With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d 993, 1014-15 (11th Cir.2004) (quoting Cox v. City of Dallas, 256 F.3d 281, 292 (5th Cir.2001); see 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B)). Unlike § 6972(a)(1)(A), the provision concerning EPA prosecution of violations of RCRA, the ISE citizen provision, “explicitly considers the environmental and health effects of waste disposal and authorizes suit any time there is an ‘imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.’ ” Parker, 386 F.3d at 1014. The Supreme Court has clarified that “[t]he section applies retroactively to past violations, so long as those violations are a present threat to health or the environment.” Meghrig, 516 U.S. at 485-86, 116 S.Ct. 1251 (1996) (<HOLDING>). When analyzing the remedies available to

A: holding that the imminence standard does not require an existing harm meaning ongoing disposal of a solid or hazardous waste but the threat of harm due to disposal in the past of solid or hazardous waste must be present and ongoing
B: holding that there is no requirement that plaintiffs show that defendants waste caused environmental harm
C: recognizing that while the health and safety of the citizens of alabama may be a legitimate local interest alabama offered no evidence that hazardous waste generated outside alabama is more dangerous than hazardous waste generated in alabama therefore alabama failed to carry its burden of showing that the alabama statute imposing an additional fee on all hazardous waste generated outside alabama and disposed of at alabama facilities was demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism
D: holding that chilling effect claim must still be rooted in specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm to convey standing
A.