Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle
572 F.2d 872 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a statute requires a 'public hearing' for an agency adjudication, there is a presumption that the formal adjudicatory procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) apply, even if the statute does not explicitly use the words 'on the record'. The decision must be based exclusively on the evidence adduced at the hearing.
Facts:
- The Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCO) planned to construct a nuclear power plant in Seabrook.
- The plant's proposed cooling system would draw water from the Gulf of Maine, use it to cool the reactor, and then discharge it back into the Hampton-Seabrook Estuary at a temperature 39°F higher than intake.
- This type of 'once-through' cooling system did not meet the standard effluent limitations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
- Heat is defined as a 'pollutant' under the FWPCA, and its discharge is prohibited without a permit.
- PSCO applied to the EPA for a discharge permit and sought an exemption under FWPCA § 316, which allows for less stringent standards if the applicant can prove they are sufficient to protect local wildlife.
- The plant's design also included a 'backflushing' process that would periodically discharge 120°F water through the intake tunnel to kill marine organisms.
Procedural Posture:
- Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCO) applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a discharge permit and an exemption under § 316 of the FWPCA.
- The EPA Regional Administrator first held a non-adjudicatory hearing and authorized the system in June 1975.
- At the request of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (petitioners), the Regional Administrator held formal adjudicative hearings.
- Following the adjudicative hearings, the Regional Administrator reversed his earlier decision in November 1976 and denied PSCO’s application.
- PSCO, as the applicant, appealed the Regional Administrator's denial to the EPA Administrator.
- The Administrator, assisted by an internal technical panel, accepted new written evidence from PSCO but denied petitioners' request for a hearing on it, and ultimately reversed the Regional Administrator's decision, granting the permit.
- The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, as petitioners, sought review of the EPA Administrator's final decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the requirement for a 'public hearing' in an adjudicatory proceeding under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) trigger the formal hearing procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), even though the FWPCA does not expressly state the hearing must be 'on the record'?
Opinions:
Majority - Coffin, Chief Judge
Yes. A statutory requirement for a 'public hearing' in an adjudicatory proceeding is presumed to require a formal hearing on the record governed by §§ 554, 556, and 557 of the APA. The court rejected the argument that the precise words 'on the record' must be present in a statute to trigger these APA provisions. The court reasoned that the nature of the proceeding—an adjudication of disputed facts concerning a specific permit applicant—is exactly the kind of quasi-judicial function for which the APA’s formal protections were intended. The purpose of these procedures is to ensure a decision based on a reviewable record and protect the rights of all parties. Furthermore, the court found the EPA violated the APA's exclusivity of the record provision (§ 556(e)) when the Administrator's technical panel introduced and relied upon scientific literature not present in the administrative record. The EPA also erred by taking post-hearing written submissions without holding a new hearing as required by the FWPCA, and by failing to properly consider whether cross-examination on the new evidence was necessary for a full disclosure of the facts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a functional, rather than a strictly textual, approach to determining when formal APA adjudication procedures are required. It establishes a strong presumption that a statutory requirement for a 'hearing' in an adjudicatory context implies a formal, on-the-record proceeding, thereby ensuring a basis for meaningful judicial review. The ruling reinforces the procedural line between informal rulemaking and formal adjudication, providing greater procedural protections for parties in licensing and permit proceedings. By vacating the EPA's decision for relying on extra-record evidence, the case also serves as a powerful reminder that agency decisions must be based solely on the evidence presented and challenged by the parties in the proceeding.
Unlock the full brief for Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. Costle