Record and brief — EPA v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Nos. 83-1373, 83-1013)

Supreme Court brief1984

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

GO. 83-137 3-Cre Titler WUettee Stetes Envirereental Pretection Agercys

*“tetuer Ceavtec Petitioner

- heturel SQeseurces Betense Counetiz Tfeer Of Ole

ocketedt

eoruery 7+ 19684 Court: Uettee Stetes Court ef Ageests

fer the Third Cireutt

teer

83-7013 Counsel fer petitioners Seltctter Gereret

Counsel fer resperndert: GerrettsTheedere Ls

Subrewskhisfrencets Harringter-deres T.

ntry dere kote Preceedings ene Creers

’ Sec & 1883 Apoltcetion fer extension of ttee te file setition ere

order erenting seee wrttl february 17+ 1984 (COrerren,

Secerber t2+ 1983).

? fed 17 1984 6 Petition fer wertt of certtiorert filec.

Ser 7 1994 Creer extending tise te file resgserse te petitior wattt

aoritt zy 1984.

5 Aor : ‘eee érie?t ef respondent SEOCe Inc. tf epeostition filec. Vides.

Aor 134 6G Petier of Cheeber of Coarerce of the United States fer

lLeewe toe file « Betiet a8 eetcus curtee filed.

? tor «4 1984 OISTOIOUTESO. Aortt Wr 1994

4 tor 18 1964 £ heoly Ortief of petitioner EPs filed.

7 tor 23 1984 ReOISTOIOUTED. Sertl 7s 1984

12 tor 30 1984 poticn of Cheeber of Coarerce of the United States fer

leeve te file « brief of estcus curtee Gtanteo.

3 Apr 10 1°94 Petition GeaxTed. The case te corseltceted wtt® FI-1C 13+

end @ tetel ef ere Beur te ellettee fer eral ergurent.

eeeee eee” SESS ESE ESSERE RRR EHR RRR RR eee

ts Mey 30 1984 G Kotion of the parties te ciaserse wtth ortatirg the

jetnt soperdtia filed.

1% jue 17 D004 moticr of the serties te ctaeperse wit ortetirg the

jetnt eependta S8anTio.

? jur 19 1986 Order extending tiee te file trie? ef petitioner en the

werite wrttl duly @+ 1984.

4 jut 6 7984 Srtet ef setittiorer 74 ftlec. WIStS.

1? jut 6 7906 6 Potten eof Cheeber of Comeerce of the United Stetes fer

leewe te file « ertet es estcus curtee tiled.

20 dut 13 1086 hecore filed.

22 dul 27 1984 Creer extending tiee te file trief ef respercert on the

eertts wettl August 20+ 1984.

23 tue % 1984 Potter of Cheeber of Comrerce of the Lntted Stetes fer

leewe te file « teriet ef eetcus curtee GFanTED.

2 fue 70 1984 é@rte?t eatceus curtee of Hew York ftlee. WIetS.

zs Aug 270 1994 erie? eof reseerndent 880Ce Inc. filed. VIDEO.

26 tug 27 1964 crecuceares.

2? Sug 270 1984 G Pottce of Seutheestere Fiehertes Agsectettions Inc. fer

leewe to file « Ortet a8 eetcus curtee filed.

ze Aue 26 1964 ST €CR AEGURERT. Tweeters Sevonter + 1904. Thiet cone

te corselteeted with se. @3-1C13. Cire cosed(t teur?

2? Set 7 1986 Potion of Seuthesstern Fisheries Aesectattions Inc. fer

leewe te file « ortet a8 eeteus curtee SFanTio.

So. S3-T373-cre

atry dete hote Preceedcings ere Créers

; Set 29 19884 Seely terete? of settittioner €P8 file. WISES.

i. wow 6 19664 ae@egyuts.

PETITION FOR

WRIT OF

‘CERTIORARI

In the Supreme Court of the Gmted States

Ocroper Term, 1983

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY, PETITIONER

NATURAL Resources Derense CounctL. INc..

ET AL.

PETITION POR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT

Rex © Lee

Seldiettor Genera!

FP Hewny Hasse, I!

Assistant Attorney (renera!

Lous F. CLAIBORNE "

Deputy Solicitor Genera!

Sawue. A. Arvo. Ja

Assistant to the Solwevtor Genera!

Jom KR. ALLEN

Ragay S NeUwan

A. James Banwes Atlorasys

. . Washington Sic sense

SUSAN LEPOW ee) 633-2817

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Section 301(/) of the Clean Water Act, 33

U. 8.C. (Supp. V) 1311(/), bars the Environmental Pro

PanTias TABLE OF CONTENTS

In addition to these named in the caption, the partioe en cece —

els. a enc ocedoccecooceces l

Statute and regulations involved .............. 2

ee neceeccoceceteces 2

eke enecaceencencecec ce 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

American Iron & Stee! Institute «+. EPA,

526 F.2d 1027, modified, 560 F.2d 589,

cert. denied, 485 U.S. 914 .............. 11

—— v. Train, 620 F.2d

EEE Pe 7,8

ie eee on Setbeeeecec 12

Edmonds vy. Compagnie Generale Trans-

atlantique, 443 U.S. 256....... 2... .65.. 14

EI. duPont de Nemours & Co. vy. Train,

as secccces 7, 9, 10, 14

EPA v. Costle, 636 F.2d 1229 ............ 3

EPA v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449

CC 9, 13, 14, 15, 16

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin, 444

ence cckbndhooosooees 12

Kennecott Copper Corp. v. EPA, 612 F.2d

CS EE ay ae 11, 12

NRDC, Inc. v. EPA, 537 F.2d 642........ 5

NRDC vy. Train, 510 F.2d 692 Pd an ane 10, 12

Iv Vv

Cases—Continued: Page Statutes and regulations—Continued: Page

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 .. ll Section 408.13(eM4) ..... 6... 66. c enue 16

Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States, 437 | i i scccsccccisccecccccccs 4

nae.” 12 40 C.F.R. 415.62 (1976) ....... cece cece. 5, 14

Statutes and regulations: Miscellaneous:

a ee (@ Supp. V) , 43 Fed. Reg. 27736 (1978) ................ 6

DEG. cocccccccccccccccccccoseces

44 Fed. Reg. 52590 (1979) ................ 6

§ 101(a), 38 U.S.C. 1251(a) ........... 11

§ 301, 33 U.S.C. 1811............. 8, 12, 13 46 Fed. Reg. (1981):

§ 301(b\1 A), 33 U.S.C. 1311(bM 1A). 2 6

§ 301(bK 1X AMG), 33 U.S.C. 6

1311(DM IMAM... oe ee eee eee ee 8

§ 301(bX2M A), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V)

REA a 2, 10

$ 301(bM2XC), 33 U.S.C. 13110020). 2

§ 301(c), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V)

etl Ripa 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16

§ 301(g), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V)

RRS aes le 7, 8, 13, 16

§ 301(/), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V)

RNR eee 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13

§ 304(bX1XB), 38 U.S.C. 13140X1KB). 2

; RO4(DNENB), 3 33 U.S.C. 13140bX2KB). 2

In the Supreme Court of the United States

OcToBEerR TERM, 1983

it |

gfe

iii

piss

pass

iil

ij ;

li | Lise

i _

ni 23 :

ifsc kit ie if

i iy i. it

a ue iT Sa

i ni

: a ade

Hl te He vt

Hak

a if

ct We Ht ui H a

TH aH al Hl HEHE i

Ht ii i Ut |

a HH ie i i HE

il itt ‘ph a

Fon AR at HUE Haiti at

ie , if pict TAHA ua

. ; i He 3 |

ti ait i al i |

ei TIT

Na ST RT

il i

# Hi

ei 3

i HH le ae i alt

Hl at si

a Pepe tf

gb apaegpeitt)

342

i H

vii

§-E

Ait

ate

HAH -

HEE

‘a

(ure

Hail

fit

”

‘i

” a on

He it Hit i Ell HIRE

‘ls

iia i ti ii i i

diel ee Hen a He

; .

zs an HH th

Hl PS RTH PELE

ieee Wee tie Hi

ALS hed ae aed | abh |

ae ia iia ie i

Hi Hat et

He bel

Lt fine i ett

AHH iar ie

‘itt

Accord, Kennecott Copper Corp. v. EPA, supra.

inal

ee ie

: Hi i We Ht

8 ay all

‘i HHL tH it te elt

SIEHE HI DTT if afi

} i! eta ee Lilt: HoH ill

tal

0 See, eg. @C.P.R. 416.62 (1976).

—— ee

ia ACHE HA

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be

Huis

Hit

iff!

| ha th

i qt

it faith

—SSt—“‘CO;™;~*™S

RESPONDENT'S

BRIEF

o ©

‘Nos &) a)-157)

I~ Tee

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocvoers Team, 198)

(weal Mancuractueres Asexuarion. of af

Petiteomers

Naruga: Resoweces Derense Counce. bx

Respondent

Unsrrep Stares E~vemowsewta: Peorectio~w Aceon y

Petiteomer

Narusat Resoweces Derense Counce. bec

Reiponden

Om Petittens for o Wrtt of ( ertiorert to the

| matted States ( curt of Apprats for the T herd ( irc wet

Peseces Di eecrewn:

Attorndy for Respondent

725 i Sowet, NW. Sete

Vorhegtes. OC ee

(202) 225-42 10

April 2. 1984 = 3 YP

} BEST AVAILABLE COPY

—

RAeRaAR=e

i BREE

Page

9,10

‘

passim

Steel Institute

modified, S60

435 U.S. 914 (

o. ¥. Train

——— National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U.S. 64

E.1. duPont de Nemours & Co. ¥. Train, 490 U.S. 112

- Vee

Kennet oat Capper per Com “orp. v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232 (10th

ae 332 U.S. 194 (1947)

Ie pamper 17 103 (1978) ........

Volkswagenwert v. FMC, 990 U.S. 261 (1968)

Weverhauser Co. v. Costle, 990 F.2d 1011

TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978) ..........

U.S. ¥. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546 (1979)...

The opemon of the court of appeals (CMA Pet App Al-

ASS)’ is reported at 719 F 2d 624.

Pertinent provisions of the Clean Water Act, 3) U S.C.

(& Supp. V) 1251 of seq... ave reproduced at CMA Pet. App.

All®Al2! except for Sections Wiic) and ig). Mtb), Wd).

and SORDbH1). 13 U.S.C. (& Supp. V) 131 he) and ig). 13 etD).

pretreatment vamdard: enm ied werere virengtiheneng amen

ments |d ot 48) Secomd « (omadered ehen and emer

ete Lomdetasms wauries wah Me atte lo Oa varnames

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. (& Supp. V) 125

seq Gerects EPA to control two types of dustrial polluters

o “Grect™” Gechargers, ehich Gemp Gee warts woter

Gerectly mto navigable waters and (7) mdirect’ Gachargers

what dump thew waste water mic mun pel ewage [reaimen’

plants etach m turn decharge to sevigette eaters

from BAT amd pretreatment reqerement: |}! .reated s ace

“sallety walve™” to give Geuibdiety w BAT Getetions.’ and

apne ee Hee pee ee 1972

ii iit

}

‘oe Bee USC Mme 6 Al he Lege Me

Oe ee

— «em

ee ee

‘Soe Oe FP eee ¥) Pe FT Lege Me ere

““—-

pera) Caeser em ee me ee ang

wee peiteneeee "Ne ememeter omeer eG preteen Set Ree

oe @ ert ieee Bee aoe @ Oo

1 HEL Z

(CMA Pet. App. AlTZD-All7)* The Therd Circus held that

these «o-called “fundamentally Gifereet factors” oe “FDP”

varwaces veotated Sechon Wli/)

REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITIONS

The Therd Circutt’s decree docs sot conflict wath the

decrmoe of any other Carcust. = cat ely comestent eth thes

Court's prior interpretation of the Clean Water Act. does sot

present nsecs saffkocetl) emportant to earrant thes ( curt +

attention. and is required by the cupress lengeege of the

statute and the legrdlatrwe bestory Rewsere by the Court

= earranted

1. Wie Tied Civcedt') Gecietee Gece cet com@ict oo Ge

Gecmece of amy other ( cet

a The Third Circult bel’ that Section SONU) protetets

varames from preirrermece stamdards for town pedbutants

No other Court of appeal has addressed the appén atebty of

Secton Wii!) to pretreatment standards wee all (halbenges

to the varwaace provrneon fo the pretreatment program eere

comotadated m the Therd Cece There = so confit among

the Carcunts om thes quewtioe bee EPA s fear of watstante!

encertasmty and coafewoe (EPA Pet 8) = 2 soe sequitur

> Lacking ay confict betecee Ge boldiege of Ge

Cwowts petoeers comptes that the Dherd Cocust + remon

™ 5 mcomwstent eh that eed by the Fourth Cacut to

vaisdate varwmces from BF) beet: for torn pollutants See

Appalachian Power Co. +. Train, 0 F 2d 108. 1067-108

(19 Ewen da defference = reaswoung beteces the Corcunts

were suffcecet to warrant the Court's reweee. so perpen

woukd he served hy rev ceug the reasomeng of esther ( oust

The Fourth Circukt ereetied oth a@ neue ohh oF aot

recur shether Congress focused of the future Grectoe of

the podietoe Control program mtended Section W1\/) to apply

* Tie cngutetees wore ceed ot Dame Dh FF 6) Pet Beg TTT

vv), et eee’ ce Aemeery 1 Fed Beg See Oe

Pewee) Gal met ree me kp tee Powe ae

4 ee we Ge There ( cet Gun Neeetng @) aagertame We Be com

a a

i ae

A ET ae

aE iret

i es

i il i ill

sittl Li TE Ht

a te

it ii va ih Hi at

ete protarm eh 6) aoe

F emady ther cmrts tke here eperened) cremains PPA)

There © ae preeee te teres Get Gary oe ct ey

deaiemes <fee oO Ge cigeee (ome of SEI eters

ve * The

HRT,

erm cerca

i ;

ba AY

ulluits (it

i H i

ttt

ee ee ee ee ee ee

8 Re gre: Stet er eee pe ome

ne ea

ee puma

ole ke Oe Cee ee Oe eter of tee cele oe

ke tee OF tee a erg) ot ered hh memtert:

em em eee ee: ee een © Baines ome

Soeermecmme carne

ete eee tens tere fet pe 8 8 ee

eel

mene tert pee

“+e. tow of Pe Peter + Oe ot

ove — EPA he 1% compteee atte® * leeeeet EP 4

ot Ge FOP oe @ © & et Oe cerry

Oe order (a areet @ Oe nord Tie Seremmrene

ee I

ee ee ee ee

oe ~

6 The emer! af egegemate cere) Gewntiet Gee Ge ( lee Sener

0 peetetiee: 1 TG ere oe Seem geen womens cement

ee ae

remem age Gee Ge curt tehew erred fy et

mop FPA) commerce of tec Hh) of Ge Chm

i ee

oe ee FO OO! tbe @ Oe SP ee ae re

ee ee

‘_— oo ow + On HOS Oe epee Ge

| :

t i

i )

He i af | HE aH i

ih a: ra i

ee!

He ne Hi

Tht HE HH Buna Neth

ioe

inh I ti

a | Hi

tote eee

"Ea. OPA eperowed cat) foe of Ge 5) OFT wartemee epptcetee

Pourteee were Gemeed §¢ euthdrewe Th: coe are el! peeing ip 48

Ae mnfre)

* Camgrew: repected 6 progemal fer case hy cane etter of ee 10"

Geadieme tor meee OFT wets bor ee very remem 4: he om of EPA.

it a

CLEAN WATER acl PROVO

1. Soothe Slee) of Ge Civee Water Act, ce coer, §Y

i iti ili

ith i

ilu

Hil

til

Oe ee ee ee

ere weed ov were + fe med See)

pe of premee: emgtioved om tndieng ehetbe he} ee

< See Se ot Ge Cee eee Ot oe cee

Ac. eee

6 er Oe ee Game of amy etter named or

en OF Penn sent ccamdend prommengennd under te

ce eee 6 tad Oe entew Gal ber am owner or eguruner of am

ee ee

ended oF protien on prencnsmmene cemiand

‘Ac (eet

ee) Beoew @f Ge RQ ) ae & @ pe

re a i ed

ee ee

(fifi

;

Hil

Rv seseced Scbebdcarteted

Soe.) oe

These sumbers are estumates prowuded by EPA 5 E fhucnt ( nundetenes

Devessom Standards have yet to be propemed for Plast. Motdong

& Formung and Nonferrows Metals | ormeng .stegones

mindy

AAT dh

AMICUS CURIAE

BRIEF

oe 2.2

OGoreems Tees bee

i OI

Comma. Mawtvect erm Acetate of of.

. Pretstucmers

Nereee Rewcercee [epee Cocwen. lee of ot.

Regu amhente

US Pwweeeewenre: Peetertres Acker

Petetecma ©

Netvee:, Reecerve Derewee (Coc eem, lee of of

Rcepemdeats

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AM tect Bias

AND GRIEF AMC US CURIAE OF THE

CRAMEER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED ©TaTER

OF AMER 4 1% © PPORT OF THE FETITIOS Foe

CERTIONAR! TO THE UNITED OT aTER Cot eT

OF APTEALS FOR THE THIRD «tec LTT

tw Tw

@uprrms Court of the Matted @tairs

(xeteeee Team freee

Nee 8 0008 cot LPS

(eee es, Maetrect ages Ageeketom of of

Pet termes

a ee ee es a ee

b ctpnemetee ie

COR Beweeee wert as Peeters Aco

Pete arma

Nereee, Reeereree Cereeee Coe em, fee of

ope mene ee

MOTION OF THE ( Bo PER OF (OEE £ OF THe

t SITE oF AT ee Por Lente TO rns emcee

A Te CER IS COP TORT oF THE FeTYTHO® roe

Sart oF ( ORTiee cer To Tee MTT ED ef are

COO ST OF AFT Eales Foe Tee TerEP cle t rT

te LT

i i

i Ail i

Hint

ff He ba i it i

Hea ik ie

i ae ae

TA FIT DC Cr

Ae :

ii;

a Te

Py (1978)

PRET CD) CRD LA) (19)

reer

CPR £1Ra° (ree)

CPR § 818 (19m)

fit i sa | eae EL: ae

He if ape ie

fn ARIE i al ue

ee Bl

WHE : iba aiid pial,

_ Eee

eH ObI Ht

Siz®

526 s¥e

Hl goede Ha

ae f oft i

reli

i te

myst HGH

ii ait ut ir A: ie i

ii ii

eee i | i

i il

a i tT

tie it Hig)

Fe a ia eh

ae atte iy ie it

aH eth

i ti iit

easel ant ‘il al

HE Hit ii iectya hela

HAY Wu a a

; ete a § s4az 3 i a28 gaged

Wy “9 pie 228] fieig ay

a Lethe rrr 3285

- 33 HT Sau He aaaay 0944588

sn Hail fil ie

ate Ht Hilal iu ifs plies

. s3§ 352i!

up al; HE HH it Hah Trl

ay eeeys

‘

all Hit rae Hi itn

HE Hy t at . it if

This inconsistent treatment by two courts of appeals

of the same issues and arguments presented by the same

parties creates a clear conflict in the circuits which can

be resolved only by this Court’s review. Moreover, as

previously note', the Third Circuit has remanded the

pretreatment FDF variance provision and ordered EPA

to revise the General Pretreatment Regulations to con-

form with this disparate ruling. A-43. EPA so revised

$ 403.13(b) (2) on February 10, 1984. 49 Fed. Reg.

(1984). Accordingly, this Court should grant the peti-

tions for review.

B. There Is No Radical Difference Between Direct and

Indirect Dischargers for the Purposes of Develop-

ing Industry-Wide Regulations.

The decision below also is contrary in principal to the

decision of this Court in EJ. duPont de Nemours & Co.

v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977). In duPont, this Court

blessed EPA’s regulatory scheme of allowing FDF var-

iances from industry-wide effluent guidelines. This Court

held that “the CWA authorizes the 1977 BPT limitations

as well as the (1984) BAT limitations to be set by regu-

lation, so long as some allowance is made for variations

in individual plants, as EPA has done by including a

variance clause in its 1977 limitations.” 430 U.S. at 128

‘emphasis added). Subsequent decisions have interpreted

duPont as requiring FDF va-iances. EPA v. National

Crushed Stone Association, 449 U.S. 64, 72 (1980);

Weyerhaeuser Co. Vv. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C.

Cir. 1978).

In authorizing FDF variances from effluent guidelines,

this Court in duPont stated that nothing in the CWA

“suggests any radical difference in the mechanism we to

impose limitations for [BPT] and [BAT].” (90 U.S. at

127. As demonstrated above, there also is no radical dif-

ference in the approach EPA uses to develop effluent

guidelines and pretreatment standards.

FDF variances are as essential to the development of

pretreatment standards as they are to effluent guidelines.

Pretreatment standards, like effluent guidelines, are in-

dustry-wide regulations for which some allowances for

individual variations must be made. The Chamber re-

spectfully submits that the rationale in duPont should

extend to pretreatment standards as well. Any time EPA

sets industry-wide regulations, allowances also must be

made for variations in individual plants, as EPA did by

including FDF variances from industry-wide pretreat-

ment regulations. The importance of administrative flex-

ibility in ensuring fair and equitable treatment of ail

industrial dischargers weighs heavily in favor of this

Court's granting review here.

CONCLUSION

The Third Circuit decision to prohibit FDF variances

for toxic pollutants extends beyond the pretreatinent reg-

ulations challenged below and has a profound effect upon

all industries regulated under the Clean Water Act. By

prohibiting the use of FDF variances for toxic pollutants

from pretreatment standards, the Third Circuit creates

an irreconcilable conflict in the circuits and eliminates

any allowance for individual plants, as required by this

Court in duPont.

By eliminating the “flexibility that duPont deemed

crucial to the legality of any set of industry-wide effluent

limitation under the Act,” the Third Circuit decision calls

into question the legality of existing regulations and the

ability of future regulations to fully represent industry

as a whole. Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1033 (emphasis

added). The Chamber of Commerce urges this Court to

reconcile this conflict in the circuits so that further liti-

gation may be avoided. Accordingly, we respectfully re-

quest this Court to grant the petitions for certiorari filed

No. 83-1373

Iu the Supreme Court of the Un

Ocrosrs Team, 198)

Unrrep Strares Exvimonmentat Protec tTio~n AGENcy.

PETITIONER

Narusal Resousces Derense Councn. Inc. ef at

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT

REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

Rex © Lee

Solicitor General

Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

(202) 633-2217

A James Baawes

General Counsel

Environmental Protection Agenc,

Washington, D.C. 20460

BEST AVAILABLE COPY

TABLE OF AL THORITIOS

Page

Case

Appalachian Power Co. +. Train.

a i

El du Pont de Nemours 4 Co. +. Train.

DD Tl eesusecndeeacnccooeosooes 214

EPA +. National Crushed Stone Au h.

TT condi dipnienaeeeeannaonsent 2.6

Kennecou Copper Corp. + EPA.

DTT nich apenennesgenensseonseset o

Statutes

Clean Water Act, Tu. 1 33 U SC

Siler. -

ee 8 oat) | | ne 1.2

§ Wient), TF} USC IdlewT) ........... 5

§ WiOND. 13 USC IeND .. ........ $

§ WleNIWA) USC

§ MN TIUSC IW ............ 13,7

Pe SRS 8 oS) ee 5

§ Merb), FFU GC IDNA) ..........066. 4

§ WH) FPUSC IWR) ..... 6666 ccne 5

§ WON. 33 USC 19N%eNH ........... ‘4

§ Whe), FPU SC. We)... © 6. occ c cue 5

Mucellancous

Want, Third Circus Reopens Bam Were

Act bemers by bnweldaring F DF NM arvarce

14 Envtl L. Rep. (Bevel L. inet)

GT? enencescsusooeseseoonceseNeees .

Ju the Supreme Court of the Hnited States

OctToser Term, 1983

No. 83-1373

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

PETITIONER

NATURAL Resources Derense Counc, INC., ET AL.

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE THIRD CIRCUIT

REPLY MEMORANDUM FOR THE PETITIONER

1. Respondent contends (Br. in Opp. 4-5) that the deci-

sion below does not conflict with Appalachian Power Co.

v. Train, 620 F.2d 1040, 1047-1048 (4th Cir. 1980), because

the latter case concerned variances from BPT limits for

direct dischargers, whereas the present case concerns var-

iances from pretreatment standards for indirect dis-

chargers. We acknowledged this distinction in our petition

(Pet. 8) but pointed out that the reasoning of the cases is

irreconcilable, as the court below recognized (Pet. App.

A43). The statutory provision at issue in this case, Section

301() of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 1311(),

prohibits the EPA from “modify{ing] any requirement of

[Section 301) as it applies to” any toxic pollutant, and it is

undisputed that both pretreatment standards and the BPT

(and BAT) standards for direct dischargers are require-

ments of Section 301.

(1)

This conflict in reasoning will interfere with completion

of those pretreatment and BAT standards that have not yet

been promulgated. If the EPA must proceed on the assump-

tion that no such variances will be available, then, as we

stated in our petition (at 11-12) the task of developing

categorical standards will be made appreciably more diffi-

cult and time-consuming. The agency will have to take into

account at the rulemaking stage every fundamentally dif-

ferent factor that may affect every covered plant.

No good purpose would be served by waiting for a circuit

conflict regarding a particular species of standard. As

noted, the reasoning of the Third and Fourth Circuits is

irreconcilable and applies equally to all requirements of

Section 301 — BPT, BAT, and pretreatment standards.

Waiting for such a conflict te develop will only prolong the

period of uncertainty regarding the availability of variances

from standards for toxic pollutants.

2. Respondent contends (Br. in Opp. 5), on the one hand,

that “[t}his case has nothing todo with * * * E./. du Pont de

Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977).” On the

other hand, respondent maintains (Br. in Opp. 6) that our

arguments in this case “are at odds with du Pont.” Neither

of these conflicting statements ts correct.

First, du Pont is clearly important here. Both in E./. du

Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, (430 U.S. 112, 128

(1977)) and in EPA v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449

U.S. 449 U.S. 64, 72 (1980), this Court recognized that

provisions allowing FDF variances were a “necessary

aspect” (449 U.S. at 72) of EPA's practice of issuing categor-

ical effluent limitations. Thus, the decision below, which

precludes such variances from standards for toxic pollu-

tants, appears inconsistent with this Court's understanding

of how the Clean Water Act works.

Respondent argues (Br. in Opp. 5) that du Pont is irrele-

vant because it did not consider Section 301(/), which was

not enacted at the time. As we noted in our petition (at 14),

however , what is significant is that Congress, which was

considering Section 301(/) when du Pont was handed down,

carefully considered that decision. Yet there is no indication

in the legislative history that Congress disagreed with this

Court 's understanding of the importance of FDF variances

in the Clean Water Act's scheme.'

Changing tack, respondent contends (Br. in Opp. 6) that

our arguments are inconsistent with du Pont. According to

respondent, du Pont recognized the appropriateness of

FDF variances from BPT standards only because those

‘Respondent suggests (Br. in Opp. 12) tha: du Pont would not have

caused Congress to be concerned about limiting the availability vot FDF

invalid

Respondent also contends (Br. in Opp. 12) that C had no

reason to refer to FDF variances in the legislative history of the 1977

amendments because a large number of vanance had not

been filed This argument also plainly lacks merit variances had

been prominently mentioned in du Poni. the importance of FDF var-

“categories of sources” (33 U.S.C. 1317(b)(3)), are more

analogous to BAT and new source standards, which are

also described as applicable to categories or classes of sour-

ces.’ Respondent then notes that new source standards are

not subject to FDF variances (du Pont, 490 U.S. at 137-

138), and respondent suggests that the same is true for BAT

standards (Br. in Opp. 6-7).

This argument finds no support in du Pont. In conclud-

riate, this Court in du Pont did not rely on the fact that the

Act describes such limitations as applicable to “point sour-

ces.” That connection was concocted by the court of appeals

(Pet. App. A39) and respondent, not this Court. On the

contrary, du Pont strongly suggested (430 U.S. at 127-128)

that FDF variances may be granted from BAT standards,

which are set for “categories and classes of point sources”

(33 U.S.C. 131 1(b) QM A)).’

There is also no merit to respondent's analogy between

new source standards for direct dischargers and the pre-

treatment standards applicable to ai/ indirect dischargers.

'BAT standards for direct dischargers are described as applicable to

“categories and classes of point sources” (33 U.S.C. 131 1(bN2NA)).

New source standards are described as applicable to “categories of

sources” (33 U.S.C. 1 316¢b)).

'The Court wrote (430 US. at 128 (footnote omitted) “We conclude

that the statute authorizes the 1977 [i.¢ . BPT) limitations, as well as the

1983 [i.c.. BAT) limitations to be set by regulation so long as some

allowance 1s made for vanations in individual plants as EPA has done

by including a varnance clause in its 1977 hmitations ~ In addition, after

noting that BPT standards are described as applicable to “pont sour-

ces,” whereas BAT standards are described as applicable to “categories

and classes of point sources,” the Court stated (id at 127) “Nothing

elsewhere in the Act ® * * suggests any radical difference in the mecha-

nism used to impose limitations for the 1977 and 1983 deadlines ~

including those already in existence. Both in the case of

treated differently.‘ Thus, just because FDF variances are

not available for new source direct dischargers — undoubt-

edly on the theory that such plants can be planned and

constructed so as to meet the national standards — it hardly

follows that existing indirect dischargers should be treated

in the same way.

3. Respondent argues (Br. in Opp. 7-8) that the court of

appeals’ decision is not important because thus far not

many applications have been filed for FDF vanances from

pretreatment standards for toxic pollutants However, the

importance of FDF variances cannot be measured by the

number of applications filed Such variances sezve the func-

tion of a safety valve. It is not expected that they wil! be

needed regularly, but when they are needed they play an

important role. As we noted in our petition (at | 1-12), the

availability of such variances for facilities with fundamen-

tally different factors allows the EPA to promulgate

national standards more quickly because the agency can

concentrate its study on the more typical plants in cach

category. And after the national standard is issued, the

F DF variance procedure prevents a small number of plants

with fundamentally different factors from attempting to

bring down the entire national standard due to EPA's fail-

ure to consider factors unique to their particular situations

Respondent dismisses (Br. in Opp. 10) EPA's concerns as

“bureaucratic,” but the fact remains that the FDF variance

procedurc has facilitated both the promulgation and the

“For direct dischargers, compare 33 U S.C 131 (0!) and (2) eth 33

U.S.C 1316 For indweet dischargers, compare 33 U S.C 131 >) wath

HUSC. 11%)

successful defense of categorical standards.’ and the courts

have expressly rel.ed upon the availability of such variances

in upholding national standards Eg. Kenneco.: Copper

Corp. v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1244 (10th Cir. 1979).

4 Finally, respondent's arguments (Br. in Opp. 10-15)

concerning the meaning of Section 301(/) are far from com-

EPA will not be unduly burdened if the sstuation of every

affected plant must be taken into account during the forma!

‘See Want, Thed Circus Rropen: Bare Worrr 41 bemert by bevet-

daring F DF Vertance. 14 Eawdl L Rep (Bewdl L. inet) 1067 (1984)

*Thes Court erose (469 U S at 77-78)

[T)he vertence & on schnowledgement that the eniform * * *

bemetaton was set ethowt reference to the full range of Curren

Practaces to efech the Adminstrator eas to refer imsofar ass

remt practice fundamentally different from those thet were come

Sered By the Adminstrator thet bmtanoe a momperte

| For these reasons and the reasons set forth in our pety-

ton, the petition for a writ of certoran should be granted

— —t—~—ts

RESPONDENT'S

BRIEF

~ BILLED

. =

Nos. &3-1013 and &3-1373

an th Supreme Court uf the Multed States

Ocroser Team, 1983

CHEMICAL MANUPACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL...

PETITIONERS

Natura. Resources Derense Counci., INc., BT AL.

Unrrep StaTes ENVIRONMENTAL ProTection

AGENCY, PETITIONER

Natural Resources Derense Councn., INc., ET aL

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI! TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Rex & Le

Seheter Generel

PF. Hewey Hamecwr, tT!

Aemetant Attorney Generel

Loure F CLamoen®

Deputy Sebevter General

Samus. A Arto, &

Aemetant te the Sobevtor Generel

Joes Ro ALLEN

Raany S&S Nev wan

Attorneys

A Jamre Haante Dy partment of Juatoce

Ceneral (owed! Weasetineten, DC 20690

Seman G Levow (poe) 6228-2817

Aomatant (General (ownee:

Kaeroumental Protection Agewcy

Washington, DC 20460

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether Section 901(/) of the Clean Water Act,

3 U.S.C. 181111), bare the Environmental Protec

tien Agency from granting variances from national

t standards for toxic pollutants to plants

having fundamentally different factors from those

considered by EPA in cotablishing te natoonal

standards

ee a ae SeaeEnmaNS ctane

A. The EPA's practice of allowing FDF variances

for existing direct and indirect dischargers con-

stitutes a reasonable and - ~-eanmalmamanns

of discretion under the statute |

B Gatien SUG ef Go Act dom mnt prt

1. The language of Section 301(!) does not

support the court of appeals’ interpretation

The legislative history of Section 391 (/) in-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

it.

Acrestean Pecsen Poet fustiinte ®. simmetendetan

etree

(mm)

caw ed

Cases—Continued : Page

American Iron & Steel Inatitute v. EPA, 526 F.2d

1027, modified, 560 F.2d 589, cert. denied, 435

i - _——AE a 37

Appalachian Power Co. Vv. Train, 620 F.2d 1040 B, 13, 24

Bankamerica Corp. ¥. United States, No. 81-1487

EE _ 26

Blum Vv. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132 . 23

Chevron US.A., Ine. V¥. Natural Resources De-

fense Council, Inc., No. 82-1005 (June 25, 1984). 17, 24

Crown Simpson Pulp Co. ¥. Coatle, 642 F.2d 323,

cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1063 . | : 31, 36

Edmonds Vv. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique,

43 US. 2%... 29

El. duPont de Nemours & Co. Vv ‘Train, 430 U.S.

112 . passim

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. ¥. ‘Costle, 636

F.2d 1229 . 9-10

EPAY. National Crushed Stone Ass'n, 449 U.S. 64 14, 15,

18, 19, 23, 26, 31, 32, 33

Farmers Irrigation Co. ¥. McComb, 387 U.S. 755. 25

Ford Motor Credit Co. ¥. Mithollin, 444 U.S. 656. 23

Kennecott Copper Corp. ¥. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232. &, 87

Mohaaco Corp. ¥. Silver, 447 US. 807 27

Morrison-K nudsen Construction Co. Vv. Direeter,

ee re ee Oe No.

81-1891 (May 24, 1983) . : | 26-27

NRDC v. EPA, 537 F.24 642. ss 74

NRDC v. Train, 6 Env't Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1033,

rev'd in part and remanded in part, 510 F.2d

692 . 6, 21-22

NRDC v. Train, 8 Env’t Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2120,

modified «ub nom. NRDC v. Coatle, 12 Env't Rep.

Cas. (BNA) 1833, modified sub nom. NRDC vy.

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. ¥. NRDC,

LS LS Se 36

Cases—Continued - Page

Watt v. Alaska, 451 U.S. 259 . = va

Weyerhaeuser Co. ¥. Costle, 690 F.2d 1011. 8, 37

Statutes and regulations:

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1261 ef seq... 38

Section 301, 33 U.S.C. 1311 a

Section 301 (b), 38 U.S.C. 1811(6) 7

Section 301 (b) (1), 38 U.S.C. 1811(b) (1) 23

Section 301 (b) (1) (A), 38 U.S.C. 1811 (b) (1)

iL RE ay et 4

Section 301 (b) (1) (A) (ii), 33 USC. 1311 (b)

(I(AD GT) |

Section 301 (b) (2), 33 USC. 1311 (b) (2)

Section 301(b) (2) (A), 38 U.S.C. (1976 ed.)

1S11(b)(Z)(A)

Section 301 (b) (2) (A), 33 USC. 1311 (>) (2)

(A)

Section 301 (b) (2) (C), 33 USC. ‘1811 () (2)

Section 301 (c), 33 Us.C. 1811 (ec)

Section 301(g¢), 33 U.S.C. 1811(¢)

Section 301(/), 38 U.S.C. 1811 ¢))

Section 304, 33 U.S.C. 1314 .

Section 304(b) (1), 33 U.S.C. 1314(b) (1)

Section 304(b) (1) (B), 38 U.S.C. 1814(b) (1)

Eas

Section 304(b) (2) (A), 33 USC. 1314(b) (2)

_—_—

Section 304 (b) (2) (C), 33 USC. 1314(b) (2)

ic).

Section 304(g) (1), 33 USC. 1314(¢) a).

Section 306, 33 U.S.C. 1316 |

Section 306(b) (3), 38 U.S.C. 1316(b) (3)

Section 307 (b), 38 U.S.C. 1817 (b)

Section 307(b) (1), 38 U.S.C. 1817(b) (1)

Section 307(b) (2), 38 U.S.C. (1976 ed.) 1817

(b) (2) :

Section 307 (b) (2), 33 usc. 1317() (2) 4%

Section 307 (b) (3), 38 U.S.C. 1817(b) (3) 9, 2

Section 307 (c), 38 USC. 1817(e) 2

eae ——

BESEen «© & @

Statutes and regulations—Continued

Section 307 (d), 33 U.S.C. 1317(d)

Section 309, 33 U.S.C. 1319

40 CPR. (1976):

Pt. 415:

Section 408.13 (e) (3)

Section 403.13 (e) (4)

Section 408.13())

Pt. 413

Miscellaneous |

43 Ped. Reg. 27796 (1978)

44 Ped. Reg. (1979):

ue f

= «

3u the Supreme Court of the United States

Octosss Tea, 1983

No &3-1013

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ET AL...

PETITIONERS

Natural Resoweces Derewsr Counen, Inc... fF aL.

Neo. &3-1373

Unrrep Srares EXNvimoNMENTAL Prorection

AGENCY, PETITIONER

Natural Resoweces Derunse Councn. Inc. ef at.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORAR! TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD ClACUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The opinion of the court of appeals (Pet. App. Al-

ASS)’ is reported at TIS F.2d 424.

'“Pet. App.” refers te the Appendix te the Petities in No

1018

{psseseis Ha Ht ri ait gheay nu

Hat at fe

ad ep th

Hf ie eet

with iil il sietal- | He rat

i shitty

AhtHE

FDF)

byageait

Tysx

Hy; a

He Hi

af 4 in iti me

i it

Hh nat th Al st

Pry.

Hemi

i Et a

i Ht tie

Hi ath

a i

je HTH

salt H

lait

ene ae

Tae

ail

i b5a2t

Neal

iil

cue

a2,

Lite

eye a

rat

‘iit

rE het oe

Aig

i oe

EI Hi

a ocrn he ee ee

yp ~nkniolrhn tla agen

fisas

" fen eH HERE

ELF age

Hie Hi Hee Hil i

; c gees ft

i fi i

ait

ft ne

ne ie

Hil

Hifi| TH ta af i

] ad Hf Hi

nn il

my hy - bby teeny

)—are not

—— 403.13(e) (3))

— v. Coatle, 636 F.2d 1229,

4 Het

. by

Lit

by 28.5 5a silts!

il wea (

bal

Tet

isi

+ Het eae

a Hr

(

a LETH

243i ui:

4 ed

dischargers

Pes

"In acoordance with duPont (see 490 U.S. at 187), PDF

ariances are not allowed for new source indirect

See 40 C.F.R. 408.13(b).

ial acs ba Lee

aie it

et hy i} in

aE ne vill

mn i

ia alt

iit

i a SHH

al res!

“33 i

Hig

Fi at

F ile

ile AHH

S)41TiE

na] wt

pire

ti Hi ‘i

i Patt insti a i

Bait

tal

Ht Re “f

‘uel ae

: i A

Tie Hi iH

if lati Fe

Hin

ts ul i 4 Hi i it {his Hf

a Hi ith Ve it

Hedi

tug:

elite

ATPL

nae

i “

mi i; int hilt

| fet! ith ct

feif

2 fi

ili i : Hi

ane a

i Wubi 3 Ht il He

gEEES

ral ih

, i fi

Hluil i if

Hath

3 ae hi i

a ei

Fi Hi Hit fi iit

pERSE

‘i

| fontmote

fide:

lie

ra a

S aete

Sante tt) tA).

Us at

Hk FA i

hie iF

het

Tye comet of appenie terpeetatam of the statute

shee prowes more thaw thet Comrt wae willing te accept

weer cet ofileew greenertedic beer tome of Bee Bet aes ceme is vald

Regentieet come (Re & Gop ©) Gat © pretreatment

entert mer eepe ee ow Geeterge te mae ¢ 8F'T regula-

ee er ee

Reegqenteet heer (Be @ Opp 67) Gat “Y & unlawful

for eng ower oe gee of ery meee We per Ee efy sourre

2 tet of 9 «geet ewecmens etendiert Semen BOT(d). 33

TAC wrtet) Rewer Ge come & Gee OO repect to

OPT Geet Gee 6 ert & eee & © Girect dis

harper cerpereong 6 RPT been 6 «lenge Ser @at source

we Ow ere enero of Bee per erm BY and 309

@ Ge Cee Goer 26 BU AC WE) et

Reem ngs Gee swear on ef ous tere fee not allow

TOO ere foe ew meee iow! Ge tergere 600 FR

om in

new and existing

sources are differently." FDF variances are

not available for new source direct or indirect dis-

chargers because such plants can be planned and con-

structed so as to meet the national standards. It

hardly follows, however, that existing indirect dis-

chargers should be treated in the way. On the

contrary, as previously noted, indirect dis-

chargers have just as FDF variances

In sum,

settled the

variances

remaining

of vari-

ances

Prehibkht FDF

Standards

;

449 U.S. at 83. See also Blum v. Bacon, 457 US.

141 (1982); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Mithollin,

U.S. 555, 556 (1986); Union Electric Co. +.

427 U.S. 246, 256 (1976). To sustain the Agency's

NT:

pare 33 U.S.C. 1317(b) with 83 U.S.C. 1817 (ec).

stat il

ji Ha

By v3

Pucae

si3 34

iui

pile

alitisil @

i ales

Hale

18 4ft

Hii

Hef

i Ess ‘ HEA t

ei HE ik i fe

at i i ul itt ii

He fall

EH iit

thi

| + Hi

cals

ihe i i

Weil

Balin

ult

ean

HED HE

uy :

teil

*ae oo. CPR aoheat (em)

mip

ci i

s it ‘ i

al: nie

Sy4~

*i¢i?

liek

- F

‘fl i

fil

alli alt Me

: Hit

ATLA | a

i !

ini i i Li

‘i

THe

“i

it if Tht

it Hi HE ila

; ijt" iets 1

Pi dal

(he ri i

o th i i

H bili uit 1 ih

lt AI

ita

Tne

Br a

TBH

erate He

ae ATE F

He : a

ea i fit

y I fa

SH t aj eeu

ie il

(ot ins!

ie ict

vita

a |

Bt eH

i i!

a i

fal

UH THe Piha 4]

A liu ee

p i HE tied Af iy

A iinet iat Me

eal anid

fini

a NE i

eat

tht Fi

i Ty

ill

theta}

iF ivtu

Li i i

me om

San GD O0ED ood OD ETTD

iw Tee

Supreme Court of the United States

(evoess Tee 1oee

Cweww at Manet veactT enme Acetate of o&

Petelucmere

Nettest Reeocecee Derewee (Coc wem, lee. of of

Reegemdante

t' a2 Sewers wewtas Peotervess Actes

: Pet teome*

Nettee: Reece ee (eres (oer. lee of oF

BR em “cote

Ce Bee af 6 evteewor! te (he | ated Seton

ivert @ Ageeele ee Ce There (eee

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE GRIEF AM te ct Bae

ee Seer awit CORA OF THe

(RAMEER OF (COMMERCE OF THE UNITED OT aT ee

Reece & (| weer

( owen! of Bevroed

erereee A Reeser

ee ee

Lrtee tees ( Oe rem | ee

“ee ee 1S

Bet aghe ' ye!

‘=, et a0"

‘(ius «7 Sew the Seperwe ¢ «& ome

( Oeeeeteee 6 f 6 nem emer re 0 the

[ o—ted * whee

tw Tee

Supreme Court af the Matted @tatrs

Oevoeee Tree 10

Nee SF 0008 cot OD LPTD

Crewe eo Maeve eT een Ae tetorm ¢ «&.

Piet Dermere

Neteees Reeeeeecee (ere Cemeerm, fee of oe.

Bb ctu mater oe

CS Eww wewtan Pectertes® Aces

woTIes oF THE (HANEER OF (OEE E OF THE

oerer sete CU mae

Aone

i i

i A a

Ht vi HUTT eure

ue ft

hia He Ne ain

THE Ali HH Hull fi TF

lallaaliing - ° =:

<“e3<

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF INTEREST

Maal

‘

poone

Guatenaneees cum (1978)

ty hyd ayy

3 Pet Ree TITSe (197)

6 Ped Ree 8404-60 (1981)

2 Vet Ree 66066-4 (1988)

@ Ped Ree S15) (1084)

Leqtetative Mistery of the Clee Water Act of 107?

Come Reewereh Geren Comme Prost Ne 14

ORh Come. Bed Reeetee (1978)

bby

tit

vatit <

ls is Ht

Bis F

td He

shat

inet |

r: i :

i i i #2 Fe iil

| HH i shat a Ni

ae Haar i} ath

i Hi il aputtltt

HH Hi THe

TESTE sare

cape Ghat dp, 12 Hee

iy eft (a aa Hit iN

ia ue

HH + : Hi it vine

ith tuple a

Hf IF ate fit FE Le

4 saeiz :

514; i2 1i ala

the FDF wariance as “an administrative safety valve”

adherence to an effective

which “permits a more rigorous

F.2d 642, 647 (2d Cir.

regulation.” NRDC v. EPA, 537

Assorration WV Ruckele-

1976) ‘quoting Portiand Cement

cert. dened,

haus, 486 F 2d 375, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1978),

417 US. 921 (1979) ).

TT 4

ni |

ele

: :

i if

i ane

pollutant

O1Lit)

li RST

Hest Tee) tl

ae i

Hal bf

ist 23

suarlestil RE cil

Bis

(3 Hie

hyjie fe 2*t

ne ie

at a Hill

Hi i!

nl li it ih

ie i iy *

Sgif2 824925 F E

He pee Aue Tan

en GH Tata i |

uit: Huan 1h. iil, Hl sy

ee ayia Re 7 fad |

TASHA TTL (Ee i!

Ebene aig HL

RHE ahi ina ee

Wash HEL iF i

a iH if tet 1

i Hie itt

at ii]

i HH il i il

:! Tae at . ii

sttreat Ht lll art

The Fourth Circuit based its holding on the structure

of the Clean Water Act, its legislative history, and the

general principle of deferring to an agency's construction

of the statute it administers. /d. at 1048. Observing that

“the best that can be said for §301//) is that it is not

clear,” the Fourth Circuit “(gave) weight to the con-

struction of the administering agency” and held that

§ 301(/) does not prohibit FDF variances for toxic pol-

lutant standards. Jd. at 1048. Accord, Chevron U.S.A. V.

NRDC, No. 82-1005 (June 25, 1984). The Chamber urges

this Court to adopt the Fourth Circuit's rationale here.

In the decision below, the Third Circuit not only “dis-

agrees” with the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of § 301

(1), but it also dismisses explicit legislative history which

demonstrates Congress’ primary concern for prohibiting

modifications under §301l(c) and ‘g). (A-42). In so

doing, the Third Circuit cavalierly ignores clear congres-

sional intent.

The legislative history of § 301(/) should not be dis-

missed so lightly. Congress was aware of this Court's

decision in duPont and of EPA's practice of allowing FDF

variances when it adopted § 301(/). If Congress sought

to overrule duPont it would have done so explicitly. In-

stead, Congressman Roberts, House leader of the 1977

CWA amendments, described the objective of § 301//) as

follows:

Due to the nature of toxic pollutants, those identified

for regulation will not be subject to waivers from or

modifications of the requirements prescribed under

this section, specifically, neither section 301(c)

waivers based on the economic capability of the dis-

charger nor 301(g) waivers based on water quality

considerations shall be available.

A Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

Cong. Research Service, Comm. Print No. 14, 95th Cong.,

2d Sess. 328-29 (1978).

The legislative history of the Clean Water Act does not

support the Third Circuit’s assumption that Congress in-

tended to override or expressly limit FDF variances for

toxic pollutant standards when it enacted § 301(/) of the

Act. On the contrary, the legislative history demonstrates

congressional approval of both the FDF variance process

and EPA's interpretation that § 301(/) of the Act does

not prohibit FDF variances for toxic pollutant standards.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Chamber of Commerce

respectfully urges this Court to reverse the decision be-

low and to reaffirm EPA's inherent authority to issue

FDF variances for toxic pollutant standards as previously

established by this Court.

Respectfully submitted,

Rosin S. CONRAD

Counsel of Record

STEPHEN A. BOKAT

NATIONAL CHAMBER

LITIGATION CENTER, INC.

1615 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20062

(202) 463-5337

Counsel for the Amicus Curiae

Chamber of Commerce of the

United States

AMICUS CURIAE

BRIEF

Seoreme Cow UA :

> rPITLED

Ne. &3-1013

Ne. &3-1573 ws 20 Ge

ee ee

Supreme Court of the United States

Octeber Term, 1963

CHEMICAL MANUPACTURERS ASSOCIATION. &.

Preteteome re

NATURAL RES | BCES DEFENSE COUNCHL INC. of of

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL FROTECTION AGENCY.

Pet mer

NATURAL BESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCHL IKC. « @

One Werte @ Compremee: fo tee were Sratee Cecer @ Arras HO

te. Tee Ca@etrr

BRIEF FOR STATE OF NEW YORK 44NTS CLR

Roesrt Assamese

4 General of the gente of \ew Yort

Th. Cagnel

la be

’

eestoe Preveated for Reve.

Whether the Court of Appeais for the Therd ( cunt cor

rectly held thar Section Oli!) of the Clean Warner Act, 3)

U.S.C. § 131141) protien the Unwed Sate Eavwoames

tal Protecton Agency from granting varnance: from na

tonal pretreatment wandards for tow pollutants fo

Gerect Guchar gers

Totter of ( eotrem

wNaewe and Reguia we inet ed

tmeerew of 4a we ( ere

Sasemen of (he ( ane

wer vy. gum

ARCA MENT

Seow Wh) of Ge Chee See Ac oe

tebe: (he aeaence of FDO verwmcr for @&

ret Su arger) of town podbean,

CONCLUSION = Fer the foregeeng reesems. the Gees

aoe of (he Cout of Appeak for Ge Thed

Cwowt thowld be affirmed

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.

CASE:

E. |. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S.

EEE EE

STATUTES:

40 C.F.R. § 403.13 (1983)............ Metectseee

Clean Water Act:

Section 301(1), 33 U.S.C. § 13111) (1982)...

Section 301(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (1982)...

Sections 310(c) and (g), 33 U.S.C. § 131 1{(c)

det cesesccccecceccec<

Section 304(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) (1982)...

Section 307(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1317(b) ........

33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seg. .................

irs IED occ cccccccccccsccces:

3,4

Nos. 83-1013 and 83-1373

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1983.

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, ef a/.,

Petitioners,

Vv.

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ef a/.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Petitioner,

¥.

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., ef a/.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT.

Brief for State of New York Amicus Curiae.

Opinion Below.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Third Cir-

cuit is reported at 719 F.2d 624.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on

September 20, 1983. The petition for a writ of certiorari in

No. 83-1013 was filed on December 19, 1983. By order

dated December 12, 1983, Justice Brennan extended the

time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 83-1373

until February 17, 1984, and the petition was filed on that

date. The petitions were granted, and the cases were con-

solidated on April 30, 1984. The jurisdiction of this Court

is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1).

Statutes and Regulations Involved.

This case involves technology-based ‘“‘pretreatment

standards” under Section 307(b) of the Clean Water Act,

33 U.S.C. § 1317¢b) (1982). Section 301(b) of the Act, 33

U.S.C. § 1311¢b) (1982), describes various effluent limita-

tions and standards that dischargers of pollutants are re-

quired to achieve. The factors that the Environmental

Protection Agency Administrator must consider in

establishing effluent limitations and standards are sci

forth in § 304(b) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) (1982).

Sections 301(c) and (g) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 131 1c) and

(g) (1982), authorize modifications of some of the § 30!

limitations and standards. Section 301(1) of the Act, 33

U.S.C. § 1311¢1) (1982), provides that the Administrator

may not modify the requirements of § 30! for toxic

pollutants.

The EPA regulation at issue in this case governing the

establishment of ‘‘fundamentally different factors”’

("FDP") variances is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 403.13

(1983), and in 1984 was amended to reflect the decision of

the court below (49 F_R. $132, Feb. 10, 1984).

Interest of Amicus ( uriae.

When the Congress enacted the Clean Water Act, 33

U.S.C. §§ 1251 ef seq., it provided for a national scheme

to improve the nation's water quality. While the States re-

prone etn cece ae ag mn

they choose to do so, they remain

a0 Ushed Gas Gutennend Pumemen Aoow

(“EPA'’) to promulgate baseline national effluent limita-

York and 30 other States have no formal role when a

The Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. $§ 1251 of wy... re-

quires the United States Fn«ironmental Protection Agency

tte

HIE

available to lower as well as rane a plant's lumets (although

there are no indications im the record of requests to lower

the lumets) and 1s availalic not only upon the reque = of a

plam. but of “any interested person”. including EPA (40

C.F. ¢ 403.1 Nb.

The varance mechanum « somewhat cumbersome

New York and 3 other States are not authorized by EPA

to grant or deny requests for varmances from the pretreat.

mem standards. Vanance requests must be filed with the

EPA, and the public is invited to comment (40 CFR.

$ 403.1 Mg). UG). The EPA Enforcement Divrmon Director

then decides whether to grant or deny the variance (40

C.F.R. 403.11). After his decision is issued, apy inter.

ewtecd person may petition the EPA Regoonal Adminrstrator

for a hearing within § days of the EPA Enforcement Dy.

vision Director's decision (40 C_F.R. § 403.1 Nemw iy), and

if the petson « demed. the demal may be appealed to the

EPA Administrator himecif (40 C_F _R. § 403.1 Memx 2).

Experience has shown that once a plant files for an FDF

variance, comphance eh the Clean Water Act « deferred

towkx, pollutants in other sections of the Clean Warer Act.

enacted the protien barnng vanances jor town pol

lutents in Section WO1(1) because & chose to treat tow

pollutants differently

EPA's argument that the ban agams! vanances apple:

to some varances but not to the F DE varances at meue

wncomustent eth the broad language of the ban and Con

gress” historic treatment of toxic pollutants under the

Clean Water Act

EPA’s argument that the ban must be read Mewbty m «>

favor or. comversety ngidly to profebe any amendment or

revmon of effuent hmaations or standards in the ater. «

of rule making must be rejected because a reasonaie Lon

struction etach accords enh the watute + cupress term

and intent » avaslatie

Section M1) of the Clean Water Act prohibit: the &

sasace of PDE vartences for indirect Gucharger of town

petbutomts

Section 30111) of the Clean Water Act was enacted by

Congress in 1977 and provides

The Admunmtrator may not modify any requarc

ment of this section as & applies to any speciix

pollutant efach on the toux pollutant bi under

sechon Wak!) of the title

This is i» stark contrast to Sections Wiic) and ig) of the

Clean © ater Act ehach cupresly authorize vanances

t<) The Adminicrater may modify the re

querements of sutection (b) (2) (A) of thes section

wah respect to amy pout source for ehach a perme

application is filed after July |. 1977. upon a show-

ing by the owner of operator of wach pot wurce

satmfactory to the Admunmtrator that wh mod

fred requerements (|) ell represent the maumum

we of technology erthen (he cconomn apatelrty of

the owner of operator, and (2) will rewuh im ree

<onable further progress toward the chummation of

the ducharge of pollutants

(g) (1) The Ademenmtrator ewh the concurrence

of the State. shall modify the requirements of sub

section (D) (2) (A) of thes section eth respect to the

dmcharge of any pollutant (other then pollutant,

wdentified purwuant to section Miia) (4) of thes title.

rosm pollutants wibyet to section Wa) of the

tale, and the thermal component of discharges)

from amy pOINt source upon a shorwing by the owner

of operator of sach powt source satmfactory to the

Admmunests ator that

(A) such modified requirements ell result at a

mmmum im comphance eth the requirements of

subsection (>) (1) (A) of (C) of this section,

ehnhever s applicable

(B) wach modified requirements ell not result in

any additional requirements on any other pout or

nonpomt source. and

pollutants « the only cupress ben agaist vanances in he

emore At

a tueves naisonal uniformaty m accordance euh (he goals

of the Clean Water Act. ehile individual plant Dy plan

drverminations made by regromal sot natromal EPA per

wane! under the PDE vanance procedure do not

bh & sgnificent that Senator Edmond 5. Meske,

amtnoetedged by the Court m de Poe a perhaps ihe

the Senate Soar debate. on the 1977 amendments (A

Legistative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Cong

Revearch Servne.

Sew [1978

orm “modification”.

eague,

categor«al ooh Seneter

Must) Matemenm

grven Nes umeque the begretar rs «

bor (he foregone rresem: (he Ge meee of the ( oer! of

Aperet fer tte Tberd ( ir wet mowtd te offirmed

Omred Augue ) | eae

ss r—“‘“_OSOSOSC;~;C”C”

RESPONDENT'S

BRIEF

iw Tee

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroers Team, 198!

Cyhesmc at Mawuractusnes Association. of of .

Pettimomets

Narusat Resoweces Derense Counce. Inc

Reipemdent

Unsrren Stares Exvimowwenwta: Peorection Agency.

Petitumer

Narueat Resoweces Devense Counce. Inc

Re igeredaent

Oe Write of Cortierart to the | atted States

Court of Appeal: fer the Third Creat

Attewans for Me rpomde mt

1250 New Tort Avewer. NO

Wartengton (M Smmr

(202) "AS. emp

eannnes S : F, |

Pus

Hell

in fit

geet

iil.

that

fat

HUE

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT: see

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

Cases:

American tron and Steel institute v. EPA, 526 F 2d

1027 (4d Cir. 1975), modified, 560 F.2d S89 (id Cir.

1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 914 (1978). ....... MWA

Association of Pacific Fisheries ¥. EPA. 615 F.2d 794

I ae ae 4!

Edmonds ¥ Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 444

OB TE RE ENS ERE MM

EJ. duPont de Nemours & Co. +. Train, 490 U.S. 11)

GUE coccceeccoecoconsecooccocenceooonnsens passim

Environmental Protection Agency V. National Crushed

Stone Ass'n., 449 U.S. 64 (1980) ............ 1,12, 24.31

Kennecott Copper Corp. +. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232 (10th

RSS Sa RR 7M 4)

NRDC v. Train, 8 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 2120(D.D.C.

1976). modified sab nom. NRDC v. Costle, 12 Bav't.

Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1833 (D.D.C_ 1979), modified sab

nom. NRDC v. Gorsuch, Nos. 2153-73, ef al. (D.D.C.

Oct. 26, 1982). modified sub nom. NRDC v. Ruct-

elshaus, Nos. 2153-73, e¢ al. (D.D.C. Aug. 2, 1985,

I I ni on cneeeinnnimainnnes s

Portland Cement Ass'n. ¥. Ruckelshaus, 486 F 2d 47S

(D.C. Cir. 1979), cert. denied 417 U.S. 921 (1974),

reh. denied 423 U.S. 1092 (1976)... 6s, ix

SEC v. Chenery Corp.. 332 U.S. 194 (1947)... ...... 7

SEC v. Sloan, 4% U.S. 103 (1978)... nnn, 18.26

TIME. inc. +. United States. 99 US. 44119)...

Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426

ek ED cncoceesedbenmmacoeoocoscoeoesooes »”

Train v. NRD ~~. 421 U.S. @B(I9TS). .. ©6666 666 17

TVA v. Mill, 437 U.S. USD (19TH)... nn 9.23.26

United States ¥. Calamaro, 984 U.S. 351 (1957)... ... 18.26

United States ¥. Culbert, 495 U.S. 371 (1978). ....... »

Unded States ¥. Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., 1%

es DID concoccsooccoenoesssebnneonssete 20.8

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. +. NRDC, 435

OS eee

’

Volkswagenwerk v FMC, WOUS. MII). .... ss

Zuber ¥. Allen, 96 U.S. OR (1989)... 6... 2s

STATUTES:

Administrative Procedure Act, § U.S.C. 553......... ”

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. (& Supp. V) 1251 ef seq. 2

U.S.C. LRbKINCKH)........ is

33 U.S.C. LSIMDMIMA) ............ 2

AB) U.S.C. (& Supp. V) Ui ibM IMA) 2

33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) Ibe) |... 2

§301(DK2KD), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) ENOK2ND) 9

S3ONONINE), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) LI NbHINE) .. 4

Wie), 33 U.S.C.

swWiid), 33 U.S.C.

SWitg), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) Lig

Sith), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) ith) ............. 16

010K 1), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 1S1MGMT). 16

$3010K2), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) site)... a al

$301), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) INI) .............. u

SIO, IB U.S.C. UID © ccc ccs, passim

$3041), 33 U.S.C. PSIIDHT) ’

$3042), 33 U.S.C. INN4IDHD) ’

$304(bN4), 33 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 1)i4ibe4).. 4

SMOGTH TD, 93 U.S.C. ISIEMED. nn, ’

CEE I ee 3

S30bN INR), 33 U.S.C. IDM INB) ............ 17

$307%a), 33 U.S.C. (Supp V) 131%a).............. 9

S7akt), 33 U.S.C. (Supp V) tant) ......... 6

$307(b), 33 U.S.C. (& Supp. V) 131%) 6... passum

SOND), 33 USC. TSITDNT ©... 6... ...0., 3.13.

S307(bND), 33 U.S.C. IND) .............. 18.17.99

SION), 39 U.S.C. TSIMDMN cnn, 3

I EE. 0 nn cnc cococesooees 3

i a a on w

8900ia). 39 U.S.C. 19GB... © 6 6 6 cc ccc ccc nce 18

SSOWDN 1), 3 U.S.C. IMPRINTED ccc ww

REGULATION.

SERIE alban a passim

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS

Fed. Reg. WR) (197%)

W Fed. Reg 40M (197%)

Fed. Reg. 704 (1974)

Ped Reg S71) (1974)

W Fed Reg 6990 (1974)

W Ped. Reg 74 (1974)

W Fed. Reg 184 (1974)

W Fed. Reg MI) (197%)

Fed. Reg tsi) (1974)

W hed Reg tama) (1974)

W Ped. Reg 11510 (1974)

W Fed Reg 12%) (1974)

Fed. Reg 1170 (1974)

W Fed Reg 1467 (1974)

Fed. Reg S78 (1974)

Ped Reg 1894 (1974)

Ped. Reg 1874) (1974)

W Fed Reg Mile ciere

oe REPEEEEELELELLL

W Fed. Reg MIM (1974) Bal

Fed Reg 4%) (197% Pa

0 Ped. Reg 6492 (197% ™»

4) Fed Reg ter7) 119% aww»

4 Fed. Reg S119) aw

4) Fed. Reg 647% (1977) wo

4) Fed Reg 1Sme (1977) ™

4) Fed. Reg 1 Seeo (1977) ™»

4) Fed Reg 1s (1977) ™»

4) Fed Reg Deere (1977) a]

4) Fed. Reg 18M (1977) ™

4) Fed. Reg VD IeT™) ™»

4) Fed Reg TMI) sw

4) Fed. Reg POTR (ITH) w

4 Fed Reg 18M 119TH ow

* Fed Reg 9604 (1981) .

* fed Reg 418 1198) “

hed Reg #9608 (19%), ”

hed Reg e808 (1) ”

Fed Reg Sl 0 (198), ”

seeees

Transportation, @th Cong.. ist Sess. (1983)... 5. MA?

Mirctiianeous

Webster s Third New International Du thomary (197%) is

in Te

Supreme Court of the United States

(x poeee Team, ret

“= Gh fen)

(wee at Manowar roars Ace mre « of

Pe tetmmme +

Naroge: Rewer es Deven Coceen. tne

ro oe

‘“e aber

Usrrem Stares Exwerreweesew rte: Peertee tee Acaewey

Pettwme

Neroeet Resooeres Deve Cooeen Ine

Cm Werte of Corterert Ge | ened Seser

Court of Agpea: fer Ge There Cireet

The epemeee of Gee court of appeals (Per Age 4) 8

= reperted @ TOF be ae

ce ee ee ee

“ @ Ope fee eters we Ge cometie we Ge fret oe eee we te

iy GUA ti

Hi ee i

Pe ue

inet dif Hi Hh

i : ‘s aif i i

Hee HR ite He

aM i a

ie ean ni Ht

HH ant Ey

eat Hail th

AMA

ite

tn 197). shortly after def eer, Congress tock tock of the

we ft fownd that progres: © (ontrodhag [omventammel pele

ants. the precepel targets of BPT requerements had teen

@reater than santa pated mote dtivtiaming the .halleages

EPA sregulatoes (9 lege Mert capre. at 1 ht therefore

cased future .ontrod requerements for .omventamnal pedbutant. *

‘te Sees heer) at Mebee of Ge Ae HUE Cee

V) CPE Ree eh) aed | 0G ee ( omgpeee cometed sare Wretemeiagy Mened

tabte to BAT for Greet Gechargers. f of 17), MD. ao). ah.

Pomalty (ongres: defimed ehen amd umber hat comb

Gor source: cowkd often varweme: from BAT and peetrest

ment requerements ft cut heck on the ec omommen ( agetebty

vartance @ the 197) lee chemeneting @: wee for tonx pote

aed the ee age iC ateret phat) Seelam) « omm tod

Sects Wie, TFL BC Chee VP EPR, eee eet “Tike

PA w or oo Ge ek @ cote © pte Ge

See tts Later PPA reemed pee treater et regulates:

ehh emks as pee 19” peetreetenret wemderd: . mteeed

ae FD careme frome Cooereng af peeietamt: om tedeng

wee CPR Sih Ape All” EPA expt

Ce a eel

ee ee ee ee ee

Ce ee ee, ee

OL Be ee

* cece ee FFE RO eee Fe Pee FT dee Mee cere

Rat we)

i eee re ee

eee ee ee ee ee

ee ee ee

(Sc Gee ©) Oe eet

he ORR Oe pete wee ee ree! pete "Pe

A, ee eee

~~ ene 6 ee hee 9) het Gey Coe The

Be ee ee ey

‘Ss «2 + wee ee ow

wocemdey caer me met progerr’) peeeemmed Bes 6 cmuert Me aero

Ge cow! of aggeah: Gt ot emt €

A ee weer of pettemeom —omnot ~ngeremeen:

ne 6 ee ater te nnd te protein EFA Gemm aggrading

Ramtart: wo ete! wee arvetegmenn: @ wtemeiegy Tin

wee fFa ° ead + elt Gur EPA & Gee we Greece

) Oe cmnren Seo of Be wane

tPA + egumens tah on cee comm Pew @e eum

a CNT oF SameT gual) sername me Cue

PTA © Gee to comane otter sername of owe <ememng

i he Re ee ee ee

# Aether meh evn Nered fe nee WH we Chet Re wens hee

More important. EPA had a well-defined practice im 1977

of restricting FDP variances to BPT limits. EPA did not

mclude FDF vanances m its pretreatment or BAT standards

m the technology-forcing context of BAT and pretreatment

standards. In addon. FDF vanances take close to a year or

more to resolve. They interfere with the Act's strict compl-

ance deadiines for pretreatment im a way that sub ategonza

ton during a rulemaking does not Finally. the FDF varmnce

is, procedurally. a Rube Goldberg contraption It wastes

reward sources which withhold relevant information during a

rulemaking with an additional opportunity for rehef

standards

Hil

Hit

iid

Hill

rules in the words of one enthusiast Member of Congress.

duPont expecially “quashed any hopes these industries had

of getting around the law.” 1977 Legis. Mist.. supra, at 1518.

But neither case had the broad reach EPA now ascribes to

DuPont wed to reconcile the Clean Water Act's appl

cation of BPT to “point sources” with the overall statutory

scheme which apphes BAT (and pretreatment and new source

standards) to categories and classes of sources The Court

concluded that BPT. ke BAT. could ve set by industry ene

regulations so long as some allowance made for vanations

mn individual plants as EPA has dome by inchuding a vanance

clause in its (977 \.¢.. BPT) emitation.” 48 U.S. a 128

a source to a varwme from BAT of pretreatment amdards

(See decuwson. pp ') 1S oufre

ladeed defo! vir’ doen sontatutory vaname: for

ace wurce viamdards for ressom equally appin ac to pre

treatment tiandards Both pretreatment and nee sour’ van

dards cover of wowrces rather than ondry ahaa! pomnt

wurces. CY O67 ryhah), 1) U S.C. TEP Tee ty ee OMeeede, FF

U S.C. U}0@tb). Pretrestment. entice GPT tents. are cuprewdy

labeled “wtandards” m@ the Act. id Pretrestment. Whe ace

source. standards may requere go decharge “ As euth ace

wre stamdards ,

pretreatment

cemphaws added) .

varames) and a varame Proven sould he mappropratc

thecause Congress mtended pretreatment the ace source

vMamdards to cmure nateonal endo met) and ma tomum feawic

contrel. See generally 400 0 S of 118% These. defen does

Te TT

@ Ge publ) come’ weet works PET) FP U8 Clee ¥

LOO e T) Pet eee are me eC tcegne te Ge bevel af mtret Grenade’ h

ih emt oe

ooered “eo Geka” feet Me eee coerce eer, cet Ge OFT

os eee he meted ame Ger) at reed © + ere oie

OPA Be TD oh) Tie eee ee pet re ree eters re oe

eer eereweres be BET They force ec emt, te Ge eee! af Qe few

pe porter: Peers mem amet ee Be Oe ee

eee 19) Levee ee cere, a TT ee, a ee ee

we wr weemwe “emberd: towel preeem fe meme e

ee,

eee

CRN we ee tee Reet gers ee re meer) me teneeteter

ee ee ed

we et Nowe cmmeeren ted wees mtr emiant: of mee cramer

ee ee

rn a me wan te twentaie e am Cow 8m pe fe omgpHe we

end Oe pe nee —-~ ny =

oe wt he mee ee eae

le eee ee ee ee —

peetrestmrer wamferd @ Be fear) come of he ore

i+. ¢ gn @ mere” OPA

ee ee

ew = Gataomad peetrretmree fom come lene

- contrat we. “eekagy prec ewrs marten ow ee

Gee” Sete WED FFU SC Te

*t,e woe See ee 0 8 Cee ee of Ge te

i el ee

a ee

Ore mers tah tome ( ongress conphorved the word ment) tom ees equated the feo terme @ vomeirweng the very venta

tat ome areas ds Section 50) mecems & “waiver” of “wartance” from polietion

mds whe! omtrot tambards

ere Ned

or ome

ihe) water

(Sepp V) tite

works to xcept the

USC. Gee Vv

eee ree mee: mers

Se emmntiiiediee

Mee

we HL

ie comberee: dad ame

nn |

i! i |

Pn a Nay

— elites pete @ gree FOP cere

OF Re 8 Nertery ae guemerer we oeteer am: wmae ste

OPA 6 Gee pemee Ghee ( ngreee + fee ley chereteere

i. cent eS ee ee

demons ame ee OH Remmees cnt) New meee Be

A ee

i ea ee

bw CC . .

of he eee mee) pre ed ome

ee ee oe

ee i eh ee ed

—-

ower Cnet + meer iene of

tee! industry vital

Hist.. supra, at 3204.

® mooncervaite

{

proscribed.” (EPA Br. 26).

Sectron W1i/) must nave heen

created varances.

FDP veotates

be atime otek @) appt ster = peeing Oe Ke mew Comte

amet Oh the Mambards from ete hs erm 8 emg omeres he

A eet A ee a ee

Ge appt ate o8 wxieed oe he mer: Moe Admemewtretor we fmt

ee ee ed

meth) comphance @ the even (het Be vere @ Gener’ |!) 8 Seep

Vihe axt @

ceptions to a statutory rule duPoort wrestled with (Congress +

vlence on what the rule itvelf should he DuPont eas precip

tated by the Clean Water Act's failure to cay whether BPT

lenits showkd be set nationally of case-bycase The Act

appeared to warrant national standards shin to BAT and new

source standards but t used different language to dew nibe

the BPT lente. The BAT prowisions focused on Categornes

and classes of sources. the BPT provisos spoke of indy

vedual pont sources DuPont resolved the tenon hetwcen

the ammguows language of Section Wl and the overall thrust

of the statute with a hy hr resotution of the meue The (Court

concluded that BPT. the BAT. can be set by industry-wide

regulations so long as some alkre ame 1s made for vanations

mi individual plants as EPA has dome by imc huding a vananme

clewse m its (PT) lenitations 400 US ot 128

Secthon Whig) varwnces

The bull intends to give the Admunmtrator of EPA a

safety valve im the event that the courts find he dows

mont have Aevihelity in admumstering the MA! /RAT)

requercments for umdusines Vt authonzes a case by

case CLemption for indusines eta h demonstrate to

the satrefaction of the Admemstrator that pollutants

im thew discharge are sot toxk *** land) wil aot

mterfere with the attarmment of the natronal «ater

quailty ttandard ***

id at 674 (omphaws added) But Section Whig) he Witc).

vartances were not availaite for tous /d The mtent » clear

Hist. supra, af 1999-147), of the Senate. ot 1093-1108."

True. EPA had regulation: etich. though largely aot

mvokted mpratne had at beast theoretn ally evtatinhed Dt

variances from GPT lets Bet thee Court hes prewiouely

ruled that the mere cintence of agen) regulatom m aot

wafhoent haw from ofa h to presume ( ogress + inore tedge

of thew content. United States +. Cotemare, 1% US. NI

(1957) ft has ewer refused to mfer Congrewsonal approval of

agency acthon mm the face of cupress mndacateoms that

Seen, 4 US 103. 121-12) (1978 Senate Commutice Report

aot waffksent onda stron of endespread ( ongreswonal seare

ews) It does not mecewartly follow that becauwe EPA had

reguiatiom ( ongress knee of them

Nor would dufon have earned ( ongres: that ¢ aeeded

to renounce PDE varances for BAT and pretreatment wan

dards by name Pew. defon dd aot as EPA clam. prom

nently decuw PDE varmances (EPA Br 2%) As noted carber

Niet. capre. a 108

ether & 40) ee Comp. tt See ED

}

”

am 395. 1901. By

a 64). and the ortate:

han amtan pated authors sta

(Congress pexutants

ated the deugned w

vomtrod . Se

Seme (Congress the (or eta oF

under ehah these mented ¢ dows

mt make coo to assume thet (Congres: enthowt meet

would har. to gant momete

twtery

aif

}

Thee rs 2 chem reed on eha t to rest an argumeet that ( congress +

talbere to act makes ce ee Congres: beee thet BPT would

heave mxcadental beeefite @ comtral of tomas @ wom dee

wees.” EPA ted told & wo. bet bed ahem warmed Get “even

‘i

;

tb a3 146 ‘ TH iii

iii i i

n us {- vis

HHH

cat

Wetitiy

hy wiz | in

of tet rather « pert of the cemderd wetting praew @

what EPA corrects pre errors Ae PDO varuemce wonpty

cate a BAT ov peetrestmment vtemberd bow on andr wheel phan

weve EPA wheke o Sectaoe Mle) varuemce etcunes comphene

SED o reer Tere appt alte be (her Larger. heee of Gre tear gers

Thee mo Geetemtam etfteast ¢ dffereme be Soteome!

Crested Seow Acoe . 609 0 S ot 16. Gee Comet Qed Gt

Sox tae MP hec) varteene perform: (he pron me cote FPA anc rites

wo on PDP wermemce «€ 3 crewtes for « pertcwher Geet wren

2 BAT ctemmherd that represent: bow @ he Come wort od 6 ome

eed lay ete af ocoememetmr et a: he greene BAT otamberd

ote tr Oe chee

Sectese Wltc) = 2 reetememetes of BAT factors for an

te euther cane ( omgree: cand (here cowkd be go emage from

eer me BAT coger emmernt: flow rtm Me are of cmatehet) to

oe Ger ere comtrete BF eould be meee eeleed fe

a fe Wf ( omgrew: retteed any ( cmgrees to eae perverted (he cee oe cell hm) fee temmemet am

eee et 7. | ee

met amt HA Both PDP and Section Wltc! wartemces cot ether so ere BAT

OPS hee oe Ree eet) eee of Ge Aflerwae ctagetetry

ewes fer cae sereemee Gee Geet FP eo: heer 6 eeiifie ene ol

OSPR ee Re ee tem ce fe ete rien Re 6. cee, eguetieter

(ee oe «eee 6M Oe eee oe FOP cere

ee & eee Geer eee & OFT oF Ue oe DS The

Ce ee

eee ers Re eee per pemes 6 em) cotter cree Ge fee! fer

OF) and 04) comm Ce & Ge (ee! cepted Ge wemee Bee)

i i a

0! Rey comhd teres er te mage te OTT eee Se eee Be

2 et eet ee) Re gee ere et tet Meet prem emer ef

r it # :

Hab |

td ae

i dil at

Hie i re nie

i ita 3!

nae bias) He ila I

silent it

i Se ee ed

foc ee OFT PTD ice Mee ere oe tee

Se greed he merage of Ge Mew ctemeng pevtormmems

el ee ee Oe ee ed

ee ah ee

er ee Petry oe ee) mtmenrnet . emerge)

wat

ee ee en ee

et pele 6 meer) enieeiee piers ongte one

Oe REE) CGT EEE. oF Fre ee: Aree: ete) cae

er oe we eter eee) here bat ah tet

een ogee Mk pewter eneree ( gere: ce gamed

he we peer, age ke me sees Me eee hw) Sere we

Oe ey 8 Peete . tered: ae caters Mee ate ten meee

ai ek ee eee

we: ew ooh of pewereeeeer Ghee ter: eat Gu

a eter 1 ieee Mee eee oo ae

Smarr: Aad mt meet ry Wes erengu eT camer es bo

re phere et epe hew Re tee Wh, creme: hee memes

<6 Pow Rote Peeereenmerer cemiert: 6 amend om eneme f

ee Rg) mgr ten cts een: ne 8 es cee

RE. i, Gree Pee ere enema oe he Medes of. cee

where eee Ad ot OOF! Fb weed Remweeer ceemdilen

ll ee ee

me nee: foe cenereng fe me ee we ae

ee ee ee

St ee ee

tree Ne eee 6 eee: ee mee ke page fee

orto s eet fee remem: Ghee howe meniong te ae eek

he ee ee

eee Come te BT ke he pewerrenmer amd BAT oem er:

Ge agrees + eee of Ge cot eee BP 8 eee

are Gey coed weer ae Fl artes bee es eee

a ee eee Y

ow me eee ee

a thee lene we 40h eet the

a ee ee eT

oho Congres wet EPA we a 6 eed ce tenet

Ce, ee ee

fe ee eet Be ee pees Gener) Shetty

re ed

on fe ee ew ome er fie ter Ge oe &

re ee 2 ®

a ro en oe

Bo ete te Ale peered We (Wee Cer Gy

Oe i Se

ee i

i ee ee

em te 4 ened wie The FOP. meme

en co

ee ee

gee ie ee me ete

em ee Te ke owt we oe he

Oe en

ee ee)

a FT ae ee Ge ee ewe er Rew Ralienge = honed

Nectloer Power Comp + NRADC, 495 US. 519 (197%) EPA

to choose t+ own rulemaking procedures CMA cites SFT +

¢ EPA abso pleads that « seeds an PDF varunce becau

@s final pretreatment siamdards may met albeays reflect the

full range of factors the Adouentrater wes wappesed to

_ (EPA Be 11) Thee could coour @ one of three

¥. EPA, O12 F 2d 1292. 1243 (10 Coe 1979). EPA fell back

” EP 8 teeters ot eomrtem) NEI» etre oe FOF waren

prem eberes chegng (het SEIE e eer) Mer eeee . alieng (he fren etere) om

Ce, Ae ee ee ee ee ee ee

owe ree wee See Treen of (ret Ace @ ( owt of Agee of

ee ee ee See ee ee ee

ee ame 6 hee eet eet correctly. Ge (FA) cutie eter

premodern: tor FOO armen: ae ete ee Der ceed ber wetteng

prewreetmem ambard: Me aww frogened -erumes 6 et puted

@ Ge Peters Reger oe prepeeed roles eet cheery FU OOP

The: ee ete prem eer, Centr ete me cere te net fromm Ree comete

( emgpee mapped cet fer he gem, Oe here, appre? we pete eee

OP 4 cabes erwerer Ge crete) comme et ot ter he be! Gee of

on the

fa tors

veary hefore

inn”

Pra. ter mM

wi Cw a

proferred the

of a: data baw been chearty

pented cut te EF ted Reg

mtheng mre

Thee Court

cert dented 417 US. 921 (1974), veh. denied, 422 U.S. 1092

Ime) The went of cach rulemaking comment turt on Mts

~ Tie Gee Gal eet freee ort hemme ghetto OF) camtart

a he al ete atten) aegeree Sew ofere: guntetene

ae oe onthe han on he ev etan, die WU oramee

oui hee OFF Oe @ te

rn te

eres ewe Fed Bag Det ie dere (ree ee

wurces. Hence. & & far wafer for EPA to be carefel during.

mt after the rulemaking

fashs to

A second type of errr cocurs when mdeury

bring relevant information to EPA + attention during « rule

making An PDP vartance does sot cure the type of error @

Pimally EPA can meee rules whack become dated m@ the

wake of nee information EPA does not seed an PDP vartance

fow these wtuateom ether Av EPA .omedes « already hav

authorty «ndeed m requered to revine ity rules @ohen the

coours. Section Wiha?) 1) U S.C. TPP RD). te chert, the

detremental to EPA. overall vtamdard setting effort

4 EPA abo chasms that the Therd Count + decron could

a i

ut } Hi i ale

HHH Hi Hatt pif

aie Hie

Het a

aH ene a itt peas Uy HY

Ha Wee Ha sil |

at +f 315405 a Ht He

rue ele Tt iil

i AOE te Litt

LH ET

er ltl md pert Pes + tee of Cw Leen he egurT

~ & ee cere, The, oe rm, ree eee et ee eee

owe er eee re i ee

oe hata ohne ete ieee ee eer @ eee”

hw ee re

ths ogee Te

' i

ee ee

ee ae

ee ee

program The The ( eat .crreett) cepa «

ee eee

ge epee RD Oe ee ete ete ets 6 Meme

gm meth Rete tee erm) tomee cttrr et emt Qauetee 5 ceenpmTEt

CONCLUSION

The judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed

Respectfully submitted.

Frances Dubrowsk:

Counsel for the Natural

Resources Defense Council.

Inc.

August 20, 1984

A-l

CLEAN WATER ACT PROVISIONS

1. Section 208(bN2"C) of the Clean Water Act, as amended,

MUS.C. LRRD INC)

(2) Any plan prepared under such process shall include,

but not be limited to—

(1) umplement the waste treatment management require-

ments of section 20lic),

subsection (bX 2A) of this section with respect to any port

source for which a permit application is filed after July |.

(A) such modified requirements will result at a minimum

m comphance with the requirements of subsection (ba iW A)

or (C) of this section, whichever is applicable:

(B) such modified requirements will not result in any

additional requirements on any other port of NoONpornt source .

and

icity, mutagenicity or teratogenicity). or synergistic propensities:

(2) If an owner of operator of a powt source apphes for

a modification under this subsection with respect to the

U.S.C. (Supp. V) Lith

th) The Admunistrator. with the concurrence of the State.

may issue a permit under section 402 which modifies the

protection of pubix water supphes and the protection and

propagation of a halanced indigenous population of shellfish

fish. and wildlife. and allows recreational activities. mm and on

the water.

(4) the applicant has estahiished a «\ stem for monitorng

the umpact of such discharge on a representative sample of

aquatk Mota. to the extent practicatc.

(4) such modified requirements will not result m any

additonal requirements on any other port of ponpownt source.

(%) all apphcate pretreatment requirements for sources

imtroducing * aste into such treatment works will be enforced.

S. Section Olri) of the Clean Water Act, as amended. 151 5.0.

(Sepp. 4) Lhe

cel) Where comstrac ton ms required in order for a planned

or cxrstung pubhch) owned treatment works to acteeve lem

taboms under subsection (be 1«B) or (be 1eC) of thes section.

but (A) construction cannot be completed erthen the time

required m such sulection. of (B) the Laned States has

(24 A) Where a pout source (other than a publicly owned

treatment works) will not actueve the requirements of wih

sections (bu 1H A) and (bx THC) of thes section and—

) @ & permit insued prior to July |. 1977. to such pout

source is based upon « dicharge inte « publicly owned

to met wach dew harge evthowt .ominaton. and m the case

State) to eeee or mel) each « pero perwuest to cach

secon 402 to extend sack me for complence. Any cach

request Nall he filed eth the Admwanirator ion d appropratc

the State) eethen 180 days after the date of enactment of the

compan for the pownt source to aftecve the requrements

of «abeectoms (ete A) and «C) of he section and el

the permit for such port source requires pomt source to meet

all requirements under section 307(a) and (b) during the period

of such time modification.

6. Section 301(j) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.

(Supp. V) L3tig):

G1) Any application filed under this section for a mod-

ification of the provisions of —

(A) subsection (bX 1B) under subsection (h) of this

section shall be filed not later than 270 days after the date of

enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

(B) subsection (b 2A) as it applies to pollutants iden-

tified in subsection (b¥2F) shall be filed not later than 270

days after the date of promulgation of an applicable effluent

guideline under section 304 or not later than 270 days after

the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

whichever ts later.

2) Any application for a modification filed under subsec-

tion (g) of this section shall not operate to stay any requirement

under this Act, unless in the judgment of the Administrator

such a stay or the modification sought will not result im the

discharge of pollutants in quantities which may reasonably be

anticipated to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or

the environment because of bioaccumulation. persistency in

the environment, acute toxicity, chronic toxicity (including

carcinogenicity. mutagenicity or teratogenicity), or synergistic

propensities. and that there is a substantial likelihood that the

applicant will succeed on the merits of such application. In

the case of an application filed under subsection (g) of this

section, the Administrator may condition any stay granted

7. Section 304(f\( 1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1314(f 1)

(1972):

(f¥ 1) For the purpose of assisting States in carrying out

programs under section 402 of this Act. the Administrator

shall publish, within one hundred and twenty days after the

date of enactment of this title, and review at least annually

thereafter and. if appropriate. revise guidelines for pretreat-

ment of pollutants which he determines are not susceptible

to treatment by publicly owned treatment works. Guidelines

under this subsection shall be established to control and

prevent the discharge into the navigable waters, the contiguous

zone. or the ocean (either directly or through publicly owned

treatment works) of any pollutant which interferes with, passes

through, or otherwise is incompatible with such works.

8. Section 6(b\1) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33

U.S.C. L3tecbi Th:

(bx 1 A) The Administrator shall, within ninety days after

the date of enactment of this title publish (and from time to

time thereafter shall revise) a list of categories of sources,

which shall. at the minimum. include:

pulp and paper mills.

paperboard. builders paper and board mills:

meat product and rendering processing:

dairy product processing.

grain mulls:

canned and preserved fruits and vegetables processing:

canned and preserved seafood processing:

sugar processing.

textile mulls:

cement manufactunng.

Phosphate manufacturing.

steam electric powerplants:

ferroalloy manufacturing:

leather tanning and finishing:

glass and asbestos manufacturing.

rubber processing. and

tumber products processing.

(B) As soon as practicable, but in no case more than one

year, after a category of sources is included in a list under

subparagraph (A) of this paragraph. the Administrator shall

propose and publish regulations establishing Federal standards

of performance for new sources within such category. The

Administrator shall afford interested persons an opportunity

for written comment on such proposed regulations. After

considering such comments. he shall promulgate, within one

hundred and twenty days after publication of such proposed

regulations. such standards with such adjustments as he deems

appropriate. The Administrator shall, from time to time, as

technology and alternatives change, revise such standards

following the procedure required by this subsection for pro-

mulgation of such standards. Standards of performance, or

revisions thereof. shall become effective upon promulgation.

In establishing or revising Federal standards of performance

for new sources under this section, the Administrator shall

take into consideration the cost of achieving such effluent

reduction, and any non-water quality environmental impact

and energy requirements.

9. Section 46ie) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 43

U.S.C. 131éter:

(e) After the effective date of standards of performance

promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful for any

owner or operator of any new source to operate such source

in violation of any standard of performance applicable to such

source.

A”

10. Section a) of the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33

U.S.C. (& Supp. ¥) L317 tak

Sec. Wat) On and after the date of enactment of the

Clean Water Act of 1977. the list of toxic pollutants or

combination of pollutants subject to thes Act shall consist of

those toxic pollutants listed in table | of Commuttee Print

Numbered 95.0 of the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation of the House of Representatives, and the

Administrator shall publish. not later than the thirtieth day

after the date of enactment of the Clean Water Act of 1977,

that list’) From time to time thereafter. the Administrator may

revise such lest and the Administrator ts authonzed to add to

or remove from such list any pollutant. The Administrator in

publishing any revised list. encluding the addition or removal

of any pollutant from such list. shall take into account the

toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence. degradability. the

usual or potential presence of the affected organisms in any

waters, the importance of the affected organisms, and the

nature and extent of the effect of the tox pollutant on such

orgamisms A determinavion of the Administrator under this

paragraph shall be final except that if. on judicial review. such

determination was based on arbitrary and capricious action

of the Administrator. the Administrator shall make a redeter-

mination

(2) Each toxic pollutant listed im accordance with para-

graph (1) of this subsection shall be subject to effluent

limitations resulting from the apphcabon of the best available

egory or class of pout sources established im accordance with

section Wivbw 2" A) and MM (bx?) of this Act. The Admunis-

trator. in his discretion. may publish in the Federal Register

a proposed effluent standard (which may include a pr shibition)

establishing requirements for a tox pollutant which. if an

effluent limitation 1s apphcable to a class or category of point

sources. shal! be apphcable to such category or class only if

published effluent standard (or prohibiven) shall take into

account the toucity of the pollutant. its persistence. degrad-

ability. the usual or potential presence of the affected orga-

A-10

misms many waters. the mportance of the affected organisms

and the nature and extent of the effect of the tox pollutant

on such organisms. and the extent to which effective control

rs bemg or may be achreved under other regulatry authority.

The Administrator shall allow a period of not less than sixty

days following publication of any such proposed effluent

therewith Such a public hearing shall provide an opportunity

for oral and written presentations. such cross-cx amination as

the Admumstrator determines ts appropriate on disputed issues

of material fact. and the transcription of a verbatim record

which shall be available to the public. Afier consideration of

(3) Each such effluent standard (or prohibition) shall be

reviewed and. if appropriate. revised at least every three

12. Section 308ia) and (b) of the Clean Water Act, as amended.

33 U.S.C. 190) and (br

(a) Whenever required to carry out the obyective of thers

Act. including but not limited to (1) developing or assisting

A-t2

m the development of any cfflucnt lrstation. of other lum-

tation. prohibition. or effluent standard. pretreatment stand-

ard. or standard of performance under thes Act. (2) determenmng

whether any person is in violation of any such efflucnt

bmstation. of other lemitation. prohubytion or effluent standard.

pretreatment standard of standard of performance (3) amy

requirement established under thrs section. of (4) Carrying out

sections 40S. 311. 402. 404 (relating to State permet programs).

and S04 of thr Act—

(A) the Admunrstrator shall :equire the ov ner oF operator

of any pomt source to (1) establrsh and mamtasm such records.

(i) make such reports. (in) install. ese. and mamtam such

monitonng equipment or methods (including where appropn:

ate brological monstoring methods). (rv) sample such effluents

(m accordance with such methods. at such locatioms. at such

intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator shall

prescribe). and (v) provide such other mformation as he may

reasonamMy require and

(B) the Admunrstrator of hes authorized representative.

upon presentation of hrs credentials —

(i) shall have a right of entry to. upon. or through any

premises im which an effluent source m located of m which

any records required to be mamtamed under claw < (A) of

thes subsection are located. and

(n) may at reasonable umes have access to and copy amy

records mapect any Monstonng equipment or method required

under clause (A). and sample any cfflucnts ethech the owner

or operator of such source required to sample under wach

clause.

(b) Any records. reports. or informasen obtamed under

this section (1) shall. in the case of effluent data. be related

to any apphcable cfflucnt lmrtatioms torn pretreatment oF

new source performance standards and (>) shall be avaslate

to the public. except that upon a showing satrfactory to the

Admunstrator by any person that records reports. or mfor-

mation. of particular part thereof (other than effluent data)

to whech the Admemrstrator has access under thr section if

made pubix sould divulge methods o processes entitled to

protection as trade secrets of such person. che Admenrstrator

of section 1905 of tithe 18 of the United States Code. except

that such record. report. or mformation may be disclosed to

other officers. employees. or authonzed representatives of

the United States concerned with carrvc@ out thes Act or

when relevant m any proceeding under thrs Act.

13. Section SOlia) of the Clean Water Act. as amended, 33

USC. IMlak

Sec. S01. (a) The Admunrstrator ts authorized to prescribe

such regulations as are necessary to carry out hes functions

under thes Act.

14. Section 50% by 1) of the Clean Water Act. as amended, 33

USC. Ln tr

(bx 1) Review of the Admunistrator’s action (A) im pro-

section 402(b). (E) m approving or promulgating any effluent

lmtation or other lmrtation under sections 301. M2. or M6.

and (F) im issuing or denying any permit under section 402.

may be had by any interested person im the Circus Court of

Appeats of the Unsted States for the Federal sudicial district

m which such person resides of tramsacts such business upon

application by such person. Any such application shall be

made within mnety days from the date of such determination .

AMICUS CURIAE

BRIEF

MOTION FILED V1 >

aus 7.9 1984 Nos. 53-1013 and £31573

In Tee

Supreme Court of the United States

Octrosrs Team, 198)

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS Associa TION, of of .

Petiteoners

Narusal Resouces Derense Counce. Inc. or af.

Reipondents

Unrrep Stares Exvimo~wmental Prorection Acency.

Petitioner

Narusat Resouces Derense Counce. Inc. of of.

Respondents

On Writs of Certiorart to the United States

(Court of Appeats for the Third ( ircwit

in Tee

Supreme Court of the United States

Orcvoers Trew, 198)

“oe Gh rer)

Cywreer at Mantvectueres Acetatioe. of of |

Rewundran

“e Sh 597)

Usrrep Stares Exwerowsewta: Preorectsox Acewry.

Peetu

Naruse: Resoweces Devens Coomee. Ic . oo ol.

Che Weetts of Cortiorert te the United States

Court of Aggrats fer the Therd ( treet

a The Southeesters Picherics Aceoctetion. Inc (SPA)

beret) mowers for heave to Bike the afta teed Pew! ome 0). erner

wm eupgert of Resnomderts per wuant to Sepeemme ( curt Rube

TT ARH HT

i HUE HEH li tl

slits. ilesaaals tfaqstiagian?

rae i vi

sraigceatibeges eas

ARCH bile

HY Rass hajatyy

iti it Hy i it

iat i :

halls :

eile it

8 Oenerrene f ( cmememe “temermar Wherwme Foatrmurns Service

ee en oe ee

(eee Remenemes be Fomemmn eg) of fe commen ue ching

Ameer Oe Call of Wirwne and Some Aten Range pW (Feb

{

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS

PT iichenntigges ehedéeedereseSesecosorsoeoes 1

Ls «iceceupeneéenenenesesesesetest 2

GET 00060066ecndendébdubcocoeseseessoce 3

The Clean Water Act, and Particularly the 1977 Amend-

ments, were designed to rid the Nation's waters of

toxic pollutants, and should be construed to foster

GD Bc cc ccccccccccevcscccoccecccccocccces 5

CTT, cnneuseseséadeeossnssessooosoceces 4

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

National Association of Metal Finishers v. EPA, 719

DDG GHEE cocecescoosccecosccoces passim

Philbrook v. Glodgett, 421 U.S. 707 (1975) .......... 4

Weinberger v. Hynsan, Westcott, & Dunning, Inc., 412

Ss CPE cconcsocesseocesscooesesseeebeuse 4

STATUTES:

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. $1251, ef seg......... passim

Section 101, 33 U.S.C. G12S1T . 2. ccc ccc ccc }

In THe

Supreme Court of the United States

Octoser Team, 198)

No. &3-1015

CHEMICAL MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION, of of.

Narurat Resousces Derense Councn, Inc. of of.

Respondents.

Ne. &3-1575

Unrrep States Exvimonmental Prorection Acency.

Pentuomer

Narusat Resoveces Derense Counce, Inc. of of.

Respondents

On Writs of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

The Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. (°SFA™)

respectfully refers this Court to the foregoing Motion for

”

Leave to Pile Brief Amicus Cortee for «2 statement of ts

interest im this proceeding. This brief & Gied m@ supper of

Respondents

pretresiment standards for tox pollutants The foundatoe

of the Thurd Circuit's decison was its weew that « key perpose

of the 1977 Amendments to the Clean Water Act. as ewndenced

by the iegrelatrwe hestory was to crack down on the dmcharge

of toux pollutants Nemome! Avsecnemeon of Metal bemshkers

v. EPA, 719 PF 2d 604, 645-666 (Md Cir. 19D).

the aquatn

ome of more

gevied safe lemets

wes. or 4!

Semularty. m drscuwwng the Conference Report on the

flow of the Howse Congreswman Roberts the flow manager

)

‘BUSC Hem

‘See A Legeietee Meters of Ge Cimee Weer Act of 197" Come

(heveater coed a 17" Lege Hee >

THE CLEAN WATER ACT, AND PARTICULARLY THE

1977 AMENDMENTS. WERE DESIGNED TO RID THE

NATION'S WATERS OF TOXIC POLLUTANTS, AND

SHOULD BE CONSTRLED TO POSTER THES PURPOSE

From the cutect. the Cleese Water Act cuteblinhed «

Rateomal pod that the dewharge of town pedbutants @ town

“SN USC. t128tteanh Te

Nee a TE teen amd bmpermrerene EPA. Beguners

Programe we came’ Ge Dectherge of Teun Potteneee oN Nar Bes Loe

ww “eu

Unsrrep Stare Ewvimon we~ta: Peorectios Acewcy,

PeTTTIowes

Natuest Rexceces Derewer Coowen, Inc. oF at.

ON WRITS OF CERTIORAR! TO THE UNITED STATES

COORT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD ClacurT

REPLY BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

6 Beare) (CR). UAC BBeerh) ce) R)

6 Sere) 1), UAC IT).

(orem. BvaAcwtw®. 404

CN ) EEE

«e«t@GieS

“+

: hu:

1 Ht

i ae.

if f i>

i uli

: Hil 0

t ii All; 1 th al he Hu

oo a a

» tag bes th id ths ia 7 aH

tn Ht a

AMEE ak

+ + - eat tt Nit Fy, ej i

Ant i {f

a He ; ‘

Seni 434 i | il

iit Ea

its

% a

TEL 43 AE

ica

ee i

‘i

Hit

tH Ft

ae Huy

Ee HF tp il

i th iy i i 4

HE it tH ey Uh

THUR EEE Hf li if all

i Ha ie Na

aE |

‘Hl

LE HF

ili

nat iH

eixtviil

$23

sft i

;

nt Hat i i

i! Ba

i Ht —

iis]

Ath

uli

Hie nial 3 tI et

E i it all iH

iil Hh

itt i aa Wes I i

th flit

aT sates (nl wi

a ,

tl i tf i

: tt ee

I it i a

F ih

i ai

— — ee

aan

Wand

Tit

+ figs

hii Bit

nif

fan

ili i

it HE

ae i 7

a ae

ih it

hell

be AH Hie

uty

eae

i i

1. Geethee SPT «bh! (2)

ihe

“Ltd |! He

eile F hil! | tii

Gian ileal i Au ite

at nied lige ‘

Ha a i Hi i

Tn tl

} et wa a Hu

mittee us vial Hil

thi

tf tlhe

ili ep

int

‘

itt

Te :

halt

ial

STATE

aH tt

Hig:

TBH

BHO HTE i ft

ri i

its

= i

TAH

bi}

are iif lh

att

hil Hi

tH Ht el

He on iat i

Hil: HERHT WEHTE

Hi iE Ai a

lit

Tit

it Ki

wre eo “perme” cee (Civeree,

ee ae

ap => 5) af

a Ss samme ane Gap af Gn® & ae

ogwtimg teed he oqetcom of he comer of apgamee whore ad

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.