//

The James River Association, an environmental group, is asking the Richmond Circuit Court to throw out the barge rules, claiming the deal made a "sham" out of the public-comment period preceding adoption of the rules.

The secret agreement was made in December 2002 to settle a lawsuit. In the agreement, Waste Management Inc. agreed to pay Virginia $1 a ton to barge trash into the state. State officials agreed to push for a method, favored by the company and opposed by environmentalists, of testing huge waste containers for leaks.

During a comment period and public hearing in the spring of 2003, many people, unaware of the deal, called for a $5-to-$10 fee and a tougher test.

The state Waste Management Board adopted the barge rules in July 2003, opting for the $1 fee and the test spelled out in the deal. When state officials released the text of the agreement the next month, environmentalists were outraged.

During yesterday's 2½-hour hearing, Judge Randall G. Johnson asked what difference it made, legally, if the rule-making process proceeded while a deal existed on the side.

If the public had known of the deal, "They would have had an opportunity to make a fuss," said Deborah M. Murray, a lawyer with the Southern Environmental Law Center, a nonprofit group representing the river association.

There would have been "a political maelstrom from the fact that it was a secret deal," Murray said. "Potentially, it could have affected the results."

Johnson suggested the waste board could create rules despite the terms of the deal. "Your only complaint is [state officials] didn't tell anybody about it."

Brice E. Lambert, an attorney representing Charles City County, to which Waste Management plans to barge trash, said the existence of the deal doesn't mean the waste board violated state law in adopting the rules.

"The only test is, did they follow the procedures" required by law, "and the answer is yes."

The river group's "argument fails because this did not deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment," Lambert said.

Lambert and John K. Byrum Jr., an assistant attorney general, said terms of the deal were disclosed in a waste-board meeting in March 2003.

But when Judge Johnson pressed Lambert for details, Lambert replied, "I don't think they necessarily spelled it out the way it was verbatim."

Much of the hearing dealt with the test the board adopted to show the barged trash containers are watertight.

The test calls for filling a container with 2 feet of water and checking for leaks. That is the test spelled out in the deal. The river group favored a tougher air-pressure test.

Byrum, of the attorney general's office, said the water test was appropriate. Only a small amount of liquid waste would normally accumulate in the bottom of the containers, he said.

Later, Johnson seemed skeptical that such a test would detect tiny leaks above the 2-foot line.

"I don't know how you would determine that a container is watertight by putting 2 feet of water in the bottom. You can't convince me of that."

If a barge accident occurred on the James River, Johnson said, and garbage juice spilled out, the public would cry: "You mean there was a regulation passed where we were supposed to tell if a container leaked by putting 2 feet of water in the bottom?"

Matt Mathews, a lawyer for Waste Management, suggested that a tougher test might be unconstitutional. Courts have held that trash hauling is a constitutionally protected form of interstate commerce.

Johnson said he hoped to rule by the end of the month.