TENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`CITY of MANCHESTER, TENNESSEE,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURCIT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WINCHESTER DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`The Plaintiff, Tennessee Riverkeeper, states as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1. This is a citizen’s suit, brought pursuant to the provisions of Section 505(a)(1) of the
`
`Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act (hereinafter “CWA”), as
`
`amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), to address violations of the CWA by Defendant, City of
`
`Manchester, Tennessee (“Manchester”), arising out of illegal discharges of pollutants from the
`
`Manchester Sewage Treatment Plant located at Manchester, Coffee County, Tennessee.
`
`2. Defendant Manchester is in violation of sections 301 and 402 of the CWA (33 U.S.C.
`§§1311 and 1342) and sections 122.1, et sec., of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These
`
`laws require that no facility shall discharge pollutants to waters of the United States or waters of
`
`the state except as authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge
`
`Elimination System (“NPDES”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 1
`
`

`

`3. Manchester is violating provisions of its NPDES permit by operating its sewage treatment
`
`plant in a manner that discharges pollutants to the waters of the United States and waters of the
`
`state due to its failure to operate its collection system so as to avoid overflows. Riverkeeper seeks
`
`a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, the imposition of civil penalties, and the award of
`
`litigation costs, including attorney and expert witness fees, for Defendant Manchester’s repeated
`
`and ongoing violations of the CWA.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the CWA claims set forth in this Complaint
`
`by virtue of Section 505(a)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean
`
`Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331 (Federal question).
`
`5. Venue is appropriate in the Winchester Division, Eastern District of Tennessee pursuant to
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1) and because the acts, omissions, and/or violations complained of herein
`
`occurred, and continues to occur, within Coffee County of the Eastern District of Tennessee.
`
`NOTICE
`
`6. Tennessee Riverkeeper (“Riverkeeper”) has complied with the pre-suit notice provisions
`
`of the CWA. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A), 40 C.F.R. Part 135, Riverkeeper, on March
`
`10, 2020, gave Defendant Manchester notice of the violations alleged herein and its intent to sue
`
`after the expiration of sixty (60) days (“March Notice”). At the same time, Riverkeeper mailed a
`
`copy of the March Notice to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”),
`
`the Regional Administrator of Region IV of the EPA, and the Commissioner of the Tennessee
`
`Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”). Service of notice on Defendant was by
`
`
`
`2
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 2
`
`

`

`certified mail. More than 60 days have passed since the March Notice was served on Defendant
`
`and these agencies. The March Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by
`
`reference herein.
`
`7. Since Riverkeeper gave notice, the violations complained of have not ceased, and are
`
`ongoing. Neither the EPA nor the State of Tennessee has commenced and diligently prosecuted a
`
`civil or criminal enforcement action in a court of the United States or a state for the violations.
`
`Furthermore, prior to the March Notice, neither the EPA nor the State of Tennessee commenced
`
`and diligently prosecuted an administrative action under 33 U.S.C. §1319(g), or under a
`
`comparable Tennessee law, for the violations alleged herein. The State of Tennessee brought an
`
`administrative action, Case No. WPC12-0138, for violations occurring prior to the date of the
`
`filing of the action. The date of the filing of the action is unknown but, by the convention of the
`
`case number, it is believed to be in the year 2012. It was concluded with an Agreed Order on
`
`August 28, 2014. All violations alleged in this Complaint occurred subsequent to August 28, 2014
`
`and are not barred by that administrative action.
`
`8. Neither the EPA nor the state has issued a final order not subject to further judicial review
`
`and the Defendant has not paid a penalty assessed under 33 U.S.C. §1319(g), or under a
`
`comparable Tennessee law, for the violations.
`
`9. Riverkeeper has mailed a copy of the Complaint to the Administrator of the EPA, the
`
`Regional Administrator of EPA Region 4, the Region in which the violations are alleged to have
`
`occurred, and the Attorney General of the United States.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 3
`
`

`

`PARTIES
`
`10. Riverkeeper is a non-profit corporation formed in the State of Alabama and granted
`
`authority to operate in Tennessee by the Division of Business Services, State of Tennessee, as a
`
`nonprofit foreign corporation. Riverkeeper has approximately 3000 members, and is dedicated to
`
`the preservation, protection, and defense of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers and their
`
`tributaries. Riverkeeper actively supports effective enforcement and implementation of
`
`environmental laws, including the CWA, on behalf of and for the benefit of its members.
`
`11. Members of Tennessee Riverkeeper have recreated in, on or near, or otherwise used and
`
`enjoyed, or attempted to use and enjoy, the Tennessee River (and its tributaries) in the past, and
`
`they intend to do so in the future. They have a direct and beneficial interest in the continued
`
`protection, preservation, and enhancement of the environmental, aesthetic, and recreational values
`
`in the Tennessee River and its tributaries. The quality of these waters directly affects the
`
`recreational, aesthetic, and environmental interests of certain members of Tennessee Riverkeeper.
`
`The recreational, aesthetic, and environmental interests of certain of Tennessee Riverkeeper’s
`
`members have been, are being, and will be adversely affected by the Defendant’s continued
`
`violation of the NPDES permit requirements, Tennessee NPDES rules, and the CWA as alleged
`
`in this complaint.
`
`12. Defendant’s illegal discharges enter the Duck River, a tributary of the Tennessee River.
`
`Members of Tennessee Riverkeeper now recreate less on the Duck River because of the
`
`Defendant’s illegal discharges. The violations alleged herein have had a detrimental impact on
`
`those members’ interests because the violations have adversely affected and/or diminished aquatic
`
`life and water quality in the Duck River and have made the Duck River less suitable for fishing,
`
`
`
`4
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 4
`
`

`

`boating, wading, walking, observing nature, or relaxing. Said members would recreate more in
`
`and around Duck River but for Defendant’s illegal discharges of pollution. Riverkeeper’s members
`
`will recreate more often in or near Duck River once the Defendant’s illegal discharges cease.
`
`13. Riverkeeper is a “citizen” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(g) and 1365(a).
`
`14. Defendant, Manchester, is a Tennessee municipal corporation, within the Eastern District
`
`of Tennessee, with principal offices in Manchester, Tennessee. Manchester is the owner and
`
`operator of the Manchester Sewage Treatment Plant and is in control of the facility, including its
`
`collection system.
`
`15. Defendant Manchester is a “person” within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. §§1362(5) and
`
`1365(a)(1).
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`16. Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of pollutants from
`
`a point source into waters of the United States unless the discharge is in compliance with various
`
`enumerated sections of the CWA. Among other things, Section 301(a) prohibits such discharges
`
`not authorized by, or in violation of the terms of, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
`
`System permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
`
`17. The State of Tennessee has been delegated the authority to implement the permitting
`
`programs of the Act by the EPA, including the NPDES permit program, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §
`
`1342(b). TDEC is the water pollution control agency for purposes of the Act, and has drafted
`
`regulations pursuant to that authority implementing the Act’s permitting programs within the State
`
`of Tennessee.
`
`
`
`5
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 5
`
`

`

`18. A citizen suit, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), may be brought for violations of the
`
`terms and conditions of NPDES permits. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f).
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`19. This is an action for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, civil penalties, and litigation
`
`costs, including reasonable attorney’s and expert witness fees, to enforce provisions of the CWA,
`
`and regulations adopted pursuant to said act.
`20. Manchester is in violation of sections 301 and 402 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. §§1311 and
`
`1342) and sections 122.1, et sec., of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. These laws require
`
`that no facility shall discharge pollutants to waters of the United States or waters of the state except
`
`as authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
`
`21. Manchester was issued NPDES permit number TN0025038 (“NPDES Permit”) which
`
`authorizes the permit holder to discharge treated municipal wastewater from Outfall 001, into the
`
`Duck River at mile 268.5, subject to stated discharge limitations and monitoring requirements.
`
`22. All discharges must be in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements,
`
`and other conditions set forth in the NPDES Permit. Specifically, Section 2.3.3 of the NPDES
`
`Permit prohibits overflows and places a duty on the permit holder to avoid them. Any permit
`
`noncompliance constitutes a violation of applicable state and federal laws and is grounds for
`
`enforcement action. See, Permit §2.3.1. Manchester is subject to strict liability for any violations
`
`of its NPDES Permit.
`
`23. As set forth in the March Notice, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by
`
`reference herein, and in Count One, below, Manchester has violated the CWA by operating its
`
`sewage treatment plant in a manner which discharges pollutants to the waters of the United States
`
`
`
`6
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 6
`
`

`

`and waters of the state in violation of its NPSES Permit, and by failure to operate its collection
`
`system so as to avoid overflows.
`
`24. The violations set forth in the paragraphs above and the March Notice are continuing and
`
`ongoing, or are likely to recur, as of the date this Complaint is being filed.
`
`COUNT ONE
`FAILURE TO AVOID OVERFLOWS IN VIOLATION OF AN NPDES PERMIT
`AND THE CLEAN WATER ACT
`
`25. Riverkeeper hereby repeats, re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the
`
`paragraphs above as if fully set out in this count.
`
`26. Manchester is in violation of provisions of its NPDES Permit by failing to operate its
`
`collection system so as to avoid overflows. The permit specifically prohibits overflows and
`
`places a duty upon Manchester to avoid overflows. See, Permit §2.3.3. Overflows in violation of
`
`the Permit have been reported to the TDEC on at least the occasions shown in Appendix A. This
`
`list shows three hundred thirty-six (336) violations within the past five years and over thirty-
`
`three million nine hundred thirty thousand five hundred ninety-five (33,930,595) gallons of
`
`untreated sewage released into the environment. In addition, EPA records show thirty (30)
`
`sanitary sewer overflows (SSO) in January, 2020 and twenty-six (26) SSOs in February 2020.
`
`27. The violations set out in this count are continuing and ongoing and there is a reasonable
`
`likelihood that Defendant will continue these or similar violations in the future.
`
`28. These violations have an adverse impact on waters of the United States and waters of the
`
`state, specifically of Duck River, a tributary of the Tennessee River, and on the recreational,
`
`aesthetic, and environmental interests of Riverkeeper’s members in those waterways as set out in
`
`paragraphs 11 and 12 herein above.
`
`
`
`7
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 7
`
`

`

`29. Defendant Manchester should be subject to an enforcement order or injunction ordering it
`
`to fully comply with all requirements of its NPDES Permit and the CWA.
`
`30. Defendant Manchester should be subject to the assessment of civil penalties for these
`
`violations of the CWA pursuant to Section 309(d) and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and
`
`1365. For the purpose of assessing the maximum penalty which Defendant Manchester is liable,
`
`each day that the Manchester sewage treatment plant has discharged pollutants in violation of its
`
`NPDES Permit and/or without a permit authorizing such discharges constitutes a separate violation
`
`of Section 301(a) of the CWA, pursuant to Section 309(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d).
`
`
`
`COUNT TWO
`FAILURE TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM FOR CHRONIC OVERFLOW POINTS
`IN VIOLATION OF AN NPDES PERMIT
`
`31. Riverkeeper hereby repeats, re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the
`
`paragraphs above as if fully set out in this count.
`
`32. Manchester is in violation of Section 2.3.3.d. of the Permit for failure to impose a
`
`moratorium on new sewer connections upstream of any location that has experienced chronic
`
`overflows.
`
`33. The permit states, in part: “No new or additional flows shall be added upstream of any
`
`point in the collection or transmission system that experiences greater than 5 sanitary sewer
`
`overflows and/or releases per year or would otherwise overload any portion of the system.” Permit
`
`§2.3.3.d.
`
`34. Chronic overflows are defined as greater than five overflow events in a year. Manchester
`
`has violated its Permit and the CWA by experiencing chronic overflows without imposing a
`
`
`
`8
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 8
`
`

`

`moratorium on new connections on at least the points or locations set out in Appendix B, as more
`
`fully explained in the following paragraphs.
`
`35. Manhole A-36, Johnny Brown, has incurred Twenty-three (23) overflow violations
`
`between March 11, 2015 and December 29, 2019. Chronic overflows have occurred at numerous
`
`times during this period and the public record shows no instance of any moratorium being
`
`observed or of the requirement being lifted by TDEC. In the twelve months prior to December
`
`29, 2019 there were fourteen (14) overflows at this lift station, more than enough to require the
`
`issuance of a moratorium. In the twelve months following March 11, 2015 there were eight
`
`overflows at this point and a moratorium should have been self-imposed and observed after the
`
`sixth, which occurred on January 26, 2016.
`
`36. Manhole A-37, Johnny Brown, has incurred twelve (12) overflows from December 25,
`
`2015 to December 16, 2019. During the twelve months following February 28, 2018 there were
`
`six overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed after the January 23, 2019 overflow
`
`event.
`
`37. Manhole A-41 105, Moore St, incurred nineteen (19) overflows from November 18,
`
`2015 to December 23, 2019. During the twelve months following the February 28, 2018
`
`overflow there were seven (7) overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed after the
`
`February 17, 2009 event. Alternately, a moratorium would have been required after each of the
`
`February 19, April 8, July 11, July 17 or October 31, 2019 events.
`
`38. Manhole A-45, Spring St, incurred fourteen overflows from March 11, 2015 to April 8,
`
`2019. During the twelve months prior to January 22, 2016 there were six (6) overflows and a
`
`moratorium should have been imposed. Alternately, a moratorium would have been required
`
`
`
`9
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 9
`
`

`

`after each of the January 26 or February 3, 2016 events.
`
`39. Manhole B-43, Fred Deadman Park, incurred twenty-seven (27) overflows from March
`
`11, 2015 to April 8, 2019. During the twelve months prior to the January 26, 2015 event there
`
`were six (6) overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed. Alternately, a moratorium
`
`would have been required after each of the events of February 3, February 15, February 24,
`
`November 30, December 6, 2016, or January 23, 2017, or after any of the fourteen events after
`
`January 23, 2017.
`
`40. Manhole E-42, Timbercrest, incurred eighteen (18) overflows from March 11, 2015 to
`
`December 29, 2019. During the twelve months prior to November 30, 2016 there were six (6)
`
`overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed. Alternatively, a moratorium would have
`
`been required after each of the eleven (11) events from December 6, 2016 to December 29, 2019.
`
`41. Manhole G-11, Cumberland Presbyterian Church, incurred twenty (20) overflows from
`
`November 29, 2015 to December 20, 2019. During the twelve months prior to December 5, 2017
`
`there were six (6) overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed. Alternatively, a
`
`moratorium would have been required after each of the twelve (12) events from February 10,
`
`2018 to December 14, 2018.
`
`42. Manhole G-74, McAurthur, incurred nine (9) overflows from September 26, 2018 to
`
`December 23, 2019. During the twelve months prior to April 8, 2019 there were six (6)
`
`overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed. Alternatively, a moratorium would have
`
`been required after each of the three (3) events from July 11 to December 23, 2019.
`
`43. Manhole I-141, Skinner Flatt, incurred sixty-three (63) overflows from June 1, 2015 to
`
`December 29, 2019. During the twelve months prior to January 26, 2016 there were six (6)
`
`
`
`10
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 10
`
`

`

`overflows and a moratorium should have been imposed. Alternatively, a moratorium would have
`
`been required after each of the fifty-five (55) events from February 3, 2016 to February 22, 2018.
`
`44. The above demonstrates at least nine (9) points and/or locations where a moratorium was
`
`triggered but no moratorium was imposed.
`
`45. The permit requires the moratorium to remain in place until specific actions have been
`
`taken. The permit states as follows:
`
`“Unless there is specific enforcement action to the contrary, the permittee is relieved of
`this requirement after: 1) an authorized representative of the Commissioner of the
`Department of Environment and Conservation has approved an engineering report and
`construction plans and specifications prepared in accordance with accepted engineering
`practices for correction of the problem; 2) the correction work is underway; and 3) the
`cumulative, peak-design, flows potentially added from new connections and line
`extensions upstream of any chronic overflow or release point are less than or proportional
`to the amount of inflow and infiltration removal documented upstream of that point. The
`inflow and infiltration reduction must be measured by the permittee using practices that are
`customary in the environmental engineering field and reported in an attachment to a
`Monthly Operating Report submitted to the local TDEC Environmental Field Office. The
`data measurement period shall be sufficient to account for seasonal rainfall patterns and
`seasonal groundwater table elevations.”
`
`Permit §2.3.3.d.
`
`46. The above requirements for relief from the required moratoriums have not been satisfied.
`
`47. A search of the Monthly Operating Reports submitted to TDEC by Manchester during the
`
`years 2015 through 2019 found no inflow and infiltration reduction measurements.
`
`48. Manchester has added new or additional flows upstream of a point or points in the
`
`collection or transmission system that have experienced greater than five sanitary sewer overflows
`
`and/or releases per year or would otherwise overload any portion of the system in violation of its
`
`permit requirements. This factual contention will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
`
`opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
`
`
`
`11
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 11
`
`

`

`49. These violations have an adverse impact on waters of the United States and waters of the
`
`state, specifically Duck River and Tennessee River, and on the recreational, aesthetic, and
`
`environmental interests of Riverkeeper’s members in those waterways as set out in paragraphs 11
`
`and 12 herein above.
`
`50. Defendant Manchester should be subject to an enforcement order or injunction ordering it
`
`to fully comply with all requirements of its NPDES Permit and the CWA.
`
`51. Defendant Manchester should be subject to the assessment of civil penalties for these
`
`violations of the CWA pursuant to Section 309(d) and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and
`
`1365. For the purpose of assessing the maximum penalty which Defendant Manchester is liable,
`
`each day that the Manchester sewage treatment plant has discharged pollutants in violation of its
`
`NPDES Permit and/or without a permit authorizing such discharges constitutes a separate violation
`
`of Section 301(a) of the CWA, pursuant to Section 309(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d).
`
`
`COUNT THREE
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`52. Riverkeeper hereby repeats, re-alleges, adopts, and incorporates by reference the
`
`paragraphs above as if fully set out in this count.
`
`53. The violations set out herein will continue unless this Court enjoins Defendant from
`
`continuing to violate its permit.
`
`54. These violations have caused irreparable injury to some of Riverkeeper’s members.
`
`Riverkeeper has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries caused to its members by Defendant’s
`
`ongoing violations in that Riverkeeper would be forced to bring repeated and burdensome actions
`
`for each new injury to its interests if Defendant’s ongoing violations are not enjoined.
`
`
`
`12
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 12
`
`

`

`55. An injunction will be in the public’s interest in this case. Because Defendant is in
`
`continuing violation of the law, the equities for an injunction weigh in Riverkeeper’s favor.
`
`56. Therefore, Riverkeeper brings this cause of action to enjoin Defendant from engaging in
`
`any other affirmative act or conduct which would contribute to further permit violations.
`
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Riverkeeper respectfully requests that the Court grant the following
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`relief:
`
`a. Plaintiff Riverkeeper requests the Court render a judgment finding and declaring
`
`that Defendant Manchester has violated and is in violation of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
`
`§1311(a), and Tennessee NPDES rules;
`
`b. Plaintiff Riverkeeper requests and petitions this Court to enjoin the violations and
`
`any and all illegal conduct by Defendant set out and alleged in Counts One and
`
`Two above and issue an injunction compelling Defendant to remedy the illegal
`
`discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States;
`
`c. Plaintiff Riverkeeper requests and petitions this Court to assess a $37,500.00
`
`(thirty-seven thousand, five hundred dollars) civil penalty (see 40 CFR § 19) against
`
`Defendant Manchester for each violation and each day of continuing violation of
`
`the CWA for which Defendant is found liable pursuant to Sections 309(d) and
`
`505(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and 1365(a);
`
`d. Plaintiff Riverkeeper requests and petitions this Court for an award of litigation
`
`costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees and expert fees, as authorized by 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1365(d); and
`
`
`
`13
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 13
`
`

`

`e. For such other, further or more general relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
`
`Respectfully submitted this the 9th day of July, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Elizabeth A. Alexander
`Elizabeth A. Alexander, BPR No. 19273
`Alexander Law
`4235 Hillsboro Pike, Suite 300
`Nashville, TN 37215
`Telephone: 415-860-4020
`alexanderlawnashville@gmail.com
`
`
`s/ Mark E. Martin
`Mark E. Martin
`Alabama Bar No: ASB-9361-A41M
`Admission Requested Pro Hac Vice
`P.O. Box 1486
`Oneonta, AL 35121
`Telephone: (205) 516-9350
`mmartin@markemartin.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 14
`
`

`

`Appendix A
`Manchester, NPDES Permit # TN0025038, Overflows
`
`Start Date
`12/3/2019
`12/1/2019
`12/10/2019
`12/13/2019
`12/16/2019
`12/16/2019
`12/23/2019
`12/23/2019
`12/23/2019
`12/23/2019
`12/23/2019
`12/29/2019
`12/29/2019
`12/29/2019
`11/20/2019
`11/21/2019
`11/23/2019
`11/23/2019
`11/23/2019
`11/23/2019
`10/31/2019
`10/31/2019
`10/31/2019
`10/31/2019
`8/7/2019
`8/7/2019
`7/11/2019
`7/11/2019
`7/11/2019
`7/11/2019
`7/11/2019
`7/17/2019
`7/17/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`
`Est. Quantity
`in gallons
`51,000
`12,000
`36,000
`2,000
`4,800
`18,000
`42,000
`21,000
`8,400
`21,000
`21,000
`69,000
`34,500
`138,800
`11,250
`240,000
`36,000
`18,000
`3,600
`18,000
`4,800
`18,000
`9,000
`18,000
`9,000
`3,600
`9,750
`9,750
`1,950
`4,875
`4,875
`2,400
`6,000
`10,500
`10,500
`4,200
`4,200
`4,200
`10,500
`10,500
`
`Location of Discharge
`McMinnville Hwy E‐10
`McMinnville Hwy E‐10
`McMinnville Hwy E‐10
`West End Circle L 50
`A‐41
`A 37 J.B.
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`McAuthur G‐74
`105 Moore A‐41
`A‐43 Spring
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Timber E42
`McMinnville Hwy E‐10
`McMinnville Hwy E‐10
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`McAuthur G‐74
`105 Moore A‐41
`A‐43
`A 37 J.B.
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`A 41
`J. Brown A‐36
`J. Brown A‐36
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`McAuthur G‐74
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`105 Moore A‐41
`J. Brown A‐36
`105 Moore A‐41
`J. Brown A‐36
`J. Brown A‐36
`McAurhur G‐74
`I‐24 E.B. H76
`105 Moore A‐41
`F.D. Park B‐43
`Spring St A‐45
`
`Appendix A
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 15
`Page 1 of 8
`
`

`

`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`4/8/2019
`3/10/2019
`3/10/2019
`3/10/2019
`2/12/2019
`2/12/2019
`2/12/2019
`2/16/2019
`2/17/2019
`2/17/2019
`2/17/2019
`2/17/2019
`2/17/2019
`2/17/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/19/2019
`2/22/2019
`2/23/2019
`2/23/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/3/2019
`1/19/2019
`1/19/2019
`1/19/2019
`1/19/2019
`1/19/2019
`1/23/2019
`1/23/2019
`1/23/2019
`1/23/2019
`1/23/2019
`
`10,500
`10,500
`4,200
`18,000
`7,200
`7,200
`96,000
`96,000
`9,600
`27,000
`91,500
`45,750
`15,900
`15,900
`15,900
`15,900
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`86,400
`7,500
`1,800
`12,000
`126,000
`1,071,000
`162,000
`630,000
`111,000
`222,000
`55,000
`55,000
`55,000
`13,800
`138,000
`13,800
`13,800
`13,800
`48,000
`96,000
`24,000
`9,600
`9,600
`
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Ester Ln I‐87
`10 Yd Lift Sta
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Ester Ln I‐87
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`McAuthur G‐74
`J. Brown A‐36
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`McAuthur G‐74
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`105 Moore A‐41
`F.D. Park B‐43
`J. Brown A‐36
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`McAuthur G‐74
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`105 Moore A‐41
`F.D. Park B‐43
`Spring St A‐45
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Ester Ln I‐87
`Spring St A‐45
`Hwy 41 N B‐79
`10 Yd Lift Sta
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`A 37 J.B.
`I 89 Skinner Flat
`H‐6 I‐24 East B.
`J‐6
`G‐112
`A‐41
`A‐45
`B‐43
`B‐45
`A‐37 J.B.
`I 89 Skinner Flat
`A‐41
`I‐90
`A 37 J.B.
`I 89 Skinner Flat
`A‐41
`G‐74
`B‐43
`
`Appendix A
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 16
`Page 2 of 8
`
`

`

`12/20/2019
`12/17/2018
`12/14/2018
`12/14/2018
`12/14/2018
`12/8/2018
`12/8/2018
`12/1/2018
`12/1/2018
`12/1/2018
`11/6/2018
`11/6/2018
`11/6/2018
`11/6/2018
`11/6/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`9/26/2018
`7/2/2018
`5/7/2018
`4/22/2018
`4/22/2018
`4/22/2018
`4/22/2018
`4/6/2018
`4/6/2018
`4/6/2018
`4/6/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`
`375,000
`36,000
`153,000
`18,000
`153,000
`138,000
`345,000
`138,000
`345,000
`69,000
`9,000
`36,000
`9,000
`36,000
`9,000
`15,000
`60,000
`6,000
`30,000
`150,000
`60,000
`225,000
`15,000
`6,000
`30,000
`6,000
`15,000
`38,400
`75,000
`34,500
`40,500
`34,500
`138,000
`4,200
`4,200
`4,200
`42,000
`123,000
`246,000
`246,000
`246,000
`615,000
`246,000
`246,000
`246,000
`123,000
`246,000
`
`G 11 Cumberland C.P.C.
`I 141 Skinner Flatt 
`G 11 Cumberland C.P.C.
`ZG 112 Bryan Trailer Park
`H‐6 I‐24 East B.9
`I 141 Skinner Flatt 
`G 11 Cumberland C.P.C.
`I 141 Skinner Flatt 
`G 11 Cumberland C.P.C.
`ZG 112 Bryan Trailer Park
`A 37 Johnny Brown
`G 11 Cumberland C.P.C.
`H‐6 I‐24 East B.
`I 141 Skinner Flatt 
`ZG 112 Bryan Trailer Park
`F.D. Park B‐43
`I 141 Skinner Flatt 
`Timbercreast E‐42
`105 Moore A‐41
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Johnny Brown A‐37
`i‐24 East H75
`A‐45 Spring St bridge
`I‐85
`G 112
`G 87
`G 74
`West End Pumping Station
`G.P. Church G‐11
`F.D. Park B‐43
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`Timbercreast E‐42
`C.P. Church G‐11
`F.D. Park B‐43
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`Timbercreast E‐42
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Ten Yard Bridge
`B‐174 Woodland
`B‐43 Deadman
`A‐45 Spring St bridge
`A‐37 Johnny Brown
`A 41 105 Moore st
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Timbercreast E‐42
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`I‐87 Easter Ln
`
`Appendix A
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 17
`Page 3 of 8
`
`

`

`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/28/2018
`2/25/2018
`2/25/2018
`2/25/2018
`2/25/2018
`2/25/2018
`2/25/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/22/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/10/2018
`2/7/2018
`2/7/2018
`2/7/2018
`12/12/2017
`12/12/2017
`12/22/2017
`12/23/2017
`12/19/2017
`12/19/2017
`12/5/2017
`12/5/2017
`10/12/2017
`10/23/2017
`10/23/2017
`10/23/2017
`10/23/2017
`10/12/2017
`9/5/2017
`8/7/2017
`7/24/2017
`7/5/2017
`7/6/2017
`
`246,000
`24,600
`246,000
`246,000
`198,000
`132,000
`198,000
`48,000
`48,000
`26,400
`48,000
`48,000
`48,000
`48,000
`48,000
`48,000
`48,000
`4,800
`216,000
`216,000
`216,000
`3,600
`540,000
`21,600
`90,000
`39,000
`19,500
`78,000
`48,000
`24,000
`285,000
`42,000
`300,000
`300,000
`510,000
`300,000
`600
`158,400
`120,000
`158,400
`120,000
`600
`60,000
`60,000
`90,000
`132,600
`81,600
`
`H‐6 I‐24 East B
`E‐40 Emerson
`J‐2 River Stillwood
`J‐6 Vent Stillwood
`F.D. Park B‐43
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Timbercreast E‐42
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`I‐87 Easter Ln
`F.D. Park B‐43
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Timbercreast E‐42
`I‐89 Ester Lane
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`i‐24 East H75
`I‐87 Easter Ln
`F.D. Park B‐43
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Timbercreast E‐42
`I‐89 Ester Lane
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`i‐24 East H75
`F.D. Park B‐43
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`Timbercreast E‐42
`C.P. Church G‐47
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`C.P. Church G‐47
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`C.P. Church G‐47
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`E‐7
`C.P. Church G‐11
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`C.P. Church G‐11
`Skinner Flat I‐141
`E‐7
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`C.P. Church G‐11
`
`Appendix A
`Case 4:20-cv-00034-PLR-SKL Document 1 Filed 07/09/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 18
`Page 4 of 8
`
`

`

`7/6/2017
`6/22/2017
`6/22/2017
`5/31/2017
`4/22/2017
`4/22/2017
`4/22/2017
`5/4/2017
`4/2/2017
`4/3/2017
`3/27/2017
`3/27/2017
`3/21/2017
`3/1/2017
`3/10/2017
`3/10/2017
`3/10/2017
`3/10/2017
`3/10/2017
`1/23/2017
`1/23/2017
`1/23/2017
`1/23/2017
`1/19/2017
`1/19/2017
`12/19/2016
`12/19/2016
`12/12/2016
`12/12/2016
`12/6/2016
`12/6/2016
`12/6/2016
`12/6/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`11/30/2016
`7/9/2016
`6/2/2016
`5/21/2016
`5/16/2016
`
`81,600
`18,000
`18,000
`
`81,000
`81,000
`81,000
`9,000
`27,000
`135,000
`8,100
`20,250
`51,000
`77,045
`140,250
`140,250
`140,250
`140,250
`45,000
`210,000
`210,000
`357,000
`210,000
`42,000
`21,000
`300,000
`300,000
`48,000
`24,000
`48,000
`180,000
`81,600
`120,000
`90,000
`9,000
`9,000
`120,000
`4,500
`1,800
`24,000
`9,000
`33,660
`1,800
`60,000
`61,200
`400,000
`79,200
`
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`C.P. Church G‐47
`Overflow report not found at TDEC
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`F.D. Park B‐43
`C.P. Church G‐47
`I‐141 Skinner Flatt
`I‐141 Ski