(a) Introduction. The City of Heath has an approved Pretreatment Program that provides for the following:
(1) Control. Through Discharge Permit issuance, of non-domestic pollutant discharges into the City's collection system;
(2) Inspection/monitoring. Through discharge sampling or site visitation, of industry operations to determine compliance with predetermined discharge criteria;
(3) Enforcement . Through legal authority, of the regulations contained within the Program.
To effectively administer its Pretreatment Program, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has required the City to devise an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) to plan, implement and evaluate its currently in-place enforcement effort. The actions required of the City, as proposed in this document, are intended to satisfy the OEPA requirement for the development of a Pretreatment ERP.
The ERP will describe a process for the collection and evaluation of information on industrial user compliance, identification of non-compliance and selection of an appropriate enforcement action with escalated follow-up actions if necessary. The overall goal of the ERP is the resolution of noncompliance in a uniform and timely manner that is consistent with the City's Pretreatment Regulations.
(b) Enforcement Principles.
(1) Industrial user characterization. The foundation of a compliance tracking and enforcement system is a complete, up-to-date and accurate compilation of relevant data on all significant industrial users. This inventory will include as a minimum the name, location, standard industrial classification code, reporting requirements, effluent limits, basis for the limits (categorical standards, local limits, etc.), discharge volume and composition, enforcement status and compliance dates. The industrial waste survey, wherein users are identified and their wastewater discharge characterized, will be used at regular frequencies as necessary to update the inventory and account for variations in industrial production which affect the discharge. Other sources of information, for instance, facility inspections, water usage records and building permit applications will be used to supplement the industrial waste surveys.
(2) Industrial user data collection and handling. The data collection phase creates a substantial flow of information that must be managed properly. For each Industrial User, the City will first determine what data is required and whether it has been submitted. If the information submitted is deficient or late, the Industrial User will be notified and required to complete the submission within a fixed time frame. The City will carefully plan the receipt, processing and retainage of routine and special event data submissions to ensure that they are available for decision-making regarding compliance activities. Baseline monitoring reports (BMR), ninety-day compliance reports, will be retained for at least three (3) years.
In addition to collecting the data, the City will dispense certain information to the Industrial User. For instance, the User will be notified of any applicable pretreatment standards, its compliance status, any changes in pretreatment requirements and results of inspections. Industrial Users will also be informed of enforcement principles and the required responses to noncompliance.
The City has a plan for inspection which includes yearly site visitations, effluent monitoring and facility inspections. The field investigations will be used to verify compliance status as determined from Industrial User self-monitoring. The City will have a predetermined procedure including a checklist for these visitations for documentation purposes. The Industrial Users will be advised at this time of any observed deficiencies found during the inspection.
Discharge monitoring of all Industrial Users will take place at a minimum of four (4) times per year, once during each quarter to obtain adequate representation of industrial activities. On June 15 of each year, the City is obligated to report to OEPA on its pretreatment activities including monitoring, inspections and compliance status of all Industrial Users
(3) Compliance evaluation. The compliance evaluation process includes a review of all available information obtained by the City and from the Industrial Users self-monitoring to identify non-complying discharges. The review will verify that all reports are submitted on time, include all required data and are properly signed. The next level of review will be a comparison between each discharge concentration reported and the limitation for that parameter as required by the Industrial User's Respective Discharge Permit. Any non-complying discharges will then be subject to an appropriate form of enforcement action.
(c) Staff Allotment. The City has adequate staffing to carry out the goals of the Program. This staff consists of inspectors/field personnel, a laboratory technician, the Wastewater Plant Superintendent, and the Industrial Pretreatment Coordinator. Under the Utilities Director, the Director of Law is required to enforce the civil and criminal litigation of the Program as directed by the Utilities Director. A division of labor has been devised to implement the various facets of the ERP as outlined below.
(d) Function of Inspectors. Under the direct supervision of the Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent, the field inspectors are in charge of conducting all sampling and on-site inspections as required. These individuals will prepare a sampling and inspection report to the Superintendent, and discuss with him and the laboratory supervisor, the content of the report as well as any observed violations of pretreatment regulations. All results will be relayed to the Utilities Director.
(e) Function of Laboratory Technician. The laboratory technician will be thoroughly familiar with the Program requirements, evaluate reports submitted by the User, and the analysis of the samples collected by the City's inspector.
(f) Function of Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent. The Wastewater Treatment Plant Superintendent is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the POTW and its compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES permit.
(g) Function of the Pretreatment Coordinator. The Pretreatment Coordinator is responsible for the management of the Pretreatment Program. This individual will be the person who Industrial Users will seek out for program guidance and assistance. The P.C. will work under the direction of the Utilities Director. The P.C. will be responsible for the issuance of notices of violation (NOV) and publishing the annual list of significant violators. He will consult with the Utilities Director and the Law Director where necessary to issue the following order, cease and desist, compliance, show-cause and consent orders.
(h) Function of the Utilities Director. The Director or his agent will provide administrative support on pretreatment matters and be present during all show-cause hearings. The Director should be consulted on all matters related to Administrative Orders and be directly responsible for the issuance of service termination notices and the initiation of judicial proceedings.
(i) Function of Law Director. The Law Director will advise all personnel connected with the program on enforcement matters and oversee the judicial actions that are perceived necessary by the Utilities Director. The Law Director will be consulted on all matters dealing with the interpretation of the City Code and related enforcement actions.
(j) Enforcement Evaluation. Occurrences of noncompliance as determined from the compliance evaluation process will be reviewed as to the type of enforcement needed. The management of enforcement against violating industrial users will be accomplished by developing an Enforcement Response Guide which contains predetermined actions based on the nature of the violation and impact on the sewage treatment system. These actions will vary but range from notices of violation to potential termination of sewer service. The guide will embody the following concepts:
(1) All violations of the Discharge Permit will be reviewed by the appropriate City personnel;
(2) The City will notify the Industrial User whenever a violation is identified;
(3) In general, the Industrial User may be asked to repeat an analysis for an effluent parameter violation. If the result does not reveal noncompliance, no further enforcement will be required;
(4) The City will receive in writing, an explanation of the violation and a plan from the Industrial User to correct the violation within a specified time frame;
(5) Persistent violations and/or an unacceptable explanation or correction plan will be due cause for escalated enforcement proceedings.
(k) Responding to Noncompliance. Significant Noncompliance will set priorities for enforcement and to report to OEPA on the performance of Industrial Users. In general, instances of Significant Noncompliance are User violations which meet at least one of the following criteria:
(1) Violations of wastewater discharge limits.
A. Chronic violations as defined as sixty-six percent or more of the measurements exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit in a six-month period (any magnitude of exceedance).
B. Technical Review Criteria violations as defined in the ordinance as defined as thirty-three percent (33%) or more of the measurements exceed the same daily maximum limit or the same average limit by more than the TRC in a six-month period.
There are two groups of TRCS:
Group I for conventional pollutants
(BOD, TSS, fats, oil, and grease) TRC = 1. 4
Group II for all other pollutants TRC = 1. 2
C. Interference and Passthrough phenomena; or
D. Damage to the collection system and/or endangerment of the POTW workers; or
E. Public health endangerment; or
(2) Violations of compliance schedule milestones;
(3) Failure to provide reports (i.e., compliance schedules, self-monitoring data, baseline monitoring, ninety-day compliance and periodic reports) within thirty (30) days of the due date;
(4) Failure to accurately report noncompliance;
(5) Any other violation or combination thereof the City believes to be significant.
The City Code also defines the criteria, which subject the violator to public scrutiny through local newspaper publication, in general, the User's name shall be published annually if they meet at least one of the following:
(1) A violation which remains uncorrected forty-five days after notification of noncompliance;
(2) A violation that is part of a pattern of noncompliance over a twelve (12) month period;
(3) A violation involving a failure to accurately report noncompliance;
(4) A violation that resulted in the City exercising emergency authority during the twelve (12) previous months.
(l) Enforcement Response Guide. The following enforcement response guide covers the responses that relate to the nature and severity of the violation and the overall degree of noncompliance. The guide is essentially a modified form of that presented in "Pretreatment Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Guidance", Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1986. A range of enforcement responses has been prescribed for a number of predetermined violations. Violations that occur but which are not contained in the Guide will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The determination of the level of response that is necessary for a given violation will consider the degree of variance from the pretreatment or local standard, time duration of the violation and previous violations. Obviously, the factors of equality, fairness and consistency are also important. One other factor, timeliness, is critical to expedite noncompliance makers. The City understands that within five (5) days of the identification of the violation, a response should be formulated and an action taken; full documentation will be mandatory. The User will then have fourteen (14) days in which to reply. If noncompliance continues beyond a predetermined time period, escalated enforcement action will be taken. Table I presents the Enforcement Response Guide for the City of Heath. The Table presents four (4) different categories of noncompliance, each with its own suggested response range.
Table I
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE GUIDE
Heat Pretreatment Program
City of Heath
I. SAMPLING, MONITORING AND REPORTING VIOLATIONS.
Noncompliance | Circumstance | Enforcement Response |
1. Reporting violation | Report improperly signed/certified | - Phone call |
Report improperly signed/certified after notice by POTW | - NOV | |
- Show cause order | ||
Late submittal | ||
- less than 5 days | - Phone call | |
- NOV requiring written explanation in two weeks | ||
- more than 5 days | - Compliance order with fine schedule | |
Chronic tardiness | - Show cause order | |
Failure to report spill or discharge permit violation | ||
- no harm done | - NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- results in harm | - Consent order | |
- Monetary Fine | ||
- chronic | - show cause order | |
- suspend service | ||
Failure to report changed discharge | ||
- no harm done | - NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- results in harm | - consent order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
Incomplete submittal | ||
- infrequent | - NOV requiring revision within one week | |
- chronic | - show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
Falsification of documentation | - First conviction - $1,000.00 fine per violation and/or up to 1 year in prison. 2nd conviction $3,000 fine per violation and/or up to 3 years in prison | |
- Show cause order | ||
2. Incorrct Monitoring | Failure to monitor all pollutants required by discharge permit | |
- once | - NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- chronic | - Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
- Termination of service | ||
Failure to install monitoring equipment | ||
- once | - NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- Show cause order | ||
- chronic | - Monetary fine | |
- Termination of service | ||
3. Incorrect sampling | Incorrect sampling location | |
- once | - NOV requiring immediate use of correct sampling point | |
- chronic/willful | - Show cause order | |
- Suspend service | ||
- Monetary fine | ||
II. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER.
Noncompliance | Circumstance | Enforcement Response |
1. Exceedance of limits |
Isolated | |
- no harm done |
- NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- results in harm |
- Show cause order | |
Chronic | ||
- no harm done |
- Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
- results in harm |
- compliance order | |
- suspend/terminate service | ||
- Revoke Discharge Permit | ||
2. Dilution of wastestream |
Initial violation |
- NOV |
Second violation |
- $250 fine | |
Third violation |
- $500 fine | |
Greater than 3rd |
- $1000 fine | |
- Suspend/terminate service | ||
3. failure to operate and maintain pre-treatment facilities |
Isolated | |
- no harm done |
- NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- results in harm |
- Show cause order | |
Chronic | ||
- no harm done |
- Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
- results in harm |
- Compliance order | |
- Suspend/terminate service | ||
- Revoke Discharge Permit | ||
4. Violation of Compliance Schedules |
Late progress report on milestone date | |
- less than 5 days |
- NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- more than 5 days |
- Show cause order | |
Missed milestone & will affect final milestone date |
- Show cause order | |
- Suspend/terminate service | ||
- Monetary fine | ||
Proress report interval exceeds 9 months |
- Show cause order | |
- Suspend service | ||
III. UNAUTHORIZED DISCHARGE.
Noncomplance | Circumstance | Enforcement Response |
1. Unauthorized discharge |
User unaware | |
- no harm done |
- NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- results in harm |
- Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
- chronic |
- consent order | |
2. Bypass |
Violates Discharge Permit Limits |
- NOV requiring correction within 5 days |
Failure to notify | ||
- no harm done |
- NOV requiring written explanation in 2 weeks | |
- results in harm |
- Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
3. Slugload or accidental discharge |
Failure to notify | |
- no harm done |
- NOV requiring report in 5 days | |
- results in harm |
- Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
4. Operating upset |
Failure to notify | |
- no harm done |
- NOV requring report in 5 days | |
- results in harm |
- Show cause order | |
- Monetary fine | ||
- Termination of Service | ||
IV. VIOLATIONS DETECTED DURING SITE VISITS.
Noncompliance | Circumstance | Enforcement Response |
For #1, 2, 3 | ||
1. No entry | User Denial | - NOV |
Repeat Denial | - Obtain warrant | |
- Show cause hearing | ||
2. Illegal discharge | No harm done | - Monetary fine |
Results in harm | - Civil action | |
Chronic | - Suspend/terminate service | |
3. Access to records | User Denial | |
Repeat Denial | ||
4. Accidental discharge | No spill prevention plan | - NOV requiring plan to eliminate future spills in 2 weeks. |
(m) Response Levels. As noted in the Enforcement Response Guide, there are three (3) basic levels of response - no response, informal response, formal actions.
Informal responses will range from inspections, phone calls or NOVs written to the Industrial User. Formal enforcement responses will be one of the following: Show cause hearing, Compliance order, Consent order, monetary penalties or service suspension/termination.
Monetary penalties will also be used as part of the enforcement program. USEPA has set forth four (4) goals that will be reviewed before penalties are assessed:
(1) Recover the cost to the City of the noncompliance.
(2) Size penalty to deter future incidences of noncompliance.
(3) Maintain a program of fairness, equality and consistency.
(4) Provide a logical and systematic basis for penalty calculation.
If an Industrial User appears to be attempting to comply "in good faith" with the pretreatment requirements, the City will assume a more cooperative attitude with this type of User. If inadequate operating practices are determined to be the cause, the City will seek specific commitments to improve the operating practices.
More aggressive enforcement actions will be taken against Industrial Users that frequently exceed pretreatment requirements as opposed to those that report isolated violations. In any case, if cooperation is not achieved, escalated forms of enforcement will be taken to attain compliance in a timely fashion.
(n) Record Keeping/Reporting. The City will maintain records of pretreatment program activities for not less than three (3) years. These records will consist of industrial user self- monitoring reports, OEPA inspections, sampling of Industrial Users City personnel and records of any enforcement actions taken. All violations will be identified and a record made of the type of response taken.
Most if not all of the records can and may be logged into a computerized database to better manage the whole pretreatment process. Computerized pretreatment data will then make it easier to produce an annual report once all the data forms have been input and all necessary form linkages are established.
(o) Notwithstanding any other part of this section, any user who is found to have violated any provision of this section, or permits and orders issued hereunder shall be fined in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per violation. Each day on which noncompliance shall occur or continue shall be deemed a separate and distinct violation. Such assessments may be added to the user's next scheduled sewer service charge and the Utilities Director shall have such other collection remedies as he has to collect other service charges. Unpaid charges, fines and penalties shall constitute a lien against the individual user's property. Industrial users desiring to dispute such fines may file a request for the Utilities Director to reconsider the fine within ten (10) days of being notified of the fine. Where the Utilities Director believes a request has merit, he shall convene a hearing on the matter within fifteen (15) days of receiving the request from the industrial user.
(Ord. 51-99. Passed 6-7-99.)