Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01269/USCOURTS-caDC-09-01269-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Environmental Protection Agency
Respondent
US Magnesium, LLC
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 5, 2010 Decided January 14, 2011 

No. 09-1269 

US MAGNESIUM, LLC, 

PETITIONER

v. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

RESPONDENT

On Petition for Review of a Final Action 

of the Environmental Protection Agency 

Laurence S. Kirsch argued the cause for petitioner. With 

him on the briefs were Valerie E. Ross, David W. 

Tundermann, and M. Lindsay Ford. 

T. Monique Jones, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, 

argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent. 

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, GARLAND, Circuit 

Judge, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge

WILLIAMS. 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 1 of 11
2

WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge: The National Priorities 

List (“NPL”) is a list of places, commonly known as 

“superfund sites,” considered national priorities for 

environmental remediation because of known or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances. The Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-75, requires the President to 

establish “criteria for determining priorities among releases or 

threatened releases [of hazardous substances] throughout the 

United States for the purpose of taking remedial action . . . .” 

42 U.S.C. § 9605(a)(8)(A). The Environmental Protection 

Agency developed the Hazard Ranking System (“HRS”) to 

fulfill that mandate. 40 C.F.R. § 300.425(c)(1); see generally 

Eagle-Picher Industries Inc. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905, 909-11 

(D.C. Cir. 1985). The HRS is the principal guide used by the 

EPA to place sites on the NPL. 40 C.F.R. Pt. 300, App. A, 

§ 1.1. 

This case concerns the NPL listing of a magnesium plant 

located in Tooele County, Utah, approximately 40 miles west 

of Salt Lake City and adjacent to the Great Salt Lake. The 

plant, which is now owned by petitioner US Magnesium LLC 

(“USM”), has produced molten magnesium since 1972, 

creating chlorine gas and hydrochloric acid as by-products. A 

network of ditches carries waste from the plant to an active 

waste pool. Just beyond that pool is an inactive waste pool, 

which was previously a recipient of waste. 

The EPA completed an HRS evaluation for the US 

Magnesium site in 2008. The HRS requires the agency to 

analyze four “pathways”: ground water migration, surface 

water migration, soil exposure, and air migration, and to plug 

the resulting individual pathway scores into a formula to 

obtain the site score. 40 C.F.R. Pt. 300, App. A, § 2.1.1. The 

EPA calculated scores for two out of these four possible 

“pathways”—air migration and soil exposure. Based on 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 2 of 11
3

these, the EPA computed a total HRS score of 59.18 for the 

US Magnesium site. Because this score is above the threshold 

for inclusion on the NPL, the EPA published a Proposed Rule 

proposing to list USM on the NPL. National Priorities List, 

Proposed Rule No. 49, 73 Fed. Reg. 51,393, 51,393 (Sept. 3, 

2008). After receiving and responding to comments on the 

proposed listing, the EPA added the site to the NPL. National 

Priorities List, Final Rule No. 48, 74 Fed. Reg. 57,085, 57,087 

(Nov. 4, 2009). 

USM challenges the NPL listing as “arbitrary, capricious, 

an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the 

law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); Board of Regents of University 

of Wash. v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214, 1217 (D.C. Cir. 1996). It 

claims that the EPA made four errors in calculating an HRS 

score and that if these errors were corrected, the USM site’s 

HRS score would fall below the 28.5 threshold for listing on 

the NPL. Because the score assigned to the USM site is far 

above the 28.5 cutoff for inclusion on the NPL, USM would 

have to prevail on its first alleged error and some combination 

of the other three alleged errors in order for the NPL listing to 

be arbitrary or capricious. (If we were to remand based on all 

the other three alleged errors, the site would still receive a 

total score of at least 50—21.5 more than the minimum score 

for inclusion on the NPL.) Although placement on the NPL 

does not require any action or determine any party’s liability 

for cleanup costs, it may inflict damage on business reputation 

and cause a loss in property values. Kent County v. EPA, 963 

F.2d 391, 394 (D.C. Cir. 1992). 

We are not persuaded that the EPA in fact erred in the 

first decision element claimed by USM to have been 

erroneous—the scoring of multiple “sources” for the air 

pathway. 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 3 of 11
4

* * * 

The essence of USM’s objection to the EPA’s scoring of 

the air pathway is that the EPA multiplied the plant’s rather 

high “release” score by the site’s total “waste characteristics 

factor,” a factor that here was driven overwhelmingly by the 

ponds’ relatively high waste quantity scores.1

 Obviously such 

a procedure has the potential to make a site’s score artificially 

higher than that of a factually far more dangerous site in 

which release and quantity were, say, middling at a single 

source. It is a bit like choosing the winner of the “best team” 

award at a track meet by multiplying each team’s highest 

score in any single event by the team’s total number of 

competitors (no matter how well or badly all other team 

members may have performed). As we shall see, however, 

the HRS directs precisely this procedure, and the EPA Hazard 

Ranking System Guidance Manual (“HRS Manual”)2

 invoked 

by USM neither contradicts it nor suggests a different 

treatment. 

In scoring the air pathway, the EPA evaluated four 

sources: the plant, the active waste pond, the inactive waste 

pond, and three anode dust boxes located in the manufacturing 

area of the plant. HRS Documentation Record, U.S. 

Magnesium, EPA ID No. UTN000802704, (Nov. 2009) 

(“HRS Documentation Record”) at 10, 13, 16, 19, Joint 

Appendix (“J.A.”) 378, 381, 384, 387. USM appears to 

 1

 In accordance with the HRS, the EPA did not calculate a 

potential to release score for the ponds. HRS § 6.1.2. USM 

assumes, as will we, that the potential to release score for the ponds 

would be negligible. 

2

 United State Environmental Protection Agency, Hazard 

Ranking System Guidance Manual, Interim Final, Publication No. 

9345.1-07, EPA 540-R-92-026 (Nov. 1992). 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 4 of 11
5

suggest that instead of using the system summarized above the 

EPA ought to have scored each of the four sources for the air 

migration pathway separately and used the highest of the four 

individual source scores as the value for the air pathway. 

Appellant’s Br. at 35-37. 

But contrary to USM’s contention, the HRS clearly 

contemplates that a pathway score for a site be computed by 

the system of multiplication across sources to which USM 

objects. A pathway is defined as a “[s]et of HRS factor 

categories combined to produce a score to measure relative 

risks posed by a site in one of four environmental 

pathways . . .” 40 C.F.R. Pt. 300, App. A, § 1.1 (emphasis 

added here and elsewhere in quotations from the HRS). A site 

“may include multiple sources and may include the area 

between sources.” Id. A source is “any area where a 

hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed, or 

placed . . . .” Id. The air pathway score is calculated by 

multiplying three factor categories: (1) likelihood of release, 

(2) waste characteristics, and (3) “targets.” Id. § 6.0. The 

targets score, which represents threats to nearby residents, 

natural resources, or ecosystems, is not implicated in the error 

alleged here. 

The likelihood of release score is based either on an 

“observed release” or on a score for “potential to release.” 

Id. § 6.1. The waste characteristics score is obtained by 

multiplying a score for toxicity/mobility and a score for 

hazardous waste quantity. Id. § 6.2.3. USM’s complaint, in 

essence, is that the EPA multiplied a likelihood of release 

score based on an observed release from the plant by a waste 

characteristics score based on waste quantity values from the 

waste pools. 

A likelihood of release score of 550 is assigned for the air 

pathway if an “observed release” is documented for the site. 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 5 of 11
6

Id. § 6.1.1. Otherwise, a “potential to release” score must be 

calculated and used as the likelihood of release value. Id. 

§ 6.1.3. An “observed release” may be established by 

“demonstrating that the site has released a hazardous 

substance to the atmosphere.” Id. § 6.1.1. The HRS plainly 

requires the EPA to assign a likelihood of release of 550 for 

any observed release into the atmosphere at the site. This is 

exactly what the EPA did—based on direct observations of 

release of chlorine gas from the plant, it assigned a score of 

550. HRS Documentation Record at 32-33, J.A. 400-01. This 

step is uncontested. 

The waste characteristics score is the product of two 

separate values: waste toxicity/mobility and waste quantity. 

The HRS instructs the agency to “[e]valuate only those 

hazardous substances available to migrate from the sources at 

the site to the atmosphere” and “assign a toxicity factor value, 

a mobility factor value and a combined toxicity/mobility 

factor value” for “each hazardous substance.” 40 C.F.R. Pt. 

300, App. A, §§ 6.2, 6.2.1. Once all sources have been 

scored, the agency is to “[u]se the hazardous substance with 

the highest toxicity/mobility factor value to assign the value to 

the toxicity/mobility factor for the air migration pathway.” Id. 

§ 6.2.1.3. The EPA evaluated both PCBs and 

Hexachlorobenzene, determined that the latter had a higher 

toxicity/mobility score and used its score of 1,000 for the air 

pathway calculation. HRS Documentation Record at 34, J.A. 

402. This scoring element is also uncontested. 

The HRS instructs the EPA to 

Evaluate the hazardous waste quantity factor by first 

assigning each source (or area of observed 

contamination) a source hazardous waste quantity value 

as specified below. Sum these values to obtain the 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 6 of 11
7

hazardous waste quantity factor value for the pathway 

being evaluated. 

40 C.F.R. Pt. 300, App. A, § 2.4.2. For three pathways, 

including the air pathway, the agency is to “assign a source 

hazardous waste quantity value to each source” including 

only sources “having a containment factor value greater than 0 

for the pathway being evaluated,” an exclusion in essence for 

sources that effectively wall hazardous substances off from 

escape. Id. §§ 2.4.2.1, 6.1.2.1.1, 6.1.2.2.1. In order to 

calculate the final hazardous waste quantity factor value for 

the site, the agency must “[s]um the source hazardous waste 

quantity values assigned to all sources . . . for the pathway 

being evaluated . . .” Id. § 2.4.2.2. 

Here the EPA found that each of the four sources had 

containment values of greater than zero for the air pathway. 

HRS Documentation Record at 11, 14, 17, 19, J.A. 379, 382, 

385, 387. It assigned quantity values for both waste pools. 

Id. at 34, J.A. 402. It also found that the hazardous waste 

quantity for the anode dust boxes and for the plant stack were 

greater than zero but that the total amount was unknown. Id. 

Therefore, as HRS § 2.4.2 explicitly directs, it added the 

quantity values for the two waste ponds to obtain the waste 

quantity factor value for the pathway. Id. It then multiplied 

the toxicity/mobility factor value by the waste quantity factor 

value to obtain a waste characteristics score as provided by 

HRS § 6.2.3. Id. 

The remainder of the calculation was purely mechanical. 

The EPA entered the likelihood of release score and the waste 

characteristics score in the air migration pathway scoresheet, 

HRS Table 6-1. Id. It calculated the final air pathway raw 

score by multiplying the likelihood of release score, the waste 

characteristics score and the targets score and dividing the 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 7 of 11
8

product by 82,500. 40 C.F.R. Pt. 300, App. A, § 6.4, Table 6-

1. 

The HRS thus requires the EPA to score likelihood of 

release on the basis of observed releases from any source on 

the site, and to score waste quantity on the basis of the sum of 

scores from all sources at the site. These two scores are 

eventually multiplied, even in cases where the observed 

release is from a source with a trivial waste quantity. The 

same system prevails when an “observed release” cannot be 

shown and the agency relies on “potential to release.” See 40 

C.F.R. Pt. 300, App. A, § 6.1.2. The multiplication is not a 

product of agency discretion, but an artifact of the scoring 

methodology mandated by the HRS. So to the extent that 

USM’s claim asserts arbitrary application of the HRS, it must 

fail. 

* * * 

USM’s argument that the EPA violated the letter or spirit 

of the source aggregation provisions in the HRS Manual is 

similarly unavailing. The HRS Manual provides detailed 

guidance on how to apply the HRS. The section invoked by 

USM, § 4.2, discusses how to score sites with multiple 

sources. It defines source aggregation as “[t]he treatment of 

two or more areas that could be considered individual sources 

as one discrete source.” HRS Manual § 4.2 at 49. And it goes 

on to list various criteria appropriate to consider when 

deciding whether to aggregate sources. Id. at 51. In general, 

the EPA may aggregate sources that are very similar when 

doing so would have little impact on the final score. Id. The 

HRS Manual suggests that source aggregation is desirable 

when this would have no impact on the overall HRS score 

“because this should limit the number of separate sources 

evaluated.” Id. 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 8 of 11
9

In this case, the EPA aggregated three anode dust boxes 

by treating them as one source for the purpose of scoring. 

HRS Documentation Record at 16-18, J.A. 384-86. In the end 

this aggregation had no material effect on the USM plant’s 

score. It did, however produce a modest economy of effort: 

the EPA took only two samples, whereas if each dust box had 

been treated as a single source it would have had to take at 

least one for each dust box. HRS § 2.2.2. Similarly, because 

of the way scoring for “containment” proceeds, if the EPA 

aggregated a source with zero containment with one with a 

positive containment factor value, the positive finding would, 

in most cases, trump the zero for the whole aggregated source. 

See HRS § 6.1.2.1.1, Table 6-3. Aggregation in such a case 

would risk violating the precept against any aggregation that 

is likely to affect the score. HRS Manual § 4.2 at 51. 

Here the EPA, though aggregating the dust boxes, did not 

aggregate that “source” with the other three—the plant stack 

and the two waste ponds. Rather, it analyzed each of these 

four sources individually and then applied the HRS scoring 

methodology to score the site as a whole. USM’s quarrel is 

not with failure to apply the Manual, or failure to apply it 

correctly, but with the process explicitly mandated in the HRS 

and not contradicted by any passage in the Manual. 

USM appears to believe that HRS Manual § 4.2 counsels 

a policy inconsistent with USM’s scoring of the USM site. 

But § 4.2 recognizes that some components of the HRS 

pathway score are created by adding values for all sources at a 

site (such as the waste quantity score under HRS § 2.4.2),3

while other components take the highest value for any source 

 3

 In a typo, the EPA uses “hazardous waste quality” when its 

citation to the HRS makes clear that it intends “hazardous waste 

quantity.” See Manual § 4.2 at 50. 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 9 of 11
10

at the site (such as the potential to release score for the air 

pathway under HRS § 6.1.2). Id. We can find nothing in the 

Manual that contradicts the clear language of the HRS. 

* * * 

USM presents its claim as one of arbitrary application of 

the rules to its site. Certainly if the HRS gave the EPA a 

choice of air migration pathway formulas and the EPA had 

exercised discretion to use this formula rather than another 

formula under these circumstances, that decision might well 

have been arbitrary and capricious. But the HRS gives the 

EPA no discretion to alter the air migration pathway score 

formula when it produces peculiar results (or, indeed, on any 

other ground). 

In a sense, then, the real thrust of USM’s argument seems 

more properly directed at the HRS regulations themselves. 

Here it has not posed a challenge to the rationality of the HRS 

regulation. See Oral Arg. Recording at 5:55-6:15, 15:44-

16:24. Nor does it argue that the EPA should have declined to 

place the USM site on the NPL notwithstanding a HRS score 

of over 28.5. Since the EPA’s scoring was consistent with the 

HRS, we are left with no theory on which we may overturn 

the EPA’s decision. 

We note that CERCLA imposes exceptional limits on 

efforts to attack the EPA’s regulations in this field: 

 Review of any regulation promulgated under this 

chapter may be had upon application by any interested 

person only in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United 

States for the District of Columbia. Any such application 

shall be made within ninety days from the date of 

promulgation of such regulations. Any matter with 

respect to which review could have been obtained under 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 10 of 11
11

this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in 

any civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement or to 

obtain damages or recovery of response costs. 

42 U.S.C. § 9613(a). We have said that this leaves in place a 

party’s usual ability to petition for a rulemaking to revise such 

regulations, see RSR Corp. v. EPA, 102 F.3d 1266, 1270 (D.C. 

Cir. 1997), for the denial of which it could obtain judicial 

review, see Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 527-28 

(2007). In addition, even under § 9613 there may be some 

room to challenge a regulation when litigating its application. 

See RSR Corp., 102 F.3d at 1269-70; see also NLRB Union v. 

FLRA, 834 F.2d 191, 195-97 (D.C. Cir. 1987); cf. National 

Air Transportation Ass’n v. McArtor, 866 F.2d 483, 486-87 

(D.C. Cir. 1989). Regardless of whether a challenge 

paralleling USM’s “arbitrariness” contention here but framed 

as a statutory attack on the HRS would be permissible under 

such cases, USM failed to meet the prerequisite of raising the 

issue before the EPA. See Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 

938 F.2d 1299, 1308-09 (D.C. Cir. 1991); Letter from M. 

Lindsay Ford, et al., Counsel to US Magnesium LLC to 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (Nov. 24, 

2008), J.A. 129-272. 

* * * 

Because the EPA followed the HRS precisely in scoring 

the air migration pathway and affirmation of the EPA on that 

first issue results in a score above the cut off for inclusion on 

the NPL, listing of the USM site on the NPL was not arbitrary 

or capricious. The petition for review is therefore 

Denied. 

USCA Case #09-1269 Document #1287973 Filed: 01/14/2011 Page 11 of 11