EPA v. NEW BEDFORD, CITY OF

Case summary

THE NEW BEDFORD PLANT IS A 30 MILLION GAL PER DAY PRIMARY WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY WHICH IS DESIGNED TO TREAT WASTEWATER & SEPTAGE FROM THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD & PORTIONS OF THE TOWNS OF ACUSHNET & DARTMOUTH, MA. IT SERVES A POP- ULATION OF APPROX 101,000 PEOPLE. THE NEW BEDFORD PLANT DISCHARGES ITS EFFLUENT THROUGH A LONG OUTFALL INTO BUZZARD' S BAY, AN IMPORTANT ESTUARY WHICH SUPPORTS COMMERCIAL FISH- ING AND NUMEROUS RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES. THE CITY'S COM- BINED SEWER OVERFLOWS (CSO'S) DISCHARGE INTO THE ACUSHNET RIVER (NEW BEDFORD INNER HARBOR), BUZZARD'S BAY (NEW BEDFORD OUTER HARBOR) AND CLARK'S COVE. THE CITY'S DISCHARGES RANK AS THE 4TH LARGEST MUNICIPAL DISCHARGES BY VOLUME INTO MASS COASTAL WATERS. SINCE COMMENCING OPERATIONS IN 1974, THE NEW BEDFORD PLANT HAS FREQUENTLY FAILED TO MEET THE PRIMARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS SPECIFIED IN ITS ORIGNIAL NPDES PERMIT. THE CITY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR A WAIVER OF SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECT 301(H) OF THE CWA IN SEPT 1979. THE ADMINISTRATOR DENIED THE APPLICATION IN OCT 1982. THE CITY SUBMITTED A REVISED 301(H) WAIVER APPLICATION IN DEC 1983. THE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR TENTATIVELY DENIED THE REVISED APPLICATION ON 7/14/86. AS VIOLATIONS OF PRIMARY STANDARDS CONTINUED, THE CITY FAILED TO SUBMIT FACILITIES PLANS FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE ORIGINAL NPDES PERMIT. AS A RESULT OF THE CONTINUING VIOLATIONS, EPA & MASS AUTHOR- ITIES DECIDED THAT A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT ACTION AGAINST THE CITY WAS APPROPRIATE. EPA & THE COMMONWEALTH BEGAN DIS- CUSSIONS IN THE SPRING OF 1986 TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATE OR EPA WOULD THE CLF, A REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP BASED IN BOSTON, FILED A NOTICE OF CITIZEN'S SUIT UNDER SECT 505(B) OF THE CWA, ANNOUNCING ITS INTENT TO SUE THE CITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE NPDES PERMIT & THE CWA. ON NOV 18, 1986, EPA ISSUED A NEW NPDES PERMIT THE CITY RE- QUIRING IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE W/SPECIFIED SECONDARY EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS. THE CITY HAS APPEALED THE PROPOSED PERMIT. THIS LITIGATION REPORT ASSUMES THAT THE CITY WILL NOT SERIOUSLY CONTEST THE REQUIREMENT FOR SECONDARY TREATMENT. IT SEEMS LIKELY AT THIS DATE THAT THE CITY WILL DROP THE AP- PEAL IN CONNECTION W/A SETTLEMENT.

Defendants (2)

• NEW BEDFORD, MA. CITY OFNamed in complaintNamed in settlement
• NEW BEDOFRD, MA. CITY OF (2)Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• US ARC FORT RODMAN

  FORT RODMAN AFZD DEQ, NEW BEDFORD, MA, 02740

  Registry ID: 110010598530

• NEW BEDFORD

  ACUSHNET ESTUARY, NEW BEDFORD, MA, 02740

  Registry ID: 110009290169

Statutes cited

• CWA 309 — Violation of Existing AO
• CWA 301 — NPDES Discharge without a Permit

Enforcement conclusions (2)

• NEW BEDFORD/CITY OF (MODIFIED)entered 1987-12-07

  Primary law: CWA

• NEW BEDFORD, CITY OFentered 1987-12-07

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $150,000

Timeline (8 milestones)

• 1986-12-19Referred To Headquarters
• 1986-12-19Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1987-02-26Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1987-02-26Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1987-11-03Complaint Filed With Court
• 1987-12-07Final Order Lodged
• 1987-12-07Final Order Entered
• 1987-12-07Concluded