📋
Extraído del Informe Consolidado
Esta investigación fue publicada originalmente como parte de un informe consolidado más amplio que contiene múltiples investigaciones. Consulte el PDF consolidado para ver el documento completo.
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 14 findings
F1
The CCW processing procedures were inadequate. 2. Supervision of clerks was inadequate. 3. A senior clerk was allowed to continue her criminal behavior despite the early warning signs. 4. Office policies and procedures have been modified to preclude future occurrences.
F2
Both plants were clean and relatively odor free.
F3
Staff was friendly, cooperative and knowledgeable.
F4
In accordance with Resolution 68-16 the State Water Resource Control Board will cite the City if it uses blending under non-emergency conditions. 12
F5
Several engineers stated that if it came down to blending effluent or dumping raw sewage during high inflow, both of which could result in a fine, the City would elect to blend.
F6
Employees stated that additional filtration capacity would alleviate the need for blending; however, additional filtration was removed from the original facility plan due to cost.
F7
At this writing, the project plan is being modified to include additional filtration which should eliminate the need to blend.
F8
The City failed to secure the Board’s written approval for the blending process in the initial design.
F9
The City has no staff engineers that are expert in wastewater treatment technology. Consequently, it has no in-house capability to fully evaluate the merits of engineering designs.
F10
Construction oversight was assigned to a division of the company that performed the engineering design. This created at least an appearance of a conflict of interest.
F11
The City has a program to repair collection mains to reduce inflow and infiltration, but none to address faulty or improperly plumbed laterals. Implementing a program would reduce the problem caused by rain and groundwater.
F12
The macerators (grinders) installed within the last two years require excessive maintenance. The manufacturer’s warranty has expired; however, the firm is re-engineering the unit at no cost to the City, at least this time.
F13
There is a comprehensive procedures manual which includes operational data forms that are not being utilized. However, required information is gathered and recorded, utilizing locally generated forms.
F14
The Clear Creek plant emits a significant amount of methane gas which is flared (burned) on site.
Recommendations 6
-
R1The City should insure that major proposed changes to the treatment plants or the collection system are approved in writing by the Board prior to implementation.
-
R2The City should try not to hire one division of a company to oversee the work of another division within that same firm.
-
R3The Grand Jury recommends the procedures manual be updated so only the forms that are currently used are in the manual.
-
R4The Grand Jury recommends the City enforce an ordinance requiring property owners with rain gutters connected directly to their lateral to disconnect them.
-
R5The City should adopt an ordinance requiring property owners to inspect and repair laterals prior to sale or change of ownership. 13
-
R6The City should explore methods for using locally generated methane gas more profitably.
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 16The Grand Jury concludes that the assessments in the BIDs are not taxes and need not be returned. Method of Inquiry The Grand Jury reviewed the following: 16
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
Redding
City