CC 2012-10-23 Items Rec'd at Mtg. e/ 40( io(Z 3//z
/-/-fA 2 /7--
Coune -eiQ pot/S
,,w a k. SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
-��7r�P.'." �o the�a - r.
.���� SANITATION DISTRICT
4 Post Office Box 339 Oceano, California 93475-0339
.r 1600 Aloha Oceano, California 93445-9735
9. .-1`f,1 ,,,,_50
ON Telephone (805) 489-6666 FAX(805) 489-2765
TgrioN o�s� http://www.sslocsd.org/
REPORT TO MEMBER AGENCIES
October 22, 2012
Introduction:
The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District is an independent special district
formed under the Health and Safety Code with a board of directors representing three
member agencies; the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach and the Oceano
Community Services District. The District was formed in 1963 and serves
approximately 39,000 residents with a capacity of 5.0 MGD. The District has one of the
best safety records in the nation.
Overview of the October 3, 2012 ACL hearing and outcome:
In December of 2010 during a declared local and State emergency, the District
experienced a significant flood event and electrical failure, resulting in its first spill in over
25 years. Subsequently the District was issued an Administrative Civil Liability (ACL) in
June 2012, in the amount of$1.38 million. For over a year, the District attempted to
reach an equitable settlement with the State. However on September 7, 2012, a hearing
was held by the RWQCB (Water Board) and on October 3, 2012, the District was fined
$1.10 million for a spill volume of 674,000 gallons. During the 17 hour hearing, the Water
Board did not provide adequate legal foundation to rebut the District's evidence, nor did
they provide precedence to support their analysis of the event's impacts.
The Appeal Process:
The District has a statutory right to present its case on appeal to the State Board. The
District Board of Directors has taken action to begin this process. The petition to be
submitted to the State Board focuses on the following:
• The Regional Board failed to meet their required "burden of proof' findings in this
case.
• The fine imposed is unprecedented, without basis, and is inconsistent with the
Water Board's own adopted policies.
• The decision is grossly inconsistent with other Administrative Civil Liability
complaints issued throughout the State.
• The Regional Board did not accurately evaluate the District's ability to pay the
imposed fine; an element that is required in hearings of this nature.
v
Page Two
October 22,2012
Decision of the Regional Board Regarding Spill volume and Penalty Factors:
It should be noted that the amount of the fines levied as well as other punitive measures
are largely dependent on the Water Board's assessment of both "spill volume" and
"penalty factors."
• Throughout the discussions with the Water Board Enforcement Division, and at the
Regional Board Hearing, the District provided spill volume calculations using
very precise hydraulic modeling to calculate the spill from each and every manhole
as required by the State's reporting requirements.
• Conversely, Water Board Enforcement staff used an inaccurate, "approximation
strategy" to calculate the overall spill volume.
• At the conclusion of the Water Board Hearing, a finding was made that a third party
analysis approximating one of the original volumes reported by the District was
"the most credible volume". This volume (674,000 gals) was 41% less than the
Enforcement Division's estimate of 1,140,000 gals. The finding stated that the
Water Board had "substantially overestimated" the spill volume.
"Penalty Factors"-- how they apply and why they were incorrect: .
The State uses "penalty factors" as part of their enforcement policy to calculate a fine.
These factors consider the impacts of a spill in relation to the surrounding community and
the environment. Another consideration is the violator's past history of violations.
Applying a higher numerical value to a "penalty factor" can increase the fines
proportionately. Concurrent with their decision to decrease the spill volume, the Water
Board increased without justification, the "penalty factors" recommended by their staff. By
so doing, the overall fine was maintained at well over a $1.0'million. In challenging this
action, the District presented evidence that was largely ignored by both the Enforcement
Division and the Regional Board at the hearing. These factors are detailed below:
• This was the District's first spill in over 25 years, a record unmatched by others.
• The Water Board set a penalty factor at the highest possible level because the spill
reached the lagoon and the ocean, supposedly with-impact to health. This was not
supported by any Water Board evidence.
• The beach was closed by State Parks for 4 days during, and after the spill due to
dangerous surf and high volume of creek discharge. Public access to the beach
was restricted.
• The County Health Department conducted ocean samplings soon after the beach
was reopened and there was no evidence of any human health issues.
• The sewage to water ratio was less than one percent in the Oceano Lagoon and
much less when combined with creek flow to the ocean.
Page Three
October 22,2012
• Flood and lagoon waters normally have high bacteria levels even without a spill.
• There was no demonstrated impact on wildlife or the habitat in and around the
Oceano Lagoon or the Arroyo Grande Creek.
• The penalty factors assessed by the Water Board are grossly inconsistent with
other spill cases and are not supported by case law. (These facts are detailed in
the District's Appeal Petition).
Consideration of the District's Ability to Pay a $1.1 Million Dollar Fine:
The Enforcement Division's own policy states that a justification for assigning penalty
provisions to a violator is to ensure that there are no additional violations and that the
violating agency enlists measures to provide for the future safe operation of the facility.-
However, the Enforcement Division has again opted to ignore its own policies and in fact
is attempting to impede the District's planned infrastructure improvements.
• The fine imposed represents 1/3 of the District's total cash assets.
• These funds are committed to long range capital improvements.
• The fine imposed will jeopardize the District's future ability to safely operate and
maintain the Sanitation Plant.
Actions Taken to Prevent a Reoccurrence:
The District has taken the following steps to prevent a reoccurrence of a spill: -
• All electrical systems upgrades have been addressed. All electrical boxes have
been cleaned and all critical conduits sealed.
• Standard operating procedures and emergency response plans have been
reviewed, updated and training implemented.
• New staff leadership is in place.
• Pumping systems including the main influent pumps, emergency bypass pump and
storm drain pumps have been serviced, checked and tested.
• Cooperative agreements with other agencies for emergency resources are in
place.
• Capital project improvements are on-going.
Media Responses and Community Awareness:
The District has made a substantial effort to communicate with the community through
public presentations, media releases and agency televised meetings: We will
continue this practice for as long as the matter remains active.
It is unfortunate that some media and fringe media organizations have not presented
an equitable, fact based accounting of this occurrence. The District will continue to
provide accurate and factual information to our member agencies, our ratepayers, and
the media, as this matter continues through the appeal process.
•