Opinion ID: 24837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plaintiffs' Claims Against Saitas

Text: 98 We now turn to Plaintiffs' claims against Saitas, namely that Saitas was obligated to classify the Deepwood and South Loop 12 sites as open dumps and then to set in motion procedures to upgrade or close those dumps. See supra Part IV.B.1. Plaintiffs assert that Saitas's failure to take these actions places Saitas in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 6943(a), 6944, 6945(a) & (b), and the relevant regulations, particularly 40 C.F.R. § 256.23. See id. Plaintiffs seek to enforce these obligations via the citizen suit provision in § 6972(a)(1)(A). 99 The district court did not err in finding that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden on their claims against Saitas. Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Saitas's actions contravened the statutory provisions and regulations that are the basis of their suit. In essence, Plaintiffs seek to add requirements not explicitly dictated by the statute. 100 As discussed supra in Part IV.A, the RCRA places several conditions 49 onstates in order for them to receive federal funding for waste management. See 42 U.S.C. § 6947(b). A state is required to submit a solid waste management plan, which must be approved by the EPA. See id. §§ 6942, 6947. This approval depends upon the plan satisfying the requirements in the RCRA. See id. § 6943. 101 The Texas state plan, which was approved by the EPA, informs the reader that the State has undertaken a program to classify all land disposal facilities in Texas. It states further: Since all disposal sites could not be inventoried immediately, a strategy was developed to determine which facilities would be inventoried first. . . . A priority list was then prepared for the first year of the [ODI] and the [ODI] was begun. This meets the requirement in 40 C.F.R. § 256.23(a) that the State plan shall provide for the classification of existing solid waste disposal facilities. The plan also explains that once the State classifies a site as an open dump, the State will continue surveillance and enforcement to eliminate [the] existing open dump by closing or upgrading and includes a procedure chart for upgrading or closure of open dumps. These features of the plan are in line with § 6943(a)(3)'s requirement that the plan shall provide for the closing or upgrading of all existing open dumps and with 40 C.F.R. § 256.23(d)'s statement that the plan must account for long-term monitoring and contingency plans. Plaintiffs would, in essence, have us read another provision into the RCRA that compels Saitas to act beyond these statutory requirements. We cannot adopt their interpretation of the statute. 102 We find the statutory requirements satisfied. Saitas submitted a plan that conformed to the requirements in the RCRA. The statutory provisions and relevant regulations obligate a state to provide for certain elements in the state plan, which Saitas did. The requirements that a state shall take [certain] steps appear in the context of a facility already classified as an open dump. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. § 256.23(c) & (d). We do not find any permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order which has become effective pursuant to [the RCRA], 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A), that a state shall take steps to classify waste disposal facilities. Rather, we find in the RCRA that a state shall provide for such a classification in its plan, which, as we have explained, Saitas has done. Our conclusion regarding Saitas's duties in placing the Deepwood and South Loop 12 dumps on the ODI is buttressed by the EPA's comments in amending 40 C.F.R. §§ 256 and 257: [The] EPA is required to publish an inventory of open dumps, based on the State findings. In doing so, [the] EPA does not pass on the adequacy of the State determinations. Likewise the decision to remove a facility from the inventory is a State determination. Guidelines for Development and Implementation of State Solid Waste Management Plans and Criteria for Identification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices, 46 Fed. Reg. 47048, 47048 (Sept. 23, 1981). 103 While Plaintiffs valiantly attempt to read a requirement into the RCRA that Saitas must not only provide for the classification of all waste facilities, but also must take steps to perform the classification, we do not find that Congress included such a specification in the statute. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that Saitas violated a permit, standard, regulation, condition, requirement, prohibition, or order, and as such, fail to carry their burden on their § 6972(a)(1)(A) claims concerning the Deepwood and South Loop 12 dumps.