## Facts

- Stanley Plating Co., Inc. operated an electroplating facility in Connecticut that was a hazardous-waste management facility.
- EPA alleged that after November 8, 1983, Stanley continued discharging or managing hazardous waste into surface impoundments despite allegedly losing interim status and authority for land-disposal units.
- RCRA § 3007, 42 U.S.C. § 6927(a), authorizes EPA to enter regulated premises at reasonable times and to inspect, obtain samples, and review wastes, containers, and labeling.
- EPA applied for and obtained an ex parte administrative inspection warrant supported by affidavits from an EPA environmental engineer.
- After issuance of the warrant, the United States filed a civil enforcement action against Stanley (March 1986).
- Stanley moved to quash the inspection warrant, arguing that once litigation was pending EPA was limited to discovery procedures under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (particularly Rule 34).

## Issues

1. Whether the pendency of a federal civil enforcement action restricts EPA to discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and precludes an administrative inspection under RCRA § 3007 pursuant to an ex parte warrant.

## Decision

- The court denied Stanley’s motion to quash the inspection warrant.
- The court held that the existence of a civil enforcement action does not displace or suspend EPA’s statutory inspection authority under RCRA § 3007.
- The court maintained the validity of the ex parte administrative warrant, which had been supported by administrative probable cause.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory inspection authority granted to an agency by Congress (including RCRA § 3007) remains available even when related civil enforcement litigation is pending.
- The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure govern discovery within litigation but do not implicitly repeal or supplant independent statutory inspection powers absent clear congressional direction.
- Administrative inspection warrants may issue ex parte on administrative probable cause, and subsequent litigation does not retroactively invalidate an otherwise proper warrant.

## Conclusion

The district court held that EPA may pursue civil enforcement and conduct a warrant-backed RCRA § 3007 inspection in parallel, and it refused to confine EPA to civil discovery mechanisms simply because a civil action was pending.


In re Stanley Plating Co., 637 F. Supp. 71 (D. Conn. 1986)