Here it is insurmountable, because § 270.10(i) does not merely define the triggers in terms of what is “protective of human health or the environment.” Rather, as discussed in Part III A, the regulation provides nine relatively specific factors to guide that determination. RCRA does not require more. In its opening brief, the Coalition further argued that EPA should have defined what is protective of human health or the environment numerically, in terms of the threshold risk level that will trigger an SSRA or dictate unconditional approval of a permit. At oral argument, the Coalition receded from this claim, see Oral Arg. Recording at 1:34:32, 1:35:34, and sensibly so. There is nothing in the statutory language that compels such a numerical definition. Cf. New Mexico, 114 F.3d at 293 (<HOLDING>). To the contrary, section 3004(q)’s
holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that where plaintiffs alleged that the plan suffered significant losses and requested that fiduciaries make good to the plan the losses to the plan they need not seek to recover for all plan participants allegedly injured by the fiduciary breach holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that a creditors failure to vote or to object to a chapter 11 plan constitutes acceptance of the plan holding that a statutory mandate to set criteria for waste plan certification says nothing to suggest that the criteria must be detailed or quantitative