City of Chicago, et al., v. Environmental Defense Fund

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Citation128 L.Ed.2d 302,511 U.S. 328,114 S.Ct. 1588
Docket Number921639
PartiesCITY OF CHICAGO, et al., Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND et al
Decision Date02 May 1994
Syllabus*

Respondent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sued petitioners, the city of Chicago and its Mayor, alleging that they were violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and implementing regulations of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by using landfills not licensed to accept hazardous wastes as disposal sites for the toxic municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash that is left as a residue when the city's resource recovery incinerator burns household waste and nonhazardous industrial waste to produce energy. Although it was uncontested that, with respect to the ash, petitioners had not adhered to any of the RCRA Subtitle C requirements addressing hazardous wastes, the District Court granted them summary judgment on the ground that § 3001(i) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, a provision within RCRA, excluded the ash from those requirements. The Court of Appeals disagreed and reversed, but, while certiorari was pending in this Court, the EPA issued a memorandum directing its personnel, in accordance with the agency's view of § 3001(i), to treat MWC ash as exempt from Subtitle C regulation. On remand following this Court's vacation of the judgment, the Court of Appeals reinstated its previous opinion, holding that, because the statute's plain language is dispositive, the EPA memorandum did not affect its analysis.

Held: Section 3001(i) does not exempt the MWC ash generated by petitioners' facility from Subtitle C regulation as hazardous waste. Although a pre-§ 3001(i) EPA regulation provided a "waste stream" exemption covering household waste from generation through treatment to final disposal of residues, petitioners' facility would not have come within that exemption because it burned something in addition to household waste; the facility would have been considered a Subtitle C hazardous waste generator, but not a (more stringently regulated) Subtitle C hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facility, since all the waste it took in was nonhazardous. Section 3001(i) cannot be interpreted as extending the pre-existing waste-stream exemption to the product of a combined household/nonhazardous-industrial treatment facility such as petitioners'. Although the section is entitled "Clarification of household waste exclusion," its plain language—"A resource recovery facility . . . shall not be deemed to be treating, storing, disposing of, or otherwise managing hazardous wastes for the purposes of [Subtitle C] regulation . . . if . . . such facility . . . receives and burns only . . . household waste . . . and [nonhazardous industrial] waste . . ."—establishes that its exemption is limited to the facility itself, not the ash that the facility generates. The statutory text's prominent omission of any reference to generation, not the single reference thereto in the legislative history, is the authoritative expression of the law. The enacted text requires rejection of the Government's plea for deference to the EPA's interpretation, which goes beyond the scope of whatever ambiguity § 3001(i) contains. Pp. ____.

985 F.2d 303 (CA7 1993), affirmed.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and BLACKMUN, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, and GINSBURG, JJ., joined.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which O'CONNOR, J., joined.

Lawrence Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, for petitioners.

Jeffrey P. Minear, Washington, DC, for United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court.

Richard J. Lazarus, St. Louis, MO, for respondents.

Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon to decide whether, pursuant to § 3001(i) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)), as added, 98 Stat. 3252, 42 U.S.C. § 6921(i), the ash generated by a resource recovery facility's incineration of municipal solid waste is exempt from regulation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA.

I

Since 1971, petitioner the city of Chicago has owned and operated a municipal incinerator, the Northwest Waste-to-Energy Facility, that burns solid waste and recovers energy, leaving a residue of municipal waste combustion (MWC) ash. The facility burns approximately 350,000 tons of solid waste each year and produces energy that is both used within the facility and sold to other entities. The city has disposed of the combustion residue 110,000 to 140,000 tons of MWC ash per year—at landfills that are not licensed to accept hazardous wastes.

In 1988 respondent Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed a complaint against the petitioners, the city of Chicago and its Mayor, under the citizen suit provisions of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972, alleging that they were violating provisions of RCRA and of implementing regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Respondent alleged that the MWC ash generated by the facility was toxic enough to qualify as a "hazardous waste" under EPA's regulations, 40 CFR pt. 261 (1993). It was uncontested that, with respect to the ash, petitioners had not adhered to any of the requirements of Subtitle C, the portion of RCRA addressing hazardous wastes. Petitioners contended that RCRA § 3001(i), 42 U.S.C. § 6921(i), excluded the MWC ash from those requirements. The District Court agreed with that contention, see Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Chicago, 727 F.Supp. 419, 424 (1989), and subsequently granted petitioners' motion for summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the "ash generated from the incinerators of municipal resource recovery facilities is subject to regulation as a hazardous waste under Subtitle C of RCRA." Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Chicago, 948 F.2d 345, 352 (CA7 1991). The city petitioned for a writ of certiorari, and we invited the Solicitor General to present the views of the United States. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Chicago, 504 U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 1932, 118 L.Ed.2d 539 (1992). On September 18, 1992, while that invitation was outstanding, the Administrator of EPA issued a memorandum to EPA Regional Administrators, directing them, in accordance with the agency's view of § 3001(i), to treat MWC ash as exempt from hazardous waste regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA. Thereafter, we granted the city's petition, vacated the decision, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit for further consideration in light of the memorandum. Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, 506 U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 486, 121 L.Ed.2d 426 (1992).

On remand, the Court of Appeals reinstated its previous opinion, holding that, because the statute's plain language is dispositive, the EPA memorandum did not affect its analysis. 985 F.2d 303, 304 (CA7 1993). Petitioners filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted. 509 U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 2992, 125 L.Ed.2d 687 (1993).

II

RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute that empowers EPA to regulate hazardous wastes from cradle to grave, in accordance with the rigorous safeguards and waste management procedures of Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-6934. (Nonhazardous wastes are regulated much more loosely under Subtitle D, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6941-6949.) Under the relevant provisions of Subtitle C, EPA has promulgated standards governing hazardous waste generators and transporters, see 42 U.S.C. §§ 6922 and 6923, and owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF's), see 42 U.S.C. § 6924. Pursuant to § 6922, EPA has directed hazardous waste generators to comply with handling, record-keeping, storage, and monitoring requirements, see 40 CFR pt. 262 (1993). TSDF's, however, are subject to much more stringent regulation than either generators or transporters, including a 4-to-5 year permitting process, see 42 U.S.C. § 6925; 40 CFR pt. 270 (1993); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, The Nation's Hazardous Waste Management Program at a Crossroads, The RCRA Implementation Study 49-50 (July 1990), burdensome financial assurance requirements, stringent design and location standards, and, perhaps most onerous of all, responsibility to take corrective action for releases of hazardous substances and to ensure safe closure of each facility, see 42 U.S.C. § 6924; 40 CFR pt. 264 (1993). "[The] corrective action requirement is one of the major reasons that generators and transporters work diligently to manage their wastes so as to avoid the need to obtain interim status or a TSD permit." 3 Environmental Law Practice Guide § 29.06[3][d] (M. Gerrard ed. 1993) (hereinafter Practice Guide).

RCRA does not identify which wastes are hazardous and therefore subject to Subtitle C regulation; it leaves that designation to EPA. 42 U.S.C. § 6921(a). When EPA's hazardous-waste designations for solid wastes appeared in 1980, see 45 Fed.Reg. 33084, they contained certain exceptions from normal coverage, including an exclusion for "household waste," defined as "any waste material . . . derived from households (including single and multiple residences, hotels and motels)," id., at 33120, codified as amended at 40 CFR § 261.4(b)(1) (1992). Although most household waste is harmless, a small portion—such as cleaning fluids and batteries —would have qualified as hazardous waste. The regulation declared, however, that "[h]ousehold waste, including household waste that has been collected, transported, stored, treated, disposed, recovered (e.g., refuse-derived fuel) or reused" is not hazardous waste. Ibid. Moreover, the preamble to the 1980 regulations stated that "residues remaining after treatment (e.g. incineration, thermal treatment) [of household waste] are not subject to regulation as a hazardous waste." 45...

To continue reading

Request your trial
215 cases
  • In re Turner
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • 2 Abril 1996
    ...the replacement of standard legal terminology with a neologism.") (citation omitted) (quoting Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, 511 U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1588, 1593, 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994)); United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir.1990) ("`"Where Congress includes parti......
  • U.S. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 31 Agosto 2004
    ...Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996); see also Chicago v. Envtl. Def. Fund, 511 U.S. 328, 331, 114 S.Ct. 1588, 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994) (noting that RCRA "empowers EPA to regulate hazardous wastes from cradle to 22. Under RCRA § 3013, if the ......
  • Ngwanyia v. Ashcroft, No. Civ. 02-502(RHK/AJB).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 12 Febrero 2004
    ...when it includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another." Chicago v. Environmental Def. Fund, 511 U.S. 328, 338, 114 S.Ct. 1588, 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the Immigration and Nationalization Act as a whole indicates t......
  • Foster v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 29 Marzo 1996
    ...C are less stringently regulated under other provisions of RCRA as "solid waste." City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 114 S.Ct. 1588, 1590, 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994). To establish a prima facie case under RCRA, a claimant must (1) conditions that may present an im......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Introduction to the CWA and the administrative process
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • 23 Julio 2017
    ...renewed vogue, particularly in the opinions of Justice Scalia. An example is found in City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund , 511 U.S. 328, 24 ELR 20810 (1994), in which the Court held that ash from municipal waste incinerators is not exempted from hazardous waste status by § 3001(i......
  • Picking up the Pieces: Finding Unity after the Communications Decency Act Section 230 Jurisprudential Clash
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 72-2, February 2012
    • 1 Octubre 2012
    ...Inc., 461 F. Supp. 2d 681, 693–94 (N.D. Ill. 2006), aff’d , 519 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2008); see also City of Chicago v. Envtl. Def. Fund, 511 U.S. 328, 338 (1994) (“‘[I]t is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely’ when it ‘includes particular language in one section......
  • Defining the Problem
    • United States
    • Environmental justice: legal theory and practice. 4th edition
    • 20 Febrero 2018
    ...the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of “hazardous wastes.” See City of Chicago v. Envtl. Def. Fund , 511 U.S. 328, 332, 114 S. Ct. 1588, 128 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1994). “Nonhazardous wastes,” meanwhile, “are regulated much more loosely under Subtitle D.” Id. at 331, 1......
  • DISORDERED LAW: OBAMA TO TRUMP EXECUTIVE BRANCH ORDERS MANDATING NON-ENFORCEMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 85 No. 2, June 2022
    • 22 Junio 2022
    ...552(a)(4)(A)(i). (446) Env't Def. Fund, Inc. v. Chicago, 985 F.2d 303 (7th Cir. 1993), aff'd sub nom. Chicago v. Env't. Def. Fund, 511 U.S. 328 (1994); see also King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473, 485-86 (2015) (the IRS is not granted Chevron deference because the IRS does not have expertise in ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 provisions
  • IL Register Vol. 44 Issue 38. Issue 38 - September 18, 2020 - Pages 14,825-15,841
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • 1 Enero 2020
    ...at or burned in such facility. BOARD NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court determined, in City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 511 U.S. 328, 114 S. Ct. 1588, 128 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1994), that this exclusion and RCRA section 3001(i) (42 USC 6921(i)) do not exclude the ash from facilities......
  • IL Register Vol.33 issue 3. Issue 3 January 16, 2009 Pages 501-1409
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • 1 Enero 2009
    ...at or burned in such facility. BOARD NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court determined, in City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 511 U.S. 328, 114 S. Ct. 1588, 128 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1994), that this exclusion and RCRA section 3001(i) (42 USC 6921(i)) do not exclude the ash from facilities......
  • IL Register Vol. 43 Issue 9. Issue 9 - March 1, 2019 - Pages 2,613-3,053
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...at or burned in such facility. BOARD NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court determined, in City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 511 U.S. 328, 114 S. Ct. 1588, 128 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1994), that this exclusion and RCRA section 3001(i) (42 USC 6921(i)) do not exclude the ash from facilities......
  • IL Register Vol. 43 Issue 1. Issue 1 - January 4, 2019 - Pages 1-938
    • United States
    • Illinois Register
    • 1 Enero 2019
    ...at or burned in such facility. BOARD NOTE: The U.S. Supreme Court determined, in City of Chicago v. Environmental Defense Fund, Inc., 511 U.S. 328, 114 S. Ct. 1588, 128 L. Ed. 2d 302 (1994), that this exclusion and RCRA section 3001(i) (42 USC 6921(i)) do not exclude the ash from facilities......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT