California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. S.G.S Recycling Enterprises.Inc et al
Filing
15
CORRECTED ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on September 11, 2012. (lhklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/19/2012) CORRECTION OF DOCKET # 14
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page1 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690)
ERIK ROPER (State Bar No. 259756)
EMILY J. BRAND (State Bar No. 267564)
Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard
100 Petaluma Blvd. N Ste 301
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel: (707) 763-7227
Fax: (415) 763-9227
E-mail: andrew@packardlawoffices.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff CALIFORNIA
SPORTFISHING PROTECTION ALLIANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11
12
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non profit
corporation,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
vs.
S.G.S. RECYCLING ENTERPRISES,
INC., a California corporation;
STANLEY G. SILVA, JR., an individual,
Case No. 5:12-CV-02286-LHK
STIPULATION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS WITH
PREJUDICE; [PROPOSED] ORDER
GRANTING DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE [FRCP 41(a)(2)]
16
17
Defendants.
18
19
TO THE COURT:
Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (“PLAINTIFF” or “CSPA”), and
20
21
22
Defendants S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva (collectively,
“DEFENDANTS”), Parties in the above-referenced matter, stipulate as follows:
WHEREAS, on or about March 6, 2012, CSPA provided DEFENDANTS with a Notice
23
24
25
of Violations and Intent to File Suit (“60-Day Notice Letter”) under Section 505 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (“Act” or “Clean Water Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365;
WHEREAS, on May 7, 2012, CSPA filed its Complaint against DEFENDANTS in this
26
27
28
Court, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc., et al.
(USDC, N.D. Cal., Case No. 5:12-CV-02286-LHK) and said Complaint incorporated by
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
927112.1
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02286-LHK
1
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page2 of 41
1
reference all of the allegations contained in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter;
2
WHEREAS, CSPA and DEFENDANTS, through their authorized representatives and
3
without either adjudication of CSPA’s claims or admission by DEFENDANTS of any alleged
4
violation or other wrongdoing, have chosen to resolve in full by way of settlement the allegations
5
of CSPA as set forth in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, thereby avoiding the costs
6
and uncertainties of further litigation. A copy of the Parties’ proposed settlement agreement
7
(“Settlement Agreement”) entered into by and between CSPA and DEFENDANTS is attached
8
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.
9
WHEREAS, CSPA submitted the Settlement Agreement via certified mail, return receipt
10
requested, to the U.S. EPA and the U.S. Department of Justice (“the agencies”) and the 45-day
11
review period set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 has been completed without objection by the
12
agencies.
13
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between
14
the Parties that CSPA’s claims, as set forth in its 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint, be
15
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). The Parties
16
respectfully request an order from this Court dismissing such claims with prejudice. In
17
accordance with Paragraph 8 of the Consent Agreement, the Parties also request that this Court
18
retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties through July 2, 2016, for the sole purpose of
19
resolving any disputes between the parties with respect to enforcement of any provision of the
20
Settlement Agreement.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
927112.1
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02286-LHK
2
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page3 of 41
1
Dated: July 3, 2012
LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW L. PACKARD
2
3
By:__/s/ __Emily J. Brand_____________________
Emily J. Brand
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING PROTECTION
ALLIANCE
4
5
6
7
Dated: September 9, 2012
CASTELLON & FUNDERBURK, LLP
8
By:_/s/__William Funderburk___________
William Funderburk
(As authorized on Sept. 4, 2012 – L.R. 131)
Attorneys for Defendants
S.G.S. RECYCLING ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
927112.1
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02286-LHK
3
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page4 of 41
1
[PROPOSED] ORDER
2
Good cause appearing, and the Parties having stipulated and agreed,
3
4
5
6
7
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance’s
claims against Defendants S.G.S. RECYCLING ENTERPRISES, INC. and STANLEY G.
SILVA, JR. as set forth in CSPA’s 60-Day Notice Letter and Complaint filed in Case No. 5:12CV-02286-LHK, are hereby dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear their own attorney fees
and costs, except as provided for by the terms of the accompanying Settlement Agreement.
8
9
10
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the
Parties with respect to disputes arising under the Consent Agreement attached to the Parties’
Stipulation to Dismiss as Exhibit A.
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14
15
16
__________________
Dated: September 11, 2012
__________________________________________
United States District Court Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE;
[PROPOSED] ORDER
927112.1
CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02286-LHK
4
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page5 of 41
EXHIBIT A
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page6 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
ANDREW L. PACKARD (State Bar No. 168690)
ERIK M. ROPER (State Bar No. 259756)
EMILY J. BRAND (State Bar No. 267564)
Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard
100 Petaluma Blvd. N., Suite 301
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel: (707) 763-7227
Fax: (707) 763-9227
E-mail: Andrew@packardlawoffices.com
Erik@packardlawoffices.com
Emily@packardlawoffices.com
ROBERT J. TUERCK (State Bar No. 255741)
Jackson &Tuerck
P.O. Box 148
429 W. Main Street, Suite C
Quincy, CA 95971
Tel: (530) 283-0406
E-mail: bob@jacksontuerck.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
16
17
CALIFORNIA SPORTFISHING
PROTECTION ALLIANCE, a non-profit
corporation,
18
19
20
21
Plaintiff,
vs.
S.G.S. RECYCLING ENTERPRISES, INC.,
a California corporation, and STANLEY G.
SILVA, JR., an individual,
Case No. 5:12-cv-02286-HRL
[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 to 1387)
22
23
24
25
26
Defendants.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (hereinafter “CSPA”) is a
non-profit public benefit corporation dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of the
environment, wildlife, and natural resources of California’s waters;
WHEREAS, Defendant S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr.
28
[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page7 of 41
1
(hereinafter “Defendants”) own and operate an approximately 1.5-acre scrap metal recycling facility
2
located at 620 Walker Street #1, in Watsonville, California (the “Facility”), Defendant Stanley G.
3
Silva, Jr. is the President of S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc.;
4
WHEREAS, CSPA and Defendants collectively shall be referred to as the “Parties;”
5
WHEREAS, the Facility collects and discharges storm water to the City of Watsonville’s
6
storm water drainage system and the City of Watsonville’s storm water drainage system ultimately
7
flows into the Pajaro River, which ultimately flows into the Pacific Ocean (a map of the Facility is
8
attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference);
9
WHEREAS, storm water discharges associated with industrial activity are regulated pursuant
10
to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”), General Permit No. CAS000001
11
[State Water Resources Control Board], Water Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ (as amended by Water
12
Quality Order 92-12 DWQ and 97-03-DWQ), issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act,
13
33 U.S.C. § 1342 (hereinafter “General Permit”);
14
WHEREAS, on or about March 6, 2012, Plaintiff provided notice of Defendants’ violations of
15
the Act, and of its intention to file suit against Defendants (“Notice Letter”), to the Administrator of
16
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”); the Administrator of EPA Region IX;
17
the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”); the Executive
18
Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (“Regional Board”); and
19
to Defendants, as required by the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A) (a true and correct copy of CSPA’s
20
Notice Letter is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference);
21
22
23
24
25
WHEREAS, Defendants deny the occurrence of the violations alleged in the Notice Letter and
maintain that they have complied at all times with the provisions of the General Permit;
WHEREAS, CSPA filed a complaint (“Complaint”) against Defendants in the United States
District Court, Northern District of California, on May 7, 2012;
WHEREAS, for purposes of this Consent Agreement, the Parties stipulate that venue is proper
26
in this Court, and that Defendants do not contest the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court to enter this
27
Consent Agreement;
28
29
-2[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page8 of 41
WHEREAS, this Consent Agreement shall be submitted to the United States Department of
1
2
Justice for the 45-day statutory review period, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c); and shall thereafter be
3
submitted for approval by the Court, the date of which approval shall be referred to herein as the
4
“Court Approval Date;”
WHEREAS, at the time the Consent Agreement is submitted for approval to the United States
5
6
District Court, CSPA shall request a dismissal of the Complaint with prejudice and the Parties shall
7
stipulate and request that the Court retain jurisdiction for the enforcement of this Consent Agreement
8
as provided herein;
WHEREAS, Defendants intend to file a Notice of Termination with the Regional Water Board
9
10
on the basis that the Facility will close on or before July 31, 2012;
AND WHEREAS, the Parties agree that it is in their mutual interest to resolve this matter
11
12
without further litigation.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE SETTLING
13
14
PARTIES, AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT, AS FOLLOWS:
15
I.
16
COMMITMENT OF DEFENDANTS
1.
Compliance With General Permit & Clean Water Act. Beginning immediately, and
17
throughout the term of this Consent Agreement, Defendants shall commence all measures needed to
18
operate the Facility in full compliance with the requirements of the General Permit and the Clean
19
Water Act, subject to any defenses available under the law.
20
2.
Implemented Best Management Practices. Defendants agree to implement the
21
following storm water Best Management Practices (“BMPs”) at the Facility as long as the Facility is a
22
permitted facility regulated under the General Permit and to the extent not already implemented:
23
24
25
26
(a)
Place Chemical Oxygen Demand (“COD”) collection receptacles at the Facility
for use by customers and employees (See, Facility Map, attached as Exhibit A);
(b)
Utilize tarps to cover the Facility’s California Redemption Value (“CRV”)/glass
roll-off bins prior to a forecasted rain event;
27
28
29
-3[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page9 of 41
(c)
1
Sweep all paved surfaces of the Facility weekly during the Wet Season (as
2
defined in the General Permit, October 1 – May 31) and contemporaneously record all such
3
sweeping in a Facility sweeping log;
(d)
4
5
Ensure that the Facility’s current Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(“SWPPP”) is available for use and review at all times during Facility business hours;
(e)
6
Ensure that all storm water samples are tested for all parameters required under
7
the General Permit (including Table D), that appropriate method detection limits are used to
8
detect pollutants in storm water discharges and that no samples exceed laboratory hold times;
(f)
9
Ensure that each Annual Report filed with the Regional Board includes copies
10
of all laboratory analysis supporting the reported sampling results, including chain of custody
11
and QA/QC documentation; and,
(g)
12
Take all precautionary measures necessary to prevent any and all storm water
13
discharges from the Facility so long as Defendants conduct industrial activities at the Facility.
14
3.
Defendants’ Cessation of All Industrial Activity at the Facility On or Before July
15
31, 2012. Defendants agree to permanently cease all industry activity at the Facility on or before July
16
31, 2012.
17
4.
Facility Notice of Termination To Be Filed With the Central Coast Regional
18
Board Office By August 1, 2012. By August 1, 2012, Defendants shall file a Notice of Termination
19
(“NOT”) with the Central Coast Regional Board, terminating Defendants’ coverage under the General
20
Permit. Defendants shall provide proof of this filing to CSPA within three days of filing the
21
document, or by August 3, 2012, whichever comes first, and shall provide CSPA with proof that the
22
NOT was approved or disapproved by the Regional Board, within three days of receiving such
23
acknowledgement from the Regional Board. In the event that the Regional Board denies Defendants’
24
NOT, Defendants are responsible for continued compliance with the General Permit throughout the
25
term of this Consent Agreement. Defendants shall continue to implement all required BMPs pursuant
26
to this Consent Agreement until the Facility is no longer conducting industrial activities at the Facility.
27
5.
Defendants’ Communications To/From Regional and State Boards. Beginning
28
29
-4[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page10 of 41
1
upon mutual execution of this Consent Agreement and for a period of two years, Defendants shall
2
provide CSPA with copies of all documents submitted to or received from the Regional Board or the
3
State Board concerning storm water discharges from the Facility, including, but not limited to, all
4
documents and reports submitted to the Regional Board and/or State Board as required by the General
5
Permit. Such documents and reports shall be provided to CSPA pursuant to the Notice provisions set
6
forth below and contemporaneously with A&S Metals’ submission(s) to such agencies. However,
7
Defendants must submit the required documents pursuant to paragraph 4 as set forth above.
8
II.
MITIGATION AND FEES AND COSTS
6.
9
Mitigation Payment In Lieu Of Civil Penalties. As mitigation of the Clean Water
10
Act violations alleged in CSPA’s Complaint, Defendants agree to pay the sum of Twenty-Two
11
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) within forty-five (45) days after the Court Approval Date
12
to the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment (“Rose Foundation”) for projects to
13
improve water quality in the Pajaro River, the Pacific Ocean, and/or the Sacramento-San Joaquin
14
River Delta. Payment shall be remitted to the Rose Foundation at: Rose Foundation for Communities
15
and the Environment, Attn: Tim Little, 6008 College Avenue, Oakland, CA 94618.
7.
16
Fees & Costs. Defendants agree to reimburse CSPA in the amount of Twenty-Two
17
Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) to defray CSPA’s reasonable investigative, expert,
18
consultant and attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other costs incurred as a result of investigating the
19
activities at the Facility, bringing the Action and negotiating a resolution in the public interest. Such
20
payment shall be made payable to the “Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard Attorney-Client Trust
21
Account” and remitted to CSPA’s counsel at 100 Petaluma Boulevard North, Suite 301, Petaluma, CA
22
94952 within seven (7) days after the Court Approval Date.
23
III.
24
DISPUTE RESOLUTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONSENT AGREEMENT
8.
If a dispute under this Consent Agreement arises, or either Party believes that a breach
25
of this Consent Agreement has occurred, the Parties shall meet and confer within fourteen (14) days of
26
receiving written notification from the other Party of a request for a meeting to determine whether a
27
violation has occurred and to develop a mutually agreed upon plan, including implementation dates (if
28
29
-5[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page11 of 41
1
necessary), to resolve the dispute. If the Parties fail to meet and confer, or the meet-and-confer does
2
not resolve the issue, after at least fourteen days have passed after the meet-and-confer occurred or
3
should have occurred, either Party shall be entitled to all rights and remedies under the law, including
4
filing a motion with the District Court of California, Northern District, which shall retain jurisdiction
5
over the Action for the limited purposes of enforcement of the terms of this Consent Agreement. The
6
Parties shall be entitled to seek fees and costs incurred in any such motion, and such fees and costs
7
shall be awarded, pursuant to the provisions set forth in Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33
8
U.S.C. §1365(d), and applicable case law interpreting such provision.
9
9.
CSPA’s Waiver and Release. Upon Court approval and entry of this Consent
10
Agreement, CSPA, on its own behalf and on behalf of its members, subsidiaries, successors, assigns,
11
directors, officers, agents, attorneys, representatives, and employees, releases Defendants and their
12
officers, directors, employees, shareholders, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and each of their
13
predecessors, successors and assigns, and each of their agents, attorneys, consultants, and other
14
representatives (each a “Released Defendant Party”) from, and waives all claims which arise from or
15
pertain to the Action, including, without limitation, all claims for injunctive relief, damages, penalties,
16
fines, sanctions, mitigation, fees (including fees of attorneys, experts, and others), costs, expenses or
17
any other sum incurred or claimed or which could have been claimed in this Action, for the alleged
18
failure of Defendants to comply with the Clean Water Act at the Facility up to and including the Court
19
Approval Date. CSPA further agrees not to seek enforcement of the Clean Water Act against
20
Defendants’ current operations in Modesto, Watsonville, Gilroy, and Los Banos until after the
21
termination of this agreement on July 2, 2016.
22
10.
Defendants’ Waiver and Release. Defendants, on their own behalf and on behalf of
23
those Released Defendant Parties under their control, release CSPA (and its officers, directors,
24
employees, members, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and each of their successors and assigns, and
25
its agents, attorneys, and other representative) from, and waive all claims which arise from or pertain
26
to the Action, including all claims for fees (including fees of attorneys, experts, and others), costs,
27
expenses or any other sum incurred or claimed or which could have been claimed for matters
28
29
-6[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page12 of 41
1
associated with or related to the Action.
11.
2
3
Upon the Court Approval Date, the Parties shall file with the Court a Stipulation and
Order that shall provide that:
a.
4
the Complaint and all claims therein shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2); and
5
b.
6
the Court shall retain and have jurisdiction over the Parties with respect to
7
disputes arising under this Agreement. Nothing in this Consent Agreement shall be construed
8
as a waiver of any Party’s right to appeal from an order that arises from an action to enforce
9
the terms of this Consent Agreement.
10
11
IV.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
12.
The Parties enter into this Consent Agreement for the purpose of avoiding prolonged
12
and costly litigation. Nothing in this Consent Agreement shall be construed as, and Defendants
13
expressly do not intend to imply, an admission as to any fact, finding, issue of law, or violation of law,
14
nor shall compliance with this Consent Agreement constitute or be construed as an admission by
15
Defendants of any fact, finding, conclusion, issue of law, or violation of law. However, this paragraph
16
shall not diminish or otherwise affect the obligation, responsibilities, and duties of the Parties under
17
this Consent Agreement.
18
13.
The Consent Agreement shall terminate on July 2, 2016.
19
14.
The Consent Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts which, taken
20
together, shall be deemed to constitute one and the same document. An executed copy of this Consent
21
Agreement shall be valid as an original.
22
23
24
15.
In the event that any one of the provisions of this Consent Agreement is held by a court
to be unenforceable, the validity of the enforceable provisions shall not be adversely affected.
16.
The language in all parts of this Consent Agreement, unless otherwise stated, shall be
25
construed according to its plain and ordinary meaning. This Consent Agreement shall be construed
26
pursuant to California law, without regarding to conflict of law principles.
27
17.
The undersigned are authorized to execute this Consent Agreement on behalf of their
28
29
-7[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page13 of 41
1
respective Parties and have read, understood and agreed to be bound by all of the terms and conditions
2
of this Consent Agreement.
3
18.
All agreements, covenants, representations and warranties, express or implied, oral or
4
written, of the Parties concerning the subject matter of this Consent Agreement are contained herein.
5
This Consent Agreement and its attachments are made for the sole benefit of the Parties, and no other
6
person or entity shall have any rights or remedies under or by reason of this Consent Agreement,
7
unless otherwise expressly provided for therein.
8
19.
Notices. Any notices or documents required or provided for by this Consent
9
Agreement or related thereto that are to be provided to CSPA pursuant to this Consent Agreement
10
shall be hand-delivered or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows or, in the
11
alternative, shall be sent by electronic mail transmission to the email addresses listed below:
14
Bill Jennings, Executive Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
3536 Rainier Avenue
Stockton, CA 95204
E-mail: DeltaKeep@me.com
15
With copies sent to:
16
Andrew L. Packard
Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard
100 Petaluma Boulevard North, Suite 301
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel: (707) 763-7227
E-mail: Andrew@packardlawoffices.com
Erik@packardlawoffices.com
Emily@packardlawoffices.com
12
13
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
And to:
Robert J. Tuerck, Esq.
Jackson &Tuerck
P.O. Box 148
429 W. Main Street, Suite C
Quincy, CA 95971
Tel: 530-283-0406
Fax: 530-283-0416
E-mail:Bob@JacksonTuerck.com
26
Any notices or documents required or provided for by this Consent Agreement or related thereto that
27
are to be provided to Defendants pursuant to this Consent Agreement shall be sent by U.S. Mail,
28
29
-8[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page14 of 41
1
postage prepaid, and addressed as follows or, in the alternative, shall be sent by electronic mail
2
transmission to the email addresses listed below:
3
Mr. Stanley G. Silva, Jr., President
S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 955
Castroville, CA 95012-0955
Tel: 831-633-3379
Fax.: 831-633-2447
E-mail: sjr@asmetals.com
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
With copies sent to:
Jeffery Vezzolo
SGS Recycling Enterprises, Inc.
PO Box 955
Castroville, CA 95012-0955
Tel: 831-633-3379
Fax: 831-633-2447
Email: jvezzolo@asmetals.com
William W. Funderburk, Jr.
Ross H. Hirsch
Castellón& Funderburk LLP
811 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1025
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Tel: (213)623-7515
Fax.: (213) 532-3984
E-mail: wfunderburk@candffirm.com
rhirsch@candffirm.com
Each Party shall promptly notify the other of any change in the above-listed contact information.
20.
Signatures of the Parties transmitted by facsimile or email shall be deemed binding.
21.
No Party shall be considered to be in default in the performance of any of its
obligations when a failure to perform is due to a “Force Majeure.” A Force Majeure event is any
circumstances beyond the Party’s control, including, without limitation, any act of God, war, fire,
earthquake, flood, windstorm, natural catastrophe, unexpected and unintended accidents, civil
disturbance, vandalism, sabotage, terrorism, restraint by court order or public authority, or action or
non-action by or inability to obtain the necessary authorizations or approvals from any governmental
agency. A Force Majeure event does not include normal inclement weather, such as anything less than
or equal to a 100 year/24-hour storm event, or inability to pay. Any Party seeking to rely upon this
paragraph shall have the burden of establishing that it could not reasonably have been expected to
avoid, and which by exercise of due diligence has been unable to overcome, the Force Majeure.
-9[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page15 of 41
22.
1
If for any reason the Court should decline to approve this Consent Agreement in the
2
form presented, the Parties shall use their best efforts to work together to modify the Consent
3
Agreement within thirty (30) days so that it is acceptable to the Court. If the Parties are unable to
4
modify this Consent Agreement in a mutually acceptable manner, this Consent Agreement shall
5
become null and void.
23.
6
This Consent Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted equally by the Parties,
7
and shall not be interpreted for or against any Settling Party on the ground that any such party drafted
8
it.
9
24.
This Consent Agreement and the attachments contain all of the terms and conditions
10
agreed upon by the Parties relating to the matters covered by the Consent Agreement, and supersede
11
any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements, negotiations, correspondence, understandings, and
12
communications of the Parties, whether oral or written, respecting the matters covered by this Consent
13
Agreement. This Consent Agreement may be amended or modified only by a writing signed by the
14
Parties or their authorized representatives, and then by order of the Court.
15
25.
Except in case of an emergency but subject to the regulatory authority of any applicable
16
governmental authority, any breach of or default under this Consent Agreement capable of being cured
17
shall be deemed cured if, within five (5) days of first receiving notice of the alleged breach or default,
18
or within such other period approved in writing by the Party making such allegation, which approval
19
shall not be unreasonably withheld, the party allegedly in breach or default has completed such cure
20
or, if the breach or default can be cured but is not capable of being cured within such five (5) day
21
period, has commenced and is diligently pursuing to completion such cure.
22
23
The Parties hereto enter into this Consent Agreement and respectfully submit it to the Court for
its approval and entry as an Order and Final Judgment.
24
25
Dated: ___________________
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
26
27
28
29
By:
___________________________________
Bill Jennings, Executive Director
-10[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page16 of 41
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page17 of 41
1
2
Dated: ___________________
S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc.
3
4
By:
5
___________________________________
Stanley G. Silva, Jr., President
6
7
Dated: ___________________
Stanley G. Silva, Jr.
8
9
10
By:
___________________________________
Stanley G. Silva, Jr.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
-11[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page18 of 41
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page19 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
EXHIBIT A – Facility Site Map
24
25
26
28
[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page20 of 41
19
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page21 of 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
EXHIBIT B – Notice of Violation
23
24
25
26
28
700415122v1
[PROPOSED] CONSENT AGREEMENT
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page22 of 41
March 6, 2012
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Stanley G. Silva, Jr., owner
S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc., facility business name “A&S Metals”
620 Walker Street, #1
Watsonville, CA 95076
Stanley G. Silva, Jr., Agent for Service of Process
S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc.
11340 Commercial Pkwy
Castroville, CA 95012
Re:
Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act
Dear Mr. Silva:
I am writing on behalf of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
(“CSPA”) in regard to violations of the Clean Water Act (“the Act”) occurring at the
S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. (“A&S Metals”) facility, located at 620 Walker Street,
#1 in Watsonville, California (“the Facility”). The Facility Operator is S.G.S. Recycling
Enterprises, Inc., and the Facility business name is “A&S Metals.” The WDID
identification number for the Facility is 3 44I022055. CSPA is a non-profit public
benefit corporation dedicated to the preservation, protection and defense of the
environment, wildlife and natural resources of the Pajaro River and other California
waters. This letter is being sent to you as the responsible owner, officer, or operator of
the Facility. Unless otherwise noted, S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G.
Silva, Jr. shall hereinafter be collectively referred to as A&S Metals.
This letter addresses A&S Metals’ unlawful discharges of pollutants from the
Facility to the City of Watsonville’s storm water drainage system, which then conveys
that storm water into the Pajaro River. This letter addresses the ongoing violations of the
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page23 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 2 of 17
substantive and procedural requirements of the Clean Water Act and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001, State Water
Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ, as amended by Order
No. 97-03-DWQ (“General Permit” or “General Industrial Storm Water Permit”).
Section 505(b) of the Clean Water Act provides that sixty (60) days prior to the
initiation of a civil action under Section 505(a) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)), a citizen
must give notice of intent to file suit. Notice must be given to the alleged violator, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“the EPA”), and the State in which the violations
occur.
As required by the Clean Water Act, this Notice of Violation and Intent to File
Suit provides notice of the violations that have occurred, and continue to occur, at the
Facility. Consequently, S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr. are
hereby placed on formal notice by CSPA that, after the expiration of sixty (60) days from
the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit, CSPA intends to file suit in
federal court against S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr. under
Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)), for violations of the Clean
Water Act and the General Permit. These violations are described more fully below.
I.
Background.
A&S Metals owns and operates a scrap metal recycling facility located in
Watsonville, California. The Facility falls under Standard Industrial Classification
(“SIC”) Code 5093 (“Scrap Recycling Facilities”). The Facility is primarily used to
receive, store, handle, recycle and transport scrap metals. Other activities at the Facility
include the use and storage of heavy machinery and motorized vehicles, including trucks
used to haul materials to, from and within the Facility.
A&S Metals collects and discharges storm water from its approximately 1.5-acre
Facility through at least one (1) discharge point into the City of Watsonville’s storm
water drainage system. From that system, A&S Metals’ storm water drains into the
Pajaro River, and finally into the Pacific Ocean. The Pajaro River and its tributaries are
waters of the United States within the meaning of the Clean Water Act.
The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Regional Board”) has
established water quality standards for the Pajaro River in the “Water Quality Control
Plan for the Central Coast Basin” (“Basin Plan”). The Basin Plan requires “[a]ll waters
shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations which are toxic to, or
which produce detrimental physiological responses in, human, plant, animal, or aquatic
life.” For the Pajaro River, the Basin Plan establishes surface water quality objectives,
including: total dissolved solids - 1000 mg/L; chlorine – 250 mg/L; sodium sulfate – 250
mg/L; boron – 1.0 mg/L; and sodium – 200 mg/L. Id. at III-13, Table 3-7. The Basin
Plan also requires “[t]he pH value shall neither be depressed below 6.5 nor raised above
8.3.” Id. at III-5. Further, it prohibits the discharges of oil and grease, stating that
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page24 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 3 of 17
“[w]aters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other similar materials in
concentrations that result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on
objects in the water, that cause nuisance, or that otherwise adversely affect beneficial
uses.” Id. at III-3.
The Basin Plan provides maximum contaminant levels (“MCLs”) for organic
concentrations and inorganic and fluoride concentrations, not to be exceeded in domestic
or municipal supply. Id. at III-6 - III-7. It requires that water designated for use as
domestic or municipal supply shall not exceed the following maximum contaminant
levels: aluminum – 1.0 mg/L; arsenic - 0.05 mg/L; lead - 0.05 mg/L; and mercury - 0.002
mg/L. Id. at III-7. The EPA has also issued recommended water quality criterion MCLs,
or Treatment Techniques, for mercury - 0.002 mg/L; lead – 0.015 mg/L; chromium – 0.1
mg/L; and, copper – 1.3 mg/L. The EPA also issued a recommended water quality
criteria for aluminum for freshwater aquatic life protection of 0.087 mg/L. In addition,
the EPA has established a secondary MCL, consumer acceptance limit for aluminum 0.05 mg/L to 0.2 mg/L and zinc - 5.0 mg/L. See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
mcl.html. Finally, the California Department of Health Services has established the
following MCL, consumer acceptance levels: aluminum – 1 mg/L (primary) and 0.2
mg/L (secondary); chromium – 0.5 mg/L (primary); copper – 1.0 mg/L (secondary); iron
– 0.3 mg/L; and zinc – 5.0 mg/L. See California Code of Regulations, title 22, §§ 64431,
64449.
The California Toxics Rule (“CTR”), issued by the EPA in 2000, establishes
numeric receiving water limits for certain toxic pollutants in California surface waters.
40 CFR § 131.38. The CTR establishes the following numeric limits for freshwater
surface waters: arsenic – 0.34 mg/L (maximum concentration) and 0.150 mg/L
(continuous concentration); chromium (III) – 0.550 mg/L (maximum concentration) and
0.180 mg/L (continuous concentration); copper – 0.013 mg/L (maximum concentration)
and 0.009 mg/L (continuous concentration); lead – 0.065 mg/L (maximum concentration)
and 0.0025 mg/L (continuous concentration).
The Regional Board has identified waters of the Central Coast as failing to meet
water quality standards for pollutant/stressors such as unknown toxicity, numerous
pesticides, and mercury. See www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/2002reg3303dlist.pdf. It identified that the Pajaro River fails to meet water quality
standards due to the pollutant/stressors fecal coliform, nutrients, and
sedimentation/siltation. Discharges of listed pollutants into an impaired surface water
may be deemed a “contribution” to the exceedance of CTR, a water quality standard, and
may indicate a failure on the part of a discharger to implement adequate storm water
pollution control measures. See Waterkeepers Northern Cal. v. Ag Indus. Mfg., Inc., 375
F.3d 913, 918 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Waterkeepers Northern Cal. v. Ag Indus. Mfg.,
Inc., 2005 WL 2001037 at *3, 5 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 19, 2005) (finding that a discharger
covered by the General Industrial Storm Water Permit was “subject to effluent limitation
as to certain pollutants, including zinc, lead, copper, aluminum and lead” under the CTR).
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page25 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 4 of 17
The General Permit incorporates benchmark levels established by EPA as
guidelines for determining whether a facility discharging industrial storm water has
implemented the requisite best available technology economically achievable (“BAT”)
and best conventional pollutant control technology (“BCT”). The following benchmarks
have been established for pollutants discharged by A&S Metals: iron – 1.0 mg/L; pH –
6.0 – 9.0 s.u.; oil & grease – 15 mg/L; aluminum – 0.75 mg/L; lead – 0.0816 mg/L; and,
total suspended solids – 100.0 mg/L. The State Water Quality Control Board has also
proposed adding a benchmark level for specific conductance - 200 µmhos/cm.
Additional EPA benchmark levels have been established for other parameters that CSPA
believes are being discharged from the Facility, including but not limited to, arsenic –
0.16854 mg/L; copper – 0.0636 mg/L; cyanide – 0.0636 mg/L; chemical oxygen demand
– 120 mg/L; magnesium – 0.0636 mg/L; manganese – 1.0 mg/L; mercury – 0.0024 mg/L;
and zinc – 0.117 mg/L.
II.
A&S Metals Is Violating the Act by Discharging Pollutants From the Facility
to Waters of the United States.
Under the Act, it is unlawful to discharge pollutants from a “point source” to
navigable waters without obtaining and complying with a permit governing the quantity
and quality of discharges. Trustees for Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549, 553 (9th Cir. 1984).
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act prohibits “the discharge of any pollutants by any
person . . .” except as in compliance with, among other sections of the Act, Section 402,
the NPDES permitting requirements. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The duty to apply for a
permit extends to “[a]ny person who discharges or proposes to discharge pollutants. . . .”
40 C.F.R. § 122.30(a).
The term “discharge of pollutants” means “any addition of any pollutant to
navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). Pollutants are defined
to include, among other examples, a variety of metals, chemical wastes, biological
materials, heat, rock, and sand discharged into water. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). A point
source is defined as “any discernable, confined and discrete conveyance, including but
not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, [or] conduit . . . from which pollutants are
or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). An industrial facility that discharges
pollutants into a navigable water is subject to regulation as a “point source” under the
Clean Water Act. Comm. to Save Mokelumne River v. East Bay Mun. Util. Dist., 13 F.3d
305, 308 (9th Cir. 1993). “Navigable waters” means “the waters of the United States.”
33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). Navigable waters under the Act include man-made waterbodies and
any tributaries or waters adjacent to other waters of the United States. See Headwaters,
Inc. v Talent Irrigation Dist., 243 F.3d 526, 533 (9th Cir. 2001).
The Pajaro River and its tributaries are waters of the United States. Accordingly,
A&S Metals’ discharges of storm water containing pollutants from the Facility are
discharges to waters of the United States.
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page26 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 5 of 17
CSPA is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that A&S Metals has
discharged and is discharging pollutants from the Facility to waters of the United States
every day that there has been or will be any measurable flow of water from the Facility
since February 26, 2009. Each discharge on each separate day is a separate violation of
Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). These unlawful discharges are ongoing.
Consistent with the five-year statute of limitations applicable to citizen enforcement
actions brought pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, A&S Metals is subject to
penalties for violations of the Act since February 26, 2009.
III.
Pollutant Discharges in Violation of the NPDES Permit.
A&S Metals has violated and continues to violate the terms and conditions of the
General Permit. Section 402(p) of the Act prohibits the discharge of storm water
associated with industrial activities, except as permitted under an NPDES permit such as
the General Permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. The General Permit prohibits any discharges of
storm water associated with industrial activities that have not been subjected to BAT or
BCT. Effluent Limitation B(3) of the General Permit requires dischargers to reduce or
prevent pollutants in their storm water discharges through implementation of BAT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants and BCT for conventional pollutants. BAT and
BCT include both nonstructural and structural measures. General Permit, Section A(8).
Conventional pollutants are TSS, Oil & Grease (“O&G”), pH, biochemical oxygen
demand (“BOD”), and fecal coliform. 40 C.F.R. § 401.16. All other pollutants are either
toxic or nonconventional. Id.; 40 C.F.R. § 401.15.
Further, Discharge Prohibition A(1) of the General Permit provides: “Except as
allowed in Special Conditions (D.1.) of this General Permit, materials other than storm
water (non-storm water discharges) that discharge either directly or indirectly to waters of
the United States are prohibited. Prohibited non-storm water discharges must be either
eliminated or permitted by a separate NPDES permit.” Special Conditions D(1) of the
General Permit sets forth the conditions that must be met for any discharge of non-storm
water to constitute an authorized non-storm water discharge.
Receiving Water Limitation C(1) of the General Permit prohibits storm water
discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges to surface or groundwater that
adversely impact human health or the environment. Receiving Water Limitation C(2) of
the General Permit also prohibits storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water
discharges that cause or contribute to an exceedance of any applicable water quality
standards contained in a Statewide Water Quality Control Plan or the applicable Regional
Board’s Basin Plan.
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page27 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 6 of 17
Based on its review of available public documents, CSPA is informed and
believes: (1) that A&S Metals continues to discharge pollutants in excess of benchmarks
and (2) that A&S Metals has failed to implement BMPs adequate to bring its discharge of
these and other pollutants in compliance with the General Permit. A&S Metals’ ongoing
violations are discussed further below.
A.
A&S Metals Has Discharged Storm Water Containing Pollutants in
Violation of the Permit.
A&S Metals has discharged and continues to discharge storm water with
unacceptable levels of Iron (Fe), Aluminum (Al), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), and
Specific Conductance (SC) in violation of the General Permit. These high pollutant
levels have been documented during significant rain events, including the rain events
indicated in the table of rain data attached hereto as Attachment A. A&S Metals’ Annual
Reports and Sampling and Analysis Results confirm discharges of materials other than
storm water and specific pollutants in violation of the Permit provisions listed above.
Self-monitoring reports under the Permit are deemed “conclusive evidence of an
exceedance of a permit limitation.” Sierra Club v. Union Oil, 813 F.2d 1480, 1493 (9th
Cir. 1988).
The following discharges of pollutants from the Facility have violated Discharge
Prohibitions A(1) and A(2) and Receiving Water Limitations C(1) and C(2) of the
General Industrial Storm Water Permit:
1.
Date
Discharge of Storm Water Containing Iron (Fe) at
Concentration in Excess of Applicable EPA Benchmark Value.
Parameter
Concentration
in Discharge
2/23/2010
Fe
6.28 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
1/18/2010
Fe
14.33 mg/L
1.0 mg/L
2.
Date
Benchmark
Value
Discharge of Storm Water Containing Al at Concentration in
Excess of EPA Benchmark Value.
Parameter
Concentration
in Discharge
Benchmark
Value
2/23/2010
Al
9.07 mg/L
0.75 mg/L
1/18/2010
Al
9.15 mg/L
0.75 mg/L
3/2/2009
Al
0.93 mg/L
0.75 mg/L
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page28 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 7 of 17
3.
Date
Discharge of Storm Water Containing Total Suspended Solids
(TSS) at Concentration in Excess of Applicable EPA
Benchmark Value.
Parameter
Concentration
in Discharge
2/23/2010
TSS
388 mg/L
100 mg/L
1/18/2010
TSS
368 mg/L
100 mg/L
4/7/2009
TSS
140 mg/L
100 mg/L
3/2/2009
TSS
202 mg/L
100 mg/L
4.
Date
Benchmark
Value
Discharge of Storm Water Containing Specific Conductance
(SC) at Concentration in Excess of Proposed EPA Benchmark
Value.
Parameter
Concentration
in Discharge
Proposed Benchmark
Value
3/18/2011
SC
544 µmhos/cm
200 µmhos/cm
11/1/2010
SC
542 µmhos/cm
200 µmhos/cm
2/23/2010
SC
509 µmhos/cm
200 µmhos/cm
1/18/2010
SC
510 µmhos/cm
200 µmhos/cm
4/7/2009
SC
556 µmhos/cm
200 µmhos/cm
3/2/2009
SC
561 µmhos/cm
200 µmhos/cm
CSPA’s investigation, including its review of A&S Metals’ analytical results
documenting pollutant levels in the Facility’s storm water discharges well in excess of
EPA’s benchmark values and the State Board’s proposed benchmark levels for specific
conductivity, indicates that A&S Metals has not implemented BAT and BCT at the
Facility for its discharges of Iron (Fe), Aluminum (Al), Total Suspended Solids (TSS),
Specific Conductance (SC) and other pollutants, in violation of Effluent Limitation B(3)
of the General Permit. A&S Metals was required to have implemented BAT and BCT by
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page29 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 8 of 17
no later than October 1, 1992 or the start of its operations. Thus, A&S Metals is
discharging polluted storm water associated with its industrial operations without having
implemented BAT and BCT.
CSPA is informed and believes that A&S Metals has known that its storm water
contains pollutants at levels exceeding EPA Benchmarks and other water quality criteria
since at least February 26, 2009. CSPA alleges that such violations also have occurred
and will occur on other rain dates, including during every single significant rain event
that has occurred since February 26, 2009, and that will occur at the Facility subsequent
to the date of this Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit. Attachment A, attached
hereto, sets forth each of the specific rain dates on which CSPA alleges that A&S Metals
has discharged storm water containing impermissible levels of Iron (Fe), Aluminum (Al),
Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Specific Conductance (SC) and other unmonitored
pollutants (e.g. copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and chemical oxygen demand (COD)) in violation
of Discharge Prohibitions A(1) and A(2) and Receiving Water Limitations C(1) and C(2)
of the General Permit.
These unlawful discharges from the Facility are ongoing. Each discharge of
storm water containing any pollutants from the Facility without the implementation of
BAT/BCT constitutes a separate violation of the General Permit and the Act. Consistent
with the five-year statute of limitations applicable to citizen enforcement actions brought
pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, A&S Metals is subject to penalties for violations
of the General Permit and the Act since February 26, 2009.
B.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Implement an Adequate Monitoring &
Reporting Plan.
Section B of the General Industrial Storm Water Permit requires that dischargers
develop and implement an adequate Monitoring and Reporting Plan by no later than
October 1, 1992 or the start of operations. Sections B(3), B(4) and B(7) require that
dischargers conduct regularly scheduled visual observations of non-storm water and
storm water discharges from the Facility and to record and report such observations to the
Regional Board. Section B(5)(a) of the General Permit requires that dischargers “shall
collect storm water samples during the first hour of discharge from (1) the first storm
event of the wet season, and (2) at least one other storm event in the wet season. All
storm water discharge locations shall be sampled.” Section B(5)(c)(i) further requires
that the samples shall be analyzed for total suspended solids, pH, specific conductance,
and total organic carbon. Oil and grease may be substituted for total organic carbon.
Section B(5)(c)(ii) of the General Permit further requires dischargers to analyze samples
for all “[t]oxic chemicals and other pollutants that are likely to be present in storm water
discharges in significant quantities.” Section B(10) of the General Permit provides that
“facility operators shall explain how the facility’s monitoring program will satisfy the
monitoring program objectives of [General Permit] Section B.2.”
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page30 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 9 of 17
Based on its investigation, CSPA is informed and believes that A&S Metals has
failed to develop and implement an adequate Monitoring & Reporting Plan. First, based
on its review of publicly available documents, CSPA is informed and believes that A&S
Metals has failed to collect storm water samples during at least two qualifying storms
events, as defined by the General Permit, during the past three Wet Seasons. Second,
based on its review of publicly available documents, CSPA is informed and believes that
A&S Metals has failed to conduct the monthly visual monitoring of storm water
discharges and the quarterly visual observations of unauthorized non-storm water
discharges required under the General Permit during the past three Wet Seasons. Third,
based on its review of publicly available documents, CSPA is informed and believes that
for the past three Wet Seasons A&S Metals has failed to analyze samples for the
pollutants that the General Permit requires A&S Metals to analyze, based on its SIC Code
5093, which includes copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and chemical oxygen demand (COD).
Fourth, based on its review of publicly available documents, CSPA is informed and
believes that for the past three Wet Seasons A&S Metals has failed to analyze samples
for other pollutants that are likely to be present in significant quantities in the storm water
discharged from the Facility. Each of these failures constitutes a separate and ongoing
violation of the General Permit and the Act. Consistent with the five-year statute of
limitations applicable to citizen enforcement actions brought pursuant to the federal
Clean Water Act, A&S Metals is subject to penalties for violations of the General
Industrial Storm Water Permit and the Act since February 26, 2009. These violations are
set forth in greater detail below:
1.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Collect Storm Water Samples
During at Least Two Rain Events In Each of the Last Three
Wet Seasons.
Based on its review of publicly available documents, CSPA is informed and
believes that A&S Metals has failed to collect storm water samples from all discharge
points during at least two qualifying rain events at the Facility during each of the past
three years, as required by the General Permit. For example, CSPA notes that the Annual
Report filed by A&S Metals for the Facility for the 2010-2011 Wet Season reported that
A&S Metals analyzed samples of storm water discharged during two qualifying storm
events that season. However, upon closer scrutiny it turns out that neither storm sampled
was a qualifying storm event within the meaning of the General Permit (discussed further
below). Similarly, in the 2009-2010 Annual Report, A&S Metals sampled from two
storm events which were not qualifying storm events, either.
A&S Metals reported in all three Wet Seasons (i.e., 2008-2009; 2009-2010; and
2010-2011 Wet Seasons), that the Facility sampled the first storm of the season, when in
fact it did not sample the first storm of the season during any Wet Season. For example,
A&S Metals reported in its 2009-2010 Annual Report that it sampled the first storm of
the Wet Season, but A&S Metals’ first sample is from January 18, 2010. Based upon its
review of publicly available rainfall data, CSPA is informed and believes that the first
storm of the 2009-2010 Wet Season occurred as early as Monday, October 12, 2009,
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page31 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 10 of 17
when 0.18” of rain fell on the Facility. This failure to adequately monitor storm water
discharges constitutes separate and ongoing violations of the General Permit and the Act.
2.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Collect Storm Water Samples
from Each Discharge Point During at Least Two Rain
Events In Each of the Last Three Wet Seasons.
Based on its review of publicly available documents, CSPA is informed and
believes that A&S Metals has failed to collect storm water samples from all discharge
points during at least two qualifying rain events at the Facility during each of the past
three Wet Seasons. Further, based on its investigation, CSPA is informed and believes
that storm water discharges from the Facility at points other than the one
sampling/discharge point currently designated by A&S Metals. This failure to adequately
monitor storm water discharges constitutes separate and ongoing violations of the
General Permit and the Act.
3.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Conduct the Monthly Wet Season
Observations of Storm Water Discharges Required by the
General Permit.
The General Permit requires dischargers to “visually observe storm water
discharges from one storm event per month during the Wet Season (October 1 – May
30).” General Permit, Section B(4)(a). As evidenced by the entries on Form 4 Monthly
Visual Observations contained in A&S Metals’ annual reports for the last three Wet
Seasons, CSPA is informed and believes that A&S Metals has failed to properly conduct
this requirement of the General Permit.
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page32 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 11 of 17
Specifically, A&S Metals failed to conduct monthly visual observations of
discharges from qualifying storm events for most months during any of the past three
Wet Seasons. Instead, A&S Metals documented its visual observations of storm water
that discharged during non-qualifying storm events or on dates during which no rain fell
on the Facility, for most months during the entire Wet Season of each of the past three
years (discussed further below). However, based on publicly available rainfall data,
CSPA is informed and believes that there were many qualifying storm events during each
of these Wet Seasons that A&S Metals could have observed.
For example, A&S Metals reported in its 2010-2011 Annual Report that it
observed a qualifying storm event on Tuesday November 23, 2010. However, CSPA is
informed and believes that this could not possibly be true because 0.29” of rain fell on the
Facility two days prior, on November 21, 2010, likely making the November 21st storm a
qualifying storm event and disqualifying all storm events for the next three days. A&S
Metals’ failure to conduct this required monthly Wet Season visual monitoring extends
back to at least February 26, 2009. A&S Metals’ failure to conduct this required monthly
Wet Season visual monitoring has caused and continues to cause multiple, separate and
ongoing violations of the General Permit and the Act.
4.
A&S Metals Is Subject to Penalties for Its Failure to
Implement an Adequate Monitoring & Reporting Plan Since
February 26, 2009.
CSPA is informed and believes that publicly available documents demonstrate
A&S Metals’ consistent and ongoing failure to implement an adequate Monitoring
Reporting Plan in violation of Section B of the General Permit. For example, while in its
2010-2011 Annual Report A&S Metals reported having collected samples of storm water
discharged during two qualifying storm events, neither storm event was a qualifying
storm event within the meaning of the General Permit. Based on its review of publicly
available rainfall data, CSPA is informed and believes that the storm that occurred at the
Facility on March 18, 2011 was not a qualifying storm event because enough rain fell on
the Facility two days prior to likely result in a discharge of storm water from the Facility,
thereby invalidating the storm as a qualifying storm event. Specifically, A&S Metals
sampled a rain event on March 18, 2011 that produced 0.78” of rainfall on the Facility.
However, two days prior, on Wednesday, March 16, 2011, 0.16” of rain fell on the
Facility. Therefore, this March 16th storm event likely invalidates any sampling for three
days afterwards.
Additionally, A&S Metals is in violation of the General Permit’s requirement that
the testing method employed in laboratory analyses of pollutant concentrations present in
storm water discharged from the Facility be “adequate to satisfy the objectives of the
monitoring program.” General Permit Section B.10.a.iii. The Regional Board has
determined that the appropriate laboratory test method to employ when analyzing storm
water samples for the presence and concentration of iron is EPA method 200.8.
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page33 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 12 of 17
Additionally, the Regional Board has determined that the appropriate detection limit that
should be applied when using EPA method 200.8 is 0.005 mg/L.
However, as demonstrated by A&S Metals’ annual report filed for each of the last
three Wet Seasons (e.g., 2008-2009; 2009-2010; 2010-2011), the test method employed
by the laboratory utilized by A&S Metals to analyze the concentration of iron in the
storm water discharged from its Facility was not EPA method 200.8, but rather, EPA
method 200.7. In addition, the laboratory employed by A&S Metals to analyze the storm
water sample collected for both samples applied an inappropriately high detection limit of
0.04 mg/L. In fact, A&S Metals used an inappropriate analysis method for lead,
aluminum, and oil & grease in all three of its Annual Reports.
Finally, A&S Metals held its samples for an excessive length of time before
turning the samples over to a laboratory for analysis. In each of the 2009-2010 and 20102011 Wet Seasons, A&S Metals held both samples until the middle of June, and the
samples were not analyzed until late June. In 2008-2009, A&S Metals held its first
sample over a month before sending both samples together to a lab. Holding time can
negatively impact the validity of the analysis.
A&S Metals is in violation of the General Permit for failing to employ laboratory
test methods and detection limits that are adequate to, among other things, “ensure that
storm water discharges are in compliance with the Discharge Prohibitions, Effluent
Limitations, and Receiving Water Limitations specified in this General Permit.” General
Permit Section B.2.a. (“Monitoring Program Objectives”). Accordingly, consistent with
the five-year statute of limitations applicable to citizen enforcement actions brought
pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, A&S Metals is subject to penalties for these
violations of the General Permit and the Act since February 26, 2009.
C.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Implement BAT and BCT.
Effluent Limitation B(3) of the General Permit requires dischargers to reduce or
prevent pollutants in their storm water discharges through implementation of BAT for
toxic and nonconventional pollutants and BCT for conventional pollutants. BAT and
BCT include both nonstructural and structural measures. General Permit, Section A(8).
CSPA’s investigation indicates that A&S Metals has not implemented BAT and BCT at
the Facility for its discharges of Iron (Fe), Aluminum (Al), Total Suspended Solids
(TSS), Specific Conductance (SC) and other unmonitored pollutants in violation of
Effluent Limitation B(3) of the General Permit.
To meet the BAT/BCT requirement of the General Permit, A&S Metals must
evaluate all pollutant sources at the Facility and implement the best structural and nonstructural management practices economically achievable to reduce or prevent the
discharge of pollutants from the Facility. Based on the limited information available
regarding the internal structure of the Facility, CSPA believes that at a minimum A&S
Metals must improve its housekeeping practices, store materials that act as pollutant
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page34 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 13 of 17
sources under cover or in contained areas, treat storm water to reduce pollutants before
discharge (e.g., with filters or treatment boxes), and/or prevent storm water discharge
altogether. A&S Metals has failed to adequately implement such measures.
A&S Metals was required to have implemented BAT and BCT by no later than
October 1, 1992. Therefore, A&S Metals has been in continuous violation of the BAT
and BCT requirements every day since October 1, 1992, and will continue to be in
violation every day that it fails to implement BAT and BCT. A&S Metals is subject to
penalties for violations of the General Permit and the Act occurring since February 26,
2009.
D.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Develop and Implement an Adequate
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Section A(1) and Provision E(2) of the General Permit require dischargers of
storm water associated with industrial activity to develop, implement, and update an
adequate storm water pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”) no later than October 1,
1992. Section A(1) and Provision E(2) requires dischargers who submitted an NOI
pursuant to Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ to continue following their existing
SWPPP and implement any necessary revisions to their SWPPP in a timely manner, but
in any case, no later than August 9, 1997.
The SWPPP must, among other requirements, identify and evaluate sources of
pollutants associated with industrial activities that may affect the quality of storm and
non-storm water discharges from the facility and identify and implement site-specific
best management practices (“BMPs”) to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with
industrial activities in storm water and authorized non-storm water discharges (General
Permit, Section A(2)). The SWPPP must also include BMPs that achieve BAT and BCT
(Effluent Limitation B(3)). The SWPPP must include: a description of individuals and
their responsibilities for developing and implementing the SWPPP (General Permit,
Section A(3)); a site map showing the facility boundaries, storm water drainage areas
with flow pattern and nearby water bodies, the location of the storm water collection,
conveyance and discharge system, structural control measures, impervious areas, areas of
actual and potential pollutant contact, and areas of industrial activity (General Permit,
Section A(4)); a list of significant materials handled and stored at the site (General
Permit, Section A(5)); a description of potential pollutant sources including industrial
processes, material handling and storage areas, dust and particulate generating activities,
a description of significant spills and leaks, a list of all non-storm water discharges and
their sources, and a description of locations where soil erosion may occur (General
Permit, Section A(6)).
The SWPPP also must include 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
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page35 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 14 of 17
(General Permit, Section A(7), (8)). The SWPPP must be evaluated to ensure
effectiveness and must be revised where necessary (General Permit, Section A(9),(10)).
Receiving Water Limitation C(3) of the Order requires that dischargers submit a report to
the appropriate Regional Water Board that describes the BMPs that are currently being
implemented and additional BMPs that will be implemented to prevent or reduce the
discharge of any pollutants causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality
standards.
CSPA’s investigation and review of publicly available documents regarding
conditions at the Facility indicate that A&S Metals has been operating with an
inadequately developed or implemented SWPPP in violation of the requirements set forth
above. A&S Metals has failed to evaluate the effectiveness of its BMPs and to revise its
SWPPP as necessary. Accordingly, A&S Metals has been in continuous violation of
Section A(1) and Provision E(2) of the General Permit every day since October 1, 1992,
and will continue to be in violation every day that it fails to develop and implement an
effective SWPPP. A&S Metals is subject to penalties for violations of the Order and the
Act occurring since February 26, 2009.
E.
A&S Metals Has Failed to Address Discharges Contributing to
Exceedances of Water Quality Standards.
Receiving Water Limitation C(3) requires a discharger to prepare and submit a
report to the Regional Board describing changes it will make to its current BMPs in order
to prevent or reduce the discharge of any pollutant in its storm water discharges that is
causing or contributing to an exceedance of water quality standards. Once approved by
the Regional Board, the additional BMPs must be incorporated into the Facility’s
SWPPP. The report must be submitted to the Regional Board no later than 60-days from
the date the discharger first learns that its discharge is causing or contributing to an
exceedance of an applicable water quality standard. Receiving Water Limitation C(4)(a).
Section C(11)(d) of the Permit’s Standard Provisions also requires dischargers to report
any noncompliance. See also Provision E(6). Lastly, Section A(9) of the Permit requires
an annual evaluation of storm water controls including the preparation of an evaluation
report and implementation of any additional measures in the SWPPP to respond to the
monitoring results and other inspection activities.
As indicated above, A&S Metals is discharging elevated levels of Iron (Fe),
Aluminum (Al), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Specific Conductance (SC) and other
unmonitored pollutants that are causing or contributing to exceedances of applicable
water quality standards. For each of these pollutant exceedances, A&S Metals was
required to submit a report pursuant to Receiving Water Limitation C(4)(a) within 60days of becoming aware of levels in its storm water exceeding the EPA Benchmarks and
applicable water quality standards.
Based on CSPA’s review of available documents, A&S Metals was aware of high
levels of these pollutants prior to February 26, 2009. Likewise, A&S Metals has
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page36 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 15 of 17
generally failed to file reports describing its noncompliance with the General Permit in
violation of Section C(11)(d). Lastly, the SWPPP and accompanying BMPs do not
appear to have been altered as a result of the annual evaluation required by Section A(9).
A&S Metals has been in continuous violation of Receiving Water Limitation C(4)(a) and
Sections C(11)(d) and A(9) of the General Permit every day since February 26, 2009, and
will continue to be in violation every day it fails to prepare and submit the requisite
reports, receives approval from the Regional Board and amends its SWPPP to include
approved BMPs. A&S Metals is subject to penalties for violations of the General Permit
and the Act occurring since February 26, 2009.
F.
A&S Metals Has Failed to File Timely, True and Correct Reports.
Section B(14) of the General Permit requires dischargers to submit an Annual
Report by July 1st of each year to the executive officer of the relevant Regional Board.
The Annual Report must be signed and certified by an appropriate corporate officer.
General Permit, Sections B(14), C(9), (10). Section A(9)(d) of the General Permit
requires the discharger to include in their annual report an evaluation of their storm water
controls, including certifying compliance with the General Industrial Storm Water
Permit. See also General Permit, Sections C(9) and (10) and B(14).
CSPA’s investigation indicates that A&S Metals has submitted incomplete
Annual Reports and purported to comply with the General Permit despite significant
noncompliance at the Facility. For example, A&S Metals reported in every Annual
Report filed for the past three Wet Seasons (i.e., 2008-2009; 2009-2010; and 2010-2011)
that it observed the first storm of every Wet Season. However, as discussed above, based
on CSPA’s review of publicly available rainfall data, CSPA believes this cannot possibly
be true.
Further, A&S Metals failed to sample from qualifying storm events in five out of
six storm water samples collected during the last three Wet Seasons. For example, as
listed above, in 2010-2011, A&S Metals sampled from a storm event on March 18, 2011
that was not a qualifying storm event. Further, in the 2009-2010 Annual Report, A&S
Metals reported that it sampled a qualifying storm event on January 18, 2010. Based on
its review of publicly available rainfall data, CSPA is informed and believes that the
storm that occurred at the Facility on January 18, 2010 was not a qualifying storm event
because enough rain fell on the Facility one day prior to likely result in a discharge of
storm water from the Facility, thereby invalidating the January 18, 2010 storm as a
qualifying storm event. Specifically, 0.31” of rain fell on the Facility on Sunday, January
17, 2010.
Further, A&S Metals failed to comply with the monthly visual observations of
storm water discharges requirement for every single Annul Report filed for the Facility
for each of the last three years. In the 2010-2011 Annual Report, A&S Metals did not
observe a single qualifying storm event within the meaning of the General Permit. For
example, A&S Metals reported that it observed a qualifying storm event on December
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page37 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 16 of 17
22, 2010. However, based on publicly available rainfall data, CSPA is informed and
believes that this cannot possibly be true. On Tuesday, December 21, 2010, 0.16” of rain
fell on the Facility, likely invalidating the storm observed on December 22nd. In the
2009-2010 Annual Report, A&S Metals reported that it observed discharge from a
qualifying storm event on March 11, 2010. However, based on publicly available rainfall
data, CSPA is informed and believes that this cannot possibly be true. One day prior to
March 11th, on Wednesday, March 10, 0.34”of rain fell on the Facility, thereby
invalidating the March 11, 2010 storm as a qualifying storm event.
These are only a few examples of how A&S Metals has failed to file completely
true and accurate reports. As indicated above, A&S Metals has failed to comply with the
Permit and the Act consistently for at least the past three years; therefore, A&S Metals
has violated Sections A(9)(d), B(14) and C(9) & (10) of the Permit every time A&S
Metals submitted an incomplete or incorrect annual report that falsely certified
compliance with the Act in the past years. A&S Metals’ failure to submit true and
complete reports constitutes continuous and ongoing violations of the Permit and the Act.
A&S Metals is subject to penalties for violations of Section (C) of the General Permit and
the Act occurring since February 26, 2009.
IV.
Persons Responsible for the Violations.
CSPA puts S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr. under on
notice that they are the persons responsible for the violations described above. If
additional persons are subsequently identified as also being responsible for the violations
set forth above, CSPA puts S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr. on
notice that it intends to include those persons in this action.
V.
Name and Address of Noticing Party.
Our name, address and telephone number is as follows: California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance, Bill Jennings, Executive Director; 3536 Rainier Avenue, Stockton,
CA 95204; Phone: (209) 464-5067.
VI.
Counsel.
CSPA has retained legal counsel to represent it in this matter. Please direct all
communications to:
Andrew L. Packard
Erik M. Roper
Emily J. Brand
Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard
100 Petaluma Boulevard, Suite 301
Petaluma, CA 94952
Tel. (707) 763-7227
Fax. (707) 763-9227
Email:
Andrew@PackardLawOffices.com
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page38 of 41
Notice of Violation and Intent To File Suit
March 6, 2012
Page 17 of 17
Erik@PackardLawOffices.com
Emily@PackardLawOffices.com
VII.
Penalties.
Pursuant to Section 309(d) of the 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
Act S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr. to a penalty of up to
$32,500 per day per violation for all violations occurring after March 15, 2004, and
$37,500 per day per violation for all violations occurring after January 12, 2009, during
the period commencing five years prior to the date of this Notice of Violations and Intent
to File Suit. In addition to civil penalties, CSPA will seek injunctive relief preventing
further violations of the Act pursuant to Sections 505(a) and (d) (33 U.S.C. §1365(a) and
(d)) and such other relief as permitted by law. Lastly, Section 505(d) of the Act (33
U.S.C. § 1365(d)), permits prevailing parties to recover costs and fees, including
attorneys’ fees.
CSPA believes this Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit sufficiently states
grounds for filing suit. We intend to file a citizen suit under Section 505(a) of the Act
against S.G.S. Recycling Enterprises, Inc. and Stanley G. Silva, Jr. and their agents for
the above-referenced violations upon the expiration of the 60-day notice period. If you
wish to pursue remedies in the absence of litigation, we suggest that you initiate those
discussions within the next 20 days so that they may be completed before the end of the
60-day notice period. We do not intend to delay the filing of a complaint in federal court
if discussions are continuing when that period ends.
Sincerely,
Bill Jennings, Executive Director
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page39 of 41
SERVICE LIST
Lisa Jackson, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Jared Blumenfeld
Administrator, U.S. EPA – Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA, 94105
Eric Holder
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Dorothy R. Rice, Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Pamela Creedon, Executive Officer
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
11020 Sun Center Drive #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page40 of 41
ATTACHMENT A
Notice of Intent to File Suit, A&S Metals (Watsonville, CA)
Significant Rain Events,* February 26, 2009 – March 6, 2012
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
April
April
April
April
April
May
Jun
Jul
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Feb
Feb
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
April
May
May
Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
01
02
03
04
22
07
08
09
22
24
01
01
04
12
13
19
14
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
29
04
05
06
09
21
23
24
26
27
02
03
10
12
30
31
02
04
05
11
12
20
27
28
10
25
17
23
24
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Nov.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Dec.
Jan.
Jan.
Jan.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Feb.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Mar.
Apr
May
May
May
May
Jun
Jun
Oct
Oct
Oct
Nov
Nov
Nov
Nov
07
19
20
21
23
27
05
14
17
18
19
21
22
25
26
28
29
01
02
30
14
15
16
17
18
18
24
25
06
13
14
16
18
19
20
21
23
24
25
26
08
14
15
16
17
06
28
03
04
05
04
05
11
19
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2010
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
2011
Nov
20
2011
* Dates gathered from publicly available rain and weather data collected at stations located near the
Facility.
Case5:12-cv-02286-LHK Document13 Filed09/04/12 Page41 of 41
ATTACHMENT A
Notice of Intent to File Suit, A&S Metals (Watsonville, CA)
Significant Rain Events,* February 26, 2009 – March 6, 2012
* Dates gathered from publicly available rain and weather data collected at stations located near the
Facility.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?