Opinion ID: 537707
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Maximum penalty per day where multiple violations occur on a single day

Text: 50 In interpreting the language of section 1319(d), courts have come to different conclusions as to whether the pre-amendment Clean Water Act limits a permittee's liability to $10,000 per day even if a permittee has violated discharge limitations for several pollutants on the same day. The district court's initial decision in Gwaltney includes a lengthy discussion of this question. That court, following the decision in United States v. Detrex Chemical Industries, Inc., 393 F.Supp. 735 (N.D.Ohio 1975) held that Section 1319(d) authorizes a maximum of $10,000 per day in civil penalties for violations that are enumerated therein, even where the defendant has violated discharge limitations for several substances during the same day. 611 F.Supp. 1542, 1555 (E.D.Va.1985). The Gwaltney court noted that the statute is ambiguous, but felt that a construction that capped liability at $10,000 per day accurately reflect[ed] the intent of Congress and would provide a substantial deterrent against violations by even the largest corporations where more than a few days of violation are involved. Id. In United States v. Amoco Oil Co., 580 F.Supp. 1042, 1047 n. 1 (W.D.Mo.1984), the district judge, in dicta, construed the language of section 1319(d) to allow for separate penalties for violations of the daily limit for two or more different pollutants, and in Student P.I.R.G. of New Jersey, Inc. v. Monsanto Co., CIV.A. No. 83-2040 (D.N.J. March 24, 1988) (1988 WL 156691), the court reached the same conclusion. 17 The EPA has taken a similar position, stating in its internal document entitled Clean Water Act Penalty Policy For Civil Settlement Negotiations (Penalty Policy) that violations of different parameters at the same outfall are to be counted separately. 18 51 We agree with the district court in Gwaltney that the statutory language of section 1319(d) as originally written is ambiguous and find the varying interpretations given to that language equally plausible. In amending the statute, however, Congress specified that the penalties were not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation (emphasis added). This language, applicable to violations occurring after February 4, 1987, is, we find, capable of only a single reasonable interpretation: the daily maximum penalty applies separately to each violation of an express limitation. 19 Certainly then, for violations occurring after February 4, 1987, there is no daily cap of $25,000. Instead, each excessive discharge of a pollutant on a given day will subject the polluter to a $25,000 maximum fine. 52 We further find that the slight change in wording in the 1987 amendment points to the proper interpretation of the statute as originally written. The Conference Report accompanying the amendment makes clear that under the Senate bill, section 309 of the Act 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1319 was amended in part to increase the civil judicial penalty limit from $10,000 to $25,000 per violation, [and] to clarify that each distinct violation is subject to a separate daily penalty assessment of up to $25,000.... H.R.Rep. No. 99-1004, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 132 (emphasis added). 53 Congress' indication that it intended by its amendment simply to clarify the language in the statute as previously written convinces us to follow the Amoco and Monsanto courts' reading of the pre-amendment language and to find that Congress intended the fines to attach to each violation of an effluent limitation separately. 54