Harmon Industries, Inc. v. Carol M. Browner
191 F.3d 894 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may not initiate a separate enforcement action, a practice known as "overfiling," against a party for violations that are already the subject of a concluded enforcement action by a state agency operating an EPA-authorized program. Additionally, principles of res judicata bar such a duplicative federal action when the state and federal agencies are in privity.
Facts:
- From 1973 until November 1987, maintenance workers at a Harmon Industries, Inc. (Harmon) plant in Grain Valley, Missouri, routinely discarded volatile solvent residue behind the plant.
- In November 1987, Harmon's management discovered the practice, which they had been unaware of, and immediately ceased the disposal activities.
- Harmon voluntarily self-reported the violations to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the state's authorized environmental agency.
- The MDNR investigated and concluded that the past disposal practices did not pose a threat to human health or the environment.
- Harmon and the MDNR created and implemented a plan for Harmon to clean up the disposal area.
- On March 5, 1993, a Missouri state court approved a consent decree between the MDNR and Harmon, in which the MDNR acknowledged full satisfaction and released Harmon from any claim for monetary penalties, citing the company's prompt self-reporting and full cooperation.
Procedural Posture:
- While Harmon was cooperating with the MDNR, the EPA initiated a separate administrative enforcement action against Harmon, seeking $2,343,706 in penalties.
- Harmon litigated the EPA claim before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who imposed a civil fine of $586,716.
- A three-person Environmental Appeals Board panel affirmed the ALJ's monetary penalty, making it a final decision of the agency.
- Harmon filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, seeking judicial review of the EPA's final decision.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Harmon, reversing the EPA's decision on the grounds that it violated RCRA and was barred by res judicata.
- The EPA, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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) permit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate a separate enforcement action against a party for violations that are already the subject of a concluded enforcement action by an EPA-authorized state agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Hansen, Circuit Judge
No. The RCRA does not permit the EPA to bring a separate enforcement action against a party for violations already resolved by an authorized state agency. The statute's plain language indicates that an authorized state program operates "in lieu of" the federal program, and any action taken by the state has the "same force and effect" as an action taken by the EPA. This demonstrates a congressional intent for the authorized state program to supplant the federal program, including its enforcement mechanisms. The EPA's enforcement authority in an authorized state is secondary and may only be triggered if the state fails to act or if the EPA, after notice and an opportunity to cure, formally withdraws the state's authorization. The EPA cannot simply 'fill the perceived gaps' in a state's enforcement by initiating a second, duplicative action. Furthermore, the EPA's action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the state (MDNR) and the EPA are in privity; the RCRA statutory scheme establishes that the state is acting in place of the EPA, thus representing the same legal rights.
Analysis:
This decision significantly restricts the EPA's controversial practice of "overfiling" under the RCRA, thereby strengthening the enforcement primacy of states with federally-authorized environmental programs. It establishes that once an authorized state resolves an enforcement matter, that resolution is final and binding on the EPA, promoting legal certainty for regulated entities. The ruling underscores principles of cooperative federalism, requiring the EPA to respect the outcomes of state enforcement actions rather than second-guessing them, unless it formally withdraws the state's authority. This precedent forces the EPA to use its power to decertify inadequate state programs as its primary tool for ensuring stringent enforcement, rather than pursuing duplicative actions against individual violators.
