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

Heading: The Spokane II Order

Text: 53 Citizens also argues that the Administrator erred in refusing to consider Citizens' second petition arguing for recycling as a best available control technology in conjunction with deNOx technology. Citizens points out again that the Administrator's approval of recycling as a draft New Source Performance Standard bolstered their second petition. Moreover, Citizens argues, the Administrator erred in refusing to reconsider recycling in the second petition in the interest of repose. Congress intended applicants to complete the entire PSD permit process, subject to revision at any time, before commencing construction, Citizens argues. The Administrator's concern for repose, Citizens argues, thus thwarts congressional intent that new sources of air pollution incorporate up-to-the-last-minute technologies for emission reduction. 54 Citizens correctly describes congressional intent; the Administrator should not have cited repose as a rationale for denying Citizens' second petition. See 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(1); 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(f). 9 However, because we reject Citizens' arguments concerning its first petition, we reject Citizens' objections to the Administrator's Spokane II order as well. Citizens offered nothing more specific on remand than it did during the initial comment period. Certainly the proposed recycling standard offers no additional information supporting Citizens' position. As EPA noted in proposing the standard, the agency was unable to reliably quantify the emission reductions attributable to materials separation. 54 Fed.Reg. 52,251 (1989). The Administrator therefore did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in declining to reconsider recycling as a best available control technology upon Citizens' second petition.