Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency
716 F.3d 667
D.C. Cir.2013Background
- EPA revised secondary lead smelting MACT standards in 2012 under CAA §112(d)(6) and §112(f)(2), tightening limits and requiring enclosure of fugitive sources.
- The rule reduced allowable emissions by 90% to 0.2 mg/dscm and targeted fugitive emissions from lead smelting.
- Industry and environmental petitioners filed petitions; RSR intervened both as a petitioner and as a respondent.
- Petitioners challenge whether EPA properly regulates elemental lead as a HAP under §112, among other arguments, and environmental petitioners argue MACT recalculation was required.
- The court denies or dismisses petitions in part, holding various challenges unpersuasive, outside review, or inadequately supported, and upholds most rule elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Elemental lead as a HAP challenged | Industry argues rule unlawfully regulates elemental lead as a HAP. | EPA regulates lead compounds, not elemental lead, and rule targets lead compounds and NAAQS alignment. | Petition denied; rule lawful under statute and case law. |
| PSD duplication argument | Industry contends regulation duplicative with PSD for lead elements. | PSD issues not addressed in this rulemaking; no jurisdiction over PSD here. | Claim dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. |
| Fugitive-emission estimates and standing | Industry challenges EPA’s fugitive emission methodology and reliance to justify enclosure. | Even if estimates are imperfect, record supports enclosure; petitioners lack standing. | Petitioners lack standing; no redressable injury shown. |
| CEMS requirement timing | Industry contends CEMS requirement premature and data unsupported for public comment. | Performance specifications pending; CEMS obligation deferred until then; comment opportunity forthcoming. | Rule not yet arbitrary or capricious; rejected as premature. |
| Cost consideration and MACT framework | Environmental petitioners claim EPA erred by considering cost in revising standards under §112(d)(6). | While §112(d)(6) has no cost language, cost may be considered where beyond-the-floor standards are set under §112(d)(2). | EPA properly allowed cost considerations given §112(d)(2) for beyond-the-floor standards. |
Key Cases Cited
- National Lime Association v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625 (D.C.Cir.2000) (no listing of elemental lead as a HAP; limits on listing criteria pollutants)
- Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, 255 F.3d 855 (D.C.Cir.2001) (MACT framework distinctions; floor vs beyond-the-floor standards)
- NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077 (D.C.Cir.2008) (limits on recalculation obligations under §112(d)(6) (dicta and holding))
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C.Cir.2004) (requires consideration of residual risks under §112(f)(2)(A) in some contexts)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 651 F.3d 112 (D.C.Cir.2011) (emphasizes reasonableness of agency’s judgment absent clear error)
- Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, 684 F.3d 102 (D.C.Cir.2012) (prudential standing and related concepts in APA challenges)
- United States v. Title Insurance & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 (U.S.1924) (historical stance on overlapping jurisdictional questions)