32 ELR 20643 -- Abundiz v. Explorer Pipeline Co.

Abundiz v. Explorer Pipeline Co.

No. Civ. 3:00-CV-2029-H (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS April 19, 2002)

ELR Digest

The court holds that individuals' Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state-law claims against a gasoline corporation that spilled 600,000 gallons of gasoline onto the individuals' property and a surrounding lake and creek are not barred because the state has not engaged in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) § 104 removal action pursuant to RCRA statutory requirements. The court first holds that RCRA citizen suits are only barred to the extent of the scope and duration of a CERCLA cleanup order. Although the state was supervising remediation efforts at the site, there was no agreement between the state and the federal government pertaining specifically to the action and to the site, which is necessary for the state action to be conducted pursuant to CERCLA § 104. The court next holds that the state's authorization for its hazardous waste management program does not conclusively show that the state was using Superfund money under CERCLA § 104 to supervise remediation at the site. The court additionally holds that the individuals' allegation that present contamination to the land and water surrounding their property continues to pose imminent and substantial endangerment is sufficient to support their claim of a redressable injury. The court finally holds that because the landowners may proceed with their RCRA claim, the court has supplemental jurisdiction over the individuals' state-law claims.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (6 pp., ELR Order No. L-509).

Counsel not available at this printing.

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]