Opinion ID: 24837
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction of the Term Contribute

Text: 36 The RCRA does not define the term contribute or any variation thereof. This silence compels us to 'start with the assumption that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.' Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 21 (1983) (quoting Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 9 (1962)); see also Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 121 S. Ct. 513, 519 (2000) (stating that [b]ecause the [statute] does not define [a term] or otherwise suggest that the ordinary meaning of [the term] should not apply, [the Supreme Court accords] the term its well-established meaning); Asgrow Seed Co. v. Winterboer, 513 U.S. 179, 187 (1995); cf. Hallstrom v. Tillamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 31 (1989) (adopting plain language meaning for the RCRA notice requirement in § 6972(b)). 37 Webster's Dictionary defines contribute as to have a share in any act or effect. Webster's Third New International Dictionary 496 (unabridged) (1963); see also Oxford English Dictionary 849 (2d ed. 1989) (to have a part or share in producing [an effect]); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 410 (3d ed. 1992) (to help bring about a result). 22 38 Our sister circuits have drawn upon the plain meaning of the word contribute and on the legislative history as well to interpret the contributing to phrase under the analogous § 6973 provision. 23 See, e.g., Aceto, 872 F.2d at 1383 (The relevant legislative history supports a broad, rather than a narrow, construction of the phrase 'contributed to.'); United States v. Waste Indus., Inc., 734 F.2d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 1984) (Congress's intent, then, was to establish a standard of liability by incorporating and expanding upon the common law.). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit aptly summarized congressional intent regarding interpretations of phrases such as contributing to: 39 [Congress has mandated] that the former common law of nuisance, as applied to situations in which a risk of harm from solid or hazardous wastes exists, shall include new terms and concepts which shall be developed in a liberal, not a restrictive, manner. This ensures that problems that Congress could not have anticipated when passing the [RCRA] will be dealt with in a way minimizing the risk of harm to the environment and the public. 40 Waste Indus., 734 F.2d at 167. (citations omitted). 24 Therefore, we follow our sister circuits' lead and interpret contribute to mean have a part or share in producing an effect. 41