Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01695/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01695-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

Proposed Order Entering Consent Decree and 

Dismissal

 Civ No. 13-01695 HRL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Sejal Choksi-Chugh (Bar No. 222093)

Andrea Kopecky (Bar No. 276366)

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER

785 Market Street, Suite 850

San Francisco, California 94103

Telephone: (415) 856-0444

Facsimile: (415) 856-0443

Email: sejal@baykeeper.org

Email: andrea@baykeeper.org

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

PREMIER RECYCLE COMPANY, 

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 13-01695 HRL

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF ENTRY OF 

CONSENT DECREE, AND 

DISMISSAL

*E-Filed: January 6, 2013*

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 37
Proposed Order Entering Consent Decree and 

Dismissal

 Civ No. 13-01695 HRL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE, AND DISMISSAL

WHEREAS, the Parties in the above captioned action have reached a settlement whose 

specific terms are set forth in the [Proposed] Consent Decree, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

WHEREAS, as required by federal law, a copy of the [Proposed] Consent Decree was 

mailed on November 8, 2013, to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and to the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency for a mandatory 45-day review period under Section 135.5 

of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 45-day review period commenced on 

November 13, 2013, and terminated on December 30, 2013. 

WHEREAS, DOJ approved the [Proposed] Consent Decree and submitted its approval 

letter to the Court on December 30, 2013. See Exhibit B.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the [Proposed] Consent Decree is fully incorporated 

herein by reference, and is entered as an Order of the Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction over Case No. CV13-01695-HRL for the sole purpose of enforcing compliance by the Plaintiff and Defendant 

with the terms of the [Proposed] Consent Decree.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above captioned action against Defendant is 

dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: ____________________ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

________________________________

Honorable Howard R. Lloyd

United States Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Northern District of California

1/3/14

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 37
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 37
EXHIBIT A

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 6 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 7 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 8 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 9 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 10 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 11 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 12 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 13 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 14 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 15 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 16 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 17 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 18 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 19 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 20 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 21 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 22 of 37

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 24 of 37
EXHIBIT 1

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 25 of 37
Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 26 of 37
EXHIBIT 2

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 27 of 37
Premier Recycle Company Sweeping Log Date: ____________

Personnel (initials): ____________

Area Description

Outdoor accessible paved areas of the Facility and 

any areas on public streets where Premier Recycle 

may have operated are swept at least once per day 

during days of operation, using the Tennant 6600 

Sweeper.

Front of Shop (Area surrounding DI #1,2,8,9) Done ☐

Front of Metal Storage Area Done ☐

Front of Unloading/Sorting area Done ☐

Front of Break Room Area/Temp Storage Area Done ☐

Area Surrounding Scale House Done ☐

Leo Ave North of Driveway Entrance Done ☐

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 28 of 37
Exhibit 3

Target Levels for Sampling

Parameter Target Level Target Reference

pH 6.5 – 8.5 SU RWQCB Basin Plan

Total Suspended Solids 100 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark

Chemical Oxygen 

Demand (COD)

120 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark

Aluminum 0.75 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark

Copper* 0.0156 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark 

Iron 1.0 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark

Lead* 0.095 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark 

Zinc* 0.13 mg/L Multi-Sector General Permit 2008 

Sector-specific benchmark

 

*Sector-specific benchmarks for these parameters are contained in the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit, 

but are hardness dependent. Hardness calculations are appropriate for discharges to freshwater (see

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/current/index.cfm#appendxb; 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/water_issues/programs/planningtmdls/basinplan/web/bp

_ch3.shtml). Benchmark values based on an assumed hardness of 100-125 mg/L in freshwater receiving 

waters.

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 29 of 37
EXHIBIT 4

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 30 of 37
Release And Waiver Of Liability

I understand that I am being permitted to enter the premises located at 260 Leo Avenue,

San Jose, California (the “site”) for a property inspection and agree to the following:

My entry onto the above-mentioned property is entirely voluntary and I agree to 

indemnify, defend, hold harmless and release Premier Recycle Company, its 

shareholders, officers, directors, employees, agents, attorneys, trustees, beneficiaries, and 

any other representative(s) affiliated with the property and operations at the site 

(collectively “Premier”) from any and all lawsuits, damages, claims, judgments, losses, 

liability, or expenses arising out of or resulting from any damage or loss to myself, 

including any tools and equipment I am bringing onto the site, Premier, or others, which 

may be caused in whole or in part as a result of my entry onto the site, whether or not 

caused by the alleged negligence, whether active or passive, or any acts or omissions of 

Premier, or by any of the Premier’s licensees, invitees, or permittees also on the site or 

any other third party not under Premier’s control to the extent permitted by California 

law. 

I REPRESENT AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS ASSUMPTION 

OF RISK, RELEASE AND WAIVER OF LIABILITY AND FULLY UNDERSTAND 

EACH AND EVERY PROVISION.

Dated: ________________ Name 

(Printed):__________________ 

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 31 of 37
EXHIBIT B

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 32 of 37
U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

90-1-24-03658

Law and Policy Section Telephone (202) 514-1442

P.O. Box 7415 Facsimile (202) 514-4231

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, DC 20044-7415

December 30, 2013

Clerk’s Office

U.S. District Court

Northern District of California, San Jose

Robert F. Peckham Federal Building

280 South 1st Street

San Jose, CA 95113

Re: San Francisco Baykeeper v. Premier Recycle Company, United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 5:13-cv-1695

Dear Clerk of Court:

I am writing to notify you that the United States has reviewed the proposed consent 

judgment in this action and does not object to its entry by this Court.

On November 13, 2013, the Citizen Suit Coordinator for the Department of Justice 

received a copy of the proposed consent judgment in the above-referenced case for review 

pursuant to Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(3). This provision provides, in relevant part:

No consent judgment shall be entered in an action in which the United States is 

not a party prior to 45 days following the receipt of a copy of the proposed 

consent judgment by the Attorney General and the Administrator.

See also 40 C.F.R. § 135.5 (service on Citizen Suit Coordinator in the U.S. Department of 

Justice). A settlement that does not undergo this federal review process is at risk of being void. 

In its review, the United States seeks to ensure that the proposed consent judgment 

complies with the requirements of the relevant statute and is consistent with its purposes. See 

Local 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525-26 (1986) (a 

consent decree should conform with and further the objectives of the law upon which the 

complaint was based). For example, if the defendant has been out of compliance with statutory 

or permit requirements, the proposed consent judgment should require the defendant to come 

into prompt compliance and should include a civil penalty, enforceable remedies, injunctive 

relief, and/or a supplemental environmental project (SEP) payment sufficient to deter future 

violations, or combinations of the above.

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 33 of 37 Case5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document30 Filed12/30/13 Page1 of 5
- 2 -

In this case, the Plaintiff alleged violations of section 301 of the Clean Water Act, 33 

U.S.C. § 1311, for the unlawful discharge of pollutants and violations of storm water permit 

requirements. In terms of injunctive relief, the consent decree provides that the Defendant 

amend its current Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to incorporate storm water pollution 

prevention measures and develop and implement specified Best Management Practices. The 

consent decree provides for, inter alia, pavement washing, employee training, structural control 

maintenance, and specified storm water sampling and reporting. In the event of certain 

exceedances, the Defendant will develop and implement an Action Plan, which is subject to 

Plaintiff’s review and comment. The Defendant’s facility will also be subject to one site 

inspection per year by Plaintiff during the life of the consent decree.

This consent decree also provides that the Rose Foundation will receive a total payment 

of $8,000 for SEPs to benefit the San Francisco watershed. The consent decree further provides 

that, in the event of certain exceedances or future missed deadlines by the Defendant, the

Defendant shall pay additional stipulated amounts to Rose Foundation. Here, “the San Francisco 

watershed” describes a very large area that may not ensure that the selected project will be within 

the immediate geographic area of the alleged violation. The United States encourages the parties 

to select projects that are in the immediate geographic area of the alleged violations when 

possible. Similarly, to better enable the United States and courts to evaluate the appropriateness 

of a proposed consent judgment, parties are generally encouraged to specify a particular project 

or type of project that SEP funds will be used for, particularly where, as here, a significant 

monetary contribution is involved. The project should have a sufficient nexus to the alleged 

violation. See, e.g., EPA Final Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy at 7 n. 5 (April 10, 

1998). Where the parties are unable to identify a particular project or type of project at the time 

they lodge a proposed consent judgment, the United States requests to be informed when a 

project is ultimately selected as to the nature of such a project.

Where a consent judgment provides for the possible payment of sums to a third party that 

is to undertake a SEP, the United States ordinarily requests that the third party provide a letter to 

the Court and to the United States representing that it is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity and that it 

(1) has read the proposed consent judgment; (2) will spend any monies it receives under the 

proposed judgment for the purposes specified in the judgment; (3) will not use any money 

received under the proposed consent judgment for political lobbying activities; and (4) will 

submit to the Court, the United States, and the parties a letter describing how the SEP funds were

spent. On November 13, 2013, the United States received from the Rose Foundation a letter 

confirming that all funds received by the organization as a result of the consent judgment would 

be used solely for the purpose outlined in the decree and that The Rose Foundation agrees not to 

use any of the funds it receives to conduct a SEP to fund political lobbying activities; a copy of 

that letter is attached. The United States believes that this letter will help to ensure that any 

monies expended under the consent judgment will be used in a manner that furthers the purposes 

of the Act, and that is consistent with the law and the public interest. 

Given these representations, the United States has no objection to the entry of the 

proposed consent judgment. We accordingly notify the Court of that fact.

The United States affirms for the record that it is not bound by this settlement. See, e.g., 

Hathorn v. Lovorn, 457 U.S. 255, 268 n.23 (1982) (Attorney General is not bound by cases to 

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 34 of 37 Case5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document30 Filed12/30/13 Page2 of 5
- 3 -

which he was not a party); Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Found. Inc., 484 

U.S. 49, 60 (1987) (explaining that citizen suits are intended to “supplement rather than supplant 

governmental action”); Sierra Club v. Electronic Controls Design, 909 F.2d 1350, 1356 n.8 (9th

Cir. 1990) (explaining that the United States is not bound by citizen suit settlements, and may 

“bring its own enforcement action at any time”); 131 Cong. Rec. S15,633 (June 13, 1985) 

(statement of Senator Chafee, on Clean Water Act section 505(c)(3), confirming that the United 

States is not bound by settlements when it is not a party). The United States also notes that, if 

the parties subsequently propose to modify any final consent judgment entered in this case, the 

parties should so notify the United States, and provide a copy of the proposed modifications, 

forty-five days before the Court enters any such modifications. See 33 U.S.C. §1365(c)(3). 

We appreciate the attention of the Court. Please contact the undersigned at (202) 514-

3473 if you have any questions. 

Sincerely,

/s/ Ragu-Jara Gregg 

Ragu-Jara Gregg, Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Law and Policy Section 

P.O. Box 7415

Washington, D.C. 20044-4390

cc: Counsel on Record via ECF

Attachment

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 35 of 37 Case5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document30 Filed12/30/13 Page3 of 5
11/12/13

Sarah Lu

Environment & Natural Resources Division

Law and Policy Section

P.O. Box 7415

Ben Franklin Station

Washington, D.C. 20044-7415

Re: San Francisco Baykeeper v. Premier Recycle Company (13-01695-HRL)

Dear Ms. Lu,

This letter is intended to provide assurance that I have received the proposed Consent 

Decree between San Francisco Baykeeper and Premier Recycle Company, and that I am 

authorized by my Board of Directors to make the following binding commitments on behalf 

of the Rose Foundation. 

1) I understand that the Rose Foundation should receive funds from Premier Recycle 

Company as specified in the Consent Decree. These funds may include stipulated 

payments as well as a mitigation payment.

2) The Rose Foundation shall only use these Premier Recycle Company funds to support

projects that will benefit the San Francisco Bay watershed.

3) After the funds have been disbursed, the Rose Foundation shall send a report to the 

Justice Department, the Court and the Parties describing how the funds were utilized 

and demonstrating conformance with the nexus of the Consent Decree.

Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment

The Rose Foundation is a 501(c)(3) public charity (tax ID#94-3179772). Its mission is to 

support grassroots initiatives to inspire community action to protect the environment, 

consumers and public health. To fulfill this mission, the Rose Foundation conducts the 

following activities:

• Raise money to award as grants to qualified non-profit organizations conducting 

charitable operations. The Foundation does not fund political lobbying activities 

prohibited by Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code.

• Work directly in schools and in the community to encourage environmental 

stewardship and civic participation.

• Help government efforts to control pollution and protect the environment by 

encouraging community engagement in local, state and federal research and policy 

development.

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 36 of 37 Case5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document30 Filed12/30/13 Page4 of 5
Within this broad range of activities, all of the Rose Foundation's work revolves 

around one or more of the following strategic themes: 

• Build and maintain a bridge between the community and organized philanthropy.

• Protect the natural environment, public health, and community and consumer rights.

• Promote collaboration between labor, environmental, business, consumer and social 

interests.

• Cultivate a new generation of environmental stewards and social policy leaders.

• Respect the inalienable rights protected by our nation's constitution, and the essential 

human rights to clean air, clean water, and individual dignity and privacy.

The Rose Foundation is governed by a Board of Directors. Grant applicants are 

required to submit written proposals, which must include at a minimum specific information 

about the goals, activities and projected outcomes of the proposed project, background about 

the charitable applicant, budget information, and a specific funding request. The Foundation 

may require additional information in order to fully evaluate the application. Applications are 

first screened by Foundation staff. Staff then makes recommendations to the Foundation Board 

for action. The Foundation requires all projects to submit written reports within one year of 

receipt of the grant award describing work conducted under the grant, thereby providing an 

accountability mechanism over funds awarded. Annual audits by the certified public 

accounting firm Levy and Powers are posted on the Foundation’s website www.rosefdn.org.

I hope this provides you with the information you require. Please do not hesitate to 

contact me with any questions, or for additional information at (510) 658-0702 or 

tlittle@rosefdn.org. 

Sincerely,

Tim Little, Executive Director

Case 5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document 32 Filed 01/06/14 Page 37 of 37 Case5:13-cv-01695-HRL Document30 Filed12/30/13 Page5 of 5