## YAY 2 8 3)10

Cl!Jtt( ENVIRONMOOAL INITIALS

(Slip Opinion)
NOTICE : This opinion is subject to fonnal revision before publication in the Environmental AdministrativeDecisions (EAD

. )

. Readers are requested to notifY the Environmental Appeals Board, U.S

. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C

. 20460 , of any typographical or other fonnal errors, in order that corrections may be made before publication.

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.

) ) In re: ) ) Upper Blackstone Water Pollution ) NPDES Appeal Nos.08-11 Abatement District ) to 08-18 & 09-06 ) NPDES Permit No. MA 0 I 02369 ) )

[Decided May 28, 20 I 0]
ORDER DENYING REVIEW IN PART AND REMANDING IN PART
Before Environmental Appeals Judges Charles J. Sheehan, Kathie A. Stein, and Anna L. Wolgast.IN RE UPP ER BLACK STO NE WATER PO LLUTIO N AB ATEMENT DISTRICT
NP DE S A

ppeal Nos . 0 8- 11 to 08

- 18 & 09- 06
ORDER DENYING REV IEW IN PART AND REMANDI

NG IN PART

Decid ed May

28 , 2 010

Sy lla bus
On A ug ust 22, 2008, U .S. Env ironm ental P rote ct ion A g enc y Re g ion 1 (the “R eg ion” ) i ss ued to U

pper Bl ac k st o n e Water Pollution A bat em ent D is tri ct (t he “D is tri ct ”) a

N at iona l Pollut ion D is cha rg e Eli m inati o n S y st em

(“NPDES ”) pe rmit, nu m berM A 01 02 36 9 (th e “ P erm it”). T he District owns and o perates a w astew ater treatm ent plan t located in Mi llbu ry , Massac hu sett s (the “T reatment P lant”), which col le ct s and tre at s se w ag e and w as tew at er f rom the s urr oundingare a, inc ludingf rom collection sy stem s owned b y nearby m un icipalities. The P erm it w ou ld auth orize, sub ject to t he Permit’ s co n diti ons, poll uta nt di sc harg es f

rom the T re at

m ent Plant int o the Black ston e Riv er. T he District, sev eral m un icipalities and a go ve r n men tal entity that dis cha rg e to t he Di st ric t’s Tr ea

tm ent Plant , s ev er al e nv ironm ent al g roups , a nd the Ma ss ac huse tts D epa

rtm ent of Env ironm ent al Prote ct ion ( “M as sD EP”) file d pe tit ions re ques tingthat t

he Env ironm ent al A

ppea ls Boa

rd ( “B oar d”) re v ie w

the Perm

it’ s cond itio ns. T he par tie s re ques t E A B r ev ie w

of the Permit’ s condi tions on f iv e princ iple g rounds . F irs t, the D is tri ct and the m

unic ipa lit ie s cha lle ng e the Permit’ s pro visions m aking certain m

un icipalities co-permittee s o n th e Perm it. Second , Con serv ation L aw Fou nd ation (“CL F”), the District, and M assDEP challenge t h e P erm it’s lim its f or to tal nitr og en, phos phorous , f

ec al c olif orm , a nd a luminum

. T hird, the Di st ric t c hal le ng es the sam plin g a ndm on itori ng r eq u i r em ents f or a va riety of po llut ants. Fou rth, the District ar gu es th atth e P er mit sh o u l di n cl u d e c o mp l i an ce sc h ed u l es es t ab l i sh i n g wh en the District m ust com ply w ith th e new

mo r e st ringent perm it lim its. A nd , f ifth, the District argues that t he Re g ion di d not prov ide a dequa te opport unity f or public c om

m ent by environ m ental justice com m un ities.
HE L D: the Boa

rd de nies revi ew i n a ll re spe ct s ex cept one ; t he Boa rd r em ands the Permit’ s prov is ions a dding , a s co- per m itt ee s subj ec t to the Permit’ s condi tions , c er ta in m unic ipa lit ie s se rv ed by

the D is tri ct ’s T re at

m ent Plant

. 1) The Permit m ak es ce rta in enti tie s “c o-pe rmitt ee s, ” the re by e x te ndings ta

ndar d Permit condi tions g ov er

ning oper at ion, m ai nte nanc e, and re porti ng to the se s ew ag e col le ct ionUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 2

sy st em s not ow

ned or ope rate d by

the Di st ri ct , but

ins te ad ow

ned and oper at ed by

the m unic ipa lit ie s lis te d in the Permit. T her e is no si m ila r prov is ion in the pri or 2001 per m it under w hic h the D is tri ct

is curr ent ly

author iz ed to di sc har g e tre at ed w as te w at er int o the Bl ac k st one Ri v er . The Boa rd c oncl udes tha

t, her e, w her e the Reg ion ha s aba

ndoned its his tori ca l pr ac tic e of

li m iti ng the pe rmit only

to the le g al e ntit

y ow ningand ope ratingthe w as te w at er

tr ea tm ent pla nt, the Re g ion has not suf

f ic ie ntly ar tic ulate d in the re cor d of

thi s proc ee dingthe s tatutor

y , r egulatory , and f

ac tua l bas es for

expandi ng the sc ope of

N PDES aut horit y be y ond the tr ea

tm ent pla nt ow ner and ope rator to s epa

rate ly ow ned and op erated collection sy stem s that do n ot d ischarge directly t o w aters of the United States, but i nst ea d that di sc har g e to t he tre at m ent pla nt. 2) T he Boa

rd c oncl udes the Re g ion di d no t c le ar ly e rr or abus e its dis cr et ion i n es ta blis hingthe Perm

it’ s tota l ni trog en limit. T he Boa rd c oncl udes that t

he re cor d is suf f ic ie nt t o s upport the Re g ion’s de te rmination purs uant to 40 C. F.R . § 122. 44(d) (1) (i) that ni trog en is pre se nt i n the D is tri ct ’s e f f lue nt at a co n centration that c aus es , ha s the rea s o n ab l e po te n ti al to cau se, orco n tr ib u te s to a vio la ti o nof Rh o d e Isl an d ’s na rr at ive w ater qua lit

y c rit er ia . T he Boa

rd a ls o c oncl udes that, cont ra ry to the c onte ntion of

one pet iti oner, that pet iti oner ha s not s how

n tha t a li m it m ore s tri ng ent

tha t 5. 0 m g /l is nec es sa ry to ens ure c om

plia nce w ith appl ic abl e w at er qua lit y s ta ndar ds. A

nd, the Boa

rd conc lude s, c ontra

ry to othe r pet iti oner s’ conte ntions , sc ie ntif ic unc er ta inty in the re cor d rega rdin g f ate a ndtranspo rt of the D istrict’s total n itrogen di scharge s does no t establish that t he Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr ed or abus ed its dis cr et ion i n s ettingthe Permit’ s limit at 5.0 m g /l purs uant

to 40 C. F.R . § 122. 44(d) (1 )( vi)

. I t a ls o w as not unre as onabl e f or t he Regi o nto co n cl u d e th atco n si st en cy with Rh o d e Isl an d ’s i n t e rp ret at io nof it s n arr at ive requi rem ent w arranted express ing the P erm it’s lim it as a concentratio n ra ther than as a m as s limit.
3 ) The Boa

rd c oncl udes that t

he pet iti oner s hav e not s how n c le ar e rr or or a n a buse of dis cr et ion in the Re g ion’s dec is ion se tti ng the Permit’ s tota l phos phorus li m it. T he Boa rd re je ct s the D is tri ct ’s c o nte ntion that t he Re g ion f

ai le d to conne ct

the phos phorus dis cha rg es w ith spe ci f

ic im pai rm ent s in de si g nat ed u ses . The Re g ion i dent if ie d the designated uses that are im paire d a s well as the criteria that a re v iolatedand explained w hy it conc lude d ther e is a rea sona ble potenti al that the D is tri ct ’s dis cha rg es c aus e the obse rv ed v iola

tions

. T he Boa

rd al so conc lude s that the s pec if ic argum ent s cha lle ng ing the Permit’ s limit as not suf f ic ie ntly st ring ent w er e not pre se rv ed f or appe al

. T he Boa

rd f urth er conclud es that the Region pro perly appl ied 40 C.F.R. § 122 .44 (d)(1 )(vi)(B) w hen the Re g ion r ef

er re d to EPAc rit er ia

in se tti ng t h e to ta l p h osphor us limit and that t

he re cor d s upports the Re g ion’s de ci si on s etting the P ermit ’s tot al phos phorus li m it. I n par tic ula r, the D is tri ct

ha s not poi nte d to any

EPA or Ma ss ac huse tts num er ic c rit er ia , nor any othe r r el ev ant

re cor d e v ide nce , that

w ould support

a total phos phorus li m it of 0.75 m g/l as suf

f icient to cont rol cult ural eutro ph ication im m ediately and further do w

nstream f rom the Di st

ric t’s dis cha

rg e point. Fur

the r, the Re g ion a

ppropr iate ly

re lie d on the se v er e phosphor us- driv en cul tura l e utrophi ca tion v iola ting w at er qua lit y c rit er ia and im pai ring th e B l ac ks t o n e R i ve r ’ s d es i gn at ed u se s i nse t t i n g ast r i n ge n tp er mit l i mit a t t h i s t i me w ithout w ai tingf or f urthe r da ta

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 3

4) T he Boa

rd conc lude s that t

he Di st ric t ha s not s how

n c le ar e rr or or an a buse of discre ti o n in the Re g ion’s de ci si on to se t t he Permit’ s limit f

or f ec al c olif orm f or t he p er i o d o f N o ve mb er 1 th r o u gh M ar ch 3 1 at a m o n th l y geo met r i c mea no f 5 7 1 cfu / 1 0 0 ml and a dai ly

m ax im um of 1429 c f u/100 ml. T he Boar d c o n cl udes that t her e is no am biguity in Rhode Is la

nd’s la w e st abl is hinga

y ea r- round de si g nat ed use f or t he Blac k s t on e and

S e e k on k R i v e r s f or bo th p r i m ary

and s e c on da ry c on t a c tr e c r e at i onal ac tiv iti es , a

nd that t her e is no a

m biguity , or

s ea sona l e x cep ti o n , in Rhode Is la nd’s nu m eric c riterion f

or fe cal c oliform

f or th ese w aters. The District also has no t established clear error or an abu se of d iscretion in the Region’s determ inatio n th at the District’s f eca l col if orm dis cha rg es hav e the r easona

ble pote ntia l t o v iola

te Rhode Is la

nd’s num er ic cr ite rion f or f ec al c olif orm . 5) The Boa

rd c oncl udes that t

he Di st ric t ha s not s how

n c le ar e rr or or an a buse of dis cr et ion i n the Re g ion’s de ci si on to se t t h e P er m it’ s al um inum

li m it at 87 : g /l. T he Di st ric t’s argum ent s bas ed on inf orm at ion intr oduce d f

or the f irs t t im e on a

ppea l m ust be re je ct ed. The Re g ion w as re quire d to m ak e its de ci si on on the adminis tra tiv e re cor d es ta blis hed purs uant

to 40 C. F.R . § 124. 18, and whet her the Re g ion c om

m itt ed cl ea

r e rr or is m ea sured b y

t h e rec ord t

hat w as be f ore the Re g ion at t

he tim e it m ade it s dec is ion. Be ca use the re cor d e v ide nce the D is tri ct c ite s does not r ef

ute the Re g ion’s re spons e to com m ents, the Boardmust reject the District’s contenti on that the Region clearly erred in c oncl udingthat i t m

ust a pply EPA ’s nationa lly

re com m ende d c rit er ion of

87 ug/l f or al um inum

in the Bl ac k st one Ri v er . 6) The Boa

rd de nie s re v ie w

of the D is tri ct ’s c hal le ng es to v ar ious m et al s limits and sa m plin g a n d monitor ingre quire m ent s. T he Boa rd a ls o c oncl udes that t

he Re g ion appro priately

rejec ted the District’s request f or com plian ce schedul es to be includ ed as term s of the P erm it, andthe R eg i o n g ave appro priate consid eration to environme ntal justice issues. Befo re E nviron m ental App eals J ud ges Ch arles J. She ehan , K at h ieA . S te in , a n d A n n a L . Wo lgas t. O pi n io n o f th e B oa rd

b y Ju dg e Wo lgas t: On August 2 2, 2008 , U .S. Env ironm ental P rotection Ag ency Reg ion 1 (the “Reg ion”) issued to U pper Black stone Water Po llution Ab a t e men tDi s t r i c t( t he “D i s t r i c t ” ) a Na t i on a l Po l l ut i on Di s c ha r ge Elim ination Sy stem

(“N PD ES” ) p erm it, num ber MA 0102 369 (the “Perm it”). The District own s an d o perates a wastew ater treatm ent p lant located in Millbury , Mass achus etts (the “Tr e a t m ent P lant”), whic h collects and treats sew ag e an d wa stewater from the surroun dingarea includin gfrom

collec tion s y stem s owned by nearby m unicipa lities. TheUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 4

In re sponse to T rout Unl imite d’s pe tit ion, the Re g ion i ss ued on A pril 15, 1 2 0 0 9 , a mod ific at io nest ab li sh in g th e P ermit ’s c o n d it io n s forto ta l al u m in u m di sch arge and m onitor ing . The Di st ric t f ile d a sec ond petit ion re ques tingthat t he Boa rd r ev ie w the m od ifie d total aluminum discharge a ndm on itori ng cond itio ns. By Order dated A

ugust 7, 2009, the Boa

rd c onsol idate d the ori g ina l pe tit ions and the Dis tri ct ’s sec ond pe tit ion f or adm inistrative purp oses. Perm it wo uld a

uthoriz e, subject to th e P erm it’s con ditions, po llutant di sc harg es f

ro m th e Tre atm ent P lant

into th e B la ck st on e R iv er . The f o l l o w i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s f

i l e d p e t i t i o n s r e qu e s t i n g t h a tthe Env ironm ental A

ppeals Board (“B oard” ) r e v i e w t he P erm it’s con ditions: 1) the D istrict; 2) the Town o f H olden, Massachusetts (“Ho lden”); 3) the Town of Mi ll bury , Ma ss ac h

u s e tt s ( “ Mil lb ur

y ”) ; 4 ) th e C ity

o f Wo rc es te r, Massachu sett s ( “ Worcester”); 5) the N orthern RIC hapter 737 Trout Unlim ited (“Trout Unlim ited”); 6) the C onserv ation LawFo undation 1 (“CL F”); 7) the Massachusetts D epartm ent o f Env ironm ental P rotection (“ Ma ss D E P ”) ; and

8 ) C he rry

Va ll ey S ew er D is tr ic t ( “C he rry

Va ll ey ”)

. The Rh ode I sland Dep a r tm ent o f Env ironm ental Man ag em ent (“ R I D E M” ) al so r eq

ue st ed , and

th e B oard

g rant ed , p erm is si on

to participate in this procee dingas Am icus C uriae.
F or th e re as on s di sc us se d be lo w , t he B oard r em an ds th e P erm it ’s prov isions that ad d, as co - perm ittees su bject to the Perm it’s con ditions, certain m unicipa lities serv ed b y

the District’s Treatm ent P lant, and the Board d enies rev iew of all other Perm it con ditions.
I. BACKGROUND The Clean Water Act (“CWA ”) g enerally pro hibits any one from dis cha rging pol lut ant s in to na vig abl e wat er s, CWA § 301 (a ), 33 U.S.C. § 1 311(a ), and it autho riz es E PAto issue NP DE S perm its allow ing certain pollutant discharg es subject to the lim its and con ditions required by the CWA

. CWA§ 402, 33 U .S. C. § 13 42

. P e r t i ne nt to this ca se, section 301 requires pollutant d i s c harge lim its nec essary to im plem entUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 5

Wat er quali ty

s ta ndar ds, a dopte d by

s tate s and appr ov ed by

EPA unde r t he 2 CW A , a re de si g ned to pr ote ct

the publi c hea lth or w el f ar e, e nhanc e w at er

qua li ty , a

nd adv anc e the purpos es of

the CW A . C WA § 3 0 3 (c)(2)( A ), 33 U .S.C . § 1313( c) (2) (A ). They co nsist of th ese three co m po nent s: (1 ) o ne or m ore “designated u ses” for eac h w ater body or w at er body s egm ent ; ( 2) w at er

qua lit y “ cr ite ria ”; an d ( 3 ) a

n antide g ra dat ion polic y . See

id .; 40 C. F.R . §§ 131. 10 to 131.12. W at er qua lit y c rit er ia – the com

ponent at is sue in the pre se nt c as e – c an cons is t of n u m eric al c once ntra

tion le v el s and/ or nar rativ e st at em ent s spe ci f

y ingthe am ounts of

v ar ious poll uta

nts tha t m ay be pres ent

in a w at er body w ithout im pai ringthe “ des ig nat ed use s” of that w at er

body

. See Of

f ic e of W at er , U .S. EPA, NP

DE S Pe rm it W

ri te r’ s M anual § 6.1. 1, at 89 (1996)

. T hese w ater quality -based l i mi t s a pp ly w hen techn olo gy -based lim its required 3 by s ect io n 3 0 1 (b) (1) (A ) a re ins uf f ic ie nt t o m ee t t

he appl ic abl e st at e w at er qua lit y st an d ard s. EP A m ay n o t i ssu e an NP DE S p ermit i f t h e p e r mit do es n o t meet CWA se ct ion 301’s ef

f lue nt l imita

tions re quire m ent s. In re Ci ty ofFor t W

ort h , 6 E.A .D . 392, 394 (E A B 1996)

.

CWA section 4 01 (a)(2) requi res EP A t o no tify an y state that m ay

be af f ected 4 by the pro po sed discharges and to “c on diti on such license or perm it in such m anner as m ay be ne ce ss ar

y to ins ure c om

plia nce w ith appl ic ab le w at er qua lit y re quire m ent s. ” CW A § 401( a) (2) , 33 U .S.C . § 1341( a) (2)

. ap pl ic ab le s ta te wa te r qu al ity s tand ar ds

. C WA§ 3 01 ( b) (1 )( C ),

2 33 U. S.C . § 13 11(b)(1 )(C). Specifica lly , s ection 301(b )(1)(A) requires te chno lo g y - ba se d l i mi t at i o n s a n d se ct io n 30 1( b) (1 )( C ) re qu ir es any m or e stri ng ent l im it at io ns “ inclu din gth os e ne ce ss ar y to m ee t w at er

q ua li ty standard s.” The CWApro hibits E PAfrom issuin ga perm i t t hat does 3 not “ insure” com

pliance with the w ater qu ality stand a r ds o f

bo th the s t a te where the d ischarg e orig inates and all affected states. See C WA § 40 1( a) (1 ), ( 2) , 3 3 U

. S

. C

. § 1 34 1( a) (1 ), ( 2)

. 4
E P Ar egulati on s im

pl em enti ngth es e st at

ut or y r eq ui re m ents specifically

pro hibit th e R eg ion fro m issuin ga perm it “[w ]hen the im po si ti on of co nd it io ns cann ot en sure co m pl ianc e w ith th e ap pl ic ab le w at er q ua li ty r eq ui re m ents o f al l a ff

ec te d S ta te s. ” 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 4( d)

. EPA ’s impl e m entingregulations also re quire that the Pe rm it m ust incl ude cond itions “ necessary ” to “[a]chiev e w ater qu ality stand ards e s t abl i s he d u nd e r

se c t i on 30 3 o f

th e C W A , i nc l ud i ng St a t e na rr a t i veUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 6

Se ct ion 122. 44(d) (1) prov ide s in r el ev ant part as f ollow s: 5 [E]ac h N PDES pe rmit sha ll inc lude c onditi ons m eet ingthe f ollow ingre quire m ent s w

hen appl ic abl e. * * * * (d) W

ate r qualit

y st andards and Sta terequi re me nts : a ny requi r em ents in add itio n to or m ore stringent th an pro m ulgated ef f lue nt l imita

tions guide line s or s ta

ndar ds under

s ec tions 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 of CW A ne ce ss ar y to: (1) A chieve w ater quality standards establishedund er section 30 3 of the CWA , inclu din g State narrative criteria f or w ater qu a l i ty. 40 C. F.R . § 122. 44.

T he term “pub licly owned treatm ent w orks” is defined by the regulatio ns at 6 40 C.F.R. § 403 .3(o ) as a mu n i ci pality - or state-owned “treatm ent w orks” a s def ined u n d er C WA s e c t io n21 2 . Th e regu la to ry defin it io nsp eci fical ly in cl u d es th e “P OTW Tre atm ent P lant” and th e se w ers, p i p es and ot her convey ances that c on vey w astew ater to t he POT W

Treat m en t P la

nt. T he te rm

“ POT W T re at m ent Plant ” is de f

ine d a s the po rtion of the P OT W designed to provide treatm ent of m un icipal sew age and in du strial w as te . 40 C.F .R. § 403.3(p). O ne of the c ent ra l di sput es in this ca se conc er ns the s cope of the c ollectio n s y stem that is pro perly inclu ded within th e Perm it’s requirem ents. T hese i ss u es ar e d i sc u ss ed i nP ar tII

. C b el o w. cr it er iaf or w at er q ua li ty

. ” 4 0 C

. F.R. §12 2. 44 (d )( 1)

. F urth er , 5 “[l]im itations m

ust co ntrol a ll pollutants or pollutant p aram eters(either conv entiona l, nonc onv entiona l, or toxic pollutants) which the [R eg ion] determ ines are or m ay

be discharg ed at a le v el whic h will cause, hav e the reasona ble p otential to cau se, or co ntribute to an exc ursion abov e any State water quality

stand ard, includ ingState narrativ e criteria for w ater quality .” Id. § 12 2. 44 (d )( 1) (i ). These pro v isions app l y t o, am ongothe rs, d ischarg es from pu bl ic ly o w ne d tr eat m ent w or

k s (“ P O TW” ), s uc h as th e D is tr ic t’ s Treatm ent P lant an d the asso ciated collection sys t e m at issue in the pres e n t c a s e . Th e D i s t r i c t ’ s Tr e a t m e n t P l a n t d i s c h a r g e s i n t o the 6 B la ck st on e R iv er , an av ig ab le inte rs ta te w at er f lo w in g fr om it s or ig ininUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 7

M a s s a c hu s e t t s s o u t h i n t o R h o d e I s l a n d w h e r e i t d i s c h a r g e s i n t o the Seek onk R iv er, a m a r i ne w a t e r . Fact S heet fo r the Draft Perm it at 1 , 5 (“ F ac t S he et ”)

. Th e S ee k onk d is ch ar g es into th e P ro v id en ce R iv er , whic h flows into N arrag ansett Bay

. Id. The Treatm ent P lant’s efflu ent contain s a v ariety

of pollutants, in cludingfecal coliform , am m onianitrog en, pho spho rus, cadm ium , c oppe r, and z inc. Id. at 2 & Atta ch. A. The D i s t rict is c urrently auth oriz ed to disch arg e po llutants to the Black stone Riv er purs ua nt t o an N PD ES perm it EP A issued on Septem ber 3 0, 1999 , and m odified on Dece m ber 1 9, 2001

. Beca

use the D is tr ic t t im el y

f il ed an ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm itr en ew al , th e D istr ic t’ s prev ious, but now

exp ired, 2001 N PD ES perm it rem ains in effect auth o r i z i n gth e D i s t r i c t ’ s d i s c h a r g e s un t i l th e p r e s e n tp e rm i t ting procee dingis re solv ed. 40 C .F. R. § 122. 6. This case arises out of the District’s ap plication for ren ewal of it s N P D E S pe rm it

. A ft er re ce iv in gth e D is tr ic t’ s ap pl ic at io n fo r pe rm it renew al, th e R eg ion prepared a dra ft perm it and , o n March23 , 2 007, the R eg io n op en ed

p ub li c co m

m ent on th e dr af

t p erm it

. D ur in gth e pu

bl ic com m ent p eriod, which closed on M a y 2 5, 2007 , th e R eg ion re ceiv ed com m ents fro m

the District and from

num erous other org aniz ations and indiv iduals. In August, 2008 , th e R eg i on issue d its respon ses to the publ i c co m

m ents and its final Perm it decisio n, and the p arties subseq uently filed their petitions requestin g the Board rev iew the Perm it’s con ditions. When initially issued in August 2008 , the Perm it did not in clude a lim it for to tal alum inum

. I n its respon se brief, the R eg ion s tated th at it “plan s to issue a d r a f

t p erm it m odification

to establish an a lum inum ef fl ue nt li m it , ” R es po nd ent Region 1 ’s Me m or an dum in R es po ns e to Petitions for Rev iew at 133 (“Reg ion’s Resp

. Br. ”), and on Ap r i l 15 , 20 09, the R eg io n is su ed aP erm itm od if

ic at io n se tt in gth e P erm it ’s alum inum

lim it. On May

20 , 2 009, the District filed a petition seek ing rev iew of the alum inum

lim it. See P et it io n fo r R ev ie wo f R ev is ed P erm it Con ditions and Motion of the Pe rm ittee, U pper Black stone Wa ter P ol luti on Abatement D is tr ic t, to C on so li date th is P et it io n w ith O th er s R el at ed to th is P erm it , N P D E S App ea l N o. 08

- 11 (May 20 , 2 00 9) ( he re inUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 8

If

any party believes there is an error in the transcript that w ou ld h ave af f ected 7 the Boa rd’ s dec is ion a s re nder ed, that pa rty s hould f ile , w ithi n 10 day s af

te r this de ci si on is issued, a Motio n f

or Re consid eration poin ting ou t the allege d e rror a nd ho w it relates to t he Boa rd’ s dec is ion. “Dist. A l Pet.”). B y

ord er dated August 6 , 2 009, the Board co nsolidated the D istrict’s petit i on f

or rev iew of the Pe rm it m odification w ith the District’s petition for rev iew of other cond itions o f the Perm it. See n.1

. The Bo ard h eld o ral argum ent in this m atter on O c t ober 29, 2009

. Sub seque ntly , th e D ist r i ct filed a m otion seek ingto correct all eg ed e rrors in the tran script o f the District’s argum ent at oral ar gum ent, and

the R eg io n an d C L F f

il ed r es po ns es s ta ti ngth at

if any p art of the tr ans cr ip t i s co rr ec te d, a ll p arts s ho ul d be c or re ct ed

. Th e B oard denies the req

ue s t to correct the o ral argum ent tran script. The alleg ed transcription

errors the District identifies appear to be insu bstantial and a r e n o t ma t e r i a l t o t h e B o a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n a s s e t f o rt h b e l o w . T h e Bo a r d 's decision is b ased on the ad

m inistrativ e reco rd at the tim e the Reg ion issued its dec ision. 4 0 C .F. R. § 124. 18. Or al argum ent p rov ides th e Board an op portun ity to better unde rstand the p arties’ argum ents a s set forth in the petitions and respons e b r iefs; oral argum ent d oes not supp lem ent t he re cord establishe d under section 124. 18. Wh ere the Board quotes the oral argum ent transcript in this d ecision, the Board h as com pared the tran script to the audio recordingand determ ined that the tr an sc ri pt a cc ur at el y

r ep re se nt s th e ar gum ents m ad e. B ec au se th e B oard co nc lu de s th e tr an sc ri pt io n er ro rs are in su

bs tant ial and

n ot m at er ia l t o th e B oard ’s d ec is io n se t fo rth be lo w , it is n ot n ec es sary

f or th e B oard

to determ ine whether the num erous deletions and add itions the D istrict propo ses are in fact acc urate. 7
II. DISCUSSI

ON The parties request EA B rev iew of t he Perm it’s con ditions on fi v e pr in ci pl e gro un ds

. F ir st , th e D is tr ic t, H ol de n, and Wo rc es te r, supp orted by

Millbury and C herry Valley as am icus c uriae , c halleng e the P erm it ’s p ro v is io ns m akin gH ol de n, Mi ll bury , Wo rc es te r, and C he rryUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 9
Valleyand

othe r m un i c i pa lities co- perm ittees on the Perm it. Seco nd, CL F, the D istrict, a nd MassDE P c halleng e the Perm it’s lim its for total nitrog en, phos phoro us, fecal co liform , and alum inum

. Third, the D istrict challeng es the sam

plingand m onitoringr e qu i r e m ents fo r a v ariety of pollutants. Fourth, the D istrict challen g es the R eg ion’s determ ination that it is no t auth oriz ed to inclu de s chedu les estab l i shingwhen the District m

ust co m ply w ith the newm ore strin gen t p e r mit lim its. And , fi fth, th e D is tr ic t c ha ll en g es th e R egion’ s re sp on se to th e D is tr ic t’ s public com

m ents regar di ng the effec t of the P erm it on env ironm ental j ustice com

m unities.
A. Millbury a nd Che rry V alley S tanding The initial q ue s t ion b efore th e B oard is whether Millbury and Che rry Valley hav e stan dingto contest the P erm it’s t e rm s. The r e gul a t i on s th a tgover n p e rmitap pe a l s re qu i r e pe t i t i on e r s to ha ve s t a nd i ng t o app e a l , wh i c h mea n s t ha tth e pe t i t i on e r m us tha ve participated

in the p ublic rev iew process either by f i l i ng written co m m ents o r by part ic ip at in g in a pu bl ic he ar in g . 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 (a ). I f a petitioner di d not particip ate in the p ublic rev iew process , it m ay only app eal issu es p ertainingto chang e s f rom the draft to the fin al perm it. Id. ; see also In re Am erican Sod a, LLP , 9 E.A.D. 280, 288 ( EAB 20 00 ); In re En votech, L. P. , 6 E. A. D. 26 0, 26 6 ( EA B 1 99 6) (quo t i ng In re Beckm an Prod

. S ervs. , 5 E.A. D. 10, 16 (EAB 1994)). In the prese nt case, Millbury

and Che rry

Valley do no t indicate that they

particip ated inth e pu bl ic r ev ie wp ro ce ss b y

s ub m itti ngwri tt en

c om m ents o n th e dr af

t pe rm ito r by

p re se nt in gte st im ony at the p ub li c he ar in g , and th ei r argum ents are no t focu sed on chang es b etwee n the d raft and final pe rm it s. A s such, Mi ll bury and C he rr y Va ll ey h av e fa il ed

to demonst ra te st and ing to fil e an appea l of the Per m it unde r 4 0 C.F.R. §§ 1 24

. 13 and

1 24

. 19 (a ). 40 C

. F

. R

. § § 12 4. 13 , . 19 (a ); see, e. g., Am erican Soda , 9 E .A .D . at 288 ( dism issingpetition s on stand ing g ro un ds ); In r e K

na uf F iber G lass, Gm bH

, 8 E.A.D. 121,17 3 (EAB 1999 ) (discu ssingstand ing ). Nev ertheless, the Board g enerally has a l l ow e d t he p e rmit t e e to pa rt i c i pa t e in ap pe l l a t e pr oc e e di ngs by fi l i ng a respon se to petitions pend ing before the B oard and, thus , in the presentUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 10

In ot h er wor d s, th e regu la ti o n s r equ ir e th atpe rs o n s who seek re vie w o f a

8 perm it decision “m

ust raise all reaso na bly as c e rt ainab le issues and s ubm it all re asonabl y avai lablear

gume nts s upporti ng the ir posi tion by the clos e of

the public com

m ent pe riod” on the dra f

t pe rmit. 40 C .F.R . § 124. 13 (e m phas es a dded)

. contex t whe re Millbury and Che rry Valley are listed as co - pe r mittees unde r the Perm it’s term s, they w ill be recogniz ed a s a m i ci cur iae and their filing s co nsidered amic us briefs.
B. Stand ard of R eview
T he bur den of per sua din g the B o ar d tha t it shoul d revie w a perm it rests with the p etitioner, who mus t dem onstrate that any issue s andargum ent s itrai ses on appe al have been pr ese rved forBoardreview, un le ss th e is su es o r ar gum ents w er e no t r ea so na bl y a sc erta in ab le b ef

or e th e cl os e of

publ ic com

m ent. 40 C. F

. R

. §§ 12 4. 13 , .1 9( a) ; s ee In r e Cit y of Mosco w , 1 0 E

. A

. D

. 1 35 , 1 41 ( E A B 2 00 1) ; I n re Ci tyo

f Pho en ix , 9 E.A .D

. 515, 52 4 (E AB 20 00), appe al dis missed per stip. , N o. 01- 7026 3 (9 thC ir

. Mar. 2 1, 2 00 2)

. 8
The Bo ard h as freq

uently em phasiz ed th at, to pre serv e an issue for rev iew, com

m ents m ade duringthe com m ent p eriod m

ust b e sufficiently

spe cific. In re New

Eng. Plating

C o., 9 E.A .D

. 726, 73 2 (E A B 2 00 1) ; In r e Steel Dyn amics, Inc. , 9 E. A. D. 16 5, 230- 31 (E A B 2 00 0) ; In re Maui E lec. Co. , 8 E

. A

. D

. 1 , 9 ( E A B 1 99 8)

. O n th is basis, the Board o ften h as d enied rev iew of issu es raise d o n ap peal th at the co m m enter d id no t raise with the req uisite sp ecificity

duringthe public com

m ent p eriod. See, e. g., N e wE n g
. P l a ting , 9 E. A. D. at 7 32; Maui , 8 E. A. D. at 9

- 12; In re F la

. P ul p & P ap er

A ss ’n , 6 E.A. D. 49, 5 4- 55 ( E A B 1 99 5) ; I

n r e P o l l u t i o n C

o n tr o l I n d u s
. o f I n d

. , I nc. , 4 E.A.D. 16 2, 1 66

- 69 ( E A B 1 99 2)

. Assum ingthat the issu es h a ve be en p reserv ed, the p etitioner m us t s ta te it s ob

ject io ns to th e pe rm itand e xp la in why

th e pe rm it issuer’s prev ious respon se to those objections is clearly erron eous, an abu se of dis cr et i o n , o r ot her wis e warra nts review. 40 C.F.R.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 11
§ 12 4. 19 (a ); se e In r e T

ow n of A sh la nd W as te w ater T re at m en t F ac il it y , 9 E

. A

. D

. 66 1, 66 8 (E A B 2 00 1) ; In re Haw . Elec. Light Co. , 8 E. A. D. 66 , 71- 72 (EA B 1998 ). I n rev iewingN PD ES permits, th e B oard is guided bythe c o n c e p tart i c u l a t e d i nth e p r e a m

b l e t o th e p a rt1 2 4 p e rm i t ting regulations, which states th at the Board’s po wer of rev iew “shou ld be only sparing ly

exe rcised” and that “m ost p erm it cond i t i ons shou ld be finally determ ined at the [r]eg ional lev el.” 45 Fed. Reg

. 33, 290, 33 ,41 2 (May 1 9, 1 98 0) ; accor

d City of Mosco w , 10 E.A .D . at 141. A petitioner m ay no t sim ply reiterate com

m ents m ade durin g t he public com m ent period, but m

ust su bstantiv ely

con front th e perm it issuer’s subseq uent explan ations. In re Peab ody W . C oal C o. , 12 E. A

. D

. 22 , 3 3 (E A B 2 00 5) ; accor d , In re Dom inion Ener

gy Bray ton P oint, LLC, 1 2 E .A .D . 4 90, 66 6 (EA B 2006 ). Finally , a petition er seekingrev iew of issu es that are technica l in nature b ears a heavy burden because the Board g enerally g iv es substanti a l defe rence to the perm it issuer on questio ns req uiring sc ie nt if ic or te chni ca l ju dgm ent. T own ofAshla nd , 9 E

. A

. D

. a t 6 67 ; In re N E H ub Partn ers, L.P

. , 7 E.A. D. 5 61, 56 7- 68 (EA B 1998 ), review denied su b nom . P enn Fuel Gas , In c. v. U. S. EPA , 18 5 F .3d 86 2 (3 d C ir

. 1 99 9)

. C. Cha llenges to thePe rmit’s Co-P ermitteeProvision s The District, H olden, and Worcester, sup ported by Millbury and Che rry Valley particip atingas amic i curia e, s ee k r ev ie wo f th e P erm it ’s cond ition th at m ak es ce rtain entities “co

- perm ittees.” The Perm it states as f ol lo w s: The City of Worcester, the Towns of Millbury , Auburn , H ol de n, We st

B oy ls to n an d R

ut land , and

th e C he rry Va l l e y S e w e r D i s t r i c t d i s c h a r g e w a s t e w a t e r i n t o the [District’s] facility

and are co- perm ittees for Part D and Part E and

are respon sible fo r im

plem ent a t i on of the op er at io n an d m ai nt en an ce and r ep orti ngr eq

ui re m ents of Parts D and E r elated to their respectiv e sy stem

. TheUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 12

The Region’s respon se to com m ents ex plain s that the P erm it’s co-per mit t ee 9 prov is ion de par

ts f rom pri or pr ac tic e – the Re g ion s tate d:
A s [th e District] is w ell aw are, historically , the Region has issued an NPDES pe rmit only

to the l egal e ntit

y ow ningand ope ratingthe w as te w at er

tr ea tm ent pla nt, w hic h is only a porti on of

the ‘t re at m ent w orks’ se rving the com

m un ities f or who m the [ Di st r ict] provid es w astew ater tr eatm ent. The Re gion h as now chosen to provid e a m ore com pre hens iv e a

pproa ch to pe rmitt ingthe se f ac ili tie s to e nsur e prope r ope ration and com plia nce of the ent ire tr ea

tm ent w ork s, not a porti on of

it

. Region’s Respon se to Com m ents at 84-8 5 (“RT C”). A ltho ugh th e Re gion acknow ledged that t he inc lus ion i n thi s Permit of c o-pe rmitt ee s ow

ningc olle ct ion s y st em s is a depa rtur e f rom the Re g ion’s pri or pra ct ic e, the Re g ion has inf orm ed the Boa

rd that it has ta

k en this appr oac h in othe r r ec ent ly is sue d pe rmits

. See L e t t e r f r o m K ar e nM c G

u i r e , U

. S

. E PA Re g ion 1, to Euri k a Dur

r, Cl er k of the Boa

rd, U. S. E PAEnv ironm ent al A ppea ls Boa

rd (N ov . 10, 2009). Towns o f S utto n, S hr ewsb ury , O xf or d an d P ax to n ar e als o authoriz ed to disch arg e w astew ater into the [D is tr ict’ s] f

ac il ity . O nl y

m un ic ip al it ie s sp ec if

ic al ly li st ed a bo v e ar e auth or iz ed

to d is ch ar g e w as te w at er

into t he [D i s t r i c t ’ s ] fa c i l i t y. Perm it a t 1. This p rov ision extend s stan dard Perm it con ditions g o v e rn i n go p e r a t i o n , m a i n t e n a n c e , an d r e p o rt i n gt o s e w a g e c o l l ection sy stem s no t owned or o perated by the D istrict, b ut ins tead o wne d an d operated by the listed m

un i c i paliti es an d C herry

Valley

. There is n o si m il ar p rov is ion i n th e pr io r 20 01 p erm itund er whi chth e D is tr ic t i s currently auth oriz ed to disch arg e treated wastewater into the Black stone Riv er. The R eg ion states, “historically , th e R eg ion h as issu ed an N PD ES perm it only

to the leg a l e nt i t y

owningand

op eratingthe waste water tr eatm ent p lant

. ” Th e R eg io n ad de d th e co - pe rm itte es to th e P erm itto 9UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 13

“Infiltration is groun dwa

ter that enters the collection sy stem thro ugh ph y sical 10 def ec ts s uch as c ra ck ed pipe s, or det er iora te d joi nts . I nf

low is ex tra neous fl ow

e nte ring the collection sy stem

thro ugh po int so urces such as roo f leaders, y ard an d area drain s, sum p pu m ps, m anho le cove rs, tide gate s, and cr o ss c o nn ections from storm w ater sy st em s. ” Fa ct

She et at 19. “Si g nif

ic ant I/I in a coll ec tion sy st em uses c onv ey anc e and tre at m ent ca pac ity that w ill the n not be av ai la ble f or s ani ta ry f low , ther eby

re duci ng the ca paci ty and the e f

f ic ie ncy of the tr ea tm ent w ork s and inc re as ingthe pos si bili ty of sanitary sew er sy stem

overf lows (SSO) from

the collection sy stem .” Id.
T he Reg ion described the requ irem ents i mp o se d on th e c o-p erm ittees a s 11

“ r ep o r t i n g o f un a u th o r i z e dd i s c h ar g e s i n c l u d i n g S S O s [s an i t ary s e w e r s y s t e m o v e r f l o w s ], m aintain ing an adequ ate m aintenan ce staf f , perform ing preventative m aintenan ce, cont roll inginf low and inf ilt ration to s epa

rate s ew er c olle ct ion sy st em s (c om

bine d s ew er s are not sub

ject to I/I requirem ents) to th e exte nt nece ssary to prev ent SSOs and I/I related ef f luen t violation s at the w astew ater treatm ent plan t, and m aintain ing altern at e p owe r w her e nec es sa

ry .” Fa ct She et at 1 9 . The Re g ion e xpla ine d tha t t hes e oper at ion a

nd m ai nte nanc e re quire m ent s ar e aut horiz ed by

40 C.F.R . § 122. 41(e ), (d) , a nd that t he Permit’ s spe ci f

ic inf low and inf ilt ration condi tions are re quire d by Mas sa chus etts ’ s tate ce rti f ic at ion i ss ued under

s ec tion 401 of

the CW A

. Id. at 18-19 c o n t r o l i n f

l o wan d i n f i l t r a t i o n( “ I/ I” ) i ns e w a ge c o l l e c t i o ns ys t e ms 10 tr an sp orti ngw as te w at er

to th e D is tr ic t’ s Tre atm ent P lant

. 11 The parties and am ic i challeng e this newco- perm ittee pro v ision from sev eral v ectors. The parties and amic i argue th at the Reg ion d oes not h av e the authority

to add the co

- perm ittees be cause the co

- perm ittees did n ot sign the perm it app lication. See, e. g., Dist. Su pp. Pe t. at 63. The parties and amic i a ls o ar gue th at th e R eg io n ac te d ar

bi tr ar il y in determ iningwhich s a t ellite sy stem s to include as co- perm ittees an d whic h to ex c l ude altog ether (e .g ., Massachu setts D epartm ent o f Con serv ation and Recre ation) or sim ply list, but n ot ad d as co- perm ittees (e.g ., Sutton , S hrew sbury , O xford, and Paxton). D ist. Supp . P et. at 64. Theyargue further that the District is i m prope rly m ade liable fo r reportingactiv ities asso ciated with satellite c o l l e c tion s y stem s it d oes not own or control and ov er which its ena blingleg islation prohib its it from ex er ci si ngc ontr ol

. Di st

. Su pp . Pe t. at 61

- 62

. The Di stri ct a dd it io na ll y ar gue s init s re pl y

b ri ef th at th e co - per m itte es d o no t “ di sc harg e [] a pollutant” w ithin th e m eaningof the statute and regulations and that the collection sy stem s that conn ect to t he D i s trict’s sy stem and Treatm entUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 14

P lant “ ar e ex em

pt in di re ct d is ch ar g es und er

40 C. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 3. ” R ep ly of th e P erm itte e, Upp er

B la ck st on e Wa te r P ol luti on Abate m ent D is tr ic t, to R eg ion 1 ' s Mem orand

um in Opp osition t o Pe titions fo r R ev iew, the A m i c u s C ur i a e B r i e f

o f R h o d e I s l a n d

D e p a rt m e n to f

E n v i r o n m e ntal Manag em ent an d O ther Petitions for Rev iew (“Dist. Rep ly Br. ”) at 9- 10, 16.
At bottom , th e central issue reg ardingthe co- perm ittee requirem ent is: did the Reg ion satisfactorily articulate a rule- of- decision , or inte rp re ta ti on , f

or e xp an di ngth e P erm itto e nc om pa ss s eparate ly owne d an d op er at ed

col le ct io n sy st em s th at

d is ch ar g e in to th e D is tr ic t’ s Tre atm ent P lant an d id enti fy a su ff ic ie nt s ta tuto ry and r egul at or y b as is for that exp ansion ? The R eg io n co nt en ds th at it d id art ic ulate as at is fa ct or y rati on al e, p oi nti ngto it s in te rp re ta ti on o f th e de fi ni ti on

o f “p ub li cl y own ed treat men t w ork s,” whic h inc ludes “sew ers, pipes, and othe r co nv ey an ce s. ” 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § § 12 2. 2, 4 03

. 1; see a lso C WA§ 2 12 (2 )( A ), 33 U.S .C . § 12 92 (d e f

i ni t i o n o f “t r e a t men twor ks” in c l ud e s “s e wa ge collection sy stem s”). In its respon se to com m ents, the R eg ion s tated t h a tth i s d e f

i n i t i o np r o v i d e s au t h o r i t y t o “ t o r e gu l a t e th e e n t i r e P O TW (includin gthe treatm ent p lant an d co llection sy stem s).” R TC at 8 6. F ol lo w in gthi s lo g ic , any

col le ct io n sy st em

th at u lt im at el y

d is ch ar g es to the Treatm ent Pl a nt is subject to N PD ES perm itting

. The Reg ion attem pted to narrow this univ erse o f po tential N PD ES perm ittees at oral ar gum ent. At oral arg um ent, in response to questions ask inghow far up the collection sy stem s the Reg ion’s leg al reaso ning wou ld allow the R eg ion to im pose co- perm ittee requirem ents, the Reg ion s tated th at the Reg ion “wo uld re gulate it in the sam e way ” as a sing le- entity POTW. EA B Oral A rgum ent Tr an sc ri pt

( “Tr

. ”) a t 7 0. “ We c an regulate th at

whi chis le g al ly p art o f th e P O TW that f

al ls w ithi n th e de fi ni ti on of P O TW. ” Tr. at 7 1. Wh en th e B oard so ught furthe r cl ar if ic at io n an d as k ed

whe th er a pu bl ic e nt ity

c ou ld b e m ad e a co - pe rm itte e, th e R eg io n re sp on de d:UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 15

Th e R e g i o n s t at e d i n th e F a c t S h e e t th at “ [ b ] e c a u s e Wo r c e s t e r , M i l l b u ry, 12 Aub u rn , Ho l d en , Wes tBo yls t o n , Ru t l an d , an dCh erry V a l l e y S ewe r Di st r i ctea ch o wn and o perate collection s yst ems t hat discharge to [ the District’s] treatm ent plan t, these ent iti es hav e bee n inc lud ed a s co- per m itt ee s” f or t he spe ci f ic pe rmit condi tions in Part I.D and I. E of

the Permit. Fa ct

She et at 19.
T he Re g ion’s f

ai lure to ar

tic ulate in the Fa ct She et a m ore com ple te ra tiona le f or its decision does no t, on its own, n ece ssitate a rem and even thou gh “the f act s heet shall briefly

set f orth the prin cipal f

acts and th e significa

nt f actual, lega l, m etho do logical an dp o l i cy qu es t i o n s c o n si d er ed i n p r ep ar i n g th e d r aftp er mit

. ” 4 0 C. F

. R

. § 1 2 4

. 8 ( a)

. As ex pla ine d in Attlebo ro , “ the pe rmitt inga uthori ty is not re quire d to prov ide co m p reh en si ve d et ai ls in a fact she et ” b ecau se “[ t] h e ru le s go vern in g pe rmitpr o ceed in gs (c ontinue d...) No. I f its p art of – w e’re regulatinghere the sam e w ay w e w ou ld if th is w er e just

th e C ity o f Wo rc es te r an d it own ed th e treatm ent w ork s. So w e’re takingthe auth or ity jus t a s far as w e w ou ld in th at c as e – w hat f

it s within the publicly

- own ed treatm ent w ork s in that ca se. S o , w e ’ r e n o t t ry i n g t o g o t o u s e r s w h e t h e r theybe p u b l i c l y o w n e d

. * * * W e ar e h a n d l i n g th i s th e s a me way w e do for the m any

perm i ts w e hav e where one m unicipa lity

owns th e whole thing .”
Tr. 80. The tr ou

bl e w ith th e R eg io n’ s an al ogy , o r re fe re nc e, to p erm it s issued to an

entity that “own s the who le thing ” is that ne ither this answ er no r it s br ie fs id enti fi es c ri te ri a de m ar cati ngwhat i s, and what i s no t, p art of “th e whole thing ” in this case whe re the R eg ion h as, witho ut ap parent expl an at io n, a

band on ed i t s h i s t o r i c al p ra ct ic e of

li m it in gth e pe rmit“ on ly to the legal entity

owningand operatingthe waste water treatm ent p lant.” I n ad dition, the unde fined term s “co l lection sy stem ” an d “u ser” d o n ot add an analytical bas is for categ oriz ingas co- perm itees ce rtain, but n ot all, e ntities that disch arg e so lely to a treatm ent p lant an d em ploy equipm ent t ha t f

its w ithin th e de finition of “p ublicly owned treatm ent work s.” B oth u sers an d co llection sy stem s ultimat ely disch arg e to the Di s t r i c t ’ s Tr e a t m e n tP l a n t , an d b e c au s e u s e r s s e e m i n g l y e m p l oy 12UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 16

(.. .c ontinue d)

12 spe ci f ic al ly a llow the per m itt ingauthor ity

to add m at er ia ls to the a dm inis tra tiv e re cor d du ring its rev iew

of com m ents on the draf

t permi t t o a d d r es s new poi nts or n ew m at er ia ls ” and the “a

ppea ls proc es s af

f ords pe tit ione rs the opport unity to ques tion” the new m at er ia l. In reCity

of Att le boro, M

A, W astew ate r Treat

me nt P lant, N PDES A

pp. Nos . 08- 08 & -09, s lip op. at 85- 86 (E A B S ept . 15, 2009), 14 E.A .D . __. T he pre am ble to th e rulem aking pro po sal f or section 1 24 .8 stated th at, alt h ou gh the f act s heet m

ust “e xpla in[] the bas is f

or t he dra f t pe rmit in som e det ai l,” ne v er the le ss “ [b] ec aus e the re are p rac ti cal li m it s to EP A’s ab il it y to exp la in each of th e p ermit s itiss u es i nco m p reh en si ve det ai l, thedis cussi on in thefac t s hee t * * * shoul d be propor tional to t

he im port ance of the i ss u es involved an d th e degree of con troversy surrou nd ing them .” Con solid ated Permit Re gu lations , 44 Fe d. R eg . 34,244, 34,264 (propos ed June 14, 1979) (e m phas is adde d ) . In the present case, a ltho ugh a m ore detailed di scussion in the Fact Sheet w as not pe r s e er

ror , thes e subs eque nt a

ppea ls il lus tra

te that t he Re g ion’s bri ef

s tate m ent

on the issue qu oted above w as no t pro po rtion al to the im po rtance of the lega l an d f actual issues and degree of cont roversy of the Region’s decision t o dep art f rom its prio r practice limiti ng the N PDES pe rmit’ s sc ope to col le ct ion sy st em ow ned or ope rate d by

the pe rmit appl ic ant . A

m ore thor oug h e xpla

nat ion w ould ha

v e be en he lpf

ul to public par

tic ipation and th e a pp ellate process. collection s ystem s w ithin th eir structures in the fo rm of branch dr ai np ip es th at

c ol le ct and tr an sp ort w as te w at er

fro m fix ture s to th e m ai n drainpip e, there is no self- ev ident distinction betw een the “c ollection sy stem ” and the “user. ” I ndeed , what th e R eg ion le ft unansw ered at oral argum ent is precisely

the questio n th a t the Bo ard a sk ed, nam ely un der the R eg ion’s r e a s oning , h ow far up collec tion s y stem s do es the regulatory

j urisdiction

to im pose NP DE S requirem ents o n co - perm ittee reach.
E v en

a ss um in gth at , in

per m it s inv ol v in ga s in g le

- enti ty P O TW, th e R eg io n ap pl ie s a re as on ab ly pre ci se d is ti nc ti on , o th er th an p ro pe rty boun daries, identify ingwhere the co llection sy stem end s an d a user beg ins, t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n i s n o t e x p r e s s e d i n t h e a dm i n i s t r a t i v e r e c o r d of this p roceed ing

. See, e.g. , In re Dese ret E lec. Pow er C oop. , PS D App eal No. 07- 03, slip o p. at 53

- 60 (EA B Nov . 1 3, 2008 ) 14 E. A. D. __ (deny ing ap pe al whe re r at io na le w as n ot art ic ul at ed

in th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd ); see a lso D om i nion, 12 E. A. D. at 5 23- 24(de nied petitioner’s argum ent ba se d on d oc um ents n ot

in the adm in is tr at iv e re co rd ); In re K enda ll Ne wUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 17

See , e .g., Alabam a Pow er

Co. v . C ost le , 636 F.2d 323, 400 (D .C. Ci r.1979)

. 13 He re , how ev er , the Re g ion has not prov ide d rec ord ev ide nce supporti ng it s conc lus ion that t he excl u d ed m

unic ipa lit ie s prov ide m at er ia lly s m al le r c ontri butions . Ther e is no ev ide nce reg ar dingthe re lativ e si ze of the se m unic ipa lit ie s’ c ontri butions , no c rit er ia f or a de minimis determinatio n, n or any ev iden ce that such con tribu tion s are de m inimis. Cen tury D ev. , 1 1 E

. A

. D

. 4 0, 5 5 (E A B 2 003) ( re ject in gp et it io ne r’ s ar gum ent b as ed

o n ev id en ce sub m itte d inad if fe re nt p erm itp ro ce ed in g ). The Reg ion’s f

ol l ow i ng e xp l a na t i on in it s re s po ns e to co mm e nts, lik ewise , is inadeq

uate: “ waste water from

the treatm e nt

w o r k s (inclu ding the co llection sy stem ) is d ischarg ed through the outfall s at [the District’s] treatm ent p lant. Therefore, the treatm ent w ork s (inclu di n g t he co ll ec ti on s y st em) is s ub

ject to p erm itti ng . ” R TC a t 86. Thi s explan ation also d oes not id entify where the “c ollectio n s y stem ” en ds and a “u ser” b eg ins, or in any othe r w ay

identify the extent to which collection sy stem s not o wned by

the entity

owningor operatin gthe t r e a t men twor ks a r e subj e c tto NPD ES pe rmit t i ng. The R eg io n al so d id

n ot art ic ul at e init s re sp on se to c om m ents a lega l rationale for distinguishingbetw een the p articular m unicipa lities nam ed as co- perm ittees an d o ther m unicipa lities that were not s o n am ed. I nstead, the Reg ion o ffered a pragm atic explanation

for distinguishing betw een the tw o g roups. The Reg ion e xplaine d that it ob tained the list itu se d to id enti fy

th e co - pe rm itte es fr om th e D is tr ic t’ s an sw er s to c erta in questio ns o n the perm it application and, wh en a dditiona l m unicipa lities were identified duringthe public com m ent p eriod, the Reg ion s tated th at “[ a] s th e co ntri buti on s fr om th es e [a dd it io na l] m

un ic ip al s y st em s ar e relativ ely sm aller than

the other satellite sy stem s, EPAw ill not include these four [a dditiona l] m

unicipa lities as ‘co- perm ittees’ in this p erm it.” RTC at 88

. While in som e circum stances EPAhas auth ority to exclud e de m in im is im

pa ct s fr om

p erm itti ngr eq

ui re m ents, suc h a pr ag m at ic

13 explan ation does not s atisfy the Reg ion’s oblig ation t o pr ovi de a leg al rati on al e id enti fy in gthe ext ent to wh ic h th e N P D E S r eq ui re m ents a

pp ly to co llection sy stem s that do not d ischarg e direc tly to waters of the United State s, but in stead discharg e to anoth er entity ’s collec tion s y stemUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 18

L ik ew is e, al thoug h the Re g ion’s f ollow ings tate m ent s at

ora l a rgum ent and 14 in its re spons e to com

m ent s m ay

prov ide a

pra ct ic al re as on f

or e x te ndingthe Permit to inc lude c o-pe rmitt ee s, thes e st at em ent s do not ide ntif y a lim iti ng leg al princ iple for the g eogra phic re ac h of

jur is dic tion propos ed her e in w hic h s o m e se eming ly

s imila rly si tuate d e ntit ie s were m ad e co- per m ite es and othe rs w er e not. At or al argum ent the Re g ion s tate d tha

t “ no on e is c o nte st ingthat i t m ak es s ens e to do this w ork in light of O&M [ o p era tion and m ai nte nanc e re quire m ent s]. T he nee d f or O & M is to re duce the occ urr enc e of

the ta nk and s ew er o verfl o ws * * * .” Tr. at 72. In i ts re spons e to com m ent s, theRe g ion e xpla ine d that vario us re g ulatory prov is ions a

uthori ze EPA

“ to requi re approp riate operation and m aintenan ce of collection sy stem s” (citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.41( d), (e )) and “[s ]ince the Di st ric t does not ow

n or oper at e som e of the c olle ct ion sy st em s that di sc har g e to the tre at m ent w ork s, it is appr opria te to a pply the se c onditi ons to t he ow ner s/ oper at ors a s co- per

m itt ee s. ” RT C a

t 86. and ultim ately

to the treatm ent plant, and that are own ed by entities other th an th e owne r of

th e tr eatm ent p lant

. 14
Upo n co ns id er at io n, th e P erm it ’s co - pe rm itte e pr ov is ion is rem anded

. The Reg ion has n ot su fficiently articulate d in the rec ord of this p roceed inga rule- of- decisi on , or inte rpretation, identify ingthe statuto r y and regulatory bas is for expan dingthe scope of NP DE S auth or ity b ey ond th e tr eatm ent p lant

o w ne r an d op er at or

to s ep ar at el y own ed and operated

collec tion s y stem s that discharg e to the treatm ent pl ant.
I n re m an di ngth e P erm it ’s c o- pe rm itte e pr ov is io n, th e B oard do es n ot p as s judgm ent onth e R eg io n’ s expl an at io n, in it s re sp on se to com m ents, for rejectingthe District’s contention that the District’s status as o wne r and o pe r a t or of the treatm ent p lant d efines the sc ope of the NP DE S a

uthority , lim itingthat authori t y t o the treatm ent p lant an d co ll ec ti on s y st em o w ne d by

th e D is tr ic t. S pe ci fi ca ll y , po in ti ngto C WA section 212(2 )(A), which defines “treatm ent w ork s” as includi ng “sew ag e co llection sy stem s,” and to the sim ilar regulatory defin ition o f the term “pu blicly own ed treatm ent work s” found at 40 C. F.R . § § 1 22. 2 a nd40 3. 1, th e Re gio n e xp l a i ne d t ha tth e tr e a t men t pl a nt “i s on l y a portionof the ‘treatm ent work s.’” RTC at 84

. The Reg ion s tated further th at it “ ha s no wc ho se n to p ro v id e a m or e co m pr eh en si v e app roa chto perm ittingthese facilities to en sure p roper operatio n an d co m pliance ofUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 19

T he Reg ion explain ed in its respon se to co m m ents that “EP A

i s autho rized 15 to regulate the entire P OT W (inclu din g the trea tm ent plan t and coll ection sy stem). T hat [the Di st ric t] and its m em

ber com m uniti es hav e dec ide d to m ai nta in se par at e ow ner shi p of the tr ea tm ent pla nt and col le ct ion sy st em does not re quire the EPA to sol ic it se par at e si g nat ure s f rom e ac h of the s at el lit e sy st em s. ” RT C a t 86. the entire treatm ent w ork s, not a po rtion o f it.” Id. at

8 4- 85

. Th is expl an at io n fo r th e Region’s c on cl us io n th at it h as le g al autho ri ty

to extend the Perm i t ’s requ irem ents b ey ond what the District own s an d operates m

ust b e co nsidere d, as an integ rated whole, tog ether w ith the Reg ion’s full legal analy sis, whichit has not y et prov ided, identify ingthe extent to which the N PD ES requirem ents a pply to collection

sy stem s. The Bo ard a lso res erv es judg m ent a t t his tim e on bo th (1) the R eg io n’ s re as on s fo r re ject in gc onc er ns e xp re ss ed in th e pu bl ic com m ents re g ardingwhether the Reg ion’s decision to add the n am ed c operm ittees is consistent w ith the applicatio n signature requirem ents s et forth in the regulations and

(2) the District’s additional argum ent raise d 15 init s re pl y br ie f th at th e co - pe rm itte es do no t “d is ch ar g e [] ap ol lutant ” within the m eaningof the statute and regulations and that the collec tion sy st em s th at

c onne ct to th e D is tr ic t’ s sy st em

and Tre atm ent P lant

“ ar e ex em pt in di re ct d is ch ar g es und er

4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22.3 , ” D is t. R ep ly B r. at 9

- 10 , 1 6. The qu es ti on

of co ns is te nc y

wi thth e re gul at or

y s ch em e is not ripe until the Board has before it the Reg ion’s ful l ex planation id enti fy in gth e ex te nt

to whi chth e N P D E S r equ ir em ents a pp ly to collection sy stem s that do not discharg e direc tly to waters of the U nited States, but instead

disch arg e to a co llec t i on sy stem leadin gto the Tre atm ent P lant , and

th at are o w ne d by

e nt it ie s othe r th an

th e D is tr ic t. Acco rding ly , the P e rm it’s co- perm ittee pro v ision is rem anded f or t he Reg ion to reco nsider the ex tent to whic h the N PD ES requirem ents a

pply to collection

syste m s that discharg e to the treatm ent pl ant and are o w ne d by

e nt it ie s othe r th an

th e D is tr ic t, and

to f ully articulate its dec ision in the adm ini s t r ativ e reco rd. O n rem and, the Reg ion m ay

re- issue the P erm it with , o r w ithout, the co- perm itteeUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 20

T her e is no i ndic at ion i n the re cor d of this proc ee dingw het her the Re g ion’s 16 histo rical practice of issuin g N P DES perm its on ly to the treatm ent plan t owner w as announc ed as a

poli cy or inte rpr et at ion.
Am ong othe r thing s, the Re g ion’s anal y si s shoul d a ddre ss the re f er enc es to 17 “m un icipality ” in the regulatory def init ion of P OT W, a

ndthe def init ion ’s state m ent that “[t ] he term

also m eans the m

un icipality

* * * w hich has jurisdic t i on over the Indirect Di sc har g es to and the dis cha rg es f rom s uch a tre at

m ent w ork s. ” 40 C .F.R . § 403. 3(o)

. T he Re g ion’s ana ly si s shoul d als o expla in how its rationa le is cons is te nt w ith the pe rmit appl ic at ion s ig nat

ure re quire m ent s, 40 C .F.R . §§ 122. 2 1 (j )( 10), 122.22, t he ex cl usi on f rom the pe rmittin g r eq uire m ent s f or i ndire ct

dis cha rg er s, id. § 122.3( c) , a

nd the definition s of

“discharge ,” “discharge of a pollu tant,” and“indirect disc h ar ger,” id. § 122.2 , in cl udingthe re g ulatory his tory of thos e prov is ions (e .g ., N at iona l Pollut ant Di sc har g e Eli m ination Sy st em , 44 Fe d. R eg . 32,854, 32901 ( June 7, 1979) (de f ining “ind irect discharge r” as “a no n-municipal, non -do m estic discharger * * * ”); Conso lidated P erm it Regulation s, 45 F ed. Reg. 33,2 90 , 33 ,42 1 (May 19, 198 0) (defining “ind irect dis cha rg er ” as “ a nondom es tic dis cha rg er * * * ”)

. prov ision as the Re gio n determ ines is appro priate. H owe v er, in the 16 ev ent th e R eg ion d eterm ines to re- issue the Perm it with the co- perm ittee prov is i o n , th e R e g i o n ’ s an a l y s i s s h o u l d a d dr e s s th e i s s u e s d i s c u s s ed ab ov e an d its ho ul d pr ov id e su ff ic ie nt d et ai l f or th e Board

to e v al uate whe ther th e R eg ion’s rationale is con s i s t e nt w ith the statute and the regulatory

sch em e. 17
D. Cha llenges to thePe rmit’s Lim its for Total Nitrogen The D is tr ic t, C L F , and

Ma ss D E P s ee k re v ie w of se v er al P erm it co nd it io ns th e R eg io n es ta bl is he d ino rd er

to ensu re com

pl ianc e w ith Rho de I s l a nd and Massachu setts w ater qu ality criteria, on e of three com pone nts o f state water quality stand ards. The parties seek rev iew of the R eg ion’s decision

estab lishingthe Perm it’s lim its for total nitrog en, ph os ph or ou s, f

ec al c ol if or m , an d al um inum . Th es e ch al le ng es g en er al ly questio n whether the Perm it com plies with th e statutory

requ irem ents fo r pe rm itli m it s un de r C WAs ec tion 301 and 4 02 and

th e st at ut or y prohib ition o f C WA s ection 401 on issuingperm its that do not “ insure” com pliance with state w ater qu ality stand ards. This sub sectio n a d d r e sses the ch al l e nge s to the P erm it’s total nitrog en lim it. Cha lleng es to theUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 21

lim its app licable t o p hosp horus, fecal coliform , and alum inum w ill be a dd r e s s e d i n t he fo l l ow i ng Pa rt s I I .E , . F, an d . G, re s pe c t i vel y. The Reg ion found that the T reatm ent P lant’s d ischarg es o f total nitrog en w ould cause or contribute to v iolations of R hode I sland’s water qu al ity s tand ar ds , and

th e R egion est ab li sh ed in th e fi na l P erm ita nu mer i c li mitf

ort ot a l n i t r oge n di s c ha r ges o f 5 .0 mg/l m on t hl y ave r a ge for the m onths of May through O ctober and a narrativ e lim it spec ify ing treatm ent o ptim iz ation for N ov em ber through April. Fac t Sh eet at 14. The D is tr ic t, CLF, a nd Ma ss D E P s ee k B oard r ev ie wo f th is P erm it c o n d i t i o n o n s e v e r a l g r o un d s . C L F a r gu e s t h at t h e l i m i t i s no t sufficiently

stringent. C LF Pet. at 7- 16. The District and MassDE P argue th at the Reg ion d id no t hav e a n a dequ ate scie ntific ba sis for the li m itit c ho se , and

th e D is tr ic t argue s furthe r th at the Regio n sh ou ld delay its d ecision until th ere is g reater sc ientific cer t ainty

. Dist. Su pp. Pet. at 7- 32; Mas sachu setts D epartm ent o f Env ironm ental P rotection Sup plem ent a l Pe tition fo r R ev iew (“MassDE P S upp. Pe t.”) at 12- 16. MassDE P a lso argues that the lim it is im prope rly stated as a conce ntration of the po llutant in the disch a r ge and, instead, sho uld b e stated as a lim it on the to tal m ass o f the pollutant that m ay be discharg ed. MassDE P S upp. Pe t. at 7- 12.
CL F b ases its call for a m ore string ent to tal nitrog en lim it on a statem ent in

a k ey s c ientific rep ort pre pared by R I DE M, Evalu ation of Nitrogen T

argets and W

W TF Loa d R eductio ns fo r the Prov idence and Seeko nk R ivers, Office of Water R esource s (D ec. 2004 ) (the “2 004 RI DE M Re port”), which at on e po int states that req uiringtotal nitrog en controls at the lim it of techno log y , 3.0 m g /l, w ill not achiev e w ater quality com pliance i n po rtions o f the Prov idence and Seek onk R iv ers. As CLF p r e s e nt s it , wh e r e th e re c or d c on t a i ns su c h a“d e f i ni t i ve st at em ent, ” C L F Re pl y

a t 2

- 3, th er e is n o just if

ic at io n fo r th e R eg io n to set the P e r mit ’ s lim it at a less string ent 5 .0 m g /l, the reby allow ingthe D is tr ic t to di sc harg e at a co nc entr at io n 1. 67 ti m es hi g he r th an th e li m it of technology .UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 22

T he District’s 200 1 permit cont ains a limit f or am m on ia-nitro gen. Fac t Sheet 18 at 10-11.
The R egi o nsta te s th atth e Di st ri ct ’s Tr eat m en t P la n t wou ld b e ab le to ach ie ve

19 lim its in th e range of 8 m g/l to 10 m g/l, af ter com pletio n of up grades that w ere in p rocess duringthe ti m e the Re g ion w as m akingit s dec is ion. RT C a t 30.
T he Di st ric t a ls o obje ct s to t

he nar rativ e tre at

m ent opti m iz at ion r equi re m ent 20 appl icable du ring the m on ths of Novem ber to A pril (i.e. “reduce the di sc h ar ge o f total nitr og en * * * to the m ax im um e x te nt pos si ble .” ). D is t. S u p p . P et . at 52- 53 (quot ing Permit n. 9) . The Di st

ric t ar g ues that the c old-w ea the r opt imiz at ion r equi re m ent s hould ref er to the District’s “best ju dgm ent” t o ensure “com plian ce w ith ef

f luen t lim its,” rather t h an requir ing reductio ns “to the m axim um extent po ssible.” Id. T h e D i s tr i c t ha s not show n c le ar e rr or or an a buse of dis cr et ion. T he phra se “ m ax im um exte nt pos si ble ” is suf f ic ie ntly c er ta in i n its m ea

ning

. A re f er enc e to t

he Di st ric t’s “ bes t j udg m ent ” w ould be le ss c er

ta in i n m ea

ning . A cc ording ly , r ev ie w of thi s is sue is de nie d. I n co ntra st , th e D is tr ic t arg ue s th at th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on

is scientifically

un soun d an d fina liz ation of any num eric lim it on total nitrog en d ischarg e s s ho uld be de lay ed. D ist. S upp. Pe t. at 19- 27. The ef fe ct o f th e D is tr ic t’ s re qu es t f or d el ay w ou ld b e to a ll owth e D is tr ic t t o continu e dis c ha r g ingun der its current perm it withno lim it on total nitrog en d ischarg es. R TC at 24. The District does not e v en arg ue fo r 18 a less string ent lim it, s uc h a s a lim it of 8.0 m g /l to 1 0 m g /l, which 19 w ou ld a ll owto ta l nitro g en

to b e di sc harg ed

a t c on ce ntrati on s 2. 67 to 3.3 3 tim es hig her th an a chiev able at the lim it of techno log y . Rath er, as the D istrict prese nts it, the Reg ion does not hav e the authority to im pose any lim it wh atsoev er until there is a “fully dev eloped

m odel of the B ay ,” that is a m athem atical m odel or “a TMDL that can rep licate the phy sical and chem ical co nditions ob serv ed in the Narrag ansett Bay .” D ist. S upp. P et

. a t 2 4- 25

. The Dist ri ct a rgue s th at th e R eg io n m

us t m ak e th is “dem onstration

befo re im

posingnum eric lim its.” D ist. R eply at 4

. 20
As explain ed in

detail below , th e B oard c oncludes th e R eg ion m a d e n o c l e a r e rr o r o r ab u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e R e g i o n ’ s a n a l y s i s or de ci si on . B ri ef

ly , C L F o v erst at es th e 20 04 R I D E M R ep ort’ s ce rt ai nty r e gar dingthe need for co ntrols at the lim it of techno log y , and CL F ig nores the Repo rt’s ultim ate recom m endatio n that the District’s lim it beUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 23

T he Boa

rd r eject s the D is tri ct ’s argum ent that t he Re g ion i m

prope rly 21 com m unic at ed w ith RI DE M when the Reg ion a nd RI DE M c om

m unic at ed re g ar dingthe Fis ca l Y ea

r 2006- 2007 Perf

orm anc e Partne rs hip A g re em ent . D is t. Supp. Pet . at 7- 9. T he District contend s that the com m u n ication betw een the Reg ion and RIDEM violates 5 U. S.C . § 557( d)( 1), w

hic h prohi bits e xparte c om m unicati o n in m atte rs g ov er ned by se ct ion 557( a) . The Di st

ric t’s argum ent , how ev er , m ust f ai l. The Region’s per

m itt ing dec is ion is not gov er

ned by sec tion 557, w

hic h a pplie s only

to proc ee ding s re quire d to be conduc te d in ac cor danc e w ith A PAs ec tion 5 5 6

. 5 U.S.C . § 557( a) . N PDES per m itt ingproc ee ding s ar e not re quire d to be c onduct ed in ac cor danc e w ith A PAs ec tion 556. In r e US GE

N Ne w E ngland, Inc ., B ray ton P oint Stati on, 11 E. A .D . 525, 529-30 (EAB 2004) (de ny ingm otion f or f orm al e v ide ntia

ry he ar ingunde r APAs ec tion 556), aff’d sub nom Dom inion Ene rgy Brayton Poi nt, LLC v . J ohnson , 443 F .3d 12 ( 1st Ci r. 20 06 ); Am endme nts to Stream line the Na tion al P ollu tant Discharge Elim inatio n Sy stem Progr am Re g ulations : R ound T w o, 65 F ed. Re g . 30,886 (Ma y 15, 2000)

. set at 5.0 m g /l. Conv ersely , th e un certainty the Di s t r i c t a nd MassDE P po in t t o fa il s to s ho wth at th e R eg io n clear ly

e rr ed o r ab us ed

it s di sc re ti on in s etti ngth e P erm it ’s li m ita t 5

. 0 m g /l

. 21
I n sh ort, th er e is m or e th an s uf fi ci ent e v id en ce in

th e re co rd

to establish that the N arrag ansett Bay and the Prov idence and Seek onk Riv ers are sev erely

im pa i r e d b y nitrog en- driv en e utroph ication. The record also is sufficient to esta blish that t he D i strict is a sig nificant discharg er of nitrog en to the Black stone Riv er, whic h d ischarg es into the m ost h e a vil y

im paired part o f the uppe r N arrag ansett Bay , th e Pro videnc e andSeekonk Rivers . Thu s, as expl ai nedm ore ful ly belo w, th er e is n o cl ear er

ro r inth e R eg io n’ s co nc lu si on th at th e D is tr ic t’ s discharg es o f total nitrog en c ause, hav e a reasona ble p otential to cau se, or co ntribute to v iolations of the Rhode I sland water quality stand ards. The B oard

a ls o co nc lu de s th at

th e li m itth e R eg io n se le ct ed o f 5. 0 m g /l is r ea so na bl e inli g ht

o f th e re le v ant av ai la

bl e sc ie nt if

ic ana ly si s an d data in the adm inistrativ e r e c or d, a nd there is no clear erro r or abuse of discretion in the R eg ion’s determ ination to state the Per mit ’s total ni tr og en li m ita s a li m ito n th e co nc entr at io n of to ta l n itro g en

a ll ow ed in th e D is tr ic t’ s ef

fl ue nt

. A cc or di ng ly , a s expl ai ne d be lo w , th e B oard de ni es r ev ie wo f th e P erm it ’s to ta l n itro g en li m it

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 24

Section 1 22 .44 (d)(1 ) provid es in relev ant part as f ollo w s: 22 [E]ac h N PDES pe rmit sha ll inc lude c o n d it ions m ee tingthe f ollow ingre quire m ent s w

hen appl ic abl e. * * * * (d) W

ate r qualit

y st andards and Sta terequi re me nts : a ny requi rem ents in add itio n to or m ore stringent th an pro m ulgated ef f lue nt l imita

tions guide line s or s ta

ndar ds under

s ec tions 301, 304, 306, 307, 318 and 405 of CW A ne ce ss ar y to: (1) A chieve w ater quality stan dards establishedund er section 30 3 of the CWA , inclu din g State narrative criteria f or w ater qu a l i ty. 40 C. F.R . § 122. 44(d) (1)

.

T he st anda

rds g ov er ningthe “ re as onabl e pote ntia l” anal y si s ar e se t f orth in 23 40 C.F.R. § 122 .44 (d)(1 )(ii), which pro vides a s f ollo w s: (c ontinue d...) 1. The Regio n’s “

Reas onab le P oten t ial” Deter mina tion is Supp orted by th e R ecord Regulatory

sectio n 1 22. 44(d)( 1) req uires th at the Perm it m

ust include condit ions “neces sary ” to “[a]chiev e w ater qu ality stand ards e s t abl i s he d u nd e r

se c t i on 30 3 o f

th e CW A, in c l ud i ng St a t e na rr a t i ve crite r i af o r w a t e r q u a l i t y . ” 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 2 2

. 4 4 ( d ) ( 1 )

. S ub p a r a g r aph 22 (d)(1)(i) g ov erns which poll utants m ust b e m ade subject to a water quality

- based

effluent lim it: “Lim itations m ust co ntrol a ll pollutants o r po ll ut ant p ar am et er s (e ithe r co nv enti on al , n on co nv enti on al , o r to xi c p o l l u t a n t s ) w h i c h t h e [ R e g i o n ] d e t e rm i n e s a r e o r m a y b e d i s c h a rg ed a t a lev el which will c a use, hav e the reasona ble p otential to cau se, or contribute to an e xcursio n ab ov e any Sta t e w ater qu ality

stand ard, includin gState narrati ve c r i t e r i a f or w ater qu ality .” Id. § 12 2. 44 (d )( 1) (i ). F ac to rs to b e taken int o ac co unt i n th e “r ea so na bl e potential” ana ly sis are describe d m ore sp ecifically by sub paragraph (d)(1)(ii). I f a pollutant disch arg e is found to cause, hav e the 23UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 25

(.. .c ontinue d) 23 When det er

m iningw het her a d is cha

rg e ca use s, ha s the re as onabl e po tential to ca

use, or con tribu tes to an in-stream ex cursion above a nar rativ e or num er ic c rit er ia w ithi n a Sta te w at er qua lit y sta n dar d, the pe rmitt inga

uthorit y s hal l us e proc edur es w hic h a cc ount f

or ex is tingc ontrol s on point and nonpoint

s ources of

poll ution, the v ar ia bili ty of the polluta

nt or polluta

nt par am et er

in the e f f lue nt, the se nsi tiv ity

of the s pec ie s to tox ic ity

te st ing(w

hen ev al uat ingw

hole ef f lue nt t ox ic ity

), and w her e appr opria

te , the dilut ion of the e f

f lue nt in t he re ce iv ingw at er . Id. re as on ab le p ot enti al to c au se , o r co ntri bute to e xceedanc es o f num er ic or n ar rati v e st at e w at er

q ua li ty c ri te ri a, th en

a s di sc us se d m or e fu ll y

in th e ne xt p art, th e pe rm itwri te r m us t e st ab li shth e li m it as pr ov id ed in su bp ar agra ph s (i ii ) thro ugh (v ii ). 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (i ii )- (v ii ). The Reg ion d escribed

the two- step p rocess g ov erningthe establishm ent o f the Per mit ’ s w ater qu ality

- based effluent lim its as follow s: “An N PD ES perm it m ust lim it any

po llutant o r po llutant param eter (co nv enti on a l, n on- conv entiona l, to xic an d whole effluent toxicity ) that is or m ay

be discharg ed at a l e vel that causes or h as a ‘reasona ble potential’ to cau se o r contribute to an excursio n ab ov e any water quality

criterion. Where EPAm ak es such a determ ination, it the n procee ds to establ i s h a n a ppropriate effluent lim it.” RTC at 76

. The R eg io n ’ s “ r e a s o n ab l e p o t e n t i a l ” an a l y s i s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d i nth i s P a rt I I

. D

. 1, and

th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s su

pp orti ng th e sp ec if

ic num er ic al li m it will b e disc ussed in the follow ingPart I I .D .2. The R e g i o ne s t ab l i s h e d

th e P e rm i t ’ s t o t a l n i t r o g e nnu m e r ic effluent lim it to a chiev e co m pliance with Rho de I sland’s narrativ e w ater quality c r i t e r i a . Fact Shee t at 1 1- 12. S pecifically , th e R eg ion de te rm in ed

p ur su ant t o 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44( d) (1 )( i) th at n itro g en is present in the D istrict’s effluent at a con centration

that causes, has the reasona ble potential to cause, or contributes to v iolati on of Rhode I sland’s narrati ve c r iteria. Id. a t 1 2- 14

. Th e R eg io n co nf irm ed th is determ ination in its respon se to com m ents. See, e .g. , R TC at 7 6.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 26

T he Di st rict

ha s not di f

f er ent iate d it s ar g um ent

to re cogniz e the dif

f er ent 24 le g al rul es , a s des cr ibe d m ore f ully in the te x t, g ov er

ningthe R egi o n’s “ re as onabl e pote ntia l” anal y si s under 40 C .F.R . § 122. 44(d) (1) (i) and (ii) from the Re g ion’s det er m ination of

the 5.0 mg /l Permit limit under 40 C .F.R . § 122. 44(d) (1) (v i).
Un d er se ct io n 3 0 3 (d ) of th e Cl ean Water Act, st at es are req u ir edto id en ti fy 25 thos e w at er

segm ent s wher e te chnol og y -ba se d c ontrol s ar e ins uf f ic ie nt t o im

ple m ent the appl ic abl e w at er

qua lit y s ta ndar ds, and w

hic h are the re f

ore “ water

qua lit y li m ite d” or im pai re d. See CW

A § 303(d) (1) (A ), 33 U .S.C . § 1313( d)( 1)( A ); 40 C. F.R . § 130. 2(j)

. On ce a segment

is ide ntif

ie d a s w at er

qua lit y li m ite d, the st at e is f

urthe r r equi re d to establish to tal m axim

um daily loads (“T MDLs” ). CWA § 30 3(d )(1)(C), 33 U.S .C. § 1313(d) (1) (C ); 40 C.F .R. § 130.7. A T MDL is a m ea sur e of the tota l amou n t o f a po llut ant f

rom po int so urces, non po int so urces, and natu ral back groun d, which a w ater qual ity li m ite d s egm ent

c an tole rate w ithout

v iola tingthe a

pplic abl e w at er

qua lit y st anda rds

. See 40 C.F.R . § 130.2(i ). T he porti ons of a re ce iv ingw at er ’s loa dingc apa ci ty that are a llocated to ex isting or f utu re poin t sources of po llut ion are known as w aste load al loc at ions (“ W L A s” ). Id . § 130. 2(h) . O n the othe r ha nd, the p o rt io n s at tri bute d to ex is tingor f

uture nonpoint

s ourc es of

poll ution or t o natura l ba ckgrou n d s o urc es are k now n a s loa d a lloc at ions (“ L A s” ). Id . § 13 0.2 (g). Thu s, a T MDL is, in sim ple term s, the s um of W L A s and L A s. The D is tr ic t argue s th at th e R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in m akingit s “reason ab l e p o t e n t i a l ” d e t e rm i n a t i o n . D i s t

. S up p . P e t

. a t2 7

. T he District conten ds t ha t “[b]ec ause a pro per a ssessm ent o f total nitrog en ha s n o t y e t b e e n c o m

p l e t e d , R e g i o n 1 h a s n o t m e t i t s o b l ig at io n to dem onstrate the n eed f

or t hese num eric lim itations. ” Id. The District presents this argum ent as part of a broad er, undiffere ntiated argum ent 24 g ene r a l l y co ntendin gthat the R eg ion’s decision do es n ot rest on an ad eq uate s ci enti fic fo un dati on , s pe ci fi ca ll y th at ato ta l n itro g en

li m it canno t be im

posed w ithout science sufficient for an analy sis eq uiv alent to a “total m axim

um daily load ” or “was te lo a d a l l ocation ” for total 25 nitrog en in

the waters im

pacted by the D istrict’s disch arg es. Id. at 1 9- 27.
Nota bly , th e D istrict doe s n ot cha lleng e or contest sig nificant parts o f the Reg ion’s “reason able p otential” analy sis. Specifically , th e District has not id entified any error in the R eg ion’ s d e s c r iption of the water quality

con ditions of the P r ovidence an d S eek onk R iv ers an d Narrag ansett Bay

. The Reg ion explained that the Narrag ansett Bay and the P rov idence and Seek onk R iv ers hav e su ffered s ev ere cu ltu ralUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 27
eutroph icat i on for m any y ears th at hav e resu lted in periodic low dissolv ed o xy g en lev els an d fishkills and othe r im pacts on fish an d wildlife. Id. at 11

- 12. The Reg ion s tated a s follow s: I t i s c l e ar that eutroph ication in the Se ek onk and Prov idence Riv ers an d N arrag ansett Bay has reach ed a lev el where it is ad

v ersely affectingthe com

position of fi shand w il dl if e; a dv er se ly

a ff ec ti ngthe p hy si ca l, ch em ic al , o r bi ol og ic al inte g ri ty o f th e ha

bi ta t, interferin gw ith the propa g ation of fishand w ildlife; adv ersely alteringthe activ ities of fish and w ildlife; and caus in gd is so lv ed

o xy g en to dr op w el l b el ow5

. 0 m g /l

. T h e e f f e c t s o f e u t r o p h i c a t i o n , i n c l u d i n g a l ga e b l o o ms and fish kills, are also interferingw ith the desig nated uses of the w ater. Eutrophicatio n has, therefo re, reached a point whe re it is causingv iolation of w ater quality stand ards.
F ac t S he et

a t 1 2. Th e R eg ion r ei nf or ce d th is d et erm in at io n init s respon se to com

m ents: “ The upp er sectio ns o f N ar rag ansett Bay (i nc lu di ngth e P ro v id en ce and S ee k onk river s), are n o lo ng er

a bl e to su pp ort a h ea lthy a qu at ic c om

m un ity . A t t im es , d is so lv ed ox y g en le v el s decline dram atically

and sig nificant fish kills are be c omingregular occurren ces. O nly

a smal l f

r a ction of the histo ric eelgrass h abitat rem ains.” R TC at 8 0. The R eg ion further fo und that “th e B lackst one Riv er disc harg e s i nto th e relativ ely po orly flush ed areas at the h ead of the U pper Bay .” Id. The D i strict also has not c halleng ed th e R eg ion’s conclu sion that th es e eutr op hi c an d as so ci at ed c ond it io ns e xi st in gin

th e N ar ra g an se tt B ay and th e P ro v id en ce and

S ee k onk R iv er s v io la te R

ho de I sl an d’ s narrativ e w ater qu ality

cri t e r i a . Fa ct Sh eet at 12; R TC at 7 9- 80. The Rho de I sland water quality criteria state that “[t]otal p hosp horus, nitrates and am m onia m ay be assig ned site- specific perm it lim its * * *,” and that nutr ie nt s sh al l n ot

b e al lo w ed

“ ins uc h co nc entr at io n th at w ou ld im pa ir any usa g es sp ecifically

assigned to said

C lass, or ca

use unde sirable o rUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 28

Rhod e Isla

nd ’s regulatio ns state a s f ollo w s: 26
W at er Q ual ity Cr ite ria - T he f ollow ingphy si cal , c hemic al and biolog ic al c rit er ia

are para

m et er s o f mi nim

um w at er qua lit y necessa ry to sup po rt the surfa ce w ater use classif ication s of

rule 8.B. and shall b e a

pp licable to all w aters of the State. (1) . G ene ra l C rit er ia - T he f ollow ingm inim

um c rit er ia are a pplic abl e to a l l wa ters of

the State, un less c riteria specif ied f or in dividu al cl as se s ar e m ore s tri ng ent : (a ). At a m inim um , a ll w at er s sha ll be f re e of poll uta nts in concentratio ns or combi n at ion s or f rom anth rop ogenic activ ities subj ec t t o the se re g ulations that: i. A dversely

af f ect the c om

po sition of f

ish andw ildl ife ; ii. A dv er se ly af

f ec t the phy si ca l, che m ic al , or biol og ic al int egrit

y of the ha bita t; iii. In terf ere w ith th e prop aga

tion of f ish andw ildl ife ; iv . A dv er se ly

a lte r t he lif e cycl e f unct ions , use s, p roce ss es and ac tiv iti es of

f is h and w ildl if

e; or

v . A dv er se ly

a f f ec t hum an hea lth. (b) . A es the tic s - a ll w at er s sha ll be f re e f rom pol lu ta n ts in conc ent rations or com

binations that: (c ontinue d...) nuisan ce aq

uatic species associated

w ith cu ltural eutrophication.” F act Shee t at 1 2 (quotin g 12- 190- 001 R. I

. Cod e R. Tbl.2 § 8. D. (3)10). R hode I sland water quality

criteri a a l s o state that waters shall b e free of po ll ut ants in

c on ce ntrati on s or

c om bi nati on s or

f ro m anthro poge ni c activ ities that “[a]dv ersely affect the com

position of fish an d w ildlife,” “[a]dv ersely

affect the p hy sical, chem ical, or b iolog ical integrity of the habitat, ” “[i]nterfe re w ith the propa g ation of f ish an d w ildlife,” or “[a]dv ersely

alter the life cy cle fun ctions, use s, process es an d ac tiv ities of f is h and wi ldl if

e.” Fact She etat 11 ( quot ing 12- 190-001 R.I . Code R. § 8 .D .(1)). The Reg ion c orrectly sup ported its dec ision by no tingthat 26UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 29

(.. .c ontinue d) 26 i. Se ttl e to f

orm de posi ts that a

re uns ig htly , putre sc ent , or odorous to suc h a de g re e as to cr ea

te a nuis anc e, or inte rf

er e w ith the e x is tingor designated uses; ii. Flo at as debris, o i l , g r ea se, scum or ot her f loatin g m aterial attribu table to wa stes in am ou nts to such a degre e a s to create a nu isance or interf

ere w ith th e e xisting or designated uses; iii. P rod uce o do r o r t aste or change th e colo r o r p hy sical, chemical or bi olog ic al c onditi ons to s uch a degre e as to cr ea te a n u is anc e or inte rf er e w ith the e x is tingor des ig nat ed use s; or,

v . R es ult in t

he dom ina

nce of s pec ie s of

f is h and w ildl if

e to s uch a degre e as to cr ea

te a nuis anc e or i nte rf

er e w ith the e x is tingor designated uses.
12-190- 001 R. I. Code R. § 8.D .(1)

.

T he District specif

ically ac knowledge s that “[t] he rel at i o nshi p betwe en 27 produc tiv ity , a s m ea sur ed by c hlorophyll- a, and c oncen tr ations of nutr ie nts is w el l es ta blis hed by

the MERL data .” D is t. Supp. Pet . at 21. R ho de I sl an d ha s li st ed th e S ee k onk R iv er an d P ro v id en ce R iv er o n it s sectio n3 0 3 ( d ) l i s to f

w a t e r s i m

p a i r e d f o r nu t r i e n t s , l o wd i s s o l v ed oxy g en, and exces s alga l g rowth/chlorop hy ll(a). Id. at 7. R hode I sland has also listed

the Prov idence Riv er as im paired for pathog ens. Id. The District also has not challeng ed the R eg ion’s determ ination that n itrog en is a significant cause and contributing factor in creatingthe eutroph ic and

asso ciated cond itions that vio late water q uality stand ards observ ed in

the Narrag ansett Bay

a nd t he Prov idence and Seek onk R iv er s. T he Reg io n expl ai ne d th at e xc es si v e lo ad in g s of

n itro g en in mar i ne wa t e r

ca us e s or c on t r i bu t e s t o eu t r op hi c a t i on a ndwa t e r - qu a l i t ydam ag ingplant g rowth

. RTC at 79

- 80, 92 10 6; F act S hee t at 8

- 12. I nd ee d, th e D is tr ic t s pe ci fi ca ll y s ta te s th at it do es no t di sp ut e th e “b as ic relationsh ip be tween

exc essiv e nu

trients an d e nvi r on men t a l impa i rmen t .” Dist. Su pp. Pe t. at 22. 27UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 30

T he ac rony

m U BWPA D st ands f

or U pper Bl ac k st one W at er Polluti on 28 A batem ent District, the petit ion er in this case. The D is tr ic t a ls o ha s no t i denti fi ed any e rr or in th e R eg io n’ s conclu sion that “[t]h e pre dom inant sources of the nitrog en loadingin the Prov idence and Seek onk R iv ers are muni c ipal w astew ater treatm ent facilities in Rho de I sland a nd M a ssachu setts.” Fa ct Sh eet at 12. The Reg ion e xplaine d as follow s: Num erous scientific s tudies cond ucted ov er the last 1 5 – 2 0 y ears h av e do cum ented that ex cessiv e disc harg es of n itrog en are causingthe im pairm ent an d w astew ater discharg es are the dom inant source of n itrog en. See also Nutrie nt and B acteria Pollutio n Panel, Initial Repo rt , Gov ernor’s Narrag ansett Bay and Watershed Plann ing Com m ission, March 2, 2004 at p ag e 3 (summar iz ing st ud ie s)

. RTC at 80

. The District al s o has no t identified any reco rd ev idence that wou ld co ntradict the R eg ion’s determ ination that the D istrict’s effluent “is t he d om inant source of n itrog en lo ading s to the B lack stone Riv er.” F ac t S he et

a t 1 2- 13

. Th e R eg io n expl ai ne d th at [T]he UB WPAD – with a pe rm itted de sig n flow of 56 MG D – i s one o f th e larg es t s ourc es o f ni tr og en to N ar ra g an se ttB ay . Th e lo ad in g s datauti li z ed in D E M’s 2004 stud

y indic ate that UBWPA D represented ap pr ox im at ely

6 4% o f th e ni tr og en

lo ad d is ch ar g ed

to the B lack stone Riv er from m unicipa l wa s tewater tr eatm ent f

ac il it ie s fo r th e pe ri od

of ti m e co ns id er ed

in t he st ud y. RTC at 80

. A lthough the D istrict states that it “disagrees w ith the

28 Reg ion’s characteriz ation of the D istrict’s r e lativ e co ntribution ofUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 31

“ Re as onabl e pote ntia l” re quire s som e degre e of c er ta inty g re at er tha n a m er e 29 poss ibil it y , b u t it le av es to the pe rmit w rit er ’s s ci ent if

ic and te chni ca l j udg m ent how (c ontinue d...) loading s,” Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 13 (quotin gR TC at 53), the D istrict has not id en ti f i e d an y e v i d e n c e i nth e r e c o r d

s h o w i n ge rr o r

i nth e R e g i o n ’s conclu sion that the D istrict is th e do m inant nitrog en s ource. I nst e ad, the D istrict attem pts to carry

its e ntire b urdenof show ingclear e r r or in the District’s “reason able p otential” analy sis by pointingto uncertainty

reg ardingthe precise relativ e co ntribution of the D is tr ic t’ s ni tr og en

d is ch ar g es to th e ov er al l e utro ph ic at io n pr ob le m in Narr a gan sett B ay

and the Prov idence and Seek onk R iv ers. See D is t. Sup p. Pet. at 27

. That is sim ply not sufficient whe re the ap plicable leg al standard look s not only to whe ther the District’s discharg es “c ause, ” but also whether those discharg es eith er “co ntribute to” o r hav e a “reason able p otential” to cau se, a v iolation of R hode I sland ’ s w ater quality stand ards. The requirem ent to im

pose a pe rm it lim it is no t o nl y prem ised on a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e p o l l u t a n t d i s c h a r g e s “ a r e ” a t a l e v e l t h a t“cau ses” v iolation of the applicable water quality stand ards, but th e req

uirem ent is also trig g ered by

a findingthat the fac ility ’s po llutant d ischarg es “m ay ” be a t a

le v el th at “ co ntri bute s” to o r ha s th e “r ea so na bl e po te nt ia l” to cau se a v iolation. 4 0 C .F. R. § 122. 44( d) ( 1) (i). The j uxtapo sed co ntra st s be tw ee n “are ” an d “m ay , ” an d be tw ee n “c aus e” and b oth “contrib ute” and “reason able p otential, ” ind icate that the R eg ion is no t li m it ed , a s th e D is tr ic t c onte nd s, to ac ti ngo nl y whe re th er e is c erta in ty of an existing causal link betw een a sp ecific d ischarg e an d a particular v iolation of w ater qu ality stand ards. Instead, the regulation requires water qu a l i t y - b a s e d e f

f l u e n t l i m i t s e v e n w h e n t h e r e i s s o m e d e g r e e of uncertainty

reg arding

bo th the prec ise po llutant discharg e lev els an d the po t e n t i a l c au s a l e f

f e c t s o f t h o s e d i s c h a r g e s , s o l o n g a s t h e r e c or d is sufficient to esta

blish t ha t t here is a “ reasona ble p otential” for that di sc harg e to caus e or co ntri bute to a v io la ti on of wate r quali ty standard s. A g ency

gu idance and the Board ’s decisions hav e also stated 29UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 32

(.. .c ontinue d)

29 mu c h c e rt a i n ty i s n e c e s s ary. that the reasona

ble potential analy sis m

ust b e ba sed on the “w orst- case” effluent cond itions. In re W ashing ton A qued

uct W ater SupplySys t., 11 E

. A

. D

. 56 5, 58 4 (E A B 2 00 4) ; accor d Am . Iro n & Steel Inst. v. EPA , 1 15 F.3 d 9 79, 10 01 (D. C. C ir. 1 997) (di s cussingEP A’s policy that the reasona ble p otential analy sis be bas ed o n the w orst ca se scenario). The regulations, thus , re quire a pre caution ary app roach wh e n determ ining whe ther th e pe rm it m

ust co ntain a w ater qu ality

- based effluent lim it for a part ic ul ar

p ol lutant

. The D is tr ic t’ s re fe re nces to unc erta in ty o r la ck o f pr ec is io n in the R eg ion’s determ ination of the District’s contribution to the pro blem relativ e to the contributions of n on- point sources of nitrog en and other m unicipa l w aste treatm ent p lants are sim ply insufficient to ov ercom e the substantial w eig ht of scientific e vid e nc e in the rec ord that, ev en if the precise relativ e co ntribution is uncertain, the District’s discharg es are a sig nificant contributor of nitrogen to the B lack stone Riv er, whic h discharg es to the S eek onk and Pro v idence Riv ers, thereby contributing to those ri v er s’ n itro g en - dr iv en e utro ph ic at io n pr ob le m

th at f re qu entl y v io la te s R

ho de I sl an d’ s w at er

q ua li ty c ri te ri a. The Re g io n sp ec if ic al ly found as follow s: Num erous scientific studies cond ucted ov er the last 15 – 2 0 y ears h av e do cum ented that ex cessiv e disc harg es of n itrog en are cau singthe im pairm ent and w astew ater discharg es are the d om inant source of n itrog en. See also Nutrie nt and B acteria Pollutio n Panel, Initial Repo rt , Gov ernor’s Narrag ansett Bay and Watershed Plann ing Com m ission , March 2, 2004 at p a g e 3 (sum m ariz ing studies). The U BWPA D – w ith a perm itted de sig n flow of 5 6 MG D –

is o ne o f th e larg es t s ourc es o f ni tr og en to N ar ra g an se ttBay . The lo ad in g s datauti li z ed in D E M’s 2004 stud

y indic ate that U BW PA D represented ap pr ox im at el y

6 4% o f th e ni tr og en

loa d di sc harg ed

toUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 33

the B lack stone Riv e rfrom m unicipa l w astew ater tr eatm ent f

ac il it ie s fo r th e pe ri od of

ti m e co ns id er ed

in the stu dy

. I n ad dition, the Black stone Riv er disc harg es into th e relativ ely

po orly flush ed areas at the head of the Upp er B ay , which has exacerb ated th e i mp act of nutrients. B ased on rev iew of the se v arious reports and s t ud ies of im

pairm ents in

the Upp er B ay

and sources and loading s of nutrients, EP A conclu ded that di sc harg es of nit ro g en

f ro m th e U B WP A D f

ac il ity are c au s i n g o r h a v e t h e r e a s o n ab l e p o t e n t i a l t o c ause or co ntri bute to v io la ti on s of R ho de I sl an d’ s w at er

q ua li ty standard s. RTC at 80

. The District does not c ite any data or scientific ana ly sis that wou ld co ntradict the d ata an d an aly sis the Reg ion re lied u pon. The District is sim

ply wrongwhen it asserts both that the R eg ion did n ot ide ntify

an effects b ased relationsh ip be twee n ni t r og en and eutroph ication and that the R eg ion did n ot “link the relationsh ip to any i m p a i rm e n to f

d e s i g n a t e d

u s e s i nth e r e c e i v i n gw a t e r o r d o w n s t r e a m .” Dist. Rep ly at 3. The Reg ion p rov ided an e xtensiv e explanation of the im pact o f eutrop hi c ation on “the c om position of fish an d w ildlife,” interference w ith “p ropag ation of fishand w ildl i f e ,” f ish kills, an d im paired g rowthof eel grass. Fa ct Sh eet at 12; RTC at 21, 27, 29- 30, 80 ; accor d R TC a t 1 14 ( “Th e ni trog en r ed uc ti on s re qu ir ed

thro ugh th is perm it will hav e s u

b s t ant i a l e nv i r o nm ental b enefits, includin gsig nificant re du ct io ns in

a lg al g ro w th an d as so ci at ed d is so lv ed o xy g en im pa irm ents that h av e sev erely

im paired the m arine fishcom m unity and recreatio nal us e of N ar ra g an se ttB ay . ”)

. A com plete assessm ent o f, and dev elopm ent o f a m athem atical m odel that p recisely

pred icts th e f

ate an d tran sport of n itrog en throughout the N arrag ansett Bay sy stem is n ot necessary for the R eg ion to h av e ha d a su ff

ic ie nt sc ie nt if

ic ba si s fo r it s fi nd in gth at th e D is tr ic t’ s ni tr og en d is charg es c ontr ib ut e to , o r hav e th e re as on ab le p ot enti al to cause, the undisp uted water qual i ty i m pairm ents o bserv ed in

the Seek onkUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 34

T he District also argues that, while th e Re gion acknow led ges that oth er

30 sour ces are c on tribu ting to nu trient load ings, the Region do es no t acc ou nt f or th ose oth er sour ce s. D is t. Supp. Pet. at 13, 24-25. T he Di st ric t s tate s f

urthe r, “t he Re g ion m ak es no atte m pt t o de te rmine how

v ar ious nutr ie nt loadi ng s f rom various sourc es w ould af

f ec t t he ca usa l f ac tors , a nd how the re spons e of

the se c aus al f

ac tors im pai rs de si g nat ed use s. ” Dist. Reply

at 3. The District argues that “ these other sou rces * * * prevent the sy stem f rom m ee tings ta

ndar ds. ” D is t. Supp. Pet. at 13. A s ex pla ine d in Att le boro, “s ec tion 30 1(b )(1)(C) re qu ires eac h poin t sour ce to a chieve ef f luen t lim itation s neces sary to m eet w at er qua lit y s ta ndar ds and does not m ak e al low anc e f or f ai lu re o f o ther sour ce s to com ply .” Attlebo ro , sl ip op . at43 (ci ti n g In re BluePl ains Se wageTreat

me nt P lant, 1 E.A .D

. 531, 540 (A dm ’r 1979), 14 E.A .B. __. A cc ording ly , the Di st ri ct ’s argum ent s re g ar dingdis cha

rg e le v el s of

othe r s ourc es or point sour ce s do not show cl ea r er ror in t he Re g ion’s dec is ion and do not prov ide justi f ic at ion f or del ay in im posi ng m ore s tri ng ent limits on the Di st

ric t. Id.
T o as si st per

m it is sue rs in the ir dev el opm ent of w at er qua lit y -ba se d e f

f lue nt 31 limits , EPA

publi she d te chni ca l guida nce doc um ent s that pr opose m et hod s f or cl as si f y ing , s am pling , a nal yzi ng , a

nd c al cul at ingre le v ant

para m et er s. See

, e .g. , O f f ic e of W at er , U .S. EPA , EPA 822-B -01- 015, A m b i e n t W a t e r Q ualit

y Cr ite ri a Re com me ndations : R iv er s and Stre ams in Nut

ri ent Ec ore gion 8 (D ec . 2001) ; O f

f ic e of W at er & O f f ic e of Sc ie nce & T ec hnolog y , U.S. EPA , EPA -822- B- 00-002, Nut ri ent Criteria Techni cal Guid

an ce Manu al: Rive rs and Streams ( July 200 0); Office of Water

(c ontinue d...) R iv er , and

f urth er d owns tr eam

in th e P ro v id en ce R iv er

and N ar ra g an se tt Bay

. A ccordin g ly , the District has failed to susta in its burde n to show 30 clear erro r or abuse of discretion in the R eg ion’s determ ination that the total nitr oge n i n the D istrict’s disch arg es ca uses, contributes to, or h as t he re a s on abl e po t e nt i a l t o c aus e vi ol a t i on s of Rh od e I s l a nd ’ s na rr a t i ve water quality

criteria.
2. The Total Nitrogen Disch arge Lim it of 5.0 mg/l Is Supp orted by th e Reco rd When a po llutant d ischarg e is found to cause, hav e the re as on ab le p ot enti al to c au se , o r co ntri bute to exceed an ce s of num er ic or n arrativ e state wate r qu ality criteria, as the R eg ion fo und for the D is tr ic t’ s to ta l n itro g en

d is ch arg es in th e pr es ent c as e, th en th e pe rm it w ri te r m us t i nc lu de in

the p erm itaw at er

q ua li ty

- ba se d ef

fl ue nt li m it de te rm in ed

a s pr ov id ed

in 4 0 C .F.R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (i ii )- (v ii ). 31UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 35

(.. .c ontinue d) 31 Re gulati ons & Standar

ds , U .S. EPA , EPA

440/5- 86-001, Q ua l i t

yC r i t e r i a f or W ater: 1986 (Ma y 1, 1986) (the “G old Book ”) ; Me m ora ndum f rom G eof f re y Grubbs , D ire ct or, Of f ice of Science & T echno logy , U.S. EP A , to W ater Dire ctors, EP A Reg ion s 1-10 , et al . (Nov . 14, 2001); Of

f ic e of Wate r, U. S. E PA , EPA -833- B- 96-003, U. S. EP A N PD ES Pe rm it W ri te rs ' Manual

, chs . 6, 10.2, a

t 87- 114, 176- 178 (D ec . 1996)

. Section 1 22 .44 (d)(1 )(vi) provides: 32
Wher e a State ha s not e st abl is hed a w at er q u al it y c rit er ion f

or a spe ci f ic c hemic al poll uta

nt t hat is pre se nt i n an ef

f lue nt at a conc ent ration that c aus es , ha s the re as onabl e pote ntia l t o c aus e, or cont ribu tes to an ex cu r si on above a narrative criterion w ithi n an appl icable State w ater quality sta nd a rd, th e permittin g a

uth ority m

ust establish ef

f luen t lim its usin g one or m ore of the f ollo w ing op tion s: (A ) E st abl is h e f

f lue nt l imits us inga

c al cul at ed num er ic w at er qua lit y c rit er ion f

or t he pollut ant

w hic h the permitting au th o ri ty demon st rat es will a tt ai na n dm ai n ta in ap p li cab le na rr at ive w ater quality

criteria and w ill fully

prot ect the desig nated use. Su ch a criterion m ay be derived usin g a pro po sed State criterion , o ran explicit State policy

or regulation interpretin g its nar r at ive w ater qual ity c rit er ion, suppl em ent ed w ith othe r r el ev ant inf orm at ion whi ch m ay in cl u d e: EP A’s WaterQu al i t y St an d ard s Han db o o k, Oc tobe r 1983, ris k as se ss m ent dat a, ex posur e dat a, inf

orm at ion about the pollutant f

rom the Food a

nd D rugA dm inis tra

tion, and cur re nt E PAc rit er ia

doc um ent s; or (B ) Est abl is h ef

f lue nt lim its on a c as e- by -c as e ba si s, us ing EPA ’s w at er

qua lit y c rit er ia , publ is hed under s ec tion 304(a ) of

the CW A , s upple m ent ed w

her e ne ce ss ar

y by othe r r el ev ant

inf orm at ion; or (C) E s t a

bl i s h e f f luen t lim itation s on an in dicator p aram eter f o r th e p o l l u t an to f

c o n c e rn* * *. (c ontinue d...) Sub paragraph (v i ) p rov ides three altern ativ e m ethods for establishin gthe sp ec if ic p erm itli m it i n circ um st an ce s w he re th e st at e’ s w at er q ua li ty standard is n arrativ e, not n

um eric, as is the ca se h ere. Id. § 12 2. 44 (d )( 1) (v i) (A )- (C ). 32UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 36

(.. .c ontinue d)

32 40 C. F.R . § 122. 44(d) (1) (v i)( A )- (C ).

T he 2004 RI DE M R epor

t both prov ide s a re v ie w

of the av ai la ble s ci enc e and 33 it prov ide s RI DE M’s int er pre tation of

w hat tot al nit rog en limits and re duct ions are re quire d to ac hie v e com

plia nce w ith Rhode Is la

nd w at er qualit y standar ds. T hat

re port g ene ra ll y r eco mm en ds a tota l ni trog en limit of 5.0 mg /l f

or t he la rg er tr ea tm ent pla nts discharging into the po rtion s of the Narra gansett Ba

y an d r i ver sy stem

that are most im pai r e d. B r i e f

of Am i c us C ur i a e R

ho de I s l and

D e pa rtm e nt of E nv i r on m ental Manag em ent

(“ RI DE M B r.” ) a

t 5. I n the pre s ent ca se, the R eg ion d eterm ined the P erm it’s total nitrog en e ffluent lim it of 5.0 m g /l apply ing paragraphs (A) and (B) using a w ide ran g e of relev ant in form ation, inclu dingEP A technica l guidanc e, state law s an d p olicies a

pplicab le to the narrativ e w ater qu ality criterion , and site- specific studies. R TC at 2 8, 94. The Reg ion p aid p ar t i c ular atte ntion t o th e 20 04 R I D E M R ep ort. F ac t S he et a t 1 2. Th is R ep ort

33 expl a i ns that, bec ause the R hode I sland Dep artm ent o f Env ironm ental Manag em ent w as n ot able to dev elop a co m puter- based

num erical m odel for the Pro v idence and Seek onk R iv e r s , t he Report fo cused instea d o n the res ults o f, and adjustm ents to , a phy sical m odel experim ent cond ucted in the early

19 80s by

the Marine E cosy stem s Re s e arch Labo ratory

(“MERL”) at the Univ ersity of Rho de I sland. 2004 RI DE M Rep ort at 1. The MERL e xperim ent w a s des ig ned to stu dy the relation s hi p between

nitrog en and phos phoru s load ingand v arious re sp on se v ar ia

bl es in a tank sy st em stru ct ur ed to m od el th e N ar

ra g an se tt Bay sy stem

. Fact Shee t at 12

- 13; R TC at 2 9. B ased on its analy sis of this info rmation an d o ther in form ation in the reco rd, the R eg ion determ ined that “a

seaso nal red

uction of n itrog en to no m ore t ha n 5.0 mg/ l is re qu i r e d a tth e [D i s t r i c t ’ s T r e a t men tPl a nt ] in or de r to ac hi e ve water q ua li ty s tand ar ds

. ” F ac t S he et

a t 1 4. Th e R eg io n sp ec if ic al ly de te rm in ed

th at “ th e li m it s on

to ta l n it rogenare n ec es sary to e ns ur e com pliance with Rho de I s l a nd Water Q uality Stan dards. ” RTC at 19

. The Reg ion re cog niz ed th at there are uncertainties in its ana ly sis, but co nc lu de d th at

“ [t ]h er e is n o re al is ti c li k el ih oo d, * * * that w at er q ua li ty standard s co uld b e m et with a less string ent n itrog en lim it than the o ne propo sed. ” Fact Shee t at 14; see also RTC 29- 32, 50 , 9 4. The R eg ionUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 37

In the Fact Sheet, the Region stated, “[ b] ased on th e a vailable e vidence, 34 inc ludingnit

rog en loa ding s f

rom the [Dis tri ct ’s T re at

m ent Plant ] and the disc har g e of the Bl ac k st one Ri v er

to the Se ekonk

Ri v er , w her e the g re at es t i m

pac ts hav e bee n m ea sur ed, EPAha s conc lude d tha

t a s ea sona l r educ tion of

nit rog en to no m ore than 5. 0 m g /l is requi red at the [Distri ct’s] fac ility in ord er to achi ev e w ater quality standards.” Fact Sh e e tat1 4

. T h e R e g i o na l s o s t at e di ni t s r e s p o n s e t o c o m m e n t s th at“ [t ]h e r e du c t i ons requi red at the [Distri ct’s] fac ility thro ugh th is permit in con jun ction w ith redu ction s at othe r f ac ili tie s * * * and im

prov em ent s ar e nec es sa

ry to addr es s the ong oings ev er e im pai rm ent s to t

he m ar ine f

is h c om m unity and to restore the re cr ea tiona l us e of Na rr ag ans ett B ay .” R T C at 30. Furt her , “[o]f the v ar ious loa ding sc ena rios av ai la

ble to it, EPA de te rmine d that a co n cent ration- bas ed limit of

5 mg /l w ould be ne ce ss ar y to ad dres s th e exces si ve lo ad in g from th e facil it y , w h ic h b o th EP A an d Rh o d e Is la n dha ve determ inedare cont ribu t i ng t o o ng oi ngw ater quality

im pairm ents in th e Na

rraga nsett Bay sys t em.” Id. at 4 9

. “ E PA d e t e rm i n e d th at a l i m i t o f 5

. 0 m g / l t o t a l n i tr o g en f or [the Di st ric t’s ] disc har g e is ne ce ss ar y in orde r t o a chi ev e w at er qua lit y standar ds. Id. at 54. “The Re g ion ha s conc lude d, how ev er , that a nit rog en limit at le as t [as ] s tri ng ent as 5.0 m g /l f or t he [Dis tri ct ’s T re at

m ent Plant] is ne ce ss ar

y to pre v ent

f urthe r de g ra dat ion of

the Bay .” Id. at 61. al so s ta te d th at “n o le ss stri ng ent l im itc ou ld b e im po se d th at

w ou ld s ti ll en sure c om

pl ianc e w ith w at er

q ua li ty s tand ar ds in

li g ht of the se v er e e x is ti ng eut rop hic condi ti on in the Pr oviden ce/ See konk River syste m, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y o v e r a l l o c a t e d f

o r n i t r o g e n . ” R TC at 50

. 34
The District challeng es this determ inati on , arg uingthat the Reg ion c hose the lim it “w ithout sufficient technica l basis to de term ine w he th er s uc h li m itis a

pp ro pr ia te and ne ce ss ar

y to a dd re ss im pa irm ents to w at er w ay s w ithi n Ma ss ac hu se tt s or R ho de I sl an d. ” D is t. S up p. P et

. at 2 4; see a lso id at 14

. The District conten ds th at setting a water quality

- based

effluent lim it for total nitrog en should be “deferred to the future c om

pl et io n of

ato ta l m aximum

d ai ly lo ad ( ‘TMD L ’)

. ” D is t. Sup p. Pet. at 11. The District also challeng es the Reg ion’s reliance on th e ME RL e xp er im ent and th e D is tr ic t argue s th at

th e R eg io n fa il ed

to adequ ately

m ak e num erous adjustm e nt s to account for difference s be tw ee n th e phys ic al m od el and th e ac tu al R iv er s’ c on di ti on s. D is t. Sup p. Pet. at 19- 27. I n contrast, CL F challeng es the Pe r mit ’ s total ni tr og en li m ita s no t s uf

fi ci entl y str in g ent t o en sure c om pl ianc e w ith water quality

stand ards.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 38

This subse ction first look s, in P art (a) at the questio n whether the D is tr ic t h as s ho w n cl ear er ro r or an ab us e of

d is cr et io n inth e R eg io n’ s decision to m ov e forw ard w ith estab lishingthe lim it at th is tim e w ithout waitingfor addition al sci entific d ata an d an aly sis, includin ga TMDL. Part (b ), n ext, consid ers whether the adm inistrativ e reco rd su pports the Reg ion’s decision

settingthe lim it at 5.0 m g /l, an d P art (c) look s at the co nv er se q

ue st io n, whe th er

th e re co rd

r eq ui re s a m or e stri ng ent l im it

.

a. Furth er D elay in Setting the Lim it Is N

ot Ju stified The D is tr ic t argue s th at

th e P erm it ’s to ta l ni tr og en li m it“ sh ou ld be b ased on accep ted, reliable d ata an d an aly sis, or if such is no t currently av ailable, deferred to the future com pletion of a total m axim

um daily load (‘TMDL’). ” Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 11

. A lthough the D istrict cl e a r l y s t a t e s t h a t i t “ d o e s n o t c o n t e s t ” t h e R e g i o n ’ s s t a t e m e n t t h at the Reg ion is no t requ ired to wait for a TMDL to be dev eloped , the D istrict nev erthele s s a r gues that th e R eg ion s hould hav e w aited fo r a TMDL. For exam ple, the D istrict states as follo ws: The results of the 198 1- 84 MERL labo ratory tank st ud ie s ar e no t an ac ce pt ab le su bs ti tute fo r a TMD L to es ta bl is h to ta l n itro g en

e ff lu ent l im it s. RI D E M s ho ul d c o m p l e t e th e f

e d e r a l l y - r e qu i r e d

TM D L b e f

o r e R e g ion 1 im po se s th e pr op os ed

to ta l n it ro g en

p erm it m odification

. Dist. Sup p. Pet. at 25. The District also conten ds that the te chnical analy sis req

uired for esta

bli shingnum eric pe rm it lim its un der se ction 122. 44(d)(1 )(v i) is th e sam e as re quired for e stablishinga TMDL o r waste load allocation

and that, therefo re, the R eg ion c om m it t ed c lear er ro r by n ot w ai ti ng fo r th e de v el op m ent of m or e ce rt ai n sc ie nc e ca pa bl e of esta blishinga TMDL o r w asteload allocation fo r the Narrag ansett Bay sy stem

. Id. at 15

. The B oard

r ejec ts any

s ug g es ti on

th at the Re g io n’ s de ci si on

to procee d witho ut waiting to dev elop a TMDL or waste load allocation w asUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 39

cl ear er ro r or an ab us e of

d is cr et io n. Th e re gul at io ns s pe ci fi ca ll y contem plate th at perm it issuers will e stablish num e r i c p e rm it lim its when there is no TMDL o r w asteload allocation. Su

bsection (v ii) require s the pe rm itti ngautho ri ty

to “ en sure ” th at ef

fl ue nt li m it s ar e co ns is te nt

w ith

“ a ny a v a i l ab le wa st el oa d al lo cati on . ” 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (v ii ) (em phasis added ). By using the phrase “any av ailable,” the regulations express ly reco g niz e that a TMDL or w asteload allocat ion m ay

no t be av ailable. This re adi ngo f th e re gul at io n is c om pe ll ed b y th e A g en cy ’s in t e r p r e t a t i o ns e tf

o rt hi nth e p r e a m

b l e t o 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 2 2

. 4 4 (d )( 1) , w hi c he x p r e s s l y

o u t l i n e s th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e ns ub s e c t i o n s ( v i) g ov erningthe settingof lim its base d on narrativ e criteria and (v ii), which requires consisten cy

w ith “any

av ailable” waste load

allocation o r TMDL: The final p oint a bout paragraph (v i ) i s that, in the m aj or it y of c as es w he re p arag

ra ph ( vi ) a pp li es, w as te load allocatio ns a nd total m axim um daily loads will n ot be a vailable for the pollutant of conce rn. N onethe less, any effluent lim it deriv ed under paragr a ph ( v i) m ust satisfy the requirem ents o f paragraph (v ii). Paragraph (v ii) require s that all w ater qu ality

- based effl uent li m itat ion s co m

pl y w ith “a pp ro pr ia te w at er

q ua li ty st andar ds , ” an d be c on si st ent w ith “av ai la bl e” w as te load a l l oc a tions. Thu s for the p urpo ses o f com plying w ith pa rag ra

ph ( vi i) , w he re a w as te lo ad

a ll oc at io n is unav ailable, effluent limits derived un der paragrap h ( vi ) m us t comply w ith na rrat iv e w ater q ua li tyc ri te ri a and other applica ble w ater q uality s tanda rds.
54 Fed. Reg

. 2 3, 86 8, 2 3, 87 8( Jun e 2, 1 98 9) ( em ph as es a dd ed ). Th is form al A gen c y interpretation set forthin the p ream ble at the tim e the re gul at io n w as p ro m

ul g at ed e xp re ss es the Age nc y ’s e xp ec ta ti on th at , while waste load allocation s m ay not uniform ly be av aila bl e , e ffluentUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 40

lim its m ust b e estab lished witho ut w aitingfor a TMDL or w asteload allocation

. There also is no clear error in t he Reg ion’s conclus ion that the st at ut e do es n ot

c onte m pl at e a de lay

in p ro ce ss in ga

pp li cati on s fo r pe rm it renew al to w ait for dev elopm ent o f a waste load allocation or TMDL. The Reg ion stated that “[t]he clear intent of the s tatute is to en sure th at pe rm itr eq

ui re m ents are u

pd at ed o n a re gu lar ba si s rath er th an le ftin effect, unex am ined and unch ang ed for long periods of tim e.” R TC at 3 1. The Reg ion c orrectly

ob serv ed th at “[t]he CWAand EP A’s regulations r e qu i r e th a tpe rmit s b e i s s ue d f orf i xe d pe r i od s o f

t i me n ot to ex c e e d f

i ve years .” RTC at 31 (c it ing 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342 (a )( 3), (b) (1) (B) ; 40 C.F.R. § 1 2.4 6(a)). N otably , th e statute states an am bitious g oal o f elim inating po ll ut io n di sc harg es by1 98 5, C WA§ 1 01 (a )( 1) , 3 3 U

. S

. C

. § 1 25 1( a) , and it g enerally m ak es the discharg e of any pollutant unlaw ful, and re qu ir es th er e to “ be a ch ie v ed ” “n ot late r th an

Jul y 1 , 1 97 7, any

m or e stri ng ent l im it at io n, inc lu di ngth os e ne ce ss ar y to m ee t w at er

q ua li ty st an dard s. ” C WA§ 3 01 (a ), ( b) (1 )( C ), 3 3 U

. S

. C

. § 1 31 1( a) , (b) (1)( C ). The statute also pro hibits th e issu ance of a perm it “[i]f the im position of co nd it io ns c anno t i ns ur e su chc om pl ianc e” wi thapp li ca

bl e w at er q ua li ty re qui re m ent s of aff

ect ed stat es. CWA § 402( a) (2) , 3 3 U.S. C. § 13 41 (a )( 2)

. The District has cited n o law , re gulation, or Ag ency po licy that wou ld allow a perm it applicatio n to rem ain pend ing for an i nd e f inite, un li m it ed ex te ns io n of

ti m e to a ll owa dd it io na l s ci enti fi c datao r an al y si s to be d ev el op ed

to su pp ort th e ap pl ic ant’ s cl ai m that its dis ch ar g es w il l not v iolate th e w ater qu ality stand ards o f affected

states. T o the contrary , s cientific uncertainty is n ot a basis for de lay i n i s suingan NP DE S p erm it. The Bo ard h as sp ecifically held t ha t “ [ i]n the face of unav oidable scientific unc ertai nt y , th e R eg ion is auth oriz ed, if not requi r e d, to ex ercise re asona ble d iscretion and j udg m ent.” In re Dom inion Ener

gy B rayton Po int, LLC

, 13 E

. A

. D

. 4 07 , 4 26 ( E A B 2 00 7)

. The f ed er al c ourt s in re v ie w in g A g en cy de ci si on s hav e si m il ar ly r e c o gn i z e d t ha tsc i e nt i f

i c un c e rt a i nt y is no ta b a r to ad min i s t r a t i veUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 41

decisionm akin g: “We do not d em and certainty where there is none . There m ay

be no strongreaso n fo r cho osi ng [a particular num erical st an dard ] rath er

than a so m ewhat h ig he r or lo w er num be r. I f so , w e w il l upho ld the ag ency ’s cho ice of a num erical standard if it is within a ‘z one of reas onab le ne s s .’” Sm all R efiner Lead Ph ase-D own Ta sk F

orce v. EPA , 70 5 F

. 2d

5 06 , 5 25 ( D

. C

. C ir

. 1 98 3) ( ci ta ti on om it te d); see a lso Herc ules, Inc. v. EPA , 598 F. 2d 91, 116

- 17 (D. C. C ir. 1 978). Mo re than three d ecades ag o, the D .C . C ircuit aptlydes cribed the C WA’s balance w he n co nf

ro nt ed wi tha dif fi cu lts ituati on

and th e ob li g at io n to e li m in at e w ater q ua li ty im pa irm ents : “ * * * E P Am ay is su e pe rm it s w ith co nd it io ns d esigne d to r ed uc e th e le v el o f ef

fl ue nt d is ch ar g es to ac ce pt ab le le v el s. Th is m ay w el l m ean op ti ngf

or a gr os s re du ct io n in pollutant disch ar ge rather than the fine- tuningsug g ested by num erical lim itations. But this a mbitio us s t at ut e is not h ospitab le to the co ncept that th e approp riate respon se to a d ifficult po llution prob lem is no t to try at a ll

. ” Natu ral R esourc es D efense Cou ncil, Inc. v. Cos tle, 568 F.2 d 13 69 , 1 38 0 (D

. C

. C ir

. 19 77 ) (e m ph as is add ed ) (fi nd in gun law fu l a r ul e that w ould hav e ex em pted certain discharg e s f rom perm itting requirem ents b ased on the d i fficulty in settinglim its). Here, the District’s “wait and see” appro ach wou ld allow the Distirct to co ntinue di sc harg in gw itho ut

any li m itontot al n itro g en

d is ch ar g es –

e ff ec ti v el y ab di cati ngth e re sp onsibi li tyto s et p erm itli m it s w he n fa ce d w ith di ff ic ul ty e st ab li sh in gth e li m it

. The Reg ion also explained that “[i]t is n ot ap propriate to ad opt a ‘w ait and

see’ appro a ch” in the circum stances of this case whe re the re co rd d em on strate s “the re is no rea so na bl e li k el ih oo d th at

w at er q ua li ty standard s relative to eutroph ication will be ach iev ed w ith less string ent li m it s. ” R TC at 32

. F urth er , “[ w ]i th re g ar d to th e Upp er Narr ag an se tt Bay , fo r the past decad e or m ore RI DE M expen ded sig nificant resource s in an attem pt to s i mul a t e the estuary throu g h the use of m athem atical m od el s an d ha d co nc lu de d th at th e sy st em

w as to o co m

pl ic at ed t oUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 42

T he Boa

rd r ej ec ts th e Di st rict

argum ent

that m er el y

be ca use the Re g ion 35 re f er re d to the s o-c al le d K es te r model , the Re g ion in ef f ec t ac k now le dg ed that a

us ef ul m odel f or t he riv er s ex is ts . D is t. Supp. P et . at 27. A s the Boa rd s tate d in Att le boro, the re is “no ind ication that the Kester Mod el w ill a dequ ately address nutri ent im

pacts or that it w ou ld b e h el p fu l in deriving nitro gen permit lim its.” Attlebo ro , s lip op. at 23, 14 E.A .B. at __. sim ulate w i t h a vailable m athem atical m odels. ” RTC at 96

. The 35 Reg ion also explain ed that its “decisio n to m ov e forward now with a nitrog en lim it” tak es into con sideration “the existingsev ere n itrog endriv en c ultural eutroph ication in the receiv ingw aters an d the tend ency fo r ni tr og en

to n ot o nl y e xa ce rb at e ex is ti ngw at er q ua li ty im pair m ents but to persis t in the env ironm ent in a way that contributes to future water qu al ity p ro bl em s. In li g ht

o f th es e fa ct or s, de lay

in e st ab li sh in gp erm it lim its is in appro priate.” R TC at 9 6. A s de scribed below , th e R eg ion based i t s de term ination to set a total nitrog en lim it of 5.0 m g /l on a substantial bod

y of record ev idence. All o f these reaso ns –

the regulation’s di r e c t ion to estab lish w a t e r qu a l i t y - b a s e d e f

f l u e n t l i m i t s e v e n i n t h e ab s e n c e o f a TMDL o r w as te lo ad

a ll oc at io n, th e st at

ut e’ s di re ct iv e an d po li cy to m ov e fo rw ar d exped itiously

to address po llution problem s in the N ation’s waters, and the s pecific facts h ere reg ardingthe sev ere im pairm ent o f the affected w at er s an d th e la ck

o f curr ent a

bi li ty to m athe m at ic al ly

m od el th e fate an d tr anspo rto f ni tr og en in th os e w at er s – ar e m or e th an s uf fi ci ent t o defeat the D istrict’s argum ent th at the Reg ion com m itted clear error or abuse of discretionin decliningto wait any long er be fore es tablishingthe Perm it’s w ater qu ality

- based effluent lim it for to tal nitrog en. b. T heD ata an d A na ly

si s in th e R ec ord

Su pp or t a 5

. 0 m g/

l T otal N itroge n L im it Thi s partcon si de rs the Di stri ct ’s and Mas sD E P ’s c ha ll en g es to th e sp ec if ic in fo rm at io n, d at a, and

ana ly si s th e R eg io n us ed

to e xp la init s decision settingthe Perm it’s w ater qu ality

- based effluent lim it for to tal ni tr og en a t 5

. 0 m g /l

. The D is tr ic t ar gue s th at th e R eg io n cl earl y er re d in utiliz ing the results of the MERL phy sical m odel experim ent, becauseUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 43

the ME RL exp erim ent w as d esig ned to m odel the N arrag ansett Bay and , accord ingto the D i s t r i c t , i s no t app ropriate to be use d as a phy sical m odel of the Prov idence and Seek onk Riv ers. Dist. Sup p. Pet. at 19

- 27. The District argues that the difference s betw een the phy sical m odel and th e R iv er s dem on strate th at it w as n ot a pp ro pr ia te f

or th e R eg io n to consid er the MERL data. The District further argues that ev en if use of th e ME RL m od el we re app ro pr ia te , the Re g io n d id no t m ak e ap pr op ri at e and sufficient adjustm ents to acco unt fo r the differ e nc es. Id. Spec ifically , th e District argu es that “river sy stem s are entirely different th an bay s” an d “the c on di ti on s inth e P ro v id en ce and S ee k onk R iv er are m at er ia ll y

d if fe re nt th an th e co nd it io ns und er

whi ch th e expe ri m ents were cond

ucted. ” Id. at 19

- 20. The District identifies conce rns re g ar di nga tt enuati on

and f lu sh in gth at

it b el ie v es t he Reg io n fa il ed to a d e qu a t e l y t a ke i n t o a c c o un t

. M a s s D E P r a i s e s s i mi l a r ar gu me n t s . In short, the District and MassDE P a rg ue th at the im

precision and un ce rt ai nty

in th e dataand

ana ly si s inth e re co rd

p re cl ud e th e R eg io n’ s decision settingthe Perm it’s lim it at 5.0 m g /l and requ iringa rem and. A s expl ai ne d be lo w , n on e of th es e ar gum ents d em on strate c le ar e rr or in the R eg ion’s decision

. I n g en er al , th e se le ct io n of re pr es enta ti v e data for the ana ly si s unde r section

12 2.4 4(d)(1) is a technica l j udg m ent that falls w ithin th e perm it issuer’s discretion and techn ical expertise. See In re W ashing ton Aqu educt W

ater S upply Sys. , 1 1 E

. A

. D

. 5 6 5 , 5 8 3 ( E A B 2 00 4) ; accor d Am erican Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA , 1 15 F

. 3d 9 79 , 1 00 6 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1997 ). S im il ar il y , th e us e of ap hy si ca l m od el , in st ea d of a m athem atical m odel or othe r site- specific m odel, to deriv e efflue nt li m it at io ns is ate chnic al jud g m ent that a ls o fa ll s w ithi n th e R eg io n’ s discre t i on and

exp ertise. In re City of A ttleboro, MA W astew ater Trea tmen t Pla nt, NPDES Appea l N os. 08- 08 &

- 09, slip op. at 17 (EAB S ep t. 1 5, 20 09 ), 14 E. A

. B

. __ . I n ad di ti on , the app li ca bl e re gul at io n in the p r e sent c ase a

uthoriz es the R eg ion to con sider “ relev ant” in form ation in estab lishingnum eric pe rm it lim its to achiev e narrativ e state water quality criteria. 4 4 C .F. R. § 122. 44(d)(1 )(vi ) ( A) , (B). A s suc h, the petitioner bears a particularly heavy burden to esta

blish clear erro r or an ab us e of d is cr et io n be caus e the B oard g en er al ly

d ef er s to th e pe rm itUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 44

issuer on questio ns o f techn ical judg m ent. A t t l e b o ro , s lip op . at 17, 14 E

. A

. B

. _ _ ; Dom inion , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t5 1 0 ; I n r e P e ab ody W

. C oal C o. , 12 E

. A

. D

. 2 2, 3 3- 34 ( E A B 2 00 5) ; In r e T e ck C omin co A laska, Inc. , 11 E.A .D . 4 57, 47 3 (E AB 20 04).
F or te chni ca l i ss ue s, th e B oard d et erm in es whe th er

th e re co rd de m on strate s th at

th e pe rm itiss ue r du ly

con si de re d th e is su es r ai se d in th e co m m ents and whe th er th e ap pr oa chult im at el y

a do pt ed b y th e pe rm it issuer is rational in lig ht of all the inform ation in the reco rd. Attlebo ro, slip o p. at 17

- 18 , 14 E.A .B . _

_ ; D omin ion , 12 E

. A

. D

. at 5 10 ; In r e G ov ’t of D.C . Mun . S epara te Sto rm Sew er S

ys., 10 E

. A

. D

. 3 23 , 3 48 (EAB 20 02 ) (“ DC MS4 ”) ; NE

H ub , 7 E.A .D . at 568

. I f the Board is satisfied that the perm it issuer g av e due consideration to com m ents re ceiv ed and adop ted an

app roach in the final perm it dec i s i on t hat is rational and supp ortable, the Board ty

pically will defer to the perm it issuer. NE H ub , 7 E .A .D . at 568

. Thus, th e qu est i on h e r e is whether the R eg ion explain ed its de t e rm ination to rely on the MERL data and whe ther th e Reg ion’s analy sis is rational and supp orted in the reco rd.
I n its respon se to com

m ents, the Reg ion re

j ected the su g g estion th at it c anno t us e th e ME RL e xp er im ent b ec au se it is ap hy si ca l m od el , not m athem atical: “[t]hat the ME RL tank exp erim ents w ere a phy sical rather th an m athem atical m odel and could not c om plet e l y sim

ulate th e com plex natural settingof Narrag ansett Ba y does n ot un derm ine th e r e l e v a n c e an d

v a l i d i t y o f th e m o d e l t o th e n i t r o g e nlim its her e . ” R TC at 96

. The Reg ion’s position in this reg ard is consistent w ith E PA po l i c y: The re are m any

o th er e xam pl es o f em

pi ri ca l m od el s us ed to r el at e env ir onm ental f or ci ngf un ct io ns to eco l ogi c a l re s po ns e s , e s pe c i a l l y nu t r ient load/co ncentratio n an d resp onse relationsh ips. Muchof the p rofession al aquatic eco log ical literature reports on us e of e m pi ri ca l m ode ls ( e. g . , C ha pt er s 2 an d 3)

. Em pirical m odels hav e their l im itations, but whenUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 45
jud ic io us lya

pp li ed , th ey

o ff er ah ig hl y u se fu l t oo l t o water quality

m anag ers. O f f i c e o f W a t e r , U

. S

. E P A , E P A

- 8 2 2

- B

- 0 1

- 0 0 3, Nutrie nt C ri te ri a Tech nical Guid

ance Manual, Estuarine and Coastal Marine W

aters at 9

- 2 (O ct

. 2 00 1)

. E m

pi ri ca l m od eling is as im pl if ie d re pr es enta ti on

o f a sy stem , s uch as the MERL p hy sical m odel, from which observ ational or experim ental d ata is collected. The R eg io n al so e xp la in ed th at th e ME RL d at a is p arti cu larl y relev ant here to unde rstandingthe extent of ex istingnitrog en im pairm ent and required

nitrog en re duction s: The basic relationsh ip de m onstrated by the MERL tank experim ents b etwee n the prim ary cau sal an d resp onse v ariables relativ e to eutrop hication correspo nds to what is actu ally

occ urringin the P rov idence/See k onk R iv er sy st em . Bo ththe MERL tank exp er im ents and

the d at a from the Prov idence/See konk R iv er sy stem

indic ate a clear co r r elation betw een nitrog en lo ading s, dissolv ed ox y g en im pa irm ent and

c hl or op hy ll a lev els.
RTC at 48

. The Reg ion e xplaine d the ob serv ed consisten cy betw een the MERL exp erim ent an d the conditions in the Pro v idence and Seek onk Riv ers w ith resp ect to dissolv ed o xy g en (“ DO ”) as follow s: Lowdisso lv ed o xy g en lev els, as w ell as supersaturated dissolv ed o xy g en lev els, are ind icat or s of cultural eutroph ication. Figures 1 throu g h 3 in the E v aluation of Nitrog en Targe ts and WWT F L oad Red uctions for the Prov idence and Seek onk Riv ers show the d issolv ed oxy g en m easurem ents tak en fro m MERL tank experim ent an d d emons trate that the ran g e an d v ariability

of DO increa ses w ith incre ased nutrientUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 46
loading

. As des cribed in the text of the repo rt, an d shown in Figure 1 3, t he DO in the Se ek onk R iv er show ed p atterns o f D O v ariability sim ilar to that of the hig h enrichm ent tank s in the ME RL exp erim ents. RTC at 48

. The Reg ion e xplaine d the ob serv ed consisten cy betw een the MERL exp erim ent an d the co nditions in the P rov idence and Seek onk R iv er s w ith re sp ec t t o ch lo ro phy ll a as follow s: P hy to pl ank to n, as m ea sure d by

c hl or op hy ll a le v el s, is an e ven strong er resp onse indicator of cu ltural e ut r op hi c a t i on th a n DO . Co a s t a l a r e a s wi t ho ut hi gh nutr ie nt lo ad s ar e expe ct ed to h av e ch lo ro phy ll a le v el s in the 1 to 3 : g /l rang e * * *

. Massachu setts ha s id enti fi ed ch lo ro phy ll a lev els of less than 3 : g /l as re pr es enti ng ex ce ll ent w at er q ua li ty and c hl or op hy ll a lev els simil ar to the lev els in the P rov idence/S eek onk Riv er sy stem

as representingsig nificantly im paired w at er s * * *. P eak

chlo rop hyl l a lev els in the Prov idence/S eek onk

R iv e rsyste m

hav e ex ceeded

20 0 : g/l * * *. The MERL tank exp erim ents s how ed a correlation

betw een nitrog en lo ading rates an d ch lo ro phy ll a le v el s * * *. The se re su lt s w er e consistent w ith RI DE M data from 19 95- 96, which in di cate th at

m ean ph ot op lank

to n ch lo ro phy ll a le v el s in the three S eek onk

R iv er m onitoringstation s rang ed from 14 : g / l to 28 : g /l, w ith the hig hest le v els in the uppe r reach e s of the riv er an d the low est lev els in the lo w er r eaches o f th e ri v er

* * *

. Th es e ch lo ro phy ll a lev els co rr e late w ith total nitrog en lev els an d w ith the dissolv ed in org anic n itrog en lev els * * *

. RTC at 48 (citation s om itted). There is no clear er r or i n t hese reasons for co nsidering the MERL d ata in the R eg ion’s analy sis of an appro pr i ate efflue nt lim itation fo r nitrog en g iv en th e ob serv ed con si st enc y bet ween nit roge n l e vel s andthe r esp ons e varia ble s of DOUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 47

an d ch lo ro phy ll a . Ne i t he r t he Di s t r i c t , norMa s s DE P, di r e c t l y ch a l l e nge the R eg ion’s articulated reasons for utiliz ingthe M ER L da t a . I nstead, both the D istrict and MassDE P argue that the MERL exp erim ent d id no t m odel anu m

b e r o f R i v e r f e a tur e s th a tth e y

c o n t e n d w o u l d i m pact conce ntrati on of nitrog en in the Riv er env ironm ent, nam ely dilutio n, attenuatio n, and contribution of other sources . As explain ed b elow , th e District’s and MassDE P’s arg um ents are not sufficient to show that the Reg ion c om

m itted clear error or ab used its discre tion.
Bot h t he D istrict and

MassD EP argue th at the MERL exp erim ent used a “flus hingrate” – the rate at which water fl ow s in and out o f the sy stem– th a ti s d i f

f e r e n tf r o m th e R i v e r s ’ f

l u s h i n gr a t e an d

that un der st at es d il ut io n of

n itro g en d is ch ar g es in

th e R iv er

e nv ir onm ent. Di s t . S up p. Pe t . a t21

- 22 , 24 ; M a s s DE P Supp . Pe t

. a t14 . Bo t h o bs e rve t h a t t h e R i ve r s f

l u s ha tar a t e o f

s e ve r a l d a ys –

th a ti s , th e t o t a l vo l u me of inflo w and outflow equals the Riv ers’ v olum e in sev eral day s tim e – w he re as th e ME RL e xp er im ent u se d a fl us hi ngr at e of 2 7 day s. D is t. Sup p. Pet. at 21

- 22, 24 ; MassD EP Sup p. Pet. at 14 . W hil e MassD EP does not e xplain howit believ es a different flushingrate wou ld im pact nit r oge n-l aden discharg es in the R iv ers, the D istrict attem pts su ch an explan ation in a footno te. Dist. Su pp. P e t

. a t 21 n. 3. A s de scribed be lo w , th e D is tr ic t’ s expl an at io n, h ow ev er , is unp er su as iv e as an ef fo rt to d em on strate th at th e ME RL data is irre le v ant an d th at th e R eg io n di d no t t ak e th is d if

fe re nc e in to a cc ount

. The District explain s that the flushingrate im pacts the d ilution of n itro g en - la de n di sc harg es – th e D is tr ic t s ta te s th at th e in te ra ct io n in t h e M E RL e x p e r i me n tb e t w e e nf l u s h i n g r a t e o f

i n f l o wwa t e r an d gr a ms of n itrog en a dded

to the tank

un der th e highest l e vel, referred to as the 32x loading , w ould produ ce an am bi ent n itrog en c oncentration at e qu ilibrium

of 2.6 8 m g /l. Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 21 n.3 (calcu latingthe equilibrium

po int un der th e ME RL e xp erim ent 3 2x loading ). The District asserts th at a mor e r a pid flushingrate will p roduc e a lowe r equilibrium

nitrog en c oncentration. Id. That statem ent is correct for an experim ent whe re a m ore rapid flushingrate is ach iev ed b y m ixingthe sam e m ass o f nit r oge n with a higher v olum e of infloww ater, as theUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 48

It

is undis pute d that i n low f low conditi ons, the D is tri ct ’s T re at m ent Plant , 36 w ith a des ig n ca

pac ity of 56 m ill ion ga llons per da y , dominate s the Bl ac k st one Ri v er ’s f low of 5.5 mill ion g al lons pe r da y . F ac t She et

at 2. District describe s in its exam ple. Id. I n the D istrict’s exam ple, the lo wer equilibrium

is a direct conse quen ce o f a lowe r con centration of nitrog en in the inflow (the nitrog en is diluted by a higher v olum e of inflow ). The D is tr ic t h as n ot , h ow ev er , id enti fi ed a s ourc e of

in fl oww at er

th at w il l dilute th e D istrict’s disch arg e to produ ce a lowe r am bient conce ntration. As no t e d abo ve, un de r

lo w f l o w c on di t i on s , t he Di s t r i c t ’ s di s c ha r ge dominat es t he Bac kstone River’ s fl ow. 36 Sig nificantly , the Perm it’s discharg e conce ntration lim it of 5.0 m g /l is alm ost tw o tim es h ig her th an th e co ncentratio n lev el the District ca lc ul at es w as pr es ent in th e ME RL expe ri m ent’ s m os t se ver el y im paired 32x tank s. T he District’s arg um ent does not d em onstrate how the R iv ers’ flush ingrate will d ilute the 5.0 m g /l disch arg e co ncentratio n to pro duce an am

bient conce ntration low enou g h at the p oint o f im pact to a ch ie v e th e D O and

c hl or op hy ll a le v el s th at

w ou ld b e co ns is te nt

w ith a he althy m arine e nv ironm ent. The MERL e xperim ent at both the 3 2x loadingand

at th e lower 1 6x loadingpro duced am bient nitrog en c o n c e n t r a t i o n s th a tw e r e c o rr e l a t e d w i t hD O an d

c h l o r o ph y ll a le v el s consistent w ith a sev erely im paired waterw ay . Com

pare 2004 R I DE M Rep ort at 1- 8 w ith RTC at4 8 (di scu ssi ng andcit ing Offi ce of Wat er , US EPA, EPA

- 822- B- 01- 003 , N utrient Criteria Te chnica l G uidan ce Manual: Estua rine a nd Coa stal Marin e W at ers (Oct. 20 01), and MassDE P, Univ . o f Mass. D artm outh Scho ol of Marin e Science and Tech., Massachus e t ts Es tuaries Projec t – Site-Spe cific N itrogen Thresholds for Sou theastern Massac husetts Em baym ents: C ritical Indicato rs (Interim

R eport, July21 , 2 003)). Boththe District and MassDE P c ontend that the 2 004 RI DE M Rep ort ide ntified an inc onsi s t e nc y betw een the ME RL data and the observ ed R iv er co nditions base d o n flus hingrate. See D is t. S up p. P et

. at 22; MassDE P Sup

. Pet at 14. The 2004 RI DE M Rep or t no t e d that m ean dissolv ed in org anic n itrog en (“ DI N”) observ ed in

1 9 95/19 96 Riv erUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 49

data w as low er than

w ould be e xpected

from the m ean MERL data. See 2004 R I DE M Re port at 12. While MassDE P points to this inc onsisten cy as s ho w in gth at

th e ME RL e xp er im ent f

ai le d to “ ac co unt f

or r ea l- w or ld varia ble s,” Mas sDEP Supp. Pet

. at 14, th e Dis tr ic t ar gues tha t th e MERL data “ substantially

ov erstate th e im

pact o f the 1995 /1996 load i ng” and th at th e lo w er

o bs erv ed

D I N “is e nti re ly

c on si st ent w ith m or e ra pi d flus h i n gt i m e s o f

th e R i v e r

s y s t e m s , wh i c hr e s u l ti nf a r l o w e r am b i e nt conce ntrations. ” Dist. Su pp. Pe t. at 22. These argum ents, how ev e r , do n ot ad dress the 2 004 RI DE M R ep ort’ s ob se rv at io n th at th e lo w er R iv er D I N d at a m ay

b e attr ib ut ab le to facto rs oth er tha n f

lushing , s uch as D I

N uptak e by

m acroalg ae an d d e n i t r i f i c a t i o n i n t h e b o t t o m w a t e r s . 2 0 0 4 R I D E M R e p o rt a t 12. The Reg ion, in its respon se to com m ents, also id entified other explan ations for the discre pancy in DI

N v alues, includin g “stratification, ” R TC at 4 9, an d th e 20 04 R I D E M R ep ort’ s di sc us si on o f th e R iv er s’ f

lu sh in gr at e in low flow co nditions, 2 004 RI DE M Re port at 12. Mo re im portant, the D is tr ic t’ s an d Ma ss D E P ’s argum ents do no t sh owe rr or in th e R eg io n’ s reasons for findingthe MERL da t a relevant, nam ely the consisten cy betw een the MERL data and Riv ers’ data w ith resp ect to the co rrelation be tw ee n ni tr og en

le v el s an d D O and

c hl or op hy ll a . R T C a t4 8. Fi na l l y, the R eg ion a ck

now ledg ed th at differen ces in flushingrate is on e so urce of unc erta in ty

th at w ar rant ed r ejec ti ngap erm itli m itb as ed o n th e li m it of technology , 3 .0 m g /l, an d se ttingthe lim it at th e less string ent lev el of 5. 0 m g /l

. R TC at 49

. I n sh ort, the argum ents d o no t s ho wc le ar e rr or in t h e Re gi o n ’ s d e c i s i o ni ns e t t i n g th e 5

. 0 mg/ l l i mi t , t o t a ke s o me un ce rt ai nty

o n fl us hi ngr at es into a cc ount

. The D is tr ic t and

Ma ss D E P argue th at

th e R eg io n m ad e er

ro rs in the ca lculation of atten

uation – the rate at which nitrog en is lost in the riv er flowbetw een the point of discharg e an d where the w ater im pairing im pact is observ ed. MassD EP Sup . P et. at 14- 15; D ist. S upp. Pe t. at 32. As explain ed in Attlebo ro , th ere is no entitlem ent for a perm it lim it to be reduce d o n ac cou nt of attenuatio n. Attlebo ro, slip o p. at 36

- 37, 14 E.A .B . at __. I n pa r ticular, the D istrict m istak enly assum es that the Reg ion d eterm ined that w ater qu ality com pliance will b e ach iev ed b y “anUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 50
equiv alent 5 m g /l d i s c harg e at the m outh of the B lack stone Riv er” an d th at th e co nc entr at io n inthe Di stri ct ’s dis ch ar g es can be ad just ed u pw ar d to a cc ount

f or th e atte nu at io n th at oc curs in th e R iv er . D is t. S up p. P et

. at 3 1. Th e R eg ion ma de n o su chd et erm in at io n an d th e D is tr ic t’ s assum ption is contradicted by

evid ence in the reco rd. Sp ecifically , th e Reg ion e xplaine d as follow s: Boththe Woonso ck et and U BWPA D dischar ges enter Upp er N arrag ansett Bay

throu g h the headw aters of the Seek onk R iv er, whic h is the m ost im paired section of Upp er N arrag ansett Bay

. The RI DE M 20 04 study indicates that this seg m ent of the Bay currently receiv es ni t r oge n l oa ds ata r a t e 24 ti mes hi ghe r t ha n t he ave r a ge B ay - w id e lo ad in g . Th e li m itE P Ab el ie v es n ec es sary to atta inw at er

q ua li ty stand ar ds (i. e. , 5. 0 m g /l ) w il l r es ul t i n alo a di ng t o th e Se e kon k Ri ver of 6. 5 t i mes th e Ba yw i d e l o a d i n g . U B W P A D i s th e d o m i n a n ts o ur c e of nitrog en to the Black stone, ev en a fter acco untingfor a t t e nu a t i o n , f

r o m th e B l a c ks t o n e t o th e Se e ko n k. In a d d i t i o n , t h e e s t i m a t e d n i t r o g e n d e l i v e ry f a c t o r f or the Black stone Riv er w ill incre a s e in the future as action s are tak en to add

ress p hosp horus driv en e utroph ication.
R TC a t 5 4. Th e R eg io n’ s an al ysis sp eak s to h owm uc h th e D is tr ic t’ s total nitro g en d ischarg es m us tbe reduce d in order to ad dress the id enti fi ed w at er qu al ity pr ob le m s. N ot ab ly , th e 20 04 R I DEM Rep ort indicates sig nificant eutroph icat i on in the Se ek onk and Pro v idence R iv er s, as ev id en ce d by

lo wD O and

h ig h ch lo ro phy ll a m ean v alues, at a m ean total nitrog en concentration in the Riv er rang ingfrom on ly 0. 63 m g /l to 1.46 m g /l. 2004 R I DE M Re port at 12, tbl. 3. The D istrict’s and MassDE P’s arg um ents are sim ply insu fficient to establish that the conce ntration of tota l nitrog en in the District’s discharg es can be h ig her th an 5 .0 m g/l at t he p oi nt

o f di sc harg e an d no t c au se o r co ntri bute to nitrog en- driv en e utroph ication v iolations in the Seek onk and Prov idence Riv ers when sig nificant im pairm ent w a s ob serv ed at am bient conce ntrations in the R iv er of 0.6 3 m g /l to 1 .46 m g /l.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 51

Moreov er, the D istrict and the Reg ion h av e no t identified any record ev idence sufficient to sh ow clear erro r in the R eg ion’s statem ent that “th e current ev idence indicates that atten uation of n itrog en in

the Bla c k s t o n e R i v e r

i s s m a l l an d

f urt h e r r e du c t i o n s i np h o s p h o ru s - dr iv en eutroph ication lev els in the B lack stone are lik ely to result in even

low er ni t r oge n a t t e nu a t i on ra t e s i n th e f ut ur e .” RT C a t30 . M or e sp e c i f i c a l l y, the R eg ion e xplaine d as follow s: Sig nificantly , th e sec ond analy sis sh owe d that as phos phoru s disc harges to th e riv er are reduce d, the deliv ery of nitrog en in c r e ased. The reason for the redu c ed attenuation

for nitrog en is that p hosp horusdriv en a lg al g rowthis th e prim ary cau se o f nitrog en uptak e. G iv en th at the two larg est so urces of ph os ph or us to th e R iv er

( U B WP A D and

Wo on so ck et ) are b oth p ropose d to hav e limits of 0.1 m g/l total phos ph o ru s ( w h i c har e m o r e s t r i n g e n tth a nth e 0

. 75 m g /l lim it on wh ich RI DE M’s analy sis w as b ased) and that other point sources will also be required to red uce ph os ph or us lo ad in g s, af

urth er in cr ea se in

th e de li v er

y of n itrog en to N arrag ansett Bay can be expec ted.
RTC at 45

- 46. The District and M assD EP hav e no t pointed to any re co rd e v id en ce sho w in gthe Re g io n is c le ar ly wro ngin s ta ti ng th at th er e will b e less nitrog en attenuation as phos porus dischar ges are reduced

. I n ad di ti on , th e B oard

c on cl ud es th at

Ma ss D E P’s id enti fi cati on o f a te m poral d if fe re nc e be tw ee n tw o datas et s th e R eg io n us ed in it s attenuatio n an aly sis, MassDE P Supp . Pet. at 14- 15, do es n ot sh ow clear error inthe Reg ion’s determ ination that the data sets are repres entativ e. The selection of representativ e data for the analy sis is a te chnical j udg m ent that falls within the perm it issuer’s discretion and te c hn ical expertise. In re W

ashing ton Aqu educt W

ater Supp ly Sys ., 11 E.A .D . 5 65, 58 3 (E A B 2 00 4)

. The ques tion b efore th e B oard in this appea l is n ot whether the Reg ion, in tak ing difference s betw een the m odel and t he na turalUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 52

e nvi r on men tin t o a c c ou nt , in c l ud i ng d i l ut i on an d a t t e nu a t i on , c ou l d h a ve selected a so m ewh at hig her or lowe r num ber than 5.0 m g /l, b ut rath er the questio n is whe ther the Reg ion’s decisionfalls so far outsid e a z one of reasona bleness that it con s t i t utes c lear erro r or abuse of discretion

. Sma ll Refiner Lead

Ph ase-D own Ta sk F

orce v. EPA , 705 F. 2d 506, 52 5 (D. C. C ir . 1 983) (“We do no t dem and certainty where there is none . There m ay

be no strongreaso n fo r cho osing[a partic ular num erical st an dard ] rath er

th an as om ewhat h ig he r or

lo w er num be r. I f so , w e w il l upho ld the agen cy ’s cho ice of a num erical stan dard if it is within a ‘z one of re as on ab le ne ss . ’” ) ; see a lso H ercules, Inc. v. EP

A, 598 F.2 d 9 1, 116- 17 (D. C. C ir. 1 978). H ere, the R eg ion e xplaine d that “[i]n es tablishing th e ni tr og en

li m itin th e pe rm it , E P Ato ok

int o ac co unt un ce rt ai nt ie s in extrapo latingthe phys ical m odel to a com plex, natural settingsuc h as Upp er N ar ra g an se ttB ay .” RT C a t 3 0. Th e R eg io n expl ai ne d furthe r, “[b]ecau se th e p hysical m odel does not g enerate a de finitiv e lev el of nitrog en c ontrol that can b e ap plied to a real w orld d ischarg e, but in stead a rang e of loa di ngs ce nari os whi chare s ub ject to s om e sc ie nt if

ic uncertainty , E PAw as req uired to ex ercise its technica l exp e r t i s e an d scientific judg m ent b ased on the av ailable e v idence whe n tran slating these laborato r y r e s ul t s an d es tablishingthe perm it lim it.” RTC at 49

. A s expl ai ne d ab ov e, th e D is tr ic t’ s an d Ma ss D EP’s a rgum ents f ai l t o showthat the R eg ion’s use of the MERL d a t a be ar no ration al relationsh ip to the n atural e nv ironm ent o f the Narrag anse tt Bay and P ro v id en ce and

S ee k onk R iv er s, o r th at

th e R eg io n’ s ad

justm ents are clearly erron eous. Colu mbia Fa lls Alu minu m Co. v. EP A, 139 F.3 d 9 14, 923 (D. C. C ir. 1 998) ( “ An ag ency ’s use of a m odel is arbitrary if th at m od el ‘ be ar s no r at io na l r el at io ns hi p to th e re al ity it p ur po rt s to r e pr e s e nt .’ ” (quo t i ng Am

. Iron and Steel, 11 5 F

. 3d a t 1 00 5) ); Che mica l Mfrs. A ss’n v . E

PA, 28 F.3 d 1 259, 12 65 (D. C. C ir. 1 994).
A s hi g hl ig ht ed

b y C L F ’s argum ents d is cu ss ed b el owin

Part I I .D .2. c(ii), b ut for conce rns reg ardingun certainty in the an aly sis, the 2004 R I DE M Re port w ould hav e co nclude d that redu c i ng nitrog en discharg es to the lim it of techno log y , o r 3. 0 m g /l, w ould be re quired. The Reg ion c hose to tak e the uncertainty into account by Perm ittingthe District’s discharg es at a conce ntration that is 1.6 7 tim es h ig her th an th eUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 53

CL F conte nds that the Permit’ s limit f or t ota l ni trog en of

5.0 mg /l does not 37 m ee t t he st anda rds s et f orth in 40 C.F .R. §§ 122.4( d) and .44(d) (1) , w hic h prohi bit the is sua nce o f a p erm it w

her e the pe rmit’ s condi tions do not e nsur e com

plia nce w ith appl ic abl e st at e w at er

qua lit y s ta ndar ds and w

here t h e per

m itt ed dis cha

rg es c aus e or cont ribut e to a

v iola tion of w at er qua lit y s ta ndar ds. Id. at

8. C LF al so a rgues that t he nar rativ e tr ea tm ent opti m iz at ion l imit f

or N ov em ber thr ough A

pril doe s not c om

ply w ith the se re quire m ent s. C L F Pet. at 15- 16. CL F a rgues that “ the tot al nit rog en and (c ontinue d...) lim it of techno log y . The B oa r d f inds unpe rsuasiv e the District and MassDE P’s arg um ents th at the uncer t a i nty and im precision in the Reg ion’s analy sis pre cludes the R egion’s decisio n an d req uires a rem a n d , th e r e b y

a l l o w i n gth e D i s t r i c tt o c o n t i nu e d i s c h a r g i n gw i t hout any lim it on total nitro g en. Lo ngag o, the D .C . C ircuit interp reted th e CWAas authoriz ingEP A, in sett i ng perm it lim its, to requ ire “ a gross reductio n in pollutant discharg es rather than the fine- tuningsug g ested by num er ic al lim it at io ns ” be caus e “thi s am bi ti ou s st at

ut e is n ot h os pi ta bl e to the con cept th at the appro priate res pons e to a diffi c ul t po llution problem is not to try

at a ll.” NR

DC v. C ostle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D. C. C ir

. 1 97 7)

. Th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on is c on si st ent w ith R

ho de I sl an d’ s in te rp re ta ti on

o f w hat i s re qu ir ed

to c om pl y w ith it s w at er

q ua li ty standard s. R TC at 5 0; 20 04 RIDEM Report at 28. A lthough the Reg ion’s decision

settingthe lim it at 5 .0 m g /l in th e present case is bas ed on an analy sis that does not render a precise num erical calculation and has som e un certainty , th e D istrict and MassDEP hav e not shown that th e Reg ion’s determ ination is clearly erron eous or an

abu se o f discre tion. Acco rding ly , th e B oard denies rev iew of the R eg ion’s decision that 5.0 m g /l is th e ap pr op ri at e num er ic al v al ue f or th e to ta l n itro g en

li m it

.

c. T heR eg io n Ma de an Adeq uat e F in di ng th at th e 5. 0 m g/

l L im it W il l “ E ns ur e”C

om pl ia nc e wit h W

ater Q ua li ty Stand ards
C L F argue s th at

th e P erm it ’s to ta l n itro g en li m it o f 5. 0 m g /l is not s ufficiently

string ent fo r the mont hs of May throu g h O ctober and also th at a num eric lim it m ust b e ap plied y ear- round , C onserv ation Law Foundation

Pe tition (“C LF Pet.” ) at 1 5- 16. For th e follo wingreaso ns, 37UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 54

(.. .c ontinue d)

37 ph osph oru s lim its on the Facility are inad equate to eith er as sur e at t ainm ent of w ater qu ality standards in the rece iving wa ters o r eliminate the Facility ’s contrib utio n to w ater qu ality violation in the Blacks ton e Riv er o rt he do w nstream salt w ater inf

luen ced sy st em s. ” CL F Pet. at 6- 7. CL F has not dem onstrated clear error or abuse of discretion in the Reg ion’s determ ination that the Pe rm it’s total nitrog en lim it is su fficient to en sure com

pliance with water quality standards. The analy sis be g ins by c o n s i d e r i n g w h e t h e r t h e R e g i o n m a d e a n a d e qu a t e l y clear determ ination that the Pe rm it’s to t a l nitrog en lim it will “ensure” com pliance with applicab le w ater qu ality stand ards a s requ ired b y 40 C. F.R . § 12 2.4 (d) an d C WA s ection 401(a )(2). B ecause , a s explained belowin subp art (i), the Reg ion did m ak e an adequ ately clear “ensure” determ ination, the Bo ard next considers in su bpart (ii) wh ether C LF has shown clear error or ab use of d iscretion in the R eg ion’s determ ination.

(i ) The Regio n’s F

inding Is A dequ ately C

lear th at the 5.0 mg/ l T otal N itroge n L im it

is S uf fi ci en t to “En sure”C

omp liance
Gen erally , b ecause the Board g iv es su bstantial deferenc e to the perm it iss ue ron que stions of scie ntific or technica l judg m ent, a pe ti ti on er b ears ah eavy

b ur de n w he n re qu es ti ngr ev ie w o f a pe rm it issuer’s decision

on issue s that ar e t echnica l in nature – su ch a s the R eg io n’ s fi nd in gin th e pr es ent ca se th at th e P erm it ’s to ta l n itro g en li m it of 5.0 m g /l is n ecessary

and sufficient to ensure com

pliance with Rho de I sland’s water quality

standards as required by

40 C.F. R. § 122. 4(d) and C WAs ec ti on

4 01 (a )( 2)

. S

ee I n r e Town of A shland

W astew ater T re at m en t F ac il it y , 9 E

. A

. D

. 6 61 , 6 67 (E A B 2 00 1) ; In re NE H ub Partn ers, L.P

. , 7 E.A .D . 5 61, 56 7- 68 (EA B 1998 ), reviewden ied su b nom . P enn Fuel Ga s, Inc. v. U .S. EP A, 18 5 F .3d

86 2 (3 d C ir. 1 999). The B oard , h ow ev er , r eq

ui re s th at th e pe rm itis su er

c le ar ly art ic ul at e it s determ ination for it to be ac c or ded this d eference. See In re City of Marlbo r ough, Mass . E

asterly W astew ater T

reatm ent P lant, 12 E.A.D. 23 5, 2 48

- 52 ( E A B 2 00 5) ; DC MS4, 10 E. A. D. at 3 42.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 55

T he Boa

rd a ls o e xpla ine d that “ m ore im porta ntly , e v en accepting the 38 Re g ion’s s ug g es tion that e nsur ingc om plia nce w as w

hat the per

m it w rit er had in mind, w e f ind n o t h i n g in the record, apart f rom [ the State’s] sec tion 401 ce rtifica tion , that suppor ts the c oncl usi on that the P er m it w ould, in f

ac t, ac hie v e w at er

qua lit y s ta ndar ds, ” and the Re g ion di d not dis pute that t here was a “b o d y

of inf orm at ion dr aw ingthe certif ication into questio n.” DC M S4, 10 E.A .D . at 342- 43. I n Marlboro ugh , th e B oard rem anded a perm it beca

use “the R eg io n[ h a d ] n o ts u f

f i c i e n t l y e x p l a i n e d

wh e r e o r

h o wi t[ t h e e n s ure finding ] is re flected in the record befo re us. ” Marlboro ugh , 12 E.A.D. at 25 2. The B oard rej ected as ina dequ a t e t he R eg ion’s determ ination be caus e th e R eg io n m er el y fo un d th at “‘ it m ay be po ss ible t o m eet’” water quality

stand ards. Marlboro ugh , 1 2 E .A .D . at 2 49 ( quoting the ap pl ic ab le fa ct sh ee t in th at ca se ). The B oard he ld th at “a m er e possib ilityof com

pliance does not ‘ ensure’ com pliance” as required

by the statute an d regulations. Id. at 25 0. Lik ewise , in DC MS4, th e B oard expl ai ne d th at

“ [w ]i th out a n ar ti cu la ti on b y th e pe rm itwri te r of

h is analy sis, we canno t pr op e r ly perfo rm any rev iew whatsoev er of that analy sis an d, therefore, cannot c onclud e that it m eets the requ irem ent o f rationality .” DC

MS4 , 10 E

. A

. D at

3 42

- 43

. Th e B oard

f ound in ad eq uate th e pe rm itis su er ’s c on cl us io n th at th e pe rm it co nd it io n w as “ re as on ab ly capab le” of achiev ingw ater qu ality stand ards. DC

MS4 , 10 E.A.D. at 34 2, 343. The Board explaine d t ha t “the ‘reasona bly cap able’ fo rm ul at io n, a cc ep ti nga s itis of the po te nt ia l th at

th e P erm itw il l n ot , in fa ct , a tt ai n w at er

q ua li ty s tand ar ds , d oe s no t a

pp ear to be en ti re ly co m para bl e to th e co nc ep t o f ensuring com pliance. ” Id. 38
The DC MS4 and Marlboro ugh ca se s ap pr op ri at el y r ef le ct th at , w he n th e pe rm itwri te r ei th er w as una bl e on th e pe rm itti ng

r ec or d be fo re ito r fa il ed

to c le ar ly

art ic ul at e a co nc lu si on

c on fo rm ing t o the st at

ut e an d re gul at io ns , th e B oard w il l n ot e xt en d to th e pe rm itis su er ’s equiv ocal s tatem ents a m ore certain or unam biguous m eaning

. Beca

use the Board g enerally defers to the R eg ion’s “determ ination of issu es that depen d h eav ily

up on the Reg ion’s technica l expertise and experien ce,” In re Envotech, L. P., 6 E

. A

. D

. 26 0, 28 4 (E A B 19 96 ), th e B oard e xp ec ts perm it writers to express the “ensure” finding with clear, unam biguous , de cl ar at iv e w or ds s up po rt ed b y a pp ro pr ia te anal ysis and

r ef er en ce s toUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 56

T he Reg i o n i s encou rage d to choo se c lear a nddirect w ord ing to express 39 w heth er a perm it’s cond itio ns ensure com plian ce w ith appl icable w ater quality standards. record ev ide nce. Marlboro ugh, 12 E.A .D . at 252 (perm it rem anded w he re the per

m itiss ue r fa il ed

to “s uf fi ci entl y e xp la in [] whe re o r ho wit [the en sure fin ding ] is re flected in the reco rd”). The R e gio n’s statem ents in the present case m ay be distinguishe d from

the perm ittingdec isions in bo th DC MS4 and Marlboro ugh whe re th e B oard f ound th at th e pe rm itiss uer

f ai le d to m ak e an a de qu at el y

c le ar f in di ngt hat th e pe rm itw ou ld e ns ur e co m pli anc e. H er e, th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se to c om m ents is a de qu at el y cl ear init s m eani ng . The R eg io n be g an by e xp re ss ly

id enti fy in git s duty “t o en sure c om

pl ianc e w ith ap pl ic ab le w at er qu al ity stand ar ds ” an d, in the b ody of the sam e parag raph, the Reg ion pointed to re cord ev idence supp or tingits c onclus ion s tated at the end of the para g raph that the P erm it ’s to ta l n itro g en

li m itis “ re as on ab le an d su ff ic ie nt ly s tr in g ent t o c ompl y wi t h th e CW A. ” RT C a t 50

. T he Bo a r d c on c l ud e s th a t , a l t ho ugh the Reg ion could hav e chosen word ingthat wou ld hav e been m ore c lear a n d s p e c i f

i c i n i t s m e a n i n g , n e v e rt h e l e s s a f a i r a n d l o g i c a l r eading of 39 th is p ar agra

phis th at th e R eg io n de te rm in ed , ba se d on th e re co rd b ef or e it, that the Perm it’s total ni t r ogen lim it is su fficient to “ensure” com pliance with applicab le w ater qu ality stand ards.
T his m eaningis a lso su

pported by the Reg ion’s statem ent at anothe r place in its respo nse to pu blic co m m ents, whe re the Reg ion stated that “th e significant nitrog en reductio ns required by the perm it, as well as o ther p erm its in the w atershed , are co nsistent wit h ac hiev ing water quality

standards. Furth er lim itations * * * are not w arran ted a t thi s ti me .” RTC at 6 (em

phasis added ). Altho ug h the R eg ion’s finding of “cons istent” w ith ach iev ing water quality stand ards m ay

be am biguous and , th er e f

or e , on its o wn, w ould not b e clear, the Reg ion also specifically

found that “further lim itations * * * are n ot w arranted, ” thereby clarify ing the Reg ion’s conclu sion that, based on the rec ord, the Perm it’s total nitrog en lim it is su fficiently string ent to ach iev e w aterUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 57

T he Re g ion st at ed its pre limina ry f inding in the Fa ct

She et that “ b]as ed on 40 the av ai la ble ev ide nce , * * * EPA has c oncl uded that a s ea sona l r educ tion of

nit rog en to no m orethan 5.0 m g/l is r eq u i r ed at th e [District’s] f acility in ord er to achiev e w ater qual ity s ta ndar ds. ” Fa ct

She et at 14 (e m

phas is a dded)

. quality stand ards. Id. Thus , to th e ex te nt th at CLF ar gue s th e B oard 40 shou ld rem and the p resent case for the sam e reaso n the B oard rem anded in Marlboro ugh , CLF ’s R ep ly a t 8

- 9, th e B oard

m us t r ejec t C L F ’s contention. H ere, the R eg ion stated its determ ination m ore c learly and co ns eq ue nt ly th e B oard

c on cl ud es th at

th e R eg io n m ad e an

a de qu at el y cl ear f ind ing th at

th e to ta l n itro g en

P erm itli m itis s uf

fi ci ent t o en sure com pli ance with applicab le w ater qu ality stand ards. The B oard next co ns id er s w he th er

CL F has m et

its burd en

to sh owthat th e 5. 0 m g /l li m it is clearly erron eous. (i i) T h e 2 0 0 4 R

I D E M R e p o r t D o es N o t S h o wth a t the Regio n C

omm itted Clea r E

rror or a n A buse of D is cr et io n in F

in di ng th at 5

. 0 m g/ l i s Su ff ic ie nt ly Stringe nt CLF argues that the ev idence in the reco rd, nam ely the 2004 RI DE M Re port, requires the Reg ion to set the P erm it lim it for to tal nitroge n a t 3 .0 m g /l, the lim it of techno log y , and to im pose addition al controls. C LF Pet. at 10

. CL F argues that the R eg ion “ has not p rov ided any law ful just i fication for failingto im pose [total nitro g en] e ffluent lim itation at the lim it of techno log y consistent with the RI DE M Stud y .” CL F P et. at 10. A t botto m , C LF’s app eal de pend s on tw o erro neou s propo sitions: first, C LF conten ds that “the record is clear that the re is no un ce rt ai nty

w it h re gard to th e fa ct

th at th e pe rm itli m it s ne ce ss ar y to obtain water quality

stand ards re quire im

plem entation of the lim it of te chno lo g y , ” Trans . at 7, and , sec on d, CL F conte nd s th at , e v en if th er e is un certainty , th e B oard’s Marlboro ugh de ci si on re qu ir es th e R eg io n to

“ e rr onth e si de of

s t r o n ge r li mit s ” an d t o c ho os e “t he m os tpr ot e c t i ve lim its ach iev able in

lig ht of the scientific uncertainty ,” CL F R eply at 9

. B as ed o n th is , C L F ar gue s th at th e P erm itli m itm

us t b e se t at the li m it of technology

of 3.0 m g /l and

that the P erm it m

ust req uire o therUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 58

A cc ording to CL F, the 2004 RI DE M R epor t r el ie d upon by

the Re g ion i n it s 41 per m itt ingde ci si on provi des the “one def init iv e st at em ent

in the re cor d re le v ant

to se tti ng a tota l ni trog en lim

it. ” CL F R epl y

at 2- 3.
It a p p ear s that t

his quote a ct

ual ly c om es f rom a s ubse quent

re port. See 42 Rhode Isla

nd Depa rtm ent of Env ironm ent al Ma

nag em ent , Plan for

M anaging N

utr ie nt Loa din gs to Rh ode Isla nd Waters , at 3 (Fe b. 1, 2005). T his s ubse quent re port does not prov ide a s ci ent if ic anal y si s of

the av ai la ble data

and re se ar ch; it

m er el y re f er s to t he ea rli er 2004 RID EM R epor

t a s par t of the 2005 r epor

t’s ide nti ficati on of

s te ps Rhode (c ontinue d...) enforcea ble co ntrols and offsets to m eet w ater qu ality stand ards. C LF Pet. at 10. As explained below , the Board rej ects the first argum ent as an in accurate characteriz ation of the adm inistrativ e reco rd in this ca se, and the B oard r ej ects th e sec ond argum ent as an attem pt to place im prope r lim its onthe Reg ion’s exerc i s e o f reaso nable scientific and technica l discretio n an d judg m ent in settingperm it lim its.
C L F argue s th at

“ th e re co rd is cl ear th at th er e is n o un ce rt ai nty with reg ard to the fact that the perm it lim its nec e s s a r y to obtain w ater qu al ity stand ar ds req

ui re im pl em enta ti on

o f th e li m ito f te chno lo g y . ” Tr. at 7. C LF conten ds th at “[t]he RI DE M study un equiv ocally states th at 41 ev en ali m ito f 3 m g /l w ou ld

n ot r es ul t i n atta inm ent o f w at er q ua li ty standard s.” C LF Rep ly

at 4

. Upon scrutiny , h owe v er, CL F’s arg um ent m us t f ai l b ec au se th e 20 04 R I D E M R ep ort, in fa ct , co nc lu de s th at th er e is unc erta in ty

r eg ar di ng w he th er

th e li m ito f te chno lo g y , 3

. 0 m g /l , is necessary to achiev e R

hode I sland’s water quality stand ards.
A cc or di ngto C L F , the 2 00 4 R I D E M R ep ort fo un d th at “ [t ]h is ana ly si s [referringto a disc ussion of t he M ER L p hy sical m odel] indicates that ev en if the [Massa chuse tts and R hode I sland waste w ater treatm ent plant] discharg es are reduce d to the lim it of techno log y (total nitrog en o f 3 m g /l ), th e S ee k onk

Ri v er and po rt io ns of th e P ro v id en ce R iv er w ou ld not fu lly com ply w ith ex istingw ater quality stand ards (m inim

um of 5.0 m g /l , e xc ep t a s nat urally o cc ur s) * * *

. ” C L F P et

. a t 9 ; see a lso CL F R ep ly a t 2

- 3. The B oard

h as n ot b ee n ab le to lo cate th is e xa ct q uo te in th e 2004 R I D E M R ep ort, b ut it d oe s co nt ai n a si m il ar

s ta te m ent: 42UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 59

(.. .c ontinue d) 42 Island h as ta

ken a ndis planni ng to take to redu ce nitro gen in Rhod e Isla nd ’s w aters.
T he Re g ion f

urthe r s tate d: 43
When ev aluatin g w heth er it had m et it s o bligation s und er se ct ion 301( b)( 1)( C) and 401(a )( 2) t o e nsur e com plia nce w ith appl icable w ater quality

standards, includ ing tho se of af f ected state s, EPAa ls o ac count ed f

or the f ac t that Rhode Is la

nd, w hen as si g ning per m it limits to f

ac ili tie s w ithi n its ow

n borde rs in ac cor danc e w ith its ow n w at er qua lit y s ta ndar ds, did not c oncl ude m ore s tri ng ent limits w ould be ne ce ss ar

y or appr opria

te at t his ti m e. Under

Rhode Island’s permitting approach, lim its of 5 mg/l and 8 m g/l have been (c ontinue d...) “[ t] hi s an al y si s in di cate s th at the lim itof te chno lo g y

is r eq ui re d but w il l no t f ul ly m ee t e xi st in gw ater q ua li ty s tand ar ds

. ” 2 00 4 R I D E M R ep ort at 27

. While this statem ent d oes supp ort C LF’s con cern reg arding w he th er th e P erm it ’s li m it o f 5. 0 m g /l is s uf fi ci entl y s tr in g ent, th is statem ent fro m

the 2004 R I DE M Re port is not th e de finitiv e, uneq uiv ocal c onclus ion th at C LF characte r i z es it to be . The 2004 RI DE M Re port g oes on to state in a subseq uent paragraph: While w e be liev e that the MERL tank results prov ide an adequ ate rep resenta t i on of the relation ship betw een nitrog en and oxyge n lev els in the P rov idence and Seek onk Riv ers, som e un certainty rema ins re gard ing predicte d w ater q uality im prove men ts and

load ing reduc tions necessa ry to meet wate r qu ality sta ndar ds.
2004 R I DE M Re port at 27. Thus, contr a r y to CL F’s c haracteriz ation, the 2 004 RI DE M Re port, in fact, found that while th e MERL e xperim ent was a “fair representation” of cond itions and wou ld sug g est a lim it of 3.0 m g /l, the R eport also fo und that the r e is “ som e un certainty ” reg arding w he th er e ff lu ent l im it at io ns b as ed

o n th e li m ito f te chno lo g y are ne ce ss ar y to e ns ur e atta inm ent o f w at er qual ity s tand ar ds

. It i s th is uncertaint y t hat th e R eg ion id entified whe n explainingwhy it ch ose a Perm it lim it less string ent th an th e lim it of te c hn ol ogy. R TC at 4 9. 43UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 60

(.. .c ontinue d)

43 im po sed o n various Rho de Island P OT Ws whose discharges im pact Narrag ansett Bay , and Rh od e Isla nd has recom

m ended that sim ilar limits be plac ed on c er

ta in Ma ss ac huse tts f

ac ili tie s that a

re im pac ting the B ay . S

e e Ev a l u a t i o n o

f N i tro g e n T a r g e t s a n d WW

T F Load Redu ction s for the Providen ce an d Seekon k River s , RID EM, Dece m ber 20 04 . In arriving a

t i ts decision to im

po se a nitro gen ef f lue nt l imit of

5 m g /l on the D is tri ct

f ac ili ty , EPA

re g ar ded Rhode Is la nd’s pos iti on as a dditi onal e v ide nce that t he limit w as re as onabl e an dsu ffi ci en t l y str i n ge n tt o co mp l y w i th th e C WA.
RT C a t 50.
O nce the Re g ion ha s cl ea rl y a rt ic u late d it s f

inding , the Boa

rd i s abl e to 44 cons ide r i t on appe al , g iv ing due def er enc e to t

he “de te rmination of

is sue s that de pend heavily upo n th e Re gion’s techni cal e xpertise a n d e xperience.” Env ote ch, 6 E.A.D. at 284. A cc or di ng ly , th e 20 04 R I D E M R ep ort i s no t at od ds wi ththe R eg io n’ s decision , and it doe s no t dem onstrate clear erro r as CL F arg ues. The B oard

a ls o re ject s C L F ’s argum ent that the B oard ’s Marlboro ugh de cision requires that “[w ]hen there is any am ount of un ce rt ai nty , E P Am

us t e rr o n th e si de o f stri ct er

li m it s. ” C L F ’s R ep ly a t9

. T o th e c o n t r a ry , Ma rlbo ro ug h’ s h ol di ngis n ar

ro w er : the B oard he ld th at ap erm itm

us t b e re m an de d if

th e pe rm itis su er

f ai le d to “sufficiently

exp lain[] where or h ow it [the ensure finding ] is re flected in the reco rd.” Marlboro ugh, 12 E.A .D . at 252

. 44 Not only does CLF’s argum ent lack sup port in Marlboro ugh , it also m ust b e rejected be cause it is at odds with the Reg ion’s exercise of re as on ab le d is cr et io n an d jud g m ent – i t w ou ld e st ab li shar ig id

r ul e requiringthe Reg ion to select the m ost strin g ent ac hiev able lim it wh en there is any

conflict or uncertainty

in the record reg ardingattainm ent o f w at er q ua li ty s tand ar ds

. Th e B oard

h as nev er ado pt ed s uc h an in fl ex ib le rul e , n oris on e re qu i r e d b y th e st a tut e o rre gul a t i on s . T o t he co nt r a ry, “[ i] n th e fa ce o f un av oi da bl e sc ie nt if

ic unc erta in ty , th e R eg io n is authoriz ed, if not required , to exe rcise rea sonab le disc retion and j udg m ent.” D omin ion, 13 E.A .D

. at 426. Noth ingin the regulations orUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 61

our prior c ase law

rem ov e the Reg ion’s discretion to reso lv e the conflict in the ev idence.
A s expl ai ne d ab ov e indis cu ss in gthe Di stri ct ’s and Ma ss D E P ’s ar gum ents , th e st at

ut e an d re gul at ion s do autho ri z e, and to ac erta in extent require, the Reg ion to tak e a precautionary app roach. See e.g. , 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) ( re fe rr in gto “ re as on ab le p ot enti al ”) ; id. § 12 2

. 4 (d) (r eq ui ri ngth e pe rm itto “ en sure ” co m pl ianc e w ith wat er q

ua li ty standard s); C WA § 401(a )(2) (requiringperm it to “ insure” com pliance with water quality

stand ards). The statutory w ord “insure” and the com parable regulatory term “ensure” m ak e clear that the perm it issuer sh ou ld h av e a hi g h d egre e of

con fi de nc e inth e de te rm in at io n, b ut th er e is no discernable intent to rem ov e all discretion, particu larly w ith resp ect to scie n t i f

i c an d t e c h n i c a l d e t e rm i n at i o n s th a tar e i n h e r e n t l y n o tf r ee fr oma ll d ou

bt

. Th es e pr ov is io ns p ro v id e bo un dari es to th e R eg io n’ s dis cretion; these prov isions do not re m ov e all discretion and techn ical jud g m ent a s w ou ld

an in te rp reta ti on th at

r eq ui re s th e pe rm itwri te r to im pose the lim it of techno log y whenev er there is anyun certainty

. I n co nsideringargum ents on appea l inv olv ingm atters req uiring scientific o r techn ical expertise, “the B oard look s to de term ine whether the rec ord dem onstrates that the perm it issuer duly con sidered the issu es raised in the com

m ents and whe ther the app roach ultim ately ado pted by the p erm it issuer is ration al in lig ht of all the inform ation in the reco rd.” Attlebo ro , s lip op. at 17- 18, 14 E.A. B. at __ (citations om itted). “ I f the B oard is s at is fi ed

th at th e pe rm itis su er

g av e du e co ns id er at io n to com m ents re ceiv ed and adop ted an app roach in the final perm it decisio n that is rational and s up po r table, the B oard ty pically w ill defer to the perm it issuer. ” Id. Giv ing deferenc e to the perm it issuer’s scientific and te chni ca l ju dgm ent “ se rv es an im po rt ant func ti on

wi th inth e fr am ew or

k of the A g ency ’s administrativ e p r oc e ss; it e nsures that the locu s of re sp on si bi li ty

f or im po rt ant t ec hn ic al d ec is io nm akin gr ests p ri m ar il y with the p erm ittingauth ority , which has the rel ev ant sp ecializ ed expertise and e xperience.” Peab ody , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 3 3; see a lso In re Car lota C oppe r C o. , 1 1 E .A .D . 6 92, 70 8 (E AB 20 04) (explain ingthat “a petitioner seekin g rev iew of issu es that are technica l in nature bears aUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 62

Th e 2 0 0 4 R I D E M R ep o rti n d i ca t es t h att h e fo l l o wi n g fa ct o r s c r ea t e “ so me

45 unce rta inty” re g ar ding“ pre dic te d w at er qua lit y im prov em ent s and loa dingredu ct io ns necessa ry to m eet w ater quality

standards”: [S] ig nif ic ant ly lo we r m ea

n D IN[diss olv ed inorg ani c nitr og en] conc ent rations w er e obse rv ed in t he Provi denc e and Se ekonk Ri v er s as c om pared to th e MERLex

perim ent f

or an equ ivalent loadin g ra te, w hic h m ay be the re sul t of

la rg e dif f er enc es be tw ee n the f

ie ld a nd ex per im ent al f

lus hin g t imes, u ptak e by m ac roa lg ae and deni trifica

tion in the bo ttom w aters. A lso the MERL ex perim ent DO [diss olv ed ox y g en] s am

plingprot ocol doe s not pr ov ide s uf f ic ie nt d at a t o f u l l y a s s e s s c o m

p l i an c e w i th th e r e c e n t l y e s t a b l i s h e dE PA g uide line s re g ar dingc um ulativ e per iods of

low dis sol v ed ox y g en. 2004 RI DE M R epor

t a t 27. heavy burden b e c ause the B oard g enerally defe rs to the R eg ion o n qu es ti on s of te chni ca l ju dgm ent” )) ; Envo tech , 6 E.A.D. 260, 284 (EAB 1996 ) (“abs ent c om

pellingcircum stances, the Board w ill defer to a [r ]e g io n' s de te rm in at io n of is su es th at

d ep en d he av il y

u po n th e [r ]e g io n’ s te chni ca l e xp erti se and

e xp er ie nc e” ). Here, the Reg ion’s respon se to comments ack now ledg ed and rej ected CL F’s c ontentio n that the record requires a total nitrog en lim it set at the lim it of techno logy. As explain ed a bov e, the R eg ion fo und that the P erm it ’s to ta l n itro g en

li m ito f 5.0 m g/l is s uf fi ci ent t o en sure com pliance with Rho de I sland’s water quality stand ards. RTC at 6, 4 7- 51. The Reg ion e xplaine d that “[d ] e s pi t e the sev ere n itrog en- related im pa irm ents in

th e re ce iv in gw at er s, E P Ao pt ed n ot to im po se a li m it based on m ore string ent loading scenario s at this tim e in order to acc ount fo r un ce rt ai nt ie s as so ci at ed w ith th e phy si ca l m od el

. ” R TC a t 4 9. It i s notew orthy

that the R eg ion id entif i e d t he s am e reaso ns fo r findin g uncertainty

in the MERL experim ent’s re sults as the 2004 R I DE M Rep ort ide ntified. C

omp are 2004 R I DE M Re port at 27 with RTC at 6, 45 17, 29

- 30, 47

- 51, 55 , 7 3, 94- 96 . The Re g ion e xplaine d that “when ev aluatin g the ade quacy of the lim it, E PAw as also aw are that the particular appro ach it ado pted posses ses c on serv ativ e elem ents which enhan ce the pro tectiv eness of the perm it bey ond [what w as co ntem platedUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 63

T he Reg ion ex

plain ed that the use of a c on centration lim it, rather than a m ass 46 limit, pr ov ide s addi tiona l pr ote ct ion w hiletheD is tri ct ’s dis cha

rg es re m ai n b el o w the T re at m ent Plant ’s de si g n c apa ci ty . RT C at 49-50. A s dis cus se d bel ow , both Ma ss DE P and th e District hav e requested re view of the Region’s use of a c on centration lim it, rather tha n a m as s limit. See

be lowPart

II .D .3. Spe ci f ic al ly , the re g ulatory

prov is ions pe rta iningto s t a t ec e r t i f i c a t ion pr ov ide 47 that E PA m ay

not is sue a

pe rmit until a

c er tif ic at ion i s g ra

nte d or w ai v ed by

the s tate in (c ontinue d...) by the MERL tank

exp erim e nt s ] .” R TC at 4 9. There is no app arent 46 irrationality

or c l e a rerror in the se reas ons for find ingthe Perm it’s 5. 0 m g /l total n itrog en lim it sufficient to ensure com pliance with Rho de I sl an d’ s w at er

q ua li ty s ta nda rds , and

C L F h as n ot

s ho w n cl ear er

ro r in any of these reasons the Reg ion g av e for its dec ision.
As noted abov e, the R eg ion a lso placed particular em phasis on “the fact that Rho de I sland, whe n assig ning perm it lim its to fa cilities w ithi n it s own bo rd er s ina cc or dance w ith it s own w at er q ua li ty standard s, did n ot conclu de m ore string ent lim its w ould be n ecessary or appro priate at this tim e * * * and R hode I sland ha s r e c om

m ended that sim ilar lim its be placed on certain Massachus etts facilities.” RTC at 50

. I t is a pprop riate for the R eg ion to tak e into con si de ration the v iews of Rh od e I s l a nd , a s an a f

f e c t e d st a t e , re gar di ng wh a t i s r e qu i r e d t o a c hi e ve com pliance with Rho de I sland’s own w ater qu ality

stand ards. Spec ifically , the R eg ion is requ ired b y regulation to de term ine whe ther th e P erm it’s lim its w ill “ensure” co m pliance wi t h t he w ater qu al ity stand ar ds of af

fe ct ed s ta te s. 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 4( d) ; see a lso C WA § 4 01(a)(2). The statute’s prohib ition under section 401(a )(2) of issuing a perm it that does not “ insure” com pliance with water quality stand ards of all affected states se rv es a larg ely parallel function

to the ce rtification requirem ent under section 401(a )(1), whic h the perm i t app licant m ust obtain from

the s t a t e where the d ischarg e orig inates. It is n otew orthy that, for state certifications un der se ction 401(a )(1), the R eg ion is un der a duty to de fe r to th e re qu ir em ents th e st at e de em s ne ce ss ar y to c om pl y with its water quality

standards. This prev ents EPAfrom relaxingany 47UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 64

(.. .c ontinue d)

47 w hic h the dis cha

rg e orig inate s, 40 C .F.R . § 124. 53(a ), and that “ [w ]hen c er tif ic at ion i s requi red * * * no final perm it shall be issued * * * [u ] nless the f inal perm it inco rpo rates the requi rem ents specif

ied in th e c ertif

ication ,” id. § 124.55( a)

. T he Boa rd l ik ew is e re

je ct s the Di st

ric t’s ar g um ent that the tota l ni trog en limit 48 of 5.0 mg /l “v er

y wel l m ay

not le ad to s ta

ndar ds atta inm ent ” and the re f ore “ ar e not necessar y to atta in s ta

ndar ds. ” Di st . Supp. Pet. at 11. T he Di st ric t ha s not s how

n any cl ea r e rr or or

a buse of dis cr et ion i n the Re g ion’s de te rmination, ba sed on the adminis tra

tiv e re cor d of

thi s m atte r, that t

he Permit’ s tota l ni trog en limit is s uf f ic ie nt t o ens ure c om

plia nce w ith Rhode Is la

nd’s w at er

qua lit y s ta ndar ds. Mor eov er , the Di st ric t’s ar g um ent is s pec ious be ca

use ra the r t han le adi ng to a de la

y in im posi ng m ore s tri ng ent requi rem ents, as th e District argues, a find ing that th e Perm it canno t ensure com plian ce w ith appl ic abl e w at er

qua lit y s ta ndar ds w ould r equi re de nia l of the D istr ic t’s pe rmit appl ic at ion. requirem ents, lim itations or cond itions im posed by state law and m ade a cond ition of the st a t e ’ s certification

. See, e. g., Te ck C omin co, 11 E.A

. D

. a t 4 88

- 89 ; In re City of Mosco w, Ida ho , 1 0 E

. A

. D

. 13 5, 151 (E A B 2 00 1) ; I

n r e Ci t yo f J a c k s o n v i l l e, D is t

. I

I W a s t e w a t e r T r e a tmen t Plan t , 4 E. A. D. 150, 157 (EA B 1992 ). Altho ug h section 401(a)(2) does not require certification from downstream

affected states and the R eg ion was not re quired to defer to the affected state’s interpretation of its water quality stand ar ds , ne v ertheless, it ce rtainly w as ap propriate for the Reg ion to con sider and tak e into a ccount R hode I sland’s interpretation of R ho de I sl an d law w he n th e R eg io n m ad e it s de te rm in at io n. N ot o nl y has Rho de I sland g enerally not required facilities located in R hode I sland to red uce nitrog en discharg es to the lim it of techno log y , b ut also in the 2004 R I DE M Re port, Rho de I s l a nd recom m ended a 5.0 m g /l tota l ni tr og en li m itf or th e D is tr ic t. Acco rding ly , th e B oard conclu des that CLF’s argum ents d o n ot showclear error o r abuse of discretion in the R eg ion’s determ ination that th e P erm it ’s to ta l ni tr og en li m it of 5. 0 m g /l is su ff ic ie nt to en sure co m pl ianc e w ith R

ho de I sl and’s wat er

q ua li ty s tand ar ds

. Th e B oard

48 also re j ects C LF’s call for a y ear- round num eric lim it and

add itional c o n t r o l s b e yo n d t h e nu me r i c p e rmi t l i mi t , wh i c hCL F b a s e d

o nth e s a me e rr on e ou s co nt e nt i on re gar di ng t he 20 04 RI DE M Re po rt ’ s ce rt a i nt y.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 65

3. The Reco rd S

uppo rts the Regio n’s D ecision to Sta te t he To tal N itroge n L im it

a s a Ma ss , N

ot C on ce nt ra ti on , L im it
Ma ss D E P argue s th at 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 45 (f )( 1) r eq ui re s pe rm it lim its to be stated in term s of m ass, unless one of thre e ex ception s applies, and

MassD EP conten ds t ha t no ne o f the excep tions hav e be en establishe d in this ca se. MassD EP Sup p. Pet. at 3, 7- 10. Mass DE P a lso argues that the R eg ion v iolated EPApo licy when it selected

a total nitrog en lim it stated as a conce ntration, rather tha n s t ated in term s of m ass. Id. at 3 , 1 0- 12. The Reg ion e xplaine d in its respo nse to co m m ents th at sectio n 122. 45(f)(1)(ii) a llows a lim it to b e stated as a co ncentratio n “when ap pl ic ab le s tand ar ds and

lim it at io ns are e xp re ss ed in te rm s of o th er uni ts of m ea sure m ent, ” on e of

the thr ee e xc ep ti on s un de r se ct io n 12 2. 45 (f )( 1)

. RT C a t17 . T he Re gio n e xp l a i ne d t ha t“[ i ] n t hi s in s t a n c e , w e be l i e ve expr es si on

o f li m it s on

to ta l ni tr og en

as co nc entr at io n li m it s is n ec es sary to meet Rhod e I sl and ’s wate r qua li ty stan dar ds.” RTC at17. As explain ed b elow , in

reach ingthis conclu sion the R eg ion re lied o n R hode I sland’s interpretation

of its narrativ e w ater qu ality stand ard.
O n ap pe al , Ma ss D E P argue s th at th e phra se “ ap pl ic ab le standard s an d lim itations” as u sed section 122. 45(f) (1)(ii) is a defin ed term and the Reg ion’s i nt e r

p r e t at i o n i s a n “ i m perm issible re interpretation of the plain

lang uag e of the regulation. ” MassDE P S upp. Pe t.at 7

. “ App licable standa rds a nd l i mi t at ions m eans all State , interstate an d federal standard s an d lim itations to whic h a ‘disc harg e’ * * * is s ubject unde r the CWA , inclu ding‘effluent lim itations, ’ w ater qu ality stand ards, standard s of perform ance, toxic effluent standard s or prohib itions, ‘best m anag em ent p ractices,’ [and] pretr eatm ent standard s * * * un der sections 301 , 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308, 403 and 405 of C WA.” 4 0 C. F.R . § 12 2.2

. MassDE P argues that, becau se the R hode I sland water qu al ity s tand ar ds are n ar

rati v e, ” th ey

are n ot “ expre sse d” i n te rm s of

a conce ntration and therefore this exception do es n ot ap ply

in the p resent case. Mass DE P S upp. Pe t. at 9.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 66

Ma ss D E P is co rr ec t that R ho de I sl an d’ s w at er

q ua li ty s tand ar d is exp ressed as a narrativ e description of w ater qu ality

. See 12- 190- 001 R

. I

. C od e R

. § 8

. D

. (1 ). H ow ev er , R ho de I sl and h as inte rp re te d th is narr at iv e st an dard , a s ap pl ie d to c ontr ol o f ni tr og en , in te rm s of a conce ntration of the po llutant in e f f luent discharg es. 20 04 RI DE M R ep ort at 2 3- 27

. In othe r w or ds, Rhode I sl an d’ s in te rp re ta ti on o f it s narrativ e criterion

is “ express ed” in term s of a co ncentratio n of n itrog en in efflue nt disc ha r g es. A ccordin g ly , it was not unreason able fo r the Reg ion to conclude that co nsistency w ith R hode I sland’s interpretation of its narrativ e req

uirem ent w arranted express ingthe Perm it’s lim it as a conce ntration. The Reg ion’s respon se to com m ents in cluded a d iscussion of p o l i c y reaso ns fav oringthis interpretation in the p articular c ircum stances of this case: I n this instance, we believ e expressionof lim its ontotal nitrog en a s co ncentratio n lim its is n ecessary to m eet R ho de I sl an d’ s w at er

q ua li ty stand ar ds

. Ak ey

r ep ort unde rly ingthe propo sed perm it lim its is th e D ecem ber 2004 repo rt, Evalu ation of Nitrog en Targets and W

W TF Loa d R eductio ns fo r the Pro videnceand Seekonk Rivers , com pleted by R I DE M. The re port d ocum ent s that the Seek onk R iv er is the m ost nutrient im pacted area o f Narrag ansett Bay : current total nitrog en lo ads to the Seek onk R iv er are 24 tim es hig her than the total nitro g en load to all of N arrag ansett Bay on a per unit area

bas is. I f the conce ntration lim itations recom m ended by the r e po rtwe r e us e d to e s t abl i s h m a s s l i mit s us i ng t he de s i gn flows of the w aste water treatm ent fac ilities, th e S eek onk Riv er would receiv e nitrog en loads of app roxim ately 10 ti m es h ig he r th an th e B ay - w id e lo ad s pe r un itare a. Wi th the lim itations establishe d as con centration lim its, at current flows the S eek onk R iv er w ould receiv e nitro g en loads of ap proxim ately

6. 5 ti mes higher th an th e B ay wide load. * * * Settingthe lim its in term s ofUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 67

H er e, the re a ls o is no ut ili ty in re m andi ng this Permit to r equi re the Re g ion 49 to i m pose a m as s limit in a dditi on to the conc ent ration limit the Reg ion f

ound ne ce ss ar

y to comply w ith Rh od e Isla

nd ’s w ater quality

criteria, w

hich m ay n ot be the case i n ot her circum stances. co nc entr at io n w il l e na

bl e as se ss m ent of

the res po ns e to alo a di ng o f

6. 5 t i mes th e Ba y- wi de lo a di ng. RTC at 17

- 18. T he Reg ion described the use of a conce ntration lim it for ni tr og en a s a “c on se rv at iv e el em ent” th at e nha nc es th e P erm it ’s “protectiv eness. ” RTC at 49

. 49
4. The Regio n F

ollow ed Proper Proc edures an d G ave Sufficient Notice in S et ti ng th e T otal N itroge n L im it The District argues that the Reg ion did not follow t he proper proced ures and notice prov isions whe n the R e gio n d eterm ined the Perm it’s num eric efflue nt lim it for total nitrog en. D ist. S upp. Pe t. at 16- 19

. S pe ci fi ca ll y , th e D is tr ic t ar gue s th at , by tr an sl at in gR ho de I sl an d’ s narrativ e w ater qu ality standard into a num eric pe rm it lim it, the R eg ion in e f f ect ad opted a num eric w ater qu ality stand ard fo r the state, whic h th e D is tr ic t a

rgues m ayo nl y

b e ac co m

pl is he d as p ro v id ed

b y C WA section 303(c )(4) thro ug h fo rm al rulem ak ing

. Id. at 16

- 17. The District also arg ues that the Reg ion c om m itted clear error by

failingto follow

the pr o c e dur e s o f

4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 3 1

. 1 1 ( a ) ( 2 ) f o r d e v e l o p i n gnu m e r i c p e rm it li m it s fo r to xi c po ll ut ants to c om pl y w ith narra ti v e w at er

q ua li ty standard s. Id. at 17

- 19. The District points to bo th pro v isions in an effort to inv ok e various proced ural req uirem ents, includin gpu

blication in the Fe deral Re g ister, a s a bar to the Reg ion’s determ ination of the P e rm i t ’ s nu m e r i c e f

f l u e n t l i m i t f

o r t o t a l n i t r o g e n . Id. at

1 6- 19

. B oth ar gum ents m

us t b e re ject ed as rel y in go n in ap pl ic ab le law . Th is pro cee din g is g overne d by CWA se ct ion 402 an d4 0 C.F.R. § 122.4 4(d)(1)(v i) and 40 C. F.R . part 124, whic h p rov ide o pportunity for pu bl ic h eari ngand

du e pr oc es s ap pr op ri at e fo r th e is su an ce o f a pe rm it

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 68

CW

A sec tion 303 (c)(4) pro vides a s f ollo w s: 50
T he A dm inistrato r shall pro m ptly prepare and p ub lish p rop osed re g ulations s ettingf

orth a re v is ed or ne w

w at er qua lit y s ta ndar d f or the nav ig abl e w at er s inv olv ed

–

(A ) i f a re v is ed or ne w

w at er qua lit y st anda rd submitt ed by suc h Sta te unde r pa

ra g ra ph (3) of this subs ec tion f or suc h w at er s is det er m ine d by the A dm inis tra

tor not t o be c onsi st ent w ith the appl ic abl e re quire m ent s of thi s A ct , or (B ) i n any ca se wher e the A dm inis tra tor det er m ine s that a re v is ed or ne w

standar d is ne ce ss ar

y to m ee t t he re quire m ent s of

thi s A ct

. T he A dm inis tra

tor sha ll prom

ulgate any

re v is ed or ne w

s ta ndar d un der this p aragraph n ot later than n i n et y day s af ter he pub lishes suc h pr op os e d s t and ar ds , un l e s s pr i or t o s uc h pr om ul g at i on , such State ha s adopt ed a re v is ed or new w at er qual ity st anda rd w hic h the A dm inis tra

tor det er m ine s to be in ac cor danc e w ith this A ct

. CW A § 303( c) (4) , 33 U .S.C . § 1313( c) (4)

. First, the District’s argum ent b ased on CWAsectio n 3 03(c)(4) conflates the d eterm ination of num eric pe rm it lim its in this p erm itting procee dingarisingun der C WA s ection 402 with federal prom ulg ation of a state water qu a lity

stand ard under CWAsectio n 3 03(c)(4). The statutory section the District cites, section 303(c )(4), by its term s ap plies only to circum stances whe re E PAis required to prom ulg ate a state w ater quality s t andard

bec ause the state has failed to pro m ulg ate on e complying wit h the CW A’s r equ ir ements. CWA § 303( c) (4) , 33 U.S.C. § 1 313(c )(4). H ere, the state o f R hode I sland prom

ulg ated an 50 applicab l e water qu ality stand ard th at E PAlongag o d eterm ined com plies w ith the CWA’ s r e qu irem ents. See 12- 190-001 R.I . Code R. § 8. B

. (1 )- (2 ), 8

. D

. (1 ); see a lso State and Tribal Water Q uality Stan dards: Noti c e of EPA

Approv als an d Announcem ent o f EP A I nternet R ep os it or y , 6 6 F e d

. R e g . 2 9, 95 1 (Jun e 4, 2 00 1) ; http ://ww w . e p a . g o v

/ w at e r s c i e n c e / s t an d ar d s /

w q s li br ar y /r i/ri _1 _w qr . pd f. A cc or di ng ly , R

ho de I sl an d’ s w at er qu al ity st an dard s g ov er n an d C WA section 303(c )(4) is altog ether in applicab le.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 69

Nitrogen also is no t on the list of “prio rity pol lutan ts” pub lished at 40 C.F.R. 51 § 423, A pp. A

. Likewis e, th e Dis tr ic t’ s ar gum ent base d on 40 C.F.R. § 1 31. 11(a)(2) conflates “toxic” pollutants w ith po llutants, suc h as nitrog en, that h av e no t been des ig nated as “toxic. ” Spec ifically , s ection 13 1. 11 (a )( 2) g ov er

ns th e pr oc es s fo r de te rm in in gnum er ic p erm itli m it s fo r “t ox ic p ol lutant s” whe re th e ap pli cab le w at er q ua li ty c ri te ri a is narr ativ e. 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 31

. 11 (a )( 2)

. Th e te rm “ to xi c po ll ut ants ” is defined as “those pollutants listed by the Adm inistrator under section 307(a ) of the A ct.” 40 C .F. R. § 13 1.3 (d). N itrog en is not o n the Adm ini st ra tor ’s lis t of

poll uta nts under CWA sec ti on 307( a)

. 40 C.F.R. § 4 01. 15. Acco rding ly , s ection 131. 11(a)(2), by its term s, does not 51 ap pl y in th e pr es ent c as e to th e R eg io n’ s de te rm in at io n of th e P erm it ’s num eric efflue nt lim it for to tal nitrog en. C ontr ar y to th e D is tr ic t’s ci ta ti on to th e in ap pl ic ab le C WA section 303(c )(4) an d 4 0 C .F. R. § 131. 11(a)(2), this perm itting procee dingand

the Reg ion’s determ ination of the Pe rm it’s effluent li m it at ion fortot al nit rogen i s gov ernedb y CWA sec ti on 402 , 33 U.S.C. § 1 342(a ), and 40 C. F.R . § 12 2.4 4(d)(1)(v i) and the part 124 proced ural rules. In p articular, these rules require th e R eg ion to pro v ide “o ppor tuni ty

f or p ub li c he ar in g , ” 33 U

. S

. C

. § 1 34 2( a) (1 ), th e sp ec if ic requirem ents o f which are set forth in 40 C.F. R. part 124, and these rules specifically

auth oriz e the Ag ency , p ursuant to that p rocess, to determ ine num er ic p erm itli m it s fo r sp ec if ic po ll ut ants wh er e th e st at e cr it er io n is narrativ e. 40 C .F .R. § 12 2.4 4(d)(1)(v i). The pream ble fo r the Fede ral R eg is te r no ti ce p ro m

ul g at in gs ec ti on

1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (v i) c on fi rm s th at th is prov ision is app ropriately applied “to set effluent lim its to control di sc harg es ( inth e ab se nc e of sta te num er ic al wa te r qu al ity cri te ri a fo r al l p o l l u t a n t s o f

c o n c e rn )

. ” N a t ’ l P o l l u t a n tD i s c h a r ge El i mi n a t i o nSy s t e m, Surfac e W a t e r Toxics C ontrol Program , 5 4 F ed. Reg . 2 3,8 68, 23 ,87 8 (J une 2, 1989 ). I n p rom ulg atingthis regulation, EP A explained that “E P A ’s le g al o blig at io n to e ns ur e th at N P D E S p erm it s m ee t a ll applicab le w ater qu ality

stand ards, includin gnarrativ e criteria, can n ot be set asid e while a state d ev elops [num eric] water quality standards. ” 54UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 70

Fed. R eg . at 23, 877 . The D istrict m ay no t, in this or any

perm itting pr oc ee di ng , c ha ll en g e th is re gul at io n g rant in g th e R eg io n th e auth or ity to set a num eric effluent lim it to achiev e Rho de I sland’s narrativ e w ater quality criterion

. See C WA§ 5 09 (b )( 1), 33 U

. S

. C

. § 1 36 9( b) (1 ); see als o In re City of Ir vi ng, Tex as, M uni ci pal S epa rat e Sto rm Sewe r Sys te m, 10 E.A .D . 111, 12 3 (E AB 20 01), reviewden ied su b n om City of A bilene v. EPA , 3 25 F3d

65 7 (5 th C ir. 2 003). In fac t, th is regulation was challeng ed and upheld. Am erican Pap er Inst., Inc. v. EPA , 996 F.2 d 3 46, 34 8, 35 1 (D

. C

. C ir

. 1 99 3) ; see also Am erican Iron and Steel In st. v . E PA, 11 5 F

. 3d 9 79 , 9 90

- 91 ( D

. C

. C ir

. 1 99 7)

. I nde ed, i n upho ldi ng 40 C.F.R. § 122. 44( d) ( 1 ) ( vi), th e D.C. Circuit specifically

con sidered an d r e

j ected an arg um ent th at the regulation v iolated the prov isions g ov erningprom ulg ation of state water quality stand ards and criteria. The C ourt e xplaine d:

[T]he regu lation d oes not s upplant – either fo rm ally or function ally – the C WA’s basic statutory fram ewo rk

for the cre ation of w ater quality standards; rather, it prov ides a lternativ e m echan ism s thro ug h which prev io us ly adop ted wa t e r

qu a l i t y st a nd a r ds c on t a i ni ng n a rr a t i ve criteria m ay

be applied to create effectiv e lim itations on ef fl ue nt e m is si on s. A s lo nga s narr at iv e cr it er iaare pe rmis s i bl e * * * an d m us t be e nf

or c e dt h r ou gh li m it at io ns in

p arti cu lar pe rm it s, ap erm itwri te r w il l in ev it ably

h av e so m e di sc re ti on

in a pp ly in gth e cr it er ia t o a pa rt i c ul a r

ca s e . T he gen e r a l la ngu a ge o f na rr a t i ve c r i t e r i aca n o nl y ta ke th e pe rmit wr i t e r s o fa r i n he r ta s k. O f co ur se , that d oe s no t m ean th at th e langua g e of

a nar ra ti ve crit er ion does not ca bin the pe rmit wr i t e r 's authority at a ll; rather, it is an a ck

now ledg em ent th at the writer will h av e to eng ag e in som e kind o f interpre tation to de term ine what ch em ical- specific num eric criteria

– and thus what effluent lim itations – are m ost co nsistentUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 71

with the state' s intent as ev inced in its g eneric standard

. T he E P A ’s n ewr egul at io n m er el y r eq ui re s th at p erm it w ri te rs e ng ag e inth is ta sk to c re at e ch em ic al

- spe ci fi c lim itations on discharg es o f po llutants and give s thos e w ri te rs thre e to ol s w ith w hi chto d o th is w or k in a fa ir ly re gu l a r i z e d f

a s h i o n . T h e r e gu l a t i o n t hu s s e e m s to prov ide an em inently

reaso nable m eans of effec tuating the intent of t he p rev iously ado pted narrativ e criteria as well as C ongress’ o wn intent, m ade explicit in se c t i on 30 1 of th e C WA , th at al l

state water quality

stand ards b e enforced through m eaning ful lim itations in ind iv idual NP DE S p erm its.
Am erican Pap er Ins t., 99 6 F

. 2d a t 3 51 ( ci ta ti on s om itte d)

. I n the prese nt cas e, the R eg ion s tate d t hat the Pe rm it’s total ni tr og en num er ic e ff

lu ent l im itis e st ab li sh ed

to a ch ie v e co m

pl ianc e w ith Rho de I sland’s narrativ e w ater qu ality criterion , F act S heet at 11- 12; and the R eg ion e xpressly

app lied 4 0 C .F. R. § 122. 44(d)(1 )(v i) in establishin g the P erm it’s num eric lim it. The District has not a lleg ed th at the notice of o pp ortuni ty

f or p ub li c co m

m ent and publ ic heari ngth e R eg io n he ld duringthe public com

m ent p eriod, which extend ed fro m March 23, 20 07 thro ugh May

2 5, 2 00 7, w as in

any way n ot in c om pl ianc e w ith th e part 124 rules. A ccordin g ly , th e District has failed to show any clear error o r abuse of discretion

in the n otice o r hearingop portun ity a f f or de d the D is tr ic t.
E. C ha ll enges to th e P er

m it ’s T otal Pho sp ho ru s L im it The R e g i o ns e tth e P e rm i t ’ s t o t a l p h o s p h o r u s l i m i ta t0

. 1 m g /l (100 : g/l ) fo r

Apr i l 1 t o Oc t ob e r

3 1, a nd1 .0 mg/l f

orN ove mbe r

th r ou gh March. Fa ct Sh eet at 10

. The Reg ion e stablished this lim it app ly ing40 C. F.R . § 12 2.4 4(d)(1)(v i)(B) to ens ure c om pliance with the Massachu sett’s narrativ e w ater qu ality criteria. Id. at 8

- 9. In re a ching its dec ision, the Reg ion c onside red, a mongothe r thing s, two EPA do cum ents p ro v id in ggui danc e on num er ic c ri te ri a fo r th e N at io n’ sUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 72
waters: 1) Office of Water, U .S. EP A, Qua lity C riteria fo r W

ater, EPA 440/5

- 86- 001 (May 1, 1986 ) (the “ Gold Bo ok ”) ; and 2 ) O ff ic e of Wate r, U. S. EPA , Am bient W ater Q uality C

riteria R ecom men dat i ons, Inform ation Sup

porting the Deve lopm ent o

f State and Triba l N

utrient Criteria , R ivers a nd Stream s in Nutrie nt Ecoregion XIV, EP A- 822- B- 00- 02 2 (D ec . 2 00 0) ( “Eco re

gi on X IV C ri te ri a ”)

. C L F c ha ll en g es th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on argui ngthat the P erm it ’s phos phoru s lim it is n ot su fficiently string ent. C LF Pet. at 6- 7, 17- 18. C L F argue s th at th e m ax im um ap pl ic ab le cr it er io n sh ou ld be 0. 05 m g /l , not 0 .1 m g /l, an d that this m ore strin g ent lim it should ap ply y ear- round

. Id. In co ntrast, the D istrict argues that the phospho rus lim it is to o st ri n g e n tan d

th a ti t s e x p i r e d

p e rm i t ’ s l e s s s t r i n g e n tl i m i to f 0

. 7 5 m g /l shou ld be retaine d. D ist. S upp. Pe t. at 32- 39. For th e follo wingreaso ns, neither CL F, nor the D istrict, h as sh own clear error o ra bu s e of discretion in the R eg ion’s decision

setting the Perm it’s total ph osph orus lim it at 0 .1 m g /l for A

pril 1 to October 31 and at 1. 0 m g /l for N ov em ber through March

. 1. T heR eg io n’

s R ea so na ble P oten ti al

A na ly si s T he Reg ion c onclud ed th at con ditions indicativ e of cultural eutr op hi cati on

o bs erv ed

in th e B la ck st on e R iv er imm ed ia te ly do w ns tr eam fr om th e D is tr ic t’ s di sc harg e po in t an d m ore g en er al ly thro ugho ut

th e R iv er , c om

bi ne d w ith th e fa ct t hat th e D is tr ic t’ s discharg es d om inate th e B lack stone Riv er’s flo w, e stablish that the Dis tr ic t’ s di sch ar ges have the r eas onable pote nti al , unde r 40 C.F.R. § 12 2. 44 (d )( 1) (i ) an d (i i) , to v io la te Ma ss ac hu se tt s’ w at er quality cr it er ia

. R TC a t 1 07 ; F ac t S he et a t 8

- 9. A ltho ugh th e D is tr ic t p ri m ar il y challeng es the particu lar num eric v alue th e R eg ion e stablished for the Perm it’s total phos phoru s lim it, the D istrict doe s ap pear to ch alleng e the Reg ion’s reasona

ble p otential determ ination in on e resp ect. The D istrict argues that “it is im

prope r to sim

ply cite cultural eutro phication as the basis for im

position of a num eric pe rm it lim it. Rath er, the lim it m ust b e just if ie d by c onne ct in gthe r ed

uc ed le v el o f ph os ph or

us w ith a sp ec if

ic im pairm ent in

des ig nated uses. ” Dist. Su pp. Pe t. at 34. A s explainedUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 73

be lo w , th is argum ent d oe s no t s ho wc le ar e rr or o r ab us e of

d is cr et io n in the R eg ion’s “reason able p otential” determ ination.
Contrary to the D istrict’s argum ent, the R e gio n identified th e particular water quality

criteria and des ig nated uses v iolated by the District’s t otal p hosp horou s disc harg es. Sp ecifically , th e R eg ion expl a i n e d th a tM a s s a c hu s e t t s ’ n a rr a t i v e w a t e r q u a l i t y c r i t e r i ap r o v i de th at nutri ents “ ‘[ s] ha ll n ot

e xc ee d th e site spe ci fi c li m it s ne ce ss ar y to control accelerated

or cultural eutroph ication’” and that “[a ]ny existin g point source discharg e contain ing nutrients in conce ntration s which encourag e eutroph ication or g rowth of weed s or alg ae sh all be prov ided with the h ig hest and best p racticable t r e atm ent to rem ov e su ch nutrients. ” F act S heet at 8 (citi ng 314 C. M.R. 4. 04 & 4.0 5(5)(c)). The Reg ion s tated further that “the Black stone Riv er ha s be en d esig nated by Massachu setts as a h abitat fo r fish, othe r aqu atic life and wildlife and for prim ary (e. g . s w i m

mi n g ) and seco ndary

(e. g . fish ingand

bo ating ) contact re cr eati on . ” R TC a t 1 06 ( ci ti ng3 14 C

. M. R

. § § 4. 05 (3 )( b) & 4

. 06 ( tb l. 11)). The R eg ion a lso explained that such waters mus t b e “free of fl oati ng , s us pe nd ed

o r se tt le ab le s ol id s tha t are ae sthe ti ca ll y ob j e c t i onable or could im

pair u ses” and that “[c ]hang es to color or turbidity of the w aters that are aesthet i c a lly ob j ectionab le or useim pairingare also p rohibited .” R TC at 107 (citing31 4 C .M.R . § 4. 05 (3 )( b) (5 ), ( 6) ). The R e gion also id entified the p articular p hosp horou s- driv en cond itions o bserv ed in

the Black stone Riv er that v iolate Mass achus etts’ criteria an d d esig nated uses. In p articular, the Regi on determ ined that the B lackst on e R iv er is currently im paired by exc essiv e ph osph orus l o a d i n g s r e s u l t i n gi nv i o l a t i o n s o f m i n i m u m d i s s o l v e d

o x y g e nc r i teria, hi g h le v el s of

c hl or op hy ll a and

high lev els of m acrophyte and periphy ton growth

. Fact Shee t at 8

- 9 (citingU .S. E PA R eg ion 1 , Black stone River Initiative R eport (May 20 01); MassDE P, Black stone R i v e r B a s i n 1 9 9 8 W

a t e r q u a l i t yA s s es s m e n t

R e p o rt (20 01); Mas sDE P, B la ck ston e R iv er

W ater sh ed 2 00 3 D W M W ater Q ua li tyMo ni to ri ng

D ata ( M a y 2 0 0 5 ) ; U

. S

. A rm

y C o r p s o f E n g ineers, Pha se I

: W ater Q ua li ty Evalu ation and Modeling of the Massachuse tts BlackstoneRiv er (D ra ftUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 74

Mar. 2 004); MassDE P, Black stone River W

atershe d 2003 Bio logical Assess men t

(Apr. 4, 2006 )). The Reg ion also noted Mas sachu setts an d Rho de I sland hav e inclu ded the B lack stone Riv er on their sec tion 3 03(d) lists of im

paired waters. Fa c t Sheet at 8. The R eg ion e xplaine d that “[ t] he B la ck st on e R iv er is li st ed as im pa ir ed fo r * * * nutr ie nt s, o rg an ic enrichm ent/lowdisso lv ed o xy g en (D O), fl ow alterations and othe r habitat alterations, path og ens, susp ended solid s, turbidity , and objectionable depo sits.” R TC at 1 07. Mo re spe cifically , th e R eg ion explain ed th at at low flow in the s ummer of 2003 , th e follo wing cond itions w ere o bserv ed: At th e fi rs t st at ion dow n s tr eam of the UBW PAD discharg e, instream

aqu atic ve g etation was describ ed a s be in g“ ex tr em el y

a bund ant, c ov er in gv irtu al ly the e nt ir e riv er bo ttom

and do m inated by

roo ted su

bm erg ent m acro phytes (coo ntail, Cerato phy llum sp. ; w aterwe ed, elodea sp.; pond

weed , Potam og eton crispus). Slight turbi di t y in th e wa t e r c ol umn was no t e d dur i ng s a mpl i ng. Aluxuriant

a lg al c om

m un ity w as a ls o ob se rv ed , w ith g reen filam entous alg ae attac hed t o subm erg ent vege t a t i on a nda br ow n f

l oc k co ver i ng muc h o f

th e ro c ky substrates .” Id. at 35

. Th e R e gion determ ined that the se p hosp horus- driv en cond itions o bser ved im

m ediately do wns tream

from where the D istrict di sc harg es , and

m or e g en er al ly

thro ugho ut

t he Bl ac k st on e R iv er , com bined with the fac t that the Dis t rict’s disch arg es d om inate th e Black stone Riv er’s flow , e stablish that the D istrict’s disch arg es h av e a reasona ble p otential to v iolate Mass achus etts’ w ater qu ality crite r i a. RTC at 10 7; F act S heet at 8- 9. This analy sis the Reg ion p rov ided i n t he Fact Sh eet an d Resp onse to C om

m ents id e nt i f

i ed s pecific phos phoru s- driv en c ondition s ob s e rv e d i nth e R i v e r

th a tv i o l a t e th e M a s s a c hu s e t t s w a t e r q u a li ty st an dard s fo r bo th de si g nate d us es an d narr at iv e cr it er ia

. Thus , c ontr ar y to the District’s contention, the Reg ion did not “sim ply cite[d] culturalUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 75

eutr op hi cati on

a s th e ba si s fo r im

po si ti on o f a nu m er ic p erm itli m it ” rath er th an “ co nn ec ti ngth e re du ce d le v el o f ph os ph or us wi thas pe ci fi c im pai rm e n ti nd e s i g n a t e d

u s e s . ” D i s t

. S up p . P e t

. a t3 4

. T h e R e g i on identified the desig nated uses that are im paired as w ell as the criteria that ar e v io la te d and expla in ed why it c on cl ud ed

th er e is ar ea so na

bl e potential that the D istrict’s disch arg es ca use the o bserv ed v iolations. The Di stri ct

has ide nt if

ie d n o re co rd

e v id en ce th at

w ou ld r ef ut e the R eg ion’s conclu s i on that the id entified cond itions in the Riv er im m ediate ly d owns tr eam

f ro m whe re th e D is tr ic t d is ch ar g es are att r i bu table at least in part to the D istrict’s disch arg es, and the D istrict has n o te x p l a i n e d

wh y i tb e l i e v e s th e s e c o n d i t i o n s d o n o te v i d ence v iolation of Massa chuse tts’ narrativ e criteria a nd desig nated uses. A cc or di ng ly , th e D is tr ic t h as fai le d to sho wcle ar err or in th e R eg io n’ s conclu sion that the D istrict’s discha r ges are or m ay be at a lev el that causes, contributes to, or h as the reaso nable potential to cau se v iolations of Ma ss ac hu se tt s’ wa te r qu al ity stand ar ds

. 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (i ), (ii).
2. T he R eg io n’

s D ec is io n to Se t th e T

otal P ho ph orus L im it at 0. 1 m g/

l For W arm -W eather Months and 1.0 mg/l for C old-W eather Months The Reg ion s et the follow ingtotal phosp horus num eric lim it: 0.1 m g /l (100 : g /l) for the warm - weath er pe riod o f April 1 to O ctober 31, and 1. 0 m g /l for th e co ld- weath er pe riod o f N ov em ber through March

. Fact Shee t at 1 0. C LF argues that this lim it is n ot su fficiently string ent b o t hf o r th e w a rm- a n d c o l d -we a t h e r p e r i o d s . CL F Pe t

. a t6 -7, 1 7 -18

. In contrast, the District argues that the ph osph orus lim it is to o string ent an d that the lim it in th e D istrict’s exp ired p erm it of 0.7 5 m g /l sho ul d be re ta ine d. Dist

. S u p p. Pet . at 32-39. Forthe r eas ons expl ai nedbelo w, CL F and the D istrict hav e no t sh ow n that the Reg ion c learly erred or ab us ed it s di sc re ti on

in e st ab li sh in gth e P erm it ’s num er ic li m it

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 76

a. CLF D id N

ot Preserve for A

pp e alI t s O bj e c t i ons to the P ho sp ho ru s L im it C L F c ha ll en g es th e P erm it ’s p ho sp ho ru s li m it ar gui ng th at it is not s ufficiently

strin g ent b oth fo r the warm - and cold

- weath er pe riods. CL F P et. at 6- 7, 17- 18. CLF’s argum ents on appeal are rejected be cause CL F h as n ot sh own

that these issues and argum ents were raised during th e pu bl ic c om m ent p er io d. C L F ’s le tt er s ub m itte d duri ngth e publ ic com m ent p eriod, which stated that “the final perm it’s warm weath er total ph os ph orus l i mit s ho ul d be no hi ghe r t ha n 0.1 mg/ l ,” wo ul d n o t h a ve alerted the R eg ion to C LF’s disag r eem ent w ith the Reg ion’s propo sed decision to set the lim it at 0.1 m g /l. See Letter from Pe ter Sh elley , e sq. , et al , o n b ehalf o f C LF to N PD ES Perm its U nit, U.S . EPAat 2 (May 23 , 20 07 ).
On appea l, CL F no w raises m uch m ore d etailed is sues and ar gum ents c ha ll en g in gth e R eg io n’ s de ci si on . F or e xam pl e, whe re CL F’s c om

m ent letter stated that the w arm - weath er lim it “shou ld be n o hig her than 0.1 m g /l,” id., CL F now argues on appea l that the m axim um applicab le criterion

sho uld be 0.05 m g /l, CLF Pet. At 6- 7, 17- 18. C LF argues that “[g ]iv en the sev erity of the p ollution issues in the se rece iv ing waters and the p ollution loads resultingfrom the inadeq

uate lim it in th e P erm it , th er e is s im

pl y n o just if ic at io n fo r E PA Re gio n 1’ s fa il ur e to require that [the D istrict] im plem ent lim it- of- techno log y controls at the F ac il ity . ” C L F P et

. a t 1 8. CLF a rgu es f urth er th at th e P erm it ’s phos phoru s lim it is “d

ram atically

high er than the applica

ble standard s” – an d that the Reg i on should hav e ad opted the Eco re

gi on I V C ri te ri a recom men da t ion o f 0. 024 m g /l or the Gold Bo ok reco m m endatio n o f 0. 05 m g /l f

or s tr eam s di re ct ly

dis ch ar g in gint o a lak e or im po un dm ent. Id. a t 1 8 , 2 0

. C L F a l s o s t a t e s o n ap p e a l t h a t “ [ t ] h e r e i s sim plyno j ustification for ap ply inga ‘Gold B ook ’ criteriona pplicab le to a freefl ow in g stre am to th e B la ck st on e R iv er – a stre am th at is ext ensiv el y im poun ded. ” Id. at 18. CL F a lso p oints to a “ecoreg ional criterion of 2 4 : g /l e xp re ss ly

d ev el op ed

b y E P A fo r us e w ithi n E co re g io n XI V, E as te rn Coa stal Plains. ” Id. CLF argues further that the R eg ion a ck now ledg es that phos phoru s disc harg ed d uringw inter m onths is lik ely to settle an dUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 77

ac cum ul at e inth e do w ns tr eam im po undment s an d co ntri bute to im pairm ents d

uringthe sum

m er an d that, t he r e f

ore, the R eg ion m

ust im po se a m or e stri ng ent li m it th an th e P erm it ’s li m it of 1.0 m g/ l applicab le duringw inter m onths. Id. at 2 1. N one of the se d etailed ar gum ents we re sta te d inCL F ’s com m ents s ub m itte d duri ngth e pu bl ic com m ent p eriod. The regulation g ov erni ng perm it app eals p rov ides th at the petition for rev iew shall in clude “a dem onstration that any issue s be ing raised were raised duringthe public com m ent p e riod (in cludingany publ ic hear ing) to the ex te nt r e q uir ed by thes e re gulat ion s,” 40 C.F.R. § 12 4. 19 (a ), and

th e re gul at io n g ov er

ni ng pu bl ic co m m ent pr ov id es th at : All p ersons, inclu dingapp l icants, who believ e any cond ition o f a draft p erm it is in appropriate * * * m ust ra is e al l rea so na bl

y as ce rtai na ble is su es a nd s ub m it a ll re as on ab lya va ilab le a rgum en ts s up po rt in g th ei r position by

the close of the pu

blic co m m ent p eriod (includin gany

pu blic h earing ) * * *

. 40 C. F.R

. § 124. 13 (em

phasis added ). The Board has routinely app lied these prov isions to de ny rev iew whe re th e i s sue or argum ent “w as reasona bly asce rtainable but w as n ot raised duringthe com m ent p eriod on the d raft perm it.” In re Shell Offsho re, Inc., 13 E.A .D . 3 57, 39 4 (E A B 2 00 7) ; accor

d In re Chr istian C

ounty Gen eration , L

LC , 13 E.A.D. 44 9, 45 7 (E A B 2 00 8) ; In re BP Che rry P oint , 1 2 E .A .D . 2 09, 21 8- 20 (E A B Jun e 21 , 2 00 5) ; In re Kendall New Century Deve lop., 11 E.A.D. 40, 55 (EA B 2003 ). This “is not an arbitrary hurdle, placed in the pa t h o f potential pe ti ti on er s si m

pl y to m ak e th e pr oc es s of

r ev ie wm or e di ff

ic ul t; r athe r, it serv es an im

portant function related to the efficienc y and integrity of the o v erall adm inistrati v e sch em e. A s the Board h as explained in the pa st , ‘ [t ]h e in te nt of th es e ru le s is to en sure th at th e pe rm itti ngautho ri ty * * * ha s th e fi rs t o pp ortuni ty to a dd re ss any o bject ion s to th e pe rm it , and that the perm it proc ess w ill hav e so m e finality .’” B P C he rr y P oi nt ,UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 78

12 E .A .D . a t21 9 ( qu ot i ng In re Sutter Pow er P lant , 8 E. A. D. 68 0, 687 (EA B 1999 )). The p erm itti ngp ro ce ss r eq ui re s a sp ec if

ic ti m e fo r pub li c c ommen tso t h a t i s s ue s m a y be ra i s e d a nd“t he pe rmitis s ue r ca n make tim ely and appro priate adjustm ents to the perm it determ ination, or, if no adjustm ents are m ade, the perm it issuer can i nclude an explan ation of why none are nece ssary .” In re U ni on C ou nt y R es
. R ec ov er

y F ac il it y , 3 E

. A

. D

. 4 55 , 4 56 ( Adm ’r

1 99 0) ; accor

d S utter P owe r , 8 E. A. D. at 6 87. The o pp ortun it y fo r pu bl ic c om m ent s erv es an im

po rt ant r ol e in establishin gthe prope r stag ingof the p erm it decisio n p rocess: I f an issue is not r aised duringthe notice and com m ent process , * * * the perm ittingauth ority is p rov ided no op po rtun it y to a dd

re ss th e is su e sp ec if

ic al ly p ri or to pe rm it is su an ce . I n su ch in st an ce s, if th e B oard w er e to exercise j urisdiction , it wou ld be com e the first- lev el de ci si onm ak er

a s to su chn ew ly

r ai se d is su es , c ontr ar

y to th e expe ct at io n th at

“ ‘m os t p erm it co nd it io ns s ho ul d be f in al ly d et erm in ed

a t the [ pe rm itautho ri ty ] le vel.’” Kna uf I, 8 E .A .D . at127 (quotin g 45 Fed. Reg . 3 3,2 90, 33, 412 (May

19, 1 980)). A lternativ ely , th e B oard m ig ht rem and such issues back

to the perm ittingauth ority for initial dete rm inatio n a t that lev el, p otentially resultin g inan unne ce ss ar il y

p ro tr ac te d p e r

mi tt i n g p r oc es s, whe re ea chtime a f

in al p erm itis is su ed

and an ewis su e is raised on r e vie w, the perm it m ust b e sent back

to the perm i t issuer for further co nsideratio n. Su ch an a pp r oa c h wou l d u n d e r mi n e t h e e f f i c i e nc y, predictab ility , and finality of the p erm ittingpro cess. BP Che rry P oint, 12 E.A .D . at 219

- 20. In sh or t , “ [ t ] he e ffectiv e, efficient, and predictab le adm inistration of the perm ittingpro c ess de m a n d s th a tth e p e rm i ti s s u e r b e g i v e nth e o p p o rtun i t y t o a d dress potential problem s w ith dra ft perm its before they bec om e final. ” In re E nc ogen C ogen erat io n F

ac il it y , 8 E. A. D. 24 4, 250 (EA B 1999 ).UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 79

L ik ew is e, CL F’s s tate m ent in its c om

m ent le tte r t hat “ [t]he li m ite d f

lus hing 52 ca pac ity of thi s sy st em , c om

bine d w ith the per si st enc e of phos phorus and nit

rog en in t he sy st em , w ar

ra nt c onsi der at ion of

y ea r r ound a p p lication of

c ontrol s, ” si m

ply w as not suf f ic ie nt t o a le rt the Re g ion t hat CL F obje ct ed that t

he m ost s tri ng ent ac hie v abl e limit shoul d be a

pplie d y ea

r- round r at

her tha n the Permit’ s y ea

r- round a pplic at ion of

c ontrol s in t he f orm of a 0.1 mg /l limit during the w ar m -w ea the r m onths and a limit of 1.0 mg /l duringthe cold- w ea

the r months

. See L ette r f rom Pete r S hel le y , e sq. , e t al , of CL F to NPDES Permits Unit, U .S. EPAat 2 (Ma y 23, 2007)

. I n the prese nt cas e, the R eg ion m entione d b oth th e Go l d B ook and the Ecoregion XIV Criteria in the Fa ct Sh eet m ade av ailable to the public prior to the public com m ent p eriod. F act S heet at 9. The Reg ion al so sp ec if

ic al ly st at ed th at th os e do cum ents re co m m en de d criter ia rang ingfrom

0. 024 m g /l to 0 .1 m g /l and the Reg ion explained why it was selectinga criterion at the upp er end of that ran g e. Id. at 9

- 10. A s no ted, C L F ’s o w n co m

m ent l ette r m er el y

s ta te d th at “the fi na l p erm it ’s w arm weath er total phos phoru s limi t s ho uld be no higher th an 0 .1 m g /l.” Letter f rom Pe ter Sh elley , e sq. , e t al , o f C L F to N P D E S P erm it s U ni t, U

. S

. E P Aa t 2 ( May

2 3, 2 00 7)

. C L F d id

n ot m ent ion a nyw he re in

it s com m ent letter the argum ents it no w raises o n ap peal, specifically that the R eg ion s hould

apply the criterion of 0.024 m g /l recom m ended by the Ecoregion IV C

riteria , nor did C LF m ention the Gold Bo ok 0

. 05 m g /l recom m endation for stream s that discharg e direc tly into a lak e or im poun dm ent. Id. A lthough C LF’s letter and the attac hm ent to its letter did m ak e referen ce to the lim its of techno log y , it di d no t d o so in a m anner that w ould hav e alerted the Reg ion to the contentions CL F n ow m ak es o n ap peal th at the Perm it is req uired to hav e a lim it set a s string ent as is achiev able under av ailable te chno log y . CL F a lso h as n ot identified any

other perso n’s p ublic com m ents th at raised

the issues CL F now raises. Acco rding ly , CL F’s p etition fa ils to include the required

52 “d em on strati on

th at any is su es b ei ngr ai se d w er e ra is ed duri ngth e pu

bl ic com m ent p eriod * * * to the extent requ ired b y th e s e regu lations, ” 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 (a ), whi chin cl ud es s ub m itti ng“ al l re as on ab ly av ai la bl e a r gum ents” by

the close of p ublic com

m ent, id. § 1 2 4

. 1 3

. T h e r efore, CL F’s p etition w ith resp ect to the p hosp horus lim it m ust b e dism issed.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 80

b. The Regio n’s Decis ion t o E s t ab l i s h a Ne w Li mit More St ri ngen t t ha n th e D is tr ic t’

s E xp ir ed P er m it ’s L im it The District argues that the 0. 1 m g /l wa r m- weath er total phos phoru s lim it is to o string ent an d that the expir ed p erm it’s lim it of 0.7 5 m g /l shou ld be retained. Dist. Sup p. Pet. at 32- 39. T he Di s trict ar gue s th at

th e R eg io n sh ou ld

w ai t an d co ll ec t d at a sh ow in gth e ef fe ct s of the D istrict’s Treatm ent Plant im prov em ents the D istrict m ade to m eet the 2 001 perm it’s lim it. Dist. Sup p. Pet. at 33

. The District’s argum ents, ho w ev er , are n ot

w el l- ai m ed

a t e it he r th e re gul at or

y r eq ui re m ents g ov er ni ngthe Re g io n’ s de ci si on o r th e R eg io n’ s rati on al e fo r it s de ci si on , and

th er ef or e, a s expl aine d be lo w , th e D is tr ic t’ s ar gum ents mis s th e i r m a rk. The Reg ion a

pplied 40 C. F.R . § 12 2.4 4(d)(1)(v i)(B) to estab lish th e P erm it ’s w at er qu al ity - ba se d num er ic ef fl ue nt li m itto c om

pl y w ith Ma ssa chu set t’ s nar ra ti ve wate rq u al it y cr it er ia . Fact She etat 9. As explain ed a

bov e, that regulation prov ides a s follow s: Wh er e a S ta te h as n ot

e st ab li sh ed

aw at er q ua li ty criterion for a specific chemical pollutant that is p resent in an effl ue nt at a con centration that causes, has the reasona ble p otential to cau se, or co ntributes to an excursio n ab ov e a narrativ e criterion w ithin an applicab le State wa ter qu ality stand ard, the p erm itting authori ty m ust es tablish effluent lim its usin gon e or m or e of th e fo ll ow in go pt io ns : * * * * (B) Establish effluent lim its on a cas e- by

- case basis, u s i n gE P A ’ s w a t e r

q u a l i t y c r i t e r i a , p ub l i s h e d

under se ct io n 30 4( a) o f th e C WA , s up pl em ente d w he re necessary by othe r relev ant in form ation * * *. ”UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 81

40 C. F.R . § 12 2. 44 ( d)(1)(vi)(B ). Follow ingthe regulation’s direction, th e R eg io n us ed

E P A ’s w at er

q ua li ty num er ic cri te ri a gui danc e se t f orth in the Gold

Bo ok and Eco re

gi on XIV C ri te ri a , s upplem ented with other relev ant in form ation. Fact S heet at 9- 10. The Reg ion o bserv ed th at the Gold Bo ok reco mm ends total ph osph orus criteria ran g ingfrom 0. 025 m g /l to 0 .1 m g /l, depen dingon the characteristics of the w ater bo dy , and t ha t the Eco re

gi on X IV C ri te ri a s t a t e s th a t0

. 0 2 4 m g / l w o u l d r e p r e s e nt waters in the reg ion m inim ally im pacted by hum an activ ities and witho ut cultur a l e utr ophication. Id. The Reg ion s elected the lea st string ent cr it er io n w ithi n th is rang e, 0. 1 m g /l , as th e P erm it ’s w arm - w eath er li m it

. Altho ug h the D istrict doe s no t directly argue that the R eg ion shou ld no t hav e us ed th e Gold Bo ok and Ecor eg io n X

IV C ri te ri a , th e D is tr ic t d oe s st at e th at th os e A g en cy cr it er ia do cum ents ar e ba se d on o ld data, and the D istrict argues that the R eg ion s hould w a i t f or the dev elopm ent o f add itional s ite- specific data and a TMDL or o ther m athem atical m odel for ph osph orus in the Black stone Riv er. Dist. Su pp. P et

. a t 3 2- 33 , 37

- 39

. The B oard re ject s th is c onte nt io n, f

ir st , b ec au se , in referringto the criteria guida nce in the Gold Bo ok and Eco re

gi on X IV C ri te ri a , th e R eg ion fo llowed the regulation’s direction to us e E PA criteria. See 40 C. F.R . § 12 2.4 4(d)(1)( vi) ( B) . The D istrict has not pointed to record ev idence of an other av ailable, relev ant m ethod aut ho r i zedun de r

se c t i on 12 2. 44 ( d) ( 1) ( vi) th a tth e R e gi on co ul d h a ve us ed to id enti fyanum er ic c ri te ri on f or th e B la ck st on e R iv er . S ee 40 C. F.R . § 12 2.4 4(d)(1)(v i)(A), (B), (C ) (auth oriz ing p e r mit lim its to be based on draft state criteria and EPA ’s w a t e rqu ality criteria, supp lem ented with other relev ant in form ation, or based on an in dicator param eter). The D i s t rict’s argum ent th at the Reg ion s hould w ait to allow ti m e to c ol le ct

d at a sh ow in gth e ef

fe ct s of the 0. 75 m g /l lim itim

po se d in 2001 , D ist. S upp. Pe t. a t 3 3, sim ply m isappreh ends the b asis o f the R eg io n’ s de ci si on . Alim itof 0. 75 m g/l d oe s no t f al l w ithi n th e cr it er ia rang e the Reg ion id entified from EP A’s criteria do cum ents, which is a re gul at or il y - autho ri z ed

m etho d fo r de t e r

mi n i n g t h e n um e r i c p erm itli m it

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 82

F urth er , the D is tr ic t’ s re fe re nc es to th e expi re d pe rm it ’s li m it and analy sis un derly ingthat lim it, inc ludingthe prev iously

- used m athem atical m odel, referred to as Q UA L2E , D ist. Sup p. Pet. at 32

- 33, 39, on ly add ress th e co ntr ol of low dissolv ed o xy g en lev els an d d o n ot address othe r cultural eutrop hication problem s identified by the Reg ion. See R TC a t 4 1. Th e R eg io n ex pl ai ne d: “T he m odel w as n ot u se d to dev elop effluent lim itations address i n g c u l t u r a l e ut r o p hication in the new pe rm itb ec au se e ff

orts to u pd at e th e m od el in

li g ht o f ne wd at a w er e unsu ccessful. ” Id. The Reg ion explained that the 2001 perm it’s “0. 75 m g /l total p hosp horus lim it wa s ba s e d on m eetingdisso lv ed o xy g en criteria in the Black stone Riv er on ly and did not a ddress eutroph ication related im pairm ents in either the Black stone Riv er or Narrag ansett Bay .” R TC a t 2 5; see a lso id

. at 35

. The R eg io n id enti fi ed

new d ata th e A rm

y C or ps o f E ng in ee rs collected in 20 03 show ingthat m a c r op hytes do m inate th e B lack stone R iv er im m ed ia te ly b el owth e Dis tr ic t’ s di sc harg e po in t – “ [t ]h e pl ants th at d om in at ed

th es e re ac he s al l h av e inc om m on th at t hey gro win de ns e, th ic k , and

lo ngm as se s and are a ll in di cato rs o f eutr op hi c freshw ater.” Id. The Reg ion explain ed th at the QU AL 2E m odel canno t be u se d to an al y z e th is pr ob le m : “S in ce th e m od el [Q U A L 2E ] is n ot a bl e to sim ulate ro oted aquatic plants, efforts to up date th e m odel based on the n ew Corp s of Eng ineers data w ere unsu ccessful relativ e to sim ulating instream ph osph orus lev els.” Id. To addres s the specific pr ob l e m s identified in the B lack stone R iv er , th e R eg io n fo ll ow ed the dir ec ti on

of 40 C. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (v i) and utiliz ed E PA ’s w ater quality num eric criteria guidanc e found in the Gold Book and Eco re

gi on X IV C ri te ri a in settingthe num eric lim it for phos phoru s. In attac k ingthe Reg ion’s decisio n, the D istrict has not so ught to m ee t th e st an dard es ta bl is he d by 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 44 (d )( 1) (v i)

. The D is tr ic t h as n ot

p oi nt ed to any E P Ao r Ma ss ac hu se tt s num er ic cr it er ia , n or any

o th er r el ev ant r ec or d ev id en ce , th at w ou ld s up po rta to t a l p h o s p h o ru s l i m i to f 0

. 7 5 m g / l a s s u f

f i c i e n tt o c o n t r o l c ultural eutr op hi cati on

im m ed ia te ly and f urth er d owns tr eam

fro m th e D is tr ic t’ s di sc harg e po in t.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 83

The Board also rej ects the District’s effort to introdu ce on appea l certain output from

a m athem atical m odel currently in dev elopm ent b y the D istrict. See Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 38 & ex. G. As noted in the resp onse to co m m ents, dev elopm ent an d testin gof the m odel has not b een co m pl et ed , and

w as the re fo re n ot

uti li z ed in s etti ngap ho sp ho ru s li m it for this Perm it. RTC at 76

. More g enerally , th e B oard rej ects th e District’s request for de lay ine st ab li sh in gthe p ho sp ho ru s li m itf or th e sam e re as on s th e B oard rej ected sim ilar argum ents c allingfor delay with respect to the total ni tr og en li m it– s pe ci fi cal ly, t he r egul at io ns d ir ec t the p erm itis su er to es ta bl is h w at er

q ua li ty

- ba se d ef

fl ue nt li m it s ev en

in th e ab se nc e of

a TMD L o r w as te lo ad

a ll oc at io n an d th e st at

ut e fav or s expe di ti ou s ef

fo rt s to ad dress water quality pro blem s, rather th an d elay

. See P art I I .D .2. b(ii)(a). The Reg ion also a pprop riately

and sufficiently

identified the ex istingsev ere phos phoru s- driv en c ultural e utroph ication v iolating water quality

criteria and imp airingthe Black stone Riv er’s de sig nated u s e s a s af urt h e r r e a s o nf o r i mp o s i n g as t r i n ge n tp e rmi tl i mi ta tt h i s t i me witho ut w aitingfor further da t a . R T C at 40

- 41. The Reg ion w as n ot required to w ait for further data, dev elopm ent o f a TMDL, or dev elop men t of a m athem atical m odel for total phos phoru s in the Black stone Riv er. The Reg ion also consid ered whe ther site- specific data c ollected in2 00 3 w ou ld

s up po rtap erm itli m ita t 0

. 75 m g /l , e v en th ou g h th at

li m it wou ld no t fall w ithin th e r e c omm endatio n o f the Gold Bo ok and Eco re gi on X IV C ri te ri a . S pe ci fi ca ll y , th e R eg io n not ed th at d at a collected by

MassD EP and the Arm

y C orps of E ng ineers in 20 03 do not supp ort a 0 .7 5 m g /l lim it. RTC at 35

. The Reg ion e xplaine d that the District discharg ed at c l os e to the 0 .75 m g /l lev el in 2003 and y et the Black stone Riv er ex hibited characteristics of sig nificant eutroph ication. Id. (i de nt i f

yin g an A u gus t , 2 00 3, m on t hl y ave r a ge d i s c ha r ge co nc entr at io n of

0

. 8 m g /l ). Th e D is tr ic t atte m pt s to att ac k

th e R eg io n’ s analy sis by

argui ngthat the o bserv ations reg ardingR iv er co nditions w er e no t m ad e inth e sam e m onthwhe n the Di stic t’ s di sc harg es w er e near the 0 .75 m g /l lev el, and that the refore th e 2003 d a t a do not showUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 84

See U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers, PhaseI: W ate r Qual ity

Ev aluati on and 53 Modelin g of

the Massachusetts Bla ckstone R i ver , ( Dr af t 2004) ; Ma ss DE P, Blac ks tone Riv er W ate rs hed 2003 D W

M W ate r Qual ity

M onitor ing D ata (M ay

2005). use- im pairingcultural eutro phication at th at disc harg e lev el. Dist. Su pp. Pet. at 36. The D istrict’s argum ent, how ev er, m ust fail for tw o rea sons. First, the rec ord contain s m ultiple o bserv ations of sev ere cu ltural eutroph ication throughout the 2 003 sum m er indic atingthat the R iv er 53 observ ations are su fficiently alig ned with the d ischarg e data. Seco nd and m or e im

portant, ev en if the D istrict’s argum ent w ere to showthat there is a m isalig nm ent between the 2003 R iv er co ndition observ ations and the D istrict’s discharg e near the 0.7 5 m g /l lev el, th ere w ould still be no id enti fi ed

e v id en ce in th e re co rd

s ho w in gth at

ali m ito f 0. 75 m g /l is su ff ic ie nt to e ns ur e co m

pl ianc e wit h Ma ss ac hu se tt s’ w at er q ua li ty standard s. In o ther wo r ds , without the 2003 inform ation, the m ost re le v ant i nf

or m at io n inth e re co rd

r eg ar di nga

pp ro pr ia te num er ic c ri te ri a wou ld still be the recom

m endatio ns of the Gold

Bo ok and Eco re

gi on X IV C ri te ri a . Acco rding ly , th ese arg um ents d o n ot sh ow clear erro r in the Reg ion’s decision to apply to the B lack stone Riv er the criteria ran g e of 0.0 24 m g /l to 0 .1 m g /l tak en fro m the Gold Bo ok and the Eco re

gi on X IV C ri te ri a . The D is tr ic t’ s ar gum ent t hat the R eg io n sh ou ld hav e tak en into acc ount dil uti o n of t he Dis tr ic t’ s di sch ar ges in th e River at high flo ws and at seas onal av erag e flowalso does not s howclear error inthe Reg ion’s analy sis. Dis t. S upp. Pe t. at 36- 37, 39

. The Reg ion e xplaine d that Massa chuse tts regulations require the dilution v alue to be based on the kn o w no r

e s t i m a t e d

l o w e s tav e r a g e f

l o wth a to c c ur s f

o r s e v en con sec uti ve day s wit h a rec urr enc e int er val of onc e in t en years (known as th e 7Q 10 lo wf

lo wr at e)

. F ac t S he et

a t 4 , 9

- 10 ( ci ti ng 314 C MR 4.0 3(3)). The D istrict cites no law or regulation autho riz ingthe Reg ion to co nsider dilution at flow cond itions other than the 7 Q10 flowrate and, thus, the District has not id entified any regulatory basis for the R eg ion to co nsider hig h o r av erag e flowrates.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 85

Nev ertheless, the Reg ion e xplaine d that the data re g arding am bient phos phoru s co ncentratio ns in R iv er flow s at hig her than 7Q1 0 indicate that there is no or little dilution av ailable in the Riv er flow

. The Reg ion e xplaine d that the District’s “discharg e do m inates the flo w in the r i v e r un d e r l o w f

l o w c o n d i t i o n s a n d dur i n g m o s t s t o rm ev ents.” R TC at 60

. Spec ifically , th e R eg ion e xplaine d:
Wet w eather m onitoringcon ducted by MassD EP unde r its Sm art Monitoringprog ram at a water q

uality station (M idd le River) j ust up s t re am of t he UBWP AD discharg e, at a tim e when the Worc ester C om bined Se we r Over f l ow Fa c i l i t y up s tr e a m wa s no tdi s c ha r gin g, resulted in total phos phoru s co ncentrations ran g ing f r om 45 - 33 0 : g /l withan av erag e of 132 : g /l ( M a s s D E P S m a rtMonito ring data: 9/20/2 000, 11/20 /2003 , 4 /28/20 04, 6/23 /2004 ). The lack of dilution and the ele v ated b ack g round con centration s of phosphorus duringw et w eather ev ents s uppo rts the ap pl ic ab il ity

o f th e 0. 1 m g /l tot al p ho sp ho ru s li m it unde r all flo w cond itions.
RTC at 60

. The D is tric t ar gue s th at

th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se to c om m ents inapp r op r iately

exc luded data p oints that w ould hav e pro duced low er m ean an d m ed ian v al ue s. D is t. S up p. P et

. at 37

. Th e D is tr ic t, h ow ev er , f a i l s t o s t a t e th a tth e ex c l ud e d d a t apo i nt s ar e no tre pr e s e nt a t i ve o f hi gh flow, or wet wea t he r ev ents, and therefore are n ot relev ant to the issue the R eg ion w as an aly z ing , n am ely whether the D istri ct’s disc harg es wou ld be d i l ut e d duringhigh flow s. There is no clear erro r in the Reg ion’s decision

to exclud e t hese data p oints for that analy sis. Sim ilarly , th ere is no clear erro r in the R eg ion’s decision to consid er on e som ewh at higher d ata po i nt as representativ e of the R iv er’s high flow cond itions. The D istrict’s argum ent th at this data point is an “outlier, ” witho ut m ore, is not a pe rsuasiv e explanation as to why the data utiliz ed by t he R eg ion is no t repres entativ e. Absent such an e xplanation, theUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 86

Ev en util iz ingthe data the D is tri ct

a dv ocat es at m ost

w ould r es ult in a 54 bac k g roun d R i v e r c o n c e n tr at i o n th at i s a f e w h u n dr e d th s o f an m g / l l o w e r th an the iden tified 0.1 m g/l criterio n. Dist. S up p. P et. at 3 7. The District has not sho w n th at such a sm al l a m ount of pos si ble dil ution w ould a llow a m at er ia lly

higher Permit limit.
T he Di st ric t a ss er ts , w ithout

c ita tion to any

le g al a uthori ty , that

“ the Re g ion 55 m ust exe rcise its own jud gm ent and a naly sis in determinin g the im pact on a downstream (c ontinue d...) Bo a r d wi l l no tun s e a tth e Re gio n’ s t e c hn i c a l j ud gm e nt onre pr e s e nt a t i ve da t a. In re W

ashing ton A qued

uct W ater S upply Syst., 1 1 E

. A

. D

. 5 6 5, 584 (EA B 2004 ) (selectio n o f repres entativ e data is a technical judg m ent th at f al ls w ithi n th e pe rm itiss ue r’ s di sc re ti on and te chni ca l e xp erti se ). 54
For all of these reasons , th e B oard conclu des that the D is t r i c t h as n ot dem onstrated

that the R eg ion’s deci s i on to set the Perm it’s total phos ph o ru s l i m i ta t0

. 1 m g / l i s c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s o r

ana b u s e of discretion

. F. T heP er m it ’s F ec al C ol if or m L im it The Reg ion s et the water qu a l i ty

- based effluent lim it for fe cal co li fo rm at 2 00 co lo ny

f or m in guni ts ( “c fu ”) /1 00 m l a s a m onth ly g eom etric m ean and 400 cfu/100 m l as a daily m axim um for the perio d of Apr i l 1 t hr ou gh Oc t ob e r

31 , a ndfo r

th e pe r i odof

Nove mbe r

1 t hr ou gh March 3 1, the Reg ion set the lim it at a m onthly g eom etric m ean of 5 71 cfu/100 m l and

a daily m axim um of 1429 cfu/1 00 m l. Perm it at 4, 8 n

. 6. The D istrict doe s no t object to the w arm - weath er lim it for th e pe riod of April 1 to October 31; but, the District does object to the cold

- weath er li m ita pp li ca bl e to N ov em

be r 1 thro ugh Marc h 31. Di st

. S up p. P et

. at 39

- 43. The District states th at the cold weath er lim it has the effe ct of requiringdisin fectant treatm ent y ear- round and the D istrict believ es that this is not n ecessary

to ensure com

pliance with Rho de I sland’s water quality stand ards.
T he Di s t r i c t , i n e f

f e c t , a r gue s th a tth e Re gio n s ho ul d h a ve ig nored R hode I sland’s water quality standard bec ause it designates a

55UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 87

(.. .c ontinue d) 55 state, not m erely

im plem ent that state’s regulatio n in its stea d. Here, giv en the absence of a ny real evidence c on necting the District’s discharge to im pairm ent of designated uses, the CWA does no t auth orize t he im po sition o f

wate r q uality -based ef

f luen t lim its based on Rhode Is la

nd s ta ndar ds. ” D is t. Supp. Pet . at 43. us e fo r th es e w at er s –

p ri m ar y hum an c onta ct – th at d oes n ot oc cur in cold weath er. The D istrict argues as follo ws: E v en if w in te r di si nf

ec ti on were n ec es sary

to p ro te ct

p ri m ar y contact recreation in R

hode I sland, there are n o p laces fo r e n g a g i n gi ns u c hwh i c hm i g h tb e i m p a c t e d b y th e D i s t r i c t’ s discharg e. The w inter efflu ent lim it has been set to protect a us e that d oes not o ccur in area s no t designated for that use. Dist. Su pp. Pe t. at 40. The Distr i c t a lso co nnects this argum ent reg ardingthe Riv er’s de sig nated use with challeng es to the sufficiency of the data the R eg ion u sed in its reasona ble p otential analy sis – the District states that the Reg ion “attem pt[s] to protect a no n- existent use with unso und science .” Id. at 4 3. Sp ecifically , th e D istrict asserts that the R eg ion re lied o n d a t a that is bo th old and lim ited in num

ber. Id. at 4 1. The D is tr ic t ar gue s furthe r th at th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s fa il ed b oth to acc ount for dilution of the Reg ion’s discharg e in the B lack stone Riv er and to tak e into account, and control, othe r sources o f fecal coliform

. Id. at 41

- 42. The District’s argum ents, how ev er, fail to de m o n s tr at e c l e ar e r r or or ab use of d iscretion in the R eg ion’s decision

. The District’s argum ent reg ardingwhat it asserts is the “non

- existent use” of the R iv ers for prim ary hum an c ontact duringthe cold- weath er pe riod c onflates the notion of “existing use” with that o f “de sig nated use. ” Rho de I sland law de fi ne s “d es ig nate d us es ” as “ th os e us es s pe ci fi ed in w at er q ua li ty standard s for each waterb ody or seg m ent whethe r or not they are being attained. ” 12- 190- 001 R. I

. Cod e R. § 7. This m eaning is confirm ed b y contrast with the de finition of “e xistinguse ,” whic h m eans the u sesUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 88

T he Re g ion ba se d it s dec is ion on a v er si on of Rhode Is la

nd’s w at er

qua lit y 56 s t an d ar d s th ath a s s ub s e qu e n t l y b e enr e p l a c e db y

R h o d e I s l an dan da

p p r o v e db y

E PA w ith a m ore s tri ng ent

f ec al c olif orm c rit er ia prov idingthat not

m ore than 10% of

the sa m ple s m ay e x ce ed 400 MPN/100ml. “ th a t a r e a c t u a l l

ya t ta i ned i n a w aterbod y on or after N ov em

ber 2 8, 1975 .” Id. (em

phasis added ). Here, R hode I sland water quality sta nd a r ds c lassify

the Black stone Riv er as “B1 ” and the Seek onk Riv er as “SB 1.” Bothclass B1 and SB 1 w aters “are d es i gnated for prim ary

and seco ndary

contact recreationa l activ ities.” 12

- 190- 001 R. I . C ode R. § 8.B .(1)(d), (2)(c) (em phasis added ). Beca

use this regulation uses the w ord “designated, ” rather th an “ existing ,” it unam biguous ly des cribes the waters falling within these classe s as ha vin ga desig nated use of p rim ary hum an contact, and

bec ause this is the desig nated use, it ap plies “ whe ther o r no t [the u s e s ] a r e b e i n g a t t a i n e d

. ” 1 2

- 1 9 0

- 0 0 1 R

. I

. C o d e R

. § 7

. The applicab le R

hode I sland water quality regu lations also d o n ot co ntain a sea son al excl usi on fo r a col d- weat her per iod

. 12- 190-001 R.I

. Code R. § 8 .B .(1)(d), (2)(c). Thus, there is no am biguity in Rho de I sland’s law establishin ga y ear- round

desig nated use for the Black stone and Seek onk Riv ers as i ncludin gbo th prim ary and seco ndary

contact recreational activ ities. There is also no am

bigu i ty , o r seaso nal ex ception , in R hode I sl and ’s numeric cri te ri on fo r fe cal coli for m forthes e wat er s. Clas s B1 waters m ust co m ply w ith the f

ollow ingnum eric criterion for fecal co li fo rm : “ N ot

to e xc ee d a g eo m etri c m ean v al ue of 2 00 [ MP N /1 00 m l] and not m ore th an 2 0% of the to tal sam ples tak en sh a l l exce ed 5 00 [M PN/1 00 m l] .” 12- 190-001 R.I

. Code R. § 8.D.( 2) tbl. 1. Class SB1 56 waters m ust co m ply w ith a criterion of 5 0 MP N/10 0m l, g eom etric m ean. Id. tbl. 2. The applica

ble fed eral regulations also are not am biguous : thos e regulations require that the Pe rm it the Reg ion i s s ues “shall in clude” water quality

- based

effluent lim its to “[a]chiev e w ater qu ality stand ards”UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 89

e s t abl i s he d b y Rho de I s l a nd . 40 C.F .R . § 12 2. 44 ( d) ( 1 )

. Spe c i f i c a l l y, “[l]im itations mus t con trol all p ollutants” that m ay

cau se, contribute to, or h av e a re as on ab le p ot enti al to caus e a v io la ti on o f R ho de I sl an d’ s water quality standard s. I d. § 1 22. 44(d)(1 )(i) (em

phasis added ). The D is tr ic t h as c it ed

n o le g al autho ri ty

– and n on e ex is ts –

f or th e R eg io n to ig nore these clear req

uir e ments of the fed eral N PD ES perm itting re gul at io ns and

Rh od e I sl an d’ s w at er

qu al ity stand ar ds

. Thu s, th e B oard m ust rej ect the District’s argum ent th at the Reg ion h as authority to issue a pe rm it with a season al exc eption for co ntrollingfecal coliform in cases, li k e th e pr es ent on e, w he re th e R eg io n de te rm in ed th at th e fe ca l c ol if

or m discharg es h av e the r eason able potential to v iolate R hode I sland’s water quality stand ards. The Distric t a l s o has no t estab lished clear erro r or abuse of di sc re ti on in th e R eg io n’ s de te rm in at io n th at th e D is tr ic t’ s fe ca l c ol if

or m di sc harg es hav e re as on ab le po te nt ia l to v io la te Rh od e I sl an d’ s num er ic criterion for feca l coliform

. The Reg ion b ased its interpre tation o n w ater quality sam plingcollec ted in the Black stone Riv er in 2005 and 20 06 at the “last accessible p oint o n the m ain ste m of the B lack stone Riv er prio r to its crossing t he MA

- RIbo rder.” Fa ct Sh eet at 8. The R eg ion describe d the data and its con clusion s drawn from the data a s follow s: Thi s sam

plinginclu ded m onthly sam ples c ollected du r i ng dry wea t he r

fr om No vemb e r2 00 5 t hr ou gh Febru ary 2006, a pe riod d

uringwhich the u

pstream Massachu setts P OTWs w ere n ot dis infecting

. Fecal coliform counts of 1700, 1300 , 700, and 1700 MP N/10 0 m l w er e re co rd ed

d ur in gth is p er io d. Th e g eo m etri c m ean of the se sam

ples is 1273 MPN/100 m l, an d all four of th e sam ple s ex ce ed ed

5 00 MP N /1 00 m l, th er ef or e v io la ti ngR Iw at er

qual ity s tand ar ds

. D ur in gdry w eath er , th e on ly si g ni fi cant so ur ce s of fe cal col if or m bacteria in the riv er are upstream PO TWs. The sam pling al so in cl ud ed

m onth ly s amples c ol le ct ed

d ur in gApr il 2005 and O ctober 2005 , a period duringwhich upstream P O TWs are disin fe ct in g ; s am pl es c ol le ct ed

d ur in gth isUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 90

t im e ind icate the criteria were g enerally m et. EPA believ es that the discharg e from [the District], bein gthe do m in ant p oi nt

s ourc e on

th e ri v er , h as th e re asonab le potential to cau se o r contribute to v iolations of Rho de I sland Water Q uality

Stan dards.
Fact Shee t at 8

. I n its respon se to co m m ents, the R eg ion a lso d iscussed da ta s h o w i n gas i m i l a r

n e a r l y un i f o rm v i o l a t i o no f

w a t e r q u a l i ty standard s duringw et weath er, or hig h flow , e v ents. R TC at 6 3- 64. The Reg ion also explain ed th at there is e ffectiv ely no dilutio n av ailable –

the Reg ion re ached

this conclu sion by

ob serv ingthat, in periods whe n the PO TWs are disinfe cting , th e R iv er flowis in com pliance with the fec al coliform criteria duringlowflowcon ditions, but is i n v iolation during wet weath er conditions. Id. Thus, the R eg ion c onclud ed th at, d uringw et weath er co nditions , the Riv er is in v iolation from othe r sources an d the Dis tr ic t’ s di sch ar ges wouldnot be dil ute d by a le ss pol lut ed River f low. Othe r than

arguingthat the w et- weath er data are too old and that there are no t a sufficient num ber of sam

ples, Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 41, the District does not identify any error inthe Reg ion’s analy sis. N otably , th e District does not point to any record ev idence that w ould contrad ict the data th e R eg ion r e l i e d upon . Mere argum ent ab out d ata ag e, witho ut ev idence of ch ang ed c ondition s, or m ere arg um ent ab out th e num ber o f sam pl es , w itho ut evidence s ho w in gth at th e num be r of s am pl es is in ad eq uate , is n ot

s uf fi ci ent t o es ta

bl is h cl ear er

ror in the R eg io n’ s t e c h n i c a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n t h a t t h e s e d a t a a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e. In re W ashing ton A qued

uct W aterSupply S

yst., 11 E.A.D. 565 , 584 (EAB 20 04 ) (s el ec ti on

o f re pr es enta ti v e datais a t ec hn ic al jud g m ent that f al ls w ithi n th e pe rm itis su er ’s d is cr et io n an d te chni ca l e xp erti se ). The Bo ard a lso rejects the District’s contention th at the Reg ion failed to ap propriately

tak e into acco unt “ other sources of coliform in the R iv er . ” D is t. S up p. P et. a t 42. Th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s sh ow s th at it consid ered whe ther o ther so urces wou ld be a sign ificant co ntributor duri nglo wf

lo w co nd it io ns an d th e R eg io n co nc lu de d th at “ [d ]uri ngdry weath er, the o nly

sig nificant sources of fecal co liform bac teria in theUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 91

T he Re g ion e x

p l ai ned that pe rmit limits ba se d on num er ic c rit er ia w ithi n s tate 57 w at er qua lit y s ta ndar ds ty pic al ly us e both t he ac ute and chroni c c rit er ia : “Max im um da ily limits are g ene ra lly der iv ed f rom a cut e aqua

tic li f e cr ite ria , a

nd av er ag e m onthly

li m its ar e g ene ra lly

de riv ed f

rom c hronic a quat ic li f

e cr ite ria.” 2009 Per

m it Modif

ic at ion State m ent of Ba si s at 5 ( her ei naf

te r “ A l SO B” ). riv er are upstream

PO TWs” and the D istrict is th e do m inant one. F act Shee t at 8

. The Regi on a dd itionally con sidered the ex istence of o ther s o ur c e s i ni t s an a l y s i s of

di l u t i o ndur i n gw e tw e a t h e r co n d i t i o n s . R TC at 6 4. The B oard al so re

ject s th e D is tr ic t’ s co nt enti on th at th e R eg io n’ s analy sis “p uts th e entire burde n of coliform com pliance on the D istrict.” Dist. Su pp. Pet. at 42. The Perm it’s con ditions only requ ire the District to co ntrol th e feca l coliform disch arg ed fro m

the District’s outfall; th e P erm itd oe s no t re qu ir e th e D is tr ic t to li m ito r co ntro l f ec al c ol if or m in th e ba ckg ro un d R iv er

flo wor fr om

any s ourc e othe r th an

th e D is tr ic t’ s own discharg es. A ccordin g ly , th e D istrict has failed to sho w clear erro r or a bu se o f di sc re ti on

in th e R eg io n’ s de te rm in at ion t hat th e D is tr ic t’ s fecal co l i f

orm disch arg es h av e the reasona ble p otential to cau se o r contribute to v iolations of R hode I sland’s wate r qu ality stand ards o r the R e gi o n ’ s e s t ab l i s h me n to f t h e P e rmi t ’ s n u me r i c l i mi tf o r f e c a l c o l i f o rm. G. T heP er m it ’s A lu m in um L im it The Perm it, when initially issue d, did n ot inc lude a lim it for to tal alum inum , and T rout Unlim ited filed a petition c halleng ingthe absen ce of an alum inu m

li m it

. In it s re sp on se b ri ef , th e R eg io n st at ed

th at it “plans to issu e a draft p erm it m odificat i on to establish an a lum inum effluent l i mit ,” R e g ion’s Resp . B r. at 133 , and on April 15, 20 09, the R eg io n is su ed

aP erm itm od if

ic at io n se tt in g th e P erm it ’s al um inum li m it at 87 : g /l. T h e R e g i o ne x p l a i n e d th a tth i s l i m i ti s r e qu i r e d by Massachu setts’ w ater qu ality stand ards and EPA ’s chron ic alum inum 57 criteria reco m

m ended in Office of Water, U .S. EP A, Natio nal Reco mm ended

W ater Qua lity C

riteria: 2 002, EP A 82 2-R-02-04 7 ( No v. 2002 ) (“EPA’s 20 02 N at io na l C

ri te ri a ”). In es sence, the Reg ion de te rm in ed

th at th e Per m it ’s li m itm

us t b e se t at the le v el o f E P A ’s alum inum

criterion bec ause Massachu setts’ regulations require use ofUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 92

Fina lly , the Di st ric t ar g ues that the Re g ion’s dec is ion to m odif y the D is tri ct ’s 58 Permit ju st s ixm onths a f te r i ss uingthe Permit ra is es publi c polic y que st ions that t

he Board sho uld rev iew . District’s A l. P et. at 14 -16 . T he District argues that the Region has (c ontinue d...) E P A ’s c ri te ri on

and bot h the ba ckg ro un d R iv er f lo wand th e D is tr ic t’ s di s c ha r ges ex c e e d t he cr i t e r i on le vel , t hu s in di c a t i ng t ha tan y di s c ha r ge by the Reg ion wi ll contribute to the existingv iolation of the criterion

. A l S O B a t 7

- 8; 2 009 P erm itMo di fi cati on R es po ns e to C om

m ents (“Al RTC”) at 5- 6.
On May 20 , 2 009, the District filed a petition seek ingrev iew of the alum inum

lim it. See P et it io n fo r R ev ie w of R ev is ed P erm it Con ditions and Motion of the Perm ittee, U pper Black stone Water P ol luti on Abate m ent D is tr ic t, to C on so li date t his P et it io n w ith O th er s R el at ed to th is P erm it , N P D E S Ap pe al No

. 08

- 11 (May 20 , 2 00 9) ( he re in “Dist. A l Pet.”). B y

ord er dated August 6 , 2 009, the Board co nsolidated the D istrict’s pet i t i on for rev iew of the Pe rm it m odification w ith the District’s petition for rev iew of o ther co nditions of the P erm it. The District challeng es b oth th e w ater qu ality crite r i on the R eg io n ap pl ie d init s ana ly si s an d th e datath e R eg io n us ed in de te rm in in gth at

the Di stri ct ’s dis ch ar g es hav e a re as on ab le p ot enti al to cause v iolations of that criterion. The District argues that co rrectingthe criterion and correctingwhat it alleg es are data e rrors d em onstrate that t he D i s t r i c t ’ s a l umi nu m di s c ha r ges d o n ot ca us e , c on t r i bu t e to , o r ha ve the rea sonab le potential to cause v iolations of Massa chuse tts w ater quali t y s t a n d a r d s an d

th a tth e p art i c u l a r

nu m e r i c l i m i tth e R e g ion selected, 87 : g /l, is too s tring ent. D istrict’s A l. P et. at 4. The District argues that it was clear erro r for the R eg ion to app ly an alum inum criterion drawn from

EP A’s 2 0 0 2 N

a t i o n a l C r i te ri a , a nd the D istrict co nt en ds th at

th e R eg io n, in st ea d, s ho ul d de v el op e a si te

- sp ec if ic criterion based

on data regar ding “naturally occ urringbac k g round conce ntrations” in the Riv er, whichthe District argues wou ld pro duce a cr it er io n hi g he r th an

th e al um inum

c on ce ntrati on fo un d inth e D is tr ic t’ s discharg es. Dist. Al Pet. at 2- 3. The District, argu es that i ts disch arg es 58UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 93

(.. .c ontinue d) 58 changed its posit ion m erely in respon se to T rou t Unlimited’s original petitio n for rev iew and not ba se d on a

ny ne w or dif f er ent s ci ent if ic anal y si s. Id. The D i st r i ct f urth er cont ends th at the Reg ion ’s sudd en change f rustrates the District’s e f fo rts at c apital pla nningand re st

ric ts the D is tri ct ’s opti ons f or c ontrol lingphos phorus

. Id. ar e co ns is te nt ly be lo w th e ba ckg ro un d le v el an d, thus , w ou ld n ot v io la te a cr it er io n re fl ec ti ng th e ba ckg ro un d co nc entr at io n an d no li m itw ou ld be re quired. Alternativ ely , the D istrict argues that the lim it sho uld b e set at the hig her backg round lev el. These arg um ents, how ev er, fail to show that the R eg ion c om

m itted clear error or ab used its discre tion. Massachu setts w ater qu ality s tandard s requ ire “ad ditional m inim um criteria” as follo ws: A ll s ur fa ce w at er s sh al l be f re e fr om p ol lutant s in conce ntrations or com

bination s that are tox ic to hum ans, aquatic life or wildlife. F or pollutants n ot oth erwise li s t e d i n 3 14 CMR

§ 4.0 0, the N

ationa l Re com men ded W ater Q uality C

riteria: 2 002 , EPA 82 2R-0 2-047 , Nov em ber 2 002 publi s he d b y

EP A pursuant to Section 30 4( a) o f th e F ed er al Wate r P ol luti on C ontr ol A ct , are the allowa ble rec eiv ingw ater co ncentratio ns fo r the affected waters, unless the Departm ent either estab lishes a si te s pe ci fi c cr it er io n or d et erm in es th at

n atura lly oc curr in gb ac k g ro un d co nc entr at io ns are h ig he r. 314 C. M.R. § 4.0 5(5)(e). I n respondin gto public com m ents, the R eg ion expl ai ne d th at

“ [a ]l um inum

h as n ot b ee n ‘o th er

w is e li st ed ’ in 31 4 C MR § 4 .00 and

no s ite- specific criteria for the B lack stone Riv er hav e be en dev eloped

for this p ollutant. ” Al RTC at 6. The District does not dispute this con c l usion; instead, the District argues that, while the th e Ma ss ac hu se tt s’ r egul at io ns g en er al ly r eq ui re a pp li cati on

o f E P A ’s nati on al c ri te ri a, ther e is an ex ce pt io n to th is r eq ui re m ent a

pp li ca bl e w he re th e “n at

ur al ly o cc ur ri ngb ac k g ro un d co nc entr at io ns are h ig he r”UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 94
and, in such cases, “the backg round con centration

of alum inum

bec om es the rele v ant w ater qu ality stand ard.” D ist. A l Pet. at 3

. The Reg ion a ddresse d this contention by stating in its respo nse to co m m ents that the D istrict had no t sho wn that elev ated b ack g round a l umi nu m l e vel s i n th e Bl a c kst on e Ri ver a r e , in f a c t , n a tur a l l y oc c ur r i ng. S pe ci fi ca ll y , th e R eg io n expl ai ne d as f ol lo w s: [W]e also do not see any

dem onstration

in the graph (or el se w he re in

th e co m m ents ) th at

th e al um inum

le v el s ar e naturally occ urring

. The presentation does not factor in , or ev en a ck

now ledg e the m

ultitude of ind

ustrial an d com m ercial indirect discharg ers to t he w astew ater sy stem and t he a ddition of a lum inum by the City of Worcester, UBWPA D’s larg est m em ber c om m unity , a s pa rt of its drinkingw ater treatm ent p rocess. Sim ila r l y, give n t he hi ghl y ur

ba ni zedna tur e of

th e w a t e r s he d abo ve the d ischarg e, includin gnum erous ind ustrial and co m m er ci al sit es wi thsto rm

wa te r runo ff

and som e w ith direct w astew ater disc harg es to the riv er, includin gthe City of Worcester discharg ingalum inum to the rec eiv ing water as p art of the water supply treatm ent process, the com m enter h as n ot m ade a su fficient cas e that the a mbi e nt le vel s ar e na tur a l l y oc c ur r i ng. Al RTC at 3.
O n ap pe al , th e D is tr ic t att em pt s to r ef

ut e th e R eg io n’ s determ ination that the D istrict had “no t m ade a su f

ficient ca se that the am bient lev els are naturally occurrin g ” by citing data that is no t part of the ad m inistrativ e reco rd. See Dist. A l Pet. at 9- 14. S pecifically , th e D i s t r i c tc i t e s d a t ac o l l e c t e d b y th e W o r c e s t e r

W a t e r D e p a rt me n tf

r o m a point betw een the Kendall Re serv oir an d the H olden Rese rv oir. Id. at 11

- 12. The District’s argum ents b ased on this info rm ation introdu ced for the first tim e on app eal m ust b e rejected. The R eg ion w as req uired to m ak e it s de ci si on on

th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd e st ab li sh ed

p ur su ant t oUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 95

40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 18 , and

whethe r th e R eg io n co m m itte d cl ear er

ro r is m ea sure d by

the rec or d th at

w as b ef or e th e R eg io n at

th e ti m e itm ad e it s decision

. Deseret P owe r, 1 4 E

. A

. D

. a t 7 n . 3; In re Ken dall N ew Cen tury, 11 E

. A

. D

. 40 , 5 5 (E A B 2 00 3) ; In re Steel D ynam ics, 9 E.A.D. 16 5, 2 30 ( E A B 2 00 1) ; In re Mau i El ec. Co , 8 E

. A

. D . 1, 9- 10 (EAB 1998 ). The D is tr ic t’ s ar gum ents b as ed o n th e dataand

ana lysis th at

is include d in the ad

m inistrativ e recor d do n ot sho w clear erro r in the Reg ion’s determ ination. The District charac t e r i zes th e reco rd d ata as ev idencin ga “correlation ” be tween elevated alum inum con centration s in the D istrict’s discharg es and elev ated a lum inum con centration s in the backg round

R iv er flow

. Dist. A l Pet. at 10 ; Le tter from R obert D. C ox, J r. Attorney

for the Dis trict to Meredith Tim ony , U .S. EP A Reg ion 1 N P D E S U n i t a t 3 ( F e b

. 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 ) ( h e r e i n a f t e r “ D i s t

. Al Comm ent L ette r” ). The D is tr ic t h as in ap pr op ri at el y p re se nt ed

th e data , whi chw er e collected on specific days separated by m any m onths, on

a line graph, leav ingthe false im

pression of continu ity

betw een t he d ata po ints. Prop erly ana ly z ed a s ind epend e nt data points, the data re v eal that on som e day s there w ere n arrowdifferen ces and on other day s a wide di ff er en ce be tw ee n th e co nc entr at io ns in th e R iv er and in th e D is tr ic t’ s discharg es. Thus, the R eg ion c orrectly rejected the District’s assertion, statingin its respo nse to co m m ents th at the Dis t r i c t ’ s grap h d oes not showa direct c orrelation betwe e n the alum inum con centration

in the D i s t r i c t ’ s d i s c h a r g e an d

th e c o n c e n t r a t i o ni nth e R i v e r flow

. A l R TC at 3

. M or eo v er , th e R eg io n al so c orr ect ly s ta te d init s re sp on se to com m ents th at the identification of a co rrelation, in any

eve nt, does not speak to the questio n whe ther the backg round alum inum

con centration is “naturally

occ urring ” rathe r than cau sed b y

the v ariety

of anthro po g en ic s ourc es th e R eg ion me nt io ne d init s re sp on se to co m m ents

. A l R TC a t 3

. Th e D is tr ic t’ s re ci ta ti on on app eal o f it s as se rt io n th at

t her e is ad ir ec t c or

re la ti on is s im pl y n ot s uf fi ci ent t o de m on strate th at

th e R eg ion c le ar ly

e rr ed in r ejec ti ngth e D is tr ic t’ s “na tur al ly occur ri ng” theo ry by obse rving that the da ta do not s how a di re ct c or re la ti on and do no t ad dr es s th e m any anthr op og en ic s ourc es inUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 96

Rhode Is la

nd’s w at er qual ity st anda

rd f or al um inum , w

hic h is a pplic abl e to 59 th e B l a c k s t o n e R i v e r ’ s l o w e r r e a c h e s , a l s o i s 87 : g/l. RhodeIs land W ate r Qual ity Regu lati on s, Rule 8, App. B. the w atershed

that m ay be r e s po nsible for ch ang es in the b ack g round alum inum

con centration

. The o ne s tu dy

th e D is tr ic t atta ch ed to it s co m m ent le tt er

m er el y m enti on ed

aci di c pr ec ip it at io n as ap os si bl e caus e of a lum inum

f ound in riv ers an d stream s in the n ortheast – it does not s peak either to whether acidic precipitation

is “naturally

occurring ” rather than caused by hum an activ ity or, m ore im

portantly , whether a c i dic p recipitation causes the alum inum

con centration s in the B l a c kst one Riv er rathe r than the anthrop oge ni c so ur ce s th e R eg io n m enti on ed in it s re sp on se to com m ents. Com

pare Al RTC at 3 with M on e t t e , M .Y . & M c Co rmic k, S.D ., I m p a c t s o f S h o r t

- t e rm A c i d

a n d A l u m i n u m E

x p o s u r e o n A t l a nt ic Salm on ( Salm o S alar) Ph ysiol ogy: a D irect C

omp arison of Parr

an d Sm ol ts , 8 6 Aquatic Tox ic ol ogy 2 16

- 22 6 (2 00 8)

. B ec au se th e re co rd ev ide nce t he D is tr ic t c it es d oe s no t r ef ut e th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se to com m ents, the B oard m

ust reject the District’s contention th at the R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in c on clud in gth at

it m us t a pp ly E P A ’s n at io na ll y rec o m m e n d e d c r i t e r i o no f

8 7 u g / l f

o r a l u m i nu m

i nth e B l a c k s tone R iv er . 59
To determ ine whether the D istrict’s disch arg es m ay exc eed the criterion of 8 7 ug/l, an d the refore, hav e the potential to cau se a v iolation of Massachusetts’ water quality standards, EP A’s guidanc e reco m m ends that the perm it iss ue ruse the m axim um con centration

of the p ollutant m easured in the discharg er’s efflue nt. O ffice of Water, U .S. EP A, U. S. EPA N PD ES Perm it W

riters' Man ual, ch. 6.3 .2 (Dec. 19 96). H ere, the Reg ion d eterm ined that “th e conce ntration of alum inum in the efflu ent exceed ed th e chronic criterion” on num erous occasio ns and “[t]herefore, th er e is r ea so na

bl e po te nt ia l f

or th e di sc harg e to caus e or c ontr ib ut e to an e xcursio n ab ov e the criteria in the downstream receiv ingw ater ev en if the am bient conce ntration wer e a s s um ed to be z ero.” A l SO B at 7. The Reg ion also conclude d that the av erag e co ncentratio n o f alum inumUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 97

Spe ci f ic al ly , the Di st

ric t a rgues that t

he Re g ion i ncl uded in i ts av er ag es data 60 tak en w hen the ri v er

w as f low ingat a

high le v el and ex cl uded dat a f rom a ct ual low -f low perio ds f alling ou tside of ty

pical low flow

month s. Dist. A l P et. at 4 -6. The District also ar g ues that t

he Re g ion’s anal y si s ina ppropr iate ly

us ed in i ts a vera gin g the m et hod detection lim it f

or some o f t he data poi nts of 100 ug/l, thereby increasing the a

vera ge. Id. at 7-9. The Region ad equately ad dressed t hese comm ents in the Region’s respon se to p ub lic com

m ents. Al RTC at 2-4

. On ap peal, the District raises a new argum ent that one dat a point is an “ outli er ” re f le ct inga “ pla nt ups et ” and thus not re pre se ntativ e. D is t. A l Pet . at 6. Not abl y , the Di st ric t i ncl uded this data

point in its ow n c al cul at ion of

it s av er ag e al um inum

c once ntra

tion as pre se n te d i n the D is tri ct ’s publi c com m ent le tte r. Di st . A l C om

m ent L ette r at 3, t

bl. 1. B ec aus e the D is tri ct did not r ai se it s is sue s and argum ents con ce r n i n g this data poin t du ring the pu blic comm ent perio d andtho se ar g um ent s w er e re as onabl y a sc er ta ina ble at that t im e, the D is tri ct

is barr ed f

rom ra is ing its challenges f

or the f irst tim e on appeal. Mor eover, the Distric t h as n o t p rovided ev ide nce de m onst

ratingthat t

he condi tions re sul tingin this “ outli er ” data point w ill not re occ ur. inth e D is tr ic t’ s ef

fl ue nt d ur in gty pi ca l l owf

lo wp er io ds w as 1 27 u g /l , well abov e the crit erion of 87 ug/l, also indic atinga reasona ble p otential for the D istr i c t’s disch arg es to cause or co ntribute to v iolations of the criterion. Id. T he D istrict challen g es this determ ination on appea l by identify ingthree ty

pes of data errors it contends establish clear error and re qu ir e re m an d. D is t. A l P et

. at 4- 13. Nota bly , how ev er, t he Di s t rict do es n ot cha ll en g e th e R eg io n’ s de te rm in at io n th at th e datad em on strate t h a tth e Re gi o n ’ s d i s c h a r ge s e x c e e d e d th e 8 7 u g / l c r i t e r i o no ns o me oc c a s i on s ; in s t e a d, th e Di s t r i c ton l y ar gue s th a tit s ave r a ge d i s c ha r ge conce ntration is low er than 12 7 u g /l. Id. T he B oard d oe s no t n ee d to re ac h th e sp ec if

ic argum ents th e Distr ic t m ak es o n ap pe al – it is 60 su ff ic ie nt th at th e R eg io n co rr ec tl y ob se rv ed th at th e Dis tric t’ s di sc harg es h av e be en

m eas ured ex ce ed in gth e ap pl ic ab le 8 7 ug/l criterion. This is sufficient to sup port th e R eg ion’s conclu sion setting the P erm it lim it at th e lev el of the criterio n co nsistent with EPA gui da nc e . M or e ove r , t he Di s t r i c t ’ s own ca l c ul a t i on of it s ave r a ge co nc entr at io n as pre se nt ed in th e D is tr ic t’ s pu

bl ic com m ents wa s 92 u g /l , exc eed ing the cri te ri on andj ust if ying the Permit’ s li mi t. Dis t. Al Com m ent L etter at 3, tbl. 1.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 98

F or th e fo re g oi ng re as on s, th e B oard c on cl ud es n o cl ear er

ro r in the Re g i o n ’ s d e t e rm i n a t i o ne s t ab l i s h i n gth e P e rm i t ’ s t o t a l a l u m i num li m ita t 8 7 ug/l

. H. The Vario us Metals Lim its an d S amp l i ng an d Monitoring R eq ui re m en ts A re A

pp ro pr ia te
I n a series o f sho rt sections beg inningon pag e 51 and

exten ding to pa g e 57 of its Su

pplem ental P etition, the D istri c t raises a num ber o f separate issues. The Board rej ects these issues. The District ha s not shown that the issues were raised duringthe public com m ent p eriod, or the issu es are not sufficiently specific, or lack record supp ort, or D istrict failed to add

ress th e R eg ion’s exp l a nation of its decision and respo nse to co m m ents. Spec ifically , th e D istrict m entions total re sidual chlorine and states th e D istrict’s un derstand ingof t he Perm it’s sam pling requ i r e m e n t s , b u t t h e D i s t r i c t d o e s n o t i d e n t i f y a n y s p e c i f

i c e rr o r or pr ob l e m wi t h t he Pe rmit ’ s te rms. Dis t . S u p p . P e t . a t54 . Ac c or di ngl y, the District’s statem ents reg ardingtotal residual chlorine do no t app ear to raise an iss ue re questin gB oard rev i e w a nd therefore rev iew of the total resid

ual ch lorine Perm it con ditions are d enied. The District states that it is conce rned about what it refers to as the P erm it’s rig id sch edule for WE T testingand the District states th at “strict ad herenc e t o this sch edule m ay pro v e difficu lt or im

possib le at ti m es ” an d th e D is tr ic t r eq ue st s th at langua g e be a dd ed

to th e P erm itto ad dr es s it s co nce rn . D is t. S up p. P et

. a t 5 1- 52

. Th e D is tr ic t, h ow ev er , fa il s to e xpl ai n w hy

th e fo ll ow in gs ta te m ent i n th e P erm itis c le ar ly erroneo us o r an abuse of discretio n: “ [ o]ccasio nal d ev iations from the routine sam

plingprog ram

are allowe d, but the reason for the dev iation sh al l b e do cum ente d inc or re sp onde nc e ap pe nd ed

to th e ap pl ic ab le discharg e m onitoringrepo rt.” Perm it at 6

. Acco rding ly , rev iew of the WET test sch edule is den ied.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 99

The District objects to th e w et weath er fecal coliform sam pling re qui re m ent s on th e grounds o f the di ff ic ult y in pe rf

orming the EPAappro v ed s am

plingpro tocol. Di st. S upp. Pe t. at 51- 52. The District ob se rv es th at

t he E P A

- ap pr ov ed

p ro to co l r eq

ui re s tr ai ne d la

bo rato ry personnel an d that ano ther test av ailable on the m ark et can be perform ed by the District’s staff. Id. The D is tr ic t’ s ar gum ent, h ow ev er , f ai ls to address the regulatory

requirem ent th at m onitoringbe cond ucted using EPA

- appro v ed m ethods

. See 40 C .F .R . § 12 2. 44 ( i ) ( 1) ( i v). Acc or di ngl y, the D istrict has failed to dem onstrate clear erro r in the m onitoring re qu ir em ents th e R eg io n in cl ud ed i n the Perm itand

r ev ie wo f th is requirem ent is denied

. The District argues that the am m onia lim it sho uld n ot be stated bo tha s a m as s li m itand

a ls o as a c onc entr at io n li m it

. D is t. S up p. P et

. at 5 3

- 5 4

. T h e D i s t r i c td e m o n s t r a t e s th a td ur i n gth e p ub l i c c o mm ent period it ask ed fo r clarificatio n reg ardingwhich lim it wo uld b e controllin g , b ut the D istrict doe s not dem onstrate that it objected to the lim it exp ressed both as a m ass lim it and as a co ncentratio n lim it. The regulations authoriz e the Reg i on to im pose lim its stated both as m ass li m it and si m

ult ane ous ly as a conc ent ra ti on li m it . 40 C.F.R. § 122.4 5(f)(2). I n addition, the Perm it’s lim it for am m onia is identical to the lim it in the District’s prev ious 2001 perm it. Fact Shee t at 1 0- 11. Beca use this issu e w as not preserv ed for appea l by bein graised

during the p ublic com

m ent p eriod and since it wa s clearly asce rtainable at that tim e, rev iew is den ied. See P art I I

. E

. 2. a ab ov e (d is cu ss in gr eq ui re m ents fo r is su es and

argum ents to b e ra is ed

o n ap pe al ). The District objects that th e co pper lim it is based on dilutio n at the p oi n t o f d i s c h a r g e , b u t s h o u l d i n s t e a d b e b a s e d o n d i l u t i o n at the Rho de I sland borde r. Dist. Sup p. Pet. at 54- 55. The District has m ade no dem onstration t hat this issue was raised duringthe public com m ent period or d em onstrated

that t hi s issu e w as n ot asc ertainable duringthe pu bl ic c om m ent p er io d. Th e D is tr ic t o nl y d em on strate d th at

it co m m ente d duri ngth e pu

bl ic c om m ent p er io d th at

th e co ppe r lim it sh ou ld b e ba se d on

th e Ma ss ac hu se tts si te

- sp ec if ic w at er q ua li ty standard

. Id. Th e fi na l p erm itli m itis th e sam e as p ro po se d inth e dr af tUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 100

perm it, and the Reg ion e xplaine d why adjustingthe copp er lim it base d on the Massachusetts site- specific criteria would not ensure com pliance with Rho de I sl a nd ’ s w ater qu ality stand ards. R TC at 1 3- 14. Acco rding ly , re v iew of the cop per lim it is d enied. See Part I I .E. 2.a abov e (disc ussingrequ irem ents for issu es an d argum ents to be raised on ap pe al ). The District arg ues that the Perm it should n ot im pose a cad

m ium ef fl ue nt li m itth at is be lo w th e le v el s th at e xi st in gte chno lo g y

c an d et ec t. Dist. Su pp. Pe t. at 55. A lthough the D istrict dem onstrates that N ew E ng land P lati ng ’s p ub li c co m

m ents n ot ed

th at th e ca dm ium

li m itis below the current techno log y detection lim it, the District has not de m on strate d th at

any p ub li c co mm ent s re qu es te d th at th e P erm it ’s cadm ium lim it be made less string ent fo r this or any othe r reaso n. Acco rding ly , th is issue w a s no t prese rv ed fo r app eal an d rev iew of the cadm ium lim it is d enied. See Part I I .E. 2.a ab ove (discu ssing re qu ir em ents f

or is su es and

argum ents to b e ra is ed

o n ap pe al ). The D is tr ic t o bjec ts to th e P erm it ’ s n ewm on it or in gr eq ui re m ents fo r l e a d

. D i s t

. S up p . P e t

. a t5 6

. T h e D i s t r i c tn o t e s th a tth e l e ad m onitoringrequ irem ents w ere n ot inc luded in t he d r a ft perm it and , therefore, the District m ay raise issues reg ardingthis requirem ent ev en if it did no t raise them

duringthe public com

m ent p e r iod. Id. The District argues, w ithout prov idingany ev idence supp ort, that its lead di sc harg e le v el s ar e “c on si st entl y bel owlev el s of

c on ce rn ” an d th er ef

or e m onitoringis n ot ne cessary . Id. T he Reg io n fu ll y e xp la in ed

in it s re sp on se to c om

m ents why

it d et erm in ed

th at m onitori ngle ad

is necessary. R T C at 14

- 15. S pecifically , th e R eg ion e xplaine d that although the D istrict’s lead discharg es h av e be en b elowthe detection lev els of the te st the District has used (rang ingfrom 5- 10 ug/l), the se “detection

lev els are hig her tha n t he am bient criteria v alues. ” Id. Spec if ic al ly, Mas sac hus et ts cri te ri on f o rl e a dis 1.8 ug/l . 31 C.M.R. § 4 05(5)(e). Beca

use the District has prov ided no ev idence to refute the R eg io n’ s rati on al e arti cu la te d inits res po ns e to c om m ents , Th e D is tr ic t’ s petition lack s sufficie nt su pport, and

rev iew of the lea d m onitoring requirem ent is denied

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 101

The District objects to the P erm it’s m onitoringrequ irem ent fo r nick el. Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 5 6. T he District n otes th at the nick el m onitoringrequi r e men t s w ere n ot inc luded in the draft perm it and , therefore, the District m ay raise issues reg ardingthis requirem ent ev en if it did no t raise them

duringthe public com

m ent p eriod. Id. The District argues, without prov idingany ev idence supp ort, that its nick el di sc harg e le v el s ar e “c on si st entl y bel owlev el s of

c on ce rn ” an d th er ef

or e m onitoringis not n ecessary . Id. The District, ho wev er, does not a ddress the R eg ion’s statem ent in its response to com

m ents th at the m onitoring requirem ent for nick el only requires the District to separately inclu de nick el in its m onitoring reports show ing the res ults o f nick el m onitoring otherw ise alread

y re qu i r e d as part of the WET tests. See R TC at 1 5. The District has not d em onstrated any clear erro r or abuse of discretion in the R eg ion’s decision to require separate reporting of m onitoring already con du c t e d as part of the WET test and, acco rding ly , re v iew of this issu e is denied

. The District also obj ects that the Perm it con dition requiringthe D is tr ic t t o co m

pl et e an in fi ltrati on

and in fl owc ontr ol p lan w ithi n si x m onths. Dis t. Su

pp . P et

. a t 5 7. Th e D is tr ic t, h ow ev er , h as f ai le d to prov ide any

ev idence supp ortingits o bjec t i on t hat sixm onths is an inadeq uate tim e. N ev ertheless, bec ause this co ndition applies both to the District and to the co- perm ittees an d b ecause the Board is rem andingthe Perm it’s co- perm ittee condition, the Board rem ands this req uirem ent fo r preparatio n o f an inflowand infiltration plan as it relates to the cope rm itte es , and th e B oard de ni es re v ie w of th is pr ov is io n w ith re sp ec t t o the D istrict, which rem ains o blig ated to control inflow and infiltration. The R eg io n expl ai ne d th at t h e s e o p e r at i o n

a n d ma in te nanc e re qu ir em ents ar e auth or iz ed

b y 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 22 .41 (e ), ( d) , and th at th e P erm it ’s speci f i c i n f l o w a n d i n filtration co nditions are required by Massachusetts’ state ce rtification iss ued under s e c t i on 401 of the C WA. Fa ct Sh eet at 18

- 19.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 102

I

. The Region Di d No t

Ab use its D iscretion in D enying Com pliance Sched ules fo r the Nitrogen and Pho spho rus Lim its to be Include d a s Perm it Co nditions The D is tr ic t argue s th at

th e R eg io n cl early erre d or a bu se d it s discretion in issuing the P erm it with out p rov idinga sched ule fo r delay ed co m p l i a n c e w i t hth e t o t a l p h o s p h o ru s an d t o t a l n i t r o g e nl i m i t s . D i s t. S up p. P et

. a t 4 4- 51

. Th e D is tr ic t argue s th at th e R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in interpretingR

hode Island

lawand

abu sed its discre tion under M assachu setts law

. Id. Th e D i s t r i c t a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e fed eral N P D E S per

m itti ngregul at io ns , 40 C. F

. R

. § 1 22

. 47 (a ), g rant th e pe rm it is su er d is cr et io n to in cl ud e a co m pl ianc e sc he du le in a pe rm ito nl y whe re th e ap pl ic ab le s ta te r egul at io ns autho ri z e th e pe rm itto c onta inas ch ed ul e f or com pliance. Id. a t4 8

. T h e D i s t r i c tar gu e s th a tM a s s a c hu s e t t s l aw g ov erningthe Perm it’s pho spho rus lim it g rants th e p e r mit issuer discretion to include a co m pliance sched

ule an d that the Reg ion a

bused it s di sc re ti on

in d eny in gac om

pl ianc e sc he du le in

the p re se nt

c as e w he re itis c le ar th at th e D is tr ic t c anno t im

m ed ia te ly c om pl y w ith th e P erm it ’s total ph osph orus lim it. Id. at 45

- 46. The District also arg ue s t hat the Reg ion c learly

erred in conclu ding that Rho de I sland law g ov erningthe P erm it ’s to ta l ni tr og en li m it do es no t auth or iz e a co m pl ianc e sc he du le to be included

in the p erm it. Id. a t 46

- 48

. T he Di s t r i c tdo e s ac kno wl e dge that R hode I sland has interpreted its law as not a uthoriz ingcom

pliance sched ules, but the D istrict argues that the R eg ion s hould ig nore Rho de I sland’s interpretation

and , in stead, sho uld a dopt t he i nterpretation of Rho de I sland law the D istrict offers in its supp lem ental p etition. Id.
C ontr ar y to th e D is tr ic t’ s co nt enti on , th e R eg ion d id n ot e rr in follow ingR

hode I sl a nd’s interpretation of its regulations g ov erning co m pl ianc e sc he du le s. AR eg io n' s auth or ity to d el ay c om pl ia nce w ith st at e w at er

q ua li ty s tand ar ds thro ugh a co m pl ianc e sc he du le m ad e part of an E P A

- is su ed

N P D E S p erm itis li m it ed to thos e ci rcum st an ce s in whic h the app licable s tate' s w ater qu ality standard s or its im plem enting regulations “can be fa irl y c on s trued as authoriz inga sched ule o f com pliance. ” In re Star-K

ist C aribe, Inc. , 3 E. A

. D

. 1 7 2 , 1 7 5 ( A dm'r 19 90 ), m od if

ic at io n de ni ed , 4 E

. A

. D

. 3 3, 3 4 (E A B 1 99 2) ; In re City ofUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 103

T he Boa rd r ej ec ts the D is tri c t’s c onte ntion that R hode Is la nd’s la w g ov er ning 61 com plia nce s che dule s is proc edur al and not par t of Rhode Is la

nd’s w at er

qua lit y st anda rds

. See Di st . Supp. Pet. at 64- 65. Am es, Iowa , 6 E .A .D . 3 74, 38 0 (E AB 19 96). The Adm i ni s t r ator explain ed th at “C ongress intended the States, no t EP A, to becom e the pr op er autho ri ti es to d ef

ine ap pr op ri at e de ad li ne s fo r co m pl y in gw ith their o wn State law requirem ents. Just howstring ent su ch lim itations are, or whether lim ited fo rm s of relief suc h as varian ces, m ixingz ones, an d co m pl ianc e sc he du le s sh ou ld be g rant ed ar e pure ly m atte rs o f S ta te law, which EPAhas no auth ority to ov erride.” Sta r-Kist , 3 E.A.D. at 18 2. Abs ent authority

for delay g ranted by

the applicab le state water qu al ity s tand ar d, th e N P D E S p erm itm us t re qu ir e co m

pl ianc e w ith st at e wat erqual it y st and ar ds i m m edi at el y upon iss uan ce. 40 C.F.R. §1 22

. 4( d) ; see In re J & L Specia lty Prods. C orp. , 5 E.A .D . 3 33 , 344 (E A B 1 99 4)

. “ [T] he o nl y in stanc e inwhi chth e pe rm itm ay law fu ll y auth or iz e a pe rm itte e to de lay co m pl ianc e af te r July 1 , 1 97 7, p ur su ant t o a s c he dule of co m

pliance, is when the w ater qu ality stand ard itself (or the S tate' s i mp lem entingregulations) can be fa irly con strued as authoriz inga sched

ule o f com

pliance. ” Star-K

ist , 3 E

. A

. D

. at 1 75. 61 Acco rding ly , in

this case, the Reg ion' s capacity to prov ide a com pliance sc he du le f

o r t o t a l n i t r o g e nan d

t o t a l p h o s p h o ru s d i s c h a r g e l i m i t s is ci rc um sc ri be d by

what R ho de I sl an d’ s an d Ma ss ac hu se tt s’ w at er q ua li ty standard s allow

. H ere, the R eg ion e xplaine d as follow s: Rho de I sland’s Water Q uality Stan dards do not in clude prov isions allowin gfor sched ules in perm i ts; R

hode I sl a n d ’ s p r a c t i c e i s t o i n c o r p o r a t e s c h e du l e s i n an Adm inistrativ e C om

pliance Orde r o ra Con sent Agreement. Bec aus e the n it rogen l imit in the UBW PAD perm it is b ased on Rho de I sland’s standard s, EPAis n ot in cl ud in gac om

pl ianc e sc he du le in

th e pe rm it

.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 104

R TC a t 5 8. T he Dis tr ic t d oe s no t d is pute th at R ho de I sl an d’ s in te rp re ta ti on

and p ra ct ic e in co rp or at es c om pl ianc e sc he dul es , n ot

in perm its, b ut ins tead in

com pliance orders or co nsent ag re em ents. See RTC at 58

. There is no clear error i n the Reg ion’s statem ent – the Rho de I sland state regulation the D istrict cites does not s pe c ifically m ention com pliance sched

ules for water quality

- based effluent lim its and

it d oes not a uthoriz e ex tendingcom

pliance bey ond the statutory deadline. See 12

- 19 0- 00 1 R

. I

. C od e R

. § § 20

. 01 , . 02 (a ). The R e gio n d id no te that Massachu setts lawapp licable to the P erm it ’s total p hosp ho ru s li m itd oe s auth or iz e, a t the p erm itis su er ’s di sc re ti on , ac om

pl ianc e sc he du le to b e inclu ded in th e pe rm it

. How ev er, the Reg ion explain ed that “[i]n this m atter, there a r e m a ny ov erlappin gissue s related to the p lanning , d esig n an d co nstruction of facilities to m eet the lim its for phos phoru s an d n itrog en. * * * I n light of these ov erlappin gissue s an d the fact that Rhod e I sland standard s do no t include pr ovi s i ons allowin gfor sched ules, EPAinten ds to issue a co m pl ianc e sc he du le to m ee t b oth th e ph os ph or us an d ni tr og en

li m it s in a sep arate ad

m inistrativ e order.” RTC at 19

. There is n o clear error or abuse of discretion

in this ap proach

. J

. The Regio n A

ppro priately Con sidered

Environm ental Justice Issues The District argues that the Reg ion c om m itted “cle ar error in no t adher i ng to E xecutiv e O rder 1 2898 and the local im

plem entingpo licy and action plan. ” Di s t . Supp . P et. at 68. The District argues that the Reg ion fa iled to com

ply w ith the Preside nt’s E xecutiv e O rder o n env ironm ental ju s t i c e a

n d w ith the Reg ional env ironm ental justice actio n plan. The District conten ds that these directiv es p rov ide fo r add itional notice or h earingop portun ity to env ironm ental justice population s that m ay “be ar the burde n o f increa sed rates that will be necessary to fund the facility up g rades required

by the Perm it.” Dist. Su

pp. Pe t. at 66.UP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 105

T he Di s t r i c t ’ s ar gumen t s a r e unpe r s ua s i ve. Alt ho ugh env ironm ental j ustice issues are co nsidered in perm ittingpro ceeding s, and the B oard has rem anded a perm it for further env ironm ental justice analy sis, In re K

nauf Fiber Glas s, Gm bH , 8 E.A.D. 121, 17 4 -75 (EAB 19 99 ) (r em an d to p ro v id e an e nv ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s to su pp lem ent t he C le an

A ir A ct p erm itti ngr ec or d) ; s ee a ls o In r e Sh el l Offsho re, Inc. , O C S App ea l N os . 0 7- 01 & 0 7- 02 ( E A B S ep t. 1 4, 2 00 7) ; I n r e AE S P uerto Rico, L. P. , 8 E. A. D. 32 4, 351 (EA B 1999 ), a f f’d su b nom Sur Contra La Con tamin acion v. EPA , 20 2 F

. 3d 44 3 (1 st C ir

. 2 00 0) , nev ertheless, th e D istrict is n ot co rrect in its characteriz ation of the Reg ion’s env ironm ental justice ob lig ation. E xecutiv e O rder 1 2898 in stru ct s fe de ra l ag en ci es to ad dr es s, as ap pr op ri at e, “ di sp ro po rt io nate ly hig h an d ad

v erse hum an health or e nvironmen tal effects of [ th ei r] p r o gr a ms , p o l i c i e s , an d a c t i vi t i e s o nmi n o r i t y an d l o w -i n c o me popu lations * * *. ” Fede ral A ctions to A ddress Env ironm ental Justice in Mino rity

Po pulation s an d L ow- I nc om e P opulatio ns, Exec . O rder 1289 8, 59 Fed. Reg . 7629 (Feb. 11 , 1 994). The Exec utiv e O rder, thus, sp eak s to hum an

h ea lth an d env ir onm enta l e ff ec ts ; i t d oe s no t r eq

ui re federal ag encies to co nsider issues reg arding cost or rate ch ang es as the Di s t r i c tar gue s . He r e , t he Di s t r i c t ’ s ar gumen t s onap pe a l do no tal l e ge any facts show ing a “dispro protion ately hig h” im pact o n env ironm ental j ustice popu lations, and

the District’s argum ents do not a lleg e “ad v erse hum an h ealth o r env ironm ental e ffects” o n tho se popu lations. Thus, th e District has not ra ised an env ironm ental justice issu e co g niz able under Exec utiv e O rder 1 2898

. The District’s argum ents a lso d o n ot ad dress the Reg ion’s respon se to com m ents re g ardingits c onsider ation of env ironm ental justi c e i s s ue s. See RT C a t23 , 1 13

- 14 . Ac c or di ngl y, rev iew is den ied.
III. CONCLUSION
F or th e re as on s di sc us se d be lo w , th e B oard r em an ds th e P erm it ’s prov isions g ov erningthe requirem ents im posed up on co- perm ittees. The Board co nclude s the Reg ion m ade no clear error with respect to all other issues raised on appea l. The Bo ard also conclu des no issues inv olv ing either th e R eg ion’s exercise of d iscretion or an impo r t a nt po licyUP PE R BL ACKS T ONE W AT E R P OLL UT I ON ABAT E M E NT DI S T RI CT 106

con si der at ion that warr ant a cha nge to the condi ti ons of the permit. An appea l of the Reg ion’s decision on rem and is required t o e xh a ust adm in is tr at iv e re m ed ie s. 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 (f )( 1) (i ii ).
So Orde red.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Order Denying Review in Part and Remanding in Part in the matter of Upper Blackstone Water Pollution Abatement District, NPDES Appeal Nos. 08-11 to 08-18 & 

### 09-06, were sent to the following persons in the manner indicated:

Pouch Mail:
Karen A. McQuire Amanda J. Helwig U.S. EPA, Region 1 1 Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, MA 02114-2023
U.S. First Class Mail:

John Davenport Conservation Law Foundation 62 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110-1016

J. Bradford Lange Sewer Commission Town of Millbury, Massachusetts Municipal Office Building 127 Elm Street Millbury, MA 01527

David M. Moore City Solicitor, City of Worcester City Hall 455 Main Street Worcester, MA 01608 Nathan A. Stokes Bares & 

### Thornburg, LLP 750 17 th 

### Street, NW Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 JamesShuris Director of Public Works Town of Holden, Massachusetts 1196 Main Street Holden, MA 01520

Donald G. Manseau Cherry Valley Sewer District P.O. Box 476 Leicester, MA 01524

Susan B. Forcier Department of Env. Management Office of Legal Services 235 Promenade Street, 4th Floor Providence, RI 02908-5767 Karen L. 

### Crocker MA Dept. of Environmental Protection Office of General Counsel One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108

### Christopher M. Kilian Conservation Law Foundation 15 East State Street, Suite 4 Montpelier, VT 05602

Northern RI Chapter 737 Trout Unlimited C/o Roland C. Gauvin 2208 Mendon Road

. Cumberland, RI 02864

Dated: 

## MAY 28 2010 David Mears Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic Vermont Law School P.O. Box 96, Chelsea Street South Royalton, VT 05068

Annette Duncan

Secretary

.