Meghrig v. KFC Western Inc., 9583
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | O'CONNOR |
| Citation | 134 L.Ed.2d 121,516 U.S. 479,116 S.Ct. 1251 |
| Parties | Alan MEGHRIG, et al., Petitioners, v. KFC WESTERN, INC |
| Docket Number | 9583 |
| Decision Date | 19 March 1996 |
116 S.Ct. 1251
134 L.Ed.2d 121
v.
KFC WESTERN, INC.
Three years after complying with a county order to clean up petroleum contamination discovered on its property, respondent KFC Western, Inc., brought this action under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), to recover its cleanup costs from petitioners, the Meghrigs. KFC claimed, among other things, that the contamination had previously posed an "imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment," see § 6972(a)(1)(B), and that the Meghrigs were responsible for "equitable restitution" under § 6972(a) because, as prior owners of the property, they had contributed to the contaminated site. The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that § 6972(a) does not permit recovery of past cleanup costs and that § 6972(a)(1)(B) does not authorize a cause of action for the remediation of toxic waste that does not pose an "imminent and substantial endangerment" at the time suit is filed. The Ninth Circuit disagreed on both points and reversed.
Held: Section 6972 does not authorize a private cause of action to recover the prior cost of cleaning up toxic waste that does not, at the time of suit, continue to pose an endangerment to health or the environment. Pp. __-__.
(a) A private party cannot recover the cost of a past cleanup effort under § 6972(a), which authorizes district courts "to restrain any person [responsible for toxic waste], to order such person to take such other action as may be necessary, or both." (Emphasis added.) Under a plain reading of this remedial scheme, a citizen plaintiff could seek a mandatory injunction that orders a responsible party to "take action" by attending to the cleanup and proper disposal of waste, or a prohibitory injunction that "restrains" a responsible party from further violating RCRA. Neither remedy, however, contemplates the award of past cleanup costs, whether denominated "damages" or "equitable restitution." A comparison with the relief provided in the analogous, but not parallel, provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 demonstrates that Congress knows how to provide for the recovery of past cleanup costs, and that § 6972(a) does not provide that remedy. Pp. __-__.
(b) Section 6972(a)(1)(B)—which permits citizen suits against persons responsible for "waste which may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment" (emphasis added)—does not authorize a suit based upon an allegation that the contaminated site posed such an endangerment at some time in the past. This timing restriction's plain meaning demonstrates that an endangerment can only be "imminent" if it threatens to occur immediately, and the reference to waste which "may present" imminent harm quite clearly excludes waste that no longer presents such a danger. This language implies that there must be a threat which is present now, althou gh the impact of the threat may not be felt until later. It follows that § 6972(a) was designed to provide a remedy that ameliorates present or obviates the risk of future "imminent" harms, not a remedy that compensates for past cleanup efforts. Other aspects of RCRA's enforcement scheme strongly support this conclusion, and the existence of such an elaborate scheme refutes the Government's contention that district courts may award past cleanup costs under their inherent equitable remedial authority. Pp. __-__.
(c) This Court does not consider whether a private party could seek to obtain an injunction requiring another party to pay cleanup costs arising after a RCRA citizen suit has been properly commenced. P. __.
49 F.3d 518 (C.A.9 1995), reversed.
O'CONNOR, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
John Palmer, for petitioners.
Jeffrey P. Minear amicus curiae, for U.S.
Daniel Romano, for respondent.
Justice O'CONNOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider whether § 7002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972 (1988 ed.), authorizes a private cause of action to recover the prior cost of cleaning up toxic waste that does not, at the time of suit, continue to pose an endangerment to health or the environment. We conclude that it does not.
Respondent KFC Western, Inc. (KFC), owns and operates a "Kentucky Fried Chicken" restaurant on a parcel of property in Los Angeles. In 1988, KFC discovered during the course of a construction project that the property was contaminated with petroleum. The County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services ordered KFC to attend to the problem, and KFC spent $211,000 removing and disposing of the oil-tainted soil.
Three years later, KFC brought this suit under the citizen suit provision of RCRA, 90 Stat. 2825, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a) (1988 ed.),** seeking to recover these cleanup costs from petitioners Alan and Margaret Meghrig.
KFC claimed that the contaminated soil was a "solid waste" covered by RCRA, see 42 U.S.C. § 6903(27) (1988 ed.), that it had previously posed an "imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment," see § 6972(a)(1)(B), and that the Meghrigs were responsible for "equitable restitution" of KFC's cleanup costs under § 6972(a) because, as prior owners of the property, they had contributed to the waste's "past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal." See App. 12-19 (first amended complaint).
The District Court held that § 6972(a) does not permit recovery of past cleanup costs and that § 6972(a)(1)(B) does not authorize a cause of action for the remediation of toxic waste that does not pose an "imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment" at the time suit is filed, and dismissed KFC's complaint. App. to Pet. for Cert. A21-A23 . The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, over a dissent, 49 F.3d 518, 524-528 (1995) (Brunetti, J.), finding that a district court had authority under § 6972(a) to award restitution of past cleanup costs, id., at 521-523, and that a private party can proceed with a suit under § 6972(a)(1)(B) upon an allegation that the waste at issue presented an "imminent and substantial endangerment" at the time it was cleaned up, id., at 520-521.
The Ninth Circuit's conclusion regarding the remedies available under RCRA conflicts with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Furrer v. Brown, 62 F.3d 1092, 1100-1101 (1995), and its interpretation of the "imminent endangerment" requirement represents a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davenport v. Neely, No. CIV. A. 97-D-1019-N.
...856 F.Supp. at 632 n. 3).) Plaintiffs respond that notwithstanding Valentine, the Supreme Court's opinion in Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996) and the Eighth Circuit's opinion in Furrer v. Brown, 62 F.3d 1092 (8th Cir.1995), are dispositive o......
-
Miller v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., No. 17-cv-0840 (KBJ)
...presence of hazardous waste that the remedy that the statute provides is limited to injunctive relief. See Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 484, 488 (1996) (holding that the RCRA provides no right to money damages and that a plaintiff cannot recover "compensation for past cleanup......
-
Andritz Sprout-Bauer, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., No. 4:CV-95-1182.
...expenses incurred in cleanup efforts, its claim is barred by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996). Count III remains in the case only to the extent Andritz asserts a claim for injunctive relief again......
-
Bureerong v. Uvawas, No. CV95-5958 ABC (BQRx).
...Mills v. United States, 278 U.S. 282, 289, 49 S.Ct. 129, 132, 73 L.Ed. 379 (1929)); see also Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996) (quoting same language). As a general rule, "if the statute itself provides `a particular remedy or remedies,' we s......
-
Ecological Rights Found. v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., Case No. C 09–03704 SBA.
...nonetheless generated, ‘so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment.’ ” Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 6902(b)). To further this goal, § 7002 of RCRA permits “any person” to brin......
-
Black Warrior River-Keeper, Inc. v. Drummond Co., Case No. 2:16-cv-01443-AKK
...generated, ‘so as to minimize the present and future threat to human health and the environment.’ " Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc. , 516 U.S. 479, 483, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996). RCRA authorizes citizen enforcement actions against "any person ... who has contributed or is contrib......
-
Mallett v. Wisconsin Div. of Vocational Rehabilitation, 94-2601
...remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it." TAMA, 444 U.S. at 19, 100 S.Ct. at 247; see also Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, ----, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 1256, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996). Together, the private right of action for states and the administrative appeal process......
-
U.S. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc., No. 01-CV-658S.
...environmental statute that governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste." Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996); see also Chicago v. Envtl. Def. Fund, 511 U.S. 328, 331, 114 S.Ct. 1588, 128 L.Ed.2d 302 (1994) (no......
-
ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES
...42 U.S.C. §§ 9601–9675. 388. H.R. REP. NO. 96-1016, at 22 (1980), reprinted in 1980 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6119, 6125; see Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 483 (1996) (adopting Eighth Circuit’s statement that two main purposes of CERCLA are “prompt cleanup of hazardous waste sites and impositio......
-
Defining the Problem
...environmental statute that governs the treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and hazardous waste.” Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc. , 516 U.S. 479, 483, 116 S. Ct. 1251, 134 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1996). When it enacted RCRA, Congress was primarily concerned with establishing the framework for a nationa......
-
Patching a Persistent Problem: PFAS and RCRA's Citizen Suit Provision
...at 211 (quotation omitted); Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343, 1356, 21 ELR 21133 (2d Cir. 1991). 138. Meghrig v. KFC W., Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 486, 26 ELR 20820 (1996). 139. U.S. EPA, Basic Information on PFAS , supra note 28. 140. Buck et al., supra note 22; Agency for Toxic Substa......
-
HOW FEDERAL AGENCIES SUE ON VICTIMS' BEHALF: PARENS PATRIAE, EQUITABLE REMEDIES, AND PROCEDURES.
...(alteration in original) (quoting Mertens, 508 U.S. at 256). (94) Mertens, 508 U.S. at 256. (95) See id. at 260. (96) Id. at 261-62. (97) 516 U.S. 479 (98) Id. at 484. (99) See id. at 485-86. (100) 532 U.S. 275 (2001). (101) Id. at 286-87. (102) Id. at 287 (quoting J.I. Case Co. v. Borak, 3......