From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanders Lead Company, Inc., v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Apr 6, 1987
813 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir. 1987)

Opinion

No. 86-7459.

April 6, 1987.

James S. Stokes, Alston Bird, Nill V. Toulme, Sydney S. Cleland, Atlanta, Ga., for petitioner.

Joseph Freedman, U.S.E.P.A., Office of General Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Lee Thomas and E.P.A.

Michael D. Rowe, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Land Natural Resources Div., Washington, D.C., for respondents.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Before RONEY, Chief Judge, HILL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.


The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.A. § 6901, et seq., requires a "permit" for the operation of a hazardous waste management facility. Sanders Lead Company, Inc. was operating under an "interim status" pending completion of its RCRA permit application. As an "interim status" facility, Sanders was subject to certain performance standards, including requirements for sudden and nonsudden accidental occurrences insurance coverage. Sanders applied for a variance from the nonsudden accident insurance requirement, which variance was denied by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region IV. The Region IV decision was affirmed on appeal to the EPA Administrator. Sanders then filed this petition for review challenging EPA's final action. EPA moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 6976(b)(1) provides for a review in the appropriate Court of Appeals when the EPA takes final action "issuing, denying, modifying, or revoking any permit. . . ." Following the reasoning expressed in Hempstead County and Nevada County Project v. EPA, 700 F.2d 459, 462 (8th Cir. 1983), we hold "that Section 6976(b) does not confer upon this Court jurisdiction for direct review of an `interim status' determination made by the EPA pursuant to Section 6925(e)." 700 F.2d at 462. The Government cited an unpublished opinion of the Sixth Circuit which also follows the reasoning and result of Hempstead. See Granger Land Development Co. v. Thomas, 786 F.2d 1164 (6th Cir. 1986). No case directly to the contrary has been cited.

Respondents' motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED.


Summaries of

Sanders Lead Company, Inc., v. Thomas

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Apr 6, 1987
813 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir. 1987)
Case details for

Sanders Lead Company, Inc., v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:SANDERS LEAD COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER, v. LEE M. THOMAS, IN HIS CAPACITY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Apr 6, 1987

Citations

813 F.2d 1190 (11th Cir. 1987)

Citing Cases

Waste Management of Ill. v. U.S.E.P.A.

The Seventh Circuit has held that interim status, even though it has the same effect as a permit, is not the…

Thermalkem, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A

" Id. Vineland has not been universally accepted.See Sanders Lead Co. v. Thomas, 813 F.2d 1190, 1191 (11th…