Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01253/USCOURTS-caDC-95-01253-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
Zeneca Inc.
Petitioner

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 4, 1996 Decided November 1, 1996

No. 95-1249

DITHIOCARBAMATE TASK FORCE,

PETITIONER

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ET AL.,

RESPONDENTS

UNIROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, INC., AND

ZENECA, INC.,

INTERVENORS

Consolidated with

Nos. 95-1251, 95-1253, 95-1255

On Petitions for Review of an Order of the

Environmental Protection Agency

Bethami Auerbach argued the cause for petitioner Dithiocarbamate Task Force, et al. Lynn L.

Bergeson, Aaron Goldberg and Ann Claassen were with her on the briefs. Seth A. Goldberg argued

the cause for petitioner Troy Chemical Corporation. Anita G. Fox was with him on the briefs.

Michael W. Steinberg argued the cause for petitioner Zeneca, Inc. Hunter L. Prillaman, J. Daniel

Berry and Mark A. Greenwood were with him on the briefs.

Alan J. Birnbaum and Cecilia E. Kim, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, argued the

cause for respondents. Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant AttorneyGeneral, and Alan H. Carpien, Attorney,

United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency, were with themon the brief. Christopher S. Vaden,

Attorney, United States Department of Justice, entered an appearance.

Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, WILLIAMS and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge WILLIAMS.

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judge: This consolidated case concerns four classes of carbamate

compoundscarbamates proper, carbamoyl oximes, thiocarbamates and dithiocarbamates

(collectively "carbamates")whose similar names reflect similarities in their chemical origins and

structures. All are derivatives of carbamic acid. Carbamates and derivative products are used as

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 1 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

1The statute defines hazardous waste as

a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity,

concentration or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may

(A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an

increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or

(B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the

environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of,

or otherwise managed.

42 U.S.C. § 6903(5). 

pesticides, herbicides and fungicides; they are also used in various ways by the rubber, wood and

textile industries. In the rulemaking giving rise to this lawsuit the Environmental Protection Agency

listed many of these carbamate-based products, as well as waste streams generated in

carbamate-based production processes, as hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k ("RCRA") (1994). Petitioners, the Dithiocarbamate Task

Force (treated collectively with intervenor Uniroyal Chemical Co. as "DTF" or the "Task Force"),

Zeneca Inc., and Troy Chemical Corp., are (or represent) manufacturers who make various

carbamate-based products or use carbamatesin their production processes. They challenge a portion

of these listings as arbitrary and capricious.

Because we find that in promulgating some of the challenged rules EPA failed to meet the

minimum standard required of it by the Administrative Procedure Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)

(1994), we vacate in part and affirm in part.

* * *

Statutory and Regulatory Authority: RCRA, enacted in 1976, directs the EPA to promulgate

criteria for identifying and listing hazardous wastes, "taking into account toxicity, persistence, and

degradability in nature, potential for accumulation in tissue, and other related factors such as

flammability, corrosiveness, and other hazardous characteristics." 42 U.S.C. § 6921(a). In 1980

EPA issued rules for identifying hazardous wastes, along with its first list of wastes subject to

RCRA.1 See Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,

45 Fed. Reg. 33,084-33,137 (May 19, 1980) (codified as amended at 40 CFR Part 261) (hereinafter,

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 2 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

"Identification of Hazardous Waste"). Those rules remain in force today, with minor adjustments.

The rules lay out three different routes to listing a substance as a hazardous waste, of which

the third is of primary relevance here. Under it a waste can be listed as hazardous if it satisfies two

conditions:

[1] It contains any ofthe toxic constituentslisted in appendix VIII [to 40 CFR

Part 261] and [2] after considering the following factors [listed below], the

Administrator concludes that the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or

potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,stored,

transported or disposed of or otherwise managed.

Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 40 CFR § 261.11(a)(3) (1995) (bracketed material

added). The first step in the process, adding chemicals to appendix VIII, is to occur "only if [the

chemicals] have beenshown in scientific studiesto have toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic

effects on humans or other life forms." Id. In the second step, the Administrator is to consider the

following factors:

(i) The nature of the toxicity presented by the constituent.

(ii) The concentration of the constituent in the waste.

(iii) The potential of the constituent or any toxic degradation product of the

constituent to migrate from the waste into the environment under the types of

improper management considered in paragraph (a)(3)(vii) of this section.

(iv) The persistence of the constituent or any toxic degradation product ofthe

constituent.

(v) The potential for the constituent or any toxic degradation product of the

constituent to degrade into non-harmful constituents and the rate of degradation.

(vi) The degree to which the constituent or any degradation product of the

constituent bioaccumulates in ecosystems.

(vii) The plausible types of improper management to which the waste could

be subjected.

(viii) The quantities of the waste generated at individual generation sites or on

a regional or national basis.

(ix) The nature and severity of the human health and environmental damage

that has occurred as a result of the improper management of wastes containing the

constituent.

(x) Action taken by other governmental agencies or regulatory programs

based on the health or environmental hazard posed by the waste or waste constituent.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 3 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

2For the remainder of the opinion we use the term "product" to encompass "manufacturing

chemical intermediates." See Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9811/2. 

(xi) Such other factors as may be appropriate.

Id.

Once the EPA decidesto list a waste as hazardous, the substance is assigned a particular code

and included in the appropriate lists in Subpart D of Part 261. Wastes generated by manufacturing

processes are listed as K wastes. Chemical products or manufacturing chemical intermediates that

are hazardous if they are discarded or intended to be discarded are listed as P or U wastes, the P

designation being reserved for "acute hazardous wastes" of thistype. (EPA made 18 P listings in this

rulemaking but none is disputed here.)

Listing hassignificant consequences. Any hazardous waste is subject to precisely prescribed

rules on disposal,see, generally, 40 CFR Part 264, record-keeping (covering both makers and users),

see, generally, id. Part 262, and transport,see, generally, id. Part 263. In addition, hazardous wastes

listed under RCRA or exhibiting one or more ofthe characteristics of a listed RCRA hazardous waste

are considered hazardous substances under the regulatory scheme set up by the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675

(1995). See id. § 9601(14)(C). CERCLA requires that every release of a hazardous substance above

a specified level, known as the reportable quantity ("RQ"), be reported to the National Response

Center and to state and local authorities. The EPA set the RQ for all the hazardous wastes we

consider here at one pound, the statutory fallback level, id. § 9602(b), pending further study.

ThePresentRulemaking: Invoking its authority under 40 CFR § 261.11(a)(3), EPA proposed

to list six K wastes and 70 P and U wastes, running the gamut of the carbamate industry. In addition,

the agency proposed to list four generic U wastes that would cover any substance that could be

classified as one ofthe four kinds of carbamates. The Agency also proposed to add to Appendix VIII

of Part 261 each of the chemical constituents that were the basis of the proposed listings, which in

the case of the P and U listings were the products or manufacturing chemical intermediates

themselves.2 Proposed Rule: Carbamate Production Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste,

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 4 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

3They are, according to their listing in the Rule: U400, U393, U366, U403, U396, U384,

U376, U383, U378, U377, U379, U381, U382, U277, U402, U401, U407. 

4They are: U392, U386, U390, U365, U391, U385. 

59 Fed. Reg. 9808 (March 1, 1994).

The finalrule differed fromthe proposalonly slightly. In response to comments, the EPA said

it would not list the four generic U wastes. It also decided not to make 12 of the proposed U listings

because of insufficient toxicity data. Based on a re-analysis of the toxicity data it did have, EPA

moved four chemicals from the P listings for acutely hazardous substances to the U listings. The K

listings, aside from some tinkering with special exemptions not at issue here, remained essentially

unchanged. The result was that 40 carbamate industry products received U listings, 18 received P

listings and all 58 were listed on Appendix VIII. In addition, manufacturers involved in each of the

four classes of carbamates had at least one production waste stream listed as a K waste. Final Rule:

CarbamateProductionIdentificationand Listing ofHazardousWaste, 60 Fed. Reg. 7824, 7825-7827

(Feb. 9, 1995).

* * *

The U Listings: Of the 40 products listed as U wastes, DTF challenges the listing of 17

dithiocarbamates,3 Zeneca the listing ofsix of its thiocarbamate products,4and Troy the listing of its

product, IPBC, U375, a carbamate proper.

Petitioners' first line of attack is on the EPA's adding itemsto Appendix VIII and listing them

pursuant to 40 CFR § 261.11(a)(3), all in one rulemaking rather than two. They do not, however,

point to any language in § 261.11(a)(3)suggesting any requirement ofsequential listing. Nor do they

identify any way in which the EPA's consolidated process might jeopardize their rights or increase

the risk of error. Petitioners also claim that it is unreasonable for EPA to consider aquatic toxicity

data, or the harm caused to aquatic environments, in making Appendix VIII listings or the actual

hazardous waste listings we consider below. But they point to nothing in the regulations or the

statute that prevents EPA fromconsidering the harmto organisms other than mammals or land-based

creatures.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 5 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Second, petitioners argue that in making the determination necessary in the second step of a

§ 261.11(a)(3) listingdetermining "that the waste is capable of posing a substantial present or

potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported

or disposed of or otherwise managed"EPA did not consider all of the 11 specified factors. (There

are really only ten, since the final factor is a catch-all, allowing the Administrator to consider any

other factor she finds relevant.) EPA argues both that § 261.11(a)(3) does not require the

Administrator to consider all ten factors, and that in any event she did consider them.

The theory that § 261.11(a)(3) does not require consideration of the ten factors defies the

language of the rule, which we have already quoted. Its structure is simple. Given an Appendix VIII

listing, the Administrator is to make a determination about "hazard to human health or the

environment," and is to do so "after considering" the named factors. EPA, indeed, makes no effort

to parse the language to yield a different result. It cites NRDC v. EPA, 25 F.3d 1063 (D.C. Cir.

1994), in support of its reading, but NRDC merely upheld EPA's discretion to "emphasize or

deemphasize particular factors," id. at 1071, and carefully noted that petitioners there did "not

contend that the Administrator failed to consider the relevant factors...." Id.

Moreover, the structure of 40CFR§ 261.11(a) forbids EPA'sreading. Section 261.11(a)(2),

the second of three routes to listing a substance as hazardous, states specific toxicity criteria; if a

substance exceeds the specified levels, it is to be listed, pure and simple. If EPA were able to list

substances that exhibited toxicity below the § 261.11(a)(2) thresholds without examining the ten

factors and making an overall assessment of the hazards posed by improper management (or doing

so only as whimsy moved the agency), the brightline sense of § 261.11(a)(2) would be completely

undercut. In fact, this rulemaking underscores the structural point. EPA calculated the aquatic

toxicity levels for most of the chemicals it listed and found those levelswhich were high, but not

within the criteria stated in § 261.11(a)(2)to be the most significant factor in its decision to make

the listings. See 60 Fed. Reg. at 7838/1.

EPA points to prior statements that § 261.11(a)(3) requires it to consider only "appropriate

factors", see Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste, 55 Fed. Reg. 18,726 (May 4, 1990)

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 6 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

(technical amendment to 40 CFR § 261.11(a)(3)), or "relevant factors",see Identification and Listing

of Hazardous Waste, 57 Fed. Reg. 12, 13 (Jan. 2, 1992) (final rule), arguing that these reflect a past

practice that is consonant with, and vindicates, the interpretation it asserts here. But neither of these

statements adopts the position we understand EPA to argue before us, namely, that it may simply

disregard a factor without a word as to why it is irrelevant or unimportant.

Accordingly, despite the great deference we owe an agency in the interpretation of its own

regulations, see Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 4 (1965), we must apply the regulation's specific

language over the agency's current interpretation.

If EPA finds a factor to be irrelevant or unimportant in a particular listing, of course, that

finding would be subject to very deferentialreview. But with no such finding, the court has no reason

to suppose that the agency considered each factor, as required by its own regulation.

Almost as an afterthought, EPA argues in its brief that it did consider all the factors in §

261.11(a)(3). At oral argument, counsel for EPA acknowledged that EPA did not consider each

factor for each of the products listed, but at most considered them in the aggregate, for each of the

four classes of chemicals. Where it is reasonable to consider the factors in relation to a class of

chemicals, EPA may do so. As we develop below in connection with the K wastes, that means

essentially that if the known similarities of members of a class are such that it is reasonable to infer

the presence of a disputed characteristic throughout the class (not just among members for which it

has been shown), the EPA is free to draw that inference. Thus, if the agency is considering a class

Ai-n, and members Ai-iv exhibit a specific attribute, and there is reason to believe that they do so

because of some trait shared by the whole class, then the agency may draw the inference that all the

members of the class exhibit the attribute.

EPA makes two generalizations in its analysis of the U wastes. For some of the §

261.11(a)(3) factors, EPA assumed that it could impute the character of some products to all other

products. See Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9821/2-3. For other factors, it borrowed from the

analysis of the K wastes, as it had conducted field studies relating to the latter but none directly

applicable to the products.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 7 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

5See also discussion below of critiques as to the toxicity of K161. 

Underlying all of EPA's generalizations is the premise that within the four groups, the

chemicals have similar structures and therefore similar toxicological effects. See Final Rule 60 Fed.

Reg. at 7827/2; Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9840/3. At least at some level of generality, we do

not understand petitioners to quarrel with the principle that structuralsimilarities in chemicals imply

at least some probability of similar attributes. What they do challenge is the legitimacy of the

class-wide inferences that EPA makes in considering virtually every factor.

Initially EPA proposed not only individual U listings for identified substances but also a

generic U listing for all four classes of chemicals, on the ground that such chemicals were

"structurally similar" and "[a]s a group ... exhibit significant toxicity to a number of organisms." See

Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9840/3. In the final rule, however, EPA concluded that its categories

"may be overly broad," Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7827/1; see also id. at 7838/1-2, and abandoned

its proposal for generic U listings "until alternative listing descriptions have been proposed and

commented on...." Id. at 7838/2. Nonetheless, the EPA soldiered on with its class-based approach

in making the specific U listings.

EPA's class-based approach allowed it successfully to consider two of the listed factors,

"nature of the toxicity" and "concentration," factors (i) and (ii), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at

9840/1, and petitioners offer no convincing reason to doubt that these may be considered across all

products, with the exception of IPBC, U375, discussed below in connection with K156, 157 & 158.5

As to quantities of U wastes generated, factor (viii), EPA addressed it only in a discussion of the

economic impact of the rule, referring to a total quantity of 40 metric tons, see Final Rule, 60 Fed.

Reg. at 7847/2, which compares with 841,000 metric tons of waste generated as K wastes, see

Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9815 (Tables 8 and 9). Its discussion of other regulatory controls,

factor (x), is exceptionally sketchy, considering that most of the substances listed as U wastes are

extensively regulated under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), 7

U.S.C. § 136 (1995). Although EPA pointed out that RCRA regulation will not totally duplicate

FIFRAregulation,sinceRCRAregulationexempts household users while FIFRAcausesthe issuance

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 8 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

of disposal instructions "to all users," see Response to Comments at 66 (emphasis added), the

agency's response leaves unclear what the advantage is in covering non-household users twice.

Foremost in our review, however, is EPA's consideration of mismanagement, the defects of

which, as we shallsee, interact with, and aggravate, the meagerness of the discussion of non-RCRA

regulatory controls. Mismanagement is not only specifically listed among the numbered factors,

"plausible types of improper management to which the waste could be subjected", factor (vii), but is

also an aspect of two others: "[t]he potential of the constituent or any toxic degradation product ...

to migrate ... into the environment" under improper management, factor (iii), and the "nature and

severity of the human health and environmental damage ... as a result of the improper management

of wastes ...," factor (ix). More important, the very question that the ten factors of § 261.11(a)(3)

are supposed to help answerthe hazard posed by the substanceis explicitly phrased in terms of

improper management. That language in turn echoes the statutory definition, which (in one of its

aspects) looks to whether the substance will "pose a ... substantial present or potential hazard to

human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or

otherwise managed." 42 U.S.C. § 6903(5)(B) (emphasis added). EPA, in turn, said in promulgating

§ 261.11(a)(3) that it would not consider a substance to pose a "substantial" hazard unless the

possibility of mismanagement were plausible. See Identification of Hazardous Waste, 45 Fed. Reg.

at 33,113/2. And we have insisted that the agency "provide at least some factual support" for a

conclusion that a particular mismanagement scenario is plausible. Edison Electric Inst. v.

Environmental Protection Agency, 2 F.3d 438, 446 (D.C. Cir. 1993). Again, one should bear in mind

that the ultimate question under § 261.11(a)(3), once listing under Appendix VIII has occurred, is

whether the waste poses a "substantial" hazard in light of the various possibilities of improper

management.

Most of what the EPA had to say on the subject of mismanagement regarding the U wastes

seemed to amount to an assertion of the obvious: accidents will happen. Of coursebut if that

constituted "plausiblemismanagement",see § 261.11(a)(3)(vii), it would be ubiquitous and therefore

unnecessary to be considered in a listing, contrary to the express language of § 261.11(a)(3). For

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 9 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

specifics, EPA relied heavily on a train wreck in California that spilled a dithiocarbamate

(metam-sodium) into a river and so caused environmental destruction. See Proposed Rule, 59 Fed.

Reg. at 9821/3-22/1. DTF argues that listing would have no direct effect on the likelihood of such

spills, because the train's handling would in any event have been governed by Department of

Transportation regulations. EPA resists that claim, arguing that under § 261.11(a)(3), "[T]he proper

inquiry is not whether Subtitle C or other regulatory controls would prevent environmental harm, but

whether the substances are capable of posing a hazard if improperly treated, stored, transported,

disposed of or otherwise managed." Respondent's Brief at 40. But even if that be the correct reading

ofthe expressreference to mismanagement in § 261.11(a)(3)(vii), DTF's argument would necessarily

come back in through factor (x), which looks to the relationship between RCRA regulation and the

existing regulatory matrix, presumably with the intention of assuring that products will be listed only

where doing so will yield some incremental benefit.

EPA further arguesthat accidentssuch asthe metam-sodiumtrain spill are relevant to RCRA

because listing a product as a hazardous waste is likely to make handlers more careful. Perhaps, but

not necessarily. The EPA itself noted in another context that RCRA listing might actually result in

a stigma, leading to subterfuge of regulations, see Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. EPA, 861

F.2d 270, 272, 275-76 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (recognizing the phenomenon but finding that EPA could

not consider it under the particular statute at issue), and a commenter in this rulemaking made the

same point. See Troy Comments at 12. As EPA never responded, we have no clue as to its official

view of the matter. "[W]e may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency's action that the agency

itself has not given." Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n v. State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., 463

U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

EPA also cited references to sales of carbamate product as distressed freight, i.e., freight

which has been unclaimed or damaged in some way, see Response to Comments at 97, but it is

unclear why such sales, not actually shown to involve harm or even a serious probability of harm, are

evidence of "plausible types of improper management." See § 261.11(a)(3)(vii).

EPA's effort to generalize fromits best evidence ofmismanagement, its discussion of bird kills

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 10 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

resulting from the "use or possible misuse" of carbofuran, a carbamate proper, see Proposed Rule,

59 Fed. Reg. at 9821/3, is more convincing. Most of these products are herbicides, fungicides and

insecticides spread into the environment for agricultural purposes, see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg.

at 9811/1, with the notable exception of Troy's IPBC, U375, which is used as an additive in small

amounts to wood preservation finishes, Troy Comments Under Seal at 12. But EPA's own

formulation here, alluding equally to "use or possible misuse," indicates that EPA has expanded the

concept of mismanagement to embrace any uses of the chemical, such asspraying on crops. See also

Background Document: Assessment of Risks from the Management of Carbamate Wastes at 15-26

(FinalReport) (background document failing to distinguish among use, misuse and simple accidents).

Again factor (x)'s reference to other regulatory measures is pertinent. Hazards from the proper use

ofsuch chemicals might justify a ban under FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D) (requiring, as predicate

to registration of a pesticide, determination that "when used in accordance with widespread and

commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse affects on the

environment"), but that is not the purpose of RCRA. Outside the area of increases in mortality or

seriousillnesses, see 42 U.S.C. § 6903(5)(A), which EPA does not appear to invoke here, the statute

is concerned with the hazards of a substance when "improperly treated, stored, transported, or

disposed of, or otherwise managed." Id. at § 6903(5)(B) (emphasis added).

To summarize: EPA's discussion of the quantities of waste is slight and oblique, but we need

not consider whether such an inadequacywould require usto vacate the rule. Where EPA falls down

completely is on the interlocked topics of other regulatory controls (factor (x)) and mismanagement

(factor (vii)). It is tempting to say that the toxicity of these chemicals alone marks them as hazardous,

and, of course, in one of the purely colloquial senses of the word, they are. But 40 CFR §

261.11(a)(2) gives explicit toxicity benchmarks that are not satisfied here. That relationship

underscores what would be true anywaythat a failure on EPA's part to give serious consideration

to the "softer" variables of § 261.11(a)(3) tendsto turn its application of that section into an exercise

in totally standardless discretion. Accordingly, we vacate the challenged U listings as arbitrary and

capricious.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 11 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

TheK-Wastes: In analyzing EPA's approach to the K waste listing, we first note the operation

of § 261.11(b), which allows the agency to list classes of wastes which "typically or frequently are

hazardous under the definition of hazardous waste found in" RCRA. (EPA did not suggest that this

provision applied to the listing of the U wastes; although EPA claimed to consider the factors in §

261.11(a)(3) by class, each U waste was given an individual listing. Each of the K waste listings,

however, was of a class, covering waste streams from the production of a variety of products.) At

oral argument counsel for EPA conceded, correctly we think, that the section does not supply an

independent basis for listing, but simply reiterates the truism that regulation by class of substance is

appropriate in the cases where the evidence, including of course inferencesfrom relevant similarities

of members of the class, is strong enough. As EPA said in promulgating § 261.11(b), it would be

appropriate to list as a class "those wastes which demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of hazard as

a class," noting that the agency would have to demonstrate that "sufficient uniformity exists or is

likely to exist." Identification of Hazardous Waste, 45 Fed. Reg. at 33,114/3. We reject petitioners'

claims insofar as they contest this principle.

EPA gathered data for its analysis of the K wastes by sending questionnaires to all

manufacturersin the carbamate industry and sampling the waste streams at the eight largest facilities

(representing about 89% of the industry's total production). It divided the waste streams into ten

groups, constructing a composite, or model, waste stream for each. After a Risk Assessment, it

concluded that six of the ten should be listed. The six are described in the final rule as follows:

K156: Organic waste (including heavy ends, still bottoms, light ends, spent

solvents, filtrates, and decantates) from the production of carbamates and carbamoyl

oximes.

K157: Wastewaters (including scrubber waters, condenser waters,

washwaters, and separationwaters)fromthe productionofcarbamates and carbamoyl

oximes.

K158: Bag house dusts and filter/separation solids from the production of

carbamates and carbamoyl oximes.

K159: Organics from the treatment of thiocarbamate wastes.

K160: Solids (including filter wastes, separation solids, and spent catalysts)

fromthe production ofthiocarbamates and solidsfromthe treatment ofthiocarbamate

wastes.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 12 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

6Consideration of the factors in relation to dithiocarbamates appears as follows: Factor (i), see

Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7835/3 ("acute aquatic toxicity in a narrow range"); factor (ii), see

Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9817 (Table 10Range of Concentrations for Constituents of

Concern; Waste stream 9); factor (iii), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9822/1-3 (mobility); 

factor (iv), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9823 (Table 13Persistence of Constituents of

Concern); factor (v), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9823/3 (dithiocarbamates decompose

into dangerous substances); factor (vi), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9832/3

(bioconcentration risks); factor (vii), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9825/2 (discussion of

management in unlined landfills); factor (viii), see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9814/3-9815

(Tables 8 and 9) (annual quantities of various wastes); factor (ix), see Background Document at

16-17 (reviewing symptoms of carbamate poisoning); factor (x), see Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at

7836/1 (assertion of gaps in other regulation). 

K161: Purification solids (including filtration, evaporation, and centrifugation

solids), bag house dust and floor sweepings from the production of dithiocarbamate

acids and their salts.

Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7849.

EPA conducted field studies of actual waste streams and performed a risk analysis specific

to the waste streams. It pointed to similarities in production processes that support a class-based

approach to the various segments of the industry. See Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9811/1-2;

FinalRule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7835/1-2. It also identified constituents of concern in each waste stream.

See Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9814 (Table 7); id. at 9815/3. This is a reasonable

approachup to a point. Where EPA is confronted with evidence challenging its classification, it

must respond, either by altering the class or by reasonably defending its choices. See International

Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus, 478 F.2d 615, 632 (1973) ("We are beset with contentions of

petitionersthat bear indicia ofsubstantiality. Yet we have no EPA comment on the specific questions

raised....").

K161: At a certain level of generality, one may say that, in listing K161 (various solid wastes

from dithiocarbamate production), EPA identified Appendix VIII constituents in the waste stream

and considered the ten factorsthrough itsrisk analysis. Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9817-9837.6

DTF objects on a number of scores. It says that in its assessment of factor (vi), bioaccumulation,

EPA wrongly relied on a 60-day study of the toxic effects of the waste stream on trout, while a

four-day study is "the preferred benchmark." Task Force Comments at 78. But this provides us no

basis to set aside EPA's judgment. Unless DTF showed that EPA had committed itself to four-day

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 13 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

studies, or that use of a 60-day study was plainly inappropriate for some scientific reason, the issue

is up to the agency. See Response to Comments at 134 (finding the 60-day study "the most

protective for this application").

DTF also objects to the EPA's consideration of mismanagement for K161, arguing that the

train spill cannot be considered as mismanagement for the waste stream. We agree with EPA that

the Task Force misunderstood the consideration of mismanagement for K161. EPA's assumed

mismanagementscenario was based ontreatment inunlined landfills,see ProposedRule, 59 Fed. Reg.

at 9825/2, which seems plausible as EPA's survey indicated that most of the industry manages this

waste stream as non-hazardous. See id. at 9815 (Table 9) (indicating use of subtitle D landfills).

DTF's most strenuous challenge is to EPA's finding of reactivity throughout the class of

dithiocarbamate wastes; if valid, the challenge would undermine EPA's ability to draw inferences

from the modeled waste stream applicable to the entire class. See, e.g., Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at

7836/1. DTF points to a study submitted by one of its members, R.T. Vanderbilt Co., which

demonstrated that certain kinds of dithiocarbamates, specifically N,N-disubstituted dithiocarbamates,

are not reactive since they do not produce hydrogen sulfide under the conditions prescribed by the

EPA (namely, pH conditions from 2 to 12.5, see 40 CFR § 261.23(a)(5)). See Comments of R.T.

Vanderbilt at 1. EPA responded that the challenged dithiocarbamates can still be considered reactive

as the Vanderbilt data showed that dithiocarbamates produce carbon disulfide, which is also highly

toxic. See Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7835/3-36/1. DTF has not provided us with any basis for

rejecting that conclusion. The Task Force also asserted that EPA failed to show that carbon disulfide

would be present "in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health and the environment,"

Task Force Comments at 43, echoing the language of 40 CFR § 261.23(a)(5), which relates to the

definition of "reactivity" for purposes of a listing under 40 CFR § 261.11(a)(1). EPA's response was

that carbon disulfide would be toxic even if diluted 100 fold. See Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7836/1.

Although the answer is not self-evidently responsive, DTF's brief has not clearly put in issue the exact

nature of the considerations of "quantities of the waste" that are relevant under § 261.11(a)(3)(viii),

so we cannot fault EPA on this record.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 14 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The Task Force makes a number of other arguments as to the soundness of EPA's extending

itsfindings to all the dithiocarbamate wastes encompassed by K161, saying, for example, that EPA's

reliance on the presence of heavy metals is wrong because not all dithiocarbamate waste streams

contain heavy metals and that, even among those that do, the toxicity varies according to the actual

metal. See Task Force Comments at 30-31. The Task Force also argues that certain decomposition

products, methylisothiocyanate and N-nitrosodimethylamine, are not likely to be produced by

N,N-disubstituted dithiocarbamates. See Task Force Comments at 43-45. EPA has pointed to

various responses that it gave. See, e.g., Response to Comments at 51, 55. Although these are in

certain respects vague, they are not responses thatwithout more ammunition from the

petitionerswe can call arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, with a good deal of hesitation, we must

uphold the listing of K161.

K160: Zeneca, the only maker of thiocarbamates, challenges the K160 listing for solid

thiocarbamate wastes. Zeneca's attack takes two forms. First, it objects to EPA's inclusion of its

wastewater treatment sludge within the K160 listing. Second, it attacks the K160 listing as being

based on an arbitrary mismanagement premise. In fact it is unclear whether Zeneca's wastewater

treatment sludge is covered by the K160 listing, but we need not addressthat issue because we must

vacate the listing.

EPA assumed that the solid thiocarbamate wastes would be dumped in unlined landfills, see

Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9838/3; see also id. at 9825/2, even though its understanding at the

time was that Zeneca was putting its waste in lined landfills meeting the requirements of Subtitle C

of RCRA. See id. at 9815 (Table 8) (waste stream #6). EPA defends this mismanagement scenario

as plausible, arguing that unlined landfills had been used in the past and that it had no way of knowing

if Zeneca would continue to ship its waste to lined landfills. See Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at

9825/2.

Of course complete certainty is not possible. But on a parallel issue, deciding not to list

wastewatersfromthe production ofthiocarbamates and dithiocarbamates, regardless of past disposal

practices, EPA reasoned "that since the carbamate manufactures [sic] have already made a

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 15 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

considerable investment in wastewater treatment systems using tanks, [EPA believes] they will

continue to use them." Final Rule, 60 Fed. Reg. at 7831/3. The Agency also stated that the past

management practice is unlikely to be repeated as "permitting authorities are strongly biased against"

it. Id. EPA has sought to distinguish that reasoning, on the ground that here the use of high-quality

landfills may not represent any capital investment by Zeneca. But the probative fact for the

thiocarbamate and dithiocarbamate wastewater wassurely not the sunk costs, which cannot properly

guide a firm's future allocation of resources, but the fact that its behavior showed that, without a

hazardous waste listing, the relevant firms had found it sensible, taking into account allrelevant costs

and benefits (including litigation risks averted), to adopt adequate disposal methods. The point is

equally probative that Zeneca will continue in its practice, and that, if new firms enter the industry,

they willfollow suit. Because EPA failed to identify a plausible mismanagement scenario, we vacate

the listing of K160.

K156, K157 and K158: IPBC is a carbamate proper, and wastes generated by its production

are included in the EPA's definitions of K156, K157 and K158. Troy Chemical, the only maker of

IPBC, objects to its inclusion in those wastes, saying that EPA's assumptions both asto the scientific

characteristics and the potential mismanagement of the class do not apply to IPBC, and that EPA

disregarded its evidence to that effect. We agree.

EPA responded to some of Troy's evidence about the comparatively innocuous character of

IPBC. For example, faced with data undermining its assumptions about IPBC's toxic effects on

mammals, see Troy Comments at 7-8, it pointed to evidence of toxic effects on fish, see Response

to Comments at 34. For this reason, IPBC remains listed on Appendix VIII. But Troy offered other

specific evidence suggesting that its waste stream is not "typically or frequently ... hazardous," see

40 CFR § 261.11(b), in the same manner that led to the listing of the class waste streams. It cited

evidence (already in EPA's files in connection with IPBC's registration under FIFRA) tending to

exonerate its product under the factors made relevant by § 261.11(a)(3): evidence that it does not

inhibit the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, a major basis for EPA's finding of toxicity, see Troy

Comments Under Seal at 8; that it degrades rapidly and is quickly eliminated, id., thereby countering

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 16 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

EPA's claims of persistence and degradation; and that it has little potential for bioaccumulation, id.

EPA'sjustification in its brief for not responding isthat Troy showed only that IPBC waslessfraught

with hazard than its cousin carbamates, and failed to show that it was "not an environmental

concern." But EPA has never articulated any precise threshold of "environmental concern," below

which a chemical may escape listing under § 261.11(a)(3). We do not see how an agency can both

apply a highly discretionary test and at the same time disdain response to a party that shows that its

chemical is relatively innocent compared to the characterizations EPA used to justify branding the

related ones hazardous. Troy has shown that IPBC is different enough from other carbamates that

it cannot be classified with them, absent more information from the EPA.

Moreover, in listing the IPBC-related wastes EPA assumed open-tank disposal facilities for

K156 and K157 and landfill disposal for K158, see Proposed Rule, 59 Fed. Reg. at 9836/3, 9837/3,

9838/2, assumptions that seemed plausible in light of the fact that most of the industry, according to

the EPA survey, engaged in these kinds of disposal practices. See id. at 9824 (Table 14) (waste

groups 1, 2, and 3). IPBC, however, is invariably produced in a completely closed process, as Troy

informed EPA and as EPA does not deny. See Troy Comments at 6. EPA acknowledged explicitly

that it "believes [Troy's] current practice of recycling the K156 wastes in a closed process is likely

to continue," Response to Comments at 17, but said that did not "ensure" against the possibility of

changesin processthat might lead to alternative methods of disposal. See id. at 18. Here EPA seems

to have turned the mismanagement factor upside down, from an inquiry into whether dangerous

mismanagement practices are "plausible," as § 261.11(a)(3)(vii) says, into an inquiry into whether

they have been ruled out absolutely. This is simply disregard of the agency's own rule.

EPA also responded that "being the sole producer of a chemical does not provide a basis for

exclusion...." Response to Comments at 33. Of course it doesn't. The issue is whether the agency

can list a chemical if the evidence relating to that chemical exonerates it from the flaws leading the

agency to classify supposedly kindred chemicals as a group. EPA offers no reason for such an

extension ofregulation across chemicalsthat are distinguishable on a key variable of listing. That the

evidence happens to come from one company makes no difference.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 17 of 18
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Accordingly, the K156, K157 and K158 listings must be vacated to the extent that they

include IPBC.

Paperwork Reduction Act

Because an agency's failure to abide by the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act,

44 U.S.C. §§ 35013520 (1995) does not prevent the promulgation of a rule, only its enforcement,

see id. at § 3512; see also Career College Ass'n. v. Riley, 74 F.3d 1265, 1269 (D.C. Cir. 1996), we

reject this claim.

* * *

Accordingly, the rule is vacated to the extent that it lists (1) the 24 challenged U wastes, (2)

K160, and (3) K wastes 156, 157 and 158 insofar asthey encompassIPBC. The petitions for review

are otherwise denied.

So ordered.

USCA Case #95-1253 Document #232932 Filed: 11/01/1996 Page 18 of 18