Rogers Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued November 8, 2001 Decided January 4, 2002

No. 00-1542

Rogers Corporation,
Petitioner

v.

Environmental Protection Agency,
Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the
Environmental Protection Agency

Steven Ferrey argued the cause for petitioner. With him
on the briefs was Lee D. Hoffman.

D. Judith Keith, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice,
argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief was
John C. Cruden, Acting Assistant Attorney General.

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Rogers and Garland,
Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Rogers.

 Rogers, Circuit Judge: The Rogers Corporation ("the com-
pany") petitions for review of the decision of the Environmen-
tal Appeals Board assessing a penalty of $281,400 for violation
of section 15 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C.
s 2614 (1994). The company challenges the decision on a
variety of grounds. Suffice it to say, the company contends
that the Board's affirmance of the grant of the agency's
motion for partial accelerated decision, which requires a
finding that "no genuine issue of material fact exists," 40
C.F.R. s 22.20(a), was arbitrary and capricious. We agree,
and, accordingly, we grant the petition and remand the case
to the Board for further proceedings.

I.

The parties stipulated to the following facts: The company,
a Massachusetts corporation that has its principal place of
business in Connecticut, owns and operates a manufacturing
facility that produces polyurethane elastomers and foams.
During the relevant time period, the company used a heat
transfer system known as "HTS 975," which was located in a
basement room. The HTS 975 used oil as a heat transfer
medium, and oil occasionally dripped or wept from the pump
bearings and then collected on the concrete floor beneath the
HTS 975 in a shallow concrete berm. From time to time, the
company pumped the oil from the berm under the HTS 975
into drums, sampled the contents of the drums for hazardous
waste constituents, and shipped the drums off-site for dispos-
al. From at least 1988 to at least March 1992, analysis of the
samples of residual heat transfer fluid taken from the berm
did not reveal concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls
("PCBs") equal to or greater than 50 parts per million
("ppm"). In April 1993, however, sampling of 16 drums of
waste oil revealed PCBs in excess of 50 ppm in nine drums.
The company was notified of the excessive PCBs in June
1993, and the sixteen drums were shipped off-site for disposal
in September 1993. In December 1993, the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection inspected the com-
pany, found PCBs in excess of 50 ppm in two of five samples
of oil taken from the HTS 975 room, and cited the company.

Four months later, the Department ordered the company to
conduct certain studies and to take remedial actions. In
response, the company continued to investigate the source of
the excessive PCBs and undertook remedial actions.

In September 1994, the Environmental Protection Agency
("the agency") charged the company with improper disposal
of PCBs from June 16, 1993, until on or around December 1,
1993 in violation of 40 C.F.R. s 761.60 and s 15 of the Toxic
Substance Control Act, 15 U.S.C. 2614, and proposed a civil
penalty of $226,750. The company filed an answer in October
1994, and, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. s 22.15(c), requested a
hearing. In its prehearing memorandum, the company stated
that it would offer evidence that it had not used any PCB-
containing heat transfer fluids since 1972, and that the only
logical source of the PCBs in the residual heat transfer fluid
was the concrete floor and soil underneath the HTS 975. In
a supplemental prehearing memorandum, the company prof-
fered Robert S. Potterton as an expert witness who would
"provide an opinion as to the physical/chemical basis for the
unexpected appearance, in or about 1993, of PCB concentra-
tions equal to or greater than 50 ppm in the fluid that was
pumped from the bermed containment area in the vicinity of
HTS 975...." Mr. Potterton would also testify about remed-
iation efforts by the company.

Just short of three years after the agency filed its charge,
on September 12, 1997, the company filed a motion for an
accelerated decision, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. s 22.20(a). The
company sought application of the agency's historic waste
exemption for PCB-containing fluids placed in a disposal site
prior to February 17, 1978. Anticipating that the agency
would rely on In the Matter of Standard Scrap Metal Compa-
ny, TSCA Appeal No. 87-4, 1990 E.P.A. App. LEXIS 8
(E.P.A. Aug. 2, 1990), the company argued that the phrase
"disposal site" did not refer to a narrow subcategory of places
for containing PCB-waste spilled or released prior to Febru-
ary 17, 1978. The company pointed to agency regulations
proposed December 6, 1994, clarifying that PCBs disposed of

prior to April 18, 1978, do not require further disposal action
unless a Regional Administrator finds that such historic waste
presents a risk to health or the environment from exposure.
See Disposal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls, 59 Fed. Reg.
62,788 (proposed Dec. 6, 1994) (codified at 40 C.F.R.
s 761.50(b)(3)). The company asserted that this court had
acknowledged the validity of the proposed rule as a statement
of agency policy in General Electric Co. v. EPA, 53 F.3d 1324
(D.C. Cir. 1995), and that the Environmental Appeals Board
had relied on the proposed rule as support for the respon-
dent's position in In re CWM Chemical Services, Inc., TSCA
Appeal No. 93-1, 1995 E.P.A. App. LEXIS 20 (E.P.A. May
15, 1995). As evidentiary support for application of the
historic waste exemption, attached to the company's motion
for accelerated decision was an affidavit of Gerry L. Langeli-
er, an engineer at the company for 33 years, stating that the
company had ceased using PCB-based oil in 1972, and that,
since then, oil seepage from the wet seals into the bermed
containment area under the HTS 975 had never before the
1993 tests contained PCB concentrations above 50 ppm.

The agency filed an opposition to the company's motion for
accelerated decision, a motion to file an amended complaint to
increase the duration of the charged violation and the pro-
posed penalty to $300,300 (based on evidence that the spill
remained from June 16, 1993, until March 29, 1994, or later),
as well as its own motion for a partial accelerated decision on
liability. The company opposed the agency's motion for a
partial accelerated decision, renewed its argument based on
the agency's interpretation of its regulations as reflected in
the proposed regulations, and also argued that the agency's
inference that a disposal took place in 1993 was unwarranted
in light of the undisputed fact that there was no ongoing
source of PCBs in the HTS 975. Asserting that the question
of why PCBs suddenly showed up in 1993 berm samples was
a matter of speculation, the company stated that question was
irrelevant because there was no evidence of any spill or leak

at the company in 1993. An attached affidavit from its
engineer stated that no piping containing PCB had been
connected to the HTS 975 after the system was drained of
PCB oils in 1972 and that, upon cleaning the HTS 975 room
floor and the discovery of cracks in the sump area, the
company discovered PCB contaminated soil underneath the
floor.

By Order of November 13, 1997, an administrative law
judge ("ALJ") granted the agency's motions to amend the
complaint and for partial accelerated decision on liability.
The ALJ denied the company's motion for accelerated deci-
sion, and the company's request for oral argument, inasmuch
as the company had not set forth a basis for the request
"other than its generalized assertion that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law in this matter." 1997 Order on
Liability at 2. The ALJ summarized the stipulated facts and
observed that the parties disagreed as to the legal inferences
to be drawn therefrom. Noting that the company had offered
"no direct evidence showing when the uncontrolled discharges
at issue took place or how these discharges were caused," the
ALJ concluded that "the only plausible explanation for the
presence of PCBs at regulated levels in 1993 after years of
lower levels ... is that there was an uncontrolled discharge
in 1993." Id. at 23. Because the company failed to dispose of
the PCB-contaminated oil in the prescribed manner, the ALJ
found that there was an ongoing violation of the disposal
requirements of s 761.60(a). The ALJ rejected the compa-
ny's attempt to invoke the historic waste exemption because
(1) the berm under the HTS 975 was not a disposal site within
the meaning of the exemption; and (2) the company had
failed to carry its burden of showing that the PCB spill
occurred prior to February 17, 1978. Of the two causation
theories suggested to the ALJ upon review of the evidence,
the ALJ concluded that the company's leaching-up theory,
whereby PCBs had leached up from the concrete floor and
soil into the oil in the berm, "strains the imagination to
envision," while the agency's theory that increased production

had dislodged residual PCBs remaining inside the HTS 975
"appears far more likely." Id. at 24-25. The ALJ according-
ly found that there were no genuine issues of material fact,
and, upon rejecting the company's statute of limitations and
due process arguments, concluded that the agency was enti-
tled to judgment as a matter of law on liability.

During the penalty phase of the proceedings in April 1998,
the company attempted to introduce new, exculpatory evi-
dence that would show that the excessive PCBs in 1993
resulted from contamination of the samples by pre-1978
PCBs that had collected in the concrete and soil beneath the
berm. The company proffered, consistent with the ALJ's
ruling that the new evidence would be considered only with
regard to the penalty, expert evidence relevant to the dura-
tion of the violation. The proffered evidence was twofold: (1)
that, contrary to the agency's theory that oil continued to drip
and come into contact with PCB-contaminated oil in the
berm, which under the anti-dilution provision results in a 286-
day violation, the State's sampling method in December 1993
entrained into the sample PCB-contaminated concrete, result-
ing from the previous use of PCBs at the facility and their
release into the berm; and (2) that, to a reasonable degree of
scientific certainty, Mr. Potterton opined that the company's
change in its method of collection of oil, from one type of
pump to a more efficient wet/dry vacuum system, which was a
more aggressive collection procedure, directly resulted in
PCB levels over 50 ppm by entraining concrete particles and
dust and introducing oils from cracks in the immediate sur-
face of the slightly porous, PCB-contaminated concrete. The
ALJ imposed a penalty of $281,400.

The Environmental Appeals Board ("Board"), upon de novo
review, affirmed the 1997 Order on liability and the $281,400
penalty. The Board rejected the company's contention that
the Board should consider all the evidence in the administra-
tive record including its new evidence explaining the source of
the PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm, ruling that its
review of an accelerated decision will "generally" be limited to
the evidence and arguments in the administrative record at

the time the accelerated decision was made. The Board also
rejected the company's contention that the ALJ had erred in
refusing to consider relative to liability the new evidence
proffered at the penalty hearing, ruling that the law of the
case doctrine permitted the ALJ to reject the company's new
exculpatory evidence once liability had been determined. The
Board further ruled that the company had failed to meet its
burden of production and persuasion to show as an affirma-
tive defense that the historic waste exemption applied.
Based on the evidence that PCB contamination had been
found in the waste oil in previous years and that production
had increased significantly in 1993, and in view of the compa-
ny's failure to carry its burden of showing that the PCBs
were released prior to February 17, 1978, the Board conclud-
ed that the ALJ had reasonably inferred that the excessive
PCBs came from oil weeping from the HTS 975 rather than
PCBs leaching up from the concrete and soil beneath the
floor. Finally, the Board declined to apply the regulations
effective August 28, 1998, because the complaint had been
filed and liability determined before the new regulations
became effective. The Board did not rule on the ALJ's
alternative holding that the company was not entitled to the
historic waste exemption because the berm was not a proper
disposal site.

II.

On appeal, the company contends that the ALJ erred in
granting the agency's motion for accelerated decision on
liability by making, with no supporting evidence, a self-
described technical inference that PCBs must have spilled in
1993, and then blocking all contrary evidence that the compa-
ny sought to put in the record. The company maintains that
the ALJ's reliance on the agency's inference was not only
contrary to the nature of accelerated decisions, which the
agency acknowledges are like summary judgment, but also
contrary to the agency's own 1979 regulatory scheme, which
presumed that PCB-containing oil would flush completely
from the company's heat transfer system within three months
of the introduction of non-PCB oils. The company also

contends that the agency could not shift its burden of proof as
to its prima facie case, as was done in Standard Scrap, nor
penalize the company for historic PCB contamination in the
face of undisputed evidence that its source was pre-1978 PCB
oil. The company further maintains that the agency's clarifi-
cation of its regulations on the historic waste exemption
applies ab initio, citing Supreme Court and agency prece-
dent. Finally, the company contends that the agency imper-
missibly blocked subsequent key evidence, and that it was a
violation of the company's due process right to fair notice to
penalize the company for an historic spill.

A.

The Toxic Substances Control Act ("Act"), 15 U.S.C.
ss 2601-2692 (1994), provides for regulation of the use and
disposal of toxic substances prior to their manufacture, pro-
cessing, distribution, and use in order to protect human
health and the environment. Section 5 goes so far as to bar,
with only limited exceptions, the manufacture of a new chemi-
cal substance or new use prior to notice to the Administrator
who, upon finding that there is a reasonable basis to conclude
such action presents or may present an unreasonable risk of
injury to health or the environment, may prohibit or place
restrictions on its manufacture, processing, or distribution.
15 U.S.C. s 2604. The Act gives special attention, however,
to PCBs in view of the seriousness of their threat to human
health and the environment. See Envtl. Def. Fund, Inc. v.
EPA, 636 F.2d 1267, 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1980). Section 6 sets
forth a detailed scheme to dispose of and phase out PCBs,
and directs the Administrator to promulgate rules within six
months after January 1, 1977 (the Act's effective date), pre-
scribing methods of disposal and marking of PCBs. 15
U.S.C. s 2605(e). As relevant here, s 15 identifies prohibited
acts, including failing to comply with the Administrator's
rules and orders. Id. s 2614(1). The Act authorizes the
assessment of civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 for each
violation as well as criminal prosecution for knowing or willful
violations, and requires prior written notice of a proposed civil
penalty for violation of a prohibited act and a hearing in

accordance with s 554 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. s 554. 15 U.S.C. s 2615.

In 1978, the agency promulgated the first of two sets of
regulations to carry out s 6(e). See Envtl. Def. Fund, 636
F.2d at 1272. The first regulations, the so-called "Disposal
Regulations," covered pure PCB compounds as well as mate-
rials contaminated with at least 500 ppm of PCBs. Id.
Explaining that it chose this regulatory cutoff in order to
regulate disposal of most PCBs "as soon as possible," Pream-
ble to Final Disposal Regulations, 43 Fed. Reg. 7,151 (1978),
the agency warned that it was considering a new cutoff
"possibly in the range of 50 ppm or below" for the proposed
"Ban Regulations." Id. In June 1978, the agency proposed
regulations with a 50 ppm cutoff, see 43 Fed. Reg. 24,813
(1978), and this cutoff remained in the final rule. See Poly-
chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Manufacturing, Processing,
Distribution in Commerce, and Use Prohibitions, 44 Fed.
Reg. 31,514, 31,543 (1979).

As amended, the regulations in effect in 1993-94 also
contained a 50 ppm cutoff, and defined "disposal" to mean
"intentionally or accidentally to discard, throw away, or other-
wise complete or terminate the useful life of PCBs." 40
C.F.R. s 761.3 (1993). Subpart D set forth the disposal
requirements, defining "[s]pills and other uncontrolled dis-
charges of PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater [to]
constitute the disposal of PCBs." Id. s 761.60(d)(1). A
prefatory note to Subpart D stated that PCB items that have
been placed in a disposal site are considered to be "in service"
for purposes of Subpart D, and that Subpart D does not
require "removal of PCBs and PCB items from service and
disposal earlier than would normally be the case." Id. pt.
761, Subpart D (prefatory note). Subpart G, regulating spill
cleanup, requires the cleanup of PCBs within 48 hours of
notice or awareness of a spill. Id. s 761.125(c).

The Board interpreted the prefatory note in Subpart D of
the disposal regulations in Standard Scrap, 1990 E.P.A. App.
LEXIS 8. The case involved a civil enforcement proceeding
under s 16(a) of the Act charging violations of 40 C.F.R.

s 761.60 and 15 U.S.C. s 2614. Id. at *1-*2. The Board
stated that "[f]rom the unexplained presence of PCBs in the
soil, it can be inferred that one or more 'uncontrolled dis-
charges' of PCBs took place." Id. at *6. Under s 761.60(d)
of the regulations, the Board ruled, such a discharge amounts
to an improper disposal. Id. Standard Scrap argued that
the PCBs at issue fell within the historic waste exemption
provided in the prefatory note to Subpart D. Id. at *8. The
Board disagreed. The Board stated that the historic waste
exemption is available only as an affirmative defense, and that
the respondent bears the initial burden of production and the
ultimate burden of persuasion on the applicability of the
exemption. See id. at *10. Because Standard Scrap had
failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the
PCBs in the soil samples were "placed in a disposal site"
prior to February 17, 1978, the Board ruled that it could not
avail itself of the exemption. Id. at *13. In the alternative,
the Board held that "a 'disposal site' is something more than
a place where PCBs have been accidentally discharged." Id.
at *21.

Effective August 28, 1998, the agency amended the PCB
regulations. See 63 Fed. Reg. 35,384 (1998) (codified in
scattered sections of 40 C.F.R. Part 761). Comments on the
regulations as proposed in December 1994 had urged clarifi-
cation of the prefatory note in light of the Board's decision in
Standard Scrap. See 59 Fed. Reg. 62,788, 62,792. The 1998
regulations deleted the prefatory note and provided that sites
where PCBs have been placed in a land disposal facility,
spilled, or otherwise released to the environment prior to
April 18, 1978, are presumed not to present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the environment from exposure to
PCBs at the site, and do not necessarily require further
disposal action unless, on a case-by-case basis, the Adminis-
trator makes a finding that spills, leaks, or other uncontrolled
discharges, such as leaching from a pre-1978 disposal site,
constitute ongoing disposal that may present an unreasonable
risk of exposure to PCBs. 40 C.F.R. s 761.50(b)(3)(i)(A)
(2000). The regulations further clarified the burden on the
respondent, providing that "[t]he owner or operator of a site

containing PCB remediation waste has the burden of proving
the date that the waste was placed in a land disposal facility,
spilled, or otherwise released into the environment[.]" Id.
s 761.50(b)(3)(iii).

B.

Under the agency's Consolidated Rules of Practice, an ALJ
may issue an accelerated decision if there are no genuine
issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. See 40 C.F.R. 22.20(a). The Board has
construed an accelerated decision to be in the nature of
summary judgment, and has adopted the formulation of the
Supreme Court in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S.
242 (1986), and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986),
construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. See In re
BWX Tech., Inc., RCRA (3008) Appeal No. 97-5, 2000 E.P.A.
App. LEXIS 13, at *34-*41 (E.P.A. Apr. 5, 2000). Thus, the
movant is entitled to an accelerated decision only if it pres-
ents "evidence that is so strong and persuasive that no
reasonable [factfinder] is free to disregard it." Id. at *38-
*39. Evidence not too lacking in probative value must be
viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the
motion. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251, 255. Although the
finder of fact may draw inferences from the evidence, they
must be "reasonably probable," BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App.
LEXIS 13, at *45 n.22, and based on more than speculation.
See, e.g., Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,
475 U.S. 574, 587-88 (1986); BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App. LEXIS
13, at *45 n.22; In re Clarksburg Casket Co., EPCRA Appeal
No. 98-8, 1999 E.P.A. App. LEXIS 23, at *28 (E.P.A. July 16,
1999). Summary judgment is inappropriate when contradic-
tory inferences may be drawn from the evidence. See, e.g.,
Londrigan v. FBI, 670 F.2d 1164, 1171 n.37 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

To prevail, then, on a motion for accelerated decision on
liability, the agency "must show that it has established the
critical elements of [statutory] liability and that [the respon-
dent] has failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on its
affirmative defense...." BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App. LEXIS 13,

at *43. As to the affirmative defense, the Board has ex-
plained that "the [agency's initial] task is to show that there is
an absence of support in the record for the defense." Id. at
*44 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323-24). "If the [agency]
satisfies this burden, [the respondent], as the non-movant
bearing the ultimate burden of persuasion on its affirmative
defense, must meet its countervailing burden of production by
identifying 'specific facts' from which a reasonable factfinder
could find in its favor by a preponderance of the evidence."
Id.

The evidence before the ALJ on liability consisted of the
pleadings, the parties' joint stipulation of July 3, 1997 and
attachments, and two affidavits of the company's engineer,
Mr. Langelier. In addition, the company proffered the ex-
pert testimony of Mr. Potterton to the effect that there was a
physical and chemical basis for the unexpected appearance in
1993 of PCB concentrations in excess of 50 ppm, and, thus, no
new spill or uncontrolled discharge in 1993. The undisputed
evidence shows that PCB concentrations found in samples
taken from the berm under the HTS 975 between April and
December 1993 exceeded 50 ppm. The undisputed evidence
also shows that the company had ceased using oils containing
PCBs in 1972, and thereafter it had properly flushed its
system in 1977 and 1988, and that the samples taken through
1992 had shown PCB concentrations of less than 50 ppm.
Further, there was evidence from the company's manager of
environmental engineering that the company had "dramatical-
ly" increased its production in 1992, running the HTS 975 for
24 hours a day, 7 days a week, through 1993 and into 1994.

The ALJ granted the agency's motion for partial accelerat-
ed decision, relying on Standard Scrap, 1990 E.P.A. App.
LEXIS 8, at *6 n.6, in which the Board stated that the agency
presents a prima facie case of a violation by showing that the
samples contain PCBs in excess of 50 ppm and that the PCBs
were not disposed of in a proper site, a conclusion that may
be inferred from where the PCBs were found. The Board, on
de novo review, approved of the ALJ's reliance on the infer-
ence that because there was an unexplained presence of
PCBs on the concrete floor, one or more uncontrolled dis-

charges of PCBs took place. Ruling that the timing of an
improper disposal is an element of the historic waste affirma-
tive defense, not a part of the agency's prima facie case, the
Board agreed that the company had failed to meet its burden
of showing entitlement to the historic waste exemption. Pre-
termitting the correctness of the Board's position on the
parties' burdens, we hold that the Board's conclusion that the
administrative record during the liability phase of the pro-
ceedings did not present a genuine dispute of material fact
was erroneous, and thus its grant of the agency's motion for
accelerated decision was arbitrary and capricious. See Envtl.
Def. Fund, Inc. v. Costle, 657 F.2d 275, 282-83 (D.C. Cir.
1981); 5 U.S.C. s 706(2)(A).

The company presented undisputed evidence that it had not
introduced any PCB-containing heat transfer fluids since 1972
and that the results of its flushing, refilling, and testing of the
HTS 975 through at least 1992 had shown PCB concentra-
tions of less than 50 ppm. In addition, the company present-
ed evidence that it had discovered cracks in the concrete
berm and that PCB concentrations in the soil below were
very high. In light of this evidence, the company's inference
that the increase in PCBs was caused by PCBs leaching up
from the PCB-rich concrete and soil into the berm, rather
than leaking down from the HTS 975, would appear to raise a
disputed issue of material fact. Any doubt is, in any event,
dispelled by the company's proffered expert testimony in its
pleadings that itself raised a material question as to whether
an uncontrolled discharge had occurred in 1993. Neither the
Board nor the ALJ nor the agency on appeal challenge the
sufficiency of the proffers, but rather the agency defends the
Board's decision on the ground that the company "failed to
proffer ... alleged evidence in support [of its causation
theory]." Resp't's Br. at 46. Contrary to the agency's
argument, and the ALJ's finding, the company both proffered
evidence and a theory about how the samples contained
excessive concentrations of PCB in the absence of a spill in
1993. By affidavits, the company, in addition, introduced
evidence to support its theory.

 The company's evidence that it had not introduced PCB-
containing fluid into its system since 1972 and that it had
discovered PCB-rich soil below the berm and cracks in the
berm could not be dismissed as "a scintilla of evidence."
BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App. LEXIS 13, at *40. The evidence
showed that, prior to 1993, samples from the berm contained
only PCB concentrations below 50 ppm. The ALJ concluded,
and the agency maintains on appeal, that the presence of
PCBs in unregulated quantities contradicted the company's
"assertion" that it had not used PCB-containing fluids since
1972. Not so. Unlike Standard Scrap, in which there was
evidence that PCB-containing fluid had been contemporane-
ously introduced into the system, Standard Scrap, 1990
E.P.A. App. LEXIS 8, at *13-*14, here there was undisputed
evidence, which the ALJ must credit, that no such fluids had
been introduced. That PCBs were detected at below 50 ppm
for twenty years--viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to the company--does not contradict the inference
from the company's evidence that the presence of PCBs in
1993 was linked to excessive PCBs in the soil or concrete
resulting from pre-1978 PCB usage. In view of the compa-
ny's evidence and its proffered expert testimony, the agency
could not dismiss the company's theory that the PCBs
leached up from the berm as speculative. Put otherwise,
once the company presented evidence that there was no new
source of PCBs in excess of 50 ppm because it stopped using
PCB-containing oil in 1972, and proffered that there was a
"physical/chemical" explanation for the presence of PCBs in
excess of 50 ppm in 1993, the agency was not entitled to an
accelerated decision on liability in the absence of either
evidence that a spill had occurred in 1993 or other evidence
sufficient to show that no reasonable factfinder could conclude
by a preponderance of the evidence that any spill was histor-
ic.

In finding liability, the ALJ did not rely on contrary
evidence from the agency. The ALJ instead inferred from
the company's evidence, and the Board agreed, that the
increased production resulted in a spill in 1993. Yet the
ALJ's inference was based on nothing more than speculation.

The agency offered no technological or other evidence to
show either that the increased use of the HTS 975 was
related to the increased PCBs in the berm, or that the wet
seals harbored PCBs until dislodged by the increased produc-
tion. As the Board observed, the evidence was "very limit-
ed," and clearly there was none to support the inference that
the PCBs had been stuck inside the HTS 975 for twenty-one
years and had suddenly come loose other than the samples
themselves. Given the company's undisputed evidence of its
discontinuance of PCB-based oil in 1972, the agency was not
entitled to an accelerated decision on liability based on the
speculative notion that PCBs in the HTS 975 could affect the
samples more than twenty years after termination of the use
of PCB-containing oil. See BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App. LEXIS
13, at *38-*39.

The company's evidence, when viewed in the light most
favorable to the company, as the ALJ and Board were
required to do on accelerated decision, created a genuine
issue of material fact whether the company had met its
burden of proving its affirmative defense that the spill was
historic. Because the company's evidence presented a disput-
ed issue of material fact regarding the timing of the spill that
led to the presence of PCBs in excess of 50 ppm in 1993, and
thus, a disputed issue whether a spill had occurred in 1993,
neither the Board nor the ALJ could find that "no genuine
issue of material fact exists." 40 C.F.R. s 22.20(a). An
accelerated decision, like the grant of summary judgment, is
inappropriate when there is a disputed issue of material fact
giving rise to conflicting inferences and a choice among them
would amount to fact finding. BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App.
LEXIS 13, at *44. The Board's affirmance of the finding of
liability, resting on both the ALJ's inference that "the in-
creased PCB levels likely came about as a result of the
residual PCBs in the HTS 975 being dislodged by increased
production" and the ALJ's rejection of the company's prof-
fered inference, was exactly that--an improper choice be-
tween two competing theories as to the source of the PCBs.
Although a factfinder may be entitled, on cross motions for
accelerated decision, to decide among reasonable inferences

where the evidence is fully developed, the case did not come
before the ALJ in this posture. See BWX, 2000 E.P.A. App.
LEXIS 13, at *20 n.10. Both the ALJ and Board relied on
the company's assertions that no genuine issues of material
fact existed and that "[w]hy the PCBs suddenly showed up in
1993 berm samples is a matter of speculation and in any case
is irrelevant to this case." Board's Order (Nov. 28, 2000)
(quoting Resp. to Partial Accelerated Decision Mot. at 3 n.2).
These statements were made in the context of the company's
legal argument that the agency bore the burden of proving
that a spill took place in 1993. Once the company lost that
legal argument, there was no basis for the ALJ or Board to
conclude that the company had conceded that there was no
dispute as to the source of PCBs, particularly in view of the
fact that prior to the 1997 Order on liability the company
proffered additional evidence regarding the chemical and
physical basis for the 1993 PCB concentrations.

Although the ALJ ruled alternatively that the company was
not entitled to the historic waste exemption because the berm
was not a proper disposal site, the Board on de novo review
did not adopt this alternative holding. Whether the company
can, on remand, meet its burden of showing that it is entitled
to the historic waste exemption remains to be seen. At this
stage, we need hold only that the Board erred in affirming
the accelerated decision on liability. Because we hold that
the decision the Board invoked as "law of the case" must be
revisited because it was improper for the ALJ to grant the
agency's motion for accelerated decision based on the evi-
dence presented, on remand there will be no occasion to
revisit the question whether the ALJ properly could exclude
new liability evidence at the penalty phase, and hence we
need not address whether the Board and ALJ erred in
considering the law of the case argument. Further, because
the 1998 regulations are now final, we need not address
whether the ALJ and the Board should have considered the
company's reliance on the proposed regulations as reflecting
agency policy.

Accordingly, we grant the petition and remand the case to
the Board for further proceedings.