Natural Resources Defense Council v. E.P.A.
| Citation | 489 F.3d 1250 |
| Decision Date | 08 June 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 05-1434.,No. 06-1065.,No. 05-1302.,No. 04-1385.,No. 04-1386.,04-1385.,04-1386.,05-1302.,05-1434.,06-1065. |
| Parties | NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, Sierra Club, Environmental Integrity Project, Petitioners v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration et al; Utility Air Regulatory Group; Utility Solid Waster Activities Group et al., Intervenors American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc.; City of Dover, Ohio; City of Hamilton, Ohio; City of Orville, Ohio; City of Painesville, Ohio, City of Shelby, Ohio; City of St. Marys, Ohio, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent Natural Resources Defense Council; Environmental Integrity Project, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency and Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents Louisiana Environmental Action Network; Sierra Club, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent Utility Solid Waster Activities Group et al., Intervenors Natural Resources Defense Council; Sierra Club; Environmental Integrity Project, Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency; Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondents |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
Pamela S. Tonglao, Norman L. Rave, Jr. and Catherine M. Wannamaker, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for the respondents. Brian L. Doster, Counsel, United States Environmental Protection Agency, was on brief. Michele L. Walter, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, entered an appearance.
Douglas H. Green argued the cause for intervenors Utility Solid Waste Activities Group et al. in support of the respondents. James R. Rathvon and Aaron J. Wallisch were on brief. Richard S. Wasserstrom entered an appearance.
Claudia M. O'Brien argued the cause for the Industry Intervenors in support of the respondents. Cassandra Sturkie and Ronald A. Shipley were on brief. Craig S. Harrison, Lee B. Zeugin, Leslie A. Hulse and William F. Lane entered appearances.
Marc D. Machlin and Charles H. Carpenter were on brief for amicus curiae Rubber Manufacturers Association in support of the respondents.
Scott H. Segal was on brief for amicus curiae American Boiler Manufacturers Association in support of the respondents.
Before: HENDERSON, RANDOLPH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON.
We address in this proceeding five petitions seeking review of two separate rules promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): (1) the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 69 Fed.Reg. 55,218 (Sept. 13, 2004), as amended on recons., 70 Fed.Reg. 76,918 (Dec. 28, 2005), (Boilers Rule), promulgated pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7412; and (2) the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 70 Fed.Reg. 55,568 (Sept. 22, 2005) (CISWI Definitions Rule), Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emissions Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 65 Fed.Reg. 75,338 (Dec. 1, 2000) (CISWI Rule), promulgated pursuant to CAA section 129, 42 U.S.C. § 7429. Four environmental organizations—the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (collectively, Environmental Petitioners)—challenge the CISWI Definitions Rule on the ground that its narrow definition of "commercial or industrial waste" contradicts the plain language of CAA section 129 and therefore impermissibly constricts the class of "solid waste incineration unit[s]" that are subject to the emission standards of the CISWI Rule. The Environmental Petitioners also challenge specific emission standards that EPA promulgated in the Boilers Rule and EPA's methodology for setting them. A second set of petitioners—the American Municipal Power-Ohio, Inc. and six of its members, the cities of Dover, Hamilton, Orrville, Painesville, Shelby and St. Mary's, (collectively, Municipal Petitioners)—challenges the Boilers Rule on the grounds that EPA failed to comply with the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 et seq., and that the standards as applied to small municipal utilities are unlawful. For the reasons set out below, we conclude that EPA's definition of "commercial or industrial waste," as incorporated in the definition of "commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit" (CISWI unit), is inconsistent with the plain language of section 129 and that the CISWI Definitions Rule must therefore be vacated. We further conclude that, because the Boilers Rule must be substantially revised as a consequence of our vacatur and remand of the CISWI Definitions Rule, the Boilers Rule as well must be vacated.
We first set out the statutory and regulatory background of the two challenged rules.
CAA section 112 requires EPA to set a national emission standard for each category or subcategory of "major sources" of "hazardous air pollutant" (HAP) emissions, 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(1), that is, of stationary sources that emit (or have potential to emit) "10 tons per year or more of any [HAP] or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of [HAPs]," id. § 7412(a)(1).1 Section 112, as in effect until 1990, directed the EPA Administrator to "establish any such standard at the level which in his judgment provides an ample margin of safety to protect the public health from such hazardous air pollutant." 42 U.S.C. § 7412(b)(1)(B) (1990). In 1990, the Congress amended section 112 to require technology-based standards in place of the previous risked-based standards. Clean Air Act Amendments, Pub.L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399 (1990). Under the 1990 CAA Amendments, EPA sets emission standards based on the "maximum achievable control technology" or "MACT" in a two-step process.
First, EPA identifies a MACT floor for each pollutant and source category. For "new sources" of HAP emissions, the MACT floor is "the emission control that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source, as determined by the [EPA] Administrator"; for "existing sources," the MACT floor is "the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources" or, if there are fewer than 30 sources, "the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources." 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). In the second step of the process, EPA selects as its technology-based standard either the applicable MACT floor identified in the first stage or a "beyond the floor" limitation more stringent than the MACT if such a standard is "achievable" in light of costs and other factors and methods listed in section 7412(d)(2). See generally Cement Kiln Recycling Coal. v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855, 857-58 (D.C.Cir.2001) (per curiam) (); Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 628-29 (D.C.Cir.2000) ().
On September 13, 2004, EPA issued the Boilers Rule, which identified 18 subcategories of boilers emitting four different types of HAPs. See 69 Fed.Reg. at 55,223-24. EPA set out to establish the MACT floor for each subcategory emitting each HAP according to the effectiveness of various add-on technologies. See 68 Fed.Reg. 1660, 1674 (Jan. 13, 2003) (proposed rule). Applying this methodology, EPA set 25 numerical emission standards. For the remaining 47 boiler subcategory/HAP emissions, EPA determined that the appropriate MACT floor was "no emissions reduction" because "the best-performing sources were not achieving emissions reductions through the use of an emission control system and there were no other appropriate methods by which boilers and process heaters could reduce HAP emissions." 69 Fed.Reg. at 55,233. Accordingly, EPA adopted a "no control" standard, id., and, in addition, it set risk-based standards, also known as health-based...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. Sugar Corp. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...which the Congress included on its initial section 7412 list, see id. § 7429(a)(4); see also Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA (NRDC I) , 489 F.3d 1250, 1256 (D.C. Cir. 2007). We have held that this difference “makes promulgating ... standards under [section 7412 ] and [section 7429 ] mutually ......
-
Firearms Import/Export Roundtable Trade Grp. v. Jones
...v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 885 (D.C.Cir.2006) (internal citations omitted).19 It is “usually understood to be all inclusive.” Natural Res. Def. Council, 489 F.3d at 1257 (citing Fin. Planning Ass'n v. SEC, 482 F.3d 481, 488 (D.C.Cir.2007)). Applying this basic meaning to section 925(d)(3)'s text......
-
Sierra Club v. Wheeler
...v. Pruitt , 241 F.Supp.3d 199, 200 (D.D.C. 2017) ).The 1990 amendments added Section 129 to the CAA. Nat. Res. Def. Council ("NRDC") v. EPA , 489 F.3d 1250, 1255 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Section 129 provides that the Administrator of EPA (the "Administrator") "shall establish performance standards......
-
North Carolina v. E.P.A.
...save a rule when its fundamental flaws "foreclose EPA from promulgating the same standards on remand," Natural Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1261-62 (D.C.Cir.2007). We must vacate CAIR because very little will "survive[ ] remand in anything approaching recognizable form." Id. at ......
-
Is Your Combustion Unit A Boiler Or An Incinerator? - EPA Finalizes NHSM Rule
...interpretation and vacated both the 2005 CISWI Definitions Rule and the 2004 Boiler MACT Rule. Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250, 1257–61 (D.C. Cir. 2007). In 2011, the D.C. Circuit also vacated part of the Portland Cement MACT, because EPA had placed some cement kiln......
-
On A Tightrope Over Sludge: EPA Re-Revises Its Waste Rules Regarding Biomass And Other Alternative Fuels
...could not be a solid waste incinerator, even if it burned material characterized as industrial or commercial waste. In NRDC v. EPA, 489 F. 3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007) the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down this approach, holding that the EPA could not ignore the specific la......
-
Control of Hazardous Air Pollution
...Cook, EPA Plans Mercury Rules for Power Plants, Moves to Withdraw Supreme Court Petition, 40 Env’t Rep. (BNA) 317 (Feb. 20, 2009). 109. 489 F.3d 1250, 37 ELR 20135 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 110. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional B......
-
Specific Facility Standards
...Cir. 2007). 91. Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 37 ELR 20064 (D.C. Cir. 2007). 92. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 37 ELR 20135 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (consolidated case that vacated EPA’s MACT standards for industrial boilers and process heaters and commercial in......
-
Reasoned Explanation and Political Accountability in the Roberts Court.
...Randolph, J.). But see Bagley, supra note 100, at 309; Levin, supra note 260, at 309-15. (263.) See, e.g., Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, 1262-64 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (Randolph, J., concurring); Kristina Daugirdas, Evaluating Remand Without Vacatur: A New Judicial Remedy for Defe......
-
Texas Register, Volume 38, Number 33. August 16, 2013
...2006, amendments clarified certain definitions. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, June 8, 2007, vacated and remanded the provisions of the Boiler MACT, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD, published September 13, 2004 (69 FR 552......
-
Texas Register, Volume 38, Number 11. March 15, 2013
...2006, amendments clarified certain definitions. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250, June 8, 2007, vacated and remanded the provisions of the Boiler MACT, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart DDDDD, published September 13, 2004 (69 FR 552......