Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1985-09-25 ACOUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT NO.I OF ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING September 25,1985 —4:00 P.M. 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,California Pursuant to the adjournment of the regular meeting of September 11,1985,the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.1 of Orange County,California met in an adjourned regular meeting at the above hour and date in the Districts’Administrative Offices. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.The roll was called and the Secretary reported a quorum present. DIRECTORS PRESENT:Robert Hanson,Dan Griset,Ronald B. Hoesterey,Roger Stanton DIRECTORS ABSENT:None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:J.Wayne Sylvester,General Manager,Rita Brown,Secretary,Blake Anderson,Rich von Langen,Gary Streed,Kelly Christensen OTHERS PRESENT:Thomas L.Woodruff,General Counsel,Suzanne Atkins,Gary Ryan,Paul Torres Denial of appeal of Universal The Chairman declared that this was the Circuits,Inc.re request for time and place fixed by the Board to waiver of invoice for non consider Universal Circuits’appeal of compliance fees re Industrial the General Manager’s denial of the Waste Permit No.1—346 firm’s request for waiver of Invoice No.819709 for non—compl.iance fees in the amount of $1,168.00 regarding Industrial Waste Permit No.1—346.Chairman Hanson then called for a staff report. Verbal staff report Mr.Kelly Christensen,the District’s Industrial Waste Inspector,reviewed and summarized the written staff report dated September 19,1985.He reported that the wastewater sample collected at Universal Circuits No.1 on October 24,1984,had been collected in accordance with standard sampling procedures in effect since 1976.The Industrial Waste Department routinely samples industries approximately four times a year.Samples are taken every 15 minutes for a 24—hour period.The non—compliance fee of $1,168.00 was based on a calculated discharge of 4.4 lbs.of copper over their permit limitation which is more than double the allowable limit.He indicated that he believed an underground holding tank to be a likely source of the excess copper discharged into the sewerage system. Universal Circuits has contended that the samples taken from their facility were not representative.Mr.Christensen explained the time composite sampling method.The District’s Industrial Waste Ordinance states that any sample taken from a sample box or other representative location is presumed —1— 9/25185 .4 ~ 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 Universal Circuits 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.To date Universal has elected not to install this equipment. The staff recommended that the Board deny the appeal of Universal Circuits, Inc.re Invoice No.819709 for non—compliance fees in the amount of $1,168.00. Receive and file Staff Report Moved,seconded and duly carried: That the Staff Report dated September 19,1985,relative to the appeal of Universal Circuits,Inc.,be,and is hereby,received and ordered filed. Response by Universal Circuits The Chair recognized Mr.Gary Ryan, representing Universal Circuits,who addressed the Board.He disagreed that the likely source of the excess discharge was the underground holding tank and indicated he believed he was being criminally accused.Mr.Ryan stated that in his opinion a flow—proportional sampling system would be the only way to accurately measure effluent discharged,and that the non—compliance charges should not have been levied against Universal Circuits based on the time—composite method of sampling.He reviewed maximum flow rate variances that other agencies suggest be used in determining whether a firm should be sampled on a flow—proportional system rather than the time—composite method.He alleged that the Universal’s flow rates varied substantially and therefore the flow—proportional method of sampling should be used.He stated that he had requested information relative to the flow—proportional method from District’s staff.Mr.Ryan also expressed concern that he did not feel that his appeal had keen processed in a timely manner. Discussion In response to Directors’questions Mr.Rich von Langen,the Districts’ Chief of Industrial Waste,addressed the Board and reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of using a flow—proportional sampling method versus the time—composite method currently being used by the Districts,as follows: TIME COMPOSITE FLOW PROPORTIONAL ADVANTAGE S —Can detect batch dumps —More representative for highly —Samples taken at regular intervals variable flows —Inexpensive,simple DISADVANTAGES —Less representative for —Expensive,complex highly variable flows —Difficult to detect batch dumps —2— 9/25/85 Mr.von Langen added that the Districts have been using time—composite sampling at Universal Circuits since 1981. The Districts’General Counsel assured Mr.Ryan that the case before the Directors was simply a dispute over an unpaid invoice and the District has in no way implied that he was being criminally charged. Director Dan Griset questioned the methodology used in obtaining the sample from Universal Circuits and whether Universal should be sampled on a flow—proportional basis.It was reiterated by staff that the cost of installing a flow—proportional system was 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 staff indicated that they would not object to Universal Circuits designing and installing a flow—proportional system for future sampling. The Board then entered into a lengthy discussion relative to the sampling procedure used at Universal Circuits and the accuracy of the representative sample obtained over a 24—hour period on October 24,1984.It was reiterated that the composite sampler took samples at fifteen minute intervals over a 24—hour period.Unless there is a production cycle that is as short as 15 minutes,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 Universal’s flow were at neither peak or low flow and therefore are representative.Director Griset stated that the variables of sampling accuracies can be argued and asked that consideration be given to waiving the non—compliance fee if Universal Circuits agreed to install a flow—proportional sampling system within 90 days. The Chairman then stated that the purpose of the meeting was to determine whether to grant or deny the request of Universal Circuits for waiver of Invoice No.819709 for non—compliance fees in the amount of $1,168.00,not to determine the method to be used in sampling. It was then moved,seconded and duly carried by roll call vote: That the Board of Directors do hereby deny the appeal of Universal Circuits, Inc.relative to the General Manager’s denial of their request for waiver of Invoice No.819709 for non—compliance fees in the amount of $1,168.00 re Industrial Waste Permit No.1—346. Director Dan Griset asked that his vote in opposition to the motion be made a matter of record. Adjournment Moved,seconded and duly carried: That this meeting of the Board of Directors of County Sanitation District No.I be adjourned to 7:30 p.m.,September 25,1985,for a presentation by the State Department of Health Services on the Draft interim Report:Stringfellow Facility Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study.The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 5:16 p.m.,September 25,1985. Secretary,Bo~d of Directors County Sanitation District No.1 of Orange County,California —3— a’.:]