Upload File

administrative civil liability order no. r1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · administrative civil liability...

  • Home
  • Documents
  • Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department
27
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD NORTH COAST REGION Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department of Transportation Confusion Hill Bypass Project Complaint No. R1‐2009‐0095 WDID No. 1B05153WNME Mendocino County 1. Executive Summary This matter comes before the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) from an Administrative Civil Liability Complaint R1‐2009‐0095 dated August 13, 2009 (Complaint) issued to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), who contracted with MCM Construction, Inc. (MCM) (hereafter collectively Dischargers). (See Administrative Record (“AR”) exhibit C, Index attached to this Order as Attachment A.) The Complaint alleged violations of water quality permits for the Confusion Hill Bypass Project and proposed an administrative civil liability (ACL) in the amount of One Million Five Hundred Eleven Thousand Dollars ($1,511,000) pursuant to Water Code section 13385. A hearing took place on June 23, 2011, in accordance with the Hearing Notice and Procedure (AR, exhibit E) and California Code of Regulations, title 23, sections 648‐648.8. The Regional Water Board heard relevant evidence and testimony to decide whether to issue an ACL order assessing the proposed liability, a higher or lower amount, or to reject the proposed liability. To help ensure the fairness and impartiality of the proceeding, the functions of those who acted in a prosecutorial role by presenting evidence for consideration by the Regional Water Board (Prosecution Team) were separated from those who advise to the Regional Water Board (Advisory Team). Members of the Prosecution Team were subject to the prohibition on ex parte communications with the members of the Regional Water Board or the Advisory Team, just like other Parties. The Project, located in Mendocino County on Highway 101 approximately 18.5 miles south of Garberville and eight miles north of Leggett, involved relocating the highway from the east side of the South Fork Eel River (River) to the west side. (AR, exhibit H, tab 102.) This required construction of two new bridges and a new section of highway between the new bridges. The completed Project provides a reliable transportation route by permanently relocating the highway from an area subject to chronic landslides and closures. The Project was subject to water quality certification pursuant to Clean Water Act, section 401 (401 Certification), which was issued February 16, 2006 and amended on April 18, 2006. (AR, exhibit A.) In addition, the Project was subject to the Caltrans statewide stormwater permit (Storm Water Permit), issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board), which regulates all storm water discharges from Caltrans’ owned municipal separate storm sewer systems, maintenance facilities and construction activities. (AR, exhibit B.) The Complaint as issued sought $1,511,000 civil liability, which included staff costs of $70,182. (AR, exhibit C.) During review of the evidence, Prosecution Team reduced the

Upload: others

Post on 15-Aug-2020

6 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Report

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CALIFORNIAREGIONALWATERQUALITYCONTROLBOARDNORTHCOASTREGION

AdministrativeCivilLiabilityOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014

IntheMatterof

CaliforniaDepartmentofTransportationConfusionHillBypassProjectComplaintNo.R1‐2009‐0095WDIDNo.1B05153WNME

MendocinoCounty

1. ExecutiveSummary

ThismattercomesbeforetheNorthCoastRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RegionalWaterBoard)fromanAdministrativeCivilLiabilityComplaintR1‐2009‐0095datedAugust13,2009(Complaint)issuedtotheCaliforniaDepartmentofTransportation(Caltrans),whocontractedwithMCMConstruction,Inc.(MCM)(hereaftercollectivelyDischargers).(SeeAdministrativeRecord(“AR”)exhibitC,IndexattachedtothisOrderasAttachmentA.)TheComplaintallegedviolationsofwaterqualitypermitsfortheConfusionHillBypassProjectandproposedanadministrativecivilliability(ACL)intheamountofOneMillionFiveHundredElevenThousandDollars($1,511,000)pursuanttoWaterCodesection13385.AhearingtookplaceonJune23,2011,inaccordancewiththeHearingNoticeandProcedure(AR,exhibitE)andCaliforniaCodeofRegulations,title23,sections648‐648.8.TheRegionalWaterBoardheardrelevantevidenceandtestimonytodecidewhethertoissueanACLorderassessingtheproposedliability,ahigherorloweramount,ortorejecttheproposedliability.Tohelpensurethefairnessandimpartialityoftheproceeding,thefunctionsofthosewhoactedinaprosecutorialrolebypresentingevidenceforconsiderationbytheRegionalWaterBoard(ProsecutionTeam)wereseparatedfromthosewhoadvisetotheRegionalWaterBoard(AdvisoryTeam).MembersoftheProsecutionTeamweresubjecttotheprohibitiononexpartecommunicationswiththemembersoftheRegionalWaterBoardortheAdvisoryTeam,justlikeotherParties.TheProject,locatedinMendocinoCountyonHighway101approximately18.5milessouthofGarbervilleandeightmilesnorthofLeggett,involvedrelocatingthehighwayfromtheeastsideoftheSouthForkEelRiver(River)tothewestside.(AR,exhibitH,tab102.)Thisrequiredconstructionoftwonewbridgesandanewsectionofhighwaybetweenthenewbridges.ThecompletedProjectprovidesareliabletransportationroutebypermanentlyrelocatingthehighwayfromanareasubjecttochroniclandslidesandclosures.TheProjectwassubjecttowaterqualitycertificationpursuanttoCleanWaterAct,section401(401Certification),whichwasissuedFebruary16,2006andamendedonApril18,2006.(AR,exhibitA.)Inaddition,theProjectwassubjecttotheCaltransstatewidestormwaterpermit(StormWaterPermit),issuedbytheStateWaterResourcesControlBoard(StateWaterBoard),whichregulatesallstormwaterdischargesfromCaltrans’ownedmunicipalseparatestormsewersystems,maintenancefacilitiesandconstructionactivities.(AR,exhibitB.)TheComplaintasissuedsought$1,511,000civilliability,whichincludedstaffcostsof$70,182.(AR,exhibitC.)Duringreviewoftheevidence,ProsecutionTeamreducedthe

Page 2: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐2‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 proposedpenaltyby$222,500,butrequestedadditionalcontinuingstaffcostsof$235,500foradministrativecivilliabilitytotaling$1,524,000.(AR,exhibitF1at29.)ThisOrdersummarizesRegionalWaterBoard’sdecisionandimposespenaltiesforviolationsbasedupontheevidence,relevantfactorsandconclusionspresentedherein.TheRegionalWaterBoardordersthefollowing:

Caltransshallpayapenaltyof$405,000andstaffcostsof$70,182,foratotalliabilityof$475,182.AdetailedexplanationofthepenaltycostsisprovidedlaterinthisOrder.

Ofthetotalliability,$70,182(staffcosts)mustberemittedaspaymenttotheStateCleanupandAbatementAccountinaccordancewithWaterCodesection13399.35.

TheremainingliabilitymayeitherberemittedtotheCleanupandAbatementAccount,orusedforanenvironmentalprojectwhichmeetscriteriacontainedinthe2002EnforcementPolicy.

TheorganizationofthisOrderisasfollows:Section2discussesseveralissuesincludingtheevidentiaryrulings,multiplepermitterms,relevantfactorsanalysisandstaffcosts.Section3presentsadetaileddiscussionofpenalties(groupedintoninecategories).2. Issues2.1 EvidentiaryRulingsInpreparationforthehearing,Partiesexchangedevidence,submittedlegalargument,rebuttal,evidentiaryobjectionsandresponses.TheevidenceprovidedbytheProsecutionTeamtosupportallegedviolationsincludedemailandmemorandumfromtheCaltransStormWaterCoordinator,dailyengineeringreports,biologicalmonitoringreports(includingphotodocumentation),noticesofdischarge,andRegionalWaterBoardstaffinspectionobservations.(AR,exhibitsC&M.)Dischargersrequestedthatmuchofthisevidencebeexcludedasinadmissiblehearsayandforlackoffoundation.(AR,exhibitsG&H.)Intwoevidentiaryrulingspriortothehearing,theseobjectionswereoverruled.Thebiologicalmonitoringreportswerefoundsufficientlyreliableastheywerepreparedbyqualifiedprofessionalshiredspecificallytodocumentenvironmentalcomplianceandwerepreparedconcurrentlywiththeactivitiesdocumentedtherein.Evidenceintherecordsupportedtheapplicationofbothofficialrecordsandbusinessrecordsexceptionstothehearsayrule.(EvidentiaryRulingonHearsayObjectionstoBiologicalMonitoringReports,April27,2011.)DischargersalsoobjectedtoexhibitscontainingcorrespondencebetweenCaltransandMCMonthesubjectofwaterqualitycomplianceasinadmissiblehearsay.TheHearingOfficerfoundthatstatementsbyCaltransemployeesfellwithinthepartyadmissionexemptionofthehearsayruleanddeclarationsbyMCMfellwithinthedeclarantliabilityexceptiontothehearsayrule.(EvidentiaryRulingonObjectionstoCaltransandMCMCorrespondenceonWaterQualityCompliance,June3,2011.)ThesetworulingsareincorporatedbyreferenceintothisOrderandattachedasAttachmentBandC.(SeealsoAR,exhibitP.)Asexplainedintheserulings,certainbasicrequirementsmustbemettoconstitutesubstantialevidenceuponwhichtheRegionalWaterBoardcanrely.Documentsandotherexhibitsmusthavesomefoundationalsupporttobeproperlyadmitted;however,trial‐likefoundationisnotrequired.TheProsecutionTeamoriginallysubmittedphotographsthatwerenotlabeledorotherwiseidentified.Absentadditional,corroboratingevidence,randomphotographscouldlackfoundationsufficientfortheRegionalWaterBoardtorestafindingon.Examinationoftheentirerecordshowsthesephotosincontextwiththebiologicalmonitoringreportsthatmostoftenincludedcaptionsandexplanatorytext.The

Page 3: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐3‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 RegionalWaterBoardfindsthatgenerallythephotographswithaccompanyingdocumentssubmittedbytheProsecutionTeamhavesufficientfoundationforthesamereasonthattheywerefoundsufficientlyreliableinthehearsayrulings.Thebiologicalmonitoringreportsweregeneratedbyprofessionalshiredtoperformenvironmentalcompliancemonitoringpursuanttoaspecificcontractandworkorder.ReportsandcommunicationsfromCaltransandMCMalsohavesufficientfoundation.ThesedocumentswereproducedbythePartiesthemselves,oftenduringornearthetimewheneventsoccurred.Anyremainingobjectionstoevidenceforlackoffoundationareoverruled.Allevidencewascloselyexaminedtodeterminewhethersuchevidencesupportedthefindingofaviolation.Incaseswhereitwasquestionablewhethertheelementsofanallegedviolationweremetbecausetheevidencewasvagueand/orambiguous,apenaltywasnotassessed.2.2ViolationofMultiplePermitTermsandConditionsTheComplaintallegedviolationsofboththe401CertificationaswellastheStormWaterPermit.ProsecutionTeamprovidedevidenceshowingthattheDischargersviolatedmultipletermsandconditionsrequiredfortheProject.Manyoftheallegedviolationsstemfromoneeventchargedundertwoormorepermitconditions.Itmaybeappropriateinsomecasestochargeseparateviolationsunderdifferentpermittermsforasingleevent;however,inthisOrderliabilityisassessedforeachviolationeventperdayratherthaneachtermorconditionviolated.2.3RelevantFactorsIndeterminingtheamountofanycivilliability,pursuanttoCaliforniaWaterCodesection13385,subdivision(e),theRegionalWaterBoardshalltakeintoaccountthenature,circumstances,extent,andgravityoftheviolation(s);whetherthedischargeissusceptibletocleanup,thedegreeoftoxicityofthedischarge,and,withrespecttotheviolator,theabilitytopay,anypriorhistoryofviolations,thedegreeofculpability,economicbenefitorsavings,ifany,resultingfromtheviolation,andothermattersthatjusticemayrequire.Ataminimum,liabilityshallbeassessedatalevelthatrecoverstheeconomicbenefits,ifany,derivedfromtheactsthatconstitutetheviolation.Relevantfactorswereconsideredintheassessmentofliabilityforeachallegedviolationinthesubcategoriesbelow,andaresummarizedmoregenerallyhere.TheProjectwasconstructedintheSouthForkoftheEelRiver,whichislistedasimpairedforsedimentpursuanttosection303(d)oftheCleanWaterAct.TheRiverisanimportantsalmonandsteelheadspawningandrearingarea.Excessivesedimentisamongthefactorsknowntocontributetothedocumenteddeclineofthesespecies.Inadditiontosalmonids,theRiverprovideshabitatforanabundanceofspecies,includingjuvenilefishandfrogs.BothjuvenilefishandfrogswerefoundinIsolatedPoolB,thelocationwhereseveralunauthorizeddischargesoccurred.Dischargersfailedtocomplywiththerequirementsofboththe401CertificationandStormWaterPermitonanumberofoccasionsforvariousactivities.Asaresult,unpermitteddischargesoccurredwithinbiologicallysensitiveareasoftheRiver.Onmanyoccasionsthedischargeswerenotadequatelymonitoredandthereforeimpactstobeneficialusesaredifficulttoassess.ViolationsfordischargestothelivechanneloftheRiver,andforfailuretomonitorandreportareassignedmaximumliabilitypereventforthesereasons.Becausecementitiousdischargescanbeseriouslyharmful,thoseviolationeventsareassignedmaximumliability.Incontrast,otherdischarges(i.e.slag)werenotdeterminedtobeparticularlyharmfulsoliabilityissignificantlyreduced.CaltransisapublicentitywhichrepresentsthebestinterestsofthepeopleofCalifornia.Thoseinterestsincludecompliancewithregulatoryrequirementsandpermits,including

Page 4: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐4‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 thosewhichpreserveandprotectthebeneficialusesofstatewaters.CaltranshasimplementedmanyprojectsstatewideandintheNorthCoastRegion.BetweenMarch2004andJanuary2006alone,Caltransappliedforandreceived31waterqualitycertificationsintheNorthCoastRegion(RegionalBoarddatabase).CaltranshasbeenregulatedunderitsownstatewideStormWaterPermitsince1999andisfullyawareofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs),monitoring,andmanagementtechniquesnecessarytoassurepermitcomplianceandbeneficialuseprotection.(AR,exhibitB.)Therecordforthiscasecontainsevidencethatisbothencouragingandtroubling.TheRegionalWaterBoardappreciatesCaltranstakingitspermittingobligationsseriouslyasevidencedbynumerouscomplaintsandreminderstoitscontractorsofwhattherulesare.Documentsalsoshowamixofcomplianceandnon‐compliancebythecontractorsforwhichCaltransisresponsible.Manydischargesassociatedwithrubbish,debris,andleaksfromequipmentwerecleanedup.Thesecleanupactivitieshavebeentakenintoaccountanddiscussedinassociationwiththeapplicablecategorybelow.Dischargesassociatedwithdewatering,cementitiouswastes,andturbiditydischargeswereeithernotcleanedupornotsusceptibletocleanupandtherefore,reductionincivilliabilitiesforthesedischargecategoriesisnotapplicable.WhiletheRegionalWaterBoarddoesnothavepreciseinformationtocalculateeconomicsavingsresultingfromavoidingpermitrequirements,timelyimplementationofadequateBMPsandmonitoringbothcomewithconsiderablecost.TheConfusionHillBypassProjectcostover$70million.(AR,exhibitCat19.)ThecivilliabilityassessedinthisOrderissmallincomparisontothecostoftheProject.Caltranshasnotindicatedaninabilitytopayorcontinueinbusinessrelatedtothisadministrativecivilliability.CaltranshasahistoryofwaterqualityviolationsreflectedinthisProjectandothers.FortheConfusionHillProject,theRegionalWaterBoardissueditsfirstNoticeofViolationonOctober30,2006(AR,exhibitA‐4),andasecondonNovember27,2006(AR,exhibitA‐5).ManyviolationscametotheRegionalWaterBoardstaff’sattentionthroughthirdpartyreportsandphotographsratherthanreporteddirectlytotheRegionalWaterBoardbyCaltrans.Thisisproblematicbecausewaterqualityprogramsandpermitsrelyheavilyonself‐monitoringandreportingrequirements.TheConfusionHillBypassProjectwassuccessfullycompletedin2009.TheRegionalWaterBoardrecognizesthattheProjectwascompletedusinglessconcrete,fewerRivercrossingsandlessaccessroadsthanoriginallyprojected;(AR,exhibitH‐1at2‐4)theoretically,thisresultedinlessoverallimpactstowaterqualityassociatedwiththeProject.Uponcompletion,theProjectwasawardedprojectoftheyearin2009fromtheCaliforniaTransportationAssociation.(Id.)ThemagnitudeoftheProjectandthedifficultiesassociatedwithitsconstructionweretakenintoaccountwhenreducingliabilitiesforleakyequipmentandgarbageviolations.TheRegionalWaterBoardrecognizesthatacertainamountofleaksandtrashcanbeexpectedforaprojectofthissize.TheseconsiderationsareincorporatedintoallaspectsofthisOrder,includingthedecisiontonotfindviolationsformultiplepermitterms,andtonotassessliabilitywhentherecordshowsthatcleanuptimelyoccurred.2.4StaffCostsStaffcostsmaybeoneofthe“otherrelevantfactorsthatjusticemayrequire”underWaterCodesection13385,subdivision(e).(See2002EnforcementPolicyat40;seealsoCal.CodeRegs.,tit.23,§2910[repealedandreplacedby2010EnforcementPolicy].)TheProsecutionTeamestimateditsinitialstaffcostsforthisenforcementactionat$70,182.Duringreview

Page 5: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐5‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 oftheevidence,ProsecutionTeamreducedthetotalpenaltysoughtby$222,500,butrequestedcontinuingstaffcostsof$235,500foradministrativecivilliabilitytotaling$1,524,000.TheComplaintdidnotincludenoticetoDischargersthatstaffcostswouldcontinuetoaccrue.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardwillonlyrequirepaymentfornoticedstaffcostsof$70,182.3. DiscussionofPenalties

Thefollowingsub‐sectionsprovideamoredetailedexplanationofthepenaltiesdeterminedbytheRegionalWaterBoard.3.1 OrganizationTheComplaintincluded296allegedviolationsofthe401CertificationandStormWaterPermit.TheProsecutionTeamgroupedviolationsintothefollowingninecategories:A. ConstructionDewateringB. LeakyEquipmentC. SlagDischargesD. TurbidDischargestotheRiverE. InsufficientTurbidityMeasurementsF. CementitiousDischargesG. RubbishandDebrisDischargesH. IndividualEventsI. StormWaterPermitViolationswerelistedineachcategorychronologicallybydate.Caltranssubmitteda“DefenseMatrix”thatfollowedthesamesequencing.(AR,exhibitG‐2.)Duetothelargenumberofallegedviolations,theAdvisoryTeamrequestedthatProsecutionTeamspecifyauniqueidentifierforeachallegedviolationtoprovideapointofreferenceforthePartiesandtheRegionalWaterBoard.(AR,exhibitI.)Inresponse,theProsecutionTeamassignednumbersinsequencetoeachallegedviolationinaccordancewiththedateofoccurrence(violations1through296),butnotchronologicallywithineachcategory.(AR,exhibitN.)Asaresult,thenumbersdonottrackconsecutivelywithineachsection.Also,becausetheProsecutionTeamoftenallegedviolationsformultiplepermitterms,violationnumbersmaybegroupedintwosorthreesforagivenevent.ToprovidecontextandtomaintainconsistencywiththeComplaintandtheorganizationalstructurethatfollowed,thisOrderwilladdresseachallegedviolationbycategory,usingtheidentificationnumberasprovidedintheviolationmatrix.3.2DischargeViolationsbyCategoryCategoryAConstructionDewatering

ProsecutionTeamrecommendedapenaltyof$340,000for34allegedviolationsforconstructiondewateringactivities.Dewateringisacommonactivityonconstructionsitesinvolvingremovalordraininggroundwaterorsurfacewater,inthiscasefromariverbed,bypumping.Dewateringisconductedbeforeorduringexcavationtolowerthewatertableforplacementoffoundationsandstructuralsupports.Dewateringactivitiesinvariablyrequireapointofdisposalforthewaterbeingremoved.Thesedischargesarenotjustpurewater,butusuallycontainotherconstituentssuchassediment.

Page 6: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐6‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 MCMdisposedofdewateringwastestoatleasttwolocationsonthegravelbaroftheRiver:(1)onthebaritself,and(2)inatemporarysedimentationbasinthathadbeenconstructedandusedwithinlessthan100feetofthelivestreamchannelreferredtoasIsolatedPoolB(AR,exhibitC,finding8).Thesedischargesoccurredwithoutproperpermittingforseveralmonths,andafterCaltransstaffidentifiedthispracticeasacompliancedeficiencyonAugust22,2006(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).AlthoughCaltrans'ConstructionStormWaterCoordinatorWaltDragaloskiinspectedthesiteinmid‐August,2006toevaluatepermitcompliance,evidenceintherecordshowsthatintentionaldischargestoIsolatedPoolBandthegravelbarpersistedunpermittedintoOctober.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48.)Condition12ofthe401Certificationspecifiedthatanydisposalofdewateringwastestowatersofthestatewouldrequireadditionalpermitting.1Inaddition,Condition9prohibitedanydischargeofwastetowatersofthestatenotauthorizedbythepermit.Condition17requiredthatallactivitiesbeconductedasdescribedinthepermitandtheapplicationforthepermit.Condition7requiredadequatesedimentandturbidityBMPs.(AR,exhibitA.)Absentanadditionalpermitauthorizingdischargesofthisnature,constructiondewateringeventsviolatedConditions7,9,12,and17ofthe401Certification.TheviolationsallegedbyProsecutionTeamoccurin“twos”and“threes”basedonProsecutionTeamproposingviolationsofallapplicable401Certificationconditionsforonedischargeevent.However,theRegionalWaterBoardhasassessedcivilliabilityineachinstancefortheevent,ratherthanoverlappingconditions.Inlightofthedisregardforpermitconditions,andevidenceofharmtobeneficialusesassociatedwithIsolatedPoolB,themaximumpenaltyforeacheventshallbeimposed.ConstructiondewateringdischargesintoIsolatedPoolBandontothegravelbarwarrantthemaximumpenaltyof$10,000becausetheevidencedescribesanddepictsintentionalunpermitteddischargesofwastedirectlytowatersofthestate.Asdescribedinmoredetailbelowforeachviolationevent,evidenceintherecordshowsthatconstructiondewateringwastesweredischargedtoIsolatedPoolBandthegravelbaroftheEelRiver.ThebiologicalmonitoringreportdatedSeptember9,2006describesIsolatedPoolBasoneoftwo“naturalgravelbar/bedrock‐formedpoolsattheBZ[blastzone]onthegravelbar”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab13).PhotographicevidencefurtherdepictsIsolatedPoolBasanunlineddepressionlocatedwithinthegravelsoftheRiverincloseproximitytotheflowingchannel(AR,exhibitJ‐4at6,60,11&55).“TheIsolatedPoolBonthegravelbaroftheBlastZonewasfilledinbyrockdebrisandgravelsfromthefalseworkfootingpreparationandextractionofbargravelsfromthecofferdamsholesinthebaritselfandtwojuvenileyellow‐leggedfrogswereeitherkilledordisplacedinthisprocess.Therewereatleast2frogsthatresidedthereduringtransectspriorthisseasonandasrecentlyas27Sept.ofthislastweek.Thepoolwascompletelyfilledinbytheeveningof28Sept.2006(personalobservation).PriortoitsuseasanunlinedsettlingbasinitcontainedanisolatedschoolofjuvenileSacramentopikeminnow(ca.25)andupto6metamorphosingyellow–leggedfrogjuveniles.Morerecently,asithasbeendegradedoverlast3‐5weeks,itusuallycontainedaremaining2‐3frogsonadaily

1 Condition12provided:“Ifconstructiondewateringisfoundtobenecessary,theapplicantwillusea

methodofwaterdisposalotherthandisposaltosurfacewaters(suchaslanddisposal)ortheapplicantshallapplyforcoverageundertheGeneralConstructionDewateringPermitandreceivenotificationofcoveragetodischargetosurfacewaters.”ApermitobtainedinaccordancewithCondition12wouldhaverequiredamongothercriteria,anapplicationtodischarge,alistofalternativesavailableotherthandischargingtosurfacewater,andcompliancewithBasinPlanreceivingwaterlimits,suchasnoincreaseofturbiditybeyond20%abovebackground(OrderNo.93‐61).

Page 7: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐7‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 basis.IbelieveIreportedfindingadeadjuvenilepikeminnowthereinapreviousreportwhenitwasusedasasettlementbasin”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab28).

CaltransarguedthatuseofIsolatedPoolBrepresentsadischargetoa“sedimentbasin”onthegravelbar,andnottowatersofthestateinviolationofcondition12(AR,exhibitG‐2).Pursuanttothe401Certificationapplication,asedimentationbasinatleast100feetfromtheRivercouldhavebeenauthorizedforconstructiondewateringdischarges.(AR,exhibitH‐2,tab101at9.)ARegionalWaterBoardstaffpersontestifiedthatitprobablywouldnotmatterifthesedimentbasinwas70feetawayfromthestreamratherthan100feetawayasproposedintheapplication.(AR,exhibitH‐2,tab108at54.)MCMsuggeststhatbecausedischargeswouldhavebeenauthorized100feetaway,theunauthorizeddischarge70feetorclosershouldbeexcused.Thedischargewithinlessthan100feetofthelivestreamchannelcannotbeexcused.First,regardlessofwhetheraRegionalWaterBoardemployeetestifiedthatadischargeclosertotheRivermighthavebeenallowed,Dischargersshouldhavesoughtpermissiontodischargewasteandfailedtodoso.WhileCondition17doesprovidethatactivitiesbeconductedasdescribedinthepermitandapplication,Condition12explicitlyrequiresadditionalpermittingbeforeanydisposalofdewateringwastes.Inthiscase,Condition12isthemorespecificandstringentandshallcontrol.ItispossiblethattheproposedsitewouldnothavebeenappropriateoradditionalBMPswouldhavebeennecessaryafteranevaluationofthecircumstances.Also,therecordshowsthattheunauthorizeddischargesoccurredsometimesascloseas15feetfromtheactivechannel.Second,itappearsthatatleastonelocationwhereunauthorizeddischargesoccurredsupportedbeneficialusesandwouldnothavebeenapprovedforanywastedisposal.Third,theStormWaterPermitrequiredtheapplicationofBMPNS‐2,whichprovides,"[a]dewateringplanisattachedtothisSWPPP.Dewateringwillbeperformedduringthepileconstructionportionofthisproject.Detwateredmaterialwillbepumpedintotanksinordertoallowsedimenttosettle.Thematerialwillbefilteredandreturnedtotheriverorhauledtoadisposalsite.AlldewateringactivitieswillconformtoBMPNS‐2"(AR,exhibitB‐3).Condition9provided:“Nodebris,soil,silt,sand,bark,slash,sawdust,rubbish,cementorconcretewashings,oilorpetroleumproducts,orotherorganicorearthenmaterialfromanyconstructionorassociatedactivityofwhatevernature,otherthanthatauthorizedbythispermit,shallbeallowedtoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.”(AR,exhibitA.)UndertheWaterCode,“watersofthestate”means“anysurfacewaterorgroundwater,includingsalinewaters,withintheboundariesofthestate.”(Wat.Code,§13050,subd.(e).)IsolatedPoolBwaslocatedbelowmeanhighwateroftheriverandthereforeawaterofthestate,notasedimentationbasin(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48at250).Also,thecharacteristicsofIsolatedPoolBaredifferentfromthe‘gravelbar’becausethepoolcontainedwaterpriortodisposalofwastesandsupportedaquaticlife(AR,exhibitM‐Tab13at95).Inaddition,thegravelbaralsoconstituteswatersofthestatebecausetheseareasarepartoftheactivechannelduringvaryingtimesoftheyeardependentuponseasonalfluctuations,andthereforeanyunpermittedconstructiondewateringdischargestothegravelbarviolatedthe401Certification.OnAugust21,2006,MCMdischargedturbidwaterthroughapipeintoIsolatedPoolB(violation2,3,4)asshownthroughphotodocumentationpresentedinthebiologicalmonitoringreports(AR,exhibitJ‐4at2).Mr.DragaloskidocumentedthepresenceofIsolatedPoolBasatemporarysedimentationbasinthathadbeenconstructedandusedwithinlessthan100feetofthelivestreamchannel(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputetheseviolationsbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100).A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.

Page 8: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐8‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 FromAugust29throughAugust31,2006,violations17‐19,22‐24,and28‐30resultedfromdewateringoverathreedayperiodintoIsolatedPoolBduringconstructionofthefootingsforthetemporarytrestle(AR,exhibitM‐Tab59).ProlongeddewateringathighratesandresultingdischargeintoIsolatedPoolBoverfilledIsolatedPoolBandtheresultanthydrostaticpressurethroughthegravelbarcausedturbidityintheactivechannelonAugust29thand30th(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs11and64).ThefillingofIsolatedPoolBisdepictedinphotodocumentationpresentedinthebiologicalmonitoringreports(AR,exhibitJ4at6).WastedischargesoccurringbetweenAugust29thandAugust31stassociatedwithdewateringactivitiesresultedinthetemporaryfillingoftheIsolatedPoolBwithlooserocks,gravelandwater(AR,exhibitM‐Tab64).AnyremovalthatmayhavebeenconductedtorestorenaturalconditionsinIsolatedPoolBisnotdocumentedintherecord.CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputetheseviolationsbutobjectedtocertainfinesundermultiplepermitterms.(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforeachdaythatthisdischargeactivitytookplace.DewateringactivitiesconductedforconstructionofthefootingsforthetemporarytrestlecontinuedonAugust31stafterIsolatedPoolBwasfilledwithdebriswastedischarges.Dewateringwastewaspumpeddirectlyontothegravelbaradjacenttothecofferdamsresultinginviolation31‐33(AR,exhibitM‐Tab63).Thesectionofthegravelbarusedwasapproximately15feetfromtheactivechannel,maybecloser.(Id.)Caltransobjectedtoviolation31‐33,statingthattheevidencedoesnotspecifyadateofviolation,amountofwaterpumped,orlengthoftimewaterwaspumped(AR,exhibitG‐2).Thebiologicalmonitor’sreport(AR,exhibitM‐Tab63)stateshowever,thatthedischargeofwastefromdewateringactivitiescontinuedonthegravelbarimmediatelyfollowingthedescriptionofdewateringeventsonAugust29ththroughAugust31st,givingaspecificdescriptionoftheproximitytotheactivechannel.Therefore,itisreasonabletoassessthisviolationonoraboutAugust31,2006.Failuretocitethedurationandvolumeofthewastedischargedoesnotapplyinthisinstanceasthisviolationdoesnotdependuponthosefactors,butrathertheintentionaldischargeofdewateringwastetowatersofthestatewithoutapermit.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violation37‐39stemsfromaCaltransdailyengineeringreportdatedSeptember5,2006,documentingdewateringactivitiesassociatedwiththeB5cofferdam(AR,exhibitM‐Tab11at82).TherecordshowsthatMCMdischargeddewateringwastesduringplacementofsealcoarseconcreteforthefootingatB5ontherockimmediatelyoutsidethecofferdam.Again,nopermitwasobtainedasrequiredunderCondition12ofthe401Certification.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violation55‐57stemsfromdocumentationinaSeptember11,2006,Caltransassistantresidentengineer’sdailyreport(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15).ProsecutionTeamallegedviolationsforconstructiondewateringtoIsolatedPoolBinconsistentwiththe401Certificationapplicationandwithoutproperpermits.BaseduponpriorandcontinuingdewateringactivitiesbytheDischargers,thesewasteswerelikelydischargedtowatersofthestate.However,therecorddoesnotindicatethelocationtowhichwastefrompumpingoutofthecorrugatedmetalpipewasdirected.ProsecutionTeamfailedtoestablishthisfactintherecord.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoarddoesnotimposeliabilityforconstructiondewateringonthisday.

OnOctober3,2006,wastewasdischargedfromdewateringassociatedwithdredgeactivitiesonthegravelbarwithin50feetoftheactivechanneljustoutsidethesteelplatecofferdam(AR,exhibitM‐Tab29),resultinginviolation84‐86.ThiswastedischargeviolationwasidentifiedbyCaltransstaff,RichThompson,whorequiredtheMCMtoceaseandmodifythisactivity.Mr.Thompsondocumentedtheviolationonthedayofoccurrenceontheassistantstructurerepresentative’sdailyreport.(Id.)Morethansixweeksintothe

Page 9: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐9‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 Projectactivities,CaltranscontinuedtocorrectMCMandnotedanapparentdisregardforproperconstructiondewateringBMPs.(Id.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.ThreedayslaterduringanOctober6,2006,RegionalWaterBoardcomplianceinspection,staffobserveddewateringwastesbeingdischargedintoIsolatedPoolB,resultinginviolation93‐95.Staffdocumentedtheunauthorizeddischargeinaphoto(AR,exhibitsM‐Tab48andJ‐4at60).StafffollowedtheinspectionwithawrittenNoticeofViolationonOctober30,2006(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48).CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100).A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violation96‐98reliesuponobservationsofthebiologicalmonitordocumentedforOctober7,2006,inaweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportwhichstates,“[d]ewateringofthefootingsonthegravelbarcausedsomeconcern…siltywaterwasnotbeingdepositedintheapprovedarea70‐feetawayfromtheriver[IsolatedPoolB]”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab32).WhileProsecutionTeamstaffmayhavecorrectlyassumedthatdewateringwastesweredepositedtoanareawithinwatersofthestate,documentationofthisactivityisnotestablishedintheevidenceprovided.Therefore,civilliabilitieswillnotbeimposedforthisevent.

DuringaroutineinspectiononNovember14,2006,theassistantresidentengineerobserveddewateringwastesbeingdischargedfromthedrillingoperationdrainingontotherockwithinthe100yearfloodplain(AR,exhibitM‐Tab57),resultinginviolation147.CaltransstafftoldMCMstaffthatthisactivitywasinviolationofthepermits.(Id.)AdditionalnotesfromasecondassistantresidentengineerfromNovember14indicatethatasofmid‐November,nospecificplanwasinplacetocontrolwater[removed]fromexcavations(AR,exhibitM‐Tab58).Caltrans’photocontainsahandwrittennotestating;“PumpingH2Odirectlyintogravelbardocumentstheactivity”(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC).InadditiontoviolatingCondition9,12and17,thisviolationeventoccurredaftertheOctober31stdeadlineforperformingworkinwatersoftheUnitedStatesasspecifiedin401CertificationCondition16.ThisshowsdisregardforpermitrequirementsandproperBMPsassociatedwithconstructiondewatering.

CaltransarguedthattheevidencedoesnotmeettheburdenofproofbecausethereferencetopermitsinthedailyengineeringreportisambiguousandtheevidenceappearstoreferenceanactivityoccurringonNovember13th(AR,exhibitG‐2).TheevidenceappearstodocumentthedischargeofdewateringwastesontothegravelbaronbothNovember13and14,2006.TheProsecutionTeamhadalreadyconcededaviolationforNovember13thandonlychargesfordewateringviolationsonthesecondday.Thisisareasonableapproach.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.

OntheMarch7,2007,dailyinspection,CaltransassistantresidentengineerobserveddewateringwastesbeingdischargedunderanOregonOakTree(AR,exhibitM‐Tab75),resultinginviolation152.ThebrownishwaterflowedoverlandtotheEelRiverside‐channeldiscoloringthewaters.(Id.)CaltransarguedthatthecitedevidenceindicatesasmalldischargeofnativewatersshouldbepermissibleaccordingtodiscussionwithRegionalWaterBoardstaff(AR,exhibitG‐2).However,allegeddiscussionswithRegionalWaterBoardstaffandthecontextwerenotprovided.NoevidenceintherecordindicatesorsuggeststhatRegionalWaterBoardstaffauthorizeddischargesofturbidwatertotheRiverinanyamount.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.ProsecutionTeamproposedliabilityfor34violationsassociatedwith12constructiondewateringeventstotalingaliabilityof$340,000.However,uponreviewoftheevidence,allegedviolationsforeventsoccurringonSeptember11,andOctober7,2006(violations

Page 10: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐10‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 55and96)arechargedbaseduponevidenceintherecordthatiseitherunclearordoesnotadequatelysupporttheviolations.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardfinds10violationeventsestablishedintherecordforatotalpenaltyof$100,000.CategoryBLeakyEquipment

ProsecutionTeamproposedliabilityfor28leakyequipmentviolationsat$150,000.Asexplainedbelow,theevidenceshowsthattherewerenumerousminorleaksandspillsbutmostofthesewerecleanedupquickly.Monitorswerevigilantinidentifyingproblemsandimplementingcontrols,whichiswhatisneededandrequiredforeffectivepermitimplementation.Someoftheeventschargedasviolationsdonotwarrantimposingfinesassmalldischargescanbeexpectedandwerecleanedup.Therewereseveralchronicproblemsthatthecontractoreitherignoredorwastooslowtocorrect.Itisappropriatetoassessliabilitywhentheevidenceshowsdeliberateand/orchronicnoncompliancewiththerulesdesignedtopreventandminimizethesetypesofdischarges.Manyoftheallegedviolationsappearinmultiplesstemmingfromoneeventchargedundertwoormorepermitconditions,oftenCertificationConditions9and13.Condition9ofthewaterqualitycertificationprovided:“Nodebris,soil,silt,sand,bark,slash,sawdust,rubbish,cementorconcretewashings,oilorpetroleumproducts,orotherorganicorearthenmaterialfromanyconstructionorassociatedactivityofwhatevernature,otherthanthatauthorizedbythispermit,shallbeallowedtoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.”Condition13provided:“Fueling,lubrication,maintenance,storageandstagingofvehiclesandequipmentshallbeoutsideofwatersoftheUnitedStatesandshallnotresultinadischargeorathreateneddischargetowatersoftheUnitedStates.Atnotimeshallapplicantuseanyvehicleorequipment,whichleaksanysubstancethatmayimpactwaterquality.”(AR,exhibitA.)LeakyequipmentisalsoaddressedundertheStormWaterPermit.BMPNS‐10providesthatleaksberepairedimmediatelyorremovetheproblemvehiclefromtheproject.(AR,exhibitB‐3;F‐3tabB.)Itmaybeappropriatetochargeseparateviolationsunderdifferentpermittermsforasingleeventinsomecases;however,hereweagreewithCaltransthat“double‐dipping”withmultiplecatch‐allpermitconditionsisnotappropriate.Violations6and7addressaleakingbackhoeontheriverbaronAugust22,2006.Thissameeventistaggedforstormwaterfineviolation294.ACaltransemaildatedAugust25notedthatadischargeofoilwentdirectlyontheriverbar,whichisanenvironmentallysensitivearea,andtherewerenoBMPsinplacetopreventthedischargedoilfromreachingtheriverbar.UndertheSWPPP,thedischargeshouldhavebeenreportedtotheREandcleanedupimmediately.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8.)CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms.(AR,exhibitsG‐2;T‐2;H‐2tab100.)Violations8and9arebasedononephotographtakenAugust29,2006showingstainedgravelplacedinbuckets.Itseemsinappropriatetoassessafinewhentheonlyevidencecitedshowsthatthespillwascleanedup.Violations53and54arebasedononephotographtakenSeptember9,2006captioned“Photoofoilfromleakyequipment.”(AR,exhibitJ‐4at15.)Violations66and67aresolelysupportedbyaphototakenonSeptember26,2006,captioned“dirtroadwithmanyoilstains.”(AR,exhibitJ‐4at35.)Whilethesephotographstechnicallycoulddocumentsometypeofdischarge,wedonotfindsufficientevidencetosupportaviolationwarrantingtheliabilityproposed.Thesephotos,however,arerelevanttoshowacontinuingpatternthatbecomesmoreproblematicastheprojectwenton.TheURSDecember2006FinalReportnotedthat“[s]omeequipmentseemedtosufferfromchronicleaks.Thosewerephoto‐documentedandpresentedtoCaltransinspectors(Figure

Page 11: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐11‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 42[showingoilleaksontrestlefromcrane].)Mostleakswerecleaneduppromptlywhenpointedoutbythemonitors.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab71at6‐24.)Violations70and71addressoilleaksontheuncontainedtrestledeckonSeptember27,supportedbyphotosdatedSeptember27,2006.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at45.)Violations86and87stemfromtheweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober2‐7,2006,whichnotedthat“oilanddieselstainsonthegravelbarwereidentifiedforcleanup.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab32at191.)Again,thereisnotsufficientevidencesupportingtheliabilityproposedforthesetypesofevents.Violations88and89stemfromaninspectionreportbyRegionalWaterBoardstaffaftervisitingthesiteonOctober6,2006.ThatinspectionresultedinaNoticeofViolation(NOV)datedOctober30,2006.(AR,exhibitA‐4.)OnOctober6,2006,staffobservedabackhoeonthegravelbarwithexcessivefluidleaks.Eventhoughabsorbentragswerestuffedintocrevicestocontroltheleakage,theequipmentwasnotinadequateconditiontobeusedatthatlocation.Severalphotographsfromthatdayshowequipmentonplastictarps.TheNOVrequestedthatCaltransimplementadequateBMPsimmediatelyandsubmitareportbyNovember15describingactionstakentoaddressallareasofnon‐compliance.(Id.at3.)TherecordshowsthatCaltransdidtakeseveralactionsinanefforttoremedytheviolations(AR,exhibitM‐Tab59)althoughitisnotentirelyclearwhetherthefinalresultwasacceptable.Violations107‐110stemfromaweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober9‐14,2006.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab34.)OnOctober11,themonitorfoundanIRcompressorleakingexcessivelyanddiapersandplasticsheetswereemployed.ThemonitoralsonotedaleakfromtheManitowoccrane.Plasticsheetingcatchingoilandhydraulicleakshadsplitonseveraloccasions.OnOctober12,themonitornotedthatoilanddieselstainsonthegravelbarwereidentifiedforcleanup.TheseactionsaresupportedbyphotographstakenOctober12,2006.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at67‐69.)Again,evidenceshowingminorleaksidentifiedforclean‐updonotsupporttheimpositionoftheproposedpenalties.Incontrast,violations129and130stemfromadisturbingweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober23‐28,2006.OnOctober27,themonitornoted:“Oilleakscontinuetooccurwithoutadequatecleanuporpreventionwithkiddypoolsanddiapers.Mostoftheheavyequipmentusedonthisprojectisoldandleakconstantly.Overnightoilspotsareoftennotprevented,andoftenjustcoveredupwithsoilbyapatheticworkersthenextmorning,ifatall.TheManatowoc[sic]craneonthefalsebridge,theLINKmanliftonthegravelbar,theCAT350aretheworstoffenders.ThishasbeenbroughttotheattentionofMCMonmanyoccasions,withnosatisfactoryresolution.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab46at240‐241.)LeakswerealsodocumentedbyphotostakenonOctober27.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at104‐106.)Violations134and135stemfromadditionalphotosofleakyequipmenttakenonOctober30,2006.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at109‐113.)Violations139and140arebasedonaphotographtakenOctober31,2006,showingequipmentleakingoilontotheground.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at124.)Violations142and143stemfromareportofasitevisitconductedbyaCaltransemployeereviewingstormwaterBMPsonNovember3.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab53.)Henotedthat“[t]hecraneisbeingusedonthetrestlehasleakingfluids.Thishasbeennotedmanytimesearlier.Thecontractorhasattachedapieceofplasticunderthecrane,buttheplasticcatchesbothoilleaksandstormwater.Thereisevidenceonthetrestledeckthatoilthat[sic]hasleakedofftheplastic.Iobservedcommingledoilwithwaterontheplasticduringmysitevisit.Irecommendthatthecraneberepairedimmediatelyordiscontinueitsuse.”(Id.at286.)AssummarizedintheDecemberbiologicalmonitoringreport,theManitowoccrane,themanliftonthegravelbar,andtheCAT350were“mainoffenders”foroiland

Page 12: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐12‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 hydraulicleaks,andweredifficulttocorrect.Recommendationssuchasplacingsheetsofplasticunderthevehiclesdidnotworkproperly.Oilleaksimprovedovertimebutremainedproblematicthroughoutthemonitoringperiod.ThecontractorwastoldtoremovetheManitowoccranefromthetrestledeckatnighttoavoidleaksintotheriveratthebeginningofNovember.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab71at441.)Therecordisnotclearwhethertheproblemwiththecranewasremedied.Evenwhenassessingliabilityperviolationeventratherthanperpermitcondition,itcanstillbeproblematictolevya$10,000fineforeachdropofoilthatincidentallyspills.Itisunrealistictoexpectaprojectofthismagnitudetonothaveminorleaksanddischarges,anduseofadministrativeenforcementforthesetypesofviolationsmaynotbeappropriate,especiallywhenthephotographicevidenceshowscleanupsinprogress.However,therewereseveralchronicproblemsthatthecontractoreitherignoredorwastooslowtocorrect.Aneffectivestormwaterprogramrequireson‐the‐groundresponsivenessandimplementation.Itisappropriatetoassessliabilitywhentheevidenceshowsdeliberateand/orchronicnoncompliancewiththerulesdesignedtopreventandminimizethesetypesofdischarges.TherecordshowsanunauthorizeddischargeoccurringontheriverbarwithoutanyBMPsonAugust22,2006.Inaddition,sufficientevidencesupportsfindingviolationsforleakyequipmentonOctober6,October27,andNovember3,2006.ViolationofCondition13isnotdependentupontheshowingofanactualdischarge.Therecordshowsachronicproblemwithcertainequipmentandasomewhatrecalcitrantcontractor.Therecordshowsunwillingnessbythecontractortoaddresstheproblemswiththecraneontheuncontainedtrestledeck,discussedunderfurthertheStormWaterPermitaswell.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardfindsfourviolationsforatotalof$25,000liabilityforleakyequipment.CategoryCSlagDischarges

ProsecutionTeamrecommendedapenaltyof$50,000for15slagdischargeviolationsfromweldingandsteelcutting.AgaintheProsecutionteamallegedviolationsinpairsforoneeventviolatingCertificationconditions9and12.Forviolations90and91,ProsecutionTeamcitedtheweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforOctober2‐7,inwhichthemonitoridentifiedmoltenslagdischarges.“Moltenslagwasobserveddrippingintotheriverat2:20pm,usingnobuckettocatchtheexcess.Thisactivitywasterminated,butnotbeforenoticeableamountsofslag,smallsheetsofrustymetal,weldingrods,andotherdebrishadaccumulatedintheriverchannel.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab32at191.)Thatsameday,RegionalBoardstaffinspectedthesiteandissuedaNoticeofViolationidentifyingslagdischargesnothavingproperBMPs,andstronglanguagetofiximmediately.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab48at251[“Weldingslagwasobservedtobefallingdirectlyintothewaterandtheadjacentgravelbar”].)TheproblemcontinuedonOctober26,andmonitors“havetotellthemdayafterday”tonotdothat.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab45.)WeldingcontinuedtofallwithoutmitigationbyOctober28.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab46at242.)CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputemostoftheslagdischargeviolationsbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermittermsandtheamountofproposedliability.(AR,exhibitsT‐2;H‐2tab100.)Slagdischargespresentalowimpacttowaterquality;however,therecordshowsdisregardbythecontractorafterbeingrepeatedlyremindedtoimplementBMPsforthisactivity.Forthisreason,theRegionalWaterBoardfindsthata$5,000penaltyisappropriatefortheviolationthatoccurredonOctober6,2006,andevidenceofthecontinuingviolationscitedabove.CategoryDTurbidDischargestotheRiver

TheProsecutionTeamalleged20violationsforturbiddischargestotheRiver,resultinginaproposedpenaltyof$150,000.Violation150isdiscussedinCategoryHIndividualEvents

Page 13: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐13‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 belowduetotheuniquecircumstancesinvolvedwiththatevent.Turbidityisameasureofwaterclarityandhowmuchthematerialsuspendedinwaterdecreasesthepassageoflightthroughthewater.Suspendedmaterialscanincludesoilparticles(clay,silt,andsand),algae,plankton,microbes,andothersubstances.Higherturbiditycanincreasewatertemperaturesbecausesuspendedparticlesabsorbheat.This,inturn,reducestheconcentrationofdissolvedoxygen(DO)becausewarmwaterholdslessDOthancoldwater.Suspendedmaterialscancauseadversebiologicaleffects,suchascloggingfishgills,reducingresistancetodiseaseinfish,loweringgrowthrates,andaffectingeggandlarvaldevelopment.Assuspendedparticlessettle,theycanblanketthestreambottom,especiallyinslowerwaters,andsmotherfisheggsandbenthicmacroinvertebrates(http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms55.cfm).Condition7ofthe401Certificationprovided:“AdequateBMPsforsedimentandturbiditycontrolshallbeimplementedandinplacepriorto,during,andafterconstructioninordertoensurethatnosiltorsedimententerssurfacewaters.”(AR,exhibitA[emphasisadded].)InorderforaBMPtobeadequate,nosiltorsedimentmustentersurfacewater.Condition9prohibitedthedischargeofunauthorizedwastetowatersofthestate.Condition17requiredthatactivities,BMPsandassociatedmitigationbeconductedasdescribedinthePermitandapplication.(AR,exhibitA.)TheRegionalWaterBoardwillnotdoubleortriplethepenaltypursuanttomultiplepermitconditions.CategoryDviolationsapplytounpermittedturbiddischargestosurfacewaterincreasingsurfacewaterturbidityforwhichBMPswereinadequateandthereforethemaximumliabilityof$10,000isappliedtoeachdischargeevent.OnSeptember9,2006,violation51wasidentifiedbythebiologicalmonitor,CarlPage(AR,exhibitM‐Tab19).Mr.Pageestimatedthat2.5gallonsoffinerockdebrisdischargeddirectlyintotheflowingchanneloftheriver.Further,Mr.Pageindicatedthatthissameactivityoccurredlaterthatsamedayandagaintwodayslater.(Id.)Caltransstaffidentifiedthisactivityasaconcernbaseduponthephotosofdrillingdebrisintheriveraroundafooting(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15).Caltransarguedthatthecitedevidencedoesnotcorrespondwiththephotospresented(AR,exhibitG‐2).However,therecordshowsthattheengineeringdiarywasgeneratedinresponsetoactivitieswhichwereplainlydocumentedinthebiologicalmonitorreportforSeptember9through15(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs15and19).Nevertheless,asingleviolationforthisseriesofthreeeventswascharged.Baseduponthediscussionintheengineeringdiary(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15),dischargesfromthisactivitywereapparentlypreventableasthecontractorusedabaffletokeepdrillingdebriscontainedandCaltrans’follow‐upinvestigationonSeptember11,2006oftheincidentrevealednofurtherdischarges.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.OnSeptember22,2006,violation64wasidentifiedbythebiologicalmonitor,BradfordNorman(AR,exhibitM‐Tab25).CrossingofthewettedchannelwithoutimplementingappropriateBMPsresultedindischargeofsedimentcausingaplumeapproximately400feetlongwhichlastedabout50minutes(AR,exhibitM‐Tb25andTab62).Theequipmentcrossingwasplannedseveraldaysinadvance.DespiteamplenoticeandtimetoprepareforimplementationofappropriateBMPs(AR,exhibitM‐Tab23),fourlargepiecesofequipmentcrossedthechannelwithinaspanoftwominuteswithoutadequatecleaning(AR,exhibitM‐Tab25).Itisunclearwhetherthefailuretocleantheequipment,thespeedofthecrossings,orsomecombinationofthesefactorsresultedinthedischarge.None‐the‐less,BMPsusedforthisactivitywerenotadequatetocomplywithCondition7.Caltranscorrectlyassertedthatheavyequipmentcrossingswereapermittedactivity.The401CertificationcontemplatesandpermitsrivercrossingsprovidedthatBMPsforsedimentandturbiditycontrolareimplementedasnon‐compensatorymitigation(AR,exhibitG‐2).However,therecordshowsacleardisregardforproperproceduresidentifiedfortheprotectionofwaterqualityandthattheseactionsresultedinthedischargeofsedimentto

Page 14: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐14‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 thestreaminviolationofpermittedactivities(AR,exhibitM‐Tab24).A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.OnSeptember29,2006,violations73and75wereidentifiedbytheCaltransassistantresidentengineer(AR,exhibitM‐Tab26).Duringtheplacementofconcreteforbridgefootingsbelowtheflowingchannel,thecontractordidnotprovideadequatesealforconcretecontainment.Asaresult,concreteescapedthecorrugatedmetalpipe,causinga150footlongplumeintheriver.(Id.)Aseconddischargeofturbidityoccurredwhilethecontractorstoodonthesandbagsoutsidethecorrugatedmetalpipetryingtoreattachaconcretetremie,whichhadapparentlycomeapartduringthepour.Itisunclearwhetherthesecondplumewastheresultofconcretedischargesorthedisturbanceofriverbottomdeposits.Caltransarguedthattheplumesmayhavebeencomposedofmaterialsotherthanconcrete(AR,exhibitG‐2).Whilethismaybetrue,nomonitoringdatawascollectedtoofferconclusiveevidenceofthatfact.Regardless,theviolationscitedareforaturbiddischargeandtherefore,donotrelyuponthepresenceorabsenceofconcreteinthedocumentedplumes.BMPswereinadequatetopreventthesedischarges.A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforeachoftheseevents.Aftercarefulreviewoftheevidence,theRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportintherecordforfoureventsinvolvingtheunauthorizedturbiddischargetotheriver,foratotalpenaltyof$40,000.CategoryEInsufficientTurbidityMeasurements

TheProsecutionTeamalleged14turbiditymeasurementviolationsforaproposedliabilityof$140,000.Condition19ofthe401Certificationrequiredthat“…[f]ieldturbiditymeasurementsshallbecollectedwheneverprojectactivitycausesturbidityintheSouthForkEelRivertobeincreasedabovebackgroundconcentrationsinordertodemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.”Condition19furtherrequiredthat“[t]hefrequencyofturbiditymonitoringshallbeaminimumofeveryhourduringperiodsofincreasedturbidityandshallcontinueuntilturbiditymeasurementsdemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations….”(AR,exhibitA.)Self‐monitoringandreportingisakeycomponentusedbytheRegionalWaterBoardtoprotecthumanhealthandtheenvironment.Thepurposeofself‐monitoringistoensurethattheregulatedentity,inthiscaseCaltrans,implementspermitprovisionsandabidesbypermitlimitationsprotectingwaterqualityinaccordancewithapplicablestatutesandregulations.Anappropriateself‐monitoringprogramallowsthepermitteetoevaluatetheeffectivenessofenvironmentalmanagementpracticesalreadyinplace,detectandcorrectpotentialviolationsinatimelymanner.Self‐monitoringrequiredbythe401Certificationplacestheresponsibilitytoperformsystematic,documented,andobjectiveself‐reviewoffacilityoperationsandpracticesrelatedtomeetingenvironmentalcomplianceonCaltransanditscontractor,MCM.Asinthissituation,allself‐monitoringprogramsrelyupontheintegrityandcapabilityofthepermitteetoimplementanadequateprogram.Caltransdevelopedavisualscaleusedinconjunctionwithdigitalphotographstodocumentturbidity(AR,exhibitM‐Tab60).“Thisscaleconsistedoffourpossiblevalues,0,1,2,or3indicatingthedegreeofsedimentplumingintheSouthForkmainstem.”(Id.)Whilenecessaryandapplicable,visualmonitoringisonlythefirststeprequiredunderCondition19ofthe401Certification.Onceaturbidityplumehasbeenobserved,Condition19requiresthecollectionofturbiditymeasurementstodemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations,whicharepresentedintheBasinPlanasnumericcriteria.Itisnotpossibletocomplywithanumericstandardusingqualitativedatasuchasavisualscale.Asexplainedbelow,theevidenceshowsthatDischargersdidnottaketheresponsibilityofself‐monitoringseriously.Monitoringequipmentwasfrequentlynotavailable,inastateof

Page 15: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐15‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 disrepairornotusedatall.Failuretohaveavailableandmaintainpropermonitoringequipmentischronicthroughouttheperiodofrecord.Thisfailuretoallocatetimeandresourcesensuringqualityreceivingwatermonitoringindicatesanapatheticattitudetowardstheverycoreofregulatorycomplianceandevaluation.Themaximumcivilliabilityof$10,000eachisappliedforseveninsufficientmonitoringviolations.Civilliabilityof$5,000isappliedtothreeinsufficientmonitoringviolations(violations16,27,and34)becausetheturbidityplumeswerevisuallyrecorded,ofshortduration,andlessthan20feetinlength.Atotalcivilliabilityof$85,000isappliedfor10insufficientmonitoringviolations.OnAugust29andAugust30,2006,aturbidplume15ft.longandfourfeetwidelastingfortwohourswascreatedfromunpermitteddewateringactivities(AR,exhibitM‐Tab14).AlthoughtheCaltranssubmissiontotheRegionalWaterBoardindicatedthatmonitoring100feetdownstreamoftheplumesindicatednoincreaseoverbackgroundturbidity,nodocumentationofsamplecollectionorresultsfromsaidmonitoringwascontainedinthebiologicalmonitoringreportforthatperiod.(Id.)Turbiditymonitoringisrequiredtoassesscompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitationsatthepointofdischarge(ie.withintheheartoftheplume),not100feetdownstream.Evenifsampleshadbeencollected,theresultsofwhichwerenotreported,samplingdownstreamoftheplumeratherthanwithintheimpactedareaviolatedCondition19self‐monitoringrequirementsresultinginviolations16and27(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs22,23,and62).Liabilityisassessedforthesetwoevents.OnSeptember1,2006,Caltranssubmittedanoticeofdischarge,attachmentK(notice)forthedischargeofsedimentdisturbedonthechannelfloorduringtheplacementofgravelfilledbagsaroundtheoutsideofasteelpipe(AR,exhibitM‐Tab10).Thenoticeindicatedthattheplumewas20‐feetinlengthlastingapproximatelytwominutesandthatthebiologistconfirmedbackgroundturbiditylevelswerenotincreasedasmeasuredfromapoint100‐feetdownstream.(Id.)Thisstatementisinconsistentwiththebiologicalmonitor’ssummaryreport,whichshowsonlyanobservationof1onthevisualscale(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Ineitherinstance,visualmonitoringaloneandormonitoringoutsideoftheplumetoassesreceivingwatercompliancebothresultinaviolation(violation34)ofself‐monitoringrequirements.Evidentiaryreviewofviolation36appearstorefertothesameincidentcitedunderviolation34.Therefore,liabilityisassessedforonlyoneoftheseviolations.OnSeptember6,2006,violation40occurredwhenCaltransandMCMfailedtomonitoraplumeresultingfromthreevehiclescrossingthesouthsideoftheRiver(AR,exhibitM‐Tab13,andTab62).TheweeklybiologicalmonitoringreportforSeptember5‐8,2006andCaltrans’turbiditymemobothreportaplumeonaqualitativescaleof3lastingforatleast12minutesandextendingthroughahabitatzonepreviouslynotedtocontainfish,frogsandsnakes;(Id.)yetnoquantitativeturbiditymeasurementsweretakentoassessreturntocompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.(Id.)Liabilityisassessedforthisevent.OnSeptember9,2006,aturbidityplumewasobservedresultingfromdrillingdebrisaroundtrestlefoundation4Lt,butturbiditymonitoringwasnotconducted,resultinginviolation52(AR,exhibitM‐Tab15,Tab19,andTab62;seealsoCategoryD‐TurbidityDischargeviolation51).TheevidenceindicatesthatmaterialwasdischargedtotheRivercausingavisualturbidityplumeasphotodocumentedbythebiologicalmonitor(AR,exhibitsC‐AppendixA;J‐4at13‐14).Violation52isassessedliabilitybecauseaplumewasobserved,givenavisualratingof2,andnotfollowed‐upwithquantitativeturbiditymeasurements(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).

Page 16: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐16‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 OnSeptember22,2006,turbiddischargesresultedfromplannedcrossingsofthewettedchannel.(SeeCategoryD‐TurbidityDischargeviolation64.)AppendixAtotheURSreportshows14fieldturbiditymeasurementdata:elevenmeasurementsweremadeusingaHORIBAturbidimeter(resultsreportedinNTU’s)andthreemeasurementsweremadeusingaLaMotteSechhiCUP(resultsreportedinJTU’s).ThesemeasurementsweretakenonSeptember22ndbetween08:56and9:04AMintheSouthForkMainstem(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).TheHORIBAturbiditymeasurementdataareallflaggedwithanasterisk"*",whichindicatesinaccuratereadings.Avisualratingof3wasassignedtotheplumewhichlastedfor50minutes,yetonlyoneofthe14attemptedmeasurementswascollectedduringthecrossingandnonewerecollectedaftertodocumentareturntobackgroundconditionsinthereceivingwater.(Id.)Thisshowsdisregardfortheimportanceofself‐monitoringasakeycomponenttoimplementprotectionofbeneficialuses.Caltransadmittedtoviolation65occurringinitsinitialCaltransDefenseMatrixsubmittedwithitsCaseinChief(AR,exhibitG‐2).Liabilityisassessedforthisevent.OnSeptember28,2006,violation72occurred,forinadequatemonitoringofa100footlongplumelastingapproximatelyfourhoursresultinginNTUreadingsbetween3‐5(Tab60andTab62).Chronologically,thisisabetterattemptbytheDischargerstomonitorimpactstowaterqualityfromturbiddischarges.However,Condition19ofthe401Certificationrequiredthatmonitoringcontinue,“untilturbiditymeasurementsdemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.”(AR,exhibitA.)Monitoringoftheplumeisdocumentedbetween15:10and15:15,showingthatthisfour‐hourlongplumewasmonitoredforaspanofonlyfiveminutes.Further,acomparisonofthefinalmeasurementof3NTUtoabackgroundconditionof0NTUdoesnotshowareturntocompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations(IAR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Therefore,liabilityisassessedforthisevent.OnSeptember29,2006,allegedviolations74and76occurredwhentwodistinctturbidityplumeswereobservedintheriver.Noturbiditymeasurementsweretakentoassessthesecondplume;however,turbiditymeasurementsweretakentoassesstheturbidityresultingfromthecementitiousdischargeassociatedwiththefirstplume(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Thefirstplumeresultedwhenconcreteescapedfromthecorrugatedmetalpipeleavinga150footlongplumelastingforoveranhourintheriver.Thesecondplumeoccurredwhiletryingtoreattachthetremieandthecontractorworkedaroundthecorrugatedmetalpipebystandingonthesandbags(AR,exhibitM‐Tabs26,37and59;seealsoCategoryD‐TurbidityDischargesviolation73andCategoryF‐CementitiousDischargesviolation78).AppendixAoftheURSreportcontainsthedatacollectedbyabiologicalmonitorintheplumeandabovetheplume,howeverperhapsduetothenatureandsourceoftheturbidity,theHoribaturbidimeterproducedunreliabledatawhichisreportedas"999*"and"5*"(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).ThebiologicalmonitorcollectedsecondarysamplesusingtheLaMotteSechhiCUP.SechhiCUPturbiditymeasurementswerecollectedandreportedabove,withinandpostplume.(Id.)CaltransadmittedtothesefactsinitsinitialDefenseMatrix(AR,exhibitG‐2).TheRegionalWaterBoardfindsthatinthisinstance,theDischargersmadereasonableeffortstocollectturbiditysamplesandnoliabilitywillbeassessedforviolation74.Becausenomeasurementsweretakenforthesecondplume,liabilitiesareassessedforthisevent.OnOctober2,2006,anequipmentcrossingcauseda100‐footlongplumelastingforaperiodofthreeminutes.URSReportAppendixAshowstwodataat3:24and3:25PM,theturbiditymeasurementsof0NTUbeforethecrossingincreasedto2NTUduringtheequipmentcrossing(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Thesetwodataareinsufficienttocomplywithself‐monitoringrequirementsofCondition19,whichrequiredaminimumofhourlyfieldturbiditymeasurementsuntilthemeasurementsdemonstratecompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.Violation82isassessedliabilityforfailuretomonitortheplumeuntilmeasurementsshowareturntobackgroundconditions.

Page 17: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐17‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 OnOctober16,2006,twoweekspriortotheendoftheallowablein‐streamconstructionseason,anewpatternofmonitoringresultedinatotalofsixtyeightHoribaturbidimeterandsixtysevenSechhiCUPsampleresults.Thesemeasurementswereallcollectedwithina45minuteperiod(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Asingleeightfootlongplumelasting15minuteswithvisualratingof1isreportedforthesameperiodofrecord.(Id.)Likewise,13Horibaturbidimeter,threeSecchidiskandthreeSechhiCUPturbiditysampleresultsarereportedforOctober20,2006duringa62minutetimeframe.(Id.)Despitethemanyturbiditysamplescollected,violation115isassessedbecausetheDischargersfailedtomonitorpostplumeconditionstodocumentareturntobackgroundconditions.OnOctober18,2006,thebiologicalmonitordocumenteda20footlong,6footwideplumelastingfor20minutesasaresultofcofferdamconstruction(Tab42,pg.218).Aturbidityplumewasobserved,butnoupstreambackgroundturbiditymeasurementsweretaken.Nonetheless,SechhiCUPsampleswerecollectedwithintheplumeaswellas51minuteslater.ThesesamplesshowedJTUof1withintheplumeand0JTUalmostonehourlater(AR,exhibitM‐Tab62).Thiseventrepresentsatechnicalviolation(violation119)ofturbiditymonitoringrequirements,butwillnotbeassessedliabilitiesbecausetheDischargersmonitoredin‐plumeandpostplumeconditionsshowingareturntocompliancewithreceivingwaterlimitations.(Id.)October20,2006,ProsecutionTeamallegedthatviolation122occurredforinsufficientturbiditymeasurements.TurbiditymeasurementsappeartocorrelatetosimultaneousmeasurementsforpH,conductivity,salinity,anddissolvedoxygen.(Id.)Novisualobservationofaplumewasreportedduringtheflurryofmonitoringactivityonthisdate.(Id.)Rather,thedatasuggestelevatedpHintheRiver,consistentwithcementitiousdischarges.Nonetheless,therecorddoesnotsupportaviolationforinsufficientturbiditymeasurements.ProsecutionTeamproposedliabilityfor14insufficientturbiditymonitoringviolationstotalingaliabilityof$140,000.However,uponreviewoftheevidence,fouroftheviolations,foreventsoccurringonSeptember1,October14,18,and20,2006(violations36,74,119,and122)werechargedbaseduponevidenceintherecordthatiseitherunclearordoesnotadequatelysupporttheviolations.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportintherecordfor10violationsofinsufficientturbiditymeasurements,foratotalpenaltyof$85,000.CategoryFCementitiousDischarges

TheProsecutionTeamalleged11violationsforimproperdisposalofcementwaste,resultinginaproposedliabilityof$110,000.Concreteandcementitiouswastewatersarecaustictobothhumanhealthandaquaticenvironments,andareconsideredtobecorrosivewithapHtypicallyaround12.TheBasinPlancriteriaforpHintheEelRiverisarangefrom6.5to8.5pHunits.Contactwithwet(unhardened)concrete,orothercementitiousmaterialscancauseskinirritationandseverechemicalburnsorseriouseyedamage.TheeffectsofhighpHonaquaticorganismsmayinclude:death,damagetogills,eyes,andskin;andaninabilitytodisposeofmetabolicwastes.Forthesereasons,theRegionalWaterBoardgenerallydoesnotpermitanyconcretewastedischargestolandunlessitisfullycontained,suchasinalinedBasin.(Seee.g.AR,exhibitM‐Tab4.)Condition9ofthe401Certificationprohibitstheunauthorizeddischargeofcementorconcretewashings.Condition10requiresthat“[a]llmaterialsusedforcleaningconcretefromtoolsandequipment,andanywastesgeneratedbythisactivity,shallbeadequatelycontainedtopreventcontactwithsoilandsurfacewaterandshallbedisposed

Page 18: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐18‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 ofproperly.”Condition17requiresthatallactivitiesbeconductedinaccordancewiththePermitandapplication.(AR,exhibitA.)Inane‐mailcommunicationdatedJanuary6,2006,RegionalWaterBoardstaffclarifiedtherequirementsrelatedtoconcretemanagementanddisposal(AR,exhibitM‐Tab4):

Wearenotpermittinganywaste[concrete]dischargestoland(onlylinedbasins),groundwaterorsurfacewaterforthisproject.Allthe401s…issuedtoCDOTcontainaconditionthatincorporatesthefollowinglanguage.

Nocementorconcretewashings,orearthenmaterialfromanyconstructionorassociatedactivityofwhatevernature,otherthanthatauthorizedbythispermit,shallbeallowedtoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.

The401forConfusionHillwillcontainthesameversionoftheaboverequirementthatisinallthe401sI'veissuedtoCDOTinthepast.Otherthancompletecontainmentofallconcretewasteandwashwaterinlinedbasinsofthetypesshownonthesubmittedplans,CDOThasnotproposedanyotheracceptablemethodfordisposal,reuse,etc.,ofthewastewater.Therefore,theonlyauthorizeddischargeofconcreteistheconcretethatwillbecomethebridges.”(Id.)

Caltransresponded,“Thanksfortheclarification.Weunderstandtheconditionand…[a]llconcretewasteandwashwaterwillbecontained.”(Id.)Notwithstanding,therecordshowsatleastsixseparateeventsofimproperdisposalofcementwaste,asdiscussedinmoredetailbelow.BecausetheintentoftheRegionalWaterBoardtoprohibitconcretewastedisposalatthesitewasclear,eacheventassociatedwithunpermittedconcretedisposalatthesiteisassignedthefullliabilityof$10,000allowableunderthestatue.Activitiesassociatedwithviolation10‐11and49‐50occurredonAugust29andSeptember8,2006respectively.TheCaltransletterofDecember13,2006,statesthatonAugust29,“duringplacinga[sic]concreteinacorrugatedsteelpipewithintheriver,thewaterlevelroseandtopreventitfromoverflowingintotheriver,thewaterwaspumpedtothedewateringbasin”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab73at469‐479).Similarly,theactingstructurerepresentative’sdailyreportdatedSeptember7,2006statesthat,“thenextdaythewaterwastestedforpH,treatedwithmuriaticacidthenpumpedintothesettlementbasin.Iestimateabout25galwaspumpedfromtheLtCSPandperhaps50galpumpedfromtheRtCSPbasedontheconc[rete]placed"(AR,exhibitM‐Tab12).Thereisnoevidencetoindicatethataproperlycontaineddewateringbasinwasconstructedproximatetothetrestlefootingsforconcretemanagementatthesite.Rathertheevidenceindicatesthatthe‘dewateringbasin’usedonAugust29thandSeptember8thwasinfactIsolatedPoolB,watersoftheUnitedStates,oranotherunlineddewateringlocation.Photodocumentationshowsthepipefromtheconcretewithinthecorrugatedmetalpipedischargingtotheunlinedbasin,collaboratingtheforgoingevidence(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC;J‐4at11‐12).Therefore,theRegionalWaterBoardfindssufficientbasistoassessliabilitiesforthesetwoevents(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).AlsoonAugust29,2006,violation12‐14occurredfromimproperdisposalofwasteandmaterialsusedforcleaningconcretetoolsandequipment.ThiseventisdocumentedbystatementscontainedintheDecember13correspondence:“Afterplacingtheconcretesealcourse,thecontractorcleanedthehopper,tremieandshovelsinafootingexcavationintheriverbar.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab73at474.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.

Page 19: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐19‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 Violations58‐59arebaseduponphotographicevidence(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC;J‐4at16)inthefinalURSreportlabeled“cementwastepourtoedgeofIsolatedPoolB.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab70at371.)MCMsuggestedthatthephotoshowsnaturalsedimentsofthetypeprevalentintheriver;however,thephotocaptiondocumentedbythebiologicalmonitorclearlystatesthatthewastewascement,therebycorroboratingthephotograph.ThephotoshowsadischargeofcementitiouswastedirectlyonthegravelbaroftheRiverwithinwatersoftheUnitedStates.(Id.)A$10,000liabilityiswarrantedforthisevent.Violations77and78arebasedonawrittendescriptionofanunauthorizeddischargeofcementonSeptember29,2006.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab29.)CaltransengineeringdiaryreportNo.46.395describesthedischargeofcementtotheRiverfromconcretefootingsealpourindicatingthat“Sandbagswerethenplacedontheoutsideperimeteronly,nosandbagswereplacedontheinsideoftheCMP.CONTRbeganplacingsealcoarseconcrete@1701hrs.…CONTRbeganbyplacingthesealcoarseinthe#3FTG.Duringtheplacement,itwasapparentthatthecontractordidnothaveagoodsealaroundtheCMP.ConcreteescapedfromtheCMPleavingaplumeintheriverapprox.150'‐0inlength.”(Id.)Thewrittendescriptionofthisviolationisfurthersupportedbyphotodocumentationoftheevent(AR,exhibitC‐AppendixC;J‐4at49‐51).CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationeventbutobjectedtofinesundermultiplepermitterms(AR,exhibitT‐2;H‐2tab100).Thisallegedviolationeventoverlapswithviolations73and75discussedandassessedliabilityinCategoryD,therefore,noliabilityisassessedinthiscategory.TheRegionalWaterBoardwillnotincreasetheliabilitypursuanttomultiplepermittermsforasingleevent.Evidenceintherecordshowsatleastfiveseparateeventsofimproperdisposalofcementwaste,foratotalpenaltyof$50,000.CategoryGRubbishandDebrisDischarges

ProsecutionTeamrecommendedapenaltyof$10,000forninedaysofrubbishanddebrisdischarges.SincethesubmittalofitsCaseinChief,ProsecutionTeamisnolongerallegingviolationsonthreeofthosedays.TheRegionalWaterBoardhassimilarconcernswiththeproposedliabilityfortherubbishanddebrisissuesasitdoesforleakyequipment.ProsecutionTeambroughtchargesundercondition9ofthe401Certification.Whiletechnicallytrashintherivercouldcountasadischarge,itmustbeviewedincontext.Itisnotreasonabletoexpectthateachpieceoftrashcouldtriggerapenalty,particularlywhenevidenceshowsthatthetrashwaspickedup.Condition11ofthepermitshowsareasonableapproachforaddressingtrashandprojectmaterials.Itprovided:“Whenoperationsarecomplete,anyexcessmaterialordebrisshallberemovedfromtheworkareaanddisposedofproperly.Norubbishshallbedepositedwithin150feetofthehighwatermarkofanystream.”(AR,exhibitA.)Violation61and63stemfromaweeklybiologicalmonitorreport(September18‐22)notingthedischargeoftrashblowingoffthetrestledeck,andnoclosedwastereceptaclestocontainthetrash(AR,exhibitM‐Tab24and25).Materialscitedincludedsawdust,cigarettebutts,plasticandpaperpackagingandemptywaterbottles,weldingwire,loosenails,rustscabfromrecycledI‐beams,weldingrods,oilyragsandgloves,cutwoodpieces,andweldingslag.Violation61issupportedbytwophotosdatedSeptember18,2006showingablockofwoodandothertrashinthewater.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at17‐18.)Violation63issupportedbyseveralphotosdatedSeptember22,2006showingpiecesoftrashintheriver.(Id.at22‐24.)Violation68and69stemfromthenextweeklybiologicalmonitorreport(September26‐30)notingsomeimprovementwiththetrashissuesidentifiedtheweekbefore,howeversawdust,nails,woodandlargerustflakesremainedonthetrestledeck(AR,exhibitM‐Tab

Page 20: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐20‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 28).PhotosdatedSeptember26and27showrustflakesinthewaterandsomefloatingwood.(AR,exhibitJ‐4at36‐40.)Violation123and124stemfromaweeklybiologicalmonitoringreport(Oct.23‐28)thatnotedlargerustflakesaccumulatedonthegravelbaronOctober24,butalsonotingthatthesewerecleanedup(AR,exhibitM‐Tab50).Onthenextdaythebiologicalmonitornotedthatwoodscraps,sawdust,rustflakesandplasticswerecleanedup,andlargerustflakesfromtheI‐beamsthatcouldeasilyfallintotheriverwerecleanedup.Additionaltrashwastargetedtobecleanedupbytheendofthemonth.Wedonotfindthattheseviolationsrisetothelevelofa$10,000fine.Nothinginthedocumentsindicatesthatcleanupeffortswerenotperformedinatimelymanner,infact,thedocumentsdemonstratethattrashissueswereidentifiedandaddressed.Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardfindsthatliabilityisnotwarrantedinthisviolationcategory.ContainmentonthetrestledeckisaddressedundertheLeakyEquipmentandStormWaterPermitsubcategories.CategoryHIndividualEventsTheProsecutionTeamallegedfiveindividualeventviolationsthatdonotfitintoanyspecificcategory,foratotalofproposedliabilityof$41,000.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportforfouroftheseviolations.Inaddition,violation150isdiscussedandassignedliabilityinthissectioninsteadofinCategoryDbecauseoftheuniquecircumstancesofthatevent.Liabilitiestotaling$40,000arewarrantedforthesefiveviolationevents.Violation1stemsfromasmallhydraulicfluidspillonAugust16,2006.Alineaccidentallyseveredonthegravelbarandwascleaneduppromptly.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab5.)ProsecutionTeamproposedatotalof$1,000liabilityfortheviolation.Thisdischargewasunauthorized;however,itwassmallandaccidental.Moreover,therecordshowsthatitwasreportedproperlyandpromptlycleanedup,whichdemonstratescorrectimplementationofthepermits.TheRegionalWaterBoarddeclinestoimposetheliabilityproposedbytheProsecutionTeamforthisevent.Violation5stemsfromcontractorfuelingequipmentonthegravelbar.ASWPPPcomplianceinspectionwasconductedonAugust22,2006wherefuelingonthegravelbarwasobserved.TheinspectionreportstatedthatJamesHammacknowledgedthattheywerefuelingacompressor,generator,man‐liftandbackhoe(AR,exhibitM‐Tab8).Condition13ofthe401CertificationprovidedthatfuelingofequipmentandvehiclesshallbeoutsidethewatersoftheUS.(AR,exhibitA‐1.)Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedfortheviolationofthiscondition.Violation144stemsfromreportsofsedimentdischargesonNovember3,2006.WaltDragaloskivisitedtheprojectsiteduringaraineventtoreviewconstructionstormwaterBMPsandobservedthefollowing:“DuringconstructionoftheworkplatformforthesouthbridgePier2,loosesoilwaspushedovertheedgeofthebank.Thesoilcascadedallthewaytothetoeoftheslope,whichisbelowtheOrdinaryHighWaterelevation.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab53.)Mr.Dragaloskirecommendedthattheloosesoilberemoved.(Id.)Itisunclearwhethereffortsweremadetocleanuptheproblem.Condition9ofthewaterqualitycertificationprohibitedunauthorizeddischargesofconstructionwastetoenterintoorbeplacedwhereitmaybewashedbyrainfallintowatersoftheState.(AR,exhibitA‐1.)Thepermitdidnotauthorizepushingloosesoiloverabankthestreamorareasaroundthestream.Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedforthisviolation.

Page 21: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐21‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 Violation150wasidentifiedinearly2007byCaltransassistantresidentengineer(AR,exhibitM‐Tab26).CaltransstaffreportedthedischargeofturbidwatertoRegionalWaterBoardstaffonFebruary21,2007,fivedaysafterevidenceofthedischargewasdiscovered.Thenotificationindicatedthatevidenceoffinegraysiltwasobservedinabackflowchannelandonthebankbelowthe100‐yearfloodplainonthewestsideoftheriveratthesouthbridgelocationduringaFebruary16,2007,DepartmentofFishandGame(DFG)siteinspection.AfterinterviewingCaltransstaffandarepresentativeofthecontractor,Caltransstaffestimatedthatthedischargeoccurredsixweekspriortodiscoveryon,oraroundJanuary5,2007.ThedischargewasthoughttohavebeencausedbyaruptureofanaeriallinesuspendedovertheRiver.Asmuchas170gallonsofturbidwaterdischargedtotheriver.ThedischargewasnotreportedtoCaltransstaffbythecontractor(AR,exhibitM‐Tab74).Thisviolationisparticularlydisturbingbecauseitwasneitherdiscoverednorreportedinatimelymanner.OnlyasaresultofaDFGinspectionwasthisdischargeofsedimentidentified,despitethatfactthatitwassignificantenoughtodisplayidentifiableresiduesixweekspostevent.(Id.)ThisviolationreliesuponthedirectobservationsandreportingofCaltransstaffonsiteandisthereforeconsideredreliable.Further,CaltransandMCMdidnotdisputethisviolationevent.(AR,exhibitT‐2;H‐2tab100.)Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedforthisviolation.Violations152‐153stemfromsandblastingofrebarwhichoccurredontwoseparateoccasionsonMay23,2007.WaltDragaloskinotifiedtheRegionalWaterBoardoftheunauthorizeddischarge,asrequiredbytheStormWaterPermit.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab77.)“ThecontractorusedsandtosandblastrebarwhichwasextrudingfromconcreteontheNorthBridgeatPier3withouttheuseofappropriateBMPs,withoutCaltransoversight,andindisregardofthedirectionprovidedbytheResidentEngineerpriortotheactivity.”(Id.)Thesandandrebarwasnotcontainedandwasdepositeddirectlyontothegravelbarinviolationof401CertificationCondition9.Aliabilityof$10,000iswarrantedforthesetwoviolations.TheRegionalWaterBoardwillnotimposeanyadditionalliabilityunderCondition7ofthewaterqualitycertificationforthisevent.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindssupportintherecordestablishingfiveindividualviolationeventsforatotalpenaltyof$40,000.CategoryIStormWaterPermitViolations

TheProsecutionTeamalleged141violationsundertheStormWaterPermitforaproposedpenaltyof$450,000.TheRegionalWaterBoardfindstheproposedpenaltiesexcessiveinlightoftheevidencepresentedandinconsideringtheliabilitiesalreadyassessedforspecific401Certificationconditionviolations.Activitiesregulatedbythe401CertificationlargelyoverlapactivitiessubjecttoStormWaterPermitconditionssothatmanyviolationsfoundundertheCertificationcouldalsobeconstruedasStormWaterPermitviolations.Forexample,unauthorizeddischargesunder401CertificationCondition9wereunauthorizedbecauseproperBMPsasrequiredundertheStormWaterPermitwerenotinplace.Manyofthe401CertificationviolationsweredocumentedasaresultofStormWaterPermitimplementation.JustastheRegionalWaterBoarddeclinestoimposeadditionalpenaltiesformultiplepermittermviolations,theRegionalWaterBoardintendstoavoidimposingadditionalpenaltiesundermultiplepermitsforidenticalorrelateddischargeevents.However,StormWaterPermitimplementationisvitalforadequatewaterqualityprotection,andtherecordcontainstroublingevidenceabouttheDischargers’abilityandwillingnesstocomplywiththeProgram.Forthisreason,andbasedontheevidencepresented,theRegionalWaterBoardfinds$30,000liabilityappropriateforStormWaterPermitviolationsrelatedtothetrestledeckthatareindependentfrom401Certificationviolationevents.FederalregulationsrequiredischargesofstormwaterassociatedwithconstructionactivitythatdisturbsfiveacresormoretoobtainaNationalPollutantDischargeElimination

Page 22: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐22‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 System(NPDES)permitandtoimplementBMPsthatachieveperformancestandardsofBestAvailableTechnologyEconomicallyAchievable(BAT)fortoxicpollutantsandBestConventionalTechnology(BCT)forconventionalpollutants.(AR,exhibitB‐1at3.)TheCaltransStormWaterPermitrequiresCaltranstoimplementaneffectiveStormWaterManagementPlan(SWMP)(Id.at9[emphasisadded])thatcoversconstructionbyCaltransandconstructionundercontractforCaltrans.(Id.at17.)Requiredprogramelementsinclude:1)reviewoftheconstructionsiteplan;2)implementationofstructuralandnonstructuralBMPs;3)siteinspectionandenforcement;and4)educationofconstructionsiteoperators.(Id.at17‐18.)Asite‐specificSWPPPisdevelopedforeachconstructionprojectandCaltransisresponsibleforhavinganeffectiveSWPPP.(Id.at19[emphasisadded].)TheSWMPisanintegralandenforceablecomponentofthestormwaterprogram.TheSWMPreferstoBMPmanualsandStandardSpecificationsthatcontaindetailsofBMPimplementation.(AR,exhibitB‐2.)ThepermitreliesonBMPimplementationratherthanestablishing“endofpipe”effluentlimitationstoreduceofpreventunauthorizedpollutantsindischarges.Therefore,adischarger’sabilitytoimplement,monitor,andadjustBMPsiscrucialforthispermittingprogramtobeeffective.Theproceduresfortheproperuse,storage,anddisposalofmaterialsandequipmentontemporaryconstructionpadsincludeprovidingwatertightcurbsortoeboardstocontainspillsandpreventmaterials,tools,anddebrisfromleavingtheplatform.(AR,exhibitB‐3at500‐11,12,13,M‐Tab81,ConstructionSiteBMPManual,NS‐13.)Ifaleakinglinecannotberepaired,theequipmentmustberemovedfromoverthewater.(Id.)Also,NS‐10requiresimmediaterepairofleakingequipmentandremovalfromtheprojectifleakscannotberepaired.(Id.;AR,exhibitF‐3tab8.)Allegedviolations154‐283arebasedonallegedinadequatecontainmentofthetrestledeckfortheentireconstructionseasonof2006,atotalof130days.TheevidencecitedbytheProsecutionTeamshowsthecontainmentproblembeginningAugust23‐29,2006.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab47.)Atthattime,Dischargerstriedcaulkingthetrestledeckbutheavyequipmenthadsplittheseams.Meanwhile,leakyequipment,aswellasconstructionmaterialsandgarbage,dischargedorthreatenedtodischargedirectlytotheriver.Dischargersattemptedtopatchwithpiecesofplywood.ByOctober31,2006,“newwooddeckingusedtocompletethefalsebridgefittedtogethertightlyandsealedthedeckingadequately.However,theolddeckmatsemployeddirectlyabovetheriverarenotasflatorwellsealed,andhavethepotentialtoallowdebristoentertheriver.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab51.)Ultimatelyafabricbarrierwasrolledoverthedeck.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab76.)Assigningamaximumpenaltyeachdayfortheentireconstructionseasonseemsinappropriateinthiscase,astheevidenceshowsthateffortsweremadetoimprovecontainmentonthetrestledeck.WhileitistruethatthepermitrequiresBMPstobeeffective,itisreasonabletoallowforsomeamountoftrialanderror,particularlywhendocumentsshowthatdischargedmaterialsweresubsequentlyremovedandcleanedup.Ontheotherhand,suchanexcessiveamounteffortshouldnotberequiredbyCaltransandothersbeforethecontractorimplementedcorrectivemeasures.AsitevisitwasconductedbyaCaltransemployeereviewingstormwaterBMPsonNovember6.(SeeAR,exhibitM‐Tab53.)Henotesthat“[t]hecraneisbeingusedonthetrestlehasleakingfluids.Thishasbeennotedmanytimesearlier.Thecontractorhasattachedapieceofplasticunderthecrane,buttheplasticcatchesbothoilleaksandstormwater.Thereisevidenceonthetrestledeckthatoilthat[sic]hasleakedofftheplastic.Iobservedcommingledoilwithwaterontheplasticduringmysitevisit.Irecommendthatthecraneberepairedimmediatelyordiscontinueitsuse.”(Id.at286.)MCMwasdirectedtoremovetheManitowoccraneoffthedeckatnightinearlyNovember.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab71at442.)On

Page 23: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐23‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 December1stMCMdidnotwantthecranetocontinuouslybemoved.AREDnotes“MuchtimehasbeenexpendedwithMCMonSWPPissues.Itisapparentthattheyhaveignoredmanyoftheissuesforcontainmentonthetrestle.”(AR,exhibitM‐Tab61.)TheSWPPPrequirescontainmentofthetrestledeckandcontrolofexcessiveleakingequipment.Ifexcessivelyleakingequipmentcannotberepaired,itmustberemoved.(AR,exhibitM‐Tab81.)Whileeffortsweremadetocontainthetrestledeck,therecordshowsthatthecontractordidnotadequatelyrespondtospecificdirectionregardingtheManitowoccraneforoveramonth.ThisviolatessectionH(8)(b)oftheStormWaterPermitforfailuretoimplementBMPsNS‐10andNS‐13foranextendedperiodoftime.(AR,exhibitsB‐1;B‐3.)Accordingly,theRegionalWaterBoardassessesatotalpenaltyof$30,000forthenon‐containmentofthetrestledeckoveranextendedperiodoftime.Theremainingallegedstormwaterviolations288‐294arenotsupportedbyanyspecifically‐referencedevidence.Tab83ofProsecutionTeam’sdocumentaryevidence(AR,exhibitM)contains88pagesofrandomdocumentswithnodirectionaboutwhereandwhytheyarerelevanttothecharges.ProsecutionTeamhastheburdenofestablishingtheevidenceintherecordtosupportitscaseandhasnotdonesoadequatelyforthestormwaterrefuelingviolations.4. ConclusionThefollowingtablesummarizesthetotalpenaltiesforviolations:

Category Liability

A. ConstructionDewatering $100,000B. LeakyEquipment $25,000C. SlagDischarges $5,000D. TurbidDischargestotheRiver $40,000E. InsufficientTurbidityMeasurements $85,000F. CementitiousDischarges $50,000G. RubbishandDebrisDischarges $0H. IndividualEvents $40,000I. StormWaterPermit $30,000TotalPenaltyforViolations $375,000

SectionIXoftheStateWaterBoard’s2002“WaterQualityEnforcementPolicy”providesthattheRegionalWaterBoardmayallowadischargertosatisfysomeorallofthepenaltiesinanACLOrderbyfundingaSupplementalEnvironmentalProject(SEP).SomeorallofthepenaltiesassessedinthisOrdershallbeeligibleforaSEPifapprovedbytheExecutiveOfficeroftheRegionalWaterBoard.TheissuanceofthisOrderisanenforcementactiontoprotecttheenvironment,andisthereforeexemptfromtheprovisionsoftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(Pub.ResourcesCode,§§21000‐21177)pursuanttotitle14,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,sections15308and15321,subdivision(a)(2).AnypersonaffectedbythisactionoftheRegionalWaterBoardmaypetitiontheStateWaterBoardtoreviewtheactioninaccordancewithsection13320oftheWaterCodeandtitle23,CaliforniaCodeofRegulations,section2050.ThepetitionmustbereceivedbytheStateWaterBoardwithin30daysofthedateofthisOrder.Copiesofthelawandregulationsapplicabletofilingpetitionswillbeprovideduponrequest.

Page 24: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

CaltransConfusionHill ‐24‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014 ITISHEREBYORDERED,pursuanttoWaterCodesection13385,that:Caltransisassessedpenaltiesof$375,000forviolationsandadditionalliabilityof$70,182forstaffcosts.Caltransshallpayatotalliabilityof$445,182inthefollowingmanners:(a). Pay$30,000oftheassessedliabilitytotheStateWaterPollutionCleanupand

AbatementAccount(CAA)and$415,182oftheassessedliabilitytotheStateWasteDischargePermitFundwithin30daysofthedateofthisOrder;or

(b). Within30daysofthedateofthisOrder:1)Paytheminimum$70,182staffcostsandanyremainingliabilitynotproposedforaSEPtotheCAAandorStateWasteDischargePermitFundasappropriate;and2)submitaSEPproposaltotheExecutiveOfficertosuspendalloraportionofremainingliability.AnySEPproposalshallcomplywithprovisionsofsectionIXoftheStateWaterBoard’s2002“WaterQualityEnforcementPolicy.”IftheinitiallyproposedSEPisnotacceptable,theExecutiveOfficermayallowCaltransanadditional30daystosubmitaneworrevisedproposal.IftheExecutiveOfficerdoesnotapproveanyproposedSEP,Caltransshallpaythesuspendedpenaltyinfullwithin30days.Allpayments,includingmoneynotusedfortheSEP,mustbepayabletoeithertheCAAorStateWasteDischargePermitFundinaccordancewithallocationsidentifiedundersection(a).above.

CertificationI,MatthiasSt.John,ExecutiveOfficer,doherebycertifythattheforegoingisafull,true,andcorrectcopyofanOrderadoptedbytheCaliforniaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard,NorthCoastRegiononMarch15,2012asamendedApril17,2014. OriginalSignedBy___________________________________

MatthiasSt.JohnExecutiveOfficer

12_0034_ACLO_ConfusionHill_Revised_140417

Page 25: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

AdministrativeRecordIndex‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014

ConfusionHillBypassProject

AttachmentA 1

A. 401CertandRelatedDocumentsA‐1 401CertificationA‐2 AmendmentRequestA‐3 401CertAmendmentA‐4 October30NoticeofViolationA‐5 November27Noticeofviolation

B. StormWaterPermitandRelatedDocuments

B‐1 StormWaterPermitB‐2 SWMPB‐3 SWPPP

C. Complaint

D. PostComplaintCorrespondence

E. HearingNoticeandProcedures

F. ProsecutionTeamSubmittals

F‐1 CaseinChiefandAttachmentsF‐2 MonaDoughertyDeclarationF‐3 KasonGradyDeclarationF‐4 JulieMacedoDeclarationF‐5 RebuttalandAttachmentsF‐6 ResponseandDeclarationsF‐7 PTResponsetoCaltransEvidentiaryObjectionsMarch3F‐8 PTResponsetoCaltransEvidentiaryObjectionsMarch18

G. CaltransSubmittals

G‐1 CaseinChiefandAttachmentsG‐2 DefenseMatrixG‐3 RebuttalandAttachmentsG‐4 CaltransResponsetoPTRebuttalG‐5 CaltransResponsestoPre‐HearingInstructionsG‐6 CoverLetterG‐7 ContractwithMCMG‐8 StandardSpecifications1999

Page 26: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

AdministrativeRecordIndex‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014

ConfusionHillBypassProject

AttachmentA 2

H. MCMSubmittalsH‐1 OpeningBriefH‐2 OpeningBriefAttachmentsH‐3 RebuttalandAttachments

I. AdvisoryTeamPre‐HearingInstructionsandCorrespondenceMarch9

J. PTResponsetoATMarch9Request

J‐1 CoverLetterExplainingSubmissionJ‐2 A‐2ChartJ‐3 A‐3ChartJ‐4 PhotoDocuments

K. CaltransandMCMResponsetoPre‐HearingInstructions

L. CaltransResponsetoPT'sResponse

M. ProsecutionTeamDocumentaryEvidenceBinder

N. ProsecutionTeamViolationMatrix

O. ConcededViolationsSummaries

P. EvidentiaryRulingsandCorrespondence

Q. Caltrans‐MCMContract

R. PostHearingNoticeCorrespondence

S. PTHearingExhibits

T. CaltransHearingExhibitsT‐1 CaltransPowerPointPresentationT‐2 CaltransSummaryofAcceptedViolations‐RevisedJune23,2011

U. MCMHearingExhibits

Page 27: Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034 17 ...€¦ · Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1‐2012‐0034 Amended April 17, 2014 In the Matter of California Department

AdministrativeRecordIndex‐ACLOrderNo.R1‐2012‐0034AmendedApril17,2014

ConfusionHillBypassProject

AttachmentA 3

V. MCMPetition

W. CaltransPetitionX. StateWaterBoardOrderWQ2013‐0100

Y. StateWaterBoardOrderWQ2014‐0015


DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2017V114P345

TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page03 · 2014-04-14 · TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page06. TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page07. TrioSuleikaVOYAGE COBRA 0034 Page08

Lampiran Surat No.0034

PJ1905-0034 livre v10

ORATORIA FOLLET001 0034

Notícias Da Corte 0034

Revista Ahora 0034

Administrative Order No. 2014-0034

Contact information: imaginatravel@imaginatravel Tfno: 0034-914472332//0034-914481162

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2016V111P105

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD · 2010-05-29 · CITY OF HEALDSBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT, RECLAMATION AND DISPOSAL FACILITY ORDER NO. R1-2009-0034 NPDES NO. CA0025135

Administrative Order 2010-0034

Administrative Civil Liability Order No. R1 2012 0034

A S I N D TOWN MAP 2010 [kkjh unh - Rajasthan · 2020. 6. 7. · ( pawan pal daga ) ( s.g.chittoria ) r1 v + sc b h + pu pu ss ocf ss sr c pi v + r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1 r1

MarketMaker Pub 0034

0034 - Elfen Lied 31

+ info: 0034 974 373 088

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2016V112P299

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2019V118P151

Ele 0034 Etech9 Em

0034 - Gestão de Serviços

0034 gxc development_framework_estrategias_de_migración_a_gene_xus_x

CContrato 0034-14 Alexanderontrato 0034-14 Alexander

Ficha Tecnica Pm-0034

FOOTBALL72 0034

Satires Perse (0034-0062)

DOH Administrative Order 0034

STEEL FOR PASSENGER CARS WHEELS Magnetto WEB.pdf · 2011. 8. 4. · Legend: N = new 5 BMW R1-953 R1-1012 R1-1205 R1-1214 R1-1319 R1-1409 R1-1417 R1-1490 R1-1493 R1-1562 R1-1564 R1-1568

DOI: 10.9732/P.0034-7191.2019V119P187

PAT I.E. N° 0034

Medium Chess Puzzle # 0034

California Regional Water Quality Control Board North Coast Region · 2015-06-16 · CITY OF HEALDSBURG WASTEWATER TREATMENT, RECLAMATION AND DISPOSAL FACILITY ORDER NO. R1-2010-0034

The Beatles · 2015-09-21 · The Beatles - Mix #1 The Beatles = 140 Standard tuning 1 AIntro 0034 24 22 0 Guitar 2 4 0034 24 22 0 0034 24 33 7 0 0034 24 22 0 10 0034 2 34 22 0 0034

0034 Magazine issue 2

doi 10.1515ijpeat-2016-0034 - LJMU