Opinion ID: 492030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: procedural challenge to the ground water protection requirements

Text: 132 Texas complains that in promulgating the ground water protection requirements, 40 C.F.R. Sec. 191.16, the EPA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity for comment as required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b), (c). Texas especially attacks the definition of special source of ground water, 40 C.F.R. Sec. 191.12(o), which delineates the class of ground water that is covered by the ground water protection requirements (i.e., Class I ground waters that also meet three additional criteria, see supra ). Texas's primary complaint is that the definition of special source of ground water is so narrowly drawn that most of the nation's usable ground water is not protected. 12 Texas asserts that if it had been given notice that ground water protections were being considered, and especially if it had been given notice that such a narrow class of water was going to be protected, it would have commented and pointed out its perceived problems with the rule. 133 The HLW rules when initially proposed included only (1) Subpart A, which governed management and storage (prior to disposal) and which set exposure limits for individuals at 25 millirems to the whole body; 75 millirems to the thyroid, 25 millirems to any other organ (this portion of the rule had some minor changes in the final rule); (2) the general containment requirements, which were modified in the final rule; (3) the assurance requirements, which were also modified in the final rule. See Proposed Rule, 47 Fed.Reg. 58,204 (Dec. 29, 1982). The individual and ground water protection standards were not part of the proposed rule, but were added to the final rule. The Agency argues that the latter two provisions were added in response to comments received during the comment period, and that the final rule is a logical outgrowth of the notice and comments received. 134 A final rule which contains changes from the proposed rule need not always go through a second notice and comment period. An agency can make even substantial changes from the proposed version, as long as the final changes are in character with the original scheme and a logical outgrowth of the notice and comment. South Terminal Corp. v. EPA, 504 F.2d 646, 658 (1st Cir.1974); BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F.2d 637, 642 (1st Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1096, 100 S.Ct. 1063, 62 L.Ed.2d 784 (1980). 135 The essential inquiry is whether the commenters have had a fair opportunity to present their views on the contents of the final plan. We must be satisfied, in other words, that given a new opportunity to comment, commenters would not have their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the Agency might find convincing. Thus, where the final rules are a result of a complex mix of controversial and uncommented upon data and calculations, remand may be in order. Similarly, where the Agency adds a new pollution control parameter without giving notice of intention to do so or receiving comments, there must be a remand to allow public comment. The question, however, always requires careful consideration on a case-by-case basis. 136 BASF Wyandotte, 598 F.2d at 642 (emphasis added). 137 Here, although the proposed rule did not contain either the individual protection requirements or the ground water protection requirements, in the preamble to the proposed rule the Agency expressed its concern that perhaps protections for individuals were necessary, explaining that, 138 We particularly seek comment on a different approach to our standards for disposal--an alternative that would establish radiation exposure limits for individuals, such as the limit of 25 millirems per year in Subpart A of this proposal, rather than the radionuclide release limits that we are proposing. 139 Standards based on individual exposure limits, or equivalent standards which limit radionuclide concentrations in air or water, restrict the risks that any particular individual may be exposed to. [The Agency went on to explain why it thought that an approach based upon individual dose limits would not be appropriate.] Thus, we believe our proposed approach will facilitate licensing of good disposal systems while providing appropriate environmental protection from the long term risks presented by high-level wastes. However, the arguments favoring individual exposure limits are also persuasive, and we particularly seek comments on which approach we should ultimately select. 140 See Preamble to Proposed Rules, 47 Fed.Reg. 58,203, col. 2 (Dec. 29, 1982). 141 The public comment period for the proposed rule lasted until May 2, 1983. Also in May of 1983, the EPA held public hearings in Washington, D.C. and Denver, Colorado. As a result of the hearings, the Agency identified several issues upon which it felt additional comments were needed. The Agency opened a new round of notice and comment on these issues which lasted until June 20, 1983. See Request for Post-Hearing Comments, 48 Fed.Reg. 23,666 (May 26, 1983). The EPA also sent a letter, which identified the same issues for comment, to everyone that had originally commented on the proposed rules. 142 One of the issues highlighted for comment specifically addressed the question of an individual protection requirement and it alluded to the possibility that an individual dose limit might include ground water limits. 13 3] However, the issues highlighted for review did not mention that an additional and separate ground water rule was contemplated. 143 Also during 1983, a subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board (SAB) 14 conducted a scientific review of the proposed rule. The SAB subcommittee's final report was submitted to the EPA in February 1984. The subcommittee's report recommended that the definition of accessible environment be extended to include major sources of potable ground water beyond the controlled area (the original definition of accessible environment did not expressly include all ground water beyond the controlled area). However, there was no recommendation that a separate ground water protection limit be set, or that the Agency should place direct release limits on ground water. Since the Agency anticipated that many of the subcommittee's recommendations would be incorporated into the final rule, the EPA also sought public comment on the SAB subcommittee's report. See 49 Fed.Reg. 19,604 (May 29, 1984). 144 We believe that the Agency gave reasonably clear notice that individual protection requirements were being considered since it expressly invited comments on the question of whether an individual exposure limit was appropriate. Moreover, in seeking such comment, the Agency drew the public's attention to the 25/75 millirem individual exposure limit that was part of the proposed management and storage rule of Subpart A. Thus the public was reasonably on notice of the expected form that such a new rule might take. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b)(3) (notice in the Federal Register shall include either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved). However, we are not convinced that the Agency gave sufficient notice concerning any requirements that might be tied specifically into the protection of ground water. 15 We stated in BASF Wyandotte, 145 The essential inquiry is whether the commenters have had a fair opportunity to present their views on the contents of the final plan. We must be satisfied, in other words, that given a new opportunity to comment, commenters would not have their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the Agency might find convincing. 146 BASF Wyandotte, 598 F.2d at 642. 147 Here, since the concept of a separate rule setting limits on ground water was never presented to the public, nor were the final ground water protection requirements ever opened for public comment, we are convinced that given a new opportunity to comment, commenters would have their first occasion to offer new and different criticisms which the Agency might find convincing. Id. This conclusion is bolstered by reviewing the definition of special source ground water itself. The linchpin of the definition is the designation of Class I ground water, as defined in the EPA's Ground-Water Protection Strategy, and yet the Ground-Water Protection Strategy was not even published until August 1984, which was at least one month after the official public notice period ended in June 1984. 16 The public was never able to comment on the appropriateness of using this Class I designation as a definition of what ground water would be protected since the term Class I had never been coined until after the official public comment period had closed. Nor was the public able to comment on the additional criteria which further reduced the amount of Class I ground water that would be protected. Given the initial lack of sufficient notice that a separate ground water protection rule was being considered, it was clearly impossible for the public to offer useful comment as to the scope of protection that the new rule should provide. See Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 549 (D.C.Cir.1983) (Agency notice must describe the range of alternatives being considered with reasonable specificity. Otherwise, interested parties will not know what to comment on, and notice will not lead to better-informed agency decisionmaking.). 148 It seems significant that the majority of the complaints presented to this court concerning the HLW rules relate to the ground water protection requirements. The various petitioners attack the special source ground water definition as being far too underinclusive; as being too vague; or as being useless in that the rule does not really protect any ground water that is likely to be contaminated. Because the public never saw this provision until the final rule was promulgated, 17 it is not surprising that the petitioners are now raising so many challenges to this provision since this court provides the first and only forum that they have had in which to express their concerns. Had the EPA opened a new comment period when they promulgated this never before proposed or foreshadowed rule, a significant number of the complaints that are before us now could have been resolved by the Agency either by amending the rule or by adequately explaining why the commenters' suggestions were not adopted. 18 See National Tour Brokers Association v. United States, 591 F.2d 896, 902 (D.C.Cir.1978) (purpose of notice and comment rulemaking is both to allow the agency to benefit from the experience and input of the parties who file comments and to make sure that the agency maintains a flexible and open-minded attitude toward its own rules); Chocolate Manufacturers Association of the United States v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098 (4th Cir.1985) (public participation in rulemaking ensures informed agency decisionmaking). 149 We note that in order for a rule to be upheld against a substantive challenge (as opposed to a procedural challenge) the Agency must give an adequate explanation of why the rule was promulgated in its final form. 19 The EPA's explanation of why only certain Class I ground waters were protected by the ground water protection requirements is not very helpful. The EPA merely states that the Agency believes these provisions are necessary and adequate to avoid any significant degradation of the important drinking water resources provided by these Class I ground waters. 50 Fed.Reg. 38,074, col. 1. This statement does not explain why all Class I ground waters were not protected or why the Agency chose the limiting criteria that cut back the type of Class I ground water that the rule protects. Nor does this explanation point to any evidence in the administrative record which supports this bald assertion. Because the petitioners never had a comment period in which to express their concerns, of course the Agency's explanation is going to be vague and cannot address petitioners' complaints. 150 We realize that in promulgating the HLW rules the Agency was faced with a difficult task, and that the Agency was working under severe time restraints. 20 However, we believe that in this case, where the issues are so complex, the Agency must be careful to give full and adequate public notice. As has been pointed out before, since a reviewing court normally gives deference to the Agency's substantive conclusions in complex regulatory matters, we will insist that the required procedures be strictly complied with. BASF Wyandotte Corp. v. Costle, 598 F.2d at 641; Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1027-28 (D.C.Cir.1978). 151 We must therefore remand the ground water protection requirements for a second round of notice and comment.