Opinion ID: 1435578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Ocean Discharge Criteria

Text: The overriding goal of the Clean Water Act is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). To achieve that objective, Congress imposed limitations on the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters and enacted guidelines called the Ocean Discharge Criteria (ODC), 33 U.S.C. § 1343, to regulate that discharge. The ODC apply to discharges into the territorial sea, the waters of the contiguous zone, [and] the oceans   . Ibid. Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1343(c), the EPA promulgated regulations for determining the permissible discharge level of pollutants into the ocean. 40 C.F.R. § 125.120 to -.124 (1985). Before issuing a permit, the EPA must determine whether the proposed discharge level will cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, [1] based on its consideration of ten factors. 40 C.F.R. § 125.122(a) (1985). Those factors include the importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding biological community, 40 C.F.R. § 125.122(a)(4) (1985), and the potential impact on human health. 40 C.F.R. § 125.122(a)(6) (1985). If the discharge complies with the State's water-quality standards, however, the EPA can presume that the discharge does not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, for any specific pollutants or conditions specified in the variance or the standard. 40 C.F.R. § 125.122(b) (1985). Petitioners contend that the Ocean Discharge Criteria are a mandatory aspect of DEP's regulatory scheme. Neither the Act nor the implementing regulations expressly require a permittee to prove compliance with the ODC before the agency can issue an NJPDES permit. The Appellate Division concluded that DEP need not incorporate the ODC in its NJPDES-review procedure because those criteria are not included in 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a) (1989), the EPA's list of regulatory sections applicable to all states. We need not address the issue in great detail, but note our disagreement with the court below for two reasons. First, the Clean Water Act clearly states that anyone who discharges pollutants into the ocean must comply with the ODC and obtain a permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1343(a). Second, although the regulation relied on by the Appellate Division, 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a) (1989), contains restrictions imposed on all states, not every state is adjacent to an ocean or territorial sea. There is no reason to require a landlocked state to comply with the ODC. Thus, the omission of the Ocean Discharge Criteria from the list of regulations applicable to all states set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a) (1989) undoubtedly reflects no more than the reality that the ODC apply only to states that can discharge pollutants into an ocean, territorial sea, or waters of a contiguous zone. Thus, we are satisfied that 40 C.F.R. § 123.25(a) (1989) is not the sole federal regulation containing permit restrictions applicable to states such as New Jersey. We find therefore that the ODC provisions must be satisfied before DEP can issue an NJPDES permit. Although DEP did not incorporate the ODC as a permit requirement in its regulations, the Appellate Division concluded that the Ciba-Geigy permit satisfied the Ocean Discharge Criteria because the presumption of no unreasonable degradation applied. See 40 C.F.R. § 125.122(b) (1985). That provision specifies that [d]ischarges 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 standards. Ibid. Ciba-Geigy maintains that its discharge complied with N.J.A.C. 7:14A-3.14 and Appendix F, which establish effluent limitations for NJPDES permits. According to Ciba-Geigy, compliance with that regulation satisfies New Jersey water-quality standards, and therefore, DEP's reliance on the ODC presumption was proper. Petitioners disagree and contend that the water-quality standards include only the Water Pollution Control regulations, N.J.A.C. 7:9-1.1 to -15.12, and that Ciba-Geigy's discharge failed to comply with those provisions. We need not address the merits of either position on that issue because it is conceded that DEP, during the permit-renewal process, did not rely on the presumption to ensure compliance with the ODC. Moreover, the agency never determined whether, based on the factors listed in 40 C.F.R. § 125.122(a) (1985), the discharge would cause an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. The impediment to judicial review is that there is nothing in the draft permit, the hearing examiner's report, the final permit, or elsewhere in the record that indicates how DEP concluded that Ciba-Geigy's permit complied with the ODC. To that extent the agency's proceedings were insufficiently specific to enable the reviewing court to evaluate its decision. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., supra, 5 N.J. at 375, 75 A. 2d 721. That deficiency must be addressed in any subsequent proceedings concerning the renewal of a permit.