Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-04-22 91-181 ORDERDate 12-26L90 item No. 91-181 Item/Subject: Adoption of Enforcement Response Plan -- Industrial Pretreatment Program Responsible Department Legal Commentary: The attached Enforcement Response Plan for violations of the City of Bangor's Wastewater Pretreatment Ordinance has been submitted for adoption in accordance with EPA wastewater pretreatment program requirements, as explained in the attached extract from the Report of Woodard & Curran, the City's environmental consulting engineers, on the City's wastewater pretreatment program. The Enforcement Response Plan has been drawn verbatim from the plan proposed in the Woodard & Curran Report. Woodard & Curran, in tutor based their proposal for the City's plan on draft guidance received Prom the U.E. EPA. The sole change we have included is to substitute the figures $1,000 - $2,500 per day where the draft "Enforcement Response Guide" specifies penalties of $1,000 per day. This change is consistent with the Provisions of Maine's land use violations statute, 30-A M.R.E.A. 5 4452, and with proposed revisions to the City's wastewater pretreatment ordinance specifying maximum fines in the higher amount. Because this is proposed for adoption as a policy document implementing the existing wastewater pretreatment ordinance, as amended, a single reading only is required. F Q J� m oep"n.,, /hald� Manager's Comments: �L, _ ' �A . p®, l _ .,.1 L *p th 0 (.rut a, �oy.,,-04dl 490. a'ta"N�rN/uµs+_gl,,�,, g�- h��w.la.Qa d <a.a++ut �y �'•, .awMA oy..n�w�aA�udeud oa tt wm++w% W�uwew�Anea hms aeua Dawe ke boffin Gun%a�.Q t✓ta.a�&n d..� i a.ul'%Mr).�i.w uxR.Q aQ.aa ka p<i.Sw w 4� c. nDwRB Associated Informatiomp , 'M Budget Approval:N(} rme ee ore Legal Approval: - COY saudm. Introduced For ffiPassage L First Reading Page _of_ ❑Referral 91-181 Aedpedlo Comeflor Sazl, April 22, 1991 CITY OF BANGOR (p Ad pti 11 on of E n f I o I rcement Re apo Plan - i d st 1 Pretreatment Proq am By the My wil of de CUM ofBanwe - ..•.. �T the Enforcement Respmnse Plan, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is hereby adopted as the sequence of steps to be followed when dealing with industrial users who are out of compliance with the City of Bangor's industrial Pretreatment Ordinance. and be it further ORDERED, THAT the CitySolicitorand/or the Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent are hereby authorized, without further action of the Bangor City Council, to enforce said Plan in accordance with the provisions contained therein. In City Council April 22.1991 Passed [y Clexk 9l-lgl Adoption of Eafoxcenent Response Plan - Industrial Pretreacmen[ Pxogta 1 {1{ 4tS Ste EiviramvuUl Protection Agshcy wins flat all temicipal ienhtstrial pnet vt t pcvgrare develop an thfottm Resp;pse Plan in ac�tlarte with 1@A's Bffoscaoent guidance !@ental. Me purpose of this plan is to tlonamtt atoll deSirtsi, leg l y defahsible s� of steps to ba followed Mims dealing with .;at ar=ia who ate cut of ocvp .n with U City of Baigor's Ptelmm Ocditranrna. ' ese formal enforaasht Prorei a Much inclufe titre fxavas for sagnantial enfe 3hvnt actiop, will help t resolve sial cmnfusion bet Up City and its irvd.a'.iat users as to the avhsa of repeated or =tinning nat-cm=.t:....e mei six int®riai w somtce aNitsble t trent of all i..a.k.:.t users. EPA ragulet requite the City to fall specific enfoomment action apiast +^fi et.tet sewer users foo to be in w...� tent- ©gliance wen the prettm9oatt otai,hahre. mis Bnfosmumtt APapah� Plart tleEitps Hp oatlitiap uMer Much the City rept Cite a veer for sigtttifiCmat non-mipiianca mM lista appmp_'i++= e nfonmmtt neamres to ray such situations. EPA g� also require That ttp ssisosi enforcaoatt response be arm... xe t t of the pxetteatmst pmpmu violation.~ U s While a teleithone call to the i,Mnatry might be appuVriate for a latareport sulmissicah amore severe nspahse is neMal for a vents serious violation M , for amnLAe, migt include ret »lset of the txea4mnt plan musei by an : .0 theme l guideline basal ©rtoxemmt Mappose Plan will lowing ¢Cretin when assessing the appmpr ah3leSs of a P� teslrmset A. Metytfthmle of Ute violation; B. GRat of tip violation; C. Effect of Up violation at U is eiviml rater; D. Effx of the violation on Ute tronmsst plant; B. tsmit:...,e b;stax of the i..n„M.:nt tram:; F. Cnod faith effort ca Up lett of the us G. Tree t »ear's nespoosibility fon the violation. user; �V�110 1611 EPA iHluiSe9 tip City to idmRify irvF.ah Nal assts that are in significant nm-n*mt:anae wffi the xagufr®®nts of the fe i Pr sathsa progress tsgulatio s. Beets £marl to ba in sicytificant are subject t EPA amdetsd snforipia t action by the City, mi the anvpai .to: m.:.,,. of Um:. violatia s in the Area's largest nsaapaper. Palatal regulations define signifiiwttt 1i�o(S ) as violations which v at least ons of ' the C. Ste City will assess the appropriaterese Of the xttcnsmedd re3pYl£ee m celurn f}Itea. First offenders, or these ` daiionsltatLr4 good faith progress say merit a more lamed respome. Similarly, repeat or frequent offenders or Utose damistrutim negligence Y require a sura stringent response. *'•"'^ Cijudge Idea violation by seven additioal crit¢ia: (1) - Generally, as declared instaeon of iron can to mat with an interval respa se on a Ietrar of violation (ISN). lam, since even an isolaY 3 vlelatian could threat® public h to and the envaxsroent, damage public arca private property, or uneaten the integrity of &anger's lodu.«r+.a PretteasaR progmn (i.e., falsifying a self-vmitcrieg report, all f,mtancas of significant nan-complimmee will be resporred to widi an administrative ozder (AD) edurh reluvA= a retrace to compliance by a specific deadline. (2) maiden - vlolatlmrs, regardless of severity, � m Irba a war prolonged periods of then will subject the violator to escalated snfoirao®t actions. Moor violations which are d¢auc in nature ate one foss of ige f eRut len-®plianco and Will be dealt with tlaogh Ilse use of Administrative Orders ("). (3) effects on the nere+vim Water - Any violation whicle �n Lana Will be amt at a mEnim n With an a,e.;,.i strative order ad a fine. m.as..e ..ad bona will be presumed wismever an industrial ais"*=rge: (a) passes through tem G.ty treaLront plant; (b) is directly +_spow=:klua for causing a violation of ganger's MM pesdt, including its este[ quality standards; or (c) Has a toxic effect on tis receiving esters, such as a £iah kill. In addition, the response will be deseigued to recover ary t ES fines paid by rhe City which are tlm result of the imdus[ry's discharge. (4) Bf£ect on the PM - Any violation Laving a nalative .impact on the treatPOrt plant or collection systeen (sorh as incesassp treat®R casts, hays be 4onlrent plant personnel Or equipmnt, pips Corrosion, son.), which hinder tlm operation of Idea plant, or Which contaminates Id¢ plant's sludge thereby rducing sludge disposal options will be net with a fire on civil penalty as well as the recovery of Lone additional casts and espeses hwolvd. e.. I A. Violet of iMustzial vast mtei ascliax2a } unit limits; (1) Ceaonic vinlatiam - arty fx Pert or more of the if a Parmieiar limit ox tM1e avenge limit ina six ma:dr pazim. (a:g. mrgnih of ezc�asJ. (2) ndrty-threa t or none of the li�se pava�iex naasur�®tFs in a six north Period Beard the vaxinvm� limit t the average limit by offer p fn thm� 408 MD, 155, fats, oils or grease; or by 208 fox all olluur nn". (3) A:ry otl r violatiais of effluent ararclanL, (average ox aeximmi) that the s _�t helieres has musai azmie or In mrbi;atian with oiler disclary , interfermm with the bml t Plan Pmcreaea, Pass-thrcugh; or mxbngaxai aerage treatmalt Praysel t the P+ C. (4) Arty disrhaige of a _ ti rant Leat las rausad inmviaa arlangammt to bumx t�itNwelfan and to the arvixmmv:t avd bas +�•lted in the txeatmat PI is ew_n:.ise of itsauthnity to Mlt a lmevart such a dlschr . B. Violatto;m of mry soap ...n sCAalule milestaes �lFsi� in an for starting mnc..... m, mgdet+ �stty tion, and at♦a+^ fiord rwPitance by 90 days oxvore afTx the schaWle'date. C. k4flure to Pravlde rep % fox ccgp� solmdules, eelf-nw:itariW data, t mtegwiC shmdards (baseline re reports) vn'XeP 30, 90� yc 3ie m rTs, amt Periodic days fry the due date. D. Pailun to accurately or expiittousJy rep= nm-CCrpj nce. E. Airy oiber violation ox g of violatiolm that the �siden to >e sig:dfimat. 3. 5&.fl4 w w H fP AESEe1585 'nrble 1 repxesaiTa an f�ncmmt Fespmae Guide y sal P: rCaID�dal EPA wee d� a pa t by the City tC de a ty 's s Ppproptfate mess ass in the amR of violation of the Clty t +eq. o_. at Sel llwn of appucPriate enfor®oa:t xe-P nae will Ye Vasal rile follwllng stGgr,: A. ffi City will last He type of nm�lianm in Um first mlmm: of tlxa EesPorise Gafde. B. using mlmm: tea, tM City will identify the est acc t desvlPi:..., of tM return of tle vlalatim. 2 (5) C m anM JUaf^^ of Te Q _ A patte3n of xecvai g violations (evm of diff rent � .rm.+^Tata) gay indicate either tlat the user's treatamt systen is ihmd�mta or Uat the usaL has talmh a lac aisiaal appxcech to Aerating ani naintn:^: � its �tvatt eyaten These imiicatione should alert the City to the of future significant �-mopliarue. A=MAiagly, stronger mforcaiett aptiortv should la applie3 against users ash itiig amaiatmt a spliance Problems thm against those with only an ocrosional Problen. _ (6) Good Faith of the User - �ly, a user's d®mstratad wil f n�neiaeslto rtoarpiny ahold p�t isPose City to one Of aelecL g0K a^a^^'aat acRlgne :Fiat Prv'ided the violation has not caused a smYous t eatmtt Plant upset or resulted in mn,:......vntal daaage. ikzenrar, good faith does not eliminate the necessity of an enfocaamett action ani omplia=e with previous mfaroa- veR orders should not necessarily >s mnelderei as gent faiN. (1) ReMxn UUW of the tis¢ - AlthmVh i..x.=t.:.t uses should always to held acccun le for their violations, Sure oon=:. tan should to given to wrath¢ the 'olatim was the result of an unforeseeable accident, was Preventable or vss iMmtiaal, on Ute psrt of the aaar. This will affect U ehfar rrspoass selection by the City £ren the muga of respcnaes pmvided. D. The City will docu t, la w ti g ton the uses, the mtiamle EW Tula' g the Pwtic lar mforramht rinse applied. E. The City will apply the enforcenmt re%Ponse to the violator. The City will specify the coa ive scrim or o xeapmiea of the iad lal r includL R nese fire limits. G. The City will fcllaa-tp with an escalatai ehfovcmmt actiah if m is not relived wiU 30 days, or sooner if appropriate for severe violatfms, or if the violations m tome. TABLE, 1, ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE f7I)IDIC tic til n c c Nature or victiation Initial Res Follow-up A. Illegal Discharges - I Onpermined discharge. Dischargerof permit ren Administrative Order Issued by the pretreatment program Super - (no permit) mqulre ent;tnNe mal permit endent within l4 days of identifying the violation; requires a peit r publicly Owned Treatment Work application within 30 days and the results of a wastewater analysis tPOTW) damage. .within 60 daysl Proposed Fine of $300-$500. Results in violation of POTW - n Adminis;ralive Order issued a as notable. Ibut in any case NPDES permit, of dangerous within 5 days to Immediately Felt discharge! Fine or civil litigation situation . Significant Non. waking penalties of $1,000 to $2,500 per day; Terminate service. compliance.' 2) Nonpermwm discharge, Failure to apply for permit renewal Telephone Call: Inner of Violation should be made by the inspector (expired permit) No environmental or POTW damage, made by the Inspector who Identified the violation within 5 days or detection. An telephone call notifications will be completely documented In Ne Industrial users file. Results In violation of POTW Administrative Order Issued as soon as possible. but In any case NPDES permit, or dangerous within 5'deys to Immediately hall discharge; Fine or Civil litigation situation . Significant Nom seeking penalties of $1.000 to $2,500 per day; Terminate service. compliance (SNC). R. Discharge Permit Violations . ' I Excacdan of discharge limits. Isolated, Nonsignificn;u. I Telephonecall: Utter of eciolation within 5 days of receipt of labomlary (local or categor cap sults requiring -written report with corrective and pre enuuv action taken to prevent nou en flat or 2nd offense) Discharge Permit Violations (Continued) SlgntOcant Nan -compliance. Administrative Order issued within ' Frequent, Nonsignificant Meeting with violator or show cause hearing requested within 14 days Administrative Order Issued within (repealed offense). discharge; Terminate service; Finn, of detection of violation; Meeting will be held within 30 Jays of 2) Slug load discharge. Sampling, Monitoring and Reporting Violations Minor sampling, monitoring. or I isolated or r offfense)nl.. so Jeficlemonit Pit te 2nd Infrequent. Frequent o continuous, Major sampling. monitoring, Isolated or nutriment. in in6 Jefidencles, list or 2nd offense) Telephone van or Latta of Violation limed Verde 14 days of detection. Telephone calls will be documented. Letter of Violation issued edible 5 days; Proposed Fine $100-$300. Letter of Violation Issued within 5 days of detection Meeting with violnmr requested within 14 days. detection of tree viohtiom Proposed Fine of $300. - $500. SlgntOcant Nan -compliance. Administrative Order issued within 5 days with compliance schedule; Fine of $1,000 per day of violation or civil litigation seeking penality of $1,000 to $2,500 per day. - Caused known environmental or Administrative Order Issued within 5 Jays to immediately halt POTW damage (endangerment to life discharge; Terminate service; Finn, civil thignaon, or criminal prosecution. Isolated without known damage. Leper of Violation; Administrative Order Issued within 14 days 10 develop a spill c0ntrol 'plan within 30 day:. Isolated with known Interference. Fine or ndyn litigation -seeking penalty or $500 to $700 and recovery or pass-through, or derange results. oats: Terminate service. Significant Non-compliance - Recurring Significant Non -Com- Fine or civil litigation seeking penalty 0f $1,000 to $2,500 per day and recovery russet. - of toss: Terminate motion. Sampling, Monitoring and Reporting Violations Minor sampling, monitoring. or I isolated or r offfense)nl.. so Jeficlemonit Pit te 2nd Infrequent. Frequent o continuous, Major sampling. monitoring, Isolated or nutriment. in in6 Jefidencles, list or 2nd offense) Telephone van or Latta of Violation limed Verde 14 days of detection. Telephone calls will be documented. Letter of Violation issued edible 5 days; Proposed Fine $100-$300. Letter of Violation Issued within 5 days of detection Meeting with violnmr requested within 14 days. Sampling, Monitoring and Reporting Violations (Continued) Frequent (repeated Crime, I Meering or sM1ow Cason beating requested within 14 days; or Constantino; Significant Non. Pine or civll lidgetion reeking penalties of $500. compliance . $) Complete failure to sample. Significant Non-complioic, Administrative Order with compliance schedule issued within 5 days of monitor or report. 4) Failure to submit schedule of compliance _ 5) Failure to Mary of effluent limit violation fir tlug discharge. Violation of Administrative Order. Isolated or Infrequent. No known effects. Frequent or continued violation SignificantNon-complinnm. Known environmental or POTW damage results. Significant Non-compllonea detection of violation; Civil litigation and/or criminal prosecution seeking penalties of $1,000 to $2,500 per day; Terminate service. Fine; Civil litigation and/or criminal prosecution seeking penalties of .$1,000 to $2,500 per day until schedule is filed. Letter of Violation; Administrative Order issued within 14 slays of detection. Showa hearing requested within 14 days; Administrative Omer Issued within v rsthin 5 days of detection; Civil litigation seeking penalties of $500 per day per violation; Criminal prosecution. 061 litigation seeking $1.000 to $2,5011 per day of violation; Terminate retire; Criminal prosecution. 6) Failure to hoods monitoringI ontinued Significant Non-. Administrative Order issued within 5 days of detection, Temporarily equipment. compliance. suspend service If agreed upon Compliance date Is exceeded by 30 days. D. Compliance Schedule Violations - 1) Missed calknonc dale. Will not effect when milestone Telephone colt or Letter of Violation Issued within 5 days of milestone date$ or final dam. date passage. Telepbona calls will be documental. Will affect other milestones or final I Meeting requested within 14 days or prior to next milestone date; due. Violation for good muse. Administrative Order Issued within 5 -days of missed milestone dale. Compliance Selledule ?) Failure to meet compliance schedule reportingrequire- ments. S) Missed final date. 4) Reporting false information. C. Spill Incidents 1) spill incident. 2) Repeated spill ineMenu. Violations (Continued) Will affect other milestones or Gna Show cause hearing requested within 14 days or prior to next milestone date. Violation not for goad cause. date; Fine or seek civil penalties of $500 M $2.500 per day of violation. Did not Sahara report but did Telephone call or Leper of Violation issued within 14 days of detection complete milestone. violation. Did net submit report or complete Letter of Violation; Administrative Order issued within 5 days of missed milestone. milestone datet Proposed tines of $300 to .$500. Good cause. Telephone call; Letter of Violation Issued within 5 days of missed date. Telephone calls must be documented. 30 days of More moisture; Show cause hearing requested wllldn 14 days of detection; Failure refusal to comply Administrative Order with GaAs; Judicial action. without good cause Any Instance Significant Non- Referral to prosecutor for criminal enigatlon; Civil litigation amputees and/or Mminalprosecution seeking maximum penalJn allowed by State law (al least $1.000 per day per violation); Terminate service. Reported and investigated. Letter or Violation issued at the time or inspection; Meeting requested within 14 days of detection; Administrative Order. Failure to report spill. Letter of Violation; Meeting within 14 days of detection: Administrative Order with Proposed fines of $300 -$500. Failure develop or upgrade split Leve of Violation: Administrative Order with fines: Show cause bearing preveml0a Program. to be held within 30 days of nalGeation. Spill Incidents (Continued) Failure to act an a decision of ' Judicial actual Terminale service. compliameeting and results n known mental damage of I POTIN damage F. Violations Detected During Field Inspections/Investigations p Minor violation procedures. cedur of analytical Any instance. Telephone call; Letter of Violation issued within 14 days of receipt Of monitoring results. 2) Major violation procedures. of analytical ic No evidence of negligence or intent. Lett of Violation; Meeting to b< held within 90 days of notification; Administrative Order issued within 14 days of r aipt of monitoring results. Evidence of negligenor Or intent. Administrative Order or civil action and penality; Possible criminal Significant Non-complionew prosecution. )) Minor violation condition. of Permit No evidence of negligence or intent Letter of Violation; Administrative Order for Immediate corfaive act0 rcquired. Evidence of negligence of tmem. Administrative Order orcivil atlgatlon and penality; Possible criminal pfa ewmiun; tmad am sts"I"s. 4) Major violoama condition. Of Permit Evidence of negligence or Intent. ,Significant Non-compliance Administrative Order or elvil litigation and penality: Possible criminal prosecution: Terminate eery ces. As part of Ha City's reepoonse to the EPA's Septeuber 1, 1989 request for infovmtion, a draft version of a detailed OiEotclmmt Pmpnse Plan was prepared ad aataf.ttai to cath the City etd the HA. Sia a written plan is necessary in radar to insure that enforcamr actions are t in a ti y manner and uniformly against all violators. b a plan also helps to insure tlat Pmper documentation ds kapt On tie actions of bcth tda City ace He violator in the Mae of enforcement actions that result do litigation. Finally, a wratt®n enforcement m'elrnae Plan helps to rmove Political Considerations fron edoroaoer actirnis and mules ang actions talc] by the City save defensible by opvLLml the Process m Siete public savtiny. The EPA has eglas.d.aad these factors repeatedly, end is now cancantmting its efforts on reprising Hat all Pretreatment lao9rmia have such a written, Plan. Me Plan vfuich has been sntmittai was inarn6ai Only as a draft. It was lased upan draft guidance provided by Me EPA and was vmitten to carefully follw examples Provided in tkmt guidanoo On vdat elanents should be included in an ideal Plan. 9ne Plea as sdmittad users M req''**_. However, not all its aspects maybe acceptable to the City. To date, w m Rs have barn received m the suhW.tted Plan, either from the EPA or sora Impartant3y from the City. In the intervening tine the BPA draft 9nddance Las been finalim i and has bean fonelly issued as sresamtrsa sanitted 19a City should ravpav ice draft aloe as Pmaontiy dtted and determine which Provisions am acceptable nee ace vtddr neat vodtfimtton. 1 rp In atlditton to the vaittan Etwforc®er xaspmee Plan, which aha" to a standalone, working docwvnt for use by traaaar works personnel, on adequate enforcater progam will relufre that specific mforcm rt lmugna3e be included in the city's sa..er user ordinance. S la snap details to all vsers the definitions, / time Periods and Penalties involved if noncmQlianm bei an issue. Bangor's preearc Ordinance inters only generally to Pealties for violatlms at Sectinns 19 to 22. Within Ha xecOntlY is sed EPA guidance is a sectton an suggested _ age whi.W stmuld be include] do city aaii Mfull. ort Of sis I Of 99sstai laru9ua9s aypawra in APPeaBs of this rep rt. A ccpy of the draft lieapase Plan previously sutmitted !8 inchxled as Appstlir Ii. s Appendix One of the major legal .eT+tet= of an acceptable enforcement pvogram is already a (Y of Bsvpr's OLULaiI®. 'lhia is the xepdrmont tlat the cantrol authority lave the legall atddmmity to assess Penalties of at fres: up to $1,000/day per violatian. Eangar adopted this provision in September of 1986. E'X7RA�i V(dmWxo(a gal L Cif/nn ('OMJ�Fl3 Qr.SiKPi$� /r�al�