Hawaii's Thousand Friends v. Honolulu, Civ. No. 90-00218 HMF

• Decision Date: 27 April 1993
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 90-00218 HMF,91-00739 ACK.
• Parties: HAWAII'S THOUSAND FRIENDS, a Hawaii non-profit corporation; and Sierra Club, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Hawaii municipal corporation, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

821 F. Supp. 1368

HAWAII'S THOUSAND FRIENDS, a Hawaii non-profit corporation; and Sierra Club, a California non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, a Hawaii municipal corporation, Defendant.

Civ. Nos. 90-00218 HMF, 91-00739 ACK.

United States District Court, D. Hawaii.

April 27, 1993.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Paul P. Spaulding, Denise E. Antolini, Eric S. Walters, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Honolulu, HI, for plaintiffs.

Richard D. Wurdeman, Cheryl K. OkumaSepe, Tracy Lowell Wolf, Corp. Counsel, City and County of Honolulu, Honolulu, HI, for defendant.

                                             TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  FINDINGS OF FACT .............................................................. 1371
                  I.   BACKGROUND ............................................................... 1372
                       A. The Honouliuli Plant .................................................. 1372
                       B. Parties ............................................................... 1372
                       C. Notice of Citizens' Suit .............................................. 1373
                       D. The Clean Water Act ................................................... 1373
                       E. The State NPDES Program ............................................... 1374
                       F. Development of the Honouliuli Plant ................................... 1374
                       G. Required Effluent Limitations for the Honouliuli Plant ................ 1376
                          1. Interim Effluent Limitations ....................................... 1376
                          2. 1985 NPDES Permit .................................................. 1377
                       H. 301(h) Waiver Process for the Honouliuli Plant ........................ 1377
                  II.  BYPASS INCIDENTS ......................................................... 1378
                       A. Regulations and Reporting Procedures for Bypasses at Honouliuli ....... 1378
                       B. Bypasses at Honouliuli in October and November 1989 ................... 1379
                       C. Failure to Report Bypass Incidents .................................... 1381
                       D. DOH Investigation ..................................................... 1382
                       E. Bypass and Reporting Violations ....................................... 1382
                  III. SECONDARY TREATMENT VIOLATIONS ........................................... 1383
                  IV.  FACTORS RELATED TO ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES ............................... 1383
                        A. Seriousness of Violations ............................................ 1383
                           1. Number of Violations .............................................. 1384
                           2. Duration .......................................................... 1384
                           3. Significance ...................................................... 1384
                           4. Harm to Environment and Public Health ............................. 1384
                              a. Fate of the effluent sewage .................................... 1385
                              b. Impact on environment .......................................... 1386
                              c. Public health risks ............................................ 1387
                        B. Economic Benefit ..................................................... 1387
                

                       C. History of Violations ................................................. 1388
                          1. Bypasses ........................................................... 1388
                          2. Noncompliance with Secondary Treatment ............................. 1388
                       D. Good Faith Compliance Efforts by City ................................. 1389
                          1. Bypasses ........................................................... 1389
                          2. Secondary Treatment ................................................ 1389
                       E. Economic Impact ....................................................... 1390
                  CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ............................................................ 1390
                  I.   JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STANDING ........................................ 1390
                  II.  THE CLEAN WATER ACT ...................................................... 1391
                       A. NPDES Program ......................................................... 1391
                       B. 301(h) Waiver Process ................................................. 1392
                       C. Liability for Violations .............................................. 1392
                  III. BYPASSES ................................................................. 1393
                  IV.  SECONDARY TREATMENT ...................................................... 1393
                  V.   CIVIL PENALTIES .......................................................... 1394
                       A. The Purpose of Assessing Civil Penalties .............................. 1394
                       B. The Methodology For Setting Civil Penalties ........................... 1394
                       C. Statutory Factors in Assessing Civil Penalty .......................... 1395
                          1. Seriousness of Violations .......................................... 1395
                          2. Economic Benefit ................................................... 1396
                          3. History of Violations .............................................. 1396
                          4. Good Faith Efforts to Comply ....................................... 1396
                          5. Economic Impact .................................................... 1396
                  ORDER ......................................................................... 1396
                  I.   CIVIL PENALTIES .......................................................... 1396
                       A. Bypasses .............................................................. 1396
                       B. Secondary Treatment ................................................... 1397
                  II.  EQUITABLE RELIEF ......................................................... 1397
                  III. DECLARATORY RELIEF ....................................................... 1397
                

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER

FONG, District Judge.

The above-entitled case came on for trial before this court on January 5, 1993. Plaintiffs Hawaii's Thousand Friends and Sierra Club ("plaintiffs") appeared through their attorneys Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc., Paul P. Spaulding, III, Denise E. Antolini and Eric S. Walters. Defendant City and County of Honolulu ("the city" or "defendants") appeared through Deputy Corporation Counsel Cheryl K. Okuma-Sepe and Tracy Lowell Wolf.

On March 27, 1990, plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive relief and civil penalties against the city arising out of allegedly illegal bypasses of sewage treatment equipment at the city's Honouliuli wastewater treatment plant ("Honouliuli I"). On July 3, 1991, this court entered an order in which it granted plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of standing, subject matter jurisdiction, and the city's liability for 104 violations of the Clean Water Act: 52 illegal bypasses and 52 failures to report those bypasses.

On December 24, 1991, plaintiffs filed a second complaint for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and civil penalties against the city, which also relates to the city's operation of its Honouliuli plant ("Honouliuli II"). Specifically, plaintiffs alleged that the city has violated the Clean Water Act on a continuous basis since July 1, 1988 by failing to treat sewage at secondary levels. On February 28, 1992, this case was consolidated with the earlier lawsuit. On May 8, 1992, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability, finding that the city has violated the secondary treatment requirements of both the Act and the Honouliuli National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit incorporating the Act's requirements on a daily, continuous basis since July 1, 1988.

The purposes of this trial are to establish the precise number of secondary treatment violations, to examine what remedies are appropriate to address both the bypass and secondary treatment violations, and to determine appropriate civil penalties pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d).

This court, having examined the documentary and other evidence introduced, heard the oral testimony, considered the arguments of counsel, and reviewed the written memoranda of the parties, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.¹

FINDINGS OF FACT

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Honouliuli Plant

1. This lawsuit concerns the Honouliuli wastewater treatment plant ("the Honouliuli plant" or "the plant"), which is a sewage treatment facility owned and operated by the City and County of Honolulu ("the city"), and originally designed to treat 25 million gallons per day ("mgd") of sewage. It is one of twelve sewage treatment plants on Oahu operated by the city.

2. The plant is located in Ewa Beach, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, and treats wastewater from the southwestern Oahu metropolitan area, ranging from Halawa to Makakilo. The plant's service area is predominantly residential and agricultural in character, with some commercial areas.

3. The Honouliuli plant currently is a "primary" sewage treatment facility. After sewage is pumped to the plant through the collection system, it receives preliminary treatment consisting of screening to remove large objects, grit removal and pre-aeration to facilitate grease and floatables removal. The sewage then enters the primary clarifiers, which are designed to remove suspended solids and organic materials through sedimentation to the bottom of the tank and by removal of floatables from the surface. The sewage then travels through an effluent screen (with a ¼ inch square mesh) and leaves through the outfall pipe. The effluent sewage is dispersed into the ocean waters through a multiport diffuser.

4. The plant currently processes an average of approximately 23-25 mgd. The treated sewage is then discharged through an ocean outfall into Mamala Bay, offshore of Ewa Beach and adjacent to civilian and military beaches from Iroquois Point to Barber's Point.

5. The Honouliuli plant is the second largest municipal wastewater discharge facility in the State of Hawaii.

B. Parties

...