SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER NO. 0 MUSCO OLIVE PRODUCTS AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY -3 - SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY GENERAL VIOLATIONS 12. The C&A Order required the Discharger to immediately comply with Order No. 97-037, including the following: a. Cease discharges to surface waters; b. Cease the discharge of waste within 100 feet of surface waters; C. Cease applying waste during rain events; d. Confine the discharge to property owned and controlled by the Discharger; and e. Comply with the wastewater loading rate limits for BOD and DIS. 13. A 2 November 2001 inspection of the facility and a review of the case file revealed the following violations of the C&A Order: a. C&A Order measures A.La and A.Lb require the Discharger to prevent wastewater from entering surface water drainage courses. During the inspection, staff observed irrigation tailwater draining to the intermittent stream channel. Based on the Discharger's reported daily flow totals and the capacity of the existing storage pond, it appears that tailwater discharges have been a daily occurrence whenever the facility is generating wastewater. b. C&A Order measure A.Le requires the Discharger to comply with the effluent concentration limits for DIS and BOD. The Discharger's self-monitoring reports indicate that the DIS concentration exceeded the limit a total of 51 times between 17 November 2000 and 25 January 2002. The BOD limit was exceeded on four occasions. C. C&A Order measure A.Lc requires the Discharger to limit irrigation to those times when it is not raining and to allow a three day resting period between applications and precipitation events. The Discharger's self-monitoring reports indicate wastewater application occurred during rain events on 57 separate occasions between 17 November 2000 and 25 January 2002. d. On 28 December 200i, in violation of Order No. 97-037 and the C&A Order, an unknown volume of wastewater mixed with stone water runoff from the land discharge area spilled over containment berms constructed by the Discharger in the intermittent stream bed and discharged off-site. 14. Considering the violations cited above, the Discharger violated at least one discharge requirement on 105 days between 17 November 2000 and 25 January 2002. Attachment A contains a day-by- day summary of violations that occurred during this time period. 15. Findings No. 5, 19, and 20 of WDRs Order No. 97-037 describe a wastewater flow rate of 500,000 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 this ACL Order as violations. 16. The C&A Order also required the Discharger to complete certain technical reports as follows: a. Develop and implement a contingency plan to allow operation through the winter without off-site discharges and discharges to surface waters; b. Develop and implement a stonn water and surface water monitoring workplan;