The town of Discovery Bay has three alternatives at this point:

- Pay the assessed civil liability and waive its right to a hearing before the Central Valley Water Board by signing the enclosed waiver (checking off the box next to item #4) and submitting it to this office by 5 January 2009, along with payment for the full amount;

- Agree to enter into settlement discussions with the Central Valley Water Board and request
that any hearing on the matter be delayed by signing the enclosed waiver (checking off the
box next to item #5) and submitting both this waiver and a letter describing the issues to be
discussed to this office by 5 January 2009; or

- Contest the Complaint and/or enter into settlement discussions with the Central Valley
Water Board without signing the enclosed waiver.

“After our recent inspection/complaint investigation I informed you verbally of our preliminary findings on October 9, 2008. Per your request, I am providing you with a list of those findings in writing. Again, I would like to emphasize that these are preliminary findings and that we will form our final conclusions and recommendations after reviewing all the documents that we are seeking. A written request for those documents has been submitted via e-mail earlier today.

The first three finding relate to general safety over which the Water Board does not have regulatory authority. Nevertheless, I am obligated to point them out.

We identified a couple potential safety hazards in the headworks area at Plant No. 1.

The MCC cabinets near the emergency generator (Plant 1) should be kept closed, and preferably locked.

We noticed liquid in the covered containment area for the old chlorine tank at Plant 1. It was unclear if the liquid was water or a chlorine solution, however, it should be cleaned up and properly disposed.

UV tubes next to the chlorine building should be properly disposed of.

Housekeeping at Plant 1 was extremely poor.

It appears that this facility is used as a disposal site for debris and abandoned equipment.

After several months of work, the new SCADA system still does not appear to be fully functional.

The reliability of the existing SCADA system is also questionable.

When the main power was intentionally disconnected during our October 9 visit, neither system registered a power failure alarm (at least the operator on duty could not identify it). However, the SCADA system did indicate that the emergency generator was running.

The assistant Facility Manager noted that he still frequently finds the SCADA phone lines disconnected. This needs to be mitigated immediately.

One of the four rotors (brush aerators) has been out of service for several months. Another appears to be only marginally operational. The June 2008 Self- Monitoring-Report attributed the high ammonia concentration in the effluent to problems with two rotors (resulting in low dissolved oxygen).

There was no record of corrective maintenance work orders for those two aerators in the computerized maintenance management system.

The UV system does not appear to be adequately maintained.

The Fischer Porter system was missing at least seven ballasts in Bank B alone. Additionally, LED indicator lights on the remaining ballasts showed that at least 11 UV tubes in Bank B were not working at the time of our visit. These deficiencies are likely to cause non-compliance with the permit’s coliform requirements.

The local alarm for Banks A and B (Fischer Porter system) indicated “low intensity warning” and “low- low intensity alarm.” “Low-low intensity” is a serious alarm that apparently had not been addressed for an extended period of time.

You indicated that the UV system alarms were probably not connected to the SCADA system (this still needs to be confirmed). Regardless, there should be an SOP on identifying and correcting these alarms.

The intensity reading for Bank B showed 20% for each rack. The intensity reading for Bank A showed intensity reading of 40 and 60% for racks 1 and 2. These readings are well below what is required for reliable disinfection.

Intensity meter for Bank C was not operational at the time of our visit.

The Trojan UV system could not be evaluated because the monitor was almost impossible to read. One alarm appeared on the screen, however we were unable to determine the cause of the alarm condition. I believe that the very poor resolution/visibility on the screen was caused by problems other than lighting/glare conditions (although these were definitely contributing factors).

DO and pH meters are not calibrated prior to all compliance analyses.

Plant staffing is inadequate as indicated by a 12-page backlog of work orders.

There is also an indication that this backlog does not include all the outstanding work orders.

In general, there is a lack of written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) describing routine tasks and emergency response procedures. Although some of the SOPs may be found in the O& M manual, some operators do not appear to be familiar with them.

It is acknowledged that the Facility Manager is currently working on developing new SOPs and updating the existing ones.

The training of operators is inadequate.

There are strong indications that a significant amount of training (of new operators) is being done by an Operator-In-Training.

Operators should be professionally trained in process control, calibrations, sampling, SCADA, emergency response and particularly in the operation and maintenance of the UV systems.

The operators (including the Facility Manager) were not adequately familiar with the reporting requirements following non-compliance events (such as overflows).

Reporting of the July 7-18 overflow (spill) did not comply with either the State or Regional Water Boards’ regulatory requirements.

Operators must understand and acknowledge that the permit prohibits discharge of effluent to the Reclamation District 800 drainage ditch.

Please let me know if you disagree with any of these findings or if any of the identified problems have already been corrected.

Boris Trgovcich
Office of Enforcement
State Water Resources Control Board
(916) 714-2983

Instead, you have disappeared or have been acting like it never happened. Have you even read the two scathing reports from the State Water Quality Control Board listing the many violations the CSD committed before, during and after this horrible spill? If so, why have you not responded? I invite you to come to my home and smell the repugnant odors emitting from this Lake due to the lack of proper clean up. Where was all of the concern for your constituents while the CSD and South West Water were spraying wastewater on us? How is it, as a Supervisor, you cannot muster up a letter of concern to address the negligent actions by the entire CSD board with regard to the egregious mishandling and lack of procedures in place to deal with such a disaster. It is very obvious to me where you stand with regard to your loyalties.

I invite you as our Supervisor to act like you represent all of the people of this community that voted for you, (including myself) to make sure this does not happen again and address the numerous violations this Board has committed.

Sincerely,

Jennifer McKay
Discovery Bay

~ Editor Note: See the most recent letter from the State Water Resources Board asking for documents DBCSD has not yet provided.

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:

https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?reportAction=criteria&reportId=sso_overview

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.

– there was no formal notification from the CSD to the town residents or the media regarding this spill
– the RWQBC considered the warning signs posted at the south end of the lake to be inadequate
in raising awareness
– lack of the State required notifications
– the legally required 5 day report to the RWQCB was submitted approximately 47 days late
– a demand letter had to be served on the CSD by the RWQBC to obtain the necessary documents
– the spill was not listed on any of the 3 CSD meeting agendas since it occurred.
– lack of contractor oversight to insure compliance with state requirements on key environmental safety issues
– the spill occurred on July 17 but was not properly cleaned up until August 15
– originally the spill was said to only be 10,000 gallons and not properly updated to state authorities
– at least one fountain in the lake was allowed to continue to run thus emitting airborne fecal contaminates

The Regional Water Quality Control Board blasted the Discovery Bay Community Services (DBCSD) for lack of compliance with water quality regulations and procedure as facts finally come to light after a significant sewage spill that occurred, July 17.

DBCSD originally pooh-poohed the shit storm low-balling the spill at “only 10,000″ with dismisive “gee, what’s the problem,” remarks aimed at concerned residents who had the audacity to complain and question DBCSD response, tin-ear, and transparency, when in fact estimates now exceed 100,000 gallons of sewage was spilled.

DBCSD did not report the problem promptly, a failure of compliance. Additionally, it had not been submitting required monthly reports as far back as May.

DBCSD claims it set up warning signs and had SW Water cleanup the area immediately, yet the state inspection reports that warning signage was woefully inadequate; that the spray from the fountain was reaching over 175 feet, that the original cleanup was inadequate. Contaminated rags were left at the site. Bacterial counts were off the chart.

Interestingly, despite DBCSD claims, Mr. Johnson, of Southwest Water, in his report, said he was “unable to confirm when the fountain was turned off.” Additionally, he wrote that he could not complete his report of July 18 because he did not have the longitude and latitude of the incident location (sic) and that it took him more than three weeks to find the info and complete and submit the report to the Water Quality, August 18 (sic).

DBCSD has refused to place the spill on the agenda of its last three public meetings, limiting residents to short public comment.

DBSCD waited until the day before the deadline to provide the documents required by the RWQCB and has failed to submit its future response plan requested by the state agency brushing the request off by saying the report would be completed in May 2009.

It is unfortunate that Town Manager Virgil Koehne and DBCSD and its political toadies brushed off requests from the public for transparency until it was too late. It probably won’t be long before we hear of retribution against whistle blowers and those pesky residents who raised the alarm.

As of 8/14/08, residents are still attempting to get answers. According to participants of a recent CSD meeting, the Director, David Piepho casually told the audience it was no big deal, “this happens all the time,” in an attempt to downplay the spill. Unfortunately, according to one resident, “Testing levels turned over by the Water Board Investigator were off the charts. Signs were poorly placed with no effort to ensure that the residents were alerted to the hazardous situation. Residents wonder why the CSD continues apparently choose not to follow the rules and procedures, especially in its lax monthly reporting to State Water Quality agency whether or not there is a spill.

There is also a question as to whether the Regional Water Quality Control Board will agree with CSD determination that the district cannot be fined, as Marin’s Wastewater 200,000 gallon spill received a $1.5 Million fine for operator error.

Apparently, during the CSD meeting, the audience of residents from the scatalogically contaminated area got a series of excuses from BSD Staff; Mr. Koehene and Mr. Johnson offered a wide variety of excuses say those who attended: birds ran into a wire, programming error, faulty alarm, broken pump. Meanwhile dogs romped in the lake and shook off in the house, kids fished, children played while diphtheria was sprayed into the air. Meanwhile CSD played CYA. Lovely.