COMPLIANCE INFO - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DRAFT Staff Report -8- Administrative Civil Liability Complaint Rodney and Gayla Schatz dba Mokelumne Rim Vineyards San Joaquin County - The lack of a liner in the wastewater pond will allow wastewater to percolate to groundwater below the pond. A low permeability soil liner was described in the 31 July 2001 RWD. Similar situations in other wineries have resulted in groundwater quality degradation. - The Discharger has not installed groundwater monitoring wells as required by the WDRs. Failure to monitor the groundwater quality in combination with the lack of any liner in the wastewater pond increases the possiblity that groundwater quality degradation will occur and continue undetected. - The Discharger has failed to submit complete technical reports as required by the WDRs. These reports are considered important for facilities such as this that are operated by persons not trained in wastewater treatment processes. The documents should be a resource that the discharger can refer to when operation or maintenance issues arise with the wastewater system. In addition, when selecting chemicals to be used at a facility, such documents as the Salintiy Reduction Study can help to guide a discharger in chosing chemicals that better protect water quality. - The Dischager has not completed improvements to the land application area. These improvements are necessary to ensure that the applied wastewater remains within the permitted area and does not enter surface waters. Ability to Pay/Continue in Business The Discharger has indicated that it is a small business with limited resources. This factor was considered in setting the liability. Voluntary Cleanup Efforts Undertaken This ACL Order addresses failure to submit technical reports and, therefore, this factor is not relevant. However, the Discharger is still required to submit the technical reports to comply with the WDRs. Degree of Culpability The Discharger is responsible for the making improvments to the wastewater system and submitting technical reports required by the WDRs, and is culpable for the violations cited. Staff has spent a significant amount of time attempting to work cooperatively with the Discharger in this matter, including meeting with the Discharger prior to adoption of the WDRs to explain the proposed requirements in detail. When the Discharger failed to meet some of the requirements of the WDRs, staff did not initially propose an ACL Complaint but provided written and verbal warnings of the potential for an ACL. The Discharger was provided written notification of the possibility of an ACL on 30 August 2004 and 23 August 2005 and was provided verbal notification on 27 January 2005 and 23 August 2005. In response to the 27 January 2005 telephone conversation on lack of compliance, Mr. Schultz prepared a 28 January 2005 letter stating, "We fully understand the need to get our reporting on track. We will also continue to work with our engineer to install the test wells in a timely manner..." Staff notes that as of the date of preparation of the ACLC, the Discharger has not installed the groundwater monitoring wells. Economic Savings By failing to submit the required complete reports, the Discharger has realized an economic savings in delaying the expenditure of funds necessary to complete the required technical reports and any needed W*.%tafllObfienTSan loaquin\Mokelm—Rim ViwyvdsVACL Sept OSStaff ReporLDOC