American Chemistry Council v. Environmental Protection Agency
337 F.3d 1060, 33 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20254, 358 U.S. App. D.C. 18 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to treat as “hazardous waste” any substance that is either mixed with or derived from a listed hazardous waste, based on a reasonable interpretation of the statute's broad protective purpose.
Facts:
- The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate hazardous wastes from their generation to disposal, defining "hazardous waste" broadly to include solid wastes that "may" pose a hazard.
- RCRA requires the EPA to develop criteria for identifying hazardous waste characteristics and to list particular hazardous wastes subject to stringent management standards.
- The EPA developed regulations allowing wastes to be deemed hazardous if they possess certain characteristics (characteristic wastes) or are specifically listed by the EPA (listed wastes).
- RCRA also includes a "delisting process" by which a listed hazardous waste can be deemed non-hazardous at a specific facility if demonstrated not to meet listing criteria and not to be hazardous by other factors.
- In 1992, the EPA issued an interim rule that modified the regulatory definition of "hazardous waste" to include substances mixed with one or more hazardous wastes and any solid waste generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste (the "mixture rule" and "derived-from rule").
- In 1999, the EPA proposed to make this 1992 interim rule permanent, with minor alterations.
- On May 16, 2001, the EPA issued the Final Rule, formally making the mixture and derived-from rules permanent, thereby subjecting such substances to stringent hazardous waste management standards.
Procedural Posture:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an interim rule in 1992, which modified the definition of "hazardous waste" to include substances mixed with or derived from a listed hazardous waste.
- In 1999, the EPA proposed to make this 1992 interim rule permanent.
- On May 16, 2001, the EPA issued the Final Rule, making the mixture and derived-from rules permanent.
- The American Chemistry Council (ACC) filed a petition for review of the Final Rule (and the 1992 interim rule) in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate a rule that treats as "hazardous waste" any substance mixed with or derived from a listed hazardous waste, thereby subjecting such substances to stringent management standards, without requiring a specific showing that each mixture or derivative exhibits hazardous characteristics?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Ginsburg
Yes, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate the mixture and derived-from rules because the statute's definition of "hazardous waste" is broad and ambiguous, and the EPA's interpretation is a reasonable construction aligned with RCRA's "cradle-to-grave" regulatory purpose. Applying the two-step Chevron analysis, the court first determined that Congress did not directly speak to the precise question of whether mixtures and derivatives of hazardous waste are excluded from the statutory definition. The court found the statute to be ambiguous because the definition of "hazardous waste" is broad, including wastes that "may" cause harm or pose a "potential hazard" if improperly managed, thereby importing an element of judgment. Furthermore, Section 6921(a), which requires the EPA to consider various factors for listing wastes, does not preclude the rule, as mixtures and derivatives can be reasonably presumed to maintain their hazardous character as "second generation" wastes until proven otherwise through the delisting process. Moving to Chevron step two, the court concluded that the EPA's interpretation was reasonable. The rule fulfills RCRA's purpose to provide "cradle-to-grave" regulation of hazardous waste and to protect public health and the environment by ensuring that hazardous mixtures and derivatives do not evade stringent management. It is reasonable for the EPA to assume such substances are hazardous until demonstrated otherwise, as this avoids placing an "almost impossible affirmative burden" on the agency to analyze every conceivable mixture or derivative upfront. The existence of exceptions within the rule and the delisting process provide avenues for regulated entities to demonstrate non-hazardousness. The court also rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding alternative regulatory approaches or the economic burden of the rule, noting that RCRA emphasizes caution and does not require a cost-benefit analysis. Therefore, the rule is a reasonable exercise of the EPA's statutory mandate to regulate hazardous waste comprehensively.
Analysis:
This case significantly reinforces the broad interpretive authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under foundational environmental statutes like RCRA, particularly when statutory language is ambiguous regarding complex environmental issues. By upholding the mixture and derived-from rules, the decision supports a preventative, "cradle-to-grave" approach to hazardous waste management, effectively expanding the regulatory net to cover substances evolved from initially listed hazardous wastes. It demonstrates the judiciary's deference to agency expertise (Chevron deference) in implementing protective environmental regulations, even in the face of arguments about administrative burden or economic cost to industry, provided the interpretation is reasonable and aligns with the statute's overarching purpose.
