Opinion ID: 574870
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: High Volume Criteria

Text: 33 EPA understood that Congress intended the Bevill exclusion to encompass only those waste streams that are generated in such quantities as to be potentially unmanageable under [S]ubtitle C regulations. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,611. Consistent with Agency documents prepared in conjunction with EPA's 1978 proposal on special wastes, the Agency viewed volume as the most relevant and objective measure of the technical feasibility of subjecting waste to Subtitle C controls. See 54 Fed.Reg. at 15,326; see also id. at 15,318 (quoting Special Waste Background Document (apparent technological difficulty in applying [proposed Subtitle C] regulations to the waste because of volumes involved at typical facilities was a driving force in developing the original list of special wastes)). EPA logically concluded that comparison of mineral processing waste volumes with those of wastes managed under Subtitle C controls was the most appropriate analytical basis for developing the high volume criterion. 54 Fed.Reg. at 36,611. 34 The Agency consequently devised a methodology to calculate volumetric cut-offs ... reflect[ing] some of the largest quantities of individual and identifiable waste streams managed at facilities that are currently in the Subtitle C regulatory system. Id. at 36,629. EPA examined the generation rates of Subtitle C wastes managed at facilities disposing of solid/sludge materials in landfills, or employing wastewater treatment processes, surface impoundments, and injection wells to manage hazardous liquid wastes--disposal techniques that would be used to manage mineral processing wastes under Subtitle C. Id. at 36,608, 36,629. The Agency identified the largest individual waste stream managed by such techniques at each facility, and computed univariate statistics on the resulting distribution. Id. at 36,629. The final high volume criteria--45,000 mt/yr per facility for solids, one million mt/yr per facility for liquids--represent the largest individual waste stream managed by the facility at the 95th percentile of the relevant distribution. Id. 35 Beyond question, a high volume standard for Bevill mineral processing wastes is in order. Petitioners do not argue otherwise; rather, they challenge the particular high volume criteria established by EPA on three grounds. First, petitioners charge that the selected criteria frustrate the congressional intent underlying the Bevill Amendment. Next, they complain that, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 553, EPA failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to comment on the data and methodology used in developing the high volume standards. Finally, petitioners assert that EPA's method of calculating the quantitative volumetric thresholds was improperly biased toward overly stringent standards and was therefore arbitrary and capricious. 36 We conclude that EPA's high volume criteria are consistent with a permissible interpretation of the Bevill Amendment, were developed in accord with the APA, and reflect methodological choices properly within the Agency's discretion.
37 Petitioners argue that EPA's unreasonably high volumetric thresholds ... transformed what was intended by Congress to be a screening analysis into a final method for determining the regulatory status of mineral processing wastes. Jt. Brief at 31. Petitioners challenge EPA's false equation of 'high volume' and 'non-amenability'  as without basis in the language or legislative history of the Bevill Amendment. Jt. Reply at 5-6 & n. 8. Congress intended EPA to determine the amenability of mineral processing wastes to Subtitle C regulation through the multi-factored analysis required by the Bevill Amendment, petitioners assert, not through the application of a rigid high volume screening criterion. Id. at 7-8. 38 For a waste within its scope, the Bevill Amendment no doubt requires an in-depth, multi-factored, context-specific study and regulatory determination. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921(b)(3), 6982(p). This court found it equally clear, however, that Congress did not intend to sweep all mineral processing wastes within Bevill Amendment coverage, but only those that satisfied threshold high volume, low hazard criteria to be determined by EPA. See EDF II, 852 F.2d at 1329. 7 We discern no departure from Congress' instruction, or abuse of discretion, in EPA's use of precise quantitative measures to make the threshold classifications, while reserving for wastes thus classed Bevill the closer study antecedent to determining the regime for their regulation. Petitioners apparently would have the Agency make a multi-factored analysis twice over. We see no legislative command for the scheme petitioners ask us to order.
39 Petitioners accuse EPA of having performed a classic 'bait-and-switch'  by substituting at the last moment one set of data and analysis for another when the Agency replaced the 1985 Biennial Report with the TSDR Survey as the source of data on which the final quantitative volumetric measures were based. Jt. Brief at 13. In petitioners' view, EPA thus deprived the public of the notice and opportunity to comment guaranteed by the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553. We conclude that the EPA's high volume criteria do not fail on notice and comment grounds. 40 The APA requires that a notice of proposed rulemaking include either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and issues involved, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b), and that the agency give interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of written data, views, or arguments. 5 U.S.C. § 553(c); see Air Transport Ass'n v. CAB, 732 F.2d 219, 224 (D.C.Cir.1984). Integral to the notice requirement is the agency's duty to identify and make available technical studies and data that it has employed in reaching the decisions to propose particular rules.... An agency commits serious procedural error when it fails to reveal portions of the technical basis for a proposed rule in time to allow for meaningful commentary. Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. NRC, 673 F.2d 525, 530-31 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 835, 103 S.Ct. 79, 74 L.Ed.2d 76 (1982). 41 At the same time, consistent with the APA, an agency may use supplementary data, unavailable during the notice and comment period, that expand[s] on and confirm[s] information contained in the proposed rulemaking and addresses alleged deficiencies in the pre-existing data, so long as no prejudice is shown. Community Nutrition Institute v. Block, 749 F.2d 50, 57-58 (D.C.Cir.1984); see also Air Transport Ass'n, 732 F.2d at 224 (APA requirements met despite agency's reliance on internal staff studies unavailable to public before rule's adoption, because critical elements of proposal did not change and final rule was a 'logical outgrowth' of the proposed rule) (quoting Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 547 (D.C.Cir.1983)). 42 Petitioners do not point to inaccuracies in the data contained in the TSDR Survey. See Community Nutrition Institute, 749 F.2d at 58 (no prejudice from agency's response to comments in form of new scientific studies where petitioners did not even suggest that the new studies were defective). Nor does the record suggest that EPA hid or disguised the information it used, or otherwise conducted the rulemaking in bad faith. Cf. Connecticut Light and Power Co., 673 F.2d at 531 (To allow an agency to play hunt the peanut with technical information, hiding or disguising the information that it employs, is to condone a practice in which the agency treats what should be a genuine interchange as mere bureaucratic sport.). 43 Rather, petitioners' complaint is with the way EPA used the data to calculate volumetric thresholds for Bevill status qualification of solid and liquid processing wastes. EPA's methodology in selecting the high volume criteria, however, did not change significantly from the proposed notices to the final rule, and petitioners had ample opportunity to criticize EPA's approach. In fact, the updated and expanded data in the TSDR Survey enabled EPA to respond to several industry objections to use of the data in the 1985 Biennial Report; by providing a more precise quantitative measure based on more complete information, the TSDR Survey confirmed the prior estimate of the upper bounds of waste volumes currently managed under Subtitle C controls. See Community Nutrition Institute, 749 F.2d at 58 (It is impossible to perceive why correction of an asserted deficiency in earlier studies--which correction confirms the accuracy of those studies--should give rise to an additional opportunity to comment.); cf. American Iron & Steel Inst. v. OSHA, 939 F.2d 975, 1009-1010 (D.C.Cir.1991) (OSHA violated APA by basing finding of economic feasibility on post-comment data apparently less reliable than, and inconsistent with, all other important evidence in the record). 44 In sum, because EPA's methodology remained constant, and because the added data was used to check or confirm prior assessments, we hold that the Agency did not violate the notice and comment provisions of the APA by using the TSDR data.
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).