Opinion ID: 628244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Congressional Mandate

Text: Finally, the petitioners contend that EPA's decision to adopt a more aggressive leaching procedure is inconsistent with the Agency's congressional mandate. The petitioners rely primarily upon the legislative history of Sec. 3001(g) of RCRA, which directs the Agency to make such changes in the leaching procedure as are necessary to insure that it accurately predicts the leaching potential of wastes.... 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6921(g). They note that the original Senate version of this provision required EPA to develop more aggressive leaching procedures but the Congress deleted this phrase in the final version of the bill. From this sequence the petitioners urge us to infer that the Congress considered and rejected the Senate's mandate for a more stringent test, so that EPA's adoption of a more sensitive test was contrary to Congressional intent. Assuming that the statute in this case is sufficiently ambiguous in the first place to justify recourse to legislative history, we need only note that the deletion of a word or phrase in the throes of the legislative process does not ordinarily constitute, without more, evidence of a specific legislative intent. See American Trucking Assn. v. USA, 344 U.S. 298, 309-10, 73 S.Ct. 307, 314, 97 L.Ed. 337 (1953); Cheney R.R. Co. v. ICC, 902 F.2d 66, 69 (D.C.Cir.1990). In this instance, moreover, the Conference Committee specifically noted that the revision of the Senate bill was not intended to alter the substance of the directive. H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1133, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 105-06, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5676-77. V. DEFERRED REGULATION OF UST WASTE Petitioner Natural Resources Defense Council challenges EPA's decision to defer application of the Toxicity Characteristic (promulgated under Subchapter C of RCRA) to certain petroleum-contaminated waste that originates in underground storage tanks (USTs). The NRDC contends that EPA's decision to defer Subchapter C regulation of UST waste violates the clear mandate of that Subchapter, which contemplates regulation of all hazardous wastes and makes no express provision for deferrals, however temporary. EPA deferred regulation of UST waste under Subchapter C on the ground that such waste is already regulated under Subchapter I of RCRA, and concurrent imposition of Subchapter C requirements could, if the two regulatory regimes are not carefully coordinated, seriously interfere with ongoing hazardous waste monitoring, treatment, and cleanup. Upon considering the alternative requirements of the two regimes, we conclude that EPA's approach is a permissible construction of the statute, which must be upheld under Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. at 2781. (Needless to say, the Congress did not evince in RCRA any specific intent concerning the way in which EPA is to harmonize the concurrent application of Subchapters C and I as applied to UST waste.) Initially, EPA contends that the plain language of RCRA causes Subchapter C and Subchapter I to overlap in the regulation of petroleum waste such as UST waste. Section 6991(2) of 42 U.S.C. defines a regulated substance under Subchapter I as (A) any substance defined in section 9601(14) of this title (but not including any substance regulated as a hazardous waste under Subchapter [C] of this chapter), and (B) petroleum. (Section 9601(14) in turn lists those substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(14), and expressly excludes petroleum.) Subsection 6991(2)(A) operates in such a way that, apart from petroleum, there can be no overlap in the substances regulated under Subchapters C and I: once a substance is defined as a hazardous waste it drops out from under Subchapter I regulation and into the domain of Subchapter C. A problem arises, however--unless EPA's temporary deferral is lawful--because Subchapter C operates to define petroleum as a hazardous waste, and the kickout provision of Sec. 6991(2)(A) does not apply to petroleum. Therefore, petroleum remains under Subchapter I regulation even if it is also found to be a hazardous waste subject to Subchapter C. EPA contends further that temporary deferral of Subchapter C regulation of petroleum is necessary in order to integrate the provisions of Subchapters C and I, and that it is therefore authorized by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6905(b)(1), which provides that EPA shall integrate all provisions of [RCRA] for purposes of administration and enforcement and shall avoid duplication, to the maximum extent practicable, with the appropriate provisions of ... such other Acts of Congress as grant regulatory authority to the Administrator. According to EPA, subjecting UST wastes immediately to Subchapter C as well as to Subchapter I could (1) overwhelm the hazardous waste permitting program and the capacity of existing hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, and (2) delay cleanups significantly and severely discourage ... self monitoring and voluntary reporting. 55 Fed.Reg. 11,836 (1990). The NRDC responds that Subchapter C and Subchapter I need not overlap at all in the present case, reasoning as follows: Subchapter I regulates petroleum only so long as it is in a UST (or otherwise in an easily retrievable liquid form). Once petroleum migrates from a UST and contaminates surrounding soil, however, it ceases to be petroleum and becomes a hazardous waste subject to Subchapter C and exempt from Subchapter I under Sec. 6991(2)(A). Voila! There is no overlap between Subchapters C and I, and therefore neither need nor authority to defer regulation under Subchapter C. While the NRDC's suggested interpretation of the statute is surely plausible, indeed elegant, EPA's conclusion that Subchapters C and I do overlap must be upheld. The Congress did not clearly address the interaction of Subchapters C and I in the context of petroleum wastes, and EPA's interpretation is (like the NRDC's) a permissible construction of the statute. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. at 2781. First impressions aside, moreover, EPA's interpretation does not create a true conflict between the two Subchapters. Rather, they overlap with respect to petroleum wastes; hence the need for the Agency to coordinate regulation under the two regimes, and temporarily to defer the new layer of regulation while it sorts out the details. Alternatively, the NRDC argues that EPA's integration strategy impermissibly overrides the requirements of Subchapter C, see Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2, 22 (D.C.Cir.1992) (Agency may not accommodate two statutes by overriding the requirements of one), and that the Agency may not exempt a hazardous waste from regulation under that Subchapter without express legislative authorization. See Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1309, 1315 (D.C.Cir.1988) (Subtitle C regulation of wastes found hazardous is mandatory). The NRDC's point would have more force behind it had EPA purported permanently to exempt UST waste from Subchapter C regulation. The Agency's merely temporary deferral of such regulation hardly seems to override the requirements of that provision. Indeed, the temporary deferral is justified precisely and only because it is a waystation on the road to a permanent accommodation of the two Subchapters. The Agency's deferral decision is permissible under Chevron, therefore: the Congress nowhere specifically proscribed deferring application of Subchapter C to UST waste, and substantial administrative difficulties would arise if the Agency could not do so. See generally Pennsylvania v. Lynn, 501 F.2d 848 (D.C.Cir.1974) (agency may suspend programs temporarily in order to determine whether, as appeared, they produced results contrary to Congress's purpose). Furthermore, even during the deferral period Subchapter I assures that the petroleum wastes at issue will be regulated in a manner necessary to protect human health and the environment, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6991b(a)--the same general standard animating Subchapter C. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6922. In particular, Subchapter I requires EPA to collect detailed data on USTs, see 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6991a, and to implement standards for UST leak detection systems, leak reporting, and corrective actions including tank shutdowns and the relocation of threatened populations. See 42 U.S.C. Secs. 6991b(c), 6991b(h)(5). Pursuant to these provisions, EPA has promulgated extensive regulations governing the identification and cleanup of soil and groundwater contaminated by UST waste. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 280.60-67. The continuing applicability of these Subchapter I regulations supports EPA's claim that it is reasonable and proper for it temporarily to defer Subchapter C regulation.