Opinion ID: 519994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) Issues:

Text: 59
60 2. The EPA's decision to define 'pass through' based on POTW average removal, rather than actual reported removal, does not violate the CWA. 61 3. The EPA's decision not to find pass through of chromium, copper, and nickel, which contaminate sludge, was not arbitrary or capricious because sludge pollutants will be subject to future rulemaking proceedings. 62 B. The EPA's failure to establish PSES for six volatile pollutants was not arbitrary or capricious because some of these pollutants were sufficiently controlled by the limits for structurally similar compounds and the EPA did not have sufficient POTW removal data to fix limits for the other pollutants. 63 C. Application of PSES to Small Dischargers: 64 1. The EPA's decision not to exempt small indirect dischargers from PSES and not to establish a different standard for these dischargers was reasonable; the record supports the EPA's determination that the economic impact of PSES on these dischargers was not so disproportionate to the impact on the industry as a whole as to require a separate subcategory. 65 2. The Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association (SOCMA) failed to demonstrate that the EPA's cost projection for PSES was not reasonable. 66 3. The EPA reasonably rejected SOCMA's proposal that the EPA regulate only small plants producing large discharges; such a plan would leave substantial pollutant discharges unregulated. 67 D. Application of PSES to Paint/Resin Plants: 68 1. The EPA's reliance on data from resin plants in promulgating PSES does not make the standards inapplicable to combined paint/resin plants; the EPA found that the wastestreams of resin plants and paint resin plants were equally treatable. 69 2. The National Paint and Coatings Association has failed to demonstrate that PSES as applied to paint/resin plants are not economically achievable; the EPA identified cost-effective means of segregating the resin stream from such plants thereby making separate regulation of the resin stream possible. 70 3. The EPA's regulation of the resin discharge of combined paint/resin plants does not violate the NRDC v. Train consent decree which exempts paint manufacturers from regulation. 71 4. The regulations make it clear which resin manufacturers are subject to PSES. 72 E. The EPA's Decision Not to Subcategorize on the Basis of POTW Removal Credits: 73 1. The EPA is not required to subcategorize on the basis of POTW removal credits; Congress intended that credits for a POTW's pollutant removal would be available only after the EPA completes its comprehensive sludge regulations. 74 2. Because Congress has suspended the removal credits regulations, this court need not address the claims of Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority and the Village of Sauget POTWs that they supplied the EPA with sufficient data to support their claims for removal credits or subcategorization. 75 3. Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority is bound by the consent decree in United States v. Crown Central Petroleum Corporation which requires Gulf Coast to recognize and enforce the pretreatment standards. 76