SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

• 0 - 5 - STAFF REPORT 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 Nature and Circumstances The nature of the violation is that technical reports required by the Regional Board pursuant to Section 13267 of the CWC, WDRs Order No. 97-037, and C&A Order No. 5-00-717 were not submitted. The circumstances are such that the Discharger was aware of the necessity to provide the required documents, but failed to do so. In addition,the Discharger operated its wastewater system in routine violation of WDRs Order No. 97-037 and C&A Order No. 5-00-717. The violations include, but are not limited to: discharge of waste to surface waters, discharge of waste within 100 feet of surface waters, discharge of waste during rain events, failure to confine the discharge to property owned by the Discharger, failure to comply with BOD and DIS loading rates and effluent limits. Extent The extent of the violation is that the Discharger routinely violated both its WDRs and the C&A Order issued for failure to voluntarily comply with the WDRs. The Discharger had an opportunity to comment on the proposed reports and proposed timelines contained in the C&A Order before it was signed by the Executive Officer. Although the Discharger submitted the reports required by the C&A Order, it did not complete the facility modifications necessary to comply with its WDRs. As a result of the non- compliance, the Regional Board issued a California Water Code Section 13308 Time Schedule Order on 25 January 2002. Gravity The gravity of the violation is that the Discharger's failure to submit a complete RWD prevented staff from developing updated WDRs. The Discharger was aware of the need to obtain revised WDRs before its discharge exceeded the flow limits contained in the current WDRs, but continued to increase its discharge until it was well in excess of the permitted capacity. Second,the Discharger's failure to submit the required reports has prevented staff from assessing whether groundwater degradation has occurred or is likely to occur. Third, the Discharger's failure to comply with the WDRs and continued expansion without sufficient treatment and disposal capacity has resulted in discharges of waste to surface water and continuing nuisance odor conditions. Fourth, by refusing to complete the required reports and construct improvements in a timely fashion, the Discharger has received an unfair economic advantage over other food processors in the Central Valley Region. Ability to Pay With respect to the violator, it is believed that there is an ability to pay and continue operating. The Discharger claims that it has suffered a net loss as a result of its attempts to comply with the WDRs and C&A Order. Staff dispute that claim. The Discharger also claims that the proposed liability would be overly burdensome because of product price competition from subsidized foreign competitors. However, the Discharger has not provided any financial documents indicating an inability to pay the administrative civil liability, other than asking to pay the liability in three installments. Prior History of Violations The Discharger's recent history of wastewater discharge has been one of continued noncompliance with the WDRs. Facility inspections on 8 May 2000, 2 November 2001, and 10 May 2002 revealed numerous violations of the prohibitions and specifications of the WDRs and failure to construct required