Opinion ID: 519994
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: NRDC's Challenge to the EPA's BAT1 and BAT2 Subcategorization

Text: 316 The EPA divided the BAT limitations into two subcategories, BAT1 and BAT 2 . BAT1 limits are based on a model technology that added various in-plant treatment systems to end-of-pipe biological treatment. EPA recognized that some plants with low influent BODS levels do not have enough waste nutrients to support their treatment biota; such plants, therefore, will be unable to maintain an end-of-pipe biological treatment system. 240 In response to this problem, the EPA derived the BAT2 limits based on a variety of in-plant treatment systems. The EPA stated that the plants subject to the BAT2 limits are those plants that do not employ end-of-pipe biological treatment. The result of this rule is that plants that can find a way to comply with the BPT limitations without installing end-of-pipe biological treatment systems are subject to the less stringent BAT2 limitations. 241 317 NRDC argues that the EPA's adoption of the BAT1 and BAT2 subcategories violated the APA notice and comment requirement because this subcategorization was presented for the first time in the final rule. NRDC also asserts that this type of BAT subcategorization violates the CWA because it allows a discharger who chooses not to employ end-of-pipe treatment to be subject to less stringent BAT2 limits. NRDC states that, if it had an opportunity to comment, it would have urged the EPA to establish a single numerical BODS influent parameter which would define whether a plant was in the BAT1 or BAT2 subcategory. This number would presumably be based in part upon the EPA's judgment regarding the required influent BODS concentration required to effectively operate an end-of-pipe biological system; plants falling below the required BODS influent level would qualify for BAT2 subcategorization. 318 We agree that the EPA failed to present its BAT subcategories for comment as required by APA Sec. 4(c). The EPA has failed to direct this court's attention to any public notice announcing its BAT subcategories prior to promulgation of the final limitations. In fact, the record indicates that prior to final promulgation of the limitations the EPA announced that it did not intend to establish any subcategories for BAT. The record states: 319 EPA considered whether the industry should be subcategorized for BAT purposes by evaluating the same subcategorization factors which were considered for BPT. EPA has decided to promulgate a single set of BAT limitations which would be applicable to all OCPSF facilities.... The available data for BAT show that plants ... can achieve similar low toxic pollutant effluent concentrations by installing the best available treatment components.... Therefore, the Agency believes that BAT subcategories do not appear to be necessary for effective, equitable regulation. However, EPA will continue to explore the possibility of subcategorizing the industry for BAT purposes and invites comments and supporting data on appropriate approaches. 242 320 The last sentence notwithstanding, this notice was not sufficient to fairly apprise interested parties that BAT subcategorization was still a live issue; rather the notice gives every indication that the issue had been laid to rest. 321 We remand this issue to the EPA for notice-and-comment proceedings. 243 In the interim, the limitations will be given effect 244 for three reasons: First, we recognize Congress' concern for limiting the discharge of toxic pollutants within the statutory deadline. Second, the notice-and-comment proceedings may disclose that the BODS parameter urged by the NRDC is neither necessary nor feasible. Finally, the industrial petitioners are not prejudiced by being subjected to BAT2 limitations which, if anything, may be too lenient.