Opinion ID: 186368
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Carus's Submissions to the EPA

Text: 31 Carus also claims the EPA relied upon insufficient and out-dated sampling data obtained by its Illinois counterpart in 1991 and 1993. Carus apparently believes more recent data from samples collected by GeoSyntec Consulting shows the EPA erred in listing the Matthiessen & Hegeler site on the NPL. Before considering this argument we must address two anterior matters. 32 First, because the CERCLA does not specify a standard of review applicable to this issue, we shall proceed under the standard prescribed by the Administrative Procedure Act and will set aside the agency's action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); see Eagle-Picher, 759 F.2d at 921 n. 80. In applying that standard, we remain mindful of the significant deference we owe to the EPA's decision to list a site on the NPL because of the highly technical issues involved and because the NPL serves merely as a rough list of priorities, assembled quickly and inexpensively. Bradley Mining Co. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 1356, 1359 (1992). Even so, we must assure ourselves the EPA has examined relevant data and has articulated a rational explanation for its actions. Eagle-Picher, 759 F.2d at 921. 33 Second, the EPA contends Carus has forfeited any claim the agency failed adequately to consider the GeoSyntec data because Carus failed to say with reasonable specificity during the period for public comment, Mossville Envtl. Action Now v. EPA, 370 F.3d 1232, 1238 (D.C.Cir.2004), how those data would have affected the HRS score for the Matthiessen & Hegeler site. Although we do not doubt the need for specificity, we see that Carus made three comments before the EPA with sufficient specificity that we may consider them on review. 34 Carus first argued before the EPA that the documents it submitted showed the slag piles were highly resistant to further leaching. Neither before the agency nor here, however, does Carus describe the significance of this purported fact for the HRS scoring of the site. As far as we are told — and that is by the EPA — the only arguable connection between resistance to leaching and the HRS score is whether cadmium, the substance scored for the surface water migration pathway, was available to the pathway. Yet Carus does not challenge the EPA's contention that both direct observation (based upon the aerial photograph taken in 1988) and chemical analyses (performed in 1991 and 1993), established cadmium from the slag piles had been released into the Little Vermilion River, and hence was available to the pathway. The toxicity factor value for a substance available to the pathway pursuant to HRS § 2.4.1.1, notwithstanding any putative resistance to further leaching, may be used in scoring that pathway. 35 Next, Carus asserts the documents it submitted to the EPA establish[ed] risk-based clean-up levels — whatever that may mean — and evaluate[d] possible remedial alternatives, both of which contributions the agency apparently failed to consider. Perhaps so, but Carus did and still does nothing to explain how either consideration could have affected the HRS score for the Matthiessen & Hegeler site, see Northside Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Thomas, 849 F.2d 1516, 1519 (D.C.Cir.1988) (comment to agency must show alleged mistake was of possible significance in the results). Nor does Carus refute the EPA's response that it had no obligation to consider such matters because they are irrelevant to the decision to list a site on the NPL, see Honeywell Int'l, 372 F.3d at 445 (EPA not required to explore remedial options when placing site on NPL). 36 Finally, Carus maintains the sampling data that GeoSyntec prepared and submitted to the EPA shows the agency overstated the environmental and health risks posed by conditions at the site. Here Carus cites Linemaster Switch Corp. v. EPA, 938 F.2d 1299 (D.C.Cir.1991), for the proposition the EPA must consider more recent data that have been included in the administrative record. Carus remains fatally silent, however, in the face of the EPA's indisputable observation that it did review the data Carus submitted but found them consistent with its scoring of the site. See Support Document for the Revised National Priorities List Final Rule — September 2003, at 1.1-10 (cited in 68 Fed.Reg. at 55,877). 37 In the EPA's response to public comments it explained that the data compiled by GeoSyntec, far from contradicting the data upon which the agency relied, confirmed the presence of ... cadmium and lead in soil samples taken from around the slag piles. Id. The EPA also responded to Carus's claim the GeoSyntec data showed the levels of hazardous substances present in the Little Vermilion River were below applicable limits; the agency explained that an observed release of a hazardous substance may be established [e]ven though levels may be lower than regulatory limits ... if the measured levels are significantly higher than background levels. Id. In sum, the EPA concluded Carus did not present any specific comments [showing] that the data used in the HRS scoring [were] incorrect or why [Geosyntec's] data would suggest that the site score is incorrect. Id. Just so.