Culpability. The University and the Association agree that a staff member’s performance problems may be culpable (with blame) or non-culpable (without blame) in nature or may involve both culpable and non-culpable elements.
Culpability. The Enforcement Policy specifies that higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. It specifies use of a multiplier between 0.5 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional or negligent behavior.
Culpability. The Discharger constructed a Reverse Osmosis (RO) Plant to remove salt from its domestic water supply, provide higher quality drinking water to the inmates, and produce a higher quality effluent discharge from the Facility. When the RO Plant is not operational or not operating at its optimal condition, constituents that pose a concern to water quality are discharged in concentrations that the Facility cannot properly treat. In a letter from Siemens’ project manager, Siemens observed in 2011 that debris that had been accumulating on the membrane bioreactor (MBR) modules. Siemens cautioned CDCR that the lack of maintenance and cleaning of the membranes could have damaged the membranes and reduced its long term integrity. Trash and debris was again observed during a 25 January 2013 inspection by a service technician. In a letter from Evoquo Water Technologies dated 24 July 2014, CDCR was once again cautioned that the membranes collected trash and debris. The lack of operation of the RO plant, coupled with the lack of proper cleaning of the membranes, have caused the modules to lose efficiency over a period of years, and eventually, the modules can no longer be cleaned sufficiently to properly operate. A higher culpability factor is appropriate because CDCR was aware of the risk of not properly maintaining the membrane bioreactor modules and chose not to employ adequate measures and processes to prevent the accumulation of trash and debris which likely severely impaired the functionality and effectiveness of the membranes. The compromised membranes prevented CDCR from adequately treating its wastewater thereby resulting in pollution to Xxxxx Drain. A factor of 1.3 is conservatively applied. The Regional Board Prosecution Team has engaged in several meetings with CDCR to discuss compliance, however, this compliance assistance process has been insufficient. CDCR staff expressed the desire to comply contending that they “have taken every step necessary to correct the deficiency.” (see Letter from Xxxx Xxxxx dated January 28 2016). However, CDCR has not complied with key requirements and actions in the CAO which were prescribed to improve its wastewater treatment system. Despite the numerous attempts to work cooperatively with CDCR, the Discharger continues to pollute Xxxxx Drain by discharging wastewater that contains constituents which exceed the mandatory limits protective of Xxxxx Drain’s beneficial uses. A factor of 1.2 is conservatively applied.
Culpability. This factor considers a discharger’s degree of culpability prior to the violation. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. The test for whether a discharger is negligent is what a reasonable and prudent person would have done or not done under similar circumstances. Under the 2017 Enforcement Policy, the culpability multiplier ranges between 0.75 and 1.5, with a higher multiplier for intentional misconduct and gross negligence. A neutral assessment of 1.0 should be used when a discharger is determined to have acted as a reasonable and prudent person would have. As a reasonable and prudent person would have ensured that their project followed all applicable regulations for construction sites, including installation of BMPs to protect storm inlets such as a gravel bag berm or fiber roll barrier. Therefore, a multiplier of 1.2 is assigned, as the Discharger did not act as a reasonable and prudent person would have.
Culpability. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. A multiplier between 0.5 and 1.5 is used, with a higher multiplier for negligent behavior.
Culpability. Violation 8: 1.4 A multiplier of 1.4 is assigned for this violation because the Discharger knew of the requirement and failed to effectively address the deficiency onsite. The Discharger submitted and certified SWPPPs via SMARTS on March 25, 2015 on April 30, 2019. Each SWPPP stated that designated waste collection areas would be selected on-site, that there would be an adequate number of containers with lids or covers, and that trash would be collected on a daily basis, especially during windy conditions. The SWPPPs also stated that solid waste would be removed as often as practical, and that trash receptacles would be secured. Additionally, each SWPPP referenced the requirements of Attachment C, Section B.2.f to contain and securely protect stockpiled waste material and provided BMPs to fulfill the requirement. BMPs identified in Section 3.2 Good Site Management “Housekeeping” of the Site’s SWPPPs were material delivery and storage, stockpile management, solid waste management, spill prevention and control, and concrete waste management. QSP BMP inspection reports on February 7 and 20, 2019 stated that the front, which has been interpreted to be the north side of the Site, was very messy. The BMP inspection reports from March 14, and 27, 2019 stated that there were no functioning BMPs at the Site and that the northern perimeter of the Site looked terrible and was totally unacceptable, requiring cleanup. The Discharger was therefore aware of requirement to conduct good housekeeping practices. On April 9, 2019 Regional Water Board staff conducted a non-filer inspection at the Site and observed construction waste materials including plastic, brick, cardboard, loose sediment, and dried concrete and stucco throughout the Site. BMPs were not observed around waste materials. Such materials were located by a perimeter chain linked fence that did not have perimeter controls to prevent potential discharge of wastes to stormwater. On April 11, 2019, the Project Superintendent emailed photographs showcasing areas where cleanup activities were conducted including an unprotected wastes stockpile at the Site. The QSP’s July 15, 2019 BMP inspection report reported that the northern side of the Site, facing Beach Avenue, continued to be absent of BMPs and was still very messy. During the Regional Water Board inspection on July 16, 2019, Regional Water Board staff observed poor housekeeping practices of construction materials throughout the northern, eastern, and western ...
Culpability. An unplanned discharge by its very nature should be considered a non-negligent discharge except when Cal Water, or its agent(s), took action or failed to act in a manner that caused or exacerbated the unplanned discharge.
Culpability. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. A multiplier between 0.5 and 1.5 is used, with a higher multiplier for negligent behavior. For the violation, the culpability multiplier is 1.2, because Cal Water did not exercise reasonable care in reacting to a pressure drop it detected on October 25, 2013, the first day of the discharge. The discharge continued until a Cal Water operator noticed water surfacing through the road bed on Xxxxxxxx Road and took actions to stop and fix the problem. At least one Cal Water inspector failed to observe the discharge during inspections between October 25 and October 28. Moreover, Cal Water’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system had sent notifications to its operators and managers of a suction pressure drop for pump MPS 26 beginning on October 25, 2013, at or around 11:51 p.m. Despite this notification, Cal Water did not thoroughly investigate the cause of the pressure drop and instead stated that it attributed the pressure drop to algae clogging meter screens on the supply line owned and operated by the SFPUC. Cal Water provided no evidence to support that this was a reasonable assumption to make at the time. Cal Water also did not consult with SFPUC staff at the time about its suspicion of algal growth or screen clogging within the SFPUC supply system3. Evidence shows that Cal Water staff did not contact SFPUC until October 28, 2013, after it discovered the discharge (based on Cal Water’s June 14, 2014, additional information report). SFPUC then sent crews to inspect its own system on the same day it received a call from Cal Water and found no problem within SFPUC’s system and communicated its findings to Cal Water crews working to repair the broken pipeline at the shoulder of Xxxxxxxx Road.
Culpability. The Discharger has a minor degree of culpability. This assessment is based on the fact that the Discharger had no knowledge that the laboratory it had been using was not properly certified. Therefore, the Prosecution Team assigned a culpability factor is 0.5.
Culpability. Higher liabilities should result from intentional or negligent violations as opposed to accidental violations. A multiplier between 0.75 and 1.5 is to be used, with a higher multiplier for intentional or negligent behavior. The Discharger was given the score of 1.3 for the culpability factor. It is the Discharger’s responsibility to be aware of, and to comply with, the reporting requirements of the Mountain Station WDRs. The Regional Water Board expects dischargers to work with their consultants in order to ensure that monitoring requirements are met. Despite knowledge of the regulatory requirements, the Discharger failed to come into compliance by submitting timely monitoring reports.
