Court Opinion

ID: 9959367
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-11 16:10:21.786713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:24.696288
License: Public Domain

158                            April 11, 2024                            No. 8

              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
                    STATE OF OREGON

             PNW METAL RECYCLING, INC.,
                dba Rivergate Scrap Metals,
        dba RS Davis Recycling, dba PNW Auto Parts,
            dba Orient Auto Parts and Recycling,
                   an Oregon corporation;
               Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.,
                   an Oregon corporation;
                  and Pacific Recycling, Inc.,
                   an Oregon corporation,
                   Respondents on Review,
                               v.
               OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
              ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
              an agency of the State of Oregon,
                    Petitioner on Review.
                 (CA A171317) (SC S069412)

    On respondents on review’s petition for reconsideration
filed January 26, 2024; considered and under advisement
April 2, 2024.*
   Jon W. Monson, Cable Huston LLP, Portland, and Kirk B.
Maag, Stoel Rives LLP, Portland, filed the petition for recon-
sideration on behalf of respondents on review. Also on the
petition was Nicole M. Swift and Nicole A. W. Abercrombie,
Cable Huston LLP, Portland.
   Carson L. Whitehead, Assistant Attorney General,
Salem, filed the response to the petition for reconsideration
on behalf of petitioner on review.
  Before Flynn, Chief Justice, Duncan, Garrett, DeHoog,
and Masih, Justices, and Balmer and Walters, Senior
Judges, Justices pro tempore.**
______________
    * 371 Or 673, 540 P3d 523 (2023); on review from the Court of Appeals, 317
Or App 207, 505 P3d 462 (2022).
    ** Bushong and James, JJ., did not participate in the reconsideration of this
case.
Cite as 372 Or 158 (2024)                             159

  GARRETT, J.
   The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The former
opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.
160                      PNW Metal Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ

        GARRETT, J.
         Respondents on review—hereafter, “petitioners”—
seek reconsideration of this court’s decision in PNW Metal
Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ, 371 Or 673, 540 P3d 523 (2023), which
vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and dismissed
petitioners’ ORS 183.400 rule challenge. In their petition
for reconsideration, petitioners argue that this court’s opin-
ion contains four factual errors. Petitioners also disagree
with the reasoning underlying this court’s dismissal of the
rule challenge. The Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) has filed a brief in response to the petition for recon-
sideration. DEQ disagrees with all of petitioners’ conten-
tions except as to one identified factual misstatement, which
DEQ asserts is immaterial.
         We have considered petitioners’ arguments about
the merits of this court’s analysis and decision in PNW
Metal Recycling, and we reject those arguments without fur-
ther discussion. As to the four purported factual errors, we
briefly address them below.
         The first purported error that petitioners identify is
the following statement in this court’s opinion: “Petitioners
operate scrap metal recycling facilities that accept and
process both vehicular and nonvehicular materials. Those
materials fall within the statutory definition of ‘solid waste’
under ORS 459.005(25).” PNW Metal Recycling, 371 Or at 682.
In their petition for reconsideration, petitioners assert that
whether the materials processed in petitioners’ facilities fall
within the statutory definition of “solid waste” is a disputed
issue. They also point out that the resolution of that issue
is immaterial to the issues presented and resolved in this
rule challenge. DEQ responds that petitioners, throughout
the pendency of this case, have never argued that the mate-
rials that they process do not constitute “solid waste.” We
agree with petitioners that the question whether the mate-
rials processed in their facilities fall within the statutory
definition of “solid waste” is not material to the issues that
were presented and resolved in this court’s opinion. To avoid
any suggestion that this court intended to resolve that ques-
tion, we allow the petition for reconsideration and modify
the quoted statement as follows: “Petitioners operate scrap
Cite as 372 Or 158 (2024)                                  161

metal recycling facilities that accept and process both vehic-
ular and nonvehicular materials. For purposes of this rule
challenge, we assume without deciding that those materi-
als fall within the statutory definition of ‘solid waste’ under
ORS 459.005(25).”
         The second purported error that petitioners iden-
tify is a statement in the opinion describing the nature of
the arguments that petitioners made when they initiated
their rule challenge and submitted briefs to the Court of
Appeals: “Petitioners advanced only those procedural argu-
ments; they did not argue that DEQ’s new interpretation
was substantively incorrect.” 371 Or at 683. Petitioners
assert that they did, in fact, argue in their Court of Appeals
briefing that DEQ’s new interpretation of the auto-disman-
tler exception is substantively contrary to Oregon law. DEQ
agrees that petitioners made that argument at the Court of
Appeals. We agree that the quoted sentence in this court’s
opinion is incorrect. Accordingly, we allow the petition for
reconsideration as to that issue and modify our opinion to
delete that sentence.
         The third purported error that petitioners iden-
tify is the following sentence from this court’s opinion:
“Petitioners have not attempted to demonstrate that the leg-
islature intended for the application of the auto-dismantler
exception to be handled through rulemaking.” Id. at 685. We
have considered petitioners’ arguments on reconsideration
and DEQ’s response. We conclude that the quoted sentence
is not inaccurate, and, accordingly, we decline to modify the
opinion in that respect.
         The fourth purported error that petitioners identify
is that the court’s opinion, by referring in two instances to
“petitioners” collectively, misstates the factual record as to
petitioner Pacific Recycling in particular. Petitioners take
issue with the following sentences, which they assert are
incorrect as to petitioner Pacific Recycling: (1) “In 2018,
DEQ informed petitioners that the agency had changed its
view of the relevant statutes and that, based on that revised
interpretation, petitioners would be required to obtain per-
mits.” 371 Or at 675; and (2) “In July and November 2018,
following separate site inspections of petitioners’ facilities,
162                      PNW Metal Recycling, Inc. v. DEQ

DEQ informed petitioners in writing that their facilities
would be subject to the permitting requirement for nonve-
hicular waste processing, even though those facilities held
dismantling certificates from ODOT.” Id. at 683.
          We allow the petition for reconsideration and mod-
ify the two noted sentences, respectively, as follows: (1) “In
2018, DEQ informed petitioners PNW Metal Recycling and
Schnitzer Steel that the agency had changed its view of the
relevant statutes and that, based on that revised interpreta-
tion, those petitioners would be required to obtain permits.”;
and (2) “In July and November 2018, following separate site
inspections of PNW Metal Recycling’s and Schnitzer Steel’s
facilities, DEQ informed those petitioners in writing that
their facilities would be subject to the permitting require-
ment for nonvehicular waste processing, even though those
facilities held dismantling certificates from ODOT.”
        The petition for reconsideration is allowed. The for-
mer opinion is modified and adhered to as modified.