Opinion ID: 580022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The New Source Performance Standard for Recycling

Text: 46 Citizens argues finally that EPA itself supplied whatever substantiation Citizens' comments may have lacked when the Administrator approved the draft New Source Performance Standard requiring recycling for municipal incinerators such as Spokane's. In approving the new recycling standard, Citizens points out, the Administrator relied on both the NRT study 7 and the same common sense inferences rejected by the Administrator in denying Citizens' first petition. If the NRT study and common sense suffice for the proposal of nationwide, mandatory standards, Citizens argues, they ought to suffice to require Ecology and EPA to consider recycling as a possible best available control technology. 47 In the order denying Citizens' second petition, the Administrator explained three reasons for refusing to consider the proposed new recycling standard in support of Citizens' petition. Spokane II at 5 n. 3. First, the new standard was still in draft form, susceptible to public comment and change. Id. Second, if finally adopted, the standard would apply to Spokane's incinerator in all events. Id. 8 Third, the evidence supporting the new standard did not appear in the record for Spokane's PSD permit either before Ecology or before the Administrator in the first petition. Id. In the interest of repose, therefore, the Administrator declined to review the evidence at that stage. Id. 48 Citizens deftly attempts to undermine the Administrator's rationale. If the issue is persuasiveness of the evidence to EPA itself, Citizens argues, lack of final approval does not weaken the Administrator's imprimatur on the evidence shown by his initial approval of the draft recycling standard. Citizens adduced the exact same evidence in its comments as EPA considered in proposing the new recycling standard; i.e., the NRT study and common sense. The NRT study and common sense arguments were on the record both before Ecology during the permit process and before the Administrator in Citizens' first petition. Thus, Citizens concludes, the Administrator acted arbitrarily and capriciously by rejecting, on the one hand, Citizens' recycling evidence in support of its petition and, on the other hand, adopting the exact same evidence in support of the draft recycling standard for all new municipal incinerators. 49 Data supporting a New Source Performance Standard, however, must necessarily be more generalized than data supporting a best available control technology determination for a particular incinerator in a particular place. Indeed, we have previously distinguished New Source Performance Standard or NSPS determinations from those made under the PSD program. In Northern Plains Resource Council, we explained: 50 While the NSPS program and the PSD are both interrelated parts of a comprehensive federal legislative effort to protect and enhance this nation's air quality, the two programs play different roles in achieving that broad general goal.... 51 The focus of the NSPS program ... is upon the affected facility component in a stationary source, i.e. the particular apparatus to which a standard is applied. The NSPS program is therefore equipment oriented. On the other hand, the PSD program covers the whole stationary source, and focuses on where the plant will be located and its potential effect on its environs. The PSD program is therefore site oriented. 52 645 F.2d at 1355-56 (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). We therefore concluded that definitions of statutory terms are not necessarily transferable between the PSD and NSPS programs. Id. at 1356. Likewise, the data required for adoption of an equipment oriented New Source Performance Standard may fall far short of the data required for the site oriented best available control technology determination under the PSD program. Given the distinction between the two programs, the Administrator did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in rejecting Citizens' petition under the PSD program based on data valid for the NSPS program.