plaintiffs motion for summary judgment 10/19/2013 nd cal

8/12/2019 Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment 10/19/2013 ND Cal

1/17

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PAUL R. CORT, State Bar No. 184336Earthjustice50 California StreetSan Francisco, CA [email protected]: 415-217-2000/Fax: 415-217-2040

DAVID S. BARON, Admitted Pro Hac ViceEarthjustice1625 Massachusetts Ave, STE 702Washington, DC [email protected]: 202-667-4500/Fax: 202-667-2356

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Sierra Cluband Natural Resources Defense Council

ZACHARY M. FABISH, State Bar No. 247535The Sierra Club

50 F Street, NW - 8th FloorWashington, DC [email protected]: 202-675-7917/Fax: 202-547-6009

Attorney for Plaintiff Sierra Club

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

SIERRA CLUB and NATURAL RESOURCESDEFENSE COUNCIL,

Plaintiffs,v.

REGINA MCCARTHY, in her official capacity asAdministrator of the United States EnvironmentalProtection Agency,

Defendant.

)))))))))))

))

Case No: 4:13-cv-03953 SI

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION ANDMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Date: Dec. 13, 2013Time: 9:00 AMPlace: Courtroom 10, 19th Floor

Senior Judge: Susan Illston

Case3:13-cv-03953-SI Document55 Filed10/29/13 Page1 of 17


2/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI ii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE .................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................1

I. The Clean Air Act Requires EPA to Set National Ambient Air Quality

Standards to Protect Public Health. ....................................................................................1

II. The Promulgation of Area Designations Is a Critical Step in Implementing the

NAAQS. ...............................................................................................................................2

III. EPA Failed to Promulgate SO2Designations for All Areas by the Statutory

Deadline of June 3, 2013. ....................................................................................................3

JURISDICTION, NOTICE, VENUE, AND STANDING. .......................................................5

ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................9

I. Legal Standard. . .........................................................................................................9

II. EPA Has Failed to Perform Its Non-Discretionary Duty of Promulgating All

Designations for the Standard by the Statutory Deadline. ..................................................9

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................10



3/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI iii

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES PAGE(S)

Am. Canoe Assn v. City of Louisa Water & Sewer Commn,

389 F.3d 536 (6th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................8

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

477 U.S. 317 (1986) .............................................................................................................9

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Brennan,

571 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...............................................................................8

Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co.,230 F.3d 1141 (9th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................7

Ethyl Corp. v. EPA,

306 F.3d 1144 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................8

Friends of the Earth,Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC),Inc.,

467 U.S. 837 (1984) .............................................................................................................7

Hall v. Norton,

266 F.3d 969 (9th Cir. 2001) ...............................................................................................7

Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman,

455 U.S. 363 (1982) .............................................................................................................8

Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Commn,432 U.S. 333 (1977) .............................................................................................................7

NRDC v. EPA,507 F.2d 905 (9th Cir. 1974) ...............................................................................................7

NRDC v. N.Y. State Dept of Envtl. Conservation,

700 F. Supp. 173 (S.D.N.Y. 1988).....................................................................................10

NRDC v. Train,

545 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1976).................................................................................................9

Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez,545 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................7

Sierra Club v. EPA,

129 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 1997) .............................................................................................7



4/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI iv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1)(A) ..........................................................................................................6

28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1)(C) ..........................................................................................................6

42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(2) ................................................................................................................1

42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1) ...............................................................................................................1

42 U.S.C. 7407(a) ..................................................................................................................10

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A) ..........................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(i) ......................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii) .....................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A)(iii) ....................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B) .........................................................................................................6

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i) ................................................................................1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(ii) .....................................................................................................3

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(2) ...............................................................................................................5

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(2)(A) ..................................................................................................1, 3, 8

42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(2)(A)(iii) ....................................................................................................8

42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(A) ..........................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1)(B) ..........................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7409(a)(1) ................................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7409(b)(1) ...............................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7409(d)(1) ...............................................................................................................2

42 U.S.C. 7502(c) ....................................................................................................................3

42 U.S.C. 7503(a) ....................................................................................................................3

42 U.S.C. 7514(a) ................................................................................................................3, 7

42 U.S.C. 7514a(a)...............................................................................................................3, 7



5/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI v

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42 U.S.C. 7604(a) ....................................................................................................................6

42 U.S.C. 7604(a)(2) ............................................................................................................1, 6

REGULATIONS

40 C.F.R. 50.17(a)....................................................................................................................4

FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICES

36 Fed. Reg. 8186 (Apr. 30, 1971) ............................................................................................4

75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (June 22, 2010) ...........................................................................3, 4, 5, 10

77 Fed. Reg. 46,295 (Aug. 3, 2012).................................................................................5, 9, 10

78 Fed. Reg. 47,191 (Aug. 5 2013)....................................................................................2, 4, 5

OTHER AUTHORITIES

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ..................................................................................................................9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) ........................................................................................................9

H.R. Rep. No. 91-1146 (1970) ...................................................................................................1



6/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 13, 2013, at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 10, 19th

Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, plaintiffs Sierra Club and Natural

Resources Defense Council (collectively, Sierra Club or plaintiffs) will move this Court for

summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the basis of the points and

authorities presented below, the attached declarations and exhibits, the record of this action, and

argument that may be presented at the hearing on this motion.

Sierra Club filed this action to compel the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (Administrator or EPA) to take action mandated by the Clean Air Act, 42

U.S.C. 7401 et seq., to protect human health from sulfur dioxide (SO2) air pollution in

communities throughout the nation. In this motion for summary judgmentwhich is limited to

EPAs liability for violating the Clean Air Act (the Act)Sierra Club seeks an order determining

that EPA is in violation of its non-discretionary duty under the Act to promulgate and publish

designations for all areas of each state for the revised SO2national primary ambient air quality

standard no later than three years from the date of promulgation of the SO2standard. If the Court

grants Sierra Clubs motion, Sierra Club intends to request that the Court issue a mandatory

injunction requiring EPA to perform its mandatory duty by a date certain. Accordingly, Sierra Club

further requests that, if summary judgment is granted on liability, the Court set a briefing schedule

on the issue of remedy.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illstons standing order limits parties to one motion for summary

judgment. Although Sierra Club does not believe that, if this motion on liability is granted, the

subsequent briefing on remedy would constitute a second motion for summary judgment, to the

extent the Court might view it as such, Sierra Club requests leave to follow this procedure because it

will simplify and narrow the issues early in this case, provide for an orderly presentation of this

matter to the Court, and expedite resolution of the case.



7/17


8/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

To this end, the Act requires EPA to promulgate national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for all criteria pollutants. Id.7409(a)(1). Criteria pollutants are those pollutants that

EPA finds cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger

public health or welfare and are emitted by numerous or diverse mobile or stationary sources. Id.

7408(a)(1)(A)-(B). The national ambient air quality standards establish maximum allowable

concentrations in the air of criteria pollutants. Primary (health) ambient air quality standards must

be set at a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety. Id.

7409(b)(1). Once EPA has established ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants, EPA is

obligated to review and (as appropriate) revise those standards at five-year intervals. Id.

7409(d)(1).

II. The Promulgation of Area Designations Is a Critical Step in Implementing the NAAQS.

The promulgation of a national ambient air quality standard triggers mandatory statutory

timetables for designating all areas of the country based on whether they comply with the new or

revised standard. Within one year of promulgation of a new or revised air quality standard, the

governor of each state must submit to EPA a list of recommended designations for all areas (or

portions thereof) in the state as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable for that standard.1 42

U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(A). The Clean Air Act defines a nonattainment area as any area that does not

meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in a nearby area that does not meet) the [NAAQS] for

the pollutant. Id.7407(d)(1)(A)(i). An attainment area is any area . . . that meets the [NAAQS]

for the pollutant. Id. 7407(d)(1)(A)(ii). An unclassifiable area is any area that cannot be

classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the [NAAQS] for the

pollutant. Id. 7407(d)(1)(A)(iii).

EPA must then promulgate final designations for all areas in each state, with whatever

modifications to the states submissions EPA deems necessary, as expeditiously as practicable, but

in no case later than 2 years from the date of promulgation of the new or revised [NAAQS]. Id.

1 With regard to the SO2standard, EPA interprets the all areas (or portions thereof) language

to mean that it is permitted to set attainment, nonattainment, and unclassifiable designations for areasbased on full or partial county boundaries, and contiguous or non-contiguous areas, as may beappropriate. See,e.g., 78 Fed. Reg. at 47,194/1-95/2.



9/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7407(d)(1)(B)(i). If the governor of a state fails to submit the list of designations in whole or in

part, EPA is required to promulgate the designation that it deems appropriate for any area (or portion

thereof) not designated by the state. Id.7407(d)(1)(B)(ii). EPA may extend the two-year deadline

for up to one year in the event the Administrator has insufficient information to promulgate the

designations. Id. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i). Thus, at the outside, EPA must promulgate designations for

all areas of every state within three years after the promulgation of a new or revised national ambient

air quality standard. Id. EPA must publish notice in the Federal Registerpromulgating those

designations. Id.7407(d)(2)(A).

EPAs promulgation of area designations initiates several important steps to implement the

national ambient air quality standards. Among other things, designation of an area as nonattainment

triggers the following requirements: a) an 18-month deadline for states to submit plans setting forth

how all nonattainment areas in the state will attain the standard; b) a requirement that such plans

provide for attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years

from the date of designation; and c) a requirement that such plans provide for implementation of all

reasonably available pollution control measures as expeditiously as practicable, including, at a

minimum, such reductions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through the adoption

of reasonably available pollution control technology. Id.7502(c)(1), 7514(a), 7514a(a); see also

Exh. F, Walke Decl. 14. Because an areas designation also determines the stringency of the

permitting requirements for certain sources of air pollution, EPAs designation of an area as

nonattainment will also cause more rigorous permitting requirements to become applicable to certain

sources in that area. 42 U.S.C. 7503(a); see alsoExh. F, Walke Decl. 15.

III. EPA Failed to Promulgate SO2Designations for All Areas by the Statutory Deadline of

June 3, 2013.

SO2is a dangerous criteria air pollutant for which EPA must establish national ambient air

quality standards. SO2has numerous harmful effects on human respiratory systems, including

narrowing of the airways that can constrict breathing (bronchoconstriction) and increased asthma

symptoms. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520, 35,525/3-26/1 (June 22, 2010) (codified at 40 C.F.R. pts. 50, 53,



10/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and 58). Short-term exposure to SO2has also been linked to increased hospital and emergency room

admissions for respiratory illness, particularly among children, the elderly, and asthmatics. Id.at

35,525/1-27/3; 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191, 47,193/2-3 (Aug. 5, 2013) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 81).

Even exposure to SO2for just five minutes can damage the functioning of the lungs. 75 Fed. Reg. at

35,525/3-26/1, 35,536/2. Individuals who spend time outdoors, especially when active, are at higher

risk of harm. Id.at 35,527/2.

EPA first set ambient air quality standards for SO2in 1971, establishing a 24-hour primary

standard at 140 parts per billion (ppb), and an annual average standard at 30 ppb. See 36 Fed.

Reg. 8186 (Apr. 30, 1971). Four decades later, on June 2, 2010, in light of extensive scientific

evidence that the 1971 primary standard did not adequately safeguard public health from SO2

pollution, EPA promulgated a new one-hour SO2standard at a level of 75 ppb (the standard). 75

Fed. Reg. at 35,520/1, 35,525/1-29/3 (signed June 2, 2010, published June 22, 2010);see also40

C.F.R. 50.17(a). At the same time, EPA revoked the previous 24-hour and annual primary

standards since they would not provide additional public health protection given the more stringent

one-hour standard. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,520.2

EPA estimated that implementation of the revised standard would prevent, annually, up to

5,900 premature deaths, 3,900 heart attacks, 54,000 cases of asthma exacerbation, and 290,000 lost

work days. EPA,Revisions to the Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard, Monitoring

Network and Data Reporting Requirements for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), General Overviewat 20-21

(June 2010), available at

http://www.epa.gov/oaqps001/sulfurdioxide/pdfs/20100603presentation.pdf; EPA, Final Regulatory

Impact Analysis (RIA) for the SO2National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)5-35 tbl.5.14

(June 2010), available athttp://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/fso2ria100602full.pdf.

Adoption of the revised standard triggered EPAs non-discretionary duty to promulgate and

publish designations under the standard for all areas of each state as expeditiously as practicable, but

2 Scientific studies reviewed by EPA in formulating the standard even reported adverse effects

for short-term, one-hour exposures to levels of SO2at about 50 ppbwell below the 75 ppb standardEPA ultimately adopted. 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,543/2.



11/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

no later than June 2, 2012two years from the standards adoption.3 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i),

(d)(2); 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,552/1, 35,585/2. EPA missed this deadline. Two months past the

deadline, on August 3, 2012, EPA invoked its authority under 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i) to extend

by one year the deadline for promulgating area designations for the standard and identified a new

deadline for completing designations of June 3, 2013.4 See 77 Fed. Reg. 46,295, 46,295/1, 46,297/2-

3 (Aug. 3, 2012). Even with the one-year extension, EPA failed to promulgate any SO2designations

by June 3, 2013. Answer 29.

Two months later, on August 5, 2013, EPA published SO2designations for just a handful of

areas across the country, finding those areas to be in nonattainment for the standard based on

monitored air quality data. See 78 Fed. Reg. 47,191. EPAs area designations covered only 29 areas

in just 16 states, which comprise approximately one percent or less of the total number of air quality

areas in the country. Id. at 47,193/1; U.S. Geological Survey,How Many Counties Are There in the

United States?(Jun. 9, 2013), http://gallery.usgs.gov/audios/124 (identifying over 3,200 counties

and county equivalents in the United States). In its August 2013 action, EPA expressly stated that it

intended to address designations for the remaining areas in separate future actions. 78 Fed. Reg. at

47,191/3. To date, EPA has not promulgated designations for any of the thousands of areas that

remain undesignated. Exh. F, Walke Decl. 13.

JURISDICTION, NOTICE, VENUE, AND STANDING

This Court has jurisdiction under the Clean Air Acts citizen suit provision, which authorizes

district courts to hear actions brought by any person to compel EPAs performance of any act or

duty under the Act which is not discretionary with [EPA]. 42 U.S.C. 7604(a), (a)(2). EPAs

failure to timely promulgate all area designations is a failure to perform an act which is not

discretionary, as the Administrators duty to promulgate such designations within the required time

3 EPA stated that it will make initial area designations under the revised NAAQS by June 1,

2012 (since June 2, 2012 would be on a Saturday). 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,585/2.4 Although the Administrator signed the final rule promulgating the standard on June 2, 2010,

EPA has taken the position that the standard was not promulgated until June 3, 2010 because it wasnot publicly disseminated until that day, and that the deadline should be calculated from June 3,2010. See77 Fed. Reg. at 46,295 n.1. Because the difference is immaterial for this motion, SierraClub will refer to June 3, 2013 as the deadline.



12/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

frame is expressed in non-discretionary terms. 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B) (the Administrator shall

promulgate the designations of all areas within two years of NAAQS promulgation, with possible

additional one-year extension).

Plaintiffs satisfied the statutory notice requirements for bringing this action. By certified

letters posted on June 4, 2013, and June 25, 2013, plaintiffs served written notice on EPA of its

failure to perform the mandatory duty of promulgating all area designations by the statutory

deadline, and of plaintiffs intent to initiate the present action, in compliance with 42 U.S.C.

7604(b)(2) and 40 C.F.R. 54.2, 54.3.5 SeeEPA,Notices of Intent to Sue the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) (Sept. 17, 2013), http://epa.gov/ogc/noi.html. More than 60 days have

passed since the notices were served, and EPA has continued its failure to fulfill its mandatory duty.

Venue is proper in this Court because plaintiff Sierra Club has its headquarters in this district,

plaintiff NRDC has an office in this district, and this district is one in which EPA resides and

performs its official duties. 28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1)(A), (C). Venue is also proper because (1) a

substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this claim occurred and is occurring in this

district because EPA failed to promulgate any designations for this district; (2) the health and

welfare of district residents, including members of Sierra Club and NRDC, Exh. G, Andersen Decl.

4(f), Exh. D, Lopez Decl. 8, are threatened by EPAs failure to make designations; and (3) EPAs

Regional Office in San Francisco, California has a substantial role in implementing the duty at issue.

28 U.S.C. 1391(e)(1)(B). SeeEPA, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standards Region 9 Initial

Nonattainment Designations(Jul. 25, 2013), http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/region9i.html;

EPA, 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Standards Region 9 State Recommendations and EPA Responses (Jul.

25, 2013), http://www.epa.gov/so2designations/region9r.html.

Sierra Club and NRDC have associational standing to bring this suit because their members

would have standing to sue in their own right, plaintiffs interest in safeguarding public health is

germane to their organizational purposes, Exh. S, Nilles Decl. 3, Exh. F, Walke Decl. 4-5, and

5 Plaintiffs served the June 25 notice out of an abundance of caution. Although EPA itself

treated the revised standard as being promulgated on June 2, 2010, the revision was not published inthe Federal Registeruntil June 22, 2010. Plaintiffs filed the June 25 notice to avoid any argumentthat the June 2 notice was premature.



13/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this suit will not require individual participation of members. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver.

Commn, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). Plaintiffs have members who live, work, recreate, and carry out

other activities near sources of SO2pollution in areas not yet designated for the SO2standard such

that those members are exposed or threatened with exposure to SO2pollution that may well violate

the standard. SeeExhs. C-X, Declarations, attached. Such SO2pollution endangers plaintiffs

members health and also adversely impacts their enjoyment of outdoor activities by causing

members to limit the time they spend outdoors or to avoid recreating in areas they would like to

visit. SeeExhs. C-X, Declarations; Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc. ,

528 U.S. 167, 181-84 (2000) (environmental group has standing where members use area impacted

by pollutant discharges and aver reasonable concerns about the effects of those discharges on their

recreational, aesthetic, and economic interests).6

EPAs failure to timely promulgate designations causes procedural injury to plaintiffs and

their members. The Acts procedure for promulgating all area designations within a maximum of

three years is designed to protect plaintiffs members concrete interests in breathing clean air. See

Salmon Spawning & Recovery Alliance v. Gutierrez, 545 F.3d 1220, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2008)

(environmental group had standing where agency violated procedural requirement designed to

protect groups concrete interests in welfare of endangered species). Promulgation of nonattainment

designations triggers deadlines for adoption of measures to curb SO2pollution and for attainment of

the more protective revised SO2standard. 42 U.S.C. 7514(a), 7514a(a). EPAs continuing failure

to complete designations delays this process, postponing required steps to reduce unsafe levels of

SO2pollution, and thereby prolonging plaintiffs members exposure to harmful SO2pollution. Exh.

S, Nilles Decl. 8-11; Exh. F, Walke Decl. 14-19. Moreover, EPAs failure to complete the

6 See alsoHall v. Norton, 266 F.3d 969, 973-74, 976 (9th Cir. 2001) (individual has standing

where he faces a threat of harm from air pollution when traveling, shopping, and carrying out otheractivities in polluted area);Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 230 F.3d 1141, 1149-50(9th Cir. 2000) (environmental group has standing where members recreational interests in usingcreek is diminished by concerns about discharges of pollution by nearby facility); NRDC v. EPA,507 F.2d 905, 908, 910-11 (9th Cir. 1974) (individual has standing based on concern EPAsapproval of state implementation plan may result in air less pure than that mandated by the CleanAir Act); Sierra Club v. EPA, 129 F.3d 137, 139 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (environmental group withmembers in nonattainment areas has standing to challenge EPAs temporary suspension of Clean AirAct review requirements in such areas).



14/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

designations process deprives plaintiffs and their members of their procedural right to judicially

challenge any final designations that they contend are unlawful or arbitrary. An order compelling

EPA to make the designations by a certain date will redress the foregoing injuries.

EPAs failure to publish designations also deprives plaintiffs and their members of the

informational benefits of the designations and thereby causes them injury, which would be redressed

by an order compelling EPA to act. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Brennan, 571 F. Supp. 2d

1105, 1118 (N.D. Cal. 2007);Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, 306 F.3d 1144, 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2002). EPAs

SO2designationswhich must be published, 42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(2)(A)convey information about

the quality of air in every area of the country, or, for areas designated unclassifiable, about the

available information for evaluating air quality in those areas. Id.7407(d)(1)(A)(iii). This

information is essential to the ability of plaintiffs to carry out their daily operations and fulfill their

institutional missions and would be used by plaintiffs for public education and advocacy. Exh. S,

Nilles Decl. 12-14; Exh. F, Walke Decl. 20-21; see alsoAm. Canoe Assn v. City of Louisa

Water & Sewer Commn, 389 F.3d 536, 546 (6th Cir. 2004). This information would also help

plaintiffs members determine whether they are being exposed to unsafe SO2levels and allow them

to take actions to limit their exposure and advocate for further air quality safeguards. SeeExhs. C-X,

Declarations;Am. Canoe, 389 F.3d at 542.

In addition, EPAs failure to complete designations has caused Sierra Club to divert

organizational resources to implementing the revised standard and has frustrated its mission of

achieving the pollution reductions warranted by the more protective one-hour standard for which

plaintiffs have long advocated. Exh. S, Nilles Decl. 13-14;Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455

U.S. 363, 378-79 (1982). For example, Sierra Club has commissioned air dispersion modeling

analyses for numerous coal-fired facilities across the country in order to ascertain whether those

facilities impact attainment of the SO2standard, and to advocate for stronger emission limits where

necessary to protect human health and the environment. Exh. S, Nilles Decl. 14.



15/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ARGUMENT

Summary judgment for Sierra Club on the issue of liability is warranted as a matter of law.

There can be no dispute that EPA had a non-discretionary duty under the Clean Air Act to

promulgate and publish designations under the revised SO2standard of all areas of each state as

expeditiously as practicable, but in no case later than June 3, 2013, and that EPA failed to and

continues to fail to carry out that duty.

I. Legal Standard.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment must be granted when,

viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the records show that there is

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Once the moving party has satisfied its burden, it is entitled to summary

judgment if the non-moving party fails to cite specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue

for trial. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986); accord Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A).

II. EPA Has Failed to Perform Its Non-Discretionary Duty of Promulgating All

Designations for the Standard by the Statutory Deadline.

EPA had a mandatory duty under the Clean Air Act to promulgate and publish designations

of all areas in each statefor the standard by the statutory deadline, and it failed to do so.

Congress commanded that, upon revision of a national ambient air quality standard, EPA

shall promulgate the designations of all areas (or portions thereof) [in each state] as expeditiously

as practicable, but in no case later than 2 years from the date of promulgation of the new or revised

national ambient air quality standard, permitting up to a one-year extension in the event the

Administrator has insufficient information to promulgate the designations. 42 U.S.C.

7407(d)(1)(B)(i); see also77 Fed. Reg. at 46,295/1 (acknowledgment by EPA of this statutory

requirement). On its face, the duty to promulgate all designations by the precise schedules set forth

in the Act is non-discretionary. See NRDC v. Train, 545 F.2d 320, 325, 327 (2d Cir. 1976) (holding

that EPA had non-discretionary duty under Clean Air Act where statute used the mandatory term

shall and included a specific timetable for attainment of air quality standards). Moreover, EPA



16/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has conceded through its own public statements that it was required to promulgate the designations

by the deadline. See77 Fed. Reg. at 46,295 (The new deadline for the EPA to promulgate

designations for the 2010 primary SO2NAAQS is June 3, 2013. . . . [T]he EPA mustpromulgate the

designation that the agency deems appropriate within two years of promulgation of the NAAQS (or

within 3 years if the EPA extends the deadline). (emphasis added)); see also id.at 46,297/2-3; 75

Fed. Reg. at 35,552/1, 35,585/2;NRDC v. N.Y. State Dept of Envtl. Conservation, 700 F. Supp. 173,

178 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (EPA statement implicitly conceded EPAs duty to act).

The mandatory designations for the standard are overdue. EPA adopted the standard on June

2, 2010, which made the promulgation of all area designations due no later than two years from that

date, on June 1, 2012. See42 U.S.C. 7407(d)(1)(B)(i); 75 Fed. Reg. at 35,585/2. After missing

that deadline, EPA invoked its authority to extend the deadline for one year and identified the new

deadline as June 3, 2013. See77 Fed. Reg. at 46,295/1. Yet EPA did not take any action until

August 5, 2013, and then it only promulgated designations for a few geographic areas, leaving the

vast majority of the country without designations and in limbo. Answer 30, 32. EPAs failure to

complete all area designations is continuing. These facts are beyond dispute.

EPAs failure to promulgate designations for all areas in each state thwarts the Clean Air

Acts mandate to assure the air quality within each states entire geographic area will achieve and

maintain the primary national ambient air quality standard for SO2. See 42 U.S.C. 7407(a); Exh. S,

Nilles Decl. 8; Exh. F, Walke Decl. 14-16.

Because it is undisputed that EPA has not promulgated all area designations for the standard

by the statutory deadline or to datea non-discretionary duty mandated by the Clean Air Act

Sierra Club is entitled to summary judgment finding EPA liable for violating the law.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Sierra Club respectfully requests the Court grant its motion for

summary judgment and find EPA liable for failing to take the non-discretionary act of promulgating

and publishing designations of all areas in each state for the revised SO2standard. If the Court



17/17


CASE NO. 4:13-CV-03953 SI 11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

grants such summary judgment, Sierra Club further requests that the Court set a schedule for briefing

on the issue of remedy.

DATED: October 29, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/David S. Baron

DAVID S. BARON, Admitted Pro Hac ViceEarthjustice1625 Massachusetts Ave, STE 702Washington, DC [email protected]: 202-667-4500/Fax: 202-667-2356

PAUL R. CORT, State Bar No. 184336Earthjustice50 California StreetSan Francisco, CA [email protected]@earthjustice.orgTel: 415-217-2000/Fax: 415-217-2040

Counsel for Plaintiffs

ZACHARY M. FABISH, State Bar No. 247535Staff AttorneyThe Sierra Club50 F Street, NW - 8th FloorWashington, DC [email protected]: 202-675-7917/Fax: 202-547-6009

Counsel for Plaintiff Sierra Club


plaintiffs motion for summary judgment 10/19/2013 nd cal

Documents