July 2, 2015 Via Email Only Mr. Stephen Manganiello

July 2, 2015
Via Email Only
Mr. Stephen Manganiello
City Engineer
National City
1243 National City Blvd.
National City, CA 91950
[email protected]
In reply refer to / attn:
631917:vrodriguez
SUBJECT:
STAFF ENFORCEMENT LETTER AND INSPECTION REPORT FOR THE CITY
OF NATIONAL CITY’S COLLECTION SYSTEM, WDID 9 000000755, ORDER
NO. 2006-0003-DWQ AS AMENDED BY WQ 2013-0058-EXEC
Dear Mr. Manganiello,
On December 15, 2014, the State Water Resources Control Board, California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (San Diego Water Board), and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency conducted an inspection of the City of National City’s (City’s) sewer collection
system to determine compliance with Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for
Sanitary Sewer Systems, Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ (SSS WDR) as amended by Order No.
WQ 2013-0058-EXEC. Enclosed is a copy of the Inspection Report.
The attachment to the Inspection Report entitled Table 1: Violations lists the violations of the
SSS WDR noted during the inspection and Table 2: Areas of Concern lists additional
recommendations based on inspection findings.
Within 60 days, the City must submit a response to the San Diego Water Board detailing how
the City has already addressed or plans to address the violations.
In the subject line of any response, please include the reference number 631917:vrodriguez. If
you have any questions regarding this Staff Enforcement Letter or the attached Inspection
Report, please contact Mr. Vicente Rodriguez by e-mail at [email protected] or
by phone at (619) 521-3966.
Respectfully,
Brandi N. Outwin-Beals, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Control Engineer
Source Control Regulatory Unit
BNO:jll:vrr
Mr. Stephen Manganiello
City of National City
Enclosure:
-2-
July 2, 2015
Inspection Report, City Of National City’s Collection System, December 15, 2015
Table 1: Violations
Table 2: Areas of Concern
cc via email only:
Joe Smith, Director of Public Works
Matthew Buffleben, SIU, OE, SWRCB
Jim Fischer, SIU, OE, SWRCB
Julia Hooten, SIU, OE, SWRCB
Eric Magnan, ED, WS, USEPA9
Mayumi Okamoto, OE, SWRCB
Laura Drabandt, OE, SWRCB
Noah Golden-Krasner, NRS-LA, CDOJ
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Tech Staff Info & Use
Order No.
CW Place ID (NCCS)
CW Party/Organization ID (NC)
CW Party/Person ID (SM)
CW Regulatory Measure (Enroll)
CW Regulatory Measure (Gen WDR)
CW Reg. Measure (07/02/2015 SEL)
WDID
CIWQS Event ID
Violation ID
748189
854766
704607
660650
648327
495605
NA
992483
NA
992485
NA
992486
NA
992487
NA
992489
R9-2007-0005
631917
31211
544317
213939
332840
401833
9 000000755
SEL Reg. Meas. ID
375428
401833
401833
401833
401833
401833
401833
401833
TABLE 1: VIOLATIONS
No.
Violation
ID
1
854766
2
660650
3
495605
4
5
6
7
8
Violation
Category 1 Sanitary
Sewer Overflow (SSO)
CIWQS1 Event ID
748189
Category 1 SSO
CIWQS Event ID
704607
Category 1 SSO
CIWQS Event ID
648327
REQUIREMENT
DESCRIPTION
Prohibition C.1 of SSS
WDRs (see page 7)
All of the SSOs that discharged to waters of the United
States are in violation of Pohibition C.1 of the Sanitary
Sewer Order
Prohibition C.1 of SSS
WDRs (see page 7)
Prohibition C.1 of SSS
WDRs (see page 7)
All of the SSOs that discharged to waters of the United
States are in violation of Pohibition C.1 of the Sanitary
Sewer Order
All of the SSOs that discharged to waters of the United
States are in violation of Pohibition C.1 of the Sanitary
Sewer Order
992483
The City failed to
implement its Sewer
System Management
Plan (SSMP)
Rehabilitation,
Replacement, and
Capacity Programs.
Provision D.13(iv)(c)
and D.13(viii) of SSS
WDRs (see pages 11
and 13-14)
The inspection revealed that the City is not
implementing its rehabilitation, replacement, and
capacity programs covering its entire sewer system
despite having nearly $16 million in
Enterprise Fund reserves.
992485
The City’s Capital
Improvement
Program is deficient.
Provisions D.13(iv)(c) of
SSS WDRs (see page
11)
Inspectors learned that only approximately 60 percent of
all contracted Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) inspection
data collected to date has been reviewed for identifying,
programming and funding necessary rehabilitation,
replacement, and capacity projects for the City.
Provision D.13(x) of SSS
WDRs (see pages 1415)
As discovered during the inspection, the City’s 2-year
internal SSMP program audit was not conducted. The
City’s SSMP Audit must evaluate the effectiveness and
compliance with all individual SSMP requirements. The
Audit should include a narrative discussing details about
how the City can further improve system management,
cleaning operations, emergency response, rehabilitation,
replacement, and/or capital improvements to further
reduce and/or eliminate SSOs.
992486
The City failed to
conduct an SSMP
Program Audit.
992487
The City lacks
collection system
resources.
Provision D.9 of SSS
WDRs (see page 9)
Inspectors learned that the City only has very limited
resources with only 3 staff available for sewer
operations, maintenance, repair, and emergencies
including pump stations. To comply with the SSS WDRs,
the City must demonstrate that it has allocated
adequate collection system resources.
992489
The City failed to
meet the 2-hour
notification
requirements for 3
individual Category 1
SSO.
Amended MRP Order
No. 2013-0058-EXEC,
section C
The City failed to timely notify OES within 2 hours of
becoming aware of SSO ID 748189.
1
Califronia Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS), available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ciwqs/public reports.shtml
National City Sewer System Conclusions
Page 1 of 2
TABLE 2: AREAS OF CONCERN2
AREA OF CONCERN
REQUIREMENT
DESCRIPTION
1) Sewer operations,
maintenance and repair.
Provision D.8 and
D.13(iv(b) of SSS
WDRs (see
pages 9 and 11)
The City’s existing sewer operations, maintenance, and repair
programs should be improved. Inspectors documented several issues
including evidence of possible high flows/surcharging. In addition,
inspectors discovered a lack of records documenting maintenance
activities and also a “paved-over” manhole lid for a pump station
bypass valve. To continually reduce its SSOs, the City should consider
reviewing and incorporating published industry recommendations3 to
improves its existing operations, maintenance, and repair programs.
2) Fats, Oils and Grease
(FOG) control program.
Provision
D.13(vii) of SSS
WDRs (see page
13)
The City’s existing fats, oils, and grease (FOG) control program should
be improved. Inspectors observed significant FOG buildup and a
partial blocked mainline inside one of the City’s assets during the field
inspections. To reduce SSOs, the City should consider reviewing and
incorporating published industry recommendations4 to improve its
existing FOG control program.
City collections staff
training materials and
standard operating
procedures (SOPs).
Provision D.8 and
D.13(iv)(d) of
SSS WDRs (see
pages 9 and 11)
Inspectors learned that the City has some checklist materials at pump
stations but generally City lacks training and standard operating
procedure (SOP) materials covering major sewer
equipment/operations. To ensure ongoing compliance with the SSS
WDRs, the City should further improve its existing training program to
ensure all collections staff and contractors (where used) are adequately
trained.
3)
2
Areas of Concern are issues identified in the audit that could lead to future violation(s) if not properly addressed.
3
See “Best Management Practices for Sanitary Sewer Overflow(SSO) Reduction Strategies”, section 3.
4
See “Best Management Practices for Sanitary Sewer Overflow(SSO) Reduction Strategies”, section 10.
National City Sewer System Conclusions
Page 2 of 2
Inspected By:
Agency:
Inspection Date
Jim Fischer, Water Resources Control Engineer
(WRCE)
Bryan Elder, WRCE
Julia Hooten, Environmental Scientist
Joann Lim, WRCE
Vicente Rodriguez, WRCE
Adam Howell, Engineer
SWRCB-Office of Enforcement
12/15/2014
[CIWQS Inspection
ID #19899225]
SWRCB-Office of Enforcement
SWRCB-Office of Enforcement
San Diego Regional Water Board
San Diego Regional Water Board
U.S. EPA, Region IX
Name and Location of Facility Inspected
Entry
Date/Time
12/15/2014 (1005)
National City
[CIWQS Place ID 631917]
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
WDID
NO.
Order
No.
9SSO10655
20060003-DWQ
Population
58,000
Permit Eff. Date
Exit
Date/Time
12/15/2014
(1420)
Permit Exp. Date
1/2/2007
N/A
Contact Information:
City Representatives Name & Title:
Stephen Manganiello, Director of Public Works
Kuna Muthusamy, Assistant Director of Public Works
Jose Lopez, Engineer
Joe Ibarra, Streets Crew Chief
Jeff Rouston, Collections Crew Chief
Inspection Consent Approved By:
Kuna Muthusamy
Phone No: (619) 336-4383
Date
Time
12/15/2014
1020
Sewage Collection System Description
One sanitary sewer collection system with 105.01 miles of gravity sewers, 2 sewage pump stations, and 0.25
miles of force main sewers.
On December 15, 2014, the inspection team staff performed a scheduled inspection of the National City
Sanitary Sewer Collection System in National City (City), California to evaluate compliance with the Sanitary
Sewer System Waste Discharge Requirements (SSS WDRs), Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ. The weather during
the inspection was cloudy with temperatures in the 60s. The audit included a pre-inspection data review, a
physical onsite inspection of the facility, and a post-inspection review.
According to data submitted by the City (see ATTACHMENT 1 — “Pre-Inspection Questionnaire completed by
the National City”), the City’s collection system includes 105.01 miles of gravity sewers, 0.25 miles of force
mains and serves a population of approximately 58,000. Approximately 55 percent of the collection system
pipes were constructed prior to 1980.
Page 1 of 18
PART 1: PRE-INSPECTION CONFERENCE
We began with introductions of inspection team members and distributed an inspection sign-in sheet to
document all members present (see ATTACHMENT 2 — “National City Inspection Sign-In Sheet for December
15, 2014”). We then discussed the reasons for the inspection, including information about state and regional
board responsibilities, and requested consent from Muthusamy to perform the inspection, which includes taking
photographs. Muthusamy provided a verbal “yes” for the inspection/photo consent at approximately 1020 hrs.
We then provided an outline of the proposed agenda for the inspection including a request for having field
personnel available in the afternoon for inspection of sewer assets.
A variety of focused questions and answers related to sewer staffing, operations, maintenance activities and
SSO emergency response operations were discussed for this portion of the inspection during the Pre-Inspection
Conference. The City was prepared with numerous materials ready for our review including a completed “PreInspection Questionnaire” and their Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP). The main topics and information
discussed are summarized below:
1. RESOURCES (SSS WDRs, Provision D.9): We asked Muthusamy to provide an overview of City sewer
maintenance resources including any open positions. He stated they have “closely knitted” sewer and
engineering team members, with their engineering staff providing all the technical expertise needed for
Public Works projects. Muthusamy also said that they have one vacant collection system senior operator
position that has not yet been filled which has been open for about one month.
2. SSMP PROGRAM AUDITS: We asked the City for their SSMP Internal Audit which is required by the
SSS WDRs, and Lopez stated that they have not completed it to date.
3. SERVICE CALLS (SSS WDRs, Amended Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP), Section E):
We asked how the City sewer service calls are logged and tracked. Muthusamy told us that their
administrative staff answering phones write down caller information on paper and then pass this data to
crew chiefs or supervisors first before collections staff are notified and dispatched to any spills.
Muthusamy said that the sewer crews also keep daily logs and use a work order system to track all of this
information. Kathy Guzman walked Hooten through the Microsoft Access electronic database, that she
has been using since June 2014, to track all incoming service calls to the City. When she receives a
service complaint call, a work order is created electronically immediately and that is passed onto the field
crew manager.
4. SEWER RECORD KEEPING (SSS WDRs, Amended MRP, Section E): Rouston said that the City
recently started entering their “backlog” of paper records into their electronic filing system for sewerrelated calls and only have entered data back to 2012 into this new system.
At approximately 1035 hrs, we requested to take a break with the Pre-Inspection Conference to review the City’s
“Pre-Inspection Questionnaire” and research more about the field asset areas that would be selected for the
afternoon portion of the inspection. At approximately 1100 hrs, we resumed the Pre-Inspection Conference and
covered the following topics:
5. SEWER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) (SSS WDRs, Provision D.13(iv)(c) and
D.13(viii): We asked the City to provide an overview of how the City’s sewer rehabilitation and CIPs are
implemented. Lopez said that PPC Engineering is their consultant currently preparing a “city-wide”
engineering document for them which includes stormwater projects, with this document being largely
overseen by their planning department. Lopez verified that the City currently has plans to expend their
approximately $2.8M planned for new capital projects in the sewer system within the next 12 months as
stated in question 2.6 of the City’s questionnaire (see ATTACHMENT 1). Lopez said that this money is
contingent on sewer service funding that they collect from their rate payers within their service area.
Lopez also confirmed that the City has approximately $16M in reserve funds as stated in question 5.3 of
Page 2 of 18
the City’s questionnaire (see ATTACHMENT 1). We next asked Lopez to explain the City’s
implementation strategy in selecting and prioritizing major sewer system projects covering rehabilitation
and capital improvements. Lopez said that that the City is “looking into combining projects,” which would
cover both sewer rehabilitation and capacity improvements moving forward and he said the City plans to
use “the entire $2.8 M up” starting in January 2015 with their new budget. However, Lopez was unable to
provide us with additional details regarding how the City strategically develops and prioritizes its sewer
projects including addressing project backlogs. Lopez stated that their former Public Works Director was
the one responsible for “programming” their current list of projects and said they are now in the process
of going through this list of projects to address issues areas already identified. Lopez told us that
Muthusamy and Manganiello are responsible for managing all sewer-related work moving forward and
said that “they are behind” with completing former projects and recommendations developed by their
former Director.
6. SEWER CAPACITY (SSS WDRs, Provision D.13(viii): We asked the City to explain any completed or
planned projects for improving sewer capacity. Rouston said that although some of the City sewer lines
are “flowing at half or above” during dry weather, he said the City “has been doing really good on
overflows” and they haven’t had any major sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) within the past year.
Rouston also said he thinks their low overflow rate is directly related to having crews focus on
programmed “hot spot” cleanings. We asked Rouston to explain how the City generates its “hot spot” list.
Rouston stated that the lists are generated “based on past experience” which includes areas that have
high amounts of grease or silt, including lines around restaurants or those with low flow rates, which they
make sure are cleaned on a regular basis
7. SSO REDUCTION STRATEGIES (SSS WDRs, Provision D.13(ix): We asked the City to elaborate on
their main strategies that they have in place to reduce SSOs. Rouston told us that most of their overflows
originate from privately-owned sewer service lateral problems which include mainly roots and grease
issues that “come and go”. Rouston also said that as a courtesy to their customers within their service
area, they will clean-out sewer laterals when needed and then later check property line clean outs to
make sure things are in good working order, tracking their time, labor and materials for any repairs.
Rouston said the City has implemented approximately 20 individual repairs on laterals during the current
calendar year (2014) and he said the City had no repairs last calendar year (2013). To follow-up on this
topic, we asked if the City has a cost recovery or reimbursement process for repairing private sewer
laterals and Rousten said that he wasn’t sure. Next, Lopez talked about inspection requirements for new
homes and renovations and stated that new laterals have to now be at least 6-inches in diameter to
comply with new City minimum design standards. We next asked some questions about the City’s
rehabilitation and replacement strategies to help us better understand what efforts are in place to reduce
future SSOs. We asked Rousten to explain more about a specific rehabilitation project to be undertaken
soon on 8th Street (from Wilson Avenue to Roosevelt Avenue) and expand on why this project was
originally prioritized since we noticed this project was also listed to be completed later in 2017. Rouston
and Lopez both said that this specific rehabilitation project was “moved up” to be completed earlier than
later to avoid any street “re-digging” since this area is soon scheduled to be overlaid with new pavement.
We also asked Lopez to further explain how they prioritize all of their capital improvement work for the
sewers. Lopez stated that they rely on information provided by their consultants (PPC Engineering and
ICCS, Inc.) for this work, including data from Atkins Engineering who does their flow/modeling work for
the City. Lopez also stated that the City pays Atkins for permanently installed flow meters (owned by
Atkins) to provide data for their sewer model. We asked Lopez if he would be able to provide copies of
the past flow data to allow us to further evaluate the hydraulic performance of the collection system and
he told us that he does not have copies of the flow data but said we could request it from them if needed.
Rouston said that the City does not have any “smart” manhole covers or other electronic telemetry
devices installed in sewers to allow them to review and evaluate the hydraulic performance of the sewer
system.
8. FATS, OILS AND GREASE (FOG) CONTROL PROGRAM (SSS WDRs, D.13(iii) and D.13(vii): We
asked the City to explain their current FOG control program. Rouston said that the City regularly flushes
some targeted main line sewers near restaurant areas on a monthly schedule to help reduce FOG.
Page 3 of 18
Rouston also said that they especially target restaurants that have no grease interceptors or traps
installed which were “grandfathered” and not required by their permitting process to have any control
equipment installed. Rouston said that they do have FOG problems “in random spots” within residential
areas and said the City also does cleaning in select areas to reduce buildup. Rouston said that Highland
Avenue is one of their bad FOG areas where they have a large concentration of major food service
establishments. He said many of these establishments already have grease traps installed and told us
that combined with their monthly preventative flushing operations, they have not had any major FOG
SSOs in these areas. Rouston stated that he only knows of one establishment in this area that doesn’t
have a grease trap installed. Lopez told us that the City has issued 2 Notices of Violation (NOVs) for
FOG-related issues and he also said that they have some stormwater-related enforcement actions
available for our review. Lopez said that D-MAX Engineering, Inc. does some of their FOG-related
inspection work including inspections for their stormwater program and he said that we could talk to
Kimberly at D-MAX if we wanted more information.
9. ROUTINE SEWER SYSTEM CLEANING (SSS WDRs, Provision D.8). We next asked Rouston to
explain the City’s routine cleaning operations and recording keeping practices in place. Rouston said that
the City crews currently record all field cleaning operations on paper forms which are scanned. For known
problem areas throughout the collection system, Rouston stated that due to their small crew size, it is often
hard for them to keep-up on their planned routine cleaning operations.
10. WET WEATHER PROBLEM AREAS (SSS WDRs, Provision D.13(viii): We asked Rouston to provide
an overview of their recent system problems experienced during wet weather. Rouston responded stating
that most of their recent issues have been dealing with high tides which have caused backups of storm
water in the storm drain system which has caused severe flooding in their service area and said they
really haven’t had too many wet weather problems with the sanitary sewer system.
11. SSO TRAINING (SSS WDRs, Provision D.8, D.13(vi)(d)): Rouston said that they have conducted
training for SSO emergency response operations and said that D-MAX came out to train everyone about 2
years ago on SSO response procedures. He stated that in addition to verbal training, D-MAX gave them
training materials to assist with SSO notification and reporting. Rouston also said that the City crews
conduct safety meetings every other week and include staff from both street and sewer department,
especially those scheduled for 24-hours emergency standby “call-outs”.
12. FIELD RECORDS (SSS WDRs, Amended MRP, section E): Rouston said that all field crews have
notebooks in all sewer trucks to document everything they see and do in the field. He said that crews also
fill-out “daily logs” to document their field work tasks. The City has been entering this into an electronic
system since June 2014.
13. WATER QUALITY MONITORING (SSS WDRs, Amended MRP, section D): Lopez stated that the City
does water quality monitoring for all SSOs that flow into creeks and said that they have flow monitoring
information dating back to 2004 which is housed within their D-MAX computerized system.
At approximately 1215 hrs, we took a break for lunch and then returned back to the office to discuss the field
visual inspection activities.
PART 2: VISUAL INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
At approximately 1330 hrs, we kicked-off our visual inspection activities in the field to document City operational
duties, procedures, and equipment and sewer conditions at time of the inspection. Photos 1-54 below document
Page 4 of 18
our visual inspection activities. (Note: All “time stamps” on the inspection photos are off by one hour due an
incorrect camera setting. The time stamps should read one hour earlier).
1. WILSON STREET AT 22ND STREET
At approximately 1340 hrs, we arrived at this site to review the sewer conditions and inspect manholes and
mainlines at junctions where National City discharges sewage waste into the City of San Diego’s trunk line sewer
system. No significant odors or problems were observed at time of inspection.
.
Photo 1: Manhole #1 and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 2: Manhole #1 and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 3: Manhole #1 and mainline inspection (view 3)
Photo 4: Manhole #1 and mainline inspection (view 4)
Page 5 of 18
Photo 5: Manhole #1 and mainline inspection (view 5)
Photo 6: Manhole #2 and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 7: Flow meter box located adjacent to manhole #2
Photo 8: Manhole #3 and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 9: Manhole #3 and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 10: Cleaning operations discussion with field staff
Page 6 of 18
2. 14th STREET AND GROVE STREET
At approximately 1415 hrs, we arrived at this site to check the condition of a manhole and mainline sewer
immediately downstream of a McDonald’s restaurant near where the sewer lateral from the restaurant meets the
City’s mainline sewer. No significant odors or problems were observed at time of inspection.
Photo 11: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 12: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
3. E 7TH STREET AT T STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1430 hrs site to check the condition of a shallow manhole and
mainline. No significant odors or problems were observed at time of inspection.
Photo 13: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 14: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
Page 7 of 18
Photo 15: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 3)
Photo 16: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 4)
4. EUCLID AND E 8TH STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1435 hrs to check the condition of the manhole and sewer mainline in
this location which we flagged as a potential “choke point” due to flows from larger to smaller sewer pipes.
Rouston told us that the City permitted a lot of brand new homes in this area which are contributing large flows
which “step down” from a 10 inch sewer to a 6 inch sewer. Rouston said that the City flushes this mainline on a
monthly basis to prevent SSOs.
The following concerns were observed at this location:
1. Evidence of staining on the inside manhole walls indicates that high flows may be scouring the mainline
sewer pipe and the bottom of the manhole structure.
2. Evidence of staining on the inside manhole walls indicates that the manhole may be periodically subject to
periodic flow surcharging inside the manhole structure at this location.
Page 8 of 18
Photo 17: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 18: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 19: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 3).
Note evidence of surcharging on manhole walls.
Photo 20: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 4)
5. 843 MELROSE STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1455 hrs to check the condition of the manhole and sewer mainline
in this location which we flagged as a potential “choke point”. No significant odors or problems were observed at
time of inspection.
Page 9 of 18
Photo 21: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 22: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 23: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 3)
Photo 24: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 4)
6. N HIGHLAND STREET AND DIVISION STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1500 hrs to review the sewer conditions and inspect manholes and
mainlines at junctions where National City discharges sewage waste into the City of San Diego’s trunk line sewer
system. No significant odors or problems were observed at time of inspection.
Page 10 of 18
Photo 25: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 26: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 27: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 3)
Photo 28: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 4)
7. 730 DIVISION STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1505 hrs to check conditions of manhole and sewer mainline
conditions within a typical residential street within the City service area.
The following concern was observed at this location:
1. Significant FOG buildup inside manhole structure and partially blocking mainline pipe.
Page 11 of 18
Photo 29: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 30: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 31: Manhole and mainline inspection with
significant FOG buildup being “broken up” by City sewer
collections staff (view 1)
Photo 32: Manhole and mainline inspection with
significant FOG buildup being “broken up” by City sewer
collections staff (view 2)
8. TIDELAND STREET AT BAY MARINA STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1520 hrs to evaluate the conditions inside a sewer manhole and
mainline immediately upstream of the City’s Bay Marina sewage pump station and also to review the City’s
equipment and operating procedures for the pump station.
The following concerns were observed at this location:
1. A “paved-over” manhole lid prevented access to the pump station bypass valve located under the manhole
cover.
2. The pump station lacked a remote alarm to alert City staff of any problems at the station.
3. The pump station lacked standard operating procedures (SOPs) for operations at the pump station.
4. There were poor inspection and maintenance records documenting periodic pump station maintenance
activities.
5. The City lacked an understanding of Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) system, operations, and “set points”.
Page 12 of 18
Photo 33: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 34: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2).
Note “paved-over” manhole cover on left side of photo.
Photo 35: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 3)
Photo 36: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 4)
Photo 37: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 1)
Photo 38: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 2)
Page 13 of 18
Photo 39: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 3)
Photo 40: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 4)
Photo 41: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 5)
Photo 42: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 6)
Photo 43: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 7)
Photo 44: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 8)
Page 14 of 18
Photo 45: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 9)
Photo 46: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 10)
Photo 47: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 11)
Photo 48: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 12)
9. 2300 HARRISON STREET
We arrived at this location at approximately 1555 hrs to evaluate this 10-inch sewer line which was recently
refurbished and also to interview staff to obtain more information about how crews implement operational
activities and are trained. No significant odors or problems were observed at time of inspection. We interviewed
Mr. Freddie Canedo beginning at approximately 1610 hrs and ended at approximately 1620 hrs. Freddie
provided the following several statements to us, summarized below:
1. Freddie “loves his job” and has over 50 years of “real world” field experience with sewer operations.
2. He obtains everything he has learned strictly “on the job” with no outside training.
3. The City only has 3 staff total to cover entire city, and the assigned staff also “do other stuff” in addition to
sewer work.
4. The City staff are not equipped to do confined space entries.
5. The City does not offer any individualized/formal training.
6. He cleans approximately 16 to 18 separate sewer segments on a typical work day when they are
cleaning pipes, and he logs his completed work on paper forms.
7. There are no established standard SOPs in place for collection system cleaning or pump station
operations and maintenance.
Page 15 of 18
8. He uses a cell phone camera to document all SSOs, and he downloads photos to the City’s computer
system. [He showed us a few photos that he said he took on his cell phone showing flood-related
cleanup work from the previous week].
9. There have been “No SSOs in past year to two”.
10. He carries his own “hot spot” checklists, but there are no formalized SOPs or training materials.
The following concerns were observed at this location:
1. There is a lack of sewer staff resources for routine and emergency operations.
2. There is a lack of routine sewer-related training materials including SOPs for collections staff.
Photo 49: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 1)
Photo 50: Manhole and mainline inspection (view 2)
Photo 51: Review of operations field documentation and
equipment (view 1)
Photo 52: Review of operations field documentation and
equipment (view 2)
Page 16 of 18
Photo 53: Review of operations field documentation and
equipment (view 3)
Photo 54: Review of sewer equipment (“waddles” and
cleaning accessories in “Vactor” truck)
PART 3: POST-INSPECTION CONFERENCE
At approximately 1630 hrs, we returned to the City offices to conduct the Post-Inspection Conference which
ended at approximately 1700 hrs. We covered the following points:

Closed-Circuit Television (CCTV) Visual Inspections and Data: Rouston said that although the City
has conducted CCTV for the entire collection system, the City has only completed review and scoring of
approximately 60 percent of CCTV video undertaken over the past several years. Rouston stated that the
City is using a “0 to 5” grading scale using “Wincam 8” for logging any problems, but he said they are not
using any recognized industry standard when documenting problem areas for supporting the City’s CIP.
Rouston also said that the City does not have a lot of major problem areas. Rouston said that they are
targeting to complete review of all CCTV video data by January 2015.
After discussing the CCTV-related activities, we ended with covering the following points:

Reviewed inspection purpose and thanked participants for their efforts in preparing and participating in
the inspection tasks.

Stated the need for us to review additional information regarding City CIPs, SSO volume estimation
practices, resources, and records.

Mentioned our concerns regarding lack of completed CCTV data and concerns regarding limited
resources since the City only has a total of 3 collections staff dedicated to routine and emergency
operations.

Stated that we would be following-up with San Diego Regional Water Board management to discuss our
inspection findings and discuss next steps.
Page 17 of 18
ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 — “Pre-Inspection Questionnaire” completed by National City
ATTACHMENT 2 — National City Inspection Sign-In Sheet for December 15, 2014
ATTACHMENT 3 — National City Collection System Operational Report
Page 18 of 18
ATTACHMENT 1
“Pre-Inspection Questionnaire” completed by National City
PART 1 - DESCRIPTION ..................... .............................................................................. ...... 3
PART 2 - INSTRUCTIONS ..................................... ...................... ,..... .................. .................... 3
PART 3- REQUIRED INFORMATION ............................................... ...................................... 3
1
DOCUMENTATION .. .....................................: ..................... ........................................... .................. ..................... ............. 3
2
Basic Infor mation .................................................................................. ...... ............................... ...................................... 3
3
ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Local Governing Board Informa tion .................... ................................................................................................................. 7
Sewer System Management Plan Information ......................................................... ............................................................ 8
4
SEWER SYSTEM ASSETS .................................................................................................................................................... 8
General Syst em Inf ormat ion .............................................................: .................................................................................. 8
Asset Mapping ................................. .................................................................................. ................................................... 8
Sewer Service Laterals [SSSWDR, 0.8, D.13(iv)] ................................................................................................................... 8
Pumping Facility Asset s ........... ........................................................................................ ..................................... ................ 9
Force Main Sewer Assets ....................................................................... ......................................... ...................................... 9
5
FINANCIALINFORMATION .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Funding Sou rces and Revenues [SSSWOR, 0.9] ............ ...................................................................................................... 10
Operations, Maintenance and Capital Funds and Expenditures [SSSWOR, Sects. D.9] ...................................................... 10
6
LOCAL SEWER USE ORDINANCE [SSSWDR, 0. 13(iii) and/o r D.13(vii)] ............................................................................. 10
7
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................................................... 11
8
OPERATIONS AN D M AINTENANCE PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. .. 11
Comput erized Maintenance Management Syst em (CMMSj ...................................................... ... .................... ... .............. 11
Inspections, Operations and Management Activities..... ....................... ..................................................................... ........ 12
Fat s, Oils and Grease [SSSW DR, 0 .13(iv) and D.13(vi ii)] .................. ....................... ............... ............................................. 13
Sewer Contract Services ....... ...... ........................................................................ ................................................................ 13
9
SSO EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAM [SSSWDR, D.13(vi)] .......................................................................................... 14
10
SSO REDUCTION PERFORMANCE AN D MONITORING PROGRAM (SSSWDR, D.13(ix)] ...... ............................................... 14
11
COLLECTIONS STAFFING AND TRAINING .................................... ............................... ...................................................... 14
12
MAJOR EQUIPMENT INVENTORY (SSSWDR, D.4, D.7, D.8, D.13(iv)] ............................................................................... 14
13
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM .................... ................................................. ................................................ 15
14
NOTIFICATION, REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING ............. .. ........................... ............................................................. 15
15
SSO PREVENTION AND MITIGATION ...... .. ................................................................................ ....................................... 16
16
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................................................................ 16
AR I 1 -
DESCRIPTION
This Sewer Collection System Pre-Inspection Questionnaire (Questionnaire) includes questions specific to the requirements in the Sanitary
Sewer System Waste Discharge Requirements Water Quality Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ (hereafter SSSWDR), and its accompanying
Amended Monitoring Pian Order No. 2008-0002-EXEC (hereafter Amended MRP).
All of the questions in this Questionnaire must be answered by the Enrollee to demonstrate how the agency is complying with the SSSWDR
and the Amended MRP. All responses provided in the Questionnaire along w ith t he documentation requ ired to be submitted by each
Enrollee (see Part 3, Section 1) will be collected by the Water at the time of the inspection.
PA~it
1.
2.
2 -
INSTRUCTIONS
Complete all questions in the Questionnaire.
Save an electronic copy of the completed Pre-Inspection Questionnaire (in MS Word), and the other documentation required for
your collection system (see Part 3, Section 1). Print the last page of this Questionnaire and sign it in ink.
PARt 3 - REQUIRED INFORMATION
l
DOCUMENTATION
Please have the following documentation available during the inspection:
1.1
Sewer System M anagemen t Plan [(SSMP) [ Sanita r y Sew er System General Waste Discharge Requirements
(SSSWDR), Sect. 0.13) and any documents r efer enced within the SSMP. A l so include docume n tation showin g
approval ofthe SSMP by your agency's loca l governing board (e.g., Board Reso lution or other document ation).
1. 2
SSMP Program Audit 1 [SSSWDR, Sect. D.13(x)), if not contained within your agency's SSMP
1. 3
Sewer System Area Map [SSSWDR, Sect . D. 13(i v)], i fnotcontainedwithinyouragency'sSSMP
1.4
Loca l Sewe r Use Ord in ance [SS SWDR, Sects. D.13(i ii ) a nd D.13(v i )], i f not contai ned within your agency's SSMP
1.5
Evidence of Agency's SSO Fie!d Response Documentation [SSSWDR, Amended MRP, B.S], if not contained within your agency's
SSMP
1.6
1.7
Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan [SSS WD R, Sect. D.13{iv)(c)], if not cont ained within your agency's SSMP
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Schedule for System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) [SSSW DR , Sect. D.13(viii)), if
not contained w it hin your agency's SSMP
2
Basic i nformation
2.1
2.2
Collection System Waste Discharge ID number (WDID) and Collection Syst em Name: 955010655; City Of National City CS
Collection System Main Point(s) of Contact (name, title, address, email, and telephone number):
Jeff Rouston-Wastewater Crew Chief, [email protected], 619-336-4576
Freddie Canedo- Maintenance Worker, 619-336-4576
Luis Gonzalez- Maintenance Worker, 619-336-4576
o satisfy SSSWDR, Sect. D.13(x), the SSMP Audit m ust occur at least every two years following the original approval date of th e agency's SSMP by the local governing board.
The SSMP Audit must measure the effectiveness and compliance of an Enrollee's SSMP.
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
- - - - - - ------------ ------------..............----- "---·-----· Page3of17
John Bell-Maintenance Worker, 619-336-4576
2.3
Type of San itary Sewer System (select ONE of the following: M unicipal
2.4
What is the population served by your agency's sanitary sewer system? 58,000
2.5
What is this fiscal year's budget for operation and maintenance sanitary sewer syst em facilities? $5,431,750
2.6
What is this fiscal year's budget for capital expenditures for sanitary sewer system facilities?
$2,830,260.28
For questions 2. 7 - 2.10, please identify the total number of employees (technical and mechanical) for your agency's sanitary sewer system (including pump
station operations) working within the different classifications listed beiow.
2.7
Entry Level (Less t han 2 years experience)
Number of agency employees? 0
2.8
Journey Level {Greater than or equal to 2 years experience)
Number of agency employees? 3
2.9
Supervisory Level
Number of agency employees? 2
2.10
Managerial Level
Number of agency employees? 3
For questions 2.11- 2.14, please identify the totai number of employees who hoid CWEA Certification for Collection Svstem Maintenance for your agency's
sanitary sewer system (including pump station operations) for the various Certificates and Grades levels listed below.
2.11
Grade I
Number of certified {Grade I Collection System Maintenance) agency employees: 1
Number of certified {Grade I Plant Maintenance Technologist) agency employees: 0
2.12
Grade II
Number of certified {Grade II Collection System Maintenance) agency employees: 1
Number of certified {Grade II Eiectrical/lnstrumentation Technoiogist) agency employees: 0
Number of certified {Grade II iviechanicai Technologist) agency employees: 0
2.13
Grade Ill
Numbe r of certified {Grade Ill Collection System Maintenance) agency employees: 0
Number of certified (Grade Ill Electrical/Instrumentation Technologist) agency employees: 0
Number of certified {Grade Iii Mechanical Technoiogist) agency employees: 0
2.14
Grade IV
Number of certified {Grade IV Collection System Maintenance) agency employees: 0
Number of certified (G ra de iV Electrical/I nstrumentation Technologist) agency employees: 0
Number of certified (Grade IV Mechanical Technologist) agency employees: 0
2.15
Estimated Size Distribution of Assets
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
- - - -·- -·· - - - - - ·· ·--------·-··--Page 4 of 17
Diameter of sewer pipe
Gravity Sewe rs (m iles)
Force M ai ns (miles)
38.96
0
6 inches or less
I
8inches
I
I
48.67
.25
H
9 - 18 inches
i
14.56
0
2.8
0
19 - 36 inches
I
I
> 36 inches
0
0
Unknown Diameter
0
0
105.01
.25
Totals
2.16
For which portion of sewer service laterals is your agency responsible?
i
None
(If None, ;;kip question 2.17.)
2.17
Estimated total miles of sewer service laterals (upper and lower) for which your agency is respons ible? 0
2.18
Number of sewer service lateral connections? Estimate 8,100
2.19
Estimated tota l miles of easements within your sanitary sewer system? 1 mile
2.20
What is your total easement sewer system cleaning product ion in miles/year? 1 mile
2.21
What is your total gravity sewer system cleaning production in miles/year?
2.22
Does your agency own any separately enrolled collection systems? [Y/N] No
2.23
If yes t o question 2.22, which collection system(s) does your agency own?
60 Miles/year
Coiiection System name(s):
Collection System WDID(s):
2.24
Which wastewater treatment plant(s) (WWTPs) ultimately receive wastewater from this collection system?
Receiving Treatment Plant name(s): Point Lorna Wastewater Treatment Plant
Receiving Treatment Plant WDID{s): Unknown
2.25
For question 2.24, does your agency own this/these WWTP(sj? [Y/N] No
2.26
Does your collection system discharge into any other collection system(s)]? [Y/N] Ye$
2.27
If yes to question 2.26, which collection system(s) receive wastewater from t his collection system?
Receiving Collection System name(s): Regional South Metro Interceptor
-
-
·
~
~
·
-
Receiving Collection System WDID(s): Unknown
.... -
..... ,...______ ......
___________ _________
··---------- ·-....... ..
PRE-INSPECTI ON QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
,
,
· - -- -·-·---··-- - - - -· -------- -Pages of 17
2.28
Do any upstrc:am collection systems greater than 25,000 gallons/day (gpd) discharge into this collection system? [Y/ N] No
2.29
If yes to question 2.28, which collection system(s) discharge into this collection system?
Upstream Collection System name(s):
Upstream Collection System WDID(s):
2.30
Estimated Collection System Flow Characteristics for your collection system:
Peak Daily Wet Weather Flow (MGD)
Average Daily Dry Weather F!ow {MGD)
4.215 mgd
11.913 mgd
I
Refer to sheet 11 of 69 of Sewer System
Master Plan
I
i Refer to page 31 of 69 of Sewer System
I
I
Master Plan
2.31
How many pump stations are there throughout the sewer collection system? 2
2.32
How many feet of above ground gravity pipelines are there throughout the sewer collection system? 0
2.33
How many feet of above ground pressurized pipelines are located throughout the sewer collection system? 40
2.34
How many air relief valves (ARVs) are located throughout the sewer collection system? 0
2.35
How many siphons are there throughout the sewer collection system? 0
2.36
I
I
Specify the percentage of piping and the number of pump stations constructed in the following table below:
(note: total percentage must equallOO%)
2.37
Has your agency ever conducted any historic flow monitoring for the sewer system to evaluate hydraulic characteristic$ during weather
conditions? [Y/N] Yes
2.38
If yes to question 2.37 above, please list all specific dat es when flow monitoring was conducted. July 2009
2.39
Does your agency have any permanently installed flow monitor(s) in the collection system? [Y/N] Yes
2.40
If yes to question 2.38 above, please specific total number of monitor(s) installed. 14
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
------·-···--·----------··--- ---·--- -- Page 6 of 17
Source of Age Info.
Age
Gravity & Pressure
Pump St ations 2
Pu mp Statio ns1
25k Gal/day & Over
Under 25k Gal/ day
(number of stat ions)
(number of stations)
0
Sewers (%)
(records, estimated,
etc.)
I
I
2000 - Present
1980-1999
!
~
i
I
Estimated
20%
2
Estimated
25%
0
0
'
0
i
I
Estimated
25%
1940-1959
Estimated
15%
1920-1939
Estimated
10%
1900-1919
Estimated
Before 1900
1 1960- 1979
i
I
0
0
0
0
0
5%
0
0
Estimated
0%
0
0
Unknown Age
Estimated
0%
0
0
Totals
Estimated
100%
0
0
I
I
I
1
For pump stations, flow categories are the maximum flow rate occurring over a 24-hr period based on annual operating data. Age is date asset was originally constructed.
3
ORGANIZATI ON
Local Gove r ning Board I nf ormation
3.1
[SSSWDR, Sect. D.13(ii)] : Is/are your agency's Legally Responsible Official(s) and Data Submitter(s) registration information up-todate with t he State Water Board? [Y/N} Yes
3.2
[SSSWDR, Sect. D.13(ii)}: If your local governing board has an internet website, please specify the internet address here:
http://www. nationalcityca .govI
3.3
[SSSWDR, Sect. D.13(ii)]: Please list the names and titles of each of your agency's current governing board members:
Ron Morrison- Mayor, Jerry Cano-Vice Mayor, Alejandra Sotelo-Solis- Councilmember, Mona Rios-Councilmember, Albert
Mendivii-Councilmember
- - - - -·-
__,.
_____
,
__
_______________ -------·-- ·--- - - ----- --·-
,.
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Versio n 1.6)
..
..
Page 7
of 17
Sewer System Management Pian information
3.4
[SSSWDR, Sect. E.]: Is your agency's SSMP available on your agency's website? [Y/N] Yes
3.5
[SSSWDR, Sect. E.]: If yes to question 3.4, please provide the internet address here:
http://www.nationalcityca.gov/index.aspx?page=231
4
SEWER SYSTEM ASSETS
General System Infor mation
4.1
[SSS WD R, Findings 2 & 3]: Please specify the basis for the population estimate in questio n 2.4 (e.g., official census data,
estimated by agency, etc.)? Official Census Data
4.2
[SSS W DR, Sects. D. 8, D .1 0] : What is the approximate size of the service area served by the sewer collection system for your
agency, in square miles?
4.3
9.2 Square Miles
[SSS WD R, Sect s. D .8, D .10]: Please describe the terrain within your agency's sewer service area (Mountainous, Hilly, Fl at,
Valley, etc.)? Flat
4.4
[SSS WD R, Sects. D .8, D . 1 OJ: Please specify what percentage of the collection system's flow comes from residentia l,
commercial, industrial, and institutional sources. 42.4% industrial/commercial, 55.7% residential, 1.9% institutional
Asset Mapping
4.5
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Has your agency identified and mapped all the gravity sewer line segments, public access points (manholes,
lamp holes, rod holes, etc.), pumping facilities, pressure pipes and valves, and stormwater-relat ed facilities? [Y/N] Yes
4.6
[SSSWDR, D.13{iv)]: Does your agency currently have sewer system assets mapped in a Geographic Information System (GIS)?
[Y/N) Yes
4.7
4.8
[SSSWDR, D.13{iv)]: Does your agency currently have stormwater-relat ed facilities mapped in GIS? [Y/N] Yes
[SSSWDR, D. 8 and D.10]: What is the estim ated number of gravity sewer line pipe segments located throughout the collection
syst em? 1450
4.9
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)l: Does your agency have a f ormal review process in place to ensure that any mapping issues noted by field st aff
o r others are addressed? [Y/N ] Yes, correction of existing maps
4.10
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Please indicate the total number of public access points (manholes, lamp holes, rod holes, etc.) located within
your sewer collection system. 2015
Sewer Service Lat erals [SSSVv'DR 1 D.8 1 D. 13(iv)]
4 .11
Has your agency ever histori ca lly owned or maintained any portion of sew er service iaterais? [Y/N or Unknown] No
4.12
Does your agency have a voluntary sewer service lateral incentive program in place? [Y/N] No
4 .13
How many incoming complaints did your agency receive for privately-owned sewer service lateral problems in the previous fiscal
year? [#or Unknown] 108
4.14
How many service calls did you r agency respond to in the field for privately-owned service lateral problems in the previous fiscal
yea r? [#or Unknown] 108
4.15
Does your agency track all installation locations of sewer backflow prevention devices installed on sewer asset s owned and/or
main tained by your agency? National City does not own any sewer ba ckflow preventions.
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE(Version 1.6)
---·······
--
--
- - -- -·-··· ········· ··--·-- ·· · ··
·-·--
---· - ----· -------·-···--- ------···· . ..
·-··
--· -
Page 8 of 17
4.16
If yes to 4. 15, list number of known sewer backflow prevention devices installed on sewer assets owned and/or maintained by
your agency.
r' umpin g Facility Assets
For questions 4.16- 4.33 r efer to your pump st ation assets from quest ion 2.3 1 (above)
4.16
[SSSWOR, 0 .8, 0.13(iv)] : Has your agency mapped each pump station's actual GPS coordinates? [Y/N] Yes
4.17
[SSSWDR, 0 .8, D.13(iv)] : Has your agency cond ucted a risk assessment for each asset? [Y/N] Yes
4.18
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0 .10]: How many of these assets have redundant pipelines installed? 2
4.19
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0 .10]: How many have dedicated emergency stand-by power generators located onsite? 1
4.20
[SSSWDR, 0 .8 and 0 .10]: Has your agency developed standard and emergency operating procedures for each asset in the event of
a power and/or pumping fai lure? [Y/N ] Yes
4.21
[SSSWDR, 0 .8 and 0.10]: Has your agency determined the lowest hydrau lic overfl ow point(s) and ca lculated the longest possible
holding tim e(s) for each asset ? [Y/N ] Yes
4.22
[SSSWDR, D.6(iii) and (vi), 0.8 and 0 .10] : Has your agency identified critica l spare parts f or each asset? [Y/N] Yes
4.23
[SSSWDR, D.6(iii) and (vi), 0 .8 and 0.10]: For question 4.21, does your agency maintain the spar e parts identified f or each asset?
(Y/ N] No
4.24
(SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0.10]: How many facil ities are located within 100 feet of a surface water, creek or drainage channel? 0
4.25
(SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0.10]: How many are located within 20 feet of a storm drain inlet? 0
4.26
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0. 10]: How m any pump sta tions are equipped wit h audible and/or visual alarms located i n public view to
expedite notification t o your agency in the event of an SSO? 2
4.27
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0.10]: How many pump stations ar e equipped with an Aut o Dialer Alarm System(s) for detecting pump failure
and/or high w et well levels? 0
4.28
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0.10]: How many have a supervisory, control and data acquisition system (SCADA) inst alled and operational? 0
4.29
[SSSWOR, 0 .8 and 0.10]: For question 4.28, how many can be r emotely operated? 0
4.30
[SSSWOR, 0.8 and 0 .10]: How many pu mp stations display emergency notification signage, includ ing agency contact information,
in public view to expedite notification to your agency in the event of an SSO? 2
4.31
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0.10]: Does your agency implement vandalism control efforts to discourage unauthori zed access and/or
vandalism to these assets? Yes
4.32
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0 .10]: How many pump stations have built-in pumping bypass capability for emergency use? 1
4.33
[SSSWDR, 0.8 and 0.10]: How many have electrical power connections inst alled to allow for the use of portable emergency
generators? 0
Force Main Sewer Assets
4.34
[SSSWOR, 0.8, D.13(iv)] : How many sewer force mains are owned by your agency? 2
4.35
[SSSWOR, 0 .8, D.13(iv)]: For the assets in question 4.34, has your agency conducted a risk assessment for each asset? [Y/N] Yes
4.36
[SSSWOR, 0.8 and D.10] : For the assets in question 4.34, how many have a dedicated corrosion protection system(s) inst alled? 2
17
[SSSWDR, 0 .8 and 0.10] : For the assets in questi on 4.34, wha t is t he total number of air relief valves installed? 2
- - -- - - - -- - - -- -··-···-----·- - . -·-·--··------·------ - - - - - - - - - -
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
Page9of17
5
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Funding Sources and Revenues [SS SWDR, D.9]
5.1
Does your agency utilize an Enterprise Fund for services provided to the public? Yes
5.2
If yes to question 5.1, what are the total estimated annual revenues generated from this fund? $7,150,911
5.3
If yes to 5.1, what is t he current fund balance? 15,675,021
5.4
Please provide a brief description of all sewer coliection system funding source(s) (e.g., user fees, annual budget allocation,
property taxes, etc.).
Sewer Service User fees in Property Taxes, Sewer Permits, Sewer District Fee
5.5
What is your agency's total number of billed sewer connections? 8890
5.6
What is your agency's total number of billed customers for sewer service? unknown
5.7
What is your agency's current average monthly household user fee for sewage co llection only? 32.08
5.8
For the answer in 5.7, what is your agency's sewer fee rate basis (e.g., measured flow, calculated flow, flat fee, etc.) Flat Fee for
residential, and measured flow for commercial.
5.9
Has your local gove rn ing board approved any future sewer use fee increase(s)? No
Operations, Mai n tenance and Capital Fund s and Expenditures [SSS WDR, Sects. D.9]
5.10
How much did your agency spend in the last fiscal year for operations and maintenance activities (O&M ) of sewer assets?
$5,511,915.00
5.11
How much did your agency spend in the last fiscal year on capital expenditures for sewer assets (e.g., new pipelines or
)
equipment)?% 0
6
LOCAL SEWER USE ORDINANCE [SSSWDR, D.13(iii) and/or D.13(vii)]
6.1
Does your agency have an adopted sewer use ordinance (Ordinance)? [Y/N] Yes
If no to question 6.1, skip to question 7.1
upd<=~te/change
of your aeency's !oca! Ordinance approved by your agency's local governing board. 2003
6.2
Specify the date of last
6.3
Specify the time frequency in which the Ordinance is reviewed. Every Three years
6.4
Does your agency have legal authority within the Ordinance to limit and enforce illicit discharges from upstream public and/or
private satellite collection system(s)? Yes
6.5
If no to question 6.4, does your agency have service agreements or other procedures to limit and enforce iiiicit discharges from
upstream public and/or priva te satellite collection svstem(s)?
6.6
Does the Ordinance ban inflow from stormwater sources? Yes
6.7
Does the Ordinance specify who owns and/or maintains the sewer service lateral from the building foundation to the property line
(upper lateral portion)? Yes
6.8
Does the Ordinance specify who owns and/or maintains the sewer service iateral from the property line to the sewer main line
(lower lateral portion)? Yes
6.9
Does the Ordinance require testing and/or inspection of the sewer service lateral upon remodeling, renovations and/or t ransfer of
property/residence? Yes for remodeling and renovations, however not for transfer of property
-
PRE-INSPECTIO N QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
- -- ·-·· .......... .. . ······-·· · - · - -···-······ ..
Page 10 of 17
6.10
Does the Ordinance proh ibit illicit discharges from service connections into the sewer? Yes
6.11
Does the Ordinance req uire sewers and con nections to be properly designed and constructed? Yes
6.12
Does the Ordinance requ ire proper maintenance, inspection and repai rs of laterals? Yes
o.13
Does the Ordinance limit the discharge of fats, oils and grease {FOG) and other debris that may cause blockages? Yes
6.14
Does the Ordinance give your agency the authority to inspect grease producing facilities? Yes
6.15
Does the Ordinance reference the Uniform Building Code? Not in the Sewer Ordiance
6.16
Does the Ordinance reference the California Plumbing Code? Yes
G.17
Does the Ordinance give you r agency the authority to inspect, maintain and repair assets located within sewer easements? Yes
6.18
Does the Ordinance provide your agency with the proper authority to issue notices of violation (NOVs)? Yes
6.19
If yes to question 6.18, how many NOVs has your agency issued in the past 3 years? 2
6.20
Does the Ordinance provide your agency with the proper aut hority t o issue enforcement penalties for violators? Yes
6.21
If yes to question 6.20, how many enforcement penalties has your agency issued in the past 3 yea rs? 2
6.22
Does Ordinance provide your agency with the proper authority to ban connections and/or disconnect services for violators? Yes
6.23
If yes to question 6.22, how many actions has your agency underta ken in the past 3 years? [Y/ N]
6.24
Does the Ordinance provide your agency with the authority to limit future development and/or building? Yes
6.25
If yes to question 6.24, how many actions has your agency undertaken in the past 3 yea rs? 0
7
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
1
[SSSWDR, D.9]: What is the approval date of your Sewer Capital Improvement Plan (Sewer CIP) by your agency's local governing
board? 7/01/2014
7.2
7.3
[SSSWDR, D.8 and D.13(iv)]: For question 7.1, is your Sewer CIP available on th e internet for public review? Yes
[SSSWDR, D.8 and D.13{iv)]: If yes to question 7. 2, please specify the internet address:
http://www.nationalcityca.gov/index.aspx?page=179
7.4
[SSSWDR; D.8 and D.13{iv)]: \Nh at is the projected date of your next Sewer CIP update? [M/D/Y]
01/2015
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
8
Computerized Mainteno:tnce M<tnaeement System {CM!V1S)
8.1
[SSSWDR, D.8 and D.13(iv)]: Does your agency use a computerized maintenance management system (CM MS) to generate work
orders and track sewer maintenance, operations and management information? No
8.2
[SSSWDR, 0.7 and D.13{ivjj : If yes to question 8.1, is CMMS data used for ongoing strategies to eliminate/reduce SSOs? [Y/ N]
8.3
[SSSWDR, D.7 and D.13{iv)]: If yes t o question 8.1, is the CMMS data used to evaluate cleani ng production rates? [Y/N]
8.4
[SSSWDR, D.7, D.13{iv) and D.13{ix)]: If yes to question 8.1, does your agency use th e CMMS information to provide data fo r
tracking system t rends, problems and/or performance? [Y/N]
0
5
[SSSWDR, D.7, D.l3{iv) and D.13(ix)]: If no to question 8.1, does yo ur agency have a different method in place to provide data for
tracking system t rends, problems and/or performance? Yes, through service requests.
- - --···-- ··---. ----------·--- - - -·- - - · -·- --··· .-..· -- · - · · · -·--··-·- - ····---- -· - ···--·-·PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
--
Page 11 of 17
inspections, Operations and Management Act1vit1es
8.6
[SSSWDR, D.8, D.13(iv)]: What was your agency's total gravity sewer collection system cleani ng production (hydro flushing,
mechanical and hand rod ding) over the past 12 months (miles per year)? 65
8.7
[SSSWDR, D.8, D.13(iv)]: What is your agency's total gravity sewer collection system cleaning production scheduled (hydro
flus hing, mechanical and hand rod ding) for the next 12 months (mil es per year)? 60
8.8
[SSSWDR, D.8, D.13(iv)]: What was your agency's total video (CCTV) Inspection production in the past 12 months (milesj? 1.25
miles
8.9
(SSSWDR, D.8, D.13(iv)]: What is your agency's total video (CCTV) inspection production scheduled for the next 12 months (miles)?
[#or Unknown]1.25 miles
8.10
[SSSWDR, D.8, D.13(iv)]: Does your agency have a method in use fo r reviewing and analyzing force main sewers and their
components? No
8.11
[SSSWDR, D.7 and D.13(iv)]: What is the total number of focused problem areas ("SSO hot spots") located throughout the
collection system? 12
8.12
[SSSWDR, D.8 and D.10): Does your agency have a program to inspect and maintain air relief valves (ARVs)? N/A
8.13
[SSSWDR, D.8 and D.10]: How many ARVs are not accessible for inspection/maintenance? N/A
8.14
[SSSWDR, 0.7 and D.l3(iv)]: What was the total number of ARVs exercised and cleaned in past 12 months? N/ A
8.15
[SSSWDR, D.7 and D.13(iv)]: What is the total number of ARVs planned to be exercised and cleaned in the next 12 months? N/A
8.15
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: What i$ the total number of public accc:ss points (manholes, lamp holes, rod holes, etc.) inspected in the past
12 months? 750
8.17
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: What is the total number of public access points (manholes, lamp holes, rod holes, etc.) scheduled to be
inspected in the next 12 months? 750
8.18
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)] : Does your agency visually inspect pipeline routes at least annually, and after major storms, earthquakes or
oth er events that could damage these asset s, to check for sink holes or leaks along force main(s)? Yes, after major events.
8.19
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)] : How many above ground crossings (if applicable) were inspected in the past 12 months? N/A
8.20
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)] : How many siphons (if applicable) were inspected in the past 12 months? N/A
8.21
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Does your agency have a process to identify areas subject to excess hydrogen sulfid e corrosion? No, only
thiOugh video inspection
8.22
8.23
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Does yc-ur agency have a formLll pip~ grading process in place to identify pipe di scontinuities? No
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Does your agency require video (CCTV) inspections before and after cleaning to measure the effectiveness of
these activities? Yes
8.24
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Does your agency video (CCTV) inspect pipes after all SSO(s)? Yes
8.25
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)j : Does your agency conduct smoke, dye or other test s to check for illicit connections? Yes, dye
8.26
[SSSWDR, D.13(ivj): If yes to question 8.25, how many miles of sewer system were tested in the past 12 months? 400 feet
8.27
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Does your agency use video (CCTV) to monitor discharger compliance for illicit connections? Yes
8.28
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: If yes to question 8.27, list the total number of miles of video (CCTV) inspection conducted for this purpose in
the past 12 months. Unknown
8.29
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv) and D.l3(viii)] : Does your agency have forma l agreements in pl ace to increase resources through established
mutual assistance agreements with other agencies/contractors for wet weather episodes or for SSO response activities? Yes
8.30
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv) and D.13(viii)]: Does your agency have a program in place to identify areas with inflow and infi ltration (1/1)? ~
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
Page 12 of 17
8.31
[SSSWDR, D.13{iv) and D.13(viii)]: If yes to question 8.30, estimate th e tota l number of miles identified by t his program. N/A
8.32
[SSSWDR, D.13{iv)J: Does your agency have an active root control program in pl ace? No
<l.33
[SSSWDR, D.13(iv)J: If yes to question 8.32, please list the type(s) of control efforts in place (e.g., chemical, mechanical, etc.).
8.34
[SSSWDR, D.13{iv)] : If your agency uses chemical{s) for root control, please list chemical(s) used. For laterals on ly, Blastaway is
used.
Fats, Oils and Grease [SSSWDR, D.13(iv ) and D.13{vii i )]
8.35
Does your agency have a commercial FOG program in place? Yes
8.36
If no to question 8.35, has vour agency justified in its SSMP why a FOG program i~ not needed? N/A
8.37
If yes to quest ion 8.35, does you r agency have a FOG Ordinance separate from the sewer use ordinance? No
8.38
If yes to question 8.37, please list the FOG Ordinance citation number: N/A
8.39
If yes to question 8.35, approximateiy how many food service estabiishments (FSEs) such as restaurants, schools, hospitals, jails,
and convalescent homes are subject to FOG control. 34
8.40
If yes to question 8.35, what is the total number of FSE permit s issued for FOG control? 0, businesses are subject to FOG
requirements
8.41
If yes to question 8.35, what is the total number of dedicated FSE FOG inspectors? 0, FOG inspections are typically done as a
component of storm water inspections. Therefore, the FOG program does not have inspectors that only do FOG inspections and
no other kind of inspection.
8.42
If yes to question 8.35, how many FSE FOG inspections were cond ucted in past 12 months? 180
8.43
If yes to question 8.35, how many F5E FOG enforcement action(s) were initiated in the past 12 months? 82
".44
If yes to question 8.35, how many FSE FOG inspections are planned for the next 12 months? 145 mini mum
5.45
Does your agency have a residential FOG program in place? No
8.46
If yes to question 8.45, briefly describe the program: N/A
Sewer Contract Services
8.47
[SSSWDR, D.8 and D.13(iv)] : Does your agency retain contract service(s ) for sewer co ll ection system maintenance, operations,
and/or management? No
8.43
[S5SWDR, D.8 and D.13(l••)]: If yes to question 8.47, for services in excess of $1r.i,OOD/vear , pie<!se prov!de some basic infor!llation
about these services in the tabie below:
Contractor Name
Description (cleaning, root control, repairs,, etc.)
- - - ------PRE-INSPECTION QUESTI ONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
-·----- ----------
------- -··
Frequency of Contract
----------- ----- .. --··- ..........
--------·-
Budget (annual$)
---------------------Page 13 of 17
9
SSO EMERGENCY RESPONS E PROGRAM [SSSWDR, D. 13{vi)]
9.1
Does you r agency's SSO Emergency Response Plan incorporate procedures for pump stations/force main sewers? Yes
9.2
Does your agency have a dispatcher(s) within your agency t o handle, dispatch and document incoming complaints from your sewer
system customers? Yes
9.3
If yes to 9.2, does your agency utilize a dispatch rad io system for not ifying collection crews who respond to SSOs? Yes
9.4
If yes to 9.3, please list the frequency(s) in use for t he dispatch radio system: No frequency. 619-336-4580
9.5
Does your agency have standard operating procedures (SOPs) in place to test and document, at least once per year, the
performance of its after-hours emergency notification system(s)? No
9.6
Does your agency provide and document any scenario-based SSO emergency response simulation training for collectio ns staff at
least on an annual basis to ensure staff are properly trained and prepared in the event of an SSO? Yes
9.7
If yes t o 9.6, does t his training include practical exercises including researching SSO start times and calculating the SSO volume
spilled and recovered? Yes
9.8
Do your emergency operating procedures (EOPs) include requ irements to determine the impact of an SSO, including accelerated or
additional environmental monitoring? Yes
10
SSO REDUCTION PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING PROGRAM [SSSWOR , D.13( i x ) ]
10.1
Does your agency have a process in place to coll ect data to monitor performance of its SSMP and efforts in reducing SSOs? Yes
10.2
If yes to quest ion 10.1, does your agency use the data collected to update SSMP program element s? Yes
11
COLLECTI ONS STAFFING AND TRAINING
11.1
[SSSWDR, D.9]: What is the tota l number of dedicated sewer maintenance crews in place at your agen cy? 2
11.2
[SSSWDR, D.9]: For question 11.1, how many staff are typically in each maintenance crew? 2
11.3
[SSSWDR, D.9 and D.13(iv)(d)] : Does your agency have a program in place t o identify and document the core
co mpetencies/capabilities of collections staff at least on an annual basis (examples include sewer line cleaning, point r epa irs, video
(CCIV) inspection, pump station maintenance, excavation, utility line locating, et c.)? No
11.4
[SSSWDR, D.9]: If yes to question 11.3, does this program identify gap(s) in competencies/ capabilities of collections staff? [Y/N]
11.5
[SSSWDR, E): Does your agency require collections staff t o review the SSSWDR and the agency's SSMP at !east annually? No
11.6
[SSSWDR, 0 .9]: Does your agency use a workforce planning/retention program to ensure adequate fut ure coll ections st aff? Yes
11.7
[SSSW DR, 0.8 and D.l3(iv) and (vi)] : Does your agency provide init ial and recu r rent training to appropriate staff [inclu ding outside
contract or(s)] regarding your agency's SSO Emergency Response Pian <:md O&M programs? Yes
11.8
11.9
[SSSWDR, 0 .8 and D.13(iv) and (vi)]: If yes to 11.7, what is t he t otal number of individuals trained in the past 12 months. 9
(SSSW DR, 0 .8 and D.13 (iv) and(vi)]: For contracted sewer services, do your contracting specifications contain specific language
requiri ng initial and recu rrent training of contractor staff rega rding you r agency's SSO Emergency Response Plan and O&M
programs? N/A
12
MAJOR EQUIPM ENT INVENTORY [ SSSWOR, 0 .4, 0 .7, 0 .8, D.13 {iv)]
12.1
How many combi nation truck(s) (hydro flush/vacuum models) are owned and/or leased by yo ur agency? 1
--..------------- ----·-·---·--··-· - - - -
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTION NAIRE (Version 1.6)
- -- - - - - - - -- - - Page 14 of 17
12.2
For question 12.1, how many have a dedicated logbook(s) to document fieldwork activities? 1
12.3
How many hydro flu sher(s) are owned and/or leased by you r agency? 1
12.4
How many mechanical rodder(s) are owned and/or leased by your agency? 1
12.5
How many video (CCTV) inspection vehicle(s) are ow ned and/or leased by your agency? 1
12.6
How many utility truck(s) are owned and/or leased by your agency? 1
12.7
How many portable sewage pump(s) are owned and/or leased by yo ur agency? 3
12.8
How many portable generator(s) are owned and/or leased by your agency? 3
12.9
Does your agency own equipment designed to block t he storm drain system, in an emergency, to prevent untreated or partially
treat ed wastewater from reaching surface waters? Yes
13
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM
13.1
[SSSWDR, D.13(xi)]: Do es your agency have a program in place for communicating on a regu lar basis with the public regarding the
development, implem entation, and performance of its SSMP? no
13.2
[SSSWDR, D.13(xi)]: Does your agency have a program in place for com municating with upstream or downstream satellite sewer
system( s) connected to its collection system? No, if a problem arises, we inform the agency as soon as possible.
13.3
[SSSWDR, D.ll]: Does your agency participate in responding to Underground Service Alert(s) (USA) or other similar organizations
t o identify and mark sewer lines? Yes
13.4
(SSSWDR, D.7, D.13(iv), G, and Am ended MRP]: Does your agency's communication program give the public the opportunity to
provide input as your SSMP is being implemented ? Yes
14
NOTIFICATION, REPORTING AND RECORD KEEPING
14.1
[SSSWDR, Amended MRP B(5) ]: Are all the records req uired in th e Amended MRP, 8{5) ("Record Keep ing") readily available for
review by the Water Boards? Yes
14.2
[SSSWDR, Amended MRP, B(5)]: Does your agency maintain a list and description of all sewer-related co mplaints from customers
for the past 5 years, including calls received after normal working hou rs? Yes
14.3
[SSSWDR, Amended MRP, B{5)] : !f yes to question 14.2, does this include information for privately owned sewer laterals? Yes
14.4
[SSSWDR, G, and Amended iviRPj: Does you r agency have a quality assurance/q ualit y control (QA/QC) procedure in place for
review of technical information co llect ed by field staff prior to certification of the SSO report(s) in the Water Board's online
reporting system (CIWQS) by the Legally Responsible Official(s)? Yt!s
14.5
14.6
[SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP): Does your agency require crews to take photos of ill.[ 5SOs? Yes
[SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP]: If no to quest ion 14.5, does your agency at least require crew s to-take photos of SSOs t hat result
in backups into structures? [Y/N)
14.7
[SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP]: Does you r agency have a procedure(s) in piace for collecting fi e!d information to assist in
determining the actual SSO start time? Yes
14.8
[SSSWDR, G an d Amended MRP): Does your agency use SOPs to estimate SSO vol ume spilled, recovered and not recovered,
including estimation of cleanup water used? Yes
14.9
[SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP] : Does your agency regularly update init ial reports given to th e Californ ia Emergency
M anagement Agency, local health department, and Regiona l Board as information develops regarding SSOs requiring notification?
Yes
_____ _____
_______
___________
,
__ ---- ·---PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
,
,
---------- ..... -·-·- - ---- --------- - -- ----- -- --- -- - -------·- - - - ·
__________
,
Page 15 of 17
14.10
[Amended MRP, B.6]: Does your agency maintain water quality monitoring records as required by the Amended MRP, section
8(6)? Yes
15
SSO PREVENTION AND MITIGATION
15.1
[SSSWDR, D.13(ix)]: Does your agency generate SSO reduction performance metrlc(s) for its collection system for use in future
planning? No
15.2
[SSSWDR, D.13(ix)]: Does your agency have a program in place to conduct periodic video (CCTV) inspectio ns of areas throughout
the collection system that have never been evaluated by video (CCTV) to date? Yes
15.3
15.4
[SSSWDR, D.13(ix)]: Does your agency document meetings between O&M and source contro l staff, if applicable? No
[SSSWDR, 8 and 0.6]: Does your agency document meetings between O&M and engineering staff to discuss system problem areas
and projects, if applicable? Yes
15.5
[SSSWDR, 8 and D. 6] : Does your agency hold post-SSO briefings with collections staff, management and others involved, to
evaluate root cause of SSOs and document service changes necessary to be prepared in respond ing to SSOs in the f uture? Yes
15.6
[SSSWDR, 8 and D.6] : Does your agency pursue investigation of upstream satellite(s) or potential illicit dischargers as part of the
SSO cause determination process? Yes
15.7
[SSSWDR, 8 and D.6] : Does your agency adjust sewer collection system clea ning in terval(s) for problem areas based on review and
analysis of each past SSO? Yes
15.8
[SSSWDR, 8 and D.6]: How many of the SSOs over the past 12 months were preventable through more proactive maintenance?
15.9
[SSSWDR, 8 and D.6]: How many of the SSOs over the past 4 years occurred at repeat locations? 0
--------··-·-..··-------· -··-·--·-·--PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6}
Page16of17
15
DECLARATION
1, kUt\ tl MUthU GaM~ 1 f . E. , the approved Legally Responsible Official (LRO} of collection system
·n ame and Waste Discharge ID#} q S'S 0 I Q655
certify under penalty of law
that based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage this system, or those persons directly responsible
for gathering the information, the information in this Pre-Inspection Questionnaire (Version 1.0} is, to the best of
my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for
submitt'ng false inform tion, including the possibility of a fine or imprisonment, for knowing violations.
'
PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6)
- -
- -- --- ------ -- - -
--··---·--····-··- -- - · -········ ·················-
-· ·- · -- ··----··Page 17of17
.
-
.
(
)
ATTACHMENT 2
National City Inspection Sign-In Sheet for December 15, 2014
Date:
:c~)
AJcdlbnaL
CtN
Name
0o (.A.f\V\
Sign-In Sheet
Agency
U 'o._ two.le VL
L j t'Y~
j.J., /10 J /L/
Phone#
SWFZCB
r
o·ft5
..> t •-. ""'
Email
Crtb -3:?cl~60/() J'cM.t~ · hoo-k~~ lt4:krl?ot'AffdS. c~v.
f?Ol/
~Pv)~
b ( ~ 5'2t 33~ '2. \foCA...V\V\Lt MLJ ilutA.'tf \o~o.r-A~
hl q ,'52.1- 31 ~ [email protected]
:.S.~) e. .I\3A e.R-1.:
JJ.(! ,
lt,rq
J&Ff fC/vy/vV'-
{V C 1
tl?- ?Jt-'t?SO iJ {ov?fC;v{iitJJ-Tfo,.,RLcl!}C$. qc;-if
~\ ~tJ'T~~ot>1e \~vet:
; AJ t'A.:·\··(y-
1::
CC.{vc.~
r
f
51;; ~¥)/Jt
_,) \bqN''Cl..
If
~ ~q_.f.to/Vr-t J fi.~ ea. qo~
{;'
:rC)~ /_n~z_
ku na
I
MlAffvu G~ntd.J
AJ~ ~(,../,II
Sf,_),t . . f1A ... ~
fly..., ~
c lou....r
Glq~ '":>~·'f3tJ
t0G
cPA
~iol)
u
jJ,(,
Sw~L~
.
•r
..
..•,
.
)
~~~-3?" -4-?e ~
9
t..f lS- '/t-f-7~#.
I JIJ-.111.- ¥18'o
9t6-3Z.l #8~6'>
.
.
.
' ~llo
~1. (' ~
v
~()?2-((i) f1er~-·.~" J ri ~~~~- a.,,
'
v
-
khlU.+huGttV\U(., ~~on« c;-hi l: ~
bo wlbl/ . cJo.;., ~e-(X-, ?1 o V
..
r....,~,., ..,;tllt~ e """ t ;/1"'\ .. /,;lyc,. ''"
~"'Y~ ·-e.-\d.J---
e ~~~
.l.J:;... ·jll"
~
ATTACHMENT 3
National City Collection System Operational Report
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015... Page 1 of 6
California Home
Tuesday, May 12, 2015
California Integrated Water Quality System Project (CIWQS)
COLLECTION SYSTEM OPERATIONAL REPORT
Please see the Glossary of Terms for explanations of the search results column headings. More information about the
report is found at the bottom of this page.
[VIEW PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION]
SEARCH CRITERIA:
[REFINE SEARCH]
[NEW SEARCH]
[GLOSSARY]
Agency (national city)
Date Range: Start_Date (05/12/2014) End_Date (05/12/2015)
DRILLDOWN HISTORY:
City Of National City CS
Agency: National City
[GO BACK TO LISTING OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS]
General Information
Region
9
Place ID
631917
Place Name
City Of National City CS
CS Category
Municipal (Public)
Place Address
1243 National City National City, CA, 91950
Place County
San Diego
Collection System Spill Summary
Operational Indices: City Of National City CS
Spill Rate Indice (#spills/100mi/yr)
Category 1
City Of
National
City CS
State
Municipal
(Public)
Average
Region
Municipal
Average
Category 2
Category 3
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
1.89
N/A
0.0
4.27
N/A
2.1
2.53
N/A
0.48
7.88
N/A
2.22
1.03
N/A
2.09
0.51
N/A
0.0
3.2
N/A
1.68
Net Volume Spills Indice (Net Vol in gallons/1000 Capita/yr)
Category 1
City Of
National
City CS
State
Municipal
(Public)
Average
Region
Municipal
Average
Category 2
Category 3
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
Mainlines
Laterals
Not Specified
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
0.0
N/A
0.0
1146.93
N/A
1524.02
631.39
N/A
502.97
59.15
N/A
5.15
151.47
N/A
47.88
23.06
N/A
0.0
15.17
N/A
0.02
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...
5/12/2015
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015... Page 2 of 6
Note: Click on hyperlinks to get comparison charts for CS, Region, and State grouped by 'Miles Of Pipe'.
(1) The number of Category 1, 2 and 3 SSOs resulting from a failure in the Enrollee sewer system per 100 miles
sewer system owned by the Enrollee per year.
(2) Net Volume (volume spilled minus volume recovered) of SSOs, for which the reporting Enrollee is
responsible, per capita (i.e. the population served by your agency's sanitary sewer system), per year.
(3) Value calculated using miles of force mains and other pressure systems and miles of gravity sewers the agency
is responsible for.
(4) Value calculated using miles of laterals the agency is responsible for (Lower Only, UpperLower). For
collection systems with no lateral responsibility a N/A is shown.
(5) Value Calculated using total miles of collection system pipe the agency is responsible for.
(6) Comparison made between similar collection systems type (e.g. municipal) and lateral responsibility for the
entire state over the selected time period. Comparison indices are calculated for all similar collection systems and
averaged for comparison.
(7) Comparison made between similar collection systems type (e.g. Municipal) and lateral responsibility for
collection systems in same region (e.g. Region 5S). Collection system indices are calculated for all similar
collection systems and averaged for comparison. For airport, hospital, marinas, military, park, port, prison, school,
and other collection systems facilities, only state comparison is shown.
(8) For Criteria used and term definitions refer to the SSO Glossary of Terms.
Percentage of total Number and Volume of SSOs by Spill Cause
Collection System: City Of National City CS
Percentage of total Volume of SSOs by Spill Cause
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...
5/12/2015
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015... Page 3 of 6
Operational: Debris from Construction, Debris from Lateral, Debris-General, Debris-Rags, Grease Deposition (FOG), Root Intrusion, Non - Dispersible Wipes
Condition: Flow Exceeded Capacity (Separate CS Only), Natural Disaster, Rainfall Exceeded Design, I&I (Separate CS Only)
Structural: Air Relief Valve (ARV)/Blow-Off Valve (BOV) Failure , Pipe Structural Problem/Failure, Pipe Structural Problem/Failure - Installation, Pump Station FailureControls, Pump Station Failure-Mechanical, Pump Station Failure-Power, Siphon Failure
City Of National City CS
Region 9
State of California
Percentage of total Number of SSOs by Spill Cause
Operational: Debris from Construction, Debris from Lateral, Debris-General, Debris-Rags, Grease Deposition (FOG), Root Intrusion, Non - Dispersible Wipes
Condition: Flow Exceeded Capacity (Separate CS Only), Natural Disaster, Rainfall Exceeded Design, I&I (Separate CS Only)
Structural: Air Relief Valve (ARV)/Blow-Off Valve (BOV) Failure , Pipe Structural Problem/Failure, Pipe Structural Problem/Failure - Installation, Pump Station FailureControls, Pump Station Failure-Mechanical, Pump Station Failure-Power, Siphon Failure
City Of National City CS
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...
5/12/2015
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015... Page 4 of 6
Region 9
State of California
Collection System Questionnaire Data(*)
Collection System Information: City Of National City CS
Status
Active
Last Updated On
2015-03-08 14:50:00.0
Population Served
58,967
Miles of Force Main
1
Miles of Gravity Sewer
105
Miles of Laterals
48
Portion of Laterals Responsible
none
Miles of Laterals Responsible
0
Number of Service Lateral Connection
8000
Sewer Constructed 2000 Current
5
Sewer Constructed 1980 1999
15
Sewer Constructed 1960 1979
20
Sewer Constructed 1940 1959
45
Sewer Constructed 1920 1939
10
Sewer Constructed 1900 1919
5
Sewer Constructed Before 1900
0
Inaccessible Sewer (Miles)
1
Sewer Clean Production (Miles/Yr)
60
Gravity Sewer Inspection (Miles/Yr)
15
(*) The information presented above was provided by the Enrollee in the Collection System Questionnaire. Enrollees are required to update the questionnaire
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...
5/12/2015
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015... Page 5 of 6
information at least once a year; therefore, the information presented above may not be the most current.
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Completion (*)
SSMP Information: City Of National City CS
Task and Associated Section
Development Plan and Schedule
Section I - Goal
Section II - Organization
Section III - Legal Authority
Section IV - Operation & Maintenance Program
Section V - Design & Performance Provisions
Section VI - Overflow Emergency Response Plan
Section VII - FOG Control Program
Section VIII - System Evaluation & Capacity Assurance Plan
Section IX - Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications
Section X - SSMP Program Audits
Section XI - Communication Program
Complete SSMP Implementation
Completed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
(*) Under theStatewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems, WQO No. 2006-0003 , enrollees are required to develop and implement a written Sewer system
Management Plan (SSMP) and must make it publicly available. The SSMP must be approved by the deadlines in the SSMP Time Schedule presented in the Sanitary
Sewer Systems WDR.
Additional Information:
z
Data used for the Operational report is reported by the enrollees through the CIWQS (California Integrated Water Quality
System) SSO module.
z
Indices are calculated for the date range specified ( default is past 4 months ) and using data available since reporting was
required for all enrollees as specified in the Sanitary Sewer Systems WDR. Reporting was required to begin for Regions
4,8,9 on 1/2/2007, Regions 1,2,3 on 5/2/2007, and, Regions 5,6,7 on 9/2/2007.
z
Comparisons are made between similar collection systems type (e.g. Municipal), and lateral responsibility for the entire
state and region. Indices are calculated for all similar collection systems and averaged for comparison.
z
Category 1 and 2 spills are required to be fully certified 15 calendar days after SSO response conclusion and Category 3
spills are required to be fully certified 30 Calendar days after end of calendar month which SSO occurred. Therefore, spill
records for the past approximately 60 days may be incomplete.
z
Average Number of Spills per 100 miles: Measures the number of sewer overflows per 100 miles of sewer lines. Notice that
these indices are strongly influenced by the length of collection system owned by the enrollee.
{
For instance, an enrollee that owns and operates a collection system of one (1) mile in length having only one (1)
spill (analyzing data for ONE year) will have a Operational indice of 100.0 spills/100mi/yr. On the other hand, an
enrollee that owns and operates a collection system of one hundred (100) miles in length having only one (1) spill
(analyzing data for ONE year) will have a Operational indice of 1.0 spills/100mi/yr.
z
Average Net Volume (volume spilled minus volume recovered) of Spills per Capita: Measures the volume in gallons of
SSOs, for which the reporting Enrollee is responsible, per capita ( the population served by your agency's sanitary sewer
system). Where the volume recovered is greater than the volume spilled, the net volume will be considered to be zero.
z
The “agency” or Enrollee listed on a SSO report is responsible for the data presented in this report and should be contacted
directly for questions related to their Data.
z
More information on the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction program is available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...
5/12/2015
California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015... Page 6 of 6
z
The Sanitary Sewer Overflows Incident Map is available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/sso_map/sso_pub.shtml
z
The Interactive SSO report: https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/PublicReportSSOServlet?
reportAction=criteria&reportId=sso_main
The current report was generated with data as of: Monday, May 11, 2015
Regional Boards are in the process of entering backlogged data.
As a result, data may be incomplete.
Back to Main Page
|
Back to Top of Page
Conditions of Use | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2015 State of California
The Board is one of six boards, departments, and offices under
the umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Cal/EPA | ARB | DPR | DTSC | OEHHA | SWRCB
https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...
5/12/2015