Opinion ID: 3007001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Onshore Ballast Water Treatment

Text: Petitioners also argue that EPA arbitrarily and capriciously limited its consideration to shipboard treatments, failing to consider onshore treatment. Petitioners argue that onshore facilities used in other industries, such as sewage treatment plants and drinking water treatment plants, were reasonable alternatives to shipboard treatment that should have been considered. EPA concedes it directed the Board to ʺfocus its limited time and resources on the status of shipboard treatment systems because such systems were either ʹin existence or in the development process.ʹʺ EPA Br. at 56‐57 (quoting SAB Report). It argues that onshore treatment was not ʺavailable,ʺ primarily because no onshore system was yet in existence. While it is true that no onshore systems existed then ‐‐ unsurprising considering ballast water treatment was not required at all until the effective date of the 2008 VGP – the record suggests that such onshore systems were technologically possible at that time. Yet, EPA chose to curtail discussion about onshore systems and failed to develop information necessary to evaluate their ‐31‐ availability. We conclude that by failing to consider onshore ballast water systems, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. What does ʺavailableʺ mean? As courts have interpreted the term in the CWA context, technologies that could be used for a particular discharge, even if they are not currently being used by that industry, are ʺavailable.ʺ As the Fourth Circuit noted, The model technology [under consideration] may exist at a plant not within the . . . industry [at issue]. Congress contemplated that EPA might use technology from other industries to establish the Best Available Technology. Progress would be slowed if EPA were invariably limited to treatment schemes already in force at the plants which are the subject of the rulemaking. Congress envisioned the scanning of broader horizons and asked EPA to survey related industries and current research to find technologies which might be used to decrease the discharge of pollutants. Kennecott, 780 F.2d at 453 (emphasis added) (citation omitted). This Court held similarly in Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train, That no plant in a given industry has adopted a pollution control device which could be installed does not mean that that device is not ʺavailable.ʺ Congress did not intend to permit continuance of pollution by industries which have failed to cope with and attempt to solve the problem of polluted water. ‐32‐ 537 F.2d 620, 636 (2d Cir. 1976); see also Cal. & Hawaiian Sugar Co. v. EPA, 553 F.2d 280, 286 (2d Cir. 1977) (technology used ʺʹin other industries with similar raw waste characteristicsʹʺ was ʺavailableʺ (quoting Liquid and Crystalline Cane Sugar Refining Subcategory, 39 Fed. Reg. 10,522, 10,522 (1974))); Am. Petrol. Inst. v. EPA, 858 F.2d 261, 264‐65 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a process can be ʺdeemed ʹavailableʹ even if it is not in use at allʺ because ʺ[s]uch an outcome is consistent with Congressʹ intent to ʹpush pollution control technologyʹʺ (quoting Assʹn of Pac. Fisheries v. EPA, 615 F.2d 794, 816 (9th Cir. 1980); Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1978))). For a technology in one industry to be ʺavailableʺ in a second industry: (1) the transfer technology must be available within the first industry; (2) the transfer technology must be transferable to the second industry; and (3) it must be reasonably predictable that the technology, if used in the second industry, will be capable of removing the increment required by the effluent standards. See Kennecott, 780 F.2d at 453 (citing Tannersʹ Council, 540 F.2d at 1192); CPC Intʹl Inc. v. Train, 515 F.2d 1032, 1048 (8th Cir. 1975); Hooker Chems., 537 F.2d at 636 (ʺBut even if technology which is not presently in use can be treated as available and achievable, there must be some indication in the ‐33‐ administrative record of the reasons for concluding that such technology is feasible and may reasonably be expected to yield the effluent reduction mandated when applied to the particular industry.ʺ). For example, in Kennecott, the Fourth Circuit upheld EPAʹs use of manufacturing technology from one industry as part of a BAT determination for treating wastewater in a different industry. 780 F.2d at 453‐54. Here, we cannot evaluate whether onshore technology should be considered ʺavailableʺ because the record does not contain a full discussion of onshore treatment. This lack of information about onshore facilities, however, is a problem of EPAʹs own making because EPA went to great lengths to foreclose discussion of onshore treatment both by expressly limiting the SABʹs mandate to studying shipboard treatment technology and consistently opposing any attempt by the SAB to consider onshore treatment. EPAʹs effort to curtail discussion of onshore treatment is well documented in the record. In a letter dated February 10, 2012, thirteen scientists, eight of whom were members of the SAB and six of whom were members of the NAS Committee,13 including the Chair of the NAS Committee, stated that the 13 One person was a member of both the SAB and the NAS Committee. ‐34‐ SAB ʺnever actually addressed the question of what is the best treatment that available technology can achieveʺ because EPA limited them to the narrower question of ʺwhether shipboard treatment systems could meet certain specific sets of standards.ʺ App. at 740. Furthermore, the scientists assert that their attempts to consider onshore treatments were actively thwarted by EPA: During the SAB Panel meetings and discussions, some members of the Panel attempted to develop and include in the Panel report a more detailed assessment of onshore treatment, including its cost impacts, and an assessment of the full capability of shipboard treatment . . . . [T]hese assessments would have further demonstrated that available technology can achieve levels of treatment beyond what the EPA has proposed as controls. The EPA Office of Water, however, consistently opposed including such information in the report. As a result, some relevant information and analysis that could have been developed by the Panel was not, and some of what was developed by Panel members was excluded or deleted from the final report. If there was less information developed on these issues and less provided in the report than the EPA considers sufficient, it is in large part because the EPA Office of Water opposed the development and inclusion of such information. Id. at 744 (emphases added). In light of these facts, we cannot well credit EPAʹs assertion that it lacked information to support a finding that onshore facilities were ʺavailable.ʺ While EPA states that it was ʺunaware of any onshore treatment facility currently ‐35‐ available in the U.S. that is capable of meeting the VGPʹs § 2.2.3.5 ballast water discharge standards,ʺ and that it did not ʺreceive information indicating they are or would become available over the term of the VGP,ʺ id. at 544, in fact EPA turned a blind eye to significant information about onshore treatment. Indeed, the lack of information about the ʺavailabilityʺ of onshore treatment is due in large part to EPAʹs arbitrary and capricious decision to oppose developing such information. As a result, the TBELs were based on an incomplete record ‐‐ one lacking meaningful discussion of an ʺavailableʺ treatment, namely onshore treatment. See Humana of Aurora, Inc. v. Heckler, 753 F.2d 1579, 1583 (10th Cir. 1985) (agency action is arbitrary and capricious when based on a flawed study); Tex. Oil & Gas Assʹn v. EPA, 161 F.3d 923, 935 (5th Cir. 1998) (ʺA regulation cannot stand if it is based on a flawed, inaccurate, or misapplied study.ʺ); Almay, Inc. v. Califano, 569 F.2d 674, 682 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (rejecting regulation produced ʺon the basis of the flawed surveyʺ). Put another way, EPAʹs refusal to consider onshore treatment ʺentirely fail[s] to consider an important aspect of the problemʺ and ʺoffer[s] an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency.ʺ Islander E. Pipeline, 525 F.3d at 150‐51; see Tannersʹ Council, 540 F.2d at 1191 (ʺ[T]he agency must fully explicate ‐36‐ its course of inquiry, its analysis, and its reasoning.ʺ); see also State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43; Hooker Chems., 537 F.2d at 636. Hence, it is arbitrary and capricious. In fact, the SAB Report points out a number of reasonably predictable advantages to onshore treatment. The SAB Report states: Use of reception facilities for the treatment of ballast water appears to be technically feasible (given generations of successful water treatment and sewage treatment technologies), and is likely to be more reliable and more readily adaptable than shipboard treatment. App. at 605; see also id. at 694. The SAB Report also notes that onshore treatment has a number of advantages over shipboard treatment because onshore facilities are not subject to problems such as limited space, small and overburdened crews, vibrations, weight allowances, limited power, ship instability, and greater corrosion rates. Id. at 678‐80. Regarding ship crews in particular, studies have shown that ʺmany of these crews are already overburdened,ʺ ʺ[o]peration by trained, dedicated personnel in reception facilities would likely result in more reliable performance,ʺ and ʺ[m]aintenance and repair work are more likely to be done reliablyʺ as well. Id. at 681. Onshore treatment can also be more effective by using superior technologies that are not available for shipboard treatment, such as settling tanks, granular filtration, and membrane filtration. Id. at 680‐81. Indeed, EPA cites a number of studies that conclude that onshore treatment ‐37‐ facilities are a technically feasible option. Id. at 107. These studies date back to 1992, and proceed with some regularity thereafter‐‐ 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2007, 2008. Moreover, onshore treatment would not necessarily be slower than shipboard treatment to implement. The SAB estimated that onshore implementation would take up to thirty months, while EPA allowed eight years to phase‐in shipboard implementation. See id. at 684. Nor would onshore treatment necessarily be more expensive than shipboard treatment. Regional economic studies suggest that ʺtreating ballast water in reception facilities would be at least as economically feasible as shipboard treatment.ʺ Id. at 694. In addition, the cost of monitoring and enforcement is likely to be lower with a smaller number of reception facilities compared with a larger number of shipboard systems. Id. at 605, 694. The Coast Guard also found that onshore treatment was generally less expensive per metric ton of ballast water than shipboard treatment. Id. at 679. Of course, onshore treatment has many costs, including the cost of retrofitting vessels for onshore facilities, particularly ships from outside the United States, and the cost of shipping delays created by the time it takes to ‐38‐ discharge ballast onshore (though presumably shipboard treatment is not instantaneous). Costs alone, however, cannot determine BAT. See 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2)(B). Furthermore, EPA failed to perform the economic analysis required to determine relative costs of the differing technologies in reaching its conclusion that onshore treatment was not economically achievable. See Waterkeeper All., 399 F.3d at 516 (ʺ[T]he Administrator is obligated to ʹinquire into the initial and annual costs of applying the technology and make an affirmative determination that those costs can be reasonably borne by the industry.ʹʺ (quoting Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 174, 195 (2d Cir. 2004))); Natʹl Wildlife Fedʹn v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 563 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (ʺAlthough its analysis may be general, EPA ʹhas the heaviest of obligations to explain and expose every step of its [cost‐benefit] reasoning.ʹ . . . This duty to explain arises out of the need for reviewing courts to be able to discern the basis for EPAʹs decision.ʺ (internal citations omitted) (quoting Am. Lung Assʹn v. EPA, 134 F.3d 388, 392 (D.C. Cir. 1998))). In light of these observations, the SAB and NAS Committee scientists concluded that ʺEPA should conduct a comprehensive analysis comparing biological effectiveness, cost, logistics, operations, and safety ‐39‐ associated with both shipboard [treatment] and reception facilities.ʺ App. at 606. If that analysis ʺindicate[d] that treatment at reception facilities is both economically and logistically feasible and is more effective than shipboard treatment systems, it should be used as the basis for assessing the ability of available technologies to . . . meet a given discharge standard.ʺ Id. EPA chose not to do so because the SAB ʺdid not specify a timetable for that complex endeavor or suggest that is was possible to complete such an analysis in time to inform the impending VGP.ʺ EPA Br. at 58‐59. We do not find that answer compelling. There is no impediment to engaging in further study, and further study may advance the goals of the CWA. Thus, EPA could have well found that onshore treatment was ʺavailable.ʺ Indeed, EPAʹs failure to consider onshore treatment is inconsistent with the CWAʹs mandate that TBELs be technology‐forcing. Congress designed the CWA to force agencies and permittees to adopt technologies that achieve the greatest reductions in pollutants. See NRDC, 822 F.2d at 124 (holding that CWA seeks ʺnot only to stimulate but to press development of new, more efficient and effective technologies,ʺ which is the ʺessential purpose of this series of progressively more demanding technology‐based standardsʺ). As Judge Starr ‐40‐ noted in NRDC, ʺthe most salient characteristic of this statutory scheme, articulated time and again by its architects and embedded in the statutory language, is that it is technology‐forcing.ʺ Id. at 123. EPAʹs decision on this issue matters. As the SAB scientists pointed out, EPAʹs choice of system in this permit will have a long‐term impact: [S]hipboard treatment and onshore treatment represent distinct approaches to ballast water management that would each require different large investments in infrastructure. . . . Thus we are almost certain to be stuck for a very long time with whichever approach is used as the BAT in setting discharge standards in 2013. It is thus of the utmost urgency that a fair and thorough comparison of the two approaches be made at this time. App. at 744‐45 (emphasis added). We conclude that EPA failed to give fair and thorough consideration to both onshore and shipboard treatment systems in setting the standard in the 2013 VGP, and we remand to EPA to give full consideration to the issue now.