Opinion ID: 519994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Use of Minimum Analytical Values for Enforcement Purposes

Text: 296 DuPont and Hardwicke assert that the BAT limitations for some toxics are very close to their minimum analytical values. The petitioners argue that a non-detect reading should be considered zero for enforcement purposes. 297 Although the EPA states in its brief that, to be consistent with its approach in calculating the BAT limitations, it would be reasonable to treat non-detect values as the analytical minimum, it is not clear that the Agency has adopted this position as its policy, for neither the regulations nor the development documents address it. 298 The issue presented is therefore not ripe for review. In Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner, 227 the Supreme Court stated that the doctrine of ripeness is intended to prevent the courts from entangling themselves in premature abstract discussions of administrative policies, and to protect agencies from judicial interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete way by the challenging parties. To further these purposes, the Supreme Court held that whether a controversy is ripe requires a court to evaluate both the fitness of the issues for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration. 228 299 Because the EPA has not formally adopted a position, our discussion of the validity of what it might do would be merely advisory. Withholding court consideration will not result in substantial hardship to the petitioners because enforcement proceedings have not taken place. If there is any merit to their argument, the issue can be addressed in enforcement proceedings. Finally, the possibility that the petitioner may have to make capital budgeting decisions under a cloud of uncertainty does not amount to the requisite hardship when the petitioners do not face sanctions for non-compliance. 229