City Of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund

511 U.S. 328 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

RCRA empowers EPA to regulate hazardous wastes from cradle to grave. Under Subtitle C, EPA has promulgated standards governing hazardous waste generators and transporters and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF's). RCRA does not identify which wastes are hazardous and therefore subject to Subtitle C regulation; it leaves that designation to EPA. When designations for solid wastes appeared in 1980, they contained certain exceptions for 'household waste,' defined as 'any waste material . . . derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels).' An incinerator that burned only household waste would not be considered a Subtitle C TSDF, since it processed only nonhazardous waste, and it would not be considered a Subtitle C generator of hazardous waste and would be free to dispose of its ash in a Subtitle D landfill. This is called the 'waste stream' exemption for household waste. If the incinerator that produced the ash burned anything in addition to household waste, such as what Ds' facility burns, it would qualify as a Subtitle C hazardous waste generator if the MWC ash it produced was, sufficiently toxic. Even so ash can be hazardous, even though the product from which it is generated is not, because in the new medium the contaminants are more concentrated and more readily leachable. In 1984, Congress amended the RCRA. Under the new amendment so long as a facility recovers energy by incineration of the appropriate wastes, it (the facility) is not subject to Subtitle C regulation as a facility that treats, stores, disposes of, or manages hazardous waste. The amendment does not contain any exclusion for the ash itself. D has owned and operated a municipal incinerator that burns solid waste and recovers energy, leaving a residue of municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash. D has disposed of the combustion residue -- 110,000 to 140,000 tons of MWC ash per year -- at landfills that are not licensed to accept hazardous wastes. Ps filed a complaint against D under the citizen suit provisions of RCRA. Ps contend that the ash generated by the facility was toxic enough to qualify as a 'hazardous waste' under the EPA's regulations. Ds contend that it exempts the ash by virtue of exempting the facility. The district court found for Ds and dismissed the suit on summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.