Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A.

Decision Date30 December 1988
Docket NumberNo. 80-1607,80-1607
Citation273 U.S.App.D.C. 180,859 F.2d 156
Parties, 273 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 57 USLW 2185, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,016 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., Petitioner, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents, Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, Edison Electric Institute, et al., Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co., et al., Tenneco Oil Company, et al., Atlantic Cement Company, Inc., et al., National Coal Association, General Motors Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Alabama Power Company, et al., Intervenors.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

Margaret N. Strand, Stephen L. Samuels, Attys., Dept. of Justice, and Pamela Savage, Atty., E.P.A., with whom Roger J. Marzulla, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Francis S. Blake, Gen. Counsel, E.P.A., Susan G. Lepow, Associate Gen. Counsel, E.P.A., and Ashley Doherty, Elliott P. Laws and Lawrence R. Liebesman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for respondents in Nos. 80-1607, et al. Michael Carlton and David T. Buente, Jr., Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondents.

Stark Ritchie, David Lindgren, James K. Jackson, Washington, D.C., Arnold S. Block, Philadelphia, Pa., Richard H. Caldwell, Houston, Tex., and Richard E. Powers, Jr., Washington, D.C., entered appearances for American Petroleum Institute, et al., petitioners in 80-1660, 80-1875, 80-1881, 81-1577, 81-1709 and 85-1010.

Thomas M. Lemberg and Leonard A. Miller, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for The Ferroalloys Ass'n, petitioner in 80-1723.

Roger S. Greene, Irvine, Cal., entered an appearance for Citizens for a Better Environment, etc., et al., in 80-1740, 80-2114 and 82-1563.

Leonard A. Miller and Kenneth A. Strassner, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Kimberly-Clark Corp., petitioner in No. 80-1809.

Joseph H. Price, Washington, D.C., and Roger Sterlow entered appearances for Avtex Fibers, Inc., petitioner in 80-1837.

William R. Weissman, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for Edison Elec. Institute, et al., petitioners in 80-1889.

John R. Quarles, Jr. and Kenneth A. Rubin, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Stablex Corp., petitioner in 80-1909.

Peter J. Nickles, Charles H. Montange and Kenneth E. Carroll, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp., et al., petitioners in 80-1914.

Walter G. Talarek and Seth Goldberg, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for American Wood Preservers Institute, petitioner in 80-1923, 85-1025 and 85-1128 and intervenor in 80-1607.

John N. Hanson, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for American Mining Congress, et al., petitioners in 80-1927.

Lisa Anderson, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for Texas Oil & Gas Corp., petitioner in 80-1929.

John W. Behringer, Jonathan Z. Cannon and Karl S. Bourdeau, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for The Dow Chemical Co., petitioner in 80-1933.

John B. Fahey, East Hartford, Conn., entered an appearance for United Technologies Corp., et al., petitioners in 80-1966.

Louis E. Tosi, Julius J. Hollis, Douglas G. Haynam and Leonard F. Charla, Detroit, Mich., entered appearances for General Motors Corp., petitioner in 80-1970, 81-1757 and intervenor in 80-1607.

John T. Smith, II and Clare Dalton, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Chemical Mfrs. Ass'n, et al., petitioners in 80-1975 and intervenors in 80-1978.

Khristine L. Hall and Robert V. Percival, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., petitioner in 80-1978 and intervenor in 80-1607.

John D. Fognani, Denver, Colo., and John D. Austin, Jr., Washington, D.C., entered appearances for American Min. Congress, et al., petitioners in 80-1987.

Norton F. Tennille, Jr. and Lester Sotsky, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Amax, Inc., petitioner in 80-2002.

Blake A. Biles, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for The Lubrizal Corp., petitioner in 80-2007.

Alfred V.J. Prather, Carl B. Nelson, Jr. and Edwin H. Seeger, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Kennecott Corp., petitioner in 80-2279 and 81-1574 and intervenor in 85-1019.

Robert E. Payne and David E. Evans, Richmond, Va., entered appearances for American Paper Institute, et al., petitioners in 81-1573 and intervenors in 80-1978.

John McN. Cramer and Daniel A. Masur, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for The American Iron & Steel Institute, et al., petitioners in 81-1576 and 85-1009 and intervenor in 80-1607.

Larry B. Feldcamp, Houston, Tex., Charles M. Darling, IV, J. Patrick Berry and Stephen Teichler, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Pennzoil Corp., petitioner in 81-1708.

T.S. Ellis III, Richmond, Va., entered an appearance for Ford Motor Co., petitioner in 81-1748.

Lewis T. Smoak, Greenville, S.C., entered an appearance for American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc., petitioner in 85-1017.

Charles D. Ossola, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for National Coal Ass'n, petitioner in 85-1024.

Charles S. Mullen, Seattle, Wash., entered an appearance for Wyckoff Co., petitioner in 85-1067.

William C. Brashares, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for National Solid Wastes Management Assoc., intervenor in 80-1607.

Charles M. Darling, IV, J. Patrick Berry and Stephen L. Teichler, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Tenneco Oil Co., et al., intervenors in 80-1607, 81-1575 and 81-1577.

George L. Edgar and Thomas A. Schmutz, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Project Management Corp., intervenor in 80-1607.

William R. Weissman, Thomas H. Truitt and Charles C. Abeles, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for Cincinnati Gas & Elec. Co., et al., intervenors in 80-1607.

George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., and William E. Anderson, II, Danville, Va., entered appearances for Virginia Elec. & Power Co., et al., intervenors in 81-1575 and 81-1577.

Kathleen M. Falk, Madison, Wis., entered an appearance for Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc., amicus curiae, in 80-1740.

Before ROBINSON, STARR and WILLIAMS, * Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                     Page
                   I.  Ripeness                                                       165
                  II.  The NEPARelated Regulations                                    167
                       A.  Permit Conditions Unrelated to Effluents--Ripeness         168
                       B.  Permit Conditions Unrelated to Effluents--Merits           168
                       C.  EffluentRelated Permit Conditions                          170
                       D.  Admissibility of Evidence in Permit Proceedings            171
                 III.  State Program Requirements                                     172
                       A.  Penalties and Participation--Ripeness                      173
                       B.  Penalties and Participation--Merits                        173
                            1.         Regulatory uniformity and state autonomy ..... 174
                            2.         Public participation ......................... 175
                            3.         Maximum penalties ............................ 178
                       C.  EPA Veto Authority--Ripeness                               181
                       D.  EPA Veto Authority--Merits                                 182
                  IV.  Toxicity Limitations                                           189
                       A.  Statutory Authority                                        189
                       B.  Technical Feasibility                                      189
                       C.  Intrusion on State Authority                               190
                       D.  Procedural Claims                                          190
                   V.  NonAdversary Panel Procedures                                  191
                       A.  The Merits of the Procedures                               192
                            1.         Oral testimony and cross examination ......... 192
                            2.         The panels' composition ...................... 193
                       B.  Defects in the Mode of Adoption                            194
                  VI.  The Antibacksliding Controversy                                195
                       A.  The NSPS Issue                                             196
                       B.  Attack on the BPJ Regulation--Ripeness                     196
                       C.  Attack on the BPJ Regulation--Merits                       197
                       D.  Application of the New WQA Rules                           204
                 VII.  Net/Gross Limits                                               204
                VIII.  Upset Defense                                                  205
                       A.  Ripeness                                                   205
                       B.  Merits                                                     206
                  IX.  APA Continuance                                                211
                       A.  Ripeness                                                   211
                       B.  Merits                                                     212
                            1.         Consistency with Clean Water Act scheme ......
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
101 cases
  • Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • March 13, 2020
    ...at 66973. Speculation cannot substantiate the USDA's assumption of bad faith by states here. See, e.g. , Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA , 859 F.2d 156, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (holding that agency speculation is "not adequate grounds upon which to sustain an agency's action").Third, USDA ......
  • Natural Res. Coun. of Me. v. International Paper, No. CV-05-109-B-W.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • March 28, 2006
    ...despite its expiration." (citing 40 C.F.R. § 122.6(a))). The background for this regulation is illuminated in Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C.Cir.1988). As of 1988, the EPA estimated there were more than 60,000 unprocessed renewal applications for NPDES permits.25 ......
  • St. Mary Med. Ctr. v. Becerra
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • January 20, 2022
    ...sufficiently central that agency silence would demonstrate the rulemaking to be arbitrary and capricious." National Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA , 859 F.2d 156, 188 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Plaintiffs have made no showing here that the Secretary's alleged silence on the particular points raised ......
  • Aulenback, Inc. v. Federal Highway Admin.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 3, 1997
    ...to indicate that petitioners face any "direct and immediate" sanctions under the terms of the Manual. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 166 (D.C.Cir.1988). A hardship may be shown when a litigant is forced to choose between risking serious sanctions and incurring......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • Is Administrative Summary Judgment Unlawful?
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 44 No. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...prejudiced thereby, adopt procedures for the submission of all or part of the evidence in written form.'"); Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 191 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (explaining that [section] 556(d) "explicitly exempts [initial licensing] from some elements of formal adjudication")......
  • Table of authorities
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1987).........348 Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156, 19 ELR 20016 (D.C. Cir. 1988) .................................................................................................. 411 Natural ......
  • Permits and state permit programs
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...limitations guidelines. EPA authority to promulgate the regulation was challenged in Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. EPA , 859 F.2d 156, 19 ELR 20016 (D.C. Cir. 1988). TECHNOLOGY-BASED TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS IN PERMITS 40 C.F.R. § 125.3 (2006) * * * (c) Methods of imposing technol......
  • Separate but equal: double jeopardy and environmental enforcement actions.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 28 No. 1, March 1998
    • March 22, 1998
    ...and which barred citizen suits from enforcing regulations broader in scope than the national program). (79) See, e.g., N.R.D.C. v. EPA, 859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. (80) See supra notes 11-17 and accompanying text (discussing how both the state and federal governments can prosecute permit violat......
  • 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