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

Heading: Pre‐2009 Lakers

Text: Petitioners allege that EPAʹs decision to exempt Lakers built before January 1, 2009 from numeric effluent limits of VGP § 2.2.3.5 was arbitrary and capricious. EPA based this decision on its finding that there was no treatment ‐42‐ technology ʺavailableʺ for these vessels either onboard or onshore. App. at 115‐ 16. EPA expressed concern about the difficulty of finding effective onboard systems for pre‐2009 Lakers due to their ʺunique operational and design constraints,ʺ such as the large volumes of fresh cold water they require, the short duration of their trips, their high pumping rates, and their uncoated ballast tanks. Id. at 116.14 In reaching that conclusion, EPA relied on the SAB Report, which advised that ʺspecific constraints can greatly limit treatment optionsʺ for Lakers. Id. at 638. EPA also cited the costs of implementing these systems. Id. at 116. We agree with petitioners that exempting the pre‐2009 Lakers was arbitrary and capricious. First, the lack of supply of updated shipboard systems is not a legitimate reason to exempt pre‐2009 Lakers from the 2013 VGP, as, again, the purpose of BAT is to force technology to keep pace with need. See NRDC, 822 F.2d at 124. Second, EPAʹs decision was based on a flawed record that failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, namely the possibility of onshore 14For example, certain treatment methods, such as electro‐chlorination and ozonation, may only be effective in salt water, and others that use oxidizing chemicals may increase corrosion rates in uncoated tanks. Id. at 638. ‐43‐ treatment. See Islander E. Pipeline, 525 F.3d at 150‐51. EPA should have engaged in a cost‐benefit analysis comparing onshore treatment with shipboard treatment, rather than dismissing onshore treatment. EPA disregarded the SABʹs recommendation that onshore treatment would benefit pre‐2009 Lakers that are ʺengaged solely in regional trade.ʺ Id. at 684. The SAB points out that the space and power constraints posed by pre‐2009 Lakers are ʺlargely absent in reception facilities.ʺ Id. at 680. EPAʹs foreclosure of considering onshore treatments for pre‐2009 Lakers ‐‐ and indeed, all Lakers ‐‐ seems shortsighted. See supra at 31‐ 42. Third, EPA imposed the 2013 VGP on Lakers built after 2009, even though post‐2009 Lakers face many of the same challenges and constraints as pre‐2009 Lakers, such as their short voyages, high pumping rates, and freshwater environment. 15 While it is true that shipbuilders were on notice that post‐2009 15 Intervenors argue that due to these constraints, ballast water treatment is infeasible for all Lakers, regardless of when they were built. EPA has concluded, however, that anyone building a ship designed to enter the market after 2009 was well aware of the impending VGP requirements, and could anticipate its impact on shipbuilding. App. at 117. Intervenors also contend that ships exclusively plying the Great Lakes do not pose a threat to water quality because they do not introduce any invasive species from outside the Great Lakes. EPA has properly rejected this argument, noting that Lakers can spread or more rapidly distribute invasive species already present in the Great Lakes. Id. at 501. ‐44‐ Lakers would be subject to the 2013 VGP, in reality post‐2009 boats appear to be similarly situated to pre‐2009 Lakers. See Islander E. Pipeline, 525 F.3d at 150‐51 (agency decision is arbitrary and capricious when agency offers explanation for decision that runs counter to evidence before agency). Thus, distinguishing pre‐ 2009 and post‐2009 Lakers was arbitrary and capricious. The SAB Report supports our conclusion. Although the SAB Report acknowledged the limitations in treating ballast water from Lakers, it did not declare such treatment impossible. Instead, the SAB concluded that in light of these limitations, ʺ[a] variety of environmental (e.g., temperature and salinity), operational (e.g., ballasting flow rates and holding times), and vessel design (e.g., ballast volume and unmanned barges) parametersʺ should be considered in determining the treatment standards. App. at 639. EPAʹs exemption of the pre‐2009 Lakers from the 2013 VGP was also arbitrary and capricious due to EPAʹs failure to conduct an appropriate and factually‐supported cost‐benefit analysis. Such an analysis might have shown that the cost of subjecting pre‐2009 Lakers to the 2013 VGP was not unreasonably high, or, alternatively, that onshore treatment was economically feasible. For all ‐45‐ these reasons, EPAʹs decision to exempt pre‐2009 Lakers from the 2013 VGP was arbitrary and capricious.