Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1992 · Administrative Law

Administrative LawRCRAEPAhazardous wasteland disposal bancharacteristic wastestreatment standardsdeactivation

Facts

The 1984 RCRA amendments banned land disposal of hazardous wastes unless EPA established treatment standards that substantially diminish toxicity or reduce migration of hazardous constituents so that threats to health and the environment are minimized. In the 'third-third' rule, EPA set treatment standards for many characteristic wastes, sometimes requiring treatment below the level at which the waste exhibited a hazardous characteristic and sometimes allowing 'deactivation,' including dilution, to remove ignitability, corrosivity, or reactivity. EPA also adopted rules allowing certain dilution in Clean Water Act treatment systems and deep injection wells, imposed corroborative and grab-sampling testing requirements, set treatment standards for chromium and lead wastes, and exempted certain wastes burned in Bevill units. Industry petitioners, NRDC-related petitioners, the Fertilizer Institute, and Chemical Waste Management challenged different parts of the rule.

Issue

Whether RCRA authorizes EPA to require treatment of characteristic wastes beyond the point at which they cease to display a hazardous characteristic, and whether EPA may allow dilution as treatment or as an accommodation with CWA and SDWA systems consistent with RCRA's treatment standards. The court also considered whether certain testing rules, specific chromium and lead standards, and the Bevill-unit exemption were lawful and adequately supported.

Rule

Under RCRA §§ 3004(g)(5) and (m), EPA may regulate hazardous waste from the point it is identified as hazardous and may require treatment beyond mere removal of the hazardous characteristic when necessary to minimize threats to human health and the environment. Dilution may qualify as treatment only if it removes the hazardous characteristic and, where hazardous constituents are present, also minimizes the toxicity or migration risks of those constituents as required by § 3004(m)(1). Accommodation with CWA or SDWA systems is permissible only so long as it does not compromise RCRA's substantive treatment requirements; absent full treatment, land disposal requires a site-specific no-migration showing.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Prairie Solvents LLC in Tulsa generates a wastewater that is hazardous because of corrosivity and also contains dissolved metal constituents at levels that remain dangerous even after the pH is adjusted. EPA issues a rule requiring treatment that both neutralizes the pH and reduces the remaining metal constituents before the waste may be land disposed.

If Prairie Solvents argues EPA loses authority once the waste no longer exhibits corrosivity, how should a court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that RCRA §§ 3004(g)(5) and (m) allow EPA to regulate from the point the waste is identified as hazardous, not only if it remains hazardous at the instant of disposal. Treatment may be required beyond removal of the characteristic where hazardous constituents still pose threats. Thus EPA may require neutralization plus further reduction of dangerous constituents.