Opinion ID: 6345950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Permit Conditions and the MEP Standard

Text: In a variation on the general argument that the MEP standard should be regarded as a cap on conditions in an MS4 permit, the County asserts that minimum control measures set forth in Part IV of the Small MS4 General Permit unlawfully exceed the MEP standard. These minimum control measures – such as mapmaking, annual screening, and “good housekeeping” – are required by the EPA’s regulations and exist to satisfy the MEP standard.29 satisfy the restoration requirement as a result of measures taken by third-party point sources. 29 40 CFR §122.34(b) (“The permit must include requirements that ensure the permittee implements, or continues to implement, the minimum control measures … . (3) (i)…At a minimum, the permit must require the permittee to: (A) Develop, if not already completed, a storm sewer system map, showing the location of all outfalls and the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges from those outfalls; … (6) (i) The permit must … require the development and implementation of an operation and maintenance program that includes a training component and has the ultimate goal of preventing or reducing pollutant runoff from municipal operations”); see Part II.B of this opinion; see also EPA 1999 Small MS4 Permit Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. at 68,754 (“Compliance with the conditions of the general permit and the series of steps associated with identification and implementation of the minimum control measures will satisfy the MEP standard.”). 42 These minimum control measures do not exceed MEP, but rather satisfy it. In reviewing the Small MS4 General Permit, the Court of Special Appeals analyzed in detail the minimum control measures in the permit, as well as the public comments concerning the measures and the Department’s responses to those comments, and concluded that the administrative record supported the conclusion that those measures did not exceed the MEP standard. 250 Md. App. at 427-34.30 We adopt that analysis as our own. The County has not provided an example of how, if at all, the General Permit’s minimum control measures might exceed the federal regulatory minimum. In any event, to the extent those measures could be said to exceed the MEP standard, that would be permissible under the Act and EPA regulations to protect water quality standards. See 40 CFR §122.34(c) (“As appropriate, the permit will include … [m]ore stringent terms and conditions, including permit requirements that modify, or are in addition to, the minimum control measures … where [] needed to protect water quality.”). Indeed, the Department 30 For example, in summarizing the court’s analysis of the “good housekeeping” provision, Judge Harrell stated: [T]he Department’s response to concerns that the good housekeeping provisions were beyond MEP addressed satisfactorily those concerns. The County does not argue otherwise, nor does it assert any other reason why the provisions are beyond MEP. Moreover, the requirements in the general permit appear to be consistent with the guidance provided in the regulation regarding the activities, schedules, and procedures that permit conditions should address. Accordingly, … the Department did not act unreasonably or without a rational basis in exercising its discretionary authority, pursuant to [federal regulations] to identify the minimum elements of a pollution prevention and good housekeeping program for property owned or operated by permittees. 250 Md. App. at 433-34. 43 explained in the Small MS4 General Permit that compliance with the minimum control measures is necessary to satisfy both the MEP standard and the State’s water quality standards. See Small MS4 General Permit at 3. Thus, the EPA and the Department view these minimum control measures as serving both the MEP standard and the satisfaction of water quality standards – to the extent they are different – and does not treat them as mutually exclusive goals. To summarize, MS4 permit conditions must satisfy the MEP standard, but they may do more to protect water quality standards. This is precisely what the Department has done here in the Small MS4 General Permit, with guidance and approval from the EPA. This supplementary relationship between MEP and water quality standards is based on the text of the statute, the EPA’s interpretation of the Act, and this Court’s analysis in Carroll County. That decision analogized the relationship between MEP and water quality standards in MS4 permits to the relationship between technology-based effluent limitations and water quality limitations in typical NPDES permits. Carroll County, 465 Md. at 21213. In both types of permits, there is a minimum standard, and in both types of permits, the permitting authority may increase the stringency of those standards to protect water quality. Such was the case in Carroll County, and such again is the case here. 44 VII