2. Don’t attempt to clean up the overflow. Instruct them the city has restoration companies available and will respond.
3. Turn off all central heat and air-conditioning systems and prevent flow from reaching any floor vents with towels or blankets.
4. Leave these items in the affected areas for restoration companies to cleanup.
Contact Risk Management at (916)774-5420 or (916)774-5202 during normal business hours. After hours, of if no answer, contact Virginia Bolmsn, Risk Manager at (916)501-2073. They will assess and notify restoration companies on contract with the city to respond. If the resident refuses the offered clean-up services, ask them to sign the declination letter, refusing the service.
If the resident chooses to file a claim for damages, instruct them they must fill out a Government Claim Form.
A claim form can be obtained in the following ways:
• In person at the Roseville Civic Center, City Clerks Department and Risk Management Division, 311 Vernon St., Roseville, CA .
• By mail, by contacting the Risk Management Division at (916)774-5202 or e-mailing the request to [email protected]
• Electronically by following this link:
http://www.roseville.ca.us/hr/risk_management/how_to_file_a_claim.asp • Completed forms must be returned by mail or in person to the City Clerk's office at the Roseville Civic Center.
75 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S O E R P W a t e r Q u a l i t y S a m p l i n g
This water quality sampling procedure describes the process and the sampling methodology to be used in the event of a sanitary sewer overflow exceeding 50,000 gallons. The water quality sampling results will enable the division to prioritize areas of concern regarding water quality impacts. Surface water samples will be collected using a grab sample technique. Employees are required to wear new sterile powder free surgical gloves when collecting all samples.
Trigger for Sampling -Water quality sampling is required within 48 hours of initial SSO notification for Category 1 SSOs in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled to surface waters.
Safety and Access- Water quality sampling should only be performed if it is safe to do so, and access is not restricted or unsafe. Unsafe conditions include traffic, heavy rains, slippery or steep creek banks, visibility issues, high flowing creeks and limited access due to soil conditions or poor terrain.
Where to Sample1. Source of SSO - Determine the entry point (source) of the SSO into the creek, and move downstream approximately 10 feet downstream.
2. Upstream Sample – Sample at a point 100 feet upstream from the source.
3. Downstream Sample – Sample at a point 100 feet downstream from the source.
Determine the water velocity present in the creek or body of water during the SSO.
Dropping debris in the creek, and timing how long the debris takes to travel a known distance is a good indicator of the water velocity present. Use this information to determine the next downstream sampling point. Multiply the water velocity by the spill duration to figure the furthest point downstream to sample.
Sampling Procedure1. Put on required PPE (safety glasses and latex gloves)
2. Collect Upstream Sample - Move approximately 100 feet upstream of the source. a. Label the bottle accordingly and take a picture of the location you are sampling.
b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap and secure the sample to avoid contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the upstream sample location and record the results.
3. Collect Source Sample- Move approximately 10 feet downstream of the source location.
a. Label the bottle accordingly and take a picture of the location you are sampling.
b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
76 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap and secure the sample to avoid contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the source sample location and record the results.
4. Collect Downstream Sample – Move approximately 100 feet downstream of the source.
a. Label this sample “Downstream 1” and take a picture of the location you are sampling.
b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap and secure the sample to avoid contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the downstream sample 1, and record the results
5. Collect Downstream Final Sample – After using the velocity and distance to determine the furthest downstream sample point, move to that location. a. Label this sample “Downstream Final” and take a picture of the location you are sampling.
b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap and secure the sample to avoid contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the sample, and record the results
Required Water Quality Analyses – As detailed in section C-5 of Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP), Order WQ- 2013-0058, a Technical Report shall be submitted in CIWQS online database with 45 calendar days. All samples will be immediately transported to the nearest certified water quality laboratory for analysis (DCWWTP or PGWWTP labs). The sample analysis, at a minimum will include the following:
1. Ammonia
2. pH
3. Electrical Conductivity
4. Bacterial indicators, such as total and fecal coliform enterococcus and e-coli, per the regional Basin Plan or as directed by SWRCB
5. Temperature
Equipment and Supplies – The following items and PPE are required for sampling:
1. Cooler with Blue Ice
2. Sterile sampling bottles
3. Powder free latex gloves
4. Safety glasses
5. Marking pen
6. Field log forms
77 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S O E R P S e w e r C a l l F o r S e r v i c e
When dispatched to a home experiencing sewer problem, the following procedures should be adhered to provide the resident with the best possible customer service and quickly correct the problem causing the SSO.
Residential
1. Contact the homeowner or resident upon arrival. Explain the process you will use to determine the problem. Resident should have already been instructed to stop all water use, so if water is still spilling from cleanout, check the nearest upstream manhole on the mainline for a blockage.
2. If no cleanout is visible, look in CMMS for cleanout location, look for an “S” marked in the curb, or other information that might indicate a cleanout.
3. If a city cleanout is found, clear the lateral blockage using the eel and a root cutting head, do not use a hand tape. CCTV to ensure line is clear, and all blockages have been removed.
Record all time and pertinent information you have found on a work order, service request, or for after-hours calls, your overtime tag.
4. If no cleanout is found, locate the closest downstream manhole, and call for Vactor assistance, and run the main.
5. If the residence does not have a city cleanout, and the above procedures did not alleviate the blockage, we will use our equipment to run a “Viable” cleanout that belongs to the resident. This “viable” cleanout should be a factory fitting 4” cleanout, either a wye or combo wye, that we can easily get our equipment into and service the line. Once the line has been cleared, we will CCTV through this same cleanout, and determine where the blockage was located.
6. If the blockage was located below the location a city cleanout should be installed, we will schedule a cleanout installation during normal business hours.
7. If the blockage is located within the customer’s service line, notify them that the problem is in their portion of the lateral, the location and severity of the problem. Advise the resident of the City’s policy for cleanout installation, and let them know this is a one-time service, and the city will not clear future blockages from the homeowner’s cleanout.
Document all information in the CMMS under activity code- SPHCC, (Sewer Plug Homeowner City Cleared) on a service request.
Private Commercial – When dispatched to a commercial property experiencing an SSO, start containment of the spill immediately. Notify the manager to stop using water and to call a plumber.
Make sure the manager understands City staff will be containing the spill until their plumber responds, and they will be billed for staff and equipment. If after 60 minutes, the plumber doesn’t show, notify Placer County Health Department. Notify your supervisor that the health department has been called and to discuss possibly clearing the main or service. 78 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S O E R P S e w e r L i f t S t a t i o n F a i l u r e R e s p o n s e The purpose of this procedure is to define strategies necessary to prevent an SSO from a lift station, in the event of a power or component failure within a lift station. The City of Roseville operates and maintains 17 neighborhood lift stations. Each station is equipped with SCADA, monitored 24 hours per day by wastewater treatment plant personnel. Each station has the maximum allowable downtime posted inside the door of each control panel. This identifies the retention time and the storage capacity in the collection system assets, before an SSO will occur. The lowest identified manhole is also identified to assist on call personnel in determining the remaining downtime. In the event of a lift station failure, the plant operator will notify the answering service that an alarm has been activated at a station, and the on-call service worker will respond and assess the alarm.
If no power is present in the panel, the service worker will:
1. Contact Roseville Electric at (916)774-5620, to verify they are aware of the outage.
2. Determine the level, and remaining downtime left in the station.
3. If downtime will be more than the maximum allowable retention, the on call service worker will call collection system personnel off the standby list, to get a Vactor in route. The Vactor will decant water at an identified point in the system, which won’t affect the left station levels. If it appears that one Vactor won’t keep up with flows, the on call service worker will call in additional personnel with Vactor to maintain levels in the station.
4. If outage appears to be a lengthy process, contact supervisor. Portable generator may be needed. In this event, an electrician will be needed.
5. Once flows are maintained, contact Supervisor to make them aware of the situation.
If Power is present in station, but pumps are not operating, the service worker will:
1. Attempt to operate the pumps in “hand” mode to eliminate the possibility of an SSO
2. If the pump operates in “hand”, continue operating and monitor the levels in the wet well.
Contact the On Call Electrician (916)532-0612 and continue to monitor.
3. If station will not operate in hand mode, call additional personnel in with Vactor to monitor wetwell levels. Vacuum and decant accordingly, until the problem is rectified.
4. If it appears that one Vactor won’t keep up with the amount of flow into the wet well, the service worker will call in a second Vactor to maintain the levels in the station.
5. Standby and assist on call electrician, until the station is operational. 79 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S O E R P S S O C h a i n o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n 80 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
T H I S P A G E L E F T I N T E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K 81 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S M P E L E M E N T 7
7 S e w er Pip e Bl o c ka ge C o ntr ol Pro gr a m
Att. D-7 The SSMP must include procedures for the evaluation of the Enrollee’s service area to determine whether a sewer pipe blockage control program is needed to control fats, oils, grease, rags and debris. If the Enrollee determines that a program is not needed, the Enrollee shall provide justification in its Plan for why a program is not needed. The procedures must include, at minimum: An implementation plan and schedule for a public education and outreach program that promotes proper disposal of pipe-blocking substances; A plan and schedule for the disposal of pipe-blocking substances generated within the sanitary sewer system service area. This may include a list of acceptable disposal facilities and/or additional facilities needed to adequately dispose of substances generated within a sanitary sewer system service area; The legal authority to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent spills and blockages; Requirements to install grease removal devices (such as traps or interceptors), design standards for the removal devices, maintenance requirements, best management practices requirements, recordkeeping and reporting requirements; Authority to inspect grease producing facilities, enforcement authorities, and whether the Enrollee has sufficient staff to inspect and enforce the fats, oils, and grease ordinance; An identification of sanitary sewer system sections subject to fats, oils, and grease blockages and establishment of a cleaning schedule for each section; and Implementation of source control measures for all sources of fats, oils, and grease reaching the sanitary sewer system for each section identified above.
The City of Roseville’s Pipe Blockage Control Program focuses on public outreach, proper disposal practices, and preventive maintenance to manage and reduce blockages caused by FOG, roots, non-dispersible wipes and other pipe-blocking materials. The City uses social media, newsletters, and public events to educate residents and businesses on the correct disposal of FOG, offering free collection and disposal services for residents.
The City relies on two major components to control or eliminate the amount of these pipe blocking materials entering the wastewater system, 1) cleaning and inspection of the collection system on a prescribed maintenance schedule and 2) inspection, enforcement, and education for FSEs and controlling Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG) from entering its system.
In addition to a strong focus on eliminating FOG in its system, the City’s Wastewater Collection Division implements an effective chemical root control program. Vaporooter products are used to restrict or eliminate root growth in the City-owned portion of the lower lateral. The division holds two Qualified Applicators’ Licenses (QAL), enabling the City to chemically treat laterals and allowing for a more efficient root control program without outsourcing.
The City operates two wastewater treatment plants with FOG receiving stations to handle materials collected from the public. The City has legal authority within the Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) to regulate and restrict harmful discharges, mainly targeting food service establishments (FSEs), through an established FOG program to prevent sewer blockages and ensure efficient sewer system operation. The City addresses areas prone to blockages by maintaining a “Hot Spot List” of sewer mains identified through historical data, field observations, and CCTV inspections.
These areas are tracked using GIS tools, and the cleaning frequencies range from 1 to 6 months based on need. Reducing hot spots through capital improvement and rehabilitation projects is a top priority for the City.
82 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
7.1 Public Education Outreach
The City, in partnership with neighboring agencies developed the website, Live Sewer Smart. The website provides links to valuable information to educate and encourage proper ways to reduce impacts on the sewer system from FOG, roots and flushable wipes. The website is located at Live Sewer Smart. The Wastewater Collection Division actively participates in Earth Night events, Big Trucks Day Big Trucks Day, and other community activities to educate residents on proper sewer system use and promote practices that minimize the impacts of FOG and flushable wipes on the system. In addition, the City of Roseville’s Utility Exploration Center (UEC) offers insight to the City’s utility systems. The recently remodeled center, holds special events, hosts school programs and provides workshops to help the community learn how to live Sewer Smart. The webpage can be found at Utility Exploration Center
WWC and Industrial Waste Division personnel developed public outreach materials and handouts that are distributed to all food service facilities managers during the facility inspection. In addition, all FSEs are required by RMC Section 14.14 to apply for a FOG Discharge Permit. The permit application includes references to RMC 14.14, which provides Frequently Asked Questions, Maintenance and Pumping Requirements, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the managers to follow. Finally, the City’s website offers links for public outreach at FSE Public Outreach
7.2 FOG Disposal Plan
Food Service Establishments and FOG generators are responsible for hiring private service providers to pump and haul FOG from their grease removal device at scheduled intervals. The requirement of the permittee is to keep all records, manifests, receipts and invoices for the cleaning and maintenance of the device, which includes final disposal location. These records shall be provided to any City of Roseville inspector or enforcement officer upon request. Although City does not endorse or recommend services provided by any one service provider, the City will provide a list of service providers that are commonly used by businesses in the area.
7.3 Legal Authority
The WWC Division of Environmental Utilities manages the FOG control program, issuance of permits and performs inspection of all FSEs within its service area. In addition, RMC Chapter 14.14 includes all legal authority necessary to prohibit discharges to the system and identify measures to prevent SSOs and blockages caused by FOG. All FSEs are required to provide wastewater that is acceptable to the city, before discharging to the public sewer. A summary of the legal authority is included in Table 8.
83 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
Table 8 – FOG Legal Authority
RMC Chapter Number RMC Chapter Title
14.14.010 (A) General Provisions- Purpose
14.14.030 FOG-Waste Discharge Permit Required
14.14.040 FOG-Discharge Limitation
14.14.050 Public Sewer Overflow; Nuisance abatement
14.14.070(F) Prohibitions
14.14.190 FOG Discharge Permit Conditions
14.14.320 Harmful Discharge
14.14.360 Violation-Penalty
7.4 GRD, Design Standards, BMPs, Recordkeeping and Reporting
7.4.1 Requirement to Install GRD
Every FSE at the time of construction, remodel or change in operation is required to install and maintain an approved and adequately sized grease removal device. In addition, at the EU Directors' discretion, may require an FSE that has caused or contributed to a greaserelated blockage, install a grease removal device. Depending on the type of facility, certain FSEs may require a grease interceptor, grease trap(s), or may not require a grease removal device (GRD). If during the plan review process, an FSE enrollee does not believe that their operation needs the designated GRD, they can request a variance from the ordinance. The final determination of the variance request is at the sole discretion of the EU Director.
7.4.2 Design Standards
The City Design Standard section 9-10. (G) indicates grease removal device sizing and installation shall conform to the current edition of the California Uniform Plumbing Code.
Grease interceptors shall be constructed following the design approved by the director and shall have a minimum of two compartments with fittings designed for grease retention. A 24” access manhole shall be installed over each interceptor chamber. The frame and cover shall be watertight and set to finish grade, making inspection, sampling, and grease removal activities available.
84 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
In addition, the grease interceptor shall be installed at a location where it shall always be easily accessible for inspection, cleaning, and removal of accumulated grease. The minimum size of a grease interceptor for a new FSE is 1,000 gallons.
7.4.3 Best Management Practices
Every FSE shall implement BMPs in its operations to minimize the discharge of FOG to the grease control device and/or the public sewer. Detailed requirements for BMPs shall be specified in the FOG WDP and all FSEs are required, at a minimum, to comply with the permit BMPs as well as any additional BMPs established by the director. BMPs may include, but are not limited to, kitchen practices and employee training procedures that are essential in minimizing FOG discharge to the public sewer. Additional BMP practices are available on the City’s website at FOG BMP's
7.4.4 Records and Reporting Requirements
The permittee shall be required to keep all manifests, receipts, and invoices of all cleaning, maintenance, grease removal of/from the grease control device, disposal carrier, and disposal site location for no less than three years. In addition, the permittee shall, upon request, make the manifests, receipts, and invoices available to the director, any inspector, or an enforcement officer. These records may include an on-site logbook of grease interceptor, grease trap or grease control device cleaning and maintenance practices, a description of BMPs being implemented, including employee training, and copies of records and manifest of waste hauling interceptor contents.
7.5 Authority to Inspect
RMC section 14.14.290 grants the Director, an inspector, or an enforcement officer access to all parts of a wastewater generating and disposal facilities for purposes of inspection and sampling during all times the FSE is open and operating. No person shall interfere, resist or refuse entrance to the Director, an inspector, or enforcement officer attempting to inspect the facility. Any violation of this chapter, or the orders, rules, regulations, and permits issued under this chapter, is unlawful and shall be an infraction or misdemeanor as determined by the city attorney
7.6 Hot Spot Identification and PM Schedule
The WWC Division’s CMMS maintains all records for maintenance, inspection, and construction work orders for the collection system. Sewer mains subject to blockages from FOG or mains that require higher cleaning frequency are added to the division’s Hot Spot List. These mainline segments tend to have more frequent backups due to sluggish flows, poor grades, and sags, which allow solids to settle and FOG to form. The hot spot list has been compiled based on historical data, field crew observations, and CCTV condition assessments. These mainlines are also identified in a GIS layer in the Roseville GeoViewer, so field crews can access them while performing maintenance in the field. The frequency of Hot Spot cleaning ranges from 1-6 months, depending on history and CCTV inspection data. The WWC division strives to reduce and eliminate these hot spot areas during CIP projects or rehabilitation projects performed by City crews. 85 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
Mainline segments get added to the Hot Spot list based on conditions noted during CCTV inspection and the current frequency of cleaning. Currently, 276 mainline segments are identified as Hot Spots.
7.7 FOG Source Control Measures
One of the more significant additions to the WWC FOG program was the requirement of a FOG Waste Discharge Permit (WDP). Ordinances in the RMC require that before discharging any wastewater from an FSE into the wastewater system, the enrollee must obtain a WDP. The WWC division performs facility inspections before the FSE can discharge. The terms and condition of the WDP are as follows.
▪ Grease interceptors/traps are required for food handling facilities unless the Environmental Utilities Director has issued a waiver or variance (RMC 14.14.130). ▪ An FSE with a waiver or variance that has caused or contributed to a grease-related Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) will be required to install a grease removal device. In the event it is not practical or feasible to install a grease removal device, the FSE will be subjected to an Annual Grease Mitigation Fee
▪ Grease removal devices shall be designed, constructed, and installed following California Plumbing Code Title 24, Part 5 and the City of Roseville Design and Construction Standards.
▪ Grease removal devices shall be maintained by pumping the entire contents when grease and sludge have exceeded 25% of the capacity of the interceptor, including removal of entire contents each time the interceptor is pumped. The interceptor shall be pumped out at a minimum of 6-month intervals or more frequently, depending on grease load from FSE.
The grease hauler shall be licensed with the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
▪ The permittee shall retain pumping and maintenance records for a minimum of 3 years.
These records shall be submitted quarterly to the City of Roseville and shall be readily available to City personnel inspecting the facility. At a minimum, the following information is required for the reporting records:
o Date of Service
o Volume removed
o Grease Hauler Permit number
o FOG disposal destination records
▪ The permittee shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) in its operation to minimize the discharge of FOG to the sewer system under RMC 14.14.060 ▪ The permittee shall notify the City of Roseville Wastewater Collection Division at 916-746- 1890 of any of the following:
o Sale, lease, or transfer of the operation for which the permit was issued. o Change of facility name
o Changes to grease removal device or remodels, additions, or alterations to FSE greater than $20,000
o Any SSO or blockage that would contribute to an SSO
86 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
T H I S P A G E L E F T I N T E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K 87 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S M P E L E M E N T 8
8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan and Capital Improvements
Att. D - 8 The plan must include procedures and activities for: (1) Routine evaluation and assessment of system conditions; (2) Capacity assessment and design criteria; (3) Prioritization of corrective actions; and (4) A Capital Improvement Plan.
8.1 System Evaluation and Condition Assessment
Two hydraulic models were developed and used by the WWC Division (Roseville Model Project and South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) Wastewater Systems Evaluation Project) to identify peak flows in each collection system component (pipe and pump station). In 2007, a hydraulic model of the City’s sewer collection system was developed using the H2OMap Sewer modeling platform (2007 Model Development Project), parallel with a trunk sewer model for the combined Roseville, SPMUD, and Placer County systems. However, the City’s sewer model was updated in 2017 to reflect existing and future demands within the City and upgrade the modeling platform to the fully dynamic InfoWorks ICM software. In addition, for the current Systems Evaluation Update, the City’s model was updated in December 2020 to reflect existing, and future projected flows from Placer County and SPMUD.
EU Engineering staff will periodically run the hydraulic model for development, the Wastewater Principal Engineer will review and update the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan every ten years, looking for deficiencies and opportunities for improvement.
The City developed a project for easement mainline condition assessment to evaluate system accessibility and identify critical areas based on condition and environmental impact in case of a blockage or spill. The project will provide a comprehensive understanding of the system’s condition, recommend improvements for access to the offsite segments, and prioritize areas for action with a ranking system from 1 to 10, guiding the City’s efforts to address the most critical issues.
The City began its condition assessment of the collection system in 2006. At that time, the collection system was divided into 24 groups based on the age of the sewer main installation. The first group of pipes and manholes were inspected and included in the Rehabilitation and Replacement plan developed shortly after. To date, City crews have completed inspections in 18 of those 24 groups, which has led to the development of numerous CIPP and replacement projects.
The City inspects the wastewater collection system using three CCTV vans, with operators using NASSCO’s PACP coding system to document and rank the condition of sewer mains and laterals.
This inspection data is archived in the Granite Net Software system for easy access. To improve system reliability, the division has added Electroscan technology into a CCTV inspection truck, enabling the detection and measurement of infiltration and inflow (I&I) by identifying pipe leaks through electrical measurements. This technology helps prioritize targeted CCTV inspections, plan repairs, and evaluate the quality of CIPP rehabilitation projects. 88 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
8.2 Capacity Assessment and Design Criteria
The WWC Division established 10-year 24-hour peak wet weather storm design criteria for the evaluation of existing collection system components and sizing of new collection system in the Roseville Model Project and the SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation Project. This included the development of wastewater flow generation factors based on water use records and flow monitoring data in the City of Roseville.
The SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation included the identification of short and long-term Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to meet current and future build-out flow projections for trunk sewers larger than 15 inches. Several deficiencies were identified in non-regional facilities which resulted in model-predicted overflows for one or more of the scenarios. Within the regional system, seven areas have been identified that either have deficiencies or could be impacted when upstream deficiencies are relieved. The System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Report developed by the South Placer Wastewater Authority, in conjunction with Regional Partners Placer County and South Placer Municipal Utility District is located on the City’s webpage at System Evaluation Report
8.3 Prioritization of Corrective Action
The WWC Division Condition Assessment CIP divided the collection system manholes and pipes into 24 groups. The first group of pipes and manholes was inspected starting in 2006 and was included in the Rehabilitation and Replacement plan developed shortly after. The city continuously inspects pipelines using NASSCO’s PACP coding standard to develop a list of assets that need rehabilitation. When defects are identified, the city evaluates the risk of failure and assigns a priority ranking to each asset. Prioritizing those assets relies on several factors, including:
▪ Severity and extent of the defects (PACP Score).
▪ Maintenance records and SSO occurrences
▪ Hydraulic capacity needs and projection.
▪ The estimated remaining useful life of the infrastructure The goal of the CIP is to develop annual project bundles of approximately $1.5 million. Using the priority rank of the pipe segment, the CIP prioritization includes one additional factor, street repairs. To minimize disruption to newly paved streets, those streets that the City anticipates repairing in the upcoming fiscal year are highest priority.
Condition assessments will be continually performed, and the CIP will be adjusted after each evaluation as follows:
• Emergency repairs will be done immediately and not be included in the CIP. • Priority will be given to those assets which lie in the street to be paved such that the repair is done before street repaving
• Pipe segments will continue to be rated on the 1 to 5 scale, with 5 being the highest priority and 1s being the lowest. So, a 5 from the previous year's assessment would be prioritized over a 4 from the current assessment.
89 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
In addition to condition assessment, the WWC division schedules with Public Works to inspect wastewater infrastructure ahead of residential and arterial street paving projects. This process enables the WWC division to perform necessary system improvements before completing the overlay project. The City maintains a 5-year list of planned R&R CIP projects
8.4 Capital Improvement Plan
Proposed improvement projects have been developed, and verified using the hydraulic model, to alleviate surcharging. Each proposed project was reviewed on aerial mapping to identify potential design and constructability issues. These improvement projects were developed to sequentially decrease surcharging in downstream sewers. Capital Improvement Projects identified for the wastewater collection system in FY 2024-2025 are summarized in Table 9.
Table 9 – Capital Improvement Projects
CW Project Number Project Name Project Budget
400078 Sewer Collection System Cured in Place
Rehabilitation $3,967,428
500191 63-inch and 66-inch Interceptor Rehabilitation $2,500,000 500341 Church Street Wet Weather Upgrades $4,950,000
Pump Station #26 $926,000
Critical Sewer Manhole Access Study $45,000
90 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
T H I S P A G E L E F T I N T E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K 91 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S M P E L E M E N T 9
9 M o n i t o r in g , M e a s u r e me n t a n d P r o g ra m M o d i f ic a t i o n Att. D-9 The SSMP must include an Adaptive Management section that addresses Plan implementation effectiveness and the steps for necessary Plan improvement, including: (1) Maintaining relevant information, including audit findings, to establish and prioritize appropriate Plan activities; 2) Monitoring the implementation and measuring the effectiveness of each Plan Element; (3) Assessing the success of the preventive operation and maintenance activities; (4) Updating Plan procedures and activities, as appropriate, based on results of monitoring and performance evaluations; and (5) Identifying and illustrating spill trends, including spill frequency, locations and estimated volumes.
9.1 Metrics to Prioritize SSMP Activities
The WWC Division has developed Key Performance Indicators to assess their progress in maintenance, operations, and sanitary sewer collection system management. The entire KPI worksheet is included as Appendix 9-1. The metrics were developed to identify successes and challenges in reducing SSO frequency and impacts, improving collection system reliability, and providing capacity in the system to convey peak flows. Establishing specific KPIs for each element allows the WWC Management team to determine the degree of success of each component.
Measurable performance indicators, e.g., number of SSO occurrences, length of lines cleaned, spill response times, number of capital projects completed, etc., are used. Additionally, the KPI benchmarking metrics worksheet includes the following categories of metric information:
• System Information
• Financial Information
• Sewer Maintenance
• Performance Measures
The City tracks detailed information about spills. While the number of spills has fluctuated up and down over the past four years, the average volume per spill has decreased. This metric demonstrates the City’s proactive efforts to contain and control spills and mitigate them efficiently.
In addition, the City consistently shows a significantly lower spill rate per 100 miles of pipe versus the State and Regional averages. These measurements indicate a successful sewer management program, employee training, emergency response, and a dedication to mitigating the effects of spills.
9.2 Monitor and Measure Element Effectiveness
The WWC Division implements all elements of this SSMP and has been effective in minimizing spills and controlling the volume of those spills when they occur. The WWC Division evaluates the performance of its wastewater collection system at least annually using the developed KPIs. The City will then initiate changes to this SSMP and the related programs based on the results of the KPI evaluation. In addition, the Review of the SSMP and its elements is an assigned annual training for all WWC employees. A summary of the tracked KPIs and the relation to the SSMP elements are in Table 10.
92 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
Table 10 – KPI Summarization
SSMP Element Purpose Performance Indicator
Goals Sets Priorities for Division Goals are listed in Chapter 1 of SSMP Organization Documentation of Chain of
Command
Continually update Chain of Command Org. chart
as changes occur
Legal Authority Ensures Ordinances Are Upheld
Protecting Integrity of the System Roseville Municipal Code Operations and
Maintenance
Reduce & Eliminate SSOs through
PM, CM and Emergency Response
▪ Manhole inspections performed
▪ Miles of sewer mains flushed per year
▪ Average cost of hydro cleaning
▪ Miles of sewer main and laterals CCTV per year
▪ Sewer cleanouts installed
▪ Sewer laterals rehabilitated
▪ Total miles rehabbed or replaced- mains and
laterals
Design and
Construction
Standards
Ensures Infrastructure Is Designed,
Installed and Tested Properly
▪ %Of new sewer main inspected vs. accepted
▪ % of new lateral inspected vs. accepted
Overflow Emergency
Response
Provide Swift Response, Minimize
Effects of an SSO, And to Meet
Regulatory Requirements
▪ Average response time to SSO
▪ Average SSO duration mains and laterals
Pipe Blockage Control
Program
Ensure Illicit Discharges of FOG
Aren’t Entering the Wastewater
System, Reduces FOG Blockages And
Overflows
▪ Public outreach events per year
▪ Gallons of FOG curbside pickup
▪ % of FSEs with grease removal device
▪ FSE FOG inspections per year
▪ Number of spills & volume spilled from hot
spots
▪ Number of sewer laterals CIPP lined
System Evaluation &
Capacity Assurance
Evaluate and Ensure System Capacity
is Sufficient.
Hydraulic Model developed and run for new
development and special projects,
Monitoring,
Measurement &
Program Modifications
Evaluate The Effectiveness of The
SSMP and the Maintenance Activities
Necessary to be Compliant
▪ Total SSOs and volume spilled (mains and
laterals)
▪ % Of total volume recovered
▪ Total number of wet-weather spills
▪ Repeat spills within two years
▪ Spills per 100 miles of pipe/year
▪ Number of Category 1 spills
▪ % of spills caused by rags, roots, debris and
FOG
▪ # of Lift station failures
Program Audits Measures SSMP Effectiveness and
Necessary Changes
Audits are performed on schedule, by an
outside independent Engineering Firm
Communication Plan
Communication With the Public and
Satellite Agencies on SSMP
Performance
Regional partner meetings, City Website.
93 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
9.3 SSMP Performance Monitoring and Update Process
The WWC Division will monitor sewer performance metrics monthly and review the status of each SSMP element annually, with formal audits conducted every three years. As a “living document,” the SSMP allows the Wastewater Superintendent to initiate corrective actions whenever deficiencies are identified between audits. Proposed modifications to the SSMP will primarily come from WWC Supervisors or input from field crews, while the review and approval of amendments, whether major or minor, will be the responsibility of the WWC Superintendent. The field crews and supervisors regularly communicate regarding field issues found in the field.
Management uses this information to evaluate the success of the preventative maintenance programs and the frequency they are performed. This strategy fosters buy-in from the field crews as they continually check their effectiveness and identify potential areas for improvement in their performance. Open communication and feedback is essential for the City’s success and meeting the SSMP goals.
9.4 Spill Trends
The KPI Benchmarking worksheet includes sixty-three data points to track preventative maintenance activities, enabling management staff to develop spill trends. Based on these trends, Supervisors will adjust the preventative maintenance programs to address trends that aren’t in alignment with the SSMP goals. The KPI worksheet is populated using data from completed work orders stored in the City’s CMMS, Maximo. Assigned personnel complete data entry on a semiannual basis minimum to keep the KPI sheet updated.
9.5 Monitoring, Measurement & Modification
Refer to Appendices 9-1 and 9-2 that include the following documents:
Appendix 9-1 KPI Benchmarking Metrics Sheet
Appendix 9-3 Spill Historical Summary
94 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
T H I S P A G E L E F T I N T E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K 95 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S M P E L E M E N T 1 0
10 Pr o gr a m Aud i t a nd Annu a l Re po r t
Att. D-10 The SSMP shall include internal audit procedures, appropriate to the size and performance of the system, for enrollees to comply with section 5.4 (SSMP Audits) of this General Order
10.1 Audit Process Summary
The City audits and updates its SSMP every three years based on the General Order. Updates may occur more frequently if the Superintendent discovers modifications or regulations changes between audits. The purpose of the audit is to evaluate the effectiveness of the SSMP, primarily through evaluating system metrics and performance measures. In addition, the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with the SSMP requirements.
The City has invested in the resources of a local engineering firms and private consultants to perform the biennial audit for the last three audit cycles. The consultants administer the audit much like an RWQCB audit would be. The process starts with gathering information utilizing the Water Boards Pre-Inspection Questionnaire. This Audit Process has proven successful for the City, as significant changes have been made based on audit findings. The City will continue with this process for future audits.
10.2 SSMP Audit Documents
Refer to Appendices 10-1 through 10-6 that include the following audit forms and reports for the previous six audits:
Appendix 10-1 SSMP Internal Audit FY 10-11
Appendix 10-2 SSMP Audit FY 11/12-FY 12/13
Appendix 10-3 SSMP Audit FY 13/14-FY 14/15
Appendix 10-4 SSMP Audit FY 15/16-FY 17/18
Appendix 10-5 SSMP Audit FY 18/19-FY 20/21
Appendix 10-6 SSMP Audit FY 21/22-FY 23-24
96 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
T H I S P A G E L E F T I N T E N T I O N A L L Y B L A N K 97 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
S S M P E L E M E N T 1 1
11 C o mmu ni c a ti o n Pro gr a m
Att. D-11 The SSMP must include procedures for the Enrollee to communicate with the Public for: (1) spills and discharges resulting in closures of public areas; (2) The development, implementation and update of the SSMP, including opportunities for public input to SSMP implementation and updates. Owners/operators of systems in the enrollee’s system, including satellite systems for system operation, maintenance and capital improvement related activities.
11.1 Purpose of the Communication Program
The purpose of the Communication Program is to describe how the City will inform, educate and engage with its stakeholders, regional partners, and the public on the development, implementation, and performance of the SSMP. Another aspect of this program is to increase public awareness of services provided by the City. Raising awareness of the significance of the sewer system and the impacts businesses and residents can make on the system is of utmost importance.
11.2 SSMP Development and Implementation
There were several opportunities for public comment during the development and implementation process at City Council meetings. In addition, the SSMP has been certified by the City Council on three occasions, 2009, 2014, and again in 2019. Since certification by the City Council, the division’s SSMP has been audited on five occasions. This effort on re-writing the SSMP in its entirety will be on the City Council agenda for approval. Once approved, the document is available for download and review on the City’s website at: City of Roseville Sewer
11.3 Public Outreach
The City’s website is the central hub of communication for the businesses and residents of Roseville. The division’s website offers many links to assist the public with any sewer issues, explain the importance of the City’s wastewater collection system and summarize all the provided services. The division’s motto is to “Call us First” with all sewer problems. Our emergency response service van is wrapped with the Call Us First motto. Since the City owns and maintains the lower lateral from the property line to the City main, calling us first to investigate a potential blockage may save residents from an unnecessary plumbing bill. Environmental Utilities in partnership with Roseville electric publishes a monthly print newsletter, Utility News, which goes out monthly to all customers who receive a printed bill. This newsletter includes information about all aspects of utilities and how customers can reduce impacts to infrastructure. Additionally, customers get an electronic version of similar stories sent to their emails, adding to the number of messaging opportunities the city provides.
98 SEWER SYSTEM MANAGEMENT PLAN | Updated 12 MAR 25
The WWC Division is expanding the use of the website and social media to deliver proactive and deliberate messaging on WDR/SSMP requirements and program status to residential, commercial, industrial, and public stakeholders.
11.3.1 Utility Exploration Center
The Wastewater Division in partnership with the Utility Exploration Center, hosts high school students from surrounding areas at locations within the city. These events provide students with the opportunity to explore a wide range of careers within the utility industry. Stations are staffed by utility workers, specialists, and supervisors who conduct demonstrations showcasing typical and challenging field scenarios. Crews highlight the tools and equipment used in their specialties and explain how they collaborate as a team to deliver effective service to Roseville’s Wastewater Utility customers.
11.3.2 Live Sewer Smart
The City belongs to a multi-jurisdictional group named Live Sewer Smart. The Live Sewer Smart website contains information for residents of Roseville and the surrounding communities to educate and encourage proper ways to reduce impacts on the sewer system. For example, the website provides residents with timely information regarding wipes in the pipes, how to properly dispose of FOG, and contact information for all agencies belonging to the program, should they have questions. In addition, there are several links to videos presenting more details that affect residential and commercial sewer systems. Live Sewer Smart can be located at: Live Sewer Smart
11.4 Tributary/Satellite Communication
The WWC Division routinely communicates with their satellite partners and often supports them with mutual aid sharing in terms of equipment and resources. The City has three formal agreements with tributary and satellite systems in place and currently working on a mutual aide agreement with the County of Placer Wastewater Division. The listed agreements below are included as appendices in Chapter 3:
• The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the SPWA – Appendix 3-2 • The agreement regarding the operation of and use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities – Appendix 3-3.
• The Contract and Operating Agreement with Sacramento Area Sewer District and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District – Appendix 3-4 Appendix 3-1
Pretreatment Enforcement Response Plan
Appendix 3-2
Joint Exercise of Power Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority
Appendix 3-3
South Placer Wastewater Authority Operations Agreement
Appendix 3-4
Contract and Operating Agreement with Sacramento Area Sewer District and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
Appendix 3-5
South Placer Wastewater Authority Service Area Boundary
Appendix 4-1
Scheduled Preventative Maintenance
PM Description Next Due Date
HOT SPOTS TC Hot Spots - Traffic Control 5/2/2022
HOT SPOTS Hot Spots Non Traffic Control 5/2/2022
137178 HN LIFT STATION GROUNDS 2/10/2022
138098 HN PULL PUMPS FOR MAINTENANCE 2/3/2022
138157 HN WET WELL CLEAN 2/3/2022
135781 HN MONTHLY LIFT STATION CHECKS 2/10/2022
137268 HN VERMIN CONTROL 5/3/2022
129353 HN SM B04 6/1/2022
128854 HN SM A03 2/1/2022
129012 HN SM A04 11/1/2022
128866 HN SM A05 4/1/2022
129017 HN SM A06 5/1/2022
99933 HN SM A07 2/3/2022
135869 HN SM A08 7/1/2022
129276 HN SM B03 4/1/2022
136850 HN SM B05 10/3/2022
129578 HN SM B06 1/3/2023
129953 HN SM B07 6/1/2022
130290 HN SM B08 3/2/2022
135872 HN SM C01 2/1/2024
100428 HN SM C02 1/1/2023
116668 HN SM C03 3/1/2022
135188 HN SM C04 2/2/2022
135435 HN SM C05 9/2/2022
96770 HN SM C06 8/2/2022
135870 HN SM C07 10/1/2023
137191 HN SM D01 7/1/2023
100165 HN SM D02 6/1/2024
Wastewater Collections
Preventive Maintenance
116947 HN SM D03 5/1/2022
110644 HN SM D04 9/1/2022
110891 HN SM D05 8/2/2022
117276 HN SM D06 6/1/2022
117329 HN SM D07 6/1/2023
135782 HN SM E01 4/1/2023
137040 HN SM E02 9/1/2022
130663 HN SM E03 2/1/2022
137038 HN SM E04 5/3/2023
135874 HN SM E05 5/31/2023
135823 HN SM F03 4/1/2022
135879 HN SM F04 9/1/2023
138206 HN A04 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 2/1/2022
138337 HN A05 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 10/1/2022
137871 HN A06_1 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 2/4/2022 138134 HN A06_2 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 11/1/2022 138233 HN A07 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 5/3/2022
138229 HN B04 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 4/1/2022
138232 HN B05_1 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 3/1/2022 138129 HN B05_2 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 11/1/2022 138167 HN B06_1 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 12/9/2022 138103 HN B06_2 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 9/1/2022 138628 HN C02 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 9/1/2022
138230 HN C03 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 3/1/2022
138034 HN C04_1 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 2/1/2022 138038 HN C04_2 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 5/3/2022 138054 HN C04_3 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 4/1/2022 138056 HN C04_4 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 6/1/2022 138079 HN C05_1 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 7/12/2022 138114 HN C05_2 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 1/3/2023 138080 HN C05_3 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 6/1/2022 138074 HN C05_4 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 7/2/2022 138115 HN C05_5 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 9/1/2022 138231 HN D02 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 4/1/2022
138343 HN D03 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 11/1/2022
138184 HN D04 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 2/1/2022
138352 HN D05 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 1/3/2023
138426 HN E02 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 9/1/2022
138349 HN Backyard #2 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 11/1/2022 138403 HN Backyard #1 LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 4/1/2022 138238 HN SSO LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 4/2/2022
138148 HN PILOT LATERAL MAINTENANCE VAPOROOTER 12/1/2022 Appendix 6
Spill Emergency Response Plan
1 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Spill Emergency Response Plan
I. Goals of SERP 2
II. Respond and Assess 2
III. Spill Categories 4
IV. Spill Containment 4
V. Traffic Control 7
VI. Correct Cause 7
VII. Spill-Specific Monitoring Requirements 9
VIII. Receiving Water Sampling 10
IX. Final Spill Volume Estimation 10
X. Initiate Cleanup 10
XI. Notification Requirements 11
XII. Documentation and Data Tracking 15
XIII. Staff and Contractor Training 16
Appendix A- SPILL Start Time Policy 17
Appendix B- Flooded Structure Procedures 18
Appendix C- Receiving Water Quality Monitoring, Sampling, and Analysis 19 Appendix D- Sewer Call For Service 22
Appendix E- Sewer Lift Station Failure Response 23
Appendix F- Spill Response Chart 24
Appendix G- Field Spill Report 25
2 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
The City of Roseville developed this Spill Emergency Response Plan (SERP) for responding to spills originating from the sanitary sewer system. This plan ensures that all spill responses are conducted efficiently and effectively while meeting all regulatory requirements of the General Order.
The division has provided all employees with a binder containing this emergency response plan, estimation tables, and strategies for notifying primary responders, local officials, and regulatory agencies.
I. Goals of SERP
This SERP aims to ensure that all wastewater collection personnel follows the established guidelines in cleaning up and decontaminating spills within the City's collection system service area. The City's goals concerning spill response are:
A. Respond quickly to minimize the extent of the spill;
1. The division's goal is a 20-minute response time during business hours and 40 minutes after hours.
B. Contain the spill to the extent feasible;
C. Eliminate the cause of the spill;
D. Eliminate public contact with the spill;
E. Mitigate the impact of the spill; and
F. Comply with the RWQCB Monitoring and Reporting requirements II. Respond and Assess
Calls for service come through either the office landline or a 24-hour answering service.
Calls for service to the Administrative Technician are documented in a service request in the City's CMMS. In turn, the Technician will dispatch the call with all information to the on-call service worker via cellular phone. After business hours, the City's contracted answering service is provided a script of questions used to collect information from the caller. Once gathered, they also dispatch the call information via cellular phone to the on-call service worker. After the call, the answering service time stamps the call, and an email is sent to the division management and service call address with all pertinent information regarding the call. Additionally, the wastewater treatment plant staff monitors lift station SCADA alarms. Operators notify the on-call service worker via cellular phone if they receive an alarm at any of the City's lift stations.
Assessment starts with the phone call to the customer. Upon contact with the resident, request that the resident stop all water use, then begin gathering as much relevant information as possible such as:
A. Description of problem
B. Specific location if a spill has occurred (e.g.,. manhole in the street, front or back of the property, cleanout box)
C. The approximate time the spill was noticed helps tremendously in determining the start time of the spill.
3 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
D. Any other observations from the caller (e.g., currently spilling, odor, duration of the spill, slow drains, currently spilling, water use in home) E. If the service worker believes an active spill is occurring, they will mobilize a hydro-vac immediately to the location.
A. The wastewater crewmember arriving first at the scene is the First Responder.
Upon arrival, the first Responder will quickly assess the spill to determine the extent, spill category, and resources needed to address the spill. The First Responder is responsible for the following:
1. Location of the spill by the address and cross street the spill appearance point (i.e., manhole, cleanout, lift station, etc.)
2. Documenting the time the call was received, time of arrival, and determining the start and stop times of the spill. Appendix A will aid in establishing the start and stop time for the spill.
3. Determine the extent and the category of the spill;
i. If the spill is a Category 1 or 2, notify the Superintendent or Supervisor immediately. Cal OES notification is required within 2 hours of becoming aware of the spill.
ii. Did the spill cause a backup in a structure? – Appendix B addresses the process
iii. Did the spill enter into a drainage conveyance system? iv. If a potential for public exposure is present, control foot and auto traffic through the area
v. Other concerns due to the spill
a. Is the spill related to a street collapse?
b. Is the spill related to recent construction work?
c. Has the spill displaced a manhole cover creating a traffic hazard
4. Requesting additional wastewater crews or personnel as needed;
5. All field documentation, including photographs of the spill and completion of the Field Spill Report Form
F. If the spill is a Category 1, follow directions from RWQCB, Placer County Environmental Health, or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for posting warning signs around the contaminated area.
4 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
III. Spill Categories
Individual spill notification, monitoring and reporting must be in accordance with the following spill categories:
A. Category 1 - any volume of sewage from or caused by a sanitary sewer system regulated under this General Order that results in a discharge to:
1. A surface water, including a surface water body that contains no flow or volume of water.
i. A drainage conveyance system that discharges to surface waters when the sewage is not fully captured and returned to the sewer system or disposed of properly.
ii. Any spill volume not recovered from a drainage conveyance system is considered a discharge to surface water unless the drainage conveyance system discharges to a dedicated stormwater infiltration basin or facility.
2. Category 2 - is a spill of 1,000 gallons or greater from or caused by a sanitary sewer system regulated under this General Order that does not discharge to a surface water.
3. Category 3- is a spill of equal to or greater than 50 gallons and less than 1,000 gallons from or caused by a sanitary sewer system regulated under this General Order that does not discharge to a surface water.
4. Category 4 - is a spill of less than 50 gallons from or caused by a sanitary sewer system regulated under this General Order that does not discharge to a surface water.
IV. Spill Containment
Containment of a spill becomes increasingly difficult once the overflow reaches a drainage conveyance system or a waterway. The quicker the spill's source and extent can be identified, contained, or controlled significantly reduces the spill's impact.
Upon arrival, survey the scene to determine the potential spill appearance point.
There are times when responding to a spill, the source of the spill is potable water, a backyard drain, or a storm issue. Once confirmed that the spill is the sewer, mobilize the necessary personnel and equipment for assistance. During dry weather, the drainage conveyance system can store the spill, if plugged at a point downstream of the spill.
5 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
A. Multiple techniques are identified to contain the spill depending on the circumstances, spill category, and material available. In no particular order, the list below includes possible containment options for field crews.
1. Containment with Hydro-Vac
Determine a location downstream of the spill appearance point where the hydro-vac unit can be set up to capture all spilled water. Ensure no storm drain inlets are between the containment and spill appearance points.
Continue vacuuming overflow until the blockage has been cleared, then proceed with the spill's cleanup. Wash all debris and spill evidence into the vacuum tube for removal and disposal at the DCWWTP.
2. Containment Using Berms and Mats
Utilize dirt, dry sweep, a rubber berm, sandbags, or other obstructing material that is readily available to block drain inlets and ponds the spill to a naturally low area to contain and minimize the spill's impact. If possible, divert the spill to a downstream manhole unaffected by the blockage.
Attempt containment by covering any affected storm drain inlets with rubber mats and securing them with sandbags, dirt, or other heavy objects to keep them in place.
6 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
3. Containment Using Pneumatic Plugs
Plugging the affected drain inlet or multiple drain inlets with a pneumatic plug can be effective. For example, a pneumatic plug in the storm drain outfall would prevent the overflow from reaching the waterway. However, depending on the location within the City, drain inlets will vary in size, so utilizing plugs may not be the best option.
B. Backup in Structure
Advise the customer to keep family members and pets out of the spill areas to not track any contamination into non-affected areas. If necessary, evacuate affected people and pets.
1. During regular business hours, notify Risk Management at 916-774-5420 or 916-774-5202. After hours or if there is no answer at the above numbers, contact Risk Manager Virginia Bolmsn at 916-501-2073.
2. If Risk Manager or their staff cannot be reached, contact one of the approved restoration companies in the order below and authorize cleanup services only:
i. Serv-Pro 916-632-2250
ii. Restoration Management 800-400-5058
3. Before the restoration company or the Risk Manager arrives, hand the resident our camera and ask them to photograph the affected area. Do not enter the house, even if invited.
4. If the resident declines the cleaning services, request that they sign and date the Declination of Clean Up Services Form.
C. Overflow into Storm Drain Conveyance System (DCS)
1. Trace overflow in the DCS to the downstream endpoint using the Stormwater Map on the GIS. Plug all affected storm drain outfalls or block the creek and channels to contain the spill.
2. While tracing the system, if you determine that the spill is contained within a mainline section, plug the downstream end at a manhole to contain the spill. Many storm drain manholes are built with sumps in the base, and depending on the spill volume, these sumps may prevent the spill from continuing downstream. Note all the storm drain assets cleaned on the Field Spill Report Form.
3. If a stormwater pump station is near the spill and may be affected, contact Streets Division to turn off the pumps.
D. If the SPILL is a Category 1 spill, follow directions from RWQCB, Placer County Environmental Health, or the Department of Fish and Wildlife for posting warning signs around the containment area.
7 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
V. Traffic Control
Traffic control may be needed immediately to protect the health and safety of the public and responding wastewater crews. Typically, immediate traffic control is necessary if there is a street collapse or significant undermining of the pavement section related to the blockage and sewer spill, if the manhole cover is ajar, or if the spill causes street flooding. In addition, temporary traffic control may be needed to allow responding crews to contain and clear the blockage and prevent sewer from being further dispersed by vehicular traffic.
A. Provide traffic control per Cal Trans Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH)
B. Control public contact with the spill by isolating the area with barricades, signs or traffic cones.
C. If necessary, use other departments (i.e. Police, Public Works) to ensure adequate traffic control. Contact Roseville Police/Fire Dispatch at 916-774-5123 to coordinate.
VI. Correct Cause
The cause of the overflow may be located a considerable distance downstream of the spill in areas with flat terrain. During significant rain events, overflows can be caused by excessive I&I in the collection system. I&I can significantly increase the flow in a collection system and cause overflows from pipes that are only partially blocked. I&I can also directly affect the hydraulic capacity of mainlines and lift stations. Under these conditions, stopping the overflow may not be possible until the flows recede.
A. Locate the cause of the overflow
1. Sewer Main
i. Check flow in manholes
ii. Blockage should be between a manhole with sluggish flow or surcharging and a manhole with very little flow or completely dry iii. Clear the mainline blockage using a hydro-vac unit from the dry manhole. Refer to SOP WWC-002 for hydro-vac procedures. Observe the material that flows downstream after clearing the obstruction to determine the possible cause of the blockage and note it on the spill report form.
iv. Continue to monitor manholes in the area until the surcharged manhole empties.
v. If the blockage cannot be cleared. Increase containment and request additional crews for assistance.
a. Perform a CCTV inspection to determine the blockage
8 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
b. Request additional hydro-vacs to contain, or initiate by-pass pumping
c. Dig and repair the sewer main to correct pipe defect
2. Sewer Service
i. Check flow in the city cleanout. If the riser is full of water, wait until a hydro-vac is onsite to remove or contain the water before eeling. If the cleanout is holding but not full, carefully insert the gas powered ell rod and cutting head into the service until you contact the obstruction.
Inserting the eel rod quickly, can cause the service to spill. Proceed with the eeling process until the service drains, then CCTV inspect to identify the blockage details.
ii. If the City cleanout is dry and the resident is still plugged, the stoppage is likely on the private side and is not the City's responsibility. However, it is good customer service to CCTV the service to ensure the City line is clear.
iii. If no city cleanout exists, but the resident has a 4" private cleanout, run this private cleanout to clear the blockage. Once removed, CCTV to determine the location of the problem. Refer to Appendix D to determine if the private cleanout meets the criteria before using city equipment.
iv. Check the upstream and downstream mains if a city or private cleanout cannot be located. If the main is running clear, notify the resident that the problem is on their side, and explain the city cleanout installation policy.
v. If the service line ties into a dead-end run, regardless if the City cleanout is clear, clean the mainline segment with a hydro-vac.
3. Lift Station
i. Check the alarm status inside the control panel for indication of a problem.
ii. If no power is present:
a. Contact Roseville Electric to verify the outage and an estimated time the power will be restored.
b. Determine the wet well level and remaining downtime left at the station.
c. If downtime exceeds the max allowable retention, mobilize additional wastewater crews and a hydro-vac to the station. If the power outage is extensive, request multiple hydro-vacs for assistance.
9 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
d. Continue vacuuming the wet well until power is restored and the lift station operates in auto mode. Watch the station for an entire pump cycle before leaving.
iii. If power is present, but the pumps aren't operating in auto, switch the controls to the hand position. If the pumps are operational in hand mode, contact the on-call EU electrician and continue running and monitoring the station in hand mode.
iv. If portable generation is required to power the station, the on-call EU Electrician must be onsite to make the connections. All control panels have an exterior plug and disconnects for portable generation connection, with each station having a specific cable. All cables are labeled and located in the EU Maintenance shop.
4. Force Main
i. If the spill is from a ruptured force main, control the power using the written Energy Control Procedures (ECP), located in the door panel at the station. A qualified electrician shall perform the switching of any panel breakers.
ii. Contain the spill from the pipe break using the containment procedures in Section IV.
iii. Monitor and control the wet well levels using bypass pumping or hydro-vac units until the repair is completed.
iv. If the station is equipped with dual force mains, transfer flows to the additional force main to continue normal lift station operation.
VII. Spill-Specific Monitoring Requirements
Spill specific monitoring requires gathering and storing records using photography, GPS coordinates and other best-available tools to document a particular spill event.
Additionally, first responders can use this information to estimate the approximate spill volume and spread. Therefore, the first responder shall collect the following critical spill location information:
A. Photography and GPS Coordinates for:
1. The spill appearance point
2. If multiple spill points exist, document the point closest to the spill origin.
B. Photographs for:
1. Locations where the spill entered the drainage conveyance system;
2. If applicable, the location where the spill discharged into surface waters;
3. Extent of the spill spread, and;
4. Locations documenting spill cleanup
10 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
C. Photograph all affected areas during the spill, documenting the appearance point, containment point, spread of the spill, and any post-spill cleanup. When photographing areas, ensure there is an object in the picture to aid in gauging the size of the area. The Field Spill Report Form also has a small camera indicating when a photograph is required.
VIII. Receiving Water Sampling
For sewage spills in which an estimated 50,000 gallons or greater are discharged into a surface water, the Enrollee shall conduct water quality sampling no later than 18 hours after the Enrollee's knowledge of a potential discharge to a surface water. In addition, the Enrollee shall gather information during and after the spill event to assess the spill magnitude and update its notification and estimated spill volume.
The Superintendent or their designee will handle all notifications to regulatory agencies. Refer to Appendix C for sampling procedures.
IX. Final Spill Volume Estimation
The final spill volume estimation is critical for CIWQS reporting and determines whether additional reporting to regulatory agencies is required. Additionally, the Enrollee shall update its notification and reporting of estimated spill volume, including spill volume recovered, as further information is gathered during and after a spill event. Calculating large-volume spills is challenging because the area and depth are difficult to measure, and chances are these spills are not fully contained. Use SOP WWC-044 for spill volume estimation methods and guidance.
X. Initiate Cleanup
When cleaning sewer spills, all solids and materials shall be recovered and removed from the site. Disinfection of contaminated soil or drainage conveyance systems is performed only at the direction of California Fish and Wildlife or Placer County Environmental Health. Procedures for cleaning affected areas after a spill are as follows:
A. Flooded building or structure
1. If building or structure is flooded due to a failure in the City's collection system, contact Risk Management or Virginia Balmsn after hours. Risk Management will respond, assess and notify restoration companies on contract with the City.
2. Storm Drain Conveyance System
i. Pump out or vacuum any ponded water present.
ii. Remove all debris and solids using a Hydro-Vac to clean affected storm drains and vacuum all water from the drainage conveyance system.
11 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
iii. Wash all affected concrete areas with the high-pressure wand. Then, capture and remove all wash water using the vacuum on the HydroVac. iv. Remove all containment and finish flushing and vacuuming area, capturing all remaining wash water.
3. Street, Curb or Gutter and Landscape
i. Remove all debris and solids with hydro-vac
ii. Remove any contaminated soil and plants
iii. Wash pavement, curb and gutter area, with the high-pressure wand, then vacuum all wash water with a hydro-vac.
iv. If Hydro-Vac decant pump is used, utilize the decant apparatus to alleviate possibility of a secondary spill and provide fall protection at the open manhole.
XI. Notification Requirements
The General Order requires prompt reporting of all spills to regulatory agencies. As such, notification procedures are identified in the SERP and included in the SERP binder provided to you.
A. If the First Responder determines the spill to be a Category 1 or 2, the first notification begins with the LRO (s) or their designee, who are responsible for notifying all regulatory agencies regarding reportable spills.
B. In addition, when notifying regulatory agencies, site-specific spill information is required before receiving an OES Control Number. First responder information gathered on the Supplemental Sheet in the back of the Field Spill Report Form (Appendix G) will be used to notify OES and assist Data Submitters when inputting information into CIWQS.
C. Following the initial notification, the Enrollee shall provide any updates to OES regarding additional impacts to receiving waters, including increased or decreased changes to the estimated spill volume and the estimated discharge volume directly into waters of the state or indirectly to a drainage conveyance system.
D. Table 1 is the regulatory notification guide. The table, used by the field crews, provides a quick reference for notifications.
E. Table 2 provides information on the monitoring and reporting guidelines set in the General Order.
12 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Table 1- Regulatory Notification
If a Spill
And Affects Notify
.that discharges in or on
waters of the State or
discharges to a location where
it will probably be discharged
to waters of the State, the
Enrollee shall notify the Office
of Emergency Services (OES)
and obtain a control number
as soon as possible, but no
later than 2 hours after
becoming aware of the
discharge; and notification
can be provided without
substantially impeding
cleanup or emergency
measures
Sacramento River
A structure that
requires cleanup
• WWC Supervisor- Cody Wilbanks
Office 916-746-1889 Cell 916-472-1488
• WWC Supervisor- Shane Rodgers
Office 916-746-1894 Cell 916-223-7711
• WWC Supervisor – Kevin Ryan
Office 916-746-1895 Cell 916-223-7537
• WWC Superintendent – Dan Pruden
Office 916-746-1891 Cell 916-580-5600
The individuals above are responsible for
notifying
• OES 1-800-852-7550; Obtain a control
number for spill report form
Water Quality Sampling- Frank Dittrich
916-746-1882 - During normal business
hours only; after hours, call
▪ Cal Test 707-258-4000
▪ California Lab Services 1-800-638-
7301
▪ Excel Chem 916-938-0519
• Additional Numbers for Reference
▪ Placer County Environmental
Health
1-530-745-2300 Main Line
1-530-745-2306 After-Hours
Supervisor
• California Department of Fish and
Wildlife
916-445-0045 Option #2
• Sacramento River Water Treatment
Plant
916-808-4961
916-264-5011
• City of Roseville-Risk Management
916-774-5420 or 916-774-5202
o After hours, Contact Risk
Manager Virginia Bolmsn at
916-501-2073
o If there is no answer, first
responder can authorize
cleanup only from the
13 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
restoration companies listed
in the SERP
14 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Table 2 - Monitoring and Reporting
Spill
Category OES Notification Monitoring Draft Report Certified Report Category 1
Any volume
of sewer
discharging
to surface
water
• Within 2 hours of
the Enrollee's
knowledge of the
spill of 1,000
gallons or greater
discharging or
threatening to
discharge to
surface waters.
• Obtain a Control
number from OES
• Conduct spillspecific
monitoring.
• Conduct water
quality sampling
within 18 hours
of knowledge of
a spill 50,000
gallons or
greater to
surface waters
Due within 3
business
days of
knowledge or
self-discovery
of Category 1
spill.
• Due within 15 calendar days
of the spill end date. Upon
completion, the CIWQS will
issue final spill event ID
number.
• Submit Technical Report
within 45 calendar days after
the spill end date for spills
greater than 50,000 gallons
• Submit Amended Report
within 90 calendar days
after the spill end date
Category 2
Spills of
1,000
gallons or
greater that
do not
discharge to
waters of
the State
• Within 2 hours of
the Enrollee's
knowledge of the
spill of 1,000
gallons or greater
discharging or
threatening to
discharge to
surface waters.
• Obtain a Control
number from OES
• Conduct spillspecific
monitoring.
Due within 3
business
days of the
Enrollee's
knowledge of
the spill
• Due within 15 calendar days
of the spill end date. Upon
completion, the CIWQS will
issue final spill event ID
number.
• Submit Amended reports
within 90 calendar days of
the Certified Report due
date
Category 3
Spills of 50
gallons to
less than
1,000
gallons that
don't
discharge to
surface
waters
N/A
• Conduct spillspecific
monitoring. N/A
• Due 30 calendar days after
the end of the month in
which the spills occurred.
After LRO certifies the spill,
CIWQS will issue a spill
identification number for
each spill.
• Submit Amended reports
within 90 calendar days of
Certified Report due date
Category 4
Spills less
than 50
gallons that
don't
discharge to
surface
waters
N/A
• Conduct spillspecific
monitoring. N/A
• Within 30 calendar days
after the end of the month in
which the spills occurred,
certify monthly the volume
spilled and the total number
of spills
• Upload and certify a digital
report of all Category 4 spills
in CIWQS by 1 FEB after the
end of the calendar year of
which the spills occur.
15 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
XII. Documentation and Data Tracking
All spills are tracked with a service request module in the City of Roseville's CMMS.
Completed service requests, work order requests and any overtime tags are turned into Superintendent/Supervisor for QA/QC. These are all resolved in the CMMS.
Service requests for after-hours call will be generated the following business day.
Ensure all appropriate documentation has been completed.
A. Follow-up work orders are generated to CCTV inspect the point of failure within the sewer system. The System Failure Analysis Form includes post-spill assessments of response activities and recommendations for repair, replacement, or preventative maintenance schedule adjustments. The Superintendent or Supervisor will review the results and recommendations from the CCTV crew and implement the changes into the appropriate corrective or preventative maintenance schedules.
B. The first responder turns in the spill Field Report Form documenting all actions taken during the overflow to the Data Submitter. The Data Submitter entering the report in CIWQS writes an after-action narrative based on the data provided in the Field Spill Report Form and all information provided by the first responder. This document contains the pertinent details of the overflow, verifies all spill response activities, verifies the accuracy of the start and stop times, and all actions taken by the first responder. At least five pictures are required for every spill response, which establishes the spill appearance point, final destination, containment procedures, and cleanup response. In addition, overall effectiveness of the response activities are discussed, and any areas for improvement are identified. Before certifying the report in CIWQS, the LRO reviews the information and verifies the spill response and estimations are accurate and justified.
C. Private Commercial Spills
1. City crews will respond and contain or clear blockages, depending on the type of business and cooperation of the management staff at the business. If the business refuses to stop using water to alleviate the potential for a continued overflow, first responders can call Placer County Health Department to assist with the response from the business. The City will document all time, equipment, pictures, comments, and response activities on the Field Spill Report Form, which will be stored electronically.
D. Private Residential Spills
1. City crews will respond and contain if necessary until the resident has stopped all water use causing the spill. City crews will verify that the problem is on the private side by inspecting the city infrastructure. If no city cleanout is located, and If the resident has a private cleanout that meets 16 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
the criteria Appendix D. (5) of the SERP, the City will clear the blockage and document activities on the field spill report. If no spill occurs, the Responder will document all findings on the issued service request.
XIII. Staff and Contractor Training
A. WWC Employees train annually on the importance of the SERP. Supervisors utilize a Powerpoint Presentation and the written SERP as an interactive training resource in a classroom setting. This setting allows employees to clarify any elements within the procedure and enables management staff to gather feedback from field crews, assess the effectiveness of the current emergency response plan, and update the procedures as necessary. A written competency test follows the annual training.
B. WWC employees constructed a spill simulator to test employees' skills in estimating spill volumes. Training on spill estimation occurs annually for City wastewater crews. After completing the SERP training, Supervisors use the simulator to evaluate the employees' volume estimation skills. Supervisors can create spills from either a manhole, a cleanout, or both. The water is metered in gallons per minute, creating an accurate simulation within the confines of the WWTP.
C. The CWEA Technical Certification Program provides certification in various wastewater disciplines to promote the knowledge and skills of wastewater professionals. The City of Roseville requires employees to hold Collection System Operator certification to promote within the ranks.
D. The City of Roseville is a Regional Treatment Facility, and as such, Regional Partner meetings are held quarterly with the neighboring agencies having tributary flow through the City's collection system. A mutual aid agreement has been written between the three partners, agreeing to assist each other with equipment and manpower, depending on the extent each agency has been affected by a regional catastrophe. Partner meetings include discussions of mutual aid agreements, new and ongoing projects, and brainstorming new ideas or technologies that could benefit the agencies.
E. The City of Roseville is a full-service city, owning and operating all municipal utilities except gas. Wastewater and Streets Division management staff consistently communicate and have scheduled quarterly meetings to discuss overlay projects, trench paving, and storm drain maintenance concerns.
F. Contractors are provided with the City's wastewater collection system policies and procedures. Per the contract, they must train all their employees on the City's wastewater collection system policies and procedures before performing work on the City's wastewater collection and conveyance system. 17 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Appendix A- Spill Start Time Policy
The Service worker shall use the time a call is received from Administrative Tech or the answering service as a base for when the spill started. When talking with the resident or business, instruct them to stop using all water.
A. Upon arrival, note if the spill appearance point is actively spilling. If not spilling, but there is evidence a spill occurred requiring a cleanup effort, notify additional crewmembers for additional equipment to clean up the spill.
B. If spilling, initiate the SERP to ensure the spill is contained and the cause is corrected.
C. Interview the resident or the individual reporting the spill to determine the following:
1. Did you notice water coming from the cleanout at the property line or manhole in the street? If so, what was the approximate time?
2. Were your drains running slowly at any time before you called? If so, what was the approximate time?
3. Do you remember the last time you didn't see a spill occurring?
4. If neighbors were outside, close to the area of the SPILL, did they notice water spilling? If so, what was the approximate time?
5. Be prepared to summarize how you determined the start time, describing the steps you took while making your decision.
D. If the above questions do not produce an accurate account for the SPILL start time, use the time the call was received by either the office personnel or the after-hours answering service, and subtract 15 minutes. Record this time as the actual start time on the Spill Field Report Form. However, If the spill evidence travels farther than the logic of the 15 minutes, the field crew/responders shall try to recreate the spill the following day using clean water.
E. Any of the following will determine the stop time of the spill
1. The arrival time of the service worker if the spill had stopped before their arrival.
2. The clearing of the blockage and the spill stops overflowing.
3. Interview the resident or witnesses observing the spill, provided the time concurs with the evidence.
F. Provide a detailed description of the spill event, including exact times of arrival, spill start and stop time, containment procedures, and names of collection personnel assisting you in the overflow. Detail your process for determining the start and stop time of the spill. After completing the necessary paperwork, provide the photos and field report to the Data Submitter.
18 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
G. In the event of a SPILL from a sewer lift station, the start time will be determined using information gathered from the SCADA system.
Appendix B- Flooded Structure Procedures
In the event a failure in the City's wastewater collection system causes a sewer spill in a resident's home or business instruct them to:
1. Keep people and pets away from the affected area(s), and do not track contamination throughout non-affected areas.
2. Don't attempt to clean up the overflow. Instead, instruct them the City has restoration companies available and will respond.
3. Turn off all central heat and air-conditioning systems and prevent flow from reaching any floor vents with towels or blankets.
4. Leave these items in the affected areas for restoration companies to clean up.
Contact Risk Management at 774-5420 or 774-5202 during regular business hours. After hours, if there is no answer, contact Virginia Bolmsn, Risk Manager, at 916-501-2073.
They will assess and notify restoration companies on contract with the City to respond.
If the resident refuses the offered cleanup services, ask them to sign the declination letter refusing the service.
If the resident chooses to file a claim for damages, inform them that they must fill out a Government Claim Form.
A claim form can be obtained in the following ways:
• In person at the Roseville Civic Center, City Clerks Department and Risk Management Division, 311 Vernon St., Roseville, CA.
• By mail, by contacting the Risk Management Division at (916) 774-5202 or by e-mailing the request to [email protected] • Electronically by following this link:
http://www.roseville.ca.us/hr/risk_management/how_to_file_a_claim.asp Completed forms must be returned by mail or in-person to the City Clerk's office at the Roseville Civic Center
19 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Appendix C- Receiving Water Quality Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis This procedure describes the Water Quality Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis process to be used if a sanitary sewer overflow exceeds 50,000 gallons. The water quality sampling results will enable the division to prioritize areas of concern regarding water quality impacts
A. Receiving Water Monitoring
Through visual observation, spill volume-estimating, and field calculation techniques, the Enrollee shall gather and document the following information for spills discharging into receiving waters:
1. Estimated spill travel time to the receiving water
2. For spills entering a drainage system, estimated spill travel time from the point of entry to the point of discharge into receiving water
3. Spill travel time can be estimated in the following ways:
i. NCPI Gravity Flow Hydraulics Calculator
ii. Travel time based on design slope of 2 fps
iii. Timed water release in the cleaned pipe over the distance traveled
4. Estimated spill volume entering the receiving water
5. Photographs of the following:
i. Waterbody bank erosion
ii. Floating matter
iii. Water surface sheen (potentially from oil and grease) iv. Discoloration of receiving water
v. Impact on the receiving water
B. Water Quality Sampling and Analysis
Surface water samples will be collected using a grab sample technique. Employees must wear new sterile powder-free surgical gloves when collecting all samples.
1. Trigger for Sampling -Water quality sampling is required within 18 hours of initial SPILL notification for Category 1 Spills in which 50,000 gallons or greater are spilled into surface waters.
2. Safety and Access- Water quality sampling should only be performed if it is safe to do so and access is not restricted or unsafe. Unsafe conditions include traffic, heavy rains, slippery or steep creek banks, visibility issues, highflowing creeks, and limited access due to soil conditions or poor terrain. If access restrictions or unsafe conditions prevent compliance with these monitoring requirements, the Enrollee shall provide documentation of the access restriction or safety hazards in the required report. 20 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
3. Where to Sample- The Enrollee must use the best professional judgment to determine the upstream and downstream distances based on receiving water flow, accessibility to waterbody banks and size of visible plume. Collect one sample each day for the duration of the spill. In addition, the Enrollee shall collect receiving water samples from the following locations. i. A point in the drainage conveyance system before the flow discharges into the receiving water. Label this sample DCS-001
ii. Point of Discharge into the receiving water where sewage initially enters the receiving water. Label this sample RSW-001
iii. Upstream Sample – A point in the receiving water, upstream of the point of sewage discharge. Label this sample RSW-001U
iv. Downstream Sample – A point in the receiving water, downstream of the point of discharge where the spill is fully mixed with the receiving water. Label this sample RSW-001D
Determine the water velocity present in the creek or body of water during the SPILL.
Dropping debris in the creek and timing how long the debris takes to travel a known distance is a good indicator of the water velocity present. Use this information to determine the next downstream sampling point. Then, multiply the water velocity by the spill duration to determine the furthest point downstream to the sample.
C. Sampling Procedure
1. Put on the required PPE (safety glasses and latex gloves)
2. Collect Drainage Conveyance System Sample – Sample at a point in the drainage conveyance system before the flow discharges into receiving waters a. Label this sample DCS-001 and take a picture of the location you are sampling.
b. Avoid any debris or scum layer from the drainage system. c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap, and secure the sample to avoid contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the sample and record the results
3. Collect Upstream Sample - Move approximately 100 feet upstream of the source.
a. Label the bottle RSW-001U and take a picture of your sampling location.
b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap, and secure the sample to avoid contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the upstream sample location and record the results.
21 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
4. Collect Point of Discharge Sample- Move approximately 10 feet downstream of the source location.
a. Label the bottle RSW-001 and take a picture of your sampling location. b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap, and secure the sample to prevent contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the source sample location and record the results.
5. Collect Downstream Sample – Move approximately 100 feet downstream of the source.
a. Label this sample RSW-001D and take a picture of the location you are sampling.
b. Sample away from the bank and avoid any debris or scum layer from the surface.
c. Fill the bottle against the direction of flow, replace the cap, and secure the sample to prevent contamination.
d. Use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the downstream sample 1 and record the results
D. Required Water Quality Analyses – All samples will be immediately transported to the nearest certified water quality laboratory for analysis. The sample analysis, at a minimum, will include the following:
1. Ammonia
2. pH
3. Electrical Conductivity
4. Bacterial indicators, such as total and fecal coliform, enterococcus, and e-coli, per the regional Basin Plan or as directed by SWRCB
5. Temperature
The City has contracts with the following Certified Labs for Spill Response:
Cal Test 707-258-4000
California Laboratory Services 1-800-638-7301
ExcelChem. 916-938-0519
E. Equipment and Supplies – The following items and PPE are required for sampling:
1. Cooler with Blue Ice
2. Sterile sampling bottles
3. Powder-free latex gloves
4. Safety glasses
5. Marking pen
6. Field log forms
22 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Appendix D- Sewer Call For Service
When dispatched to a home experiencing a sewer problem, the service worker shall follow the procedures below to provide the resident with the best possible customer service and quickly correct the problem causing the SPILL.
Residential
1. Upon arrival and before performing any work, contact the homeowner or resident.
Explain the process you will use to determine the problem. During the initial phone call, the responder should have requested the resident to stop all water use, so if water is still spilling from cleanout, check the nearest upstream manhole on the mainline for a blockage.
2. If no cleanout is visible, look in CMMS for a cleanout location, an "S" marked on the curb, or other information that might indicate a cleanout.
3. If a city cleanout is found, clear the lateral blockage using the eel and a root-cutting head, do not use hand tape. CCTV to ensure the line is clear and all blockages have been removed. Record all time and pertinent information you have found on a work order, service request, or an overtime tag for after-hours calls.
4. If no cleanout is found, locate the closest downstream manhole, call for Hydro-Vac assistance, and run the main.
5. If the residence does not have a city cleanout, and the above procedures did not alleviate the blockage, we will use our equipment to run a "Viable" cleanout that belongs to the resident. This "viable" cleanout should be a factory-fitting 4" cleanout, either a wye or combo wye, so we can easily get our equipment into and service the line. Once the service has been cleared, CCTV through this cleanout and determine the blockage location.
6. If CCTV inspection identifies the problem below the location where a city cleanout should be located, the Supervisor will schedule a cleanout installation during regular business hours.
7. If the problem causing the blockage is located within the customer's service line, notify them that the problem is in their portion of the lateral, the location, and the severity of the problem. Advise the resident of the City's policy for cleanout installation, and let them know this is a one-time service, and the City will not clear future blockages from the homeowner's cleanout. Document all information in the CMMS under activity code- SPHCC (Sewer Plug Homeowner City Cleared) on a service request.
Private Commercial
When dispatched to a commercial property experiencing a spill, start containment immediately.
Notify the manager to stop using water and to call a plumber. Ensure the manager understands that City staff will contain the spill until their plumber responds, and they will be billed for staff and equipment. If, after 60 minutes, the plumber doesn't show, notify Placer County Health Department.
Notify your supervisor that the health department has been called and discuss possibly clearing the main or service.
23 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Appendix E- Sewer Lift Station Failure Response
This procedure aims to define strategies necessary to prevent a spill from a lift station in the event of a power or component failure within a lift station. The City of Roseville operates and maintains 17 neighborhood lift stations. Each station is equipped with SCADA, monitored 24 hours per day by wastewater treatment plant personnel. In addition, each station has the maximum allowable downtime posted inside the door of each control panel. This identifies the retention time and the storage capacity in the collection system assets before a spill occurs. The potential spill point manhole is also identified to assist on-call personnel in determining the remaining downtime. In the event of a lift station failure, the plant operator will notify the answering service that an alarm has been activated at a station, and the on-call service worker will respond and assess the alarm.
If no power is present in the panel, the service worker will:
1. Contact Roseville Electric at 774-5620 to verify they know about the outage.
2. Determine the level and remaining downtime left in the station.
3. If downtime exceeds the maximum allowable retention, the on-call service worker will call collection system personnel off the standby list to get a HydroVac en route. The Hydro-Vac will decant water at an identified point in the system, which won't affect the left station levels. If it appears that one Hydro-Vac won't keep up with flows, the on-call service worker will call in additional personnel with Hydro-Vac to maintain levels in the station.
4. If an outage appears to be a lengthy process, contact the supervisor. A portable generator may be needed. In this event, an electrician will be required.
5. Once flows are maintained, contact Supervisor to make them aware of the situation.
If power is present in the station, but pumps are not operating, the service worker will:
1. Attempt to run the pumps in "hand" mode to eliminate the possibility of a spill
2. If the pump operates in "hand," continue operating and monitor the levels in the wet well. Contact the On Call Electrician at 916-532-0612 and continue to monitor.
3. If the station does not operate in hand mode, call additional personnel in with Hydro-Vac to monitor wet well levels. Vacuum and decant accordingly until the problem is rectified.
4. If it appears that one Hydro-Vac won't keep up with the flow into the wet well, mobilize a second Hydro-Vac to maintain the levels in the station.
5. Stand by and assist the on-call electrician until the station is operational. 24 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Appendix F- Spill Response Chart
25 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Appendix G- Field Spill Report
This Page was Left Intentionally Blank
26 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Spill Field Report Form
First Responder:_________________________________ Date:_______________ Address of Call:_________________________________ Weather Conditions: __________________ Spill Category (Place an X)
Category 1 Any volume that discharges to surface water, or a dry surface water body with no flow, or storm drain system and is not fully captured- Use supplemental sheet Category 2 A spill of 1,000 gallons or greater that does not discharge to a surface water – Use supplemental sheet
Category 3 A spill of 50 gallons and less than 1,000 gallons that does not discharge to a surface water Category 4 A spill of less than 50 gallons that does not discharge to a surface water Private If Private Commercial, get a signed Miscellaneous Billing Charge Form from Manager Resident Asked to Stop All Water Use? [ ] Yes [ ] No Spilling Upon Arrival? [ ] Yes [ ] No Did the spill discharge to a storm drain conveyance system flowing to surface water [ ] Yes [ ] No Was all wastewater fully captured and removed from the storm drain conveyance system [ ] Yes [ ] No Estimate volume that reached a storm drain conveyance system flowing to surface water ___________Gals.
Estimate volume recovered from storm drain conveyance system flowing to surface water ___________Gals.
Estimate spill volume discharged directly to surface water (Category 1) ___________Gals.
Estimate spill volume recovered from surface water (Category 1) ___________Gals.
Estimate spill volume discharged to land ___________Gals.
Estimate spill volume recovered from discharge to land ___________Gals.
Spill Rate (GPM) ________ Total Spill Volume _________ Gals. Total Volume Recovered _________ Gals.
The location where the captured spill and washdown water was disposed of: ____________________________ Spill Specific Times
Estimated Spill Start Time: [ ]am [ ]pm Did Caller Notice Active Spill? [ ] Y [ ] N [ ]am[ ] pm Time Call Received: [ ]am [ ]pm Were Drains Running Slowly? [ ] Y [ ] N [ ]am[ ] pm Arrival Time [ ]am [ ]pm Neighbors Notice Active Spill? [ ] Y [ ] N [ ]am[ ] pm Spill End Time [ ]am [ ]pm
27 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Start and stop time determination ( Refer to Appendix A in SERP):
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Number of Spill Appearance Points: ________
If multiple appearance points are in a single event, photograph the point closest to the spill origin.
Spill Appearance Point:
Failure Location: (select all that apply)
SSO Cause: (select all that apply)
Final Spill Destination:
Building or Structure Force Main Gravity Main Manhole Cleanout Other: List Asset ID #'s
Debris-Rags Root Intrusion Grease
Debris-Construction Lift Station Failure-Mechanical Non-Dispersables Pipe/Structural Failure Lift Station Failure- Electrical Vandalism Natural Disaster Rainfall Exceeded Capacity-I&I WWC Staff Caused Other-(please list)
Building or Structure Storm Drain Paved Surface Surface Water Landscape Street Curb/Gutter Unpaved Surface Other:
Lower Lateral Lift Station Gravity Main Force Main
Upper Lateral- Private Other: List Asset ID#’s
28 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Containment Procedures:
Spill Response Activities:
Mitigated Effects of Spill Contained All or a Portion of Spill Restored Flow CCTV Inspected for Cause Hydro Affected Storm Drains Document Spill Spread Appropriate Photos Taken Properly Dispose of Washdown and Captured Wastewater Rubber May w/Sandbags Rubber Berm Dry Sweep
Air Plug Hydro-Vac Dirt Berm
By Pass Pumping Naturally Contained (dirt/debris, misaligned gutter-pan) 29 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Description of Spill Response Activities and Actions Taken:
__________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________ Spill Spread
Document the spill spread and magnitude by providing a sketch starting at the appearance point and ending at either the containment point or the endpoint of the spill. In addition, provide area measurements of the spill and depths of ponded water to get an average depth to estimate the volume.
Finally, select the surface type (s) where the spill occurred and label the sketch accordingly. [ ] Landscape [ ] Asphalt [ ] Concrete [ ] Dirt [ ] Other ___________________________ 30 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Spill Volume Estimation Method (select that apply)
Describe your process for volume estimation:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Estimated Flow EDU Chart:
City Design Standard 9-2:
Measured Volume Flow Estimation Chart Flow Rate and Duration Estimated Flow EDU City Design Standard 9-2 NCPI Chart
Hydraulic Model SCADA and Pump Info Other:
Time Period
Estimated City Flow Rate Per EDU (190 gpd) Spill
A B C D E F
Gallons
Per Period
Hours Per
Period
A÷B =
Gals. Per Hour
C÷60 =
Gals. Per Min.
Minutes Spill
Was Active
D x E= Gallons
Spilled Per Period
6 am-Noon 75 6 12.5 .21
Noon – 6 pm 55 6 9.16 .15
6 pm - Midnight 50 6 8.33 .14
Midnight -6am 10 6 1.67 .03
Total Estimated Spill Volume
Land Use Designation Units Flow Factor (GPD/Unit) 1,3
Commercial GPD per acre 850
Heavy Industrial GPD per acre 850
Light Industrial GPD per acre 850
Mixed Use GPD per acre 2,300
Public/Quasi-Public GPD per acre 660
Schools GPD per acre 170
Residential 1 DU GPD per acre 190
Residential 2 DU GPD per acre 190
Residential 3 DU GPD per acre 190
Residential Multiple DU2
GPD per acre or GPD
per DU
2040 or
130
Parks > 10 Acres GPD per acre 10
31 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
Contacts and Reporting:
LRO or their designee to contact OES and obtain a Control Number OES 1-800-852-7550 Time Called ____________ AM PM Control Number ________________ Additional numbers for Reference
Ca Fish and Wildlife 916-445-0045 (option 2) Time Called _________AM PM Placer County Environmental Health 916-745-2300 Time Called _________AM PM EVENT ID #____________
CERT ID # ____________
Contact Time Name
Supervisor- Category 1 or 2 [ ] AM [ ] PM
Request Additional Support * [ ] AM [ ] PM
[ ] AM [ ] PM
[ ] AM [ ] PM
[ ] AM [ ] PM
[ ] AM [ ] PM
Lab Personnel [ ] AM [ ] PM
Risk Management [ ] AM [ ] PM
32 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
*If additional lines are needed, use the notes sheet
Notes:
33 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
**Supplemental Sheet- Category 1 or 2 Spill Only**
If a spill is a Category 1 or 2, at a minimum, OES requires the information below to obtain a Control Number. The Enrollee shall notify OES within 2 hours of knowledge of the spill. Notify the Supervisor as soon as the information is gathered, then continue to complete the remaining Spill Field Report Form.
Spill Category (Place X)
Date Notified:______________________ Time Notified:_______________ Spill Location : _________________________ Cross Street: ______________________ Estimated Spill Volume (Gallons) __________ Estimated Spill Rate From System (GPM)________ Estimated Discharge Rate to : Waters of the State __________(GPM) Drainage Conveyance System__________(GPM)
Brief Spill Incident Narrative:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________________________ Spill Cause
Amount of Spill Contained (Gals.)_______ Name of Affected Surface Waters________________________ Description of impact to Surface Waters:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Required Photographs: (check box )
Category 1 Any volume that discharges to surface water, a dry surface water body with no flow, or a storm drain system and is not fully captured
Category 2 A spill of 1,000 gallons or greater that does not discharge to a surface water Debris-Rags Root Intrusion Grease
Debris-Construction Lift Station Failure-Mechanical Non-Dispersables Pipe/Structural Failure Lift Station Failure- Electrical Vandalism Natural Disaster Rainfall Exceeded Capacity-I&I WWC Staff Caused Other-(please list)
34 SPILL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN | Updated 12 APR 23
[ ] Waterbody bank erosion [ ] Water Sheen (potential from grease or oil) [ ] Floating matter [ ] Discoloration of water [ ] Impact to receiving water Appendix 9-1
City Performance Metrics and Key Performance Indicators
Appendix 9-2
Left Empty for Future Appendices
Appendix 9-3
City Spill Performance Report
Appendix 9-3
Figure 1 – City Spill Dashboard during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024) Observation: The City’s rolling average spill rate per year during the SSMP Audit period decreased from 0.49 spills/100 miles of sewer per year to 0.04 spills/100 miles of sewer per year.
Figure 2 - City Spill Dashboard (volume of spills by year during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024) Observations: The City’s volume of spills per capita (population) decreased during the SSMP Audit period from 0.139 gallons per capita to 0.002 gallons per capita). The City’s average recovery (%) for Category 1 spills averaged 38% and 88% for Category 3 spills during the SSMP Audit period.
Figure 3 - City Spill Net Volume compared to agencies by year during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024) Observations: The City’s net spill volume decreased during the SSMP Audit period from 12,960 gallons in 2022 to 28 gallons. The City’s average recovery (%) for Category 1 spills averaged 38% and 88% for Category 3 spills during the SSMP Audit period.
Figure 4 - City Spill Volumes Recovered compared to agencies by year during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024) Observations: The City’s spill % of spill volume recovered for Category 1 spills (38%) and for Category 3 spills (88%) was higher than most other agencies within the region during the SSMP Audit period.
Figure 5 - City Spill Causes (by # of spill) during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024) Observation: The City’s spill main causes (by number of spills) were root intrusion and grease during the SSMP Audit period.
Figure 6 - City Spill Causes (by volume of spill) during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024) Observation: The City’s spill main cause (by volume of spills) was rainfall (wet weather) during the SSMP Audit period.
Figure 7 – City Spill Counts of Where Failures Occurred during SSMP Audit Period (May 2021-May 2024)
Figure 3 - Spill Causes (by Where Failure Occurred, May 2021-May 2024) Observation: The City’s main asset location were failures occurred was from lower sewer laterals during the SSMP Audit period.
Figure 8 – City Spill Benchmarks during SSMP Audit period (May 2021-May 2024) Observations: The City averaged approximately 24 minutes between the agency spill notification time and operator arrival times (removing erroneous data logged for spill ID #885184 occurring on 12/31/2022). The City failed to notify Cal-OES within two hours (32 minutes late) for one spill occurring on 12/31/2022 (spill ID #885184. Erroneous data was also observed for two spills (ID #884376 and #881796). The City was fully compliant with providing draft and certified reports within the required timeframes for all Category 1 spills during the SSMP Audit.
Appendix 10-1
SSPM Internal Audit Fiscal Year 2010/2011
Appendix 10-2
SSPM Audit Fiscal Year 2012/2013
December 2013 Page 1
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit for FY 11/12 – FY 12/13
Date: December 2013
Prepared by: Eric Nielsen, P.E., Water Works Engineers
Michael Fisher, P.E., Water Works Engineers
Tyler Mills, E.I.T., Water Works Engineers
Assisted by: Chris Bracco, City Wastewater Superintendent Dan Pruden, City Wastewater Supervisor
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information ....................................................................................... 4
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit ....................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Review of FY11/12 and FY12/13 .............................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 3 SSO Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Historical SSO Data ................................................................................................................................... 6
3.2 SSO Reduction Performance Goals ........................................................................................................... 8 SECTION 4 Audit Procedure ..............................................................................................................................11
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance ..................................................................................................................11
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness ................................................................................................................11 SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements .................................................................................................................12
5.1 Goals .......................................................................................................................................................12
5.2 Organization ...........................................................................................................................................12
5.3 Legal Authority .......................................................................................................................................13
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program ...................................................................................................15
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions .......................................................................................................19
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan ......................................................................................................20
5.7 FOG Control Program .............................................................................................................................23
5.8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan ...................................................................................27
5.9 Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications .......................................................................29
5.10 SSMP Program Audits .............................................................................................................................33
5.11 Communication Program .......................................................................................................................34 SECTION 6 Audit Summary ...............................................................................................................................37 SECTION 7 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................42
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data ..............................................................................................................43
7.2 Appendix – Performance Indicators .......................................................................................................44
7.3 Appendix – Sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form ..............................................................45 December 2013 Page 2
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of System Indicators ....................................................................................................................4 Table 2. Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit ............................................................................5 Table 3. CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data ...............................................................................................................6 Table 4. Leading Causes of SSOs in FY11/12 and FY12/13 ........................................................................................8 Table 5. SSO Reduction Goals ....................................................................................................................................8 Table 6. Planned R&R and CIP Projects Planned Before Next SSMP Audit ............................................................ 10 Table 7. Goals for SSO Response Time ................................................................................................................... 10 Table 8. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals ................................................................................................. 12 Table 9. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization ..................................................................................... 12 Table 10. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority ............................................................................. 13 Table 11. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program .............................................................................. 15 Table 12. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b) .......................................................................... 16 Table 13. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(c) .......................................................................... 18 Table 14. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions .............................................. 19 Table 15. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP .............................................................................................. 20 Table 16. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program .................................................................. 23 Table 17. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP ........................................................................................... 27 Table 18. Schedule of CIPs to Address Capacity Deficiencies ................................................................................. 28 Table 19. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM ............................................................................................ 29 Table 20. Summary of Current Preventative Maintenance Performance Metrics ................................................. 31 Table 21. Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends........................................................................ 32 Table 22. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits .................................................................... 33 Table 23. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program ............................................................ 34 Table 24. Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies........................................................................................... 37 Table 25. Summary of Audit Recommendations .................................................................................................... 37 List of Figures
Figure 1: Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year ..................................................................................................................7 Figure 2: Average Gallons per SSO .............................................................................................................................7 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 3
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives
This report summarizes the results of the required Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) internal audit process for the FY 11/12 and FY 12/13 evaluation period. The purpose of the SSMP is to provide a written framework for sanitary sewer collection system management, operation, and maintenance programs executed by the City of Roseville (City) with the ultimate goal of minimizing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and achieving compliance with California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Order No. 2006‐0003-DWQ, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS WDR). The SSMP audit is based on a review of performance measures established to evaluate the City’s success in achieving compliance with various requirements of the SSS WDRs and implementing programs as stated in the SSMP. The SSMP audit process allows the SSMP document to evolve over time through the identification of potential enhancements in the management, operation and maintenance of the sanitary sewer collection system and the implementation of changes to the SSMP to address any deficiencies.
The City of Roseville is committed to complete biennial audits of the SSMP consistent with the procedure outlined in Appendix J-1 of the SSMP. To ensure that the audits are performed objectively, the City assigns this task to individuals that are removed from the daily activities of the Wastewater Collections (WWC) division. These individuals, along with the assistance from the Wastewater Collection Superintendent and/or Supervisor, must have a working knowledge of the collection system and the ability to gather the appropriate data to perform the audit. The following tasks, at a minimum shall be performed with each audit:
1. Compare the records from the computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) of record, to the data reported to the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS). Review performance metrics tracked by the WWC division versus previous years to identify trends. (see Section 3.1)
2. Review condition assessment data and rehabilitation philosophy/strategies with the Wastewater Superintendent and/or Supervisor and the Rehabilitation Manager. (See Section 5.4)
3. Review records from previous internal audits, to ensure noted deficiencies have been addressed. (this Section)
4. Review preventative maintenance schedules, responses to SSOs, and mitigation of SSO causes. (see Section 3.1)
5. Review SSO Emergency Response Plan (SSOERP) and identify improvements if needed. (see Section 5.6)
6. Identify accomplishments in improving the collection system.
7. Record all findings during the audit process and keep the audit on file. (see Section 5.10) City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 4
SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information
The City of Roseville is located in Placer County and situated approximately 16 miles north of Sacramento. The City covers approximately 42 square miles near the base of foothills of the Sierra Mountains. The elevations in Roseville range from approximately 250 feet to 100 feet above sea level with an average slope across the City of
0.5% from east to west. Several streams flow through the City (i.e., Dry Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek, Kaseburg Creek, Linda Creek, Cirby Creek, Secret Ravine, and Miners Ravine).
The City is responsible for operation and maintenance of a growing sewer system. The current population is approximately 122,000. The population of the City of Roseville grew 48.6% between 2000 and 2010, which is more than five times the national average according the U.S. Census Bureau. The City’s sewer collection system has grown in step with the rapid population growth. The City currently provides service to over 41,000 connections to the system. Table 1 provides additional information about the City collection system and WWC division over the last two SSMP audit periods.
Table 1. Overview of System Indicators
Audit FY 09/10 – 10/11 FY 11/12 – 12/13
Miles of Mainline 522 485.52*
Miles of laterals (lower) 208 235.3
Pump stations 13 14
Population served 118,788 122,060
WWC Staff 24 25
Annual Budget (FY1 – FY2) $3,200,000 / $3,200,00 $3,400,000 / $3,800,00 Category 1 SSOs 2 2
Category 2 SSOs 19 75
* Previously recycled water pipelines were included in “Miles of Mainline”.
The City treats the wastewater conveyed through its collection system at two regional wastewater treatment plants owned and operated by the City (i.e., the Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTPs). Two satellite agencies (i.e., South Placer Municipal Utility District and Placer County) discharge wastewater into the City’s collection system. A small portion of the City’s collection system discharges into the Sacramento Area Sewer District system and is treated at the Sacramento Regional WWTP.
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit
An internal audit of the City SSMP was conducted and concluded on March 14, 2012 which reviewed the activities and performance related to the SSMP for the fiscal year 2010/2011 (FY10/11). Table 2 summarizes the identified deficiencies and the associated action items outlined in the previous SSMP audit. The table also shows the date when the identified deficiencies have been resolved. All identified deficiencies in the previous audit were addressed quickly. The three items that have a “Yes” in the “Resolved” column were found to have been updated when reviewed as part of this audit, but no revision date was available. The remainder of the deficiencies were updated in the SSMP and referenced documents and marked with a revision/updated date.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 5
Table 2. Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit Element Action Item Resolved
1 – Goals Review and revise goals. Goal 1 is obsolete since the City’s SSMP development plan and implementation schedule is complete. 16 APR 2012 2 – Organization
LRO needs to be updated on City’s website. 3 MAR 2012
Section 2.2 outlining SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart needs to be updated, then placed on City’s website. 16 APR 2012
Management contact information needs to be updated on City’s website and general position descriptions need updating. Yes
Contact information for maintenance personnel and after-hour response needs to be updated on City’s website. 22 FEB 2012
Chain of Communication reporting section needs to be updated on City’s website, along with RWQCB contacts updated.
9 MAY 2012
4 – O&M
Business process needs to be developed to ensure mapping updates are completed. 28 MAR 2012
Update needed to App D-6 (Equipment Inventory) and D-7 (Critical Parts) Yes 6 – OERP
Updates needed to Appendix F (SSOERP Documents). Changes to SSOERP flowchart are needed for notifications. Information needs to be updated on City’s website.
20 MAR 2012
8 – MMM
Update Element 9.4 to add lateral lining and maintenance programs. Remove the measure for chemical root control as the City does not use chemicals to control root growth.
16 APR 2012
11 - Communication SSMP and supporting documents need to be updated on the City’s website.
Revisions and log kept internally, but neglected to update via the website. Yes
2.2 Review of FY11/12 and FY12/13
Over the past two fiscal years it has been a priority of the City to eliminate mainline SSOs, which pose the largest risk for Category 1 SSOs due to the larger volumetric flowrate of wastewater in mainlines versus laterals. Having only six mainline SSOs (two Category 1 and four Category 2) over the two year period for an average of 0.62 SSOs/100 miles of pipeline per year is evidence of that priority. Of the six, two SSOs were caused by an unusually large storm that was reported as greater than the design capacity of a 10 year 24 hours storm. Two SSOs were caused by the accumulation of Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG), and the last two were caused by overgrown roots.
Due to the large number of SSOs from laterals over the current audit period, plans were developed to address the issue of lateral SSOs. Records of the events listed the causes of the 71 lateral SSOs as; roots (49), debris (12), pipe failure (9), and vandalism (1). In FY11/12 the City rehabilitated 0.22 miles of laterals and 0.25 miles of laterals in FY12/13. Also, the Roseville WWC has developed and implemented an eeling program for lateral lines as a preventative maintenance activity targeted at reducing SSOs from laterals. This plan is explained below in Section
3.2 regarding SSO reduction goals.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 6
SECTION 3 SSO Trends
3.1 Historical SSO Data
There are a total of 77 spills that occurred in the fiscal years of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013. Information regarding the 77 SSOs is located in Appendix 7.1 of this internal audit and includes information such as; date, location, spill type, spill volume, spill volume recovered, and a short description.
One of the City-defined tasks of the internal audit is to compare the information submitted to the state CIWQS database against the information keep in the City records regarding SSO events. Table 3 organizes the data by source to show discrepancies, if any, between the data reported to CIWQS and the City’s records.
Table 3. CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data
SSO Historical Data
since last SSMP Internal Audit
CIWQS Data
FY 11/12 – 12/13
Internal Records
FY 11/12 – 12/13
The total number of potential SSO service calls received - 943 service calls The total number of SSOs reported 77 SSOs 77 SSOs
The reported total volume of SSOs 2053 gallons 2053 gallons The reported total volume of SSOs that reached waters of the state 405 gallons 405 gallons The percent volume of SSOs recovered 80% 80%
The average SSO response time 23 minutes 21 minutes
The average SSO duration time 18 minutes -
The WWC Superintendent verifies, on a quarterly basis, the data in CIWQS against the information gathered and maintained by the City on individual SSO Field Report Forms on a regular basis. The information presented in the column labeled “Internal Records” of Table 3 represents the summarized information reported in the various performance measures maintained by the City.
The City strives to maintain quality data regarding historical SSOs so that trends in the occurrences and potential causes of SSOs can be investigated. The following discussion investigates the City’s historical SSO data to identify potential SSO trends so that future efforts can be targeted to reduce SSOs.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 7
Figure 1: Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year
Figure 1 shows a decrease in the number of SSOs per year from FY06/07 to FY09/10 and an increase in the number of SSOs since that time. However, if we investigate the average spill volume for each SSO over the same time period, we see a downward trend (see Figure 2). Although the number of SSOs in FY11/12 and FY12/13 is similar to the number of SSOs seen in FY06/07, the average spill volume per SSO during FY11/12 and FY12/13 is less than half of what was recorded during FY06/07 and FY07/08.
Figure 2: Average Gallons per SSO
These trends indicate that the City has effectively targeted its efforts to limit large-volume SSOs through the preventative maintenance programs for mainline assets (e.g., hydroflushing, CCTV inspection) and the City SSO emergency response plan. However, these trends also show that the number of SSOs (specifically those from laterals) is on the rise over the period of this internal audit. 39 19
11 6
13 35
40 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
45 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 Category 1
Category 2
71.6 64.5
24.2 40.3
19.3 27.1 26.3
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 Gallons
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 8
The City’s SSO records were queried to identify the leading causes of SSOs. Table 4 shows the leading causes of SSOs in the City by 1) the number of SSOs, 2) the spill volume of SSOs, and 3) the average spill volume per SSO.
Table 4. Leading Causes of SSOs in FY11/12 and FY12/13
By Number By Volume By Average Volume per SSO
Cause Number Cause Gallons Cause Gallons
Roots 51 Roots 1235 Capacity 200
Debris 12 Capacity 400 FOG 39
Pipe Failure 9 Debris 222 Roots 24
FOG 2 Pipe Failure 114 Debris 19
Capacity 2 FOG 77 Pipe Failure 13
Vandalism 1 Vandalism 5 Vandalism 5
Table 4 shows that root growth in pipelines is the major cause of an occurrence of a SSO, and capacity-deficient pipelines are the major cause for SSOs with large spill volumes. The actions planned as a result of this SSMP audit will target the leading causes to most effectively reduce the number and spill volume of SSOs.
3.2 SSO Reduction Performance Goals
One of the goals of the City’s SSMP is “to minimize the frequency of SSOs”. The City has set specific goals to monitor its performance in regards to the frequency of SSOs. Table 5 compares the City SSO goals against the actual number of SSOs during the timeframe of the last SSMP internal audit, the timeframe of the current SSMP internal audit, and the table lists the SSO goals projected before the City’s next internal SSMP audit. It should be noted that the goals for the upcoming two fiscal years reflect the change in how SSOs will be categorized and reported to the state based on the recent SSS WDR Revised Monitoring and Reporting Program (Revised MRP) (WQ 2013-0058-EXEC). Additional recommendations on tasks the City should implement to comply with the Revised MRP are described in Section 5.9.
Table 5. SSO Reduction Goals
FY09/10 – 10/11 FY11/12 – 12/13 FY13/14 – 14/15
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal
Mainline SSOs 6
1 4 61 6 6
Lateral SSOs 382 17 382 71 70
Category 1 SSOs 0 2 0 2 0
Category 2 SSOs 283 19 283 75 6
Category 3 SSOs4
- - - - 70
Total SSOs 44 21 44 77 76
1 Based on a goal of 0.6 mainline SSOs per 100 miles of sewer main per year w/ 487 miles of mains. 2 Based on a goal of 8.0 lateral SSOs per 100 miles of service laterals per year w/ 235 miles of laterals. 3 Based on a goal of 2.0 Category 2 SSOs per 100 miles of sewer pipe per year w/ 722 miles of total pipe. 4 Category 3 was added as a new spill definition by State Order No. WQ 2013-0058-EXEC in Sept. 2013.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 9
The SSO performance goals for the period before the next internal SSMP audit are set consistent with the performance metrics set by the City (i.e., number SSOs per 100 miles of pipe per year) and the performance of municipal agencies in the state. The goal for the number of mainline SSOs is based on an aggressive performance measure of 0.6 SSOs per 100 miles of mainline per year. The performance of the City has been consistent against this goal based on the data in Table 5, and represents a satisfactory level of service. The goal for the number of lateral SSOs was exceeded during the period of this internal audit. This goal was adjusted to a total of 70 lateral SSOs for the next SSMP audit period. This represents a realistic goal for the City to strive for and represents a reduction in the number of lateral SSOs. This goal represents an average of approximately 15 SSOs per 100 miles of service lateral per year, which is significantly less (i.e., 42% less) than the statewide average of 26 SSOs per 100 miles of pipe for municipal agencies according to past SSO Facility Operational Reports provided by the State Board.
3.2.1 Planned Efforts to Reach Identified SSO Reduction Goals The following section describes specific changes to be implemented based on the identified SSO trends to meet the target reduction goals in Table 5. The discussion of planned efforts is broken down into a number of potential categories (i.e., cleaning, tools, maintenance schedules, BMPs, staffing, funding, and training). It is recommended that these categories for potential changes be revisited with each subsequent SSMP internal program audit to examine if they may apply to future conditions. Changes in each category may not be necessary in each audit, but addresses each category provides a holistic approach to SSO reduction.
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system cleaning No planned changes to current cleaning activities are anticipated to meet SSO reduction goals.
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system tools and/or technology The City has implemented a standard operating procedure to utilize trenchless technology to rehabilitate service laterals that are prone to blockages. After hour service calls are tracked by the City for each sewer service lateral.
Once a sewer service lateral receives six after hour service calls, it is lined to minimize root growth.
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system maintenance and repair schedules The City has investigated methods to decrease the growing number of SSOs from laterals. The City reinforced the efforts of its eeling program near the end of FY12/13. More details about the eeling program are outlined in Section 5.4. Based on the data collected during the two months that the eeling program has been in effect, there has been marked improvement. The City of Roseville averaged approximately four lateral SSOs per month during the period of this audit. In the two months since the start of the new eeling program, there was an average of one lateral SSO per month. Although the new eeling program has only been in effect for a short time, the preliminary results indicate that it is effective in reducing the number of SSOs from laterals and should be continued. The new eeling program is one of the planned efforts to meet the SSO reduction goals set in Table 5.
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system best management practices No planned changes to sewer system best management practices are anticipated to meet SSO reduction goals.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 10
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system staffing levels The City intends to hire one additional staff during the period of the next SSMP audit.
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system funding levels No planned changes to funding levels are anticipated to meet SSO reduction goals.
Changes to be employed to sanitary sewer system training It is anticipated that training of WWC staff to the revised OERP (see Section 5.6) will be required to effective meet the SSO reduction goals.
Measures to Assure No Repeat SSOs
“No repeat overflows from the same location” is one of the City’s SSMP goals and one of the performance measures tracked over time. The City employs various strategies to meet the goal of no repeat SSOs from the same location. The City completes a System Failure Form for every SSO that occurs to identify any potential for a repeat blockage.
Table 6 describes the related sanitary sewer system rehabilitation and capital improvement projects, including schedules and costs, planned before the next SSMP internal program audit.
Table 6. Planned R&R and CIP Projects Planned Before Next SSMP Audit Project Year Cost
Atkinson / Dry Creek Crossing 2013 $ 314,500
Shadowbrook Lift Station Rehab and Replacement 2014 $ 525,000 2012 CIPP Rehab Project 2014 $ 1,890,000
Wastewater Interceptor Inspection and Assessment 2014 $ 500,000 Sewer Line / Clean Out / Sewer Service Upgrades 2014 $ 300,000 WW – Technology Replacement 2014 $ 50,000
Sewer Manhole Upgrade 2014 $ 250,000
2013 CIPP Rehab Project 2015 $ 1,890,000
Sewer Line / Clean Out / Sewer Service Upgrades 2015 $ 300,000 WW – Technology Replacement 2015 $ 50,000
Sewer Manhole Upgrade 2015 $ 250,000
Table 7 describes the target goals for time between notification of a potential SSO and arrival on scene for containment (i.e., SSO response time) under varying conditions.
Table 7. Goals for SSO Response Time
Condition Goal
During normal business hours 40 minutes
After business hours / holidays 40 minutes
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 11
SECTION 4 Audit Procedure
Per SSS WDR Section D.13.x, the objective of this audit is to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of the SSMP and the City’s compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in the SSS WDR order. This section describes the procedure used to accomplish this objective.
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance
An assessment of the City of Roseville’s SSMP was conducted as part of the audit against the requirements outlined in the SSS WDR. The subsections of SECTION 5 below are organized by SSMP element. Each subsection contains a table which lists the requirements of section D.13 of the SSS WDR for the respective SSMP element and indicates the level of compliance of the SSMP against that requirement. The compliance status of the City’s SSMP is indicated with one of the following ratings; 1 - in compliance, 2 - not in compliance, or 3 – N/A with written justification in SSMP. If there are deficiencies with regards to compliance, an explanation of the deficiency is given. Each deficiency will have associated SSMP enhancements which may include action items, SSMP adjustments, and/or timelines of planned completion.
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness
Subsequent to the indication of the level of compliance of the SSMP in relation to the requirements of the SSS WDR, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSMP elements will be conducted to comply with the requirements for SSMP audits per subsection D.13.x of the SSS WDR. Where appropriate, recommendations will be made based on the results of this audit to identify tasks to improve the effectiveness of SSMP activities. Wherever possible, performance metrics will be used to measure the effectiveness of SSMP elements. Performance indicators (PIs) will be recommended for SSMP elements that do not currently have a means for quantifiably measuring performance and where it is justified.
A summary of the recommended modifications made throughout this SSMP internal program audit is included in SECTION 6 – Audit Summary.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 12
SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements
This chapter evaluates all elements of the City’s SSMP. Each section of this chapter is associated with one of the eleven elements of the SSMP required by SSS WDR D.13. Each element is evaluated for compliance and effectiveness using the procedure described above in Sections 4.1 and 4.2, respectively.
5.1 Goals
5.1.1 Compliance
Table 8. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
i Properly manage, operate, and
maintain all portions of the City’s
wastewater collection system.
1 -
5.1.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Goals (SSMP 1.2)
Description of Current Status: The City currently has six goals identified in the SSMP. Level of Effectiveness: The goals the City of Roseville recorded in the SSMP have been effective in guiding the activities of the City and support the objective of the SSS WDR to protect waters of the state. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
5.2 Organization
5.2.1 Compliance
Table 9. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ii(a) Identify Legally Responsible Official (LRO) 1 -
ii(b) SSMP responsibility and organization chart 1 -
ii(c) Chain of communication for reporting SSOs 1 -
5.2.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications List Legally Responsible Official (LRO) (SSMP 2.1)
Description of Current Status: Currently Ken Glotzbach (Utility Manager) and Chris Bracco (Wastewater Collections Superintendent) are registered in the California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) as legally responsible officials as of 9 SEP 2013. This type of information is recorded in Appendix B-1 of the City SSMP, which is accessible to the public via the City website. Level of Effectiveness: Posting Appendix B-1 on the City website is effective in communicating the legally responsible officials and data submitters for the City to the public.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 13
Recommendations: Appendix B-1 needs to be updated to show Ken Glotzbach and Chris Bracco as LROs for the City. Additionally, once Dan Pruden (Wastewater Collections Supervisor) is registered as a Data Submitter in CIWQS, his information should be added to Appendix B-1 and updated on the City website.
SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP 2.2)
Description of Current Status: The SSMP Resposibility Organization Chart (SSMP Figure 2-1) is current in the SSMP, with descriptive definitions of each individual’s responsibilities. Additionally, a narrative of “general position descriptions” are outlined in section 2.2 of the SSMP. Level of Effectiveness: The chart is effective in defining the work flow and responsibilities of the individual as well as departments within the City of Roseville’s operations with relation to the SSMP. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Chain of Communication Reporting Chart (SSMP 2.3)
Description of Current Status: The internal notification contact chart is current and readily available to all faculty members of the waste water utility district. The City of Roseville has a 24 hour call center and a full time staff wastewater utility customer service representative. This individual’s job is to respond to any service calls including but not limited too; backups, SSOs, smell complaints, etc. Level of Effectiveness: This has been effective as represented in customer notification to operator arrival time average is 23 minutes during business and non-business hours over the past two fiscal years. This average time is well below the target of 40 minute arrival time. There is only one instance that the operator arrival time exceeded the target 40 minutes in the past two year. This track record indicates the right people are getting the information to correct staff members make a quick decision to respond and mitigate the SSO.
Recommendations: Figure 2.2 in SSMP section 2.3 has typographical errors. There is text missing. The figure found in SSMP Appendix F-1 (1) - SSO Procedures Flowchart is the same chart, but includes all of the text. WWE recommends reinserting the figure from Appendix F-1 (1) into section 2.3 of the SSMP with the corrections made.
Appendix B-3 includes a call list of staff members who are on call during non-business hours; this is out of date, but also unnecessary. WWE recommends the City develop a SOP for the call center procedures for receiving calls and mobilizing field staff. A call list may be kept internally as deemed necessary by the City.
5.3 Legal Authority
5.3.1 Compliance
Table 10. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iii(a) Prevent illicit discharges 1 -
iii(b) Properly designed and constructed sewers 1 -
iii(c) Ensure access to laterals owned/maintained by City 1 - iii(d) Limit the discharge of FOG and other debris 1 -
iii(e) Enforce any violation of City ordinances 1 -
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 14
5.3.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Industrial Pretreatment Program (SSMP 3.2)
Description of Current Status: The Industrial Waste Section (IWS) administers the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan and implements enforcement procedures specified by the U.S. EPA in accordance with 40CFR 403.5 (f) (5). The IWD has the authority to permit and monitor significant industrial users (SIUs) and small commercial/industrial dischargers. Level of Effectiveness: The implementation of the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan has been effective in providing the City the authority to control and prevent illicit discharges to the collection system.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code and Design and Construction Standards (SSMP 3.3) Description of Current Status: The City’s design and construction standards regulate the preparation of plans for construction of additions/improvements to the sewer. The Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) section 14.12.040 requires that building sewers and connection into the public sewer system conform to the requirements of the building and plumbing code or other applicable rules and regulations of the City.
The RMC also requires an installation of a lateral line clean out at the point of connection with the public sewer.
Level of Effectiveness: The City design and construction standards and the RMC section 14.12.040 have been effective in providing the City the legal authority to properly design and construct the sewers and connections.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – Sewer Access Authority (SSMP 3.4)
Description of Current Status: The Charter in the RMC, Article X Sec. 10.01 designates the authority to access City owned and operated facilities, either within or outside its corporate limits, for a number of activities including, but not limited to maintenance, inspection, and repair related to sewage collection. Level of Effectiveness: This authority gives legal access to all City-owned sewer facilities. The City has not had issues to date with lack of access to facilities based on legal authority. The current legal authority to access sewer facilities has been effective in supporting the goals of the SSMP. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – FOG (SSMP 3.5)
Description of Current Status: The RMC section 14.12.050 provides authority to require grease and grit interceptors when the director deems necessary for proper handling of liquid waste. Chapter 14.14 is the FOG ordinance that provides liquid discharge requirements for Food Service Establishments (FSEs). An FSE must remain in compliance with this ordinance or fees as explained in 14.14.140 can be cited. Level of Effectiveness: This ordinance is effective in identifying the required equipment/BMPs for FSEs as well as indicating the authority of the City to enforce the FOG requirements Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 15
Municipal Code – Enforcement Authority (SSMP 3.6)
Description of Current Status: The RMC section 14.12.060 provides authority to penalize violators of the City’s code requirements. An individual may be charged with an infraction or a misdemeanor, at the discretion of the city attorney.
Level of Effectiveness: The authority to penalize infractions that may cost the City recourses has proven effective to maintain proper use of the wastewater collection system. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Inter-Agency Agreements and Satellite Systems (SSMP 3.7) Description of Current Status: The City of Roseville has the following agreements in effect:
o Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority o Agreement Regarding the Operation and use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities Level of Effectiveness: These agreements have proven effective in laying out the legal requirements and responsibilities of the regional partners (City of Roseville, South Placer Municipal Utility District, and Placer County) with regards to planning, financing, acquisition, ownership, construction, and operation of Regional Wastewater Facilities for the treatment of the wastewater collected and conveyed through the City’s collection system, and treated at the Regional Wastewater Facilities. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program
5.4.1 Compliance
Table 11. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iv(a) Collection system maps 1 -
iv(b) Preventive O&M activities 1 -
iv(c) Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) plan 1 -
iv(d) Training 1 -
iv(e) Equipment and critical replacement parts 1 -
5.4.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Collection System Maps (SSMP 4.2)
Description of Current Status: The City maintains electronic and hard copy maps of the sanitary sewer system and storm drain system. The electronic mapping data are accessible in the City’s GIS and hard copy maps are located in the various utility department offices and field crew trucks.
Maps are updated with new sub-divisions, repairs, or rehabilitation or replacement of assets that require updating of the maps. The City Mapping Update Policy is followed in order in ensure mapping is correct and completed in GIS and made available to the required users.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 16
Level of Effectiveness: The City meets the requirements of section D.13.iv(a) of the SSS WDR for maintaining up-to-date mapping. However, the City currently has not identified the number and length of pipeline in the collection systems that is located in easements. Doing so will assist the City in identifying assets located in areas that are potentially difficult to access, thus increasing the risk of identifying and/or responding to SSOs from those locations.
Recommendations:
o Include the Mapping Update Policy document as an appendix to the SSMP and post it on the City’s SSMP page of its website.
Roseville Preventive Operations & Maintenance Activities (SSMP 4.3) Description of Current Status: The audit identified and verified that the WWC engages in programs to complete the following routine preventative O&M programs/activities: cleaning program, CCTV inspection, visual inspection, regular maintenance, construction/repair, rehabilitation projects, customer service, and staff support.
In response to the increased number of SSOs from laterals over the last two years, the City has reassigned one additional crew to the eeling program for service lines. Eeling is a mechanical cleaning process used to remove roots or blockages.
The City has SOPs for both office and field workflows related to CCTV inspection work. SSMP appendices D-4 and F-4 are the same SOP for SSO Containment and Mitigation. The SSMP identifies that the City has standard operating procedures for SSO response and mitigation, backhoe operation, sewer cleaning equipment, locating and marking USAs.
Level of Effectiveness: The City sets a number of metrics to measure the performance of the O&M activities, which are listed in SSMP section 9.4. The performance measures related to the O&M activities are listed in Table 12. The table also lists the targets for each performance measure and the actual performance accomplished in FY11/12 and FY12/13. The table shows that the City has met or exceeded the target level of performance in all of the measures that have a target.
Table 12. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b) Performance Measure Target FY11/12 FY12/13
Total miles cleaned per year 250 277 272
Total miles of mechanical root control per year - 9.74 11.23 Total number of sewer maintenance field staff NA 23 23
Average high velocity cleaning per crew per day NA 1866 LF 1852 LF Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning - $1.57 /LF $1.36/LF The City’s recent effort to bolster its eeling program has initially shown a high level of effectiveness. As mentioned in Section 3.2.1, the number of SSOs from laterals has dropped from four SSOs per month on average to one SSO per month on average after the initiation of the changes to the eeling program.
The SOPs for preventative maintenance work are in their preliminary stages and could be more effective if they were finalized and documented for frequent use. The SOP WWC – 01 for SSO Containment found City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 17
in the SSMP appendices, could be used as a template for standardizing the development of the remaining SOPs.
Recommendations:
o Identify targets for all performance measures so that data collected can be compared to a goal to assess performance and the effectiveness of SSMP activities. A comprehensive review of benchmarks or performance measures/indicators is discussed in the recommendations of Section
5.9. o Continue the efforts of the recently revised eeling program due to the immediate impact on the frequency of SSOs from laterals. Data on the number of lateral SSOs per month should be monitored so that the impact of these efforts can be evaluated at the time of the next internal SSMP audit.
o Develop SOPs for the regular preventative maintenance activities using SOP-WWC-01 as a template. The following is a list of suggested SOPs based on the activities currently tracked with performance measures:
Lift station maintenance
Receiving and responding to customer service request
Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (SSMP 4.4)
Description of Current Status: Pipelines and manholes are regularly inspected in accordance with the City’s WWC Capital Improvement Plan, which began in 2006. The NASSCO rating system is used to document observations and rate defects. The length of pipeline and the number of manholes inspected each year are tracked with performance measures. The City evaluates the risk of failure for each asset based on the various data sources it maintains (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections) and assigns high risk assets to the Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) Plan.
The City keeps a list of known R&R CIP projects that is developed and maintained by the Rehabilitation Manager. This list outlines the planned projects over the next five year to rehabilitate the system and includes information such as; the year of action, the project budget, the bid amount for current projects, the project status (e.g., in design, in construction, in punch list, completed), and tracking of various milestones.
Level of Effectiveness: The City sets a number of metrics to measure the performance of the WWC activities, which are listed in SSMP section 9.4. The performance measures related to the inspection activities and R&R program are listed in Table 13. The table also lists the targets for each performance measure and the actual performance accomplished in FY11/12 and FY12/13. The table shows that the City has met or exceeded the target level of performance in all of the measures that have a target, with one exception. In FY11/12 the City missed its goal for total miles of CCTV inspection by 0.8 miles (2.7% of the goal). The City responded in the following fiscal year by more than doubling the targeted goal for CCTV inspection.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 18
Table 13. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(c) Performance Measure Target FY11/12 FY12/13
Total miles visually inspected per year (not CCTV) - 0.25 0.25 Independent manhole inspections per year 1054 1424 1328 Number of laterals rehabilitated using CIPP per year 50 134 50 Total miles CCTV inspected per year (main) 30 29.2 67.6 Average cost of CCTV - $0.48/LF $0.56/LF
The known R&R CIP projects list has proven effective in identifying and planning the projects to be completed to address high risk areas of the system.
Recommendations: The following recommendations are given to increase the effectiveness of this SSMP element:
o Develop SOPs for regular inspection activities using SOP-WWC-01 as a template. The following is a list of suggested SOPs based on the activities currently tracked with performance measures:
Alarm testing of lift stations
o Document the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data.
Training (SSMP 4.5)
Description of Current Status: The WWC require all employees to be certified with CWEA, DMV, CPR, First Aid, Confined Space Policy, and Gas Detector Policy, as well be trained in equipment safety, maintain OSHA rules, and review material safety data sheets.
Level of Effectiveness: The training program has been effective in safe, well-trained staff. Over this audit period the City has reported three on-the-job accidents; two in FY11/12 and one in FY12/13. The City strives for zero on-the-job accidents and uses the training programs to improve safety at work. Recommendations:
o The SSMP internal audit from FY10/11 stated that NASSCO training for condition assessment should be added to SSMP Element 4.5. The City implements the NASSCO rating system for collecting condition assessment data and provides this training to the WWC staff. While this is not a requirement of the SSS WDR, the City needs to decide if this training will be referenced in SSMP Element 4.5.
o Use the SOPs recommended to be developed in this section as a training tool for WWC staff. The SOPs can also be used to inform contractors working in the system of the role they play in responding to and mitigating potential SSOs.
Equipment and Critical Replacement Parts (SSMP 4.6)
Description of Current Status: The equipment inventory is found in Appendix D of the SSMP. WWC equipment use is monitored and maintained by the following persons:
WWC Superintendent – Equipment
Materials Technician – Pipes, manholes
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 19
Mechanical Maintenance – Lift station equipment and appurtenances The City currently has critical parts on hand but there are limited records about those parts. Appendix D7 of the SSMP contains a matrix of the City lift stations and the types of critical spare parts (i.e., bubbler compressor, PLC cards, pumps, fuses, level control, radio telemetry, and heater/overloads). Level of Effectiveness: The City has experienced one SSO related to a lift station failure since 2007. The SSO occurred in 2008 as a result of a failed bubbler line, which caused the lift station to shut down. The volume of this spill was only 10 gallons due to the quick response of City staff and all 10 gallons were recovered. However, this lift station that caused the SSO is one of the smallest in the system with regards to flow rate. Although the probability of a lift station failure may be low based on the low frequency of SSOs from lift stations in the past, the consequence of such a failure could be very high and justifies the need for up-to-date records of critical spare parts.
Recommendations:
o The SSMP identifies the WWC Superintendent as the person responsible for maintaining lists of the equipment and critical spare parts. The position directly responsible for tracking equipment and maintaining up-to-date equipment and critical spare parts lists is Materials Technician. The SSMP should be updated to correctly reflect the responsible party for equipment and critical spare parts.
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions
5.5.1 Compliance
Table 14. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
v(a) Sanitary sewer design and construction
specifications 1 -
v(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting
and testing new and R&R projects 1 -
5.5.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Sanitary Sewer Design and Specifications (SSMP 5.2)
Description of Current Status: The City’s design and construction standards are available on the City website. These designs encompass the design needs for the waste water system for the City of Roseville.
These standard details are available on records in the county office as well as on the City’s website. The operating procedure for testing of new constructed pipes is clear and effective in determining readiness of newly constructed pipe. City specifications are updated as needed. Level of Effectiveness: These design and construction standards are effective in ensuring that new or rehabilitated infrastructure is designed and constructed in a manner acceptable to the City.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 20
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Sanitary Sewer System Construction and Performance Provisions (SSMP 5.3) Description of Current Status: Section 91-12 of the City’s Sanitary Sewer Construction Standards defines the criteria for testing and cleaning of installed sewer improvements. There is a punch list that must be followed to indicate compliance with this measure to ensure proper construction. Level of Effectiveness: This process lessens the chance of pipe failure by verifying, through proper testing, that new construction and rehabilitation work are completed correctly. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan
5.6.1 Compliance
Table 15. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vi(a) Proper notification procedures 1 -
vi(b) Program for appropriate SSO response 1 -
vi(c) Procedure for prompt notification to
regulatory agencies 1 -
vi(d) Procedures for appropriate staff and
contractor training 1
vi(e) Procedures to address emergency
operations (e.g., traffic, crowd control) 1 -
vi(f) Program to ensure containment of SSO
to prevent discharge and minimize
adverse impacts on the environment
1 -
The State Water Board amended the monitoring and reporting program (MRP) with revised requirements (Revised MRP WQ 2013-0058-EXEC) that took effect September 9, 2013. The revised requirements are available at the State Water Resources Control Board’s Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program website (http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/). The changes from these revised requirements include the type data that must be collected in the event of an SSO and the follow up reporting that is required. Recommendations:
o Complete all unpopulated fields in the revised “Collection System Questionnaire” in CIWQS.
Enrollees have six months from the date that the revised MRP became effective to complete the questionnaire. This means that the questionnaire must be completed by approximately March 9, City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 21
2014. If this questionnaire is not completed by that time, the system will lock the Enrollee out from all reporting capabilities.
5.6.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Notification Procedures (SSMP 6.2)
Description of Current Status: The notification procedures are available in the on-call service vehicles and in the main office. The procedures include an easy to read flow chart with corresponding action items including contact information for the parties that require notification during an SSO event. Level of Effectiveness: The measures taken to ensure proper notification have been effective in providing prompt notification to the required parties based on various SSO scenarios. This is evident in the fact that the average SSO response time is just under 24 minutes for this audit period. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Response Program (SSMP 6.3)
Description of Current Status: The response procedure are documented in Appendix F-1 Section 2 of the SSMP and are summarized in a flow chart of actions required to respond to and mitigate a SSO. Level of Effectiveness: The flow chart steps through a series of yes/no questions to guide SSO responders to on the sequence of actions to proper assess and mitigate a SSO. This chart is simple and effective in explaining a process in which to mitigate an SSO.
The SSO Response Program has been effective in responding and mitigating SSOs. This is evident in the fact that the average SSO duration is under 18 minutes. The average spill volume is less than 27 gallons and the average volume of SSO recovered is just over 21 gallons. The SSO response crew recovers on average almost 80% of a SSO. These averages come from the SSO data from this audit period (i.e., last two fiscal years).
Recommendations:
o Figure 6.2 in SSMP section 6.3 has a typographical error. There is text missing in some of the decision boxes. The same figure is in SSMP Appendix F-1(1) without the missing text. WWE recommends reinserting the figure with the corrections made or removing the figure from the SSMP and only reference Appendix F-1(1).
o Section 2.I.A of the City SSO Response Procedures indicates that the time a call was received notifying the City of a SSO will be used as the SSO start time on the forms reported to CIWQS.
WWE recommends that the City develop a SOP for estimating the start time of SSOs to include additional methods for examining possible start times to support the SSO start time entered into CIWQS.
o The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 22
decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station.
Regulatory Notification Procedure (SSMP 6.4)
Description of Current Status: The Superintendent and Utility Manager are the legally responsible officials (LRO) for certification of SSO reports submitted to CIWQS data base. Also the Superintendent and Supervisor are responsible for reporting SSO to RWQCB, OES and Placer Environmental Health Department as necessary.
Level of Effectiveness: This section clearly indicates the responsibility of the LRO regarding reporting SSO events to the proper authorities. To date, the City has not encountered a situation in which notification information for a required party was not available to City staff responding to a SSO. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Staff and Contractors Training (SSMP 6.5)
Description of Current Status: Each employee is required to complete SSO response procedure training.
Updates and review of SSO training are included in the weekly tailgate meeting throughout the year.
Contractors are also required to implement the procedures identified in the SSO training prior to working within the collection system.
Level of Effectiveness: The implementation of the training program has been very successful as indicated in the historical data. Response and mitigation times of SSOs are almost half of the WWC set target time of 40 minutes.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Emergency Response Coordination (SSMP 6.6)
Description of Current Status: Employees are required to complete Emergency Action plan training annually. This covers HAZ WOPER 1st responder and Roseville’s Incident Command System (ICS). These procedures, processes and systems are also reviewed through the year in weekly safety tail gate meetings. Level of Effectiveness: Training with HAZ WOPER is an effective way to ensure safety of the staff members when dealing with hazardous waste and materials.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Spill Mitigation and Containment Procedure (SSMP 6.7)
Description of Current Status: An SSOERP is available for staff to review and following during an emergency which includes an SOP for spill mitigation and containment. Level of Effectiveness: The SSOERP is comprehensive with indication of proper responsibilities as well as SOPs for containment (SOP WWC-01) and spill rate estimation (Section 5 of SSOERP). Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 23
5.7 FOG Control Program
5.7.1 Compliance
Table 16. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vii(a) Public education plan 1 -
vii(b) FOG disposal plan 1 -
vii(c) Legal authority to prohibit SSOs and
blockages caused by FOG discharges 1 -
vii(d) BMPs, grease removal devices,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements
1 -
vii(e) Authority to inspect and enforce FOG
ordinance
1 -
vii(f) FOG Characterization Assessment and
Hot Spot Cleaning Schedule
1 -
vii(g) FOG Control Program Measures 1 -
5.7.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Public Education Plan (SSMP 7.2)
Description of Current Status: There is a comprehensive FOG outreach program to residents, restaurants and the plumbing community on the proper disposal of FOG that the WWC adopted in May 2006. The main objective is to educate City of Roseville residents and restaurants on the proper disposal of FOG to meet or exceed outreach standards set forth in the State General WDR Requirements. Level of Effectiveness: This program implements modern media communication technologies; TV advertisements, flyers, inter-active website information, and information printed on monthly statements.
The Public Education Plan recommends reaching out to K-12 schools to provide public education about the issues related to proper disposal of materials to the collection system. The efforts the City has made to incorporate multi-media information and target future users of the system appear to be effective in reaching the objective of educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. Recommendations:
o List Sean Bigley as the responsible party for the FOG Public Education Plan.
FOG Disposal Plan (SSMP 7.3)
Description of Current Status: The Lab/Industrial Waste Supervisor oversees the Industrial Waste Pretreatment Program and FOG control program. Each food service establishment (FSE) is required to obtain a FOG wastewater discharge permit (FOG WDP). There are currently 294 permitted FSEs in the City. The Lab/Industrial Waste Supervisor oversees the inspection of permitted FSEs. A FOG WDP holder is required to keep all manifests, receipts and invoices of all cleaning, maintenance, grease removal from the grease control device, disposal carrier and disposal site location for no less than three years.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 24
The City provides information about the permitting process and permit applications on the City website (address below) as a resource for businesses within the City. http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/wastewater_utility/fats_oils_n_grease/businesses.asp City residents are offered free curbside pickup of FOG services that can be scheduled with the City. This helps ensure that FOG from residential units is properly collected and disposed. Information about the FOG pickup program can be found at the link below.
http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/wastewater_utility/fats_oils_n_grease/residential.asp Level of Effectiveness: The City has developed a comprehensive FOG disposal program to address the various dischargers of FOG to the collection system. This program appears effective because the City has only had two FOG-related SSOs over the audit period (less than 3% of the total spills). This indicates that amount of FOG being disposed into the collection system is manageable and the FOG disposal program is meeting its objective in limiting the amount of FOG.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Record Keeping Requirements (SSMP 7.4)
Description of Current Status: The RMC Section 14.14.260 – “Recordkeeping requirements” includes a list of items that may be required to be kept for no less than three years and made available upon request of a FOG inspector/Industrial Waste technician or City representative. The SSMP further identifies which of these recordkeeping items is mandatory for a FSE and which items may be deemed mandatory at the discretion of the City.
Level of Effectiveness: The recordkeeping requirements and timeframes identified in the RMC have been effective in providing the City the information necessary to enforce permit requirements of FSEs. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Legal Authority to Prohibit SSOs and Blockages Caused by FOG Discharges (SSMP 7.5) Description of Current Status: The RMC section 14.12.050 provides authority to require grease and grit interceptors when the director deems necessary for proper handling of liquid waste. Additionally, chapter
14.14 of the RMC defines the City’s FOG ordinance and provides the authority to implement its FOG control program, prohibit SSOs and blockages caused by FOG, and limit the concentration of FOG as set forth in RMC section 14.26.140.
Level of Effectiveness: These codes are effective in organizing the type of equipment required to reduce FOG discharged from FSEs, as well as indicating the authority of the City to prohibit SSOs and blockages due to FOG. The City FOG Ordinance is also effective in a practical way because if the City has reason to believe that a FSE or residence is contributing too much FOG, it can numerically test the effluent from the property against the concentrations limits set in RMC section 14.26.140 to identify if there is a violation. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
BMP, Grease Removal Devices, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements (SSMP 7.6) Description of Current Status: The Industrial Waste Section requires that all FSEs have best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the City FOG ordinance. Also each FSE must have an appropriately City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 25
sized grease removal device per the Uniform Plumbing Code and they must maintain records as outlined in section 7.4 of the SSMP.
The City provides information about BMP requirements, BMP posters, and BMP information sheets on the following topics; proper grease disposal, requirements for new and remodeled FSEs, grease interceptor maintenance, grease trap maintenance, selecting a grease hauler, a list of licensed grease haulers, dumpster maintenance, and equipment cleaning on the City website (address below) as a resource for businesses within the City.
http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/wastewater_utility/fats_oils_n_grease/businesses.asp The City supplements the information provided on its website through onsite inspections/meetings with FSEs to reinforce the level of understanding of the FOG program and its requirements. Level of Effectiveness: The City’s efforts to disseminate information regarding BMPs, grease removal devices and the associated record keeping and reporting requirements have been effective. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Inspection and Enforcement Authority – FOG Producers (SSMP 7.7) Description of Current Status: All FSEs that discharge wastewater containing FOG into the sewer system are required to obtain a Fat, Oil, and Grease Water Discharge Permit (FOG WDP) from the City. FOG WDPs are expressly subject to all provisions of the ordinances and regulations regarding FOG, charges for use, and violation fees established by the City. The RMC section 14.14.290 provides City representatives right of entry to access and inspect permitted FSEs.
The City currently has 294 FSEs subject to FOG control that are connected to its system. All 294 FSEs are permitted under the City’s FOG control program. Over the past 12 months, all 294 of the FSEs received a FOG inspection. During that same time zero enforcement actions were initiated. The Industrial Waste Section plans to conduct 294 FOG inspections (i.e., every FSE again) in the next 12 months. Level of Effectiveness: Over the period of this audit, two SSOs (less than 3% of the total spills over the audit period) were caused by blockages in the collection system due to FOG. The total volume of wastewater that left the system as a result of these two spills was 77 gallons or less than 4% of the total volume of wastewater spilled during the audit period. As identified in Section 3.1 above, FOG is not a significant contributor the number or volume of SSOs. If FOG were a significant contributor to SSOs, then it would be expected that the number of enforcement actions might be higher and potentially taken against FSEs contributing to the blockages. However, the low number of FOG-related SSOs correlates with the low number of FOG-related enforcement actions.
Currently, the communication between IWS and WWC departments is limited regarding the correlation between pipelines with deposits of FOG and FSEs with poor maintenance of BMPs and grease removal devices.
Recommendations:
o Schedule routine meetings between WWC and IWS to share findings from preventative maintenance activities and FSE inspections to identify FSEs who are negatively impacting the collection system by discharging excessive amounts of FOG. An active FSE inspection program and communication of inspection results is key to a FOG control program.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 26
FOG Characterization Assessment and Hot Spot Cleaning Schedule (SSMP 7.8) Description of Current Status: The City conducted a FOG characterization assessment of the system that established a hot spot cleaning schedule. This schedule includes quarterly, semiannually, and annually cleaning to ensure that FOG is controlled in these lines that are subject to FOG blockages. Additionally, each hot spot is CCTV inspected once each year to verify the cleaning schedule is adequate to mitigate the probability of a FOG blockage. The cleaning schedule and records of cleaning are documented in the CMMS. The City currently has 101 pipeline segments on the hot spot cleaning schedule. Level of Effectiveness: The City’s aggressive hot spot cleaning schedule has proven effective in limiting the number of SSOs due to FOG blockages.
Recommendations:
o Develop a SOP describing the process of how pipelines are added to the hot spot cleaning schedule, how the cleaning frequency (i.e., quarterly, semiannually, annually) for each hot spot is initially set, and how the cleaning frequency for an individual hot spot may be adjusted over time. o SSMP section 7.8, paragraph three contains a typographical error. It states that “sewer line maintenance work orders are issued and completed to ensure that hot spot lines do have grease blockages/SSOs between cleaning schedules”. The word “do” should be changed to “do not”.
FOG Control Program Measures (SSMP 7.9)
Description of Current Status: The Industrial Waste Section has instituted a FOG waste discharge permit (FOG WDP) as the method of source control for FSEs. A FSE must obtain a FOG WDP before it is able to discharge to the public sewer per the RMC section 14.14.030. The City uses the FOG WDP as a means to apply incremental and progressive discipline if permit holders are in violation of the FOG ordinance until performance measurements are met.
Level of Effectiveness: This City’s FOG source control measures have proven effective during the period of this audit with respect to the low number of FOG-related SSOs. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 27
5.8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
5.8.1 Compliance
Table 17. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
viii(a) Evaluate hydraulic deficiencies 2
The schedule is to be reviewed and updated
consistent with the SSMP review and update
requirements in SSS WDR D.14 (i.e., every 5 years).
The schedule is 7 years old.
viii(b) Establish design criteria 1 -
viii(c) Establish short- and long-term CIP 1 -
viii(d) Develop schedule of completion
dates for CIP 1 -
5.8.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Evaluation Process – Capacity Enhancement Projects (SSMP 8.2) Description of Current Status: The City developed two hydraulic models (i.e., the Roseville Model Project and the South Placer Wastewater Authority (SPWA) Wastewater Systems Evaluation Project) to identify peak flows in each collection system component (i.e., pipe and pump station). The evaluation of hydraulic capacity using these two models identified potential deficiencies and recommended improvements.
Additionally, the City has started the process of evaluating the hydraulic capacity of the collection system again.
Level of Effectiveness: Appendix I-1 of the SSMP indicates that the system evaluation & capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every five years. The Roseville Model Project and the SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation Project were both conducted in 2006 (seven years ago). According to the SSMP, the system should have been reevaluated in 2011. However, the modeling efforts conducted in 2006 have been effective in evaluating the system and planning for future capacity. Recommendations: Complete the recently initiated capacity assessment so that changes to the system can be updated and recent flow monitoring results can be used to update findings to reflect current conditions and revisions to planned development. The City should consider revising the planned frequency for system evaluation updates if a frequency of five years is not warranted based on system needs.
Design Criteria (SSMP 8.3)
Description of Current Status: The City established a 10-year 24-hour peak wet weather design storm for the evaluation of existing collection system components and sizing of new collection system components.
This included the development of wastewater flow generation factors based on water use records and flow monitoring data.
Level of Effectiveness: A 10-year 24-hour peak wet weather design storm has been effective in accounting for the impact wet weather on the system and planning for system improvements. In December 2012, a City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 28
storm occurred that resulted in two Category 1 SSOs that were caused by excessive rainfall as reported to CIWQS. This was actually one SSO that had two appearance points. The appearance points were two manholes that are located next to a utility path/bike path that runs along a tributary to Linda Creek. The combined SSO volume was approximately 400 gallons, all of which flowed into the creek. Considering the relatively small SSO volume that resulted from the rainfall event, the existing design storm appears sufficient.
Recommendations: Add documentation to internal SSO reports showing that the amount of precipitation over a 24-hour period exceeded 2.82 inches if the cause of the SSO is identified as “rainfall exceeded design”. The lower bound of the 10-year 24-hour precipitation frequency estimate with a 90% confidence interval from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 data for the Rocklin (station ID 04-7516) is 2.82 inches.
Investigate excessive I/I observed from satellite agencies (e.g., observed peaking factors) associated with storms that caused an SSO to document the correlation between the SSO and the excessive offsite I/I.
Capacity Enhancement Measures (SSMP 8.4)
Description of Current Status: The SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation includes the identification of short and long-term Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) to meet current and future build-out flow projections for trunk sewers larger than 15 inches. Two capacity deficiencies under peak wet weather scenarios were identified in the SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation. The Roseville Model Project did not include the identification of capacity improvement projects. Level of Effectiveness: The Roseville Model Project evaluated the capacity of every pipe within the City collection system. However, the project did not identify measures to address capacity deficiencies.
Appendix H-1 of the SSMP states that the process of identifying projects to address capacity deficiencies will be performed by the City at a later date.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Capital Improvement Program Schedule (SSMP 8.5)
Description of Current Status: The following table lists the projects that are identified in the SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation that identify the City as the agency with the primary responsibility for the project. The other projects identified in the SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation do not list the City as the agency with primary responsibility, so they are not considered in this audit.
Table 18. Schedule of CIPs to Address Capacity Deficiencies CIPs (from SPWA Report) Responsible
Agency
Assigned
Date
Completed
Date
Revised
Date
Improvement Project 5 – Area D Roseville APR 2006 SEP 2006 NA Improvement Project 6 – Area E Roseville APR 2006 NA NA SSMP Appendix H-1 states that the SPWA project at Area D, which consisted of installing a diversion structure to shed approximately 1.1 mgd at manhole B06-313 to the existing 33-inch trunk sewer, was City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 29
completed by the fall of 2006. Flow monitoring of Area E was completed and following the evaluation of the data, it was determined that the proposed sewer relief project is not required.
The existing CIP schedule is
Level of Effectiveness: The schedule of capital improvement projects to address potential hydraulic deficiencies in the system has been effective in identifying the tasks needed to assure hydraulic capacity within the collection system.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
5.9 Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications
5.9.1 Compliance
Table 19. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ix(a) Maintain metrics to prioritize SSMP activities 1 - ix(b) Measure effectiveness of SSMP elements 1 -
ix(c) Assess preventative maintenance program 1 -
ix(d) Update elements based on evaluations 1 -
ix(e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends 1 -
5.9.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Utility Metrics to Prioritize SSMP Activities (SSMP 9.2) Description of Current Status: The City has established four categories of metrics to monitor and measure the effectiveness of the various elements of this SSMP: System Information, Financial Information, Sewer Maintenance, and Performance Measures. In addition to these metrics, the City maintains a number of performance measures related to various SSMP activities. A summary of all of the performance measures tracked by the City is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit. Level of Effectiveness: Appendix I has effectively been used to identify and track the specific metrics in each of the four categories established by the City.
Recommendations: Update Appendix I-Benchmarking Metrics on City website with information from FY11/12 and FY12/13.
Metrics to Monitor Effectiveness of SSMP (SSMP 9.3)
Description of Current Status: SSMP Appendix I is a schedule that assigns individual staff members to one or more SSMP element and defines the frequency that each element must be monitored and updated. Level of Effectiveness: The City currently tracks performance using a number of metrics. However, none of these metrics are associated with specific SSMP elements. Some of these metrics have identified targets or goals, but not all. These metrics can be used to measure the effectiveness of elements, but without associating metrics with specific SSMP elements and without setting goals for each metric it is difficult to monitor the effectiveness of the SSMP.
Recommendations:
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 30
o Update Appendix I. This appendix includes information from the initial 2007 Implementation Schedule. The initial SSMP implementation and the SWRCB compliance schedule concluded many years ago and does not need to be included in the SSMP. However, the information regarding the continual implementation of the SSMP such as the document location, responsible person, and review frequency should be included.
o Identify the metrics that correspond with specific elements of the SSMP and develop numerical goal ranges so the data currently collected and monitored by the City can be used as performance indicators (PIs) to quantitatively monitor SSMP effectiveness. The ultimate measure of SSMP effectiveness is the limiting of SSOs. However, setting goals for activities related to various SSMP elements and measuring performance against those goals, will help determine how success in those elements, relates to the overall effectiveness of limiting SSOs. Associating metrics with specific SSMP elements will allow for direct assessment of those elements and provide consistency in their evaluation in future audits. Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit contains a list of PI and associates each one with a SSMP element, a suggested audit frequency, and a person responsible for monitoring that PI. A sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form is included in Appendix 7.3 of this internal audit. Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be developed for each metric and assessed periodically by the person responsible, according to the suggested audit frequency for that metric. At the time of the next internal SSMP audit, the completed Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements and included as attachments to the audit.
o Consider tracking additional metrics targeted at measuring the effectiveness of SSMP elements that do not currently have metrics associated with them. A list of potential performance measures listed by SSMP element is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit.
Metrics to Assess Preventative Maintenance Program (SSMP 9.4) Description of Current Status: The metrics listed in SSMP section 9.4 are measured, recorded, and analyzed to assess the effectiveness of the preventative maintenance program. Table 20 below contains a summary of the metrics listed in SSMP section 9.4 as well as other performance metrics tracked by the City in various appendices and reports. The column labeled “Source” identifies which plan, appendix, or report tracks a particular metric.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 31
Table 20. Summary of Current Preventative Maintenance Performance Metrics Performance Indicator Unit Target Source
Sewer main - flushed Miles 250 A, B, C, D, E
Service laterals - cleaned Miles 8 D
Sewer main – visually inspected (not CCTV) Miles - A, B Manholes – cleaned and inspected Number 1054 A, D
Manholes - rehabilitated Number 25 D
Service laterals - rehabilitated Number 50 A, C, D, E
Service laterals – mechanically cleaned (eeled) Miles 8 A, E Sewer main - CCTV inspected Miles 30 A, B, C, D, E
Service laterals - CCTV inspected Miles 16 B, D, E
Total number of sewer maintenance field staff Number - A, B Working staff time to PM program % 80 D
Total emergency work orders Number - B
Average high velocity cleaning per crew per day LF/day - A, B Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning $/LF - A, B
Average cost of hydro cleaning $/LF - B
Average cost of CCTV (main) $/LF - A, B
Average cost of CCTV (lateral) $/LF - B
Cleanouts - installed Number 100 B, C, D
On-the-Job accidents Number 0 D, E
Average response time to customer inquiry Minutes 40 A, D, C A = SSMP section 9.4
B = SSMP Appendix I
C = WW Collections KPIs
D = Program / Performance Reports
E = Strategic Plan Data
Level of Effectiveness: The City tracks a number of metrics to quantitatively evaluate the performance of the activities of the preventative maintenance program. This is effective because it allows the City to monitor the performance of particular activities over time and against other metrics (e.g., staffing levels, SSO trends) to determine correlations between the data. However, not all of the metrics have an associated goal, which makes it difficult to assess whether or not that activity is meeting the intended result.
Recommendations: Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, develop goals for metrics that track preventative maintenance activities and identify the person/position responsible for tracking data against those goals. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators for preventative maintenance activities with responsible parties.
SSMP Performance Monitoring and Update Process (SSMP 9.5) Description of Current Status: Individual staff responsibilities for each SSMP element and the frequency that each element must be monitored are defined in SSMP Appendix I. The City tracks revisions/updates to the SSMP using a SSMP Revision Log that is maintained by the LRO. The SSMP Revision Log is a City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 32
spreadsheet that chronicles revisions to the SSMP by logging the date of the revision, the SSMP element that was changed, a brief description of the change, and who made the change. Level of Effectiveness: The SSMP Revision Log is effective in tracking changes to the SSMP. Recommendations: Assign the individuals responsible for the various elements of the SSMP to complete the Performance Indicator Assessment Forms that are developed for their SSMP elements. See Appendix
7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators with the assigned responsible parties.
SSO Trends – Frequency, Location and Volume (SSMP 9.6)
Description of Current Status: The metrics listed in SSMP section 9.6 are measured, recorded, and analyzed to identify and illustrate SSO trends, including: frequency, location, and volume. Table 21 below contains a summary of the metrics listed in SSMP section 9.6 as well as other performance metrics tracked by the City in various appendices and reports. The column labeled “Source” identifies which plan, appendix, or report tracks a particular metric.
Table 21. Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends Performance Measure Unit Target Source
SSOs - Total number, mains and laterals Number - A, B
SSOs - Total volume, mains and laterals Gal - A, B
SSOs - Total volume recovered Gal - B
SSOs - Total number of wet weather Number - A, B
SSOs - Total volume of wet weather Gal - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by FOG (main) % - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by roots (main) % - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by Vandalism (main) % - A, B
SSOs - caused by LS failures Number - A, B
SSOs - caused by pipe failures Number - A, B
SSOs - % of spill volume caused by FOG (lateral) % - A, B SSOs - % of spill volume caused by roots (lateral) % - A, B SSOs - % of spill volume caused by Vandalism (lateral) % - A, B Customer service requests per year Number - A, B
Sewer odor complaints Number - A, B
Flooding claims per year Number - A, B
Cost of flooding claims per year $ - A, B
SSO – Repeats within two years Number 0 B, C
SSOs - Category 1 Number 0 C, D
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Category 2 Number 2.0 C
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Mainline Number 0.6 C
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Lateral Number 8.0 C
A = SSMP section 9.6
B = SSMP Appendix I
C = WW Collections KPIs
D = Program / Performance Reports
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 33
Level of Effectiveness: Data for most of the metrics listed in Table 21 are tracked annually in SSMP Appendix I and the Program / Performance Report. This allows the City to effectively review trends in SSOs over time.
Recommendations: Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, set performance goals for the metrics used to illustrate SSO trends. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators related to SSO trends.
5.10 SSMP Program Audits
5.10.1 Compliance
Table 22. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
x Conduct periodic audits 1 -
5.10.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Audit Procedures, Roles, and Responsibilities (SSMP 10.2) Description of Current Status: The City conducts an internal audit biennially with a primary focus on the evaluation of system metrics towards the elimination of preventable SSO and the reduction of the impact of those SSOs that do occur.
The City developed an audit form as a template to record information produced during internal SSMP audits. This form is included in SSMP Appendix J-2.
Level of Effectiveness: The internal audit has had success in identifying areas of improvement. The past audit identified two major enhancements and plans were put in place to improve the SSMP. This audit has specified additional recommended enhancements. The regular review of the SSMP is effective in assuring the usefulness of the planned activities.
The Audit Form in Appendix J-2 assesses the compliance of the SSMP. However, the Audit Form does not adequately evaluate the effectiveness of the SSMP elements. SSS WDR D.13(x) requires that the internal audits evaluate both the effectiveness of the SSMP and the Enrollee’s compliance with the SSMP requirements.
Recommendations:
o Post this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
o Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July - August 2015. o The SSMP must be recertified by the City Council before January 21, 2014. Per SSS WDR D.14, the City must have the SSMP updated and re-certified by the governing board (i.e., City Council) every five years. The City Council approved the original SSMP on January 21, 2009 which sets the date for re-certification on January 21, 2014.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 34
o Revise Appendix J-1 to reflect recommendations for review of performance indicators (i.e., metrics associated with specific SSMP elements and the associated timelines). o Revise Appendix J-2 (Audit Form) to provide areas in the tables for each SSMP element to conduct an assessment of both 1) the compliance against SSMP requirements and 2) the effectiveness of the SSMP element. Information gathered on the recommended Performance Indicator Assessment Forms should be included in the “Support Documents and Data” section of the Audit Form.
SSMP Program Modification/Update Process (SSMP 10.3)
Description of Current Status: The City established a program for monitoring and reviewing sewer performance metrics on a periodic basis and the status of each element of the SSMP on a biennial basis.
The City conducts internal SSMP audits every two years following the adoption of this SSMP. The Wastewater Utility Manager is assigned to initiate/direct corrective action when and if SSMP deficiencies are identified between/during periodic internal audits. Level of Effectiveness: The City has been prompt in responding to deficiencies/enhancements identified during regular reviews of SSMP data and during formal internal audits as documented in the City’s SSMP Revision Log.
Recommendations:
o Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include, the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes.
5.11 Communication Program
5.11.1 Compliance
Table 23. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
xi(a) Communicate on a regular basis with the public
and tributary/satellite systems regarding SSMP 1 -
5.11.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Internal Communication – Staff, Utility Commission, and City Council (SSMP 11.2) Description of Current Status: The WWC uses two PowerPoint presentations for the purpose of presenting internally to the City Council and City staff, the purposes of the SSMP. The presentations are organized in a simple manner to explain an overview of the SSS WDR. These presentations support the City’s WDR Awareness Program with the goal to provide staff with an overview of the SSS WDR regulation and educate the Public Utilities Commission and the City Council.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 35
Level of Effectiveness: This has been an effective way to ensure the City Council and WWC department have clear communications regarding the expectations place on the City with regards to complying with the regulation, the City’s SSMP to limit SSOs and address the requirements of the regulation. These presentations were used during the initial implementation of the SSMP to educate City Council and staff on the new requirements being placed on the City.
Recommendations:
o As of September 2013 the State Water Board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR. Update or develop a new PowerPoint presentation to reflect the new reporting requirements and how it affects the City.
Stakeholder Communication – Residential, Commercial and Industrial (SSMP 11.3) Description of Current Status: The City communicates information about the SSMP by posting the entire SSMP (including appendices) on the City website. The contact information of the City’s LROs is included on the website inviting public input or questions about the SSMP.
The City has a created a PowerPoint presentation for the purpose of presenting in a public setting. The presentation is organized in a simple manner to provide an overview of the SSS WDR. This presentation has been presented as needed to the public in regards to informing the public about the implementation process of the SSMP to limit SSOs.
The City also produces a series newsletters called “EU Today” that are distributed to customers and posted on the City website every two months with information about FOG and what not to flush. A crucial step to prevent SSOs is collaboration with the public.
The City developed a marketing objective and strategy for the FOG outreach program targeted to Roseville residents and restaurants. The outreach program includes television advertisement, mail notices and direct visits to heavy FOG producing food service establishments. The City developed a budget, broken down by month, to fund the activities of the FOG outreach marketing plan.
Additionally, the City joined with other agencies in the region (the Cities of Auburn and Lincoln and Placer County) to develop an outreach program to educate residents about the consequences of what is put into the sewers with of ultimate goal of protecting the environment. The Live Sewer Smart campaign has information available on the internet, monthly newsletters, and the campaign participates in public events.
Level of Effectiveness:
Posting the SSMP on the City website has been an effective way for communicating information about the SSMP to the public. The City has made significant efforts to modify/update the SSMP so that the information there is current and accessible to all who desire access.
The PowerPoint presentation has been used in public meetings. The effectiveness of how well these presentations educate the general public about the SSMP is difficult to measure.
The City devotes significant staff time on a regular and reoccurring basis to produce the “EU Today” newsletters. These newsletters are distributed to the City’s customers on a regular basis and provide another conduit of information about the ways the customers can support the aims of the SSMP.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 36
The FOG outreach program has multiple ways of communicating information to the public. This increases the likelihood that all members of the community will receive information about the items that may be properly disposed into the waste water conveyance system.
The LiveSewerSmart campaign has been another effective tool in communicating to the public about the ways in which they impact the potential for blockages and SSOs in the system. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Tributary/Satellite Communication (11.4)
Description of Current Status: The City has created and implemented agreements to facilitate communication with tributary/satellite agencies. The WWC routinely communicates with their satellite partners and often supports them with mutual aid sharing equipment and resources. The City has three formal agreements that include the following:
o The Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the SPWA
o The Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional WW Facilities o The Funding Agreement Relating to the South Placer Regional WW Facilities Level of Effectiveness: Having agreements in place is great preparation for establishing a source of help during an emergency event. A quarterly meetings with the regional partners has proven effective to discuss the ongoing coordinate between the tributary/satellite systems.
A small portion of the City discharges to the Sacramento Area Sewer District’s (SASD) sewer collection system. The City identified this portion of its system that is satellite to SASD and is in the process of formalizing an agreement with SASD about the expectations between the two agencies. Recommendations:
o Finalize the formal agreement with Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) regarding the discharge of wastewater from the City collection system into the SASD system. o Update SSMP section 11.4 to reference Appendix C-5 for the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the SPWA and to reference SSMP Appendix C-6 for the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities. o Update SSMP Appendix K-5 to include the Funding Agreement Relating to the South Placer Wastewater Facilities. It currently includes only the flysheet. o Update SSMP document to reference the appendices included on the City website (i.e., Appendix K-6 Sewer Smart Newsletter and Appendix K – FOG Pharm Outreach 2012-13 Budget).
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 37
SECTION 6 Audit Summary
This section summarizes the level of compliance of the SSMP with the SSMP requirements identified in subsection D.13 and the identified deficiencies as described in Section 4.1. Table 24 is a summary of the results of that evaluation.
Table 24. Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
viii(a) Evaluate hydraulic deficiencies 2
The schedule is to be reviewed and updated consistent
with the SSMP review and update requirements in SSS
WDR D.14 (i.e., every 5 years). The schedule is 7 years old.
This section also summarizes the recommended enhancements made during the process of evaluating each SSMP elements effectiveness as described in Section 4.2. Table 25 is a summary of those recommendations.
Table 25. Summary of Audit Recommendations
SSMP
Section Recommendation Timeline for Completion
2.1 Appendix B-1 needs to be updated to show Ken Glotzbach and Chris Bracco as LROs for the City. Additionally, once Dan Pruden (Wastewater Collections Supervisor) is registered as a Data Submitter in CIWQS, his information should be added to Appendix B-1 and updated on the City website.
JAN 2014
2.3 Figure 2.2 in SSMP section 2.3 has typographical errors. There is text missing. The figure found in SSMP Appendix F-1 (1) - SSO Procedures Flowchart is the same chart, but includes all of the text. WWE recommends reinserting the figure from Appendix F-1 (1) into section 2.3 of the SSMP with the corrections made.
JAN 2014
2.3 Appendix B-3 includes a call list of staff members who are on call during nonbusiness hours; this is out of date, but also unnecessary. WWE recommends the City develop a SOP for the call center procedures for receiving calls and mobilizing field staff. A call list may be kept internally as deemed necessary by the City.
JAN 2014
4.2 Include the Mapping Update Policy document on the City SSMP website JAN 2014
4.3 Identify targets for all performance measures so that data collected can be compared to a goal to assess performance and the effectiveness of SSMP activities.
A comprehensive review of benchmarks or performance measures/indicators is discussed in the recommendations of Section 5.9.
JAN 2014
4.3 Continue the efforts of the recently revised eeling program due to the immediate impact on the frequency of SSOs from laterals. Data on the number of lateral SSOs per month should be monitored so that the impact of these efforts can be evaluated at the time of the next internal SSMP audit.
JAN 2014
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 38
SSMP
Section Recommendation Timeline for Completion
4.3 Develop SOPs for the regular preventative maintenance activities using SOP-WWC01 as a template. The following is a list of suggested SOPs based on the activities currently tracked with performance measures:
Lift station maintenance
Receiving and responding to customer service request
JUL 2014
4.4 Develop SOPs for regular inspection activities using SOP-WWC-01 as a template. The following is a list of suggested SOPs based on the activities currently tracked with performance measures:
Alarm testing of lift stations
JUL 2014
4.4 Document the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data.
SEP 2014
4.5 The SSMP internal audit from FY10/11 stated that NASSCO training for condition assessment should be added to SSMP Element 4.5. The City implements the NASSCO rating system for collecting condition assessment data and provides this training to the WWC staff. While this is not a requirement of the SSS WDR, the City needs to decide if this training will be referenced in SSMP Element 4.5.
JAN 2014
4.5 Use the SOPs recommended to be developed in this section as a training tool for WWC staff. The SOPs can also be used to inform contractors working in the system of the role they play in responding to and mitigating potential SSOs.
JAN 2014
4.6 The SSMP identifies the WWC Superintendent as the person responsible for maintaining lists of the equipment and critical spare parts. The position directly responsible for tracking equipment and maintaining up-to-date equipment and critical spare parts lists is Materials Technician. The SSMP should be updated to correctly reflect the responsible party for equipment and critical spare parts.
JAN 2014
6 Complete all unpopulated fields in the revised “Collection System Questionnaire” in CIWQS. Enrollees have six months from the date that the revised MRP became effective to complete the questionnaire. This means that the questionnaire must be completed by approximately March 9, 2014. If this questionnaire is not completed by that time, the system will lock the Enrollee out from all reporting capabilities.
JAN 2014
6.3 Figure 6.2 in SSMP section 6.3 has a typographical error. There is text missing in some of the decision boxes. The same figure is in SSMP Appendix F-1(1) without the missing text. WWE recommends reinserting the figure with the corrections made or removing the figure from the SSMP and only reference Appendix F-1(1).
JAN 2014
6.3 Section 2.I.A of the City SSO Response Procedures indicates that the time a call was received notifying the City of a SSO will be used as the SSO start time on the forms reported to CIWQS. WWE recommends that the City develop a SOP for estimating the start time of SSOs to include additional methods for examining possible start times to support the SSO start time entered into CIWQS.
JAN 2014
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 39
SSMP
Section Recommendation Timeline for Completion
6.3 The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station.
JAN 2014
7.2 List Sean Bigley as the responsible party for the FOG Public Education Plan. JAN 2014
7.7 Schedule routine meetings between WWC and IWS to share findings from preventative maintenance activities and FSE inspections to identify FSEs who are negatively impacting the collection system by discharging excessive amounts of FOG.
JAN 2014
7.8 Develop a SOP describing the process of how pipelines are added to the hot spot cleaning schedule, how the cleaning frequency (i.e., quarterly, semiannually, annually) for each hot spot is initially set, and how the cleaning frequency for an individual hot spot may be adjusted over time.
JUL 2014
7.8 SSMP section 7.8, paragraph three contains a typographical error. It states that “sewer line maintenance work orders are issued and completed to ensure that hot spot lines do have grease blockages/SSOs between cleaning schedules”. The word “do” should be changed to “do not”.
JAN 2014
8.2 Reevaluate the capacity of the system so that changes to the system can be updated and recent flow monitoring results can be used to update findings to reflect current conditions and revisions to planned development. The City should consider revising the planned frequency for system evaluation updates if a frequency of five years is not warranted based on system needs.
JAN 2014
8.3 Add documentation to internal SSO reports showing that the amount of precipitation over a 24-hour period exceeded 2.82 inches if the cause of the SSO is identified as “rainfall exceeded design”. The lower bound of the 10-year 24-hour precipitation frequency estimate with a 90% confidence interval from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 data for the Rocklin (station ID 04-7516) is 2.82 inches.
JAN 2014
9.2 Update Appendix I-Benchmarking Metrics on City website with information from FY11/12 and FY12/13 JAN 2014
9.3 Update Appendix I. This appendix includes information from the initial 2007 Implementation Schedule. The initial SSMP implementation and the SWRCB compliance schedule concluded many years ago and does not need to be included in the SSMP. However, the information regarding the continual implementation of the SSMP such as the document location, responsible person, and review frequency should be included
JAN 2014
9.3 Identify the metrics that correspond with specific elements of the SSMP and develop numerical goal ranges so the data currently collected and monitored by the City can be used as performance indicators (PIs) to quantitatively monitor SSMP effectiveness.
JAN 2014
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 40
SSMP
Section Recommendation Timeline for Completion
9.3 Consider tracking additional metrics targeted at measuring the effectiveness of SSMP elements that do not currently have metrics associated with them. A list of potential performance measures listed by SSMP element is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit.
JAN 2014
9.4 Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, develop goals for metrics that track preventative maintenance activities and identify the person/position responsible for tracking data against those goals. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators for preventative maintenance activities with responsible parties.
JAN 2014
9.5 Assign the individuals responsible for the various elements of the SSMP to complete the Performance Indicator Assessment Forms that are developed for their SSMP elements. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators with the assigned responsible parties.
JAN 2014
9.6 Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, set performance goals for the metrics used to illustrate SSO trends. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators related to SSO trends.
JAN 2014
10.2 Post this SSMP internal audit to the City website. JAN 2014
10.2 Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July - August 2015. JAN 2014
10.2 The SSMP must be recertified by the City Council before January 21, 2014. Per SSS WDR D.14, the City must have the SSMP updated and re-certified by the governing board (i.e., City Council) every five years. The City Council approved the original SSMP on January 21, 2009 which sets the date for re-certification on January 21, 2014.
JAN 2014
10.2 Revise Appendix J-1 to reflect recommendations for review of performance indicators (i.e., metrics associated with specific SSMP elements and the associated timelines).
JAN 2014
10.2 Revise Appendix J-2 (Audit Form) to provide areas in the tables for each SSMP element to conduct an assessment of both 1) the compliance against SSMP requirements and 2) the effectiveness of the SSMP element. Information gathered on the recommended Performance Indicator Assessment Forms should be included in the “Support Documents and Data” section of the Audit Form.
AUG 2015
10.3 Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes.
DEC 2014
11.2 As of September 2013 the State Water Board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR.
Update or develop a new PowerPoint presentation to reflect the new reporting requirements and how it affects the City.
JAN 2014
11.4 Finalize the formal agreement with Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) regarding the discharge of wastewater from the City collection system into the SASD system. DEC 2014 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 41
SSMP
Section Recommendation Timeline for Completion
11.4 Update SSMP section 11.4 to reference Appendix C-5 for the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the SPWA and to reference SSMP Appendix C-6 for the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities.
JAN 2014
11.4 Update SSMP Appendix K-5 to include the Funding Agreement Relating to the South Placer Wastewater Facilities. It currently includes only the flysheet. JAN 2014
11.4 Update SSMP document to reference the appendices included on the City website (i.e., Appendix K-6 Sewer Smart Newsletter and Appendix K – FOG Pharm Outreach 2012-13 Budget).
JAN 2014
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013 Page 42
SECTION 7 Appendices
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data
7.2 Appendix – Performance Indicators
7.3 Appendix – Sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data
Dated: FY 2012 – FY 2013
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 7/20/2011 127 Elm Street A Roseville, 95678 Category 2 20 20 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 20 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 127 A Elm Street to Unpaved surface; Other
(specify below);Landscape Area: No surfacewater body affected:
8/13/2011 201 Berkeley Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 50 50 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags caused 50 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer at 201 Berkeley Aveto Other paved surface: No surface water body affected:
8/22/2011 251 Elm Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 20 20 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags caused 20 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 251Elm Street to Unpaved surface: No surfacewater body affected:
9/11/2011 1332 Blossom Hill Way Roseville, 95661 Category 2 15 15 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 15 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 1332 BlossomHill to Street/curb and gutter; Other (specifybelow);Landscape Area: No surface waterbody affected:
10/3/2011 319 Fifth Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer at 319 Fifth ST to Unpaved surface; Landscape Area: No
surface water body affected:
10/7/2011 1414 Frances Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 2 30 30 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 30 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 1414 FrancesDrive to Street/curb and gutter; Unpaved surface: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 10/8/2011 304 Walton Way Roseville, 95678 Category 2 20 20 Debris‐Rags Wipes and Toilet Paper Debris‐Rags; Wipes and Toilet Paper caused
20 gallons of sewage to spill from Gravitysewer at 304 Walton Way to Street/curb andgutter: No surface water body affected:
10/11/2011 1718 Russell Way Roseville, 95661 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer at 1718 Russell Wayto Unpaved surface; Landscape Area: No surface water body affected:
10/12/2011 1549 Misty Wood Drive Roseville, 95747 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 1549 Misty Wood Drive to Street/curb and gutter: Nosurface water body affected:
11/28/2011 750 Atlantic Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer at 750 Atlantic St toOther paved surface: No surface water bodyaffected:
12/2/2011 111 Valencia Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 9 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer at 111 ValenciaAve to Unpaved surface; Landscape Area: No surface water body affected:
12/6/2011 600 Wemberly Drive Roseville, 95678 Category 2 20 20 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 20 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 600 WemberlyDrive to Other paved surface: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 12/10/2011 206 Irene Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 2 2 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags caused 2 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer at 206 Irene Avenueto Other paved surface; Contained in low area by driveway‐ Not spilling upon operatorarrival: No surface water body affected:
12/16/2011 8980 Box Canyon Way Roseville, 95747 Category 2 10 10 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags caused 10 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer at 8980 Box Canyon Way to Street/curb and gutter: No surfacewater body affected:
12/20/2011 1014 Coloma Way Roseville, 95661 Category 25 5 Other (specify below) Construction Debris Other (specify below);Construction Debris
caused 5 gallons of sewage to spill from
Gravity sewer at 1014 Coloma Way toUnpaved surface; Other (specifybelow);Landscape Area: No surface waterbody affected:
12/29/2011 Joanne Lane Roseville, 95678 Category 2 480 480 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 480 gallons of sewageto spill from Manhole at SMH B05‐240 to Other (specify below);Open Field andlandscape area: No surface water body affected:
1/18/2012 219 Estates Drive Roseville, 95678 Category 210 10 Pipe structural problem/failure Pipe structural problem/failure caused 10gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewerat 219 Estates Drive to Street/curb and gutter: No surface water body affected:
1/25/2012 322 Berkeley Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer at 322 Berkeley Aveto Unpaved surface: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 1/25/2012 1162 Cirby Way Roseville, 95661 Category 2 45 45 Pipe structural problem/failure Pipe structural problem/failure caused 45gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer at 1162 Cirby Way to Other paved surface:No surface water body affected:
12/23/2011 8025 Bauser Avenue Roseville, 95747 Category 2 15 15 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 15 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer at 8025 BauserAve to Unpaved surface; Landscape Area: No surface water body affected:
1/27/2012 1313 Champion Oaks Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 2 30 30 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 30 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 1313 Champion Oaks Drive to Unpavedsurface; Landscape: No surface water body affected:
2/9/2012 515 Encinal Avenue Roseville, 95747 Category 210 10 Root intrusion Roots and Offset Root intrusion; Roots and Offset caused 10
gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;Sewer Cleanout at 515 Encinal Ave toUnpaved surface; Landscape: No surfacewater body affected:
2/15/2012 824 Elefa Street Roseville, 95678 Category 210 10 Pipe structural problem/failure Pipe structural problem/failure caused 10gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;Cleanout at 824 Elefa Street to Street/curband gutter: No surface water body affected:
3/5/2012 1326 Chignahuapan Way Roseville, 95747 Category 2 1 1 Debris‐General Debris‐General caused 1 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Cleanout at 1326 Chignahuapan Way to Unpaved surface;Contained in high grass area: Not spilling upon arrival: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 3/4/2012 406 Clinton Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 15 15 Pipe structuralproblem/failureBroken pipe at
mainline
Pipe structural problem/failure; Broken pipe
at mainline caused 15 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Cleanout in alley at 406 Clinton Ave to Other paved surface; Spill
was in paved alley, contained by dirt bermand low areas in the alley: No surface waterbody affected:
3/10/2012 417 Pleasant Street Roseville, 95678 Category 26 6 Pipe structural problem/failure Pipe structural problem/failure caused 6gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewerat 417 Pleasant Street to Unpaved surface;Contained in flower bed: Vacuumed all wet dirt from area: No surface water body
affected: Spill was stopped upon arrival:Instructed resident to obstain from using until arrival
3/27/2012 335 Pleasant Street Alta Ave, 95678 Category 2 2 2 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 2 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Cleanout at 335 Pleasant Street to Unpaved surface; Spill was
in lawn: Removed all standing water anddebris from landscape: No surface water body affected:
4/9/2012 221 Ash Street Roseville, 95678 Category 214 13 Other (specifybelow) Mortar orpool plaster inmainline causedbackup out of cleanout at 221 AshSt
Other (specify below);Mortar or pool plasterin mainline caused backup out of cleanout at221 Ash St caused 14 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Cleanout at 221 Ash St at 221 Ash St to Unpaved surface;Contained in Lawn Area: No surface water body affected: Vactor main to removemortar, cctv mainline to access cleaningeffectiveness Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 4/11/2012 401 Vernon Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 32 31 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 32 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at
401 Vernon St to Other paved surface;Unpaved surface; Spill was in parking lot and portion of overflow soaked into dirtlandscape area: No surface water bodyaffected: Service has been rehabilitated using CIPP liner
4/18/2012 2017 Katherine Place Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at2017 Katherine Place to Street/curb and gutter; Spill contained in low area in gutter:
Not spilling upon arrival: No surface waterbody affected: Work order created to CIPPline lateral 4/19/2012 936 Parry Street Roseville, 95678 Category 210 8 Root intrusion Wasnot spilling upon
arrival
Root intrusion; Was not spilling upon arrival
caused 10 gallons of sewage to spill fromGravity sewer; City Cleanout at 936 ParryStreet to Unpaved surface; Lawn area: Nosurface water body affected:
5/1/2012 402 Main Street Roseville, 95678 Category 210 10 Debris‐Rags Large rags in service that didn't dissolve Debris‐Rags; Large rags in service that didn't
dissolve caused 10 gallons of sewage to spillfrom Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 402Main Street to Separate storm drain;Unpaved surface; Storm Drain DI was plugged full of dirt, and contained spill in
inlet box: Line was not spilling upon arrival:
No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 5/30/2012 200 Atlantic Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 15 15 Pipe structuralproblem/failure Pipehad separatedcausing blockage Pipe structural problem/failure; Pipe hadseparated causing blockage caused 15 gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer; City
Cleanout at 200 Atlantic St to Other pavedsurface: No surface water body affected: Digto repair lateral and restore service 6/7/2012 504 Church Street Roseville, 95678 Category 21 1 Debris‐Rags Disposable wipes Debris‐Rags; Disposable wipes caused 1gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;City Cleanout at 504 Church St to Other paved surface; Sidewalk and gutter: Nosurface water body affected:
6/15/2012 321 Elefa Street Roseville, 95678 Category 25 5 Vandalism Plastic
window part wasdown cleanout andplugged lateral
Vandalism; Plastic window part was downcleanout and plugged lateral caused 5:0 gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;City Cleanout at 321 Elefa Street to Other paved surface; Unpaved surface; Spill was
located in alley behind address: No surfacewater body affected:
7/8/2012 1104 Dartmouth Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 25 5 Pipe structural
problem/failure linehas sag in it causingpaper to build up Pipe structural problem/failure; line has sagin it causing paper to build up caused 5 gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;Paper spilled from cleanout when homeowner removed cap from city cleanout
at 1104 Dartmouth Ave to Other pavedsurface; Spill stayed on driveway and was notactively spilling upon arrival: No surface water body affected: Created work order toreplace lateral Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 7/17/2012 300 Roseville Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 50 50 Root intrusion
Service was notspilling upon arrival
and resident sawwater standing inalley, after neighbor
brought it to herattention:
Root intrusion; Service was not spilling upon
arrival and resident saw water standing in
alley, after neighbor brought it to herattention: caused 50 gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout at 300
Roseville Street to Other paved surface; Spill
was naturally contained in a low spot in thealley pavement: No surface water bodyaffected:
7/19/2012 209 Birch Street Roseville, 95678 Category 21 0 10
Root intrusion Spokewith neighbor and
resident and they
stated they only saw
the debris in the
gutter, not the actual
spill occur: No waterwas running uponarrival
Root intrusion; Spoke with neighbor and
resident and they stated they only saw the
debris in the gutter, not the actual spill occur:
No water was running upon arrival caused 10gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;City Cleanout had evidence of spill but was not spilling upon arrival at 209 Birch St to
Street/curb and gutter; Low point in gutterheld water from spill: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 7/20/2012 310 Oakridge Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 2 74 74 Debris‐Rags Spill wascaused by ragshanging up on rootsin service:
Debris‐Rags; Spill was caused by rags hanging
up on roots in service: caused 74 gallons of
sewage to spill from Gravity sewer; Cleanoutwas buried under landscape at 310 Oakridge Dr to Separate storm drain; Street/curb and
gutter; Spill was in curb and gutter, and madeit to storm drain DI 503' away from cleanout:
Storm drain manhole was checked, andfound completely dry: Vactored affectedareas and vacuumed water out and returnedto sewer system: No surface water bodyaffected:
7/23/2012 175 Lincoln Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 6 6 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 6 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; Spill occurred from
the city cleanout back of sidewalk: Neighbornoticed water coming from cleanout andnotified resident at 175 South Lincoln St to Street/curb and gutter; Spill was contained in
sunken area of gutter: No surface water body
affected: Lateral has been scheduled for CIPPliner to rectify root intrusion 8/10/2012 1227 South Bluff Drive Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer; Spill occurred from city cleanout, however, it wasn't spillingupon arrival: SSO occurred when eeling was started on the service: at 1227 South Bluff toStreet/curb and gutter; Fully contained ingutter with dry sweep: No surface waterbody affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 8/1/2012 233 East Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 53 53 Other (specifybelow) Debris‐ragsand roots caused theoverflow Other (specify below);Debris‐rags and roots
caused the overflow caused 53 gallons ofsewage to spill from Gravity sewer; Spill pointwas from flushing branch on dead end line at233 East Street to Street/curb and gutter;Spill was contained in gutter using rubber berm and dry sweep: All spilled water wasvacuumed and area flushed: All water wascaptured and returned to sewer system: No surface water body affected: Section of main
with root intrusion will be re‐directed forbetter alignment: Flushing branch will be removed with a manhole installed in it's
place: Upon completion, all pipe in sectionwill be new pipe:
8/15/2012 98 Alta Vista Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 275 70 Grease deposition (FOG) Grease deposition (FOG) caused 75 gallons of
sewage to spill from Gravity sewer; Manhole;Manhole and cleanout approx: 5' away from manhole at 98 Alta Vista AV to Separatestorm drain; Unpaved surface; Other (specifybelow);Spill reached a DI that day lighted to a drainage channel along the railroad tracks:Spill was contained in this area, although weassumed approx 5 gallons seeped into drydirt: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 8/30/2012 905 Main Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 905Main Street to Street/curb and gutter; Spillwas contained in gutter with dry sweep: No surface water body affected: Follow up work
order generated to CIPP line lower lateral
9/19/2012 159 Donner Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 25 5 Root intrusion Root
intrusion caused
backup
Root intrusion; Root intrusion caused backup
caused 5 gallons of sewage to spill fromGravity sewer; Cleanout was not spilling uponarrival at 159 Donner Ave to Street/curb and gutter: No surface water body affected: Workorder generated to repair offset and damagecaused by root intrusion 9/24/2012 615 Encinal Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 25 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion and rags in the lower lateral Root intrusion; Root intrusion and rags in the
lower lateral caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Spilled from city cleanout at 615 Encinal Ave to Street/curb
and gutter; Unpaved surface; Lateral was notspilling upon operator arrival, as resident hadstopped all water use in the house: Spill waspartially in a lawn area as well as thesidewalk, curb and gutter: No surface waterbody affected: Work order generated in CIPP line lateral
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 10/20/2012 995 Darling Way Roseville, 95678 Category 2 18 15 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 18 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout
wasn't spilling upon arrival, but there was
evidence of prior spill: Approx 3 gallons
soaked into landscape area: Resident stated
spill had only been going on for a few
minutes: at 995 Darling Way to Unpavedsurface; Other (specifybelow);Landscape/planter bed area: Nosurface water body affected:
11/1/2012 1100 Creekridge Court Roseville, 95747 Category 2 25 25 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 25 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer; Cleanout at 1100 Creekridge Ct to Street/curb and gutter; Spill
was contained in gutter by leaves and debris,
but was not actively spilling upon arrival: No
surface water body affected:
11/3/2012 601 Encinal Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 35 35 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 35 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer; Neighbor noticed
a smell and traced odor back to this address,
and then called dispatch service: Notifiedneighbor of water coming from city cleanout at 601 Encinal to Street/curb and gutter; Spillwas contained in gutter by leaves and debris:Vacuumed all material out of gutter: Nosurface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 11/5/2012 2208 Bud Court Roseville, 95661 Category 2 75 75 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 75 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer; Spill was from
City cleanout, however, at phone call to
homeowner, they indicated that all water
had stopped, but her children had washed
the driveway down with garden hose: at2208 Bud Ct to Separate storm drain;Street/curb and gutter; Storm Drain DI isapprox 450' from address, and minimal water had made it to the di: Di and gutter were
flushed and all water vacuumed out: Spill
volume was estimated by L x W x Depth ofwater, plus minimal volume in basin of DI: No surface water body affected:
12/2/2012 Eastridge Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 1 100 0 Rainfall exceeded
design (Separate CS
Only) CollectionSystem wasinundated by stormsurge
Rainfall exceeded design (Separate CS
Only);Collection System was inundated by
storm surge caused 100:0 gallons of sewage
to spill from Manhole; Spill was slowing
seeping from the gap between the manholeframe and the manhole cover: The manholewas bolted down, slowing the release ofwater: at Eastridge Drive ‐East of Bridge to Surface water: Surface water body affected:Visually inspected the collection system andverified surcharge conditions were receding:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 12/2/2012 Eastridge Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 1 300 0 Rainfall exceededdesign (Separate CS
Only) Collectionsystem wasinundated by stormsurge
Rainfall exceeded design (Separate CS
Only);Collection system was inundated bystorm surge caused 300:0 gallons of sewage to spill from Manhole; Spill was seeping from
the gap between the frame and the cover:
The manhole was also bolted down: at
Eastridge Drive‐ West of Bridge to Surfacewater: Surface water body affected: Visuallyinspected collection system and verifiedsurcharge conditions were receding 11/24/2012 1941 Inglis Way Roseville, 95678 Category 2 3 3 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 3 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout‐ No visible water, but toilet paper was standing
around cleanout at 1941 Inglis Way toUnpaved surface; Landscaped Area: No surface water body affected:
11/28/2012 1955 Inglis Way Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout at 1955 Inglis Way to Street/curb and gutter;
Other (specify below);Landscape Area: No
surface water body affected:
11/26/2012 1501 Colonial Parkway Roseville, 95661 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout at 1501 East Colonial to Street/curb and gutter:No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 12/14/2012 120 Fig Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 120Fig Street to Other paved surface; Sidewalk:
No surface water body affected:
12/31/2012 301 Loretto Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 2 15 15 Other (specifybelow) Privateplumber lost screwplug down line and was wedged in lower
lateral, causing spill
Other (specify below);Private plumber lostscrew plug down line and was wedged in lower lateral, causing spill caused 15 gallons
of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer; City
cleanout at 301 Loretto Drive to Street/curb
and gutter; Used dry sweep to contain water
in gutter: No surface water body affected:
12/31/2012 138 Cedar Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 138 Cedar St toStreet/curb and gutter; Used dry sweep tocontain spill in gutter: All areas were flushedand vacuumed: No surface water bodyaffected:
1/14/2013 376 Circuit Drive Roseville, 95678 Category 2 20 20 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 20 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 376 CircuitDrive to Other paved surface; Street/curband gutter; Sidewalk: No surface water bodyaffected: Added to lateral maintenancegroup project, 4 month interval 1/17/2013 1080 Douglas Boulevard Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 1080 DouglasBlvd to Street/curb and gutter: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 1/18/2013 108 Ben Ezra Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 10 Pipe structuralproblem/failure Pipehad failed due tosignificant rootscrushing pipe Pipe structural problem/failure; Pipe hadfailed due to significant roots crushing pipe caused 10 gallons of sewage to spill from
Gravity sewer at 108 Ben Ezra Avenue toOther paved surface; Street/curb and gutter:No surface water body affected: Lateral wasrepaired at point of pipe failure, and workorder generated to CIPP line entire service:
1/21/2013 2318 Cirby Way Roseville, 95661 Category 2 6 6 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 6 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer at 2318 N Cirby Way to Street/curb and gutter; Unpaved surface;
Landscape area: No surface water bodyaffected: Work order created and scheduledto CIPP line lateral 1/28/2013 1741 Evergreen Drive Roseville, 95747 Category 210 10 Root intrusion Rootintrusion is comingfrom backside ofcleanout wye:Notified homeownerthat he would needto maintain or repairthe break in their line
Root intrusion; Root intrusion is coming from
backside of cleanout wye: Notifiedhomeowner that he would need to maintainor repair the break in their line caused 10gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer;City cleanout at 1741 Evergreen Drive toStreet/curb and gutter: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 2/12/2013 1332 Blossom Hill Way Roseville, 95661 Category 23 3 Pipe structuralproblem/failureLateral had been
CIPP lined within thelast few weeks, and
resin did not setup,
causing the liner to
collapse enough to
hold back paperproducts
Pipe structural problem/failure; Lateral had
been CIPP lined within the last few weeks,and resin did not setup, causing the liner to collapse enough to hold back paper products
caused 3 gallons of sewage to spill fromGravity sewer; City cleanout at 1332 Blossom Hill to Other paved surface; Street/curb and
gutter; Sidewalk and landscape area: No
surface water body affected: Bad spot ofliner has been cut out and repaired 2/16/2013 497 Diamond Bar Lane Roseville, 95678 Category 25 5 Pipe structural
problem/failureHouse is on the topend of a dead endrun: Lateral ties intomain with a teerather than a wye:
Resident has alsoreplaced all toiletfixtures with lowflow units: All of thistogether equates toa problem withmoving paper andwaste through the lateral: Work ordercreated to replacetee with wye to aidbetter flow angle:
Pipe structural problem/failure; House is on
the top end of a dead end run: Lateral tiesinto main with a tee rather than a wye:
Resident has also replaced all toilet fixtureswith low flow units: All of this together equates to a problem with moving paper and
waste through the lateral: Work order
created to replace tee with wye to aid better
flow angle: caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout at 497 Diamond Bar Ln to Street/curb and gutter:
No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 3/11/2013 120 Silverado Circle Roseville, 95678 Category 22 2 Other (specifybelow) Cleanout washolding water, but
not spilling: Astechnician began toclear blockage, the
cleanout started tospill: Cleared line and
water subsided:
Other (specify below);Cleanout was holdingwater, but not spilling: As technician beganto clear blockage, the cleanout started to spill: Cleared line and water subsided: caused2 gallons of sewage to spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at 120 Silverado Circleto Street/curb and gutter; Other (specifybelow);Landscape Area: No surface water body affected: Failure analysis showed root
coming in from backside of wye, and
traveling through coupling: Wye was dug up
and replaced, large roots were removed fromcustomer side of lateral: Lateral is also veryflat 3/15/2013 237 La Rue Alley Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Cleanout‐ Resident was informed to stop all water use, and was
not spilling upon arrival: at 237 LaRue Alley
to Other (specify below);Landscape Area: Nosurface water body affected: Work ordergenerated to CIPP line the lateral 3/23/2013 1505 Antrim Court Roseville, 95747 Category 2 8 8 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 8 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; Resident was requested to stop all water use, and lateralwas not spilling upon arrival at 1505 Antrim Ct to Street/curb and gutter; Other (specifybelow);Grass Area: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 3/23/2013 211 Kenroy Lane Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer at 211 KenroyLane to Street/curb and gutter: No surfacewater body affected: Created work order torepair cleanout 4/2/2013 1415 frances Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 2 25 25 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 25 gallons of sewage
to spill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout at
1415 Frances Drive to Street/curb and gutter;No water was spilling upon arrival: Overflow was contained by debris and a large offset in
gutter: No surface water body affected: Workorder generated to CIPP line lateral 4/9/2013 215 Coronado Avenue Roseville, 95678 Category 2 47 47 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 47 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer at 215 CoronadoAve to Other paved surface; Spill wascontained with dry sweep and dirt berm: Nosurface water body affected:
4/14/2013 1307 Sheffield Way Roseville, 95661 Category 2 3 3 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 3 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; Sewer cleanout in
front lawn at 1307 Sheffield Way to Unpavedsurface; Landscape lawn area: No surfacewater body affected:
4/18/2013 1015 Sunset Drive Roseville, 95678 Category 2 2 2 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 2 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout in landscape area: Not spilling upon arrival at
1015 Sunset Dr to Unpaved surface;Landscape: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 4/30/2013 2218 Americana Drive Roseville, 95747 Category 2 5 0 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at2218 Americana Drive to Street/curb andgutter; Area was dry, but there was evidenceof debris on sidewalk and gutter in front of address: No surface water body affected:
4/30/2013 512 Royer Street Roseville, 95678 Category 2 10 10 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 10 gallons of sewageto spill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout at 512 Royer St to Unpaved surface: No surface
water body affected: Created work order torepair damaged pipe caused by rootintrusion:
5/10/2013 330 Circuit Drive Roseville, 95678 Category 220 20 Root intrusion Citycleanout startedspilling after residenthad a plumber clear their portion of theline: The large massof roots stayed in thelower lateral, causedit to back up and spill Root intrusion; City cleanout started spilling
after resident had a plumber clear theirportion of the line: The large mass of rootsstayed in the lower lateral, caused it to back up and spill caused 20 gallons of sewage tospill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout had evidence of spill: at 330 Circuit Drive to
Street/curb and gutter; Spill was contained ingutter by leaves and dirt: No surface water body affected:
6/20/2013 1795 Vista Creek Drive Roseville, 95661 Category 2 5 5 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; City Cleanout at1795 Vista Creek Dr to Street/curb andgutter: No surface water body affected:
Date Of SSO Address Of SSO Spill Type Spill Volume (gal) Spill Volume Recovered (gal) Spill Cause Overall Description 7/14/2013 618 Lassen Way Roseville, 95678 Category 2 5 5 Root intrusion Root intrusion caused 5 gallons of sewage to
spill from Gravity sewer; City cleanout:
Customer said it was not spilling, and no onewas home at 618 Lassen Way to Street/curband gutter: No surface water body affected:
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013
7.2 Appendix – Performance Indicators
SSS WDR
Element
SSS WDR
Ref. Description Performance Indicator Unit Target
City SSMP (section)Utility Metrics(SSMP Appendix I)WW Collections KPI.docProgram / PerformanceReport FY12/13Strategic Plan DataFY12/13.xlsPerformance Metrics.xls Suggested
Audit
Frequency
Suggested
Responsible Party
Average response time to customer inquiry Minutes 40 Data 40 ‐‐‐ Quarterly Office Assistant Total customer service requests Number 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly Office Assistant Total sewer odor complaints Number 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly Office Assistant Average rating in feeback survey card Number 5 ‐ Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly Office Assistant D.iv.a Maps Average response time to map update requests Days 30 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly GIS Manager Manholes ‐ cleaned & visually inspected per year Number 1054 (9.4) ‐‐ 1054 ‐‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Sewer main ‐ flushed per year Miles 250 (9.4) Data 250 250 250 ‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals ‐ cleaned per year Miles 8 ‐‐‐ 8 ‐‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals ‐ mechancially cleaned (eeled) per year Miles 8 (9.4) ‐‐‐ 8 ‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Working staff time to PM program % 80 ‐‐‐ 80 ‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Number of customer accounts per wastewater employee Number 561 (9.4) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of work orders completed as emergency % 0.4 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Average cost of hydro cleaning $/ lf 0.36 ‐ Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning $/lf 1.6 (9.4) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent Manholes ‐ rehabilitated (i.e., lined with CIPP) Number 25 ‐‐‐ 25 ‐‐ Annually Rehabiliation Manger Sewer main ‐ CCTV inspected per year Miles 30 (9.4) Data 30 30 30 ‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals ‐ CCTV inspected per year Miles 16 ‐ Data ‐ 8 16 ‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals ‐ rehabilitated per year Number 50 (9.4) ‐ 50 50 50 ‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Cleanouts ‐ installed per year Number 100 ‐‐ 100 100 75 ‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Total miles rehabed or replaced per year (main) Miles 5 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually Rehabiliation Manger Total miles rehabed or replaced per year (lateral) Miles 0.25 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually Rehabiliation Manger Annual capital budget for sewer rehab/replacement $M 1.8 ‐ Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually Rehabiliation Manger Average cost of CCTV (main) $/lf 0.53 (9.4) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent Average cost of CCTV (lateral) $/lf 1.34 ‐ Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent D.iv.d Training On‐the‐Job accidents Number 0 ‐‐‐ 00 ‐ Quarterly Safety Manager D.iv.e Critical Parts % of required number of identified critical parts are stocked % 100 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually Materials Technician % of new sewer main construction accepted vs. inspected % 100 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually GIS Manager % of new sewer lateral construction accepted vs. inspected % 100 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually GIS Manager D.vi.a Notification Average response time to SSO Minutes 40 ‐ Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Average SSO duration (main) Minutes 40 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor Average SSO duration (lateral) Minutes 40 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor D.vii.a Public education FOG public education outreach program events per year Number 4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually Administrative Analyst Number of curbside FOG pickups per year Number 25 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually Refuse Division % of CCTV inspections with grease observations (DAGS, >20%) %5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WWC Supervisor % of total FSEs with grease removal devices or waiver/variance % 100 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually IWS Inspector % of total FSEs with a variance % 5 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually IWS Inspector FSE FOG inspections per year Number 294 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly IWS Inspector Coordination meetings between WWC and IWS per year Number 4 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly IWS Inspector % of hot spot pipes CCTV inspected each year % 100 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent Number of spills caused by hot spots Number 0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Volume of spill volume caused hot spots Gal 0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent SECAP D.viii.a Evaluation Frequency for capacity assurance evaluation (hydraulic model) Years 5 App I ‐‐‐‐‐ Annually EU Engineering Total number of SSOs, mains and laterals Number 76 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Total SSO volume, mains and laterals Gal 2000 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of total SSO volume recovered % 100 ‐ Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Total number of wet weather SSOs Number 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Total volume of wet weather SSOs Gal 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSOs caused by FOG (main) % 1 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSOs caused by roots (main) % 70 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSOs caused by Vandalism (main) % 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Number of SSOs caused by LS failures Number 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Number of SSOs caused by pipe failures Number 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSO volume caused by FOG (lateral) % 10 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSO volume caused by roots (lateral) % 75 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSO volume caused by Vandalism (lateral) % 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Repeat SSOs within two years Number 0 (9.6) Data 0 ‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent Category 1 SSOs Number 0 ‐‐ 0 0 ‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year ‐ Category 2 Number 2.0 ‐‐ 2.0 ‐‐‐ Quarterly WW Superindendent SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year ‐ Lateral Number 15.0 ‐‐ 8.0 ‐‐ 8 Quarterly WW Superindendent SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year ‐ Mainline Number 0.6 ‐‐ 0.6 ‐‐ 0.6 Quarterly WW Superindendent Flooding claims per year Number 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent Total cost of claims per year $ 0 (9.6) Data ‐‐‐‐ Annually WW Superindendent Legend
Green Text Indicates the goal for the respective performance measure as stated in the associated document. "Data" Indicates that is recorded and tracked but no goal is defined in the associated document.
MMM SSO D.ix.e trends
Organization D.ii.c
D.v.a & b
D.vi.b
D.vii.b
FOG
OERP
Design
D.iv.c
D.iv.b
D.vii.e
D.vii.f
O&M
D.vii.d BMPs & Devices
Hot Spots
Chain of
communication
FOG disposal
SSO response
FOG inspections
PM activites
R&R plan
Construction
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY11/12 – FY12/13
December 2013
7.3 Appendix – Sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form Goal: MRP
(FY 2014 / 2015)
Responsible Person (RP): WWC Superintendent
Description of Performance Indicator(s) (PIs):
The State Water Board has recently concluded that the existing Monitoring and Reporting Program must be amended to remain adequate enough to advance the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program objectives, assess compliance, and enforce the requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Systems Waste Discharge Requirements. The amended MRP will become effective on September 9, 2013 concurrent with the routine bimonthly CIWQS maintenance release. The Wastewater Collection Division is responsible for submitting, signing, and certifying all reports required by the SSS WDRs and the amended MRP order. The PIs listed below track the completion of tasks necessary for the City to remain compliant with the SSS WDRs.
PIs and Data Analysis Methods:
1. Completion of unpopulated fields in revised “Collection System Questionnaire” Discussion & Scoring Criteria: The City has three (3) months after September 9, 2013 to complete all unpopulated fields in the revised “Collection System Questionnaire” before the CIWQS locks you out from all reporting. After the questionnaire is completed, the system will default back to the annual update requirement and lock you out from all reporting only if the questionnaire is not updated at least annually.
2. Update of OERP section in SSMP
Discussion & Scoring Criteria: The Overflow and Emergency Response Plan section of the City’s SSMP must be updated in accordance with the amended MRP by January 21 2014, when a board review of the SSMP will take place.
PI A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D F
1 All unpopulated fields
completed by December 9,
2013.
N/A N/A
All or some of the
unpopulated fields
not completed by
December 9, 2013.
2 OERP section fully updated in
SSMP before review. N/A N/A
OERP section
never, or only
partially, updated
before review.
Performance Tracking
PI Measured
Value Performance Assessment Comments
1 2
Recommendations for Programmatic or SSMP Updates
PI 1 – Completion of unpopulated fields in revised “Collection System Questionnaire” Recommendation:
PI 2 – Update of OERP section in SSMP
Recommendation:
Signature of Responsible Person: (sign when complete) Date:
Appendix 10-3
SSPM Audit Fiscal Years 13/14 and 14/15
June 2016 Page 1
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennial Audit for FY 13/14 – FY 14/15
Date: June 2016
Prepared by: Michael Fisher, P.E., Water Works Engineers Tim Lewis, E.I.T., Water Works Engineers
Assisted by: Chris Bracco, City Wastewater Superintendent Dan Pruden, City Wastewater Supervisor
Table of Contents
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives ...............................................................................................................................3 SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information.......................................................................................4
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit.......................................................................................................................5
2.2 Review of FY13/14 and FY14/15 ............................................................................................................11 SECTION 3 SSO Trends......................................................................................................................................11
3.1 Historical SSO Data .................................................................................................................................11
3.2 Performance Measures..........................................................................................................................14 SECTION 4 Audit Procedure..............................................................................................................................15
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance ..................................................................................................................15
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness................................................................................................................15 SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements.................................................................................................................17
5.1 Goals.......................................................................................................................................................17
5.2 Organization ...........................................................................................................................................17
5.3 Legal Authority .......................................................................................................................................19
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program ...................................................................................................21
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions.......................................................................................................24
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan......................................................................................................25
5.7 FOG Control Program .............................................................................................................................28
5.8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan ...................................................................................31
5.9 Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications.......................................................................32
5.10 SSMP Program Audits.............................................................................................................................35
5.11 Communication Program .......................................................................................................................37 SECTION 6 Audit Summary ...............................................................................................................................38 SECTION 7 Appendices.....................................................................................................................................44
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data..............................................................................................................45
7.2 Appendix – Performance Indicators.......................................................................................................46
7.3 Appendix – Sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form ..............................................................47 June 2016 Page 2
List of Tables
Table 1. Overview of System Indicators....................................................................................................................4 Table 2. Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit............................................................................5 Table 3: CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data............................................................................................................. 11 Table 4: Regional Comparison of SSO Data............................................................................................................. 13 Table 5. Leading Causes of SSOs in FY13-15 (results from FY11-13 in parenthesis) .............................................. 14 Table 6: Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................. 15 Table 7. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals ................................................................................................. 17 Table 8. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization..................................................................................... 17 Table 9. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority ............................................................................... 19 Table 10. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program .............................................................................. 21 Table 11. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b).......................................................................... 22 Table 12. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(c).......................................................................... 23 Table 13. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions.............................................. 24 Table 14. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP.............................................................................................. 25 Table 15. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program .................................................................. 28 Table 16. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP........................................................................................... 31 Table 17. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM............................................................................................ 32 Table 18. Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends........................................................................ 35 Table 19. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits.................................................................... 35 Table 20. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program............................................................ 37 Table 21. Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies........................................................................................... 38 Table 22. Summary of Audit Recommendations.................................................................................................... 39 List of Figures
Figure 1: Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Average Gallons per SSO .......................................................................................................................... 13 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 3
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives
This report covers the results of the required Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) internal audit process for the City of Roseville (City) for fiscal years 2013-2014 (FY13/14), and 2015-2015 (FY14/15). The purpose of the SSMP is to provide a written framework and process for sanitary sewer collection system (collection system) management, operation, and maintenance programs executed by the City with the ultimate goal of minimizing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and sustaining compliance with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS WDR). The basis for the SSMP internal audit process is reviewing the performance of the collection system versus the performance measures used by the City to evaluate compliance with the various requirements of the SSS WDRs. The intention of the SSMP audit is to help the SSMP evolve over time as a “living document” that City continually adjusts after identifying potential enhancements and implementing changes to address any deficiencies to the management, operation and maintenance of the City sanitary sewer collection system.
The City is committed to completing the SSMP internal audit (Audit) on a biennial basis that is consistent with the procedure outlined in Appendix J-1 of the SSMP. The City completed its first Audit for FY 2011-2012, but subsequently contracted Water Works Engineers (WaterWorks) to conduct the FY 11/12-13/14 biennial audit.
Similarly, the City contracted WaterWorks to complete the FY 13/14-14/15 biennial audit, the results of which are detailed in this document. The key objective of the Audit is to review SSMP compliance, implementation, and effectiveness. The key tasks performed in this Audit are detailed below:
1. Review records from previous internal audits, and confirm deficiencies have been addressed (See SECTION 2)
2. Analyze the City’s historical SSO data and performance measures listed in the SSMP (See SECTION 3)
3. Using a standardized audit procedure detailed in SECTION 4 , identify deficiencies and provide recommendations that could improve the effectiveness of the SSMP (See SECTION 4).
4. Analyze the City’s preventative maintenance (PM) program and rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) program as it relates to the operation and maintenance of the collection system (See Section 5.4)
5. Review the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan (SSEORP) for SSOs and identify improvements as needed (See Section 5.6)
6. Document all findings during the Audit and retain it on file (See SECTION 6) City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 4
SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information
The City of Roseville is located in Placer County and is situated approximately 16 miles north of the City of Sacramento. Along Interstate 80, Roseville is located adjacent to the City of Rocklin in the north-east and the City of Citrus Heights in the south. The City covers approximately 42 square miles near the base of the foothills of the Sierra Mountains. Typical elevations are within a range of 250 to 100 feet of sea level with an average slope across the City of 0.5% from east to west. Several streams flow through the City (i.e., Dry Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek, Kaseburg Creek, Linda Creek, Cirby Creek, Secret Ravine, and Miners Ravine.).
The City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of a continually growing collection system that has grown over 5% since the last internal audit to now serve approximately 129,000 people. Table 1 below highlights key indicators about the City collection system.
Table 1. Overview of System Indicators
Audit FY 11/12 – 12/13 FY 13/14 – 14/15
Miles of Mainline 485.52 501.11
Miles of laterals (lower) 235.3 238
Pump stations 14 15
Sewer service lateral connections 41,568 43,619
Population served 122,060 128,832
WWC Staff 25 28
Annual Budget (FY1 – FY2)
$3,400,000 /
$3,800,00
$3,700,000 /
$4,000,000
Category 1 SSOs 2 0
Category 2 SSOs 75 0
Category 3 SSOs - 89
The City treats wastewater conveyed through its collection system at two regional wastewater treatment plants that are both owned and operated by the City (i.e., Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTPs). Two other satellite collection systems owned and operated by other agencies (i.e., South Placer Municipal Utility District and Placer County) discharge directly into the City’s collection system as well. One small portion of the City’s collection system, however, discharge outside of Roseville into the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) collection system and is treated at the Sacramento Regional WWTP. The City is a part of the Central Valley Region 5 (Sacramento sub-region) of the SWRCB.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 5
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit
The previous biennial SSMP audit for Roseville was conducted by WaterWorks for FY 11/12-12/13 and was completed in December 2013. In the last Audit, a list of approximately 40 recommended actions to address deficiencies or improve the effectiveness of the City SSMP were listed. That list is re-inserted and adapted in Table 2 below, along with a description of the status of the task (i.e., Completed, Ongoing Updates, In/No Progress, Considered) per the latest SSMP documents on the City’s website and based on information from City staff.
Table 2. Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit Element Action Item Status
2 – Organization
Appendix B-1 needs to be updated to show Ken Glotzbach and Chris Bracco as LROs for the City. Additionally, once Dan Pruden (Wastewater Collections Supervisor) is registered as a Data Submitter in CIWQS, his information should be added to Appendix B-1 and updated on the City website.
Completed.
Figure 2.2 in SSMP section 2.3 has typographical errors. There is text missing.
The figure found in SSMP Appendix F-1 (1) - SSO Procedures Flowchart is the same chart, but includes all of the text. WWE recommends reinserting the figure from Appendix F-1 (1) into section 2.3 of the SSMP with the corrections made.
Completed
Appendix B-3 includes a call list of staff members who are on call during nonbusiness hours; this is out of date, but also unnecessary. WWE recommends the City develop a SOP for the call center procedures for receiving calls and mobilizing field staff. A call list may be kept internally as deemed necessary by the City.
Considered.
4 – O&M
Include the Mapping Update Policy document on the City SSMP website No
Progress
Identify targets for all performance measures so that data collected can be compared to a goal to assess performance and the effectiveness of SSMP activities. A comprehensive review of benchmarks or performance measures/indicators is discussed in the recommendations of Section 5.9.
No
Progress.
Continue the efforts of the recently revised eeling program due to the immediate impact on the frequency of SSOs from laterals. Data on the number of lateral SSOs per month should be monitored so that the impact of these efforts can be evaluated at the time of the next internal SSMP audit.
Considered.
Develop SOPs for the regular preventative maintenance activities using SOPWWC-01 as a template. The following is a list of suggested SOPs based on the Considered
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 6
activities currently tracked with performance measures:
Lift station maintenance
Receiving and responding to customer service request
Develop SOPs for regular inspection activities using SOP-WWC-01 as a template.
The following is a list of suggested SOPs based on the activities currently tracked with performance measures:
-Alarm testing of lift stations
Considered
Document the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data.
No
Progress
The SSMP internal audit from FY10/11 stated that NASSCO training for condition assessment should be added to SSMP Element 4.5. The City implements the NASSCO rating system for collecting condition assessment data and provides this training to the WWC staff. While this is not a requirement of the SSS WDR, the City needs to decide if this training will be referenced in SSMP Element 4.5.
Considered.
Use the SOPs recommended to be developed in this section as a training tool for WWC staff. The SOPs can also be used to inform contractors working in the system of the role they play in responding to and mitigating potential SSOs.
Considered.
The SSMP identifies the WWC Superintendent as the person responsible for maintaining lists of the equipment and critical spare parts. The position directly responsible for tracking equipment and maintaining up-to-date equipment and critical spare parts lists is Materials Technician. The SSMP should be updated to correctly reflect the responsible party for equipment and critical spare parts.
Completed.
6 – OERP
Complete all unpopulated fields in the revised “Collection System Questionnaire” in CIWQS. Enrollees have six months from the date that the revised MRP became effective to complete the questionnaire. This means that the questionnaire must be completed by approximately March 9, 2014. If this questionnaire is not completed by that time, the system will lock the Enrollee out from all reporting capabilities.
Completed
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 7
Figure 6.2 in SSMP section 6.3 has a typographical error. There is text missing in some of the decision boxes. The same figure is in SSMP Appendix F-1(1) without the missing text. WWE recommends reinserting the figure with the corrections made or removing the figure from the SSMP and only reference Appendix F1(1).
Completed.
Section 2.I.A of the City SSO Response Procedures indicates that the time a call was received notifying the City of a SSO will be used as the SSO start time on the forms reported to CIWQS. WWE recommends that the City develop a SOP for estimating the start time of SSOs to include additional methods for examining possible start times to support the SSO start time entered into CIWQS.
Considered.
The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station.
In Progress.
7 – FOG Control
Program
List Sean Bigley as the responsible party for the FOG Public Education Plan.
Ongoing
updates.
Schedule routine meetings between WWC and IWS to share findings from preventative maintenance activities and FSE inspections to identify FSEs who are negatively impacting the collection system by discharging excessive amounts of FOG.
Considered.
Develop a SOP describing the process of how pipelines are added to the hot spot cleaning schedule, how the cleaning frequency (i.e., quarterly, semiannually, annually) for each hot spot is initially set, and how the cleaning frequency for an individual hot spot may be adjusted over time.
In Progress
SSMP section 7.8, paragraph three contains a typographical error. It states that “sewer line maintenance work orders are issued and completed to ensure that hot spot lines do have grease blockages/SSOs between cleaning schedules”.
Completed
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 8
The word “do” should be changed to “do not”.
8 – SECAP
Reevaluate the capacity of the system so that changes to the system can be updated and recent flow monitoring results can be used to update findings to reflect current conditions and revisions to planned development. The City should consider revising the planned frequency for system evaluation updates if a frequency of five years is not warranted based on system needs.
In Progress
Add documentation to internal SSO reports showing that the amount of precipitation over a 24-hour period exceeded 2.82 inches if the cause of the SSO is identified as “rainfall exceeded design”. The lower bound of the 10-year 24- hour precipitation frequency estimate with a 90% confidence interval from the NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 6, Version 2 data for the Rocklin (station ID 04-7516) is
2.82 inches.
Considered
9 – MMM
Update Appendix I-Benchmarking Metrics on City website with information from FY11/12 and FY12/13 Completed.
Update Appendix I. This appendix includes information from the initial 2007 Implementation Schedule. The initial SSMP implementation and the SWRCB compliance schedule concluded many years ago and does not need to be included in the SSMP. However, the information regarding the continual implementation of the SSMP such as the document location, responsible person, and review frequency should be included
No
Progress
Identify the metrics that correspond with specific elements of the SSMP and develop numerical goal ranges so the data currently collected and monitored by the City can be used as performance indicators (PIs) to quantitatively monitor SSMP effectiveness.
Considered
Consider tracking additional metrics targeted at measuring the effectiveness of SSMP elements that do not currently have metrics associated with them. A list of potential performance measures listed by SSMP element is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit.
Considered
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 9
Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, develop goals for metrics that track preventative maintenance activities and identify the person/position responsible for tracking data against those goals. See Appendix
7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators for preventative maintenance activities with responsible parties.
Considered
Assign the individuals responsible for the various elements of the SSMP to complete the Performance Indicator Assessment Forms that are developed for their SSMP elements. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators with the assigned responsible parties.
Considered
Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, set performance goals for the metrics used to illustrate SSO trends. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators related to SSO trends.
Considered
10 – SSMP
Program Audits
Post this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
No
Progress
Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July - August 2015. Considered The SSMP must be recertified by the City Council before January 21, 2014. Per SSS WDR D.14, the City must have the SSMP updated and re-certified by the governing board (i.e., City Council) every five years. The City Council approved the original SSMP on January 21, 2009 which sets the date for re-certification on January 21, 2014.
Completed
Revise Appendix J-1 to reflect recommendations for review of performance indicators (i.e., metrics associated with specific SSMP elements and the associated timelines).
No
progress.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 10
Revise Appendix J-2 (Audit Form) to provide areas in the tables for each SSMP element to conduct an assessment of both 1) the compliance against SSMP requirements and 2) the effectiveness of the SSMP element. Information gathered on the recommended Performance Indicator Assessment Forms should be included in the “Support Documents and Data” section of the Audit Form.
No
progress.
Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes.
In progress.
11 -
Communication
As of September 2013 the State Water Board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR. Update or develop a new PowerPoint presentation to reflect the new reporting requirements and how it affects the City.
Completed.
Finalize the formal agreement with Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) regarding the discharge of wastewater from the City collection system into the SASD system.
Completed.
Update SSMP section 11.4 to reference Appendix C-5 for the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the SPWA and to reference SSMP Appendix C-6 for the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities.
In Progress
Update SSMP Appendix K-5 to include the Funding Agreement Relating to the South Placer Wastewater Facilities. It currently includes only the flysheet.
No
Progress.
Update SSMP document to reference the appendices included on the City website (i.e., Appendix K-6 Sewer Smart Newsletter and Appendix K – FOG Pharm Outreach 2012-13 Budget).
No
progress.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 11
2.2 Review of FY13/14 and FY14/15
The City has prioritized eliminating SSOs from the collection system and was successful preventing any Category 1 and Category 2 SSOs during the FY 13/14-14/15 audit period. A total of 10 Category 3 mainline SSOs occurred, of which 5 were caused by Grease Deposition (FOG) issues (i.e., 50% of all mainline SSOs). A total of 79 Category 3 lateral SSOs occurred, of which 63 were caused by Root intrusion (i.e., 80% of all lateral SSOs).
SECTION 3 SSO Trends
3.1 Historical SSO Data
A total of 89 Category 3 SSOs occurred during FY 2013/14 (47 SSOs) and FY 2014/15 (42 SSOs). Information regarding these SSOs is located in Section 7.1 and details the date, location, type, volume, volume recovered, and recovery percentage of total volume of each spill.
One of the City-defined tasks of the Audit is to compare the information submitted to the publicly available California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database with internal City records. The WWC Superintendent verifies that SSO data in CIWQS is accurate and matches the SSO Field Report Forms. Table 3 shows an organized view of key data present in the CIWQS and City internal records and shows discrepancies, if any, between them. The information presented in the “Internal Records” column represents a summarized view of various performance measures maintained by the City.
Table 3: CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data
SSO Historical Data
since last SSMP Internal Audit
CIWQS Data
FY 11/12 – 12/13
Internal Records
FY 11/12 – 12/13
CIWQS Data
FY 13/14 – 14/15
Internal Records
FY 13/14 – 14/15
The total number of potential SSO
service calls received
- 505 / 438 calls - 627 / 915 calls
The total number of SSOs reported 77 SSOs 77 SSOs 47 / 42 SSOs 47 / 42 SSOs The reported total volume of SSOs 2053 gallons 2053 gallons 2388 gallons 2385 gallons The reported total volume of SSOs that
reached waters of the state
405 gallons 405 gallons 0 gallons 0 gallons
The percent volume of SSOs recovered 80% 80% 93% 94%
The average SSO response time 23 minutes 21 minutes 18 minutes 18 minutes The average SSO duration time 18 minutes - 3:00 hours* - The average SSO mitigation time - - < 6 minutes < 5 minutes * Seven long-duration SSOs (> 3 hours long) occurred during the audit period that increased the average SSO duration length from 42 minutes to 3 hours
The following discussion investigates the City’s historical SSO data to identify potential SSO trends to provide insight into measuring the effectiveness of the City SSMP and future improvements in reducing SSOs. Figure 1 highlights the type and number of SSOs since FY 2006/07. The SWRCB defined new three SSO categories as of September 13th, 2013. A category 1 SSO is currently defined as a spill of any volume that reaches surface water.
A Category 2 SSO is currently defined as a spill greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons that does not reach surface City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 12
water. A Category 3 SSO is currently defined as a spill less than 1,000 gallons that does not reach surface water.
As demonstrated in Figure 1, the total number of SSOs per fiscal year has increased slightly since FY 11/12 and FY 12/13 but is limited to Category 3 SSOs.
Figure 1: Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year
To provide regional context and insight into the City’s collection system performance, Table 4 compares the City’s average number of SSOs and average spill volume per SSO per 100 miles of sewer pipeline next to results from sub-region Central Valley –Sacramento (part of State Water Control Board Region 5) and California (State).
This information is gathered from the SWRCB’s annual compliance reports. These reports and their related data can be found online at the following link:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/docs/compliance_report_fy1112.pdf. Generally the City average SSOs/100 miles of sewer pipe is far below the average of all municipal agencies in the Central Valley Sacramento subregion, and is slightly higher than the State. The City’s average spill volume/100 miles of sewer pipe is an order of magnitude smaller than the state, which highlights how effective the City’s SSO preventative maintenance and response program has been. 1 1 1
2 39
19 11
6 13
35 40
47 42
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 FY 06-07FY 07-08FY 08-09FY 09-10FY 10-11FY 11-12FY 12-13FY 13-14FY 14-15 Number of SSOs
Number and Type of SSOs per Fiscal Year
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 13
Table 4: Regional Comparison of SSO Data
Fiscal Year
Average # of SSOs per 100 miles (number) Average Spill Volume per 100 miles (gallons) City
Central Valley -
Sacramento
State City
Central Valley -
Sacramento
State
2011/12 4.88 12.4 4.28 132 3,396 13,925
2012/13 5.85 12.72 4.38 154 4,371 8,194
2013/14 6.39 11.96 4.38 160 2,878 4,587
2014/15 5.71 Report not available yet 163 Report not available yet * Includes gravity mainline, laterals, and pressure pipes A valuable source of analysis is also comparing average gallons spilled per SSO across fiscal years. As demonstrated in Figure 2, the overall gallons per SSO since 2007 shows a downward trend, but the more recent trend in the past 4 years shows that gallons per SSO is generally steady and holding at approximately 27 gal/SSO.
Table 4: Regional Comparison of SSO Data
Figure 2: Average Gallons per SSO
Based on CIWQS records, Table 5 demonstrates the leading causes of SSOs in this audit period compared to the previous audit period. Generally SSOs from Debris and Fog have increased moderately, but SSOs caused by Roots (51 to 63) have experienced a notable increase. There have been no Capacity-caused SSOs in this audit period. The actions planned as a result of this SSMP Audit will target the leading causes to most effectively reduce the number and spill volume of SSOs.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 14
Table 5. Leading Causes of SSOs in FY13-15 (results from FY11-13 in parenthesis) By Number By Volume By Average Volume per SSO
Cause Number Cause Gallons Cause Gallons
Roots 63 (51) Roots 1281 (1235) FOG 149 (39)
Debris 15 (12) FOG 743 (77) Debris 21 (19)
Pipe Failure 6 (9) Debris 314 (222) Roots 20 (24)
FOG 5 (2) Pipe Failure 50 (114) Pipe Failure 8 (13)
Capacity 0 (2) Capacity 0 (400) Capacity 0 (200)
Vandalism 0 (1) Vandalism 0 (5) Vandalism 0 (5)
3.2 Performance Measures
The City utilizes multiple performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the SSMP in achieving proper operation and management of the sanitary sewer system to reduce and prevent SSOs. While the City may use other performance measures for evaluation purposes, the following measures are typically used:
SSO Rate (SSOs per 100 miles of collection system piping per year) Number of SSOs for each cause (roots, FOG, debris, pipe failure, capacity, lift station failures, etc.) Median SSO volume (gallons)
Percentage of SSOs greater than 100 gallons (%)
Percentage of SSOs reported as Category 1 (%)
Percentage of SSO volume recovered (%)
Percentage of SSO volume reaching a surface water (%) The City’s CIWQS SSO record were queried to analyze each performance measure from FY 11/12 to FY 14/15 and the data is displayed in Table 6 below. From analyzing the table, the City’s SSO rate has increased slightly during this audit period compared to the last, mostly related to the increase in root-related SSOs.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 15
Table 6: Performance Measures
Performance Measures FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 SSO Rate, SSOs/100 mi 4.88 5.85 6.39 5.71
SSO Cause
FOG 0 1 4 1
Roots 18 30 32 31
Debris 1 0 1 0
Debris-Rags 7 2 7 2
Pipe Failure 6 4 1 5
Non Dispersables 0 0 1 2
Vandalism 1 0 0 0
Capacity 0 2 0 0
Construction 0 0 0 1
Unknown/Other 2 3 1 0
Median SSO Vol (gal) 27 26 25 29
% of SSOs > 100 gal 2.8 2.3 2.1 4.7
Category 1 % of Total SSOs 0 7 0 0
% of Spill Volume Recovered 99 63 94 93
% of Spill Vol Reaching Surface Water 0 37 0 0
SECTION 4 Audit Procedure
In accordance with SSS WDER Section D.13.x, the primary SSMP audit objective is to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of implementing the SSMP and the City’s compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in the SSS WSDR Order. This section details the procedures used to meet this objective.
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance
This Audit assessed the City’s SSMP against the requirements outlines in the SSS WDR. The subsections of SECTION 5 listed below are organized by SSMP elements. Each subsection contains a table which lists the SSS WDR section D.13 requirements and City’s level of compliance of the SSMP with that particular requirement.
The compliance status of the City’s SSMP is indicated with one of the following ratings: Yes – in compliance, No – not in compliance, or N/A – not applicable with a written justification in the SSMP. If there are any compliance deficiencies, then an explanation of the deficiency is given. Each deficiency will have a recommended SSMP enhancement, which may include action items, adjustments, and/or timelines of the planned completion.
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness
Subsequent to the SSMP compliance assessment compared to SSS WDR requirements, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSMP elements has been conducted to comply with the requirements for SSMP audits per subsection D.13.x of the SSS WDR. The discussion review if the plan outlined for each section is being followed, and how effective the plan is at reaching the desired objectives. Recommendations will be made where City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 16
appropriate based on the results of this Audit to identify tasks to improve the effectiveness of SSMP activities.
Performance metrics will be used wherever possible to measure the effectiveness of the SSMP elements.
This section will not repeat the information and plans presented in each section of the SSMP and is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the stated plans for each SSMP element. The reader should reference the City’s SSMP to obtain the information referenced by this Audit.
A summary of the recommended modifications made through this Audit is included in SECTION 6.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 17
SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements
This section evaluates all elements of the City’s SSMP. Each section of this chapter is associated with one of the eleven elements of the SSMP in accordance with SS WDR section D.13 requirements. Each element is evaluated for compliance and effectiveness described above in 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.
5.1 Goals
5.1.1 Compliance
Table 7. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
i Properly manage, operate, and
maintain all portions of the City’s
wastewater collection system.
Yes -
5.1.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Goals (SSMP 1.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The City currently has six goals identified in the SSMP. The goals of the City recorded in the SSMP have been effective in guiding the City’s activities to support the objective of the SSS WDR to protect the waters of the state.
Recommendations: No recommendations at this time
5.2 Organization
5.2.1 Compliance
Table 8. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ii(a) Identify Legally Responsible Official (LRO) Yes - ii(b) SSMP responsibility and organization chart Yes -
ii(c) Chain of communication for reporting SSOs Yes -
5.2.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications List Legally Responsible Official (LRO) (SSMP 2.1)
Level of Effectiveness: The City has Ken Glotzbach (Utility Manager) and Chris Bracco (Wastewater Collections Superintendent) listed in CIWQS as LROs. Dan Pruden (Wastewater Collections Supervisor) is listed as a data submitter. This is recorded in Appendix B-1 of the SSMP and is publicly accessible. The City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 18
current organization of data submitters and LROs has proven effective in reporting SSOs to meet the requirements of the September 2013 amended Monitoring and Reporting Program. Recommendations:
o Modify Appendix B-1: Add Wastewater Collections Supervisor Dan Pruden to Appendix B-1 o Modify Appendix B-1: Update City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Carol Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Rohan, City Attorney Robert Schmitt). Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Blandon Granger, Vice Chair John Speight. Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Cheryl Hammond. Update Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP 2.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP Figure 2-1) is current in the SSMP and lists a descriptive definition of each individual’s responsibilities. The chart is effective in defining the work flow and responsibilities of the individuals as well as departments within the City of Roseville’s operations with relation to the SSMP. The narrative of the general position description are outlined in Section 2.2 of the SSMP.
Recommendations:
o Modify Figure 2-1: Modify the Industrial Waste Specialist category and remove the FOG Control Program from the description due to the FOG program oversight transitioning from IWS to WWC in 2016. Add the Fog Control Program description to the Wastewater Collection Office Assistant category.
o Modify SSMP Section 2.2: Modify the general position description and SSMP responsibilities under the Lab/Industrial Waste Supervisor, Specialist, and Technician and remove the FOG Control Program or inspection program from those descriptions. o Move the FOG Control Program SSMP responsibility into the WWC Superintendent category and the WWC Office Assistant category.
Chain of Communication Reporting Chart (SSMP 2.3)
Level of Effectiveness: The internal notification contact chart is current and readily available to all wastewater utility district staff. The city of Roseville has a 24 hour call center, standardized answering script and procedures, and a full time staff wastewater utility customer service representative. The individual’s job is to respond to any service calls including but not limited too: backups, SSOs, smell complaints, etc. This has been an effective and well-utilized service, as service calls have increased and the average SSO response time has decreased from 23 minutes from the previous audit period to 18 minutes which is well below the 40 minute target. Only 3 SSO response times were above 40 minutes during the audit period (1:30:00, 00:42:00, and 1:11:00) which totaled 16 gallons in spills and all occurring in the morning at around 8:30 AM, two of which occurred on weekday mornings possibly impacted by dense morning traffic.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 19
Recommendations:
o Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24 hour call center instead of WWC service staff. In addition, modify the Wastewater Admin cell and rename the position as Office Assistant. o Modify Appendix F-1 Flowchart: Follow the same recommendations written above.
5.3 Legal Authority
5.3.1 Compliance
Table 9. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iii(a) Prevent illicit discharges Yes -
iii(b) Properly designed and constructed sewers Yes -
iii(c) Ensure access to laterals owned/maintained by City Yes - iii(d) Limit the discharge of FOG and other debris Yes - iii(e) Enforce any violation of City ordinances Yes -
5.3.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Industrial Pretreatment Program (SSMP 3.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The Industrial Waste Section (IWS) administers the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan and implements enforcement procedures specified by the U.S. EPA in accordance with 40CFR 403.5 (f) (5). The IWS has the authority to permit and monitor significant industrial users (SIUs) and small commercial/industrial dischargers. The implementation of the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan has been effective in providing the City the authority to control and prevent illicit discharges to the collection system. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code and Design and Construction Standards (SSMP 3.3) Level of Effectiveness: The City’s design and construction standards regulate the preparation of plans for construction of additions/improvements to the sewer. The Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) section
14.12.040 requires that building sewer and connection into the public sewer system conform to the requirements of the building and plumbing code or other applicable rules and regulations of the City.
The RMC also requires an installation of a lateral line clean out at the point of connection with the public sewer. The City design and construction standards and the RMC section 14.12.040 have been effective in providing the City the legal authority to properly design and construct the sewers and connections. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 20
Municipal Code – Sewer Access Authority (SSMP 3.4)
Level of Effectiveness: The Charter in the RMC, Article X Sec. 10.01 designates the authority to access City owned and operated facilities, either within or outside its corporate limits, number of activities including, but not limited to maintenance, inspection, and repair related to sewage collection. The authority gives legal access to all City-owned sewer facilities. The City has not had issues to date with lack of access to facilities based on legal authority. The current legal authority to access sewer facilities has been effective in supporting the goals of the SSMP. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – FOG (SSMP 3.5)
Level of Effectiveness: The RMC chapter 14.14 is a robust FOG ordinance that lists regulatory requirements, fees, administrative requirements, and authority to enforce regulatory compliance. This ordinance is effective in identifying the required equipment and BMPs for FSEs as well as indicating the authority of the City to enforce the FOG requirements.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – Enforcement Authority (SSMP 3.6)
Level of Effectiveness: The RMC section 14.12.060 authorizes the City to penalize violators of the City’s code requirements. At the discretion of the City attorney, an individual may be charged with an infraction or a misdemeanor. The authority to penalize infractions that may cost City resources has proven effective to maintain proper use of the wastewater collection system. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Inter-Agency Agreements and Satellite Systems (SSMP 3.7) Level of Effectiveness: The City maintains a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority and Agreement Regarding the Operation and use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities. In addition, the City has an Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
Recommendations: Update SSMP section 3.7 to include the Wastewater Service Contract and Operating Agreement between the City, SASD, and SRCSD.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 21
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program
5.4.1 Compliance
Table 10. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iv(a) Collection system maps Yes -
iv(b) Preventive O&M activities Yes -
iv(c) Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) plan
Yes
The City does have an R&R plan in place
but additional improvement should be
implemented (see below)
iv(d) Training
Yes
The City provides regular training but
additional improvements to the training
program should be implemented (see
below)
iv(e) Equipment and critical replacement parts Yes -
5.4.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Collection System Maps (SSMP 4.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The city maintains electronic and hard copy maps of the sanitary sewer system and storm drain system. Updates to the electronic map system are translated to the field crew trucks via single sheet prints, if required. Full hard copy mapbooks are updated on a yearly basis. The City Mapping Update Policy is followed in order to ensure mapping is correct and completed in GIS and made available to the required users.
Recommendations: Include the Mapping Update Policy Document as an appendix to the SSMP and post it to the City’s SSMP website page.
Roseville Preventive Operations & Maintenance Activities (SSMP 4.3) Level of Effectiveness: WWC engages in various programs to complete routine preventative maintenance activities, which include jet cleaning, lateral eeling, chemical root control, CCTV inspections, visual inspections, and lift station maintenance.
The City experienced a 24% increase in root-caused SSOs during the audit period but also increased total mechanical root control by 35% and implemented chemical root control in laterals with known root issues. The spike in root growth SSOs could be correlated with the City’s mandatory water conservation efforts in response to California historic drought over the audit period. Homeowners and the City responded by decreasing irrigation use, in which case root systems may have intensified growth around existing laterals and connection points to main line pipes as overall soil moisture decreased.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 22
The City outperformed targets and past performance measures as evident in Table 11. Other performance measures or benchmarks are reviewed in full in the recommendations of Section 5.9.
Table 11. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b) Performance Measure Target FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 Total miles cleaned per year 250 277 272 330 284
Total miles of mechanical root control per year - 9.74 11.23 13.89 14.69 Total number of sewer maintenance field staff NA 23 23 23 24 Average high velocity cleaning per crew per day NA 1866 LF 1852 LF 2393 2922 Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning - $1.57/LF $1.36/LF $1.23/LF $1.20/LF Recommendations:
o Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (SSMP 4.4)
Level of Effectiveness: The City regularly CCTV inspects pipelines using the national Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) coding standard.
The City evaluates the risk of failure for each asset based on the various data sources it maintains (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections) and assigns high risk assets in a ranked Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) Plan. If an R&R project is not completed in one year, then it is rolled over to the next. The City maintains a 5-year list of planned R&R CIP projects.
During this audit period WWC produced the R&R list for pipeline lining and manhole rehabilitation which was then used by EU Engineering which operates the R&R program. The City is anticipating changes to this program soon, however, and WWC will produce its own manhole R&R list like before but will also operate the R&R program for it. In addition, EU Engineering will receive the condition assessment data generated by WWC for sewer pipelines and will then produce its own R&R list and continue operating the R&R program for sewer pipelines. In addition, use of the Hansen CMMS software will be discontinued and Maximo CMMS software implemented.
In accordance with City-utilized performance measures related to inspection and R&R program activities as displayed in Table 12, the City has met or exceeded targets with one exception. In FY 14/15 the City missed its goal for total miles of laterals rehabilitated using CIPP per year. The total number of laterals rehabilitated in this audit period was less than the previous audit period, but the total sewer main miles of CCTV inspections increased. Overall the R&R plan development and implementation has been effective and ensures high-priority projects are implemented.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 23
Table 12. Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(c) Performance Measure Target FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 Total miles visually inspected per year (not CCTV) - 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 Number of laterals rehabilitated using CIPP per year 50 134 50 90 43 Total miles CCTV inspected per year (main) 30 29.2 67.6 53.27 65 Average cost of CCTV (main) - $0.48/LF $0.56/LF $0.35/LF $0.41/LF Recommendations:
o Document the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP. Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment.
Training (SSMP 4.5)
Level of Effectiveness: The WWC requires employees be certified with CWEA, DMV, CPR, First Aid, Confined Space Policy, Gas Detector Policy, as well be trained in equipment safety, maintain OSHA rules, and review material safety data sheets.
The existing training program has been effective in supporting a well-trained staff. Over this audit period WWC has reported 2 on the job accidents in FY 13/14 and 8 in FY 14/15. WWC strives for zero-on-thejob accidents and has weekly tail-gate training meetings and monthly training sessions where WWC staff is trained in part via various SOPs.
Recommendations:
o Augment the ongoing training program by documenting that WWC staff have demonstrated the ability to operate a major piece of equipment (i.e., combo Vactor unit) in accordance with available SOPs to a supervisor before using it for the first time in the field and at a specified frequency (i.e., annually or if equipment is upgraded). The document would need to list a piece of equipment, the name of the journeyman, supervisor, signatures, name of SOP if used, and date.
o Modify SSMP Section 4.5 to include training on SSOERP.
Equipment and Critical Replacement Parts (SSMP 4.6)
Level of Effectiveness: WWC maintains a list of equipment and critical replacement parts inventory in Appendix D of the SSMP. The critical replacement parts list is 100% stocked, up to date, and is maintained by the Material Technician at Dry Creek WWTP. The equipment and critical replacement City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 24
parts inventory and upkeep is effective and ensures that a lift station critical part failure can be quickly mitigated.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions
5.5.1 Compliance
Table 13. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
v(a) Sanitary sewer design and construction
specifications
Yes -
v(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting
and testing new and R&R projects
Yes -
5.5.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Sanitary Sewer Design and Specifications (SSMP 5.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The City’s design and construction standards are available on the website and the online SSMP documentation lists their location. These designs and construction standards are effective in ensuring that new or rehabilitated infrastructure is designed and constructed in an acceptable manner.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Sanitary Sewer System Construction and Performance Provisions (SSMP 5.3) Level of Effectiveness: The City’s construction and design standards include procedures and requirements for the testing of new/rehabilitated assets and has been effective in ensuring that recently constructed assets perform as expected.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 25
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan
5.6.1 Compliance
Table 14. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vi(a) Proper notification procedures Yes -
vi(b) Program for appropriate SSO response Yes -
vi(c) Procedure for prompt notification to
regulatory agencies
Yes -
vi(d) Procedures for appropriate staff and
contractor training
Yes
vi(e) Procedures to address emergency
operations (e.g., traffic, crowd control)
Yes -
vi(f) Program to ensure containment of SSO
to prevent discharge and minimize
adverse impacts on the environment
No
SSOERP does not meet certain water quality
monitoring requirements of the amended MRP
document
5.6.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Notification Procedures (SSMP 6.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The average SSO response time was 18 minutes from notification of SSO to operator arrival time for the City of Roseville. This response time is much faster than the City target response time of 40 minutes and indicates that the notification procedures employed the City are effective in facilitating a rapid response from the City’s first responders. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Response Program (SSMP 6.3)
Level of Effectiveness: SSO response procedures are documented in Appendix F-1 Section 2 of the SSMP and are summarized in the flow chart in Figure 6-2 of the SSMP and Appendix F-1 SSOERP. The flow chart uses a series of yes/no questions to guide SSO responders in quickly identifying the right sequence of decisions and actions to properly assess and mitigate an SSO. This chart is simple and effective in explaining the process in which to mitigate an SSO.
During the audit period, the average SSO volume spilled was 26 gallons, with an average 94% recovered from the total SSO volume. Similarly, the average SSO duration length was 3:00 hours long, however there were 7 long-duration SSOs (over 3 hours) that caused the average SSO duration length to increase from 42 minutes. One of these SSOs in FY 13/14 spilled from a lower lateral for 70 hours and resulted in the largest volume spilled of 570 gallons, however all of it was recovered. In all of these instances, the City was notified very late, and once notified, stopped all of the long duration SSOs in under 25 minutes.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 26
The average City response time to SSO calls during the audit period was 18 minutes, and the average time it took to stop the SSO (SSO mitigation) once on-site was just under 5 minutes. These statistics demonstrate that the City has been effective in responding and mitigating SSOs. Recommendations:
o The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station. This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
o Modify SSOERP Section IV Traffic Control (WWC Personnel) to require WWC Personnel to implement traffic control in every situation where WWC personnel may be at risk of vehicular impact in accordance with MUTCD (part of Caltrans Work Area Traffic Control Handbook). It is recommended that WWC produce several standard TCPs (Traffic Control Plan) to match existing traffic conditions or type of roadway (i.e., arterial, residential, etc.). o Modify SSOERP Section V Correct Cause (WWC Personnel) to include a discussion of whether a root-caused SSO could be classified as a PLSD if the City defines a spill cause as the entry point of the root and whether that location is on lower (city) or upper lateral side (private). Include recommendations to provide good documentation of the decision with photographic evidence and a logical narrative.
Regulatory Notification Procedure (SSMP 6.4)
Level of Effectiveness: The Superintendent and Utility Manager are the legally responsible officials (LRO) for certifying SSO reports submitted to CIWQs. The Superintendent and Supervisor are also responsible for reporting the SSOs to RWQCB, OES, and Placer Environmental Health Department as required. This section is effective in conveying the responsibility the LRO in reporting SSOs to the proper authorities. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Staff and Contractors Training (SSMP 6.5)
Level of Effectiveness: Each WWC employee is required to complete the SSO response procedure training updates and review of SSO training are included in the weekly tailgate meeting throughout the year. They are also trained on the various SOPs implemented within WWC. Contractors are also required to implement the procedures identified in the SSO training prior to working within the collection system.
As evidenced by the fast response and mitigation times, the WWC staff’s training has been effective.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 27
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Emergency Response Coordination (SSMP 6.6)
Level of Effectiveness: WWC employees are required to complete the Emergency Action plan training annually. This covers HAZ WOPER first responders and Roseville’s Incident Command System (ICS).
These process, procedures, and response systems are also reviewed via weekly safety tail gate meetings.
These training sessions have been effective way to prepare staff to deal with hazardous waste and materials.
Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Spill Mitigation and Containment Procedure (SSMP 6.7)
Level of Effectiveness: Appendix F-1 of the SSMP includes an SSOERP which includes an SOP for estimating spill volumes, containment, and mitigation of spills. The new amended Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements implemented in September 2013 require a robust water quality monitoring plan that must account for spill travel time in surface water, among several new requirements. The City’s current SSOERP Appendix C Water Quality Sampling Procedures document does not meet these requirements.
Recommendations:
o Modify SSOERP Appendix A – Start Time Documentation Policy to include the following WWC standard field practice: If the start time cannot be set based on witnesses and if there is evidence of a spill traveling a farther distance than 15 minutes, then the field crew estimates the new start time and may try to recreate the spill (with clean water) to estimate volumes. o Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the requirements of the amended MRP.
Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance.
Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan.
o Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all of the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 28
5.7 FOG Control Program
5.7.1 Compliance
Table 15. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vii(a) Public education plan
Yes
The City does have a public education plan
but additional improvements should be
implemented (see below)
vii(b) FOG disposal plan Yes -
vii(c) Legal authority to prohibit SSOs and
blockages caused by FOG discharges
Yes -
vii(d) BMPs, grease removal devices,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements
Yes -
vii(e) Authority to inspect and enforce FOG
ordinance
No The City does have the authority to
inspect/enforce FOG ordinance but no
inspection records were produced for the
Audit period.
vii(f) FOG Characterization Assessment and
Hot Spot Cleaning Schedule
Yes
-
vii(g) FOG Control Program Measures Yes -
5.7.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Public Education Plan (SSMP 7.2)
Level of Effectiveness: The City has developed and operates a comprehensive FOG outreach program to residents, restaurants, and the plumbing community on the proper disposal of FOG. The main objective is to educate the City of Roseville residents and restaurants on the proper disposal of FOG to meet or exceed outreach standards set forth in the State General WDR requirements. The program has implemented TV ads, flyers, bill inserts, and websites to convey the message of educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. This system appears to be effective in educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. Recommendations: List Maurice Chaney as the responsible party for the FOG Public Education Plan.
FOG Disposal Plan (SSMP 7.3)
Level of Effectiveness: During the audit period the Industrial Waste Section (IWS) oversaw the FOG disposal plan with permitted FSEs, however all FOG program-related responsibilities transitioned to WWC in 2016. The City currently has 319 FSEs that are required to and have obtained a FOG wastewater discharge permit (FOG WDP). The same City regulations from the audit period are in place which require City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 29
permittees to retain a minimum 3 years of documentation to prove the proper cleaning, maintenance, and removal of FOG from grease control devices and the disposal site location. The City provides information about the permitting process and permit applications on the City website (URL address below) as a resource for businesses and residences within the City. (http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/wastewater_utility/fats_oils_n_grease/default.asp) The FOG record keeping requirements for FSEs appear to be effective in that only three FOG-related SSOs occurred over the audit period.
Recommendations:
o Modify SSMP Section 7.3 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC.
Record Keeping Requirements (SSMP 7.4)
Level of Effectiveness: As discussed in the previous section, FOG control program responsibilities transitioned from IWS to WWC in 2016, but during the audit period, IWS operated the program. The City requires in RMC Section 14.14.260 that permitted FSEs retain logbooks on grease control device maintenance cycles, FOG hauling records, sampling data and sludge height monitoring in FOG control devices, BMPs, and records of private lateral SSOs and subsequent mitigation. The recordkeeping requirements and time frames identified in the RMC have enough information necessary for the City to enforce permit requirements of FSEs.
Recommendations:
o Modify SSMP Section 7.4 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC Legal Authority to Prohibit SSOs and Blockages Caused by FOG Discharges (SSMP 7.5) Level of Effectiveness: The RMC Section 14.12.050 provides the City with a FOG ordinance and legal authority to require FOG interceptors when deemed necessary by the director. The ordinance prohibits FOG-related blockages and SSOs, and limits the maximum allowable concentration of FOG in FSE discharges at the current level of 100 mg/L of wastewater. This ordinance is effective in providing the City with the tools necessary to minimize FOG discharges into the sewer system. Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
BMP, Grease Removal Devices, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements (SSMP 7.6) Level of Effectiveness: The City requires all FSEs that discharge FOG to acquire a FOG WDP permit which includes provisions for FSEs to maintain BMPs and grease interceptors, cleaning records, and to report private FOG-related SSOs or blockages. The FOG WDP requirements are effective in providing the City with the tools to limit FOG discharges into the sewer system. Recommendations:
o Modify SSMP Section 7.6 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 30
Inspection and Enforcement Authority – FOG Producers (SSMP 7.7) Level of Effectiveness: All FSEs that discharge FOG are required to obtain and comply with a City FOG WDP. Under the permit, the FSE must comply with the FOG ordinance as detailed under the RMC, and the City maintains the legal authority to physically inspect the FSE and determine if it is in compliance.
During the audit period, the City reported that all 319 permitted FSEs were inspected by IWS and zero enforcement actions initiated. Under oversight from WWC, the City plans on inspecting all 319 FSEs each fiscal year.
The City possesses effective tools to regulate FOG discharges via a robust FOG ordinance which also requires an effective FSE inspection program. During this audit, the City did not provide inspection records, however, and without detailed documentation it is not possible to judge the effectiveness of the FOG inspection and enforcement authority element of the SSMP. Recommendations:
o Modify SSMP Section 7.7 to reflect the change in oversight from IWS to WWC o Document all FSE inspections. Develop a standard FSE inspection form which lists individual elements the FOG WDP permittee is required to maintain in a logical order for the inspector to follow. At a minimum, the inspector should enter the FSE, check the grease removal device, conduct a FOG concentration sample, request and view cleaning/hauling records and associated BMPs. After filling out the inspection form to document the whole procedure, transfer the results of the inspection form into a database or spreadsheet by which WWC can track compliance of the multiple required elements under the permit. Follow up with FSEs as required and formally document the process. Attach a blank version of the inspection form as an appendix in the SSMP.
FOG Characterization Assessment and Hot Spot Cleaning Schedule (SSMP 7.8) Level of Effectiveness: The City has been effective in limiting FOG-related SSOs to three during the audit period by identifying and placing assets impacted by FOG as a last resort on the hot-spot, high frequency 3-month cleaning list. If the City encounters abnormal FOG levels in a pipe it will first reach out to FSEs and residents that it thinks may be contributing to it and distribute pamphlets to them to minimize FOG discharges. If that does not solve the problem, then the asset is put on the hot-spot list. Approximately 60% of the 90 hot-spot assets have FOG-related issues that as a whole require significant City resources to clean every 3 months.
Recommendations:
o Modify the EU Engineering GIS database to include hotspot assets and FSEs and add them as layers to the maps that WWC receives.
o Modify SSMP Section 7.8 to describe the process of how pipelines are added to the hot spot cleaning schedule, and remove mention of annual sewer line maintenance work orders.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 31
FOG Control Program Measures (SSMP 7.9)
Level of Effectiveness: The City has established that all FOG-producing FSEs acquire a FOG WDP which limits discharge of FOG, requires proper O&M records, hauling record, BMPs, and other conditions. The FOG Control Program measure provides the City’s with an effective tool to limit FOG discharges from FSEs.
Recommendations:
o Modify SSMP Section 7.9 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC.
5.8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
5.8.1 Compliance
Table 16. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
viii(a) Evaluate hydraulic deficiencies Yes
viii(b) Establish design criteria Yes -
viii(c) Establish short- and long-term CIP Yes -
viii(d) Develop schedule of completion
dates for CIP
Yes -
5.8.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Evaluation Process – Capacity Enhancement Projects (SSMP 8.2) Level of Effectiveness: The City has developed two hydraulic simulation models to identify peak flows in the collection system in 2006. The City is currently developing a new hydraulic model and drafting a new System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) that will conclude in 2017, making it 10 years since the last study. The modeling efforts conducted in 2006 have been effective in evaluating the system and planning for future growth, which is evident from no capacity-deficiency-related SSOs during this audit period.
Recommendations: Modify Appendix I-1 of the SSMP to indicate that the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every 10 years.
Design Criteria (SSMP 8.3)
Level of Effectiveness: The City established a 10-year, 24-hour peak design storm for the hydraulic wet weather loading of the existing collection system along with flow generation factors based on water use City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 32
records and flow monitoring data. Based on the lack of capacity-related SSOs during the audit period, it appears the City’s capacity design criteria are effective. Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Capacity Enhancement Measures (SSMP 8.4)
Level of Effectiveness: The SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation includes the identification of short and long-term Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to meet current and future wastewater flows. The new hydraulic model which will be introduced in 2017 will provide new capacity enhancement measures. Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
Capital Improvement Program Schedule (SSMP 8.5)
Level of Effectiveness: The City lists the goal of the CIP is to develop annual project bundles of approximately $1.5 million based on WWC condition assessment data and the hydraulic model CIP results and subsequent flow monitoring or studies. The CIP schedule is effective in identifying the tasks required to assure hydraulic capacity within the collection system. Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
5.9 Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications
5.9.1 Compliance
Table 17. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ix(a) Maintain metrics to prioritize SSMP activities Yes - ix(b) Measure effectiveness of SSMP elements
Yes
The City does have performance
indicators linked with SSMP elements,
but additional improvements should be
implemented (see below)
ix(c) Assess preventative maintenance program Yes -
ix(d) Update elements based on evaluations Yes -
ix(e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends Yes -
5.9.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Utility Metrics to Prioritize SSMP Activities (SSMP 9.2) Level of Effectiveness: The WWC tracks four categories of utility metrics to monitor and measure the effectiveness of the various elements of this SSMP, which include system information, financial City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 33
information, sewer maintenance, and performance measures. The city also tracks various performance measures related to various SSMP elements and they are summarized in Appendix 7.2. Appendix I has effectively been used to identify and track the specific metrics each of the City’s four categories. Recommendations: Update Appendix I on the City website with information from FY 13/14 and FY 14/15.
Metrics to Monitor Effectiveness of SSMP (SSMP 9.3)
Level of Effectiveness: The utility metrics listed in Appendix I pertain to different overseeing departments within the City, and the coordination between these different Departments in measuring/monitoring various metrics and sharing results has been effective in ensuring the SSMP goals have been met.
Recommendations:
o Update Appendix I and modify it to include document location, responsible person, and review frequency. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been completed. o Identify the metrics that correspond with specific elements of the SSMP and develop numerical goal ranges so the data currently collected and monitored by the City can be used as performance indicators (PIs) to quantitatively monitor SSMP effectiveness. The ultimate measure of SSMP effectiveness is the limiting of SSOs. However, setting goals for activities related to various SSMP elements and measuring performance against those goals, will help determine how success in those elements, relates to the overall effectiveness of limiting SSOs.
Associating metrics with specific SSMP elements will allow for direct assessment of those elements and provide consistency in their evaluation in future audits. Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit contains a list of PI and associates each one with a SSMP element, a suggested audit frequency, and a person responsible for monitoring that PI. A sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form is included in Appendix 7.3 of this internal audit. Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be developed for each metric and assessed periodically by the person responsible, according to the suggested audit frequency for that metric. At the time of the next internal SSMP audit, the completed Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements and included as attachments to the audit.
This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented. o Consider tracking additional metrics targeted at measuring the effectiveness of SSMP elements that do not currently have metrics associated with them. A list of potential performance measures listed by SSMP element is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Metrics to Assess Preventative Maintenance Program (SSMP 9.4) Level of Effectiveness: The City’s current utility metrics Appendix I defines the frequency and type of utility metric that is being tracked to measure SSMP effectiveness. This is effective because it allows the city to monitor performance of particular activities and compare against SSO trends to determined data City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 34
correlations. These metrics do not all have associated goals or targets, however, which makes it hard to track whether the activity is meeting the intended result. Recommendations: As discussed in the previous section, use data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, and develop goals for metrics that track preventative maintenance activities and identify the person/position responsible for tracking data against those goals. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators for preventative maintenance activities with responsible parties. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented SSMP Performance Monitoring and Update Process (SSMP 9.5) Level of Effectiveness: Individual staff oversee various SSMP element performance indicators. The City tracks all revisions/updates with the SSMP using a revision log that is maintained by the LRO. The log is effective documenting changes to the SSMP and encourages the use of the SSMP as a living document. Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
SSO Trends – Frequency, Location and Volume (SSMP 9.6)
Level of Effectiveness: The City tracks a comprehensive list of metrics that are included in Appendix I and the City’s Performance Reports. This allows the City to quickly identify and respond to changing trends in SSOs over time.
Recommendations: Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, set performance goals for the metrics used to illustrate SSO trends. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators related to SSO trends. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 35
Table 18. Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends Performance Measure Unit Target Source
SSOs - Total number, mains and laterals Number - A, B
SSOs - Total volume, mains and laterals Gal - A, B
SSOs - Total volume recovered Gal - B
SSOs - Total number of wet weather Number - A, B
SSOs - Total volume of wet weather Gal - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by FOG (main) % - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by roots (main) % - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by Vandalism (main) % - A, B
SSOs - caused by LS failures Number - A, B
SSOs - caused by pipe failures Number - A, B
SSOs - % of spill volume caused by FOG (lateral) % - A, B SSOs - % of spill volume caused by roots (lateral) % - A, B SSOs - % of spill volume caused by Vandalism (lateral) % - A, B Customer service requests per year Number - A, B
Sewer odor complaints Number - A, B
Flooding claims per year Number - A, B
Cost of flooding claims per year $ - A, B
SSO – Repeats within two years Number 0 B, C
SSOs - Category 1 Number 0 C, D
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Category 2 Number 2.0 C
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Mainline Number 0.6 C
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Lateral Number 8.0 C
A = SSMP section 9.6
B = SSMP Appendix I
C = WW Collections KPIs
D = Program / Performance Reports
5.10 SSMP Program Audits
5.10.1 Compliance
Table 19. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
x Conduct periodic audits Yes -
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 36
5.10.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Audit Procedures, Roles, and Responsibilities (SSMP 10.2) Level of Effectiveness: The City conducts an internal audit biennially to continually measure the effectiveness of the SSMP primarily through evaluating system metrics, performance measures, and reduce SSOs by improving SSMP procedures to better respond to new SSO trends. In addition the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with SSMP requirements, particularly the amended MRP requirements that were formalized in September 2013. The City developed an audit form as a template to record information produced during the internal SSMP audits. This form is included in SSMP Appendix J-2. The previous audit identified many areas of improvement which the City responded and acted on. Some of these recommended improvements were excluded from this audit based on discussions with the City that eliminated the need for them. Others are considered standing, and should still be implemented by the City. Generally the internal audits implemented by the City have been effective in improving the SSMP and turning it into a living document that that is current, practical, and useful for the City. Recommendations:
o Post the previous SSMP internal audit (FY 11/12 and FY 12/13) and this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
o Post the most recent City council SSMP recertification (from 2014) the City website. o Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July-August of 2017 o Revise Appendix J-1 to reflect recommendations for review of performance indicators (i.e., metrics associated with specific SSMP elements and the associated timelines). This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Revise Appendix J-2 (audit form) to provide areas in the tables for each SSMP element to conduct an assessment of both SSMP compliance to Regional Board requirements, and effectiveness of individual SSMP elements. Remove Kim Spears and IWS from the certification of audit table. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
SSMP Program Modification/Update Process (SSMP 10.3)
Level of Effectiveness: The City developed a program for monitoring, reviewing sewer performance metrics and the effectiveness of SSMP elements on a biennial basis. Based on the results of the SSMP audits, the Wastewater Utility Manager is assigned to initiate/direct corrective actions to respond to deficiencies and enhancements identified in the audit. As determined in the City’s SSMP revision log, the City has been prompt in responding to audit and continually strives to implement improvements. Recommendations:
o Update the SSMP revision log and post on the website. o Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 37
with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
5.11 Communication Program
5.11.1 Compliance
Table 20. Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
xi(a) Communicate on a regular basis with the public
and tributary/satellite systems regarding SSMP Yes -
5.11.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Internal Communication – Staff, Utility Commission, and City Council (SSMP 11.2) Level of Effectiveness: The WWC has used PowerPoint presentations as a resource to describe the purpose of the SSMP and summarize SSS WDR requirements to the City council and City staff. These presentations are attached to the SSMP website.
Recommendations:
o As of September 2013 the State Water board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR and the City produced a training PowerPoint to City staff, council, and stakeholders regarding the update.
Attach the PowerPoint to the SSMP website.
Stakeholder Communication – Residential, Commercial and Industrial (SSMP 11.3) Level of Effectiveness: The City communicates regularly with the public and stakeholders via monthly newsletters entitled “EU Today” that includes items regarding sewer utilities. This newsletter is presented online and through bill inserts. A sample newsletter is included in Appendix K of the SSMP. In addition, the City specifically communicates FOG related items to the community via FOG outreach program over TV ads, flyers, direct mail, and site visits to FSEs. The WWC registered approximately 40 percent more service calls during this audit period than during the last. As the level of SSOs has only increased slightly since the previous audit period, the increase in service calls may indicate the effectiveness of City outreach programs in encouraging the public to communicate with WWC their concerns or observations about any sewer utility issues. Recommendations:
o Update SSMP Appendix K-4 with FY 13-15 EU marketing Plan budget & spending City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 38
Tributary/Satellite Communication (11.4)
Level of Effectiveness: The City routinely communicates with their satellite partners and has three formal agreements in place that include:
o The joint exercise of power agreement for the SPWA
o The agreement regarding the operation of and use of South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities
o The funding agreement relating to the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities o Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). Recommendations:
o Add the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) as attachment K-7 and modify the SSMP to mention it. o Modify SSMP 11.4 to include the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
SECTION 6 Audit Summary
Table 21. Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vi(f) Program to ensure containment
of SSO to prevent discharge and
minimize adverse impacts on the
environment
No
SSOERP does not meet certain water quality
monitoring requirements of the amended MRP
document.
vii(e) Authority to inspect and enforce
FOG ordinance
No The City does have the authority to inspect/enforce
FOG ordinance but no inspection records were
produced for the Audit period.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 39
Table 22. Summary of Audit Recommendations
SSMP
Section Recommendation
Suggested
Timeline for
Completion
2.1 Modify Appendix B-1: Add Wastewater Collections Supervisor Dan Pruden. Update City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Carol Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Rohan, City Attorney Robert Schmitt). Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Blandon Granger, Vice Chair John Speight. Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Cheryl Hammond. Update Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
2.2 Modify Figure 2-1: Modify the Industrial Waste Specialist category and remove the FOG Control Program from the description due to the FOG program oversight transitioning from IWS to WWC in 2016. Add the Fog Control Program description to the Wastewater Collection Office Assistant category.
2.2 Modify SSMP Section 2.2: Modify the general position description and SSMP responsibilities under the Lab/Industrial Waste Supervisor, Specialist, and Technician and remove the FOG Control Program or inspection program from those descriptions.
2.2 Move the FOG Control Program SSMP responsibility into the WWC Superintendent category and the WWC Office Assistant category.
2.3 Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24 hour call center instead of WWC service staff.
In addition, modify the Wastewater Admin cell and rename the position as Office Assistant.
2.3 Modify Appendix F-1 Flowchart: Follow the same recommendations written above.
3.7 Update SSMP section 3.7 to include the Wastewater Service Contract and Operating Agreement between the City, SASD, and SRCSD.
4.2 Include the Mapping Update Policy Document as an appendix to the SSMP and post it to the City’s SSMP website page.
4.3 Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
4.4 Document the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 40
the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
4.4 Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP. Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment.
4.5 Augment the ongoing training program by documenting that WWC staff have demonstrated the ability to operate a major piece of equipment (i.e., combo Vactor unit) in accordance with available SOPs to a supervisor before using it for the first time in the field and at a specified frequency (i.e., annually or if equipment is upgraded). The document would need to list a piece of equipment, the name of the journeyman, supervisor, signatures, name of SOP if used, and date.
4.5 Modify SSMP Section 4.5 to include training on SSOERP.
6.3 The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station. This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
6.3 Modify SSOERP Section IV Traffic Control (WWC Personnel) to require WWC Personnel to implement traffic control in every situation where WWC personnel may be at risk of vehicular impact in accordance with MUTCD (part of Caltrans Work Area Traffic Control Handbook). It is recommended that WWC produce several standard TCPs (Traffic Control Plan) to match existing traffic conditions or type of roadway (i.e., arterial, residential, etc.).
6.3 Modify SSOERP Section V Correct Cause (WWC Personnel) to include a discussion of whether a root-caused SSO could be classified as a PLSD if the City defines a spill cause as the entry point of the root and whether that location is on lower (city) or upper lateral side (private). Include recommendations to provide good documentation of the decision with photographic evidence and a logical narrative.
6.7 Modify SSOERP Appendix A – Start Time Documentation Policy to include the following WWC standard field practice: If the start time cannot be set based on witnesses and if there is evidence of a spill traveling a farther distance than 15 minutes, then the field crew estimates the new start time and may try to recreate the spill (with clean water) to estimate volumes.
6.7 Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 41
requirements of the amended MRP.
Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance. Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan.
6.7 Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all of the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling.
7.3 Modify SSMP Section 7.3 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC.
7.4 Modify SSMP Section 7.4 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC
7.6 Modify SSMP Section 7.6 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC
7.7 Modify SSMP Section 7.7 to reflect the change in oversight from IWS to WWC
7.7 Document all FSE inspections. Develop a standard FSE inspection form which lists individual elements the FOG WDP permittee is required to maintain in a logical order for the inspector to follow. At a minimum, the inspector should enter the FSE, check the grease removal device, conduct a FOG concentration sample, request and view cleaning/hauling records and associated BMPs. After filling out the inspection form to document the whole procedure, transfer the results of the inspection form into a database or spreadsheet by which WWC can track compliance of the multiple required elements under the permit. Follow up with FSEs as required and formally document the process. Attach a blank version of the inspection form as an appendix in the SSMP.
7.8 Modify the EU Engineering GIS database to include hotspot assets and FSEs and add them as layers to the maps that WWC receives.
7.8 Modify SSMP Section 7.8 to describe the process of how pipelines are added to the hot spot cleaning schedule, and remove mention of annual sewer line maintenance work orders
7.9 Modify SSMP Section 7.9 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC.
8.2 Modify Appendix I-1 of the SSMP to indicate that the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every 10 years.
9.2 Update Appendix I on the City website with information from FY 13/14 and FY 14/15.
9.3 Update Appendix I and modify it to include document location, responsible person, and review frequency. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 42
completed.
9.3 Identify the metrics that correspond with specific elements of the SSMP and develop numerical goal ranges so the data currently collected and monitored by the City can be used as performance indicators (PIs) to quantitatively monitor SSMP effectiveness. The ultimate measure of SSMP effectiveness is the limiting of SSOs. However, setting goals for activities related to various SSMP elements and measuring performance against those goals, will help determine how success in those elements, relates to the overall effectiveness of limiting SSOs. Associating metrics with specific SSMP elements will allow for direct assessment of those elements and provide consistency in their evaluation in future audits. Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit contains a list of PI and associates each one with a SSMP element, a suggested audit frequency, and a person responsible for monitoring that PI. A sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form is included in Appendix 7.3 of this internal audit. Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be developed for each metric and assessed periodically by the person responsible, according to the suggested audit frequency for that metric. At the time of the next internal SSMP audit, the completed Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements and included as attachments to the audit. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
9.3 Consider tracking additional metrics targeted at measuring the effectiveness of SSMP elements that do not currently have metrics associated with them. A list of potential performance measures listed by SSMP element is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
9.4 As discussed in the previous section, use data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, and develop goals for metrics that track preventative maintenance activities and identify the person/position responsible for tracking data against those goals. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators for preventative maintenance activities with responsible parties. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented
9.6 Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, set performance goals for the metrics used to illustrate SSO trends. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators related to SSO trends. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
10.2 Post the previous SSMP internal audit (FY 11/12 and FY 12/13) and this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
10.2 Post the most recent City council SSMP recertification (from 2014) the City website.
10.2 Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July-August of 2017 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 43
10.2 Revise Appendix J-1 to reflect recommendations for review of performance indicators (i.e., metrics associated with specific SSMP elements and the associated timelines). This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Revise Appendix J-2 (audit form) to provide areas in the tables for each SSMP element to conduct an assessment of both SSMP compliance to Regional Board requirements, and effectiveness of individual SSMP elements. Remove Kim Spears and IWS from the certification of audit table. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
10.3 Update the SSMP revision log and post on the website.
10.3 Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes.
This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11.2 As of September 2013 the State Water board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR and the City produced a training PowerPoint to City staff, council, and stakeholders regarding the update. Attach the PowerPoint to the SSMP website.
11.3 Update SSMP Appendix K-4 with FY 13-15 EU marketing Plan budget & spending
11.4 Add the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) as attachment K-7 and modify the SSMP to mention it.
11.4 Modify SSMP 11.4 to include the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016 Page 44
SECTION 7 Appendices
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data
7.2 Appendix – Performance Indicators
7.3 Appendix – Sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data
Dated: FY 2013 - 2015
Date of SSO Address of SSO Spill Type
Spill
Vol
(Gal)
Spill Vol
Recovered
(Gal)
Spill
Recovery
%
Spill Cause
7/23/13 618 Lassen Way Category 3 5 5 100% Root intrusion 8/29/13 2012 Katherine Place Category 3 5 5 100% Root intrusion 8/29/13 605 Oak Street Category 3 50 50 100% Root intrusion 9/9/13 149 South Lincoln St Category 3 2 1 50% Root Intrusion 10/4/13 311 Evelyn Avenue Category 3 8 8 100% Debris-Rags 9/17/13 801 Main Street Category 3 9 8 89% Root Intrusion 10/11/13 116 Berry Street Category 3 10 9 90% Root Intrusion 10/11/13 528 Royer Street Category 3 15 15 100% Root Intrusion 10/11/13 509 Royer St Category 3 3 3 100% Root Intrusion 11/6/13 348 W Duranta Category 3 3 1 33% Root Intrusion 11/6/13 1004 Crete Way Category 3 1 1 100% Root Intrusion 11/6/13 109 Keehner Ave Category 3 35 35 100% Root Intrusion 11/8/13 308 Folsom Rd Category 3 80 75 94% Debris-General 11/12/13 Roseville St. Category 3 25 25 100% Grease Deposition (FOG) 11/6/13 900 Herbert Street Category 3 5 1 20% Root Intrusion 11/6/13 503 Sixth Street Category 3 10 10 100% Root Intrusion 11/13/13 312 Folsom Rd. Category 3 10 10 100% Root Intrusion 11/14/13 SMH C04-356 Category 3 10 10 100% Grease Deposition (FOG) 12/16/13 214 Cedar Category 3 2 1 50% Root Intrusion
12/16/13 Folsom, Cross Street
Sutter
Category 3 26 22 85% Root Intrusion
12/16/13 900 Atlantic St. Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion 12/16/13 335 Grove St. Category 3 1 1 100% Root Intrusion 12/17/13 607 Windsor Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion 12/18/13 168 Donner Category 3 5 5 100% Grease Deposition (FOG) 12/17/13 503 Tahoe Category 3 50 45 90% Root Intrusion
1/16/14 153 Nevada Category 3 2 1 50% Root Intrusion
1/3/14 1044 Magnolia Wy Category 3 2 2 100% Root Intrusion 1/15/14 1207 Meadow Lane Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion 1/9/14 620 Dawnridge Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion 1/14/14 358 Circuit Dr. Category 3 1 1 100% Non-Dispersables 1/14/14 806 Joe Anne Lane Category 3 5 5 100% Debris-Rags 1/17/14 213 Church St. Category 3 3 3 100% Root Intrusion 1/29/14 358 Circuit Category 3 6 6 100% Other (specify below) 2/14/14 820 Shearer Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion
2/24/14 730 Elefa Category 3 570 570 100% Root Intrusion 2/25/14 518 Dudley Category 3 8 7 88% Root Intrusion
4/10/14 311 Vernon St Category 3 30 29 97% Debris-Rags
4/14/14 211 S. Lincoln Category 3 1 1 100% Root Intrusion 4/16/14 1620 Santa Clara Category 3 15 14 93% Debris-Rags 4/25/14 204 Sutter Ave. Category 3 5 4 80% Root Intrusion 5/15/14 608 Encinal Ave. Category 3 6 6 100% Pipe Structural Problem/Failure
5/21/14 1498 Deerfield Category 3 6 5 83% Debris-Rags
5/23/14 200 N. Grant Category 3 5 0 0% Root Intrusion
6/20/14 1020 Church St Category 3 5 5 100% Debris-Rags
6/30/14 2001 Polley Category 3 30 0 0% Debris-Rags
7/1/14 1007 Hillcrest Category 3 80 75 94% Grease Deposition (FOG) 7/10/14 1809 Piedmont Category 3 8 5 63% Root Intrusion 7/15/14 1133 Smith ln Category 3 14 4 29% Root Intrusion 8/26/14 1707 Sunningdale Dr Category 3 10 10 100% Root Intrusion 8/28/14 408 Garden Breeze Ct Category 3 3 3 100% Root Intrusion 9/24/14 201 N. Grant Category 3 20 19 95% Root Intrusion 9/25/14 1308 Plymouth Ct. Category 3 100 100 100% Debris-Rags 9/25/14 1007 Chisum Ct Category 3 4 4 100% Root Intrusion 9/25/14 1501 Cardinal Wy. Category 3 2 2 100% Root Intrusion 10/7/14 1007 Chisum Ct. Category 3 2 1 50% Debris from Construction 10/7/14 2588 McCloud Category 3 77 77 100% Root Intrusion 10/8/14 1789 Vista Creek Category 3 2 1 50% Pipe Structural Problem/Failure
10/21/14 115 Campo St. Category 3 5 4 80% Root Intrusion 10/29/14 7164 Marblethorpe Category 3 36 11 31% Root Intrusion 11/17/14 318 Earl Category 3 18 18 100% Root Intrusion
10/22/14 7040 Petersborough Category 3 1 1 100% Root Intrusion 11/20/14 319 Clinton Category 3 5 4 80% Root Intrusion
12/15/14 1198 Ravine View Category 3 12 1 8% Root Intrusion 12/11/14 1025 Douglas Category 3 26 26 100% Root Intrusion 12/5/14 312 B St. Category 3 623 623 100% Grease Deposition (FOG) 1/13/15 7337 Pineschi Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion 12/23/14 97 Vernon St. Category 3 22 19 86% Root Intrusion 12/18/14 915 Main St Category 3 17 17 100% Root Intrusion 12/24/14 1748 Chilton Dr Category 3 3 3 100% Root Intrusion 1/14/15 212 C St. Category 3 10 7 70% Root Intrusion
1/14/15 1012 Melrose Category 3 9 7 78% Root Intrusion
2/23/15 1106 Windermere Av,
Roseville Ca.
Category 3 10 8 80% Root Intrusion
1/28/15 1211 Donahue Category 3 10 10 100% Pipe Structural Problem/Failure
2/10/15 504 Diamond Bar Category 3 3 3 100% Root Intrusion 2/23/15 1409 Oakmont Category 3 11 11 100% Root Intrusion 3/4/15 1212 Stiney Point Category 3 1 1 100% Root Intrusion 2/25/15 1044 Treasure Ln. Category 3 2 2 100% Debris-Rags 3/27/15 1700 Hiawatha Category 3 21 5 24% Non-Dispersables 3/13/15 605 Mayfair Category 3 12 10 83% Root Intrusion 4/16/15 114 Vernon St. Category 3 43 43 100% Root Intrusion 3/26/15 311 Main St Category 3 17 16 94% Pipe Structural Problem/Failure
4/16/15 332 Irene Category 3 5 3 60% Root Intrusion
4/16/15 313 Coranado Category 3 10 10 100% Pipe Structural Problem/Failure
5/21/15 213 Irene Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion
5/13/15 411 Loretto Dr Category 3 1 1 100% Root Intrusion 6/3/15 214 Coronado Ave Category 3 5 0 0% Pipe Structural Problem/Failure
6/19/15 902 Avalon Ct Category 3 5 5 100% Root Intrusion 6/15/15 1415 McBride Category 3 15 15 100% Root Intrusion 7/9/15 2801 Courtside Category 3 3 1 33% Non-Dispersables City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016
7.2 Appendix – Performance Indicators
SSS WDR
Element
SSS WDR
Ref. Description Performance Indicator Unit Target
City SSMP (section)Utility Metrics (SSMP Appendix I)WW Collections KPI.docProgram / Performance Report FY12/13Strategic Plan Data FY12/13.xlsPerformance Metrics.xls Suggested
Audit
Frequency
Suggested
Responsible Party
Average response time to customer inquiry Minutes 40 Data 40 - - - Quarterly Office Assistant Total customer service requests Number 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly Office Assistant Total sewer odor complaints Number 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly Office Assistant Average rating in feeback survey card Number 5 - Data - - - - Quarterly Office Assistant Manholes - cleaned & visually inspected per year Number (9.4) - - - - - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Sewer main - flushed per year Miles 250 (9.4) Data 250 250 250 - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals - cleaned per year Miles 8 - - - 8 - - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals - mechancially cleaned (eeled) per year Miles 8 (9.4) - - - 8 - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Working staff time to PM program % 80 - - - 80 - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Number of customer accounts per wastewater employee Number 561 (9.4) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Average cost of hydro cleaning $/ lf 0.36 - Data - - - - Annually WW Superindendent Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning $/lf 1.6 (9.4) Data - - - - Annually WW Superindendent Manholes - rehabilitated (i.e., lined with CIPP) Number 25 - - - 25 - - Annually Rehabiliation Manger Sewer main - CCTV inspected per year Miles 30 (9.4) Data 30 30 30 - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals - CCTV inspected per year Miles 16 - Data - 8 16 - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Service laterals - rehabilitated per year Number 50 (9.4) - 50 50 50 - Quarterly WW Superindendent Cleanouts - installed per year Number 100 - - 100 100 75 - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Total miles rehabed or replaced per year (main) Miles 5 (9.6) Data - - - - Annually Rehabiliation Manger Total miles rehabed or replaced per year (lateral) Miles 0.25 (9.6) Data - - - - Annually Rehabiliation Manger Annual capital budget for sewer rehab/replacement $M 1.8 - Data - - - - Annually Rehabiliation Manger Average cost of CCTV (main) $/lf 0.53 (9.4) Data - - - - Annually WW Superindendent Average cost of CCTV (lateral) $/lf 1.34 - Data - - - - Annually WW Superindendent D.iv.d Training On-the-Job accidents Number 0 - - - 0 0 - Quarterly Safety Manager D.iv.e Critical Parts % of required number of identified critical parts are stocked % 100 - - - - - - Annually Materials Technician % of new sewer main construction accepted vs. inspected % 100 (9.6) Data - - - - Annually GIS Manager % of new sewer lateral construction accepted vs. inspected % 100 (9.6) Data - - - - Annually GIS Manager D.vi.a Notification Average response time to SSO Minutes 40 - Data - - - - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Average SSO duration (main) Minutes 40 - - - - - - Quarterly WWC Supervisor Average SSO duration (lateral) Minutes 40 - - - - - - Quarterly WWC Supervisor D.vii.a Public education FOG public education outreach program events per year Number 4 - - - - - - Annually Administrative Analyst Number of curbside FOG pickups per year Number 25 - - - - - - Annually Refuse Division % of CCTV inspections with grease observations (DAGS, >20%) % 5 - - - - - - Quarterly WWC Supervisor % of total FSEs with grease removal devices or waiver/variance % 100 - - - - - - Annually WW Superindendent % of total FSEs with a variance % 5 - - - - - - Annually WW Superindendent D.vii.e FOG inspections FSE FOG inspections per year Number 319 - - - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of hot spot pipes CCTV inspected each year % 100 - - - - - - Annually WW Superindendent Number of spills caused by hot spots Number 0 - - - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Volume of spill volume caused hot spots Gal 0 - - - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent SECAP D.viii.a Evaluation Frequency for capacity assurance evaluation (hydraulic model) Years 10 App I - - - - - Annually EU Engineering Total number of SSOs, mains and laterals Number 76 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Total SSO volume, mains and laterals Gal 2000 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of total SSO volume recovered % 100 - Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Total number of wet weather SSOs Number 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Total volume of wet weather SSOs Gal 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSOs caused by FOG (main) % 1 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSOs caused by roots (main) % 70 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSOs caused by Vandalism (main) % 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Number of SSOs caused by LS failures Number 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Number of SSOs caused by pipe failures Number 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSO volume caused by FOG (lateral) % 10 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSO volume caused by roots (lateral) % 75 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent % of SSO volume caused by Vandalism (lateral) % 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Repeat SSOs within two years Number 0 (9.6) Data 0 - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Category 1 SSOs Number 0 - - 0 0 - - Quarterly WW Superindendent Category 2 SSOs Number 6 - - - - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Category 3 Number 2.0 - - 2.0 - - - Quarterly WW Superindendent SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Lateral Number 15.0 - - 8.0 - - 8 Quarterly WW Superindendent SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Mainline Number 0.6 - - 0.6 - - 0.6 Quarterly WW Superindendent Flooding claims per year Number 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Annually WW Superindendent Total cost of claims per year $ 0 (9.6) Data - - - - Annually WW Superindendent Legend
Green Text Indicates the goal for the respective performance measure as stated in the associated document. "Data" Indicates that is recorded and tracked but no goal is defined in the associated document.
BMPs & Devices
Hot Spots
Chain of
communication
FOG disposal
SSO response
PM activites
R&R plan
Construction
MMM D.ix.e SSO trends
Organization D.ii.c
D.v.a & b
D.vi.b
D.vii.b
FOG
OERP
Design
D.iv.c
D.iv.b
D.vii.f
D.vii.d
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY13/14 – FY14/15
June 2016
7.3 Appendix – Sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form Goal: MRP
(FY 2014 / 2015)
Responsible Person (RP): WWC Superintendent
Description of Performance Indicator(s) (PIs):
The State Water Board has recently concluded that the existing Monitoring and Reporting Program must be amended to remain adequate enough to advance the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Reduction Program objectives, assess compliance, and enforce the requirements of the Sanitary Sewer Systems Waste Discharge Requirements. The amended MRP will become effective on September 9, 2013 concurrent with the routine bimonthly CIWQS maintenance release. The Wastewater Collection Division is responsible for submitting, signing, and certifying all reports required by the SSS WDRs and the amended MRP order. The PIs listed below track the completion of tasks necessary for the City to remain compliant with the SSS WDRs.
PIs and Data Analysis Methods:
1. Completion of unpopulated fields in revised “Collection System Questionnaire” Discussion & Scoring Criteria: The City has three (3) months after September 9, 2013 to complete all unpopulated fields in the revised “Collection System Questionnaire” before the CIWQS locks you out from all reporting. After the questionnaire is completed, the system will default back to the annual update requirement and lock you out from all reporting only if the questionnaire is not updated at least annually.
2. Update of OERP section in SSMP
Discussion & Scoring Criteria: The Overflow and Emergency Response Plan section of the City’s SSMP must be updated in accordance with the amended MRP by January 21 2014, when a board review of the SSMP will take place.
PI Exceeding Goal? Met Goal? Below Goal?
1 All unpopulated fields
completed by December 9,
2013.
N/A N/A
All or some of the
unpopulated fields
not completed by
December 9, 2013.
2 OERP section fully updated in
SSMP before review. N/A N/A
OERP section
never, or only
partially, updated
before review.
Performance Tracking
PI Measured
Value Performance Assessment Comments
1 2
Recommendations for Programmatic or SSMP Updates
PI 1 – Completion of unpopulated fields in revised “Collection System Questionnaire” Recommendation:
PI 2 – Update of OERP section in SSMP
Recommendation:
Signature of Responsible Person: (sign when complete) Date:
Appendix 10-4
SSPM Audit Fiscal Years 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18
September 19 Page 2
7.4 Appendix – Key Performance Indicators................................................................................................. D
7.5 Appendix – Change Log Example..............................................................................................................E List of Tables
Table 1 – Overview of Collection System...................................................................................................................4 Table 2 – Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit...........................................................................5 Table 3 – CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 4 – Regional Comparison of SSO Data ........................................................................................................... 13 Table 5 – Leading Causes of SSOs in FY15-18 (results from FY13-15 in parenthesis) ............................................. 14 Table 6 – Performance Measures............................................................................................................................ 15 Table 7 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals ................................................................................................ 17 Table 8 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization.................................................................................... 17 Table 9 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority .............................................................................. 19 Table 10 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program ............................................................................. 21 Table 11 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b)......................................................................... 22 Table 12 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv (c) ........................................................................ 23 Table 13 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions............................................. 24 Table 14 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP............................................................................................. 25 Table 15 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program ................................................................. 28 Table 16 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP.......................................................................................... 30 Table 17 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM........................................................................................... 32 Table 18 –Recommended Additional Performance Indicators............................................................................... 33 Table 19 – Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends....................................................................... 35 Table 20 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits................................................................... 36 Table 21 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program........................................................... 37 Table 22 – Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies.......................................................................................... 39 Table 23 – Summary of Audit Recommendations................................................................................................... 39 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year.............................................................................................................. 12 Figure 2 – Average Gallons per SSO ........................................................................................................................ 13 Figure 3 – Average SSO Volume per Cause ............................................................................................................. 14 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 3
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives
This report covers the results of the required Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) internal audit process for the City of Roseville (City) for fiscal years 2015-2016 (FY 15/16), 2016-2017 (FY 16/17), and 2017-2018 (FY 17/18).
The goal of the SSMP is to provide a written framework and plan for properly managing, operating, and maintaining all parts of the sanitary sewer system (collection system). The SSMP will help the City minimizing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and complying with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS WDR). The SSMP audit evaluates the effectiveness of the SSMP, by reviewing the performance of the collection system against the performance measures used by the City to evaluate compliance with requirements of the SSS WDRs.
The intention of the SSMP audit is to help the SSMP evolve over time as a “living document” that City continually adjusts after identifying potential enhancements and implementing changes to address any deficiencies to the management, operation and maintenance of the City sanitary sewer collection system. Recently, the SWRCB is proposing a statewide sanitary sewer system order reissuance. The proposed reissuance, which will be built on the existing general order, is planned to be adopted in 2020, with a primary focus of reducing the statewide spill volume. This audit briefly discusses the proposed reissued order by the SWRCB and considers recommendations for future compliance.
The City is committed to completing the SSMP internal audit (Audit) on a biennial basis that is consistent with the procedure outlined in Appendix J-1 of the SSMP. The City completed its first Audit for FY 2011-2012, but subsequently contracted Water Works Engineers (WWE) to conduct the FY 11/12-12/13 and FY 13/14-14/15 biennial audits. This audit reviews results of the FY 15/16, 16/17, and 17-18, which is a three-year program. The key objective of this Audit is to review the SSMP compliance, implementation, and effectiveness. This report includes the following key tasks:
1. Review records from previous Audits and confirm deficiencies have been addressed (SECTION 2).
2. Evaluate the City’s historical SSO data and performance measures listed in the SSMP (SECTION 3).
3. Using a standardized audit procedure detailed in 0 , identify deficiencies and provide recommendations that could improve the effectiveness of the SSMP and its compliance with the future reissue order.
4. Analyze the City’s preventative maintenance (PM) and rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) programs as it relates to the operation and maintenance of the collection system (Section 5.4).
5. Review the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan (SSEORP) for SSOs and identify improvements as needed (Section 5.6).
6. Document all findings during the Audit and retain it on file (SECTION 6).
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 4
SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information
The City of Roseville, in Placer County, is located approximately 16 miles north of the City of Sacramento. Along Interstate 80, Roseville is located adjacent to the City of Rocklin in the north-east and the City of Citrus Heights in the south. The City covers approximately 43 square miles near the base of the foothills of the Sierra Mountains.
Typical elevations are within a range of 250 to 100 feet of sea level with an average slope across the City of 0.5% from east to west. Several streams flow through the City (i.e., Dry Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek, Kaseburg Creek, Linda Creek, Cirby Creek, Secret Ravine, and Miners Ravine.).
The City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of a continually growing collection system that has grown over 6% since the last internal audit to now serve approximately 137,000 people. Table 1 lists key information about the City collection system over the past three Audit periods.
Table 1 – Overview of Collection System
Audit FY 11/12 – 12/13 FY 13/14 – 14/15 FY 15/16 – 17/18* Miles of Mainline 485.52 501.11 515.7
Miles of laterals (lower) 235.3 238 266
Pump stations 14 15 16
Sewer service lateral connections 41,568 43,619 47,638
Population served 122,060 128,832 137,213
WWC Staff 25 28 29
Annual Budget (FY1/ FY2/ FY3) $3,400,000/ $3,800,00 $3,700,000/ $4,000,000 $5,069,000/ $5,279,0000 Category 1 SSOs 2 0 1
Category 2 SSOs 75 0 1
Category 3 SSOs - 89 85
*Three-year audit
The City treats wastewater conveyed through its collection system at two regional wastewater treatment plants that are both owned and operated by the City (i.e., Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTPs). Two other satellite collection systems owned and operated by other agencies (i.e., South Placer Municipal Utility District and Placer County) discharge directly into the City’s collection system. A small portion of the City’s collection system discharges outside of Roseville and into the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) collection system, which is treated at the Sacramento Regional WWTP. The City is a part of the Central Valley Region 5 (Sacramento subregion) of the SWRCB.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 5
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit
The previous biennial audit for of the City SSMP was conducted by WWE for FY 13/14-14/15 and was completed in June 2016. In the last Audit, a list of approximately 47 recommended actions to address deficiencies or improve the effectiveness of the City SSMP were listed. Table 2 summarizes identified deficiencies and associated action items, along with a description of the status of the task (i.e., Completed, Ongoing Updates, In/No Progress, Considered) outlined in the last SSMP audit. documents on the City’s website and based on information from City staff.
Table 2 – Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit Element Action Item Status
2 – Organization
Modify Appendix B-1: Add Wastewater Collections Supervisor Dan Pruden to Appendix B-1.
Completed
Modify Appendix B-1: Update City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Carol Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Rohan, City Attorney Robert Schmitt). Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Blandon Granger, Vice Chair John Speight.
Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Cheryl Hammond. Update Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
Ongoing
Progress
Modify Figure 2-1: Modify the Industrial Waste Specialist category and remove the FOG Control Program from the description due to the FOG program oversight transitioning from IWS to WWC in 2016. Add the Fog Control Program description to the Wastewater Collection Office Assistant category.
Completed
Modify SSMP Section 2.2: Modify the general position description and SSMP responsibilities under the Lab/Industrial Waste Supervisor, Specialist, and Technician and remove the FOG Control Program or inspection program from those descriptions.
Completed
Move the FOG Control Program SSMP responsibility into the WWC Superintendent category and the WWC Office Assistant category. Completed Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24-hour call center instead of WWC service staff. In addition, modify the Wastewater Admin cell and rename the position as Office Assistant.
In Progress
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 6
Modify Appendix F-1 Flowchart: Follow the same recommendations written above. Completed 3 – Legal
Authority
Update SSMP section 3.7 to include the Wastewater Service Contract and Operating Agreement between the City, SASD, and SRCSD. Completed
4 – O&M
Include the Mapping Update Policy Document as an appendix to the SSMP and post it to the City’s SSMP website page.
Completed
Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
Ongoing
Progress
Document the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
No Progress
Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP.
Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment.
No Progress
Augment the ongoing training program by documenting that WWC staff have demonstrated the ability to operate a major piece of equipment (i.e., combo Vactor unit) in accordance with available SOPs to a supervisor before using it for the first time in the field and at a specified frequency (i.e., annually or if equipment is upgraded). The document would need to list a piece of equipment, the name of the journeyman, supervisor, signatures, name of SOP if used, and date.
Completed
Modify SSMP Section 4.5 to include training on SSOERP. Completed 6 – OERP
The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station. This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
In Progress
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 7
Modify SSOERP Section IV Traffic Control (WWC Personnel) to require WWC Personnel to implement traffic control in every situation where WWC personnel may be at risk of vehicular impact in accordance with MUTCD (part of Caltrans Work Area Traffic Control Handbook). It is recommended that WWC produce several standard TCPs (Traffic Control Plan) to match existing traffic conditions or type of roadway (i.e., arterial, residential, etc.).
Completed
Modify SSOERP Section V Correct Cause (WWC Personnel) to include a discussion of whether a root-caused SSO could be classified as a Private Lateral Sewage Discharge (PLSD) if the City defines a spill cause as the entry point of the root and whether that location is on lower (city) or upper lateral side (private). Include recommendations to provide good documentation of the decision with photographic evidence and a logical narrative.
Completed
Modify SSOERP Appendix A – Start Time Documentation Policy to include the following WWC standard field practice: If the start time cannot be set based on witnesses and if there is evidence of a spill traveling a farther distance than 15 minutes, then the field crew estimates the new start time and may try to recreate the spill (with clean water) to estimate volumes.
Completed
Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the requirements of the amended MRP.
• Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance.
• Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan.
No Progress
Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling.
No Progress
7 – FOG Control
Program
List Maurice Chaney as the responsible party for the FOG Public Education Plan. Completed Modify SSMP Section 7.3 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC. Completed Modify SSMP Section 7.4 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC. Completed City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 8
Modify SSMP Section 7.6 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC. Completed Modify SSMP Section 7.7 to reflect the change in oversight from IWS to WWC. Completed Document all FSE inspections. Develop a standard FSE inspection form which lists individual elements the FOG WDP permittee is required to maintain in a logical order for the inspector to follow. At a minimum, the inspector should enter the FSE, check the grease removal device, conduct a FOG concentration sample, request and view cleaning/hauling records and associated BMPs. After filling out the inspection form to document the whole procedure, transfer the results of the inspection form into a database or spreadsheet by which WWC can track compliance of the multiple required elements under the permit. Follow up with FSEs as required and formally document the process. Attach a blank version of the inspection form as an appendix in the SSMP.
Completed
Modify the EU Engineering GIS database to include hotspot assets and FSEs and add them as layers to the maps that WWC receives.
Ongoing
Progress
Modify SSMP Section 7.8 to describe the process of how pipelines are added to the hot spot cleaning schedule and remove mention of annual sewer line maintenance work orders.
Completed
Modify SSMP Section 7.9 to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC. Completed 8 – SECAP
Modify Appendix I-1 of the SSMP to indicate that the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every 10 years.
No Progress
9 – MMM
Update Appendix I on the City website with information from FY 13/14 and FY 14/15. In Progress Update Appendix I and modify it to include document location, responsible person, and review frequency. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been completed.
In Progress
Identify the metrics that correspond with specific elements of the SSMP and develop numerical goal ranges so the data currently collected and monitored by the City can be used as performance indicators (PIs) to quantitatively monitor SSMP effectiveness. The ultimate measure of SSMP effectiveness is the limiting of SSOs. However, setting goals for activities related to various SSMP elements and measuring performance against those goals, will help determine how success in those elements, relates to the overall effectiveness of limiting SSOs. Associating metrics with specific SSMP elements will allow for direct assessment of those elements and provide consistency in their evaluation in future audits. Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit contains a list of PI and associates each one with a SSMP element, a suggested audit frequency, and a person responsible for monitoring that PI. A sample Performance Indicator Assessment Form is included in Appendix 7.3 of this internal audit. Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be developed for each metric and assessed periodically by the person responsible, according to the suggested audit frequency for that metric. At the time of In Progress
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 9
the next internal SSMP audit, the completed Performance Indicator Assessment Forms can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements and included as attachments to the audit. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Consider tracking additional metrics targeted at measuring the effectiveness of SSMP elements that do not currently have metrics associated with them. A list of potential performance measures listed by SSMP element is included in Appendix 7.2 of this internal audit. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
In Progress
As discussed in the previous section, use data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, and develop goals for metrics that track preventative maintenance activities and identify the person/position responsible for tracking data against those goals. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators for preventative maintenance activities with responsible parties. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
In Progress
Using the data collected in SSMP Appendix I as a reference, set performance goals for the metrics used to illustrate SSO trends. See Appendix 7.2 for a list of potential performance indicators related to SSO trends. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Completed
10 – SSMP
Program Audits
Post the previous SSMP internal audit (FY 11/12 and FY 12/13) and this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
Completed
Post the most recent City council SSMP recertification (from 2014) the City website. Completed Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July-August of 2017. Completed Revise Appendix J-1 to reflect recommendations for review of performance indicators (i.e., metrics associated with specific SSMP elements and the associated timelines).
This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
In Progress
Revise Appendix J-2 (audit form) to provide areas in the tables for each SSMP element to assess both SSMP compliance to Regional Board requirements, and effectiveness of individual SSMP elements. Remove Kim Spears and IWS from the certification of audit table. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
In Progress
Update the SSMP revision log and post on the website. No Progress City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 10
Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
11 -
Communication
As of September 2013, the State Water board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR and the City produced a training PowerPoint to City staff, council, and stakeholders regarding the update. Attach the PowerPoint to the SSMP website.
No Progress
Update SSMP Appendix K-4 with FY 13-15 EU marketing Plan budget & spending. No Progress Add the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) as attachment K-7 and modify the SSMP to mention it.
No Progress
Modify SSMP 11.4 to include the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
No Progress
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 11
2.2 Review of FY 15/16, FY 16/17, and FY 17/18
The City has prioritized eliminating SSOs from the collection system and was successful preventing Category 1 SSOs during the FY 15/16-16/17 period. However, during the FY 17/18, one Category 1 SSO occurred, which was resulted by an equipment failure (Vacuum truck). This incident caused 342 gal of spill, of which 97% was recovered and 7 gal of it reached the state’s surface waters. During this period, only one Category 2 SSOs occurred (FY 15/16), which was resulted by a pipe/structure failure. This event spilled 2020 gallons of sewage from a mainline, most of which was captured and recovered. In addition, the city experienced two Category 3 spills larger than 500 gallons, from which, one occurred on a mainline (caused by debris) and one occurred on a lower lateral, which was caused by roots. All remaining spills were less than 100 gallons, of which, four of them occurred on mainlines.
SECTION 3 SSO Trends
3.1 Historical SSO Data
A total of 85 Category 3 SSOs occurred during the audit period FY15/16 (38 SSOs), FY16/17 (23 SSOs), and FY17/18 (24 SSOs). Appendix 7.1 of this report includes the date, location, type, volume, volume recovered, and recovery percentage of total volume of each SSO spill.
One of the City-defined tasks of the Audit is to compare the information submitted to the publicly available California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database with internal City records. The WWC Superintendent verifies that SSO data in CIWQS is accurate and matches the SSO Field Report Forms. Table 3 shows an organized view of key data present in the CIWQS and City internal records and shows discrepancies, for the three-year audit period. As shown, Table 3 shows how accurately CIWQS data reflect the City’s records, with few exceptions, details of which are listed in Appendix 7.2. The information presented in the “Internal Records” column represents a summarized view of various performance measures maintained by the City.
Table 3 – CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data
SSO Historical Data CIWQS
Data
Internal
Records
CIWQS
Data
Internal
Records
CIWQS
Data
Internal
Records
since last SSMP Internal Audit FY 15/16 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 17/18 Total number of potential SSO
service calls received - 266 - 252 - 259
Total number of SSOs reported 39 39 23 23 25 25
Total volume of SSOs [Gal] 2525 2525 1081 1081 1531 1565 Total volume of SSOs that reached
waters of the state [Gal] 0 0 0 0 7 7
Volume of SSOs recovered [%] 95% 95% 91% 91% 53% 54%
Average SSO response time [h:mm] 0:25 0:25 0:18 0:18 0:15 0:20 Average SSO duration time
[h:mm]*
2:59 2:56 6:22 6:22 6:49 6:49
* Including long-duration SSO events (> 3 hours long) that increased the average SSO duration.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 12
The following section investigates the City’s historical SSO data to identify potential SSO trends to provide insight into measuring the effectiveness of the City SSMP and future improvements in reducing SSOs. Figure 1 highlights the category and number of SSOs since FY 06/07. The SWRCB defined new three SSO categories as of September 13th, 2013. A category 1 SSO is currently defined as a spill of any volume that reaches surface water. A Category 2 SSO is currently defined as a spill greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons that does not reach surface water. A Category 3 SSO is currently defined as a spill less than 1,000 gallons that does not reach surface water. Figure 1 shows a declining trend on the total number of SSO events per year since FY 13/14 and is mostly limited to Category 3 SSOs.
Figure 1 – Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year
With the goal of minimizing the spill volume, another valuable source of analysis is comparing average gallons spilled per SSO across fiscal years. Figure 2 demonstrates average volume per SSO event since 2007, which equally weight out all spills and shows an annual average. Although, the number of SSO events has dropped over the years (See Figure 1), Figure 2 indicates that the average spill volume per incident has been increased during this audit period. This trend was also observed by the SWRCB throughout the state. Although the number of statewide events has dropped over the years, but the spill volume has increased. Also, two wet seasons of FY 15/16 and 17/18 can also be clearly identified in Figure 2. In case of City of Roseville, it appeared that the high average volume was caused by the few high-volume spills occurred in FY15/16 and 17/18, majority of which was recovered.
As mentioned, one of these high-volume incidents occurred by a main pipe/structure failure (FY 15/16: 2020 gallons) and the second largest spill was caused by roots in a lower lateral (FY 16/17: 760 gallons). Given the past records, Figure 2 shows an average value of about 40 gal/SSO throughout the years. After reviewing the City’s performance measures, it appears that the resulted high average volumes were most likely incidental driven and were not related to the SSMP effectiveness or the system performance. In addition, analysis of the City’s SSO data showed that in about 18% of the events the City’s staff did not see an active spill, in other words, these spills were ended before arrival of the staff. These incidents correspond to 5% of the total spill volume during this audit period.
1 1 1
2 1
39 19
11 6
13 35
40 1
47 42
38 23 24
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 FY06/07FY07/08FY08/09FY09/10FY10/11FY11/12FY12/13FY13/14FY14/15FY15/16FY16/17FY17/18 Number of SSOs
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 13
Figure 2 – Average Gallons per SSO
Here, City’s average number of SSOs and average spill volume per SSO per 100 miles of sewer pipeline are compared with the results from sub-region Central Valley –Sacramento (part of State Water Control Board Region 5) and California (State), to provide regional context and insight into the City’s collection system performance. Table 4 summarizes these findings, gathered from the SWRCB’s annual performance reports.
These reports and their related data can be found online at the following link:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/#prgm_docs https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/exec_dir_rpts/ The board has not published similar data for fiscal years later than 2016. However, as shown in Table 4, the City average SSOs/100 miles of sewer pipe is far below the average of all municipal agencies in the Central Valley Sacramento subregion, and is slightly higher than the State. The City’s average spill volume/100 miles of sewer pipe is an order of magnitude smaller than the state, which highlights how effective the City’s SSO preventative maintenance and response program has been.
Table 4 – Regional Comparison of SSO Data
Fiscal Year
Average # of SSOs per 100 miles Average Spill Volume per 100 miles [gallons] City Region 5 State City Region 5 State
2011/12 4.88 12.4 4.28 132 3,396 13,925
2012/13 5.85 12.72 4.38 154 4,371 8,194
2013/14 6.39 11.96 4.38 160 2,878 4,587
2014/15* 5.71 9.91 4.65 163 6,324 11,484
2015/16* 4.99 8.76 4.01 323 7,484 25,134
2016/17 2.94 Not Available 138 Not Available
2017/18 3.20 Not Available 196 Not Available
* These values do not include laterals in the total system size.
71.6 64.5
24.2 40.3
19.3 27.1 26.3 25.2
28.7 64.7
47.0 62.6
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 FY06/07 FY07/08 FY08/09 FY09/10 FY10/11 FY11/12 FY12/13 FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 Average Volume per SSO [gal]
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 14
Table 5 demonstrates the leading causes of SSOs in this audit period compared to the previous audit period (FY 13/14-14/15). Generally, given the three-year period, number of SSOs caused by roots has decreased, but the volume has increased by 23%, which resulted in a higher average SSO volume. Also, FOG related events have decreased significantly during this period. However, SSOs caused by debris and pipe/structure failure have experienced a notable volume increase comparing to the previous audit period. Furthermore, no Capacitycaused SSOs was observed in this audit period and only one accidental truck incident caused a Category 1 event.
Table 5 – Leading Causes of SSOs in FY15-18 (results from FY13-15 in parenthesis) By Number By Volume By Average Volume per SSO
Cause Number Cause Gallons Cause Gallons
Roots 62 (63) Roots 1576 (1281) Roots 25 (20)
FOG 2 (5) FOG 67 (743) FOG 34 (149)
Debris 15 (15) Debris 908 (314) Debris 61 (21)
Pipe Failure 7 (6) Pipe Failure 2278 (50) Pipe Failure 325 (8) Capacity 0 (0) Capacity 0 (0) Capacity 0 (0)
Others* 1 (0) Others* 342 (0) Others* 342 (0)
Total 87 (89) Total 5171 (2388) Total 787 (198)
*Includes a vacuum truck incident for this audit (past audit includes an SSO caused by an act of vandalism).
To track the leading SSO cause, WWE summarized the average SSO volume per cause for the past three audit periods, results of which are shown in Figure 3. The actions planned because of this SSMP Audit will target the leading causes to most effectively reduce the number and more importantly spill volume of SSOs. As shown here, the FY15/16-17/18 period has experienced similar average volume of root caused SSOs, lower FOG related spill volumes, and slightly higher debris caused spills. However, as shown here, pipe/structure failure caused SSOs and incidental SSOs have increased during this period and since these are typically corresponded with high volume spills over small number of SSOs, these averages are significantly higher than the rest.
Figure 3 – Average SSO Volume per Cause
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Roots FOG Debris Pipe Failure Capacity Others
Avg Volume per SSO [gal]
FY 11/12-12/13 FY 13/14-14/15 FY 15/16-17/18
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 15
3.2 Performance Measures
To achieve proper operation and management of the sanitary sewer system and to prevent SSOs, the City utilizes multiple performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the SSMP. While the City may use other performance measures for evaluation purposes, the following measures are typically used:
• SSO Rate (SSOs per 100 miles of collection system piping per year) • Number of SSOs for each cause (roots, FOG, debris, pipe failure, capacity, lift station failures, etc.) • Average SSO volume (gallons)
• Percentage of SSOs greater than 100 gallons (%)
• Percentage of SSOs reported as Category 1 (%)
• Percentage of SSO volume recovered (%)
• Percentage of SSO volume reaching a surface water (%) The City’s SSO record were queried to analyze each performance measure from FY 11/12 to FY 17/18 and the data is shown in Table 6 below. Overall, despite the decrease in the number of SSOs during this audit period, the City’s SSO average has increased compared to previous years, which was due to few high-volume incidents, caused by pipe/structure failure and accidental spills.
Table 6 – Performance Measures
Performance Measures FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18 SSO Rate, SSOs/100 mi 4.88 5.85 6.39 5.71 4.99 2.94 3.20 SSO
Cause
FOG 0 1 4 1 2 0 0
Roots 18 30 32 31 30 20 12
Debris* 8 2 8 2 4 2 9
Pipe/Structure Failure 6 4 2 7 3 1 3
Vandalism 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
Unknown/Other 2 3 1 0 0 0 1
Average SSO Vol (gal) 27 26 25 29 65 47 63
% of SSOs > 100 gal 2.8% 2.3% 2.1% 4.7% 2.6% 4.3% 8.0%
Category 1 % of Total SSOs 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22.3%
% of Spill Volume Recovered 99% 63% 94% 93% 95% 91% 54% % of Spill Vol Reaching Surface Water 0% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% *Includes non-dispersible and rags
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 16
SECTION 4 Audit Procedure
In accordance with SSS WDER Section D.13.x, the primary SSMP audit objective is to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of implementing the SSMP and the City’s compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in the SSS WSDR Order. Also, according to recent SWRCB WDR workshops, it is expected that the statewide general order reissuance, with the primary focus on reducing spill volume, emphasis on the following:
• Requirements focused on spill volume: Although the total number of spills has decreased over the past few years, the CIWQS data has shown that the state experienced higher volume of spills. While, this could be caused by the previous wet seasons, the proposed reissuance will likely require enrollees to demonstrate system-specific spill reduction programs.
• Improved Data Quality: With the goal of enhancing data accuracy, additional measures are being considered to provide higher quality spill volume data, such as maintaining certified operators and emphasizing on staff training.
• Enhanced Order Enforceability: To address poor performing systems and those with lack of SSMP implementation.
• To Incentivize Order Compliance: To recognize and acknowledge systems with good performance. • Effective Planning for System Resilience: To ensure effective and adaptive planning for spill reduction.
This section details the procedures used to meet the existing order, while considering future expectations.
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance
This Audit assessed the City’s SSMP against the requirements outlines in the SSS WDR. The subsections of SECTION 5 listed below are organized by SSMP elements. Each subsection contains a table which lists the SSS WDR section D.13 requirements and City’s level of compliance of the SSMP with that requirement. The compliance status of the City’s SSMP is indicated with one of the following ratings: Yes – in compliance, No – not in compliance, or N/A – not applicable with a written justification in the SSMP. If there are any compliance deficiencies, then an explanation of the deficiency is given. Each deficiency will have a recommended SSMP enhancement, which may include action items, adjustments, and/or timelines of the planned completion.
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness
After the SSMP compliance assessment compared to SSS WDR requirements, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSMP elements has been conducted to comply with the requirements for SSMP audits per subsection D.13.x of the SSS WDR. The discussion review if the plan outlined for each section is being followed, and how effective the plan is at reaching the desired objectives. Recommendations will be made where appropriate based on the results of this Audit to identify tasks to improve the effectiveness of SSMP activities. Performance metrics will be used wherever possible to measure the effectiveness of the SSMP elements.
This section will not repeat the information and plans presented in each section of the SSMP and is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the stated plans for each SSMP element. The reader should reference the City’s SSMP to obtain the information referenced by this Audit.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 17
A summary of the recommended modifications made through this Audit is included in SECTION 6.
SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements
This section evaluates all elements of the City’s SSMP. Each section of this chapter is associated with one of the eleven elements of the SSMP in accordance with SS WDR section D.13 requirements. Each element is evaluated for compliance and effectiveness described above in 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.
5.1 Goals
5.1.1 Compliance
Table 7 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
i Properly manage, operate, and
maintain all portions of the City’s
wastewater collection system.
Yes -
5.1.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Goals (SSMP 1.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City currently has seven goals identified in the SSMP. The goals of the City recorded in the SSMP have been effective in guiding the City’s activities to support the objective of the SSS WDR to protect the waters of the state.
• Recommendations: Post Appendix A-1 – Roseville’s SSMP Development Plan and Implementation Schedule on the website.
5.2 Organization
5.2.1 Compliance
Table 8 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ii(a) Identify Legally Responsible Official (LRO) Yes - ii(b) SSMP responsibility and organization chart Yes -
ii(c) Chain of communication for reporting SSOs Yes -
5.2.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications List Legally Responsible Official (LRO) (SSMP 2.1)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City has Ken Glotzbach (Utility Manager) and Chris Bracco (Wastewater Collections Superintendent) listed in CIWQS as LROs. Dan Pruden (Wastewater Collections Supervisor) is City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 18
listed as a data submitter. This is recorded in Appendix B-1 of the SSMP and is publicly accessible. The current organization of data submitters and LROs has proven effective in reporting SSOs to meet the requirements of the September 2013 amended Monitoring and Reporting Program. • Recommendations:
o Modify Appendix B-1: Update City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Carol Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Rohan, City Attorney Robert Schmitt). Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Blandon Granger, Vice Chair John Speight. Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Cheryl Hammond. Update Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
o Post the following Appendices on the website:
▪ Appendix B-1 – Personnel Responsible for SSMP Elements ▪ Appendix B-2 – Personnel Responsible for SSO Reporting ▪ Appendix B-3 – Personnel Responsible for Responding to SSOs Weekly Standby SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP 2.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP Figure 2-1) is current in the SSMP and lists a descriptive definition of each individual’s responsibilities. The chart is effective in defining the work flow and responsibilities of the individuals as well as departments within the City of Roseville’s operations with relation to the SSMP. The narrative of the general position description is outlined in Section 2.2 of the SSMP.
• Recommendations: No recommendations at this time.
Chain of Communication Reporting Chart (SSMP 2.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: The internal notification contact chart is current and readily available to all wastewater utility district staff. The city of Roseville has a 24-hour call center, standardized answering script and procedures, and a full-time staff wastewater utility customer service representative. The individual’s job is to respond to any service calls including but not limited to: backups, SSOs, smell complaints, etc. This has been an effective and well-utilized service, as service calls have increased and the average SSO response time has remained below the 40-minute target. Only 6 SSO response times were above 40 minutes during the audit period (1:48:00, 3:15:00, 0:45:00, 0:42:00, 0:45:00, and 0:45:00) which totaled 31 gallons in spills and the remaining 93% of the responses were under 40 min. • Recommendations:
o Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24-hour call center instead of WWC service staff. o Include Figure 2-2 flowchart as Appendix F to the SSOERP (Appendix F-1) and mention in the text.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 19
5.3 Legal Authority
5.3.1 Compliance
Table 9 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iii(a) Prevent illicit discharges Yes -
iii(b) Properly designed and constructed sewers Yes -
iii(c) Ensure access to laterals owned/maintained by City Yes - iii(d) Limit the discharge of FOG and other debris Yes - iii(e) Enforce any violation of City ordinances Yes -
5.3.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Industrial Pretreatment Program (SSMP 3.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The Industrial Waste Section (IWS) administers the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan and implements enforcement procedures specified by the U.S. EPA in accordance with 40CFR 403.5 (f) (5). The IWS has the authority to permit and monitor significant industrial users (SIUs) and small commercial/industrial dischargers. The implementation of the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan has been effective in providing the City the authority to control and prevent illicit discharges to the collection system.
• Recommendations: Post Appendix C-1 – Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan on the website.
Municipal Code and Design and Construction Standards (SSMP 3.3) • Level of Effectiveness: The City’s design and construction standards regulate the preparation of plans for construction of additions/improvements to the sewer. The Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) section
14.12.040 requires that building sewer and connection into the public sewer system conform to the requirements of the building and plumbing code or other applicable rules and regulations of the City. The RMC also requires an installation of a lateral line clean out at the point of connection with the public sewer. The City design and construction standards and the RMC section 14.12.040 have been effective in providing the City the legal authority to properly design and construct the sewers and connections. • Recommendations: Update the related links for Appendices C-3 and C-4 for sanitary sewer design and construction.
Municipal Code – Sewer Access Authority (SSMP 3.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The Charter in the RMC, Article X Sec. 10.01 designates the authority to access City owned and operated facilities, either within or outside its corporate limits, number of activities including, but not limited to maintenance, inspection, and repair related to sewage collection. The authority gives legal access to all City-owned sewer facilities. The City has not had issues to date with lack of access to City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 20
facilities based on legal authority. The current legal authority to access sewer facilities has been effective in supporting the goals of the SSMP.
• Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – FOG (SSMP 3.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: The RMC chapter 14.14 is a robust FOG ordinance that lists regulatory requirements, fees, administrative requirements, and authority to enforce regulatory compliance. This ordinance is effective in identifying the required equipment and BMPs for FSEs as well as indicating the authority of the City to enforce the FOG requirements.
• Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – Enforcement Authority (SSMP 3.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: The RMC section 14.12.060 authorizes the City to penalize violators of the City’s code requirements. At the discretion of the City attorney, an individual may be charged with an infraction or a misdemeanor. The authority to penalize infractions that may cost City resources has proven effective to maintain proper use of the wastewater collection system. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Inter-Agency Agreements and Satellite Systems (SSMP 3.7) • Level of Effectiveness: The City maintains a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority and Agreement Regarding the Operation and use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities. In addition, the City has an Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
• Recommendations: Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix C-5 – Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority o Appendix C-6 – Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities
o Appendix C-7 – Wastewater Service Agreement by Contract and Operating Agreement between SASD, SRCSD and City of Roseville
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 21
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program
5.4.1 Compliance
Table 10 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iv(a) Collection system maps Yes -
iv(b) Preventive O&M activities Yes -
iv(c) Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) plan
Yes
The City does have an R&R plan in place, but
additional improvement should be
implemented (see below)
iv(d) Training
Yes
The City provides regular training but additional
improvements to the training program should
be implemented (see below)
iv(e) Equipment and critical replacement parts Yes -
5.4.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Collection System Maps (SSMP 4.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The city maintains electronic and hard copy maps of the sanitary sewer system and storm drain system. Updates to the electronic map system are translated to the field crew trucks via single sheet prints, if required. Full hard copy mapbooks are updated on a yearly basis. The City Mapping Update Policy is followed to ensure mapping is correct and completed in GIS and made available to the required users. The mapping policy document is added to the SSMP as an appendix and is posted to the City’s SSMP website page.
• Recommendations: Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix D-1 – City of Roseville Sewer Map Grid System o Appendix D-9 – Mapping Update Policy
Roseville Preventive Operations & Maintenance Activities (SSMP 4.3) • Level of Effectiveness: WWC engages in various programs to complete routine preventative maintenance activities, which include jet cleaning, lateral eeling, chemical root control, CCTV inspections, visual inspections, and lift station maintenance.
According to Table 6, the City experienced a slight decrease in root-caused SSOs during the last years of the audit period, which explains the decrease in the total sewer lateral mechanical cleaning (eeled), as shown in Table 11. The City outperformed preventative maintenance targets and past performance measures as evident in Table 11, with the exception of mechanical root cleaning during FY 17/18, which may have been related to an equipment maintenance issue (see Table 12). Other performance measures or benchmarks are reviewed in full in the recommendations of Section 5.9.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 22
Table 11 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b) Performance Measure Target FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 Total number of sewer maintenance field staff NA 23 24 24 24 26 Sewer main flushed per year (miles) 250 330 284 248 295 283 Sewer laterals mechanically cleaned (eeled) per year
(miles)
8 13.89 14.69 14.77 7.41 1.07
Average high velocity cleaning per crew per day [LF] 1670 2393 2922 2618 3115 2998 Average cost of hydro cleaning [$/LF] 0.36 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.32 Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning [$/LF] 1.60 1.23 1.20 0.77 0.94 1.66 • Recommendations:
o Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
o Update the following Appendices and post on the website:
▪ Appendix D-2 – Maintenance Cleaning Schedule: Update with Maximo CCMS example ▪ Appendix D-3 – CCTV Video Report
▪ Appendix D-4 – SOP
Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (SSMP 4.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City regularly CCTV inspects pipelines using the national Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) coding standard. The City evaluates the risk of failure for each asset based on the various data sources it maintains (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections) and assigns high risk assets in a ranked Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) Plan. If an R&R project is not completed in one year, then it is rolled over to the next. The City maintains a 5-year list of planned R&R CIP projects.
The city creates an asset group in their Maximo CCMS, based on their condition assessment and PACP scores. This ongoing list is prioritized and provided to Tech Services, when CIP budget is prepared, to put a CIPPP project together. Also, while performing routine hydro work in the grids, the vactor group performs manhole inspections of each asset. Once there are enough manholes that require rehabilitation, the City produces a list with asset IDs that will be sent to Tech Services for manhole Rehabilitation CIP. In the past 6 years, the City has not discovered a substantial number of manholes to develop a manhole CIP project.
In accordance with the City-utilized performance measures related to inspection and R&R program activities as displayed in Table 12, the City has met or exceeded all inspection targets during this audit program. However, total miles of mainline rehabilitated during this three-year were less than the target.
SSOs caused by structural failure during the audit period are overlaid with the City’s 2018 I/I study and shown in Appendix 7.3. As shown, most of these spills occurred in regions with older pipes, such as region 5, 15, and 17. These regions are also known for their higher I/I response and capacity issues during wet City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 23
seasons. The City has been actively performing I/I analysis and smoke testing to identify system defects in these regions, results of which are incorporated in CIP decision makings.
Table 12 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv (c) Performance Measure Target FY13/14 FY14/15 FY15/16 FY16/17 FY17/18 Total miles visually inspected per year (not CCTV) 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.25 Lateral CCTV inspected per year [miles] 16 14.69 26 35.71 32.51 36.14 Main CCTV inspected per year [miles] 30 53.27 65 84.32 59.71 64.1 Laterals rehabilitated per year [number] 50 90 43 60 85 89 Laterals rehabilitated or replaced per year [miles] 0.25 0.39 0.16 0.27 0.66 0.42 Mains Rehabilitated or replaced per year [miles] 5 2.65 6 0 0 1.07 Average Cost of CCTV (lateral) [$/LF] 1.34 1.46 1.11 1.15 1.04 1.00 Average cost of CCTV (main) [$/LF] 0.53 0.55 0.41 0.41 0.36 0.40 • Recommendations:
o Describe the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP. Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed. o Post Appendix D-8 – Technical Memorandum O&M Program SSMP Audit-Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (Element IVC) on the website.
Training (SSMP 4.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: The WWC requires employees be certified with CWEA, DMV, CPR, First Aid, Confined Space Policy, Gas Detector Policy, as well be trained in equipment safety, maintain OSHA rules, and review material safety data sheets.
The existing training program has been effective in supporting a well-trained staff. Over this audit period WWC has reported 3 on the job accidents in FY 15/16, 3 in FY 16/17, and 4 in FY 17/18, which are less than previous audits. WWC strives for zero-on-the-job accidents and has weekly tail-gate training meetings and monthly training sessions where WWC staff is trained in part via various SOPs. • Recommendations: Update the following links:
o The CWEA website link
o Appendix D-5 – CWEA Certification Handbook link
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 24
Equipment and Critical Replacement Parts (SSMP 4.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: WWC maintains a list of equipment and critical replacement parts inventory in Appendix D of the SSMP. The critical replacement parts list is 100% stocked, up to date, and is maintained by the Material Technician at Dry Creek WWTP. The equipment and critical replacement parts inventory and upkeep is effective and ensures that a lift station critical part failure can be quickly mitigated. • Recommendations: Update and post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix D-6 – Equipment Inventory List
o Appendix D-7 – Critical Replace Parts List
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions
5.5.1 Compliance
Table 13 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
v(a) Sanitary sewer design and construction
specifications
Yes -
v(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting and
testing new and R&R projects
Yes -
5.5.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Sanitary Sewer Design and Specifications (SSMP 5.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City’s design and construction standards are available on the website and the online SSMP documentation lists their location. These designs and construction standards are effective in ensuring that new or rehabilitated infrastructure is designed and constructed in an acceptable manner. • Recommendations: Update Appendix E-1 – Sanitary Sewer Design link.
Sanitary Sewer System Construction and Performance Provisions (SSMP 5.3) • Level of Effectiveness: The City’s construction and design standards include procedures and requirements for the testing of new/rehabilitated assets and has been effective in ensuring that recently constructed assets perform as expected.
• Recommendations:
o Update Appendix E-2 – Sanitary Sewer System Construction link. o Post Appendix E-3 – Technical Memo, SSMP Preparedness Audit Design and Performance Provisions Element V on the website.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 25
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan
5.6.1 Compliance
Table 14 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vi(a) Proper notification procedures Yes -
vi(b) Program for appropriate SSO response Yes -
vi(c) Procedure for prompt notification to
regulatory agencies
Yes -
vi(d) Procedures for appropriate staff and
contractor training
Yes
vi(e) Procedures to address emergency operations
(e.g., traffic, crowd control)
Yes -
vi(f) Program to ensure containment of SSO to
prevent discharge and minimize adverse
impacts on the environment
No
SSOERP does not meet certain water quality
monitoring requirements of the amended MRP
document
5.6.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Notification Procedures (SSMP 6.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The average SSO response time during the audit period was 22 minutes, with 25 minutes for FY 15/16, 18 minutes for FY 16/17, and 20 minutes for FY 17/18 (see Table 3). These response times are much faster than the City target response time of 40 minutes and indicates that the notification procedures employed the City are effective in facilitating a rapid response from the City’s first responders. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Response Program (SSMP 6.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: SSO response procedures are documented in Appendix F-1 Section 2 of the SSMP and are summarized in the flow chart in Figure 6-2 of the SSMP and Appendix F-1 SSOERP. The flow chart uses a series of yes/no questions to guide SSO responders in quickly identifying the right sequence of decisions and actions to properly assess and mitigate an SSO. This chart is simple and effective in explaining the process in which to mitigate an SSO.
During the audit period, the average SSO volume spilled was 59 gallons, with an average 82% recovered from the total SSO volume. Similarly, the average SSO duration length was 4:57 hours long, however there were 13 long-duration SSOs (over 3 hours) that caused the average SSO duration length to increase. One of these SSOs in FY 15/16 spilled from a main for 65 hours and resulted in volume spilled of 65 gallons. In all these instances, the City was notified very late, and once notified, stopped all long duration SSOs in under 30 minutes. The average City response time to SSO calls during the audit period was 22 minutes, City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 26
and the average time it took to stop the SSO (SSO mitigation) once on-site was just under 5 minutes. These statistics demonstrate that the City has been effective in responding and mitigating SSOs. • Recommendations:
o The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station. This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented. o Modify Figure 6-2 – SSO Procedure Flow Chat, to report SSO category 1 larger than 1,000 gallons to Cal OES within 2 hours per WDR requirements (currently if > 50,000 gal). o Post Appendix F-1 – SSOERP on the website along with corresponding attachments.
Regulatory Notification Procedure (SSMP 6.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The Superintendent and Utility Manager are the legally responsible officials (LRO) for certifying SSO reports submitted to CIWQs. The Superintendent and Supervisor are also responsible for reporting the SSOs to RWQCB, OES, and Placer Environmental Health Department as required. This section is effective in conveying the responsibility the LRO in reporting SSOs to the proper authorities. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Staff and Contractors Training (SSMP 6.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: Each WWC employee is required to complete the SSO response procedure training updates and review of SSO training are included in the weekly tailgate meeting throughout the year. They are also trained on the various SOPs implemented within WWC. Contractors are also required to implement the procedures identified in the SSO training prior to working within the collection system. As evidenced by the fast response and mitigation times, the WWC staff’s training has been effective. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Emergency Response Coordination (SSMP 6.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: WWC employees are required to complete the Emergency Action plan training annually. This covers HAZ WOPER first responders and Roseville’s Incident Command System (ICS). These process, procedures, and response systems are also reviewed via weekly safety tail gate meetings. These training sessions have been effective way to prepare staff to deal with hazardous waste and materials. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 27
Spill Mitigation and Containment Procedure (SSMP 6.7)
• Level of Effectiveness: Appendix F-1 of the SSMP includes an SSOERP which includes an SOP for estimating spill volumes, containment, and mitigation of spills. The new amended Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements implemented in September 2013 require a robust water quality monitoring plan that must account for spill travel time in surface water, among several new requirements. The City’s current SSOERP Appendix C Water Quality Sampling Procedures document does not meet these requirements. • Recommendations:
o Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the requirements of the amended MRP.
▪ Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
▪ Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
o Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all of the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 28
5.7 FOG Control Program
5.7.1 Compliance
Table 15 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vii(a) Public education plan
Yes
The City does have a public education plan, but
additional improvements should be implemented
(see below)
vii(b) FOG disposal plan Yes -
vii(c) Legal authority to prohibit SSOs and
blockages caused by FOG discharges
Yes -
vii(d) BMPs, grease removal devices,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
Yes -
vii(e) Authority to inspect and enforce FOG
ordinance
Yes
vii(f) FOG Characterization Assessment and Hot
Spot Cleaning Schedule
Yes
-
vii(g) FOG Control Program Measures Yes -
5.7.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Public Education Plan (SSMP 7.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City has developed and operates a comprehensive FOG outreach program to residents, restaurants, and the plumbing community on the proper disposal of FOG. The main objective is to educate the City of Roseville residents and restaurants on the proper disposal of FOG to meet or exceed outreach standards set forth in the State General WDR requirements. The program has implemented TV ads, flyers, bill inserts, and websites to convey the message of educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. This system appears to be effective in educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. Maurice Chaney is listed as responsible party for FOG publica Education Plan in Appendix B-1.
• Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
FOG Disposal Plan (SSMP 7.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: During the past audit periods the Industrial Waste Section (IWS) oversaw the FOG disposal plan with permitted FSEs, however all FOG program-related responsibilities transitioned to WWC in 2016. The City currently has 319 FSEs that are required to and have obtained a FOG wastewater discharge permit (FOG WDP). The same City regulations from the audit period are in place which require permittees to retain a minimum 3 years of documentation to prove the proper cleaning, maintenance, and removal of FOG from grease control devices and the disposal site location. The City provides City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 29
information about the permitting process and permit applications on the City website (URL address below) as a resource for businesses and residences within the City. (https://livesewersmart.com/)
The FOG record keeping requirements for FSEs appear to be effective in that only three FOG-related SSOs occurred over the audit period.
• Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
Record Keeping Requirements (SSMP 7.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: As discussed in the previous section, FOG control program responsibilities transitioned from IWS to WWC in 2016, but during the audit period, IWS operated the program. The City requires in RMC Section 14.14.260 that permitted FSEs retain logbooks on grease control device maintenance cycles, FOG hauling records, sampling data and sludge height monitoring in FOG control devices, BMPs, and records of private lateral SSOs and subsequent mitigation. The recordkeeping requirements and time frames identified in the RMC have enough information necessary for the City to enforce permit requirements of FSEs.
• Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
Legal Authority to Prohibit SSOs and Blockages Caused by FOG Discharges (SSMP 7.5) • Level of Effectiveness: The RMC Section 14.12.050 provides the City with a FOG ordinance and legal authority to require FOG interceptors when deemed necessary by the director. The ordinance prohibits FOG-related blockages and SSOs and limits the maximum allowable concentration of FOG in FSE discharges at the current level of 100 mg/L of wastewater. This ordinance is effective in providing the City with the tools necessary to minimize FOG discharges into the sewer system. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
BMP, Grease Removal Devices, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements (SSMP 7.6) • Level of Effectiveness: The City requires all FSEs that discharge FOG to acquire a FOG WDP permit which includes provisions for FSEs to maintain BMPs and grease interceptors, cleaning records, and to report private FOG-related SSOs or blockages. The FOG WDP requirements are effective in providing the City with the tools to limit FOG discharges into the sewer system. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
Inspection and Enforcement Authority – FOG Producers (SSMP 7.7) • Level of Effectiveness: All FSEs that discharge FOG are required to obtain and comply with a City FOG WDP.
Under the permit, the FSE must comply with the FOG ordinance as detailed under the RMC, and the City maintains the legal authority to physically inspect the FSE and determine if it is in compliance. The City possesses effective tools to regulate FOG discharges via a robust FOG ordinance which also requires an City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 30
effective FSE inspection program. Under oversight from WWC, the City plans on inspecting at least 294 FSEs each fiscal year During this audit, the city documented 181 FSE inspections for FY 16/17 and 231 for 17/18, which shows effectiveness of the FOG inspection and enforcement authority element of the SSMP. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
FOG Characterization Assessment and Hot Spot Cleaning Schedule (SSMP 7.8) • Level of Effectiveness: The City has been effective in limiting FOG-related SSOs to two during the threeyear audit period by identifying and placing assets impacted by FOG as a last resort on the hot-spot, high frequency 3-month cleaning list. If the City encounters abnormal FOG levels in a pipe it will first reach out to FSEs and residents that it thinks may be contributing to it and distribute pamphlets to them to minimize FOG discharges. If that does not solve the problem, then the asset is put on the hot-spot list.
Approximately 60% of the 90 hot-spot assets have FOG-related issues that require significant City resources to clean every 3 months.
• Recommendations:
o Modify the EU Engineering GIS database to include hotspot assets and FSEs and add them as layers to the maps that WWC receives.
FOG Control Program Measures (SSMP 7.9)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City has established that all FOG-producing FSEs acquire a FOG WDP which limits discharge of FOG, requires proper O&M records, hauling record, BMPs, and other conditions. The FOG Control Program measure provides the City’s with an effective tool to limit FOG discharges from FSEs. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
5.8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan
5.8.1 Compliance
Table 16 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
viii(a) Evaluate hydraulic deficiencies Yes -
viii(b) Establish design criteria Yes -
viii(c) Establish short- and long-term CIP Yes -
viii(d) Develop schedule of completion dates
for CIP
Yes -
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 31
5.8.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Evaluation Process – Capacity Enhancement Projects (SSMP 8.2) • Level of Effectiveness: The City has developed two hydraulic simulation models to identify peak flows in the collection system in 2006. In addition, the City developed a new hydraulic model and System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan (SECAP) in 2017, which was done by Woodard and Curran. The modeling efforts conducted in 2006 and 2017 have been effective in evaluating the system and planning for future growth, which is evident from no capacity-deficiency-related SSOs during this audit period. In 2018, Water Works Engineers (WWE) conducted a follow up I/I study upon the existing 2017 model to further analyze results and identify basins and assets with high I/I response. The results of the 2018 I/I study is being actively used by the City as their I/I reduction program base. • Recommendations: Modify Appendix I-1 of the SSMP to indicate that the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every 10 years. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Design Criteria (SSMP 8.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City established a 10-year, 24-hour peak design storm for the hydraulic wet weather loading of the existing collection system along with flow generation factors based on water use records and flow monitoring data. Based on the lack of capacity-related SSOs during the audit period, it appears the City’s capacity design criteria are effective. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Capacity Enhancement Measures (SSMP 8.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The SPWA Wastewater Systems Evaluation includes the identification of short and long-term Capital Improvement Project (CIP) to meet current and future wastewater flows. The new hydraulic model introduced in 2017 provides new capacity enhancement measures. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
Capital Improvement Program Schedule (SSMP 8.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City lists the goal of the CIP is to develop annual project bundles of approximately $1.5 to $2.0 million based on WWC condition assessment data and the hydraulic model CIP results and subsequent flow monitoring or studies. The CIP schedule is effective in identifying the tasks required to assure hydraulic capacity within the collection system. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 32
5.9 Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications
5.9.1 Compliance
Table 17 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ix(a) Maintain metrics to prioritize SSMP activities Yes - ix(b) Measure effectiveness of SSMP elements Yes
The City does have performance indicators
linked with SSMP elements, but additional
improvements should be implemented (see
below)
ix(c) Assess preventative maintenance program Yes -
ix(d) Update elements based on evaluations Yes -
ix(e) Identify and illustrate SSO trends Yes -
5.9.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Utility Metrics to Prioritize SSMP Activities (SSMP 9.2) • Level of Effectiveness: The WWC tracks four categories of utility metrics to monitor and measure the effectiveness of the various elements of this SSMP, which include system information, financial information, sewer maintenance, and performance measures. The city also tracks various performance measures related to various SSMP elements and they are summarized in Appendix 7.4. Appendix I has effectively been used to identify and track the specific metrics each of the City’s four categories. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
Metrics to Monitor Effectiveness of SSMP (SSMP 9.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: The utility metrics listed in Appendix I-4 pertain to different overseeing departments within the City, and the coordination between these different Departments in measuring/monitoring various metrics and sharing results has been effective in ensuring the SSMP goals have been met.
• Recommendations:
o Incorporate system and financial measures recommended in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP.
o Update Appendix I-4 and modify it to include document location and review frequency. o Modify I-4 – Key Performance Indicators (KPI) FOG section, to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC.
Metrics to Assess Preventative Maintenance Program (SSMP 9.4) • Level of Effectiveness: The City’s current utility metrics Appendix I defines the frequency and type of utility metric that is being tracked to measure SSMP effectiveness. This is effective because it allows the city to monitor performance of particular activities and compare against SSO trends to determined data City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 33
correlations. These metrics do not all have associated goals or targets, however, which makes it hard to track whether the activity is meeting the intended result. • Recommendations: Consider addition of recommended PM measures in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. The goal is to produce a single living KPI document that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements.
SSMP Performance Monitoring and Update Process (SSMP 9.5) • Level of Effectiveness: Individual staff oversee various SSMP element performance indicators. The City tracks all revisions/updates with the SSMP using a revision log that is maintained by the LRO. The log is effective documenting changes to the SSMP and encourages the use of the SSMP as a living document. • Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
SSO Trends – Frequency, Location and Volume (SSMP 9.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City tracks a comprehensive list of performance metrics that are included in Appendix I-4 of the SSMP and summarized in Table 19. This allows the City to quickly identify and respond to changing trends in SSOs over time. These metrics are monitored on a monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, and annual basis.
• Recommendations:
o Update Appendix I-3 – SSO History (last update 2013). o Update SSO trends data in Appendix I-4 – KPI Benchmarking. o Consider addition of recommended SSO measures in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. The goal is to produce a single living KPI document that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements.
Table 18 –Recommended Additional Performance Indicators Description Performance Indicator Unit
System Information
Total System Length miles
Service Area sq. miles
Population people
# maintenance Holes MHs
# Pump Stations PS/ Lift Station number
Sewer < 8 inch miles
8 inches < sewer < 15 inches miles
15 inches < sewer < 21 inches miles
21 inches < sewer < 42 inches miles
Average age of system years
New sewer main installation miles
New sewer lateral installation miles
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 34
WWC Staff number
Financial Information
Total annual division budget $
Total annual O&M budget $
O&M budget of annual %
Lift station O&M cost $
Lift station O&M cost of annual %
Annual capital for sewer rehab $
Sewer monthly rate for residents $
O&M
Certified operators number
O&M field staff number
Average high velocity cleaning per crew per day LF
Total visually inspected per year (not CCTV) miles
SSO Number of SSO calls received number
FOG
Public education outreach budget per year $
Public education outreach budget of annual %
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 35
Table 19 – Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends Performance Measure Unit Target Source
SSOs - Total number, mains and laterals Number - A, B
SSOs - Total volume, mains and laterals Gal - A, B
SSOs - Total volume recovered Gal - B
SSOs - Total number of wet weather Number - A, B
SSOs - Total volume of wet weather Gal - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by FOG (main) % - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by roots (main) % - A, B
SSOs - % of spills caused by Vandalism (main) % - A, B
SSOs - caused by LS failures Number - A, B
SSOs - caused by pipe failures Number - A, B
SSOs - % of spill volume caused by FOG (lateral) % - A, B SSOs - % of spill volume caused by roots (lateral) % - A, B SSOs - % of spill volume caused by Vandalism (lateral) % - A, B Customer service requests per year Number - A, B
Sewer odor complaints Number - A, B
Flooding claims per year Number - A, B
Cost of flooding claims per year $ - A, B
SSO – Repeats within two years Number 0 B, C
SSOs - Category 1 Number 0 C, D
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Category 2 Number 2.0 C
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Mainline Number 0.6 C
SSOs / 100 mi pipe / year - Lateral Number 8.0 C
A = SSMP section 9.6
B = SSMP Appendix I
C = WW Collections KPIs
D = Program / Performance Reports
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 36
5.10 SSMP Program Audits
5.10.1 Compliance
Table 20 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
x Conduct periodic audits Yes -
5.10.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Audit Procedures, Roles, and Responsibilities (SSMP 10.2) • Level of Effectiveness: The City conducts an internal audit biennially to continually measure the effectiveness of the SSMP primarily through evaluating system metrics, performance measures, and reduce SSOs by improving SSMP procedures to better respond to new SSO trends. In addition, the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with SSMP requirements, particularly the amended MRP requirements that were formalized in September 2013. The City developed an audit form as a template to record information produced during the internal SSMP audits. This form is included in SSMP Appendix J-2. The previous audit identified many areas of improvement which the City responded and acted on. Some of these recommended improvements were excluded from this audit based on discussions with the City that eliminated the need for them. Others are considered standing and should still be implemented by the City. Generally, the internal audits implemented by the City have been effective in improving the SSMP and turning it into a living document that that is current, practical, and useful for the City. • Recommendations:
o Post this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
o Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July-August of 2021. o Develop a description manual to replace Appendix J-1 and J-2 of the SSMP, to support each KPI element. This manual describes required information for KPI monitoring, including but not limited to:
▪ Elements definition
▪ How to fill each KPI items
▪ Personnel responsible
▪ Review frequency
SSMP Program Modification/Update Process (SSMP 10.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City developed a program for monitoring, reviewing sewer performance metrics and the effectiveness of SSMP elements on a biennial basis. Based on the results of the SSMP audits, the Wastewater Utility Manager is assigned to initiate/direct corrective actions to respond to deficiencies and enhancements identified in the audit. As determined in the City’s SSMP revision log, the City has been prompt in responding to audit and continually strives to implement improvements. • Recommendations:
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 37
o Update the SSMP change log and add it as an appendix to the SSMP, documenting all changes made to the SSMP since its last certification, indicating when an element was changed/updated and who authorized the change. An example of a change log is shown at Appendix 7.5. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented. o Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
5.11 Communication Program
5.11.1 Compliance
Table 21 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
xi(a) Communicate on a regular basis with the public and tributary/satellite systems regarding SSMP Yes -
5.11.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Internal Communication – Staff, Utility Commission, and City Council (SSMP 11.2) • Level of Effectiveness: The WWC has used PowerPoint presentations as a resource to describe the purpose of the SSMP and summarize SSS WDR requirements to the City council and City staff. These presentations are attached to the SSMP website.
• Recommendations:
o As of September 2013, the State Water board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR and the City produced a training PowerPoint to City staff, council, and stakeholders regarding the update.
Attach the PowerPoint to the SSMP website. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
o Post Appendices K-1 – WWC WDR awareness Program and K-2 – Sanitary sewer regulations/WDR PowerPoint presentations on the website.
o Update Appendix K-3 – Two EU newsletters FOG/medications links.
Stakeholder Communication – Residential, Commercial and Industrial (SSMP 11.3) • Level of Effectiveness: The City communicates regularly with the public and stakeholders via monthly newsletters entitled “EU Today” that includes items regarding sewer utilities. This newsletter is presented online and through bill inserts. A sample newsletter is included in Appendix K of the SSMP. In addition, City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 38
the City specifically communicates FOG related items to the community via FOG outreach program over TV ads, flyers, direct mail, and site visits to FSEs.
• Recommendations:
o Update SSMP Appendix K-4 – FOG Outreach Program with marketing Plan budget & spending and post it on the website. Consider an additional metric to be used in the KPI that reflects the City’s performance in terms of FOG outreach program. Few additional metrics are recommended in Table 18. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Tributary/Satellite Communication (11.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City routinely communicates with their satellite partners and has three formal agreements in place that include:
o The joint exercise of power agreement for the SPWA
o The agreement regarding the operation of and use of South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities o The funding agreement relating to the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities o Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). • Recommendations:
o Add the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) as an appendix. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
o Modify SSMP 11.4 to include the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
o Post Appendix K-5 – Funding agreement related to south placer regional wastewater facilities on the website.
SECTION 6 Audit Summary
This section summarizes the level of compliance of the SSMP with the SSMP requirements identified in subsection D.13 and he identified deficiencies as described in Section 4.1. Table 22 summarizes the result of this evaluation.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 39
Table 22 – Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vi(f) Program to ensure containment of
SSO to prevent discharge and
minimize adverse impacts on the
environment
No
SSOERP does not meet certain water quality monitoring
requirements of the amended MRP document.
In addition, Table 23 lists a summary of all recommendations for this audit.
Table 23 – Summary of Audit Recommendations
SSMP
Section Recommendation
Suggested
Timeline for
Completion
1.2 Post Appendix A-1 – Roseville’s SSMP Development Plan and Implementation Schedule on the website.
2.1 Modify Appendix B-1: Update City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Carol Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Rohan, City Attorney Robert Schmitt). Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Blandon Granger, Vice Chair John Speight. Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Cheryl Hammond. Update Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
2.1 Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix B-1 – Personnel Responsible for SSMP Elements o Appendix B-2 – Personnel Responsible for SSO Reporting o Appendix B-3 – Personnel Responsible for Responding to SSOs Weekly Standby
2.3 Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24-hour call center instead of WWC service staff.
2.3 Include Figure 2-2 flowchart as Appendix F to the SSOERP (Appendix F-1) and mention in the text.
3.2 Post Appendix C-1 – Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan on the website.
3.3 Update the related links for Appendices C-3 and C-4 for sanitary sewer design and construction.
3.7 Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix C-5 – Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority
o Appendix C-6 – Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities
o Appendix C-7 – Wastewater Service Agreement by Contract and Operating Agreement between SASD, SRCSD and City of Roseville
4.2 Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Post Appendix D-1 – City of Roseville Sewer Map Grid System on the website. o Post Appendix D-9 – Mapping Update Policy on the website.
4.3 Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 40
4.3 Update the following Appendices and post on the website:
o Appendix D-2 – Maintenance Cleaning Schedule: Update with Maximo CCMS example
o Appendix D-3 – CCTV Video Report
o Appendix D-4 – SOP
4.4 Describe the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
4.4 Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP. Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
4.4 Post Appendix D-8 – Technical Memorandum O&M Program SSMP Audit-Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (Element IVC) on the website.
4.5 Update the following links:
o The CWEA website link.
o Appendix D-5 – CWEA Certification Handbook link.
4.6 Update and post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix D-6 – Equipment Inventory List
o Appendix D-7 – Critical Replace Parts List
5.2 Update Appendix E-1 – Sanitary Sewer Design link.
5.3 Update Appendix E-2 – Sanitary Sewer System Construction link.
5.3 Post Appendix E-3 – Technical Memo, SSMP Preparedness Audit Design and Performance Provisions Element V on the website.
6.3 The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station. This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
6.3 Modify Figure 6-2 – SSO Procedure Flow Chat, to report SSO category 1 larger than 1,000 gallons to Cal OES within 2 hours per WDR requirements (currently if > 50,000 gal).
6.3 Post Appendix F-1 – SSOERP on the website along with corresponding attachments
6.7 Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the requirements of the amended MRP.
o Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented. o Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 41
6.7 Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all of the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
7.8 Modify the EU Engineering GIS database to include hotspot assets and FSEs and add them as layers to the maps that WWC receives.
8.2 Modify Appendix I-1 of the SSMP to indicate that the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every 10 years. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
9.3 Incorporate system and financial measures recommended in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP.
9.3 Update Appendix I-4 and modify it to include document location and review frequency.
9.3 Modify I-4 – Key Performance Indicators (KPI) FOG section, to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC.
9.4 Consider addition of recommended PM measures in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. The goal is to produce a single living KPI document that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements.
9.6 Update Appendix I-3 – SSO History (last update 2013).
9.6 Update SSO trends data in Appendix I-4 – KPI Benchmarking.
9.6 Consider addition of recommended SSO measures in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. The goal is to produce a single living KPI document that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements.
10.2 Post this SSMP internal audit to the City website.
10.2 Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July-August of 2021.
10.2 Develop a description manual to replace Appendix J-1 and J-2 of the SSMP, to support each KPI element. This manual describes required information for KPI monitoring, including but not limited to:
o Elements definition
o How to fill each KPI items
o Personnel responsible
o Review frequency
10.3 Update the SSMP change log and add it as an appendix to the SSMP, documenting all changes made to the SSMP since its last certification, indicating when an element was changed/updated and who authorized the change. An example of a change log is shown at Appendix 7.5. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
10.3 Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11.2 As of September 2013, the State Water board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR and the City produced a training PowerPoint to City staff, council, and stakeholders regarding the update. Attach the PowerPoint to the SSMP website. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11.2 Post Appendices K-1 – WWC WDR awareness Program and K-2 – Sanitary sewer regulations/WDR PowerPoint presentations on the website.
11.2 Update Appendix K-3 – Two EU newsletters FOG/medications links.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 42
11.3 Update SSMP Appendix K-4 – FOG Outreach Program with marketing Plan budget & spending and post it on the website. Consider an additional metric to be used in the KPI that reflects the City’s performance in terms of FOG outreach program. Few additional metrics are recommended in Table 18. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11.4 Add the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) as an appendix. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11.4 Modify SSMP 11.4 to include the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11.4 Post Appendix K-5 – Funding agreement related to south placer regional wastewater facilities on the website.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
September 19 Page 43
SECTION 7 Appendices
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data
7.2 Appendix – SSO Data Comparison Charts
7.3 Appendix – Structural SSO GIS Mapping
7.4 Appendix – Key Performance Indicators
7.5 Appendix – Change Log Example
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
A
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data
Dated: FY 15/16, FY 16/17, and FY 17/18
Appendix 7.1 – Historical SSO Data for FY 15/16 to FY 17/18 # Event ID Date of SSO Address Spill Type Spill Volume [gal] Spill Recovered [gal] Spill Recovery [%] Spill Cause Location 1 825330 6/7/2016 208 King Category 2 2020 2000 99% Pipe/Structure Failure Main 2 818220 9/19/2015 217 Cedar St Category 3 15 15 100% Roots LL 3 818891 9/23/2015 218 Judah Category 3 10 6 60% Debris-Other LL 4 819343 10/13/2015 236 Elm St Category 3 2 1 50% Roots LL 5 817820 8/3/2015 271 Spyglass Hill category 3 13 11 85% Debris-Rags LL 6 822789 3/8/2016 319 Coronado Category 3 3 3 100% Debris-Rags LL 7 817564 7/20/2015 320 Grove St Category 3 10 8 80% Roots LL 8 821313 1/8/2016 405 Fourth St Category 3 10 10 100% Pipe/Structure Failure LL 9 824524 4/29/2016 407 Yosemite Category 3 1 1 100% Roots LL 10 819342 10/16/2015 409 Washington Blvd Category 3 5 4 80% Roots LL 11 826670 6/4/2016 417 Shannon Way Category 3 5 4 80% Roots LL 12 819344 10/20/2015 500 Oak St Category 3 5 1 20% Roots LL 13 820342 12/17/2015 503 Oak ridge Category 3 59 59 100% Roots LL 14 820369 12/18/2015 503 Bedford Ct Category 3 79 79 100% Roots LL 15 825184 5/10/2016 503 Loretto Category 3 5 4 80% Roots LL 16 817422 7/15/2015 505 Main St Category 3 10 10 100% Roots LL 17 820331 12/9/2015 524 Main St Category 3 7 7 100% Roots LL 18 822520 2/9/2016 603 Rigby Ct Category 3 1 1 100% Roots LL 19 818888 9/25/2015 705 Oak ridge Category 3 7 3 43% Roots LL 20 824651 5/4/2016 801 Vernon St Category 3 6 6 100% Debris-Rags LL 21 819957 11/24/2015 864 Portside Category 3 3 2 67% Roots LL 22 822330 2/8/2016 900 Main St Category 3 28 23 82% Roots LL 23 820975 12/28/2015 901 Herbert St Category 3 65 12 18% Grease Main 24 824652 5/9/2016 1010 Tamarack Ct Category 3 2 1 50% Grease LL 25 818514 9/19/2015 1011 Tamarack Ct Category 3 14 14 100% Pipe/Structure Failure LL 26 824373 4/15/2016 1013 Shearer St Category 3 10 10 100% Roots LL 27 823160 3/8/2016 1265 Pleasant Grove Category 3 19 17 89% Roots LL 28 821374 1/6/2016 1302 Hedgerow Category 3 2 2 100% Roots LL 29 819956 11/16/2015 1404 McBride Category 3 2 0 0% Roots LL 30 822332 2/9/2016 1428 Gregory Way Category 3 25 22 88% Roots LL 31 820220 11/27/2015 1444 Tiffany Cir Category 3 5 4 80% Roots LL 32 819955 11/13/2015 1528 Oak Tree Category 3 4 1 25% Roots LL 33 818299 9/7/2015 1538 E Colonial Pw Category 3 21 21 100% Roots LL 34 816746 7/4/2015 1601 Russell Category 3 2 2 100% Roots LL 35 825736 5/24/2016 1647 Ashford Category 3 2 1 50% Roots LL 36 819594 10/22/2015 1748 Hillingdon Category 3 2 2 100% Roots LL 37 818910 9/27/2015 4121 Enchanted Cir Category 3 1 0 0% Roots LL 38 821372 1/11/2016 6176 Crater Lake Category 3 40 40 100% Roots LL 39 823936 3/21/2016 7216 Pineschi Category 3 5 4 80% Roots LL 40 831836 12/27/2016 106 Estates Category 3 2 2 100% Roots LL 41 829712 11/7/2016 114 Vernon Category 3 5 5 100% Roots LL 42 832603 2/6/2017 117 Vallejo Ave Category 3 45 38 84% Debris-Rags LL 43 828212 9/13/2016 205 Bonny Knoll Category 3 3 2 67% Roots LL 44 829388 10/20/2016 300 James Category 3 5 5 100% Roots LL 45 829319 10/19/2016 302 Margaret Way Category 3 2 2 100% Roots LL 46 833704 2/28/2017 310 Sierra Blvd Category 3 20 18 90% Roots LL 47 834443 4/9/2017 333 Elfa St (Alley) Category 3 17 17 100% Roots LL 48 834223 3/29/2017 401 Coronado Ave Category 355 100% Roots LL 49 828445 9/21/2016 411 Greenridge Category 3 18 16 89% Roots LL 50 835208 5/9/2017 529 Dudley Category 331 33% Roots LL 51 828840 10/3/2016 602 Dove Wy Category 387 88% Debris-Rags LL 52 830389 11/25/2016 701 Sawyer Ct Category 3 159 60% Roots LL 53 830004 11/13/2016 800 Main St Category 3 47 44 94% Pipe/Structure Failure LL 54 827325 7/22/2016 854 Shearer St Category 322 100% Roots LL 55 832386 1/26/2017 1025 Enwood Category 364 67% Roots LL 56 830793 12/9/2016 1123 Augusta Wy Category 343 75% Roots LL 57 832142 1/25/2017 1166 Greenhill Dr Category 3 17 15 88% Roots LL 58 830807 12/13/2016 1217 McKinley Dr Category 3 760 704 93% Roots LL 59 829562 10/27/2016 1302 Coloma Category 3 68 65 96% Roots LL 60 835206 5/10/2017 1311 Wendy Ct Category 344 100% Roots LL 61 826874 7/26/2016 1402 Crestmont Category 3 20 15 75% Roots LL 62 827536 8/12/2016 1713 Tanglewood Ln Category 353 60% Roots LL 63 844166 1/18/2018 224 1/2 D St Category 3 45 42 93% Roots LL 64 840980 10/9/2017 245 Duranta Category 3 108 80% Debris-Other Main 65 842032 11/30/2017 250 S Harding Category 3 58 58 100% Roots LL 66 847009 4/10/2018 317 Princeton Category 3 10 10 100% Roots LL 67 847760 5/17/2018 326 Grove St Category 330 0% Debris-Rags LL 68 847278 4/18/2018 329 Alta Vista Category 3 51 49 96% Debris-Other LL 69 843124 12/17/2017 372 Circuit Dr Category 351 20% Roots LL 70 848005 5/24/2018 376 Circuit Dr Category 331 33% Roots LL 71 848614 5/31/2018 441 Briggs Ct Category 3 86 81 94% Pipe/Structure Failure Main 72 846885 4/4/2018 531 Vernon Category 3 20 17 85% Debris-Other LL 73 846248 3/2/2018 531 Vernon Category 366 100% Debris-Rags LL 74 841083 10/24/2017 615 Main St Category 3 96 10 10% Pipe/Structure Failure LL 75 843509 12/11/2017 710 Vernon Category 384 50% Debris-Other LL 76 848224 5/28/2018 1033 Coloma Way Category 351 20% Pipe/Structure Failure LL 77 840077 9/15/2017 1102 Fairfeld Ave Category 330 0% Roots LL 78 843230 12/13/2017 1206 McKinley Category 360 0% Roots LL 79 848002 5/27/2018 1245 Vista Verde Category 3 88 77 88% Debris-Rags LL 80 843665 12/22/2017 1338 Blossom Hill Way Category 3 45 45 100% Roots LL 81 842779 12/7/2017 1338 Ridge Run Category 3 52 51 98% Debris-Other LL 82 849496 6/30/2018 1413 West Colonial Park Way Category 391 11% Roots LL 83 849045 6/26/2018 1552 Diamond Wood Cir Category 3 190 0% Roots LL 84 844961 2/8/2018 2204 McLaren Dr Category 365 83% Roots LL 85 847241 4/18/2018 8409 Early Way Category 343 75% Roots LL 86 840892 9/11/2017 9000 Washington Blvd Category 3 585 40 7% Debris-Other Main 87 843899 1/16/2018 Darling Way Clinton Ave Category 1 342 333 97% Contractor Cause Vactor City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
B
7.2 Appendix – SSO Data Comparison Charts
Duration Response
EVENT ID CIWQS City CIWQS City CIWQS City CIWQS City >3 hr >40 min CIWQS City Notes 1 825330 2020 2020 2000 2000 1.048611 1.048611 0.00763889 0.007639 1 0 Pipe Structural Problem/Failure Pipe/Structure Failure2 818220 15 15 15 15 0.010417 0.010417 0.02083333 0.020833 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 3 818891 10 10 6 6 0.111111 0.111111 0.02222222 0.022222 0 0 Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Other 4 819343 2 2 1 1 0.011111 0.011111 0.00069444 0.000694 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots5 817820 13 13 11 11 0.025694 0.025694 0.01527778 0.015278 0 0 Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Rags6 822789 3 3 3 3 0.040972 0.040972 0.02013889 0.020139 0 0 Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Rags7 817564 10 10 8 8 0.017361 0.017361 0.01875 0.018056 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots8 821313 10 10 10 10 0.032639 0.032639 0.02083333 0.020833 0 0 Pipe Structural Problem/Failure Pipe/Structure Failure9 824524 1 1 1 1 0.020833 0.020833 0.00694444 0.006944 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 10 819342 5 5 4 4 0.01875 0.01875 0.0125 0.0125 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 11 826670 5 5 4 4 0.024306 0.024306 0.01388889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots12 819344 5 5 1 1 0.038194 0.038194 0.01458333 0.014583 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots13 820342 59 59 59 59 0.055556 0.055556 0.00347222 0.003472 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 14 820369 79 79 79 79 0.034722 0.034722 0.01666667 0.016667 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 15 825184 5 5 4 4 0.018056 0.018056 0.00763889 0.006944 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots16 817422 10 10 10 10 0.051389 0.051389 0.13472222 0.009722 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Incorrect arrival time in CIWQS 17 820331 7 7 7 7 0.021528 0.021528 0.00138889 0.001389 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots18 822520 1 1 0 1 0.085417 0.085417 0.075 0.075 0 1 Root Intrusion Roots 19 818888 7 7 3 3 0.041667 0.041667 0.01041667 0.135417 0 1 Root Intrusion Roots20 824651 6 6 6 6 0.024306 0.024306 0.00694444 0.006944 0 0 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags21 819957 3 3 2 2 0.001389 0.001389 0.01388889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots22 822330 28 28 23 23 0.016667 0.016667 0.00416667 0.004167 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 23 820975 65 65 12 12 2.791667 2.708333 0.00694444 0.006944 1 0 Grease Deposition (FOG) Grease Incorrect start time in CIWQS24 824652 2 2 1 1 0.018056 0.018056 0.00694444 0.006944 0 0 Grease Deposition (FOG) Grease25 818514 14 14 14 14 0.015972 0.015972 0.01111111 0.011111 0 0 Pipe Structural Problem/Failure Pipe/Structure Failure26 824373 10 10 10 10 0.052083 0.052083 0.03125 0.03125 0 1 Root Intrusion Roots27 823160 19 19 17 17 0.017361 0.017361 0.00694444 0.006944 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 28 821374 2 2 2 2 0.03125 0.03125 0.02083333 0.020833 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots29 819956 2 2 0 0 0.021528 0.021528 0.01111111 0.011111 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots30 822332 25 25 22 22 0.031944 0.031944 0.01111111 0.011111 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 31 820220 5 5 4 4 0.024306 0.024306 0.01388889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots32 819955 4 4 1 1 0.052083 0.052083 0.01388889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots33 818299 21 21 21 21 0.003472 0.003472 0.02291667 0.022917 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 34 816746 2 2 2 2 0.000694 0.000694 0.025 0.025 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 35 825736 2 2 1 1 0.024306 0.024306 0.01388889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots36 819594 2 2 2 2 0.000694 0.000694 0.0125 0.0125 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 37 818910 1 1 1 0 0.020833 0.020833 0.01041667 0.010417 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots38 821372 40 40 40 40 0.002778 0.002778 0.02013889 0.020139 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 39 823936 5 5 4 4 0.007639 0.007639 0.00972222 0.009722 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Total 2525 2525 2411 2411 4.867361 4.784028 0.69722222 0.695833 2 3 39 95% 95%
Avg 2:59:43 2:56:38 0:25:45 0:25:42
Cause
2015/2016 SSO Data Comparison
Spill Volume Rec Volume SSO Duration Response Time
Duration Response
EVENT ID CIWQS City CIWQS City CIWQS City CIWQS City >3 hr >40 min CIWQS City Notes 1 831836 2 2 2 2 0.027778 0.027778 0.013889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 2 829712 5 5 5 5 0.01875 0.01875 0.008333 0.008333 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 3 832603 45 45 38 38 2.84375 2.84375 0.013889 0.008333 1 0 Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Rags Incorrect Not time4 828212 3 3 2 2 0.004167 0.004167 0000 Root Intrusion Roots No notification5 829388 5 5 5 5 0.025694 0.025694 0.011806 0.011806 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 6 829319 2 2 2 2 0.016667 0.016667 0.008333 0.008333 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 7 833704 20 20 18 18 0.242361 0.242361 0.004167 0.004167 1 0 Root Intrusion Roots 8 834443 17 17 17 17 0.032639 0.032639 0.022222 0.022222 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 9 834223 5 5 5 5 0.03125 0.03125 0.020833 0.020833 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 10 828445 18 18 16 16 0.184028 0.184028 0.017361 0.017361 1 0 Root Intrusion Roots11 835208 3 3 1 1 0.045139 0.045139 0.004861 0.004861 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots12 828840 8 8 7 7 0.006944 0.006944 0.020139 0.01875 0 0 Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Rags 13 830389 15 15 9 9 0.006944 0.006944 0.017361 0.017361 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 14 830004 47 47 44 44 0.089583 0.089583 0.014583 0.014583 0 0 Root Intrusion Pipe/Structure Failure Incorrect cause in CIWQS15 827325 2 2 2 2 0.013889 0.013889 0.029167 0.029167 0 1 Root Intrusion Roots16 832386 6 6 4 4 0.024306 0.024306 0.013889 0.013889 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots17 830793 4 4 3 3 0.018056 0.018056 0.007639 0.007639 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots18 832142 17 17 15 15 0.1875 0.1875 0.010417 0.010417 1 0 Root Intrusion Roots19 830807 760 760 704 704 2.140278 2.140278 0.009722 0.009722 1 0 Root Intrusion Roots 20 829562 68 68 65 65 0.086806 0.086806 0.008333 0.008333 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 21 835206 4 4 4 4 0.042361 0.042361 0.009722 0.009722 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots22 826874 20 20 15 15 0.002778 0.002778 0.027778 0.025 0 0 CS Mainentance Caused Spill/Damage Roots Incorrect cause in CIWQS23 827536 5 5 3 3 0.010417 0.010417 0.003472 0.003472 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Total 1081 1081 986 986 6.102083 6.102083 0.297917 0.288194 5 1 23 91% 91%
Avg 6:22:03 6:22:03 0:18:39 0:18:03
Cause
2016/2017 SSO Data Comparison
Spill Volume Rec Volume SSO Duration Response Time
Duration Response
EVENT ID CIWQS City CIWQS City CIWQS City CIWQS City >3 hr >40 min CIWQS City Notes 1 840077 3 3 0 0 0.018056 0.018056 0.007639 0.006944 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Incorrect not time in CIWQS2 840892 585 585 40 40 0.041667 0.027778 0 0.010417 0 0 Debris from Construction Debris‐Other Incorrect not time in CIWQS3 840980 10 10 8 8 0.020833 0.020833 0.008333 0.008333 0 0 Debris from Construction Debris‐Other 4 841083 96 96 10 10 1.354167 1.354167 0.003472 0.003472 1 0 Pipe Structural Problem/Failure Pipe/Structure Failure5 842032 58 58 58 58 0.006944 0.006944 0 0.006944 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Incorrect not time in CIWQS6 842779 52 52 51 51 0.029861 0.029861 0.015972 0.015972 0 0 Debris‐Wipes/Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Other7 843509 8 8 4 4 2.088194 2.088194 0.013889 0.013889 1 0 Debris‐Wipes/Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Other Event ID does not match CIWQS ID8 843124 5 5 1 1 0.017361 0.017361 0.03125 0.03125 0 1 Root Intrusion Roots9 843230 6 6 0 0 0.026389 0.026389 0.015972 0.016667 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 10 843665 11 45 11 45 0.005556 0.005556 0.020833 0.020833 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Incorrect volume reports on CIWQS 11 843899 342 342 333 333 0.007639 0.007639 0 0 0 0 Other (specify below) Contractor Cause 12 844166 45 45 42 42 2.024306 2.024306 0.008333 0.008333 1 0 Root Intrusion Roots 13 844961 6 6 5 5 0.047222 0.047222 0.03125 0.03125 0 1 Root Intrusion Roots 14 846248 6 6 6 6 0.002083 0.002083 0 0.021528 0 0 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags Incorrect not time in CIWQS15 846885 20 20 17 17 0.017361 0.017361 0.007639 0.007639 0 0 Debris‐Wipes/Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Other16 847009 10 10 10 10 0.071528 0.061111 0.025694 0.025694 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots 17 847241 4 4 3 3 0.170139 0.170139 0.00625 0.00625 1 0 Root Intrusion Roots 18 847278 51 51 49 49 0.035417 0.035417 0.025 0.025 0 0 Debris‐Wipes/Non‐Dispersables Debris‐Other 19 847760 3 3 0 0 0.041667 0.041667 0 0 0 0 Debris‐Rags Debris‐Rags20 848002 88 88 77 77 0.788194 0.788194 0.011806 0.017361 1 0 Debris from Construction Debris‐Rags 21 848005 3 3 1 1 0.021528 0.021528 0.011111 0.011111 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots22 848224 5 5 1 1 0.073611 0.073611 0.015278 0.015278 0 0 Pipe Structural Problem/Failure Pipe/Structure Failure23 848614 86 86 81 81 0.202083 0.202083 0.011111 0.011111 1 0 Pipe Structural Problem/Failure ‐ Installation Pipe/Structure Failure24 849045 19 19 0 0 0.013889 0.013889 0.016667 0.016667 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Incorrect not time in CIWQS25 849496 9 9 1 1 0.00625 0.00625 0.024306 0.022222 0 0 Root Intrusion Roots Incorrect not time in CIWQS Total 1531 1565 809 843 7.131944 7.107639 0.311806 0.354167 6 2 53% 54%
25 Avg 6:50:48 6:49:24 0:17:58 0:20:24
Cause
2017/2018 SSO Data Comparison
Spill Volume Rec Volume SSO Duration Response Time
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
C
7.3 Appendix – Structural SSO GIS Mapping
22 26
Springview/DC
SMD2
8 24
Sierra College/StrapRav
PG WWTP
North Roseville/PG
2 15
6 19
20 25
1 Highlands
14 21
18 23
16 15A
3 4
5 7
9 5A
10 7A
16A
11 12
17 DC WWTP
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Legend
Age
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 50
51 - 80
81 - 110
AVG_RDII
1 - 200
201 - 600
601 - 1000
1001 - 2000
2001 - 2500
2501 - 3000
3001 - 3500
3501 - 4000
4001 - 5000
5001 - 9629
City of Roseville I&I Study - 2018
Existing Conditions
Average RDII [gpd/idm] and Conduit Age [year]
Date: 3/21/2018
1:50,000 ¯
Project#: 17-067
A-10 Age [year]
Ave. RDII [gpd/idm]
DCWWTP
PGWWTP
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
D
7.4 Appendix – Key Performance Indicators
SSS WDR
Element
SSS WDR
Ref. Description Performance Indicator Unit
Target
KPI Data FY 14/15
KPI Data FY 15/16
KPI Data FY 16/17
KPI Data FY 17/18
KPI Data FY 18/19
Audit Frequency
Responsible Party
Average response to customer inquiry Minute 40 19.58 23 20 17 Quarterly WW Superintendent Total customer service requests Number 0 915 1549 533 302 Quarterly WW SuperintendentTotal sewer odor complaints Number 0 9 43 50 39 Quarterly WW SuperintendentAverage rating in customer service card Number 5 5555 Quarterly WW Superintendent D.iv.a Maps Average response time to map update requests Days 90 90 90 90 90 Quarterly WW Superintendent Manholes Inspection performed Number 0 2493 3575 1547 1511 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSewer main flushed per year Miles 250 284 248 295 283.12 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSewer laterals mechanically cleaned (eeled) per year staff 8 14.32 14.77 7.41 1.07 Quarterly WW SuperintendentWorking staff time to PM program % 80% 85% 82% 82% 84% Quarterly WW SuperintendentNumber of customer accounts per WW employee Number 561 1517 1554 1772 1757 Quarterly WW SuperintendentAverage cost of hydro cleaning $/lf $0.36 $0.32 $0.33 $0.29 $0.32 Annually WW Superintendent Average cost of sewer mechanical cleaning $/lf $1.60 $1.20 $0.77 $0.94 $1.66 Annually WW SuperintendentManholes rehabilitated Number 50 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent Sewer main CCTV inspected per year Miles 30 75 84.32 59.71 64.1 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSewer laterals CCTV inspected per year Miles 16 26 35.71 32.51 36.14 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSewer cleanouts installed per year Number 75 76 83 144 141 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSewer Laterals Rehabilitated Number 50 48 60 85 89 Quarterly WW SuperintendentTotal miles rehabed or replaced per year (main) Miles 5 6 0 0 1.07 Annually EU Engineering Total miles rehabed or replaced per year (lateral) Miles 0.25 0.16 0.27 0.66 0.42 Annually EU EngineeringAnnual capitol budget sewer rehab/replacement $/M $1.80 $1.05 $1.36 $2.61 $2.25 Annually WW SuperintendentAverage cost of CCTV main $/lf $0.53 $0.41 $0.41 $0.36 $0.40 Annually WW SuperintendentAverage cost of CCTV lateral S/lf $1.34 $1.11 $1.15 $1.04 $1.00 Annually WW Superintendent D.iv.d Training On the job accidents Number 0 5334 Quarterly EU Safety Coordinator D.iv.e Critical Parts % of required numberof identified critical parts are stocked % 100 100 100 100 100 Annually Materials Technician % of new sewer main accepted vs. inspected % 100 100 100 100 100 Annually WW Supervisor% of new sewer lateral accepted vs. inspected % 100 100 100 100 100 Annually WW Supervisor D.vi.a Notification Average response time to SSO Minutes 40 20 23 20 17 Quarterly WW Superintendent Average SSO duration (main) Minutes 40 n/a 70 0 0 Quarterly WW Superintendent Average SSO duration (lateral) Minutes 40 n/a 37 48 36 Quarterly WW Superintendent D.vii.a Public Education FOG public education outreach program events per year Number 4 3433 Annually Environmental Utilities PIO D.vii.b FOG Disposal Gallons of FOG curbside pickup per year Gallons 25 179.75 293.1 373.25 296 Quarterly Refuse Division % of total FSE's with grease removal devices % 90 90 97 98 98 Annually Ind Waste Technician% of total FSE's with a variance % 5 4444 Annually Ind Waste Technician FSE FOG inspections per year Number 294 n/a n/a 181 231 Quarterly Ind Waste Technician Number of new FSE permits issued per year Number 5 n/a n/a 40 46 Quarterly Ind Waste Technician % of hotspot pipes CCTV inspected each year % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Annually WW Supervisor Number of SSO's caused by hot spots Number 0 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent SSO volume casued by hot spots Gallons 0 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent Total number of SSO's mains and laterals Number 76 42 39 24 25 Quarterly WW SuperintendentTotal volume SSO's mains and laterals Gallons 2000 1202 2523 1086 1565 Quarterly WW Superintendent Organization D.ii.c Chain of Communication
D.iv.b PM Activities
Design D.v.a&b Construction
O&M
D.iv.c R&R Plan
OERP
D.vi.b SSO Response
FOG
D.vii.d
D.vii.e
D.vii.f Hot Spots
BMPs &Devices
FOG Inspections
% of total SSO volume recovered % 100 94.5 95.42 91.25 53.86 Quarterly WW Superintendent Total number of wet weather SSO's Number 0 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent Total volume of wet weather SSO's Gallons 0 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent% of SSO's caused by FOG (main) % 1 50 50 0 0 Quarterly WW Superintendent % of SSO's caused by roots (main) % 70 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent % of SSO's caused by debris/rags (main) % 0 0000 Quarterly WW SuperintendentNumber of SSO's caused by LS failure Number 0 0000 Quarterly WW SuperintendentNumber of SSO's caused by pipe/structural failures Number 0 0113 Quarterly WW Superintendent% of SSO's caused by FOG (laterals) % 10 0000 Quarterly WW Superintendent% of SSO's casued by roots (laterals) % 75 77.5 84 87 48 Quarterly WW Superintendent% of SSO's casued by debris/rags (laterals) % 0 12.5 10.8 9 28 Quarterly WW Superintendent Repeats SSO's within two years Number 0 2000 Quarterly WW Superintendent Number of Category 1 SSO's Number 0 0001 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSSO's/100 miles of pipe/year‐ Category 2 Number 2 0100 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSSO's/100 miles of pipe/year ‐ lateral Number 15 16.26 15.04 9.35 8.81 Quarterly WW SuperintendentSSO's/100 miles of pipe/year ‐mains Number 0.6 0.4 0.4 0 0.19 Quarterly WW Superintendent Flooding claims per year Number 0 1 0 0 Quarterly WW SuperintendentTotal Cost of claims per year $ 0 0 0 Quarterly Risk Management MMM D.ix.e SSO Trends
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY15/16 – FY17/18
E
7.5 Appendix – Change Log Example
79 3.5 References
3.5.1 SSMP Sample Change Log
{Insert Enrollee Name}
Sewer System Management Plan
Change Log
Date SSMP
Element/
Section
Description of Change/Revision Made Change
Authorized By:
Appendix 10-5
SSPM Audit Fiscal Years 18/19, 19/20 and 20/21
October 21 Page 1
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Three-Year Audit for FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
Date: October 21
Prepared by: Michael Fisher, P.E., Water Works Engineers Adam Correa, E.I.T., Water Works Engineers
Assisted by: Dan Pruden, City Wastewater Superintendent Table of Contents
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information ....................................................................................... 4
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit ....................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Review of FY 18/19, FY 19/20, and FY 20/21............................................................................................ 8 SECTION 3 SSO Trends ........................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Historical SSO Data ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Performance Measures .......................................................................................................................... 13 SECTION 4 Audit Procedure .............................................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance .................................................................................................................. 14
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness ................................................................................................................ 14 SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements ................................................................................................................. 15
5.1 Goals ....................................................................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Organization ........................................................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Legal Authority ....................................................................................................................................... 17
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program ................................................................................................... 19
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions ....................................................................................................... 23
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan ...................................................................................................... 24
5.7 FOG Control Program ............................................................................................................................. 27
5.8 System Evaluation and Capacity Assurance Plan ................................................................................... 30
5.9 Monitoring, Measurement, and Program Modifications ....................................................................... 31
5.10 SSMP Program Audits ............................................................................................................................. 35
5.11 Communication Program ....................................................................................................................... 36 SECTION 6 Audit Summary ............................................................................................................................... 38 SECTION 7 Appendices ..................................................................................................................................... 42
7.1 Appendix – Historical SSO Data ................................................................................................................ A
7.2 Appendix – SSO Data Comparison Charts ................................................................................................ B
7.3 Appendix – Structural SSO GIS Mapping .................................................................................................. C
7.4 Appendix – Key Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. D
7.5 Appendix – Change Log Example .............................................................................................................. E October 21 Page 2
List of Tables
Table 1 – Overview of Collection System ...................................................................................................................4 Table 2 – Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit ...........................................................................5 Table 3 – CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data ..............................................................................................................9 Table 4 – Regional Comparison of SSO Data ........................................................................................................... 11 Table 5 – Leading Causes of SSOs in FY15-18 (results from FY13-15 in parenthesis) ............................................. 12 Table 6 – Performance Measures ............................................................................................................................ 13 Table 7 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals ................................................................................................ 15 Table 8 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization .................................................................................... 15 Table 9 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority .............................................................................. 17 Table 10 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program ............................................................................. 19 Table 11 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b) ......................................................................... 20 Table 12 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv (c) ........................................................................ 22 Table 13 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions ............................................. 23 Table 14 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP ............................................................................................. 24 Table 15 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program ................................................................. 27 Table 16 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.viii - SECAP .......................................................................................... 30 Table 17 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ix – MMM ........................................................................................... 31 Table 18 –Recommended Additional Performance Indicators ............................................................................... 32 Table 19 – Current Performance Measures to Monitor SSO Trends....................................................................... 34 Table 20 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.x – SSMP Program Audits ................................................................... 35 Table 21 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.xi – Communications Program ........................................................... 36 Table 22 – Summary of SSMP Compliance Deficiencies .......................................................................................... 38 Table 23 – Summary of Audit Recommendations ................................................................................................... 38 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year .............................................................................................................. 10 Figure 2 – Average Gallons per SSO ........................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 3 – Average SSO Volume per Cause ............................................................................................................. 12 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 3
SECTION 1 Audit Objectives
This report covers the results of the required Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) internal audit process for the City of Roseville (City) for fiscal years 2018-2019 (FY 18/19), 2019-2020 (FY 19/20), and 2020-2021 (FY 20/21). The goal of the SSMP is to provide a written framework and plan for properly managing, operating, and maintaining all parts of the sanitary sewer system (collection system). The SSMP will help the City minimizing sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) and complying with the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, the Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems (SSS WDR). The SSMP audit evaluates the effectiveness of the SSMP, by reviewing the performance of the collection system against the performance measures used by the City to evaluate compliance with requirements of the SSS WDRs.
The intention of the SSMP audit is to help the SSMP evolve over time as a “living document” that City continually adjusts after identifying potential enhancements and implementing changes to address any deficiencies to the management, operation and maintenance of the City sanitary sewer collection system. Recently, the SWRCB is proposing a statewide sanitary sewer system order reissuance. The proposed reissuance, which will be built on the existing general order, with a primary focus of reducing the statewide spill volume. This audit briefly discusses the proposed reissued order by the SWRCB and considers recommendations for future compliance.
The City is committed to completing the SSMP internal audit (Audit) on a biennial basis that is consistent with the procedure outlined in Appendix J-1 of the SSMP. The City completed its first Audit for years 2010 and 2011, but subsequently contracted Water Works Engineers (WWE) to conduct the FY 11/12-12/13, FY 13/14-14/15, and FY15/16-17/18 audits. This audit reviews results of the FY 18/19, FY 19/20, and FY 20/21, which is a threeyear program. The key objective of this Audit is to review the SSMP compliance, implementation, and effectiveness. This report includes the following key tasks:
1. Review records from previous Audits and confirm deficiencies have been addressed (SECTION 2).
2. Evaluate the City’s historical SSO data and performance measures listed in the SSMP (SECTION 3).
3. Using a standardized audit procedure detailed in Section 4, identify deficiencies and provide recommendations that could improve the effectiveness of the SSMP and its compliance with the future reissue order.
4. Analyze the City’s preventative maintenance (PM) and rehabilitation and replacement (R&R) programs as it relates to the operation and maintenance of the collection system (Section 5.4).
5. Review the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Emergency Response Plan (SSEORP) for SSOs and identify improvements as needed (Section 5.6).
6. Document all findings during the Audit and retain it on file (SECTION 6).
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 4
SECTION 2 Agency Background / System Information
The City of Roseville, in Placer County, is located approximately 16 miles north of the City of Sacramento. Along Interstate 80, Roseville is located adjacent to the City of Rocklin in the north-east and the City of Citrus Heights in the south. The City covers approximately 43 square miles near the base of the foothills of the Sierra Mountains. Typical elevations are within a range of 250 to 100 feet of sea level with an average slope across the City of 0.5% from east to west. Several streams flow through the City (i.e., Dry Creek, Pleasant Grove Creek, Kaseburg Creek, Linda Creek, Cirby Creek, Secret Ravine, and Miners Ravine.).
The City is responsible for the operation and maintenance of a continually growing collection system that has grown over 6% since the last internal audit to now serve approximately 147,000 people. Table 1 lists key information about the City collection system over the past three Audit periods.
Table 1 – Overview of Collection System
Audit FY 11/12 – 12/13 FY 13/14 – 14/15 FY 15/16 – 17/18* FY18/19-20/21* Miles of Mainline 485.52 501.11 515.7 578.4
Miles of laterals (lower) 235.3 238 266 293
Pump stations 14 15 16 17
Sewer service lateral
connections
41,568 43,619
47,638 51605
Population served 122,060 128,832 137,213 146590
WWC Staff 25 28 29 33
Annual Budget (FY1/ FY2/ FY3) $3,400,000/
$3,800,00
$3,700,000/
$4,000,000
$5,069,000/
$5,279,0000
$5,572,264/$5,702,64
9/$6,258,201
Category 1 SSOs 2 0 1 0
Category 2 SSOs 75 0 1 0
Category 3 SSOs - 89 85 114
*Three-year audit
The City treats wastewater conveyed through its collection system at two regional wastewater treatment plants that are both owned and operated by the City (i.e., Dry Creek and Pleasant Grove WWTPs). Two other satellite collection systems owned and operated by other agencies (i.e., South Placer Municipal Utility District and Placer County) discharge directly into the City’s collection system. A small portion of the City’s collection system discharges outside of Roseville and into the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) collection system, which is treated at the Sacramento Regional WWTP. The City is a part of the Central Valley Region 5 (Sacramento subregion) of the SWRCB.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 5
2.1 Review of Last SSMP Audit
The previous audit for of the City SSMP was conducted by WWE for FY 15/16-17/18 and was completed in September 2019. In the last Audit, a list of approximately 54 recommended actions to address deficiencies or improve the effectiveness of the City SSMP were listed. Table 2 summarizes identified deficiencies and associated action items, along with a description of the status of the task (i.e., Completed, Ongoing Updates, In/No Progress, Considered) outlined in the last SSMP audit. documents on the City’s website and based on information from City staff.
Table 2 – Summary of Findings from the Last SSMP Internal Audit Element Action Item Status
2 – Organization
Post Appendix A-1 – Roseville’s SSMP Development Plan and Implementation Schedule on the website. In Progress
Modify Appendix B-1: Update City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Carol Garcia, Vice Mayor Susan Rohan, City Attorney Robert Schmitt).
Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Blandon Granger, Vice Chair John Speight. Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Cheryl Hammond. Update Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
Ongoing
Progress
Post Appendix Appendix B-1 – Personnel Responsible for SSMP Elements on the website. No Progress
Post Appendix Appendix B-2 – Personnel Responsible for SSO Reporting on the website. No Progress
Post Appendix Appendix B-3 – Personnel Responsible for Responding to SSOs Weekly Standby on the website. No Progress
Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24-hour call center instead of WWC service staff. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
No Progress
Include Figure 2-2 flowchart as Appendix F to the SSOERP (Appendix F-1) and mention in the text. No Progress
3 - Legal
Authority
Post Appendix C-1 – Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan on the website. No Progress
Update the related links for Appendices C-3 and C-4 for sanitary sewer design and construction. No Progress
Post Appendix C-5 – Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority on the website. No Progress
Post Appendix C-6 – Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities on the website. In Progress City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 6
Post Appendix C-7 – Wastewater Service Agreement by Contract and Operating Agreement between SASD, SRCSD and City of Roseville on the website. No Progress 4 - O&M
Post Appendix D-1 – City of Roseville Sewer Map Grid System on the website. No Progress Post Appendix D-9 – Mapping Update Policy on the website. No Progress Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
Ongoing
Progress
Update Appendix D-2 – Maintenance Cleaning Schedule: Update with Maximo CCMS example and post on the website. No Progress
Update Appendix D-3 –CCTV Video Report and post on the website. No Progress Update Appendix D-4 –SOP and post on the website. No Progress Describe the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
No Progress
Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP.
Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
No Progress
Post Appendix D-8 – Technical Memorandum O&M Program SSMP AuditRehabilitation and Replacement Plan (Element IVC) on the website. No Progress Update the CWEA website link. No Progress
Update Appendix D-5 – CWEA Certification Handbook Link. No Progress Update and post Appendix D-6 – Equipment Inventory List on the website. No Progress Update and post Appendix D-7 – Critical Replace Parts List on the website. No Progress 5 - DPP
Update Appendix E-1 – Sanitary Sewer Design link. No Progress Update Appendix E-2 – Sanitary Sewer System Construction link. No Progress Post Appendix E-3 – Technical Memo, SSMP Preparedness Audit Design and Performance Provisions Element V on the website. No Progress 6 - OERP
The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station. This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
Modify Figure 6-2 – SSO Procedure Flow Chat, to report SSO category 1 larger than 1,000 gallons to Cal OES within 2 hours per WDR requirements (currently if > 50,000 gal).
No Progress
Post Appendix F-1 – SSOERP on the website along with corresponding attachments No Progress Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the requirements of the amended MRP. No Progress
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 7
o Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all of the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
7 – FOG Control
Program
Modify the EU Engineering GIS database to include hotspot assets and FSEs and add them as layers to the maps that WWC receives. No Progress 8 – SECAP
Modify Appendix I-1 of the SSMP to indicate that the system evaluation and capacity assurance plan will be reviewed and updated every 10 years. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
9 – MMM
Incorporate system and financial measures recommended in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. No Progress Update Appendix I-4 and modify it to include document location and review frequency. No Progress
Modify I-4 – Key Performance Indicators (KPI) FOG section, to reflect the change in responsibilities from IWS to WWC. No Progress
Consider addition of recommended PM measures in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. The goal is to produce a single living KPI document that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements.
No Progress
Update Appendix I-3 – SSO History (last update 2013). No Progress Update SSO trends data in Appendix I-4 – KPI Benchmarking. In Progress Consider addition of recommended SSO measures in Table 18, from Appendix I-2 into Appendix I-4 and discard Appendix I-2 from the SSMP. The goal is to produce a single living KPI document that can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of SSMP elements.
No progress
10.2 Post this SSMP internal audit to the City website. Complete
10.2 Schedule the next internal SSMP audit for July-August of 2021. Complete 10 – SSMP
Program Audits
Develop a description manual to replace Appendix J-1 and J-2 of the SSMP, to support each KPI element. This manual describes required information for KPI monitoring, including but not limited to:
o Elements definition
o How to fill each KPI items
o Personnel responsible
o Review frequency
No Progress
Update the SSMP change log and add it as an appendix to the SSMP, documenting all changes made to the SSMP since its last certification, indicating when an element was changed/updated and who authorized the change. An example of a change log is shown at Appendix 7.5. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
Document the submittal process for proposed changes to the SSMP. The process No Progress City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 8
may include the following; identify the individual who maintains the most current version of the SSMP, the steps in which suggested modifications are received (by internal staff or the public), how suggestions are routed to the individual/position responsible for the SSMP element associated with suggested modification, the process for review, and the process for updating the SSMP on the City website and documenting changes. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
11 –
Communication
As of September 2013, the State Water board amended the MRP of the SSS WDR and the City produced a training PowerPoint to City staff, council, and stakeholders regarding the update. Attach the PowerPoint to the SSMP website. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
Post Appendices K-1 – WWC WDR awareness Program and K-2 – Sanitary sewer regulations/WDR PowerPoint presentations on the website. No Progress Update Appendix K-3 – Two EU newsletters FOG/medications links. No Progress Update SSMP Appendix K-4 – FOG Outreach Program with marketing Plan budget & spending and post it on the website. Consider an additional metric to be used in the KPI that reflects the City’s performance in terms of FOG outreach program. Few additional metrics are recommended in Table 18. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
Add the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD) as an appendix. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
Modify SSMP 11.4 to include the Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD). This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
No Progress
Post Appendix K-5 – Funding agreement related to south placer regional wastewater facilities on the website. No Progress
2.2 Review of FY 18/19, FY 19/20, and FY 20/21
The City has prioritized eliminating SSOs from the collection system and was successful preventing Category 1 and Category 2 SSOs during the FY 18/19, FY 19/20 and FY 20/21. The city experienced one Category 3 spill during FY 18/19 which resulted in a 409 gallon spill, which occurred on a lower lateral, caused by roots. Two Additional Category 3 spills over 100 gallons, from which, one occurred on a lower later (caused by pipe failures) and the other occurred on a mainline, which was caused by cross connection with a conduit. All remaining spills were less than 100 gallons, of which, seven of them occurred on mainlines.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 9
SECTION 3 SSO Trends
3.1 Historical SSO Data
A total of 114 Category 3 SSOs occurred during the audit period FY 18/19 (31 SSOs), FY 19/20 (33 SSOs), and FY 20/21 (50 SSOs). Appendix 7.1 of this report includes the date, location, type, volume, volume recovered, and recovery percentage of total volume of each SSO spill.
One of the City-defined tasks of the Audit is to compare the information submitted to the publicly available California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS) database with internal City records. The WWC Superintendent verifies that SSO data in CIWQS is accurate and matches the SSO Field Report Forms. Table 3 shows an organized view of key data present in the CIWQS and City internal records and shows discrepancies, for the three-year audit period. As shown, Table 3 shows how accurately CIWQS data reflect the City’s records, with few exceptions, details of which are listed in Appendix 7.2. The information presented in the “Internal Records” column represents a summarized view of various performance measures maintained by the City.
Table 3 – CIWQS and City SSO Historic Data
SSO Historical Data CIWQS
Data
Internal
Records
CIWQS
Data
Internal
Records
CIWQS
Data
Internal
Records
since last SSMP Internal Audit FY 18/19 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 20/21 Total number of potential SSO
service calls received - 288 - 523 - 325
Total number of SSOs reported 31 31 33 33 50 50
Total volume of SSOs [Gal] 869 869 580 520 825 823.7
Total volume of SSOs that reached
waters of the state [Gal] 0 0 0 0 0 0
Volume of SSOs recovered [%] 38% 38% 84% 85% 64% 64%
Average SSO response time [h:mm] 0:19 0:21 0:22 0:21 0:18 0:18 Average SSO duration time [h:mm]* 3:59 4:00 4:35 1:47** 6:13 6:12 * Including long-duration SSO events (> 3 hours long) that increased the average SSO duration. **Missing one City Internal report with large Spill duration. Spill was entered in CIWQS.
The following section investigates the City’s historical SSO data to identify potential SSO trends to provide insight into measuring the effectiveness of the City SSMP and future improvements in reducing SSOs. Figure 1 highlights the category and number of SSOs since FY 06/07. The SWRCB defined three new SSO categories as of September 13th, 2013. A category 1 SSO is currently defined as a spill of any volume that reaches surface water.
A Category 2 SSO is currently defined as a spill greater than or equal to 1,000 gallons that does not reach surface water. A Category 3 SSO is currently defined as a spill less than 1,000 gallons that does not reach surface water.
Figure 1 shows an increasing trend on the total number of SSO events per year since FY 16/17 and is limited to Category 3 SSOs only.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 10
Figure 1 – Number of SSOs per Fiscal Year
With the goal of minimizing the spill volume, another valuable source of analysis is comparing average gallons spilled per SSO across fiscal years. Figure 2 demonstrates average volume per SSO event since 2007, which equally weight out all spills and shows an annual average. Although, the number of SSO events has increased over the years (See Figure 1), Figure 2 indicates that the average spill volume per incident has decreased during this audit period. It appears that the average volume was higher due to several outliners including the three high-volume spills occurring in FY18/19 (two spills) and FY 19/20 (one spill). As mentioned, during FY 18/19 one of these high-volume incidents occurred by a pipe/structure failure (105 gallons, all of which was recovered).
The second spill was caused by roots in a lower lateral (409 gallons, zero gallons recovered). In FY 19/20 one large spill occurred in a mainline caused by Contractor in a mainline (154 gallons, 149 gallons recovered). Given the past records, Figure 2 shows an average value of about 38 gal/SSO throughout the years. After reviewing the City’s performance measures, it appears that the resulted high average volumes were most likely incidental driven and were not related to the SSMP effectiveness or the system performance. In addition, analysis of the City’s SSO data showed that in about 21% of the events the City’s staff did not see an active spill, in other words, these spills were ended before arrival of the staff. These incidents correspond to 11% of the total spill volume during this audit period.
1 1 1
2 1
39 19
11 6
13 35
40 1
47 42
38 23 24
31 33
50 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
FY06/07FY07/08FY08/09FY09/10FY10/11FY11/12FY12/13FY13/14FY14/15FY15/16FY16/17FY17/18FY18/19FY19/20FY20/21 Number of SSOs
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 11
Figure 2 – Average Gallons per SSO
Here, City’s average number of SSOs and average spill volume per SSO per 100 miles of sewer pipeline are compared with the results from sub-region Central Valley –Sacramento (part of State Water Control Board Region 5) and California (State), to provide regional context and insight into the City’s collection system performance. Table 4 summarizes these findings, gathered from the SWRCB’s annual performance reports.
These reports and their related data can be found online at the following link:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/sso/#prgm_docs https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/board_info/exec_dir_rpts/ The board has not published similar data for fiscal years later than 2016. However, as shown in Table 4, the City average SSOs/100 miles of sewer pipe is far below the average of all municipal agencies in the Central Valley Sacramento region 5, and is lower than the State. The City’s average spill volume/100 miles of sewer pipe is an order of magnitude smaller than the state, which highlights how effective the City’s SSO preventative maintenance and response program has been.
Table 4 – Regional Comparison of SSO Data
Fiscal Year
Average # of SSOs per 100 miles Average Spill Volume per 100 miles [gallons] City Region 5 State City Region 5 State
2011/12 4.88 12.4 4.28 132 3,396 13,925
2012/13 5.85 12.72 4.38 154 4,371 8,194
2013/14 6.39 11.96 4.38 160 2,878 4,587
2014/15* 5.71 9.91 4.65 163 6,324 11,484
2015/16* 4.99 8.76 4.01 323 7,484 25,134
2016/17 2.94 Not Available 138 Not Available
2017/18 3.20 Not Available 196 Not Available
2018/19 3.56 Not Available 100 Not Available
2019/20 3.79 Not Available 67 Not Available
2020/21 3.76 Not Available 95 Not Available
* These values do not include laterals in the total system size.
71.6 64.5
24.2 40.3
19.3 27.1 26.3 25.2 28.7
64.7 47.0
62.6 28.0
17.6 16.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Average Volume per SSO [gal]
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 12
Table 5 demonstrates the leading causes of SSOs in this audit period compared to the previous audit period (FY 15/16-17/18). Generally, given the three-year period, the number of SSOs caused by roots has increased, but the volume has decreased by 16%, which results in a lower average SSO volume. Also, FOG related events have decreased during this period. Furthermore, no Capacity-caused SSOs was observed in this audit period.
However, SSOs caused by debris and pipe/structure failure have experienced a notable increase in quantity of spills. With debris spills increasing by 53%, while Pipe Failures increased by 157%.
Table 5 – Leading Causes of SSOs in FY18-21 (results from FY15-18 in parenthesis) By Number By Volume By Average Volume per SSO
Cause Number Cause Gallons Cause Gallons
Roots 70 (62) Roots 1325.5 (1576) Roots 19 (25)
FOG 1 (2) FOG 10 (67) FOG 10 (34)
Debris 23 (15) Debris 475.2 (908) Debris 21 (61)
Pipe Failure 18 (7) Pipe Failure 244 (2278) Pipe Failure 14 (325) Capacity 0 (0) Capacity 0 (0) Capacity 0 (0)
Others* 2 (1) Others* 155 (342) Others* 78 (342)
Total 114 (87) Total 2212.7 (5171) Total 141 (787)
*Includes one vacuum truck incident for this audit, and one contractor incident with a bored conduit.
To track the leading SSO cause, WWE summarized the average SSO volume per cause for the past four audit periods, results are shown in Figure 3. The actions planned because of this SSMP Audit will target the leading causes to most effectively reduce the number and more importantly spill volume of SSOs. As shown here, the FY 18/19 - FY 20/21 period has experienced similar average volume of root caused SSOs, lower FOG related spill volumes, and similar average volume for debris caused spills. However, as shown here, pipe failure and incidental SSOs volumes have decreased during this period which would typically correspond with SSOs occurring on residential lateral or small diameter pipes.
Figure 3 – Average SSO Volume per Cause
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Roots FOG Debris Pipe Failure Capacity Others
Avg Volume per SSO [gal]
FY 11/12-12/13 FY 13/14-14/15 FY 15/16-17/18 FY 18/19-20/21 City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 13
3.2 Performance Measures
To achieve proper operation and management of the sanitary sewer system and to prevent SSOs, the City utilizes multiple performance measures to assess the effectiveness of the SSMP. While the City may use other performance measures for evaluation purposes, the following measures are typically used:
• SSO Rate (SSOs per 100 miles of collection system piping per year) • Number of SSOs for each cause (roots, FOG, debris, pipe failure, capacity, lift station failures, etc.) • Average SSO volume (gallons)
• Percentage of SSOs greater than 100 gallons (%)
• Percentage of SSOs reported as Category 1 (%)
• Percentage of SSO volume recovered (%)
• Percentage of SSO volume reaching a surface water (%) The City’s SSO records were queried to analyze each performance measure from FY 11/12 to FY 20/21 and the data is shown in Table 6 below. Overall, there was an increase in the number of SSOs during this audit period, however the City’s SSO average has decreased compared to previous years, which was due to smaller-volume incidents, caused by roots and debris.
Table 6 – Performance Measures
Performance Measures FY
11/12
FY
12/13
FY
13/14
FY
14/15
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
SSO Rate, SSOs/100 mi 4.88 5.85 6.39 5.71 4.99 2.94 3.20 3.56 3.79 5.74 SSO
Cause
FOG 0 1 4 1 2 0 0 1 0 0
Roots 18 30 32 31 30 20 12 20 17 33
Debris* 8 2 8 2 4 2 9 8 12 3
Pipe/Structure Failure 6 4 2 7 3 1 3 2 3 13
Vandalism 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Capacity 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Construction 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Unknown/Other 2 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
TOTAL # of SSO 35 42 47 42 39 23 25 31 33 50
Average SSO Vol (gal) 27 26 25 29 65 47 63 28 18 16
% of SSOs > 100 gal 2.8% 2.3% 2.1% 4.7% 2.6% 4.3% 8.0% 6.5% 3.0% 0.0% Category 1 % of Total SSOs 0% 7% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22.3% 0% 0% 0% % of Spill Volume Recovered 99% 63% 94% 93% 95% 91% 54% 38% 84% 64% % of Spill Vol Reaching Surface
Water 0% 37% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0.4% 0% 0% 0%
*Includes non-dispersible and rags
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 14
SECTION 4 Audit Procedure
In accordance with SSS WDRs Section D.13, the primary SSMP audit objective is to focus on evaluating the effectiveness of implementing the SSMP and the City’s compliance with the SSMP requirements identified in the SSS WDRs Order. Also, according to recent SWRCB WDR workshops, it is expected that the statewide general order reissuance, with the primary focus on reducing spill volume, emphasis on the following:
• Requirements focused on spill volume: Although the total number of spills has increased over the past few years, the CIWQS data has shown that the state experienced lower volume of spills. While, majority are caused by tree roots, the proposed reissuance will likely require enrollees to demonstrate systemspecific spill reduction programs. • Improved Data Quality: With the goal of enhancing data accuracy, additional measures are being considered to provide higher quality spill volume data, such as maintaining certified operators and emphasizing on staff training.
• Enhanced Order Enforceability: To address poor performing systems and those with lack of SSMP implementation.
• To Incentivize Order Compliance: To recognize and acknowledge systems with good performance. • Effective Planning for System Resilience: To ensure effective and adaptive planning for spill reduction.
This section details the procedures used to meet the existing order, while considering future expectations.
4.1 Review of SSMP Compliance
This Audit assessed the City’s SSMP against the requirements outlines in the SSS WDR. The subsections of SECTION 5 listed below are organized by SSMP elements. Each subsection contains a table which lists the SSS WDR section D.13 requirements and City’s level of compliance of the SSMP with that requirement. The compliance status of the City’s SSMP is indicated with one of the following ratings: Yes – in compliance, No – not in compliance, or N/A – not applicable with a written justification in the SSMP. If there are any compliance deficiencies, then an explanation of the deficiency is given. Each deficiency will have a recommended SSMP enhancement, which may include action items, adjustments, and/or timelines of the planned completion.
4.2 Review of SSMP Effectiveness
After the SSMP compliance assessment compared to SSS WDR requirements, an evaluation of the effectiveness of the SSMP elements has been conducted to comply with the requirements for SSMP audits per subsection D.13 of the SSS WDR. The discussion review if the plan outlined for each section is being followed, and how effective the plan is at reaching the desired objectives. Recommendations will be made where appropriate based on the results of this Audit to identify tasks to improve the effectiveness of SSMP activities. Performance metrics will be used wherever possible to measure the effectiveness of the SSMP elements.
This section will not repeat the information and plans presented in each section of the SSMP and is intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the stated plans for each SSMP element. The reader should reference the City’s SSMP to obtain the information referenced by this Audit.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 15
A summary of the recommended modifications made through this Audit is included in SECTION 6.
SECTION 5 Audit of SSMP Elements
This section evaluates all elements of the City’s SSMP. Each section of this chapter is associated with one of the eleven elements of the SSMP in accordance with SS WDR section D.13 requirements. Each element is evaluated for compliance and effectiveness described above in 4.1 and 4.2 respectively.
5.1 Goals
5.1.1 Compliance
Table 7 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.i - Goals
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
i Properly manage, operate, and
maintain all portions of the City’s
wastewater collection system.
Yes -
5.1.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Goals (SSMP 1.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City currently has seven goals identified in the SSMP. The goals of the City recorded in the SSMP have been effective in guiding the City’s activities to support the objective of the SSS WDR to protect the waters of the state.
• Recommendations: Post Appendix A-1 – Roseville’s SSMP Development Plan and Implementation Schedule on the website. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
5.2 Organization
5.2.1 Compliance
Table 8 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.ii - Organization SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
ii(a) Identify Legally Responsible Official (LRO) Yes - ii(b) SSMP responsibility and organization chart Yes -
ii(c) Chain of communication for reporting SSOs Yes -
5.2.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications List Legally Responsible Official (LRO) (SSMP 2.1)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City has Ken Glotzbach (EU Director) and Dan Pruden (Wastewater Collections Superintendent) listed in CIWQS as LROs. Todd Jordan (Process Engineer) is listed as a data City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 16
submitter. Appendix B-1 of the SSMP is not currently publicly accessible. The current organization of data submitters and LROs has proven effective in reporting SSOs to meet the requirements of the September 2013 amended Monitoring and Reporting Program. • Recommendations:
o Modify Appendix B-1: Update City Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Attorney, and City Council positions and add phone numbers (Mayor Krista Berrnasconi, Vice Mayor Bruce Houdesheldt, City Attorney Michelle Sheidenberger, Councilmember Tracy Mendonsa). Update Commissioners and phone numbers: Chair Elaine Webb, Vice Chair James knox, Commissioners: Edward Belski, John Delancy, Richard Demarchi, Einar Maisch. Update Liaisons and phone numbers for EU Director Richard Plecker, and Secretary Pam Walsh. Update Assistant EU Director Ken Glotzbach, Wastewater Collection Superintendent Dan Prudent, Waste Water Collection Supervisor positions, Principal EU engineer and phone number for Jason Shykowski. Update Administrative Analyst and phone number for Maurice Chaney.
o Update and Post the following Appendices on the website:
Appendix B-1 – Personnel Responsible for SSMP Elements This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Appendix B-2 – Personnel Responsible for SSO Reporting This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Appendix B-3 – Personnel Responsible for Responding to SSOs Weekly Standby. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP 2.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The SSMP Responsibility Organization Chart (SSMP Figure 2-1) is current in the SSMP and lists a descriptive definition of each individual’s responsibilities. The chart is effective in defining the work flow and responsibilities of the individuals as well as departments within the City of Roseville’s operations with relation to the SSMP. The narrative of the general position description is outlined in Section 2.2 of the SSMP.
• Recommendations: No recommendations at this time.
Chain of Communication Reporting Chart (SSMP 2.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: The internal notification contact chart is current and readily available to all wastewater utility district staff. The city of Roseville has a 24-hour call center, standardized answering script and procedures, and a full-time staff wastewater utility customer service representative. The individual’s job is to respond to any service calls including but not limited to: backups, SSOs, smell complaints, etc. This has been an effective and well-utilized service, as service calls have increased and the average SSO response time has remained below the 40-minute target. Only 6 SSO response times were above 40 minutes during the audit period (0:42:00, 0:45:00, 0:46:00, 0:41:00, 0:43:00, and 1:05:00) which totaled 51 gallons in spills and the remaining 95% of the responses were under 40 min.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 17
• Recommendations:
o Modify Figure 2-2 Flowchart: Update the WWC Divisions overflow emergency response plan chain of communication to match existing operations, whereby WWTP and LS staff and SCADA alerts should always call the 24-hour call center instead of WWC service staff per Appendix B-3.
This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed. o Include Figure 2-2 flowchart as Appendix F to the SSOERP (Appendix F-1) and mention in the text. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
5.3 Legal Authority
5.3.1 Compliance
Table 9 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iii – Legal Authority SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iii(a) Prevent illicit discharges Yes -
iii(b) Properly designed and constructed sewers Yes -
iii(c) Ensure access to laterals owned/maintained by City Yes - iii(d) Limit the discharge of FOG and other debris Yes - iii(e) Enforce any violation of City ordinances Yes -
5.3.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Industrial Pretreatment Program (SSMP 3.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The Industrial Waste Section (IWS) administers the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan and implements enforcement procedures specified by the U.S. EPA in accordance with 40CFR 403.5 (f) (5). The IWS has the authority to permit and monitor significant industrial users (SIUs) and small commercial/industrial dischargers. The implementation of the Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan has been effective in providing the City the authority to control and prevent illicit discharges to the collection system. • Recommendations: Post Appendix C-1 – Pretreatment Program Enforcement Response Plan on the website. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Municipal Code and Design and Construction Standards (SSMP 3.3) • Level of Effectiveness: The City’s design and construction standards regulate the preparation of plans for construction of additions/improvements to the sewer. The Roseville Municipal Code (RMC) section
14.12.040 requires that building sewer and connection into the public sewer system conform to the requirements of the building and plumbing code or other applicable rules and regulations of the City.
The RMC also requires an installation of a lateral line clean out at the point of connection with the public sewer. The City design and construction standards and the RMC section 14.12.040 have been effective in providing the City the legal authority to properly design and construct the sewers and connections.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 18
• Recommendations: Post Appendices C-2, C-3, and C-4 for Municipal Code, sanitary sewer design and construction.
Municipal Code – Sewer Access Authority (SSMP 3.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The Charter in the RMC, Article X Sec. 10.01 designates the authority to access City owned and operated facilities, either within or outside its corporate limits, number of activities including, but not limited to maintenance, inspection, and repair related to sewage collection. The authority gives legal access to all City-owned sewer facilities. The City has not had issues to date with lack of access to facilities based on legal authority. The current legal authority to access sewer facilities has been effective in supporting the goals of the SSMP. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – FOG (SSMP 3.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: The RMC chapter 14.14 is a robust FOG ordinance that lists regulatory requirements, fees, administrative requirements, and authority to enforce regulatory compliance. This ordinance is effective in identifying the required equipment and BMPs for FSEs as well as indicating the authority of the City to enforce the FOG requirements.
• Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Municipal Code – Enforcement Authority (SSMP 3.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: The RMC section 14.12.060 authorizes the City to penalize violators of the City’s code requirements. At the discretion of the City attorney, an individual may be charged with an infraction or a misdemeanor. The authority to penalize infractions that may cost City resources has proven effective to maintain proper use of the wastewater collection system. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Inter-Agency Agreements and Satellite Systems (SSMP 3.7) • Level of Effectiveness: The City maintains a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority and Agreement Regarding the Operation and use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities. In addition, the City has an Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of Wastewater Services between the Sacramento Area Sewer District (SASD) and the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (SRCSD).
• Recommendations: Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix C-5 – Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement for the South Placer Wastewater Authority.
This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 19
o Appendix C-6 – Agreement Regarding the Operation and Use of the South Placer Regional Wastewater Facilities. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Appendix C-7 – Wastewater Service Agreement by Contract and Operating Agreement between SASD, SRCSD and City of Roseville. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
5.4 Operation and Maintenance Program
5.4.1 Compliance
Table 10 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.iv – O&M Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
iv(a) Collection system maps Yes -
iv(b) Preventive O&M activities Yes -
iv(c) Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) plan
Yes
The City does have an R&R plan in place, but
additional improvement should be
implemented (see below)
iv(d) Training
Yes
The City provides regular training but additional
improvements to the training program should
be implemented (see below)
iv(e) Equipment and critical replacement parts Yes -
5.4.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Roseville Collection System Maps (SSMP 4.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The city maintains electronic and hard copy maps of the sanitary sewer system and storm drain system. Updates to the electronic map system are translated to the field crew trucks via single sheet prints, if required. Full hard copy mapbooks are updated on a yearly basis. The City Mapping Update Policy is followed to ensure mapping is correct and completed in GIS and made available to the required users. The mapping policy document is added to the SSMP as an appendix and is posted to the City’s SSMP website page.
• Recommendations: Post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix D-1 – City of Roseville Sewer Map Grid System. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Appendix D-9 – Mapping Update Policy. This was also included during the previous two audits but has not been completed.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 20
Roseville Preventive Operations & Maintenance Activities (SSMP 4.3) • Level of Effectiveness: WWC engages in various programs to complete routine preventative maintenance activities, which include jet cleaning, lateral eeling, chemical root control, CCTV inspections, visual inspections, and lift station maintenance.
According to Table 6, the City experienced an increase in root-caused SSOs during the last year of the audit period, which is explained by the decrease of total sewer lateral mechanical cleaning (eeled), as shown in Table 11. The City outperformed preventative maintenance targets and past performance measures as evident in Table 11, with the exception of Sewer main flushed per year (miles) during FY 18/19, and FY 19/20, which may have been related to an equipment maintenance issue (see Table 12).
Other performance measures or benchmarks are reviewed in full in the recommendations of Section
5.9. Table 11 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv(b) Performance Measure Target
FY
13/14
FY
14/15
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
Total number of sewer
maintenance field staff
NA 23 24 24 24 26 24 26 26
Sewer main flushed per
year (miles)
250 330 284 248 295 283 226.1 235.9 296.14
Sewer laterals
mechanically cleaned
(eeled) per year (miles)
8 13.89 14.69 14.77 7.41 1.07 268 265 74
Average high velocity
cleaning per crew per
day [LF]
1670 2393 2922 2618 3115 2998 N/A N/A N/A
Average cost of hydro
cleaning [$/LF] 0.36 0.30 0.32 0.33 0.29 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.34 Average cost of sewer
mechanical cleaning
[$/LF]
1.60 1.23 1.20 0.77 0.94 1.66 0.30 0.30 0.30
• Recommendations:
o Update SSMP Section 4.3 Overview with updated statistics about the City’s service area, number of customers, miles of main, number of services, and number of lift stations. Also update the number of WWC employees.
o Update the following Appendices and post on the website:
Appendix D-2 – Maintenance Cleaning Schedule: Update with Maximo CCMS example.
This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed. Appendix D-3 – CCTV Video Report. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 21
Appendix D-4 – SOP. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (SSMP 4.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City regularly CCTV inspects pipelines using the national Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Pipeline Assessment Certification Program (PACP) coding standard. The City evaluates the risk of failure for each asset based on the various data sources it maintains (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections) and assigns high risk assets in a ranked Rehabilitation and Replacement (R&R) Plan. If an R&R project is not completed in one year, then it is rolled over to the next. The City maintains a 5-year list of planned R&R CIP projects.
The city creates an asset group in their Maximo CCMS, based on their condition assessment and PACP scores. This ongoing list is prioritized and provided to Tech Services, when CIP budget is prepared, to put a CIPPP project together. Also, while performing routine hydro work in the grids, the vactor group performs manhole inspections of each asset. Once there are enough manholes that require rehabilitation, the City produces a list with asset IDs that will be sent to Tech Services for manhole Rehabilitation CIP. In the past 9 years, the City has not discovered a substantial number of manholes to develop a manhole CIP project.
In accordance with the City-utilized performance measures related to inspection and R&R program activities as displayed in Table 12, the City has met or exceeded majority of inspection targets during this audit program. However, total miles of mainline rehabilitated during this three-year were less than the target. SSOs caused by structural failure during the audit period are overlaid with the City’s 2018 I/I study and shown in Appendix 7.3. As shown, most of these spills occurred in regions with older pipes, such as region 5, 15, and 15A. These regions are also known for their higher I/I response and capacity issues during wet seasons. The City has been actively performing I/I analysis and smoke testing to identify system defects in these regions, results of which are incorporated in CIP decision makings.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 22
Table 12 – Performance Measures related to SSS WDR D.13.iv (c) Performance Measure Target
FY
13/14
FY
14/15
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
Total miles visually inspected per
year (not CCTV)
0.25 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.25 0.25 0 0 0
Lateral CCTV inspected per year
[miles]
16 14.69 26 35.71 32.51 36.14 29.74 22.46 27.88
Main CCTV inspected per year
[miles]
30 53.27 65 84.32 59.71 64.1 119.9 94.65 38.57
Laterals rehabilitated per year
[number]
50 90 43 60 85 89 74 82 110
Laterals rehabilitated or replaced
per year [miles]
0.25 0.39 0.16 0.27 0.66 0.42 0.45 0.46 0.62
Mains Rehabilitated or replaced per
year [miles]
5 2.65 6 0 0 1.07 0.05 0.09 3.4
Average Cost of CCTV (lateral)
[$/LF] 1.34 1.46 1.11 1.15 1.04 1.00 1.24 1.29 1.28
Average cost of CCTV (main) [$/LF] 0.53 0.55 0.41 0.41 0.36 0.40 0.60 0.75 1.85 • Recommendations:
o Describe the process/procedure for evaluating available data (i.e., CCTV, CMMS, GIS, capacity assessment, visual inspections, etc.), conducting a risk assessment to determine the assets to be renewed, and developing the R&R plan with its associated data. This was also included during the previous two audit but has not been completed.
o Document the upcoming transition in responsibilities between WWC and EU Engineering in developing and operating the R&R plan by describing it in the SSMP. Confirm that field observations from WWC field crew are accounted for by EU Engineering when conducting risk assessment. This was also included during the previous two audits but has not been completed. o Post Appendix D-8 – Technical Memorandum O&M Program SSMP Audit-Rehabilitation and Replacement Plan (Element IVC) on the website. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Training (SSMP 4.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: The WWC requires employees be certified with CWEA, DMV, CPR, First Aid, Confined Space Policy, Gas Detector Policy, as well be trained in equipment safety, maintain OSHA rules, and review material safety data sheets.
The existing training program has been effective in supporting a well-trained staff. Over this audit period WWC has reported 10 on the job accidents in FY 18/19, 8 in FY 19/20, and 6 in FY 20/21, which are more than previous audits however the number of accidents has declined year over year. WWC strives for City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 23
zero-on-the-job accidents and has weekly tail-gate training meetings and monthly training sessions where WWC staff is trained in part via various SOPs.
• Recommendations: Update the following links:
o The CWEA website link. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Appendix D-5 – CWEA Certification Handbook link. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Equipment and Critical Replacement Parts (SSMP 4.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: WWC maintains a list of equipment and critical replacement parts inventory in Appendix D of the SSMP. The critical replacement parts list is 100% stocked, up to date, and is maintained by the Material Technician at Dry Creek WWTP. The equipment and critical replacement parts inventory and upkeep is effective and ensures that a lift station critical part failure can be quickly mitigated.
• Recommendations: Update and post the following Appendices on the website:
o Appendix D-6 – Equipment Inventory List. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Appendix D-7 – Critical Replace Parts List. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
5.5 Design and Performance Provisions
5.5.1 Compliance
Table 13 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.v – Design and Performance Provisions SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
v(a) Sanitary sewer design and construction
specifications
Yes -
v(b) Procedures and standards for inspecting and
testing new and R&R projects
Yes -
5.5.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Sanitary Sewer Design and Specifications (SSMP 5.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City’s design and construction standards are available on the website and the online SSMP documentation lists their location. These designs and construction standards are effective in ensuring that new or rehabilitated infrastructure is designed and constructed in an acceptable manner.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 24
• Recommendations: Update Appendix E-1 – Sanitary Sewer Design link. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
Sanitary Sewer System Construction and Performance Provisions (SSMP 5.3) • Level of Effectiveness: The City’s construction and design standards include procedures and requirements for the testing of new/rehabilitated assets and has been effective in ensuring that recently constructed assets perform as expected.
• Recommendations:
o Update Appendix E-2 – Sanitary Sewer System Construction link. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
o Post Appendix E-3 – Technical Memo, SSMP Preparedness Audit Design and Performance Provisions Element V on the website. This was also included during the previous audit but has not been completed.
5.6 Overflow Emergency Response Plan
5.6.1 Compliance
Table 14 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vi - OERP
SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vi(a) Proper notification procedures Yes -
vi(b) Program for appropriate SSO response Yes -
vi(c) Procedure for prompt notification to
regulatory agencies
Yes -
vi(d) Procedures for appropriate staff and
contractor training
Yes
vi(e) Procedures to address emergency operations
(e.g., traffic, crowd control)
Yes -
vi(f) Program to ensure containment of SSO to
prevent discharge and minimize adverse
impacts on the environment
No
SSOERP does not meet certain water quality
monitoring requirements of the amended MRP
document
5.6.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Notification Procedures (SSMP 6.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The average SSO response time during the audit period was 20 minutes, with 21 minutes for FY 18/19, 21 minutes for FY 19/20, and 18 minutes for FY 20/21 (see Table 3). These response times are much faster than the City target response time of 40 minutes and indicates that the notification procedures employed the City are effective in facilitating a rapid response from the City’s first responders.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 25
• Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Response Program (SSMP 6.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: SSO response procedures are documented in Appendix F-1 Section 2 of the SSMP and are summarized in the flow chart in Figure 6-2 of the SSMP and Appendix F-1 SSOERP. The flow chart uses a series of yes/no questions to guide SSO responders in quickly identifying the right sequence of decisions and actions to properly assess and mitigate an SSO. This chart is simple and effective in explaining the process in which to mitigate an SSO.
During the audit period, the average SSO volume spilled was 21 gallons, with an average 62% recovered from the total SSO volume. Similarly, the average SSO duration length was 4:55 hours long, however there were 20 long-duration SSOs (over 3 hours) that caused the average SSO duration length to increase. One of these SSOs in FY 20/21 spilled from a lateral for 94 hours and resulted in volume spilled of 1.5 gallons. In all these instances, the City was notified very late, and once notified, stopped all long duration SSOs in under 30 minutes. The average City response time to SSO calls during the audit period was 20 minutes, and the average time it took to stop the SSO (SSO mitigation) once on-site was just under 5 minutes. These statistics demonstrate that the City has been effective in responding and mitigating SSOs.
• Recommendations:
o The WWC has developed a table of information specific to lift station response which includes all of the lift stations in the City and lists for each station; the average flow from the station, the wet well depth, the volume of the wet well, the available storage/downtime if the lift station goes down, the point at which a SSO will first occur if the lift station goes down, the assigned manhole for decanting if vacuum trucks are used to draw down the wet well, and the street location of the decant manhole. This information should be included as an Appendix in the OERP and the information for each lift station should be posted onsite at each respective lift station.
This list should also be updated to incorporate new lift stations at Washington Blvd and 7600 Sierra College. This was also recommended during the previous two audits but has not been implemented.
o Modify Figure 6-2 – SSO Procedure Flow Chat, to report SSO category 1 larger than 1,000 gallons to Cal OES within 2 hours per WDR requirements (currently if > 50,000 gal). This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented. o Post Appendix F-1 – SSOERP on the website along with corresponding attachments. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Regulatory Notification Procedure (SSMP 6.4)
• Level of Effectiveness: The Superintendent and Utility Manager are the legally responsible officials (LRO) for certifying SSO reports submitted to CIWQs. The Superintendent and Supervisor are also responsible for reporting the SSOs to RWQCB, OES, and Placer Environmental Health Department as required. This section is effective in conveying the responsibility the LRO in reporting SSOs to the proper authorities.
City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 26
• Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Staff and Contractors Training (SSMP 6.5)
• Level of Effectiveness: Each WWC employee is required to complete the SSO response procedure training updates and review of SSO training are included in the weekly tailgate meeting throughout the year. They are also trained on the various SOPs implemented within WWC. Contractors are also required to implement the procedures identified in the SSO training prior to working within the collection system.
As evidenced by the fast response and mitigation times, the WWC staff’s training has been effective. • Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Emergency Response Coordination (SSMP 6.6)
• Level of Effectiveness: WWC employees are required to complete the Emergency Action plan training annually. This covers HAZ WOPER first responders and Roseville’s Incident Command System (ICS).
These process, procedures, and response systems are also reviewed via weekly safety tail gate meetings.
These training sessions have been effective way to prepare staff to deal with hazardous waste and materials.
• Recommendations: No recommended modifications at this time.
Spill Mitigation and Containment Procedure (SSMP 6.7)
• Level of Effectiveness: Appendix F-1 of the SSMP includes an SSOERP which includes an SOP for estimating spill volumes, containment, and mitigation of spills. The new amended Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements implemented in September 2013 require a robust water quality monitoring plan that must account for spill travel time in surface water, among several new requirements. The City’s current SSOERP Appendix C Water Quality Sampling Procedures document does not meet these requirements.
• Recommendations:
o Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to the meet the requirements of the amended MRP.
Account for spill travel time in the surface water and scenarios where monitoring may not be possible to safety concerns or access restrictions once an SSO has stopped. This may be estimated by dropping floatable debris, for instance, and measuring the time required to travel a certain distance. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
Expand minimum sampling parameters to include appropriate bacterial indicators that have been specifically listed in the beneficial uses of the City’s waterways or more City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 27
broadly listed by the regional Basin Plan. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
o Modify SSOERP Appendix C – Water Quality Sampling Procedures to include a list of all of the required equipment that the employee would need to conduct proper sampling. This was also recommended during the previous audit but has not been implemented.
5.7 FOG Control Program
5.7.1 Compliance
Table 15 – Compliance with SSS WDR D.13.vii – FOG Control Program SSMP Requirement Compliance Deficiencies
vii(a) Public education plan Yes -
vii(b) FOG disposal plan Yes -
vii(c) Legal authority to prohibit SSOs and
blockages caused by FOG discharges
Yes -
vii(d) BMPs, grease removal devices,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
Yes -
vii(e) Authority to inspect and enforce FOG
ordinance
Yes
vii(f) FOG Characterization Assessment and Hot
Spot Cleaning Schedule
Yes
-
vii(g) FOG Control Program Measures Yes -
5.7.2 Effectiveness of SSMP Elements and Recommended Modifications Public Education Plan (SSMP 7.2)
• Level of Effectiveness: The City has developed and operates a comprehensive FOG outreach program to residents, restaurants, and the plumbing community on the proper disposal of FOG. The main objective is to educate the City of Roseville residents and restaurants on the proper disposal of FOG to meet or exceed outreach standards set forth in the State General WDR requirements. The program has implemented TV ads, flyers, bill inserts, and websites to convey the message of educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. This system appears to be effective in educating the public on the proper disposal of FOG and other substances. Maurice Chaney is listed as responsible party for FOG public Education Plan in Appendix B-1.
• Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.
FOG Disposal Plan (SSMP 7.3)
• Level of Effectiveness: During the past audit periods the Industrial Waste Section (IWS) oversaw the FOG disposal plan with permitted Food Service Establishment (FSE), however all FOG program-related responsibilities transitioned to WWC in 2016. The City currently has 421 FSEs that are required to and City of Roseville
Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP)
Biennual Audit of FY 18/19 – FY 20/21
October 21 Page 28
have obtained a FOG wastewater discharge permit (FOG WDP). The same City regulations from the audit period are in place which require permittees to retain a minimum 3 years of documentation to prove the proper cleaning, maintenance, and removal of FOG from grease control devices and the disposal site location. The City provides information about the permitting process and permit applications on the City website (URL address below) as a resource for businesses and residences within the City. (https://livesewersmart.com/)
The FOG record keeping requirements for FSEs appear to be effective in that only 1 FOG-related SSOs occurred over the audit period.
• Recommendations: No modifications recommended at this time.