Opinion ID: 184539
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Conditional Exemption for Transportation and Storage

Text: 56 The Military Munitions Rule exempts from regulation pursuant to Subtitle C non-chemical military munitions in transport or storage if they are managed in accordance with applicable regulations of the Departments of Defense and of Transportation. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 266.203 & 266.205. The MTP argues that this so-called conditional exemption is not authorized by RCRA § 3001(a), is prohibited by § 3004(y), and is arbitrary and capricious because the DOD transportation and storage regulations are not as protective as the Subtitle C regulatory scheme.
57 Section 3004(y)(1) of the RCRA provides that 58 the Administrator shall propose ... regulations identifying when military munitions become hazardous waste for purposes of this subchapter and providing for the safe transportation and storage of such waste. 59 42 U.S.C. § 6924(y)(1). In the MTP's view conditional exemption of munitions transported or stored pursuant to DOD and DOT regulations is inconsistent with the EPA's obligation to propose ... regulations as the statute commands. 60 The flaw in the MTP's argument is that it assumes that material that has the benefit of the conditional exemption is hazardous waste for purposes of this subchapter [i.e., Subtitle C]. The effect of the conditional exemption, however, is to remove the exempted munitions from coverage under Subtitle C and therefore from the range of wastes for which the EPA must promulgate regulations governing transportation and storage. Put another way, the statute requires that the EPA undertake a two-step [331 U.S.App.D.C. 17] process: first, identify the conditions under which military munitions become hazardous waste; second, promulgate regulations to ensure the safe transportation and storage of that hazardous waste. The MTP mistakenly ignores the first step. Because the EPA has conditionally exempted certain munitions waste from classification as hazardous waste at the first step, the obligation to promulgate regulations governing the transportation and storage of that waste never arises at the second step. The MTP thus accuses the EPA of failing to fulfill an obligation that simply is not there--assuming, that is, the agency has the authority conditionally to exempt the munitions from classification as hazardous waste. 61 The EPA claims authority to issue a conditional exemption in part from § 3001(a), which requires the Administrator to promulgate criteria for identifying and listing wastes that should be subject to the requirements of [Subtitle C]. 42 U.S.C. § 6921(a). As the Congress has not spoken directly to the issue of conditional exemptions, we must uphold the EPA's interpretation of the RCRA so long as that interpretation is reasonable in light of the structure and purpose of the statute. 62 The EPA reads the word should in § 3001(a) as calling for an exercise of judgment and hence conferring discretion upon the Administrator to determine when Subtitle C regulation is appropriate. 62 Fed.Reg. at 6636. The next three sections of the RCRA direct the EPA to issue regulations governing the management of hazardous waste as necessary to protect human health and the environment. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6922(a), 6923(a), 6924(a). Putting the four sections together, the agency reasons that the decision whether a waste should be regulated under Subtitle C turns upon its assessment of whether such regulation is necessary to protect human health and the environment. See 62 Fed.Reg. at 6636. Because a hazardous waste is by definition a solid waste that poses a substantial threat to human health and the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(5), the EPA concludes that where a waste might pose a hazard only under limited management scenarios, and other regulatory programs already address such scenarios, EPA is not required to classify a waste as hazardous waste subject to regulation under Subtitle C. 62 Fed.Reg. at 6636. 63 We accept the EPA's reading as a permissible construction of the statute. We have previously acknowledged that the Congress' broad delegation to EPA to develop criteria for listing hazardous wastes, 42 U.S.C. § 6921(b), indicates that Congress intended the agency to have substantial room to exercise its expertise in determining the appropriate grounds for listing. NRDC v. EPA, 25 F.3d at 1070. In that same case we upheld the EPA's decision not to list used oil as a hazardous waste based upon its finding that the existing network of federal regulations ensured proper disposal. Id. at 1071. Although the present case does not involve the listing regulations at issue in NRDC v. EPA, we think the principle at work there also supports the conditional exemption at issue here. And as noted above, we find nothing in § 3004(y) that would restrict the ability of the EPA to grant conditional exemptions for military munitions.
64 The MTP attacks the conditional exemption for transportation and storage on the ground that it arbitrarily exempts the military from certain restrictions that appear in Subtitle C but not in the corresponding DOD regulations. For instance, Subtitle C relies upon the issuance of permits as a vehicle for regulating the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, see 42 C.F.R. § 6925(a), and the permitting process provides, among other things, for participation by the public (id. § 6974(b)(2)(A)) and facility-wide cleanup of contamination (id. § 6924(u)). The MTP object[s] to EPA's decision not to incorporate [the DOD's storage and transportation] standards into a regulation that would also implement the additional RCRA requirements not included in the DOD regulations. 65 As the intervenors correctly observe, the MTP's argument is essentially the same as the argument we rejected in NRDC v. EPA, [331 U.S.App.D.C. 18] 25 F.3d at 1071-72, where we considered the EPA's specification of the factors it would consider in deciding whether to list a waste as hazardous. Noting that one such factor is [a]ction taken by other governmental agencies or regulatory programs to control any hazard posed by the substance, 40 C.F.R. § 261.11(a)(3)(x), we said: 66 To accept petitioners' proposition that EPA may not rationally rely on other federal regulatory programs because none are as comprehensive as subtitle C would be to drain this factor of all content: EPA could never rely on other environmental regulations to control a potentially hazardous substance because no other environmental regulation can match the might of subtitle C. 67 Id. at 1072. Insofar as the present petitioner seeks categorically to prevent the EPA from taking account of other regulatory programs in evaluating the need for it to act, we again reject that position. 68 Comparing the DOD regulations at issue here with regulation under Subtitle C, the EPA does not deny that there are gaps in certain procedural requirements and in areas unrelated to risks from explosive materials. 62 Fed.Reg. at 6637. Significantly, however, the MTP disavows any challenge to the technical soundness of the DOD regulations; indeed, the MTP concedes that those regulations impose reasonably protective standards upon the transportation and storage of military munitions. Accordingly, we have no reason to doubt the EPA's determination that any gaps in the DOD regulations do not undermine the protection of human health and the environment in any significant way, and that the imposition of the full panoply of Subtitle C regulation would not significantly increase protection. Id. 69 We also reject as simply mistaken the MTP's argument that the conditional exemption impermissibly allows the military to regulate itself because the party responsible for the storage or transportation of the waste must report noncompliance with DOD regulations only insofar as it determines that the noncompliance may endanger health or the environment. The EPA interprets the Military Munitions Rule as requiring notice of all instances of noncompliance, not only those that in the judgment of the transporting or storing military authority may endanger health or the environment. That interpretation is fully supported by the text of the relevant regulations, which call for reporting any failure to meet a condition for exemption. 40 C.F.R. §§ 266.203(a)(1)(iv) & 266.205(a)(1)(v). 70 The MTP makes still other objections to the conditional exemption, but none warrants treatment in a published opinion. We uphold the conditional exemption as a permissible construction of the RCRA and a rational--not an arbitrary and capricious--policy choice.