Below see brief comments from Kathie Smith, public information officer for the State Water Board, on reporting requirements and compliance following a 100,000+ gallon sewage spill in the Lakeshore Development of Discovery Bay that occurred on July 17.
My take on this is: A) there are documented instances of substantial lack of compliance, that potentially could be very costly to Discovery Bay taxpayers; and B) that the State Water Board would have in place a program with only 75% compliance is disturbing and raises the question of whether
or when it will actually fulfill its mission of protecting water standards for taxpayers. Contra Costa taxpayers can little afford another ineffective state agency that winks at flagrant abuse by municipalities like Discovery Bay or looks the other way folds under political pressure. Click the nearby link for
the full interview:
Q. Please confirm if DBCSD is in compliance of providing monthly reports per state water board general order for sewer overflows.
A. The following observations have been noted for Discovery Bay related to reporting compliance (including monthly SSO reporting deadlines and No Spill Certification requirements):
As required under the Order, initial Submit Draft report of an SSO report (Category 1) must be entered in California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) no later than 3 business days after the Enrollee is made aware of the Category 1 SSO, which would have been 7/22/08 at 9:17), since they were aware of the SSO according to the Certified CIWQS report on 7/18/08 at 9:17. Discovery Bay entered the “Initial Draft” on 8/11/08 at 8:07 and missed the compliance deadline for the “submit draft” report.
The SSO Certification Report was required 15 calendar days (8/2/08 at 12:30) after the conclusion of SSO response and remediation (completion is indicated as 7/18/08 at 12:30 according to CIWQS Certified Report). Discovery Bay entered the Certified report on 9/10/08 at 3:37 missing the Certification deadline, and failing to notify the public. Only Certified SSO reports are available to the public via the CIWQS website at the following link:
NO SPILL CERTIFICATIONS: For any month in which an enrollee does not have an SSO, a No Spill Certification is required. No data appears for Discovery Bay earlier than April 2008. They must still provide all data, either SSOs or No Spill Certifications back to September 2, 2007, when mandatory reporting began, under the General Order requirements.
Q. Please confirm if there is a $1,000 per day violation for each month not in compliance; so that thru August it would be (for e.g. May thru August out of compliance) $120+ 90+60+30= $300,000.
A. Significant enforcement penalties may result from non-compliance with the Statewide SSO General Permit. Full compliance includes reporting accurate and complete information submitted within the prescribed time frame. However, taken in the context of a new regulatory program with limited resources, we believe that compliance assurance will have to be done in phases. The first phase is for all Enrollees using the SSO database to report the required information. The next phase will address the timeliness and correctness of the submitted information. This issue is discussed further in later portions of this report.
To date, the State Water Resources Control Board has not taken individual enforcement action, since mandatory reporting under the SSO General Permit only began statewide a year ago (September 2, 2007). However, the State Water Board, in conjunction with its nine Regional Water Boards is beginning a statewide compliance effort targeted at local agencies such as Discovery Bay, who fail to comply with the SSO General Permit.
Not providing required information can result in penalties of $1000 per day. Depending on the circumstances of the violation, liability may be assessed for less or more than this amount.
How and when will your agency make the determination to actually enforce this requirement you speak of and what considerations will be
included in determining the penalty, and when. Staff has developed a plan for the Statewide SSO General Permit implementation to increase the monthly reporting compliance rate over the next year.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sanitary_sewer_overflow/docs/sso_report_standalone.pdf
The plan involves the concept of progressive compliance, with the more serious steps being taken only as warranted by Enrollee non-compliance:
1. Continued outreach and training efforts Regular listserv e-mail updates, using CIWQS data, to all Enrollees regarding Statewide Sanitary Sewer Order implementation and other key program messages SSO reporting and Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) development training classes offered by California Water Environment Association (CWEA) SSO database enhancements with Enrollee input (via External Users Group)
2. Expand outreach, awareness and training efforts
- Monthly e-mail reminder to Enrollees not reporting any data
- Post on State Water Board’s website SSO technical data, and list all Enrollees not complying with specific Statewide Sanitary Sewer Order requirements
- Explore developing a DVD of CWEA training class available to Enrollees that may not be able to attend training. CWEA offering additional classes (e.g., public communication in response to a large SSO and focused training on specific SSMP elements) and publishing additional outreach flyers
3. Non-compliance advisory letter to Enrollees not complying
4. As resources allow, direct staff contact with Enrollees not complying
5. Notice of Violation sent to Enrollees not complying
6. As resources allow, direct staff contact with Enrollees not complying where possible
7. State Water Board enforcement action against Enrollees not complying
Q. Has DBCSD ever completed the required sewer system questionnaire; and if not, what penalties go with lack of compliance with this item
A. Collection System Questionnaire for Discovery Bay (required per Order within 30 days of them receiving their Username/Password) was required to have been completed in November 2006 (they were enrolled in Oct 2006). They completed the initial Questionnaire late on 9/10/08 at 14:42.
Q. You mention that “disco bay compliance was due May 2, 2008″ for submitting its SSMP and has it ever been certified in CIWQS online? Please advise if it has not been submitted and certified; and if not, what penalties or other enforcement action can/will your agency take?
A. SSMP Elements: Discovery Bay’s first three SSMP Task Elements (Development Plan/Schedule, Goal and Organization), according to the SSO General Order, were required to be certified in CIWQS by May 2, 2008. They are still missing the “Goal” element, Section D13(i).
Q. Finally, as a matter of course, why would the agency allow any municipality remain out of compliance for more than one month? Does your agency ever actually ever enforce any of the requirements? Example?
A. Yes. See above plan.
Q. Do agencies like DBCSD typically ignore agency requirements designed to protect residents and taxpayers?
A. Most agencies covered under the SSO General Permit (currently about 74 %) are now reporting the required monthly information in CIWQS (either an SSO or a No Spill Certification), however, we still have a long way to go (and a plan) to achieve a compliance rate representative of other Water Board regulatory programs. Again, this is a relatively new regulatory program.
Q. Could/does some person or entity possibly intervene in the enforcement process or your agency’s due diligence to forestall or mitigate CIWQS action? And how?
A. The State Water Board does not comment on proposed enforcement actions. Should it be determined that an enforcement response is warranted, it would be resolved according to the appropriate laws and regulations, and the public would be afforded the opportunity to provide comments.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Yes, Joe your are correct, there was another spill in Discovery Bay. The Board took it with a grain of salt. Who can possibly believe Koehene and Johnson. They turned out to be big liars about the last one so what makes anythink they can believe what they say with regard to this one. What people do not realize the 110K spill in Lakeshore was caused by the same reason the one before it in Lakeshore. How many gallons did they lie about that time? This Board has turned into the most do nothing, go nowhere Board this community has seen in a long time. After being shamed into putting an ad hoc committee together made of the the same people responsible for the spill and act like the people in the community can’t see what is going to come out of it. Absolutely NOTHING! Koehene is in way over his head. This Board does not have enough sense to know they need to get a real General Manager who cares about what his responsibilities are and what is going on in the Community. Koehene is more interested in his experiment with the ponds than he is in meeting the requirements of the Water Board and this community. He cannot be trusted to have any integrity. He has been caught in several lies and continues to try and cover them up.
I am now hearing there has been another sewage spill in DB. If this is true heads must roll. The problem is there is no way to verify what happened. You can not call the town office as they will not tell the truth. You can not call the state because DB has a history of not reporting or not accurately reporting. Something has to change in the town of DB to give the people who live there the confidence that they are not continually being lied to or manipulated. If anyone has good info on this alleged latest spill please post.
Based on what has now come to the surface I believe the only reasonable conclusion to this situation is that South West Water replace their DB site manager and the town take some level of action against the town manager. (including the possibility of termination for cause) Unless shown otherwise both men appear to be negligent both following up on contractor work and in the after event actions. Beyond that it could be argued the town manager obstructed the town board’s ability to deal with the situation. This does not absolve the board as no matter what they should have acted as soon as the spill happened.
Boy, you can count on B-G-R to get to the bottom of barrel. This interview brings to light how far out there this Board is. There was a new “Whiner” at the CSD meeting. This Mankin dude was literally whinning about how unfair it was to put public documents on a blog . You remember the guy that trys to act like he is the king expert in everything and in reality can’t get anything straight. Somebody needs to tell this guy to read yesterday’s East County Times, where Dr Wendall Brunner (County Health Director) is quoted as saying “there was a risk to public human health, and the fountains being left on was potentially dangerous.” And Mankin is the guy who claims he called (several times) the Health Dept. and was told everything was just fine. Let’s see Mankinnnnnnn or the Health Director? I’ll take the guy with the medical degree, thanks. As for the CSD Board all of a sudden they are “really concerned” because the rest of the public has finally recongized the Boards continued poor decision making process. Director Dove (back in August), who was discussed with the whole situation and a citizen asked for a review committee along with an emergency plan got nothing but the cold shoulder from the rest of them and was told it wasn’t due until May 09. Where was the Boards concern on August 8, 08 on August 20, 08 when citizens were questioning and complaining about the health hazards? Piepho was giving it his usual oh well, we gotta lean from this stuff, Texiera Murphy was rolling her eyes, Doran was sound asleep and I can’t remember if Knight was doodling as usual or not there since she never speaks. This was all going on while the public and Director Dove complained about the health hazard, smell and lack of notification. The spill is in July and it is now September when the other 4 are all of sudden concerned because the State Water Board tells them they are not and have not been in compliance, did not notify the proper authorities, missing documents at the facility and their clean up job was crappy. What the heck do you think Director Dove was trying to bring to their attention as the Board ignored his concerns? Very obvious Director Knight does not want to run again she must be tired of being nagged to read her Directors packet. And Doran wants us to be re-elected so he can take some more naps. These 4 members: Piepho, Doran, Texiera-Murphy and Knight continue to show nothing but disregard for the people in this community. And the best part is where is the Queen Mary’s concern about the community and the 100,000 gallons empty into the lake. This is a Supervisor that writes a letter when a squirrel passes gas and she won’t write a letter or show concern about a major 100,000 gallon raw sewage spill in her own community? Think hubby has put her on restriction from writing any? Or she could be too busy having those private invitation only meetings in her office in attempt to continue to make the Sheriff look bad regarding the P-1 money? This is the P-1 money our Discovery Bay Rocket Scientist Board negoiated with the developers for the community and got none of the funds specifically for Discovery Bay. People WAKE UP!