## Facts

- National-Standard operated wire-manufacturing facilities in Niles, Michigan and generated hazardous wastes (including acidic and alkaline wastes) subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
- The company sought an EPA permit to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste and operated under RCRA “interim status” while the application was pending.
- An EPA geologist visited the facilities and observed conditions suggesting that certain waste-related areas were releasing hazardous substances and posing potential risks.
- EPA sought a comprehensive inspection to determine whether “corrective action” would be required for releases from solid waste management units (SWMUs) as a condition of permitting under RCRA as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
- After National-Standard refused access, EPA obtained an ex parte administrative search warrant supported by the geologist’s affidavit; the warrant authorized inspection and sampling in areas relevant to RCRA compliance and corrective action.
- National-Standard filed a federal declaratory judgment action challenging EPA’s statutory authority, the warrant’s validity (probable cause, scope, ex parte process), and EPA’s use of contractors.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and denied National-Standard’s discovery request into EPA’s internal processes and related matters.
- National-Standard appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether RCRA, as amended by HSWA, authorizes EPA to inspect a facility seeking a hazardous-waste permit (including areas needed to identify SWMUs and assess releases) to determine whether corrective action is required.
2. Whether the ex parte administrative search warrant was valid under the Fourth Amendment and applicable administrative-warrant standards, including whether it was supported by adequate administrative probable cause and reasonably limited in scope.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying National-Standard’s request for discovery aimed at challenging EPA’s basis for the inspection and warrant.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the defendants.
- The court held EPA had statutory authority under RCRA and HSWA to conduct the inspection in connection with corrective action determinations during the permitting process.
- The court held the administrative search warrant was valid: the affidavit provided sufficient administrative probable cause, the warrant was reasonably limited to regulatory objectives, and the ex parte procedure did not invalidate it.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying discovery because the existing record was sufficient to resolve the legal issues and assess probable cause.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA and HSWA authorize EPA to inspect hazardous-waste facilities seeking or operating under interim status permits to identify SWMUs and evaluate potential releases relevant to corrective action.
- Administrative inspections are evaluated under a reasonableness-based, regulatory probable-cause standard; detailed criminal probable cause is not required.
- An administrative warrant is proper when supported by an inspector’s factual affidavit indicating conditions consistent with possible regulatory violations or releases and when the warrant’s scope is tied to statutory inspection purposes.
- An ex parte application is a conventional warrant procedure and, without additional indicia of misconduct, does not render an administrative warrant unlawful.
- Discovery may be denied where the warrant and statutory issues can be decided on the existing record and further inquiry into agency deliberations is not necessary to the controlling legal analysis.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that EPA’s RCRA/HSWA corrective-action regime permits broad facility inspections during permitting, upheld an ex parte administrative warrant supported by an inspector’s affidavit under the administrative probable-cause standard, and affirmed denial of discovery as unnecessary to resolve the warrant and statutory questions.


National-Standard Co. v. Adamkus, 881 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1989)