El Dorado Chemical Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
763 F.3d 950
| 8th Cir. | 2014Background
- EDCC operates a chemical plant in El Dorado, Arkansas and discharges dissolved minerals into UTB and UT A, which flow to Flat Creek and Haynes Creek downstream.
- Arkansas amended water quality standards in 2004, adding stricter mineral limits and a three-year compliance window, while EDCC sought to modify upstream criteria via Third Party Rulemaking.
- Arkansas approved EDCC’s rulemaking to change mineral limits but the EPA rejected the revised water quality criteria for not adequately protecting aquatic life in Flat Creek and Haynes Creek.
- The EPA disapproval prompted judicial review; the district court granted summary judgment for the EPA, and EDCC appeals contesting EPA’s authority to evaluate downstream effects and the sufficiency of EDCC’s supporting data.
- Arkansas amended standards under its CPP; EDCC later rescinded planned changes for Flat and Haynes Creeks and re-adopted less stringent criteria for UT A and UT B; EPA again disapproved in 2011, citing insufficient evidence to show downstream protection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA may consider downstream effects when reviewing state standards | EDCC argues EPA should not assess downstream impacts and must defer to Arkansas | EPA may review downstream effects to ensure compliance with the CWA | EPA may consider downstream effects; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether EPA acted within its authority in disapproving criteria | EDCC asserts EPA overstepped by evaluating non-instream impacts | EPA has authority to ensure state standards meet CWA requirements | EPA’s disapproval upheld; within its statutory power |
| Whether EDCC provided sufficient evidentiary basis for the revised criteria | EDCC contends EPA ignored substantial scientific data supporting revisions | EPA found supporting data insufficient to demonstrate downstream protection | EPA rationally determined evidence was insufficient; not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether the EPA properly rejected the mass balance approach | EDCC asserts mass balance alone should justify criteria | Mass balance deemed scientifically indefensible without other inputs | EPA correctly rejected mass balance as sole basis for protective criteria |
| Whether WET test data supported EPA’s disapproval | EDCC argues WET results, especially 2009 data, are valid and should support revisions | EPA treated 2009 results as red flags requiring further explanation | EPA’s use of available WET data and downstream considerations supported disapproval |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Comm’n on Natural Res. v. Costle, 625 F.2d 1269 (5th Cir. 1980) (EPA review of state standards not limited by deference to states)
- Cent. S.D. Co-op Grazing Dist. v. Sec’y of U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 266 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2001) (deference to agency technical expertise in agency actions)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard of review; narrow judicial scrutiny)
- In re Ina Road Water Pollution Control Facility, 2 E.A.D. 99 (EAB 1985) (EPA may substitute its interpretation of its regulations when warranted by compelling reasons)
- Voyageurs Nat’l Park Ass’n v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2004) (agency action upheld if supported by rational basis on technical matters)
- Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., 133 S. Ct. 1326 (2013) (Chevron-like deference for agency interpretations of its own regulations)
- Talk Am., Inc. v. Mich. Bell Tel. Co., 131 S. Ct. 2254 (2011) (agency interpretations of regulations may be upheld even if not the only reasonable reading)