Opinion ID: 186224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Use of Vinyl Chloride as a Surrogate

Text: 46 Petitioners also challenge the EPA's failure to establish emission standards for every HAP that PVC plants emit. We have held that this requirement, spelled out in CAA section 112(d)(1), establishes a clear statutory obligation to set emission standards for each listed HAP that the source category emits. Nat'l Lime, 233 F.3d at 634. Instead, according to petitioners, EPA simply utilized the Part 61 NESHAP, which addresses only vinyl chloride. Petitioners argue that this fails under both the first and second step of the familiar Chevron analysis, and in the alternative, that it is arbitrary and capricious because EPA has failed to present any evidence that its vinyl chloride regulations regulate all other HAPs. 47 For its part, EPA contends that it simply utilized vinyl chloride as a surrogate for the other HAPs. EPA makes several attempts to defend this effort, none of which can save it. First, in EPA's view, National Lime merely requires that there [be] a correlation between [the surrogate and the other HAPs]; it need not quantify that correlation or assess its variability. Id. at 639. In EPA's own words, if [it] can demonstrate that the necessary correlation exists, the agency may use a surrogate and avoid full-blown application of Section 112 for each hazardous air pollutant emitted from an industry. EPA's problem is that, assuming, without deciding, this is all that is required, it completely failed to do so. 48 We have clearly held that EPA may use a surrogate to regulate hazardous pollutants if it is reasonable to do so. Nat'l Lime, 233 F.3d at 637. In assessing the reasonableness of EPA's use of a surrogate in that case, we held that because EPA had demonstrated that there are always HAP metals in particulate matter (the surrogate), and thus that the removal of the particulate matter removed the HAP metals, EPA had satisfied its burden. Id. at 639; see also Sierra Club v. EPA, 353 F.3d 976 (D.C.Cir.2004). The EPA found no such correlation here. 49 The EPA asserts that it is aware of no statutory or regulatory provision or any case law imposing the requirement that EPA must identify each and every pollutant controlled through a surrogate under Section 112(d). The EPA reads the requirement that it establish a correlation between the surrogate and the HAP it is attempting to regulate as not requiring identification of the HAP it is attempting to regulate. To clarify EPA's position, it contends that [p]rovided EPA reasonably determined ... a link existed between vinyl chloride controls and other hazardous air pollutants, it should make no difference whether EPA has identified each of the other hazardous air pollutants emitted by the industry. While EPA may be able to know that a correlation exists between one known pollutant and some other unknown pollutants, it has not memorialized that knowledge in such a fashion that commenters, interested members of the public, regulated entities, or most importantly, a reviewing court, can assess. We cannot review under any standard the adequacy of the EPA's correlation determination if we do not know what correlation the EPA found to exist. The closest the EPA comes to supplying record support for its determination is a reference to tables included in the administrative record showing what other hazardous air pollutants were emitted by various plants at various locations. These charts take up several pages of the joint appendix, and we have no way of knowing what EPA's claims are as to which of the HAPs are represented by surrogacy or to what degree. In short, we do not find EPA's explanation persuasive, and hold that its determination that vinyl chloride is a surrogate for all other HAPs emitted from PVC production facilities is arbitrary and capricious and not supported in the record. Therefore, EPA's use of vinyl chloride as a surrogate for other HAPs emitted from PVC plants is remanded to the agency for more a adequate explanation.