Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
16 F.3d 1395 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may approve a state's water quality standard that deviates from federal guidance if the EPA determines the state's standard is scientifically defensible and protective of the water's designated uses. The EPA's role is one of review, not to impose its own criteria on the states.
Facts:
- The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) proposed revising its water quality standard to allow dioxin in the amount of 1.2 parts per quadrillion (ppq).
- This proposed standard was less protective than the EPA's own guidance criterion of .0013 ppq.
- Maryland based its standard on the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) less conservative cancer potency factor, believing the EPA's factor overestimated the risk.
- After public hearings, Maryland adopted the 1.2 ppq standard and submitted it to the EPA for review and approval.
- The Virginia State Water Control Board (VSWCB) similarly proposed and adopted the same 1.2 ppq dioxin standard after its own public hearings and submitted it to the EPA.
- The EPA approved Maryland's standard on September 12, 1990, and Virginia's standard on February 25, 1991.
- With each approval, the EPA issued a Technical Support Document (TSD) concluding that the state's standard was scientifically defensible, protective of human health, and in compliance with the Clean Water Act.
Procedural Posture:
- Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed consolidated suits against the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
- The suits challenged the EPA's approval of water quality standards for dioxin set by Maryland and Virginia.
- In its first decision (NRDC I), the district court dismissed NRDC's claim that the EPA had a mandatory, non-discretionary duty under the CWA to update its dioxin criteria, but allowed NRDC to amend its complaint to state a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
- In its second decision (NRDC II), the district court granted summary judgment for the EPA on the challenge to the standards' approval, finding the EPA's action was not arbitrary or capricious.
- The district court also dismissed the amended APA claim, holding that NRDC had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies as the EPA was still in the process of reviewing its dioxin criteria.
- NRDC and EDF, as appellants, appealed the district court's decisions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, with the EPA as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the EPA's approval of state water quality standards for dioxin that are less protective than the EPA's own guidance violate the Clean Water Act when the EPA determines the state standards are scientifically defensible and protective of designated uses?
Opinions:
Majority - Britt, District Judge
No. The EPA's approval of the state water quality standards does not violate the Clean Water Act because the agency's duty is to ensure the state's standards are scientifically defensible and protective of designated uses, not to compel adherence to its own criteria. The court's review of the EPA's decision is highly deferential under the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard. The Clean Water Act establishes a system of cooperative federalism where states have the primary role in establishing water quality standards, and the EPA functions in a reviewing capacity. The court found that the EPA conducted an extensive, independent review of the scientific assumptions used by Maryland and Virginia—including fish consumption rates and the bioconcentration factor (BCF)—and rationally concluded they were scientifically defensible. The court deferred to the EPA's technical expertise, stating it would not second-guess complex scientific judgments. Furthermore, the court held that the CWA allows states to adopt multiple criteria (e.g., a numeric one for human health and a narrative one for aquatic life) for a single pollutant, as long as the criteria protect the most sensitive designated use.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle of cooperative federalism under the Clean Water Act by affirming significant state autonomy in setting water quality standards. It establishes that the EPA can legally approve state standards that are weaker than federal recommendations, provided the state's scientific rationale is defensible, a standard that gives the agency considerable discretion. By applying a highly deferential 'arbitrary and capricious' standard of review, the ruling makes it more difficult for litigants to successfully challenge EPA approvals of state standards in court. This precedent empowers states to tailor environmental regulations to local conditions and policy choices, but also creates the potential for a patchwork of varying standards across the country.
Unlock the full brief for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency