Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
DAVID A. LUDDER
A Professional Limited Liability Company
Certified Mail
Return Receipt Requested
Re: Notice of Violation and Intent to File Suit under the Clean Water Act
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, and 40 C.F.R. Part 135,
Subpart A, you are hereby notified that after the expiration of 60 days following service of this
notice, the Environmental Defense Alliance may file suit against the City of Reform for
discharges of pollutants in violation of NPDES Permit No. AL0020915 issued by the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management pursuant to Alabama’s NPDES permit program
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Clean Water Act § 402(b), 33
U.S.C. § 1342(b).
Pursuant to § 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management issued NPDES Permit No. AL0020915 authorizing the City of
Reform to discharge pollutants from the Reform Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at 103 3rd
Avenue Southeast in Reform, Pickens County, Alabama, into Lubbub Creek at approximately
Latitude 33.37305E North and Longitude 88.00417E West, subject to specific discharge
limitations. The City of Reform has discharged pollutants from Outfall 0011 into Lubbub Creek
in violation of the discharge limitations of NPDES Permit No. AL0020915 from January 2011
through December 2015 as described in Tables 1 through 6 attached hereto. Additional
violations may have occurred, but have not been reported to the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management.
On July 25, 1985, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management issued Order
No. 85-089-WP to the City of Reform. The Order recognized that the City had violated permit
discharge limitations during the months of August 1984 through April 1985 and that construction
of new or additional treatment works or modification of existing treatment works was necessary
to comply with permit discharge limitations. The Order required the submission of an
engineering report not later than December 15, 1985 and completion of construction not later
On April 15, 1991, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management issued Order
No. 91-091-WP to the City of Reform. The Order recognized that the City had violated permit
discharge limitations and failed to maintain in good working order and operate as efficiently as
possible all treatment or control facilities or systems. The Order required the submission of an
engineering report not later than June 15, 1991. The Order did not require compliance with
permit discharge limitations by a date certain. A penalty of $2,000 was assessed for past
violations.
On June 25, 2007, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management issued Order
No. 07-132-CWP to the City of Reform. The Order recognized that the City had violated permit
discharge limitations during the months of July 2005 through November 2006. The Order
required the submission of an engineering report not later than December 22, 2007. The Order
required implementation of the recommendations in the engineering report and compliance with
permit discharge limitations not later than December 21, 2009. A penalty of $6,100 was assessed
for past violations.
On August 28, 2009, the Conservation Alabama Foundation, Inc. served a notice of intent
to sue the City of Reform. The notice recognized that the City had violated permit discharge
limitations during the months of July 2005 through April 2009.
2
On October 28, 2009, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management and
Attorney General filed Civil Action No. CV-2009-900044 against the City of Reform. The
complaint alleged that the City had violated permit discharge limitations during the months of
July 2005 through April 2009. The complaint requested that the court order the City to take
action to ensure that similar violations will not recur in the future and impose a penalty.
After a September 4, 2012 conference call with a representative of the Attorney General’s
Office, the City’s engineer wrote to the Alabama Department of Environmental Management:
During this conference call, the City was asked to provide a final implementation
deadline for meeting the requirements of the Order. As we discussed, the Order
itself did not give specific milestones, rather it relied on schedules set forth in an
engineering report from Sentell Engineering, Inc. (hereafter "the Engineer") dated
December 3, 2010. Subsequent progress report filings by the Engineer noted
construction delays and implementation problems and provided extended
completion schedules with no final compliance date.
III. Sanctions
The Court may assess civil penalties of up to $37,500 per violation. Each day a violation
continues is a separate violation. Violations of monthly average limits and weekly average limits
are counted as violations for each day of the month and each day of the week, respectively. See
Atlantic States Legal Found. Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 897 F.2d 1128 (11th Cir. 1990). In
addition, the Court may award litigation expenses and attorney fees. Suit may be avoided if the
violations alleged herein have been permanently abated before the expiration of sixty (60) days
following the date of this notice. Please advise the undersigned of any measures that you may
undertake which you contend have permanently abated these violations before suit is filed.
Sincerely,
David A. Ludder
Attorney for
Environmental Defense Alliance
3
cc:
4
Table 1
T-1
Table 1
T-2
Table 1
T-3
Table 1
T-4
Table 2
T-5
Table 2
T-6
Table 2
T-7
Table 2
T-8
Table 2
T-9
Table 3
TOTAL VIOLATIONS 25
T-10
Table 4
E. Coli
T-11
Table 4
E. Coli
T-12
Table 5
Table 6
pH
$ 6.0 s.u.
5.10 s.u. Oct 2014 1
Daily Minimum
# 8.5 s.u.
8.7 s.u. Nov 2015 1
Daily Maximum
TOTAL VIOLATIONS 2
T-13