DocketNumber: No. CV 98-0492628S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 4249, 27 Conn. L. Rptr. 64
Judges: McWEENY, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 4/3/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The case involves the treatment of a chemical product sold by MacDermid. The product "Ultra Etch" is sold to the printed circuit board industry, which uses it to dissolve copper from printed circuit boards. In the course of being used, the Ultra Etch becomes contaminated with copper salts which eventually render the Ultra Etch unusable. The users of the Ultra Etch product are contractually obligated to return the spent Ultra Etch, known as spent etchant, to MacDermid.
The spent etchant is corrosive and has been considered and managed by all parties as a hazardous waste pursuant to §
MacDermid stores the returned spent etchant in either a drum or a tank before pumping it into a "reactor tank". Caustic soda is added to the reactor tank and heat is then applied causing a chemical reaction in which copper oxide precipitates out and anhydrous ammonia gas is generated. The ammonia gas is CT Page 4250 transferred from the reactor tank to another tank, known as a "scrub tank", where the ammonia gas reacts with hydrochloric acid and changes back into a liquid to form ammonium chloride. The copper oxide in the reactor tank is allowed to settle, is washed, and is discharged to a filter press for final processing. The ammonium chloride and copper oxide produced from spent etchant are sold to others as well as used by MacDermid in manufacturing other products.
On August 9, 1994, the DEP issued two permits to MacDermid. One permit issued under General Statutes §
MacDermid filed a petition for declaratory rulings ("petition") with the DEP on October 14, 1997 for the purpose of determining whether spent etchant which is used as an ingredient in a manufacturing process to produce commercial chemical products at its Waterbury, Connecticut facility is a regulated "waste" under State law. The petition was supplemented with submissions dated June 2, 1998 ("6/2/98 supplement"), June 5. 1998 ("6/5/98 supplement"), June 13, 1998 ("6/13/98 supplement"), and July 7, 1998 ("7/7/98 supplement"). The submissions were provided in response to the DEP's request for additional information concerning the use to which MacDermid's products were put by its customers.
MacDermid's petition requested the Department issue the following declaratory rulings:
1. The spent etchant which MacDermid uses as an ingredient in a manufacturing process to make new end-products at its Waterbury, Connecticut facility is not a "solid waste" pursuant to the provisions of
40 C.F.R. § 261.2 (e)(1)(i).2. Where the spent etchant used by MacDermid is not a "solid waste" pursuant to the provisions of
40 C.F.R. § 261.2 (e)(1)(i), it is not necessary to manage that material as a hazardous waste while it is being transported to, stored at and used in a manufacturing process at MacDermid's Waterbury, Connecticut facility.
3. Where the spent etchant used by MacDermid is not a "solid CT Page 4251 waste" pursuant to the provisions of
4. MacDermid's customers are not required to manage the spent etchant which they send to MacDermid as either a hazardous waste or a Connecticut Regulated Waste while it is being stored pending shipment to MacDermid's Waterbury facility because the spent etchant is not a "solid waste" pursuant to the provisions of
40 C.F.R. § 261.2 (e)(1)(i).(Appellant's Brief with Regard to the Review of the Department's Four Declaratory Rulings, p. 2; see also Return of Record ("ROR"), Item 25, October 8, 1998 Declaratory Ruling, p. 4.)
The DEP, in response to the petition and proceedings thereon, issued a declaratory ruling on October 8, 1998. The declaratory ruling is in the form of a 19 page decision which concludes as follows: "Based upon the foregoing, I rule that pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §
The plaintiff MacDermid filed its administrative appeal on November 9, 1998. The record in the case was filed on January 20, 1999. The plaintiff filed its brief on March 5, 1999 and the defendant DEP on May 13, 1999. The parties were heard in oral argument on August 5, 1999. The parties consented in writing to an extension of the 120-day period in which the Court is required to render a decision.
A basic principle of administrative law is that the scope of the court's review of an agency's decision is very limited. General Statutes §
"Judicial review of [an administrative agency's] action is governed by the Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (General Statutes, c. 54, §§
At the outset, the court notes the "standard of review for all of the plaintiff's claims on appeal. Because [the court is] reviewing the decision of an administrative agency, [the court's] review is highly deferential. . . . Ordinarily, this court affords deference to the construction of a statute applied by the administrative agency empowered by law to carry out the statute's purposes. . . . [A]n agency's factual and discretionary determinations are to be accorded considerable weight by the. . . . Cases that present pure questions of law, however, invoke a broader standard of review than is ordinarily involved in deciding whether, in light of the evidence, the agency has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion. . . . Furthermore, when a state agency's determination of a question of law has not previously been subject to judicial scrutiny . . . the agency is not entitled to special deference. . . . [I]t is for the courts, and not administrative agencies, to expound and apply governing principles of law. . . ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bezzini v. Dept. of Social Services,
In its lengthy and thorough brief, MacDermid essentially argues CT Page 4253 that the returned spent etchant is not subject to regulation as a hazardous waste. The determination of this issue requires an extensive review of an elaborate system of state and federal regulation.
The basic federal legislation concerning hazardous waste is the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6900 et seq. The purposes of the Act include regulating the treatment, storage, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste and promoting a national research and development program for methods of collection, separation, recovery and recycling of solid waste.
The DEP's regulation of hazardous waste is also specifically authorized under General Statutes §
In its petition for declaratory judgment, MacDermid specifically references the regulatory scheme in its requested rulings. The first ruling requested a determination that spent etchant is not a "solid waste" under
The determination of whether a material is a RCRA solid waste when it is recycled requires an examination of both the material itself and the recycling activity involved. See American Mining Company v. EPA,
The spent etchant is a "spent material" pursuant to
The DEP decision concluded that MacDermid is engaged in reclamation by material recovery from spent etchant. The decision specifically finds:
In applying this definition, I conclude that MacDermid is engaged in reclamation by material recovery from the spent etchant. Before use, MacDermid's Ultra Etch product does not contain copper. Petition, p. 4 Ultra Etch removes copper from printed circuit boards by dissolving and holding copper in solution. Id. and July 7, 1998 submission, Exhibit 22, Tab 4. Through use Ultra Etch eventually becomes so contaminated with copper that it is rendered unusable (i.e. spent). Through its recycling process, MacDermid extracts dissolved copper from spent etchant in the form of copper oxide which it in turn uses to produce other copper-based products. Based upon these facts, I conclude that MacDermid is recovering the copper values in spent etchant; it processes spent etchant so that it can recover usable copper. The fact that MacDermid charges customers a penalty if the copper content of its spent etchant is too low further reinforces this conclusion. Petition, p. 4, fn. 1.
MacDermid also extracts another usable product, ammonia, from spent etchant. Ammonia is used to produce ammonium chloride, one of the primary active ingredients in Ultra Etch. After use, Ultra Etch can no longer dissolve the copper on printed circuit boards. Through its recycling process, MacDermid removes copper and recovers the ammonia gas present in spent etchant. While this ammonia gas is recovered during an intermediate step in the recycling process, it is just like the new ammonia gas that CT Page 4256 MacDermid adds to the scrub tank. See July 7, 1998 submission, P. 13, fn. 19. The fact that MacDermid uses the ammonia gas from the reactor tank just like the new ammonia gas it purchases reinforces the conclusion that MacDermid is recovering the ammonia values in spent etchant and is therefore engaged in reclamation. In fact, MacDermid could take the ammonia gas generated in the reactor tank out of the recycling process and save it for later use.
(ROR, Item 25, October 8, 1998 Declaratory Ruling, pp. 7-8.)
The essential claim by MacDermid is that the materials are not being reclaimed, but rather used or reused as ingredients in an industrial process to make a product and thus not solid waste pursuant to the exemption set forth in
That regulation states that a material is "used or reused" if it is: (i) employed as an ingredient (including the use as an intermediate) in an industrial process to make a product (for example, distillation bottoms from one process used as feet stock in another process).
MacDermid describes the process in which it allegedly manufacturers new-end products in the following manner:
The spent etchant which MacDermid obtains from its customers is stored in either 55 gallon drums or in one of three 8,000 gallon storage tanks depending upon whether it was returned in drums or transported in one of MacDermid's tanker trucks. When MacDermid desires to use the spent etchant to produce new end-products, it transfers a portion of the etchant from a storage tank to one of two vessels which are known as "reactor CT Page 4257 tanks." Caustic soda and heat are added. The ensuing chemical reaction is allowed to proceed for approximately 12 to 15 hours. During the reaction, copper oxide precipitates out of the spent etchant/caustic soda mixture and ammonia gas is generated.
At the end of the reaction, the copper oxide is allowed to settle and the liquid remaining in the reactor tank is pumped into another vessel for treatment and disposal as a process wastewater. The copper oxide remaining in the reactor tank is washed and discharged to a filter press for final processing. The copper oxide is the first end-product of the MacDermid process which uses spent etchant as an ingredient.
The ammonia gas generated in the reactor tanks is transferred to another type of tank known as a "scrub tank" as that gas is being generated. The ammonia gas is reacted with hydrochloric acid in the scrub tanks to produce ammonium chloride. That reaction occurs throughout the twelve plus hour process as the ammonia gas is being introduced into the scrub tanks. The ammonium chloride produced in the scrub tanks is the second end-product of the above described process which uses spent etchant as an ingredient.
(Appellant's Brief with Regard to the Review of the Department's Four Declaratory Rulings, pp. 8-9.)
The DEP's treatment of these factual questions on the MacDermid process are controlled by the substantial evidence rule. "Substantial evidence exists if the administrative record affords a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can be reasonably inferred. . . . This substantial evidence standard is highly deferential and permits less judicial scrutiny than a clearly erroneous or weight of the evidence standard of review. . . . The burden is on the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the [agency's] factual conclusions were not supported by the weight of substantial evidence on the whole record. . . ." (Brackets omitted; citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) New England Cable Television Assn., Inc. v. DPUC,
MacDermid's own exhibits provide substantial evidence that ammonia gas is present in the spent etchant and therefore is a "distinct component" of the spent etchant that is recovered as a separate end-product. Substantial evidence supports the DEP CT Page 4258 conclusion that ammonia gas is reclaimed from the spent etchant. It is a "usable product", "by-product", and "usable material". It is recovered from the spent etchant and used subsequently to make other products. It is thus reclaimed. In that it is reclaimed it is not entitled to the use/reuse exemption. This is also true with respect to the extraction of copper. MacDermid argues that copper oxide the end-product is not present in the spent etchant, which is true. Substantial evidence on the record establishes the reasonable basis of DEP conclusion that the purpose of the MacDermid processing of spent etchant is the recovery of copper values. Its combination with oxygen to make copper oxide product does not defeat the significance of the finding that copper is extracted from the spent etchant. The U.S. EPA Guidance Manual on the RCRA Regulation of Recycled Hazardous Waste indicates that an analogous process would not be subject to regulation. The DEP correctly points out that the guidance manual is not controlling in that the specific process referenced is distinguishable in that ammonia does exist in the original spent etchant returned to MacDermid.
The substantial evidence rule also resolves MacDermid's claim regarding the treatment of allegedly similar processes by other agencies or the DEP, that is evidence; but it is not weighed by the court in determining the factual conclusion reached by the agency. The review as to factual claims is only to determine if substantial evidence exists in the record to support the agency's findings. The existence in the record of contrary evidence is of little import.
The DEP decision is also supported by an analysis of the entire process which supports the determination that what MacDermid is primarily doing is waste management not the manufacturer of these products, reclaimed from the spent etchant.
The DEP decision also denies the exemption to MacDermid on the basis that it may be used to produce products applied to the land. Pursuant to §
The factual basis for the DEP decision that the spent etchant was used to produce products applied to the land was the CT Page 4259 MacDermid petition which stated that it sold copper oxide for use as an ingredient to manufacture "products such as fungicide". MacDermid's further submissions indicate that it no longer sold copper oxide to the fungicide manufacturer, but offered it to a manufacturer who made wood preservatives. (7/7/98 submission.) The declaratory ruling found that fungicides are used to destroy fungi and in the Department's experience are often sprayed or dusted onto the land." (Decision at page 15).
MacDermid, seeking the exemption from regulation, was obligated to substantiate its claim to exemption from regulation. Regs., Conn. State Agencies §
General Statutes §
There is simply no basis in law for the claim that a chemical liquid such as spent etchant even if found not to be a solid waste under the State's RCRA would be exempted from regulation under §
The record is replete with evidence that spent etchant is a "chemical liquid" and thus subject to the provisions of General Statutes §
The decision below is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed.
ROBERT F. McWEENY, J.