Lexplug logoLexplug

Association of Pacific Fisheries v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
615 F.2d 794 (1980)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When establishing the Best Practicable Technology (BPT), the EPA must engage in a cost-benefit comparison, but the technology is only rejected if costs are "wholly disproportionate" to benefits. For Best Available Technology (BEA), a formal cost-benefit analysis is not required, but the EPA must demonstrate the technology is "economically achievable," which requires considering all significant, inherent costs, such as land acquisition if the technology demands it.


Facts:

  • The Association of Pacific Fisheries represents seafood processing companies, many of which operate in Alaska and on the West Coast.
  • These facilities discharge effluent containing fish residuals, such as heads, tails, and internal parts, mixed with substantial quantities of water.
  • Prior to the regulations, some processors would grind these fish solids and discharge the resulting effluent directly into nearby receiving waters.
  • The EPA observed wide variations in water use among processors, concluding that poor water management was a primary cause of variable and excessive pollutant loads.
  • To develop its regulations and cost estimates, the EPA gathered data during the 1973 fishing season, which petitioners claimed was an unrepresentatively unproductive season.
  • Many of the processing plants are located on waterfronts in Alaska and elsewhere, where adjacent land for building large treatment facilities can be unavailable or highly expensive.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, promulgated final regulations establishing effluent limitation guidelines for the Canned and Preserved Seafood Processing industry.
  • The Association of Pacific Fisheries and several individual seafood processing companies (Petitioners) filed a petition for direct review of the regulations in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
  • Petitioners challenged both the 1977 'Best Practicable Technology' (BPT) standards and the 1983 'Best Available Technology' (BEA) standards.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the EPA's effluent limitation regulations for the seafood processing industry, establishing different standards for 1977 (BPT) and 1983 (BEA), violate the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by being arbitrary and capricious due to flawed data, an improper cost-benefit analysis, and a failure to consider significant compliance costs?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Kennedy

No, as to the 1977 BPT regulations and the 1983 BEA regulations requiring Dissolved Air Flotation units; Yes, as to the 1983 BEA regulations requiring aerated lagoons. The EPA's regulations are largely the product of reasoned decision-making, but its failure to consider the inherent cost of land for aerated lagoons was arbitrary and capricious. For the 1977 BPT standard, the EPA properly weighed costs and benefits, and the court will not set aside the regulation unless costs are 'wholly disproportionate' to the effluent reduction benefits. The court upheld the agency's classification of 'remote' vs. 'nonremote' facilities as rational and deferred to the agency's data collection methodology given the constraints it faced. For the 1983 BEA standard, a strict cost-benefit balancing is not required; the technology must simply be 'economically achievable.' The court found the data supporting Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) units, even if based on a single plant study, was sufficient. However, the court remanded the regulation requiring aerated lagoons because the agency failed to consider the significant and inherent cost of land acquisition necessary for that technology, rendering its economic achievability analysis fatally incomplete.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies the distinct standards of judicial review for BPT and BEA regulations under the Clean Water Act, reinforcing the high degree of deference given to agency expertise in data collection and technical judgments. For BPT, it establishes that benefits can include improvements in nearshore water quality and that costs must be 'wholly disproportionate' to justify striking down a regulation. For BEA, the decision affirms that no strict cost-benefit analysis is required but sets a critical limit on agency discretion: the agency must consider all significant, inherent costs of a technology, such as land, to properly determine if it is 'economically achievable.' This prevents agencies from ignoring major real-world economic impacts when imposing stringent environmental controls.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Association of Pacific Fisheries v. Environmental Protection Agency (1980)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"