TagEPA(33)

· "There is a vital need for· ne , ai~rts to relieve ex- isting ones at or near ·criti· cal capacity, for example in northeast .(Bos- . ton•Washington; D. C.). · "Yet .only two major hub airports ·are being built - Kansas City and Dallas- Fort Worth .. . to put it more bluntly,. the American air-transportation system is in a crunch," Greenfield· said. He said the environmental impact of the aircraft indus- try, in the. opinion of -the public, centers on airports and not airplanes. An airpvrt has a primary environmental impact from noise pollution and ai r and water pollution, includ- ing waste oils, coming di· rectly from the airport. The secondary impact involves the pollution j:!enerate<f by industrial traffic and resi- dential areas attracted to , the vicinity ·of ·an airport. · The secondary effect of an airport can "produce large local impacts,'~ Greenfield said. The use of buffer zones requires land around the airport and it can be used in a number of ways, whi.ch cause pollution and traffic. "T he · implications for very large airports are great," he said. "Satellite industries attracted to San Francisco International Air- port, for instance, account for 90,000 jobs and 130 zoned industrial parks are locating within 3() miles of the new Dallas-Fort Worth airport. "It is obvious that plan- ning for only the primary impact of an airport will in- volve us in a vicious pollu- tion cycle, expensive and possibly insoluble as activi- ty grows unplanned around…

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus WEST VIRGINIA ET AL. v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 20–1530. Argued February 28, 2022—Decided June 30, 2022* In 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Clean Power Plan rule, which addressed carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants. For authority, the Agency cited Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which, although known as the New Source Performance Standards program, also au- thorizes regulation of certain pollutants from existing sources under Section 111(d). 42 U. S. C. §7411(d). Prior to the Clean Power Plan, EPA had used Section 111(d) only a handful of times since its enact- ment in 1970. Under that provision, although the States set the actual enforceable rules governing existing sources (such as power plants), EPA determines the emissions limit with which they will have to com- ply. The Agency derives that limit by determining the “best system of emission reduction . . . that has been adequately demonstrated,” or the BSER, for…