Sierra Club v. Costle

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Before ROBB, WALD and GINSBURG; ROBB; WALD; ROBB
• Citation: Sierra Club v. Costle, 657 F.2d 298, 211 U.S.App.D.C. 336 (D.C. Cir. 1981)
• Decision Date: 01 June 1981
• Docket Number: 80-1201,79-1874,Nos. 79-1565,80-1213 and 80-1338,79-1719,79-1867,80-1187,s. 79-1565
• Parties: , 211 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 11 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,455 SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent, National Coal Association, Alabama Power Company, et al., Intervenors.

Page 298

657 F.2d 298

15 ERC 2137, 211 U.S.App.D.C. 336, 11

Envtl. L. Rep. 20,455

SIERRA CLUB, Petitioner, v. Douglas M. COSTLE, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent National Coal Association, Alabama Power Company, et al., Intervenors.

Nos. 79-1565, 79-1719, 79-1867, 79-1874, 80-1187, 80-1201,

80-1213 and 80-1338.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued Sept. 22, 1980.

Decided April 29, 1981.

As Amended June 1, 1981.

Henry V. Nickel, Washington, D.C., with whom George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., Michael B. Barr, F. William Brownell, Washington, D.C., Louis E. Tosi and John Murtagh, Toledo, Ohio, were on the brief, for petitioners Appalachian Power Co., et al. in Nos. 79-1719 and 80-1187 and intervenor in Nos. 79-1867, 79-1874, 80-1201 and 80-1213.

Joseph J. Brecher, Oakland, Cal., for petitioner Sierra Club, Nos. 79-1565 and 80-1201 and intervenor in No. 79-1719.

William Butler, Washington, D.C., with whom Larry Martin Corcoran and David J. Lennett, Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for petitioner, Environmental Defense Fund in Nos. 79-1874 and 80-1213. Robert J. Rauch also entered an appearance for Environmental Defense Fund.

Mary E. Hackenbracht, Deputy Atty. Gen., State of California, San Francisco, Cal., was on the brief for petitioner, California Air Resources Bd. in Nos. 79-1867 and 80-1388.

Earl Salo, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, Charlotte Uram, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., with whom Angus MacBeth, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice and Todd M. Joseph, Deputy Associate Gen. Counsel, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for respondents. James Moorman and Mark Sussman, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for respondents.

Ridgway M. Hall, Jr., Washington, D.C., with whom John A. Macleod, Timothy M. Biddle and John T. Scott, III, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for intervenor, National Coal Ass'n in No. 79-1565.

George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va., Henry V. Nickel and Michael B. Barr, Washington, D.C., also entered appearances for intervenor, Alabama Power Co., et al. in No. 79-1565.

Page 309

Christopher S. Bond and Charles A. Blackmar, Jefferson City, Mo., also entered appearances for intervenor, Missouri Ass'n of Municipal Utilities in No. 79-1719.

                               Table of Contents
                                                                                           Page
                            I.                                                              312
                  INTRODUCTION
                                A. The Challenged Standards                                 312
                                B. The Parties                                              312
                                C. Background                                               313
                                D. Procedural History                                       314
                       II.  THE                                                              316
                      VARIABLE
                    PERCENTAGE
                     REDUCTION
                        OPTION
                                A. EPA's Authority Under Section 111 to Issue a Variable    318
                                  Standard
                                 1. The Statutory Language                                  318
                                 2. The Legislative History                                 319
                                B. The Reasonableness of EPA's Decision to Issue a          322
                                  Variable Standard
                                 1. Technical Background                                    323
                                 2. EPA's Explanation for the Variable Standard             325
                                  (a) The Factors Considered by EPA                         325
                                  (b) EPA's Regulatory Analysis                             326
                                  (c) EPA's Stated Rationale for the Variable Standard      327
                                 3. An Examination of EPA's Rationale for the Variable      328
                                  Standard
                                  (a) The Lengitimacy of EPA's Regulatory Analysis          329
                                   (1) EPA's Authority to Analyze Long Term National and    329
                                  Regional Impacts
                                   (2) The Reliability of EPA's Econometric Computer        332
                                  Model
                                  (b) The Reasonableness of EPA's Conclusions               336
                                   (1) The Reasonableness of EPA's Conclusion that          336
                                  Variable Control Reflects a Better Balance of the
                                  Section 111 Factors Than Uniform Control
                                   (2) The Reasonableness of EPA's Conclusion that          338
                                  Variable Control Promotes the Policies of the Act
                                C. The Dry Scrubbing Controversy                            340
                                 1. The Role of Dry Scrubbing Technology in EPA's           340
                                  Rationale for the Variable Standard
                                 2. The Legitimacy of Considering Emerging Technology in    346
                                  Setting Section 111 Standards
                                 3. The Adequacy of the Record for Dry Scrubbing's Role     352
                                  in EPA's Rationale
                                D. The Adequacy of Notice and the Opportunity to Comment    352
                                  on the Rationale for the Variable Standard
                   III.  THE 90                                                              356
                       PERCENT
                       REMOVAL
                      STANDARD
                                A. Notice As to the Basis of the 90 Percent Standard        356
                                 1. The Basis of the Final Standard                         356
                                 2. Notice that the Basis of the Standard Had Changed       358
                                  Since Proposal
                                B. The Achievability of the 90 Percent Standard             360
                                 1. The Support For EPA's Conclusions About FGD             360
                                  Performance
                                  (a) The Achievability of 92 Percent Long Term Removal     361
                                  Efficiency
                                  (b) The Reasonableness of EPA's Assumption About FGD      364
                                  Variability
                                 2. The Support for EPA's Conclusion that the 90 Percent    367
                                  Standard Was Achievable by the Use of Coal Washing in
                                  Conjunction with Scrubbing
                                  (a) Description of the Coal Washing Process               368
                                  (b) The Percentage Reduction Achieveable by Washing       369
                                  High Sulfer Coal
                       IV.  THE                                                              374
                  STANDARD FOR
                   EMISSION OF
                   PARTICULATE
                        MATTER
                                A. Technical Background                                     374
                                 1. ESP Control Technology                                  374
                                 2. Baghouse Control Technology                             375
                                B. The Evolution of the Particulate Standard                376
                                C. The Achievability of the Standard                        377
                                 1. EPA's ESP Data                                          377
                                 2. EPA's Baghouse Data                                     380
                    V. THE 1.2                                                              384
                     LBS./MBTU
                      EMISSION
                       CEILING
                                A. EPA's Rationale for the Emission Ceiling                 384
                                B. EDF's Procedural Attack                                  386
                                 1. Late Comments                                           387
                                 2. Meetings                                                387
                                C. Standard for Judicial Review of EPA Procedures           391
                                D. Statutory Provisions Concerning Procedure                392
                                E. Validity of EPA's Procedures During the the              396
                                  Post-Comment Period
                                 1. Written Comments Submitted During the Post-Comment      397
                                  Period
                                 2. Meetings Held with Individuals Outside EPA              400
                                  (a) Intra-Executive Branch Meetings                       404
                                  (b) Meetings Involving Alleged Congressional Pressure     408
                VI.  CONCLUSION                                                              410
                      APPENDIX                                                              411
                

Page 311

Before ROBB, WALD and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WALD.

Circuit Judge ROBB concurs in the result.

WALD, Circuit Judge:

This case concerns the extent to which new coal-fired steam generators that produce electricity must control their emissions of sulfur dioxide and particulate matter into the air. In June of 1979 EPA revised the regulations called "new source performance standards" ("NSPS" or "standards") governing emission control by coal burning power plants. On this appeal we consider challenges to the revised NSPS brought by environmental groups which contend that the standards are too lax and

Page 312

by electric utilities which contend that the standards are too rigorous. Together these petitioners present an array of statutory, substantive, and procedural grounds for overturning the challenged standards. For the reasons stated below, we hold that EPA did not exceed its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act ¹ in promulgating the NSPS, and we decline to set aside the standards.

I. INTRODUCTION

A. The Challenged Standards

The Clean Air Act provides for direct federal regulation of emissions from new stationary sources of air pollution by authorizing EPA to set performance standards for significant sources of air pollution which may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. ² In June 1979 EPA promulgated the NSPS involved in this case. ³ The new standards increase pollution controls for new coal-fired electric power plants ⁴ by tightening restrictions on emissions of...