Opinion ID: 574870
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Methodological Objections

Text: 45 This court's review of EPA's methodology in developing the high volume criteria is governed by the APA's arbitrary or capricious, abuse of discretion standard. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Under this familiar standard, we inquire  'whether the [Agency's] decision was based on a consideration of the relevant factors and whether there has been a clear error of judgment.'  Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (citation omitted). The record need only demonstrate that the Agency met its obligation to examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action. Id. 46
47 Petitioners complain that in developing the high volume criteria for mineral processing wastes, EPA neglected to evaluate the volumes of wastes clearly within the Bevill Amendment's scope and thereby ignored the only direct evidence of Congressional intent relating to the special waste concept. Jt. Brief at 16. EPA did indeed base its high volume criteria principally on a comparison of volume data from regulated Subtitle C facilities, but the Agency did not ignore the volumes of wastes within Bevill's compass. The rulemaking record documents the consideration given to the generation rates of such wastes. See 53 Fed.Reg. at 41,293-94; 54 Fed.Reg. at 15,330; Internal EPA Memorandum dated Oct. 19, 1988 re: Quantitative Basis for High Volume Mineral Processing Waste Criteria, reproduced in JA at 241-48. Quantitative comparisons showed that mineral processing wastes proposed for continued Bevill status in the 10/88 NPRM 48 are generated in quantities that are comparable to many of the other special wastes, and that the lower bounds of the quantitative criteria approximate the lower limit of the quantities of waste generated by the other industry types contained within the Bevill exclusion. 49 EPA Mem., Oct. 19, 1988 at 1, JA at 241. 50 True, EPA rejected the suggestion to use the lowest of extraction and beneficiation waste generation rates to establish the high volume threshold. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,611-12; see also 54 Fed.Reg. 15,330. As EPA reasoned, Congress intended the Bevill exclusion to cover only those waste streams that are generated in such quantities as to be potentially unmanageable under [S]ubtitle C regulations; therefore, the volumes of wastes currently managed under Subtitle C controls formed the appropriate analytical basis for developing the high volume criterion. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,611; see also 54 Fed.Reg. 15,329. In EPA's view,comparisons with Subtitle C wastes are not only reasonable and appropriate, but necessary. Comparisons with other Bevill wastes, on the other hand, do not provide conclusive evidence but do suggest boundaries on what might be considered a high volume special waste. 51 Id. at 15,329; see also id. at 15,330; 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,61 1. 8 52 Nothing in the legislative history of the Bevill Amendment indicates that Congress contemplated a specific volumetric threshold, or intended the generation rate of any particular Bevill waste to serve as the cutoff for mineral processing wastes to qualify for exemption from Subtitle C regulation. Rather, the legislative record, as the EDF II panel concluded, demonstrates only that Congress intended the Bevill exclusion to encapsulate the 'special waste' concept articulated by the EPA in 1978. EDF II, 852 F.2d at 1329. Given the absence of more precise instructions from Congress, the EDF II court properly left to EPA the task of setting criteria for determining which mineral processing wastes are special wastes. Id. at 1331. 53 EPA, we are satisfied, provided a reasonable explanation for its decision to base the high volume criteria on the volumes of waste generated and managed at Subtitle C-regulated facilities, and to use generation rates of other Bevill wastes as a reality check on the volume thresholds selected. See 54 Fed.Reg. at 15,330; 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,611. 54
55 Petitioners charge that EPA's data selection from the TSDR Survey and methodological choices piled one conservative assumption atop another, resulting in high volume criteria that are so unreasonably high as to be arbitrary and capricious. Jt. Brief at 18-19. Specifically, petitioners argue that by examining only facilities that use land disposal to manage solid wastes or treat hazardous wastewaters, ignoring small volume waste generators, and including commercial waste management facilities, EPA improperly narrowed the comparative data base to exclude the majority of Subtitle C wastes. Id. at 19-22. Petitioners also contest EPA's decisions to consider only the largest waste stream managed at each facility in its data base, id. at 23, to use data that aggregated the volumes of individual Subtitle C waste streams, id. at 24-26, to establish separate high volume thresholds for liquid and solid wastes, id. at 27-28, and to select the 95th percentile as the statistical cutoff to define the numerical high volume standards. Id. at 28-30. 56 EPA, we conclude, reasonably interpreted the special waste concept when the Agency decided to quantify the high volume criterion through an analysis of the technical feasibility of Subtitle C controls. EPA adequately explained, as logically within this permissible interpretation, each of the methodological decisions petitioners challenge. To the extent petitioners quarrel with EPA's methodology or selection of a precise numerical measure, they have failed to demonstrate that the Agency acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. See State Farm, 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. at 2866. 57 Petitioners fault EPA for not basing its high volume criteria on the full universe of industrial Subtitle C facilities. Jt. Brief at 19. But EPA reasonably limited the comparative data base to facilities using those Subtitle C management techniques that would most likely be employed to manage hazardous mineral processing wastes--landfills for solid wastes, and wastewater treatment processes, surface impoundments, and injection wells for liquid wastes. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,608, 36,629. Small quantity waste generators, and those that do not employ these waste management techniques, could supply no data relevant to EPA's inquiry into the technical feasibility of managing large volumes of mineral processing waste under Subtitle C. 58 EPA similarly rejected the suggestion that a relevant comparative analysis should reflect 'typical' quantities of hazardous waste generated. 54 Fed.Reg. at 15,329. Instead, endeavoring to identify mineral processing wastes generated in volumes so high as to resist Subtitle C controls, EPA appropriately concentrated its examination on the largest volume wastes currently managed under Subtitle C. Id. at 15,329; 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,611. 59 The Agency likewise reasonably decided to include data from commercial Subtitle C waste management facilities in its analysis. EPA reasoned that information on waste volumes managed by commercial facilities was relevant to the Agency's determination of technical feasibility[,] ... the fundamental issue addressed by the volume criterion. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,612. [C]onsiderations of differential economic incentives facing operators of commercial and private hazardous waste management facilities, EPA said, are not relevant in resolving this [technical feasibility] issue. Id. at 36,630. 60 EPA's decision to establish separate high volume thresholds for liquid and solid mineral processing wastes is similarly rooted in the Agency's legitimate focus on technical feasibility. EPA proposed setting separate volumetric standards in the 4/89 NPRM, noting that Subtitle C facilities typically manage liquid wastes in far larger volumes than solid wastes. 54 Fed.Reg. at 15,33 1. The Agency finalized this approach in the 9/89 Rule. EPA thus properly recognized the highly significant differences in treatment processes and management options that rendered management of large volumes of wastewater more technically feasible than management of large volumes of solids. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,630. 61 EPA acknowledged the analytical inconsistency of using data on the generation rates of aggregated Subtitle C waste streams to calculate a waste stream-specific high volume threshold for mineral processing wastes. 53 Fed.Reg. at 41,293-94; 54 Fed.Reg. at 15,329; 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,609-10. The TSDR Survey data, however, enabled EPA substantially to disaggregate the data on Subtitle C waste generation rates. Id. at 36,610; see also Development of the High Volume Criterion for Mineral Processing Wastes (Aug. 8, 1989) at 1-2, JA at 171-72 (describing methodology for developing high volume criterion based on TSDR Survey data, including formula for calculating disaggregated waste generation rates). 9 62 Finally, EPA properly exercised its discretion in selecting the 95th percentile as the statistical cutoff to define the numerical high volume standards, permitting a 5% overlap between the volumes of Bevill mineral processing wastes and the volumes of wastes currently managed under Subtitle C. See 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,629. Environmental watchdog groups recommended a cutoff at the 99th percentile, allowing for an overlap of only one percent, while members of the mineral processing industry favored an overlap of at least 10 percent, translating to a cutoff at the 90th percentile. Id.; see Comments of National Audubon Society, et al. (May 31, 1989) at 55; Comments of American Mining Congress (May 31, 1989) at 44. EPA explained in the 9/89 Rule that the percentile overlap was reduced from 10%, as proposed in the 10/88 and 4/89 NPRMs, to 5% because problems with the data used in the analysis (i.e., the 1985 Biennial Report ), which had justified a lower percentile cutoff, had been resolved when better data (i.e., the TSDR Survey ) became available. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,613. EPA determined that this much stronger data supported a 5% overlap. Id. 63 Given EPA's logical conclusion that current management of large volume hazardous wastes indicates that Subtitle C regulation of that quantity of waste is technically feasible, the Agency reasonably selected a percentile cutoff that eliminated from Bevill Amendment coverage those mineral processing wastes generated in volumes lower than the largest volume Subtitle C-managed wastes. In selecting a 95th percentile cutoff, resulting in a 5% overlap between the generation rates of large volume Subtitle C wastes and Bevill mineral processing wastes, EPA chose a numerical standard ... within a 'zone of reasonableness'  that warrants judicial approbation. See Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 525 (D.C.Cir.1983) (citations omitted).