Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

Under this act, the EPA may regulate "chemical substances" under certain circumstances, but Congress explicitly excluded lead shot and bullets from regulation.

Thus the EPA is specifically prohibited from regulating ammunition or firearms under TSCA.

May 23, 2013


The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today dismissed a lawsuit brought by environmental groups seeking to force the Environmental Protection Agency to ban ammunition containing lead components.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in August. The court today agreed with NSSF that EPA does not have the authority to regulate traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

The environmental groups are considering an appeal of today’s ruling, according to The Center for Biological Diversity, noting the federal judge dismissed the case on technical grounds but did not rule on the substance of the claim, namely whether EPA should regulate lead ammunition under the toxics law.
--------------------------------------------------------------



U.S. District Court Dismisses
Lawsuit to Ban Traditional Ammunition

NEWTOWN, Conn. — The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia today dismissed a lawsuit brought by the radical anti-hunting Center for Biological Diversity and six other groups demanding the Environmental Protection Agency ban traditional ammunition containing lead components.

Traditional ammunition represents 95 percent of the U.S. market and is the staple ammunition for target shooters, hunters and law enforcement, with more than 10 billion rounds sold annually.

NSSF filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit last August. The court today agreed with NSSF that EPA does not have the authority to regulate traditional ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

EPA had already twice denied attempts by CBD to have the agency ban traditional ammunition, and the court had dismissed an earlier case brought by CBD seeking the same relief.

“We are gratified that the court has found this second frivolous lawsuit, which is essentially the same as the one dismissed last year, was equally without merit,” said Lawrence G. Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry. “This was a waste of taxpayers' dollars and EPA resources spent in having to defend a baseless lawsuit.”

CBD's serial petitioning of EPA and its repeated lawsuits were designed to cripple the shooting sports in America by banning the ammunition that millions of hunters and target shooters choose to use safely and responsibly.

“There is quite simply no sound science that shows the use of traditional ammunition has harmed wildlife populations or that it presents a health risk to humans who consume game taken with such ammunition,” said Keane. “Banning traditional ammunition would cost tens of thousands of jobs in America and destroy wildlife conservation that is funded in part by an 11 percent excise tax on the sale of ammunition. The protection and management of wildlife is properly handled by the professional biologists in the state fish and game agencies, as it has been for over a hundred years.

May 2004


State officials say they are worried about the repercussions of a court ruling that said a north suburban gun club doesn't have to pay the state for cleaning up property riddled with lead shot.

The Northbrook Sports Club, now located in Hainesville, faced up to $4.5 million in cleanup costs at the site near Northbrook where members shot trap and skeet for 40 years before selling the property in 1987.

Cook County Circuit Judge Stuart Nudelman ruled that the lead shot didn't constitute "waste" under the state's environmental laws, material the club would have been required to clean up even after selling the property to a knowing buyer.

Although the state doesn't plan to appeal, officials were concerned that the ruling could make it more difficult to clean up contaminated property, said Matthew Bunn, an assistant attorney general with the environmental enforcement division.

Bunn said it might be possible for a company to orchestrate the sale of contaminated land to someone who couldn't afford to clean it up.

"We'd be in a heck of a state if all of a sudden you could sell [contaminated land] to someone and say, `Tag. You're it,'" he said. "It just doesn't work that way."

Gun-club officials praised the March ruling.

"We're happy about it," said Terry Langworthy (the name as published has been corrected in this text), president of the 700-member club. "We incurred a lot of heartache and headache over it."

"We're ecstatic, both for the club and all clubs in Illinois," said Ned Meyer, president of the Illinois State Trapshooters Association, which represents 25 gun clubs across the state. "Isn't it exciting, the thought that there won't be any liability if they sell their clubs?"

By 1987 the Northbrook club had tired of noise complaints from neighbors of its 36-acre site. Those complaints had led to court-ordered restrictions on its shooting hours.

The club eventually sold the land to a developer and used the money to buy a 600-acre site in rural Hainesville.

Deerfield later wound up with the property and with state help built a storm-water retention basin on the site.

Before the sale, the club periodically cleaned the lead from the site when lead prices were up, said Bill Anaya, the gun-club's attorney.

Before the sale, the Illinois Department of Transportation's water division told the club it hoped to make some money by salvaging the lead. The department wound up digging up tons of lead-filled muck in 1989, Anaya said.

July 2005



Conn. Gun Club Can be Sued for Lead Pollution
By RAE THEODORE, Andrews Publications Correspondent

A group of homeowners who live near a gun club have standing to sue the club for dumping lead and other ammunition-related pollutants into the surrounding area, a Connecticut federal court has ruled .

The court dismissed one of the homeowners' claims under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, concluding that lead shot is not "hazardous waste" at the time it is discharged from a firearm because it is being used for its intended purpose.

The court's ruling permits the homeowners to press their remaining claims under the RCRA and the Clean Water Act.

The Metacon Gun Club Inc. has operated a shooting range in Simsbury, Conn., for 15 years, court filings say. Members and guests are permitted to use large and small firearms, including shotguns, assault rifles and anti-tank guns at the site. The club borders the Farmington River, as well as a golf course, riding stable and Talcott Mountain State Park.

The Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society LLC, composed of six homeowners who live near the site, claims the gun club causes water and soil contamination from chromium, lead, ammunition fragments and other pollutants. It alleges that "thousands of pounds of lead" were deposited into the environment since 1980 and the area shows a lead presence well above that allowed by state environmental laws.

Simsbury-Avon and its individual members sued Metacon for violations of the RCRA and the CWA. Specifically, it maintains that Metacon violated the RCRA by open dumping lead and lead debris. It further alleges that Metacon, an owner and operator of a waste facility, has engaged in hazardous waste disposal without obtaining a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency or the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.

In addition, Simsbury-Avon claims that Metacon violated the CWA by discharging lead bullets and debris into the Farmington River and its wetlands without an EPA or DEP permit. The homeowners' group has requested declarative and injunctive relief as well as civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each RCRA and CWA violation.

Metacon moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that the group lacks standing to sue. Metacon contends that when the suit was filed May 13, 2004, the Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society did not legally exist. Further, the defendant maintains that adding individual plaintiffs does not cure the original defect.

Judge Janet B. Arterton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut disagreed. Although the group was officially incorporated five days after the complaint was filed, Simsbury-Avon and its individual members have standing to sue, she found. The judge noted that the group was a de facto corporation May 11, 2004, when its articles of incorporation were first submitted.

The judge dismissed one of the group's RCRA claims, which asserted that Metacon disposed of hazardous waste without a permit. In so ruling, Judge Arterton relied on a January 2001 EPA publication in which the agency concluded that lead shot is not hazardous waste subject to the RCRA at the time it is discharged from a firearm because it is being used for its intended purpose.

Judge Arterton found the EPA's exclusion of lead shot and bullets from the definition of "solid waste" in the RCRA reasonable.

"At the time a target shooter fires a bullet, the shooter is not intending to 'abandon' the bullet but rather to use it to hit a target. He or she is putting the lead bullet to its intended use," she said

http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/pl/gun/20050711/20050711simsbury.html

This post is for Greg if any EPA will be envolved in the future.