Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 60

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.
Drevet Hunt (Bar No. 240487)
Email: drev@lawyersforcleanwater.com
1004-A O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129
Telephone: (415) 440-6520
Facsimile: (415) 440-4155
SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER
Matt O'Malley (Bar No. 272802)
Email: matt@sdcoastkeeper.org
2825 Dewey Rd, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92117
Telephone: (619) 758-7743
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER

12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13
14
15

SAN DIEGO COASTKEEPER, a California nonprofit corporation,

16
17
18

Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Case No. '15CV1267 JM

WVG

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL
PENALTIES

A-1 ALLOYS, Inc., a California corporation;

19

Defendant.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint

(Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.)

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 60

1

San Diego Coastkeeper (“Coastkeeper” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, hereby

2

alleges:

3

I.

4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

This is a civil suit brought under the citizen suit enforcement provision of the Federal

5

Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”). See 33 U.S.C.

6

§ 1365. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this action pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §

7

1365(a)(1) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201 (an action for declaratory and injunctive relief arising under

8

the Constitution and laws of the United States).

9

2.

On February 9, 2015 Coastkeeper issued a sixty (60) day notice of intent to sue (“Notice

10

Letter”) to A-1 Alloys, Inc. (“Defendant”). The Notice Letter informed Defendant of its violations of the

11

California General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities (National

12

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001, State Water

13

Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 92-12-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 97-03-

14

DWQ) (hereinafter “Storm Water Permit”) and the Clean Water Act. The Notice Letter also informed

15

Defendant of Coastkeeper’s intent to file suit against them to enforce the Storm Water Permit and the

16

Clean Water Act.

17

3.

The Notice Letter was sent to the registered agents for Defendant, the Administrator of

18

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Administrator of EPA Region IX, the

19

Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”), and the Executive

20

Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (“Regional Board”), as

21

required by 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(1). The Notice Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is

22

incorporated herein by reference.

23

4.

More than sixty (60) days have passed since the Notice Letter was served on Defendant

24

and the state and federal agencies. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that neither the

25

EPA nor the State of California has commenced or is diligently prosecuting an action to redress the

26

violations alleged in this Complaint. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). This action is not barred by any

27

prior administrative penalty under Section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).

28

5.

Complaint

Venue is proper in the Southern District of California pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the

2

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 60

1

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the sources of the violations are located within this

2

judicial district.

3

6.

Defendant’s violations of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Storm

4

Water Permit and the Clean Water Act alleged in this Complaint are ongoing and continuous.

5

II.

6

INTRODUCTION
7.

This Complaint seeks relief for Defendant’s substantive and procedural violations of the

7

Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act resulting from Defendant’s operations 724 Civic Center

8

Drive in National City, California 91950 (“A-1 Alloys Facility” or “Facility”).

9

8.

With every storm event, hundreds of millions of gallons of polluted rainwater, originating

10

from industrial operations such as the A-1 Alloys Facility, pour into San Diego area waters. The

11

consensus among agencies and water quality specialists is that storm water pollution accounts for more

12

than half of the total pollution entering marine and river environments each year. San Diego Bay waters

13

are ecologically sensitive areas and are essential habitat for dozens of fish and bird species as well as

14

macro-invertebrate and invertebrate species. Stormwater contaminated with sediment, heavy metals, and

15

other pollutants harm the special aesthetic and recreational significance that San Diego Bay waters have

16

for people in the surrounding communities. The public’s use of San Diego Bay waters for water contact

17

sports exposes many people to toxic metals and other contaminants in stormwater discharges. Non-

18

contact recreation and aesthetic opportunities, such as wildlife observation, are also impaired by polluted

19

discharges into San Diego Bay waters.

20

III.

PARTIES

21

A.

San Diego Coastkeeper.

22

9.

San Diego Coastkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation organized under the

23

laws of the State of California with its office at 2825 Dewey Road, Suite 200, San Diego, California

24

92106.

25

10.

Coastkeeper is a nonprofit organization committed to protecting and restoring the San

26

Diego region's water quality and supply. A member of the international Waterkeeper Alliance,

27

Coastkeeper's main purpose is to preserve, enhance, and protect the San Diego's marine sanctuaries,

28

coastal estuaries, wetlands and bays from illegal dumping, hazardous spills, toxic discharges and habitat

Complaint

3

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 60

1

degradation. Coastkeeper implements this mission through outreach and education programs that work

2

to prevent water pollution, as well as community activism, participation in governmental hearings, and

3

prosecuting litigation to ensure that San Diego's beaches, bays, coastal waters and tributary streams and

4

rivers meet all substantive water quality standards guaranteed by Federal, State and local statutes and

5

regulations. When necessary, Coastkeeper directly initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself and

6

its members.

7

11.

Members of Coastkeeper use and enjoy the waters into which pollutants from the A1

8

Alloys facility’s ongoing illegal activities are discharged, including San Diego Bay and the Pacific

9

Ocean (“Receiving Waters”). The public and members of Coastkeeper use these Receiving Waters to

10

fish, sail, boat, kayak, surf, stand-up paddle, swim, scuba dive, birdwatch, view wildlife, and to engage

11

in scientific studies.

12

12.

Discharges of polluted stormwater from the A-1 Alloys Facility degrade water quality,

13

harm aquatic life in the Receiving Waters, and impair Coastkeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of the

14

Receiving Waters.

15

13.

Defendant’s polluted discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility are ongoing and continuous.

16

Thus, the interests of Coastkeeper’s members have been, are being, and will continue to be adversely

17

affected by Defendant’s failure to comply with the Clean Water Act and the Storm Water Permit.

18

B.

The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator.

19

14.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that A-1 Alloys, Inc., is an

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

owner of the A-1 Alloys Facility.
15.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that A-1 Alloys, Inc., has

owned the A-1 Alloys Facility since at least April 6, 2010.
16.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that A-1 Alloys, Inc., is an

operator of the A-1 Alloys Facility.
17.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that A-1 Alloys, Inc., has

operated the A-1 Alloys Facility since at least April 6, 2010.
18.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, A-1 Alloys, Inc., is an active

corporation registered in California.

Complaint

4

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 5 of 60

1
2

19.
IV.

Coastkeeper refers to A-1 Alloys, Inc. as the “A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator.”

LEGAL BACKGROUND

3

A.

The Clean Water Act and California Storm Water Permit.

4

20.

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of

5

any pollutant into waters of the United States not authorized by, or in violation of, the terms of a

6

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of

7

the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) and 1342(b).

8
9
10

21.

Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), establishes a framework for

regulating industrial stormwater discharges under the NPDES permit program.
22.

Section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), allows each state to

11

administer its own EPA-approved NPDES permit program for regulating the discharge of pollutants,

12

including discharges of polluted stormwater. States with approved NPDES permit programs are

13

authorized by Section 402(b) to regulate industrial stormwater discharges through individual NPDES

14

permits issued to dischargers and/or through the issuance of a single, statewide, general NPDES permit

15

applicable to all industrial stormwater dischargers. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b); 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b) §

16

1342(p).

17

23.

California is a state authorized by the EPA to issue NPDES permits.

18

24.

The Storm Water Permit is a statewide general NPDES permit issued by the State Board

19
20

pursuant to the Clean Water Act. See Storm Water Permit, Finding No. 15.
25.

In order to discharge stormwater lawfully in California, industrial stormwater dischargers

21

must secure coverage under the Storm Water Permit and comply with its terms, or obtain and comply

22

with an individual NPDES permit.

23
24
25

26.

Violations of the Storm Water Permit are violations of the Clean Water Act. See Storm

Water Permit, Section C(1).
27.

Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), provides for citizen

26

enforcement actions against any “person” who is alleged to be in violation of an “effluent standard or

27

limitation . . . or an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respect to such a standard or

28

limitation.” See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(i) and 1365(f).

Complaint

5

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 6 of 60

1
2

28.

Section 502(7) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7) and 33 C.F.R. § 328.3(a).

3
4

29.

A-1 Alloys, Inc., is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean Water

Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).

5
6

Each of the Receiving Waters is a “water of the United States” within the meaning of

30.

An action for injunctive relief is authorized under Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act,

33 U.S.C. § 1365(a).

7

31.

Each separate violation of the Clean Water Act subjects the violator to a penalty of up to

8

$37,500 per day for violations occurring after 12 January 2009. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and 1365(a);

9

40 C.F.R. § 19.4 (Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation).

10

32.

Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), allows prevailing or

11

substantially prevailing parties to recover litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and

12

consultants’ fees.

13

B.

Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit.

14

33.

Effluent Limitation (B)(3) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to reduce or

15

prevent pollutants associated with industrial activity in stormwater discharges through the

16

implementation of Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (“BAT”) for toxic or non-

17

conventional pollutants and Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (“BCT”) for conventional

18

pollutants. Toxic pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.15 and include copper, lead, and zinc, among

19

others. Conventional pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.16 and include biological oxygen demand

20

(“BOD”), total suspended solids (“TSS”), oil and grease (“O&G”), pH, and fecal coliform, among

21

others.

22

34.

EPA’s NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated With

23

Industrial Activity (“MSGP”) sets numeric benchmarks for pollutant concentrations in stormwater

24

discharges (“EPA Benchmarks”).

25

35.

The EPA Benchmarks provide an objective standard to determine whether a facility’s

26

Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) are successfully developed and/or implemented. See EPA

27

Proposed Multi-Sector General Permit (2013), Fact Sheet, p. 50; see also, EPA Multi-Sector General

28

Permit (2008), Fact Sheet, p. 106; EPA Multi-Sector General Permit, 65 Federal Register 64839 (2000).

Complaint

6

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 7 of 60

1

36.

Discharges from an industrial facility containing pollutant concentrations that exceed

2

EPA Benchmarks indicate that the facility has not developed and/or implemented BMPs that meet BAT

3

for toxic pollutants and BCT for conventional pollutants. Id.

4

C.

Receiving Water Limitations C(1) and C(2) of the Storm Water Permit.

5

37.

Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit prohibits stormwater

6

discharges that adversely impact human health or the environment.

7

38.

Discharges with pollutant levels that exceed levels known to adversely impact aquatic

8

species and the environment are violations of Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water

9

Permit.

10

39.

Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit prohibits stormwater

11

discharges that “cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality standard in a

12

Statewide Water Quality Control Plan or the applicable Regional Board’s Basin Plan.”

13

40.

Water Quality Standards (“WQS”) are pollutant concentration levels determined by the

14

State Board, the various regional boards, and/or the EPA to be protective of the beneficial uses of the

15

waters that receive polluted discharges.

16

41.

WQS applicable to dischargers covered by the Storm Water Permit include, but are not

17

limited to, those set out in the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin, California Regional

18

Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (“Basin Plan”), and in the Criteria for Priority Toxic

19

Pollutants for the State of California (“CTR”), 40 C.F.R. § 131.38.

20

42.

21

state of California.1

22

43.

The Basin Plan identifies the “Beneficial Uses” of water bodies in the region.

23

44.

The Beneficial Uses for the San Diego Bay near the point at which it receives polluted

The CTR includes numeric criteria set to protect human health and the environment in the

24

storm water discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility include: Preservation of Biological Habitats of

25

Special Significance; Water Contact Recreation; Non-contact Water Recreation; Wildlife Habitat;

26

Commercial and Sport Fishing; Estuarine Habitat; Marine Habitat; Migration of Aquatic Organisms;

27

1

28

Water Quality Standards; Establishment of Numeric Criteria for Priority Toxic Pollutants for the State
of California Factsheet, EPA-823-00-008, April 2000 available at:
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/ctr/factsheet.cfm.

Complaint

7

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 8 of 60

1

Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development; Shellfish Harvesting; and Rare, Threatened, or

2

Endangered Species. See Basin Plan at Table 2-3.

3

45.

A surface water that cannot support its Beneficial Uses listed in the Basin Plan is

4

designated as an impaired water body pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §

5

1313(d).

6

46.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that discharges of pollutants at

7

levels above WQS, including the CTR, contribute to the impairment of the Beneficial Uses of the waters

8

receiving the discharges.

9

47.

The San Diego Bay is on the 303(d) list as impaired for numerous constituents, including

10

sediment toxicity, copper, zinc, mercury, benthic community effects, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons

11

(PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and bacteria. 2

12
13

48.

Discharges with pollutant levels in excess of the CTR criteria, the Basin Plan, and/or

other applicable WQS are violations of Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit.

14

D.

The Storm Water Permit’s NOI Requirements.

15

49.

Provision E(1) of the Storm Water Permit requires all facility operators seeking coverage

16

by the Storm Water Permit to submit an NOI for each of the facilities they operate.
50.

17

Provision E(1) of the Storm Water Permit requires facility operators filing an NOI after

18

17 April 1997 to use the NOI instructions at Attachment 3 of the Storm Water Permit (“NOI

19

Instructions”).
51.

20

The NOI Instructions require facility operators to enter the total size of the facility (Part

21

C) and identify Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) codes that represent the industrial activities

22

taking place at the facility (Part D). Storm Water Permit, Attachment 3, NOI Instructions.

23

E.

The Storm Water Permit’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan Requirements.

24

52.

Section A(1) and Provision E(2) of the Storm Water Permit require dischargers to

25

develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”) that complies with the

26

requirements of the Storm Water Permit prior to commencing industrial activities.

27
28

2

2010 Integrated Report – All Assessed Waters, available at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml.

Complaint

8

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 9 of 60

1

53.

The objectives of the SWPPP are to identify and evaluate sources of pollutants associated

2

with industrial activities that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges, to identify and implement

3

site-specific BMPs to prevent the exposure of pollutants to stormwater, and to reduce or prevent the

4

discharge of polluted stormwater from industrial facilities. Storm Water Permit, Section A(2).

5

54.

Section A(3) of the Storm Water Permit requires a discharger to identify the members of

6

its on-site Storm Water Pollution Prevention Team and to indicate each team member’s responsibilities

7

in developing, implementing and revising the SWPPP so as to ensure compliance with the Storm Water

8

Permit.

9

55.

Section A(4) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a site map that

10

contains, among other requirements: the facility boundaries, stormwater drainage areas and directions of

11

flow for each drainage area, on-site surface water bodies, nearby water bodies, areas of soil erosion, and

12

municipal storm drain inlets where the facility’s stormwater discharges may be received (Section

13

A(4)(a)); the location of the stormwater collection, conveyance, and discharge system and structural

14

control measures that affect stormwater discharges (Section A(4)(b)); an outline of all impervious areas

15

of the facility, including paved areas, buildings, covered storage areas, or other roofed structures

16

(Section (4)(c)); locations where materials are directly exposed to precipitation and where significant

17

spills or leaks have occurred (Section A(4)(d)); and areas of industrial activity, including areas that are

18

actual and potential pollutant sources (Section A(4)(e)).

19
20
21

56.

Section A(5) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a list of

significant materials handled and stored at the site.
57.

Section A(6)(a) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a narrative

22

description of the facility’s industrial activities, associated potential pollutant sources, potential

23

pollutants that could be discharged in stormwater discharges, and all non-stormwater discharges.

24
25
26

58.

Section A(6)(b) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a summary

of all areas of industrial activities, potential pollutant sources, and potential pollutants.
59.

Section A(7)(a) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a narrative

27

assessment of all industrial activities and potential pollutant sources to determine which areas of the

28

facility are likely sources of pollutants and which pollutants are likely to be present in the stormwater

Complaint

9

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 10 of 60

1

discharges. Section A(7)(b) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a summary of

2

the areas of the facility that are likely sources of pollutants and the corresponding pollutants likely to be

3

present in stormwater discharges.

4

60.

Section A(8) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the SWPPP include a narrative

5

description of the stormwater BMPs to be implemented at the facility for each potential pollutant and its

6

source. BMPs shall be developed and implemented to reduce or prevent pollutants in stormwater

7

discharges. Storm Water Permit, Section A(8). Dischargers must develop and implement structural

8

and/or non-structural BMPs. Id.

9
10

61.

Section A(9) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the discharger evaluate the SWPPP

on an annual basis and revise it as necessary to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit.

11

62.

Sections A(9)(a)-(c) of the Storm Water Permit require that the discharger conduct an

12

annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation that includes a review of all visual observation

13

records, inspection reports, and sampling and analysis results; a visual inspection of all potential

14

pollutant sources for evidence of, or the potential for, pollutants entering the drainage system; a review

15

and evaluation of all BMPs to determine whether the BMPs are adequate, properly implemented and

16

maintained, or whether additional BMPs are needed; and a visual inspection of equipment needed to

17

implement the SWPPP.

18

63.

Section A(9)(d) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the discharger submit an

19

evaluation report that includes identification of personnel performing the evaluation, the date(s) of the

20

evaluation(s), necessary SWPPP revisions, a schedule for implementing SWPPP revisions, any incidents

21

of non-compliance and the corrective actions taken, and certification that the discharger is in compliance

22

with the Storm Water Permit. If certification of compliance cannot be provided, the discharger must

23

explain in the evaluation report why the facility is not in compliance with the Storm Water Permit.

24

Storm Water Permit, Section A(9)(d). The evaluation report shall be submitted as part of the Annual

25

Report, which is specified in Section B(14) of the Storm Water Permit. Storm Water Permit, Section

26

B(14).

27
28

64.

Section A(10) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the discharger revise the SWPPP

as necessary prior to changes in industrial activities, or as otherwise required by the Storm Water Permit.

Complaint

10

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 11 of 60

1

//

2

F.

The Storm Water Permit’s Monitoring and Reporting Requirements.

3

65.

Section B(1) and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit require dischargers to

4

develop and implement a Monitoring and Reporting Program (“M&RP”) prior to commencing industrial

5

activities.

6

66.

The objectives of the M&RP are to confirm that BMPs have been adequately developed

7

and implemented such that stormwater and non-stormwater discharges comply with the Storm Water

8

Permit’s Discharge Prohibitions, Effluent Limitations, and Receiving Water Limitations. Storm Water

9

Permit, Sections B(2)(a) and B(2)(b).

10

67.

The M&RP aids in the implementation and revision of the SWPPP and measures the

11

effectiveness of BMPs to prevent or reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges. Storm Water Permit,

12

Sections B(2)(c) and B(2)(d).

13
14
15

68.

Section B(2)(d) of the Storm Water Permit requires that the M&RP “shall be revised” as

necessary to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit.
69.

Section B(3) of the Storm Water Permit requires a discharger to conduct visual

16

observations of all drainage areas within the facility for the presence of authorized and unauthorized

17

non-stormwater discharges. Observations under this section must occur during daylight hours, on days

18

with no stormwater discharges, and during scheduled facility operating hours. Storm Water Permit,

19

Sections B(3).

20

70.

Section B(4) of the Storm Water Permit requires a discharger to conduct visual

21

observations of stormwater discharges during the first hour of discharge, at each discharge point, of at

22

least one storm event per month during October 1 – May 30 (“Wet Season”). Observations under this

23

section must take place during daylight hours, on days when the discharge is preceded by at least three

24

(3) days without stormwater discharges, and during scheduled facility operating hours. Storm Water

25

Permit, Section B(4).

26

71.

Visual observations conducted under Sections B(3) and B(4) of the Storm Water Permit

27

must be recorded. Storm Water Permit, Sections B(3)(d) and B(4)(c). Records of observations must

28

describe the presence of any floating or suspended materials, O&G, discolorations, turbidity, odor, and

Complaint

11

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 12 of 60

1

the source of any pollutants observed during the visual observation. Id. Dischargers must maintain

2

records of visual observations that include the observation date, locations observed, and responses taken

3

to eliminate unauthorized non-stormwater discharges and to reduce or prevent pollutants from

4

contacting non-stormwater and stormwater discharges. Id. Furthermore, Sections B(3) and B(4) require

5

a discharger to revise a facility’s SWPPP in order to rectify any instances of noncompliance observed

6

during visual observations. Id.

7
8
9

72.

Sections B(5) and B(7) of the Storm Water Permit require dischargers to visually observe

and collect samples of stormwater discharges from all locations where stormwater is discharged.
73.

Section B(5)(a) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to collect stormwater

10

samples during the first hour of discharge. Samples of stormwater discharges must be collected from the

11

first storm event of the Wet Season and at least one other storm event in the Wet Season. Storm Water

12

Permit, Section B(5)(a). All stormwater discharge locations must be sampled. Id.

13

74.

Facility operators that do not collect samples from the first storm event of the Wet Season

14

are still required to collect samples from two other storm events during the Wet Season, and must

15

explain in the Annual Report why the first storm event was not sampled. Id.

16

75.

Section B(5)(b) requires that sampling conducted pursuant to the Storm Water Permit

17

occur during scheduled facility operating hours on days that are preceded by at least three (3) working

18

days without stormwater discharge.

19

76.

Section B(5)(c)(i) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to analyze each sample

20

for pH, specific conductance (“SC”), TSS, and O&G. A discharger may substitute analysis for total

21

organic carbon (“TOC”) instead of O&G.

22

77.

Section B(5)(c)(ii) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to analyze each

23

sample for toxic chemicals and other pollutants likely to be present in the stormwater discharged from

24

the facility in significant quantities.

25

78.

Section B(5)(c)(iii) and Table D of the Storm Water Permit require facilities classified as

26

SIC code 5093 to analyze stormwater samples for, chemical oxygen demand (“COD”), lead, iron,

27

aluminum, copper, and zinc.

28

79.

Complaint

Section B(5)(c)(iv) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to analyze each

12

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 13 of 60

1

sample for all parameters as required by the Regional Board.

2

80.

Section B(14) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to submit an Annual

3

Report to the applicable regional board by July 1 of each year. The Annual Report must include a

4

summary of visual observations and sampling results, an evaluation of the visual observations and

5

sampling and analysis results, laboratory reports, the annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation

6

report specified in Section A(9) of the Storm Water Permit, an explanation of why a facility did not

7

implement any required activities, and other records specified in Section B(13) of the Storm Water

8

Permit. Storm Water Permit, Section B(14).

9

81.

Section C(9) of the Storm Water Permit requires that all reports, certifications, or other

10

information required by the Storm Water Permit or requested by a regional board to have been signed by

11

an authorized representative of the facility’s operators.

12

82.

Section C(10) of the Storm Water Permit requires any signatory subject to Section C(9)

13

to make the following certification: “I certify under penalty of law that this document and all

14

attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to

15

ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my

16

inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for

17

gathering the information, the information submitted is to the best of my knowledge and belief, true,

18

accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,

19

including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.”

20

83.

Section C(11)(d) of the Storm Water Permit requires facility operators to report any

21

incidence of noncompliance with the Storm Water Permit at the time monitoring reports are submitted.

22

Reports of noncompliance must contain (1) a description of noncompliance and its cause, (2) the period

23

of noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the

24

anticipated time it is expected to continue, and (3) steps taken or planned to reduce and prevent

25

recurrence of the noncompliance. Storm Water Permit, Section C(11)(d).

26

V.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

27

A.

28

84.

Complaint

Facility Site Description.
Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

13

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 14 of 60

1

Owner and Operator conductss industrial operations at 724 Civic Center Drive in National City,

2

California 91950.

3

85.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Facility property is

4

bordered by Civic Center Drive to the north, Cleveland Avenue to the west, an I-5 offramp to the south,

5

and Harbor Drive to the east.

6

86.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the points of

7

egress/ingress to the Facility number in three (3 total), including two (2) driveways leading to Civic

8

Center Drive, and one (1) driveway to the west leading to Cleveland Avenue.

9

B.

The A-1 Alloys Facility’s Storm Water Permit Coverage.

10

87.

In 2006, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator submitted a Notice of Intent to

11

Comply with the Terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial

12

Activity (“NOI”) for the A-1 Alloys Facility.

13
14

The Regional Board confirmed receipt of the NOI for the A-1 Alloys Facility on May 31,

89.

The NOI identifies the operator of the A-1 Alloys Facility as “A-1 Alloys Recycling

2006.

15
16

88.

Center.”

17

90.

The NOI identifies the Facility name as “A-1 Alloys Recycling Center.”

18

91.

The State Board’s electronic database, called the Storm Water Multiple Application &

19

Report Tracking System (“SMARTS”),3 identifies the A-1 Alloys Facility Waste Discharge

20

Identification (“WDID”) number as 9-37I020171.

21

92.

The NOI lists the SIC code for the A-1 Alloys Facility as 5093.

22

93.

The NOI lists the total size of the Facility as 0.8 acres.

23

94.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility is

24

approximately 0.59-0.8 acres in size.

25

C.

Defendant’s SWPPP and M&RP for the A-1 Alloys Facility.

26

95.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or about April 27,

27
28

2007, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator had a SWPPP (“2007 SWPPP”) prepared for the A-1
3

Available at http://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov/ (last accessed October 6, 2014).

Complaint

14

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 15 of 60

1

Alloys Facility.

2

96.

Coastkeeper acquired the 2007 SWPPP from the Regional Board.

3

97.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP was the

4
5

A-1 Alloys Facility’s operative SWPPP until approximately April 3, 2015.
98.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on or about April 3, 2015,

6

the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator had a SWPPP (“2015 SWPPP”) prepared for the A-1

7

Alloys Facility.

8

99.

Coastkeeper acquired the 2015 SWPPP from the SMARTS database.

9

100.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2015 SWPPP is the

10

A-1 Alloys Facility’s operative SWPPP, and has been since approximately April 3, 2015.

11

D.

Industrial Activities at the A-1 Alloys Facility.

12

101.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility’s

13
14

industrial activities and areas of industrial activity are pollutant sources.
102.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the following industrial

15

activities are conducted at the A-1 Alloys Facility: drop off and pick up recycled materials and other

16

scrap metal materials, transfer of scrap and recycled materials, sorting of recycled materials, processing

17

of recycled metal and non-metal materials, storage of recycled materials in open air and closed bins,

18

vehicle traffic and delivery or hauling of bins filled with scrap or recycled materials, bin maintenance

19

and manufacturing (cleaning, repairing, welding, and painting) and storage, vehicle and equipment

20

washing, repair, and maintenance, and vehicle and equipment fueling and parking.

21

103.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

22

Owner and Operator conducts unloading, sorting, temporary storage, weighing, processing, and transfer

23

of scrap metal materials, plastics, and other recyclables in the northern quadrant of the Facility, near the

24

driveways to Civic Center Drive.

25

104.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

26

Owner and Operator conducts unloading, sorting, temporary storage, weighing, processing, and transfer

27

of scrap metal materials, plastics, and other recyclables in the western quadrant of the Facility, near the

28

driveway to Cleveland Avenue.

Complaint

15

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 16 of 60

1

105.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

2

Owner and Operator conducts unloading, sorting, temporary storage, weighing, processing, and transfer

3

of scrap metal materials, plastics, and other recyclables in the southern quadrant of the Facility, between

4

the storage warehouse and the southern boundary of the Facility.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

106.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator stores roll-off containers in the eastern quadrant of the Facility.
107.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator conducts vehicle washing, repair, and maintenance at the Facility.
108.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator conducts vehicle storage throughout the entire Facility.
109.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator conducts equipment storage, maintenance, and repair throughout the Facility.
110.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator receives, sorts, and processes scrap metal in the northern quadrant of the Facility.
111.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator receives, sorts, and processes scrap metal in the western quadrant of the Facility.
112.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator receives, sorts, and processes scrap metal in the southern quadrant of the Facility.
113.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator stores scrap metal in the southern quadrant of the Facility.
114.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

22

Owner and Operator stores recyclable materials other than scrap metal in the southern quadrant of the

23

Facility.

24
25
26
27
28

115.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator stores metal components throughout the Facility.
116.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

operates can densifiers near the center of the Facility.
117.

Complaint

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that industrial activities at the

16

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 17 of 60

1

A-1 Alloys Facility are conducted outdoors and without adequate cover or other measures to prevent the

2

exposure of industrial activities to rainfall.

3

118.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that industrial activities at the

4

A-1 Alloys Facility are conducted outdoors without secondary containment or other measures to prevent

5

polluted stormwater from discharging from the Facility.

6

119.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that materials associated with

7

industrial activities at the A-1 Alloys Facility are stored near driveways and other discharge points at the

8

A-1 Alloys Facility.

9

120.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that O&G, trash, debris, and

10

other pollutants, including metals and pathogens, have been and continue to be tracked throughout the

11

A-1 Alloys Facility.

12

121.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that trucks and vehicles

13

leaving the A-1 Alloys Facility via staging areas and driveways are pollutant sources tracking sediment,

14

dirt, O&G, metal particles, trash, debris, and other pollutants off the Facility.

15

122.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that sources of pollutants at

16

the A-1 Alloys Facility include: processing scrap metals and other materials for storage and/or shipment;

17

shipping, receiving, and moving products around the Facility; scrap metal loading and unloading area;

18

scrap metal processing area; ferrous scrap processing area; can densifier area; scrap metal storage area;

19

baler area; non-ferrous scrap storage areas; equipment parking and fueling area; vehicle maintenance,

20

cleaning, and storage; unloading raw materials; and unprocessed material storage and scrap storage

21

areas.

22

123.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the pollutants associated

23

with operations at the A-1 Alloys Facility include, but are not limited to: O&G; heavy metals, including,

24

but not limited to, iron, lead, aluminum, copper, and zinc; TSS; trash and debris; gas, diesel, fuel, and

25

fuel additives; fugitive and other dust and dirt; plastics products; petroleum products; and pH-affecting

26

substances.

27
28

124.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that pollutants accumulate on

the A-1 Alloys Facility at outdoor material handling and storage areas; sorting areas; material processing

Complaint

17

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 18 of 60

1

areas; vehicle and equipment maintenance areas; bulk storage areas; baled materials storage areas;

2

loading and unloading areas; parking areas and the driveways leading onto Cleveland Avenue and Civic

3

Center Drive; and the surrounding municipal streets themselves.

4

125.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

5

Owner and Operator has failed to adequately develop and/or implement BMPs to prevent the exposure

6

of pollutants and their sources to stormwater flows at the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of the Storm

7

Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.

8
9

126.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator has failed to adequately develop and/or implement BMPs sufficient to reduce or

10

prevent pollutants in stormwater discharged from the A-1 Alloys Facility, as required by the Storm

11

Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.

12
13

127.

pollutants from the A-1 Alloys Facility in violation of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.

14

E.

15

128.

16
17

The failure to properly address pollutants and their sources results in the discharge of

Stormwater Discharges at the A-1 Alloys Facility.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator state in the 2007 SWPPP that the Facility

has a vertical seepage pit designed to capture the first thirty minutes of stormwater runoff.
129.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that there is at least one (1)

18

discharge point at the A-1 Alloys Facility. This point is referred to by the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and

19

Operator as “NW Parking Area” or “Collection Point” or “Discharge Point.”

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

130.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the driveways at the A-1

Alloys Facility are also discharge points.
131.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Discharge Point

receives stormwater flows from the entire Facility.
132.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

discharges stormwater at the Discharge Point.
133.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that stormwater flows from

27

the Discharge Point to the area municipal separate storm sewer system, which carries the discharges

28

from the A-1 Alloys Facility to the Receiving Waters.

Complaint

18

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 19 of 60

1

134.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that stormwater flows from

2

the Facility driveways to the area municipal separate storm sewer system, which carries the discharges

3

from the A-1 Alloys Facility to the Receiving Waters.

4

F.

The Stormwater Discharges at the A-1 Alloys Facility Contain Elevated Levels of
Pollutants.

135.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

5
6
7

Owner and Operator were obligated under the Storm Water Permit to collect stormwater samples during

8

the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Wet Seasons.

9
10
11

136.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained an Annual

Report for the Facility dated July 9, 2010.
137.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Annual Report dated

12

July 9, 2010 obtained from the Regional Board is the 2009-2010 Annual Report for the A-1 Alloys

13

Facility.

14

138.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained a copy of

15

an EnviroMatrix Analytical stormwater monitoring report, prepared for “A-1 Alloys” for one sample

16

collected on December 7, 2009 from a location identified as “Storm Water” (“December 2009

17

Laboratory Report”).

18

139.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the December 2009

19

Laboratory Report was submitted to the Regional Board as evidence of the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s

20

and Operator’s stormwater sampling during the 2009-2010 Wet Season.

21
22
23

140.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained an Annual

Report for the Facility dated August 22, 2011.
141.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Annual Report dated

24

August 22, 2011 obtained from the Regional Board is the 2010-2011 Annual Report for the A-1 Alloys

25

Facility.

26

142.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained a copy of

27

an EnviroMatrix Analytical analytical report, prepared for “A-1 Alloys” and reported October 28, 2010,

28

for one sample collected from one location identified as “Northwest Corner Sample” (“October 2010

Complaint

19

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 20 of 60

1
2

Laboratory Report”).
143.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Ocotber 2010

3

Laboratory Report was submitted to the Regional Board as evidence of the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s

4

and Operator’s stormwater sampling on October 19, 2010, during the 2010-2011 Wet Season.

5
6
7

144.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained an Annual

Report for the Facility dated July 9, 2012.
145.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Annual Report dated

8

July 9, 2012 obtained from the Regional Board is the 2011-2012 Annual Report for the A-1 Alloys

9

Facility.

10

146.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained copies of

11

an EnviroMatrix Analytical analytical report, prepared for “A-1 Alloys” and reported April 24, 2012, for

12

one sample collected from a location identified as “Storm Water Sample” (“April 2012 Laboratory

13

Report”).

14

147.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the April 2012 Laboratory

15

Report was submitted to the Regional Board as evidence of the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s and

16

Operator’s stormwater sampling on April 13, 2012, during the 2011-2012 Wet Season.

17
18
19

148.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained an Annual

Report for the Facility dated December 1, 2013.
149.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Annual Report dated

20

December 1, 2013 obtained from the Regional Board is the 2012-2013 Annual Report for the A-1

21

Alloys Facility.

22

150.

Via a Public Records Act request to the Regional Board, Coastkeeper obtained copies of

23

an EnviroMatrix Analytical analytical report, prepared for “A-1 Alloys” and reported December 7, 2012,

24

for one sample collected from a location identified as “Storm Water Sample” (“December 2012

25

Laboratory Report”).

26

151.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the December 2012

27

Laboratory Report was submitted to the Regional Board as evidence of the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s

28

and Operator’s stormwater sampling on December 13, 2012, during the 2012-2013 Wet Season.

Complaint

20

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 21 of 60

1
2
3
4
5

152.

From SMARTS, Coastkeeper obtained an Annual Report for the Facility dated June 18,

153.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Annual Report dated

2014.

June 18, 2014 obtained from SMARTS is the 2013-2014 Annual Report for the A-1 Alloys Facility.
154.

From SMARTS, Coastkeeper obtained copies of an EnviroMatrix Analytical analytical

6

report, prepared for “A-1 Alloys” and reported December 3, 2013, for one sample collected from a

7

location identified as “Storm 1” (“December 2013 Laboratory Report”).

8
9
10
11

155.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the December 2013

Laboratory Report was submitted to the Regional Board as evidence of the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s
and Operator’s stormwater sampling on November 21, 2013, during the 2013-2014 Wet Season.
156.

From SMARTS, Coastkeeper obtained copies of an EnviroMatrix Analytical analytical

12

report, prepared for “A-1 Alloys” and reported March 11, 2014, for one sample collected from a location

13

identified as “Storm 2” (“March 2014 Laboratory Report”).

14

157.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the March 2014

15

Laboratory Report was submitted to the Regional Board as evidence of the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s

16

and Operator’s stormwater sampling on February 28, 2014, during the 2013-2014 Wet Season.

17

158.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility’s

18

Annual Reports for the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 Wet Seasons

19

report exceedances of EPA Benchmarks for multiple constituents during each and every Wet Season

20

since the 2009-2010 Wet Season.

21

159.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that repeated exceedances of

22

EPA Benchmarks demonstrate that Defendant failed and continues to fail to develop and/or implement

23

required BMPs at the A-1 Alloys Facility that achieve compliance with BAT/BCT standards.

24

160.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each time the A-1 Alloys

25

Facility discharges stormwater the discharges contain levels of pollutants that demonstrate the A-1

26

Alloys Facility Owner’s and Operator’s failure to achieve compliance with BAT/BCT standards.

27
28

161.

Samples of stormwater discharges collected at the A-1 Alloys Facility contain levels of

pollutants in excess of WQS. See Exhibit A at § II.B (identifying specific stormwater samples with

Complaint

21

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 22 of 60

1

copper, zinc, and lead concentrations above WQS).

2
3

162.

Samples of stormwater discharges collected at the A-1 Alloys Facility contain

concentrations of pollutants at levels known to adversely impact aquatic species and the environment.

4

G.

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the Storm Water Permit’s SWPPP
Requirements.

163.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

5
6
7

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to develop a SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility that

8

complies with Section A of the Storm Water Permit.
164.

9

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

10

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to implement a SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility that

11

complies with Section A of the Storm Water Permit.
165.

12

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP failed to

13

include a site map of the A-1 Alloys Facility that includes the A-1 Alloys Facility’s boundaries, outlines

14

of all storm drainage areas with indicators of flow direction in each area, identification of nearby water

15

bodies, locations of storm water collection and conveyance systems, outlines of all impervious areas,

16

locations where materials are directly exposed to precipitation, locations where significant spills or leaks

17

have occurred, and all areas of industrial activity, as required by Section A(4) of the Storm Water

18

Permit.

19

166.

The 2007 SWPPP does not list iron or zinc as potential pollutants.

20

167.

The 2007 SWPPP does not list bacteria, such as E. coli, as a potential pollutant.

21

168.

The 2007 SWPPP does not specifically identify all the significant materials and potential

22

pollutants at the A-1 Alloys Facility.

23

169.

The 2015 SWPPP does not identify specific metals as potential pollutants at the Facility.

24

170.

Though the 2015 SWPPP does identify some metals, when referring to parameters for

25

which samples will be analyzed, it does not list iron or zinc in this list or otherwise identify these metals

26

as potential pollutants.

27

171.

The 2015 SWPPP does not list bacteria, such as E. coli, as a potential pollutant.

28

172.

The 2015 SWPPP does not specifically identify all the significant materials and potential

Complaint

22

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 23 of 60

1

pollutants at the A-1 Alloys Facility.

2

173.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

3

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise a SWPPP that includes a list

4

of significant materials handled and stored at the site, including the locations where the materials are

5

stored, received, shipped, and handled, as well as the typical quantities and frequency, as required by

6

Section A(5) of the Storm Water Permit.

7

174.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

8

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise the SWPPP to include all

9

potential pollutants that could be discharged in storm water discharges, as required by Section A(6) of

10

the Storm Water Permit.

11
12

175.

equipment fueling areas; bin maintenance areas; or all equipment storage areas.

13
14

The 2007 SWPPP does not identify vehicle and equipment washing areas; vehicle and

176.

The 2015 SWPPP does not identify vehicle and equipment washing areas; vehicle and

equipment fueling areas; bin maintenance areas; or all equipment storage areas.

15

177.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

16

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise a SWPPP that includes all

17

industrial activities and potential pollutant sources, as required by Section A(6) of the Storm Water

18

Permit.

19

178.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

20

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise a SWPPP that adequately

21

describes the specific industrial processes associated with all industrial activities performed at the

22

Facility, as required by Section A(6) of the Storm Water Permit.

23

179.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

24

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise a SWPPP that adequately

25

describes the type, characteristics, and quantity of specific materials used in or resulting from the

26

industrial activities conducted at the Facility, as required by Section A(6) of the Storm Water Permit.

27
28

180.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the storage, movement,

and processing of recyclable materials conducted at the A-1 Alloys Facility generates dust or

Complaint

23

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 24 of 60

1

particulates.

2

181.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that in relation to the

3

Facility’s storage, movement, and processing of recyclable materials the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and

4

Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise a SWPPP that includes the characteristics

5

of the dust and particulate pollutants, the approximate quantity of pollutants that may be deposited

6

within the facility boundaries, and the approximate areas of the facility where dust and particulate

7

pollutants would settle, as required by Section A(6) of the Storm Water Permit.

8
9
10
11

182.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the SWPPP for the A-1

Alloys Facility does not list specific pollutants that are associated with each industrial process at the A-1
Alloys Facility, as required by Section A(6) of the Storm Water Permit.
183.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

12

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to develop and revise a SWPPP that includes all

13

industrial processes, potential pollutant sources, and potential pollutants as required by Section A(6) of

14

the Storm Water Permit.

15

184.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

16

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to revise and evaluate the SWPPP for the A-1

17

Alloys Facility, including the SWPPP’s descriptions of potential pollutants, pollutant sources, and

18

industrial processes, as necessary to develop and implement adequate BMPs, as required by Section

19

A(7) of the Storm Water Permit.

20

185.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP does not

21

include a summary of all areas of industrial activities and the potential pollutants in a table resembling

22

Table B in Section A(6)(b) of the Storm Water Permit.

23
24
25
26
27
28

186.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP does not

include an adequate summary of the BMPs by pollutant source.
187.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2015 SWPPP does not

include an adequate summary of the BMPs by pollutant source.
188.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that without properly

identifying all pollutant sources and potential pollutants at the Facility in the 2007 SWPPP, the A-1

Complaint

24

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 25 of 60

1
2

Alloys Facility Owner and Operator cannot and has not developed all appropriate BMPs.
189.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that without properly

3

identifying all pollutant sources and potential pollutants at the Facility in the 2015 SWPPP, the A-1

4

Alloys Facility Owner and Operator cannot and has not implemented all appropriate BMPs.

5

190.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP does not

6

include an assessment of the Facility’s BMPs corresponding to potential pollutant sources and

7

associated pollutants.

8

191.

9
10

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to assess potential pollutant sources at the Facility.
192.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

11

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to assess the Facility’s BMPs corresponding to

12

potential pollutant sources and associated pollutants.

13
14
15

193.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the SWPPP for the A-1

Alloys Facility does not include an adequate analysis of the effectiveness of the BMPs at the Facility.
194.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

16

Owner and/or Operators has failed and continues to fail to analyze the effectiveness of the BMPs at the

17

Facility.

18

195.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP does not

19

include adequate structural BMPs to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges, as required

20

by Section A(8)(b) of the Storm Water Permit.

21

196.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2015 SWPPP does not

22

include adequate structural BMPs to reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges, as required

23

by Section A(8)(b) of the Storm Water Permit.

24

197.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2007 SWPPP does not

25

include adequate BMPs to reduce or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges to levels required by

26

the Storm Water Permit.

27
28

198.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the 2015 SWPPP does not

include adequate BMPs to reduce or prevent pollutants in stormwater discharges to levels required by

Complaint

25

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 26 of 60

1
2

the Storm Water Permit.
199.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the repeated and

3

significant exceedances of benchmark levels demonstrate that the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and

4

Operator failed and continues to fail to develop BMPs to prevent the exposure of pollutants to storm

5

water, and to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from the Facility.

6

200.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the repeated and

7

significant exceedances of benchmark levels demonstrate that the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and

8

Operator failed and continues to fail to implement BMPs to prevent the exposure of pollutants to

9

stormwater, and to prevent discharges of polluted stormwater from the Facility.

10

201.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

11

Owner and Operator has failed and continues to fail to adequately revise the SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys

12

Facility, despite repeated and significant concentrations of pollutants in the Facility’s storm water

13

discharges and other changes and events requiring revision.

14
15
16

202.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the SWPPP for the A-1

Alloys Facility does not identify pollution prevention team responsibilities.
203.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

17

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to adequately revise the SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys

18

Facility as necessary to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit.

19

H.

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the Storm Water Permit’s M&RP
Requirements.

204.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

20
21
22

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to develop an adequate M&RP for industrial operations

23

at the A-1 Alloys Facility that complies with Section B of the Storm Water Permit.

24

205.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

25

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to implement an adequate M&RP for industrial

26

operations at the A-1 Alloys Facility that complies with Section B of the Storm Water Permit.

27
28

206.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to revise the M&RP for the A-1 Alloys Facility as

Complaint

26

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 27 of 60

1

necessary to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit.

2

207.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

3

Owner and Operator failed to conduct monthly visual observations of stormwater discharges at all of the

4

A-1 Alloys Facility’s discharge locations during the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013,

5

2013-2014 Wet Seasons.

6

208.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

7

Owner and Operator failed to conduct monthly visual observations of stormwater discharges at all of the

8

A-1 Alloys Facility’s discharge locations during the first hour of discharge during of the 2009-2010,

9

2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014 Wet Seasons.

10

209.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

11

Owner and Operator failed to collect stormwater samples at all of the A-1 Alloys Facility’s discharge

12

locations during the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 Wet Seasons.

13

210.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

14

Owner and Operator failed to collect and analyze storm water samples as required by the Storm Water

15

Permit. For example, except for the 2013/2014 Wet Season, only one storm water sample was collected,

16

rather than the two storm water samples required by Section B(5) of the Storm Water Permit, despite

17

qualifying rain events.

18

I.

Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the Storm Water Permit’s
Reporting Requirements.

211.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

19
20
21

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to submit Annual Reports that comply with Section

22

B(14) of the Storm Water Permit.
212.

23
24

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to submit complete and adequate Annual Reports.
213.

25

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

26

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to submit Annual Reports that acknowledge or provide

27

explanations for the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s and Operator’s noncompliance with the Storm Water

28

Permit.

Complaint

27

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 28 of 60

1

214.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

2

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to submit Annual Reports that include the necessary

3

explanations of their failure to implement activities required by the Storm Water Permit.

4

215.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

5

Owner and Operator has never conducted the Annual Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation

6

Report (“ACSCE Report”), as demonstrated by the failure to document this assessment in the Annual

7

Report. See Annual Reports, Form 5: Annual Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation Potential

8

Pollutant Source/Industrial Activity BMP Status.

9

216.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

10

Owner’s and Operator’s certifications of the ACSCE Report in each of the Facility’s 2009-2010, 2010-

11

2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 Annual Reports were erroneous because the A-1 Alloys

12

Facility Owner and Operator had not developed and/or implemented the required BMPs in accordance

13

with the Storm Water Permit’s Effluent Limitations and Section A.

14

217.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Facility’s

15

2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 Annual Reports inaccurately stated that

16

the SWPPP’s BMPs addressed existing potential pollutant sources when they did not.

17

218.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

18

Owner’s and Operator’s certifications of compliance with the Storm Water Permit in each of their 2009-

19

2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 Annual Reports were erroneous because the

20

A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator has not revised the Facility’s SWPPP to address all Storm

21

Water Permit violations.

22

219.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

23

Owner’s and Operator’s certifications of compliance with the Storm Water Permit in each of their 2009-

24

2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 Annual Reports were erroneous because the

25

A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator has not revised the Facility’s M&RP to address all Storm

26

Water Permit violations.

27
28

220.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the A-1 Alloys Facility

Owner and Operator failed and continues to fail to submit reports identifying what additional BMPs will

Complaint

28

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 29 of 60

1

be implemented to achieve water quality standards when stormwater discharges from the A-1 Alloys

2

Facility exceed the Storm Water Permit’s Receiving Water Limitations.

3

221.

Storm Water Permit, Section C(11)(d) requires the facility operator to report any

4

noncompliance with the Storm Water Permit at the time that the Annual Report is submitted, including

5

1) a description of the noncompliance and its cause, 2) the period of noncompliance, 3) if the

6

noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue, and 4) steps taken

7

or planned to reduce and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. Storm Water Permit, Section

8

C(11)(d). The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and Operator did not report its non-compliance as required in

9

each of their 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 Annual Reports.

10
11

VI.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

12

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s Discharges of Contaminated Stormwater in Violation of the Storm Water Permit’s
Effluent Limitation B(3) and the Clean Water Act.

13

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1365(a) and 1365(f)

14
15
16

222.

Coastkeeper incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and in the

Notice Letter, attached as Exhibit A, as though fully set forth herein.
223.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

17

continues to fail to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activities in the A-1 Alloys

18

Facility discharges to levels that, through the development of BMPs, achieve BAT/BCT.

19

224.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

20

continues to fail to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activities in the A-1 Alloys

21

Facility discharges to levels that, through the implementation of BMPs, achieve BAT/BCT.

22

225.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that discharges of stormwater

23

containing levels of pollutants that do not achieve compliance with BAT/BCT standards is discharged

24

from the A-1 Alloys Facility each time stormwater discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility.

25

226.

Defendant violates Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit each and every

26

time stormwater containing levels of pollutants that do not achieve compliance with BAT/BCT

27

standards is discharged from the A-1 Alloys Facility.

28

227.

Complaint

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s violations of

29

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 30 of 60

1

Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act are ongoing and

2

continuous.

3

228.

Defendant will continue to violate the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act each

4

and every time contaminated stormwater discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility in violation of Effluent

5

Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit.

6

229.

Each and every time Defendant discharges contaminated stormwater from the A-1 Alloys

7

Facility in violation of Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit is a separate and distinct

8

violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

9

230.

Pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365,

10

and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, by committing the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendant is subject to an

11

assessment of civil penalties for each and every violation of the Clean Water Act since April 6, 2010.

12

231.

An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.

13

§ 1365(a). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above would irreparably harm

14

Coastkeeper and its members, for which harm Coastkeeper has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

15

law.

16
17

WHEREFORE, Coastkeeper prays for judgment against Defendant as set forth hereafter.

18

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s Discharges of Contaminated Stormwater in Violation of the Storm Water Permit’s
Receiving Water Limitation C(1) and the Clean Water Act.

19

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1365(a) and 1365(f)

20
21
22

232.

Coastkeeper incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and in the

Notice Letter, attached as Exhibit A, as though fully set forth herein.
233.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant dischargesd

23

and continue to discharge stormwater containing levels of pollutants that adversely impact human health

24

and/or the environment from the A-1 Alloys Facility.

25

234.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each time stormwater is

26

discharged from the A-1 Alloys Facility it contains levels of pollutants that adversely impact human

27

health and/or the environment .

28

235.

Complaint

Defendant violates Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit each and

30

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 31 of 60

1

every time stormwater containing levels of pollutants that adversely impact human health and/or the

2

environment discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility.

3

236.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s violations of

4

Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act are ongoing and

5

continuous.

6

237.

Defendant will continue to be in violation of the Storm Water Permit and the CWA each

7

and every time contaminated stormwater discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility in violation of

8

Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit.

9
10

238.

Each and every violation of Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit

is a separate and distinct violation of Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

11

239.

Pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365, and 40

12

C.F.R. § 19.4, by committing the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendant is subject to an

13

assessment of civil penalties for each and every violation of the Clean Water Act since April 6, 2010.

14

240.

An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.

15

§ 1365(a). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above would irreparably harm

16

Coastkeeper and its members, for which harm Coastkeeper has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

17

law.

18
19

WHEREFORE, Coastkeeper prays for judgment against Defendant as set forth hereafter.

20

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s Discharges of Contaminated Stormwater in Violation of the Storm Water Permit’s
Receiving Water Limitation C(2) and the Clean Water Act.

21

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1365(a) and 1365(f)

22
23
24

241.

Coastkeeper incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and in the

Notice Letter, attached as Exhibit A, as though fully set forth herein.
242.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant has discharged

25

and continue to discharge stormwater containing levels of pollutants from the A-1 Alloys Facility that

26

cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality standards.

27
28

243.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each time stormwater is

discharged from the A-1 Alloys Facility it contains levels of pollutants that cause or contribute to

Complaint

31

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 32 of 60

1

exceedances of water quality standards.

2

244.

Defendant violates Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit each and

3

every time stormwater containing levels of pollutants that cause or contribute to exceedances of water

4

quality standards discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility.

5

245.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s violations of

6

Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit and Clean Water Act are ongoing and

7

continuous.

8

246.

9

Each and every violation of Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit

is a separate and distinct violation of Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

10

247.

Pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365,

11

and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, by committing the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendant is subject to an

12

assessment of civil penalties for each and every violation of the Clean Water Act since April 6, 2010.

13

248.

An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.

14

§ 1365(a). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above would irreparably harm

15

Coastkeeper and its members, for which harm Coastkeeper has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

16

law.

17
18

WHEREFORE, Coastkeeper prays for judgment against Defendant as set forth hereafter.

19

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s Failure to Adequately Develop, Implement, and/or Revise a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan in Violation of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.

20

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1365(a) and 1365(f)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

249.

Coastkeeper incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and in the

Notice Letter, attached as Exhibit A, as though fully set forth herein.
250.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

continues to fail to adequately develop a SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of Section A
and Provision E(2) of the Storm Water Permit.
251.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

continues to fail to adequately implement a SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of Section A
and Provision E(2) of the Storm Water Permit.

Complaint

32

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 33 of 60

1

252.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

2

continues to fail to adequately revise a SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of Sections A(9)

3

and A(10) of the Storm Water Permit.

4

253.

Defendant has been in violation of Section A and Provision E(2) of the Storm Water

5

Permit for failing to develop, implement, and/or revise an adequate SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility

6

every day since at least April 6, 2010.

7
8

254.

Defendant’s violations of Section A and Provision E(2) of the Storm Water Permit and

the Clean Water Act are ongoing and continuous.

9

255.

Defendant will continue to be in violation of Section A and Provision E(2) of the Storm

10

Water Permit and the Clean Water Act each and every day Defendant operates the A-1 Alloys Facility

11

without an adequately developed, implemented, and/or revised SWPPP for the A-1 Alloys Facility.

12
13

256.

Each and every violation of the Storm Water Permit’s SWPPP requirements at the A-1

Alloys Facility is a separate and distinct violation of the Clean Water Act.

14

257.

Pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365,

15

and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, by committing the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendant is subject to an

16

assessment of civil penalties for each and every violation of the Clean Water Act since April 6, 2010.

17

258.

An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.

18

§ 1365(a). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above would irreparably harm

19

Coastkeeper and its members, for which harm Coastkeeper has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

20

law.

21
22
23

WHEREFORE, Coastkeeper prays for judgment against Defendant as set forth hereafter.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s Failure to Adequately Develop, Implement, and/or Revise a Monitoring and
Reporting Program in Violation of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.

24
25
26
27
28

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1365(a) and 1365(f)
259.

Coastkeeper incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and in the

Notice Letter, attached as Exhibit A, as though fully set forth herein.
260.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

continues to fail to adequately develop an M&RP for the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of Section B

Complaint

33

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 34 of 60

1

and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit.

2

261.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

3

continues to fail to adequately implement an M&RP for the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of Section

4

B and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit.

5

262.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant failed and

6

continues to fail to adequately revise an M&RP for the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of Section B and

7

Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit.

8
9
10

263.

Permit for their failure to develop, implement, and/or revise an adequate M&RP for the A-1 Alloys
Facility every day since at least April 6, 2010.

11
12

Defendant has been in violation of Section B and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water

264.

Defendant’s violations of Section B and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit and

the Clean Water Act are ongoing and continuous.

13

265.

Defendant will continue to be in violation of Section B and Provision E(3) the Storm

14

Water Permit and the Clean Water Act each and every day Defendant operates the A-1 Alloys Facility

15

without an adequately developed, implemented, and/or revised M&RP for the A-1 Alloys Facility.

16
17

266.

Each and every violation of the Storm Water Permit’s M&RP requirements at the A-1

Alloys Facility is a separate and distinct violation of the Clean Water Act.

18

267.

Pursuant to Sections 309(d) and 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365,

19

and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, by committing the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendant is subject to an

20

assessment of civil penalties for each and every violation of the Clean Water Act since April 6, 2010.

21

268.

An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.

22

§ 1365(a). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above would irreparably harm

23

Coastkeeper and its members, for which harm Coastkeeper has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

24

law.

25
26

WHEREFORE, Coastkeeper prays for judgment against Defendant as set forth hereafter.

27

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Defendant’s Failure to Comply with the Storm Water Permit’s Reporting Requirements in
Violation of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.

28

33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342, 1365(a) and 1365(f)

Complaint

34

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 35 of 60

1
2

269.

Coastkeeper incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs and in the

Notice Letter, attached as Exhibit A, as though fully set forth herein.

3

270.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s Annual

4

Reports have not met the reporting requirements of the Storm Water Permit, in violation of Section

5

B(14) of the Storm Water Permit.

6
7

271.

Reports are inaccurate, in violation of Sections A(9) and B(14) of the Storm Water Permit.

8
9

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s Annual

272.

Coastkeeper is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant’s Annual

Reports are incomplete, in violation of Sections A(9) and B(14) of the Storm Water Permit.

10

273.

Defendant has been in violation of the reporting requirements of the Storm Water Permit

11

each day it operated the A-1 Alloys Facility without reporting as required by Section B(14) of the Storm

12

Water Permit.

13
14

274.

Water Permit every day since at least April 6, 2010.

15
16

Defendant has been in daily and continuous violation of Section B(14) of the Storm

275. Defendant’s violations of the reporting requirements of the Storm Water Permit and the
CWA are ongoing and continuous.

17

276.

Defendant will continue to be in violation of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean

18

Water Act each and every day Defendant operates the A-1 Alloys Facility without complying with the

19

Storm Water Permit’s reporting requirements.

20
21

277.

Each and every violation of the Storm Water Permit’s reporting requirements at the A-1

Alloys Facility is a separate and distinct violation of the Clean Water Act.

22

278.

Pursuant to sections 309(d) and 505 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365, and 40

23

C.F.R. § 19.4, by committing the acts and omissions alleged above, Defendant is subject to an

24

assessment of civil penalties for each and every violation of the CWA since April 6, 2010.

25

279.

An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.

26

§ 1365(a). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above would irreparably harm

27

Coastkeeper and its members, for which harm Coastkeeper has no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at

28

law.

Complaint

35

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 36 of 60

1
2
3

WHEREFORE, Coastkeeper prays for judgment against Defendant as set forth hereafter.
VII.

RELIEF REQUESTED
280.

4

Coastkeeper respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
a.

A Court order declaring Defendant to have violated and to be in violation of the

5

Storm Water Permit and Section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), for their violations of the

6

substantive and procedural requirements of the Storm Water Permit;

7
8

b.

A Court order enjoining Defendant from violating the substantive and procedural

requirements of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act;

9

c.

A Court order assessing civil monetary penalties for each violation of the Clean

10

Water Act at $37,500 per day per violation for violations occurring since April 6, 2010, as permitted by

11

33 U.S.C. § 1319(d) and 40 C.F.R. § 19.4;

12

d.

A Court order awarding Coastkeeper its reasonable costs of this suit, including

13

attorney, witness, expert, and consultant fees, as permitted by Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33

14

U.S.C. § 1365(d);

15
16

e.
Dated: June 5, 2015

Any other relief as this Court may deem appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,

17

LAWYERS FOR CLEAN WATER, INC.

18

/s/ Drevet Hunt
Drevet Hunt
Attorney for Plaintiff
San Diego Coastkeeper

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Complaint

36

 Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 37 of 60

Exhibit A

 
   Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 38 of 60

February 9, 2015
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
A-1 Alloys Recycling Center
Attention: Managing Agent
724 Civic Center Drive
National City, California 91950
A-1 Alloys, Inc.
3330 Beyer Blvd. Suite F
San Diego, California 92173
VIA U.S MAIL
Jerry Williams
Registered Agent for
A-1 Alloys, Inc.
1401 Cleveland Avenue
National City, California 91941
Re:

Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit Under the Clean Water Act

To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing on behalf of San Diego Coastkeeper (“Coastkeeper”) in regard to
violations of the Clean Water Act1 and California’s Storm Water Permit2 occurring at the
A-1 Alloys Recycling Center located at 724 Civic Center Drive in National City,
California 91950 (“A-1 Alloys Facility” or “Facility”). This letter is being sent to you as
the responsible owner and/or operator of the A-1 Alloys Facility, or as the registered
agent for this entity. This letter puts A-1 Alloys, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the “A-1
Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator”) on notice of the violations of the Storm Water
Permit occurring at the A-1 Alloys Facility including, but not limited to, discharges of
polluted storm water from the A-1 Alloys Facility into local surface waters. Violations of
the Storm Water Permit are violations of the Clean Water Act. As explained below, the
A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator is liable for violations of the Storm Water
Permit and the Clean Water Act.

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
1
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.
2
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No.
CAS000001 [State Water Resources Control Board] Water Quality Order No. 92-12DWQ, as amended by Order No. 97-03-DWQ.
 
  

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 39 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 2 of 14 
  

Section 505(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b), requires that a
citizen give notice of his/her intention to file suit sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of
a civil action under Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). Notice
must be given to the alleged violator, the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Regional Administrator of the EPA, the
Executive Officer of the water pollution control agency in the state in which the
violations occur, and, if the alleged violator is a corporation, the registered agent of the
corporation. See 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(1).
By this letter issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a) and (b) of the Clean Water
Act, (hereinafter “Notice Letter”), Coastkeeper puts the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner
and/or Operator on notice that after the expiration of sixty (60) days from the date of this
Notice Letter, Coastkeeper intends to file an enforcement action in Federal court against
it for violations of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.
I.

BACKGROUND
A. San Diego Coastkeeper

San Diego Coastkeeper’s office is located at 2825 Dewey Road, Suite 200 in San
Diego, California 92106. Coastkeeper is a nonprofit organization committed to protecting
and restoring the San Diego region's water quality and supply. A member of the
international Waterkeeper Alliance, Coastkeeper's main purpose is to preserve, enhance,
and protect the San Diego's marine sanctuaries, coastal estuaries, wetlands and bays from
illegal dumping, hazardous spills, toxic discharges and habitat degradation. Coastkeeper
implements this mission through outreach and education programs that work to prevent
water pollution, as well as community activism, participation in governmental hearings,
and prosecuting litigation to ensure that San Diego's beaches, bays, coastal waters and
tributary streams and rivers meet all substantive water quality standards guaranteed by
Federal, State and local statutes and regulations.
Members of Coastkeeper use and enjoy the waters into which pollutants from the
A1 Alloys facility’s ongoing illegal activities are discharged, including San Diego Bay
and the Pacific Ocean. The public and members of Coastkeeper use these receiving
waters to fish, sail, boat, kayak, surf, stand-up paddle, swim, scuba dive, birdwatch, view
wildlife, and to engage in scientific studies. Procedural and substantive violations of the
Storm Water Permit including, but not limited to, the discharge of pollutants from the A1 Alloys Facility impair each of these uses. Further, these violations are ongoing and
continuous. Thus, the interests of Coastkeeper’s members have been, are being, and will
continue to be adversely affected by the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s and/or Operator’s
failure to comply with the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.
B. The Owner and/or Operator of the A-1 Alloys Facility
Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that A-1 Alloys, Inc. is an owner
and/or operator of the A-1 Alloys Facility. A-1 Alloys, Inc. is an active corporation

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 40 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 3 of 14 
  

registered in California. The registered agent for A-1 Alloys, Inc. is Jerry Williams,
located at 1401 Cleveland Avenue in National City, California 91941.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has violated and continues to
violate the procedural and substantive terms of the Storm Water Permit including, but not
limited to, by illegally discharging pollutants from the A-1 Alloys Facility into local
surface waters. As explained herein, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator is
liable for violations of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.
C. The A-1 Alloys Facility’s Storm Water Permit Coverage
Prior to beginning industrial operations, dischargers are required to apply for
coverage under the Storm Water Permit by submitting a Notice of Intent to Comply with
the Terms of the General Permit to Discharge Storm Water Associated with Industrial
Activity (“NOI”) to the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”). See Storm
Water Permit, Finding #3. The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator submitted an
NOI for the A-1 Alloys Facility in 2006 (“2006 NOI”). The State Board assigned Waste
Discharge Identification (“WDID”) number 9-37I020171 for the A-1 Alloys Facility. The
A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator lists the Standard Industrial Classification
(“SIC”) code for the A-1 Alloys Facility as 5093 (Scrap and Waste Materials).
D. Storm Water Pollution and the Waters Receiving the A-1 Alloys Facility’s
Discharges
With every significant rainfall event, millions of gallons of polluted storm water
originating from industrial operations such as the A-1 Alloys Facility pour into storm
drains and local waterways. The consensus among agencies and water quality specialists
is that storm water pollution accounts for more than half of the total pollution entering
surface waters each year. Such discharges of pollutants from industrial facilities
contribute to the impairment of downstream waters and adversely impact aquaticdependent wildlife. These contaminated discharges can and must be controlled for
downstream ecosystems to regain their health.
Storm water discharges from scrap metal recycling facilities, like the A-1 Alloys
Facility, contain pollutants such as oil and grease (“O&G”), total suspended solids
(“TSS”), specific conductance (“SC”), plastics, and heavy metals (such as copper, iron,
lead, aluminum, and zinc). Many of these pollutants are on the list of chemicals published
by the State of California as known to cause cancer, birth defects, and/or developmental
or reproductive harm. Discharges of polluted storm water to the San Diego Bay and its
tributaries pose carcinogenic and reproductive toxicity threats to the public and adversely
affect the aquatic environment.
The San Diego Bay and its tributaries are receiving waters for discharges from the
A-1 Alloys Facility. The San Diego Bay and the nearby San Diego Bay National Wildlife
Refuge are ecologically sensitive areas. Although pollution and habitat destruction have
drastically diminished once-abundant and varied fisheries, the San Diego Bay and its

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 41 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 4 of 14 
  

tributaries still provide essential habitat for dozens of fish, bird, and invertebrate species.
These pollutants harm the special aesthetic and recreational significance that the San
Diego Bay has for people in the surrounding communities, including Coastkeeper’s
members. The public’s use of the San Diego Bay and its tributaries for water contact
sports exposes people to toxic metals and other contaminants in storm water and nonstorm water discharges. Non-contact recreational and aesthetic opportunities, such as
wildlife observation, are also impaired by polluted discharges to the San Diego Bay and
its tributaries.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region,
(“Regional Board”) issued the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin
(“Basin Plan”). The Basin Plan identifies the “Beneficial Uses” of water bodies in the
region. The Beneficial Uses for the San Diego Bay near the point at which it receives
polluted storm water discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility (i.e., San Diego Bay)
include: Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance; Water Contact
Recreation; Non-contact Water Recreation; Wildlife Habitat; Commercial and Sport
Fishing; Estuarine Habitat; Marine Habitat; Migration of Aquatic Organisms; Spawning,
Reproduction, and/or Early Development; Shellfish Harvesting; and Rare, Threatened, or
Endangered Species. See Basin Plan at Table 2-3. The San Diego Bay is on the 303(d)
list as impaired for numerous constituents, including sediment toxicity, copper, zinc,
mercury, benthic community effects, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and bacteria. Polluted discharges from industrial sites
such as the A-1 Alloys Facility contribute to the degradation of these already impaired
surface waters and of the ecosystems that depend on these waters.
II.

THE A-1 ALLOYS FACILITY AND ASSOCIATED DISCHARGES OF
POLLUTANTS
A. The A-1 Alloys Facility Site Description

Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the A-1 Alloys Facility is at
least 0.59 acres and 90% impervious. The Facility property is bordered by Civic Center
Drive to the north, Cleveland Avenue to the west, an I-5 offramp to the south, and Harbor
Drive to the east. The points of egress/ingress to the Facility number in three (3 total),
including two (2) driveways leading to Civic Center Drive, and one (1) driveway to the
west leading to Cleveland Avenue.
Information available to Coastkeeper indicates the facility contains one main
building located at the center of the Facility used for processing, sorting, and storing
materials received. At the north edge of the Facility property is located a metal carport
for the receiving of materials from incoming cars and trucks. The eastern, southern, and
parts of the western portions of the Facility property are used for storage of materials.
The egress/ingress driveways on Cleveland Avenue serve as entry and exit points for
drive-through recycling services for both members of the public and A-1 Alloy vehicles
picking up and dropping off bins containing recycled and scrap materials. Materials are
unloaded at the drop off location on the north side of the property and then are sorted

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 42 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 5 of 14 
  

either immediately or within the main building located centrally on the site. Materials are
sorted and put into storage bins located on the eastern and southern portions of the
property. A1 Alloys-labelled trucks pick up materials bins for transport off-site.
Materials may be trucked in from other sites in bins and stored on site and sorted.
B. The A-1 Alloys Facility Industrial Activities and Associated Pollutants
According to information available to Coastkeeper, scrap metals and other
materials are received, processed, sorted, stored, and shipped at the A-1 Alloys Facility.
The industrial activities and areas at the A-1 Alloys Facility are pollutant sources and
include, but are not limited to: processing scrap metals and other materials for storage
and/or shipment; shipping, receiving, and moving products around the Facility; scrap
metal loading and unloading area, scrap metal processing area; ferrous scrap processing
area; can densifier area; scrap metal storage area; baler area; non-ferrous scrap storage
areas; equipment parking and fueling area; vehicle maintenance, cleaning, and storage;
unloading raw materials; and unprocessed material storage and scrap storage areas. The
egress/ingress driveways on Cleveland Avenue serve as in-and-out points for drive
through recycling services for both members of the public and A-1 Alloy vehicles
picking up and dropping off bins containing recycled and scrap materials. Among the
activities that take place at A-1 Alloys Facility are: drop off and pick up recycled
materials and other scrap metal materials, transfer of scrap and recycled materials, sorting
of recycled materials, processing of recycled metal and non-metal materials, storage of
recycled materials in open and closed air bins, vehicle traffic and delivery or hauling of
bins filled with scrap or recycled materials.
The pollutants associated with the Facility include, but are not limited to: O&G;
heavy metals, including, but not limited to, aluminum, iron, lead, aluminum, copper, and
zinc; TSS; trash and debris; gas, diesel, fuel, and fuel additives; fugitive and other dust
and dirt; plastics products; petroleum products; and pH-affecting substances.
Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that storage of vehicles and
equipment, storage of materials associated with the Facility’s industrial activities occur
outdoors without adequate cover to prevent storm water exposure to pollutant sources,
and without secondary containment or other adequate treatment measures to prevent
polluted storm water from discharging from the A-1 Alloys Facility. Further, information
available to Coastkeeper indicates that the pollutants associated with the Facility have
been and continue to be tracked throughout the A-1 Alloys Facility, where they
accumulate at the storm water discharge points and the driveways leading to and from the
Facility. This results in trucks and vehicles tracking sediment, dirt, oil, grease, metal
particles, and other pollutants off-site. The resulting illegal discharges of polluted water
impacts Coastkeeper’s members’ use and enjoyment of the San Diego Bay and its
tributaries by degrading the quality of the San Diego Bay and by posing risks to human
health and aquatic life.

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 43 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 6 of 14 
  

C. A-1 Alloys Facility Storm Water Flows and Discharge Locations
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator reports that there is one (1)
discharge point located at the Facility, which they identify as Northwest Corner, or NW.
Discharges from the Facility flow to the municipal separate storm sewer system, which
flows to the San Diego Bay.
III.

VIOLATIONS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AND THE STORM
WATER PERMIT

In California, any person who discharges storm water associated with industrial
activity must comply with the terms of the Storm Water Permit in order to lawfully
discharge pollutants. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342; 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(c)(1); see also
Storm Water Permit, Fact Sheet at VII.
A. Discharges of Polluted Storm Water from the A-1 Alloys Facility in
Violation of Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit
Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit requires dischargers to reduce
or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activity in storm water discharges through
implementation of best management practices (“BMPs”) that achieve best available
technology economically achievable (“BAT”) for toxic pollutants3 and best conventional
pollutant control technology (“BCT”) for conventional pollutants.4 Benchmark Levels are
relevant and objective standards to evaluate whether a permittee’s BMPs achieve
compliance with BAT/BCT standards as required by Effluent Limitation B(3) of the
Storm Water Permit.5
Storm water sampling at the A-1 Alloys Facility demonstrates that the Facility’s
storm water discharges contain concentrations of pollutants above the Benchmark Levels.
See Exhibit A (table listing the Facility’s storm water samples exceeding Benchmark
Level(s), as reported to the Regional Board by the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or
Operator). The repeated and significant exceedances of Benchmark Levels demonstrate
that the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has failed and continues to fail to
develop and/or implement BMPs to prevent the exposure of pollutants to storm water and
to prevent discharges of polluted storm water from the A-1 Alloys Facility, in violation of
Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit.

 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
3
Toxic pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.15 and include copper, lead, and zinc,
among others.
4
Conventional pollutants are listed at 40 C.F.R. § 401.16 and include biological oxygen
demand, total suspended solids, oil and grease, pH, and fecal coliform.
5
See EPA Proposed Multi-Sector General Permit (2013), Fact Sheet, p. 50; see also, EPA
Multi-Sector General Permit (2008), Fact Sheet, p. 106; EPA Multi-Sector General
Permit, 65 Federal Register 64839 (2000).

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 44 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 7 of 14 
  

Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner
and/or Operator violates Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit each time
storm water is discharged from the A-1 Alloys Facility as a result of its failure to develop
and/or implement BMPs that achieve BAT/BCT. See e.g., Exhibit B (setting forth dates
of rain events resulting in a discharge at the Facility).6 These discharge violations are
ongoing and will continue each day the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator
discharges polluted storm water without developing and/or implementing BMPs that
achieve compliance with the BAT/BCT standards. Coastkeeper will update the number
and dates of violation when additional information and data becomes available. Each
time the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator discharges polluted storm water in
violation of Effluent Limitation B(3) of the Storm Water Permit is a separate and distinct
violation of the Storm Water Permit and Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. §1311(a). The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator is subject to civil
penalties for all violations of the Clean Water Act occurring since February 9, 2010.
B. Discharges of Polluted Storm Water from the A-1 Alloys Facility in
Violation of Receiving Water Limitations C(1) and C(2) of the Storm
Water Permit
Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit prohibits storm water
discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges that adversely impact human
health or the environment. Discharges that contain pollutants in concentrations that
exceed levels known to adversely impact aquatic species and the environment constitute
violations of Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean
Water Act. Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit prohibits storm
water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges that cause or contribute to an
exceedance of an applicable water quality standard (“WQS”).7 Discharges that contain
pollutants in excess of an applicable WQS violate Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of
the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act.
As explained above in Section I.D, the current 303(d) List of Impaired Water
Bodies lists the San Diego Bay as impaired for multiple pollutants. Information available
to Coastkeeper indicates that the A-1 Alloys Facility’s storm water discharges contain
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
6
Exhibit B sets forth dates of rain events as measured at the Lindbergh Field Station from
Jan 1, 2010 to Jan 1 2015. At a minimum discharges occur at the Facility during
significant rain events, which are defined by EPA as a rainfall event generating 0.1 inches
or more of rainfall (the amount that generally results in measurable discharges at a typical
industrial facility).
7
As explained above in Section I.D, the Basin Plan designates Beneficial Uses for the
Receiving Waters. Water quality standards are pollutant concentration levels determined
by the state or federal agencies to be protective of designated Beneficial Uses. Discharges
above water quality standards contribute to the impairment of the Receiving Waters’
Beneficial Uses. Applicable water quality standards include, among others, the Criteria
for Priority Toxic Pollutants in the State of California, 40 C.F.R. § 131.38 (“CTR”), and
the water quality objectives in the Basin Plan.

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 45 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 8 of 14 
  

elevated concentrations of pollutants, which can be acutely toxic and/or have sub-lethal
impacts on the avian and aquatic wildlife in the San Diego Bay. See e.g., Exhibit A (table
listing the Facility’s storm water samples containing pollutants at elevated levels).
Discharges of elevated concentrations of pollutants in the storm water from the A-1
Alloys Facility also adversely impact human health. These harmful discharges from the
A-1 Alloys Facility are violations of Receiving Water Limitation C(1).
The A-1 Alloys Facility storm water discharges also contain concentrations of
pollutants that cause or contribute to violations of applicable WQSs. See Exhibit A (table
listing the Facility’s storm water samples exceeding applicable WQSs, as reported to the
Regional Board by the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator). Storm water
discharges from the A-1 Alloys Facility that cause or contribute to exceedances of WQSs
are violations of Receiving Water Limitation C(2).
Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the storm water discharges
from the A-1 Alloys Facility violate Receiving Water Limitations C(1) and/or C(2) each
time storm water is discharged from the Facility. These violations are ongoing, and will
continue each time contaminated storm water is discharged in violation of Receiving
Water Limitation C(1) and/or C(2) of the Storm Water Permit. Each time discharges of
storm water from the Facility adversely impact human health or the environment is a
separate and distinct violation of Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the Storm Water
Permit and Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1311(a). Each time
discharges of storm water from the A-1 Alloys Facility cause or contribute to an
exceedance of an applicable WQS is a separate and distinct violation of Receiving Water
Limitation C(2) of the Storm Water Permit and Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. §1311(a). Coastkeeper will update the number and dates of violations when
additional information becomes available. The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or
Operator is subject to civil penalties for all violations of the Clean Water Act occurring
since February 9, 2010.
C. Failure to Develop, Implement and/or Revise an Adequate Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan
Section A(1) and Provision E(2) of the Storm Water Permit require dischargers to
have developed and implemented a SWPPP by October 1, 1992, or prior to beginning
industrial activities, that meets all of the requirements of the Storm Water Permit. The
objectives of the SWPPP requirement are to identify and evaluate sources of pollutants
associated with industrial activities that may affect the quality of storm water discharges
from the A-1 Alloys Facility, and to implement site-specific BMPs to reduce or prevent
pollutants associated with industrial activities in storm water discharges. See Storm Water
Permit, Section A(2). These BMPs must achieve compliance with the Storm Water
Permit’s Effluent Limitations and Receiving Water Limitations. To ensure compliance
with the Storm Water Permit, the SWPPP must be evaluated on an annual basis pursuant
to the requirements of Section A(9), and must be revised as necessary to ensure
compliance with the Storm Water Permit. Id., Sections A(9) and (10).

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 46 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 9 of 14 
  

Sections A(3) – A(10) of the Storm Water Permit set forth the requirements for a
SWPPP. Among other requirements, the SWPPP must include: a site map showing the
facility boundaries, storm water drainage areas with flow patterns, nearby water bodies,
the location of the storm water collection, conveyance and discharge system, structural
control measures, areas of actual and potential pollutant contact, areas of industrial
activity, and other features of the facility and its industrial activities (see Storm Water
Permit, Section A(4)); a list of significant materials handled and stored at the site (see
Storm Water Permit, Section A(5)); a description of potential pollutant sources, including
industrial processes, material handling and storage areas, dust and particulate generating
activities, significant spills and leaks, non-storm water discharges and their sources, and
locations where soil erosion may occur (see Storm Water Permit, Section A(6)). Sections
A(7) and A(8) of the Storm Water Permit require an assessment of potential pollutant
sources at the facility and a description of the BMPs to be implemented at the facility that
will reduce or prevent pollutants in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm
water discharges, including structural BMPs where non-structural BMPs are not
effective.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has been conducting operations at
the Facility with an inadequately developed and/or implemented SWPPP. For example,
information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the Facility site map fails to include
all the information required by Section A(4) of the Storm Water Permit, including but not
limited to all storm water discharge locations. The A-1 Alloys Facility Facility Owners
and/or Operators have also failed and continue to fail to develop and/or implement a
SWPPP that contains BMPs to prevent the exposure of pollutant sources to storm water
and the subsequent discharge of polluted storm water from the Facility, as required by the
Storm Water Permit. The SWPPP inadequacies are documented by the continuous and
ongoing discharge of storm water containing pollutant levels that exceed EPA
Benchmarks and applicable WQS. See, e.g., Exhibit A.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has also failed to revise the
Facility’s SWPPP to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit. Despite the
significant concentrations of pollutants in the Facility’s storm water discharges each year,
information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the SWPPP was not revised to include
additional BMPs to eliminate or reduce these pollutants, as required by the Storm Water
Permit.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has failed to adequately develop,
implement, and/or revise a SWPPP, in violation of Section A and Provision E(2) of the
Storm Water Permit. Every day the A-1 Alloys Facility operates with an inadequately
developed, implemented, and/or properly revised SWPPP is a separate and distinct
violation of the Storm Water Permit and the Clean Water Act. The A-1 Alloys Facility
Owner and/or Operator has been in daily and continuous violation of the Storm Water
Permit’s SWPPP requirements since at least February 9, 2010. These violations are
ongoing, and Coastkeeper will include additional violations when information becomes
available. The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator is subject to civil penalties for
all violations of the Clean Water Act occurring since February 9, 2010.

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 47 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 10 of 14 
  

D. Failure to Develop, Implement, and/or Revise an Adequate Monitoring
and Reporting Program
Section B(1) and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit require facility
operators to develop and implement an adequate Monitoring and Reporting Program
(“M&RP”) by October 1, 1992, or prior to the commencement of industrial activities at a
facility, that meets all of the requirements of the Storm Water Permit. The primary
objective of the M&RP is to detect and measure the concentrations of pollutants in a
facility’s discharge to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit’s Discharge
Prohibitions, Effluent Limitations, and Receiving Water Limitations. See Storm Water
Permit, Section B(2). The M&RP must therefore ensure that BMPs are effectively
reducing and/or eliminating pollutants at the facility, and must be evaluated and revised
whenever appropriate to ensure compliance with the Storm Water Permit. Id.
Sections B(3) – B(16) of the Storm Water Permit set forth the M&RP
requirements. Specifically, Section B(3) requires dischargers to conduct quarterly visual
observations of all drainage areas within their facility for the presence of authorized and
unauthorized non-storm water discharges. Section B(4) requires dischargers to conduct
visual observations of storm water discharges from one storm event per month during the
Wet Season.8 Sections B(3) and B(4) further require dischargers to document the
presence of any floating or suspended material, oil and grease, discolorations, turbidity,
odor, and the source of any pollutants. Dischargers must maintain records of
observations, observation dates, locations observed, and responses taken to eliminate
unauthorized non-storm water discharges and to reduce or prevent pollutants from
contacting non-storm water and storm water discharges. See Storm Water Permit,
Sections B(3) and B(4). Dischargers must revise the SWPPP in response to these
observations to ensure that BMPs are effectively reducing and/or eliminating pollutants at
the facility. Id., Section B(4).
Sections B(5) and B(7) of the Storm Water Permit require dischargers to visually
observe and collect samples of storm water from all locations where storm water is
discharged. Under Section B(5) of the Storm Water Permit, the facility owners and/or
operators are required to collect at least two (2) samples from each discharge location at
their facility during the Wet Season. Storm water samples must be analyzed for TSS, pH,
SC, total organic carbon or O&G, and other pollutants that are likely to be present in the
facility’s discharges in significant quantities. See Storm Water Permit, Section B(5)(c).
The Storm Water Permit requires facilities classified as SIC code 5093, such as the A-1
Alloys Facility, to also analyze storm water samples for zinc, iron, lead, aluminum,
copper and Chemical Oxygen Demand. Id.; see also Storm Water Permit, Table D
(Sector N).
Section B(7)(d) of the Storm Water Permit allows for the reduction of sampling
locations in very limited circumstances when “industrial activities and BMPs within two
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
8
The Wet Season is defined as October 1 – May 31.

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 48 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 11 of 14 
  

or more drainage areas are substantially identical.” If a discharger seeks to reduce
sampling locations, the “[f]acility operators must document such a determination in the
annual report.” Id.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has been conducting operations at
the A-1 Alloys Facility with an inadequately developed, implemented, and/or revised
M&RP. For example, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has failed and
continues to fail to conduct the required quarterly visual observations of unauthorized,
and authorized, non-storm water discharges, in violation of Section B(3) of the Storm
Water Permit. Additionally, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has failed to
conduct the monthly visual observations of storm water discharges as required by Section
B(4) of the Storm Water Permit.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator also failed to collect and analyze
storm water samples as required by the Storm Water Permit. For example, except for the
2013/2014 Wet Season, only one storm water sample was collected, rather than the two
storm water samples required by Section B(5) of the Storm Water Permit, despite
qualifying rain events. In addition, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has
never collected storm water samples from all discharge locations at the Facility.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner’s and/or Operator’s failure to conduct sampling
and monitoring as required by the Storm Water Permit demonstrates that it has failed to
develop, implement, and/or revise an M&RP that complies with the requirements of
Section B and Provision E(3) of the Storm Water Permit. Every day that the A-1 Alloys
Facility Owner and/or Operator conducts operations in violation of the specific
monitoring requirements of the Storm Water Permit, or with an inadequately developed
and/or implemented M&RP, is a separate and distinct violation of the Storm Water
Permit and the Clean Water Act. The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has
been in daily and continuous violation of the Storm Water Permit’s M&RP requirements
every day since at least February 9, 2010. These violations are ongoing, and Coastkeeper
will include additional violations when information becomes available. The A-1 Alloys
Facility Owner and/or Operator is subject to civil penalties for all violations of the Clean
Water Act occurring since February 9, 2010.
E. Failure to Comply with the Storm Water Permit’s Reporting
Requirements
Section B(14) of the Storm Water Permit requires a permittee to submit an
Annual Report to the Regional Board by July 1 of each year. Section B(14) requires that
the Annual Report include a summary of visual observations and sampling results, an
evaluation of the visual observation and sampling results, the laboratory reports of
sample analysis, the annual comprehensive site compliance evaluation report, an
explanation of why a permittee did not implement any activities required, and other
information specified in Section B(13).

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 49 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 12 of 14 
  

The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has failed and continues to fail to
submit Annual Reports that comply with the Storm Water Permit reporting requirements.
For example, in each Annual Report since the filing of the 2009-2010 Annual Report, the
A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator certified that: (1) a complete Annual
Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation was done pursuant to Section A(9) of the
Storm Water Permit; (2) the SWPPP’s BMPs address existing potential pollutant sources;
and (3) the SWPPP complies with the Storm Water Permit, or will otherwise be revised
to achieve compliance. However, information available to Coastkeeper indicates that
these certifications are erroneous. For example, although storm water samples collected
from the Facility have consistently contained elevated concentrations of pollutants,
demonstrating that BMPs must be revised, the Annual Report fails to address this, as
required by the Storm Water Permit. Moreover, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or
Operator has never conducted the Annual Comprehensive Site Compliance Evaluation
Report (ACSCER), as demonstrated by the failure to document this assessment in the
Annual Report. See Annual Reports, Form 5: Annual Comprehensive Site Compliance
Evaluation Potential Pollutant Source/Industrial Activity BMP Status.
The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has also submitted incomplete
Annual Reports. For instance, none of the Annual Reports have included an evaluation of
the visual observation and sampling and analysis results, in violation of Section B(14) of
the Storm Water Permit. In addition, the facility operator must report any noncompliance
with the Storm Water Permit at the time that the Annual Report is submitted, including 1)
a description of the noncompliance and its cause, 2) the period of noncompliance, 3) if
the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue,
and 4) steps taken or planned to reduce and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance.
Storm Water Permit, Section C(11)(d). The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator
did not report its non-compliance as required.
Finally, the Storm Water Permit requires a permittee whose discharges violate the
Storm Water Permit Receiving Water Limitations to submit a written report identifying
what additional BMPs will be implemented to achieve water quality standards. Storm
Water Permit, Receiving Water Limitations C(3) and C(4). Information available to
Coastkeeper indicates that the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator has failed to
submit the reports required by Receiving Water Limitations C(3) and C(4) of the Storm
Water Permit. As such, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator is in daily
violation of this requirement of the Storm Water Permit.
Information available to Coastkeeper indicates that the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner
and/or Operator has submitted incomplete and/or incorrect Annual Reports that fail to
comply with the Storm Water Permit. As such, the A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or
Operator is in daily violation of the Storm Water Permit. Every day the A-1 Alloys
Facility Owner and/or Operator conducts operations at the Facility without reporting as
required by the Storm Water Permit is a separate and distinct violation of the Storm
Water Permit and the Clean Water Act. The A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator
has been in daily and continuous violation of the Storm Water Permit’s reporting
requirements every day since at least February 9, 2010. These violations are ongoing. The

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 50 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 13 of 14 
  

A-1 Alloys Facility Owner and/or Operator is subject to civil penalties for all violations
of the Clean Water Act occurring since February 9, 2010.
IV.

RELIEF AND PENALTIES SOUGHT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT

Pursuant to Section 309(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), and the
Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, each separate
violation of the Clean Water Act subjects the violator to a penalty for all violations
occurring during the period commencing five (5) years prior to the date of a notice of
intent to file suit letter. These provisions of law authorize civil penalties of up to $37,500
per day per violation for all Clean Water Act violations. In addition to civil penalties,
Coastkeeper will seek injunctive relief preventing further violations of the Clean Water
Act pursuant to Sections 505(a) and (d), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) and (d), declaratory relief,
and such other relief as permitted by law. Lastly, pursuant to Section 505(d) of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), Coastkeeper will seek to recover its costs, including
attorneys’ and experts’ fees, associated with this enforcement action.
V.

CONCLUSION

Coastkeeper is willing to discuss effective remedies for the violations described in
this Notice Letter. However, upon expiration of the 60-day notice period, Coastkeeper
will file a citizen suit under Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act for the A-1 Alloy’s
Owner and/or Operator’s violations of the Storm Water Permit at the Facility. Please
direct all communications to Coastkeeper’s legal counsel:
Drevet Hunt
drev@lawyersforcleanwater.com
Lawyers for Clean Water, Inc.
1004-A O’Reilly Avenue
San Francisco, California 94129
Tel: (415) 440-6520
Matt O’Malley
matt@sdcoastkeeper.org
San Diego Coastkeeper
2825 Dewey Rd., #20
San Diego, California 92106
Tel: (619) 758-7743
Sincerely,

San Diego Coastkeeper

 Caseof 
  3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG
Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 51 of 60
Notice 
  
Intent 
  to 
  File 
  Suit 
  
February 
  9, 
  2015 
  
Page 14 of 14 
  

SERVICE LIST
VIA U.S. MAIL
Gina McCarthy
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Jared Blumenfeld
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, California 94105

Thomas Howard
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, California 95812

David W. Gibson
Executive Officer
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 100
San Diego, California 92108

 Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 52 of 60

Exhibit A

Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 53 of 60
Exhibit 
  A
Sampling 
  Results 
  that 
  Exceed 
  Benchmarks 
  or 
  Water 
  Quality 
  Standards

Benchmark

Magnitude 
  of 
  
Benchmark 
  
Exceedance

California 
  Toxics 
  
Rule 
  Criteria

Magnitude 
  of 
  
CTR 
  Exceedance

mg/L

0.09

12.89

0.09

12.9

7.33

mg/L

1

7.33

none

N/A

Aluminum

4.5

mg/L

0.75

6.00

none

N/A

Northwest 
  Corner

Cooper

1.07

mg/L

0.0048

222.92

0.0048

222.9

12/7/09

Northwest 
  Corner

Lead

0.448

mg/L

0.21

2.13

0.21

2.1

10/19/10

Northwest 
  Corner

Zinc

0.786

mg/L

0.09

8.73

0.09

8.7

10/19/10

Northwest 
  Corner

Cooper

0.131

mg/L

0.0048

27.29

0.014

9.4

10/19/10

Northwest 
  Corner

Iron

2.86

mg/L

1

2.86

none

N/A

10/19/10

Northwest 
  Corner

Aluminum

1.32

mg/L

0.75

1.76

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Zinc

1.12

mg/L

0.09

12.44

0.09

12.4

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Cooper

0.833

mg/L

0.0048

173.54

0.0048

173.5

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Iron

7.86

mg/L

1

7.86

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Aluminum

4.78

mg/L

0.75

6.37

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Total 
  Suspended 
  Solids

143

mg/L

100

1.43

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Chemical 
  Oxygen 
  Demand

344

mg/L

120

2.87

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Aluminum

1.34

mg/L

0.75

1.79

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Specific 
  Conductance

206

umohs/cm

200

1.03

none

N/A

4/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Lead

0.221

mg/L

0.21

1.05

0.21

1.1

12/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Zinc

0.695

mg/L

0.09

7.72

0.09

7.7

12/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Cooper

0.483

mg/L

0.0048

100.625

0.0048

N/A

12/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Iron

3.92

mg/L

1

3.92

none

N/A

Date 
  of 
  sample 
  
collection

Sample 
  Location

Parameter

Result

Units

12/7/09

Northwest 
  Corner

Zinc

1.16

12/7/09

Northwest 
  Corner

Iron

12/7/09

Northwest 
  Corner

12/7/09

Page 
  1 
  of 
  2

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 54 of 60
Exhibit 
  A
Sampling 
  Results 
  that 
  Exceed 
  Benchmarks 
  or 
  Water 
  Quality 
  Standards

Benchmark

Magnitude 
  of 
  
Benchmark 
  
Exceedance

California 
  Toxics 
  
Rule 
  Criteria

Magnitude 
  of 
  
CTR 
  Exceedance

mg/L

0.75

4.04

none

0

206

umohs/cm

200

1.03

none

N/A

Chemical 
  Oxygen 
  Demand

165

mg/L

120

1.375

none

N/A

Northwest 
  Corner

Total 
  Suspended 
  Solids

152

mg/L

100

1.52

none

N/A

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Specific 
  Conductance

393

umohs/cm

200

1.97

none

0

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Chemical 
  Oxygen 
  Demand

238

mg/L

120

1.98

none

N/A

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Zinc

1.67

mg/L

0.11

15.18

0.09

18.6

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Iron

6.8

mg/L

1

6.80

none

N/A

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Aluminum

4.38

mg/L

0.75

5.84

none

N/A

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Copper

1.92

mg/L

0.0048

400.00

0.0048

400.0

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Oil 
  and 
  Grease

16

mg/L

15

1.07

none

N/A

11/21/13

Northwest 
  Corner

Lead

0.415

mg/L

0.21

1.98

0.21

2.0

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Total 
  Suspended 
  Solids

428

mg/L

100

4.28

none

N/A

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Specific 
  Conductance

228

umohs/cm

200

1.14

none

N/A

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Chemical 
  Oxygen 
  Demand

1280

mg/L

120

10.67

none

N/A

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Zinc

2.87

mg/L

0.09

31.89

0.09

31.9

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Iron

26.1

mg/L

1

26.10

none

N/A

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Aluminum

18.1

mg/L

0.75

24.13

none

N/A

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Copper

2.84

mg/L

0.0048

591.67

0.0048

591.7

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Oil 
  and 
  Grease

19

mg/L

15

1.27

none

N/A

2/28/14

Northwest 
  Corner

Lead

1.41

mg/L

0.21

6.71

0.21

6.7

Date 
  of 
  sample 
  
collection

Sample 
  Location

Parameter

Result

Units

12/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Aluminum

3.03

12/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

Specific 
  Conductance

12/13/12

Northwest 
  Corner

11/21/13

Page 
  2 
  of 
  2

 Case Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 55 of 60

Exhibit 

Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 56 of 60
Exhibit 
  B
Rainfall 
  Data: 
  February 
  9, 
  2010 
  to 
  Present

DATE
02/19/2010
02/20/2010
02/21/2010
02/22/2010
02/24/2010
02/27/2010
02/28/2010
03/06/2010
03/07/2010
04/01/2010
04/05/2010
04/12/2010
04/18/2010
04/20/2010
04/21/2010
04/22/2010
04/28/2010
05/27/2010
06/10/2010
07/15/2010
07/21/2010
09/30/2010
10/04/2010
10/05/2010
10/06/2010
10/18/2010
10/19/2010
10/20/2010
10/23/2010
10/24/2010
10/25/2010
10/30/2010
11/08/2010
11/20/2010
11/21/2010
11/23/2010
11/24/2010
11/27/2010
12/16/2010
12/17/2010
12/18/2010
12/19/2010
12/20/2010
12/21/2010

Precipitation 
  in 
  
Inches

0.05
0.34
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.73
0.07
0.26
0.42
0.56
0.11
0.68
0.02
0.01
0.27
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.74
0.04
0.91
0.10
0.02
0.05
0.15
0.15
0.07
0.53
0.19
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.13
0.31
2.01

Page 
  1 
  of 
  5

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 57 of 60
Exhibit 
  B
Rainfall 
  Data: 
  February 
  9, 
  2010 
  to 
  Present

DATE
12/22/2010
12/25/2010
12/26/2010
12/29/2010
01/02/2011
01/03/2011
01/31/2011
02/16/2011
02/18/2011
02/19/2011
02/20/2011
02/26/2011
02/27/2011
03/06/2011
03/07/2011
03/20/2011
03/21/2011
03/23/2011
03/24/2011
03/25/2011
04/07/2011
04/08/2011
04/09/2011
05/08/2011
05/17/2011
05/18/2011
05/29/2011
06/05/2011
09/05/2011
09/06/2011
10/04/2011
10/05/2011
10/25/2011
11/04/2011
11/05/2011
11/06/2011
11/12/2011
11/20/2011
11/21/2011
12/12/2011
12/13/2011
12/15/2011
12/19/2011
01/15/2012

Precipitation 
  in 
  
Inches

1.83
0.12
0.09
0.46
0.24
0.02
0.04
0.28
0.56
0.35
0.03
0.82
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.79
0.13
0.34
0.01
0.05
0.06
0.06
0.14
0.02
0.06
0.19
0.09
0.03
0.07
0.06
0.02
0.42
0.02
0.59
0.07
0.05
1.40
0.92
0.09
0.51
0.29
0.04
0.02
0.02

Page 
  2 
  of 
  5

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 58 of 60
Exhibit 
  B
Rainfall 
  Data: 
  February 
  9, 
  2010 
  to 
  Present

DATE
01/16/2012
01/21/2012
01/23/2012
02/07/2012
02/13/2012
02/14/2012
02/15/2012
02/27/2012
02/28/2012
03/16/2012
03/17/2012
03/18/2012
03/19/2012
03/25/2012
03/31/2012
04/11/2012
04/13/2012
04/14/2012
04/25/2012
04/26/2012
05/25/2012
10/11/2012
10/12/2012
10/20/2012
10/21/2012
11/08/2012
11/09/2012
11/18/2012
11/30/2012
12/13/2012
12/14/2012
12/15/2012
12/16/2012
12/17/2012
12/18/2012
12/24/2012
12/26/2012
12/29/2012
12/30/2012
01/06/2013
01/07/2013
01/10/2013
01/25/2013
01/26/2013

Precipitation 
  in 
  
Inches

0.02
0.09
0.27
0.29
0.04
0.22
0.26
0.37
0.01
0.03
0.35
0.13
0.13
0.28
0.05
0.12
0.28
0.02
0.36
0.10
0.02
0.09
0.45
0.02
0.14
0.14
0.04
0.01
0.10
1.56
0.09
0.12
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.12
0.04
0.09
0.08
0.16
0.01
0.04
0.85
0.15

Page 
  3 
  of 
  5

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 59 of 60
Exhibit 
  B
Rainfall 
  Data: 
  February 
  9, 
  2010 
  to 
  Present

DATE
02/08/2013
02/19/2013
02/20/2013
02/21/2013
03/07/2013
03/08/2013
04/15/2013
05/05/2013
05/06/2013
05/07/2013
07/11/2013
07/26/2013
10/09/2013
10/28/2013
10/29/2013
11/16/2013
11/21/2013
11/22/2013
11/29/2013
12/03/2013
12/05/2013
12/07/2013
12/19/2013
01/30/2014
02/03/2014
02/06/2014
02/07/2014
02/27/2014
02/28/2014
03/01/2014
03/02/2014
03/26/2014
03/27/2014
04/01/2014
04/02/2014
04/05/2014
04/25/2014
04/26/2014
08/02/2014
08/20/2014
11/01/2014
11/02/2014
11/20/2014
11/21/2014

Precipitation 
  in 
  
Inches

0.27
0.26
0.06
0.04
0.18
1.04
0.01
0.04
0.18
0.04
0.04
0.01
0.07
0.02
0.16
0.01
0.97
0.49
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.10
0.34
0.01
0.09
0.20
0.06
0.14
0.51
1.01
0.24
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.22
0.09
0.01
0.16
0.07
0.01
0.25
0.08
0.03
0.01

Page 
  4 
  of 
  5

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 60 of 60
Exhibit 
  B
Rainfall 
  Data: 
  February 
  9, 
  2010 
  to 
  Present

DATE
12/02/2014
12/03/2014
12/04/2014
12/12/2014
12/16/2014
12/17/2014

Precipitation 
  in 
  
Inches

0.42
0.27
1.84
1.05
0.43
0.41

Page 
  5 
  of 
  5

 Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 2

JS 44 (Rev. 12/12)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

San Diego Coastkeeper, a California non-profit corporation
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

A-1 Alloys, Inc., a California corporation
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

San Diego

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

'15CV1267 JM WVG

Attorneys (If Known)

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Drevet Hunt
Lawyers for Clean Water, Inc.
1004-A O'Reilly Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94129

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

’ 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

’ 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

’ 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

San Diego

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
’ 1

DEF
’ 1

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
’ 4
’ 4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

’ 2

’

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

’ 5

’ 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

’ 3

’

3

Foreign Nation

’ 6

’ 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT
’
’
’
’
’
’
’

’
’
’
’
’

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’

’
’
’
’
’
’

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

’
’
’
’
’
’
’

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
’ 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
’ 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
’ 370 Other Fraud
’ 371 Truth in Lending
’ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
’ 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
’ 463 Alien Detainee
’ 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
’ 530 General
’ 535 Death Penalty
Other:
’ 540 Mandamus & Other
’ 550 Civil Rights
’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
’ 690 Other

BANKRUPTCY
’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
’ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
’ 820 Copyrights
’ 830 Patent
’ 840 Trademark

’
’
’
’
’
’

LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
720 Labor/Management
Relations
740 Railway Labor Act
751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

’
’
’
’
’

SOCIAL SECURITY
861 HIA (1395ff)
862 Black Lung (923)
863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
864 SSID Title XVI
865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
’ 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

OTHER STATUTES
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’

’

375 False Claims Act
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460 Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
895 Freedom of Information
Act
896 Arbitration
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

IMMIGRATION
’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 465 Other Immigration
Actions

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original
Proceeding

’ 2 Removed from
State Court

’ 3

Remanded from
Appellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

’ 5 Transferred from
Another District
(specify)

’ 6 Multidistrict
Litigation

Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

33 USC 1251, et seq. (Clean Water Act)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Citizen suit enforcement of violations of the Clean Water Act

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
’ Yes
’ No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Drevet Hunt

06/05/2015
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

Print

APPLYING IFP

Save As...

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

Reset

 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)

Case 3:15-cv-01267-JM-WVG Document 1-1 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 2

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a)

(b)

(c)

Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".

II.

Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)

III.

Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.

IV.

Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is
sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than
one nature of suit, select the most definitive.

V.

Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.
Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
When the petition for removal is granted, check this box.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.
When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.

VI.

Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII.

Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.

VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.