Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSteering Agenda Item 3 SAWPA ReportSAWPA PRETREATMENT PROGRAM COMPLIANCE AUDIT REPORT ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT CALIFORNIA November 19, 2012 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Prepared for: Orange County Sanitary District 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, California 92708 Prepared by: Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. 501 Parkcenter Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 EEC W2422.01T SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District i EEC TABLE OF CONTENTS ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1 ES.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 ES.2 Audit Scope ......................................................................................................................... 1 ES.3 Objective ............................................................................................................................. 2 ES.4 Methods .............................................................................................................................. 2 ES.5 Findings ............................................................................................................................... 2 ES.6 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 4 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Audit Team ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.0 OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODS ................................................................................................. 9 2.1 OBJECTIVE ........................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 SCOPE .................................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority ............................................................. 10 2.2.2 Member Agencies of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority ..................... 10 2.2.2.1 Inland Empire Utilities Agency ................................................................ 11 2.2.2.2 Eastern Municipal Water District ............................................................ 11 2.2.2.3 San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District .................................... 12 2.2.2.4 Western Municipal Water District .......................................................... 12 2.2.2.5 Jurupa Community Services District ....................................................... 13 2.2.3 Industrial Users .................................................................................................... 13 2.3 METHODS .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Orange County Sanitation District Wastewater Discharge Regulations, Ordinance No. OCSD-39 ........................................................................................................ 16 2.3.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist ............................................................................................................... 16 2.3.3 1991 Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................ 17 2.3.4 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement ...................................... 17 3.0 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................ 17 4.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 39 TABLES Table 2-1 Industrial User Information and Inspection dates ........................................................... 14 Table 2-2 Summary of Liquid Waste Hauler Collection Stations ..................................................... 15 Table 3-1 Program Administration Findings and Recommendations ............................................... 19 Table 3-2 Permitting Findings and Recommendations .................................................................... 23 Table 3-3 Monitoring Finding and Recommendations .................................................................... 29 Table 3-4 Inspection Findings and Recommendations .................................................................... 32 Table 3- 5 Enforcement Findings and Recommendations ................................................................ 33 Table 3- 6 Data Management Findings and Recommendations ....................................................... 34 SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District ii EEC Table 3- 7 Reporting Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................... 35 Table 3- 8 Program QA/QC Findings and Recommendations ........................................................... 36 Table 3- 9 Program Resources Findings and Recommendations ...................................................... 37 FIGURES Figure 1 Santa Ana River Watershed Location Map Figure 2 Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Member Agencies Figure 3 Inland Empire Brine Line and Connections APPENDICES Appendix A OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No. OCSD-39 Appendix B 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Summary Appendix C 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement Summary Appendix D Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist, February 2010 Appendix E Direct Industrial User Inspection Form Appendix F Indirect Industrial User Inspection Form Appendix G Industrial User Inspection Reports SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 1 EEC ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction The Orange County Sanitary District (OCSD) has retained Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. (EEC) to perform a comprehensive audit of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority’s (SAWPA’s) compliance with all the requirements, responsibilities, and practices as specified in OCSD’s Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No. OCSD-39 as well as in the agreements between OCSD and SAWPA; namely, the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (1991 MOU) and the 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement (1996 Agreement; Appendix A, OCSD Wastewater Discharge Regulations Ordinance No. OCSD-39; Appendix B, 1991 Memorandum of Understanding Summary; Appendix C, 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement Summary). The audit also includes an investigation and description of SAWPA’s role. In addition to acting as an oversight authority for the member agencies that administer local industrial pretreatment activities on direct and indirect industrial dischargers to the Santa Ana River Interceptor (SARI) Line, also known as the Inland Empire Brine Line (IEBL), SAWPA regulates local liquid waste hauling companies and the Chino II desalter facility. To assist in performing the audit, EEC retained Pretreatment Solutions Inc. (PSI) to create an audit team with more than 30 years of auditing experience and more than 25 years of pretreatment expertise. EEC conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) guidelines. ES.2 Audit Scope The audit consisted of an evaluation of SAWPA’s compliance with all the pertinent requirements, responsibilities, and practices and all other applicable regulations, including federal regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Section 403), OCSD ordinances, and contractual agreements between OCSD and SAWPA. The audit included all of SAWPA’s delegated member agencies; namely, the Inland Empire Utility Agency (IEUA), the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), the San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District (SBVMWD) and the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). The evaluation of SAWPA’s and its member agencies’ pretreatment program included all elements of the program:  Administration: policies, procedures, and workflows both internally and with SAWPA as the oversight authority.  Permitting: permitting process and review of a sample of existing permits.  Monitoring: monitoring program, including self-monitoring and monitoring by SAWPA.  Inspection: inspection program and example documents, including a field audit of 16 of SAWPA’s and its member agencies’ permitted facilities. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 2 EEC  Enforcement: enforcement response plan and its implementation with a review of the latest cases of significant noncompliance. In particular, the case of serious noncompliance involving the Corona Resource Recovery facility was reviewed.  Data Management: review of all types of compliance reports as required by the pretreatment program.  Reporting: quarterly and annual reporting of permitting and compliance status to OCSD.  Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC): review of implemented QA/QC measures throughout the program.  Resources: assessment of the adequacy of qualifications and resources to implement an effective pretreatment program that ensures compliance with all applicable requirements. ES.3 Objective The primary objective of this comprehensive compliance audit of SAWPA’s Pretreatment Program is to identify and address any deficiencies or omissions in the administration, implementation, and enforcement of any of the applicable requirements and regulations. In order to address the identified omissions, EEC made recommendations to improve the overall pretreatment program. The recommendations, if properly and consistently implemented, will ensure consistent and long-term compliance and ultimately protect OCSD’s treatment plant and its receiving waters while maintaining a viable solution for the nonreclaimable wastewater (brine) generated in the Santa Ana Watershed. Whenever encountered, best management practices (BMPs) were also described and presented in the findings. ES.4 Methods The methodology followed by the audit team in performing the audit is similar to the methodology followed by the USEPA and the RWQCB and as generally outlined in the USEPA’s Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions document, dated February 2010 (Appendix D, Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist, February 2010). Interviews were conducted with the 4 member agencies first and then with SAWPA. Following the interviews, the audit team inspected 12 industrial user sites and all 4 liquid waste-hauler (LWH) collection stations. The documents used by the audit team during the interviews and inspections comprised the USEPA’s checklist and instructions, OCSD’s Wastewater Discharge Regulations ordinance, the 1991 MOU, and the 1996 Agreement. ES.5 Findings During the pre-audit meeting with SAWPA and in all subsequent meetings, SAWPA’s staff cooperated with the audit team and expressed willingness to address the audit findings for the purpose of improving its overall pretreatment program. Similarly, all member agencies cooperated with the audit team and expressed the same desire to use the audit findings to improve their pretreatment programs. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 3 EEC The audit team was granted full and unrestricted access to all 16 industrial user facilities selected by the audit team and OCSD. In regard to the Corona Resource Recovery, the audit team’s investigative efforts were met with a limited flow of information. In general, the audit revealed that SAWPA and/or its member agencies did not always follow important program requirements. Some of the deficiencies were reportedly corrected after identification by the audit team during the interviewing process. The verification of corrected deficiencies was not in the scope of this audit and should be addressed in the corrective action plan follow-up and in future audits. Specific findings include the following: 1. In assessing SAWPA’s administration of its pretreatment program, the audit team noted that the multijurisdictional pretreatment agreements among SAWPA and its 4 member agencies, that is, the IEUA, the EMWD, the SBVMWD, and the WMWD, are not all valid and don’t necessarily give the power to SAWPA and/or the member agencies to carry out enforcement actions in areas under the jurisdiction of SAWPA’s member agencies. 2. The audit also revealed that SAWPA allowed a major discharger into the IEBL, the Corona Resource Recovery (CRR), to discharge mining waste into the IEBL. The waste originated from outside the SAWPA service area and consisted of mining waste that was inaccurately referred to as “brine” waste. The origin and nature of the waste warranted a higher level of due diligence than that demonstrated by SAWPA and WMWD in the permitting process. At a minimum, SAWPA should have requested a complete waste stream characterization based on a detailed description of the process generating the waste. In addition, because of the large quantity of waste under consideration, SAWPA and/or WMWD should have performed an on-site assessment of all waste generating processes at the Molycorp’s Mountain Pass facility to confirm the information provided by CRR. In order to categorically determine all the facts surrounding the CRR issue including any correlation between the excursions in arsenic level in OCSD’s biosolids and the discharge of the Molycorp’s waste, access to all records maintained by SAWPA, WMWD and Molycorp pertaining to the CRR issue should be granted. 3. On the program administration level, SAWPA has retained G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. to develop and implement SAWPA’s pretreatment program. Two of the member agencies, SBVMWD and WMWD, have also retained G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. to develop and implement their pretreatment programs as they relate to the IEBL. Furthermore, the same individuals from G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. who were working for SAWPA were also working, at the same time, for SBVMWD and WMWD. With such arrangement, it is virtually impossible for SAWPA to maintain jurisdiction and control over all of its member agencies, including SBVMWD and WMWD. 4. In many instances, permits were not properly prepared and were sometimes based on inaccurate and erroneous information. Some permit errors constitute serious deficiencies, such as misidentification of the applicable categorical pretreatment standards, referencing the incorrect ordinance, and elimination of monitoring requirements. 5. Monitoring deficiencies were encountered at all levels of the program for SAWPA, WMWD, and SBVMWD. Deficiencies included lack of monitoring of field equipment, such as pH and flow meters as well as insufficient monitoring of wastewater discharges. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 4 EEC 6. Inspections that are currently performed by the member agencies are scheduled in advance and do not always reveal changes and modifications to a process or a facility. 7. Enforcement plans currently in place may lack the legal authority, under the current multijurisdictional agreements, for SAWPA to carry out enforcement actions, including collecting fines. 8. Data management has been lacking and has negatively affected the collaboration between SAWPA and OCSD. In addition, the lack of traceability makes quality checking very difficult and ineffective at identifying errors. 9. Required reviews of compliance data were not performed in a timely fashion and enforcement and resampling requirements were not performed or were performed very late. 10. Reporting by SAWPA to OCSD on a monthly basis only resumed at the outset of this audit. The 1991 MOU clearly states that SAWPA must provide monthly reports detailing the number and identification of new and existing permittees, inspections, enforcement actions, and monitoring data. 11. QA/QC measures were lacking throughout the program, especially within SAWPA’s program and the IEBL pretreatment programs for WMWD and SBVMWD. 12. Human resources and expertise necessary to implement an adequate pretreatment program are lacking in SAWPA’s organization as well as in the WMWD’s and SBVMWD’s organizations. ES.6 Recommendations Overall, major improvements should be implemented at all levels of the pretreatment program to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements and provide the highest level of protection for the IEBL and OCSD’s treatment facility. Such improvements, if properly and continuously implemented, would minimize the risk of a repeated instance of serious violations, as was the case with Corona Resource Recovery. On the program administration level, SAWPA must develop and implement the necessary improvements to its pretreatment program. EEC also recommends that SAWPA manage all aspects of the pretreatment program rather than delegating permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibilities to its member agencies. This centralized management approach would give SAWPA the necessary control, but the legality of multijurisdictional agreements allowing enforcement actions and the levying of fines must be addressed. Alternatively, SAWPA could continue to manage its program through multijurisdictional agreements with some or all of its member agencies, but this option is not recommended because it yields a lower level of compliance and protection. Such arrangement relieves SAWPA from the responsibility of issuing permits and monitoring compliance, but would require SAWPA to closely monitor the performance of its member agencies and to conduct announced and unannounced inspections at industrial user facilities. In either arrangement, it is highly recommended for SAWPA to either acquire adequately qualified staff dedicated to SAWPA’s pretreatment program and/or to retain a qualified consultant who is not retained SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 5 EEC by any of its member agencies. At all times, SAWPA must ensure that any conflict of interest is eliminated and that it fulfills its role in providing additional control and program supervision. Permits are control instruments that must be properly prepared and based on accurate and comprehensive information concerning the industrial user. SAWPA should adopt 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. It is also recommended that the practice of an agency issuing permits to itself for the control and monitoring of its LWH collection station or its own industrial facility cease throughout SAWPA’s service area. Typically, and as observed in this audit, such a practice leads to many instances of noncompliance due to the inherent lack of control and monitoring. Monitoring at all levels of the pretreatment program must be improved. The level of monitoring by IEUA and EMWD is adequate, but it is lacking among SAWPA, SBVMWD, and WMWD. SAWPA must develop and implement procedures for the regular calibration and maintenance of equipment, for the sampling and testing of wastewater, for gathering information and issuing permits, and for all other activities that can ensure compliance and a higher level of protection to the IEBL and OCSD’s treatment and receiving waters. SAWPA must regularly monitor the proper implementation of all adopted procedures. Inspections should consist of a critical examination of the industrial user facility and manufacturing processes. The announced inspections currently performed by the member agencies do not always reveal all changes and modifications. A minimum number of inspections must be unannounced in order to capture facts and information that are more representative of normal operating conditions at the industrial user facilities. The actual number of inspections should be determined in light of the nature of the inspections and the potential risk present. Enforcement plans that are currently in place for SAWPA and its member agencies must undergo a legal review to assess the effectiveness of the plans under the current multijurisdictional agreements. Enforcement plans must also contain a clear procedure to determine if a violation is considered an instance of significant noncompliance, to identify and undertake a timely and appropriate response and to document resolution of noncompliance. Enforcement response planning is a critical portion of every ordinance and is ultimately SAWPA’s responsibility to implement. Data management must be improved to increase the level of collaboration and work transferability between SAWPA and OCSD. Traceability also must be improved to facilitate quality checking. Reporting by SAWPA to OCSD must resume and continue on a monthly basis. As required in the 1991 MOU, SAWPA must provide monthly reports detailing the number and identification of new and existing permittees, inspections, enforcement actions, and monitoring data. SAWPA and OCSD must agree on a report format for smooth and effective transfer of information. QA/QC measures specific to the IEBL must be implemented by SAWPA throughout its pretreatment program. SAWPA’s primary mission should be to effectively oversee and carry out a robust quality system and quality management plan, including QA/QC activities at the industrial user level. SAWPA should also regularly review its implemented QA/QC measures. Resources to develop and implement an adequate pretreatment program for SAWPA are critically needed. SAWPA must acquire qualified staff and/or retain a qualified consultant with expertise in both, SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 6 EEC pretreatment as well as program management. If SAWPA chooses to retain a qualified consultant, SAWPA will still need to elevate the pretreatment expertise of its staff members responsible for managing the consultant. EEC has estimated that, if SAWPA chooses to manage the entire IEBL pretreatment program with the current number of permittees, it would need a total of three full-time equivalent (FTE) employees (staff and/or consultants) the first year in order to develop and implement its pretreatment program without passing on any responsibility to member agencies. The 3 FTEs would be comprised of a clerical position mainly for invoicing, data management, and reporting; a junior staff position focusing primarily on permitting and inspections; and a program manager to develop and oversee the program, review permits, and liaise with OCSD and member agencies. It is expected that, after the first year, SAWPA would need fewer employees to manage the same number or permittees. The audit findings have been verbally shared with SAWPA and the member agencies throughout the audit, and SAWPA is currently in the process of addressing many of the audit findings. Starting with the recommended corrective actions presented in the report, SAWPA could begin to develop its own corrective action plan and schedule specific to the audit findings. Alternatively, OCSD could, as specified in the 1991 MOU Section 6.D, develop and issue SAWPA a remedial plan with a time schedule for attaining compliance since SAWPA has failed or has refused to fulfill key pretreatment requirements. In either case, follow-up audits by OCSD should be scheduled to determine whether the corrective actions are being implemented adequately and on schedule. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 7 EEC 1.0 INTRODUCTION 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 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 nonreclaimable 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 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 nonreclaimable 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, the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding (1991 MOU) and the 1996 Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Agreement (1996 Agreement; Appendices A, B, and C). 1.1 Background Major infractions by SAWPA of the provisions of the 1996 Agreement and 1991 MOU between OCSD and SAWPA have been noted recently. Over a period of four months, WMWD, with SAWPA’s approval, allowed Corona Resource Recovery to discharge mining wastes received from outside the SAWPA SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 8 EEC service area without written approval from OCSD as required in the 1996 Agreement and without issuing a permit with the correct categorical discharge limits. The discharge to OCSD totaled more than 9 million gallons. Neither SAWPA nor WMWD initially collected samples to confirm the content of the wastewater nor was an inspection of the mining operation conducted. As a result, OCSD issued a cease- and-desist order to SAWPA. Aside from SAWPA’s improper administration of its duties as an oversight authority over member agencies, coincidental to this time frame, OCSD experienced excursions in arsenic level in its biosolids, which may impact biosolids reuse options. While addressing the arsenic situation, OCSD determined that SAWPA failed to comply with provisions in the Code of Federal Regulations for pretreatment of point sources. OCSD also determined that SAWPA violated the contractual agreements between the two agencies (1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement) and OCSD’s local ordinances. 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 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 (40 CFR 403) and OCSD requirements. In order to review SAWPA’s pretreatment program, OCSD retained EEC to perform a comprehensive audit of SAWPA’s compliance with all the requirements, responsibilities, and practices specified in the OCSD ordinance, the 1991 MOU, and the 1996 Agreement; the audit examined SAWPA’s role as the oversight authority and the pretreatment programs of SAWPA and its member agencies. EEC, located in Santa Ana, California, specializes in providing wastewater, including pretreatment, consulting services to municipalities and industries. For the purpose of conducting the audit, EEC retained Pretreatment Solutions, Inc. to form a team with a high level of expertise in both pretreatment and auditing. 1.2 Audit Team The audit team is composed of specialists with complementary skills to ensure a thorough review of a complex pretreatment program. The team included Mr. John Shaffer and Mr. Najib Saadeh of EEC and Dr. John Parnell of Pretreatment Solutions, Inc. Mr. Shaffer, President of EEC, served as the project manager for this project. He has managed many of EEC’s past pretreatment consulting projects, including those for which EEC has teamed with Pretreatment Solutions, Inc. Mr. Shaffer has been a Southern California wastewater consultant for more than 20 years and is very familiar with the relationship between OCSD and SAWPA and with the IEBL project. Mr. Shaffer and Dr. Parnell recently collaborated to evaluate and upgrade the pretreatment program of Salt Lake City, Utah, and the pretreatment ordinance and enforcement response plan for the City of Ventura, California. Dr. Parnell of Pretreatment Solutions, Inc. served as the project technical lead due to his extensive experience in all areas related to pretreatment: program administration, ordinance and local limits development, permitting, inspections, monitoring, enforcement, reporting, and training. Before becoming a consultant, Dr. Parnell expanded the pretreatment program for the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, and he was the industrial pretreatment coordinator there for 17 years. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 9 EEC Mr. Saadeh, senior regulatory specialist at EEC, served as the project audit lead due to his extensive experience in audits of industrial facilities and evaluation of compliance programs for major multinational corporations and public utilities. Mr. Saadeh has more than 20 years of experience in compliance and management systems auditing. 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. The audit was initiated on August 7, 2012, with a pre-audit meeting with SAWPA. The opening interview with SAWPA was scheduled after the interviews with the member agencies. This allowed the audit team to gain a better understanding of the way the program was being implemented prior to assessing SAWPA’s role in overseeing the complete program. 2.1 Objective The objective of this audit is to assess the measures and controls that SAWPA and its member agencies are currently applying to ensure compliance with all applicable regulations and contractual agreements. The recommendations made by EEC do not only address deficiencies and omissions, but also include best management practices (BMP). Sharing BMPs among the agencies leads to an overall program improvement and is therefore encouraged. If properly followed, the recommendations would ensure consistent and long-term compliance that would ultimately protect the IEBL and OCSD’s treatment system and receiving waters while maintaining a viable solution for the brine generated in the Santa Ana Watershed. 2.2 Scope The audit examined all elements of SAWPA’s and its member agencies’ pretreatment programs: Administration: assessment of policies, procedures, and workflows both internally and with SAWPA as the oversight authority; data management; pollution prevention/BMP programs; public participation; previous USEPA audits or findings; maps and geographic information system data of SAWPA’s and its member agencies’ service areas, plants, and LWH collection stations; any recent pretreatment program modifications; summary of which 2005 General Pretreatment Regulation options were adopted; description of programs and projects SAWPA is undertaking to improve the watershed; and any other pertinent documents relating to SAWPA’s authority as the oversight agency. Permitting: review of permitting process, industrial user inventory identification and verification, category determination, examination of slug control plan, determination whether the existing permits comply with all applicable requirements, and example documents. Monitoring: verification of monitoring program, including permittee self-monitoring and monitoring by SAWPA; monitoring parameters included sampling frequency, constituents monitored, proper sampling and preservation techniques, using appropriate analytical methods, chain-of-custody procedure, and example documents. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 10 EEC Inspection: review of inspection program and example documents, including a field audit of 16 of SAWPA’s and its member agencies’ permitted facilities. Enforcement: evaluation of enforcement and implementation of response plan, latest Significant Noncompliance publication, periodic technical review of compliance, and example documents. Data management: review of all types of compliance reports as required by the pretreatment program. QA/QC: QA/QC of all programs and example documents. Resources: assessment of the adequacy of qualifications and resources to implement an effective pretreatment program that complies with all applicable laws and regulations, including obtaining an organizational chart and list of qualifications of staff involved. 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 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 CFR 403). EEC also identified and itemized all requirements, responsibilities, and practices related to ensuring that SAWPA is taking the appropriate measures to ensure that the wastewater quality is in compliance with the OCSD ordinance, the 1991 MOU, and the 1996 Agreement. EEC also evaluated SAWPA’s developed and implemented measures to ensure that discharges through the LWH collection stations are complying with the terms and conditions of all applicable agreements and regulations. The opening audit interview with SAWPA was held on August 29, 2012. The following representatives from SAWPA and from G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. (SAWPA’s consultant) were present:  Mr. Rich Haller, SAWPA, Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations  Mr. Gary Ethridge, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., President  Mr. Gary W. DeFrese, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., Vice President  Mr. Benjamin Burgett, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., Environmental Compliance Inspector The following individuals from the audit team were present:  Mr. John Shaffer, EEC, President  Mr. Najib Saadeh, EEC, Senior Regulatory Specialist  Dr. John Parnell, Pretreatment Solutions, Inc., Principal 2.2.2 Member Agencies of the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SAWPA has entered into multijurisdictional pretreatment agreements with its four member agencies; namely, the IEUA, the EMWD, the SBVMWD, and the WMWD (Figure 3, SAWPA Member Agencies). SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 11 EEC 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 permits 9 direct industrial users and 10 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. 2.2.2.1 Inland Empire Utilities Agency The opening interview with the IEUA was held on August 23, 2012. The following representatives from IEUA and SAWPA were present:  Mr. Craig Procter, IEUA, Pre-Treatment and Source Control Supervisor  Ms. Pari Dezham, IEUA, Pre-Treatment and Source Control Manager  Mr. Kenneth Tam, IEUA, Assistant Engineer  Mr. Martyn Draper, IEUA, Senior Pre-Treatment and Source Control Inspector  Mr. Michael Barber, IEUA, Pre-Treatment and Source Control Inspector  Mr. Rich Haller, SAWPA, Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations The following representatives from the audit team were present:  Mr. Najib Saadeh, EEC, Senior Regulatory Specialist  Dr. John Parnell, Pretreatment Solutions, Inc., Principal 2.2.2.2 Eastern Municipal Water District EMWD was formed in 1950. EMWD permits seven direct industrial users and three industrial users. LWHs 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. The opening interview with EMWD was held on August 21, 2012. The following representatives from the EMWD and SAWPA were present:  Mr. Gregg Murray, EMWD, Source Control Manager  Ms. Judy Lankey, EMWD, Senior Source Control Inspector  Ms. Scarlett Draper, EMWD, Assistant  Mr. Dennis Martz, EMWD, Source Control Inspector  Mr. Victor Capata, EMWD, Environmental Compliance Analyst  Mr. David Trujillo, EMWD, Source Control Inspector II  Mr. Rich Haller, SAWPA, Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations The following representatives from the audit team were present:  Mr. Najib Saadeh, EEC, Senior Regulatory Specialist  Dr. John Parnell, Pretreatment Solutions, Inc., Principal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 12 EEC 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 permits 5 direct industrial users (4 active users and 1 emergency user). SBVMWD has delegated the management of indirect dischargers to the City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department (CSBMWD). The CSBMWD permits the 18 indirect industrial users to transport wastewater to SAWPA’s approved collection station within the CSBMWD’s water reclamation plant located at 399 Chandler Place in San Bernardino. SBVMWD issues the permits for direct users. The permits for the indirect users are issued by CSBMWD but they are co-signed by SBVMWD. The opening interview with SBVMWD was held on August 22, 2012. The following representatives from SBVMWD, SAWPA, CSBMWD, and G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. (SBVMWD’s consultant) were present:  Mr. Robert Tincher, SBVMWD, Manager of Engineering and Planning  Mr. Andy Coady, CSBMWD, Environmental Control Officer  Mr. Michael Placentia, CSBMWD, Environmental Control Technician  Mr. Gary W. DeFrese, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., Vice President  Mr. Benjamin Burgett, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., Environmental Compliance Inspector  Mr. Rich Haller, SAWPA, Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations The following representatives from the audit team were present:  Mr. Najib Saadeh, EEC, Senior Regulatory Specialist  Dr. John Parnell, Pretreatment Solutions, Inc., Principal 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 permits 22 direct industrial users and 18 indirect industrial users. LWHs transport wastewater from the indirect industrial users to SAWPA’s approved collection station located at the City of Corona Water Reclamation Plan No. 1 at 2480 Railroad Street, in Corona. The opening interview with WMWD was held on August 28, 2012. The following representatives from WMWD, SAWPA, and G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. (WMWD’s consultant) were present:  Mr. Joe Bernosky, WMWD, Director of Engineering  Mr. Gary W. DeFrese, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., Vice President  Mr. Benjamin Burgett, G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc., Environmental Compliance Inspector  Mr. Rich Haller, SAWPA, Executive Manager of Engineering and Operations The following representatives from the audit team were present:  Mr. John Shaffer, EEC, President  Mr. Najib Saadeh, Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc., Sr. Regulatory Specialist  Dr. John Parnell, Pretreatment Solutions, Inc., Principal SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 13 EEC 2.2.2.5 Jurupa Community Services District The Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) was founded in 1956. The JCSD is a public agency known as a Special District. JCSD permits seven 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. WMWD granted JCSD the right to issue permits and conduct monitoring. JCSD’s pretreatment program, as it relates to the IEBL, was not assessed directly but through interviews with the WMWD and a review of the permits issued by JCSD. The audit team further evaluated JCSD’s pretreatment program through an inspection of one of JCSD’s permitted facilities, Metal Container Corp. in Mira Loma, California. JCSD staff was not directly audited or interviewed. 2.2.3 Industrial Users The audit team inspected 16 of the 106 Industrial users that were permitted at the time of the audit. The inspections included 8 direct dischargers, 4 indirect dischargers, and all 4 LWH collection stations (each permitted and operated by a separate member agency). Inspection forms were developed based on guidance from the USEPA and used during the site visits (Appendix E, Direct Industrial User Inspection Form, and Appendix F, Indirect Industrial User Inspection Form). Inspection of industrial users is key to evaluate adequately an agency’s compliance with applicable federal and local regulations and requirements. The number of inspections is consistent with the typical USEPA pretreatment compliance inspection level of effort (the Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions document also suggests that two inspections per agency is typically sufficient). Initially, 11 facilities were selected by OCSD for inspections, but 5 additional facilities were subsequently selected and added to the scope after OCSD’s review and approval. The 5 facilities consisted of two LWH collection stations and three power generation plants. Overall, the inspections focused on the facilities that present a potentially higher risk to the IEBL such as significant industrial users and LWH collection stations. The comprehensive site inspections also included a detailed file review prior to each site visit and followed applicable elements of the USEPA’s Control Authority Pretreatment Audit Checklist and Instructions. All collection stations were inspected in order to evaluate measures implemented for ensuring that discharges through these stations comply with the terms and conditions of all applicable agreements and regulations. Although LWH information was evaluated as part of LWH collection station inspections, investigations and audits of individual LWHs were not included in the scope of the audit. A detailed report was produced following each inspection (Appendix G, Industrial User Inspection Reports). Except where prohibited, photographs were taken at all sites visited by the audit team. The audit findings have been verbally shared with SAWPA and the member agencies throughout the audit, and SAWPA is currently in the process of addressing many of the findings presented in this report. Starting with the recommended corrective actions presented in the report, SAWPA could begin to develop its own corrective action plan and schedule specific to the audit findings. Alternatively, OCSD could, as specified in the 1991 MOU section 6.D., develop and issue SAWPA a remedial plan with a time schedule for attaining compliance since SAWPA has failed or has refused to fulfill key pretreatment SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 14 EEC requirements. In either case, follow-up audits by OCSD should be scheduled to determine whether the corrective actions are being implemented adequately and on schedule. Information on the industrial users and the date of the inspections are presented in Table 2-1, Industrial User Information and Inspection Dates. Table 2-1, Industrial User Information and Inspection Dates Inspected Facility Control Agency Inspection Date (2012) Discharge Type SBVMWD LWH Collection station CSBMWD August 22 Collection station IEUA LWH Collection station IEUA August 23 Collection station RP No. 5 Solids Handling IEUA August 23 Direct Angelica Textile Services SBVMWD August 27 Indirect Metal Container Corp JCSD August 27 Direct Corona Energy Partners Ltd. WMWD August 28 Direct Dairy Farmers of America (former Corona Resources Recovery) WMWD August 28 Direct Frontier Aluminum WMWD August 28 Indirect Sierra Aluminum Company WMWD August 29 Indirect Chino II Desalter SAWPA August 29 Direct International Rectifier EMWD August 30 Indirect EWMD LWH Collection station EMWD August 30 Collection station Inland Empire Energy Center EMWD September 6 Direct Mountainview Generating Station WMWD September 10 Direct WMWD LWH Collection station WMWD September 10 Collection station OLS Energy - Chino IEUA September 13 Direct Key: CSBMWD = City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District EMWD = Eastern Municipal Water District IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency JCSD = Jurupa Community Services District LWH = liquid waste hauler SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District In addition, for the LWH collection stations, the specific features of each station and the manner in which it is managed by the member agencies are presented in Table 2-2, Liquid Waste Hauler Collection Station. Some collection stations are completely automated while others are staffed. Also, the level of security for access and the frequency of monitoring for wastewater vary among stations. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 15 EEC Table 2-2, Summary of Liquid Waste Hauler Collection Station Feature EWMD LWH Collection Station IEUA LWH Collection Station SBVMWD LWH Collection Station WMWD LWH Collection Station Permit No. 552 No. SSP027 No. 4E-04-S56 No. 4B-06-S60 Staffed No; monitored by video camera No; monitored by a CCTV system Yes. Plant operator checks haulers against a list of approved dischargers No; monitored by plant personnel Security Gated and security code Gated, carded, and coded multiple times Gated and carded Gated and coded pH Monitoring manual pH meter (1 quart samples) at the industrial facility (not done onsite) pH and sulfide levels checked (if exceeds limits, station shuts down and code invalidated) pH (some wastewater is allowed to discharge and the pH is read) pH (if exceeds limits, load is rejected). Waste Load Rejection Notice Rejected loads not noticed to other stations (only International Rectifier discharges) Notice faxed to other stations Notice faxed to other stations Notice faxed to other stations Processing of Manifests No manifests deposited at station Manifests dropped off into box and processed by IEUA Manifests processed by plant operator Manifests dropped off into box and submitted to G&G Environmental for review Sampling Sampling done on- site twice a month; permittee not required to self- monitor All discharges are sampled, and samples are selectively analyzed Sampling at originating facility only Sampling at originating facility only Flow Meter Calibration Not clear Annually Annually Annually per permit requirement pH Meter Calibration pH meter calibrated (at the industrial facility, not the station) Weekly Annually Annually per permit requirement Self- permitted Yes Yes Yes Yes Key: CCTV = closed-circuit television EMWD = Eastern Municipal Water District IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency LWH = liquid-waste hauler SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District 2.3 METHODS In accordance with the audit objectives and the USEPA’s standards and guidelines, the audit was conducted in three phases: 1) planning, 2) implementation, and 3) reporting. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 16 EEC During the planning phase, the audit team reviewed documents provided by SAWPA and the member agencies to understand the regulatory framework and processes relevant to the audit scope. The purpose of the planning phase was to develop a risk-based audit program as a basis for the orderly, efficient, and cost-effective performance of the audit and to develop criteria for assessment. During the implementation phase, the audit team interviewed representatives from SAWPA and its member agencies. SAWPA’s representative was present at all interviews with the member agencies. During this phase, the audit team also inspected industrial user sites and LWH collection stations. The reporting phase consisted of closing interviews, first with SAWPA and then with SAWPA’s member agencies. At the time of this report, the closing interviews were all concluded with SAWPA and WMWD on October 16, 2012, and with SBVMWD, IEUA and EMWD on October 22, 2012. In all phases of the audit, the audit team considered all regulatory requirements and contractual obligations applicable to SAWPA and SAWPA’s member 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 Orange County Sanitation District 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 United States Environmental Protection Agency Checklist The audit team conducted audit activities in accordance with the USEPA’s recommended pretreatment audit checklist, which is divided into three sections (Appendix D): Section I, Data Review; Section II, IU File Review; and Section III, Observations and Concerns. Section I, Data Review, consisted of an interview. The interview was intended to evaluate the portions of program implementation that could not be evaluated adequately by looking at the industrial user files. The audit team first conducted interviews to gather background information on the program that would be verified through review of industrial user records. The interview also complemented the information gained during the file review and site visits. Section II, IU File Review, consisted of the review of industrial user records to verify information collected during the interview. The audit team reviewed the industrial user records maintained by SAWPA and its member agencies to gather objective evidence of whether the program was effectively implemented or not implemented. Section III, Observations and Concerns, consists of a summary of observations and concerns based on information gathered from site visits, interviews, and file reviews. Section III is organized to correspond to the subsections in Sections I and II of the USEPA checklist; the areas of concern to consider are listed with corresponding regulatory and checklist question citations. This section identifies problems and deficiencies for which required actions and applicable recommendations have been identified; these SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 17 EEC findings and recommendations are summarized in Section 3.0, Findings and Recommendations, and Section 4.0, Conclusion, of this report. 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 for the 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  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 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The seriousness of audit findings regarding deficiencies varies significantly. Positive findings that are considered BMPs were also captured. In order to provide consistency in reporting the audit findings, the significance of each finding 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 findings 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. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 18 EEC Noncompliance (N) refers to instances of nonfulfillment 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 findings where their continuing occurrence can result in an overall high likelihood for a violation or for 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 findings 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. Findings and recommendations are presented in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 for each program element. Each finding is assigned a letter for each program element, a second letter to designate the agency associated with the finding, and a numeral to indicate the finding number. For example, for finding A.S.1, “A” refers to the administration element of the pre-treatment program, “S” refers to SAWPA, and “1” indicates the first listed finding 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. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 19 EEC Table 3-1, Program Administration Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendations SAWPA A.S.1 Noncompliance with 1991 MOU. SAWPA’s effort in ensuring that all SARI dischargers are permitted is not sufficient. SAWPA only audits EMWD and IEUA. There was an instance of an illegal discharge from the Los Serrano’s facility. This is a requirement under Section 2.C. of the 1991 MOU. N SAWPA should develop an audit program and perform audits of all of its member agencies to verify that all industrial users are properly permitted. SAWPA should also perform regular monitoring of the SARI to ensure that there are no illegal connections. SAWPA A.S.2 Noncompliance with 1991 MOU. SAWPA has not been fulfilling its obligation to forward, within 15 days, copies of signed permits to OCSD. This is a requirement under Section 2.E. of the 1991 MOU. N SAWPA should develop and implement a procedure to ensure that signed permits are forwarded or made available to OCSD within 15 days. Reportedly, permits are now uploaded to the SharePoint site and OCSD is notified by email. SAWPA A.S.3 Noncompliance with 1996 Agreement. SAWPA does not have a procedure in place to ensure that it does not grant capacity for facilities that were previously denied service in OCSD’s jurisdiction. This is a requirement under Section C.5.(b).ii of the 1996 Agreement. N SAWPA should develop and implement a procedure to identify facilities that were previously denied service in OCSD’s jurisdiction. SAWPA is considering addressing this in a question on the permit application form. SAWPA A.S.4 Noncompliance with 1996 Agreement. The steps that SAWPA are taking to minimize reclaimable wastewater discharges to the SARI are not apparent. This is a requirement under Section C.7 of the 1996 Agreement. N SAWPA should develop and implement a procedure to ensure that reclaimable wastewater is not discharged into the SARI. This verification can be performed during the inspection of industrial user facilities. SAWPA A.S.5 Noncompliance with 1996 Agreement. The steps that SAWPA are taking to ensure that stormwater is not discharged to the SARI are not apparent. This is a requirement under Section C.28 of the 1996 Agreement. N SAWPA should develop and implement a procedure to ensure that stormwater is not discharged into the SARI. This verification can be performed during the inspection of industrial user facilities. SAWPA A.S.6 Noncompliance with 1991 MOU. SAWPA did not fulfill OSCD’s request for a current list of permits. This is a requirement under Section 2.E. of the 1991 MOU. N OCSD should be granted access to the list of permittees that is maintained by SAWPA. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-1, Program Administration Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 20 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendations SAWPA A.S.7 No defined jurisdiction. The multijurisdictional agreement or arrangement between WMWD and JCSD is not clear. WMWD permits the sewer connection points to JCSD. JCSD permits its own facilities and, although SAWPA does not consider JCSD a member agency, JCSD is acting in a control agency capacity, and OCSD is not aware of such arrangements. Section 6.C. of the 1991 MOU. N A legal review of the multijurisdictional agreement or arrangement between WMWD and JCSD must be reviewed, and the JCSD’s power to issue permits and carry out enforcement must be confirmed. SAWPA A.S.8 Noncompliance with 1991 MOU. SAWPA is not supplying all of the required data including self- monitoring data in the quarterly reports. This is a requirement under Section 5.D. of the 1991 MOU. N SAWPA must resume supplying all required data, including self-monitoring data, in the quarterly report to OCSD. SAWPA has reportedly resumed the reporting. SAWPA A.S.9 Noncompliance with 1991 MOU. The permit fact sheets that SAWPA submits to OCSD for review are missing key information and sample data. This is a requirement under Section 2.A of the 1991 MOU. N SAWPA must ensure that the permit application process is well documented and followed and that data and information verification is performed prior to submitting the application to OCSD. SAWPA A.S.10 Noncompliance with 1996 Agreement. SAWPA has interpreted the “out-of-area” definition differently than the definition in the 1996 Agreement. This is a requirement under Section 24 of the 1996 Agreement. N As clearly stated in the 1996 Agreement, SAWPA should obtain OCSD’s written approval for all wastewater originating from outside SAWPA’s SARI Service Area for any direct or indirect discharger. SAWPA A.S.11 Noncompliance with 1991 MOU. SAWPA has not communicated to OCSD the monitoring schedule, including self-monitoring requirements, for all permittees. This is a requirement under Section 3.C. of the 1991 MOU. N SAWPA must communicate to OCSD the monitoring schedule, including self-monitoring requirements, for all permittees. SAWPA must agree with OCSD on the best method to regularly communicate the information. SAWPA A.S.12 No defined jurisdiction. Since SAWPA adopted a new ordinance (Ordinance No. 6), not all industrial user permits were reissued to reference the new ordinance. V SAWPA should reissue all permits with the reference to Ordinance No. 6 or any revision thereafter. SAWPA should develop a reasonable schedule for reissuing all the permits with reference to the correct Ordinance. SAWPA should seek legal advice for referencing “or successor ordinances” or similar language in the permits and hence avoid SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-1, Program Administration Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 21 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendations having to reissue all permits every time the Ordinance is updated. SAWPA A.S.13 Delayed initiation of permit renewals. Some member agencies require that the initiation of the permit renewal process is the responsibility of the permittee rather than that of the responsible member agency. However, if the permittee does not initiate the permit renewal process, the member agencies do not identify which permittees failed to make the notifications or that the permits have expired. In some cases, the permit renewal process only started after OCSD’s inquiries into whether the permits were renewed. D SAWPA must develop and implement a process for initiating the permit renewal 90 days prior to permit expiration date and allowing enough time for OCSD’s review. SAWPA A.S.14 Inaccurate portrayal. In permits and documents referring to the collection stations, the terms collection station or discharge station are typically used. However, at least in one instance, the term truck dump station was also used. The term dump does not relay the importance of compliance in order to ultimately protect both the IEBL and the OCSD wastewater treatment facility. E The wording “liquid waste hauler collection station” should be used in all documents and permits and at all boards and signs posted at the collection stations. This term is defined and used in SAWPA’s current Ordinance. SAWPA A.S.15 Conflict of interest. The WMWD collection station’s most recent direct-user discharge permit was issued to WMWD by WMWD. In general, self- permitting does not provide the desired control level to ensure compliance with regulatory controls. All member agencies permit their own LWH collection stations. In EMWD’s case, the LWH collection station and the desalters are permitted by WMWD. E SAWPA must find an alternative to the current permitting of an agency’s LWH collection station, desalters, and emergency bypasses by the same agency. EMWD A.E.1 Outdated ordinance. EMWD recognizes that they have to upgrade their sewer use ordinance to include the USEPA pretreatment streamlining provisions and be consistent with SAWPA’s Ordinance No. 6. The EMWD intends to perform this upgrade, including the Enforcement Response Plan, as soon as SAWPA’s Ordinance is updated. D EMWD recognizes that it must upgrade its sewer use ordinance to include the USEPA pretreatment streamlining provisions and to make the ordinance consistent with SAWPA’s Ordinance No. 6 or any revision thereafter. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-1, Program Administration Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 22 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendations SBVMW D A.B.1 Lack of jurisdiction. SBVMWD appears to completely delegate most or all of the administrative responsibilities to G&G and CSBMWD. SBVMWD would like to adopt SAWPA’s ordinance by reference and disregard its own IEBL ordinance. SBVMWD has already adopted SAWPA’s ERP. The adoption of the ERP will be problematic when delegation of enforcement responsibilities is involved. N SBVMWD must develop its own ordinance and enter into a jurisdictional agreement with CSBMWD. SBVMW D A.B.2 Lack of jurisdiction. There is no written multijurisdictional agreement or arrangement between SBVMWD and CSBMWD. All user permits are issued by CSBMWD, but SBVMWD co-signs the LWH collection station and the indirect users within the SBVMWD service area. N Same as above. WMWD A.W.1 Lack of jurisdiction. WMWD adopted a new sewer use ordinance on June 20, 2012, effective August 15, 2012. The ordinance contains reference to an ERP (Article 6) and no reference to the IEBL users; WMWD admitted at the interview that it may not have an IEBL ordinance at the present time. Lack of an ordinance and ERP effectively means that WMWD has no current legal authority to oversee the IEBL indirect or direct users. N WMWD must develop its own ordinance and ERP that is inclusive of the IEBL. WMWD A.W.2 Lacking data management tool. WMWD oversees and administers all sampling and monitoring activities for its users. WMWD appears to have adequate equipment to perform this function but the audit team did not inspect the equipment. Sampling data is entered into a customized database that is reportedly old and possibly in need of updating. E WMWD must develop an adequate data management system. Key: CSBMWD = City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District EMWD = Eastern Municipal Water District ERP = Enforcement Response Plan IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency JCSD = Jurupa Community Services District LWH = liquid-waste hauler MOU = memorandum of understanding SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 23 EEC Table 3-2, Permitting Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA P.S.1 Omission in permit. The present permit does not state that the facility is classified as an SIU. (Chino II Desalter Facility) D SAWPA must correct the permit to state that the facility is classified as an SIU. SAWPA P.S.2 Updating permits. Many of the permits reviewed don’t reference SAWPA’s or the regulating member agency’s current ordinance. Furthermore, the requirements of the EPA Streamline Rule is not included in the permits. D SAWPA should ensure that all permits reference the updated SAWPA’s or member agencies’ Ordinance, the requirements under the EPA Streamline Rule including mass load limits in lieu of concentration limits, and OCSD’s local limits (instantaneous limits). IEUA P.I.1 Monitoring point location. The monitoring locations should be clearly defined as to their purposes. (OLS Energy) E IEUA is encouraged to adopt the same uniform permit that SAWPA is currently developing. IEUA P.I.2 Permit format. The structure of the IEUA permit is much different from the structure of the permits issued by the other three member agencies and the permit format suggested by the USEPA Industrial User Permitting Guidance Manual, dated September 1989. While the main body of the permit contains the standard regulations, the required monitoring activities are appended to the permit. The sampling location is referred to in Section IIIB in the body of the permit between other standard regulations, and a diagram of the location of the sampling point is included in another appendix to the permit. Since the direct discharge to the IEBL, and eventually to OCSD’s wastewater treatment plant, originates from the permittee’s industrial processes, the permit contains OCSD’s applicable local limits that apply at the end of pipe discharge point. (RP-5) E IEUA must state in the body of the permit that the facility is permitted as an SIU and the reason for this classification. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-2, Permitting Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 24 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation IEUA P.I.3 Categorical standards. Facility is permitted as an SIU, but this is not explicitly stated in the body of the permit. The reason for the SIU classification (e.g. industrial flow exceeding 25,000 gallons per day) is not presented. (RP 5) E IEUA must include in the permit a section requiring the permittee to submit to the control agency, at least 90 days before the commencement date of any business activity, all details of any new customer with which it intends to do business. This will act as a guarantee that no customer from inside or outside of the municipal area is allowed to transport waste to the RP-5 facility without the full knowledge of the waste substances involved and the origins of the waste by the regulatory agencies. IEUA P.I.4 Categorical standards. In a situation where a facility, such as the RP-5 facility, accepts only food waste and is exempt from the centralized waste treatment regulations in 40 CFR 437, the permit must contain a section requiring the permittee to submit to the control agency (IEUA for RP-5), at least 90 days before the commencement date of any activity, all details of any new customer with which it intends to do business. This will guarantee that no customer from inside or outside of the municipal area is allowed to transport waste to the RP-5 facility without the full knowledge of the waste substances involved and the origins of the waste by the regulatory agencies. (RP-5) E Although IEUA Ordinance contains a section that addresses changes to an industrial user’s production (Section 3.4(A)(4)), the Ordinance does not include a timeline for notification. This requirement should be included in the permit to prompt the permittee to notify IEUA and allow sufficient time for an adequate review of the proposed changes. EMWD P.E.5 Best management practices. The Inland Empire Energy Center facility is equipped with permanent gauges to provide real-time flow rates and pH measurements. Flow rates and pH measurements are also monitored in real-time by EMWD. This very advanced monitoring system provides maximum visibility for the control agency. It was not encountered at any other facility inspected during the audit. (IEEC) B Best management practices should be shared with other agencies and with other industries. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-2, Permitting Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 25 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation EMWD P.E.6 Omissions. The prohibited waste discharges are listed under Part 5.I. of the permit. However, the permit does not list the wastewater streams authorized to discharge from the IEEC facility. A list of the waste streams authorized to discharge are an integral part of a permit and should be listed. (IEEC) E EWMD must list the wastewater streams authorized to discharge from the IEEC facility. A list of the waste streams authorized to discharge is an integral part of a permit and should be included. EMWD P.E.7 Omissions. The EMWD permit simply refers to the permittee (International Rectifier) as “performing processes subject to 40 CFR 469,” which is inadequate. This is a complex facility and the permit should describe the sources of regulated and unregulated waste streams in more detail. However, no other significant issues were found with this permit. Comparisons with the WMWD permit for this same facility demonstrate serious errors in the WMWD permit. (See P.W.10) (International Rectifier) B The permit should provide more detail about the sources of regulated and unregulated waste streams. SBVMWD P.B.1 Omissions. Industrial user is permitted as a nonsignificant industrial user, but this is not explicitly stated in the body of the permit. The only reference to this classification was the permit number SARI-IU- 021. (Angelica Textile Services) D Permit should explicitly state that an industrial user is permitted as a Non-Significant Industrial User. SBVMWD P.B.2 Errors. The permit contains the name of another unrelated industrial user (first paragraph on page 2 of the permit refers to CSM Bakery Products). (Angelica Textile Services) E The permit must be corrected and a permit review process implemented. WMWD P.W.1 Errors. 1. Outdated contact information in permit (p. 10, Part 3.E). Calling (714) 593-7410 is not appropriate (Mr. Paul Spassoff is an office assistant, not the indicated Source Control Manager; the position of Source Control Manager no longer exists). D The permit must be corrected and a permit review process implemented. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-2, Permitting Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 26 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation 2. Repeated information in permit (p. 11, Part 3.E). 3. Incorrect references in the permit (LWH collection station permit - facility where collection station is located is referred to as the “City of Corona’s Water Treatment Plant No. 1” instead of the “City of Corona Water Reclamation Facility No. 1”). 4. Incorrect designation of the entity required to immediately notify WMWD of any concerns or issues (per Permit Special Conditions Part 5.D.3, the Dart Container Corporation is required to notify WMWD or any concerns or issues - Dart Container Corporation is a permitted direct discharger located approximately 1.0 mile from the collection station). (LWH Collection Station in Corona) WMWD P.W.2 Omissions. The permit states that sampling for biological oxygen demand and total suspended solids is required. However, monthly sampling by WMWD for surcharge purposes is not mentioned in the permit. (Dairy Farmers of America) V Monthly sampling by WMWD for surcharge purposes should be added to the permit. WMWD P.W.3 Errors. Multiple designations for the same sampling location: Permit refers to the sample location as Location 001. In Section 1G the permit describes the same location as “Discharge Point A.” In Section 2A, permit refers to a designated sample location that is described and poorly illustrated in Section 2C as a “sample location.” (Dairy Farmers of America) D Sampling location must be well defined and illustrated WMWD P.W.4 Incorrect permitting procedure. The termination of the permit for the DFA facility, the issuance of a modified permit as a standby permit, and the permit for the CCR operation did not follow the correct permitting procedure required by SAWPA and OCSD. This is not allowed in SAWPA’s (Section 407.0) or OCSD’s (Section 104.A) Ordinances. N WMWD should ensure that its permitting procedures comply with the requirements in SAWPA’s and OCSD’s Ordinances. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-2, Permitting Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 27 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation WMWD P.W.5 Categorical standards. Incorrect categorical identification of manufacturing process. Currently, it is incorrectly identified as a categorical industrial user subject to 40 CFR 467, but all extrusion activities have ceased at the site. (Frontier Aluminum) V Permittee must be correctly categorized based on the current manufacturing activities. WMWD P.W.6 Categorical standards. Incorrect categorical identification of manufacturing process. Reference to Press Heat Treatment Contact Cooling Water is incorrect in the spreadsheet and should be removed from the calculation. The Heat Treatment Non-Contact Cooling Water is not being monitored and treated as a dilution flow. A combined waste stream formula is not developed to calculate the applicable limits for the total combined flows from the two regulated sources. The spreadsheet used in the calculations contains incorrect data and the wrong combined waste stream formula. (Sierra Aluminum) V A combined waste stream formula must be developed to calculate the applicable limits for the total combined flows from the two regulated sources. The spreadsheet used in the calculations must be corrected. WMWD P.W.7 Errors. Permit does not distinguish between OCSD’s total toxic organics (TTO) list and the federal TTO list described in 467.02(q). These two TTO lists contain different pollutant parameters. Also the Permit does not state that the oil & grease analysis may be used as an alternate for the TTO analysis. (Sierra Aluminum) V Permit must distinguish between OCSD’s TTO list and the federal TTO list described in 467.02(q). Permit must state that the oil & grease analysis may be used as an alternate for the TTO analysis. WMWD P.W.8 Errors. Permit states that a TTO certification is required (presumably in lieu of sampling) but this requirement is not contained in the federal regulations. (Sierra Aluminum) V Permit must be corrected, and TTO sampling must commence. WMWD P.W.9 Omissions. Permit does not contain the formula used in the calculation of the combined waste stream formula or an explanation of the various waste streams involved. (Sierra Aluminum) D Permit must contain the formula used in the calculation of the combined waste stream, and the various waste streams involved must be listed. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-2, Permitting Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 28 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation WMWD P.W.10 Omissions. Permit contains a diagram that is outdated. The diagram of the wastewater treatment system shows an evaporator system that is no longer there. (Sierra Aluminum) E The facility diagram must be corrected to remove the evaporator. WMWD P.W.11 Categorical standards. WMWD’s permit does not distinguish between the OCSD TTO local limit and the 40 CFR 469.18 TTO limit and incorrectly compares the two limits by using the most stringent limit for the single analysis. The EMWD permit correctly identifies the difference between OCSD’s TTO local limit (which requires only an USEPA 624 analysis) and the federal pretreatment standard for TTO in 40 CFR 469.18 (which requires both a 624 and 625 analyses). (International Rectifier) V The WMWD permit must be corrected and must identify the difference between OCSD’s TTO local limit (which requires analysis by USEPA Method 624 only) and the federal pretreatment standard for TTO in 40 CFR 469.18 (which requires analyses by both USEPA Methods 624 and 625). Key: CSBMWD = City of San Bernardino Municipal Water District EMWD = Eastern Municipal Water District IEEC = Inland Empire Energy Center IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency JCSD = Jurupa Community Services District LWH = liquid-waste hauler MOU = memorandum of understanding SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District SIU = significant industrial user TTO = total toxic organics WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 29 EEC Table 3-3, Monitoring Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation EMWD M.E.1 Best management practice. The IEEC facility is equipped with permanent gauges to provide real-time flow rates and pH measurements. Flow rates and pH measurements are also monitored in real-time by EMWD. This very advanced monitoring system provides maximum visibility for the control agency. It was not encountered at any other facility inspected during the audit. (IEEC) B Best management practice should be shared with other agencies and with other industries. IEUA M.I.1 Lacking monitoring equipment. Permittee should maintain a written log of pH on an hourly basis (or install a continuous pH recorder) at the discharge point or in the discharge pit on the effluent side of the dissolved air flotation unit. (RP-5) E Permittee should maintain a written log of pH on an hourly basis (or install a continuous pH recorder) at the discharge point or in the discharge pit on the effluent side of the dissolved air flotation unit. IEUA M.I.2 Errors. The exact location of the sample point was described during the inspection by the permittee as the interior of the pipe leading to the final effluent storage tank at the audit. The permit states that the sampling point is a manhole on Flower Street. Further investigation of the exact location of all samples to date by both IEUA and the permittee should be conducted to ascertain if the correct sampling point indicated in the permit is always used, or if a revision of the sampling point has been recorded after permit issuance. Some reference to a future revision of a sampling point was included in the January to March 2012 quarterly report from IEUA to SAWPA but no further information could be found. (RP-5) V The exact location of the sample point must be determined and accurately described in the permit. Furthermore, the sampling point should be clearly marked in the field to avoid any confusion in the future. IEUA M.I.3 Error. IEUA’s facility permit defines a grab sample as an individual sample collected in less than 5 minutes. In the USEPA Model Ordinance (January 2007) a grab sample is referred to as “a sample that is taken from a waste stream without regard to the flow in the waste stream and over a period of time not to exceed fifteen (15) minutes.” (RP-5) E The permit must include the correct definition of a grab sample. Although IEUA’s requirement is more stringent that USEPA’s, nonetheless, the deviation from a federal definition is not warranted. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-3, Monitoring Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 30 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SBVMWD M.B.1 Error. Permit, in Part IIB, refers to a sample point located on the tanker truck transporting the waste. This is incorrect, as the audit team was informed that the spigot on the storage tank was the sample point. (Angelica Textile Services) V The permit should be corrected to include the spigot on the storage tank as the sample point. The sampling point should be clearly marked in the field. SBVMWD M.B.2 Omission. Permit, in Part IIIA, sampling is required in January of each year but the permit does not specifically state that the permittee shall perform the sampling. (Angelica Textile Services) D The permit must explicitly state the party responsible for sampling. SBVMWD M.B.3 Lack of contractual agreement. Oversight of the monitoring program by SBVMWD is questionable, as there are no written standard operating procedures or documented actions. SBVMWD has delegated all of its sampling and monitoring responsibilities. Indirect users conduct their own sampling in all instances and CSBMWD performs the required control authority sampling. WMWD samples the direct users for control authority requirements. It was not determined if SBVMWD has a contract with WMWD or SBCMWD to perform the monitoring. V Responsibilities for sampling and monitoring activities must be well defined. Formal agreements must be in place if SBVMWD decides to continue to delegate sampling and monitoring responsibilities to WMWD and SBCMWD. WMWD M.W.1 Lack of monitoring. Equipment is not monitored and supervision is lacking. At the time of the inspection, the red alarm light was flashing but neither the WMWD representative nor the water reclamation facility workers nearby had any information on the cause of the triggered alarm or the time that the red light started flashing. (LWH Collection Station) V Adequate monitoring per the permit requirements must be implemented. WMWD M.W.2 Lack of equipment maintenance. 1. No valid documentation was provided verifying that the automatic valve would close if the pH value is out of the compliance range of 6.0 to 12.0. Part 1, H of the permit requires that WMWD submit a quarterly report to SAWPA verifying the proper functioning of the valve. 2. No documentation was provided verifying the proper operation of V Equipment should be maintained and calibrated as required in the permit. Documentation must be produced and maintained for at least three years. The wastewater discharged must be sampled and analyzed randomly. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-3, Monitoring Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 31 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation software at the collection station. Part 1, I of the permit requires that WMWD submit a quarterly report to SAWPA verifying the proper functioning of the software. 3. No valid records were provided on the meter calibration. Part 5, D.3 of the permit requires that WMWD calibrate the meter annually; the permit does not specify whether the meter to be calibrated is the pH meter or the flow meter. 4. No samples of the wastewater discharged at the collection station are being collected. (LWH Collection Station) WMWD M.W.3 Misidentification of sample point. The sample point on the concentrated wastewater tank described in the permit is both end of pipe and end of process so that all of OCSD’s local limits should apply here, as it is the point of discharge to the IEBL via the hauler truck. All local limits should be sampled at least semiannually to meet federal regulations. They are not required to be sampled at all in the present permit. (Sierra Aluminum) V Sample should be collected from the sample point on the concentrated wastewater tank and analyzed for all local limits at least semiannually to meet the federal regulations. Key: CSBMWD: City of San Bernardino Municipal Water Department IEEC = Inland Empire Energy Center IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency LWH = liquid waste hauler SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority USEPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 32 EEC Table 3-4, Inspection Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA I.S.1 Lacking inspections. SAWPA retained G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. to perform inspections of SAWPA’s permits. SAWPA displayed little or no oversight in determining whether or not these inspections are adequately performed. E SAWPA must ensure that inspections are adequately performed. EMWD I.E.1 Best management practice. EMWD inspects all of the IEBL direct and indirect users within its jurisdiction as part of its approved industrial pretreatment program. Inspection forms were found to be comprehensive. B Best management practice should be shared with other agencies and with other industries. SBVMWD I.B.1 Lacking sampling. G & G Environmental Compliance, Inc. apparently inspects each facility once per year in January on behalf of SBVMWD, but no samples are collected by SBVMWD or by G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. (Angelica Textile Services) V SBVMWD must include a sampling program as part of its inspection program. SBVMWD I.B.2 Lacking inspections. Oversight of the inspection program by SBVMWD is questionable, as there are no written standard operating procedures or documented actions. G&G Environmental Compliance, Inc. inspects the direct users and makes all decisions since these occur without SOPs. V SBVWMD must oversee its inspection program and ensure that documentation is produced and maintained for at least 3 years. WMWD I.W.1 Lacking inspections. WMWD contracts with G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. to perform inspections for most of its industrial users, including those that directly or indirectly discharge to the IEBL. Inspection forms were determined to be comprehensive but did not include all of OCSD’s requirements. E WMWD must develop inspection procedures and forms that incorporate essential requirements from the 1991 MOU, the 1996 Agreement and regulatory requirements. Key: EMWD = Eastern Municipal Water District IEBL = Inland Empire Brine Line SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 33 EEC Table 3-5, Enforcement Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA E.S.1 Lacking reporting. Enforcement actions by SAWPA are not always reported to OCSD. SAWPA issued the IEUA a notice of violation letter for an unpermitted discharge to the IEBL from the Los Serranos facility, but SAWPA did not inform OCSD of this issue. N SAWPA must ensure that all enforcement actions are always reported to OCSD. SBVMWD E.B.1 Lacking enforcement action. SBVMWD takes minimal oversight of enforcement procedures and there are no SOPs except that SBVMWD has adopted SAWPA’s Enforcement Response Plan. G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. prepares drafts of all enforcement procedures, and the biggest concern at present is with EnerTech Environmental California LLC, which processes biosolids. It appears that EnerTech company has had a large number of startup and enforcement problems and has been in significant noncompliance, but G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. could not remember when. SBVMWD is ultimately responsible for this enforcement. V SBVMWD must oversee enforcement activities and develop and implement policies and procedures in the form of an ERP for enforcement. WMWD E.W.1 Lacking enforcement action. WMWD contracts with G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. to draft any enforcement documents for WMWD’s signature for all users that directly or indirectly discharge to the IEBL. Apart from the enforcement performed at Corona Resource Recovery, some enforcement at the California Rehabilitation Center occurred in 2009–2010 but no other enforcement at other IUs was described at the interview. E After implementing a new monitoring program that includes unannounced inspections, WMWD must ensure that enforcement actions are conducted. Key: IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency OCSD = Orange County Sanitation District SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 34 EEC Table 3-6, Data Management Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA D.S.1 No data management tool. Data management is not systematic but SAWPA is planning on implementing a system called OnBase to manage all data and documents in the future. E SAWPA must ensure that the data management system (OnBase), which is currently in the implementation phase, aids in fulfilling all regulatory requirements and all of SAWPA’s requirements under the 1991 MOU and 1996 Agreement. EMWD D.E.1 Best management practice. EMWD has all necessary equipment and trained staff and performs all administrative requirements for both the direct and indirect IEBL users as part of its approved industrial pretreatment program for local sewer users. EMWD uses a database program (Oracle-based custom software) that adequately tracks all of district’s industrial users in both the IEBL system and the district’s approved program. Overall, the EMWD administration appears to be more than adequate to safeguard the integrity of the IEBL. B Best management practice should be shared with other agencies and industry. SBVMWD D.B.1 SBVMWD has a contract with G&G to prepare permits. SBVMWD receives the permit application for new or reissued permits and directly forwards it to G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. to prepare a draft permit. Review by SBVMWD is minimal, as there does not appear to be a delegated reviewer. Pre-permit inspections do not appear to be conducted. Drafts are then forwarded to SBVMWD and SAWPA for review prior to permit delivery. N SBVMWD must ensure adequate review of the permit application for new or re-issued permits. Key: EMWD = Eastern Municipal Water District IEBL = Inland Empire Brine Line LWH = liquid-waste hauler SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 35 EEC Table 3-7, Reporting Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA R.S.1 Lack of reports. SAWPA (except for IEUA) was not reporting as required up until the first report was produced for June 2012, which was delivered on August 8, 2012. Previously, the OCSD was receiving reports from IEUA only. As of the time this report was prepared, SAWPA has resumed its reporting. N At the time this report was prepared, SAWPA had resumed reporting to OCSD. SAWPA should include data and information from all member agencies and make the required changes to the semiannual and annual report as requested by OCSD. IEUA R.I.1 Missing information. Quarterly reports to SAWPA contain details of permits, inspections, and all analytical results of samples collected by IEUA for IEBL users during that quarter. Copies of compliance reports received from IEBL individual users are not included in the report. N IEUA must include copies of compliance reports received from IEBL individual users in the quarterly reports submitted to SAWPA. EMWD R.E.1 Missing information. Quarterly reports to SAWPA contain all analytical results of samples taken by EMWD on IEBL users during that quarter. Copies of compliance reports received from IEBL individual users are not included in the report. N EMWD must include copies of compliance reports received from IEBL individual users in the quarterly reports submitted to SAWPA. SBVMWD R.B.1 Missing information. Compliance reports from EnerTech appear to be delivered to SBVMWD on time and these reports are referred to only in a spreadsheet forwarded to SAWPA every month by SBVMWD. No detailed analytical results from either the industrial users or the control authority (performed by WMWD on SBVMWD’s behalf) are submitted to SAWPA. N SBVMWD must submit to SAWPA all detailed analytical results from either the industrial users or the control authority (performed by WMWD on behalf of SBVMWD). WMWD R.W.1 Missing information. Monthly reports from WMWD to SAWPA are comprised of tables documenting inspections, pH violations, and enforcement activities for the month. No record of any control authority analytical data or user compliance reports is included. N In the monthly reports to SAWPA, WMWD must include analytical data and user compliance reports. SAWPA should discuss with OCSD the level of detail in the required reports. Key: IEUA = Inland Empire Utilities Agency OCSD = Orange County Sanitation District SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 36 EEC Table 3-8, Program QA/AC Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA Q.S.1 Training lacking. Training of LWH truck drivers on safeguards, procedures, and recordkeeping is a yearly requirement. Last documented training was performed in 2009. N SAWPA must resume annual training of LWH truck drivers regarding safeguards, procedures, and recordkeeping. SAWPA Q.S.2 Checking lacking. With SAWPA and two member agencies sharing the same consultant (G&G Environmental Compliance Inc.), it is not clear when G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. is acting in its capacity as SAWPA’s, WMWD’s, or SBVMWD’s consultant. Also, it is not clear how quality assurance and quality control is ensured in reviewing permit fact sheets and final permits. D SAWPA must ensure that its staff and/or consultant are providing an adequate level of review of permit fact sheets and final permits. WMWD Q.W.1 Control lacking. Manifests are not collected in a secure location and are not protected from the elements. The manifests serve as a record of each shipment’s chain of custody. When the waste shipment is delivered to the permitted waste management facility, the receiving facility must sign the manifest, retain a copy as a record, and return a signed copy to the generator who originated the shipment. This process closes the accountability circle and enables the generator to verify that the shipment reached its final destination. D The manifests must be collected in a secure location and must be protected from the elements (LWH Collection Station). Key: LWH = liquid--waste hauler SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 37 EEC Table 3-9, Program Resources Findings and Recommendations Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SAWPA R.S.1 Expertise lacking. G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. personnel on whom the agency relies demonstrated a lack of skills in the performance of tasks related to the issuance of permits and the performance of monitoring. Personnel have also demonstrated an inadequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of overseeing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have also demonstrated an inadequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of overseeing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have not dedicated sufficient time to oversee SAWPA’s overall pretreatment program. D SAWPA must acquire personnel with the necessary expertise to develop and implement its pretreatment program and who are dedicated to the program. IEUA R.I.1 Best management practice. Agency personnel have demonstrated skills in the performance of tasks related to the issuance of permits and the performance of monitoring. Personnel have also demonstrated an adequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of managing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have fulfilled their responsibilities for managing SAWPA’s pretreatment program in their district. B Best management practice must be shared with other agencies and with other industries. EMWD R.E.1 Best management practice. Agency personnel have demonstrated skills in the performance of tasks related to the issuance of permits and the performance of monitoring. Personnel have also demonstrated an adequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of managing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have fulfilled their responsibilities for managing SAWPA’s pretreatment program within their district. B Best management practices must be shared with other agencies and industry. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 Table 3-9, Program Resources Findings and Recommendations (Continued) W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 38 EEC Agency Finding Number Finding Rating Recommendation SBVMWD R.B.1 Expertise lacking. G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. personnel on whom the agency relies demonstrated a lack of skills in the performance of tasks related to the issuance of permits and the performance of monitoring. Personnel have also demonstrated an inadequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of overseeing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have also demonstrated an inadequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of overseeing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have not dedicated sufficient time to oversee SAWPA’s pretreatment program within their district. D SBVMWD must acquire personnel with the necessary expertise to develop and implement its pretreatment program and who are dedicated to the program. WMWD R.W.1 Expertise lacking. G&G Environmental Compliance Inc. personnel on whom the agency relies demonstrated a lack of skills in the performance of tasks related to the issuance of permits and the performance of monitoring. Personnel have also demonstrated an inadequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of overseeing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have also demonstrated an inadequate level of knowledge in the regulatory and technical aspects of pretreatment. Agency personnel assigned the task of overseeing SAWPA’s pretreatment program have not dedicated sufficient time to oversee SAWPA’s pretreatment program within their district. D WMWD must acquire personnel with the necessary expertise to develop and implement its pretreatment program and who are dedicated to the program. Key: IEUA: Inland Empire Utilities Agency SAWPA = Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority SBVMWD = San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District WMWD = Western Municipal Water District SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 39 EEC 4.0 CONCLUSION Overall, major improvements should be implemented at all levels of the pretreatment program to ensure compliance with all applicable requirements and provide the highest level of protection for the IEBL and OCSD’s treatment facility. Such improvements, if properly and continuously implemented, would increase the level of protection and would minimize the risk of a repeated instance of serious violations as was the case with Corona Resource Recovery (CRR). General recommendations are outlined below, and specific recommendations to address each finding have been tabulated in Tables 5- 1 through 5-9. Specific to the CRR issue, the audit revealed that SAWPA allowed a major discharger into the IEBL, CRR, to discharge mining waste into the IEBL. The waste originated from outside the SAWPA service area and consisted of mining waste that was inaccurately referred to as “brine” waste. The origin and nature of the waste warranted a higher level of due diligence than that demonstrated by SAWPA and WMWD in the permitting process. At a minimum, SAWPA should have requested a complete waste stream characterization based on a detailed description of the process generating the waste. In addition, because of the large quantity of waste under consideration, SAWPA and/or WMWD should have performed an on-site assessment of all waste generating processes at the Molycorp’s Mountain Pass facility to confirm the information provided by CRR. In order to categorically determine all the facts surrounding the CRR issue including any correlation between the excursions in arsenic level in OCSD’s biosolids and the discharge of the Molycorp’s waste, access to all records maintained by SAWPA, WMWD and Molycorp pertaining to the CRR issue should be granted. On the program administration level, SAWPA must develop and implement the necessary improvements to its pretreatment program. EEC also recommends that SAWPA manage all aspects of the pretreatment program rather than delegate permitting, monitoring, and enforcement to its member agencies. This would give SAWPA the necessary control, but the legality of multijurisdictional agreements allowing enforcement actions and the levying of fines must be addressed. Alternatively, SAWPA could continue to manage its program through multijurisdictional agreements with some or all of its member agencies, but this option is not recommended because it yields a lower level of compliance and protection. Such arrangement relieves SAWPA from the responsibility of issuing permits and monitoring compliance, but would require SAWPA to closely monitor the performance of its member agencies and to conduct announced and unannounced inspections at industrial user facilities. In either arrangement, it is highly recommended for SAWPA to either acquire adequately qualified staff dedicated to SAWPA’s pretreatment program and/or to retain a qualified consultant who is not retained by any of its member agencies. At all times, SAWPA must ensure that any conflict of interest is eliminated and that it fulfills its role in providing additional control and program supervision. Permits are control instruments that must be properly prepared and based on accurate and comprehensive information concerning the industrial user. SAWPA should adopt 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. It is also recommended that 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 cease throughout SAWPA’s service area. Typically, and as observed in this audit, such a practice leads to many instances of noncompliance due to the inherent lack of control and monitoring. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 40 EEC Monitoring at all levels of the pretreatment program must be improved. The level of monitoring by some member agencies is adequate but it is lacking among other member agencies. SAWPA must develop and implement procedures for the regular calibration and maintenance of equipment, for the sampling and testing of wastewater, for gathering information and issuing permits, and for all other activities that can ensure compliance and a higher level of protection to the IEBL and OCSD’s treatment and receiving waters. SAWPA must regularly monitor the proper implementation of all adopted procedures. Inspections should consist of a critical examination of the industrial user facility and manufacturing processes. The announced inspections currently performed by the member agencies do not always reveal all changes and modifications. A minimum number of inspections must be unannounced in order to capture facts and information that are more representative of normal operating conditions at the industrial user facilities. The actual number of inspections should be determined in light of the nature of the inspections and the potential risk present. Enforcement plans that are currently in place for SAWPA and its member agencies must undergo a legal review to assess their effectiveness under the current multijurisdictional agreements. Enforcement plans must also contain a clear procedure to determine if a violation is considered an instance of significant noncompliance, to identify and undertake a timely and appropriate response, and to document resolution of noncompliance. Enforcement response planning is a critical portion of every ordinance and is ultimately SAWPA’s responsibility to implement. Data management must be improved to increase the level of collaboration and work transferability between SAWPA and OCSD. Traceability also must be improved to facilitate quality checking. Reporting by SAWPA to OCSD must resume and continue on a monthly basis. As required in the 1991 MOU, SAWPA must provide monthly reports detailing the number and identification of new and existing permittees, inspections, enforcement actions, and monitoring data. SAWPA and OCSD must agree on a report format for smooth and effective transfer of information. QA/QC measures specific to the IEBL must be implemented by SAWPA throughout its pretreatment program. SAWPA’s primary mission should be to effectively oversee and carry out a robust quality system and quality management plan, including QA/QC activities at the industrial user level. SAWPA should also regularly review its implemented QA/QC measures. Resources to develop and implement an adequate pretreatment program for SAWPA are critically needed. SAWPA must acquire qualified staff and/or retain a qualified consultant with expertise in both pretreatment and program management. Should it choose to retain a qualified consultant, SAWPA would still need to elevate the pretreatment expertise of its staff members responsible for managing the consultant. The audit team estimated that, should it choose to manage the entire IEBL pretreatment program with the current number of permittees, SAWPA would need a total of three full-time equivalent (FTE) employees (staff and/or consultants). The 3 FTE’s would be comprised of a clerical position mainly for invoicing, data management, and reporting; a junior staff position focusing primarily on permitting and inspections; and a program manager to develop and oversee the program, review permits, and liaise with OCSD and member agencies. This estimate is for the first year and is for the development and implementation of a pretreatment program without passing on any responsibility to member agencies. It is also expected that, after the first year, SAWPA would need fewer employees to manage the same number of permittees. SAWPA Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Report November 19, 2012 W2422.01T Orange County Sanitation District 41 EEC The audit findings have been verbally shared with SAWPA and the member agencies throughout the audit, and SAWPA is currently in the process of addressing many of the audit findings. Starting with the recommended corrective actions presented in the report, SAWPA could begin to develop its own corrective action plan and schedule specific to the audit findings. Alternatively, OCSD could, as specified in the 1991 MOU section 6.D., develop and issue SAWPA a remedial plan with a time schedule for attaining compliance since SAWPA has failed or has refused to fulfill key pretreatment requirements. In either case, follow-up audits by OCSD should be scheduled to determine whether the corrective actions are being implemented adequately and on schedule. Project Project Number File Number Date PE/RG PM DR Figure Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Santa Ana River Watershed Location Map W2422-01T Santa Ana River Watershed Location Map.ppt October 22, 2012 NS NS NS 1 SOURCE: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Project Project Number File Number Date PE/RG PM DR Figure Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Inland Empire Brine Line and Connections W-2422-01T Santa Ana Regional Interceptor Line and Connections.ppt October 22, 2012 NS NS SAWPA 2 SOURCE: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Project Project Number File Number Date PE/RG PM DR Figure Santa Ana Watershed Authority Project Pretreatment Program Compliance Audit Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority Member Agencies W2422-01T sawpa member agencies.ppt October 22, 2012 NS NS SAWPA 3 SOURCE: Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority