SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_CASE 2

Home Browse Search

CIT'`�MINISTRATTVETRACY CIVIL L�$JLITY COMPLAINT NO.R5-2005-0500 Y OF SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY -2- r 6. The discharge violated Sections EA and E.12 of the Receiving Water Limitations of Order No. 96-104. Section EA states, "the discharge shall not cause concentrations of any materials in the receiving waters which are deleterious to human, aquatic, or plant life". Section E.12 states, "the discharge shall not cause a violation ofany applicable water quality standard for receiving waters adopted by the Board or the State Water Resources Control Board as required by the Clean Water Act and regulations adopted thereunder". The USEPA National Ambient Water Quality Criteria to prevent acute (lethal) effects from chlorine is 0.019 mg/l, on a 1-hour average. The effluent had a concentration more than three hundred fifty(350) times the acute criterion. The discharge would have caused the receiving water to greatly exceed the acute criterion at the outfall, and potentially a considerable distance downstream, because given the concentration of the effluent it could not have mixed with the receiving water quickly enough to have been diluted below the acute criterion. 7. The Discharger violated Standard Provision A.17 of Order No. 96-104, which states: "The discharger shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse effects to waters of the State or users of those waters resulting from any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this Order. Reasonable steps shall include such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge or sludge use or disposal. " The Discharger failed to properly document the nature and impact of the chlorine release by not acting immediately after discovery of the release. a) The Discharger waited 13 hours after the release to visually inspect the receiving water; b) The Discharger waited 19 hours after the release to collect in-stream samples for total chlorine residual. 8. The discharge violated Provision F.1 and Standard Provision A.22 of Order No. 96-104, which require that neither the discharge nor its treatment shall create a nuisance or pollution as defined in CWC Section 13050. The discharge of the highly chlorinated effluent at levels that exceed the effluent limitations constitutes pollution. 9. CWC Section 13385 states, in part: "(a) Any person who violates any of the following shall be liable civilly in accordance with this section: "(1) Section 13375 or 13376"- (2)Any waste discharge requirements...issued pursuant to this chapter... "