Can PCB testing methods be flexible? (Washington No. 100573-3)

Have you ever felt frustrated by regulatory changes that seem to come out of nowhere, impacting your business without warning? You're not alone—many businesses face similar challenges when it comes to understanding and adapting to new environmental regulations. Fortunately, a recent ruling in Northwest Pulp & Paper Association v. Department of Ecology offers valuable insights into how such changes are interpreted and enforced, providing a clearer path forward for those affected.

No. 100573-3 Situation

Case Overview

Specific Circumstances

In Washington State, the Department of Ecology is responsible for regulating water quality and issuing permits for entities that discharge pollutants into the state’s waterways. In 2018, the Department updated its Water Quality Program Permit Writer’s Manual to include new guidance on identifying and measuring polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in water discharges. This update, specifically the addition of Section 4.5, became a point of contention. The Northwest Pulp & Paper Association, along with two other business groups, believed that this revision effectively created new regulatory rules without following the required procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued that this new section imposed additional requirements and lacked the necessary regulatory process.

Plaintiff’s Claims

The plaintiffs, consisting of the Northwest Pulp & Paper Association, the Association of Washington Business, and the Washington Farm Bureau, argued that the Department of Ecology unlawfully bypassed the APA’s rule-making process. They claimed that Section 4.5 of the Manual was essentially a new rule that should have been subject to public notice and comment procedures. They contended that the section imposed new obligations on entities discharging PCBs, which went beyond mere guidance for permit writers.

Defendant’s Claims

The defendant, the Department of Ecology, asserted that Section 4.5 was not a rule but rather a guidance document. They maintained that the Manual was intended to assist permit writers in their evaluations and did not impose any new legal obligations on dischargers. The Department argued that permit writers retained discretion to choose appropriate testing methods and that the section did not apply uniformly to all entities, thus not constituting a rule under the APA.

Judgment Outcome

The court ruled in favor of the Department of Ecology. It was determined that Section 4.5 of the Manual did not constitute a rule under the APA because it provided guidance rather than imposing mandatory standards. The court emphasized that permit writers retained the discretion to select testing methods on a case-by-case basis, and the section did not enforce uniform standards across all dischargers. As a result, the plaintiffs did not succeed in their challenge, and no further action was required from the Department to alter or retract Section 4.5.

No. 100573-3 Relevant Statutes

33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)

This statute is part of the Clean Water Act, a fundamental U.S. environmental law aimed at restoring and maintaining the integrity of the nation’s waters. It establishes the prohibition of pollutant discharges into navigable waters without a permit, which is crucial for regulating entities that might introduce harmful substances like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into water bodies. Essentially, without a permit issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), discharging pollutants is a no-go.

40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a)

Under this regulation, entities are required to obtain a discharge permit if they plan to release pollutants, including PCBs, into U.S. waters. It outlines the application process for these permits, ensuring that dischargers comply with established limits and monitoring requirements. This regulation plays a pivotal role in controlling water pollution by setting the groundwork for how permits are granted and enforced, thereby protecting water quality.

RCW 34.05.010(16)

This statute is part of the Washington State Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which governs how state agencies develop and implement regulations. It defines a “rule” as an agency order, directive, or regulation of general applicability. For something to be classified as a rule, it must apply broadly and fall within specific categories outlined in the statute. This definition is central to determining whether the Department of Ecology’s actions in revising the Water Quality Program Permit Writer’s Manual (specifically Section 4.5) constituted rulemaking under the APA. The distinction is significant because rules require a formal process including public notice and the opportunity for comment, ensuring transparency and public involvement in regulatory decisions.

No. 100573-3 Judgment Criteria

Principled Interpretation

33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)

The Clean Water Act broadly prohibits the discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters without a proper permit. Under a principled interpretation, this statute establishes the foundational requirement for obtaining a permit, emphasizing strict compliance with environmental standards. The goal is clear: to maintain the integrity of national waters by ensuring that any discharges are systematically regulated and monitored.

40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a)

This regulation outlines the necessary procedures for obtaining a discharge permit. Principled interpretation here underscores the importance of fulfilling all application requirements, including monitoring and reporting obligations. It reinforces the notion that compliance isn’t optional—every step is a must-follow to protect water quality.

RCW 34.05.010(16)

This statute defines what constitutes a “rule” under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A principled interpretation insists on a clear, uniform application of standards to all entities within a class. It mandates that for an agency action to be considered a rule, it must apply generally and uniformly, ensuring predictability and fairness in regulatory processes.

Exceptional Interpretation

33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)

Under exceptional circumstances, this statute allows for some flexibility in enforcement, recognizing that rigid adherence might not account for all situations. This interpretation might apply when technological or scientific advancements offer new methods of compliance that weren’t anticipated.

40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a)

Exceptional interpretation here permits some discretion in how monitoring and reporting are conducted, allowing for adjustments based on specific discharger circumstances. This flexibility is crucial when standard procedures might not suit unique operational contexts.

RCW 34.05.010(16)

An exceptional interpretation allows for a more flexible understanding of agency actions. It recognizes that not all guidance documents or manuals constitute enforceable rules, especially when discretion and case-by-case assessment are central to their application. This view prevents unnecessary rigidity in administrative processes.

Applied Interpretation

In this case, the court applied an exceptional interpretation of RCW 34.05.010(16). The Manual’s Section 4.5 was not considered a “rule” because it allows permit writers to exercise discretion, choosing test methods based on individual circumstances rather than imposing a uniform standard. This decision acknowledges the need for flexibility in regulatory practices, particularly when dealing with complex environmental issues like PCB discharge. By not classifying the guidance as a rule, the court recognized the importance of adaptive management strategies in achieving environmental objectives effectively.

Section 4.5 Resolution Methods

No. 100573-3 Resolution Method

In this particular case, the plaintiffs challenged the Department of Ecology’s inclusion of Section 4.5 in its Water Quality Program Permit Writer’s Manual, arguing it constituted an invalid rule. However, the court ultimately determined that Section 4.5 was not a rule under the APA, as it did not apply uniformly to all entities and allowed for discretion among permit writers. As the plaintiffs did not prevail, pursuing this litigation was not the most effective resolution method. Instead, a more productive approach might have been engaging in dialogue with the Department to discuss concerns and suggest revisions to the manual collaboratively. Additionally, seeking a consultative process with environmental experts and legal advisors before proceeding with litigation could have provided alternative solutions or a more robust case.

Similar Case Resolution Methods

Varying Pollutant Levels

In a scenario where different pollutant levels are involved, parties should consider whether permit requirements are being applied consistently. If not, initiating a dialogue with the regulatory agency to clarify standards might be more effective than immediate litigation. Should litigation become necessary, consulting with an environmental lawyer to navigate the complexities of the case is advisable.

Different Permit Requirements

When facing varied permit requirements that seem inconsistent, it is beneficial to engage in direct communication with the agency to seek clarification or correction. If disparities persist, mediation could serve as a less adversarial alternative to court proceedings. However, if legal action is unavoidable, securing professional legal representation will be crucial due to the technical nature of environmental regulations.

Lack of Uniform Standards

In cases where there is a perceived lack of uniform standards, stakeholders might collaborate to propose standardized guidelines to the agency. This collaborative effort can often resolve issues more swiftly and amicably than litigation. If stakeholders decide to pursue legal action, it is essential to gather substantial evidence demonstrating the inconsistency and consult with legal professionals experienced in administrative law.

Discretion in Method Selection

When discretion in method selection leads to disputes, consider whether the discretion is justified by the unique circumstances of each case. Engaging in negotiations with the agency might reveal common grounds or lead to agreements on more transparent criteria. If negotiations fail and litigation is pursued, the assistance of legal experts familiar with both environmental law and administrative procedures can enhance the chances of a favorable outcome.

FAQ

Is Section 4.5 a Rule?

No, Section 4.5 is not considered a rule under the APA as it provides guidance rather than imposing a uniform standard.

What Is a PCB?

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, are toxic chemical compounds that were banned in 1976 but remain an environmental concern due to their persistence and bioaccumulation.

Permit Writer Discretion

Yes, permit writers have discretion to choose test methods based on the specific circumstances of each facility.

General Applicability

Section 4.5 is not of general applicability because it does not impose a uniform standard across all permittees.

What Does APA Mean?

The APA, or Administrative Procedure Act, is a law governing the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations.

Alternative Test Methods

Alternative test methods like Methods 8082A and 1668C may be used to evaluate PCB sources but not for numeric compliance.

EPA Recommendations

The EPA recommends using best management practices, which may include alternative PCB test methods.

What Is AKART?

AKART stands for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment” to control pollutants.

Uniform Standards Needed

Uniform standards are not needed in Section 4.5 as permit writers exercise discretion based on individual facility needs.

Why Was Section 4.5 Added?

Section 4.5 was added to provide guidance on evaluating PCB sources while allowing permit writers to use their judgment.

Union Talks Must Be Public in Washington But Court Says No Why