Opinion ID: 195693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Seabrook's Permit Proceedings

Text: 12 In May 1988, Seabrook applied for an NPDES permit to allow the discharge of the treated wastewater from its proposed plant into the Gulf of Maine. The EPA reviewed the application, and on September 23, 1991, issued a draft permit approving such discharges. 13 The EPA determined that the proposed discharge would not unreasonably degrade the marine environment. The EPA found that the initial dilution and rapid dispersion of the discharge, combined with the anticipated lack of nonconventional pollutants, would make bioaccumulation of pollutants unlikely. The EPA therefore concluded that the various forms of marine life would not be adversely impacted. While the EPA recognized that a small area around the discharge site would have to be closed to shellfishing pursuant to requirements of the United States Food and Drug Administration, because the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries did not consider this area to be a significant shellfish resource, the EPA concluded that this closure would not represent a significant loss of use. 1 The EPA also noted that the construction of the plant could eliminate most of the closings of nearby bathing beaches necessitated by high concentrations of coliform bacteria that were believed to be caused by the failing septic systems in Seabrook. 14 In early September 1991, the EPA established a public comment period from September 25, 1991 through October 29, 1991, and scheduled public hearings for October 22 and 23, 1991, in both Seabrook and Salisbury, Massachusetts. On October 23, Adams, who owns a beach-front home on the Gulf of Maine, submitted a written comment presenting eight issues which he believed should be addressed. 15 On October 26, 1992, the State of New Hampshire certified that the Seabrook permit was consistent with state water quality standards. 16 On November 13, 1992, the EPA issued Seabrook's NPDES final permit for the treatment plant, after consideration of the administrative record, including the public comments and the state certification. 17 On December 16, 1992, Adams filed a request for an evidentiary hearing with the Regional Administrator. In this request, Adams raised several issues which he claimed established material issues of fact warranting an evidentiary hearing under 40 C.F.R. Sec. 124.74. Specifically, Adams contended that: 18 1) The dilution calculations were incorrect and, even if the calculations were correct, the public was not protected from viruses, thereby violating 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.122(6). 19 2) The outfall of the treatment plan, as designed, is not in the best interests of the United States or the Town of Seabrook and would unreasonably depreciate the recreational value of the beach in violation of 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.121(e)(3), while benefitting only the few residents of Seabrook. 20 3) The closure of the zone immediately around the outfall to shellfishing violated a New Hampshire law and 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.122(7). 21 4) If the permit was to be issued, it should be amended to include conditions requiring Seabrook a) to post signs warning of the risk of viral infection, and b) requiring that divers periodically inspect the manifold for storm damage or other possible problems. 22 5) The state permit issued by the New Hampshire Wetlands Board was illegal under state law. 23 6) There was no evaluation of alternate locations for the outfall. 24 On January 5, 1993, the Regional Administrator denied Adams' request for a hearing after concluding that Adams had failed to raise material issues of fact with respect to his various challenges, as required by 40 C.F.R. Sec. 124.75(a)(1). 25 Adams then petitioned the EAB for review of the Regional Administrator's denial of his request for an evidentiary hearing. The EAB denied the petition for review, concluding that Adams had failed to satisfy various procedural requirements with respect to raising objections to the final permit, including failing to raise issues during the public comment period, and failing to satisfy pleading requirements and raise material issues of fact which required a hearing, in his request for an evidentiary hearing. 26 Adams now appeals the Agency's final action to this Court.