Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

ATK Launch Systems, Inc. v. U.S. EPA.

Pays/Territoire
États-Unis d'Amérique
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Fév 24, 2012
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
United States District Court, District of Columbia
Juge
ROGERS, KAVANAUGH and GINSBURG.
Numéro de référence
No. 10-1004
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Air et atmosphère, Environnement gén.
Mot clé
Qualité de l'air/pollution de l'air Normes de qualité de l'air
Résumé
Title 1 of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) requires EPA to set national ambient air quality standards for air pollutants that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. One such pollutant, PM2.5, consists of airborne particles 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter. EPA has promulgated both an annual and a 24-hour standard for PM2.5. Effective December 18, 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour PM2.5 standard downward from 65 micrograms/cubic meter to 35 micrograms/cubic meter. Under § 107(d) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7407(d), after new or revised standards are promulgated, States are to submit proposed area designations to EPA, classifying areas as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable. Areas are to be designated nonattainment if they either violate the standard or contribute to a nearby area’s violation. The EPA Administrator may modify the designations as deemed necessary, and States then have an opportunity to respond to the modifications. On June 8, 2007, EPA provided States with a guidance document suggesting that they consider nine factors in making designations: (1) emission data,(2) air quality data,(3) population density and degree of urbanization,(4) traffic and commuting patterns,(5) growth rates and patterns,(6)meteorology,(7) geography/topography (e.g., mountain ranges and other air basin boundaries),(8) jurisdictional boundaries,and (9) level of control of emission sources. The list is neither mandatory nor an exclusive list of types of relevant information. in these consolidated petitions, ATK Launch Systems, Inc., two Utah counties, and three Utah cities seek partial vacation of a final rule designating certain areas as nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standard. In particular, petitioners challenge the inclusion of parts of Tooele and Box Elder Counties within the Salt Lake City nonattainment area. U.S. EPA concluded, upon applying its nine-factor test for designations, that emissions from eastern portions of both Box Elder County, including Brigham City and ATK's operations, and Tooele County, including Tooele City and Grantsville City, contributed to nearby violations of the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in and around Salt Lake City. Petitioners' principal argument is that EPA was arbitrary and capricious in applying the nine-factor designation analysis, arguing dissimilar treatment as compared to EPA's analysis of the data for two east coast counties, Warren County, New Jersey and Hartford County, Connecticut, which EPA designated attainment. Petitioners also object to EPA's use of a pollutant transport model generally and its analysis of wind data for Box Elder County specifically. Finally, they question EPA's decision to include ATK's operations in the nonattainment portion of Box Elder County. The Appeals Court said, "Because EPA's nine-factor test is intended to be applied on a case-by-case basis to account for diverse considerations, including the varying effects of local topography and meteorology on PM2.5 dispersion, and EPA reasonably explained its designations, we deny the petitions for review." The Appeals Court ruled further, "The record supports the conclusion that, when PM2.5 levels are most severe in Salt Lake City, wind direction is sometimes from the northwest, indicating contribution from Box Elder County. EPA's analysis of the wind data and air basin conclusion about pollution transport was reasonably based upon 'the best available information' . . .and petitioners thus fail to demonstrate that EPA ignored new information or otherwise was arbitrary or capricious." And, finally the Appeals Court said, "Petitioners do not dispute that ATK's operations occur below the inversion layer, which is at about 1,500 feet, and, as discussed, EPA reasonably concluded that meteorological data indicated that emissions from eastern Box Elder County, where ATK's operations occur, contribute to nearby violations of the PM2.5 standards. Petitioners fail to demonstrate that EPA was arbitrary or capricious by including ATK's operations within the nonattainment area. Accordingly, we deny the petitions for review."
Texte intégral
COU-158303.pdf