« Ind. Law - Still more on Crown Point's "Big Box" Ordinance | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Judge gives RiverPlace green light: Ruling doesn't address issue of project's effect on White River" »
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Law - 1st Circuit rules on RCRA citizen suits and standing
An important ruling on RCRA citizen suits and standing was issued yesterday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Maine People's Alliance v. Mallinckrodt, Inc, a 48-page opinion. Some quotes from the beginning and end of the decision:
In the teeth of two decades of contrary precedent from four circuits, defendant-appellant Mallinckrodt, Inc. asks us to restrict the role of private citizens in the abatement of imminent and substantial threats to the environment and public health. In support of this entreaty, Mallinckrodt presents a gallimaufry of new, hitherto unconsidered arguments. After careful consideration of this asseverational array, we conclude that our sister circuits have adroitly distilled the meaning of section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B) — the so-called citizen suit provision. Correctly interpreted, this provision allows citizen suits when there is a reasonable prospect that a serious, near-term threat to human health or the environment exists. In such situations, the provision permits remedies [1] consistent with the scope of a district court's equitable discretion. * * *We need go no further. Despite an impressive array of arguments, skillfully presented by extraordinarily able counsel, Mallinckrodt has not persuaded us that the plaintiffs lack standing to sue, that its cramped interpretation of RCRA § 7002(a)(1)(B) is what Congress had in mind, or that the district court acted outside the realm of its discretion in fashioning a remedy for the threatened harm. Consequently, we uphold the district court's rulings in all respects.
___________[1] We use the phrase "near-term threat" advisedly. It is the threat that must be close at hand, even if the perceived harm is not. For example, if there is a reasonable prospect that a carcinogen released into the environment today may cause cancer twenty years hence, the threat is near-term even though the perceived harm will only occur in the distant future.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 23, 2006 08:53 AM
Posted to Environment | General Law Related