Opinion ID: 546189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the challenged regulations

Text: 26 While CERCLA is designed to cleanup unsafe hazardous waste sites, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 6901-6992k (1982 & Supp. V 1987), provides a cradle-to-grave regulatory program. RCRA sets minimum standards for the generation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes in the nation. Faced with a growing body of evidence that land disposal of hazardous wastes ... in many cases poses grave threats to public health and the environment, H.R.Rep. No. 98-198, Part 1, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 20, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News 5576, 5578 (emphasis added), Congress amended RCRA in 1984, prohibiting the disposal of certain highly toxic and mobile hazardous wastes in landfills unless those wastes are first treated to reduce toxicity and mobility using the best available demonstrated technology. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6924(d)-(m). Because of a nationwide shortage of other types of disposal capacity and the time involved to implement advanced pretreatment programs, EPA exempted from this land disposal ban certain waste soil and debris generated in cleanups conducted under CERCLA and in corrective actions taken under RCRA until November 8, 1990. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6924(h); 40 C.F.R. Sec. 268; Land Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Wastes, 53 Fed.Reg. 31,137, at 31,143 (Aug. 17, 1988). In the language of EPA, the agency granted variances from the effective date of the land disposal ban for these certain wastes. 27 Corresponding to Congress's amendment of RCRA imposing the land disposal ban, Alabama amended its hazardous waste program by adopting the challenged land disposal restriction (LDR) regulations, Ala.Admin.Code r. 14-9-.03. The LDR regulations are almost identical to the federal land disposal ban, except that Alabama did not adopt EPA's variances from the effective date of the ban for certain CERCLA and RCRA wastes. Alabama's prohibition of the land disposal of untreated wastes became effective August 24, 1989. 28 For the expressed purpose of facilitating enforcement of the LDR regulations, Alabama adopted the challenged pre-approval regulations, Ala.Admin.Code r. 14-3-.08. 13 These regulations prohibit a commercial hazardous waste management facility in Alabama from accepting wastes without specific pre-approval from the state. The regulations require that the generator of hazardous waste which is destined for disposal at a commercial facility in Alabama must apply for approval at least sixty days in advance of the shipment. The generator does not need approval for each shipment, but must have approval for each waste stream, defined as a waste of given characteristics that is unique to a particular process or individual generation site. Ala.Admin.Code r. 14-3-.08(5). Approval is valid for up to one year and can be renewed. 29 The pre-approval requirement allows Alabama to identify the wastes being disposed and to determine whether the wastes must be pretreated in accordance with the LDR regulations. The pre-approval regulations apply equally to wastes generated in Alabama and out of state, but no limitation is expressed on how long Alabama can wait before issuing its approval decision. 30 As a result of the LDR regulations, plaintiff ChemWaste claims that it has been forced to refuse shipments of waste from at least seven CERCLA or RCRA sites that are undergoing cleanups, even though it would have been able to accept those wastes at Emelle under the federal regulations. ChemWaste says that it has been forced to refuse new requests for waste disposal, as well as to refuse to fulfill its obligations under preexisting waste disposal contracts. 31 The district court below, without expressly discussing the challenged regulations, concluded that the regulations were constitutional. The district court's Memorandum Opinion addressed only the Holley Bill, but the court's Final Order said that all three challenged actions were constitutional. On appeal, Alabama made it clear that the challenged regulations are separate from and were not enacted to implement the Holley Bill. 14 After conducting a separate consideration of plaintiffs' claims regarding the regulations, we disagree with the district court. To the extent that the LDR regulations fail to allow the same variances as those granted by EPA, the regulations are preempted and thus violate the supremacy clause. The independent effect of the pre-approval regulations, which require all waste generators to obtain the state's pre-approval before disposing of wastes at commercial facilities in Alabama, places an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. These pre-approval regulations are, therefore, also unconstitutional. 15
32 [W]hen a state's exercise of its police power is challenged under the Supremacy Clause, 'we start with the assumption that the historic police powers of the States were not to be superseded by the Federal Act unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress.'  Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 435 U.S. 151, 157, 98 S.Ct. 988, 994, 55 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978). No such congressional purpose exists to preempt the entire field of interstate waste management, either by express statutory command, or by implicit legislative design. City of Philadelphia, 437 U.S. at 621 n. 4, 98 S.Ct. at 2534 n. 4 (citations omitted). RCRA expressly says that [n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State ... from imposing any requirements ... which are more stringent than [RCRA]. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6929. This language prevents a conclusion that Congress preempted all state regulation of hazardous waste management. See ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744-45 (8th Cir.1986); see also 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6902(a)(7) (objectives of RCRA--protecting health and environment and conserving valuable material and energy resources--are accomplished in part by establishing a viable federal-state partnership); H.R.Rep. No. 1491, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 33, reprinted in U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 6238, 6271 (1976) (federal preemption of this problem is undesirable, inefficient, and damaging to local initiative). 33 But in the 1984 amendments to RCRA, Congress did preempt Alabama's specific action of implementing a state land disposal ban that omits the variances ordered by EPA. In the RCRA amendments, Congress granted the EPA Administrator authority to establish an effective date for the land disposal ban different from the effective date which would have otherwise applied under the RCRA amendments. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6924(h)(2). Congress wrote that such alternative effective date must be established on the basis of the earliest date on which adequate alternative treatment, recovery, or disposal capacity which protects human health and the environment will be available. Id. 34 Congress granted EPA alone the power to grant variances from the effective date for certain types of wastes because the lawmakers intended for the assessment of available pretreatment capacity to be made on a nationwide basis: The available capacity determination is to be done on a national basis. Otherwise, different regions of the country would be receiving varying degrees of protection and could be used as a dumping grounds for the rest of the country. S.Rep. No. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 19 (1983). When promulgating its regulations concerning the variances, EPA clearly stated the respective roles of EPA and the states: The Administrator of EPA is solely responsible for granting variances to the effective dates [of the land disposal ban] because capacity determinations must be made on a nationwide basis. 53 Fed.Reg. 31,137, at 31,203 (Aug. 17, 1988). Alabama's LDR regulations attempt to regionalize pretreatment requirements, action which Congress expressly disapproved. See S.Rep. 284, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 19 (1983). These regulations may not be lawfully enforced.
35 The pre-approval regulations supplement the LDR regulations: the pre-approval regulations require waste generators to obtain Alabama's approval before disposing of wastes at commercial facilities in Alabama. These regulations place an impermissible burden on interstate commerce. 36 We begin by recognizing that the pre-approval regulations apply equally to in-state and out-of-state waste generators. The regulations state that [e]ffective November 30, 1989, all generators ... must have approval for disposal by the Department, prior to disposal of any given waste stream. Ala.Admin.Code r. 14-3-.08(3). Plaintiffs, who have the burden of proving that Alabama's actions discriminate against interstate commerce, see Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U.S. 322, 336, 99 S.Ct. 1727, 1736, 60 L.Ed.2d 250 (1979), make no allegation that Alabama has somehow favored in-state waste generators by the state's application of these regulations, for example, by delaying or denying altogether requests from out-of-state generators. 37 Where the challenged state action does not on its face discriminate against interstate trade, we apply a balancing test to determine if the challenged acts violate the commerce clause: Where the statute regulates even-handedly to effectuate a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits. Pike, 397 U.S. at 142, 90 S.Ct. at 847. If we find a legitimate local purpose, the extent of the burden that will be tolerated will of course depend on the nature of the local interest involved, and on whether it could be promoted as well with a lesser impact on interstate activities. Id. 38 The pre-approval regulations impose a significant burden on the business of hazardous waste disposal. Under RCRA, generators must dispose of hazardous wastes within ninety days of generation or obtain a RCRA permit for hazardous waste storage. See 40 C.F.R. Sec. 262.34 (1989). Because the pre-approval regulations set no limit on how long Alabama can delay in responding to a request for approval, the pre-approval process can cause waste generators who wish to dispose of wastes in Alabama to expend time and money not only in complying with Alabama's special requirements, but also in complying with federal regulations that might not ordinarily come into play. In addition, Alabama can delay so long in granting a decision on approval that the regulations can be used to bar waste disposal completely in Alabama, forcing waste generators to take their waste elsewhere or to stop producing waste. The risk of long delay in approval is increased by the fact that the pre-approval regulations nowhere define the criteria by which Alabama will approve or disapprove a waste generator's request. 39 Because the regulations impose substantial economic burdens on both intrastate and interstate commerce, the local benefits must be great for these regulations to be valid. Alabama's only formally stated reason for adoption of the regulations--and the only reason argued to this court--was to facilitate enforcement of the LDR regulations, which are themselves unenforceable. We must conclude that the pre-approval regulations are too burdensome when compared to the local benefit and, therefore, invalidate the regulations as contrary to the Constitution.