- r -

fOR nu Dl8nllcr or COLUraquo81A ctRCUJT

Arlued May 23 1991 Decided July 12 1991

No 90-1263

UlfnED 5TATII8 ENVmONtONTAL PlancnoH AoDfCY

IIIIIIOIltl)IIT

No 90-1JII2

UHrTm STATES EPMRONlDHTAL PloTacnotrt AoiNcv

-lilT

- l

~ I

-2= i

--

r I -

bull ~ - ~1filti ltor

No 80-1283

Saauloaoa INDwftla INc alklamp ampNoAMo W-mN lNc

UNtTBO STATE EHVUIOHJIICHTU PaoTICnOH ltJJINCY

PeUtionl for Rmew ol ao Order ol the Enviroamental Protection Aceocy

JlichMl ltl Jleloy with whom ShtilG D Jona aod ll4ndi L BrulotD on the brief for petitioner Clark Bqui-t Compuy ill 110-1282 CvUtoplcr J DuMity alto utered u appearaDCe for peCitioDer

Jt Jtodfonl Car peUtioDor u- Switch Coopntioo ill 110-1263 SlwrTy W GUbm oloo oatond -Carpeeiliooer

- 0 Jilw wttb - I Gray CloddY r aad Jruna 11 Kuaqj were on the brief for petitiour Scblumshy IDdwtriN IDe Ia 110-1288 Prunlo B ~ - G Nail aad Bnan W CIUfW II oJoo -forpeU-

BUom T llcDoaou6h AllonMy UDitod ampaiel Depertshymoot of Juttlco aad a- WU AllonMy Eashymatal Prowdioa AeiDCJ witb wbom Rkltonl B s- AloiotoDI ~ GoDontl ODd Earl ampr4 AloiliiDI GaMroJ CouuoJ EaYiiOOIDODti shy-bull OG tba brio( far raapoadoDI

a I ~ LoW II RuntUo Jr aad lllwald Jt FretlttrioD OD the brief for amicul euriot Geoera1 sq

--

r I -

bull ~ - ~1filti ltor

No 80-1283

Saauloaoa INDwftla INc alklamp ampNoAMo W-mN lNc

UNtTBO STATE EHVUIOHJIICHTU PaoTICnOH ltJJINCY

PeUtionl for Rmew ol ao Order ol the Enviroamental Protection Aceocy

JlichMl ltl Jleloy with whom ShtilG D Jona aod ll4ndi L BrulotD on the brief for petitioner Clark Bqui-t Compuy ill 110-1282 CvUtoplcr J DuMity alto utered u appearaDCe for peCitioDer

Jt Jtodfonl Car peUtioDor u- Switch Coopntioo ill 110-1263 SlwrTy W GUbm oloo oatond -Carpeeiliooer

- 0 Jilw wttb - I Gray CloddY r aad Jruna 11 Kuaqj were on the brief for petitiour Scblumshy IDdwtriN IDe Ia 110-1288 Prunlo B ~ - G Nail aad Bnan W CIUfW II oJoo -forpeU-

BUom T llcDoaou6h AllonMy UDitod ampaiel Depertshymoot of Juttlco aad a- WU AllonMy Eashymatal Prowdioa AeiDCJ witb wbom Rkltonl B s- AloiotoDI ~ GoDontl ODd Earl ampr4 AloiliiDI GaMroJ CouuoJ EaYiiOOIDODti shy-bull OG tba brio( far raapoadoDI

a I ~ LoW II RuntUo Jr aad lllwald Jt FretlttrioD OD the brief for amicul euriot Geoera1 sq

I r I

l I

nal Corporation urriDI that the petitiou for review be ~JUted u to the jolDt ltltulory claim

Betore MIMVA C~t tludgt SIL8poundRJtAN and THoMAS CinU Jud(Ju

OpinJon for the Court filed by Chief J~ MlKVA

MmvA Chief Judampt Petitioners In theae contolldawd cuet own altet that the Environmental ProteciJon Apncy (EPA) added to the National Prioritiet Lilt CNPL) a commiddot pllatioo o( buardoua waate aitee ooDJidered to poq the lfNtelt rilk to human health aDd the environment in Febnwy 1990 Petitioners joiotJy claim that EPA lacked authority to add aitel to the NPL after October 1988 the date by which Congress had iDttructed the apocy to me Ita llaurd ~ Syotam (HRS) for evalualizl( poteatial NPL aUes Each petitioner alao rai1e1 aiteshyt pecUlc cballeapt to EPAt llltiac dedliou We oooclude that EPA poqe~ted authority to add li let to the NPL behretn October 1988 ud the decti date of the belat ed1y reviMd HRS and that EPAa iDclutioo ofpetitiooen lites OD the NPL was neither arbitrary nor capriciout

I BACIOIIOUND

Sectioo 106(a) of the Combeuiw Environmental llapoaoe Compeoution aDd Liahilily Act of 1980 (CERmiddot CLAI requiret the Pretident u put ola National Coatinmiddot pocy Plaa CNCP) for the removal of buardoua tubltaDcel to ettablit b criteria for determiDlnc prioritiee amoq rei or tbreatened ol huardout aubshyataocN aDd to use thoee criteria to Identity and Utt priormiddot lty litel for remedial action S 42 USC sect 9806(a)(8)(A) (B ) (1-) Coqreu illltnacted tbe Pretident to revtee tbe Utt of priority bullbullbullte aitet no 1 oftn than anaually S 42 USC sect9605(aM8MB) EPA to wbom the ProGdent bu delepted hi1 statutory repouibWty for tbe NCP Jel

40 CFR sect3002 ( 1990) deloped tbe Huard ReoldDf Syttem a 1Cienti6c model for timatine tbe human health and enviroDJDental riab poaed by obterved or

~~~-ll~~~t~

2 = = shy

- r -

threatened releuea of huardoUI aubltaoca to evaluate litea beiq CODiidered Cor iDcluaion on the NPL S 47 Fed Rtlr 31180 (1982l lt0 CFR Part 300 App A (1990) (berelnafter 1982 JJRS or orillinol HRS] We have ditshycuu ed the functiona methodolOI) and appUcation oC the HRS at lell8Lh in our prior opinions 8laquo ~g Eakshypoq lndulriltbull u EPA 769 F2d 906 (DC Cu- 1986) (Eagk-Pilthu r) amplkmiddotPilthlt lndutria u EPA 822 F2d 132 (DC Cu- 1987) IEagk-PiltM lllJ SkgtUI[hton u EPA 868 F2d 747 (DC Ck 1988)

Coqreu aubttantlaUy reviled CERCLA in the Supershyfund Amendmeota and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) Pua L No 99-499 100 Stal 1813 SARA added a new rubsection (c) to section 106 of CERCLA requirine the Preaident to amend the HRS to auure to the muishymum uteot feuible that the huard rankiDc l)ftem 8CCW8tely aueaees the relative decree of risk to hWDID health and the environment poled by lite and Caciliti subject to reviewbull bull2 USC sect 9806(c)(l) The proviDoo fUrther 1tated that

1be Prelident aball ntabliah ao efFective date for the amended buard rukiDc ayftem wbicb it DOt later r-than 24 montht after October 17 1986 Such omended huanl - oboll bo applied to any lite or facility to be newly liNd on the Natiooal 2 Priorities IJst after the effective date eltabUabed bybullo illitiii1 the President UntU aucb effective date of the w tioo1 the hazard ranJdnc ayatem in elect oo Septemshy = = ber 1 1984 t hall coatinue in full force and effect shy

ld

EPAa reviaed HRS did oot become elective uatil Manb

14 llKil-aJmot tweotymiddotllioe moathl after the Odober 17 1988 deadliDe ettabl-bed by Concr-t S 66 Fed Rea61632 (1990) (aDDOUDCiD( promulplton of final HRS revisionbull) Between the October 1988 1tatutory deadline aDd the etlective date of the ameDdtd HRS however EPA added HWDty-oce lites to the NPL uloc the criteria eotabliohed In ihe 1982 HRS S 66 Fed Rea 6164

--

- r -

(1990) Amoq those sites were fadlitiu owned by petishyUoaen Uaemuter Switch Corp (a manufKttlrini plant in exstock Ccnnedicut) Clark Equipment Co (the T)Ier Reampi1eration Pit in Smyrna Delaware) and Sehlumberpr loduatriu Inc (the Sanpmo Weston lncIIwelvemiddotMlle CreekLake Hartwell PCB Contaminashytion Site in Pickena South CIUUna) Set ld at 6 160-81

II SscnoN 106(c) CHAllINoB

Petitionen raiae a joint ltatutory challenp to EPAbull loduaioo of their sites on the NPL Tbey claim that EPA lacbd authority to add lites to the NPL punuant to the 1982 HRS oooe the October 1988 deadline contained in MCtion 106(c)( l) bad paued PeiitiODen arrue that Conshy mandate was plain EPA wu to ameod the HRS by October 1988 at the lateat and apply the amended HRS to llU site Ulted after the ameDdmentt effective date Couequeotly they CODteod that this court mutt rive effect to Cooreta clear intent to preclude EPA from addiac sitbull to the NPL after October 1888 ucept PWUmiddot ant to an ameDded HRS

We coaaider the statutory quntioa to be tlpiftcantly mon ccpampated than petitiODen 1IIINf Altboucb eeoshytioD 106(c)(l) dearly inltructa the Pruideat to revile the HRS by October 1988 it bullpeci6bull oo OODMqUeDCel for falJ Uftl to DDmply with that dMdUne cr 42 usc llln4ltIX8l Reoounoe Coooenauon IUid Recovery Act apedBu oouequeoces of EPAs failure to meet deadliDe) Tbe tat o( leclion 106(c)(l) tbu1 ofTen DO indicatioa of what Concrea Intended in the event of EPAbull nonmiddot compliance with the ltetutory maodate Petlttonere claim that Conr1 intended to prohibit Mdltiocu to the NPL altoptber after October 17 1888 unW tbt amellded HRS became eflective il certainly plaulible rn MCtioo l()(l(oX8XBloCDtDmand that Uut NPL bo - ODDuolly bowever it i1 ato plaUIIble that eoar would have wuted EPA to continue lllilll the 1982 HRS uaW the amended HRS became edective--whater that date mloht bo

f

2 = =

--

- r -

(1990) Amoq those sites were fadlitiu owned by petishyUoaen Uaemuter Switch Corp (a manufKttlrini plant in exstock Ccnnedicut) Clark Equipment Co (the T)Ier Reampi1eration Pit in Smyrna Delaware) and Sehlumberpr loduatriu Inc (the Sanpmo Weston lncIIwelvemiddotMlle CreekLake Hartwell PCB Contaminashytion Site in Pickena South CIUUna) Set ld at 6 160-81

II SscnoN 106(c) CHAllINoB

Petitionen raiae a joint ltatutory challenp to EPAbull loduaioo of their sites on the NPL Tbey claim that EPA lacbd authority to add lites to the NPL punuant to the 1982 HRS oooe the October 1988 deadline contained in MCtion 106(c)( l) bad paued PeiitiODen arrue that Conshy mandate was plain EPA wu to ameod the HRS by October 1988 at the lateat and apply the amended HRS to llU site Ulted after the ameDdmentt effective date Couequeotly they CODteod that this court mutt rive effect to Cooreta clear intent to preclude EPA from addiac sitbull to the NPL after October 1888 ucept PWUmiddot ant to an ameDded HRS

We coaaider the statutory quntioa to be tlpiftcantly mon ccpampated than petitiODen 1IIINf Altboucb eeoshytioD 106(c)(l) dearly inltructa the Pruideat to revile the HRS by October 1988 it bullpeci6bull oo OODMqUeDCel for falJ Uftl to DDmply with that dMdUne cr 42 usc llln4ltIX8l Reoounoe Coooenauon IUid Recovery Act apedBu oouequeoces of EPAs failure to meet deadliDe) Tbe tat o( leclion 106(c)(l) tbu1 ofTen DO indicatioa of what Concrea Intended in the event of EPAbull nonmiddot compliance with the ltetutory maodate Petlttonere claim that Conr1 intended to prohibit Mdltiocu to the NPL altoptber after October 17 1888 unW tbt amellded HRS became eflective il certainly plaulible rn MCtioo l()(l(oX8XBloCDtDmand that Uut NPL bo - ODDuolly bowever it i1 ato plaUIIble that eoar would have wuted EPA to continue lllilll the 1982 HRS uaW the amended HRS became edective--whater that date mloht bo

f

2 = =

I r I

-

bull

We eanoot acree wUh EPAbull tuqntion that we reeolve tbiJ olatutory ambicuity tllrouib _ to CMgt defereoce Set Canlron USA Inc v NGhUal Raourca De(tnM Cowadl bulld7 US 887 (1raquo84) Beton Wd JDil) defer to an bullDCYbull conttructioo of a 1tatute we mutt ftnd eiLher explidt or implicit evidence oC COD(pUiional intent to delepte lnterpretive authority Set id at Samp3U Ko City o Dltpt of HOIUif and Urlgton Dltodopnwnl 923 F2d 188 191middot92 (DC Clr 1991) Soctioo 106(cX1) containl oo 1uch upUdt deleptioo Moreover atveo the clarity of Coopua lDitnactioa that the HRS be revieed DO Ialor than October 17 1988 li woulciiDdeed be odd to conclude thai c_ lmpllcltly ODiruoied a lqprd apocy with the authority to deviae a remly for Ita own untimelineN

Our OWD review of the letidative biatory IWTOUDdioe aection 106(c) t UCPitl that Cooareu woWcl DOt have wanted to revoke EPAt authority to lilt aitet on the NPL after uplraiioD ol tha olatullaquoy cloadlloe Tho oaiure of leciala diaatlafactioD with tha 11182 HRS ia olaiiical imporiampDce to our rMGlutioo of the atatutory amtquity Thngtuob SARA c_ ~i _ thai W HRS would bull-ampo~y -) tho nlailw ol riak poNd by poiAoDilal NPL lilao S CBBCLA sect106(cX1) lt2 USC sect-cXU em- ingtub1oc1 -arily by aUilooa thai the 11182 HRS Wted iD the liltiq of a dilpropordoaat nWDber ot hicb Wlrlume low ty buenloua - oi_DOiahly IDiDIDa ollao S S RIP No 11 99th C 1ai Seta 40 (11186) (ackDowloclfiDa poulblllty ol btu iD the buud rankin( l)ltem apiDat larp quaotitiM of wute with the pnll shy

eDCe ol trace tozk metala tucb u typical miiUal wuampel HR Jlao No 882 88th Cooamp 2d Stu 200 (1888) (The

rmw of the lluanl - Syalem middot- quately couider the quantity toxicity aDd CDDC~Dtratiou ol buardoua ooutituentl which are pneeat iD uy rei- ) Suplaquor((utd Imp_ Act of 1985 HlaquoVmiddot inlbull on S 61 and S 4U amp010 1M SMIlt Comm m Egtwironmcnt and Pubamp Wcrio 99th C bi Seat 63

I r I

(1886) (CCIIIUilenta of Sen Simpecm apnaiq CODCUD

about the eampeet of EPAt huardoua wute aalldq on mi~ ~Jite l) d nt 72 (EPAbull written roapoDJCI to Sen SlmJ)IOabull queetioDI acltnowledcllll that it may be pollimiddot ble to imJWO the way the HRS budIH miDiDa IIDd DODshyminina titel but 1-jectiq be coatentloD tUt the HRS lo Ul1fOiriy plodac minlnr ou the NPL) 181 Cooo Rae U 078-79 (1986) (comment of Sen ampucu coshytpODIOJ ol amendment to aecti011 106 uplaiDiq h1a fCJCUOid _ wilh 11182 IIRS) S oloo EacW-Pidocr 1 769 F2d at 921-22 (_ ublshytrary aDd capridoUI cha1Jenel to 1982 HRS treatment of 11) fll Feel Roc- 40868 4011811 (1988) (pnammiddot ble to NPL ~ oommeaten nantiou that miDiDa ollould DOt be iDcluded)

c dnioad lolorim q - lhlo ved flaw iD the orloinalllliS Soelioa 1061) oCCERshyCLA nq- lhe Preoldeot PleDdlac - oC the buonlraDidor the quullty

middot ODd lioo oC - middot before addlac lito lainlnriOGilod gtpoccaJ ~-middot to lhe NPL bull2 usc 1-X2l be -lt ~-iDcludeololld -lhe_ boaolldalloo ODd oC- ODd __ s CERCLA l106rX1XBl bull2 USC f-XlXBl S oloo U USC l41821(bX3XAXll) (W) By UU EPA lo u opeclo1 ftadiup bef iDcludJoa that ouch -- oo lhe NPL C US Ito lalmecllalo obout lhe -ncy oC tha 1982 HRS roaderiac IUipltllioo oC EPAo Uollac auurtty prior 1o tklb ot the ameDded HRS an UllD8CIIUI) aad drutie IOiutloa

Our rmew oC tha lep~a~t bialory oo otber __ about lhe rau- oC lhe oriJ1na1 HRS lo -IDduotrieo ar - -laoteod lhero IDcllcollaao that eo- uu - lmmtdl shy llllalar-rolalod pngt~~~ wliblhe IIBS did oot iDteod to pntMlt EPA ampom coatinuiq to tilt lit OD the NPL after the October 1988 deadline hid upinJd For example

I r I

-I I middotmiddotn~

J

u even petitioDUI admit Coore11 ICCOUiamped the p~ lema that could reWt from an iDterruption of EPAbull ~ ing authority fliahlicbting the main provialooa or th ameadmentl to uctioo 106 Senator Baucut one of the co-opoooon1 uploinod that the Hillin( bazanl rankino t)ltem would continue in effect until the reviled l)ltem il io place and uaund hibull oouequ that the proviaion ahould not di~n~pt proere11 to dean up exittinamp NPL aitet or preclude EPA from UUO new litebull in the interim until the HRS it reviMd bull Set 181 CoNo Rae 2079 (1986) (empbuil added) Such OODOIIrDI about dianlptiaa EPAt remedial eflotta IUfPII that Coocrelbull did not intend the drutk remedy ot suapeodiq the qmcya U~ iDamp authority U nvioioo oC tho HRS

In additioa Senator Baucut duriaamp Door debate apecifmiddot ically oddneoed tho pouiblllty that EPA would fail to comply with the HRS ameadment cleadlioe rather than auantiq that EPAbull Utloa authority would therMfter be tUipeadeci however SeiWor Baucu~ ataamped Uaat if i1Pgtonc1 by EPA tho nqta be eaforood by citishyzen RLiL S 131 CoHO Rae 26078 (1886) Set aJo CERCLA sect310 42 USC sect -d2) (ponoW- dtshyben to briDe a civil aioo -aiut tbe Praldeat or EPA C failun to porfanD - DOD-dlacnttooary duty~NOIWVJ- DooNe cucil o nain 610 FJd 1182 704-06 DC Cir 1914) (a~ dtatrici courtt-r liabment of alternative publicatioo ICbedule to ruteel) EPAt failure to ~Utt ltatutary deadline) The Seutort expreu ncoplitioo of dtben auUa u a remedy Cor qency ooo-compliaace maket It even leu Ubly that more drumiddot tic couequeocM tucb u revocatioa of NPL utiDr autbormiddot ity were CODtemplated

WbeD tabo topther thHe Cacton-tbe abeeoce of uy laquap Ia IMICtion 106(cXl) revoidaa EPAt Ullin( authority for failure to UlloeDd the HRS by the atatutory deadliDe tbe eWac iDdicatioe that CoDcnea wu primiddot awily -~ about the Clrifbgtal IRS shytowank bicb volume low tozidty titet such u miDel a problem for wbicb It deviaed a I)raquoCi6c interim remedy

I r I

(1886) (CCIIIUilenta of Sen Simpecm apnaiq CODCUD

about the eampeet of EPAt huardoua wute aalldq on mi~ ~Jite l) d nt 72 (EPAbull written roapoDJCI to Sen SlmJ)IOabull queetioDI acltnowledcllll that it may be pollimiddot ble to imJWO the way the HRS budIH miDiDa IIDd DODshyminina titel but 1-jectiq be coatentloD tUt the HRS lo Ul1fOiriy plodac minlnr ou the NPL) 181 Cooo Rae U 078-79 (1986) (comment of Sen ampucu coshytpODIOJ ol amendment to aecti011 106 uplaiDiq h1a fCJCUOid _ wilh 11182 IIRS) S oloo EacW-Pidocr 1 769 F2d at 921-22 (_ ublshytrary aDd capridoUI cha1Jenel to 1982 HRS treatment of 11) fll Feel Roc- 40868 4011811 (1988) (pnammiddot ble to NPL ~ oommeaten nantiou that miDiDa ollould DOt be iDcluded)

c dnioad lolorim q - lhlo ved flaw iD the orloinalllliS Soelioa 1061) oCCERshyCLA nq- lhe Preoldeot PleDdlac - oC the buonlraDidor the quullty

middot ODd lioo oC - middot before addlac lito lainlnriOGilod gtpoccaJ ~-middot to lhe NPL bull2 usc 1-X2l be -lt ~-iDcludeololld -lhe_ boaolldalloo ODd oC- ODd __ s CERCLA l106rX1XBl bull2 USC f-XlXBl S oloo U USC l41821(bX3XAXll) (W) By UU EPA lo u opeclo1 ftadiup bef iDcludJoa that ouch -- oo lhe NPL C US Ito lalmecllalo obout lhe -ncy oC tha 1982 HRS roaderiac IUipltllioo oC EPAo Uollac auurtty prior 1o tklb ot the ameDded HRS an UllD8CIIUI) aad drutie IOiutloa

Our rmew oC tha lep~a~t bialory oo otber __ about lhe rau- oC lhe oriJ1na1 HRS lo -IDduotrieo ar - -laoteod lhero IDcllcollaao that eo- uu - lmmtdl shy llllalar-rolalod pngt~~~ wliblhe IIBS did oot iDteod to pntMlt EPA ampom coatinuiq to tilt lit OD the NPL after the October 1988 deadline hid upinJd For example

I r I

-I I middotmiddotn~

J

u even petitioDUI admit Coore11 ICCOUiamped the p~ lema that could reWt from an iDterruption of EPAbull ~ ing authority fliahlicbting the main provialooa or th ameadmentl to uctioo 106 Senator Baucut one of the co-opoooon1 uploinod that the Hillin( bazanl rankino t)ltem would continue in effect until the reviled l)ltem il io place and uaund hibull oouequ that the proviaion ahould not di~n~pt proere11 to dean up exittinamp NPL aitet or preclude EPA from UUO new litebull in the interim until the HRS it reviMd bull Set 181 CoNo Rae 2079 (1986) (empbuil added) Such OODOIIrDI about dianlptiaa EPAt remedial eflotta IUfPII that Coocrelbull did not intend the drutk remedy ot suapeodiq the qmcya U~ iDamp authority U nvioioo oC tho HRS

In additioa Senator Baucut duriaamp Door debate apecifmiddot ically oddneoed tho pouiblllty that EPA would fail to comply with the HRS ameadment cleadlioe rather than auantiq that EPAbull Utloa authority would therMfter be tUipeadeci however SeiWor Baucu~ ataamped Uaat if i1Pgtonc1 by EPA tho nqta be eaforood by citishyzen RLiL S 131 CoHO Rae 26078 (1886) Set aJo CERCLA sect310 42 USC sect -d2) (ponoW- dtshyben to briDe a civil aioo -aiut tbe Praldeat or EPA C failun to porfanD - DOD-dlacnttooary duty~NOIWVJ- DooNe cucil o nain 610 FJd 1182 704-06 DC Cir 1914) (a~ dtatrici courtt-r liabment of alternative publicatioo ICbedule to ruteel) EPAt failure to ~Utt ltatutary deadline) The Seutort expreu ncoplitioo of dtben auUa u a remedy Cor qency ooo-compliaace maket It even leu Ubly that more drumiddot tic couequeocM tucb u revocatioa of NPL utiDr autbormiddot ity were CODtemplated

WbeD tabo topther thHe Cacton-tbe abeeoce of uy laquap Ia IMICtion 106(cXl) revoidaa EPAt Ullin( authority for failure to UlloeDd the HRS by the atatutory deadliDe tbe eWac iDdicatioe that CoDcnea wu primiddot awily -~ about the Clrifbgtal IRS shytowank bicb volume low tozidty titet such u miDel a problem for wbicb It deviaed a I)raquoCi6c interim remedy

I r I

-I I middotmiddotn~

J

u even petitioDUI admit Coore11 ICCOUiamped the p~ lema that could reWt from an iDterruption of EPAbull ~ ing authority fliahlicbting the main provialooa or th ameadmentl to uctioo 106 Senator Baucut one of the co-opoooon1 uploinod that the Hillin( bazanl rankino t)ltem would continue in effect until the reviled l)ltem il io place and uaund hibull oouequ that the proviaion ahould not di~n~pt proere11 to dean up exittinamp NPL aitet or preclude EPA from UUO new litebull in the interim until the HRS it reviMd bull Set 181 CoNo Rae 2079 (1986) (empbuil added) Such OODOIIrDI about dianlptiaa EPAt remedial eflotta IUfPII that Coocrelbull did not intend the drutk remedy ot suapeodiq the qmcya U~ iDamp authority U nvioioo oC tho HRS

In additioa Senator Baucut duriaamp Door debate apecifmiddot ically oddneoed tho pouiblllty that EPA would fail to comply with the HRS ameadment cleadlioe rather than auantiq that EPAbull Utloa authority would therMfter be tUipeadeci however SeiWor Baucu~ ataamped Uaat if i1Pgtonc1 by EPA tho nqta be eaforood by citishyzen RLiL S 131 CoHO Rae 26078 (1886) Set aJo CERCLA sect310 42 USC sect -d2) (ponoW- dtshyben to briDe a civil aioo -aiut tbe Praldeat or EPA C failun to porfanD - DOD-dlacnttooary duty~NOIWVJ- DooNe cucil o nain 610 FJd 1182 704-06 DC Cir 1914) (a~ dtatrici courtt-r liabment of alternative publicatioo ICbedule to ruteel) EPAt failure to ~Utt ltatutary deadline) The Seutort expreu ncoplitioo of dtben auUa u a remedy Cor qency ooo-compliaace maket It even leu Ubly that more drumiddot tic couequeocM tucb u revocatioa of NPL utiDr autbormiddot ity were CODtemplated

WbeD tabo topther thHe Cacton-tbe abeeoce of uy laquap Ia IMICtion 106(cXl) revoidaa EPAt Ullin( authority for failure to UlloeDd the HRS by the atatutory deadliDe tbe eWac iDdicatioe that CoDcnea wu primiddot awily -~ about the Clrifbgtal IRS shytowank bicb volume low tozidty titet such u miDel a problem for wbicb It deviaed a I)raquoCi6c interim remedy

0

-- r --

oo_w about disngtptD( EPAo medial efloril ud tbe euapttiou in SARAt letialatift h1atory that citizen suits were npUdtly oonsidered to he ll remmiddot edy for apncy inactioo-laquollleave ut Wlwilllna to conclude that Coqrees intended to uspead EPAa authority to UJt litee on the NPL between October 1888 and March 1981

We are e~pecially reluctant to 10 curb EPAt eubrtanmiddot tive authority in ubt of Supreme Court deciaioDI declinshylna to rntrict bullnciu powen wben CoQIIHI baa not lDdicated uy intent to do 10 aDd hu aafted drutic remedibull for the apncye failure to act S q GcJWIl Motlaquoo Corp u Uud s- 110 S Ct 2628 2684 (1990~ - u ~ Counly 78 us 263 280 (UI88) For uample in BICA the Court refuaed to find that the Department of Labor lolt ita authority to recover miauMd 1aado aftor uplratioo lt1i tho 12(kloJ period Ill which Cmiddot bad lDotnocted tho llopartmeat mab bull fiDal dettrmiDatioo u to miauM Tbe Cowt DOamped the eampatutee

-compUuc-diaawith the tho120-clly- dMdliDe _ bull78- US at 269 uplalDod

We would be m01t reluctut to CDDdude that IY failure ol an qeacy to obeerte a procedural requiremiddot

t - ouhoequeat - eopociallywbea imporlaDt pubiJe rilbta at otab Wheo u ben there are lea drutic nmedl for Cailure to meet a etatutory deadline OOWtl abould DOt auume that Coqreu inteacled the ocy to lote itbull power

ld at 180 (footnote omitted) We beUne that the 1trooa public m-t in EPAt oaptq iclntiftcatioa of titel tor NPL utiJw ccablned with Coacreel ~tioa of tho priftla IDU -lially lwmed by tho oriliaal HRS and ita oontemplatioa ol dtiND euita u a remedy for EPA noa-eompliance brinp thil cue within the docmiddot triae ded above

We tbut ~ petitioaen tttutory cballnp to EPAs authority lo list their huardow wute lites oa the NPL

l

-shy2 = =

- r -

bullbull q oM ~-

10

Althouah we do not modooe EPAs untimelineu we conshyclude that Coareu inteDdecl the qency to coatinue U~ ina aitel punliampDt to the 1982 HRS unW the amended liRS became eJiecuv_ veo if that effective date wu later than the aection 106(c)(l) revitlon deadLine We tum now to petitioners individual challenaea to EPAs Wtina decishytiou

m Srramp-Snclnc CIWUNOiiS

A LiMmltulu Swildl Site

Petitioner Linemuter Switch mampDufactun~~ electrical and pneumatic foot twitcbu and wirina barnUM~ at itbull Woodrtock Connecticut plant Groundwater nmplinc performed in early 1886 revealed the preHDCe of anenic amana other buardoulaubltaDcel at the planL Applicashytion of the HRS to data from the site yielded a ecore of 3371 tubltaDtially above the 2860 cutoft EPA U1N for NPL lialiJIamp p_ A a roaul~ EPA pngtpoaod addiDa the Lioemuter lite to the NPL 1n Jrme 1988 bull 63 Fed Jloa 23988 231181 (1988) ud lhe lialiJIamp bocame 6oal in February 1980 S 56 Fed a at 8181

LiDemuter allept that EPAbull decillion to iDdude tbe alto lha NPL wu arbilrar) ud capricioua Spec8cally

~~ta~A~o~it~Oc lite u well u the acya al1epd refuul to couider more recent data February 1988 aamplea UMd by EPA in ICOrini the lite lhowed aneDic levelbull of lU puta per billioo (ppb) and 62 ppb in two on-lite wellt u a re~ult aneoic wu the hicbelt ICOIiq compound ideaWled at the lite in tenDI of toxicity and penitteDCt Uoemuter poiDtl to data ampom AUfllt 1981 and June 1888 wbich it claims deiDODitrate that anerampic Ieveli at the plant are actually 20 ud 40 ppb

EPA doet DOt deny the uiateoce or qubulltioo the validshyity ol llDemuamper1 data Iutud it claimbull that Lbe iACorshymatioo wu oot part of Lbe adminiltrative record relatiDa

= = -2

r I

11

to the NPL littina and that EPA wu therefore under no duty to oDaider it Set EPA Relponte to Comment NPLshyFRUS-10-6 at 2-7 (noting that lJnemaater failM to proshyvide tbe qeoey witb the new hydroeeo1ocic data refershyeoced in iLl commentamp and that EPA therefore caonot ~peclflcally addreu thue data)

M a preliminary matter we ~ect Linemaater1 conten shytion that thlt courts FebMlal) 22 1991 order permittiq the company to 1upplementthe judicial record with mateshyrial that iocluded the disputed amprleDic data reeolved the UDderlylq que~tioo reprdine the 1cope ol the admlnit shytnUve NOOrd In Linemutert favor We have previoualy Nted that reviewiaa courta ahould take into accouat -either more aor lets infonnatioo than did the qeoey

~~ ~~7~~-7~~0~~~ aloo CW to IToMrw o Poril u Volpe 4()1 US 4()2 420 (1971~ We allowed LiDemutor to eupploaient Lbe IICDrd 10 tbat we could fully aamiDe tbe pu1ibull COlD bull polt~ao q _tlbe~ tiw ncorcl our order lbould DOt be coutnad to haw 10

cw-ly-olwd _to - shy ltII _ clolm Ha--- dlopulod

- -middotmiddot -- _ dolollwe DOW dediDe to 00Datnae tbt ~ record U booodly _

11re U187-88 aneDic data wu DOl put ol the admiailtrative nJCOrd that wu before tiM (AdmiDiatra tor at the time be made his deciaoDbull CitiMu to Prceerw own Parlt 4()1 US at 420 __ LIDomutar fallod to tubmit the data to the proper diYiaiaG ~EPA or eftD to llq It u ralevaot to lbe NPL liaiiDf - U

-middot~- _ Ul81Juoa 11118 -piiDc naullo to BPAo _I allloa m BoMoD punuut to u 1llNlaW ~ coashy_ _ _lbe-u shy_ _ eubautted AQJ ol tbt data to EPAbull HaaaOoua- Balua- Dl_ wuuct shyIDctbaaatlrolyooporaiONPLNI ttociD

I I I middot-middot

f

-

--

I r I

12

Wuhincton DC and had invited comment thereon 5laquo 63 Fed Reo at 23988

Unemuter cannot fairly complain that the location of ita filint wu a mere technicality u EPAt comment~ cedurtt enable the apocy to abouJder tbe weicbty inveati shyptive burden that continual revielon of the NPL entails S 40 CFR sect 300lt26(dK6) (requJrina EPA to ooUclt comment oo propoted NPL adcUtioot and to retpOod to MCh tipiflcant comment ncelved) 63 Fed Rec at 23988 (ioltructioamp that comment on proposed littinp be mailed to HuardoUI Site Evaluation Diviaion) We are therefore unwillinr to bold that material aubmitted to an EPA nciooal oftlce punuaDt to a OODMDt order iJ beforebull the tcenc1bull Huardout Site Evaluation Divilion for NPL lilt iDa purpoMt Such a boldioa would ellectively require EPA to comgt all tow amplaa for -bulltially wt data before liltiD( a eite on the NPL llDd would be iDcoGsil shytent wUh our prior deciliou emphuiliat the 11f101tUarily abbreviated nature of the Utiq proceu aod tolentiJll -owbat CU1MfY octioaa ODd uplaoatioao Ia that coatut S ~fldwr lndwtria u EPA 7118 F2d 1122 832 (DC Ctr 1986) (doocribl the NPL u olmply a llot or -u Wied quldltly ODd bull bull lively to comply with eo-middotmaadate for tbe qreDCy to taka octloa ~taway) Eo6~middotPidlcrll) ~- 868 F2d at 751

Moreover u thie cae aptly demondratel partibull oppoliq lDclution of their aUet on the NPL are ~shypolitiooed to supply EPA ttafl with any auertedly relemiddot Vllllt data Here the AUJU~t 1987 lliIDie data had been nailable for at leut teD mODthl before Uuemuter flied with the NPL 11amp(1 itl volumiDoua commeatl CIPIinl Uotior (iacludl tbUV documeoto u ao llppiiDdiz) ODd the compuy eveD alluded to the data iD ita COIIUileDtl In addition 1i1110e the JUDe 1988 aneDic retulta were availmiddot able at 1eut by AlJIUII 26 1988 the date they were mailed to EPAbull RetioD I omce UDemuter could have 8Jad thole Wto within three daya oCtha dooa ofEPAo Aucutt 23 1988 NPL oommeDt deadliDe See 63 Fed Reg

bull)

2= =

- r -

ozttH ~- yen r

J

14

a~~th~~~~~~tmiddot(~~~ consider the effects of remedial menurea In scoring ll site Wider the Huard J1aD1tinc s) amp16~-PiltMr I 59 F2d at 921middot22 5laquo olto EPA Re1p0aee to Commentl NPL-FRU8-10-l5 at 4-12 to 4-13 (uplaioina apocy pol shyicy) Clarks effortl to dlstlni)Jab aUe1 such u Tyler at which remedia1 actions were taken prior to the enactment of CERCLA are olmply Wlevailini in lllht of cootrollina circuit precedeoL

Secood Clark cootendl that EPA miiCalculated the fiUte quantity at the alte and lhould have auiped that factor a 0bull (DO data available) or at IDOt a (quantity or wute unknown) instead or the 5 it actually receited S 40 CFR Part 800 App A sect 20 (poera1 oooaldershyadDDO) sect 34 (wuto ~~ 63 Fed Jlor 511162 5192 (11188) (p_cluiooolo HRS~ We caobd oo erTOI io EPAa caJeulatiool bowever UDder the ortina1 HRS EPA wu oot nqulrad 1o ldeotlfy tha uact quandty of buardout aubetaDcet at the lite Rather EPA DMded OG1y to dettrmine that tome huardoul aubftucel preMDt 1D the wute aad then to timate the wal quaDmiddot

tlty cf wute (ie the total volume rA the pit) S 63 Fed Roc at 5192 (oxplaiAloa that UDder tha Drillaal HRS buardout wute quutity il the amount rA taiDint huardoUI rubltaocH preeent at a li 9 Fed Jlor 300 30 (IIIIW) (- ton uantioDI that EPA abould exclude DOD-huardoul coushyltituentl ln calcultinc wute quantity)

IDformation ampom a former Tyler ~tion empampoee combined with soil tampllq ampom the aite pershymltlad tha lo coodude that baoanlouo shy p18181lt iD the wute Ettimatel tram tbe _ empl aod tha finD that Olllldueted the proUmioary lito aueamnt 1lmllarly eubled EPA to cakulate the total volum1 of tbe pit aDd therefore tGta1 flrUte quutity u oom - 312 aod 500 cubic yuU Tho HRS IP8Cifi a Yalue of T where u here wute quantity falll bttweeo 2151 aDd 625 cubic yard1 S 40 CFR Part

~

iii

= -=

-- r --

16

300 App A sect 34 Thus we mnclude that EPA mrrectly lOOted waste quantity at the Gte

Fioally Clarks claim that EPA iDlaquogtmmctly -led tbe siu of 1ht pupulatioa e~l risk Croru KfOundwater coomiddot tamiDation Jacka merit u the apncy properly applied MCtion 36 of the HRS and included within IU calculation all people who draw water from wellJ located within three milet of the haurdou1 aubltancu 8ft 40 CFR Part 300 App A sect 35 To the extent that Clark challenpa EPAs uae of formulu to estimate data our prior cue1 are dltpotitive 5laquo EolkmiddotPitlwr Ill 822 F2d at 146 (DOtshylq that petitioners cballenp to the 100n1 Jiven to popushylation count io euence contestl the Huard Rankioa 5)1teml pnfereooe for uaine formulu even where actual OW are available a prefereace which we have alreacly upbold) ampf-middotPilthu I 769 F2d at 921middot22

Ahbouab we ~ect Clarks cbal1eDpl to EPAs ICOIini o( tbe Tyler Refrigeration lite uoder the uaameDded HRS ud therefore deny ita petition for review we Kinowiedp that EPA bu chaDpd MV-1 ci tha pollcleo wblch Clark object~ For uample UDder tbe amended HRS the apocy DOW coaaiden prior remedial actiooa in calculatinc waaw quantity at a aie S 56 Fed a at 616674 In addition the ameoded HRS caataina a far more -2

deailed metbodolOI) for detenDiniDa huardo111 wute quutity than tho oniDal HRS roquiriDI that valun for buardous coutituent quantity buanloua wuampaream quantity volume aod area be calculated at _ Comparo bullo cFR Put aooApp A sect abull IDilll 66 Fed Roc at 61690-92 Allbouoh C cieorly = 1tated that 1ite1 liated oo the NPL prior to the e8ecdve = date of the amended HRS DNd DOt be reevaluated bull CERCLA sect 106(cX3) EPA bu IJrNd diiCrtltioo to detershymiDiq wbal remedial actiODt are WUTUted Set CERCLA sect 104 bull2 USC sect11804 We - that EPA wUI carefully cooalder ita cunIIDt polldu lo developlDamp a remedial plao for the Tyler Reampipration tlte middot

C Sonfomo Waton Site

Schlumberpr Industria operate the Sanpmo WMampon fadlitv a plan thai manufllcturn eledrical equipment

I r I

~pmiddot~--bullbulllaquobull~~~~middot -

16

=Pi~bullS~Caro=re=om=iDsunnamed trtbutllrles o(rrown 11reek th11t originate 011 tb~ property Town Creek in tWD Oowt into Twelve Mile Creek which Oow into Lake Hartwell In addition Sanmiddot pmo diiPOMCf of wu~t at variOUI landftlle in the area After a preliminary UleltmiDt EPA calculated an HRS toore for the Sanpmo plant that eueeded the NPL liltina cutoll the qeocy tbeo aqrepted the plant the UDDIIDed tributariea Town Creek Twelve Mile Creek Iu Hartwell ampDd ftbulle priVIIte laDdflllt into a liqle elte on the NPL Set 66 Fed ae at 6160

ScblUDibeltpr cloDu thai EPA 1ocUd authority to aarepte eitel for NPL littina purpoMI SchlWDberter _ tha~ willb oectioa 104(dK4l laquo CERCLA wblcb aplicltly autborizel EPA to aarepte fKilitiel Cor IIDeshy

dlal_ oectioa 101(aK8KB) the provioloa ~ the apocy to develop and update the NPL illilnt CODmiddot

cengtloamp aancaUoa eo 42 USC sect 98015(aK8)(8) willl 42 USC sect 11604(dK4) (Wbere no or lipluo 6oclliU aiJiy Nlaled the buio laquo JICIIIPby or oD the bull ol threat to the pubtic health or welfare or the arirollmnt tbe Preadeat IDQ

=

shyiD bla dlacnUOQ -1 - Nlaled CacWIIao bull - for _ laquo lhla oectioa Scbl lbareCcn dOO thai EPAoloq-- policy of aancaliDcshy 2 contlpoua litel under the NPL it taYalid S 48 Fed Roc al 40863-64 (deoaibiaa EPA policy) =

We coodude that Schlumberpr waived thlt ltatuampory challeap by falliDt lo ralae II duriar the nllemaldatr below s w~ v- (or _ and Cldldrm v FCC 712 F2d 877 680 (DC Cir 1883) (AI a I rule claimbull DOt preeeuttd to the qucy IDIY DOt be made for tha 11111 lime lo a reviewiar court) (haniDaftor WATCH] be _ thai Scblumbetpr IIJed with EPA allopd oaJ- thallhe acy Uleor-ooelly ODd iJioolloioshyloaU applied 111 _u policy 1o the 5aapmo lila S Commealo OppooiDI IbliDamp NPL-Uamp-3-79-JU ltManh 1987) id Executive Summary al 2 (alleioc that EPA

- r -

-17

falled to follow itl own wdellnet and that EPAt pngt potal il iocoDailttnamp with prrriOUI Apocy decilioal id Commentbull at lmiddotiil (tabllt f w nteno In foct Schlumbcrshyier auumed that MCtion 104(dX4) oCCERCLA authorind EPA to agrepte litel for NPL UtiDa purpoHt Set id

Commenta at 3 ttatina that Metioo l(M(dX4) of CERCLA provide~ that two or mOIe oon-contifuous CaciliUea may bt trmlltd NPL aU (empbuia added))

We have JICCIOIliaed ~ uceptionl to the ~tneral rule that daima DOt preeentJ to ao DC) may oot be raiaed for the first time Won a reviU court WATCH 712 F2d at 682 however DOOe of hole would UCUII Scblumberprt failure to JftMDI Ita claim to EPA Nevertbel- Schlumberpr coaLe~Mb that ita daim that EPA lKked authority to aarecaampe litn for NPL pwpoMt Calla witbID an umptioD to the waiftl dacirioe for cbalshyleap~ to an -cYbull juriedictioD cw power to act u ~ niaed 1D JIGiUoad Yorclmoaun ofAmoco bull middot Hrum 721 F2d 1312 11181hW (DC Cir Ul63) ltboldlDa t1W polilioomiddot ert daim that tbe NatioDal Mediatioc Baud laed autbority to t wbeD two of ita thne t wen v-=ut wu DOt waived)

Alllaoqb- of the_ 1D Y- could be read to mt Uly ttatutory cballeap to be railed Cor the -2lint lime 1D a ludlcW bull 721 F2d at 1838 (ngte eubeLUtive iaue here bull 11 eolely ODe ol ltatutory Cl interpntation ) later cue1 haft declined to ccmtnae the Cl caea tw tha Wldorlyioa doclriao oo baoadly In Natural

-- omM cuai bullmiddot 806 F2d 410 lt28(DC Cir 1988) uplaiDed that Y- actually ltampDdl Cor the much DUIOWW propoeitioa that a challeAp

au tha -tltulioo o tha -middot UD-1 aDd Uaited type ol atampllck caD bt rlli for tbe lint lima- aCOUItSalaoNOliigtMI~ cua 1 bullmiddot ampilly 1184 F2d 1481 1487 (DC Cir 111811) Scblumbarpra claim - oot foll within tbil ca- _ by-pedtlooen falhubull to pnMDt ltatutory cballeaa- to Ceclen1 oa JOr loitial rttOlution ncb an upuaive liew ol the jurildictioo

f

I r I

-

bullr t tt ~

18

~thaaai~middot~~ =~~uer~ CMlron frliDework We teCOrdingly conclude lb ctt Schlumberpr waived ItA claim that EPA lacked authority to agrepte titet for NPL putpOifll and decllne to reach the merita

SchJumberger alao rai1e1 1everal cballenaebull to EPAbull application of IU agreption policy in thlt cue We conmiddot dude that EPAt deciaioo to qrepte the titM wu nei shyther arbitrary nor capricioua In particular we reject Schlumberprt first contention that EPAt own policy requlrn the apncy to find each of the facton mentioned therein aatiaamped before it m aurepte a alte Set a Fed Reimiddot at 40663-N (Factort relevant to [an aarecamiddot tioo] determloation include whether the two Gtes wen put of the lUll operation bullbullbull whether contammatiou from the two cite an tbreateDina the IUile pvund watt~ or wrf8ce waamper rftOWCill bullbullbull (ud) the diataDce between the DOOltOatiiAOUI lit ud whether the tarpt populamiddot tiora il bullMDtiaUy the tame or tuMtutially overlappiq bullbullbull Rather we believe that the policy etatemeDt CODmiddot

taiol a DOD-tzhauttive liat ol fadon relevant to but DOt di~tive of an aareptioo quettion 8ft id (te~tmiddot fodon induct (ompbaio added)) 49 Fed Rae 11 37076 (Facton relevant to IUCb a determinatioG indudt ) EPA Reaponu to Commenta NPL-FR 10-6 at 6middot10

We have CDUide Schlumberprt daiml that the aarepted altet are not part of the eame operatioD aDd do DOt thruteD tbe lUll 1uriace wbullter ucl CDDdude that they too 1Kir meriL Fint tbe l Ame IUbltampncel (poly cbloriaatad blpbeDyle or PCS) wre depneited at tbe -ted oi by tho poiADiially rooponoib1o porty (ampDpmo WtoD)-two Cacton that tbe tioo polshyicy DOtee are relevut ID deteiDliAine wbetber the are put ol the eame opentioD 8ft 48 Fed Rec at 40683 Schlumbo bu Cal1od to Wbull h poooible diflereDCn in the mun1 ol diiJ)OMI at tbe varioua li~ another deecriptive Cactor _ id--ere even relevant ben

-z = =

- r -

-19

let alooe aufBcient to overcome the other two indicia of a limi1ar operatioa Semad u the ted lit are either water bodlel that flow into Lab Hartwell or ludmiddot baNd CaciliLie11 iocted aJjacouL o w11Wr bodhs that Oow LDto lAke HartweU EPA reuonably ooDcluded that the aitet all thratera the ~ampme 1wfaoe water reiOWCII S 48 Fed llo( at bullo66lt

Finally we reject Schlumberaerbull contention that EPAbull deciaion to agrepte the Saopmnwelve MUe CwLampke Hartwell oi dlverpd ampom pri pnshycedeaL Tbe eumple1 of oon-aareptecl lites that Schlumberpr deiCribu in ita brief are iDappOOte mo1t appear to entail multi~e waate pnenton at each lndishyviduallite unlike tboM at laue ben In poundact EPA ~~ifmiddot ieally ududed oe-1 mumdpal laod8lla ampom the propcgteed delloilioo of the Supmo -ted lite pnshycieely becauae they entailed more than ooe potentially rnpouible party and oontaiDed more than ODe type ol wute ampt EPA Retpooae to Commentamp NPL-FRUS-106 at 6-107

Scblumberprl petition for review il ~ denied in i1 entirety

rv CoHcwiloN

We coodude that CoDIA did not lnteDd to tuspeod EPAbull authority to add 1ite1 to the NPL even thoqb the qucy poundailed to meet the bulltutory HRS ameodmat deadllae ud therefore rejlaquot petitioaen jolDt claim that EPA 1acked authority to add thelr sit to the NPL We abo reject peUtionen iDdIYidual cballeDffel to the UUq or lheir lite OD the NPL Wfl CODdude that (1) the admiailtrative ncord did DOt iDclude the UMDic data oo which LlDemuter teelu to rely (2) ln ICOIinl the Tyler lle6ipraliDD Site UDder the 1982 liRS EPA properly decUDed to coolider prior remedial actioDI ud did DOl liT

iD calculatiq the quantity of buardoUI wute or the popshyulatioD at riak and (3) Scblumberpr waived ltl e1aim that EPA lacked authority to aareate 1ite1 for NPL liltshy

-bull = =

-- r --

20

U INfPOiet and EPAbull application ol the uoa poliq wu aelther arbitrary nor capriciout Tbe petition~ for review are bullceotdingly

Dmilaquol

I

=

shy=bullbull

I

J

1. barcode 578438
2. barcodetext SDMS Doc ID 578438