Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit
572 F.2d 872 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A statutory requirement for a 'public hearing' in an administrative adjudication triggers the formal procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), even if the statute does not use the words 'on the record'. Consequently, an agency's decision must be based exclusively on evidence contained within the official administrative record.

Facts:

Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCO) sought to build a nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire.
The plant's proposed cooling system would take in water from the Gulf of Maine and discharge it back into the Gulf at a temperature 39°F higher.
This once-through cooling system did not meet the standard Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effluent limitations for heat, which is classified as a pollutant under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
During a process called 'backflushing,' the plant would discharge water heated to 120°F through the intake tunnel to kill marine organisms living in the intake system.
PSCO applied to the EPA for a discharge permit, seeking an exemption under § 316 of the FWPCA, which requires demonstrating that the discharge would not harm the local 'balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife.'

Procedural Posture:

PSCO applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a discharge permit and an exemption from thermal pollution standards.
An EPA Regional Administrator initially granted the permit but, after an adjudicative hearing before an administrative law judge, reversed this decision and denied PSCO's application.
PSCO, the applicant, appealed the denial to the EPA Administrator.
The Administrator assembled an internal technical panel of EPA scientists to assist in his review.
The Administrator requested and received supplemental written information from PSCO regarding the environmental effects of 'backflushing' and permitted other parties to submit written comments.
Petitioners' request for a new oral hearing on the supplemental information was denied by the Administrator.
The Administrator reversed the Regional Administrator's decision and granted the permit to PSCO.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire (petitioners) petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for review of the Administrator's final decision.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Is an administrative adjudication, which a statute requires to be preceded by a 'public hearing,' subject to the formal procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), even if the statute does not use the specific phrase 'on the record'?

Opinions:

Majority - Coffin, Chief Judge

Yes. When a statute requires a 'public hearing' for an agency adjudication, there is a presumption that Congress intended for the formal procedural protections of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to apply. The court reasoned that the substantive nature of the proceeding—a quasi-judicial determination of disputed facts affecting a specific party's rights—necessitates the APA's safeguards to ensure a reasoned decision and meaningful judicial review. The court rejected the argument that the precise words 'on the record' must be present in the statute. Applying this standard, the Administrator committed two procedural errors. First, he improperly relied on a report from an internal technical panel that introduced extra-record information, specifically scientific literature not submitted during the hearing, thereby violating the APA's requirement that the decision be based on the 'exclusive record'. Second, while the Administrator could reopen the record to receive new evidence, he could not do so solely through written submissions because the FWPCA's 'public hearing' requirement is not satisfied by a mere opportunity to submit documents. Therefore, the decision was remanded to the agency to correct these procedural defects.

Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the threshold for triggering the APA's formal adjudicatory procedures, establishing that the functional nature of a hearing, rather than specific statutory 'magic words,' is determinative. It strengthens the procedural rights of parties in administrative proceedings by reinforcing the exclusivity of the administrative record and limiting an agency's ability to rely on un-vetted internal expertise or post-hearing submissions. The ruling ensures that agency decisions, particularly in complex technical areas like environmental law, are made transparently and are based on evidence that all parties have had an opportunity to challenge, thereby promoting accountability and enabling effective judicial review.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"