## Facts

- Chemical Waste Management, Inc. and Waste Management of North America, Inc. operated hazardous-waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
- RCRA generally requires a permit, but some existing facilities could operate in “interim status” while permit applications were pending.
- In 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments added RCRA § 3008(h), authorizing EPA to issue corrective action orders upon finding a release of hazardous waste into the environment, and linked such orders to § 3008(b)’s right to a “public hearing.”
- EPA promulgated 40 C.F.R. Part 24 to provide informal adjudicatory hearings for certain § 3008(h) corrective action orders.
- Under EPA’s scheme, formal Part 22 procedures (including more trial-type features) apply when a corrective action order includes penalties or suspension/revocation of interim status; otherwise, Part 24 informal procedures apply.
- The petitioners filed a facial challenge in the D.C. Circuit seeking review of the procedural regulations, contending the statute required formal, trial-type hearings and that Part 24 was constitutionally inadequate.

## Issues

1. Whether RCRA § 3008(h), read with § 3008(b)’s “public hearing” language, requires EPA to provide formal, on-the-record trial-type adjudication for requested hearings on corrective action orders.
2. Whether EPA’s informal hearing procedures in 40 C.F.R. Part 24 are facially inconsistent with due process.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit denied the petitions for review and upheld EPA’s Part 24 regulations.
- The court held that “public hearing” in § 3008(b), as applied to § 3008(h) corrective action orders, does not unambiguously require formal adjudication.
- Applying Chevron, the court concluded EPA reasonably interpreted the statute by using informal procedures for corrective-only orders while reserving formal Part 22 procedures for orders imposing penalties or threatening interim status.
- The court rejected the facial due process challenge, holding that Part 24 is not, on its face, inconsistent with due process.

## Legal Principles

- When a statute does not clearly specify the procedural form of a required “public hearing,” an agency may select reasonable procedures; a “public hearing” does not by itself mandate APA-style formal adjudication.
- Under Chevron, if Congress has not directly addressed the precise procedural question, a court defers to a reasonable agency construction.
- Due process is context-dependent; streamlined administrative hearing procedures may satisfy due process where the affected interests are more limited, the process provides an opportunity to be heard before an impartial presiding officer, a record and reasoned decision are produced, and judicial review is available.
- Facial procedural due process challenges to an administrative hearing scheme generally fail where any asserted deficiencies depend on application in particular cases.

## Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s bifurcated hearing framework for RCRA corrective action orders, deferring under Chevron to EPA’s choice to use informal Part 24 procedures for corrective-only orders and holding that the procedures were not facially unconstitutional under due process.


Chemical Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. U.S. EPA, 873 F.2d 1477 (D.C. Cir. 1989)