HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-01-20 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92728-8127
y 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY,CALIFORNIA 92708-7018
(714)902-2411
January 14, 1993
NOTICE OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
DISTRICTS NOS, 3 6 7
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of January 13,
1993, the Boards of Directors of county Sanitation Districts Nos. 3
and 7 will meet in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour
and date.
Assistant a d cretary
BOARDS OF DIRECTORS
' County Sanitation Districts P.O. Box 8127• 10t144 Ellis Avenue
.h o} Orange County, California Fountaln Valley,CA 92728-8127
Telephone:(714) 962-2411
DISTRICTS NOS. 3 g 7
AGENDA
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
In accordance 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) Public Comments: All persons wishing to address the Boards
on specific 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.
(4) DISTRICTS 3 & 7
(a) Verbal report of staff and counsel re fiberglass pipe
force mains
O1/20/93
• (5) DISTRICT 3 ONLY
(a) Consideration of following actions re evaluation and
determination of condition of Techite pipe force mains
and viability of claim against pipe manufacturer; and
Repair and Sampling of Westminster Avenue Force Mains,
Units 1 and 2, Contract No. 3-36:
(1) Consideration of motion authorizing Change Order
No. 1 to Purchase Order No. 54292 to David
R. Griffin, Attorney at Law, and/or his firm
Byrum, Holland a Griffin, increasing the
authorized amount from an amount not to exceed
$25,000.00 to an amount not to exceed $85,000.00.
(2) Consideration of motion authorizing the General
Manager to issue a purchase order to Arnold
Rummelsburg to provide supervision and forensic
documentation in an amount not to exceed
$5,000.00.
( 3) Consideration of motion authorizing the General
Manager to issue a purchase order to Houser Labs,
Boulder, Colorado, to conduct laboratory analyses
in an amount not to exceed $10,000.00.
(4) Consideration of motion authorizing the General
Manager to issue a purchase order to Derrick
\� Hull, Consultant, Cambridge, England, for
laboratory analyses in an amount not to exceed
$25,000.00.
(5) Consideration of motion authorizing the General
Manager to receive bids from qualified
contractors for Repair and Sampling of
Westminster Avenue Force Main, Units 1 and 2,
Contract No. 3-36, and award contract to the
lowest responsible bidder, in an amount not to
exceed $125,000.00.
(6) DISTRICT 3
O homer business and communications, if any
(7) DISTRICT 3
Consideration of motion to adjourn
(8) DISTRICT 7
Ott u—siness and communications, if any
(9) DISTRICT 7
Considebation of motion to adjourn
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS
ui ORANGE COUNTY. CAUFORNIA
IW44 EWS AVENUE
January 14, 1993 Rf190}9+:�
FWWAJN VALLEY,CAUFORNiA 9212 127
n+m 99z-za.1
ADJOURNED DISTRICTS 3 AND 7
MEETING DATE
JANUARY 20. 1993 AT 7:30 P.M.
MANAGER'S REPORT
DETERMINATION OF CONDITION AND REPAIR TO FIBERGLASS PIPE FORCE
MAINS.
Background
Between 1967 and 1982, the Districts used Techite pipe as an
alternative material for force main construction. Techite pipe was made from
fiberglass layers bonded together with glue. In the past three years, the Districts
have experienced failures in some of the Techite pipe force mains installed in
District No. 3. Other pipe has been installed in Districts Nos. 5 and 7 and as a
liner in an interplant line. The dates of installation and descriptions of the pipes are
shown in the table below.
Contract Date Quantity
Gisler Trunk Sewer
Contract No. 7-1C
(From College Avenue P.S.) 1967 1,833 L.F. of 21"
Navy Way Pump Station
Contract No. 7-A-1
(in Edinger Avenue) 1969 2,603 L.F. of 16"
Westminster Ave. Force Main
First Unit, Contract No. 3-13 1970 14,308 L.F. of 30"
Rehabilitation of PCH Plan 401
Sewer, Contract No. 5-19 1972 1,148 L.F. of 24"
I.D. Liner
Contract Date Quantity
Westside Relief Interceptor �..-
Contract No. 3-21-1
(From the Westside Lift Station) 1975 45 L.F. of 20"
Westminster Ave. Force Main
Second Unit
Contract No. 3-13-1 1978 14,288 L.F. of 30"
Rehabilitation of Ellis Avenue
Force Main, Contract No. I-R-1 1982 6,494 L.F. of 33"
I.D. Liner
The Techite pipe in CSD 5 was installed as a liner. The pipe is deficient
in capacity and plans are currently being prepared to replace the sewer (Contract
No. 5-37)• The Techite pipe in the Ellis Avenue Force Main, Contract No. I-R-1, is
also a liner in an older pipe. This force main is planned to be replaced with a larger
pipe to increase flows into Plant No. 1 in the future.
Westminster Avenue Force Main (District No. 3)
The western portion of District No. 3 drains to a collection system served
by the Seal Beach Pump Station located on the northeast corner of Seal Beach
Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Wastewater from this system is pumped
easterly through a dual force main system to a gravity sewer located half-way
between Boise Chica Avenue and Springdale Avenue. Both force mains are made
of 30-Inch diameter Techite pipes. The first of these mains, the Westminster
Avenue Force Main, First Unit, Contract No. 3-13, was installed in 1970, the
Second Unit, Contract No. 3-13-1, in 1978.
The most recent of several breaks in these lines occurred on August 19,
1991. The same line previously broke a few hundred feet away in March 1990
necessitating repairs at that time. Repair kits are becoming exceedingly hard to
find because Techite pipe is no longer manufactured. The Districts are currently in
possession of four repair kits for 30-inch pipe, five 20-foot lengths of 30-inch pipe,
five 20-foot repair kits for 21-inch Techite pipe, and six 20-foot lengths of 21-Inch
Techite pipe. These pieces represent the last repair kits in this region, any
additional repair kits must be obtained from Ersigs, Incorporated in the State of
Washington.
While replacing the most heavily damaged 20-foot portion of the pipe
from the August 1991 break, staff was able to view adjacent pipe sections on
both sides of the broken pipe and found them cracked as well. Staff reported at
the September 11, 1991 Board meeting that the entire line may need replacement.
Staff estimated the cost to be approximately $5 to 6 million to replace both pipes.
...� The Board authorized staff to solicit proposals and negotiate a professional services
agreement for design of Replacement of the Westminster Avenue Force Main (First
Unit), Contract No. 3-36. Design for the Replacement of the Westminster Avenue
Force Main (Second Unit), Contract No. 3-36, would follow the construction of the
First Unit as a second phase via a separate contract.
Staff reported to the Directors in December 1991 that information had
been obtained indicating that the break may have been due to Techite pipe being
inherently defective. Staff and General Counsel had a number of discussions with
David Griffin, a Bakersfield lawyer specializing in pipe technology. He has
represented public agencies with similar Techite pipe problems. Mr. Griffin has
recovered seven large judgments and settlements against the Techite pipe
manufacturers, losing only one case.
Counsel and staff recommended, and the Boards concurred, retaining Mr.
Griffin within staff authority to review the potential to recover costs from the
manufacturers of Techite pipe. Mr. Griffin's report states that the Techite pipe
manufacturer's claims regarding the pipe's inert properties and 50-year service life
may be false. Mr. Griffin has indicated that the chances of recovery are good,
and recommends proceeding with further testing. Testing of the pipe requires
taking pipe samples for laboratory analysis.
Based on potential results of the recommended testing and Mr. Griffin's
findings, claims for fraud, breach of contract, negligence and misrepresentation are
a distinct possibility, with recoveries for the cost of replacing the Districts' force
mains plus legal fees minus depreciation expected. Punitive damages have also
been obtained in past cases. Mr. Griffin's report has advised the Districts of some
of the past histories of the Techite pipe manufacturers and the basis for a claim
against the Techite pipe manufacturers.
Mr. Griffin advises that the main items of evidence for this, or any such
case, are the samples of the pipe analyzed by a laboratory proving that the pipe is
deteriorating at an accelerated pace. The Districts videotaped 1300 feet of the
newer Westminster Avenue Force Main, Contract No. 3-13-1, using a camera
mounted to an electric motor and track system to determine if taking a sample was
justified. The videotape showed a radial crack consistent with past Techite pipe
failures. Videotaping lengths exceeding 1300 feet would require the Districts to
cut access openings in the force mains at 2600 foot intervals. Staff has prepared
plans for the removal of a segment of pipe from each of the Westminster Force
Mains, First and Second Units, with one segment selected which will allow the
repair of the cracked pipe that has been discovered on the Second Unit. The First
Unit has had two recent failures in 1990 and 1991 and the Second Unit may fail at
any time.
The only other Techite force main in CSD 3 is the 45 L.F. of 20-inch
used to relocate the force main from the Westside Lift Station to allow for the
construction of the Westside Relief Sewer. This is a single-barrel force main and u
therefore no samples can be taken from this line.
Navy Way Pumo Station (District No. 7)
Techite pipe was used in County Sanitation District No. 7 (CSD 7) at the
Navy Way Pump Station and Force Main, and the College Avenue Pump Station
and Force Main. No failures have happened on these systems.
In July 1992, the Directors authorized construction of a gravity line to
the Irvine Ranch Water District's Harvard Avenue Trunk in lieu of constructing a
new force main for the Navy Way Pump Station force main. Plans are now being
prepared for the abandonment of the Navy Way Pump Station and Force Main and
most of the flows to the College Avenue Pump Station are being diverted to the
Sunflower Trunk Sewer, greatly reducing the operating pressures in this line.
Samples will be taken of the Navy Way Force Main as part of the Navy Way Pump
Station and Force Main Abandonment and Construction of Gravity Sewer, Contract
No. 7-20. Since the analysis for District No. 3 will precede District No. 7, no
actions are recommended at this time. Laboratory analysis can be done within
staff authority, if warranted. If laboratory analysis proves that the Navy Way
Force Main is deteriorating at an accelerated pace, then this system could be
included in the claim. Because the College Avenue Pump Station is also a single- �../
barrel force main, it is not recommended that samples be taken.
Recommendations (District No. 3 only)
Due to the fact that these samples will be used as evidence in a claim,
staff recommends the removal of the pipes and selection of segments for
laboratory analysis be supervised and documented by a third party with experience
in removing the fragile sections of pipe. Mr. Arnold Rummelsburg, retired from the
Wheeler Ridge Water Storage District, has experience necessary to supervise and
provide forensic documentation of the removal. Corroborating laboratory analyses
will also be required from two labs. Additionally, staff and General Counsel is
recommending that Mr. Griffin's purchase order be increased from the staff-
authorized $25,000.00 to $85,000.00 to cover consultation, compilation of past
discovery and testimony, and preparation of a settlement brief. Finally, a
contractor will have to be engaged to repair the cracked section(s) of pipe.
Staff, therefore, recommends authorization for the General Manager to
issue purchase orders in an amount not to exceed $250,000.00, to continue with
this investigation, as follows:
(1) Authorize Change Order No. 1 to Purchase Order No. 54292 to
David R. Griffin, Attorney At Law, and/or his firm, Byrum, Holland &
�./ Griffin, increasing the authorized amount for legal services from an
amount not to exceed $25,000.00 to an amount not to exceed
$85,000.00.
(2) Authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order to
Arnold Rummelsburg to provide supervision and forensic
documentation in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00.
(3) Authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order to
Houser Labs, Boulder, Colorado, to conduct laboratory analyses in
an amount.not to exceed $10,000.00.
(4) Authorizing the General Manager to issue a purchase order to
Derrick Hull, Cambridge, England, Consultant, for laboratory
analyses in an amount not to exceed $25,000.00.
(5) Authorizing the General Manager to receive bids from qualified
contractors for Repair and Sampling of Westminster Avenue Force
Main, Units 1 and 2, Contract No. 3-36, and award a contract to
the lowest responsible bidder, in an amount not to exceed
$125,000.00.
# 444;21„00111-
J. Wayne Sylvester
General Manager
JWS:TMD:jt
\wpdoo\eno\committe\d3&7-193.m,
Adjourned 01/20/93 7:30 p.cl. 3 6 7
MEETING GATE TIME DISTRICTS
DISTRICT 1 JOINT BOARDS
(BEYER) .......BARREN) ...... _ (SEVER) ......... BARRERA .....—
—
—
LREAOE) .......FERRYMAN ..... — (DENES) ......... BELL .........—
(LUTZ) .........RICHARDSON ... (MtDtANAHAN) .... CATLIN .......
(PONTIOUS) ....SALTAREW .... (SCOT1♦ ......... COWNS ......
— —
(ROTH) ........STANTON ...... _ (WATT) .......... COX _
(NELSOM ........ WNLAP .... —
DISTRICT 2 (PoCE) ........... EVANS .......— —
(GULLASON)....WEDM ........ (REAGE) ......... —
(BCOTT) .......cOWNS ....... (MANOMEY)....... FLOM........— —
(BEYER) .......BANRERA ...... (BiOWM......... GRIFFIN _
(DENES) .......BELL .......... — (WEDAA) ......... GUWI®ON..... —
(MkLIANAHAM ..CATLIN ........ _ (WARD) .......... HAMMOND ....— —
(FLDM) .......MAHONEY...... (DEHAn ......... HART.........— —
(ECI®IRODE)...MORENO.MARA — (AGE) ........... Kilm .......— —
(PARIMM ......NELSON ....... — (ULVA) .......... LEPLB.......— —
(DALn.........PICIQHi ....... (FORSfTHE) ...... LAZBW........ —
(WR) .........PIIIIDO........ (Rio ARosoN) .... LUTZ .........
(ROTH) ........STANTON ...... _ (FLORA) ......... IMIRMIEY.....— —
(SINGER)....... ........ — (UNN) ........... MINER........— —
(ECIENRODE)..... MORENO,MARM— —
DWmCT 3 (PUUDO)......... MORENO.TED —
(MARRNE21.....SAPSiT1 ........ . C (PARIG:R) ........ NELSON ......— —
(NELSON) ......DUNLAP ....... JL (DUNLAP) ........ PARXt-A —
(MiCLANAW N) ..CATLIN ........ (OA Y)........... PIGBER ......— —
(SCOTT) .......COWNS ....... JG (PUcIIETT) ....... POIIROUS ....—
(RICE) .........EVANS ........ w ISALTARELLO ..... PUCNETT _—
(MAHONEn.....FLORA ........ Of ILUTZ) ........... PUUDO .......— _
(BROWN).......GRIFFIN ....... t (LUTZ) ........... RICHARDSON
(AGE) .........HEAR/ ........ (STANTON) ....... ROTH —
(FORSYTHE) ....LASZLO........ (PORWAR ...... SALTAFEW ... —
(RICHARDSON) ..WTZ.......... Rf, (DEBXY) ......... SANSONE .....— —
(UNN) .........MNEA......... (MAR71MED....... SAREI .......
— —
(DALn.........PMAG.ER ....... (ROBRAIUE) ..... ffiVA ........— —
(ROBRAILLE) ...MW.. (ZLANET)......... SEBEI.......— —
(L AWn .......SINGER............... (ROTH) .......... STANTON .....— _
(FO. ........STANTON ...... (MLLEM ......... SWAN ........— —
(SAM)........SA.VM ........ r (BATES).......... mm .......— —
(WA-M .......... TURNER ...:..— —
)ISRTICT6 (PERRY) ......... WANNER......— —
(�/WATT]........LAX .......... (GUWXSON)...... WEIR) .......— —
(STANTON) .....ROTH ......... (ROBRAILLE) ..... WINCHELL.....—
—
(WATT) ........TURNER ....... — (SINGER)......... ZlAKET .......—
DISTRICT STAFF OTHERS
(PERRY) .......WANNER....... — SYLVESTER WOODRUFF
(DEBAn .......HART ........• — BROWN ....— ANWAR....
—
(STANTON) .....ROTA ......... _ ANDERSON. DEMR.....
CLAWSON.. FLEMNO... —
DISTRICT7 DAWES .... HOHENER..
(SALTAREILI) ...PUCMETT GORCZYCA. — HOUGH ....
...... HASENSTAB HOWARD .. —
I I .........WANNER....... —
(BEYER) .......BAPoiEN) ...... HOMES ... AUNT .....
PF
(WARD) ........HAM omD ..... — UN E R .... LEEIQf .. ....
(FVUDO) .......MORENO.TED .. Z UNDER ....— LEE .......
(STANTON) .....ipTH ......... 3 NEAOR ...— UNDSTROM
(DEBAY) .......SANSOTE NICHOLS...— LYNCH ....
OOTEN .... — SLAW .....
DISTRICT II SI)PSON .. WASW . ...
(ROBR LL AILLE) ...WINCHE ..... SRR® ... YOUHG
(SILVA) ........MFGG........ _ WNLFM...— D
(ROTA) ........STANToN ...... — MNSPR
DISTRICT 13
(WEDAA) .......GUWXSON..... _
STANTO �� .
(BEYER) .......BARREN) ...... _
( I ......RHEA .......
(OALn.........PIC4cER .......
DISTRICT
OM .....ROTHT ......... — V
'Ml1EA) .......SWAN .........
PoTTTIom ..... —
`...I�EYER) .......EMREM ...... — —
(WARD) ....
(STANTCM .....ROTH .........
Inzm
01/20/93 - ADJOURNED DISTRICTS 3 & 7 BOARD MEETING
#4 - Staff Reoort
TMD: Tonight we are going to talk about a certain type of pipe that the District
has installed several times in the last 20+ years called Techite pipe. Techite pipe
is a plastic reinforced fiberglass type of pipe. The District used has used it in
force mains, that is to say that the pipes that are under pressure after sewage was
left from lower elevations and pumped to higher elevations. Techite pipe in the
late 60's and 70's found wide acceptance as a pressure pipe. Mainly it was used
by water districts for all of their pipes are pressured, and they were the main users
of techite pipe. It came in a larger diameter, that is to say 15" and higher and was
used by many water districts for transmission mains and things of that sort.
In the District's case it was bid as an alternate to other types of pressure pipe. In
the cases to be discussed tonight it was the winner probably because it was the
cheapest pipe. In all cases techite pipe, today techite pipe is no longer made and
hasn't been made since 1984-85, and is failing all over. The Districts installed
techite pipe in several locations. District 3 has the most of it, largely in a double-
barreled force main which serves the Seal Beach pumping plant that is located on
Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue in the Navy weapons area. It is on
the northeast corner of Seal Beach Boulevard. The force main from that pump
station pumps all the way over to just about Springdale and Westminster, so it is
nearly a 3-mile force main. Because it is a double-barreled pipe, we have 6 miles
of that pipe in the ground.
It was also used by the joint works in a pump station force main in Ellis Avenue.
There it was used as a slip liner and that is to say it went inside of an old siphon,
and it was grouted to the wall of the old pipe so it really became a carrier pipe.
It was used as a very short force main for the West Side Pump Station. That is
only 45 feet long.
_ a force main in the College Avenue Pump Station, there is about 1600 feet in
that. And, it was used in District 7. There is also a short section in District 5,
again, as a slip liner. In total we have about 8 to 9 miles of techite pipe.
I would like to briefly go through some of these charts. The Westside Relief
Interceptor and the College Pump Station are planning to add second barrels at a
later date. And we feel because of that we won't have to replace the two barrels
that are in there. We will simply retire them as stand-by.
The 1989 Master Plan that you adopted calls for that liability factor, to always
1
have a second barrel in a force main, rather than a single barrel. In the lines where
it is used as a slip liner, in Ellis Avenue and down in Pacific Coast Highway, those
lines are both slated for replacement because of hydraulic deficiencies. We
wouldn't expect to do any repair on those lines. They'll be replaced in the future
in accordance with our Master Plan.
So the areas that we have to talk about are District 7 on their Navy Way Pump
Station and large amount on the Westminster Avenue Force Main in District 3.
Let's start In District 7. The District operates a pump station on Edinger Avenue
just on the north side of the Tustin Air Station. After we found out that this
techite pipe was in jeopardy, we made an analysis and presented it to the Directors
two options. One was to build a new force main 2600' long, the other was to
construct a gravity sewer from the pump station over to the Irvine Ranch Water
District's HATS' Trunk (Harvard Avenue Trunk Sewer). But the construction of the
gravity sewer costs more than the building of the force main but it allowed us to
take the pump station out of service. So the Directors of District 7 approved that
plan and we are now preparing the plans to build this force main in Edinger and
take this out of service. Because of that we won't need to spend any money
replacing or paralleling this force main. We're pleased to tell you that job is going
very well. The developers in the Jamboree Plaza gave us a free 1500' easement
so that we can make the necessary connection and we expect to advertise that job
in about 4 or 5 months.
District 7, for informational purposes only, we do plan to try to recover costs for
the techite force main in District 7 and we are going to do that on the basis of the
recommendations that we are making to you tonight on the force main in
Westminster Avenue that serves the Seal Beach Pump Station.
As I mentioned, the Seal Beach Pump Station is on the northeast corner of Seal
Beach Boulevard. It is a dual 30" force main. The first of these force mains, as
you look towards the east, was put in in 1970 with a bedding and no cover around
the top other than just dirt. That was put in about 27' on the north side of the
force main. At about that time the street hadn't been widened to that so it was
put closer to the center line making ready for the second one which would be put
even farther to the north and farther away from the center line. The second one
was put in in 1978. That one, there was a cement slurry encasement put over the
top to protect it. Now that was mainly added to protect it from a puncture
because this type is very thin, about 1/4" thick. Since that time these pipes have
operated in parallel, and, again, the reason for having two is daily pumping is used
through both of them to lower the pumping requirements, to keep the energy
requirements as low as possible. But if one of them should break their sides so
that all of the water could be put in the other one and not lose any water. Force
mains are a very vulnerable part of any pumping system and this dual force main
2
� I
system has protected us very well.
The first breaks occurred in 1974 by Harmond Avenue and Westminster. Then
�..i they started coming more frequently. The second break occurred in 1990. The
third break occurred in August 1991. When that break occurred in 1991 we had
the opportunity, while fixing the pipe, to look in the pipe. We saw corrosion in the
top of the pipe just like the pipe was being eaten out. (Pictures were passed
around for Directors to view of damaged pipe.) The repairs are very difficult on
these because it's a flexible pipe. We can't just go in there and put some bands
on it. You have to get another piece of techite pipe. That is really hard to do
because it's not made. We scouted around and we found some pipe near
Bakersfield owned by the Maricopa County Water Storage District, and they agreed
to sell us a repair kit. We sent some people up there to check this out. When we
were up there they agreed to sell us five or six repair kits, all that they had left.
We asked why and found out they spent thousands of dollars to replace all of the
techite pipe. They told us their own horror story of how this stuff was breaking up
one right after the other until finally they just replaced the whole pipe.
We bought the repair kits and made the repair. One of the other things we learned
in doing this was they sued Techite and sued successfully so they gave us the
name of their attorney. We called the attorney, David Griffin of Bakersfield, and
through him we found out that these failures are coming about because of
chemical failure of the pipe. The pipe is literally erroding from the water. The
glues in it after awhile dissolves and the fabric-wrap that it was made out of bursts
and the pipe fails.
We then decided to tv the pipe as best we could. Since this 3-mile pipe is a force
main, we don't have any access parts or manholes to get into it. So we got a
company to go in and with a little tractor camera run the camera up the pipe from
both ends as far as they could go from both ends (about 1200-1300 feet). In the
newer pipe, built in 1978, we did find another break. Consequently we-now have
all the water going through the older pipe. We are going to show you the results
of that tv. You'll be looking at the inside of a 30" techite pipe. John Dettle, our
engineer working on this project, will describe what you are going to see.
Mr. Griffin, our attorney, has told us some startling news. He told us that the
older pipe, which we've had more breaks in, is a better quality pipe than the newer
pipe. He told us on the newer pipe the company actually cheapened up on it and
put sand in it instead of displaced resin so it has less of the resin than the older
pipe. He is saying that now that we have 14 years on it, he expects it to start
breaking at an alarming rate. He prepared quite a report on this. It is so
unbelievable....United Technologies, a very large company. They are an American
firm defense contractor and they were looking for ways to diversify when they
3
went into this business. Our attorney tells us that the resin in this pipe is very
similar to the resin in Elmer's glue. He told us that in time it simply dissolves out.
It is just incredible.
The actions that we are going to be asking of you tonight in District 3 are to
authorize us to bid the repair of this 1978 line and when we do that repair to take
a sample. And then while we have the street tore up in Seal Beach, after we get
the newer line repaired, we want to switch the water and take a sample out of the
older line, both recommended by our attorney as absolutely necessary for our claim
against United Technologies. The other actions that we are asking you to do are
to allow us to hire some labs to run samples. The other action is to authorize us
$40,000 to hire these labs. Now, we gave specific amounts in the Manager's
Report. $10,000 to one, $25,000 to another and $5,000 for a forensic expert.
We would like to slightly revise that to give us $40,000 to issue purchase orders
to those three firms and individuals, but allow us to change mix. The attorney is
now recommending that we do more testing in Boulder, CO and less testing in
England.
(Tape then restarted with John Dettle's narration)
We know that that is a break and because of that we asked to have meet at this
meeting to give us the authority to go ahead with the repair and with that repair to
take the samples that we need for this case. I think General Counsel, Tom
Woodruff, will now talk about our plans for the claim.
TLW: There are several Directors who are new to this. Several who have had an
initial briefing, possibly. About a year ago we did upon discovery of this
information contact Dave Griffin, an attorney from Bakersfield with a firm that we
subsequently learned has been involved with a number of matters involving UTC
(United Technologies) and Amico, their successor, who are the manufacturers of
the pipe. On behalf of a variety of public agencies from Fairbanks, Alaska to
Hawaii and several in California throughout the West, John Shaw in my office has
really been spending and putting most of the effort in on this with Tom and the
staff. But going back about a year ago, the Boards approved and engaged Mr.
Griffin to do a couple of things. One was, based on his experience of other cases,
to review the data that we did have relative to the systems to determine whether
they followed a pattern that they had found in the other matters where they had
filed suit on behalf of other public agencies, and secondly to provide us legal
analyses of where it would all develop and what the Districts' position might be if
it saw fit to pursue this. We got those reports the middle of last year. His legal
brief came back in 100 pages. I must tell you, it is extremely well done. We have
been evaluating that in several respects since then and the staff and management
has been viewing this and trying to-take into consideration a variety of factors.
4
Before the defects were discovered on video, we realized that just to get pieces of
pipe to send to the lab meant the investment of a fairly considerable sum of money
because we would have to go in, excavate, hire contractors, make appropriate
cuts, not even really being sure where we were going to dig to be sure we were
going to get some bad pipe, and then make the repair to the line and keeping it in
service, it was going to be pretty costly so staff was trying to figure out the best
way to approach that and they were doing a variety of engineering studies, looking
at old records and what have you. Now we found these defects and staff is really
convinced that those need to be repaired. We certainly don't want a major sewer
break. Since we are going to be doing that and awarding a contract to do it, we
know we are going to be opening up bad pipe so we've got the specimens we
need to send to the labs. Even though it is bad news, the good news is we've got
the hard data or material for laboratory work to proceed forward. We have met
with Dave Griffin in my office for a few hours today and went through a variety of
aspects on how to proceed on this. The recommendation that you see in your
Manager's Report and agenda is to authorize a revision on the change order to Mr.
Griffin and his law firm to undertake some additional work. What that basically
would entail is several things. One is to coordinate with some engineers who will
be involved in the laboratory and technical evaluation and analyses of the pipe that
we send to them. They will also be looking at all of the old construction
installation and inspection records, data that the District has going back to the
1970's when these lines were installed, developing essentially a legal stratagem so
we can be sure that we have as much of the best data possible before we ask the
Boards to ultimately say to file suit against Amaco and/or United Technologies and
anybody else who supplied the pipe. There are also some expert witnesses that
are out there who are available who have spent a great deal of time who have
testified previously in other matters. There are engineers and scientists who have
been involved in this process and know what this pipe is all about. It would entail
the coordinating of efforts with them as well, trying more or less to get those folks
briefed and "on our side". And lastly to prepare a package that we would put
together to submit to the respective companies, Amaco and UTC, showing hard
data, what we have in the form of bad pipe, laboratory results showing why its'
bad and how it's bad, and how much we've got in the ground, what the costs are.
There will be a cost evaluation for replacement. And present this to them at the
time we would essentlally file a claim with them and a demand for reimbursement
to us for these damages. Mr. Griffin believes quite strongly that if we are going to
pursue this course that we really need to do a couple of things. One, strike
forcefully in the claim and strike rather quickly. As he noted, and I concur, these
are large Fortune 500+ corporations, they are going to come at us with a battery
of 10-50 lawyers and try to paper us to death. But he's been through this and his
firm has been through this a number of times and they have quite a few of the
smoking guns relative to corporate memos and other reports showing that these
manufacturers knew that they had material defects and that their own laboratory
5
work was flawed. He believes that we need to convey to them a message that we
are very serious about pursuing the claim and not show them a lot of quarter. His
advice, his recommendation is to try and do that with the hope that the case
�..i settles either before litigation or at a very early stage, even recognizing to take it at
a substantial discount. We've all just been through for the past year the Montrose
litigation. You know what complex technical litigation can Involve and if we could
go in and file a claim and settle it without the litigation on the basis of convincing
them that we do have really good hard evidence and even taking it at a substantial
discount, I would probably come to you as General Counsel and recommend that
you settle it whether it was 50 cents on the dollar or whatever the number might
be because it is money that we can use immediately towards the replacement of
those lines and it avoids outrageous complex extended litigation where the costs
go up. The offset to that is some of the public agencies, and what we would
apparently do, is also file a claim on the basis of fraud. They have succeeded on
the basis that the companies, in fact, knew that at the time they manufactured this
pipe that their scientific data was flawed and they decided to go ahead with it in
any event. Based on that, if you make the allegation and prove the fraud claim,
you can get punitive damages. Mr. Griffin has, in fact, on behalf of a smaller
water district, succeeded in getting a $4 million fraud claim established against
them for punitive damages. This is premature and down the way but one of the
things you will be hearing down the road. Mr. Griffin will be recommending to us.
If, at such time as the Board is called upon to make a decision whether to litigate
or not, which will be presented to the Board, will be a lot more definitive. Mr.
Griffin's firm is capable of doing this. Whether we engage that firm to do the
litigation is not something I have a recommendation on at this time. We may do it,
one choice would be to have them do it exclusively; one of them do it in
conjunction with my office or in conjunction with a local office here of some other
firm; but one, we get the report back and see whether the facts and evidence
merits pursuing this further, those are our recommendations that I will have for you
on a precise basis. Any questions? Director Collins?
COLLINS: A couple of quick ones. You mentioned smoking guns with documents.
Wouldn't that be found liable judgments against specific pipe in other cases be
almost a _ done deal?
TLW: Yes and no. As I understand it, and as Dave was commenting yesterday,
they were changing the formula on this pipe about every six months for a year.
And so, as Tom commented, he now thinks, six months ago Dave Griffin opined
that he didn't think we would have troubles with the 78 pipe and that we wouldn't
have a claim. He said we might just as well ignore that. Let's focus on the 72
claim. Now we've got pieces of pipe showing stress corrosion on the top and
failure and he's saying time-out. The 78 pipe is a far better claim and we've got
some precedent on that and it's a question of when it was manufactured. But
6
there was a change in the formula so the answer is yes, but.
COLLINS: Do we know what the one case that Mr. Griffin lost on?
SHAW: Yes, we do. He was unsuccessful in two cases actually. The one he was
specific on was a case in Hawaii. There they just couldn't convince the jury about
causation as to what led to the crack. But, what he did tell us and we've done
some double-checking on his work with a couple of his clients, he has been
involved in at least 15 separate lawsuits and he has represented 13 have settled
favorably. Two have been losers for him. With regard to the smoking gun issue,
he's got thousands of documents and he has witnesses already pinned down that
we can use in this case. But these cases that have settled are in effect sealed
records and in fact he couldn't even relate to us what the settlements were.
COLLINS: So they were settled by a judgement?
SHAW: Right. Well, yes. There was one case that went to judgement and I think
he represented and that eventually settled before the appeal got resolved.
COLLINS: None of that would be admissible in our position?
SHAW: That's right. However, the evidence would be available to us. And that's
a real key resource for us. I also wanted to add that Mr. Griffin feels strongly that
our demand probably is going to be in the range of about $10 million against these
defendants. I think Tom estimates that if we had to construct all of this material
now, we would be in the range of $12 million out-of-pocket and so Dave would go
after most of that and I think he used a number of about $10 million.
COLLINS: One of the things that was mentioned In the report was minus
depreciation. Was that something that was out of the settlement because it
doesn't seem fair to me that we would have to dig up this pipe much prior to the
life expectancy. I know some of it might be good but we still have to dig it up and
we're out of pocket. Why would there be depreciation?
TLW: Well, it gets to be complex and it also gets to be argument. They will
probably come around and say well, you lost 10 years of life and whatever, but we
replace the pipe we don't get that extra 10 years until somewhere in the year
2040 and so we would put a present value on the cost of that in today's dollars so
we would discount in effect the depreciation. It becomes a lot of mathematics.
COLLINS: Is Mr. Rummelsburg, the forensic witness, accepted in the court in this
manner?
TMD: Mr. Rummelsburg is a retired civil engineer from the Maricopa County
7
Storage Water District. He has kind of affiliated himself with Mr. Griffin. Because
he did so much of this in repairing his own lines he became an expert on this. Mr.
Griffin is very concerned that when we take the samples that we do it properly so
.�. we don't contaminate them or mess them up in any way and that we provide a
very very viable chain of custody on how we take the samples, keep them and get
them to the laboratory. We're recommending that you authorize us to hire him for
that since that chain of custody in forensic work is something that we're not at all
experienced with.
COLLINS: So has he been accepted in court as a forensic witness?
SHAW: Yes, I believe he was used in the Fairbanks pipeline failures.
COLLINS: The request is to authorize the General Manager to issue purchase
orders in the amount not to exceed $250,000.00 to continue the investigation.
When I add up the five points I come up with $225,000.00. Is the other $25,000
the initial $25,000 or is there an additional $25,000 over and above that?
TMD: It is the initial $25,000 because of the change order.
COLLINS: Okay, so we are not issuing _ $25,000 has already been issued so
we are really asking to approve an incremental issuing of purchase orders of
$225,000.
TMD: That's correct.
COLLINS: Why England? Why Cambridge, England?
TMD: I can tell you what I know about that. There is a professor over there who
_ also made a name for himself in analysing this pipe. He's got some kind of
technique which he can prove by test that the pipe is, classify it say when it was
made, what was in it and what was wrong with it. He is a retired professor from
the University of Cambridge and he is somebody that Dave Griffin recommends
that we use and that's about all I can say.
COLLINS: I understand your request is making the $40,000 pool and divvying it
up, that's fine. But why is there an expected 250% difference between the
laboratory costs in England and the other one in Colorado?
TMD: In the original analysis from Mr. Griffin, he recommended more testing in
England. Right now he has changed his mind and he is recommending that we do
strength testing in Colorado and he wants to bring in this professor from England
as an expert witness and to go over those results.
8
COLLINS: So the difference really is the type of testing that is being done.
GRIFFIN: I would like to move the recommendation on 3, 4 and 5.
JC: Alright, we've got a motion and a second. Further discussion?
JWS: Mr. Chairman, does that motion include the recommended change in Items
2, 3 and 4 to just authorize a total of $40,000 of a mix to be determined later?
JC: Yes. Do we have any opposition to the motion? Seeing none, it will be
deemed approved. We don't need any action in District 7. If there's nothing
further to discuss I will entertain a motion for adjournment.
9
v
a
BOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 3 & 7
OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
January 20, 1993 - 7:30 P.M.
10844 Ellis Avenue
Fountain Valley, California
Pursuant to adjournment of the regular meeting of January 13, 1993, the Boards
of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 3 and 7 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
Assistant Secretary reported a quorum present.
DISTRICT 3:
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Burnie Dunlap, Chairman pro tem,
John Collins, James V. Evans, James
H. Flora, Don R. Griffin, Gail Kerry,
Frank Laszlo, Eva G. Miner, Earle
Robitaille, Sheldon S. Singer, Roger R.
Stanton, Charles E. Sylvia
...� DIRECTORS ABSENT: A.B. "Buck" Catlin, Thomas E. Lutz,
Iry Pickier, Sal A. Sapien
DISTRICT 7:
DIRECTORS PRESENT: Fred Barrera, Barry Hammond, Ted
Moreno, Don Roth
DIRECTORS ABSENT: Charles E. Puckett, Phil Sansone,
James A. Wahner
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: J. Wayne Sylvester, General Manager,
Penny Kyle, Assitant Board Secretary,
Thomas M. Dawes, Gary G. Streed,
John Dettle
OTHERS PRESENT: Joint Chairman William Mahoney,
Vice Joint Chairman Evelyn Hart,
Director Carrey J. Nelson, Thomas L.
Woodruff, General Counsel, John
Shaw, Phil Stone
��.►� t t t t + a • a a a a t + t t t t t a a
01/20/93
Districts 3 & 7
DISTRICTS 3 & 7
Report of staff and counsel re
fiberglass pipe force mains
The Director of Engineering reported on the history of the Districts' use of Techite
pipe as an alternative material for force main construction. Techite pipe was made
from fiberglass layers bonded together with glue. He also reported that in the past
three years, the Districts have experienced failures in some of the Techite pipe
force mains installed in District No. 3. Other pipe has been installed in Districts
Nos. 5 and 7 and as a liner in an interplant line.
He also explained that the western portion of District No. 3 drains to a collection
system served by the Seal Beach Pump Station located on the northeast corner of
Seal Beach Boulevard and Westminster Avenue. Wastewater from this system is
pumped easterly through a dual force main system to a gravity sewer located half-
way between Bolsa Chica Avenue and Springdale Avenue. Both force mains are
made of 30-inch diameter Techite pipes. The first of these mains, the Westminster
Avenue Force Main, First Unit, Contract No. 3-13; was installed in 1970, the
Second Unit, Contract No. 3-13-1 , in 1978.
Mr. Dawes stated that the most recent of several breaks in these lines occurred on
August 19, 1991 . The same line previously broke a few hundred feet away in
March 1990 necessitating repairs at that time. The Director of Engineering noted
that while replacing the most heavily damaged 20-foot portion of the pipe from the
August 1991 break, staff was able to view adjacent pipe sections on both sides of
the broken pipe and found them cracked as well. Staff reported to the Directors at
the September 11, 1991 Board meeting that the entire line would possibly need to
be replaced. Staff estimated the cost to be approximately $5 to $6 million to
replace both pipes. The Board authorized staff to solicit proposals and negotiate a
professional services agreement for design of Replacement of the Westminster
Avenue Force Main (First Unit), Contract No. 3-36. Design for the Second Unit
would follow the construction of the First Unit as a second phase via a separate
contract.
He noted that staff reported to the Directors in December 1991 that information
had been obtained indicating that the break may have been due to Techite pipe
being inherently defective. Staff and General Counsel have had a number of
discussions with David Griffin, a Bakersfield lawyer specializing in pipe technology.
Mr. Griffin has represented public agencies with similar Techite pipe problems. He
has recovered several large judgments and settlements against the Techite pipe
manufacturers for defective material.
-2-
01/20/93
Districts 3 & 7
At that time General Counsel and staff recommended, and the Boards concurred,
�..� retaining Mr. Griffin within staff authority to review the potential of recovering
costs from the manufacturers of Techite pipe. It was further noted that based on
potential results of the recommended testing and Mr. Griffin's findings, claims for
fraud, breach of contract, negligence and misrepresentation are a distinct
possibility, with recoveries for the cost of replacing the Districts' force mains plus
legal fees minus depreciation expected. Punitive damages have also been obtained
in past cases. Mr. Griffin has advised the Districts of some of the past histories of
the Techite pipe manufacturers and the basis for a claim against the Techite pipe
manufacturers. Mr. Griffin has indicated that the chances of recovery are good,
and recommends proceeding with further testing.
Testing of the pipe requires taking pipe samples for laboratory analysis. Mr. Griffin
advises that the main items of evidence for this, or any such case, are the samples
of the pipe analyzed by a laboratory proving that the pipe is deteriorating at an
accelerated pace. The Districts videotaped 1300 feet of the newer Westminster
Avenue Force Main, Contract No. 3-13-1, to determine if taking a sample was
justified. The Directors viewed portions of that videotape which showed a radial
crack consistent with past Techite pipe failures. Videotaping lengths exceeding
1300 feet would require the Districts to cut access openings in the force mains at
2600 foot intervals. Mr. Dawes also stated that staff has prepared plans for the
removal of a segment of pipe from each of the Westminster Force Mains, First and
Second Units, with one segment selected which will allow the repair of the cracked
�.� pipe that has been discovered on the Second Unit, concurrently with it's use for
laboratory analysis. The First Unit has had two recent failures in 1990 and 1991 .
Mr. Dawes further reported that Techite pipe was used in District No. 7 at the
Navy Way Pump Station and Force Main, and the College Avenue Pump Station
and Force Main. No failures have happened on these systems.
In July 1992, the Directors authorized construction of a gravity line to the Irvine
Ranch Water District's Harvard Avenue Trunk in lieu of constructing a new force
main for the Navy Way Pump Station force main. Plans are now being prepared
for the abandonment of the Navy Way Pump Station and Force Main and most of
the flows to the College Avenue Pump Station are being diverted to the Sunflower
Trunk Sewer, greatly reducing the operating pressures in this line. Samples will be
taken of the Navy Way Force Main as part of the Navy Way Pump Station and
Force Main Abandonment and Construction of Gravity Sewer, Contract No. 7-20.
Since the analysis for District No. 3 will precede District No. 7, no actions were
being recommended at this time for District No. 7.
-3-
01/20/93 °
Districts 3 & 7
Mr. Dawes concluded that due to the fact that these samples will be used as
evidence in a claim, staff recommends the removal of the pipes and selection of �J
segments for laboratory analysis be supervised and documented by a third party
with experience in removing the fragile sections of pipe. Mr. Arnold Rummelsburg
is an experienced consultant with the knowledge necessary to supervise and
provide forensic documentation of the removal. Corroborating laboratory analyses
will also be required from two labs. Also, staff and General Counsel are
recommending that Mr. Griffin's authorization be increased from the staff-
authorized $25,000.00 to $85,000.00 to cover consultation, compilation of past
discovery and testimony, and preparation of a settlement brief. In addition, a
contractor will have to be engaged to repair the cracked section(s) of pipe.
DISTRICT 3
Actions re evaluation and
determination of condition
of Techlte pipe force mains
and viability of claim against
Dips manufacturer
Authorizing Change Order No. 1
to Purchase Order No. 54292
Issued to David R. Griffin.
Attorney at Law re Techite Ploe
Moved, seconded and duly carried: ✓
That staff be, and is hereby, authorized to issue Change Order No. 1
to Purchase Order No. 54292 issued to David R. Griffin, Attorney at
Law, and/or his firm Byrum, Holland & Griffin, increasing the
authorized amount from an amount not to exceed $25,000.00 to an
amount not to exceed $85,000.00, for services pertaining to
evaluation and determination of condition of Techite pipe force mains
and viability of claim against pipe manufacturer.
Authorizing the General Manager
to Issue a purchase order to
Arnold Rummelsburn to provide
aupervision and forensic
documentation re Techite Pipe
Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to issue a
purchase order to Arnold Rummelsburg to provide supervision and
forensic documentation in an amount not to exceed $5,000.00, for
services pertaining to evaluation and determination of condition of
Techite pipe force mains and viability of claim against pipe
manufacturer.
-4-
01/20/93
Districts 3 & 7
Authorizing the General Manager
"a,.• to issue Purchase orders to
Houser Labs and Derrick Hull re
Techite Pipe
Moved, seconded and duly carried that the General Manager be, and
is hereby, authorized to issue the following purchase orders to
conduct laboratory analyses for services pertaining to evaluation and
determination of condition of Techite pipe force mains and viability of
claim against pipe manufacturer, in a total amount not to exceed
$35,000.00 for the two firms:
. Houser Labs - Boulder, Colorado
. Derrick Hull, Consultant - Cambridge, England
Authorizing receipt of bids
from qualified contractors
for Repair and Sampling of
Westminster Avenue Force
Main, Units 1 and 2. Contract
No. 3-36. and award contract
to lowest responsible bidder
Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That the General Manager be, and is hereby, authorized to receive
bids from qualified contractors for Repair and Sampling of
Westminster Avenue Force Main, Units 1 and 2, Contract No. 3-36;
and,
FURTHER MOVED: That the General Manager be, and is hereby,
authorized to award contract to the lowest responsible bidder, in an
amount not to exceed $125,000.00.
DISTRICT 3
Adjournment
Moved, seconded and duly carried:
That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.
3 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at
8:20 p.m., January 20, 1993.
"s -5-
01/20/93
Districts 3 & 7
DISTRICT 7
Adjournment
Moved, seconded and duly carried:
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
8:20 p.m., January 20, 1993.
Assistant S etary card of Directors
County Sani anon istricts Nos. 3 & 7 of
Orange County, California
-6-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
) SS.
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54954. 2,
I hereby certify that the Agenda for the Adjourned Regular Board
Meeting of Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13 and 14 held
on 19" was duly posted for public inspection
at the main obby of the Districts' offices on 4igm(aft
19ft. or or
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this d�
day of 1913.
00
Penny Kyle, s ant Secretary o
each of the o s of Directors
of County Sanitation Districts
Nos. 1 , 2, 3, 5, 6 , 7, 11 , 13 6
14 of Orange County, California
t'