Opinion ID: 195693
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Shellfish Closure Zone

Text: 74 In his evidentiary request, Adams stated that the planned closure of a small area around the outfall to shellfishing was contrary to New Hampshire law, which provides that it is for the public good of the state to protect and preserve its submerged lands under tidal waters from despoliation. See RSA 482-A:1 (1993). 14 Beyond this alleged violation of state law, Adams argued that because New Hampshire has a very small and limited total area for shellfish beds ... a loss of a very small area is a significant net loss, which would therefore be unlawful under 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.122(a)(7). 15 To support his contentions, Adams seemed to rely indirectly on the FDA letter, which suggested that the size of the closed safety zone should extend to an area 4,000 feet from the outfall. 75 The Regional Administrator denied Adams' request on the grounds that he only raised conclusory policy and legal issues, rather than specifying material factual disputes which were entitled to consideration in an evidentiary hearing. The EAB concurred. 76 We do not believe that the Agency acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying Adams' request. Adams again has challenged the EPA's reliance on the New Hampshire certification, which was issued after New Hampshire determined that the state's water quality standards, which protect the commercial and recreational value of shellfishing, would not be contravened. See N.H.Code Admin.R. [N.H. Dept. of Environmental Services, Water Supply & Pollution Control Div.] Env-Ws 430.01 (1990). Adams' claim that the discharge as permitted is unlawful under RSA 482-A:1, represents a disagreement with the State of New Hampshire's ultimate legal conclusion that the discharge from the Seabrook plant would be lawful under specific provisions of New Hampshire's law. Adams failed to indicate what specific provision of law New Hampshire ignored or ill-considered. Adams also failed to point to any evidence showing that a provision of New Hampshire law was, in fact, violated. 77 Adams next argues that the shellfish closure zone would cause an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment under 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.122(a)(7). To establish that this shellfish closure zone would constitute an unreasonable degradation, Adams would need to show that the closure zone produced a loss of recreational or economic values which was unreasonable in relation to the benefit derived from the discharge. 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.121(e)(3). Adams attempted to show this by offering his conclusory opinion that because New Hampshire had a limited total area for shellfish beds, the closure of any area must be significant. Adams failed to point to any facts, however, which showed that the closure zone would cause a loss of any recreational or economic value, much less that such an alleged loss would be unreasonable in relation to associated benefits. 78 We do not believe that the FDA letter materially supported Adams' contention. The FDA letter stated that the shellfish closure zone needed to extend 4,000 feet from the outfall. The FDA letter, however, does not expressly state, or otherwise suggest, that such a closure zone would constitute an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.121. (e). The EPA did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in determining that Adams had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact which justified an evidentiary hearing. 79 For the foregoing reasons, Adams petition is denied.