Montana Sulphur & Chemical Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
666 F.3d 1174
9th Cir.2012Background
- Montana Sulphur seeks review of EPA's 2002 SIP disapproval for Montana's SO2 SIP revisions and the 2008 FIP addressing gaps.
- EPA SIP Call (1993) alleged Montana SIP substantially inadequate to attain/maintain NAAQS for SO2 and requested revisions within 18 months.
- Montana's revised SIP was largely approved in 2002 but with substantial disapprovals (stack height credits, flare emissions, auxiliary/30-meter stacks).
- EPA-based stack height credits relied on NSPS and Good Engineering Practice limits; Montana claimed higher within-formula credits were valid.
- EPA promulgated a FIP (2008) to fill SIP gaps, imposing fixed limits on flares, monitoring, and, for some sources, affirmative defense for unusual events; EPA maintained authority despite timeliness dispute.
- Montana challenged the EPA's authority, modeling reliance, and specifics of limits/monitoring; the court upheld EPA actions as not arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SIP Call was within EPA authority | Montana asserts SIP Call was improper given no monitored violations. | EPA acted within authority; modeling and risk justified action. | EPA authority affirmed; SIP Call valid. |
| Whether modeling can support SIP disapproval in lieu of monitoring data | Montana argues modeling assumptions misrepresent reality; reliance on models invalid. | EPA may rely on modeling where monitors are sparse; modeling supported by statute and precedent. | EPA's reliance on modeling consistent with statutory framework; not arbitrary. |
| Whether EPA properly disallowed Montana's stack-height credits | Montana argues higher stack credits (above formula) were justified, including NSPS-based modeling | NSPS-based, within-formula, and ambient standards interpretations support 65m de minimis credit. | EPA did not act arbitrarily; stack-height determinations upheld. |
| Whether the SIP disapproval of flare emissions was rational | Montana claims no numeric flare limits were feasible or required. | Flare limits necessary for attainment; modeling showed emissions impact; enforcement defenses permitted. | Disapproval rational; numeric flare limits required for attainment. |
| Whether the FIP's timeliness and flare-monitoring requirements were lawful | EPA failed to issue FIP within two-year deadline; monitoring tech infeasible. | Deadline not jurisdictional; affirmative defenses and monitoring revisions reasonable; model-based limits proper. | Timeliness not jurisdictional; FIP and monitoring provisions upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greater Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v. EPA, 879 F.2d 1379 (6th Cir.1989) (ripeness and final agency action concerns in SIP processes)
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (1967) (ripeness and judicial review concerns)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) (statutory review and agency action deference principles)
- Union Elec. Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976) (state-federal balance and regulatory authority under Clean Air Act)
- Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (stack height and modeling judgments with regard to excess emissions)
- Northern Plains Res. Council v. EPA, 645 F.2d 1349 (9th Cir.1981) (modeling validity and factual data on air quality projections)
- Thomas v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Cir.1988) (agency discretion in stack height and NSPS considerations)
- Mich. Dep't of Envtl. Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th Cir.2000) (SSM exemptions and continuous emission requirements)