Association of Pacific Fisheries v. Environmental Protection Agency

The Association of Pacific Fisheries (APF) (plaintiff) challenged two of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) (defendant) Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAE) standards for controlling effluent released by fish-processing plants. The first challenged BAE standard required that certain subcategories of fish-processing plants install a dissolved air flotation unit (DAFU), which skims off fish detritus from effluent before it is released. The EPA relied on a study of one salmon-processing plant showing the installation of a DAFU resulted in a substantial reduction in all three pollutants relevant to fish-processing plants. The EPA found the average cost of compliance would be 1–2 percent of the total sales figures for each subcategory of fish-processing plant. The second challenged BAE standard required that bottomfish-processing plants install aerated lagoons to treat the effluent biologically before releasing it. To support this BAE, the EPA again relied on only one study; however, that study only demonstrated a reduction in one pollutant, not all three. Further, the EPA did not consider the cost required to acquire sufficient land for the aerated lagoons. APF argued that the BAE standards were arbitrary and capricious because (1) the EPA improperly relied on only one study to set each standard; (2) the EPA failed to conduct a cost-benefit analysis; and (3) the EPA failed to consider the cost of land acquisition in setting the aerated lagoon BAE.