Search

The citizen suit provision is a key component of the 1976 amendments to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), since it provides individuals with the means to initiate proceedings to protect themselves even when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fails to do so. Maine People's Alliance v. Mallinckrodt, Inc. involved a citizen suit against an industrial facility that dumped mercury-laden waste into the Penobscot River over a fifteen-year period. The First Circuit held in favor of Plaintiffs, despite the limited evidence of an "imminent and substantial endangerment." This is an important decision because it continued the trend set by four previous circuits of broadly interpreting RCRA's citizen suit provision. Under the existing regulatory framework for hazardous pollutants, there are two scenarios in which a citizen may wish to sue a polluter. The first is where the EPA has not initiated a lawsuit, as in Maine People's Alliance, and the second is where the EPA has initiated a lawsuit, but is inadequately protecting the interests of citizens. This Note focuses on the latter scenario and proposes that courts should further strengthen RCRA by embracing the logic of Maine People's Alliance and apply only a minimal burden test when assessing citizens' rights to intervene in an EPA-initiated RCRA enforcement action. This would only require a limited showing that the EPA inadequately represents the citizens' interests. Just as it is important for citizens to be able to bring suit where environmental harm is not being addressed, it should also be easy to intervene in ongoing RCRA suits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]