Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-09505/USCOURTS-ca10-90-09505-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Public Service Company of Colorado
Petitioner
William K. Reilly
Respondent
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 

COLORADO, Fort St. Vrain 

Station, 

Petitioner, 

FILED 

U ·te<1 S~ O>μrt qf Appeals 

m Tenth C1rcu1t 

NOV 2 5 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

vs. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-9505 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY, and 

WILLIAM K. REILLY, 

Administrator, 

Respondents. 

ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

(NPDES Appeal No. 88-3) 

Timothy J. Flanagan (Robert J. Eber, Lloyd w. Landreth of Kelly, 

Stansfield & O'Donnell, James R. Mccotter, Senior Vice President 

and General Counsel, Public Service Company of Colorado, with him 

on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Petitioner. 

Karen L. Egbert, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, 

Environmental Defense Section (Richard B. Stewart, Assistant 

Attorney General, Barry M. Hartman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Environmental & 

Natural Resources Division, Anne M. Ryan, Attorney, E. Donald 

Elliott, General Counsel, Susan C. Lepow, Associate General 

Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, D.C., Marion Yoder, Attorney, Office of 

Regional Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, 

Colorado), for Respondents. 

Before BALDOCK, BARRETT and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

Appellate Case: 90-9505 Document: 010110097023 Date Filed: 11/25/1991 Page: 1 
We have only one issue before us: whether the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act of 1972 (Clean Water Act), codified at 33 

u.s.c. §§ 1251-1387, authorizes the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) to impose effluent limitations on the internal waste 

streams of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(NPDES) permittee. Every entity that wishes to discharge 

pollutants into the waters of the United States must obtain a 

NPDES permit from EPA or an authorized state agency. See 33 

U.S.C. §§ 1311(a) & 1342; 40 C.F.R. §§ 122-136, 400-501. NPDES 

permits impose a variety of restrictions on polluting entities, 

and these restrictions include effluent limitations. In this 

case, the NPDES permit at issue contains effluent limitations on 

the internal piping system of the Fort St. Vrain Station, a power 

plant operated by petitioner, Public Service Company of Colorado. 

EPA placed the internal piping system effluent limits in the 

Fort St. Vrain NPDES permit pursuant to the EPA internal waste 

stream regulation. 40 C.F.R. § 122.45(h) (1990). The regulation 

provides for effluent limitations on internal waste streams when 

it would be "impractical or infeasible" to monitor the effluent at 

the point of discharge into the waters of the United States. Id. 1 

1 The regulation provides: 

(h) Internal waste streams. 

(1) When permit effluent limitations or standards 

imposed at the point of discharge are impractical 

or infeasible, effluent limitations or standards 

for discharges of pollutants may be imposed on 

internal waste streams before mixing with other 

waste streams or cooling water streams. In those 

(footnote continued to next page) 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-9505 Document: 010110097023 Date Filed: 11/25/1991 Page: 2 
Petitioner brought a facial challenge to the regulation before the 

EPA Regional Administrator, contending that the regulation was 

ultra vires. 2 The Regional Administrator refused to grant a 

hearing on the matter, and the EPA Administrator affirmed the 

denial on appeal. Petitioner seeks review of the EPA 

Administrator's final order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 33 

U.S.C. § 1369(b). 

Petitioner contends that the plain language, structure and 

legislative history of the Clean Water Act indicate a clear 

Congressional intent to restrict EPA's authority to impose 

(footnote continued from previous page) 

instances, the monitoring required by§ 122.44(i) 

shall also be applied to the internal waste 

streams. 

(2) Limits on internal waste streams will be 

imposed only when the fact sheet under§ 122.56 

sets forth the exceptional circumstances which make 

such limitations necessary, such as when the final 

discharge point is inaccessible (for example, under 

10 meters of water), the wastes at the point of 

discharge are so diluted as to make monitoring 

impracticable, or the interferences among 

pollutants at the point of discharge would make 

detection or analysis impracticable. 

40 C.F.R. § 122.45 (1990). 

2 The original NPDES permit in this case was issued by the 

Colorado Water Quality Control Division (CWQCD), an EPA approved 

State agency. EPA, exercising its oversight authority, objected 

to the permit. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 123.44. 

Neither CWQCD nor any interested party responded to EPA objections 

within the statutorily prescribed period; therefore, exclusive 

permitting authority transferred to EPA. See 33 u.s.c. 

§ 1342(d)(4); 40 C.F.R .. § 123.44(h)(l). Petitioner challenged 

the resulting EPA draft permit, requesting an "evidentiary 

hearing" before the Regional Administrator. See 40 C.F.R. 

§ 124.74(a). Because the request involved only legal issues 

(whether the regulation was ultra vires), the Regional 

(footnote continued to next page) 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-9505 Document: 010110097023 Date Filed: 11/25/1991 Page: 3 
effluent limitations to the physical point of discharge into the 

waters of the United States. Given the clarity of Congressional 

intent, petitioner urges us to exercise plenary review and declare 

the internal waste stream regulation ultra vires. 

We have reviewed petitioner's arguments, and find them 

unpersuasive. Upon study of the Clean Water Act and its 

legislative history, we find no clear Congressional or 

Presidential intent expressly forbidding EPA from imposing 

internal waste stream effluent limitations when such limitations 

would be impracticable to monitor at the end of the pipe. 

Therefore, we owe substantial deference to EPA's interpretation of 

its authority. See Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-45 (1984); Oklahoma v. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 908 F.2d 595, 598-99 (10th Cir. 

1990), cert. granted, 111 s. Ct. 1412 (1991). 

Addressing arguments similar to petitioner's, and applying 

the Chevron standard of review, the Fifth Circuit has held that 

the internal waste stream regulation falls within EPA's authority 

under the Clean Water Act to monitor and impose limitations on 

pollutants which eventually will be discharged into the waters of 

the United States. Texas Municipal Power Agency v. Administrator, 

836 F.2d 1482, 1486-90 (5th Cir. 1988). We agree with the Fifth 

Circuit's analysis of the pertinent Clean Water Act provisions and 

(footnote continued from previous page) 

Administrator denied review pursuant to EPA regulations. See id. 

§ 124.74(b)(l). 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-9505 Document: 010110097023 Date Filed: 11/25/1991 Page: 4 
its conclusion that the internal waste stream regulation is a 

valid exercise of EPA authority. 

REVIEW DENIED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-9505 Document: 010110097023 Date Filed: 11/25/1991 Page: 5