Orange County Coastkeeper v. Griswold Industries

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 27, 2024
Docket8:24-cv-02162
StatusUnknown

This text of Orange County Coastkeeper v. Griswold Industries (Orange County Coastkeeper v. Griswold Industries) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Orange County Coastkeeper v. Griswold Industries, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 5 3 4 5 6 JS-6 8 9 10 1] 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER, a_ | Case No. 8:24-cv-02162-FWS (ADSx) 16 || California non-profit corporation, CONSENT DECREE 17 Plaintiff, 18 VS. (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 19 || Griswold Industries, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. and Resource 70 Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 Defendant. U.S.C. § 6901 et seq.) 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 CONSENT DECREE 2 The following consent decree (“Consent Decree”) is entered into by and between 3 Plaintiff Orange County Coastkeeper (“Plaintiff’ or “Coastkeeper”) and Griswold 4 ||Industries d/b/a Cla-Val Co. (“Defendant” or “Cla-Val’’). The entities entering into this 5 ||Consent Decree are each an individual “Settling Party” and collectively are the “Settling 6 || Parties.” 7 WHEREAS, Orange County Coastkeeper is a non-profit public benefit corporation; 8 WHEREAS, Coastkeeper is dedicated to the preservation, protection, and 9 ||restoration of the environment, the wildlife, and the natural resources of all waters of 10 California, including Newport Bay and the Santa Ana River; 1] WHEREAS, Cla-Val owns and operates an industrial facility that manufactures 12 || valves located at 1701 - 1741 Placentia Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 (‘Facility’). 13 || Activities at the Facility include ferrous and non-ferrous metal melting, forming of sand 14 ||molds and cores, pouring metal, and trimming of raw castings. Finished castings are then 15 ||machined, assembled, finished, tested, and shipped from the Facility; 16 WHEREAS, the Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) codes applicable to the 17 ||Facility include 3325 (steel foundry), 3369 (nonferrous foundry), 3324 (steel investment 18 || foundry), and 3491 (industrial valves). 19 WHEREAS, Coastkeeper alleges that Cla-Val’s operations at the Facility result in 20 || discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States and are regulated by the Clean 21 ||Water Act Sections 301(a) and 402 and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 22 ||(“RCRA”) Section 7002. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342; 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B); 23 WHEREAS, discharges from the Facility are regulated by the National Pollutant 24 || Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) General Permit No. CAS000001 [State Water 25 ||Resources Control Board] Water Quality Order No. 92-12-DWQ, as amended by Order 26 97-03-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ, as amended by Order No. 27 ||2015-0122-DWQ, as subsequently amended by Order 2018-0028-DWQ (effective July 1, 2g || Consent Decree 2 Civil Case No. 8:24-cv-02162

1 ||2020) (collectively, as amended, and as may be subsequently amended from time to time, 2 ||the “Storm Water Permit” or the “Permit’), issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Federal 3 || Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seg. (the “Clean Water Act” or the 4 ||“CWA”); 5 WHEREAS, the Storm Water Permit requires all permittees, including Cla-Val, to 6 ||comply with, inter alia, the following mandates: (1) develop and implement a storm water 7 || pollution prevention plan (“SWPPP”), (2) control pollutant discharges using, as applicable, 8 || best available technology economically achievable (“BAT”) or best conventional pollutant 9 || control technology (“BCT”) to prevent or reduce pollutants through the development and 10 application of Best Management Practices (“BMPs”), which must be included and updated 11 |/in the SWPPP, (3) when necessary, implement additional BMPs or other control measures 12 ||as necessary to comply with any and all applicable receiving water limitations, including 13 California Toxics Rule (40 C.F.R. § 131.38), and/or other requirements set forth in the 14 Permit, including as of July 1, 2020, compliance with the Permit’s water-quality based 15 |/numeric effluent limits (“NELs’), and (4) implement a monitoring and reporting program 16 designed to assess compliance with the Permit; 17 WHEREAS, on February 26, 2024, Coastkeeper issued a notice letter (the “Notice 18 || Letter’) to Cla-Val, their registered agents, select corporate officers, the Administrator of 19 ||the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”’), the Executive Director of 20 State Water Resources Control Board (the “State Water Board”), the Executive Officer 21 the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (the “Regional Water Board”’), 22 ||the Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX, the U.S. Attorney General, and the Director 23 || of the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery alleging violations of 24 ||the Storm Water Permit, Clean Water Act, and RCRA at the Facility; 25 WHEREAS, on October 7, 2024, Coastkeeper filed a Amended Complaint against 26 ||Cla-Val (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of 27 || California (Civil Case No. 8:24-cv-02162) (hereinafter, the “Action’”); 4g || Consent Decree 3 Civil Case No. 8:24-cv-02162

1 WHEREAS, Coastkeeper alleges Cla-Val is violating the substantive and 2 || procedural requirements of the Storm Water Permit, Clean Water Act, and RCRA; 3 WHEREAS, Cla-Val denies each of Coastkeeper’s claims in the Notice Letter and 4 || the Complaint; 5 WHEREAS, the Settling Parties agree it is in their mutual interest to enter into a 6 ||Consent Decree in this Action setting forth terms and conditions appropriate to resolving 7 || the allegations set forth in the Notice Letter and the Complaint without further proceedings; 8 WHEREAS, Cla-Val agrees to comply with the current version of the Storm Water 9 || Permit; 10 WHEREAS, capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings 11 |/ascribed to them in the Storm Water Permit; and 12 WHEREAS, all actions taken by Cla-Val pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be 13 |}made in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws and local rules and 14 |/regulations. 15 || NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE SETTLING 16 || PARTIES AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT AS FOLLOWS: 17 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 18 ||Section 505(a)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1)(A) and Section 19 || 7002(a)(1)(B) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). 20 2. Venue is appropriate in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of 21 California pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), 22 ||and Section 7002(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), because the Facility is located within 23 District. 24 3. The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 25 ||Section 505 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, and Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of 26 ||RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). 27 4. Coastkeeper has standing to bring the Clean Water Act and RCRA claims 2g || Consent Decree 4 Civil Case No. 8:24-cv-02162

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Orange County Coastkeeper v. Griswold Industries, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orange-county-coastkeeper-v-griswold-industries-cacd-2024.