Citizens for Clean Air v. U.S. E.P.A.
Decision Date | 26 March 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 90-70119,90-70119 |
Citation | 959 F.2d 839 |
Parties | , 60 USLW 2668, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,669 CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR and Council for Land Care and Planning, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and Washington Department of Ecology, Respondents, City of Spokane, and Wheelabrator Spokane, Intervenors. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
David A. Bricklin, Bricklin & Gendler, Seattle, Wash., for petitioners.
Craig D. Galli, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Jeffrey B. Renton, Gregory B. Foote, E.P.A., Office of General Counsel, and Deborah Hilsman, Asst. Regional Counsel, EPA Region X, for E.P.A.
Laurie S. Halvorson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash. (Washington Dept. of Ecology) (appeared only).
Craig S. Trueblood, Preston, Thorgrimson, Shidler, Gates & Ellis, Spokane, Wash., for intervenors-respondents, City of Spokane.
Petition to Review a Decision of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Before: TANG, O'SCANNLAIN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In the early 1980s, Spokane began grappling with a shortage of safe landfill sites for city and county refuse. Contamination of the Spokane-Rathdrum aquifer forced the closure of three landfills, later designated as EPA "Superfund" sites. In 1981, Spokane initiated studies of landfill alternatives, including a mass burn incinerator which would convert refuse to marketable energy (a "waste-to-energy" incinerator). By 1984, after several more studies and public hearings, Spokane adopted a comprehensive plan for solid waste management. 1 The comprehensive plan included plans for recycling, waste reduction, a waste-to-energy incinerator, and, as a last resort, a new regional landfill. The recycling program increased the Spokane County recycling rate from 5% of all waste produced in 1984 to 19% in 1990. The 1990 update of the comprehensive plan sets a recycling goal of 50% by 1995.
The incinerator aspect of the plan also proceeded. First, Spokane completed environmental impact statements required under Washington law. Next, in 1987, Spokane contracted with Wheelabrator Environmental Systems ("Wheelabrator") to design and build a waste-to-energy incinerator. 2 Spokane also contracted with a power utility to buy the energy produced. Finally, in 1987, Spokane initiated the permitting process under the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Air Act includes a scheme for the "prevention of significant deterioration of air quality," called the "PSD" program. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470-7492. The PSD program requires owners and operators to secure a permit before construction of certain new stationary sources of air pollution. Id. § 7475. Spokane's proposed incinerator qualifies as a new source of air pollution regulated under the PSD program.
Three features of the PSD program figure in this review of EPA decisions. First, all such new sources must meet "New Source Performance Standards," which impose various emissions limitations. Id. § 7411(a), (f). EPA periodically promulgates New Source Performance Standards under its rulemaking authority. Id. § 7411(b)(1)(B). Second, the PSD program requires all new source applicants such as Spokane to install the "best available control technology" ("BACT") to reduce air pollution. Id. § 7475(a)(4). Determination of the best available control technology is made "on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs." Id. § 7479(3). Third, EPA regulations for the PSD program require notice, a comment period, and a public hearing on applications for new sources of air pollution. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.10-124.12. Upon final approval of an application by a state agency, participants in the comment process may petition the EPA Administrator in Washington, D.C. for administrative review. Id. § 124.19.
costs uniquely associated with mass burn incineration including revenue lost from recyclable materials; energy costs associated with manufacturing from virgin, as opposed to recycled[,] materials; environmental and other costs due to the mining of raw materials when recycled materials could be used instead; costs associated with disposal and handling of hazardous incinerator ash; soil, water, and plant contamination caused both by air pollution and by leachate from ash disposal sites; and cumulative effects such as acid rain and ozone depletion.
In support of its comments, Citizens filed three studies of recycling.
Ecology responded to Citizens' comments by rejecting consideration of recycling as a best available control technology for the Spokane incinerator. On December 13, 1988, Ecology issued final approval of the Spokane incinerator permit.
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.
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.
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,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Central Arizona Water Conservation Dist. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...our review of the Administrator's interpretation of EPA regulations if the interpretation is not unreasonable." Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d 839, 844 (9th Cir.1992); see also Hawaiian Elec. Co. v. EPA, 723 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir.1984) ("[W]hen EPA is interpreting its own regula......
-
Center for Biolog. Div. V. Nat'L Highway Traffic
...that the appropriate course was not to monetize or quantify the value of carbon emissions reduction at all. Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d 839 (9th Cir.1992), which NHTSA cites to support its contention that agencies may decline to adopt a "particular monetary value" when the "cost......
-
Sierra Club v. Moser
...or if energy, environmental, or economic impacts justify a conclusion that it is not achievable. Citizens for Clean Air v. United States EPA, 959 F.2d 839, 845–46 (9th Cir.1992). If the top choice is eliminated, then the next most stringent alternative is considered, and so on. The most eff......
-
Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Bonneville Power Admin., 2
...factual contention regarding the substantive content of an EIS during the NEPA public comment process. See also Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d 839, 846-47 (9th Cir.1992). In contrast, petitioners in the present case contest an alleged procedural violation of a statute that governs ......
-
Preconstruction Permits: New Source Performance Standards and New Source Review
...a draft permit is inappropriate, 156. 40 C.F.R. §124.13. 157. Id . §124.17(a)(2). 158. Id . §124.19(a). 159. 645 F.2d at 1349. 154. 959 F.2d 839, 22 ELR 20669 (9th Cir. 1992). 155. Id . at 845. must raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably available arguments supp......
-
Are insignificant emissions significant? Western States Petroleum Ass'n v. EPA: the air operating permit program of the Clean Air Act.
...implement contra measures targeting the 24 hour standard NAAQS). (137) Western States, 87 F.3d at 283; see Citizens for Clean Air v. EPA, 959 F.2d 839, 844, 847 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that EPA's decision not to consider recycling as a possible best available control technology was entitle......