## Facts

- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) an NPDES permit governing wastewater discharges from facilities located on two islands in Boston Harbor.
- The permit set numeric limits on pollutants and sludge and also required MDC to construct specified treatment and sludge-management facilities by set dates.
- EPA determined MDC failed to build required treatment and sludge-management facilities on the permit’s timetable.
- EPA issued an administrative order directing MDC to meet a compliance schedule aimed at bringing MDC into compliance with the permit.
- EPA later issued another administrative order stating MDC had violated the permit by exceeding sludge and pollutant limits and by not meeting the earlier compliance schedule.
- EPA then issued an additional administrative order establishing an interim schedule while MDC planned for the required construction; EPA expressly stated that following the interim schedule did not excuse existing or ongoing permit violations.
- Although the permit had a stated expiration date, the legal framework required the permit to remain in effect until it was formally modified or replaced through NPDES permitting procedures.
- No statutory or regulatory procedures for permit modification or reissuance (including required process steps) were used for this permit.
- The United States, on behalf of EPA, sued MDC for Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) violations and moved for summary judgment on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether MDC’s exceedances of permit limits and failure to construct required facilities constituted violations of the Clean Water Act as a matter of law.
2. Whether EPA’s administrative compliance orders and interim schedules modified or replaced the NPDES permit so that MDC could avoid liability for violating original permit terms.
3. Whether the NPDES permit remained enforceable after its stated expiration date when no formal NPDES procedures were used to modify, renew, or replace it.

## Decision

- The court granted the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability for violations of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit.
- The court held MDC’s noncompliance with permit effluent/sludge limits and permit-required construction obligations established liability where the underlying noncompliance was not genuinely disputed.
- The court held the NPDES permit remained enforceable after its stated expiration date because it had not been formally modified or replaced through required NPDES procedures.
- The court held EPA’s administrative orders and interim schedules were enforcement measures and did not amend the permit or excuse violations, particularly where EPA stated the interim schedule did not excuse permit violations.

## Legal Principles

- An NPDES permit remains legally effective after its nominal expiration date until it is modified or replaced through the required statutory and regulatory permitting process.
- NPDES permit changes require compliance with specified procedural steps; agency enforcement orders cannot substitute for those steps.
- EPA administrative compliance orders and interim schedules generally operate as enforcement tools and do not alter enforceable permit conditions unless issued through valid permit-modification procedures.
- When discharge exceedances or other permit violations are established without a genuine dispute of material fact, Clean Water Act liability may be resolved on summary judgment, with remedies addressed separately.

## Conclusion

The court found MDC liable for Clean Water Act violations based on undisputed failures to meet NPDES effluent/sludge limits and construction obligations, rejected MDC’s argument that the permit expired or was effectively changed by EPA compliance orders, and ruled that the permit stayed enforceable until formally modified or replaced through required NPDES procedures.


United States v. Metropolitan District Commission, 23 ERC (BNA) 1350 (1985)