Opinion ID: 580022
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Administrative Appeals

Text: 16 In December 1988, Citizens appealed Ecology's approval of the Spokane incinerator to the EPA Administrator. Citizens argued that Ecology had erred in failing to consider recycling as a best available control technology. As a result, Citizens argued, Ecology planned to permit the incinerator to discharge more regulated pollutants than necessary. Further, Citizens challenged Ecology's failure to require deNOx control technologies to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from the incinerator. 17 On June 9, 1989, the Administrator issued an order denying review of the Spokane permit. In re Spokane Regional Waste-to-Energy Applicant, PSD Appeal No. 88-12 (EPA June 9, 1989) (Spokane I ). The Administrator ruled that Citizens had failed to meet its burden on administrative appeal. That is, Citizens had failed to show Ecology had committed clear error in refusing to consider recycling as a best available control technology. Id. at 21. The Administrator also dismissed as moot Citizens' argument concerning deNOx control technologies because Spokane agreed to install the requisite technology. Id. at 23. The Administrator thus remanded the permit to Ecology to set new pollutant levels recalculated for deNOx technologies. Id. The Administrator strictly limited the scope of any future appeal to those revised pollutant levels. Id. at 24. 18
19 A month prior to Spokane's 1987 permit application, EPA published notice of proposed new rules for New Source Performance Standards for municipal waste combustors (MWCs) such as Spokane's. 52 Fed.Reg. 25,399 (1987). The notice mentioned recycling as a proposed New Source Performance Standard. Id. On December 20, 1989, six months after the Administrator's order denying Citizens' appeal of the Spokane incinerator permit and while that permit was on remand to Ecology, EPA published the proposed New Source Performance Standards. 54 Fed.Reg. 52,251 (1989). In its proposed rule, EPA observed that as a matter of common sense recycling is an appropriate technology for reduction of air pollution from incinerators. Id. at 52,281. EPA also noted that it was unable to reliably quantify the emission reductions attributable to materials separation when an MWC is equipped with highly efficient at-the-stack air pollution control devices. Id. The Administrator approved the draft New Source Performance Standards, and opened them for public comment. When Citizens petitioned for review in this court, final approval of recycling as a New Source Performance Standard was still pending. 4
20 In September 1989, after an additional public comments period, Ecology issued revised final approval of Spokane's incinerator permit. Citizens petitioned the Administrator for review of the revised permit. In its petition, Citizens argued that the revised NOx emissions limit was still too high because it did not account for reductions that would result from a more vigorous waste reduction and recycling program. In support of its petition, Citizens cited the draft New Source Performance Standard for recycling for municipal incinerators recently approved by the Administrator. The petition also included a study of Seattle's successful recycling program. 21 On January 2, 1990, the Administrator denied Citizens' petition. In re Spokane Regional Waste-to-Energy Project, PSD Appeal No. 89-4 (EPA Jan. 2, 1990) (Spokane II). The Administrator again ruled that Citizens had failed to meet its burden on administrative appeal. Id. at 2-3. The Administrator further held that Citizens had improperly tried to raise the same recycling issue the Administrator had foreclosed in the prior denial. Id. at 4. On March 8, 1990, Citizens petitioned this court for review of the Administrator's Spokane I and Spokane II orders.