My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2008-2015
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PACIFIC
>
0
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0506203
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2008-2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/31/2020 3:00:55 PM
Creation date
3/31/2020 2:41:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
FileName_PostFix
2008-2015
RECORD_ID
PR0506203
PE
2960
FACILITY_ID
FA0007271
FACILITY_NAME
LINCOLN CNTR ENV REMEDIATION TRUST
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
PACIFIC
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95207
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
PACIFIC AVE
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
184
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Alex MacDonald • <br /> 2 . 20 November 2008 <br /> The Discharger requested that we consider the 5-year statute of limitations under the Clean <br /> Water Act and the 3-year statute of limitations contained in the California Code of Civil <br /> 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 <br /> of administrative proceeding, because it is solely a limitation on commencing civil actions in a <br /> court of law. <br /> The violations were not deleted from the list of violations subject to mandatory minimum <br /> penalties. <br /> Comment No. 4 — Anomalously Low Permit Discharge Limits <br /> The Discharger contends that the permit discharge limits are anomalously low, set at the <br /> analytical detection limit for PCE. Thus, when the compound is first detected, the discharge <br /> has already exceeded the limitation, and there is no ability to affect a remedy to ensuring the <br /> limitation is not exceeded. <br /> It is inappropriate to make this argument at this time. The permit for the GET System was <br /> developed in conjunction with the Discharger, and was not challenged at the time it was <br /> issued. The permit remains valid. <br /> The violations were not deleted from the list of violations subject to mandatory minimum <br /> penalties. <br /> Comment No. 5 — 2004 System Inspection & 2005 Permit Reissue <br /> The Discharger contends that a detailed inspection of the system was conducted in 2004 at <br /> which time there were no violations noted. Updating and reissuing the permit to the Trust in <br /> October 2005 followed the inspection. The first six violations listed in Attachment A are all <br /> violations under a permit that was rescinded three years ago, and thus penalties should not be <br /> imposed. <br /> Permit renewal does not extinguish past violations. The violations were not deleted from the <br /> list of violations subject to mandatory minimum penalties. <br /> Summary <br /> The total number of Group II Serious Violations is 6. <br /> The violation that was deleted from the list of violations subject to mandatory minimum <br /> penalties (Violation #7) was a non-serious violation that did not result in a penalty assessment. <br /> Therefore, despite removing this violation, the ACL remains at $18,000. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.