Opinion ID: 186114
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Challenges to EPA's MACT Determinations

Text: 15 In National Lime, this court confirmed that EPA may use a surrogate to regulate pollutants if it is `reasonable' to do so. 233 F.3d at 637. Sierra Club does not dispute this proposition as a general matter, see Reply Br. at 4 n.2, but raises two broad objections to the use of PM as a surrogate for HAPs in this particular rulemaking. First, Sierra Club contends that EPA has set standards on the basis of what PM control can achieve, violating the statutory requirement that the minimum standards be based on what the best performing sources actually achieve. Second, Sierra Club contends that using PM as a surrogate is not reasonable under the criteria set forth in National Lime. We address each contention in turn.
16 During the notice-and-comment period, EPA responded to an objection to the use of PM as a surrogate by stating that the CAA does not prohibit us from using an appropriate surrogate pollutant for individual HAP species to confirm the proper use of MACT. EPA, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Primary Copper Smelters — Background Information for Promulgated Standards 2-2 (2001) (EPA Background Document). Sierra Club seizes upon that explanation to argue that EPA has violated Section 7412(d)(3) by setting surrogate emission standards to confirm the proper use of a chosen technology, instead of basing standards on what the best sources achieve with respect to HAP emissions control. Reply Br. at 2. Sierra Club contends that copper smelters achieve HAP emission reductions not just through PM control, but by altering ore inputs as well. Because EPA promulgated the emission standards based only on PM control without considering ore inputs, Sierra Club argues, the standards fail to reflect what the best-performing sources achieve: setting standards ... that reflect only what is achievable through the use of a particular control technology contravenes the Act. Id. 17 Sierra Club relies heavily on this court's decision in CKRC, but EPA avoided the problems that infected its analysis in that case. The statute requires EPA to set minimum emission standards at the level achieved by the best-performing sources. See 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3). In CKRC, EPA established a MACT pool comprised of the best-performing sources, identified the primary emission control technology used by the sources in the MACT pool, selected that technology as the MACT control, and set the final emission standard at the level of the worst -achieving source using the MACT control. 255 F.3d at 859 (emphasis added). EPA defended that approach as a means of ensuring achievability, arguing that Section 7412(d)(3) imported Section 7412(d)(2)'s achievability standard. We disagreed. Id. at 861. 18 EPA advanced an alternative argument, to the effect that adopting emission standards based on what the worst-achieving sources using MACT achieved did reflect what the best-achieving sources actually achieved. See id. at 862. We were having none of that: The worst-performing sources using MACT technology could not be representative of the best-performing sources, because evidence showed that (1) some of the best-performing sources used other control devices in combination with the MACT technology, (2) the performance of different models of the same technology varied based on certain features, and (3) other factors such as feed rate and material composition affected emission outputs. Id. at 862-64. 19 The instant case is quite different. EPA did not violate Section 7412(d)(3) by setting emission standards based on the worst-performing sources using MACT. Nor did EPA use the worst-performing sources to estimate the performance of the best-performing sources. Sierra Club challenges only the type of emission standard — PM as a surrogate for HAPs — not, as in CKRC, the numerical limitation set by the standard. 20 In this case, EPA promulgated standards that accurately reflect the control achieved by the best-performing sources. EPA established emission standards for the various copper smelting processes based upon the actual PM emissions of the relevant units from performance tests, e.g., Final Rule, 67 Fed.Reg. at 40,482-83 (smelting process emissions, batch converters, slag cleaning vessels), or based upon established regulatory limits, e.g., Proposed Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. at 19,593-94; EPA Background Document, at 2-10-2-11 (copper concentrate dryers). Contrary to Sierra Club's assertion that EPA established an equipment standard, EPA started down that road but pulled back: 21 After careful review and evaluation of comments received objecting to our use of an equipment standard rather than a numerical emission limit and new emissions data obtained since proposal, we concluded that a change in the proposed standards for process off-gas emissions was warranted. As a result, we issued a supplement to the proposed rule ... in which we proposed a numerical emission standard that would limit the concentration of total particulate matter in the off-gases discharged. 22 Final Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. at 40,482/3 (referring to emission standards for smelting furnaces, slag cleaning vessels, and batch converters and citing National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories: National Emissions Standards for Primary Copper Smelters, 65 Fed.Reg. 39,326 (June 26, 2000) (Supplement)). EPA complied with Section 7412(d)(3) by setting emission limits on the basis of the PM control that the best sources actually achieved, not on the basis of what any source using PM control achieved. EPA did not repeat its CKRC missteps. We now turn to Sierra Club's contention that use of PM as a surrogate for metal HAPs was unreasonable under National Lime.
23 In National Lime, this court established a three-part analysis for determining whether the use of PM as a surrogate for HAPs is reasonable: PM is a reasonable surrogate for HAPs if (1) HAP metals are invariably present in ... PM; (2) PM control technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other particulates; and (3) PM control is the only means by which facilities `achieve' reductions in HAP metal emissions. 233 F.3d at 639. If these criteria are satisfied and the PM emission standards reflect what the best sources achieve — complying with Section 7412(d)(3) — EPA is under no obligation to achieve a particular numerical reduction in HAP metal emissions. Id. 24 The use of PM as a surrogate in this case is reasonable. First, it is undisputed that HAPs are invariably present in PM. Second, EPA determined that the PM control technologies used by primary copper smelters inevitably removed HAPs as part of PM. See Proposed Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. at 19,592/3 (The control technologies used for the control of PM emissions achieve equivalent levels of performance on metallic HAP emissions.). There is some dispute, however, whether copper smelters use other control technologies besides PM control to limit HAPs. 25 Sierra Club claims that the record shows that two copper smelters use ore-switching to control PM. A 1995 EPA report cites 1992 impurity data to conclude that the Phelps Dodge-Chino smelter had no control of secondary hood or matte and slag tapping gases but achieves low HAP emissions through low-input-impurity feeds. EPA, A-96-22 No. II-A-1, Final Summary Report: Primary Copper Smelters National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants 5 (July 1995) (Final Report). The report further stated that the Phelps Dodge-Hidalgo smelter also has very low levels of HAPs in ore concentrate feeds.... Id. 26 The record, however, shows that between the 1995 report and the proposed rulemaking, both of these smelters installed PM controls to regulate their emissions. In 1996, the Hidalgo smelter installed a baghouse to control matte and slag tapping hood emissions. EPA, A-96-22 No. II-E-8, File Memorandum from E. Crumpler, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (July 28, 1997). During EPA emissions testing at the Chino smelter in April 1997, EPA reported that the smelter used a secondary hood system to route off-gases to a baghouse prior to discharge to the atmosphere. EPA A-96-22 No. II-I-2, Emissions Test Report: Primary Copper Smelter Converter Aisle Fugitive Emissions; Phelps Dodge Hurley, New Mexico ¶ 2.1 (Chino smelter). When it came time to address the instant question, EPA consequently found that PM control was the only control technology used by the industry. See Proposed Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. at 19,585/3. We have no basis for rejecting that finding as arbitrary or capricious. See Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 51 F.3d 1053, 1064 (D.C.Cir.1995) (If EPA acted within its delegated statutory authority, considered all of the relevant factors, and demonstrated a reasonable connection between the facts on the record and its decision, we will uphold its determination.). 27 Sierra Club uses National Lime 's statement that EPA must consider the potential impact upon emissions of changes in inputs, 233 F.3d at 639, as a basis to argue that PM is not a reasonable surrogate where other factors (in the instant case, the HAP content of the ore used) affect HAP metal emissions. Reply Br. at 5. The requirement in National Lime was that other inputs must affect HAP metal emissions in the same fashion that they affect the other components of PM. 233 F.3d at 639. Put another way, PM might not be an appropriate surrogate for HAP metals if switching fuels would decrease HAP metal emissions without causing a corresponding reduction in total PM emissions. Id. The reason is clear: if EPA looks only to PM, but HAPs are reduced by altering inputs in a way that does not reduce PM, the best achieving sources, and what they can achieve with respect to HAPs, might not be properly identified. 28 Nothing in the record, however, supports the proposition that switching to cleaner ore will decrease HAPs without a reduction in PM. HAP metals are a component of PM, see Proposed Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. at 19,585/1 (metallic impurities in the copper ore can be released into the atmosphere in the form of particulate matter (PM) during certain smelting operations), so any reduction in HAPs would in turn reduce PM. As EPA explained: 29 During the smelting process ... HAP metal species either are eliminated in the molten slag tapped from the process vessels or are vaporized and discharged in the process vessel off-gases. Upon cooling of the process off-gases, the volatilized HAP metal species condense, form aerosols, and behave as particulate matter. ... An emission characteristic common to all primary copper smelters and similar source categories is the fact that the metal HAP are a component of the particulate matter contained in the process off-gases discharged from smelting and converting operations. 30 Supplement, 65 Fed. Reg. at 39,329/1-2 (emphases added); see EPA Background Document, at 3-2 (metal HAP emissions from copper converters behave as particulate matter). 31 Sierra Club argues that the use of PM as a surrogate is not reasonable because the HAP content of PM will vary according to the feedrate. But as we explained in National Lime, even if the ratio of metals to PM is small and variable, or simply unknown, PM is a reasonable surrogate for the metals — assuming ... that PM control technology indiscriminately captures HAP metals along with other particulates. 233 F.3d at 639 (emphasis added). On the record before us, EPA concluded that [s]trong direct correlations exist between the emissions of total particulate matter and metal HAP compounds. Emission limits established to achieve good control of total particulate matter will also achieve good control of metal HAP. Supplement, 65 Fed. Reg. at 39,329/1-2. As EPA explained, [t]he control technologies used for the control of PM emissions achieve equivalent levels of performance on metallic HAP emissions. Proposed Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. at 19,592/3. On this record, the use of PM as a surrogate is reasonable, even in light of the potential variability of impurities in copper ore. 32
33 Sierra Club argues that using PM as a surrogate is arbitrary and capricious in light of standards promulgated for other industries, under which PM was not similarly used as a surrogate. Sierra Club directs the court to EPA's failure to explain (1) why PM was a proper surrogate for HAP metals here when it was not in the hazardous waste combustor (HWC) rulemaking, and (2) why EPA did not use other surrogates, as, for example, it used lead as a surrogate in the secondary lead smelter rulemaking. Pet. Br. at 29. 34 Without specific reference to the HWC and secondary lead smelter regulations, EPA reasonably articulated its decision to use PM as a surrogate in response to public comments. EPA explained that a surrogate was needed in light of the impracticality of setting individual standards for each metal, due to the variability of HAPs in copper ore stocks: 35 Th[e] inherent variability and unpredictability of the metal HAP compositions and amounts in copper ore concentrates affect the composition and amount of HAP metals in the process off-gas emissions. As a result, prescribing individual numerical emission limits for each HAP species (e.g., a specific emission limit for arsenic, a specific emission limit for lead, etc.) is impracticable, if not impossible, to do. 36 Given that prescribing individual numerical emission limits for HAP metal is not a practicable approach in this case, an alternative approach is to use particulate matter as a surrogate pollutant for the metal HAP emitted from primary copper smelters. 37 EPA Background Document, at 2-2-2-3. 38 EPA then explained its decision to use PM as the surrogate: 39 — metal HAP compounds are a component of the [PM] contained in the process off-gases, 40 — [s]trong direct correlations exist between the emissions of [PM] and metal HAP compounds, and 41 — [e]mission limits established to achieve good control of [PM] will also achieve good control of metal HAP. 42 Id. at 2-3. 43 Based on this response to public comments, we conclude that EPA adequately considered alternatives to the PM standard. EPA was not required to give an affirmative justification for differences with regulations governing other industries. The failure to respond to comments is significant only insofar as it demonstrates that the agency's decision was not based on a consideration of the relevant factors. Thompson v. Clark, 741 F.2d 401, 409 (D.C.Cir.1984) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); accord American Iron & Steel Inst. v. EPA, 115 F.3d 979, 1005 (D.C.Cir.1997) (finding comment response sufficient if it demonstrates that the agency considered the `relevant factors' raised by the suggested alternatives); Texas Mun. Power Agency v. EPA, 89 F.3d 858, 876 (D.C.Cir.1996). EPA's explanation makes it evident that it did consider the relevant factors. 44 This court has adopted an every tub on its own bottom approach to EPA's setting of standards pursuant to the CAA, under which the adequacy of the underlying justification offered by the agency is the pertinent factor — not what the agency did on a different record concerning a different industry. See Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 389 (D.C.Cir.1973). The question of whether EPA reasonably considered alternatives can typically be decided on the basis of information concerning that industry alone. Id. The record in this case demonstrates that EPA reasonably explained its decision based on the specifics of primary copper smelters. EPA could have noted where the bases for its decision in this case differed from those with respect to other decisions in other cases, as was done in EPA's brief to this court, see, e.g., Resp. Br. at 23 (PM control inadequate in the HWC context because feedrate control was also used to reduce HAP emissions, unlike in copper smelter context), but such explanations are not required given the different contexts of the various rulemakings. See Portland Cement, 486 F.2d at 389 (the Administrator is not required to present affirmative justifications for different standards in different industries); National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627 F.2d 416, 447 n. 108 (D.C.Cir.1980) (That different industries may be subject to different standards and that the Administrator need not bear the burden of explaining those differences is clear.).
45 During the copper smelting process, some HAP emissions evade the capture systems and are released into the atmosphere through roof-top vents spanning the length of the converter building or through exhaust fans. EPA addressed these emissions — the fugitive HAP emissions — by imposing a four percent opacity limit at building vents. Sierra Club objects that (1) opacity is not a surrogate for HAPs, and therefore EPA has failed to establish an emission standard for roof vents and exhaust fans, and (2) the opacity standard cannot be defended as a work practice or operational standard under 42 U.S.C. § 7412(h)(1), because EPA has failed to meet the statutory prerequisites for imposing such a standard in lieu of an emission standard. 46 EPA's decision to use an opacity-based standard for fugitive HAP emissions is reasonable. Sierra Club focuses on a portion of EPA's response to public comment on the opacity-based standard — we are using the opacity ... as an indicator of converter capture system performance, EPA Background Document, at 3-1 — to argue that EPA itself regarded the opacity limit as an operational standard, not an emission standard. Reading the entirety of the response, EPA's reasoning is clear: 47 Given that opacity is an indicator of the level of particulate matter emitted, designing and operating a copper converter capture system to minimize the visible emissions from the building will increase the amount of particulate matter captured and vented to a control device. Given that metal HAP emissions from copper converters behave as particulate matter, increasing the level of particulate matter emissions control will increase the level of metal HAP emissions control. 48 Id. at 3-2. Opacity measures PM and limiting PM reduces HAP emissions. In addition, limiting fugitive HAP emissions through opacity-based standards further controls HAP emissions by ensuring that the converter capture system is working well enough to make the PM standard meaningful — there is no sense focusing on the primary exhaust streams if most of the emissions go out the roof. See id. at 3-1. We have already accepted EPA's contention in another case, in response to an objection by Sierra Club, that opacity monitoring promotes good operation and maintenance, which in turn reasonably ensure compliance with the PM standard. National Lime, 233 F.3d at 635. We have no reason to question it here. 49 EPA established the opacity-based standard according to the approach mandated by statute, basing it on the average of the test data for the five best performing sources. Final Rule, 67 Fed. Reg. at 40,485. EPA's opacity-based standard is an emission standard that is accordingly both reasonable and lawful.