Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

STATE NEW MEXICO v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND CAROL M. BROWNER </h1> <p class="docCourt"> </p> <p> June 6, 1997 </p> <p class="case-parties"> <b>STATE OF NEW MEXICO, THOMAS S. UDALL, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER<br><br>v.<br><br>ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND CAROL M. BROWNER, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, RESPONDENTS</b><br><br> </p> <div class="caseCopy"> <div class="facLeaderBoard"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1233285632737842"; /* FACLeaderBoard */ google_ad_slot = "8524463142"; google_ad_width = 728; google_ad_height = 90; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src=""> </script> </div class="facLeaderBoard"> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p><br> Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Randolph, Circuit Judges.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Williams, Circuit Judge</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> FOR PUBLICATION</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Argued April 22, 1997</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Consolidated with Nos. 96-1108, 96-1109</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> On Petitions for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Williams.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> In 1979 Congress authorized the Department of Energy to construct a demonstration project for the disposal of radioactive waste from national defense activities. The Department has since been at work on the facility, known as the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant or "WIPP." But it cannot put the plant into operation until the Environmental Protection Agency has certified the plant as complying with EPA's disposal regulations for radioactive wastes, 40 CFR Part 191 B, Section(s) 191.11-17 ("disposal regulations"); see WIPP Land Withdrawal Act of 1992, Pub. L. No. 102-579, Section(s) 7(b)(1), 8(d)(1), 106 Stat. 4777, amended by WIPP Land Withdrawal Amendment Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-201, 110 Stat. 2422 (with amendments, the "WIPP Act"). The key disposal regulation, the "containment requirement," reflects a recognition of the stochastic nature of the inquiry, and is framed in terms of probabilities. It requires that the disposal system be designed with a reasonable expectation that over a 10,000-year period it will have less than one chance in 10 of exceeding certain release limits, and less than one chance in 1000 of exceeding ten times those limits. 40 CFR Section(s) 191.13. The regulations also require disposal system operators to take certain measures intended to assure fulfillment of this expectation. See generally id. Part 191.</p></div> <div class="facAdFloatLeft"> <script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "ca-pub-1233285632737842"; /* FACContentLeftSkyscraperWide */ google_ad_slot = "1266897617"; google_ad_width = 160; google_ad_height = 600; //--> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src=""></script> </div class="facLeaderBoard"> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> At issue here is an intermediate step in the process"criteria" issued by EPA, as required by Congress, for carrying out the certification of WIPP's compliance with the disposal regulations. Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations, 61 Fed. Reg. 5224 (February 9, 1996) (codified at 40 CFR Part 194) ("Final Rule"); see WIPP Act Section(s) 8(c)(2) (requiring promulgation of "criteria").</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Petitioners argue that the resulting guidelines are not specific enough to qualify as "criteria" under the congressional mandate. They also attack several of the criteria as arbitrary and capricious and say that EPA's rulemaking procedures were defective.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Specificity of criteria</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Petitioners define "criterion" as a "standard, rule or test by which something can be judged," quoting Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (2d coll. ed. 1982), a definition EPA does not dispute. This doesn't get us very far. "Criteria," as well as the dictionary's proffered equivalents, are ambiguous as to the level of specificity at which they may be promulgated, and the statute says nothing to suggest that the criteria must be detailed or quantitative. Under the standard analysis of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, <a>467 U.S. 837</a> (1984), therefore, we defer to EPA's judgment on this question if it is reasonable. Metropolitan Wash. Airports Auth. Prof'l Fire Fighters Ass'n v. United States, 959 F.2d 297, 300 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (judicial deference at its highest in reviewing such policy choices as the level of generality for norms implementing legislative mandate); NRDC v. EPA, 907 F.2d 1146, 1165 n.16 (D.C. Cir. 1990) ("level of generality ... [of] regulations would turn on congressional intent ... with the agency's view entitled to great deference"); cf. Boyce Motor Lines v. United States, <a>342 U.S. 337</a> (1952) (rejecting due process attack on a mandated regulation scarcely more specific than the statute it implemented).</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"><p> Of course it seems inescapable that as a general matter Congress intended that the criteria would add specificity to the disposal regulations. If they contributed no extra specificity or clarity on any aspect of the disposal regulations, it would be hard to believe EPA had done the intended job. But a cursory look at the two (the disposal regulations and the criteria) dispels such a concern.</p></div> <div class="numbered-paragraph"> <p> In the rulemaking EPA explained why it resisted various demands for more specificity. It said that it tried to "avoid prescribing specific design choices or technical decisions so that EPA does not have the unintended effect of making the facility less safe," hoping thus to "allow the scientists and technical experts administering the WIPP," presumably those most knowledgeable about the facility, freedom to make reasonable judgments. Response to Comments ("RTC") at ix. In light of the complexity and uncertainty of planning for contingencies over the next 10,000 years, this seems quite reasonable. There has, in any event, been no general abdication to the discretion of DOE experts. Because this general discussion in the Response ...</p> </div> </div> </div> <div id="caseToolTip" class="caseToolTip" style="display: none;"> <div class="toolTipHead"> </div> <div class="toolTipContent"> <p> Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion. To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase, you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents and concurrences that accompany the decision. Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion, there may not be additional text. </p> </div> <div class="toolTipFoot"> </div> </div> <br /> <div class="buyNowContainer"> <div class="price"> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/bracket-left.png" alt="" /> <span>Buy This Entire Record For $7.95</span> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/pdf.png" class="pdf" alt="" /> <img src="/assets/img/findACase/bracket-right.png" alt="" /> </div> <div class="details"> <p> Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,<br /> docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case. </p> <p> <a class="showCaseToolTip">Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.</a> </p> </div> <div class="buttons"> <input type="submit" name="FAC$cphMainContent$btnBuyNowBottom" value="Buy Now" id="btnBuyNowBottom" class="btn-cart-buy-now btn btn-fac btnOrderTop" data-doc-short-name="19970606_0000123.cdc.htm" data-doc-title="<title> STATE NEW MEXICO v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND CAROL M. BROWNER" /> <input type="submit" name="FAC$cphMainContent$btnAddToCartBottom" value="Add To Cart" id="btnAddToCartBottom" class="btn-cart-add btn btn-fac btnOrderTop" data-doc-short-name="19970606_0000123.cdc.htm" data-doc-title="<title> STATE NEW MEXICO v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND CAROL M. BROWNER" /> </div> </div> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocID" id="hfDocID" value="\FCT\CDC\1997\19970606_0000123.CDC.htm" /> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocTitle" id="hfDocTitle" value="<title> STATE NEW MEXICO v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND CAROL M. BROWNER" /> <input type="hidden" name="FAC$cphMainContent$hfDocShortName" id="hfDocShortName" value="19970606_0000123.CDC.htm" /> </div> <div id="pnlGrayBarBottom" class="grayBar"> <span class="grayBarLeft"></span><span class="grayBarRight"></span> </div> <div id="footer"> <p> <a href="">Home</a> <span>/</span> <a href=""> Our Sources</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">About Us</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">FAQs</a> <span>/</span> <a href="">Advanced Search</a> </p> <p> copyright 2017 LRC, Inc. <a href="">About Us</a> </p> <p> <span id="privacyPolicy"><a href="">PRIVACY POLICY</a></span> </p> <div id="crosslink" style="width: 100%; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><a href=""><img src="" alt="Litigation Pathfinder - practical legal advice and comprehensive research resources made affordable" style="width: 375px;" /></a></div> </div> </div> </form> </body> </html>