Opinion ID: 681032
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: United States' Second through Sixth Claims for Relief

Text: 9 In its second through sixth claims for relief, the United States alleges that Bethlehem violated RCRA by failing to comply with RCRA interim status performance standards for its landfill and two terminal polishing lagoons. 10 From the mid-1960's until June 16, 1983, Bethlehem conducted tin and chromium electroplating at its Burns Harbor facility, generating electroplating wastewater as a by-product. Bethlehem treated this electroplating wastewater by, among other things, mixing it with other kinds of wastewaters, then adding a flocculent or thickener and allowing the resulting solids to settle to the bottom as sludge. After the clarified water was drawn off, the sludge was filtered. The clarified water was sent to two terminal polishing lagoons to allow further settling and to allow the temperature and chemical composition of the water to equilibrate. The filtered sludge was disposed of in the landfill. The United States contends that because 40 C.F.R. Sec. 261.31 lists wastewater treatment sludges from electroplating operations as F006 hazardous waste, Bethlehem's landfill and lagoons are hazardous waste management units subject to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6925(a)'s permit requirements. 11 In enacting RCRA, Congress recognized that the EPA could not issue permits to all applicants before RCRA's effective date. Thus, RCRA provides that facilities already in existence on November 19, 1980, could continue to manage hazardous waste without a permit on an interim status basis, until the EPA made a final administrative disposition of their submitted permit applications. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6925(e). To obtain interim status, existing facilities were required to submit a Part A application by a certain date and then were to be treated as having been issued [a] permit. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6925(e). 12 Such facilities nonetheless were required to conduct their hazardous waste management in compliance with the interim status standards set forth at 40 C.F.R. Pt. 265. In the last five counts of its complaint, the government alleges that Bethlehem did not meet its interim status obligations to (1) comply with closure and post-closure requirements, (2) implement a groundwater monitoring system, (3) establish financial assurance for closure and post-closure care of each of its units, (4) implement a run-on control system for the landfill, and (5) submit a Part B application as requested by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. 5 13 The district court agreed with the government and granted partial summary judgment on all six of the United States' claims, holding Bethlehem liable for injunctive relief and civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 per day of violation for each of Bethlehem's violations. The court's memorandum opinion contained an injunction ordering Bethlehem to comply with the corrective action requirements of its UIC permit, and with the interim status requirements for its terminal polishing lagoons and landfill. 6