throbber
Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 1 of 35
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`
`RIVERKEEPER, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`STATE CONTRACTING CORP. OF NY
`(d/b/a/ CAPITAL INDUSTRIES CORP.); and
`GEORGE MCGUIRE,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`
`
`
`Case No. ________________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL
`PENALTIES
`
`(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
`U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387)
`
`Plaintiff Riverkeeper, Inc., by and through its counsel, hereby alleges:
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil suit brought under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1251–1387, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “the Act”), to
`
`address and abate Defendants’ ongoing and continuous violations of the Act pursuant to the
`
`Act’s citizen suit enforcement provisions at CWA Section 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants discharge polluted stormwater runoff from their vehicle and
`
`equipment maintenance and storage facility located at 555 Saw Mill River Rd., Yonkers, NY
`
`10701 (the “Facility”) into the waters of the United States without authorization, in violation of
`
`CWA Sections 301(a) and 402(p), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(p), and have failed to obtain
`
`coverage under and comply with the conditions of an individual State Pollutant Discharge
`
`Elimination System (“SPDES”) permit or the New York State Department of Environmental
`
`Conservation (“DEC”) SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges
`
`Associated with Industrial Activity, Permit No. GP-0-17-004 (March 1, 2018),
`
`
`
`1
`
`22-6911
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 2 of 35
`
`
`
`https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/msgppermit.pdf (“General Permit”), in violation of
`
`CWA Sections 402(p)(3)(A), and 402(p)(4)(A), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(p)(3)(A), (p)(4)(A), and 40
`
`C.F.R. §§ 122.26(c)(1) and (e)(1).
`
`3.
`
`Stormwater runoff is one of the most significant sources of water pollution in the
`
`nation—comparable to, if not greater than, contamination from industrial and sewage sources.
`
`With every rainfall event, hundreds of millions of gallons of polluted rainwater pour into the
`
`New York Harbor, Long Island Sound, and other receiving waters in this District. The State of
`
`New York has designated as “impaired” more than 7,000 river miles; 319,000 acres of larger
`
`waterbodies; 940 square miles of harbors, bays, and estuaries; 10 miles of coastal shoreline; and
`
`592 miles of Great Lakes shoreline. Under the Clean Water Act, “impaired” means not meeting
`
`water quality standards and/or unable to support beneficial uses, such as fish habitat and water
`
`contact recreation. In many of these waters, state water quality standards for metals, oil and
`
`grease, nutrient enrichment and oxygen depletion, inorganic pollutants, pathogens, taste, color,
`
`odor, and other parameters are consistently exceeded. For the overwhelming majority of water
`
`bodies listed as impaired, stormwater runoff is cited as a primary source of the pollutants causing
`
`the impairment.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants’ stormwater discharge contribute to this endemic stormwater pollution
`
`problem. Defendants engage in industrial activities such as vehicle and equipment storage,
`
`maintenance, and vehicle traffic in and out of the Facility. As precipitation comes into contact
`
`with pollutants generated by these industrial activities, it conveys those pollutants to nearby
`
`surface waters. Contaminated stormwater discharges such as those from the Facility can and
`
`must be controlled to the fullest extent required by law in order to allow these water bodies a
`
`fighting chance to regain their health.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 3 of 35
`
`
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this action pursuant
`
`to CWA Section 505(a)(1) (the citizen suit provision of the CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), and
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 (an action arising under the laws of the United States).
`
`6.
`
`On June 2, 2022, Riverkeeper provided notice of Defendants’ violations of the
`
`Act and of its intention to file suit against Capital Industries, Inc., State Contracting Corp of NY,
`
`and George McGuire to the Defendants; to the Administrator of the United States Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (“EPA”); to the Administrator of EPA Region II; and to the Commissioner of
`
`the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”), as required by the Act
`
`under CWA Section 505(b)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A), and the corresponding regulations
`
`at 40 C.F.R. §§ 135.1 to 135.3. A true and correct copy of Riverkeeper’s notice letter is attached
`
`as Exhibit A, and is incorporated herein by reference.
`
`7.
`
`More than sixty days have passed since the notice letter was served on Defendants
`
`and the state and federal agencies. Riverkeeper has complied with the Act’s notice requirements
`
`under CWA Section 505(b)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1).
`
`8.
`
`Neither the EPA nor the State of New York has commenced or is diligently
`
`prosecuting a civil or criminal action to redress the violations alleged in this complaint. See
`
`CWA § 505(b)(1)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B).
`
`9.
`
`This action is not barred by any prior administrative penalty under CWA
`
`Section 309(g), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).
`
`10.
`
`Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
`
`New York pursuant to CWA Section 505(c)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), and 28 U.S.C.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 4 of 35
`
`
`
`§ 1391(b)(2) because the source of the violations complained of is located, and the acts and
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, within this judicial district.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff RIVERKEEPER, INC. (“Riverkeeper”), is a non-profit corporation,
`
`whose mission is to protect, preserve, and restore the ecological integrity and productivity of the
`
`Hudson River and its ecosystem through enforcement, field work, and community action.
`
`Riverkeeper has approximately 3,800 members in the New York region, many of whom use and
`
`enjoy the Hudson River and New York Harbor and its tributaries—including Saw Mill River,
`
`which is polluted by industrial stormwater runoff from the Defendants’ vehicle equipment
`
`maintenance and storage facility.
`
`12.
`
`Riverkeeper’s members use and enjoy the waters which Defendants have
`
`unlawfully polluted and are unlawfully polluting. Riverkeeper’s members use those areas to
`
`boat, kayak, bike, birdwatch, view wildlife, and engage in nature study and scientific study,
`
`among other activities. Defendants’ discharge of stormwater associated with industrial activity
`
`containing pollutants impair each of those uses. Thus, the interests of Riverkeeper’s members
`
`have been, are being, and will continue to be adversely affected by Defendants’ failure to comply
`
`with the CWA.
`
`13.
`
`For example, one Riverkeeper member resides less than a mile from the Saw Mill
`
`River and close to where it meets the Hudson River. This person frequently walks along both
`
`rivers, often bikes on the North Country Trailway along the Saw Mill River, and occasionally
`
`engages in birding and kayaking along these waterways. This person actively observes negative
`
`impacts to the waterways, as they impact the habitat and aesthetics of the area and are related to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 5 of 35
`
`
`
`their volunteer work for Riverkeeper and other organizations. This person is particularly
`
`concerned with algae buildup, the clarity of the water, and noticeable smells in the waterway
`
`following storms. This member is thus harmed by uncontrolled discharges of stormwater from
`
`industrial facilities along the Saw Mill River.
`
`14.
`
`For example, another Riverkeeper member resides on the Hudson River and
`
`blocks away from the Saw Mill River. This person is employed as a public health researcher
`
`with a focus on environmental issues, and is an active member of local environmental protection
`
`and community science groups. This person is an active kayaker, and is a member of an
`
`organization that frequently paddles near the confluence of the Saw Mill and Hudson Rivers.
`
`This person monitors water quality reports, and limits their kayaking activity when there is a
`
`poor water quality report. This member is thus harmed by pollution entering the Saw Mill River
`
`in violation of the Clean Water Act.
`
`15.
`
`The relief sought herein will redress the harms to Riverkeeper and its members
`
`caused by Defendants’ activities. Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged
`
`herein will irreparably harm Riverkeeper and its members, for which harm they have no plain,
`
`speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
`
`16.
`
`Riverkeeper is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant State
`
`Contracting Corp. of NY is incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and, doing
`
`business as “Capital Industries Corp.”, owns and operates a vehicle and equipment and
`
`maintenance and storage facility at 555 Saw Mill River Road, Yonkers, NY.
`
`17.
`
`Riverkeeper is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant
`
`George McGuire is the Chief Executive Officer of Sate Contracting Corp. of NY and/or the
`
`President of Capital Industries Corp.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 6 of 35
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`The Clean Water Act
`
`18.
`
`Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 to “restore and maintain the
`
`chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” CWA § 101(a), 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1251(a). In furtherance of this goal, the Act provides a comprehensive approach for the
`
`regulation of pollution discharged into the waters of the United States.
`
`19.
`
`Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any
`
`pollutant into waters of the United States, unless such discharge is in compliance with various
`
`enumerated sections of the Act. Among other things, Section 301(a) prohibits discharges not
`
`authorized by, or in violation of, the terms of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
`
`(“NPDES”) permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. A NPDES
`
`permit requires dischargers of pollution to comply with various limitations.
`
`20.
`
`NPDES permits are issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`(“EPA”) or by states authorized by EPA to act as NPDES permitting authorities, provided that
`
`the state permitting program ensures compliance with the procedural and substantive
`
`requirements of the CWA. CWA § 402(b)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a).
`
`21.
`
`In New York, DEC has been delegated the authority to issue NPDES permits.
`
`Such state-issued permits, issued by DEC pursuant to its delegated authority from EPA under the
`
`Clean Water Act, are referred to as “SPDES” permits.
`
`22.
`
`The Clean Water Act requires that any NPDES permit issued by a state must
`
`apply and ensure compliance with, among other things, the Act’s technology-based standards for
`
`discharges of pollution. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)(1)(A) (requiring compliance with “any
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 7 of 35
`
`
`
`applicable requirements” of 33 U.S.C. § 1311).
`
`23.
`
`The Act’s technology-based standards dictate that, with respect to toxic and non-
`
`conventional pollutants, permitted dischargers shall apply “the best available technology
`
`economically achievable for such category or class [of permitted dischargers], which will result
`
`in reasonable further progress towards the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
`
`pollutants . . . .” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A) (i.e., the “BAT” standard). The Act also sets a
`
`different standard, “application of the best conventional pollutant control technology” for a
`
`defined set of five “conventional pollutants”. Id. § 1311(b)(2)(E)1 (i.e., the “BCT” standard)
`
`(together, the “BAT/BCT Standard”). See also 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(a) (requiring that each
`
`NPDES permit shall include conditions that meet the Act’s technology-based standards).
`
`24.
`
`The Clean Water Act further requires any NPDES permit issued by a state to
`
`contain any additional limits necessary to ensure compliance with that state’s water quality
`
`standards. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2)(c) (requiring achievement of “any more stringent
`
`limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards”), 1342(b)(1)(A) (requiring
`
`compliance with “any applicable requirements” of 33 U.S.C. § 1311). See also 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 122.44(d) (requiring that each NPDES permit shall include any conditions necessary to achieve
`
`a state’s water quality standards).
`
`25.
`
`In 1987, to better regulate pollution conveyed by stormwater runoff, Congress
`
`enacted Clean Water Act Section 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), entitled “Municipal and Industrial
`
`Stormwater Discharges.”
`
`26.
`
`Pursuant to CWA Section 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), EPA promulgated
`
`
`1 “Conventional pollutants” are defined by statute, 33 USC 1314(a)(4), and by regulation, 40
`CFR 401.16, to include: biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform,
`and oil and grease.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 8 of 35
`
`
`
`stormwater discharge regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26. In promulgating those regulations, EPA
`
`cited abundant data showing the harmful effects of stormwater runoff on rivers, streams, and
`
`coastal areas across the nation. In particular, EPA found that runoff from industrial facilities
`
`contained elevated pollution levels and that, on an annual basis, pollutant levels in stormwater
`
`runoff can exceed by an order of magnitude the levels discharged by municipal sewage treatment
`
`plants. 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47991 (Nov. 16, 1990).
`
`27.
`
`CWA Section 402(p) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26
`
`require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity.”
`
`Stormwater Permits
`
`28.
`
`In 1987, to better regulate pollution conveyed by stormwater runoff, Congress
`
`enacted Clean Water Act Section 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), entitled “Municipal and Industrial
`
`Stormwater Discharges.”
`
`29.
`
`Pursuant to CWA Section 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), EPA promulgated
`
`stormwater discharge regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26.
`
`30.
`
`In promulgating those regulations, EPA cited abundant data showing the harmful
`
`effects of stormwater runoff on rivers, streams, and coastal areas across the nation. In particular,
`
`EPA found that runoff from industrial facilities contained elevated pollution levels and that, on
`
`an annual basis, pollutant levels in stormwater runoff can exceed by an order of magnitude the
`
`levels discharged by municipal sewage treatment plants. 55 Fed. Reg. 47990, 47991 (Nov. 16,
`
`1990).
`
`31.
`
`CWA Section 402(p) and EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26
`
`require NPDES permits for stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity.”
`
`32.
`
`40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1) provides that dischargers of stormwater associated with
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 9 of 35
`
`
`
`industrial activity must apply for an individual permit, apply for a permit through a group
`
`application, or seek coverage under a general permit.
`
`33.
`
`40 C.F.R, § 122.26(b)(13) defines “storm water” to include stormwater runoff,
`
`snow melt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage.
`
`34.
`
`40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14) specifies that “storm water discharge associated with
`
`industrial activity” includes stormwater discharge from facilities classified under Standard
`
`Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Code 4212 (local trucking without storage). Facilities in those
`
`industrial categories must obtain NPDES permit coverage for their stormwater discharges.
`
`New York’s General Permit for the Discharge
`of Stormwater Associated with Industrial Activity
`
`35.
`
`As a delegated state NPDES permitting agency, DEC has elected to issue a
`
`statewide general permit for industrial stormwater discharges in New York. SPDES Multi-Sector
`
`General Permit For Stormwater Discharges Associated With Industrial Activity, Permit No. GP-
`
`0-17-004, N.Y. DEP’T ENVTL. CONSERVATION (Mar. 1, 2018) (“General Permit”). DEC also has
`
`the authority to issue SPDES permits for individual applicants.
`
`36.
`
`As a state-issued, delegated NPDES permit, the General Permit requires
`
`permittees to use measures that reflect, and prohibits the discharge of pollutants above the level
`
`commensurate with, application of the BAT/BCT Standard. See General Permit, Part II
`
`(requiring permittees to minimize pollution by adopting measures that are “technologically
`
`available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice”).
`
`The General Permit Framework
`
`37.
`
`The General Permit ensures compliance with federal technology and water-
`
`quality based requirements by imposing a variety of conditions. All of the General Permit’s
`
`conditions constitute enforceable “effluent standards or limitations” within the meaning of the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 10 of 35
`
`
`
`CWA’s citizen suit provision. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f) (defining enforceable effluent standards or
`
`limitations to include “a permit or condition of a permit issued under section 1342 of this title”).
`
`38.
`
`At the outset, the General Permit establishes eligibility conditions that permittees
`
`must meet to obtain coverage. General Permit, Part I. Permittees apply for coverage under the
`
`General Permit by submitting an application called a Notice of Intent. General Permit, Part I.D.
`
`39.
`
`Among other things, when submitting a Notice of Intent, the applicant must
`
`identify the specific outfalls through which it will discharge industrial stormwater. A permittee
`
`may only lawfully discharge stormwater associated with industrial activity from these outfalls.
`
`General Permit, Parts I.D.3, I.F.
`
`40.
`
`Next, the General Permit contains a variety of substantive limits that all
`
`permittees must meet. General Permit, Part II. These include numeric effluent limitations on the
`
`quantity and concentration of pollutants, narrative effluent limitations on pollutants, and
`
`compulsory pollution control and minimization practices. General Permit, Part II.
`
`41.
`
`In addition, the General Permit contains effluent limitations that apply only to
`
`permittees engaged in particular industrial activities. See General Permit, Part VII.
`
`42.
`
`The General Permit implements the BAT/BCT standard through a combination of
`
`general and sector-specific effluent limitations that require the Facility to “minimize” the
`
`discharge of pollutants. See General Permit, Part II; Part VII. The General Permit defines
`
`“minimize” as requiring operators to “reduce and/or eliminate to the extent achievable using
`
`control measures [including best management practices (“BMPs”)] … that are technologically
`
`available and economically practicable and achievable in light of best industry practice.”
`
`General Permit, Part II. BMPs include changes to industrial practices and activities (for
`
`example, annual employee training programs) and structural changes to the property (for
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 11 of 35
`
`
`
`example, collection basins that reduce stormwater discharged from a facility).
`
`43.
`
`Permittees typically meet the General Permit’s applicable technology and water-
`
`quality based effluent limitations (whether those limits are phrased narratively or numerically) by
`
`adopting “best management practices” (“BMPs”) and other stormwater control measures. BMPs
`
`and control measures include changes to industrial practices and activities (for example,
`
`housekeeping schedules and employee training programs) and structural improvements (for
`
`example, roofing to minimize exposure of pollutants, or collection basins that reduce the volume
`
`of stormwater discharged from the facility).
`
`44.
`
`The permittee must select, design, install, and implement control measures,
`
`including BMPs, in accordance with good engineering practices, to meet the effluent limits
`
`contained in the General Permit. See, e.g., General Permit, Part II (outlining mandatory BMPs),
`
`Part VII (outlining sector-specific BMPs), Part III.A.7 (requiring documentation of all BMPs
`
`installed and implemented at the facility pursuant to Parts II and VII, documentation of all
`
`innovative BMPs, and an explanation of any BMPs that have not been installed due to site-
`
`specific conditions).
`
`45.
`
`The General Permit sets forth additional non-numeric effluent limits requiring
`
`particular BMPs based on the type of industrial activities occurring at a particular facility (the
`
`“sector”). See General Permit, Part VII.
`
`46.
`
`A permittee must record the BMPs and control measures used to meet the General
`
`Permit’s limits in a “stormwater pollution prevention plan” (“SWPPP”). General Permit, Part
`
`III. The permittee must develop, implement, and continually update this plan to adapt it to
`
`changing conditions at the facility. Id. The SWPPP must address all of the permittee’s industrial
`
`activities and meet all other requirements for such plans set forth in the General Permit. Id.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 12 of 35
`
`
`
`Further the SWPPP must be developed and fully implemented before an applicant is eligible to
`
`discharge industrial stormwater under the General Permit—a fully implemented SWPPP is a
`
`precondition of coverage. General Permit, Part I.D.1.a.
`
`47.
`
`To ensure compliance, adequacy, and functioning of the SWPPP and selected
`
`BMPs, permittees must track, improve upon, and report upon their performance under the
`
`General Permit. See General Permit, Parts IV–VII.
`
`48.
`
`The General Permit requires regular inspections by qualified personnel, including
`
`annual comprehensive inspections and quarterly routine inspections, to evaluate the performance
`
`and maintenance needs of BMPs, detect leaks, and document any deficiencies in the
`
`implementation and/or adequacy of the SWPPP, amongst other things. General Permit, Parts
`
`IV.A–C; see also id. Parts II.A.2–3.
`
`49.
`
`The General Permit also requires monitoring of stormwater discharges, including
`
`quarterly visual monitoring and periodic sampling for pollutants associated with the facility’s
`
`industrial sector. General Permit, Parts IV.D–G, VII. The General Permit relies centrally on
`
`comparing the pollution found in a permittee’s stormwater to “benchmark monitoring cutoff
`
`concentrations” (benchmarks) for each pollutant to ensure that permittees are minimizing
`
`pollution and complying with the narrative limits set forth in the General Permit. See General
`
`Permit, Part VII (adopting sector-specific benchmarks for each category of permittees).
`
`50.
`
`A benchmark is “a guideline for the owner or operator to determine the overall
`
`effectiveness of the SWPPP in controlling the discharge of pollutants to receiving waters.”
`
`General Permit, Appendix A. As the EPA explained in adopting benchmarks originally, they
`
`“provide a reasonable target for controlling storm water contamination by pollution prevention
`
`plans.” 60 Fed. Reg. 50804, 51076 (Sept. 29, 1995). Further, benchmark exceedances can
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 13 of 35
`
`
`
`indicate that “a storm water discharge could potentially impair, or contribute to impairing water
`
`quality or affect human health from ingestion of water or fish.” 60 Fed. Reg. at 50824–25.
`
`51.
`
`Thus, the benchmarks provide strong evidence of whether a facility has
`
`implemented adequate control measures and BMPs to comply with the General Permit and the
`
`federal technology and water-quality based standards that it implements. Although compliance
`
`with benchmarks under the General Permit is self-reported, self-monitoring reports under the
`
`General Permit are deemed “conclusive evidence of an exceedance of a permit limitation.”
`
`Sierra Club v. Union Oil, 813 F.2d 1480, 1493 (9th Cir. 1988), vacated on other grounds, 485
`
`U.S. 931 (1988).
`
`52.
`
`If an inspection or monitoring sample reveals an exceedance, violation, or other
`
`issues with the BMPs or the SWPPP, the permittee is required to take and document corrective
`
`actions. General Permit, Part V.
`
`53.
`
`The results of a permittee’s inspections and monitoring must be documented and
`
`kept with the SWPPP, and certain reports must be submitted to DEC on a periodic basis.
`
`General Permit, Part VI. This self-reporting is the primary means by which DEC and EPA
`
`ensure a facility complies with the General Permit and the Clean Water Act.
`
`Key Conditions of the General Permit
`
`54. Within that framework, the following specific conditions of the General Permit
`
`are particularly relevant in this case.
`
`SWPPP Requirements
`
`55.
`
`Defendants’ SWPPP must identify potential sources of pollution that may affect
`
`the quality of stormwater discharges associated with industrial activity. Further, the SWPPP
`
`must describe and ensure the implementation of practices that minimize the discharge of
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 14 of 35
`
`
`
`pollutants in these discharges and that assure compliance with the other terms and conditions of
`
`the General Permit, including achievement of effluent limitations. General Permit, Part III.A.
`
`56.
`
`The General Permit provides detailed instructions to ensure the SWPPP
`
`“documents the practices and procedures [necessary] to ensure compliance with the conditions of
`
`th[e General Permit], including the selection, design, installation and maintenance of control
`
`measures selected to meet effluent limitations in Parts II and VII.” General Permit, Part III.
`
`57.
`
`Among other things, the SWPPP must include: information related to a
`
`discharger’s stormwater pollution prevention team; a general site description; a summary of
`
`potential pollutant sources; measures related to handling of spills and releases; a general location
`
`map and a site map identifying the location of the facility and all receiving waters to which
`
`stormwater discharges; a description of control measures and best management practices;
`
`schedules and procedures for implementation of control measures, monitoring and sampling, and
`
`inspections; and documentation of inspections, samples, and corrective actions taken at a facility.
`
`58.
`
`The General Permit also includes sector-specific SWPPP requirements. For
`
`facilities in Sector N (including Subsector N3), these requirements include, inter alia, a program
`
`to control materials received for processing; BMPs to minimize contact of particulate matter
`
`stored indoors or under cover from contacting surface runoff; BMPs to minimize contact of
`
`stormwater runoff with stockpiled materials, processed materials, and non-recyclable wastes;
`
`BMPs to minimize contact of residual liquids and particulate matter from materials stored
`
`indoors or under cover from coming in contact with surface runoff; a program to control what is
`
`received at the facility; measures necessary to minimize contact of surface runoff with residual
`
`cutting fluids; BMPs to minimize surface runoff from coming in contact with scrap processing
`
`equipment; and measures to minimize stormwater contamination at loading/unloading areas.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 15 of 35
`
`
`
`General Permit, Part VII.N.
`
`59.
`
`For facilities discharging to impaired waterbodies for which the cause of the
`
`impairment is a pollutant of concern included in the benchmarks as set forth in Appendix G of
`
`the General Permit, a facility must contain the following SWPPP requirements: identification of
`
`the impaired waterbody, a list of pollutants of concern that could be discharged causing the
`
`impairment, an identification of each area of the facility that generates stormwater discharges
`
`associated with industrial activity that creates a reasonable potential to discharges the pollutants
`
`of concern, and specific BMPs to minimize the pollutant of concern from being discharged to the
`
`impaired waterbody. General Permit, Part III.D.2.a-d.
`
`Monitoring and Reporting
`
`60.
`
`The General Permit requires operators to collect and analyze samples of industrial
`
`stormwater discharges resulting from measurable storm events from every outfall at a facility.
`
`The General Permit requires such sampling and analysis to occur twice per year. General
`
`Permit, Parts IV and VI.
`
`61.
`
`The General Permit requires that facilities discharging stormwater to impaired
`
`waterbodies conduct additional monitoring. Facilities in Sector N3 that are discharging to waters
`
`impaired for low dissolved oxygen are required to conduct quarterly monitoring of stormwater
`
`discharges. General Permit, Parts IV.F.1.c, IV.F.2, Appx. G.
`
`62.
`
`The General Permit requires that facilities that have an exceedance of a numeric
`
`effluent limit, or an exceedance of a benchmark cut-off concentration for a pollutant of concern
`
`to an impaired waterbody (i.e. a pollutant that is associated with the impairment), must report the
`
`results of the exceedance(s) and the corrective action(s) taken on a Corrective Action form along
`
`with the submission of the DMR reporting that exceedance. General Permit, Parts VI.A.2.b,
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 16 of 35
`
`
`
`VI.B (Table VI.1).
`
`63.
`
`The General Permit also requires permittees to conduct regular inspections of the
`
`facility and monitoring of stormwater discharges to ensure the BMPs and SWPPP are effectively
`
`minimizing the discharge of pollution through stormwater. General Permit, Part IV. If
`
`deficiencies are identified, corrective actions must be taken and documented. General Permit,
`
`Part V. Reports of these procedures must be kept with the SWPPP, and certain reports must be
`
`submitted to DEC. General Permit, Part VI.
`
`Corrective Actions
`
`64.
`
`The General Permit requires “corrective actions” to improve BMPs when, inter
`
`alia, “the benchmark or numeric effluent limit [stormwater] sample results indicate exceedances
`
`of the pollutants.” General Permit Part V.A. A discharger must implement additional structural
`
`and non-structural BMPs to prevent a recurrence of those exceedances within 12 weeks. General
`
`Permit, Part V.A.1. If the exceedances still continue, the discharger must continue implementing
`
`additional BMPs. General Permit, Part V.A.4. Corrective actions are also required if there is
`
`evidence indicating that stormwater discharges “are causing, have the reasonable potential to
`
`cause, or are contributing to a violation of the water quality standards.” General Permit, Part
`
`II.C.1.b. A failure to take the necessary and required corrective actions is a violation of the
`
`permit. General Permit, Parts V, II.C.1.b.
`
`CWA Citizen Enforcement Suits
`
`65.
`
`Under CWA Section 505(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), any citizen may
`
`commence a civil action in federal court on his own behalf against any person who is alleged to
`
`be in violation of an “effluent standard or limitation” under the CWA.
`
`66.
`
`Such enforcement action under CWA Section 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a),
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 7:22-cv-06911 Document 1 Filed 08/14/22 Page 17 of 35
`
`
`
`includes an action seeking remedies for an unpermitted discharge in violation of CWA
`
`Section 301, 33 U.S.C § 1311, as well as for violation of a condition of a permit issued pursuant
`
`to CWA Section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. CWA Section 505(f), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f).
`
`67.
`
`Declaratory relief in such cases is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201–02 (granting
`
`U.S. courts the authority to issue declaratory relief in case of actual controversy and grant further
`
`necessary relief based on such a declaration).
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`Injunctive relief is authorized by CWA Section 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).
`
`Violators of the Clean Water Act are also subject to an assessment of civil
`
`penalties of up to $56,460 per day per violation. CWA §§ 309(d), 505(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d),
`
`1365(a);

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