Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., No. 80-1607
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | STARR |
| Citation | 822 F.2d 104 |
| Parties | , 261 U.S.App.D.C. 372, 56 USLW 2017, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,043 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., American Wood Preservers Institute, Intervenors. |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-1607 |
Page 104
USLW 2017,
17 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,043
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., American Wood Preservers
Institute, Intervenors.
District of Columbia Circuit.
Decided June 30, 1987.
Page 106
Petition for Review of Orders of the Environmental Protection agency.
Theodore L. Garrett, Washington, D.C., William B. Ellis, Richmond, Va., James K. Jackson, Washington, D.C., Robert E. Holden, New Orleans, La., Kristy A. Nichaus, and Robert A. Emmett, with whom Michael K. Glenn, Washington, D.C., Gene W. Lafitte, George J. Domas, New Orleans, La., Ralph M. Mellom, Seth A. Goldberg, Washington, D.C., George W. House, Greensboro, N.C., Corinne A. Goldstein, Joseph M. Fisher, Michael B. Barr, Edwin H. Seeger, Carl B. Nelson, Jr., Washington, D.C., Robert J. Wise, Turner T. Smith, Jr., Richmond, Va., and Stark Ritchie, Washington, D.C., were on the joint brief for industry petitioners, American Petroleum Institute, et al. in Nos. 80-1607, et al.
Ronald J. Wilson and Roger S. Greene, with whom James Tayler Banks, Washington, D.C., were on the briefs for environmentalist petitioners, Natural Resources
Page 107
Defense Council, Inc. and Citizens for a Better Environment in Nos. 80-1607, et al.Lawrence R. Liebesman, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Ellen Siegler, and Karen M. Wardzinski, Attys., E.P.A. and Elliott P. Laws, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Alan W. Eckert, Senior Litigator, E.P.A. and Dean K. Dunsmore, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondents in Nos. 80-1607, et al.
Elizabeth Stein, Lloyd Guerci, Washington, D.C., Donald W. Stever, Jr., Stamford, Conn., Lee R. Tyner, David T. Buente, Jr., James W. Moorman, and Tony Z. Roisman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Mark D. Gordon, Richard G. Stoll, Jr., and Todd Gulick, Attys., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondents in Nos. 80-1607, et al.
Kristine L. Hall, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for the Environmental Defense Fund in Nos. 80-1607, et al.
John McN. Cramer, Pittsburgh, Pa., William C. Brashares, Thomas H. Truitt, Charles C. Abeles, David B. Weinberg, Greer S. Goldman, Charles M. Darling, IV, J. Patrick Berry, Stephen L. Teichler, Benjamin W. Boley, Michael S. Giannotto, Washington, D.C., Louis E. Tosi, Toledo, Ohio, and Julius J. Hollis, Detroit, Mich., entered appearances for industry petitioners in Nos. 80-1607, et al.
Thomas M. Lemberg and Leonard A. Miller, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioner, The Ferroalloys Ass'n, in No. 80-1723.
Bill Forcade, Chicago, Ill., entered an appearance for petitioners, Citizens for a Better Environment, et al., in No. 80-1740.
Kenneth A. Strassner entered an appearance for petitioner, Kimberly-Clark Corp., in No. 80-1809.
Joseph H. Price and Roger Strelow, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioner, Antex Fibers, Inc., in No. 80-1837.
Richard H. Caldwell, Houston, Tex., and Richard E. Powers, Jr., Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioners, American Petroleum Institute, et al., in Nos. 80-1875 and 80-1881.
William R. Weissman, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioners, Edison Elec. Institute, et al., in No. 80-1889.
John R. Quarles, Jr. and Kenneth A. Rubin, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioner, Stablex Corp., in No. 80-1909.
Peter J. Nickles, Charles H. Montange and Kenneth E. Carroll, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioners, Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp., et al., in No. 80-1914.
Walter G. Talarek, Reston, Va., entered an appearance for petitioner, American Wood Preservers Institute, in No. 80-1923.
James R. Walpole, Roberta L. Halladay, Washington, D.C., and John D. Fognani, Denver, Colo., entered appearances for petitioners, American Mining Congress, et al., in Nos. 80-1927 and 80-1987.
Edward H. Forgotson and Lisa Anderson, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioner, Texas Oil and Gas Corp., in No. 80-1929.
Jonathan Z. Cannon and Karl S. Bourdeau, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioner, Dow Chemical Co., in Nos. 80-1933 and 80-1984.
John B. Fahey, East Hartford, Conn., entered an appearance for petitioners, United Technologies Corp., et al., in No. 80-1966.
Louis E. Tosi, Toledo, Ohio, Julius J. Hollis and Leonard F. Charla, Detroit, Mich., entered appearances for petitioner, General Motors Corp., in Nos. 80-1970 and 81-1747.
Clare Dalton, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioners, Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n, et al., in No. 80-1975.
Robert V. Percival, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioner, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., in No. 80-1978.
R. Brooke Jackson and John D. Austin, Jr., Washington, D.C., entered appearances
Page 108
for petitioners, American Min. Congress, et al., in No. 80-1987.William L. Rosbe, Richmond, Va., entered an appearance for petitioner, Ford Motor Co., in No. 80-1989.
Norton F. Tennelle, Jr. and Lester Sotsky, Washington, D.C., entered appearances for petitioner, Amax, Inc., in No. 80-2002.
Blake A. Biles, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioner, Lubrizol Corp., in No. 80-2007.
Bill Forcade, Chicago, Ill., entered an appearance for petitioners, Citizens for a Better Environment, et al., in Nos. 80-2114 and 82-1563.
Alfred V.J. Prather, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioner, Kennecott Corp., in No. 80-2279.
George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., and J. Thomas Wolfe entered appearances for petitioners, Virginia Elec. & Power Co., et al., in No. 81-1569.
Robert E. Payne and David E. Evans, Richmond, Va., entered appearances for petitioners, American Paper Institute, et al., in No. 81-1573.
Arnold S. Block, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioners, American Petroleum Institute, et al., in Nos. 81-1577 and 81-1709.
Larry B. Feldcamp, Houston, Tex., entered an appearance for petitioner, Pennzoil Co., in No. 81-1708.
T.S. Ellis, III, Richmond, Va., entered an appearance for petitioner, Ford Motor Company, in No. 81-1748.
Daniel A. Masur, Pittsburgh, Pa., entered an appearance for petitioners, American Iron & Steel Institute, et al., in No. 85-1009.
Lewis T. Smoak, Greenville, S.C., entered an appearance for petitioner, American Textile Mfrs. Institute, Inc., in No. 85-1017.
Charles D. Ossola, Washington, D.C., entered an appearance for petitioner, National Coal Ass'n, in No. 85-1024.
Charles S. Mullen, Seattle, Wash., entered an appearance for petitioner, Wyckoff Co., in No. 85-1067.
Before ROBINSON, SCALIA, ** and STARR, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
STARR, Circuit Judge:
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 (1982). Under the Act, the discharge of any pollutant into the navigable waters of the United States is unlawful. Id. Sec. 1311(a). This basic rule admits of a critical exception--the discharge of pollutants is permitted if the source obtains and complies with a permit that limits the amounts and kinds of pollutants which can lawfully be discharged. Thus, the cornerstone of the Clean Water Act's pollution control scheme is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. See 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342 (1982).
The original regulations implementing the NPDES program were promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1972 and 1973. Prompted by its experience during the "first round" of permitting, as well as statutory changes wrought by the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, EPA comprehensively revised the NPDES regulations in 1979. 44 Fed.Reg. 32,854 (June 7, 1979). Petitions for review of these regulations were filed in this and other circuits by numerous challengers, including trade associations, corporations, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE). Eventually, all petitions for review of both sets of regulations were
Page 109
consolidated in this court. NRDC v. EPA, 673 F.2d 392 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied sub nom. Chemical Manufacturers Association v. EPA, 459 U.S. 879, 103 S.Ct. 175, 74 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982); Virginia Electric and Power Co. v. EPA, 655 F.2d 534 (4th Cir.1981). 1 At that time, the litigants identified about 55 issues under challenge. See Status Reports of Industry NPDES Petitioners, Respondents, and NRDC and CBE (filed Sept. 14, 1981).After almost two years of settlement negotiations, EPA and the industry representatives (Industry) entered into an NPDES Settlement Agreement (Agreement) (filed June 9, 1982) covering 27 of 47 issues raised by Industry's challenge. 2 In the wake of this development, our court remanded the record to the agency to permit implementation of the Agreement. Order (Aug. 6, 1982). After notice and comment, EPA promulgated final revisions to the NPDES regulations. 49 Fed.Reg. 37,997 (Sept. 26, 1984). By virtue of the Agreement, Industry signatories were free to renew their challenges to the extent that the final regulations were not substantially the same as or altered the meaning of the terms of the Agreement. Because the final regulations reflected various changes from the Agreement, another flurry of petitions for review, both new and amended, were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Part IV
...v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350-52 (1989); Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 129 (D.C. Cir 1987); Kitchen v. Federal Communications Commission, 464 F.2d 801, 802 (D.C. Cir. NRC's Proposed Concept of the ``Major Fede......
-
Nuclear power plants; licenses, certifications, and approvals,
...v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332, 350-52 (1989); Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 129 (D.C. Cir 1987); Kitchen v. Federal Communications Commission, 464 F.2d 801, 802 (D.C. Cir. NRC's Proposed Concept of the ``Major Fede......
-
Separate Parts In This Issue
Part III
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
...v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 US 332, 350-52 (1989); Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 129 (D.C. Cir 1987); Kitchen v. Federal Communications Commission, 464 F.2d 801, 802 (D.C. Cir. NRC's Concept of the ``Major Federal Action'......
-
Part III
...v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 US 332, 350-52 (1989); Natural Resources Defense Counsel v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 129 (D.C. Cir 1987); Kitchen v. Federal Communications Commission, 464 F.2d 801, 802 (D.C. Cir. NRC's Concept of the ``Major Federal Action'......
-
U.S. v. Weitzenhoff, Nos. 92-10105
...Compensation Programs, 938 F.2d 981, 983 (9th Cir.1991); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 122 (D.C.Cir.1987) (upholding bypass provision). We therefore reject appellants' interpretation of the bypass exception as authorizing thei......
-
Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 15-60821
...existing sources. By requiring BAT, the Act forces implementation of increasingly stringent pollution control methods. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 123 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (describing the Act as "technology-forcing"). We consider a challenge to the final rule brought by various environmental......
-
Natural Res. Def. Council v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, Docket Nos. 13–1745(L), 13–2393(CON), 13–2757(CON).
...is required to obtain and comply with a permit that limits the amounts and kinds of pollutants being discharged. See NRDC v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 108 (D.C.Cir.1987); see also Waterkeeper All., 399 F.3d at 498 (discharge allowed “where ... permits ensure that every discharge of pollutants will......
-
Sierra Club v. Powellton Coal Co., LLC, Civil Action No. 2:08-1363.
..."[t]he cornerstone of the Clean Water Act's pollution control scheme...." Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 822 F.2d 104, 108 The issuance of a NPDES permit does not authorize the recipient to pollute at will. All NPDES permits authorizing the discharge of polluta......
-
Permits and state permit programs
...in 1979. So many issues were raised that the court dealt with them in two massive opinions: Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , 822 F.2d at 104 and Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA , 859 F.2d at 156. he two opinions are a good primer in EPA’s NPDES regulations. 420 Water Poll......
-
Table of authorities
...527 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 Natu......
-
Inspections and information gathering
...demands or inspection necessary “to carry out the objective” of the CWA. § 308(a). In Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. v. EPA , 822 F.2d at 104, industrial petitioners challenged, as beyond the authority of the CWA, NPDES regulations requiring permit applicants to report a list of all......
-
Technology-based standards
...DEFENSE COUNCIL v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 1987 822 F.2d 104 Before ROBINSON, SCALIA and STARR, Circuit Judges. STARR, Circuit Judge: [he following is a portion of a much longer opinion addressing a m......