Appalachian Voices v. McCarthy
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154505
| D.D.C. | 2013Background
- Multiple environmental groups ("Environmental Plaintiffs") and two industry marketers (Headwaters and Boral, the "Marketer Plaintiffs") sued EPA under RCRA § 7002(a)(2) alleging EPA failed to review and, if necessary, revise coal ash–related regulations at least every three years as § 2002(b) requires.
- Plaintiffs challenged: (1) 40 C.F.R. § 261.4(b)(4) (Bevill exemption of coal ash from Subtitle C hazardous-waste regulation), (2) Subtitle D regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 257) governing coal ash disposal, and (3) 40 C.F.R. § 261.24 (toxicity characteristic / TCLP) as applied to coal ash.
- EPA conceded it has an obligation to complete review and any necessary revision of certain Part 257 Subtitle D regulations and § 261.24(b) generally, but later limited concession and disputed standing for the § 261.24 claim as applied to coal ash.
- Intervenor-defendants (industry trade groups) argued jurisdictional defenses (28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) statute of limitations), standing, mootness/ripeness, and that certain duties are discretionary or outside § 2002(b).
- Court held: dismiss Environmental Plaintiffs’ claims regarding the Bevill-based Subtitle C exemption (§ 261.4(b)(4)) and the § 261.24/TCLP claim for lack of standing; grant plaintiffs’ shared claim that EPA must complete review/revision of Subtitle D Part 257 regulations (non-discretionary duty) and ordered EPA to propose a compliance schedule within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2002(b) imposes an enforceable nondiscretionary duty to review/revise Bevill-based exemption (§ 261.4(b)(4)) every 3 years | EPA must review and, if necessary, revise § 261.4(b)(4) under § 2002(b) | Bevill Amendment creates a separate process/exemption; § 2002(b) does not apply to Bevill exemption | Dismissed: § 2002(b) does not impose a nondiscretionary 3‑year review duty for § 261.4(b)(4) because the Bevill scheme controls |
| Whether EPA failed to meet nondiscretionary § 2002(b) duty to review/revise Subtitle D regulations (Part 257) for coal ash | EPA has an ongoing, mandatory duty to review/revise Part 257 regs every 3 years; plaintiffs entitled to compel EPA to act | EPA and intervenors argued duty is discretionary or otherwise inapplicable; EPA partly conceded obligation but asked time | Granted for plaintiffs: § 2002(b) creates a non-discretionary recurring duty; court can order EPA to perform review/revision but not dictate substantive outcome; EPA must propose schedule within 60 days |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge revision of the toxicity characteristic / TCLP (§ 261.24) as applied to coal ash | § 261.24/TCLP historically used to characterize coal ash; failure to review harms plaintiffs and states’ reliance makes relief redressable | Coal ash is exempt from Subtitle C by Bevill; § 261.24 applies to Subtitle C hazardous wastes, not exempted coal ash, so causation/redress fail | Dismissed for lack of standing: coal ash is Bevill-exempt from Subtitle C, so revising § 261.24 would not likely redress plaintiffs’ harms |
| Whether plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) | Plaintiffs invoke continuing‑violation/continuing‑obligation doctrine: EPA’s § 2002(b) duty recurs every 3 years so claims remain timely | Intervenors argued § 2401(a) is jurisdictional and bars stale claims; plaintiffs filed beyond six years | Court applied continuing‑obligation rule: § 2002(b) imposes recurring duties so claims are not time‑barred; § 2401(a) does not bar these suits because accrual continues until duty is performed |
Key Cases Cited
- Environmental Defense Fund v. U.S. EPA, 852 F.2d 1309 (D.C. Cir.) (background on RCRA hazardous vs. non-hazardous waste regulatory scheme)
- American Portland Cement Alliance v. EPA, 101 F.3d 772 (D.C. Cir.) (distinguishing Bevill "determinations" from ordinary RCRA "regulations")
- The Wilderness Society v. Norton, 434 F.3d 584 (D.C. Cir.) (discussing continuing‑violation accrual for agency inaction claims)
- Sierra Club v. Thomas, 828 F.2d 783 (D.C. Cir.) (deadline/mandate interpretation in administrative‑duty context)
- NRDC v. Train, 510 F.2d 692 (D.C. Cir.) (equitable remedies and courts setting enforceable deadlines for agency duties)
- Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, 542 U.S. 55 (Sup. Ct.) (limits on courts’ power to dictate agency substantive choice when ordering agency to act)
- John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (Sup. Ct.) (discussion of jurisdictional statutes of limitations)