Opinion ID: 78056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Abandonment of Demonstration Requirement

Text: The Sierra Club challenges the Final Rule's elimination of any demonstration requirement. First, the EPA initially solicited general comments on its proposed approaches for regulating Class 1 injection wells in South Florida. Then, in its Notice of Data Availability, it specifically requested further comment on whether, given the findings of the Risk Assessment, the type of hydrogeologic demonstrations set out in Option 2 of the proposed rule were practicable and feasible. Underground Injection Control Program  NODA, 68 Fed.Reg. at 23,673. All interested parties, including Sierra Club, had ample opportunity to comment. The commentary provided ample support for the proposition that the technical challenges and factual uncertainties would generally prevent a convincing in-depth hydrogeological demonstration of wastewater fate and transport as described in originally proposed Option 2. See CE1 at 113, 120, 180-82. Accordingly, elimination of this demonstration requirement in the promulgation of the Final Rule constitutes a logical outgrowth of the proposal and comments. See Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, 208 F.3d at 1058; Horsehead Res. Dev. Co., 16 F.3d at 1268. However, Sierra Club is also concerned about notice of elimination of the non-endangerment demonstration which was part of Option 1 of the July 2000 Proposed Rule. First, it is true that neither the EPA, nor any other party, has pointed to any evidence that the EPA specifically put this element of Option 1 up for comment, as it did with the in-depth demonstration required under proposed Option 2. [9] It is also true that no party has pointed to any comment specifically addressing the simplified non-endangerment requirement in such a way as to make it clear that commenters considered it independently at issue. Each of these would weigh in favor of our finding the Final Rule not to be a logical outgrowth. See Ne. Md. Waste, 358 F.3d at 952; First Am. Discount Corp., 222 F.3d at 1015; Horsehead Resource Dev. Co., 16 F.3d at 1268. However, the record as a whole weighs otherwise. First, both environmental groups and municipal entities commented on the inherent unreliability of the hydrogeological demonstration proposed for Option 2, and so on its insufficiency as a tool to protect USDWs. Supp. Appx. 33 (comment of LEAF) (EPA is proposing to rely on [a] process, involving demonstrations through models and review and decision-making by government, that has been proven fundamentally deficient in ensuring compliance with the SDWA.), 74 (comment of Florida Chapter, Sierra Club) (the EPA is repeating reliance on demonstrations that are not field-verified), 128 (comment of Hillsborough County, Florida) (It will not always be possible to perform a detailed hydro-geological analysis to demonstrate whether or not a Class I[] municipal well would cause violation of primary standards in the USDW because of uncertainty about movement of water in subsurface Florida.); CE1 at 254 (comment of LEAF) (the hydrogeological demonstration proposed in Option 2 is worthless). But see CE1 at 274 (FWEA Utility Council) (supporting Option 2 demonstration). Second, advanced wastewater treatment and disinfection have been shown, by the Risk Assessment, effectively to eliminate pathogens (the contaminants of concern according to the Risk Assessment). CE1 at 81, 97. Therefore, it is only logical to conclude, in the face of the significantly higher treatment levels adopted in the Final Rule, that the simplified, technical-literature-based non-endangerment demonstration has essentially become irrelevant. In other words, the Final Rule operates on the principle that the only way to demonstrate non-endangerment is to meet the specified higher treatment requirements. For these reasons, we find, as to the elimination of the non-endangerment requirement, that the Final Rule is a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule and its notice and comment period. [10] Northeast Maryland Waste, 358 F.3d 936 at 951-52; Ass'n of Am. R.R.s, 38 F.3d at 589; see also Long Island Care at Home, 127 S.Ct. at 2351; Thomas, 838 F.2d at 1242. Even if we had found the Final Rule not to have been a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule, Sierra Club would also need to show that it was prejudiced by the lack of opportunity to comment. [B]efore we may vacate an agency action [for procedural failure] during the notice-and-comment period, we must take `due account ... of the rule of prejudicial error.' Owner-Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Fed. Motor Carrier Safety Admin., 494 F.3d 188, 202 (D.C.Cir.2007) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706). To show prejudicial error, a petitioner must indicate with reasonable specificity, the aspect of the rule to which it objects and how it might have responded if given the opportunity. Id. At base, the petitioner must demonstrate that on remand, [it] can mount a credible challenge... and [was] thus prejudiced by the absence of an opportunity to do so before the agency. Id. (quotations and citations omitted). In this case, although the Sierra Club has specified the aspect of the Final Rule to which it objects, it has failed to address how it would have mounted a credible challenge to the elimination of the simplified non-endangerment demonstration. See id. In its briefs, the Sierra Club has argued that, had it known the demonstration requirement was at issue, it could have submitted specific scientific evidence, including expert testimony on the full range of dangerous contaminants remaining in wastewater following treatment, the inability of the required treatment to remove those contaminants, and the potential health effects from exposure to such contaminants through drinking water. Sierra Club Br. at 44. It also stated that [w]ithout the demonstration, Option 1 is but a shell of its former self. Sierra Club Reply Br. at 15. It offers nothing more specific. Further, throughout this process, Sierra Club has essentially argued that nothing short of enforcement of the no-fluid-movement standard will satisfy the statutory requirements of the SDWA. Additionally, in its initial brief, Sierra Club conceded that it believed the non-endangerment demonstration of Option 1, as proposed, would be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and contrary to law in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Sierra Club Br. at 41 n.10. Accordingly, it is not credible for the Sierra Club also to argue that the simplified non-endangerment demonstration proposed in Option 1 would have provided additional value in protecting underground drinking water. Finally, in arguing against the adoption of either of the proposed rules, the Sierra Club has had ample opportunity to make all of its arguments regarding the range of dangerous contaminants remaining in wastewater following treatment and their potential health effects. Id. at 44. The EPA, in turn, has considered and responded based on the data gained through its Risk Assessment and other comments. See Underground Injection Control Program  Revision, 70 Fed.Reg. 70,513. Accordingly, we conclude that, even if there were inadequate notice, the Sierra Club has failed to show the necessary prejudicial error as to insufficient notice of elimination of the non-endangerment demonstration requirement.