United States v. City of Providence

492 F. Supp. 602, 14 ERC 1964, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20857, 14 ERC (BNA) 1964, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17309
CourtDistrict Court, D. Rhode Island
DecidedMay 2, 1980
DocketCiv. A. 77-0374
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 492 F. Supp. 602 (United States v. City of Providence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. City of Providence, 492 F. Supp. 602, 14 ERC 1964, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20857, 14 ERC (BNA) 1964, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17309 (D.R.I. 1980).

Opinion

*604 OPINION

FRANCIS J. BOYLE, District Judge.

This action involves the enforcement of an Amended Consent Decree 1 entered on October 27, 1978. Defendant City of Providence has moved to modify the Decree and Plaintiff State of Rhode Island and Intervenor Plaintiff Save the Bay, Inc. have moved to have Defendant City of Providence adjudged in contempt of the Decree. Plaintiff United States has opposed modification of the Decree entered October 27,1978, and, although supporting, has not joined in the Motion to Adjudge Defendant City of Providence in Contempt. Intervenor, Local Union 1033 of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, in part supports the application for a contempt finding.

Initially, the Court considered only the Motion to Modify the Decree, and upon filing of the Motion to Adjudge in Contempt, heard both on a consolidated record.

This action was commenced by the United States, through the Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Rhode Island, through the Department of Environmental Management, on June 15, 1977, alleging that the Defendant City was in violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (1978) et seq., by reason of the. City’s failure to attain the effluent limits specified in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number RI0100315 [hereinafter “Permit”], issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to the City on April 3, 1979. The Permit was issued for the Fields Point Wastewater Treatment Plant [hereinafter “Fields Point Plant”] which had been operated by the City since the turn of the century.

The Fields Point Plant has a design capacity of 64 million gallons per day (average daily flow). The effluent is discharged into Narragansett Bay. Narragansett Bay bisects the State of Rhode Island from Providence on the north to the southern boundaries of the State. It is a salt water bay which ultimately empties into the Atlantic Ocean and is a valuable natural resource of the State providing not only the means for commercial shipping and water travel but also areas of shell and fin fishing, as well as providing recreational opportunities for the residents of this area. The City of Providence and other highly industrialized areas are located near its headwaters.

The Fields Point Plant is designed to provide both primary and secondary treatment of wastewater from the City of Providence and a portion of the wastewater from other nearby communities. The purpose of primary treatment is to remove pollutants that will either settle, such as heavier suspended solids, or float, such as grease. Secondary treatment is to be accomplished by the use of an activated sludge process in which a mixture of wastewater and biological sludge, called a biomass, is agitated and aerated, with the result that the micro-organisms in the biomass absorb the harmful organisms in the wastewater, forming large clumps which settle and can be then separated from the wastewater. As a final step in the process, before the effluent is dis-' charged into Narragansett Bay, it is treated with chlorine in order to kill pathogenic or disease-causing bacteria and viruses.

The permit requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act were adopted in 1972. This legislation represented a shift in emphasis from the previous policy to regulate water pollution in navigable waters based upon water quality of the waters to a system of controls based upon the quality of the effluent discharged into those waters. See EPA v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 204-205, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2024, 2025, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976). Specific provisions were made in the Act for compliance by both industry and local governments. 33 U.S.C. § 1311 (1978). As it relates to the City of Provi *605 dence, the Act required the City to provide at least secondary treatment of its waste-water not later than July 1,1977. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(B) (1978). There is no disagreement that at the time that this action was commenced, the plant was not capable of either primary or secondary treatment and, at best, provided sporadic chemical treatment of wastewater.

The plant had last been overhauled in 1965 and provided primary and secondary treatment into 1974. By 1977 it was, for all practical purposes, shut down. This situation represented not only a violation of the Act but also an obvious health hazard to the residents of this State.

It is asserted, and not contradicted, that the City is the largest single source of effluent discharge along the entire length of the Bay.

Due to neglect, the equipment for treatment became inoperable, and indeed was in such a bad state of disrepair that the extent of work to be done on some of the equipment could not be ascertained until an estimated 11,000 cubic yards of solidified sludge were removed from some of the tanks in the system. This sludge presented a substantial problem since it was the solid remnants of accumulated sewage which had to be lifted from the tanks and disposed of in a safe and sanitary manner. These facts were certainly known to the City authorities on June 15, 1977, when this action was commenced. 2

It was in this factual setting that the City agreed to the terms of the first Consent Decree on June 17, 1977, two days after this action was begun. That Decree which was entered by the Court on August 10, 1977, is not substantially different from the Amended Consent Decree, which was entered on October 27, 1978, and which is the subject of this action. Both decrees set a specific date upon which the plant would become operable and a specific date upon which the plant would comply with the effluent quality standards of the Permit. The first Decree provided that the City would “complete the repair and restoration of said water pollution control facilities and equipment” by May 1, 1978, and that it would meet the effluent quality standards by June 1, 1978.

The Amended Consent Decree provided that the City would “complete the repair and restoration” and commence operation of water pollution control facilities and equipment at the Fields Point Plant by September 23, 1979; that by November 23, 1979, “the City shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of EPA that its water pollution control facilities and equipment achieve the effluent limits specified in . . . ” the Permit; and additionally that it would present “a contingency plan for alternate, .environmentally acceptable method(s)” for sludge disposal by September 7, 1979.

Both consent decrees were signed by the highest authorities of the City and entered by a Judge of this Court. They specifically apply to and are binding upon “the defendant, its officers, directors, agents, servants, employees . . . and all persons, firms and corporations acting under, through and for it.”

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
492 F. Supp. 602, 14 ERC 1964, 10 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20857, 14 ERC (BNA) 1964, 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-city-of-providence-rid-1980.