SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

STAFF REPORT • • -3 ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER AND REVISION TO THE CWC WATER CODE SECTION 13308 TIME SCHEDULE ORDER MUSCO OLIVE PRODUCTS AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY it will not have a viable business if it is limited by the flow and DIS limits of WDRs No. 97-037. As part of the TSO, Regional Board staff recommended interim higher wastewater flow and DIS limits to allow the Discharger to operate until improvements at the facility could be constructed and the Regional Board could consider adoption of updated WDRs. In May 2002, the Discharger submitted the RWD for use in preparing updated WDRs that are scheduled for consideration at the 6 September 2002 Regional Board meeting. Staff is in the process of evaluating the RWD, which must demonstrate how the proposed increase in discharge volume and strength will comply with the Basin Plan and with the State Water Resources Control Board's Resolution No. 68-16. ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY On 11 April 2002 the Executive Officer issued a $150,000 Administrative Civil Liability Complaint (ACLC) for violations of WDRs Order No. 97-037 and C&A Order No. 5-00-717 that occurred within a specific time interval. The ACLC addresses civil liabilities incurred by the Discharger beginning with the date of the C&A Order and ending with the date the Regional Board adopted the TSO (that is, 17 November 2000 through 25 January 2002). The three categories of violations include: violations of discharge prohibitions and specifications set forth in the WDRs and reiterated in the C&A Order; violations of the C&A Order for failure to submit technical reports; and violations of the C&A Order for failure to comply with the Monitoring and Reporting Program. A complete listing of the violations of WDRs Order No. 97-037 and the C&A Order are found in the Findings of the attached ACL Order, and are summarized below. Between 17 November 2000 and 25 January 2002: The discharge violated effluent limits for DIS on 51 days. The discharge violated the BOD limit on four days. • The Discharger irrigated with wastewater during natural precipitation events on 57 days. On two separate occasions, staff documented discharges of wastewater to a surface water drainage course. It is staff s understanding that the million gallon storage pond routinely overflowed into the surface water drainage (through a pipe installed for this purpose), but the Discharger neglected to make spill reports and therefore the ACLC only addresses the violations actually witnessed by staff. .Findings No. 5, 19, and 20 of WDRs Order 1 97-037 describe a wastewater flow rate of 5Q(�,000 gpd. However, because the WDRs do not contain a formal flow limitation,the 210 days when the flow rate of 500,000 gpd was exceeded are not included in the ACLC as violations. The Discharger submitted most of the technical reports required by the C&A Order. However,two of the reports were submitted after the specified due date, one report was submitted on time but was deemed incomplete, and one report was not submitted. One day of violation was assessed for each day any report was late or incomplete. In total,primarily due to the Discharger's failure to submit a complete Wastewater Facilities Improvements Plan, a total of 381 days of violations accrued during the cited period. The Discharger submitted four incomplete quarterly monitoring reports and one incomplete annual monitoring report during the period cited in the ACLC. The reports were incomplete because the