`Civil Case No.: 8:21-cv-02168
` Plaintiff,
` Defendant.
`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 1 of 22 PageID 1
`SUNCOAST WATERKEEPER (“SCWK” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel,
`hereby alleges:
`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. (the “Clean Water Act” or “the
`Act”). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and 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). The relief requested is authorized
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 (power to issue declaratory relief in case of actual controversy
`and further necessary relief based on such a declaration); 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b), 1365(a)
`(injunctive relief); and 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a) (civil penalties).
`On June 24, 2021, Plaintiff provided notice of Defendant’s violations of the Act,
`and of Plaintiff’s intention to file suit against Defendant (“notice letter”), to the Administrator of
`the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”); the Regional Administrator of
`EPA Region 4; the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”);
` 1


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 2 of 22 PageID 2
`the Director of the Southwest District of the DEP; and to Defendant, as required by the Act, 33
`U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s notice letter is attached as Exhibit
`A, and is incorporated by reference.
`More than sixty days have passed since notice was served on Defendant and the
`State and federal agencies. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that neither
`the EPA nor the State of Florida has commenced or is diligently prosecuting a court action to
`redress the violations alleged in this complaint. This action’s claim for civil penalties is not
`barred by any prior administrative penalty under Section 309(g) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).
`Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida 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.
`Defendant, a concrete manufacturer, discharges polluted stormwater from its
`manufacturing facility located in Sarasota. These discharges are in violation of the Clean Water
`Act and the State of Florida’s Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated
`with Industrial Activity.
`Florida’s Multi-Sector Generic Permit is a National Pollution Discharge
`Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit required under the Act that is issued by the DEP under
`the authority of Florida Statute Section 403.0885, which authorizes Florida to implement the
`NPDES program pursuant to authority delegated to the State of Florida by the EPA. Pursuant to
`Florida Administrative Code (“F.A.C.”) Rule 62-621.300(5)(a), Florida adopted the EPA’s
`original Multi-Sector General Permit issued on September 29, 1995 (60 Fed. Reg. 50804) and
`subsequent corrections and modifications as amended on February 9, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 5248),
`February 20, 1996 (61 Fed. Reg. 6412), August 7, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 42534), September 30,
`1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 52430), and January 19, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 2898) (hereinafter collectively
`referred to as the “MSGP”). Defendant’s violations of the substantive and procedural
`requirements of the MSGP and the Act are ongoing and continuous.
` 2


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 3 of 22 PageID 3
`With every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water
`originating from industrial operations, such as those conducted by Defendant, pour into storm
`drains and local waterways. In most of the Sarasota Bay area, storm water flows untreated either
`directly, or through municipal storm drain systems into Sarasota Bay and other receiving waters.
`Stormwater pollution accounts for the majority of the pollution entering the Sarasota Bay
`environment each year. The effects of nonpoint source pollutants on specific waters vary and
`may not always be fully assessed. Stormwater pollution poses a health risk to humans, harms
`marine life, closes beaches, contaminates the ocean, and harms the environment. These
`contaminated storm water discharges can and must be controlled for the Sarasota Bay ecosystem
`to regain its health.
`High concentrations of total suspended solids (“TSS”) degrade optical water
`quality by reducing water clarity and decreasing light available to support photosynthesis. TSS
`has been shown to alter predator-prey relationships (for example, turbid water may make it
`difficult for fish to hunt prey). Deposited solids alter fish habitat, aquatic plants, and benthic
`organisms. TSS can also be harmful to aquatic life because numerous pollutants, including
`metals and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (“PAHs”), are absorbed onto TSS. Thus, higher
`concentrations of TSS result in higher concentrations of toxins associated with those sediments.
`Inorganic sediments, including settleable matter and suspended solids, have been shown to
`negatively impact species richness, diversity, and total biomass of filter feeding aquatic
`organisms on bottom surfaces.
`Sarasota Bay area waters are ecologically sensitive estuarine systems with special
`aesthetic, economic and recreational significance for people living in the surrounding
`communities. Included amongst these resources are specially recognized and designated
`Outstanding Florida Waters, pursuant to 62-302.400 F.A.C., as worthy of special water quality
`protections because of their natural attributes. Portions of Whitaker Bayou, which receive toxic
`metals and other contaminants in storm water discharges from Defendant’s industrial activities
`are listed on the State of Florida’s Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies.
` 3


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 4 of 22 PageID 4
`A water body that is listed as impaired cannot support its designated beneficial uses. The
`beneficial uses of the waters that receive pollutants from Defendant’s industrial stormwater
`discharges include aquatic life (estuarine and freshwater habitat, fish migration, fish spawning,
`preservation of rare and endangered aquatic species, shellfish propagation,) primary contact and
`recreation, navigation, and fish consumption.
`Sarasota Bay area waters provide essential habitat for dozens of fish and bird
`species as well as macro-invertebrate and invertebrate species. Storm water contaminated with
`sediment, heavy metals, and other pollutants harm the special aesthetic and recreational
`significance that Sarasota Bay area waters have for people in the surrounding communities. The
`public’s use of Sarasota Bay area waters for recreation, wildlife observation, aesthetic
`enjoyment, educational study, and spiritual contemplation exposes many people to toxic metals
`and other contaminants in storm water discharges and impairs those activities.
`Plaintiff Suncoast Waterkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation with
`members throughout Southwest Florida, including Pinellas, Hillsborough, Sarasota, Manatee,
`and Charlotte Counties. SCWK is dedicated to protecting and restoring the Florida Suncoast’s
`waterways on behalf of its members through enforcement, fieldwork, advocacy, and
`environmental education for the benefit of the communities and SCWK’s members that rely
`upon these precious coastal resources. To further its mission, SCWK actively seeks federal and
`state implementation of the Clean Water Act, and, where necessary, directly initiates
`enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its members. SCWK has been registered as a non-
`profit corporation in Florida since 2012 and has maintained its good and current standing in
`Florida since that time. SCWK is a licensed member of Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., an
`international non-profit environmental organization, made up of over 350 separate Waterkeeper
`programs, such as SCWK. SCWK’s office is located in Sarasota, Florida.
` Members of SCWK use and enjoy the waters into which Defendant has caused, is
`causing, and will continue to cause, pollutants to be discharged. Members of SCWK use those
` 4


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 5 of 22 PageID 5
`waters for fishing, boating, body contact water sports and other forms of recreation, wildlife
`observation, aesthetic enjoyment, educational study, and spiritual contemplation. Defendant’s
`discharges of pollutants threaten or impair each of those uses or contribute to such threats and
`impairments. Thus, the interests of SCWK’s members have been, are being, and will continue to
`be adversely affected by Defendant’s failure to comply with the Act and the MSGP. The relief
`sought herein will redress the harms to SCWK caused by Defendant’s activities.
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of its members, respectively. Plaintiff’s
`interest in reducing Defendant’s discharges of pollutants into Sarasota Bay and its tributaries and
`requiring Defendant to comply with the requirements of the MSGP are germane to SCWK’s
`purposes. Litigation of the claims asserted and relief requested in this Complaint does not
`require the participation in this lawsuit of individual members of any of SCWK.
`Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above will irreparably
`harm Plaintiff and one or more of each of its members, for which harm it has no plain, speedy or
`adequate remedy at law.
`Defendant ATLANTIC TNG LLC (“Atlantic TNG”) is a limited liability
`corporation that owns and/or operates an industrial facility located at 1701 Myrtle Street,
`Sarasota, FL 34234 (the “Facility”).
`Clean Water Act
`Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any
`pollutant into waters of the United States, unless such discharge is in compliance with various
`enumerated sections of the Act. 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 Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
`Section 402(p) of the Act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and
`industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES program. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). It authorizes
`the EPA to issue NPDES permits directly and also to delegate the authority to issue NPDES
` 5


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 6 of 22 PageID 6
`permits to state agencies.
`States with EPA-approved NPDES permit programs are authorized to regulate
`industrial storm water discharges through individual permits issued to dischargers or through
`general permits that cover a category of dischargers. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`Pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the Administrator of the
`U.S. EPA has authorized the DEP to issue NPDES permits including general NPDES permits in
`Section 505(a)(1) and Section 505(f) of the Act provide for citizen enforcement
`actions against any “person,” including individuals, corporations, or partnerships, for violations
`of NPDES permit requirements. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1) and (f), § 1362(5). An action for
`injunctive relief under the Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). Violators of the Act are
`also subject to an assessment of civil penalties of up to $56,460 per day per violation for
`violations occurring after November 2, 2015 pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Act, 33
`U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365. See also 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1 - 19.4.
`Florida’s MSGP
`The DEP elected to issue the MSGP as the statewide general permit for industrial
`storm water discharges. Thus, Florida has a single, statewide general permit applicable to all
`industrial storm water dischargers.
`In order to discharge storm water lawfully in Florida, industrial dischargers must
`obtain coverage under and comply with the terms of the MSGP or obtain and comply with an
`individual NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
` The MSGP contains a variety of substantive and procedural requirements that all
`dischargers must meet.
`Part XI.E of the MSGP pertains to Sector E facilities. These are facilities that
`possess, inter alia, a Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Code of 3272. Sector E facilities
`discharge storm water associated with industrial activity associated from manufacturing
`concrete, gypsum, and plaster products. In addition to the general requirements that the MSGP
` 6


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 7 of 22 PageID 7
`imposes on all dischargers, Part XI.E of the MSGP imposes certain additional specific terms and
`conditions on Sector E Facilities.
`The MSGP is built on the expectation that its requirements will predominantly be
`met through a permittee’s use of best management practices (“BMPs”). BMPs can take a wide
`variety of forms, from frequent sweeping to making structural modifications such as roofing or
`installing stormwater filtration and treatment, as necessary.
`The Clean Water Act requires that any NPDES permit issued by a state must
`apply and insure compliance with, among other things, the Act’s technology-based standards for
`discharges of pollution. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1)(A) (requiring compliance with “any
`applicable requirements” of 33 U.S.C. § 1311). In turn, the Act’s technology-based standards
`dictate that, with respect to toxic and non-conventional pollutants (i.e. most pollutants),
`permitted dischargers shall apply “the best available technology economically achievable for
`such category or class [of permitted dischargers], which will result in reasonable further progress
`towards the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants . . . .” 33 U.S.C. §
`1311(b)(2)(A). The Act also sets a different standard, “application of the best conventional
`pollutant control technology” for a defined set of five “conventional pollutants”. Id. §
`Accordingly, the MSGP requires permittees to use BMPs that reflect, and
`prohibits the discharge of pollutants above the level commensurate with, application of the best
`available technology economically achievable (“BAT”), for toxic and non-conventional
`pollutants and best conventional pollutant control technology (“BCT”) for conventional
`pollutants. See 60 Fed. Reg. at 50812; see also MSGP § XI.E.3.a.3, 60 Fed Reg. at 51146.
`The MSGP also requires dischargers to develop and implement a storm water
`pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”). MSGP § IV. Among other things, the SWPPP records
`1 “Conventional pollutants” are defined by statute, 33 USC 1314(a)(4), and by regulation,
`40 CFR 401.16, to include: biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, fecal
`coliform, and oil and grease.
` 7


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 8 of 22 PageID 8
`the BMPs applied at a particular industrial facility. Sector E Facilities must develop and
`implement a SWPPP that comports with several requirements of Part XI.E of the MSGP.
`Through the SWPPP, requirements in Part XI.E of the MSGP implement its BAT/BCT
`requirements for Sector E facilities by requiring that the pollution prevention plan minimize
`pollution and requiring specific BMPs to effectuate such minimization. See MSGP Fact Sheet §
`VI.B, 60 Fed. Reg. at 50812 (“The pollution prevention or BMP requirements in this permit
`operate as limitations on effluent discharges that reflect the application of BAT/BCT.”)
`The MSGP provides that: “[T]he plan shall describe and ensure the
`implementation of practices that are to be used to reduce the pollutants in storm water discharges
`associated with industrial activity at the facility and to assure compliance with the terms and
`conditions of this permit. Facilities must implement the provisions of the storm water pollution
`prevention plan required under this part as a condition of this permit.” MSGP § IV, 60 Fed. Reg.
`at 51115.
`Facilities subject to Sector E must include, inter alia, the following in their
`SWPPPs: (1) identification of all the members of a stormwater pollution prevention team
`responsible for developing and implementing the SWPPP; (2) a description of potential pollutant
`sources; (3) a site map including, inter alia, outfall locations, types of discharges in the drainage
`areas, location where significant materials are exposed to precipitation, monitoring locations, and
`flow directions; (4) an inventory of the types of materials at the site that may be exposed to
`precipitation; (5) a list of significant spills and leaks of toxic or hazardous pollutants that
`occurred at areas that are exposed to precipitation; (6) a summary of existing discharge sampling
`data; (7) a narrative description of potential pollutant sources from various activities; (8) a
`description and implementation of appropriate storm water management controls (including
`many specific requirements, detailed below); (9) spill prevention and response measures; (10) a
`quarterly inspection program; and an (11) an employee training program. MSGP §§ XI.E.3.a(1),
`XI.E.3.a(2), XI.E.3.a(3).
`Part XI.E.3.a(3)(a) of the MSGP requires that Sector E facilities develop and
` 8


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 9 of 22 PageID 9
`implement appropriate storm water management controls including the following:
`• Measures “to minimize the discharge of spilled cement, aggregate, kiln dust, fly ash, and
`settled dust other significant materials in storm water from paved portions of the site that
`are exposed to storm water.” Part XI.E.3.a(3)(a)(i). This requires sweeping or equivalent
`measures on a weekly basis.
`• The prevention of exposure of fine granular solids to storm water. Part XI.E.3.a(3)(a)(ii).
`• A preventive maintenance program including, inter alia, routine inspections and
`maintenance of storm water management devices. Part XI.E.3.a(3)(b).
`• Procedures to identify and clean up potential spills. Part XI.E.3.a(3)(c).
`• At least monthly inspections of equipment designated in the SWPPP with follow-up
`procedures to ensure that appropriate actions are taken in response to the inspections.
`Part XI.E.3.a(3)(d).
`• Periodic training of all employees responsible for storm water management or
`implementing activities designated in the SWPPP. Part XI.E.3.a(3)(e).
`• Procedures related to the management of non-storm water discharges. Part
`XI.E.3.a(3)(g). This includes a certification that the storm water discharges have been
`tested or evaluated for the presence of non-storm water discharges. For facilities
`producing concrete products, they must “insure that process waste water that results from
`washing of trucks, mixers, transport buckets, forms or other equipment are discharged in
`accordance with NPDES requirements or are recycled.” Part XI.E.3.a(3)(g)(i).
`• “Structural, vegetative, and/or stabilization measures used to limit erosion.” Part
`• Appropriate measures, such as swales, reuse of collected water, inlet controls, infiltration
`devices, and detention/retention devices. Part XI.E.3.a(3)(i).
`60 Fed. Reg. at 51145–46.
`In addition to requiring that permittees select and install BMPs and develop a
`SWPPP to meet the Clean Water Act’s standards, the MSGP also requires facility operators to
`implement monitoring and reporting requirements that allow facility operators to determine
`whether they have adequately reduced the level of pollutants in storm water runoff through the
`development and proper implementation of the facility’s SWPPP. Permittees with concrete
`manufacturing facilities must monitor their storm water discharges at least quarterly during the
`second and fourth year of the permit term. They must provide “the date and duration (in hours)
` 9


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 10 of 22 PageID 10
`of the storm event(s) sampled; rainfall measurements or estimates (in inches) of the storm event
`that generated the sampled runoff; the duration between the storm event sampled and the end of
`the previous measurable (greater than 0.1 inch (”) rainfall) storm event; and an estimate of the
`total volume (in gallons) of the discharge sampled.” MSGP § XI.E.5.a., 60 Fed. Reg. at 51148.
`They must collect samples during sampling periods of January to March, April to June, July to
`September, and October to December. Id. at XI.E.5.a(1). Samples must be “collected from the
`discharge resulting from a storm event that is greater than 0.1” in magnitude and that occurs at
`least 72 hours from the previously measurable (greater than 0.1” rainfall) storm event.” Id. at
`In addition to analytic monitoring, dischargers must also take quarterly samples
`and make visual observations of representative discharges. MSGP § XI.E.5.c, 60 Fed. Reg. at
`51149. Dischargers must document their observations of color, odor, clarity, floating solids,
`settled solids, suspended solids, foam, oil sheen, and other obvious indicators of storm water
`pollution at each discharge location. Id. These observations are to be recorded and kept onsite
`with the SWPPP. Id. Based on the results of the analytic and observational monitoring,
`dischargers are required to evaluate the need for additional BMPs and modifications to the
`facility’s SWPPP. 60 Fed. Reg. at 50820–27, 50829–30.
`Part XI.E.3(a)(4) of the MSGP requires Sector E dischargers to conduct
`comprehensive site compliance evaluations at least once per year. 60 Fed. Reg. at 51147. This
`requires a comprehensive review of a facility and its storm water pollution control measures.
`The outcome of this evaluation requires revisions to a facility’s SWPPP. Id.
`For Sector E facilities, the MSGP establishes the following cut-off concentrations
`(“benchmark values”) for pollutants of concern: total suspended solids (“TSS”) – 100 mg/L and
`total recoverable iron – 1.0 mg/L. MSGP, § XI.E.5.a. Sector E facilities must compare the
`average annual concentrations of these parameters in their storm water discharges to these cut-
`off concentrations and “place special emphasis on methods for reducing the presence of those
`parameters in storm water discharges” whenever there is an exceedance. 60 Fed. Reg. at 50875
` 10


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 11 of 22 PageID 11
`(Monitoring and Reporting Requirements). They “provide a reasonable target for controlling
`storm water contamination by pollution prevention plans.” Id. at 51076.
`The cut-off concentrations are guidelines for determining whether a facility has
`implemented the requisite BAT/BCT level of control measures. Further, exceedances of cut-off
`concentrations are reason for concern that pollution may have reached a level “at which a storm
`water discharge could potentially impair, or contribute to impairing water quality or affect
`human health from ingestion of water or fish.” 60 Fed. Reg. at 50824–25.
`The MSGP does not provide for any mixing zones by dischargers. The MSGP
`does not provide for any receiving water dilution credits to be applied by dischargers.
`Beneficial Uses of Florida Surface Waters
`The State of Florida has identified beneficial uses and designated all surface
`waters of the State of Florida as Class III – Recreation, Propagation and Maintenance of a
`Healthy, Well-Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlife, except for certain waters which are
`described in subsection 62-302.400(16), F.A.C. Rule 62-302.400(15), F.A.C. “Class I, II, and
`III surface waters share water quality criteria established to protect fish consumption, recreation
`and the propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and
`wildlife.” Rule 62-302.400(4), F.A.C.
`In Sarasota County, the State of Florida provides the following exception to the
`Class III, designating the following waters as Class II – Shellfish Propagation or Harvesting:
`“Sarasota Bay – West of the Intracoastal Waterway Channel centerline.” See 62-
`The Sarasota Bay Estuarine System is also afforded special significance and
`protection as an “Outstanding Florida Water,” pursuant to 62-302.400 F.A.C.
`The Sarasota Bay Estuarine System is additionally designated as a “Special
`Water” having been found to have exceptional recreational or ecological significance and that
`the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the designation outweigh the environmental,
`social, and economic costs (Rule 62- 302.700(5), F.A.C.).
` 11


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 12 of 22 PageID 12
`Concrete Manufacturing Facilities
`Concrete manufacturing facilities have been identified as a major source of storm
`water contamination. Industrial activities at such facilities include those associated with the
`combination of cement, aggregate, and water to form concrete. Material storage and material
`handling at concrete product manufacturing plants may release a variety of harmful substances
`including but not limited to cement, aggregate, concrete, shale, clay, limestone, slate, slag,
`pumice, fly ash, and admixtures. 60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50869 (listing common pollutants
`associated with Sector E—concrete product manufacturing facilities—as of 1995); see also id. at
`51145–50 (outlining special requirements for Sector E); EPA, Industrial Stormwater Fact Sheet
`Series: Sector E, EPA-833-F-06-020, at 2–4 (Feb. 2021),
` (listing
`common pollutants associated with Sector E, as of 2021). Activities associated with
`casting/forming concrete products may release substances including but not limited to
`reinforcing steel, latex sealants, and bitumastic coatings. 60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 50869.
`In addition to manufacturing of concrete products, such facilities also engage in
`vehicle and equipment washing. Forklifts, trucks, and other vehicles track debris, particulate
`matter, and other contaminants to areas on and off the premises. Vehicles also expose many
`other sources of pollution to the elements, including gasoline, diesel fuel, anti-freeze, battery
`fluids, and hydraulic fluids. The types of pollutants that are released into the immediate
`environment by concrete product manufacturing include, among those listed above: toxic metals
`such as iron, lead, zinc; as well as petroleum products including oil, gasoline, grease, and diesel
`fuel; battery fluids, acids and solvents; and suspended solids, pH-altering substances, chemical
`oxygen demand-altering substances, and biochemical oxygen demand-altering substances.
`Stormwater Pollution at the Atlantic TNG Facility
`Atlantic TNG has certified that the Facility is classified under SIC Code 3272,
`meaning that they are primarily engaged in manufacturing concrete products from a combination
` 12


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 13 of 22 PageID 13
`of cement and aggregate. The Facility is specifically engaged in the manufacturing of precast in-
`ground concrete structures used in either storm or sanitary applications to convey and manage
`water flows. The majority of activity and storage at the Facility takes place outdoors, where
`pollutants are exposed to storm water.
` On information and belief, Plaintiff allegs that the Facility releases the following
`pollutants into the immediate environment: toxic metals such as iron, lead, zinc; as well as
`petroleum products including oil, gasoline, grease, and diesel fuel; battery fluids, acids and
`solvents; and suspended solids, pH-altering substances, chemical oxygen demand-altering
`substances, and biochemical oxygen demand-altering substances.
`The large number of trucks and other vehicles entering and leaving the Facility
`from the driveways track pollutants off-site onto public streets where rainfall washes these
`pollutants into storm drains that discharge into waters of the United States.
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that storm water flows over the
`surface of the Facility where industrial activities and areas where airborne materials associated
`with the industrial processes at the Facility may settle onto the ground. Plaintiff is informed and
`believes and thereupon alleges that storm water flowing over these areas collects suspended
`sediment, dirt, metals, and other pollutants as it flows towards the Facility’s storm water
`discharge locations.
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the majority of storm water
`discharges from the Facility contain storm water that is commingled with runoff from areas at
`the Facility where industrial processes occur.
`Permit Violations at the Facility
`Defendant owns and/or operates the Facility, a concrete manufacturing facility
`located in Sarasota, FL.
`Based on Plaintiff’s investigation, including a review of the Facility’s Notice of
`Intent to Use Multi-Sector Generic Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated With Industrial
`Activity (“NOI”), aerial photography, documents prepared by the DEP, and Plaintiff’s
` 13


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 14 of 22 PageID 14
`information and belief, storm water is collected and discharged from the Facility via at least four
`Storm water discharged from the Facility flows into the Sarasota Municipal
`Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”), which empties into Whitaker Bayou and ultimately
`Sarasota Bay (collectively, “Receiving Waters”).
`The Receiving Waters are waters of the United States.
`The Facility’s current coverage under the MSGP is active from March 10, 2018,
`through March 9, 2023. This is a continuation from the Facility’s previous coverage under the
`MSGP, which ran from March 7, 2013, through March 6, 2018.
`54. MSGP permittees must limit pollution in industrial storm water to a level
`commensurate with the federal BAT and BCT standards; develop and implement SWPPPs that
`set forth the best management practices that the permittee is using to meet those federal
`standards; conduct routine inspections and monitoring, and report accurately the results of that
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Atlantic TNG has failed to
`develop and/or implement sufficient BMPs at the Facility to limit pollution in industrial storm
`water to a level commensurate with the federal BAT and BCT standards:
`• Atlantic TNG does not prevent storm water flows from coming into contact with
`the sources of contaminants.
`• On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Facility lacks sufficiently
`well-maintained structural controls and practices to minimize exposure of
`pollutants to storm water, to retain all storm water on site; or to prevent
`contaminants from entering into storm water. On information and belief, Plaintiff
`alleges that Atlantic TNG does not sufficiently treat contaminated storm water
`prior to discharge from the Facility.
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that since at least July 12, 2016,
`Atlantic TNG has failed to develop and/or implement an adequate SWPPP at the Facility in
` 14


`Case 8:21-cv-02168-MSS-SPF Document 1 Filed 09/10/21 Page 15 of 22 PageID 15
`accordance with the requirements of Part XI.E.3 of the MSGP. The SWPPP for the Facility does
`not include, and Atlantic TNG has not implemented, the required minimum and industry specific
`BMPs necessary to reduce pollutant levels in discharges to BAT and BCT levels. This is
`evidenced by sources of storm water contamination at the Facility, contaminant tracking around
`and off the Facility, and the Facility’s disc

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

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.


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

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