throbber
Case 2:22-cv-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 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
`Barak Kamelgard (SBN 298822)
`Barak@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
`
`
`HUGHES BROTHERS
`
`AIRCRAFTERS, INC., a California
`
`corporation,
`Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
`
`33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387
` Defendant.
`
`
` 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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 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 Hughes Brothers Aircrafters, Inc. (“Hughes” 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 (“Complaint”) seeks relief for ongoing violations by
`Hughes 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, Order
`No. 2014-0057-DWQ, and as amended on November 6, 2018 (“General Permit”),
`related to polluted storm water and non-storm water discharges from the
`aerospace/aviation manufacturing facility owned and operated by Hughes at and near
`11010 Garfield Place in South Gate, 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) and 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b), 1365(a) (injunctive
`relief and civil penalties).
`5.
`Prospective citizen plaintiffs must, as a jurisdictional pre-requisite to
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 58 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`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
`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 Attorney General, U.S.
`Department of Justice (“U.S. DOJ”), 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 April 12, 2022, Plaintiff sent a Notice Letter via certified mail to
`Hughes 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 Notice
`Period. A true and accurate copy of the Notice Letter as provided to Hughes is
`attached to, and incorporated by reference into, this Complaint at EXHIBIT 1.
`9.
`The Notice Letter was received by Tim Whitaker, Hughes’ 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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 58 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`Manager on April 14, 2022, and by James P. Hughes, Hughes’ registered agent for
`service of process on April 14, 2022.
`10. The Notice Letter was received by Merrick Garland, the U.S. Attorney
`General on April 18, 2022, by Michael Regan, Administrator of the U.S. EPA on
`April 18, 2022, and by Eileen Sobeck, Director of the State Water Resources Control
`Board on April 19, 2022.
`11. More than sixty (60) days have passed since the Notice Letter was served
`on Hughes, and the State and Federal agencies.
`12. 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.
`13. 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).
`14. 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
`15. This Complaint seeks relief for unpermitted and unlawful discharges of
`pollutants, polluted storm water, and polluted non-storm water from the Facility in
`violation of the Act and General Permit.
`16. Defendant is liable for its past and ongoing failures to comply with the
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 5 of 58 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`Act, including failures to comply with the General Permit’s discharge prohibitions,
`technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations, planning and
`monitoring requirements, and other procedural and substantive requirements. 33
`U.S.C. §§ 1342, 1365.
`17. 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.
`18. 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).
`19. 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.
`20. 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
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 6 of 58 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`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 of
`Swimming in Santa Monica Bay at 5.
`21. Los Angeles’ waterways are ecologically sensitive areas, and are
`essential habitat for dozens of cetacean, pinniped, fish, bird, macro-invertebrate and
`invertebrate species.
`22. Los Angeles’ waterways provide numerous recreational activities,
`including swimming, surfing, SCUBA diving, and kayaking.
`23. Los Angeles’ waterways also provide non-contact recreation and
`aesthetic opportunities, such as hiking, running, biking, and wildlife observation.
`24.
`Industrial facilities, like Defendant’s, that discharge storm water and non-
`storm water contaminated with sediment, heavy metals, trash, 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.
`25. Controlling polluted storm water and non-storm water discharges
`associated with industrial activity is vital to protecting southern California’s surface
`and coastal waters, and essential to LA Waterkeeper’s mission.
`III. THE PARTIES
`26. LA Waterkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized
`under the laws of the State of California with its main office located at 120 Broadway,
`Suite 105 in Santa Monica, California.
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 7 of 58 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`27. Founded in 1993, LA Waterkeeper is dedicated to the preservation,
`protection and defense of the inland and coastal surface and ground waters of Los
`Angeles County. LA Waterkeeper’s mission is to fight for the health of the region’s
`waterways, and for sustainable, equitable and climate-friendly water supplies.
`28. 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.
`29. 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”).
`30. 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.
`31. 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.
`32. Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged herein will
`irreparably harm Plaintiff and its members, for which harm they have no plain, speedy,
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 8 of 58 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`or adequate remedy at law.
`33. The relief sought herein will redress the harms to Plaintiff caused by
`Defendant’s activities.
`34. Hughes incorporated on May 7, 1952.
`35. Hughes is a registered California corporation.
`36. Since enrolling in the General Permit in 1997, Hughes has listed various
`Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) codes to describe operations at the Facility,
`including 3369 (Nonferrous Foundries, Except Al and Cu), 3398 (Metal Heat Treating),
`3499 (Fabricated Metal Products, NEC), 3543 (Industrial Pattern), and 3728 (Aircraft
`Parts and Auxiliary Equipment, NEC).
`37. According to Hughes, the Facility is “engaged in the manufacture of
`precision airframe sheet metal details and assemblies, including the constructions [sic]
`of plaster patterns for making molds, sand casting of zinc dies, casting of lead punches,
`cutting and shearing of sheet metal, cleaning and grinding of formed aircraft parts, and
`heat treatment of particular aluminum parts.”
`38. The Facility also conducts “cutting, sheering, grinding, melting, and
`casting of metal pieces.”
`IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND
`A. The Clean Water Act.
`39. 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
`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
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 9 of 58 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`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).
`40. 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).
`41. All unpermitted discharges of polluted storm water associated with
`industrial activities are violations of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
`42. 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).
`43. 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).
`44. 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.
`45. 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).
`46.
`“Effluent standard or limitation” is defined to include: (a) the prohibition
`in section 301(a) against unpermitted discharges; and/or (b) a condition of an NPDES
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 10 of 58 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`permit such as the General Permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f).
`47. 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).
`48. Each separate violation of the Act subjects the violator to a penalty of up
`to $59,973.00 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).
`49. 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 the court finds that such an award is appropriate. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d); see also
`St. John’s Organic Farm v. Gem County Mosquito Abatement Dist., 574 F.3d 1054,
`1062-64 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that the court’s discretion to deny a fee award to a
`prevailing plaintiff is narrow, and denial is “extremely rare.”).
`B. California’s Storm Water Permit.
`50. The State Board is charged with regulating pollutants to protect
`California’s water resources. See Cal. Water Code § 13001.
`51. California is authorized by U.S. EPA to issue NPDES permits for storm
`water discharges associated with industrial activities.
`52. 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 Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
`Board (“Regional Board”). See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1362(6), 1362(7),
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 11 of 58 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`1362(12).
`53.
`In order to discharge storm water lawfully, certain industrial dischargers
`in California must obtain coverage under the General Permit and comply with all its
`terms. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1); see also General Permit, §
`I.A.12.
`54. 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).
`55.
`“[General] Permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean
`Water Act and the [California] Water Code.” General Permit, § XXI.A.
`56. Hughes is liable for ongoing violations of the General Permit, and civil
`penalties and injunctive relief are available remedies. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342.
`57. The General Permit’s annual compliance period runs from July 1 of each
`calendar year to June 30 of the subsequent calendar year (“Reporting Year”), e.g.,
`July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023.
`
`C.
`
`The General Permit’s Discharge Prohibitions, Effluent Limitations,
`and Receiving Water Limitations
`
`
`
`58. 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 (called “Effluent
`Limitations”); and (C) water quality-based effluent limitations (called “Receiving
`Water Limitations”).
`59. The General Permit contains a Discharge Prohibition that prohibits direct
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 12 of 58 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`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, etc.) other than
`storm water that are not otherwise authorized by an NPDES permit. General Permit,
`§ III.B.
`60. The General Permit contains a second 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.
`61. The General Permit also contains technology-based effluent limitations
`that 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)).
`62. 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 (listing
`conventional and toxic/non-conventional pollutants); General Permit, § V.A.
`63. Compliance with the BAT standard requires pollutant reductions through
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 13 of 58 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`the implementation of the best economically achievable technology available in an
`industry. General Permit, Fact Sheet § II.D.5.
`64. Compliance with the General Permit’s technology-based effluent
`limitations requires permittee facilities to design and implement effective, site-specific
`pollution control strategies called Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that prevent
`or reduce storm water discharges consistent with BAT/BCT pollution reduction
`standard. 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.”)
`65. 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.
`66. Permittees must design BMPs that meet the BCT standard for all sources
`of conventional pollutants, including total suspended solids, oil and grease and pH. 40
`C.F.R. § 401.16.
`67. Permittees must thereafter implement and maintain, as well as evaluate
`and improve, their BMPs to ensure that the concentration of total suspended solids, oil
`and grease and pH in any storm water discharge is controlled consistent with the BCT
`standard.
`68. 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
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 14 of 58 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`toxic/non-conventional pollutants).
`69. Permittees must implement and maintain, as well as evaluate and
`improve, those BMPs to ensure that the concentration of any toxic pollutant in any
`storm water discharge is reduced consistent with the BAT standard. General Permit,
`Fact Sheet § II.D.5.
`70. Multiple metals discharged (or potentially discharged) from the Hughes’
`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.
`71. 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 limits 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.
`72. U.S. EPA Benchmarks serve as objective measures for evaluating
`whether the BMPs designed and implemented at a facility achieve the statutory
`BAT/BCT standard. 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).
`73. The discharge of storm water containing pollutant concentrations
`exceeding U.S. EPA Benchmarks evidences 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,
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 15 of 58 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`921-25 (C.D. Cal. 2009); see also 80 Fed. Reg. 34403, 34405 (June 16, 2015).
`74. Table 1 contains U.S. EPA Benchmark standards relevant to the
`assessing the Facility’s compliance with the BAT/BCT standard.
`TABLE 1
`U.S. EPA BENCHMARKS APPLICABLE TO THE FACILITY’S DISCHARGES
`POLLUTANT
`2015 BENCHMARK
`2021 BENCHMARK
`oil and 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
`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 metals are dependent on the hardness of the receiving waters. Numbers in Table 1 are
`based on a hardness of 100-125 mg/L.
`75. 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 standard.
`76. Objective assessments of whether BMPs described in a facility’s
`pollution prevention planning documents are consistent with industry best practices
`are relevant to assessing a permittee’s compliance with the BAT/BCT standard.
`77. 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.
`78. 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,
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 16 of 58 Page ID #:16
`
`
`
`§ XII.A.
`79. ERAs are action plans and/or technical reports that evaluate, and propose
`revision to, a permittee’s pollution prevention measures. General Permit, § XII.C-D.
`80. Failures to comply with 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.”)
`81. The General Permit contains water quality-based effluent limitations,
`a.k.a. Receiving Water Limitations, that are intended to protect designated beneficial
`uses of surface waters to which a facility’s storm water is discharged. General Permit,
`§ VI.A.
`82. The water quality-based effluent limitations that apply to storm water
`discharges from a given permittee facility vary based on the quality of waters to which
`a facility discharges.
`83. 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.
`84. 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
`
`
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 17 of 58 Page ID #:17
`
`
`
`85. The Los Angeles River’s designated beneficial uses include: Municipal
`and Domestic Water Supply; Groundwater Recharge; Habitat for Rare, Threatened, or
`Endangered Species; Wildlife Habitat; and Warm Freshwater Habitat. Basin Plan,
`Table 2-1.
`86. 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).
`87. 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 bacteria, oil, copper, lead.2
`88. 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 bacteria, oil, copper (dissolved), lead,
`and zinc (dissolved).3
`89. 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
`90. According to the State Board’s 2018 Integrated 303(d) List of Impaired
`
`
`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).
`
`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 2:22-cv-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 18 of 58 Page ID #:18
`
`
`
`Water Bodies, the San Pedro Bay is impaired for chlordane, total DDT, PCBs,
`toxicity, and chlordane. 5
`91. 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.”
`92. 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.
`93. Each TMDL assigns waste load allocations of any impairing pollutant to
`categories of point sources, e.g., industrial storm water discharges regulated by an
`NPDES permit.
`94. A TMDL has been developed and adopted for the Los Angeles River
`titled the “Los Angeles River Metals TMDL.”
`95.
`Impairing pollutants covered by the Los Angeles River Metals TMDL
`include cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc.
`96. 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.
`97. 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.
`
`
`5 Listed pollutants with applicable Total Daily Maximum Load assessments include total DDT,
`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-04458 Document 1 Filed 06/29/22 Page 19 of 58 Page ID #:19
`
`
`
`98. 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.
`99. The Los Angeles River Metals TMDL total recoverable metal waste load
`alloc

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