Mossville Environmental Action Now v. E.P.A., No. 02-1282.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
Writing for the CourtSentelle
Citation370 F.3d 1232
Docket NumberNo. 02-1282.
Decision Date18 June 2004
PartiesMOSSVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NOW and Sierra Club, Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents. Vinyl Institute, Inc., Intervenor.
370 F.3d 1232
MOSSVILLE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NOW and Sierra Club, Petitioners,
v.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents.
Vinyl Institute, Inc., Intervenor.
No. 02-1282.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued October 9, 2003.
Decided June 18, 2004.

Page 1233

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Page 1234

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency.

James S. Pew argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioners.

Brian H. Lynk, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were G. Scott Williams, Attorney, and Andrew G. Gordon, Attorney, Environmental Protection Agency. Christopher S. Vaden, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, entered an appearance.

Before: SENTELLE, RANDOLPH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE.

SENTELLE, Circuit Judge:


Petitioners Mossville Environmental Action Now and Sierra Club seek review of an Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") rule styled "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Polyvinyl Chloride and Copolymers Production." 67 Fed.Reg. 45,886 (July 10, 2002) ("the Part 63 NESHAP"). This rule, adopted pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act ("CAA"), set emission standards for PVC and Copolymer production facilities that mirrored EPA's previous rule, articulated at 41 Fed.Reg. 46,560 (Oct. 21, 1976); 40 C.F.R. Subpart F (§§ 61.60-61.71) ("the Part 61 NESHAP" or "the Part 61 standard"), because the EPA determined that the Part 61 NESHAP were the most stringent controls in the industry.

Petitioners contend that EPA has failed to meet the requirements of the CAA in setting various limits for vinyl chloride emission. They further contend that EPA erred in failing to set emission limits for all

Page 1235

of the other hazardous air pollutants ("HAPs") emitted during PVC production. Two of petitioners' arguments regarding vinyl chloride emissions limits have been waived, and we do not find meritorious their remaining challenges to those limits. We do, however, hold that EPA has failed properly to set emissions limits on other HAPs, as required by the CAA. The petition is therefore granted in part and denied in part.

I. Background
A. Statutory Background

This is the latest in a series of challenges to rulemakings establishing emission standards for HAPs in various industries under the 1990 revisions to the CAA. See, e.g., Northeast Md. Waste Disposal Auth. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 936 (D.C.Cir.2004) (per curiam) (municipal waste combustors); Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C.Cir.2004) (copper smelters); Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C.Cir.2001) (hazardous waste combustors); Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C.Cir.2000) (portland cement manufacturing facilities); Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (D.C.Cir.1999) (medical waste incinerators); Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791 (D.C.Cir.1998) (per curiam) (electric utility boilers).

Section 112 of the CAA was amended in 1990 to include a congressionally established list of HAPs. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(1). Vinyl chloride is included on that list. Id. The CAA directs the EPA to establish categories and subcategories of major sources that emit one or more of the enumerated HAPs. Id. § 7412(c). The statute further requires the EPA to issue technology-based emission standards, known as National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants ("NESHAP"), for those sources. There are essentially two steps in this process.

The CAA establishes a minimum required reduction-known as the maximum achievable control technology floor ("MACT floor"). The MACT floor for new sources "shall not be less stringent than the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the Administrator." Id. § 7412(d)(3). For existing sources:

Emission standards ... may be less stringent than standards for new sources in the same category or subcategory but shall not be less stringent, and may be more stringent than —

(B) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory for categories with fewer than 30 sources.

Id.

Once floor standards are established, the EPA determines if standards more stringent than those actually achieved by the best performing sources are possible. These standards must

require the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the hazardous air pollutants subject to this section (including a prohibition on such emissions, where achievable) that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is achievable for new or existing sources in the category or subcategory to which such emission standard applies[.]

Id. § 7412(d)(2). These are known as "beyond-the-floor" standards. In setting beyond-the-floor standards, the EPA is to "require the maximum degree of reduction

Page 1236

in emission of the hazardous air pollutant" that is achievable

through application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques including, but not limited to, measures which —

(A) reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials or other modifications,

(B) enclose systems or processes to eliminate emissions,

(C) collect, capture or treat such pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emissions point,

(D) are design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards (including requirements for operator training or certification) as provided in subsection (h) of this section, or

(E) are a combination of the above.

Id. The EPA must balance these considerations with other factors such as cost, non-air-quality health and environmental concerns, and energy implications. Id. This technology-based regime replaced an earlier risk-based regime that required EPA to regulate at a level that provided an ample margin of safety to protect the public.

Additionally, section 112(d)(1) requires the EPA to set emission standards for every HAP emitted from each category or subcategory of major sources. Id. § 7412(d)(1); see also Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 634 (D.C.Cir.2000) ("National Lime") (stating EPA has "the clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP").

B. Regulatory Background

Vinyl chloride, a gas that is highly toxic and a known human carcinogen, is the starting point for PVC and copolymer production. It is first pressurized and agitated in a reactor, resulting in polymerization. Once polymerized, vinyl chloride can be transformed into many diverse products, from latex paints to PVC piping. Vinyl chloride can enter the atmosphere in several ways during PVC production. The gas can escape to the atmosphere when equipment is opened for routine maintenance, either through leaks in the production system, or by being present in such low concentrations that it escapes through recovery systems in exhaust streams. This form of pollution is often referred to as "stack emissions" or "exhaust gasses." There is also some residual vinyl chloride in the PVC itself, know as residual vinyl chloride monomer ("RVCM"). RVCM is removed from the PVC through a process known as stripping. Stripping results in vinyl chloride emissions as well. Those emissions are often referred to as "process equipment emissions" or "RVCM emissions."

In 1976, prior to the 1990 implementation of technology-based standards, the EPA promulgated emission standards for vinyl chloride under the risk-based standard then in effect. 41 Fed. Reg. 46,560 (Oct. 21, 1976); 40 C.F.R. Subpart F (§§ 61.60-61.71) ("the Part 61 NESHAP"). Pertinent to this case, under the Part 61 standard EPA regulated exhaust gasses from the reactors of polyvinyl chloride plants at ten parts per million ("ppm") averaged over a three-hour period. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 61.64(a)(1). RVCM emissions were regulated at 2000 ppm per plant for PVC dispersion resins, excluding latex resins, 40 C.F.R. § 61.64(e)(1)(i), and 400 ppm per plant for all other PVC resins, averaged daily. Id. at § 61.64(e)(1)(ii).

When Congress amended the CAA in 1990, it required the EPA within ten years to review its emission standards to ensure compliance with the amended CAA. 42

Page 1237

U.S.C. § 7412(q)(1). Pursuant to this command, EPA addressed the Part 61 NESHAP in two separate rules. The first, known as the Hazardous Organic NESHAP ("HON Rule"), addresses and supersedes the Part 61 NESHAP as it relates to the production of ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride. 57 Fed. Reg. 31,576 (July 16, 1992); see 40 C.F.R. part 63, subparts F, G, and H (40 C.F.R. §§ 63.100-63.182). The HON Rule, however, explicitly excludes batch operations, such as PVC production, from its scope. 40 C.F.R. § 63.100(j)(4). Because batch operations were covered by the Part 61 NESHAP, another rulemaking was required to deal with the Part 61 NESHAP's application to batch operations, including PVC production. That rule is the Part 63 NESHAP at issue here.

To set the Part 63 standards, the EPA first determined that twenty-eight sources in the United States produce PVC and all are subject to the Part 61 NESHAP. 65 Fed. Reg. at 76,962/1. The EPA then considered state emission requirements and determined that the Part 61 NESHAP requirements, not state requirements, had the greatest influence on emission controls. The EPA further determined that no better technology was available than the Part 61 standard already required. Looking specifically at RVCM emission from PVC resins, the EPA recognized that while some states had more stringent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 practice notes
  • Oil and Natural Gas Sector:
    • United States
    • Federal Register August 23, 2011
    • August 23, 2011
    ...development of CAA section 112(d) standards, which, once promulgated, apply at all times. In Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004), the Court upheld as reasonable, standards that had factored in variability of emissions under all operating condition......
  • Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: Semi-annual agenda
    • United States
    • Federal Register April 30, 2007
    • April 30, 2007
    ...on July 10, 2002 (67 FR 45886), but were vacated by the DC Circuit on June 18, 2004, in Mossville Environmental Action v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (DC Cir. 2004). This action assures continuity of the parts of the standard that were upheld by the court, and addresses the component of these standa......
  • Natural Resources Defense Council v. E.P.A., No. 06-1045.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 10, 2009
    ...of the objection. Second, the comment did not make a mere "general [challenge] to EPA's approach," Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), but instead challenged application of a specific EPA policy......
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Nos. 11–1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 24, 2013
    ...42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) (emphasis added). The court has “ ‘strictly’ enforce[d] this requirement,” Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462 (D.C.Cir.1998)); see also Natural Res. Def. Council v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Natural Resources Defense Council v. E.P.A., No. 06-1045.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 10, 2009
    ...of the objection. Second, the comment did not make a mere "general [challenge] to EPA's approach," Mossville Envt'l Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C.Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted) (alteration in original), but instead challenged application of a specific EPA policy......
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Nos. 11–1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 24, 2013
    ...42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) (emphasis added). The court has “ ‘strictly’ enforce[d] this requirement,” Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462 (D.C.Cir.1998)); see also Natural Res. Def. Council v......
  • U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1108
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • July 29, 2016
    ...Rather, emissions levels fluctuate over time and for many reasons. See id. at 3.21 We have held, see Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA , 370 F.3d 1232, 1242 (D.C. Cir. 2004), and recently reaffirmed, see NACWA , 734 F.3d at 1133–34, that the EPA can consider this variability when setting M......
  • EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 11-1302
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • August 21, 2012
    ...42 U.S.C. § 7607(d)(7)(B) (emphasis added). The court has "'strictly' enforce[d] this requirement," Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (quoting Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass'n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 462 (D.C. Cir. 1998)); see also Natural Res. Def. Counci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Control of Hazardous Air Pollution
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...sources. he court in this decision was very critical of EPA’s rulemaking efort. 106. 353 F.3d 976, 34 ELR 20014 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 107. 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004). 108. 479 F.3d 875, 37 ELR 20064 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Page 160 Air Pollution Control and Climate Change Mitigation Law he court ......
  • Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 4th edition
    • February 20, 2018
    ...United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting in their revision. See, e.g., Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004), reh’g denied April 15, 2005 (holding that EPA failed to properly set emissions limits on hazardous air pollutants emitted d......
  • Human Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 3rd Edition
    • November 20, 2014
    ...United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting in their revision. See, e.g. , Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA , 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004), reh’g denied April 15, 2005 (holding that EPA failed to properly set emissions limits on hazardous air pollutants emitted......
  • Human right to a clean and healthy environment
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice - second edition
    • May 23, 2012
    ...United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), resulting in their revision. See, e.g. , Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA , 370 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 2004), reh’g denied April 15, 2005 (holding that EPAfailed to properly set emissions limits on hazardous air pollutants emitted ......

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