[00:00:02] Speaker 04:
Case number 15-1015S1, Chesapeake Client Action Network at Howell Petitioners versus Environmental Protection Agency.

[00:00:12] Speaker 04:
Mr. Glykis for the petitioners and Frank Field for the responses.

[00:00:55] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:56] Speaker 01:
May it please the court.

[00:00:57] Speaker 01:
My name is Patton Dykes and I represent Petitioners.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
I'd like to reserve three minutes for rebuttal.

[00:01:03] Speaker 01:
For an extra four hours every time power plants start up, EPA has given them the option to be subject to work practice standards instead of numeric limits for deadly hazardous air pollutants.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
EPA based this extended work practice period on a technical analysis concluding that the best performing power plants cannot engage their pollution controls and thus, EPA found, cannot measure their emissions until four hours after electricity generation.

[00:01:30] Speaker 01:
But EPA didn't allow the public to comment on this technical analysis or this finding.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
And then the agency denied reconsideration on petitioners' objection that the analysis identified the wrong best performers.

[00:01:42] Speaker 01:
This morning, I'd like to first address why EPA was wrong to deny reconsideration, and then discuss why the exhaustion bar does not apply to our claim regarding the conflict of the esopharing program.

[00:01:53] Speaker 00:
Can I ask a couple of housekeeping questions?

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Sure.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
So do you agree that the petition in number 161169 can be dismissed?

[00:02:01] Speaker 00:
You're not pursuing that any further.

[00:02:03] Speaker 01:
I would have to look back at the case numbers, but I'm pretty sure if that's the one dealing with the EPA's technical corrections to the starter pool or to mercury neurotoxics.

[00:02:13] Speaker 00:
The April 6, 2016.

[00:02:14] Speaker 00:
I am pretty positive that is the case.

[00:02:18] Speaker 00:
And does any entity beyond Sierra Club have standing here?

[00:02:26] Speaker 01:
We only included a declaration

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
from Sierra Club in our reply brief.

[00:02:33] Speaker 01:
I think the answer is, I'm not 100% sure I can't say one way or the other, but we have established without a doubt that Sierra Club has standing, and only one of the parties has to have standing under this court's case law.

[00:02:46] Speaker 01:
I'd like to first address two reasons why petitioners meet the first prong of the statutory test for reconsideration.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
First, petitioners could not have objected to a best performer analysis that did not exist during the comment period.

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
There's no dispute that EPA's proposals included no best performer analysis.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
When commenting, petitioners couldn't have possibly guessed which units EPA would later pick as best performers or that its selection would be so flawed.

[00:03:11] Speaker 01:
Nor did petitioners have any obligation to make such a guess under this court's case law, since doing so would require them to divide the agency's unspoken thoughts.

[00:03:22] Speaker 01:
A second independent reason that petitioners meet the first prong of the statutory test reconsideration is that EPA's proposed technical analysis didn't even speak to measurability.

[00:03:32] Speaker 03:
If we agreed with you on the first but not on the second, would we remand and all of it would be up for grabs in the agency?

[00:03:39] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:03:41] Speaker 02:
So we only have to consider one of your two objections.

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
Is that right?

[00:03:45] Speaker 01:
For the first prong, yes, that is correct.

[00:03:51] Speaker 00:
Well, go ahead.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
Sorry.

[00:03:53] Speaker 00:
And if we were to agree with you on the denial of reconsideration, is there any reason for us to reach the arbitrary and capricious challenge?

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
I don't think so, if the entire start-up period was remanded to you.

[00:04:08] Speaker 02:
Well, can we anyway?

[00:04:09] Speaker 02:
Would we even have jurisdiction?

[00:04:12] Speaker 02:
Wouldn't there be a petition for reconsideration pending, so we would not have jurisdiction, would we?

[00:04:18] Speaker 01:
As an arbitrary and capricious thing?

[00:04:21] Speaker 01:
I think that's probably correct.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
And just so I understand, suppose we agreed that the objection you're now talking about, that is,

[00:04:33] Speaker 02:
that the best performance analysis that the agency does have to reconsider that.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
Does that open up the whole record or just that when it goes back?

[00:04:52] Speaker 01:
It would be our position that that opens up the entire startup period.

[00:04:56] Speaker 02:
So then we don't have to consider the other argument you make about why you're entitled to reconsideration, right?

[00:05:06] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure I completely understand your question.

[00:05:08] Speaker 01:
Are you talking about the two arguments as to the first problem?

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
No, I'm talking about the second argument, the argument that the agency failed to give notice of the fact that it couldn't, that EGUs could not measure emissions without having the pollution control technology operational.

[00:05:31] Speaker 03:
In other words, I think that's referring to the data and methodology part of it rather than the best performers part of it.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
And I think that it took your answer to be that if we found that there was a failure to allow comment on the best performers because they didn't even identify them, that the issue about the data technology would also be open on

[00:05:55] Speaker 03:
on reconsideration.

[00:05:56] Speaker 01:
As to measurability, you mean?

[00:05:57] Speaker 01:
Yes.

[00:05:58] Speaker 01:
Yes, the two are bound together.

[00:06:00] Speaker 03:
But you were also going to talk about central relevance.

[00:06:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, of course.

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
Petitioners' objections are of central relevance to the outcome of the rule because they go to the heart of whether the extended work practice period is lawful.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
EPA, Section 112H of the Cleaner Act requires EPA to make a very specific finding that sources can't measure their emissions before establishing work practice standards in lieu of numerical limits.

[00:06:27] Speaker 03:
And is that how you distinguish our decision in Sierra Club, which dealt with the industrial boilers, where we found that work practice alternatives to measurability were permissible because it couldn't measure?

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
Here you're saying, well, they can because of the acid rain program?

[00:06:50] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:06:51] Speaker 03:
So how do you distinguish our decision in Sierra Club, our industrial boilers decision?

[00:06:55] Speaker 01:
Well, that case didn't consider either of the claims at issue here.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
It didn't consider reconsideration.

[00:07:01] Speaker 01:
It didn't consider the acid rain argument.

[00:07:03] Speaker 01:
The only claim it considered related to the analysis, the technical analysis for power plants was a claim that it relied on when sources might choose to engage controls that theoretically sources might be able to do so earlier.

[00:07:22] Speaker 01:
But neither of the claims here is that claim.

[00:07:28] Speaker 01:
EPA's measurement finding, which it had to make, its core threshold finding, it had to make under 112a to the aquifer before establishing work practice standards, that is based on its selection of best performers as to nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide controls.

[00:07:43] Speaker 01:
A petitioner's objection calls into question that selection.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
Petitioners objected that EPA picked the wrong best performers, that the actual best performers can engage their sulfur dioxide controls at electricity generation.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
This court's cases dealing with maximum achievable control technology rules make clear that EPA's best performer analysis, when the UK considers the wrong best performers, that's of central relevance to the outcome.

[00:08:09] Speaker 01:
Those cases, several of which we cited in our reply brief, have remanded rules to UK where the agency failed to consider the actual set of best performers.

[00:08:18] Speaker 01:
Now, EPA's attorneys argue that nitrogen oxide controls alone were the driver in establishing the extended work practice period, but that claim is found nowhere in the record and is, in fact, completely contrary to the record.

[00:08:30] Speaker 01:
The record, for example, at JA 195 through 96 plainly shows that EPA found the best performers for nitrogen oxide controls and the best performers for sulfur dioxide controls engaged those controls at four hours after generation.

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
If there are any further questions.

[00:08:49] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:09:00] Speaker 04:
May it please the court.

[00:09:01] Speaker 04:
My name is Megan Greenfield and I'm here on behalf of EPA.

[00:09:05] Speaker 04:
With me at counsel's table is Paul Versace from EPA's Office of General Counsel and Grady Moore on behalf of industry intervenors.

[00:09:13] Speaker 04:
This court should deny the petition for review.

[00:09:17] Speaker 04:
The startup shutdown rule challenged here mirrors the rule that this court upheld last year in Sierra Club BEPA.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
The two rules are substantively identical in all relevant respects.

[00:09:31] Speaker 02:
Both rules define the end of this- Why don't you address an argument that they were entitled to reconsideration on two different issues?

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
That's the issue before us, isn't it?

[00:09:42] Speaker 04:
Yes.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:09:42] Speaker 02:
Why don't you focus on that?

[00:09:44] Speaker 04:
To obtain reconsideration under this provision of the Clean Air Act, the petitioners must show that their objection is of central relevance to the final rule and that it was impracticable to raise it sooner.

[00:09:55] Speaker 04:
On central relevance, petitioners argue that EPA should have selected a different group of power plants as the best performing.

[00:10:03] Speaker 04:
They identify 150 power plants they say are better performing because they have lower SO2 emissions during this early period of operation.

[00:10:12] Speaker 04:
But that's essentially a challenge to EPA's methodology here.

[00:10:17] Speaker 04:
EPA did not look in the proposed rule, the proposed 2013 rule, or in the final rule to which boilers had the lowest emissions, because it does not believe that emissions, half emissions, half emissions measurements are feasible during this period.

[00:10:36] Speaker 04:
It instead looked to when air pollution control devices were engaged.

[00:10:40] Speaker 04:
And it figured this out, not by looking to emissions levels, but looking to a drop in emissions of both SO2 and NOx.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
It was this drop below a set threshold that EPA found meaningful.

[00:10:54] Speaker 04:
Because it was at that point that EPA believes that smokestack conditions stabilize and measurements are feasible.

[00:11:01] Speaker 02:
Could you just explain something to me about that?

[00:11:03] Speaker 02:
This is a technical question.

[00:11:08] Speaker 02:
Why is it that emissions can't be measured until the pollution control technology is operational?

[00:11:17] Speaker 04:
EPA is using the operation of the control technology as a proxy for when it believes smokestack conditions stabilize.

[00:11:26] Speaker 04:
And so for certain types... But you didn't answer my question.

[00:11:29] Speaker 02:
I don't think.

[00:11:31] Speaker 02:
I thought the agency's position was that until the

[00:11:35] Speaker 02:
technology is operational, emissions can't be measured.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
Isn't that their position?

[00:11:40] Speaker 04:
That is their position, but the link here.

[00:11:42] Speaker 02:
Why is that?

[00:11:44] Speaker 02:
The pollution control technology limits the emissions, correct?

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
It limits the emissions.

[00:11:51] Speaker 02:
But measuring emissions is a different function, isn't it?

[00:11:55] Speaker 04:
Yes, they are a different function.

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
So why can't, why do you, why does the agency need the

[00:12:04] Speaker 02:
pollution control technology to be functioning efficiently before it can measure emissions.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
I just don't understand that.

[00:12:14] Speaker 04:
Sure, it's not a direct connection.

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
That's why I asked you the question.

[00:12:17] Speaker 02:
I mean, it just doesn't make sense to me.

[00:12:21] Speaker 04:
What EPA found in its technical analysis is that it was the functioning of the pollution control devices that indicated when emissions were stable in the smokestack.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
I understand that.

[00:12:33] Speaker 02:
I'll try once more.

[00:12:34] Speaker 02:
In my house, I have a furnace and a thermometer, a thermostat.

[00:12:41] Speaker 02:
The furnace heats the house, but the temperature is measured by a different device.

[00:12:47] Speaker 02:
I don't need furnace on to measure the temperature in the house.

[00:12:51] Speaker 02:
Is this different from that?

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
In one respect, it is different, and that is for certain types of the measurements that need to be taken in this smokestack, when they're physically taking the smokestack measurements, which is one type of measurement that's possible here, it requires stable emissions.

[00:13:09] Speaker 04:
If the boiler and the emissions are in a state of flux, that kind of smokestack measurement is not effective or reliable.

[00:13:17] Speaker 04:
So there is a connection there.

[00:13:26] Speaker 03:
But so, Ms.

[00:13:29] Speaker 03:
Greenfield, you were saying that EPA looked to the drop in emissions as the factor that drove its choice of the best performers, but was that set out?

[00:13:43] Speaker 03:
before the commenters so that they can have a crack at it?

[00:13:47] Speaker 04:
Yes, in the 2013 proposed technical support document, EPA explained its methodological approach here, which was looking to the drop of SO2 and NOx emissions levels as an indicator of when air pollution control devices were functioning and HAPA measurements were feasible.

[00:14:07] Speaker 04:
So that's clear in the 2013 proposed technical support document.

[00:14:13] Speaker 04:
And I can give you JA references for that.

[00:14:16] Speaker 04:
So it said, we're basing the period based on the amount of time needed to control emissions with eight air pollution control devices.

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
Which page are you on?

[00:14:25] Speaker 04:
So this is JA 71.

[00:14:31] Speaker 04:
And then again at JA89, the agency says, what we're looking at is the time to achieve operating benchmarks, or what's called steady state operations.

[00:14:41] Speaker 04:
And then at JA72 to 73, the agency explains clearly that it is not looking to overall emissions levels, but just this drop in emissions as the indicator of when air pollution control devices are functioning.

[00:14:59] Speaker 04:
And so at JA72 and full, the agency says, it's the removal efficacy of the air pollution control devices as evidenced by our emissions rates well below uncontrolled levels that may be used as an indicator of the end of the startup period.

[00:15:15] Speaker 04:
And that's the exact same approach that EPA followed in the final technical support document, where they too looked to this drop in emissions to indicate when the startup period ended.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
And there is a change.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
I acknowledge that in the 2013 technical support document, EPA did not identify which boilers were the best performers.

[00:15:37] Speaker 04:
But EPA made that change from all boilers to the 12 percent best-performing boilers in direct response to petitioners' own comments.

[00:15:45] Speaker 02:
Well, they say that's not what their comment was about.

[00:15:48] Speaker 04:
So we respectfully disagree.

[00:15:52] Speaker 02:
Why?

[00:15:53] Speaker 04:
Because they're commented at JA 156 and at 162 to 63.

[00:15:57] Speaker 04:
This is EPA's discussion of it.

[00:16:00] Speaker 04:
They talk about stack testing being feasible earlier, at an earlier point, and then again they ask that it should be based on a best performing 12%.

[00:16:09] Speaker 04:
That's what EPA's analysis should focus on.

[00:16:11] Speaker 04:
That's at JA 176.

[00:16:13] Speaker 04:
And that's exactly what EPA did in the final rule is that

[00:16:17] Speaker 04:
It looked at which applying the methodology that it did in the 2013 technical support document, applying that same methodology, it selected the best performing boilers under that methodology in direct response to their own comments.

[00:16:33] Speaker 04:
And what petitioners want here is a different methodology entirely.

[00:16:36] Speaker 04:
They want EPA to focus on lowest emissions.

[00:16:39] Speaker 04:
But again, in EPA's technical judgment, it doesn't think that those emissions measurements are reliable at that juncture, and so that should not be the proper framework.

[00:16:47] Speaker 03:
Whether they're reliable or not, though I took Judge Tatel to be asking, why does that matter if there are large emissions that are irregular but nonetheless substantial during a startup period, and they can be measured

[00:17:08] Speaker 03:
then in terms of taking account of what these plants are emitting, why does it matter whether they can be controlled?

[00:17:18] Speaker 03:
They're still going into the atmosphere.

[00:17:22] Speaker 04:
So I think that there's a disconnect here, and I don't think you're effectively addressing it.

[00:17:26] Speaker 04:
And EPA, it does not believe that in those early hours of operation, when the boiler is just getting up, starting up, that the measurements that are being taken by the CEMS

[00:17:37] Speaker 04:
are reliable, like that they actually mean what they say.

[00:17:42] Speaker 04:
So that's why EPA said under 112, when measurements are not feasible, when reliable measurements are not feasible, we can establish a work practice standard.

[00:17:52] Speaker 04:
That's exactly the same thing that happened in the Sierra Club case.

[00:17:55] Speaker 04:
And so we acknowledge that the CEMS are reporting numbers.

[00:17:59] Speaker 04:
We just don't think that those numbers are meaningful

[00:18:02] Speaker 04:
until the boiler reaches steady state operations.

[00:18:05] Speaker 03:
And why would that be?

[00:18:06] Speaker 03:
I mean, if I just to vastly oversimplify, if I have a filter on

[00:18:13] Speaker 03:
my machine that's gonna take out dangerous substances, but I can't put that filter on right away.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
And I also have a measuring balloon around the whole thing that can tell me how much is coming out.

[00:18:27] Speaker 03:
And the measuring balloon is saying, well, there's a lot when you don't have your filter on, and then there's less when you have your filter on.

[00:18:35] Speaker 03:
Can you tell us more about why the measurement is not reliable?

[00:18:39] Speaker 03:
I think this was,

[00:18:42] Speaker 03:
I think this is where Judge Taylor's question was coming from.

[00:18:45] Speaker 03:
Why does the inability to put on the emission control technology affect the reliability of the measurements that you have if

[00:18:57] Speaker 03:
if they're coming from two different sources of information.

[00:19:00] Speaker 04:
Exactly, and there is not a direct connection.

[00:19:02] Speaker 03:
Wait, wait, what do you mean exactly?

[00:19:05] Speaker 03:
There's not a direct connection yet, you're saying.

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
So there's not a direct connection.

[00:19:10] Speaker 04:
EPA was just using the air pollution control devices, those being operational, as an indication of the boiler achieving steady state operations.

[00:19:19] Speaker 03:
Right, but why is a non-steady, I guess more directly, why is a non-steady state boiler emissions

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
not reliably measurable.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
Can you give us more feel for what that's about?

[00:19:32] Speaker 04:
The way that these devices are designed is they're designed only to reliably measure emissions when that steady state operations occurs.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
And I can point you to some spots.

[00:19:42] Speaker 02:
You mean the pollution control technology is designed that way, right?

[00:19:46] Speaker 04:
No, you're saying the measurement technology.

[00:19:47] Speaker 04:
I'm saying the measurement technology works well only when the boiler is fully functioning, not during this time period.

[00:19:57] Speaker 02:
Where does it say that in here?

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
So there's a discussion of this in the record at JA150.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
155 and 164.

[00:20:07] Speaker 04:
And it says here, the SENS, which is an electronic measuring device, it says these are designed for measurements occurring during periods other than startup or shutdown, when emissions flows are stable and consistent.

[00:20:22] Speaker 04:
So EPA was really just looking for when are the emissions flows stable and consistent.

[00:20:27] Speaker 04:
And it said, the best way that we can figure that out is when it seems like the boiler is fully functioning.

[00:20:34] Speaker 04:
To figure that question out, we're going to look at when the air pollution control devices are engaged.

[00:20:39] Speaker 04:
So it's not that engagement of the air pollution control devices directly impacts measurement.

[00:20:46] Speaker 04:
It was just that this engagement was used as a proxy for when steady state operations were achieved, because that's when these emissions measurements devices can work effectively.

[00:20:56] Speaker 03:
You point to 155.

[00:20:58] Speaker 03:
Is there anywhere else?

[00:21:00] Speaker 03:
Oh, you said 150.

[00:21:01] Speaker 03:
150.

[00:21:04] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure I see that on 150.

[00:21:05] Speaker 04:
Okay, so here at 150, note five, it says neither NOX nor CEMS are calibrated at the levels found during startup or shutdown.

[00:21:14] Speaker 04:
They're calibrated between a range of values expected to be seen during non-startup or shutdown periods.

[00:21:21] Speaker 04:
What these instruments can provide is an indication or trend of emissions rather than actual values during startup.

[00:21:28] Speaker 04:
So that's why EPA looked to the drop because it said that's still meaningful, but what's not meaningful is the actual levels that it's reporting.

[00:21:38] Speaker 04:
Any other questions?

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
Did council have any time left?

[00:21:48] Speaker 01:
I would like to address one bit of housekeeping really quickly to correct something I said earlier, and hopefully address three things that EPA said very quickly.

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
First of all, I think I said earlier that granting reconsideration would deprive this court of jurisdiction as to the acid rain program conflict claimant.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
I don't think that's right, actually.

[00:22:10] Speaker 01:
But if this court doesn't wish to decide that claim at this point, if it just

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
remanded the start-up rule to EPA to consider whether emissions can be measured that way.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
You don't have any objection to that.

[00:22:22] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:22:23] Speaker 02:
I said you don't have any objection to that.

[00:22:24] Speaker 01:
No, not at all.

[00:22:28] Speaker 01:
Addressing the connection between measurability and controls, the important point here is that EPA never made the required finding under 112-H regarding measurability and never made any assertion that controls can be connected to measurability until the final rule.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
And thus petitioners couldn't have commented on the analysis regarding measurability and couldn't have commented on that finding until after the final rule was promulgated.

[00:22:59] Speaker 01:
The second thing is that EPA now says for the first time since its reconsideration denial that petitioners' objections aren't of central relevance because they didn't look to when controls are engaged.

[00:23:15] Speaker 01:
EPA didn't raise this argument in its brief, but in our opening brief, we rebutted that argument for why EPA was wrong.

[00:23:22] Speaker 01:
We looked at the mission levels to show that controls were engaged and our best performers had engaged themselves about our site controls of that generation.

[00:23:32] Speaker 01:
And lastly, EPA claims that it did a best-performing analysis in response to our comments.

[00:23:40] Speaker 01:
Regardless of what EPA thought, our comments did not say that it had to do a best-performing analysis to establish the length of a work-practice period.

[00:23:48] Speaker 01:
Our comments were focused on the substance.

[00:23:50] Speaker 01:
of the work practices themselves, and that's at JA 104 through 105.

[00:23:56] Speaker 01:
And even if our comments did say what any cases did, that doesn't matter.

[00:24:01] Speaker 01:
Regardless, the important thing is that petitioners couldn't have possibly objected to best-performer analysis that did not exist during the comment period.

[00:24:09] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:24:09] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
Thank you both.

[00:24:12] Speaker 02:
The case is submitted.