State of Ill. v. Gorsuch, Civ. A. No. 78-1689

Decision Date13 November 1981
Docket Number78-1734 and 78-1899.,78-1715,Civ. A. No. 78-1689
Citation530 F. Supp. 337
PartiesSTATE OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiff, v. Anne M. GORSUCH, et al., Defendant and Intervening Defendants; ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Gary M. DIETRICH, et al., Defendants and Intervening Defendants; CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT, Plaintiff, v. Anne M. GORSUCH, et al., Defendant and Intervening Defendants; NATIONAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. Anne M. GORSUCH, et al., Defendant and Intervening Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Russell R. Eggert, Dean Hansell, Asst. Attys. Gen., Environmental Control Div., Chicago, Ill., for State of Ill.

Anthony Z. Roisman, Chief, Hazardous Waste Section, Land and Natural Resources Div., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Lisa K. Friedman, Asst. Gen. Counsel, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., for all defendants.

Michael K. Glenn, Chadbourne, Parke, Whiteside & Wolff, Washington, D. C., for intervening defendant American Paper Institute and National Forest Products Assn.

William A. Butler, Washington, D. C., Jacqueline M. Warren, New York City, Khristine L. Hall, Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D. C., for Environmental Defense Fund.

Bill S. Forcade, Robert Goldsmith, Citizens for a Better Environment, Chicago, Ill., Ellyn Weiss, Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman & Weiss, Washington, D. C., for Citizens for a Better Environment.

William C. Brashares, Charles A. Samuels, Cladouhos & Brashares, Washington, D. C., for National Solid Waste Management Assn.

John R. Quarles, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Stark Ritchie, Washington, D. C., for intervening defendants American Petroleum Institute, Inc., et al.

Thomas H. Truitt, Toni G. Allen, Stanley M. Spracker, Wald, Harkrader & Ross, Washington, D. C., for intervening defendants Central & South West Corp., et al.

John H. Pickering, Andrew T. A. Macdonald, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, Washington, D. C., for intervening defendant Manufacturing Chemists Assn.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GESELL, District Judge.

The issue before the Court is whether or not it has jurisdiction in this proceeding to require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to continue in effect and to implement regulations promulgated by EPA in response to a Court Order resulting from the Agency's failure to meet promulgation deadlines established by Congress. See Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 6901 et seq. (1977 & 1981 Supp.). The regulations at issue were promulgated in January, 1981, in response to this Court's Order of December, 1979. They established operating standards for new and existing incinerators and surface impoundment storage facilities to control the release of dangerous waste substances into the environment.

Plaintiff Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed the present motion for declaratory and injunctive relief in response to a notice which appeared in the Federal Register on July 24, 1981, 46 Fed.Reg. 38318, indicating that EPA intended to initiate rulemaking to withdraw the January regulations as they apply to existing storage impoundments and incinerators. The notice also indicated that the Agency would not process permits for existing facilities pending action by this Court on a motion which was to be but never was filed requesting a further extension of the deadline for promulgating standards. On October 13, 1981, subsequent to the filing of EDF's motion, EPA sent to the Federal Register a proposal temporarily to suspend the effective dates of the January regulations insofar as they applied to existing incinerators and storage surface impoundments. The basis for this proposal was the numerous comments received by the Agency asserting that the regulations were technically and economically infeasible. The October 13 notice also stated that it was EPA policy, effective that day, "to defer the processing of permits for existing ... impoundments and incinerators ...."

The arguments presented to the Court are partially semantic. EDF points to § 3010(b) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.A. § 6930(b) (1977), which provides that regulations shall go into effect six months after their promulgation and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Gorsuch, s. 81-2025
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • July 26, 1983
    ...to require the Administrator "to perform his nondiscretionary duty to promulgate regulations implementing [RCRA]." State of Illinois v. Gorsuch, 530 F.Supp. 337 (D.D.C.1981). 5 See 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2) (authorizing "citizen suits" in district court where Administrator failed to perform a ......
  • New Jersey v. Wheeler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • July 28, 2020
    ...that it would suspend the regulations was a bad-faith effort to evade the Court's order[.]" Id. at 812 (quoting State of Illinois v. Gorsuch, 530 F. Supp. 337, 339 (D.D.C. 1981) ). The court of appeals rejected EDF's assertion "that implied in the [district] court's order to promulgate the ......
  • United States v. State of New Jersey, Civ. A. No. 77-2054
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • November 13, 1981
    ... ... 1981); United States v. City of Chicago, 385 F.Supp. 543, 548-49 (N.D.Ill. 1974); Pina v. City of East Providence, 492 F.Supp. 1240 (D.R.I.1980). The substantial disparity ... ...
  • Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Dietrich
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • June 7, 1982
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT