to employ 250 people. He indicated that he was the Engineering Manager in 1986-87 and is now the General Manager. He reported that after all three violations, Universal Circuits continued self-monitoring. All of their sampling indicated full compliance. When the re-sampling did not occur, it led us to believe that the overage was not ...� significant because the District did not follow their own regulations for sampling. They did not save their records so they now have no proof of their compliance. Kenneth Ryder, attorney for Universal Circuits, then addressed the Board. He stated that staff has attempted to show significant violation by showing a pattern of non-compliance by following EPA guidelines and by following their own standard procedures. They have cherry picked between the two to be able to positively show that Universal Circuits is Mr. Sylvester SVC company. If they follow all procedures, they should also follow procedure to sample within 30 days. They failed to do this. Under the regulations the reason the sampling is done is to correct a violation. Every time that Universal Circuits was found in non-compliance, they sampled on their own and found themselves to be in compliance. The District didn't come back to give them a chance to prove their compliance. He added that with a variable flow system, a flow proportional samples should be used instead of time composite sampling. Even though in 1985 it was determined that time-composite sampling was adequate, this is a different issue today. If following EPA's regulations, should incorporate a margin of error into the composite testing. He noted that in the six previous years, Universal Circuits has never been found to be a SVC company. In 1988-89 have not had a measurement that was found to be in non-compliance. One measurement was only 1/10 of a pound over. He then stated that they respectfully request that the decision be overturned. Smith asked if they could do flow-proportional testing on their own? They replied, yes, but the cost was too great. -3- Smith asked if they sent any of the results of their own tests to the Districts? They answered no, didn't think those numbers were valuable at the time. It was over one month past the close of the year before they notified us that there was a problem. Hoesterey comnented that 1/10 of a lb. doesn't sound like a lot but 15%-50%-160% is. (??) From the standpoint of a margin of error, do you feel it should be a 50% margin or what? With 200,000 gallons per day, why would there by such a fluctuation between the two samples? Gary Ryan replied that these are grab samples. If you assume the flow is constant, it would be valid but sampling is a mere approximation. Low flow/high concentration. Rich von Langen added that staff didn't have any data with regard to self-monitoring results to be able to evaluate them one way or the other. As far as picking and choosing our procedures, we use the Districts' procedures based on federal regulations. Have been consisten in following them for the last three years. Flow-proportional sampling could actually be a detriment to the company. Reviewed records of non-compliance in 1983-84 and 1985-86 prior to requirement for designation of SVC companies. Universal Circuits #1 8 #1 were listed, however, as major violators. Griset asked Gary Ryan what discussion had occurred between the Districts and your company regarding the new facilities? Does that offer any prospect in staff's enforcement acceptability? Rich replied that we have been in contact with them regarding that facility. Sent a letter last week spelling out requirements for the new facility which will require a pretreatment system. We need information on the existing facility also. Haven't received that information yet. Griset then asked if there was any reasonable prospect of compliance in the new facility with investment in pretreatment facilities? Ryan advised that they haven't responded to staff because information we have is that the Districts' I.W. staff is consulting with potential competitors in L.A. County. There would be a conflict of interest and we are reluctant to have the system we have designed provided to Districts' staff. Griset commented that their procedural arguments aren't terribly persuasive. Can appreciate disclosure problem but how do we see that you won't go off the charts like you have been? Gary Ryan stated that they have informed the Districts of the type of system and they have said it is a very good choice. They have given us a time frame and we are in total agreement with that. Rich added that we are still looking for detailed drawings. Hanson commented that if the District is demanding detailed information in order to be sure problem doesn't go on for the next 10 years, feel Universal Circuits should meet those requirements. We have been through this many times with them. We deal with many other companies and they do what they have to do. Why should we have to bend so far for them. Don't believe that the Districts will violate a confidence. Stanton asked if they could provide information in next 30 days. Is is worth delaying this action? Hoesterey stated that we are talking about an incident over one year back. Said V, he remembered this same discussion one or two years ago. A combination of plants #1 and #2 was going to solve all the problems. Said he had no confidence that a new plant will change this. We are looking at a period of time of past performance. When they were 150% over standards, that is what we are evaluating. -4- Griset asked what is the term of this status as a SVC company? Rich replied that this identification is done at the end of each fiscal year and the Districts are required to publish names in October of each year. They are kept on the list until company has satisfied requirements and cleaned up their act. If they don't continue to violate, they will be removed. Stanton asked again if there was anything to show in 30 days to change the recommendation? Staff replied, not unless their records from the past year are produced. Unless there is additional data, there is no use to continue this. Ken Ryder reiterated that they did not retain the data. All testing that has been done since July 1, 1988 has shown them to be in compliance. Tom Woodruff referred to written statement of Universal Circuits. He clarified one point for the record. Re position of non-compliance with Districts' ordinance and invalidity, this should not be the basis by which they are posted as a SVC company. This is a misrepresentation. District is mandated to make 30 day time limit. The purpose of going back and resampling is to put the discharger on warning and notice and to determine whether there is further violation or compliance. The fact that the follow-up was not made to 30 days has been examined very carefully and we believe that this has no baring on determining validity of samples. It is pure speculation whether they may or may not have been in compliance if we had gone back. Regarding pattern of non-compliance, EPA guidelines makes a brief reference to the fact that the flow may be more accurate using flow-proportional sampling. However, they do not recommend flow-proportional sampling and the guidelines refer to time-composite samples. They acknowledge that it may be more representative if pemmittee wishes to invest $10,000.00 and staff would then work with that system. The violation is really non-compliance of District ordinance but that doesn't have any impact on what the results of the sampling were. Have four results before us. He commented that there is a difference between "will " versus "shall " in the regulations, and the reason for that is to allow the company to correct the problem and be in compliance. Griset stated that if District had gone back in 30 days and retested and not found a violation, this violation would become mute. TLW replied that it would have gone toward adding up the score card for them. Hoesterey asked since violations in 9187 and 3/88, if they had instituted all corrective measures, why did it get worse? Griset commented that he didn't like to see repeat of things occur as it suggests a lack of intent and performance; and with regard to procedural argument, thought that was technically valid. Thirty-day issue was within last fiscal year so we are stuck with incident of SVC designation. Said he didn't find an immediate sense to move on this thing because of where we, as a District, have not done the 30-day testing. I guess I would ask why we didn't go back there within 30 days? Rich replied that we have now added staff to order to try to accomplish the enforcement effort. From January to December we had 14 major enforcement activities. In 1988 we accomplished the testing of 35 of those same type of companies. Our additional resources have been put on those companies that that are identified as SVC companies and all of our efforts have gone into this. He suggested that we would probably have found them in non-compliance if they had retested. Griset added that this is technical thin ice. Takes him away from SVC decision V, tonight. Ryder again stated that they don't have written data but have testified that we have done the retesting and found it to be in compliance. -5- Hanson supported SVC designation because he felt that with their record, they should have kept accurate records so they could prove their compliance to the District. Didn't believe they were being completely honest. .i Griset then MOVED that the Board finds that at this time, it is unable to make the determination set forth in the provisions of Option A in the Staff Report, but that the Board instructs staff to keep it apprised of all findings and 30-day follow-ups relating to this company. Motion SECONDED by Stanton. Hoesterey commented that this is a report card. Just because you are doing good now doesn't mean you did good last time. He agreed with Hanson as he couldn't fathom why they did take samples that were beneficial to them and not keep the records. Said he couldn't support the motion for that reason. Added he might even be persuaded if each of the samples had come out within 5-10%. The magnitude of the margin of error will support what was found in the testing. Can't support the motion. VOICE VOTE on motion. Two ayes and two noes. MOTION FAILED. Hoesterey then MOVED that the Board uphold the findings of staff finding that the samples collected and analyzed by the District are representative of Universal Circuits N1's discharge; that the frequency of the sampling was sufficient to make the determination that the discharge levels exceeded their limits and is in accordance with EPA guidelions; and that the frequency of non-compliance, as determined by the staff and hearing officer, is adequate to assure representative sampling and is sufficient to make a SVC determination in accordance with federal regulations. Motion SECONDED by Hanson. Griset commented that he was not unsympathetic toward clean water issue but ..i regarding regulation issue, the burden is on us. If we are deficient in providing the enforcement capabilities, then come to us and say there is too much work to make timely inspections of these problems. Hoesterey asked, what if this Board is deadlocked? Tom Woodruff replied that if this motion fails, there is no action by this Board at all. Hanson commented that the fault does not lie with the District but with Universal Circuits. Stanton said he supported the staff very strongly. Would not want the vote to come out any other way. If this vote goes 2:2, we can reconsider this at a future meeting. TLW advised that any reports of violations since July 1, 1988 to date are in a whole different review period. Stanton asked, could this issue be reconsidered at a future meeting? TLW replied yes. CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. VOICE VOTE. Two ayes and Two noes. MOTION FAILED. NO ACTION TAKEN BY BOARD. Adjourned 8:56 p.m. -6- REPORT OF THE JOINT CHAIRMAN FEBRUARY 8 , 1989 .J ( 1 ) UPCOMING MEETINGS : (A) SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF - THE SELECT COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE STAFF IS SCHEDULED TO MEET ON THURSDAY , FEBRUARY 9TH, AT 5 : 30 P.M. AND AGAIN ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23RD, AT 5 : 30 P.M. (B) FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE - THE FISCAL POLICY COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY , FEBRUARY 15TH, AT 5 . 30 P.M. (C) BUILDING COMMITTEE - THE BUILDING COMMITTEE IS SCHEDULED TO MEET ON THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16TH, AT 5 . 30 P.M. (D) EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE - THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22ND, AT 5 : 30 P.M. ( INVITE TWO OF THE FOLLOWING DIRECTORS TO ATTEND. INVITE THE SAME PERSONS AS LAST MONTH [IRV PICKLER 6 RUTHELYN PLUMMER] INASMUCH AS THE JANUARY E.C. MTG. WAS CANCELLED. ) IRV PICKLERALLY ANNE SHERIDAN AND OR OR RUTHELYN PLUMMER BOB SIEFEN RE; AGENDA ITEM #28 - DISTRICT 11 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS "1 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA February 1, 1989 1OEAA ELL19 AVENUE PO BOX 8127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92729.9127 �. 0101902R411 STAFF REPORT County Sanitation District No. 11 Master Plan Conveyance Facilities County Sanitation District No. 11 (CSO 11) basically includes two distinct service areas: the southeasterly portion bounded by Garfield Avenue, Newland Avenue and Atlanta Avenue to the Santa Ana River; and the northwesterly portion, generally bounded by the areas north of Talbert Avenue to the 405 Freeway and west of Gothard Street to the coast except for the Naval Weapons Station at Bolsa Chica (see attached map). The areas include approximately two-thirds of the City of Huntington Beach. The northwesterly portion is served by the Slater Avenue Pump Station, and trunk sewer lines in Golden West Street, Slater Avenue and Springdale Street. As the Directors will recall , the joint venture team of Carollo-Boyle is preparing the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan as part of the Districts' "Action Plan for Balanced Environmental Management: Preserving ..r Orange County's Coastal Ocean Waters". The master plan work includes both the joint treatment and disposal facilities, as well as the sewer conveyance systems for each of the sanitation districts. The consultants have found that Slater Avenue Pump Station and certain trunk sewer facilities will be deficient for meeting short-term and long-term capacity requirements; the most notable deficiency being the Slater Avenue Pump Station. The long-term solution has been identified in previous master plan reports as the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer from its present terminus at Golden West Street in Orange Avenue northwesterly through the Solsa Chica area to Edwards Street at Slater Avenue. Under this plan a line extending easterly in Slater Avenue would relieve the Slater Avenue Pump Station, while a line extended north in Edwards Street would relieve the Springdale Street sewer collection facilities, all at an estimated cost of $21.9 million. The new master planning team reviewed this and other alternate ways to provide the needed sewer improvements. The alternates included diverting a portion of the area tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station easterly to the Knott Interceptor, thereby reducing the quantity of flow through the Slater Avenue Pump Station at an estimated cost of $16.6 million; and rebuilding of the Slater Avenue Pump Station at an estimated cost of $14.2 million. The latter 1s the most economcal method. -1- The Slater Avenue Pump Station is currently operating at capacity. With continuing development taking place within the drainage area served by the pump station, a project to correct the deficiencies is urgently needed and staff believes that it would be prudent to authorize preliminary engineering work in advance of the Action Plan completion in order to ensure that the CSD 11 can continue to provide adequate sewer service. The pending Master Plan recommends that the Slater Avenue Pump Station be rebuilt at essentially the same location. It appears that the station could best be built adjacent to the existing station on lands now owned by General Telephone (GTE) . Three phases of work are envisioned: Phase I would include preparation of a project report detailing the size and construction requirements of the pump station elevations and the trunk sewer improvements tributary to the station. The engineering documents would also provide the necessary data for acquisition of a site from GTE. Phase II would include preparation of detailed construction plans and specifications. Phase III would be the actual construction of the facilities. The California Environmental Quality Act requirements are being addressed in the Environmental Impact Report being prepared as part of the Action Plan Master-Planning effort. It will be presented to the Boards and distributed for public comment in March. Proceeding with the Phase I work ahead of final ... approval of the Master Plan and certification of the EIR would allow the project to be expedited and proceed in a timely fashion while still complying with CEQA requirements. Staff recomnends that the Board authorize the Selection Committee to solicit proposals from qualified engineering firms for the Phase I preliminary project report, and negotiate a professional services agreement for consideration by the Board; and authorize staff to negotiate with GTE during the development of the project report so that right-of-way needs and considerations can be incorporated into the document. TMD:jt ENG/D11:STFRPT3 -2- RR I r � �+I.42 _ "' � null 1i11141U11[�•1-._ 'lg •_ EDINGER PS INCR 33 • 12" • - CAP TO 7.5 MGD •c � ' 24 27 • 7 �'. _ . 38' }Il lilt (iIl Rl7nn Lam.-•� 39 2r s . cr- ,R' SLATER P.S INCR �. xlunl CAP TO 28 MGD o �j ..f" Y DISTRICT 11 BOUNDARY '�"-- E EXISTING FACILITIES EXISTING PUMP STATION •l' mRwnuR MILLER MOLDER TRUNK - umuRRRRR KNOTT INTERCEPTOR •.•,.i: fil�n� �C _ COAST- NEWLAND-DELAWARE SYSTEM '•"••••....• SLATER-SPRINGDALE-EDINGER SYSTEM ,/•• ` ` IMPROVEMENT FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FACILITY • •1 PARALLEL FACILITY DISTRICT NO. 11 NEW FACILITY IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVE *1 .� 36" DIAMETER OF PIPE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY MASTER PLAN REPORT FIGURE 11 - 1 RE ; AGENDA ITEM #31 - DISTRICT 1 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS February 2, 1989 W ORANGE COUNTY. CALIFORNIA REF #514 109«ELLIS AVENUE RO Bon 9127 FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 9272E-8121 9141962.2411 STAFF REPORT UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS #1, PERMIT NO. 1-1-346 APPEAL OF SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE COMPANY STATUS SUMMARY In accordance with Federal regulations, the Districts have for the last three years published in The iRegister the names of those firms that are determined to be Significantly Vio atl ng Compliance (SVC) companies. Prior to publication, the Districts inform companies that have been identified as SVC companies that their name will be published and that staff will proceed with additional enforcement action to bring them into compliance. Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 (UCI #1), Permit No. 1-1-346, has appealed their identification as an SVC company for 1987-88 (see Exhibit 1, buff and Exhibit 2, grey). The appeal hearing was rescheduled from the January meeting to the February meeting at the request of UCI #1. BACKGROUND The Districts' NPDES Ocean Discharge Permit requires us to have an EPA-approved pretreatment program. Among the requirements for such a program is that the Districts comply with provisions of Volume 40, Code of Federal Regulations, 403.8(f)(2)(vii). Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the. following: "Provision for at least annually providing public notification in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the PO Pd is located, of industrial users, which during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating pretreatment standards or other requirements. For the purposes of this provision, a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is art of a at tern of non-com liance over a 12-month eriod; which invo ves the ai ure to accurate y report non-comp lance; or w ich results in the POTW exercising its emergency authority (as defined) under paragraph (f)(1)(vi)(b) or this Section". (emphasis added) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard 3 out of 4 quarters during the fiscal year as SVC, because these companies have violations which are part of a pattern of 1 � I non-compliance over a 12-month period. The compliance record of UCI #1 for 1987-88 was as follows: TABLE 1 UCI #1 Non-Compliance for 1987-88 Pounds Lead Date Over Limit September 24-25, 1987 0.35 December 28-29, 1987 0 March 30-31, 1988 0.1 June 16-17, 1988 1.13 On August 23, 1988 the Districts sent 41 letters notifying companies, including UCI #1, that they had been classified as an SVC company according to EPA and District' s policies (see Attachment A, blue) . UCI #1 appealed the decision in a letter dated August 25, 1988 (see Attachment B, yellow) . District's staff removed the name of UCI #1 from the SVC list that was published September 20, 1988 pending the processing of the appeal . Federal regulations require publishing by October 30th each year. The District's staff set forth the basis for inclusion of UCI #1 as an SVC company in a letter dated September 7, 1988 and received a reply from UCI #1' s attorney on September 9, 1988. District's Office of General Counsel responded to the objections made by UCI #1 in a letter dated October 13, 1988. See Attachment C, green, for the above three letters. These attempts to reach agreement failed and a hearing was held on November 8, 1988 with the Director of Technical Services acting as the Hearing Officer. The Hearing Officer' s decision was set forth in a letter dated November 23, 1988 (see Attachment D, tan) , and the original staff decision to publish UCI #1 as an SVC company was upheld. BASIS FOR SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE STATUS During the 1987-88 fiscal year, UCI #1 was sampled four times and found in non-compliance of the lead limitation 3 of those 4 times as shown in Table 1 above. Samples were collected using samplers prepared according to EPA guidelines and the discharge sampled using a time-composite sample. The samples were analyzed by the Districts' Laboratory. Notices of Violation were sent on each occasion notifying the company of the non-compliance and requiring them to take action to _ correct the problem. All non-compliance fees assessed UCI #1 for the violations were paid without appeal . UCI #1 did not initiate any appeal actions until the company was informed that they were an SVC company. 2 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL UCI #1 has cited two grounds for their appeal: 1. UCI #1 contends the sampling method used by the Districts was not accurate enough for the purposes of establishing an SVC designation claiming there is a margin of error and, further, that one sample exceeds the limit by a very minimal amount. 2. UCI #1 contends the Districts failed to follow its own internal procedures for sampling frequency pursuant to 601.18 of the District's Ordinance, and, had the Districts followed its procedures, UCI #1 would not be considered an SVC company. STAFF RESPONSE 1. The sampling of a company's effluent using time-composited samples has previously been reviewed by the District No. 1 Board of Directors on an appeal brought forth by UCI #1 on September 25, 1985 relative to a separate non-compliance fee assessed UCI #1 in the amount of $1,168.00 for copper and lead violations. UCI #1 contended that the samples taken from their facility were not representative. The Board found that this sampling method is representative and appropriate. The Districts' Industrial Waste Ordinance states that any sample taken from a sample box or other representative location is presumed to be discharging ... into the public sewer. In 1983 this sampling method was discussed by the Industrial Waste Advisory Committee, of which Mr. Ryan of UCI #1 was an active member. Alternatives, including the flow-proportional method of sampling, were discussed but the Committee concluded that the time-composite method was representative, economical , and the most desirable method of sampling. However, all permittees have the option of installing an effluent flow-monitoring system so that flow-proportional sampling can be conducted by the Districts. General comparison of the time-composite method currently being used by the Districts and the flow-proportional method are as follows: TIME COMPOSITE FLOW PROPORTIONAL ADVANTAGES - Can detect batch dumps - More representative - Samples taken at regular intervals for highly variable - Inexpensive, simple flows DISADVANTAGES - Less representative for highly - Expensive, complex variable flows - Difficult to detect batch dumps The Districts have been using time-composite samples at UCI #1 since 1981. The composite sampler takes samples at 15-minute intervals over a 24-hour period. Unless there is a production cycle that is as short as 15 minutes, 3 then every sample would appear to be representative. There was no evidence ' that the firm has a 15-minute cycle, neither is it the norm for production in the industry. Thus it could be concluded that the samples of UCI #1's flow were representative. The cost of installing a flow-proportional system is estimated at $10,000 per firm versus about $100 for installation of a sample box for the time-composite method. In either case, the cost is borne by the discharger, and it is the firm's decision. The Districts would not object to UCI #1 designing and installing a flow-proportional system for future sampling. UCI #1 has not pursued this option, however, and, as a result, the Districts and UCI #1 have relied on time-composited samples to determine compliance with limitations. UCI #1 also argues that the sample taken on March 30-31, 1988 (see Table 1) showing a 0.1 pound of lead exceedance is minimal (de minimus) and should not be considered in making the determination of a pattern of non-compliance. However, the de minimus argument is specifically excluded under Section 3.4.2 of EPA's "Pretreatment Compliance, Monitoring, and Enforcement Guidance" manual , which states that an exceedance of any magnitude constitutes violation. 2. The second ground for appeal by UCI #1 is that the District failed to follow its own internal procedures with respect to follow-up sampling after the original routine sampling event. UCI #1 contends that resampling did not occur because the Districts did not consider the non-compliance significant; and, if resampling had occurred and the results showed compliance, UCI #1 would have showed non-compliance less than 50% of the time and thus not be classified as an SVC company. v It is true that the Districts did not sample UCI #1 within 30 days as set forth by Section 601.8 of the Ordinance because the staff resources were allocated to other companies identified as significantly violating compliance (in 1988 staff increased major enforcement actions such as Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreements, permit revocation, and civil charges against 35 companies compared to 14 in 1987). The Districts did, however, routinely sample UCI #1 within 75 days of each notice of violation giving ample time to correct the non-compliance. UCI #1 failed twice and passed once. No factual basis was provided by UCI #1 to substantiate either assertion that additional sampling of UCI #1 would have shown compliance with discharge limitations or that the Districts did not believe the violation to be significant. No self-monitoring data was supplied to support the speculation that additional sampling by the Districts would have shown compliance. The Districts mailed Notices of Violation to UCI #1 after each non-compliant event with a request to take immediate action to correct the problem on each notice. BOARD ALTERNATIVES The District No. 1 Board of Directors can make two possible findings: A. To uphold the staff's and Hearing Officer's decision to classify UCI #1 as a 4 Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company. To do so, the Board must: o Find that the samples collected and analyzed by the District are representative of UCI #1 discharge. o Find that the frequency of sampling was sufficient to make the determination that the discharge levels exceeded their limits and is in accordance with the EPA guidelines. o Find that the frequency of non-compliance as determined by the staff and Hearing Officer is adequate to assure representative sampling and is sufficient to make an SVC determination in accordance with Federal regulations. -B. To reverse the decision of the staff and Hearing Officer and find that UCI #1 is not an SVC company. To do so, the Board should determine that it is unable to make the findings set forth in A above. RECOMMENDATION Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 was sampled quarterly during 1987-88 using EPA-approved and standard Districts' sampling procedures. Three of the four composite samples showed violations of the discharge limitation for lead, establishing a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period and, thus, classifying UCI #1 as a Significantly Violating Compliance company pursuant to EPA regulations. Staff recommends that the decision to classify Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 as a Significantly Violating Compliance company be upheld and that Universal Circuits, Inc. #1's name be published in the paper in accordance with Federal regulations. CPT:30 Attachments 5 EXHIBIT 1 Prxxo & GaoMET A O8 s A LAW SAm B. Pnrto aao, Dm . Da .SO= >eo OUR + xo. S=.J. GBoxas IgyQ-g, CAT ZFO iL1 92rie-LEIS Aaxxasa A. Asnas Ca3[9>OPma M. Dwaowx Taia+aexa x0. t>ie) aee•un Joemm A ROOO++ yg COPZRR No. (7W 800-.e7 168-0424-01 December 8 , 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis P.O. Box 8127 Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 Attention: Blake P. Anderson, Director of Technical Services Re: Notice of Determination re: Universal Circuits #1 Appeal from Designation as a "Significantly Violating Compliance Company" During Fiscal Year 1987-88 (Permit No. 1-1-346 ) Dear Mr. Anderson: We have received and reviewed the determination of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California (the "Districts" ) denying Universal Circuits #1 appeal of the Districts ' designation of Universal Circuits #1 as a "significantly violating compliance company" during fiscal year 1987-88. We disagree with the Districts ' analysis of the evidence and issues presented and its final determination denying Universal Circuits #1 appeal . Accordingly, on behalf of Universal Circuits #1 we are hereby notifying you of Universal Circuits #1 desire and intent to further appeal the Districts ' determination of it as a "significantly violating compliance .. company" during fiscal year 1987-88. ,— It is our understanding that the next step in the appeal process will be a hearing before J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager at the Districts. However, to save everyone' s time and taxpayer dollars, Universal Circuits #1 is willing to waive its rights to appeal to Mr. Sylvester, and would prefer to proceed directly to the further appeal to the Board of Directors of the Districts . County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California December 8, 1988 Page 2 Kindly undertake the necessary actions to schedule the next appeal as expeditiously as possible. Of course, until we accept a final determination in this matter, you are not to publish the name of Universal Circuits #1 as a "significantly violating compliance company" . Very truly yours, Kenneth A Ryder KAR:par cc: Mr. Gary Ryan Mr. Raymond Esser ATTACHMENT A II ` COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �Y P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 9272841127 y � 108"ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 )714)962-2411 August 23 , 1988 REF #167 Universal Circuits #1 1800 Newport Circle Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit No: 11346 Attn: Gary Ryan, President Subject: Industries Significantly Violating Compliance During 1987-88 Universal Circuits #1 has been identified by the Districts as significantly violating compliance during the time period of July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988. As required. by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, your name will be included in a list of similarly identified industries to be published in The Register on or about September 10, 1988. A company significantly violating compliance is one which had: a) a major violation (discharge of heavy metals greater than 1 pound over their limit or a pH less than 5.0) left uncorrected for more than 45 days; b) showed a consistent pattern of non-compliance during the fiscal year; or c) had. a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority. It is the Districts' philosophy to work cooperatively with industries who show by practice and attitude they are willing to correct process deficiencies and install necessary pretreatment equipment. However, should it be necessary, the Districts will use whatever enforcement actions are required to bring your company into compliance with - discharge requirements. If you have any questions concerning the above, please contact Mr. James Benzie at extension 365. Q /J ��EkltA�sl� � '7/`JX Richard W. von Langan, P.E. Chief of the Industrial Waste Division RVL:bam ATTACHMENT B ne UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS INCORPORATED August 25, 1988 County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 Fountain Valley, CA 92728-8127 Attention: Richard 19. Von Langen Dear Mr. Von Langen: Universal Circuits has been investigating and will continue to investigate the validity of the alleged violations, ref- erence your letter dated August 23 , 1988 , Ref. #167. Universal Circuits has concluded that these alleged violations are in- correct. Please consider this Letter as notification of our appeal. Any proposed publication of the alleged violations during appeal will be considered inappropriate by any standard. Sincerely 4__ Gary Ryan General Manager GR/blb 3:3=asr uewccu C,: Sawa Ara.' R"75 - '=0 -92c 3 ATTACHMENT C COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �•.a P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 ry � 108"ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708.7018 (714)962-2411 September 7, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL REF #218 P 730 099 402 Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 1800 Newport Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit No: 1-1-346 Attention: Mr. Gary Ryan, General Manager Subject: Appeal of Significantly Violating Compliance Status The Districts are in receipt of your request for reconsideration dated August 25, 1988 that Universal Circuits, Inc- #1 is a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company. The sampling information for lead discharges from Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 is shown below: Pounds Per Day Non-Compliance Date In Non-Compliance $ September 24-25, 1987 0.35 28.00 December 28-29, 1987 0 0 March 30-31, 1988 0.1 8.00 June 16-17, 1988 1.13 90.40 Representative samples were taken onsite in accordance with Districts' sampling procedures and Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 was issued a Notice of Violation for each non-compliance. One of the EPA and Districts' standards for determining whether a company . is SVC is a compliance status that demonstrates a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period. Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 was in non-compliance three of four quarters with the maximum permitted limit for lead, and the average of.the four samples exceeded the permitted 4-day average limit. Universal Circuits, Inc. E1 September 7, 1988 Page 2 In accordance with 40 CFR 403.8.f.2(vii), the Districts must publish in Orange County's largest daily newspaper industrial users that were significantly violating applicable pretreatment standards or requirements. Your request for reconsideration contains no newly-discovered relevant facts. If you have any additional information concerning the above, please provide it for my review by September 15, 1988; otherwise, the staff decision will be sustained. Richard W. von Langen, P.E. Chief of the IndustrialWaste Division RVL:lab CPT:28 cc: Clark Ide, Esq. Joe Rogoff, Esq. PLYTO & GROMET wrronraxs " "W UM B. pz v. RRoI RI.TORT Ralva. Rclzs•oo pea ma vo. STR J. GRORBT ntV . CA FomY Gana-Late RaxmaTR A RYDRU CaRIITOPMR M. "ac'm T =PMa"a Ro. mm aaR-u" Taoxw F. ST Aw ==COPMR YO In,61 Raa•0091 168-0424-01 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPY County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 Attention: Richard van Langan, P.E. Re: Allegation of Significantly violating Compliance During 1987-88 Against Universal Circuits $1 NOTICE OF APPEAL Gentlemen: Thisoffice represents Universal Circuits, Inc, in connection with its operations in Orange County, California. We have been forwarded your letters of August 23 , 1988 and September 7, 1988 regarding allegations that Universal Circuits 41 ("UC-10) be classified as a "Significantly Violating Compliance" company ("violating company") during the period of July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1988 ("Compliance Year") , and of your intention to include the name of UC-1 in a list to be published in the Orange Countv P.ecister an or abrmt Sentpnher 70; 1988. This letter is meant to serve as a clarification and restatement of the appeal in connection with the foregoing �:y UC-1, and to set forth our position with respect to publication of the name of UC-1 prior to the resolution of this matter. A. Grounds for Appeal: 1. UC-1 Cured the Alleged June 16-17 , 1983 Non- Compliance Within 45 Days of Such Alleged Nen-Compliance: The only sample founa to be significantly in r.on.-ccT,=_iance `..J from the UC-1 facility during the entire Compliance Year was that taken June 16-17, 1988, which was only 13 days prior to the June 30, 19SS expiration of the Compliance Year. Notice of this alleged non-compliance was not even rece ved --y UC-1 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 2 until after June 30, 1988. Your letter of August 23 , 1988 claims that the alleged non-compliance was left uncorrected for more than 45 days; however, 45 days were not available to do any retesting and correcting prior to the expiration of the Compliance Year. Indeed, had the alleged non- compliance of June 16-17, 1988 rather occurred on the September 24-25, 1987. sampling, the subsequent compliance on December 28-29, 1987 would have completely exonerated UC-1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a resamoling at the UC-1 facility was taken by the Districts on July 18- 19, 1988 , which is within the 45-day cure period. The results of this sampling revealed lead discharge from the UC-1 facility to be in full compliance with discharce requirements. Accordingly, the alleged non-compliance of June 16-17, 1988 was fully corrected within the required 45-day period, thereby exonerating UC-1 with respect to this matter. A copy of your report reflecting these resampling �..� results is enclosed for your review and information. 2. The Standards for Determining. that a Commanv is "Significantly Violating Compliance^ are Subjective and Unen£orceably Vague: Pursuant to your August 23 , 1988 letter, a company may be found to be "Significantly Violating Compliance" if it (a) had• a discharge of heavy metals greater than one pound left uncorrected for more than 45 days, (b) showed a "consistent pattern of non-compliance- during the Compliance Year, or (c) had a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authoritv. These standards are not contained in any formal regulations of the districts, and rather are apparently the informal guidelines followed by the Districts. We have addressed the cure of the standard set forth in subparagraph (a) in Subsection A. I. above. At no time during the Compliance Year did UC-1 have a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority, pursuant to the standard set forth in subparagraph (c) . Your September 7, 1988 letter alleges that UC-1 showed a pattern of non-compliance over the Compliance , Year. This is disputed for the following reasons: (i) The alleged non-compliance on September 24-25, 1987 and March 30-31, 1988 is L County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 3 de minimus, and indeed the sampling and testing methodology utilized by the Districts is not accurate enough to rule out an error within the range of plus or minus 0.1 pounds. As you are aware, UC-1 in the past has suggested that the Districts' modify its sampling procedure pursuant to EPA guidelines so as to provide more accurate readings. Accordingly, it is our contention that for purposes of determining whether UC-1 is a violating company, only the sampling taken on June 16-17, 1988 should be considered. As previously stated, this non-compliance was corrected within 45 days. (ii) The claim in your September 7, 1988 letter that the averageof the four samples during the Compliance Year exceeded the permitted four-day average limit for UC-1 assumes a four-day average limit for UC-1 of 0.30 lbs. for lead discharge, which UC-1 has challenged ever since its current proposed permit was issued. The current proposed permit issued for UC-1 is based on .090 mgd flow, as opposed to the . 140 mgd flow basis utilized in prior permits issued to UC-1. Since the current flow rate is approximately . 140 mgd despite extensive water conservation efforts, the present proposed permit does not reflect the actual water usage or give consideration for water conservation. Based upon the prior permit flow level (which is in fact the actual flow level) , the four-day average permitted for lead discharge is 0.47 lbs. , and under this four-day average limit, the four samples averaged during the Compliance Year did not exceed the limit. B. Publication. Publication that a company is -Significantly Violating Compliances is obviously an unwanted stigma, and could be very -- - - - damaging to a company:s. reputation_ .in its industry and community. _ It is because of this concern that .Universal Circuits has always cooperated with the Districts in attempting to follow all applicable rules and guidelines with respect to its waste discharges, and has raised the instant appeal with respect to the Districts' current allegations. As set forth hereinabove, we believe that the criteria which has been utilized in classifying UC-1 as a violating company has been unfairly applied to UC-1 in this instance, and that UC-1 was not a violating company during the Compliance Year. county sanitation Districts of orange county, California September 9, 1988 Page 4 Accordingly, on behalf of UC-1 we are hereby notifying you that if you attempt to publish the name of UC-1 as a "Significantly Violating compliance" company, UC-1 intends to hold the Districts responsible and liable for any damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall UC-1 and/or Universal circuits. By separate letter to the Orange Countv Register, a copy of which is attached hereto, we are also placing that newspaper on notice that should it publish the name of UC-1 as a "significantly violating Compliance" company, UC-1 may also seek to hold that newspaper responsible and liable for such damages as well. Universal Circuits. is very desirous of having this matter remedied in the most expedient manner possible to reinstate its good name with the Districts. We therefore look forward to hearing from you in the very near future so as to resolve this matter to the mutual satisfaction of the Districts and UC-1. In addition to the foregoing, in an attempt to alleviate future problems of this kind, we request that the Districts and Mr. Gary Ryan of Universal Circuits meet in an attempt to resolve their differences with respect to (i) the flow level basis for the proposed permit currently issued to UC-1, and (ii) the sampling methodology for future testing at Universal Circuits facilities in orange County. Very truly yours, Kenneth A. Ryder K?R:par enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Ryan Mr. Raymond Esser COUNTf SANITA110N 0; . e owas cww". tsu �./ WISTEYATER ANALYSIS REPORT 10W..-„r . ra as no • .OJM1w vYa[I.ry�l.CM�: � • mYYiYt1 INOUSIRY: Llm,V,/ns DATE: P���Yd mYrdve /800 /GWDor^t �iG/i �i, PERMIT NO. .SaHfa /lNa. /.:9 9Z7os ATTN: �YYYMMYYMYYMYYYYYMYY�YY1•�gMMYY�YYYY�YYYYYYYYY.Y�Y..YYM/YYMYYYYYY c Your wastewater disGMar;e was 'sampled and Ole results are as follows: Sample Oata(s) : 7-4117-f7 Time: /S/S• Lccat:an: SRG Oane a rd �tsL4isa Rfef arCanetituents TgV/7 >;7cdePesai ` CADMIUM OD —" . 7 S _6 CHROMIUM • 00 — i. SO -C c.PPEa YICM TZ 3•08 E LEAD 1 ! /0 .NS E �✓ Mc : oo — SILVER — INS S00 — CYANIOE(T)� < /•O Value T'me . Oats I 'm..-ations :`:a PH '7 /S/S 7-1211,7 6.0 7C7AL •Cl;iARG. 1..T Mass Emisalan- Rate :law Rase - . ��'� _ MGO - Ac:uat Oiscnar:a •//3 Please address any Questions concerning :-1s rsccr. :a Mr. ,:amen ?e.mre,. or to to :. :ndustrial 'Waste Olvision at extansicn 75?. `J Richard 'W, van Lar Ids:a C?T:ASZ _aa Mo. /o99S Q9�ra6 ,w...P/z. :-s:ecrr .,� PnFTO & GBOMET wrroaasxs w l w U"a. PINTO ROOM DUPONT DIIlV6 OOISO Teo 00a PILa :� STR `s J. GROH= MVN. a CAI oftxi OOTID•IDID RmvNaTa & Rm® CRRISSOPaRR X DwaOwtl VBl Offx xm I ) 980-un tHONY P. STa+waT TOLOCOPI)v NO, IM0 000.00OT 168-0424-02 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPIER . Mr. Howard Griffin, manager Classified Ads - Legal Orange County Register 625 North Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Publication of Companies 'Significantly Violating Compliance' During 1987-88 as Identified by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange Countv Dear Mr. Griffin: This office represents Universal Circuits, Inc. with respect to its operations in Orange County, California. We have been advised by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California that it has classified. our client as -a 'Significantly Violating Compliance' company during 1987-88, and intends to include its name in a list of similarly identified industries to be published in the Orange County Register on or about September 10, 1988. It is cur understanding that to date this list has not yet been published.T We have researched the matter and believe the Districts is erroneous in classifying Universal Circuits, Inc. as a 'Significantly violating Compliance- company. We have brought the results of our research to the attention of the Districts and are currently appealing its classification. We believe that when the Districts -havefully analyzed this information,,-' it will- agree that Universal Circuits, Inc. should not be included on this list. We have further demanded of the Districts that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be immediately removed .from the list and not be published by your newspaper until this matter has been resolved to our satisfaction. By this letter we hereby demand that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be removed from the list and not be published by the Orange Countv Resister. This lette-1 shall Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager Classified Ads - Legal September 9, 1988 . Page 2 further advise you and place you on notice that should you erroneously publish the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. when it is not a "Significantly Violating Compliance' company, it is the intention of Universal Circuits, Inc. to hold both you and the Districts responsible and liable for any and all damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall Universal Circuits,. Inc. as a result of such erroneous publication. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT SUCH AN ERRONEOUS PUBLICATION WILL BE LIBELOUS TO OUR CLIENT AND RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES TO ITS GOOD REPUTATION IN ITS INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY. Very truly yours, PINTO 8 GROMET By: Kenneth A.,,Ryder, Attorneys for Universal Circuits, Inc. KAR:par cc: Cathy Taylor, Editor - Business Section Mike Kolbenschlag, Editor - Metro Section Chris Anderson - Editor in chief County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Attn: Richard W. von Langan uw erneca ov `/ Rourke' & Woodruff J.«La a.aeuaac . •.e•aane..L ee.wv.nen rn OMs L.weeoaurr aulrc ro0o rL LL aa•4Rry eJa-)-a- .L.n Lw.rra se¢.ee.na •cowcc •LN NJ.IO R,fM.aT,Ja. NCXYa IIN.N CIiI 06N 1Ca ea:Ia, aC-+iB+OJ.N�CL .. lPa.04N 70. scu T. I.RN[a 9TRCCT Ou B.LNIN IV L..nML O..TM w! ORSNG E.C.L L160 aN1w Bd88a LOI! L.J;I Na'Lr TL LLPNONL :T.1 !!a-f000 TNeN.a eN C R.�O O. r.LP a.n OTOn ;;I" `'1. October 13 1988 eo.LLN. w«.-wuNr , Kenneth A. Ryder, Esc. Pinto & Gromet Suite 750 2201 DuPont Drive Irvine, CA 92715-1515 Re: Dniversal'Circuits ¢1 Appeal from Designation As a Significantly Violating Compliance Company During Fiscal Year 1987-88 Dear Mr. Ryder: - Our office , acting as General Counsel for the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California, has been asked to assist in processing your appeal on behalf of Universal Circuits 41 from its designation as a significantly violating compliance company (SVC) for the fiscal year 1987-88 . As you were previously informed by Districts ' staff, the name of Universal Circuits 31 will not +be published on the SVC list pending the appeal. In order to define the issues that would arise during a hearing on the appeal, I thought it might be helpful to provide you with some background on the significantly violating compliance (SdC) list. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange Count? operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Ocean Discharge Permit which is issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCS) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) . The Districts are referred to as a Publiclv Owned Treatment Works (PO-W) , and as such, have a permit that requires them to have an Aporoved P07i Pretreatment Program. Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. Page 2 October 13, 1988 Among the requirements for a POTW pretreatment program is that the Districts comply with the provisions of 40 C. F. R. , Section 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) . Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the following: " (P]rovision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POTW is located, of Industrial Users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating Pretreatment Standards or other Pretreatment Requirements. For the purposes of this provision , a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is oart of A pattern of non-compliance over aye month period; which involves a failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which VJ resulted in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f) (1) (vi) (B) of this Section. " (Emphasis added.) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard three out of four quarters during a fiscal year as significantly violatinc compliance because these companies have violations which are, par- of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12 month period. The EPA recommends, in Section 3 .4 .2 of its "Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance" manual, that all companies that have "chronic" violations be listed on the SVC list. The EPA' s definition of "chronic" violations is "sixty-six percent or more of the measurements exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit in a six month period (any magnitude of exceedance ) A company violating , .`.gwever slightly, the same standard in three out of to _our Guar-ers during a year, would fit that description. "At- the hearing which you have .requested, - the - issues would appear to be as follows: 1 . Bas Universal Circuits 41 been in violation of discharge standards for three out of the four quarters during the 1987-88 fiscal year? u Kenneth A. Ryder, Esc. Page 3 October 13 , 1988 2 . If so , does this constitute " a pattern of non- compliance over a 12 month period" within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) ? If Universal. Circuits 41 still desires to pursue the appeal process, it may do so by contacting Mr. Rich von Lancen who will then arrange a hearing before Mr. Blake Anderson, Director of Technical Services of the Districts. Please contact Mr. von Langan before October 19, 1988 , if Universal Circuits 41 wishes to proceed with the appeal. If the Districts do not hear from you by that time, the Districts will assume that Universal Circuits all wishes to abandon its appeal. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this natter, Please advise. very truly yours, ROURRE a WOODRUFF V Clark F. Ida CFI:cjs :Cll33 cc: vMr. R. von Langan Thomas L. Woodruff, ESc. ATTACHMENT D �! COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 %w,ew•O 108"ELLIS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708-7016 ptq 962-2411 November 23, 1988 CERTIFIED MAIL REF 4447 P 367 379 681 Universal Circuits N1 1800 Newport Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit No: 1-1-346 Attention: Mr. Gary Ryan, Engineering Manager Subject: Notice of Determination re: Universal Circuits 41 Appeal from Designation as a Significantly Violating Compliance Company During Fiscal Year 1987-88 .... On November 8, 1988, a hearing was held at the offices of the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County (Districts) on Universal Circuits 91's appeal regarding their designation as a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company during fiscal year 1987-88. The hearing was attended by Gary Ryan of Universal Circuits 91 and Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. of Pinto & Gromet, attorneys for Universal Circuits 91; Districts' staff Richard von Langen and Mahin Tal=_bi ; Districts' Hearing Officer Slake Anderson; and Clark Ide, Esq. of Rourke & Woodruff, General Counsel for the Districts. BACKGROUND The Districts operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Ocean Discharge Permit which is issued by the California Regional 'Rater Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The Districts are referred to as a Publicly Owned Treatment 'Works (POT'W), and, as such, have a permit condition that requires them to have an approved POT'W pretreatment program. Among the requirements for an EPA-approved POT'J pretreatment program is that the POT'W comply with the provisions of 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii). Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the following: "Provision for at least annually providing. public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POT'W is located, of industrial users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating pretreatment standards or other pretreatment requirements. For the purposes of this provision, a significant violation Universal Circuits Al November 23, 1988 Page 2 is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is art of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period; which invo ves a al ure to accurately report . non-comp iance;. or which results in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f)(1)(vi )(b) of this section." (emphasis added) The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard 3 out of 4 quarters during a fiscal year as significantly violating compliance, because these companies have violations which are part of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period. The EPA recommends in Section 3.4.2 of its "Pretreatment Compliance, Moni torino, and Enforcement Guidance" manual that al companies that have "chronic" violations be listed on the SVC list. The EPA's definition of chronic violation is 1,66; or more of the measurements exceeding the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit in a 6-month period (any magnitude of exceedance)." And so, a company violating, however slightly, the same standard in 3 out of 4 quarters, would fit this description. This is the standard that the Districts used for determining that Universal Circuits d1 was an SVC company for fiscal year 1987-88. The record of Universal Circuits #11s discharge was as follows: - Pounds Lead Date Over Limit September 24-25, 1987 0.35 December 28-29, 1987 0 March 30-31, 1987 0.1 June 16-17, 1987 1.13 The following two issues were the subject of the hearing: 1. Has Universal Circuits #1 been in violation of discharge standards for 3 out of the 4 quarters during the 1987-88 fiscal year? 2. If so, does this constitute "a pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period" within the meaning of 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii )? During the hearing, Universal Circuits #.1 provided oral and written testimony. A copy of Universal Circuits K's written testimony is included as Attachment 1. Districts' staff provided a staff report as well as oral testimony. The Districts' staff report is included as Attachment 2. Universal Circuits #1 November 23, 1988 Page 3 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL Universal Circuits #1 cited two grounds for their appeal. The first one was that the testing methodology utilized by the Districts was not accurate enough for the purposes of establishing SVC designation because there is a margin of error. The second grounds for appeal was that the Districts failed to follow its own internal procedures with respect to the frequency of measurements taken at the Universal Circuits #1 facility, and, had the Districts followed its procedures, Universal Circuits #1 would not be considered an SVC company. With regards to the first grounds for the appeal, Universal Circuits #1 in their oral testimony stated that laboratory accuracy was not at issue. However, Universal Circuits #1 did argue that the sampling method was not adequate for accurately characterizing their discharge. Universal Circuits #1 argued that the Districts' use of a time-composited sample did not accurately reflect the actual discharge conditions at Universal Circuits K. No evidence to support this allegation was provided by Universal Circuits #1 either in written or oral testimony, or in responses to questions by the Hearing Officer. The Districts have utilized time-composited• samping since 1976 for determining the compliance status of industrial dischargers. The issue of time-composited versus flow-weighted composite sampling was the subject of a Universal Circuits #1 appeal on September 25, 1985. At that time, Universal Circuits #1 argued that the Districts had used time-composited samples and the accuracy was insufficient to levy non-compliance fees totalling $1,168.00. After lengthy discussion, the Directors for Sanitation District No. 1 determined that time-composited samples were sufficient to adequately characterize the discharge quality of Universal Circuits #1 and denied the appeal. Testimony by Districts' staff at that time included a recounting of discussions between the industrial Ad Hoc Committee (of which Gary Ryan was a member) and the Districts in 1983. Alternatives, including the flow-proportional method, were discussed but the Committee concluded that the time-composited method was representative, economical , and overall the most desirable method of sampling. However, all permittees had the option of installing an effluent flow-metering system so that flow-proportional sampling could be conducted by the Districts. At the time of the 1985 appeal , Districts' staff indicated that they would not object to Universal Circuits #1 designing and installing a flow-proportional system for future sampling. Universal Circuits }1 has not elected to avail themselves of this option. As a result, the Districts and Universal Circuits #1 have relied on time-composited samples to characterize the industrial discharge of Universal Circuits #1. Universal Circuits #1 November 23, 1988 Page 4 Universal Circuits #1 also made a de minimus argument regarding the level of non-compliance that occurred on March 30-31, 1988. Universal Circuits #1 argued that because the violation was so minimal , it should not be considered in making the determination of a pattern of non-compliance. However, the de minimus argument is specifically excluded under Section 3.4.2 of EPA's "Pretreatment COT 1i1 ce Monitorin and Enforcement Guidance" manual which stated an excee ance o any magnitu a constitutes vio ation. Universal Circuits #1's second ground for appeal was that the Districts failed to follow its own internal procedures with respect to follow-up sampling following the original routine sampling event. Within Universal Circuits #1' s written testimony, the claim is made that: "Resampling was not conducted, however, ostensibly because the non-compliant measurements did not appear to be significant, even in the view of OCSO." �..i No factual basis was provided by Universal Circuits #1 to substantiate this assertion. The facts actually contradict this assertion. The Districts mailed Notices of Violation to Universal Circuits #1 after 'each non-compliant event (see copies included as Attachment 3). Immediate action to correct the problem was requested in each notice. Within Universal Circuits #1's written appeal , it was stated that: "Had resampling been taken as required after the two de minimus non-compliant measures. in September, 1987 and March,7gl1,and such resampling showed compliance with discharge requirements (as the July, 1988 resampling demonstrated), then there would have been a total of seven measurements (rather than four) taken by OCSD with respect to fiscal year 1987-88, of which only three ( i .e. less than 50%) showed non-compliance." This scenario is purely speculative as confirmed by Universal Circuits #1 in response to a question by the Hearing Officer. It has no factual basis. Because Universal Circuits #1 had clear information from the Districts that violations were occuring (the Notices of Violation of October 15, 1987, April 18, 1988, and June 29, 1988), Universal Circuits 41 should have had sufficient information to understand its compliance status. In any case, it is the responsibility of Universal Circuits 41 to maintain compliance with their discharge standards and to collect sufficient process information to determine, for their own purposes, whether consistent compliance is being achieved. The purpose of the Districts' sampling is to confirm compliance or non-compliance of �..r the sampled firm. Universal Circuits #1 November 23, 1988 Page 5 DETERMINATION After careful consideration of the facts before me, I, Blake Anderson, Hearing Officer, find insufficient grounds to overturn the findings by Districts' staff that Universal Circuits #1 was a Significantly Violating Compliance company during 1987-88 and, therefore, deny Universal Circuits #1's appeal . Furthermore, I direct the Districts' staff to publish Universal Circuits #1's name as an SVC company in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(vii ) within 30 days of the date of this determination. ... Blake P. Anderson Director of Technical Services BPA:lab CPT:29 Attachments (3) cc: Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. Clark F. Ide, Esq. J. 'Wayne Sylvester Richard von Langen v ATTACHMENT 1 UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS #1 APPEAL FROM DESIGNATION AS A •SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE^ COMPANY DURING FISCAL YEAR 1987-88 Hearing Date: November 8, 1988 I. Facts: The Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California ("OCSD-) have designated Universal Circuits #1 (^UC- 1•) as a -significantly violating compliance- company for fiscal year 1987-88, on the grounds that discharge measurements taken from the UC-1 facility during said fiscal year resulted in pattern of non-compliance during that year. The measurements at issue are as follows: Pounds Per Day Date In Non-Compliance September 24-25, 1987 0.35 December 28-29, 1987 0 March 30-31, 1988 0. 1 June 16-17, 1988 1. 13 It is apparently the practice of OCSD to designate a company to be -significantly violating compliance- if it is in non-compliance on the same standard three out of four quarters during a fiscal year. It should be noted that UC-1's discharge of lead is the only standard at issue with respect to this designation; with respect to discharge under all other standards for which UC-1 has obtained a permit from OCSD, UC-1 is not considered to be in non-compliance. II. Grounds of Appeal: A. The Testing Methodology Utilized At The UC-1 Facility By OCSD Is Not Accurate Enough To Be Utilized Without A "Margin Of Error" For Purposes of a "Significantly Violatinq Compliance^ Designation: OCSD apparently follows the EPA recommendation with respect to whether or not a pattern of non-compliance exists, based upon whether sixty-six percent (66%) or more of the measurements taken exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit in a six (6) month period (any magnitude of exceedance) . (See Section 3 .4.2 of EPA's -Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring Enforcement Guidance- Manual. ) Utilization of such a standard, however, must presuppose that the measurements are also obtained in accordance with EPA guidelines; simply put, OCSD cannot fairly follow the EPA's recommendations with respect to a pattern of non-compliance without also following EPA's guidelines for the measurements upon which that pattern is to be based. �../ 168-0424-01/19 jak: 11/7/88 In EPA's "Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater- (relevant portions of which are attached hereto) , EPA recommends a "flow proportion' sampling technique be utilized for discharge flow rates of moderate to high variability during a sampling period (such as is the case with UC-1) ; where the rate of flow is virtually uniform throughout sampling, composite sampling is usually adequate. Composite sampling is the method utilized by OCSD in its measurements of the UC-1 facility. Because of the variability in UC-l's flow rates, however, this methodology is not as accurate as a flow proportion sampling technique would be, and is not the recommended sampling methodology for a facility such as UC-1. We understand that the expense involved in flow proportion testing at the UC-1 facility may make it cost- prohibitive at this time. However, if the designation of a company as "significantly violating compliance^ is to be based upon a percentage of measurements taken with are in non- compliance, regardless of the margin of exceedance, then the most accurate testing methodology recommended by the EPA should be utilized. If the most accurate methodology is not to be utilized, then for purposes of such a classification, then a "margin of error- tolerance should be incorporated to fairly judge the measurements. With respect to the fiscal year 1987-88, since the testing methodology of choice recommended by the EPA guidelines was not utilized by OCSD in taking measurements at the UC-1 facility, it is impossible for OCSD to fairly or accurately claim that UC-1 was in non-compliance in three out of four quarters. B. OCSD Failed To Follow Its Own Internal Procedures With Respect To The Frequency Of Measurements Taken At The UC-1 Facility; Had OCSD Followed Its Procedures, UC-1 Would Not Be Considered A 'Significantly Violating Compliance^ Company: Section 601B. of OCSD's own policies and procedures manual (a copy of which is attached hereto) provides that whenever any measurement taken during routine sampling by OCSD is found to be in non-compliance, subsequent sampling and measurement will be taken within thirty (10) days. With the exception of the last routine sampling taken at the UC-1 facility on June 16-17, 1988 (which produced the only measurement appearing to be significantly in non-compliance) , following no other alleged non-compliant sampling was a subsequent sampling taken within thirty (10) days. For the one re-sampling which did take place, on July 18-19, 1988, the results revealed cure and compliance with discharge requirements. -2- If OCSD considered the non-compliant measurements obtained during the routine samplings in September of 1987 and March of 1988 to be anything but de minimus, then it should have followed its own procedures and conducted subsequent re-samplings within thirty (30) days, and if such additional samples revealed further non-compliance, then subsequent actions as set forth in OCSD's policies and procedures guidelines could have been initiated. Re-sampling was not conducted, however, ostensibly because the non-compliant measurements did not appear to be significant, even in the view of OCSD. It is certainly inconsistent for OCSD to now claim that such non-compliance would be significant for purposes of classifying UC-1 as a ^significantly violating compliance^ company. Had re-sampling been taken as required after the two de minimus, non-compliant measures in September, 1987 and March, 1988, and such re-samplings showed compliance with discharge requirements (as the July, 1988 re-sampling demonstrated) , then there would have been a total of seven (7) measurements (rather than four (4) ) taken by OCSD with respect to fiscal year 1987-88, of which only three (i.e. , less than fifty percent (50%) ) showed non-compliance. Clearly, this would have placed the UC-1 facility well below both the OCSD practice and the EPA recommendations with respect to whether a pattern of non- compliance has been demonstrated. �.. The designation of a company as ^significantly violating compliance- is too important for OCSD to have ignored its own internal policies and procedures with respect to re- sampling and cure. III. Conclusion: Despite OCSD's claim that its designation of UC-1 as a 'significantly violating compliance" company is based upon the guidelines and recommendations of EPA, OCSD has in fact failed to follow EPA recommendations with respect to sampling methodology of UC-1, or OCSD's own internal policies and procedures with respect to frequency of measurements, both of which are critical components to the recommendations and guidelines of EPA with respect to whether or not a company is -significantly violating compliance.^ It is therefore respectfully submitted that with respect to the fiscal year 1987-88, OCSO cannot fairly designate and stigmatize UC-1 as a -significantly violating compliance- company, and therefore should not do so. As has been stated in the past, UC-1 takes very seriously its obligations and requirements with respect to wastewater discharge, and does not believe that it is ^significantly violating compliance. ^ -3- NOV 07 'Se 10:19 X1-CR T� P.2 . Po_-259 146 t y HANCBOOK FOR MONITORING INCUSTRIAL WASTEWATER =�s U. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Taehnodogy Trnsfr !EL Aup+a 1M is ■r NATIONAL tr TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE �iiiuoNlo,rid uuilu i chapter a SAMPLING 6.1 Introduction The basis for any plant pollution sbwtmmt program man upon information obtained by sampling.Thus, all subsequent decisions may be based upon incorrect infonnstion if Nis step is not accvrattly pursued. Then are several pitfalls which can occur if sampling It performed In a conies or naive manner. U a few bulc principles star followed and If thou responsible for sampling an forewarned, reliable results can bi obtained without eatensive and costly mumpling. Obtaining good results will depend upon certain details.Among than sae the following: I. Insuring that the sample taken is truly representative of the wutismam. 2. Using proper sampling techniques. 2. Protecting the samples until they sn enalyud. i The first of than requirements,obtaining a sample which is truly representative of the wuteslmern may be the source of significant anon.This It especially apparent in the case of"pub"or non.00mposited samples. It must be remembered that waste flows can very widely both In magnitude and composition over a 24.hour period. Ala,compoeition can very within a given strewn it my single time due to a parual setnana of suspended wilds or the floating of light materials.Because of the lower velocities next to the wails of the few channel, materWs MU tend to deposit in these rests. Samples should therefore be taken from the t wsiteatream whets the flw It well mixed. Since suitable points for sampling In awes systems re limited, muneroue Ideal locations its not usual. The cutler of well mixed tanks are exeellem simple points. In addition, the now must be meuund and the total waste load calculated by multiplying the flow rate times the concentration.A discussion of now measurement techniques Is presented In Chapter 7. The usual method'ibr accounting for variations in now and waste constituents ad minimizing the analytical effort is by compaiting the samples. Basically, suMcfant sample should be taken as that,when roiled together (before analysis), the results which an obtained will be similar to asking a sample from a completely-mixed took which had collected ad the flow from the stream to question.Greater accuracy Is obtained If Use amount of uni In the composite Is taken in proportion to the now. In general, the h greater the Inqunry of samples taken for the composite,the mom accurate the moult. 1 i If batch processing which"slug^the rylum are prison,compoailing can lead to erroneous results unless slhs sampling Is done it a very high frequency(possibly continuously)or unlesa the flow is "smoothed vet"by flow equallia ion leehnlquee. Obtaining a representative ample should be of major cancam In a moofmring program.A thorough analysis of the waste flow in the plant must be made and a responsible suit member should be assigned to inure that the samples taken an representative. As a genrd rule, closer attention must he given to waste swnpling than in the sampling of a manufacturing process strewn. t Afar a properly eomposited repnuntative sample has been collected.It is essential that It be main ainad in a lute that win not Introduce egret prim to analysis. Because some aunples art preserved only with difficulty, It Is desirable to provide analysis se quickly u possible, For this reason, it may be necessary to abandon a eomposifing technique for some parameters. In Neu coast. It will be necessary to take grab i ample,for immediate analysis. - f 6.1 Obvious precaution, such as Avoidance of contamination through dirty simple bottles, apply to Ovate monitoring u well at to sampling from a manufacturing process.Once vary simple required procedure which it often overlooked is the eatsblishmmt of a sample marking and recording method which prevents switching of umplp or confusion as to their origin.It is wits,of course,to Insure that waste sample bottles not be used for proaa sampling. Goad sampling technique is Important enough to warrant the following discussion of sampling details to anise in an muslytu and monitoring program. 6.3 Types of Samples The two mat common typo of sample use known As grab templet and composite samples and either may be obtained manually or automatically. 6.3.1 Grab Sunples Grab samples may be taken manually or automatically from the wastestmama. Each simple shows the waste characteristics at the time the simple is taken.Automatic sampling!s essentially the came u taking a.nries of grab samples at regular intervals. The volume of a grab simple to he taken depends on the tool number of separate "yns that must be made;however,a quart is usually mffident.Wide mouth Jan us pre(ured for simple eoneetienin order to faeWtan ths rapidity of sample colleetion.A grab ample may be preferred over a compesie sample when: 1. ibs water so be sampled dws not flow on a continuous basis, such a awn at an intermittently dry dlachuge cutlet or when contaminated proaa Links us periodically dumped. A grab ample from such a discharge is tu(fident m obtain the waste charactuisdo of a batch dump. It is Important to make certain slut the intermittent dump is well mixed when the sampls is taken. 2. The waste characteristics ars relativaiy onmtant. For such wusaa,a complex sampling program is not necessary since an ocUilonal gab ample may be entirely Adequate to establish waste rduracsarirtle. 3. It is desired to determine whether or not a composite simple obscurest extreme conditiom of the waste. A classic example is the possible variations of pH. A composite sample may hive a mutral pH while Individual grab samples may exhibit a wide pH rang. It may be Impowble to treat a widely nryWg waste biologically without prevearmmt or neutraiixidon,yet than charaoamdo may not be apparent from a properly composited wopie. An example of pH varying with time occurs us the texnla industry whirs Lisa pH in the moming may be At low u 3.5,while in the ansmoon, the wastewater pH may be a high u 11. Grab sunpkes ao requited when trWyxing wastewaters for parameters such As dissolved gasp, residual chlorine,soluble sulfides,temperature,and pH. 61.3 Composite Samplr in order to neinuttiza the number of samples to be analyzed,It it usually desirable m mix several individual samples. The Amount of the individual sample that may be Added to the total mixture depends on the flow At the time the simple war taken. For example,for every ¢lion per minute of now at the tune of sampling, 1 not is added to the composite sample. Judgment should be used In deciding upon the quanury of each Individual simple. As long n the ratio of now to indiMdusi simple volume remama the ume, the 6.I PA7V 07 'fly 10:21 UCI•CALIF P.5 computing should be valid. The total amount of composite ample depends on the number and types of analyses to be made; the minimum quantity being about 2 draft. The ndtilmum unouat of an individual ` sample should be about 200 ml, if the ssmpia is taken with time intervals of about 1 hour.Whon continual tampling is employed At intervals of about 3 to S minutes, the minimum uncuot of ample should be not less than 26 ml, Depending on the time and vuiabdiry of plant operation, 2. 4, 8, 16, or 24-haur composites may be colleetd. When the waste cluracterutin ass variable,the ample should be composited over a shorter period of time.Sample may be compodled on the basis of either time or flow. 1. Flow ,The amount of samploo colloetd,or added to the mixture during the sampling period Is proportional to the wait* flow at the time of atnpwg• Sampler& are tnilable that Automatfcaly composite on the bast&of flow. 2. Time • Mother approach to sample composlting Is the co diction of samples with a Oxad volume after a certain quantity of wears flow hat issued the smapiing nation. Cemposite simples provide sufficiently accunu data if the variability of the waste chusetcristics It moderate; however, variability of wain characteristics must be determined by the analysis of grab samples. no time length of a compaited sample is limited by the time the ample can be stored without changing the waste charaeuristics. For exasnple, it is recommended that the mAlysts for BOD be initiated within 8 hours after sampling. Composite sampling should be avoided when cyanide and acid wanes may pass the i sampling point at different dine during the cempositing period. 6.3 Bfantud Sripling Manual sampling is recommended during the predminery survey. The preiirnvtary survey should determine when and whom automatic samplan us needed, she portion of the wastestreun samples that should be pumped, ate Manual sampling tin the advantage that the sample collector an observe unusual condltiena. Grab templet from batch dumps Are usually performed manually. 6.4 Auumasda Sampling When several points us, to be semplod at frequent Intemis,or when a continuous record Is required,It may be mom conveniont to buWl automatic samples. The Wtailation cat of Automatic wmplcr& is oCat by the saving on labor required for manual collection. An added advantage to automatic sampling is t`s possible reduction of effort Inhuan}In manual collection. Continuous samples an met commercially and moat be examined cuefully to Are that they are suitable for the waste characteristics in question. For exunple, a sampla intended to collect acid wait. should be constructed of noncorrosive material. To be reliable, continuous sunplm require frequent inspection and doming. Automatic samplers Ara Available that will obtain composite samplot either a a function of time or now. 63 Frequency of Sampling and Dust of Sampling Program During a Waste Suivey The frequency of sampling depends an Ns flow rate and the wastewaar chuacteristia.The expected ring, In flow rate and waste concentration should be determined during the prelimutuy survey.The frequency of grab samples is often once par hour. When the results of the survey indicate low variability, the grab samplea may be taken at longer interval of 2. 4, 8, 16, at even 24 hours. For Inlinly vatAble waste concentrations, the installation of an automatic ampler should be considered.The time over which ample. should be composited aim depends on the varabdity of the wastasimmi. For high veriabdiry, individual ,=plot for composlting should be taken as frequently is 1 every 3 minutes up to I per hour. The 6.3 6.10 Equlpment Avaflabfe for Sampling 6.10.1 Manual Sanpihy A wide mouth battle with an opening of at lent two inches is recommended rot manual sunpling. Commercially available polyethylene sample bottles with a volume of about 1 liter art acceptable for mat sampling and have the advantages of economy and salary. The wide mouth of the bottle is important in order to obtain the ample a rapidly as possible. If the sewer location don not permit obtaining a direct ampla from the wastnneam, a bucket and rope can be used to obtain a larger quantity of waste from which a direct maple may be taken. A long-tundled, wide•mauth cylindrial dipper of corrosion resistant material could elect be used in order to obtain suffcent wastewater for sampling. A weighted container may be used to hold and submerge a bottle while it Is lowered into a wasteanam. Point samplers no weighted battles used to collect samples at a datued depth. In operation, a weighted bottle is corked and lowered Into the wastertmam,at the desired depth the cork is removed by another line and the ample Is obtained. For stratified waste solutioa,a graduated glass or plastic cylinder,open at both ends, may be lowered into the solution In order to obtain a crouyection of the ample. In the sampling Position.the cylinder is corked at both ends by a level arrangement. Another method of obtaining s ample at an Inaccessible location is by use of a hand-operated pump. A tubs fixed to Use auction end of an ordinary pump may be lowered into the wastcatream from which the sample is to be ramwed. a The Strait Uniaoop Liquid Sampler is a simple, manuallyapented device in which the sampler Is,lowered Into a liquid to the desired lave!, than by pulling on the handle, a bsll•plug opens which admits the wastewater into a snnple cup. 6.10.2 AntoenWe Simpkins A wide rasp of automatic samplers sae commercially available. Some automatic samplers us designed to take composite samples proportional to the flow and wine an not. In theory, practically all automatic semplen can be connected to flaw devices In order to obtain proportionate samples. Far all samplers, the suppling llnce should be kept a short u passable and naps and pockets In the tares where sludge can settle . Oo d we waded.AJyarhylene.Milan or other plastic containerss me preferred for temple stomp. 6.10.2.1 Noopoapmtboal Sampler+ ve`—e h ""�"a '¢• I I eeN cv" - *'hen the flow is nearly constant. the non•proponlonal tempter Is sufficient for collecting a composite sample. A simple tyatem Is shown in Figure 6•I, whereby a ample is drawn from the wastesueam at a continuous, flow taw. As water drums from the upper carboy,a vacuum b cnated which slphom waste into the lower container.The nsacGnow is regulated by the screw Camp. If desired, the tample 'oottle could be located In a refrigerator. Since the flow nor is low, msnteruna of the lint Is required to prevent cloWur; by solids or bacterial growth. Another type of non-proportional ampler contains an au vent control u shown in Pipet 662. That speed with which the ample tank is filled depends on the strung of a valve handle. All umplan discussed in the next section us also applicable for non-proportionate sampling. Instead of connecting the ampler with a raw measurement device, the sampler could be connected with a timer,dltregarding proportionate tempting, 6.10 t • SEP 07 '88 15:51 UCI•CAL" P.2 ARTICLE 6 �- ENFORCEMENT 601. NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT RE061REMENTS AND -APPLICABLE FEES $. Routine Sampling If routine composite sampling reveals non-compliance by the discharger with the mass emission rates or conditions specified in the user's permit, then the user shall pay to the District fees as specified in Tables 11 and III, pursuant to the provisions in Section 601(8) and (C). TABLE 11 FEES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS AND MASS EMISSION RATaES ars er ound Per Day in Excess of Limit ur ng and After ..i Routine After ECSA Batch Samolinc 5 6 E Excirl%lon Dumos Arsenic s 100.00 S 200.00 S 300.00 S 300.00 Cadmium 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Chromium (Total) 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Capper 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Lead 80.00 160.00 240.00 240.00 Mercury 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Nickel 50.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 I Silver 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 Zinc 50.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 Cyanide (Total ) 50.00 100.00 1SO.00 150.00 Cyanide (Free, amenable to I Chlorination) 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 I °CE ' s, Pesticides and ..i I Total Toxic Organics 100.00 200.00 300.00 300.00 I Phenols 50.00 100.00 150.00 150.00 I ` O'ssclvec Sulfides 50.00 100.30 150.00 150.00 1 I I - B. Preliminary Determination of Non-Compliance with Permit Requirements Non-compliance with permit discharge requirements may be determined by an analysis of a grab (for pN only) Or composite sample of the `• effluent of a discharger for any constituent or condition specified in the user' s permit. If the effluent of a user is found by the ai.atysis of the sample to be in excess of the concentrations or conditions specified in Section 204 or Section 208,•routine sampling charges as set forth in Tables I1 and III shall be levied. A subsequent composite sample will be taken within thirty (30) days, which will also be subject to routine sampling charges if found to be in non-compliance. If the second sample reveals non- compliance, then a Sampling and Evaluation Program may be initiated by the District. C. Sample and Evaluation Program 1 . If the Sampling and Evaluation (SW Program reveals non- - compliance by the permittee with the mass emission rates or conditions specified in the User' s permit, the permittae shalt pay the fees as specified in Tables II and III and may be assessed all other costs incurred during the SU Program for sampling and analysis, including labor, equipment, materials and overhead. The fees specified shall become retroactive to the date the Sampling and Evaluation Program started. The fees for non-compliance shall continue to accumulate for each day sampled, not to exceed ten (10) normal working days. 2. If non-compliance by the permittee with mass emission rates or conditions as specified in the user' s permit is determined, the District's Chief Engineer may proceed with one of the following: a) Amend the existing permit through an Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreement (ECSA). This may be done after consultation with the permittee and when the dlscharger has shown good faith in trying to comply but requires additional time for construction and/or acquisition of equipment related to pretreatment. The permit may be amended with the ECSA for a period of UP to 180 days, however, this period may be extended for a period not to exceed an additional 180 days upon determination by the Chief Engineer that good cause exists for an additional period. No further extensions shall be granted except upon approval of the Board of Directors. Any condition of the ESCA not acceptable to the permittee may be appealed under the provisions of Section 601 .8 of this Ordinance. b) If corrective action is not taken within a reasonable time after completion of the Sampling and Evaluation program and notification to the Permittee of the expiration of the ECSA and the discharger is still not in Compliance, then a Cease and Desist order may be issued. •35- ATTACHMENT 2 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT November 8, 1988 W ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFORNIA ' REF #421 tOEU EWSnvENUE PO MX 0127 fOUNT1Yl Va Y.Gt RO e2M'S'; 91.1%2.2•11 STAFF REPORT UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS, INCORPORATED #1 -- PERMIT NO. 1-346 APPEAL OF SIGNIFICANTLY VIOLATING COMPLIANCE STATUS BACKGROUND Universal Circuits, Incorporated =1 (UCI #1), has been discharging to County Sanitation District No. 1 since 1976, and has been located at 1800 Newport Circle Drive, Santa Ana, California, since 1981. Based on flow, UCI #1 is the fourth largest printed circuit board manufacturer in Orange County, and uses a batch treatment system as their means of meeting discharge standards. There is no pretreatment system for the continuous discharge of over 120,000 Gallons per day of wastewater. During the 1987-88 fiscal year, the Districts composite sampled UCI 41 on-site 4 times. The results are shown below: Lead (Lbs/Day) Over Limit Non-Ccnpliance Date Discharged* (Lbs/Day) Fee Dollars September 24-25, 1987 1.05 0.35 28.00 December 28-29, 1987 0.44 0 0 March 30-31, 1988 0.80 0.1 3.00 June 16-17, 1988 1.83 1.13 90.40 4-Day Average = 1.03 • Permit limit = 0.70 lbs/day maximum, 0.47 lbs/day 4-day average. On .August 23, 1988 UCI =1 was sent a letter infor:nino the- identified as significantly violating compliance (SVC) anc. :_ _ would be published in The Register. An appeal was lodges UCI 31 and the Districts' response containing the above in-- to UCI 41 on September 7, 1988. The Districts received a ' ___- - nenneth A. Ryder on September 9, 1988 stating UCI r1' s grounds for - -- -=_achment 1) and on October 13, 1988 Mr. Clark Ide of the Districts ' Or' ce ar 3�_eral Counsel responded (see Attachment 2) . 1 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL The grounds for appeal by UCI #1 are summarized below: 1. UCI #1 corrected the major violation of June 16-17, 1988 within 45 days after notification. 2. Standards for determining that a company is subjective, and unenforceably vague: a) The samplE results from September 24-25, 1987 and March 30-31, 1988 are too small to be considered and the sampling and testing methods used by the Districts are not accurate enough to determine non-compliance when there is only a 0.1 pounds average. b) The violation of the 4-day average limit is not correct as the limits should be based on a flow of 0.140 MGD, not 0.090 MGD, as in the proposed permit limit. STAFF'S POSITION The Districts' identification of UCI #1 as an SVC company is based on a consistent pattern of non-compliance, not on the premise that they had a major violation which remained uncorrected for more than 45 days. The Districts' EPA-audited and approved sampling program provides an accepted means of determining non-compliance as reaffirmed to UCI #1 by the District No. 1 Board of Directors on September 25, 1985.E The Districts' Laboratory has a State of California reviewed quality assurance/ quality control (0A/0C) program to assure the accuracy and precision of the samples. These two programs provide results to determine compliance with permit limitations and to determine whether a company is identified as an SVC. As part of the Districts' EPA-approved pretreatment program, and in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8.f.2(vii), the Districts must publish the names of those companies that have been identified as significantly violating compliance as shown below: "[P]rovision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POTW is located, of Industrial Users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating Pretreatment Standards or other Pretreatment Requirements. For the purposes of this provision, a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is part ofpe a Dattern of non-compliance over a -2-month riod; which involves d failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which resulted in the POTW exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f)(1)(0)(B) of this Section." (Emphasis added. ) 2 Using these regulations as a basis for determination, since 1986 the Districts have annually published the list of SVC companies using the following definitions: 1. A major violation is a per sample violation of a heavy metal limitation equal to or greater than 1.0 pound/day; or a pH less than 5.0. This criteria is ' used to require correction by the company within 45 days after notification of the major violation. 2. A minor violation is a per sample violation of a heavy metal limitation less than 1.0 pounVday; or a pH between 5.0 to 5.9. This criteria and No. 1 above are used to determine a pattern of non-compliance. 3. A pattern of non-compliance is defined as a company violating the same constituent standard 3 or more quarters during the reporting period. 4. The exercise of emergency powers is defined as the Districts' issuing a Cease and Desist Order or being granted a Temporary Restraining Order or similar injunctive relief to stop the company's discharge to the sewer. The Districts' staff wishes to clarify UCI #1' s violation of the 4-day average. The maximum and 4-day average permit limits used by the Districts to calculate the effluent limits during 1987-88 was based on 0.140 MGD. Although UCI #1 did exceed the 4-day average as shown in the table above, this average was not used ... by the Districts to determine ,the identification of UCI #1 as an SVC. RECOMMENDATION Because UCI #1 was found to be in non-compliance with their lead discharge limit 3 of 4 quarters, UCI #1 meets the criteria showing a pattern of non-compTiance and therefore should be classified as an SVC company. The staff recommends that Universal Circuits, Inc. #1 be published in The Register pursuant to the EPA requirements in 40 CFR 403.8.f.2(vii ). RVL:Iab CPT:29 Attachments(2) ATTACHMENT 1 PINTO & GRoXET ATTORRt s " LAW SA" B. PIATO nn01 OLTOAT DRIVB. 8LR8100 OCA FID8 y0. `W S..J. Ga0<ET TRVXYR CALIFORNG 99718-taLa C8a1aC....TA A RVnas TOPABR X. DARO.IY T8L8PAOA8 NO. I7161 BaA-LLfT TAO.Aa F. ST.. TBLHCOP=A 40. 17141 803-20e7 168-0424-01 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPY County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 Attention: Richard von Langan, P.E. Re: Allegation of Significantly Violating Compliance During 1987-88 Against Universal Circuits 411 NOTICE OF APPEAL Gentlemen: - Thisoffice represents Universal Circuits, Inc. in connection with its operations in Orange County, California. we have been forwarded your letters of August 23 , 1988 and September 7, 1988 regarding allegations that Universal Circuits R1 ("UC-10) be classified as a -Significantly Violating . Compliance" company ("violating company") during the period of July 1, 1987 through June 30, 1983 ("Compliance Year") , and of your intention to include the name of UC-1 in a list to be published in the Oranae County Register on or about September 10: 1988 . This letter is meant to serve as a clarification and restatement of the appeal in connection with the foregoing by CC-1, and to set forth our position with respect to publication of the name of UC-1 prior to the resolution of this matter. A. Grounds for Appeal: I. UC-1 Cured the Alleged June 16-17 , 1988 Non- Compliance Within 45 Days of Such Alleged Non-Compliance: The only sample found to be significantly in non-compliance from the UC-1 facility during the entire Compliance Year was that taken June 16-17, 1988, which was only 13 days prior to the June 30 , 1988 expiration of the Compliance Year. Notice of this alleged non-compliance was not even received by UC-1 County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 2 until after June 30, 1988 . Your letter of August 23 , 1988 claims that the alleged non-compliance was left uncorrected for more than 45 days; however, 45 days were not available to do any retesting and correcting prior to the expiration of the Compliance Year. Indeed, had the alleged non- compliance of June 16-17, 1988 rather occurred on the September 24-25, 1987 sampling, the subsequent compliance on December 28-29, 1987 would have completely exonerated UC-1. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a resampling at the UC-1 facility was taken by the Districts on July 18- 19, 1988, which is within the 45-day cure period. The results of this sampling revealed lead discharce from the UC-1 facility to be in full compliance with discharge requirements. Accordingly, the alleged non-compliance of June 16-17, 1988 was fully corrected within the required 45-day period, thereby exonerating UC-1 with respect to this matter. A copy of your report reflecting these resampling results is enclosed for your review and information. 2 . The Standards for Determining. that a Comnanv is "Significantly Violating Compliance" are Subjective and Unenforceably Vague: Pursuant to your August 23, 1988 letter, a company may be found to be -Significantly Violating Compliance^ if it (a) had' s discharge of heavy metals greater than one pound left uncorrected for more than 45 days, (b) showed a -consistent pattern of non-compliance- during the Compliance Year, or (c) had a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its emergency authority. These standards are not contained in any formal regulations of the bistricts, and rather are apparently the informal guidelines followed by the Districts. We have addressed the cure of the standard set forth in subparagraph (a) in Subsection A. 1. above. At no time during the Compliance Year did UC-1 have a discharge problem which required the Districts to exercise its . -- - - - emergency, authority,-. pursuant to the standard set forth in subparagraph (c) . Your September 7, 1988 letter alleges that UC-1 showed a pattern of non-compliance over the Compliance Year. This is disputed for the following reasons: . i (i) The alleged non-compliance on September 24-25, 1987 and March 30-31, 1988 is County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 3 de minimus, and indeed the sampling and testing methodology utilized by the Districts is not accurate enough to rule out an error within the range of plus or minus 0.1 pounds. As you are aware, UC-1 in the past has suggested that the Districts' modify its sampling procedure pursuant to EPA guidelines so as to provide more accurate readings. Accordingly, it is our contention that for p+_rpcses of determining whether UC-1 is a violating company, only the sampling taken on June 16-17, 1988 should be considered. As previously stated, this non-compliance was corrected within 45 days. (ii) The claim in your September 7, 1988 letter that the average of the four samples during the Compliance Year exceeded the permitted four-day average limit for UC-1 assumes a four-day average limit for UC-1 of 0.30 lbs. for lead discharge, which UC-1 has. challenged ever since its current proposed permit was issued. The current proposed permit issued for UC-1 is based on .090 mgd flow, as opposed to the . 140 mgd flow basis utilized in prior permits issued to UC-1. Since the current flow rate is approximately . 140 mgd despite extensive water conservation efforts, the present proposed permit does not reflect the actual water usage or give consideration for water conservation. Based upon the prior permit flow level (which is in fact the actual flow level) , the four-day average permitted for lead discharge is 0.47 lbs. , and under this four-day average limit, the four samples averaged during the Compliance Year did not exceed the limit. B. Publication. • Publication that a company is "Significantly Violating Compliance- is obviously an unwanted stigma, and could be very damaging to a company's reputation in its industry and community. It is because of this concern that- Universal -Cizcuits has always cooperated with the Districts in attempting to follow all applicable rules and guidelines with respect to its waste discharges, and has raised the instant appeal with respect to the Districts' current allegations. As set forth hereinabove, we believe that the criteria which has been utilized in classifying UC-1 as a violating company has been unfairly applied to UC-1 in this instance, and that UC-1 was not a violating company during the Compliance Year. County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California September 9, 1988 Page 4 Accordingly, on behalf of UC-1 we are hereby notifying you that if you attempt to publish the name of UC-1 as a "Significantly Violating Compliance" company, UC-1 intends to hold the Districts responsible and liable for any damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall UC-1 and/or Universal Circuits. By separate letter to the Orange County Register, a copy of which is attached hereto, we are also placing that newspaper on notice that should it publish the name of U1_-1 as a "Significantly Violating Compliance^ company, UC-1 may also seek to hold that newspaper responsible and liable for such damages as well. Universal Circuits is very desirous of having this matter remedied in the most expedient manner possible to reinstate its good name with the Districts. We therefore lack forward to hearing from you in the very near future so as to resolve this matter to the mutual satisfaction of the Districts and UC-1. In addition to the foregoing, in an attempt to alleviate future problems of this kind, we request that the Districts and Mr. Gary Ryan of Universal Circuits meet in an attempt to resolve their differences with respect to (i) the flow level basis for the proposed permit currently issued to UC-1, and (ii) the sampling methodology for future testing at Universal Circuits facilities in Orange County. Very truly yours, , Kenneth A. Ryder KAR:par enclosure cc: Mr. Gary Ryan - - Mr. Raymond Esser �r CDUNITY SAWA710 CIS' . r OaAa91 WuXei, CAUFOP WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 1o, A f+ ea em+a+n �r RVI++�w vwY�.rJ�Icw cOr= INDUSTRY: L // /� ln,V,Or5af 6r L" S#1 OAT'E: /SOD +(�GWDo✓I' �r'[�i Q/, PERMIT NO. S�Nfa 61 a . C+4 4270� ATTN: r�iyt("%v1H ffaffffvfty ww.fffrrfrffrfrfffrfafofufrvffauuuuffvf ufffffffrfaufaffunum Your wastewater d154nar,a wae 'samplad and tha results are as follows: Sample Data(s) : 7- /S /9-1' Time: /S/S Lccat!on: SRG Constituents concentration O 9e unds R naPer los/cad mltaQon Clarce CADMIUM . 00 — 7 S g CHROMIUM • 00 4ICKEL 36 3.08 — o L.Ao ZINC �- SILVER —�- TSS SOD CYANIOE(T)� L O value T'me. Oafs PH ' 5.0 7C7AL ^XARGe �T •rarrrurr.. Mass :mission Rate Flaw Base W.GO Actual Disanares •//3 MGc Please adaress any questions bancerning t-? s recor- to Mr. James Ben:ie, or 7:e to t-e ::+austrlal 'Waste Oivis?an at extansicn :55 . Ricnart 'W, vcn '_areen , � i7L:as C 'ef of t. _ :,cus:r' a: 'Jos:e '_ac Ma. /o99S - Q9ra6 yam..-Ple, PINTO Sc GROMET ATfORNErs AS LAW Snm a. plA 0001 DUMMY na(VL OOITE 150 001 MM " S..J. GaDMar (gV{Yg, CALlYORV}A OIIT10-IBIS RalnraTa A. Rrnaa T.... F. S N. DwNOwN TSLCOPIM MO. M24714) GOO -QOT TM OM.Y F. S9'aMwli TELICO PLEA MO. Olil 000-000r 168-0424-02 September 9, 1988 VIA TELECOPIER Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager Classified Ads - Legal Orange County Register 625 North Grand Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Publication of Companies 'Significantly Violating compliance' During 1987-88 as Identified by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County Dear Mr. Griffin: This office represents Universal Circuits, Inc. with respect to its operations in Orange county, California. we have been advised by the County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California that it has classified our client as -a 'Significantly Violating Compliance' company during 1987-88, and intends to include its name in a list of similarly identified industries to be published in the Orange County Register on or about September 10, 1988. It is our understanding that to date this list has not yet been published. We have researched the matter and believe the Districts is erroneous in classifying Universal circuits, Inc. as a 'Significantly Violating Compliance' company. We have brought the results of our research to the attention of the Districts and are currently appealing its classification. We believe that when the Districts have fully analyzed this information, it will agree that Universal Circuits, Inc. should not be included on this list. We have further demanded of the Districts that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc, be immediately removed from the list and not be published by your newspaper until this matter has been resolved to our satisfaction. .� By this letter we hereby demand that the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. be removed from the list and not be published by the Orange County Register. This letter shall Mr. Howard Griffin, Manager Classified Ads - Legal September 9, 1988 Page 2 further advise you and place you on notice that should you erroneously publish the name of Universal Circuits, Inc. when it is not a "Significantly Violating Compliance- company, it is the intention of Universal Circuits, Inc. to hold both you and the Districts responsible and liable for any and all damages, whether direct or consequential, which may befall Universal Circuits,. Inc. as a result of such erroneous publication. IT IS OUR POSITION THAT SUCH AN ERRONEOUS PUBLICATION WILL BE LIBELOUS TO OUR CLIENT AND RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES TO ITS GOOD REPUTATION IN ITS INDUSTRY AND COMMUNITY. Very truly yours, PINTO & GROMET By: .�' �� Kenneth A.�Ryder, Attorneys for Universal Circuits, Inc. KAR:par cc: Cathy Taylor, Editor - Business Section Mike Kolbenschlag, Editor - Metro Section Chris Anderson - Editor in Chief County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, California Attn: Richard W. von Langan ATTACHMENT 2 uw orriccs pe Rourke & `% oodrufr .,.x.. ......a .......npx rNON.a �.woppwull *auovNaF n. . swrt epo r as"' •uN q.w.rrs p.[u[.pp.[a. •ea..p: t[nx..p o. sN.gq lq N[EY! RN.NC,FI CENr[A r[2a.[c-.x c.xi[L a.v..oux acvi >cl scurN a.ax Ea sracE- e•x _. L.. .C. [ c..rF�n[ OP.Nc a.GUCC PNu y2d6d r pNx! .NIF ON IccI�xy Tpx DL October 13 , 1988 aoF.cx. wx.•w�.xr Kenneth A. Ryder, Esc. Pinto & Gromet Suite 750 2201 DuPont Drive Irvine, CA 92715-1515 Re: Universal '.Circuits ;l Appeal from Designation As a Significantly Violating Compliance Company During Fiscal Year 1987-88 �. Dear Mr. Ryder: _ Our office , acting as General Counsel for the County Sanitation Districts of Orance County, California, has been asked to assist in processing your appeal on behalf of Universal Circuits "=1 from its designation as a significantly violating compliance company (SVC) for the fiscal year 1987-88 . As you were previously informed by Districts ' staff, the name of Universal Circuits 41 will not be published on the SVC list pending the appeal. in order to define the issues that would arise during a hearing on the appeal, I thought it might he helpful to provide you with some background on the significantly violating compliance (SVC) list. The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County operate under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Ocean Discharge Permit which is issued by the California Regional [Pater Quality Control Board (CRWQCB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) . The Districts are referred to as a Publiclv Owned Treatment Works (POT59 , and as such, have a permit that requires them to have an approved POTW ...� Pretreatment Program. Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq. - Page 2 October 13 , 1988 Among the requirements for a POT% pretreatment procram is that the Districts comply with the provisions of 40 C. F.R. , Section 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) . Under this Section, the Districts' procedures must include the following: " [Plrovision for at least annually providing public notification, in the largest daily newspaper published in the municipality in which the POTW is located, of industrial Users which, during the previous 12 months, were significantly violating Pretreatment Standards or other Pretreatment Requirements. For the purposes of this provision , a significant violation is a violation which remains uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is part of a mattern of non-compliance over a 12 month aeriod; which involves a failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which resulted in the POT% exercising its emergency authority under paragraph (f) ( 1) (vi) (B) of this Section. " (Emphasis added. )The uniform practice of the Districts has been to list all companies that are in violation of the same standard three out of four quarters during a fiscal year as significantly violating compliance because these companies have violations which are" part of a pattern of non-compliance over a 12 month period. The EPA recommends, in Section 3 .4 .2 of its "Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance" manual, twat al'- companies that have "chronic" violations be listed on the SVC list. The EPA' s definition of "chronic" violations is "sixty-six percent or more of the measurements exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same averace limit in a six month period (any magnitude of exceedance ) `A companv violating , however slightly, the same standard in three out of the fourquarters during a year, would fit that description. At the hearing which you have requested, the issues would appear to be as follows: 1 . Has Universal Circuits 41 been in violation of discharge standards for three out at the four auarters during t=e_, 1987-88 fiscal year? .r Kenneth A. Ryder, Esq, Page 3 October 13 , 1988 2 . If so , does this constitute "a pattern of non- compliance over a 12 month period" within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. 403 .8 (f) (2) (vii) ? If Universal Circuits 41 still desires to pursue the appeal process, it may do so by contacting Mr. Rich von Lancen who will then arrange a hearing before Mr. Blake Anderson, Director of Technical Services of the Districts. Please contact Mr. von Langen before October 19, 1988 , if Universal Circuits 41 wishes to proceed with the appeal. If the Districts do not hear from you by that time, the Districts will assume that Universal Circuits #1 wishes to abandon its appeal. If I can be of any further assistance to you in this matter , Please advise. Very truly yours, ..i ROURKE S WOODRUFF • Clark F. Ids cFI:cjs :Cil33 cc: vMr. R. van Lancen Thomas L. woodruff, Etc. ATTACHMENT 3 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �!S P.O. 80X 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92728.8127 1084 EWs. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORMA 9270873018 (714)962.2411 s a : NOTICE OF VIOLATION + i October 15, 1987 REF'�368 Universal Circuits $1 1800 Newport Circle Drive Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit ;: 1-346 Attention: Gary Ryan, Engineering Manager Subject: Non-Compliance with Discharge Requirements - ( 9/24 - 25/37 ) As shown on the attached Wastewater Analysis Report(s) , your company was discharging lead in excess of your permit limitations. Please take immediate action to correct this problem. An invoice in the amount of $32.00 is being prepared and will be sent in the near future for non-compliance fees applicable to this discharge. Please advise your accounts payable office to process this invoice promptly when received to. avoid penalties. Should you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact me at extension 365. ames BenZ_ Industrial Waste Division Supervisor 7PB:as IBM:FLn'1 Enclosure - cc: Accounts Receivable v Alison Shannen Marcia Simpson COUNTY SANITATION OIS RIV: v d GRANGE COUNTY. CAUFGAmA WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT . ,,,p,,,. ' •a em na RLNfaYI vu[+.;JWCcw•ii..3+' s / DATE: INDUSTRY: 1. +%;''✓«'S��•,ac:.•. PERMIT NO. ATTN: MNL:.11F 57,' k4pSCrV� ..:...................a..........a............. ...... Your wastewater discha ge was ampied and the results are as follows: Sample Oate(s) : c! "1-15 0-7 Time: ;t'/ IC'30 Location: .SI3G i Cdncent ation O c arge Pe[mi'y limits ounds Over R to Per Constituents mo35 �s aav IGS/dL imitation cuna Char__= CADMIUM . rl 0/ % . / .-7 CHROMIUM . 00 j- '% . 33 COPPER 7L• e, S -? SP NICKEL 0, 4. 75 LEAD y 1 . lC 76) ZINC SILVER TSS S BCD CYANIOE(T) L 0 Value Time, Date Limitaticns PH "7 C' 5.0 - TOTAL CHARGE Mass Emission Rate Flow Base , i�/O HGO Actual Oischare Please address any questions concerning this repot to Mr. James 3enzie, or mi i Inaustrial 'Waste Division at extension 365 . Richard W. van Langen , P .E, R11L:as Chief of the Industrial 'Was:a Of CPT:ASZ . . .. ..,. ,i - +.n "a COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O.BOX 8127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 927284127 108Y EWS,FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 (714)982-2111 • i • NOTICE OF VIOLATION + + + April 13, 1988 REF$946 Universal Circuits $1 1800 Newport Circle Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92705 Permit 3: 1-346 Attention: Marcia Simpson, Operations Manager Subject: Non-Compliance with Discharge Requirements ( 3/30 - 31/88 ) As shown on the attached Wastewater Analysis Report(s) , your company was discharging lead in excess of your permit limitations. Please take immediate action to correct this problem. An invoice in the amount of $8.00 is being prepared and will be sent in the near future for non-Compliance fees applicable to this discharge. Please advise your accounts payable office to process this invoice promptly when received to avoid penalties. Should you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact me at extension 365. as Benzie Industrial Waste Division Supervisor JPB:bam IBM:FL$1 Enclosure - cc: Accounts Receivable Bea Mitchell Caurm SANITATION OISRu ..� a DaAxCF muxrr. UUFOaNI? WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT ra emi nn • IOIMYN VYLY.rJWOPII�3�.i^..-'-' INDUSTRY: I AJ.'4445wL Ci FLJ,�b / DATE: Y /7 g8 mua.o.ss+a gtb h'ewpo4d,' 1k e- Z. PERMIT N . �/ - 31/4 CAL�gz7oS ATTN: 1I3a v S,ro / ;+dam colviIj Your wastewater disch ge was sampled and the res is are as follows: Sample Oate(s): 30-3 i/ OS Time: ZW /030 Location: SSG Cancan ration D{{ggchhar�e Pe it Limits p7unds Over Rato Per Constituents mail 1C5/aa/ las/dav Llmi,ation Pound Chafe CADMIUM (llT CHROMIUM _ COPPER , -71; O. s?lI 3, 50 T NICKEL / ,Q, J 95 hl.—/Iq 11 ,LEAD ,7'f 19C. O, / CT� v ZINC _ SILVER TSS 800 _ CYANIDE(T) Value Time. Date Limitations Charge pM '7 , 0 5.0 - .z.0 1 / -7:L C-AnG'c .Mass Emission Rate Flow Base , .1y0 MGD Actual Oischare mcc Please address any questions concerniig this report Ca Mr, dames ?an:'.e. Or le in -ne Industrial 'Aasta Division at ex-ew on 305. l:cnari��,-?T RVL:as C:+!a. of cde 1,dustr,31 Ads"e ]:v's:On C?T;ASZ Lad No. 91/r, - idsoectdr +�,� WUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ° nfl1 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA P.O. BOX 9127. FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 927294127 101W ELUS. FOUNTAIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA 92708 7019 (714)992-2411 • • • NOTICE OF VIOLATION • i June 29, 1988 REF31165 universal circuits 41 1800 Newport Circle Dr. Santa Ana, CA 92665 Permit #: 1-346 Attention: Marcia Simpson, -Operations Manager Subject: Non-Compliance with Discharge Requirements ( 6/16 - 17/88 ) As shown on the attached Wastewater Analysis Report, your company was discharging lead in excess of your permit limitations. Please take immediate action to correct this problem. An invoice in the amount of $90.40 is being prepared and will be sent in the near future for non-compliance fees applicable to this discharge. Please advise your accounts payable office to process this invoice promptly when received to avoid penalties. Should you have any questions regarding this invoice, please contact me at extension 365. / James Benzie Industrial Waste Division Supervisor JPB:bam IBM:FL,il - Enclosure cc: Accounts Receivable Bea Mitchell COUNTY SANITATION 01317F r Mum c7ulm. CAUSPHL WASTEWATER ANALYSIS REPORT 1�aLAY RV MfY.vYtir.auan..errs INDUSTRY:,f IN%✓Gees' (fjec✓4s 41 DATE: Z9 16cO Newoac eikA b4, PERMIT NO. /- 3S/C, 5,01-A A ! . ei& 42705 ATTA, rtvc Cd✓: ...v.v.van...a.....u...a.............a...... Your wastewater disc1 a was sampled and the results are as follows: Sample Oate(s) : r-r! a Time: Z1(/tt/030 Location: c[ic Constituents CancMa/ 1 pn Dlsai/nave PeSSs/davmits L1mitationr R�'junaef Char^e CADMIUM CHROMIUM �/ COPPER / , 92 J . ZY 3• 90 NIC.eE LEAD I , 57 / ,Q3 . 7o /, /3 ZINC SILVER TSS 9 _ BOD 61 _ CYANIDE(T) Value Time. Date Limitations Charge TOTAL C.iARG'c �qC Mass Emission Rate flaw Base . i40 MGO Actual Oischar;e , /�/0 MGC ?lease aaaress any questions concerninc :nis repor- tt Mr. James Bentie, or me in ^e :naustrial 'Waste Division at extension -a3 . 'ara 'W. ran -ancen , ? = ;VL:as _. _r :f the :ncast:+al Wasta ]rr soon C?T:AS2 Lao .va. /0�70 Lnscec:pr rnz COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY - '�••. P.O.BOX 8127 dEuft FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALI FORNIA 92728.8127 108"ELLIS AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 17141962.2411 INVOICE UNIVERSAL CIRCUITS 41 INVOICEDATE: =/15/-- 1860 NEYEORT CIRCLE OR1VE INVOICE NO.:45 j 57 SANTA ANA CALIF CHARG'cSTHROUGH: 02 705 DUE DATE.1 PERMIT NO.1 -j 4 S I.D.NO.A ; ?46 - A CONSUMPTION LOSS: -j,; - 'T" DESCRIPTION OF CHARGES' +. BASIS ._. ' RATE. EXTENSION boNON-COMPLIANCE- SEE ATTACPEO • I I TO PETTEP SERVE YOU AND AS ONE OF YOUP PERMIT CONDITIONS. THE - CISTRICTS REQUEST TEAT YOUR FIRM Lil SUBMIT COSIES OF YOUR 74TER ANO TAt ? ILLS AS OETAIVED . T-i•;K YOU a . . TOTAL AMOUNT NOW DUE Farm A-111 (Rmr.11841 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE IHVOIC . REDIT FJ10 REQUEST C�44 INV/OICEE: �7 AMOUNT: �T e 'C7 '' //i.i Jir_^� .'� `i✓/�U.�i L.� y DATE DUE: 9n✓ -76- !/iGro/�7Gi v'.p PREPARED By:.et�dve-e DATE: 2 � ' .7¢.. /,6 APPROVED BY: DATE,:' Z ' DEBIT FUND: ACCT: CREDIT FUND: ArM REFERENCE: �G✓ �� 1' r,g / A"Az PURPOSE: yd COMMENTS/CALCULATIONS: Fars (A-110 1/75) ; ,i COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 11 22 31 51 62 72 11, 13 AND 14 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING ON FEBRUARY 8. 1989 �,P JTA770,V O J o � e 0'1 'r1ve 1954 4y ORq�'GE coo ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 108" ELT-I AVENUE FOUNTAIN VALLEY:CALIFORNIA . -`t ROLL CALL - - A regular meeting of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 1 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 of Orange County, California, was held on February B. 1989. at 7:30 p.m., in the Districts' Administrative Offices. Fallowing the Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation the roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present for Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 as follows: F ACTIVE DIRECTORS ALTERNATE DIRECTORS .� DISTRICT NO. 1: x Robert Hanson, Chat rman _Ora Crank x Dan Griset, Chairman pro ten _Dan Young =Ronald B. Hoesterey Richard B. Edgar -. ) z Roger Stanton _Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 2: x A.B. -Buck- Catlin, Chat man Chris Norby x William D. Mahoney, Chairman pro tan =Beth Graham Roland E. Bigonger =_Henry W. Wades x Dan Griset Dan Young x Ron Isles Carrey Nelson 't x James Neal _George Scott :a -7—Arthur G. Newton _Carol Downey . 'r =Bob Perry _Norman Culver =Iry Pickier Fred Hunter 7--Wayne Silzel _James T. Fasbender =Don E. Smith Fred Barrera x Roger Stanton _Don R. Rath DISTRICT NO. 3: x Richard Polls, Chairman Orbrey Duke i x Carrey Nelson _Wayne Wedin i =Eduard L. Allen _Paul Verellen =A.B. -Buck- Catlin _Chris Norby =Norman Culver _Bob Perry x William Davis _John Kenai -it x John Erskine Wes Bannister _S =Dan R. Griffin _Donna L. Chessen =Dan Griset _Dan Young -.T =William D. Mahoney Beth Graham x James Neal —George Scott x Iry Pickier Fred Hunter =J.R. -Bob- Stefan Dewey Wiles =Roger Stanton Don R. Roth =Charles Sylvia Robert Wahlstrom _Edna Wilson _Joe Hunt DISTRICT NO. 5: John C. Cox, Jr., Chat roan x Evelyn Hart =Donald A. Strauss, Chairman pro tem Evelyn Hart x Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton .. DISTRICT NO. 6: x James Wahner, Chairman Eric Johnson =Ruthelyn PI unmer, Chairman pro ten —Evelyn Hart Don R. Roth —Roger Stanton i - DISTRICT NO. 7: x Richard Edgar, Chat roan Ursula Kennedy =Sally Anne Sheridan, Chairman pro tent _Larry Agran =Dan Griset Dan Young =Don R. Roth _Roger Stanton =Don E. Smith _Fred Barrera =Donald A. Strauss Jahn C. Cox, Jr. x James Wahner —_Harry Green .i DISTRICT NO. 11: x Ton Mays, Chairman Jim Silva .. =Grace Winchell, Chat rman pro ten —Wes Bannister 'a =Roger Stanton —_Don R. Roth DISTRICT NO. 13: x Henry W. Wedaa, Chairman Roland E. Bigonger =Iry Pickier, Chat rman pro tent —Fred Hunter z Don R. Roth z _Roger Stanton Don E. Smith Fred Barrera =Wayne Wedin —_Ron Isles 3 DISTRICT NO. 14: x Pear A. Swan, Chairman Darryl Miller L� =Ursula Kennedy, Chairman pro tem —Richard B. Edgar 1 x Don R. Roth Roger Stanton x Sally Anne Sheridan —LarryA ran z Don E. Smith —Fred Barrera -2- 02/08/89 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager, _ Rita J. Brown, Board Secretary, �.../ Blake P. Anderson, William N. Clarke, Thomas M. Dawes, Gary G. Streed, Corinne Clawson, Ed Hodges, John ii Linder, Bob Oaten, Mahin Talebi , Rich -� von Langen and Chuck Winsor OTHERS PRESENT: Thomas L. Woodruff, General Counsel , Clark Ide, Jamel Demir, Conrad Hohener, Jr. , Walt Howard, Bill Fleming, Gary Ryan, Ken Ryder and _ Paul Torres i j DISTRICTS 1 7 8 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried: . Receive and file m nu a excerpt from 'City of Tustin re Board That the minute excerpt from the City APPOlntments of Tustin re election of mayor and i appointment of alternate Directors, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed, as follows: (*Mayor) District Active Director Alternate Director 5 - 1 Ronald B. Hdesterey Ursula E. Kennedy* 7 Richard B. Edgar Ursula E. Kennedy* 14 Ursula E. Kennedy* Richard B. Edgar �..J 1 ALL DISTRICTS The Joint Chai man announced that the Report of the Joint ha rman Select Committee to Advise the Staff was scheduled to meet on Thursday, February 9th, at 5:30 p.m. , and, again, tentatively, on Thursday, February 23rd, at 5:30 p.m. Mr. Smith also advised that the Fiscal Policy Committee would meet on Wednesday, February 15th, at 5:30 p.m. He further noted that the Building Committee was scheduled to meet on : .! Thursday, February 16th, at 5:30 p.m. The Joint Chairman then called a meeting of the Executive Committee for Wednesday, February 22nd, at 5:30 p.m., and invited Directors Sally Anne Sheridan and Bob Siefen to attend and participate in the discussions. i i ALL DISTRICTS The General Manager reported that the eport of the General Manager Districts' staff had been advised by the South Coast Air Quality Management .: District that they would be issuing a Permit to Construct the $60 million Central Power Generation Systems (Job No. J-19) project on the following day, February 9th. This project includes installation of eight state-of-the-art, clean-burn engine generators that will utilize digester gas as a fuel to _ Generate electricity. Once installed it will save the Districts between . j $8-10 million per year in purchased electrical costs. Air emissions will also be greatly reduced due to replacement of 25 large internal combustion engines with electric motors. Design work will proceed immediately. The , .j Districts hope to have the first unit operational by 1992. j -3 '? 02/08/89 i Mr. Sylvester then expressed appreciation to Director Henry Wedaa, who, in his " dual capacity as a member of the SCAQMD and Sanitation Districts' Boards, assisted the Districts in their efforts to obtain permit approval for this project. The Directors also expressed their appreciation to the staff for their professional and diligent pursuit of the SCAQMD Permit to Construct required for the central power generation facilities and for keeping the Directors apprised of the status of the matter over the time that it has taken to obtain said permit. DISTRICT 1 There being no corrections or amendments !!!, Xpproval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. .� DISTRICT 2 . There being no corrections or amendments 1 Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. - � DISTRICT 3 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting j held January 11, 1989, nor the adjourned i regular meeting held January 26, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 5 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. j DISTRICT 6 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. r, ,. DISTRICT 7 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January ,11, 1989, the Chairman i ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 11 There being no corrections or amendments XpprovaT of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 13 There being no corrections or amendments . $ Approval of Minutes to the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman "i ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. DISTRICT 14 There being no corrections or amendments Approval of Minutes t0 the minutes of the regular meeting held January 11, 1989, the Chairman ordered that said minutes be deemed approved, as mailed. -4- 02/08/89 ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: ' i Ratif cation of a gnt of Joint - i and Individual District laims That payment of Joint and individual j District claims set forth on pages "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part of these minutes, and summarized i below, be, and are hereby, ratified by the respective Boards in the amounts so j indicated. i 1/04/89 1/18/89 'J ALL DISTRICTS Joint perating Fund - $ 765,696.74 $ 666,750.46 Capital Outlay Revolving Fund - 4,232,406.62 81,467.71 Joint Working Capital Fund - 108,789.09 111,472.71 Self-Funded Insurance Funds - 10,959.41 6,216.51 DISTRICT NO. 1 - 99.80 1,083,305.91 DISTRICT NO. 2 - 697,073.02 1,953,827.94 j DISTRICT NO. 3 - 102,624.18 2,118,970.83 DISTRICT NO. 5 - 15,769.73 21,079.84 DISTRI7 0—. 9 - 13,961.00 42.68 DI SDIS RNO.77 - 5,671.27 12,223.06 DISTRICT NO. 11 - 8,626.51 22,349.91 DI TRIG CT NO.13 - -0- 88.32 i DISTRI T NO. 14 - 2,313.00 68.64 DISTRICTS NOS. 5 8 6 JOINT - 43,995.89 23,713.62 DISTRICT NOS. 6 8 7 JOINT - 3,102.22 -0- DISTRICTS NOS. 7 8 14 JOINT 4,569.40 171.18 $6,015,657.88 $6,101,749.32 �..J - ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: , i Approving Change Order No. 5 to the j plans and specifications for That Change Order No. 5 to the plans and Job No. J-7-4 specifications for Administration Building Addition, Job No. J-7-4, �a authorizing an addition of $11,774.00 to the contract with J. R. Roberts Corp. for removal of brick veneer and stucco from existing buildings and for 1 replacement of laboratory sidewalk, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving hange rder No. 12 to ? the plans and specifications for That Change Order No. 12 to the plans j Job No. J-15 and specifications for Ocean Outfall Booster Station "C" at Plant No. 2, Job No. J-15, authorizing an addition of $69,267.00 to the contract with Advanco Contructors, Inc. for three items of additional work Including the � 7 attachment of intake vent protective screens to five centrifugal ventilation fans to prevent internal damage from debris, upgrading the welding and testing required on pump suction inlet lines for better seismic strength, and modification of an existing 42-inch VCP influent sewer manhole; and granting a time extension of six calendar days for completion of said additional work, be, and is hereby, approved. `..� � -5- ,i 02/08/89 ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Change Order No. 14 to y./ the plans and specifications for That Change Order No. 14 to the plans Job Nos. PS-20 and PS-31 and specifications for Headworks No. 2 at Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-20, and Demolition of Digesters Nos. 1, 2 and 4; Replacement of Boiler; Piping { Cleanouts; and Grading and Paving at Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-31, authorizing j} an addition of $19,405.56 to the contract with Klewit Pacific Co. for additional chemical drain piping, modifications to strengthen cable tray -_a supports for anticipated future loadings, and modifications to boiler vent -; stack to comply with SCAQMD monitoring requirements, be, and is hereby, -: approved. -•i ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving plans and specifications Tor Job No. J-17 That the Boards of Directors hereby `--:; adopt Resolution No. 89-8, approving plans and specifications for new Central Laboratory, Job No. J-17, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving Addendum No. 1 to the tans and s ecifications for That Addendum No. 1 to the plans and i Jab No. J-2 specifications for Warehouse and- , Maintenance Building and Oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20, transmitting supplemental detailed -;...' specifications and making minor technical clarifications, be, and is hereby, approved. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: -� Awarding Job No. J-20 to J. R. _• _ Roberts Corp. That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 89-9, receiving and filing bid tabulation and recommendation and awarding contract for Warehouse and Maintenance Building and Oil Storage and Dispensing Improvements, Job No. J-20, to J. R. Roberts Corp. in the total amount of $3,266,000.00. A certified copy of said resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. -? ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: 1) Rescindin oards action of 11 13 87 re Specification M731 That the Boards' action of November 18, 1 1987, authorizing staff to negotiate an -1 agreement for Purchase of Three Waste Digester Gas Flares for use at - , _� Reclamation Plant No. 1 and Treatment Plant No. 2 (Specification No. M-031) for a total amount not to exceed $350,000.00, be, and is hereby rescinded. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: _ Authorizing staff to issue purchase order to Sur-Lit�orporation re That the staff be, and is hereby, Job No. J-21A authorized to negotiate and issue a purchase order to Sur-Lite Corporation for Purchase of Five Waste Digester Gas Flares, Job No. J-21A, for an amount not to exceed $284,216.00 plus sales tax. _ j 02/08/89 i ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving plans and spec fications Tor Jab No. J-21 That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 89-10, approving plans and specifications for Installation of Waste Digester Gas Flare Facilities at Plants 1 and 2, Jab No. J-21, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. j ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: ! A rovin laps and s ecifications _ i for Job No. P1- 422 ub,lect to That the Boards of Directors hereby receipt of SCAQMD Permit toConstruct adopt Resolution No. 89-11, approving plans and specifications for Sludge Handling Facilities at Reclamation Plant No. 1, Job No. P1-34-2, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids, subject to receipt of Permit to Construct from South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authoriz in' staff t0 issue urchase orders to Con mental ra hics and That staff be, and is hereby, authorized terra copy for printing of draft to issue purchase orders to Continental Master Plan and draft Programmatic Graphics in a maximum amount not to EIR on said Master Plan exceed $41,500.00 plus tax for printing the draft Wastewater Collection, -! Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan; and to Sierra Copy in a maximum amount not to exceed $3,995.00 plus tax for printing the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report on the Wastewater Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan. ( ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: Approving one-year renewal a reement with PT 6orporation for maintenance That a one-year renewal agreement with of office automation system CPT Corporation, or its successor entity, for maintenance and periodic system S upgrades of the Districts' office automation system, beginning February 13, 1989, be, and is hereby, approved; and, ' .� FURTHER MOVED: That payment in an amount not to exceed $33,000.00 plus tax i for said services is hereby authorized.. i ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: WAmendment No. 2 to A r wi ec c Inc. for That Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement Removai , Processing for Removal , Processing and Disposal of of Sewage Solids Sewage Solids with Recyc, Inc. , _ providing for a one-year extension of the term of said agreement from February 12, 1989 to February 11, 1990, with t no change in the current agreement provisions and cost ($380.00 per truck _..j load) be, and is hereby, approved. -- i -7- i 1 02/08/89 ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded and duly carried: . ! Arnendinq Resolutio--n—Fo. 8-44 authorizing agreement with CA BANS That the Boards of Directors hereby .' for inclusion of Job No. -2 n adopt Resolution No. 89-12, amending Pacific Coast Hwy. Improvements Resolution No. 88-44, authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with CALTRANS to include Replacement of Portions of Standby Ocean j outfall , Job No. J-22, in CALTRANS' Pacific Coast Highway improvements, - providing for an increase in the estimated cost of the Districts' portion of the construction project from $1,100,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.00, to reflect the final estimate by CALTRANS' engineers. A : .� certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these .I minutes. j DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: IADorovinq plans and specifications Tor contract NO. 2- 4R That the Board of Directors hereby ° adapts Resolution No. 89-13-2, approving plans and specifications for Santa Ana River Interceptor Sewer Manhole ! Rehabilitation, Contract No. 2-14R, and authorizing the General Manager to establish the date for receipt of bids. A certified copy of this resolution Is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: ADDrovinqen um o. 1 to the ans and speclTlcations for That Addendum No. 1 to the plans and contract Nos. Z-zb-Z an - 7 specifications for construction of Portion of Euclid Interceptor Sewer, between Edinger Avenue and Lampson Avenue, Contract No. 2-26-2, and South Anaheim Relief Sewer, on Ball Road between Euclid Street and Walnut Street, Contract No. 2-27, changing the bid date from January 17, 1989 to February 21, 4 1989, be, and is hereby, approved. Director Don R. Roth requested that his I abstention from voting on this item be made a matter of record. i DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Ajprovin� Addendum No. a the ans ana specifications for That Addendum No. 2 to the plans and Contract Nos. 2-26-2 and 2-2T specifications for construction of - Portion of Euclid Interceptor Sewer, between Edinger Avenue and Lampson Avenue, Contract No. 2-26-2, and South Anaheim Relief Sewer, on Ball Road between Euclid Street and Walnut Street, Contract No. 2-27, providing for the inclusion of City of Garden Grave drainage improvements, be, and is hereby, approved. Director Don R. Roth •i requested that his abstention from voting on this item be made a matter of record. DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Authorizing the Selection Committee - to negotiate Addendum NO. 1 to That the Selection Committee be, and is - .:� Agreement w 11 an ssoc ates hereby, authorized to negotiate Addendum re Contract Nos. 2-2�2-2— No. 1 to the Professional Services - Agreement with Willdan Associates for design of Portion of Euclid Interceptor Sewer, between Edinger Avenue and Lampson Avenue, Contract No. 2-26-2, and South Anaheim Relief Sewer, on Ball Road between Euclid Street and Walnut Street, Contract No. 2-27, to provide 7 for revisions in the sewer alignment to accommodate City of Garden Grove drainage improvements on Nelson Street between Pearl Street and Stanford ,.� Avenue and traffic control revisions requested by the City of Santa Ana. Director Don R. Roth requested that his abstention from voting on this item be made a matter of record. i -8- i • .L -.��•w"i.. . .'(i^SIG�..-'_£,�%�L'A' 2:?i.eY �.nJL3:.TSi�.1..�._ .._.... . � ai �r ' 02/08/89 DISTRICT 2 Moved, seconded and duly carried: AdJournment .j That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 2 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:43 p.m., February 8, 1989. DISTRICTS 5 8 6 Moved, seconded and duly tarried: A rov n Addendum o. o e .� Profess onal Services reemen That the Selection Committee w Robert Hein, am Fros and certification of the final negotiated Associates for design or 55T—rac-f— fee relative to Addendum No. 3 to the No. -29 Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for design and construction services required for Replacement of Portions of Coast Highway Force Main and Gravity Sewer, Contract No. 5-29, i providing for additional services required, including additional traffic control plans,. for the realignment of the southerly force main between the Rocky Point Pump Station and Dover Drive to avoid undisclosed utilities, be, and is hereby, received, ordered filed and approved; and. FURTHER MOVED: That the Boards of Directors hereby adopt Resolution No. 89-14, approving said Addendum No. 3 to said agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for said services, on an hourly-rate basis for labor plus overhead, for a total amount not to exceed $11,000.00, increasing the total authorized compensation from $139,011.00 to an amount not to exceed $150,011.00. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: i Approving Change r er No. J. to the - plans and specifications for That Change Order No. to the plans and contract No. 5-Z specifications for Rehabilitation of Balboa Trunk Sewer, between Lido Pump Station at Short Street and °A° Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-27, i authorizing a total deduction of $3,000.00 from the contract with Coastline Construction company; granting a time extension of 21 calendar days due to . : delays resulting from District revisions to the plans, specifications and shop drawing relative to the manhole rings, covers and coating system; and assessing liquidated damages at the rate of $500/day for completing the project six days late, be, and is hereby, approved. DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: ccep ng contract 0. - 7 i That the Board of Directors hereby i adopts Resolution No. 89-15-5, accepting Rehabilitation of Balboa Trunk Sewer, ! between Lido Pump Station at Short Street and °A" Street Pump Station, Contract No. 5-27, as complete, authorizing execution of a Notice of Completion and approving Final Closeout Agreement. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. .' DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly tarried: Approving Agreeement with o •1 ew or Beac reinclusion of That .the Board of Directors hereby adopts contract o. - 4 n s roe Resolution No. 89-16-6. approving mproyemen s n Pac fic oas y. Agreement with the City of Newport Beach relative to a cooperative project to Include Improvements to Bayside Drive Trunk Sewer, Phase I, Contract No. 5-34-1, in the City's road improvement project on Pacific Coast Highway. A certified copy of this resolution is attached hereto and made a part of these minutes. i -9- i i 02/08/89 ' DISTRICT 5 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 5 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:43 p.m., February 8, 1989. DISTRICT 6 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 6 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:43 p.m. , February 8, 1989. DISTRICT 7 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of 1 Directors of County Sanitation District No. 7 be adjourned. The Chairman } then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:43 p.m. , February 8, 1989. DISTRICT 13 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 13 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:43 p.m. , February 8, 1989. DISTRICT 14 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 14 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:43 p.m. , February 8, 1989. r DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: First reading of Ordinance No. 309 a That Ordinance No. 309, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, be read by title only; and, FURTHER MOVED: That reading of said ordinance in its entirety be, and is hereby, waived. Following the reading of Ordinance No. 309 by title only, it was moved, - � seconded and duly carried: That Ordinance No. 309, An Ordinance of the Board of Directors of County r Sanitation District No. 3 of Orange County, California, Establishing Sanitary Sewer Service Charges, be introduced and passed to second reading { on March 8, 1989. DISTRICT 3 Moved, seconded and duly carried: -'� Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of qi- Directors of County Sanitation District No. 3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:45 p.m. , February 8, 1989. ' -10- 'j 02/08/89 ,.i DISTRICT 11 Act ons re D s rict s master P an conveyance facilities Verbal staff report The Districts' Director of Engineering reported that the consultants preparing the Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan as part of the Districts' uAction Plan for Balanced Environmental Management: Preserving Orange County's coastal Ocean Waters" had studied and identified projected deficiencies in certain District 11 trunk sewer facilities as well as the Slater Avenue Pump Station. He emphasized that the Slater Avenue Pump Station has nearly reached its capacity and is in need of upgrading. It was pointed out that previous master plans had identified the extension of the Coast Trunk Sewer, from its present terminus at Golden West Street In Orange Avenue northwesterly through the Bolsa Chica area to Edwards Street at Slater Avenue, as the long-term solution for the District. Under this plan a line extending easterly in Slater Avenue would relieve 'i the Slater Pump Station, while a line extended northerly in Edwards Street would relieve the Springdale Street sewer collection facilities, all at an estimated cost of $21.9 million. r The new master plan, now in draft form, reviewed this and other alternate ways to provide the needed sewer system capacity to service the District. - j The alternatives included diverting a portion of the area tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station easterly to the Knott Interceptor, thereby reducing the quantity of flow through the Slater Avenue Pump Station, at an estimated cost of $16.6 million; and the rebuilding of the Slater Avenue Pump Station, at an estimated cost of $14.2 million. Mr. Dawes said that the consultants and staff recommend the latter of the alternatives because it is the most economical solution. He further Indicated that because improvements to the sewerage system that is tributary to Slater Avenue Pump Station are urgently needed to provide needed capacity and reliability, the Board was being asked to authorize preparation of the preliminary project report prior to approval of the EIR • on the new Master Plan. However, he noted that no design work nor construction work would commence until after adoption of said EIR scheduled for the July Joint Board meeting. ' He further commented that the Districts' staff, consultants and City of Huntington Beach staff had thoroughly reviewed the latest land use plans for the City, and the proposed long-term plan to rebuild the Slater Avenue Pump Station would handle the complete development of the area to the highest densities now envisioned. Receive and file Staff Report Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated February 1, 1989 on recommended actions to expedite implementation of needed master planned Slater Avenue Pump Station sewage system improvements for serving the northwest portion of District 11, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. -11- i !( 02/08/89 j Authorizin Selection Committee to Moved, seconded and duly carried: ne otiate d reemen for preparation or Phase I Preliminary Project That the Selection Committee be, and Re ort for Sla er venue Pumpis hereby, authorized to solicit tation ewage System Improvements proposals from qualified engineering firms for preparation of Phase I Preliminary Project Report for Slater Avenue Pump Station Sewage System Improvements and to negotiate a professional services agreement for said 'i work for consideration by the Board. 7 Authorizin staff to ne ot7ate Moved, seconded and duly carried: with eneral Telephone Com an for r gh -of-way needed for later That the staff be, and is hereby, j Avenue Pump Station project authorized to negotiate an agreement with General Telephone Company for the i necessary right-of-way needed for the Slater Avenue Pump Station project for consideration by the Board. - � DISTRICT 11 Moved, seconded and duly carried: „ journment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 11 be adjourned. The Chairman j then declared the meeting so adjourned at 7:55 p.m., February 8, 1989. ! DISTRICT 1 Actions re a ea of Un versa ircuits 1 re s aff denial or request not 10 be classified as a . ` SVC company re Permi No. 1-1-346 t{� Receive and file appeal of Moved, seconded and duly carried: Universal ircuits 1 i That the appeal filed by Pinto 8 j Gromet, Attorneys At Law, dated December 8, 1988, on behalf of Universal . � Circuits 91, regarding staff denial of their request not to be classified as a Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) company pursuant to federal EPA regulations, in connection with Industrial Waste Permit No. 1-1-346, be, and is hereby received and ordered filed. Verbal staff report The Chair recognized Mr. Rich von Langen, Districts' Source Control Manager. Mr. von Langan explained that the Districts have for the last three years published in The Register newspaper the names of those firms that are determined to be Significantly Violating Compliance (SVC) companies, in accordance with federal regulations. Prior to publication, the Districts inform the companies that have been identified as SVC companies that their name will be published and that staff will proceed with additional enforcement action to bring them into compliance. He then advised that Universal Circuits N1, who was one of the companies identified as a SVC company during fiscal year 1987-88, had appealed the decision of staff identifying them as such. -12- i -A 02/08/89 ' p Mr. von Langen reviewed EPA's requirements as well as the Districts' regulations governing procedures to be followed relative to sampling the various industries to determine compliance with their permit limits. He jfurther reported that a significant violation is one which remains ". uncorrected 45 days after notification of non-compliance; which is part of a pattern. of non-compliance over a 12-month period; which involved the failure to accurately report non-compliance; or which results in the POTW i exercising its emergency authority, as defined in Paragraph (f)(1) (vi) (b) i of Section 403.8(f)(2) (vii) of Volume 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. It was pointed out that Universal Circuits was defined as a SVC company based on their pattern of non-compliance over a 12-month period. Staff then reviewed their compliance record and commented on the ,I problems encountered with Universal Circuits over the past several years. - 1 The Districts' Source Control Manager further reported that sampling of Universal Circuits by Districts' inspectors indicated the following : results: 1 Pounds of Lead Date Over Permit Limit ,( 9/24 - 9/25/87 0.35 12/28 - 12/29/87 Not over 3/30 - 3/31/88 0.1 6/16 - 6/17/88 1.13 Mr. von Langen indicated that this data showed Universal Circuits to be in i non-compliance 75% of the time which is cause for a determination of .i significantly violating compliance by Districts' staff. He also reported that according to EPA guidelines, non-compliance of only 66% of the time Is sufficient to cause an industrial discharger to be found to be ,i significantly violating compliance. Mr. von Langen also reviewed the grounds for appeal cited by Universal Circuits' attorney. They contended that the sampling method used by the District was not accurate enough for the purpose of establishing a SVC designation; and that the District failed to follow Section 601.E of the .j Regulations for Use of Districts' Sewerage Facilities, which states that a j subsequent sample will be taken within 30 days if a sample is found to be ' in non-compliance. Mr. von Langen confirmed that follow-up samples were not taken by the Districts. He pointed out that the Districts have been using time-composite samples at Universal Circuits #1 since 1981. He further reported that this method of sampling had previously been reviewed •v by the District 1 Board in 1985 in connection with a separate non-compliance fee assessed Universal Circuits #1, and at that time the Board had found that this sampling method was representative and i appropriate. With regard to not resampling within the 30-day period -. j indicated in the District's ordinance, staff admitted that this was not done because of limited staff resources and the increased major -i enforcement actions required in 1988. However, the District did routinely sample Universal Circuits within 75 days of each notice of violation, thereby giving ample time for Universal Circuits to correct the non-compliance. Universal Circuits failed twice and passed once in the sampling. He further stated that at no time did the staff imply that the violations were insignificant by virtue of the fact that resampling did not occur. Mr. von Langen indicated that, in fact, just the opposite was true by virtue of staff having always sent a "Notice of Violation" to Universal Circuits after each case of non-compliance. -13- 02/08/89 2 Staff noted that Universal Circuits had previously reported that they had 3 monitored their discharge themselves following the violations and found all follow-up samples to be in compliance. However, Universal Circuits did not retain any of the self-monitoring data and never indicated to staff that sampling had been conducted nor did they provide the results of i the sampling either verbally or in writing. Therefore, Universal Circuits was unable to substantiate their assertion that additional sampling by the District would have shown compliance with discharge limitations. Mr. von Langan stated that it would be speculative as to whether subsequent 30-day sampling by,the District would have found Universal Circuits to be in compliance or not. Mr. von Langan then stated that staff recommended that the decision to ! classify Universal Circuits e1 as a Significantly Violating Compliance company be upheld by the Board and that Universal Circuits' name be published in the newspaper in accordance with federal regulations. Receive and file Staff Report Moved, seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated February 2, 1989, regarding Universal Circuits 61 appeal of SVC status, be, and is hereby, received and ordered filed. Response by Universal Circuits 91 The Chair recognized Mr. Gary Ryan, General Manager of Universal Circuits. Mr. Ryan stated that after all three violations, Universal Circuits continued self-monitoring and all of their sampling indicated full compliance. He further stated that because the District did not resample, they believed the overage was not significant and, therefore, did not feel it was necessary to retain their own sampling records. Mr. Kenneth Ryder, attorney representing Universal Circuits, then addressed the Board. He noted that staff had based their designation of �r..✓ Universal Circuits as a SVC company on a pattern of non-compliance determined by EPA guidelines and the District's standard procedures. He objected to the fact that the District did not follow all of their own procedures and did not come back within the time frame specified in the Ordinance to give them a chance to prove their compliance. He also questioned the method of sampling used by the District and indicated that he felt a margin of error should be incorporated into the results of time-composite sampling. He recommended that flow-proportional sampling be used but acknowledged that the cost of installing this type of sampling system was too great for Universal Circuits at this time. Mr. Ryder respectfully requested that the Board overturn the decision of staff. Consideration of a pal of The Board then entered into a lengthy n versa rcu s 1 discussion relative to the sampling method used by the District and the history of non-compliance by Universal Circuits. The Board considered deferring action for 30 days if Universal Circuits could produce additional self-monitoring data to prove their compliance following the violations. However, Universal Circuits reiterated that they had not retained their sampling records as they didn't feel the numbers were valuable at the time. Directors questioned whether the new plant which Universal Circuits is currently building will solve the non-compliance .problems they have-had over the past several years. Staff responded that . . they were unable to determine if the new plant would comply with the Ordinance requirements until additional information is received from Universal Circuits. The Districts' General Counsel pointed out that the fact that the resampling was not accomplished within the 30-day period specified had no bearing on the validity of the results of the District's original sampling which indicated that Universal Circuits was in violation. However, because Universal Circuits was not retested within the specified time limit, some Directors expressed concern and were hesistant to support the SVC company designation. They also commented that with their past record of non-compliance, Universal Circuits should have realized the importance of retaining their self-monitoring records in order to prove their compliance. -14- ` 02/08/89 'i It was then moved and seconded: That the Board hereby finds that it is unable to uphold the findings of staff relative to the sufficiency of the sampling of Universal Circuits _ .discharge, nor support the determination to designate said firm as a SVC company; and, FURTHER MOVED: That staff be, and is hereby, directed to keep the Board apprised of the results of further testing of Universal Circuits, including all 30-day follow-up sampling, when necessary. Following further discussion, a voice vote was taken on the motion. The motion failed by a vote of two ayes and two nays. A substitute motion was then made and seconded: That the Board upholds the decision of staff and hereby finds that the samples collected and analyzed by the District are representative of Universal Circuits Ws discharge; that the frequency of the sampling was sufficient to make the determination that the discharge levels exceeded their limits and is in accordance with EPA guidelines; and that the frequency of non-compliance, as determined by the staff and hearing officer, is adequate to assure representative sampling and is sufficient to make a SVC determination in accordance with federal regulations. The Directors discussed the matter further. Following a call for the question, a voice vote was taken on the substitute motion. The substitute �I motion failed by a vote of two ayes and two nays. The question was then posed relative to the Board being deadlocked on both motions because of the 2:2 vote. The General Counsel stated that if a motion fails, there is no action taken by the Board at all . DISTRICT 1 Moved, seconded and duly carried: Adjournment That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No. 1 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:56 p.m. , February 8, 1989. Secre��s of of D County sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 �.J -15- ' i ' FUND NO 9199 - JT O3ST WORKING CAPITAL REPORTS NUM DATE 12/2P/BP PAGE 1 ,.� REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS P41D 01/04/89 POSTING DATE 01/04/89 - 4 C97041 AGY CORPORATION S11000.79 GAUGE 1 V/ LONG DISTANCE TELEPHOtjE SERYICE 197043 ACTION INSTRUMENTS. INC. 61.256.6E TRANSMITTER ' 097044 AOYA NCO CONSTRUCTORS. INC. fL543 Nfl3.14 CONSTRUCTION PL-25626.P2-32.33634 097P46 ALL PURE CHEMICAL $500.00 CHLORINE M.0.10-14-87 097041 AREAL CAN 01 STRICT TELEGRAPH $60.00 SERVICE AGREEMENT ' S CAMERAS ~� 097049 THE ANCHOR PACKING CO. $3,250.91 HARDWARE 097050 BLAKE P. ANDERSON $133.80 MEWING EXPENSE •1 097052 ARATEX SERVICES. INC. $7,573.48 EMPLOYEE UNIFORMS 097053 ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $1.062.76 ELECTRIC PARTS SEMINAR REGISTRATION JI ' 097055 AUTO SHOP EQUIPMENT CO. - $392.20 TRUCK PARTS .f 097056 8C INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY. INC. 1352.49 TOOLS M D97058 BW/IP INTERNATIONAL S783.94 PUMP PARTS iI X P97059 BACON DOOR CO.. INC. S96.58 BUILDING MATERIALS �J 2 11.1— PUBLICATION �+ CO 097061 P.V. BAROTTI AND ASSOC. $12,210.00 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES P1-26.P2-33634 1 197062 B. BATEMAN $565.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION . .� 1 P91P65 BOISE CAS C A BEI OFF I C E PRODUCTS PA OOUCTS 31sB 9.29 LAB SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES n, RADIATOR REPAIR 9; 09]067 BON-A-RUES - sil1.B0 TRUCK PARTS tf+).M13�Y. .A 097068 STEVE BUBALO CONSTRUCTION CO. -1617A 7B 9.36 CONSTRUCTION 2-26-1 t �C"'M 1i ,j. ELECTRIC GNP C9791^. BUSH AND ASSOCIATES. INC. S2.031.00 SURVEYING SERVICES -_I 097071 GARY G. $TREED S3B4.79 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT r+ nIQ C 97173 CAL-GLASS FOR RESEARCH. INC. $139.77 LAB SUPPLIES "){`•. ` fl 097074 CAL SOUTH EQUIPMENT CO. $212.00 RENTAL EQUIPMENT rAl TDAI REGULATOR PARTS 097176 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL 17.72 SALES TAX j 1,91071 CAROLLO-BOYIE.A JOINT VENTURE $98.728.05 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 87-131 7. BVTCE AGREEMENT Q97079 CENTEL SYS}EMS S503.64 PHONE SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS _ . 0470An CHEM SERVICE $343.79 LAB SUPPLIES I. 197182 CHEVRON U.S.A.. INC. $6.323.16 OIL 6 GREASE n90083 CHLORINE SPECIALITIES. INC. S231.94 TOOLS I..Tl CONSULTING SERVICES 41 n970B5 C.I.E.S. . CO. . INC. S1.034.78 MECHANICAL PARTS ' �. D97066 COMPRESSOR COMPONENTS OF CALIF - S7.244.0:1 COMPRESSOR PARTS •t .� Y � 1 ' FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/28/86 PAGE 2 ] REPORT NUMBER AP13 - CLAIMS PAID 01/04/89 POSTING DATE 01/64/85 - WARRANT NA- nrgrAtpTi�m 097OB7 COMPUTER DATACOM 3876.5E OFFICE SUPPLIES I � " 097DB9 CONSOLIDATED FREIGIITWAYS $380.46 FREIGHT ` 097090 CONSOLIDATED REPROGRAPHICS 52A291.03 BLUEPRINTING �1•� 097092 COSTA MESA AUTO SUPPLY $025.06 AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES 097093 COUNTY WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $169.52 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 097095 DAVID WILIIAM CRAPNELL $615.60 BROCHURE ARTWORK F 097056 JERRY CROSS PAYING $3,285.00 - PAVING SERVICES D97098 LARRY CURT1 TRUCK L EQUIPMENT $260.00 TRUCK PARTS 097099 C.R.W.G.C.B. S150.00 TRAINING REGISTRATION 09710, DANIEL$ TIRE SERVICE . $537.84 TIRES ':097102 DAYTON FOUNDRY $5,097.20 PUMP PARTS �! i m . 097104 DIATEC POLYMERS $2.978.34 ANIONIC POLYMER'M.O.B-10.88 �1 X D97105 DIFILIPPO ASSOCIATES 31.941.18 PRINTING , .2 "':097107 PLANT REPAIRS Z MATyTZNANrE DORR-OLIVER, INC. 1 $209.30 MECHANICAL PARTS ��.i 097108 EASTMAN, INC. $8.223.59 'OFFICE SUPPLIES. I D 097110 W. H. EBERT CORP. 135.801.29 CONSTRUCTION 5-29 , 097111 MARSHALL FAIRRES $530.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION N FTMIIpTTON CFRVTPFA 1-7_4 I i ' 097113 -FARR SALES L SERVICE 3323.11 FILTERS y 097114 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP. $33,75 AIR FREIGHT, 097116 FILTER SUPPLY CO. $2.115.10 FILTER 097117 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 34.I5D.D9 LITIGATION REPORTS" 097119 GELBER PUMPS, INC. S117.78 _ PUMP PARTS 097120 DONALD L. FOX L ASSOCIATES $3,650.00 SAFETY CONSULTING SERVICES 997122 GARAA7T-CALLAHAN COMPANY' $2,275.82 CHEMICALS 097123 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORPORATION S78.958.17 CONSTRUCTION .T-15A 1� 097125 GERARDS PHOTO LAB $65.67 PHOTO SERVICES U97126 ' GIERLICH-MITCHELL, INC. S286.87 PUMP 097128 GREAT LAKES HYDRAULICS S7U4.91 CONTROL PART 097E29 GRINNELL CORPORATION $037.50 VALVE 097131 MARCO CORPORATION 111,270.32 MECHANICAL PARTS '11• D97132 FRED A. HARPER $1.360.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION. FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/2R/80 PAGE 3 JDRANQ, REIGN NUMBER A 43 CLAIMS PAID 01/04/B9 POSTING GATE 01/04/89 M f1 � 097133 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 56110.03 METER PARTS ' {1 D97135 HEKINIAN A ASSOC., INC. S1511547.36 CONSTRUCTION R-027-362 . .091136 HOERBIGER C.V.S. CALIF. . INC. f2005.02 MECHANICAL PARTS IOnWAIn T. wnunmirwi nFPPIUUEn roMP TYRTCTRIITTDN 097138 R.S. HUGHES. CO.. INC. $587.09 HARDWARE 097139 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 52.998.84 SEWER REPAIRS 097141 INCON SYSTEMS, INL./ $31l86.10 MACHINE SUPPLIES 097142 INDUSTRIAL THREADED PROD UL T3 $2,613.18 FITTINGS 097144 INLAND EMPIRE EQUIPMENT CO. $102.06 TRUCK PARTS 1 097145 INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY $350.00 COMPUTER SUPPORT ,I I, 097147 RIVIERA FINANCE $23.65 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 097148 KAHAN BEARINGS A SUPPLY HBT.92 FITTINGS L CT1 097150 KAY-PAY. INC. 52.384.59 INSTRUMENT REPAIRS I � 1 S 097151 KEENAN A ASSOCIATES $2,875.00 WORKERS COMP ADMINISTRATIVE FEE G 097153 KENIS OIL. INC. $117.50 WASTE OIL REMOVAL ... 097154 �, KIEV3 IT PACIFIC CI FCC Co. f1I 6B91509.B1 r CONSTRUCTION P1-27 ..: A. A. ...I . n 097156 DONALD E. KINNEY $805.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION W 097157 NIRST PUMP A MACHINE WORKS 36.580.29 PUMP PARTS 097159 MARTIN KORDICKI SR $2,269.20 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 5-29 097160 LGRAIN PRODUCTS $1,473.00 - - RELIANCE POWER Qn - TRAWCTNr 097162 M.G. INDUSTRIES a18.44 SPECIALTY GASSES 097163 MPS $100.17 PHOTO SERVICES ' 097165 HARDEN SUSCO - S321.18 ADAPTORS 097166 MARINE L VALVE SUPPLY $126.23 VALVE �JTNqTRUMPMT RIIPPT.TPN 097168 MASTER TOOLS SERVICES 1221.30 TOOL REPAIRS 097169 MATT - CHLOR. INC. S429.82 CHLORINATION PARTS 097171 MCKINLEY EQUIPMENT CORP $116.28 - TRUCK PARTS 097172 MINE SAFETY APFLIANCES CO.. $3,076.96 SAFETY SUPPLIES 097174 SERPENTIR S3.330.46 MECHANICAL PARTS 09W175 MITCHELL MANUALS. INC. 271.38 PUBLICATION 097177 MONITEK. INC. $836.64 PC BOARD REPAIR 091178 MOORE A TABER $9,861.25 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES FUND NO 9199 - JT DIST WORMING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/29/88 PAGE REPORT NUMBER AP43 % ' - - ,: CLAIMS PAID 01104/09 POSTING DATE .01/04,19 097179 MOTION INDUSTRIES• INC. $5,253.62 HARDWARE INSTRUMENT PARTS 097181 MOTOROLA. INC. SSB9.10 INSTRUMENT :! 09 7182 MOTOROLA CELLULAR SERVICES - 386.29 CELLULAR TELEPHONE SERVICES - SMALL 097104 NATIONAL PLANT SERVICES. INC. $270.00 VACUUM SERVICES 097185 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION 3600.00 PUBLICATIONS PIPES 6 FITTINGS 097181 CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH 34.90 WATER USEAGE f 097188 NOVUS WINDOW REPAIRING $35.00 TRUCK REPAIRS u . . . M.S. TRASH BIN REMOVAL 097190 OCEAN SALT CO.. INC. $910.50 SALT 097191 OLYMPIC CHEMICAL CO. 337.692.48 CHLORINE M.C.30-12-88 EMPLOYEE MILEAGE '.. 097193 'ORANGE COAST ELECTRIC SUPPLY 3310.47 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES .(Q97194 ORANGE COAST WINDOW CLEANING 2935.00 WINDOW CLEANING ETI 097196 COUNTY OF ORANGE 340.804.OD DISPOSAL GATE FEE X 097197 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT $83.92 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION - INS. Z CONSTRUCTION J-16 I7Y n:097199 PACIFIC HEIGHTS ARTS $4,445.00 REFUND CONNECTION FEE ply; 09720Q PACIFIC, SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. $1.259.45 SAFETY SUPPLIES - ;.. . .LF. 097202 PAM WEST 3332.42 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 097203 PARTS UNLIMITED 39D3.39 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS tA97PA4 SHAFT PARTS 27 -f-'.097205 NOV PENOEgGpAFT $435.00 DEFERRED COMP DISTRIBUTION - 'j097206 PHOTO 3 SOUND CO. - $901.00 RENTAL EQUIPMENT 097200 PIMA GRO SYSTEMS. INC. $42,926.90 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.O. 5-11-BB 097209 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS $1,120.28 SAFETY SUPPLIES POLK MAIT41NGFEE 097211 1 HAROLD PRIMROSE ICE $66.00. ICE 997212 THE PROUECTS SOLUTION CO. 33.550.0D INSTRUMENTATION INSPECTION M.O. 8-10 1R 097214 PUMP ENGINEERING CO. $2,820.67 PUMP PARTS 097215 PYRAMID FENCE COMPANY $L484.06 FENCING fll7lj� RATTRAY A- MAPPING ' 097217 flECTC• INC. 476,769.00 SLUDGE REMOVAL M.0.2-10-88 097218 P.A. REED ELECTRIC $1.745.25 METER REPAIR K 097220 REMOTE METER RESETTING SYSTEM 13.005.00 POSTAGE REIMBURSEMENT 097291 THE REPUBLIC SUPPLY CO. 31.138.51 FITTINGS CONSTRUCTION 5-7- 097223 ROSEMONT ANALYTICAL $1,701.06 INSTRUMENT SUPPLIES 097224 RYAN-HERCO $21.04 HARDWARE I n .I FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/28/88 PAGE 5 y p REPORT NUMBER AP93 r G N P fi o � . - n n �B 3xF,rx 1 >n �u '6A f � lO I f .Tow" �>, +R r ! Y2 �� ` t ^r1 J�Y,� Q ly �. - 097225 JOSEPH T. RYERSON 3 SON, INC. S1.331.93 BUILDING MATERIALS 9.1714 PARTS CLEANER 0172I7 ,,qy.gp4RT ANA` ELECTRIC MOTORS" �� ,y <^,�#, O�AIA,. .:ELECTRIC.REPAIRS i • 4 i , 47Y E t ir.TQ'3.#ANTA FE; BAG CQ. w-'" y -. 1 yE�2{Q3 rq.� .,. ,� BUILOINO .NATERIAL@ : 097230 CITY OF SEAL BEACH $70.51 WATER USEAGE D97231 SENSOREK. INC. $213.61 INSTRUMENT PART v r`QQ7Q7QT QN 7fl Ch Cla SOIL TESTING' •�AQ7Qii 1. - '. n WN Trya :IlR ',!'� NPR YpT �' /' t 4Q19z '*§ 1 eruwe3N0 .¢opeLIEB�'� rs �„ti 097236 SOUTH COAST DODGE $97.84 TRUCK PARTS 097237 SOUTHERN CALIF. EDIS``ON CO. S253}.O1}0.gg15 POWER y+ • s 99 M, e�:#t. 'SEApNEQPAI+Qd �5$AN[lSNE 3� " URL "fiF� fA734QY 4 rts. . SA "^NECNANIPCpL pARTd Y`.te .,sy ` "M 097242 - SPARLING INSTRUMENT CD..INC. ST.221.23 INSTRUMENT REPAIRS X 097243 SPEC TECH WESTERN S823.37 WELDING SUPPLIES a' - 2G Q y y`,95 Pit,; 1NOT 097248 SUNSET FORD S271.05 TRUCK PARTS a n 097249 SUPELCO, INC. S2.059.q9 LAB SUPPLIES u472g�z .nd 4N L�tjS`G @6 , 51 �yoxxTaR t(I r RY7z4z ,4NFETLlNP $ s �. MRowARE° !N. . u....V t.1 '.:�' e �.b k e ,�r: 1`^,Yw`6'.�.+ � F". !:• ,n� 097254 TAYLOR-pUNN 3g7.72 w TRUCK PAATB 097255 TECHNOMIC PUBLISHING CO.. INC. $153.20 PUBLICATION r d`l'QQ7Q57 ' �T`CS µ LITIGATION IBPORrlf{lxq L�:v+Apy I� 7 .5QTQQ � . I0 y: gU3P PENTA4L yy SOUIPMENT RNALA 097260 TRAVEL TRAVEL 3744.00 TRAVEL SERVICES I•097261 TRUCK S AUTO SUPPLY. INC $218 95 TRUCK PARTS rQ4726N" t :'t/ TWINNO �LASOAPTQR[E8 k Q9.7735a Z - ! "LAB INSPECTIONS 'yt xQ97269 tat 1 t�.` �,U 3 AUTO GLASS CEN TEPi1NC .S. :Ih-r{5 '- °l {. }dr4 . S54 91 .n ,11-/, "-TRUCK REPAIRS . .F.± �S''�y} i'+j� •1`fltr7� k 097266 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE $293.05 PARCEL SERVICES 097267 URBAN ALTERNATIVES $5.190.Ou CONSULTING SERVICES RBB 88-28 r {`Q9i269k.e �� V S- 5Y$JERST {NC. `. ,T wry t r x,f'7 ��' A123 q0 t )3 �' t ELBCTRIO SUPPLIES tx�Ibrl' t f ' ' k IT,�S Cp T2 TO r �:^b; YA�LQT CTTITS SUpP4T COl 'lf -„ ;� , 76T697.T9ttyi i PLUMBING PARTS n 3 s�'��.�, - PROCES NUMBER AP43 1 FUND NO 9199 JT DI ST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 12/20/80 PAGE 6 CLAIMS PAID 01/04/87 POSTING DATE 01/04/89 ' WARRANT NO, 097271 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE. INC. 198.670.13 CONSTRUCTION P2-35-1 V 097273 VIKING INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 1446.07 SAFETY SUPPLIES 091274 VORTEX INDUSTRIES - 31.715.36 BUILDING REPAIR GUARD SERVICES .� 097276 WESTERN STATE CHEMICAL SUPPLY 130.007.09 CAUSTIC SODA M.O.8-10-88 097277 ROURKE L WOODRUFF 929.549.81 LEGAL SERVICES M.O.10-14-87 097279 XEROX CORP. - $638.12 COPIER LEASES �097280 GEORGE YARDLEY ASSOCIATES $743.31 VALVES 097282 ZIEBARTH AND ALPER $131.148.90 CONSTRUCTION P2-37 .. ----------------- TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 01/04/89 16.015.657.88 � X z t'1 SUMMARY AMOUNT ni y12 OPER FUND 1,805.91 m 12 F/R FUND 695,267.11 P +'•�' 3-ACO FUND - 94,672.76 !' 15 OPER FUND - '8.065.73 " 1/6 OPER FUND 120.00 16 ACO FUND 9,396.00 17 OPER FUND - 4,774.27 17 ACO FUND 897.00 III ACC) FUND 7,998.84 414 OPER FUND 36.00 1566 OPER FUND 5,267.38 - /566 ACO FUND 38,720.51 17 17L141OPER FUND 4,569.40 JT OPER FUND 765,696.74 SELF FUNDED WORKERS COMP.INSURANCE FUND 10.959./1 JT WORKING CAPITAL FUND 108r7B9.09 66 015 657.88 FUND NO 9199 — JT DIST WORMING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE I/11/89 PAGE I '—� REPORT NUMBER AP43 .�^v r ,r, t CLAI M8 PAID 91(10189' POSTING DATE. _. � •� 4 of AMBI NT 1. 07303 AT&TDATA SERVICES 5400.00 LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE SERVICE 4 '097305 = AIgFP C#GH1 PN ERItR ;59 00 F ' FREIGHT �• '04.7306 A ESQ `ALCO RI{ ';Q ONCE CO• r `?i S8.740 00 1. 5s�C z� r FENCING vi an, v.. l'r� nl'S.fi ' 097308 LEASING ASSOCIATES/ALLSTATE • S1.532.90 AUTOMOBILE LEASES 097309 ALLERGAN PHARMACEUTICAL S4.130.10 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT 897310f a"'ALLIED'SUPPLY, CO. a tRH i; �jr G -1718 26 1 `y VALVE $' ar ir., h ., v i ft l.rP 97318 t* , ALTq SALES, INC. i +V k kW W 90 11 MBTOR L 097314 THE ANCHOR PACKING CO. $1,055.24 MECHANICAL SUPPLIES 097315 ANILL0 INDUSTRIES 14.850.00 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT 1. .A 97317 Ya art ,"APPLIED,r'(1�8EARCH 6:7ECNNOGQO „ ♦ r•'1'- $58 00 stir,7, > . > INSTRUMENT REPAIRS 7 .'09Y31B ^# }y _ . � ASSOCIgiED SO ILS ENGINCERIN},ie•'s $3i921 50 'SOIL TBSTING 097320 FALCON DISPOSAL SERVICE $3,336.79 GRIT REMOVAL M.O. 7-13-88 X 097321 BANK OF AMERICA NY 4 SA $5.117.196.76 CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION PAYMENT aeYs�5I 4491 l«,BATTERIEs � LAG SUPPL Y$§ r�a IMF, N pR 9A9, 40 eG � 097326 ROBERT BEIN.WILLIAM FROST S AS SI8.890.4.5 ENGINEERING SERVICES 5-3304 70 697327 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS $1.625.20 OFFICE SUPPLIES 44t 91329 WF a./f 1' BOYLE END INEERING"CORP + /C 6 A ',: d.q(' 36T102 98 it {,-y4° r �. ENGINEERING. SERVICES 7.101 .`q . 097339 75. "!• BROWN q 'C ALD ELL CON UL I�j ?�{'F/0�•5"�a S 8.032 SS '1"� ''.abl ,i�'6NOINEERIN0�8ERVICBB Pl 3S P 39 -r�' •• . ��. .,.r� -N 3 j P " . a P4 vaLb R • ac r.i f ;rik ,. 097332 BUILDING NEWS. INC. $55.90 PUBLICATION 097333 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE S91.92 PUBLICATION e 497335 GARY 0.+$7P EED, h , 31,483 00 p';°T I PETTY CASH' REIMBURSEMENT r 1 .� J 897336 -i" C S R RECONDITIONING CO S1 B90 00 PUMP PARTS .µ. •,4 097338 CAL-GLASS FOR RESEARCH. INC. $869.20 - LAB REPAIRS 097339 CALTROL . INC. $1,771.82 REGULATOR PARTS MAIR �11',l 997391 'C r':. `CAMBRIDGE. FILTER CORP. `' ` SI.156.38 FILTERXLDM' u uI J 097342 "` ' CA Y SIGN GRAPHICS " $597.84 ` SIGNS "73,097344 MONTIL CARTER CONSTRUCTION $3,000.00 SEWER REPAIRS -� 097345 CASTLE CONTROLS. INC. $557.44 VALVE ,Q97347 CHEMWF.ST .INDUSTRIES, INC: i'SSO.ISB.BI FEARIQ CHLOEIGE M.O.11-18-87 rat 097348 CHEVRON'A.S.A.. INC. $339.47 GASOLINE nl FUND NO 91-9 - JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1111/89 PAGE 2 REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS PA70'.'ll)1B/89; POSTING DATE 0971 RP CHLORINE SPECIALITIES. INC. 3116.PR TOOLS ^9 GP ' - 097351 COAST FIRE EQUIPMENT $1,292.14 SAFETY SUPPLIES '.597352 C.I.E.S. • CO. . INC. $520.00 PUMP PARTS P97354 CONNELL G.M. PARTS / DIV• $297.73 TRUCK PARTS 097355 CON-NAY WESTERN EMPRESS $294.53 FREIGHT a 397 - ROSS DOOK4 INC. `:$I 089 42 ?.tt s q ,`;BLOWER REPAIRS :: I'M { '09735a CO SMOTP DgILS COMPANY CORP. '.31.622 63 .REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT ^ Ij 097360 R. E. COULTER CRANE RENTAL 3918.50 RENTAL EQUIPMENT ^97361 COUNTY WHOLESALE ELECTRIC $185.50 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 4' 89730 DECO S5T7.86 ELECTRIC SUPPLIES . 097364 DEW-PAR SALES A SERVICEf1rI89.S! TRUCK PARTS M 097366 DIFILIPPO ASSOCIATES $637.27 PRINTING X 097367 DORADO ENTERPRISES. INC. $23,044.60 PLANT MAINTENACE 6 REPAIRS S t .w 097369 DUCTILE> 7 RONPIPE RESEARCH ARCH ASH` ` 'S I95 00 � ` .*S SEMINAR REGISTRATION „¢ @� t7 �(097370 - OUNN<EDYARDS CORP. $481 65 1 " PAINT eOPP7,IES .. VNmui MR; 697372 EAGLE ENTERPRISES $5.495.04 LANDSCAPING SUPPLIES i 997373 EASTMAN. INC. - $1.427.33 OFFICE SUPPLIES n 097375 ENCHANTER, INC. 19.20G 00 1'� t1 � 9'LOCEANOGMPHIC RESEARCH 13 '.: 097376 JEFF. ESSEP - L229.68 ,�. EMPLOYEE.MIyEAGE ;, 097378 JOHN S. FALKENSTEIN P.E. $2.450.0. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES J-7-4 097379 FARR SALES S SERVICE 375.43 FILTER 9 . - 097381 FERRELLGAS 116.96 PROPANE ,.'. 057382 FISCHER'L PORTER CO. $1,678.92 CHLORINATION PARTS 097384 GELBER PUMPS. INC. $419.70 PUMP PARTS 097585 CITY OF FOUNTAIN VALLEY $562.75 PERMITS 097387 GENERAL TELEPHONE CO. b 1.193.29 TELEPHONE SERVICES '.. t l� C973B8 GERARDS PHOTO LAB $26.61 PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES r kr 197190 60RDONIS. INC. $76.73 SECURITY SUPPLIES C.97391 DON GREEK A ASSOCIATES $7070.25 ENGINEERING SERVICES RES 88-72 .097393 NALPRIN SUPPLY CO. $328.98 FAN PARTS 097394 HARRINGTON. INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS $44.74 METER PARTS: i FY FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST YORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/B9 PAGE S I REPORT NUMBER AP43 CAI E1. 7:a, a uD - 'i)bi kCsitRi D ✓.s 5 y " t x VhRRANT NO, YENnog AMAIINY I ' 097395 HATCH 3 KIRK. INC. $3.622.58 MECHANICAL PARTS J.. REFUND T]qER PER OVERPAYMENT ° 097397 NTLL VIEW-NOROE LAUN OftY $32.04 .'REFUND USER PEE OVERPAYMENT ;097398 HEL(I. IN CA e"++"; $289.07 {'� Yry'0.+;. + ',HARDWARE lzr t 097406 R.S. HUGHES CO.. INC. $1,752.64 PAINT 6 SUPPLIES 097401 HUGHES AIRCRAFT $2,680.17 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT t' D9 4 -097413 HUNTINGTON NOMOA 5989.79 rsg`yi °Tfi�:';ELECTRIC-.PART9 x" t.- t '-p97409 HYDRD TE K?F[ELQ.SERVICE '9737.50 ` r, aE',.y,;MBCNANICAL. PARTS �� ' q r.�a.. 0 r'S5' REFUND [ISE' 097436 INDUSTRIAL THREADED PRODUCTS $737.76 FITTINGS W 9711T INLAND EMPIRE COUIP MENT CO. $832.70 EQUIPMENT RENTAL SUBSCRIPTIO 097409 IRYSNE RANCH VATERDISTRICT, '37R464 @Y y "h' .WATER USEAGE: 997910 IRVINE SWEEPING SERVICE $987.50 rIi ,SOW` :STREET SWCBPING SERVICE Rpyhlnq 097412 RIVIERA FINANCE $1,256.19 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES X 097413 JENSEN TOOLS A ALLOYS $208.40 INSTRUMENT PARTS 097415 NANAN BEAR IN05 8 SUPPLY '1 4i��L^ 1. F^ 3591 t9� AS .' ' e f' rP2TTIN08y, " ^u 7l W -097916 MAKER CONP ANY 7 = 4089c;8 k 'r HAROW iz'. p "'�, ��' ry Imr. xp A x.. 097918 KIRST PUMP L MACHINE WORKS $2,023.58 PUMP PARTS ° CA C97419 MARTIN KORDICK. SR $2,213.20 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 5-29 -097921 L H RESEARCH ° i3 -y & 5336'i 0�° INSTRUMENT'REPAIRS j� rr+ .�'� >4*,I� 'RMPLOY68.MILEAGE 097422 - JUDY LEE �, kk a 538.7fi r". 1 NOW 097424 LIMITOROUE CORP. $627.06 MECHANICAL PARTS 897425 MPS f125.81 PHOTO SERVICES 9 d97927 NALC OL lI P7RNlE . INC: a1 `'+ + a'+ I.575.63 " :� '.INDUSTRIAL WASTE RESEARCH , 697928 MAR DEN ids CO °{ ;107.62 .'ADAPTORS L97430 MARTIN LUTHER HOSPITAL 39.299.31 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT 097431 MARTIN'SQPPLY CO. S40.60 TOOLS 097433 MATT - CHLOR. INC. . tI1197.88 -.ICWLORINATION.PART3 697439 0. 4.".M ATSH EY 86 ASSOCIATES 52.569.0E _ ALARM SYSTEM'' 097436 MICRO MOTION %2.534.48 REPAIRS d97431 MIDLAND MFG. CORP. $1.06 Di CHLORINATION PARTS c 097439 MIYA YMSWE NURSERY. LTD, 3193.34 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 097440 MOBIL CHEMICAL CO. $733.30 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT �` + FUND NO 9lq9 JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/09 FACE 4 REPORT NUMBER AP43 N nTqTR'rTA nF AR-I'qF 591�y�; 41 V �77 INV Wt., 1s'M T TnN ffl2 097442 MONITEK, INC. $1,023.94 INSTRUMENT a97441 MQ.I.Q. MOROAOICOkTON EQUIPMENT TRUCK PARTS ol 7 4 U. 114 A 4 MOTION INDOSTRIE$i INC. MECHANICAL PARTS 10 1 74 AS "'YOROL" 097446 NATIONAL NI INFORMATIONpDATA CYR. 7 $33.45 PUBLICATION 097447 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL PARTA 3260.00 SAFETY SUPPLIES TAMTvnnTRT. qffPPT.TPA '�.-NEWPQATf OS ,MESA Yl REFUND USER *147.06 ;'!AXI�f:PIPE a FITTINGS $134 92 FEE OVERPAY 7 -CTli hFIFU 0;7452 NORLAS 941.90 DYE 097453 745 3 OLY MPIC CHEMICAL CO. $49.932.78 CHLORINE M.O. 10-12-88 A974R4 WE DAY PAINT A ROnY qll TRltrK RRPATRq !1097455 IORANSr� C AST rLECIR Ic SUP LY *15$262 �fk AW¢� �'HYDRCCHLIORIC ACID ELECTRIC SUPPLIES 097456 7451!(,�n OR UNIT CHEMICAL CO 193.43 g ZABI ORCAR-s LACK A GAFr , YGEN SERVICE 11.482.97 SPECIALTY GASSES m o:74",5: CI 0 COUNTY ORANGE $253.00 PERMITS nq7460 IINTV �RNTTATJnN DTAT.Al� REIMBURSE WORKER COMP INSURANCE FWD -zC UNYY �WR 20 �'q5ffi GRMTHI) WATER REPLMOFM� VTv nlsp$cnow`� "I WARP 'RANsr, NA i � �N fly FORT 097464 PACIFIC PARTS $339.07 DEWATERING PART 097465 PACIFIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO. $1,125.63 SAFETY SUPPLIES vAg14 qf -"oll -,4: 1.1 F 99�77 4 6 CTEL' CC�LULAR, ',l Nlsm.w r2��q TELEPHONE- SERVICES �7r 3657.59 168 1- 'W,"�'�JAMITORIAL 4UPPLIES il PAK WESI`t,� 4 lAhlQ r�MPRPR4AR RARMQ 097470 PARTS UNLIMITED 3295.35 AUTOMOTIVE PARTS 097471 PHOTO 9 SOUND CO. $402.80 RENTAL EQUIPMENT n97471 -,-,n, T. m n 5-11-gg INC .... ..... LYCLAO-LAhINATES �$I.722.27 REFUND USER FEE OVERPAYMENT'9"73" P6 9 7 4 7 4 THE PROJECTS COCom INSTUMENTATION INSPECTION SOLUTION IN, IG 41 097476 RMG ENGINEERING, INC $1.100.00 ENGINEERING SERVICES 097477 RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. S695.27 TRASH REMOVAL -10747A RFrvr. TNr- ��, ,, .1 ENOWAT M n 1 in 7", 3 RED YINQ; $140ES -.4 T H 5:64 SLU� w097479 t". APE DES R.A. REED ELECTRIC 113S51137 30 `SAFETY NT 7 IN �,097481 AFGrNC.V cWmnmvrATTn ,,_.. —; . I 097482 THE REGENTS S1,060.00 TRAINING 0974e3 REMOTE METER RESETTING SYSTEM s3'000.00 POSTAGE 1- 097485 RICOH CORPORATION COPIER LEASES 097486 ROSEMONTIANALYTICAL $579.62 INSTRUMENT PART FUND NO 9199 - JT GIST MORNING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/89 FACE 5 REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS PAID 01/18/89 POSTING DATE O1HE/89" a 'ARRA L... 0974E7 SACMETTrS AMERICAN CONCRETE $162.50 CONCRETE G974PP SANCON 09709 SCIENCE:APPLICATIONS INT°L #33147B6:T9 ''"K °s ','OCEANOGRAPHIC RESEARCH M 0 8 10 BB w ° 097490 SEA COAST DESIGNS $46:00 .OFFICE EGDIPId" REPAIR:" . '* 0 4 097492 SOIL AND' TESTING ENGINEERS $746.00 SOIL TESTING G97493 SO. COAST AIR .OUALITY $33.00 SUBSCRIPTION 2 2 9Te9 F:AS7-7RR-P-S BOXES . 09719, S0. CALI EO150N.TD. .116f 479.02 'x `.POWER RELOCATION 'I. 057096 STAR TOOL A SUPPLY CO. 696.69 09749] SURTA 697496 SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS 324.OU PUBLICATION 097999 TAM TANAMINE $2,440.00 CONTRACT LANDSCAPE MAINTENACE 9 -- 097591 Tr6. iR lPP 595.00 r.FJ- 9Y BUILDING NAINTENACB 097SC2 TRUCK 6TO SUPPLY. INC. f1r000.24 TRUCK PARTS 09T564 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE $293.46 PARCEL SERVICES ITT 9975A5 UNITED WESTERN ELEVATOR $319.75 MAINTENACE AGREEMENT 1-799 H 097517 JOB R. YAPLEB s .+ 7 '9 .�- 1,f533:52 '�` ['ODOR CONTROL'CONSULTANT .097508 ,'AIL WARREN 1 CD. �+�. s.: - a591.94 I: .:,- TN9ORANC6 �S$RVIQ$.� k(j ,A, . @97510 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES $3,021.61 r ENGINEERING SERVICES 2-26-1 ° 097511 XEROX CORP. $3,792.86 COPIER LEASLRE�, mFI TOTAL CLAIMS PAID 01/ISIB9 Iwl i6r101 799 12 - CFI EM._: FUND NO 9199 — JT DIST WORKING CAPITAL PROCESSING DATE 1/11/89 PAGE 6 ] COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY REPORT NUMBER AP43 CLAIMS gAID 014104,09 POSTING DATE r. POP �A r x 3a .. L c. i • 4 SHWARY AMOUNT t � v►1-�OPER FUND : R, r , N�s`"`,3r. ON i ✓v�'6 .�5 +7fyw z$¢ <fi{�,yvtr £ 3015.60rnNqT FUND v +12 OPER FOND 3,996.63 62 ACO FUND 5,180.59 v 2'COMET FUND HH- Mn, h WA V Y ' v 937 572.E Ix �63':OPER PONDi ) $dsi ' t,SPp±'v`#i�a u�]N tv > iy..x4 563.69j^ ..ir MJ xR]nl nn"`�l In 63 CONST FUND 2,099,333.84 #5 OPER FOND - 3,860.39 #6 OPER FUND.'., hf x k x'n s 42 68: $7.OPER FUND " t £1 4.. 6i . .-.. .,t7 .. ,� .m , ' 611 OPER FUND 107.91 X811 ACO FUND '22,242.00 All AR 11 �.i 414 OPER FUND 6$66 OPER FUND t t - ry .h+'ir D .0 i e"•" r vA' ..'., 878.16. ?¢tiv ,�� ti.. rk4< {° r+,. rnn f 67614 OPER FUND 171.18r j Ib JT OPER FUND 666,750.46 j YEELF FUNDED.WORKERS COMP .IRSURANCB FUND �yi ry 'yk'3 t ° zitt '6` 16 51' v JT-WORKING CAPITAL F W.' `• `14 i x, YF Y I�,� 72t 1v: m �4 H 9N � "2 l �n37 , ti $ 6,101,749.32 , a3?!' q , � k& +1� H a. �y I s� . '�Pa �f r a t,..d9i�'n. ✓.:e v •,r r���e�e�k 6,p,{°m, v �,>t "' wlft%vmfu,;. ,:a i. 1?.,� f s a n'� to rrg "a 6 rvf� rGr 6' �s b3 it STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954 .2, I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Regular Board Meeting on e , 19.91 was duly posted for public inspection at the main lobby of the Districts' offices on 8. , 19". IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of �&A04A4_ 19�. `r Rita J. Brown, secretary of each of the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1 , 2, 3 , 5, 6 , 7 , 11, 13 6 14 of Orange County, California