throbber
Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.1 Page 1 of 30
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WALNUTDALE FAMILY FARMS, LLC,
`
`and
`
`KEVIN LETTINGA,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. ________________
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`The United States of America, by the authority of the Attorney General of the United
`
`States and through the undersigned attorneys, and at the request of the United States
`
`Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), files this Complaint and alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action brought by the United States (“Plaintiff”) seeking injunctive
`
`relief and civil penalties under Section 309(b) and (d) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”),
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), against Walnutdale Family Farms, LLC (“Walnutdale”) and Kevin
`
`Lettinga (“Defendants”) for failure to comply with the conditions of two National Pollutant
`
`Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA,
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1342.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 30
`
`JURISDICTION, AUTHORITY, VENUE AND NOTICE
`
`2.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to
`
`Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), and under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355.
`
`3.
`
`Authority to bring this action is vested in the United States Department of Justice,
`
`on behalf of the EPA, pursuant to Section 506 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1366, and under
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 516 and 519.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan pursuant to Section 309(b) of
`
`the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), as this is the judicial district within which the Defendants are
`
`located or reside, and are doing business.
`
`5.
`
`Notice of the commencement of this action has been given to the State of
`
`Michigan pursuant to Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b).
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Walnutdale Family Farms, LLC is a limited liability company
`
`organized and existing under the laws of Michigan. Its place of business is located at 4309 14th
`
`Street in Wayland, Michigan.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant Walnutdale Family Farms, LLC is a “person” within the meaning of
`
`Section 502(5) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Kevin Lettinga is an owner and the operator of Walnutdale Family
`
`Farms, LLC, and owns and operates, and otherwise exercises control over, the Walnutdale
`
`Family Farms, LLC dairy farm located at 4309 14th Street in Wayland, Michigan (the
`
`“Walnutdale Facility” or the “Facility”).
`
`9.
`
`Kevin Lettinga is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the CWA,
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 30
`
`RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`The Clean Water Act
`
`10.
`
`Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any
`
`pollutant by a person from a point source to waters of the United States except as authorized by,
`
`and in compliance with, certain enumerated Sections of the CWA, including permits issued
`
`pursuant to Section 402(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a).
`
`11.
`
`Section 502(12) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12), defines the term “discharge
`
`of a pollutant” as, inter alia, “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point
`
`source.”
`
`12.
`
`Section 502(14) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), defines the term “point
`
`source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any .
`
`. . concentrated animal feeding operation . . . from which pollutants are or may be discharged.”
`
`13.
`
`Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), defines the term “pollutant” as,
`
`inter alia, “biological materials . . . and agricultural waste discharged into water.”
`
`14.
`
`Section 502(7) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7), defines the term “navigable
`
`waters” as “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” “Waters of the United
`
`States” have been further defined to include, inter alia, waters which are currently used, were
`
`used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce (hereinafter
`
`“Traditional Navigable Waters”) and tributaries of such waters. 40 C.F.R. § 122.2 (1993).
`
`15.
`
`Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, established the National Pollutant
`
`Discharge Elimination System permit program under which EPA, or states authorized by EPA,
`
`issue permits specifying the conditions under which discharges of pollutants may occur in
`
`compliance with Section 301(a) of the CWA. Under the regulations promulgated pursuant to
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 30
`
`Section 402, EPA or authorized states may issue individual NPDES permits to each discharger or
`
`may issue a general NPDES permit for a specific category of discharge within a geographic area.
`
`See 40 C.F.R. § 122.28.
`
`16.
`
`In 2003, EPA promulgated revised rules regulating the discharge of pollutants
`
`from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (“CAFOs”). See 68 Fed. Reg. 7176 (Feb. 12,
`
`2003). Under the rules, a CAFO is defined as an animal feeding operation (“AFO”) that can be
`
`classified as either “large” or “medium” based on the number and type of animals confined. 40
`
`C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(2).
`
`17.
`
`40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(1) defines an AFO as a lot or facility (other than an aquatic
`
`animal production facility) where: (1) animals (other than aquatic animals) have been, are, or
`
`will be stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12–month
`
`period; and (2) crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not sustained in the
`
`normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.
`
`18.
`
` An AFO will be classified as a “Large CAFO” if it stables or confines more than
`
`700 mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(4).
`
`19.
`
` 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(7) defines process wastewater as “water directly or
`
`indirectly used in the operation of the AFO for any or all of the following: spillage or overflow
`
`from animal or poultry watering systems; washing, cleaning, or flushing pens, barns, manure
`
`pits, or other AFO facilities; direct contact swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals; or
`
`dust control. Process wastewater also includes any water which comes into contact with any raw
`
`materials, products, or byproducts including manure, litter, feed, milk, eggs or bedding.”
`
`20.
`
`The State of Michigan has been authorized by EPA to administer its NPDES
`
`program since October 17, 1973. See M.C.L.A. Ch. 324, Art. II, Ch. 1, Pt. 31. The Michigan
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 30
`
`Department of Natural Resources and Environment (“MDNR”) and the Michigan Department of
`
`Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) administered the NPDES permitting program in Michigan at
`
`the times relevant to this Complaint. Michigan issues a general permit for CAFOs and requires
`
`individual entities to obtain a Certificate of Coverage, by which they are covered by the general
`
`permit.
`
`21. When a state is authorized to administer a NPDES permit program pursuant to
`
`Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), EPA retains the authority, concurrent with the
`
`authorized state, to enforce state-issued NPDES permits and to take enforcement action under
`
`Section 309 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(i).
`
`22.
`
`Section 309(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a), authorizes EPA to issue a
`
`compliance order or bring a civil action when EPA finds that any person is in violation of any
`
`permit condition or limitation of a permit issued under Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §
`
`1342.
`
`23.
`
`Section 309(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) authorizes EPA to commence a
`
`civil action for appropriate relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, for any
`
`violation for which EPA is authorized to issue a compliance order under Section 309(a).
`
`24.
`
`Pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), and 40
`
`C.F.R. § 19.4, Defendants are liable for civil penalties not to exceed $37,500 per day for each
`
`violation that occurred after January 12, 2009 through November 2, 2015; and $55,800 per day
`
`for each violation that occurred after November 2, 2015.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 30
`
`
`
`Applicable Walnutdale NPDES Permits
`
`25.
`
`On March 30, 2010, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and
`
`Environment issued general CAFO NPDES Permit No. MIG019000 (the “2010 Permit”). The
`
`2010 Permit expired on April 1, 2015.
`
`26. MDEQ issued Certificate of Coverage MIG010063 to Walnutdale on June 7,
`
`2012.
`
`27.
`
`On April 30, 2015, MDEQ issued general CAFO NPDES Permit No. MIG010000
`
`(the “2015 Permit”).
`
`28. MDEQ reissued Certificate of Coverage MIG010063 to Walnutdale on December
`
`23, 2016.
`
`29.
`
`The 2010 and 2015 Permits provide conditions applicable to the Facility’s
`
`production area and land application areas.
`
`30.
`
`The 2015 Permit defines the production area to include “all areas used for animal
`
`product production activities. This includes, but is not limited to: the animal confinement area,
`
`the manure storage area, the raw materials storage area, and the waste containment area.” 2015
`
`Permit, Part II.A. See also 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(8).
`
`31.
`
`The 2015 Permit defines the land application area to include “land under the
`
`control of an AFO owner or operator . . . to which CAFO waste is or may be applied.” 2015
`
`Permit, Part II.A. See also 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(b)(3).
`
`32.
`
`The 2010 and 2015 Permits impose various requirements on the production area
`
`and land application areas of the Facility, including but not limited to prohibitions on discharges,
`
`requirements for proper operation and maintenance of waste storage devices, land application
`
`restrictions, and Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (“CNMP”) requirements.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 30
`
`33.
`
`Among the requirements imposed by the Permits are design and operation
`
`requirements for CAFO waste storage structures. The CAFO waste storage structures must be
`
`designed and operated at all times to contain the total volume of all of the following:
`
`a. Operational volume: Sufficient volume to contain all CAFO waste
`
`generated by the CAFO in a six-month or greater time period, including normal precipitation and
`
`runoff.
`
`b.
`
`Emergency volume: Sufficient volume to contain large rainfall events,
`
`specifically, all production area waste generated from the 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, as
`
`specified in the Certificate of Coverage.
`
`c.
`
`Freeboard volume: An additional 12 inches of capacity, for storage
`
`structures that are subject to runoff caused by precipitation. 2010 Permit, Part I.A.4.a.1); 2015
`
`Permit, Part I.B.1.a.
`
`34. Walnutdale’s Certificate of Coverage for each of its permits states that the
`
`magnitude of the 25-year, 24-hour storm is 4.45 inches of rain.
`
`
`
`The Consent Decree
`
`35.
`
`The United States filed a complaint against Walnutdale Farms, Inc. and Ralph
`
`Lettinga and Kevin Lettinga concerning the Facility in 2002.
`
`36.
`
`Kevin and Ralph Lettinga previously operated the Facility through and under the
`
`name of Walnutdale Farms, Inc., which was dissolved on July 15, 2006 by the State of Michigan.
`
`37.
`
`That case was consolidated with a case brought by the Sierra Club and its
`
`Michigan Chapter, proceeded into fact discovery, and was resolved through a Consent Decree
`
`entered by the Court in 2004 (W.D. Mich. Civ. No. 4:00-cv-193, Dkt. 66) (the “Consent
`
`Decree”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 30
`
`38.
`
`The Consent Decree has not been terminated and is still in effect.
`
`39.
`
`Paragraph 79 of the Consent Decree states that the Consent Decree “shall not be
`
`construed to prevent or limit the rights of the United States or Sierra Club to obtain penalties or
`
`injunctive relief under the Act or implementing regulations, or under other federal or state laws,
`
`regulations, or permit conditions, except as expressly specified herein.”
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`The Walnutdale Facility
`
`40.
`
`The Walnutdale Facility consists of, inter alia, eight free stall barns, a milking
`
`parlor, silage and feed bunkers, several manure storage structures, a slurry store, office space and
`
`machine sheds, and gravel roadways that connect these buildings and structures within the
`
`Facility.
`
`41.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, at all
`
`times relevant to this Complaint, the Facility has had an approximate average of 1460 dry and
`
`milking cows.
`
`42.
`
`The Facility includes several lined ponds which are used to store waste generated
`
`by the operation of the CAFO, including manure and process wastewater. These ponds are called
`
`“waste storage structures” or “waste storage devices.”
`
`43.
`
`The Facility owns or otherwise has available to it over 1100 acres of land
`
`application area.
`
`44.
`
`At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Walnutdale Facility was a “CAFO” as
`
`that term is defined in Section 502(14) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), and 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 122.23(b)(2).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 30
`
`
`
`Role of Kevin Lettinga
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`Kevin Lettinga works on-site managing the day-to-day operations at the Facility.
`
`Kevin Lettinga’s initials appear on the Facility’s daily/weekly CAFO inspection
`
`records as the inspector of the facility’s waste storage structures.
`
`47.
`
`Kevin Lettinga exerts control over the contractors that land apply the manure
`
`generated at the Facility onto the Facility’s land application areas.
`
`
`
`April 8, 2013 Inspection
`
`48.
`
` On April 8, 2013, EPA conducted an inspection of the Facility. MDEQ also
`
`participated in this inspection. The inspectors conducted a walk-through of the Facility.
`
`49.
`
`During the inspection, EPA observed a number of violations of the 2010 Permit
`
`conditions. Violations included a discharge of process wastewater from the Facility to Red Run
`
`Drain; inadequate depth gauges; and several violations of requirements related to the Catch
`
`Basin Waste Storage Device.
`
`50.
`
`EPA also conducted sampling of the discharges to determine the presence of
`
`pollutants that could impact downstream waters. The sampling results showed elevated levels of
`
`biochemical oxygen demand, nitrogen, and phosphorus.
`
`51.
`
`The Facility’s land application area is located within the Buck Creek watershed,
`
`which is covered by a Total Maximum Daily Load for E. coli due to the presence of elevated E.
`
`coli levels in the watershed. The Facility is also located in the Rabbit River watershed, which is
`
`covered by a Watershed Management Plan and where pollutants of concern include nutrients.
`
`
`
`April 18, 2013 Discharge
`
`52.
`
`On April 18, 2013, MDEQ received a citizen complaint of a discharge from the
`
`Facility.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 30
`
`53. MDEQ staff inspected the Facility the same day and observed a discharge of
`
`production area waste from the farm’s Catch Basin Waste Storage Structure to the Red Run
`
`Drain.
`
`54. MDEQ issued Violation Notice VN-005611 to Kevin Lettinga on July 16, 2013
`
`for the discharge and other violations observed at the Facility during the April 8 and April 18
`
`inspections. MDEQ’s Violation Notice states:
`
`The storage structure was overflowing its banks and waste was flowing to the northwest
`into the Red Run Drain. The farm did not notify WRD [(“Water Resources Division”)]
`staff of the overflow, nor that the manure level in the structure was in its emergency
`volume, both violations of your permit. As a result of this discharge, the receiving water
`contained E. coli numbers that exceeded water quality standards, which is a violation of
`PART I, Section A, 1. of your permit.
`
`55.
`
`Kevin Lettinga submitted a discharge report on August 29, 2013 to MDEQ.
`
`According to the discharge report, an estimated 120,000 gallons were discharged on April 18,
`
`2013.
`
` March 8, 2017 Inspection
`
`56.
`
`EPA attempted to conduct an inspection of the Walnutdale Facility on March 8,
`
`2017. Although not required by statute, as a courtesy, the Department of Justice provided
`
`advance notice of the inspection to Defendants’ attorney.
`
`57. When EPA personnel arrived at the Facility, they were refused access by Aubrey
`
`VanLaan, Kevin Lettinga’s daughter.
`
`
`
`April 4, 2017 Inspection
`
`58.
`
`EPA, accompanied by an attorney from the Department of Justice and
`
`Defendants’ counsel, conducted an inspection of the Walnutdale Facility on April 4, 2017.
`
`59.
`
`During this inspection, EPA conducted a walk-through of the Facility, reviewed
`
`records on-site, and requested additional records for later review.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 30
`
`60.
`
`During the inspection, EPA observed a number of violations of the 2015 Permit
`
`conditions, including inadequate depth gauge markers on waste storage devices and numerous
`
`violations related to the integrity of the Facility’s waste storage devices.
`
`61.
`
`After the inspection, EPA continued its review of the Facility’s records. This
`
`records review revealed a number of recordkeeping deficiencies, including but not limited to
`
`failing to retain a Land Application Log for 2015 and failing to have a nutrient analysis of its
`
`CAFO waste for 2016. The records review also indicated that the nutrient analysis for 2015 was
`
`not used to calculate the nutrient rates land applied in 2015 or 2016 and that Defendants land
`
`applied in excess of the maximum application rates, as described in greater detail in the Counts
`
`below.
`
`
`
`The 2004 Consent Decree
`
`62. Many of the permit violations observed during the 2013 and 2017 inspections are
`
`also violations of the 2004 Consent Decree.
`
`FAILURE TO MEET PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTHORIZED
`DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`
`
`63.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 62 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference.
`
`64.
`
`The 2010 Permit defines discharge as “the addition of any waste, waste effluent,
`
`wastewater, pollutant, or any combination thereof to any surface water of the state.” 2010 Permit
`
`Part II.A.
`
`65. Mich. Comp. Laws. § 324.3101(aa) defines waters of the state as “groundwaters,
`
`lakes, rivers, and streams and all other watercourses and waters, including the Great Lakes,
`
`within the jurisdiction of this state.”
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 30
`
`66.
`
`The 2010 Permit authorizes a discharge only where certain conditions are met and
`
`where the discharge does not cause or contribute to an exceedance of Michigan’s Water Quality
`
`Standards. The allowed discharges are:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`2)
`
`CAFO waste in the overflow from the storage structures for cattle .
`. . when all of the following conditions are met:
`1)
`These structures are properly designed, constructed,
`operated, and maintained.
`Precipitation events cause an overflow of the storage
`structures to occur.
`The production area is operated in accordance with the
`requirements of this permit.
`Precipitation caused runoff from land application areas and areas
`listed in Part I.A.4.b.8 [related to Non-Production Area Storm
`Water Management] that are managed in accordance with the
`NMP.
`
`3)
`
`
`
`2010 Permit, Part I.A.1.
`
`67.
`
`The 2010 Permit defines “CAFO Waste” as CAFO process wastewater, manure,
`
`production area waste, effluents from the property and successfully operated treatment system or
`
`any combination thereof. 2010 Permit Part II.A.
`
`68.
`
`The 2010 Permit defines “CAFO Process Wastewater” as “water directly or
`
`indirectly used in the operation of a CAFO for” (1) “[s]pillage or overflow from animal or
`
`poultry watering systems” (2) “[w]ashing, cleaning or flushing pens, barns, manure pits or other
`
`AFO facilities” (3) “[d]irect contact swimming, washing, or spray cooling of animals” (4)
`
`“[d]ust control” and (5) “[a]ny water which comes into contact with, or is a constituent of any
`
`raw materials, products, or byproducts, including manure, litter, feed, milk, eggs or bedding.”
`
`69.
`
`On April 8, 2013, Defendants discharged CAFO Process Wastewater from the
`
`Feed Storage Area of the Facility. The process wastewater bypassed the designed wastewater
`
`collection system and flowed to Red Run Drain, a surface water of the state of Michigan.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 30
`
`70.
`
`On April 18, 2013, Defendants discharged an estimated 120,000 gallons of
`
`production area manure and CAFO Process Wastewater from the Catch Basin Waste Storage
`
`Structure at the Facility to Red Run Drain.
`
`71.
`
`The April 8, 2013 discharge was a discharge of CAFO Waste and was not
`
`authorized by the NPDES Permit, in violation of Part I.A.1 and Part I.A.3 of the 2010 Permit.
`
`72.
`
`The April 18, 2013 discharge was a discharge of CAFO Waste and was not
`
`authorized under Part I.A.1. of the 2010 Permit because Defendants failed to properly design,
`
`construct, operate, and/or maintain the Catch Basin Waste Storage Structure, in violation of Part
`
`I.A.1.a.1 and Part I.A.3. of the 2010 Permit.
`
`73.
`
`The April 8, 2013 discharge violated Part I.A.3 of the 2010 Permit, which
`
`prohibits discharges not authorized by the permit.
`
`74.
`
`The April 18, 2013 discharge violated Part I.A.3 of the 2010 Permit, which
`
`prohibits discharges not authorized by the permit.
`
`75.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, unless
`
`restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to violate the terms of its NPDES permit in the
`
`manner described in this Count.
`
`76.
`
`As a result of the above-listed violations, pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the
`
`CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), (d), Defendants are liable for injunctive relief and the assessment of
`
`civil penalties up to the statutory maximum set forth in Paragraph 24.
`
`COUNT TWO
`
`FAILURE TO REPORT DISCHARGE
`
`
`
`77.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 62 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 30
`
`78.
`
`The 2010 Permit requires that “[a]ll instances of discharge or noncompliance shall
`
`be reported as follows:
`
`a.
`
`
`b.
`
`6-hour reporting – Any discharge shall be reported, verbally, as
`soon as practicable but no later than 6 hours from the time the
`permittee becomes aware of the discharge. A written report shall
`also be provided within five (5) days.
`
`other reporting – The permittee shall report, in writing, all other
`instances of noncompliance not described in a. above at the time
`monitoring reports are submitted; or, in the case of retained self-
`monitoring or inspection results or records, within five (5) days
`from the time the permittee becomes aware of the noncompliance.”
`
`2010 Permit, Part II.C.6.
`
`79.
`
`On April 18, 2013, Defendants discharged an estimated 120,000 gallons of
`
`manure and process wastewater in violation of Part I.A.1 the 2010 Permit.
`
`80.
`
`Defendants did not report this discharge to MDEQ within six hours of becoming
`
`aware of the discharge, in violation of Part II, Section C(6) of the 2010 Permit.
`
`81.
`
`Only after a citizen complaint, an investigation by MDEQ, and a violation notice
`
`issued by MDEQ, did Kevin Lettinga report the discharge, on August 29, 2013.
`
`82.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, unless
`
`restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to violate the terms of its NPDES permit in the
`
`manner described in this Count.
`
`83.
`
`As a result of the above-listed violations, pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the
`
`CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), (d), Defendants are liable for injunctive relief and the assessment of
`
`civil penalties up to the statutory maximum set forth in Paragraph 24.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.15 Page 15 of 30
`
`FAILURES TO REPORT EMERGENCY VOLUME LEVEL IN WASTE STORAGE
`DEVICE
`
`COUNT THREE
`
`
`
`84.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 62 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference.
`
`85.
`
`The 2010 Permit requires: “In the event that the level of CAFO waste in the
`
`storage structure rises above the maximum operational volume level and enters the emergency
`
`volume level, [MDEQ] shall be notified.” 2010 Permit, Part I.A.4.a.4)a).
`
`86.
`
`On April 8, 2013, EPA observed that the level of waste in the Catch Basin Waste
`
`Storage Structure had entered the freeboard volume level.
`
`87.
`
`Defendants did not notify MDEQ that the level of CAFO waste in the structure
`
`had risen above the maximum operational volume level and had entered, and in fact exceeded,
`
`the structure’s emergency volume level, in violation of Part I.A.4.a.4)a) of the 2010 Permit.
`
`88.
`
`On April 8, 2013, EPA observed that the level of waste in the temporary manure
`
`storage pit adjacent to hoop barn B7 had entered the freeboard volume level.
`
`89.
`
`Defendants did not notify MDEQ that the level of CAFO waste in the structure
`
`had risen above the maximum operational volume level, and had entered and even exceeded the
`
`structure’s emergency volume level, in violation of Part I.A.4.a.4)a) of the 2010 Permit.
`
`90.
`
`On April 18, 2013, MDEQ visited the Facility in response to a discharge from the
`
`Catch Basin Waste Storage Structure.
`
`91.
`
`Defendants had not notified MDEQ that the level of CAFO waste in the structure
`
`had again risen above the maximum operational volume level and entered the emergency volume
`
`level, in violation of Part I.A.4.a.4)a) of the 2010 Permit.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.16 Page 16 of 30
`
`92.
`
`A combination of EPA and MDEQ inspections and reports by the Facility indicate
`
`that at numerous points between March 31, 2013 and April 29, 2013, the Catch Basin Waste
`
`Storage Structure at the Facility had less than 12 inches of capacity remaining.
`
`93.
`
`Having less than 12 inches of capacity remaining in the Catch Basin Waste
`
`Storage Structure means that the level of waste in the structure had risen above the maximum
`
`operational volume level, and had entered and even exceeded the emergency volume level.
`
`94.
`
`Defendants failed to notify MDEQ, in violation of Part I.A.4.a.4)a) of the 2010
`
`Permit.
`
`95.
`
`Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, unless
`
`restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to violate the terms of its NPDES permit in the
`
`manner described in this Count.
`
`96.
`
`As a result of the above-listed violations, pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the
`
`CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), (d), Defendants are liable for injunctive relief and the assessment of
`
`civil penalties up to the statutory maximum set forth in Paragraph 24.
`
`COUNT FOUR
`
`FAILURE TO MAINTAIN DEPTH GAUGES
`
`
`
`97.
`
`Paragraphs 1 through 62 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference.
`
`98.
`
`The 2010 Permit requires that “CAFO waste storage structures shall include an
`
`easily visible, clearly marked depth gauge. Clear, major divisions shall be marked to delineate
`
`each of the three volumes specified above in Part I.A.4.a.1) . . . Any depth gauges that are
`
`destroyed or missing must be replaced immediately.” 2010 Permit, Part I.A.4.a.2)a).
`
`99.
`
`The 2015 Permit requires that “CAFO waste storage structures shall include an
`
`easily visible, clearly marked depth gauge. Clear, major divisions shall be marked to delineate
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.17 Page 17 of 30
`
`the operational, emergency, and freeboard volumes as specified above in Part I.B.1.a . . . Any
`
`depth gauges that are destroyed or missing must be replaced immediately.” Part I.B.1.b.1).
`
`100. On April 8, 2013, EPA observed that the Facility’s Catch Basin Waste Storage
`
`Structure did not contain a depth gauge, in violation of Part I.B.1.b.1) of the 2015 Permit and
`
`Part I.A.4.a.2)a) of the 2010 Permit.
`
`101. On April 8, 2013, EPA also observed that the depth gauge at the East Manure
`
`Storage Facility did not have the levels clearly marked for the operational, emergency, and
`
`freeboard volume, in violation of Part I.B.1.b.1) of the 2015 Permit and Part I.A.4.a.2)a) of the
`
`2010 Permit.
`
`102. On April 4, 2017, EPA observed that the Catch Basin Waste Storage Structure
`
`still did not contain an adequate depth gauge. The depth gauge that was present marked only the
`
`freeboard level, and did not mark the operational or emergency level, in violation of Part
`
`I.B.1.b.1) of the 2015 Permit.
`
`103. On April 4, 2017, EPA observed that the East Manure Storage Facility (identified
`
`as Pit 8 in the 2017 inspection report) also still did not contain an adequate depth gauge. A
`
`marker was present, but Facility personnel did not know what level the marker represented. No
`
`other marker was present that would reflect the remaining unused capacity of the storage
`
`device—i.e., the operational, emergency, and freeboard volume—in violation of Part I.B.1.b.1)
`
`of the 2015 Permit.
`
`104. Subject to a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, unless
`
`restrained by this Court, Defendants will continue to violate the terms of its NPDES permit in the
`
`manner described in this Count.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.18 Page 18 of 30
`
`105. As a result of the above-listed violations, pursuant to Section 309(b) and (d) of the
`
`CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), (d), Defendants are liable for injunctive relief and the assessment of
`
`civil penalties up to the statutory maximum set forth in Paragraph 22.
`
`FAILURE TO MAINTAIN INTEGRITY OF WASTE STORAGE STRUCTURES
`
`COUNT FIVE
`
`
`
`106. Paragraphs 1 through 62 are re-alleged and incorporated by reference.
`
`107. The 2010 Permit requires: “The integrity of the CAFO waste storage structure
`
`liner shall be protected. Liner damages shall be corrected immediately and steps taken to prevent
`
`future occurrences.” 2010 Permit, Part I.A.4.a.4)e).
`
`108. The 2015 Permit, Part I.B.1.d.5), contains identical language.
`
`109. The 2015 Permit also requires that “[w]oody vegetation shall be removed
`
`promptly from waste storage berms and other areas where roots may penetrate or disturb waste
`
`storage facility liners or waste treatment facilities.” 2015 Permit, Part I.B.1.d.3).
`
`110. The 2010 Permit requires that “[v]egetation shall be maintained at a height that
`
`stabilizes earthen CAFO waste storage structures, provides for adequate visual inspection of the
`
`storage structures, and protects the integrity of the storage structure liners. The vegetation shall
`
`have sufficient density to prevent erosion.” 2010 Permit, Part I.A.4.a.4)c). The 2015 Permit, Part
`
`I.B.1.d.3), contains identical language.
`
`111. The 2015 Permit requires that “[d]ike damage caused by erosion, slumping, or
`
`animal burrowing shall be corrected immediately and steps taken to prevent occurrences in the
`
`future.” 2015 Permit, Part I.B.1.d.4).
`
`112. On April 8, 2013, EPA observed large bubbles in the liner of the Catch Basin
`
`Waste Storage Structure, in violation of Part I.A.4.a.4)e) of the 2010 Permit.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00397 ECF No. 1 filed 05/07/20 PageID.19 Page 19 of 30
`
`113. The liner bubbles, which are caused by gas becoming trapped under the liner,
`
`significantly decrease the amount of available space in the structure.
`
`114. On April 8, 2013, EPA observed that there were non-vegetated animal walkways
`
`on the berms of the Catch Basin Waste Storage Structure, in violation of the requirements in
`
`Part I.A.4.a.4)c) of the 2010 Permit to maintain vegetation around earthen waste storage
`
`structures.
`
`115. On April 4, 2017, EPA observed woody vegetation that had punctured the liner of
`
`the East Manure Storage Facility (Pit 8), in violation of Parts I.B.1.d.5) and I.B.1.d.3) of the
`
`2015 Permit.
`
`116. On April 4, 2017, EPA observed that the liner of the East Manure Storage Facility
`
`(Pit 8) was not present in some sections, in violation of Part I.B.1.d.5) of the 2015 Permit.
`
`117. On April 4, 2017, EPA observed that the Catch Basin Waste Storage Structure
`
`lacked established vegetation along portions of the west embankment,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket