Opinion ID: 786210
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wet weather flow monitoring;

Text: 23 2. [S]ubmit to the Division (Knoxville Field Office) for approval, within sixty (60) days of approval of the corrective action plan, an engineering report that evaluates the current hydraulic and organic loading at the wastewater treatment plant and recommends alternatives for additional treatment capacity including a time schedule for completion of treatment plant expansion. 24 3. [W]ithin one hundred eighty (180) days of approval of the engineering report, submit to the Division (Knoxville Field Office) for approval plans and specifications for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant and correction of inflow and infiltration. 25 4. [I]mplement and complete all remedial activities set forth in the above approved plans and specifications in accordance with those time schedules (included and as approved by the Division) but in no event any later than thirty-six (36) months from the approval of such plans and specifications. 26 The order further assessed a civil penalty against the City in the amount of $18,750, of which $16,875 was to be paid only if the City failed to comply with the Order. The City paid $1,875 to the TDEC on July 18, 1995. 27 The Order also stated that the Division reserved the right to request modifications to the corrective action report, engineering report, plans and specifications and/or any time schedules encompassed therein as deemed necessary by the Director to achieve compliance with the Act. 28 The City completed all of the required actions under the Order and placed the new wastewater treatment plant on line in November, 2000, and received the final inspection report on February 26, 20015. The City spent approximately 1.7 million dollars in upgrading the plant. 2. Plaintiffs 29 On January 30, 1998, Lynch and Ailor filed suit against the City in state court, seeking compensatory damages under several theories of state law. On February 7, 2001, two and one-half months after the City's wastewater treatment plant was in full operation, Plaintiffs gave the City notice of a pending lawsuit, as required under the CWA and RCRA. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b); 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b). On May 16, 2001, Lynch and Ailor again filed suit against the City, this time in federal court, under the CWA, the RCRA, and state law. The complaint alleged that the City's sewage treatment plant frequently overflows, thereby discharging untreated sewage and other pollutants into Bull Run Creek, and that [t]his frequent discharge of raw sewage, and other pollutants, past and present, has caused Plaintiffs serious bodily injury and loss of value in Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs sought remedial relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and litigation costs, including reasonable attorney's fees. 4 3. District Court Proceedings 30 On September 10, 2001, the City moved for summary judgment. The City argued that summary judgment was appropriate because the City was the subject of an enforcement action commenced by the State which was being diligently prosecuted under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g)(6)(A)(ii). Furthermore, the City asserted that it had complied with the terms of the corrective action. In support, the City attached several affidavits. The City Recorder, Hazel Gillenwater, attested that, as of September 6, 2001, the City was operating within the NPDES permit. John West, an environmental specialist for TDEC, stated in his affidavit that he had the responsibility for monitoring, compliance, and enforcement of the City's wastewater treatment facilities and NPDES permit. West stated that [t]he City substantially complied with all aspects of the Order such that no further penalty payments were necessary. Finally, he stated that as of September 7, 2001, [r]ecent inspections revealed that the City is operating its Wastewater Treatment Plan and Collection System in substantial compliance with the laws relative to its operation of the Wastewater Treatment Plant and is meeting the effluent standards specified by the NPDES permit. In his affidavit, Arthur S. Baker, a professional engineer employed by Lamar Dunn & Associates, Inc., the City's consulting engineers, stated that as of September 6, 2001, the City had completed the necessary improvements to its Wastewater Treatment Plant and the replacement and rehabilitation of Phase I and Phase II of its Wastewater Collection System. 31 The City also asserted that Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed because they sought recovery of compensatory or punitive damages, which are not available under the CWA. 32 In their response to the City's motion for summary judgment, Plaintiffs did not provide any evidence to controvert the City's assertion that it had completed its obligations under the Order. Rather, Plaintiffs alleged in relevant part as follows: 33 The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered property damages and personal injuries as a result of the defendant's actions. Compl. ¶ 11. In addition, if the plaintiffs prevail in this action, they are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs, including environmental testing and expert witness fees, all of which are typically substantial in environmental cases. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). 34 Plaintiffs also did not assert, let alone offer proof, that the City was in violation of the NPDES permit as of May 2001 or September 2001. 35 In its reply to Plaintiffs' response to the motion for summary judgment, filed on October 3, 2001, the City asserted that from the time of the enforcement action taken by the TDEC, the City had moved expeditiously to remedy the deficiencies in its plant. The City reiterated that its 36 new waste water treatment plant was completed and waste water treatment plant operations began on November 20, 2000. Phase I of the City's Waste Water Collection Rehabilitation was completed on January 25, 2001 and the City's Phase 2 Waste Water Collection System Rehabilitation was completed on May 31, 2001.... The new plant has been operating for more than ten (10) months with no discharges in violation of its NPDES permit. The reply brief also stated that 37 [t]hroughout the process of the state of Tennessee's Enforcement Action, it has been abundantly clear that the problem which the City faced in its operation of its wastewater treatment was due primarily to an old plant which was no longer able to satisfactorily treat the wastewater being generated by a growing population. Once the City's new wastewater treatment plant commenced operation, its discharges have met its NPDES permit. 38 The City therefore asserted that, as demonstrated by the affidavit of the TDEC representative, the case was moot based upon events subsequent to November 20, 2000. 39 Significantly, the City also stated that its discharge from its wastewater treatment plant had substantially met its NPDES permit with no violations for the past four months, and only minor violations occurring in February (chlorine limit), March (chlorine limit and ammonia/nitrogen), and May (ammonia/nitrogen). 40 The district court granted summary judgment to the City on November 5, 2001. The district court noted that the TDEC enforcement action did not preclude Lynch's and Ailor's citizen suit under the CWA in light of Jones v. City of Lakeland, 224 F.3d 518 (6th Cir.2000) (en banc). Nevertheless, the district court granted the motion, stating that the relief available to Lynch and Ailor under both the CWA and RCRA had already been granted. The court concluded that, under the unique facts of this case, a claim under the CWA is moot at this time and was moot at the time it was filed. 41 [T]he State of Tennessee initiated an enforcement action against the City of Maynardville in 1993. As a result of that state action, the City was fined and forced to come up with a plan for remedying its effluent problem. The City of Maynardville did what was requested by the State of Tennessee and ultimately, at an expense of more than $1 million, expanded its treatment plant which went on-line in November 2000. It is undisputed that the expansion of the treatment plant has remedied the overflow problem, since there is no evidence that any overflow has occurred since November of 2000. Plaintiffs then filed this lawsuit in this court in May 2001. At the time plaintiffs filed the lawsuit here under the CWA, the State had already obtained, through its administrative procedures, any remedy which plaintiffs might have obtained with a citizens suit under the CWA. 42 (Emphasis Added.) 43 The court further observed that the RCRA would not give the plaintiffs any right or remedy not available under the CWA. The district court declined to exercise jurisdiction over supplemental state law claims which were appended only to a moot federal claim. Lastly, the court noted that because Plaintiffs' complaint under the CWA was already moot by the time the federal complaint was filed, [i]t would be illogical to allow the plaintiffs to recover attorney's fees for a claim filed under the CWA. 44 On November 12, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend judgment. Plaintiffs' motion was based principally on the City's admission in its reply brief that it violated its NPDES permit several times after the upgraded treatment plant went on-line in November of 2000. In support, Plaintiffs attached a letter from TDEC, Division of Water Pollution Control, stating that, based on the City's Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs), the City had violated the NPDES permit in February, March and May of 2001. Also attached were two letters from Michael Payne, Chief wastewater plant operator, to John West, stating that the City incurred an overflowing manhole on February 25, 2001, and April 3, 2001. West also indicated that, in both instances the overflow subsided the same day. 45 In its response, the City stated that the manhole overflows were unrelated to the operations of the wastewater treatment plant itself. Further, the City stated that the incidents occurred prior to the completion of Phase II of the City's collection system rehabilitation project. Finally, the City reasserted that because it had corrected the deficiencies in its collection and treatment systems, Plaintiffs' CWA suit was moot. 46 The district court summarily denied the motion, [g]ood cause not being shown. 47 Plaintiffs filed this timely appeal, claiming that the City did not carry its heavy burden required to establish mootness, and that their RCRA claim was improperly dismissed.