Shasta County Grand Jury
2009-2010
Findings & Recommendations
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.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The 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.
R2:
The City should try not to hire one division of a company to oversee the work of another division within that same firm.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the procedures manual be updated so only the forms that are currently used are in the manual.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the City enforce an ordinance requiring property owners with rain gutters connected directly to their lateral to disconnect them.
R5:
The City should adopt an ordinance requiring property owners to inspect and repair laterals prior to sale or change of ownership. 13
R6:
The City should explore methods for using locally generated methane gas more profitably.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
14 findings
F1:
The City of Redding Wastewater Treatment facilities are financially self-supporting.
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.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The 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.
R2:
The City should try not to hire one division of a company to oversee the work of another division within that same firm.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the procedures manual be updated so only the forms that are currently used are in the manual.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the City enforce an ordinance requiring property owners with rain gutters connected directly to their lateral to disconnect them.
R5:
The City should adopt an ordinance requiring property owners to inspect and repair laterals prior to sale or change of ownership. 13
R6:
The City should explore methods for using locally generated methane gas more profitably.
Quick View
Full Details →
Findings & Recommendations
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.
Additional Recommendations
6
Not linked to specific findings.
R1:
The 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.
R2:
The City should try not to hire one division of a company to oversee the work of another division within that same firm.
R3:
The Grand Jury recommends the procedures manual be updated so only the forms that are currently used are in the manual.
R4:
The Grand Jury recommends the City enforce an ordinance requiring property owners with rain gutters connected directly to their lateral to disconnect them.
R5:
The City should adopt an ordinance requiring property owners to inspect and repair laterals prior to sale or change of ownership. 13
R6:
The City should explore methods for using locally generated methane gas more profitably.