Opinion ID: 195693
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Public Comment Period

Text: 41 When the EPA promulgated its procedural regulations governing the public comment period, the Agency anticipated that most policy and technical issues would be decided as part of the public comment period, which is the most open, accessible forum possible and which comes at a stage where the Agency has the greatest ability to modify a draft permit. 44 Fed.Reg. 32,885 (1979). Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Sec. 124.13, all persons ... who believe any condition of a draft permit is inappropriate or that the Director's tentative decision to ... prepare a draft permit is inappropriate, must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supporting their position by the close of the public comment period, in order to contest a final permit determination in an evidentiary hearing or to preserve an issue for review by the EAB. Additionally, 40 C.F.R. Sec. 124.76 provides that [n]o issues shall be raised by any party that were not submitted to the administrative record ... as part of the preparation of and comment on a draft permit unless good cause is shown for the failure to submit them. 42 These regulations are intended to alert the EPA to potential problems with the draft permit and to ensure that it has an opportunity to address those problems before the permit becomes final. In the Matter of Broward County, Florida, NPDES Appeal No. 92-11, 11 (1993). The regulations essentially require that: 43 [c]omments must be significant enough to step over a threshold requirement of materiality before any lack of agency response or consideration becomes of concern. The comment cannot merely state that a particular mistake was made ...; it must show why the mistake was of possible significance in the results. 44 Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 435 U.S. 519, 553, 98 S.Ct. 1197, 1216, 55 L.Ed.2d 460 (1978) (citations omitted). This threshold of materiality standard is satisfied when comments are presented in a way which could reasonably have permitted the agency to examine those contentions. Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516, 1520-21 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1078, 109 S.Ct. 1528, 103 L.Ed.2d 833 (1989). 6 45 When construing this standard, it must be considered in the context of the broad purpose of the public participation rules. 46 Public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent limitation, plan or program established by the Administrator or any State under this chapter shall be provided for, encouraged and assisted by the Administrator and the States. 47 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251(e). Congress enacted public participation rules understanding that these regulations would do more than pay lip service to public participation; instead '[t]he public must have a genuine opportunity to speak on the issue of protection of its waters' on federal, state and local levels. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A., 859 F.2d 156, 177 (D.C.Cir.1988) (citations omitted) (construing public participation regulations in state enforcement process). The legislative history of the CWA also echoes the desire that its provisions be administered and enforced in a fishbowl-like atmosphere. Id. at 175 (citing Environmental Policy Division, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, A Legislative History of the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, at 249). 48 We believe that the EAB's determination that Adams failed properly to raise his concerns regarding the EPA's compliance with the ODC during the public comment period was not supported by the evidence and lacked a rational basis. A careful review of the record indicates that Adams and other participants in the public comment period submitted statements which satisfied the threshold requirement of materiality by alerting the EPA to their concern that the EPA had not adequately complied with the mandates of the ODC when it issued the draft permit to the Seabrook plant. 7 In his written comments to the EPA during the public comment period, Adams raised the following concern: 49 The E.P.A. has not carried out the intent of Congress in relation to the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law 100-4, 125-122, 125-123, 125-124, 227-27. Therefore, it is impossible for the Town to comply with the intent of Congress. 50 With his references to the public laws, Adams specifically refers to the ODC. Additionally, Adams' written comments indicate that he challenged the design and location of the outfall, and the accuracy of information presented by the Town engineers regarding the outfall. Adams also questioned whether the dilution calculations were correct. Finally, Adams, as well as other participants, raised concerns about the detrimental impact the outfall would have on the beaches, and on shellfish and other marine life. 51 The public comments do not present technical or precise scientific or legal challenges to specific provisions of the draft permit. The purpose of the regulation requiring participants to raise ascertainable issues, however, is not to foreclose participation in the process, but to provide notice to the EPA so that it can address issues in the early stages of the administrative process. See 44 Fed.Reg. 32,885 (1979); In the Matter of Broward County, Florida, NPDES Appeal No. 92-11, 11 (1993). It would be inconsistent with the general purpose of public participation regulations to construe the regulations strictly. Such a strict construction would have the effect of cutting off a participant's ability to challenge a final permit by virtue of imposing a scientific and legal burden on general members of the public who, initially, simply wish to raise their legitimate concerns regarding a wastewater facility that will affect their community, in the most accessible and informal public stage of the administrative process, where there is presumably some room for give and take between the public and the agency. We believe that Adams and the other participants adequately raised their objections during the public comment period, and conclude that the EAB ignored the record and acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it found that Adams had failed to do so. 8 52