Ensco, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1986). · Go Syfert
Search
Ensco, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743 (8th Cir. 1986). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events (9 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division v. United States (ca10, 2012-09-05)
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986 2006 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Hazardous Materials & Waste Management Division v. United States
10th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Comm’rs, 27 F.3d 1499, 1504-05 (10th Cir.1994); ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744-45 (8th Cir.1986).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Aurora Dairy Corp. Organic Milk Marketing
8th Cir. · 2010 · confidence medium
“Even where concurrent regulation is not totally 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).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Secured Environmental Management, Inc. v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Tex. App. · 2003 · confidence medium
James, 775 F.2d 627 , 684 (5th Cir.1985) (parish ordinance purporting to ban disposal of “commercial solvents” preempted by EPA determination that PCBs could be disposed of safely); ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir.1986) (county ordinance banning disposal of “acute hazardous waste” despite EPA policy allowing hazardous waste disposal); Ogden Envtl.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Secured Environmental Management, Inc. v. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Jeffrey Saitas, and the City of Mont Belvieu
Tex. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
James , 775 F.2d 627 , 634 (5th Cir. 1991) (parish ordinance purporting to ban disposal of "commercial solvents" preempted by EPA determination that PCBs could be disposed of safely); ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas , 807 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir. 1986) (county ordinance banning disposal of "acute hazardous waste" despite EPA policy allowing hazardous waste disposal); Ogden Envtl.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) South Dakota Mining Ass'n v. Lawrence County (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.S.D. · 1997 · confidence medium
“A conflict exists when the local enactment ‘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 with both federal and state law, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 141-45 , 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217-18 , 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963). 14 Once state law- is found to conflict with federal law, the state law is deemed to be “without effect.�…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of Rogers (2×)
N.D. Okla. · 1995 · confidence medium
Conference Report No. 98-1133, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. at 80, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5649, 5651; ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744 (8th Cir.1986) (noting Congressional intent to encourage treatment in preference to land disposal of hazardous waste).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Blue Circle Cement, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of the County of Rogers (3×)
10th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
Old Bridge Chemicals, Inc. v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 965 F.2d 1287, 1292 (3d Cir.) (“[A]lthough waste management may be an area of overriding national importance, in legislating in the field Congress has set only a floor, and not a ceiling, beyond which states may go in regulating the treatment, storage, *1505 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 Have…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LaFarge Corp. v. Campbell
W.D. Tex. · 1993 · confidence medium
Ensco, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744-45 (8th Cir.1986) (emphasis added); see also Warren County v. State of N.C., 528 F.Supp. 276, 288-90 (E.D.N.C.1981) (county ordinance prohibiting storage, dumping or disposal of PCBs in county preempted by Toxic Substances Control Act).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Cal. · 1988 · confidence medium
Rather, the question presented on this motion to enforce the court’s May 11 ruling and for injunctive relief is whether the City’s actions constitute “good-faith adaptations of federal policy to local conditions,” Ensco, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 745 (8th Cir.1987), or whether they amount to a de facto ban on the Ogden project in frustration of congressional objectives.
cited Cited "see" National Solid Wastes Management Association v. The Alabama Department Of Environmental Management
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744-45 (8th Cir.1986); see also 42 U.S.C.
discussed Cited "see" National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n v. Alabama Department of Environmental Management
11th Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743, 744-45 (8th Cir.1986); see also 42 U.S.C. § 6902 (a)(7) (objectives of RCRA — protecting health and environment and conserving valuable mate rial and energy resources — are accomplished in part by establishing a viable federal-state partnership); H.R.Rep.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hermes Consolidated, Inc. v. People (2×)
Wyo. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also ENSCO, Inc. v. Dumas, 807 F.2d 743 (8th Cir.1986).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ensco, Inc.
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, 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
86-1410.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Dec 22, 1986.
807 F.2d 743
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

807 F.2d 743

25 ERC 1486, 55 USLW 2370, 55 USLW
2383, 17 Envtl. L. Rep. [PG20,520]

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.

No. 86-1410.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 10, 1986.
Decided Dec. 22, 1986.

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.

FAGG, Circuit Judge.

[*~743]1

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.

2

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).

3

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).

4

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.

5

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) (agency in issuing regulations under Public Health Service Act had declared that state and local authority was not intended to be preempted); 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) (no clear congressional intent in RCRA to preempt entire field of interstate waste management or transportation). Even where concurrent regulation is not totally precluded, however, state and local enactments are nullified to the extent they actually conflict with federal law. Hillsborough County, 105 S.Ct. at 2375. A conflict exists when the local enactment " 'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' " Id. (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67, 61 S.Ct. 399, 404, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941)). City of Philadelphia, relied on by the County, is not controlling on the existence of a conflict here because the state law which survived preemption in that case banned only interstate transportation and not disposal of waste and expressly excluded hazardous waste--which is subject to greater regulation under the RCRA--from its operation. 437 U.S. at 618-19 & n. 2, 98 S.Ct. at 2532-33 & n. 2.

6

The conflict between Ordinance No. 171 and the purposes and objectives of the RCRA is clear. The RCRA emphasizes the need for safe disposal and treatment of hazardous waste and grants to the EPA the authority to develop and detail appropriate waste procedures and to outlaw less healthful practices. Ordinance No. 171, however, ignores that F020 series wastes do exist, and through its ban on storage, treatment, and disposal in essence mandates that these wastes in Union County will not be handled in the manner deemed safest by Congress and the EPA.

7

Section 6929 acknowledges only the authority of state and local governmental entities to make good-faith adaptations of federal policy to local conditions. The record suggests that Union County in passing Ordinance No. 171 was not so acting. A county cannot, by attaching the label "more stringent requirements" or "site selection" to an ordinance that in language and history defies such description, arrogate to itself the power to enact a measure that as a practical matter cannot function other than to subvert federal policies concerning the safe handling of hazardous waste.

[*~744]8

We affirm the judgment of the district court that Ordinance No. 171 is invalid as conflicting with the RCRA. See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.