throbber
Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sarah Spinuzzi (Bar No. 305658)
`Email: Sarah@coastkeeper.org
`Lauren Chase (Bar No. 3324162)
`Email: Lauren@coastkeeper.org
`ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER
`3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-110
`Costa Mesa, California 92626
`Telephone: (714) 850-1965
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Orange County Coastkeeper
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER, a
`California non-profit corporation,
`
`
`
`
`HIXSON METAL FINISHING, a
`California corporation; FPC
`MANAGEMENT, LLC; and REID
`WASHBON, an individual, as Trustee of
`the Reid Washbon Trust,
`
`
`
`v.
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL
`PENALTIES
`
`(Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
`33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Orange County Coastkeeper (“Coastkeeper” or “Plaintiff”), by and through counsel,
`
`hereby alleges:
`
`I.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff brings this civil suit under the citizen suit enforcement provision of
`
`the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (the “Clean Water
`
`Act” or the “CWA”). See 33 U.S.C. § 1365. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction
`
`over the parties and this action pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331
`
`and 2201 (an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under the Constitution and
`
`laws of the United States). On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff issued a 60-day Notice of
`
`Violation and Intent To Sue letter (the “Notice Letter”), attached hereto as Exhibit A and
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 2 of 46 Page ID #:2
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`incorporated by reference herein, to Hixson Metal Finishing (“Hixson”), FPC
`
`Management LLC (“FPC”), and Reid Washbon, Trustee of the Reid Washbon Trust
`
`(“Trustee”) (collectively, “Defendants”), as the owners and operators of the Hixson Metal
`
`Finishing facilities located on Production Place in Newport Beach (the “Facility”). The
`
`Notice Letter informed Defendants of the violations of California’s General Permit for
`
`Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities (National Pollution
`
`Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001, Water
`
`Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, as amended
`
`by Order No. 2015-0122-DWQ, as subsequently amended by Order 20XX-XXXX-DWQ
`
`10
`
`(effective July 1,2020) (hereinafter, the “Storm Water Permit” or “Permit”) and the Clean
`
`11
`
`Water Act at the Facility. The Notice Letter informed Defendants of Plaintiff’s intent to
`
`12
`
`file suit against Defendants to enforce the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.
`
`13
`
`2.
`
`The Notice Letter was also sent to the Attorney General of the United States
`
`14
`
`Department of Justice (“USDOJ”), the Administrator of the United States Environmental
`
`15
`
`Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX, the Executive
`
`16
`
`Director of the State Water Resources Control Board (the “State Board”), and the
`
`17
`
`Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region (the
`
`18
`
`“Santa Ana Regional Board” or “Regional Board”), as required by 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(1)
`
`19
`
`and Section 505(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A).
`
`20
`
`3. More than sixty (60) days have passed since the Notice Letter was sent via
`
`21
`
`certified mail to Defendants and the State and Federal agencies. Plaintiff is informed and
`
`22
`
`believes, and thereon alleges, that neither the EPA, USDOJ, nor the State of California
`
`23
`
`have commenced or are diligently prosecuting an action to redress the violations alleged
`
`24
`
`in the Notice Letter and in this complaint. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). This action is
`
`25
`
`not barred by any prior administrative penalty under Section 309(g) of the CWA. 33
`
`26
`
`U.S.C. § 1319(g).
`
`27
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to Section
`
`28
`
`505(c)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the sources of the violations are
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 3 of 46 Page ID #:3
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`located within this judicial district.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff seeks relief for Defendants’ substantive and procedural violations of
`
`the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act resulting from industrial activities at the
`
`Facility.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`6.
`
`This complaint seeks relief for the Defendants’ unlawful discharges of
`
`pollutants into waters of the United States from industrial operations at the Facility.
`
`Specifically, Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendants’
`
`discharges of pollutants from the Facility enter the Orange County Municipal Separate
`
`10
`
`Storm Sewer System (“MS4”) and into nearby Lower Newport Bay (collectively referred
`
`11
`
`to as the “Receiving Waters”), in violation of the substantive and procedural requirements
`
`12
`
`of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act. These violations have been occurring
`
`13
`
`since at least March 6, 2017, and are ongoing and continuous.
`
`14
`
`7. With every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm
`
`15
`
`water, originating from industrial operations such as the Facility, pour into storm drains
`
`16
`
`and local waterways. The consensus among regulatory agencies and water quality
`
`17
`
`specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution
`
`18
`
`entering surface waters each year. These surface waters, known as receiving waters, are
`
`19
`
`ecologically sensitive areas. These waters are essential habitat for dozens of fish and bird
`
`20
`
`species as well as macro-invertebrate and invertebrate species. Storm water and non-storm
`
`21
`
`water contain sediment, heavy metals, such as aluminum, iron, magnesium, chromium,
`
`22
`
`copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and zinc, as well as high concentrations of nitrate and nitrite,
`
`23
`
`and other pollutants. Exposure to polluted storm water harms the special aesthetic and
`
`24
`
`recreational significance that the surface waters have for people in the surrounding
`
`25
`
`communities. The public’s use of the surface waters exposes many people to toxic metals
`
`26
`
`and other contaminants in storm water and non-storm water discharges. Non-contact
`
`27
`
`recreational and aesthetic opportunities, such as wildlife observation, are also impaired by
`
`28
`
`polluted discharges to surface waters such as the Receiving Waters.
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`3
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 4 of 46 Page ID #:4
`
`
`
`
`
`III. PARTIES
`
`A. Orange County Coastkeeper.
`
`8.
`
`Orange County Coastkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation
`
`organized under the laws of the State of California and has over 2,400 members. Orange
`
`County Coastkeeper’s office is located at 3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-110, Costa Mesa,
`
`California 92626.
`
`9.
`
`Orange County Coastkeeper is dedicated to the preservation, protection, and
`
`defense of the environment, wildlife, and natural resources of Orange County.
`
`Coastkeeper’s mission is to preserve the region’s water resources so they are swimmable,
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`drinkable, and fishable for present and future generations. To further these goals, Orange
`
`11
`
`County Coastkeeper actively seeks federal and state agency implementation of the Clean
`
`12
`
`Water Act, and, where necessary, directly initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself
`
`13
`
`and its members.
`
`14
`
`10. Members of Orange County Coastkeeper live and own homes in the Lower
`
`15
`
`Newport Bay and the greater watershed and use and enjoy the waters into which the
`
`16
`
`Facility discharges polluted storm water. Members of Orange County Coastkeeper use
`
`17
`
`these waterways to participate in a variety of water sports and other activities including,
`
`18
`
`but not limited to, fishing, swimming, boating, kayaking, bird watching, viewing wildlife,
`
`19
`
`hiking, biking, surfing, wading, standup paddle boarding, walking, running, and engaging
`
`20
`
`in scientific study, including monitoring, restoration, and research activities. The
`
`21
`
`discharge of pollutants from the Facility impairs each of these uses.
`
`22
`
`11. Defendants’ failure to comply with the procedural and substantive
`
`23
`
`requirements of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act including, but not
`
`24
`
`limited to, discharges of polluted storm water from the Facility, failure to report such
`
`25
`
`pollution, and failure to act in accordance with the Storm Water Permit to improve the
`
`26
`
`quality of storm water discharges from the Facility, degrades water quality and harms
`
`27
`
`aquatic life in the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, and impairs Orange County
`
`28
`
`Coastkeeper members’ use and enjoyment of those waters, giving Plaintiff standing on
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 5 of 46 Page ID #:5
`
`
`
`
`
`behalf of its members.
`
`12. The violations of the Storm Water Permit and Clean Water Act at the Facility
`
`are ongoing and continuous. Thus, the interests of Coastkeeper’s members have been, are
`
`being, and will continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ failure to comply with
`
`the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act. The relief sought herein will redress the
`
`harms to Plaintiff’s members caused by Defendants’ activities.
`
`13. Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged herein will
`
`irreparably harm Plaintiff’s members, for which harm they have no plain, speedy, or
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`B.
`
`The Owners and Operators of the Facility.
`
`14. Hixson Metal Finishing is the current owner and operator of the Facility, and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`has been the owner and operator of the Facility at all times relevant to this complaint, and
`
`13
`
`is a responsible party under the Clean Water Act.
`
`14
`
`15. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Hixson is an
`
`15
`
`active California corporation, registered and authorized to do business in California.
`
`16
`
`16. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Dale W.
`
`17
`
`Young, Jr., located at 829 Production Place, Newport Beach, CA 92663, is the registered
`
`18
`
`agent for service of process for Hixson.
`
`19
`
`17. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Bruce Greene
`
`20
`
`is the Facility Contact and EHS Manager identified by Hixson in its Notice of Intent
`
`21
`
`(“NOI”) for coverage under the Storm Water Permit and is also identified as the Legally
`
`22
`
`Responsible Person in the Facility’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”).
`
`23
`
`18. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Douglas
`
`24
`
`Greene is identified by Hixson in its Notice of Intent (“NOI”) for coverage under the Storm
`
`25
`
`Water Permit as Hixson’s President.
`
`26
`
`19. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that FPC
`
`27
`
`Management LLC is the owner of the real property underlying the portion of the Facility
`
`28
`
`at 861 Production Place where Hixson operates industrial activities.
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 6 of 46 Page ID #:6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`20. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that FPC has been
`
`the owner of this portion of the Facility since at least March 6, 2017.
`
`21. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that FPC has a
`
`lease agreement or other contractual relationship with Hixson that gives FPC knowledge
`
`and control over the acts and omissions giving rise to the violations alleged in this
`
`complaint.
`
`22. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that FPC is
`
`currently an active Delaware limited liability company registered in California.
`
`23. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that FPC’s
`
`10
`
`registered agent for service is Adam John Mikkelsen located at 307 Medina Way, Newport
`
`11
`
`Beach, CA 92661.
`
`12
`
`24. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the real
`
`13
`
`property underlying the portion of the Facility located at 816 Production Place is held in
`
`14
`
`the Reid Washbon Trust.
`
`15
`
`25. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Reid
`
`16
`
`Washbon is the trustee of the Reid Washbon Trust.
`
`17
`
`26. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the portion of
`
`18
`
`the Facility located at 816 Production Place has been held by the Reid Washbon Trust at
`
`19
`
`all times relevant to this complaint.
`
`20
`
`27. Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Trustee
`
`21
`
`has a lease agreement or other contractual relationship with Hixson that gives the Trustee
`
`22
`
`knowledge and control of Hixson’s acts and omissions giving rise to the violations alleged
`
`23
`
`in this complaint.
`
`24
`
`28. Property owners with knowledge and control of the activities giving rise to a
`
`25
`
`Clean Water Act claim are liable for those violations over which they had knowledge and
`
`26
`
`control.
`
`27
`
`IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND
`
`28
`
`A. The Clean Water Act.
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 7 of 46 Page ID #:7
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`29. 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 various enumerated sections of the CWA. Among other things, section 301(a)
`
`prohibits discharges not authorized by, or in violation of, the terms of an NPDES permit
`
`issued pursuant to section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1342(b).
`
`30. The Clean Water Act requires point source discharges of pollutants to
`
`navigable waters be regulated by an NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a); see 40 C.F.R. §
`
`122.26(c)(1).
`
`31. The “discharge of a pollutant” means, among other things, “any addition of
`
`10
`
`any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12); see 40
`
`11
`
`C.F.R. § 122.2.
`
`12
`
`32. The term “pollutant” includes “dredged spoil, solid waste… rock, sand, cellar
`
`13
`
`dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” 33 U.S.C.
`
`14
`
`§ 1362(6); see 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.
`
`15
`
`33.
`
`“Waters of the United States” are defined as “navigable waters,” and “all
`
`16
`
`waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in
`
`17
`
`interstate or foreign commerce, including waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of
`
`18
`
`the tide.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.
`
`19
`
`34. The EPA promulgated regulations defining “waters of the United States.” See
`
`20
`
`40 C.F.R. § 122.2. The EPA interprets waters of the United States to include not only
`
`21
`
`traditionally navigable waters, but also other waters, including waters tributary to
`
`22
`
`navigable waters, wetlands adjacent to navigable waters, and intermittent streams that
`
`23
`
`could affect interstate commerce. Id.
`
`24
`
`35. The Clean Water Act confers jurisdiction over waters that are tributaries to
`
`25
`
`traditionally navigable waters where the water at issue has a significant nexus to the
`
`26
`
`navigable water. See Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006); see also N. Cal. River
`
`27
`
`Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007).
`
`28
`
`36. A significant nexus is established if the “[receiving waters], either alone or
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 8 of 46 Page ID #:8
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the
`
`chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters.” Rapanos, 547 U.S.
`
`at 779; N. Cal. River Watch, 496 F.3d at 999-1000.
`
`37. A significant nexus is also established if waters that are tributary to navigable
`
`waters have flood control properties, including functions such as the reduction of flow,
`
`pollutant trapping, and nutrient recycling. Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 782; N. Cal. River Watch,
`
`496 F.3d at 1000-1001.
`
`38. Section 505(a)(1) and Section 505(f) of the Clean Water Act provide for
`
`citizen enforcement actions against any “person” who is alleged to be in violation of an
`
`10
`
`“effluent standard or limitation . . . or an order issued by the Administrator or a State with
`
`11
`
`respect to such a standard or limitation.” See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(i) and 1365(f).
`
`12
`
`39. Defendants are “persons” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean
`
`13
`
`Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`
`14
`
`40. An action for injunctive relief is authorized under Section 505(a) of the Clean
`
`15
`
`Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).
`
`16
`
`41. Each separate violation of the Clean Water Act subjects the violator to a
`
`17
`
`penalty of up to $59,973 per day per violation for all violations that occurred after
`
`18
`
`November 2, 2015 and were assessed on or after January 12, 2022. See 33 U.S.C. §§
`
`19
`
`1319(d) and 1365(a); Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 40 C.F.R. §
`
`20
`
`19.4.
`
`21
`
`42. Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), permits
`
`22
`
`prevailing or substantially prevailing parties to recover litigation costs, including
`
`23
`
`attorneys’, experts’, and consultants’ fees.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`B. California’s Storm Water Permit.
`
`43. Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act establishes a framework for regulating
`
`26
`
`industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES permit program. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`
`27
`
`44. Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act allows each state to administer its own
`
`28
`
`EPA-approved NPDES permit program for regulating the discharge of pollutants,
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 9 of 46 Page ID #:9
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`including discharges of polluted storm water. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). States with
`
`approved NPDES permit programs are authorized by section 402(b) to regulate industrial
`
`storm water discharges through individual NPDES permits issued to dischargers and/or
`
`through the issuance of a statewide general NPDES permit applicable to all industrial
`
`storm water dischargers. See id.
`
`45. California is a state authorized by EPA to issue NPDES permits.
`
`46.
`
`In California, the State Board is charged with regulating pollutants to protect
`
`California’s water resources. See Cal. Water Code § 13001.
`
`47. The Storm Water Permit is a statewide general NPDES permit issued by the
`
`10
`
`State Board pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
`
`11
`
`48. The Storm Water Permit was issued on July 1, 2015 pursuant to Order No.
`
`12
`
`2014-0057-DWQ.
`
`13
`
`49. On November 6, 2018, pursuant to Order No. 2015-0122-DWQ, the State
`
`14
`
`Board amended the Storm Water Permit to incorporate Total Maximum Daily Load
`
`15
`
`(“TMDL”) implementation requirements for waterbodies subject to TMDLs with
`
`16
`
`contributions from industrial dischargers.
`
`17
`
`50.
`
`In order to discharge storm water to waters of the United States lawfully in
`
`18
`
`California, industrial dischargers must secure coverage under the Storm Water Permit and
`
`19
`
`comply with its terms, or obtain and comply with an individual NPDES permit. See Storm
`
`20
`
`Water Permit Finding 12. Prior to beginning industrial operations, dischargers are required
`
`21
`
`to apply for coverage under the Storm Water Permit by submitting a Notice of Intent to
`
`22
`
`Comply with the Terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with
`
`23
`
`Industrial Activity (“NOI”) to the State Board. See Storm Water Permit, Finding 17.
`
`24
`
`51. Violations of the Storm Water Permit are violations of the Clean Water Act.
`
`25
`
`See Storm Water Permit, Section XXI(A) (Duty to Comply).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`C. The Storm Water Permit’s Discharge Prohibitions And Technology
`
`Based Effluent Limitations.
`
`52. The Storm Water Permit contains certain absolute prohibitions. The Storm
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 10 of 46 Page ID #:10
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Water Permit prohibits the direct or indirect discharge of materials other than storm water
`
`(“non-storm water discharges”), which are not otherwise authorized by an NPDES permit,
`
`to the waters of the United States. See Storm Water Permit, Discharge Prohibition III(B).
`
`53. The Storm Water Permit Effluent Limitations require dischargers covered by
`
`the Storm Water Permit to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activity
`
`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. Toxic
`
`pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.15 and include copper, lead, and zinc, among
`
`10
`
`others. Conventional pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.16 and include biochemical
`
`11
`
`oxygen demand (“BOD”), total suspended solids (“TSS”), oil and grease (“O&G”), pH,
`
`12
`
`and fecal coliform. See Storm Water Permit, Section V(A).
`
`13
`
`54. Pursuant to the CWA and the Storm Water Permit, dischargers must employ
`
`14
`
`Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) that constitute BAT and BCT to reduce or
`
`15
`
`eliminate storm water pollution. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b); Storm Water Permit, Effluent
`
`16
`
`Limitation V(A).
`
`17
`
`55. EPA’s NPDES Storm Water Multi-Sector General Permit for Industrial
`
`18
`
`Activities (“MSGP”) includes numeric benchmarks for pollutant concentrations in storm
`
`19
`
`water discharges (“EPA Benchmarks”), which are, in part, incorporated into the Storm
`
`20
`
`Water Permit via the Table 2 Numeric Action Levels (“NALs”). See Storm Water Permit,
`
`21
`
`Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis, XI(B).
`
`22
`
`56. The EPA Benchmarks provide an objective standard to determine whether a
`
`23
`
`facility’s BMPs are successfully developed and/or implemented and achieve compliance
`
`24
`
`with BAT and BCT standards. Storm Water Permit, Effluent Limitation V(A); See EPA’s
`
`25
`
`NPDES MSGP Fact Sheet at 106; see also, 65 Federal Register 64839 (2000).
`
`26
`
`57. The EPA Benchmarks and NALs for the following parameters are as follows:
`
`27
`
`pH – 6.0 – 9.0 standard units; TSS – 100 mg/L; copper – 0.0332 mg/L; zinc – 0.26 mg/L;
`
`28
`
`nickel – 1.02 mg/L; iron – 1.0 mg/L; nitrate plus nitrate as nitrogen (“N+N”) – 0.68 mg/L;
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 11 of 46 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`O&G – 15 mg/L; and aluminum – 0.75 mg/L. Additional EPA Benchmarks for heavy
`
`metals, which depend on the hardness of the receiving water, also apply to storm water
`
`discharges from the Facility.
`
`58. Discharges from an industrial facility containing pollutant concentrations
`
`that exceed EPA Benchmarks indicate that BMPs that meet BAT for toxic pollutants
`
`and/or BCT for conventional pollutants have not been developed and/or implemented at
`
`the Facility. Id.
`
`D. The Storm Water Permit’s Numeric Effluent Limitations.
`
`59.
`
` Effective July 1, 2020, the Storm Water Permit establishes numeric
`
`10
`
`effluent limitations (“NELs”) for facilities that discharge storm water associated with
`
`11
`
`industrial activities into water bodies that have approved TMDLs set forth in Storm
`
`12
`
`Water Permit, Attachment E.
`
`13
`
`60. An instantaneous maximum NEL exceedance occurs when two (2) or
`
`14
`
`more analytical results from samples taken for any single parameter within a reporting
`
`15
`
`year exceed the instantaneous maximum NEL value. Storm Water Permit, Section
`
`16
`
`V(C)(1).
`
`17
`
`61. An exceedance of an NEL is a violation of the Storm Water Permit
`
`18
`
`and the Clean Water Act. Id.
`
`19
`
`62. The Facility is subject to the San Diego Creek and Newport Bay Toxics
`
`20
`
`TMDL requirements for metals and selenium, which include the following NELs:
`
`21
`
`copper – 0.00578 mg/L, lead – 0.221 mg/L, and zinc – 0.095 mg/L. See Storm Water
`
`22
`
`Permit, Table F.46
`
`23
`
`24
`
`E. The Storm Water Permit’s Receiving Water Limitations.
`
`63. The CWA and the Storm Water Permit’s Receiving Water Limitations
`
`25
`
`prohibit storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges that cause or
`
`26
`
`contribute to an exceedance of any applicable Water Quality Standards (“WQS”). See 33
`
`27
`
`U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C); 40 C.F.R. §§122.4(d), 122.4(i), 122.44(d); Storm Water Permit,
`
`28
`
`Receiving Water Limitation VI(A).
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 12 of 46 Page ID #:12
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`64. WQS establish the water quality goals for a water body. See 40 C.F.R.
`
`§131.2.
`
`65. WQS are pollutant concentration levels determined by the State Board, the
`
`various regional boards, and the EPA to be protective of the beneficial uses of the waters
`
`that receive polluted discharges.
`
`66. Discharges above or below WQS cause or contribute to impairment of the
`
`beneficial uses of the waters that receive polluted discharges.
`
`67. The State of California regulates water quality through the State Board and
`
`the nine Regional Boards. Each Regional Board maintains a separate Water Quality
`
`10
`
`Control Plan, called a basin plan, which contains WQS for water bodies within its
`
`11
`
`geographical area.
`
`12
`
`68. The Santa Ana Regional Board adopted the Basin Plan for the Santa Ana
`
`13
`
`Region (the “Santa Ana Basin Plan” or the “Basin Plan”). The Santa Ana Basin Plan
`
`14
`
`identifies the “Beneficial Uses” of water bodies within the region. The Basin Plan
`
`15
`
`identifies the Beneficial Uses for the Lower Newport Bay to include: navigation (NAV);
`
`16
`
`water contact recreation (REC1); non-contact water recreation (REC2); commercial and
`
`17
`
`sport fishing (COMM); wildlife habitat (WILD); rare, threatened, or endangered species
`
`18
`
`(RARE); spawning reproduction and development (SPWN); marine habitat (MAR); and
`
`19
`
`shellfish harvesting (SHEL). See Santa Ana Basin Plan at Table 3-1.
`
`20
`
`69. Surface waters that cannot support the Beneficial Uses of those waters listed
`
`21
`
`in the basin plans are designated as impaired water bodies pursuant to Section 303(d) of
`
`22
`
`the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d).
`
`23
`
`70. According to the 2018 303(d) List of Impaired Water Bodies, Lower Newport
`
`24
`
`Bay is listed for the following water quality impairments: chlordane, copper, DDT,
`
`25
`
`indicator bacteria, nutrients, PCBs, and toxicity. Polluted discharges from industrial sites,
`
`26
`
`such as the Facility, contribute to the degradation of these already-impaired surface waters
`
`27
`
`and aquatic-dependent wildlife that depend on these waters. These contaminated
`
`28
`
`discharges can and must be controlled for the ecosystem to regain its health.
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`12
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 13 of 46 Page ID #:13
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`71. Discharges of polluted storm water to the Receiving Waters pose threats to
`
`the public, dramatically affect the use and enjoyment of the surrounding environment, and
`
`adversely affect the aquatic environment.
`
`72. Discharges of pollutants at levels above WQS, like those from the Facility,
`
`cause or contribute to the impairment of the Beneficial Uses of the Receiving Waters.
`
`73. WQS may be either numeric or narrative objectives. Applicable WQS
`
`include, among others, the water quality objectives in the Basin Plan, and the Criteria for
`
`Priority Toxic Pollutants in the State of California (“CTR”), 40 C.F.R. § 131.38.
`
`74. The Santa Ana Basin Plan provides that “[t]he pH of bays and estuaries shall
`
`10
`
`not be raised above 8.6 or depressed below 7.0 as a result of controllable water quality
`
`11
`
`factors.” See Santa Ana Basin Plan, 4-5.
`
`12
`
`75. The Santa Ana Basin Plan also includes a narrative WQS that establishes a
`
`13
`
`toxicity standard which states that “[t]he concentrations of toxic substances in the water
`
`14
`
`column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial uses.” See Santa Ana
`
`15
`
`Basin Plan, 4-20.
`
`16
`
`76. Further, the Santa Ana Basin Plan states that “[t]oxic substances shall not be
`
`17
`
`discharged at levels that will bioaccumulate in aquatic resources to levels which are
`
`18
`
`harmful to human health.” See Santa Ana Basin Plan 4-6.
`
`19
`
`77. The Santa Ana Basin Plan also states that “[t]he concentrations of toxic
`
`20
`
`pollutants in the water column, sediments or biota shall not adversely affect beneficial
`
`21
`
`uses” Id.
`
`22
`
`78. The CTR establishes numeric WQS to protect human health and the
`
`23
`
`environment in the State of California. Water Quality Standards; Establishment of
`
`24
`
`Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State of California Factsheet, EPA-
`
`25
`
`823-00-008
`
`(April
`
`2000),
`
`available
`
`at:
`
`26
`
`http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/ctr/factsheet.cfm.
`
`27
`
`79. The numeric WQS established in the CTR for zinc is 0.12 mg/L, silver is
`
`28
`
`0.0034 mg/L, cadmium is 0.0043 mg/L, chromium (III) is 0.55 mg/L, chromium (IV) is
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`13
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 14 of 46 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`0.016 mg/L, nickel is .47 mg/L, copper is 0.013 mg/L, and for cyanide is 0.022 mg/L,
`
`assuming a water hardness calculation of 100 mg/L.
`
`80. The CTR numeric limits are expressed as dissolved metal concentrations.
`
`81. Discharges with pollutant levels that cause or contribute to an exceedance of
`
`the CTR criteria, the Basin Plan standards, and/or other applicable WQS in the Receiving
`
`Waters are violations of Receiving Water Limitation Section VI(A) of the Storm Water
`
`Permit.
`
`82. The Storm Water Permit’s Receiving Water Limitations prohibit storm water
`
`discharges from adversely impacting human health or the environment. See Storm Water
`
`10
`
`Permit, Section VI(B).
`
`11
`
`83. Storm water discharges with pollutant levels that exceed levels known to
`
`12
`
`adversely impact aquatic species and the environment are violations of Receiving Water
`
`13
`
`Limitation Section VI(B) of the Storm Water Permit.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`F. The Storm Water Permit’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
`
`Requirements.
`
`84. Dischargers must develop and implement a SWPPP prior to conducting, and
`
`17
`
`in order to continue, industrial activities. Storm Water Permit, Sections I(I) (Finding 54),
`
`18
`
`X(B). The SWPPP must meet all of the requirements of the Storm Water Permit. Storm
`
`19
`
`Water Permit, Sections X(A)-(H); See also Storm Water Permit, Appendix 1. The SWPPP
`
`20
`
`must identify and evaluate sources of pollutants associated with industrial activities that
`
`21
`
`may affect the quality of storm water and authorized non-storm water discharges from the
`
`22
`
`facility. Storm Water Permit, Section X(G).
`
`23
`
`85. The SWPPP must identify and implement site-specific BMPs to reduce or
`
`24
`
`prevent pollutants associated with industrial activities in storm water and authorized non-
`
`25
`
`storm water discharges. Storm Water Permit, Section X(H). The SWPPP must include
`
`26
`
`BMPs that achieve pollutant discharge reductions attainable via BAT and BCT. Storm
`
`27
`
`Water Permit, Section I(D) (Finding 32), Section X(C).
`
`28
`
`86. The SWPPP must include: a narrative description and summary of all
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`
`14
`
`Case No. 8:22-cv-00932
`
`

`

`Case 8:22-cv-00932 Document 1 Filed 05/05/22 Page 15 of 46 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8

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