Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. Environmental Protection Agency

98 F.3d 1394 (1996)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Dithiocarbamate Task Force v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
98 F.3d 1394 (1996)

Facts

Pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) listed several carbamate-based products and their waste streams as hazardous wastes. Those products, which consisted of four classes of carbamate compounds, were used as pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides and were also used by the rubber, wood, and textile industries. If the EPA listed a waste as hazardous, that waste was then included in a certain list, based on its assigned code, in accordance with the RCRA. Wastes generated by the manufacturing process were listed as K wastes. Chemical products or their intermediates that were hazardous if discarded or intended to be discarded were listed as U wastes. RCRA regulations required the EPA to consider 11 factors when determining how to list hazardous wastes. The Dithiocarbamate Task Force (task force) (plaintiff), which consisted of manufacturers who make or use various carbamate-based products, filed a lawsuit challenging some of the K and U listings.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Williams, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership