Solite Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., s. 89-1629
| Decision Date | 26 February 1992 |
| Docket Number | 89-1727,Nos. 89-1629,89-1665,89-1696,89-1722,89-1724,s. 89-1629 |
| Citation | 952 F.2d 473 |
| Parties | , 293 U.S.App.D.C. 117, 60 USLW 2451, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,376 SOLITE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, and William K. Reilly, Administrator, EPA, Respondents, The Aluminum Association, et al., Intervenors. to 89-1729, 89-1731, 89-1732, 90-1029, 90-1086, 90-1125, 90-1149, 90-1195, 90-1198, 90-1200, 90-1203, 90-1206, 90-1207 and 90-1216. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Petition for Review of an Order of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
Donald J. Patterson, Jr., with whom John N. Hanson, Aaron H. Goldberg, Nancy D. Tammi, Edward M. Green and Roderick T. Dwyer, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for American Min. Congress, petitioner in 89-1724 and 90-1200, and intervenor in 89-1629, 89-1665, 89-1696, 89-1722, 89-1727, 89-1728, 89-1729, 89-1731, 89-1732, 90-1029, 90-1086, 90-1125, 90-1149, 90-1195, 90-1198, 90-1203, 90-1206, 90-1207 and 90-1216.
Samuel A. Bleicher, Washington, D.C., for Allied-Signal, Inc., petitioner in 89-1665 and 90-1029, and intervenor in 89-1629, 89-1722, 89-1724, 89-1727, 89-1728, 89-1729, 89-1731, 89-1732, 90-1086, 90- 1125, 90-1149, 90-1200, 90-1203, 90-1206, 90-1207 and 90-1216. Amy L. Edwards, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for this petitioner.
Jeremiah J. Jewett, III, Richmond, Va., for Solite Corp., petitioner in 89-1629 and 90-1086 and intervenor in 89-1665, 89-1722, 89-1724, 89-1727, 89-1728, 89-1729, 89-1731, 89-1732, 90-1029, 90-1149, 90-1195, 90-1198, 90-1200, 90-1206 and 90-1216.
Corinne A. Goldstein, Washington, D.C., for E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., petitioner in 89-1696 and 90-1125.
Charles F. Lettow, with whom Janet L. Weller, Washington, D.C., was on the brief, for SCM Chemicals, Inc., petitioner in 90-1206 and intervenor in 89-1696, 89-1724, 89-1729 and 90-1125.
Michael W. Steinberg and Hunter Prillaman, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for PPG Industries, Inc., petitioner in 89-1732 and 90-1195.
John D. Fognani, Denver, Colo., was on the brief for ASARCO Inc., petitioner in 89-1731 and 90-1198, and intervenor in 90-1029, 90-1086, 90-1125, 90-1149, 90-1195, 90-1203, 90-1206, 90-1207 and 90-1216.
Paul E. Gutermann and John N. Moore, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for Zinc Corporation of America, petitioner in 89-1722.
Jeffrey S. Holik and Gwendolyn Logan, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for The Aluminum Ass'n, petitioner in 89-1728 and intervenor in 89-1029, 89-1665, 89-1722, 89-1727, 89-1731 and 89-1732. M. Barry Meyer, Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for this petitioner.
Kevin A. Gaynor, Baltimore, Md., was on the brief for Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, petitioner in 89-1729 and 90-1203.
Karla J. Letsche, Washington, D.C., was on the brief for Norlite Corp., petitioner in 90-1149 and 90-1207.
Richard A. Flye, Carole Stern and Gordon D. Quin, Washington, D.C., were on the brief for The Fertilizer Institute, petitioner in 89-1727 and intervenor in 89-1629, 89-1665, 90-1029, 90-1086, 90-1125, 90-1149, 90-1195, 90-1198, 90-1200, 90-1203 and 90-1206. John C. Chambers, Jr., Washington, D.C., also entered an appearance for this petitioner.
Scott A. Schachter, Atty., Dept. of Justice and Randolph L. Hill, Atty., E.P.A., with whom Richard B. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D.C., was on the brief for respondent in 89-1629 and all consolidated cases.
Before RUTH BADER GINSBURG, D.H. GINSBURG and RANDOLPH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
CONTENTS
Page
I. BACKGROUND ........................................................ 477
II. DISCUSSION ........................................................ 482
A. Standard of Review .......................................... 482
B. High Volume Criteria ........................................ 483
1. Congressional Intent ................................... 483
2. APA Compliance ......................................... 484
3. Methodological Objections .............................. 485
(a) Consideration of Other Special Wastes ............. 485
(b) Overly Stringent High Volume Measurement .......... 486
C. Low Hazard Criterion ........................................ 488
D. The 50 Percent Rule ......................................... 490
E. Future Waste Streams ........................................ 491
F. Application of Section 3004(x) to Non"Bevill Wastes ......... 492
G. The Mixture Rule ............................................ 493
H. The Treatment Permit Requirement ............................ 494
I. Du Pont's Chloride"Ilmenite Process ......................... 494
J. Chrome Tailings ............................................. 495
1. Background ............................................. 495
2. Analysis ............................................... 496
K. Lead Process Wastewater 497
1. Background ............................................. 497
2. Analysis ............................................... 498
L. Lightweight Aggregate Air Pollution Control Dust/Sludge 498
1. Background ............................................. 498
2. Analysis ............................................... 499
III. CONCLUSION ........................................................ 500
----------
In Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 (D.C.Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1011, 109 S.Ct. 1120, 103 L.Ed.2d 183 (1989) ("EDF II "), this court ordered the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to determine the ore and mineral processing wastes that qualify under the Bevill Amendment "mining waste exclusion," 42 U.S.C. § 6921(b)(3)(A)(ii), for exemption, at least temporarily, from the hazardous waste management regime of Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-6939b. 1 This case is the follow up to that 1988 decision. Upon the EPA's completion of the rulemaking we ordered in EDF II, members of the mineral and chemical processing industry, urging broader interpretation of the Bevill Amendment mining waste exemption from regulation, petitioned for our review.
We uphold the EPA's determinations in principal part. On two matters, however, we conclude that reconsideration by the Agency is necessary: (1) we vacate EPA's determination that lightweight aggregate residuals do not meet the Agency's high volume criterion, for the record shows that EPA decided that matter without providing due notice and opportunity to comment; (2) we remand for EPA to provide a more adequately reasoned explanation of its denial of the Bevill Amendment exclusion for the wastes from Du Pont's chloride-ilmenite process. Finally, we remand without opinion two aspects of this rulemaking that EPA based upon the Subtitle C mixture rule, which we vacated recently in another case.
Subtitle C of RCRA, enacted in 1976, requires EPA to develop a comprehensive regulatory scheme for the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6921-6931. Section 8002 of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6982, directs EPA to conduct special studies and research on certain categories of waste, including mining waste. See 42 U.S.C. § 6982(f) (). In its first proposal for regulations governing hazardous waste management under Subtitle C, EPA noted a category of "special waste," for which "special standards" might be appropriate. 43 Fed.Reg. 58,946, 58,992 (1978). EPA's "limited information" indicated that "such waste occurs in very large volumes, that the potential hazards posed by the waste are relatively low, and that the waste generally is not amenable [to the Subtitle C controls developed for industrial and manufacturing wastes]." Id. at 58,991-92. EPA identified, as one category of special waste, hazardous wastes "from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals." Id. at 59,016. 2
In final regulations released in May 1980, EPA identified the characteristics of hazardous waste and listed as subject to Subtitle C regulation specific hazardous wastes. 45 Fed.Reg. 33,084 (1980). EPA concluded that the less inclusive definition of hazard and more relaxed regulatory requirements adopted in the final rule "accomplish[ed] the objective of, and eliminate[d] the need for, a special solid waste category." Id. at 33,174. Consequently, EPA's final regulatory scheme abandoned the concept of special waste, and would have subjected all wastes meeting EPA's modified hazard criteria to Subtitle C regulation. Id. at 33,175.
A month before the Subtitle C regulations were to take effect, Congress altered EPA's course by enacting the Bevill Amendment as part of the Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments of 1980. In pertinent part, the Bevill Amendment directed EPA to study any adverse health and environmental effects "of solid waste from the extraction, beneficiation, and processing of ores and minerals," and to submit a report to Congress by October 21, 1983. 42 U.S.C. § 6982(p). 3 The Amendment further required EPA, within six months of reporting to Congress, and after public hearings and an opportunity for comment, either to "determine to promulgate regulations" governing the subject wastes, or to "determine that such regulations are unwarranted." 42...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Building Industry of Superior California v. Babbitt
...A final rule may deviate from the proposed rule if the final rule is a "logical outgrowth" of the proposed rule. Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 484-85 (D.C.Cir.1991); See Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620, 631-32 (D.C.Cir.1996); Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2......
-
City of Taunton v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency
...of reasonableness," and so we do not see fit to second-guess it. See Upper Blackstone, 690 F.3d at 28 ; see also Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 488 (D.C. Cir. 1991). As a result, we leave undisturbed this well-reasoned exercise of the EPA's delegated authority to administer the CWA.III.......
-
American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. F.C.C.
...there is no APA precedent allowing an agency to cherry-pick a study on which it has chosen to rely in part. See Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 500 (D.C.Cir.1991) (quoting Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1031 (D.C.Cir. 1978)); see also Kent County, 963 F.2d at 396; Indep. U.S.......
-
Prometheus Radio Project v. F.C.C.
...studies without entailing the procedural consequences appellants would impose, unless prejudice is shown."); see also Solite Corp. v. EPA, 952 F.2d 473, 484 (D.C.Cir.1991) (allowing agency to use "`supplementary' data, unavailable during the notice and comment period, that `expand[s] on and......
-
Defining the Problem
...the Bevill study and report, all mining wastes remained exempt from Subtitle C regulation for many years. Solite Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A. , 952 F.2d 473, 478 (D.C. Cir. 1991). After various interest groups brought suit to force compliance, the EPA commenced and completed regulatory determinatio......
-
Epa's opportunity to reverse the fertilizer industry's environmental injustices
...C, or, in the alternative, minimum federal standards under Subtitle D.226 Multiple, 223. See Solite Corp. v. Environmental Prot. Agency, 952 F.2d 473, 22 ELR 20376 (D.C. Cir. 1991). 224. Special Wastes From Mineral Processing (Mining Waste Exclusion); Final Regulatory Determination and Fina......