42 U.S.C. § 6934

Monitoring, analysis, and testing

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Authority of AdministratorIf the Administrator determines, upon receipt of any information, that—(1) the presence of any hazardous waste at a facility or site at which hazardous waste is, or has been, stored, treated, or disposed of, or(2) the release of any such waste from such facility or sitemay present a substantial hazard to human health or the environment, he may issue an order requiring the owner or operator of such facility or site to conduct such monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting with respect to such facility or site as the Administrator deems reasonable to ascertain the nature and extent of such hazard.(b) Previous owners and operators

In the case of any facility or site not in operation at the time a determination is made under subsection (a) with respect to the facility or site, if the Administrator finds that the owner of such facility or site could not reasonably be expected to have actual knowledge of the presence of hazardous waste at such facility or site and of its potential for release, he may issue an order requiring the most recent previous owner or operator of such facility or site who could reasonably be expected to have such actual knowledge to carry out the actions referred to in subsection (a).

An order under subsection (a) or (b) shall require the person to whom such order is issued to submit to the Administrator within 30 days from the issuance of such order a proposal for carrying out the required monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting. The Administrator may, after providing such person with an opportunity to confer with the Administrator respecting such proposal, require such person to carry out such monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting in accordance with such proposal, and such modifications in such proposal as the Administrator deems reasonable to ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard.

(d) Monitoring, etc., carried out by Administrator(1) If the Administrator determines that no owner or operator referred to in subsection (a) or (b) is able to conduct monitoring, testing, analysis, or reporting satisfactory to the Administrator, if the Administrator deems any such action carried out by an owner or operator to be unsatisfactory, or if the Administrator cannot initially determine that there is an owner or operator referred to in subsection (a) or (b) who is able to conduct such monitoring, testing, analysis, or reporting, he may—(A) conduct monitoring, testing, or analysis (or any combination thereof) which he deems reasonable to ascertain the nature and extent of the hazard associated with the site concerned, or(B) authorize a State or local authority or other person to carry out any such action,and require, by order, the owner or operator referred to in subsection (a) or (b) to reimburse the Administrator or other authority or person for the costs of such activity.(2) No order may be issued under this subsection requiring reimbursement of the costs of any action carried out by the Administrator which confirms the results of an order issued under subsection (a) or (b).(3) For purposes of carrying out this subsection, the Administrator or any authority or other person authorized under paragraph (1), may exercise the authorities set forth in section 6927 of this title.(e) Enforcement

The Administrator may commence a civil action against any person who fails or refuses to comply with any order issued under this section. Such action shall be brought in the United States district court in which the defendant is located, resides, or is doing business. Such court shall have jurisdiction to require compliance with such order and to assess a civil penalty of not to exceed $5,000 for each day during which such failure or refusal occurs.

(Pub. L. 89–272, title II, § 3013, as added Pub. L. 96–482, § 17(a), Oct. 21, 1980, 94 Stat. 2344.)Executive DocumentsTransfer of Functions

For transfer of certain enforcement functions of Administrator or other official of Environmental Protection Agency under this chapter to Federal Inspector, Office of Federal Inspector for the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, and subsequent transfer to Secretary of Energy, then to Federal Coordinator for Alaska Natural Gas Transportation Projects, see note set out under section 6903 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1981–2014 · leading case: United States v. Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Delaware Valley, Inc. Chemical Properties, Inc. Bristol Township Au

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Rohm and Haas Company Rohm and Haas Delaware Valley, Inc. Chemical Properties, Inc. Bristol Township Au (1993) ca3 · cites it 3× “See 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (1988). Section 7003 of RCRA, the “imminent hazard” provision of RCRA, has existed since RCRA’s initial enactment in 1976 but was enhanced by amendments in 1980 and 1984.”

United States v. Price (1981) njd · cites it 2× “” 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (b). Further, our reading of the statute is in accord with the E.”

United States v. Allen Elias (2001) ca9 “…the nature and extent of hazards posed by certain hazardous waste facilities. 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (a)(2). 13 . Wyckoff, <a href="/opinion/474086/w”

Wyckoff Company v. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States of America, and the Washington State Department of (1986) ca9 · cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 6934 . Wyckoff does not allege that there was any error in the Administrator’s interpretation of the terms of section 3013, or in the Administrator’s evaluation of the facts in this case.”

Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) cadc “Because Congress has charged the EPA with enforcing RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (e), we review that rule under the familiar, two-step framework of Chevron U.”

In Re Order Pursuant to Section 3013 (D) RCRA, Etc. (1982) wawd · cites it 6× “In August of 1982, Western Processing was served with an administrative “Order Requiring Submission and Implementation of Proposal for Sampling, Analysis, Monitoring and Reporting,” signed by the Administrator of EPA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6934 , Section 3013 of RCRA.”

United States v. Union Corp. (2003) paed “(citing 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (b)). Here, Metal Bank is liable by virtue of its owner status, for contributing to the endangerment currently posed by contamination at the Site.”

Board of County Commissioners v. Brown Group Retail, Inc. (2009) cod “Similarly, Section 6934 allows the EPA to issue compliance orders whenever the EPA determines “hazardous waste is, or has been, stored, treated, or disposed of’— see 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (a)(1) (emphasis added) — and Section 6973 allows the EPA to proceed “upon receipt of evidence…”

United States v. Power Engineering Company Redoubt, Ltd. And Richard J. Lilienthal, Defendants-Third-Party v. Jack Lilie (1999) ca3 “42 U.S.C. § 6934 provides that the EPA may order an owner or operator of a hazardous waste facility to conduct monitoring, testing, analysis, and reporting under certain conditions.”

United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., Inc. (1986) mad · cites it 2× “, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6934 , 6973(a). The defendants’ argument that RCRA does not apply to inactive sites like the Charles George landfill is unpersuasive.”

United States v. EI Du Pont De Nemours & Co., Inc. (2004) nywd “…the Administrator deems reasonable to ascertain the nature and extent of such hazard.” 42 U.S.C. § 6934 (a). 23.In this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover, inter alia, costs that the EPA incurred while overseeing Defendant’s performance under the terms of the RCRA Order and…”

E.I. duPont De Nemours & Co. v. Daggett (1985) nywd · cites it 2× “§ 1331 plaintiff seeks to challenge the constitutionality of 42 U.S.C. § 6934 , section 3013 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), as well as the validity of an administrative order issued thereunder April 29, 1985 which directs plaintiff to develop and to…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.