Nevada County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Grass Valley Wastewater Treatment Inquiry Reason for Investigation
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 17 findings
F1
The California Toxics Rule (CTR) of 1994 has identified 23 toxins hazardous to aquatic life and 57 toxins that can be harmful to humans.
No recommendations for this finding
F2
The City’s WWTP is the first Nevada County facility to complete all the testing as required by the CTR.
No recommendations for this finding
F3
The City is in the process of preparing an NPDES permit for storm water discharge from the City’s drainage system as directed by the CVB.
No recommendations for this finding
F4
The City prepared a sewer system master plan in 1995 that estimated wastewater service costs through the year 2015.
No recommendations for this finding
F5
At present, the City’s WWTP is processing approximately 2.1 mgd under average dry weather conditions. The designed flow of the facility is 2.78 mgd.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
By the year 2013, it has been estimated the City would require a WWTP that had the capacity to process 4.2 mgd of treated wastewater.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
The current CVB order regulates discharge prohibitions, effluent limitations, emergency storage, flow equalization limitations, sludge disposal, receiving water limitations and ground water limitations.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
The CVB has ordered the City to comply with the following schedule as published to assure compliance with the aluminum, chloroform, iron, manganese, methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE), methylene blue active substances (MBAS), nitrite, and nitrate plus nitrite effluent limitations contained in the Wastewater Order No. R5-2003-0089: TASK COMPLIANCE DATES Progress Report/Implementation Schedule 1 January 2004 Submit Pollution Presentation Plan* 1 April 2004 Submit Pollution Presentation Plan** 1 June & December Progress Reports 1 June & December of each year Achieve Full Compliance 1 March 2008 *The Pollution Plan shall be prepared for all constituents listed above and shall meet the requirements specified in the California Water Code Section 13263.2. ** The progress report shall detail what steps have been implemented towards achieving compliance with waste discharge requirements, including construction progress, evaluation of the effectiveness of the implemented measures and assess whether additional measures are necessary to meet the time schedule.
No recommendations for this finding
F9
As of May 12, 2005, the City is current on all report submittals as set forth in the CVB Order found in finding #8 above.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
On November 1, 2005, the City is required to be in compliance with specific limits on a few selected effluents. Some of these effluents include biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, coliform and turbidity.
No recommendations for this finding
F11
The cost to achieve full compliance has recently been estimated by the City to be as much as $12,000,000.
Related Recommendations (5)
R1
The City Council should do everything within the scope of their responsibilities to move the WWTP project to a level of the highest priority.
R2
The City Council should evaluate an opportunity to collaborate on wastewater treatment with other agencies as deemed appropriate.
R3
The City Council should examine future opportunities to share facilities with other wastewater providers in Western Nevada County.
R4
The City Council should launch a comprehensive search for grant funding and other methods of financing the upgrade project.
R5
The City Council should initiate a plan for communicating to the public the current factors involved in the task of fully complying with governmental orders and the estimated associated costs.
F12
The City funds infrastructure upgrades through the collection fees charged for new developments and through sewer fees for existing customers.
No recommendations for this finding
F13
The City indicated State and Federal grant funding is not presently available to cities the size of Grass Valley.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The City Council should launch a comprehensive search for grant funding and other methods of financing the upgrade project.
F14
At present, approximately 0.35 mgd of mine drainage is processed through the City’s WWTP. This drainage contains concentrations of iron, manganese and sulfate. These minerals are causing the drainage to have pH levels below the CVB requirements. The mine drainage originates from the Drew Tunnel of the Watt Incline of the Massachusetts Hills Mine, which is now owned by Newmont Mining.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
On January 22, 2004, the City filed suit for unspecified damages in U.S. District Court Eastern District of California against Newmont Mining.
No recommendations for this finding
F16
The City retained the services of a specialized consultant on October 12, 2004. The consultant’s prescribed functions are numerable. The primary assignment is to aid the City in accomplishing specific tasks that will assure full compliance to the standing CVB order.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
An article published April 10, 2004 in the City’s newsletter, “City Messenger”, stated in part, the following: “The city’s wastewater operations are permitted through the federal EPA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit program. The city’s recent permit renewal in June of 2003 includes complying with the California Toxics Rule and requires an enhancement of the city’s discharge quality. The results of these studies could require further plant upgrades by 2008. Given the experiences of other jurisdictions, these costs could potentially affect sewer rates. Everyone wants clean water, but it is appalling when the standards for a wastewater treatment plant’s discharge have to achieve a quality as high as some drinking water standards. Ultimately, how much are the ratepayers and public willing to pay for slight improvements in water quality? Hopefully, more reason and economic realities will enter into such considerations in the future.” CONCLUSIONS
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 5
-
CL1 Page 5At this point of development, in addressing the requirements for upgrading the WWTP, it would appear the City has a substantial challenge to be fully compliant by the due date of March 1, 2008.
-
CL2 Page 5A favorable result from the City’s civil suit against Newmont Mining could enhance the City’s resources.
-
CL3 Page 5Without more precise estimates of costs, the funding element remains an unknown and the ratepayers remain uninformed as to what they may expect in the way of rate increases.
-
CL4 Page 5It bears repeating that NPDES permits are renewed every five years. At each renewal, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board may incorporate additional treatment objectives and more stringent wastewater discharge regulations that could require upgrades or modifications to Grass Valley’s Wastewater Plant.
-
CL5 Page 5The content of the article in the “City Messenger” may lead to a misunderstanding of the issues involved concerning the renewal of the NPDES permit.