Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation Sample Clauses

Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation. When there is a discharge, the Central Valley Water Board is to determine an initial liability amount on a per gallon basis using the Potential for Harm score and the Deviation from Requirement of the violation. Deviation from Requirement The Deviation from the Requirement is either Minor, Moderate, or Major. Water Code section 13376 and Clean Water Act section 301 prohibit unauthorized discharge of waste to waters of the United States. The discharge alleged here rendered this requirement ineffective in its essential function of protecting water quality and represents a Major Deviation from the Requirement.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation. When there is a discharge, the Central Valley Water Board is to determine an initial liability amount on a per gallon basis using the Potential for Harm score and the Extent of Deviation from Requirement of the violation. A Potential for Harm Score of 7 was determined in Step 1. In this case, the Central Valley Water Board finds the Extent of Deviation from Requirement is “major”. The Statewide General Order prohibits any SSO that results in a discharge of raw sewage to waters of the United States. Therefore, when the Discharger discharged 465,227 gallons of untreated sewage which reached surface waters, it rendered this prohibition ineffective. Table 1 of the 2017 Enforcement Policy (p. 14) is used to determine a per gallon factor based on the total score from Step 1 and the level of Deviation from Requirement. For this particular case, the factor is 0.41. This value of 0.41 is multiplied by the volume of discharge and the days of discharge, as described below. The 2017 Enforcement Policy allows for a reduction from the maximum penalty amount of $10 per gallon when the discharge is over 100,000 gallons and considered high volume. The 2 February 2019 spill incident discussed in this violation was 465,227 gallons and is considered “high volume” based on the total gallons discharged. In order to facilitate the settlement of this matter, the Prosecution Team has determined that a reduction to $1 per gallon is appropriate in this case. Water Code section 13385(c)(2) states that the civil liability amount is to be based on the number of gallons discharged but not cleaned up, over 1,000 gallons for each spill event. Of the 465,227 gallons spilled, a total of 464,227 gallons were discharged in excess of 1,000 gallons into waters of the United States. The Per Gallon Assessment is as follows:
Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation. When there is a discharge, the Central Valley Water Board is to determine an initial liability amount on a per gallon basis using the Potential for Harm score and the Extent of Deviation from Requirement of the violation. The Potential for Harm Score was determined in Step 1, and is 7. In this case, the Central Valley Water Board finds the Extent of Deviation from Requirement is “major.” The Statewide General Order prohibits any SSO that results in a discharge of raw sewage to waters of the United States. Table 1 of the 2010 Enforcement Policy (p. 14) is used to determine a “per gallon factor” based on the total score from Step 1 and the level of Deviation from Requirement. For this particular case, the factor is 0.31. This value of 0.31 is multiplied by the volume of discharge and the days of discharge, as described below. The 2010 Enforcement Policy allows for a reduction from the maximum penalty amount of $10 per gallon when the discharge is considered high volume. The 2-12 January 2017 spill incident discussed in this violation was 2,690,000 gallons and is considered “high volume” based on the total gallons discharged. Through the course of settlement negotiations, the Parties have determined that a reduction to $1 per gallon is appropriate in this matter for violations 1 through 4. Combined, the City discharged a total of 2,788,310 to waters of the United States as alleged herein. Therefore, the Parties agreed that the overall liability due to the high volume discharged, was inappropriate given the circumstances absent a reduction to the per gallon penalty. Specifically, the Prosecution Team acknowledges that the City is a small community with a financial hardship and that significant upgrades, as discussed in the Stipulated Order, are ongoing to upgrade the City’s sanitary sewer collection system and wastewater treatment plant. These upgrades will bring the City’s facilities into compliance with state requirements and will prevent future discharges to surface waters from the City. In light of these equitable considerations, a per gallon penalty of $1 is applied to all violation alleged herein. Water Code section 13385(c)(2) states that the civil liability amount is to be based on the number of gallons discharged but not cleaned up, over 1,000 gallons for each spill event. Of the 2,690,000 gallons spilled, a total of 2,689,000 gallons were discharged in excess of 1,000 gallons into waters of the United States. The Per Gallon Assessment is as follows:
Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation. Consistent with the Enforcement Policy (p. 13), the Prosecution Team considered “whether to assess both per gallon and per day penalties” and determined that any penalty consistent with prior orders and settlements resolving discharges of potable water would be in excess of $6 million. The Prosecution Team posited that a penalty over a million dollars would be excessive given the circumstances of the discharge. Rather than manipulate the Enforcement Policy factors by selecting factors that would not be appropriate or consistent with other discharges, or adjusting the discharge volume, the Prosecution Team elected to proceed with a daily penalty rather than with a daily and volumetric penalty. Therefore, the per-gallon assessment for the alleged discharge violation was not considered in this assessment.
Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation. When there is a discharge, the Central Valley Water Board is to determine an initial liability amount on a per gallon basis using the Potential for Harm score and the Extent of Deviation from Requirement of the violation. The Potential for Harm Score was determined in Step 1, and is 7. In this case, the Central Valley Water Board finds the Extent of Deviation from Requirement is “moderate” because the WDRs prohibit any sanitary sewer overflow that results in a discharge of raw sewage to waters of the United States. Table 1 of the Enforcement Policy (p. 14) is used to determine a “per gallon factor” based on the total score from Step 1 and the level of Deviation from Requirement. For this particular case, the factor is 0.20. This value of 0.20 is multiplied by the volume of discharge and the days of discharge, as described below. The Enforcement Policy allows for a reduction in the maximum penalty amount of $10 per gallon for high volume discharges. Although the Discharger probably recovered a portion of spill, it is not possible to determine the exact volume that remained in the environment and Board staff is using the full volume in the penalty calculation. The 17- 19 October 2015 spill incident of 188,125 gallons is considered “high volume” based on the total gallons discharged and therefore reduction to $2/gallon has been applied in this case. CWC section 13385(c)(2) states that the civil liability amount is to be based on the number of gallons discharged but not cleaned up3, over 1,000 gallons for each spill event. Of the 188,125 gallons spilled, a total of 187,125 gallons were discharged in excess of 1,000 gallons into waters of the United States. The Per Gallon Assessment is as follows:
Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation. When there is a discharge, the Central Valley Water Board is to determine an initial liability amount on a per gallon basis using the Potential for Harm score and the Extent of Deviation from Requirement of the violation. The Potential for Harm Score was determined in Step 1, and is 6. In this case, the Central Valley Water Board finds the Extent of Deviation from Requirement is “minor” because the Discharger’s general intent is to follow the WDRs. Table 1 of the Enforcement Policy (p. 14) is used to determine a “per gallon factor” based on the total score from Step 1 and the level of Deviation from Requirement. For this particular case, the factor is 0.08. California Water Code section 13350(a) states that a person in violation of a waste discharge requirement is civilly liable. CWC section 13350(e)(1)(B) states that the civil liability calculated on for a per gallon basis shall not exceed $10 for each gallon of waste discharged. Therefore, a civil liability of $10/gallon has been applied in this case. CWC section 13385(c)(2) states that the civil liability amount is to be based on the number of gallons discharged but not cleaned up, over 1,000 gallons for each spill event. As shown on Attachment A, a total of 12,088 gallons were discharged in excess of 1,000 gallons and not cleaned up. The Per Gallon Assessment is calculated as on a per-gallon basis is as follows:

Related to Per Gallon Assessment for Discharge Violation

  • DISCHARGE, SUSPENSION AND DISCIPLINE 14.01 (a) In the event an Employee is suspended as a disciplinary measure and the Employee considers that an injustice has been done, the matter may be taken up at Step 2 of the Grievance Procedure.

  • Discharge Grievance (a) An employee shall only be discharged from the employment for just cause, except that an employee who has not completed the probationary period may be released based on a fair and proper assessment against reasonable standards of performance and suitability. An allegation of action contrary to this clause may be taken up as a grievance. As a good labour relations practice, the Home agrees to provide written reasons within seven (7) calendar days to the affected employee in the case of discharge or suspension.

  • Reasonable Cause Testing Reasonable cause for testing is a belief that an employee is under the influence of a drug and/or alcohol based on specific facts and/or reasonable inferences derived from those facts. An observing supervisor shall describe and document the following: -Specific observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech or performance of the employee; and/or -Violation of safety rule or other unsafe work incident which, after investigation, leads the supervisor(s) to believe that drug and/or alcohol use may be a contributing factor; and/or -Other physical, circumstantial or immediate indicators of drug and/or alcohol use.

  • Notice of Criminal Activity and Disciplinary Actions a. Xxxxxxx shall immediately report in writing to their contract manager when Xxxxxxx has knowledge or any reason to believe that they or any person with ownership or controlling interest in the organization/business, or their agent, employee, contractor or volunteer that is providing services under this Contract has:

  • DISCHARGE, SUSPENSION AND WARNING 21.01 When the attitude or performance of an employee calls for a warning by the Employer, such a warning shall be documented, and a copy of this warning will be forwarded immediately to the regional office of the Union.

  • Responsibility for Environmental Contamination 5.20.1 Neither Party shall be liable to the other for any costs whatsoever resulting from the presence or release of any Environmental Hazard that either Party did not introduce to the affected Work Location. Both Parties shall defend and hold harmless the other, its officers, directors and employees from and against any losses, damages, claims, demands, suits, liabilities, fines, penalties and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) that arise out of or result from (i) any Environmental Hazard that the Indemnifying Party, its contractors or agents introduce to the Work Locations or (ii) the presence or release of any Environmental Hazard for which the Indemnifying Party is responsible under Applicable Law.

  • Reasonable Suspicion Testing The Employer may, but does not have a legal duty to, request or require an employee to undergo drug and alcohol testing if the Employer or any supervisor of the employee has a reasonable suspicion (a belief based on specific facts and rational inferences drawn from those facts) related to the performance of the job that the employee:

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.