## Facts

- KFC purchased a parcel in Los Angeles from Alan and Margaret Meghrig and operated a restaurant on the site.
- During construction in 1988, KFC discovered petroleum contamination in the soil.
- The Los Angeles County Department of Health Services directed KFC to address the contamination.
- KFC removed and disposed of contaminated soil at a cost of about $211,000.
- Approximately three years after completing the cleanup, KFC sued the prior owners under RCRA’s citizen-suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a).
- KFC alleged the contamination was “solid waste,” had posed an “imminent and substantial endangerment,” and that the prior owners had contributed to its handling or disposal, justifying “equitable restitution.”
- By the time KFC filed suit, the contamination had been remediated and no longer posed an ongoing threat.

## Issues

1. Whether RCRA’s citizen-suit provision, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), authorizes a private plaintiff to recover past cleanup costs as “equitable restitution.”
2. Whether § 6972(a)(1)(B) permits a suit based on an endangerment that existed only in the past and did not exist at the time the complaint was filed.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Ninth Circuit in an opinion by Justice O’Connor.
- The Court held that § 6972(a) does not authorize recovery of past cleanup costs, whether labeled damages or restitution.
- The Court held that § 6972(a)(1)(B) requires that the waste “may present an imminent and substantial endangerment” at the time of suit; a fully abated condition does not qualify.
- Because KFC had already completed remediation years earlier and no imminent endangerment remained, RCRA provided no citizen-suit remedy for reimbursement.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA § 6972(a) provides injunctive remedies: courts may restrain ongoing contributions to waste handling or disposal and may order responsible parties to take necessary action to address a current or threatened hazard.
- The statute’s text and remedial structure do not contemplate retrospective monetary awards for completed private cleanups.
- “Imminent and substantial endangerment” under § 6972(a)(1)(B) is a present-tense condition; waste that no longer poses such a danger at filing is outside the provision.
- The absence of express cost-recovery language in RCRA, contrasted with CERCLA’s explicit authorization of cleanup-cost recovery, supports reading RCRA citizen suits as preventive rather than compensatory.

## Conclusion

RCRA’s citizen-suit provision is limited to forward-looking injunctive relief addressing waste that currently may present an imminent and substantial endangerment; it cannot be used to obtain reimbursement for cleanup costs already incurred after the hazard has been eliminated.


Meghrig v. KFC W. Inc., 516 U.S. 479 (1996)