SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2005-CURRENT

Home Browse Search

ADMINISTRATIVE CIVII.Z ILITY COMPLAINT NO.R5-2005-9 -3- CITY OF MANTECA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY 5. CWC Section 133850)provides exceptions to the assessment of mandatory penalties required by CWC Section 13385(h) and (i). CWC Section 133850) states, in part, the following: "(j) Subdivisions (h) and(i) do not apply to any of the following: "(3)A violation of an effluent limitation where the waste discharge is in compliance with either a cease and desist order issued pursuant to Section 13301 or a time schedule order issued pursuant to Section 13300 or Section 13308... " (emphasis added) 6. On 19 March 2004, pursuant to CWC Section 13301, the Regional Board adopted Cease and Desist Order(CDO) No. R5-2004-0029, which was subsequently amended by Resolution No. R5-2004-0142 on 26 July 2004. Pursuant to CWC Section 133856), while the Discharger is in compliance with CDO No. R5-2004-0029, violations of Effluent Limitations 13.1 through B.3 for aluminum, arsenic, copper, cyanide, electrical conductivity, iron, manganese, MBAS, nitrate, and nitrite contained in WDR Order No. R5-2004-0028 are exempt from the assessment of mandatory penalties. 7. As of 1 September 2004, the Discharger failed to comply with the time schedule to assure compliance with Effluent Limitations B.1 through B.3 for arsenic, copper, cyanide, iron, manganese, and MBAS required in CDO No. R5-2004-0029. Therefore, violations of Effluent Limitations B.1 through B.3 for arsenic, copper, cyanide, iron, manganese, and MBAS contained in WDR Order No. R5-2004-0028, occurring on or after 1 September 2004, are not exempt from the assessment of mandatory penalties. 8. On 25 June 2004, the Discharger was issued Administrative Civil Liability Complaint (ACLC)No. R5-2004-0829 assessing mandatory penalties pursuant to CWC Section 13385(h). The mandatory penalties were assessed based on 35 effluent violations occurring between 1 January 2000 and 31 March 2004. One of the violations has since been determined to not be subject to mandatory penalties, which would require the ACLC to be amended. The Discharger has not paid the liability to the State Water Pollution Clean Up and Abatement Account. Instead, the Discharger has proposed a supplemental environmental project,which has not been approved by the Regional Board. This complaint rescinds ACLC No. R5-2004-0829 and incorporates the amended assessment of mandatory penalties for effluent violations occurring from 1 January 2000 through 31 January 2005. 9. According to monitoring reports submitted by the Discharger, the Discharger committed seventy-four(74) serious violations during the period beginning 1 January 2000 and ending on 31 January 2005. The mandatory penalty for these serious violations is $222,000. 10. According to monitoring reports submitted by the Discharger, the Discharger also committed sixty-six (66)violations of effluent limitations that were not considered