Opinion ID: 172146
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Injunctions under RCRA's citizen-suit provision

Text: In order to prevail on its motion for preliminary injunction under RCRA's citizen-suit provision, Oklahoma must establish that the Poultry Integrators [have] contributed or ... [are] 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) (emphasis added). In Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir.2007), this court explained that [a]s a threshold matter, it is well established that the operative word in § 6972(a)(1)(B)['s `may present an imminent and substantial endangerment' clause] is `may'; thus, [the plaintiff] must demonstrate that the [solid or hazardous waste] `may present' such a danger. 505 F.3d at 1020. Adopting the language of the Second Circuit, we emphasized that [t]his `expansive language' is `intended to confer upon the courts the authority to grant affirmative equitable relief to the extent necessary to eliminate any risk posed by toxic wastes.' Id. (quoting Dague v. City of Burlington, 935 F.2d 1343, 1355 (2d Cir.1991), rev'd in part on other grounds, 502 U.S. 1071, 112 S.Ct. 964, 117 L.Ed.2d 130 (1992)). Furthermore, we explained in Burlington Northern, the term `endangerment' has been interpreted by courts to mean a threatened or potential harm[;] thus, it is not necessary that [the plaintiff] show proof of actual harm to health or the environment. Id. (emphasis added). Instead, injunctive relief is authorized when there may be a risk of harm. Id. Similarly, a court's finding of `imminency' does not require a showing that actual harm will occur immediately as long as the risk of threatened harm is present. Id. Rather, the key is that the threat itself is present now, even if the impact of that threat may not be felt until later. Id. (quoting Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc., 516 U.S. 479, 485-86, 116 S.Ct. 1251, 134 L.Ed.2d 121 (1996)). [A]n endangerment is substantial where there is reasonable cause for concern that someone or something may be exposed to risk of harm by release, or threatened release, of hazardous substances in the event remedial action is not taken. Id. at 1021 (emphasis added). And in applying this endangerment standard, courts should err on the side of protecting public health, welfare and the environment. Id. (quotation omitted).