ELR Citation: 42 ELR 20106
No(s). 1:11 CV 2578 (N.D. Ohio May 11, 2012) (Polster, J.)

A district court held that a company may go forward with its RCRA claim against the former owner, but not the current owner, of adjacent property for groundwater contamination. The complaint contains sufficient factual allegations supporting the company's claim that the former owner of the neighboring property used trichloroethylene (TCE) in its paint-dipping operations and unlawfully disposed of the TCE on its property, which then seeped into the groundwater and contaminated the company's property. But there is no allegation in the complaint that the current owner of the adjacent site uses TCE in its operations, has unlawfully disposed of TCE on its property, or ever exerted any degree of control over the previous owner's waste-disposal activities. The company's RCRA claim against the current neighbor, therefore, was dismissed. And because there is no allegation that either the current or former owner of the adjacent property was ever engaged in the act of open dumping of TCE, the company's RCRA claims for open dumping were dismissed as well. But the company alleged sufficient facts to go forward with its nuisance and trespass claims against the defendants.