EPA v. WHITEHALL LEATHER CO.

Case summary

U.S. EPA, REGION V RECOMMENDS THE FILLING OF A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE WHITEHALL LEATHER COMPANY (WLC) SEEKING THE IMPOSITION OF A SUITABLE CIVIL PENALTY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF POLLUTANTS TO A PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW) OPERATED BY THE MUSKEGON COUNTY WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (MUSKEGON COUNTY WWMS), IN EXCESS OF THAT ALLOWED UNDER APPLICABLE PRETREATMENT STANDARDS, IN VIOLATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT (THE ACT). SECTION 307 (D) OF THE ACT, 33 U.S.C. SECTION 1317 (D), PROVIDES THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY OWNER OR OPERATOR OF ANY SOURCE TO OPERATE IN VIOLATION OF ANY PRETREATMENT STANDARD AFTER THE COMPLIANCE DATE OF THE STANDARD. PRETREATMENT PROGRAMS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, THEIR COLLECTION SYSTEMS, AND THE WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT MAY OCCUR WHEN NON-DOMESTIC POLLUTANTS ARE DISCHARGED INTO A SEWAGE SYSTEM. AS EXPLAINED IN GREATER DETAIL WITHIN, WLC OPERATES A LEATHER TANNING AND FINISHING PLANT IN WHITEHALL. MICHIGAN. WLC IS IN VIOLATION OF THE APPLICABEL CATEGORICAL LIMITATIONS FOR THE LEATHER TANNING INDUSTRY, SPECIFIED AT 40 CFR 425. AS AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL USER, THE CATEGORICAL LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO WLC ARE SULFIDE, TOTAL CHROMIUM, AND PH (40 CFR 425.15). THIS REFERRAL DOES NOT SEEK THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY LOCAL LIMITS, SINCE THE LANGUAGE OF THE LOCAL ORDINANCE MAKES LOCAL LIMIT ENFORCEABILITY QUESTIONABLE. ALTHOUGH THE MUSKEGON COUNTY WWMS'S SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS RESULTS INDICATING VIOLATIONS AND DEMANDING CORRECTIVE MEASURES HAVE BEEN ROUTINELY SUBMITTED TO WLC, THE COMPANY HAS NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED THE PROBLEMS. WHITEHALL LEATHER COMPANY HAS VIOLATED THE APPLICABLE CATEGORICAL PARAMETERS ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS FROM JANUARY, 1988, THROUGH APRIL, 1992. WHITEHALL LEATHER COMPANY HAS HAD EXTENSIVE DEALINGS WITH THE MUSKEGON COUNTY WWMS REGARDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF ITS CATEGORICAL STANDARDS AND LOCAL LIMITS. THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES AND LITIGATION SURROUNDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF WLC'S CATEGORICAL STANDARDS AND LOCAL LIMITS ARE DISCUSSED AT SECTION IX(H). FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ENFORCEMENT ACTION, THREE POINTS NEED TO BE STRESSED: 1) WHITEHALL LEATHER COMPANY INSTALLED AND PAID FOR CLARIFIER AT THE MUSKEGON COUNTY PLANT IN 1977, AND SINCE THEN, THE COMPANY HAS CLAIMED PRETREATMENT CREDIT FOR THE CLARIFIER; 2) THE COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED ANY TYPE OF INDUSTRIAL USER PERMIT BY MUSKEGON COUNTY SINCE THE APPROVED PRETREATMENT PROGRAM IS BASED UPON AN ORDINANCE SYSTEM; AND, 3) IN ANY EVENT, THE CATEGORICAL LIMITATIONS FOR TANNERIES ARE FULLY ENFORCEABLE. IN AN ATTEMPT TO BRING WLC INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE CLEAN ACT WATER, THE CATEGORICAL STANDARDS, AND THE LOCAL LIMITS AT ITS ORDINANCE, THE MUSKEGON COUNTY WWMS HAS ISSUED NUMEROUS LETTERS OF NONCOMPLIANCE TO WLC. THOSE LETTERS HAVE BEEN ISSUED ON A MONTHLY BASIS TOGETHER WITH MUSKEGON'S ANALYTICAL RESULTS. THE LETTERS REQUIRED WLC TO COMPLY WUTH THE LOCAL LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY MUSKEGON COUNTY PURSUANT TO ITS PRETREATMENT PROGRAM. THESE LIMITS ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN THE CATEGORICAL STANDARDS; HOWEVER, FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LOCAL LIMITS APPEARS QUESTIONABLE BASED ON THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE. VIOLATIONS OF CATEGORICAL STANDARDS ( AND LOCAL LIMITS) HAVE CONTINUED THROUGH AT LEAST MARCH OF 1992. WLC MAY BE WILLING TO SETTLE THE MATTER TO AVOID LITIGATION ( IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRESIDENT'S EXECUTIVE ORDER ON CIVIL JUDICIAL REFORM). TO DO SO WOULD REQUIRE THAT WLC EXECUTE A CONSENT DECREE TO ENSURE WLC'S COMPLIANCE WITH THE CL

Defendants (2)

• GENESCO, INC.
• WHITEHALL LEATHER CO.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• WHITEHALL LEATHER COMPANY

  900 S. LAKE ST., WHITEHALL, MI, 49461

  Registry ID: 110000411144

Statutes cited

• CWA 307D — Clean Water Act

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• WHITEHALL LEATHER CO.entered 1993-12-15

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $550,000

Timeline (7 milestones)

• 1992-09-01Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1992-09-30Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1993-12-15Final Order Lodged
• 1993-12-15Final Order Entered
• 1993-12-15Complaint Filed With Court
• 1993-12-15Concluded
• 1994-03-31Enforcement Action Closed