Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
276 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 869 F.2d 1526, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20641 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A regulation governing the future treatment of hazardous materials, such as leachate, is not impermissibly retroactive even if the hazardous designation of its source waste occurred after the waste's disposal. An agency's interpretation that environmental media contaminated by listed hazardous wastes are themselves subject to the same regulations is a reasonable application of its existing regulatory framework.
Facts:
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), defines and regulates hazardous waste.
- In 1980, the EPA established the "derived-from rule," which states that any waste, including leachate, generated from the treatment, storage, or disposal of a hazardous waste is also considered a hazardous waste.
- Leachate is a liquid created when rainwater or other liquids percolate through waste stored in a landfill, absorbing components of that waste.
- Following the 1984 Hazardous Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA, the EPA issued a final rule in 1988 establishing treatment standards for hazardous wastes before they could be disposed of on land.
- In the preamble to the 1988 rule, the EPA stated that leachate must be treated to the standards applicable to the underlying wastes, even if those wastes were not defined as hazardous at the time they were originally disposed.
- The EPA also stated in the 1988 preamble that environmental media, such as soil or groundwater, that become contaminated with a listed hazardous waste are themselves to be treated as that hazardous waste.
Procedural Posture:
- The EPA engaged in rulemaking under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and its 1984 amendments.
- The EPA published Notices of Proposed Rulemaking in April and May 1988, followed by a final rule on August 17, 1988.
- Numerous companies and industry associations (Petitioners) filed a petition for review of the final rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
- Petitioners filed a Motion for Emergency Stay Pending Review, which the court granted in part on August 18, 1988, staying enforcement of the rule as it applied to leachate.
- Prior to oral argument, the parties filed a joint motion to defer argument on certain issues due to ongoing settlement negotiations, which the court granted.
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 EPA's application of hazardous waste treatment standards to (1) leachate derived from waste that was disposed of before being officially listed as hazardous, and (2) environmental media contaminated by hazardous waste, constitute an improper retroactive regulation or an arbitrary and capricious action?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Wald
No. The EPA's application of treatment standards to leachate from previously disposed waste is not impermissibly retroactive, and its interpretation regarding contaminated media is not arbitrary and capricious. The leachate regulation is not retroactive because it governs only the prospective, future management of leachate collected after the rule's effective date; it does not impose new liability or penalties on the past, completed act of disposing the original waste. While the EPA's use of the word "retroactive" was inartful, the substance of its rule was a permissible forward-looking regulation. Regarding contaminated media, the court found the EPA's position to be a reasonable interpretation of its own 1980 regulations, particularly the principle that a hazardous waste remains hazardous until formally delisted. Given the highly technical nature of the issue and the deference owed to an agency's interpretation of its own rules, the EPA's consistent position that waste does not lose its hazardous character when mixed with soil or groundwater is a permissible construction of its regulatory framework.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts afford to administrative agencies in interpreting their own complex regulations, especially in technical fields like environmental law. It clarifies the critical legal distinction between an impermissibly retroactive law, which punishes a past, completed act, and a permissible prospective law that has future consequences based on past events. By upholding the EPA's rules, the court solidified the agency's broad authority under RCRA to regulate waste byproducts and contaminated materials, ensuring that hazardous substances are managed according to current standards regardless of when they were originally disposed.
