Opinion ID: 2831571
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: DMRs and Monitoring Records

Text: The Clean Water Act makes it unlawful to operate a polluting source facility in violation of pretreatment standards or a permit’s pretreatment requirements. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1317(d); 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(a). A discharge that exceeds effluent limitations in a permit is “the archetypal Clean Water Act violation, and subjects the discharger to strict liability.” United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 366 F.3d 164, 175 (3d Cir. 2004). “Thus, without more, to violate a[n] NPDES permit is to violate the Act.” Chesapeake Bay Found. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 608 F. Supp. 440, 451 (D. Md. 1985) (citing EPA v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205 (1976)). The Nebraska Environmental Protection Act similarly makes it unlawful to violate a permit condition or limitation. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 811508.02(1)(b). As the Clean Water Act was the source of many provisions found in the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act, see State ex rel. Wood v. Fisher Foods, Ltd., 581 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Neb. 1998), and as the parties have not argued that the standards for liability differ under the two acts, we assume that the requirements for liability for violation of a permit limitation or condition under the Nebraska Environmental Protection Act mirror the requirements for liability under the Clean Water Act. -8- The DMRs and monitoring records were the primary evidence on which the government relied to establish the effluent-limitation violations. If the DMRs were admissible and are sufficiently probative, they demonstrate that STABL exceeded the effluent limitations in its permit. STABL argues that the DMRs and monitoring records were inadmissible and did not constitute a sufficient basis for the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment. Permit holders have a duty to monitor their wastewater discharges, maintain monitoring records, and submit to the government DMRs summarizing the results of that monitoring. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.41(j), (l)(4), 123.25. Federal regulations require that samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring be representative of the monitored activity and that those submitting DMRs certify that, “[b]ased on [their] inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of [their] knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete.” 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.22(d), 122.41(j)(1), (k)(1), 123.25. STABL’s permit imposed monitoring and certification requirements consistent with these standards. STABL argues that the DMRs were not admissible because they are hearsay and lack foundation. We disagree. Statements that an opposing party “manifested that it adopted or believed to be true” are not hearsay. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(B). Because the regulations and STABL’s permit required STABL to certify their truth and accuracy, the DMRs are nonhearsay adoptive admissions. Moreover, the only foundation required for 801(d)(2)(B) adoptive admissions is a showing that they were made or adopted by the opposing party or by its agent on a matter within the scope of that agency; there is no personal-knowledge requirement. Pillsbury Co. v. Cleaver-Brooks Div. of Aqua-Chem, Inc., 646 F.2d 1216, 1218 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981); see also Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Ctr., Inc., 588 F.2d 626, 630-31 (8th Cir. 1978). STABL failed to respond to the government’s requests for admission regarding the authenticity of the DMRs. It thus admitted their -9- authenticity and that they were what they purported to be: STABL’s DMRs, signed by its general manager. See Fed. R. Evid. 901; Quasius v. Schwan Food Co., 596 F.3d 947, 951 (8th Cir. 2010). This was sufficient to establish foundation for the DMRs as 801(d)(2)(B) admissions. STABL also challenges the reliability of the DMRs. It does not directly dispute that the DMRs reflect effluent-limitation exceedances, but instead argues that the data on which the reports were based was so unreliable that there is a genuine dispute regarding whether STABL’s discharges ever exceeded its permit limitations. STABL claims that its DMRs did not accurately record the pollutant levels in its discharge because the flow meters, which measure quantities of water passing through the plant, were rusted off and were not calibrated. STABL also cites deposition testimony by Jess Bliven, the treatment plant superintendent, who stated that the city tested STABL’s water on Tuesdays, which “probably wasn’t a good day” for testing because the “terrible water” had been sitting for “a couple extra days.” The government responds that the DMRs are unassailable admissions and that STABL either cannot impeach its own DMRs or has not presented sufficient evidence to meet its heavy burden of proving laboratory error in its own reports. When a defendant’s own DMRs demonstrate permit exceedances, they constitute sufficient evidence to meet a Clean Water Act plaintiff’s burden of production on liability and in some circumstances may be sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to summary judgment.9 See Allegheny, 366 F.3d at 174; Friends of the Earth v. Eastman Kodak Co., 834 F.2d 295, 298 (2d Cir. 1987). Whether STABL offered 9 Furthermore, because a permit holder has an obligation to monitor its compliance with its permit and to report the results, we conclude that the absence of reporting for a required parameter in a permit holder’s DMRs is sufficient to meet a plaintiff’s initial burden of production on liability for failure to monitor. Aside from arguing that the DMRs were inadmissible, STABL has made no persuasive challenge to summary judgment on the failure-to-monitor violations. -10- sufficient evidence to rebut the effluent-limitation exceedences recorded in its DMRs depends upon the proper amount of weight to accord those reports. The Ninth Circuit has stated that a permit holder may never impeach its own DMRs by claiming laboratory error. Sierra Club v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 813 F.2d 1480, 1491-92 (9th Cir. 1987), vacated on other grounds, 485 U.S. 931 (1988), reinstated as amended, 853 F.2d 667 (9th Cir. 1988). By contrast, the Third Circuit has held that “[e]vidence that the reports inaccurately overreported the level of discharge are certainly relevant to show that no violation occurred.” Allegheny, 366 F.3d at 174. We agree with the Third Circuit that evidence of overreporting can be relevant to show that there were no violations, but we also agree that a defendant who wishes to assert laboratory error as a defense has a heavy burden. See, e.g., id. at 173-74 (citing Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J., Inc. v. Elf Atochem N. Am., Inc., 817 F. Supp. 1164 (D.N.J. 1993)) (finding persuasive the reasoning of a district court that held that a defendant has a “heavy burden” when impeaching its own DMRs); Pub. Interest Research Grp. of N.J. v. Yates Indus., Inc., 757 F. Supp. 438, 447 (D.N.J. 1991) (holding that there is a “heavy burden to establish faulty analysis”). To hold otherwise would give permit holders an incentive to employ lax laboratory techniques. Although it is true that no company that is actually in compliance with its permit obligations would want to employ laboratory techniques that would result in overreporting of pollutant levels, see Allegheny, 366 F.3d at 175, a company that wished to circumvent its effluent-limitation obligations could simply ensure that its laboratory results were impeachable. Furthermore, Congress imposed the monitoring and reporting requirements in part to “avoid the necessity of lengthy fact finding, investigations, and negotiations at the time of enforcement.” S. Rep. No. 92-414, at 64 (1972). Allowing a permit holder to impeach its own DMRs simply by pointing to potential laboratory error, without specific evidence demonstrating that the laboratory error likely resulted in overreporting of pollutant levels that were in fact within permit limitations, would subvert Congress’s purpose in enacting the monitoring and reporting requirements. -11- To impeach its own DMRs, a party must, at the very least, offer evidence that corroborates its claim that the pollutant levels were overreported and were actually within permit limitations. Cf. Elf Atochem, 817 F. Supp. at 1178 (allowing the defendant’s claims of laboratory error to defeat summary judgment when parallel testing by another laboratory produced results within permit limitations); Allegheny, 366 F.3d at 173-74 (discussing Elf Atochem). Evidence of unreliable testing methods alone is insufficient. STABL has offered no evidence demonstrating that the correct measurements would in fact have fallen within its permit limitations, nor has it offered evidence demonstrating that the supposedly uncalibrated or faulty flow meter was more likely to result in overreporting than underreporting. STABL’s claim of overreporting is thus nothing more than sheer speculation. Furthermore, Bliven’s statement that Tuesday was not a good day for sampling does not undermine the probative value of the DMRs, because it was STABL’s obligation to ensure that the effluent samples used for measurements were representative of the activities it was monitoring. In sum, STABL did not offer sufficient evidence to impeach its own DMRs, and the DMRs were sufficient evidence of liability to grant summary judgment on at least some effluent-limitation violations.