Title: Frederick County Business Park v. Virginia Dept. of Environmental Quality

State: virginia

Issuer: Virginia Supreme Court

Document:

Present:  Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and 
Goodwyn, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. 
 
FREDERICK COUNTY BUSINESS PARK, 
LLC, ET AL. 
 
v.  Record No. 081175 
 
 
OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
    ELIZABETH B. LACY 
VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF 
 
 
 
  JUNE 4, 2009 
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 
 
 
In this appeal from a Court of Appeals’ judgment sustaining 
the decision of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 
(DEQ), we consider whether the DEQ’s decision that a facility 
proposed by Frederick County Business Park, LLC (FCBP), was a 
materials recovery facility (MRF) subject to the permitting 
requirements of the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations, 
9 VAC § 20-80-10, et seq., was arbitrary or capricious. 
FACTS 
The facts are not in dispute.  FCBP planned to collect 
construction waste in containers placed primarily at new home 
construction sites.  The full containers would be taken to 
FCBP’s proposed facility where marketable materials would be 
separated from the construction waste and stored in on-site 
containers for subsequent use or reuse.  The materials FCBP 
planned to separate for recycling purposes included concrete, 
corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, plastics, metal, and wood.1  
FCBP estimated that 70% of the construction waste received at 
the facility would be prepared for recycling and the remaining 
30% would be transferred to a permitted landfill for disposal. 
In December 2006, FCBP wrote a “courtesy” letter to the DEQ 
describing the operation of its proposed facility and stating 
its belief that no permit was required for the facility because 
it was a recycling facility and Code § 10.1-1408.1(J) states 
that no permit “shall be required . . . for recycling.”  FCBP 
also maintained that no permit was required because the 
materials that were to be recycled were deemed not to be solid 
waste under 9 VAC § 20-80-150(E) of the Virginia Solid Waste 
Management Regulations. 
The DEQ replied by letter dated March 26, 2007, stating 
that although FCBP assumed that no permit was required, a 
facility that receives “mixed wastes for on-site processing into 
recyclable and unrecyclable fractions” as proposed by FCBP is a 
MRF as defined in 9 VAC § 20-80-10 of the Virginia Solid Waste 
Management Regulations.2 
                     
1 FCBP originally also planned to recover and prepare 
drywall for use by others in the production of drywall and lime 
but ultimately eliminated this function. 
2 9 VAC § 20-80-10 defines a MRF as a “solid waste 
management facility for the collection, processing and recovery 
of material such as metals from solid waste or for the 
production of a fuel from solid waste.” 
 
2
The DEQ noted that a “MRF receives mixed waste loads and 
extracts the recycle materials fraction from the waste prior to 
the transfer of the waste residuum for disposal.”  The DEQ 
concluded that FCBP was therefore required to obtain a permit 
and meet the requirements of the Virginia Solid Waste Management 
Regulations for its proposed facility. 
FCBP unsuccessfully appealed the DEQ’s decision to the 
Circuit Court of Fairfax County and the Court of Appeals of 
Virginia.  Both tribunals held that the record supported the 
DEQ’s factual finding that approximately 30% of the materials 
coming to the proposed facility would be non-recyclable, and 
that the DEQ’s conclusion that the proposed facility was a MRF 
was not arbitrary or capricious.  Frederick County Bus. Park, 
LLC v. Virginia Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 52 Va. App. 40, 52, 660 
S.E.2d 698, 704 (2008). 
DISCUSSION 
In its appeal to this Court, FCBP again asserts that in 
requiring a permit for the proposed facility, the DEQ improperly 
interpreted the Virginia Solid Waste Management Regulations and 
Code § 10.1-1408.1(J).  Specifically, FCBP argues that Code 
§ 10.1-1408.1(J) exempts recycling facilities from any 
permitting requirements3 and that under the DEQ regulations 9 VAC 
                     
3 Code § 10.1-1408.1(J) states that “[n]o permit shall be 
required . . . for recycling or for temporary storage incidental 
 
3
§§ 20-80-150 and –160, the materials that would be separated at 
the facilities for recycling purposes do not constitute solid 
waste and are exempt from the permitting requirement. 
The DEQ responds that construction waste is defined as 
solid waste, 9 VAC § 20-80-10, and that until the recyclable or 
reusable material is separated from the construction waste it 
does not become material “exempt” from the permitting process. 
The DEQ, reciting that a MRF is defined as a “solid waste 
management facility for the collection, processing, and recovery 
of material . . . from solid waste,” 9 VAC § 20-80-10, 
continues, saying that sorting the solid waste received into 
recyclable or reusable components as proposed by FCBP is 
“exactly” the activity performed at a MRF.  The DEQ also points 
out that not all the material separated from the construction 
waste will be recyclable or reusable; approximately 30% of the 
material will remain solid waste and be transferred to a 
permitted landfill for disposal.  Because all material when 
received at the facility is construction waste, because of the 
nature of the sorting activity to be conducted at the proposed 
facility, and because 30% of the construction waste will not be 
recyclable or reusable material, the DEQ argues that it 
                                                                  
to recycling.”  The subsection further defines “recycling” as 
“any process whereby material which would otherwise be solid 
waste is used or reused, or prepared for use or reuse, as an 
 
4
correctly concluded that the proposed facility was a MRF and was 
not exempt from the permit requirement. 
 
In reviewing agency decisions, we apply the following 
standards of review.  The agency’s factual findings must be 
sustained if the record contains substantial evidence to support 
those findings.  Code § 2.2-4027.  If the decision under review 
involves an interpretation within the specialized knowledge of 
the agency and if the General Assembly has vested the agency 
with broad discretion to interpret and apply the relevant 
regulations, the agency’s decision will be reversed only for 
arbitrary or capricious action that constitutes a clear abuse of 
the agency’s delegated discretion.  See Virginia Alcoholic 
Beverage Control Comm’n v. York St. Inn, Inc., 220 Va. 310, 315, 
257 S.E.2d 851, 855 (1979). 
The General Assembly has authorized the DEQ to supervise 
and control solid waste management activities and to promulgate 
regulations applicable to such activities.  Code §§ 10.1-1183,  
-1186, and –1402(11).  In considering FCBP’s proposed facility, 
the DEQ was required to reconcile and harmonize provisions that 
represent the public policy of encouraging recycling and prudent 
management of solid waste.  While Code § 10.1-1408.1(J) defines 
“recycling” as a process in which “material that would otherwise 
                                                                  
ingredient in an industrial process to make a product, or as an 
effective substitute for a commercial product.” 
 
5
be solid waste is . . . prepared for use or reuse,” there is no 
statute or regulation that defines “recycling facility.”  
Furthermore no regulation or statute addresses a situation, like 
the one in issue, where a facility separates materials some of 
which, but not all, will be recycled. 
Considering the relevant statutes and regulations, the DEQ 
concluded that a permit was required for FCBP’s proposed 
facility because the activities of the proposed facility fall 
within the definition of a MRF and 30% of the construction 
material received would remain solid waste and not be recycled 
or reused.  Furthermore, as the DEQ argued, the materials deemed 
exempt or not subject to permitting requirements enter the 
proposed facility as construction waste and do not acquire an 
“exempt” status until they are separated into recyclable or 
reusable materials at the facility. 
FCBP’s position at its core is that no permit is required 
if some of the materials received at its facility will be 
prepared for use or reuse.  Adopting this position would allow a 
facility to avoid the permitting requirement as long as any 
portion of the solid waste material it received was processed 
for recycling or reuse and in this case would allow the proposed 
facility to avoid the permitting requirement even though 
approximately one-third of the waste material it receives will 
not be recycled. 
 
6
Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the 
conclusion reached by the DEQ was arbitrary or capricious 
resulting in an abuse of its delegated discretion.  Accordingly, 
we will affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 
Affirmed. 
 
7