USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 1 of 53
`
`
`
`No. 19-2450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`CAPE FEAR RIVER WATCH, RURAL EMPOWERMENT
`ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY HELP, WATERKEEPERS
`CHESAPEAKE, ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR
`BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, COMITE CIVICO DEL VALLE,
`ENVIRONMENT AMERICA, FOOD & WATER WATCH, THE
`HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, and WATERKEEPER
`ALLIANCE,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`v.
`
`U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and ANDREW
`WHEELER, in his official capacity as Administrator of the U.S.
`Environmental Protection Agency
`
`Respondents.
`
`Petition for Review of Final Agency Action of the
`United States Environmental Protection Agency
`
`PETITIONERS’ RULE 30(c) PAGE-PROOF OPENING BRIEF
`
`
`
`Dated: August 3, 2020
`
`Counsel listed on following page
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 2 of 53
`
`
`
`Sylvia Lam
`Abel Russ
`Eric Schaeffer
`Environmental Integrity Project
`1000 Vermont Avenue NW
`Suite 1100
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 888-2701
`slam@environmentalintegrity.org
`aruss@environmentalintegrity.org
`eschaeffer@environmentalintegrity.org
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Alexis Andiman
`Ashley Gregor
`Peter Lehner
`Earthjustice
`48 Wall Street, 19th Floor
`New York, NY 10005
`(212) 845-7376
`aandiman@earthjustice.org
`agregor@earthjustice.org
`plehner@earthjustice.org
`
`
`Carrie Apfel
`Earthjustice
`1001 G Street NW, Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20036
`(202) 667-4500
`capfel@earthjustice.org
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association
`for Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund,
`Center for Biological Diversity, Comite Civico del Valle, Environment America,
`Food & Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, and Waterkeeper
`Alliance
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 3 of 53
`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450
`DOC: 40-1
`Filed: 08/03/2020
`Pg: 3 of 53
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
`
`DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
`
`-
`
`0
`
`0
`
`In civil, agency, bankruptcy, and mandamus cases, a disclosure statement must be filed by all
`parties, with the following exceptions: (1) the United States is not required to file a disclosure
`statement; (2) an indigent party is not required to file a disclosure statement; and (3) a state
`or local government is not required to file a disclosure statement in pro se cases. (All parties
`to the action in the district court are considered parties to a mandamus case.)
`
`In criminal and post-conviction cases, a corporate defendant must file a disclosure statement.
`
`In criminal cases,
`the United States must file a disclosure statement if there was an
`organizational victim of the alleged criminal activity. (See question 7.)
`
`0 Any corporate amicus curiae must file a disclosure statement.
`
`- Counsel has a continuing duty to update the disclosure statement.
`
`No. 19-2450
`
`Caption: Cape Fear River Watch et a1. V. EPA et a1.
`
`_
`.
`_
`Pursuant to FRAP 26.1 and Local Rule 26.1,
`Cape Fear Rlver Watch, Rural Empowerment Ass001at10n for Commumty Help,
`Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity,
`(name_ofparty/amicus{]
`_
`_
`Com1te C1v1co del
`alle, Env1ronment Amerlca, Food & Water Watch, The Humane
`Society of the United States, and Waterkeeper Alliance
`
`, makes the following disclosure:
`Petitioners
`who is
`(appellant/appellee/petitioner/respondent/amicus/intervenor)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Is party/amicus a publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity? I:IYES IXINO
`
`El YES .NO
`Does party/amicus have any parent corporations?
`If yes, identify all parent corporations, including all generations of parent corporations:
`
`Is 10% or more of the stock of a party/amicus owned by a publicly held cor oration or
`other publicly held entity?
`YES-NO
`If yes, identify all such owners:
`
`12/01/2019 scc
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 4 of 53
`USCA4 Appeal:19-2450
`Doc:40-1
`Filed:08/03/2020
`Pg:4of 53
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Is there any other publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity that has a direct
`financial interest in the outcome of the litigation?
`DYES IXNO
`If yes, identify entity and nature of interest:
`
`DYES .NO
`Is party a trade association? (amici curiae do not complete this question)
`If yes, identify any publicly held member whose stock or equity value could be affected
`substantially by the outcome of the proceeding or whose claims the trade association is
`pursuing in a representative capacity, or state that there is no such member:
`
`DYESKINO
`Does this case arise out of a bankruptcy proceeding?
`If yes, the debtor, the trustee, or the appellant (if neither the debtor nor the trustee is a
`party) must list (1) the members of any creditors’ committee, (2) each debtor (if not in the
`caption), and (3) if a debtor is a corporation, the parent corporation and any publicly held
`corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock of the debtor.
`
`DYESK'NO
`Is this a criminal case in which there was an organizational victim?
`If yes, the United States, absent good cause shown, must list (1) each organizational
`victim of the criminal activity and (2) if an organizational victim is a corporation, the
`parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of the stock
`of victim, to the extent that information can be obtained through due diligence.
`
`Signature: S/SylVlaI‘am— Date: AuguSt 3, 2020
`
`Counsel for: Petitioners
`
`_ 2 _
`
`Print to PDF for Filing
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 5 of 53
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES............................................................................... 2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 2
`
`I. WATER POLLUTION FROM SLAUGHTERHOUSES ............................ 3
`
`II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT ......................................................................... 6
`
`A. Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Associated Effluent Limitations ....... 7
`
`B. Pretreatment Standards ............................................................................... 9
`
`III. EPA’s WATER POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR
`SLAUGHTERHOUSES ......................................................................................10
`
`A. EPA’s 2004 ELGs for Certain Slaughterhouses ......................................11
`
`B. EPA’s Most Recent Reviews & 2019 Decision .......................................12
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ......................................................................15
`
`STANDING .............................................................................................................16
`
`STANDARD OF REVIEW .....................................................................................21
`
`ARGUMENT ...........................................................................................................22
`
`EPA’S DECISION TO NOT REVISE SLAUGHTERHOUSE ELGS IS
`I.
`ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ....................................................................22
`
`A. EPA’s Decision to Not Revise Slaughterhouse ELGs Runs Counter to
`Evidence Before the Agency Showing that the ELGs Do Not Reflect the Best
`Available Technology ......................................................................................22
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 6 of 53
`
`
`
`1. EPA’s data show that existing ELGs lag behind pollution reductions
`achieved consistently by the industry’s cleanest plants and do not reflect
`best available technology. ............................................................................23
`
`2. EPA’s review shows that better technology is available to reduce
`pollution from the slaughterhouse industry. ................................................31
`
`3. Slaughterhouses are a leading source of industrial nutrient pollution,
`and EPA can address this prominent challenge to water quality with
`updated ELGs. ..............................................................................................34
`
`B. EPA Did Not Supply a Reasoned Basis for its Decision to Not Revise
`ELGs ................................................................................................................36
`
`II. EPA’S DECISION TO NOT PUBLISH PRETREATMENT
`STANDARDS IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ......................................38
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................40
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................43
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 7 of 53
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Canoe Ass’n v. Murphy Farms, Inc.,
`326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003) .................................................................. 16, 18, 19
`
`Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train,
`539 F.2d 107 (D.C. Cir. 1976) ............................................................................... 7
`
`Am. Paper Inst. v. EPA,
`660 F.2d 954 (4th Cir. 1981) ................................................................................. 1
`
`Am. Petroleum Inst. v. EPA,
`858 F.2d 261 (5th Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................33
`
`Appalachian Power Co. v. Train,
`545 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................... 22, 37
`
`Bostic v. Schaefer,
`760 F.3d 352 (4th Cir. 2014) ...............................................................................17
`
`Burlington Truck Lines v. United States,
`371 U.S. 156 (1962) .............................................................................................21
`
`Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA,
`870 F.2d 177 (5th Cir. 1989) .............................................................................8, 9
`
`Defs. of Wildlife v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior,
`931 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2019) ...............................................................................40
`
`Dep’t of Homeland Sec. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
`140 S. Ct. 1891 (2020) ............................................................................ 36, 37, 38
`
`EPA v. Nat'l Crushed Stone Ass’n,
`449 U.S. 64 (1980) ...............................................................................................22
`
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp.,
`204 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................ 19, 20
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 8 of 53
`
`
`
`Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc.,
`528 U.S. 167 (2000) .............................................................................................18
`
`Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n,
`432 U.S. 333 (1977) .............................................................................................17
`
`Kennecott v. EPA,
`780 F.2d 445 (4th Cir. 1985) .............................................................. 9, 24, 31, 34
`
`Michigan v. EPA,
`576 U.S. 743 (2015) .............................................................................................37
`
`Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.,
`463 U.S. 29 (1983) .................................................................................. 21, 22, 38
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA,
`822 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ............................................................................... 6
`
`Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Train,
`510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1974) .............................................................................. 7
`
`Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst’l Rights, Inc.,
`547 U.S. 47 (2006) ...............................................................................................17
`
`SEC v. Chenery Corp.,
`332 U.S. 194 (1947) .............................................................................................21
`
`Sierra Club v. Dep’t of the Interior,
`899 F.3d 260 (4th Cir. 2018) ...............................................................................20
`
`Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA,
`920 F.3d 999 (5th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................... passim
`
`Tanner's Council of America v. Train,
`540 F.2d 1188 (4th Cir. 1976) .............................................................................36
`
`Tex. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA,
`161 F.3d 923 (5th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................. 7
`
`United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc.,
`517 U.S. 544 (1996) .............................................................................................17
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 9 of 53
`
`
`
`Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Ams. United for Separation of Church & State,
`Inc.,
`454 U.S. 464 (1982) .............................................................................................18
`
`Waterkeeper All., Inc. v. EPA,
`399 F.3d at 486 (2d Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 8, 23, 36
`
`Statutes
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) ............................................................................................... 6
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1314 .............................................................................................. passim
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1316 ..................................................................................................6, 12
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1317 ..................................................................................................6, 10
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1342 ........................................................................................................ 8
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1362 ........................................................................................................ 7
`
`33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)............................................................................................... 1
`
`5 U.S.C. §§ 701-06...................................................................................................21
`
`Other Authorities
`
`39 Fed. Reg. 7,894 (Feb. 18, 1974) .................................................................. 10, 11
`
`40 Fed. Reg. 902 (Jan. 3, 1975) ........................................................................ 10, 11
`
`49 Fed. Reg. 8,742 (Mar. 8, 1984) ...........................................................................40
`
`67 Fed. Reg. 64,216 (Oct. 16, 2002) ................................................................. 10, 40
`
`69 Fed. Reg. 54,476 (Sept. 8, 2004) ................................................................. 10, 11
`
`84 Fed. Reg. 57,019 (Oct. 24, 2019) ....................................................... 1, 12, 15, 37
`
`Regulations
`
`40 C.F.R. § 418.76 ...................................................................................................40
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 10 of 53
`
`
`
`40 C.F.R. § 420.35(a) ...............................................................................................40
`
`40 C.F.R. Part 432 ............................................................................................ passim
`
`40 C.F.R. § 439.16(a) ...............................................................................................40
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 11 of 53
`
`
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`
`This case challenges a final action of the U.S. Environmental Protection
`
`Agency and Administrator Andrew Wheeler (collectively, “EPA” or “Agency”),
`
`deciding to not revise the effluent limitation guidelines (“ELGs”) and associated
`
`effluent limitations and to not publish pretreatment standards for the Meat and
`
`Poultry Products industrial point source category. See 84 Fed. Reg. 57,019, 57,019
`
`(Oct. 24, 2019). Petitioners filed a petition for review in this Court within 120 days
`
`of EPA’s decision. See Pet’rs’ Pet. for Review, ECF No. 3-1 (Dec. 18, 2019).
`
`EPA’s decision represents the culmination of a statutorily mandated review
`
`process and gives rise to legal consequences affecting the rights and obligations of
`
`Petitioners and their members, among others. See generally Pet’rs’ Opp’n to Mot.
`
`to Dismiss, ECF No. 24. Thus, EPA’s decision is a reviewable final agency action,
`
`and this Court has jurisdiction to decide Petitioners’ challenge under 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1369(b)(1). See Am. Paper Inst. v. EPA, 660 F.2d 954, 956 (4th Cir. 1981)
`
`(explaining that 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) vests this Court “with the responsibility
`
`and authority for making a pre-enforcement examination of [ELGs]”). Jurisdiction
`
`is proper in this Court specifically because Petitioners Cape Fear River Watch,
`
`Rural Empowerment Association for Community Help, and Waterkeepers
`
`Chesapeake reside here. See 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 12 of 53
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
`
`1. Whether EPA’s decision to not revise ELGs and associated effluent
`
`limitations is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
`
`accordance with law, because EPA’s decision runs counter to the evidence before
`
`the Agency, and EPA did not provide a reasoned basis for its decision.
`
`2. Whether EPA’s decision to not promulgate pretreatment standards is
`
`arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance
`
`with law because EPA did not provide any basis for its decision, EPA entirely
`
`failed to consider an important aspect of the problem, and EPA’s decision runs
`
`counter to the evidence before the Agency.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`The Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”) requires EPA to establish
`
`increasingly stringent pollution limits for various categories of industrial polluters,
`
`based on advances in technology and according to set statutory schedules. Through
`
`these requirements, the Act ensures that industries use the most up-to-date and
`
`effective treatment technologies for reducing water pollution. EPA’s own evidence
`
`shows that the ELGs and effluent limitations lag behind the best technology
`
`available to polluters within the Meat and Poultry Products industrial point source
`
`category (“slaughterhouses”), many slaughterhouses already have reduced water
`
`pollution to levels well below EPA’s current standards, and a decision to impose
`
`industry-wide standards based on the pollution reductions attainable through the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 13 of 53
`
`
`
`use of today’s advanced technology would help to prevent the discharge of
`
`millions of pounds of harmful pollution into the nation's waterways streams each
`
`year. Despite this evidence, EPA has not updated ELGs and effluent limitations for
`
`slaughterhouses since at least 2004 and, for many slaughterhouses, since the mid-
`
`1970s. Meanwhile, EPA has never promulgated pretreatment standards for
`
`slaughterhouses that discharge wastewater through publicly owned treatment
`
`works (“POTWs”).
`
`In 2019, EPA decided it was not appropriate to revise ELGs and associated
`
`effluent limitations or to promulgate pretreatment standards for slaughterhouses.
`
`Petitioners Cape Fear River Watch, Rural Empowerment Association for
`
`Community Help, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Center
`
`for Biological Diversity, Comite Civico del Valle, Environment America, Food &
`
`Water Watch, The Humane Society of the United States, and Waterkeeper Alliance
`
`(collectively, “Citizen Groups”) promptly sought review of EPA’s decision in this
`
`Court. Because EPA’s decision violates the CWA’s unambiguous mandates,
`
`conflicts with EPA’s own evidence, and puts people and the environment at risk,
`
`Citizen Groups respectfully ask this Court to vacate that decision.
`
`I. WATER POLLUTION FROM SLAUGHTERHOUSES
`
`At slaughterhouses across the country, workers kill animals, process
`
`carcasses into meat, and render scraps into salable products such as tallow, lard,
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 14 of 53
`
`
`
`and meal. EPA, EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0014-2486, Technical Development
`
`Document (2004), at 1-2, 5-3 to 5-4 [JA__]. Slaughterhouses use large volumes of
`
`water to wash carcasses, rinse meat, and sanitize equipment and animal holding
`
`areas, generating wastewater with high levels of bacteria such as E. coli, various
`
`forms of nitrogen, and phosphorus, all of which come from cleaning solutions,
`
`urine and feces, and animal parts including blood, fat, and viscera. Id. at 6-1 to 6-
`
`18 [JA__]; EPA, DCN8763, Preliminary Plan 14 (2019), at 3-10 [JA__].
`
`Slaughterhouses dispose of polluted wastewater through one—or some
`
`combination—of three methods: (1) discharging directly into surface waters
`
`(“direct dischargers”), (2) sending their wastewater to POTWs for discharge into
`
`surface waters (“indirect dischargers”), or (3) spraying wastewater onto land.
`
`Technical Development Document, EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0014-2486, at 1-2, 16-3,
`
`16-5, 16-12 [JA__].
`
`Every year, slaughterhouses discharge between 12.5 and 16.5 million
`
`pounds of nitrogen and 2.84 million pounds of phosphorus, collectively known as
`
`nutrient pollution, into surface waters in the United States. Preliminary Plan 14,
`
`DCN8763, at 3-4 to 3-5 [JA__]. According to EPA, “[n]utrient pollution is one of
`
`the most widespread, costly, and challenging environmental problems impacting
`
`water quality in the United States.” Id. at 3-3 [JA__]. The Chesapeake Bay, the
`
`Gulf of Mexico, Long Island Sound, and Puget Sound are among our nation’s
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 15 of 53
`
`
`
`“particular[ly] importan[t],” iconic waterbodies imperiled by nutrient pollution.
`
`Water Environment Research Foundation (“WERF”), DCN8754, Striking the
`
`Balance Between Nutrient Removal in Wastewater Treatment and Sustainability
`
`(2011), at 2-1 [JA__] [hereinafter, “WERF Report”] (WERF is a nonprofit
`
`organization that funds and manages water quality research).
`
`EPA acknowledges that “[e]xcessive nitrogen and phosphorus in surface
`
`water can lead to a variety of problems, including . . . harmful algal blooms, with
`
`impacts on drinking water, recreation, and aquatic life.” EPA, Preliminary Plan 14,
`
`DCN8763, at 3-3 [JA__]. As described more fully below, Citizen Groups’
`
`members fear for their health as a result of nutrient and other pollution from
`
`slaughterhouses in the waterbodies they enjoy visiting and from which they draw
`
`drinking water. See, e.g., Decl. of Kathy Phillips ¶ 8 (sworn to on July 24, 2020)
`
`(“Phillips Decl.”) (“I am deeply concerned that exposure to pollution from
`
`slaughterhouses could threaten my health, and this concern has fundamentally
`
`changed how I interact with the water near my home.”); Decl. of Kemp Burdette ¶
`
`11 (sworn to on July 25, 2020) (“Burdette Decl.”) (“Along with over 300,000
`
`people living in Wilmington and the surrounding areas, including [Cape Fear River
`
`Watch (“CFRW”)] members, I drink water drawn from the Cape Fear River,
`
`downstream from [a slaughterhouse]. I am very concerned that my drinking water
`
`might be unsafe because of blue-green algal blooms in the river, and I know that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 16 of 53
`
`
`
`many CFRW members share these concerns.”); Decl. of Devon Hall ¶ 11 (sworn to
`
`on July 29, 2020) (“Hall Decl.”) (“I do not think that county water is any safer than
`
`well water; I am concerned that both water sources are contaminated with pollution
`
`from slaughterhouses and other industrial animal agriculture facilities.”). EPA
`
`itself has acknowledged that ammonia nitrogen can be toxic to fish and other
`
`aquatic organisms. Technical Development Document, EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0014-
`
`2486, at 7-10 to 7-11 [JA__].
`
`II. THE CLEAN WATER ACT
`
`The CWA sets a national goal of eliminating water pollution. 33 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1251(a)(1). In furtherance of this goal, the Act requires EPA to promulgate
`
`increasingly stringent pollution limits and pretreatment standards for certain
`
`classes and categories of industrial polluters and to revise these regulations to keep
`
`pace with advances in technology. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2), 1314(b), 1316,
`
`1317(b)–(c); see also Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. EPA, 920 F.3d 999, 1005 (5th Cir.
`
`2019) (explaining that the CWA is “‘technology-forcing,’ meaning it seeks to
`
`‘press development of new, more efficient and effective [pollution-control]
`
`technologies’” (alteration in original) (citing Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA,
`
`822 F.2d 104, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1987))). By mandating that EPA establish national
`
`minimum standards based on what is technologically achievable, the CWA
`
`guarantees “that similar point sources with similar characteristics” will achieve
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 17 of 53
`
`
`
`similar pollution-reduction targets, regardless of their location. Nat. Res. Def.
`
`Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 709–10 (D.C. Cir. 1974) (citation omitted).
`
`A. Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Associated Effluent
`Limitations
`
`For facilities that discharge pollutants directly into surface waters, Congress
`
`directed EPA to promulgate pollution limits in the form of national, industry-
`
`specific ELGs that then form the basis of specific effluent limitations included in
`
`individual wastewater discharge permits.1 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) (directing EPA to
`
`publish regulations establishing ELGs “[f]or the purpose of adopting or revising
`
`effluent limitations”); see id. § 1311; see also Tex. Oil & Gas Ass’n v. EPA, 161
`
`F.3d 923, 927 (5th Cir. 1998) (explaining that Congress designed the CWA to
`
`eliminate water pollution “through a system of effluent limitation guidelines”). In
`
`practice, EPA develops ELGs and effluent limitations simultaneously “through the
`
`same procedures . . . and in the same document.” Am. Frozen Food Inst. v. Train,
`
`539 F.2d 107, 131 (D.C. Cir. 1976).
`
`The CWA requires EPA to determine “at least annually” whether revisions
`
`to existing ELGs are appropriate. 33 U.S.C. § 1314(b). To revise ELGs, EPA first
`
`must determine the amount of pollution reduction attainable by a particular
`
`
`1 Effluent limitations are “restriction[s] . . . on [the] quantities, rates, and
`concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are
`discharged from [any discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance, such as a
`pipe] into navigable waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11); see id. § 1362(14).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 18 of 53
`
`
`
`industry through the application of appropriately advanced wastewater treatment
`
`technology. Id. § 1314(b)(1). Then, EPA must establish industry-specific minimum
`
`standards corresponding to the application of that technology. Id. § 1311(b)(2).
`
`Finally, permitting officials identify specific effluent limitations from EPA’s ELGs
`
`and incorporate those limitations into each facility’s wastewater discharge permit.
`
`Id. § 1342; see Waterkeeper All., Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d at 486, 491 (2d Cir. 2005)
`
`(“The specific effluent limitations contained in each individual . . . permit are
`
`dictated by the terms of more general [ELGs], which are separately promulgated
`
`by the EPA.”).
`
`To effectuate the CWA’s technology-forcing goal, ELGs for toxic and
`
`nonconventional pollutants such as total nitrogen and ammonia must reflect the
`
`“best available technology” or “BAT.”2 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(b)(2), 1314(b)(2); see
`
`Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at 1006 (explaining that “BAT . . . has applied to
`
`existing, direct discharges of toxic and non-conventional pollutants since March
`
`31, 1989.”). BAT must be based, at a minimum, “on the performance of the single
`
`best-performing plant in an industrial field.” Sw. Elec. Power Co., 920 F.3d at
`
`1006 (citing Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n v. EPA, 870 F.2d 177, 226 (5th Cir. 1989)); see
`
`
`2 EPA’s ELGs for slaughterhouses separately regulate ammonia and “total
`nitrogen,” which is the sum of the different forms of nitrogen—including total
`Kjedahl nitrogen (comprised of ammonia and organic nitrogen) plus nitrite and
`nitrate. See Technical Development Document, EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0014-2486 at
`7-21[JA__].
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 19 of 53
`
`
`
`also Kennecott v. EPA, 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985) (“In setting BAT, EPA
`
`uses not the average plant, but the optimally operating plant, the pilot plant which
`
`acts as a beacon to show what is possible.”). Under certain circumstances, EPA
`
`may identify BAT as a technology not yet in use in the industry. See Kennecott,
`
`780 F.2d at 453 (explaining that “Congress . . . asked EPA to survey related
`
`industries and current research to find technologies which might be used to
`
`decrease the discharge of pollutants,” because “[p]rogress would be slowed if EPA
`
`were invariably limited to treatment schemes already in force at the plants which
`
`are the subject of the rulemaking”). However it is derived, BAT must represent
`
`“the gold standard for controlling water pollution from existing sources.” Sw. Elec.
`
`Power Co., 920 F.3d at 1003.
`
`B. Pretreatment Standards
`
`Unlike direct dischargers, indirect dischargers send their wastewater to
`
`POTWs, which collect and treat wastewater from various sources before
`
`discharging it into surface waters. If indirect dischargers fail to apply appropriately
`
`advanced wastewater treatment technology, POTWs may be unable to treat their
`
`wastewater, resulting in excess discharge of pollutants. See Chem. Mfrs. Ass’n, 870
`
`F.2d at 197. EPA repeatedly has acknowledged that some POTWs are unable to
`
`treat ammonia and other pollutants in slaughterhouse wastewater. See, e.g., 67 Fed.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 20 of 53
`
`
`
`Reg. 64,216, 64,227 (Oct. 16, 2002) (explaining that some POTWs “do not have
`
`nitrification capability” necessary to treat ammonia).
`
`To limit pollution from indirect dischargers, Congress directed EPA to
`
`publish guidelines that control and prevent the discharge of “any pollutant which
`
`interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible with [POTWs].” 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1314(g)(1). EPA must review these guidelines “at least annually” and
`
`revise them if appropriate. Id. In addition, Congress mandated that EPA establish
`
`pretreatment standards applicable to particular industries and revise those standards
`
`“from time to time,” keeping pace with advancing technology.3 Id. § 1317(b)(1).
`
`III. EPA’s WATER POLLUTION STANDARDS FOR
`SLAUGHTERHOUSES
`
`Despite EPA’s statutory obligations to review pollution standards at least
`
`annually and revise them as appropriate, the Agency has promulgated or updated
`
`ELGs for slaughterhouses only three times—shortly after the CWA was enacted in
`
`1974 and 1975, and about 30 years later in 2004. See 39 Fed. Reg. 7,894 (Feb. 18,
`
`1974); 40 Fed. Reg. 902 (Jan. 3, 1975); 69 Fed. Reg. 54,476 (Sept. 8, 2004). In
`
`1974 and 1975, EPA established ELGs for various meat slaughterhouses.4 See 39
`
`
`3 For simplicity and convenience, Citizen Groups refer to pretreatment guidelines
`and pretreatment standards collectively as “pretreatment standards.”
`4 See 40 C.F.R. § 432.2(g) (defining “meat” as “products derived from the
`slaughter and processing of cattle, calves, hogs, sheep, and any meat that is not
`listed under the definition of poultry”); id. § 432.2(i) (defining “poultry” as
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`USCA4 Appeal: 19-2450 Doc: 40-1 Filed: 08/03/2020 Pg: 21 of 53
`
`
`
`Fed. Reg. 7,894; 40 Fed. Reg.