Opinion ID: 2804923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act’s

Text: Regulation of Solid Waste EPA also administers RCRA, which establishes regulatory standards for “solid waste.” Under RCRA, generators of solid waste must determine whether that waste is hazardous, and then treat hazardous solid waste according to various regulatory requirements. The Act defines “solid waste,” in relevant part, as follows: 7 The term “solid waste” means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) (emphasis added). Importantly, this definition makes clear that statutory “solid waste” is not limited only to waste that is solid. Rather, it includes “other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations.” See id. Some waste that is not in a solid state – for example, liquid waste – can thus be considered “solid waste” within the meaning of the statute if it is “discarded material” and otherwise within the definition in the statute. As noted above, generators of solid waste “must determine if that waste is a hazardous waste.” 40 C.F.R. § 262.11. The statute defines “hazardous waste” as follows: The term “hazardous waste” means a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may – (A) cause, or significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or incapacitating reversible, illness; or (B) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed. 8 42 U.S.C. § 6903(5). The Act then creates a “‘cradle-tograve’ regulatory structure overseeing the safe treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste.” United Techs. Corp. v. EPA, 821 F.2d 714, 716 (D.C. Cir. 1987). EPA has construed RCRA to allow it to conditionally exclude regulated parties from the potentially costly requirement of determining whether solid waste is hazardous. See Military Toxics Project v. EPA, 146 F.3d 948, 958 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (upholding the authority to grant conditional exclusions). Whether a waste should be exempted from hazardous waste regulation “turns upon [EPA’s] assessment of whether such regulation is necessary to protect human health and the environment.” Id.; see 42 U.S.C. § 6922(a) (directing EPA to issue regulations governing the management of hazardous waste “as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment”). C. Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide and the “Class VI” Well Carbon capture and storage is an emerging climate change mitigation program that involves capturing carbon dioxide from industrial sources, compressing it into a “supercritical fluid,” and injecting that fluid underground for the purposes of geologic sequestration, with the goal of preventing the carbon from reentering the atmosphere. Because the last of these steps – geologic sequestration of the supercritical carbon dioxide – involves the injection of fluid into underground wells, it is subject to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As carbon capture and storage technologies developed, EPA concluded that, in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, it should create a new “class” of underground 9 injection well specifically to govern injection of carbon dioxide for geologic sequestration. After notice and comment, EPA promulgated a rule creating the “Class VI” well. See 75 Fed. Reg. at 77,230. The Class VI well exists strictly “for underground injection of carbon dioxide (CO2) for the purpose of geologic sequestration.” Id. While the Class VI well is meant to receive carbon dioxide streams for geologic sequestration, EPA clarified in the rule that the wells could not receive “any carbon dioxide stream that meets the definition of a hazardous waste under” RCRA and its associated regulations. Id. at 77,231. A number of commenters expressed concerns about this exclusion of hazardous waste from Class VI wells because it suggested that some supercritical carbon dioxide streams were solid waste regulated by RCRA. Although EPA had never addressed this issue, these commenters feared that if EPA found RCRA applicable to these carbon dioxide streams this would require regulated parties to make costly pre-injection determinations as to whether their streams were hazardous. Although the commenters raised their concerns during the course of the Class VI rulemaking proceedings, EPA stated that the Class VI rule “does not itself change applicable RCRA regulations.” Id. at 77,260. The agency thus made clear that the Class VI rule did not provide an answer to the question whether geologically sequestered carbon dioxide streams are either solid or hazardous waste. D. EPA’s Rulemaking to Determine RCRA’s Applicability to Geologically Sequestered Carbon Dioxide Streams In 2010, EPA initiated a rulemaking to determine whether RCRA applies to carbon dioxide streams being 10 geologically sequestered in a Class VI well. See Hazardous Waste Management System: Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Streams in Geologic Sequestration Activities, 76 Fed. Reg. 48,073 (Aug. 8, 2011) (proposed rule). In the course of this rulemaking, EPA made two principal determinations. First, EPA concluded that a “supercritical [carbon dioxide] stream injected into a permitted . . . Class VI well for purposes of [geologic sequestration] is a RCRA solid waste.” 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,077–78; see also 79 Fed. Reg. at 355. The relevant part of RCRA’s “solid waste” definition reads: The term “solid waste” means any garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations . . . . 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) (emphasis added). Several commenters had argued that supercritical carbon dioxide streams injected into Class VI wells for purposes of geologic sequestration could not be solid waste because, as “supercritical fluids” that are neither liquids nor gases but have properties of both, they are not among the “solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous” physical states mentioned in the definition. See 79 Fed. Reg. at 354–55. These commenters also argued that the carbon dioxide streams were not “discarded” when they were injected for the purpose of geologic sequestration in a Class VI well, because the carbon dioxide streams could be extracted again and used productively in drilling and other operations. Id. 11 EPA rejected these arguments, interpreting the statute to include these supercritical fluid streams. It stated that while “supercritical fluids” were not expressly mentioned in the statutory list defining “solid waste,” the list was illustrative, not exhaustive, and supercritical fluids were similar to the physical states expressly included. See id. Furthermore, EPA found that carbon dioxide streams injected into Class VI wells for the purpose of long-term geologic sequestration were “discarded” at the moment they were injected, even if they could, theoretically, be extracted again for other uses. Id. As a result, these streams, when injected into Class VI wells for the purpose of geologic sequestration, were solid waste and subject to regulation under RCRA. Second, EPA concluded that although it “believes that the RCRA hazardous waste regulations can apply to [carbon dioxide] streams being geologically sequestered” because these streams are solid waste, 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,077, it would nevertheless grant a conditional exclusion from the definition of “hazardous waste” for such supercritical carbon dioxide streams when the generators and injectors of those streams abided by certain requirements. 79 Fed. Reg. at 355–57. EPA concluded that RCRA regulations were unnecessary because existing pipeline safety regulations promulgated by the Department of Transportation, in conjunction with the safety requirements already in place in the Class VI regulations, were sufficient to achieve RCRA’s goals. 76 Fed. Reg. at 48,081. Under EPA’s conditional exclusion, generators and well owners and operators could consider their carbon dioxide streams excluded from the hazardous waste definition, and could avoid testing their solid waste streams for hazardous properties, if they: (1) abided by the relevant Department of Transportation pipeline regulations, (2) abided by the Class VI injection regulations, (3) did not mix other hazardous wastes with their carbon dioxide streams, and (4) certified to 12 the above conditions. 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(h). Thus, excluded streams could be injected into Class VI wells without running afoul of the Class VI regulation’s ban on the injection of RCRA hazardous waste. Petitioners do not contest the portion of EPA’s rule that creates a conditional exclusion from the hazardous waste definition. Instead, Petitioners challenge only EPA’s determination that supercritical carbon dioxide streams injected into Class VI wells are “solid waste” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27). Before this court, Petitioners submit two declarations to demonstrate their standing to pursue their petitions for review. The first of these declarations is from petitioner Southern Company Services, Inc., which is part of a corporate family that includes several electricity generating power plants. Southern is also a member of petitioner Carbon Sequestration Council, which claims representational standing on behalf of Southern. Southern’s corporate family tests carbon capture technology, participates in geologic sequestration experiments in “Class V” experimental wells, and also captures carbon for use in enhanced oil recovery and other commercial purposes. The second declaration is from Occidental Oil and Gas. Occidental is a member of petitioner American Petroleum Institute, which claims representational standing on behalf of Occidental. Occidental is an oil exploration company that injects carbon dioxide into underground wells as part of its drilling operations. The record is clear that neither Occidental nor Southern operates or plans to operate Class VI wells and neither is regulated in any way by the narrow rule at issue in this case. Since neither can show any injury attributable to EPA’s disputed rule, they lack the standing necessary to satisfy the 13 requirements of Article III. Carbon Sequestration Council lacks standing because Southern lacks standing. Likewise, American Petroleum lacks standing because Occidental lacks standing.