ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 86-1410
| Decision Date | 22 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1410,86-1410 |
| Citation | 807 F.2d 743 |
| Parties | , 55 USLW 2370, 55 USLW 2383, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. ENSCO, INC., Appellee, v. Mike DUMAS, as County Judge of Union County, Arkansas; Robert H. Archer, Margaret Compton, Gloria Ann Calhoun, Ken Goudy, Robert R. Cook, F.D. Shivers, Corbit White, Don R. Crawford, as Members of the Union County Quorum Court, Appellants, Dr. Phyllis Garnett, as Director of the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Jess Womack, Rubin Darden and John D. Wilson, Members of the Union County Quorum Court, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Michael A. Stick, Chicago, Ill., for appellants.
Vincent Foster, Jr. and Carol S. Arnold, Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.
Before JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge, HENLEY, Senior Circuit Judge, and FAGG, Circuit Judge.
The issue on this appeal is whether Union County, Arkansas, may, consistent with existing federal legislation, enforce its Ordinance No. 171 prohibiting the storage, treatment, or disposal of "acute hazardous waste" within its boundaries. ENSCO, Inc., which wishes to incinerate this type of waste at its Union County facility, brought suit challenging the Ordinance on a variety of grounds, and the district court permanently enjoined enforcement. The court found the Ordinance invalid as preempted by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), see 42 U.S.C. Secs. 6901-6991i (as amended 1978, 1984), and by the Arkansas Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979, see Ark.Stat.Ann. Secs. 82-4201 to -4216 (Supp.1985). We affirm, reaching only the federal preemption question.
The RCRA embodies--and through a 1984 amendment expressly declares--a national policy of requiring that hazardous waste be treated, stored, and disposed of in a manner that "minimize[s] the present and future threat to human health and the environment." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6902(b) (Supp. III 1985). The Act specifies that its objective will be advanced through the encouragement of treatment in preference to land disposal of hazardous waste. Id. Sec. 6902(a)(6); see also id. Sec. 6901(b)(7), (8). Land disposal in certain instances even is prohibited absent a determination by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that a ban is not necessary to achieve the goals of the Act. See, e.g., id. Sec. 6924(e). The RCRA authorizes the EPA to establish performance and safety standards applicable to the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Id. Sec. 6924(a).
The EPA in January 1985 issued regulations governing the incineration and other disposal of what it labeled the "F020 series" of hazardous wastes. When ENSCO announced it would seek certification to incinerate those types of wastes at its existing Union County facility, the County responded by passing Ordinance No. 171. The F020 series wastes by definition constitute "acute hazardous waste" that under the Ordinance may not be stored, treated, or disposed of in Union County. Several of these wastes also fall within Congress' statutory ban on land disposal. Id. Sec. 6924(e).
The County, in defending Ordinance No. 171 against the claim of federal preemption, relies on the command of the RCRA that "[n]othing in this chapter shall be construed to prohibit any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirements, including those for site selection, which are more stringent than those imposed by [federal] regulations." Id. Sec. 6929. Its ban on the treatment of F020 series wastes, Union County argues, is merely a more stringent requirement on disposal and a regulation of site selection reflecting the County's determination that there are no locations within its boundaries suitable for incineration of the designated wastes.
We agree with the County that the language in section 6929 prevents a conclusion that Congress through the RCRA preempted all state and local regulation of hazardous waste disposal. Cf. Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, 471 U.S. 707, 105 S.Ct. 2371, 2375-76, 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) (); City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U.S. 617, 620-21 n. 4, 98 S.Ct. 2531, 2533-34 n. 4, 57 L.Ed.2d 475 (1978) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Board of County Comr's of County of Rogers
...and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes."), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 602, 121 L.Ed.2d 538 (1992); ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744-45 (8th Cir.1986) (same); LaFarge Corp. v. Campbell, 813 F.Supp. 501, 508 (W.D.Tex.1993) (same); North Haven Planning & Zoning Comm'n v.......
-
South Dakota Mining Ass'n v. Lawrence County
...`stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,'" ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir. 1986) (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)), or when it is impossible to comply wi......
-
In Re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing
...precluded ... state and local enactments are nullified to the extent that they actually conflict with federal law.” ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir.1986). The class plaintiffs argue the defendants must be both certified and compliant with the underlying requirements in orde......
-
Ogden Environmental Services v. City of San Diego
...requirements than those imposed by the federal government, not outright bans on such activity. As the court in Ensco, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743 (8th Cir.1986), noted in striking down a local ordinance prohibiting certain hazardous wastes within the county Section 6929 acknowledges only th......
-
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Siting in Colorado
...25-15-509. 37. 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 6926(b), 6929 (1983). 38. 687 F.Supp. 1436 (S.D.Cal. 1988). 39. Id. at 1446. 40. Id. 41. Id. at 1447-48. 42. 807 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1986). 43. Id. at 744. 44. Id. at 745. 45. Gore, Earth in the Balance (N.Y.: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1992). Column Eds.: W. Bruce T......