Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99.01-SAWPA Remedial Plan Report.pdf Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA) Remedial Plan Report March 19 , 2014 Go Nj� SANI Tq p02 m = 9 ¢ c> O H 9ol�CT/N� THE ENV\e`0���2 Prepared by: Orange County Sanitation District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708-7018 TABLE OF CONTENTS ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................E.1 ES.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................E.1 ES.2 Background......................................................................................................................E.1 ES.3 Objective of the SAWPA Remedial Plan .........................................................................E.2 ESA Methodology for the SAWPA Remedial Plan...................................................................E.2 ES.5 Outcome...........................................................................................................................E.3 ES.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................E.3 ES.7 Requirements and Recommendations.............................................................................EA 1.0 BACKGROUND ...............................................................................................................................1 1.1 SAWPA...............................................................................................................................1 1.2 2012 Audit Triggers.............................................................................................................2 1.3 Major 2012 Audit Findings..................................................................................................3 2.0 SAWPA REMEDIAL PLAN..............................................................................................................4 2.1 SAWPA Remedial Plan Gate Process and Life Cycle........................................................6 2.2 SAWPA Remedial Plan Execution......................................................................................7 3.0 SAWPA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION...........8 3.1 Requirements 2 and 6.........................................................................................................8 3.2 Requirement 3...................................................................................................................10 3.3 Requirement 7...................................................................................................................10 3.4 Requirement 8...................................................................................................................11 3.5 Implementation..................................................................................................................11 4.0 FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.....................................................................................................................11 4.1 YVWD as a Contract Agency............................................................................................12 4.2 Requests for Wastewater Originating Outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area.................. 12 4.3 Stormwaler........................................................................................................................13 4.4 Reclaimable Wastewater..................................................................................................13 4.5 Pre-approved Situations ...................................................................................................13 4.6 Substantially Similar Programs.........................................................................................14 4.7 PPCD................................................................................................................................14 5.0 CONCLUSION...............................................................................................................................14 6.0 REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...........................................................................15 6.1 For SAWPA.......................................................................................................................15 6.2 For OCSD.........................................................................................................................15 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................................15 7.1 SAWPA.............................................................................................................................16 7.2 OCSD................................................................................................................................16 TABLES Table 2.1 SAWPA Remedial Plan Thirteen Requirements.................................................................5 Table2.2 Punch List Groupings..........................................................................................................7 APPENDICES Volume I—Governing Control Documents for SAWPA-OCSD Pretreatment Relationship • Appendix A 1991 Pretreatment Memorandum of Understanding • Appendix B 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement • Appendix C 2012 SAWPA Pretreatment Program Audit • Appendix D OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations (OCSD Ordinance No. 39) • Appendix E 2013 SAWPA Remedial Plan • Appendix F SAWPA Remedial Plan Gate Process • Appendix G SAWPA Remedial Plan Deliverable Expectations • Appendix H SAWPA Remedial Plan Communication Plan Volume 11—SAWPA Remedial Plan Project Documents • Appendix I SAWPA Remedial Plan Overview (including the Work Breakdown Structure and Complete Gate Overview) • Appendix J Requirements Activities • Appendix K SAWPA Remedial Plan Punch List • Appendix L SAWPA Pretreatment Program Evaluation(by Dudek) • Appendix M Post SAWPA Remedial Plan Side Letter • Appendix N 2012 Audit Response Deliverable Summary Volume III—Updated and/or New SAWPA Pretreatment Program Control Documents • Appendix O SAWPA Ordinance No. 7 • Appendix P Inland Empire Brine Line Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement • Appendix Q SAWPA Pretreatment Program Policies • Appendix R SAWPA Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan • Appendix S SAWPA Procedures ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ESA Introduction As the holder of an NPDES Permit with a large base of industrial dischargers, the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)instituted a Pretreatment Program, which has been approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX. Since OCSD has an approved Pretreatment Program, OCSD must fulfill its role as the Control Authority by controlling all dischargers into its collection and treatment systems. This is done through the adoption of wastewater discharge regulations that stipulate issuing permits for industrial and commercial facilities and by enforcing permit conditions. To facilitate the cleanup of groundwater containing high levels of Total Dissolved Solids(TDS) in an area of the Inland Empire defined in the 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement(1996 Agreement)as"SAWPA's SARI Service Area,"OCSD and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA)entered into agreements starting in the 1970s that allow SAWPA to discharge wastewater containing high TDS into OCSD's collection system through a specific sewer trunk that connects the two agencies. This trunk is referred to by OCSD as the"Santa Ana River Interceptor' (SARI)Line. Agreements governing the usage of the SARI Line and requirements resulting therefrom include the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding between SA WPA and CSDOC Governing Quality Control of Wastewater Discharged to the SARI(1991 MOU)and the 1996 Agreement. Through these agreements, OCSD, as the Control Authority for its Pretreatment Program, granted SAWPA authority to control the dischargers in SAWPA's area;therefore, SAWPA is OCSD's Delegated Control Authority and is responsible to OCSD for running a Pretreatment Program to issue permits and enforce permit conditions for all discharges from SAWPA's SARI Service Area to OCSD. The SAWPA Pretreatment Program is an extension and a critical part of OCSD's own Pretreatment Program. As the Control Authority, OCSD is required to have a Pretreatment Program, and, thus, OCSD has required that SAWPA establish a substantially similar or more stringent (hereafter referred to as "substantially similar") Pretreatment Program than that of OCSD's Pretreatment Program, because OCSD's Pretreatment Program is approved by EPA and the RWQCB, and OCSD is responsible to these regulators to ensure that SAWPA maintains compliance with applicable Pretreatment regulations and conditions for discharging into OCSD's SARI Line and wastewater treatment facilities. Some of the major elements of the Pretreatment Program include the issuance of permits, the performance of inspections, the collection of samples ("monitoring"), the review of permittee self- monitoring reports, and the initiation of enforcement activities, when necessary. The relationship between OCSD, as the Control Authority, and SAWPA, as the Delegated Control Authority, for the SARI Line is governed by the requirements, responsibilities, and practices as specified in the following documents or their successors: NPDES Permit No. CA011 0604; OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, Ordinance No. OCSD-39, SAWPA's Brine Line Ordinance No. 7; and the agreements between OCSD and SAWPA, in particular the 1991 MOU and the 1996 Agreement. ES.2 Background Since 2011, OCSD staff began to observe that SAWPA had violated provisions of the 1991 MOU and the 1996 Agreement. Furthermore, in March 2012, OCSD staff became aware that SAWPA had allowed the unauthorized discharge of nine million gallons of mining wastewater that originated outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area into a facility connected to the SARI Line. Although the facility was permitted by one of SAWPA's Member Agencies, the permit for the facility did not have the proper permit category, limits, and requirements for wastewater resulting from mining operations. Upon becoming aware of the discharge, OCSD issued an Order to Cease Noncompliant Discharge to SAWPA. The magnitude and significance of the violations of the agreements warranted OCSD to exercise its right under the 1991 MOU to audit the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. The goal of the audit was to ensure that SAWPA and any other agency having discharge rights to the SARI Line pursuant to contracts with EA SAWPA are adequately administering and diligently enforcing Pretreatment Programs in conformance with federal Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403), the 1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement, and OCSD's regulations, requirements, and practices for discharges to the SARI Line. These other agencies are SAWPA's four Member Agencies: Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Western Municipal Water District (WMWD), and San Bemadino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD). OCSD retained Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC)to perform the comprehensive audit between August and November of 2012. The audit revealed that SAWPA and its Member Agencies did not always follow important program requirements, responsibilities, and practices and did not always comply with the 1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement. The November 2012 audit report contained seventy-five (75)findings, many of which required further action. ES.3 Objective of the SAWPA Remedial Plan On January 23, 2013, OCSD's Board of Directors issued a Remedial Plan to SAWPA to correct deficiencies in SAWPA's Pretreatment Program. The Remedial Plan, referred to as the SAWPA Remedial Plan (SRP), was developed by OCSD staff to ensure that SAWPA addressed the items in its Pretreatment Program identified during the 2012 audit by OCSD (EEC) as well as any items that were encountered by SAWPA or OCSD during SAWPA's effort to address the audit findings and to bring improvements to SAWPA's overall Pretreatment Program. However, in the early stages of the SAWPA Remedial Plan, SAWPA informed OCSD that it did not have a Pretreatment Program; therefore, the focus then shifted from improving an existing program to building the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. To build the SAWPA Pretreatment Program, SAWPA had to revise existing Pretreatment Program Control Documents and create new ones. This effort entailed revising SAWPA's current Ordinance; developing and entering into a new Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement (MJPA) with the SAWPA Member Agencies and other agencies (known as"Contract Agencies"); and developing new Policies, Procedures, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP), and an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). The Pretreatment Program Control Documents are critical for establishing the legal authority and foundation for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to allow SAWPA to issue industrial user (IU) discharge permits that are adequate and enforceable. Before creating these documents, one of the decisions was how the SAWPA Pretreatment Program would function and be implemented. OCSD's contractual agreement is with SAWPA and does not extend to the Member or Contract Agencies. OCSD holds SAWPA responsible for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program under any arrangement between SAWPA and its Member and Contract Agencies. SAWPA's compliance with all Pretreatment and agreement requirements is the ultimate objective. Therefore, the SRP was developed based on the idea and recommendation that SAWPA runs its own Pretreatment Program and directly controls all dischargers to the SARI Line. SAWPA hired a consultant, Dudek, to review the options and recommend a method for managing the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. As a result, SAWPA informed OCSD of its desire to run a SAWPA- directed Pretreatment Program, in which SAWPA would be responsible and liable directly to OCSD but would also continue to administer the existing Pretreatment Program. Such an arrangement would entail SAWPA doing some Pretreatment work to prevent conflict of interest issues in situations where Agencies permitted their own facilities. Aside from addressing conflict of interest situations, SAWPA would primarily oversee and direct the work of the Member and Contract Agencies, who act as SAWPA's "boots on the ground:' ESA Methodology for the SAWPA Remedial Plan With the understanding that transforming the conditions contributing to the identified omissions and deficiencies in SAWPA's program requires a sustained effort, OCSD followed a systematic approach emphasizing the importance of establishing a recognized legal authority enabling SAWPA to implement and enforce a delegated Pretreatment Program substantially similar to that of OCSD's Pretreatment Program. OCSD's method included a framework consisting of a sequence of project progress stages to be achieved for SAWPA to complete the SAWPA Remedial Plan. In the initial step, OCSD created a E.2 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)for the thirteen SAWPA Remedial Plan Requirements. In addition, a Communication Plan was developed to provide a structured path for interaction between OCSD and SAWPA and to define roles and responsibilities of the staff involved with the SAWPA Remedial Plan. The achievement of each project Requirement progress was marked by a decision Gate. A decision Gate indicated a milestone in the SAWPA Remedial Plan sequence where the current state of the SAWPA Remedial Plan implementation, or more specifically a Requirement, was evaluated. For each decision Gate, OCSD defined the Deliverable for submittal,which consisted of one or more items. Based on the submitted documentation, OCSD decided whether the SAWPA Remedial Plan progress stage was completed successfully and whether the next SAWPA Remedial Plan stage was ready to be entered. In addition to the Gate meetings, Technical Discussions were often held to discuss items in greater detail. OCSD also transmitted Submittal Review Comments or drafts Submittal Review Comments to help SAWPA make the corrections necessary or to provide guidance. ES.5 Outcome Since the issuance of the SAWPA Remedial Plan, SAWPA worked to develop a new unified Pretreatment Program that would address the concerns identified during the 2012 SAWPA Audit and the SAWPA Remedial Plan. SAWPA established two new groups, the Pretreatment Working Group and the Pretreatment Management Team, in which SAWPA has extended an invitation for OCSD to sit in on to provide technical support and to facilitate communication and accountability among SAWPA and its Member and Contract Agencies. OCSD worked with SAWPA to pass as many Requirements, Gates, and Conditions as possible before the January 17, 2014, deadline. SAWPA passed through all 21 Gates, and SAWPA successfully completed 7 of 13 SRP Requirements and 52 of 72 Gate Conditions. After collaborating with SAWPA, OCSD issued a side letter on March 13, 2014, to capture some of the understandings between the parties not otherwise documented in the SAWPA Remedial Plan. Issues listed in the side letter include interpretation of definitions, practices acceptable to OCSD, and expectations of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. Remaining items are continuing and are slated to be addressed by June 30, 2014. The remaining items that are discrete tasks were memorialized in a Punch List. A listing of the general groupings of the tasks in the Punch List is provided below: GroupSubject A Establishment of Substantial) Similar Pretreatment Programs B I Revision of Pretreatment Program Control Documents C I Data Management System At the completion of the SAWPA Remedial Plan, SAWPA had developed five Pretreatment Program Control Documents that constitute the legal basis, foundation, and framework for its Pretreatment Program. The Pretreatment Program Control Documents encompass SAWPA's revised Ordinance and newly developed MJPA, ERP, Policies, and Procedures. Due to modifications made to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program and the amount of work required to draft the Pretreatment Program Control Documents, SAWPA's Pretreatment Program Control Documents will be improved over time. Moreover, for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to be substantially similar to OCSD's Pretreatment Program, SAWPA must further align its Pretreatment Program Control Documents with OCSD's Pretreatment Program, and whenever OCSD revises its Pretreatment Program Control Documents, SAWPA will be required to update its Pretreatment Program Control Documents to ensure that its Pretreatment Program remains substantially similar. ES.6 Conclusion OCSD and SAWPA invested a considerable amount of time and effort in creating the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. SAWPA decided to implement a directed Pretreatment Program, in which SAWPA simultaneously remains responsible and liable to OCSD at all times, while primarily coordinating, E.3 directing, and reviewing the Pretreatment Program efforts of the Member and Contract Agencies. SAWPA appears ready to maintain, improve/enhance, and sustain all SAWPA Pretreatment Program elements established under the SRP, including Pretreatment Program staffing and resources. In turn, OCSD will continue to oversee SAWPA's efforts and will conduct future audits to verify that the SAWPA Pretreatment Program development is essentially completed and that its implementation is in compliance with all regulations and requirements. SAWPA must continue to align the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with OCSD's Pretreatment Program. Without substantially similar Pretreatment Programs, both OCSD and SAWPA are always at a significant risk when undergoing a regulatory inspection or audit. During the SAWPA Remedial Plan, OCSD assisted SAWPA to establish a Pretreatment Program substantially similar to OCSD's Pretreatment Program. SAWPA must carefully fill its Manager of Pretreatment and Permitting and obtain other necessary expert resources to help achieve the SAWPA Remedial Plan objectives and requirements in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. If SAWPA wishes to retain a SAWPA-directed program, SAWPA must be able to retain in-house staff to ensure that there is continuity for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. Changes to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program need to be made in a manner transparent to OCSD to ensure that the SAWPA Pretreatment Program is developed and implemented properly at all times. OCSD will host recurring meetings regularly with SAWPA and SAWPA's Member and Contract Agencies to help all agencies fulfil their respective duties and obligations. Moving forward and after one year of working together on the SRP, OCSD and SAWPA will begin a new chapter in their working relationship. A positive vision for a new era is envisioned by OCSD and SAWPA. OCSD and SAWPA desire to build a new working relationship and to implement activities to foster regular communication, collaboration, and cooperation. The primary concerns at OCSD include the protection of OCSD's wastewater collection, treatment, and reclamation facilities, the health and safety of its workers, the current and future biosolids reuse, compliance with its NPDES Permit regulating discharge to the Pacific Ocean, and the Groundwater Replenishment System. It is important to mention that as a result of the 2012 audit and SRP implementation, the risk to OCSD has been reduced; however, the risk would be reduced further if SAWPA and OCSD implemented the requirements and recommendations listed below. ES.7 Requirements and Recommendations For SAWPA: 1. SAWPA shall address the Punch List items by June 30,2014. SAWPA shall provide progress updates to OCSD on a monthly basis. 2. SAWPA shall meet approximately quarterly with OCSD to address Pretreatment Program issues of concern. For OCSD: 1. OCSD will provide updates to the OCSD Steering Committee on the status of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. 2. OCSD will conduct regular audits of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program starting in the fall of 2014 after SAWPA has had time to implement the SAWPA Pretreatment Program,e.g., issue some permits and conduct some enforcement activities. OCSD will audit the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to verify whether the agencies are fulfilling their respective obligations and requirements and assess whether additional modifications are required. 3. OCSD will establish quarterly Pretreatment Program Coordination Meetings with SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies to promote coordination,cooperation, collaboration, and alignment of the two Pretreatment Programs. OCSD will also participate in SAWPA's Pretreatment Working Group and Pretreatment Management Team meetings. 4. OCSD will provide information on the state of SAWPA's Pretreatment Program to SAWPA based on internal review and third party audit of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. OCSD will provide SAWPA advanced notice of any planned or required changes to the OCSD approved Pretreatment Program. EA 1.0 BACKGROUND In accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 403), the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), as the holder of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Permit, NPDES Permit No. CA011 0604, and with a large base of industrial dischargers, instituted a Pretreatment Program to control wastewater pollutants that may impact its collection system and wastewater treatment facilities. OCSD's Pretreatment Program,also known as its Source Control Program, has been approved by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (RWQCB)and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX(EPA). Because OCSD has an approved Pretreatment Program, OCSD by definition is the Control Authority (CA)over wastewater discharges to its collection system that are subject to National Pretreatment Standards. One source of such wastewater is from the Inland Empire area. To facilitate the reclamation of groundwater with high levels of Total Dissolved Solids(TDS),typically salts, in the Inland Empire from an area defined in the 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement(1996 Agreement,Appendix B) as"SAWPA's SARI Service Area,"OCSD and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority(SAWPA) entered into agreements starling in the 1970s that allow SAWPA to discharge wastewater containing high TDS into OCSD's collection system through a specific sewer trunk. In addition to wastewater from the groundwater reclamation sites,the discharge to the SARI Line also contains industrial wastewater, including wastewater subject to the National Pretreatment Standards, that is considered nonreclaimable, typically because of high TDS levels. The sewer trunk into which SAWPA discharges and that ultimately connects the two agencies is referred to by OCSD as the"Santa Ana River Interceptor" (SARI)Line. SAWPA has connected extensions, known as reaches, to the SARI Line throughout SAWPA's area of jurisdiction. SAWPA previously referred to the SARI Line as the"Santa Ana Regional Interceptor'Line, but around 2009, SAWPA renamed the SARI Line with the reaches to the"Inland Empire Brine Line" (IEBL). For this report,the term"SARI Line"will be used. Agreements governing the usage of the SARI Line and requirements resulting therefrom include the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding between SAWPA and CSDOC Governing Quality Control of Wastewater Discharged to the SARI(1991 MOU,Appendix A)and the 1996 Agreement. Collectively,the 1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement are referred to as the"Agreements." Through such agreements, OCSD, as the CA, granted SAWPA authority over the dischargers in SAWPA's area; therefore, SAWPA is OCSD's Delegated Control Authority(DCA)and is responsible to OCSD for running a Pretreatment Program similar to OCSD's Pretreatment Program to control discharges from SAWPA's SARI Service Area to OCSD. 1.1 SAWPA In 1972 SAWPA became a Joint Powers Authority with a mission is to build facilities to protect the quality of the water in the Santa Ana River Basin. Final agreements for the current agency became effective in 1975 ("Meet-Us." www.sawoa.ora. n.p. 2012. March 10, 2014, htto://www.sawpa.org/meet-us/; 2012- 2013 Orange County Sanitation District Pretreatment Program Annual Report, P. 8.12). SAWPA's water quality management program is integrated with those of other local, state, and federal agencies. For example, SAWPA and OCSD jointly own and operate the SARI Line(2006 SARI Business Plan, p. 8). The SARI Line is intended to provide a cost-effective, sustainable means of disposal of nonreclaimable wastewater high in TDS for utilities and industries within SAWPA's SARI Service Area. The highest and best use of the SARI Line is the removal of salts from the watershed, thereby expanding the ability to reclaim water and maximizing the use of limited groundwater resources ("Brine-Line." www.sawpa.oro. n.p. 2012. March 10, 2014, htto://www.sawpa.orcl/brine-linel). Due to the size and nature of SAWPA's jurisdiction, an extensive collection system does not exist. SAWPA primarily has trunk lines, what it calls "reaches." Therefore, wastewater is discharged into the SARI Line in a manner that is different from many sewering agencies. Direct-discharge users are located close enough to the SARI Line or a reach to construct a direct connection, and the users produce enough TDS waste to economically justify the connection cost. Indirect users dispose of their wastewater using permitted commercial liquid waste 1 haulers (LWH), which dispose of the wastewater at one of the four SARI Line Liquid Waste Hauler Collection Stations. 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 SAWPA's SARI Service Area is located less than 20 miles from an LWH Collection Station (2012 SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report, p. 7). The nonreclaimable wastewater from utilities and industry within SAWPA's SARI Service Area is currently transported via the SARI Line to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2. After treatment by OCSD, the effluent is discharged to the Pacific Ocean. In contrast, the majority of wastewater received at OCSD Reclamation Plant No. 1 is treated and is further processed by the Groundwater Replenishment System (GWRS) located on the Orange County Water District's (OCWD) property next door to OCSD. After undergoing additional treatment, the water is sent up to the Anaheim area to recharge the groundwater aquifers. At some point in the future, the GWRS may reclaim flows currently going to OCSD Treatment Plant No. 2 as well. To discharge wastewater into the SARI Line legally, SAWPA must be in compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, including the agreements between SAWPA and OCSD. The relationship between OCSD as the CA and SAWPA as the DCA for the SARI Line is governed by the following documents or their successors: NPDES Permit No. CA011 0604; OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations; and the agreements between OCSD and SAWPA, in particular the 1991 MOU and the 1996 Agreement. The Agreements require SAWPA to meet certain quality criteria on wastewater strength and characteristics as provided in OCSD's Wastewater Discharge Regulations, of which the current version is Ordinance No. OCSD-39(Appendix D). In addition, SAWPA is required by the Agreements to comply with certain program requirements, such as implementing a Pretreatment Program in accordance with 40 CFR 403. OCSD considers the SAWPA Pretreatment Program an extension and a critical part of OCSD's own Pretreatment Program. As the CA for all wastewater discharges into its facilities, OCSD is required to have a Pretreatment Program, and, thus, OCSD has required that SAWPA establish and implement a substantially similar or more stringent (hereafter referred to as "substantially similar") Pretreatment Program than that of OCSD's approved Pretreatment Program for the dischargers in its area of jurisdiction. Some major elements of the Pretreatment Program include the issuance of permits, inspections, the collection and analysis of samples ("monitoring"), the review of permittee self-monitoring reports, and enforcement activities, when necessary. As the CA, OCSD has the responsibility to ensure that SAWPA complies with all applicable Pretreatment regulations and requirements. In turn, SAWPA is required to ensure that discharges into the SARI Line comply with all applicable regulations and requirements, including the Agreements with OCSD. 1.2 2012 Audit Triggers Since 2011, OCSD staff began to observe that SAWPA had violated provisions of the Agreements. Examples include the following: SAWPA failed to do its duty when it passed along permits to OCSD for its concurrence review that had major and obvious problems, including different company names in a single permit, obsolete legal citations, and incorrect permit categorization. SAWPA even failed to produce a list of permittees upon request, because it did not have such a list. The situation reached a tipping point in early 2012. In March 2012, OCSD became aware that SAWPA had been allowing a significant unauthorized, illegal discharge to the SARI Line. Over a period of four months, Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) allowed Corona Resource Recovery (CRR), who had leased the Dairy Farmers of America property, to discharge more than 9 million gallons of mining wastewater into the Dairy Farmers of America's facility, which discharges to the SARI Line. The mining wastewater was from Molycorp, whose facility is located in Mountain Pass, CA near the borders of California, Nevada, and Arizona, which is outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area. Not only was this action done with SAWPA's approval but without written approval from OCSD as required in the 1996 Agreement, but neither SAWPA nor WMWD, despite using the same consultant for Pretreatment work, issued the facility a permit with the correct federal category, categorical discharge limits, and appropriate requirements as required. In addition, neither SAWPA nor WMWD conducted due diligence by collecting samples to confirm the constituents present in the wastewater or 2 inspecting the mining operation. Coincidental to this time frame, OCSD experienced higher than normal levels of arsenic in its biosolids. A later inquiry revealed that the wastewater had been previously rejected by an Arizona sewering agency nearer to the original source of the wastewater due to the detection of radioactivity. Upon becoming aware of the illegal discharge and because SAWPA and WMWD failed to permit the CRR operation properly, OCSD issued SAWPA an Order to Cease Noncompliant Discharge. Due to the magnitude and significance of the failure to uphold the Pretreatment standards and regulations and the violations of the Agreements that culminated in the discharge of illegal wastewater into OCSD's facilities, OCSD exercised its right under the 1991 MOU to audit SAWPA's and its Member Agencies' Pretreatment Programs in regards to discharges to the SARI Line. OCSD retained Environmental Engineering and Contracting, Inc. (EEC) to perform a comprehensive audit of SAWPA's and its Member Agencies' Pretreatment Programs between August and November of 2012. The goal was to verify that SAWPA and any other agency having discharge rights to the SARI Line system pursuant to contracts with SAWPA, i.e., one of SAWPA's four Member Agencies (Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA), Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), WMWD, and San Bernadino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD)), are adequately administering and diligently enforcing Pretreatment Programs in conformance with federal Pretreatment regulations (40 CFR 403), the Agreements, and OCSD's regulations, requirements, and practices. 1.3 Major 2012 Audit Findings The audit revealed that SAWPA and its Member Agencies did not always follow required Pretreatment Program requirements, nor did they comply with the Agreements and OCSD's Pretreatment Program. EEC's audit report (Appendix C) identified specific findings of violations, noncompliance, deficiencies, program effectiveness issues, and best management practices, and EEC presented recommendations to address the various findings. The audit report was issued in November 2012 and contained 75 findings, of which 88% were negative findings and many required further action. The Pretreatment Program deficiencies covered the entire gamut, including problems with administration, conflict of interest situations, oversight, permitting, monitoring, inspection, enforcement, and data management. In particular, SAWPA lacked sufficient Pretreatment expertise and oversight to effectively manage discharges to the SARI Line. Examples of specific findings in the Audit Report include, but were not limited to, the following: 1. Legal Authority a. SAWPA lacked the legal authority to exercise its authority and carry out enforcement actions in areas under the jurisdiction of its Member and other Agencies. b. Existing industrial user discharge permits did not reference current, valid legal documents nor did they reference OCSD's legal authority to administer Pretreatment Programs. 2. Oversight: SAWPA failed to perform the proper monitoring of its Member Agencies' Pretreatment Programs. a. WMWD allowed Jurupa Community Services District(JCSD)and SBVMWD allowed the City of San Bernadino Municipal Water Department(SBMWD)to run their own Pretreatment Programs in violation of the 1991 MOU, and WMWD and SBVMWD did not notify OCSD of this arrangement nor did they notify SAWPA, presumably. b. SAWPA did not independently confirm whether inspections of industrial users were adequately and regularly performed. 3. Agreement Provisions a. SAWPA did not seek OCSD's approval before allowing WMWD to grant permission to an industrial user to accept waste originating from outside the SAWPA SARI Service Area from at least two facilities as required in the 1996 Agreement. b. SAWPA failed to submit reports and data as required. c. SAWPA did not perform due diligence in preparing permits for OCSD's concurrence review. 4. Conflict of Interest a. SAWPA and two of the Member Agencies (SBVMWD and WMWD)retained the same staff from the same consulting firm, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., to implement their 3 individual Pretreatment Programs. The arrangement made it impossible for SAWPA to maintain unbiased oversight and control over these agencies. b. SAWPA allowed Member Agencies to permit their own collection stations and desalter facilities. 5. Permitting a. SAWPA would not produce a list of IU permits with pertinent related information, such as the permit basis documents and permit expiration dates. b. Some permits were based on inaccurate and erroneous information, citations in the permits were incorrect and outdated, incorrect categorizations were selected, the wrong permittee name was mentioned in some sections of the permit, and the permits were not renewed in a timely manner. 6. Monitoring a. Monitoring of the IU facilities was deficient in terms of the amount and type of monitoring conducted. b. Sample points were not correctly identified or used. 7. Inspections a. The inspections conducted at the permitted facilities were insufficient in terms of quantity and quality. b. Inspections are announced ahead of time; therefore, SAWPA and the Member Agencies lacked a crucial method for independently verifying the true status of industrial user facilities as required by 40 CFR 403. 6. Enforcement a. Where they existed, Enforcement Response Plans(ERPs)lacked the legal authority under a Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement for SAWPA to carry out enforcement actions against permitted facilities. b. Required reviews of compliance data were not performed or were performed very late. Consequently,violations were not identified, leading to a lack of enforcement actions that should have included resampling and notification to OCSD and other regulators, such as the RWQCB and EPA. 9. Data Management: Data management and a quality assurance and quality control program were lacking. 10. Reporting: Despite the fact that the 1991 MOU clearly states that SAWPA must provide monthly reports to OCSD, IEUA was the only agency submitting these reports to OCSD. Just before the 2012 SAWPA Audit, SAWPA and the other three Member Agencies resumed submitting the reports. 11. Program Resources a. SAWPA,WMWD, and SBVMWD lacked staff and in-house expertise that is essential for the implementation of adequate Pretreatment Programs. b. SAWPA and its Member Agencies did not dedicate sufficient time or resources to their respective Pretreatment Programs as they relate to the SARI Line. As a result of the audit, EEC recommended that major improvements be implemented at all levels of the Pretreatment Programs to ensure SAWPA's compliance with its obligations and responsibilities and to minimize the risk of repeated instances of significant violations. One of the recommendations in EEC's final audit report was for SAWPA to"manage all aspects of the pretreatment program rather than delegate permitting, monitoring, and enforcement to its member agencies." 2.0 SAWPA REMEDIAL PLAN In accordance with the provisions of the 1991 MOU, on January 23, 2013, OCSD's Board of Directors issued SAWPA a remedial plan, which is referred to as the SAWPA Remedial Plan (SRP, Appendix E). The SRP contained a description of the nature of the Pretreatment Program deficiencies, an enumeration of steps to be taken by SAWPA, and a time schedule for attaining compliance with the Pretreatment requirements. The 2012 audit findings were symptomatic of a deficient Pretreatment Program, so initially 4 the objective of the SRP was to ensure that SAWPA addressed all deficiencies in its Pretreatment Program by assuming control of all Pretreatment activities and by addressing the problems. The SRP consisted of 13 Requirements (see Table 1 below), with each Requirement addressing a deficiency or a category of deficiencies. The Requirements were arranged in a manner to allow SAWPA sufficient time to work through them. The first Requirement addressed those findings from the 2012 Audit that could be readily corrected. The rest of the Requirements addressed policies, procedures, data management and QAIQC(quality assurance and quality control) both internal to the SAWPA organization as well as with SAWPA as the oversight authority over its Member Agencies, agreement issues, and the adequacy of resources at SAWPA necessary for implementing an effective Pretreatment Program. Initially, the SRP Requirements focused on SAWPA developing and implementing new policies, procedures, and practices to enhance what was already in place. However, early in the SRP implementation phase, SAWPA informed OCSD that it did not have a Pretreatment Program. The SRP focus then shifted from improving the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to developing a SAWPA Pretreatment Program. (Note: If a Member or Contract Agency has its own wastewater treatment plant(s), the Member or Contract Agency may have its own separate Pretreatment Program. The focus here is on the SAWPA Pretreatment Program, because discharges to the SARI Line are governed by that program.) Although the scope of the SRP changed, the method and tools for addressing the issues remained that same. Table 1 presents the 13 Requirements and the completion status for each of them. Table 2.1: SAWPA Remedial Plan Thirteen Requirements Requirement Requirement Number 1 SAWPA shall provide a response for each audit finding. 2 SAWPA shall submit a detailed plan, including a transition plan, how SAWPA will manage the Pretreatment Program excluding the Member Agencies. SAWPA shall establish sufficient Pretreatment Program oversight and provide a timeline and an initial organization chart for providing long-term staffing and consultants for ongoing and continuous management of the program. 3 SAWPA shall settle all agreement issues with OCSD. 4 SAWPA shall settle all conflict of interest issues. 5 SAWPA shall notify OCSD which Best Management Practices (BMPs) it will implement. 6 SAWPA shall establish sufficient Pretreatment Program oversight and provide a timeline and a final organization chart for providing long-term staffing for ongoing and continuous management of the program. 7 SAWPA shall update its Pretreatment Policies and Procedures. 8 SAWPA shall issue new or revised permits in accordance with the updated Policies and Procedures. SAWPA shall identify the problem permits and submit a separate timeline for resolving these permits. 9 SAWPA shall obtain compliance with the Pretreatment Policies and Procedures. 10 SAWPA shall address data management issues. 11 SAWPA shall be in full compliance with all requirements. 12 SAWPA shall conduct monthly progress meetings. 13 SAWPA shall submit Quarterly Progress Reports. "Since Febmary 21, 2014, the SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment position is vacant, and SAWPA is trying to fill it. Meanwhile, SAWPA created and filled a second position for a Senior Pretreatment Compliance Specialist. The new hire started work on Febmary 27,2014. 5 2.1 SAWPA Remedial Plan Gate Process and Life Cycle With the understanding that transforming the conditions contributing to the identified deficiencies in the SAWPA Pretreatment Program required a sustained effort, OCSD followed a systematic approach that consisted of a framework with a sequence of project progress stages to be achieved during the SRP. As a component of the SRP and along with the Requirements and the schedule for meeting each requirement, OCSD employed a system of Gates. The Gate Process and Life Cycle methodology and execution were used for Requirements 1-11 (Requirements 12 and 13 are reporting requirements). The achievement of each project Requirement progress was marked by a decision Gate. In essence,for each Requirement, an Entry Gate and an Exit Gate were assigned. Since Requirement 5 required only one Gate for SAWPA to declare which BMPs it would implement, the SRP had a total of 21 Gates through which SAWPA had to pass to complete the SRP. A Gate indicated a milestone in the SRP sequence, where the current state of a Requirement was evaluated. For each Gate, OCSD defined the required Deliverable for submittal, which typically consisted of one or more items. To open a Gate, SAWPA reviewed and clarified the Deliverable with OCSD, and then SAWPA developed a plan of action to achieve the expected Deliverable. Specific to Entry Gates, they were generally scheduled at the 10% completion phase in the lifecycle of a Requirement. This gave SAWPA an opportunity to develop a plan for proceeding through a particular Requirement and allowed OCSD to make modifications to a plan and to define the Deliverable early on, hence saving SAWPA time and effort that might be lost proceeding down the wrong track. In the same manner, Exit Gates were generally scheduled at 90% completion to allow OCSD the opportunity to review SAWPA's progress and specify any required course corrections before the Requirement had been deemed completed. If SAWPA desired to open a Gate, SAWPA had to comply with the SAWPA Remedial Plan Gate Process (in Appendix 1) and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS, in Appendix 1) and send its submittal to OCSD for review at least one week ahead of the Gate Meeting. If all conditions for holding a Gate Meeting were met,the Gate Meeting proceeded typically in the following manner: 1. SAWPA officially presented its submittal to OCSD and sought OCSD's approval to proceed through the Gate. 2. OCSD asked questions about the submittal and tried to develop an understanding of what SAWPA proposed to do or had done. 3. OCSD evaluated the situation and deliberated to determine if the conditions for passing the Gate were met and SAWPA's submittal was satisfactory to fulfill the Deliverable requirements. The possible Gate Meeting outcomes were as follows: • Pass: the Requirement proceeds to the next Gate, or • Pass with Conditions: the Requirement conditionally proceeds and SAWPA is required to address the conditions specified, or • Fail: the Requirement is not met and notification is sent to OCSD's Steering Committee, Board of Directors, and General Manager for further direction. 4. OCSD announced its decision and issued a Gate Approval Report to SAWPA. To help SAWPA attain compliance with the SRP, OCSD developed and transmitted materials to SAWPA, including the following: a Communication Plan (Appendix H), the WBS, and a set of Deliverable Expectations (Appendix G). At SAWPA's request, OCSD also assembled and provided information about OCSD's Pretreatment Program, including documents related to OCSD's approved Pretreatment Program (including OCSD's Pretreatment Program Control Documents (PPCD)) and OCSD's policies and procedures related to administration, sampling, and inspection. OCSD also shared with SAWPA some of its forms and example documents. In some situations due to the complexity of Deliverables, OCSD transmitted Submittal Review Comments (SRC) or drafts of SRC to help SAWPA make the corrections necessary or to provide guidance for developing or correcting its submittals (see Appendix J). Noteworthy is the fact that SAWPA was not always receptive to the SRC, and in one instance, SAWPA refused to receive OCSD's SRC. On a few occasions, a Technical Discussion was requested by SAWPA or proposed by OCSD to discuss, in depth, the details of a Deliverable. The technical meetings presented a forum for an open face-to-face discussion that led for a better understanding of the Deliverable and the sharing of ideas on the best approach for SAWPA to meet the Requirement. 6 2.2 SAWPA Remedial Plan Execution Despite the change from improving an existing to developing a new SAWPA Pretreatment Program, SAWPA generally followed the SRP. Some of SAWPA's decisions and the resources SAWPA provided for the SRP affected the order and timing of some of the Requirements. In such cases, SAWPA discussed the situation with OCSD, and OCSD generally accommodated SAWPA's requests. Developing a SAWPA Pretreatment Program meant establishing the legal basis and contractual agreements between SAWPA and its Member and Contract Agencies. It also meant addressing the key requirements of a Pretreatment Program including: • Establishing legal authority to implement and enforce the Pretreatment Program; • Developing policies and procedures for permitting, inspection, sampling, reporting, enforcement, and other activities to ensure compliance with the requirements of the Pretreatment Program (through statute, ordinance, or contract); • Dedicating resources and qualified personnel to implement the Pretreatment Program; • Enforcing developed or adopted local limits; • Developing an ERP to investigate and respond to violations in an objective and equitable manner with pathways that are clearly defined; • Producing a work process to continually develop and maintain an inventory of facilities that meet the criteria of"Significant Industrial User"(SIU); and • Developing and implementing oversight processes to ensure compliance with the SAWPA Pretreatment Program requirements(i.e., self-accountability). Although OCSD cooperated with SAWPA to allow SAWPA to pass as many Requirements, Gates, and Conditions as possible before the January 17, 2014, Final Compliance Date, it became apparent to OCSD several months before the deadline that SAWPA would not be able to successfully pass all the Gates. OCSD advised SAWPA on several occasions that additional time was required for SAWPA to complete all the tasks required in the SRP; however, SAWPA expressed its discontent that the SRP was administratively burdensome despite having assured OCSD that it would do whatever is required to establish its Pretreatment Program and regain OCSD's confidence in its management of its Pretreatment Program. Therefore, in the spirit of cooperation, OCSD allowed SAWPA to use a Punch List to capture discrete tasks that would be addressed after the Final Compliance Date. By the Final Compliance Date, SAWPA passed through all 21 Gates with either a "Pass" or "Pass with Conditions," and SAWPA successfully completed 7 of 13 SRP Requirements and 52 of 72 Gate Conditions. The Complete Gate Overview for the entire SRP is presented in Appendix I. OCSD issued 72 Gate Conditions and 76 Gate Notes. All Gate Conditions, Gate Notes, and outstanding tasks were initially transferred to a "Pre-punch List" to be addressed after the SRP Final Compliance Date. There are a total of 197 items on the Pre-punch List. SAWPA addressed and cleared many of the items on the Pre-Punch List. OCSD collaborated with SAWPA, and OCSD issued aside letter to SAWPA on March 13, 2014, to capture some of the understandings between the parties not otherwise documented in the SAWPA Remedial Plan, and which addressed many more of the items on the Pre- Punch List. Issues listed in the side letter include interpretation of definitions, practices acceptable to OCSD, and expectations of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. As a result of both SAWPA's and OCSD's efforts, the final Punch List contains 14 tasks that are still open. These 14 tasks were grouped into three categories,as shown in Table 2.2 below. Table 2.2: Punch List Groupings Grou Subject A Establishment of Substantial) Similar Pretreatment Programs B I Revision of Pretreatment Program Control Documents C Data Management System 7 The Punch List is composed of these three groupings (see Appendix K), and SAWPA and OCSD will work to address the items on the Punch List by June 30,2014. 3.0 SAWPA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION Despite SAWPA's effort to develop a new unified Pretreatment Program to address the concerns identified during the 2012 SAWPA Audit and to meet the requirements and obligations defined by the Agreements, not all Requirements were met in a satisfactory manner. Even with the significantly higher level of effort that was required when the SRP focus switched from a Pretreatment Program improvement to a Pretreatment Program development endeavor, activities throughout the SRP implementation still proceeded in accordance with the WBS, and the SRP addressed the development of all aspects of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. The specific Requirements and Gates allowed close monitoring of the various activities and ensured that Requirements were addressed according to the schedule. SAWPA completed many activities generally within the scheduled time frame; however,due the complexity of some Deliverables, follow up actions are required to ensure that all Requirements are fully addressed. Issues with Requirements 2/6, 3, 7, 8, 9,and 11 are outlined below and the details were included as Gate Conditions: 3.1 Requirements 2 and 6: Requirements 2 and 6 required SAWPA to submit a detailed plan, including a transition plan, on how it will manage its Pretreatment Program with sufficient resources and oversight. Unresolved issues with SAWPA's responses to date on these requirements are described below: SAWPA-Directed Pretreatment Program: On multiple occasions, lengthy discussions between OCSD and SAWPA focused on the implementation aspect of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. OCSD's contractual agreement only recognizes the SAWPA organization and does not extend to SAWPA's Member and Contract Agencies. As a result, OCSD holds SAWPA solely responsible for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program under any arrangement between SAWPA and its Member and Contract Agencies. SAWPA's compliance with all Pretreatment and agreement requirements is the ultimate objective. The SRP was developed based on SAWPA implementing its own Pretreatment Program and directly handling all dischargers to the SARI Line. Such a stipulation was based, to a great extent, on the consequences of SAWPA's delegation of its responsibilities in the past and the conflict of interest issue resulting in a significant unauthorized discharge in 2012. To assist in defining its Pretreatment Program, SAWPA retained a consultant, Dudek, to review the options and recommend a method for managing the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. The study (Appendix L) recommended a "SAWPA-directed Pretreatment Program." Based on the study, SAWPA decided to continue to manage its Pretreatment Program as it had been managing it; however, under the SAWPA-directed Pretreatment Program, SAWPA would remain responsible directly to OCSD but would also continue to administer its Pretreatment Program through its Member Agencies and some Contract Agencies, with these agencies performing as SAWPA's "boots on the ground." Such an arrangement would entail SAWPA doing some Pretreatment work to prevent conflict of interest issues in which the Agencies permitted their own facilities, but SAWPA would primarily direct the work of the Member and Contract Agencies. SAWPA informed OCSD of its decision. In addition to the four Member Agencies, SAWPA entered into a Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement with SBMWD and JCSD, rather than require the Member Agencies with jurisdiction over SBMWD and JCSD to administer the Pretreatment Programs. SAWPA also decided to enter into the Multijurisdictional Pretreatment Agreement (MJPA) with the Yucaipa Valley Water District (YVWD) as a Contract Agency, although OCSD has not yet accepted any wastewater from YVWD or accepted YVWD as a new Contract Agency. 8 Due to the complexity and the level of coordination and oversight required by SAWPA to make the SAWPA-directed arrangement work and based on past experiences, OCSD expressed reservations over the SAWPA-directed Pretreatment Program. SAWPA responded that it would make the SAWPA Pretreatment Program work. To address the present situation, OCSD defined for SAWPA six"pillars"with which SAWPA must comply to demonstrate sufficient Pretreatment oversight. The six pillars are as follows: • Pillar 1: SAWPA shall have clear lines of authority and accountability. • Pillar 2: SAWPA shall have clearly-defined roles and responsibilities. • Pillar 3: SAWPA shall provide adequate resources and qualified personnel. • Pillar 4: SAWPA shall clearly define the jurisdictional boundaries and the Agency with jurisdiction over each boundary. • Pillar 5: SAWPA shall retain the right to reject unqualified personnel from working in the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. • Pillar 6: SAWPA shall outline recourses if a Member or Contract Agency fails to perform or improperly performs any obligations. The overarching objective is for SAWPA to maintain a uniform, effective, self-sustaining, Pretreatment Program that is fully-compliant with all regulations and the Agreements. To that end, OCSD will closely monitor how SAWPA completes the development and begins the implementation of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. In the future, OCSD will audit the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to verify whether the SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies are fulfilling their respective obligations and requirements and to assess whether additional modifications are required. Resources: To help achieve compliance, SAWPA increased its access to resources to help develop and administer the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. SAWPA created two new positions, including a Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment and a Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist position, to perform Pretreatment Program-related activities. Through the MJPA, SAWPA created the ability to access support from a Member or Contract Agency on a temporary basis. SAWPA established two new groups, the Pretreatment Working Group and the Pretreatment Management Team, in which SAWPA has extended an invitation for OCSD to sit in on to provide technical support and to facilitate communication and accountability between SAWPA and its Member and Contract Agencies. SAWPA also purchased, installed, and began using a new Pretreatment software system, which Agencies will be able to access remotely. This new program is currently in the startup mode, but a full implementation is expected in April 2014. This program is the same one that OCSD will be purchasing, so OCSD and SAWPA will be able to capitalize on data access and transfer capabilities. Adequate resources and qualified personnel are critical requirements of any Pretreatment Program. Therefore, OCSD directed SAWPA to obtain adequate in-house staffing and resources to develop, maintain, and sustain the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. In addressing its staffing needs for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program, SAWPA initially created a position of Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment. The position was filled on July 1, 2013, after a long search by SAWPA for a qualified Pretreatment Program manager. Before that time, SAWPA had a consultant working on the SRP Requirements, SAWPA had weekly contact with staff from the Member and Contract Agencies, and SAWPA was advised during Gate Meetings by two technical experts from two Member Agencies. Before and after SAWPA recruited a Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment, OCSD detected problems with SAWPA's ability to deliver on the SRP Requirements and daily administration items. In particular, SAWPA still had a problem with submitting deficient draft IU permits for OCSD's review. SAWPA's inability to produce adequate IU permits is a serious concern for OCSD, because permits are critical control instruments, and accurate permits are fundamental to ensuring that proper limits, conditions, and requirements are conveyed to the permittees to limit pollutant concentrations in wastewater discharges. 9 Moreover, on February 10, 2014, SAWPA notified OCSD that the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment position would be vacated as of February 21, 2014; however, SAWPA also notified OCSD that the newly-created Senior Pretreatment Program Specialist position, a field position, would be filled on February 27, 2014. Based on a recent conversation between OCSD and SAWPA, SAWPA does not have a deadline for replacing the Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment, probably due in part to the specialized knowledge, skills, abilities, and experienced required for the position. Determining an optimal staffing level for SAWPA requires an approach that takes into consideration SAWPA's decision for implementing a complex management arrangement while SAWPA fulfils its mandate to ensure compliance with Pretreatment regulations and contractual agreements. SAWPA still has much to do until it reaches the implementation stage. SAWPA may avail itself of the opportunities to work with OCSD, the Pretreatment Management and Working Groups, and consultants to ensure that resources are available during this critical phase of program development and implementation, but SAWPA should aggressively pursue hiring a new Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment and seek to maintain having both SAWPA Pretreatment Program positions filled at all times. Based on its decision for implementing its Pretreatment Program, SAWPA has lost two employees in the course of one year. OCSD is very concerned about SAWPA's ability to retain employees with experience in developing and managing Pretreatment Programs, who are able to manage the Member and Contract Agencies, and who maintain a thorough understanding of the agreements between SAWPA and OCSD. Continuity is vital to the successful operation of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program and will be critical if SAWPA wishes to demonstrate that it is capable of successfully managing the SAWPA Pretreatment Program, protect the SARI Line and OCSD's facilities, and ultimately to regain OCSD's confidence that SAWPA is able to manage the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. To this end, OCSD will allow SAWPA some time to complete the development of its PPCD, to align the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with OCSD's approved Pretreatment Program, and to demonstrate its capabilities and sustain a Pretreatment Program long-term. 3.2 Requirement 3: Requirement 3 required SAWPA to settle all agreement issues with OCSD. As required in the WBS, SAWPA and OCSD assembled a list of issues with the Agreements. After many discussions, OCSD prepared and issued a"side letter"on March 13, 2014, (see Appendix M)that served to memorialize the resolution of many of the agreement issues where they were not clearly addressed in SAWPA's PPCD. Issues listed in the side letter include interpretation of definitions, practices acceptable to OCSD, and expectations of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. The side letter also recorded OCSD's statements regarding acceptable implementation of the Agreements, which remain in effect. 3.3 Requirement 7: Requirement 7 required SAWPA to update its Policies and Procedures. The development of adequate, appropriate, and accurate PPCD constitutes the most important output due to the significance of the five documents, especially the Ordinance, MJPA, and ERP in establishing the legal basis for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. With an established legal basis for its Pretreatment Program and in-house staff with Pretreatment expertise, SAWPA should have the fundamental programmatic wherewithal necessary for implementing a Pretreatment Program and should be able to issue permits that are effective at controlling discharges into OCSD's treatment and reclamation facilities. SAWPA was faced with some significant challenges in this regard. Probably the biggest challenge was its lack of a uniform PPCD, because SAWPA had relied solely on its consultant and SAWPA's Member and Contract Agencies to manage their Pretreatment Programs. Therefore, SAWPA had to establish a new set of PPCD. This effort entailed revising SAWPA's current Ordinance (Appendix O); SAWPA developing and entering into a new MJPA with the SAWPA Member and Contract Agencies(Appendix P); and developing new Policies(Appendix Q), Procedures (Appendix S), ERP(Appendix R), and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). 10 The PPCD are critical for establishing the legal authority and basis for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program,which would allow SAWPA to issue industrial user(IU)discharge permits that are accurate and enforceable. SAWPA also had to work with the Member and Contract Agencies to develop PPCD with which all agencies would align. OCSD also informed SAWPA on multiple occasions that the SAWPA Pretreatment Program must align with OCSD's Pretreatment Program, because OCSD's Pretreatment Program is the approved Pretreatment Program. The last challenge after creating the PPCD is the adoption of the PPCD through the required public participation process. OCSD supplied numerous SRC for SAWPA throughout the SRP, but due to modifications made to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program and the amount of work required to draft the PPCD, SAWPA's PPCD will be improved over time. SAWPA will be required over time to resolve the PPCD SRC with OCSD, since SAWPA was required to address these SRC in Gate Conditions, which were then transferred to the Punch List for completion. Furthermore, as SAWPA implements the SAWPA Pretreatment Program, additional or revised policies and procedures will be required. Moreover, for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to be substantially similar to OCSD's Pretreatment Program, SAWPA must further align its PPCD with OCSD's Pretreatment Program, and whenever OCSD revises its PPCD, SAWPA will be required to update its PPCD to ensure that its Pretreatment Program remains substantially similar. 3.4 Requirement 8: Requirement 8 required SAWPA to update its permits to be in accordance with the updated Policies and Procedures; however, because SAWPA did not complete its Policies and Procedures, SAWPA cannot revise its permits to be in complete compliance at this time. Furthermore, despite OCSD advising SAWPA to devote sufficient time and resources to ensure that all the permits are correct, SAWPA notified OCSD that it would only revise the permits identified as having problems during the 2012 audit and those permits that came up for renewal during the SRP. OCSD mentioned that SAWPA could do a blanket change to the permits by issuing a letter amendment. Subsequently, SAWPA issued a letter amendment to all permittees to convert all permits, effective January 2014, to SAWPA permits and to correct the most significant deficiencies, such as outdated legal citations. SAWPA informed OCSD that it would physically revise all the permits when they came up for renewal to avoid duplication of efforts. Therefore, not all permits will be physically revised before 2015-2016. For most permits, SAWPA and the Member Agency both sign the permit("dual-signature permits"); however, SAWPA alone issues the permits to the Member and Contract Agencies whenever the Member and Contract Agencies own the permitted facilities. In this manner, the Member and Contract Agencies can avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. 3.5 Implementation: For Requirements 9 and 11,the actual verification by OCSD of the fulfilment of these two Requirements was not possible, because Requirement 9 required SAWPA to implement its policies and procedures developed during Requirement 7,and Requirement 11 was full compliance of all the Requirements. SAWPA did open the Exit Gales for both Requirements 9 and 11, and OCSD gave a conditional approval for both Requirements based on SAWPA addressing the Gate Conditions for these Requirements under the Punch List. Verification by OCSD of the completion and implementation of the Deliverables and clearance of Gate Conditions will be accomplished during a later time, such as during another audit. Without a full implementation of the newly developed SAWPA Pretreatment Program,a determination of the degree to which outputs and results contributed to improvements to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program cannot be assessed accurately at this time. 4.0 FUTURE DISCUSSIONS The SRP presented the need and the opportunity to resolve differences between OCSD and SAWPA. Differences have arisen due to OCSD's and SAWPA's interpretation of important elements and key terms in the 1991 MOU, 1996 Agreement, and regulations. After discussions between OCSD and SAWPA, 11 general agreements were reached on some issues, or OCSD gave SAWPA direction on some matters. OCSD finalized and issued the side letter as described in Section 3.2 above. There were also unresolved items. After the SRP, OCSD and SAWPA will continue to discuss and address these items. OCSD believes that it is important to come to an agreement on the unresolved issues as soon as possible. SAWPA was reminded that the purpose of the SRP was to return to compliance with federal, state, and local (including OCSD)regulations and the existing 1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement between SAWPA and OCSD. In the event of a dispute between what was accomplished during the SRP and what is written in the regulations and the 1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement,the regulations and Agreements shall prevail. One of the results of recent collaboration and cooperation with SAWPA is the establishment of the OCSD-SAWPA Policy Committee. OCSD will continue to work with SAWPA to address the following issues, but resolution to these items may ultimately be carried out through the OCSD-SAWPA Policy Committee as outlined in the side letter. 4.1 YVWD as a Contract Agency: A"Contract Agency" is an Agency that is not one of the four SAWPA Member Agencies(i.e., IEUA, EMWD,WMWD, or SBVMWD) but is under contract with SAWPA to implement a Pretreatment Program for facilities within its jurisdictional boundaries, which must lie within the jurisdictional boundaries of an existing Member Agency. For SAWPA to add a new Contract Agency, SAWPA must submit a request in writing to OCSD on behalf of the Contract Agency, SAWPA and the proposed Contract Agency must commit to and comply with OCSD's terms and conditions, and the Contract Agency must enter into the same MJPA with SAWPA as the existing SAWPA Member and Contract Agencies before the new Contract Agency is allowed to participate in the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. Currently there are two Contract Agencies, SBMWD and JCSD. Both of these Contract Agencies were originally allowed to operate Pretreatment Programs without the knowledge and consent of OCSD and presumably SAWPA. In violation of Section 6.0 of the 1991 MOU, two of the Member Agencies(SBVMWD and WMWD)made arrangements directly with other agencies, SBMWD and JCSD, respectively, so that the Contract Agencies performed the duties of the Pretreatment Program within their respective areas. In both cases, no formal agreement, such as an interjurisdictional agreement, was entered into by the agencies involved before the SRP. During the SRP, when SAWPA requested to implement the SAWPA-directed Pretreatment Program, SAWPA identified all four Member Agencies, the two Contract Agencies, and one new Contract Agency, YVWD,as agency participants in the program. OCSD acknowledged that all three Contract Agencies may be participants: however, in the case of YVWD,a formal request to OCSD has not been properly fled yet, and a portion of YVWD's jurisdiction extends beyond SAWPA's SARI Service Area. Therefore, SAWPA must complete the process before YVWD is allowed to become a Contract Agency. 4.2 Requests for Wastewater Originating Outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area: The 1996 Agreement provision addressing wastewater originating from outside SAWPA's SARI Service (1996 Agreement, C.24—see below)will continue to be enforced. Limitation on Discharge. Except to the extent connections presently exist, SAWPA shall not allow, directly or indirectly, the discharge to the SARI of any wastewater originating outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area, unless SAWPA first obtains Districts' [OCSD's] written approval of such discharge. To successfully make such a request, SAWPA must first submit an out-of-area discharge request in writing for OCSD's consideration. OCSD will make a determination and may establish conditions for the discharge. One such condition will be that SAWPA enters into an MJPA with the agency having jurisdiction over the area from which the discharge originates. SAWPA must receive written approval from OCSD before accepting any wastewater from outside the SAWPA's SARI Service Area. 12 During the course of the SRP,there was much confusion about the phrase, -Except to the extent connections presently exist." • SAWPA interpreted the phrase to mean that facilities that were permitted before the 1996 Agreement were exempt from the prohibition for accepting wastewater from outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area. OCSD asked SAWPA whether any such connections were present at the eight active facilities still operating since 1996, and SAWPA did not identify any existing connections nor operations that are active and are accepting waste from outside the SAWPA's SARI Service Area; therefore, SAWPA is always required to notify OCSD before allowing any facility to accept wastewater from outside SAWPA's SARI Service Area. • SAWPA also erred in its contention that the actual physical connection point to the sewer was exempted. As explained by OCSD and its consultant, Greg Arthur, formerly a Compliance Officer from EPA Region IX who reviewed both OCSD's and SAWPA's Pretreatment Programs during his 30 years at EPA, the business operation is the defining point according to Pretreatment regulations. Once a business operation ceases, subsequent businesses are required to comply with the existing code. 4.3 Stormwater: In accordance with the 1996 Agreement(C.28), stormwater discharges to the SARI Line are not authorized. Until further notice from OCSD, SAWPA may implement a stormwater policy as a means to address the stormwater provision of the 1996 Agreement. OCSD specified that the stormwater policy must be no less stringent than OCSD's business rule for wash pads, a copy of which was provided to SAWPA, or must require operational controls to minimize the stormwater that is discharged. SAWPA's stormwater policy shall comply with OCSD's specifications, or SAWPA shall strictly adhere to the 1996 Agreement. 4.4 Reclaimable Wastewater: In accordance with the 1996 Agreement(C.7), SAWPA must demonstrate and document its good faith and reasonable efforts to minimize reclaimable wastewater to the SARI Line. SAWPA erroneously included in its Procedures dated January 15, 2014, the following: In some cases, reclaimable wastewater discharges were approved prior to the 1996 Agreement and currently meet the "good faith and reasonable effort"standard to minimize the discharge to the Brine Line. This policy was verified during the 2012-2013 Remedial Plan. SAWPA then proceeded to list 16 permittees that it believed fell under this exemption. (Note: At lead three of the facilities did not exist before 1996.) SAWPA did discuss a few cases (e.g., Green River Golf Club, Stringfellow, JCSD)with OCSD to determine what the term "reasonable" may entail, but OCSD did not make the blanket evaluation statement or give its approval for any exemptions for permittees in existence before 1996. In fact, OCSD made it clear on multiple occasions that the three JCSD connections, which are on the list,were problematic and needed to be addressed. Therefore, OCSD staff has referred this matter to the OCSD General Manager for further consideration. 4.5 Pre-approved Situations: The following items deal with pre-approved situations. OCSD and SAWPA need to meet and discuss these matters further. 4.5.1 Requesting Data from SAWPA(1103.09, Punch List#170): OCSD is not required in accordance with the 1991 MOU (Section 3)to seek SAWPA's approval before obtaining data for 5-01 and Stringfellow. OCSD owns 5-01; therefore, it has a right to inspect, handle, and obtain data from its own equipment. Stringfellow is a special situation, because Stringfellow's permit is a negotiated permit that was the result of a negotiation among the EPA, RWQCB, the general public, the Orange County Water District, OCSD's Board of Directors, and OCSD staff. 4.5.2 Pre-Approved Situations (R03.08, Punch List#169): Permit renewal, modifications, or changes in terms or conditions must normally be reviewed by OCSD for concurrence. SAWPA has requested to discuss whether in some cases reviews may be"pre-approved,' 13 i.e., reviews by OCSD would not be necessary. SAWPA cited examples, including the following: addition of trucks to LWH permits and permit extensions which are not the fault of the Permittee. SAWPA shall develop and submit a proposal containing scenarios with justification for OCSD's consideration. OCSD will then meet with SAWPA to discuss the proposal. 4.6 Substantially Similar Programs: During the 2012 Pretreatment Compliance Audit, OCSD asked the auditors whether a DCA had to align to the CA's approved Pretreatment Program, and the auditors responded, "Yes." Some differences may exist(e.g.,fees charged),and a DCA may impose more stringent requirements or conditions to satisfy needs specific to its local conditions. Therefore, the term"substantially similar' (i.e., substantially similar or more stringent than)has been coined, and OCSD has directed SAWPA repeatedly to establish a Pretreatment Program substantially similar to or more stringent than OCSD's Pretreatment Program. The definition of "substantially similar'poses a challenge for determining the required degree of alignment between OCSD's and SAWPA's programs, and agreement on this point requires further discussion. Potential alignment issues to be discussed include frequency of inspections performed, number of samples collected, number of sample points, etc. Without substantially similar Pretreatment Programs, both OCSD and SAWPA are always at a significant risk when undergoing a regulatory inspection or audit. 4.7 PPCD: See 3.3 above. Despite multiple conversations and Si sent to SAWPA, SAWPA's PPCD still contain significant differences when compared to OCSD's approved Pretreatment Program. 5.0 CONCLUSION OCSD and SAWPA invested a considerable amount of time and effort in creating the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. SAWPA decided to implement a directed Pretreatment Program, in which SAWPA simultaneously remains responsible to OCSD at all times, while primarily coordinating, directing, and reviewing the Pretreatment Program efforts of the Member and Contract Agencies. As a result, OCSD expects that SAWPA will remain fully committed to the SAWPA-established framework for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to prevent future situations like the previous states of its permitting, enforcement, inspection, and monitoring activities. SAWPA appears ready to maintain, improvelenhance, and sustain all SAWPA Pretreatment Program elements established under the SRP, including Pretreatment Program staffing and resources. In turn, OCSD will continue to oversee SAWPA's efforts and will conduct future audits to verify that the SAWPA Pretreatment Program development is essentially completed and that its implementation is in compliance with regulations and requirements. SAWPA must continue to align the SAWPA Pretreatment Program with OCSD's Pretreatment Program. Without substantially similar Pretreatment Programs, both OCSD and SAWPA are always at a significant risk when undergoing a regulatory inspection or audit. During the SAWPA Remedial Plan, OCSD assisted SAWPA to establish a Pretreatment Program substantially similar to OCSD's Pretreatment Program. SAWPA must carefully fill its Manager of Pretreatment and Permitting and obtain other necessary expert resources to help achieve the SAWPA Remedial Plan objectives and requirements in a timely, effective, and efficient manner. If SAWPA wishes to retain a SAWPA-directed program, SAWPA must be able to retain in-house staff to ensure that there is continuity for the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. Changes to the SAWPA Pretreatment Program need to be made in a manner transparent to OCSD to ensure that the SAWPA Pretreatment Program is developed and implemented properly at all times. OCSD will host recurring meetings regularly with SAWPA and SAWPA's Member and Contract Agencies to help all agencies fulfil their respective duties and obligations. Moving forward and after one year of working together on the Si OCSD and SAWPA will begin a new chapter in their working relationship. A positive vision for a new era is envisioned by OCSD and SAWPA. 14 OCSD and SAWPA desire to build a new working relationship and to implement activities to foster regular communication, collaboration, and cooperation. The primary concerns for OCSD include the protection of OCSD's wastewater collection, treatment, and reclamation facilities; the health and safety of its workers; the current and future biosolids reuse; compliance with its NPDES Permit regulating discharge to the Pacific Ocean; and the GWRS. OCSD knows that SAWPA shares similar concems through its exemplary One Water, One Watershed planning process. Therefore, OCSD and SAWPA will commit to a new start and a better future for all residents of the Santa Ana River Watershed. It is important to mention that as a result of the 2012 audit and SRP implementation, the risk to OCSD has been reduced; however, the risk may be reduced further if SAWPA and OCSD implemented the requirements and recommendations listed below. 6.0 REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 For SAWPA: 6.1.1 SAWPA shall address the Punch List items by June 30,2014. SAWPA shall provide progress updates to OCSD on a monthly basis. (see 2.2) 6.1.2 SAWPA shall meet approximately quarterly with OCSD to address Pretreatment Program issues of concern. 6.2 For OCSD: 6.2.1 OCSD will provide updates to the OCSD Steering Committee on the status of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. 6.2.2 OCSD will conduct regular audits of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program starting in the fall of 2014 after SAWPA has had time to implement the SAWPA Pretreatment Program, e.g., issue some permits and conduct some enforcement activities. OCSD will audit the SAWPA Pretreatment Program to verify whether the agencies are fulfilling their respective obligations and requirements and to assess whether additional modifications are required. (see 3.5) 6.2.3 OCSD will establish quarterly Pretreatment Program Coordination Meetings with SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies to promote coordination, cooperation, collaboration, and alignment of the two Pretreatment Programs. SAWPA requested that OCSD improve its communication with SAWPA and Member and Contract Agencies. In response, OCSD will host recurring meetings with SAWPA and the Member and Contract Agencies to create additional opportunities for OCSD to answer quesfions and to provide information and guidance to help the Agencies fulfil their respective duties and obligations. OCSD will also participate in SAWPA's Pretreatment Working Group and Pretreatment Management Team meetings. 6.2.4 OCSD will provide information on the state of SAWPA's Pretreatment Program to SAWPA based on internal review and third party audit of the SAWPA Pretreatment Program. OCSD will provide SAWPA advanced notice of any planned or required changes to OCSD's approved Pretreatment Program. 15 7.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Teams from OCSD, SAWPA, and two of the Member Agencies (as technical experts) were formed specifically for the SRP implementation. The following are the significant individuals that were involved. 7.1 SAWPA 7.1.1 SAWPA's Internal Team • Celeste Cantu, SAWPA General Manager • Richard E. Haller, P.E., SAWPA Executive Manager of Engineering &Operations and SRP Project Manager for SAWPA • Rosanna Lacarra,former SAWPA Manager of Permitting and Pretreatment • David Ruhl, SAWPA Program Manager(SRP responses and scheduler) • Dean Unger, SAWPA Information Systems&Technology Manager • Carlos Quintero, SAWPA Project Manager(SAWPA Sampling Program) • Regina Patterson, SAWPA Sr.Administrative Assistant • Sara Villa, SAWPA Administrative Assistant II 7.1.2 SAWPA's Consultants • Sharon Guilliams, P.E., Sharon Guilliams Engineering (SGE), Principal (Pretreatment consultant) • D. Michael Melts, P.E., Dudek, Principal (project and database management consultant) • Lisa Ohlund, Ohlund Management & Technical Services, Principal, subconsultant to Dudek(management&technology services consultant) • Ray P. Goebel, P.E., Manager of Operations, EOA Inc. (Pretreatment consultant) • Kristin A. Kerr, P.E., Managing Engineer, EOA Inc. (Pretreatment consultant) 7.1.3 SAWPA's Technical Experts • Gregg Murray, EMWD, Manager, Source Control Division • Craig Proctor, IEUA, Pretreatment and Source Control Supervisor 7.1.4 Pretreatment Groups: representatives from the Member and Contract Agencies • Pretreatment Management Team • Pretreatment Working Group 7.2 OCSD 7.2.1 OCSD's Internal Team • Jim Herberg, P.E., OCSD General Manager • Nick Kanetis, P.E.,former OCSD Director of Engineering • Jim Colston, Esq., OCSD Environmental Compliance Manager • Julian F. Sabri, P.E., PMP, OCSD Engineering Supervisor • Mark Kawamoto, P.E., OCSD Engineer and SRP Project Manager for OCSD • Tom Gaworski, OCSD's Principal Env. Specialist and SAWPA Liaison • Mike Zedek, P.E., OCSD Engineer(schedulerttechnical expert) • Oanh Nguyen, OCSD Program Assistant 7.2.2 OCSD's Consultants • Najib Saadeh, EEC, Senior Regulatory Specialist and EEC Project Manager • Greg V. Arthur, EEC, Senior Regulatory Specialist (formerly an EPA Region IX Compliance Officer for over 30 years) • Jim Wybenga, Independent, (OCSD retiree,former OCSD SAWPA liaison) 16