SU0002185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

G U , s STAFF REPORT,Item 15 -2- CEASE AND DESIST ORDER AND CWC 13308 ORDER MUSCO OLIVE PRODUCTS AND THE STUDLEY COMPANY SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY incomplete and did not contain all the required information. Staff determined that the Discharger needed to submit one comprehensive plan for bringing its facility into compliance with its current WDRs before revised WDRs could be drafted that would allow an increase in flow or loading rates. In September 2000, the Discharger was informed that the technical reports were incomplete and that a Cleanup and Abatement (C&A) Order was in preparation. During an October 2000xmeeting, the Discharger stated that CEQA issues would not delay construction of a proposed 72 million gallon storage pond, and that the pond would be constructed by mid-December 2000. The Discharger subsequently contacted the San Joaquin County Building Department and learned that it would need to complete the appropriate CEQA documents before it could construct the pond. Due to Musco's lack of voluntary cooperation in bringing the site into compliance with the WDRs, the Executive Officer issued C&A Order No. 5-00-717 on 17 November 2000. The C&A requires a number of items. The Discharger was to immediately comply with specified Prohibitions and Specifications of its WDRs, including ceasing the discharge of wastewater to surface waters, ceasing the discharge wastewater of to land during rain events, and complying with the BOD and DIS loading rates. The Discharger was also to submit a number of reports (including a winter contingency plan, stormwater sampling plan, hydrogeologic investigation, soil quality investigation, cropping plan, and a long term storage/facility improvement plan). The C&A also required that all facility improvements be completed by 1 November 2001. While Musco has submitted the reports, it has not completed the facility improvements and still remains in serious non-compliance with its WDRs. Current Violations Staff conducted an aerial inspection of the facility on 11 October 2001 and an on-site inspection on 2 November 2001. In addition, the case file and monitoring reports were carefully reviewed. Numerous violations of the WDRs and C&A were found, and on 30 November 2001 a Notice of Violation was transmitted to the Discharger. The NOV informed the Discharger that staff was preparing an enforcement order for the Board to consider at its 25 January 2002 meeting. A complete listing of the violations of WDRs No. 97-037 are found in Findings No.12 through 15 of the proposed C&D Order, and are summarized below: • A review of the self-monitoring reports from January 2000 through September 2001 shows that daily flow discharged to land ranges from 8,610 to 1,616,927 gpd, and that the WDR's limit of 500,000 gpd was exceeded 47% of the time. It should also be noted that Musco does not use a flow meter to determine its flow rate. Instead, the daily production water usage is noted, as well as a monthly freeboard measurement in the Class II ponds. This data is used to estimate the daily flow to land. Musco was recently issued a revised Monitoring and Reporting Program and directed to install sufficient flow meters by 1 February 2002 to determine the land application flow rate. • A review of the self-monitoring reports from January 2000 through September 2001 shows that the DIS concentrations range from 812 to 3,712 mg/l,with an average concentration of 2,421 mg/l.