## Facts

- Eastman Kodak Company operated an industrial facility in Rochester, New York, treating wastewater and discharging it into the Genesee River and Paddy Hill Creek pursuant to a valid SPDES permit issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA) § 402.
- The permit identified specific pollutants Kodak was authorized to discharge and set effluent limitations for those listed pollutants.
- Atlantic States Legal Foundation, Inc., a nonprofit environmental organization with members living near the facility, alleged Kodak discharged pollutants not listed in the permit.
- Atlantic States filed a CWA citizen suit under § 505 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, civil penalties, and costs, asserting violations of CWA §§ 301 and 402 based on the unlisted discharges.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Kodak, concluding the CWA does not prohibit unlisted pollutant discharges where the permittee complies with reporting requirements; Atlantic States appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a permittee violates CWA § 301 by discharging pollutants not listed in a valid NPDES/SPDES permit, such that the conduct is actionable under the CWA citizen-suit provision, § 505.
2. Whether § 505 authorizes private plaintiffs to enforce stricter New York environmental standards or regulations through a federal CWA citizen suit.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Kodak.
- The court held that discharge of pollutants not listed in a valid CWA permit is not, by itself, unlawful under the CWA.
- The court held that § 505 citizen suits may not be used to enforce independent New York environmental regulations.
- Certiorari was denied.

## Legal Principles

- CWA § 301’s general prohibition on pollutant discharges is implemented through § 402’s permit program; compliance is measured by the permit’s express limits and conditions rather than by a categorical federal ban on all unlisted pollutants.
- A valid NPDES/SPDES permit may allow discharges not expressly limited in the permit, with monitoring and reporting serving as the mechanism for identifying additional pollutants for possible future regulation.
- Courts may give weight to EPA’s interpretation of the CWA and its implementing regulations when determining the scope and effect of the permitting scheme.
- CWA § 505 authorizes citizen suits only for violations of “an effluent standard or limitation under” the CWA; it does not provide a vehicle for private enforcement of state-law requirements that exceed federal requirements.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit ruled that, where a discharger operates under a valid CWA permit, discharging pollutants not listed in that permit is not automatically a federal violation, and private plaintiffs cannot use the CWA citizen-suit provision to enforce stricter state environmental regulations.


Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 (1994)