(1) 
When the director finds that a user has violated (or continues to violate) any provision of this chapter, a wastewater discharge authorization or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the director may serve upon that user a written notice of violation. The director may select any means of service which is reasonable under the circumstances.
(2) 
Within seven days of the receipt of this notice, an explanation of the violation and a plan for the satisfactory correction and prevention thereof, to include specific required actions, shall be submitted by the user to the director. Submission of this plan in no way relieves the user of liability for any violations occurring before or after receipt of the notice of violation. Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the city to take any action, including emergency actions or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a notice of violation.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.1, 1996)
The director may enter into consent orders, assurances of voluntary compliance, or other similar documents establishing an agreement with any user responsible for noncompliance. Such documents will include specific action to be taken by the user to correct the noncompliance within a time period specified by the document. Such documents shall have the same force and effect as the administrative orders issued pursuant to MMC § 14.20.610 and § 14.20.620 and shall be judicially enforceable. Use of a consent order shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.2, 1996)
The director may order a user which has violated or continues to violate, any provision of this chapter, a wastewater discharge authorization or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, to appear before the director and show cause why a proposed enforcement action should not be taken. Notice shall be served on the user specifying the time and place for the meeting, the proposed enforcement action, the reasons for such action, and a request that the user show cause why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. The notice of the meeting shall be served personally or by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) at least 10 days prior to the hearing. Such notice may be served on any authorized representative of the user. A show cause hearing shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.3, 1996)
When the director finds that a user has violated or continues to violate any provision of this chapter, a wastewater discharge authorization or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the director may issue an order to the user responsible for the discharge directing that the user come into compliance within a time specified in the order. Compliance orders may require users to refrain from certain activities, install additional pretreatment equipment, increase self-monitoring, use best management practices designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the sewer. If the user does not come into compliance within the time specified in the order, sewer service may be discontinued. Issuance of a compliance order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.4, 1996)
(1) 
When the director finds that a user has violated (or continues to violate) any provision of this chapter, a wastewater discharge authorization or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, or that the user's past violations are likely to recur, the director may issue an order to the user directing it to cease and desist all such violations and directing the user to:
(a) 
Immediately comply with all requirements; and
(b) 
Take such appropriate remedial or preventive action as may be needed to properly address a continuing or threatened violation, including halting operations and/or terminating the discharge.
(2) 
Issuance of a cease and desist order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.5, 1996)
(1) 
When the director finds that a user has violated or continues to violate any provision of this chapter, a wastewater discharge authorization or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the director may fine such user in an amount not less than $250.00 and not to exceed $10,000. Such fines shall be assessed on a per violation, per day basis. In the case of monthly or other long-term average discharge limits, fines shall be assessed for each day during the period of violation. Said administrative fines shall constitute a sewer service surcharge, and upon assessment, shall be subject to collection in the same manner as all other sewer utility rates, charges and penalties.
(2) 
Unless other arrangements have been made with, and authorized by the director, unpaid charges, fines, and penalties shall accrue thereafter at a rate of one percent per month. After 90 days, if charges, fines, and penalties have not been paid, the city may revoke the users discharge authorization.
(3) 
Users desiring to appeal and dispute such fines must file a written request for the director to reconsider the fine along with full payment of the fine amount within 10 days of being notified of the fine. Where a request has merit, the director shall convene a hearing on the matter within seven days of receiving the request from the user. In the event the user's appeal is successful, any payments made shall be returned to the user. Affirmance or modification of an administrative fine by the public works director shall relate back to the original date of assessment.
The city shall recover the costs of preparing administrative enforcement actions, such as notices and orders, including the cost of additional inspections, sampling and analysis, and may add them to the fine.
(4) 
Issuance of an administrative fine shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
(5) 
Users seeking judicial review of administrative fines must do so by filing a petition for review in the Snohomish County superior court within 30 days of the decision of the director.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.6, 1996)
(1) 
The director may immediately suspend a user's discharge (after informal notice to the user) whenever such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which reasonably appears to present or cause an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of persons.
(2) 
The director may also immediately suspend a user's discharge (after informal notice and opportunity to respond) that threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW, or which presents or may present an endangerment to the environment.
(a) 
Any user notified of a suspension of its discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate its contribution. In the event of a user's failure to immediately comply voluntarily with the suspension order, the director shall take such steps as deemed necessary, including immediate severance of the sewer connection, to prevent or minimize damage to the POTW, its receiving stream, or endangerment to any individuals.
The director shall allow the user to recommence its discharge when the user has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city that the period of endangerment has passed, unless the termination proceedings in MMC § 14.20.650 are initiated against the user.
(b) 
A user that is responsible, in whole or in part, for any discharge presenting imminent endangerment shall submit a detailed written statement, describing the causes of the harmful contribution and the measures taken to prevent any future occurrence, to the director prior to the date of any show cause or termination hearing under MMC § 14.20.600 and § 14.20.650.
(3) 
Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring a hearing prior to any emergency suspension under this section.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.7, 1996)
(1) 
In addition to the provisions in MMC § 14.12.340, any user that violates the following conditions is subject to discharge termination:
(a) 
Violation of wastewater discharge authorization conditions;
(b) 
Failure to accurately report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its discharge;
(c) 
Failure to report significant changes in operations or wastewater volume, constituents and characteristics prior to discharge;
(d) 
Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for the purpose of inspection, monitoring or sampling; or
(e) 
Violation of the pretreatment standards in Article II of this chapter.
(2) 
Such user will be notified of the proposed termination of its discharge and be offered an opportunity to show cause under MMC § 14.20.690 why the proposed action should not be taken. Exercise of this option by the city shall not be a bar to, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.8, 1996)
(1) 
Appeals.
(a) 
Any user seeking to dispute a notice of violation, order, fine, or other action of the director may file an appeal.
(b) 
The appeal must be filed in writing and received by the director, in writing, within 10 days of the receipt of the disputed action. if the notice of appeal is not received by the director within the 10-day period, the right to an appeal is waived. The notice of appeal shall state with particularity the basis upon which the appellant is disputing the action taken.
(c) 
Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the director shall set a date and time for an appeal hearing, but in no case shall the hearing be set more than 30 days from the receipt of the timely notice of appeal. The appellant shall be notified in writing of the date, time, and place for the appeal hearing. The director or his/her designee shall serve as the hearing examiner.
(2) 
Appeal Hearing.
(a) 
The hearing examiner may admit and give probative effect to evidence which possesses probative value commonly accepted by reasonably prudent men in the conduct of their affairs. The hearing examiner shall give effect to the rules of privilege recognized by law. The hearing examiner may exclude incompetent, irrelevant, immaterial and unduly repetitious evidence. Factual issues shall be resolved by a preponderance of evidence.
(b) 
Documentary evidence may be received in the form of copies or excerpts or by incorporation by reference.
(c) 
Every party shall have the right to cross examine witnesses who testify and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence; provided, that the hearing examiner may control the manner and extent of the cross examinations and rebuttal.
(d) 
The hearing examiner may take notice of judicially cognizable facts.
(3) 
Appeal Conclusion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall determine if the disputed action was proper, and shall approve, modify, or rescind the disputed action. The final determination of the hearing examiner shall be in writing, and all parties shall be provided a copy of the final determination.
(4) 
Judicial Review of Appeal.
(a) 
Any party, including the city, the Washington State Department of Ecology, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, or the user/appellant, is entitled to review of the final determination of the hearing examiner in the Snohomish County superior court; provided, that any petition for review shall be filed no later than 30 days after date of the final determination.
(b) 
Copies of the petition for review shall be served as in all civil actions.
(c) 
The filing of the petition shall not stay enforcement of the final determination except by order of the superior court and on posting of a bond to be determined by the court naming the city as beneficiary.
(d) 
The review shall be conducted by the court without a jury. The record shall be satisfied by a narrative report certified by the hearing examiner and no verbatim record of proceedings before the hearing examiner shall be required to be presented to the superior court.
(e) 
The court may affirm the final determination or remand the matter for further proceedings before the hearing examiner; or the court may reverse the final determination if the substantial rights of the petitioners may have been prejudiced because the final determination was:
(i) 
In violation of constitutional provisions; or
(ii) 
In excess of the authority or jurisdiction of the hearing examiner.
(Ord. 2072 § 8.9, 1996)