Opinion ID: 2028743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: characterization of enviro-blocks as waste or scrap

Text: Central States first argues that the district court erred in finding that Enviro-blocks are waste or scrap as defined in 136 Neb. Admin. Code. It contends that this finding is not supported by competent evidence and is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. A judgment or final order rendered by a district court in a judicial review pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act may be reversed, vacated, or modified by an appellate court for errors appearing on the record. Lariat Club v. Nebraska Liquor Control Comm., 267 Neb. 179, 673 N.W.2d 29 (2004). When reviewing an order of a district court under the Administrative Procedure Act for errors appearing on the record, the inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Id. This appeal concerns the powers delegated to DEQ under the Integrated Solid Waste Management Act (Waste Management Act), see Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 13-2001 to 13-2043 (Reissue 1997, Cum.Supp.2002 & Supp.2003), and the Waste Reduction and Recycling Incentive Act (Waste Reduction Act), see Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 81-15,158.01 to 81-15,165 (Reissue 1999, Cum.Supp.2002 & Supp.2003). Many of these statutes have been amended or repealed over the years. All statutory references herein will be to those laws in effect in August 2001, which is when Central States allegedly deposited Enviro-blocks on an unpermitted and unlicensed site. The appeal also involves an interpretation of 136 Neb. Admin. Code, otherwise known as the Scrap Tire Management Rules and Regulations. The interpretation of statutes and regulations presents questions of law, in connection with which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. See A & D Tech. Supply Co. v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 259 Neb. 24, 607 N.W.2d 857 (2000). Section 81-15,162.01(1) provided in relevant part: A tire collector, tire processor, or tire hauler shall obtain a permit from [DEQ] unless exempted under subsection (2) of this section. We note that subsection (2) did not contain language that would suggest that Central States is exempt from the permit requirement. In addition, under § 81-15,162.01(5), the Waste Reduction Act granted the Environmental Quality Council the authority to adopt rules and regulations to establish a process by which a tire collector, processor, or hauler may obtain a permit from DEQ. The majority of 136 Neb. Admin. Code outlines this process and the requirements necessary to maintain a permit. See 136 Neb. Admin. Code, chs. 3 through 11. The disposal of scrap tires is prohibited by 136 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 2. Specifically, 136 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 2, § 002, states that [o]n and after September 1, 1998, land disposal of scrap tires in any form shall be prohibited. This language reflected a provision of the Waste Management Act. See § 13-2039(3)(b). Also, 136 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 2, § 003, states that the [p]ermanent disposal of scrap tires shall be prohibited, unless otherwise approved by the Director [of DEQ], for facilities accepting scrap tires after the initial effective date of this title. Thus, it is clear from such language that disposal of scrap tires is prohibited without a permit from DEQ. The question for our consideration is whether Central States' product, the Enviro-block, is a tire-derived product or merely a scrap tire that has been shaped into a new physical form. If it is a scrap tire, it is subject to regulation by DEQ. To aid us in our determination of what constitutes a tire-derived product, we examine certain sections of the Nebraska Administrative Code and the Waste Reduction Act. At all times relevant to this case, the Waste Management Act contained no definition of the terms waste tire, scrap tire, or tire-derived product. The Nebraska Administrative Code defines a scrap tire as a tire that is no longer suitable for its original intended purpose because of wear, damage, or defect. See 136 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 019. This is identical to the definition of a [s]crap tire in the Waste Reduction Act at § 81-15,159.02(6). The term [t]ire-derived product is defined as the usable materials produced from the chemical or physical processing of a scrap tire. See 136 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 024. However, this definition does not include the entire language found in § 81-15,159.02(9), which states that [t]ire-derived product means the usable product produced from a scrap tire. Tire-derived product does not include... baled tires.... Central States argues that once scrap tires are mechanically formed into a bale and bound with wire, they cease to be scrap tires. It contends that its Enviro-blocks are now a new tire product as defined in 136 Neb. Admin. Code. It asserts that Enviro-blocks are therefore not subject to the permit requirements because such blocks are no longer scrap tires. We disagree. The Enviro-blocks are still baled tires, and for purposes of the Waste Reduction Act, baled tires are not included within the definition of a tire-derived product. Both the hearing officer and the director correctly concluded that a scrap tire bale is not a tire-derived product within the meaning of the Waste Reduction Act and other applicable provisions of the law. Although Enviro-blocks may be useful in a variety of engineering applications, they remain compressed bales of scrap tires. They are an environmental threat and are subject to regulation by DEQ. Since DEQ can and does require permits for end use of baled scrap tires, this condition placed upon Central States' permit was lawful. Central States argues that the definition of tire-derived product found under the Waste Reduction Act is inapplicable to the case at bar because the definition was used in conjunction with the granting of money from two funds set up by the act. Specifically, the term is used in two provisions of the Waste Reduction Act as an example of the type of development project that the act attempted to encourage through the establishment of the funds. See §§ 81-15,160(4) and 81-15,161.01(2). Central States submits that the Waste Reduction Act does not limit or affect the actual beneficial use of tire bales. We do not find Central States' argument persuasive. One of the stated purposes of the Waste Reduction Act was to facilitate the recycling and reduction of scrap tires. See § 81-15,159.01(2). The recycling of scrap tires appears to be the main purpose for the manufacturing of a product such as the Enviro-block, and as such, that process is regulated by the Waste Reduction Act. As noted above, the Legislature has clearly indicated that in the realm of scrap tire recycling, baled tires should not be included in the definition of [t]ire-derived product[s]. See § 81-15,159.02(9). Since the Enviro-block cannot be considered a tire-derived product, it must, by necessary implication, fall under the definition of a scrap tire. See 136 Neb. Admin. Code, ch. 1, § 019. For these reasons, the district court's finding that [t]ires do not cease to be waste tires simply by baling them was supported by the law and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. Central States' first assignment of error lacks merit.