## Facts

- James Lamphier and Janet Lamphier owned a farm in Culpeper County, Virginia, which served as the base for James Lamphier’s industrial-waste business, “Jim’s Liquid Waste.”
- In 1979, Virginia agencies learned Lamphier was bringing industrial wastes to the farm and managing them through land application, lagooning, and burial of drummed liquids.
- The Virginia State Water Control Board and the Virginia State Department of Health ordered Lamphier to stop disposal activities and issued remedial directives, including emergency measures to contain runoff and to identify wastes present at the site.
- Although dumping stopped, waste shipments continued to arrive for a time, and regulators pressed for reclamation and containment planning.
- In March 1980, a state investigator discovered several buried 55‑gallon drums containing solvents. Tests showed the materials were highly flammable, supporting treatment as hazardous waste under applicable regulations.
- In 1980, federal authorities began investigating whether Lamphier was meeting duties under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), including requirements tied to operating a hazardous-waste treatment/storage/disposal facility.
- Lamphier had not obtained a RCRA permit (or interim status based on proper notification) to operate a hazardous-waste facility at the farm.
- In 1981, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) filed a citizen suit under RCRA against the Lamphiers, seeking enforcement based on alleged RCRA violations and related relief. The Commonwealth of Virginia later intervened and asserted additional state-law claims.
- During trial, EDF and CBF agreed not to pursue civil penalties and instead sought injunctive relief, costs, and attorney’s fees.
- The district court found RCRA violations and a common-law nuisance and entered an injunction ordering compliance with hazardous-waste requirements and granting government authorities access to the farm to monitor compliance.

## Issues

1. Whether Lamphier’s continued control of drummed hazardous wastes on the farm constituted regulated “storage” under RCRA even if the wastes were placed on-site before the effective date of certain RCRA regulations.
2. Whether a district court may issue injunctive relief in a RCRA citizen suit enforcing the permit and notification requirements when the citizen plaintiffs forgo civil penalties.
3. Whether the record supported the district court’s issuance of an injunction, including Lamphier’s argument that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm.
4. Whether the district court’s findings of RCRA violations and common-law nuisance were sufficiently supported to warrant the relief ordered.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in full.
- The court upheld the determination that Lamphier’s continued possession and control of drummed hazardous wastes at the site constituted “storage” under RCRA, triggering RCRA’s notification and permit requirements, even if no new wastes were placed at the site after the relevant effective date.
- The court rejected Lamphier’s challenge to the district court’s power to grant injunctive relief in a RCRA citizen suit and upheld the injunction requiring regulatory compliance and allowing government access for inspection and monitoring.
- The court found no basis to disturb the district court’s conclusion that equitable relief was warranted on this record, including given the hazardous conditions shown by the evidence.
- The court also left undisturbed the district court’s nuisance finding and related state-law determinations, concluding Lamphier’s appellate arguments lacked merit.

## Legal Principles

- Under RCRA and its implementing regulations, “storage” focuses on the holding of hazardous waste; a person controlling a site where hazardous wastes remain in drums can be engaged in regulated storage even if the drums were placed there before the effective date of later regulations.
- Operating or maintaining a hazardous-waste storage site without meeting RCRA’s permit and notification requirements can support civil enforcement in federal court.
- RCRA’s citizen-suit provision authorizes injunctive relief to enforce statutory duties; a citizen plaintiff’s decision not to seek civil penalties does not eliminate the court’s ability to order prospective compliance measures.
- Where a site contains hazardous wastes and the defendant remains in control of them, a court may order compliance-focused injunctions (including inspection access) to address ongoing unlawful conditions, and such relief may coexist with state nuisance remedies arising from the same conduct.

## Conclusion

Environmental Defense Fund v. Lamphier affirmed an injunction entered in a RCRA citizen suit after the district court found that hazardous wastes remained on the defendants’ farm in drums and that the defendants had not satisfied RCRA’s notification and permit requirements. The Fourth Circuit agreed that continuing control of the drummed wastes constituted regulated “storage,” upheld the court’s authority to grant injunctive relief (including inspection access), and left in place the common-law nuisance finding and related state-law relief.


Environmental Defense Fund v. Lamphier, 714 F.2d 331 (1983)