Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
690 F.3d 9
1st Cir.2012Background
- Petitions challenge EPA's NPDES permit imposing nitrogen, phosphorus, and aluminum limits on Upper Blackstone Wastewater Treatment District in Massachusetts.
- District discharges into headwaters of Blackstone River, which downstream affects Seekonk/Providence Rivers and Narragansett Bay; Rhode Island and Massachusetts have strong downstream water quality interests.
- EPA concluded District's discharges would violate state water quality standards; issued tighter limits after considering multiple studies and state plans to rehabilitate the watershed.
- Administrative process included public comment, a final permit in 2008, and a later modification for aluminum; Environmental Appeals Board upheld most limits but remanded some issues.
- District sought review in court and sought a stay; court granted stay initially and then lifted it, denying the petitions and affirming EPA's decision.
- District argued delay was warranted for its ongoing upgrades and a still-developing hydrological model; court upheld EPA's timing and procedures under the Clean Water Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was EPA's 2008 permit issued without waiting for additional data permissible? | District contends delay was necessary for upgrades and the new model. | EPA lawfully issued permit; five-year cycle and uncertainty do not permit indefinite delay. | Permitting decisions upheld; delay not required. |
| Was the 5.0 mg/L nitrogen limit reasonable and necessary to meet water quality standards? | District argues limit based on unreliable model and insufficient finding of necessity. | EPA properly relied on multiple data sources and modeled relationships; limit within zone of reasonableness. | Nitrogen limit upheld as necessary and reasonable. |
| Was the 0.1–1.0 mg/L phosphorus limit arbitrary or supported by the record? | District challenges reliance on national guidance and non-site-specific data. | EPA used site data plus national guidance to set a protective, reasonable limit; not arbitrary. | Phosphorus limit upheld. |
| Was the aluminum limit supported, and was the outlier data point properly considered? | District contends data point should be excluded; argues miscalculation. | Argument waived for not raising during public comment period. | Limit sustained; argument waived. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (EPA must exercise judgment in the face of uncertainty)
- Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1992) (EPA authority to condition permits to ensure water quality)
- Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 541 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (agency may rely on imperfect data with a rational basis)
- Sur Contra La Contaminacion v. EPA, 202 F.3d 443 (1st Cir. 2000) (agency can rely on its own model over challenger's model)
- United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33 (U.S. 1952) (judicial review defers to agency expertise in technical matters)
- National Marine Safety Ass’n v. OSHA, 649 F.3d 743 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (extreme deference to scientifically based agency decisions)
- Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445 (4th Cir. 1985) (zone of reasonableness governs numerical standards)