ASARCO Inc. v. E.P.A.

Citation578 F.2d 319,188 U.S.App.D.C. 77
Decision Date28 February 1978
Docket NumberNos. 76-1030 and 76-1037,s. 76-1030 and 76-1037
Parties, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,164, 8 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,277 ASARCO INCORPORATED, Newmont Mining Corporation, and Magma Copper Company, Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent. SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents, ASARCO Incorporated, et al., Intervenors.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Petitions for Review of Regulations Promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Ralph J. Moore, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Frederick C. Schafrick, Washington, D. C., and Robert E. Denham, Los Angeles, Cal., were on the brief, for petitioners in No. 76-1030 and intervenors in No. 76-1037.

John D. Hoffman, San Francisco, Cal., with whom Ronald J. Wilson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for petitioner in No. 76-1037 and amicus curiae in No. 76-1030.

William L. Want, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., with whom Peter R. Taft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for respondents. Gerald K. Gleason, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for respondents.

Before WRIGHT, LEVENTHAL and MacKINNON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge J. SKELLY WRIGHT.

Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge LEVENTHAL.

Circuit Judge MacKINNON filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part on February 28, 1978.

J. SKELLY WRIGHT, Circuit Judge:

These cases involve challenges by ASARCO Incorporated, Newmont Mining Corporation, and Magma Copper Company (hereinafter referred to collectively as ASARCO) and the Sierra Club (Sierra) 1 to regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2 The challenged provisions modify previous regulations implementing Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-6 (1970 & Supp. V 1975), as amended, Pub.L.No. 95-95 § 109, 91 Stat. 685, 697-703 (1977), which mandates national emission standards for new stationary sources of air pollution, by introducing a limited form of what the parties call the "bubble concept." 3 This court has jurisdiction over these petitions under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1857h-5(b)(1) (1970 & Supp. V 1975), as amended, Pub.L.No. 95-95 § 305, 91 Stat. 772-777.

I
A. Section 111 and the "Bubble Concept"

The 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act 4 were passed in reaction to the failure of the states to cooperate with the federal government in effectuating the stated purposes of the Act, especially the commitment "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population." Clean Air Act § 101(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1857(b)(1) (1970). See generally W. Rogers, Environmental Law § 3.1 (1977). The 1970 changes were designed "to improve the quality of the nation's air," 84 Stat. 1676 (1970), by increasing the federal government's role in the battle against air pollution. Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S. 60, 64, 95 S.Ct. 1470, 43 L.Ed.2d 731 (1975). The amendments require the states to develop pollution control programs (State Implementation Plans or SIPs) that will keep the levels of given pollutants in the atmosphere below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) set by EPA. Clean Air Act §§ 109, 110, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1857c-4, 1857c-5 (1970 & Supp V 1975), as amended, Pub.L.No. 95-95 § 106-108, 91 Stat. 691-697. 5

In addition, the 1970 amendments added Section 111, which is the focus of this litigation. This section directs EPA to set specific and rigorous limits on the amounts of pollutants that may be emitted from any "new source" of air pollution. The New Source Performance Standards (NSPSs) established under Section 111 are designed to force new sources to employ the best demonstrated systems of emission reduction. 6 Since the NSPSs are likely to be stricter than emission standards under State Implementation Plans, plant operators have an incentive to avoid application of the NSPSs.

The basic controversy in the cases before us concerns the determination of the units to which the NSPSs apply. Under the Act the NSPSs apply to "new sources." A "new source" is defined as "any stationary source, the construction or modification of which" begins after the NSPS covering that type of source is published. Section 111(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-6(a)(2) (1970) (emphasis added). Further statutory definitions explain the terms used in this one. A " 'stationary source' means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant." Section 111(a) (3), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-6(a)(3) (1970). A " 'modification' means any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted." Section 111(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 1857c-6(a)(4) (1970). The statute thus directs that the NSPSs are to apply to any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant and which is either (1) newly constructed or (2) physically or operationally changed in such a way that its emission of any air pollutant increases. 7

The "bubble concept" is based on defining a stationary source as a combination of facilities, such as an entire plant, and applying the NSPSs only when a new plant is constructed or when an existing plant is physically or operationally changed in such a way that net emissions of any pollutant from the entire plant increase. If applied consistently, the bubble concept would allow the operator of an existing plant to avoid application of the strict NSPSs by offsetting any increase in pollution caused by a change in the plant (e.g., modification or replacement of an existing facility, or even addition of a new facility) against a decrease in pollution from other units within the plant as a whole.

B. History of the EPA Regulations

EPA's original regulations interpreting Section 111, promulgated in 1971, repeated the statutory definitions of "stationary source" and "modification" almost word for word 8 and did not contain any version of the "bubble concept." See 36 Fed.Reg. 24877 (1971), codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 60.2(d) & (h) (1975). EPA acknowledges in its brief that it originally "defined the term new source as 'an affected facility ' which in turn was defined as any apparatus to which a standard of performance is specifically applicable." Brief for EPA at 10 (emphasis added). Affected facilities, and thus new sources, were clearly not synonymous with entire plants. For example, the regulations setting the NSPSs for sources in portland cement plants identify the following "affected facilities" in such plants: "kiln, clinker cooler, raw mill system, finish mill system, raw mill dryer, raw material storage, clinker storage, finished product storage, conveyor transfer points, bagging and bulk loading and unloading systems." 40 C.F.R. § 60.60 (1975). 9

The "bubble concept" appeared first in proposals from the nonferrous smelting industry and the Department of Commerce (DOC) beginning in December 1972. 10 The industry and DOC urged that a stationary source be defined as an entire plant so that no "modifications" of the source would occur unless the total emissions of some pollutant from the plant increased.

In response to industry proposals and demands from DOC, EPA prepared draft regulations in May and July 1974 "clarifying" the previous regulations. 11 EPA made some concessions to the industry in these drafts, 12 but did not accept the industry's position that an entire plant should be defined as a single source. 13 EPA continued to resist the bubble concept in meetings with industry representatives, DOC, and the Office of Management and Budget through August 1974. See JA 8-9, 30-34.

Then, in September 1974, the agency again revised its position, making further concessions and proposing new regulations incorporating a limited version of the bubble concept. 14 After an additional concession further extending the bubble concept in response to a submission by DOC, 15 the proposed regulations were adopted by EPA. 16

The new regulations would classify an entire plant as a single stationary source by embellishing the statutory definition of a stationary source as follows:

"Stationary source" means any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant and which contains any one or combination of the following:

(1) Affected facilities.

(2) Existing facilities.

(3) Facilities of the type for which no standards have been promulgated in this part.

40 C.F.R. § 60.2(d) (1976) (emphasis added). The italicized language is not included in the statutory definition of "stationary source" ("any building, structure, facility, or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant"), nor was it included in the prior regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 60.2(d) (1975). Thus the present regulations, instead of limiting the definition of "stationary source" to one "facility" as the statute does, make it cover "any one or combination of" facilities. 17 The preamble to the new regulations makes it clear that the purpose of this change is to define a statutory source as an entire plant. 18 Relying on this new definition of a statutory source, EPA applies the bubble concept to allow a plant operator who alters an existing facility in a way that increases its emissions to avoid application of the NSPSs by decreasing emissions from other facilities within the plant. The regulations provide that "(a) modification shall not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 cases
  • Chevron Inc v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc American Iron and Steel Institute v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc Ruckelshaus v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 25, 1984
    ...... quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to earlier legislation, including the requirement that such ...v. Costle, 204 U.S.App.D.C. 51, 636 F.2d 323 (1979); ASARCO Inc. v. EPA, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 578 F.2d 319 (1978). . 7. Respondents ......
  • Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 76-1674
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • September 5, 1978
    ......§ 1311(b), authorizes EPA to issue two sets of industrial effluent limitation ... See generally Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415-17, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d ...275, 98 S.Ct. 566, 570 n.5, 54 L.Ed.2d 538 (1978); ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 83, 578 F.2d 319, 325 ......
  • Exxon Corp. v. F. T. C., KERR-M
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • December 19, 1978
    ......, nor could they after our decision in Ashland Oil, Inc. v. FTC, 179 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 548 F.2d 977 (1976), that ...g., ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 77, 578 F.2d 319 (1978) ......
  • Sierra Club v. Costle, s. 79-1565
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • June 1, 1981
    ...... REDUCTION. OPTION. A. EPA's Authority Under Section 111 to Issue a Variable 318. ..., DOE, NCA, EDF, Congressman Paul Simon's office, ICF, Inc. (who performed the microanalysis), and Hunton & Williams .... 44 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(2). . 45 Cf., Asarco, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 330-31 (D.C.Cir.1978) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
11 books & journal articles
  • (If) Things Fall Apart: Searching for Optimal Regulatory Solutions to Combating Climate Change Under Title I of the Existing CAA if Congressional Action Fails
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 40-9, September 2010
    • September 1, 2010
    ...focused on emissions coming from certain areas that interfere with other state’s attempts to achieve attainment. 198. ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 8 ELR 20164 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 199. Environmental Petitioners Brief, supra note 195, at *28-29; see also Environmental Petitioners Brief, s......
  • Interstate Air Pollution Control Using Economic-Based Air Pollution Controls
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...also was limited. EPA’s Emission Trading Policy focused on preventing transactions of ques- 10. 42 U.S.C. §§7470-7515, CAA §§160-193. 11. 578 F.2d 319, 8 ELR 20277 (D.C. Cir. 1978). 12. 606 F.2d 1068, 9 ELR 20400 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 13. 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 14. 685 F.2......
  • Administering the National Environmental Policy Act
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 45-4, April 2015
    • April 1, 2015
    ...to review administrative agency action. 22 So, the diferences between rejecting EPA’s interpretation. See ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 8 ELR 20164 (D.C. Cir. 1978); Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 10 ELR 20001 (D.C. Cir. 1979). 17. hen-Circuit Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s op......
  • Interring the Immigration Rule of Lenity
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 99, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...467 U.S. at 840. [175]Id. [176]Id. [177]See NRDC v. Gorsuch, 685 F.2d 718, 726 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quoting ASARCO, Inc. v. EPA, 578 F.2d 319, 327 (D.C. Cir. [178]Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842. [179]Id. at 842-43. [180]Id. at 843. [181]Id. [182] Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 231 (1974). [183]Chevro......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT