gloat - Cust 2 copy Pati eprom, S080 ‘etn ete apy Akin STATE OF MICHIGAN CASE NO, EAL Cmte ‘SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT Ji Jupieia. ciRCUTT COUNTY PROBATE | m1 SS ea YS Sout aes Tt Wlephons 13. 1230 Washington Avene, Bay ity, ML 48708 (989) 895-1265 FFAS Tae, PORE), a Tipe nes. Boioan' namely, wee), andWephaTe Fa. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL v___|MICHTGAN SUGAR COMPANY jQuaLiry lo Mark 8, Flegenheimer, Resident Azent 122 Uptown Drive, Suite 300 | Bay City, MI 48708 | Plas lcm, bar no, adress, and ilaphone no INeil D. Gordon (56374) Assistant Attomey General, Environment, Neturel [Resources, and Agriculture Division [p.0. Box 30755 | lansing, 1.48909 (517) 373-7540 [SUMMONS ] NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: In the name of the people of the State of Michigan you are notified: ~ You are being sued. 2. YOU HAVE 21 DAYS after receiving this summons to file a written answer with the court and serve acopy on the other party ortake othertawful action with the court (28 days ifyou were served by mailor youwereserved outside this state). (voR2.111IC) 3, Ifyou do not answer or take other action within the time allowed, judgment may be entered against you for the relief demanded inthe complaint issued The 5 mes ‘Count Gerk Vara. Sree AUG 3.0207 | NOV TS Upc 0. Ae “This summons Is Invalid unless served on or before Hs expiration Gate. Hf esas eset ove ont CONPLANT] instveton:reftownarsnomatonttisrutets nth apton fev cmplntandistbecanpltd SM AT Mt siandos ote cor et matte suet nwa! complain geod tote to Panty Dison carn (3 Thereis no other pending or resolved action within the jurisdiction of the family division of circuit court involving the family or family mronbao fhe stor Clan action within the jurisdiction ofthe family division ofthe circuit cour involving the family or family members ofthe parties has Scorer eo The action [Llremains Clisnotonger pending. The docket number and the judge assigned to the action are: [Bosker Ge Barre ‘Gonoral Civil Cases L) There is no other pending or resolved civilaction arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged inthe complaint ZA civil action between these parties or other parties arising out ofthe transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has been previously filed in__Bay County Cineait___ Court. The action Jremains [Jisnolenger pending. The docket number and the judge assigned to the action are: Boke. age Barre 16003713.NZ-09 Joseph K. Sheeran P2857 welfare (nade Gy, Toons, 6 Vag) Datendari()reeldenee (rica iy, Township, oF age) — Lansing, MT Bay City, MI a is ain a ao : From : a 09702017 LL Sa KE Fa hier iebrgoaral ; Hyou require special accommodations to use the court because of adisabilty ori you require a foreign language interpreterto help you fully participate in court proceedings, please contact the court immediately to make arrangements. IMcot (oi08) SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT — NCR 2.102(6)(11), MCR 2.104, MOR 2.108, MOR 2.107, MOR 2.118(C)2V(a). 0), MOR 9:205(8)aaa ‘SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT PROOF OF SERVICE Case No, ‘TO PROCESS SERVER: You are to serve the summons and complaint not later than 91 days from the date of fing or the date cfexpiration onthe orderforsecond summons, Youmustmake and file your return with he courtclerk. Hyouare unableto complete service you must return this original and all copies to the court clerk. CERTIFICATE/ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE/NONSERVICE (1 OFFICER CERTIFICATE OR [1] AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS SERVER I certify that lam a sherif, deputy sherif, bailif, appointed Being first duly sworn, | state that | am a legally competent ‘court officer, orattorney for a party (MCR2.104(A](2)), and adukwhoisnotaparty or anofficer ofacorporateparty, and that: (notarzation not requred) that: (rotation roquired) {E11 served personally & copy ofthe summons and complaint, 5 served by registred or certified mal (copy of return receipt attached) @ copy of the summons and complaint togetherwith (Teta docamanie soned wah fa Summons and Compan fon the defendant(s: Defendant's name “Complete address(es) of service Day, date, time [Ihave personally attemptedto serve the summons and comptaint, together with any attachments, on the following defendant(s) ‘and have been unable to complete service. Betendants ram (Complete address(es) of sonion ay, dale tine | declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief. [Service fee | Mins vavcled | tage tee | Totliee — & is § Name ype ora 3 ‘Subscribed and sworn to before me on —_ ae ‘County, Michigan ita My commission expires: Signature; —__ Bate ‘pay cour Sew Neary puBTE Notary public, State of Michigan, County of a, ‘ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE | acknowledge thet | have received service of the summons and complaint, together with ‘tachmenia on ay, data ne on behalf of SignatureSTATE OF MICHIGAN CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT BAY COUNTY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, Plaintiff, No. 2017 3SVR CEOS v HON. JOSEPH K. SHEERAN "py 288 MICHIGAN SUGAR COMPANY, Defendant. Neil D. Gordon (P56374) Zachary O. Larsen (P72189) Assistant Attorneys General Michigan Department of Attorney General Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture Division P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 (617) 373-7540 gordonn1@michigan.gov larsenz@michigan.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff ‘A civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of some of the transactions or occurrences alleged in this complaint was filed in this Court in Case No. 16003713-NZ-09 and assigned to Judge Joseph K. Sheeran, ‘The action remains pending. COMPLAINT Plaintiff, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (‘Plaintiff or “DEQ”), by and through its attorneys, Bill Schuette, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, and Neil D. Gordon, Assistant Attorney General, states:NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This is a civil action for injunctive reliof to require Defendant Michigan Sugar Company (“Defendant” or “Michigan Sugar”) to eliminate the emission of air contaminants that have caused the unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief to require Defendant to eliminate illegal discharges to the waters of the State of Michigan and to comply with its National Pollutant Discharge Plimination System permit. In addition, Plaintiff seeks civil fines, attorney fees, costs of surveillance and enforcement, and costs. 2. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Part 56, Air Pollution Control, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), 1994 PA 451, ‘as amended, MCL 324.5501 et seq. Plaintiff also brings this action pursuant to Part 31, Water Resources Protection, of NREPA, MCL 324.3101 et seq. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Section 3115(1) of NREPA, MCL 324.3115(1), Section 5530(1) of the NREPA, MCL 324.5530(1), and Section 605 of the Revised Judicature Act (“RJA”), MCL 600.605. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to Section 711 of the RJA, MCL 600.711 4. Venve in this Court is proper pursuant to Sections 3115(1) and 5530(5) of NREPA, MCL 324.3115(1) and MCL 324.55306).PARTIES 6b. DEQis the state department mandated to provide for the protection of natural resources of the state from pollution, impairment, and destruction. MCL 324.301; MCL 324.501; Executive Order 2011-1 6. Defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Michigan. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant has owned and operated a sugar production facility located at 2600 South Euclid Avenue, Bay City, Michigan (the “Bay City facility”). STATUTORY, REGULATORY, AND PERMITTING BACKGROUND 7. Michigan has enacted Part 55 of NREPA to control air pollution in Michigan and to protect and promote the public health. Section 5512 of NREPA, MCL 824.5512, states that DEQ shall promulgate rules for the purposes of, among. other things, controlling or prohibiting air pollution. Those rules are contained in the Michigan Air Pollution Control Rules and include Rule 901, Mich Admin Code, R 336.1901. 8. Rule 901 states: Notwithstanding the provisions of any other department. rule, a person shall not cause or permit the emission of an air contaminant or water vapor in quantities that cause, alone or in reaction with other air contaminants, either of the following: () _ Injurious effects to human health or safety, animal life, plant life of significant economic value, or property. (b) Unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property,9. Section 5501(a) of NREPA, MCL 324.5501(a), defines “air contaminant” to mean “a dust, fume, gas, mist, odor, smoke, vapor, or any combination thereof.” 10. Michigan has enacted Part $1 of NREPA to protect and conserve the water resources of the state and to have control of pollution of surface and underground waters of the state and the Great Lakes. 11. Section 3109(1) of NREPA, MCL 324.3109(1), states: (1) Aperson shall not directly or indirectly discharge into the waters of the state a substance that is or may become injurious to any of the following: (a) To the public health, safety or welfare (b) ‘To domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other uses that are being made or may be made of such waters (© Tothe value or utility of riparian lands. (@) To livestock, wild animals, birds, fish, aquatic life, or plants or to their growth or propagation. (e) To the value of fish and game. 12. Pursuant to Section 3103(2) of NREPA, MCL 324.3103(2), DEQ has promulgated Rule 100(1), Mich Admin Code, R 323.1100(1), which establishes designated uses for the surface waters of Michigan and states: (1) Ata minimum, all surface waters of the state are designated and protected for all of the following uses: (@) Agriculture (b) Navigation.(© Industrial water supply. (@ Warmwater fishery. (©) Other indigenous aquatic life and wildlife. ® Partial body contact recreation. (@). Fish consumption. 18, Pursuant to Section 3112(1) of NREPA, MCL 824.8112(1), a person shall not discharge any waste or waste effluent into the waters of the state unless the person is in possession of a valid permit from DEQ. 14. In October 1973, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorized Michigan to implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES’) permitting program pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. Tho purpose of the NPDES permitting program is to control and limit pollutant discharges to surface waters. 88 USC 1342. Each NPDES permit contains effluent limitations on discharges to protect water quality and to moot federally mandated treatnent standards. NPDES permit holders are required to monitor discharges and report on a monthly basis to the DEQ the quality of the discharges. 15. DEQ issued NPDES Permit No. M10001091 (the “NPDES Permit”) to ‘Michigan Sugar to regulate, among other things, discharges of treated wastewater to the Saginaw River from Qutfall 005. ‘The NPDES Permit took effect on August 1, 2011. 16. The NPDES Permit includes the following effluent limitations for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River: a(a) A maximum daily limit for temperature of 90° Fahrenheit; (b) A maximum daily limit for biochemical oxygen demand of 9000 pounds per day (“Ibs/day”); (©) Amaximum daily limit for total suspended solids of 9000 Ibs/day; @ — Amaximum daily limit for fecal coliform bacteria of 400 counts/100 milliliters. () A minimum daily limit for dissolved oxygen of 3.0 milligrams per liter, as measured by a weekly grab sample; and (® A minimum daily limit for pH of 6.6. 17. The NPDES Permit also includes the following effluent limitation for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River: “The receiving water shall contain no turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids, foams, settleable solids, or deposits as a result of this discharge in unnatural quantities which are or may become injurious to any designated use.” 18. The NPDES Permit authorizes Defendant to discharge storm water associated with industrial activities to the Saginaw River from Outfall 006 and to the Columbia Drain from Outfalls 014 and 016. 19. ‘The NPDES Permit requires Defendant to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (‘SWPPP’) for maximum control of significant materials (as defined in the NPDES Permit) so that storm water discharges will not cause a violation of the water quality standards that DEQ has established in administrative rules it promulgated under Part 31 of NREPA. Significant materials are defined tomean “any material which could degrade or impair water quality. ...” NPDES Permit, Part II, § A. 20. Part I, § A.6 of the NPDES Permit states: Storm water discharges are a violation of this permit if: ‘The receiving water will contain unnatural turbidity, color, oil films, floating solids, foams, settleable solids, suspended solids, or deposits as a result of this discharge; or "The permittee has not implemented an acceptable SWPPP. 21, Part I, § A.6b of the NPDES Permit states the SWPPP shall, at a minimum, include seven “non-structural” preventive measures and source controls to prevent significant materials from contacting storm water at the source. 22, Part I, § A.6.c of the NPDES Permit states that where implementation of the non-structural preventive measures and source controls does not control storm water discharges in accordance with water quality standards, the SWPPP “shall provide a description of the location, function, design criteria, and installation/construction schedules of structural controls for prevention and treatment.” 23. Part I, § A.6.c of the NPDES Permit further states that structural controls may be necessary: “(1) To prevent uncontaminated storm water from contacting or being contacted by significant materials, and/or (2) If preventive measures are not feasible or are inadequate to keep significant materials at the site from contaminating storm water.”24. Part I, §A.6.c of the NPDES Permit also states: “Structural controls shall be used to treat, divert, isolate, recycle, reuse or otherwise manage storm water in a manner that reduces the level of significant materials in the storm water and provides compliance with the Water Quality Standards, below.” 25. Part II, § D.3 of the NPDES Permit contains the following requirement for facilities operation: “The permitteo shall, at all times, properly operate and maintain all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit...” 26. Part II, § D.4 of the NPDES Permit contains the following requirement for power failures: In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations of this permit and prevent unauthorized discharges, the pormittee shall either: a. _ provide an alternative power source sufficient to operate facilities utilized by the permittee to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and conditions of this, permit; or b. upon the reduction, loss, or failure of one or more of the primary sourees of power to facilities utilized by the permittee to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and conditions of this permit, the permittee shalll halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all discharge in order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and conditions of this permit. 27. Part IL, § C.6 of the NPDES Permit contains the following requirement for noncompliance notification:Compliance with all applicable requirements set forth in the Federal Act, Parts 31 and 41 of the Michigan Act, and related regulations and rules is required. All instances of noncompliance shall be reported as follows: a, 24-hour reporting - Any noncompliance which may endanger health or the environment (including maximum daily concentration discharge limitation exceedances) shall be reported, verbally, within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the noncompliance. A written submission shall also be provided within five (6) days. b. other reporting - The permittee shall report, in writing, all other instances of noncompliance not described in a above at the time monitoring reports are submitted; or, in the case of retained self-monitoring, within five (6) days from the time the permittee becomes aware of the noncompliance. Written reporting shall include: 1) a description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; and 2) the period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times; or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and tho steps taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge. 28, Part Il, § 0.7 of the NPDES Permit contains the following requirement for spill notification: ‘The permittee shall immediately report any release of any polluting material which occurs to the surface waters or groundwaters of the state, unless the permittee has determined that the release is not in excess of the threshold reporting quantities specified in the Part 5 Rules (Rules 924.2001 through 324,209 of the Michigan Administrative Code), by calling the Department at the number indicated on the second page of this, permit, or if the notice is provided after regular working hours call the Department's 24-hour Pollution Emergency Alerting System telephone number, 1-800-292-4706 (calls from out-of- state dial 1-517-373-7660)Within ten (10) days of the release, the permittee shall submit to tho Department a full written explanation as to the cause of the release, the discovery of the release, response (clean-up and/or recovery) measures taken, and preventative measures taken or a schedule for completion of measures to be taken to prevent reoccurrence of similar releases. 29. Section 3105 of NREPA, MCL 824.3105, states: “The department may enter at all reasonable times in or upon any private or public property for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to the pollution of any waters of the state and the obstruction of the floodways of the rivers and streams of this state.” 30. Rule 2149(1)() of the administrative rules promulgated under Part 31 of NREPA, Mich Admin Code, R 823.2149(0), states: (1) As part of the condition for issuing a state or national permit by the department pursuant to these rules, a discharger shall assure the department of all of the following: (©) The permittee shall allow any authorized department representative to enter upon the permittee’s premises at any reasonable time, upon presentation of credentials, to have access to and copy any applicable records, to inspect process facilities, treatment works, monitoring methods or equipment therefore, or to sample any effluent of a discharge authorized by a permit. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 31. Defendant's operations at the Bay City facility include processing sugar beets to produce sugar and molasses. Defendant's operations generate wastewater, shudge. solids, and air contaminants. 32. Sugar beets are delivered to the Bay City facility by truck. 1038. The wastewater treatment system at the Bay City facility includes a clarifier, a series of settling ponds, an anaerobic digester, and a series of aeration ponds. 34. Wastewater from the final aeration pond is discharged to the Saginaw River via Outfall 005. 35. ‘The Saginaw River is a “waters of tho state” as defined in Section 3101 of NREPA, MCL 324.3101 36. From 2011 through 2017, DEQ received more than 1500 complaints from citizens about foul odors from the Bay City facility. ‘The citizens described the odors as, among other things, overwhelming, intolerable, nauseating, and manure- Jike. ‘The citizens also stated, among other things, that the odors entered their homes, made them feel sick, kept them awake at night, prevented them from having guests, and caused them to shut their windows and stay inside. 37. DEQ conducted investigations after receiving the complaints from citizens and determined that. on many occasions Defendant's emissions of air contaminants from the Bay City facility caused the foul odors and violated Rule 901 38. From September 2012 through July 2017, DEQ issued 32 Violation Notices to Defendant for Rule 901 violations on the following dates: September 6, 2012; October 3, 2012; August 27, 2013; October 1, 2013; March 10, 2014; October 17, 2014; March 25, 2015; April 21, 2015; June 1, 2015; June 8, 2015; June 18, 2015; July 1, 2015; September 3, 2015; September 17, 2016; December 11, 2015; December Wn28, 2015; January 28, 2016; March 23, 2016; April 15, 2016; September 12, 2016; September 30, 2016; October 31, 2016; November 17, 2016; February 2, 2017; February 15, 2017; February 22, 2017; March 29, 2017; April 8, 2017; May 18, 2017; May 25, 2017; June 22, 2017; and July 7, 2017. 39, In the Violation Notices, DEQ described the foul odors as, among other things, strong manure-like odors, strong sewor-like orders, and strong septic-like odors. 40. From 2011 through 2017, Defendant has on numerous occasions violated Part 31 of NREPA and the NPDES Permit. 41. From February 2012 through April 2017, DEQ issued 12 Violation Notices to Defendant for violations of Part 31 of NREPA and the NPDES Permit on the following dates: February 6, 2012; February 4, 2013; March 28, 2013; June 6, 2013; July 13, 2013; November 14, 2014; March 26, 2015; October 22, 2015; November 10, 2015; February 1, 2016; March 10, 2017; and April 14, 2017. COUNTI VIOLATIONS OF RULE 901 OF THE MICHIGAN AIR POLLUTION CONTROL RULES 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. 43, From August 2012 through July 2017, Defendant violated Rulo 901 on more than 100 days by emitting odors that caused an unreasonable interference with the comfortable enjoyment of life and property. 1244, As provided in Section 5530 of NREPA, MCL 324.550, the violations set forth in this Count subject Defendant to injunctive relief and a civil fine of not more than $10,000 for each instance of violation and for each day of continued violation. COUNTILE PUBLIC NUISANCE 45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. 46. An action or omission that unreasonably interferes with public rights constitutes a public nuisance. 47. Defendant has created a public nuisance by emitting foul odors from the Bay City facility that unreasonably interferes with the public's right to use their property. COUNT III VIOLATIONS OF EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS IN NPDES PERMIT NO. MI0001091 48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are hereby roalleged and incorporated by reference, 49. From 2011 through 2014, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by exceeding the effluent limitation for temperature for discharges from Qutfall 005 to the Saginaw River on 74 days. 1350. From 2011 through 2014, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by exceeding the effluent limit for biochemical oxygen demand for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River on 28 days. 51. From 2013 through 2014, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by excooding the effluent limit for total suspended solids for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River on seven days. 52, From 2011 through 2016, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by exceeding the effluent limit for focal coliform bacteria for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River on 10 days. 53. On June 19, 2011, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by exceeding the effluent limit for dissolved oxygen for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River. 54. On September 1, 2016, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by exceeding the effluent limit for pH for discharges from Outfall 005 to the Saginaw River. 55. On March 17, 2017, Defendant violated the NPDES Permit by discharging wastewater to the Saginaw River, which contained turbidity and color asa result of the discharge in unnatural quantities which are or may become injurious to any designated use. 56. As provided in Section 3115 of NREPA, MCL 824.8116, the violations set forth in this Count subject Defendant to injunctive relief and a civil fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation. 4COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS IN NPDES PERMIT NO. M10001091 57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. 58. From 2013 through 2017, Michigan Sugar violated Part I, § A.6 of the NPDES Permit by discharging storm water to the Saginaw River which contained unnatural turbidity, color, settleable solids, suspended solids, or deposits as a result of the discharges. 59. From 2013 through 2017, Michigan Sugar violated Part I, § A.6.c of the NPDES Permit by not implementing an acceptable SWPPP. 60, From 2018 through 2017, Michigan Sugar violated Part I, § A.6.c of the NPDES Permit by failing to implement adequate non-structural preventive measures and source controls to control storm water discharges in accordance with water quality standards and by failing to use structural controls to treat, divert, isolate, recycle, reuse or otherw manage storm water in a manner that reduces the level of significant materials in the storm water and provides compliance with water quality standards G1. _ As provided in Section 3115 of NREPA, MCL 824.3115, the violations set forth in this Count subject Defendant to injunctive relief and a civil fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation.COUNTV VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 3112(1) OF NREPA AND FACILITIES OPERATION AND SPILL NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS OF NPDES PERMIT NO. MI0001091 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference, 63. On March 26, 2013, September 4, 2015, September 23, 2015, January 18, 2016, and February 18, 2017, Defendant violated Section $112(1) of NREPA by discharging wastewater to waters of the state without a valid permit. 64. On March 26, 2013, September 4, 2015, September 23, 2015, January 18, 2016, and February 18, 2017, Defendant violated the facilities operation requirement in Part II, § D.3 of the NPDES Permit by failing to properly operate and maintain all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by Defendant to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES Permit. 65. _ In September 2015, Defendant violated the spill notification requirement in Part IT, § C.7 of the NPDES Permit by failing to immediately report the release of polluting material to the surface waters of the state that occurred on September 4, 2015, and by failing to submit to the Department, within 10 days of the release, a full written explanation as to the cause of the release, the discovery of the release, response (clean-up and/or recovery) measures taken, and preventative measures taken or a schedule for completion of measures to be taken to prevent reoccurrence of similar releases. 1666. As provided in Section 3115 of NREPA, MCL 324.3115, the violations set forth in this Count subject Defendant to injunctive relief and a civil fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation. COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 3105 OF NREPA AND RULE 2149(1)(©) 67. Paragraphs 1 through 66 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference, 68. On February 18, 2017, Defendant violated Section 3105 of NREPA, ‘MCL 824.8105, and Rule 2149(1)(c) of the Part $1 administrative rules, Mich Admin Rule, R.823.2149(1)(0), by failing to allow DEQ staff to enter Defendant's premises to perform an ingpection of Defendant’s facilities in connection with Defendant's discharge of wastewater to the waters of the state, 69. _ As provided in Section 3116 of NREPA, MCL 324.3116, the violations set forth in this Count subject Defendant to injunctive relief and a civil fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation. COUNT VIL VIOLATIONS OF NONCOMPLIANCE NOTIFICATION AND POWER FAILURE REQUIREMENTS OF NPDES PERMIT NO, M10001091 70. Paragraphs 1 through 69 are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference. WTTl. Defendant violated the noncompliance notification requirement in Part II, § C.6 of the NPDES Permit in connection with the discharge of wastewater to the Saginaw River on March 17, 2017, alleged in Count TIT. 72. Defendant violated the power failure requirement in Part I, § D.4 of the NPDES Permit in connection with the discharge of wastewater to the Saginaw River on March 17, 2017, alleged in Count ITT. 73. As provided in Section 3115 of NREPA, MCL 324.3115, the violations set forth in this Count subject Defendant to injunctive relief and a civil fine of not more than $25,000 per day of violation. DEMAND FOR JUDGMENT Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant the following relief: ‘A, Permanently enjoin Defendant from operating the Bay City facility except in accordance with Rule 901, Part 31 of NREPA, and NPDES Permit No. 10001091; B. Permanently enjoin Defendant from operating the Bay City facility in a manner that creates a public nuisance; ©. Order Defendant to achieve, maintain, and demonstrate compliance with Rule 901, Part 31 of NREPA, and NPDES Permit No. MI0001091; D. — Order Defendant to take appropriate actions to remedy the violations of Rule 901, Part 31 of NREPA, and NPDES Permit No. MI0001091 asserted above. 1BE. Order Defendant to abate the public nuisance created by its operation of the Bay City facility; F. Order Defendant to pay civil fines of $10,000 for each violation of Rule 901 and $10,000 for each day of continued violation; G. Order Defendant to pay civil fines of $25,000 per day of violation of Part 31 of NREPA and NPDES Permit No. MI 0001091; H. Order Defendant to pay reasonable attorney fees and costs of litigation resulting from Defendant's violations of Rule 901; I Order Defendant to pay reasonable attorney fees, costs of litigation, and costs of surveillance and enforcement resulting from Defendant's violations of Part 31 of NREPA and NPDES Permit No. MI0001091; and J. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, Bill Schuette Attorney General a) Neil Dz Gordon (P56374) Zachary C. Larsen (P72189) Assistant Attorneys General Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Division P.O. Box 30755 Lansing, MI 48909 (617) 373-7540 Dated: August 30, 2017 LF: Michigan Sugast#2015-0116825-8-L/Complaint 2017.8.30 19