Opinion ID: 3007001
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The IMO Standard

Text: Petitioners argue that EPA failed to apply BAT when it chose the IMO Standard for TBELs in the 2013 VGP. They allege that EPA chose the IMO Standard first, and then worked ʺbackwardsʺ to determine which systems could achieve that standard. NWEA Br. at 36. In doing so, they contend, EPA improperly restricted the SABʹs inquiry to whether certain technologies would meet what petitioners describe as ʺexisting international consensus standards.ʺ Id. According to petitioners, EPA should have first considered what ʺavailableʺ technology was capable of achieving, and then created standards based on that capability. As a result, petitioners contend, EPAʹs standard did not achieve greater reductions in pollution discharges that were achievable with current technology. We agree. EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it chose the IMO Standard without adequately explaining why standards higher than the IMO Standard should not be used given available technology. ‐27‐ In choosing the IMO Standard, EPA overlooked crucial portions of the SAB Report. The SAB identified a number of technologies that can achieve standards higher than IMO for one or more organism sizes, including all five of the technologies identified as also meeting the IMO Standard.11 The SAB acknowledged that ʺthese same five systems have the potential to meet a 10x IMO D‐2/ Phase 1 standard [i.e., the IMO Standard] in the near future.ʺ App. at 636. In describing the performance of those systems, the SAB concluded that each would require only ʺreasonable/feasible modifications.ʺ Id. at 629‐30,632. Indeed, according to the SAB Report, the Ecochlor, BalPure, and PeraClean systems can meet 100 times IMO for medium organisms, and Ecochlor can meet 10 times IMO for large organisms. EPA should not have adhered to the IMO Standard without explanation when technologies could have exceeded IMO. Indeed, seeking to find systems that are capable of doing better than the current standard is in keeping with the technology‐forcing aspect of the CWA. See NRDC, 822 F.2d at 11 The record further demonstrates that existing shipboard technology can meet a standard between IMO and 10 times IMO. For instance, Hyde Marine Guardian has tested at 1.4 times IMO for large organisms; Optimarin has tested at 7.7 times IMO for large organisms; and Alfa Laval/AlfaWall PureBallast has tested at 4.5 times IMO for large organisms, and at 3.7 times IMO for medium organisms. ‐28‐ 124. EPA should have first looked at the available ballast water technologies as identified by the SAB Report. Then, finding that those technologies could exceed the IMO Standard, EPA should have adjusted its standard accordingly, or explained why it would not. See Islander E. Pipeline, 525 F.3d at 151 (holding that agency must ʺexamine[] the relevant data and articulate[] a satisfactory explanation for its actionʺ (quoting State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43)(alterations omitted)). EPAʹs counterargument that no more was necessary because it did not limit the SAB to considering the IMO Standard is unavailing. EPA insists that it gave the SAB a list of potential regulatory limits, and then asked the SAB to identify the systems that could reliably meet those limits. In support, EPA points to its Charge Question 1 to the SAB, which asked the SAB to identify ʺdischarge standards that the available data [about existing systems] credibly demonstrate can be reliably achieved.ʺ App. at 607. EPA argues that in response to this charge, the SAB Report supports the conclusion that, ʺ[b]ased upon the data available, no current ballast water treatment technologies were considered likely to meet standards more stringent than the IMO D‐2/Phase Iʺ standards. Id. at 91. ‐29‐ While it is true that EPA did not strictly limit the SABʹs consideration to the IMO Standard, EPA is incorrect in suggesting that the SAB Report supports the conclusion that no system could meet standards stricter than the IMO Standard. Id.12 To the contrary, the record contradicts EPAʹs assertion that treatment systems that exceed the IMO Standard are not ʺavailable.ʺ In fact, as noted above, systems that exceed the IMO Standard are available Accordingly, by failing to consider adequately a standard more stringent than IMO, EPA failed to set permit limits that reflect BAT. See 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b)(2); Natʹl Crushed Stone, 449 U.S. at 74 (BAT requires ʺa commitment of the maximum resources economically possible to the ultimate goal of eliminating all pollution dischargesʺ); FMC Corp. v. Train, 539 F.2d 973, 983‐84 (4th Cir. 1976) The SAB actually stated that it could not reliably test for standards 100 or 12 1000 times more stringent than the IMO Standard: The Panel also concludes that the [IMO Standard] . . . [is] currently measurable, based on data from land‐based and shipboard testing. However, current methods (and associated detection limits) prevent testing of BWMS to any standard more stringent than [the IMO Standard] and make it impracticable for verifying a standard 100 or 1000 times more stringent. Id. at 610. While we agree that we must defer to EPAʹs conclusions regarding the technical feasibility of testing for standards 100 or 1000 times more stringent than the IMO Standard, there is nothing in the record to suggest that it would not be possible to test for twice or even ten times the IMO Standard. ‐30‐ (upholding EPAʹs decision to set BAT based on data from a single pilot plant). In doing so, EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously and not in accordance with law in choosing the IMO standard for the TBELs in the 2013 VGP.