Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

08/06/76 American Paper Institute, v. Russell E. Train

August 6, 1976

AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY, RESPONDENT. AMERICAN PAPER INSTITUTE, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. BOISE CASCADE CORPORATION, PETITIONER

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORPORATION, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. INTERNATIONAL

PAPER COMPANY, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT.

MEAD CORPORATION, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT.

OWENS-ILLINOIS INCORPORATED, PETITIONER

v.

RUSSELL E. TRAIN, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENT. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, PETITIONER

v.




Before we turn to the merits of the challenged regulations, three preliminary matters must be addressed. These are the questions of our jurisdiction under Section 509, the Administrator's implementation of the Act under Sections 301 and 304, and the "range" of effluent limitations for this industry. All three are issues raised by API and recently resolved by this court in American Frozen Food Institute v. Train, 176 U.S. App. D.C. 105, 539 F.2d 107, No. 74-1464 (1976). Accordingly, our discussion will be brief. III. RECENTLY RESOLVED ISSUES

Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection

Agency, Respondent. Westvaco, Petitioner v. Russell E.

Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. Weyerhaeuser Company, Petitioner v. Russell E.

Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent. American Paper Institute, et al., Appellants v.

Russell E. Train, Administrator of the Environmental

Protection Agency, (D.C. Civil Action 74-814)

Nos. 74-1480, 74-1516, 74-1544, 74-1814, 74-1815, 75-1816, 74-1817, 74-1818, 74-1819, 74-1820, 74-1821, 74-1967, D.C. Civil Action 74-814 1976.CDC.184

Certiorari Dismissed, November 17, 1976, 429 U.S. 967, 97 S. Ct. 398, 50 L. Ed. 2d 335.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

APPELLATE PANEL:

Robb and Wilkey, Circuit Judges and Solomon,* United States Senior District Judge for the District of Oregon.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE ROBB

Robb, Circuit Judge:

These consolidated cases present challenges to regulations and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 , 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (Supp. IV). In No. 74-1967 American Paper Institute , joined by eight companies engaged in the production of pulp, paper and paperboard, *fn1 challenged the EPA regulations by way of a suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The court held that under Section 509(b)(1) of the FWPCA jurisdiction to review these regulations was in a United States Court of Appeals and not in the District Court; accordingly the court granted EPA's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. American Paper Institute v. Train, 381 F. Supp. 553 (D.D.C. 1974). The plaintiffs appeal.

The appeal from this dismissal has been consolidated here with petitions for review filed by API and the eight paper manufacturing companies. For convenience we shall refer to the appellants and the petitioners collectively as API. The petitions for review challenge both the regulations and the implementation of the FWPCA by EPA. These regulations were promulgated May 29, 1974 and establish effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards for five subcategories of the pulp, paper and paperboard industries. *fn2 We affirm the District Court's dismissal, uphold as valid the Agency's promulgated regulations and dismiss the various petitions for review. I. THE STATUTE

The FWPCA establishes a comprehensive scheme for federal regulation of water pollution. The ultimate objective of the Act is to eliminate completely the discharge of pollution into navigable waters by 1985. The Act seeks to accomplish this by means of phased reductions in the amounts of pollutants which are discharged from municipal and industrial sources. Recently, in a lengthy and detailed opinion by another panel, this court reviewed and interpreted certain provisions of the Act which play a key role in this process. American Frozen Food Institute v. Train, 176 U.S. App. D.C. 105, 539 F.2d 107 Number 74-1464 (1976). Because the present case involves a discussion of these same statutory provisions, we dispense with an elaborate analysis of what is indeed a "complicated and lengthy statute," AFFI v. Train (supra) 539 F.2d at 113, and simply sketch, in abbreviated fashion, those sections of the Act with which we must deal.

Section 301, entitled "Effluent Limitations", requires all existing point source *fn3 dischargers of pollution to meet two levels of effluent standards: one level by July 1, 1977, and the other by July 1, 1983. 33 U.S.C. § 1311. The 1977 level requires the application of the "best practicable control technology currently available" for point sources other than publicly owned treatment works. (BPCTCA or "best practicable") Section 301(b)(1). The 1983 level requires the application of the "best available technology economically achievable" for these same sources. (BATEA or "best available") Section 301(b)(2). These same provisions of Section 301 also state that the defined levels of technology are to be given more specific meaning in regulations issued by the EPA pursuant to Section 304.

Section 304, entitled "Information and Guidelines", indicates the method by which precise definitions for the two standards are to be achieved. 33 U.S.C. § 1314. Under Section 304(b)(1), which applies to the 1977 BPCTCA standard, the Administrator is to establish guidelines for effluent limitations. These regulations are to (1) identify the degree of effluent reduction attainable through best practicable control technology currently available for classes and categories of point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, and (2) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the control measures and practices applicable to such point sources. Section 304(b)(1)& . Under Section 304(b)(2), which applies to the 1983 BATEA standard, the Administrator is to publish regulations which take into account similar considerations. Thus, the effluent limitations required under Section 301 are to be achieved pursuant to guidelines established by EPA under Section 304.

Another section of importance in this case is Section 306. 33 U.S.C. 1316. Unlike Sections 301 and 304 which pertain to effluent standards required for existing sources, Section 306 governs the standard for new sources of pollution discharge. This section specifies twenty-seven industries for which standards for new sources must be set, including the pulp, paper and paperboard industry. The standard for new sources must reflect the greatest degree of effluent reduction achievable through application of the "best available demonstrated control technology" , including where practicable, a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants.

Hence, under Sections 301, 304 and 306 of the FWPCA the Administrator is responsible for regulations which define three separate levels of pollution control:

(a) the 1977 "best practicable" standard for existing sources;

(b) the 1983 "best available" standard for existing sources;

(c) the "best available demonstrated" standard for new sources.

In general, the statute envisions the 1977 standard as a minimum level of control, the 1983 standard as more stringent, and the new source performance standards as the most stringent. *fn4

Primary enforcement of these standards is to be accomplished under Section 402 of the Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. This section establishes a permit system as the basic mechanism for enforcing the effluent limitations established under Section 301. Permits for pollutant discharge may be issued by the Administrator or by a state which has adopted a permit program approved by the Administrator. Section 402(a) and (b). The function of the permit is to define precisely each individual discharger's obligations under the Act. EPA retains authority to review operation of a state's permit program and may withdraw approval of a program which is not being administered in compliance with this section. Section 402(c) and (d).

The final statutory provision that is important here is Section 509. 33 U.S.C. § 1369. This section, entitled "Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review", establishes that the United States courts of appeal have exclusive jurisdiction to review the Administrator's actions in promulgating effluent limitations under Section 301. Section 509(b)(1). II. EPA PROCEEDINGS

In January 1973 EPA contracted with a private engineering consultant firm, Wapora, Inc., to make an analysis of the pulp and paper industry to aid EPA in developing effluent limitations and new source performance standards. The Wapora study concentrated only on that portion of the industry involved in unbleached pulp and paper (Phase I), and the regulations at issue here are only these Phase I regulations. *fn5

The Wapora study resulted in a 245-page draft report which was submitted to EPA in June 1973. The draft report stated that as a result of various factors this Phase I category of the paper industry should be subdivided into five subcategories: unbleached kraft, sodium base neutral sulfite semi-chemical, ammonia base neutral sulfite semi-chemical, unbleached kraft-NSSC (cross recovery), and waste paperboard. (App. 41) The report then discussed water use and waste characterization, selection of various pollutants, control and treatment technologies, costs, energy, non-water quality aspects, and implementation requirements. (App. 44-162) This information was then evaluated to make a preliminary determination of the effluent limitations and new source performance standards for each subcategory. (App. 162-180)

In July 1973 copies of the contractor's draft report were circulated and comments solicited from 160 government, state, industry, and private institutions. Twenty-five organizations, including API, responded. Their comments resulted in changes being made in the draft report and in the forthcoming proposed regulations. (App. 1335)

On August 6, 1973 EPA published an "Advance Notice of Public Review Procedures" which set out EPA's general course in developing the regulations for the effluent limitations and new source performance standards. (App. 730) The notice explained the legal authority for the regulations, the general methodology employed in their development, and the means by which EPA would facilitate comment on them. (App. 730-734)

On January 15, 1974 the proposed guidelines and standards were published in the Federal Register. (App. 1331) The proposed regulations were supported by the contractor's draft report in its proposed form -- known formally as the Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Unbleached Kraft and Semichemical Pulp Segment of the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Mills Point Source Category. [Draft Development Document] (App. 956-1330) In addition, a second document concerning economic analysis and entitled Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines, Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Industry was made available to the public and circulated along with the Draft Development Document. (App. 735-955) Once again comments were solicited; thirty-seven parties, including API, responded and additional changes were made in the regulations. (App. 2199, 2203)

A technical hearing on the regulations was held on April 15, 1974. This hearing was in response to API's request, after the two comment periods, for an additional opportunity to comment on the regulations. (App. 1935-36) A transcript of this hearing may be found at App. 1937-2185.

On May 29, 1974 EPA promulgated final regulations setting forth "final effluent limitations guidelines for existing sources and standards of performance and pretreatment standards for new sources in the pulp, paper, and paperboard category of point sources." (App. 2199) These are the regulations at issue on this appeal. They are supported by a 340-page final development document which bears substantially the same title as the earlier draft: Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Unbleached Kraft and Semichemical Pulp Segment of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills Points Source Category. [Final Development Document] (App. 2210-2565)

The promulgated regulations are divided into the five subcategories previously mentioned. See p. 9 supra. In comments preceding the promulgated regulations EPA alluded to the flexibility provision contained within each of the five subcategories. Comment (7) states:

Section 304(b)(1)of the Act provides for "guidelines" to implement the uniform national standards of section 301(b)(1). Thus Congress recognized that some flexibility was necessary in order to take into account the complexity of the industrial world with respect to the practicability of pollution control technology. In conformity with the Congressional intent and in recognition of the possible failure of these regulations to account for all factors bearing on the practicability of control technology, it was concluded that some provision was needed to authorize flexibility in the strict application of the limitations contained in the regulation where required by special circumstances applicable to individual dischargers. Accordingly, a provision allowing flexibility in the application of the limitations representing best practicable control technology currently available has been added to each subpart, to account for special circumstances that may not have been adequately accounted for when these regulations were developed. (App. 2203) (Emphasis added.)

The flexibility provision incorporated into each of the five subcategories reads as follows:

In establishing the limitations set forth in this section, EPA took into account all information it was able to collect, develop and solicit with respect to factors (such as age and size of plant, raw materials, manufacturing processes, products produced, treatment technology available, energy requirements and costs) which can affect the industry subcategorization and effluent levels established. It is, however, possible that data which would affect these limitations have not been available and, as a result, these limitations should be adjusted for certain plants in this industry. An individual discharger or other interested person may submit evidence to the Regional Administrator (or to the State, if the State has the authority to issue NPDES permits) that factors relating to the equipment or facilities involved, the process applied, or other such factors related to such discharger are fundamentally different from the factors considered in the establishment of the guidelines. On the basis of such evidence or other available information, the Regional Administrator (or the State) will make a written finding that such factors are or are not fundamentally different for that facility compared to those specified in the Development Document. If such fundamentally different factors are found to exist, the Regional Administrator or the State shall establish for the discharger effluent limitations in the NPDES permit either more or less stringent than the limitations established herein, to the extent dictated by such fundamentally different factors. Such limitations must be approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The Administrator may approve or disapprove such limitations, specify other limitations, or initiate proceedings to revise these regulations. (App. 2204-8) (Emphasis added.)

These, then, are the final regulations promulgated by EPA and challenged by API in the District Court, and on these petitions for review.

The only issue before the District Court was whether it had jurisdiction to review the regulations. The court held that Section 509 of the FWPCA provides for review by a United States Court of Appeals and not by a United States District Court. American Paper Institute v. Train, 381 F. Supp. 553 (D.D.C. 1974).

A. Jurisdiction

API contends that the regulations promulgated by EPA are Section 304 guidelines reviewable by the District Court under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (1970). EPA argues that the Section 304 guidelines are inextricably intertwined with the Section 301 effluent limitations and that the regulations are therefore effluent limitations guidelines promulgated pursuant to both Sections 301 and 304. Thus, argues EPA, review is lodged exclusively in the courts of appeal under Section 509 which states in pertinent part:

(b)(1) Review of the Administrator's action

in approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 301, 302, or 306 . . . may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States . . . .

Because Section 509 makes no mention of judicial review of Section 304 guidelines, Section 509 will not apply and review is not lodged exclusively in this court unless we determine that the regulations published by EPA are effluent limitations guidelines under Sections 301 and 304.

In AFFI v. Train (supra) this court analyzed the language and legislative history of the FWPCA in detail and resolved this question in favor of the Agency. We note that the Eighth Circuit takes a contrary view, CPC International, Inc. v. Train, 515 F.2d 1032 (8th Cir. 1975), but that the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh and Tenth Circuits are in agreement with us. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train, 537 F.2d 620 (2d Cir. 1976); American Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1027 (3rd Cir. 1975); E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 528 F.2d 1136 (4th Cir. 1975), cert. granted, 425 U.S. 933, 96 S. Ct. 1662, 48 L. Ed. 2d 174 (1976) (No. 75-978) (duPont I); American Meat Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 442 (7th Cir. 1975); American Petroleum Institute v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1343 (10th Cir. 1975). Accordingly, we reaffirm the view expressed in AFFI v. Train (supra) 539 F.2d 128, that this court has jurisdiction under Section 509 of the FWPCA to review the effluent limitations guidelines which have been promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to Sections 301 and 304 of the Act.

B. Implementation

The question presented here is whether the effluent limitations guidelines published by EPA pursuant to Sections 301 and 304 reflect a proper implementation of the FWPCA. API contends that EPA should merely publish guidelines to assist the Section 402 permit-granting authorities, which in turn will establish effluent limitations on an individual, plant-by-plant basis. EPA says it must promulgate effluent limitations which shall be nationally uniform.

In AFFI v. Train (supra) this court examined the language of the Act and its legislative history and again resolved this issue in favor of the Agency. The court said:

As we have pointed out in Parts I and II, both the legislative history of the Act and its statutory structure and language mandate our rejecting the argument that the Act required the Administrator to set "guidelines" and "effluent limitations" for individual plants. We believe that Congress intended individual plant considerations to be taken into account within the nationally set effluent limitations in the granting of state permits under § 402(b) and (c). . . . 539 F.2d at 131.

Although once again at odds with the view expressed by the Eighth Circuit in CPC International (supra) strong support for our position is found in similar holdings by the Second, Third, Fourth and Seventh Circuits. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train, supra; American Iron & Steel Institute v. EPA (supra) E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 541 F.2d 1018, No. 74-1261 (4th Cir. 1976), cert. granted, 426 U.S. 947, 96 S. Ct. 3165, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1183 (1976) (Nos. 75-1473 & 75-1705) (duPont II); American Meat Institute v. EPA (supra). See also EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 96 S. Ct. 2022, 48 L. Ed. 2d 578, 44 U.S.L.W. 4781, 4786 (1976).

Contrary to API's fears, this interpretation will not reduce the function of the permit-granting authorities to that of a "clerical rubber stamping exercise." As noted earlier in our discussion, there is a flexibility provision incorporated into the regulations for establishing effluent limitations guidelines for each of the five subcategories. This provision has recently been upheld by this circuit and two others. See AFFI v. Train (supra) E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train (duPont II) (supra) and Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 537 F.2d 642 (2d Cir. 1976). Under the provision, the permit-granting authorities have a critical role to play: to define precisely the discharger's obligations under the Act where "fundamentally different factors" require an adjustment in the effluent limitations established for the particular subcategory. As stated by the Second Circuit:

Not all of the thousands of plants in operation can be expected to fit into prefabricated molds or templates. By specifying a permit procedure, Congress implicitly conferred on the permit-grantor the privilege of construing the broader regulations in light of the specific type of plant applying for the permit. Without variance flexibility, the program might well founder on the rocks of illegality.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA (supra) 537 F.2d at 647. Accordingly, we reaffirm the view expressed in AFFI v. Train (supra) Slip Op. at 42, that the EPA is to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines of a nationally uniform nature.

C. Range

API argues that the entire set of regulations is invalid because the Agency has established single number effluent limitations for each subcategory instead of a range of numeric values. In support of its "range" argument petitioners refer to the following statement in the Senate Report on the 1972 FWPCA amendments:

In effect, for any industrial category, the Committee expects the Administrator to define a range of discharge levels, above a certain base level applicable to all plants within that category. *fn6

EPA's response is that it has fulfilled the Committee's expectation. The Administrator has taken the pulp, paper and paperboard industrial category, divided it into two phases, and established five subcategories for the first phase. *fn7 He has then assigned separate effluent limitations for each subcategory in Phase I. Thus, the individual numerical limitations for the five subcategories provide the "range" for Phase I of the pulp, paper and paperboard industrial category.

In AFFI v. Train (supra) this court considered and rejected API's argument. We approved EPA's method of establishing single number effluent limitations because "the permit issuing authority under § 402 (state or federal) will clearly be able to employ any limitation it finds appropriate for a specific plant which falls between a 'range' of zero pollutant discharge and the nationally set effluent limitations." 539 F.2d at 140. On the facts presented to us, we add only that the Administrator has exercised reasonable discretion in subcategorizing the industry and establishing separate effluent limitations for the five subcategories of this phase of the industry. Although the Third Circuit has disapproved of this approach in American Iron & Steel Institute v. Train (supra) the Second and Fourth Circuits are in agreement with us. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Train (supra) and E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. v. Train (duPont II) (supra). We affirm the Agency's method of establishing single number discharge limitations for each subcategory of this industry. IV. SCOPE OF REVIEW

This court's authority to set aside agency action is governed by Section 10(e)(2)of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(1970). We may not interfere unless the agency's action is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law". We may not substitute our judgment for that of the agency. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416, 28 L. Ed. 2d 136, 91 S. Ct. 814 (1971). We must ensure that a rational basis exists for the agency's decision. Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc., 419 U.S. 281, 42 L. Ed. 2d 447, 95 S. Ct. 438 (1974). This does not mean however that we must rubber-stamp agency decision-making. It is our duty to ensure that the agency's decision is based on a consideration of all relevant factors. Our inquiry must be searching and careful, especially in highly technical cases such as the present one. Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 176 U.S. App. D.C. 373, 541 F.2d 1, Slip Op. at 68-71 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 941, 96 S. Ct. 2662, 49 L. Ed. 2d 394 (1976). On this basis we proceed to an examination of the specific regulations being challenged. V. GENERAL VALIDITY OF REGULATIONS

A. Cost

Cost is one of the factors which the Administrator must consider in setting standards under the Act. Section 304(b)(1)requires that he consider "the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved" by the 1977 BPCTCA standard. This requires a cost-benefit analysis. Sections 304(b)(2)and 306 mandate no such balancing. Under these sections the Administrator must consider only "the cost of achieving such effluent reduction" in establishing the 1983 effluent limitations guidelines and the new source performance standards.

API contends that EPA's assessment of the costs involved in setting these standards is inadequate in two respects: first, that the cost analysis undertaken by EPA is perfunctory and ignores economic considerations; and second, that the Agency has not engaged in a cost-benefit analysis for the 1977 standard as required by Section 304(b)(1). We perceive no merit in either charge.

The bulk of EPA's cost analysis is contained in Section VIII and Appendix III of the Final Development Document. (App. 2409-2426; 2519-2548) Section VIII summarizes the costs of internal and external effluent treatment associated with the three technological levels prescribed by the Act -- the 1977 BPCTCA, the 1983 BATEA and the new source performance standards. For each technology the cost of effluent treatment has been determined for the five subcategories established in this phase of the paper industry. (App. 2448, 2469, 2477) Tables showing internal and external controls for the five subcategories also indicate the investment costs, total annual costs, interest cost plus depreciation cost at 15% per year, and operating and maintenance costs. (App. 2419-2423) Appendix III of the Final Development Document presents a detailed description of the basis of the costs presented in the Section VIII tables. (App. 2519-2548) In addition, the Appendix delineates the internal and external technologies identified by the three levels of technology in terms of design limitations, unit processes and costs. Our study of these portions of the Final Development Document leads us to conclude that the Administrator's analysis is neither arbitrary nor capricious.

API's second contention is that the Administrator has not engaged in a cost-benefit analysis for the 1977 BPCTCA as required by Section 304(b)(1). Our examination of the record however negates this charge. In a 240 page report entitled Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines, Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Industry, the Agency, assisted by Arthur D. Little, Inc., engaged in a careful analysis of the total cost effects of the regulations and their impact on prices, production, employment, community, balance of payments and growth. (App. 735-955) As noted in the preamble to the published regulations, the total projected impact of 1977 BPCTCA technology includes 3%-6% price increases, 7-10 potential closures out of 188 mills, and 810-1,250 potential unemployed persons (representing 1.1%-1.6% of total employment for these mills). (App. 2203) In that portion of the preamble entitled "Cost-benefit analysis", the Administrator concludes with this statement:

The Agency believes that the benefits of thus reducing the pollutants discharged justify the associated costs which, though substantial in absolute terms, represent a relatively small percentage of the total capital investment in the industry. (App. 2203)

Our review of the costs identified in Section VIII of the Final Development Document and the discussion of their impact in the Economic Analysis convinces us that there is firm record support for the Administrator's conclusions.

B. Non-water Environmental Impact and Energy Requirements

Sections 304 and 306 of the Act require the Administrator to consider non-water quality environmental impact and energy requirements in establishing effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance standards. API argues that EPA has failed to fulfill this statutory obligation because it did not analyze energy costs and omitted consideration of certain environmental impacts.

The Final Development Document shows that EPA did analyze the energy costs and requirements of the industry. (App. 2424-2426, 2448, 2469) After establishing both the power costs and energy requirements for all five subcategories under the 1977 BPCTCA standard, the 1983 BATEA standard, and the new source performance standard, (App. 2425-2426) the Administrator concluded that these energy considerations "are not substantial (less than 1 per cent [in the case of BPCTCA]) and should not be great enough to warrant concern on either a national or regional basis." (App. 2448 and 2469) In view of this assessment, the Administrator cannot be charged with failing to perform his statutory duty.

We reach the same conclusion regarding the Agency's consideration of the non-water environmental impact of these regulations. We note in the Final Development Document that the Administrator discusses air pollution, noise potential, solid waste disposal and by-product recovery. (App. 2427-2432) API takes the Administrator to task for failing to consider the impact of increased lime treatment and the implications of reuse of condensate streams. Our review of the Administrator's discussion of non-water environmental impact does not convince us that his treatment of these issues constitutes arbitrary or capricious action. There is no indication that increased lime treatment is a significant factor or that the Administrator's discussion of the air pollution problems does not encompass the problems inherent in reuse of condensate streams. Accordingly, we decline to find invalid this portion of his analysis. VI. THE 1977 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES

EPA must establish effluent limitations guidelines for 1977 which reflect the application of "the best practicable control technology currently available ." *fn8 In the establishment of BPCTCA standards, Section 304(b)(1)of the Act requires the Administrator to consider the following factors: (1) the total cost of application of technology in relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from such application; (2) the age of equipment and facilities involved; (3) the processes employed; (4) the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques; (5) process changes; (6) non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements); and (7) such other factors as the Administrator deems appropriate. BPCTCA limitations will normally be established on the basis of the average performance of the best existing plants in each subcategory. Although the BPCTCA effluent standards will rely primarily on external (or "end of pipe") treatment, internal control measures may be required if they are considered normal practice within the industry.

As noted earlier, this unbleached phase of the pulp, paper and paperboard industry has been subdivided into five subcategories: unbleached kraft, sodium base neutral sulfite semi-chemical, ammonia base neutral sulfite semi-chemical, unbleached kraft -- NSSC (cross recovery), and waste paperboard. For existing sources in each subcategory, the 1977 effluent limitations guidelines limit the discharge of three pollutants: "BOD5", "TSS", and "pH". These terms require explanation:

(a) BOD5. The initials "BOD" stand for "biochemical oxygen demand". This is a measure of the oxygen consuming capabilities of organic matter. Dissolved oxygen in the water is consumed during decomposition of organic pollutants. Biochemical oxygen demand is commonly termed "BOD5" because the analytical techniques utilized for measurement involve a five-day period.

(b) TSS. The initials "TSS" stand for "total suspended solids". This is a measure of the materials suspended in a sample of water. Suspended solids in pulp and paper mill effluents are generally fibrous materials lost in the pulping of wood and the production of paper.

(c) pH. This is a logarithmic expression of the concentration of hydrogen ions in a sample of waste water. It essentially describes the acidity or alkalinity of a water sample. At a pH of 7, the hydrogen and hydroxyl ion concentrations are approximately equal and the water is neutral. Lower pH values indicate acidity while higher values indicate alkalinity. Final Development Document at 83-86. (App. 2309-2312)

The 1977 effluent limitations guidelines permit the discharge of certain amounts of BOD5 and TSS expressed in pounds per ton of product (and kilograms per 1,000 kilograms of product) and the presence of a certain amount of pH for each subcategory. These limitations are set out in the following table.

BPCTCA Effluent Limitations

Values in kg/kkg (lbs/ton)

BOD5 TSS

Subcategory 30 Day Daily Max 30 Day Daily Max

Unbleached

Kraft 2.8 (5.6) 5.6(11.2) 6.0 (12.0) 12.0(24.0)

NSSC-Ammonia 4.0 (8.0) 8.0(16.0) 5.0 (10.0) 10.0(20.0)

NSSC-Sodium 4.35(8.7) 8.7(17.4) 5.5 (11.0) 11.0(22.0)

Unbleached

Kraft-NSSC 4.0 (8.0) 8.0(16.0) 6.25(12.5) 12.5(25.0)

Paperboard from

Waste Paper 1.5 (3.0) 3.0(6.0) 2.5 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.