In response, you file a lawsuit involving RCRA’s citizen suit provisions to allege that the former owner or operator violated RCRA’s substantive requirements by disposing of hazardous waste without a permit. 42 U.S.C. §6972(a)(1)(A). You also assert a claim that the defendant contributed to the past disposal of a hazardous waste that is presenting an imminent and substantial endangerment.

Union Pacific filed suit seeking cost recovery, declaratory and injunctive relief, contribution or indemnity, damages, and punitive damages. One of the causes of action sought injunctive relief and costs of litigation under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6972(a)(1)(A) (referenced as “Subsection A”) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 6972(a)(1)(B) (referenced as “Subsection B”).Hill and Privette (“H&P”) filed a motion to dismiss both RCRA claims.H&P argued that Hill did not own the property.

This resulted in a trichloroethylene (“TCE”) groundwater plume.Johnson is remediating the contamination under the supervision of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.Three plaintiffs whose homes are located above the groundwater plume filed a RCRA citizen suit action against Johnson. They argued at trial that Johnson was in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). This RCRA provision is one of the two sections in the statute that permits citizen suits:.

Download PDF[co-author: Savannah Johnston]The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“Court”), in a March 26th Opinion addressed issues involving a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) citizen suit action, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). See Jackson v. Blue Star Recycling, LLC, No. 3:20-CV-00967-M, 2021 WL 1164827 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2021).

Such an action allows “any person” to file suit against any other “person, including any past or present generator, past or present transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility, who has contributed to or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). A RCRA endangerment is substantial if it is “serious” or “if there is some reasonable cause for concern that someone or something may be exposed to a risk of harm…if remedial action is not taken.”

The Residents filed a Complaint under the citizen suit provision of RCRA on May 15, 2020. See 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B). They asserted that ASL remains contaminated with harmful chemicals which can cause adverse health effects.Among the motions filed by NO in response included one arguing that the Residents failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).NO argued that the citizen suit action was barred under 42 U.S.C. § 6972.

On January 14th, the State of New Mexico provided the legally required notice under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to sue the United States Environment Protection Agency (EPA), the State of Colorado, and others for violating 42 U. S. C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) alleging that it had created an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of New Mexico’s citizens and the environment of the Animas and San Juan Rivers in New Mexico. As previously reported here and here, on August 5, 2015 contractors working for EPA caused a massive release of toxic mine waste from the Gold King Mine in Colorado.

RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et.seq., is a comprehensive environmental statute which covers how to store, treat, and dispose of solid and hazardous waste. Part of the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(A)-(B), authorizes suit by private citizens for violations. Citizens can sue for: 1) an ongoing violation of a permit required under the RCRA, or under a parallel state standard authorized under RCRA, or 2) a past or present violation which poses a substantial, imminent danger to health or the environment.

"C" grade waste includes formerly "B" grade waste that has degraded and is hence, no longer suitable for animal bedding.5 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A) allows citizen plaintiffs to bring suit against a defendant that is "alleged to be in violation of any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to this chapter."6 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) allows citizen plaintiffs to bring suit against a defendant "who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment."

RCLA; however, EPA has yet to finalize the proposed rule.The second proposed rule clarifies that EPA (and authorized states) have the authority to order corrective action at RCRA-permitted transportation, storage, and disposal facilities to address releases of hazardous wastes, hazardous constituents, and any other substance that meets the statutory definition of hazardous wastes. This would mean that not only could EPA impose corrective action measures to address the nine PFAS substances identified in the first proposed rule, but it could also do so for other emerging contaminants.Last, the potential listing of the nine PFAS substances may increase the likelihood of citizen suits. The two proposed regulations could bolster citizen suit claims against facilities that treat, store, or dispose of PFAS waste in violation of RCRA requirements or where the treatment, storage, or disposal of PFAS wastes creates an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment. See 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1).[View source.]