On Friday, July 28, 2016 the Santa Ana Regional Water Board will Present a Report on Beaumont’s Sewer Plant including Investigative Order
Agenda Item 9. City of Beaumont Status Update – Regional Board staff will provide an update of issues related to the operation and expansion of the City of Beaumont’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and the City’s compliance with their Maximum Benefit commitments specified in the Basin Plan (information item.) {Hope A. Smythe 951-782-4493 ho*********@wa*********.gov}
Read the Full Report Here: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/…
The background looks ok. The last paragraph says:
“Findings from the State Controllers’ Office’s investigation into the City’s financial status and allegations against former City officials by the County of Riverside have raised questions with regard to the City’s ability to effectively manage their wastewater treatment plant, to effectively plan for continuing growth in the City and to meet the Salt Management Plan “Maximum Benefit” commitments. Regional Board staff will discuss these issues and prove an overview of actions that staff has taken and proposed staff actions to address these issues.”
“By letter dated May 3, 2016 .. The City also estimates that, based on an average growth rate of new connections of 500 homes/years, the Facility will reach 4.0 MGD of design capacity by 2027 or 2024, respectively.”
The BCVWD has stated there has been 950 connections since May 3rd.
The Board Report states; “Regional Board staff have identified a number of issues associates with the City’s propose schedule. First the City is in process of evaluating options for wastewater treatment. The City has retained the services of a consulting firm to conduct a Feasibility Study to evaluate which option would be in the City’s best interest. This Feasibility Study report will not be submitted until December 2016, which in and of itself is a violation of the City’s Permit (the original due date in the Permit was June 15, 2016) “
Second, Regional Board staff is not confident that the 2024 or 2027 grow/connection projections of when the City’s Facility will reach and/or exceed the 4.0 MGD design capacity are accurate. The City estimates a maximum growth rate of 500 homes/year; however, based on the City’s website, there are a number of approved communities that could potentially force the City to exceed the 500 new home connections/year and thus accelerate the rate at which the design capacity is reached and/or exceeded. In addition, the City’s projections for when the design capacity will be reached do not address any planned connections from commercial or industrial facilities. Again, as noted on the City’s website and as reported to the Regional Board staff by the public, there are a number of commercial and industrial facilities that could potentially connect to the City’s wastewater treatment facility. These connections would need to be considered in the City’s projections.
In order to confirm the City’s projections for when design capacity will be reached and to ensure that the City’s expansion schedule is appropriate, Regional Board staff need to obtain additional information on the planned/approved development in the City, including residential, commercial, and industrial development and to specifically include the number of actual connections each year.
To obtain this information, Regional Board staff intends to issue a Water Code Section 13267 Investigative Order requiring the City to provide all planned documents associated with development activities and sewer connections.
City’s Wastewater Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program
Federal regulations require that NPDES permits specify a Pretreatment Program unless certain criteria are met. As stated in the City’s NPDES Permit, the City is not required to develop and implement a pretreatment program. The Permit cites that the justification for not requiring a pretreatment program is that: a) the discharge from the Facility is less than 5MGD and b) the City has no significant industrial users within their service area.
As noted above, Regional Board staff have received comments and information from the pubic that relate to the city’s potential treatment of waste from commercial and industrial facilities. It is of particular concern if the Cit’s Wastewater Facility is accepting or planning to accept industrial wastes. Pursuant to information that may be obtained from a Water Code section 13267 Investigative Order, if the City submits information on industrial facilities that are located, or are planned to be located within the City and Regional Board staff determines that there is the potential for significant industrial facilities to be connected to the City’s wastewater treatment plant, Regional Board staff would recommend that the City’s Permit be amended to require the City to develop and implement a pretreatment program consistent with federal regulations with would include, but not be limited to, the following requirements: adopt and maintain adequate legal authority; maintain lists of industrial users; conduct compliance monitoring; develop and implement an enforcement program and provide reports to the Regional Board of pretreatment program activities.
City’s failure to submit Title 22 Engineering Report
Local residents have raised concern that the City has failed to submit a Title 22 Engineering Report for its wastewater treatment plant. Regional Board staff point out that currently the City’s wastewater treatment plant produces tertiary treated water and disinfected recycled water which is consistent with Title 22 requirements. A Title 22 Engineering Report must be developed and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water, prior to the City distributing recycled water for surface irrigation or other similar uses. Regional Board staff understands that the City has a draft Title 22 Engineering Report, but it has not been submit to the Regional Water Board; Regional Board staff is unaware if the draft Report has been submitted to the State Board’s Division of Drinking Water for their review and approval.
City’s failure to comply with Salt Management Plan “Maximum Benefit” program commitments.
As you may recall, the 2004 Salt Management Plan contained a maximum benefit program for the Beaumont and San Timoteo GMZs. Because of a number of issues with implementation of that program, most of the commitments had not been met. After several Regional Board workshops, in 2012, the revised “Maximum Benefit” program was incorporated into the Basin Plan and was eventually approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. Both the 2004 and 2014 Basin Plan amendments require significant amount of staff time and effort to prepare the necessary Basin Plan amendment documents and conduct the approval process, but given that the “Maximum Benefit” program promotes water resource management in the San Timoteo watershed, Regional Board staff supported that effort.
Now, however, Regional Board staff believe that the future of the revised “Maximum Benefit” program as approved in 2014 may be in jeopardy. As noted in the table, the City has not complied with Commitment #6 – providing Recycled Water for Non-Potable Use throughout the Beaumont GMZ and Commitment #8 – submittal of an Antidegradation Salt mitigation Plan which provides for a plan if the Regional Board finds that “Maximum Benefit” is no longer being achieved and the City is required to mitigate for excess salt discharges.
In addition, the City is only in partial compliance with Commitment #4 – the Development and Implementation of a Desalter and Brine Disposal facilities. The schedule as proposed by the City has not been met.
Conclusion:
Permit Compliance: Regional Board staff have met with City staff to discuss many of these issues and staff believes, where appropriate, these meeting should continue.
“Maximum Benefit” Program: Given that some of the “Maximum Benefit” commitments have not been met by the City of Beaumont, and by certain other Partners as well, there are a couple of options for the Regional Board to consider.
First, Regional Board staff can meet and work with all of the “Maximum Benefit” partners to determine if the partners believe the “Maximum Benefit” program should continue as is or be revised. This would include an evaluation of the San Timoteo and Beaumont GMZs “Maximum Benefit” program status and consideration of any proposed changes by the various agencies. Again, revision to the “Maximum Benefit” programs would require a Basin Plan amendment that may be a 2-3 year process.
Second, given that since 2004, the various water supply and wastewater agencies in the San Timoteo watershed have failed to meet several of their commitments, after consideration at a duly noticed public hearing, the Board could find that the “Maximum Benefit” programs and implementation of less stringent objectives resulting in the lowering of water quality are no longer of minimum benefit to the people of the state. Waste discharges would need to comply with the more stringent anti degradation objectives and mitigation of excess TDS and nitrogen applies since 2014 also would be required.
Water Code Section 13267 (a) A regional board, in establishing or reviewing any water quality control plan or waste discharge requirements, or in connection with any action relating to any plan or requirement authorized by this division, may investigate the quality of any waters of the state within its region.
(b) (1) In conducting an investigation specified in subdivision (a), the regional board may require that any person who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge waste within its region, or any citizen or domiciliary, or political agency or entity of this state who has discharged, discharges, or is suspected of having discharged or discharging, or who proposes to discharge, waste outside of its region that could affect the quality of waters within its region shall furnish, under penalty of perjury, technical or monitoring program reports which the regional board requires. The burden, including costs, of these reports shall bear a reasonable relationship to the need for the report and the benefits to be obtained from the reports. In requiring those reports, the regional board shall provide the person with a written explanation with regard to the need for the reports, and shall identify the evidence that supports requiring that person to provide the reports.
(2) When requested by the person furnishing a report, the portions of a report that might disclose trade secrets or secret processes may not be made available for inspection by the public but shall be made available to governmental agencies for use in making studies. However, these portions of a report shall be available for use by the state or any state agency in judicial review or enforcement proceedings involving the person furnishing the report.
(c) In conducting an investigation pursuant to subdivision (a), the regional board may inspect the facilities of any person to ascertain whether the purposes of this division are being met and waste discharge requirements are being complied with. The inspection shall be made with the consent of the owner or possessor of the facilities or, if the consent is withheld, with a warrant duly issued pursuant to the procedure set forth in Title 13 (commencing with Section 1822.50) of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, in the event of an emergency affecting the public health or safety, an inspection may be performed without consent or the issuance of a warrant.
(d) The state board or a regional board may require any person, including a person subject to a waste discharge requirement under Section 13263, who is discharging, or who proposes to discharge, wastes or fluid into an injection well, to furnish the state board or regional board with a complete report on the condition and operation of the facility or injection well, or any other information that may be reasonably required to determine whether the injection well could affect the quality of the waters of the state.
(e) As used in this section, “evidence” means any relevant evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of the evidence over objection in a civil action.
(f) The state board may carry out the authority granted to a regional board pursuant to this section if, after consulting with the regional board, the state board determines that it will not duplicate the efforts of the regional board.
(Amended by Stats. 2006, Ch. 293, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2007.)