Document OJBajRpwQQ193n71r4mqem93K

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA CIRCUIT No. 85-1150 NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. Petitioner, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al. , Respondents Petition for Review of an Action of the Environmental Protection Agency REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER R&S 028954 September 3, 1985 DAVID D. DONIGER Natural Resources Defense Council 1350 New York Avenue, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 (202) 783-7800 Attorney for Petitioner i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.......................................................................................... .. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.............................................................................................. vi ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................1 I. THE ISSUE OF EPA'S LEGAL AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE COSTBENEFIT AND TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY TESTS WAS FULLY AIRED BELOW AND IS NOW PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT.................................................................................................................... 1 II. THE STATUTE, LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AND CASES ARE CLEAR THAT EPA MAY NOT CONSIDER ECONOMIC OR TECHNOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY WHEN SETTING STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 112.............................. .................................................... 10 . A. Nothing in Section 112 Can Be Construed to Authorize Cost-Benefit or Technological Feasibility Tests...........................................................................11 B. The Legislative History Fully Support the Statutory Preclusion of Economic and Technological Factors.............................................. C. All the Cases Confirm That Non-Health Factors May Not Be Considered........................ 17 23 III. D. Congress Has Not Ratified EPA's Interpretation.................................................................................. 26 THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS APPROPRIATE........................................ 33 CONCLUSION APPENDIX A R&S 028955 Ill R&S 028957 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont,) Page * Hercules, Inc. v, EPA, 194 U.S. App. D,C. 172, 398 F.2d 91 (D.C. Cir. 1978)..................................... 14, 16, 23, 25 Industrial Union Dep't v. American Petroleum Institute 448 U.S. 60 7 (1980)..""."....................................................................... 11, 24 * Lead Industries Ass'n v. EPA, 208 U.S. App. D.C. 1, 641 F.2d 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1980) , cert, denied 449 U.S. 1042 (1980)........................................................ 16, 20, 23, 25 Lor ion v. NRC, 712 F.2d 1472 (D.C. Cir. 1983)........................... 7 Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. Curran, 436 U.S. 353 (1982)........................................................................................ 32 * Montana v. Clark, 74 9 F.2d 740 (D.C. Cir. 1984).............9 , 10 Nader v. NRC, 513 F.2d 1045 (D.C. Cir. 1975)..............................8 National Ass'n of Demolition Contractors v. Costie, 565 F. 2d 748 (D.C. Cir. 1977)................................................................24 National Muffler Dlrs. Ass'n v. U.S. , 440 U.S. 472 (1979)............................................................................................................... 31 NLRB v. Bell Aerospace Co., 416 U.S. 267 (1974)................... 32 NRDC v. NRC, 666 F.2d 595 (D.C. Cir. 1981)............................... 10 Qljato Chapter of Navajo Tribe v. Train, 515 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1975)................................................................................................... 7 Quick v. Martin, 397 F.2d 644 (D.C. Cir. 1968)......................... 7 Safir v. Kreps, 551 F.2d 447 (D.C. Cir. 1977)........................... 1 Security Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors, 104 S.Ct. 2979 (1984).................................................................................... 26 SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103 (1978).......................................................32 * Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983), cert, denied 104 S.Ct. 3571 (1984).................................................... 34 * Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976).......... 11, 16, 23, 24, 25" United States v. Rutherford, 442 U.S. 544 (1979)................. 31 * Washington Ass'n for Television & Children v. FCC, 712 F.2d 677 (D.C. Cir. 1933)................................................. 1, 5 - iv - R&S 028958 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.) Page Weinberqer v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc./ 412 U.S. 645 (1973)"................................................................................................................ 7 Wilderness Society v. Morton, 479 F.2d 842 (D.C. Cir. 1973), cert, denied 411 U.S. 917 (1973)........................... 31 Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168 (1969).................................................31 FEDERAL STATUTES Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642 1977).....................................................................................................................passim Section 101, 42 U.S.C. 7401............................................................. 15 Section 109, 42 U.S.C. 7409........................................................... .29 Section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410............................................................. 29 Section 111, 42 U.S.C. 7411............................................................. 29 Section 112, 42 U.S.C. 7412..................................................passim Section 302, 42 U.S.C. 7602..................................................16, 17 Section 304, 42 U.S.C. 7604............................................................... 9 Section 307, 42 U.S.C. 7607............................................................... 9 Clean Water Act Section 307, 33 U.S.C. 1317.......................................................... 14 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND NOTICES 38 Fed. Reg. 8820 (1973)....................................................18, 22, 28, 29 40 Fed. Reg. 59532 (1975)................................................................................... 3 41 Fed. Reg. 46559 (1976)...................................................................................3 42 Fed. Reg. 28154 (1977)................................................................................... 3 49 Fed. Reg.8386 (1984)...................................................................................... 3 50 Fed. Reg. 1182 (1985)........................................................................ 15, 24 -V~ R&S 028959 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Cont.) Page LEGISLATIVE HISTORY Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 Reprinted in Senate Comm, on Public Works, A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 (1974)....................................................................... 18, 20, 21, 22 S. Rep. 1196, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970).............................18, 22 Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 Reprinted in Senate Comm, on Environment and Public Works, A Legislative History of the Clean Air Amendments of 1977 (1978).............................12, 13, 15 17, 27, 29, 30 H.R. Rep. No. 1175, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. (1976)...............29, 30 S. Rep. 127, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977)................... 12, 17, 27 H.R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977)...............15, 27 H.R. Rep. No. 564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977)........................ 13 MISCELLANEOUS Administrative Law Treatise, K. Davis, (2d ed. , 1979).............3 Comments of the Environmental Defense Fund on the Proposed Amendments to the Final Emission Standard for Vinyl Chloride (42 Fed. Reg. 28145, June 2, 1977).................................... 4 Hearings on Clean Air Act Amendments - 1975 before the Subcomm. on Health and the Environment of the House Comm, on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 94th Cong. 1st Sess. (1975).....................................................................................................32 Hearings on Implementation of the Clean Air Act - 1975 before the Subcomm. on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Comm, on Public Works, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975)............................................................................................................................ 32 Hearings on Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 before the Subcomm. on Health and the Environment of the House Comm, on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977).....................................................................................................32 Hearings on Clean Air Act Oversight before the Senate Comm, on Environment and Public Works (Part 3), 97th Cong., 1st Sess.(June 11, 1981).................................................................... 7 Hearings on EPA's Pollution Control Program before the Subcomm. on Oversight & Investigations of the House Comm, on Energy & Commerce, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. (Nov. 7, 1983)............................................................................................. 7 R&S 028960 - VI SUMMARY OP ARGUMENT NRDC's petition for review is not barred by the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies. The legal issue whether EPA has authority to consider economic or technological factors when setting standards under Section 112 was fully aired in the rulemaking below and is properly before this Court now. The issue was raised both by the Environmental. Protection Agency (EPA) itself and by the Environmental Defense Fund, This Court has repeatedly held that the purposes of the exhaustion doctrine are served, and the exhaustion requirement met, if another party or the agency itself raises an issue. NRDC has standing because it represents members living near vinyl chloride-emitting facilities who are injured in fact by EPA's refusal to issue the regulatory amendments proposed in 1977. The Clean Air Act establishes no more restrictive requirement. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this petition because it was timely filed within 60 days of the final action petitioners are seeking to have reviewed. Nothing in the statutory language supports EPA. Section 112(e), authorizing work practice standards in certain cases instead of numerical emission limits, grants no authority to consider feasibility when determining what is required to protect health with an ample margin of safety. Section 112(c)(1)(B), authorizing a two-year waiver for existing sources to install controls, is the statute's exclusive concession to feasibility concerns; it does not allow feasibility considerations to enter VI1 into the setting of the standard. There is absolutely no basis for the claim that the words "in his judgment" in Section 112(b)(1)(B) delegate to EPA the authority to define the legal meaning of the "ample margin of safety" test any way it sees fit. Finally, the statutory purpose cited here by EPA to justify feasibility considerations was cited by EPA to preclude the very same considerations in Lead Industries; EPA cannot have this both ways. The legislative history confirms that Congress intended standards to be based on health factors alone. A statement in the 1970 Senate Report that trace levels of two specific pollutants need not be curbed does not indicate a feasibility concern. Rather, the statement reflects the belief at the time that these pollutants exhibited threshold doses. For pollutants which are hazardous at any level, the bill provided for an emissions prohibition. That requirement was embodied in the final "ample margin of safety" test. Senator Muskie's authoritative post-conference summary states that for pollutants hazardous at any level there must be "no measurable emission" requirements even if plants have to be closed as a result. The cases confirm that standards must be based on public health considerations only. EPA claims that the four main cases NRDC relies on (Union Electric, American Textile Mfrs., Lead Industries, and Hercules) are simply examples of deference to agency interpretations will not hold water. Each of the cases firmly holds that the statutes require the holding reached. regardless of agency interpretations. EPA misreads National R&S 028961 - viii - Ass'n of Demolition Contractors . The feasibility issue was not presented in that case. The case holds only that EPA was not arbitrary when it refused an industry's request for further weakening of the asbestos standard. EPA's final plea for boundless deference, even to the extent of disregarding all of these cases, cannot be accepted without reducing judicial review to a meaningless rubber stamp. Congress did not ratify EPA's interpretation. EPA admits there is no discussion of the feasibility issue in the 1977 legislative history pertinent to Section 112. EPA merely asks the Court to "assume" that Congress knew of and approved of the Agency's interpretation. In the effort to give any basis for such an assumption, however, EPA badly distorts its actions regarding asbestos in 1973 and Congress's statements regarding vinyl chloride in 1976. The fact is the 1976 committee report relied on by EPA explicitly abstains from any endorsement of EPA's interpretation. Without indication that an agency's view has been brought home to Congress (and not merely to a single subcommittee) and without some indication of congressional approval, ratifications by reenactment cannot occur. EPA makes the ridiculous argument that it is not enough for a petitioner to show that an agency decision was fundamentally compromised by a legally impermissible factor. Rather, EPA asserts the petitioner must prove the decision would be different if it had been made in accordance with law. This is an absurd proposition of law. Moreover, in this case it is obvious that the decision would have been different; the only bases given for R&S 028962