APPENDIX A: LOCAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE PLAN (ERP)
1. Introduction.
It is the responsibility of the Town of Murphy to enforce all applicable federal, state, and local pretreatment regulations. These regulations are outlined in federal regulation 40 C.F.R. 403 and state regulation 15A NCAC 2H.0900, and the local SUO. This Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) has been established as an element of the POTW’s pretreatment program. The purpose of the ERP is to provide for fair and equitable treatment of all users for anticipated situations. In general, enforcement actions will be taken in accordance with this Enforcement Response Plan. However, the enforcement actions available are not exclusive as discussed in SUO § 57.112 (NC Model SUO § 57.112). Therefore, any combination of the enforcement actions can be taken against a non-compliant user.
2. Enforcement actions available to the town.
The Director of the POTW is empowered through G.S § 143-215.6A and the local Sewer Use Ordinance (SUO) to take a wide variety of enforcement actions. The following is a list of those actions and the corresponding sections of the local SUO that describes each. Corresponding sections from the NC model SUO are listed as well.
Local SUO Section
Local SUO Section
Notice of violation
§ 57.110(A)
Consent orders
§ 57.110(B)
Show cause hearing
§ 57.110(C)
Administrative orders
§ 57.110(D)
Emergency suspensions
§ 57.110(E)
Termination of permit
§ 57.110(F)
Penalty
§ 57.999(A)
Injunctive relief
§ 57.111(B)
Water supply severance
§ 57.111(C)
 
In addition to the actions listed above, a user who violates the provisions of G.S. § 143-215.6B may be referred by the Director to the District Attorney for possible criminal prosecution.
In determining the amount of civil penalties for a particular violation, the Director shall consider the following factors (local model SUO, § 57.999 )
   1.   The degree and extent of the harm to the natural resources, to the public health, or to public or private property resulting from the violation;
   2.   The duration and gravity of the violation;
   3    The effect on ground or surface water quantity or quality or on air quality;
   4.   The cost of rectifying the damage;
   5.   The amount of money saved by noncompliance;
   6.   Whether the violation was committed willfully or intentionally;
   7.   The prior record of the violator in complying or failing to comply; and
   8.   The costs of enforcement to the POTW.
Adjudicatory hearing procedures regarding permit decisions, civil penalties, and administrative orders may be found in the SUO (local model SUO § 57.056(C)(8)).
3. Investigation of noncompliance.
The staff of the POTW will generally investigate user compliance with permits or the provisions of the SUO in three ways:
   1.   On-site inspections of the user to include scheduled and unscheduled visits;
   2.   Scheduled and unscheduled sampling of the users effluent; and
   3.   Review of self-monitoring data, if required, from the user.
The compliance status of Significant Industrial Users will be evaluated at a minimum once every six months.
4. Types of violation.
The following is a list of different types of violations by category. This list is not inclusive, but serves as a general list of anticipated types of noncompliance. The user’s permit, local SUO, and state and federal regulations serve as additional references for pretreatment requirements.
Un-permitted discharges. Users are responsible for obtaining and renewing permits, if required.
Permit limits. Users are responsible for maintaining compliance with all effluent limits. The POTW will evaluate the extent of the limits violations. In determining the extent of violation(s), Significant Noncompliance (SNC) as defined by state and EPA regulations will be determined.
Self-monitoring violations. A user who fails to adequately conduct all the monitoring required in the permit, including monitoring frequencies and sampling methods specified, is in violation. This includes a user who does not resample per his or her permit when a limit violation occurs.
Reporting violations. A user who fails to provide information (e.g. self-monitoring reports) required in his or her permit or the SUO in the required time frame is in violation. Late or incomplete reports will also be considered violations. A SIU who submits a report more than 30 days late is considered in SNC.
Permit conditions. Failure to apply or reapply for a permit is considered a violation. Users who violate the general or other conditions (e.g. slug loading, dilution prohibition) outlined in their permits or the SUO shall be considered to be in violation.
Enforcement orders. Failure to meet the requirements of an order (e.g. interim limits, milestone dates), whether the order was entered into voluntarily or mandated by the POTW, shall be considered a violation. Missing a scheduled compliance milestone by more than 90 days is considered SNC.
5. Responses: Time Frames, Responsible Officials, Escalated Actions.
Appendix B further outlines types of violations and specifies POTW actions (initial and escalated), time frames, and the officials responsible for completing the actions. This chart shall be considered a part of the Enforcement Response Plan.
Responses to violations affecting the operation of the POTW, resulting in POTW NPDES violations, or resulting in environmental harm or endangerment to human health will be taken immediately or as soon as possible following discovery.
A user may be sent a notice of violation (NOV) or notice of noncompliance (NNC) for each individual violation. Alternatively, the violations may be summarized over a period of time not to exceed six months. In general, NOVs in response to violations of permit limits will be taken within 30 days of discovery of the violations. Users found to be in SNC for two consecutive six month periods will be issued an enforceable order to return to compliance. In all cases, escalated or continuing enforcement action will be taken against users who do not return to compliance in a timely manner.
Cases of falsifying reports, tampering with monitoring or sampling equipment, or otherwise preventing the collection of representative data may be referred to the District Attorney for possible criminal investigation.
Show cause hearings may be held at the Director’s discretion prior to taking enforcement actions.
(Ord. passed 11-3-2008)