HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.a.1) (Handout) General Manager Additional Written AnnouncementsAgenda Item 6.a.1)
Board Meeting of March 1, 2012
Additional Written Announcements:
District Events
f) CSO Moves Back to Walnut Creek
As of Monday, February 27th, the District's Collection System Operations
Department is operating out of the new facility in Walnut Creek. For approximately
two years, the CSO staff was based in Martinez while the old facility was
demolished and a new larger facility was constructed. Files, materials, equipment,
and other items were moved into the new building and yard on February 23d and
24th. Staff worked over the weekend to install computers and telephones so that
the CSO field and office crews were able to start at the beginning of the day on
Monday.
As with all moves, there were a few new building start-up problems, including the
malfunction of two routing switches that hampered computer and telephone use
on Monday. Also, the building contractor will continue to work on correcting punch
list items over the next few weeks. With the return to Walnut Creek, CSO work
hours will be 6:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
g) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
On Monday, December 12, 2011, Mr. Jared Richardson from PG Environmental,
LLC inspected the treatment plant on behalf of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB). Mr. Richardson spent approximately 8 hours reviewing our
plant and laboratory procedures /reports. The results of the inspection were
received on February 28, 2012. The overall areas evaluated during the
inspection were as follows:
• Permit
• Records /Reports
• Facility Site Review
• Effluent and Receiving Waters
• Flow Measurement
• Self- Monitoring Program
• Laboratory
• Operations & Maintenance
• Biosolids /Solids Waste Handling & Disposal
• Compliance Schedules
• Pretreatment
Additional Written Announcements
March 1, 2012
Page 2of3
• Storm water
Each area can be rated either satisfactory (S), marginal (M), unsatisfactory (U) or
not evaluated (N). The treatment plant was rated satisfactory for all categories
evaluated. The report is attached for your reference.
Project Updates
h) Advertisement of the Outfall Improvements, DP 7290
Phase 6
The Outfall Improvements Project, DP 7290 (Phase 6), will inspect both the land
and submarine portions of the existing 72 -inch outfall that conveys final effluent
from the treatment plant to Suisun Bay, and to make any repairs that are
identified. The project will also install a new, more accurate, in -line magnetic final
effluent flow meter. The submarine portion of the outfall will be stabilized/
protected from boat anchors in Suisan Bay with additional ballast rock. The
stabilization work of the submarine section requires additional permits and is
currently under review by the regulatory agencies.
This project will be advertised in March with bid opening in April. The exact dates
are dependent on receiving appropriate permits from regulatory agencies for the
submarine portion of the project. However, if the necessary permits are not
received by the middle of March, the submarine stabilization work will be taken
out of this project and will be bid separately next year. More information will be
presented when the Board is asked to approve the construction contract.
General Updates
i) Bay Area Regional Desalination Project
A coalition of Bay Area Water Agencies is studying the feasibility of constructing a
regional desalination plant in Bay Point that would use reverse osmosis to
desalinate brackish Delta water for use by participating Bay Area water agencies.
These agencies include:
Contra Costa Water District (CCWD)
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
Zone 7 Water Agency (serves portions of Contra Costa/Alameda Counties)
The desalination plant under consideration would be located at Mallard Slough
and produce 20 mgd of drinking water that would be wheeled to the coalition
water agencies using existing and proposed water system interties. Some
Additional Written Announcements
March 1, 2012
Page 3of3
agencies could potentially use water from the desalination plant every year (such
as SFPUC and Zone 7) and others would only use water from the plant during dry
years. The estimated capital cost is $152 to $176 million, and the cost of the
water would be $1,000 - $3,000 per AF depending on the plant utilization. These
costs do not include wheeling costs, which are currently being evaluated.
The desalination plant would also produce up to 5 mgd of brine that would need
to be disposed. The coalition has informally suggested evaluating the feasibility
of discharging the brine to the District or Delta Diablo Sanitation District (DDSD)
wastewater treatment plants for blending with secondary effluent in the outfall.
CCWD (one of the coalition partners) has conducted preliminary modeling of the
effects of the discharge to the District and DDSD outfalls and has provided the
results to the District and DDSD for review and comment. The preliminary results
indicate that the discharge of brine from the District's outfall would be
environmentally more favorable than at DDSD. However, the modeling was
conducted from a Delta water quality and operations perspective and did not
study the ability of the wastewater treatment plants to receive, treat, and process
the brine, or impacts to permits.
If the coalition decides to move forward with the regional desalination project,
additional studies would need to be done to evaluate impacts to the District
treatment plant and our discharge permit, and the District would need to
determine if this discharge would be acceptable.
Matthew Rodriquez
Secretatyfor
Environmental Protection
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 622 -2300 • FAX (510) 622 -2460
http. / /www.waterboards. ca.gov /sanfranciscobay
(Sent via Email. jkellyna,centralsan.org)
Central Contra Costa Sanitation District
ATTN: James Kelly, General Manager
5019 Imhoff Place
Martinez, CA 94553
Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor
February 28, 2012
Place ID: 213875 (PG Environmental - DW)
RE: Central Contra Costa Sanitation District - Central Contra Costa Sanitation District
Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Plant (NPDES No. CA0037648)
Compliance Evaluation Inspection Report
Dear Mr. Kelly:
On December 12, 2011, PG Environmental, LLC, a USEPA contractor, conducted a compliance
evaluation inspection at your facility.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please call Derek Whitworth at 510- 622 -2349,
or email DWhitworth (c�waterboards.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Robert Schlipf
Water Resource Control Engineer
Enclosure: Inspection Report
CIWQS Inspection No.: 7355505
Entered by: RS
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 60 years
ID Recvcled Payer
EPA Region IX and California Water Resources Control Board
NPDES Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI) Report
Name and Location of Facility Inspected
Entry Date
Permit Effective Date
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant
12/12/2011
4/1/2007
5019 Imhoff Place
Entry Time
Martinez, CA 94553 -4392
8:30 AM
NPDES Permit Number Order Number ® Major
Permit Expiration Date
CA0037648 R2- 2007 -0008 ❑ Minor
3/31/2012
Name(s) & Title(s) of On -Site Representative(s)
Contact Information
Notified of Inspection?
Margaret Orr (Director of Plant Operations)
Phone (925) 229 -7284
® Yes
Ba Than (Plant Operations Division Manager)
E -mail: morr @centralsan.org
❑ No
Alan R. Weer (Plant Operations Supervisor
Name, Title & Address of Responsible Official
Contact Information
Official Contacted?
James Kelly (General Manager)
Phone: (925) 229 -7386
❑ Yes
5019 Imhoff Place
Fax: (925) 676 -7211
® No
Martinez, CA 94553 -4392
E -mail: jkelly @centralsan.org
Inspector(s)
Presented Credentials?
Primary: Jared Richardson (PG Environmental, LLC)
® Yes
Other(s):
❑ No
Weather Conditions at the Time of the Inspection:
Facility Receiving Water Name:
Sunny; no recent precipitation
Suisun Bay
Overview of Areas Evaluated During Inspection
S = Satisfactory. M = Marginal U = Unsatisfactory. N = Not Evaluated
Permit: S Flow Measurement: S Biosolids /Solid Waste Handling & Disposal: S
Records /Reports: S Self - Monitoring Program: S Compliance Schedules: N
Facility Site Review: S Laboratory: S Pretreatment (POTWs Only): N
Effluent and Receiving Waters: S Operations & Maintenance: S Storm Water: N
Prepared By: Jared Richardson (PG Environmental, LLC) on 12/19/2011
Reviewed By: Max Kuker (PG Environmental, LLC) on 2/8/2012
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. 112- 2007 -0008
Facility Narrative
On December 12, 2011 a USEPA contractor inspected the Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Wastewater Treatment Plant in Martinez, CA. Discharges from the Facility are regulated by
Regional Water Board Order No. R2- 2007 -0008 ( NPDES Permit No. CA0037648). The primary
purpose of the inspection was to determine the accuracy and reliability of the Discharger's self -
monitoring and reporting program. The primary on -site Facility representative was Margaret Orr
(Director of Plant Operations).
The Central Contra Costa Sanitary District (Discharger) owns and operates the Central Contra
Costa Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant (Facility) which serves a population of
approximately 460,000 residents. In addition, the Facility treats industrial waste discharged from 23
significant industrial users (SIUs), which accounts for approximately three percent of its annual flow.
The Discharger provides wastewater conveyance, treatment, and disposal for the cities of Martinez,
Clyde, Concord, Clayton, Pacheco, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek, Lafayette, Orinda, Moraga, Alamo,
Danville, and San Ramon.
The Facility provides secondary level treatment in a process train which consists of bar screening,
aerated grit removal, primary clarification, aeration, secondary clarification, and ultraviolet (UV) light
disinfection. Treated wastewater is discharged from Discharge Point 001 to Suisun Bay. The
discharge point is a submerged outfall located 1,600 feet off shore and 24 feet deep. A portion of
the secondary treated wastewater is reclaimed following tertiary treatment at an adjacent in -plant
facility. Reclaimed water is used at the Facility, at industry, golf courses, and for irrigation of
landscaping.
The inspector visually evaluated the treatment train (in order from headworks to discharge) and site
conditions in the presence of the primary on -site Facility representative and determined that all
mechanical treatment units were in good condition and functioning properly.
The Facility maintains three holding basins for use as temporary storage of influent during wet
weather. The basins have a combined storage capacity of 160 million gallons. Wastewater from the
storage basins is returned to the headworks for treatment following wet weather. During extreme
wet weather, discharge from the storage basins is permitted at outfalls EFF -002 and EFF- 003 if the
basins are full. According to the Facility representative, there was no discharge from EFF- 002 or
EFF -003 during the previous 12 -month period.
Solids handling at the Facility consists of thickening using dissolved air flotation, centrifugal
dewatering, and incineration in a multi -hearth furnace. Methane gas from an adjacent landfill is used
to supplement fuel for the furnace. Heat recovered from the furnace is used by an auxiliary boiler to
produce steam which drives the turbine blowers producing air for the aeration basins. The ash is
hauled off site by a contractor and is used as a soil amendment.
The Facility's dry weather design capacity is 53.8 million gallons per day (mgd). According to the
primary on -site Facility representative, the average dry weather flow is 39.0 mgd. At approximately
9:30 AM the instantaneous influent flow as displayed on the Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) monitor was 39.7 mgd and effluent flow was 36.2 mgd. A portion of the tertiary
treated wastewater produced at the adjacent facility is recycled and distributed for irrigation during
dry months. The production of recycled water is approximately 1.0 mgd (seasonal).
Facility laboratory personnel conduct self- monitoring activities. Influent samples are collected at
monitoring location INF -001 and effluent samples are collected at monitoring location EFF -001.
Pans 9
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. 112- 2007 -0008
Samples are returned to the on -site laboratory where Facility laboratory personnel perform
analyses. Contract laboratory personnel collect samples from the Facility laboratory for off -site
analysis. Samples from Discharge Points EFF -002 and EFF -003 are only collected when the
holding ponds are discharging. The influent and effluent sample collection locations and methods
appeared to provide representative samples.
Electronic self monitoring reports (eSMRs) and the California Integrated Water Quality System
(CIWQS) Violation Report for the period of May 2011 through October 2011 were reviewed as a
component of this inspection. No permit limit exceedances were identified. The evaluation also
included a comparison of data points reported in the eSMRs submitted to the Regional Water Board
against the laboratory bench sheets and contract laboratory reports documenting the actual
analytical results. No discrepancies were identified.
There were no Major Findings reported from the previous inspection conducted on September 17,
2009.
Major Findings
NONE
Attachments:
CEI Photo Log
Page 3
PERMIT:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1. Current copy of Facility's NPDES permit available on site.
S
2. Correct name and mailing address of permittee identified on NPDES permit.
S
3. Facility is as described in permit.
S
4. a. Notification given to Regional Water Board of process /production modifications,
N
collection system expansions, etc. that impacted quality /quantity of discharge or
changes to the Facility or increased discharge.
N
b. Permit modification received, if required, prior to changes.
5. Recent permit modifications, amendments or compliance orders on file.
N
6. Number of discharge outfalls the same as listed in the permit.
S
7. Name of receiving waters listed correctly in the permit.
S
8. Permit status (i.e., Current, Expired, or Extended)
Current
9. Permit renewal application submitted to the Regional Water Board at least 180 days
S
prior to the expiration date.
Regional Water Board Order No. R2- 2007 -0008 expires March 31, 2012. An
application for permit renewal was submitted to the Regional Water Board on May
31, 2011.
10. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 4
RECORDS /REPORTS:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. 112- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1. NPDES records maintained for the time period required (5 years):
Yes
The following records and reports were requested and observed:
- Current permit, monitoring and reporting program, and standard provisions
- Latest six months of eSMRs (May 2011 through October 2011)
- 2010 Annual SMR (dated January 14, 2011)
- 2010 Annual Biosolids Report (dated February 15, 2011)
- Flow meter calibration records
- Flow measurement records
- Maintenance records
- Contingency Plan (dated August 30, 2011)
- Operation and maintenance (O &M) manuals
- 2010 Annual Pollution Prevention Report (dated February 25, 2011)
- Auxiliary power check log records
- On -site laboratory certification and latest DMR QA report (dated July 22, 2011)
- Contract laboratory records and chain -of- custodies
2. a. Did the Facility document any spills or bypasses during the period reviewed?
No
b. Spills and bypasses reported and documented as required by the permit (i.e., as soon
N
as possible, but no later than 24 hours from the time the permittee first became aware
of the circumstances).
c. Follow -up written documentation given as required by the permit (within 5 days in most
N
cases).
3. Discharge monitoring report (DMR) and /or self monitoring report (SMR) evaluation:
a. The responsible person or designee signs and certifies the DMRs and /or SMRs.
S
b. The Facility monitors more frequently than required by the permit.
No
c. All data collected are summarized on the DMRs and /or SMRs.
S
d. Data reported on DMRs and /or SMRs is consistent w/ analytical results.
S
e. Coliform concentrations calculated as required by the permit (e.g., median, geometric
S
mean).
f. Numerical values for minimum detection limits are reported on DMRs and /or SMRs
S
when laboratory reports "Not Detected" or "0" (for example, MDL= 3, Report: " <3" on
DMR).
S
g. "Less than values" properly carried through loading calculations.
h. Flow measurement period used for loading calculations brackets the sampling period.
S
i. Influent and /or effluent loading rates properly calculated; if required.
S
j. Number Exceeding (N.E.) properly reported on all DMRs and annual reports.
N
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 5
RECORDS /REPORTS:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
4. Reports completed in the time frame and frequency as required by the permit (not all
reports required for all facilities):
a. DMRs and /or SMRs
S
b. Biosolids Monitoring Reports
S
c. Biosolids Management Reports
N
d. CSO/ I &I Reports
N
e. Compliance Schedule Reports
N
f. Pretreatment Reports
N
g. Other:
N
5. Sampling and analytical records (for water and biosolids) include:
a. Dates, times, and location of sampling
S
b. Names of individuals performing sampling
S
c. Analytical methods
S
d. Results of analyses
S
e. Dates of analyses
S
f. Time of analyses, as necessary to verify holding times
S
g. Analysts' names or initials
S
h. Instantaneous flow at grab sample stations, if required
N
6. Plant records include:
a. Daily plant operational records or log book
N
b. Equipment maintenance records and schedules
S
c. CSO /lift station check records or log book
N
d. Records of auxiliary power checks
S
e. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan
N
f. Pollution Prevention Plan (P3)
S
g. Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
N
h. Influent and /or effluent flow measurement records maintained for the past three years
S
i. Other:
N
7. All records and reports required by the permit appear to be organized and available for
S
inspection.
8. Other: 2010 Annual SMR
M
The Discharger did submit a 2010 Annual SMR (dated January 14, 2011) by the permit
required deadline of February 1, 2011; however, the Discharger's 2010 Annual SMR
did not contain a required description or summary of review and evaluation
procedures and applicable changes to its Contingency Plan.
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because the inspector did not believe that checklist item 8. was
significant enough to down grade the overall rating to marginal.
S = Satisfactory. M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 6
FACILITY SITE REVIEW:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTEDITEM
EVAL
1. All treatment units and supporting equipment are in service and mechanically functioning
S
properly.
The Facility's treatment train consists of the following:
- Four mechanically cleaned bar screens (two in use, two in standby)
- Two aerated grit chambers (both in use)
- Four rectangular primary clarifiers (all in use)
- Four two -pass aeration basins (eight passes in use)
- Eight circular secondary clarifiers (six in use, two in standby)
- 24 bank UV light disinfection system (six banks in use, 18 banks for back -up)
- Three wet weather holding basins (all in standby)
The Facility's reclaimed water process consists of the following:
- Four sand filters (all in standby as reclaimed water was not being generated)
- sodium hypochlorite injection at clear well
The Facility's solids handling process consists of the following:
- One sludge blending tank (blends DAF thickened sludge with sludge from primary
clarifiers)
- Three DAF thickeners (all in use)
- One lime addition blending tank (in use)
- Two older digester tanks for storage (one in use, one emergency standby)
- Four centrifuges for dewatering (two in use, two in standby)
- Two multi - hearth furnaces (one in use rotated annually)
2. Hydraulic and organic loadings are consistent with the fact sheet and plant design criteria.
S
a. Are there signs of overloading to the Facility and collection system, including I &I and
S
septage loading?
3. Peak flows remain within the established plant capacity.
S
a. If flows have exceeded capacity, has the Regional Water Board been notified?
N
4. Lift stations are properly monitored, maintained, have a back -up power source and are not
N
subject to chronic spills and /or overflows.
5. Odors are adequately controlled, resulting in limited complaints.
S
6. Residual chlorine monitoring is well documented and sampling /monitoring is representative
N
of the discharge.
a. If a LIV system is used, the dosage intensity, tubes, and alarms are adequate,
S
maintained and documented.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 7
FACILITY SITE REVIEW:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
7. Housekeeping procedures are adequate to prevent release of pollutants to the
environment:
a. Adequate dikes and secondary containment
S
b. Spill containment and clean -up
S
c. Signs of spillage to soil, groundwater, or surface water
S
d. Storm water and leachate management from storage piles
N
e. Leaking pipes, pumps, etc.
S
f. Drum and chemical storage areas
S
g. Minimization of pollutants entering storm water outfalls
S
h. Other open dumps or debris piles
N
i. Other:
N
8. Signs of tank deterioration and /or settlement.
S
9. Safety concerns are present that may interfere with proper operation, maintenance, and /or
S
monitoring.
10. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are available for stored chemicals.
N
11. Equipment available for spill clean -up and containment.
S
12. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 8
EFFLUENT AND RECEIVING WATERS:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1. Recent DMR and /or SMR history (last 6 months) (outfall number(s) PL I):
a. Violations of discharge limits
S
b. Spills /bypasses
S
c. Fish kills or other receiving water impacts
S
d. WET testing results are in accordance with the permit
S
e. If effluent limit violations have been identified, what actions has the Facility taken to
N
eliminate or reduce their recurrence?
2. DMR and /or SMR spot check
conducted for the Months of May 2011 through October 2011
a. Internal lab sheets and contract lab results properly transferred to DMRs
S
b. Monthly average, weekly, maximum, etc., values correctly calculated per the permit
S
c. Influent and effluent loadings reported
S
d. DMR and /or SMR is accurate and complete for each outfall
S
3. Appearance of effluent during inspection:
a. The effluent(s) was viewed during the inspection
Yes
b. Excessive foam, scum, or sheens present
S
c. Cloudy and /or color
S
d. Excessive solids
S
e. Other:
N
The secondary effluent was viewed in the channel after UV light disinfection (refer to
Photo 2).
4. Appearance of receiving water(s) during inspection:
a. The receiving water(s) was viewed during the inspection
No
b. Distinctly visible foam or sheens on receiving water
N
c. Biosolids accumulation or deposits of solids below discharge point(s)
N
d. Distinctly visible plume from discharge(s) to receiving water
N
e. Discharge creates objectionable odor at or near receiving water(s)
N
f. Other:
N
The receiving water was not able to be viewed because treated wastewater is
discharged to Suisun Bay through a submerged outfall at a location 1,600 feet off
shore and at a depth of about 24 feet below mean low water level.
5. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory. M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 9
FLOW MEASUREMENT:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 10
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1.
Flow Measurement devices and methods:
Influent Measurement:
Primary Device: Four Venturi meters
S
Secondary Device: N/A
N
Effluent Measurement:
Primary Device: Magmeter
S
Secondary Device: N/A
N
Other method of estimating flow: N/A
N
2.
Flow measurement devices designed to meet permit requirements ( "continuous
S
measured," "continuous record," etc.).
3.
Flow measurement location is representative of the actual discharge (considering return
S
and bypass lines, etc.).
4.
Flumes:
a. Approach channel straight for at least 10 times the maximum head height in flume
N
b. Flow enters flume evenly distributed across the channel and free of turbulence, boils. or
N
other disturbances
c. The flume is clean and free of debris or deposits
N
d. All flume dimensions appear accurate, level, and plumb
N
e. Flume head is being measured properly
N
f. Flume is appropriately sized to measure the existing range of flows
N
g. No obstructions downstream causing inaccurate flow measurement due to excessive
N
"submergence" in flume
h. Proper flow tables being used
N
5.
Weirs:
a. Approach channel straight for at least 10 times the maximum head height
N
b. Flow in the approach channel is evenly distributed and free of turbulence, boils, or
N
other disturbances
c. No solids accumulation in the bottom of the approach channel
N
d. Weir crest is located at least two times the maximum head height off the floor of the
N
flow channel
e. The weir plate is level, plumb and without distortions
N
f. Weir is beveled on downstream side if plate is >1/8 inch thick
N
g. No leakage around the weir plate
N
h. Measuring point located at least 3 times the maximum head height behind (upstream
N
of) the weir
i. There is free -fall and access for air below the nappe of the weir (i.e., water doesn't
N
cling to the weir plate)
j. Weir sized properly to measure the existing range of flows
N
k. Proper flow tables being used for weir type and size
N
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 10
FLOW MEASUREMENT:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. 112- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTEDITEM
EVAL
6. Secondary flow device properly installed and maintained, and operating without
N
interference from foam, turbulence, webs, etc.
7. Date of last flow meter calibrations:
Influent: 711212011
S
Performed by: CCCSD Instrumentation technician
Effluent: 121912011
S
Performed by: CCCSD Instrumentation technician
8. Calibration checks by plant personnel routinely performed.
S
9. Calibration records (external and internal checks) maintained.
S
10. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 11
SELF - MONITORING PROGRAM:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1. Sampling locations, type, methods, and frequencies conform to the NPDES permit for all
S
required samples (including influent, effluent, biosolids, receiving stream, etc.).
Details concerning the Discharger's self - monitoring activities can be found in the
'Facility Narrative'section of this report.
2. Sampling locations and methods provide representative samples.
a. Grab samples are collected during peak flow conditions rather than low- stress
S
conditions
b. Composite sampling procedures comply with the permit (time vs. flow weighted)
S
c. Other:
N
3. Automatic samplers and other sampling equipment are properly cleaned.
S
4. Samples are preserved using methods listed in 40 CFR, Part 136 (e.g., chilled, acidified).
S
5. Sample containers are as listed in 40 CFR, Part 136.
S
6. Chain -of- custody is maintained and documented.
S
7. Samples are collected using approved protocols:
a. Coliform samples are collected directly into sterilized containers
S
b. BOD samples are collected prior to disinfection or reseeded
S
c. Oil and grease samples are collected directly into glass containers
S
d. Other:
N
8. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 12
LABORATORY:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1. On -site laboratory is ELAP - certified?
Yes
a. List parameters analyzed at the on -site laboratory that are used for DMR reporting:
CBOD, TSS, oil and -grease, enterococci, metals, organics, acute toxicity, pH,
temperature, and DO
b. List additional parameters analyzed for internal monitoring and process control:
COD, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, TDS, total solids, MLSS, phosphorus, salinity, and
conductivity
ELAP Certification No. 1397, certification expires on December 31, 2012.
2. EPA - approved analytical methods are used by the on -site laboratory?
S
3. Adequate equipment and procedures used for on -site analyses:
a. BOD and CBOD
S
b. TSS
S
c. pH
S
d. Dissolved Oxygen
S
e. Residual Chlorine
N
f. Temperature
M
g. Other:
N
3f. The Discharger's laboratory personnel stated that all thermometers utilized for
NPDES compliance and reporting are calibrated annually. However, the incubator
thermometer utilized for BOD analyses was last calibrated on June 15, 2009 and the
thermometers used in the influent and effluent samplers were last calibrated on
December 7, 2010.
4. On -site laboratory records include:
a. Laboratory SOPs
S
b. Calibration and maintenance of equipment
S
c. Equipment operating instructions and manuals
S
4b. Refer to checklist item 3f. above.
5. Adequate spare parts and supplies for on -site analyses.
S
6. Results of latest external DMR QA study are available and are acceptable.
S
Date of last report: 712212011
The results of the most recent DMR QA report were reviewed and a rating of
"acceptable" was noted for each parameter.
7. Satisfactory refrigeration in use.
S
8. Certified contract laboratory(s) being used:
S
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 13
LABORATORY:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTEDITEM
EVAL
Laboratory Name: Laboratory Name:
Caltest Aqua Science
Visited? Visited?
No No
Address: Address:
1885 N. Kelly Road 17 Arboretum Drive
Napa, CA 94558 Davis, CA 95616
Phone: Phone:
(707) 258 -4000 (530) 753 -5456
Parameters: Parameters:
pesticides, phenols, hydrocarbons, and oil Chronic toxicity
and grease
9. EPA - approved analytical procedures are identified on contract lab report.
S
10. Holding times being met by on -site and /or contract laboratory.
a. pH measured in situ or within 15 minutes of sample collection.
S
b. Residual chlorine measured in situ or within 15 minutes of sample collection.
N
11. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because the inspector did not believe that checklist item 3f. was
significant enough to down grade the overall rating to marginal.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 14
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. 112- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
1. Preliminary treatment units (bar screens, comminuters, grit channels, etc.) properly
S
maintained with wastes properly disposed.
2. Adequate oxygen maintained in aerated treatment systems.
S
3. No operational problems caused by hydraulic "short- circuiting" in treatment units.
S
4. Biosolids wasting /return rates adequate to maintain system equilibrium.
S
5. Operation and Maintenance (O &M) Manuals and supporting information organized and
maintained for use:
a. Plant O &M Manual
S
b. Equipment manuals
N
c. Plant engineering drawings
N
d. Collection system drawings available or in development
N
e. Maintenance records /costs
S
6. Routine and preventative maintenance items are scheduled and performed on time.
S
7. The amount of maintenance activities and parts in back -log is acceptable.
S
The backlog of preventative and routine maintenance activities appeared reasonable.
8. Operational problems contributing to plant upset, excessive odors, effluent violations, etc.
S
9. Level of operator certification as required by the permit and staffing level as specified in
S
O &M Manual.
The Facility is rated as a Class V facility. The Facility is typically staffed 24 hours per
day, seven days per week. Facility operations are controlled and monitored via the
SCADA system. Operators have access to the SCADA system at the control center area
and at various in -plant operations areas as well as remote access during unmanned
hours.
The operations team consists of the following:
- Four Grade V
- Five Grade IV
- Eighteen Grade 111
- Two Grade 11
- Four Grade I
- Four Operators in Training (OITs)
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 15
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTED ITEM
EVAL
10. Auxiliary power available as required by the permit and operates the necessary treatment
S
units.
Power for the Facility is typically supplied by an on -site cogeneration plant. In the
event that power cannot be supplied by cogeneration or the power grid, two 2
megawatt diesel powered emergency generators are available and have the capability
to run all essential processes.
11. Alarm systems for power and equipment failure.
S
12. Treatment control procedures are established for emergencies.
S
13. Hydraulic surges are handled without excessive solids wash -out or bypasses.
S
14. Spare pumps and parts readily available.
S
15. Facility appears to be well operated and maintained.
S
16. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 16
BIOSOLIDS /SOLID WASTE HANDLING AND DISPOSAL:
NPDES Permit No. CA0037648
Order No. R2- 2007 -0008
OVERALL RATING: S
INSPECTEDITEM
EVAL
1. Biosolids /solid waste disposal /reuse method(s) (e.g., land application, landfill, etc.):
S
Grit and screenings are hauled to a local landfill. Biosolids are processed on site in
hearth incinerators and ash from the incinerators is reused for soil amendments at Scott
Company located in Linden, CA.
2. Biosolids /solid waste disposal /reuse location(s):
S
Refer to checklist item 1.
3. The above processes are in accordance with the permit.
S
4. Storage at Facility:
a. Adequately sized for periods of inclement weather
S
b. Controls leachate, runoff, and public access
S
5. Recent analytical results for metals (biosolids) are within permit limits.
S
6. Biosolids land application records include:
a. Farm maps and land owner agreements
N
b. Soil nutrient analyses done within the last year for active sites
N
c. Records showing loading rate to each site
N
d. PathogenNector reduction records (pH or temperature logs, etc.)
N
7. Other:
N
Notes:
This section was rated "satisfactory" because all checklist items reviewed were rated satisfactory.
S = Satisfactory, M = Marginal, U = Unsatisfactory, N = Not Evaluated /Not Applicable Page 17
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant
(NPDES No. CA0037648) Photo Log
Inspected by: Jared Richardson (PG Environmental, LLC)
Photo 1: Facility entrance sign.
Photo Z View of secondary effluent in channel after UV light disinfection.
Inspection Date: December 12, 2011 Page 1 of 1