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 Any items withdrawn from the Consent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.