`
`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 1 of 18
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF
`MASSACHUSETTS,
`
`
`
`
`
`CARGILL, INC. and SALT CITY, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Cargill, Inc. (“Cargill”) and Salt City, Inc. (“Salt City”) discharge polluted
`
`industrial stormwater from a facility at 163 Union Street, Westfield, Massachusetts (the “Facility”),
`
`where they stockpile road salt and transfer it to vehicles for further distribution. Cargill owns all
`
`the real property, buildings, fixtures, and machinery located at the Facility, including a salt
`
`conveyer system. Salt City operates the Facility. Cargill and Salt City (jointly “Defendants”)
`
`discharge polluted stormwater from the Facility into the Westfield municipal storm drain system,
`
`which flows to Powdermill Brook, a tributary of the Westfield River. Defendants are not
`
`controlling these discharges as is required by the federal Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.
`
`(the “Clean Water Act” or “the Act”). Defendants never applied for nor received a federal
`
`industrial stormwater discharge permit for these discharges, as is required by the Act.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants store road salt in large piles at the Facility and move it around and off
`
`the Facility with heavy equipment and vehicles. Defendants and persons that visit the Facility in
`
`the ordinary course of business scatter road salt around the Facility, including on its ground
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`surface. Rain and snow melt (jointly “stormwater”) that lands on and runs over the Facility comes
`
`into contact with road salt and mobilizes it. The stormwater then runs down from the Facility into
`
`catch basins on Union Street, where it is carried by Westfield’s municipal storm drain system to
`
`Powdermill Brook, a tributary of the Westfield River.
`
`3.
`
`The area where Westfield’s municipal storm sewer system empties into Powdermill
`
`Brook is near a potential source of drinking water for Westfield and is just downstream from the
`
`city’s number two drinking water well.1 Sodium in drinking water is a health concern for people
`
`with hypertension because it can increase blood pressure and cannot be removed by carbon
`
`filtration.
`
`4.
`
`Elevated concentrations of salt in fresh water has detrimental effects on the growth,
`
`reproduction, and survival of a large range of plants, invertebrates, fish, and amphibians. When salt
`
`dissolves, it may disrupt the ability of freshwater organisms to regulate how fluid passes in and out
`
`of their bodies.
`
`5.
`
`Animals, including mammals, may be harmed by elevated concentrations of salt in
`
`runoff or surface waters that they rely on for hydration. Birds are especially sensitive to salt.
`
`Consumption of very small amounts of salt can result in toxicosis and death within the bird
`
`population.
`
`6.
`
`The addition of salt to Powdermill Brook has the potential to harm the aquatic
`
`environment and aquatic organisms and to alter important species habitat. Powdermill Brook and
`
`the Westfield River have been designated by the Commonwealth as Coldwater Fish Resources
`
`because fish that require coldwater to survive or reproduce occur in these water bodies or their
`
`tributaries. The Facility is less than a mile upstream of designated habitat for state-listed rare
`
`
`1 Westfield’s number 2 drinking water well is currently inactive.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`species, known as “Creeper,” a freshwater mussel. The Creeper’s habitat may be impacted by
`
`Cargill’s unlawful stormwater discharges.
`
`7.
`
`Defendants’ discharges of stormwater to Powdermill Brook via the Westfield
`
`municipal separate storm drain system are in violation of the Clean Water Act. The
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “Commonwealth”) brings this civil suit to enforce the
`
`requirements of the Act. The Commonwealth seeks injunctive relief, civil penalties, and other
`
`relief the Court deems appropriate to redress Defendants’ illegal discharges of pollution.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`8.
`
`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).
`
`9.
`
`On August 9, 2019, the Commonwealth provided notice of Defendants’ violations
`
`of the Clean Water Act, and of its intention to file suit against Defendants (the “Notice Letter”), to
`
`the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”); the
`
`Administrator of EPA Region 1; the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of
`
`Environmental Protection (“MassDEP”); and to Defendants, as required by the Act, 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1365(b)(1)(A).
`
`10. More than sixty days have passed since notice was served.
`
`11.
`
`This action is not barred by any prior state or federal enforcement action addressing
`
`the violations alleged in this Complaint.
`
`12.
`
`The Commonwealth has an interest in protecting for its residents the integrity of
`
`Massachusetts waters, and the related health, safety, economic, recreational, aesthetic, and
`
`environmental benefits those waters provide. The interests of the Commonwealth have been, are
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`being, and will continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ failure to comply with the Clean
`
`Water Act, as alleged in this Complaint. The requested relief will redress the harms to the
`
`Commonwealth caused by Defendants’ activities. Defendants’ continuing acts and omissions, as
`
`alleged in this Complaint, will irreparably harm the Commonwealth, for which harm it has no
`
`plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
`
`13.
`
`Venue is proper in the District Court of Massachusetts 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.
`
`PARTIES
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff is the Commonwealth, appearing by and through the Attorney General.
`
`The Attorney General is the chief law officer of the Commonwealth, with offices at
`
`One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts. She is authorized to bring this action and to seek the
`
`requested relief under G.L. c. 12, §§ 3 and 11D.
`
`16.
`
`Defendant Cargill, Inc. is a corporation organized under the state of Delaware.
`
`Cargill owns the Facility. Cargill’s principal address is listed as 15407 McGints Road, Wayzata,
`
`Minnesota.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Salt City, Inc. is a domestic corporation that operates Cargill’s road salt
`
`distribution and warehousing facility at the Facility, and that has its principle address listed as 163
`
`Union Street, Westfield.
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`Federal Clean Water Act Requirements
`
`18.
`
`The Clean Water Act makes the discharge of pollution into waters of the United
`
`States unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with certain statutory requirements, including
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`the requirement that the discharge be permitted by EPA under the National Pollutant Discharge
`
`Elimination System (“NPDES”). See Sections 301(a), 402(a) and 402(p) of the Act, 33 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1311(a), 1342(a), 1342(p).
`
`19.
`
`Stormwater is the leading cause of water quality impairment in Massachusetts.
`
`During every rain or snowmelt event, runoff flows over the land surface, picking up potential
`
`pollutants such as salt, sediment, organic matter, nutrients, metals and petroleum by-products.
`
`Polluted stormwater runoff can be harmful to plants, animals, and people.
`
`20.
`
`To minimize polluted stormwater discharges from industrial facilities, EPA has
`
`issued a general industrial stormwater permit (“Stormwater Permit”) under the NPDES program.
`
`EPA first issued the Stormwater Permit in 1995 and reissued the permit in 2000, 2008, and 2015.
`
`See 60 Fed. Reg. 50804 (Sept. 29, 1995); 65 Fed. Reg. 64746 (Oct. 30, 2000); 73 Fed. Reg. 56572
`
`(Sept. 29, 2008); 80 Fed. Reg. 34403 (June 4, 2015).
`
`21. Motor freight transportation and warehousing facilities that discharge industrial
`
`stormwater to waters of the United States directly or through separate storm sewer systems are
`
`subject to the requirements of this Stormwater Permit. Stormwater Permit, Appendix D, pg. D-4.
`
`22.
`
`The Stormwater Permit requires these facilities to, among other things:
`
`a.
`
`prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) that, among
`
`other things, describes the facility and identifies all stormwater outfalls,
`
`Stormwater Permit, pg. 31;
`
`b.
`
`submit to EPA a Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to be covered by the Stormwater
`
`Permit that lists all stormwater outfalls by a unique 3-digit code and
`
`corresponding latitude and longitude coordinates, Stormwater Permit,
`
`Appendix G;
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`c.
`
`ensure that pollutant control measures minimize pollutants in stormwater
`
`discharges, Stormwater Permit, pg. 14;
`
`d.
`
`locate materials, equipment, and activities to contain potential spills,
`
`Stormwater Permit, pg. 15;
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`use structural and non-structural control measures to minimize the discharge
`
`of sediment, Stormwater Permit, pg. 17;
`
`evaluate for and eliminate unauthorized non-stormwater discharges,
`
`Stormwater Permit, pg. 19;
`
`g.
`
`ensure that stormwater discharges do not cause or have the reasonable
`
`potential to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards,
`
`Stormwater Permit, pg. 20;
`
`h.
`
`implement specific best management practices applicable to motor freight
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`transportation and warehousing facilities, Stormwater Permit, pg. 135;
`
`include specific SWPPP provisions applicable to motor freight
`
`transportation and warehousing facilities, Stormwater Permit, pg. 135-136;
`
`conduct corrective action to expeditiously eliminate excessive stormwater
`
`pollution and unauthorized non-stormwater discharges, Stormwater Permit,
`
`pgs. 27-29;
`
`k.
`
`conduct routine facility inspections at least quarterly (Stormwater Permit,
`
`pg. 22) and quarterly visual assessments (Stormwater Permit, pg. 24) to,
`
`among other things, sample and assess the quality of the facility’s
`
`stormwater discharges, ensure that stormwater control measures required by
`
`the permit are functioning correctly and are adequate to minimize pollutant
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`discharge, and timely perform corrective actions when they are not,
`
`Stormwater Permit, pgs. 22-26;
`
`l.
`
`timely prepare and submit to EPA annual reports that include findings from
`
`the facility inspections and visual assessments and the documentation of
`
`corrective actions, Stormwater Permit, pgs. 49-50; and
`
`m.
`
`comply with any additional Massachusetts requirements, including but not
`
`limited to the requirements of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act and its
`
`implementing regulations. Stormwater Permit, pg. 170.
`
`23.
`
`The Stormwater Permit contains specific requirements concerning pollutant
`
`controls for salt piles, and requires all permittees to:
`
`a.
`
`enclose or cover storage piles of salt to minimize pollutant discharges,
`
`Stormwater Permit, pg. 18;
`
`b.
`
`implement appropriate measures (e.g. good housekeeping, diversions,
`
`containment) to minimize exposure resulting from adding to or removing
`
`materials from the pile; id.; and
`
`c.
`
`document the location of any salt storage piles in the SWPPP. Stormwater
`
`Permit, pg. 33.
`
`Citizen Suit Provision of the Federal Clean Water Act
`
`24.
`
`Section 505(a)(1) of the Act authorizes citizen enforcement actions against any
`
`“person,” including individuals, corporations, or partnerships, for violations of NPDES permit
`
`requirements and for unpermitted discharges of pollutants. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1) and
`
`(f), 1362(5).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`25.
`
`The Commonwealth is a “citizen” within the meaning of Section 505(g) of the Act
`
`because it is a “person” having an interest which is or may be adversely affected. See 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1365(g).
`
`26.
`
`Under Section 505 of the Act, this Court has authority to enjoin Defendants’
`
`violations of the Act’s prohibition on unauthorized discharges of pollutants and to require the
`
`company to comply with its Stormwater Permit. The Court also has authority to impose penalties
`
`of up to $53,484 per day for each of the company’s prior violations. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a);
`
`1319(d); 40 C.F.R. § 19.4; 83 Fed. Reg. 1190, 1193 (Jan. 10, 2018).2
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Description of the Facility & Activities
`
`Cargill is reportedly the largest privately held corporation in the United States in
`
`27.
`
`terms of revenue. One of the company’s business ventures is the sale and distribution of road salt
`
`throughout the United States, including in Massachusetts.
`
`28.
`
`According to the company’s web site, Cargill mines, processes, and transports bulk
`
`deicing salt to municipalities, government agencies, and private commercial businesses across the
`
`country. Cargill stockpiles road salt at the Facility for further distribution to surrounding
`
`communities for winter road de-icing, application, and treatment.
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`Salt City has operated the Facility since at the latest January 2014.
`
`The Facility consists of approximately 10 acres of exposed impermeable surface. At
`
`least one pile of road salt is consistently present at the Facility. The size of the salt pile varies,
`
`
`2 The statutory maximum civil penalty for violations that occurred on or before November 2,
`2015 is $37,500 per day, per violation. 40 CFR § 19.4, Table 1.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`depending on season and other factors, but it can be as large as approximately two acres and as
`
`high as approximately 40 feet.
`
`Potential Water Quality Impacts from Road Salt
`
`31.
`
`Sodium chloride (road salt) is composed of sodium ions and chloride ions. Other
`
`components and impurities can represent up to 5 percent of the total weight of road salt. The
`
`components in road salt are mobilized by rain, melting snow, melting ice and other mechanisms
`
`into the environment, including into aquatic ecosystems. The chloride ions in road salt runoff will
`
`remain dissolved in the liquid and cannot be treated or filtered with best management practices
`
`(such as haybales). Once runoff contaminated with road salt reaches wetlands or streams, the
`
`chloride remains in the watershed until it is flushed downstream.
`
`32.
`
`Elevated road salt in fresh water can be toxic to many forms of aquatic life and can
`
`harm plants and animals by interfering with their “osmoregulation,” the biological process by
`
`which they maintain the proper concentration of salt and other solutes in their internal fluids.
`
`Difficulties with osmoregulation can inhibit survival, growth, and reproduction and can reduce the
`
`diversity of organisms in streams. Aquatic species that may be adversely impacted include plants,
`
`fish, macroinvertebrates, insects, and amphibians.
`
`33. Water contaminated with road salt creates a higher water density and will settle at
`
`the deepest part of the water body where water current velocities are low. This can lead to a
`
`chemical stratification which depletes dissolved oxygen at the bottom layer of a waterbody,
`
`rendering it unsuitable to support aquatic life.
`
`34.
`
`Road salt in the environment affects the health of wildlife, including birds and
`
`mammals. Birds are the most sensitive wildlife species to salt, and consumption of even small
`
`amounts of salt by birds can result in toxicosis and death within their population. As birds and
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`other animals drink runoff or surface water contaminated with salt, they may suffer from
`
`dehydration, confusion, weakness, and other symptoms.
`
`35.
`
`According to a report from the University of Rhode Island, uncovered salt storage
`
`piles lose about 20% of their salt each year, much of which finds its way into nearby waterways.3
`
`36.
`
`The area where Westfield’s municipal storm sewer system empties into Powdermill
`
`Brook is near a potential source of drinking water for Westfield and is just downstream from the
`
`City’s number 2 drinking water well (currently inactive). Sodium in drinking water is a health
`
`concern for persons with hypertension, because it increases blood pressure.
`
`37.
`
`The National Science Foundation has reported that salty, alkaline freshwater can
`
`create significant problems for drinking water infrastructure. For example, the well-documented
`
`water crisis in Flint, Michigan, occurred when the city switched its primary water source to the
`
`Flint River in 2014. The river’s high salt load, combined with chemical treatments, made the water
`
`corrosive and caused lead to leach from water pipes.4
`
`The Westfield River and its Tributary Powdermill Brook
`
`38.
`
`The Westfield River is major tributary of the Connecticut River that drains the
`
`eastern slopes of the Berkshire Hills of southwestern Massachusetts, then joins the Connecticut
`
`River in Agawam. The Westfield River features native trout fishing, rugged mountain scenery, and
`
`a historical mill town settlement. It provides over 50 miles of the Northeast’s finest whitewater
`
`canoeing and kayaking. It is also home to several threatened and endangered species. The
`
`Westfield River and its tributary Powdermill Brook have been designated by the Commonwealth
`
`
`3 Chlorides in Fresh Water, University of Rhode Island, College of the Environment and Life
`Sciences, Hunt, M., Herron, E. Green, L. (March 2012).
`4 Winter Road Salt, Fertilizers Turning North American Waterways Increasingly Saltier,
`National Science Foundation News Release 18-002 (January 8, 2018), available at
`https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?org=NSF&cntn_id=244099&preview=false
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`as a “Coldwater Fish Resources.” Coldwater Fish Resources are particularly sensitive habitats used
`
`by reproducing coldwater fish to fulfill one or more of their life stage requirements.
`
`39.
`
`The Commonwealth has designated the area of Powdermill Brook and the
`
`Westfield River less than a mile downstream of the Facility as Estimated and Priority Habitat for a
`
`state-listed rare species, known as “Creeper,” a freshwater mussel. The Creeper’s habitat may be
`
`impacted by Defendants’ stormwater discharges to the Westfield municipal storm drain system,
`
`which drains to Powdermill Brook. This same area has been designated by the Commonwealth as
`
`“Core Habitat,” critical for the long-term persistence of rare species and other species of
`
`conservation concern. According to the Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, protection of
`
`Core Habitat “is essential to safeguard the diversity of species and their habitats, intact ecosystems,
`
`and resilient natural landscapes across Massachusetts.”5
`
`40.
`
`The tributary creeks and wetlands within the Westfield River watershed are
`
`important in protecting aquatic resources by acting as a natural filtering system for water quality,
`
`by preventing downstream flooding, and by providing natural habitats to native species.
`
`Defendants’ Operations
`
`41.
`
`Defendants move road salt around the Facility using heavy equipment and transfer
`
`it to vehicles using a conveyor. The road salt is stored in at least one pile, which varies in size
`
`depending upon the season and other factors. Portions of the piles are covered with plastic
`
`material. Frequently, large portions of the salt piles are uncovered, as depicted in the following
`
`aerial photographs found on Google Earth:
`
`
`
`
`5 Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game, Division of Fisheries & Wildlife and The Nature
`Conservancy, BioMap2: Conserving the Biodiversity of Massachusetts in a Changing World
`(2010).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`Date of below aerial imagery, according to Google Earth Pro: 9/2017
`
`Date of below aerial imagery, according to Google Earth Pro: 6/2018
`
`
`
`
`
`42.
`
`Road salt and pollutants that are present in or adhere to it (collectively,
`
`
`
`“Pollutants”) become mobilized by wind, equipment, and vehicles at the Facility and are tracked
`
`around and off the Facility by vehicles.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`Defendants’ Discharge of Pollutants from the Facility
`
`Polluted Stormwater Discharges to the Westfield River
`via Westfield’s Municipal Stormwater System
`
`Road salt at the Facility is exposed to precipitation.
`
`Pollutants at the Facility become mobilized by stormwater.
`
`Since at least August 1, 2015, during rain and snowmelt events, Defendants have
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`discharged polluted stormwater off the Facility and into Westfield’s municipal stormwater system
`
`via catch basins on Union Street, including from the following catch basins as depicted on Google
`
`Maps “Street View” (images taken by Google in July 2017 and annotated with red arrows by
`
`Attorney General’s Office):
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`46.
`
`Pollutants at the Facility adhere to and are tracked off the Facility and on to Union
`
`Street by equipment and vehicles (for example, tires and treads). Pollutants from the Facility that
`
`are tracked onto Union Street by equipment and vehicles are picked up in stormwater and
`
`discharged into catch basins on Union Street and thence to Powdermill Brook.
`
`
`
`Defendants’ Failure to Comply
`with Federal Stormwater Requirements
`
`47.
`
`Neither Cargill nor Salt City have submitted any Notice of Intent to be covered by
`
`the Stormwater Permit.
`
`48.
`
`Neither Cargill nor Salt City have complied with the terms of the Stormwater
`
`Permit.
`
`49.
`
`The companies have failed to:
`
`a.
`
`prepare a SWPPP for the Facility that, among other things, includes the
`
`location of all stormwater outfalls in the SWPPP (violation of section 5.2);
`
`b.
`
`submit a “complete and accurate NOI” for each Facility (violation of
`
`section 1.2.1);
`
`c.
`
`ensure that pollutant control measures minimize pollutants in its
`
`stormwater discharges (violation of section 2.1);
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`d.
`
`locate materials, equipment, and activities to contain potential spills
`
`(violation of section 2.1.2.1);
`
`e.
`
`use structural and non-structural control measures to minimize the
`
`discharge of sediment (violation of section 2.1.2.5);
`
`f.
`
`evaluate for the presence of and eliminate all non-stormwater discharges at
`
`each Facility (violation of section 2.1.2.9);
`
`g.
`
`ensure that stormwater discharges do not cause or contribute to a violation
`
`of water quality standards (violation of section 2.2.1);
`
`h.
`
`implement specific best management practices applicable to motor freight
`
`transportation and warehousing facilities, (violation of section 8.P.3);
`
`i.
`
`include specific SWPPP provisions applicable to motor freight
`
`transportation and warehousing facilities (violation of section 8.P.4);
`
`j.
`
`enclose or cover storage piles of salt to minimize pollutant discharges
`
`(violation of section 2.1.2.7);
`
`k.
`
`implement appropriate measures (e.g. good housekeeping, diversions,
`
`containment) to minimize exposure resulting from adding to or removing
`
`materials from the pile (violation of section 2.1.2.7);
`
`l.
`
`document the location of any salt storage piles in the SWPPP (violation of
`
`section 5.2.3.5);
`
`m.
`
`conduct corrective action to expeditiously eliminate excessive stormwater
`
`pollution and unauthorized non-stormwater discharges, (violation of
`
`section 4.1);
`
`n.
`
`conduct routine and quarterly facility inspections to ensure, among other
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 16 of 18
`
`things, that control measures are functioning correctly and are adequate to
`
`minimize pollutant discharges (violation of sections 3.1 and 3.2);
`
`o.
`
`timely prepare and submit to EPA annual reports that include findings
`
`from the facility inspections and visual assessments and the
`
`documentation of corrective actions (violation of section 7.5); and
`
`p.
`
`comply with additional state requirements incorporated by reference into
`
`the Permit, including the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act and the
`
`Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (violation of section 9.1.2.1).
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Discharges of Industrial Stormwater Without a Federal Stormwater Permit:
`Violations of Section 301(a) of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)
`
`The Commonwealth realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`50.
`
`contained in the above paragraphs.
`
`51.
`
`Cargill is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean Water Act,
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`
`52.
`
`Salt City is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean Water
`
`Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`
`53.
`
`Powdermill Brook is a “navigable water” within the meaning of Section 502(7) of
`
`the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
`
`54.
`
`Every day since August 1, 2014 to the present that Cargill and/or Salt City
`
`discharged polluted stormwater from the Facility to catch basins on Union Street without a
`
`Stormwater Permit is a separate and distinct violation of Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1311(a), for each day on which the violation occurred and/or continued. See also Sections
`
`505(a)(1) and (f), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(1) and (f).
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 17 of 18
`
`55.
`
`These violations establish an ongoing pattern of failure to comply with the
`
`Stormwater Permit’s requirements.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Noncompliance with the Federal Stormwater Permit:
`Violations of Section 301(a) of the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)
`56.
`The Commonwealth realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`contained in the above paragraphs.
`
`57.
`
`Since at the latest, August 1, 2015, Defendants have violated the Stormwater Permit
`
`by failing to implement its requirements, as set forth in paragraph 45, above.
`
`58.
`
`Each of Defendants’ violations of each of the requirement of the Stormwater Permit
`
`is a separate and distinct violation of Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), for each day
`
`on which the violation occurred and/or continued. See also Section 505(a)(1) and (f), 33 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1365(a)(1) and (f).
`
`59.
`
`These violations establish an ongoing pattern of failure to comply with the
`
`Stormwater Permit’s requirements.
`
`RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Court grant the
`
`following relief:
`
`1.
`
`Require Cargill and Salt City to obtain coverage under and comply with EPA’s
`
`federal Stormwater Permit;
`
`2.
`
`Order Cargill and Salt City to pay civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each
`
`violation of the Federal Clean Water Act that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, and civil
`
`penalties of up to $53,484 per day for each violation of the Federal Clean Water Act that occurred
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-11616 Document 1 Filed 08/31/20 Page 18 of 18
`
`after November 2, 2015, pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d),
`
`1365(a), 40 CFR § 19.4, and 83 Fed. Reg. 1190, 1193 (Jan. 10, 2018);
`
`3.
`
`Order Cargill and Salt City to take appropriate actions to restore the quality of
`
`protected areas impaired by its activities;
`
`4.
`
`Award the Commonwealth’s costs (including reasonable investigative, attorney,
`
`witness, and consultant fees) as authorized by the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d); and
`
`5.
`
`Award any such other and further relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
`
`Dated:
`
`August 31, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`By its attorneys,
`
`MAURA HEALEY
`ATTORNEY GENERAL
`
`Nora J. Chorover (Bar No.
`547352) Special Assistant
`Attorney General Environmental
`Protection Division Office of the
`Attorney General One Ashburton
`Place, 18th Floor Boston,
`Massachusetts 02108 Tel: (617)
`727-2200, ext. 2436
`Nora.Chorover@mass.gov
`
`18
`
`