Opinion ID: 185864
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: THE APPLICABILITY OF THE COST-BENEFIT REQUIREMENTS TO THE RADIUM AND BETA/PHOTON MCLs

Text: 30 Petitioners attack EPA's final radium and beta/photon MCLs on the ground that § 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(C)(i), allegedly required EPA to conduct a cost-benefit analysis for each MCL, which EPA failed to do. 6 EPA responds that no cost-benefit analysis was required for these MCLs because the SDWA exempts pre-1986 MCLs from its cost-benefit requirements, and the agency left the pre-existing MCLs for radium and beta/photon emitters unchanged. Unless Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue, we must uphold the agency's interpretation of the SDWA as long as it is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-82, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 7 31 In 1996, Congress amended § 1412 of the SDWA. See Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-182, 110 Stat. 1613. As amended, § 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) provides that, [w]hen proposing any national primary drinking water regulation that includes a maximum contaminant level, EPA must publish and seek public comment on an analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs associated with the proposed MCL. 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(C)(i). EPA is to use that analysis for the purposes of paragraph[ ] (4), subparagraph (C) of which states: 32 At the time the Administrator proposes a national primary drinking water regulation under this paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a determination as to whether the benefits of the maximum contaminant level justify, or do not justify, the costs based on the analysis conducted under paragraph (3)(C). 33 Id. § 300g-1(b)(4)(C). However, amended § 1412(a)(1) also includes a grandfather clause: 34 Effective on June 19, 1986, each national interim or revised primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this section before June 19, 1986, shall be deemed to be a national primary drinking water regulation under subsection (b) of this section. No such regulation shall be required to comply with the standards set forth in subsection (b)(4) of this section unless such regulation is amended to establish a different maximum contaminant level after June 19, 1986. 35 Id. § 300g-1(a)(1) (emphasis added). 36 EPA argues that § 1412(a)(1) exempts the radium and beta/photon MCLs from the cost-benefit determination required by § 1412(b)(4)(C), because they do not establish different contaminant levels from those first promulgated in 1976. EPA further reasons that because the purpose of the cost-benefit analysis required by § 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) is to inform the cost-benefit determination required by § (b)(4)(C), and because that determination is not required for the preexisting MCLs, no cost-benefit analysis was required for those MCLs. In Part III.A we consider petitioners' attack on EPA's view that cost-benefit analyses are not required when the agency decides to retain pre-existing MCLs. In Part III.B we consider petitioners' claim that EPA did not in fact retain the pre-existing MCLs for radium and beta/photon radionuclides, but instead issued new standards.
37 Petitioners raise three challenges to EPA's view that cost-benefit analyses are not required when it retains pre-1986 MCLs. 38 First, petitioners contend that the declaration of § 1412(a)(1)'s grandfather clause, that pre-existing MCLs are not required to comply with the standards set forth in subsection (b)(4) of this section, 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(a)(1) (emphasis added), is not a reference to § (b)(4)(C)'s cost-benefit determination requirement because that requirement is not a standard. Rather, petitioners contend that the only standards in § (b)(4) are those in § (b)(4)(A) and (B), which apply to maximum contaminant level goals and maximum contaminant levels, respectively. Id. § 300g-1(b)(4)(A), (B). 8 EPA, however, correctly counters that the term standards is ambiguous; indeed, the term serves as the title for all of § 1412(b), and [g]oals and standards is the title for all of § (b)(4). There is nothing unreasonable about the agency's view that whether the benefits of an M.C.L. justify its costs qualifies as a standard by which the M.C.L. may be measured. 39 Second, petitioners contend that even if the grandfather clause does apply to the cost-benefit determination requirement of § 1412(b)(4), it does not expressly apply to the cost-benefit analysis requirement of § (b)(3)(C)(i). Although the observation is correct, the agency is justified in describing this as an instance where the statute is silent ... with respect to the specific issue, and hence where judicial deference to the agency's interpretation is warranted. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. at 2781. Because the statute provides that the § (b)(3)(C)(i) analysis is to be used for the purposes of paragraph[ ] (4), 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(3)(C)(i), 9 it is reasonable for the agency to regard such an analysis as unnecessary in situations in which a § (b)(4) determination will not be made. 40 Third, petitioners argue that, because EPA could not have known when it published its 2000 proposal to retain the preexisting MCLs that it would ultimately decide to keep them, the grandfather clause of § 1412(a)(1) did not exempt the agency from conducting a cost-benefit analysis at that time. But since § (a)(1) states that no pre-existing regulation is required to comply with the standards of § (b)(4) unless such regulation is amended, id. § 300g-1(a)(1) (emphasis added), it is reasonable for the agency to conclude that the cost-benefit requirement is not triggered by a proposal to do nothing more than retain, unamended, pre-existing MCLs. Petitioners stress that § 1412(b)(3)(C)(i) states that the agency is to produce a cost-benefit analysis [w]hen proposing any  MCL. Id. § 300g-1(b)(3)(C)(i) (emphasis added). But EPA correctly notes that the rest of the sentence provides that the analysis is to be produced only with respect to a [MCL] that is being considered in accordance with paragraph (4) and each alternative [MCL] that is being considered pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6). Id.; see supra note 6. Due to the grandfather clause, none of the MCLs at issue here were being considered in accordance with paragraph (4). Nor were they being considered pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6). See supra note 9. 41 EPA bolsters its position on all of these points by reference to another statutory provision, § 1412(b)(9), which it aptly refers to as the SDWA's anti-backsliding provision. That section states: 42 The Administrator shall, not less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this subchapter. Any revision of a national primary drinking water regulation shall be promulgated in accordance with this section, except that each revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons. 43 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(b)(9) (emphasis added). EPA notes that § (b)(9) bars it from revising an M.C.L. unless the revision at least maintains the existing MCL's level of health protection, and reasonably concludes that this means the agency may not raise an existing M.C.L. on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis alone. That conclusion is supported by the legislative history, which states: Section 1412(b)(9) precludes the use of this new cost-benefit standard-setting authority as the sole basis to relax any existing maximum contaminant level. S.Rep. No. 104-169, at 35 (1995). Accordingly, where the agency proposes to retain an existing MCL, and where (as here) there is no evidence that raising the M.C.L. would provide equivalent health protection, a cost-benefit analysis would have no consequence and the agency is justified in concluding that Congress did not intend to require it to undertake such a futile exercise. 44 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that EPA's reading of the SDWA as not requiring the production of a cost-benefit analysis when the agency decides to retain pre-1986 MCLs is a reasonable statutory interpretation to which this court is obligated to defer. 10
45 Petitioners next contend that even if the SDWA exempts EPA from producing a cost-benefit analysis when it leaves in place pre-existing MCLs, the 2000 beta/photon and radium MCLs are in fact different from the 1976 standards and hence not subject to § 1412(a)(1)'s exemption. We disagree. 46 With respect to beta/photon emitters, petitioners note that improved scientific methods have led EPA to conclude that the 1976 MCLs generally ensure greater health protection (and less risk) than the agency had originally anticipated. From this fact, petitioners assert that, by retaining the 1976 MCLs, the agency effectively issue[d] a different standard than the one issued in 1976. Petitioners' Reply Br. at 14. This assertion is unjustified. As we have discussed, EPA reasonably interprets § (a)(1) to exempt a pre-1986 regulation from the statute's cost-benefit determination provision unless such regulation is amended to establish a different maximum contaminant level after June 19, 1986. 42 U.S.C. § 300g-1(a)(1). Because the SDWA defines maximum contaminant level as the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered to any user of a public water system, id. § 300f(3) (emphasis added), EPA is right to focus on the level of contaminant set by the original M.C.L. rather than the degree of protection that such a level was anticipated to provide. Since EPA's 2000 beta/photon MCLs neither amended the 1976 MCLs nor establish[ed] ... different maximum contaminant level[s], id. § 300g-1(a)(1), the exemption of § (a)(1) is plainly applicable. 47 Nor does petitioners' argument weaken the support that the anti-backsliding provision gives to EPA's conclusion that the 2000 beta/photon MCLs are exempt from the cost-benefit requirements. As we have discussed, § 1412(b)(9) provides that any revision of an M.C.L. shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons. Id. § 300g-1(b)(9). Petitioners contend that this provision does not prohibit EPA from revising an M.C.L. upward when (as here) scientific advances show that a contaminant poses less risk than previously believed, and that in those circumstances the agency may consider a cost-benefit analysis in determining whether to raise the MCL. This argument requires inferring the following bracketed and italicized qualification to the actual language of § (b)(9): [E]ach revision shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of persons [than the agency initially thought it was providing].  Id. But there is nothing unreasonable about EPA's decision to decline to read such a qualification into the section, and instead to regard it as a straightforward instruction to maintain the level of protection that the initial M.C.L. actually provides. 11 48 With respect to the radium MCL, petitioners argue that the 2000 radium standard is new because, although it retains the same 5 pCi/L level as the original MCL, it requires separate radium-228 monitoring regardless of the concentration of radium-226. See 65 Fed.Reg. at 76,712, 76,719. The original regulation required radium-228 monitoring only if the level of radium-226 exceeded 3 pCi/L. See 41 Fed. Reg. at 28,404. As discussed above, the agency reasonably interprets § 1412(a)(1) to provide an exemption from cost-benefit requirements for a pre-existing regulation unless EPA chooses to establish a different maximum contaminant level. In this case the maximum contaminant level has remained the same, and we agree with EPA that the fact that the agency has changed its monitoring technique, thereby tightening enforcement of compliance with the original level, does not take the 2000 radium regulation out of the statutory exemption. Accordingly, EPA was not required to produce a cost-benefit analysis with respect to the 2000 MCLs for either radium or beta/photon radionuclides. 12 49