EPA v. HILO COAST PROCESSING CO.

Case summary

SYNOPSIS OF THE CASE THIS PROPOSED ACTION CONCERNS CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLA- TIONS BY THE HILO COAST PROCESSING COMPANY ( HCPC ) AT THE PEPEEKEO SUGAR MILL, IN PEPEEKEO, ON THE ISLAND OF HAWAII. HCPC HAS VIOLATED CONDITIONS OF ITS NATIONAL POLLUTANT DIS- CHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM ( NPDES ) PERMIT FOR SEVERAL YEARS, AND EPA PROPOSES TO SEEK CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PAST VIOLATIONS (WITHIN THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS) AND AN IN- JUNCTION TO PREVENT CONTINUING VIOLATIONS IN THE FUTURE. HCPC PROCESSES RAW SUGAR CANE AT PEPEEKEO. THE RAW CANE COMES TO THE MILL COVERED WITH MUD AND DIRT FROM THE HARVESTING PROCESS. THIS MUD AND DIRT IS WASHED FROM THE CANE, AND THE WASHWATER IS TREATED IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS DERIVED FROM THE MUD AND DIRT. AFTER TREATMENT, THE WASHWATER IS DISCHARGED TO THE PACIFIC OCEAN. HCPC'S TREATMENT SYSTEM CONSISTS MAINLY OF A SERIES OF SETTLING PONDS: AS THE WASHWATER PASSES THROUGH THE PONDS, THE SOLIDS SETTLE OUT AND CLEARER WASHWATER IS DISCHARGED TO THE OCEAN. WHILE THIS SYSTEM WAS LESS EXPENSIVE TO IN- STALL THAN OTHER SYSTEMS, IT IS EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN BECAUSE THE PONDS MUST BE CONSTANTLY CLEANED OUT UNDER DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR HCPC'S PERMIT VIOLATIONS IS ITS FAILURE TO PROPERLY OPERATE AND MAINTAIN THE PONDS. HCPC'S NPDES PERMIT WAS ISSUED BY THE STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ( DOH ). IT INCLUDES EFFLUENT LIMITA- TIONS FOR TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS ( TSS ), AN OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT, AND A REQUIREMENT THAT HCPC NOTIFY EPA OF ANY EFFLUENT LIMITATION VIOLATION IN WRITING, WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF LEARNING OF ANY SUCH VIOLATION. HCPC HAS RE- PEATEDLY VIOLATED THESE PERMIT CONDITIONS. THESE THREE CATEGORIES OF VIOLATIONS HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT OF SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTION, BOTH BY EPA AND THE STATE, AS DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT. HCPC TEMPORARILY ACHIEVED COMPLIANCE WITH THE TSS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IN RESPONSE TO AT LEAST ONE SUCH ACTION, BUT HAS ALWAYS FAILED TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. HCPC SHOULD BE CAPABLE OF MEETING THE TSS EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IN ITS PERMIT. THOSE LIMITATIONS ARE BASED UPON EPA EFFLUENT GUIDELINES FOR A SUBCATEGORY OF SUGAR MILLS THAT INCLUDES ONLY HCPC'S PEPEEKEO MILL AND TWO OTHER MILLS LOCATED NEARBY. THE GUIDELINES WERE TAILORED TO THE UNIQUE CONDITIONS ON THE HILO-HAMAKUA COAST. ALTHOUGH HCPC DOES NOT HAVE WHAT EPA RECOGNIZES AS THE BEST PRACTICABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR THAT SUBCATEGORY, HCPC'S SYSTEM HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE A PRACTICABLE ALTERNA- TIVE SYSTEM, CAPABLE OF MEETING THE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IF PROPERLY OPERATED AND MAINTAINED. EPA SEEKS CIVIL PENALTIES OF $10,000 PER DAY OF DOCU- MENTED VIOLATIONS AND AN INJUNCTION TO REQUIRE HCPC TO COM- PLY WITH ITS PERMIT REQUIREMENTS BY MAKING IMMEDIATE OPERA- TION AND MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING INSTALLATION OF THE HYDROCLONES AS REQUIRED BY A RECENT HAWAII STIPULA- TED ORDER, AND REPLACEMENT OF THE CURRENT CONTROL SYSTEM DEMONSTRATE CONSISTENT COMPLIANCE AFTER COMPLETING THE IM- PROVEMENTS TO THE CURRENT SYSTEM. HCPC WILL DOUBTLESSLY CONTEND, ALONG WITH OTHER DEFEN- SES, THAT IT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY INCAPABLE OF COMPLYING WITH SUCH AN INJUNCTION. HOWEVER, HCPC HAS BEEN IN POOR FINANCIAL CONDITION FOR SOME TIME, AND TO ACCEPT THIS DE- FENSE WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE TO CONDONE THE VIOLATIONS. IN THIS LITIGATION REPORT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED A POTENTIAL DEEP POCKET CO-DEFENDANT, C. BREWER AND COMPANY, WHICH IS DEEP- LY INVOLVED IN THE HCPC OPERATIONS, AND WHICH MIGHT PROVIDE THE FINANCIAL MEANS TO ACHIEVE COMP

Defendants (1)

• HILO COAST PROCESSING CO.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (2)

• HILO COAST PROCESSING COMPANY

  1 MILL ROAD, PEPEEKEO, HI, 96783

  Registry ID: 110001103421

• HILO COAST PROCESSING COMPANY

  1 MILL ROAD, PEPEEKEO, HI, 96783

  Registry ID: 110001103421

Statutes cited

• CWA 301 — NPDES Discharge without a Permit

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• HILO COAST PROCESSING CO.entered 1984-08-30

  Primary law: CWA

  Federal penalty: $35,000

Timeline (9 milestones)

• 1983-08-19Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1983-09-23Referred To Headquarters
• 1983-09-29Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1984-08-24Referred TO U.S. Attorney
• 1984-08-24Complaint Filed With Court
• 1984-08-30Final Order Lodged
• 1984-08-30Final Order Entered
• 1984-08-30Concluded
• 1985-11-21Enforcement Action Closed