Violation 1 definition

Violation 1. The culpability multiplier is decreased at 0.9. A lower culpability is appropriate because the discharge resulted due to a heavy storm event (i.e., up to 4.5 inches of rainfall in 36 hours), which was the second wettest December on record for the San Xxxx area, causing electrical failure to one of the two new crusher sump pumps, and the single pump was unable to keep up with the storm runoff inflow. The storm runoff also inundated a power pole, which caused a safety hazard. Lehigh temporarily shut off the power to the entire area to prevent the live power lines from striking the ground should the power pole fall.

Violation 1. The culpability multiplier is 1.3 because CalAtlantic submitted a notice of intent to comply with the Permit and was aware of Permit Attachment D, section A.1.b, which requires the discharger to “…minimize or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges through the use of controls, structures, and management practices….” CalAtlantic did not take reasonable and prudent actions to prepare the Site for the 2018/2019 wet season and ensure that stormwater discharges from the first rainstorm were not polluted. This is the third consecutive year that the Site was inadequately prepared for the first rains. Water Board staff had many discussions with CalAtlantic about reducing sediment-laden runoff over the two prior wet seasons, as discussed further below for violations 2 through 4. Violations 2 through 4: The culpability multiplier is 1.2 because CalAtlantic submitted a notice of intent to comply with the Permit and was aware of requirements in Attachment D, sections D.2 and E.1 through E.3, for soil cover in inactive areas (Violation 2), perimeter controls (Violation 3), and erosion and sediment controls for active areas (Violation 4). CalAtlantic did not take reasonable and prudent actions to prepare the Site for the 2018/2019 wet season, failing to install or maintain adequate erosion and sediment controls. Water Board staff had many discussions with CalAtlantic Settlement Agreement and Stipulated Administrative Civil Liability Exhibit A CalAtlantic Group, Inc. about installing and maintaining effective erosion and sediment controls, including letters about erosion and sediment control violations during the 2016/2017 and the 2017/2018 wet seasons. Communications included notices of violations and inspection reports dated October 14, 2016, April 26, 2017, July 26, 2017, and May 30, 2018; discussions during field inspections with CalAtlantic and ENGEO personnel; and meetings over the course of the three wet seasons.

Violation 1. The Regional Board alleges that Xxxxxx violated Construction General Permit Attachment D, Provision E.3 by not installing erosion control Best Management Practices (BMPs) in active construction areas during rain events. The violations occurred over a period of 8 days during rain events between 25 March 2014 and 25 April 2014.

Examples of Violation 1 in a sentence

• This Agreement provides for the resolution of Count 1, Systemic Violation 1 of Plaintiffs’ complaint filed in the Case (Dkt.

• The statutory maximum for Violation 1 is $85,087,900 based on two days of violation and a discharge of 8,507,790 gallons.

• The Deviation from Requirement is major, for the same reasons as described in Violation 1.

• As described for Violation 1, the discharge of untreated wastewater poses an above-moderate risk to human or aquatic receptors and therefore warrants a factor of 3 (above moderate).

• Total Base Liability Amount: Violation 1 $6,821,432 x 1.3 x 1.0 x 0.8 = $7,094,289 VIOLATION 2: Remaining Category 1 Spills From January 25, 2018 through September 6, 2022 Between January 25, 2018 and September 6, 2022, the Discharger reported 13 sanitary sewer overflows8 of untreated wastewater that entered surface waters.

• The Per Gallon Assessment and the Per Day Assessment are added together to become the initial liability amount for Violation 1.

• Violation 1 took place on December 30-31, 2021, and is the discharge of over eight million gallons of untreated wastewater to the Xxxxxxxxx Channel Estuary, a water of the United States.

• Moderate is assigned when “the chemical and/or physical characteristics of the discharged material have some level of toxicity or pose a moderate level of concern regarding receptor protection.” Violation 1: The discharge consisted of TSS up to 7,100 mg/L (i.e., about 30 times higher than the 240 mg/L interim effluent limit) and turbidity over 1,000 NTU, which is slightly higher than the 920 NTU interim effluent limit.

• Steps 1-4: Total Base Liability for Violation #1 $11,200 The base liability is calculated as the initial liability multiplied by each of the above three factors.

• Violation 1 – Failure to Provide Secondary Containment, One Count 3.26.

More Definitions of Violation 1

Violation 1. The culpability multiplier is increased at 1.2. Polluted storm runoff occurred because MDI did not implement and/or improperly implemented the BMPs described in its approved SWPPP for the Maritime Facility, despite being informed of BMP requirements and receiving multiple notices from Regional Water Board staff. On the days of discharge, there were large piles of bark, wood debris, and soil throughout the site. Silt fencing was not installed at all the locations described in the SWPPP, and it was not anchored into the ground where it was installed. Straw wattles and sandbags were not installed at all the locations described in the SWPPP, and straw wattles and sandbags that were installed were out of place and not effective at controlling or filtering stormwater flowing off the site. A rocky egress was installed but the amount of wood bark waste and associated debris that mixed with and covered the rocks, rendered the rocky egress ineffective. BMPs were installed ineffectively at all storm drain inlets at the site and turbid stormwater was flowing into all storm drain inlets at the site. Additionally, prior to the December 11 and 19, 2014, discharges, Regional Water Board staff inspected the MDI facility and worked with MDI staff during September and October 2014 to help ensure that the SWPPP for the site was sufficient to comply with 1997 General Permit requirements. Despite Regional Water Board staff’s efforts to work with MDI to develop an adequate SWPPP, MDI failed to properly implement the approved SWPPP. The SWPPP lists the removal of bark as an existing BMP. During the December 2014 inspections, Regional Water Board and Prosecution Team staff documented the substantial amount of wood debris and bark throughout the MDI site. Regional Water Board staff provided sufficient information and assistance to MDI staff for MDI to understand that failure to implement the SWPPP would result in the discharge of polluted stormwater. Violations 2 and 3: The culpability multiplier is increased at 1.3 for both minimum BMP violations because MDI showed a willful indifference to complying with 2014 General Permit minimum BMP requirements. MDI stated it moved to the Murmansk Facility to be away from the drainage problems at the Maritime Facility. It also stated in its October 28, 2015, SWPPP that debarking activities would not occur at the Murmansk Facility. But MDI continued with its debarking operations and continued to inadequately implement and maintain BMPs despite...

Violation 1. The Prosecution Team alleges that the City violated Discharge Prohibition III.A of WDRs R5-2014-0007 by discharging wastewater at a location or manner different from that described within the WDRs. This violation occurred when the City bypassed the filtration and UV disinfection portions of the Facility.