Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia
DecidedJuly 25, 2022
DocketCivil Action No. 2021-2210
StatusPublished

This text of Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (D.D.C. 2022).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 21-cv-2210 (JDB) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY and MICHAEL REGAN, in his Official capacity as Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Defendants.

ORDER

Upon consideration of [15] the Unopposed Motion for Entry of Consent Decree, and the

entire record herein, it is hereby

ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED; and it is further

ORDERED that the attached consent decree is ENTERED.

SO ORDERED. Digitally signed by John D.

John D. Bates Bates Date: 2022.07.25 10:31:57 -04'00'

JOHN D. BATES United States District Judge

Dated: July 25, 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CENTER FOR BIOLOGICAL ) DIVERSITY ) ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-2210-JDB ) v. ) ) U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ) AGENCY and MICHAEL REGAN, in his ) Official capacity as Administrator, U.S. ) Environmental Protection Agency, ) ) Defendants. ) __________________________________________)

CONSENT DECREE

WHEREAS, on August 19, 2021, Plaintiff the Center for Biological Diversity (“CBD” or

“Plaintiff”) filed the above-captioned matter against the United States Environmental Protection

Agency and its Administrator in his official capacity (collectively “EPA” or “Defendants”). See

Compl. (ECF No. 1);

WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges that EPA has failed to undertake certain non-discretionary

duties under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA” or “the Act”), 42 U.S.C.

§§ 6901-6992k, and that such alleged failure is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2), or,

alternatively, the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559, 701-706. See Compl. ¶¶ 4,

10-12;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges that it filed a petition with EPA to classify discarded

polyvinyl chloride (“PVC”) as hazardous waste under RCRA and that EPA has failed to perform

its non-discretionary duty to “take action” on Plaintiff’s petition within a “reasonable time” as

required by 42 U.S.C. § 6974(a). See Compl. ¶¶ 9-11. WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to a settlement of this action without admission of any

issue of fact or law, except as expressly provided herein;

WHEREAS, the Parties, by entering into this Consent Decree, do not waive or limit any

claim, remedy, or defense, on any grounds, related to any final EPA action;

WHEREAS, the Parties consider this Consent Decree to be an adequate and equitable

resolution of all the claims in this matter and therefore wish to effectuate a settlement;

WHEREAS, it is in the interest of the public, Plaintiff, EPA, and judicial economy to

resolve this matter without protracted litigation;

WHEREAS, the Court, by entering this Consent Decree, finds that the Consent Decree is

fair, reasonable, in the public interest, and consistent with RCRA and the APA;

NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of testimony, without trial or determination of any

issues of fact or law, and upon the consent of the Parties, it is hereby ordered, adjudged, and

decreed that:

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the claims set forth in Plaintiff’s Complaint and

may order the relief contained in the Consent Decree. Venue is proper in the United States

District Court for the District of Columbia.

2. If CBD executes this Consent Decree by April 20, 2022, then, no later than January

20, 2023, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 260.20(c), EPA shall sign a tentative decision on Plaintiff’s

petition to classify discarded PVC as hazardous waste under RCRA. If CBD does not execute this

Consent Decree by April 20, then EPA shall sign a tentative decision no later than nine months

after the date CBD executes this Consent Decree. EPA shall receive comments on this tentative

decision, and respond, as appropriate, even if its tentative decision is to deny Plaintiff’s petition.

2 3. No later than two years after the signature of this consent decree by Plaintiff, EPA

shall sign a final decision on Plaintiff’s petition.

4. Upon signing the documents described in Paragraphs 2-3, the appropriate EPA

official shall forward each such document to the Office of the Federal Register for review and

publication in the Federal Register. Following such delivery to the Office of the Federal Register,

EPA shall not take any action (other than is necessary to correct any typographical errors or other

errors in form) to delay or otherwise interfere with the publication of each such notice in the

Federal Register.

5. Within seven (7) business days after forwarding the documents described in

Paragraphs 2–3 to the Office of the Federal Register, EPA shall send copies of such documents to

Plaintiffs.

6. The deadlines set forth in Paragraphs 2–3 may be extended (a) by written

stipulation of the Parties with notice to the Court, or (b) by the Court following a motion by EPA

for good cause shown pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and upon consideration of

any response by Plaintiff and any reply by EPA. Any other provision of this Consent Decree also

may be modified by the Court following motion of an undersigned party for good cause shown

pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and upon consideration of any response by a non-

moving party and any reply.

7. The Parties shall not challenge the terms of this Consent Decree or this Court’s

jurisdiction to enter and enforce this Consent Decree.

8. Except as provided herein, nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to

limit or modify any discretion accorded to EPA by RCRA or the APA or by general principles of

administrative law in taking the actions that are the subject of this Consent Decree, including the

discretion to alter, amend, or revise any final actions promulgated pursuant to this Consent Decree.

3 EPA’s obligation to perform each action specified in this Consent Decree does not constitute a

limitation or modification of EPA’s discretion within the meaning of this paragraph.

9. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to confer upon this Court

jurisdiction to review any issues that are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States

Courts of Appeals pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6976. Nothing in the terms of this Consent Decree

shall be construed to waive, limit, or modify any remedies, rights to seek judicial review, or

defenses the Parties may have under 42 U.S.C. § 6976.

10. Any notices required or provided for by this Consent Decree shall be in writing, via

electronic mail or other means, and sent to the following (or to any new address of counsel as filed

and listed in the docket of the above-captioned matter, at a future date):

a.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Congressional findings
42 U.S.C. § 6901
Citizen suits
42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(2)
Judicial review
42 U.S.C. § 6976
§ 551-559
5 U.S.C. § 551-559
§ 551
5 U.S.C. § 551

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/center-for-biological-diversity-v-us-environmental-protection-agency-dcd-2022.