ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND V. LAMPHIER 714 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1983) CASE BRIEF

ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND V. LAMPHIER

714 F.2d 331 (4th Cir. 1983)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Lamphier (D) appealed a judgment holding that they violated state and federal antipollution laws and committed a common law nuisance and imposed injunctive relief.

FACTS: D owned a farm in Culpeper County, Virginia. Since 1974, it had been headquarters for 'Jim's Liquid Waste,' a sole proprietorship belonging to D and engaged in the business of industrial waste disposal. D was transporting various wastes to his farm and disposing of them by land application and lagooning of bulk liquids, and burial of drummed liquids. State agencies (P) ordered D to cease his disposal activities. D was also ordered to devise a land reclamation plan and to construct proper facilities for the disposal of septic wastes. Eventually, D halted dumping activities and submitted a plan for waste containment and land reclamation. The SWCB approved the plan, but the SDH did not. SDH visited the farm and returned armed with a search warrant, to collect samples of well waters and of wastes found in numerous barrels. From the tests D was noticed that disposal of flammable solvents was a violation of state law. Federal officials got involved and the Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA') visited the farm to ascertain whether the materials posed an 'imminent hazard' warranting immediate action. On November 5, 1980, a meeting was held between Nageotte, D's attorney, and representatives of the SWCB, the SDH, and the EPA. This resulted in a plan to reclaim the land. Reclamation was begun and some of the bulk wastes neutralized. Eventually after a period of back and forth disputes over regulations, permits and the hazards, Nageotte wrote Gilley on June 26, 1981, that all the material contained in the barrels had been incinerated, on Nageotte's advice, and that therefore a storage permit was no longer required. The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. ('EDF') and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation ('CBF'), two private environmental groups, joined the dispute on October 5, 1981, by filing a complaint against D under the 'citizen suit' provision of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6972, alleging violations of RCRA notification and permit requirements, 42 U.S.C. 6930 and 6925. The Commonwealth of Virginia intervened and in addition to injunctive relief, the Commonwealth sought response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. The court found D guilty of common law nuisance and of violations of RCRA and Virginia state law. The court issued an injunction ordering D to comply with applicable hazardous waste regulations. The court further ordered D to provide the plaintiffs and plaintiff-intervenors access to the farm for the purpose of monitoring wastes. Fees and costs were also awarded. This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner