Opinion ID: 700470
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Parties and Claims.

Text: 11 The Defendants-appellants in this case are LWD, Inc. (LWD), the owner and operator of a hazardous waste incineration facility, and Phillip J. Shepherd, in his official capacity as Secretary of Kentucky's Cabinet for Natural Resources and Environmental Protection (the Secretary and Cabinet). Plaintiffs-appellees, Coalition for Health Concern, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Sierra Club and Ernest Ramey Whitehead (collectively CHC), are environmental groups with members who live near the facility and an individual who also lives near the facility. Plaintiffs-appellees brought this action for alleged violations by the Secretary and LWD of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 6901-6992 (1988) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601-9675 (1988). 12 Plaintiffs' primary claim is that LWD is in violation of RCRA because the facility is operating without a final Part B permit. Plaintiffs allege that under RCRA, as amended, the Part B permit must have been issued or denied by November 8, 1989. See, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6925(c). Plaintiffs also claim the Secretary failed to perform his statutory duty to either issue or deny LWD's final Part B permit by the November 8, 1989 deadline. Defendants-appellants, in addition to their procedural defenses, contend that LWD is entitled to interim status pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6925(e) and under state law until a final decision is made on their Part B permit application irrespective of the November 8, 1989 deadline. 13 The Secretary and LWD both filed motions to dismiss arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the doctrine of abstention and other defenses. The district court denied the motions to dismiss but did, however, dismiss one count of the complaint pursuant to the Burford abstention doctrine. The district court retained jurisdiction over the remaining claims to the extent they did not require an indepth analysis of state law. 14 Recognizing an immediate appeal might materially advance the ultimate termination of this litigation, the district court certified its decision to this court as appropriate for interlocutory appeal sua sponte. We subsequently granted defendants'-appellants' petitions for review. 15