`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
`
`__________________________________________
`THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`and
`
`THE STATE OF NEBRASKA,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`Defendant.
`__________________________________________)
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`8:20-cv-269
`
`v.
`
`HENNINGSEN FOODS, INC.,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The United States of America, by the authority of the Attorney General of the United
`
`States and through the undersigned attorneys, acting at the request of the Administrator of the
`
`United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), and the Attorney General of Nebraska,
`
`acting at the request of the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy (“NDEE”), file this
`
`Complaint and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action against Defendant Henningsen Foods, Inc. (“HFI”) under
`
`Sections 309(b) and (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the
`
`“Clean Water Act” and hereinafter referred to as the “CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b), (d).
`
`Plaintiffs seek civil penalties and injunctive relief against Defendant for violating Section 307 of
`
`the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317, and the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat.
`
`§ 81-1501 to 81-1532, by causing or contributing to David City’s violations of its National
`
`Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit, violating the National Pretreatment
`
`1
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 2 of 22 - Page ID # 2
`
`Standards at 40 C.F.R. Part 403, and violating the requirements of Defendant’s Nebraska
`
`Pretreatment Program (“NPP”) permit.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant owns and operates an egg-processing plant located at 325 Third Street,
`
`David City, Nebraska (the “Facility”). The violations alleged in the complaint occur when
`
`Defendant’s Facility discharges wastewater into the David City publicly owned treatment works
`
`(“POTW”).
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action under 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1319(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Nebraska under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and 1395(a) because it is the judicial district in which the alleged violations
`
`occurred and where HFI conducts business.
`
`5.
`
`Authority to bring this action is vested in the United States Department of Justice
`
`under 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(b) and 1366 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 516 and 519.
`
`6.
`
`The United States provided notice of the commencement of this action to the
`
`State of Nebraska under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b).
`
`7.
`
`The State of Nebraska has the authority to bring this action at the request of
`
`NDEE under the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat § 81-1501 to 81-1532.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff the United States of America is acting at the request of the EPA
`
`Administrator. Plaintiff the State of Nebraska is acting at the request of NDEE. The Nebraska
`
`Environmental Protection Act gives NDEE the power and duty to act as the state water pollution
`
`control agency for all purposes of the CWA. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1504(4). Before July 1, 2019,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 3 of 22 - Page ID # 3
`
`NDEE was named the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality (“NDEQ”). Under 2019
`
`Neb. Laws LB 302, NDEQ was renamed NDEE effective July 1, 2019.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant HFI is a New York corporation formed in 1962 with a principal office
`
`address at 14334 Industrial Road, Omaha, Nebraska, 68144.
`
`10.
`
`HFI is a “person” as defined by 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5) and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-
`
`1502(10).
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`11.
`
`The objective of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
`
`biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a).
`
`12.
`
`The CWA prohibits the owner or operator of any source that introduces pollutants
`
`into a POTW from operating that source in violation of any effluent standard or prohibition or
`
`pretreatment standard promulgated under Section 307 of the Act. 33 U.S.C § 1317(b) & (d).
`
`13.
`
` “Pollutants” include “chemical wastes, biological materials, . . . and industrial . . .
`
`waste discharged into water.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6).
`
`14.
`
`“Water pollution” is “the manmade or man-induced alteration of the chemical,
`
`physical, biological, or radiological integrity of water.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1502(20).
`
`15.
`
`Section 307 of the CWA establishes a statutory scheme for sources of pollutants
`
`that do not directly discharge to navigable waters, but, rather, introduce pollutants into POTWs,
`
`which in turn may discharge pollutants to navigable waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1317.
`
`16.
`
`Section 502(7) of the CWA defines “navigable waters” as “the waters of the
`
`United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). In turn, "waters of the United States" has been defined to
`
`include, inter alia, all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be
`
`susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce; and tributaries to such waters. 40 C.F.R. §
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 4 of 22 - Page ID # 4
`
`122.2 (1993) and 85 Fed. Reg. 22250, 22338 (The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition
`
`of “Waters of the United States,” April 21, 2020).
`
`17.
`
`The Nebraska Environmental Protection Action defines “waters of the state” as
`
`“all waters within the jurisdiction of this state, including all streams, lakes, ponds, impounding
`
`reservoirs, marshes, wetlands, watercourses, waterways, wells, springs, irrigation systems,
`
`drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural
`
`or artificial, public or private, situated wholly or partly within or bordering upon the state.” Neb.
`
`Rev. Stat. § 81-1502(21).
`
`18.
`
`Section 307(b) of the CWA directs EPA, among other things, to promulgate
`
`pretreatment standards “to prevent the discharge of any pollutant through treatment works . . .
`
`which are publicly owned, which pollutant interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is
`
`incompatible with such works.” 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b).
`
`19.
`
`Under Section 307(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b), EPA promulgated
`
`National Pretreatment Standards, codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 403. Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119,
`
`Ch. 26 § 010 adopts and incorporates by reference the requirements of 40 C.F.R Part 403.
`
`20.
`
`“National Pretreatment Standard,” “Pretreatment Standard,” and “Standard” mean
`
`“any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the EPA in accordance
`
`with section 307(b) and (c) of the Act, which applies to Industrial Users.” 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(l);
`
`Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 072.
`
`21.
`
` “Pretreatment” means “the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination
`
`of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in
`
`lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such pollutants into a POTW. The reduction or
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 5 of 22 - Page ID # 5
`
`alteration may be obtained by physical, chemical or biological processes, process changes or by
`
`other means . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(s); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 089.
`
`22.
`
`The National Pretreatment Standards establish general and specific prohibitions
`
`that “apply to each User introducing pollutants into a POTW whether or not the User is subject
`
`to other National Pretreatment Standards or any national, State, or local Pretreatment
`
`Requirements.” 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)-(b).
`
`23.
`
`Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003 likewise establishes general and
`
`specific State prohibitions that “apply to each user introducing pollutants into a POTW whether
`
`or not the user is subject to other national pretreatment standards.”
`
`24.
`
`“User” and “Industrial User” mean “a source of Indirect Discharge.” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 403.3(j); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 054.
`
`25.
`
`“Indirect Discharge” and “Discharge” mean “the introduction of pollutants into a
`
`POTW from any non-domestic source regulated under section 307(b), (c) or (d) of the Act.” 40
`
`C.F.R. § 403.3(i).
`
`26.
`
`“Indirect discharger” means “a non-domestic discharger introducing pollutants to
`
`a publicly owned treatment works.” Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 053.
`
`27.
`
` “POTW” means “a treatment works as defined by section 212 of the [CWA],
`
`which is owned by a State or a municipality . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(q); Neb. Admin. Code Tit.
`
`119, Ch. 1 § 093.
`
`28.
`
`Section 212(2)(A) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1292(2)(A), defines “treatment
`
`works,” to include “any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and
`
`reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature.”
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 6 of 22 - Page ID # 6
`
`29.
`
`Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 094 defines “a “Publicly Owned Treatment
`
`Works (POTW) Treatment Plant” as “that portion of the POTW which is designed to provide
`
`treatment (including recycling and reclamation) of municipal sewage and industrial waste.”
`
`30.
`
`Under the general prohibitions in the National Pretreatment Standards and Neb.
`
`Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003, “a User may not introduce into a POTW any pollutant(s)
`
`which cause Pass Through or Interference.” 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1); Neb. Admin. Code Tit.
`
`119, Ch. 26 § 003.01.
`
`31.
`
`“Pass Through” means “a Discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the
`
`United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or
`
`discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the POTW’s
`
`NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation).” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 403.3(p); see also Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 082 (defining “Pass Through” in the
`
`same way with respect to “waters of the state”).
`
`32.
`
` “Interference” means “a Discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a
`
`discharge or discharges from other sources, both: (1) Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment
`
`processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and (2) Therefore is a cause of a
`
`violation of any requirement of the POTW’s NPDES permit (including an increase in the
`
`magnitude or duration of a violation) . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(k); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119,
`
`Ch. 1 § 056.
`
`33.
`
`Under the specific prohibitions in the National Pretreatment Standards and Neb.
`
`Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003, a User shall not introduce into a POTW “[p]ollutants which
`
`will cause corrosive structural damage to a POTW, but in no case Discharges with a pH lower
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 7 of 22 - Page ID # 7
`
`than 5.0, unless the works is specifically designed to accommodate such Discharges.” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 403.5(b)(2); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003.02B.
`
`34.
`
`Under the specific prohibitions in the National Pretreatment Standards and Neb.
`
`Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003, a User also shall not introduce into a POTW “[a]ny
`
`pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.) released in a Discharge at a flow
`
`rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause Interference with the POTW.” 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 403.5(b)(4); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003.02D.
`
`35.
`
`The National Pretreatment Standards, 40 C.F.R. § 403.12(f), and Neb. Admin.
`
`Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 004.06B, require Industrial Users to notify the POTW and NDEE
`
`immediately of all “discharges that could cause problems to the POTW, including any slug
`
`loadings,” as defined by § 403.5(b).
`
`36.
`
`In addition to the general and specific prohibitions in the National Pretreatment
`
`Standards at 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)-(b) and in Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003, Industrial
`
`Users are subject to “local limits” established by a POTW, or by a state with an approved
`
`Pretreatment Program, to ensure the POTW’s compliance with the terms of its NPDES permit.
`
`See 40 C.F.R. §§ 403.5(c), 403.8(a), 403.10(e).
`
`37.
`
`Upon receiving authorization and approval under Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1342(b), a state may establish its own Pretreatment Program and thereby assume
`
`responsibility for implementing the POTW Pretreatment Program requirements set forth in 40
`
`C.F.R. § 403.8(f). See 40 C.F.R. § 403.10(e).
`
`38.
`
`In September 1984, EPA approved the State of Nebraska’s Pretreatment Program.
`
`Modification to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Memorandum of
`
`Agreement Between the State of Nebraska and EPA, Region VII (Sept. 7, 1984).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 8 of 22 - Page ID # 8
`
`39.
`
`Section 307(d) of the CWA makes it unlawful to operate a source in violation of
`
`any pretreatment standards promulgated under Section 307: “After the effective date of any
`
`effluent standard or prohibition or pretreatment standard promulgated under this section, it shall
`
`be unlawful for any owner or operator of any source to operate any source in violation of any
`
`such effluent standard or prohibition or pretreatment standard.” 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d).
`
`40.
`
`Local limits established by a POTW, or by a state with an approved Pretreatment
`
`Program, are considered to be “Pretreatment Standards” for the purposes of Section 307(d) of the
`
`CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d). 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(d).
`
`41.
`
`The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act makes it unlawful for any person to
`
`violate any water quality or effluent standards or limitations; any permit or license condition or
`
`limitation; or any monitoring, reporting, or record-keeping requirements contained in, issued, or
`
`entered into under the Act or the rules or regulations adopted and promulgated under the Act.
`
`Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1508.02(1)(b).
`
`42.
`
`The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act prohibits “any false statement,
`
`representation or certification . . . in any document required to be filed” by the Act or the rules or
`
`regulations adopted and promulgated under the Act. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1508.02(1)(c).
`
`43.
`
`The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act also makes it unlawful to “[i]ncrease
`
`in volume or strength any waste in excess of permitted discharges specified under any existing
`
`permit.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1506(2)(c).
`
`44.
`
`In states authorized to implement their own Pretreatment Programs, EPA retains
`
`authority, concurrent with the state, to enforce the state Pretreatment Program permits. 33
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1319, 1342(i).
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 9 of 22 - Page ID # 9
`
`45.
`
`EPA may commence a civil action for appropriate relief whenever it finds that a
`
`source has discharged pollutants to a POTW in violation of applicable pretreatment standards.
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1319(b).
`
`46.
`
`Under Sections 309(b) and (d) of the CWA, any owner or operator of a source
`
`who operates that source in violation of any effluent standard or prohibition or pretreatment
`
`standard promulgated under Section 307 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317, is liable for injunctive
`
`relief and civil penalties, not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation. 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b),
`
`(d). Under 40 C.F.R. Part 19, Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, as amended,
`
`the civil penalty amount was raised to a maximum of $37,500 per day for each violation
`
`occurring between December 6, 2013 and November 2, 2015, and to a maximum of $55,800 per
`
`day for each violation occurring after November 2, 2015, where penalties are assessed on or after
`
`January 13, 2020.
`
`47.
`
`Violations of the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act are subject to civil
`
`penalties of $10,000 per violation, with each day of a continuing violation constituting a separate
`
`violation. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1508.02(2).
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`48.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City POTW received and treated
`
`wastewater from domestic and industrial sources, including Defendant’s Facility.
`
`49.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City POTW included a wastewater
`
`treatment plant, which consisted of a sewage collection system, a two-cell sequencing batch
`
`reactor, and a five-cell controlled discharge lagoon system, within the meaning of 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 403.3(r) and Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 094.
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 10 of 22 - Page ID # 10
`
`50.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City POTW was a “POTW” within
`
`the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(q) and Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 § 093, and a
`
`“treatment works” within the meaning of Section 212 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1292(2)(A).
`
`51.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City POTW was not specifically
`
`designed to accommodate discharges with a pH less than 5.0 standard units.
`
`52.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City POTW discharged wastewater
`
`into Keysor Creek through an outfall at the POTW.
`
`53.
`
`Keysor Creek is a tributary, within the meaning of the Act, to the North Fork Big
`
`Blue River.
`
`54.
`
`Keysor Creek has continuous flow at least nine months of the year, including
`
`months in each season of the calendar year, that are not in direct response to precipitation, and is
`
`therefore intermittent or perennial within the meaning of the Act.
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Keysor Creek has a bed, bank, and ordinary high water mark.
`
`The North Fork Big Blue River is a perennial stream with a bed, bank, and
`
`ordinary high water mark that contributes continuous flow to the Big Blue River, and is a
`
`tributary within the meaning of the Act.
`
`57.
`
`The Big Blue River is used commercially and recreationally for boating, among
`
`other uses, and is used in, or susceptible for use in, interstate commerce.
`
`58.
`
`Keysor Creek, the North Fork of the Blue River, and the Big Blue River are each
`
`waters of the United States within the meaning of the Act..
`
`59.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the wastewater that the David City POTW
`
`discharged to Keysor Creek contained “pollutants,” as defined by Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 11 of 22 - Page ID # 11
`
`U.S.C. § 1362(6), including biochemical oxygen demand (“BOD”), total suspended solids
`
`(“TSS”), and/or ammonia, among other pollutants.
`
`60.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City POTW “discharged pollutants”
`
`through a “point source” to “navigable waters” as those terms are defined by Sections 502(12),
`
`(14), and (7) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12), (14), and (7), and discharged pollutants through
`
`a “point source” to “waters of the state” as defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1502(21)-(22).
`
`61.
`
`On or about July 1, 2010, NDEE issued NPDES permit number NE0021199 to
`
`the David City POTW, which authorizes the discharge of pollutants from an outfall at the David
`
`City POTW to Keysor Creek, subject to the conditions and effluent limitations set forth in the
`
`permit. NDEE administratively extended this permit in September 2015.
`
`62.
`
`On or about April 1, 2016, NDEE issued a new NPDES permit to the David City
`
`POTW with the same permit number. On or about October 24, 2017, NDEE modified David
`
`City’s NPDES permit, which remains in effect.
`
`63.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City NPDES permit contained
`
`discharge limits and monitoring requirements, including effluent limitations on BOD, TSS, and
`
`ammonia, among other pollutants.
`
`64.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the David City NPDES permit required the
`
`City to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (“DMRs”) to NDEE setting forth monitoring
`
`results obtained from discharge sampling at the POTW during each quarterly reporting period.
`
`65.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s Facility introduced wastewater
`
`from two outfalls at its Facility into the David City POTW.
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 12 of 22 - Page ID # 12
`
`66.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, the Facility’s wastewater contained
`
`“pollutants,” as defined by Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), including, but not
`
`limited to, BOD, TSS, Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (“TKN”), variable pH, and oil and grease.
`
`67.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant “discharged” pollutants into the
`
`David City POTW within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(i).
`
`68.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was an “indirect discharger” within
`
`the meaning of Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch.1 § 053.
`
`69.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was an “Industrial User” of the
`
`David City POTW within the meaning of 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(j) and Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119,
`
`Ch. 1 § 054.
`
`70.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant was subject to the CWA, the
`
`Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, the general and specific prohibitions in the National
`
`Pretreatment Standards, and the general and specific State prohibitions in Neb. Admin. Code Tit.
`
`119, Ch. 26 § 003. See 40 C.F.R. § 403.1.
`
`71.
`
`On or about October 1, 2013, NDEE issued Defendant NPP permit number
`
`NE0133108, which authorizes the discharge of pollutants from Defendant’s Facility to the David
`
`City POTW, subject to the conditions and effluent standards set forth in the permit.
`
`72.
`
`73.
`
` On or about January 1, 2018, NDEE modified Defendant’s NPP permit.
`
`On or about January 1, 2020, NDEE modified Defendant’s NPP permit, which
`
`remains in effect.
`
`74.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit contained discharge
`
`limits and monitoring requirements for the Facility, including effluent limits for BOD, TSS, and
`
`pH.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 13 of 22 - Page ID # 13
`
`75.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit prohibited the
`
`introduction of pollutants into the POTW that will pass through the treatment works or otherwise
`
`be incompatible with such works.
`
`76.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit prohibited the
`
`introduction of pollutants into the POTW, which will interfere with the operation of the POTW,
`
`including interference with its use or disposal of municipal sludge.
`
`77.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit required Defendant to
`
`submit DMRs to NDEE setting forth monitoring results from discharge sampling at the Facility’s
`
`two outfalls during each quarterly reporting period.
`
`78.
`
`On October 31 through November 3, 2016, EPA performed a Compliance
`
`Sampling Inspection at the David City POTW and Defendant’s Facility (the “2016 EPA
`
`Inspection”). As part of the 2016 EPA Inspection, EPA reviewed documents, including copies
`
`of David City’s and Defendant’s DMRs and other monitoring data collected for the time period
`
`from January 2014 to December 2016; observed the David City POTW, Defendant’s Facility,
`
`and sampling stations; and collected effluent samples.
`
`79.
`
`On or about April 7, 2017, EPA issued requests for information from David City
`
`and Defendant under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1318, requiring the submittal of
`
`information regarding, among other things, DMRs, monitoring data, communications between
`
`David City and Defendant, and plans to address compliance with David City’s NPDES permit
`
`and Defendant’s NPP permit.
`
`80.
`
`On or about April 27, 2017, David City submitted its response to the information
`
`request letter.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 14 of 22 - Page ID # 14
`
`81.
`
`On or about May 5, 2017, Defendant submitted its response to the information
`
`request letter.
`
`82.
`
`On or about April 5, 2018, EPA issued a second request for information from
`
`David City under Section 308 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1318, requesting additional monitoring
`
`data for the wastewater discharged from Defendant’s Facility to the David City POTW, collected
`
`by either David City or Defendant.
`
`83.
`
`On or about April 6, 2018, David City submitted its response to the second
`
`information request letter.
`
`84.
`
`EPA and NDEE have reviewed information from the 2016 EPA Inspection, David
`
`City’s responses to the two information request letters that it received, Defendant’s response to
`
`the information request letter that it received, information that David City and Defendant
`
`submitted to NDEE pursuant to their respective permits, correspondence between NDEE and
`
`David City regarding the City’s compliance with its NPDES permit, and correspondence
`
`between NDEE and Defendant regarding Defendant’s compliance with its NPP permit
`
`(collectively the “Compliance Records”).
`
`85.
`
`EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that the David
`
`City POTW violated its NPDES permit limits on numerous occasions between January 2014 and
`
`the present, and that corresponding discharges from Defendant’s Facility to the POTW caused or
`
`contributed to many of the City’s violations.
`
`86.
`
`Upon information and belief, subject to a reasonable opportunity for further
`
`investigation and discovery, on numerous occasions between January 2014 and the present,
`
`Defendant discharged BOD into the David City POTW, which exited the POTW into waters of
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 15 of 22 - Page ID # 15
`
`the United States in quantities or concentrations, which, caused or contributed to David City’s
`
`violation of the effluent limitation for BOD in the City’s NPDES permit.
`
`87.
`
`On numerous occasions between January 2014 and the present, Defendant
`
`discharged BOD, TSS, TKN, variable pH, and/or oil and grease into the David City POTW,
`
`which inhibited and/or disrupted the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge
`
`processes, use or disposal, and therefore, caused or contributed to David City’s recurring
`
`violations of the effluent limitations for ammonia and TSS in the City’s NPDES permit.
`
`88.
`
`EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that Defendant’s
`
`Facility discharged wastewater into the David City POTW with oxygen demanding pollutants at
`
`a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration that caused Interference with the David City POTW on
`
`numerous occasions between January 2014 and the present.
`
`89.
`
`Each such incident alleged in paragraphs 86 through 88 constitutes Pass Through
`
`or Interference caused or contributed to by the Facility’s discharge of pollutants to the POTW.
`
`See 40 C.F.R. § 403.3(k), (p); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 1 §§ 056, 082.
`
`90.
`
`From October 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017, Defendant’s NPP permit
`
`established a combined daily maximum discharge limit for BOD of 2,781 kg/day and a
`
`combined daily maximum discharge limit for TSS of 609 kg/day from the two outfalls at the
`
`Facility.
`
`91.
`
`On or about January 1, 2018, NDEE modified Defendant’s NPP permit by
`
`changing the units of the combined daily maximum discharge limits for BOD and TSS from
`
`kg/day to lbs/day.
`
`92.
`
`From January 1, 2018 until December 31, 2019, Defendant’s NPP permit
`
`established a combined daily maximum discharge limit for BOD of 2,781 lbs/day and a
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 16 of 22 - Page ID # 16
`
`combined daily maximum discharge limit for TSS of 609 lbs/day from the two outfalls at the
`
`Facility.
`
`93.
`
`From January 1, 2020 to the present, Defendant’s NPP permit established a
`
`maximum monthly average discharge limit for BOD of 2,804 lbs/day and a maximum monthly
`
`discharge limit for TSS of 700 lbs/day from the combined single outfall at the Facility.
`
`94.
`
`EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that the
`
`discharge of wastewater from Defendant’s Facility to the David City POTW exceeded the daily
`
`maximum discharge limit for BOD in Defendant’s NPP permit on numerous occasions between
`
`January 2014 and the present.
`
`95.
`
`EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that the
`
`discharge of wastewater from Defendant’s Facility to the David City POTW exceeded the daily
`
`maximum discharge limit for TSS in Defendant’s NPP permit on numerous occasions between
`
`January 2014 and the present.
`
`96.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit established a lower
`
`discharge limit for pH of 5.0 standard units for the Facility’s discharge at each outfall.
`
`97.
`
`EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that Defendant’s
`
`Facility introduced wastewater with a pH of less than 5.0 standard units into the David City
`
`POTW on several occasions between January 2014 and the present.
`
`98.
`
`At all times relevant to this action, 40 C.F.R. § 122.22; Neb. Admin. Code Tit.
`
`119, Ch. 13 § 005; and Defendant’s NPP permit required Defendant to certify that all
`
`information submitted to NDEE through its DMRs was “true, accurate, and complete.”
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 17 of 22 - Page ID # 17
`
`99.
`
`EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that Defendant
`
`submitted inaccurate and/or incomplete information to NDEE in its certified DMRs on numerous
`
`occasions between January 2014 and the present.
`
`100. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit required Defendant to
`
`submit DMRs to NDEE on a quarterly basis.
`
`101. EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that Defendant
`
`repeatedly failed to timely submit DMRs to NDEE between January 2014 and the present, only
`
`submitting them after Defendant received a Notice of Violation from NDEE.
`
`102. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant’s NPP permit required Defendant to
`
`notify the David City POTW of slug loadings immediately.
`
`103. EPA’s and NDEE’s review of the Compliance Records revealed that Defendant
`
`failed to notify the David City POTW of slug loadings immediately on at least one occasion
`
`between January 2014 and the present.
`
`
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Pass Through and Interference Violations)
`
`104. The allegations of the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.
`
`105. Upon information and belief, subject to a reasonable opportunity for further
`
`investigation and discovery, on numerous occasions between January 2014 and the present,
`
`Defendant violated 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003.01; its
`
`NPP permit; Section 307(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d); and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-
`
`1508.02(1), by discharging pollutants to the David City POTW in quantities or concentrations
`
`which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, caused Pass
`
`Through at the David City POTW.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`8:20-cv-00269-BCB-SMB Doc # 1 Filed: 07/07/20 Page 18 of 22 - Page ID # 18
`
`106. On numerous occasions between January 2014 and the present, Defendant
`
`violated 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003.01; its NPP permit;
`
`Section 307(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d); and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1508.02(1), by
`
`discharging pollutants to the David City POTW in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in
`
`conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, caused Interference at the David
`
`City POTW.
`
`107. On numerous occasions between January 2014 and the present, Defendant
`
`violated 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(b)(4); Neb. Admin. Code Tit. 119, Ch. 26 § 003.02D; Section 307(d)
`
`of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1317(d); and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1508.02(1), by discharging
`
`wastewater with oxygen demanding pollutants at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration that
`
`caused Interference with the David City POTW.
`
`108. Under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(b) and (d), Defendant is liable for injunctive relief and
`
`civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day for each violation occurring between December 6, 2013
`
`and November 2, 2015, and up to $55,800 per day for each violation occurring thereafter.
`
`109. Under the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, Defendant is liable for civil
`
`penalties of $10,000 per day for each day of violation. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1508.02(2).
`
`110. Unless enjoined, Defendant’s violations will continue or recur.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`(Pretreatment Effluent Limit Violations)
`
`111. The allegation