Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 1 of 88
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`July 7, 2021
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`
`CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION,
`INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GULF OIL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Conservation Law Foundation, Inc. (“CLF”), by and through its counsel, hereby alleges:
`
`INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil suit brought under the citizen suit enforcement provisions of the Federal
`
`Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq. (“Clean Water Act”), and the Solid Waste
`
`Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq. (“Resource Conservation and Recovery Act” or
`
`“RCRA”). Plaintiff CLF seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other relief
`
`the Court deems proper to remedy Defendant Gulf Oil Limited Partnership’s (hereinafter
`
`“Defendant” or “Gulf”) violations of federal law, which include: (1) Gulf’s past and ongoing
`
`failures to comply with Connecticut Industrial Stormwater Permit No. GSI001571 (the “Permit”),
`
`and the Clean Water Act; (2) the Gulf facility’s location in a floodplain with improperly managed
`
`susceptibility to washout of solid waste that poses a hazard to human life, wildlife, and land and
`
`water resources; (3) Gulf's past and present contribution to handling, storage, treatment,
`
`transportation, or disposal of solid and hazardous wastes that may present an imminent and
`
`substantial endangerment to health or the environment in violation of RCRA; (4) Gulf’s failure to
`
`operate and maintain its facility to minimize the possibility of a fire, explosion, or any unplanned
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 2 of 88
`
`release of hazardous waste or hazardous waste constituents to air, soil, or surface water which
`
`could threaten human health or the environment.
`
`2.
`
`These violations of federal law have occurred, are occurring, and—in the absence of a
`
`remedial order from this Court—will continue to occur at Gulf’s New Haven Terminal, a bulk
`
`storage and fuel terminal located at 500 Waterfront Street, New Haven, Connecticut (hereinafter
`
`“Terminal”).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`CLF brings this civil suit under the citizen suit enforcement provisions of Section 505 of
`
`the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, and Section 7002 of the Resource Conservation and
`
`Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6972. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and
`
`this action pursuant to those statutes and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (providing district courts with original
`
`jurisdiction over an action arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States).
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut pursuant to
`
`Section 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), and Section 7002(a) of RCRA,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), because the source of the violations is located within this judicial district.
`
`5.
`
`On July 28, 2020, CLF notified Gulf of its intention to file suit for violations of both (i) the
`
`Clean Water Act, in compliance with the statutory notice requirements set forth in
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1), and the corresponding regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 135, and (ii) RCRA,
`
`in compliance with the statutory notice requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(2)(A), and
`
`the corresponding regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 254. CLF’s Notice Letter (Jul. 28, 2020)
`
`(hereinafter, “CLF’s Notice Letter”). A true and accurate copy of CLF’s Notice Letter is appended
`
`hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`6.
`
`More than ninety days have elapsed since CLF’s Notice Letter was served on Gulf, during
`
`which time neither the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) nor the Connecticut Department
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 3 of 88
`
`of Energy and Environmental Protection (“CT DEEP”) has commenced and/or diligently
`
`prosecuted a court action to redress the Clean Water Act and RCRA violations alleged in this
`
`complaint. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B); 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(1)(B).
`
`7.
`
`Further, neither EPA nor CT DEEP has taken administrative action to redress the Clean
`
`Water Act or RCRA violations alleged in this complaint.
`
`I.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff CLF is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, member-supported organization dedicated to the
`
`conservation and protection of New England’s public health, environment, and natural resources.
`
`It is incorporated under the laws of Massachusetts with its principal place of business at 62 Summer
`
`Street, Boston, MA 02110. CLF operates in Connecticut through local actions and out of its Rhode
`
`Island office at 235 Promenade Street, Suite 560, Providence, RI 02908. CLF has over 5,000
`
`members, including over 190 members in Connecticut. CLF has long worked to protect the health
`
`of New England’s waterways, including addressing the significant water quality impacts of
`
`industrial and stormwater pollution.
`
`9.
`
`CLF members live near, recreate on, and regularly visit the area and waters near Gulf’s
`
`Terminal, including, but not limited to, the New Haven Harbor, the Quinnipiac River, and the Mill
`
`River. CLF members use and enjoy these waters for recreational and aesthetic purposes, including,
`
`but not limited to, boating, swimming, fishing, observing wildlife, and sightseeing; they intend to
`
`continue to engage in these activities in the future.
`
`10.
`
`CLF and its members are harmed and threatened by Gulf’s acts and omissions at the
`
`Terminal and its violations of environmental laws and regulations.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 4 of 88
`
`11.
`
`CLF and its members are also concerned about, and have an interest in, eliminating the risk
`
`from the discharge and/or release of pollutants from the Terminal into the New Haven Harbor, the
`
`Quinnipiac River, and the Mill River, as well as into nearby communities and ecosystems.
`
`12.
`
`CLF and its members are affected by, and concerned with, pollutant discharges and/or
`
`releases resulting from Gulf’s failure to satisfy its obligations under the Clean Water Act and
`
`RCRA.
`
`13.
`
`Further, in addition to pollutant discharges and/or releases due to precipitation, the
`
`Terminal has not been designed or modified to address pollutant discharges and/or releases due to
`
`flooding; specifically, the Terminal is likely to discharge and/or release pollutants into surrounding
`
`surface waters, groundwater, the community, and the air because it has not been designed to
`
`withstand flooding associated with storm events and storm surge, tides, sea level rise, and
`
`increasing sea surface temperatures.
`
`14.
`
`The substantial risk of pollutant discharges and/or releases at the Terminal is due to factors
`
`including, but not limited to, inadequate infrastructure design and Gulf’s failure to sufficiently
`
`prepare for precipitation and/or flooding, which is exacerbated by storms and storm surge, sea
`
`level rise, and increasing sea surface temperatures, as discussed in Section IV.A, infra.
`
`15.
`
`CLF and its members are placed directly in harm’s way by Gulf’s pollutant discharges,
`
`releases, and/or risk of releases and have no assurance that they will be protected from pollutants
`
`released and/or discharged from the Terminal. Gulf is not in compliance with the Permit, the Clean
`
`Water Act, or RCRA for, at a minimum, the reasons set forth herein, including, but not limited to,
`
`Gulf’s (i) failure to eliminate non-stormwater discharges; (ii) activity inconsistent with
`
`Connecticut’s Coastal Management Act, which is causing adverse impacts to coastal resources;
`
`(iii) unlawful certification of its Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”); (iv) failure to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 5 of 88
`
`identify sources of pollution reasonably expected to affect the quality of stormwater discharges;
`
`(v) failure to describe and implement practices to reduce pollutants and assure permit compliance;
`
`(vi) failure to implement measures to manage runoff; (vii) failure to minimize the potential for
`
`leaks and spills; (viii) failure to submit required facts or information to CT DEEP; (ix) failure to
`
`amend or update the SWPPP; (x) failure to identify discharges to impaired waters in the SWPPP;
`
`(xi) failure to conduct monitoring for discharges to impaired waters; (xii) failure to identify outfalls
`
`in the SWPPP; (xiii) failure to monitor discharges from all outfalls; (xiv) illegal infiltration of
`
`stormwater; (xv) failure to maintain an impervious containment area; (xvi) open dumping of waste
`
`in violation of RCRA; (xvii) creation of an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or
`
`the environment in violation of RCRA; and (xviii) failure to comply with state and federal RCRA
`
`regulations applicable to generators of hazardous wastes.
`
`II.
`
`Defendants
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Gulf Oil Limited Partnership
`
`is headquartered
`
`in Wellesley Hills,
`
`Massachusetts. Gulf is primarily a refined petroleum products terminaling, storage, and logistics
`
`business, as well as a distributor of motor fuels.
`
`17.
`
`Gulf Oil Limited Partnership was formed in 1993 as a joint venture between Cumberland
`
`Farms, Inc. and Catamount Petroleum Limited Partnership.
`
`18.
`
`In 2015, full ownership of Gulf Oil Limited Partnership was acquired by subsidiaries of
`
`ArcLight Capital Partners.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, Gulf owns approximately 14 million barrels of oil storage
`
`capacity.
`
`20.
`
`Gulf owns and operates the bulk petroleum storage terminal located at 500 Waterfront
`
`Street, New Haven, Connecticut 06512.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 6 of 88
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`21.
`
`Climate change and its associated impacts are affecting New Haven now. According to the
`
`Connecticut Institute for Resilience and Climate Adaptation (“CIRCA”), the city currently
`
`“experiences frequent flooding due to heavy rainfall and increasingly severe hurricanes and winter
`
`storms.” CIRCA, City of New Haven Commercial Industrial Toolbox Final Report 4 (Jul. 31,
`
`2017), available at https://circa.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1618/2016/03/CIT-CIRCA-
`
`Final-Report-With-JPEG-Appendices-attached.pdf (last visited Jun. 2, 2021). Between 1991 and
`
`2015, the average surface temperature in Long Island Sound increased by almost 2 degrees. See
`
`generally CT DEEP, 2015 Long Island Sound Hypoxia Season Review (2015), available at https:/
`
`/portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Water/LIS-Monitoring/-/media/DEEP/water/lis_water_quality/monitoring/
`
`2015/2015SeasonReviewfinalpdf.pdf (last visited Jun. 2, 2021). This increase is alarming because
`
`increases in sea surface temperature lead to a higher frequency and magnitude of storm events, as
`
`evidenced by the 10% increase per decade in precipitation in the Northeast. Jerry M. U.S. Global
`
`Climate Change Research Program, Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third
`
`National Climate Assessment 373 (J.M. Melillo et al., eds. 2014), available at https://
`
`nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/northeast (last visited Jun. 2, 2021). The effects of the
`
`increasingly intense and frequent storms are additionally exacerbated by the increase in sea level
`
`of approximately one foot in the Northeast since 1900, about eight inches more than the global
`
`average. Id. at 373.
`
`22.
`
`These climate impacts currently affecting New Haven and the resulting damage to the
`
`coastal city are only projected to get worse. “According to estimates by the Federal Emergency
`
`Management Administration (FEMA), a ‘100 year flood’ in Connecticut’s four shoreline counties
`
`could cause property losses of more than $13 billion. To further exacerbate this threat, climate
`
`scientists estimate that by 2050 this ‘100 year flood’ will revisit the Connecticut coast, on average,
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 7 of 88
`
`not once every 100 years, but once every twelve-and-a-half to twenty-five years.” William R. Rath
`
`et al., UCONN SCHOOL OF LAW: MUNICIPAL RESILIENCE PLANNING ASSISTANCE PROJECT LAW &
`
`POLICY WHITE PAPER SERIES, Floodplain Building Elevation Standards: Current Requirements &
`
`Enhancement Options for Connecticut Shoreline Municipalities 2, (May 1, 2018) (citations
`
`omitted), available at https://circa.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/1618/2018/03/Floodplain-
`
`Building-Elevation-Standards.pdf (last visited Jun. 2, 2021).
`
`23.
`
`“Sea-level rise will likely increase the odds of flooding by a thousand-fold . . . in a half-
`
`century. By 2100, today’s ‘once-in-a-lifetime’ (e.g., 50-year return period) coastal flood level may
`
`be exceeded every day during the highest tide,” according to one recent report. Taherkhani, M.,
`
`Vitousek, S., Barnard, P.L. et al., Sea-level rise exponentially increases coastal flood frequency,
`
`SCI. REP. 10:6466, 11 (Apr. 16, 2020), available at https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-62188-4
`
`(last visited Jun. 2, 2021). The report also states that with increased flood frequency, “a
`
`corresponding acceleration of a number of related coastal hazards, such as beach and cliff erosion”
`
`can be expected. Id.
`
`24. While many of the projections discuss harms in 2050 and 2100, it is clear that the
`
`acceleration of the negative impacts of climate change is happening now and will only get more
`
`pronounced as each year goes by.
`
`25.
`
`Gulf has not designed, maintained, modified, and/or operated its Terminal to account for
`
`the numerous effects of climate change. This failure puts CLF, its members, and the New Haven
`
`community at great risk.
`
`26.
`
`As laid out more fully below, the Terminal is immediately adjacent to the New Haven
`
`Harbor, it houses multiple, multi-million-gallon petroleum storage tanks at or below sea level, and
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 8 of 88
`
`has suffered several spills over the years, the detrimental impacts of which are still present in the
`
`Terminal’s soil and groundwater today.
`
`27.
`
`The Terminal is also close to the Mill and Quinnipiac Rivers, which are gems of the local
`
`economy and community and used frequently for recreational activities and aquaculture—
`
`including, notably, oyster farming along the Quinnipiac.
`
`28.
`
`Operation of the Terminal is subject to many environmental laws, including the Clean
`
`Water Act and the RCRA. These laws are in place to protect not just the waterbodies, surrounding
`
`land, and local wildlife, but also New Haven residents and their way of life. Gulf’s abject failure
`
`to comply with the letter and spirit of the law puts all of these people and places at risk.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Clean Water Act
`
`29.
`
`Congress enacted the Clean Water Act to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
`
`biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). To accomplish that objective,
`
`Congress set as a “national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be
`
`eliminated . . . .” Id.
`
`30.
`
`Accordingly, 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 from a point source, unless the discharge
`
`complies with various enumerated sections of the Clean Water Act.
`
`31.
`
` Among other things, Section 301(a) prohibits discharges not authorized by, or in violation
`
`of, the terms of a valid National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued
`
`pursuant to Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`
`32.
`
` Section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act defines “point source” to include “any discernible,
`
`confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel,
`
`conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 9 of 88
`
`vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1362(14).
`
`33.
`
` Under the regulations implementing the Clean Water Act, the definition of “discharge of
`
`a pollutant” includes “additions of pollutants into waters of the United States from: surface runoff
`
`which is collected or channelled by man.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.
`
`34.
`
`Dischargers of pollutants, including industrial wastewater, process wastewater, and
`
`stormwater associated with industrial activity, must obtain and comply with the requirements of
`
`NPDES permits issued under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
`
`35.
`
`NPDES permits contain pollutant sampling and monitoring requirements and limits on the
`
`amount or concentration of allowable pollutants, in addition to requirements regarding control
`
`measures, best management practices, and recordkeeping and reporting.
`
`36.
`
`The discharge of any pollutant in violation of a NPDES permit, the failure to conduct
`
`required monitoring for pollutant discharges, and the failure to comply with other requirements of
`
`a NPDES permit are all violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342.
`
`37.
`
`In Connecticut, the Commissioner of CT DEEP has been delegated authority to implement
`
`the NPDES permit program. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 22a-430; Con. Reg. §§ 22a-430-3; 22a-430-4.
`
`38.
`
`Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), provides for citizen
`
`enforcement actions against “any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of . . . an effluent
`
`standard or limitation . . . or . . . an order issued by the [EPA] Administrator or a State with respect
`
`to such a standard or limitation.”
`
`39.
`
`Such enforcement action under Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act includes an action
`
`seeking remedies for unauthorized discharges in violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act,
`
`33 U.S.C § 1311, as well as for failing to comply with one or more permit conditions in violation
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 10 of 88
`
`of Sections 402 and 505(f) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342, 1365(f). Each separate violation of the
`
`Clean Water Act subjects the violator to a penalty of up to $55,800 per day per violation. See 33
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a); 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1–19.4.
`
`II.
`
`Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
`
`40.
`
`The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) “is a comprehensive
`
`environmental statute that governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous
`
`waste.” Meghrig v. KFC W., 516 U.S. 479, 483 (1996).
`
`41.
`
`RCRA’s citizen suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1), provides in relevant part:
`
`[A]ny person may commence a civil action on his own behalf- (1)(A) against any
`person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation,
`condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant
`to this chapter; or (B) against any person . . . including any past or present generator,
`past or present transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment,
`storage, or disposal facility, who has contributed or who is contributing to the past
`or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or
`hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to
`health or the environment . . .
`
`42.
`
`“RCRA’s primary purpose . . . is to reduce the generation of hazardous waste and to ensure
`
`the proper treatment, storage, and disposal of that waste which is nonetheless generated, ‘so as to
`
`minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment.’” Meghrig v. KFC W.,
`
`516 U.S. 479, 483 (1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 6902(b)).
`
`43.
`
`RCRA’s citizen suit provision “allows citizen suits when there is a reasonable prospect that
`
`a serious, near-term threat to human health or the environment exists.” Me. People’s All. & Nat.
`
`Res. Def. Council v. Mallinckrodt, Inc., 471 F.3d 277, 279 (1st Cir. 2006).
`
`44.
`
`One of RCRA’s primary objectives is to “prohibit[ ] future open dumping on the land and
`
`requir[e] the conversion of existing open dumps to facilities which do not pose a danger to the
`
`environment or to health . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 6902(a)(3).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 11 of 88
`
`45.
`
`Congressional findings enumerated at Section 1002(b)(4) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`6901(b)(4) found that “open dumping is particularly harmful to health, contaminates drinking
`
`water from underground and surface supplies, and pollutes the air and the land . . . .”
`
`46.
`
`Section 4005(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6945(a), prohibits “any solid waste management
`
`practice or disposal of solid waste . . . which constitutes the open dumping of solid waste.”
`
`47.
`
`Section 1004(14) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(14), defines “open dump” as “any facility
`
`or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a sanitary landfill which meets the criteria
`
`promulgated under [§ 6944] of this title and which is not a facility for disposal of hazardous waste.”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`48.
`
`Section 1004(27) of RCRA defines “solid waste” as:
`
`any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
`plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid,
`liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial,
`commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities,
`but does not include solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage, or solid or
`dissolved materials in irrigation return flows or industrial discharges which are
`point sources subject to permits under section 1342 of title 33 . . . .
`
`42 U.S.C. §6903(27).
`
`49.
`
`EPA implementing regulations further define solid waste as “any discarded material that is
`
`not excluded” under the regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(a)(1).
`
`50.
`
`EPA implementing regulations define “discarded material” as “any material which is . . .
`
`[a]bandoned, . . . [r]ecycled, . . . or [c]onsidered inherently waste-like . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 261.2(a)(2).
`
`51.
`
`EPA implementing regulations consider material “abandoned” when “[d]isposed of . . .
`
`[b]urned or incinerated . . . or [a]ccumulated, stored, or treated (but not recycled) before or in lieu
`
`of being abandoned by being disposed of, burned, or incinerated. . . .” 40 C.F.R. 261.2(b).
`
`52.
`
`Section 1004(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3), defines “disposal” as “the discharge,
`
`deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 12 of 88
`
`or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may
`
`enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground
`
`waters.”
`
`53.
`
`The plain meaning definition for “discharge” is “to send out a substance, esp[ecially] waste
`
`matter.” See Cambridge Dictionary, “Discharge”, available at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/
`
`us/dictionary/english/discharge (last visited Jun. 2, 2021).
`
`54.
`
`Section 7002(a)(1) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A), provides a citizen suit right of
`
`action “against any person . . . who is alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation,
`
`condition, requirement prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to [RCRA] . . . .”
`
`55.
`
`Each separate RCRA violation enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A) subjects the
`
`violator to a civil penalty of up to $76,764 per violation, per day. See 42 U.S.C. § 6928(g); 40
`
`C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
`
`56.
`
`Section 7002(a)(2) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), states: “any person may
`
`commence a civil action on his own behalf . . . against any person . . . and including any past or
`
`present generator, past or present transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment,
`
`storage, or disposal facility, who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present
`
`handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may
`
`present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment . . . .”
`
`57.
`
`This Court may “award costs of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness
`
`fees) to the prevailing or substantially prevailing party, whenever [this] Court determines such an
`
`award is appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(e).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 13 of 88
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`Gulf’s New Haven Terminal
`
`58.
`
`Gulf, acting through its officers, managers, subsidiary companies, and instrumentalities,
`
`owns and operates the Terminal.
`
`59.
`
`Gulf Oil Limited Partnership owns the Terminal.
`
`60.
`
`Gulf acquired the Terminal in 1993 from Cumberland Farms, Inc (“CFI”).
`
`61.
`
`CFI acquired the Terminal from Chevron in 1986 and owned the Terminal until 1993 when
`
`Gulf acquired it.
`
`62.
`
`The Terminal is a bulk storage and fuel terminal that has operated since at least 1926. See
`
`RCRA Inspection Report at 2; CT DEEP, RCRA Inspection Report (June 2015).
`
`A.
`
`Facility Description
`
`63.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Terminal is comprised of approximately 13 acres of land.
`
`SWPPP at 3.
`
`64.
`
`The oil products at the Terminal are stored in a series of Aboveground Storage Tanks
`
`(“ASTs”). The Terminal has sixteen bulk storage tanks storing gasoline, fuel grade ethanol, No. 2
`
`fuel oil, and diesel.
`
`65.
`
`The SWPPP redacts information on the tank locations, storage capacity, and types of
`
`products stored in most ASTs.
`
`66.
`
`67.
`
`Products stored in the tanks are distributed to two truck loading racks. SWPPP at 4.
`
`As described in the Terminal’s 2017 SWPPP, petroleum products arrive at the Terminal
`
`dock by tanker ship. See 2017 SWPPP at 4, attached as Exhibit B hereto.
`
`68.
`
`The products at the Terminal
`
`are typically received by marine vessel at the terminal’s vessel dock (restricted to
`one vessel at the dock) or by pipeline. Upon receipt, products are transferred via
`product piping to bulk aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) located in the terminal’s
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 14 of 88
`
`tank farm. Final distribution of product is principally conducted at the terminal’s
`truck loading racks. Gulf also has the capability to distribute products to interstate
`and intrastate locations via petroleum product pipelines.
`
`SWPPP at 4.
`
`69.
`
`As of May 2019, the Terminal had a total bulk oil storage capacity of approximately 2-
`
`million-gallons. See Gulf Oil L.P., Application for Development Permit and Coastal Site Plan
`
`Review for New Bulk Storage and Additive Tanks (May 2019) (“AST Application”), Application
`
`Narrative, 1–2, excerpts of which are attached as Exhibit C hereto.
`
`70.
`
`In May 2019, Gulf submitted its “Application for Development Permit and Coastal Site
`
`Plan Review for New Bulk Storage and Additive Tanks” seeking to remove five gasoline/distillate
`
`ASTs (capacity of approximately 2-million-gallons) and construct a new gasoline/distillate AST,
`
`which will have the capacity of holding approximately 7-million-gallons. AST Application,
`
`Narrative ¶ 1.
`
`71.
`
`Gulf also proposed the installation of an 8,000-gallon gasoline additive AST, the
`
`modification of the existing facility product piping and the installation of a new vapor recovery
`
`unit. Id.
`
`72.
`
`The New Haven City Plan Commission approved the Site Plan and Gulf obtained a
`
`building permit for the 7-million-gallon AST on February 20, 2020. Building Permit No. B-20-
`
`00347.
`
`73.
`
`In order to accommodate the increased storage capacity for the new AST, Gulf filed a Site
`
`Plan Review with the New Haven City Plan Commission to approve several modifications to the
`
`Terminal: i) increasing the berm heights around the ASTs to provide adequate secondary
`
`containment and protect against flooding, ii) grading the containment area floor to improve
`
`stormwater runoff, iii) installing a liner and bentonite clay to ensure impermeability of the
`
`containment area, and iv) replacing and upgrading existing drainage infrastructure for stormwater
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 15 of 88
`
`runoff. Application for Development Permit and Coastal Site Plan Review (Jan. 2020) (“Berm
`
`Application”), Attachment B, 2, excerpts of which are attached as Exhibit D hereto.
`
`74. While the City Plan Commission has approved the Berm Application, Gulf has not yet
`
`applied for, nor has it received, a building permit to perform modifications to the berms and other
`
`containment structures as of the filing of this Complaint.
`
`75.
`
`On May 7, 2020, CLF sent a letter via email to Mr. Steve Carten, Vice President of
`
`Operations for Gulf.
`
`76.
`
`In its May 7 Letter, CLF raised concerns it had based on the application materials Gulf
`
`submitted to the City Plan Commission, including:
`
`i.
`
`How does Gulf Oil’s Coastal Site Plan Review address the state-mandated sea-level
`
`rise scenario of an additional 20 inches by 2050?
`
`ii.
`
`How does Gulf Oil’s Coastal Site Plan Review address the required standard for
`
`shoreline flood erosion and control structures?
`
`iii.
`
`How does Gulf’s proposed “one foot above FEMA base flood elevation” [13 feet]
`
`design elevation compare with the methodology and standard of care applied in the
`
`ongoing US Army Corps of Engineers Coastal Storm Risk Management Project in
`
`New Haven which tentatively recommends a floodwall system with a top elevation
`
`of +15 feet NAVD88?
`
`iv. What analysis has Gulf Oil done to ensure that the facility satisfies the Connecticut
`
`Building Code applicable to facilities adjacent to a coastal high hazard zone?
`
`v.
`
`How does Gulf plan to ensure that it maintains dry access to the facility during a
`
`100-year flood event?
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 16 of 88
`
`vi. What is the basis for filing a separate site plan and coastal site plan review
`
`application for the above-discussed modifications rather than combining it with
`
`Gulf’s site plan and coastal site plan review application for its proposed new 7-
`
`million-gallon above-ground storage tank?
`
`vii. How does Gulf intend to anchor the new above-ground storage tank as required by
`
`the New Haven Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance?
`
`viii. What cumulative impacts of the proposed modifications and the installation of the
`
`7-million-gallon above-ground storage tank are capable of negatively affecting the
`
`current conditions in New Haven Harbor and the future development for plans for
`
`Long Wharf favored by the New Haven City Plan and Engineering Department?
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`CLF received no response from Gulf regarding its May 7 Letter.
`
`Piping within the Terminal – including aboveground, buried, and vessel receipt piping –
`
`connects the ASTs, the truck loading rack, and the vessel dock. SWPPP at 8.
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`The Terminal operates 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
`
`Defendant is, and has been, responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Terminal,
`
`including compliance with the Permit.
`
`B.
`
`Drainage
`
`81.
`
`Stormwater from the Terminal’s tank farm is either directed to a catch basin in a low
`
`elevation area or infiltrates into the ground. SWPPP at 53.
`
`82.
`
`For purposes of stormwater management, the Terminal is divided into two “Drainage
`
`Areas,” identified as 001 and 002. SWPPP at 53.
`
`83.
`
`Drainage Area 001 is made up of containment areas constructed to accumulate rainfall
`
`runoff from the tank farm, as well as the truck loading racks. SWPPP at 53–54.
`
`84.
`
`The SWPPP describes Drainage Area 001 as follows:
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00932-KAD Document 1 Filed 07/07/21 Page 17 of 88
`
`The combined Tank farm draining (from both the eastern and western containment
`areas) flows by gravity from catch basin CB-2 into a partially buried concrete
`holding tank/lift station (LS-2). The combined Stormwater collected at LS-2 is then
`pumped (via subsurface piping) to the east where it discharges to catch basin CB-
`14. Stormwater from the tank farm combines with stormwater runoff from the truck
`rack and other yard drains, before discharging to the stormwater treatment system
`(see Terminal Site Plan [which is redacted]). The master on/off switch for the pump
`in LS-2 is located in the terminal office. According to Gulf, stormwater collected
`in LS-2 is visually ins