Laserfiche WebLink
California&,gional Water Quality Conol Board <br /> \� <br /> Central Valley Region <br /> Karl E. Longley,SCD,P.E.,Chair "'�" ` <br /> Linda S.Adams Arnold <br /> SecretaryforSchwarzenegger <br /> Environmental 11020 Sun Center Drive#200,Rancho Cordova,California 95670-6114 Governor <br /> Protection Phone(916)464-3291 -FAX(916)464-4645 <br /> http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley <br /> TO: Patricia Leary, Senior Engineer FROM: Barry Hilton, WRCE <br /> NPDES Compliance and Enforcement NPDETCpliancent <br /> an E r eme <br /> DATE: 14 August 2008 SIGNATURE: <br /> SUBJECT: CITY OF LODI, WHITE SLOUGH WATER POLLUTION CONT OL FACILITY <br /> On 15 May 2008, the Regional Water Board sent the City of Lodi, White Slough WWTP <br /> (Discharger) a Notice of Violation and a draft Record of Violations for the period of 1 January 2000 <br /> through 31 December 2007. The Discharger responded by letter dated 16 June 2008. <br /> Statute of Limitations <br /> The Discharger requested that the Regional Water Board consider the 5-year statute of limitations <br /> under the Clean Water Act and the 3-year statute of limitations contained in the California Code of <br /> Civil Procedure, section 338. The former of these two statutes of limitation applies to actions by <br /> the federal government, and the latter of these statutes of limitation does not apply to this type of <br /> administrative proceeding. <br /> The Code section of which §338 is a part makes it clear that §338 applies only to time limits on the <br /> commencement of civil suits in the courts. §338 is a part of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of the Code of <br /> Civil Procedure, entitled "Of the Time of Commencing Civil Actions." The first section in Chapter 1 <br /> of Title 2 reads, in pertinent part, as follows: <br /> "§312. General Limitations, Special Cases. Civil actions, without exception, can only be <br /> commenced within the periods prescribed in this title..." <br /> It is clear from a mere reading of this language that Title 2 is intended to prescribe time periods for <br /> the bringing of civil law suits. This administrative complaint falls outside the scope of this section. <br /> (See also Bernd v. Eu (1979) 100 Cal.App.3d 511, 161 Cal.Rptr. 58; Rudolph v. Athletic <br /> Commission (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 1, 22, 1 Cal.Rptr. 898). <br /> Total Coliform Organisms <br /> Violations 2-4. The Discharger claimed a single operational upset (SOU). The Discharger stated <br /> that readjustments in its nitrification process resulted in violations of the coliform limitation. CWC <br /> 13385(f) protects the discharger from MMPs if the operational upset results in violations of one or <br /> more effluent limitations and also "But for the operational upset of the biological treatment process, <br /> the violations would not have occurred nor would they have continued for more than one day... <br /> [and]... the discharger carried out all reasonable and immediately feasible actions to reduce <br /> noncompliance..." The violations were coliform violations (daily), there were no other violations, <br /> the violations occurred on three different occasions over a period of three weeks. In my <br /> professional opinion, this was a failure to disinfect adequately. I retained the violations. This had <br /> no effect on the number of violations subject to MMPs because there were only 3 violations during <br /> a 180 day period. <br /> California Environmental Protection Agency <br /> ATTACHMENT B <br /> 0a Recycled Paper <br />