Opinion ID: 519994
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The EPA's Consideration of the Cost of Compliance for

Text: Plants Utilizing Pond Technology 210 Petitioners argue next that the EPA's failure to consider waste treatability resulted in the designation of unworkable upgrades to achieve BPT. The EPA does not seriously dispute petitioners' claim that the algae growth associated with petitioners' present treatment systems may not be remedied by relatively simple and inexpensive upgrades. Rather, the EPA notes that it is entitled to look at costs on an industry-wide basis as opposed to plant-by-plant, and may use industry averages to develop rough estimates to help the Agency determine whether the cost is wholly out of proportion to the benefit. 157 211 The EPA concedes that petitioners may be required to install entirely new treatment units consisting of activated sludge and secondary clarification. However, the EPA notes that it estimated the costs of such steps for nearly half of the plants in the industry requiring treatment improvements to comply with BPT. 158 Thus, even if Texas Eastman, DuPont, and Air Products are required to install new activated-sludge systems in order to comply with BPT, the costs of these systems would be within the range generally estimated for the industry as a whole. We have already held that the costs of the BPT limits for the OCPSF industry are not wholly out of proportion to the benefits. Because petitioners' compliance problems are not attributable to their production process, raw wastewaters, or other relevant factors, but only to their treatment systems, their costs in constructing and operating a biological system complying with the regulations will not differ materially from those incurred by many other industry members. 159 We therefore agree with the EPA that even this worst-case scenario does not provide a basis for exempting petitioners from the BPT limits that apply to the rest of the industry. 212