Document: 511 U.S. 328114 S.Ct. 1588128 L.Ed.2d 302 CITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Petitioners,v.ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND al. No. 92-1639. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Jan. 19, 1994. Decided May 2, Syllabus * Respondent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued petitioners, city Chicago and its Mayor, alleging that they were violating Resource Conservation Recovery Act 1976 (RCRA) implementing regulations Protection Agency (EPA) by using landfills not licensed to accept hazardous wastes as disposal sites for toxic municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash is left a residue when city's resource recovery incinerator burns household nonhazardous industrial produce energy. Although it was uncontested that, with respect ash, petitioners had adhered any RCRA Subtitle C requirements addressing wastes, District granted them summary judgment on ground § 3001(i) Solid Waste Disposal Act, provision within RCRA, excluded from those requirements. The Appeals disagreed reversed, but, while certiorari pending in this Court, EPA issued memorandum directing personnel, accordance agency's view 3001(i), treat MWC exempt regulation. On remand following Court's vacation judgment, reinstated previous opinion, holding because statute's plain language dispositive, did affect analysis. Held: Section does generated petitioners' facility regulation waste. pre-§ provided "waste stream" exemption covering generation through treatment final residues, would have come burned something addition waste; been considered generator, but (more stringently regulated) treatment, storage, facility, since all took nonhazardous. cannot be interpreted extending pre-existing waste-stream product combined household/nonhazardous-industrial such petitioners'. section entitled "Clarification exclusion," language—"A . shall deemed treating, storing, disposing of, or otherwise managing purposes [Subtitle C] if receives only [nonhazardous industrial] ."—establishes limited itself, generates. statutory text's prominent omission reference generation, single thereto legislative history, authoritative expression law. enacted text requires rejection Government's plea deference EPA's interpretation, which goes beyond scope whatever ambiguity contains. Pp. ____. 985 F.2d 303 (CA7 1993), affirmed. SCALIA, J., delivered opinion REHNQUIST, C.J., BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, filed dissenting O'CONNOR, Lawrence Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, petitioners. Jeffrey P. Minear, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, special leave Court. Richard J. Lazarus, St. Louis, MO, respondents. Justice SCALIA 1 We are called upon decide whether, pursuant (Resource (RCRA)), added, 98 Stat. 3252, 42 U.S.C. 6921(i), facility's incineration solid under RCRA. 2 Since 1971, petitioner has owned operated incinerator, Northwest Waste-to-Energy Facility, recovers energy, leaving ash. approximately 350,000 tons each year produces energy both used sold other entities. disposed 110,000 140,000 per year—at wastes. 3 In 1988 respondent complaint against citizen suit provisions 6972, (EPA). alleged enough qualify "hazardous waste" regulations, 40 CFR pt. 261 (1993). It C, portion Petitioners contended agreed contention, see Fund, Inc. v. 727 F.Supp. 419, 424 (1989), subsequently motion judgment. 4 concluding "ash incinerators facilities subject RCRA." 948 345, 352 1991). petitioned writ certiorari, we invited Solicitor General present views States. 504 ----, 112 1932, 118 539 (1992). September 18, 1992, invitation outstanding, Administrator Regional Administrators, them, Thereafter, petition, vacated decision, remanded case Seventh Circuit further consideration light memorandum. 506 113 486, 121 426 5 remand, 303, 304 1993). petition granted. 509 2992, 125 687 II 6 comprehensive environmental statute empowers regulate cradle grave, rigorous safeguards management procedures §§ 6921-6934. (Nonhazardous regulated much more loosely D, 6941-6949.) Under relevant promulgated standards governing generators transporters, 6922 6923, owners operators (TSDF's), 6924. Pursuant 6922, directed comply handling, record-keeping, monitoring requirements, 262 TSDF's, however, stringent than either including 4-to-5 permitting process, 6925; 270 (1993); Office Emergency Response, Nation's Hazardous Management Program at Crossroads, Implementation Study 49-50 (July 1990), burdensome financial assurance design location standards, and, perhaps most onerous all, responsibility take corrective action releases substances ensure safe closure 6924; 264 "[The] requirement one major reasons transporters work diligently manage their so avoid need obtain interim status TSD permit." Law Practice Guide 29.06[3][d] (M. Gerrard ed. 1993) (hereinafter Guide). 7 identify therefore regulation; leaves designation EPA. 6921(a). When hazardous-waste designations appeared 1980, 45 Fed.Reg. 33084, contained certain exceptions normal coverage, an exclusion "household waste," defined "any material derived households (including multiple residences, hotels motels)," id., 33120, codified amended 261.4(b)(1) harmless, small portion—such cleaning fluids batteries —would qualified declared, "[h]ousehold waste, collected, transported, stored, treated, disposed, recovered (e.g., refuse-derived fuel) reused" Ibid. Moreover, preamble 1980 stated "residues remaining after (e.g. incineration, thermal treatment) [of waste] waste." 33099. By reason these provisions, TSDF, processed (i.e., household) generator free dispose D landfill. 8 thus what known ibid., i.e., category residues. not, coverage produced anything petitioner's burns: Thus, like sufficiently toxic, 261.3, 261.24 (1993)—though still characterized (An can hazardous, even though new medium contaminants concentrated readily leachable, 261.24, 261, App. (1993).) 9 Four years issued, Congress Amendments 1984, Pub.L. 98-616, 3221, added Household Exclusion" 223, Stat., 3252. essence our task determine provision, facility—a regulations—is C. conclude is. 10 provides: 11 "A recovering mass burning subchapter, — 12 "(1) 13 "(A) 14 "(i) (from 15 dwellings, hotels, motels, residential sources), 16 "(ii) commercial 17 sources contain identified listed section, 18 "(B) 19 "(2) owner operator established contractual appropriate notification inspection assure received facility." 20 meaning long (the ) treats, stores, disposes manages quite clearly itself. Indeed, (as opposed receives) mentioned. There no express support claim exemption.1 21 contend, practical effect virtue exempting facility. If, argue, then must itself several problems argument. First, explained, terms "shall deemed" Unlike existence four time enacted, explicitly difference, given declaration national policy "[w]aste should minimize future threat human health environment," 6902(b), interpret permit ordinary landfills. 22 observed, capacity defines "generation" "the act process producing 6903(6). question creation incinerating constitutes (assuming, course, qualifies 6921 (1993)). Yet although states exempted wastes," significantly omits catalogue word "generating." say activities encompass full operation, failure mention activity generating insignificant. But refutes this. Each three specific "treating," "storing," "disposing of"—is separately none covers production waste.2 fourth less term ("otherwise managing") also defined, mean "collection, source separation, transportation, processing, recovery, disposal," 6903(7)—just about every waste-related except generation. think follows carefully constructed regulation, not. 23 appeal history includes, Senate Committee Report, statement "[a]ll storage covered exclusion." S.Rep. 98-284, p. 61 (1983) (emphasis added). statute, law, prominently As cogently put it: "Why we, then, rely committee report result legislation? Simply put, shouldn't." F.2d, 351.3 point out "treat" very same "generate" wit, incineration. there nothing extraordinary activity's being some nonexempt others. here TSDF (As noted, supra, ____, latter onerous.) 24 Our interpretation confirmed comparing another Superfund Reauthorization 1986, 99-499, 124(b), 100 1689, provide "owner equipment recover methane landfill managing, generating, transporting, liquid of" This contrast provides complete "generating" list activities. "[I]t generally presumed acts intentionally purposely" "includes particular another," Keene Corp. States, 508 2035, 2040, 124 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). agree respondents "shows knew how draft stream wanted to." Brief Respondents 18. 25 contend turns into "empty gesture," 23, regime provisions. If extend all. codify previously agency revision; nor (though may value nothing) restrict provided—which achieved, withholding facilities, passing exclusively household-waste facility.4 26 do contention construction renders ineffective intended purpose promoting 6902(a)(1), (10), (11), subjecting "to potentially enormous expense 20. simply true says are) "generator," "managing" exempts enabling "full brunt enforcement efforts 29.05[1]. 27 28 RCRA's twin goals encouraging protecting contamination sometimes conflict. unusual legislation diverse reconciled, reliable guide text. Here us reject General's cf. Chevron U.S.A. Natural Resources Council, Inc., 467 837, 843-844, 104 2778, 2781-2783, 81 694 (1984), See John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. Harris Trust & Savings Bank, 510 114 517, 531, 126 524 (1994). read cost-saving seek.5 29 For foregoing reasons, 30 Affirmed. 31 whom O'CONNOR joins, dissenting. 32 1984 amendment Exclusion."1 To understand clarification, first examine exclusion" clarified particularly, needed clarification. I begin discussion pre-1984 explain why apparent tension between broad definition generation" (and mixtures wastes) resolved giving later enactment. 33 (RCRA), delegated vast regulatory authority over mountains garbage society classify establish controls disposition two categories Subtitles Act. 6921(a); ante, end, detailed establishing federal system 34 Generally, always, assume properly becomes Based characterization, D. regarded discarded mixed retains characterization during disposal. Even contains materials classified contexts, higher concentration matter originally discarded, might residue, processing rather 35 exclusion. 33120 (1980). motels) "not wastes."2 said remains An accompanying comment, unambiguously explained Id., administrative text, revealed treated 36 explanatory comment important warning: "mixed entire mixture hazardous.3 neither consequences mixing entirely nonhazardous.4 Presumably lower percentage pure nonhazardous—assumptions inconsistent warning "with wastes" terminate exemption. expressly significance adding percent nevertheless warranted 37 clarification 1984. Elaborating amendment—§ 6921(i)—made clear treating "solid 6921(i)(1)(A)(ii), words, non extinguish 38 parallel striking. referred "in phases management."5 Similarly, lists incinerator's wastes." 6921(i). refers title characterizes title's description "clarification" identifies intent counterpart 39 Report recommended enactment demonstrates sponsors understood "clarified." That worth setting detail, notes reported bill adds 3001 clarify (1983). exclude streams consumers level whose similar quantity quality households." explains frequently variety sources, emphasizes importance commercially viable facilities. "[n]ew [3001(i) ] clarifies original include sources." explains: "All exclusion, limitations paragraphs (1) (2) [the amendment] met. receive burn 3001. 41 "Second, burned. precautionary measures shown effective unintended acceptance place, normally penalized occasional, inadvertent receipt sources. Facilities monitor necessary, revise These comments became law majority followed Committee's recommendation "that amended) pass." 1.6 Given commentary, unrealistic particularized render inclusive Report. legislators voting detected difference just appear amendment. A common-sense reading background reveals obvious preserve, change, existing rule.7 43 unambiguous asserts. substantial 1004(6) amendment: describe activity. former "means 90 2799; Read literally, residue. escape conclusion distinguish hand, other. mixture, neither. 44 nonhazardous: order fall created amendment, components. consequence, aspect ordinarily could reasonably conclude, therefore, give content component stream, subchapter" conditions satisfied. met—even components before, during, treatment—that hazardous." characterizing input output excludes apply. deems nonhazardous.8 46 guided literal generate waste) applies equally proper choice. effectuates narrower recently earlier general definition. respects repeal modification. avoids surprising uninvited) decision invalidate adopted 1980,9 municipalities throughout Nation relied decade.10 fails impose significant burdens operation incinerators. Finally, reasonable jurists accepted.11 47 majority's today represent sound policy. Requiring cities spend necessary funds residues strict will additional protections environment. true, conservation scarce space encouragement valuable concerns motivating Whether disserved regulating so, whether benefits justify costs questions competent resolve. Those precisely kind answer. position, maintained today,12 correct permissible Agency's congressional mandate. 48 Accordingly, respectfully dissent. syllabus part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499. dissent able resorting imaginative use ellipsis: "even treatment[,] 'shall hazardous.' " Post, quoted above, phrase hazardous" material, phrase, (italicized) ellipsis, reads Deeming engaged course different deeming hazardous. "Treatment" means method, technique, neutralization, designed change physical, chemical, biological character composition neutralize nonhazardous, safer transport, amenable reduced volume. Such includes physical form chemical nonhazardous." 6903(34). "Storage" containment temporary basis period years, manner constitute 6903(33). "Disposal" discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, placing land water constituent thereof enter environment emitted air discharged waters." 6903(3). Nothing dissent's somewhat lengthier discourse 3001(i)'s post, convinces scrivener's error. validity applied before date 3001(i). Furthermore, addresses general, unable reach conclusions concerning scheme consider expressed Administrator's rule published Federal Register, adjudication. 223 1976. 3252; follows: "(b) Wastes wastes: reused. 'Household waste' garbage, trash sanitary septic tanks) motels)." "When accord 261.3(a)(2)(ii) (see 261.5). While se, Thus (except noted) regulations." 33099 regard, unexplained ramifications nonhousehold errs asserting unqualifiedly "would Ante, "Since management, Conference verbatim. Its stated: "The non-hazardous establishes H.R.Conf.Rep. 98-1133, 106 (1984) U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News pp. 5576, 5677. refusal attach 'a report,' misunderstanding lack for, function committees. Members who taken committee's deliberations become obviously force changed committee, fairly summarizes proposed legislation. What makes "generation," unmistakable maintain my "imaginative ellipsis," n. 1, predicate "deemed statutorily object sentence—wastes —that effectively provides, nine pages reader impression valid, ultimately acknowledges "withholding Of casts doubt 4, rigid 1004(6)'s achieved result. 1976, utterly made At oral argument Government counsel advised 150 comparable country never subjected Tr. Oral Arg. 25. especially Judge Haight's Wheelabrator Technologies, 725 758 (SDNY 1989), aff'd, 931 211 (CA2 cited approval Ripple, 305 (dissenting opinion); 1991) opinion), litigation. ambivalence 1985, F.Supp., 766-768, equivocation

Category: 7