Opinion ID: 1057239
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Vermont Water Quality Standards

Text: ¶ 45. Next, CRWC argues that under the joint federal and state regulatory scheme for enforcement of the CWA, the Environmental Court was required to apply the Vermont Water Quality Standards (VWQS) to the proposed permit amendment, and that it failed to do so. CRWC argues that: (1) the VWQS require a separate analysis for determining whether a discharge is allowable than that required under the CWA and that the Environmental Court failed to conduct this analysis; (2) the Environmental Court erred in describing the Connecticut River as a transient habitat because the river is designated as a coldwater habitat by VWQS § 3-05 and subsequently erred in failing to apply the relevant standards; and (3) the Environmental Court failed to determine whether the proposed discharge would comply with the anti-degradation provision of the VWQS. For reasons discussed below, we agree with CRWC that the VWQS are applicable to a thermal variance application, but we conclude that the Environmental Court correctly applied these standards. ¶ 46. In Vermont, ANR is charged with the dual role of implementing state water quality laws and applying federal water quality laws through administration of the state NPDES program. See WaterKeepers N. Cal. v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 102 Cal.App.4th 1448, 126 Cal. Rptr.2d 389, 391 (2002) (characterizing state water agencies' duties as implementing state law relating to water quality and carrying out a delegated administrative responsibility over the more precise and far-reaching system of federal law). In keeping with this emphasis on the role of states in promoting the goals of the CWA, the CWA directs states to develop water quality standards, subject to EPA approval. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(a). States must: develop standards that designate a use for each body of water; establish water quality criteria sufficient to protect each use; and develop an anti-degradation policy. Id. § 1313(c). Federal requirements for the content of state water quality standards represent a floor; state standards may, therefore, be stricter. Id. § 1370; 40 C.F.R. § 131.4(a); see also In re Town of Sherburne, 154 Vt. 596, 601 n. 6, 581 A.2d 274, 277 n. 6 (1990) (noting that [b]ecause state regulations may impose more rigorous standards than the federal counterparts, state agencies should first look to the state regulations for guidance); Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 273 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 859 F.2d 156, 174 (C.A.D.C.1988) (noting that [i]n fashioning its guidelines ... EPA endeavored to reconcile the competing objectives of regulatory uniformity and state autonomy by establishing a floor for ... state enforcement authority, while ensuring that states have the maximum possible independence). In developing these standards, states must also consider the goals of the CWA, specifically the use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A).; see also Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC v. Conn. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 482 F.3d 79, 90 n. 9 (2d Cir.2006) (same). The CWA elaborates on the interaction of state water quality standards with the standards set out in federal law, providing that [w]ater quality standards relating to heat shall be consistent with the requirements [regarding effluent limitations] of section 1326 of this title. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(g). ¶ 47. The VWQS, promulgated pursuant to the CWA, provide specific water quality criteria applicable to any body of water designated a cold water fish habitat, as the Connecticut River currently is. See VWQS § 3-01(B). These criteria require that [t]he total increase from the ambient temperature due to all discharges and activities shall not exceed 1.0° F except as provided for in paragraph (d). Id. § 3-01(B)(1)(b). Subsection (d) of § 3-01(B)(1) provides for a variance from its temperature criteria when an applicant demonstrates that: (1) The discharge will comply with all other applicable provisions of these rules; (2) A mixing zone of 200 feet in length is not adequate to provide for assimilation of the thermal waste; and (3) After taking into account the interaction of thermal effects and other wastes, that change or rate of change in temperature will not result in thermal shock or prevent the full support of uses of the receiving waters. ¶ 48. Despite Entergy's arguments to the contrary, we do not interpret the CWA's provisions regarding thermal discharge variances as completely obliterating the standards set forth in the VWQS. Such an interpretation would effectively render the VWQS a nullity. The Environmental Appeals Board, which hears appeals from NPDES permits issued by EPA Regional Administrators, adopts an analysis of § 316(a) thermal variances in line with this view and explicitly addresses applicable state water quality standards: (1) the Agency must determine what the applicable technology and WQS-based limitations should be for a given permit; (2) the applicant must demonstrate that these otherwise applicable effluent limitations are more stringent than necessary to assure the protection and propagation of the BIP; (3) the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed variance will assure the protection and propagation of the BIP; and (4) in those cases where the applicant meets step 2 but not step 3, the Agency may impose a variance it concludes does assure the protection and propagation of the BIP. Brayton Point, 12 E.A.D. at 557. Moreover, the regulations promulgated under 33 U.S.C. § 1326(a) make explicit reference to the applicable state thermal effluent standards, thus incorporating those standards into the analysis. 40 C.F.R. § 125.73(a) (Thermal discharge effluent limitations or standards established in permits may be less stringent than those required by applicable standards and limitations....). The applicable standards in this case are the VWQS. ¶ 49. CRWC argues that despite the applicability of the VWQS, the Environmental Court erred in not applying these standards. We find no merit to this argument. Though the Environmental Court appears to have analyzed the federal and Vermont laws and regulations concerning thermal variance in tandem, we do not find that this type of analysis was in errorindeed, the federal law itself contemplates construction consistent with state water quality standards. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(g). The Environmental Court noted that the Vermont equivalent to § 1326(a) is found in the VWQS § 3-01(B)(1)(d). The court prefaced its discussion of this standard by noting that the Connecticut River has been designated a cold water fish habitat, and because of this designation, to heat the river more than 1° F, a permit applicant had to meet the requirements of both 33 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and VWQS § 3-01(B)(1)(d). CRWC makes much of the fact that the Environmental Court considered testimony proffered by Entergy that despite the Connecticut River's cold water designation, it is in actuality home to a variety of warm water aquatic life. Because the Environmental Court applied the VWQS standard with regard to cold water habitat, we fail to see how consideration of this information was error. ¶ 50. The first requirement of VWQS § 3-01(B)(1)(d)that the discharge comply with all other applicable provisionsis undoubtedly met here, as the only amendment Entergy requested to its pre-existing permit involved thermal effluent limitations. The second requirementthat the applicant demonstrate that a mixing zone of 200 feet is not adequate to assimilate the thermal wastewas decided in the first instance by ANR in the issuance of the pre-existing permit. If a mixing zone of 200 feet was not adequate to assimilate thermal effluent issued under the permit without the proposed temperature increase, it goes without saying that such a mixing zone is inadequate to assimilate thermal effluent issued under the amended permit. The provisions of the pre-existing permit were not before the Environmental Court, and we will not address them here. See In re Unified Buddhist Church, Inc., 2006 VT 50, ¶ 13, 180 Vt. 515, 904 A.2d 1139 (mem.). Finally, the last provision of VWQS § 3-01(B)(1)(d)requiring demonstration of the protection and propagation of the BIPis essentially identical to the standard under 33 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Because we find that the Environmental Court applied the correct standard to determine whether the thermal variance assured the protection and propagation of the BIP, we find that this last criterion of the VWQS was also correctly applied. [10]