Opinion ID: 509500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Legislative History of the Bevill Amendment

Text: 72 The legislative history of the Bevill Amendment establishes that the key to understanding Congress's intent is the concept of special waste articulated in the regulations proposed by EPA on December 18, 1978 following the enactment of RCRA. 43 Fed.Reg. 58,991-92 (1978); 50 Fed.Reg. 40,293-94 (1985). In the preamble to those regulations, EPA explained that it intended to treat certain special wastes differently because they were generated in very large volumes, were thought to pose a relatively low hazard, and were not necessarily amenable to the management standards proposed for hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. These special wastes included cement kiln dust, utility waste (fly ash, bottom ash, and scrubber sludge), phosphate mining and processing waste, uranium and other mining waste, and gas and oil drilling muds and oil production brines. 43 Fed.Reg. 58,991 (1978). 73 The Bevill Amendment was a distinct, self-contained amendment to the RCRA statute. It was proposed on the House floor by Congressman Bevill and was adopted after a detailed explanation of its purpose and scope by Congressman Bevill and other supporters. The Conference Committee Report accompanying the 1980 amendments to RCRA adopted the Bevill Amendment with only a minor modification pertaining to uranium overburden. The Conference Report states clearly that the Bevill Amendment suspends regulation under Subtitle C of utility wastes as well as all other wastes ... in a category designated as 'special wastes' in regulations proposed by the Agency under Subtitle C on December 18, 1978. H.R.Conf.Rep. No. 1444, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 32 (1980), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1980, 5019, 5031-5032. 74 Congressman Bevill explained the purpose of his amendment on the House floor: 75 [I]t would require EPA to defer imposition of regulatory requirements on the disposal of the waste by-product of fossil fuel combustion, of discarded mining materials and of cement kiln dust waste until after EPA has completed studies to determine whether, if at all, these materials present any hazard to human health or the environment. 76 26 Cong.Rec. 3361 (1980). He then referred specifically to EPA's 1978 proposed regulations on special wastes to which his amendment was a response: 77 EPA has itself recognized that it has very little information on the composition, characteristics, and degree of hazard posed by these wastes. In its announcement, printed in the Federal Register of December 18, 1978, EPA announced it did not have data on the effectiveness of current or potential waste management technologies or the technical or economic practicability of imposing its proposed regulations. In that same announcement EPA also stated that it believed that any potential hazards presented by the materials are relatively low. 78 Id. Congressman Bevill then stated that his amendment would require EPA to promptly undertake studies to fill these gaps in the agency's knowledge, and to determine whether there is any health or environmental problem from the disposal of these coal by-product wastes and other materials listed [in] the amendment. Id. 79 The discussion of the Bevill Amendment on the House floor indicates that the amendment was viewed as a direct response to EPA's 1978 proposed regulations and was designed to suspend the Agency's regulation of special wastes pending further study. Rep. Santini, a supporter of the Bevill Amendment, stated that the amendment would defer regulation of 'special waste' until after EPA studies the need to do so. Id. at 3348. Rep. Staggers, another Bevill Amendment supporter, referred directly to EPA's proposed regulations of December 18, 1978 and stressed that EPA lacked sufficient information to regulate special wastes. Id. at 3349, 3365. Rep. Staggers supported the Bevill Amendment as a suspension of EPA's regulation of special wastes under Subtitle C until EPA studied the need for such regulation: 80 The amendment provides EPA with sufficient authority to obtain all information necessary to address the possible need for regulation of special wastes. 81 Id. at 3365. See also id. at 3363 (remarks of Rep. Findley). 82 During discussion of the mining waste exclusion on the House floor, Rep. Williams of Montana stated that: This amendment would direct the Environmental Protection Agency to evaluate certain high volume, low toxicity wastes so as to assure a reasoned set of regulations by which to manage these wastes. Id. at 3364. He also discussed the inert slag wastes generated by the smelting of copper, and he went on to say that such wastes would not be regulated until a thorough study established the need for regulation. Id. 83 In light of these indications of Congressional intent, it is clear that Congress did not intend the mining waste exclusion to encompass all wastes from primary smelting and refining. On the contrary, Congress intended the term processing in the Bevill Amendment to include only those wastes from processing ores or minerals that meet the special waste criteria, that is, high volume, low hazard wastes. 84 EPA took note of this legislative history when it proposed its reinterpretation of the Bevill Amendment in 1985. Moreover, the Agency never repudiated its 1985 understanding of Congressional intent when it withdrew its proposed reinterpretation in 1986. Indeed, in 1986, the Agency reiterated that its review of the legislative history of the Bevill exclusion indicated that the exclusion was intended to cover the category of wastes designated as 'special wastes,' including 'solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ore [and] minerals,' in EPA's 1978 proposed hazardous waste regulations ... 51 Fed.Reg. 36,234 (1986). At the same time, EPA effectively reaffirmed its 1980 interpretation of the Bevill exclusion, which the Agency characterized as a permissible, though by no means the sole permissible, interpretation. Id. at 36,235. Based on our review of the Bevill Amendment's language and structure and legislative history, we cannot agree with this characterization. On the contrary, it is clear that Congress intended the Bevill exclusion to encapsulate the special waste concept articulated by the EPA in 1978. 3 Congress's clear intention is the law and must be given effect. Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843 n. 9, 104 S.Ct. at 2781 n. 9. 85