Opinion ID: 76726
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Open Dumping

Text: 45 Second, the jury determined that Mr. Maddox and SMP violated the RCRA's prohibition on open dumping. The defendants argue only that the plaintiffs failed to prove that SMP constitutes an open dump. 46 Under the RCRA, any solid waste management practice or disposal of solid waste which constitutes the open dumping of solid waste or hazardous waste is prohibited. 42 U.S.C. § 6945(a). An open dump is defined as any facility or site where solid waste is disposed of which is not a sanitary landfill which meets the criteria promulgated under section 6944 of this title and which is not a facility for disposal of hazardous waste. 42 U.S.C. § 6903(14). Thus, to prove that SMP qualifies as an open dump, the Parkers must show: (1) solid waste, (2) is disposed at SMP, (3) that SMP does not qualify as a landfill under § 6944, and (4) that SMP does not qualify as a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste. As discussed above, the materials on the SMP facility are solid waste. Thus, we must only address the latter three issues. 47 The first issue is whether the solid waste is disposed of at the SMP facility. Disposal is defined broadly as the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters. 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3). The defendants placed scrap metal and other materials throughout their property. There can be little doubt that, by doing so, the defendants placed solid waste on their property in such a manner that the waste could enter the environment. Therefore, the defendants disposed of solid waste under the RCRA's definition. 48 Because solid waste was disposed of at the SMP facility, the defendants operated an open dump unless the facility qualified under either of the two statutory exceptions: sanitary landfills and hazardous waste facilities. The defendants make no contention that the SMP facility was a sanitary landfill; thus, the only issue is whether SMP was a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste. 49 Under the RCRA, a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste must have a permit. 42 U.S.C. § 6925(a). In order to obtain such a permit, a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste must meet many specific criteria. 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-39e; Ga.Code Ann. §§ 12-8-6 through 12-8-83. Undisputedly, SMP did not satisfy these requirements and, therefore, it could not have been a facility for the disposal of hazardous waste. Thus, because the defendants disposed of solid waste at the SMP facility and because the facility was not a sanitary landfill or a facility for the disposal of solid waste, SMP was an open dump. Because SMP did not have the permit required to operate an open dump, it was in violation of the open-dumping provisions of the RCRA. Likewise, Mr. Maddox, as the owner of the property, violated the RCRA's open-dumping provisions because no person may cause, suffer, allow or permit open dumping on his property. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-3-4-.04(4)(c).