Salisbury's Troubled Past With The EPA

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF SALISBURY, MARYLAND ) DOCKET No. CWA-III-219
)
Respondent )

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART COMPLAINANT'S MOTION FOR ACCELERATED DECISION

By Motion filed May 21, 1999, Complainant moved for accelerated decision on the issue of liability only, for each of the three types of violations described in the Complaint. For the reasons discussed below Complainant's motion will be granted in part and denied in part.(1)
I. Background



On July 15, 1998, Complainant initiated this administrative proceeding pursuant to Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).(2) Respondent, the City of Salisbury, Maryland, owns and operates a publicly owned treatment works ("POTW") in Salisbury that treats domestic sewage. The Complaint charges Respondent, in one undesignated Count, with 24 violations of the sludge regulating provisions of CWA § 405, 33 U.S.C. § 1345, and implementing regulations codified at 40 C.F.R. § 503. Complainant seeks assessment of an aggregated penalty in the amount of $16,000.



Section 405(d)(1) of the CWA directs the Administrator to issue "regulations providing guidelines for the disposal of sludge and the utilization of sludge for various purposes." 33 U.S.C. § 1345(d)(1). The regulations governing the use or disposal of sewage sludge are found at 40 C.F.R. § 503 and impose upon persons engaging in use or disposal of sewage sludge specific requirements. The Complaint charges Respondent with violating the regulatory requirements governing: (a) monitoring under 40 C.F.R. § 503.16; (b) pollutant concentration ceilings under 40 C.F.R. 503.13; and (c) data reporting for the land application of sludge under 40 C.F.R. § 503.18.



Complainant asserts that, based on admissions in the form of Respondent's own records and reports, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in this proceeding and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.20(a). Respondent opposes Complainant's Motion as to its alleged violations of pollutant concentration ceilings and reporting requirements; Respondent urges that material issues of fact are in dispute, that Complainant is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and that an evidentiary hearing is necessary to resolve disputed factual issues. As to the remaining violation charged, Respondent admits that it failed to monitor for arsenic and selenium in the first quarter of 1996 as required by 40 C.F.R. § 503.16, and does not contest the granting of an accelerated decision on liability for that violation.

GO HERE to read the rest.