Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-10-12 WSB AGENDA'. WATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, October 12, 2010 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL 1. MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2 . GUESTS: JIM BLACK & DAVE CHAPMAN FROM THE ALLEN WATER TREATMENT PLANT RE: STATE OF COLORADO BRONZE ENVIRONMENTAL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD. (ATT . 2) 3 . ·ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER -FRANK BRANDSE, CHIPOTLE GRILL -333 W. HAMPDEN A VE . (SEE ENCLOSED) 3 . WATER RIGHT UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED SEPT. 8, 2010. (ATT. 3). 4. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES September 21, 2010 AT I. I The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Burns, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht Higday, McCaslin Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities Bill McCormick, Operations Supt -Utilities John Bock, Utilities Manager of Admin. Amy Sundine, Billing Supv. Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer 1. MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 10, 2010 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the August 10, 2010 meeting. Mr. Burns moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Abstain: Nays: To approve the minutes of the August 10, 2010 meeting as written. Bums, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht Olson, Cassidy None Members absent: Higday, McCaslin Motion carried. 2. APPEAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER 333 W. HAMPDEN A VE. -CHIPOLTE GRILL. Pam Arnold, Pretreatment Administrator for the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant, appeared before the Board to review the circumstances involved in the Administrative order issued July 23, 2010. She explained that oil and grease pumpers are regulated under pretreatment regulations . Oil and grease is prohibited in the sanitary sewer system, and pumping services are expected to know proper removal procedures . Pam explained that the grease interceptor in the Chase Bank Building at 333 W . Hampden Ave. was not pumped out before flushing and resulted in a backup of the grease and oil interceptor resulting in damage and removal of the basement carpet and odor resulting from the discharge . Businesses were adversely affected , and in some cases customers left because of the unpleasant odors. Ms . Arnold also noted that the owner of the flusher, Mr. Brandse, has also been previously sited for dumping about 1,000 gallons of mud and water from a construction site in a drainage way in the Cherry Creek Basin in Arapahoe County . Ms. Arnold had requested to inspect his facility and equipment. He stated that he did not have a garage and his one pump truck is parked in a field near Titan Road, which is a remote undeveloped area. When two male inspectors from the Pretreatment Division arrived, Mr. Brandse denied them entry for inspection and did not wish to be interviewed. He also indicated he would seek legal counsel. She also noted that the $5 ,000 fine resulting from the Pretreatment Division's Administrative Order was based on lack of cooperation, compliance history and the harm to the environment/public property. Ms. Arnold asserts that Pro GTS should have emptied the contents of the interceptor into the tanker truck prior to jetting, which would have been the proper way to dispose of the liquid waste. Frank Brandse addressed the Board to explain the circumstances of the backup . Two portable jetters were dispatched to flush the trap and line to dislodge an obstruction causing slow drainage. Mr. Brandse believes the spill was due to an aggressive jetting operation on an incorrectly plumbed system. He claims that Ms. Arnold is assuming that they were pushing liquid waste, not water, through the lines. Mr. Brandse is asking for a reduction or dismissal of the fine , stating the resulting financial hardship could put him out of business . He also noted that he has paid restitution for the bank building clean-up. The Board requested further information to be presented at the next meeting -Chipotle's grease trap pumping history and any violations, the Enforcement Reponse Plan and how Ms. Arnold calculated the $5,000 fine . 3. APPEALING LATE SEWER FEE ON 7248 S. BROADWAY. Mr. Jordan Braunstein has written a letter requesting that the Utilities Department waive the sewer bill late fees on his rental property located at 7248 S. Broadway. He noted in his letter that he was focused on an eviction and did not notify the Utilities Department of his address change. Ms. Sundine, the Utilities Billing Supervisor, reviewed the call-in history and dates of discussion about this bill. The property was purchased December, 2007 and the bill was from June, 2009. The Board received a memo from the City Attorney's office stating, "When a person purchases a property, part of their due diligence is that they should ensure that all utility fees are paid. The sewer charges and any lien run with the land not with the owner." It was also noted that a certified letter was sent to Mr. Braunstein, which he signed for. Mr. Clark moved; Mr. Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried To deny Mr. Braunstein's request to waive the sewer late fee on 7248 S. Broadway. Burns, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Olson, Cassidy None Higday, Mccaslin 4. PIPING CITY DITCH -HURON & OXFORD Mr. Norman Henry appeared as an unscheduled guest to discuss an idea from Water Board member Robert Cassidy about a water feature in the City Ditch right-of-way. A circulating water pump in a channel over the soon-to-be piped ditch was discussed. Mr. Tom Brennan, the Utilities Engineer, noted that grading for a channel with water pumping abilities could be investigated. Mr. Fonda discussed that a water feature with a recirculating pump and an outlet would be possible pending the conditions that an acceptable design is submitted, that all adjacent neighbors agree on the amenity and a License Agreement is submitted and approved by Water Board and City Council. Mayor Woodward and Clyde Wiggins noted that the funding for the construction, operating costs and maintaining the amenity would not be City funded. Bill McCormick, Operations Supt. discussed possible accommodations that could be investigated. Mr. Fonda noted that piping is proceeding on November 1. Councilperson Gillett was present and questioned if the Water Board has been informing the adjacent homeowners of the decision process in piping the City Ditch in this area. Discussion ensued regarding the information given the residents and the attendance of citizens for and against piping the City Ditch at Oxford and Huron at the January, February, April, May and July, 2010 Water Board meetings . The Board directed the Utilities Engineer to investigate designing the grading and the inlet location on the City Ditch to allow a water feature, with the conditions that it is to be funded by the adjacent homeowners and all adjacent homeowners agree . The feature will be installed in the City Ditch easement after the City Ditch is piped. 5. WATER & SEWER CONNECTION FEES. John Gallagher, of Red Oak Consulting, appeared to discuss the methodology used for updating the water and sewer connection fees . Connection fees, or tap fees, are a one- time charge for connectors to pay for a proportionate share of capacity in the City's water treatment plant, distribution system, sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant. The Board reviewed various tables comparing rates based on original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost and replacement cost less depreciation. Mr. Gallagher noted that the 5/8" tap has been obsolete for quite a while and has been eliminated from the calculations . The Board compared the proposed rates using a %" residential tap and found the existing rate for both water and sewer is $2900, replacement cost less depreciation would be $4710 and straight replacement would be $6700. Englewood's existing and proposed rates were compared to nearby municipalities and were found to be competitive. Mr. Cassidy moved; Mr. Burns seconded: To recommend increasing water and sewer connection fees using a replacement cost basis . Ayes : Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. Bums, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Olson, Cassidy None Higday, McCaslin The next issue discussed was determining mixed use connection fees, which would cover developments having multiple intended purposes within a single structure, usually a combination of multifamily residential and commercial. Currently, connection fees are determined using water meter size only. The proposed mixed use connection fees would be determined by factoring a multifamily fee using the number of units and a commercial fee based on the number of fixtures. Mr. Gallagher noted that the mixed use fees were becoming more standard. The final tap fees would be the greater of meter size and mixed use fees . The Board will discuss at the next meeting. 6. CITY DITCH CROSSING AGREEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTON EASEMENT -FIRST CHURCH OF CHRIST -3701 S. LOGAN ST. The First Church of Christ has submitted a City Ditch Crossing Agreement and a Temporary Construction Agreement to install a replacement electrical line and an additional electrical line for construction of four bollard lights for the front of the church located at 3701 S. Logan St. The Licensee expressly assumes full and strict liability for any and all damages and the City reserves the right to make full use of the property necessary in the operation of the City Ditch. Englewood's City Attorney has reviewed the agreements. Mr. Bums moved Mr. Cassidy seconded: Ayes: To recommend Council approval of the License -City Ditch Crossing Agreement and the Temporary Construction Agreement for the First Church of Christ, Scientist at 3701 S. Logan St. Bums, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward , Habenicht, Olson, Cassidy Nays: None Members absent: Higday, McCaslin Motion carried 7 . WATER & SEWER SERVICE RATE COMPARISON. The Board received a copy of a memo given to City Council comparing water and sewer service rates in the Denver Metro area. Various rate tier structures, based on monthly consumption, were noted . 8. ALLEN FILTER PLANT -BRONZE ENVIRONMENT AL ACHIEVEMENT AWARD . The Allen Water Treatment Plant was awarded a Bronze Environmental Achievement Award from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. The award recognizes the voluntary and significant environmental achievements of local government agencies. Bill McCormick, Operations Superintendent, commended Jason Clark, the Water Productions Supervisor, and the Allen Plant staff for their role in achieving this award. The Board recommended that it be put an article in the next Pipeline publication and a lunch be arranged for the Allen Plant crew. 9 . LEGAL UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED AUGUST 10, 2010. The Board received an update from Mr. David Hill dated August 10 , 2010 on developments in water litigation cases in which Englewood is involved. 10. 2010 BALLOT MEASURES-AMENDMENTS 60 AND 61. Mr. Fonda discussed a memo dated September 15, 2010 that was given to Council discussing the Utilities Department's facilities that could be taxed under the proposed Amendments 60 and 61 . Facilities included could be the Allen Water Treatment Plant, water tanks and storage reservoirs, the Englewood/Littleton Wastewater Treatment Plant and the farmland in Byers used for biosolids application, along with the McLellan and Meadow Creek Reservoirs . Mr. Fonda noted that if these amendments pass it would require substantial rate increases, without improvements in service or infrastructure upgrades. Water rates would have to approximately double, and the sewer rates would increase about 1 7%. 11. CITY DITCH LINING AT US 285 ANDS. CLARKSON ST. Bill McCormick was present to discuss the City Ditch pipe at Hwy. 285 and S. Clarkson Street that was inspected and found to be deteriorated and collapsing. Methods considered were cured-in-place pipe, slip lined steel, PVC, HCPE or centrifugally cast fiberglass reinforced polymer mortar pipe or spiral-wound PVC liner. Three bids were received. Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer, reviewed the bids and recommended Wildcat Civil Services as the lowest acceptable bid in the amount of $104,720.00 for the CIPP product and a new manhole to be installed at the transition site where it changes from 48" to 36" pipe. Mr. Habenicht moved; Mr. Clark seconded: for Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried . To recommend Council approval of the bid lining the City Ditch at Hwy. 285 and S. Clarkson Street and a manhole. Bums, Clark, Cassidy, Wiggins, Woodward, Habenicht, Olson, Cassidy None Higday, Mccaslin 12. PIPING CITY DITCH AT LEE GULCH. Bill McCormick, Operations Superintendent, was present to discuss a bid from Left Hand Excavating for piping two areas along Lee Gulch at W. Euclid Ave. and S. Prince St. The ditch bank was in failure and an adjacent home and a South Suburban ball field were in danger of flooding and causing severe erosion. Two sections of 90' and 150' of 48" concrete pipe will be installed. The new pipe will accommodate higher flows through the ditch in this area. Left Hand Excavating's bid was $42,415.00 and does not have to go to Council since it is under $50,000, but Mr. Fonda was seeking concurrence of the bid from the Board . Mr. Burns moved; Mr. Cassidy seconded : To concur with proceeding with Left Hand Excavating's bid of $42,415.00 for piping the City Ditch along Lee Gulch at W . Euclid Ave. and S. Prince St. 13. DISCUSSION ON APPEAL TO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDER 333 W. HAMPDEN AVE. -CHIPOLTE GRILL. The Board reviewed information received from Pam Arnold and Mr. Brandse regarding the Administrative Compliance Order and resulting fine. The requested additional information will be forwarded to the Board and discussed at the next meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m . The next meeting will be held Tuesday, October 12, 2010 in the Community Development Room. Respectfully submitted, Isl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary A TT. Z STATE OF COLOMDO Bill Ritter, Jr., Governor Martha E. Rudolph, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691-7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphe.state.co.us August 20, 2010 Jason Clark City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant 1500 West Layton Avenue Englewood, CO 80126 Subject: Notification of Bronze Environmental Achievement Award Dear Mr. Clark: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I am writing to announce and congratulate City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant for being nominated and awarded a Bronze Environmental Achievement Award from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the department). The Bronze tier of the department's Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is the entry-level tier that recognizes the voluntary and significanfenvironmental achievements of Colorado businesses, organizations and state and local government agencies. Earlier this year, Nicole Graziano of the department nominated City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant for its sustainability achievements. As a Bronze level member of the ELP, the department will publicly recognize the voluntary environmental achievements of City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant at the department's annual fall awards event, and throughout the next year. In addition, the program offers a number of incentives as a reward for achieving environmentally beneficial results such as use of the Bronze member logo and participation in the awards event. Again, welcome to the Environmental Leadership Program. I encourage you to contact Lynette Myers, Administrator of the Environmental Leadership Program at (303) 692-3477 or lynette.myers@state.co.us at any time with questions you may have related to the program. Martha E. Rudolph Executive Director cc: Jeff Lawrence, Division qfEnvironmental Health and Sustainability Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment David G. Hill Partner BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601 bhgrlaw.com September 8, 2010 A TT. 3 dgh@ bhgrlaw.com Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq. City of Englewood v.o:~ SEP 1 3 2010 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: August Invoice Dear Dan: I ~ ~.·\ / '" .. ·.--, .-,. j -.. _ c Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for August 1, 2010, through August 31 , 2010 , in the amount of $27,571.40 , with a total for the year of $335,856.97. Some amounts on individual matter statements have erroneous previous balances. Total current fees and total remaining balances are accurate. The amount for this billing cycle on major cases of particular significance is listed below: I Name I Amount I No. I Main Burlington Appeal (09SA133) $ 2,801.85 722 Thornton-Aurora Effluent Trade (10CW149) 14,399.81 734 Stu Fonda has .asked us to provide brief descriptions of the reasons for Englewood 's involvement in all cases which appear on our bills each month, as well as a brief summary of the work performed by this firm during the month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices: Introduction . Please understand that this letter is a confidential attorney-client communication. Please keep it confidential. The largest bill is for the Thornton-Aurora effluent trade. This bill has been reduced by $6 ,500.00 from standard hourly rates . This is a matter which I very much hope will settle, and Daniel L. Brotzman September 8, 2010 Page 2 should settle, except for a very difficult position which is apparently being taken by Metro Sewer. The background is this: In the late 1980's and early 1990, Thornton changed a large number of Clear Creek ditch rights from agricultural to municipal. The return flows to the river from the historic agricultural use were large, and they came into the South Platte River above the headgate of the Fulton Ditch, and as well as above the headgates of several senior ditches which divert not far below the Fulton Ditch. (The Fulton Ditch diverts somewhat upstream from Brighton.) The Fulton Ditch and the other ditches just below it place calls , during times of drought , which are senior to Englewood's rights and can seriously reduce Englewood's diversions. It is therefore important that the historic agricultural return flows from the agricultural rights changed by Thornton continue to get into the river above the Fulton Ditch headgate . At the time when Thornton's change cases were being processed through the Water Court, all of Thornton's sewage was treated at the present Metro Sewer plant, which discharges its effluent into the river just south of the point where highway I-270 crosses the river. That is of course far above the headgate of the Fulton Ditch. Thornton proposed to meet its required agricultural return flow obligations by its effluent discharged at the present Metro plant. However, even at that time (around 1990), there were thoughts that Thornton might begin treating its sewage at a new plant to be built well downstream from the present Metro plant, because a great deal of Thornton's sewage has to be pumped uphill to get it to the present Metro plant, and Thornton was expanding to the northward, so that ever more sewage would have to be pumped. So Joe Tom Wood and I negotiated an agreement with Thornton that if Thornton wanted to cease to make its agricultural return flows · at present Metro Sewer, Thornton would first have to file an application in Water Court to get permission to change the location where they were made. Englewood and others were to have the right to appear in the Water Court proceeding and present evidence of injury, particularly if the return flows were to be put into the river below the Fulton headgate. That agreement was incorporated into Thornton's decrees. The agreement and the Thornton decrees became a major issue when Metro Sewer decided to build a new plant below Brighton, which would discharge its effluent into the river below the headgates of the Fulton and the several other senior ditches. The new plant was to treat Thornton's effluent, so that it would no longer have to be pumped uphill to the present Metro plant. In order to get Thornton's effluent into the river above the Fulton headgate, plans were made to pipe and pump the effluent a number of miles upstream and discharge it into the river above the Fulton headgate . The costs of that proposal were extreme, and caused litigation among Metro and Daniel L. Brotzman September 8, 2010 Page 3 its members as to whether the cost should be born by Metro Sewer district as a whole, or whether Thornton alone should bear the cost. Metro Sewer lost; i.e., the cost was to be shared among all the Metro members, rather than being born by Thornton alone. We have asked for the proceedings in that case, but have not received them. Aurora is a major member of Metro Sewer. The cost to Aurora alone, for its share of the piping and pumping, apparently was to be around $8 million. Then Aurora and Thornton came up with an imaginative solution, at least in principle. Aurora has a great deal of effluent which will always be treated at the present Metro plant. The new Metro plant will discharge its effluent below Brighton but above Aurora's new reservoir which is part of Aurora's Prairie Waters project. The solution was that Aurora would transfer to Thornton enough of Aurora's effluent from the present Metro plant to make up Thornton's return flow requirements at that location. In return, Thornton would transfer to Aurora an equivalent amount of Thornton's effluent treated at the new Metro plant, which Aurora could divert at its Prairie Waters project. Two meetings were held between Aurora, Thornton, Metro and Englewood's lawyers and engineers to discuss the proposal. Englewood's personnel verbally agreed that in principle the effluent swap would work, except for 1) the demands made by Metro at the meetings (and in documents), and 2) a number of final details which would have to be worked out. Both have turned out to be very difficult, I am sorry to say. First the Metro demands: Metro demanded, in essence, that all Water Court decrees in the South Platte basin which specified a place of wastewater treatment be declared void. Metro proposed to do so under a 1972 case between FRICO et al and Denver, in which it was held that Denver could change its place of sewage treatment for water diverted under municipal decrees which did not specify a place ofreturn flow (unlike the Thornton decrees). Englewood has entered into decrees with Denver and Aurora which dealt with sewage plant location, with respect to their changes of the Last Chance Ditch and the Nevada Ditch, as well as the above-mentioned Thornton decrees, and entered into other such decrees involving Bear Creek rights . And water users on Clear Creek have entered into agreements and decrees dealing with the release of required return flows at the Coors/Golden wastewater treatment plant. Englewood has consented to some of those decrees. There are no doubt other such decrees elsewhere in the South Platte basin, and identifying them would be a tedious chore indeed. Metro's demand is a serious over-reach. Metro should resolve its concern with such decrees by agreements among the Metro members or a change in the Metro governing documents. Metro should not attempt to impose its views on every water user in the South Platte basin. They say that Daniel L. Brotzman September 8, 2010 Page 4 their position is that they don't want to interfere with decrees establishing the point of replacement of agricultural return flows, but they don't want anybody to be able to specify the location of a wastewater treatment plant where treatment and return flow replacement must be made. And they want to void existing and future decrees which do so. Second, there are the "details," which present serious difficulties. The first problem is that we have never been provided with a draft of the Aurora/Thornton agreement, which is apparently not yet final , although we have asked for it. The second problem is that the Aurora/Thornton agreement apparently will not be permanent. That is a terrible problem, because once Thornton builds new trunk sewer lines to the new Metro plant, and cuts off pumping to the present Metro plant, it would be almost impossible for Englewood to get the pumping started again. So if Thornton and Aurora later ended their agreement for a swap of effluent to enable Thornton to meet its return flow obligations above the Fulton headgate, it would be impossible to force that to be done , and Englewood would suffer greater calls. The third problem is that under the Thornton decrees and the agreement with Englewood, Thornton was supposed to make a Water Court application for a new decree if it wanted to change the location of its sewage treatment and return flow discharge. There are substantial advantages to a Water Court decree, such as permanence, proper accounting, protection against injury, the opportunity for other parties to appear , and on and on. Instead of applying for a Water Court decree, Thornton, Aurora and Metro filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to authorize the Thornton/ Aurora agreement (which is not to be permanent and has not been finalized or disclosed), to allow Thornton to make its effluent release at new Metro, and to void the decrees which Metro wants to eliminate (which include several Englewood-negotiated decrees, as noted). Finally, the fourth problem is that the declaratory judgment action seeks to amend Aurora's exchange decrees which call for release of effluent at present Metro, and substitute a release at new Metro , some twenty miles downstream, and seeks similarly to amend Thornton's exchanges. Such changes could create injury, and in any event they can only be accompl ished by a Water Court application and decree , and not by a declaratory judgment action. Englewood filed an elaborately briefed motion to dismiss the declaratory judgment action on the basis that it is an improper effort to avoid a Water Court application , does not provide jurisdiction over water users other than Englewood, does not disclose the Aurora/Thornton agreement, the agreement is not to be permanent, and the action improperly seeks to void existing Daniel L. Brotzman September 8, 2010 Page 5 decrees. Similar pleadings have been filed by Public Service and the State Engineer. Metro , Aurora and Thornton have obtained an extension of time for their answer until October 15. Again, we hope to settle, and to that end hope that Thornton, which wants the swap badly , can get the others, particularly Metro , to modify some of their positions. But in any event Englewood needs a permanent decree which makes the effluent swap perpetual , absent another change application in Water Court, and wants to protect its decrees . The second matter of consequence is further work on the appeal of the FRICO/United/East Cherry Creek cases. Our remaining task is to complete a reply brief on the Metro pumps issue, which should not be a major effort. That would be the last effort on that matter until whatever preparation Englewood must make for oral argument. It's not clear that Englewood will present argument; the identity of the lawyers who will make argument has to be resolved by agreement among the various parties. The remainder of the cases are described below . 1. General (#001): This matter is our general file for work not attributable to specific cases . In some instances , the work is not specific to a particular matter. In other instances , the time spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill, but the time on the group of matters is significant. This includes charges related to general calendaring, reviewing various daily incoming pleadings and correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are not case specific. It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition. 2. Not-nontributary Application (89CW062) (# 187): This application was Englewood 's application to increase the amount divertable under its not-nontributary well rights near McLellan Reserv oir. We reviewed engineering information and discussed case status. 3. Town of Castle Rock (92CW144) (#296): This case involves new water rights at Denver's Strontia Springs Dam upstream from Englewood's Union Avenue Intake and extension of a decreed augmentation plan. Englewood needs to make sure the proper accounting and priority date are used in the new water rights and to monitor the augmentation plan. We reviewed withdrawal of statement of opposition by Castle Rock Land Company. 4. Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (93CW121) (#322): This case involves an exchange right (absolute and conditional) upstream of Englewood 's senior South Platte exchange . rights in W-8456-76. Englewood entered this case to ensure that the sources of replacement water are proper sources and that the exchange is not exercised when Englewood needs STATE OF COLORADO Bill Ritter , Jr., Governor Martha E . Rudolph , Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr . S. Laboratory Services Division Denver , Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd . Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver , Colorado 80230-6928 TDD Line (303) 691 -7700 (303) 692-3090 Located in Glenda le , Colorado http ://www .cdphe .state .co .us August 20, 2010 Jason Clark City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant 1500 West Layton Avenue Englewood , CO 80126 Subject: Notification of Bronze Environmental Achievement Award Dear Mr. Clark: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment I am writing to announce and congratulate City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant for being nominated and awarded a Bronze Environmental Achievement Award from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (the department). The Bronze tier of the department's Environmental Leadership Program (ELP) is the entry-level tier that recognizes the voluntary and significant'environmental achievements of Colorado businesses, organizations and state and local government agencies . Earlier this year, Nicole Graziano of the depa1iment nominated City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant for its sustainability achievements. As a Bronze level member of the ELP, the department will publicly recognize the voluntary environmental achievements of City of Englewood -Allen Water Treatment Plant at the department's annual fall awards event, and throughout the next year. In addition, the program offers a number of incentives as a reward for achieving environmentally beneficial results such as use of the Bronze member logo and participation in the awards event. Again , welcome to the Environmental Leadership Program . I encourage you to contact Lynette Myers, Administrator of the Environmental Leadership Program at (303) 692-3477 or lynette .myers@ state.co .us at any time with questions you may have related to the program. Martha E. Rudolph Executive Director cc : Jeff Lawrence, Division of Environmental Health and Sustainability Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 5 I- ~ ~ :c :e ~ Allen C0-0-103045 Turbidity Profile r--Raw -Max Sed ---·Max Filter -Combined I 100 ___., w. w ~ m •• rm 1 10 0.1 0 .0 1 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Ma r-10 Ap r-10 May-10 Jun-10 ANNUAL DATA Ava Min NTU NTU Raw Turblditv 4 .8 0.5 Max. Settled Turbiditv 0 .7 0 .2 Max. Filtered Turbidltv 0 .10 0.03 Combined Filtered Turbld ltv 0 .07 0.03 RSQ = Corre lation Coefficient for two se lected data sets 95% = 95th Percenti le va lu e for data set Max RSQ 95% Oot. Goal NTU NTU % Values 99.0 n/a 14 .1 n/a 2.0 0 .06 1.3 82.4 0.47 0 .00 0 .18 62 .9 0.41 0 .03 0 .12 92 .6 Opt. Goal = % of values in data set th at are less than or equa l to the selected optimization turbidity goal Reg . = % of valu es in data set that are less than or equal to the regulated turbidity requirement Optimization Assessment Software Treatment Barrier Performance Summary Maximum Daily Settled Water Turbidity I -Max Sed -Goal I 2.5 2.0 5" 1.5 I- ~ ~ :;; :e 1.0 " I- 0 .5 0.0 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-1 0 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Rea . Maximum Daily Filtered Water Turbidity % Values [ ---·Max Filter -Goal -Combined [ n/a 1m n/a 000 n/a OM 99 .5 oro 5 o~ I- ~ ~ O .~ ~ € o~ " I- ow ow 010 0.00 Ju l-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec -09 Jan-10 Feb-10 Ma r-10 Apr -10 May-10 Jun -10 5 I- ~ ~ :;::; :e ::J I- Allen C0-0-103045 Turbidity Profile -Raw -Max Sed ---·Max Filter -Combined ] 100 -r----------~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 10 0.1 0.01 Jul-10 Aug -10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 ANNUAL DATA Ava Min NTU NTU Raw Tu r b id ity 7.2 0 .8 Max. Settled Turbid ity 0 .6 0 .3 Max. Filtered Turbid ity 0 .09 0 .04 Combi ned Filtered T urbidity 0 .07 0 .06 RSQ = Correlation Coefficient for two selected data sets 95% = 95th Percentile value for data set Max RSQ 95% Oot. Goal NTU NTU % Valu es 65 .7 n/a 15.5 n/a 1.2 0 .38 0 .8 98 .6 0 .13 0 .03 0 .12 83.8 0 .10 0 .00 0 .09 100.0 Opt. Goal = % of va lues in data set that are less tha n or equal to the selected optimization turbidity goal Reg . = % of values in data set that are less than or equal to the reg ul ated turbidity requirement Ootimization Assessment Software Treatment Barrier Performance Summary Maximum Daily Settled Water Turbidity I -Max Sed -Goal J IA 12 1~ 5 i M ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ OA I I I ·~ l.i~ ~ 0 .2 o~ Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Rea. Maximum Daily Filtered Water Turbidity % Valu es ---·Ma x Filter -Goal -Combi ned =1 n/a 1.00 nta 0.90 n/a 0.80 100.0 0.70 5 0.60 I- ~ ~ ~ 0.50 ii ~ 0.40 0.30 0.20 +---------------------------------< 0 .10 ~~ 0.00 +-----~----------~--~----------~-~ Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Ja n-1 1 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Subject: Hi Cathy, A. Gray Clark [gclark@MULLERENG.COM] Thursday, October 07, 2010 11 :23 AM Cathy Burrage October W &S Board Meeting I will be unable to attend the next Water and Sewer Board Meeting on October 12, 2010. It is my understanding that we will be discussing the Frank Brandse Appeal and the associated fine . I have reviewed the material and feel that the minimum penalty of $2,500 for "minor history ofno.n- compliance" is reasonable. This fi ne is within the range to remain compliant with the Plan. One additional comment would be that I am uncertain that there is actually "minor history of non-compliance" as there seems to be a discrepancy as Mr. Brandse indicated that the Arapahoe County offense has been dropped. If the Arapahoe County offense is still being litigated and there is a chance that there may be "no history of non- compliance", I could support a slightly lower fine of say $2,000 if that is the direction the Board would like to go. I would have trouble going much lower as there was damage to the Bank building and the cleanout operation was not carried out in an appropriate manner and would have polluted the sewer system had there not been the unforeseen blockage in th e service line. Please share my thoughts with the other Board members. Thanks, 1-fANO oor Gray Clark Chairman, Englewood Water and Sewer Board 1 LITTLETON/ENGLEWOOD WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PRETREATMENT DIVISION City of Littleton City of ·Englewood MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Water & Sewer Board Members Pam Arnold DATE: 9/23 /10 SUBJECT: Frank Brandse Appeal -Hearing 9/21/10 Mary Gardner CC: In response to your request for additional information at the above-referenced hearing, I am attaching the following : • Selected, highlighted pages from the EPA-approved Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) • One page from the Arapahoe Sheriffs Office, Investigator report • Recent compliance history for Chipotle Following is additional discussion : • On page 15 of the ERP, the matrix provides a possible penalty. I have noted the line from which penalties were taken for each penalty. o Chipotle's failure to maintain records on site was $100 o Chipotle 's failure to assure proper disposal was $2000 o Brandse's illegal discharge was $5000 You will note that Brandse's fine was increased from a $3000 possible penalty to $5000 maximum penalty due to the circumstantial considerations (see page 17 of the ERP). o There was harm to the environment (personal property) that could have been mitigated (mitigation does not mean clean-up, it means a lessened effect due to quick actions or response) o There is a significant, recent history of environmental non-compliance (see the Sheriffs report). This action is serious in that Mr. Brandse picked up one waste stream in a contaminated truck (making the resulting waste stream more onerous) and then discharged it into a waterway after dark. This action resulted in a violation of Arapahoe County's Storm Water Permit. o Finally, Mr. Brandse claims that he was intim idated by the Division inspectors. I quizzed the insepctors again this morning and they deny Mr. Brandse's claims. The conversation was calm and without any threats . If the Board wishes to reduce the penalty, I would recommend that it select from the "major history of noncompliance" category that calls for a minimum penalty of $3,000 . The other option would be from the "minor history of noncompliance" category that calls for a minimum penalty of $2,500,if the Board believes that Mr. Brantse's history is a minor offense . In either case, I recommend that the Board select a penalty from within the ERP matrix so that the City remains compliant with its Plan . PROGRESS REPORT CASE# ACl0-15973 5f, / . On 06-01-10, this Investigator called FRANK and he was willing to come into the Sheriffs Office today at 1500 hours. This Investigator met with FRANK today and he stated the following: That on the day in question he was helping a friend out named "KYLE" in removing some mud and water from a construction site. That he had about I 000 gallons on board. That he returned the truck to the storage unit and went back when it was dark and pulled it out and unloaded it in the stonn drain area. That he new it was wrong, but he needed to dump the mud and water because he had another "grease trap run" the next day. That he came in last week and tried to clear this up, however no one new what he was talking about. · This Investigator explained to FRANK that his name was spelled wrong and that was why no one could locate anything on him. · This Investigator issued FRANK a summons and complaint #363678, for Littering a class 2 petty offense with a court date of 08-04-10 at 0800 hours. This Investigator notes that on the two days (05-21-10 and 05-28-10) that this Investigator has visited the area of the dumping, it still smells like fast food grease. Nothing further. Page 2 of2 F ~ ~ View Pa ste lndustlral User ID Mic .J:-.~tt ""'' :~ C~e ExUr""'Oata Oatab~ Tools -~ LAJ'-----~--------°" cut I ii=¥ =11 r [i!f ~lfJFl Hi-:>. , .... New I: 1ota1> ~Copy · '-.-:-=-. _ -::-~ /~Save ~Spelling ~ l j i" 'lJ Seledion • !EJ 5S1 ~ ~ .. Replace U I Y:J AdVanced • .. Go To • 1JIB I ,;1r;_\ Jl;:;lrm:rlC:Jj ii= :=lr•.iv j' Refresh I Format Painter , l ~ , "'_II" l • Jl!;!;!;LJ[= 1_·= ·-I : Alf• X Delete• _:3 Mo,. A · Filter I . . Size to Switch Find 1 /V Toggle F1lt••j Fit Form Windows • ~ Seltd • O ipboard r. Font Rich Text Reco rds §] Otl & Grease ~I FOG Program Tenant IOipotle Me>ican Gril Addreu Oy 1333 F13j~Har-m-~-,-----jAve :.:.Jf11110 ParcellD : l19n ·3H00-092 JEnglewood ~ ioorro--Dittrict jEnglewood :::J Contact jRyanJacob Title IManagei -Email Phone l!E)761 ·3411 Fox r- lnte<ceplor 17 BMP r A• E.iabistment r I :::J I :::J lnterceplOI Size 1800 gal. 40°~'eif;aen( Use EllZ)lll1M INo :.:.J lnteiceiitor Location (sw ol buiking Punplntervll(months) r-Service (CJIT'4"'"Y OWide Waste Grease Bin D....,..,..,... IO~er area Inspection Results Date I 5118/2010 Red jln compliance :.:.J lnopectOI IC. Varooce :::J Corrrnenl• [15.7% Date I B/4/2009 Red lln cornpiarlCe--:.:.J lnopeclOI JC. V amOce -..:.! Corrrnenl• [19.8% Dale I 11121 /2008 Red jln compliance :.:.J lnspec!01 p Graber--------=:.:i Corrwnents 10.% Date I 913/2008 Red lln compliance :::J lnspeclOI P Graber :::J Corrrnents 112. 5% Date I Red I :.:.J lnspedOI I ::J Caimenls I Record! H 11 of 1 Window Find User IO I 988 Goto: Tenant ID:I 1 Milin Form Inspection Schedule 'Inspection Sc:hedJle 1smro11 ..:J !Neoct lmpeclion Mani> 111 ·Nov ..:J !Inspection Location G1~ 1 -0 x Enforce~ent Response Plan 1.0 · Purpose Revision: 6 Date: June 18, 2010 Page 1 of21 The purpose of the Industrial Pretreatment Enforcement Response Plan is to document the Cities of Littleton and Englewood policies and procedures for identifying, tracking, and responding to industrial and commercial user (both referred to as user) noncompliance. The Industrial Pretreatment Program is established in the wastewater municipal code for the cities of Littleton (Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 25) and Englewood (Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 5). The Pretreatment Program is implemented by the Littleton/Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant (LIE WWTP), Pretreatment Division (Division). The overall flow chart for the cities, the Supervisory Committee, the LIE WWTP and Pretreatment Division are shown in Attachment 1. The Industrial Pretreatment Program is implemented to control non-domestic wastewater discharges. The purpose of such control is to protect the sanitary sewer system and the treatment plant, collectively known as a publicly owned treatment works (POTW), assure worker health and safety, prevent pass-through to the South Platte River, and to allow proper disposal of sewage sludge. 2.0 Scope and Applicability 2.1 Scope This Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) is for use b Division staff and management to make consistent decisions on the overall response to user violations. This ERP is a guide providing specific responses to anticipated types of user violations. This ERP shall not limit the ability of the Division to undertake any appropriate enforcement action. This ERP is developed with four primary objectives in mind: • Ensuring that violators return to compliance as quickly as possible • Penalizing noncompliant users for pretreatment violations • Deterring future noncompliance • Recovering expenses incurred by the cities due to noncompliance This ERP is written to support the following fundamental activities: C• Assuring a systematic flow of compliance information • Accomplishing orderly and consistent compliance screening activities • Supporting a consistent enforcement response to violations to the greatest degree possible This ERP does not create any new legal authorities that are not already established by City Municipal Code and Federal regulation. This ERP may be revised as needed to clarify or define possible responses to user violations. H:\Pretreatment\Policies and Procedures\Enforcement Response Plan.doc Enforcement Response Plan Revision : 6 Date: June 18 , 2010 Page 14 of21 Enforcement Response(l> Level Comment<2> of Authority<3> Formal: Criminal The City may file a judicial criminal action. A user who willfully or City Penalties negligently violates any provision or willfully or negligently introduces any substance into the POTW which causes personal inj ury or property damage or knowingly makes any false statements, representations, or certifications in any application, record, report, plan, or other documentation filed or required to be maintained by an industrial wastewater permit or order issued hereunder, or any other Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, shall upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000 per day per violation and be subject to imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, or both. Formal Criminal Penalties will be assessed within judicial process time frames. (1) The remedies specified are not exclusive of any other remedies that the LIE WWTP or the City may have under the provisions of Colorado law. The LIE WWTP or City may take any, all, or any combination of these actions against a noncompliant user or take other action against any user when the circumstances warrant and may take more than one enforcement action against any noncompliant user. (2) All enforcement actions will be initiated as soon as possible after identification of a violation and within the time frames indicated. This includes additional infonnation activities. (3) The lowest level of authority allowed to initiate or to bring about the enforcement action . (4) The factors that may be considered when calculatine: a nenalty are discussed in Section 5.5 below. 7 .6 Calculating the Fine Administrative or Civil fines may be assessed as enforcement actions. Administrative or Civil fines may be assessed in an amount not to exceed $5 000 per day, per violation. [Englewood: Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 5.I.3.e (Administrative) and 12-2-5.I.4.c (Civil); Littleton: Title 7, Chapter 5, Section 25.J.3.e (Administrative) and 7-5- 25.J.4 .c(Civil)]. Civil, and many Administrative proceedings, will involve the management levels that are shown in the attachment. Penalties will generally involve review by the supervisory committee and the appropriate city attorney. The documentation of violations, history of violations and the maximum penalty as provided for in the City Municipal Code will be prepared by the Pretreatment Division personnel. There are three penalties that are typically calculated. The first two are disclosed to the violator and the third is attorney-client confidential and used during the penalty negotiations process (if part of the settlement). These penalties are: • Regulatory Maximum Penalty • Proposed Enforcement Action Penalty • Bottom-line Penalty (not to be disclosed) H:\Pretreatment\Policies and Procedures\FINAL DMSION DOCUMENTS\ERP\ERP REV I .doc Enforcement Response Plan Revision : 6 Date: June 18 , 2010 Page 15 of21 The regulatory maximum penalty is calculated using the full City penalty authority ($5000/violation/day). This calculation does not include economic benefit (see below) and will be used in the more formal court and/or criminal proceedings. The proposed enforcement action penalty is calculated using two separate components: • The first component is the City penalty authority, but is adjusted downward considering the magnitude or significance of the violation as well as the . compliance history of the user, keeping in mind that the absolute ·maximum ($5000/violation/day) is defined in the City municipal code. • The second component is the economic benefit to the user for not having complied with regulatory requirements as more thoroughly described below. ~ fJl ,( Penal Frame-Work Based on Histor and Harm ' U IDSTORY COMPONENT No History of Noncompliance No History of Noncompliance No History of Noncompliance No Histo of Noncom liance Minor History of Noncompliance Minor History of Noncompliance Minor History of Noncompliance Minor History of Noncom liance Major History of Noncom Hance ,... Major History of Noncompliance ·Ma' or Histo of Harm to one of the four systems Harm to two or three of the four systems Harm to all four s stems No harm to systems Harm to one of the four systems Harm to two or three of the four systems Harm to all four systems No harm to systems Harm to one of the four systems Harm to two or three of the four POSSIBLE PENAL TY $2 or up to $100/violation/day, whichever is less $50,000 or up to $2000/violation/day, whichever is less $100,000 or up to $2000/violation/ day, whichever is less U to $5000/violation/da $5000 or up to $200/violation/day, whichever is less $75,000 or up to $2500/violation/ day , whichever is less $150,000 or up to $3000/violation/ day, whichever is less Up to $5000/violation/day H :\Pretreatment\Policies and Procedures\FINAL DMSION DOCUMENTS\ERP\ERP REV 1.doc Enforcement Response Plan Noncompliance systems Major History of Harm to all four systems Noncompliance (l) Does not include any and all costs for clean-up , recovery , mitigation , etc. 7.6.1 List of Potential Economic Benefits Revision: 6 Date: June 18 , 2010 Page 16 of21 $40 00/violation/ day , whichever is less Up to $5000/violation/day Following are some costs that, if avoided, would result in an economic benefit to the user . One or more of these types of costs, and others as applicab le, must be used to itemize a total economic benefit. • Sampling • Treatment Equipment • Raw Materials • Monitoring Point Infrastructure/Equip • Analyses • Waste Disposal/Hauling • Energy • Permit Application Preparation • Report Preparation • Labor • Lease Payments The bottom-line penalty is calculated using the same two components as in the proposed enforcement action penalty above, but with further reductions in the punitive portion where warranted. Those two components are: •The economic benefit, as calculated for the proposed enforcement action penalty above; these may not be further reduced , plus •The punitive penalties as calculated for the proposed enforcement action penalty above, but that have been further adjusted using all of the pertinent circumstantial considerations described below (usually after input/supporting data from the industrial users and internal discussions). 7 .6.2 Economic benefits that can be derived Economic Benefit focuses on the violator's economic gain fr om noncompliance, which may occur in three basic ways. It can: 1) delay necessary p ollution control/compliance expenditures , 2) avoid necessary pollution control/compliance expenditures, or 3) gain a competitive advantage during the period of noncompliance. Economic benefit must always be recovered in full in penalty actions. By delaying compliance costs, the violator can earn a return on funds that should have been committed to either capital investments or compliance costs. Capital investments , which are often a one-time expenditure , would include any type of treatment equipment, for example. And compliance costs would include sampling and reporting costs , treatment costs , and operating and maintenance costs for example, that occur on a regular basis . Thus , the violator 's economic benefit from av oided compliance costs is the sum of H:\Pretreatment\Policies and Procedures\FINAL DMSION DOCUMENTS\ERP\ERP REV I .doc Enforcement Response Plan Revision: 6 Date: June 18 , 2010 Page 17 of21 the total avoided annual costs plus the return that could be expected on the funds that were used for projects other than pollution control compliance. Competitive advantage gains could include lower prices due to lower costs from having avoided compliance costs or even the production of a product that might not otherwise be possible or earlier than competitors due to compliance avoidance. 7 .6.3 Circumstantial Considerations that can be used The unitive portion of the penalty calculations is derived from the maximum City penal _ authority. This amount is assessed when the Pretreatment Division evaluates several factors discussed below , referred to as circumstantial considerations . The pun1flve portion of the penalty is punishment for the violator and sends a clear message to o er industrial users that may fail to comply with applicable regulations. When applying these considerations to penalty calculations , each one must be subjectively and , if possible, objectively , justified in writing. Use supporting data, dates , conversations , actions , etc. to document decisions that include a circumstantial consideration from the following: 7.6.4 Magnitude of the Violation The LIE WWTP will evaluate the magnitude of a violation as it relates to significant noncompliance (SNC) criteria. Where a violation results in harm to the POTW, a worker within the collection system or POTW, the environment, an d/or public health, there is little to be gained from reducing a proposed penalty. Where no harm is identified or suspected , the LIE WWTP may consider this in the calculation of a penalty . 7.6.5 Duration of the Violation Regardless of severity, violations which continue over prolonged periods of time or indicate a pattern of noncompliance subject the violator to escalated enforcement action and maximum penalties . 7.6.6 Effect on the Environment One of the primary goals of the National Pretreatment Program is to prevent pollutants from passing through or interfering with the POTW. Evidence of pass-through and interference include discharges which cause or contribute to violations of numerical limits of the LIE WWTP's CDPS permit, NPDES Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) failure , interference with disposal of sewage sludge, blockages that cause untreated wastewater to reach Waters of the State, and impacts to public health and the environment. At a minimum, discharges which cause pass-through or interference require a formal enforcement response. H :\Pr etreatment\Policies and Procedures\FINAL DMSION DOCUMENTS\ERP\ERP REV I .doc Enforcement Response Plan 7 .6. 7 Compliance History Revision: 6 Date: June 18, 2010 Page 18 of21 If a violator has a history of noncom Hance that demonstrates the user has failed to eliminate violations, e E WWTP will subject the violator to escalated enforcement action and maximum penalties. Violations should be evaluated both individually and in light of other pretreatment violations of the user that have occurred recently and within the last five years. 7 .6.8 Good Faith The user's record of ood faith for correcting noncompliance may also be a factor in determining which enforcement action to take and whether or not a penalty should be adjusted. Good faith is typically demonstrated by cooperation and completion of corrective measures by applicable deadlines. Compliance with previous enforcement orders is not necessarily good faith if violations have continued to occur. 7.7 Selecting the Proper Enforcement Responses The enforcement responses specified in Section 7.4 above are not exclusive of any other remedies that the Division or the City may have under the provisions of Colorado law. The Division or City may take any, all, or any combination of these actions against a noncompliant user or take other action against any user when the circumstances warrant. Minimum enforcement responses for each type of violation are indicated in Section 5.3 and must be adhered to. However, a higher level of response may be the first esponse if warranted. Responses must be escalated to gain compliance where compliance has not been forthcoming based on lower levels of response. Each City's Municipal Code details the extent of the legal authority to conduct the Pretreatment Program and the enforcement processes it may take against noncompliant users. The procedures to be followed in such cases are summarized below. The City Municipal Code provides the authority to petition the courts for the issuance of a preliminary or permanent injunction or to seek administrative, civil and criminal penalties. 7.8 Significant Noncompliance (SNC) A noncompliance status determination must be imposed on an IU or SIU when certain conditions have been met pursuant to 40 CPR 403.8 (f)(2)(viii)(A-H): "Significant Noncompliance is used to determine whether a formal enforcement action against a user is warranted in accordance with the ERP. The regulation defining SNC clearly requires that all measurements taken in the appropriate six month period must be used to determine a user's SNC status. Therefore, any and all samples obtained through appropriate sampling techniques which have been analyzed in accordance with the procedures established in 40 CPR Part 136 must be used to determine whether the facility H:\Pretreatment\Policies and Procedures\FINAL DMSION DOCUMENTS\ERP\ERP REV l .doc