Summary

In accordance with Sections 309(g)(4) and 311(b)(6)(C) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(g)(4) and 1321(b)(6)(C), and the Consolidated Rules of Practice at 40 C.F.R. § 22.45(b), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement, recorded in a Consent Agreement and Final Order (“Proposed Consent Agreement”), between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (“EPA”), and Granite Rock Company (“Respondent”) to resolve the following civil administrative penalty proceeding under Sections 309(g) and 311(b)(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(g) and 1321(b)(6).

In the Matter of Granite Rock Company
Docket Nos. CWA-09-2018-0001, OPA-09-2018-0001

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 22.13(b) and 22.18(b)(2) and (3), Complainant and Respondent entered into a Proposed Consent Agreement to simultaneously commence and conclude this CWA Class II civil administrative penalty proceeding. The Proposed Consent Agreement requires Respondent to pay to the United States an administrative civil penalty of $102,051.

Payment of this penalty and completion of a Supplemental Environmental Project (“SEP”), described in the Proposed Consent Agreement, will resolve EPA’s allegations that the Respondent violated Sections 301 and 402 of the CWA by failing to comply with the State of California’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities at its Peninsula Recycling Services and Peninsula Road Materials facilities located in Redwood City, California; and Section 311 of the CWA by failing to comply with the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (“SPCC”) regulations at its AR Wilson facility in Aromas, California.

The SEP is intended to enhance and restore the condition of the ecosystem and immediate geographic area adversely affected by the violations at Respondent’s facilities, and consists of trash and debris removal in specific locations within the Coyote Creek and Pajaro River watersheds. The project is intended to remove contaminants from these watersheds, and improve habitat for anadromous fish, including endangered steelhead trout populations. At the end of the project period, Granite Rock will submit a SEP Completion Report documenting the work undertaken including a quantification of the cubic yards of debris removed from the watersheds, and a report on activities undertaken to achieve project goals.

Complainant

Kathleen H. Johnson, Director
Enforcement Division
U.S. EPA, Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

Respondent

Granite Rock Company
350 Technology Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076

Description of Business or Activity Conducted by the Respondent

Respondent is engaged in the production and recycling of construction aggregates, sand, concrete, asphalt, and building materials at its Redwood City, California facilities; and the production of asphaltic concrete and asphalt emulsions at its Aromas facility.

Alleged Violations

During a February 9, 2015 storm water inspection, EPA found that Respondent had failed to implement adequate storm water best management practices at its Redwood City, California facilities. Specifically, EPA found Respondent failed to implement good housekeeping measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants in storm water runoff from material handling and waste management activities. EPA alleges that these deficiencies resulted in the discharge of sediment, among other industrial pollutants, to the San Francisco Bay.

During a January 13, 2016 SPCC inspection, EPA found that Respondent had failed to comply with the SPCC regulations at its AR Wilson facility in Aromas, California. Specifically, EPA found that Respondent failed to update its SPCC Plan; document storage areas where mobile or portable containers are located, and to position such containers in a manner to prevent discharge; provide adequate secondary containment around a bulk above ground petroleum storage container; identify loading and unloading racks and to provide appropriate secondary containment; and perform tank integrity testing appropriate to the type of tanks in use at the facility.

Proposed Order and Penalty

$102,051