&EPA
ARCHIVE
OSWER
Dir
9432.02
(83)
EJBD
United States
Envirori mentat Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Wast, and
Emergency Response
Os
WER
OSWER
c
TI VE
DiRE C
Ti VE
DI
RA Appljcabjljty to
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9432.02 (83)
TITLE: I cent court Decisions on
Storage Facilities
APPROVAL DATE: 11-29-83
EFFECTIVE DATE: 11-29-83
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
[ }FINAL
o DRAFT
LEVEL OF DRAFT
O A — Signed by AA or DAA
o B — Signed by Office Director
o C — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):

-------
0 PART 260 SUBPART B — DEFINITIONS DOC: 9432.02(83)
J Key Words: Storage, Regulated Wastes
( 3) Regulations: 40 CFR 260.10
Subject: Recent Court Decisions on RCRA Applicablity to Storage Facilities
Addressee: Hazardous Waste Division Directors, Regions I—X
Originator: John Skinner, Director, Office of Solid Waste
Source Doc: /fi9432.O2(83)
Date: 11—29—83
Summary:
The United States Court of Appeals declared that a person in control of a
site where drummed hazardous wastes are held is engaged in “storage” of hazardous
waste under RCRA even though all the wastes were placed at the site before
November 19, 1980. Environmental Defense Fund v. Lamphier , 714 F.2d 331 (4th
Cir.). The Court, citing the definition of storage in §260.10, held that the
fact that no wastes had been placed in storage after November 19, 1980 was
“immaterial” because the defendant had continued to store wastes deposited
before that date.
US EPA

MaUCOcie 3404T
1301 COflSt tUt Q Ave N
hiflgtOfl DC 20004
202 5660556
BepoS tOt Mater at
Permanent Co ect Ofl

-------
/ ci
9432.02 (83)
EMO V DiJM
Re c nt C urt beci’ton on RC A ‘ pp1icat tlity to
toraJe t ci1ittes
5 inner, ir,ctor
Oftic of o1id astP (w’4—5’53)
‘ sr1ous Djvjstp irect r , ‘ ;tor s
In reCer t C i(’fl ! n’ .’jr r ,nt, 1 ‘ t’ r,so ‘urc v. La— r,t r , -
714 F.2d 331., *e Unitod ‘tat Ccurt of Ap eais, z ourtt Circuit, -
duclor.d that a .rson in control of a site where dru ed
hazardous wastes are held is ertçagsd in *tora e’ of hazardous
waite under CRA avon thou 1 all the wastes were y1aced at t e
5ite before •1ove’ 5 r 19, l9 fl hO d f nd,ne .j je i !
not covered by the CT t reQulationa because h a had iot 1acc
4fl vactee in storage aftfsr the date tho r ç iiation nt 1it
effect. The court, citing the definition of etoraje in 4 CFR
26 .l4 , høj t’,at the fact ti at i b vastes had in
storsg* after a so ber 19, 1 8O, was i materi41 because the
otendant had continued to store dastOs deposited afore that
ia r..3._j
This .ieciaton su ports previous uidanco ‘dO hive issuoc on
this su Ject (attached). It is particularly st ntricant because
It was delivered by a court which has traditionally taken a
nz rr view of E PA’s authority. Pleaas note this decision and
ensure that both tee , ical staff and Reqional Councel are aware
of It.
‘ ttachv’onts
cc l S Branch C iieta
Permits Contacts
Mark Greenwood
WR—563 :C li11er:CM: rm.S24 30z352—4692:1l/25/83:Mijjer’s disk 5

-------