Opinion ID: 547478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Single Operational Upset Defense

Text: 38 When Congress amended the Act in 1987, it added the following language to sections 309(c)(5), (d), & (g)(3): 39 For purposes of this subsection, a single operational upset which leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant parameter shall be treated as a single violation. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1319(c)(5), (d), & (g)(3). 19 40 PDT seizes upon this language and argues that, in all instances where one discharge violated more than one permit parameter, the district court erred by finding liability for more than one violation. PDT claims that this language indicates Congress intended that simultaneous violations in a single non-complying discharge constitute only a single violation. 41 We note initially that the single operational upset (SOU) defense is not a defense to liability, but relates only to the amount of penalties the district court may impose. 20 The SOU defense is contained in subsections relating to calculation of penalties, see e.g. 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1319(d), and by its terms it is limited to the subsection in which it is contained. Thus even if we were to find that PDT was entitled to invoke the SOU defense, this would not preclude summary judgment on liability. Since it could effect the calculation of penalties, we will consider PDT's argument. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that PDT is not entitled to the SOU defense. 21 42 We do not agree with PDT that the SOU defense indicates Congress intends that any single discharge which violates several permit parameters be counted as a single violation. 22 The statute states that a single operational upset, not any single non-complying discharge, should be counted as one violation. While neither the statute nor the legislative history further define single operational upset, we conclude that an upset means some unusual or extraordinary event. We are guided in our interpretation of this ambiguous statutory language by the reasonable interpretation given this term by the EPA. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-83, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 43 The EPA has defined single operational upset as: 44 An exceptional incident which causes simultaneous, unintentional, unknowing (not the result of a knowing act or omission), temporary noncompliance with more than one Clean Water Act effluent discharge pollutant parameter. Single operational upset does not include ... noncompliance to the extent caused by improperly designed or inadequate treatment facilities. 45 EPA Guidance Interpreting Single Operational Upset, Addendum B to Brief of Intervenor EPA at p. 9. 46 This Guidance further defines an exceptional incident as a non-routine malfunctioning of an otherwise generally compliant facility. Id. 47 PDT introduced no evidence that the violations in this case were the result of anything except PDT's own recalcitrance. There was no evidence that a sudden violent storm, or bursting tank, or other exceptional event caused these exceedances. It is disingenuous at best for PDT to argue that it was in a near continual state of operational upset for the six years of violations involved in this suit. We conclude that PDT has not demonstrated that it is entitled to the SOU defense for these violations.