Opinion ID: 705105
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: BAT and NSPS Cost Calculation

Text: 61 Finally, Industry petitioners challenge the BAT and NSPS levels set by EPA for drilling fluids and cuttings. The BAT and NSPS for dischargers within three miles of shore (excluding Alaska) require zero discharge of the pollutant by barging the mud and cuttings to shore for onshore disposal. Industry petitioners contend that EPA failed to consider adequately the relevant factors required, specifically the cost of barging. Phrased another way, Industry petitioners claim that the BAT and NSPS levels were improperly promulgated because the environmental benefits of the limitations are negligible. 62 EPA counters that it has discretion whether or not to use cost considerations under BAT and NSPS, and that EPA need only find that the technology is technically and economically achievable and that the cost of the technology is reasonable. NRDC v. EPA, 863 F.2d at 1426; see also CPC Int'l Inc. v. Train, 540 F.2d 1329, 1341-42 (8th Cir.1976) (setting NSPS does not require cost-benefit analysis, [w]hat is required ... is a thorough study of initial and annual costs and an affirmative conclusion that these costs can be reasonably borne by the industry), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 966, 97 S.Ct. 1646, 52 L.Ed.2d 357 (1977). The CWA does not require a precise calculation of BAT and NSPS costs. NRDC v. EPA, 863 F.2d at 1426. Congress intended that EPA have discretion to decide how to account for the consideration factors, and how much weight to give each factor. Weyerhaeuser, 590 F.2d at 1045. 63 Industry petitioners maintain that when environmental benefits are de minimis, the regulation is not valid. However, EPA points to several environmental benefits of the zero discharge rule, primarily, the decrease in pollutants ingested by fish and shellfish and passed along the food chain. Among the non-monetary benefits of zero discharge is the reduction in recreation degradation. Industry petitioners maintain that zero discharge is not necessary because simply meeting the four basic requirements under BAT for dischargers outside the three mile limit reduces virtually any pollution harm. However, Industry petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that zero discharge does not achieve any additional environmental benefit. 64 We are persuaded that EPA acted within its discretion in setting BAT and NSPS for drilling muds and drill cuttings.