516 U.S. 479 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996)
Meghrig v. KFC Western, Inc.
Does RCRA's citizen-suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), authorize a private party to recover costs it previously incurred to clean up hazardous waste, or to sue for wholly past violations or endangerments?
RCRA's citizen-suit provision authorizes only prospective injunctive relief to abate conditions that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment; it does not authorize private cost recovery or damages for past cleanup expenditures, and it does not reach wholly past violations. See 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(A) (suits against persons "in violation of" RCRA requirements require an ongoing violation) and § 6972(a)(1)(B) (endangerment suits permit courts to order responsible parties to take action to abate a present or imminent threat).
No. RCRA's citizen-suit provision does not allow private parties to recover previously incurred cleanup costs or to redress wholly past violations. The statute authorizes courts to grant prospective injunctive relief to eliminate an imminent and substantial endangerment but not to award compensation for remediation already performed.
Meghrig draws a bright remedial line: RCRA is for abatement, CERCLA is for cost recovery. For litigators and law students, the case underscores the necessity of selecting the correct statutory vehicle based on the relief sought. It also clarifies that RCRA endangerment suits require a current or imminent threat at the time of filing and that courts may order cleanup or other prospective action, but not reimbursement for costs already incurred. The decision has enduring practical impact on environmental strategy, pleading, and remedies.