Subhead...Settling Pond Expansion Does Not Violate 1995 WDRs •1995 WDRs, Standard Provision A.4 “Before making a material change in the character, location, or volume of discharge,

The Morning Star Company

Administrative Civil Liability Complaint R5-2015-0549

Presentation to Central Valley RWQCB

February 18, 2016

[DAY, DATE • CITY]

le: Subhead

1

Map of Facility

2

Timeline

Jan. 1995: Submit ROWD

June 1995: WDRs

Adopted

Jan. 2005: CDO

Issued

Dec. 2005: Submit New

ROWD

2005-2012: No Action on

WDRs

July 2012: Settling

Pond Expanded

Sept. 2013:

Receive Tent. WDRs

Dec. 2013: WDRs

Adopted

3

Settling Pond Expansion Does Not Violate 1995 WDRs

• 1995 WDRs, Standard Provision A.4 “Before making a material change in the character, location, or volume of discharge, the discharger shall file a new Report of Waste Discharge with the Regional Board. A material change includes, but is not limited to: a. An increase in area or depth to be used for solid waste disposal beyond that specified in WDRs.

b. A significant change in disposal method, location or volume, e.g., change from land disposal to land treatment.

c. The addition of a major industrial, municipal or domestic waste discharge facility.

d. The addition of a major industrial waste discharge to a discharge of essentially domestic sewage or the addition of a new process or product by an industrial facility resulting in a change in the character of the waste.”

4

1995 WDRs, Attachment B

5

Settling Pond Expansion Does Not Violate 2013 WDRs

• 2013 WDRs, Prohibition A.3

“Discharge of waste at a location or in a manner different from that described in the Findings is prohibited.”

• 2013 WDRs, Standard Provision A.4

– No material change

– During hearing on 2013 WDRs, staff suggested expanding Settling Pond as an option to address stormwater

– No water quality degradation

6

1995 WDRs Cannot Be Basis For Enforcement

• 2013 WDRs, p. 1

“WDRs Order 95-160 be rescinded and replaced with this Order.”

• 2013 WDRs, p. 28

“WDRs Order 95-160 is rescinded…”

7

1995 WDRs Cannot Be Basis For Enforcement

• 2013 WDRs do not say:

– Rescinded “except for enforcement purposes” or

– “This action in no way prevents the Central Valley Board from taking enforcement action for past violations of the previous Order”

(See, e.g., Order No. R5-2009-0009, R5-2012-0034, R5-2014-0104)

• Prosecution seeks fines for 2 seasons that predate 2013 WDRs

8

Cooling Pond Expansion Does Not Violate WDRs

• WDRs, Standard Provision A.4

“Before making a material change in the character, location, or volume of discharge, the discharger shall file a new Report of Waste Discharge with the Regional Board.”

• WDRs, Prohibition A.3

“Discharge of waste at a location or in a manner different from that described in the Findings is prohibited”

9

Cooling Pond Expansion Was Contemplated

• Morning Star comments on Tentative WDRs:

“The facility has plans to expand the processing operations by 65% in the future. The expansion is not anticipated to change wastewater characteristics or cause flow limits to be exceeded.” (30 Oct. 2013)

• 2013 WDRs Finding 28:

“The Discharger plans to increase production by up to 65% in the future…” (WDRs, p. 12.)

10

Cooling Pond Expansion Was Contemplated

• Cooling Pond is part of processing operations

• Fully disclosed 65% expansion in processing operations

• Expanded pond not put into service until July 24, 2015

– Prosecution assumes expansion complete for entire 2015 season

11

No Basis for Penalty

• Settling Pond expansion

– Not prohibited by 1995 WDRs

– Predates 2013 WDRs

– Reflects oversight in permit drafting

• Cooling Pond expansion

– Clearly communicated to Regional Board and contemplated in 2013 WDRs

12

Penalty Calculation Is Not Supported

• Improperly includes 2 seasons before 2013 WDRs

• Improperly includes days before Cooling Pond placed in service

• Seepage calculation assumptions are arbitrary

• No water quality degradation

• No potential to harm beneficial uses

13

14

Cooling Pond Expansion

ACL Cooling Pond Seepage Calculations Not Based On Actual Hydrogeological Data

5’

K1

K2

ignores mounding, deeper restrictions, horizontal flow

ACL Calculations

?

? (unrealistic simplifications)

CDO says 1.7 to 3.2 feet

(w/o mounding)

mounded profile

Reality

• Insufficient hydrogeo data

to calculate seepage.

• Mounding likely reduces

seepage.

• Seepage captured and returned by interceptor

drain. 16

Cooling Pond Seepage is Captured and Returned

Monitoring

Well 6

Back to Cooling Pond

17

Evidence Indicates No Net Increase in Seepage after Expansion

2013 WDRs Acknowledge Cooling Pond Improves Groundwater Quality

Finding 40

40. Groundwater beneath the Facility and

associated LAAs is relatively shallow… The

unlined Cooling Pond also recharges the

shallow groundwater immediately upgradient

of the LAAs with relatively low salinity water

year-round.

19

Facility Monitoring Wells

20

Cooling Pond Expansion Improves Groundwater Quality -

Salinity and Manganese at Well 6

Cooling Pond Expansion Does Not Adversely Impact Groundwater-

Chloride

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Ch

lori

de

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

L)

Sample Date

MW-6 MW-5

Cooling Pondexpansion -

May/June 2015

22

Cooling Pond

Expansion July

24, 2015

Settling Pond

23

Facility Monitoring Wells

24

Settling Pond Expansion Does Not Adversely Impact Groundwater-

TDS

25

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

TDS

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (m

g/L)

Sample Date

MW-2 MW-3 MW-5

Settling Pond expansion -

May/June 2012

Settling Pond Expansion Does Not Adversely Impact Groundwater-

EC

26

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Ele

ctri

cal C

on

du

ctiv

ity

(µm

ho

s/cm

)

Sample Date

MW-2 MW-3 MW-5

Settling Pond expansion -

May/June 2012

No Evidence Of Manganese Pollution from LAAs

• Background wells – Highly variable manganese concentrations both in space

and time

• Downgradient wells (MW- 7, 8 & 9) – Increasing concentrations since 2013 – BOD overapplication occurred in 2015

• Only for 15% of field applications • Site-wide average within requirements

– Increasing concentrations can be related to: • Drought-Show Drought related impacts • Rice Farming- Show Rice Field map

• Recent results consistent with previous reports

27

27

23

20

12

7 8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 - 25 25 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 100 100 - 125 >125

Nu

mb

er

of

Irri

gati

on

Cyc

les

BOD Loading Rate Range (lbs/ac/d)

2015 Irrigation Cycle BOD Loadings Frequency

Season Average = 58 lbs/ac/d

Drought Effects

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

12

/1/2

00

3

4/1

/20

04

8/1

/20

04

12

/1/2

00

4

4/1

/20

05

8/1

/20

05

12

/1/2

00

5

4/1

/20

06

8/1

/20

06

12

/1/2

00

6

4/1

/20

07

8/1

/20

07

12

/1/2

00

7

4/1

/20

08

8/1

/20

08

12

/1/2

00

8

4/1

/20

09

8/1

/20

09

12

/1/2

00

9

4/1

/20

10

8/1

/20

10

12

/1/2

01

0

4/1

/20

11

8/1

/20

11

12

/1/2

01

1

4/1

/20

12

8/1

/20

12

12

/1/2

01

2

4/1

/20

13

8/1

/20

13

12

/1/2

01

3

4/1

/20

14

8/1

/20

14

12

/1/2

01

4

4/1

/20

15

8/1

/20

15

12

/1/2

01

5

Man

gan

ese

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

mg/

L)

Sample Date

MW-7 MW-8

MW-9 Limitation (MW-2,3,6,9)

Limitation (MW-7) Limitation (MW-8)

WY 2005 (AN)

WY 2004 (BN)

WY 2006 (W)

WY 2007 (D)

WY 2008 (C)

WY 2009 (D)

WY 2010 (BN)

WY 2011 (W)

WY 2012 (BN)

WY 2013 (D)

WY 2014 (C)

- Red squares indicate value reported as "ND"- Black circles indicate value reported as "<RL"

Sacramento Valley Water Year Types:Wet (W) - BlueAbove Normal (AN) - Light BlueBelow Normal (BN) - GreenDry (D) - OrangeCritical (C) - Red

29

Rice Farming

30

Rice fields are outlined in red.

Morning Star property is outlined in yellow.

The Gobel field is outlined in red in the

Northwest corner of the Morning Star property.

Property boundaries and groundwater well

locations provided by Morning Star.

Imagery date 7/10/2013.

CH2MHILL, Plantierra, July 2013. Rice-Specific

Groundwater Assessment Report. Prepared for the

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. On

behalf of the California Rice Commission.

Map of Facility

31

Settling Pond

• Expansion allows Morning Star to clean out pond at end of season, rather than cleaning out during processing season

32

Cooling Pond

• Part of processing facility

• Expanded Cooling Pond most environmentally sound cooling option considering:

– Power consumption

– No or little chemical use vs. water towers

– Water quality

33

Closing

34

No Basis For Penalty

• No violation of 1995 WDRs

• No violation of 2013 WDRs

• Penalty calculation is flawed

– Assumed number of days is incorrect

– Seepage calculation uses unsubstantiated hydrogeologic data, ignores recapture

• No degradation of receiving waters

• Potential to harm = 0

35

Economic Benefit Stipulation

• Prosecution Team and Morning Star Stipulate:

– $205,577

– Approx. 80% less than Prosecution Team’s original estimate

36

Penalty Calculation is Inconsistent with other Enforcement Actions

37

Order No. R5-2010-0501

Rogers

Trucking

Order No. R5-2015-0039

Athwal, Sarbjit

& Satwant

Order No. R5-2011-0538 Revision No. 1 Lake Berryessa

Resort Impr. Dist.

Order No. R5-2010-0504

City of Isleton

Order No. R5-2013-0095

Henry Tosta

Dairy

Ammonia spill that killed fish

No ROWD for 900 acres ag

Raw sewage spills into lake

Raw sewage spill to surface

water

Manure discharge to

groundwater & violation of

cleanup order

$30,000 $56,628 $375,000 $390,000 (with $375,000

satisfied w/projects

$685,000

Cooling Pond – BOD Loading Rates

• BOD loading rates for unaerated ponds (i.e. reflects natural aeration rates):

• Adequate natural aeration and positive dissolved oxygen protect against odors and low soil redox

Reference Range (lbs/ac/d)

Adjusted for Cooling Pond Temp. (lbs/ac/d)

Adjusted Max Concentration

(mg/L)

EPA Pond Design Manual

40 - 80 28 - 57 69 - 138

Tchobanoglous and Burton

60 - 120 43 - 85 104 - 209

Cooling Pond – Organics Were Anticipated

• The only rational reason for existing odor monitoring requirements for the Cooling Pond is anticipation of some amount of organics.

• Staff contends that odor monitoring is typically required for all ponds, and organics were not anticipated.

Industrial Municipal

Granite, Lake County Stockton

Bear River Aggregates Orland

Ford Construction Company Thornton

Morris Ravine Quarry, Butte

Teichert Esparto

Crystal Creek Aggregates Shasta

Nearby Pond Permits without Odor Monitoring