Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/749/549/359396/
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 14:49:31
Document Index: 780897744

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1251', '§ 1342', '§ 1314', '§ 1369', '§ 1311', '§ 1362', '§ 554']

Trustees for Alaska and Gilbert M. Zemansky, Petitioners, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent,alaska Miners Association, Inc., Intervenor.alaska Miners Association, Inc., Petitioner, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent,trustees for Alaska, et al., Intervenors, 749 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1984) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Ninth Circuit › 1984 › Trustees for Alaska and Gilbert M. Zemansky, Petitioners, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respon...
Trustees for Alaska and Gilbert M. Zemansky, Petitioners, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent,alaska Miners Association, Inc., Intervenor.alaska Miners Association, Inc., Petitioner, v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent,trustees for Alaska, et al., Intervenors, 749 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1984)
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 749 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1984) Argued and Submitted Aug. 21, 1984. Decided Dec. 10, 1984
Numerous opinions construing the statute have traced the history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act) and its amendments, e.g., EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 202-09, 96 S. Ct. 2022, 2023-26, 48 L. Ed. 2d 578 (1976); Montgomery Environmental Coalition v. Costle, 646 F.2d 568 (D.C. Cir. 1980). We thus review its provisions only briefly. In 1972, Congress enacted amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Pub. L. No. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1376, declaring the "national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985," Sec. 1251(a) (1). The Act established a comprehensive scheme for federal regulation of water pollution, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, as a means of achieving and enforcing effluent limitations. Under the NPDES, it is unlawful to discharge a pollutant without obtaining a permit and complying with its terms. Sec. 1311(a). For permits issued before July 1, 1977, as were those in this case, the Act requires limitations based on application of the "best practicable control technology currently available" (BPT), Sec. 1311(b) (1) (A). By July 1, 1984, the Act requires industry to achieve effluent limitations for specified pollutants based on the application of the more stringent "best available technology economically achievable" (BAT), Sec. 1311(b) (2) (A). With regard to other pollutants identified pursuant to Sec. 1314(b) (4), effluent limitations after July 1, 1984 require application of the best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT), Sec. 1311(b) (2) (E).
No industry-wide, nationally applicable effluent limitations have yet been promulgated for the placer mining industry. However, the Act authorizes the EPA to issue permits on a case-by-case basis upon "such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this [Act]." 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a) (1). In making this determination, the Agency must consider:
33 U.S.C. § 1314(b) (1) (B).
The petitioners are not themselves permittees; thus, their standing to bring this suit is a threshold inquiry. The Act broadly states that any "interested person" can seek review in the court of appeals of certain decisions of the Administrator. 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b) (1). In its well reasoned opinion in Montgomery Environmental Coalition, 646 F.2d at 578, the D.C. Circuit held that the term "interested persons" incorporates the injury-in-fact rule for standing set out in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 92 S. Ct. 1361, 31 L. Ed. 2d 636 (1972). That rule requires that a person seeking review must allege facts showing that he or she is adversely affected by the challenged action. Such injury may be to one's " [a]esthetic and environmental well-being," id. at 734, 92 S. Ct. at 1365, as well as to one's economic interest. We adopt the analysis of Montgomery Environmental Coalition, and conclude that Zemansky, the Trustees, and the Miners have satisfied the requirement for standing. All were properly joined as parties to the administrative proceedings pursuant to former 40 C.F.R. Sec. 125.36 (1978).
The petitioners have sought this court's jurisdiction under Sec. 1369(b), which provides for review in the court of appeals of specified actions of the Administrator, including issuing permits. However, the challenged permits, issued in 1976 and 1977 for a period of five years, have expired by their own terms. Thus, a second threshold question arises whether the petitioners have presented a live controversy; federal courts have no jurisdiction to decide moot questions. DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316, 94 S. Ct. 1704, 1705, 40 L. Ed. 2d 164 (1974) (per curiam).
In Montgomery Environmental Coalition, 646 F.2d 568 (D.C. Cir. 1981), the court considered the issue of the mootness of challenges to expired NPDES permits. The court noted that because a controversy concerning an initial permit may continue in the context of succeeding permits, the courts may decide issues that are technically moot, but "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Id. at 579 (quoting Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U.S. 498, 515, 31 S. Ct. 279, 283, 55 L. Ed. 310 (1911)). This exception to the mootness doctrine applies when:
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149, 96 S. Ct. 347, 348, 46 L. Ed. 2d 350 (1975) (per curiam). In this case, the delays were inordinate; the 1976 permits were issued for a term of five years, but did not become final actions of the Administrator for purposes of judicial review until late in 1983. Subsequent permits have been issued for shorter terms. If EPA administrative review procedures continue to be too slow to bring a permit challenge to maturity before the permit expires, the petitioners may never obtain judicial review. Cf. Montgomery Environmental Coalition, 646 F.2d at 581 (detailing the "sorry history" of procedural delay in a challenge to NPDES permits). Thus, we hold that the first condition for the exception to apply is met.
40 C.F.R. Sec. 124.85(a) (1) (1983). Even if the presiding officer erred by failing to apply this regulation during the 1981 hearings on remand, the Trustees and the EPA now agree that the regulation provides the controlling legal principle. Thus, there is little danger that the principle will be misapplied in the future. This aspect of the Trustees' challenge is moot. See Montgomery Environmental Coalition, 646 F.2d at 583.
The Trustees contend that the presiding officer erred by finding that use of settling ponds rather than recycling was BPT. The situation has now changed with respect to the statutory requirements. As of July 1, 1984, more stringent technological standards of BAT and BCT govern effluent discharge, Sec. 1311(b) (2) (A) and (E); BPT is no longer the controlling standard.
Under Sec. 1311(b) (1) (C), the EPA must adopt any limitation that has been established under state or federal law, or that is necessary to implement the Act's water quality standards, if the limitation is more stringent than existing limitations. The Trustees charge that despite the EPA's statutory duty and the express instructions of the Administrator's remand order, the presiding officer failed to establish effluent limitations for total suspended solids or for turbidity, arsenic, and mercury.
This issue is not moot. In subsequent permits issued in 1983 and 1984 the EPA has continued to include limitations based on state water quality standards, rather than effluent limitations, not only for turbidity but also for arsenic. In Montgomery Environmental Coalition, 646 F.2d at 580-81, the EPA had adopted the flat position that it was not legally bound to impose certain NPDES permit conditions. The court held that the EPA's categorical legal stance amounted to a "continuing and brooding presence, cast [ing] what may well be a substantial adverse effect on the interests of the petitioning parties." Id. (quoting Super Tire Engineering Co. v. McCorkle, 416 U.S. 115, 122, 94 S. Ct. 1694, 1698, 40 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1974)). In such circumstances, the fact that the original permit had expired was held to be irrelevant because of the "highly reasonable expectation that petitioners will be subjected to the same action again." Montgomery Environmental Coalition, 646 F.2d at 581.
In order to carry out the objective of this chapter, there shall be achieved ... (C) not later than July 1, 1977, any more stringent limitation, including those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment standards, or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to any State law or regulations ... or any other Federal law or regulation, or required to implement any applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this chapter.
33 U.S.C. § 1311(b) (1) (C).
The Act defines "effluent limitation" as "any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources ... including schedules of compliance." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11).
In EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 96 S. Ct. 2022, 48 L. Ed. 2d 578 (1976), the Court discussed the role of effluent limitations in fulfilling the purposes of the Act. The Court observed that the 1972 amendments to the Act were prompted by the inadequacy of previous water quality standards which "focused on the tolerable effects rather than the preventable causes of water pollution," id. at 202, 96 S. Ct. at 2023. Under the amendments, a discharger's performance is measured against strict technology-based effluent limitations rather than against limitations based on collective water quality standards. Id. at 204-05, 96 S. Ct. at 2024-25. See S.Rep. No. 98, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 5, reprinted in 1972 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3675 ("Under this Act the basis of pollution prevention and elimination will be the application of effluent limitations. Water quality will be a measure of program effectiveness and performance, not a means of elimination and enforcement."). See also Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. EPA, 538 F.2d 513, 515 (2d Cir. 1976) (In holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review action of EPA in approving state water quality standards, the court observed that although water quality standards and effluent limitations are related, the two are entirely different concepts). Effluent limitations are a means of achieving water quality standards.
In United States Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F.2d 822 (7th Cir. 1977), the court reviewed an NPDES permit which included temperature limitations taken directly from state water quality standards. In response to the argument that these limitations were therefore not effluent limitations, the court reasoned that " [b]ecause of the convenience of temperature limits, thermal water quality standards do not need to be 'translated' in order to become applicable to an individual discharger as effluent limitations." Id. at 840 n. 27. The situation differs here because the particulate solids at issue may easily be translated into effluent limitations through other units of measurement such as by weight or volume. Thus, we hold that section 1311(b) (1) (C) requires the Administrator to include in placer mining permits whatever effluent limitations it determines are necessary to achieve the state water quality standards.
In the Initial Decision on Remand, the presiding officer directed that the permits be amended to include monitoring requirements for mercury and arsenic for at least one mining season to determine what levels are found when the settleable solids limitations and state turbidity standards are met. However, he required no effluent limitation for arsenic and mercury even at the sites where it had already been shown to be present. In reaching this decision, the presiding officer denied the Trustees an opportunity to present in a public hearing their case for proposed effluent limitations or monitoring requirements for arsenic and mercury, as required by section 1342 and by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 554, 556, and 557. See Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 1977).
a. Placer Mines as "Point Sources" of Pollution
The Miners argue that their activities are exempt from NPDES permit requirements because mining is a nonpoint source of pollution and the prohibition against discharge of pollutants, see Sec. 1311(a), applies only to "point sources," Sec. 1362(12), defined as "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance ... from which pollutants are or may be discharged." Sec. 1362(14). Another section of the Act discusses nonpoint sources, which encompasses "mining activities, including runoff and siltation from new, currently operating, and abandoned surface and underground mines." Sec. 1314(f) (2) (B). These specified activities are not subject to NPDES permit requirements; rather, the Act directs the Administrator only to develop guidelines for identifying and controlling such sources. Thus, the Miners argue that requiring permits for placer mining is beyond the EPA's statutory authority.
The Act authorized the EPA to promulgate regulations establishing effluent limitations guidelines applicable to specific polluting industries. Secs. 1311, 1314. However, the EPA has not yet promulgated regulations governing the placer mining industry. Rather, the EPA has determined effluent limitations when issuing NPDES permits. Under Sec. 1342(a) (1), the Administrator may issue permits incorporating "such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this [Act]," when no limitations or guidelines are yet available. See United States Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 844 (7th Cir. 1977); Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692, 709-10 (D.C. Cir. 1975).
The Miners' argument is framed in terms of the EPA's failure to comply with a nondiscretionary duty to promulgate industry-wide rules. Other courts have upheld this duty. See, e.g., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir. 1975). However, the Act confers jurisdiction on the federal district courts, not courts of appeal, to review any action "where there is alleged a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not discretionary with the Administrator." Sec. 1365(a) (2). This grant of jurisdiction is exclusive. In Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources v. EPA, 618 F.2d 991 (3rd Cir. 1980), the petitioners sought review in the court of appeals under Sec. 1369(b) (review of final actions of the Administrator) of certain regulations promulgated by the EPA. The court held that the jurisdictional provisions of Secs. 1365(a) (2) and 1369(b) did not overlap. Id.; accord Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 598 F.2d 62, 91 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Thus, the Miners must bring an action in the district court if they seek to require the EPA to promulgate point source standards.
The Miners also raise a challenge based on the burden of proof in permit hearings. The Miners contend that the current regulation, 40 C.F.R. Sec. 124.85, requiring a permit applicant to bear the burden of persuading the agency that a permit should issue, is invalid. The Miners contend that under the regulation they are faced with the choice of deciding whether to accept the agency's proposed standards, even if excessive, or to challenge those standards but risk incriminating themselves by admitting their inability to comply with current permit conditions. The Miners argue that this dilemma deprives them of due process.
Nonetheless, the Miners have not raised a timely challenge to this regulation. Section 1369(b) (1) (E) authorizes the courts of appeals to review the promulgation of "any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 1311, 1312, or 131 of this title." Such challenges must be raised within 90 days, however. " [E]ffluent limitation or other limitation" has been interpreted to include more than numerical limitations. In National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 879, 103 S. Ct. 175, 74 L. Ed. 2d 143 (1982), the court, in deciding numerous consolidated challenges to the EPA's Consolidated Permit Regulations, 40 C.F.R. pts. 122-125 (1983), which include the regulation at issue here, held that those regulations were reviewable in the court of appeals under section 1369(b) (1) (E). Id. at 403-405. We adopt the D.C. Circuit Court's analysis in National Resources Defense Council, and thus we conclude that the Miners' claim is time-barred; the regulation in question was promulgated on June 7, 1979, 44 Fed.Reg. 32854.
To determine whether a regulation of use effectuates an unconstitutional taking, we must examine whether the regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest and whether the regulation allows the owner economically viable use of his property. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264, 295-96, 101 S. Ct. 2352, 2370-71, 69 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1981). Clearly the NPDES permit requirements advance an important governmental interest, as articulated in Sec. 1251(a) (1).
However, the Miners have failed to present any concrete controversy concerning the application of the permit conditions to any particular operations or to any particular estimates of economic impact and ultimate valuation. See Hodel, 452 U.S. at 295, 101 S. Ct. at 2370. Mere diminution of property value as a result of regulation cannot by itself establish a taking, Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 263 n. 9, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 2143 n. 9, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1980), and the Miners have not even alleged that any of their members have been deprived of economically viable use of their property. See Hodel, 452 U.S. at 295-96, 101 S. Ct. at 2370-71.
The Miners assert that the self-monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions of their permits infringe on their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. This challenge is premature. The Supreme Court has announced that the doctrine that a person who claims that government demands for information will violate his privilege against self-incrimination must submit to the demands and expressly invoke the privilege in response to specific matters. Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1, 107-08, 81 S. Ct. 1357, 1416-17, 6 L. Ed. 2d 625 (1961). See also California Bankers Association v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 73-75, 94 S. Ct. 1494, 1523-1524, 39 L. Ed. 2d 812 (1974) (following Communist Party, held that facial challenges to Bank Secrecy Act reporting requirements were premature). Because the Miners have not alleged any claim that the permit conditions were improperly applied in an actual case, we dismiss this challenge as unripe.
The Supreme Court in Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S. 594, 101 S. Ct. 2534, 69 L. Ed. 2d 262 (1981), announced that:
Id. at 599-600, 101 S. Ct. at 2538-2539. This language requires us to reject the Miners' facial challenge to the constitutionality of the permit conditions. The permits are capable of being applied in a constitutional manner. The First Circuit in United States v. Tivian Laboratories, Inc., 589 F.2d 49 (1st Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 942, 99 S. Ct. 2884, 61 L. Ed. 2d 312 (1979), rejected a Fourth Amendment defense to the EPA's suit to obtain judicial enforcement of the EPA's request for information under section 1318. The Court noted that section 1318 was not self-enforcing. Upon a company's refusal to comply with a request for information, the EPA must seek a court enforcement order under section 1319(a) (3) (b). Id. at 53.