# United Sta tes Co urt of A ppea ls

F O R T H E D I S T R

I C T O F C O L U M B I A

C I R C U I T



## No. 11-11 89 Septembe r Term, 20 14

EPA -76FR15 456 EPA -78FR91 12

Filed On : Jun e 3 , 20 15 Solvay USA I nc., Pet itione r

v

.

Environme nta l Prote ction Agency,

Respo nde nt

___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Metals I ndu stries Recycli ng Coalition , et al.,

Inte rv eno rs

___ ___ ___ ___ ___
Conso lidate d with 11-1 192 , 11 -120 2, 11-1 214 , 11 -121 6, 1 1-12 17, 11 -122 0, 11-1 221 , 11 -122 3, 1 1-12 24, 11 -122 6, 11-1 227 , 11 -122 8, 1 1-12 32, 11 -123 3, 11-1 235 , 11 -123 8, 1 3-11 52, 13 -115 6, 13-1 157 , 13 -115 8, 1 3-11 59, 13 -116 0, 13-1 162 , 13 -116 4, 1 3-11 65

___ ___ _
On P etition s f or Review of Orde rs of

the Environme nta l Prote ction Agency

Bef ore: T A

TE L and W I L K I N S
, Circuit Judg es , an d S E N TE L L E
, Sen ior Circuit Judg e

.

J U D G M E N T

T his case w as consid ered on the record f rom the Un it e d Sta tes Environme nta l Prote ction Agency and the bri ef s and arg um ent s of the parties. T he Court has accord ed t h e issu es f ull consid eratio n and has det ermin ed tha t the y do not w arrant a pub lish e d opin ion. See D.C. Cir. R. 36(d ). It is

ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t the pet itions f or rev iew be den ied f or the reaso ns state d b elow. USCA Case #11-1189 Document #1555561 Filed: 06/03/2015 Page 1 of 4Environme nta l and indu stry pet it io ners challen ge aspe cts of EPA ’s f inal action

,

w hich provides proce dure s f or classif y ing non -haza rd o u s secon dary ma terials as “solid

w aste ” f or the purp ose of regulating Clean Air Act em ission stan dard s f or incinera tors and oth er com bust ion units. I d e n t ification of Non-Haz ardo us Seco nda ry Materials That Are Solid W aste

, 76 Fed. Reg. 15, 456 (Mar. 2 1

, 2 0 1 1 ), as am end ed by Com m ercial and Ind ustrial Solid W

aste Incine ration Units: R econ siderat ion and F inal Am end m ent s; NonHaz ardo us Seco nda ry Ma terials That Are Solid W aste

, Final Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 9,1 12 (Feb. 7, 201 3) (collectiv ely “the rule”), codif ied at 40 C.F.R. pt. 241

. W het her a secon dary

ma terial is solid w aste det ermin es w het her EPA regulates a f acility burn ing the ma terial und er 42 U.S.C. § 742 9 or § 741 2, and “EPA’s decision to regulate a s o u rc e und er one section rathe r tha n the oth er has practi cal conse quence s.” Nat’ l Ass’ n of Clean W

ate r Age ncies v. EPA , 73 4 F.3 d 1 115 , 11 19– 20 (D.C. Cir. 2013 ).

T o regulate em ission stan dard s und er the Clean Air Act, Congress directe d EPA to def ine the term “solid w aste ” pursu ant to the Resou rce Co n s e rva t ion and Recovery Act (“RC RA”), 42 U.S.C. § 690 1, et seq. See 42 U.S.C. § 742 9(g)( 6). RCRA def ines “solid

w aste ” as

any garbage, refu se, sludge from a w aste tr eat me nt plan t, w ate r supp ly treat me nt plan t, or air pollut ion cont rol f acility and o t h e r discarde d m ate rial

, includin g solid, liq u id

, sem isolid, or cont aine d gaseou s ma terial resulting f rom indu strial,

com me rcial, min ing, and agricultural ope ration s, and f rom com mu nity activities, but doe s not include solid or di s s o lve d ma terial in dom estic sewag e, or solid or dissolved m ate rials in irrig ation retu rn f low s or ind ustrial d ischarges . .

. .
4 2 U. S

. C. § 690 3(27 ) (emp hasis add ed). Pet itione rs challen ge how the rule classif ie s
som e non -hazardous secon dary ma terials as discarde d and oth er ma t e ri a ls as not discarde d.

By d ef ault, the rule classif ie s s e c o n d a ry ma terial as solid w aste unle ss oth erw ise excluded. See 40 C.F.R. § 241 .3(a). At issue here

, the rule create s genera l exclusions f or: (1) ma terial “w ithin the cont rol of the generat or” tha t is com bust ed on site; (2) ma terial “used as an ingredient in a com bust ion unit; ” and (3) discarde d ma terial tha t is “processe d to prod uce a non -w aste f uel or ingredient .” I d

. § 2 4 1

. 3 (b). T o qualif y f or the se general exclusions, th e m ate rial mu st sat isf y “legitimacy cri teria” spe cif ied in the rule. Id. T hese criteria co n s id e r t h e ma nne r in w hich the ma terial is ma naged

, the hea ting v alue of the

ma terial, and the level of cont am inatio n in the ma terial. See 40 C. F

. R. § 241 .3(d). In add ition to the general exclusions, the def inition of solid w aste cate gorically excludes scrap tires ma naged und er a tire collection program, resinat ed w ood

, proce ssed coal ref use, and dewatered pu lp an d p ape r sludge th at is b urne d o n site

. See id. § 2 41. 4(a).

W e rev iew EPA ’s interp retat ion o f RCRA an d the Clean Air Act und er the f am iliar f rame w ork of Chevron

, U.S.A.

, Inc. v. Natura l Resou rces Defen se Coun cil, Inc.

, 467 U.S. 837 (198 4). See Eth yl Corp. v

. E P A

, 5 1 F.3d 105 3, 105 8 (D.C. Cir. 199 5). W e rev iew EPA ’s f inal r ul e un der the arbitrary and capriciou s stan dard of the Adm inistrative Proced ure

2 USCA Case #11-1189 Document #1555561 Filed: 06/03/2015 Page 2 of 4Act, and w e mu st set aside any action “in excess of [EPA ’s] statu tory jurisdiction, aut hority,

or limitat ions,” 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A), (C). Unde r the arbitrary a nd capriciou s stan dard of

rev iew

, the agency mu st “‘set f orth its reaso ns’ f or decision ,” Tourus Records, Inc. v. DEA

, 259 F.3d 731

, 737 (D.C. Cir. 200 1) (q uot ing Roelof s v. Sec’ y of the Air Fo rc e , 628 F.2d 594

, 599 (D.C. Cir. 198 0)), and “‘respond me anin gfu lly ’ to obje ct io ns raised by a party,” PPL W all in g f o rd Ene rgy LLC v. FERC

, 419 F.3d 119 4, 119 8 (D.C. Cir. 200 5) (q uot ing Ca n a d ian Ass’

n of Pet roleum Produ cers v. FERC

, 254 F.3d 289

, 299 (D.C. Cir. 20 0 1 ))

. W e af f ord g reat def eren ce to EPA’s dete rmina tions base d on techn ical matte rs w ithin its

area of expertise. See W

est V irginia v. EPA , 36 2 F.3 d 8 61, 86 7–6 8 (D.C. Cir. 20 04).

Environme nta l pet itione rs cont end that the rule i s an end-run aroun d the statuto ry schem e, and the y ask us to v acat e EPA ’s def in ition of solid w aste and rema nd f or the agency to prom ulgate a new def inition consis t e n t wit h the Clean Air Act and RCRA. In the ir v iew

, EPA ’s def inition of solid w aste imp ermissibly excludes ma terials tha t have bee n “discarded ” w ithin the ordina ry me anin g of tha t term

— i.e.

, “dispose d of

, a b a n d o n ed, or thrown away .” Ass’

n of Bat tery Recyclers, Inc. (“ ABR ”) v. EPA

, 208 F.3d 104 7, 105 2 (D.C. Cir. 200 0). W e reje ct en v ironm ent al pet itione rs’ argumen ts be cause ne ither st atu te (th e Clean Air Act or RCRA) nor this Court’s prece den ts prevent EPA f rom def ining solid w aste to e x clude certa in no n-ha z ardo us se cond arymate rials com bust ed f or energy or u sed as
an ingredient f or f uel.

In the cont e xt o f RCRA, w e previously recogniz ed tha t the term “discarded ” is “marke d by the kind of am biguity dem and in g re solutio n by the agency’s dele gated law ma king powers.” Am

. Mining Cong ress (“ AMC II ”) v. EPA

, 907 F.2d 117 9, 118 6 (D.C. Cir. 199 0) (citing Am

. Pet roleum Inst. v. EPA

, 906 F.2d 729

, 740 –41 (D.C. Cir. 199 0)); see also ABR

, 208 F.3d at 105 6 (e xp la in in g t hat the term discarde d “may be am biguous as app lied to som e situat ions, but not as app lied to oth ers”). T hus, EPA ’s chara cteriz ation of

som e types of non -hazardous secon dary ma terial “as discarde d

. . . is ent itled to def eren ce” und er Chevron

. Am

. Pet roleum Inst. v. EPA

, 216 F.3d 50, 57 (D.C. Cir. 200 0) (citing AMC II , 90 7 F.2 d a t 11 86).

T he record ref lects “that EPA engaged in reaso ned decision ma king to decid e w hich chara cteriz ation is app ropriate ” f or d if f e re n t types of non -hazardous ma terials. Id. T he

exc e p t ions const itute a reaso nab le interp retat ion of am biguous language and strike an app ropriate bala nce bet w een RCRA’s d u a l goals of “recovery and conse rv ation .” 42 U.S.C. § 69 01(c)(3). Becau se EPA “‘has considered the r elevant f acto rs and articula ted

a ration al conn ection bet w een the f acts f oun d and the choice ma de, ’” w e uph old the rule. Nat’ l Ass’ n o f Clean Air Ag encie s v. E PA , 48 9 F.3 d 1 221 , 12 28 (D.C. Cir. 2007 ) (q uot ing Allied L ocal & Reg’

l Mfrs. Caucu s v. E PA , 21 5 F.3 d 6 1, 6 8 (D.C. Cir. 20 00)).

EPA also reaso nab ly

ex ercised its discretion w hen it de v elop ed legitimacy criteria to distinguish non -hazardous secon dary ma terials used as f uel or ingredient s f rom tho se tha t are solid waste. See 40 C.F.R. § 241 .3(d). En v ironm ent al pe titione rs’ challen ge to EPA ’s legitimacy criteria lacks me rit beca use it is “emin ent ly reaso nab le to treat ma terials tha t are indistinguisha ble” f rom v irg in ma terials as non -w aste f uel. Saf e Food & Fertiliz er

3 USCA Case #11-1189 Document #1555561 Filed: 06/03/2015 Page 3 of 4v

. E P

A

, 3 50 F.3d 126 3, 126 9 (D.C. Cir. 200 3). Accordin gly

, w e den y environme nt a l pet itione rs’ petitio n f or review

.

Ind ustry pet itione rs ask us to v acat e EPA ’s c la s s if ic ation of sewag e sludge and suggest tha t EPA doe s not have jurisdiction over f irm-to-f irm transf ers of altern ative f uels tha t are not discarde d. W e den y the ir pet ition beca use the ir argume nt regarding sewag e sludge is f oreclose d by RCRA’s p la in language, and EPA ’s distinctio n bet w een ma terial burn ed by the generat or and ma terial transf erred to a third party is consiste nt w ith RCRA and reaso nab le.

RCRA def ines solid w aste as includin g “sludge f rom a w aste treat me nt plan t” w hile excluding “solid or dissolved ma terial in dom estic sewag e.” 42 U. S

. C. § 6 9 03(2 7). It def ines “sludge” as “w aste generat e d f rom a mu nicipal, com me rcial, or indu strial

w aste w ate r treat me nt plan t.” Id. § 690 3(26 A). Altho ugh sludge is gen erate d f rom the t re a tm ent of dom estic sewag e, sludge is plainly not the sam e as “solid or dissolved

ma terial in dom estic sewag e” und er § 690 3(27 ). W e reject indu stry pet itione rs’ read ing of the stat ute be cause it would ren der t he def inition of sludge m ean ingless.

Ind ustry pet itione rs suggest tha t “ EPA ’s upsid e down v iew ” of ma terial transf erred f irm-to-f irm “is cont rary to the law regarding EPA ’s limited jurisdiction. ” Ind ustry Br. 12. W e disagree. In decid ing w hich ma terials to regulate und er RCRA, Congress w ant ed EPA “to

err on the side of caut ion.” Am

. Chemi stry Coun cil v. EPA

, 337 F.3d 106 0, 106 6 (D.C. Cir. 200 3). T h u s , E P A ma y place “the burd en upo n the regulated ent ity to show” tha t its

ma terial shou ld not be regulated ; oth erw is e , EPA w ould be burd ene d w ith the “nea rly imp ossible” task of ant icipating and ana ly z ing every conce iv able situat ion tha t might arise. Id. at 106 5. EPA is w ell w ithin it s statu tory a uth ority to assum e tha t transf erred ma terial is solid w aste unt il an intere sted par t y d e m o n s trate s tha t the ma terial “has not bee n discarde d a nd is indistinguisha ble in all relevant aspe cts from a f uel produ ct.” 40 C.F.R. § 2 41. 3(c)(1). W e th eref ore d eny indu stry pe titione rs’ petitio n f or review

.

Pursua nt to Rule 36 of this Court, this dispo sition w ill not be pub lished. T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issuan ce of the ma nda te here in unt il seven days af ter the dispo sition of any timelypetition f or r ehe aring or petition for rehea ring en ban c

. See F ed R. App. P. 41(b ); D.C. Cir. R. 41

. Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk

BY: /s/ Ken Mead ows Depu ty Cl erk

4 USCA Case #11-1189 Document #1555561 Filed: 06/03/2015 Page 4 of 4