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

Heading: The RVCM Floor

Text: 36 Petitioners also contend that the EPA violated its statutory duty by failing to identify the five best performing PVC plants in setting the RVCM floor. Indeed, the EPA readily admits that it did not identify the best five performing plants, even though the CAA specifically requires the EPA to set floors that 37 shall not be less stringent, and may be more stringent than — 38 (B) the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 5 sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) in the category or subcategory for categories with fewer than 30 sources. 39 42 U.S.C. § 7412(d)(3)(B). Petitioners further point to Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. EPA, where we held that EPA may not deviate from section 7412(d)(3)'s requirement that floors reflect what the best performers actually achieve.... 255 F.3d 855, 861 (D.C.Cir.2001) ( CKRC ). 40 The EPA argues that in this case, determining the best five sources was impossible. This is because of the great variability in RVCM emissions, and the fact that that variability is a result of the type of resin being produced, not the technology or processes applied to control emission. 67 Fed. Reg. at 45,889/2-3. According to the EPA, there can even be great variability in RVCM emission at the same PVC plant, which would obviously employ the same technology and processes on a day-to-day basis, if that plant produces a variety of resins, which most do. Id. at 45,887/2. With comparisons between plants impossible, and emission variations not related to technological performance, the EPA claims it was unable to select the best five sources. Therefore, after considering other alternatives, it determined that since all twenty-eight PVC plants were subject to the Part 61 NESHAP, those standards estimated the best five performing sources. 41 In testing the EPA's reliance on the Part 61 NESHAP, we look to our earlier in-depth treatment of this and similar provisions of the CAA. In Sierra Club v. EPA, the Sierra Club challenged the EPA's methodology when it ranked ... incinerators by the stringency of the control provisions to which they were subject and then selected the 12 percent of the incinerator population subject to the strictest controls and set the floor... by averaging the emissions limitations governing those incinerators. 167 F.3d at 661. Sierra Club challenged the use of regulatory data for determining floors because the statute in that case required, almost exactly as the statute presently before us required, that [e]missions standards... shall not be less stringent than the average emissions limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of units in the category. 42 U.S.C. § 7429(a). Noting that this phrase on its own says nothing about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated, Sierra Club, 167 F.3d at 661, we held that EPA need not base its standards on actual data, but could lawfully rely on estimates drawn from the regulatory data as to what the best performing 12 percent were achieving. Id. at 663. Ultimately, however, we remanded that decision to the agency because EPA had not pointed to evidence supporting the reasonableness of the approximation. Id. 42 In National Lime, we heard another challenge to EPA's methodology, that time with respect to the statute presently before us, CAA section 112. Relying heavily on Sierra Club, we rejected a petitioner's claim that textual differences in CAA sections 129 and 112 mandated a different analysis. National Lime, 233 F.3d at 632. There, EPA selected the median [performing] plant out of the best twelve percent of the plants for which it had information and set the ... floor at the level of the worst performing plant in its databases using th[e same] technology [as the median plant]. Id. at 630. Again, we held that CAA section 112 allowed the EPA to reasonably estimate the performance of the top 12 percent rather than use the actual data, as long as the estimate was reasonable. Id. at 633. We held that Sierra Club had not offered a reason in the record to show EPA's estimate was not reasonable. Id. 43 In CKRC, we again reiterated our earlier position, enunciated in our Sierra Club and National Lime decisions, that EPA could use estimates if reasonable, but in a different context. There, EPA took the position that section 112 required it to set a standard that could be achieved by the worst performing plant that utilized MACT control technology. CKRC, 255 F.3d at 861. The Sierra Club challenged this on the basis that section 112 does not limit itself to any one technology, so EPA was required to consider what the best performers actually achieved, taking into consideration factors other than MACT technology. Id. We agreed, and held that the worst performing MACT source do[es] not, as the CAA requires, represent a reasonable estimate of emissions achieved by the best-performing sources. Id. at 865. We also reiterated that EPA could use estimates, as long as they reflected a reasonable[] estimate [of] the performance of the ... best-performing plants. Id. at 862. In CKRC, EPA failed to make the connection. 44 Most recently, in Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority v. EPA, we rejected EPA's efforts to use state permit limits as the MACT floor for pollutants from small municipal waste combustion units. 358 F.3d 936, 953-54 (D.C.Cir.2004) ( NMWDA ). There, [a]s in Sierra Club, EPA stated only that it `believes' state permit limits reasonably reflect the actual performance of the best performing units without explaining why this is so. Id. at 954. EPA only asserted that the inherent variability of emission levels made its data inaccurate, but gave no evidence that the [state] permit levels reflect the emission levels of the best-performing plants. Id. EPA's belief did not rise to the level of a reasonable estimate. 45 Turning to the present case, EPA again cites the variability of emission, which EPA claims makes the lower state limits inappropriate. This, EPA explained, is because the state permit levels are tailored to the specific products at each plant, and typically use a longer averaging time in order to require a lower average limit. More importantly, however, instead of simply claiming that it believes its Part 61 standards estimate what the best five plants actually achieve, EPA points to some evidence. In its response to comments, EPA cited its analysis of three years of data, and showed that even the facility that had the lowest overall long term RVCM experienced significant variation in daily averages including one daily (three hour) average of 397 ppm. EPA Response to Comments at 6, April 2002. Thus, the 400 ppm daily standard contained in the Part 61 standard is just barely satisfied by the plant with the lowest overall long term RVCM. EPA has thus pointed to factual data that the Part 61 standard reasonably estimates the performance of the top performers, because even the best performing sources occasionally have spikes, and under the standard, each facility must meet the 400 ppm standard every day and under all operating conditions. The EPA has met it burden of establishing that its standards reasonably estimate the performance of the best five performing sources. Having cited the great variability of emission levels, even within the same plants, and the inherent difficulty in other standards it considered, the EPA's selection of the Part 61 standards as the MACT floor is reasonable because it has supported its decision with record data that shows the connection between its MACT floor and the top performing plants.