Opinion ID: 1201106
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the field of pcb disposal

Text: Although PCBs have not been specifically identified as hazardous waste by the State Department of Health and Welfare and are not identified as hazardous waste in the RCRA, upon which this state's HWMA is patterned, their regulation has not been ignored by this state. Last year, the legislature enacted House Bill 660, 1986 Sess. Law, ch. 324, amending I.C. § 39-4403 and defining restricted hazardous waste to include liquid hazardous wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls at concentrations greater than or equal to fifty parts per million... . (I.C. § 39-4403(14)(a)(iv). Implicit in such a definition is the concept of PCBs as hazardous waste, which concept lends credence to the argument that the legislature has intended that PCBs be regulated via the HWMA. Also of import is the fact that Idaho's definition of hazardous waste is broader than that found in the RCRA (42 U.S.C. § 6903(5)). I.C. § 39-4403(7) defines hazardous waste as: [A] waste or combination of wastes of a solid, liquid, semi-solid, or contained gaseous form which, because of its quantity, concentration or characteristics (physical, chemical or biological) may: (a) Cause or significantly contribute to an increase in deaths or an increase in serious, irreversible or incapacitating reversible illnesses; or (b) Pose a substantial threat to human health or to the environment if improperly treated, stored, disposed of, or managed. Such wastes include, but are not limited to, materials which may have mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic properties... . The specific language materials which may have mutagenic, teratogenic or carcinogenic properties has no counterpart in the RCRA, but is found in the TSCA. That PCBs are included in this definition of hazardous waste, taken from the TSCA, is evidenced from the listing of PCBs in 40 C.F.R. § 261 (Appendix VIII Hazardous Constitutions) which includes only toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or teratogenic substances. Therefore PCBs are, indeed, included in the definition of hazardous waste under the HWMA. Accordingly, our analysis, in Part I herein, of preemption of the subject matter is wholly applicable to the narrower field of PCB disposal. Further evidencing this state's strong intent to fully regulate the disposal of PCBs are the Department of Health and Welfare's solid waste management regulations, 16 IDAPA X-XXXX-XXXX, wherein authority to regulate PCBs through conditional use permits is granted. These regulations, in and of themselves, have the force and effect of law. I.C. § 39-107(8). The regulations evidence intent that the Department of Health and Welfare and not, implicitly, other governmental entities, has primacy over such regulation. Solid wastes and post-consumer products shall be managed as determined by the department, ... . 16 IDAPA § 1-6004.01 (emphasis added). The regulations are, themselves, comprehensive and evince a textually demonstrable commitment by the state to regulate the field uniformly on a statewide basis. Conditional use permits may be issued only when an administrator has reviewed plans, maps, specifications and has received a report on operational procedure for all disposal sites. 16 IDAPA § 1-6005.01(b). Additionally, and importantly, 16 IDAPA § 1-6006.01(e) provides a limited role for local government in the process leading to the issuance of a conditional use permit. By so providing, the regulations indicate both the reality of state primacy in the field and the need for uniformity of regulation. There is a substantial line of authority supporting our holding. Rollins Environmental Services, Inc. v. Township of Logan, 209 N.J. Super. 556, 508 A.2d 271 (1986) (holding that PCBs were hazardous waste which was solid waste and that that state's legislature had preempted the field of solid waste management due to pervasiveness of regulation); Michigan Disposal, Inc. v. Township of Augusta, 89 Mich. App. 557, 280 N.W.2d 596 (1979); O'Connor v. City of Rockford, 52 Ill.2d 360, 288 N.E.2d 432 (1972); Ringlieb v. Township of Parsippany-Troy Hills, 59 N.J. 348, 283 A.2d 97 (1971) (holding the nature of the subject-matter required state-wide control and pervasive regulation had preempted local regulation). Owyhee County argues that it has concurrent authority, by way of I.C. § 31-4406, to regulate solid waste disposal systems and, therefore, PCBs. I.C. § 31-4406 provides that the board of county commissioners shall by ordinance provide for the necessary rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance of solid waste disposal systems. However, I.C. § 31-4406 does not provide a basis for county authority to regulate regarding PCBs. That code section was never intended to include PCBs under its definition of solid waste. That code section was enacted in 1970, at a time when the hazards inherent in PCBs were little known. Additionally, this state's solid waste legislation, also enacted in 1970, echoes the federal Solid Waste Disposal Act, tit. 2, Public Law 89-272, 79 Stat. 992, enacted in 1965, at a time when the definition of solid waste was much less expansive than at present. I.C. § 31-4406 simply cannot serve as a basis for county regulation of PCBs. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the state has fully occupied and preempted both the fields of hazardous waste disposal and PCB disposal and, therefore, Ordinance No. 83-02 was properly voided by the trial court. Affirmed. Costs to respondent. No attorney fees on appeal. SHEPARD, C.J., and DONALDSON, BAKES and BISTLINE, JJ., concur.