Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Sunlite Salvage, Inc.

No. CV 99-04578 WDK (RCx) (C.D. Cal. December 21, 1999)

ELR Digest

The court holds that a California scrap metal company's stormwater discharge, stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), and monitoring and reporting plan (MRP) violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) and state water law. The court first holds that the company violated the CWA by failing to develop and implement an adequate SWPPP. The company failed to develop an SWPPP between 1994 and 1998 as required by the state-issued general permit for industrial stormwater discharge. The SWPPP that the company adopted in 1998 was inadequate because the company discharged stormwater containing pollutant concentrations above benchmark levels, thereby demonstrating the failure to use the best available technology (BAT) as required by the general permit. Further, the SWPPP fails to include stormwater control measures implemented at the company facility. Moreover, the use of oleophilic socks to filter pollutants does not constitute BAT for stormwater pollution control. The company's failure [30 ELR 20325] to adequately describe the company's use of a street and alley to conduct metal loading, unloading, and transfer violates the general permit requirement that all potential sources of pollutants be identified in the SWPPP. Similarly, the SWPPP fails to address the company's use of a neighboring vacant lot for metal handling and storage. In addition, the SWPPP fails to address the track off of pollutants from the company's facility.

The court next holds that the company violated the CWA by failing to develop and implement an adequate MRP. The general permit requires the development and implementation of an MRP before beginning industrial operations, but the company had no MRP between 1994 and 1998. After the company adopted an MRP in 1998, it failed to properly sample and monitor stormwater as required by the general permit. The court then holds that the company's discharge of stormwater containing pollutants violates the receiving water limitations of the general permit. The company's discharge of stormwater containing pollutants in excess of levels set out in the national toxics rule and/or ocean plan causes or contributes to exceedances of water quality standards in the Los Angeles River and San Pedro Bay. However, insufficient evidence was offered to support the allegation that the company discharged such concentrations of pollutants during every substantial rain event. Only those eight discharges where sampling occurred will be considered violations ofthe general permit's receiving water limitations.

The full text of this opinion is available from ELR (10 pp., ELR Order No. 174).

[Counsel not available at this printing.]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]