Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-2016 Steering Committee Agenda Packet.pdf Orange County Sanitation District Wednesday, July 27, 2016 Regular Meeting of the A 4:30 P.M. STEERING COMMITTEE Administration Building Conference Rooms A&B 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, CA 92708 (714)593-7433 AGEND0 CALL TO ORDER DECLARATION OF QUORUM: Clerk of the Board PUBLIC COMMENTS: If you wish to address the Committee on anyitem,please complete a Speaker's Form (located at the table at the back of the room) and submit it to the Clerk of the Board or notify the Clerk of the Board the item number on which you want to speak. Speakers will be recognized by the Chairman and are requested to limit comments to three minutes. REPORTS: The Committee Chair and the General Manager may 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. CONSENT CALENDAR: The Consent Calendar Items are considered to be routine and will be enacted, by the Committee, after one motion, without discussion. Any items withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion will be considered in the regular order of business. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Clerk of the Board) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Minutes of the regular meeting of the Steering Committee held on June 22, 2016. 2. GENERAL MANAGER'S FY 2015-2016 FINAL YEAR END WORK PLAN UPDATE (Jim Herberg) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Board of Directors to: Receive and file the General Manager's FY 2015-2016 Work Plan Year End Update. 07/27/2016 Steering Committee Agenda Page 1 of 4 NON-CONSENT CALENDAR: 3. 2015 INTERNAL SAWPA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AUDIT REPORT (James E. Colston) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Board of Directors to: Receive and file the 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report. 4. COMPENSATION STUDY FINAL RESULTS (Celia Chandler) RECOMMENDATION: Recommend to the Board of Directors to: Receive and file the Compensation Study final results. INFORMATION ITEMS: None. CLOSED SESSION: During the course of conducting the business set forth on this agenda as a regular meeting of the Board, the Chair may convene the Board in closed session to consider matters of pending real estate negotiations,pending orpotential litigation,or personnel matters,pursuant to Government Code Sections 54956.8, 54956.9, 54957 or 54957.6, as noted. Reports relating to (a)purchase and sale of real property, (b) matters of pending or potential litigation; (c) employment actions or negotiations with employee representatives,,or which are exempt from public disclosure under the California Public Records Act, may be reviewed by the Board during a permitted closed session and are not available for public inspection. At such time as the Board takes final action on any of these subjects, the minutes will reflect all required disclosures of information. CONVENE IN CLOSED SESSION. (1) CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6) Agency Designated Representatives: Laura Kalty, Chief Negotiator from Liebert Cassidy Whitmore; James Herberg; Robert Ghirelli; Celia Chandler; and Andrew Nau. Employee Organizations: Supervisor & Professional Management Group (SPMT), International Union of Operating Engineers Local 501 (Local 501), and Orange County Employees Association (OCEA). 07/27/2016 steering Committee Agenda Page 2 of 4 (2) ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)) Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9. Number of Potential Cases: 1 Claim for Damage or Injury from Steven and Jennifer Gates (3) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL RE. EXISTING LITIGATION (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Number of Cases: 2 Caravetta v. Orange County Sanitation District, Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2016-008326:31-CU-OR-CJC Klean Waters, Inc. v. Orange County Sanitation District, United States District Court, Central District of California, Southern Division, Case No. 8:15-cv-00627-JVS-FFM. RECONVENE IN REGULAR SESSION. CONSIDERATION OF ACTION, IF ANY, ON MATTERS CONSIDERED IN CLOSED SESSION: OTHER BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS IF ANY: ADJOURNMENT: To the Steering Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 5:00 P.M. 07/27/2016 Sleenag Committee Agenda Page 3 of 4 Accommodations for the Disabled: Meeting Rooms are wheelchair accessible. If you require any special disability related accommodations, please contact the Orange County Sanitation District Clerk of the Board's office at (714)593-7433 at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Requests must specify the nature of the disability and the type of accommodation requested. Agenda Posting: In accordance with the requirements of California Government Code Section 54954.2,this agenda has been posted outside the main gate of the Sanitation District's Administration Building located at 10844 Ellis Avenue, Fountain Valley, California, and on the Sanitation District's website at www.ocsd.com, not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting date and time above. All public records relating to each agenda item, including any public records distributed less than 72 hours prior to the meeting to all, or a majority of the Board of Directors, are available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk of the Board. Agenda Description: The agenda provides a brief general description of each item of business to be considered or discussed. The recommended action does not indicate what action will be taken. The Board of Directors may take any action which is deemed appropriate. NOTICE TO DIRECTORS: To place items on the agenda for a Committee or Board Meeting, items must be submitted to the Clerk of the Board 14 days before the meeting. Kelly A. Lore Clerk of the Board (714)593-7433 klore(a.ocsd.cem For any questions on the agenda,Committee members may contact staff at: General Manager Jim Herberg (714)593-7300 iherberp/glocsd.com Assistant General Manager Bob Ghirelli (714)593-7400 rghirelli(docsd.com Director of Engineering Rob Thompson (714)593-7310 rthompson6biocsd.com Director of Environmental Services Jim Colston (714)593-7450 icelston(Wocsd.com Director of Finance and Lorenzo Tyner (714)593-7550 Itvnerlglocsd.com Administrative Services Director of Human Resources Celia Chandler (714)593-7202 cchandleriBoosd.com Director of Operations&Maintenance Ed Torres 714 593-7080 etorres ocsd.com 07/27/2016 Steering Committee Agenda Page 4 of 4 ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF THE STEERING COMMITTEE Orange County Sanitation District Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Steering Committee of the Orange County Sanitation District was called to order by Chair Nielsen on Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 4:03 p.m. in the Administration Building of the Orange County Sanitation District. A quorum was declared present, as follows: COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT: John Nielsen, Chair Jim Herberg, General Manager Greg Sebourn, Vice-Chair Bob Ghirelli, Assistant General Manager Keith Curry, Administration Committee Celia Chandler, Director of Human Chair Resources John Withers, Operations Committee Jim Colston, Director of Environmental Chair Services Tom Beamish, Member-At-Large Rob Thompson, Director of Engineering Lucille Kring, Member-At-Large Mark Esquer, Engineering Manager David Shawver, Member-At-Large Lorenzo Tyner, Director of Finance & Administrative Services COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT: Kelly A. Lore, Clerk of the Board None Janine Aguilar Jennifer Cabral Al Garcia Stephanie Good Lori Khajadourian Randy Kleinman Lori Klinger Tina Knapp Mark Manzo Laura Maravilla Andrew Nau OTHERS PRESENT: Brad Hogin, General Counsel Georg Krammer, Koff& Associates Alyssa Thompson, Koff&Associates Laura Kalty, Liebert Cassidy Whitmore PUBLIC COMMENTS: No public comments were provided. 06/22/2016 Steering Committee Minutes Page 1 of REPORTS: Chair Nielsen announced that the OCSD/OCWD Joint Open House will take place on August 13th at 10:00 a.m. and encouraged all to attend. General Manager Jim Herberg reported on the following: Closure of OCSD Administrative Offices on Monday, July 4th (Independence Day); Heal the Bay's Orange County Beach Water Quality report card with A+ to B grades for both summer and winter; Awards received this month: Graphic Design USA award for In-house design of the Annual Report, and the ACC-OC Golden Hub of Innovation award for the Newport Beach Outreach Program; State Senate Environmental Quality Committee hearing where, Director of Environmental Services, Jim Colston testified on behalf of AB 2022 (Gordon); and the objectives and progress of the first agency- wide employee engagement survey. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES (Clerk of the Board) MOVED, SECONDED, AND DULY CARRIED TO: Approve Minutes of the May 25, 2016 Regular Steering Committee Meeting. AYES: Beamish; Curry; Kring; Nielsen; Sebourn; and Shawver NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: Withers NON-CONSENT CALENDAR: None. INFORMATION ITEMS: 2. GENERAL MANAGER'S FY 2015-2016 WORK PLAN UPDATE (Jim Herberg) General Manager Jim Herberg provided a brief presentation, highlighting the five major categories of his FY 2015-16 work plan: Safety, Succession Planning, Resource Recovery, Reliability, and Operational Optimization. Director Withers arrived at 4:17 p.m. 3. PRELIMINARY CLASSIFICATION & COMPENSATION STUDY RESULTS (Celia Chandler) Director of Human Resources, Celia Chandler provided a brief history of the 06/22/2016 Steering Committee Minutes Page 2 of 4 item and introduced representatives with Koff & Associates (consultant), Georg Krammer, Chief Executive Officer and Alyssa Thompson, Project Manager, who provided a PowerPoint presentation of the preliminary compensation study overview including: Goals and elements of the study; benchmark classifications and comparator agencies; benefits and data collection; market findings; compensation structure and strategy development; compensation philosophy and internal relationships. The Committee requested the following additional information: a chart of the market position percentile of each of the comparison agencies; the number of agency employees lost due to compensation matters; and a list of which agencies we have lost employees to and why. Ms. Chandler will review data from exit interviews of past employees and produce the additional information requested. Chair Nielsen thanked Mr. Krammer for completing this preliminary report in such a short time. CLOSED SESSION: CONVENED IN CLOSED SESSION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 54957.6, 54956.9(d)(2). 54957(b)(1) & 54956.9(d)(1): The Committee convened in closed session at 4:35 p.m. to discuss four items. Confidential minutes of the Closed Session have been prepared in accordance with the above Government Code Sections and are maintained by the Clerk of the Board in the Official Book of Confidential Minutes of Board and Committee Closed Session Meetings. RECONVENED IN REGULAR SESSION: The Committee reconvened in regular session at 5:52 p.m. CONSIDERATION OF ACTION, IF ANY, ON MATTERS CONSIDERED IN CLOSED SESSION: None. OTHER BUSINESS AND COMMUNICATIONS OR SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA ITEMS, IF ANY: None. 06/22/2016 Steering Committee Minutes Page 3 of ADJOURNMENT: The Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 5:52 p.m. to the next Steering Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 5:00 p.m. Submitted by: Kelly A. Lore Clerk of the Board 06/22/2016 Steering Committee Minutes Page 4 of 4 STEERING COMMITTEE Meng Dat0 TOBE. Dir. 07/lti27/16 07/27/1Or6 AGENDA REPORT ItemNumber Item Number z Orange County Sanitation District FROM: James D. Herberg, General Manager SUBJECT: GENERAL MANAGER'S FY 2015-2016 FINAL YEAR-END WORK PLAN UPDATE GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the General Manager's FY 2015-2016 Work Plan Year-End Update. BACKGROUND Each year, the General Manager prepares a work plan of activities supporting the Orange County Sanitation District's strategic goals and initiatives to be accomplished during the fiscal year. The General Manager's FY 2015-2016 work plan was reviewed by the Steering Committee in August 2015, a mid-year update was provided in January 2016, and a draft year-end update was provided in June 2016. Attached is the final year-end update for the General Manager's FY 2015-2016 work plan. RELEVANT STANDARDS • Maintain a culture of improving efficiency • Plan for and execute succession, minimizing vacant position times • Highly qualified, well trained, motivated, and diverse workforce • Biosolids, Odor, and Energy Master Plans • Use practical and effective means for recovering energy, wastewater for reuse PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS June 2016 -Approval of General Manager's DRAFT FY 2015-2016 Work Plan Year-End Update by the Steering Committee. January 2016 - Approval of mid-year update of the General Manager's FY 2015-2016 Work Plan by the Board of Directors. September 2015 - Approval of the General Manager's FY 2015-2016 Work Plan by the Board of Directors. August 2015 - Presented the proposed General Manager's FY 2015-2016 Work Plan to the Steering Committee for review. Page 1 of 2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The General Manager's work plan includes goals for the fiscal year. Items in the work plan had deadlines staggered throughout the fiscal year. All items in the work plan were successfully put into motion and a majority completed. CEQA N/A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS All items included in the General Manager's Work Plan were budgeted in the FY 2015-2016 Budget. ATTACHMENT The following attachment(s)are included in hard copy and may also be viewed on-line at the OCSD website (www.ocsd.coml with the complete agenda package: • General Manager's FY 2015-2016 Work Plan Year-End Update Page 2 of 2 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Memorandum June 1, 2016 TO: Chairman and Members of the Board of Directors FROM: lames D. Herberg,General Manager SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2015-2016 General Manager's Work Plan Update I am pleased to present this update for my Fiscal Year 2015-2016 work plan.The work plan includes five main areas of focus: 1) Safety and Security; 2) Succession Planning; 3) Resource Recovery; 4) Reliability; and 5) Operational Optimization. This work plan incorporates goals included in OCSD's Strategic Plan and was reviewed with the Steering Committee in August 2015. A mid-year update was presented to the Steering Committee in January 2016. My staff and I have been working towards reaching all the goals by their respective deadlines. 1. Safety and Security— Implement measures to reduce risk, protect our regional infrastructure and provide a secure and safe workplace for our employees. • Implement Administrative Controls and address high priority items identified in the Safety Study by December 31, 2015. Update: COMPLETE- Risk Management distributed training materials on administrative controls to all employees, for each of the 13 identified hazard area categories.The outreach included a summary of the hazards and the applicable OCSD safety policy highlighting workplace best practices. All staff have completed the training. High priority items identified in the Safety Study are being addressed and are due to be completed by December 21,2017. • Complete a feasibility analysis about obtaining Voluntary Protection Plan (VPP) certification from OSHA by December 31, 2015. Update: COMPLETE - A survey and gap analysis was completed by an outside consultant,Arcadis in March.The initial assessment identified gaps that must be addressed in order for OCSD to achieve VPP certification. Once the final report is received, toward in June, Risk Management staff will begin to evaluate and address the recommendations. Based on the initial feedback,enhancements to our safety programs are currently underway. These include more field time by Safety & Health staff and front line O&M supervisors,enhanced safety reporting tools,better tracking of safety related concerns through Maximo, and recurring meetings among key management that increases our communication and decision making efforts around safety issues and concerns. • Implement remaining high priority physical site security improvements as identified by recent surveys and reports regarding OCSD's facilities by June 30, 2016. Update: COMPLETE- Most high priority items have been completed with the exception of a select few that are still awaiting the approval of contracts. All outstanding items will be submitted through the project clearing house for funding and implementation by December 31,2016. • Work with Department of Homeland Security to assess and implement recommended mitigations to reduce cyber security risk by June 30, 2016. Update; COMPLETE- Due to the sensitivity of this item, Information Technology provided a closed session update to the Board in January 2016. There are 10 longer-term items/projects that are scheduled for implementation. • Enhance security awareness training, proactive identification and protection of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) on our network and add additional layers of protection on OCSD servers and employee workstations by December 31, 2015. Update: COMPLETE-Valid files where PH is kept have been secured and are being continuously monitored and exception reports generated for suspicious access attempts. IT has developed and delivered security awareness training for staff who use the process control system. IT has implemented additional layers of protection on OCSD assets and will continue to improve our security posture. 2. Succession Planning — Review, modify, improve and enhance OCSD's workforce planning and workforce development strategic initiative to develop and implement tools to expand labor force capacity and staff skill levels. • Employee Engagement Survey— Conduct an agency wide employee engagement survey to assist in measuring the staff satisfaction levels. Use the results of the survey to develop an action plan by June 30, 2016. Update:COMPLETE-A consultant was retained through an RFP process to develop the engagement survey.The agency wide survey was administered by the consultant in June. OCSD will receive the results of the survey in July and develop action plans. • Classification and Compensation Study — Complete all phases of the classification and compensation study by February 28, 2016. Update: IN PROGRESS- The classification phase Page 2 of 6 has been completed. Bargaining units have reviewed the draft classification specifications and provided input for finalization of the class specifications. OCSD made a vendor change to Koff & Associates for the remainder of project, as approved by the Administration Committee in April.Koff&Associates are scheduled to complete the compensation phase in July and to present the results of the study to the Steering Committee and Board in July. The consultant provided a presentation of preliminary data to the Steering Committee in June. • Workforce Vulnerability Assessment— Identify vulnerable positions based on retention, criticality, and difficulty to fill. Develop a workforce planning action plan for each position identified in the vulnerability analysis. Identify workforce needs for the upcoming budget process by December 31,2015.Update:COMPLETE-The workforce vulnerability assessment model is complete.The model was reviewed by the Manager Team and EMT and approved in February for implementation. Tool automation was added by management request and provides updated data for analysis.The tool was deployed in mid-June and is now in use by EMT and Managers. • Talent Readiness Assessments —Identify key talent, as well as possible development efforts. Develop guidelines and forms for this tool by December 31, 2015. Conduct two assessments with the tools and guidelines developed through the Talent Readiness Assessment by June 30,2016.Update:COMPLETE-Process guidelines and implementation are complete. Guidelines were presented to Executive Management Team in February. The EMT competed a Talent Readiness Assessment session in April, and EMT members are assigned to lead development efforts identified in their departments. 3. Resource Recovery — Move towards 100 percent water recycling and expand from treatment to resource recovery. • Research—Present findings and recommendations on Super Critical Water Oxidation and how to more efficiently clean digester gas to the Board of Directors June 30, 2016. Update: COMPLETE- Findings and recommendations on the digester gas cleaning technology were presented to the Board of Directors May 2016. A draft report on the Super Critical Water Oxidation was completed in June and will be presented to the Board of Directors by Fall 2016. • Planning Studies—Receive a draft Effluent Reuse report by June 30,2016. Retain a consultant to conduct a new biosolids master plan by June 30, 2016. Update: COMPLETE-The Biosolids Master Plan was awarded to a consultant six months ahead of schedule in December 2015 and the Effluent Reuse Planning Study draft report was received in May 2016. Page 3 of 6 4. Reliability — Move towards future sustainability and resiliency of operations by implementing best practices for managing infrastructure maintenance and replacement and timely adoption of operational and technology improvements. • Civil Assets Management Plan(CAMP)—Finalize the data management structure for collecting, storing and retrieving all civil asset related data; implement the operational housekeeping program to enhance the availability and reliability of our civil assets and develop a 5-year program implementation plan for prioritizing, resourcing and integrating civil assets into existing maintenance programs. Update: IN PROGRESS - A temporary data management structure for archiving civil asset related data has been created. A more robust data management system is in development with a pilot system that is currently being tested. Housekeeping programs which include gate and valve exercising,flushing and removal of grit in pipes and structures and rotation of equipment in and out of service is being developed. An industrial cleaning contract for grit removal has been established and removal of grit in problem areas is underway. Preventative maintenance plans for valve and gate exercising are in effect at Plant No. 2. A draft program has been created for the valve and gate exercising at Plant No.1. A Plan for development Preventative Maintenance(PM)schedules for both treatment plants is on track to be completed by June 2016. This program will identify areas for preventative maintenance development based on regulatory and reliability risks. Preventative maintenance tasks for corrosion assessments, protective coatings, and cathodic protection for metal structures will be implemented into the preventative maintenance program as part of our continuous improvement efforts. • Planned Maintenance—Ensure that critical process units and equipment are readyto operate and are receiving preventive maintenance in advance of the 2015-16 rainy season (El Nino). Develop and apply planning and scheduling key performance indicator(KPI)reports to measure success by June 30,2016.Update:COMPLETE- The Operations,Maintenance and Collections departments ordered key supplies, tested critical equipment and processes, performed preventative maintenance and reviewed emergency preparedness and response procedures. Our emergency generators were fully tested and repairs were conducted as required. Flow diversion alternatives were tested in the event that key pumping systems were to fail. Conducted additional training including flood prevention provided by the Department of Page 4 of 6 Water Resources, Emergency Operations Center/Incident Command System training, and conducted a functional exercise simulating a severe El Nino storm. Operational Resiliency— Present the results of the business continuity plan to the Board of Directors identifying the most critical functions to keep OCSD operating in the event of a major event by December 31,2015.Update:IN PROGRESS-Business Impact Analysis(BIA)sessions were completed for all divisions.The summary was presented to the EMT in December 2015 and the list of the most critical activities is being consolidated into a list of business continuity plans that will be developed. The Information Technology division has procured the offsite Disaster Recovery site and has locally installed and tested the solution.The solution will be installed at the Disaster Recovery site by July 2016. A presentation updating the Board on the status of the business continuity plans will be made in 2016. S. Operational Optimization—Evaluate and optimize operations at OCSD to increase efficiency. • Energy Efficiency—Evaluate the energy savings opportunities identified by The Energy Network (TEN). Present findings and implementation recommendations to the Board of Directors by March 2016. Update: COMPLETE-In August 2014,OCSD entered into an agreement with The Energy Network (TEN)to explore energy savings opportunities at OCSD facilities. The audit findings were very positive in terms of current energy efficiency efforts. The following points were specifically noted:OCSD Engineering Standards incorporate best available technology; OCSD Facilities are continuously monitored and optimized;there are potential opportunities to improve energy efficiency by replacing existing lights with LED technology. Staff presented the findings and recommendations to the Operations Committee in March 2016. As a follow-up to this effort,the engineering department will lead a planning study to determine the appropriate lighting implementation plan. Shared Services—Continue to explore the six areas identified as potential opportunities where shared services can improve performance and reduce costs for OCSD rate payers by consolidating functions while also monitoring other opportunities regionally and statewide. Implement at least one shared service contract by June 30,2016.Update:COMPLETE-Orange County Water District has joined in OCSD's elevator maintenance contract and will commence services this month. OCWD has also expressed a strong interest in sharing traffic control services with OCSD to take advantage of economies of scale. Our respective purchasing staffs are discussing the feasibility of pursuing a cooperative purchase agreement Page 5 of 6 for traffic control.Additional areas of interest include chemicals, Landscaping and Fire Extinguisher Inspections. • Odor Control Master Plan—Develop a recommendation on odor treatment technologies and levels of service goals for both plant facilities and complete Odor Control Master Plan by June 30, 2016. Update: IN PROGRESS - Phase 1 of 2 for the Odor Control Master Plan has been completed.The current project timeline has a scheduled completion date of December 2016. • OCSD Headquarters Building—Advertise request for proposal to retain a consultant to design the replacement of the Headquarters Complex Project P1-128 by January 31, 2016. Update: COMPLETE-The RFP was advertised ahead of schedule. Page 6 of 6 STEERING COMMITTEE Meeting Dare TOBd.OfDir. 07/27/16 07/27/16 AGENDA REPORT Item Item Number 3 Orange County Sanitation District FROM: James D. Herberg, General Manager Originator: James E. Colston, Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: 2015 INTERNAL SAWPA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM AUDIT REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report. BACKGROUND Since the Orange County Sanitation District (Sanitation District) Board of Directors received and filed the final Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) Remedial Plan Report in March 2014, the Sanitation District has worked with SAWPA to address the remaining SAWPA Remedial Plan (SRP) Punch List categories, and to re-establish the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. The Sanitation District sought a follow-up audit of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to verify SAWPA is fulfilling its obligations and requirements, and to assess what additional actions are required. In follow-up to the process, the Sanitation District initiated an audit of the revised SAWPA Pretreatment Program. EEC Environmental (EEC)audited the SAW PA's core Pretreatment Program: Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections, and Monitoring/Sampling. In general, the audit declared that significant improvements to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program had been made since the audit in 2012. Some deficiencies were identified in the areas of Permitting and Enforcement, but the overall risks to the Sanitation District had been reduced. The risk would remain curtailed as long as the Sanitation District and SAWPA continue to cooperate on the implementation of their Pretreatment Programs, and the Sanitation District continues periodic Pretreatment compliance audits and inspections. The report also contained two major recommendations: 1) implementing metrics to drive improvements and help focus staff and resources on the highest priorities, and 2)SAWPA addressing the deficiencies identified during the audit, revising template documents, and following established procedures. RELEVANT STANDARDS • Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter N, Part 403 • Meet discharge permit 24/7/365 • Meet volume and water quality needs to support GW RS System Page 1 of 3 PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS March 2014 -The Board received and filed the final SAWPA Remedial Plan Report. January 2013 - The Board approved the Final SAWPA Remedial Plan and directed staff to issue the final Remedial Plan to SAWPA to correct significant deficiencies in its Pretreatment Program. November 2012 - The Steering Committee received and filed the 2012 SAWPA Audit Report and directed staff to prepare a Remedial Plan for issuance to SAWPA. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Since the Board of Directors received and filed the Final SAWPA Remedial Plan Report in March 2014, OCSD has worked with SAWPA to address the SRP Punch List items. The Punch List has three broad categories: 1. Establishment of Substantially Similar Pretreatment Programs 2. Revision of Pretreatment Program Control Documents (PPCD) 3. Data Management System SAWPA has had over one year to implement the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. SAWPA has worked with its member and contract agencies to conform to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program and to align the SAWPA PPCD to be substantially similar to the Sanitation District's Pretreatment Program and PPCD. SAWPA and the Sanitation District are meeting on a regular basis to work through specific issues and will continue to meet and discuss further alignment requirements, strategies, and timelines, butthe first two remaining Punch List categories will take some time to complete. Based on SAW PA's progress to date, the Sanitation District will continue to maintain direct oversight over SAWPA's Pretreatment Program for the foreseeable future, and will continue regular opportunities for the agencies to communicate, collaborate, and cooperate. The Sanitation District sought a follow-up audit of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to verify SAWPA is fulfilling its obligations and requirements and to assess what additional actions are required. The Board subsequently directed staff to enter into a Professional Consultant Services Agreement with EEC for the audit. In accordance with the scope of work, EEC audited the SAWPA Pretreatment Program in regards to four areas: Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections, and Monitoring/Sampling. In general, the auditor was required to assess the following: 1. Does the SAWPA Pretreatment Program have the minimum required elements in regards to Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections, and Monitoring/Sampling? If "No," what specific elements need to be addressed? How should these deficiencies be corrected and by when? 2. What are the risks to the Sanitation District in allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program as it is? What should the Sanitation District do now, and overtime, to mitigate or minimize its risks? Page 2 of 3 As agreed upon by the agencies, before the audit the Sanitation District shared with SAWPA the list of questions that the auditor was required to use, at a minimum. The project kicked off in mid-September 2015. In May 2016, EEC completed the work and submitted the draft 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report. EEC made a presentation to the Sanitation District on June 23, 2016, and the key findings are summarized below: 1. SAWPA possesses the minimum required elements in regards to Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections, and Monitoring/Sampling. 2. SAW PA's staff is proficient in industrial pretreatment and has developed adequate standard operating procedures and acquired the necessary tools for data management. 3. Deficiencies were identified in the areas of Permitting and Enforcement. 4. The risks to the Sanitation District for allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program have been reduced as a result of the decision by SAWPA to create its own Pretreatment department and employing staff with technical and regulatory proficiency and capable of establishing good working relationships with the Sanitation District, as well as with the SAWPA Member and Contract Agencies. 5. The risks to the Sanitation District would remain curtailed as long as the cooperation between the Sanitation District and SAWPA continues, and with the Sanitation District fulfilling its role of the Control Authority conducting periodic Pretreatment compliance audits and inspections. The report also contained two major recommendations: 1. In the spirit of continuous improvement, SAWPA should consider developing and using metrics to drive improvements and help focus its staff and resources on the highest priorities. 2. SAWPA would bring considerable improvement to its pretreatment program by addressing all deficiencies identified during the audit, revising template documents, and following established procedures. The Sanitation District shared the draft audit report with SAWPA earlier this month, and SAWPA was given the opportunity to provide feedback, which SAWPA did. Based on the Sanitation District's and SAWPA's comments, the report was finalized. ATTACHMENT The following attachment(s) maybe viewed on-line at the OCSD website (www.ocsd.com) with the complete agenda package: • 20151ntemal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Page 3 of 3 GEECFGWMffi ra Oce Tel: (714)667 2300 Far: (714)66Z2310 One City Boulevard West,Suite 1800 Orange,California 92868 ENVIRONMENTAL www.eecenvironmental.com 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report FINAL Date July 14,2016 Prepared for: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,California 92708 Prepared by: EEC Environmental One City Boulevard West,Suite 1800 Orange, California 92868 Mid-Atlantic Office-Tel:(410)263-22341 Far:(410)266-86601 200 Harry S.Truman Parkway,Suite 3301 Annapolis,MD 21401 Northam California Office-Tel:(510)39"971 1 Far:(510)867 2053 1 2100 Embarcadero,Suite 1041 Oakland,CA 94606 Southeast Office-Tel:(813)654-48801 Far:(813)653-300013108 Rolling Acres Race,Suite C I Vance,R 33596 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report TABLE OF CONTENTS ESEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.........................................................................................................................4 E5.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................4 E5.2 Audit Scope.............................................................................................................................4 E5.3 Objective.................................................................................................................................4 ESAMethods..................................................................................................................................5 ES.5 Observations...........................................................................................................................5 ES.6 Recommendations..................................................................................................................6 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................7 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................7 1.2 Audit Team..............................................................................................................................8 2.0 OBJECTIVE,SCOPE,AND METHODS.................................................................................................8 2.1 Objective.................................................................................................................................9 2.2 Scope.......................................................................................................................................9 2.2.1 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority.............................................................................9 2.2.2 Member and Contract Agencies of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority............30 2.2.3 Industrial Users.................................................................................................................12 2.3 Methods................................................................................................................................12 2.3.1 OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No. OCSD-39.................................13 2.3.2 List of Questions Developed by OCSD..............................................................................13 2.3.3 1991 Memorandum of Understanding.............................................................................13 2.3.4 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement...................................................13 3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................14 3.1 Permitting..............................................................................................................................15 3.1.1 C. C. Graber Permit Review...............................................................................................15 3.1.2 Inland Empire Energy Center Permit Review....................................................................17 3.1.3 O. C. Vacuum Inc. Permit Review .....................................................................................19 3.1.4 Temescal Desalter Permit Review ....................................................................................21 3.1.5 Metal Container Corporation—Mira Loma Can Plant Permit Review..............................22 3.1.6 Western Municipal Water District Collection Station Permit Review..............................25 3.2 Enforcement..........................................................................................................................27 3.3 Inspection..............................................................................................................................34 3.4 Monitoring and Sampling......................................................................................................39 4.0 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................................67 TABLES Table 3-1 Permitting Observations and Recommendations.............................................................57 Table 3-2 Enforcement Observations and Recommendations.........................................................62 Table 3-3 Inspection Observations and Recommendations.............................................................64 Table 3-4 Monitoring and Sampling Observations and Recommendations.....................................65 2 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report FIGURES Figure 1 Santa Ana River Watershed Location Map Figure 2 Inland Empire Brine Line and Connections Figure 3 Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Member Agencies APPENDICES Appendix A OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No.OCSD-39 Appendix B 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Summary Appendix 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement Summary Appendix D 2015 Internal Audit Scope of Work List of Questions with Answers Provided by SAWPA Appendix E 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Communication Plan Appendix F 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Source Materials 3 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ESA Introduction The Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) has retained EEC Environmental, Inc. (EEC)to conduct the 2015 internal audit of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority(SAWPA) Pretreatment Program with a focus on permitting,enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling. The first objective of the audit was to verify that the SAWPA Pretreatment Program has the minimum required elements in regard to permitting, enforcement, inspections, and monitoring/sampling. When the audit revealed deficiencies in any of these four areas, EEC presented to OCSD specific elements of the pretreatment program that need to be addressed as well as a pragmatic approach and a sensible scheduled by which they can be addressed. The second objective of the audit was to determine the risks to OCSD in allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program in the current manner. Regardless of the outcome, and in the spirit of continuous improvement of the pretreatment program, EEC recommended measures that OCSD can implement immediately and over time to mitigate or minimize any risks associated with the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. ES.2 Audit Scope The audit consisted of an evaluation of SAWPA's compliance with pertinent requirements, responsibilities, and practices in regard to permitting, enforcement, inspections, and monitoring/Sampling and all other applicable and related regulations, including federal regulations(Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR],Section 403),OCSD ordinances, and contractual agreements between OCSD and SAWPA. For each focus of the pretreatment program,the scope of work included the following: • Permitting:SAWPA's permitting process and review of a sample of existing permits. • Enforcement:SAWPA's enforcement response plan and its implementation with a review of the latest cases of significant noncompliance. • Inspection:SAWPA's inspection program and practices with a review of sample reports. • Monitoring/Sampling:SAWPA's monitoring program,including self-monitoring. ES.3 Objective The objective of the audit was to answer two major questions: a. Does the SAWPA Pretreatment Program have the minimum required elements in regards to Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections,and Monitoring/sampling?If that's not the case,then EEC would determine what specific elements need to be addressed as well as the best approach to correct deficiencies including a timeline. b. What are the risks to OCSD in allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program as it currently is?What should OCSD do now and over time to mitigate or minimize its risks? 4 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report After performing the first phases of field work and interviews, EEC prepared two successive progress reports that summarized observations, gaps, deficiencies and risks identified in the SAWPA Pretreatment Program until the time the progress reports were prepared. Based on those observations and additional observations to date, EEC has developed recommendations and presented corrective actions to address areas in which deficiencies are found. With the completion of the audit, all observations and recommendations have been compiled and are presented herein. Furthermore, EEC's recommended schedule for the implementation of the recommendations is also included herein. ES.4 Methods EEC's audit methodology consisted of the identification of gaps in the four key program elements; permitting, enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling and in the development of requirements and recommendations to address the gaps. EEC recommended specific program modifications to ensure consistent and long term compliance of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with the Federal General Pretreatment Regulations and OCSD's agreements with SAWPA and to further align the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with OCSD's program. While adhering to the direction provided by OCSD and concentrating on the questions provided by OCSD, EEC performed the focused audit through surveys, interviews, file reviews and inspections. The audit included a review of SAWPA's and its member and contract agencies' records on the permitting, enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling activities of industrial users and other direct or indirect dischargers, including the liquid waste hauler collection stations. Records from member agencies; Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) and Contract Agencies; Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD), Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) and City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (CSBMWD) were reviewed. In addition,the EEC Audit Team interviewed members of WMWD and the JCSD. ES.S Observations Overall, through its evaluation of the four key elements of SAWPA's Pretreatment Program, EEC has determined that SAWPA possesses the minimum required elements in regards to Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections,and Monitoring/Sampling. SAWPA's staff is proficient in industrial pretreatment and has developed adequate standard operating procedures (SOPS) and acquired the necessary tools for data management. Nonetheless, deficiencies were identified in the areas of permitting and enforcement. SAWPA must address errors identified in the permits reviewed by the Audit Team, revise the permit template and check the other permits for identical or similar errors. As for SAWPA's Enforcement practices, the Audit Team encountered inconsistencies in the correspondence with permittees and instances where SAWPA did not follow the ERP in terms of required actions and timeliness of the response. s 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report The risks to OCSD for allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program have been significantly reduced as a result of the decision by SAWPA to create its own pretreatment department and employing staff with technical and regulatory proficiency and capable of establishing good working relationships with OCSD as well as with Member and Contract Agencies. Furthermore, the risks to OCSD would remain curtailed as long as the cooperation between OCSD and SAWPA continues and with OCSD fulfilling its role of the Control Authority conducting periodic pretreatment compliance audits and inspections. Audits and inspections by OCSD are essential for ensuring that SAWPA's pretreatment program implementation is consistent with all applicable federal regulations and OCSD's requirements, is effective in providing the necessary protection to OCSD's treatment system, to the Groundwater Replenishment System and to OCSD's current sludge disposal practices and in allowing OCSD to maintain compliance with its NPDES permit. ES.6 Recommendations Overall, SAWPA is to be commended for greatly improving its pretreatment program. In the spirit of continuous improvement, SAWPA should consider developing and using metrics to drive improvements and help focus its staff and resources on the highest priorities. With SAWPA addressing all deficiencies and observations identified during the audit, and revising template documents and following established SOPS,SAWPA would bring considerable improvement to its pretreatment program. The time period allocated to addressing each observation and deficiency was estimated based on the auditors' experience and must be adhered to as much as possible. If for some extenuating circumstances, SAWPA finds that the assigned timeline is impossible to meet due to the current load on its staff, an alternative timeline, giving high priority to the identified deficiencies, should be discussed with OCSD. Lastly, EEC highly recommends that SAWPA develops performance metrics and has dedicated an entire section (Section 3.5) in the report hereinto Metrics and provided some suggestions to help SAWPA develop metrics for Permitting, Enforcement, Inspection and Monitoring/Sampling. In order to derive the most benefit from metrics, it is important to keep them simple. Employees need to understand the metric,how they can influence it and what is expected of them. 6 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) was formed in 1968 as a planning agency and was reformed in 1972 with a mission to plan and build facilities to protect the water quality of the Santa Ana River Watershed.SAWPA is a Joint Powers Authority,classified as a Special District(government agency) in which it carries out functions useful to its member agencies. The agreements formalizing the current agency were signed in 1974 and went into effect in 1975. SAWPA's program in water quality management is integrated with those of other local, state, and federal agencies. SAWPA's integrated program includes the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant, the Stringfellow Site Treatment Plant, and the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL). This report addresses SAWPA's management of the IEBL program only and does not discuss any of SAWPA's other programs. The IEBL (also known as the Santa Ana Regional Interceptor or SARI) is intended to provide a cost- effective, sustainable means of disposal of non-reclaimable waste water for utilities and industry within the Santa Ana Watershed(Figure 1,Santa Ana River Watershed Location Map). The highest and best use of the IEBL is the removal of salts from the watershed to keep the salts from degrading water quality within the watershed, thereby allowing better use of groundwater resources and expanding the ability to reclaim water. The long-term goal of achieving salt balance within the region depends on the ability to remove salts from the watershed via groundwater desalters and the IEBL. Further use of desalters depends on an economical means of salt disposal and will ultimately depend on an economically viable regional IEBL. Wastewater is discharged into the IEBL either directly or indirectly. Direct-discharge industrial users are located close enough to the IEBL to construct a direct-connection and produce enough high total dissolved solids waste to economically justify the connection cost. Indirect-discharge industrial users are not located close enough to the IEBL to make a direct connection. Indirect users dispose of their liquid waste at one of the four IEBL liquid-waste-hauler (LWH) collection stations using a permitted commercial waste hauler. The volume of wastewater generated by indirect dischargers can vary from one or two truckloads per week to 100,000 gallons per day. Every discharger within the SAWPA service area is located less than 20 miles from an LWH collection station (Figure 2, Inland Empire Brine Line and Connections). The non-reclaimable waste water from utilities and industry within the Santa Ana Watershed is transported via the IEBL to treatment plants operated by the OCSD. After treatment by OCSD, the effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean. Pretreatment enforcement and reporting responsibilities between SAWPA and OCSD are delineated in OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance (Ordinance; Appendix A),the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (1991 MOU Summary; Appendix B) and the 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement(1996 Agreement Summary;Appendix C). 1.1 Background In accordance with the 1991 MOU, OCSD exercised its right to review SAWPA's pretreatment program. The purpose of the review is for OCSD to ensure that SAWPA and/or any other agency having discharge 7 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report rights to the IEBL system pursuant to the contract with SAWPA is adequately administering and diligently enforcing its pretreatment program in conformance with federal pretreatment regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR],Section 403) and OCSD requirements. In order to review SAWPA's pretreatment program, OCSD retained EEC to conduct the 2015 internal audit of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with a focus on permitting, enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling. 1.2 Audit Team The EEC team comprised some of the same individuals involved in OCSD's previous auditing and remedial planning efforts for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program.John Shaffer, EEC's president,assumed the role of principal-in-charge on the project. John Shaffer is a wastewater chemist with more than 25 years of wastewater pretreatment experience. He is the founder of EEC and has been the principal-in- charge for all of EEC's pretreatment and source-control projects and a project manager for many of them. John Shaffer has fulfilled the contract administration and QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control) role in his capacity as the principal-in-charge on OCSD's SAWPA-related projects. Najib Saadeh, project manager and auditor on the 2012 SAWPA audit as well as a major contributor to the resulting SAWPA remedial plan, assumed the role of project manager and auditor on the 2015 audit. He has more than 20 years of experience in process and environmental engineering and more than 15 years of experience in project and program management. He was responsible for project execution, including project controls,timely achievement of milestones,and budget management. The team also included Dr. John Parnell, Ph.D. and Mr. Keith Silva hence forming one of the most experienced pretreatment consulting teams in the United States. Dr. Parnell served as the lead auditor on the project. He is the co-founder and former director of Pretreatment Solutions, Inc., a foremost pretreatment consultancy. Keith Silva served as the project technical lead. He is a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) veteran who, in his most recent capacity at the EPA Region 9, managed the pretreatment program in the EPA's San Francisco office. Keith Silva's work as the EPA pretreatment program manager consisted of training, advising, educating, collaborating, and conducting technical and regulatory research and analysis. Keith Silva's position resided in the Clean Water Act Compliance unit, which is the group that enforces the Clean Water Act. As a program manager, however, Keith Silva's job focused on assisting industries and municipalities to solve problems before EPA enforcement became necessary. Keith Silva has conducted public hearings before adversarial, confrontational audiences to accept comments and explain why controversial environmental requirements are necessary to protect a specific water resource. 2.0 OBJECTIVE,SCOPE,AND METHODS The audit objective, scope, and methods were established in agreement between the audit team and OCSD and communicated to SAWPA and its member agencies prior to and during the opening interviews. 8 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report The audit was initiated on November 4, 2015, with a pre-audit meeting with OCSD. The interviews with SAWPA were held during the week of November 9, 2015. After performing the first phase of field work and interviews, EEC prepared two progress reports that summarizes observations,gaps,deficiencies and risks identified in the SAWPA Pretreatment Program up until the time of progress report preparation. A second objective consisted of the development of recommendations for corrective actions for addressing areas in which deficiencies are found and a schedule for SAWPA to implement all recommendations. 2.1 Objective The overall objective of the audit was to answer two major questions: a. Does the SAWPA Pretreatment Program have the minimum required elements in regards to Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections,and Monitoring/Sampling?If that's not the case,then EEC would determine what specific elements need to be addressed as well as the best approach to correct deficiencies including a timeline. b. What are the risks to OCSD in allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program as it is? What should OCSD do now and over time to mitigate or minimize its risks? In line with the overall audit objective,and after performing the field work and interviews, EEC prepared the Audit Report herein to present observations, gaps, deficiencies and risks identified in the four focus elements of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. Based on the observations, EEC has developed recommendations and presented corrective actions to address areas in which deficiencies were identified. 2.2 Scope The audit consisted of an evaluation of SAWPA's compliance with pertinent requirements, responsibilities, and practices in regard to permitting, enforcement, inspections, and monitoring/Sampling and all other applicable and related regulations, including federal regulations(Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR],Section 403),OCSD ordinances, and contractual agreements between OCSD and SAWPA. For each of the focus pretreatment program,the scope of work included the following: • Permitting:SAWPA's permitting process and review of a sample of existing permits. • Enforcement:SAWPA's enforcement response plan and its implementation with a review of the latest cases of significant noncompliance. • Inspection:SAWPA's inspection program and practices with a review of sample reports. • Monitoring/Sampling:SAWPA's monitoring program,including self-monitoring. 2.2.1 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority The audit team evaluated whether SAWPA, as an oversight agency, developed and implemented sufficient measures to ensure that each of its member and contract agencies and all others that discharge to the IEBL are complying with the terms and conditions of all applicable agreements and regulations, including OCSD ordinances and federal pretreatment regulations(40 CFR403). 9 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report EEC focused on Pretreatment Program elements that reflect SAWPA's aptitude to carry out Permitting, Enforcement, Inspections, and Monitoring/Sampling. EEC also evaluated the risks to OCSD in allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program in the same fashion as it is currently run. The opening audit interview with SAWPA was held on November 9, 2015, and subsequent meetings were held during the week except on Wednesday (Veterans Day). The following representatives from SAWPA were involved in the interviews: • Mr. Rich Haller,SAWPA, Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations • Mr. Lucas Gilbert, Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment • Mr. Michael Plasencia,Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist • Mr.Carlos Quintero,Project Manager The following individuals from the audit team were present: • Mr. Najib Saadeh,EEC,Senior Regulatory Specialist • Dr.John Parnell, EEC Lead Auditor • Mr. Keith Silva, EEC Technical Lead(via conference during the opening meeting with SAWPA) 2.2.2 Member and Contract Agencies of the Santa Ana Watershed ProjectAuthority SAWPA has entered into multijurisdictional pretreatment agreements with its four member agencies; namely, Inland Empire Utilities Agency(IEUA), Eastern Municipal Water District(EMWD), San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), and Western Municipal Water District (WMWD)(Figure 3, SAWPA Member Agencies)and with its three contract agencies; Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD), Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) and City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (CSBMWD). 2.2.2.1 Inland Empire Utilities Agencv IEUA was originally named the Chino Basin Municipal Water District, which was formed in 1950 to supply supplemental water to the Chino Basin. On July 1, 1998,the Chino Basin Municipal Water District officially became the Inland Empire Utilities Agency. IEUA co-permits 7 direct industrial users and 5 indirect industrial users. LWHs permitted by SAWPA transport wastewater from the indirect industrial users to the SAWPA-approved collection station at 16400 El Prado Road in Chino in IEUA's service area. IEUA staff was not directly audited or interviewed. 2.2.2.2 Eastern Municipal Water District EMWD was formed in 1950. EMWD co-permits one direct industrial users and two industrial users. LWHs permitted by SAWPA transport wastewater from the indirect industrial users to SAWPA's approved collection station located at 29541 Murrieta Road in Sun City in EMWD's service area. EMWD staff was not directly audited or interviewed. 10 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 2.2.2.3 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District The SBVMWD was formed in 1954 as a regional agency to plan a long-range water supply for the San Bernardino Valley.SBVMWD co-permits two direct industrial users. SBVMWD staff was not directly audited or interviewed. 2.2.2.4 Western Municipal Water District The WMWD was formed in 1954 and serves customers and wholesale agencies from Corona to Temecula. WMWD co-permits 8 direct industrial users and 8 indirect industrial users. LWHs transport wastewater from the indirect industrial users to SAWPA's approved and permitted collection station located at the City of Corona Water Reclamation Plan No. 1 at 2480 Railroad Street, in Corona. The interview with WMWD was held on November 12, 2015. The following representatives from WMWD and SAWPA were present: • Ms. Brenda S.Meyer,WMWD,Principal Engineer • Mr. Martyn Draper,WMWD,Source Control Program Manager • Mr.Benjamin Burgett,WMWD,Source Control Program Specialist 11 • Mr. Fred Kipfer,WMWD, Inspector • Mr. Lucas Gilbert,SAWPA,Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment • Mr. Michael Plasencia,SAWPA,Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist The following representatives from the audit team were present: • Mr. Najib Saadeh,EEC,Senior Regulatory Specialist • Dr.John Parnell, EEC, Lead Auditor 2.2.2.5 Jurupa Community Services District The JCSD was founded in 1956.The JCSD is a public agency known as a Special District.JCSD permits six direct industrial users that discharge into its sewer system prior to discharging into the IEBL. The JCSD sewer system connects industrial users in the JCSD area to the IEBL.The JCSD operates within WMWD's service area.JCSD co-permits 6 direct industrial users. The interview with JCSD was held on November 12, 2015. The following representatives from JCSD and SAWPA were present: • Ms. Marce Billings,JCSD,Source Control Supervisor • Mr. Lucas Gilbert,SAWPA,Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment • Mr. Michael Plasencia,SAWPA,Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist The following representatives from the audit team were present: • Mr. Najib Saadeh,EEC,Senior Regulatory Specialist • Dr.John Parnell, EEC, Lead Auditor tt 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 2.2.2.6 Yucaipa Valley Water District The YVWD encompasses an active service area of approximately 40 square miles. It provides services to residents and businesses in the City of Calimesa, City of Calimesa, City of Yucaipa and of portions of Riverside County and San Bernardino County including some rural county areas outside of the City of Calimesa and the City of Yucaipa. Currently,YVWD does not permit or co-permit any dischargers. YVWD staff was not directly audited or interviewed. 2.2.2.7 City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department The CSBMWD co-permits the 9 indirect industrial users to transport wastewater to SAWPA's approved and permitted collection station within the CSBMWD's water reclamation plant located at 399 Chandler Place in San Bernardino. However, the CSBMWD staff was interviewed and the site was visited by the Audit team on November 12,2015.The following representatives from CSBMWD and SAWPA were present: • Mr.James Lane,CSBMWD, Environmental Control Assistant • Mr. Lucas Gilbert,SAWPA,Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment • Mr. Michael Plasencia,SAWPA,Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist The following representatives from the audit team were present: • Mr. Najib Saadeh,EEC,Senior Regulatory Specialist • Dr.John Parnell, EEC, Lead Auditor 2.2.3 Industrial Users To date,the audit team has not inspected any of the industrial users that were permitted at the time of the audit with the exception of the WMWD LW H station. 2.3 Methods EEC's audit methodology consisted of the identification of gaps in the four key program elements; permitting, enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling and in the development of requirements and recommendations to address all identified gaps. EEC recommended specific program modifications to ensure consistent and long term compliance of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with the Federal General Pretreatment Regulations and OCSD's agreements with SAWPA and to further align the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with OCSD's program. While adhering to direction provided by OCSD and concentrating on the questions provided by OCSD, EEC performed the focused audit through surveys, interviews, file reviews and inspections. The audit included a review of records maintained by SAWPA on activities related to the permitting, enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling of industrial users and other direct or indirect dischargers,including the liquid waste hauler collection stations. 12 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Records from Member Agencies; (Eastern Municipal Water District, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District and Western Municipal Water District) and Contract Agencies; (Jurupa Community Services District,Yucaipa Valley Water District and City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department)were reviewed. In addition,the EEC Audit Team interviewed members of WMWD and JCSD. In this first phase of the audit, as will be the case with future phases, the audit team considered all regulatory requirements and contractual obligations applicable to SAWPA and SAWPA's member and contract agencies. The regulatory requirements included the OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations (Ordinance No. OCSD-39), USEPA Pretreatment Regulations, the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding, and the 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement. 2.3.1 OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No. OCSD-39 The OCSD ordinance sets uniform requirements for users of OCSD facilities and enables OCSD to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, including the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] Section 1251 et seq.)and the General Pretreatment Regulations(40 CFR 403;Appendix A). 2.3.2 List of Questions Developed by OCSD The audit team conducted audit activities with a focus on the list of questions prepared and provided by OCSD which defined the scope of the audit. SAWPA provided answers to the questions presented by OCSD (Questions and Answers; Appendix D). The questions and answers are presented in four sections, titled: Section I, Permitting; Section II, Enforcement; Section III, Inspection and Section IV, Monitoring/sampling. 2.3.3 1991 Memorandum of Understanding The 1991 MOU between OCSD and SAWPA allows SAWPA to continue to exercise jurisdiction and control over all discharges located within SAWPA's territorial boundaries in the Upper Basin that are tributary and discharge to OCSD's facilities.For example,SAWPA is responsible forthe following activities: • Issuing permits and enforcing violations • Monitoring wastewater flows and performing inspections at SAWPA's expense • Collecting noncompliance fines,fees,user charges,taxes,and other lawful charges as levied by SAWPA • Preparing and submitting appropriate quarterly and annual reports A summary table of all of SAWPA's responsibilities under the 1991 MOU is presented in Appendix B. 2.3.4 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement The 1996 Agreement between OCSD and SAWPA became effective on July 24, 1996.The summary table includes all 32 parts of the 1996 Agreement; however, the following sections are most relevant to the audit: • Treatment and disposal rights • Capital payments 13 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report • Quality criteria • Quality violations • Protection of OCSD facilities • Limitation of discharge to the wastewater originating from SAWPA service area only A summary table of SAWPA's responsibilities under the 1996 Agreement is presented in Appendix C. 3.0 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The seriousness of audit observations regarding deficiencies varies significantly. Positive observations that are considered BMPs were also captured. In order to provide consistency in reporting the audit observations,the significance of each observation was rated in one of the following categories: • V: Violations • N: Noncompliance • D: Deficiencies • E: Effectiveness issues • B: Best management practices Violations (V) refer to observations that are generally rated as violations of the federal pretreatment regulations.Occurrence of these problems on an ongoing basis raises concerns regarding SAWPA and/or the member agency's internal control environment over its pretreatment program. Noncompliance IN) refersto instances of non-fulfillment of SAWPA's contractual agreements with OCSD (1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement)and/or the terms of the permit. Instances of noncompliance raise the same concerns as violations. Deficiencies (D) refer to observations where their continuing occurrence can result in an overall high likelihood for a violation orfor an instance of noncompliance and should be reported as such. Effectiveness issues (E) refer to less serious matters that affect or can affect the pretreatment program negatively. Best management practices (B) are methods, techniques, or monitoring measures found to be the most effective and practical in achieving compliance while making the optimum use of an agency's resources. The audit team clearly distinguished between observations of violations, noncompliance, deficiencies, program effectiveness issues, and best management practices. Reportedly, some of these issues were being addressed by SAWPA and/or the member agencies. The status and description of the conveyed corrective actions were not included in this report because the required verification of such reports should be part of the scope and objective of verification and follow up audits of the corrective action plan. Observations and recommendations are presented in Tables 3.1 through 3.4 for each of the four program elements. Each observation is assigned a letter for each program element, a second letter to designate the agency associated with the observation, and a numeral to indicate the observation number. For example, for observationP.S.1, "P" refers to the permitting element of the pretreatment 14 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report program, 'Y refers to SAWPA, and "1" indicates the first listed observation and so on. Because SAWPA and SBVMWD start with the same letter, the letter "S" was assigned to SAWPA and the letter "B" to SBVMWD. If an observation is related to a matter related to SAWPA and another agency, such as co- permitting,both letters are assigned to the observation. 3.1 Permitting Six sets of permit files were reviewed. These included files initially developed by IEUA, EMWD and SAWPA and covered permits for CIUs with "no limit" categorical standards (Section 1), CIUs with concentration based categorical standards (Section 11), CIUs with production based categorical standards (Section V), SIUs with only local limits (Section IV), Liquid Waste Haulers (Section III) and Collection Stations (Section VI). It is therefore considered that a representative set of permits were reviewed for the purposes of this audit. 3.1.1 CC Graber Permit Review List of Files Reviewed for C.C.Graber. File Number File Name 1. Permit-Fact-Sheet-Template-20131204.dou 2. CIU-Permit-Template-SAWPA_FINALRev4-12182014.docx 3. IU Permitting Manual.pdf 4. newsource_dates.pdf 5. CFR-2002-title40-vol25-chapl.pdf (pages 90-107) 6. CC Graber Company-11005-2-Permit Expires 11-23-2017.pdf 7. CC Graber Company-11005-2- Fact-Sheet-2015-17.pdf 8. CC Graber Permit 10192015.docx 9. CC Graber Permit Checklist-Rev 1.3d 10192015.pdf 10. CC Graber Permit Checklist-Rev 1.3d 10192015_.pdf 11. CC Graber Permit Fact Sheet 30192015.docx 12. CC Graber Permit Submittal.msg 13. CC Graber Permit Submittal OCSD Response.msg 14. CC Graber Permit No. SSP012(2011)(revised 2-2012).pdf 15. 2015-09 SAWPA Quarterly 30-29-15.pdf 16. CIU SOP Permit Template SAWPA FINAL 300720132.docx 17. Permits SOP 070120155.doc Permit Review Timeline File 14 is a copy of the C.C. Graber Permit No SSP012 issued by Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA) which had an effective date of September 24,2011 and an expiration date two years later on September 23, 2013. This permit was replaced by a SAWPA/IEUA Permit Number 11005-1 which expired on November 23, 2015 according to the quarterly report contained in File 15. A draft renewal permit and a permit fact sheet were submitted to SAWPA by IEUA at an unspecified date, presumably in early October 2015 and the SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment reviewed the documents and submitted the draft permit (File 8) along with the permit fact sheet (File 11) and a blank copy of the permit checklist (File 9) to Mr. Tom Gaworski of OCSD in an e-mail message dated October 19, 2015. 15 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report These documents were then referred to Mr. Michael Zedek of OCSD who reviewed them and replied to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment in an e-mail dated November 3, 2015 attaching a signed concurrence checklist(File 10)containing comments on both the permit and the permit fact sheet. The final permit was issued on November 4, 2015 and was signed by SAWPA on the same date and by IEUA on November 5, 2015. The Permit I1005-2 (File 6) had an effective date of November 24, 2015 and an expiration date of November 23, 2017. The overall timeline from draft permit development to review and final signature was therefore approximately one month,which is acceptable to this audit for this procedure. Comments on the Permit and Fact Sheet Review Process 1. Both the permit and the permit fact sheet (Files 6 & 7) were developed following the required template files(Files 1 and 2)and the initial development by IEUA was acceptable to this audit. 2. Section A.3 of the final copy of the permit fact sheet (File 7, User Classification) correctly identified the categorical industrial user as being subject to 40CFR Part 407 Section F, paragraph 407.64(Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources, PSES) but was deficient in failing to include the new source date of 3/21/1974 as detailed in File 4. The required pollutants were correctly identified as BODS and TSS and reference was made to the "no limitation' pretreatment standards for these parameters. 3. The permit fact sheet contained an excellent account of the olive canning procedures in Section A.3.a. 4. In Section 4 a,the permit fact sheet clearly described the process flows. 5. In the concurrence checklist (File10) the conditions 1 and 2 in the draft permit fact sheet (File 11) were corrected in the final fact sheet (File 7). Misspelled words indicated in the e-mail (File 13)were also corrected. 6. In the Final Permit(File 6)the following omissions and comments were noted that had not been included in the OCSD review. a. In Section I (Facility Description) the permit does not include any reference to the Categorical Citations as required in the Permit Template (File 2), Section I sentence 3. Also, no reference is made to the fact that the Permittee is subject to 40CFR Part 407 Part F, paragraph 407.64 and is subject to BOD5 and TSS pollutant analysis for categorical standards. It. In Section VI B (Specific Effluent Limitation Requirements) reference should have been included to the existence of the Categorical Standards even as they are "no limitation" standards. The Permit Template (File 2) requires a separate table 1B to be included for Categorical Standards. c. In Table 1 of the Final Permit the pollutant BOD is included with a local limit of 15,OOOlbs/day. The Categorical Standard refers to BODS. Does the local limit BOD refer to a BODS test?This test can also be performed as a BOD7 in some cases. Clarification should be added in the permit. d. The permit fact sheet (File 7) Section 13.1.1b, indicates that the Permittee's wastewater will be analyzed for alkalinity, dissolved calcium, orthophosphate and Total Calcium semi-annually by the IEUA. These parameters are not referred to in the final permit. e. There was no development of a Self-Monitoring Report Form for the categorical pollutant parameters of BOD, and TSS as an attachment to the permit. Thus the 16 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report compliance with these parameters could not be assessed even though they are "no limitation"standards. 7. OCSD conditions 3 and 4 of the concurrence checklist (File 10) were adequately revised in the final permit file(File 6). 8. The OCSD condition 5 concerning the expansion of the Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management Plan in Section IX HA., of the draft permit (File 8), was changed in the final permit (File 6) to include the words "and shall be submitted to the control authorities for approval". In the auditor's opinion, this revision did not completely satisfy the requirement of the OCSD comment. 9. The OCSD condition 6 was satisfactorily changed in the final permit(File 6). 10. In comment b of the e-mail message to SAWPA(File 13),the GI and G2 attachments to the draft permit file (File 8) were included at too small of a scale to be legible. No apparent effort was made by SAWPA to change the attachments in the final permit file(File 6). 11. Comments c and d in the e-mail message (File 13) were satisfactorily corrected in the final permit file(File 6). 12. An effectiveness criterion was identified in Section I (Facility Description)of the final permit(File 6).The facility was identified as"producing canned olives'. The facility actually grades and cures fresh olives prior to the canning process. It is the auditor's opinion that some of the excellent description contained in the fact sheet could have been included in the final permit at this location. The Permit Template (File 2) merely refers to a "facility description" for this section and the permit Template SOP(File 16)just says"producing canned olives' is sufficient. Recommendations 1. A step in the permitting process must be added to verify that OCSD's comments are addressed before it is issued. This will add extra time but it cannot be avoided. 2. SAWPA should relay all OCSD permit comments back to the permit developing agency to ensure that they include these changes in all future permits and fact sheets. 3. Permit SOP doc(File 17)should be modified to include recommendations listed above. 4. Permit SOP doc (File 17) states that the permit application must be received at least 90 days prior to the permit expiration date (Section 1). If an Agency representative prepares the draft permit and draft permit fact sheet (Section 6), the Permit SOP (File 17) should contain a requirement that the draft permit and draft permit fact sheet should be submitted to SAWPA at least x days(example 60 days) prior to the current permit expiration date. 5. Similar numbers of days prior to the current permit expiration date could also be inserted into the Permit SOP (File 17) for the transmission of the reviewed draft permit and draft fact sheet from the SAWPA Manager to OCSD and the comments from OCSD back to SAWPA. 3.1.2 Inland Empire Energy Center Permit Review List of Files Reviewed for Inland Empire Energy Center Permit Review. File Number File Name 1. Permit-Fact-Sheet-Template-20131204.docx 2. CIU-Permit-Template-SAWPA_FINALRev4-12182014.docx 3. IU Permitting Manual.pdf 4. newsource_dates.pdf 17 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report S. CFR-2002-title40-vol25-chapl.pdf (pages 643-652) 6. Draft IEEC CID Permit 10192015.docx 7. DRAFT Inland Empire Energy Center Permit Fact Sheet 10192015.docx B. Inland Empire Energy Center Permit Checklist-Rev 1.3d 10192015.pdf 9. Inland Empire Energy Center-D1036-2-Permit Expires 11-24-2017.pdf 10. Inland Empire Energy Center-D1036-2-Fact Sheet-2015-17.pdf 11. Inland Empire Energy Center Permit Checklist-Rev 1.3d 10192015_.pdf 12. Inland Empire Energy Center Draft Permit Submittal.msg 13. Inland Empire Energy Center Draft Permit Submittal OCSD Response.msg 14. 554 IEEC Oct 04 2010.pdf 15. 2015-09 SAWPA Quarterly 10-29-15.pdf 16. CIU SOP Permit Template SAWPA FINAL 100720132.docx 17. Permits SOP 070120155.doc Permit Review Timeline File 14 is a copy of the Inland Empire Energy Center (IEEC) Permit No 554 issued by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) which had an effective date of October 05, 2010 and an expiration date, three years later, on October 04, 2013. This permit was eventually replaced by a SAWPA/EMWD Permit Number D1036-1.1 which expired on November 04, 2015, according to the quarterly report contained in File 15. A draft renewal permit and a permit fact sheet (Files 6 & 7) was submitted to SAWPA by EMWD at an unknown date, presumably in early October 2015 and the SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment reviewed the documents and submitted the draft permit (File 6) together with the draft permit fact sheet (File 7) and a blank copy of the permit checklist (File B) to Mr. Tom Gaworski of OCSD in an e-mail message dated October 19, 2015. These documents were then referred to Mr. Michael Zedek of OCSD who reviewed them and replied to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment in an e-mail dated November 2, 2015 attaching a signed concurrence checklist (File 11) containing comments on both the permit and the permit fact sheet. The final permit was issued on November 4, 2015 and was signed by SAWPA on the same date and by EMWD on a unknown subsequent date (no signature was on the final permit file (File 9). The Permit D1036-2 (File 9) had an effective date of November 25, 2015 and an expiration date of November 24, 2017. The overall timeline from draft permit development to review and final signature was therefore approximately one month,which is acceptable for this procedure. Comments on the Permit and Fact Sheet Review Process 1. Both the final permit and the final permit fact sheet (Files 9& 10)were developed following the required template files(Files 1 and 2)and the initial development was acceptable to this audit. 2. Section A.3 of the final copy of the permit fact sheet (File 10, User Classification) correctly identified the categorical industrial user as being subject to 40CFR Part 423 Steam Electric Power Generation, paragraph 423.17 (Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources, PSES) but was deficient. It failed to include the new source date of 10/8/1974 as detailed in File 4. The required pollutants,however,were correctly identified. 18 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 3. The permit fact sheet Section A.4.a, contained a minimal account of the facility and in Section A.4.c,the reference to Attachment C did not exist,as all attachments began with the letter G. 4. In Section A.4.a, the permit fact sheet indicates the process volumes but does not describe the flow patterns. S. In the OCSD concurrence checklist(File 11)the condition 1 in the draft permit fact sheet (File 7) was corrected in the final permit fact sheet(File 10). 6. In the draft permit (File 6) the OCSD conditions 2,5,6,7 and 8 in the concurrence checklist (File 11)were corrected in the final permit file(File 9). 7. In the draft permit (File 6)the OCSD condition 4 referred to permit Section VI.D., but this should have referred to Section VILD. This condition correctly requires the permit writer to change the section to require the 40CFR 423.17(d)(2) regulation that specifies that the permittee should certify using "engineering calculations'which demonstrate that the regulated pollutants are not detectable in the final discharge. The final permit(File 9) does not comply with this requirement and requires a certification statement (similar to a CFR433 Toxic Organic Management Plan, (TOMP)) without mentioning the need for"engineering calculations'. A certification statement is not an acceptable alternative for the Federal Requirements in a 423 permit 8. The section VII G, in the Permit Template file (File 2) should be modified to reflect this requirement for"engineering calculations" in 423 permits. 9. In the Final Permit(File 9)the following omissions and comments were noted: a. In Sections III and IV (Outtalls and Description of Monitoring Points) the photographs included in the permit fact sheet(File 10) should have been included in the final permit file(File 9)and referred to in these sections. b. In Section VI.B.7, the reference to a semiannual certification should be removed from the permit. (See note 7 above) c. Attachment C should be modified to comply with Federal Requirements. (See Note 7 above). d. The permit fact sheet (File 10) Section B.1.b, indicates that the Permittee's wastewater will be analyzed for alkalinity, dissolved calcium, orthophosphate and Total Calcium semi-annually by the EMWD. These parameters are not referred to in the final permit. Recommendations 1. A step in the permitting process must be added to verify that OCSD's comments are addressed before it is issued. This will add extra time but it cannot be avoided. 2. SAWPA should relay all OCSD permit comments back to the permit developing agency to ensure that they include these changes in all future permits and fact sheets. 3. Permit SOP doc(File 17)should be modified to include recommendations listed above. 3.1.3 0. C. Vacuum Inc. Permit Review List of Files Reviewed for O.C.Vacuum, Inc., Permit Review. File Number File Name 1. LWH-PERMIT-Template-Final-Draft-07312014.docx 2. EPA Hauled Waste Manual.pdf 3. DRAFT OC Vacuum Permit H1112-130062015.doa 4. OC Vacuum LWH Permit Review Process.docx 19 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report S. OC Vacuum Permit Checklist-Rev 1.3d 10072015.pdf 6. OC Vacuum, Inc,-H1112-1-Permit Expires 11-2-2017.pdf 7. OC Vacuum Draft Liquid Waste Hauler Permit Submittal.msg 8. RE:OC Vacuum Draft Liquid Waste Hauler Permit Submittal.msg 9. Vacuum Draft Liquid Waste Hauler Permit Submittal OCSD Response.msg 10. Permits SOP 070120155.doc Permit Review Timeline The SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment submitted a draft permit file (File 3) for a new Liquid Waste Hauler(LWH), together with a permit review process (File 4) and a permit checklist (File 5 to Mr. Tom Gaworski of OCSD in an e-mail message (File 7) dated October 07, 2015. On the same day, these documents were then referred to Mr. Michael Zedek of OCSD who reviewed them and replied to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment in an e-mail (File 8) dated October 21, 2015. This e-mail contained review questions, issues and notes concerning the OC Vacuum draft permit file (File 3). The Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment responded to this e-mail on October 28, 2015 and attached a revised draft permit file and written answers to Mr. ZedeWs questions, issues and notes. Mr. Zedek signed the concurrence section of the checklist file(File 5)and approved the new LWH permit file (File 6) in an e-mail(File 9)dated November 03,2015. The final permit (File 6) was issued on November 3, 2015 and was signed by SAWPA on the same date. The Permit H1112-1 (File 6) had an effective date of November 03, 2015 and an expiration date of November 02,2017. The overall timeline from draft permit development to review and final signature was therefore approximately one month,which is acceptable to this audit for this procedure. Comments on the Permit Review Process 1. The draft permit file for the new Liquid Waste Hauler OC Vacuum, Inc.,was developed following the required template file(File 1)and the initial development was acceptable to this audit. 2. All questions, issues and notes developed by OCSD (see timeline section above) concerning the draft permit file (File 3) and included in the e-mail (File 8)to SAWPA,were corrected or updated in the Final Permit file (File 6) by SAWPA to the satisfaction of OCSD and this audit. 3. In the Final Permit file (File 6) the following recommendations were noted that had not been included in the OCSD review. a. On the last sentence of the first letter page just above the signature on the final permit file (File 6)there is a reference to an "attached map"with no reference as to where this map is located. The map on the last page of the permit is presumed to be the reference and the map should be labeled "Attachment C" and a proper reference to it should be included on the line in the signature page. b. On the permit signature pages of both the draft permit file (File 3) and the Final Permit file (File 6) the first line starts with the facility name, "D.C. Vacuum, Inc". In the LWH template file (File 1) in this location, the required "Facility Name" is followed by the term "(Permittee)" in brackets. The term "Permittee" is used in place of the facility name throughout the rest of the file and this reference was lacking in the final LWH permit file(File 6). 20 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report c. In File 6, Table 1 the column titled Monthly Average could be deleted as there are no limitation values in it. d. In Section VILD, a signed certification statement is required together with the various reporting requirements detailed in Section X.R of the permit. This could have been prepared as a separate certification form which could have been included as a separate attachment to the permit for the convenience of the permittee. 3.1.4 TemescalDesalter Permit Review List of Files Reviewed for TemescalDesalter Permit Review. File Number File Name 1. Permit-Fact-Sheet-Template-20131204.docx 2. SIU-Permit-Template-SAWPA-Revs-12182014.docx 3. IU Permitting Manual.pdf 4. SIU SOP Permit Template_FINAL 300720134.docx 5. ATT4.eml (Composite Record of Temescal Desalter a-mails between SAWPA and OCSD between May 6 and June 4,2015) 6. Temescal Desalter-D1012-2- Fact Sheet-2015-171.pdf 7. Temescal Desalter-D1012-2-Permit Expires 7-25-20172.pdf 8. Temescal Desalter Permit Checklist - Rev 1.3d 05062015 OCSD Concurrence3.pdf Permit Review Timeline The SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment submitted a draft permit file (not reviewed) for the Temescal Desalter, together with a permit review process and a permit checklist to Mr. Tom Gaworski of OCSD in an e-mail message (File 5) dated May 06, 2015. Mr. Gaworski reviewed them and replied to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment in an e-mail (File 5) dated May 08,2015. This e- mail contained review questions, and revisions concerning the Temescal Desalter draft file. The Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment responded to this e-mail on June 03, 2015 and attached written answers to Mr. Gaworski s questions. Mr. Gaworski signed the concurrence section of the checklist file(File 8) and approved the new permit file(File 7) in an e-mail (File 5)dated June 04,2015. The Final Permit(File 7)was issued on June 08,2015 and was signed by SAWPA on the same date and by Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) on June 09, 2015. The Permit D1012-2 (File 7) had an effective date of July 26,2015 and an expiration date of July 25, 2017. The overall timeline from draft permit development to review and final signature was therefore approximately one month,which is acceptable to this audit for this procedure. Comments on the Permit and Fact Sheet Review Process 1. Both the permit and the permit fact sheet were developed following the required template files (Files 1 and 2)and the initial development was acceptable to this audit. 21 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 2. Mr. Gaworski's comments and questions were adequately answered and/or incorporated into the final permit file(File 7)to the satisfaction of this audit. 3. In the Final Permit (File 7) the following comments are included that were not noted in the OCSD review. a. In Table 1 the first column pH units should be reported as being in Standard Units (SU's), not in mg/I as the column implies. This should also be included in the Self-Monitoring Report Form and the SIU Permit Template (File 2). This comment also generally refers to all relevant permit and permit template files. b. In Section VILC (Continuous Monitoring) the permittee is required to continuously monitor pH. Reporting requirements in Section IX A do not require the submission of any pH results except on the day the samples are collected. However, all of the flow measurement data is required. Surely the continuous pH data should also be required. c. In the Self-Monitoring Report Form (File 7)there is no indication that the darkened rows are not to be sampled. Surely these rows could be deleted from the report form. d. The permit fact sheet (File 6) Section 13.1.1a, indicates that the Permittee's wastewater will be analyzed for alkalinity, dissolved calcium, orthophosphate and Total Calcium semi-annually by the EMWD. These parameters are not referred to in the final permit. Recommendations 1. SIU permit template (File 1) should be amended to accommodate comments 3a, and 3d above. 3.1.5 Metal Container Corporation —Mira Loma Can Plant Permit Review List of Files Reviewed for Metal Container Corporation—Mira Loma Can Plant Permit Review File Number File Name 1. Permit-Fact-Sheet-Template-20131204.doa 2. CIU-Permit-Template-SAWPA_FINALRev4-12182014.docx 3. IU Permitting Manual.pdf 4. newsource_dates.pdf 5. CIU SOP Permit Template SAWPA FINAL 100720132.docx 6. Permits SOP 070120155.doc 7. ATTB.eml (Composite Record of Metal Container Corporation a-mails between SAWPA and OCSD between December 16,2014 and February 09, 2015) 8. ATTF.eml (Composite Record of Metal Container Corporation a-mails between SAWPA and OCSD on December 16, 2014) 9. Metal Container Corporation-D1056-2-Fact Sheet-2015-1713.pdf 10. Metal Container Corporation-D1056-2-Permit Expires 3-1-201714.pdf 11. MCC Permit Checklist- Rev 1.3d 12162014 OCSD Concurrence12.pdf 12. Part-465.pdf(40 CFR file) Permit Review Timeline The SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment submitted a draft permit file (not reviewed) for the Metal Container Corporation (MCC), together with a permit fact sheet (not reviewed) and a permit 22 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report checklist (previously reviewed for other permits) to Mr. Tom Gaworski of OCSD in an e-mail message (File 8) dated December 16, 2014. In this same e-mail (File 8), the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment noted that this was one of the files that had been identified in the Pretreatment Compliance Inspection (PCI) as requiring action by SAWPA to enact on the permit. Mr. Gaworski immediately replied (File 8) to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment asking if the two PCI requirements (quoted in the e-mail) were the only ones being reviewed in the new permit. The Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment replied (File 8) to Mr. Gaworski that the permit was being updated to the new template (File 2) in addition to the PCI requirements. Mr. Gaworski reviewed the MCC draft permit and permit fact sheet files and replied to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment in an e-mail (File 7) dated December 30, 2015. This e-mail contained review questions, and revisions concerning both the draft permit and permit fact sheet files. The Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment responded to this e-mail on January 29, 2015 and attached written answers to Mr. Gaworski's questions. Mr. Gaworski signed the concurrence section of the checklist file (File 8) and approved the new permit file (File 10) and permit fact sheet file (File 9) in an e-mail (File 11) dated February 09,2015. The final permit (File 10) was issued on February 11, 2015 and was signed jointly by SAWPA and Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) on the same date.The Permit D1056-2(File 10) had an effective date of March 02,2015,and an expiration date of March 01, 2017. The overall timeline from draft permit development to review and final signature was therefore nearly two months, which is acceptable for this procedure considering that it occurred over the Christmas holidays and New Year's season. Comments on the Permit and Fact Sheet Review Process 1. Both the permit and the permit fact sheet were developed following the required template files (Files 1 and 2)and the initial development was acceptable to this audit. 2. Section A.3 of the final copy of the permit fact sheet (File 9, User Classification) correctly identified the categorical industrial user as being subject to 40CFR Part 465 (Coil Coating Point Source Category), Subpart D. The fact sheet file (File 9) is deficient in that the date that the company first began making cans is not included. In addition, the new source date of 11/17/1983 (see File 4) is also not included. The determination that the company is subject to Pretreatment Standards for New Sources(PSNS) is therefore not substantiated and these details should be added to the fact sheet since Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) are completely different from PSNS. 4. Mr. Gaworski s comments and questions (File 7) were answered by the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment and/or incorporated into the final permitfile (File 10). S. In the Final Permit (File 10) the following items are noted because they were not fully resolved to the satisfaction of this audit. a. In Section IV (Description of Monitoring Point(s)) of the permit (File 10), monitoring point 001 is described as the sample port on the effluent pipe from the clarifier and a photograph of this spigot is included in the permit fact sheet file (File 9). Tables 1A and 16 in Section VI B, of the permit require most pollutant parameters to be sampled as 24 hour composites,with subsample collection every 15 minutes (a total of 96 subsamples) at monitoring point 001. Section VII A states that the permittee is responsible for sample collection and Section VII B states that the permittee has a refrigerated composite sampler and a monitoring manhole with Parshall flume and bubbler flow 23 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report meter. It is not clear how this equipment connected to the spigot monitoring point 001 for composite sample semiannual local limit and composite sample quarterly categorical standard monitoring. b. The permit fact sheet (File 9) states in Section B 1., (Monitoring Locations) that monitoring point 002 is a manhole which can be monitored for flow using a bubbler flow meter. However it is also stated that samples are collected at monitoring point 001 but the description of monitoring point 001 is not specifically described as a spigot as it is in the permit. The attachments show that monitoring point 001 is a spigot and 002 is a monitoring manhole reserved for billing purposes only. Some clarification should be made here. c. In complex sampling such as is required in this permit there should be a form attached to the permit requiring sampler details such as sampling settings, number of subsamples collected,volume of each subsample,total sample volume, start and end times, etc., all requiring initials and signatures of the person operating the sampler. This completed form should be part of the reporting requirement and included in Section IX A of the permit. Otherwise SAWPA has no way to verify that the sampling was performed correctly. d. Table 113 records the PSNS production-based standards in grams per million cans produced. The permitting manual (File 3 page 7-4) allows a permittee to record all the required data (if practical or possible) on the sampling date. Concerning Mr. Gaworski s comments on the conversion of data for this type of CIU to either equivalent mass or concentration limits using long term average daily production and flow rates, this audit strongly recommends that equivalent mass limits be developed for the next permit beginning in 2017. The main reason for this is the doubtful ability of the permittee to calculate the exact number of cans produced during the sampling period considering that the can making process is so complex. Exact details requiring how the permittee should calculate this number of cans should have been included in the permit rather than just the casual reference in permit Section VI B 5 and Section VIII B to provide the gallons/3000 can data. e. The person reporting the data probably has little knowledge of how to convert the sampling data to the production based categorical standards that are required. The permit should contain a formula combined with specific instructions to aid the permittee in converting the mg/L concentration of the individual pollutants in the sample to grams per million cans produced. The formula should include conversions of mg/L to g/L and the conversion of gallons to liters to obtain the correct evaluation of each production based categorical standard. Ideally this can be incorporated in a small Microsoft Excel file which could be made part of the permit content. The permittee can then determine compliance or non-compliance from the converted data. The column entitled Calculation (g/million cans) in the self-reporting form is not considered sufficient to achieve this conversion. f. In Table 3A, the first column pH units should be reported as being in Standard Units (SU's), not in mg/L as the column implies. This should also be included in the Self- Monitoring Report Form and the CIU Permit Template(File 2). Recommendations Permit and Permit Fact Sheet files(Files 9&10)need revision as itemized above. 24 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 3.1.6 Western Municipal Water District Collection Station Permit Review List of Files Reviewed for Western Municipal Water District(WMWD)Collection Station,Permit Review File Number File Name 1 IU-Permit-Template-SAW PA_FI NALRev6-03062015.docx 2 WMWD Collection Station- D1087-2-Permit Expires 8-6-2017.pdf 3 WMWD Collection Station- D1087-2- Fact Sheet 2015-175.pdf 4 WMWD Collection Station Permit Checklist-Rev 1.3d 06112015 OCSD Concurrence7.pdf 5 Permits SOP 070120155.doc Permit Review Timeline The SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment submitted a draft permit file (not reviewed) for the WMWD Collection Station, together with a permit review process (not reviewed) and a permit checklist(File 4)to Mr.Tom Gaworski of OCSD in an e-mail message(not reviewed)dated June 11, 2015. Mr.Gaworski reviewed the files and replied to the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment in an e-mail (not reviewed) dated July 11, 2015. The check list file (File 4) contained reference to spelling errors in Section IX B of the draft permit file (not reviewed). The Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment corrected the spelling errors in the final permit file (File 2). Mr. Gaworski signed the concurrence section of the checklist file (File 4) and approved the new WMWD Collection Station file (File 2) on July 11,2015. The Final permit (File 2) was issued on July 15, 2015 and was signed by SAWPA on the same date. The Permit D1087-2 (File 2) had an effective date of August 07, 2015 and an expiration date of August 06, 2017. The overall timeline from draft permit development to review and final signature was therefore approximately one month,which is acceptable by this audit for this procedure. Comments on the Permit Review Process 1. The draft permit file for the WMWD Collection Station was developed following the required template file(File 1)and the initial development was acceptable to this audit. 2. Spelling errors highlighted by OCSD concerning the draft permit file (not reviewed) were corrected in the Final Permit file(File 2)by SAWPA to the satisfaction of OCSD and this audit. 3. In the Final Permit (File 2) the following recommendations were noted that had not been included in the OCSD review. a. In Section IX H (Facility Waste Management Plan) of the permit file (File 2) the introductory sentences state that the permittee is both required and not required to develop this plan. This error has arisen from the permit template file(Filet)which gives the permit writer the option to delete the incorrect statement which has been omitted here b. The template file (File 1) correctly lays out the requirements for various plans to either be required or not required by the permittee in Section IX H. The permit writer must make these decisions and delete the unnecessary parts. In the permit fact sheet file 25 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report (File 3) all plans 1 through 5 are not required. In the permit (File 2)the details of plans that are not required are still included in the permit thus increasing the length of the permit with unnecessary verbiage. This comment appears to be fairly universal to all reviewed permits. c. In Table 1 the second column pH units should be reported as being in Standard Units (SU's), not in mg/I as the column implies. This should also be included in the Self- Monitoring Report Form and the IU Permit Template(File 1). d. In the self-monitoring report form, the words "Applicable Limit" in columns 2 and 3 should be replaced with "Local Limit". Recommendations Permit file (Files 2) requires revision as itemized above when it is renewed. Permitting General Comments: 1. The timeline for the production of all permits was found to be approximately one month (except in holiday periods)which is acceptable for this audit. 2. The initial production of the permits by the different agencies was found to be compliant with the template files in the initial development process. 3. The process of OCSD review was examined and questions and comments made by the reviewers were found to be relevant and mostly comprehensive 4. Additional comments on the permits not included in the OCSD review are added here especially for the more complex permits(Section V). Some of these comments originate from the template files which should be modified to clarify the irregularities that are highlighted throughout this review. Permit files and permit fact sheet files can be modified mostly as they are renewed in the majority of cases. S. Many of the permits contain large amounts of detail that is not required for that particular permit. Permit writers tend to leave everything that is in the template file in the final permit file. Details of various plans (Section IX of the permit) are often left in when the plan is not required.Sub-notes to pollutant tables contain details of pollutants not required in the main table (e.g. TTO, pesticides etc). The darkened rows in pollutant tables for non-required pollutants should be deleted together with the darkened rows in the self-monitoring report tables. 6. Attachments showing monitoring points should be included in the permit files so that the permittee can see where to take the sample. The permittee does not have a copy of the permit fact sheet file where this information is kept. 7. It would be beneficial to see more detailed information in the facility and flow descriptions in the permit file,even if it is copied from the fact sheet. 8. A form detailing the sampling procedure should be attached to the permit file including data on time and place of sample, auto sampler settings, number of subsamples taken etc. with spaces for initials of the sampler. The lab sampling sheets do not always contain this information as much as would be liked and in a judicial review,these details may cause a sample to become invalidated. 26 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 3.2 Enforcement In this section,EEC followed the sequence of questions and evaluated SAW PA's answers through as review of the sequence of events and all pertinent documents. 1. How well does enforcement follow what the SAWPA Enforcement Response Plan specifies? Evaluate and assess the enforcement efforts and provide relevant examples and documentation for three of the following permits:Chino I Desalter, Repet, Rayne Water,WRCRWA,or SunOpta. SA WPA's General Response All enforcement action(s) follows the SAWPA Enforcement Response Plan. The goal of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program is to ensure all enforcement action(s) are reasonable, consistent, and timely. Please see the examples below. 1. Chino Basin Desalter Authority(CDA)Chino I(Permit No. D1081-1) SAWPA's Response On August 5, 2014, The Chino Desalter Authority 1 (CDAI) discovered an acid leak into the ground, adjacent to the facility's effluent wastewater lateral. The acid damaged the wastewater lateral seal, and acid was discharged to the Brine Line. SAWPA issued to CDA 1 a Cease and Desist Order (CDO) and required corrective action(s) to prevent future pH slug discharge violations to the Brine Line. CDA I completed all items required to preventfuture pH slug discharges to the Brine Line. SAWPA to continue to perform unannounced inspections at CDA I to insure the corrective actions completed are adhered to. Please refer to SA WPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information. Audit response Following its review of the recorded documentation on the Chino Desalter discharge violation, the EEC Team's comments are as follows: CDA discovered an effluent discharge below the 6.0 required pH level during rounds on August 5, 2014 at approximately 07:30 hours. CDA immediately informed the Inland Empire Utilities Agency(IEUA)who immediately informed SAWPA of the discovery (telephone call at approximately 08:10 hours. SAWPA became the main enforcement agency here as the discharge was classified as a Major Violation under Section 4.0 B 2 b of SAWPA's ERP. SAWPA immediately instructed IEUA to require CDA to shut down the effluent discharge line and this was done at approximately 08:15 to 08:30 hours on the same day. SAWPA also informed IEUA that SAWPA would immediately dispatch a SAWPA inspector to the CDA site. Presumably all communication was made by telephone but no written telephone logs concerning these actions were available for review. This audit finds that this response was an excellent example of how this type of problem must be handled in accordance with the ERP and all parties concerned are to be congratulated for the speedy reactions. On August 5, 2014, at approximately 08:55 hours,the SAWPA inspector met with IEUA and CDA staff on site and a complete inspection was performed. The inspection report confirmed that a residual effluent discharge with a pH of less than 6.0 S U was still being discharged even though the discharge valves were closed. The effluent flow finally ceased at approximately 10:00 hours and an examination of the pH 27 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report meter record showed that the noncompliant discharge had started at approximately 16:58 hours on the previous day(August 4, 2014). At this time,the reason for the noncompliant discharge was determined to be probably due to an underground leak of 94% sulfuric acid into the ground around the Brine Line lateral as excessive drainage of the acid was noted from expected and observed levels in the acid tank. CDA informed the SAWPA inspector that a written report would be sent to SAWPA before the requested date of August 10,2014. This audit finds that the initial inspection report was concise and very detailed in its explanation of the nature of the noncompliant effluent discharge and fully complied with the requirements of the ERP. The SAWPA inspector returned to the site on the following day (August 6, 2014) and was informed by the CDA staff member that excavation of the site around the acid tank had revealed that acid had damaged a seal in the Brine Line and gained entry directly to the effluent discharge lateral. CDA would be responsible for all repairs to the lateral and had shut down the auto feed system for the acid tank and were using other temporary methods to supply acid to the reverse osmosis unit. Once again this audit finds that the report was concise and very detailed and complied with ERP requirements. CDA submitted a written report dated August 8, 2014 thus meeting the SAWPA requirement deadline of August 10,2014. The copy of the report seen by this audit and subsequently submitted to OCSD showed that it was received and stamped by SAWPA on August 14, 2014. A six day lag between the report date and the received date appears to be excessive when hand delivery and courier service should be available. The report outlined the events leading up to the leak but failed to mention that the seals in the lateral were probably the source of entry of the acid as described to the inspector three days before this report was written. SAWPA issued a Cease and Desist (C&D) Order dated August 21, 2014 by both electronic and LISPS mail to CDA. According to the ERP,the issuance of a C&D order for an unspecified violation should ideally be done within a 10 day period from the date of the noncompliance.This order was executed 16 days after the event. However, the ERP does state (page 21) that the 10 day period is for guidance only and "the actual response time, depending on extenuating circumstances, may be shorter or longer". As the official report was not received until August 14, 2014, this probably could be deemed to be an extenuating circumstance. This audit finds that the ERP was followed by SAWPA regarding the enforcement response but care must be taken to stay within ERP time lines if possible. The CDA complied with all requirements of the C&D Order and the Order was subsequently closed on January 20, 2015. 2. Repet. Inc. (Permit No. D1069-2) SAWPA's response Repet unable to remain in consistent compliance with their Brine Line Discharge Permit and SAWPA Ordinance No. 7 As of July 8,2014,SAWPA began escalated enforcement action against Repet. On July 10, 2014, SAWPA issues a CDO to Repet. Repet is required to attend a hearing and immediately comply with all permit and ordinance requirements. Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information. Audit response 28 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Multiple instances of noncompliance from March through June 2014 were recorded at Repet, Inc. Responses to repeated Notices of Violation and Orders for Corrective Action of various Oil and Grease limits and removal of pretreatment equipment without prior notice, clearly demonstrated that the company was not cooperating with the regulatory agencies. This activity justifies the issuance of a Compliance Order as directed by the ERP but this action was not initiated. On July 8, 2014, the discovery by IEUA inspectors of deliberate tampering with sampling equipment in order to falsify required regulatory information constituted a very serious, major violation according to Section 4.0 B 2 g of the ERP which states "Tampering with or purposely rendering inaccurate any monitoring device, method or record required to be maintained pursuant to the Wastewater Discharge Ordinance". In this case SAWPA became the dominant agency involved in the enforcement procedure. In the opinion of this audit, this type of activity should immediately initiate the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, a Show Cause Hearing and passible consideration of a Wastewater Discharge Permit Revocation Order (ERP Section 5.0 B 10, 11 and 12). SAWPA escalated their enforcement activity and, on July 10, 2014, issued a Cease and Desist Order, a Compliance Order and an Administrative Complaint Hearing Notice to Repet. This audit agrees that SAWPA's actions were correct and in line with the requirements of the ERP. Following the hearing on August 11, 2014, SAWPA issued a Civil Penalty Order and Compliance Order to Repet on August 14, 2014 assessing penalties for the tampering activities described on July 8, 2014. This action is supported by this audit as being in compliance with the ERP requirements. On October 17, 2014, SAWPA issued a second Cease and Desist Order to Repet for failing to perform actions required by the first C&D Order issued on August 14, 2014. Repet continued to discharge noncompliant wastewater and failed to pay penalties and submit required reports in a timely manner. This order informed Repet that they should cease all discharge to the Brine Line and initiate batch storage of wastewater from October 17, 2014 onwards with the following requirements. Repet was required to install batch tanks for storage of all wastewater on site. All batch tanks were required to be tested for compliance with all permit parameters and results were to be posted to IEUA and SAWPA seeking permission to discharge to the Brine Line. Any tanks failing to meet compliance would not be allowed to discharge until suitable alternative treatment processes had been approved by the regulatory agencies. These specifications were clearly set out in SAWPA's second C&D Order and would be in line with ERP requirements. It is noted however that the instructions for failure to comply with a C&D Order on page 29 of the ERP do not include the issuance of a second C&D Order but refer to the initiation of Permit Suspension and possible Termination activities. The alternative arrangement to install batch tanks and take full control of discharges to the Brine Line showed that SAWPA was willing to work with Repet to avoid permit revocation even though the company had not shown continuous good faith efforts to correct their noncompliance problems (see Section 5.0 C 6 of the ERP) These activities are commended by this audit. Between August and October 2014 notices of extensive management changes and the establishment of several new positions in relation to its wastewater pretreatment system were sent to IEUA and SAWPA by Repet as would be required by permit conditions. On November 12, 2014, SAWPA issued a third C&D Order and Compliance Order to Repet informing the company in the introductory letter that they were suspending the discharge permit as from 4:30 pm on 29 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report November 12, 2014 and assessing a $5,000 penalty for violating the second C&D Order. Repet discharged from a batch tank without notifying SAWPA beforehand and without obtaining the required laboratory analyses. Furthermore SAWPA required Repet to attend a compliance meeting at SAWPA on November 26, 2014. The body of the C&D Order did not mention suspending the permit but required the company to cease and desist all discharge to the Brine Line immediately and comply with the batch tank discharge conditions included in the second C&D Order. The ERP does not mention the issuance of a third C&D Order or the suspension of a permit but it does confirm that a C&D Order can require the suspension of a discharge. No mention of possible Permit Revocation was mentioned in SAWPA's C&D document which should have been included at this time. In its monthly report dated December 5, 2014, Repet states that it had installed 14 batch tanks at the facility and will comply with all of the batch tank discharge requirements laid out in the second C&D Order. The company also refers to the removal of a physical plug in the company's discharge line by IEUA on December 1,2014. No other documentation of this activity has been seen by this audit. On January 18, 2015, SAWPA issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) Order to Repet for on-site analysis of sulfide concentrations in previously approved wastewater discharge. The NOV was not specific as to the location that the on-site samples but required Repet to investigate the cause of the violations and report back to SAWPA before January 27, 2015. This audit believes that the NOV was deficient as it failed to include precise details of the locations of the on-site sulfide analyses. Repet responded to the NOV with a long letter dated January 27, 2015, in which they contested the on-site sulfide analyses by the regulatory agency and included detailed explanations of their batch tank analytical procedures. No further documentation on this NOV was submitted to this audit and it appears this NOV has never been closed. On February 6, 2015 Repet sent a letter to SAWPA in which several references to activities not covered by the documentation supplied to this audit were referred to. First, Repet refers to a December 22, 2014 order modification approving the use of the CWT GEM wastewater treatment system. This document was not made available to this audit. Secondly, Repet states that the company received permission to resume direct discharge of wastewater to the Brine Line from SAWPA on February 2, 2015 and modifications to the pipe connections and dismantling of the tank system were now in progress. Once again, this audit has not seen this document and cannot assess the justification for SAWPA's closure of the requirements of the C&D Orders. On March 2, 2015, SAWPA officially closed the November 26, 2014 C&D Order stating that Repet had complied with all requirements of the order. 3. SunOpta Food Solutions(Permit No. 11066-1.1) S WAPA's response On January 12, 2015, SunOpta Food Solutions - San Bernardino (SunOpta) exceeded the Copper concentration limit of 3.0 mg/L. To correct the continued Copper violations, SunOpta installed a new water softener system, plastic storage tank, and chelating resin filters to remove Copper from wastewater. SunOpta is required to collect additional Copper samples to demonstrate consistent compliance with the Copper concentration limit and to be removed from SNC status. SBMWD to conduct unannounced site inspections and collect grab samples from SunOpta's storage tank and from SunOpta's liquid waste hauler. Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information. 30 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Audit response SunOptais a fruit and citrus juice manufacturer classified as an Industrial User(IU) which discharges high brine content wastewater from its water softening equipment to an 800 gallon brine waste storage tank. The brine wastewater from the tank is hauled to the Brine Line Collection Station by a SAWPA permitted Liquid Waste Hauler. The City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (SBMWD) is the agency concerned with the regulation of this company. SAWPA's wastewater discharge permit I1080 requires Sun Opta to sample the discharge from the tank for SAWPA's local limits once per year in January. On January 12, 2015 SunOpta's brine wastewater sample indicated a copper concentration of 3.8mg/I which exceeds the permit limit of 3.Omg/l. On January 29, 2015, SBMWD issued a Written Warning Notice for this violation and required re-sampling. The ERP (Section 4.0 B 1 and Table 3) categorizes this as a minor violation of discharge limitations warranting a Written Warning or NOV,with compliance follow-up,so SMBWD did in fact follow the ERP. SunOpta's brine wastewater was re-sampled on March 19, 2015 and the copper sample result was 9.2mg/L which again exceeded the permit limit of 3.Omg/L. This re-sample was collected over 49 days after the Written Warning which appears to be excessively long unless modifications were made to the pretreatment equipment at SunOpta. On March 31, 2015 SBMWD issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) requiring SunOpta to submit a written response by April 15, 2015 and complete a Monitoring/Production Information Order (MPIO) requiring copper grab samples to be collected on fourteen (14) consecutive production days and results to be submitted by May 15, 2015. The action by SBMWD is in line with the requirements of Table 3 of the ERP for 2 or more violations within a six month period. Neither one of SunOpta's required documents(dated April 15,2015, and May 15, 2015)were submitted to this audit. If these documents were never delivered,extra enforcement procedures should have been initiated. On August 3, 2015 SBMWD issued a second NOV indicating that the fourteen (14) sampling results for copper required by the MPIO had all exceeded the limit even though the wastewater had not been discharged to the Brine Line. The NOV was based on the evidence that SBMWD had evaluated the sample data from wastewater discharged to the IEBL for the two (2) six month evaluation periods of October 1, 2014, to March 31, 2015, and January 2015 to June 30, 2015, which indicated that seventy five (75) percent of the copper samples exceeded the copper limit. The NOV stated that SunOpta was in Significant Noncompliance (SNC) (Chronic and Technical Review Criteria) as identified by 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(viii). The NOV also stated that a June 25, 2015, compliance inspection had revealed that a new resin filter had been installed by SunOpta and that no copper violations had been detected since this installation. The NOV also required SunOpta to perform a second MPIO by sampling the next six batches of brine waste delivered to the IEBL and to demonstrate to SBMWD that the copper concentrations were in compliance prior to discharging the brine wastewater to the IEBL via the Liquid Waste Hauler. Awritten response was required from SunOpta before August 17, 2015. The NOV was reviewed by SAWPA prior to being delivered and several changes to the content were made, especially with reference to the SNC wording. The NOV was issued with one signature from SBMWD. According to Section 4.0 B 2 a, of the ERP,the determination of SNC is a Major violation. (The reference to the definition of SNC in the ERP is also incorrect in this instance.) SAWPA was involved with the editing of the document but should have co-signed the NOV regarding the major violation. Overall, 31 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report this audit considers that this NOV contains too much unrelated information and should have been divided into two documents, one dealing with the MPIO requirements and signed by SBMWD alone and the other dealing with the SNC determination and signed by both SAWPA and SBMWD. SunOpta responded on August 15, 2015 and described the copper problem in detail and confirmed that the installation of the new Purolite 5930 filter in the water softening equipment had solved the copper problem. They further informed SBMWD that they would fully comply with the requirements of the second MPIO. No documentation of the results of the required six sampling events and no final documentation of the satisfaction or completion of the enforcement orders were available for review. 4 WRCRWA SRPS No Specific response from SAWPA Audit response On September 10.2014, an NOV was issued by SAWPA to Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) South Regional Pump Station (SRPS) for pump failures resulting in a slug discharge to the Brine Line.SAWPA had previously been contacted concerning the pump failures on August 8, 2014, and detailed written reports had been submitted on August 18, 2014. The NOV was issued thirty three (33) days after the event. The NOV was rescinded and a revised NOV was issued on September 24,2014. Initial contact by WRCRWA and the August 18 report satisfied the requirements of the NOV and only staff training was required. On September 29, 2014, WRCRWA submitted a reply to the NOV detailing that training had been completed and all requirements of the NOV had been met. Table 3 of the ERP requires Slug Load Discharges for the first time with no harm to the Brine Line to be responded to with a Cease and Desist Order to be issued within 10 days for unspecified violations. SAWPA did not follow the ERP in this case by both the action required and the timeliness of the action. 2. Is the appropriate agency handling enforcement? (i.e.,SAWPA—major enforcement and Member And Contract Agencies—minor enforcement) Evaluate and assess whether the appropriate agency handles enforcement and cite relevant examples. SAWPA response SA WPA reviews all enforcement action(s) whether Member or Contract Agency related. All enforcement above a Notice of Violation is the responsibility of SAWPA. Please refer to SA WPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information and relevant examples. Audit response SAWPA reviewed the SunOpta Notice of Violation (NOV) issued by SBMWD on August 3, 2015, and was aware that the enforcement escalated from a minor to a major violation concerning SNC. (See ERP definition of major violation Section 4.0 B 2 a). As indicated in the description concerning SunOpta above, this audit considers that the NOV should have been divided into two parts. The MPIO section should have been signed by SBMWD alone and the SNC section signed by both SAWPA and SBMWD. 32 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 3. What enforcement actions has SAWPA initiated over the last year,and what were the immediate and long term results? Provide a tabulation of all enforcement activities since January 2014, itemize who was the lead in each instance,and evaluate and assess the adequacy of the enforcement efforts and site relevant examples. SAWPA's response Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information and relevant examples. Audit response The EEC audit team reviewed SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log and has noted the following: Inland Bioenergy, -LC, was issued a Cease and Desist (C&D) Order, a Compliance Order and Administrative Complaint by SAWPA on December 22, 2014, for accepting unapproved wastewater loads from Repet. Inland Bioenergy hired a consultant to explain the acceptance of the unapproved waste and replied to the C&D Order on January 20, 2015. SAWPA responded on January 27, 2015 and a formal compliance meeting was set for February 5, 2015. As a result of the meeting, SAWPA issued a new C&D Order on February 6, 2015, and required, as conditions, that Inland Bioenergy update its procedures for accepting new wastewater loads. The consultant responded on February 27, 2015, and included the required procedures update. On March 12, 2015,SAWPA closed the C&D Order. This audit considers the above procedures as compliant with the requirements of the ERP. In addition the enforcement actions were timely and the complete procedure was successfully completed within a three month period. In the Chino Desalter enforcement action analyzed in Question 1 above, the lead agencies were SAWPA and IEUA.The timeliness of the enforcement action was adequate over the five (5) month period that it took to repair and test the new discharge lines. The enforcement action against Repet, described in Question 1 above was performed by SAWPA and IEUA.Actions were delayed because Repet was not fully cooperating with the regulatory agencies. After the change of management at Repet, the cooperation improved and the regulatory agencies showed that they were still willing to work with Repet to avoid having to revoke their discharge permit. The enforcement procedures continued for one year from March 2014 until March 2015 before the actions were finally closed. The SuOpta enforcement action was initiated by SBMWD and SAWPA reviewed all of the enforcement documentation before it was sent to SunOpta. The failure of SAWPA to require the division of the last NOV into two parts as noted in Question].above demonstrates that the ERP must be closely followed on all enforcement activities. In the WRCRWA enforcement action itemized above in Questionl, it appears that there was considerable divergence between the ERP requirements and the enforcement activities initiated by SAWPA as the sole agency involved. 33 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 4. What types of enforcement metrics does SAWPA use? What goals and expectations has SAWPA set for enforcement? Has SAWPA acted on metrics? Are these issues communicated to OCSD and the Member and Contract Agencies? If so,how and how often. SA WPA's response The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated, all enforcement actions are reported to OCSD on a monthly, quarterly,semi-annual, and annual basis. In addition, all enforcement action is communicated between SA WPA and the Agencies, at a minimum, every two weeks during the bi weekly teleconference calls. Audit response Please refer to section on Metrics. Enforcement Best Management Practices SAWPA conducts an audit of all agencies bi-annually covering various program activities including permitting, inspection, monitoring, and enforcement. SAWPA last conducted the agency audit throughout November of 2015 with all agencies reviewed. Joint inspections were also performed with agency members at this time to review the inspection SOPS were being implemented consistently throughout all agencies. In addition, SAWPA conducts bi-weekly teleconferences and bi-monthly face-to-face meeting with all agencies to discuss all Brine Line activities including, but not limited to, permitting, inspection, monitoring, and enforcement. A detailed spreadsheet is also maintained covering all Brine Line permits with application deadlines, expiration dates, and contact information closely tracked. This spreadsheet is redistributed at each meeting so that all agencies are up to date on permitting issues. Furthermore, SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procures for its FACS data management system including permitting, monitoring, inspection, and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training on these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading documents into the system. 3.3 Inspection 1. What types(e.g., permitted, non-permitted) and how many inspections were conducted? SAWPA's response SAWPA Inspections SAWPA completed eighty-nine (89) inspections of SAWPA Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. SAWPA did not perform any inspections of non-permitted facilities during this same time period. Member or Contract Agency Inspections 34 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report EMWD completed twelve (12) inspections of SAWPA/EMWD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. EMWD did not perform any inspections of non-permitted facilities during this some time period. IEUA completed sixty-three(63)inspections of SAWPMEUA Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. IEUA did not perform any inspections of non-permitted facilities during this some time period. JCSD completed twenty-five (25) inspections of SAWPA/JCSD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. JCSD completed eighty-six (86) inspections of non-permitted facilities during this some time period. SBMWD completed fifteen (15) inspections of SAWPA/SBMWD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. SBMWD did not perform any inspections of non-permitted facilities during this same time period. SBVMWD completed five(5)inspections of SAWPA/SBVMD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. SBVMWD did not perform any inspections of non-permitted facilities during this same time period. WMWD completed fifty-one(51)inspections c f SAWPA/WMWD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. WMWD did not perform any inspections of non-permitted facilities during this same time period. Joint Inspections SAWPA completed twenty-three(23)joint inspections of Brine Line Permittees during the fiscal year July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. SAWPA did not perform any joint inspections of non-permitted facilities during this some time period. Audit response The data regarding the number of inspections performed by SAWPA and each of the Agencies as indicated in their responses above was presumably collected from !PACs data.This audit has attempted to estimate the minimum number of inspections that would be required in a one year period if the following criteria are used. SAWPA's pretreatment program has different types of industrial dischargers and the average minimum number of inspections required is dependent on the total number of each type of discharger that is regulated by SAWPA and each of the six agencies multiplied by the minimum inspection requirements set down in part by OCSD's Primary Program Elements Transmittal Letter dated February 28, 2014. In this analysis we have used the following average numbers of inspections required by the different types of dischargers as follows: Direct Dischargers 4 times per year(per OCSD letter) Indirect Dischargers 2 times per year(estimated only, no data backup) Emergency Dischargers 1 time per year(per OCSD letter) Liquid Waste Haulers 1 time per year(estimated only, no data backup) 35 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report An analysis of the types of all of the permits issued by SAWPA and the various Agencies is presented in the table below. The number of different dischargers in each agency was counted from a permit list dated 11/09/2015 supplied at the meeting with SAWPA in November 2015. For each agency,a comparison between the total number of inspections required and those performed from July 12014 through June 30, 2015 is presented below: Agency Total Inspections Required Total Inspections Recorded SAWPA 89 89 EMWD 8 12 ELIA 38 63 JCSD 24 25 SBMWD 18 15 WMWD 45 51 The comparison indicates that all agencies, except for SBMWD, are reaching the minimum number of required inspections and in some cases,are exceeding it. 2. Are inspections prearranged or are they unannounced? SAWPA's response SAWPA Inspections Most SAWPA inspections are unannounced except for permit application inspections. Application inspections are announced to assure the Authorized Representative is available to review and verify the information on the permit application. Member or Contract Agency Inspections Most Member or Contract Agency inspections are unannounced except for permit application inspections. Application inspections are announced to assure the Authorized Representative is available to review and verify the information on the permit application. Joint Inspections Most SAWPA joint inspections are unannounced unless a particular person is requested to be available for the inspection. Audit response From hand written notes taken at the SAWPA meeting held on November 10,2015,the Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist stated that SAWPA conducted all of its own Brine Line permittees and some of the"conflict of interest" permittees with other agencies. All other Agencies are responsible for inspecting their own Brine Line permittees. Inspection training for agency personnel was conducted on April 22,2015 and the Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist has met all agency inspection personnel and performs cross inspections with them for training purposes. 36 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report The Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist further confirmed that most of the inspections are unannounced,particularly Collection Stations but other inspections may be announced in certain situations as indicated in the joint inspections noted above. Most inspectors fill in a hard copy of the field inspection form at the inspection. This form is the same for all agencies. WMWD inspectors have tablets in the field to fill in the inspection forms on line. Other agencies fill in the computerized forms when they return to office. Signatures of industrial user officials on the hard copy field inspection forms are scanned into the computerized forms. It is considered that as SAWPA has more Brine Line Permittees than any other agency the introduction of tablet input in the field for all SAWPA inspectors would speed up inspection procedures and avert any possible errors of translation from hard copy to computer copy. 3. Are inspections conducted in a manner consistent with SAWPA's PPCD? Provide a tabular listing comparing the existing policies and procedures to SAWPA's inspections. SAWPA's response Inspection Report PPCD 1.Permitted Wastestreams See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 2. Discharged See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 3. Non Discharging See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 4. Outside Service Area See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 5. Reclaimable Wastewater See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 6. Storm Water See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 7 O& M of Equipment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 8. O& M Manual See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 9. Flow Meter See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 10.pH Meter See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 11. Other Equipment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 12.Auto Shut-Off See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 13.Sample Point See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 14.Sample Collection See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 15. Planned Changed See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 16. Other See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 17. Flow See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 18. Housekeeping See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 19. Work Hours/#Employees See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 20. Records See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 11. Facilities Plans See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 12. Contingency Plan/Contacts See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 13. Hauling Records See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 14. Other Permits See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 15. Boilers See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 16. Cooling Towers See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 27. Water Treatment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 28. Chemical Storage See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 29. Hoz Waste Storage See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 37 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 30.Spill Containment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 31. MSDS See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 32. Other See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 33. Change to Permlt/PFS See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct All Agency inspections are documented, regardless of type or purpose, using an Inland Empire Inspection Report Form. Audit response The Audit team verified SAWPA's answer and concurs with it. 4. What types of metrics does SAWPA set for inspections? What were the results? Has SAWPA acted on the metrics? Are these items communicated to OCSD? If so,how are the items communicated and how often? SAWPA's response: The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated, all inspection results are reported to OCSD on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual basis. Inspections are performed in accordance with the OCSD program goal frequencies in accordance with the memo submitted to SAWPA from OCSD on February 28, 2014. OCSD,and therefore SAWPA,minimum inspection frequencies are as follows. Industry Control Authority Classification Inspections CIU Quarterly SIU Quarterly IU Semi-Annually IU Indirect* Annual Emergency* Annual *OCSD has no indirect IU's and therefore has provided no guidance on frequencies for this facility type. Audit response Please refer to section on Metrics. Inspection Best Management Practices On April 22, 2015 SAWPA conducted an in-house training course entitled "Pretreatment Inspector Training." The SAWPA training course was provided to all Member Agency and Contract Member Agency inspectors. The training course provided essential skills required by pretreatment inspectors for conducting pretreatment facility inspections. In addition, the training course reviewed specific SAWPA pretreatment program elements. Thirty-two (32) inspectors attended the two hour course and all in attendance received 2.0 contact hours. The topics discussed and reviewed included: Purpose of the Pretreatment Program • Need for Pretreatment Facility Inspections 38 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report • Duties of an Inspector • Relations with Industry Personnel • Inspector Ethics • Entering an Industry for an Inspection • Inspection Entry Denied • Types of Contacts • Presenting Yourself • Know the Rules • Spill Containment • Stormwater • Safety • Items to Inspect • General Pollution Prevention • Unique SAWPA Program Elements SAWPA conducts an audit of all agencies bi-annually covering various program activities including permitting,inspection, monitoring,and enforcement. SAWPA last conducted the agency audit throughout November of 2015 with all agencies reviewed. Joint inspections were also performed with agency members at this time to review the inspection SOPS were being implemented consistently throughout all agencies. SAWPA and JCSD have implemented a detailed industrial user survey in the JCSD service area to review potential industries requiring a wastewater discharge permit. Athorough survey was conducted with all facilities visited. An extensive log sheet is maintained recording all facilities visited,date of the visit and projected follow-up visit date, and which of the JCSD connections they discharge to. As JCSD is also the utility provider for water they will become aware of new facilities as they come into the service area, but are also utilizing their industrial user survey process to ensure no new facilities are missed. Beginning in July 2015,SAWPA implemented a new training program entitled "Inter-Agency Inspection Training." The purpose of the training is to promote continued growth of all agency inspectors and to acquaint inspectors with types of facilities and pretreatment devices not located within their agency's service area. Each quarter two different agencies are paired together and each agency is responsible for hosting and arranging one joint inspection within their service area. Each quarter the schedule rotates which allows for the growth of an inspector's knowledge and encourages agency camaraderie. Please see the example below. 3.4 Monitoring and Sampling 1. What constituent monitoring is required of permitted facilities since January 2014,and how does the actual performance compare to the requirements?Evaluate and assess the adequacy of the constituents monitored and provide relevant tabular listings for CIUs,SIUs,IUs,and Liquid Waste Haulers. SAWPA's response: Monitoring is performed according to the constituents identified in the permit. SAWPA uses one of the iPACS modules to generate sampling and self-monitoring tasks based on the defined permit limits and 39 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report monitoring requirements. SA WPA reports to OCSD on all constituent monitoring conducted by permitted facilities quarterly and again annually. Sampling is performed in accordance with the OCSD program goal frequencies per the memo submitted to SAWPA from OCSD on February 28,2014. Audit response To examine the constituent monitoring conducted by permitted facilities, the quarterly report covering the period from July 1 to September 30, 2015 (File: 2015-09 SAWPA Quarterly 10-29-15.pdf) was compared with the sampling requirements from the permit files for the following Industrial Users: • C.C.Graber Company, Permit#I10O5-1 • TemescalDesalter, Permit#D3012-1 • Inland Empire Energy Center, Permit It D1O36=1.1 • Metal Container Corporation, Permit#D3056-2 C.C. Graber Company The C.C. Graber Company, located on 315 E 0 Street, Ontario, is an olive canning facility which was reported to have had no violations and no enforcement during the July to September 2015 reporting period. The sampling results (pages 105 to 109 of the quarterly report file) include Agency sampling results by IEUA on 9/24/15 and self-monitoring sampling results by C.C.Graber Company on 9/24/15. C.C. Graber Company is a Categorical Industrial User (CIU) under 40 CFR Part 407, Subpart F—Canned and Preserved Fruits Subcategory, pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) 407.64 which contains 5 day Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS) and Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Categorical Standards with "no limitation" requirements, (not stated in the permit but contained in the permit fact sheet file). The Permit identifies the monitoring point 001 as the outlet from the 5,000 gallon Wastewater Storage Tank. All local limits are listed in Section VI B,Table 1 of Permit#11005-1. The quarterly monitoring report lists the results of sampling by the Agency (IEUA) on 9/24/2015 but there is no column in the report to include the identification of the monitoring location from which the samples were taken. It is ASSUMED that the location is monitoring point 001 as this is the only location reported in the Permit. The IEUA results include ALL of the required pollutant parameters in Table 1 and several addition unlisted parameters (Alkalinity, Calcium dissolved, DOC, Orthophosphate dissolved, Phosphorus dissolved, TSS, Cyanide amenable, Cyanide Total, Molybdenum, Selenium, Phosphorus total, FOG, O&G mineral, Temperature, Barium, Cobalt, Iron, Magnesium, Manganese and Orthophosphate Total) Some of these extra parameters are mentioned in the permit fact sheet as being required by SAWPA for investigations of solids buildup in the Brine Line, but the inclusion of others is unknown except for specific sampling, which is permitted under Permit regulations (Section IV B 3). All of the extra parameters do not have limits entered in the Daily Limit (Max) column of the quarterly report as they presumably have no upper limitations. All pollutant parameters listed in Table 1 of the Permit are recorded by the IEUA and the concentrations are listed in the Result column in mg/l. In addition,the local limit maximum concentrations are listed in the Daily Limit (Max) column so that immediate verification of compliance is possible by comparing these two results. 40 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report The Self-Monitoring Sampling results are also listed in the quarterly report. All required pollutant parameter reported concentrations are included in the Result column and all local limits are included in the Daily Limit (Max) column for compliance comparison purposes. In addition, C.C. Graber Company included Cyanide amenable, Cyanide Total, DOC and TSS in the analysis. These parameters were included in Table 1 of the Permit as being not required (N/R). The inclusion of TSS is acceptable since this is one of the Categorical Limits which is NOT included in the permit requirements, even though the categorical limit is "no limit". IEUA also included a TSS parameter which should have been required in the permit. In conclusion,the monitoring and sampling reporting for C.C. Graber Company is well presented in the quarterly report EXCEPT that the monitoring location is not identified and the TSS limit is monitored but not mentioned in the Permit. It is also suggested that the words"no limit"could be inserted in the Daily Limit(Max)column for all pollutant parameters to which it applies. TemescalDesalter The TemescalDesalter at 745 Corporation yard Way, Corona is a reverse osmosis treatment facility with a direct discharge to the Brine Line which was reported to have had no violations and no enforcement during the July to September 2015 reporting period. The sampling results (pages 298 to 299 of the quarterly report file) include Agency sampling results by WMWD on 9/28-30/15. There is no self- monitoring sampling results in this report. The Temescal Desalter is a non-categorical Significant industrial User(SIU)subject only to the general compliance regulations contained in 40 CFR part 403 and to the local limits as recorded for the Brine Line and OCSD. The permit identifies the monitoring point 001 as the outlet located on the northeast corner of the facility directly prior to the magnetic flow meter on the discharge pipe. All local limits are listed in Section VI B, Table 1 of Permit JJ131012-1. Self- Monitoring Reports (SMRs) are required semiannually between July and December in each reporting year,so self-monitoring results would not be expected in this quarterly report. The quarterly monitoring report lists the results of sampling by the Agency (WMWD) on 9/28-30/2015 but there is no column in the report to include the identification of the monitoring location from which the samples were taken. It is assumed that the location is monitoring point 001 as this is the only location reported in the permit. The WMWD results include all of the required pollutant parameters in Table 1 and several addition parameters(Calcium Total, Magnesium Total and Temperature).All of the extra parameters do not have limits entered in the Daily Limit(Max)column as they presumably have no upper limitations. All pollutant parameters listed in Table 1 of the permit are recorded by the WMWD and the concentrations are listed in the 'Result" column in mg/L. In addition, the local limit maximum concentrations are listed in the Daily Limit(Max) column only for mercury, DOC, pH and BOD.The Daily Limit (Max) column for all other local limits is blank so that immediate verification of compliance is not possible in this report. In conclusion, the monitoring and sampling reporting for the Temescal Desalter is complete in the quarterly report except that the monitoring location is not identified and the majority of entries in the Daily Limit(Max) column are left blank rendering compliance verification impossible. It is also suggested that the words "no limit" could be inserted in the Daily Limit(Max) column for all pollutant parameters to which it applies. 41 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Inland Empire Energy Center The Inland Empire Energy Center (IEEC) at 26226 Antelope Road, Menifee, is a natural gas fired gas/steam turbine base-load electric power generation plant with a direct flow to the Brine Line which was reported to have had no violations and no enforcement during the July to September 2015 reporting period. The sampling results (pages 183 to 189 of the quarterly report file) include Agency sampling results by EMWD on 7/07-08/2015, 7/22/2015 and 9/17-30/2015, and SMR sampling results by IEEC on 7/22/2015. IEEC is a Categorical Industrial User (CIU) under 40 CFR 423.17 - Steam Electric Power Generating-New Source. The industrial wastewater discharges from this facility are subject to Categorical Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) contained in 40 CFR Part 423.17. This facility is also subject to the general and specific wastewater pollutant limits contained in the Ordinance and the Local Limits in SAWPA Resolution 2011-13,or any successors thereto. The Permit identifies a Categorical Sample Point 001 as the flow-through cell on the discharge line from the cooling tower before the Non-reclaimable Water Tank. The Permit also identifies the Local Limits Sample Point 002 as the flow-through cell on the discharge line after the Non-reclaimable Water Tank. This discharge line includes all waste streams flowing to the non-reclaimable waste line that is directly connected to the Brine line. A third monitoring point 003 is also identified for specialized sampling from the Chemical Metal Cleaning Wastes Holding Tank which is only allowed with prior Agency permission. Permit a D1036-1.1 lists the Local Limits in Section IV B Table IA for monitoring at location 002. The Permit also lists the Categorical Limits in Section IV B Table 1B for monitoring at location 001. Finally the Permit lists specialized Categorical Limits in Section IV B Table 1C for monitoring at location 003 only with special permission from the Agency. The quarterly monitoring report lists the results of sampling by the Agency(EMWD)on 7/07-08/2015, 7/22/2015 and 9/17-30/2015, but there is no column in the report to include the identification of the monitoring location from which the samples were taken. Therefore there is no way to determine where each sample was collected. On 7/08/2015 EMWD collected samples for PCBs with a sample ID of 3833. There is no entry in the Daily Limit (Max) column except for the total PCBs line on page 184 of the report. The Daily Limit (Max) column has a lug/I limit so this sample is ASSUMED to be from the local limit location where the limit is recorded as 0.01mg/I in the Permit Table IA. This complete set of PCB samples is REPEATED on page 185 of the report with the same sample ID of 3833 and a Daily Limit (Max) column record of 0.01mg/l. The total concentration of PCBs is recorded here as 0.01mg/I (page 185 of the report) which equals the limit and would be a violation if the location of the sample could be identified. All of the supposedly local limits required by Table lA of the Permit are recorded by EMWD in the quarterly report, BUT only mercury, BOD, DOC(not actually required by the Permit)and pH are included in the Daily Limit(Max)column. The TTO result was recorded as 0.01 mg/I (Sample ID 3884 page 185 of the report) but no individual analyses of the seven (7) required organic pollutants that make up this assessment were included in the report. Extra samples of Calcium Total, Calcium dissolved, Orthophosphate dissolved, Phosphorus dissolved, Orthophosphate Total and Phosphorus Total were also taken by EMWD, PRESUMABLY from monitoring point 001 for the SAWPA solids investigation requirements. In addition 1,4Dioxane, N-Nithrosodimethylamine, ammonia nitrogen and TOC were sampled by EMWD for reasons unknown to this audit. On 7/8/2015, Sample ID 3832 reported a Chromium Total concentration of 0.00mg/I with a Daily Limit (Max) column notation of 0.2mg/l. This is 42 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report ASSUMED to be one of the Categorical Limits as the permit Table 1B lists Chromium limit as 0.2mg/I whereas the local limit on Table 1A is 2.Omg/I. On 9/17/2015 (i.e.two months later) EMWD sampled for TOC, PH, Molybdenum, Selenium, N-Nitrosodimethylamine, 1,4-Dioxane, ammonia nitrogen and on 9/30/2015 EMWD sampled for Zinc. No limits were included in the Daily Limit (Max) column so the location of all of these samples is unknown. Possibly the Zinc sample was from the Categorical Monitoring Location as Zinc was not sampled together with the Categorical Chromium sample (ID 3832 on 7/8/2015). Self-monitoring by IEEC once again suffered from a lack of the identification of the sampling location. Some assumptions of the samples taken can be deduced however from the data entered in the Daily Limit (Max) column. If Sample ID 17742 for Chromium was assumed to have been taken from location 002 as the Daily Limit(Max) column reports a 0.2mg/I limit which is the Categorical Limit(Note the local Chromium limit is 2.0mg/I), then all the PCB samples are also from location 002 as they have the same Sample ID of 17742. In this case the Daily Limit(Max)column incorrectly indicates a 1 ug/I limit whereas the Categorical PCB limit is ND. Sample ID 17743 is clearly from location 001 as all Daily Limit (Max) column entries indicate all of the required local limit daily maximums as reported in the Permit. Six of the organic compounds that make up the local TTO limit are recorded but no record for the last compound Tetrachloroethene was seen in the report. In conclusion,the monitoring and sampling reporting for the IEEC has no identified monitoring locations and most of the Daily Limit(Max)entries are missing except for the self-monitoring report. The quarterly report as such makes it impossible to determine where each sample was taken or whether the sample was in compliance or not. The inclusion of a column showing the monitoring location for each sample and the complete submission of Daily limit(Max)entries are therefore essential CHANGES that must be made to the report in order to make it of any use whatsoever. It is also suggested that the words"no limit" could be inserted in the Daily Limit(Max)column for all pollutant parameters to which it applies. Metal Container Corporation The Metal Container Corporation (MCC) at 10980 Inland Avenue, Jurupa Valley, utilizes aluminum coil stock to manufacture cans. Wastewater discharged directly to the Brine Line comes from a variety of manufacturing processes and totals 20.12 MGD. The facility has had no recorded violations and no enforcement in the July to September 2015 reporting period.The sampling results (pages 205 to 206 of the quarterly report file) include Agency sampling results by JCSD on 7/06-08/2015 and self-monitoring sampling results by MCC on 7/09/2015. MCC is a Categorical Industrial User(CIU) under 40 CFR 465 Coil Coating Point Source Category, Subpart D, Canmaking Subcategory, Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS) Part 465.45. This facility is also subject to the general and specific wastewater pollutant limits contained in the Ordinance and the Local Limits in SAWPA Resolution 2011-13, or any successors thereto. Permit#D1056-2 identifies a Sample Point 001 as the magnetic flow meter and sample port located on the effluent pipe from the clarifier. The Permit also identifies a Sample Point 002 for pH monitoring only. Thus both Local Limits and Categorical Standards are sampled at location 001. Permit# D1056-2 lists the Local Limits in Section IV B Table 1A for monitoring at location 001 in mg/I. The Permit lists the Categorical Limits in Section IV B Table 18, also for monitoring at location 001. The Categorical Limits for this facility are expressed as Production Based Limits involving the daily maximum 43 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report and monthly average concentrations applicable in grams per million cans produced. In order to calculate the Categorical Limits from the analytical results expressed in mg/I, the production rate has to be known and the total volume of wastewater produced during the production of one million cans has to be calculated by both the Agency and the industrial user. The Permit does not give the industrial user any instructions as to how these calculations should be made. The quarterly monitoring report lists the results of sampling by the Agency (JCSD) on 7/06-08/2015. There is no column in the report to include the identification of the monitoring location from which the samples were taken, but as there is only one monitoring point (001) in the Permit, it is assumed that all samples were taken at location 001. The JCSD results include some of the required pollutant parameters in Tables 1A and 1B and several addition parameters (Calcium Total, Magnesium total). Some of these extra parameters are mentioned in the Permit Fact Sheet as being required by SAWPA for investigations of solids buildup in the Brine Line. Sampling by JCSD did not include the following required pollutant parameters; TSS, arsenic, cadmium, lead, nickel, silver, sulfide dissolved, sulfide total and TDS. Sampling is required on a semiannual basis so the complete set of these results may not have been included in this report. Concerning the results that are recorded, only pH, DOC, BOD, copper and mercury have entries in the Daily Limit (Max) column so it is impossible to tell which of the rest are Local Limits or Categorical Standards. Also, although the total TTO concentration is recorded at 0.04(Sample ID 15867)there is no record of the individual organic compounds which make up this calculation and whether it applies to the local TTO or the Categorical TTO,which vary greatly in their requirements. No attempt has been made to calculate the production based standards so the quarterly report HAS NO RECORD of these requirements. All of the extra parameters do not have limits entered in the Daily Limit (Max)column as they presumably have no upper limitations. The self-monitoring results(Sample ID 17046) include ALL of the required Categorical parameters which are required to be sampled on a quarterly basis. Once again the TTO sample does not include all of the individual organic pollutants that make up the TTO calculation, (see permit Table 1B note 2 containing the list of required 40 CFR 465.02 0) TTO pollutants). There has been no attempt to calculate the categorical production based limits so the report is virtually useless to assess compliance. Also, as sampling is required to be performed on a semiannual basis by the Industrial User, the Local Limit sampling is not necessarily required to be present in this report. In conclusion, the monitoring and sampling reporting by both JCSD and MCC does not distinguish between Local Limits and Categorical Pretreatment Standards even though they are all sampled at the same location. Once again, most of the Daily Limit (Max) entries are missing except for the SMR. In a CIU where Categorical Limits are production based,the reported concentrations of the limits in mg/L are of no use for compliance calculations until the Categorical calculations are completed. The results of these calculations should be recorded in the quarterly report together with the Categorical Limits in the Daily and Monthly (Max and average) columns. It is also suggested that the words "no limit" could be inserted in the Daily Limit(Max)column for all pollutant parameters to which it applies. In the opinion of this audit, the quarterly report is seriously deficient both in extra data required (e.g. monitoring locations)and serious lack of data entered (Daily Limit(Max)column entries). Also, included in the results were omissions of required sampling, a few errors of reporting data and a wide variation between the reports from the different agencies. 44 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report In the quarterly report,all entries of the concentrations in mg/I of the required parameters for each Industrial User reviewed were found to be correct,after a review of the individual laboratory reports. Tabular listings of the constituents monitored for CIUs,SIUs, IUs and Liquid Waste Haulers are not included here. The reviews above confirm that there was complete adequacy of the constituents monitored in the CIUs and SIUs evaluated above. 2. Is non-routine monitoring performed at permitted facilities?If so,what are they and how often are they done?Are they tracked and reported? SAWPA's response Yes.Non-routine monitoring is performed on an as-needed basis. Currently additional monitoring is being performed to track expected pollutant discharge variation from seasonal dischargers such as Del Real Foods. Suspended Solids studies are also ongoing from various dischargers to track potential solids formation within the Brine Line. The results from these non-routine monitoring events are reported quarterly to OCSD. Sampling tasks can be created in iPACS for any non-routine event. Audit response Non routine sampling has been recorded in the detailed analysis of the four different permittees reviewed in Question 1 above. As far as this audit can determine, the results of non-routine sampling are reported in the quarterly reports. There is no indication in the report however that these are non- routine samples and they cannot be separated out from the required sampling without referring back to the tables in the individual Permits. A separate column in the report could indicate non routine samples and therefore solve this problem. 3. What types of metrics from the monitoring events are maintained? Has any action resulted from these metrics? If so,what happened?Are these communicated to OCSD?If so, how and how often? SAWPA's response The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated, all water quality results are reported to OCSD on a quarterly and annual basis. A summary of sample collection type (i.e. grab, composite) is included in the annual report. Sampling is performed in accordance with the OCSD program goal frequencies per the memo submitted to SAWPA from OCSD on February 28, 2014. OCSD, and therefore SAWPA, minimum monitoring frequencies are as follows: Industry Control Authority Self-Monitoring Classification Sampling CIU 4 2 SIU 4 2 IU 2 2 IL/Indirect" 1 2 'OCSD has no indirect IUs and therefore has provided no guidance on frequencies for this facility type. 45 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Audit response Metal Container Corporation is a CIU but IU monitoring is semiannual for Local Limits and quarterly for Categorical Standards in the Permit. The other three permittees investigated in Question 1 above are in line with SAWPA's table above. Monitoring and sampling details are generally included in the "template" permit files referred to in the Permitting Questionnaire. Complete Lists of OCSD's and SAWPA's Local Limits are generally included in the template files together with references to extensive footnotes concerning the various monitoring and sampling requirements. During permit preparation, some of the Local Limits are black-lined with a note in the "Frequency of Monitoring" column that this particular parameter is not required to be sampled for (N/R). It would be more efficient if these particular parameters were completely deleted from the list, together with the appropriate footnotes. A good example is TTO which may be N/R in the list but still itemized in the footnote in great detail. In some instances, IU's (see C. C. Graber Company review in Question 1 above) have been noted to sample for N/R parameters which is unnecessary.This comment also applies to the reporting forms included as attachments to the permits which once again have"black-lined" parameters that are not required to be sampled. The addition of laboratory results into the database is essential to assess compliance and record monitoring/sampling activities. The database should and can develop statistical analyses to inform program managers of the overall state of the monitoring/sampling activities at any instance in time and detect violations thus guaranteeing that the information contained in required reports will be up to date and accurate. Reports are regularly sent to OCSD as indicated in the SAWPA response. As a general comment following the review of these reports, they often do not contain a column which identifies the monitoring location from which the samples were collected. This renders the report somewhat useless to the reviewer so inclusion of these extra requirements should be entered in future reports. Please refer to section on Metrics. 4. Did each entity monitor and sample in a manner consistent with SAWPA's PPCD? SA WPA's response Yes. Agencies use WACS, based on Standard Operating Procedures within SA WPA's PPCD, to generate sampling tasks and enter water quality data. Audit response The four permittee analyses in Question 1 above demonstrate that deficiencies in data entry exist (See final conclusions in Question 1). Changes are required in order to make the quarterly reports more meaningful. It does appear that in all of the permittees that were reviewed, the monitoring and sampling was performed in a manner consistent with SAWPA's PPCD. S. How precise and consistent are monitoring actions? 46 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report SAWPA's response Monitoring is performed by the some laboratory for all SAWN collected samples. Agencies either use the same contract laboratory as SA WPA or utilize their own in house laboratory.All methods comply with 40 CFR 136 and all laboratories are ELAP certified. Audit response C.C. Graber Company files The Audit team reviewed files containing the completed SMR for September 2015 prepared by the C.C. Graber Company and the enclosed Laboratory Results from Babcock Laboratories, Inc., who performed the sampling.The files were found to be complete. Files containing sampling and laboratory analysis and completed Chain of Custody forms prepared by IEUA in September 2015 on wastewater samples collected at the C. C. Graber Company were also inspected by the Audit Team and found to be complete. TemescalDesalter files Laboratory Reports,Chain of Custody sheets and sampling sheets were also reviewed for the TemescalDesalter as prepared by WMWD in September 2015. They were found to be satisfactory. Inland Empire Energy Center(IEEC)files Files containing the completed SMR for August 2014 prepared by the IEEC and the enclosed Laboratory Results and completed Chain of Custody sheets from Babcock Laboratories Inc, who performed the sampling, were reviewed and found to be complete. In addition, the files containing the results of the Agency monitoring and sampling event performed by EMWD on the IEEC in July 2015 including EMWD's Chain of Custody documents and the EMWD Laboratory Report were reviewed and found to be complete. Metal Container Corporation(MCC)files The Audit Team reviewed the files containing the July 2015 SMR for MCC and all monitoring activities appeared to meet the Permit requirements. Sampling and Chain of Custody sheets were correctly completed and the laboratory report from Test America contained all the required information for the analyses. In addition, the files containing the Monitoring Report and Laboratory Analyses for July 2015 prepared by JCSD for MCC contained all the necessary information required by the Permit and SAWPA's PPCD. General Comments ELAP certifications were reviewed for each set of laboratory analyses and found to be valid and all associated methodologies were inspected and found to be in compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR Part 136. 2. Is proper monitoring required and documented? Evaluate and assess the adequacy of the monitoring efforts considering the following at a minimum: a. Each sample should be random in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) 47 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report SA WP's response Samples are collected on a random basis. Audit response See the documentation reviews in Question 5 above. No assessment of random sampling is possible without on location observations. b. Sampled at the representative sample points SAWPA's response All samples are collected at the permit defined monitoring location, which is clearly marked on the site. OCSD provides concurrence on all permits. Audit response Lack of defined location identification in a specific quarterly report column makes reporting sample concentrations in permittees which have more than one sampling location almost impossible as shown in Question 1 above. Reference to the review of the Chain of Custody sheets shown in Question 5 above, confirm this requirement. c. Samples were representative of daily discharges i. Documentation exists if there appeared to be dilution or a reduction of discharge or services during the sampling event I Accounted for seasonal variations,if applicable iii. Discharges were either from a well-mixed single batch for the entire day(not multiple batches in a single day)or from a continuous discharge SAWPA's response Samples were representative of daily discharges. Documentation exists if there appeared to be dilution including escalated enforcement when a permittee was caught diluting during a sampling event. Other investigations were undertaken, with documentation present, in instances when tampering with the monitoring process was expected. Discharges were either from a well-mixed single batch or from a continuous discharge. Audit response No documentation of these irregularities was encountered in the audit observations. d. Documented representative sample collection techniques I. Appropriate sampling equipment employed (especially collection container) ii. Appropriate grab and composite sampling methods and techniques used iii. Sample collection handling documented(e.g.chilled or preserved appropriately) 48 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report iv. Documentation generally complete and in order(e.g. inspection and sampling reports) SA WPA's response Control Authority sampling is performed by qualified sampling technicians, as described in the SAWPA PPCD, using ISCO sampling equipment. Samples are preserved per 40 CFR 136 and always kept in ice. All control authority samples are collected as either from a well-mixed single batch or from a continuous discharge as a 24-hour composite or production day composite(with the exception of those pollutants which require grab samples,such as pH, oil&grease,etc.).Additionally,a description of the sample appearance is noted in the COC. Documentation is complete and in order. SAWPA has conducted training with all Agencies on sampling techniques. A focus of the November 2014 audit of the Member and ContractAgencies, conducted by SAWPA, was on proper sampling methodology. Agencies are required to submit their sampling SOPS for review to SA WPA and update as necessary. SA WPA and Agencies all upload applicable information into iPACS to track violation and enforcement,report on inspections, and upload permit requirements in accordance with SOPS created by SAWPA. Audit response With reference to the reviews contained in Question 5 above,SAWPA's answers to Question 6 d,above,appear to be accurate. e. Documented Integrity of sample preservation and transfer of custody to the laboratory(e.g.Chain of Custody). SAWPA's response Chain of Custody forms, generated from iPACS documents integrity of sample preservation and have signature blocks which allow monitoring of sample custody. Audit response All Chain of Custody sheets reviewed in Question 5 above confirm documented sample integrity and all reviewed sheets had completed transfer signatures including transfer dates and time of transfer. f. Used proper EPA-approved analytical methods at appropriate detection limits SA WPA's response All samples are preserved and analyzed per 40 CFR 136. 49 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Audit response Reviews of the Laboratory Analyses contained in Question 5 above confirmed that Preservation and analysis was performed per 40 CFR Part 136. g. Took quality control steps on analytical results that validate that the information stored in the sample result repository reflects analytical results delivered by the laboratory SAWPA's response Quality control steps are taken at regular intervals. Audit response The data from the labs is uploaded onto iPACS hence eliminating manual data entry and associated potential manual entry errors. h. Conducted compliance analysis of monitoring results relative to appropriate discharge limits SAWPA's response All samples are analyzed for pollutants identified in the permits, at detection limits applicable to determine compliance. Compliance analysis is performed within iPACS, which flags violations, and is associated with enforcement as applicable. SAWPA utilizes a log sheet to track data review and compliance analysis with a minimum of two individuals reviewing all data prior to upload to iPACS. Audit response All self-monitoring forms reviewed in Question 5 above contained compliance analyses in the appropriate column by the individual IUs. SAWPA or an Agency review all self- monitoring reports as soon as they are received from the IUs and agency monitoring results are uploaded to PACs which also performs compliance analysis. 3. what actions do SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies employ to ensure that self- monitoring reports comply with all permit and federal Pretreatment requirements? Evaluate and assess the adequacy of the self-monitoring program. SAWPA's response Self-monitoring reports are reviewed for compliance, tracked via a log sheet, with permit limits and required sample preservation and analysis per 40 CFR 146. Data is uploaded into iPACS where it is cross checked with all applicable permit and regulatory requirements. SAWPA and Agencies all upload applicable information into iPACS in accordance with SOPS created by SAWPA. 50 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Audit response From the reviews of the SMRs in Question 5 above, this audit finds that the self-monitoring program appears to be adequate. 4. Do the permittees report all the valid sampling results as required?What measures are in place to ensure that this is so? SA WPA's response Permittees are required to report all sample results as required in their permits, and any additional monitoring conducted at the designated Monitoring Points. Missing or incomplete SMRs are flagged as noncompliant within iPACS and would result in enforcement in accordance with the SAWPA PPCD. SAWPA and Agencies all verify information through iPACS in accordance with SOPS created by SAWPA. Audit response In the reviews performed in Question 5 above, all parameters required by the permits to be analyzed were analyzed by the IUs. The compliance forms attached to the permits ensure that all required parameters are sampled and the IUs are required to complete these forms as part of their SMRs.Any deficiencies should be immediately noticed by the IUs and re-sampling initiated to complete the permit requirements. Sampling and Monitoring Best Management Practices SAWPA's response SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procedures for its iPACS data management system including permitting, monitoring, inspection, and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training with these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading into the system. SAWPA utilizes a log sheet for the tracking of data review prior to, and after upload to the iPACS data management system. SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procures for its iPACS data management system including permitting, monitoring, inspection, and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training with these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading into the system. Audit response All of the SOPS mentioned in SAWPA's response above have been reviewed by this audit. Except for the deficiencies mentioned regarding the quarterly reports, the use of the FACs data management system appears to be used by all Agencies and only improvements in the overall structure of the reports are required to make these reports more intelligible to reviewers. 51 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 3.5 Metrics The use of metrics or the use of a set of figures or statistics to measure results can be undertaken in a variety of ways when applied to an Industrial Pretreatment Program (IP Program). In the great majority of IP Programs, the Control Authority(CA) has sole discretion in developing an IP Program that satisfies the requirements of the Approval or Control Authority, which, in the majority of instances is the regulatory authority of the state in which the CA is located and ultimately to the USEPA. In this case,the CA can develop its own style of administration and documentation provided it is compliant with the federal regulations governing the program and satisfies the requirements of the state or local branch of the Approval Authority. The CA can then measure the efficacy of its program by the use of statistics such as the percentage of industries in compliance, the percentages of enforcement procedures required each IPP year,the relative compliance with its IPP control documents and so forth. In the case of SAWPA's IP Program,the condition is far more complex than the simple case just referred to above. SAWPA acts as the Designated Control Authority (DCA) which is directly responsible to OCSD for the oversight and ultimate approval of its program. In turn, OCSD, as a CA, is responsible for developing its own independent IF Program to the satisfaction of its Approval Authority which is the local branch of the State of California and ultimately the USEPA. In addition, SAWPA's IP Program has specific involvement with several Member Agencies and several Contract Agencies. Please refer to Figure 1.1 in SAWPA's ERP for a diagrammatic representation of this regulatory structure. Many of these Contract and Member Agencies also have their own IP Programs for which they act as CAs under the direct approval of the State of California. Thus, many of these agencies have developed their own programs with their own style of administration and documentation and will obviously show some reluctance to accept SAWPA's different styles of IP Program administration and documentation. One of the methods to overcome this problem has been the development of "template" regulatory documents by SAWPA which are then distributed to the various Agencies with instructions that these documents must be used for all aspects of the SAWPA IP Program. This method ensures that the same style and structure of administration documentation is used by all Agencies resulting in SAWPA's IP Program being consistent and relatively easy to edit and control. Together with these "template" documents, regular meetings and education seminars between SAWPA and the Agencies is necessary to ensure IP Program consistency. In addition, a regular reporting system from SAWPA to OCSD has been established to ensure further compliance. The reporting systems developed by SAWPA between itsAgencies and with OCSD have been documented in SAWPA's various responses to the "Metrics" questions included in OCSD's questionnaires on Permitting, Enforcement, Inspection and Sampling/Monitoring. Separate comments on the various questionnaires are added in the following sections. 3.5.1 Permitting SAWPA has developed a series of "template" documents for the construction of Industrial User (IU) Discharge Permits. All Agencies use these templates and SAWPA then edits their work. The final editing is passed to OCSD for their ultimate approval. This system results in a universal approach to the uniform construction of permits which are relatively easy to edit and approve. Without the templates, Agencies would produce (and they have produced in the past)their own style of permits based on their individual IP Programs.This would have resulted in excessive editing and administrative problems for both SAWPA and OCSD. Using this system is much easier to ensure that permits are renewed in a timely manner and that Industries are familiar with the content of renewed permits. Such a system makes it easier to track 52 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report the overall developmental stages of each permit and statistical analyses of numbers of permits in development, those already developed, permits in need of development, etc., can be monitored for an instant overview of the IP Program's overall efficacy in this activity.Thus, the efficacy of the system has been vastly improved from the old system without templates. Overall "template' permit documents are relatively difficult to develop due to the vast differences between the different types of Industrial Users. This can be overcome by the use of specific templates for individual groups of Industrial Users, such as Categorical, Users, Direct Dischargers, Indirect Dischargers, Liquid Waste Haulers etc. Also, a variety of"alternative" paragraphs have to be built into the permit templates to cover the specific requirements for each IU. This audit has one comment here on this system when the unnecessary alternative paragraphs are left in the permit structure with a N/A designation next to them. These alternatives should be completely deleted from the final permit structure even if they are retained for editing purposes. This would lead to shorter final permits containing no possible ambiguities to confuse the IUs. 3.5.2 Enforcement Enforcement policy dictates that all member and Contract Agencies conduct their own enforcement activities at the "minor violation" level using SAWPA's ERP (Section 4.0 A 1) for all general guidelines. This audit has reviewed several enforcement cases and the following general comments are made concerning this practice. As stated, Member and Contract Agencies conduct "minor violation" enforcement activities and issue their own enforcement documents at this level. This results in a wide variation in the structure of commonly used enforcement documents such as Written Warning Notices, Correction Notices, Monitoring/Production Information Orders and Notices of Violation. These variations probably arise from the individual styles used in their individual IP Programs as previously referred to. In some cases several of the above notices are combined into a single document by the Agencies. SAWPA has already stated that they do edit these documents before they are sent out to the IUs. This audit recommends that SAWPA develops "template" documents for each of these enforcement procedures and requires the Agencies to use them. Once again this would increase the efficacy of SAWPA's IP Program and make editing quick and relatively easy. The development of documents covering a single enforcement activity will also be easier to read and understand by the noncompliant IUs. Entry of all enforcement procedures in the database should ensure that SAWPA's regular reports to OCSD will be up to date and comprehensive. In addition,the regular bi-weekly communication between SAWPA and the Agencies referred to in SAWPA's report on this question should ensure that everyone is "kept in the loop"as far as enforcement is concerned. 3.5.3 Inspection Industrial Inspections are performed by both SAWPA and each of the individual Member and Contract Agencies. The Industrial User Inspection form is a universal template used by all members. The form is comprehensive and consists of a list of inspection topics with yes, no, or N/A alternatives set in small squares beside each question. Inspectors fill out the form, either using a hard copy at the inspection or in some instances a tablet which directly downloads the form to a central computer. The main part of 53 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report the form is the comments section where the inspector itemizes any observations that are worthy of note during the inspection. There do not seem to be any metrics involved in this procedure as the comments on the forms cannot be directly applied to violations etc.,with regard to the IP Program. This audit noted that the comments sections varied from very little information in some instances to large amounts in other cases. Individual inspectors will have their own styles of filling in these forms and only educational seminars concerning inspection procedures will help to ensure continuity of inspection details between the different inspectors. SAWPA mentions the frequency of reporting inspection results to OCSD in their response to this question. No mention of any type of inspection training was mentioned in SAWPA's response. 3.5.4 Monitoring/Sampling Monitoring /Sampling details are generally included in the "template' permit files referred to above. Complete Lists of OCSD's and SAWPA's local limits are generally included in the template files together with references to extensive footnotes concerning the various monitoring/sampling requirements. During permit preparation, some of the local limits are black-lined with a note in the "frequency of monitoring" column that this particular parameter is not required to be sampled for (N/R(. It would be more efficient if these particular parameters were completely deleted from the list together with the appropriate footnotes. A good example is TTO which may be N/R in the list but still itemized in the footnote in great detail. In some instances, IU's have been noted to sample for N/R parameters which is a waste of time and resources on their behalf. This comment also applies to the reporting forms included as attachments to the permits which once again have "black-lined" parameters that are not required to be sampled. The addition of laboratory results into the database is essential to identify compliance and record monitoring/sampling activity. The database should and can develop statistical analyses to inform program managers of the overall state of the monitoring/sampling activities at any instance in time and detect violations thus guaranteeing that the information contained in required reports will be up to date and accurate. Reports are regularly sent to OCSD as indicated in the SAWPA response. 54 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Table3-1,Permitting Observations and Recommendations Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendations Inconsistency in the reported review dates. The peer review must occur after the organizer had For the Permit Fact Sheet associated with Permit No. SAWPA/WMWD P.SW.1 E3089-2,it appears that the peer review was performed on D prepared the document and should take place within a 7/7/14,almost one year before the organizer signed and reasonable time afterwards. dated the document on 6/18/15. Timeline to address deficiency:1 month. Lack of metrics for issuing permits. Metrics for issuing permits should include goals for adherence to the SAWPA developed Permitting SOP Metrics are used to drive improvements and help and a timeframe to issue and renew permits as well all organizations focus their people and resources on the most to perform all required intermediate steps. Overall, SAWPA P.S.2 E metrics should reflect and support the various important tasks.SAWPA has not adopted performance strategies for all aspects of the organization including metrics to indicate the priorities of the organization and to standards and OCSD requirements and expectations for provide a measurement of performance in the preparation of permits. the issuance of permits. Timeline to address observation:3 months. Missing step in Permitting SOP on coordination with OCSD. Permit SOP 070120155 should be modified to include a Permit SOP 070120155 is missing a step in the permitting step in the permitting process to verify that OCSD's SAWPA P.5.3 process to verify that OCSD's comments are addressed D comments are addressed before it is issued. before it is issued. Timeline to address deficiency:2weeks. Missing step in Permitting SOP on coordination with MA Permit SOP 070120155should be modified to include a and CA. step that SAWPA should relay all OCSD permit Permit SOP 070120155 is missing a step for SAW D P to relay comments back to the permit developing agency to SAWPA P.5.4 all OCSD permit comments back to the permit developing ensure that the permit agency would includethese agency to ensure that the permit agency would include changes in all future permits and fact sheets. these changes in all future permits and fact sheets. Timeline to address deficiency:2 weeks. Insufficient time for preparing permits. Section 6 of Permit SOP 070120155 should be modified SAWPA is not giving itself sufficient time to prepare permits to include a step that contains a requirement that the SAWPA P.S.5 for situations where a Member or Contract Agency E draft permit and draft permit fact sheet should be representative prepares the draft permit and draft permit submitted to SAWPA at least 60 days prior to the fact sheet.Permit SOP 070120155 states that the permit current permit expiration date.Similar numbers of days 55 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Obser natlons Rating Recommendations application must be received at least 90 days prior to the prior to the current permit expiration date could also permit expiration date. be inserted into the Permit SOP(File 17)for the transmission of the reviewed draft permit and draft fact sheet from the SAWPA Manager to OCSD and the comments from OCSD back to SAWPA. Timeline to address observation:1 month.. Missing requirement in Permit template. The section VII G,in the CIU-Permit-Template- Section VII G,in the CIU-Permit-Template- SAWPA_FINALRev4-1218 2014should be modified to SAWPA P.S.6 SAWPA_FINALRev4-12182014 is missing a requirement for D include a requirementfor"engineering calculations"in 423 permits. "engineering calculations"in 423 permits. Timeline to address deficiency:2 weeks. Deficiencies in the Inland Empire Energy Center Permit. In the Inland Empire Energy Center Final Permit,the following omissions were noted: a. In Sections III and IV(Outfalls and Description of Monitoring Points)the photographs included in the permit fact sheet(File 10)should have been included in the final permit file(File 9)and referred to in these sections. The Inland Empire Energy Center Final Permit should be b. In Section VI.B.7,the reference to a semiannual SAWPA P.5.7 D revised to address all listed observations. certification should be removed from the permit. C. Attachment C should be modified to comply with Timeline to address deficiency:1 month. federal requirements.(See Note 7 above). d. The permit fact sheet(File 10)Section 13.1.1b, indicates that the Permittee's wastewater will be analyzed for alkalinity,dissolved calcium, orthophosphate and Total Calcium semi-annually by the EMWD. These parameters are not referred to in the final permit. Deficiencies in the Temescal Desalter Permit. The Temescal Desalter Permit should be modified to In the Final Temescal Desalter Permit,the following address all listed observations.Same observations observations were noted: a. In Table 1 the first column,pH units are noted as should also be addressed in the Self-Monitoring Report SAWPA/EMWD P.SE.B mg/L instead of Standard Units(SU's). D Form and the SIU Permit Template. (This comment also b. In Section VILC(Continuous Monitoring),the generally refers to all relevant permit and permit permittee is required to continuously monitor the template files.) pH. Reporting requirements in Section IX do not Timeline to address deficiency:1 month. 56 2015 Internal SAW PA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendations require the submission of any pH results except on the day the samples are collected. However,all of the flow measurement data is required. Surely the continuous pH data should also be required. c. In the Self-Monitoring Report Form,there is no indication that the darkened rows are not to be sampled. Surely these rows could be deleted from the report form. d. The permit fact sheet(File 6)Section B.Lb, indicates that the Permittee's wastewater will be analyzed for alkalinity,dissolved calcium, orthophosphate and Total Calcium semi-annually by EMWD. These parameters are not referred to in the final permit Deficiencies in the Metal Container Corporation Permit. In the Metal Container Corporation Final Permit,the following items were not fully resolved to the satisfaction of this audit: a. It is not clear how the sampling and monitoring equipment is connected to the spigot monitoring point 001 for composite sample semiannual local limit and composite sample quarterly categorical standard monitoring. b. The permit fact sheet states in Section Bl that monitoring point 002 is a manhole which can be The Metal Container Corporation Permit should be SAWPA/JCSD P.5J.9 monitored for flow using a bubbler flow meter. D modified to address all listed observations. However it is also stated that samples are Timeline to address deficiency:I month. collected at monitoring point 001 but the description of monitoring point 001 is not specifically described as a spigot as it is in the permit. The attachments show that monitoring point 001 is a spigot and 002 is a monitoring manhole reserved for billing purposes only. c. Asampling form(typically required forcomplex sampling),with sampler details,is missing.A completed form as part of the reporting requirement is not included in Section IX A of the 57 2015 Internal SAW PA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendations permit. d. Exact details requiring how the permittee should calculate this number of cans is not included in the permit but is rather casually referenced in permit Section VI B 5 and Section VIII B to provide the gallons/1000 can data. e. The permit does not contain a formula combined with specific instructions to aid the permittee in converting the mg/L concentration of the individual pollutants in the sample to grams per million cans produced. In Table 1A,the first column pH units should be reported as being in Standard Units(SU's),not in mg/L as the column implies.This should also be included in the Self- Monitoring Report Form and the CIU Permit Template(File 2). Deficiencies in the Western Municipal Water District Collection Station Permit. In the Western Municipal Water District Collection Station Permit,the following deficiencies were noted: a. In Section IX H (Facility Waste Management Plan) of the permit file,the introductory sentences state that the permittee is both required and not required to develop this plan. This error has arisen from the permit template file which gives the The Western Municipal Water District Collection permit writer the option to delete the incorrect Station Permit should be modified to address all listed SAWPA/WMWD P.SW.10 statement which was omitted in this case. D ns. b. The template file correctly lays out the Timeline ohservatioio address deficiency: month. requirements for various plans to either be required or not required by the permittee in Section IX H. The permit writer must delete the unnecessary parts. c. In the permit fact sheet file,all plans 1 through 5 are not required but nonetheless,details of plans that are not required are still included in the permit thus increasing the length of the permit with unnecessary verbiage. (This comment 58 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendations appears to be fairly universal to all reviewed permits.) d. In the second column Table 1,the Self-Monitoring Report Form and the IU Permit Template,the pH unit is reported as being in mg/I instead of Standard Units(SU's). e. In the self-monitoring report form,the words "Applicable Limit"in columns 2 and 3 were used instead of"Local Limit". Extending the validity period of all IU permits SAWPA is encouraged to extend the validity period of Consideration is being given for extending the validity its IU permits after ensuring that the authority for such SAWPA P.S.11 period of all of SAWPA's IU permits to 3 years and,possibly, B a program modification is stemming from its ordinance to 4years.This would be advantageous in spreading the and after coordination with OCSD and SAWPA's burden associated with permit review and renewal. Member Agencies and Contract Agencies. SAWPA is encouraged to develop and maintain a list of Developing and maintaining a list of recurring errors in IU all errors and omissions in permits that are identified permits through SAWPA's internal review, review by SAWPA's SAWPA P.S.12 Recurring errors were observed in multiple permits. Most E Member Agencies and Contract Agencies and review by probably,this is due to errors and omissions in old permits OCSD. Prior to releasing a permit for review,SAWPA surfacing at the time of permit renewal. would check the permit against the list of errors and omissions.Time to address observation:2 weeks. Conducting regular teleconferences and meetings organized by SAWPA SAWPA conducts bi-weekly teleconferences and bi-monthly face-to-face meeting with all agencies to discuss all Brine Line activities including,but not limited to,permitting, SAWPA P.S.13 inspection,monitoring,and enforcement. Adetailed B SAWPA is encouraged to continue this activity. spreadsheet is also maintained covering all Brine Line permits with application deadlines,expiration dates,and contact information closely tracked. This spreadsheet is redistributed at each meeting so that all agencies are up to date on permitting issues. Key: EMWD=Eastern Municipal Water District SAWPA=Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority ERP=Enforcement Response Plan SBVM W D=San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 1CSD=Jurupa Community Services District WMWD=Western Municipal Water District 59 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Table 3-2, Enforcement Observations and Recommendations Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendation Inconsistency in the correspondence with Permittees. In the case of the Chino I Desalter accidental discharge report,the All permits must clearly specify who the Permnittee should address the initial and update reports were addressed to the Senior SAWPA E.5.1 E correspondence to.This would insure Pretreatment Program Specialist whereas the follow up biweekly consistency in dealing with the Permittees. reports were address to the Manager of Permitting and Timeline to address observation:2 months. Pretreatment. Lack of metrics for carrying out enforcement. Metrics for carrying out enforcement should include goals for a strict adherence to the Metrics are used to drive improvements and help organizations Enforcement Response Plan SOP and timing. focus their people and resources on the most important tasks. Overall, metrics should reflect and support the SAWPA E.S.2 E various strategies for all aspects of the SAWPA has not adopted performance metrics to indicate the organization including standards and OCSD priorities of the organization and provides measurement of requirements and expectations for performance in carrying out enforcement. enforcement. Timeline to address observation:3 months. Timeliness and accuracy of incident reporting. For the Chino Basin Desalter Authority discharge violation,CDA submitted a written report dated August 8,2014 thus meeting the SAWPA should review its internal processes to SAWPA requirement deadline of August 10,2014. Thecopyofthe expedite the processing and to ensure report seen by this audit and subsequently submitted to OCSD showed thorough review of important documents. SAWPA E.5.3 that it was received and stamped by SAWPA on August 14,2014. Asix D Timeline to address deficiency:3 months. day lag between the report date and the received date appears to be excessive.Furthermore,he report outlined the evems leading up to the leak but failed to mention that the seals in the lateral were probably the source of entry of the acid as described to the inspector three days before the date the report was written. Ineffective addressing of NOV for SunOpta. NOV issued to SunOpta should have been EEIprolblem divided into two documents,one dealing with NOV issued to SunOpta containstoo much unrelated information. E the MPIO requirements and signed by SBMWD SunOpta responded on August 15,2015 and described the copper and the other dealing with the SNC in detail and confirmed that the installation of the new determination and signed by both SAWPA and 60 EEC 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendation Purolite S930 filter in the water softening equipment had solved the SBMWD.SAWPA should review its internal copper problem. They further informed SBMWD that they would processes and make modifications to prevent fully comply with the requirements of the second MPIO. repeat in the future. Timeline to address observation:3 months. Documentation of the results of required sampling events and the satisfaction or Lack of documentation of closure of NOV to SunOpta. completion of the enforcement orders following SNC should be readily available for SAWPA/ Regarding NOV issued to SunOpta,no documentation ofthe results review to demonstrate that such actions were SBMWD E.SS.S of the required six sampling events and no final documentation of D carried out.SAWPA should review its internal processes and make modifications to ensure the satisfaction or completion of the enforcement orders were that all SNC follow-up actions are carried out available for review. in a timely manner and in accordance with the ERP. Timeline to address deficiency:3 months. Failing to follow ERP procedure in the issuance of NOV to the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority South Regional Pump Station. Regarding the NOV issued to the Western Riverside County Regional SAWPA should ensure that staff follow the ERP SAWPA E.S.6 Wastewater Authority South Regional Pump Station,Table 3 ofthe D and carry out prescribed actions in atimely ERP requires Slug Load Discharges for the first time with no harm to manner. the Brine Line to be responded to with a Cease and Desist Order to Timeline to address deficiency:3 months. be issued within 30 days for unspecified violations. SAWPA did not followthe ERP in this case by both the action required and the timeliness of the action. This audit recommends that SAWPA develops "template"documents for each of these Variation of procedures in carrying out minorviolations by the enforcement procedures and requires the various SAWPA agencies Agencies to use them.This would increase the SAWPA E.S.7 D efficacy of SAWPA's lP Program and make There is a level of inconsistency in the procedures for carrying out editing quick and relatively easy.The minorviolations amongthe SAWPA Member Agencies and Contract development of documents covering a single Agencies. enforcement activity will also be easier to read and understand by the noncompliant IUs. Timeline to address deficiency:3 months. 61 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendation Conducting bi-annual audits by SAWPA SAWPA E.S.8 SAWPA conducts an audit of all agencies bi-annually covering B SAWPA is encouraged to continue this activity. various program activities including permitting,inspection, monitoring,and enforcement. Creation of SOPS by SAWPA SAWPA has created detailed SOPS for its iPACS data management SAWPA is encouraged to maintain the SOPS SAWPA E.S.9 system including permitting,monitoring,inspection,and B and update them as appropriate. enforcement.All agencies have undergone training on these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading documents into the system. Key: SAWPA=Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVM W D=San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 62 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Table 3-3,Inspection Observations and Recommendations Agency Number Observation Rating Recommendation Metrics for inspections should include goals to perform inspections in a timely manner in accordance with,at a Lack of metrics for performing inspections. minimum,the regulatory requirements and to issue the inspection reports and Metrics are used to drive improvements and help organizations focus their complete any required subsequent SAWPA I.S.1 people and resources on the most important tasks.SAWPA has not adopted E tasks in a timely manner.Overall, performance metrics to indicate the priorities of the organization and to metrics should reflect and support the provide a measurement of performance in performing inspections. various strategies for all aspects of theorganization including standards and OCSD requirements and expectations for performing inspections. Timeline to address observation:3 months. Effective use of WACS for scheduling and documenting inspections. SAWPA I.S.2 SAWPA has acquired!PACs and is utilizing it effectively to generatethe g SAWPA to continue its use of!PACs in schedule for inspections to enter the results of the inspections. support of its inspection program. Key: SAWPA=Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority 63 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Table 3-4, Monitoring/Sampling Observations and Recommendations Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendation Metrics for monitoring and sampling should include goals to perform monitoring and sampling Lack of metrics for monitoring and sampling. in a timely manner in accordance with,at a minimum,the regulatory Metrics are used to drive improvements and help organizations focus requirements.Overall,metrics SAWPA M.S.1 their people and resources on the most important tasks.SAWPA has should reflect and support the not adopted performance metrics to indicate the priorities of the E various strategies for all aspects of organization and to provide a measurement of performance in the organization including performing monitoring and sampling. standards and OCSD requirements and expectations for performing inspections. Timeline to address observation:3 months. Omissions in the C.C.Graber Company permit and report. The C.C.Graber Company permit should be revised to add the The C.C. Graber Company monitoring location is not identified in the monitoring location,the TSS limit SAWPA/IEUA M.SI.2 permit. Furthermore, the TSS limit is not mentioned in the permit. In D and the words"no limit"where the Daily Limit(Max)column,the words"no limit"are missing from the applicable. column for all pollutant parameters to which this applies. Timeline to address deficiency: 1 month. Omissions in the Temescal Desalter monitoring report. The Temescal Desalter permit should be revised to include the Monitoring and sampling reporting for the Temescal Desalter is monitoring location and the words complete in the quarterly report except that the monitoring location is "no limit"where applicable. SAWPA M.5.3 not identified and the majority of entries in the Daily Limit (Max) D Timeline to address deficiency: 1 column are left blank rendering compliance verification impossible. In month. the Daily Limit(Max)column,the words"no limit"are missing from the column for all pollutant parameters to which this applies. Omissions in the Inland Empire Energy Center report and permit. The inclusion of a column showing SAWPA M.S.4 the monitoring location for each D sample and the complete The monitoring and sampling reporting for the Inland Empire Energy submission of Daily limit(Max) Center do no identify monitoring locations and most of the Daily Limit entries are therefore essential 64 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendation (Max)entries are missing except in the self monitoring report. The changes that should be made to quarterly report as such makes it impossible to determine where each the report. It is also suggested sample was taken and whetherthe sample was in compliance or not. that the words"no limit"be inserted in the Daily Limit(Max) column for all applicable parameters. Timeline to address deficiency: 1 month. Omissions in the Metal Container Corporation report and permit. Distinction between Local Limits and Categorical Pretreatment For Metal Container Corporation, the self-monitoring and reporting Standards should be made. and the monitoring and sampling reported by JCSD do not distinguish between Local Limits and Categorical Pretreatment Standards. Most of the Daily Limit (Max) entries are missing except for the SMR. Ensure that production based For a CIU where Categorical Limits are production based,the reported calculations are performed and SAWPA/ concentrations of the limits in mg/L are of no use for compliance that results of these calculations 1CSD M.S1.5 calculations until the Categorical calculations are completed. The D are recorded in the quarterly results of these calculations are not recorded in the quarterly report report with the Categorical Limits together with the Categorical Limits in the Daily and Monthly(Max and in the Daily and Monthly(Max and average)columns. Average)columns. The permit should be revised to In the Daily Limit (Max)column,the words"no limit" are missing from include the words"no limit"where the column for all pollutant parameters to which this applies. applicable. Timeline to address deficiency: 1 month. Deficiencies in quarterly reports. Ensure that all quarterly reports are complete and don't lack data In general, quarterly reports are deficient both in extra data required on Daily Limit(Max column SAWPA M.S.6 (e.g. monitoring locations) and lack of data entered (Daily Limit (Max) D entries)or any other parameters. column entries). Also, included in the results were omissions of Timeline to address deficiency:3 required sampling, a few errors of reporting data and a wide variation months. between the reports from the different agencies. SAWPA M.S.7 Effective use of iPACS. B 65 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report Agency Number Observations Rating Recommendation SAWPA has acquired iPACS and is utilizing it effectively to generate SAWPA to continue its use of sampling and monitoring tasks and as a repository for its water quality iPACS in support of its sampling data. and monitoring activities. Key:EMW D=Eastern Municipal Water District IEBL=Inland Empire Brine Line SAWPA=Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD=San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 66 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report 4.0 CONCLUSION Overall, SAWPA is to be commended for significantly improving its pretreatment program. The major improvement in SAWPA's pretreatment program is the creation of its own pretreatment department and employing staff with technical and regulatory proficiency and capable of establishing good working relationships with OCSD as well as with SAWPA's Member and Contract Agencies. In addition to the Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations who oversees SAWPA's pretreatment program, SAWPA's staff currently includes a Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment, a Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist and a Project Manager in charge of iPACS. SAWPA has already implemented major improvements at all levels of its pretreatment program. Currently, SAWPA manages all aspects of its pretreatment program rather than delegating permitting, monitoring, and enforcement to its member or contract agencies. This arrangement gives SAWPA the necessary control of its pretreatment program. With SAWPA addressing all deficiencies and observations identified during the audit, and revising template documents in order to ensure flawless operations at all levels especially in Permitting and Enforcement, SAWPA would bring further improvement to its pretreatment program. The time period allocated to addressing each observation and deficiency was estimated based on the auditors' experience and must be adhered to as much as possible. If for some extenuating circumstances, SAWPA finds that the assigned timeline is impossible to meet due to the current load on its staff, an alternative timeline, giving high priority to the identified deficiencies,should be discussed with OCSD. In particular, data management was improved at SAWPA yielding a higher level of work transferability between SAWPA and OCSD. Traceability to facilitate quality checking was also improved. These improvements were possible through SAWPA's acquisition and implementation of iPACS. The Internet- based iPACS System allows SAWPAto centrally manage all aspects of its pretreatment program including workflow management and tracking and sharing documents. Furthermore, SAWPA has adopted a uniform permit fact sheet and permit format that addresses all applicable requirements in the federal and state regulations, in OCSD's ordinance, in the 1991 MOU,and in the 1996 Agreement requirements and is in the process of converting a few remaining permits. The practice of an agency issuing permits to itself for the control and monitoring of its LWH Collection Station, its desalters or its emergency bypass permits has ceased. All permits are signed by SAWPA or co-signed with another member or contract agency. SAWPA has developed SOPS for its iPACS data management system including procedures for permitting, enforcement, inspection and monitoring/sampling. Representatives from all member and contract agencies were trained on the SAWPA SOPS and are following the SOP-accompanying guides for uploading documents and data. Overall, the risks to OCSD for allowing SAWPA to run the SAWPA Pretreatment Program have been greatly reduced. The risks to OCSD would remain curtailed as long as the cooperation between OCSD and SAWPA continues and with OCSD fulfilling its role of the Control Authority conducting periodic pretreatment compliance audits and inspections. Audits and inspections by OCSD are essential for ensuring that SAWPA's pretreatment program implementation is consistent with all applicable federal regulations and OCSD's requirements, is effective in providing the necessary protection to OCSD's treatment system, to the Groundwater Replenishment System and to OCSD's current sludge disposal practices and in allowing OCSD to maintain compliance with its NPDES permit. 67 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Report In the spirit of continuous improvement and help SAWPA focus its staff and resources on the highest priorities, EEC highly recommends that SAWPA develops performance metrics and has therefor dedicated an entire section (Section 3.5) in the report herein to Metrics and provided some suggestions to help SAWPA develop metrics for Permitting, Enforcement, Inspection and Monitoring/Sampling. In order to derive the most benefit from metrics, it is important to keep them simple. Employees need to understand the metric, how they can influence it and what is expected of them. 68 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program First Progress Report January 5,2016 FIGURES W2944.01 B-1 EEC SOURCE: Santa Ana River Watershed Santa Ana Watershed Mojave Desert Location Map Project Authority - Lake San Gabriel Mountains s a e_a-�atc San Bernardino Nountains ILI �Uplantl Rancho Cucamonga e _ � FOMene s Dialdlu'ti Cotton _ 1 Retlia r nr O ��l '�Bea r yucalpa m n m a -County t , - , 'b �• p r — .., df-L Diamond Bar nm- m kk Chino � i � R ersrtle Oqunty� - O �( min cY re � / j � �'� . � w l%i• i t•f+� r •r' P", .. �>A� • Las Angeles County Santa Ana RO . j"��F I �l �h Yi i, said On' IRiversideY Orange County I Norco � r _ 0• - 0• i 11§n% r ALI Yorhe Linda i,Pia do SAWPA Moreno Vaue9/ Placentia Lake ., yw pL O Mathews Loke f' +• nahel Corona�. �� Oeg. Perris jr °"- . Santa Ana Mountains y 4usun 'San Jacinto Westminster ° c - s✓r'� Hemet San Jacinto!Mountalns Huntington Beach df Costa Mesa ® fake Oiemond iOdley Hsinore '� i .. e,Newport Beach Irvine e Lake Frsjnore LC 0 ,, ✓�, \ - _ ENVIRONMENTAL . 1 Pr9ed Pacific Ocean J ,/ 5� Santa Ana nt tershedProgram AuthorityCompliar Project ff Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit ! Santa Ana Watershed Boundary {� a •\ Santa Ana River Watershed w �Vp �� Location Map 5 P�alacl NumCer Fla Nun4x MIiBS W2422 a1T aanle Ana River WaUrtM1ed 0 4.5 9 78 mrs�on Mao-0Pt ..\�� I Dare Figure P:\projects\standard_maps\Watershed_i_A.mxd SW-1150 January 5,2016 PEMc I NA I DR PIS NS NS SOURCE: Legend. Santa Ana Regional Interceptor (SARI) Line '� � - Santa Ana Watershed Desal Sad Line(Reach) -�" --'-. _ _ __ ,- „'Upland and Connections Project Authority Connecctiotions I - - _ O Brine 0%0II Commercial III y -� Colton . Commercmi(Domessc IV On � Domestic �IVA Truck Dump �IVB Ira San Bernardino Gounty'- #'iLateml #W#A#IVD i'- ?< y j-m 41"IllieeOCSD Line #%pIVE DlanlOn/ ar �OZ I Chino ,-J, o1 Chingi Np - ): t i �`l may, IF +• Chin I I /. Rlv'erslfe Coun Desalter Santa P Rrversl e Orange I s A geles Prado Dan C unity ('�aJ - ' � ,% .. . '} Jr Moreno Valley 1 Placentia �} . J - Arlington Desatter' i Temescal Desalter - ,�lie '��' s ei .J Anahei ice~ pPerris ap' .. f!' yI :ir '+�,•�.7 i Tustrti Westminster O • , - �.,; / X ��`r - _ - . Tustin Desalter#2 '1.� •+' I�� f` r/-- 1 AAai . Huntington Beach an a Count sannabon / Irvine De r �/I T� 7"� rA = trct jOCSD)Line Costa Me -�;'� Lak his Menifee (YQ`ir�i}F- s,L.f.1MJ■\\J. O _ f " besalters G /senor � -y., ' N4port Beach j Lit ""'re � 9,yrS a � order ' - E N V I R O N M E N TA L rrn r �17 Santa Ana Watershed f Boundary + //. Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Treatment 't � � -��' �'.'. � 1 � Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit oy1 Inland Empire Brine Line Ocean Discharge and Connections Ocean Pacific - ` � Ocean P,ui°cI Num�i F, Mies W-2422-01T '°"° ntliep1°' 0 2T5 6,5 n - it Dale rFlpure o PApmjects\standard_maps\san_system_i_A.mkd SW-1154 January 5,2016 PEMG PM DR NS NS SAWPA SOURCE: SAW PA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Mo;aveDesert Member Agencies �t Lake San Gabiiel Mountains '- SlNerwood Lake Arrowhead deig Bear_a'rce < �. San Bernardino Mountains ' • San Bernardino U Ian Rancho amonga '':F •. _ Highlanc Fontana mc�k C s SBVMWD, v� IEUA � • •Re9W i <'. • Chino r Diamonds -�. camo�cr ro � Santa Ana Watershed Boundary , � rlidit il, s androm ,✓n ';1�/'. t1^pt Norco r mba L nay Pin Fla-emi � WMWD • - e ,. V r abet I - EMWD OCWD o Perris Dean s. . Santa Ana Mountains � o ./F estminste ` San Jacinto W � c° O ueEt�f �ys'Z �' ! - _ ^c t- �. /� ,r';?. /�9�N4t; !e • ( w - _ San Jacinto Mounts Huntington Beach �� Newport Beach Irvine ., ENVIRONMENTAL Pacific Ocean e. Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit A Santa Ana Watershed Notes: w' E Project Authority EMWD=Eastern Municipal Water District �/ Member Agencies IEUA=Inland Empire Utilities Agency 5 OCWD=Orange County Water District waters numoa, rue numce, SBVMWD=San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District 45 g 18 ties W24220tT ' , WMWD=Western M unicipaI Water District // D0e Piuraeuu..w� Fig um A.mxd SW-1152 January 5,2016 PEMc Pal DR NS NS --WPA Appendix A OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No. OCSD-39 ORDINANCE NO. OCSD-39 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE REGULATIONS,REVISING ARTICLE 1, SECTION 104, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. OCSD-37 The Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) does hereby FIND: A. That a comprehensive 30-year Master Plan of Capital Facilities, entitled "Collection, Treatment and Disposal Facilities Master Plan — 1989", hereinafter referred to as the "Master Plan", which includes detailed financial and engineering reports, was prepared, approved, and adopted by the Boards of Directors of the Predecessor Districts in 1989, setting forth and identifying the required future development of OCSD Facilities, including the financial projections for providing sewer service to all properties within the individual service areas of each of the nine Predecessor Districts; and, B. That the financial and engineering reports of the Master Plan were made available to the public, both prior to and subsequent to the adoption of the Master Plan, and were subject to noticed public hearings, all in accordance with the provisions of the California Constitution and Government Code Section 66016, and other provisions of law; and, C. That the OCSD, in 1997, as part of its maintenance and updating of its Master Plan, undertook a comprehensive evaluation and study of its operational and financial needs for the next 20 years, including a detailed assessment of all types and categories of users; the demands on the system and capacity needs of the system to provide necessary service to the multiple categories of users; the total costs of the existing and future facilities in the system; and alternate methodologies for establishing fair and equitable charges to connect to and gain access to the system. These comprehensive planning, engineering, and financial studies led to the development of an updated Comprehensive Master Plan of Capital Facilities, which was approved and adopted by OCSD Resolution No. 99-21 of the Board of Directors on October 27, 1999; and, D. That in June 2002 the OCSD completed the Interim Strategic Plan Update (ISPU) which further updated these critical factors and developed revised cost estimates and user fee projections for upgrading the OCSD's level of treatment to secondary standards. On July 17, 2002, after reviewing: (1) the ISPU treatment alternatives, (2) ocean monitoring data, (3) public input, (4) regulatory issues, and (5) financial considerations, the Board of Directors made the decision to upgrade our treatment to meet secondary treatment standards; and, Page 1 of 80 E. That the OCSD is required by federal and state law, including the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251, et sea.), the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 C.F.R. 403), and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code Sections 13000 at sea.), to implement and enforce a program for the regulation of wastewater discharges to the OCSD's sewers; and, F. That the OCSD is required by federal, state and local law to meet applicable standards of treatment plant effluent quality; and, G. That the adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and California Code of Regulations Section 15273(a) and categorically exempt pursuant to California Code of Regulations Sections 15307 and 15308. NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District does hereby ORDAIN: Section I: Wastewater Discharge Regulations governing the use of OCSD sewerage facilities are hereby enacted to provide: ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS 101. PURPOSE AND POLICY This ordinance sets uniform requirements for Users of OCSD's facilities and enables OCSD to comply with all applicable State and Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code [U.S.C.] section 1251 at seq.) and the General Pretreatment Regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 403). This Ordinance shall be interpreted in accordance with the definitions set forth in Section 102. The provisions of the Ordinance shall apply to the direct or indirect discharge of all liquid wastes carried to facilities of the OCSD. A. The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the maximum public benefit from the use of the OCSD facilities. This shall be accomplished by regulating sewer use and wastewater discharges, by providing equitable distribution of costs, in compliance with applicable Federal, State and local Regulations, and by supporting the proper disposal of Prescription Drugs as noted in the guidelines published by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The revenues to be derived from the application of this Ordinance shall be used to defray all costs of providing sewerage service by the OCSD, including, but not limited to, administration, operation, monitoring, Page 2 of 80 maintenance, financing, capital construction, replacement and recovery, and provisions for necessary reserves; B. This ordinance is meant to protect both OCSD personnel who may be affected by wastewater, sludge, and biosolids in the course of their employment and the general public; C. To comply with Federal, State, and local policies and to allow the OCSD to meet applicable standards of treatment plant effluent quality, biosolids quality, and air quality, provisions are made in this Ordinance for the regulation of wastewater discharges to the public sewer. This Ordinance establishes quantity and quality limits on all wastewater discharges which may adversely affect the OCSD's sewerage systems, processes, effluent quality, biosolids quality, air emission characteristics, or inhibit the OCSD's ability to beneficially reuse or dispose of its treated wastewater, biosolids or meet biosolids discharge criteria. It is the intent of these limits to improve the quality of wastewater being received for treatment and to encourage water conservation and waste minimization by all users connected to a public sewer. It is the OCSD's intent to limit future increases in the quantity (mass emission) of waste constituents being discharged. This Ordinance also provides for regulation of the degree of waste pretreatment required, the issuance of permits for wastewater discharge and connections and other miscellaneous permits, and establishes penalties for violation of the Ordinance. D. Since the OCSD is committed to a policy of wastewater reclamation and reuse in order to provide an alternate source of water supply, the implementation of programs for reclamation through secondary and tertiary wastewater treatment processes may necessitate more stringent quality requirements on wastewater discharges. In the event that more stringent quality requirements are necessary, the Ordinance will be amended to reflect those changes. E. Since the OCSD is committed to a policy for the beneficial use of biosolids, the implementation of programs to land-apply or provide for the marketing and distribution of biosolids may necessitate more stringent quality requirements on wastewater discharges. F. Since the OCSD is also committed to meet applicable air quality goals established by the South Coast Air Quality Management OCSD, more stringent quality requirements on wastewater discharges may be required to meet such goals. 102. DEFINITIONS Page 3 of 80 A. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms related to water quality shall be as adopted in the latest edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, published by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and the Water Pollution Control Federation. The testing procedures for waste constituents and characteristics shall be as provided in 40 CFR 136 (Code of Federal Regulations; Title 40; Protection of Environment; Chapter I, Environmental Protection Agency; Part 136, Test Procedures for the Analyses of Pollutants), or as specified. Other terms not herein defined are defined as being the same as set forth in the International Conference of Building Officials Uniform Building Code, Current Edition. 1. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall mean schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, operating procedures, practices to control spillage or leaks, treatment requirements, and other management practices to prevent or reduce pollution or to meet Article 2 standards. 2. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) shall mean a measurement of oxygen utilized by the decomposition of organic material, over a specified time period (usually 5 days) in a wastewater sample. It is used as a measurement of the readily decomposable organic content of wastewater. 3. Board shall mean the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District. 4. Bypass shall mean the intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of an industrial user's treatment facility. 5. Capital Facilities Connection Charge shall mean the payment of a fee, imposed by the governing Board of the OCSD, to pay for the future costs of constructing new sewerage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; and as a contributive share of the cost of the existing facilities. This charge shall be paid by all property owners at the time they develop the property and connect directly or indirectly to the OCSD sewerage facilities as a new system user. This charge, whose rates areas set forth in a separate Ordinance, is expressly authorized by the provisions of California Health & Safety Code Sections 5471 and 5474. 6. Charge For Use shall mean the OCSD's sanitary sewer service Page 4 of 80 charge, a charge established and levied by the OCSD upon residential, commercial and industrial users of the OCSD's system, pursuant to Sections 302.6(F)2, or 303.6(F)2 of this Ordinance, in proportion to the use of the treatment works by their respective class, that provides for the recovery of the costs of operation and maintenance expenses, capital facilities rehabilitation or replacement, and adequate reserves for the sewage treatment works. The minimum charge for use is the Annual Sewer Service Fee Residential Users 7. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) shall mean a measure of the oxygen required to oxidize all compounds, both organic and inorganic, in wastewater. 8. Class I User shall mean any user who discharges wastewater that: a) is subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards; or b) averages 25,000 gallons per day or more of regulated process wastewater; or c) is determined to have a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the OCSD's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard, local limit, or discharge requirement; or d) may cause, pass through or interference with the OCSD sewerage facilities 9. Class II User shall mean any industrial user whose charge for use is greater than special assessment "OCSD Sewer User Fee" included on the County of Orange secured property tax bill exclusive of debt service, that discharges wastes other than sanitary, and that is not otherwise required to obtain a Class I permit. 10. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) shall mean the codification of the general and permanent regulations published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government. 11. Compatible Pollutant shall mean a combination of biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform bacteria, plus other pollutants that the OCSD's treatment facilities are designed to accept and/or remove. Compatible pollutants are non-compatible when discharged in quantities that have an adverse effect on the Page 5 of 80 OCSD's system or NPDES permit, or when discharged in qualities or quantities violating any Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standard, local limit, or other discharge requirement. 12. Composite Sample shall mean a collection of individual samples obtained at selected intervals based on an increment of either flow or time. The resulting mixture (composite sample) forms a representative sample of the wastestream discharged during the sample period. 13. Connection Permit shall mean a permit issued by the OCSD, upon payment of a capital facilities connection charge, authorizing the permittee to connect directly to a OCSD sewerage facility or to a sewer which ultimately discharges into a OCSD sewerage facility. 14. Control Authority shall mean the Orange County Sanitation District. 15. Department Head shall mean that person duly designated by the General Manager to direct the Technical Services Department, including the Source Control Division and perform those delegated duties as specified in this Ordinance. 16. Discharger shall mean any person who discharges or causes a discharge of wastewater directly or indirectly to a public sewer. Discharger shall mean the same as User. 17. District shall mean the Orange County Sanitation District. 18. Division Head shall mean that person duly designated by the General Manager to implement the OCSD's Source Control Program and perform the duties as specified in this Ordinance. 19. Domestic Septage shall mean the liquid and solid material removed from a septic tank, cesspool, portable toilet, Type III marine sanitation device, or similar treatment works that receives only domestic wastewater. 20. Domestic Wastewater shall mean the liquid and solid waterborne wastes derived from the ordinary living processes of humans of such character as to permit satisfactory disposal, without special treatment, into the public sewer or by means of a private disposal system. 21. Downstream Sampling or Monitoring shall mean sampling or monitoring usually conducted in a city or agency owned sewer for the purpose of determining the compliance status of an industrial or Page 6 of 80 commercial discharger. 22. Dry Weather Urban Runoff shall mean surface runoff flow that is generated from any drainage area within OCSD's service area during a period that does not fall within the definition of Wet Weather. It is surface runoff that contains pollutants that interfere with or prohibit the recreational use and enjoyment of public beaches or cause an environmental risk or health hazard. 23. Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreement (ECSA) shall mean a mutual agreement between the OCSD and permittee requiring implementation of necessary pretreatment practices and/or installation of equipment to ensure permit compliance. 24. Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards shall mean any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the U.S. EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317) which apply to a specific category of industrial users and which appear in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471. 25. Federal Regulations shall mean any applicable provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended, Title 33, United States Code, Section 1251 and following, and any regulation promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under Title 40 CFR implementing that act. 26. Flow Monitoring Facilities shall mean equipment and structures provided at the user's expense to measure, totalize, and/or record, the incoming water to the facility or the wastewater discharged to the sewer. 27. General Manager shall mean the individual duly designated by the Board of Directors of the OCSD to administer this Ordinance (REFER TO SECTION 107). 28. Grab Sample shall mean a sample taken from a waste stream on a one-time basis without regard to the flow in the waste stream and without consideration of time. 29. Industrial User shall mean any user that discharges industrial wastewater. 30. Industrial Wastewater shall mean all liquid-carried wastes and Page 7 of 80 wastewater of the community, excluding domestic wastewater and domestic septage, and shall include all wastewater from any producing, manufacturing, processing, agricultural, or other operation. 31. Insoector shall mean a person authorized by the General Manager to inspect any existing or proposed wastewater generation, conveyance, processing, and disposal facilities. 32. Interference shall mean any discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, either: a) inhibits or disrupts the OCSD, its treatment processes or operations, or its biosolids processes, use, or disposal; or b) is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the OCSD's NPDES permit or prevents lawful biosolids or treated effluent use or disposal. 33. LEL (Lower Exolosive Limit) shall mean the minimum concentration of a combustible gas or vapor in air (usually expressed in percent by volume at sea level) which will ignite if an ignition source (sufficient ignition energy) is present. 34. Local Sewering Agency shall mean any public agency or private corporation responsible for the collection and disposal of wastewater to the OCSD's sewerage facilities duly authorized under the laws of the State of California to construct and/or maintain public sewers. 35. Me or Violation shall mean a discharge over the permitted discharge limit, as determined by the result of a composite sample analysis, as follows: a) a discharge exceeding a mass emission limit by 20% or more, or b) a discharge exceeding a concentration limit by 20% or more, or c) a pH discharge less than 5.0. 36. Mass Emission Rate shall mean the weight of material discharged to the sewer system during a given time interval. Unless otherwise specified, the mass emission rate shall mean pounds per day of a Page 8 of 80 particular constituent or combination of constituents. 37. Maximum Allowable Discharge Limit shall mean the maximum quantity or concentration of a pollutant allowed to be discharged at any period of time. 38. May shall mean permissive or discretionary. 39. Medical Waste shall mean the discharge of isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood byproducts, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, fomites, etiologic agents, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, and dialysis wastes. 40. Milligrams Per Liter (mg/L) shall mean a unit of the concentration of a constituent or compound that is found in water or wastewater. It is 1 milligram of the constituent or compound in 1 liter of water or wastewater. 41. Minor Violation shall mean a discharge over the permitted discharge limit as determined by the result of a composite sample analysis, as follows: a) a discharge exceeding a mass emission limit by less than 20%, or b) a discharge exceeding a concentration limit by less than 20%, or c) a pH discharge equal to or greater than 5.0, but less than 6.0, or d) a pH discharge greater than 12.0. 42. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) shall mean an industry classification system that groups establishments into industries based on the activities in which they are primarily engaged. 43. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES Permit) shall mean the permit issued to control the discharge to surface waters of the United States as detailed in Public Law 92-500, Section 402. 44. New Source shall mean those sources that are new as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(k) as revised. Page 9 of 80 45. Non-Compatible Pollutant shall mean any pollutant which is not a compatible pollutant as defined herein. 46. Normal Working Day shall mean the period of time during which production or operation is taking place or any period during which discharge to the sewer is occurring. 47. OCSD shall mean Orange County Sanitation District. 48. OCSD Sewerage Facility or System shall mean any property belonging to the OCSD used in the treatment, reclamation, reuse, transportation, or disposal of wastewater, or biosolids. 49. Ordinance shall mean that document entitled "Wastewater Discharge Regulations" containing OCSD requirements, conditions, and limits for connecting and discharging to the sewer system, as may be amended and modified. 50. pH shall mean both acidity and alkalinity on a scale ranging from 0 to 14 where 7 represents neutrality, numbers less than 7 increasing acidity, and more than 7 increasing alkalinity, and is the logarithm of the reciprocal of the quantity of hydrogen ions in moles per liter of solution. 51. Pass Through shall mean discharge through the OCSD's sewerage facilities to waters of the U.S. which, alone or in conjunction with discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of the OCSD's NPDES permit. 52. Permittee shall mean a person who has received a permit to discharge wastewater into the OCSD's sewerage facilities subject to the requirements and conditions established by the OCSD. 53. Person shall mean any individual, partnership, copartnership, company, firm, association, corporation or public agency, joint stock company, trust, estate, or any other legal entity; or their legal representatives, agents, assigns, including all Federal, State, and local governmental entities. 54. Pesticides shall mean those compounds classified as such under Federal or State law or regulations including, but not limited to DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-ethane, both isomers), DOE (dichlorodiphenyl-ethylene), DDD (dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane), Aldrin, Benzene Hexachloride (alpha [a], beta [p], and gamma Page 10 of 80 isomers), Chlordane, Endrin, Endrin aldehyde, 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), toxaphene, a-endosulfan, p-endosulfan, Endosulfan sulfate, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide, Dieldrin, Demeton, Guthion, Malathion, Methoxychlor, Mirex, and Parathion. 55. Pollutant shall mean any constituent, compound, or characteristic of wastewaters on which a discharge limit may be imposed either by the OCSD or the regulatory bodies empowered to regulate the OCSD. 56. Polychlorinated Biphenvls (PCB) shall mean those compounds classified as such under Federal or State law including, but not limited to Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1228, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260, and 1262. 57. Pretreatment shall mean the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater to a level authorized by the OCSD prior to, or in lieu of, discharge of the wastewater into the OCSD's system. The reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical or biological processes, by process changes, or by other means. 58. Pretreatment Facility shall mean any works or devices that the General Manager determines are appropriate to treat, restrict, or prevent the flow of industrial wastewater prior to discharge into a public sewer. 59. Priority Pollutants shall mean the most recently adopted list of toxic pollutants identified and listed by EPA as having the greatest environmental impact. They are classified as non-compatible pollutants and may require pretreatment prior to discharge in order to prevent: a) interference with the OCSD's operation; or b) biosolids contamination; or c) pass through into receiving waters or into the atmosphere. 60. Public Aoencv shall mean the State of California and any city, county, district, other local authority or public body of or within this State. 61. Public Sewer shall mean a sewer owned and operated by the Page 11 of 80 OCSD, a city or other local sewering agency which is tributary to the OCSD's sewerage facilities. 62. RCRA shall mean Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901, at seq.) and as amended. 63. Regulatory Agencies shall mean those agencies having jurisdiction over the operation of the OCSD including, but not limited to, the following: a) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, San Francisco and Washington, DC (EPA). b) California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). c) California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB). d) South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). e) California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA). 64. Regulatory Compliance Schedule Agreement (RCSA) shall mean an agreement between the OCSD and permittee requiring the permittee to implement pretreatment practices and/or install equipment to ensure compliance with future revised categorical pretreatment standards or revised discharge limits. 65. Sample Point shall mean a location accepted by the OCSD, from which wastewater ran be collected that is representative in content and consistency of the entire flow of wastewater being sampled. Page 12 of 80 66. Sampling Facilities shall mean structure(s) provided at the user's expense for the OCSD or user to measure and record wastewater constituent mass, concentrations, collect a representative sample, or provide access to plug or terminate the discharge. 67. Sanitary Waste shall mean domestic wastewater, human excrement and gray water (household showers, dishwashing operations, etc). 68. Septic Waste shall mean any sewage from holding tanks such as vessels, chemical toilets, campers, trailers, and septic tanks. 69. Service Area shall mean an area for which the OCSD has agreed to either provide sewer service, or wastewater treatment, or wastewater disposal 70. Sewage shall mean wastewater. 71. Sewerage Facilities or System shall mean any and all facilities used for collecting, conveying, pumping, treating, and disposing of wastewater or sludge or biosolids. 72. Shall mean mandatory. 73. Significant Non-Compliance (SNC) shall mean the compliance status of an industrial user who is in violation of one or more of the criteria as described in 40 CFR 403. 74. Slug Load shall mean a discharge that exceeds the prohibitions stated in Section 201 and significantly exceeds the usual user flow or pollutant loading, either mass or concentration. 75. Sludge shall mean any solid, semi-solid or liquid decant, subnate or supemate from a manufacturing process, utility service, or pretreatment facility. 76. Special Assessment Credit shall mean the portion of the secured property tax bill that represents the regional special assessment sewer user fee as defined by the OCSD. 77. Special Purpose Use shall mean any discharger who is granted a Special Purpose Discharge Permit by the OCSD to discharge unpolluted water, storm runoff, or groundwater to the OCSD's sewerage facilities. 78. Spent Solutions shall mean any concentrated industrial wastewater. Page 13 of 80 79. Spill Containment shall mean a protection system installed by the permittee to prohibit the discharge to the sewer of non-compatible pollutants. 80. Standard Methods shall mean procedures described in the current edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, as published by the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association and Water Pollution Control Federation. 81. Suspended Solids shall mean any insoluble material contained as a component of wastewater and capable of separation from the liquid portion of said waste by laboratory filtration as determined by the appropriate testing procedure and expressed in terms of milligrams per liter. 82. Tax Credit shall mean the Annual Regional Sewer Service Charge on the Secured Property tax bill. 83. Total Organic Carbon (TOC) shall mean the measure of total organic carbon in domestic or other wastewater as determined by the appropriate testing procedure. 84. Total Toxic Organics (TTO) shall mean the summation of all quantifiable values greater than 0.01 milligrams per liter for the organics regulated by the EPA or OCSD for a specific industrial category. 85. Unpolluted Water shall mean water to which no pollutant has been added either intentionally or accidentally. 86. User shall mean any person who discharges or causes a discharge of wastewater directly or indirectly to a public sewer. User shall mean the same as Discharger or Industrial User. 87. Waste shall mean sewage and any and all other waste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous or radioactive, associated with human habitation or of human or animal nature, including such wastes placed within containers of whatever nature prior to and for the purpose of disposal. 88. Waste Manifest shall mean that receipt which is retained by the generator of hazardous wastes as required by the State of California or the United States Government pursuant to RCRA, or the California Hazardous Materials Act, or that receipt which is Page 14 of 80 retained by the generator for recyclable wastes or liquid non-hazardous wastes as required by the OCSD. 89. Wastehauler shall mean any person carrying on or engaging in vehicular transport of waste as part of, or incidental to, any business for the purpose of discharging said waste into the OCSD's system. 90. Wastewater shall mean the liquid and water-carried wastes of the community and all constituents thereof, whether treated or untreated, discharged into or permitted to enter a public sewer. 91. Wastewater Constituents and Characteristics shall mean the individual chemical, physical, bacteriological, and radiological parameters, including volume and flow rate and such other parameters that serve to define, classify or measure the quality and quantity of wastewater. 92. Wet Weather shall mean any period of time during which measurable rainfall occurs within of OCSD's service area. This period shall include the time following the cessation of rainfall until OCSD determines that the wet weather event is no longer impacting OCSD's sewerage system. B. Words used in this Ordinance in the singular may include the plural and the plural the singular. Use of masculine shall mean feminine and use of feminine shall mean masculine. Shall is mandatory; may is permissive or discretionary. 103. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION All user information and data on file with the OCSD shall be available to the public and governmental agencies without restriction unless the user specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCSD that the release of such information would divulge information, processes or methods which would be detrimental to the user's competitive position. The demonstration of the need for confidentiality made by the permittee must meet the burden necessary for withholding such information from the general public under applicable State and Federal Law. Any such claim must be made at the Page 15 of 80 time of submittal of the information by marking the submittal "Confidential Business Information" on each page containing such information. Information which is demonstrated to be confidential shall not be transmitted to anyone other than a governmental agency without prior notification to the user. Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other effluent data, as defined in 40 CFR 2.302 shall not be recognized as confidential information and shall be available to the public. 104. TRANSFER OF PERMITS A. Permits issued under this Ordinance are for a specific user, for a specific operation at a specific location or for a specific wastehauler, and create no vested rights. 1. No permit may be transferred to allow a discharge to a public sewer from a point other than the location for which the permit was originally issued. 2. Except as expressly set forth herein, no permit for an existing facility may be transferred to a new owner and/or operator of that facility. B. When the permittee is a legal entity (such as a corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or other legal entity), the permittee is deemed to have undergone a change of ownership when any other legal entity or person acquires direct or indirect ownership or control of more than fifty percent (50%) of the total ownership interest in the permittee. C At least thirty (30) days prior to the sale or transfer of ownership of any business operating under a permit issued by the OCSD, the permittee shall notify the OCSD in writing of the proposed sale or transfer. The successor owner shall apply to the OCSD for a new permit at least fifteen (15) days prior to the sale or transfer of ownership in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. A successor owner shall not discharge any wastewater for which a permit is required by this Ordinance until a permit is issued by the OCSD to the successor owner. D. The written notification of intended transfer shall be in a form approved by the OCSD and shall include a written certification by the new owner and/or operator which: 1. States that the new owner or operator has no immediate intent to modify the facility's operations and/or processes; Page 16 of 80 2. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur; and 3. Acknowledges that the new owner or operator is fully responsible for complying with the terms and conditions of the existing permit and all provisions of this Ordinance. 105. EFFECT OF TRANSFER OF PERMITS Except as expressly set forth in Section 104.C, any permit which is transferred to a new owner and/or operator or to a new facility is void. 106. AUTHORITY The OCSD is regulated by several agencies of the United States Government and the State of California, pursuant to the provisions of Federal and State Law. Federal and State Laws grant to the OCSD the authority to regulate and/or prohibit, by the adoption of ordinances or resolutions, and by issuance of discharge permits, the discharge of any waste, directly or indirectly, to the OCSD's sewerage facilities. Said authority includes the right to establish limits, conditions, and prohibitions; to establish flow rates or prohibit flows discharged to the OCSD's sewerage facilities; to require the development of compliance schedules for the installation of equipment systems and materials by all users; and to take all actions necessary to enforce its authority, whether within or outside the OCSD's boundaries, including those users that are tributary to the OCSD or within areas for which the OCSD has contracted to provide sewerage services. The OCSD has the authority pursuant to California Health and Safety Codes 5471 and 5474 to prescribe, revise, and collect all fees and charges for services and facilities furnished by the OCSD either within or without its territorial limits. 107. DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY Whenever any power is granted to or a duty is imposed upon the General Manager, the power may be exercised or the duty may be performed by any person so authorized by the General Manager. 108. SIGNATORY REQUIREMENTS Reports and permit applications required by this Ordinance shall contain the following certification statement: "I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted in the attached document, and I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that this information was obtained in accordance with the Federal Pretreatment Requirements. Moreover, based upon my inquiry of those individuals Page 17 of 80 immediately responsible for obtaining the information reported herein, I believe that the submitted information is true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties not limited to fines and imprisonment for submitting false information." The statement shall be signed by an authorized representative of the industrial user as defined in 40 CFR 403 or as defined and designated by the OCSD. ARTICLE 2 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS, LIMITS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGE 201. PROHIBITED DISCHARGES These prohibitions apply to all users of the OCSD facilities whether or not they are subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards or any other National, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements. A. General Prohibitions. 1. No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the OCSD any pollutant, wastewater, or flow which causes pass through or interference or would cause the OCSD to violate any Federal, State, or local regulatory requirement. 2. No user shall increase the contribution of flow, pollutants, or change the nature of pollutants where such contribution or change does not meet applicable standards and requirements or where such contribution would cause the OCSD to violate any Federal, State, or local regulatory permit. 3. No person shall transport waste from one location or facility to another for the purpose of treating or discharging it directly or indirectly to the OCSD sewerage system without written permission from the OCSD. 4. No person shall deliver by vehicular transport, rail car, or dedicated pipeline, directly or indirectly to the OCSD sewerage facilities, wastewater which contains any substance that is defined as a hazardous waste by the Regulatory Agencies. B. Specific Prohibitions. No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the sewerage facilities, pollutants, substances, or wastewater which: 1. Creates a fire or explosive hazard in the sewerage facilities including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closed-cup Page 18 of 80 flashpoint of less than 140 degrees F (60 degrees C) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21; or produces a gaseous mixture that is 10% or greater of the lower explosive limit (LEL). 2. Causes obstruction to the flow in the sewer system resulting in interference or damage to the sewerage facilities. 3. Produces noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, solids, or other wastewater which, either singly or by interaction with other wastes, is sufficient to create a public nuisance or a hazard to life, or to prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance or repair. 4. Results in toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the sewerage facilities in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems. 5. Contains any radioactive wastes or isotopes except in compliance with applicable regulations from other governmental agencies empowered to regulate the use of radioactive materials. 6. Causes, alone or in conjunction with other sources, the OCSD's treatment plant effluent to fail a toxicity test. 7. Caused the OCSD's effluent or any other product of the treatment process, residues, biosolids, or scums, to be unsuitable for reclamation, reuse or disposal. 8. Causes discoloration or any other condition which affects the quality of the OCSD's influent or effluent in such a manner that inhibits the OCSD's ability to meet receiving water quality, biosolids quality, or air quality requirements established by Regulatory Agencies. 9. Creates excessive foaming in the sewerage facilities. 10. Violates any applicable Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standard, statute, regulation, or ordinance of any public agency or Regulatory Agency having jurisdiction over the operation of or discharge of wastewater through the sewerage facilities. 11. Has a temperature higher than 140 degrees Fahrenheit, (60 degrees Centigrade), or which causes the temperature at the treatment plant to exceed 104 degrees Fahrenheit (40 degrees Centigrade). 12. Has a pH less than 6.0 or greater than 12.0. Page 19 of 80 13. Has a maximum Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) greater than 15,000 pounds per day. 14. Is in excess of the permitted mass emission rates established in accordance with: Section 212, or the concentration limits set forth in Table I, or the discharge permit. 15. Contains material which will readily settle or cause an obstruction to flow in the sewer resulting in interference, such as, but not limited to, sand, mud, glass, metal filings, diatomaceous earth, cat litter, asphalt, wood, bones, hair, and fleshings. 202. PROHIBITION ON DILUTION No user shall increase the use of water or in any other manner attempt to dilute a discharge as a partial or complete substitute for treatment to achieve compliance with this Ordinance and the user's permit or to establish an artificially high flow rate for permit mass emission rates. 203. PROHIBITION ON SURFACE RUNOFF AND GROUNDWATER A. No person shall discharge groundwater, surface runoff, or subsurface drainage directly or indirectly to the OCSD's sewerage facilities except as provided herein. Pursuant to Section 304 or 305, at seq., the OCSD may approve the discharge of such water only when no alternate method of disposal is reasonably available or to mitigate an environmental risk or health hazard. B. The discharge of such waters shall require a Dry Weather Urban Runoff Permit or a Special Purpose Discharge Permit from the OCSD. Page 20 of 80 C. If a permit is granted for the discharge of such water into a public sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges established herein and shall meet such other conditions as required by the OCSD. 204. PROHIBITION ON UNPOLLUTED WATER A. No person shall discharge unpolluted water such as single pass cooling water directly or indirectly to the OCSD's sewerage facilities except as provided herein. Pursuant to Section 305, et seq., the OCSD may approve the discharge of such water only when no alternate method of disposal or reuse is reasonably available or to mitigate an environmental risk or health hazard. B. The discharge of such waters shall require a Special Purpose Discharge Permit from the OCSD. C. If a permit is granted for the discharge of such water into a public sewer, the user shall pay the applicable charges established herein and shall meet such other conditions as required by the OCSD. 205. RESERVED 206. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF GRINDERS A. Waste from industrial or commercial grinders shall not be discharged into a public sewer, except wastes generated in packing or preparing food or food products. Such grinders must shred the waste to a degree that all particles will be carried freely under normal flow conditions prevailing in the public sewer. B. Waste from Food Service Establishments operating a grinder is prohibited and shall not be discharged into a public sewer unless written authorization from the OCSD General Manager or his designee is obtained. 207. PROHIBITION ON POINT OF DISCHARGE No person, except local sewering agencies involved in maintenance functions of sanitary sewer facilities, shall discharge any wastewater directly into a manhole or other opening in a sewer other than through an approved building sewer, unless approved by the OCSD upon written application by the user and payment of the applicable fees and charges established herein. Page 21 of 80 208. PROHIBITION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR WASTEHAULER DISCHARGES-TO THE OCSD SEWERAGE SYSTEM AND WASTEHAULER STATION A. No Wastehauler shall discharge to the OCSD sewerage system, domestic septage or other approved waste or wastewater from a vacuum pumping truck or other liquid waste transport vehicle, without first obtaining both a valid Orange County Health Care Agency Permit and a OCSD Wastehauler Permit as required by Section 306. Such wastewaters shall be discharged only at locations designated by the OCSD, and at such times as established by the OCSD. The OCSD may collect samples of each hauled load to ensure compliance with applicable standards. B. No Wastehauler shall discharge domestic septage or other approved waste or wastewater constituents in excess of Limits in Table I. C. The discharge of industrial wastewater by any Wastehauler is prohibited unless written permission of the General Manager has been obtained, the proper permits have been obtained, and the waste meets Federal and State limits applicable to the user from which the waste was obtained; or Maximum Local Discharge Limits as specified in Table I, whichever are more stringent. The discharge of hauled industrial wastewater is subject to all other requirements of this ordinance. D. No Wastehauler shall discharge wastewater to sewers that are tributary to the OCSD's sewerage facilities that are from a source that is not within the OCSD's service area unless prior authorization is granted by the General Manager or his designee. E. No Wastehauler shall discharge directly or indirectly to the sewerage facilities any material defined as hazardous waste by RCRA or 40 CFR 261. F. Wastehaulers shall provide a waste-tracking form for every load. This form shall include, at a minimum, the name and address of the industrial waste hauler, permit number, truck identification, names and addresses of sources of waste, and volume and characteristics of waste. G. Discharge at the OCSD disposal station shall be through an appropriate hose and connection to the discharge port. Discharging waste directly to the surface area of the disposal station is prohibited. H. Wastehauler hoses must be connected to the disposal station discharge port when being cleaned. I. Transferring loads between trucks or from portable toilets to trucks on Page 22 of 80 OCSD property is prohibited unless permission from OCSD is obtained. 209. RESERVED 210. PROHIBITION ON MEDICAL WASTE A. No person shall discharge solid wastes from hospitals, clinics, offices of medical doctors, convalescent homes, medical laboratories or other medical facilities to the sewerage system including, but not limited to, hypodermic needles, syringes, instruments, utensils or other paper and plastic items of a disposable nature except where prior written approval for such discharges is given by the General Manager. B. The OCSD shall have the authority to require that any discharge of an infectious waste to the sewer be rendered non-infectious prior to discharge if the infectious waste is deemed to pose a threat to the public health and safety, or will result in any violation of applicable waste discharge requirements. 211. PROHIBITION ON DISPOSAL OF SPENT SOLUTIONS AND SLUDGES Spent solutions, sludges, and materials of quantity or quality in violation of, or prohibited by this Ordinance, or any permit issued under this Ordinance must be disposed of in a legal manner at a legally acceptable point of disposal as defined by the OCSD or appropriate Regulatory Agency. All waste manifests shall be retained for a minimum of three years, and made available to the OCSD upon request. 212. MASS EMISSION RATE DETERMINATION A. Mass emission rates for non-compatible or compatible pollutants that are present or anticipated in the user's wastewater discharge may be set for each user and made an applicable part of each user's permit. These rates shall be based on Table I, Local Discharge Limits, or Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards, and the user's average daily wastewater discharge for the past three years, the most recent representative data, or other data acceptable to the General Manager or his designee. B. To verify the user's operating data, the OCSD may require a user to submit an inventory of all wastewater streams and/or records indicating production rates. Page 23 of 80 C. The OCSD may revise limits or mass emission rates previously established in the discharger's permit at any time, based on: current or anticipated operating data of the discharger or the OCSD; the OCSD's ability to meet NPDES limits; or changes in the requirements of Regulatory Agencies. D. The excess use of water to establish an artificially high flow rate for mass emission rate determination is prohibited. TABLE ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE LOCAL DISCHARGE LIMITS(a) CONSTITUENT MILLIGRAMS/LITER Arsenic 2.0 Cadmium 1.0 Chromium(Total) 2.0 Copper 3.0 Lead 2.0 Mercury 0.03 Nickel 10.0 Silver 5.0 Zinc 10.0 Cyanide(Total) 5.0 Cyanide(Amenable) 1.0 Polychlorinated Biphenyls 0.01 Pesticides 0.01 Total Toxic Organics 0.58 Sulfide(Total) 5.0 Suede(Dissolved) 0.5 Oil and grease of mineral or petroleum origin 100.0 Boo 15,000 Ibs/day MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LIMITS FOR WASTEHAULERS DISCHARGING DOMESTIC SEPTAGE CONSTITUENT MILLIGRAMS/LITER Cadmium 1.0 LN omium 2.0 pper 25.0 d 10.0 kel 10.0 c 50.0 (a): Users subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards may be required to meet more stringent limits. Page 24 of 80 ARTICLE 3 DISCHARGE PERMITS, CHARGES, AND FEES 301. INTRODUCTION A. To provide the maximum public benefit from the use of OCSD sewerage facilities, written authorization to use said facilities is required. This written authorization shall be in the form of a discharge permit. No vested right shall be given by issuance of permits provided for in this Ordinance. The OCSD reserves the right to establish, by Ordinance or in Wastewater Discharge Permits, more stringent standards or requirements on discharges to the OCSD sewerage facilities if deemed by the General Manager appropriate to comply with the objectives presented in the Introduction and Summary of this Ordinance and the prohibitions and limitations in Article 2. B. The discharge permit shall be in one of five forms and is dependent upon the type of discharger, volume, and characteristics of discharge. The five discharge permits are: 1. Class I Wastewater Discharge Permit. 2. Class II Wastewater Discharge Permit. 3. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit. 4. Special Purpose Discharge Permit. 5. Wastehauler Discharge Permit. 302. CLASS I WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS A. No user requiring a Class I permit shall discharge wastewater without obtaining a Class I Wastewater Discharge Permit. B. Class I Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be expressly subject to all provisions of this Ordinance and all other regulations, charges for use, and fees established by the OCSD. The conditions of Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be enforced by the OCSD in accordance with this Ordinance and applicable State and Federal Regulations. C. All Class I users proposing to discharge directly or indirectly into the OCSD sewerage facilities shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit by filing an application pursuant to Section 302.1 and paying the applicable fees pursuant to Section 302.3. For purposes of this Ordinance, a Class I Page 25 of 80 user is any user: 1. Subject to Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards; or 2. Discharging wastewater which averages 25,000 gallons per day or more of regulated process water; or 3. Discharging wastewater determined by the OCSD to have a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the OCSD's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard, local limits, or discharge requirement; or 4. Discharging wastewater which may cause, as determined by the General Manager, pass through or interference with the OCSD system. 302.1 Class I Wastewater Discharge Permit Application A. Any person required to obtain a Class I Wastewater Discharge Permit shall complete and file with the OCSD, prior to commencing discharge, an application on the form prescribed by the OCSD. The applicant shall submit, in units and terms appropriate for evaluation, the following information: 1. Name, address, assessor's parcel number(s), NAICS number(s), description of the manufacturing process or service activity. 2. (Whichever is applicable) name, address of any and all principals/owners/major shareholders of company; Articles of Incorporation; most recent Report of the Secretary of State; Business License. 3. Volume of wastewater to be discharged. 4. Name of individual who can be served with notices other than officers of corporation. 5. Name and address of property owner, landlord and/or manager of the property. 6. Water supplier and water account numbers. 7. Wastewater constituents and characteristics as required by the OCSD, including, but not limited to, those mentioned in Section 212, Mass Emission Rate Determination, and Table I, Local Discharge Limits, of this Ordinance. These constituents and Page 26 of 80 characteristics shall be determined by a laboratory selected by the discharger and acceptable to the OCSD. 8. Time and duration of discharge. 9. Number of employees per shift and hours of work per employee per day for each shift. 10. Waste minimization, best management practices, and water conservation practices. 11. Production records, if applicable. 12. Waste manifests, if applicable. 13. Landscaped area in square feet, if applicable. 14. Tons of cooling tower capacity, if applicable. 15. EPA Hazardous Waste Generator Number, if applicable. 16. Any other information as specified. B. Applicants may be required to submit site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, spill containment, clarifiers, pretreatment equipment, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation for evaluation. C. Applicants may also be required to submit information related to the applicant's business operations, processes, and potential discharge as may be requested by the OCSD to properly evaluate the permit application. D. After evaluation of the data, the OCSD may issue a Wastewater Discharge Permit, subject to terms and conditions set forth in this Ordinance and as otherwise determined by the General Manager to be appropriate to protect the OCSD's sewerage facilities. E. The permit application may be denied if the applicant fails to establish to the OCSD's satisfaction that adequate pretreatment equipment is included within the applicant's plans to ensure that the discharge limits will be met or if the applicant has, in the past, demonstrated an inability to comply with applicable discharge limits. F. The permit application may be denied if the applicant has in the past demonstrated an inability to keep current with OCSD invoices for items Page 27 of 80 such as Permit Fees, Non-Compliance Fees, Civil Penalties, Administrative Civil Penalties, Charges for Use, and Supplemental Capital Facilities Capacity Charges. 302.2 Class I Permit Conditions. and Limits A. A Class I permit shall contain all of the following conditions or limits: 1. Mass emission rates and concentration limits regulating non-compatible pollutants. 2. Requirements to notify the OCSD in writing prior to modification to processes or operations through which industrial wastewater may be produced. 3. Location of the user's on-site sampling point. 4. Requirements for submission of self-monitoring reports, technical reports, production data, discharge reports, compliance with Pretreatment Standards, BMP-based Categorical Pretreatment Standards and/or local limits, and/or waste manifests. 5. Requirements for maintaining, for a minimum of three years, plant records relating to wastewater discharge, and waste manifests as specified by OCSD. 6. Requirements to submit copies of tax and water bills. B. A Class I permit may contain any of the following conditions or limits: 1. Requirements for the user to construct and maintain, at his own expense, appropriate pretreatment equipment, pH control, flow monitoring facilities, and sampling facilities. 2. Limits on rate and time of discharge or requirements for flow regulation and equalization. 3. Requirements to self-monitor. Page 28 of 80 4. Assumed values for BOD and suspended solids characteristics that typify the discharger's effluent for determination of the charge for use. 5. Other terms and conditions which may be appropriate to ensure compliance with this Ordinance or determined by the General Manager or his designee to be appropriate to protect the sewerage system. 302.3 Class I Permit Fee A. The Class I permit fee shall be in an amount adopted by Ordinance of the Board of Directors. The permit fee shall be payable at the time a permit application is submitted for the issuance of a new permit or a renewed permit. Payment of permit must be received by the OCSD prior to issuance of either a new permit or a renewed permit. Permittee shall also pay any delinquent invoices in full prior to permit renewal. B. Any permit issued for a location wherein the Permittee is not the property owner may be conditioned upon depositing financial security to guarantee payment of all annual fees and charges to be incurred, in accordance with the provisions of Section 621.(E) of this Ordinance. 302.4 Class I Permit Modification of Terms and Conditions A. The terms and conditions of an issued permit may be subject to modification and change in the sole determination by the General Manager during the life of the permit based on: 1. The discharger's current or anticipated operating data; 2. The OCSD's current or anticipated operating data; 3. Changes in the requirements of Regulatory Agencies which affect the OCSD; or 4. A determination by the General Manager that such modification is appropriate to further the objectives of this Ordinance. B. New source indirect dischargers shall be required to install and start up any necessary pollution control equipment before beginning discharge, and comply with applicable Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards not to exceed thirty (30) days after the commencement of discharge. Page 29 of 80 C. Permittee may request a modification to the terms and conditions of an issued permit. The request shall be in writing stating the requested change, and the reasons for the change. The OCSD shall review the request, make a determination on the request, and respond in writing. D. Permittee shall be informed of any change in the permit limitations, conditions, or requirements at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance. 302.5 Class I Permit Duration and Renewal Class I permits shall normally be issued for a period not to exceed two (2) years. At least 45 days prior to the expiration of the permit, the user shall apply for renewal of the permit in accordance with the provisions of this Article 3. 302.6 Class I Permit Charge for Use A. The purpose of a charge for use is to ensure that each recipient of sewerage service from the OCSD pays its reasonably proportionate share of all the costs of providing that sewerage service. Charges for use to recover the cost of conveying, treating, and disposing of sewage in OCSD facilities are exclusive of any fees levied by local sewering agencies. The charge for use shall be based on the total maintenance, operation, capital expenditures, and reserve requirements for providing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. B. A discharger who is issued a Class I Wastewater Discharge Permit under the provisions of this Ordinance shall pay a charge for use in accordance with the formula contained herein and the unit charge rates adopted annually by Ordinance of the Board of Directors. These fees shall be invoiced on a quarterly basis. The quarterly invoice shall be based upon an estimate of the annual use as determined by the OCSD. Annually, the OCSD shall compute the charge for use based upon actual use for the preceding 12-month period on an annual reconciliation statement. The charge for use is payable within forty-five (45) days of invoicing by the OCSD. A credit will be allowed for any regional sanitary sewer service charge adopted by the Board of Directors by separate Ordinance and levied against the permitted property. Page 30 of 80 C. Current property tax bills shall be supplied by the permittee to the OCSD by May 31 of each year for use in determining the regional sanitary sewer service credit. If the tax bills are not supplied, the OCSD will endeavor to obtain the data. Data obtained by the OCSD will be considered correct and will not be adjusted before the next annual reconciliation statement. There shall be a fee levied for the OCSD administrative costs when regional sanitary sewer service charge data is obtained by the OCSD. The amount of the fee shall be adopted by the OCSD's Board of Directors. D. In order for the OCSD to determine actual annual water use, the user shall provide to the OCSD copies of its water bills. If these water bill copies are not received by July 31 of each year for the 12-month period ended closest to June 30, the OCSD will endeavor to obtain the water use data. Data obtained by the OCSD will be considered correct and will not be adjusted before the next annual reconciliation statement. There shall be a fee levied for OCSD administrative costs when the OCSD obtains water use data. The OCSD's Board of Directors shall adopt the amount of the fee. E. The charge for use shall be computed by the following formula: Charge for Use = VaV + BOB + SOS - Tax Credit Where V = total annual volume of flow, in millions of gallons B = total annual discharge of biochemical oxygen demand, in thousands of pounds S = total annual discharge of suspended solids, in thousands of pounds Va,BO,SO = Unit Charge rates established and adopted by Ordinance of the OCSD's Board of Directors, based upon the funding requirements of providing sewerage service, in dollars per unit as described in Paragraph F below: F. The Unit Charge rates in the charge-for-use formula shall be determined by the following method: 1. An Operations and Maintenance component of the Unit Charge for the total annual operation and maintenance funding requirements of the sewerage system shall be levied at a rate to be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors. This Charge shall be allocated among the three wastewater charge parameters of flow, biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids in accordance with the General Manager's determination as to the costs associated with each parameter and pursuant to applicable Page 31 of 80 requirements of State and Federal Regulatory Agencies. The operation and maintenance costs as distributed to flow, biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids shall be divided by the projected annual total flow volume and weights of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids to be treated by the sewerage system in the budgeted year. 2. A Capital Facilities Replacement Service component of the Unit Charge for capital replacement and capital improvement shall be levied at a rate to be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors. This charge shall be allocated among wastewater charge parameters of flow, biochemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids in accordance with the General Manager's determination of which portion of the charge predominantly relates to each parameter. The capital facilities charge distributed to biochemical oxygen demand, and suspended solids shall be divided by the projected annual weights of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids to be treated by the sewerage system in the budgeted year. 3. The Unit Charge rates for each respective wastewater component in (1) and (2) above shall be summed. The Unit Charge rates so determined will be expressed in dollars per million gallons for V., and in dollars per thousand pounds for Bo and So. G. Other measurements of the organic content of the wastewater of a discharger, such as COD or TOC, may be used instead of BOD. However, the discharger must establish to the General Manager's satisfaction a relationship between the BOD of the wastewater and the parameter of measure. This relationship shall be used by the OCSD in determining the charge for use. When wastewater from sanitary facilities is discharged separately from the other wastewater of a discharger, the charge for use for discharging the sanitary wastewater may be determined by using the following: 1. 25 gallons per employee per eight-hour working day. 2. BOD and suspended solids to be calculated at domestic wastewater strength per employee per year. Page 32 of 80 The number of employees will be considered as the average number of people employed full-time on a daily basis. This may be determined by averaging the number of people employed at the beginning and end of each quarter, or other period that reflects normal employment fluctuations. 303. CLASS II WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS A. No user requiring a Class II permit shall discharge wastewater without obtaining a Wastewater Discharge Permit. B. Class II Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be expressly subject to all provisions of this Ordinance and all other regulations, charges for use and fees established by the OCSD. The conditions of Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be enforced by the OCSD in accordance with this Ordinance and applicable State and Federal Regulations. C. All Class II users proposing to discharge directly or indirectly into the OCSD sewerage facilities shall obtain a Wastewater discharge Permit by filing an application pursuant to Section 303.1 and paying the applicable fees pursuant to Section 303.3. For purposes of this Ordinance, a Class II user is any user: 1. Whose charge for use is greater than the special assessment "OCSD Sewer User Fee" included on the County of Orange secured property tax bill exclusive of debt service, that discharges wastes other than sanitary, and that is not otherwise required to obtain a Class I permit, and 2. Discharging waste other than sanitary; and 3. Not otherwise required to obtain a Class I permit. 303.1 Class II Wastewater Discharge Permit Application A. Any person required to obtain a Class II Wastewater Discharge Permit shall complete and file with the OCSD, prior to commencing discharge, an application on the form prescribed by the OCSD. The applicant shall submit, in units and terms appropriate for evaluation, the following information: 1. Name, address, assessor's parcel number(s) and NAICS number(s); description of the manufacturing process or service activity. Page 33 of 80 2. (Whichever is applicable) Name, address of any and II principals/owners/major shareholders of company; Articles of Incorporation; most recent Report of the Secretary of State; Business License. 3. Volume of wastewater to be discharged. 4. Name of individual who can be served with notices other than officers of corporation. 5. Name and address of property owner, landlord and/or manager of the property. 6. Water supplier and water account numbers. 7. Wastewater constituents and characteristics as required by the OCSD, including, but not limited to, those mentioned in Section 212, Mass Emission Rate Determination, and Table I, Local Discharge Limits of this Ordinance. These constituents and characteristics shall be determined by a laboratory selected by the discharger and acceptable to the OCSD. 8. Time and duration of discharge. 9. Number of employees and average hours of work per employee per day. 10. Waste minimization, best management practices, and water conservation practices. 11. Production records, if applicable. 12. Waste manifests, if applicable. 13. Landscaped area in square feet, if applicable. 14. Tons of cooling tower capacity, if applicable. 15. EPA Hazardous Waste Generator Number, if applicable. 16. Any other information as specified. Page 34 of 80 B. Applicants may be required to submit site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, spill containment, clarifiers, pretreatment systems, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation for evaluation. C. Applicants may also be required to submit other information related to the applicant's business operations, processes, and potential discharge as may be requested to properly evaluate the permit application. D. After evaluation of the data furnished, the OCSD may issue a Wastewater Discharge Permit, subject to terms and conditions set forth in this Ordinance and as otherwise determined by the General Manager to be appropriate to protect the OCSD system. E. The permit application may be denied if the applicant fails to establish to the OCSD's satisfaction that adequate pretreatment equipment is included within the applicant's plans to ensure that the discharge limits will be met or if the applicant has, in the past, demonstrated an inability to comply with applicable discharge limits. 303.2 Class II Permit Conditions and Limits A. A Class II permit shall contain all of the following conditions or limits: 1. Applicable mass emission rates and concentration limits regulating non-compatible pollutants. 2. Requirements to notify the OCSD in writing prior to modification to processes or operations through which industrial wastewater may be produced. 3. Location of the user's on-site sample point. 4. Requirements for submission of technical reports, production data, discharge reports, and/or waste manifests. 5. Requirements to submit copies of tax and water bills. B. A Class II permit may contain any of the following conditions or limits: 1. Requirements for the user to construct and maintain, at his own expense, appropriate pretreatment equipment, pH control, flow monitoring and/or sampling facilities. Page 35 of 80 2. Limits on rate and time of discharge or requirements for flow regulation and equalization. 3. Assumed values for BOD and suspended solids characteristics that typify the discharger's effluent for determination of the charge for use. 4. Requirements to self-monitor. 5. Requirements for maintaining, for a minimum of three years, plant records relating to wastewater discharge, and waste manifests as specified by OCSD. 6. Other provisions which may be appropriate to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. 7. Other terms and conditions determined by the General Manager to be appropriate to protect the OCSD's system. 303.3 Class II Permit Fee A. The Class II permit fee shall be in an amount adopted by Ordinance of the Board of Directors. The permit fee shall be payable at the time a permit application is submitted for the issuance of a new permit or a renewed permit. Payment of the permit fee must be received by the OCSD prior to issuance of either a new permit or a renewed permit. Permittee shall also pay any delinquent invoices in full prior to permit renewal. B. Any permit issued for a location wherein the Permittee is not the property owner may be conditioned upon depositing financial security to guarantee payment of all annual fees and charges to be incurred, in accordance with the provisions of Section 621.(E) of this Ordinance. 303.4 Class II Permit Modification of Terms and Conditions A. The terms and conditions of an issued permit may be subject to modification and change in the sole determination by the General Manager during the life of the permit based on: 1. The discharger's current or anticipated operating data; 2. The OCSD's current or anticipated operating data; 3. Changes in the requirements of Regulatory Agencies which affect the OCSD; or Page 36 of 80 4. A determination by the General Manager that such modification is appropriate to further the objectives of this Ordinance. B. The permittee may request a modification to the terms and conditions of an issued permit. The request shall be in writing stating the requested change, and the reasons for the change. The OCSD shall review the request, make a determination on the request, and respond in writing. C. Permittee shall be informed of any change in the permit limitations, conditions, or requirements at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance. 303.5 Class II Permit Duration and Renewal Class II permits shall normally be issued for a period not to exceed three (3) years. At least 45 days prior to the expiration of the permit, the user shall apply for renewal of the permit in accordance with the provisions of this Article 3. 303.6 Class II Permit Charge for Use A. The purpose of a charge for use is to ensure that each recipient of sewerage service from the OCSD pays its reasonably proportionate share of all the costs of providing that sewerage service. Charges for use to recover the cost of conveying, treating, and disposing of sewage in OCSD sewerage facilities are exclusive of any fees levied by local sewering agencies. The charge for use shall be based on the total maintenance, operation, capital expenditures, and reserve requirements for providing wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal. B. A discharger who is issued a Class II Wastewater Discharge Permit under the provisions of this Ordinance shall pay a charge for use in accordance with the formula contained herein and the Unit Charge rates adopted annually by Ordinance of the Board of Directors. These fees shall be invoiced on a quarterly basis. The quarterly invoice shall be based upon an estimate of the annual use as determined by the OCSD. Annually, the OCSD shall compute the charge for use based upon actual use for the preceding 12-month period on an annual reconciliation statement. The charge for use is payable within forty-five (45) days of invoicing by the OCSD. A credit will be allowed for any regional sanitary sewer service charge adopted by the Board of Directors by separate Ordinance and levied against the permitted property. C. Current property tax bills shall be supplied by the permittee to the OCSD by May 31 of each year for use in determining the regional sanitary sewer Page 37 of 80 service credit. If the tax bills are not supplied, the OCSD will endeavor to obtain the data. Data obtained by the OCSD will be considered correct and will not be adjusted before the next annual reconciliation statement. There shall be a fee levied for OCSD administrative costs when sanitary sewer service charge data is obtained by the OCSD. The amount of the fee shall be adopted by the OCSD Board of Directors. D. In order for the OCSD to determine actual annual water use, the user shall provide to the OCSD copies of its water bills. If these water bill copies are not received by July 31 of each year for the 12-month period ended closest to June 30, the OCSD will endeavor to obtain the water use data. Data obtained by the OCSD will be considered correct and will not be adjusted before the next annual reconciliation statement. There shall be a fee levied for OCSD administrative costs when water use data is obtained by the OCSD. The amount of the fee shall be adopted by the OCSD Board of Directors. E. The charge for use shall be computed by the following formula: Charge for Use = VaV + BOB + SOS - Tax Credit Where V = total annual volume of flow, in millions of gallons B = total annual discharge of biochemical oxygen demand, in thousands of pounds S = total annual discharge of suspended solids, in thousands of pounds Va,B.,S. = Unit Charge rates adopted annually by Ordinance of the OCSD's Board of Directors, based upon the funding requirements of providing sewerage service, in dollars per unit as described in Paragraph F below. F. The unit charge rates in the charge for use formula shall be established annually and shall be determined by the following method: 1. An Operations and Maintenance component of the Unit Charge for the total annual operation and maintenance funding requirements of the sewerage system shall be levied at a rate to be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors. This charge shall be allocated among the three wastewater charge parameters of flow, biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids in accordance with the General Manager's determination as to the costs associated with each parameter and pursuant to applicable Page 38 of 80 requirements of State and Federal Regulatory Agencies. The operation and maintenance costs as distributed to flow, biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids shall be divided by the projected annual total flow volume and weights of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids to be treated by the sewerage system in the budgeted year. 2. A Capital Facilities Replacement component of the Unit Charge for capital replacement and capital improvement shall be levied at a rate to be determined from time to time by the Board of Directors. This charge shall be allocated among the three wastewater charge parameters of flow, biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids in accordance with the General Manager's determination of which portion of the charge predominantly relates to each parameter. The capital facilities charge distributed to biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids shall be divided by the projected annual weights of biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids to be treated by the sewerage system in the budgeted year. 3. The unit charge rates for each respective wastewater component in (1) and (2) above shall be summed. The Unit Charge rates so determined will be expressed in dollars per million gallons for V., and in dollars per thousand pounds for Bo and So. G. Other measurements of the organic content of the wastewater of a discharger, such as COD or TOC, may be used instead of BOD. However, the discharger must establish to the General Manager's satisfaction a relationship between the BOD of the wastewater and the other parameter of measure. This relationship shall be used by the OCSD in determining the charge for use. When wastewater from sanitary facilities is discharged separately from the other wastewater of a discharger, the charge for use for discharging the sanitary wastewater may be determined by using the following: 1. 25 gallons per employee per eight-hour working day. 2. BOD and suspended solids to be calculated at domestic wastewater strength per employee per year. The number of employees will be considered as the average number of people employed full-time on a daily basis. This may be determined by averaging the number of people employed at the beginning and end of each quarter, or other period that reflects Page 39 of 80 normal employment fluctuations. 304. DRY WEATHER URBAN RUNOFF DISCHARGE PERMITS A. No user shall discharge urban runoff directly to OCSD's sewerage system without obtaining a Dry Weather Urban Discharge Permit. B. OCSD shall determine whether the dry weather urban runoff proposed to be discharged into OCSD's sewerage system may cause a potential environmental risk and/or health hazard that cannot be economically or practically control by alternative disposal methods. C. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Permits shall be subject to all provisions of this Ordinance and all other regulations, charges for use, and fees established by OCSD. D. All users required to obtain a Dry Weather Urban Runoff Permit proposing to discharge directly or indirectly into OCSD's sewerage facilities shall file an application pursuant to Section 304.1 and pay the applicable fees pursuant to Sections 304.3 and 304.6. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit Application A. An applicant shall contact OCSD prior to any construction of facilities and discharge of dry weather urban runoff into the sewerage system to determine if the discharge of dry weather urban runoff to the OCSD sewerage facilities is feasible. B. Applicants shall complete and file with OCSD, prior to commencing discharge, an application in the form prescribed by OCSD. This application shall be accompanied by applicable fees, design plans, a detailed analysis of other disposal alternatives, or other data as needed by OCSD for review. The applicant shall provide justification that disposal alternatives for the dry weather urban runoff are not economically or practically feasible in lieu of sewer discharge. C. In addition to the discharge permit, OCSD may require that the permit applicant enter into an agreement setting forth the terms under which the dry weather urban runoff discharge is authorized. D. Applicants shall provide adequate pretreatment and/or best management practices included within the applicants' plans to ensure that the applicable discharge limits shall be met. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit Condition and Limits Page 40 of 80 The issuance of a Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit may contain any the following conditions or limits: A. Mass emission rates and concentration limits regulating non-compatible pollutants. B. Requirements for the user to construct and maintain, at the user's expense, appropriate pretreatment equipment, flow monitoring facilities, and devices to prevent storm water discharge into OCSD's sewerage system during a wet weather event (rain event). C. Requirements for the user to provide OCSD with its operations and maintenance plan, best management practices, and pollution prevention strategies designed to minimize or eliminate dry weather urban runoff pollutants. D. Limits on rate and time of discharge or requirements for flow regulation and equalization prior to discharge to the sewerage system. E. Requirements to self-monitor the discharge to the sewerage system. F. The General Manager, or his designees, may impose additional requirements as may be appropriate to reduce the burden on OCSD's collection, treatment, and disposal facilities. G. Prohibitions on the discharge, which may cause OCSD's effluent, biosolids, or any other product of its treatment process, to be unsuitable for reclamation, reuse, or disposal. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit Fee A. The Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit fee shall be paid by the applicant in an amount established in the applicable Ordinance or Resolution adopted by OCSD's Board of Directors. Payment of permit fees must be received by OCSD prior to issuance of either a new permit or a renewed permit. Each permittee shall also pay delinquent invoices in full prior to permit renewal. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit Modification of Terms and Conditions A. The terms and conditions of an issued permit may be subject to modification and change in the sole determination by OCSD during the life of the permit based on: 1. The discharger's current or anticipated operating data; Page 41 of 80 2. OCSD's current or anticipated operating data; 3. Changes in the requirements of Regulatory Agencies, which affect OCSD; or 4. A determination by the General Manager or his designee that such modification is appropriate to further the objectives of this Ordinance. B. A permittee may request a modification to the terms and conditions of an issued permit. The request shall be in writing stating the requested changes and the reasons for the change. OCSD shall review the request, make a determination on the request, and respond accordingly. C. A permittee shall be informed of any changes in the permit at least forty- five (45) days prior to the effective date change. Any changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit Duration and Renewal Dry Weather Urban Runoff Permit shall normally be issued for a period not to exceed two (2) years. At least 45 days prior to the expiration of the permit, the user shall apply for renewal of the permit in accordance with the provisions of this Article 3. Dry Weather Urban Runoff Discharge Permit Charge for Use A discharger who is issued a Dry Weather Urban Runoff Permit under the provision of this Ordinance shall pay a charge for use in accordance with rates established by Ordinance or Resolution adopted by OCSD's Board of Directors. Page 42 of 80 305. SPECIAL PURPOSE DISCHARGE PERMITS A. No user requiring a Special Purpose Discharge Permit shall discharge wastewater without obtaining a Special Purpose Discharge Permit. B. Special Purpose Discharge Permits shall be expressly subject to all provisions of this Ordinance and all other regulations, charges for use, and fees established by the OCSD. The conditions of Wastewater Discharge Permits shall be enforced by the OCSD in accordance with this Ordinance and applicable State and Federal Regulations. C. All Special Purpose Discharge Permit users proposing to discharge directly or indirectly into the OCSD's sewerage facilities shall obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit by filing an application pursuant to Section 305.1 and paying the applicable fees pursuant to Sections 305.3 and 305.6. This discharge permit may be granted when no alternative method of disposal is reasonably available, or to mitigate an environmental risk or health hazard. 305.1 Special Purpose Discharge Permit Application A. Applicants seeking a special purpose wastewater permit shall complete and file with the OCSD, prior to commencing discharge, an application in the form prescribed by the OCSD. This application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees, plumbing plans, a detailed analysis of the alternatives for water disposal, or other data as needed by the OCSD for review. B. The permit application may be denied when the applicant has failed to establish to the OCSD's satisfaction that adequate pretreatment equipment is included within the applicants' plans to ensure that the discharge limits will be met or that the applicant has, in the past, demonstrated an inability to comply with applicable discharge limits. 305.2 Special Purpose Discharge Permit Conditions and Limits A. Discharge conditions and limits shall be no less stringent than Section 201(A), General Prohibitions; 201(B), Specific Prohibitions; Section 212, Mass Emission Rate Determination; and Table I, Local Discharge Limits. B. Monitoring requirements for the discharge shall be for those non-compatible pollutants known to exist in the discharge. At least one set of baseline analysis prior to or upon sewer discharge may be required for all constituents contained in the most current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Priority Pollutant" list, excluding asbestos. Page 43 of 80 C. The OCSD may specify and make part of each Special Purpose Discharge Permit specific pretreatment requirements or other terms and conditions determined by the General Manager to be appropriate to protect the OCSD's Sewerage Facility, the Local Sewering Agency, to comply with Regulatory Agencies' requirements, to ensure compliance with this Ordinance, and to assess a charge for use. 305.3 Special Purpose Discharge Permit Fee The special purpose discharge permit fee shall be paid by the applicant in an amount adopted by Ordinance of the Board of Directors. Payment of permit fees must be received by the OCSD prior to issuance of either a new permit or a renewed permit. Each permittee shall also pay delinquent invoices in full prior to permit renewal. 305.4 Special Purpose Discharge Permit Modification of Terms and Conditions A. The terms and conditions of an issued permit may be subject to modification and change in the sole determination by the OCSD during the life of the permit based on: t. The discharger's current or anticipated operating data; 2. The OCSD's current or anticipated operating data; 3. Changes in the requirements of Regulatory Agencies which affect the OCSD; or 4. A determination by the General Manager that such modification is appropriate to further the objectives of this Ordinance. B. A permittee may request a modification to the terms and conditions of an issued permit. The request shall be in writing stating the requested change, and the reasons for the change. The OCSD shall review the request, make a determination on the request, and respond in writing. C. A permittee shall be informed of any changes in the permit at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance. Page 44 of 80 305.5 Special Purpose Discharge Permit Duration and Renewal Special purpose discharge permits shall normally be issued for a period not to exceed three (3) years, but may be renewed as determined by the General Manager. Users seeking permit renewal shall comply with all provisions of this Article 3. 305.6 Special Purpose Discharge Permit Charge for Use The General Manager shall establish a charge for use to cover all costs of the OCSD for providing sewerage service and monitoring. A deposit determined by the General Manager to be sufficient to pay the estimated charges for use shall accompany the Special Purpose Discharge Permit application, and said deposit shall be applied to the charges for use. 306. WASTEHAULER DISCHARGE PERMIT A. Wastehauler Discharge Permits shall be expressly subject to all provisions of this Ordinance and all other regulations, charges for use, and fees established by the OCSD. The conditions of Wastehauler discharge permits shall be enforced by the OCSD in accordance with this Ordinance and applicable State and Federal Regulations. B. A Wastehauler proposing to discharge waste into the OCSD disposal station shall obtain both a valid Orange County Health Department Permit (where applicable), and a OCSD Wastehauler Permit. 306.1 Wastehauler Discharge Permit Application A. No Wastehauler shall discharge wastewater without a Wastehauler Discharge Permit. B. Any person required to obtain a Wastehauler Discharge Permit shall complete and file with the OCSD prior to commencing discharge, an application in a form prescribed by the OCSD. This application shall be accompanied by the applicable fees. The applicant shall submit, in units and terms appropriate for evaluation, the following information: 1. Name, address, telephone number, and description of the industries, or clients using the applicant's services. 2. (Whichever is applicable) Name, address of any and all principals/owners/major shareholders of the company; Articles of Incorporation; most recent Report of the Secretary of State; Business License. Page 45 of 80 3. Name and address of leaseholder of the vehicle or trailer, if applicable. 4. Number of trucks and trailers and the license numbers and tank hauling capacity of each. 5. A copy of the applicant's Orange County Health Department Permit, where applicable. C. Other information related to the applicant's business operations and potential discharge may be requested to properly evaluate the permit application. D. After evaluation of the data furnished, the OCSD may issue a Wastehauler discharge permit, subject to terms and conditions set forth in this Ordinance and as otherwise determined by the General Manager to be appropriate to protect the OCSD's system. 306.2 Wastehauler Discharge Permit Conditions and Limits The issuance of a Wastehauler permit may contain any of the following conditions or limits: A. Limits on discharge of heavy metals and other priority pollutants. B. Requirements for maintaining and submitting waste hauling records and waste manifests. C. Additional requirements as otherwise determined to be appropriate by the General Manager to protect the OCSD's system or as specified by other Regulatory Agencies. D. Other terms and conditions which may be applicable to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. 306.3 Wastehauler Discharge Permit Fee The Wastehauler discharge permit fee shall be paid by the applicant in an amount adopted by Ordinance of the Boards of Directors. Payment of permit fees must be received by the OCSD prior to issuance of either a new permit or a renewed permit. A permittee shall also pay any delinquent invoices in full prior to permit renewal. Page 46 of 80 306.4 Wastehauler Identification Decal and Access Card Transfer A. The identification decal is non-transferable. B. If a gate access card is issued, it shall be issued to a specific permitted vehicle and is non-transferable unless previously authorized in writing by the OCSD. 306.5 Wastehauler Discharge Permit Modification of Terms and Conditions A. The terms and conditions of an issued permit may be subject to modification and change in the sole determination by the OCSD during the life of the permit based on: 1. The discharger's current or anticipated operating data; 2. The OCSD's current or anticipated operating data; 3. Changes in the requirements of Regulatory Agencies which affect the OCSD; or 4. A determination by the General Manager that such modification is appropriate to further the objectives of this Ordinance. B. Permittee may request a modification to the terms and conditions of an issued permit. The request shall be in writing stating the requested change, and the reasons for the change. The OCSD shall review the request, make a determination on the request, and respond in writing. C. Permittee shall be informed of any change in the permit limits, conditions, or requirements at least forty-five (45) days prior to the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in the permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance. 306.6 Wastehauler Discharge Permit Duration and Renewal Wastehauler discharge permits shall be issued for a period not to exceed one (1) year. Upon expiration of the permit, the user shall apply for renewal of the permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 3. 306.7 Wastehauler Discharge Permit Charge for Use A charge for use to cover all costs of the OCSD for providing the disposal station service and monitoring shall be established by Ordinance of the Board of Directors. Page 47 of 80 307. RESERVED 308. RESERVED 309. RESERVED 310. OUT OF DISTRICT PERMITS/DISCHARGERS A. Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permits for dischargers located outside the OCSD's boundaries but within the OCSD service area and tributary to the OCSD's sewerage facilities, may be issued by a local sewering agency after approval by the OCSD. The OCSD shall have the right of inspection and sampling of the user's discharge to determine compliance with industrial waste discharge regulations. Such inspection and sampling will be performed under a coordinated plan developed with the local agency. The more stringent of the industrial waste discharge regulations and effluent limits of the OCSD and the local agency shall apply to the discharger. B. Pursuant to Article 6 herein, the OCSD shall have the right to enforce the Federal Pretreatment Regulations, the provisions of this Ordinance, and permit conditions and limits applicable to any person located outside of the OCSD's service area, but whose discharge is tributary to the OCSD's sewerage facilities. C. The fees for use shall be determined by the OCSD and set forth in a use agreement with the local sewering agency. ARTICLE 4 FACILITIES REQUIREMENTS 401. DRAWING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Upon request by the OCSD: A. Applicants or users may be required to submit three copies of detailed facility plans. The submittal shall be in a form and content acceptable to the OCSD for review of existing or proposed pretreatment facilities, spill containment facilities, monitoring facilities, metering facilities, and operating procedures. The review of the plans and procedures shall in no way relieve the user of the responsibility of modifying the facilities or procedures in the future, as necessary to produce a discharge acceptable to OCSD, and to meet the requirements of this Ordinance or any requirements of other Regulatory Agencies. Page 48 of 80 B. The drawing shall depict as a minimum the manufacturing process (waste generating sources), spill containment, monitoring or metering facilities, and pretreatment facilities. C. The applicant or user shall submit a schematic drawing of the pretreatment facilities, piping and instrumentation diagram, and wastewater characterization report. D. Users and applicants may also be required to submit for review site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, and details to show all sewers, spill containment, clarifiers, and appurtenances by size, location, and elevation for evaluation. E. The OCSD may require the drawings be prepared by a California Registered Chemical, Mechanical, or Civil Engineer. F. Permittee shall be required to submit updated detailed facility plans. 402. PRETREATMENT FACILITIES A. All users shall provide wastewater treatment as necessary to comply with this ordinance and shall achieve compliance with all Categorical Pretreatment Standards, Table 1, Local Discharge Limits, and the prohibitions set out in Sections 201 (A) & (B) of this ordinance within the time limitations specified by EPA, the State, or OCSD, whichever is more stringent. Any facilities necessary for compliance shall be provided, operated by a qualified operator, and maintained in proper operating condition at the user's expense. B. All users may also be required by the OCSD to submit waste analysis plans, contingency plans, and meet other necessary requirements to ensure proper operation of the pretreatment facilities and compliance with permit limits and this Ordinance. C. No user shall increase the use of water or in any other manner attempt to dilute a discharge as a partial or complete substitute for treatment to achieve compliance with this Ordinance and the user's Permit. 403. SPILL CONTAINMENT FACILITIES/ACCIDENTAL SLUG CONTROL PLANS A. All users shall provide spill containment for protection against discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes regulated by this Ordinance. Such protection shall be designed to secure the discharges and to prevent them from entering into the system in accordance with reasonable engineering standards. Such facilities shall be provided and maintained at the user's Page 49 of 80 expense. B. The General Manager may require any industrial user to develop and implement an accidental discharge/slug control plan. At least once every two years the OCSD shall evaluate whether each significant industrial user needs such a plan. Any user required to develop and implement an accidental discharge/control slug plan shall submit a plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following: 1. Description of discharge practices, including non-routine batch discharges. 2. Description of stored chemicals. 3. Procedures for immediately notifying the POTW of any accidental of slug discharge. Such notification must also be given for any discharge which would violate any of the prohibited discharges in Article 2 of this Ordinance. 4. Procedures to prevent adverse impact from any accidental or slug discharge. Such procedures include, but are not limited to, inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site run-off, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic pollutants (including solvents), and measures and equipment for emergency response. 404. MONITORING/METERING FACILITIES A. The OCSD may require the user to construct and maintain in proper operating condition at the user's sole expense, Flow monitoring, constituent monitoring and/or sampling facilities. B Permittees may be required to install and maintain an appropriate effluent flow monitoring device. Calibration of such flow monitoring device shall be done annually or as specified in the wastewater discharge permit. C. The monitoring or metering facilities may be required to include a security closure that can be locked with a OCSD provided hasp lock during sampling or upon termination of service. D. The location of the monitoring or metering facilities shall be subject to approval by the OCSD. E. The user shall provide immediate, clear, safe and uninterrupted access to Page 50 of 80 the OCSD to the user's monitoring and metering facilities. F. For all industries permitted by the OCSD, domestic wastewaters shall be kept segregated from all industrial wastewaters until the industrial wastewaters have passed through any required pretreatment system or device and the permittee's sample point. 405. WASTE MINIMIZATION REQUIREMENTS A. The user shall provide waste minimization plans to reduce or eliminate pollutant discharge to the sewerage system and conserve water. The user shall investigate product substitution, housekeeping practices, provide inventory control, implement employee education, and other steps as necessary to minimize waste produced. B. A user may certify that their facility does not discharge any type of wastewater, containing pollutants that may directly or indirectly discharge into the OCSD sewerage system as a form of Best Management Practice (BMP), upon approval by the OCSD. ARTICLE 5 MONITORING, REPORTING, NOTIFICATION, AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS 501. MONITORING AND REPORTING CONDITIONS A. Monitoring for Annual Charge for Use The wastewater constituents and characteristics of a discharger needed for determining the annual charge for use shall be submitted in the form of self-monitoring reports by the user to the OCSD, if requested. The frequency of analyses and reporting shall be set forth in the user's permit. The analyses of these constituents and characteristics shall be by a laboratory acceptable to the OCSD, and at the sole expense of the permittee. Analyses performed by OCSD's personnel may used in the determination of the annual charge for use. Page 51 of 80 B. Monitoring for Compliance with Permit Conditions or Reporting Reguirements The OCSD may require reports for self-monitoring of wastewater constituents and characteristics of the discharger needed for determining compliance with any limit or requirements as specified in the user's permit, Federal or State Regulations, or this Ordinance. These reports include: (1) Baseline Monitoring Reports. (2) Compliance Schedule Progress Reports. (3) 90-Day Compliance Reports. (4) Periodic Reports on continued compliance. (5) Notification of the Discharge of Hazardous Waste. (6) Other reports as required by the OCSD. Monitoring reports of the analyses of wastewater constituents and characteristics shall be in a manner and form approved by the OCSD and shall be submitted upon request of the OCSD. When applicable, the self- monitoring requirement and frequency of reporting may be set forth in the user's permit as directed by the OCSD. The analyses of wastewater constituents and characteristics and the preparation of the monitoring report shall be done at the sole expense of the user. If sampling performed by a user indicates a violation, the user must notify the OCSD within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming aware of the violation. The user shall also repeat the sampling and analysis and submit the results of the repeat analysis to the OCSD within thirty (30) days after becoming aware of the violation. Resampling by the industrial user is not required if the OCSD performs sampling at the user between the time when the initial sampling was conducted and the time when the user or OCSD receives the results of this sampling, or if the OCSD has performed the sampling and analysis in lieu of the industrial user. If the OCSD performed the sampling and analysis in lieu of the industrial user, the OCSD will perform the repeat sampling and analysis unless it notifies the user of the violation and requires the user to perform the repeat sampling and analysis. Failure by the user to perform any required monitoring, or to submit monitoring reports required by the OCSD constitutes a violation of this Ordinance, may result in determining whether the permittee is in significant non-compliance, and be cause for the OCSD to initiate all Page 52 of 80 necessary tasks and analyses to determine the wastewater constituents and characteristics for compliance with any limits and requirements specified in the user's permit or in this Ordinance. The user shall be responsible for any and all expenses of the OCSD in undertaking such monitoring analyses and preparation of reports. 501.1 Inspection and Sampling Conditions A. The OCSD may inspect and sample the wastewater generating and disposal facilities of any user to ascertain whether the intent of this Ordinance is being met and the user is complying with all requirements. B. The OCSD shall have the right to place on the user's property or other locations as determined by the OCSD, such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling or metering operations. Other sampling locations may include downstream manholes, usually in the sewerage system, for the purpose of determining the compliance status of an industrial or commercial discharger. C. In order for the OCSD to determine the wastewater characteristics of the discharger for purposes of determining the annual use charge and for compliance with permit requirements, the user shall make available for inspection and copying by the OCSD all notices, self-monitoring reports, waste manifests, and records including, but not limited to, those related to production, wastewater generation, wastewater disposal, and those required in the Federal Pretreatment Requirements without restriction but subject to the confidentiality provision set forth in Section 103 herein. All such records shall be kept by the user a minimum of three (3) years. D. If a discharger falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or sample collection method, the discharger may be subject to imposition of penalties, permit suspension or permit revocation. 501.2 Analytical Requirements All pollutant analyses, including sampling techniques, to be submitted as part of a wastewater discharge permit application or report shall be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto, unless otherwise specified in an applicable categorical Pretreatment Standard. If 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutant in question, or where the EPA determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are inappropriate for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses shall be performed by using validated analytical methods or any other applicable sampling and analytical procedures, including procedures suggested by the General Manager or other parties approved by EPA. Page 53 of 80 501.3 Right of Entry A. Persons or occupants of premises where wastewater is created or discharged shall allow the OCSD, or its representatives, reasonable access to all parts of the wastewater generating and disposal facilities for the purposes of inspection and sampling during all times the discharger's facility is open, operating, or any other reasonable time. No person shall interfere with, delay, resist or refuse entrance to authorized OCSD's personnel attempting to inspect any facility involved directly or indirectly with a discharge of wastewater to the OCSD's sewerage system. B. Where a user has security measures in force, the user shall make necessary arrangements so that personnel from the OCSD shall be permitted to enter without delay for the purpose of performing their specific responsibilities. 501.4 Notification of Spill or Slun Loadina A. In the event the discharger is unable to comply with any permit condition due to a breakdown of equipment, accidents, or human error, or the discharger has reasonable opportunity to know that his discharge will exceed the discharge provisions of the user's permit, Sections 201(A) & (B) or Table I, Local Discharge Limits, the discharger shall immediately notify the OCSD by telephone. If the material discharged to the sewer has the potential to cause or result in a fire or explosion hazard, the discharger shall immediately notify the local fire department and the OCSD. B. Confirmation of this notification shall be made in writing no later than five (5) working days from the date of the incident. The written notification shall state the date of the incident, the reasons for the discharge or spill, what steps were taken to immediately correct the problem, and what steps are being taken to prevent the problem from recurring. C. Such notification shall not relieve the user of any expense, loss, damage or other liability which may be incurred as a result of damage or loss to the OCSD or any other damage or loss to person or property; nor shall such notification relieve the user of any fees or other liability which may be imposed by this Ordinance or other applicable law. Page 54 of 80 501.5 Notification of Bypass A. Bypass of industrial wastewater to the sewerage system is prohibited. The OCSD may take enforcement action against the user, unless: 1. Bypass was unavoidable because it was done to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; 2. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, elective slow-down or shut-down of production units or maintenance during periods of production downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment could have been feasibly installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and 3. The permittee submitted notices as required under Section 501.4(B). B. If a permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit a written request to allow the bypass to the OCSD, if possible, at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass. C. The OCSD may approve an anticipated bypass at its sole discretion after considering its adverse effects, and the OCSD determines that the conditions listed in Section 501.5(A)(1-3) are met. D. A permittee shall provide telephone notification to the OCSD of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds its permitted discharge limits within four hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the bypass. A written report shall also be provided within five (5) days of the time the permittee becomes aware or could reasonably have been aware of the bypass. The report shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the bypass. Failure to submit oral notice or written report may be grounds for permit revocation. Page 55 of 80 ARTICLE 6 ENFORCEMENT 600. PURPOSE AND SCOPE A. The Board finds that in order for the OCSD to comply with the laws, regulations, and rules imposed upon it by Regulatory Agencies and to ensure that the OCSD's sewerage facilities and treatment processes are protected and are able to operate with the highest degree of efficiency, and to protect the public health and environment, specific enforcement provisions must be adopted to govern the discharges to the OCSD's system by industrial discharge permittees. B. To ensure that all interested parties are afforded due process of law and that non-compliance and violations are resolved as soon as possible, the general policy of the OCSD is that: 1. Any determination relating to a Probation Order, Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreement (ECSA), or Regulatory Compliance Schedule Agreement (RCSA) will be made by the Division Head of the Source Control Division, with a right of appeal by the permittee to the General Manager pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 617. 2. A user, permittee, or applicant for a permit may request the Steering Committee to hear an appeal of the General Manager's decision pursuant to Section 618. Such request may be granted or denied by the Steering Committee. 3. Any permit suspension or revocation recommended by the Source Control Division Head will be heard and a recommendation made to the General Manager by a OCSD Department Head or other person designated by the General Manager with a right of appeal of the General Manager's order by the permittee to the Steering Committee pursuant to the provisions of Section 618. 4. Actions and decisions by the Division Head or Department Head are made pursuant to a delegation of authority by the General Manager as authorized by Section 107 of this Ordinance. 5. The Board of Directors may adopt rules of procedure to establish the conduct of certain administrative proceedings. Page 56 of 80 C. The OCSD, at its discretion, may utilize any one, combination, or all enforcement remedies provided in Article 6 in response to any permit or Ordinance violation. 601. DETERMINATION OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH DISCHARGE LIMITS A. Sampling Procedures 1. Sampling of all permittees shall be conducted in the time, place, manner, and frequency determined at the sole discretion of the OCSD. 2. Non-compliance with mass emission rate limits, concentration limits, permit discharge conditions, or any discharge provision of this Ordinance may be determined by an analysis of a grab or composite sample of the effluent of a user. Non-compliance with mass emission rate limits shall be determined by an analysis of a composite sample of the user's effluent, except that a grab sample may be used to determine compliance with mass emission rate limits when the discharge is from a closed (batch) treatment system in which there is no wastewater flow into the system when the discharge is occurring, the volume of wastewater contained in the batch system is known, the time interval of discharge is known, and the grab sample is homogeneous and representative of the discharge. 3. Any sample taken from a sample point is considered to be representative of the discharge to the public sewer. 602. ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AND APPLICABLE FEES A. Self-Monitoring Requirements as a Result of Non-Compliance 1. If analysis of any sample obtained by the OCSD or by a permittee shows non-compliance with the applicable wastewater discharge limits set forth in the Ordinance or in the permittee's discharge permit, the OCSD may impose self-monitoring requirements on the permittee. 2. A permittee shall perform required self-monitoring of constituents in a frequency, at the specific location, and in a manner directed by the OCSD. 3. All analyses of self-monitoring samples shall be performed by an independent laboratory acceptable to the OCSD and submitted to the OCSD in a form and frequency determined by the OCSD. Page 57 of 80 4. All self-monitoring costs shall be borne by the permittee. 5. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit the authority of the OCSD to impose self-monitoring as a permit condition. B. Purpose of Non-Compliance Sampling Fees The purpose of the non-compliance sampling fee is to compensate the OCSD for costs of additional sampling, monitoring, laboratory analysis, treatment, disposal, and administrative processing incurred as a result of the non-compliance, and shall be in addition to and not in lieu of any penalties as may be assessed pursuant to Sections 615 and 616. C. Non-Compliance Sampling Fees for Composite Samples 1. Each violation of a permittee's permit limit or condition is a violation of this Ordinance. 2. a) If analysis of any composite sample of a permittee's discharge obtained by the OCSD shows a major violation by the permittee of the mass emission rates or concentration limits specified in the permittee's discharge permit or in this Ordinance, then the permittee shall pay non-compliance sampling fees to the OCSD pursuant to fee schedules adopted by the OCSD's Board of Directors. b) If analysis of any composite sample of a permittee's discharge obtained by the OCSD shows a minor violation by the permittee of the mass emission rates or concentration limits specified in the permittee's discharge permit or in this Ordinance, then the OCSD may impose non-compliance sampling fees pursuant to fee schedules adopted by the OCSD's Board of Directors. 3. The fees specified in subsection 602.C.2.(a), C.2.(b) and D herein shall be imposed for each date on which the OCSD conducts sampling as a result of a violation by a permittee. Page 58 of 80 D. Non-Compliance Sampling Fees for Grab Samples and Self-Monitoring Results 1. If analysis of any grab sample analysis of a permittee's discharge shows non-compliance with any concentration limits as set forth in the user's permit or in this Ordinance, the OCSD may impose non- compliance sampling fees, pursuant to fee schedules adopted by the OCSD Board of Directors, for sampling conducted by the OCSD as a result of a violation by the permittee. 2. If any self-monitoring analysis of a permittee's discharge shows non-compliance with any concentration limits or mass emission rates as set forth in the user's permit or in this Ordinance, the OCSD may impose non-compliance sampling fees, pursuant to fee schedules adopted by the OCSD Board of Directors, for sampling conducted by the OCSD as a result of a violation by the permittee. 602.1 Probation Order A. Grounds In the event the Division Head determines that a permittee has violated any provision of this Ordinance, or the terms, conditions and limits of its discharge permit, or has not made payment of all amounts owed to the OCSD for user charges, non-compliance fees or any other fees, the General Manager may issue a Probation Order, whereby the permittee must comply with all directives, conditions and requirements therein within the time prescribed. B. Provisions The issuance of a Probation Order may contain terms and conditions including, but not limited to, installation of pretreatment equipment and facilities, requirements for self-monitoring, submittal of drawings or technical reports, operator certification, audit of waste minimization practices, payment of fees, limits on rate and time of discharge, or other provisions to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. C. Probation Order- Expiration A Probation Order issued by the General Manager shall be in effect for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days. Page 59 of 80 602.2 Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreement (ECSA) A. Grounds Upon determination that a permittee is in non-compliance with the terms, conditions or limits specified in its permit or any provision of this Ordinance, and needs to construct and/or acquire and install equipment related to pretreatment, the General Manager may require the permittee to enter into an ECSA which will, upon the effective date of the ECSA, amend the permittee's permit. The ECSA shall contain terms and conditions by which a permittee must operate during its term and shall provide specific dates for achieving compliance with each term and condition for construction and/or acquisition and installation of required equipment related to pretreatment. B. Provisions The issuance of an ECSA may contain terms and conditions including but not limited to requirements for self-monitoring, installation of pretreatment equipment and facilities, submittal of drawings or reports, operator certification, audit of waste minimization practices, payment of fees, limits on rate and time of discharge, deposit of performance guarantee, interim limits, or other provisions to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. C. ECSA- Payment of Amounts Owed The OCSD shall not enter into an ECSA until such time as all amounts owed to the OCSD, including user fees, non-compliance sampling fees, deposits, or other amounts due are paid in full, or an agreement for deferred payment secured by collateral or a third party, is approved by the General Manager. Failure to pay all amounts owed to the OCSD shall be grounds for permit suspension or permit revocation as set forth in Section 604 and 605. D. ECSA- Permit Suspension/Revocation If compliance is not achieved in accordance with the terms and conditions of an ECSA during its term, the General Manager may issue an order suspending or revoking the discharge permit pursuant to Section 604 or 605 of this Ordinance. Page 60 of 80 603. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE AGREEMENT (RCSA) A. Grounds If at any time subsequent to the issuance of a Wastewater Discharge Permit to an industrial user, Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards are adopted or revised by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or in the event the OCSD enacts revised discharge limits, the General Manager, upon determination that an industrial user would not be in compliance with the adopted or revised limits, may require the industrial user to enter into a RCSA with the OCSD under terms and conditions that would provide for achieving compliance with all new standards by the industrial user on a specific date. The RCSA shall have a maximum term of two hundred-seventy (270) days. B. Provisions The issuance of a RCSA may contain terms and conditions including but not limited to requirements for installation of pretreatment equipment and facilities, submittal of drawings or reports, waste minimization practices or other provisions to ensure compliance with this Ordinance. C. RCSA- Non-Compliance Sampling Fee During the period said RCSA is in effect, any discharge by permittee in violation of the RCSA will require payment of non-compliance sampling fees in accordance with Article 6. 604. PERMIT SUSPENSION A. Grounds The General Manager may suspend any permit when it is determined that a permittee: 1. Fails to comply with the terms and conditions of either an ECSA or RCSA. 2. Knowingly provides a false statement, representation, record, report, or other document to the OCSD. 3. Refuses to provide records, reports, plans, or other documents required by the OCSD to determine permit terms, conditions, or limits, discharge compliance, or compliance with this Ordinance. 4. Falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or sample collection method. Page 61 of 80 5. Fails to report significant changes in operations or wastewater constituents and characteristics. 6. Violates a Probation Order. 7. Refuses reasonable access to the permittee's premises for the purpose of inspection and monitoring. 8. Does not make timely payment of all amounts owed to the OCSD for user charges, non-compliance sampling fees, permit fees, or any other fees imposed pursuant to this Ordinance. 9. Violates any condition or limit of its discharge permit or any provision of the OCSD's Ordinance. B. Notice/Hearing When the General Manager has reason to believe that grounds exist for permit suspension, he shall give written notice thereof by certified mail to the permittee setting forth a statement of the facts and grounds deemed to exist, together with the time and place where the charges shall be heard by the General Manager's designee. The hearing date shall be not less than fifteen (15) calendar days nor more than forty-five (45) calendar days after the mailing of such notice. 1. At the suspension hearing, the permittee shall have an opportunity to respond to the allegations set forth in the notice by presenting written or oral evidence. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the General Manager and approved by the OCSD's General Counsel. 2. After the conclusion of the hearing, the General Manager's designee shall submit a written report to the General Manager setting forth a brief statement of facts found to be true, a determination of the issues presented, conclusions, and a recommendation. Upon receipt of the written report, the General Manager shall make his determination and should he find that grounds exist for suspension of the permit, he shall issue his decision and order in writing within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing by his designee. The written decision and order of the General Manager shall be sent by certified mail to the permittee or its legal counsel/representative at the permittee's business address. Page 62 of 80 C. Effect 1. Upon an order of suspension by the General Manager becoming final, the permittee shall immediately cease and desist its discharge and shall have no right to discharge any industrial wastewater, directly or indirectly to the OCSD's system for the duration of the suspension. All costs for physically terminating and reinstating service shall be paid by the permittee. 2. Any owner or responsible management employee of the permittee shall be bound by the order of suspension. 3. An order of permit suspension issued by the General Manager shall be final in all respects on the sixteenth (16th) day after it is mailed to the permittee unless a request for hearing is filed with the Steering Committee pursuant to Section 618 no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifteenth (15th) day following such mailing. 605. PERMIT REVOCATION A. Grounds The General Manager may revoke any permit when it is determined that a permittee: 1. Knowingly provides a false statement, representation, record, report, or other document to the OCSD. 2. Refuses to provide records, reports, plans, or other documents required by the OCSD to determine permit terms, conditions, or limits, discharge compliance, or compliance with this Ordinance. 3. Falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or sample collection method. 4. Fails to report significant changes in operations or wastewater constituents and characteristics. 5. Fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an ECSA, permit suspension, or probation order. Page 63 of 80 6. Discharges effluent to the OCSD's sewerage system while its permit is suspended. 7. Refuses reasonable access to the permittee's premises for the purpose of inspection and monitoring. 8. Does not make timely payment of all amounts owed to the OCSD for user charges, non-compliance sampling fees, permit fees, or any other fees imposed pursuant to this Ordinance. 9. Causes interference with the OCSD's collection, treatment, or disposal system. 10. Fails to submit oral notice or written report of bypass occurrence. 11. Violates any condition or limit of its discharge permit or any provision of the OCSD's Ordinance. B. Notice/Hearing When the General Manager has reason to believe that grounds exist for the revocation of a permit, he shall give written notice by certified mail thereof to the permittee setting forth a statement of the facts and grounds deemed to exist together with the time and place where the charges shall be heard by the General Manager's designee. The hearing date shall be not less than fifteen (15) calendar days nor more than forty-five (45) calendar days after the mailing of such notice. 1. At the hearing, the permittee shall have an opportunity to respond to the allegations set forth in the notice by presenting written or oral evidence. The revocation hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures established by the General Manager and approved by the OCSD's General Counsel. 2. After the conclusion of the hearing, the General Manager's designee shall submit a written report to the General Manager setting forth a brief statement of facts found to be true, a determination of the issues presented, conclusions, and a recommendation. Upon receipt of the written report, the General Manager shall make his determination and should he find that grounds exist for permanent revocation of the permit, he shall issue his decision and order in writing within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing by his designee. The written decision and order of the General Manager shall be sent by certified mail to the permittee Page 64 of 80 or its legal counsel/representative at the permittee's business address. In the event the General Manager determines to not revoke the permit, he may order other enforcement actions, including, but not limited to, a temporary suspension of the permit, under terms and conditions that he deems appropriate. C. Effect 1. Upon an order of revocation by the General Manager becoming final, the permittee shall permanently lose all rights to discharge any industrial wastewater directly or indirectly to the OCSD system. All costs for physical termination shall be paid by the permittee. 2. Any owner or responsible management employee of the permittee shall be bound by the order of revocation. 3. Any future application for a permit at any location within the OCSD by any person subject to an order of revocation will be considered by the OCSD after fully reviewing the records of the revoked permit, which records may be the basis for denial of a new permit. 4. An order of permit revocation issued by the General Manager shall be final in all respects on the sixteenth (16th) day after it is mailed to the permittee unless a request for hearing is filed with the Steering Committee pursuant to Section 618 no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifteenth (15th) day following such mailing. 606. WASTEHAULER NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT CONDITIONS A Wastehauler's non-compliance with permit requirements shall be determined by an analysis of a sample of the discharge for any constituent or conditions specified in the Wastehauler's discharge permit or this Ordinance. If the discharge of a Wastehauler is found by the analysis to be in excess of the concentration limits specified in the Wastehauler's discharge permit or in this Ordinance, the Wastehauler shall, after receiving a demand from the OCSD, identify in writing, all sources of the discharge. Even if it is established to the satisfaction of the General Manager that the origin of the discharge is domestic septage, or septic waste, the OCSD may still elect not to accept waste from that particular source. Page 65 of 80 If the discharge is industrial wastewater from an industrial source(s) and exceeds permit concentration limits or limits specified in this Ordinance, the following shall apply: A. First Violation 1. The permittee shall pay a non-compliance sampling fee. 2. The Wastehauler permit for disposal privileges shall be suspended for five (5) days. B. Second Violation 1. The permittee shall pay a non-compliance sampling fee. 2. The Wastehauler permit for disposal privileges shall be suspended for ten (10) days. 3. The Wastehauler permit may be revoked in accordance with Section 606. 607. DAMAGE TO FACILITIES OR INTERRUPTION OF NORMAL OPERATIONS A. Any person who discharges any waste which causes or contributes to any obstruction, interference, damage, or any other impairment to the OCSD sewerage facilities or to the operation of those facilities shall be liable for all costs required to clean or repair the facilities together with expenses incurred by the OCSD to resume normal operations. Such discharge shall be grounds for permit revocation. A service charge of twenty-five percent (25%) of OCSD costs shall be added to the costs and charges to reimburse the OCSD for miscellaneous overhead, including administrative personnel and record keeping. The total amount shall be payable within forty-five (45) days of invoicing by the OCSD. B. Any person who discharges a waste which causes or contributes to the OCSD violating its discharge requirements established by any Regulatory Agency incurring additional expenses or suffering losses or damage to the facilities, shall be liable for any costs or expenses incurred by the OCSD, including regulatory fines, penalties, and assessments made by other agencies or a court. Page 66 of 80 608. INDUSTRIAL WASTE PASS THROUGH Any person whose discharge results in a pass through event affecting the OCSD or its sewerage facilities shall be liable for all costs associated with the event, including treatment costs, regulatory fines, penalties, assessments, and other indirect costs. The discharger shall submit to the OCSD plans to prevent future recurrences to the satisfaction of the OCSD. 609. PUBLICATION OF VIOLATION Upon a determination in a permit suspension, permit revocation, or civil penalty proceedings that a user has discharged in violation of its permit or any provision under this Ordinance, the OCSD may require that the user notify the public and/or other users of the OCSD sewerage facilities of such violation, of actions taken to correct such violation, and of any administrative or judicial orders or penalties imposed as a result of such violation. 610. PUBLISHED NOTICES FOR SIGNIFICANT NON-COMPLIANCE In accordance with Federal Regulations, the OCSD shall annually cause to be published the names of all industrial users in significant non-compliance. Upon a minimum of a thirty (30)-day notification to the user, said publication shall be made in the newspaper of the largest daily circulation published in the OCSD service area. 611. PUBLIC NUISANCE Discharge of wastewater in any manner in violation of this Ordinance or of any order issued by the General Manager, as authorized by this Ordinance, is hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be corrected or abated as directed by the General Manager. Any person creating a public nuisance is guilty of a misdemeanor. 612. TERMINATION OF SERVICE A. The OCSD, by order of the General Manager, may physically terminate sewerage service to any property as follows: 1. On a term of any order of emergency suspension or revocation of a permit; or 2. Upon the failure of a person not holding a valid discharge permit to immediately cease discharge, whether direct or indirect, to the OCSD sewerage facilities. B. All costs for physical termination shall be paid by the user as well as all Page 67 of 80 costs for reinstating service. 613. EMERGENCY SUSPENSION ORDER A. The OCSD may, by order of the General Manager, suspend sewerage service or Wastehauler discharge service when the General Manager determines that such suspension is necessary in order to stop an actual or impending discharge which presents or may present an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health and welfare of persons, or to the environment, or may cause interference to the OCSD sewerage facilities, or may cause the OCSD to violate any State or Federal Law or Regulation. Any discharger notified of and subject to an Emergency Suspension Order shall immediately cease and desist the discharge of all industrial wastewater to the sewerage system. B. As soon as reasonably practicable following the issuance of an Emergency Suspension Order, but in no event more than five (5) days following the issuance of such order, the General Manager shall hold a hearing to provide the user the opportunity to present information in opposition to the issuance of the Emergency Suspension Order. Such a hearing shall not stay the effect of the Emergency Suspension Order. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the General Manager and approved by the OCSD General Counsel. The General Manager shall issue a written decision and order within two (2) business days following the hearing, which decision shall be sent by certified mail to the user or its legal counsel/representative at that user's business address. The decision of the General Manager following the hearing shall be final and not appealable. 614. INJUNCTION Whenever a discharger of wastewater is in violation of or has the reasonable potential to violate any provision of this Ordinance, permit condition, or any Federal Pretreatment Standard or requirement as set forth in 40 CFR Section 403.8 at seq., fails to submit required reports, or refuses to allow the OCSD entry to inspect or monitor the user's discharge, the OCSD may petition the Superior Court for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction, or both, as may be appropriate to restrain the continued violation or to prevent threatened violations by the discharger. Page 68 of 80 615. CIVIL PENALTIES A. Author! All users of the OCSD's system and facilities are subject to enforcement actions administratively or judicially by the OCSD, U.S. EPA, State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the County of Orange District Attorney. Said actions may be taken pursuant to the authority and provisions of several laws, including but not limited to: (1) Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.A. Section 1251 et seq.); (2) California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code Section 13000 at seq.); (3) California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health & Safety Code Sections 25100 to 25250); (4) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C.A Section 6901 et seq.); and (5) California Government Code, Sections 54739-54740. B. Recovery of Fines or Penalties In the event the OCSD is subject to the payment of fines or penalties pursuant to the legal authority and actions of other regulatory or enforcement agencies based on a violation of law or regulation or its permits, and said violation can be established by OCSD, as caused by the discharge of any user of the OCSD system which is in violation of any provision of the OCSD Ordinance or the user's permit, OCSD shall be entitled to recover from the user all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, the full amount of said fines or penalties to which it has been subjected. C. Ordinance Pursuant to the authority of California Government Code Sections 54739 - 54740, any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance; any permit condition, prohibition or effluent limit; or any suspension or revocation order shall be liable civilly for a sum not to exceed $25,000.00 per violation for each day in which such violation occurs. Pursuant to the authority of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 at seq., any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance, or any permit condition, prohibition, or effluent limit shall be liable civilly for a sum not to exceed $25,000.00 per violation for each day in which such violation occurs. The General Counsel of the OCSD, upon order of the General Manager, shall petition the Superior Court to impose, assess, and recover such penalties, or such other penalties as the OCSD may impose, assess, and recover pursuant to Federal and/or State legislative authorization. Page 69 of 80 D. Administrative Civil Penalties 1. Pursuant to the authority of California Government Code Sections 54740.5 and 54740.6, the OCSD may issue an administrative complaint to any person who violates: a) any provision of this Ordinance; b) any permit condition, prohibition, or effluent limit; or c) any suspension or revocation order. 2. The administrative complaint shall be served by personal delivery or certified mail on the person and shall inform the person that a hearing will be conducted, and shall specify a hearing date within sixty (60) days following service. The administrative complaint will allege the act or failure to act that constitutes the violation of the OCSD requirements, the provisions of law authorizing civil liability to be imposed, and the proposed civil penalty. The matter shall be heard by the General Manager or his designee. The person to whom an administrative complaint has been issued may waive the right to a hearing, in which case a hearing will not be conducted. 3. At the hearing, the person shall have an opportunity to respond to the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint by presenting written or oral evidence. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures established by the General Manager and approved by the OCSD's General Counsel. 4. After the conclusion of the hearing, the General Manager's designee shall submit a written report to the General Manager setting forth a brief statement of the facts found to be true, a determination of the issues presented, conclusions, and a recommendation. 5. Upon receipt of the written report, the General Manager shall make his determination and should he find that grounds exist for assessment of a civil penalty against the person, he shall issue his decision and order in writing within thirty (30) calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing by his designee. 6. If, after the hearing or appeal, if any, it is found that the person has violated reporting or discharge requirements, the General Manager or Steering Committee may assess a civil penalty against that person. In determining the amount of the civil penalty, the General Manager or Steering Committee may take into consideration all Page 70 of 80 relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the extent of harm caused by the violation, the economic benefit derived through any non-compliance, the nature and persistence of the violation, the length of time over which the violation occurs, and corrective action, if any, attempted or taken by the person involved. 7. Civil penalties may be assessed as follows: a) In an amount which shall not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) for each day for failing or refusing to furnish technical or monitoring reports; b) In an amount which shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000.00) for each day for failing or refusing to timely comply with any compliance schedules established by the OCSD; c) In an amount which shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per violation for each day of discharge in violation of any waste discharge limit, permit condition, or requirement issued, reissued, or adopted by the OCSD; d) In any amount which does not exceed ten dollars ($10.00) per gallon for discharges in violation of any suspension, revocation, cease and desist order or other orders, or prohibition issued, reissued, or adopted by the OCSD; 8. An order assessing administrative civil penalties issued by the General Manager shall be final in all respects on the thirty-first (31st) day after its is served on the person unless an appeal and request for hearing is filed with the Steering Committee pursuant to Section 618 no later than the thirtieth (30th) day following such mailing. An order assessing administrative civil penalties issued by the Steering Committee shall be final upon issuance. 9. Copies of the administrative order shall be served on the party served with the administrative complaint, either by personal service or by registered mail to the person at his business or residence address, and upon other persons who appeared at the hearing and requested a copy of the order. 10. Any person aggrieved by a final order issued by the Steering Committee, after granting review of the order of the General Manager, may obtain review of the order of the Steering Committee in the superior court, pursuant to Government Code Section 54740.6, by filing in the court a petition for writ of mandate within Page 71 of 80 thirty (30) days following the service of a copy of the decision or order issued by the Steering Committee. 11. Payment of any order setting administrative civil penalties shall be made within thirty (30) days of the date the order becomes final. The amount of any administrative civil penalties imposed which have remained delinquent for a period of sixty (60) days shall constitute a lien against the real property of the discharger from which the discharge resulting in the imposition of the civil penalty originated. The lien shall have no effect until recorded with the county recorder. The OCSD may record the lien for any unpaid administrative civil penalties on the ninety-first (91st) day following the date the order becomes final. 12. No administrative civil penalties shall be recoverable under Section 615.D for any violation for which the OCSD has recovered civil penalties through a judicial proceeding filed pursuant to Government Code Section 54740. 616. CRIMINAL PENALTIES Any person who violates any provision of this Ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor, which upon conviction is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000.00, or imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, or both. Each violation and each day in which a violation occurs may constitute a new and separate violation of this Ordinance and shall be subject to the penalties contained herein. 617. APPEALS TO GENERAL MANAGER A. General Any user, permit applicant or permittee affected by any decision, action or determination made by the Division Head may file with the General Manager a written request for an appeal hearing. The request must be received by the OCSD within fifteen (15) days of mailing of notice of the decision, action, or determination of the OCSD to the appellant. The request for hearing shall set forth in detail all facts supporting the appellant's request. B. Notice The General Manager shall, within fifteen (15) days of receiving the request for appeal, and pursuant to Section 107, designate a Department Head or other person to hear the appeal and provide written notice to the appellant of the hearing date, time and place. The hearing date shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the mailing of such notice by certified mail to the appellant unless a Page 72 of 80 later date is agreed to by the appellant. If the hearing is not held within said time due to actions or inactions of the appellant, then the staff decision shall be deemed final. C. Hearing At the hearing, the appellant shall have the opportunity to present information supporting its position concerning the Division Head's decision, action or determination. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the General Manager and approved by the OCSD's General Counsel. D. Written Determination After the conclusion of the hearing, the Department Head (or other designee) shall submit a written report to the General Manager setting forth a brief statement of facts found to be true, a determination of the issues presented, conclusions, and a recommendation whether to uphold, modify or reverse the Division Head's original decision, action or determination. Upon receipt of the written report, the General Manager shall make his determination and shall issue his decision and order within thirty (30) calendar days of the hearing by his designee. The written decision and order of the General Manager shall be sent by certified mail to the appellant or its legal counsel/representative at the appellant's business address. The order of the General Manager shall be final in all respects on the sixteenth (16th) day after it is mailed to the appellant unless a request for hearing is filed with the Steering Committee pursuant to Section 618, no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifteenth day following such mailing. 618. APPEALS TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE A. General Any user, permit applicant, or permittee adversely affected by a decision, action, or determination made by the General Manager may, prior to the date that the General Manager's order becomes final, file a written request for hearing before the Steering Committee of the Joint Boards of Directors accompanied by an appeal fee in the amount established by a fee ordinance of the OCSD Board of Directors. The request for hearing shall set forth in detail all the issues in dispute for which the appellant seeks determination and all facts supporting appellant's request. No later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the request for hearing, the Steering Committee shall either set the matter for a hearing, or deny the request for a hearing. Page 73 of 80 A hearing shall be held by the Steering Committee within sixty-five (65) days from the date of determination granting a hearing, unless a later date is agreed to by the appellant and the Steering Committee. If the matter is not heard within the required time, due to actions or inactions of the appellant, the General Manager's order shall be deemed final. B. Granting Request for Hearing The Steering Committee shall grant all requests for a hearing on appeals concerning permit suspension, revocation, or denial. Whether to grant or deny the request for a hearing on appeals of other decisions of the General Manager shall be within the sole discretion of the Steering Committee. C. Appeal Fee Refund The appeal fee shall be refunded if the Steering Committee denies a hearing or reverses or modifies, in favor of the appellant, the order of the General Manager. The fee shall not be refunded if the Steering Committee denies the appeal. D. Written Determination After the hearing, the Steering Committee shall make a determination whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the decision, action, or determination made by the General Manager. The decision of the Steering Committee shall be set forth in writing within sixty- five (65) days after the close of the hearing and shall contain a finding of the facts found to be true, the determination of issues presented, and the conclusions. The written decision and order of the Steering Committee shall be sent by certified mail to the appellant or its legal counsel/representative at the appellant's business address. The order of the Steering Committee shall be final upon its adoption. In the event the Steering Committee fails to reverse or modify the General Manager's order, it shall be deemed affirmed. 618.1 Appeal of Charges and Fees Any user, permit applicant, or permittee affected by any decision, action, or determination by the OCSD, relating to fiscal issues of the OCSD in which the user, applicant, or permittee is located, including but not limited to the imposition and collection of fees, such as connection charges, sewer use charges, special purpose discharge use charges and Wastehauler fees, may request that the OCSD reconsider imposition of such fees or charges. Following review of such a request, the OCSD shall notify the user, permit applicant, or permittee by certified Page 74 of 80 mail of the OCSD's decision on the reconsideration request. Any user, permit applicant, or permittee adversely affected by the OCSD's decision on the reconsideration request may file an appeal which shall be heard by the Board of Directors of the District in which the appellant's property is located. The notice of appeal must be received by the OCSD within thirty (30) days of the mailing of the OCSD's decision on the reconsideration request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, appeals of non-compliance sampling fees shall be made pursuant to the appeal procedures set forth in Sections 617 and 618. 619. PAYMENT OF CHARGES A. Except as otherwise provided, all fees, charges and penalties established by this Ordinance are due and payable upon receipt of notice thereof. All such amounts are delinquent if unpaid forty-five (45) days after date of invoice. B. Any charge that becomes delinquent shall have added to it a penalty in accordance with the following: 1. Forty-six (46) days after date of invoice, a basic penalty of ten percent (10%) of the base invoice amount, not to exceed a maximum of$1,000.00; and 2. A penalty of one and one-half percent (1.5%) per month of the base invoice amount and basic penalty shall accrue from and after the forty-sixth (46th) day after date of invoice. C. Any invoice outstanding and unpaid after ninety (90) days shall be cause for immediate initiation of permit revocation proceedings or immediate suspension of the permit. D. Penalties charged under this Section shall not accrue to those invoices successfully appealed, provided the OCSD receives written notification of said appeal prior to the payment due date. E. Payment of disputed charges is still required by the due date during OCSD review of any appeal submitted by permittees. Page 75 of 80 619.1 Collection of Delinquent Accounts Collection of delinquent accounts shall be in accordance with the OCSD's policy resolution establishing procedures for collection of delinquent obligations owed to the OCSD, as amended from time to time by the Board of Directors. Any such action for collection may include an application for an injunction to prevent repeated and recurring violations of this Ordinance. 620. RECOVERY OF COSTS INCURRED BY OCSD In the event permittee fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the OCSD's Ordinance, a probationary order, a permit suspension or revocation, an ECSA, RCSA, or a permit issued hereunder, the OCSD shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs which may be incurred in order to enforce any of said terms and conditions, with or without filing proceedings in court. 621. FINANCIAL SECURITY/AMENDMENTS TO PERMIT A. Compliance Deposit Permittees that have been subject to enforcement and/or collection proceedings may be required to deposit with the OCSD an amount determined by the General Manager as necessary to guarantee payment to OCSD of all charges, fees, penalties, costs and expenses that may be incurred in the future, before permission is granted for further discharge to the sewer. B. Delinquent Accounts The OCSD may require an amendment to the permit of any permittee who fails to make payment in full of all fees and charges assessed by the OCSD, including reconciliation amounts, delinquency penalties, and other costs or fees incurred by Permittee. C. Bankruptcy Every Permittee filing any legal action in any court of competent jurisdiction, including the United States Bankruptcy Court, for purposes of discharging its financial debts or obligations or seeking court-ordered, protection from its creditors, shall, within ten (10) days of filing such action, apply for and obtain the issuance of an amendment to its permit. D. Permit Amendments The OCSD shall review and examine Permittee's account to determine whether previously incurred fees and charges have been paid in accordance with time requirements prescribed by this Ordinance. The OCSD may thereafter issue an Page 76 of 80 amendment to the User's permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 and Section 621(E) of this Ordinance. E. Security An amendment to a waste discharge permit issued pursuant to Sections 621(B), (C), and (D), may be conditioned upon the Permittee depositing financial security in an amount equal to the average total fees and charges for two (2) calendar quarters during the preceding year. Said deposit shall be used to guarantee payment of all fees and charges incurred for future services and facilities furnished by OCSD and shall not be used by the OCSD to recover outstanding fees and charges incurred prior to the Permittee filing and receiving protection from creditors in the United States Bankruptcy Court. F. Return of Security In the event the Permittee makes payment in full within the time prescribed by this Ordinance of all fees and charges incurred over a period of two (2) years following the issuance of an amendment to the permit pursuant to Sections 621(B), (C), and (D), the OCSD shall either return the security deposit posted by the Permittee or credit their account. 622. JUDICIAL REVIEW A. Purpose and Effect Pursuant to Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the OCSD hereby enacts this part to limit to ninety (90) days following final decisions in adjudicatory administrative hearings the time within which an action can be brought to review such decisions by means of administrative mandamus. B. Definitions As used in this Section, the following terms and words shall have the following meanings: 1. Decision shall mean and include adjudicatory administrative decisions that are made after hearing, or after revoking, suspending, or denying an application for a permit or a license. 2. Complete Record shall mean and include the transcript, if any exists, of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by the General Manager, the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the OCSD or its offices or agents, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. Page 77 of 80 3. Party shall mean a person whose permit has been denied, suspended, or revoked. C. Time Limit for Judicial Review Judicial review of any decision of the OCSD or its officer or agent may be made pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure only if the petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than the ninetieth (90th) day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration in the procedures governing the proceedings or if the date is not otherwise specified, the decision is final on the date it is made. If there is provision for reconsideration, the decision is final upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this Section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. D. Preparation of the Record The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the OCSD officer or agent who made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within ninety (90) days after he has filed written request therefor. The OCSD may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing the record. E. Extension If the petitioner files a request for the record within ten (10) days after the date the decision becomes final, the time within which a petition, pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may be filed shall be extended to not later than the thirtieth (30th) day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney of record, if appropriate. F. Notice In making a final decision, the OCSD shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Page 78 of 80 G. Administrative Civil Penalties Notwithstanding the foregoing in Section 622, and pursuant to Government Code Section 54740.6, judicial review of an order of the Steering Committee imposing administrative civil penalties pursuant to Section 615.D may be made only if the petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than the thirtieth (30th) day following the day on which the order of the Steering Committee becomes final. ARTICLE 7 SEWER SERVICE CHARGES - CONNECTION CHARGES 701. SANITARY SEWER SERVICE CHARGE Every parcel of real property located within the OCSD which is improved with structures designed for residential, commercial, or industrial use, and connected to the OCSD system, shall pay a sanitary sewer service charge in an amount adopted by the Board of Directors by separate Ordinance. 702. CAPITAL FACILITIES CONNECTION CHARGE Every parcel of real property located within the OCSD which is improved with structures designed for residential, commercial, or industrial use, and connected to the OCSD system, shall pay a capital facilities connection charge in an amount adopted by the Board of Directors by separate Ordinance. ARTICLE 8 SEVERABILITY 801. SEVERABILITY If any provision of these Regulations or the application to any or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the regulations or the application of such provision to other persons or other circumstances shall not be affected. 802. GENERAL APPLICATION The provisions of this Ordinance shall apply to all properties within the OCSD including those 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. Section II: This Ordinance is enacted in order to preserve the public Page 79 of 80 health and safety, and in order to continue the provision of sewer services by the OCSD. The fads requiring the public health and safety to be preserved are that the regulation of the discharge of industrial and sanitary sewage is regulated by Federal and State law, and protection of individuals' health and the environment require that no discharges of untreated sewagetwastewater are allowed to occur that are not in accord with technical specifications and requirements. Section III: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect October 1, 2009. Section IV: Repeal. Ordinance No. OCSD-37 is hereby repealed. Section V: The Clerk of the Board shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause a summary to be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by law. PASSED AND ADOPTED by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the Board of Directors of the Orange County Sanitation District at a Regular Meeting held the 23 day of September, 2009. Lmlpr- Chair, B a d of Directors Oran' C unty Sanitation District ATTEST: Clerk of tl Boary Orange County Sanitation District BradIdy R. H?binf Ge6eral ouq Page 80 of 80 Appendix B 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Summary OCSD/SAWPA 1991 MOU Requirements, Responsibilities and Practices DRAFT—8/29/2012 MOU Section Summary of Requirements Responsible Party(iesp- Comments Findings Documents/Evidence General Requirements 1 SAWPA shall continue to exercise jurisdiction and control over all dischargers located within SAWPA's territorial boundaries in the Upper Basin that are tributary and discharge to OCSD's facilities. SAWPA may enter into an inter-jurisdictional agreement with a member agency or a consulting firm to conduct the pretreatment program, but that does not relieve SAWPA of the ultimate responsibility for the pretreatment program. 1, E-1 Issue wastewater discharge SAWPA-Industrial Waste Provide evidence that all dischargers permits and enforce violations of Survey,Permits for all SIUs that should be permitted are permitted permit requirements. (CIUs and Non-CIUs) and that they are properly permitted according to 40 CFR 403 and EPA Guidance. Evidence of enforcement activities. 1, E-2 Monitor wastewater flows and SAWPA—NOVs issued, Provide evidence of enforcement actions perform inspections. correspondence with performed for violations identified dischargers and OCSD, consistent with 40 CFR 403 and EPA Enforcement Response Plan, Guidance Enforcement Response Guide, Significant non-Compliance (SNC)determination. 1, E-3 Monitor wastewater flows. SAWPA-Reports and flow Provide evidence of flow monitoring from monitoring data. users discharging to the SARI system 1. E4 Collect any non-compliance fries, SAWPA-Connection fee Provide evidence that IUs are being fees,user charges,taxes,capital program and surcharge properly charged/fined and sufficient recovery fees,and other lawful program. costs are being recovered to administer charges as levied by SAWPA. the pretreatment program 1 1. E-5 Prepare and submit appropriate SAWPA-Pretreatment reports Provide evidence that all required quarterly and annual reports submitted quarterly and yearly. reports are complete and are being pertaining to the administration of submitted to the appropriate agency on Ordinance No. 1 and the MOU to time the EPA, RWQCB and OCSD. 2 Parmittina Procedures 2,A Prior to issuing permits to direct SAWPA-Permit applications, Provide evidence that this process is and indirect dischargers,require draft permits,fad sheets and being followed properly and concurrence permit applications, prepare draft correspondence with OCSD. is being received by OCSD prior to permits,and submit both to OCSD issuing permits. for their review and concurrence. 2,B Notification to Users of the N/A. N/A conditions of the Ordinance and MOU requirements. 2,C Require Users currently SAWPA—Procedures for Provide evidence that users have been connected to the SARI system permitting existing users, identified and were permitted within 30 without a permit to obtain a industrial waste survey and days. ermit. permit examples. 2, D Authority to change permit SAWPA-Correspondence Provide evidence of permit changes and conditions and prompt notification between parties and evidence correspondence between parties for of changes between parties. of permit changes. notification. SAWPA may elect to impose more stringent discharge requirements. 2, E Copies of all pennits,renewed SAWPA-List of permits, Compare permits received vs. permits and modified permits,signed by copies of permits and issued. SAWPA,shall be forwarded to correspondence with OCSD. OCSD within 15 days of issuance. 3 Monitoring 3,A Scheduled and unscheduled SAWPA-Monitoring/sampling Provide evidence of monitoring direct monitoring of all direct and indirect schedule and data. and indirect dischargers. dischargers tributary to the SARI OCSD can conduct its own system. monitoring but must ask SAWPA for the info first. 2 3,B Optional self-monitoring program SAWPA-Self-Monitoring Provided evidence of salt-monitoring. for discharger. SAWPA must Reports to OCSD. provide OCSD with self- SAW PKs correspondence Provide justification for no selt- monitoring results with dischargers. SAWPA monitoring. shall include such self- monitoring program in the Permit requirements. The self- monitoring program shall be approved by OCSD. 3,C Each party shall provide copies of Both-Monitoring/sampling Provide evidence of report sharing. reports for all monitoring, reports. sampling or laboratory testing on Compare required reports vs. reports dischargers in the Upper Basin. received. 3, D Except in an emergency,OCSD OCSD-Notification Evidence of any past monitoring. must notify SAWPA at least 24 hours in advance before conducting its own monitoring. 4 Inspection 4,A Maintain and implement an SAWPA-Report of IU Provide evidence of inspections inspection program and document inspection findings, performed and submitted reports inspections with a written report. Inspection schedule and 4,13 Immediate notification of any Both-Correspondence SAWPA and OCSD to notify each other discharge which presents an between SAWPA and OCSD. immediately when either agency imminent danger to the public Provide evidence of becomes aware of a discharge from health, safety or welfare,or which notification of a qualifying SAWPKs area that may present an threatens to interfere with the discharge. imminent danger to the public health, operation of OCSD. safety or welfare,or which threatens to interfere with the operation of OCSD. 4,C Inspection frequencies are SAWPA-List of facilities, Provide evidence of inspections dependent upon the type of inspection frequency and performed. Provide justifications for discharger. In no event shall inspection dates for inspection frequencies. inspections be conducted less dischargers. than twice annually or less than the minimum number required by Federal Regulations.OCSD may participate in inspections arranged by SAWPA. 3 4, D OCSD may initiate an inspection OCSD to notify SAWPA by OCSD to give SAWPA a 24 hr notice of the Upper Basin. telephone,confirmed in writing except in the case of an emergency. or by electronic telecommunication(FAX). Reoortina 5 OCSD shall advise SAWPA of any changes in the OCSD pretreatment requirements which will affect SAWPA. 5,A Monthly activity report detailing SAWPA-Reports submitted to Provide evidence of monthly reports the number and identification of OCSD and related submitted. new and existing permittees, correspondence with OCSD. inspections,enforcement actions, and monitoring data. 5,B Provide copies of enforcement SAWPA-Enforcement Provide evidence of enforcement correspondence. correspondence correspondence. 5,C Monthly flow and quality data for SAWPA-Flow and quality Provide evidence of flow and quality the discharge to the OCSD data. data provided to OCSD. system and monitoring station. 5, D Quarterly report and Annual report SAWPA-Quarterly and Provide evidence of quarterly and of summary of items discussed annual reports annual reports submitted to OCSD. above. 6 Enforcement 6,A Responsible for enforcing all See 1 E-2 See 1 E-2 waste discharge policies and procedures to all permit terms and conditions 6,B Inform OCSD of all dischargers in SAWPA-Correspondence Provide evidence that OCSD was noncompliance and the actions to with OCSD and OCSD copied notified of all non-compliances and be taken to enforce the provisions on NOVs issued. actions taken. 6,C Require all member agencies who SAWPA-MOU between Provide evidence that all member discharge to the SARI system to SAWPA and Member agencies agencies who discharge into the SARI enter into an inter-jurisdictional and any other documented system have entered into an agreement agreement with SAWPA to agreements or actions. to implement a pretreatment program. implement a pretreatment program. Evaluation of discharger categorical 4 Obligation to comply with Federal SAWPA and each of its classification,inspections and reports. requirements. member agencies assume all obligations set forth in Title 40 CFR, Part 403 including notification of pertinent categorical standards, monitoring and reporting. Amending Ordinance to ensure SAWPA will amend its continuous compliance with Ordinance to comply with the Federal requirements. new Federal requirements in the event of amendment(s)to applicable Federal statutes or regulations. Communication of changes OCSD shall advise SAWPA or affecting SAWPA. any changes in the OCSD pretreatment requirements affecting SAWPA. 6, D Review of SAWPA Ordinance and OCSD shall review SAWPA's Reports of OCSD's review or remedial amendments and activities to Ordinance and any inter- plans. ensure conformance with Federal jurisdictional agreements for regulations. conformance with 40 CFR Part 403. OCSD may periodically review SAWPA's pretreatment program activities to ensure the enforcement of pretreatment requirements. OCSD may develop and issue a remedial plan with a time schedule for attaining compliance if OCSD determines that SAWPA has failed or has refused to fulfill any pretreatment requirements. OCSD may upon 30 day 5 written notice suspend rights to discharge into the SARI line if SAWPA fails to satisfy the terms of the remedial plan.... OCSD may seek injunctive relief against SAWPA or member agencies or dischargers for failure to comply with the remedial plan. 7 Enforcement Process by OCSD 7.A If SAWPA does not take OCSD shall send written Documentation relating to enforcement. appropriate enforcement actions, notice to SAWPA. OCSD with notification to SAWPA may cause enforcement actions. If SAWPA agrees with OCSD, SAWPA shall undertake proceedings under Article 6 of SAW PA's Ordinance. If SAWPA disagrees with OCSD,a hearing shall be held by the SAWPA Commission no later than 10 days from notice. If OCSD disagree with the findings or enforcement/remedial actions of the SAWPA Commission, OCSD may pursue such remedies as provided by law and regulations. OCSD and SAWPA to take joint enforcement actions when OCSD and SAWPA are in agreement. 7.B Steps to be taken in the case of OCSD may immediately Correspondence and documented danger to the SARI line,OCSD or initiate steps to identify source actions taken. the environment. and haittiprevent such 6 discharge. OCSD may suspend SAWPA's use of OCSD's facilities and seek injunctive relief against SAWPA, its Member Agencies or users. 8 Indemnity SAWPA shall indemnify OCSD for all damages,fines and costs as a result of waste discharge from SAWPA. OCSD shall indemnify SAWPA for all damages,fines and costs as a result of waste discharge from OCSD. 9 Amendments and Modifications Terms of this MOU maybe amended only by written agreement by both parties. MOU shall be reviewed,and revised,if necessary,at least every three years from the effective date. This MOU along with SAW PA's Ordinance establishes procedures for the quality monitoring program set forth in paragraph 5,"Quality Criteria'of the aforementioned April, 1972 Agreement. 10 Notice Except as otherwise provided herein,all notices and other communication required or pertinent shall be in wrifing with confirmed receipt It shall be deemed received after 72 hours. 'Note: "Responsible Party(ies)'designates the agency(ies)responsible for taking action under the MOU Section. • OCSD, • SAWPA, • Both(both agencies; OCSD and SAWPA),or • Neither 7 Appendix C 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement Summary OCSD/SAWPA 7/24/1996 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL AGREEMENT DRAFT—8/17/2012 Agreement Section Summary of Requirements and SAWPA Responsibility Responsible Comments Findings Party(ies)' Documents/Evidence 1 Treatment and Disposal Rights 1,(a) Grant of Right Both -Copy of OCSD grants and conveys to SAWPA a Treatment and Disposal Agreement on file Right. 1,(b) Nature of Treatment and Disposal Riaht Both—Copy of SAWPA has no night to use any particular existing or expanded Agreement on file. OCSD facility. OCSD has sole discretion with regard to treatment and disposal of waste. 1,(c) Quantity of Treatment and Disposal Right SAWPA-Flow Confirm the 17 MGD SAWPA may acquire Treatment and Disposal Right in increments monitoring data and purchase. for an ultimate Treatment and Disposal Right of 30 MGD. reports. 1,(c), (1) OCSD's connection charges were subject to review in 1996. N/A N/A N/A When connection charges are reduced,a credit is issued. 1.(d) Effective Date and Term of Riaht Both—Awareness of SAWPA's Treatment and Disposal Right shall continue in effect this requirement and until April 12,2046. plan to ensure In 2041,good faith negotiations shall be undertaken between continuity. SAWPA and OCSD for SAWPA to join OCSD as a co-equal participant in OCSD's Joint Ownership Operation and Construction Agreement or any agree ant which shall supersede or replace it. 2 Ca ital Pa ants 2,(a), (1) SAWPA shall pay a sum equal to OCSD's existing Treatment and N/A N/A N/A Disposal Right charge for each 1 MGD Monthly Average Flow increment. 2,(a), (1),(A) SAWPA shall acquire sufficient additional increments of the N/A N/A N/A Treatment and Disposal Right so that its total Treatment and Disposal Right exceeds that Monthly Average Flow. 2,(a), (2) SAWPA may elect to pay for an additional increment(s)of the WA N/A N/A Treatment and Disposal Right over a 10 year period.An interest rate would apply. 2,(a), (2),(A) If SAWPA elects installment acquisition,OCSD shall recalculate N/A N/A N/A monthly amount for each installment based on annual average BOD and SS loadings. 2,(a), (2),(B) SAWPA may discontinue the acquisition of the increments of the N/A N/A N/A Treatment and Disposal Right with a 15 day advance written notice. 2,(a), (2),(C) If an additional increment is acquired following discontinuance of N/A N/A N/A the acquisition of an increment, a credit equal to 75%(excluding 1 interest is calculated as s ached in Section 2(a)(2). 2,(a), (3) SAWPA is obligated to pay any amount owed to OCSD whether or N/A N/A N/A not OCSD provides an invoice to SAWPA. 3 Emergency Discharge SAWPA—Flow Policy,procedure or SAWPA, in an operational emergency, may discharge in excess of monitoring data. emergency plan. its then-existing Treatment and Disposal Right for up to 90 days, provided that: 3,(a) SAWPA provides written notice prior to or by the next business SAWPA—Records day identifying nature and duration of discharge and contact for and correspondence further information. with OCSD. 3,(b) OCSD may impose conditions on excess discharge to protect OCSD—Reports and OCSD's collection and treatment facilities. flow monitoring data. 3, c Disposal costs and a surcharge may apply. N/A N/A N/A 3,(d) SAWPA shall immediately acquire additional increments after 90 N/A N/A N/A days of exceeding its Treatment and Disposal Right. 3,(a) "Operational emergency'shall mean an equipment breakdown or N/A N/A N/A other malfunction. 4 Payment of Disposal Costs OCSD's Invoices and Confirm that SAWPA is N/A SAWPA shall pay Disposal Costs quarterly based on projected SAWPA's payments. being billed quarterly. wastewater discharges as calculated by OCSD. Adjustments for flow,BOD and TSS are done annually. 5 Quality Criteria SAWPA—Procedures SAWPA has an obligation to ensure compliance by all users who for inspecting discharge directly or indirectly,to the SARI line.Compliance shall dischargers and be measured at the Green River Metering Station. Direct and monitoring records. Indirect Discharges shall comply with the 1991 MOU at their on final point of discharge. 5,(a) OCSD reserves the right to impose reasonable discharge limits in WA OCSD did establish a N/A lb./day in the future. BOD limit in Ibs/da . 5,(b) SAWPA shall furnish and periodically update, upon OCSD's SAWPA—Reports, request,a list of all discharges into SAWPA's system with volume procedures for and quality of such discharges. maintain list, SAWPA shall not without prior written consent from OCSD,make responsible person, capacity in its system available to any person who was declined procedure for verifying service from OCSD for inability to comply with OCSD's eligibility of new requirements. dischargers 5,(c) SAWPA shall establish, maintain and fund a quality monitoring SAWPA—Procedures, SAWPA's monitoring program, acceptable to all parties,for Wastewater discharged BMPs and responsible budget and process. from SAWPA to OCSD. I individuals . 5,(d) SAWPA shall comply with any additional discharge limits and/or Both—Communication directives imposed on OCSD by EPA,Cal EPA or RWQCB. of OCSD's limits and directives. 5,(a) SAWPA shall not discharge or allow the discharge of sludge to the SAWPA—Procedures SARI. and BMPs. 2 51(f) SAWPA may allow side stream flows from water treatment Both—request from facilities in SAWPA's SARI service area to be discharged only SAWPA and response after OCSD's written authorization. from OCSD. 6 Quality Violations SAWPA—Copy of SAWPA's plan in the SAWPA is obligated to comply with OCSD's Ordinance. In the OCSD's latest event OCSD suspends event of noncompliance, OCSD can,with 24 hr.notice,suspend ordinance on file. all discharges. all or part of SAWPA's use of OCSD's facilities and its Treatment SAWPA's compliance and Disposal Right. rocedures/verification. 6,(a) SAWPA shall,in the event of noncompliance, be subject to OCSD—Enforcement enforcement actions pursuant to all applicable federal,state and actions, NOVs,Orders, local laws and pay OCSD for repairs,investigation and etc. administrafive overhead. 7 Reclaimable Wastewater SAWPA—Procedure Additional efforts by SAWPA shall in good faith, make reasonable efforts to minimize to prevent reclaimable SAWPA in the past direct and indirect Reclaimable Wastewater discharges. wastewater fiscal year. discharges. 8 Metes SAWPA—Record of Review data and SAWPA shall pay the cost of maintaining and replacing the meter flow monitoring data records on meter at the Green River Metering Station. If meter malfunction,flow and records. maintenance and shall be estimated using the average flows of 3 previous months. repair. SAWPA shall repair the flow meter within a reasonable time. 9 Assignment SAWPA—Awareness SAWPA's handling of SAWPA shall be the public entity having primary responsibility for of Agreement and liability and obligation in regional reallocation, in the area upstream from the OCSD,of its procedure to assign the case delegated. Treatment and Disposal Right. Treatment and Agreement shall not be transferred or assigned without OCSD's Disposal Right. written consent. SAWPA can assign a portion of the Treatment and Disposal Right as long as it does not affect SAWPA's liabilities and obligations to OCSD. 10 Fees/Charges N/A N/A N/A SAWPA is obligated to pay any fees established by OCSD for capital assessments, California health and Safety Code section 5470 at seg. 11 Protection of OCSD Facilities Both—SAWPA's SAWPA's procedure or SAWPA shall,at its sole expense,prevent the discharge of Procedures to emergency plan in the Wastewater to the SARI from the Stringfellow Treatment Facility or prevenUdiverting event of diversion. from other sources that OCSD determines may adversely affect discharge from the operation at OCSD's Plant 1. Stringfellow and other OCSD shall provide written notice,as soon as possible,to sources with negative SAWPA to temporally divert to Plant 1 when necessary. impact on OCSD OCSD shall provide,during diversions,a temporary discharge plants. location for the discharge by SAWPA ofthe wastewater discharge OCSD—Notice and from the Stringfellow Treatment Facility to OCSD's facilities. alternative for 3 discharging. 12 Acts of God Both. Neither party is liable for failure to comply by reason of flood,fire, earthquake or act of God. Due diligence must be exercised and repair costs shall be shared based on capacity. 13 Arbitration Both. In the event of a dispute,the issues of dispute shall be submitted to arbitration. 14 Attorney Fees Both. Each a shall a its own costs and attorney fees. 15 1972 Agreement Both. The 1996 Agreement supersedes the 1972 Agreement. The 8 MGD previously acquired under the 1972 agreement are deemed to have been acquired under the 1996 Agreement. 16 Integration Both—Copy of 1991 Nothing in this 1996 Agreement shall affect the terms of the April MOU on file. 1, 1991 MOU. 17 Modifications Both—Communication This Agreement shall not be changed,modified or supplemented regarding requested except in a writing signed by all parlies. changes to Agreement. 18 No Waiver Both—Awareness of No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy shall Agreement. impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Delay and omissions shall not be construed as a waiver. Waivers must be in writing. 19 Headings Both—Awareness of Headings are not part of this Agreement. Agreement. 20 Severability Both—Awareness of If any portion of the Agreement is determined invalid,illegal or Agreement. unenforceable,such provision shall be severable from the rest of the Agreement without affecting the rest of the Agreement. 21 Notices Both—Awareness of All notices and communication shall be addressed to the GM(of Agreement. Records OCSD or SAWPA)in writing and shall be personally delivered or of previous mailed registered or certified mail, return receipt requested,and correspondence. postage prepaid. 22 Interpretation of Governing Law Both—Awareness of Agreement is construed and enforced in accordance with the laws Agreement. of the Sate of California. 23 Counterparts and Executions Both—Awareness of Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts. A reement. 24 Limitation on Discharge SAWPA—Awareness List of exceptions. SAWPA shall not allow,except to the extend connections ofA reement. 4 presently exist,directly or indirectly,the discharge to the SARI of any wastewater originating outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area, unless SAWPA first obtains OCSD's written approval of such discharge. 25 Termination Both-Awareness of A reement ex fires on A ril 12,2046. Agreement. 26 Third Party Beneficiaries Both—Awareness of No benefit to third party is intended in this Agreement. Agreement. 27 SARI Capacity Rlahts Both—Awareness of Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to create any right of Agreement. SAWPA to capacity in the SARI, nor any obligation of OCSD to provide such capacity. 28 Stormwater Discharges SAWPA—Awareness SAWPA shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that of Agreement, stormwater is not discharged into the SARI. Stormwater discharge procedures and BMPs. to the SARI is not authorized. 29 Interest N/A N/A N/A If SAWPA fails to make payment within 45 days from the date of an OCSD's invoice, 1.5%interest rate will be charged. 30 Changes in Fees/Charges N/A N/A N/A If fundamental changes are adopted for calculating fees and charges, OCSD and SAWPA agree to negotiate in good faith new equitable fees and charges. 31 Meet and Confer Both—Awareness of OCSD and SAWPA shall meet and confer within one year form the Agreement. effective date of the Agreement to determine whether this Agreement is functioning as anticipated and to resolve any issues. OCSD and SAWPA may meet at any other time during the term of this Agreement toward the same end. 32 Notice Re Continuing Guaranty Correspondence. Does SAWPA perform N/A SAWPA shall,on or before July 1 of each year,provide written this activity? notice to OCSD allocating among SAWPA's members the respective percentages of SAWPA's total liability to OCSD for which each SAWPA member is agency is guaranteeing payment. "Note: "Responsible Parry"designates the agency(ies)responsible for taking action under the Agreement Section. • OCSD, • SAWPA, • Both(both agencies; OCSD and SAWPA),or • Neither 5 Appendix D 201S Internal Audit Scope of Work List of Questions with Answers Provided by SAWPA Section I—Permitting 1. Since January 2014,does SAWPA permit the appropriate facilities? Yes. SAWPA solely issues permits for,and reports on,all agency owned facilities AKA"conflict of interest" permits along with the Stringfellow Pretreatment Facility. SAWPA issues the joint signature permits prepared alongside the Contract and Member Agencies. 2. Are the appropriate facilities permitted generally in accordance with federal,state,and local Pretreatment regulations? Yes. All facilities are permitted in accordance with all applicable regulations after concurrence from OCSD. 3. Does SAWPA receive a copy of the permit application,fact sheet,and draft permit for each permit issuance or renewal? Yes. SAWPA receives a copy of each permit application. All permits and fact sheets are either generated by SAWPA, in the case of"conflict of interest permits"or submitted to SAWPA,after preparation by the Agencies,for review. Once SAWPA approves the permit it is sent to OCSD for concurrence. The documents are then stored in the SAWPA database management software, PACS, as well as on the OCSD SharePoint site. SAWPA has developed a detailed SOP on this process. 4. Are copies of all permits,permit applications,and fact sheets for permit issuance or renewal readily available from SAWPA in either hardcopy or digitally for review and copying? Yes. Permits,fact sheets,and applications,along with applicable supplemental information are stored in the SAWPA database management software, WACS. SAWPA also uploads the permit, fact sheet, and concurrence checklist on the OCSD SharePoint site. SAWPA has developed a detailed SOP on this process. SAWPA also maintains a hardcopy library of this information for easy review as well. 5. Is SAWPA submitting complete and accurate draft permit packages for OCSD's concurrence? Yes. SAWPA submits draft permits,fact sheets, and permit checklists to OCSD for every permit it issues. Permits are only issued following concurrence from OCSD. The permit,fact sheet,and concurrence checklist are then posted to the OCSD SharePoint site following issuance. SAWPA has developed a detailed SOP on this process. 6. Does SAWA issue or revise permits in accordance with the updated SAWPA Pretreatment Program Control Documents? Yes. All permits are issued, renewed, revised,or amended in accordance with the updated SAWPA PPCDs. All permits and permit amendments are only issued following concurrence from OCSD. 7. Have all the permits been physically converted to SAWPA permits whether issued by SAWPA or issued jointly by SAWPA and a Member or Contract Agency? If not, is there a schedule for when this task will be completed? (Note:As an interim measure,SAWPA issued a letter amendment converting all permits to SAWPA permits,which was allowed by OCSD. The question askes whether the actual paper permits now indicate that all of the permits are SAWPA permits.) Yes. As mentioned a letter,dated January 1,2014 was issued to each permittee notifying them that their permit had been either converted to a SAWPA permit or a jointly signed permit from SAWPA and a Member or Contract Agency. The remaining few permits still in the older format are tracked via spreadsheet and will be physically updated during the next permit renewal process. 8. Has SAWPA addressed its"problem permits,"those permits which were previously identified as requiring more time than the SRP allowed? If not,when will this task be completed? Yes. The problem permits have been addressed. 9. Are all existing permits renewed by the expiration date? If not,what percentage of permits exceeds the original expiration date? Does SAWPA issue permit extensions in a timely manner? How many extensions are granted,and what is the range of the length of time before permits are ultimately renewed? What are the reasons for the delay? All permits are either renewed on time or extended in a timely manner as necessary. This process is tracked via spreadsheet. The length of time permits are extended varies based on the reason for the extension. Permit extensions are issued for a variety of reasons: complexity,the OCSD concurrence process,continuous revision to the permit templates,the SAWPA review process,SAWPA or Member/Contract Agency review of the application prior to development of the draft permit,stormwater issues,Site Inspections,etc... Increasing the duration of permits as part of the ongoing OCSD Ordinance Update should greatly enhance SAWPA's ability to renew all permits before the original expiration dates. 10. If all permits are not renewed on time,what is SAWPA doing to address the outstanding permits? All permits are renewed on time prior to their original expiration date,or extended expiration date. All permits are renewed prior to the Federal maximum permit duration of 5 years. 11. What types of permitting metrics does SAWPA use? Does SAWPA have goals and expectations set for permit issuance or renewal? If so,what are they? How has SAWPA acted on the metrics? Are these issues communicated to OCSD and the Member and Contract Agencies? If so,how and how often? The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated,all permit issuance dates,expirations,and extensions are tracked via spreadsheet. The goal would be to have all permits renewed prior to initial expiration, however due to the short duration of permits,the ongoing permit template updates, and the OCSD Concurrence process that goal has had to be flexible. Any issues that arise are communicated to OCSD via the SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment by email or phone if an immediate resolution is required. Further discussions on these issues are presented during the quarterly coordination meetings between SAWPA and OCSD. Meeting minutes are stored on the OCSD SharePoint site. Issues that must be discussed between SAWPA and Member/Contract Agency are communicated to the appropriate party via the SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment by email or phone if any immediate resolution is required. Bi-monthly face to face meetings and Bi-weekly teleconferences are conducted between SAWPA and the Agencies. Internal meetings at SAWPA occur weekly to discuss any issues. Meeting minutes and agendas for these meetings are tracked via a binder stored at SAWPA. 12. Is there consistency in how SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies perform their permitting responsibilities across the distributed program? Yes. All permits are developed utilizing the same starting point templates. All permits are then submitted to the SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment for review. The SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment then submits finalized draft permits to OCSD for concurrence. 13. Is there a slug control plan for each permitted that is required to have one? Yes. This is tracked via spreadsheet. Finalized Slug Control Plans are stored with the iPACS system. 14. Do permits adequately reflect limits,conditions, requirements,and prohibitions reflected in the MOU and Agreement documents between OCSD and SAWPA? Yes. Once OCSD has finalized their Ordinance and Local Limits updates SAWPA will adopt the changes and incorporate into its permits as necessary. 15. Has SAWPA denied any permits? At this time SAWPA has not had to deny any permits. If SAWPA denies a permit it will be posted to the OCSD SharePoint site. Permitting Best Management Practices SAWPA has developed a detailed Standard Operating Procedure with flow diagrams that covers the permitting process from receipt of permit application through concurrence by OCSD on the draft permit and issuance with all steps outlined in between. SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procures for its iPACS data management system including permitting, monitoring,inspection,and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training with these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading into the system. SAWPA is conducting bi-weekly teleconferences with all agencies and bi-monthly face-to-face meeting with all agencies to discuss all Brine Line activities including,but not limited to permitting, inspection, monitoring,and enforcement. A detailed spreadsheet is also maintained covering all Brine Line permits with application deadlines,expiration dates, and contact information closely tracked. This spreadsheet is redistributed at each meeting so that all agencies are up to date on permitting issues. SAWPA conducts an audit of all agencies bi-annually covering various program activities including permitting,inspection, monitoring, and enforcement. SAWPA last conducted the agency audit throughout November of 2015 with all agencies reviewed. Joint inspections were also performed with agency members at this time to review the inspection procedures were being implemented consistently throughout all agencies. Section II—Enforcement 1. How well does enforcement follow what the SAWPA Enforcement Response Plan specifies? Evaluate and assess the enforcement efforts and provide relevant examples and documentation for three of the following permits:Chino I Desalter, Repet,Rayne Water,WRCRWA,or SunOpta. All enforcement action(s)follows the SAWPA Enforcement Response Plan. The goal of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program is to ensure all enforcement action(s)are reasonable, consistent,and timely. Please see the examples below. Chino Basin Desalter Authority(CDA)Chino I Permit No. D1081-1 On August 5, 2014,The Chino Desalter Authority I (CDAI)discovered an acid leak into the ground,adjacent to the facility's effluent wastewater lateral. The acid damaged the wastewater lateral seal,and acid was discharged to the Brine Line. SAWPA issued CDA I a Cease and Desist Order(CDO)and required corrective action(s)to prevent future pH slug discharge violations to the Brine Line. CDA I completed all items required to prevent future pH slug discharges to the Brine Line. SAWPA to continue to perform unannounced inspections at CDA I to insure the corrective actions completed are adhered to. Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information. Repet. Inc. Permit No. D1069-2 Repet unable to remain in consistent compliance with their Brine Line Discharge Permit and SAWPA Ordinance No.7. As of July 8,2014,SAWPA began escalated enforcement action against Repet. On July 10,2014,SAWPA issues a CDO to Repet. Repet is required to attend a hearing and immediately comply with all permit and ordinance requirements. Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information. SunOpta Food Solutions Permit No. 11066-1.1 On January 12,2015,SunOpta Food Solutions-San Bernardino(SunOpta)exceeded the Copper concentration limit of 3.0 mg/L. To correct the continued Copper violations, SunOpta installed a new water softener system, plastic storage tank, and chelating resin filters to remove Copper from wastewater. SunOpta is required to collect additional Copper samples to demonstrate consistent compliance with the Copper concentration limit and to be removed from SNC status. SBMWD to conduct unannounced site inspections and collect grab samples from SunOpta's storage tank and from SunOpta's liquid waste hauler. Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information. 2. Is the appropriate agency handling enforcement? (i.e.,SAWPA—major enforcement and Member And Contract Agencies—minor enforcement) Evaluate and assess whether the appropriate agency handles enforcement and cite relevant examples. SAWPA reviews all enforcement action(s)whether Member or Contract Agency related. All enforcement above a Notice of Violation is the responsibility of SAWPA. Please refer to SAWPA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information and relevant examples. 3. What enforcement actions has SAWPA initiated over the last year,and what were the immediate and long term results? Provide a tabulation of all enforcement activities since January 2014,itemize who was the lead in each instance,and evaluate and assess the adequacy of the enforcement efforts and site relevant examples. Please refer to SAW PA's Enforcement Tracking Log for detailed information and relevant examples. 4. What types of enforcement metrics does SAWPA use? What goals and expectations has SAWPA set for enforcement? Has SAWPA acted on metrics? Are these issues communicated to OCSD and the Member and Contract Agencies? If so,how and how often. The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated, all enforcement actions are reported to OCSD on a monthly,quarterly,semi-annual,and annual basis. In addition, all enforcement action is communicated between SAWPA and the Agencies, at a minimum, every two weeks during the bi weekly teleconference calls. Enforcement Best Management Practices SAWPA conducts an audit of all agencies bi-annually covering various program activities including permitting,inspection, monitoring, and enforcement. SAWPA last conducted the agency audit throughout November of 2015 with all agencies reviewed. Joint inspections were also performed with agency members at this time to review the inspection procedures were being implemented consistently throughout all agencies. SAWPA is conducting bi-weekly teleconferences with all agencies and bi-monthly face-to-face meeting with all agencies to discuss all Brine Line activities including,but not limited to permitting, inspection, monitoring,and enforcement. A detailed spreadsheet is also maintained covering all Brine Line permits with application deadlines,expiration dates, and contact information closely tracked. This spreadsheet is redistributed at each meeting so that all agencies are up to date on permitting issues. SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procures for its !PACs data management system including permitting, monitoring,inspection,and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training with these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading into the system. Section III—Inspection 1. What types(e.g.,permitted, non-permitted)and how many inspections were conducted? SAWPA Inspections SAWPA completed eighty-nine(89) inspections of SAWPA Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. SAWPA did not perform any inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. Member or Contract Agency Inspections EM WD completed twelve (12) inspections of SAWPA/EMWD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. EMWD did not perform any inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. IEUA completed sixty-three(63) inspections of SAWPA/IEUA Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. IEUA did not perform any inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. JCSD completed twenty-five (25) inspections of SAWPA/JCSD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. JCSD completed eighty-six(86) inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. SBMWD completed fifteen(15) inspections of SAWPA/SBMWD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. SBMWD did not perform any inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. SBVMWD completed five(5) inspections of SAWPA/SBVMD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. SBVMWD did not perform any inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. WMWD completed fifty-one(51) inspections of SAWPA/WMWD Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. WMWD did not perform any inspections of non- permitted facilities during this same time period. Joint Inspections SAWPA completed twenty-three (23)joint inspections of Brine Line Permittees during the fiscal year July 1,2014 through June 30,2015. SAWPA did not perform any joint inspections of non-permitted facilities during this same time period. 2. Are inspections prearranged or are they unannounced? SAWPA Inspections Most SAWPA inspections are unannounced except for permit application inspections. Application inspections are announced to assure the Authorized Representative is available to review and verify the information on the permit application. Member or Contract Agency Inspections Most Member or Contract Agency inspections are unannounced except for permit application inspections. Application inspections are announced to assure the Authorized Representative is available to review and verify the information on the permit application. Joint Inspections Most SAWPA joint inspections are unannounced unless a particular person is requested to be available for the inspection. 3. Are inspections conducted in a manner consistent with SAWPA's PPCD? Provide a tabular listing comparing the existing policies and procedures to SAWPA's inspections. Inspection Report PPCD 1. Permitted Wastestreams See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 2. Discharged See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 3. Non Discharging See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 4. Outside Service Area See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct S. Reclaimable Wastewater See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 6.Storm Water See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 7. 0&M of Equipment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 8. 0&M Manual See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 9. Flow Meter See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 10. pH Meter See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 11.Other Equipment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 12.Auto Shut-Off See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 13.Sample Point See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 14.Sample Collection See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 15. Planned Changed See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 16.Other See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 17. Flow See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 18. Housekeeping See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 19.Work Hours/M Employees See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 20. Records See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 21. Facilities Plans See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 22.Contingency Plan/Contacts See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 23. Hauling Records See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 24.Other Permits See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 25. Boilers See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 26.Cooling Towers See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 27.Water Treatment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 28.Chemical Storage See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 29. Haz Waste Storage See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 30.Spill Containment See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 31. MSDS See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 32.Other See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct 33.Change to Permit/PFS See 6.2 Scope of Inspection and 6.6 Inspection Conduct All Agency inspections are documented, regardless of type or purpose, using an Inland Empire Inspection Report Form. 4. What types of metrics does SAWPA set for inspections? What were the results? Has SAWPA acted on the metrics? Are these items communicated to OCSD? If so,how are the items communicated and how often? The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated,all inspection results are reported to OCSD on a monthly,quarterly,semi-annual,and annual basis. Inspections are performed in accordance with the OCSD program goal frequencies in accordance with the memo submitted to SAWPA from OCSD on February 28, 2014. OCSD,and therefore SAWPA, minimum inspection frequencies are as follows. Industry Control Authority Classification Inspections CIU Quarterly SIU Quarterly IU Semi-Annually IU Indirect* Annual Emergency* Annual *OCSD has no indirect IU's and therefore has provided no guidance on frequencies for this facility type. Inspection Best Management Practices On April 22,2015 SAWPA conducted an in-housetraining course entitled"Pretreatment Inspector Training." The SAWPA training course was provided to all Member Agency and Contract Member Agency inspectors. The training course provided essential skills required by pretreatment inspectors for conducting pretreatment facility inspections. In addition,the training course reviewed specific SAWPA pretreatment program elements. Thirty-two(32) inspectors attended the two hour course and all in attendance received 2.0 contact hours. The topics discussed and reviewed included: Purpose of the Pretreatment Program • Need for Pretreatment Facility Inspections • Duties of an Inspector • Relations with Industry Personnel • Inspector Ethics • Entering an Industry for an Inspection • Inspection Entry Denied • Types of Contacts • Presenting Yourself • Know the Rules • Spill Containment • Stormwater • Safety • Items to Inspect • General Pollution Prevention • Unique SAWPA Program Elements SAWPA conducts an audit of all agencies bi-annually covering various program activities including permitting,inspection, monitoring, and enforcement. SAWPA last conducted the agency audit throughout November of 2015 with all agencies reviewed. Joint inspections were also performed with agency members at this time to review the inspection procedures were being implemented consistently throughout all agencies. SAWPA and JCSD have implemented a detailed industrial user survey in the JCSD service area to review potential industries requiring a wastewater discharge permit. Athorough survey was conducted with all facilities visited. An extensive log sheet is maintained recording all facilities visited,date of the visit and projected follow-up visit date, and which of the JCSD connections they discharge to. As JCSD is also the utility provider for water they will become aware of new facilities as they come into the service area, but are also utilizing their industrial user survey process to ensure no new facilities are missed. Beginning in July 2015,SAWPA implemented a new training program entitled"Inter-Agency Inspection Training." The purpose of the training is to promote continued growth of all agency inspectors and to acquaint inspectors with types of facilities and pretreatment devices not located within their agency's service area. Each quarter two different agencies are paired together and each agency is responsible for hosting and arranging one joint inspection within their service area. Each quarter the schedule rotates which allows for the growth of an inspector's knowledge and encourages agency camaraderie. Please see the example below. October 2015 through December 2015 IEUA SAWPA SBMWD EMWD ?• _.. law WMWD 1CSD BYE °i1ly. .. SBVMWD Section IV—Monitoring/Sampling 1. What constituent monitoring is required of permitted facilities since January 2014,and how does the actual performance compare to the requirements?Evaluate and assess the adequacy of the constituents monitored and provide relevant tabular listings for CIUs,SIUs,Ills,and Liquid Waste Haulers. Monitoring is performed according to the constituents identified in the permit.SAWPA uses one of the iPACS modules to generate sampling and self-monitoring tasks based on the defined permit limits and monitoring requirements. SAWPA reports to OCSD on all constituent monitoring conducted by permitted facilities quarterly and again annually. Sampling is performed in accordance with the OCSD program goal frequencies per the memo submitted to SAWPA from OCSD on February 28, 2014. 2. In non-routine monitoring performed at permitted facilities?If so,what are they and how often are they done?Are they tracked and reported? Yes. Non-routine monitoring is performed on an as-needed basis. Currently additional monitoring is being performed to track expected pollutant discharge variation from seasonal dischargers such as Del Real Foods. Suspended Solids studies are also ongoing from various dischargers to track potential solids formation within the Brine Line. The results from these non-routine monitoring events are reported quarterly to OCSD. Sampling tasks can be created in iPACS for any non-routine event. 3. What types of metrics from the monitoring events are maintained?Has any action resulted from these metrics?If so,what happened?Are these communicated to OCSD?If so,how and how often? The idea of metrics has never before been mentioned by OCSD and no guidance has been given for their expectations in this regard. That stated,all water quality results are reported to OCSD on a quarterly and annual basis.A summary of sample collection type(i.e.grab,composite)is included in the annual report. Sampling is performed in accordance with the OCSD program goal frequencies per the memo submitted to SAWPA from OCSD on February 28,2014. OCSD, and therefore SAWPA, minimum monitoring frequencies are as follows: Industry Control Authority Self-Monitoring Classification Sampling CIU 4 2 SIU 4 2 IU 2 2 IU Indirect* 1 2 *OCSD has no indirect IUs and therefore has provided no guidance on frequencies for this facility type. 4. Did each entity monitor and sample in a manner consistent with SAWPA's PPCD? Yes. Agencies use 1PACS, based on Standard Operating Procedures within SAWPA's PPCD,to generate sampling tasks and enter water quality data. S. How precise and consistent are monitoring actions? Monitoring is performed by the same laboratory for all SAWPA collected samples. Agencies either use the same contract laboratory as SAWPA or utilize their own in house laboratory. All methods comply with 40 CFR 136 and all laboratories are ELAP certified. 6. Is proper monitoring required and documented?Evaluate and assess the adequacy of the monitoring efforts considering the following at a minimum: a. Each sample should be random in accordance with 40 CFR 403.8(f)(2)(v) Samples are collected on a random basis. b. Sampled at the representative sample points All samples are collected at the permit defined monitoring location,which is clearly marked on the site. OCSD provides concurrence on all permits. c. Samples were representative of daily discharges I. Documentation exists if there appeared to be dilution or a reduction of discharge or services during the sampling event ii. Accounted for seasonal variations,if applicable iii. Discharges were either from a well-mixed single batch for the entire day(not multiple batches in a single day)or from a continuous discharge Samples were representative of daily discharges. Documentation exists if there appeared to be dilution including escalated enforcement when a permittee was caught diluting during a sampling event. Other investigations were undertaken,with documentation present, in instances when tampering with the monitoring process was expected. Discharges were either from a well-mixed single batch or from a continuous discharge. d. Documented representative sample collection techniques I. Appropriate sampling equipment employed (especially collection container) ii. Appropriate grab and composite sampling methods and techniques used iii. Sample collection handling documented(e.g.chilled or preserved appropriately) iv. Documentation generally complete and in order(e.g. inspection and sampling reports) Control Authority sampling is performed by qualified sampling technicians,as described in the SAWPA PPCD, using ISCO sampling equipment. Samples are preserved per 40 CFR 136 and always kept in ice. All control authority samples are collected as either from a well-mixed single batch or from a continuous discharge as a 24-hour composite or production day composite(with the exception of those pollutants which require grab samples,such as pH, oil &grease, etc.).Additionally,a description of the sample appearance is noted in the COC. Documentation is complete and in order. SAWPA has conducted training with all Agencies on sampling techniques. Afocus of the November 2014 audit of the Member and Contract Agencies,conducted by SAWPA,was on proper sampling methodology. Agencies are required to submit their sampling SOPS for review to SAWPA and update as necessary. SAWPA and Agencies all upload applicable information into iPACS to track violation and enforcement, report on inspections,and upload permit requirements in accordance with SOPS created by SAWPA. e. Documented integrity of sample preservation and transfer of custody to the laboratory(e.g.Chain of Custody(. Chain of Custody forms,generated from iPACS documents integrity of sample preservation and have signature blocks which allow monitoring of sample custody. f. Used proper EPA-approved analytical methods at appropriate detection limits All samples are preserved and analyzed per 40 CFR 136. g. Took quality control steps on analytical results that validate that the information stored in the sample result repository reflects analytical results delivered by the laboratory Quality control steps are taken at regular intervals. h. Conducted compliance analysis of monitoring results relative to appropriate discharge limits All samples are analyzed for pollutants identified in the permits,at detection limits applicable to determine compliance. Compliance analysis is performed within iPACS, which flags violations,and is associated with enforcement as applicable. SAWPA utilizes a log sheet to track data review and compliance analysis with a minimum of two individuals reviewing all data prior to upload to iPACS. 7. What actions do SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies employ to ensure that self- monitoring reports comply with all permit and federal Pretreatment requirements? Evaluate and assess the adequacy of the self-monitoring program. Self-monitoring reports are reviewed for compliance,tracked via a log sheet,with permit limits and required sample preservation and analysis per 40 CFR 146. Data is uploaded into iPACS where it is cross checked with all applicable permit and regulatory requirements. SAWPA and Agencies all upload applicable information into iPACS in accordance with SOPS created by SAWPA. 8. Do the permittees report all the valid sampling results as required?What measures are in place to ensure that this is so? Permittees are required to report all sample results as required in their permits,and any additional monitoring conducted at the designated Monitoring Points. Missing or incomplete SMRs are flagged as noncompliant within iPACS and would result in enforcement in accordance with the SAWPA PPCD. SAWPA and Agencies all verify information through iPACS in accordance with SOPS created by SAWPA. Sampling and Monitoring Best Management Practices SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procures for its iPACS data management system including permitting, monitoring,inspection,and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training with these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading into the system. SAWPA utilizes a log sheet for the tracking of data review prior to,and after upload to the iPACS data management system. SAWPA has created detailed Standard Operating Procures for its iPACS data management system including permitting, monitoring,inspection,and enforcement. All agencies have undergone training with these SOPS and are utilizing the accompanying guides for uploading into the system. Appendix E 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Communication Plan OCSD --- SAWPA Attachment A2 _ - .. . .. .. . . . . . . ._ . . . . . _._ _.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . oe. calnee� a JPCIJOC ° $AWOA Commrsion77� JPC SAWPAandOCSDestabliatitwMpdices • JOC SAWPA and DCSD EMT Bel staff meet to discss ssues CrCnerJim HnDerg .. .... ... ..... . . .a r ♦ uram. Saws R•m01• 7neral Manaper� Celeste Cantu Wsne Rath Thompson - 4P�le (pemnatlnp aMLwan) adeae . o Anil c+• S:m RmNM erdoTech Ltamnmm IGonwmnM4enN Y $smmYR•w•e o OmuerJim Cited. Machete Farmer o flmpr S sswuhn m um .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .:.... . . . . .. ... . . . ........... Dean Unger 2015 Internal SAWPA Audit • �.� .mnmmm.mr ° • Moore to Proceed(NTP)issued Julian Sabi o B,♦nre Nwe s • OCSD sells SANIPA tie list of questions for the SAWPA Audi) OCSD EEC to finalize an Implementation Pan and Schedule and notify SAWPA: Mail a Armwmmrymws EEC audits SAWPA $AWPA °am.rwe o m. Mark Se•Wmmt EEC writes a drofi audit report oSrxWa+M9 Lures CilthEd on'enr Maw,amoto EEC discusses me audit report who OCSO project MichaN Pksertoe Protect EEC finalizes the audit report Manager Manager Upload Be audd ration to OCSD-SAWPA Coordination SharePoint ads OCSD takes tte aWd report to its Entering Comminee and Boam width °IyYm Roya SMaruki ♦ ° win recommendations o Own. o Sr Nd• OCSD houses SAWPA of the Board's decalbo(s) Ca suman OCSD woks wNt SAWPA to address audit findings Carlin;Chapter, o T Raw is ' ........... . .. ... .. ... . .. . . .. . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... ere ° Iebn Yme o Nv}[Mewi,is a dollars, DavM RUM Tam Waller fAMrll ° iMeul tact EEC ErrvWonmern2l °cO°°iY40e (EEC) r SAWPA$ Resources Tam GNwersld Member — Pretreatment ° Technical Exoe:ts Workino Grouo Contract ConeatmetM omissions,di-I Gregg Muff ay Pmteatmm ELA e E CsV Aoe"cbs nsulmnt Crag Proctor Coordinators tom IEUA M Mahn Draper eachinvolvad SBVMWD $BMWD Member Agency EOA OCWD Mike Zerkk I �r�un• Communication Levels: • Green: OCSD • CL 1: Staff • Purple: OCSD's consultant • CL 2: Supervisor • Blue: SAWPA •CL 3: Manager Notes: • orange: SANPA consultants • CL t: Director I: All agency-related Communication should be through the Project Managers. • Pink: aANPA advisors • CL 6: General Manager 2: If an issue is not resolved at a Communication Level, the issue will advance to the neat level. •O Communication Level • CL 6: Board 3: For the audit, EEC will communicate directly with SANPA. In the event of a significant question or complaint that cannot be (see Note 2) a CL q: Agency resolved at that level, SAWPA may contact OCSD's Project Manage[ directly. SANPA should avoid bypassing this Communication Plan. aaanWnner+t 1. InbmM SAWPA AtbMISA20fb.0W1 LaafRwiaed: aenm 15 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Communication Plan (effective 2015 09 16) Appendix F 2015 Internal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit Source Materials Document Number Document Name 1 2015-09 SAWPA Quarterly 10-29-15 2 CC Grater Company-11005-2-Fact Sheet-2015-17 3 CC Graber Company- 11005-2-Permit Expires 11-23-2017 4 CC Graber Draft Permit Submittal OCSD 5 CC Graber Draft Permit Submittal 6 Chino l Enforcement-Accidental Discharge Report-8-8-2014 7 Chino I Enforcement-Accidental Discharge Report Update-8-15-2014 8 Chino I Enforcement- Biweekly Rpt-10-1-2014 9 Chino I Enforcement- Biweekly Rpt-11-17-2014 30 Chino I Enforcement- Biweekly Rpt-11-3-2014 11 Chino I Enforcement- Biweekly Rpt-9-15-2014 12 Chino I Enforcement- Biweekly Rpt-9-2-2014 13 Chino I Enforcement-Cease& Desist Order-8-21-2014 14 Chino I Enforcement-Closure of Cease and Desist Order-1-20-2015 15 Chino I Enforcement- Perliminary Report to OCSD-8-27-2014 16 Chino I Enforcement-Slug Load Control Plan-9-19-2014 17 COC QAQC Duplicate Sample 18 COC 5-0110222015 19 COC Stringfellow 10272015 1 20 COC Stringfellow 10272015 2 21 Draft Permit Submittal Temescal Desalter 22 Draft Permit Submittal WMWD Arlington 23 Draft Permit Submittal WRCRWA SRPS 24 EMWD PTP Agency Audit Findings 25 IEUA PTP Agency Audit Findings 26 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement-Cease&Desist&Compliance Order 12-22-14 27 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement-Civil Penalty Order and Compliance Order-2-6-2015 28 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement-Closure of Civil Penalty Order and Compliance Order-3-12-2015 29 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement- Monthly Monitoring Report-1-15-2015 30 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement- Response to Cease and Desist Order-1-20-2015 31 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement- Response to Cease and Desist Order-1-27-2015 32 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement- Response to Cease and Desist Order-2-27-2015 33 Inland Bioenergy, LLC Enforcement- Response to Cease and Desist Order-2-3-2015 34 Inland Empire Energy Center-D1036-2-Fact Sheet-2015-17 35 Inland Empire Energy Center-D1036-2-Permit Expires 11-24-2017 36 Inland Empire Energy Center Draft Permit 1 37 Inland Empire Energy Center Draft Permit 2 38 Inspection MCC 8-12-2015 39 Inspection Report Form 40 Inspection SBMWD WRP IR 11-5-2015 41 Inspection Temescal Desalter Ins 10-13-2015 42 Facs creating sampling tasks templates instructions 43 pacs creating SMR requirements instructions—revised 44 Facs guide compliance module 45 iPacs guide inspection tasks 46 pacs guide Monthly Quarterly Water Quality Reports 47 pacs Sampling Data Upload 48 Facs sampling tasks instructions 49 iPacs waste tracking module instructions 50 JCSD PTP Agency Audit Findings 51 OC Vacuum Draft Liquid Waste Hauler Permit 1 52 OC Vacuum Draft Liquid Waste Hauler Permit 2 53 OC Vacuum, Inc. -H1112-1- Permit Expires 11-2-2017 54 OCSD-Primary Prg Elements Frequencies&Types by Industry Classification 55 Repet Enforcement Amended Notice of Violation and Order Corrective Action-2-18-2015 56 Repet Enforcement Cease and Desist Order-7-10-2014 57 Repet Enforcement Cease and Desist Order and Compliance Order-10-17-2014 58 Repet Enforcement Cease and Desist Order and Compliance Order-11-12-2014 59 Repet Enforcement Cease and Desist Order and Compliance Order Ltr Rev-11-17-2014 60 Repet Enforcement Civil Penalty Order and Compliance Order-8-14-2014 61 Repet Enforcement Closure of Compliance Order-3-2-2015 62 Repet Enforcement Follow-up Report of Compliance Status-2-25-2015 63 Repet Enforcement Modification to Compliance Order 12-22-14 64 Repet Enforcement Modification to Compliance Order No.2-12-29-2014 65 Repet Enforcement Monthly Compliance Status Report- 1-7-2015 66 Repet Enforcement Notice of Violation and Order Corrective Action -2-10-2015 67 Repet Enforcement Notice of Violation and Order for Corrective Action -1-20-2015 68 Repet Enforcement NOV Response-Adler Batch Tank Elimination-2-17-2015 69 Repet Enforcement NOV Response- 1-27-2015 70 Repet Enforcement NOV Response-2-6-2015 71 Repet Enforcement November Monthly Progress Report-12-5-2014 72 SBMWD PTP Agency Audit Findings 73 SBVMWD&SBMWD Capacity Rights 8-16-2011 74 SOP_Lab_Review—DRAFT 75 SOP_Sampling_DRAFT 76 SunOpta Enforcement-08.03.15 77 SunOpta Enforcement-08.15.15 78 Valley PTP Agency Audit Findings 79 WMWD PTP Agency Audit Findings 80 WQ_Report_Review_Log 81 WRCRWA Enforcement-NOV-9-10-2014 82 WRCRWA Enforcement-NOV-9-24-2014 83 WRCRWA Enforcement-NOV Response-9-29-2014 STEERING COMMITTEE Meng Dat0 TOBE. Dir. 07/lti27/16 07/27/1Of6 AGENDA REPORT ItemNumber Item Number a Orange County Sanitation District FROM: James D. Herberg, General Manager Originator: Celia Chandler, Director of Human Resources SUBJECT: COMPENSATION STUDY FINAL RESULTS GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION Receive and file the Compensation Study final results. BACKGROUND The organization initiated its comprehensive classification and compensation (C & C) study in March 2015 for the purpose of updating its job classification specifications and benchmarking against other organizations' job structures and compensation systems. Classification and compensation studies are conducted periodically by organizations to obtain information on how other agencies structure their positions and compensate employees in similar positions. Key business reasons for conducting the Orange County Sanitation District's (Sanitation District) study were changes due to reorganization, recruitment/retention considerations, and labor relations, in addition to the time lapse from the prior study. The classification phase is near completion, with discussions with bargaining units ongoing to finalize classification specifications. Koff & Associates has completed data collection and analysis for the study's compensation phase. Georg Krammer, Chief Executive Officer with Koff & Associates, will present the final report of the compensation study findings. RELEVANT STANDARDS • Plan for and execute succession and provide for professional growth, development • Comply with Article 29 Classification Studies of the Sanitation District's Memoranda of Understanding with represented employee groups • Industry best practices recommend a study every five years for business relevance and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) PROBLEM The C & C study provides an opportunity for the organization to update its compensation plan in support of Board direction. Page 1 of 2 PROPOSED SOLUTION Receive and file the final report for the Sanitation District's compensation study. TIMING CONCERNS Koff & Associates' presentation of the compensation study final report aligns with Board direction. RAMIFICATIONS OF NOT TAKING ACTION N/A PRIOR COMMITTEE/BOARD ACTIONS June 2016-The Steering Committee received the preliminary compensation study results as an information item. April 2016 - The Administration Committee awarded a Professional Consultant Services Agreement with Koff & Associates for the compensation phase of the classification and compensation study, Specification CS-2014-6306D, for a total amount not to exceed $65,040, with a new total amount of phase one and two not to exceed $126,929, and approved a contingency of$6,504 (10%). September 2015 — The Board of Directors approved the list of 17 comparison agencies selected by the Sanitation District in collaboration with stakeholder groups and approved beginning the next phase of the C & C Study, which includes a labor market survey. February 2014 - The Administration Committee authorized the General Manager to advertise a request for proposal and subsequently award a Consultant Services Agreement for a Sanitation District-wide C & C Study, for a total amount not to exceed $100,000. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The total cost to complete the project will not exceed $133,433, as approved by the Sanitation District's Administration Committee on April 13, 2016. This request complies with authority levels of the Sanitation District's Purchasing Ordinance. This item has been budgeted. ATTACHMENT The following attachment(s) may be viewed on-line at the OCSD website (wwwocsd.corn with the complete agenda package: N/A Page 2 of 2 ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT Agenda Terminology Glossary Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations AQMD Air Quality Management District ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CARB California Air Resources Board CASA California Association of Sanitation Agencies CCTV Closed Circuit Television CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CIP Capital Improvement Program CRWQCB California Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Clean Water Act CWEA California Water Environment Association EIR Environmental Impact Report EMT Executive Management Team EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency FOG Fats, Oils, and Grease gpd Gallons per day GWR System Groundwater Replenishment System (also called GWRS) ICS Incident Command System IERP Integrated Emergency Control Plan LOS Level of Service MGD Million gallons per day NACWA National Association of Clean Water Agencies NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NWRI National Water Research Institute O&M Operations and Maintenance OCCOG Orange County Council of Governments OCHCA Orange County Health Care Agency OCSD Orange County Sanitation District OCWD Orange County Water District COBS Ocean Outfall Booster Station OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCSA Professional Consultant Services Agreement POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works ppm Parts per million PSA Professional Services Agreement RFP Request For Proposal Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SARFPA Santa Ana River Flood Protection Agency SARI Santa Ana River Inceptor SARWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board SAWPA Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition system SCAP Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SOCWA South Orange County Wastewater Authority SSMP Sanitary Sewer Management Plan SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TDS Total Dissolved Solids TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TSS Total Suspended Solids WDR Waste Discharge Requirements WEF Water Environment Federation WERF Water Environment Research Foundation Activated-sludge process — A secondary biological wastewater treatment process where bacteria reproduce at a high rate with the introduction of excess air or oxygen, and consume dissolved nutrients in the wastewater. Benthos—The community of organisms, such as sea stars, worms, and shrimp, which live on, in, or near the seabed, also known as the benthic zone. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) —The amount of oxygen used when organic matter undergoes decomposition by microorganisms. Testing for BOD is done to assess the amount of organic matter in water. Biogas — A gas that is produced by the action of anaerobic bacteria on organic waste matter in a digester tank that can be used as a fuel. Biosolids — Biosolids are nutrient rich organic and highly treated solid materials produced by the wastewater treatment process. This high-quality product can be recycled as a soil amendment on farm land or further processed as an earth-like product for commercial and home gardens to improve and maintain fertile soil and stimulate plant growth. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) — Projects for repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of assets. Also includes treatment improvements, additional capacity, and projects for the support facilities. Coliform bacteria —A group of bacteria found in the intestines of humans and other animals, but also occasionally found elsewhere used as indicators of sewage pollution. E. coli are the most common bacteria in wastewater. Collections system — In wastewater, it is the system of typically underground pipes that receive and convey sanitary wastewater or storm water. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Certificate of Participation (COP) — A type of financing where an investor purchases a share of the lease revenues of a program rather than the bond being secured by those revenues. Contaminants of Potential Concern (CPC) — Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants. Dilution to Threshold (D/T) — the dilution at which the majority of the people detect the odor becomes the D/T for that air sample. Greenhouse gases — In the order of relative abundance water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone gases that are considered the cause of global warming ("greenhouse effect"). Groundwater Replenishment (GWR) System — A joint water reclamation project that proactively responds to Southern California's current and future water needs. This joint project between the Orange County Water District and the Orange County Sanitation District provides 70 million gallons a day of drinking quality water to replenish the local groundwater supply. Levels of Service(LOS)—Goals to support environmental and public expectations for performance. NDMA— N-Nitrosodimethylamine is an N-nitrosoamine suspected cancer-causing agent. It has been found in the Groundwater Replenishment System process and is eliminated using hydrogen peroxide with extra ultra-violet treatment. National Biosolids Partnership (NBP) — An alliance of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) and Water Environment Federation (WEF), with advisory support from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NBP is committed to developing and advancing environmentally sound and sustainable biosolids management practices that go beyond regulatory compliance and promote public participation in order to enhance the credibility of local agency biosolids programs and improved communications that lead to public acceptance. Plume—A visible or measurable concentration of discharge from a stationary source or fixed facility. Publicly-owned Treatment Works(POTW)— Municipal wastewater treatment plant. Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) Line — A regional brine line designed to convey 30 million gallons per day of non-reclaimable wastewater from the upper Santa Ana River basin to the ocean for disposal, after treatment. Sanitary sewer — Separate sewer systems specifically for the carrying of domestic and industrial wastewater. Combined sewers carry both wastewater and urban run-off. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) — Regional regulatory agency that develops plans and regulations designed to achieve public health standards by reducing emissions from business and industry. Secondary treatment — Biological wastewater treatment, particularly the activated-sludge process, where bacteria and other microorganisms consume dissolved nutrients in wastewater. Sludge— Untreated solid material created by the treatment of wastewater. Total suspended solids (TSS)—The amount of solids floating and in suspension in wastewater. Glossary of Terms and Abbreviations Trickling filter — A biological secondary treatment process in which bacteria and other microorganisms, growing as slime on the surface of rocks or plastic media, consume nutrients in wastewater as it trickles over them. Urban runoff — Water from city streets and domestic properties that carry pollutants into the storm drains, rivers, lakes, and oceans. Wastewater—Any water that enters the sanitary sewer. Watershed —A land area from which water drains to a particular water body. OCSD's service area is in the Santa Ana River Watershed.