## Facts

- Paul Burke served as president of ACMAR Regional Landfill, Inc. and as a controlling owner of related landfill entities.
- ACMAR operated a landfill under permits allowing stormwater discharge to an adjacent creek, provided the discharge did not contain leachate.
- Regulators found that ACMAR’s stormwater discharges contained leachate, prompting a criminal investigation.
- Burke pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor Clean Water Act offense for negligently discharging leachate into the creek.
- The plea agreement included incarceration and a monetary penalty, and it contemplated Burke severing ties with ACMAR; Burke sold his interests in the landfill entities.
- After the conviction, EPA commenced a non-procurement debarment proceeding under its suspension and debarment regulations.
- EPA determined Burke’s conviction constituted cause for debarment and imposed a five-year debarment from federal non-procurement transactions.
- EPA acknowledged asserted mitigating factors (including divestiture and plea compliance) but found them insufficient in light of the offense and associated environmental and public-health risks.
- Burke sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and moved for summary judgment; EPA opposed and sought judgment on the administrative record.

## Issues

1. Whether EPA acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully in treating Burke’s Clean Water Act misdemeanor conviction as cause for non-procurement debarment under its regulations.
2. Whether EPA acted arbitrarily or capriciously in imposing a five-year debarment, including its consideration of mitigating factors and remedial measures.

## Decision

- The court denied Burke’s motion for summary judgment and granted judgment for EPA.
- The court held EPA reasonably concluded Burke’s conviction provided cause for debarment under the applicable regulations.
- The court held EPA reasonably found a nexus between Burke’s environmental misconduct in business operations and his present responsibility for participation in federal programs.
- The court upheld the five-year debarment as adequately explained and supported by the record, notwithstanding a shorter typical baseline period.

## Legal Principles

- Under APA § 706(2)(A), a court sets aside agency action only if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; review is confined to whether the agency gave a reasoned explanation grounded in the record.
- Non-procurement debarment is protective rather than punitive; an agency may exclude a participant to protect federal program integrity based on responsibility-related misconduct.
- Serious environmental convictions may bear on “business integrity” and “responsibility” and therefore may constitute cause for debarment under debarment regulations.
- A court will not reweigh mitigating evidence where the agency acknowledged the asserted mitigation and rationally explained why it did not eliminate the need for debarment.
- An agency may impose a debarment term longer than a typical baseline when the record supports the increased period and the agency ties its decision to relevant regulatory factors.

## Conclusion

The court upheld EPA’s determination that Burke’s Clean Water Act conviction justified non-procurement debarment and sustained a five-year term because EPA reasonably connected the offense to Burke’s responsibility and adequately addressed claimed mitigation under the deferential APA standard.


Burke v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 127 F. Supp. 2d 235 (D.D.C. 2001)