ALLEGED VIOLATION Clause Samples

ALLEGED VIOLATION. On December 15, 2014, OG Property Owner, LLC (hereinafter Discharger) allegedly violated section V.A.2, Narrative Effluent Limitations of the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ as amended (General Permit), by discharging an estimated 379,000 gallons of storm water polluted by sediments to a storm drain tributary to the west branch of San Pablo Creek. The discharge resulted from inadequate implementation of best management practices (BMPs) at the Discharger’s ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Project construction site. The “potential harm” factor considers the harm to beneficial uses that resulted or that may result from exposure to the pollutants in the discharge, while evaluating the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation(s). A three-factor scoring system is used for each violation or group of violations: (1) the harm or potential harm to beneficial uses; (2) the degree of toxicity of the discharge, and (3) whether the discharge is susceptible to cleanup or abatement.

ALLEGED VIOLATION. Between November 1, 2015 and December 5, 2017, Respondents violated CWA Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), on at least one hundred eleven (111) days by discharging pollutants from a point source into waters of the United States, including the territorial seas, without NPDES permit authorization.

ALLEGED VIOLATION. Based on information acquired during an inspection at Piedmont Villas Apartments and information obtained from the Respondent regarding the demolition activity at Piedmont Villas Apartments located at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ Road in Marietta, Georgia 30060 (the Facility), the EPA alleges that Respondent violated Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M. Specifically, the EPA alleges the Respondent failed to conduct a thorough inspection for asbestos-containing materials prior to beginning demolition activity, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 61.145(a), at the Facility. No inspection was conducted. EPA also alleges that Blue Star Houses, LLC violated 40 C.F.R. §61.145(b) of the NESHAP by failing to provide written notification to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division ten (10) working days prior to the commencement of demolition activity. No notification was provided in this case. Demolition occurred at the Facility from approximately October 16, 2023, through October 19, 2023.

ALLEGED VIOLATION. (Please identify area of content- article, section or subsection violated.) Remedy Sought: Name of Employee Representative, if any: ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s signature Cc: Employee Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Superintendent Supervisor Association Human Resources 10/99 STA Docket #CT__________ FORM AA Office Use Only To: Date Name of Grievant School/Department Position From: Immediate Supervisor Position School/Department Immediate supervisor’s response to alleged contract violation as specified in ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’s statement dated Decision Rendered: Immediate Supervisor’s Signature Cc: Employee Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Superintendent Supervisor Association Human Resources 10/99 STA Docket #CT__________ FORM B Office Use Only Employee Date Last Name First Middle School/Department Position

ALLEGED VIOLATION. 13. Failure to obtain a permit prior to commencing construction of a site modification, pursuant to 20.2.72.200.E NMAC. According to an email sent by Northwind’s general counsel on September 12, 2024 [Attachment 5], the company began working on the addition of a new triethylene glycol dehydrator at the Facility on April 9, 2024. This site modification was part of a proposed new permit (NSR Permit 7747-M6) that had not yet been issued. 14. On September 11, 2024, NMED granted Northwind the ED [Attachment 4] that allows them to continue working on the project before obtaining the permit. 15. NMED will penalize Northwind for the period between beginning construction on the site modification, April 9, 2024, and the date of receiving the ED, September 11, 2024.

ALLEGED VIOLATION. The EQB alleges that the City has violated Paragraph 3.D.1. of the Agricultural Impact Mitigation Plan. Paragraph 3.D.1. of the Mitigation Plan establishes requirements for repair of tile lines damaged or severed by the pipeline trench. “Where tile lines are severed by the pipeline trench, three-sided steel channel iron, angle iron, full-round slotted pipe or half pipe, or an equivalent material, will be used to support the repaired tile lines.” The EQB alleges that the City failed to properly repair the drain tile that was cut along nearly the entire length of the pipeline by using an unslotted full pipe to support the repaired tile lines rather than a slotted full pipe or other material specified in the Mitigation Plan.

ALLEGED VIOLATION. Based on information received in response to an information request letter the EPA sent via electronic mail on August 17, 2021, to the Respondent located at ▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ in Jasper, Georgia, the EPA alleges that Respondent violated Section 112 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412, and 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M. Specifically, the EPA alleges the Respondent failed to provide written notice 10 working days prior to beginning the demolition activity, as required by 40 C.F.R. § 61.145(b), of the former Dahlonega Elementary (the facility) located at ▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, ▇▇▇▇▇ (the facility). Demolition activity began at the facility on or around May 28, 2021.

ALLEGED VIOLATION. On January 7, 2022, EPA Risk Management Program Reporting Center sent a letter to Respondent, notifying Respondent of its failure to update the Risk Management Plan on file with the EPA for its facility located in Rio Bravo, Texas. Facilities subject to the Risk Management Program (RMP) regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 68 are required to submit an updated Risk Management Plan at least once every five years. The EPA’s review indicates that the update for the facility was not submitted by the required due date of October 17, 2021. The EPA found that Respondent had violated the RMP regulations and Section 112(r)(7) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(r)(7), as follows:

ALLEGED VIOLATION. Respondent is a “person,” as defined by Section 329(7) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11049(7), and an owner or operator of a “facility,” as defined by Section 329(4) of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11049(4), and 40 C.F.R. § 370.66. Due to the presence of ammonia at the Facility, Respondent was required to have a Safety Data Sheet (“SDS”) on site pursuant to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s Hazard Communication Standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200(g) and 40 C.F.R. § 370.10(a). Facilities that are required to have an SDS and that have hazardous chemicals present on site in amounts greater than the thresholds specified in 40 C.F.R. § 370.10 are subject to the chemical inventory reporting requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 370, specifically the requirement to submit an emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form (“Tier II form”) each calendar year, on or before March 1st of the subsequent year, to the local emergency planning committee, the state emergency response commission, and the local fire department. Anhydrous ammonia is an extremely hazardous substance subject to the annual chemical inventory reporting requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 370 when present at a facility in quantities greater than or equal to 500 pounds. Based on the information obtained by EPA and the Tier II forms Respondent submitted for the 2019 and 2021 reporting years, anhydrous ammonia was present at Nantucket Ice in amounts greater than 500 pounds. However, Respondent failed to submit a completed Tier II form for reporting year 2020, in violation of Section 312 of EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 11022, and 40 C.F.R. Part 370. EPA finds that Respondent is subject to, and in violation of, Section 312 of EPCRA and its implementing regulations for failing to submit the required Tier II form for ammonia for reporting year 2020. For purposes of this action, Respondent: (1) admits that it is subject to the requirements of Section 312 of EPCRA and that EPA has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter alleged in this ESA; (2) neither admits nor denies the factual allegations in this ESA; (3) consents to the assessment of the civil penalty stated herein and to the conditions specified in this ESA; and (4) waives any right to contest the allegations in this ESA and its right to appeal the accompanying proposed Final Order. The parties agree that settlement of this matter for a penalty of $5,000 is fair, appropriate, and in the public interest, and EPA finds such penalty consistent with the statutory ...