&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 ------- |