SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL LIABILITY ORDER NO. • 6 MUSCO OLIVE PRODUCTS AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY "(b) (1) Civil liability may be administratively imposed by a regional board in accordance with Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 13323) of Chapter 5 for a violation of subdivision (a) in an amount which shall not exceed one thousand dollars($1,000) for each day in which the violation occurs." 24. Because the C&A Order was issued pursuant to Section 13267 of the CWC and required immediate full compliance with Order No. 97-037, pursuant to Section 13268 of the CWC, the Discharger is liable for the incomplete and delinquent technical reports and incomplete monitoring reports described in Finding Nos. 16, 17, and 18. 25. The maximum administrative civil liability which can be imposed by the Regional Board under Water Code Section 13268 for the Discharger's failure to submit complete monitoring reports is $1,000 per day per report. As stated in Finding No. 17 there were a total of 381 days of violations of the technical report requirements set forth in the C&A Order and, as stated in Finding No. 18 there were a total of 1,255 days of violations of the MRP. Therefore, the maximum administrative civil liability is $1,000 times 1,636 for a total liability of$1,636,000 under Water Code Section 13268. 26. There is no minimum administrative civil liability which can be imposed by the Regional Board under Water Code Section 13268. CIVIL LIABILITY 27. The Discharger avoided the cost of timely construction of wastewater treatment and disposal system improvements that, according to the Discharger's technical reports, would have included, but may not be limited to, construction of a 114-million gallon storage reservoir. Therefore, there was an economic incentive to violate the C&A Order. 28. On 25 March 2002, pursuant to the Executive Officer's request, the Discharger submitted an analysis of the economic benefit it obtained by continuing to violate the WDRs after the C&A Order was issued. The analysis ostensibly showed that the Discharger experienced a negative economic benefit (i.e., the Discharger lost money). However, the Discharger's analysis was not supported by documentation of expenses or business losses, and staff disagrees with parts of the assessment methodology. Using the unsupported cost data provided by the Discharger, staff determined that the Discharger saved at least $0.0001 (0.01 cents)per gallon of wastewater in operation and maintenance costs and as much as $65,000 by deferring construction of the storage pond. The Discharger reportedly discharged a total of 197.5 million gallons between 17 November 2000 and 25 January 2002. Therefore, staff estimates that the Discharger realized a cost savings of approximately$84,750 ($19,750 plus $65,000). 29. As a result of the events and activities described in this Order, the Regional Board finds that the Discharger has caused or permitted waste to be discharged in such a manner that it has created, and continues to threaten to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance. The Regional Board also finds that the Discharger is discharging waste in violation of WDRs Order No. 97-037, and in violation of C&A Order No. 5-00-717.