Opinion ID: 195693
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Substantive Law

Text: 55 In order to determine what facts are material, we must look to the controlling substantive law. See, e.g., Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) ([o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.). Pursuant to the ODC regulations, the EPA is required to determine whether a discharge will cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.123. 9 Alternatively, discharges in compliance with State water quality standards shall be presumed not to cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, for any specific pollutants or conditions specified in the variance or the standard. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.122(b). While this presumption is rebuttable, the EPA is entitled to rely upon it unless available data indicates that a discharge would in fact cause unreasonable degradation. 45 Fed.Reg. 65,945 (1980). 56 In this case, the State of New Hampshire certified that the degradation caused by the Seabrook plant was consistent with New Hampshire water quality standards. The EPA relied on New Hampshire's certification in issuing Seabrook's final permit.