mr. stephen manganiello in reply refer to / attn: national ...€¦ · 1243 national city blvd....

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

mailto:[email protected]


Mr. Stephen Manganiello - 2 - July 2, 2015 City of National City

Enclosure: 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 [email protected] Matthew Buffleben, SIU, OE, SWRCB [email protected] Jim Fischer, SIU, OE, SWRCB [email protected] Julia Hooten, SIU, OE, SWRCB [email protected] Eric Magnan, ED, WS, USEPA9 [email protected] Mayumi Okamoto, OE, SWRCB [email protected] Laura Drabandt, OE, SWRCB [email protected] Noah Golden-Krasner, NRS-LA, CDOJ [email protected]

Tech Staff Info & Use

Order No. R9-2007-0005 CW Place ID (NCCS) 631917 CW Party/Organization ID (NC) 31211 CW Party/Person ID (SM) 544317 CW Regulatory Measure (Enroll) 213939 CW Regulatory Measure (Gen WDR) 332840 CW Reg. Measure (07/02/2015 SEL) 401833 WDID 9 000000755 CIWQS Event ID Violation ID SEL Reg. Meas. ID

748189 854766 375428 704607 660650 401833 648327 495605 401833

NA 992483 401833 NA 992485 401833 NA 992486 401833 NA 992487 401833 NA 992489 401833









National City Sewer System Conclusions Page 1 of 2

No.Violation

IDViolation REQUIREMENT DESCRIPTION

1 854766

Category 1 Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) CIWQS1 Event ID 748189

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

2 660650Category 1 SSO CIWQS Event ID 704607



3 495605Category 1 SSO CIWQS Event ID 648327



4 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 SSSWDRs (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 inEnterprise Fund reserves.

5 992485The 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.

6 992486The City failed to conduct an SSMP Program Audit.

Provision D.13(x) of SSS WDRs (see pages 14-15)

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.

7 992487The 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.

8 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.

TABLE 1: VIOLATIONS

1Califronia 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 2 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.

3) 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.

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.

of 18

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 SWRCB-Office of Enforcement SWRCB-Office of Enforcement San Diego Regional Water Board San Diego Regional Water Board U.S. EPA, Region IX

12/15/2014

[CIWQS Inspection ID #19899225]

Name and Location of Facility Inspected Entry Date/Time

Exit Date/Time

National City [CIWQS Place ID 631917] 1243 National City Blvd National City, CA 91950

12/15/2014 (1005)

12/15/2014

(1420)

WDID NO. Order

No.

Population

Permit Eff. Date

Permit Exp. Date

9SSO10655 2006-0003-DWQ

58,000 1/2/2007

N/A

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

Contact Information: Phone No: (619) 336-4383

Inspection Consent Approved By: Kuna Muthusamy

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.

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 “Pre-Inspection 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 sewer-related 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

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.

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

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)


of 18


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

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.


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.

of 18


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.

of 18



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.

of 18


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.

of 18


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.


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”.

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 37: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 1) Photo 38: Bay Marina pump station inspection (view 2)

of 18




of 18



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.

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.


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 51: Review of operations field documentation and equipment (view 1)


of 18


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.

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

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 Information .................................................................................. ...... ............................... ...................................... 3

3 ORGANIZATION ................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Local Governing Board Informa tion .................... ................................................................................................................. 7

Sewer System Management Plan Information ......................................................... ............................................................ 8

4 SEWER SYSTEM ASSETS .................................................................................................................................................... 8

General System Informat 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(i ii) and/o r D.13(vii)] ............................................................................. 10

7 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................................................................... 11

8 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM .............................................................................................................. .. 11

Comput erized Maintenance Management Syst em (CMMSj ...................................................... ... .. .................. ... .............. 11

Inspections, Operations and Management Activities ..... ....................... ............................................................... ...... ........ 12

Fats, Oils and Grease [SSSWDR, 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 AND 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 1 - DESCRIPTION I

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 required 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 2 - INSTRUCTIONS

1. Complete al l questions in the Questionnaire.

2. 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 ry Sewer System General Waste Discharge Requirements

(SSSWDR), Sect. 0.13) and any documents r efer enced within the SSMP. A l so include documentation showing

approval ofthe SSMP by your agency's local governing board (e.g., Board Resolution or other document ation).

1. 2 SSMP Program Audit1 [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 ) and D.13(v i )], i f not contained 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 Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan [SSS WD R, Sect. D.13{iv)(c)], if not cont ained within your agency's SSMP

1.7 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 Collection System Waste Discharge ID number (WDID) and Collection System Name: 955010655; City Of National City CS 2.2 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 the 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 Sanitary 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)


2.9 Supervisory Level


2.10 Managerial Level


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

Number of certified {Grade Ill Collection System Maintenance) agency employees: 0

Number of certified (Grade Ill Electrical/Instrumentation Technologist) agency employees: 0

Number of cert if ied {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 (Gra de iV Electrical/Instrumentation 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 Sewers (miles) Force M ains (miles)

6 inches or less 38.96 0

8inches I 48.67 I I

.25

H

9 - 18 inches 14.56 0

i 19 - 36 inches 2.8 0 I I

i > 36 inches 0 0

Unknown Diameter 0 0

Totals 105.01 .25

2.16 For which portion of sewer service laterals is your agency responsible? None

(If None, ;;kip question 2.17.)

2.17 Estimated total miles of sewer service laterals (upper and lower) for which your agency is responsible? 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? 60 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?

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-INSPECTION 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:

Average Daily Dry Weather F!ow {MGD) Peak Daily Wet Weather Flow (MGD)

4.215 mgd 11.913 mgd

I

Refer to sheet 11 of 69 of Sewer System I i Refer to page 31 of 69 of Sewer System

Master Plan I Master Plan

I 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 Specify the percentage of piping and the number of pump stations constructed in the following table below:

(note: total percentage must equallOO%)

I

I

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 dates 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

Age Source of Age Info. Gravity & Pressure Pump Stations2 Pu mp Stations1

Sewers (%) (records, estimated, 25k Gal/day & Over Under 25k Gal/ day

etc.)

I (number of stat ions) (number of stations) I

2000 - Present Estimated 20% 2 0

1980-1999 ~

Estimated 25% 0 i 0 i i I

! I I I 1 1960- 1979 Estimated 25% 0 ' 0

1940-1959 Estimated 15% 0 0

1920-1939 Estimated 10% I 0 0

1900-1919 Estimated 5% 0 0

I

Before 1900 Estimated 0% 0 0

Unknown Age Estimated 0% 0 0

Totals Estimated 100% 0 0

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 ORGANIZATION

Local Governing Board Information

3.1 [SSSWDR, Sect. D.13(ii)] : Is/are your agency's Legally Responsible Official(s) and Data Submitter(s) registration information up-to

date with the 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 .gov I

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-Counci lmember, 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 Information

4.1 [SSS WD R, Findings 2 & 3]: Please specify the basis for the population estimate in question 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? 9.2 Square Miles

4.3 [SSS WD R, Sect s. D .8, D .10]: Please describe the terrain within your agency's sewer service area (Mountainous, Hilly, Flat,

Valley, etc.)? Flat

4.4 [SSS WD R, Sects. D .8, D .1 OJ: Please specify what percentage of the collection system's f low comes from residentia l,

commercial, industrial, and institutional sources. 42.4% industrial/commercial, 55.7% residentia l, 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 [SSSWDR, D.13{iv)]: Does your agency currently have stormwater-relat ed facilities mapped in GIS? [Y/N] Yes

4.8 [SSSWDR, D.8 and D.10]: What is the estimated number of gravity sewer line pipe segments located throughout the collection

system? 1450

4.9 [SSSWDR, D.13(iv)l: Does your agency have a formal review process in place to ensure that any mapping issues noted by field staff

o r others are addressed? [Y/N] Yes, correction of exist ing 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 Laterals [SSSVv'DR1 D.81 D.13(iv)]

4.11 Has your agency ever histori ca lly owned or maintained any portion of sewer 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 your agency respond to in the field for privately-owned service lateral problems in the previous fiscal

year? [#or Unknown] 108

4.15 Does your agency track all installation locations of sewer backflow prevention devices installed on sewer assets owned and/or

maintained by your agency? National City does not own any sewer backflow 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 instal led on sewer assets owned and/or maintained by

your agency.

r' umping Facility Assets

For questions 4.16- 4.33 refer to your pump st ation assets from quest ion 2.31 (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 conducted 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 hydraulic overflow point(s) and ca lculated the longest possible

holding time(s) for each asset ? [Y/N] Yes

4.22 [SSSWDR, D.6(i ii) and (vi), 0.8 and 0 .10] : Has your agency identif ied 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 spare parts identified for 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 many pump stations are equipped wit h audible and/or visual alarms located in 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 are equipped with an Auto Dialer Alarm System(s) for detecting pump failure

and/or high wet 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 remotely operated? 0

4.30 [SSSWOR, 0.8 and 0 .10]: How many pu mp stations display emergency notification signage, including 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 unauthorized 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 electr ical power connections installed 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) installed? 2

17 [SSSWDR, 0 .8 and 0.10] : For the assets in question 4.34, what 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 collection 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 govern ing board approved any future sewer use fee increase(s)? No

Operations, Main 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

6.2 Specify the date of last upd<=~te/change of your aeency's !oca! Ordinance approved by your agency's local governing board. 2003

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 ii iicit discharges from

upstream public and/or private 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-INSPECTION 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 require sewers and connections 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 your 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 authority 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 years? 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 undertaken 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 years? 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 [SSSWDR, D.8 and D.13(iv)]: For question 7.1, is your Sewer CIP available on the internet for public review? Yes

7.3 [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)]: \Nhat is the projected date of your next Sewer CIP update? [M/D/Y]

01/2015

8 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

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 to question 8.1, is the CMMS data used to evaluate cleaning 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 the CMMS information to provide data for

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 your 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 cleaning 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

flushing, mechanical and hand rod ding) for the next 12 months (miles 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

other events that could damage these assets, 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 sulfide corrosion? No, only

thiOugh video inspection

8.22 [SSSWDR, D.13(iv)]: Does yc-ur agency have a formLll pip~ grading process in place to identify pipe discontinuities? No 8.23 [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 tests 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 formal agreements in place 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 the 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 place? 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 conducted 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 minimum

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.) Frequency of Contract Budget (annual$)

- - -------- -·--------------- ------- -·· ---------------- .. --··- .......... --------·- ----------------------PRE-INSPECTION QUESTIONNAIRE (Version 1.6) Page 13 of 17

9 SSO EMERGENCY RESPONS E PROGRAM [SSSWDR, D. 13{vi)]

9.1 Does your 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 collections 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 collect 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 COLLECTIONS STAFFING AND TRAINING

11.1 [SSSWDR, D.9]: What is the tota l number of dedicated sewer maintenance crews in place at your agency? 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

competencies/capabilities of collections staff at least on an annual basis (examples include sewer line cleaning, point repa irs, video

(CCIV) inspection, pump station maintenance, excavation, utility line locating, etc.)? 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 to 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 collections staff? Yes

11.7 [SSSWDR, 0.8 and D.l3(iv) and (vi)] : Does your agency provide init ial and recurrent training to appropriate staff [including outside

contractor(s)] regarding your agency's SSO Emergency Response Pian <:md O&M programs? Yes

11.8 [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

11.9 (SSSWDR, 0 .8 and D.13(iv) and(vi)]: For contracted sewer services, do your contracting specif ications contain specific language

requiring initial and recu rrent training of contractor staff regarding your 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 combination truck(s) (hydro f lush/vacuum models) are owned and/or leased by your 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 flusher(s) are owned and/or leased by your 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 owned 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 your 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)]: Does your agency have a program in place for communicating on a regular basis with the public regarding the

development, implementation, 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 Amended 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 required in the Amended MRP, 8{5) ("Record Keeping") readily avai lable 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 complaints 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/quality control (QA/QC) procedure in place for

review of technical information collect 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 [SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP): Does your agency require crews to take photos of ill.[ 5SOs? Yes

14.6 [SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP]: If no to quest ion 14.5, does your agency at least require crews to-take photos of SSOs that result

in backups into structures? [Y/N)

14.7 [SSSWDR, G and Amended MRP]: Does your 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 and Amended MRP): Does your agency use SOPs to estimate SSO volume 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 the Californ ia Emergency

Management Agency, local health department, and Regional 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) inspections of areas throughout

the collection system that have never been evaluated by video (CCTV) to date? Yes

15.3 [SSSWDR, D.13(ix)]: Does your agency document meetings between O&M and source contro l staff, if applicable? No

15.4 [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 responding to SSOs in the future? 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 cleaning interval(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

·name and Waste Discharge ID#} q S'S 0 I Q 655 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

:c~) AJcdlbnaL Name

U 'o._ two.le VL

0o (.A.f\ V\ L j t'Y~

~\ ~tJ'T~ ~ot>1e \~vet: :.S.~) e. .I\3A e.R-1.:

J&Ff fC/vy/vV'-

:rC)~ /_n~z_ I

ku na MlAffvu G~ntd.J AJ~ ~(,../,II

Sf,_),t .... f1A ... ~ ' ~llo

.

. . • r

. .

.. •, .

fly...,~ c lou....r

Date: j.J., /10 J /L/

CtN Sign-In Sheet

Agency Phone# Email

SWFZCB Crtb -3:?cl~60/() J'cM.t~ · hoo-k~~ lt4:krl?ot'AffdS. c~v. f?Ol/

r o· ..> t •-. ""' ft5 1:: b ( ~ 5'2t 33~ '2. \foCA...V\V\Lt MLJ ilutA.'tf f \o~o.r-A~ ; AJ t'A.:·\··(y- CC.{vc.~ If

~Pv)~ hl q ,'52.1- 31 ~ JJ.(! , lt,rq 51;; ~¥)/Jt _,) \bqN''Cl.. ~ ~q_.f.to/Vr-t J fi.~ ea. qo~

{V r C 1 tl?-?Jt-'t?SO iJ {ov?fC;v{iitJJ-Tfo,.,RLcl!}C$. qc;-if {;'

~1. (' ~ Glq~ '":>~·'f3tJ ) ~()? 2-((i) f1er~-·.~" J ri ~~~~- a.,, v ' - v

t0G ~~~-3?" -4-?e ~ k hlU.+hu GttV\U( ~~on« c;-hi l: ~ .,

cPA ~iol) 9 t..f lS- '/t-f-7~#. bo wlbl/ . cJo.;., ~e-(X-, ?1 o V

u r....,~,., ... ..,;tllt~ e """ t ;/1"'\ .. /,;lyc,. ''" jJ,(, I JIJ-.111.- ¥18'o

~

Sw~L~ 9t6-3Z.l #8~6'> ~"'Y~ · -e.-\d.J---e ~ ~~ .l.J:;... ·jll"

.

vrodriguez

Typewritten Text

[email protected]

ATTACHMENT 3

National City Collection System Operational Report

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: [GO BACK TO LISTING OF COLLECTION SYSTEMS] City Of National City CS Agency: National City

General Information

Region Place ID Place Name CS Category Place Address Place County9 631917 City Of National City CS Municipal (Public) 1243 National City National City, CA, 91950 San Diego

Collection System Spill Summary

Operational Indices: City Of National City CS

Spill Rate Indice (#spills/100mi/yr)

Category 1 Category 2 Category 3

Mainlines Laterals Not Specified Mainlines Laterals Not Specified Mainlines Laterals Not Specified

City Of National City CS

0.0 N/A 0.0 0.0 N/A 0.0 1.89 N/A 0.0

State Municipal(Public) Average

4.27 N/A 2.1 2.53 N/A 0.48 7.88 N/A 2.22

Region MunicipalAverage

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 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

State Municipal(Public) Average

1146.93 N/A 1524.02 631.39 N/A 502.97 59.15 N/A 5.15

Region MunicipalAverage

151.47 N/A 47.88 23.06 N/A 0.0 15.17 N/A 0.02

Page 1 of 6California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS 10.6.1) - Build Number: 05.07.2015...

5/12/2015https://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportSSOPerformance.jsp?wdid...

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 forcollection 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



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 Failure-Controls, Pump Station Failure-Mechanical, Pump Station Failure-Power, Siphon Failure


Region 9

State of California

Percentage of total Number of SSOs by Spill CauseOperational: 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 Failure-Controls, Pump Station Failure-Mechanical, Pump Station Failure-Power, Siphon Failure




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 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



information at least once a year; therefore, the information presented above may not be the most current.

Additional Information:

Data used for the Operational report is reported by the enrollees through the CIWQS (California Integrated Water QualitySystem) SSO module.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

More information on the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction program is available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/index.shtml

Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) Completion (*)

SSMP Information: City Of National City CS

Task and Associated Section CompletedDevelopment Plan and Schedule YesSection I - Goal YesSection II - Organization YesSection III - Legal Authority YesSection IV - Operation & Maintenance Program YesSection V - Design & Performance Provisions YesSection VI - Overflow Emergency Response Plan YesSection VII - FOG Control Program YesSection VIII - System Evaluation & Capacity Assurance Plan YesSection IX - Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications YesSection X - SSMP Program Audits YesSection XI - Communication Program YesComplete SSMP Implementation 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.



The Sanitary Sewer Overflows Incident Map is available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/sso_map/sso_pub.shtml

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, 2015Regional 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 PolicyCopyright © 2015 State of California

The Board is one of six boards, departments, and offices underthe umbrella of the California Environmental Protection Agency.

Cal/EPA | ARB | DPR | DTSC | OEHHA | SWRCB



mr. stephen manganiello in reply refer to / attn: national ...€¦ · 1243 national city blvd....

Documents