United States v. Power Engineering Co.

191 F.3d 1224 (1999)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Power Engineering Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
191 F.3d 1224 (1999)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

Power Engineering Company (PEC) (defendant) operated a business of refinishing metal parts for large diesel engines used in heavy equipment. PEC’s facility generated 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month. In 1992, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) conducted compliance-review inspections of the PEC facility and reported numerous violations of federal and state regulations governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. As a result of PEC’s illegal storage and disposal of hazardous waste that was deposited onto the soil, groundwater at and near the facility became contaminated with hexavalent-chromium levels that greatly exceeded established toxicity levels. The CDPHE issued several administrative orders against PEC, but PEC did not comply. In 1996, the EPA, on behalf of the United States (plaintiff), exercised its authority to seek PEC’s compliance with the state regulations. Colorado had implemented its own hazardous-waste program that was substantially identical to the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations. One regulation included financial-assurance requirements, which required owners and operators of hazardous-waste facilities to document that they have secured the financial resources required for closure of their facilities in a safe manner and to pay third-party claims that may arise from their operations. The United States sought a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring PEC to comply with the regulations for financial assurances. PEC argued that it did not dispose of hazardous waste and was thus not subject to Colorado’s regulations for facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste (TSD facilities). The district court granted the preliminary injunction. PEC appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Ebel, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership