{"id":52718,"date":"2021-03-11T15:51:59","date_gmt":"2021-03-11T15:51:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/klaclaw.visibilitywebdesign.com\/?p=52718"},"modified":"2021-03-11T15:53:34","modified_gmt":"2021-03-11T15:53:34","slug":"transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/","title":{"rendered":"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>[et_pb_section fb_built=&#8221;1&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;4.9.1&#8243; width=&#8221;87%&#8221; custom_margin=&#8221;-165px||||false|false&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;3px|||||&#8221; locked=&#8221;off&#8221;][et_pb_row _builder_version=&#8221;4.9.1&#8243; width=&#8221;95%&#8221; max_width=&#8221;1749px&#8221; custom_padding=&#8221;|||&#8221;][et_pb_column type=&#8221;4_4&#8243; _builder_version=&#8221;3.25&#8243; custom_padding=&#8221;|||&#8221; custom_padding__hover=&#8221;|||&#8221;][et_pb_cta title=&#8221;Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument&#8221; button_url=&#8221;#TOP&#8221; _builder_version=&#8221;4.9.1&#8243; header_font=&#8221;Georgia|700|||||||&#8221; header_font_size=&#8221;22px&#8221; header_line_height=&#8221;1.5em&#8221; body_font=&#8221;Noto Sans||||||||&#8221; body_font_size=&#8221;17px&#8221; body_line_height=&#8221;2em&#8221; use_background_color=&#8221;off&#8221; custom_button=&#8221;on&#8221; button_text_size=&#8221;17px&#8221; button_text_color=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; button_bg_color=&#8221;#ff6b5a&#8221; button_border_width=&#8221;5px&#8221; button_border_color=&#8221;#ff6b5a&#8221; button_border_radius=&#8221;100px&#8221; button_font=&#8221;Noto Sans|700||on|||||&#8221; button_use_icon=&#8221;off&#8221; text_orientation=&#8221;left&#8221; background_layout=&#8221;light&#8221; max_width=&#8221;100%&#8221; module_alignment=&#8221;center&#8221; custom_margin=&#8221;|||&#8221; hover_enabled=&#8221;0&#8243; header_font_size_tablet=&#8221;&#8221; header_font_size_phone=&#8221;34px&#8221; header_font_size_last_edited=&#8221;on|phone&#8221; button_text_color_hover=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; button_border_color_hover=&#8221;#ff9e59&#8243; button_bg_color_hover=&#8221;#ff9e59&#8243; button_text_size__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_one_text_size__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_text_size__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_text_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;on&#8221; button_text_color__hover=&#8221;#ffffff&#8221; button_one_text_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_text_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_border_width__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_one_border_width__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_border_width__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_border_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;on&#8221; button_border_color__hover=&#8221;#ff9e59&#8243; button_one_border_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_border_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_border_radius__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_one_border_radius__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_border_radius__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_one_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_letter_spacing__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_bg_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;on&#8221; button_bg_color__hover=&#8221;#ff9e59&#8243; button_one_bg_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; button_two_bg_color__hover_enabled=&#8221;off&#8221; sticky_enabled=&#8221;0&#8243;]<\/p>\n<div>\n<header class=\"aba-article-header\">\n<div>\n<header class=\"aba-article-header\">\n<hgroup>\n<h2 class=\"aba-article-header__subhead\"><\/h2>\n<h2 class=\"aba-article-header__subhead\">A thoughtful, practical opinion seems to provide the EPA with a tutorial on promulgating a defensible regulation.<\/h2>\n<h6 class=\"aba-article-header__authors\"><\/h6>\n<h6 class=\"aba-article-header__authors\">By Karen Aldridge Crawford<\/h6>\n<\/hgroup>\n<div>\n<section data-component-name=\"share-social\" data-component-type=\"social\">\n<div class=\"aba-product-share__share-wrapper__icons\"><\/div>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"article-content basecomponent\">\n<section class=\"aba-article-content\">On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) transfer-based exclusion for hazardous secondary materials filed by California Communities Against Toxics et al., finding (1) that the \u201cEPA did not act contrary to RCRA [the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act] in adopting the Transfer-Based Exclusion because hazardous secondary materials are not necessarily \u2018discarded\u2019 each time they are transferred from a generator to a reclaimer along with payment\u201d and (2) that the \u201cEPA has provided a reasoned explanation for applying different standards to materials that are not yet part of the waste disposal problem RCRA addresses where they meet conditions EPA concluded were adequate for safe transfer and legitimate recycling.\u201d<span>\u00a0<\/span><i>Cal. Comtys. Against Toxics v. EPA<\/i>, No. 18-1163 (July 2, 2019). The petitioners had argued that \u201ca generator \u2018discards\u2019 hazardous material whenever it pays a reclaimer to accept the material\u201d and that the EPA had \u201cnot provided a reasoned explanation for treating hazardous material differently based on whether it [wa]s sent to a reclaimer instead of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility.\u201d The petitioners also argued that the \u201cEPA has already identified deficiencies in the Transfer-Based Exclusion,\u201d which had been replaced in 2015, reinstated by the court in 2017, and reissued by the EPA as modified in 2018.<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<hgroup>\n<h2 class=\"aba-article-header__subhead\"><\/h2>\n<\/hgroup>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n<div>\n<div class=\"article-content basecomponent\">\n<section class=\"aba-article-content\">\u00a0<\/section>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>[\/et_pb_cta][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A thoughtful, practical opinion seems to provide the EPA with a tutorial on promulgating a defensible regulation. By Karen Aldridge Crawford On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) transfer-based exclusion for hazardous secondary materials filed by California Communities [&hellip;]<\/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":"<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p><\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>Posted on March 21, 2013 by Karen Crawford<\/p>\n<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->\n\n<!-- wp:paragraph -->\n<p>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;<br>Reconsideration and Final Amendments; Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That Are Solid<br>Waste,\u201d contains the provisions in EPA\u2019s 2011 rule, vacated in January 2012, that EPA agreed to<br>reconsider. The 2011 final rule in turn superseded EPA\u2019s 2000 CISWI rule. The new CISWI Rule<br>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<br>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.<br>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<br>public, the final rule includes three subcategories of ERUs (energy recovery units) and two<br>subcategories for waste-burning kilns based on design-type differences, with separate carbon<br>monoxide (CO) limits for the latter. Certain limits were also revised based on comments<br>regarding the CO span methodology and on incorporation of additional data. The rule establishes<br>stack testing and continuous monitoring requirements and allows for the use of continuous<br>emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), setting levels based on a 3 hour block or 30-day rolling<br>average (depending on the parameter and subcategory of CISWI).<br>The rule addresses and preserves a source\u2019s choice to cease or start combusting solid waste at<br>any time due to market conditions or other reasons, and to switch from one set of applicable<br>emission standards to another pursuant to CAA section 112, thereby amending the original \"once<br>in always in\" approach reflected in the earlier versions of this rule. This in turn will provide an<br>incentive to the regulated community to continue operating incinerators.<br>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<br>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<!-- \/wp:paragraph -->","_et_gb_content_width":"793","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52718","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v25.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument - 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\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument - Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A thoughtful, practical opinion seems to provide the EPA with a tutorial on promulgating a defensible regulation. By Karen Aldridge Crawford On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) transfer-based exclusion for hazardous secondary materials filed by California Communities [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Klac Law Firm\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-03-11T15:51:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-03-11T15:53:34+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=\"3 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\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/\",\"name\":\"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument - Klac Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-03-11T15:51:59+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-03-11T15:53:34+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument\"}]},{\"@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":"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument - 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\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument - Klac Law Firm","og_description":"A thoughtful, practical opinion seems to provide the EPA with a tutorial on promulgating a defensible regulation. By Karen Aldridge Crawford On July 2, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review of the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) transfer-based exclusion for hazardous secondary materials filed by California Communities [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/","og_site_name":"Klac Law Firm","article_published_time":"2021-03-11T15:51:59+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-03-11T15:53:34+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/","url":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/","name":"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument - Klac Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-03-11T15:51:59+00:00","dateModified":"2021-03-11T15:53:34+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/#\/schema\/person\/621decac54e9280b38dcf19052ae7ed0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/2021\/03\/11\/transfer-based-exclusion-upheld-court-discards-discard-argument\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Transfer-Based Exclusion Upheld: Court Discards \u201cDiscard\u201d Argument"}]},{"@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\/52718"}],"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=52718"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52718\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":52721,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52718\/revisions\/52721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52718"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52718"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/klaclaw.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52718"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}