Return to Compliance, The Long and Winding Road

1. Return to Compliance,The Long and Winding Road Michael MurrayAssociate Engineer Deon CarricoSource Control Inspector II Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)February 2004

2. OCSD’s Permitting and Enforcement Program • The OCSD currently has 404 Class I Wastewater Discharge Permits issued to industries in the County • By definition, a Class I permit is issued when: • A Company’s business operations are federally (EPA) regulated; i.e. Metal Finishing (40 CFR 433) Or: • A company is discharging 25,000 gallons or more a day of industrial wastewater, and/or has pollutants of concern in their wastewater; in this case, a local limit, or CSDOC permit is issued

3. Permits • Out of 404 Class I permits, 222 are issued to industries with Metal Finishing or Electro Plating operations

4. Sampling • At a minimum, with a Metal Finishing or Electroplating permit, the OCSD inspects and samples the industry for heavy metals on a quarterly basis • The industry is also tasked with conducting self-monitoring for heavy metals quarterly

5. Enforcement • An enforcement program begins for an industry when they incur a violation, either by the OCSD’s sampling or their own self-monitoring • A Notice of Violation letter is mailed, and directs either OCSD or the industry to resample their industrial wastewater within 30 days of the date of the letter

6. Enforcement (cont.) • Other ways to initiate the enforcement program is through the inspection process by either OCSD or another outside agency; i.e. the Regional Board/Storm Drains, Fire Department, etc.

15. Enforcement (cont.) • Depending on the severity of the violations, the OCSD may present the case to the Orange County District Attorney’s (DA) office for criminal prosecution • The State Department of Toxic Substances Control and its Title 22 limits for hazardous waste is used as a guideline OR:

16. Enforcement (cont.) • The OCSD will immediately issue an Order to Cease Noncompliant Discharge, followed by a Probation Order or Enforcement Compliance Schedule Agreement • Probation Orders are used for corrective actions that can be implemented within 90 days. The ECSA is used for longer, and more detailed corrective action timelines for industries to return to compliance

17. Enforcement (cont.) • In most non-criminal cases, the OCSD will also issue an Administrative Complaint, which would assess fines per day in violation of the industries permit limits.

18. Returning to Compliance; The Long and Winding Road “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly” • The following three cases were investigated and prosecuted by the OCSD, and criminal charges were filed by the DA’s office, and all occurred within the past 5 years

19. The “Good” • Company “A” was hit with one of the largest fines and criminal charges ever handed out to a private industry • Over $100,000 was paid by Company “A” to various agencies involved for their costs and efforts investigating the case. Criminal convictions were finalized two years after a raid conducted by the DA’s office and OCSD

20. The “Good” (cont.) • Within a month after the “raid”, OCSD imposed a Probation Order on Company “A”, which required: • Upgrades to their pretreatment system (PTS) • The installation of a documented Operations and Maintenance (O&M) program for the PTS

21. The “Good” (cont.) • The hiring of wastewater treatment operators with a minimum Grade I CWEA certification level to cover all shifts of operation, • Submittal of a bi-monthly status report on the above items

22. The “Good” (cont.) • The OCSD also revised Company “A’s” permit to require daily self-monitoring sampling for three metals, and pH

23. Company “A” Responded by… • Upgrading their PTS with a batch treatment system and electrocoagulation system • Implementing the PTS O&M program • Hiring one new operator, by the 3-month deadline. Company “A” asked for an extension for hiring more operators due to difficulties in finding qualified candidates, which the OCSD accepted

24. The “Good” (cont.) • Company “A” incurred more metals violations approximately 6-months after the Probation Order. Most of the violations were caused by PTS equipment malfunctions

25. The “Good” (cont.) • Nine months after the probation order, Company “A” switched to a sulfide-based metals precipitation chemistry for the PTS, with good success. No violations have occurred since the change in chemistry; over two-and-a-half years

26. The “Good” (cont.) • Two more Grade I wastetreatment operators were hired to cover the remaining shifts • The OCSD downstreamed Company “A” to verify continued compliance more than a year after the initial raid, and found no violations

27. The “Bad” (or not so good) • Company “B” was initially caught discharging spent chemicals directly into the industrial wastewater sampling point, and bypassing treatment, during a routine OCSD sampling event

28. The “Bad” (cont.) • The OCSD responded with an Order to Cease Noncompliant Discharges, followed by a Probation Order which directed Company “B” to conduct a wastewater characterization study, install batch treatment, and submit updated facility and PTS drawings and progress reports on a monthly basis

29. The “Bad” (cont.) • Company “B’s” permit was also revised to weekly self-monitoring for three heavy metals and pH

30. The “Bad” (cont.) • Company “B” responded by purchasing a new continuous PTS system (~$50k) and instituted wastehauling for some of the spent process solutions (~$30k) • New wastewater treatment operators were also hired during this time period

31. The “Bad” (cont.) • An Administrative Complaint settlement agreement was reached with Company “B” and OCSD after the initial Probation Order • No criminal charges were filed with the DA’s office

32. The “Bad” (cont.) • Unfortunately, Company “B” began having violations again approximately one year after the initial bust • Faulty operation of the new PTS equipment was cited, plus a lack of batch treatment for spent process solutions was noted by OCSD

33. The “Bad” (cont.) • A compliance meeting was held between the OCSD and company “B” a few months after these violations. OCSD mandated that company “B” immediately install and operate a batch treatment system for all spent chemicals and discontinue “bleeding” this chemistry into the PTS • The OCSD also mandated that any further violations would result in a one-week suspension of Company “B’s” permit

34. The “Bad” (cont.) • Since the meeting, Company “B” has instituted batch treatment of all spent chemicals, and has had no more violations over the last four months • Weekly self-monitoring remains in place, and probably will continue for some time

35. The “Ugly” • Company “C” is a case where the OCSD’s enforcement actions ultimately did not bring the company back into compliance for any meaningful length of time • Intentional deception by Company “C” eventually enabled the OCSD to seek the help of the Fire Department to close down the building and business

36. The “Ugly” (cont.) • The enforcement program started out with severe concentration violations for many heavy metals over a span of two to three months by OCSD sampling

37. The “Ugly” (cont.) • Due to the severity, the OCSD turned over the case to the DA’s office, who prosecuted the owner of Company “C” for illegal discharge of hazardous waste into the sewer system • Upon conviction, the owner was hit with fines and placed on probation

38. The “Ugly” (cont.) • Due to the low volume nature of the discharge, Company “C” decided to go “close loop”, or zero discharge, in order to avoid further penalties and sanctions by OCSD • The OCSD issued a conditional agreement, which accepted zero discharge, but allowed continued inspections of Company “C”

39. The “Ugly” (cont.) • A little over a year after the agreement, the OCSD caught Company “C” discharging industrial wastewater once again, and in violation of the DA’s first probation order • This bust resulted in a second arrest of Company “C’s” owner

40. The “Ugly” (cont.) • The OCSD then contacted the Orange County Health Department to begin a remediation assessment of the property, plus help monitor activities at Company “C”

41. The “Ugly” (cont.) • The OCSD also notified the Fire Department of possible code violations within Company “C’s” building • After a Fire Department inspection, OCSD met with the Fire Department and the building owner / landlord.

42. The “Ugly”, A Finitum: • The meeting resulted in the eviction of Company “C” due to the code violations • The remediation of the property was also conducted after Company “C” was evicted

43. Questions? Mike Murray (714) 593-7412Source Control Division mmurray@ocsd.com Deon Carrico (714) 593-7415Source Control Division dcarrico@ocsd.com Orange County Sanitation Districtwww.ocsd.com