Case 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 1 of 58 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
`
`Benjamin Harris (SBN 313193)
`Ben@lawaterkeeper.org
`LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER
`120 Broadway, Suite 105
`Santa Monica, CA 90401
`Tel: (310) 394-6162
`Fax: (310) 394-6178
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`LOS ANGELES WATERKEEPER, a
`Case No. _____________________
`public benefit non-profit corporation,
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
`
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
`
`CIVIL PENALTIES
`
`
`GROVER PRODUCTS CO., a
`
`California corporation,
`
`
`Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
` Defendant.
`33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 2 of 58 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 (“Clean Water Act” or “Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251,
`et seq.
`2.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Los Angeles Waterkeeper
`(“LA Waterkeeper” or “Plaintiff”) and Grover Products Co. (“Grover” 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 Grover of the Clean
`Water Act, and the terms and conditions of the National Pollutant Discharge
`
`Elimination System Permit No. CA S000001, State Water Resources Control Board
`Water Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ, as amended by Water Quality Order No. 92-
`12-DWQ, Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ, and Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ
`(“General Permit”), related to polluted storm water discharges from the industrial
`facility owned and/or operated by Grover on two contiguous properties at 3424 and
`3412 East Olympic Boulevard in Los Angeles, California (“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); and 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
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 3 of 58 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`and Intent to File Suit letter (“Notice Letter”) containing, inter alia, sufficient
`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 (60) 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 December 2, 2021, Plaintiff sent a Notice Letter via certified mail to
`Grover, its registered agent for service of process, the U.S. Attorney General, the
`Administrator of the U.S. EPA, the Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA Region IX,
`the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”), and the Los
`Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”).
`9.
`The Notice Letter was received by Grover on December 6, 2021, and by
`Grover’s registered agent for service of process on December 8, 2021.
`10. The Notice Letter described ongoing violations of the Act and General
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 4 of 58 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`Permit at the Facility, and provided notice of Plaintiff’s intention to file suit against
`Defendant at the expiration of the Notice Period.
`11. A true and correct copy of the December 2, 2021 Notice Letter is
`attached as EXHIBIT A to the complaint, the contents of which are incorporated by
`reference.
`12. More than sixty (60) days have passed since the Notice Letter was served
`on Grover, and the Federal and State agencies.
`13. 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 this complaint.
`14. Plaintiff’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).
`15. 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.
`LA Waterkeeper, a California public benefit non-profit corporation, by and
`through its counsel, hereby alleges:
`II.
`INTRODUCTION
`16. This complaint seeks relief for unlawful discharges of pollutants, and
`polluted storm water from the Facility in violation of the Act and General Permit.
`17. Defendant is liable for its past and ongoing failures to comply with the
`Act, including failures to comply with the discharge prohibitions, technology-based
`and water quality-based effluent limitations, planning and monitoring requirements,
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 5 of 58 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`and other procedural and substantive requirements of the General Permit. 33 U.S.C.
`§§ 1342, 1365.
`18. With every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted
`storm water originating from industrial operations, like those conducted by Defendant,
`flow into Los Angeles’ storm drains and contaminate local streams, creeks, rivers,
`estuaries, harbors, bays, beaches, and coastal waters.
`19. 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
`and rivers each year. See e.g., Bay, S., Study of the Impact of Stormwater Discharge
`on Santa Monica Bay (Nov. 1999).
`20. Numerous scientific studies in recent decades have documented serious
`health risks to recreational users of southern California’s waters from pollutant-loaded
`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.
`21. A landmark epidemiological study showed that people who swam
`directly in front of storm drain outlets into Santa Monica Bay were far more likely to
`experience fevers, chills, vomiting, gastroenteritis, and similar health effects than
`those who swam 100 or 400 yards away from the outlets. 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
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 6 of 58 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`of Swimming in Santa Monica Bay at 5.
`22. Los Angeles’ waterways are ecologically sensitive areas, and are
`essential habitat for dozens of cetacean, pinniped, fish, bird, macro-invertebrate and
`invertebrate species.
`23. Los Angeles’ waterways provide numerous recreational activities,
`including swimming, surfing, SCUBA diving, and kayaking.
`24. Los Angeles’ waterways also provide non-contact recreation and
`aesthetic opportunities, such as hiking, running, biking, and wildlife observation.
`25.
`Industrial facilities, like Defendant’s, that discharge storm water
`contaminated with sediment, heavy metals, and other pollutants contribute to the
`impairment of downstream waters and aquatic dependent wildlife, expose people to
`toxins, and harm the special social and economic benefits Los Angeles’ waterways
`have for locals and visitors alike.
`26. Controlling polluted storm water discharges associated with industrial
`activity is essential to protecting southern California’s surface and coastal waters and
`essential to LA Waterkeeper’s mission.
`III. THE PARTIES
`27. LA Waterkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized
`under the laws of the State of California.
`28. LA Waterkeeper’s main office is located at 120 Broadway, Suite 105 in
`Santa Monica, California.
`29. Founded in 1993, LA Waterkeeper is dedicated to the preservation,
`protection and defense of the inland and coastal surface and ground waters of Los
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 7 of 58 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`Angeles County.
`30. LA Waterkeeper’s mission is to fight for the health of the region’s
`waterways, and for sustainable, equitable and climate-friendly water supplies.
`31. The organization works to achieve this goal through education, outreach,
`advocacy and, where necessary, litigation and enforcement actions under the Clean
`Water Act on behalf of itself and its members.
`32. LA Waterkeeper’s members live, work, and recreate in and around the
`Los Angeles basin, including many who live and/or recreate along the Los Angeles
`River, the Los Angeles River Estuary, the Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, San
`Pedro Bay, and the Pacific Ocean (collectively the “Receiving Waters”).
`33. LA Waterkeeper members use and enjoy the Receiving Waters to fish,
`surf, swim, sail, SCUBA dive, kayak, bird/wildlife watch, bike, run, hike, and walk.
`LA Waterkeeper members also use the Receiving Waters to engage in scientific study
`through pollution and habitat monitoring, as well as restoration activities.
`34. The Facility’s unlawful discharge of pollutants into the Receiving
`Waters, and failure to comply with the General Permit’s non-discharge mandates,
`harm LA Waterkeeper’s members and impair their ability to use and enjoy these
`waters. The interests of LA Waterkeeper 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.
`35. 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.
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 8 of 58 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`36. The relief sought herein will redress the harms to Plaintiff caused by
`Defendant’s activities.
`37. Grover filed articles of incorporation with California’s Secretary of State
`on July 2, 1937, and has maintained its corporate registration with the State of
`California since.
`38. Grover is a registered California corporation.
`39. The Facility is owned and/or operated by Grover.
`40. Grover designs and manufactures air powered signal horns for auto, train,
`and marine industries.
`41.
`Industrial activities at the Facility include, but are not limited to, metal
`forming, cutting, welding, surface preparation, and polishing.
`42. The company’s 2020 and 2021 Statements of Information on file with the
`California Secretary of State list the company’s principal executive office and
`principal business office in California as 3424 East Olympic Boulevard in Los
`Angeles.
`43. Kristen Roesch is the company’s Chief Executive Officer, Secretary,
`Chief Financial Advisor, and the company’s sole Director.
`44. Grover employs approximately 100 persons at the Facility.
`45. Grover produces annual revenues of approximately $19.5 million.
`IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND
`A. The Clean Water Act.
`46. Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the
`discharge of any pollutant into waters of the United States unless the discharge
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 9 of 58 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`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 402, 33
`U.S.C. § 1342(b). See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1).
`47. 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).
`48. Section 402(p) of the Act establishes a framework regulating industrial
`storm water discharges under federal and authorized state NPDES permit programs.
`33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`49. 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).
`50. States with approved NPDES permit programs are authorized by section
`402(b) to regulate industrial storm water discharges through the issuance of a
`statewide general NPDES permit applicable to all industrial dischargers and/or
`through individual NPDES permits issued to dischargers. See id.
`51. 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).
`52. A “person” under the Act includes individuals, corporations,
`partnerships, associations, States, municipalities, commissions, and political
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 10 of 58 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`subdivisions of a State, or any interstate body. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`53.
`“Effluent standard or limitation” is defined to include: (a) the prohibition
`in section 301(a) of the Act against unpermitted discharges; or (b) conditions of
`NPDES permits such as the General Permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f).
`54. Each separate violation of the Act subjects a violator to a penalty of up to
`$52,414 per day per violation for violations occurring after November 2, 2015; and up
`to $37,500 per day per violation for violations occurring prior to and including
`November 2, 2015. 33. U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a); 40 C.F.R. § 19.4 (Adjustment of
`Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation).
`55. 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).
`B. California’s Storm Water Permit.
`56. The State Board is charged with regulating pollutants to protect
`California’s water resources. See Cal. Water Code § 13001.
`57. California is authorized by U.S. EPA to issue NPDES permits for storm
`water discharges associated with industrial activities.
`58. 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 Board Water
`Quality Control Boards, including the Regional Board. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a),
`1342, 1362(6), 1362(7), 1362(12).
`59.
`In order to discharge storm water lawfully, certain industrial dischargers
`in California must obtain coverage under the General Permit and comply with all its
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 11 of 58 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`terms. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1); see also General Permit, §
`I.A.12.
`60. 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).
`61.
`“[General] Permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean
`Water Act and the [California] Water Code.” General Permit, § XXI.A.
`62. Grover is liable for ongoing violations of the General Permit, and civil
`penalties and injunctive relief are available remedies. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342.
`63. The General Permit’s annual compliance period runs from July 1 to June
`30 (“Reporting Year”).
`
`C.
`
`The General Permit’s Discharge Prohibitions, Effluent Limitations,
`and Receiving Water Limitations
`
`
`
`64. The General Permit contains the following three sections restricting the
`discharge of storm water containing pollutants from the Facility: (A) “Discharge
`Prohibitions;” (B) technology-based effluent limitations (titled “Effluent
`Limitations”); and (C) water quality-based effluent limitations (titled “Receiving
`Water Limitations”). General Permit, §§ III, V, VI.
`65. The General Permit contains a Discharge Prohibition that prohibits direct
`and indirect discharges to waters of the United States of non-storm water discharges,
`liquid materials (e.g., vehicle or building wash water, chemical spills) other than
`storm water that are not otherwise authorized by an NPDES permit. General Permit,
`§ III.B.
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 12 of 58 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`66. The General Permit contains another Discharge Prohibition that prohibits
`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.
`67. The General Permit also contains technology-based effluent limitations,
`titled “Effluent Limitations.” General Permit, § V.
`68. 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. General Permit, § V; see also General Permit, Fact Sheet § II.D.1 (“[Clean
`Water Act] Section 301(b)(1)(A) requires that discharges from existing facilities must,
`at a minimum, comply with technology-based effluent limitations based on the
`technological capability of Dischargers to control pollutants in their discharges.”
`(emphasis added)).
`69. The General Permit’s technology-based effluent limitations require
`permittee facilities to meet the statutory mandate 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. 33
`U.S.C. §§ 301(b)(1)(A), (2)(A); see also General Permit, § V.A.
`70. Compliance with the BAT standard requires pollutant reductions through
`the implementation of the best economically achievable technology available in an
`industry. General Permit, Fact Sheet § II.D.5.
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 13 of 58 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`71. Compliance with the General Permit’s technology-based effluent
`limitations requires permittee facilities design and implement effective, site-specific
`pollution control strategies called Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that prevent
`or reduce storm water discharges consistent with BAT and/or BCT pollution reduction
`standards. General Permit, § V.A; General Permit, Fact Sheet § II.D.5 (“Dischargers
`must implement BMPs that meet or exceed the BAT/BCT technology-based
`standard.”)
`72. 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 processes to control and abate the discharge of pollutants from the Facility. 40
`C.F.R. § 122.2.
`73. Permittees must design BMPs that meet the BCT standard for all sources
`of conventional pollutants, including Total Suspended Solids (“TSS”), Oil and Grease
`(“O&G) and pH. 40 C.F.R. § 401.16.
`74. Permittees must implement and maintain, as well as evaluate and
`improve, their BMPs to ensure the concentration of TSS, O&G, and pH in any storm
`water discharge is controlled consistent with the BCT standard.
`75. Permittees must design BMPs that meet the BAT standard for all sources
`of toxic pollutants. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 401.15-401.16 (listing conventional and
`toxic/non-conventional pollutants).
`76. Permittees must implement and maintain, as well as evaluate and
`improve, those BMPs to ensure toxic pollutant concentrations in any storm water
`
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 14 of 58 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`discharge are controlled consistent with the BAT standard. General Permit, Fact Sheet
`§ II.D.5.
`77. Multiple metals discharged (or potentially discharged) from the Facility
`are classified as toxic pollutants pursuant section 307(a)(1) of the Act, including
`copper, lead, and zinc. See 40 C.F.R. § 401.15.
`78. The 2008, 2015, and 2021 versions of U.S. EPA’s NPDES Storm Water
`Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial Activities include numeric standards called
`benchmarks, which are pollutant concentration values for industrial storm water
`discharges (“U.S. 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, effective June 4, 2015, and
`effective March 1, 2021.
`79. U.S. EPA Benchmarks serve as objective measures for evaluating
`whether the BMPs designed and implemented at a permittee facility achieve the
`statutory BAT/BCT standards. See 80 Fed. Reg. 34403, 34405 (June 16, 2015); see
`also 73 Fed. Reg. 56572, 56574 (Sept. 29, 2008); 65 Fed. Reg. 64746, 64766-67 (Oct.
`30, 2000).
`80. The discharge of storm water containing pollutant concentrations
`exceeding U.S. EPA Benchmarks evidence a failure to develop and implement
`pollution control strategies that achieve BAT/BCT-level pollutant reductions. See
`Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Kramer Metals, Inc. (“Kramer”), 619 F. Supp. 2nd 914,
`921-25 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also 80 Fed. Reg. 34403, 34405 (June 16, 2015).
`81. Table 1 contains U.S. EPA Benchmark standards relevant to 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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 15 of 58 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`assessing the Facility’s compliance with the BAT/BCT standards.
`TABLE 1
`U.S. EPA BENCHMARKS APPLICABLE TO THE FACILITY’S STORM WATER DISCHARGES
`Pollutant
`2015 Benchmark
`2021 Benchmark
`oil & grease
`15 mg/L*
`15 mg/L
`total suspended solids
`100 mg/L
`100 mg/L
`aluminum
`0.75 mg/L
`1.1 mg/L
`iron
`1.0 mg/L
`n/a
`total suspended solids
`100 mg/L
`100 mg/L
`copper**
`0.0156 mg/L
`0.00519 mg/L
`lead**
`0.095 mg/L
`0.082 mg/L
`zinc**
`0.13 mg/L
`0.12 mg/L
`* - mg/L = milligrams per liter.
`** - Benchmark thresholds for certain metals are dependent on the hardness of the receiving waters. Numbers in Table 1
`are based on a hardness of 100-125 mg/L.
`82. Visual observations (and records) required to be maintained pursuant to
`the General Permit are relevant to assessing a permittee’s compliance with the
`BAT/BCT standards. General Permit, § I.K.70.
`83. Objective assessments of whether BMPs described in a permittee
`facility’s pollution planning documents (titled Storm Water Pollution Prevention
`Plans, or “SWPPPs”) are consistent with industry best practices are relevant to
`assessing a permittee’s compliance with the BAT/BCT standards.
`84. The General Permit contains Numeric Action Levels (“NALs”), which
`are a set of numeric standards derived from the U.S. EPA Benchmarks, e.g., 0.75
`mg/L for aluminum. General Permit, § XI.B (Table 2).
`85. The exceedance of a NAL, e.g., an average concentration of 1.1 mg/L of
`aluminum in storm water discharges over a Reporting Year, triggers the requirement
`that a permittee complete an Exceedance Response Action (“ERA”). General Permit,
`§ XII.A.
`86. ERAs are action plans and/or technical reports that evaluate, and propose
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`15
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 16 of 58 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`revision to, a permittee’s pollution prevention measures. General Permit, § XII.C-D.
`87. Failures to comply with the General Permit’s ERA requirements are
`violations of the General Permit. General Permit, § XII; see also General Permit, Fact
`Sheet § K.2.b (“[I]t is a violation of the permit [] to fail to comply with the Level 1
`status and Level 2 status ERA requirements in the event of [] exceedances.”)
`88. The General Permit contains water quality-based effluent limitations,
`titled “Receiving Water Limitations.” General Permit, § VI.
`89. Water quality-based effluent limitations are intended to protect
`designated beneficial uses of surface waters to which a permittee facility’s storm
`water is discharged. General Permit, § VI.A.
`90. Water quality-based effluent limitations that apply to a given permittee
`facility vary based on the quality of waters to which a facility discharges.
`91. Water quality-based effluent limitations are generally more stringent than
`the technology-based effluent limitations where a facility’s receiving waters are
`impaired by one or more pollutants. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); General Permit, §
`I.D.31-32; see also General Permit, Fact Sheet § II.D.1.
`92. Beneficial uses of the Receiving Waters are defined in the Water Quality
`
`Control Plan – Los Angeles Region: Basin Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los
`Angeles and Ventura Counties, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
`Angeles Region 4 (adopted June 13, 1994, as amended) (“Basin Plan”).1
`93. The Los Angeles River’s designated beneficial uses include: Municipal
`and Domestic Water Supply; Groundwater Recharge; habitat for Rare, Threatened, or
`
`
`1 http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 17 of 58 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`Endangered Species; Wildlife Habitat; and Warm Freshwater Habitat. Basin Plan,
`Table 2-1.
`94. Surface waters that cannot support designated beneficial uses (as listed in
`the Basin Plan) due to the occurrence of high levels of one or more pollutants are
`designated as impaired water bodies pursuant to section 303(d) of the Clean Water
`Act and placed on the “303(d) List.” 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).
`95. According to the State Board’s 2018 Integrated 303(d) List of Impaired
`Water Bodies, Reach 2 of the Los Angeles River is impaired for trash, nutrients
`(algae), ammonia, indicator (coliform) bacteria, oil, copper, lead.2
`96. According to the State Board’s 2018 Integrated 303(d) List of Impaired
`Water Bodies, Reach 1 of the Los Angeles River is impaired for trash, pH, cadmium,
`cyanide, nutrients (algae), ammonia, indicator (coliform) bacteria, oil, copper
`(dissolved), lead, and zinc (dissolved).3
`97. According to the State Board’s 2018 Integrated 303(d) List of Impaired
`Water Bodies, the Los Angeles River Estuary is impaired for chlordane, PCBs
`(polychlorinated biphenyls) (sediment), trash, DDT (sediment), and toxicity. 4
`98. According to the State Board’s 2018 Integrated 303(d) List of Impaired
`Water Bodies, the San Pedro Bay is impaired for chlordane, total DDT, PCBs,
`toxicity, and chlordane. 5
`
`
`2 Listed pollutants with applicable Total Daily Maximum Load assessments include trash, nutrients
`(algae), ammonia, indicator bacteria, copper, and lead.
`3 Listed pollutants with applicable Total Daily Maximum Load assessments include trash, nutrients
`(algae), ammonia, indicator bacteria, copper (dissolved), lead, zinc (dissolved), pH, and cadmium.
`4 Listed pollutants with applicable Total Daily Maximum Load assessments include chlordane, trash,
`and DDT (sediment).
`5 Listed pollutants with applicable Total Daily Maximum Load assessments include total DDT,
`
`17
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 18 of 58 Page ID #:18
`
`
`
`99. Once a waterbody is placed on the 303(d) List, the relevant Regional
`Water Quality Control Board (or U.S. EPA) must develop a plan for restoring the
`impaired water called a “Total Daily Maximum Load” or “TMDL.”
`100. Each TMDL identifies the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water
`body can receive from all sources while still meeting water quality standards (i.e.,
`pollution limits above which a water body cannot support designated beneficial uses).
`40 C.F.R. § 130.2(i); see also General Permit, § I.F.38.
`101. TMDLs assign waste load allocations of any impairing pollutant to
`categories of point sources, e.g., industrial storm water discharges regulated by an
`NPDES permit.
`102. A TMDL has been developed and adopted for the Los Angeles River
`titled the “Los Angeles River Metals TMDL.”
`103. Impairing pollutants covered by the Los Angeles River Metals TMDL
`include cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
`104. The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL contains waste load allocations for
`industrial storm water discharges, i.e., an assignment of the total amount of cadmium,
`copper, lead, and zinc that can be discharged from industrial sources.
`105. The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL total recoverable metal waste load
`allocation for cadmium is Water Effects Ration (“WER”) x 7.6x10-12 x daily
`volume(L) – 4.8x10-6 grams per day per acre (“g/day/acre”).
`106. The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL total recoverable metal waste load
`allocation for copper is WER x 4.2x10-11 x daily volume (L) – 2.6x10-5 g/day/acre.
`
`
`PCBs, toxicity, and chlordane.
`
`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 2:22-cv-02196 Document 1 Filed 04/01/22 Page 19 of 58 Page ID #:19
`
`
`
`107. The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL total recoverable metal waste load
`allocation for lead is WER x 2.3x10-1 x daily volume (L) – 8.7x10-5 g/day/acre.
`108. The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL total recoverable metal waste load
`allocation for zinc is WER x 3.9x10-1 x daily volume (L)