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’.:]