Opinion ID: 580022
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Spokane I: The First Appeal

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