throbber
Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 54 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Daniel Cooper (SBN 153576)
`daniel@sycamore.law
`Jesse C. Swanhuyser (SBN 282186)
`jesse@sycamore.law
`SYCAMORE LAW, INC.
`1004 O’Reilly Avenue, Ste. 100
`San Francisco, CA 94129
`Tel: (415) 360-2962
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`29
`30
`31
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS
`Case No. _____________________
`FOUNDATION, a public benefit non-
`
`profit corporation,
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
`
`CIVIL PENALTIES
`
`
`
`
`
`DIVERSIFIED PANELS SYSTEMS,
`
`INC., a California corporation,
`Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
`
`33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387
` Defendant.
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 54 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`1.
`This is a civil action brought under the citizen suit provisions of the
`Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the “Clean Water Act” or “Act”), 33 U.S.C. §
`1251, et seq.
`2.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Ecological Rights
`Foundation (“EcoRights” or “Plaintiff”) and Diversified Panel Systems, Inc.
`(“Diversified” or “Defendant”) (collectively the “Parties”) and over the subject matter
`of this action pursuant to section 505(a)(1)(A) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)(A),
`and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (an action arising under the laws of the United States).
`3.
`This complaint seeks relief for ongoing violations by Diversified of the
`Clean Water Act and California’s General Industrial Storm Water Permit1 (“General
`Permit”) related to unpermitted polluted storm water and non-storm water discharges
`from the industrial facility owned and operated by Diversified at 2345 Statham
`Boulevard in Oxnard, California (93033) (“Facility”).
`4.
`The relief requested is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02
`(power to issue declaratory relief in case of actual controversy and further necessary
`relief based on such a declaration); 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b), 1365(a) (injunctive relief
`and civil penalties); 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a) (civil penalties).
`5.
`Prospective citizen plaintiffs must, as a jurisdictional pre-requisite to
`enforcing the Clean Water Act in Federal District Court, prepare a Notice of Violation
`and Intent to File Suit letter (“Notice Letter”) containing, inter alia, sufficient
`
`
`1 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001,
`Water Quality Order No. 92-12-DWQ, Order No. 97-03-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2014-
`0057-DWQ; as amended on November 6, 2018.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`2
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 54 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`information to allow the recipient to identify the standard, limitation or order alleged
`to be violated, and the activity alleged to constitute a violation. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a);
`40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a).
`6.
`The Notice Letter must be sent via certified mail at least sixty days prior
`to filing a complaint (“Notice Period”) to the owner of the facility alleged to be in
`violation of the Act, and where the alleged violator is a corporation, to the
`corporation’s registered agent for service of process. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b); 40 C.F.R. §
`135.2(a)(1).
`7.
`A copy of the Notice Letter must be mailed to the Administrator of the
`U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”), the Regional Administrator of
`the U.S. EPA for the region in which a violation is alleged to have occurred, and the
`chief administrative officer for the water pollution control agency for the State in
`which the violation is alleged to have occurred. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b); 40 C.F.R. §
`135.2(b)(1)(A).
`8.
`On February 18, 2021, Plaintiff sent a Notice Letter via certified mail to
`Diversified and its registered agent for service of process. The Notice Letter described
`ongoing violations of the Act and General Permit at the Facility, and provided notice
`of Plaintiff’s intention to file suit against Defendant at the expiration of the 60-day
`Notice Period.
`9.
`The Notice Letter was received by: (a) Richard Bell, CEO and Agent for
`Service of Process, at the Facility on Diversified on February 19, 2021; (b) U.S. EPA
`on February 25, 2021; (c) U.S. Department of Justice on February 26, 2021; (d) State
`Water Resources Control Board on February 24, 2021.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`3
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 4 of 54 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`10. More than sixty days have passed since the Notice Letter was served on
`Diversified, and the State and Federal agencies.
`11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that neither the
`U.S. EPA nor the State of California has commenced or is diligently prosecuting a
`court action to redress violations alleged in the Notice Letter and complaint.
`12. This action’s claim for civil penalties is not barred by any prior
`administrative penalty under section 309(g) of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).
`13. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to section
`505(c)(1) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the source of the violations is
`located within this judicial district.
`EcoRights, a California public benefit non-profit corporation, by and through
`its counsel, hereby alleges:
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`14. This complaint seeks relief for unpermitted and unlawful discharges of
`polluted storm water and non-storm water from the Facility in violation of the Act and
`General Permit, including, but not limited to, ongoing, unpermitted discharges of
`polluted storm water to the Oxnard Drain, Ormond Beach Wetlands, Ormond Beach
`and the Pacific Ocean.
`15. The Clean Water Act is a strict liability statute and failure to enroll in the
`General Permit, as well as each violation of any term or condition in the General
`Permit, is an independent violation of the Act. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342, 1365.
`16. Diversified is liable for ongoing and continuous violations of the Act and
`General Permit at the Facility since February 18, 2016. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a),
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`4
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 5 of 54 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`1319(d); 40 C.F.R. § 19.4.
`17. The world faces a crisis in the production, use, and disposal of plastics
`materials.
`18. There is a staggering 150 million metric tons of plastic in the marine
`environment polluting every single part of the ocean—from the surface of the Pacific
`to the depths of the Mariana Trench; and from pole to pole.
`19. Scientists estimate that up to 20 million tons of plastic end up in the
`ocean annually.
`20. Unless humanity fundamentally changes its use, plastic is set to outweigh
`fish in the ocean by 2050.
`21. Plastics are also abundant in human water supplies. The average person
`ingests up to 5 grams of plastic each week—roughly the equivalent of a credit card.
`22. Currently, the annual weight of plastic production globally is roughly the
`same as the entire weight of humanity.
`23. And because plastic is not biodegradable, it never goes away. Instead,
`plastics in the environment break down into smaller and smaller microplastics, which
`because of their miniscule nature, are now found in every nook and cranny of Earth’s
`ecosystems.
`24. With every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted
`storm water originating from industrial operations, like those conducted by Defendant,
`flow into Oxnard’s storm drains, local waterways, and the Pacific Ocean.
`25. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm
`water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering local creeks
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`5
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 6 of 54 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`and rivers each year. See e.g. Bay, S., Study of the Impact of Stormwater Discharge on
`Santa Monica Bay, (Nov. 1999).
`26. These discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities contribute to the
`impairment of surface waters and aquatic dependent wildlife.
`27. Numerous scientific studies in recent decades have documented serious
`health risks to recreational users of southern California’s waters from pollutant-loaded
`storm water and non-storm water discharges. See, e.g., Stenstrom, M. K., Southern
`California Environmental Report Card: Stormwater Impact at 15; Los Angeles
`County Grand Jury, Reducing the Risks of Swimming at Los Angeles County Beaches
`(1999–2000) at 205; Haile, R. et al., An Epidemiological Study of Possible Adverse
`Health Effects of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay (Santa Monica Bay Restoration
`Project, 1996) at 5.
`28. Oxnard’s waterways are ecologically sensitive areas, and are essential
`habitat for numerous cetacean, pinniped, fish, bird, macro-invertebrate and
`invertebrate species.
`29. Oxnard’s waterways provide numerous recreational activities, including
`swimming, fishing, surfing, SCUBA diving, and kayaking.
`30. Oxnard’s waterways also provide non-contact recreation and aesthetic
`opportunities, such as biking and wildlife observation, as well as opportunities for
`education and research.
`31.
`Industrial facilities, like Defendant’s, that discharge storm water and non-
`storm water contaminated with sediment, heavy metals, plastics, and other pollutants
`contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife,
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 7 of 54 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`expose people to toxins, and harm the special social and economic benefits Oxnard’s
`waterways have for locals and visitors alike.
`32. Controlling polluted storm water and non-storm water discharges is
`essential to protecting southern California’s surface and coastal waters.
`33. As the Act requires, these contaminated discharges can and must be
`controlled for ecosystems to regain their health and to protect public health.
`III. THE PARTIES
`34. EcoRights is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the
`laws of California. The EcoRights office is located at 867 B Redwood Drive,
`Garberville, California (95542).
`35. Founded in 1994, EcoRights is dedicated to promoting rights to a clean,
`healthy, and diverse environment.
`36. Through research, education, and environmental law enforcement,
`EcoRights protects human and wildlife communities.
`37. Where necessary to achieve its objectives, EcoRights initiates citizen
`enforcement actions under the Act on behalf of itself and its members, including those
`who live in and around the Oxnard area, and who use and enjoy the Oxnard Drain,
`Ormond Beach Wetlands, Ormond Beach and the Pacific Ocean (collectively the
`“Receiving Waters”).
`38. EcoRights members use and enjoy the Receiving Waters to research,
`educate, fish, surf, swim, sail, SCUBA dive and kayak.
`39. EcoRights members also use the Receiving Waters to engage in scientific
`study through pollution and habitat monitoring, as well as restoration activities.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`7
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 8 of 54 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`40. The Facility’s unlawful discharge of pollutants into the Receiving Waters
`impairs the ability of EcoRights’ members’ use and enjoyment of the Receiving
`Waters by degrading the quality of the Receiving Waters, and by posing risks to
`human health and aquatic life.
`41. The interests of EcoRights and its members, therefore, have been, are
`being, and will continue to be adversely affected by the Facility’s failure to comply
`with the Act and General Permit.
`42. Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged herein will
`irreparably harm Plaintiff and its members, for which harm they have no plain, speedy,
`or adequate remedy at law.
`43. The relief sought herein will redress the harms to Plaintiff caused by
`Defendant’s activities.
`44. Diversified Panels Systems, Inc. filed articles of incorporation with
`California’s Secretary of State on October 19, 1994, listing the company’s
`incorporator, initial director, and agent for service of process as Richard Charles Bell
`of 1349 Sterling Drive, Thousand Oaks, California (91360).
`45. On its Statement of Information dated June 6, 2014 (“2014 Statement of
`Information”), Diversified listed its business address as 2345 Statham Boulevard in
`Oxnard, California (93033).
`46. Diversified’s 2014 Statement of Information lists Richard Charles Bell as
`the company’s chief executive officer, secretary, chief financial officer, and agent for
`service of process at 545 Rimrock Road in Thousand Oaks, California (91361).
`47. The Facility is owned and operated by Diversified and located at 2345
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`8
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 9 of 54 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`Statham Boulevard in Oxnard, California (93033).
`48. According to the company website, Diversified “is the industry leader with
`over 100 years of combined experience in custom design, engineering, [sic]
`manufacturing custom cold storage buildings and refrigeration systems.”
`49. Multiple online business databases identify Diversified as engaged in the
`manufacture of refrigeration equipment under Standard Industrial Classification
`(“SIC”) code 3585 at the Facility.
`50. The City of Oxnard identifies the Facility as a SIC code 3585
`manufacturing facility.
`51. The company’s web site advertises that “[a]ll Diversified[] panels are
`made from closed cell…expanded polystyrene (EPS) cores” (hereinafter “EPS”).
`IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND
`A. The Clean Water Act.
`52. The Act is the primary Federal statute regulating the protection of this
`nation’s water.
`53. The CWA aims to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution in order to
`“restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
`waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
`54.
`In order to accomplish that goal, Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311,
`prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the United States unless the
`discharge complies with other enumerated sections of the Act, including the
`prohibition on discharges not authorized by, or in violation of, the terms of a National
`Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued pursuant to section
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`9
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 10 of 54 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). See also 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1) and General Permit, §
`I.A.12.
`55. The Act defines “pollutant” to include “dredged spoil, solid waste,
`incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,
`biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment,
`rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into
`water.” See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6); see also 40 C.F.R. 122.2.
`56. The Act requires all point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the
`United States be regulated by an NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); see 40 C.F.R. §
`122.26(c)(1).
`57. Unpermitted discharges of storm water associated with industrial
`activities are per se violations of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); Comm. to Save
`Mokelumne River v. E. Bay Mun. Util. Dist., 13 F.3d 305, 309 (9th Cir. 1993) (“the
`Act categorically prohibits any discharge of a pollutant from a point source without a
`permit.”).
`58. Section 402(p) of the Act establishes the framework regulating industrial
`storm water discharges under federal and authorized state NPDES permit programs.
`33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`59. Section 402(b) of the Act allows each state to administer an NPDES
`permit program for regulating the discharge of pollutants, including discharges of
`polluted storm water approved by the U.S. EPA. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b).
`60. States with approved NPDES permit programs are authorized by section
`402(b) to regulate industrial storm water discharges through the issuance of a
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`10
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 11 of 54 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`statewide general NPDES permit applicable to all industrial dischargers and/or
`through individual NPDES permits issued to dischargers. See Id.
`61. Section 505(a)(1) of the Act provides for citizen enforcement against any
`“person” who is alleged to be in violation of an “effluent standard or limitation . . . or
`an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or
`limitation.” 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1), 1365(f).
`62. A “person” under the Act includes individuals, corporations,
`partnerships, associations, States, municipalities, commissions, and political
`subdivisions of a State, or any interstate body. 33 U.S.C. 1362(5).
`63.
`“Effluent standard or limitation” is defined to include: (a) the prohibition
`in section 301(a) against unpermitted discharges; or (b) a condition of an NPDES
`permit such as the General Permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f); Citizens for a Better Env't v.
`Union Oil Co., 83 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Private citizens may bring suit
`pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365 to enforce effluent standards or limitations, which are
`defined as including violations of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f)(1).”).
`64. Each separate violation of the Act subjects the violator to a penalty of up
`to $52,414 per day per violation for violations occurring after November 2, 2015. 33.
`U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a); 40 C.F.R. § 19.4 (Adjustment of Civil Monetary
`Penalties for Inflation).
`65. Section 505(d) of the Act allows a prevailing or substantially prevailing
`party to recover litigation costs, including fees for attorneys, experts, and consultants
`where it finds that such an award is appropriate. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`11
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 12 of 54 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`B. California’s Storm Water Permit.
`66. The State Board Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) is
`charged with regulating pollutants to protect California’s water resources. See Cal.
`Water Code § 13001.
`67. California is authorized by U.S. EPA to issue NPDES permits for storm
`water discharges associated with industrial activities.
`68. The relevant NPDES permit in this action is the General Permit, which is
`issued by the State Board, and is implemented and enforced by Regional Boards,
`including the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“LA Regional
`Board”). See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1362(6), 1362(7), 1362(12).
`69.
`In order to lawfully discharge pollutants to waters of the United States in
`California, all persons who discharge storm water associated with industrial activity
`must enroll in, and comply with all terms and conditions of, the General Permit. See
`33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342; 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1).
`70. The General Permit requires that a discharger file an NOI with the State
`Board prior to discharge. The NOI serves as certification to the State of California that
`the industrial facility owner(s) and agent(s) have read the General Permit and will
`comply with all of its terms and conditions. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(A)(1)(ii); General
`Permit, Finding #12.
`71. As described above, the Facility is a manufacturing facility classified
`under SIC code 3585. SIC Code 3585 facilities must enroll in and obtain coverage
`under the General Permit in order to lawfully discharge storm water to waters of the
`United States. See General Permit, Attachment A, ¶ 2.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`12
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 13 of 54 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`72. Once enrolled, the General Permit requires permittees to consistently
`engage in four independent, but mutual-reinforcing actions: 1) executive planning and
`facility-specific pollution control design; 2) on-the-ground implementation of
`pollution control technologies; 3) monitoring storm water discharges for evidence of
`pollution; and 4) annual evaluation of the effectiveness of pollution control strategies,
`including corrective action where necessary.
`73. Compliance with the General Permit constitutes compliance with the
`Clean Water Act for purposes of storm water discharges. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2)(A),
`1311(b)(2)(E). Conversely, “[General] Permit noncompliance constitutes a violation
`of the Clean Water Act and the [California] Water Code.” General Permit, § XXI.A.
`74. Discharges of storm water containing pollutants to waters of the United
`States, therefore, are violations of the Act where they are: (a) unpermitted; or (b)
`completed without complying with all terms and conditions of a valid NPDES permit.
`See 2015 Permit, Finding No. 8 (“This General Permit authorizes discharges of
`industrial storm water to waters of the United States, so long as those discharges
`comply with all requirements, provisions, limitations, and prohibitions in this General
`Permit.”)
`C. The General Permit’s Discharge Prohibitions, Effluent Limitations,
`and Receiving Water Limitations.
`
`75. The General Permit contains three sections restricting contaminated
`discharges from the Facility referred to as: (A) “Discharge Prohibitions;” (B)
`“Effluent Limitations” (a.k.a. technology-based standards); and (C) “Receiving Water
`Limitations” (a.k.a. water quality-based standards).
`a) Discharge Prohibitions.
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`13
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 14 of 54 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`76. The General Permit contains the following three Discharge Prohibitions.
`77. The General Permit proscribes all discharges of storm water to waters of
`the United States expect as specifically authorized by the General Permit or another
`NPDES permit. General Permit, § III.A
`78. The General Permit proscribes storm water discharges and authorized
`non-storm water discharges that contain pollutants that cause or threaten to cause
`pollution, contamination, or nuisance as defined in section 13050 of California Water
`Code. General Permit, § III.C.
`79. The General Permit proscribes discharges that violate discharge
`prohibitions contained in applicable Basin Plans, or statewide water quality control
`plans and policies. General Permit, § III.D.
`80. The Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed
`Bays, and Estuaries (“ISW Plan”) is a statewide water quality control plan. The ISW
`Plan was amended on April 7, 2015. U.S. EPA approved the amendment on January
`12, 2016.
`81. The Media Release announcing the amendment notes that “[t]rash in our
`lakes, streams, and the ocean pose a serious threat to fish and wildlife as well as
`harming the public’s ability to enjoy our precious beaches and waterways.”
`82. The ISW Plan defines trash to include “[a]ll improperly discarded solid
`material from any production, manufacturing, or processing operation including, but
`not limited to, products, product packaging, or containers constructed of plastic, steel,
`aluminum, glass, paper, or other synthetic or natural materials.”
`83. The ISW Plan contains the following Prohibition on Discharge: “The
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`14
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 15 of 54 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`discharge of trash to surface waters of the State or the deposition of trash where it may
`be discharged into surface waters of the State is prohibited.” 2
`b) Effluent Limitations.
`84. The General Permit contains technology-based pollution reduction
`standards titled Effluent Limitations.
`85. The Act and General Permit requires dischargers to comply with
`statutorily established technology-based standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b); General
`Permit, § V.
`86. The General Permit’s Technology Based Effluent Limitations set the
`floor for pollution reduction, i.e. the minimum level of pollution reductions that must
`be achieved by all permittees regardless of the quality of water receiving storm water
`discharges.
`87. The General Permit’s technology-based Effluent Limitations require
`permittee facilities to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges through
`the implementation of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (“BAT”)
`for toxic or non-conventional pollutants, and Best Conventional Pollutant Control
`Technology (“BCT”) for conventional pollutants. 40 C.F.R. §§ 401.15-401.16;
`General Permit, § V.A.
`88. Conventional pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.16 and include
`biochemical oxygen demand, TSS, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform.
`89. Toxic pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.15 and include zinc, among
`others.
`
`
`2 See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/.
`
`15
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 16 of 54 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`90. Compliance with the General Permit’s technology-based standard
`requires permittee facilities design and implement effective, site-specific pollution
`control strategies called Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that prevent or reduce
`storm water discharges in a manner that reflects best industry practice. General
`Permit, § V.A.
`91. BMPs are schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance
`procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of
`waters of the United States. BMPs include treatment systems, operation procedures,
`and practices to control and abate the discharge of pollutants from the Facility. See id.
`92. Permittees must design BMPs that meet the BAT standard for all sources
`of toxic pollutants; and thereafter implement and maintain, as well as evaluate and
`improve, such BMPs so as to ensure pollutant concentrations in any storm water
`discharge are controlled consistent with the BAT standard. See id.
`93. The 2008 and 2015 versions of U.S. EPA’s NPDES Storm Water Multi-
`Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities include numeric benchmark standards
`for pollutant concentrations in storm water discharges (“EPA Benchmarks”). See
`United States Environmental Protection Agency NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit
`for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, effective September
`29, 2008 (as modified effective May 27, 2009) and effective June 4, 20153; see 80 FR
`34403, 34405 (June 16, 2015)
`94. EPA Benchmarks serve as objective measures for evaluating whether the
`BMPs designed and implemented at a facility achieve the statutory BAT/BCT
`
`
`3 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/msgp2015_finalpermit.pdf.
`
`16
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 17 of 54 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`standards. See United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National
`Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for
`Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP), as modified
`effective June 4, 2015 (“Multi-Sector Permit”), p. 41; see also 80 Federal Register
`34403 (June 16, 2015); 73 Fed. Reg. 56572, 56574 (Sept. 29, 2008); 65 Fed. Reg.
`64746, 64766-67 (Oct. 30, 2000).
`95. The discharge of storm water containing pollutant concentrations
`exceeding EPA Benchmark targets evidence a failure to develop and implement
`pollution control strategies that achieve pollutant reductions consistent with
`BAT/BCT standards. See Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Kramer Metals, Inc.
`(“Kramer”), 619 F. Supp. 2nd 914, 921-25 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also See 80 Fed.
`Reg. 34403, 34405 (June 16, 2015).
`96. Table 1 contains EPA Benchmark standards relevant to the assessing the
`Facility’s compliance with the BAT/BCT standards.
`
`TABLE 1: U.S. EPA BENCHMARKS APPLICABLE TO THE FACILITY’S DISCHARGES
`PARAMETER
`U.S. EPA BENCHMARK
`Aluminum (Al)
`0.75 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”)
`Iron (Fe)
`1.0 mg/L
`Zinc (Zn)
`0.117 mg/L
`
`97. Visual observations (and records) required to be conducted pursuant to
`the General Permit are relevant to assessing a permittee’s compliance with the
`BAT/BCT standards.
`98. Objective assessments of whether BMPs described in a SWPPP are
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`17
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 18 of 54 Page ID #:18
`
`
`
`consistent with industry best practices are relevant to assessing a permittee’s
`compliance with the BAT/BCT standards.
`99. Facilities covered under the General Permit that handle plastics materials
`are required to implement BMPs to eliminate discharges of plastic in storm water.
`General Permit, § XVIII.
`100. Plastics materials under the General Permit includes virgin and recycled
`plastic resin pellets, powders, flakes, powdered additives, regrind, dust, as well as
`other similar types of preproduction plastics with the potential to discharge or migrate
`off-site.
`101. Any discharger that manufactures, transports, stores, or consumes plastic
`materials shall submit information to the State Board together with its NOI, including
`the type and form of plastics, and which BMPs are implemented at the facility to
`prevent illicit discharges. Id.
`102. Such BMPs must include, at a minimum, containment systems at each
`on-site storm drain discharge location down gradient of areas containing plastic
`materials. General Permit, § XVIII.A.1.a.
`103. A containment system shall be designed to prevent the discharge of
`particles by a 1-millimeter mech screen, with a treatment capacity of no less than the
`peak flow rate from a one-year, one-hour storm event. Id.
`104. Facilities that handle plastic materials smaller than 1-millimeter must
`develop a containment system designed to trap the smallest plastic material handled at
`the facility with a treatment capacity of at least the peak flow rate from a one-year,
`one-hour storm; or develop a feasible alternative BMP or suite of BMPs that are
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`18
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-03552 Document 1 Filed 04/26/21 Page 19 of 54 Page ID #:19
`
`
`
`designed to achieve a similar or better performance standard. General Permit, §
`XVIII.A.1.d.
`105. Additionally, plastics facilities shall use durable sealed containers as a
`form of secondary containment during all transfers, loading, or unloading of plastics
`materials. General Permit, § XVIII.A.1.c.
`106. Finally, facilities that use plastics materials must have a vacuum or
`vacuum-type system for quick cleanup of fugitive plastic material available for
`deployment by all employees. General Permit, § XVIII.A.1.e.
`c) Receiving Water Limitations
`107. The General Permit contains water quality-based standards titled
`Receiving Water Limitations.
`108. The General Permit Receiving Water Limitations are intended to protect
`the beneficial uses of surface waters to which a facility’s storm water is discharged.
`General Permit, § VI.A.
`109. The General Permit requires permittees to meet “any more stringent
`[water quality-based limitations] necessary for receiving waters to meet applicable
`water quality standards.” General Permit, §I.D.31.
`110. Receiving Water Limitations are gen

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket