[00:00:01] Speaker 00:
Number 20-5174, Waterkeeper Alliance Inc.

[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
et al.

[00:00:06] Speaker 00:
at balance versus Michael S. Reagan, Administrator, U.S.

[00:00:10] Speaker 00:
Environmental Protection Agency, in his official capacity et al.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Ms.

[00:00:14] Speaker 00:
Castle for the balance, Mr. Lundman for the appellees, Mr. Mansinghani for the intravenous state of Oklahoma.

[00:00:22] Speaker 04:
Morning, Council.

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
Ms.

[00:00:23] Speaker 04:
Castle, please proceed when you're ready.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Good morning.

[00:00:26] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:28] Speaker 01:
Your honors, this case is about the right of members of a community to have a say in important decisions that affect their lives and health.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
By approving Oklahoma's COALASH program, EPA has deprived many communities in Oklahoma of that right.

[00:00:45] Speaker 01:
I'd like to talk to you today about three things.

[00:00:47] Speaker 01:
First, one of the people who's been affected by EPA's decision,

[00:00:51] Speaker 01:
Second, I'd like to tell you about some of those important decisions that are being made behind doors without any public input.

[00:01:00] Speaker 01:
And third, I'd like to tell you about how actions speak louder than words and how deprivation of public process has colored EPA's decisions throughout the process of approving Oklahoma's program.

[00:01:14] Speaker 01:
Your honors, Clark Frazier is a retired teacher in Oklahoma.

[00:01:18] Speaker 07:
Can I just interrupt you to ask exactly what relief are you seeking in this case?

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
Yes, Rhonda.

[00:01:25] Speaker 01:
We're asking you to vacate, overturn EPA's approval of Oklahoma's COALASH program and to direct EPA to issue the minimum guidelines, setting forth minimum standards, minimum guidelines for public participation in state COALASH programs.

[00:01:44] Speaker 01:
So Mr. Frazier, if I might, he has, oh, now that he's retired.

[00:01:50] Speaker 05:
I think this should actually go to Mr. Frazier, but as a follow-up to Judge Wilkins' question, so if the, suppose the court does agree with you and just for purposes of carrying this through, I'm not saying we will, but suppose we did, then at the end of the day, what would happen, as I understand it, is that the,

[00:02:14] Speaker 05:
the approval for Oklahoma would be set aside.

[00:02:18] Speaker 05:
But if that happens, then the consequence of that, as I understand it from the statutory regime, it's 6,945 D2B, I think, would mean that Oklahoma becomes non-participating, because they wouldn't have the approval.

[00:02:31] Speaker 05:
And then the federal standards kick in, which would be the 2015 ones that are the kind of floor backbone.

[00:02:39] Speaker 05:
And then if that's the case though, then you're not better off.

[00:02:42] Speaker 05:
I think, right?

[00:02:43] Speaker 05:
So how have you made out redressability for standing purposes if the upshot of the relief that you're seeking would be to put in place the federal floor under the 2015 rule?

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
Absolutely, Your Honor.

[00:02:58] Speaker 01:
So yes, you're correct that that's what would happen.

[00:03:02] Speaker 01:
They would return to being subject to the for now and the immediate future self implementing federal CCR rule.

[00:03:10] Speaker 01:
But EPA under that same Improvement Act was directed to initiate a federal permitting program.

[00:03:18] Speaker 01:
And if your honors were to grant us our relief and find that both the Oklahoma program itself had inadequate public participation, as well as the idea that 6974B1 requires the issuance of minimum guidelines, those holdings would effectively

[00:03:41] Speaker 01:
they would compel the same thing to be required right for the federal permitting program.

[00:03:46] Speaker 01:
And we're talking about units in Oklahoma coal ash landfills that have said they're going to continue to operate for many years that that 2015 rule doesn't require landfills to close.

[00:03:57] Speaker 01:
And the grda landfill says it will continue operating until 2049 EPA has already said has already proposed a federal permitting program.

[00:04:06] Speaker 01:
and has said it's going to be, it plans to implement that soon.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
So your honor, this would allow, this would ensure that when that federal permitting program is put into effect, that those same minimum, that EPA would have to issue those federal, excuse me, those minimum public participation standards for that permitting program, as well as ensure the content of the public participation was adequate to meet 6974B1.

[00:04:32] Speaker 05:
But the federal if you're relying on adjustments to the federal program and that's either going to happen or not going to happen.

[00:04:39] Speaker 05:
How's it affected by the the relief that you're seeking.

[00:04:44] Speaker 01:
If your honors were to find that 6974 be one mandates both significant improvements to the public participation that was provided by Oklahoma and the issuance of these minimum guidelines.

[00:04:57] Speaker 01:
for state programs, it would also compel the interpretation that minimum guidelines for federal programs were likewise required.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
Cassell, that would not be part of our judgment.

[00:05:08] Speaker 02:
Our judgment would be to either allow EPA to do what it's done with regard to Oklahoma or not allow.

[00:05:18] Speaker 02:
And it sounds like you're asking for something beyond that judgment.

[00:05:23] Speaker 02:
You're asking for that judgment plus an advisory

[00:05:27] Speaker 02:
opinion from us, giving guidance about what certain rules need to be put into place in the future.

[00:05:34] Speaker 02:
Are you agreeing that our judgment will not actually provide any redressability for you?

[00:05:40] Speaker 01:
Respectfully, Your Honor, if your judgment is that 6974B1

[00:05:46] Speaker 01:
compels the issuance of minimum standards for public participation, that interpretation will necessarily require the same guideline issued for federal permits as well.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
I think, I mean, correct me, tell me why I'm wrong about this.

[00:06:00] Speaker 02:
You might be describing a holding, but you're still not describing what our judgment would be.

[00:06:06] Speaker 02:
Our judgment would be just a thumbs up or a thumbs down for what EPA, for what's been done.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
That's a fair distinction, Your Honor.

[00:06:15] Speaker 01:
Your holding would compel that interpretation.

[00:06:18] Speaker 02:
And because we know EPA- And our judge, just to make sure we're on the same page now.

[00:06:24] Speaker 02:
You say our holding would, but you would concede that our judgment would not provide you redressability.

[00:06:32] Speaker 01:
I'm not conceding that the judgment would not provide us redressability, Your Honor.

[00:06:36] Speaker 01:
I'm saying that there would be a limited period before EPA has finalized its permitting program, which we know is underway.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
that the opportunities available for permitting would not apply to the Oklahomans that I'm discussing here today.

[00:06:52] Speaker 01:
But because those landfills are likely to continue operating for many years, in fact, that's exactly what they've said they're going to do.

[00:07:00] Speaker 01:
The federal permit program will be in effect before they do major decisions such as closure.

[00:07:06] Speaker 01:
So the public participation holding that your honors put in place today, should you rule for us,

[00:07:12] Speaker 01:
would inform that would compel minimum standards for public participation that would improve upon the negligible and in some instances zero opportunities for public participation that folks like Mr. Frazier have currently under the Oklahoma regime.

[00:07:30] Speaker 02:
So if I, I feel like I interrupted, possibly interrupted judge Trina Boston's line of questioning on holding.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Okay.

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
If not, then, uh, can I ask you about your, your standing on a different issue?

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
And that's the so-called permits for life.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
Um, what's the evidence that you submit it to indicate that the injury you allege will result from these permits for life, uh, is, is imminent.

[00:07:57] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, there's already been permits issued to several landfills in Oklahoma for which there were no public participation opportunities whatsoever, including the landfill that's upstream of the lake that Mr. Frazier likes to take his table with his grandkids out on.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
Just to clarify, I'm moving away from the question of public participation.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
and moving toward what I take to be another argument of yours that even if there were a lot of public participation, Oklahoma, you're injured because Oklahoma grants permits for life.

[00:08:34] Speaker 02:
Is that one of your arguments?

[00:08:35] Speaker 01:
Yes, your honor.

[00:08:38] Speaker 02:
And I take it to be that the problem with the permit for life is that in the future, the federal standards might be increased and Oklahoma might not then require those who currently have permits to update their practices and conform with the elevated federal standards.

[00:09:00] Speaker 02:
And is that, am I understanding your theory?

[00:09:04] Speaker 01:
There are two problems with the Permits for Life, Your Honor.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
You've identified one of them.

[00:09:08] Speaker 01:
The other one is related to the public participation, because with the issuance of these Permits for Life, because folks like Mr. Frazier will never have a chance again, because it is a permit for life, to be able to weigh in on the management of this polluting facility.

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
And he never had a chance to begin with.

[00:09:24] Speaker 02:
So, Ms.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
Cassell, on the first of the problems that you have with the Permits for Life,

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
Can you explain how under Clapper and precedents that require an injury to be either current or imminent, can you explain how that chain of events that might happen in the future where federal standards are raised, Oklahoma doesn't keep up, these current people who have permits, you know, their fall behind with regard to the federal standards, how is that future injury imminent?

[00:10:00] Speaker 01:
Your honor, the federal government has already made changes to the federal rule that have strengthened that rule and Oklahoma's requirements simply don't require the permits to be upgraded.

[00:10:14] Speaker 01:
to match those improved requirements.

[00:10:17] Speaker 01:
And so folks like Mr. Frazier are already soaking.

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
So the federal standards are already higher than what Oklahoma requires of its permit holders?

[00:10:26] Speaker 01:
They're already higher than they were at the time Oklahoma.

[00:10:29] Speaker 02:
But that's not my question, Ms.

[00:10:30] Speaker 02:
Cassell.

[00:10:31] Speaker 02:
Are they higher than what Oklahoma requires of its permit holders?

[00:10:36] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I'm putting us at a point in time because what that issue here is what EPA was looking at when it approved Oklahoma's program to begin with, and that was in 2018.

[00:10:48] Speaker 01:
And so, Your Honor, the rules are already more stringent than they were at the time EPA approved Oklahoma's program.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
Ms.

[00:10:55] Speaker 02:
Cassell, with respect, I want to ask the question, I think, a third time.

[00:11:02] Speaker 02:
I'm not asking whether EPA or federal standards are higher than they were in 2018.

[00:11:07] Speaker 02:
I'm asking whether the federal standards right now are more rigorous and higher than what Oklahoma currently requires of its permit holders.

[00:11:18] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, I know Oklahoma has said in its brief

[00:11:22] Speaker 01:
It has included some facts that occurred, of course, after the record was considered by EPA relating to some improvements that have been made or some changes that have been made to its rules.

[00:11:32] Speaker 01:
I don't know whether the changes that have been made to its rules currently match what the federal rules require because, of course, I was focused on EPA's reasonable decision at the time it decided to approve Oklahoma's program.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
And if and if we don't know whether Oklahoma's current standards are less rigorous than the federal standards require, how is your injury imminent with regard to your concern that in the future, the federal standards will become more rigorous than Oklahoma's standards.

[00:12:12] Speaker 01:
Our understanding and our read of the Oklahoma rules is that even if those regulations have been changed, even if they have been upgraded to match changes to the federal rules, that itself does not compel the upgrading of the permits themselves for the facilities.

[00:12:29] Speaker 01:
Ms.

[00:12:30] Speaker 02:
Cassell, it seems highly speculative that the federal standards will

[00:12:35] Speaker 02:
increase faster than the Oklahoma standards increase.

[00:12:39] Speaker 02:
Maybe they will, maybe they won't.

[00:12:41] Speaker 02:
And I'm trying to give you the opportunity to tell me why it's not as speculative as I suspect it is.

[00:12:50] Speaker 01:
Your honor, the problem with Oklahoma's program is that even if they do improve their rules and match the rules, and I would say to your note about it being speculative,

[00:13:02] Speaker 01:
Federal EPA is required under the scheme of RCRA, which is aimed at improving and implementing new upgrades to waste disposal.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
They are required to take a look at their rules every few years and upgrade them if necessary.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Oklahoma, as far as I know, doesn't have that same mandate in its rules.

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
And even if its rules are upgraded, its rules do not translate any of those upgrades of the rules to the permit.

[00:13:28] Speaker 01:
So these same facilities may be stuck in the mud with priorly approved, outdated standards that no longer represent the most

[00:13:39] Speaker 01:
effective waste disposal methods and Mr. Frazier and others are currently suffering because those permits are outdated and the facility is not as protective as it otherwise would be where those permits for life not in effect.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Now your honors, if I might spend just a couple minutes with one of the two other points I wanted to make.

[00:14:03] Speaker 01:
I just wanted to note that these permits that are being issued entirely behind closed doors are not anything like administrative as EPA has described them.

[00:14:13] Speaker 01:
They include things like groundwater monitoring, which if you don't have the right number of wells in the right locations, tested the right frequency, the heavy metal pollution that leaches out of those coal ash landfills gets out undetected and therefore is not cleaned up and continues to pollute waterways.

[00:14:31] Speaker 01:
It includes closure plans, which determine whether the ash will be left in place, potentially polluting for centuries, or whether it will be moved to a safer location.

[00:14:42] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:14:45] Speaker 01:
You know, EPA knew at the time it approved Oklahoma's program that folks like Mr. Frazier and many Oklahomans had been entirely deprived of the opportunity to weigh in on permits for that Rand River Dam Authority landfill permit for the northeastern coal ash landfill for others.

[00:15:03] Speaker 01:
So you never have a chance again.

[00:15:06] Speaker 02:
This is how you said that those decisions are being made behind closed doors.

[00:15:10] Speaker 02:
I think that was your phrase.

[00:15:11] Speaker 02:
Are those decisions posted on a public website?

[00:15:17] Speaker 01:
Sir, yes, they are available by four.

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
How is it?

[00:15:20] Speaker 02:
How can something be posted on a public website and be behind closed doors?

[00:15:25] Speaker 01:
When a decision is made behind closed doors, Your Honor, what I was meeting was that it may be available for the public to hear after the decision is made.

[00:15:34] Speaker 01:
But when the decision is made without the participation, without the voices of the folks that are affected or potentially affected by it, then it's made behind closed doors with respect to those people like Mr. Frazier.

[00:15:46] Speaker 01:
And so just to conclude on seeing, you know, these folks, EPA knew that these folks had been excluded from the ability to participate to begin with in putting input in and the opportunity to be heard had been denied them for these permits.

[00:16:03] Speaker 01:
EPA knew that they may never have a chance again to offer input and have an opportunity to be heard with regard

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
to the management of these facilities that are impacting their livelihoods and their enjoyment of their lives.

[00:16:18] Speaker 01:
And very quickly, Your Honors, the context matters here.

[00:16:21] Speaker 01:
The document against which EPA compared Oklahoma's program for adequacy was itself the product of absolutely deprived public participation.

[00:16:32] Speaker 01:
That 2017 document, the Intimum,

[00:16:35] Speaker 01:
interim final guidance document initially had a 30-day comment period.

[00:16:40] Speaker 01:
A number of organizations requested an extension.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
That extension was, they were told that extension would be granted and then four hours, four hours, Your Honors, before that original comment deadline

[00:16:54] Speaker 01:
EPA reneged on that extension.

[00:16:57] Speaker 01:
So 50 groups that were poised to help inform EPA as to what public participation measures should be included in state programs were denied the opportunity to provide that input.

[00:17:08] Speaker 01:
So when EPA compared Oklahoma's flawed program against its flawed interim guidance document, it's no surprise it came out with a flawed program.

[00:17:18] Speaker 01:
So your honor's EPA says it supports and values public participation.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
We think actions speak louder than words.

[00:17:25] Speaker 01:
All Mr. Frazier is asking for is an opportunity to be heard.

[00:17:28] Speaker 01:
We'd ask you to write EPA's wrong here.

[00:17:31] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:17:32] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:17:32] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Ms.

[00:17:33] Speaker 05:
Cassell.

[00:17:34] Speaker 05:
We'll hear from commissions council now, Mr. Lundman.

[00:17:39] Speaker 06:
Good morning.

[00:17:39] Speaker 06:
I'm going to start with the final point that Waterkeeper ended up with about the 2017 guidance document.

[00:17:50] Speaker 06:
That document was publicly released, a notice in the Federal Register, it was available for comment, and the document also explains that EPA envisions an ongoing dialogue about the document.

[00:18:00] Speaker 06:
So it's just not

[00:18:01] Speaker 06:
correct that that document was released in kind of an underhand way with a limited opportunity for Waterkeeper and others to comment.

[00:18:08] Speaker 06:
Then Waterkeeper, of course, had the opportunity to comment and did on Oklahoma's program.

[00:18:14] Speaker 06:
When EPA published the proposed rule about approving the program, Waterkeeper commented, EPA responded, EPA finalized the rule.

[00:18:22] Speaker 06:
So there's no kind of procedural mess up here with the 2017 guidance.

[00:18:27] Speaker 05:
Can I ask you, Mr. Lemon?

[00:18:28] Speaker 05:
I think I said commission.

[00:18:29] Speaker 05:
I obviously meant administration, EPA.

[00:18:31] Speaker 05:
Do you have a position on whether you didn't brief the issue of standing, or at least you didn't challenge standing, and you've heard some of the questions this morning.

[00:18:39] Speaker 05:
Does the government have a view on that set of questions.

[00:18:43] Speaker 06:
Sure, we, as you know, did not brief or address standing.

[00:18:48] Speaker 06:
You know, I think it's correct that they have standing here, but there's a big important if here.

[00:18:55] Speaker 06:
If their claims are limited, as they should be and as they were pleaded, to a challenge to the approval and the non-degressory duty claim.

[00:19:03] Speaker 06:
I think there's lots of bleeding into other claims, for example, is a particular facility and they identify some facilities has the public participation process for that facility complied with Oklahoma law and federal law and I think those sort of claims would have to be brought either in state court.

[00:19:20] Speaker 06:
or in the state administrative process, or potentially in another lawsuit in federal court, but they're not before the court here, which is just concerned with the approval of the plan, of the program, Oklahoma program, and the non-discretionary duty claim.

[00:19:34] Speaker 06:
For both of those, I think we're, especially non-discretionary duty claim, we're in the world of, it's a procedural claim.

[00:19:41] Speaker 06:
The court would order, if there were relief granted, would order EPA to comply with 6974B1,

[00:19:48] Speaker 06:
And how that compliance would play out and whether that would necessarily result in direct redress for Waterkeeper or not is a little unclear, but in the procedural redressability cases, that showing is relaxed.

[00:20:04] Speaker 06:
So we haven't made an argument that they didn't meet it here.

[00:20:07] Speaker 06:
I think the questions about the permit for life and whether they have established standing to make that argument.

[00:20:14] Speaker 06:
Again, if it's a facial challenge which this is to the approval.

[00:20:19] Speaker 06:
I think there is a way to look at this as a relaxed regressibility requirement.

[00:20:24] Speaker 06:
But to the extent that the court is entertaining the more specific challenges of particular facilities, I don't think they've connected the dots for those.

[00:20:31] Speaker 06:
I don't think they're properly pleaded in the complaint here, and I don't think they're properly before the court.

[00:20:36] Speaker 06:
And if they were, I think there would be a real standing problem with those two.

[00:20:41] Speaker 05:
Can I ask a question about public participation and the way that you're looking at the way in which the statutory provisions interrelate?

[00:20:49] Speaker 05:
Because

[00:20:51] Speaker 05:
One way to read it is that under 6945 D1A, I think it is, the question for the government is whether the state regime matches up with the federal one, and if it's at least as protective.

[00:21:14] Speaker 05:
And once it is, that's the end of this

[00:21:17] Speaker 05:
that's the end of the story and there's nothing more to be done.

[00:21:20] Speaker 05:
So there's not an independent public participation component in 6974 that adds that the work is done under 6945 D1A, I think it is.

[00:21:35] Speaker 05:
Once that assessment is made, that it's at least as protective.

[00:21:40] Speaker 05:
But I know you have a different view of it.

[00:21:43] Speaker 06:
Right.

[00:21:44] Speaker 06:
I mean, I think we are crediting the 6974D1 as an obligation to, you know, develop and publish minimum guidelines and that is a freestanding obligation.

[00:21:57] Speaker 06:
Our argument on that is we don't have a readily ascertainable time limit for it.

[00:22:03] Speaker 06:
And so that it's not enforceable as a non-discretionary duty.

[00:22:06] Speaker 06:
Then our fallback argument, the one the district court agreed with, is that even if there is such a duty in 6974B1 about the guidelines, we have satisfied it here with the guidance.

[00:22:17] Speaker 06:
The guidance addresses this provision.

[00:22:21] Speaker 06:
It provides three prongs to look at when considering whether a plan is providing sufficient public participation, a state

[00:22:30] Speaker 05:
Why do you think there's something independent?

[00:22:32] Speaker 05:
I realize I think I cited 6945D1A instead of D1B.

[00:22:36] Speaker 05:
You probably understand that I'm looking at B rather than A. Sorry, a lot of numbers floating around in the mind.

[00:22:42] Speaker 05:
But under D1B, the statute says that the administrator shall approve a permit program or other system of prior approval if the administrator determines

[00:22:53] Speaker 05:
et cetera, et cetera, that the state regime is at least as protective as the federal one.

[00:23:01] Speaker 05:
Then where's the notion coming from that 6974 has an independent set of obligations over and above that?

[00:23:14] Speaker 06:
You know, I think that's the that's the fundamental obligation here, I do, I, you know, the question I think it gets difficult and we haven't made this argument, does it foreclose any other considerations in the combination of the shallowing which you quoted in in D1B, and then the two factors that follow.

[00:23:35] Speaker 06:
You know, I think

[00:23:38] Speaker 06:
I think this argument goes to the question of just the approval of the plan and not their standalone question argument about the non discretionary duty.

[00:23:46] Speaker 06:
We've got our arguments on that non discretionary duty point, but, you know,

[00:23:51] Speaker 06:
You know, I think part of the answer here is just, well, the agency here in the approval said it was looking at the public participation requirement 6974B1, and it was satisfied here.

[00:24:02] Speaker 06:
And that's what we're defending.

[00:24:04] Speaker 06:
I guess it's possible that we could take a more narrow view, but the flip side of this is EPA does value public participation here and is looking for ways to encourage it.

[00:24:14] Speaker 06:
And I know Waterkeeper thinks there should be more, but we think we've complied with the statutory requirement 6974B1.

[00:24:21] Speaker 06:
be one with the guidelines here.

[00:24:24] Speaker 07:
How do you justify different public participation or different tiers based on the interim guidance?

[00:24:36] Speaker 06:
Well, the interim guidance doesn't address tiering.

[00:24:41] Speaker 06:
It doesn't address Oklahoma's plan.

[00:24:44] Speaker 06:
It was put out before the plan.

[00:24:46] Speaker 06:
It says we should provide for public participation.

[00:24:52] Speaker 06:
And I think it's the third factor that discusses public hearings.

[00:24:57] Speaker 06:
And we believe that that

[00:25:00] Speaker 06:
The only sensible way to interpret that is to have some sort of significance requirement because there are lots of permit modifications, and I don't think waterkeepers arguing to the contrary, that are, you know, administrative and that are not making a substantive change to how something important is regulated.

[00:25:19] Speaker 06:
Waterkeeper thinks there's a big gap here and that there are substantive changes that are not being captured.

[00:25:24] Speaker 06:
We don't think there is on the face of the program because Oklahoma's law says if there is a significant impact and Oklahoma explained this in its submission, it will treat the permit decision as tier two or three.

[00:25:39] Speaker 06:
It's possible the waterkeeper has found or will find instances where that is falling through the gaps and it's not being implemented correctly.

[00:25:47] Speaker 06:
And if that's the case, then Oklahoma should fix it.

[00:25:49] Speaker 06:
If Oklahoma does it, EPA will step in.

[00:25:52] Speaker 06:
But it's not a reason to disapprove the program as a whole or this part of the program.

[00:25:57] Speaker 06:
It's a potential implementation error, not an error in the design of the program.

[00:26:04] Speaker 06:
which as EPA explained, it's an approval.

[00:26:08] Speaker 06:
These are basically tier one or basically administrative decisions.

[00:26:11] Speaker 06:
And to the extent that they're not, that is a problem to look at in terms of its application and its implementation.

[00:26:18] Speaker 06:
But that's not before the court here.

[00:26:19] Speaker 06:
The question is, is the program okay on its face and did EPA reasonably approve it?

[00:26:26] Speaker 05:
Let me make sure my colleagues don't have additional questions for you, Mr. Lundman.

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
Not for me.

[00:26:32] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:26:33] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Mr. Launman.

[00:26:34] Speaker 05:
We'll hear from Oklahoma now, Mr. Montinggati.

[00:26:38] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor, and may it please the Court.

[00:26:40] Speaker 03:
I do want to just tee off of all of your excellent questions.

[00:26:44] Speaker 03:
We agree that redressability is a real problem here with respect to standing.

[00:26:49] Speaker 03:
And it sounds like my friend Miss Castle's responses were all speculation about what might happen later on after Oklahoma's program is vacated if they prevail.

[00:27:00] Speaker 03:
Because of course, as Your Honors pointed out, if they do prevail, they'll have far fewer opportunities for public participation.

[00:27:07] Speaker 03:
Respectfully to Mr London we don't think of this as simply a procedural standing issue here, because they're not challenging the process by which EPA approved they're challenging whether it met the statutory standards so we don't think those procedural standing cases are really relevant here.

[00:27:26] Speaker 03:
To Judge Walker's questions, yes, you know, all of the upgrades to EPA's program to make their program more stringent after Oklahoma's approval have been mirrored in Oklahoma's program and there are compliance deadlines for those.

[00:27:44] Speaker 03:
We cover that I think on page 37 of our brief.

[00:27:49] Speaker 03:
And then back to your question Judge Srinivasan, as you know we argue in our brief that meeting the at least as protective standards with respect to public participation is the only standard they could actually key off of to decide whether or not

[00:28:04] Speaker 03:
Oklahoma has sufficient public participation and we certainly do so.

[00:28:10] Speaker 03:
And to judge Wilkins question in the interim final guidance at Joint Appendix page 130, one of the things EPA says in their interim final guidance is that one of the things they'll consider is whether the state is using a public participation program that it has used in other programs.

[00:28:31] Speaker 03:
that EPA has approved, let's say in the Clean Water Act context or the Clean Air Act context.

[00:28:37] Speaker 03:
And that's exactly what Oklahoma has done here, which is to use the same public participation program it uses across EPA programs.

[00:28:46] Speaker 03:
And I would say it's actually quite similar.

[00:28:48] Speaker 03:
to EPA's own tiered solid waste program at 40 CFR section 270.42 where they create three categories of permit modifications and based on the categories

[00:29:09] Speaker 03:
have different levels of public participation in each.

[00:29:12] Speaker 03:
So our program is actually modeled off of long-standing EPA programs that recognize, as Mr. Lundman said, that everybody recognizes that every single permit decision and permit modification can, as a practical matter, have full-blown notice and comment or public hearings.

[00:29:29] Speaker 05:
So can I ask you, I didn't read your brief to make the argument that once 6,945

[00:29:36] Speaker 05:
and I hope we get it right this time, D1B is satisfied, then there's nothing more to be done under 6974.

[00:29:47] Speaker 03:
I think we do make that argument that

[00:29:51] Speaker 03:
the extent that there is a standard that you can apply in this statute it would be the at least as protective standard and so I think we make that argument in two ways by the way one to the extent that a rule making is required setting out public participation we think that that rule making is the 2015 federal coal ash rule and that sets those public participation standards but two

[00:30:15] Speaker 03:
And just going through the logical train here, Section 6974B1 requires minimum guidance on public participation.

[00:30:25] Speaker 03:
The 2015 rule sets public participation standards for COALASH.

[00:30:30] Speaker 03:
That rule was challenged as inconsistent with 6974B1 in this court.

[00:30:34] Speaker 03:
This court rejected that challenge.

[00:30:36] Speaker 03:
And then the WIN Act, after all of those things, says that state programs have to be at least as protective as the federal rules, which would have included the federal public participation rules, and Oklahoma's program certainly meets that standard.

[00:30:55] Speaker 03:
I think the only last thing I would say in response to what has already been said is that Miss Castle says that closure plans are necessarily going to be under tier one, but that's not true as we explain in the record.

[00:31:15] Speaker 03:
that if a plant is changing from clean closure to closing in place, that's going to be a tier two.

[00:31:25] Speaker 03:
And I think you can find that at Joint Appendix page 184.

[00:31:29] Speaker 03:
And then Joint Appendix page 288 provides other examples of how we've upgraded things to tier two historically when they are important modifications.

[00:31:39] Speaker 05:
And there's also a mechanism by which, as I understand it,

[00:31:42] Speaker 05:
a party can challenge the treatment of something as a tier one and suggest that it should be treated as tier two actually because of the consequences.

[00:31:52] Speaker 03:
I think that's right.

[00:31:53] Speaker 03:
And that's part of our rulemaking process when we first classify things as tiers.

[00:31:59] Speaker 03:
There's, of course, what Judge Walker mentioned, the fact that all of these documents are public.

[00:32:04] Speaker 03:
And then going from there, you have the citizen complaint process.

[00:32:07] Speaker 03:
You have citizen suits under RCRA.

[00:32:09] Speaker 03:
You have intervention in DEQ court actions.

[00:32:12] Speaker 03:
All of these are opportunities for public participation in even tier one permitting actions.

[00:32:20] Speaker 05:
Okay, if my colleagues don't have additional questions for you, Mr. Mazzangatti, thank you.

[00:32:27] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Ron.

[00:32:28] Speaker 05:
Ms.

[00:32:29] Speaker 05:
Castle, we'll give you two minutes for rebuttal.

[00:32:32] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much, Your Honor.

[00:32:33] Speaker 01:
A few points in response to the questions that have been asked and the points raised.

[00:32:37] Speaker 01:
First of all, the Improvements Act, Your Honor, at 6945D7 explicitly provides that nothing in the subsection affects any authority or other law already in effect.

[00:32:50] Speaker 01:
So because of that mandate, Your Honor, the Improvements Act clearly directs EPA that it can't ignore the preexisting mandates that it already had in 6974B1.

[00:33:01] Speaker 01:
simply saying that because it to have a program that's at least as protective as the federal lash rules away deprives EPA or does not authorize EPA to ensure compliance with 6974B1, they have to comply with that under the terms of the law.

[00:33:19] Speaker 01:
In fact, they would have to even under the terms of that particular subsection because there is no permit program or other program of prior approvals in the federal coalition rule.

[00:33:29] Speaker 01:
So the only way that they could approve a program is by looking beyond the confines of the federal coalition rule.

[00:33:34] Speaker 01:
Specifically, to Mr. Masangani's point, we didn't allege that in every single case, every single closure plan would necessarily be treated as tier one.

[00:33:45] Speaker 01:
What we're saying is EPA needs to look at the evidence that's reasonably before it and make a reasoned decision based on that information.

[00:33:53] Speaker 01:
And while EPA says that closure plans with closure in place are precisely the type of document that would pose the potentially significant effects to be treated as warranting public participation.

[00:34:06] Speaker 01:
That's exactly what Oklahoma deprived public participation for.

[00:34:10] Speaker 01:
for the Grand River dam authority lost landfill.

[00:34:13] Speaker 01:
It approved a closure plan for closure in place as tier one, without any opportunities for public participation whatsoever, Your Honors.

[00:34:22] Speaker 01:
So I think, while we don't disagree with Mr. Lundman that there may be some

[00:34:27] Speaker 01:
limited exceptions, name changes, things like that, that could be considered administrative.

[00:34:32] Speaker 01:
It was plain to EPA on the record when it approved this program that that was not what was happening in Oklahoma and that major significant decisions were being made behind closed doors without any public input or opportunity to be heard.

[00:34:46] Speaker 02:
Can I ask one quick question, Chief Judge?

[00:34:50] Speaker ?:
Of course.

[00:34:52] Speaker 02:
I don't think in your brief that you say the 2015 rule fails to satisfy 6974, but I could be mistaken about that.

[00:35:03] Speaker 02:
So did you brief that?

[00:35:05] Speaker 02:
And if you didn't brief it, do you think that the 2015 rule satisfies 6974?

[00:35:11] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor, we did know that in our in our reply brief.

[00:35:15] Speaker 01:
Your Honor as Mr. Mussangguni and I apologize if I'm mispronouncing your name, stated that rule was promulgated more than a year before the Improvements Act was issued.

[00:35:27] Speaker 01:
There were no permit programs.

[00:35:29] Speaker 01:
In effect, nor were any authorized at that time, the federal coal ash rule was was promulgated.

[00:35:34] Speaker 01:
So it could not have provided public participation for a permitting program that was not even yet authorized.

[00:35:40] Speaker 01:
That did not yet exist.

[00:35:42] Speaker 02:
It did not.

[00:35:42] Speaker 02:
I'm just remembering that in a separate lawsuit, you or someone challenged the 2015 rule is not satisfying sixty nine seventy four.

[00:35:51] Speaker 02:
And that challenge was unsuccessful.

[00:35:54] Speaker 02:
I could be misremembering that as well.

[00:35:56] Speaker 01:
I believe you may be, Your Honor.

[00:35:58] Speaker 01:
There were other pledges to the collateral, but it wasn't under that provision as far as I know.

[00:36:03] Speaker 02:
All right, thank you very much for answering my questions.

[00:36:07] Speaker 07:
I had one last question.

[00:36:09] Speaker 07:
Is there a difference between how Oklahoma classifies groundwater sampling vis-a-vis the way that the federal government treats that?

[00:36:25] Speaker 07:
So, in other words, Oklahoma classified as tier one, kind of an administrative minor modification, whereas the federal governments would treat it as a major modification?

[00:36:40] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, as I noted earlier, I'm not using federal permits in effect.

[00:36:45] Speaker 01:
The federal government has not issued yet a federal permitting program for COALASH, but

[00:36:50] Speaker 01:
the, excuse me, corrective action and cleanup in the proposed rule were certainly treated as individual permits and EPA stated in the preamble to the proposed CCR rule that groundwater monitoring is the single most critical set of protective measures that it's relying on to protect health and the environment.

[00:37:09] Speaker 01:
So surely EPA has acknowledged and recognizes that this is a very significant determination with regard to the groundwater monitoring.

[00:37:18] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:37:20] Speaker 04:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:37:22] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:37:23] Speaker 04:
We'll take this case under submission.