Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc. - 575 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2009)

Rule:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) defines solid waste as any garbage and other discarded material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations, and from community activities. 42 U.S.C.S. § 6903(27). In order for waste to be classified as hazardous under RCRA, it must first qualify as a solid waste pursuant to the statute. 42 U.S.C.S. § 6903(5) provides that the term "hazardous waste" means a solid waste that also has additional characteristics.

Facts:

Plaintiffs-Appellants were Simsbury-Avon Preservation Society, LLC, a group of homeowners who lived near Defendants-Appellees' shooting range, and Gregory Silpe, a member thereof (collectively referred to as "SAPS"). Defendants-Appellees Metacon Gun Club, Inc., and its members and guests (collectively referred to as "Metacon") operated a shooting range that, according to SAPS, engaged in the discharge and accumulation of lead munitions on Metacon's site in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k, and the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387. SAPS argued that there was lead accumulation on the club's site, and that, due to flooding, there was a hydrologic connection between the waters on the club and a nearby river as well as a continuous surface water connection between wetlands on the club's site and a cove, which flowed directly into this river. The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut entered judgment for Metacon, and SAPS sought review.

Issue:

Did the plaintiffs make a claim against defendants under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901-6992k, and the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court upheld the determination that applicable RCRA permit regulations did not apply to the regular, intended use of lead shot on a shooting range, and thus, that the plaintiffs' 42 U.S.C.S. § 6925(a) claim, based on the alleged disposal of hazardous waste without a RCRA permit, failed. The court also upheld the summary judgment ruling on the plaintiffs' "imminent and substantial endangerment" claim under 42 U.S.C.S. § 6972(a)(1)(B) since their evidence did not to create a material issue of fact regarding whether lead contamination on the shooting range constituted an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. According to the court, the plaintiffs also failed to create a material issue of fact as to whether the gun club was discharging lead shot into "navigable waters" from a "point source" under 33 U.S.C.S. § 1362 in support of their CWA claim.