Opinion ID: 3007001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The CWA

Text: Congress created the CWA to limit pollution in the waters of the United States. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a) (objective of CWA is to ʺrestore and 4 All three petitions were timely filed within 120 days of the issuance of the VGP, as required under 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1). Accordingly, this Court has jurisdiction over the petitions pursuant to section 509(b)(1)(F) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F). ‐7‐ maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nationʹs watersʺ); S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 102 (2004) (same); Waterkeeper All., Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486, 490‐91 (2d Cir. 2005) (same). The CWA thus prohibits the ʺdischarge of any pollutantʺ from a ʺpoint sourceʺ to the ʺnavigable watersʺ of the United States, except as permitted by the CWA. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1362 (emphasis added). The ʺdischarge of a pollutantʺ includes ʺany addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.ʺ Id. § 1362(12)(A). A ʺpollutantʺ includes solid, industrial, agricultural, and biological waste. Id. § 1362(6). A ʺpoint sourceʺ is ʺany discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any . . . vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.ʺ Id. § 1362(14). ʺNavigable watersʺ is defined as ʺthe waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.ʺ Id. § 1362(7). The discharge of polluted water from a vessel ballast tank is a point source discharge covered by the CWA. See Nw. Envtl. Advocates, 537 F.3d at 1021. A key component of the statute is the establishment of water quality standards. Water quality standards are set by states for waters within their boundaries and are then reviewed for approval by EPA. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313; 40 ‐8‐ C.F.R. §§ 131.4, 131.10‐.11; see also NRDC v. EPA, 279 F.3d 1180, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002) (ʺUnder the CWA, each state sets its own water quality standards, subject to review and approval by the EPA.ʺ). EPA must ensure that the standard proposed by the state will comply with the requirements of the CWA before approving it. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(C), 1313(a) 1342(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 122.4(d). 1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permits An entity seeking to discharge a pollutant is required to obtain and comply with a permit that limits the amounts and kinds of pollutants being discharged. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also Waterkeeper All., 399 F.3d at 498 (discharge allowed ʺwhere . . . permits ensure that every discharge of pollutants will comply with all applicable effluent limitations and standardsʺ). This permit, known as a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ʺNPDESʺ) permit, establishes enforceable effluent limitations, as well as monitoring and reporting requirements. NPDES permits, which are issued either by EPA or a state in a federally approved permitting system, see 33 U.S.C. § 1342, may be individual (issued to a specific entity to discharge pollutants at a specific place) or general ‐9‐ (issued to an entire class of dischargers in a geographic location), see 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.21, 122.28(a)(2), 124.1‐.21, 124.51‐.66. The permit here is a general permit. Permits can impose two different types of standards on discharges: (1) technology‐based standards and (2) water quality‐based standards. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(c) and (b)(2)(a), 1313, 1342(a). The 2013 VGP imposes both.
Technology‐based effluent limits (ʺTBELsʺ) set effluent limitations on a point source based on how effectively technology can reduce the pollutant being discharged. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b), (e), 1314(b); see also PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Wash. Depʹt of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 704 (1994) (holding that, to achieve goals of CWA, EPA is required to ʺestablish and enforce technology‐ based limitations on individual discharges into the countryʹs navigable waters from point sourcesʺ). Congress designed this standard to be technology‐forcing, meaning it should force agencies and permit applicants to adopt technologies that achieve the greatest reductions in pollution. See NRDC, 822 F.2d at 124 (holding that CWA seeks ʺnot only to stimulate but to press development of new, ‐10‐ more efficient and effective technologies,ʺ which is ʺessential purpose of this series of progressively more demanding technology‐based standardsʺ).5 In determining the standard for TBELs, EPA considers the source of the pollution (existing or new) and the type of pollutant. For nonconventional pollutants from existing sources, EPA is required to set effluent limits based on the ʺbest available technology economically achievableʺ or ʺBAT.ʺ 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A).6 BAT requires the ʺapplication of the best available technology economically achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants.ʺ Id.; see NRDC, 822 F.2d at 123 (CWA designed to progress ʺtoward implementation of pollution controls to the full extent of the best technology which would become availableʺ). Because invasive species are a 5 EPA issues national effluent limitation guidelines (ʺELGsʺ), which establish limitations for all types of dischargers within a particular industry and for certain types of discharges. See 40 C.F.R. § 125.3(c)(1). ELGs are enforceable through their incorporation into a NPDES permit. In this case, no states have established numeric water quality criteria for living organisms or aquatic nuisance species. 6 For conventional pollutants from existing sources, the level of pollution control is based on best conventional pollutant control technology. Id. § 1311(b)(2)(E). New sources of pollution must meet new source performance standards, which are based on best available demonstrated control technology. Id. § 1316(a)(1). Neither standard is implicated here. ‐11‐ nonconventional pollutant from an existing source, ballast water discharges are subject to BAT. EPA considers a number of factors in assessing whether a technology is BAT, including:  the cost of achieving the effluent reductions,  the age of equipment and facilities involved,  the process employed,  the engineering aspects of various control techniques,  potential process changes,  non‐water‐quality environmental impacts including energy requirements, and  other factors as EPA ʺdeems appropriate.ʺ See 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(1)(B). EPA can mandate that BAT requires the use of a technology that is not currently available within a particular industry when (1) the technology is available in another industry, (2) EPA finds that the technology is transferrable from that other industry, and (3) EPA can reasonably predict that such technology will adequately treat the effluent. See Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 453 (4th Cir. 1986) (citing Tannersʹ Council of Am., Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1188, 1192 (4th Cir. 1976)). ‐12‐
If the TBELs are insufficient to attain or maintain water quality standards, the CWA requires NPDES permits to include additional water quality‐based effluent limits (ʺWQBELsʺ). See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(1)(C), 1312(a); NRDC, 822 F.2d at 110 (ʺWhenever a technology‐based effluent limitation is insufficient to make a particular body of water fit for the uses for which it is needed, the EPA is to devise a water‐quality based limitation that will be sufficient to the task.ʺ). WQBELs are designed to ensure that the discharges authorized by the permit do not violate water quality standards. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1313, 1342(a)(2). The WQBELs, which supplement the TBELs, are based on the amount and kind of pollutants in the water. See id. § 1312(a). WQBELs are set without regard to cost or technology availability. See NRDC v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 208 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (ʺA technology‐based standard discards its fundamental premise when it ignores the limits inherent in the technology. By contrast, a water quality‐based permit limit begins with the premise that a certain level of water quality will be maintained, come what may, and places upon the permittee the responsibility for realizing that goal.ʺ (footnote omitted)). WQBELs may be ‐13‐ narrative where the calculation of numeric limits is ʺinfeasible.ʺ See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k)(3). No permit may be issued when ʺthe imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected States.ʺ Id. § 122.4(d). Thus, permits must establish limits on discharges that will lead to compliance with water quality standards. See Trs. for Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549, 556‐57 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that permit must translate state water quality standards into end‐of‐pipe effluent limitations necessary to achieve those standards). Because no states have established numeric water quality criteria for invasive species, EPA is required to establish WQBELs that ensure compliance with narrative criteria, designated uses, and antidegradation policies that comprise state water quality standards. The permit may then mandate ʺbest management practicesʺ (ʺBMPsʺ) to control pollution. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k)(3).
NPDES permits also require both monitoring and reporting of monitoring results of TBELs and WQBELs to assure compliance with permit ‐14‐ limitations and facilitate enforcement. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1314, 1318, 1342(a)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(i)(1)‐(2).