📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Calaveras County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Murphys Sanitary District Spill Report 2006-2007 Response
⚠️ 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.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F4, F5
Findings 5 findings
F1
Page 55
The first call made by MSD to report the spill was inadvertently made to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and not to OES. As a result, OES, in charge of disseminating information about the spill to all state and local agencies, has never been able to inform local agencies of the spill. A call to the City of Angels wastewater treatment plant was made by MSD notifying the treatment plant of the spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek. A call and fax reporting the spill was made by MSD to the CRWQCB. As of the writing of this report OES still has no record of being notified.
F2
Page 56
Media notification and Public Posting of sewage spills in excess of 1000 gallons is required by order of the Calaveras County Health Officer in compliance with §13271 of the California Water Code. A ‘Memorandum’, dated March of 1999, from the Calaveras County Health Officer was sent via certified mail to all County sanitary districts specifying procedures for notification, public and media. The spill of raw sewage into Angels Creek, November 26 and 27, 2006 received no public posting or media notification from MSD.
F3
Page 56
The spill occurred over a weekend and was discovered early Monday, November 27th 2006. When MSD staff first reported the spill to the Calaveras County Environmental Health Department, a message reporting the spill was left on the department’s voice mail because the office had not yet opened. Once the message was heard, the department did not follow up, because the department 52
F6
Page 51
Minutes of previous board meetings are being approved only when board members who attended those meetings are in attendance. No board action was made regarding this process. Minutes are often approved in batches at board meetings, and some are two to three months old.
F7
Page 52
On most agendas for regular meetings the board indicated that it would go into closed session to discuss pending litigation. There is no pending litigation.
Recommendations 4
-
R1Page 52The treatment plant can operate continuously in automatic mode.
-
R2Page 52The NoV has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CRWQCB.
-
R3Page 52An alternate source of discharge has been obtained.
-
R4Page 52A comprehensive emergency policy is written to include duties of all should follow both state and county reporting guidelines, be posted in all offices and plants, and be given to all district personnel including members of the board after having been reviewed and adopted by the district board. The Grand Jury also recommends: A. The district reorganize its management policy and procedures, including the hiring of a full time district manager. The district also institute a hiring and training program, including pay adjustments where appropriate, to reduce high staff turnover. B. A comprehensive policies and procedures manual be drafted and adopted by December 2007 that spells out all functions necessary for normal plant operation, special procedures that may be required from time to time, and emergency procedures including accurate and lawful reporting methods. C. Long range planning be implemented, including a comprehensive district wide plan to deal with short term and long-range goals. D. Innovative funding solutions need to be explored due to the need for a large number of infrastructure requirements necessary within the next five years, and could include bonding arrangements with potential developers, grants from federal and state resources, and assessment districts where needed. E. With an eye on the limited capacity of the wastewater treatment facility, the district should promote an aggressive district wide water conservation policy in conjunction with UPUD. RESPONSE FROM MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS In response to the above mentioned nine recommendations, the District's Treatment Plant is operating within the parameters of its Waste Discharge Permit. It is of our opinion that the NoV has been dealt with to the satisfaction of the CRWQCB as the District has not received either a phone call or letter from the Regional Board expressing concerns about our responses. A comprehensive emergency policy has been completed that deals with duties of personnel and reporting policy. This has been submitted to both the Regional Board and the Grand Jury. Policies and procedures manuals are currently being rewritten for both the Treatment Plant and Pump Stations. Once completed, they will be submitted for approval to our Board and then a copy will be forwarded to the Grand Jury. Funding for the required infrastructure requirements, necessary within the next five years is currently being researched by the District. The District in the near future will work with the Union Public Utility District to promote an aggressive district wide water conservation policy. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. RESPONSE FROM UNION PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT UPUD does promote water conservation to its customers. Many years ago, new construction permits and codes began to require low flow water appliances, such as toilets, faucets and showerheads on all new buildings. Also, UPUD's rates are currently structured as a monthly base rate that includes an allowance for 1,000 cubic feet of usage for each connection. Water consumption over that amount is charged an additional $0.35 per 100 cubic feet, thereby discouraging higher levels of consumption. In addition to these ongoing conservation measures, the UPUD Board would be willing to consider any proposals from Murphys Sanitary District that promote conservation for their purposes, provided those efforts do not put an undue burden on the UPUD ratepayers. GRAND JURY DETERMINATION 2007-2008 The Grand Jury determines this response is adequate. MURPHYS SANITARY DISTRICT SPILL REPORT 2006-2007 RESPONSE REASON FOR INVESTIGATION It came to the attention of the Calaveras County Grand Jury that a Notice of Violation (NoV) was issued to Murphys Sanitary District (MSD) by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). The NoV contained reference to a spill of approximately 150,000 gallons of raw sewage into Angels Creek (aka Murphys Creek) in Murphys over the weekend of November 26th and 27th 2006. Angels Creek is a source of drinking water for the City of Angels. The Grand Jury learned that the spill was not reported to the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES) as required by law. (Proposition 65 - Safe Drinking Water and Toxic enforcement Act of 1986, and §9030 of the California Labor Code.) PROCEDURES The Grand Jury contacted and interviewed the Calaveras County Department of Environmental Health, Calaveras County Department of Public Health, and MSD. Documents from the CRWQCB, OES, MSD, Calaveras County Environmental Health Department (EH) and City of Angels Wastewater Treatment plant were reviewed. The California Department of Fish and Game was contacted by phone to confirm the findings. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION