## Facts

- A chromate chemical plant’s operations generated large quantities of waste residue containing high concentrations of hexavalent chromium, deposited at a tidal wetlands site along the Hackensack River in Jersey City, New Jersey.
- The disposal created a roughly 34-acre area containing about 1.5 million tons of waste, approximately 15–20 feet deep.
- Hexavalent chromium is highly soluble, carcinogenic, and environmentally toxic; the waste’s high pH increased chromium mobility and hindered natural reduction to less toxic forms.
- By the early 1980s, chromium-contaminated discharges were observable, and Honeywell acknowledged substantial pollution and migration risks.
- In response to regulatory pressure, Honeywell implemented interim measures (capping/paving) intended as temporary containment while studying a permanent remedy; a permanent remedy was not implemented for years.
- An association of community and religious groups and nearby residents brought a RCRA citizen suit alleging the site’s conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported the finding that the site’s conditions may present an imminent and substantial endangerment under RCRA § 7002(a)(1)(B).
2. Whether RCRA authorizes a court, in a citizen suit, to order excavation and off-site removal of hazardous waste to abate an endangerment.
3. Whether an “imminent and substantial endangerment” determination is reviewed as a question of fact (clear error) or law (de novo).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the judgment finding a RCRA imminent-and-substantial-endangerment violation.
- The court held the endangerment determination is a question of fact reviewed for clear error.
- The court concluded the record supported the district court’s finding that the chromium waste site may present an imminent and substantial endangerment, given the volume, toxicity, solubility, and evidence of migration.
- The court upheld injunctive relief requiring excavation and off-site removal of the chromium waste as within the district court’s authority to order action necessary to abate the endangerment.
- The court rejected the argument that the injunction improperly displaced environmental regulators, reasoning the remedy complemented the state’s objective of achieving a permanent solution where interim measures had failed.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA’s “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment” standard is broad and preventive, permitting relief before actual injury occurs when conditions pose a serious threat.
- Whether site-specific conditions “may present” an imminent and substantial endangerment is a factual determination, typically dependent on scientific and technical evidence, reviewed on appeal for clear error.
- In a RCRA citizen suit, a court may order a responsible party to take action necessary to abate an endangerment, including large-scale remedial measures such as excavation and removal when supported by the record.
- Courts may grant abatement relief even where environmental agencies are involved, so long as the remedy does not conflict with regulatory objectives and addresses ongoing risk.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit upheld a RCRA citizen-suit injunction requiring excavation and off-site removal of massive hexavalent chromium waste, holding that imminent-and-substantial-endangerment findings are factual and that RCRA authorizes broad abatement remedies needed to eliminate serious contamination risks.


Interfaith Cmty. Org. v. Honeywell Int'l, Inc., 399 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2005)