Opinion ID: 4159799
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Permits at Issue

Text: The Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant, located in El Monte, California, and the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, located in Pomona, California (collectively, the Plants), are tertiary-level treatment water reclamation facilities that receive industrial, commercial, and residential wastewater 8 SCAP V. EPA from the surrounding cities.1 They each produce approximately 9000 acre-feet of recycled water per year, which is used for groundwater recharge and landscape irrigation in Southern California. The Los Angeles Regional Office (L.A. Board) of the State Board prepared the draft NPDES permits (Draft Permits) for the Plants at issue. The L.A. Board also prepared a “Fact Sheet,” which included its determination that effluent limitations were required for “whole effluent toxicity”2 because the discharge potentially could cause or contribute to chronic toxicity. The Draft Permits addressed chronic toxicity by setting “Chronic Toxicity Trigger and Requirements” (Toxicity Triggers). The L.A. Board submitted the Draft Permits to EPA for review consistent with 33 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(1). Jane Diamond, the Region 9 Director of EPA’s Water Division, issued a letter with EPA’s formal objections to the Draft Permits on September 4, 2014 (“Objection Letter”). EPA’s principal concern “relate[d] to numeric effluent limitations for whole effluent toxicity.” EPA criticized the permits because they “express a chronic toxicity requirement as a series of steps which include a narrative trigger for further investigation of effluent toxicity, not as an effluent limitation 1 Tertiary treatment plants produce water meeting drinking water standards required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300f et seq. 2 “Whole effluent toxicity” (sometimes referred to as WET) refers to the fact that effluent can contain many different pollutants. Even if no one pollutant is likely to cause harm to aquatic organisms, the combination of several pollutants may have an adverse result. See Edison Elec. Inst. v. EPA, 391 F.3d 1267, 1268–69 (D.C. Cir. 2004). SCAP V. EPA 9 for WET. . . . Taken together, these toxicity triggers simply require further investigation, and thus do not met meet the definition of ‘effluent limitation’ under the CWA . . . .” EPA offered other criticism as well and attached to its letter what it characterized as “Required Changes” and “Recommended Changes” in the permits. EPA stated that if the L.A. Board did not submit revised permits addressing EPA’s concerns, EPA would “acquire exclusive NPDES authority over the discharges pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 123.44(h)(3).” The L.A. Board revised the Draft Permits to meet the terms of EPA’s Objection Letter. After reviewing the revised permits, EPA notified the L.A. Board, the State Board, and the permit applicants that EPA’s objections had been satisfied and that the NPDES permits for the Plants remained within the L.A. Board’s jurisdiction. After complying with procedures required by state law, the L.A. Board issued the permits for both Plants in November 2014.