{"id":52677,"date":"2021-03-11T15:39:23","date_gmt":"2021-03-11T15:39:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/klaclaw.visibilitywebdesign.com\/?p=52677"},"modified":"2021-03-11T15:41:43","modified_gmt":"2021-03-11T15:41:43","slug":"a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/","title":{"rendered":"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 “Verified Recycler Exclusion”"},"content":{"rendered":"

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.9.1″ width=”87%” custom_margin=”-165px||||false|false” custom_padding=”3px|||||” locked=”off”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.9.1″ width=”95%” max_width=”1749px” custom_padding=”|||”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”3.25″ custom_padding=”|||” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_cta title=”A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 %22Verified Recycler Exclusion%22″ button_url=”#TOP” _builder_version=”4.9.1″ header_font=”Georgia|700|||||||” header_font_size=”22px” header_line_height=”1.5em” body_font=”Noto Sans||||||||” body_font_size=”17px” body_line_height=”2em” use_background_color=”off” custom_button=”on” button_text_size=”17px” button_text_color=”#ffffff” button_bg_color=”#ff6b5a” button_border_width=”5px” button_border_color=”#ff6b5a” button_border_radius=”100px” button_font=”Noto Sans|700||on|||||” button_use_icon=”off” text_orientation=”left” background_layout=”light” max_width=”100%” module_alignment=”center” custom_margin=”|||” hover_enabled=”0″ header_font_size_tablet=”” header_font_size_phone=”34px” header_font_size_last_edited=”on|phone” button_text_color_hover=”#ffffff” button_border_color_hover=”#ff9e59″ button_bg_color_hover=”#ff9e59″ button_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=”off” button_text_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_text_color__hover=”#ffffff” button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_border_color__hover=”#ff9e59″ button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=”off” button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=”off” button_bg_color__hover_enabled=”on” button_bg_color__hover=”#ff9e59″ button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=”off” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n
<\/h6>\n
By Karen Aldridge Crawford \u2013 March 12, 2018<\/h6>\n<\/hgroup>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
<\/section>\n
Finally, following a decade of challenges to attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to drastically narrow the recycling exclusion in regulations setting forth the definition of solid waste and the determination of what hazardous materials may be legitimately recycled pursuant to regulatory exclusions therein, the D.C. Circuit has handed down an\u00a0<\/span>opinion<\/a>\u00a0<\/span>vacating additional portions of the EPA\u2019s 2015 rule, severing and clarifying others.<\/p>\n

In October 2008, the EPA promulgated revisions to the definition of solid waste, which made the exclusion dependent on whether the generator performed the recycling itself (generator-controlled) or sent the material to an off-site recycler (transfer-based). Changed from the 2007 proposal, the final rule imposed a \u201cban\u201d or \u201cdisqualifier\u201d for spent refinery catalyst from the transfer-based exclusion. This 2008 rule also established a set of \u201clegitimacy factors\u201d to be used in determining the applicability of those exclusions to materials being recycled. One of those factors\u2014known as \u201cFactor 4\u201d\u2014was an effort to prevent recyclers from loading products with \u201chazardous secondary materials that provide no recognizable benefit to the product\u201d and that are \u201cjust along for the ride.\u201d The 2008 rule was challenged by American Petroleum Institute (API), among others, but those challenges were held in abeyance pending a 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking on these same exclusions. These anticipated revisions were issued in January 2015.<\/p>\n

Pertinent to the March 6, 2018, decision, that 2015 rule changed the content and application of the four legitimacy factors, redefined and made more stringent the \u201ccontainment\u201d standard applicable to recyclers managing materials pursuant to these exclusions whether generator-controlled and transfer-based, allowed spent petroleum refinery catalysts to qualify for these exclusions and replaced the \u201ctransfer-based exclusion\u201d with the \u201cverified recycler exclusion,\u201d which requires generators to audit recyclers to ensure adequacy of procedures.<\/p>\n

In 2017, after continuing challenges by industry and environmental groups, the D.C. Circuit vacated the verified-recycler exclusion and reinstated the transfer-based exclusion, but that decision again disqualified spent catalysts from the exclusion. The court, however, left the door open for a different outcome if such could be supported by the parties. The API filed a petition for panel rehearing, which resulted in yesterday\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

Spent Refinery Catalyst<\/strong>
While the EPA had supported its regulatory stance on spent catalyst by basing it on \u201crisk of fire or explosion\u201d from such materials, industry persuaded the court that this catalyst material was not as dangerous as the EPA thought and rarely are pyrophoric or otherwise exhibit the RCRA characteristic of ignitability. While the EPA didn\u2019t agree, it did not provide evidence or support otherwise. The EPA did agree, however, that the containment requirements in the regulations adequately addressed the risk of fires and explosions from such materials and there needn\u2019t be a separate exclusion. Because the revised containment standard survives the vacating of other aspects of the verified-recycler exclusion, the EPA did not object to the conclusion that there is no need for separate catalyst treatment in the rule. Interestingly, because the EPA\u2019s oral argument differed from its position in the rulemaking record, the court cited\u00a0<\/span>Verizon v. FCC<\/em>\u00a0<\/span>as its basis for accepting the EPA\u2019s position on rehearing even in the face of its contrary position on oral argument.<\/p>\n

In fact, the court\u2019s analysis emphasized that the revised containment standards were found in two places in the verified-recycler exclusion, applicable to both generators (the portion of that rule that was severed and affirmed) and reclaimers or third-party recyclers (the portion of the rule that was vacated), but was also found word-for-word in the transfer-based exclusion, which is now reinstated and applicable to third-party recyclers\/reclaimers. Therefore, the court disagreed with the environmentalists\u2019 arguments that third-party recyclers were not covered by the containment standard and the EPA would not have undone the bar on eligibility for spent catalysts.<\/p>\n

The court also concluded that, because the only definition of \u201ccontained\u201d is found in section 260.10, both generators and third-party recyclers will be bound by the revised (and unvacated) containment standard found in that definition, even though it is not specifically referenced in subsection (a)(24)(vi) like it is in (a)(24)(v).<\/p>\n

The court severed and affirmed the EPA\u2019s decision in 2015 to eliminate the provisions in the 2008 rule that barred spent catalyst from qualifying for the transfer-based exclusion.<\/p>\n

Legitimacy Factors<\/strong>
With respect to the legitimacy factors, after revisiting the industy\u2019s argument that they challenged Factor 4 in its entirety (including challenging its use in the individual exclusions that were not vacated) and requested all the legitimacy factors be vacated, the court (and the EPA) agreed on the scope of the challenge to Factor 4. The March 6 decision vacates Factor 4 in its entirety, but fails to vacate all of the legitimacy factors.<\/p>\n

At the EPA\u2019s request set out in its response to the petition for panel rehearing, the court clarified its intended effect of vacatur of Factor 4, as well. Importantly, the court expressly noted that a subset of the industry petitioners appears to disagree with this clarification. Per the court\u2019s opinion\/clarification, the net result of this decision is that 1) the 2015 version of Factor 4 is vacated in its entirety, 2) the 2015 change making the legitimacy factors applicable to all exclusions remains in effect, 3) Factor 3 remains mandatory per the 2015 changes, and 4) the 2008 version of factor 4 (which requires only that the factor be \u201cconsidered\u201d) replaces the now-vacated 2015 version.<\/p>\n

Thus, the industry\u2019s persistence over the last decade has paid off in that there has been further vacatur of the portions of the 2015 rule that narrow the recycling exclusions in the definition of solid waste, and the court clarified its interpretation of the net effects of these decisions. Is there more to come from the subset of industry petitioners mentioned in the opinion? Stay tuned.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

[\/et_pb_cta][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Karen Aldridge Crawford \u2013 March 12, 2018 Finally, following a decade of challenges to attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to drastically narrow the recycling exclusion in regulations setting forth the definition of solid waste and the determination of what hazardous materials may be legitimately recycled pursuant to regulatory exclusions therein, the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Posted on March 21, 2013 by Karen Crawford<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA issued its long-awaited CISWI Rule in the Federal Register on February 7, 2013. 78 FR 9112. The final rule, entitled \u201cCommercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units;
Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid
Waste,\u201d contains the provisions in EPA\u2019s 2011 rule, vacated in January 2012, that EPA agreed to
reconsider. The 2011 final rule in turn superseded EPA\u2019s 2000 CISWI rule. The new CISWI Rule
amends 40 CFR part 60 subparts CCCC and DDDD and part 241. The amendments to 40 CFR part 60 subpart DDDD, along with certain incorporations by reference, were effective on the
promulgation date; amendments to part 60 subpart CCCC are effective August 7, 2013, and those to 40 CFR part 241 are effective April 8, 2013.
In response to both the court\u2019s vacatur of a Notice of Delay issued in 2011 and the numerous petitions for reconsideration and comments submitted by the regulated community and the
public, the final rule includes three subcategories of ERUs (energy recovery units) and two
subcategories for waste-burning kilns based on design-type differences, with separate carbon
monoxide (CO) limits for the latter. Certain limits were also revised based on comments
regarding the CO span methodology and on incorporation of additional data. The rule establishes
stack testing and continuous monitoring requirements and allows for the use of continuous
emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), setting levels based on a 3 hour block or 30-day rolling
average (depending on the parameter and subcategory of CISWI).
The rule addresses and preserves a source\u2019s choice to cease or start combusting solid waste at
any time due to market conditions or other reasons, and to switch from one set of applicable
emission standards to another pursuant to CAA section 112, thereby amending the original \"once
in always in\" approach reflected in the earlier versions of this rule. This in turn will provide an
incentive to the regulated community to continue operating incinerators.
The deadline for compliance with the CISWI Rule by existing sources depends primarily on when the state implementation plan incorporating the final rule is approved, with such approval
required no later than five years after the February 7, 2013 Federal Register publication date. The effective date for new source compliance is August 7, 2013 or the date of startup, whichever date is later. New sources are defined as sources that began construction on or after June 4, 2010, or commenced reconstruction or modification after August 7, 2013.<\/p>\n","_et_gb_content_width":"793","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52677","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nA Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 "Verified Recycler Exclusion" - Klac Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 "Verified Recycler Exclusion" - Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"By Karen Aldridge Crawford \u2013 March 12, 2018 Finally, following a decade of challenges to attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to drastically narrow the recycling exclusion in regulations setting forth the definition of solid waste and the determination of what hazardous materials may be legitimately recycled pursuant to regulatory exclusions therein, the […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-11T15:39:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-11T15:41:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/\",\"name\":\"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 \\\"Verified Recycler Exclusion\\\" - Klac Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-11T15:39:23+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-11T15:41:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 “Verified Recycler Exclusion”\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\",\"name\":\"Klac Law Firm\",\"description\":\"Klac Law Firm\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/author\/admin\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 \"Verified Recycler Exclusion\" - Klac Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 \"Verified Recycler Exclusion\" - Klac Law Firm","og_description":"By Karen Aldridge Crawford \u2013 March 12, 2018 Finally, following a decade of challenges to attempts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to drastically narrow the recycling exclusion in regulations setting forth the definition of solid waste and the determination of what hazardous materials may be legitimately recycled pursuant to regulatory exclusions therein, the […]","og_url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/","og_site_name":"Klac Law Firm","article_published_time":"2021-03-11T15:39:23+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-11T15:41:43+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/","name":"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 \"Verified Recycler Exclusion\" - Klac Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-11T15:39:23+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-11T15:41:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/a-decade-later-industry-successful-in-latest-challenge-to-2015-verified-recycler-exclusion\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A Decade Later: Industry Successful in Latest Challenge to 2015 “Verified Recycler Exclusion”"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/","name":"Klac Law Firm","description":"Klac Law Firm","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/3b4404843ed567da51bd99ddb87a595f?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com"],"url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52677"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52677"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52677\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52703,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52677\/revisions\/52703"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52677"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52677"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52677"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}