standard discards its fundamental premise when it ignores the limits inherent in the technology. By contrast, a water quality-based permit limit begins with the premise that a certain level of water quality will be maintained, come what may, and places upon the permittee the responsibility for realizing that goal.” (footnote omitted)). WQBELs may be narrative where the calculation of numeric limits is “infeasible.” See 40 C.F.R. § 122.44(k)(3). No permit may be issued when “the imposition of conditions cannot ensure compliance with the applicable water quality requirements of all affected States.” Id. § 122.4(d). Thus, permits must establish limits on discharges that will lead to compliance with water quality standards. See Trs. for Alaska v. EPA, 749 F.2d 549, 556-57 (9th Cir.1984). (<HOLDING>). Because no states have established numeric
recognizing that standards of liability under title vi are different from traditional agency principles or the general standards of liability under title vii holding that when state educational benefits exceed minimum federal standards the state standards are enforceable through the idea holding that safety standards regarding the safe design and use of trampolines including astm standards were admissible on the issue of the defendants negligence even though the defendants were unaware of the standards holding that the otca limitations period applied to a claim alleging a breach of the fair labor standards act by the state holding that permit must translate state water quality standards into endofpipe effluent limitations necessary to achieve those standards