Opinion ID: 529912
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Chevron Step II: Is EPA's Interpretation Reasonable?

Text: 56 The screening levels that EPA initially proposed were not those at which the wastes were thought to be entirely safe. Rather, EPA set the levels to reduce risks from the solvents to an acceptable level, and it explored, at great length, the manifest (and manifold) uncertainties inherent in any attempt to specify safe concentration levels. The agency discussed, for example, the lack of any safe level of exposure to carcinogenic solvents, 51 Fed.Reg. at 1,628; the extent to which reference dose levels (from which it derived its screening levels) understate the dangers that hazardous solvents pose to particularly sensitive members of the population, id. at 1,627; the necessarily artificial assumptions that accompany any attempt to model the migration of hazardous wastes from a disposal site, id. at 1,642-53; and the lack of dependable data on the effects that solvents have on the liners that bound disposal facilities for the purpose of ensuring that the wastes disposed in a facility stay there, id. at 1,714-15. Indeed, several parties made voluminous comments on the Proposed Rule to the effect that EPA's estimates of the various probabilities were far more problematic than even EPA recognized. See, e.g., Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council, Record at 29,000-62. 57 CMA suggests, despite these uncertainties, that the adoption of a BDAT treatment regime would result in treatment to below established levels of hazard. It relies for this proposition almost entirely upon a chart in which it contrasts the BDAT levels with (1) levels EPA has defined as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) under the Safe Drinking Water Act; (2) EPA's proposed Organic Toxicity Characteristics, threshold levels below which EPA will not list a waste as hazardous by reason of its having in it a particular toxin; and (3) levels at which EPA has recently granted petitions by waste generators to delist a particular waste, that is, to remove it from the list of wastes that are deemed hazardous. CMA points out that the BDAT standards would require treatment to levels that are, in many cases, significantly below these established levels of hazard. 58 If indeed EPA had determined that wastes at any of the three levels pointed to by CMA posed no threat to human health or the environment, we would have little hesitation in concluding that it was unreasonable for EPA to mandate treatment to substantially lower levels. In fact, however, none of the levels to which CMA compares the BDAT standards purports to establish a level at which safety is assured or threats to human health and the environment are minimized. Each is a level established for a different purpose and under a different set of statutory criteria than concern us here; each is therefore irrelevant to the inquiry we undertake today. 59 The drinking water levels, for example, are established under a scheme requiring EPA to set goals at a level at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 300g-1(b)(4). EPA is then to set MCLs as close to its goals as feasible, taking into account, among other things, treatment costs. 42 U.S.C. Secs. 300g-1(b)(4), (5). Since SDWA goals are set only to deal with known or anticipated adverse health effects, a mere threat to human health is not enough in that context. Moreover, SDWA levels are set without reference to threats to the environment. Finally, EPA must consider costs in setting its MCLs; there is no similar limitation in Sec. 3004 of RCRA. 60 Similarly, in promulgating the OTC levels, EPA made clear that, [i]n establishing a scientifically justifiable approach for arriving at [OTC levels], EPA wanted to assure a high degree of confidence that a waste which releases toxicants at concentrations above the [OTC level] would pose a hazard to human health. EPA Hazardous Waste Management System; Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste ..., Proposed Rule, 51 Fed.Reg. 21,648, 21,649 (1986) (emphases added). Thus it is clear that wastes with toxicant levels below the OTC thresholds may still pose threats to human health [or] the environment. Id. at 21,648 (emphases added). 61 Finally, CMA points to the delisting levels as appropriate points of comparison. The term is a bit misleading, however. EPA delists particular wastes in response to individual petitions, see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(f)(1), and it has not adopted formal, or even de facto, levels below which any waste will be delisted. That EPA has delisted, in particular circumstances, wastes containing concentrations of solvents higher than those called for by the BDAT standards adds nothing to CMA's argument. The treatment standards establish a generic approach, requiring that all wastes deemed to be hazardous be treated to a set level in order to minimize threats to health and to the environment. If a waste is listed as hazardous, and an individual generator wants to dispose of it without meeting the BDAT standards, it may petition to have its particular waste delisted. If the agency grants the delisting petition, only the petitioner is affected; the generally required level of treatment remains the same. Hence, there is no inconsistency between a delisting level, accepted in particular circumstances, that permits a higher level of a particular contaminant then the BDAT level otherwise generally applicable. 62 In sum, EPA's catalog of the uncertainties inherent in the alternative approach using screening levels supports the reasonableness of its reliance upon BDAT instead. Accordingly, finding no merit in CMA's contention that EPA has required treatment to below established levels of hazard, we find that EPA's interpretation of Sec. 3004(m) is reasonable. 63 Our concurring colleague suggests that our discussion of the reasonableness of the BDAT standard is unnecessary, if not perhaps analytically impossible. Con.Op. at 371. Contrary to the impression given in his separate opinion, however, the basis upon which we find EPA's interpretation reasonable here is not one that we have supplied, but the one EPA itself put forth. In its Initial Rule document discussing BDAT as well as screening levels, and in its briefs to this court, EPA has presented precisely the arguments we find persuasive here. While, as we shall see, those arguments are inadequate to justify the choice made, in the Final Rule, in favor of BDAT as against screening levels--which also seem to present a reasonable approach--they do demonstrate that the BDAT approach is reasonable. 64