United States v. Akzo Coatings of Am. - 949 F.2d 1409 (6th Cir. 1991)

Rule:

A court's review process of a response action undertaken by Environmental Protection Agency is guided by 42 U.S.C.S. § 9613(j).

Facts:

The state challenged a consent decree under CERCLA that required the PRPs to engage in remedial work to clean up a hazardous waste site by excavation and incineration of chemically contaminated subsurface soils and by the flushing of organically contaminated subsurface soils.

Issue:

Did the trial court err when it held that the appropriate standard of review of a consent decree between the EPA and PRPs was the arbitrary and capricious standard in reviewing the administrative record?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. After an exhaustive review of the record, it found that soil flushing as a remedy for the waste site was not an arbitrary and capricious choice because it was to be performed under EPA supervision within a fair and reasonable timetable and because both the EPA and the state regarded soil-flushing as a cost-effective and proven technology. The state failed to show by substantial evidence that EPA's waiver of the state's anti-degradation law, as an applicable or relevant appropriate requirement, was unjustified.