Opinion ID: 3011603
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Ammonia Standard (1.2 mg/l)

Text: The July 29 Order mandates a reduction of ammonia levels to 1.2 mg/l, but fails to provide a rational explanation for why the EPA settled on this standard. In support of the 1.2 mg/l standard, that Order makes the following findings of fact: SATET conducted a technical study of the Dye WCP in order to determine how much influent ammonia, as nitrogen, the Dye WCP could handle and still maintain adequate protection of human health and comply with current and future drinking water regulations. SATET concluded that the maximum amount of influent ammonia, as nitrogen, that the Dye WCP can handle and still adequately protect human health, as well as comply with current and future drinking water regulations, is 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/l), as nitrogen. Our colleague in dissent appears to accept these findings of fact on face value when she states, for example, that [t]he Technical Evaluation Team concluded that the maximum amount of influent ammonia, as nitrogen, that the Dye _________________________________________________________________ EPA should order only interim measures under SDWA and pursue longterm remediation pursuant to CERCLA, we do not decide this issue here. Instead, we vacate the EPA's July 29 Order only on the narrower grounds noted above. We have also considered whether the July 29 Order makes a sufficient finding of imminent and substantial endangerment. The EPA states in a conclusory fashion at the outset of the July 29 Order -- but not under its formal Findings of Fact -- that ammonia in the Saginaw aquifer may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons receiving drinking water from the Lansing Board of Water and Light. Although we do not limit our review to the EPA's formal Findings of Fact in this case, we caution that ordinarily wemay not uphold the order unless it is sustainable on the agency's findings, Moret, 746 F.2d at 992, and that for the sake of clarity it would be better advised to make a finding of imminent and substantial endangerment under its formally articulated Findings of Fact. We also caution the EPA not to assume that the inclusion of these magic words, without any support in the record to demonstrate that the finding is not arbitrary and capricious, will be sufficient to sustain an order under SDWA. 14 Water conditioning plant can handle and still adequately protect human health, as well as comply with current and future drinking water regulations, is 1.2 milligrams per liter, as nitrogen. However, for the reasons explained below, we believe this statement mischaracterizes the record. An examination of the SATET report reveals no technical study by SATET to determine the maximum level of ammonia the Dye Plant could handle without jeopardizing the public's health. In fact, the 1.2 mg/l standard appears to have been expressed as an unquestioned baseline in SATET's mission statement regarding Approach 2. At oral argument, the EPA referred us to section 3.1 of the SATET report for the technical study allegedly performed by SATET. Our best guess is that the EPA was referring to the following passage: The SATET met in Lansing on April 8, 15, and 29, 1999. A technical workshop meeting which included the SATET and an additional technical representative from W.R. Grace & Co. was held in Lansing on May 5, 1999. In each of the meetings the SATET endeavored to understand the data available, recommend additional data collection needed, and discuss the alternative ways the mission could be met. This passage in no way explains how or why SATET settled on a 1.2 mg/l ammonia standard. It certainly cannot support the finding in the July 29 Order that SATET conducted a technical study of the Dye WCP in order to determine how much influent ammonia, as nitrogen, the Dye WCP could handle and still maintain adequate protection of human health and comply with current and future drinking water regulations. The EPA has also directed our attention to section 4.1 of the SATET report as support for the 1.2 mg/l ammonia standard. Section 4.1 states as follows: The goal of Approach 2 is to minimize the ammonia concentration at the Dye Water Conditioning Plant (WCP) to approximately 1.0 mg/l (plus or minus approximately 0.2 mg/l), including measures arising 15 from Approach 1. Approach 2 may also include a well field management program, including routine monitoring and characterization of the water produced from specific Lansing Board of Water & Light (LBW&L) wells. The water treatment target has been identified as a maximum ammonia concentration of 1.0 mg/l plus or minus 0.2 mg/l. An incoming ammonia concentration no greater than 1.0 mg/l will ensure that the plant can meet the maximum disinfectant residual levels required for chloramines. Spikes in influent ammonia concentration should be limited to 0.2 mg/l, an increase that can easily be handled by the plant based on existing fluctuations in ammonia concentrations. Despite the EPA's suggestion to the contrary, this passage fails to provide support for its conclusion that a 1.2 mg/l standard would be necessary to protect the Lansing public's health. SATET's finding that an incoming ammonia concentration no greater than 1.0 mg/l will ensure that the plant can meet its disinfectant levels is not a finding that no greater ammonia concentration can be tolerated by the Dye Plant without endangering the public's health. Likewise, SATET's conclusory finding that the Dye Plant can easily handle spikes limited to 0.2 mg/l in no way determines whether the Dye Plant could handle spikes greater than 0.2 mg/l. Section 4.1 therefore fails to demonstrate a rational basis for settling on the 1.2 mg/l standard. With no evidence that a technical study was ever performed by SATET or the EPA to determine the appropriate ammonia standard necessary to protect the public's health, and no other explanation in the July 29 Order for the EPA's decision, we have no choice but to conclude that the EPA arbitrarily and capriciously settled on the 1.2 mg/l standard.4 _________________________________________________________________ 4. We are aware that the EPA and SATET had before them a desktop study by a consultant hired by the Lansing Board that concludes that ammonia concentrations over existing background levels (0.1-0.5 mg/l) would affect the current treatment and operational practices at the Dye Plant. However, for the following reasons we conclude that this report 16