Lexplug logoLexplug

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
976 F.2d 2, 298 U.S. App. D.C. 54, 23 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20024 (1992)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) grants the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to require treatment of hazardous wastes to reduce risks beyond those presented by the waste's defining characteristics. Accordingly, a treatment method like dilution is permissible only if it also minimizes threats to human health and the environment posed by any underlying hazardous constituents in the waste.


Facts:

  • In 1984, Congress amended the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to ban the land disposal of hazardous wastes unless they were treated to minimize threats to human health and the environment.
  • The amendments required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish treatment standards for these wastes.
  • A waste can be classified as hazardous either by being on a specific list or by exhibiting one of four characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity (characteristic wastes).
  • The EPA issued its final 'third-third' rule, which largely covered treatment standards for these characteristic wastes.
  • The rule required some characteristic wastes to be treated to levels beyond the point where they ceased to exhibit their hazardous characteristic.
  • For many other characteristic wastes, the rule permitted 'deactivation' as a treatment method, which allowed generators to simply dilute the waste to remove the hazardous characteristic.
  • The rule also allowed for the dilution of characteristic wastes in treatment systems regulated under the Clean Water Act and before disposal in deep injection wells regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the 'third-third' rule, establishing final treatment standards for the land disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
  • Various industry trade associations ('industry petitioners') filed petitions for review, challenging the EPA's authority to require treatment beyond characteristic levels.
  • Several environmental organizations ('NRDC petitioners') filed petitions for review, challenging the rule's allowance of dilution as a treatment method.
  • Fourteen separate petitions for review from industry, environmental groups, and waste management companies were consolidated into a single proceeding before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Locked

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) grant the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) authority to require treatment of hazardous wastes to levels beyond the point at which they no longer exhibit a hazardous characteristic?


Opinions:

Majority - Per Curiam

Yes, RCRA grants the EPA the authority to require treatment beyond the removal of a hazardous characteristic. The court upheld the EPA's authority, reasoning that sections 3004(g)(5) and (m) of RCRA direct the agency to promulgate treatment standards that 'minimize' short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment. This broad mandate is not limited to simply removing the characteristic that caused the waste to be deemed hazardous; it extends to reducing risks posed by any underlying hazardous constituents. The court determined that RCRA's regulatory scheme attaches to a waste at the point it is generated as hazardous, and the EPA retains authority to regulate it until it ceases to pose a hazard to the public, not just until it is 'de-characterized.' However, the court also held that the EPA's 'deactivation' standard, which permitted dilution as a treatment method, was only valid if it met this same statutory command to minimize all threats. While dilution can in principle be a form of treatment, it is only permissible under § 3004(m) if it both removes the characteristic and reduces the presence of any other hazardous constituents that pose a threat. The court found that the EPA failed to demonstrate that dilution would meet this standard for certain ignitable and reactive wastes, as toxic constituents and other dangers could remain. Therefore, the court vacated the deactivation standard as it applied to those wastes and remanded for the EPA to provide a more protective standard.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the scope of the EPA's authority under RCRA's land disposal program, affirming the agency's power to regulate beyond mere 'de-characterization' of hazardous waste. It establishes the critical precedent that 'treatment' must address the underlying toxicity of a waste, not just its superficial classification. The ruling effectively closed a potential loophole where dilution could be used to circumvent substantive treatment, forcing a focus on technologies that actually destroy or sequester hazardous constituents. This holding has had a lasting impact, reinforcing a protective, substance-over-form approach to hazardous waste regulation and influencing how treatment standards are developed and applied to complex waste streams.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1992) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency