* Editor-in-Chief, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2001–02.
1 Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 268–69 (1993).
2 See United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63 (1956).
3 See generally, W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59; Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426 (1906); Great N. Ry. Co. v. Merchants’ Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285 (1922). For an example of the application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine by federal circuit and district courts see generally, Ass’n of Int’l Auto Manufacturers, Inc., v. DEP, 196 F.3d 302 (1st Cir. 1999); Massachusetts v. Blackstone Valley Electric Co., 67 F.3d 981 (1st Cir. 1995).
4 See generally PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610 (7th Cir. 1998); Davies v. Nat’l Coop. Refinery Assoc., 963 F. Supp. 990 (D. Kan. 1997); Craig Lyle Ltd. P’ship v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 476 (D. Minn. 1995).
5 See generally Anderson v. Farmland Indus., 45 F. Supp. 2d 863 (D. Kan. 1999); Local Envtl. Awareness Dev. Group of Berks County v. Exide Corp., 1999 WL 124473 (E.D. Pa. 1999); Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275 (D. Colo. 1997).
6 See infra Part IV.
7 See id.
8 Louis L. Jaffe, Primary Jurisdiction, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 1037, 1037 (1964).
9 Id. at 1038.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 United States v. W. Pac. Ry. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64 (1956).
14 Richard J. Pierce et al., Administrative Law and Process 207 (3d. ed. 1999).
15 Pierce et al., supra note 14, at 207.
16 Id.
17 Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 268–69 (1993); Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1037–38.
18 Pierce et. al., supra note 14, at 208.
19 Reiter, 507 U.S. at 268.
20 United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co. 352 U.S. 59, 64 (1959).
21 Id.
22 Charlotte Gibson, Citizen Suits Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: Plotting Abstention on a Map of Federalism, 98 Mich. L. Rev. 269, 273 (1999); Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1041.
23 See Charlotte Gibson, supra note 22, at 273; Pierce Et. Al., supra note 14, at 207; Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1041.
24 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 274; Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1041.
25 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 274.
26 204 U.S. 426 (1906); Gibson, supra note 22, at 273.
27 204 U.S. at 430.
28 Id. at 431.
29 See id. at 430–31.
30 Id. at 441–42.
31 Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Abilene Cotton Oil, 204 U.S. 426, 440–41 (1906).
32 Id. at 439–40.
33 See id. at 441.
34 Id.
35 See id. at 441; Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1042.
36 See Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1043.
37 Great N. Ry. Co. v. Merchants’ Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285, 291 (1922).
38 See id.
39 Id. at 288.
40 Id. at 289.
41 Id. at 289.
42 Great N. Ry. Co. 259 U.S. at 288.
43 See id. at 289.
44 Id. at 289.
45 Id. at 290.
46 See id.
47 See Great N. Ry. Co., 259 U.S. at 290.
48 Id.
49 See id. at 291.
50 Id. at 290–91.
51 See id.
52 See Great N. Ry. Co., 259 U.S. at 291.
53 See id.
54 Id. at 291.
55 See id.
56 See id. at 291–92.
57 See Great N. Ry. Co., 259 U.S. at 293.
58 See id.
59 United States v. Western Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64 (1956). The Supreme Court in Western Pacific Railway Co., summarizes the doctrine of primary jurisdiction as follows: “No fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In every case the question is whether the reasons for existence of the doctrine are present and whether the purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular litigation.” Id.
60 Great N. Ry. Co., 259 U.S. at 291.
61 See id.
62 Pierce et al., supra note 14, at 210.
63 Id.
64 Compare, e.g., PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin Williams Co. 151 F.3d 610, 619 (7th Cir. 1998); with Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1350 (D.N.M. 1995).
65 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 273–83.
66 See, e.g., Anderson v. Farmland Indus., 45 F. Supp. 2d 863, 865–67 (D. Kan. 1999) (using the rationales of RCRA primary jurisdiction cases to analyze the primary jurisdiction doctrine in the context of CAA citizen-suits).
67 See id.; Local Envtl Awareness Dev. Group of Berks County v. Exide Co., 1999 WL 124473, 21–22 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
68 See PMC, Inc., 151 F.3d at 620; Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1159, 1169–71 (D. Wyo. 1998); Davies v. Nat’l Coop. Refinery Ass’n., 963 F. Supp. 990, 997–99 (D. Kan. 1997); Friends of Santa Fe County, 892 F. Supp.at 1350 .
69 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 273–74.
70 See id. at 273.
71 See id.
72 See id. at 274.
73 Federal courts have focused on RCRA’s statement of purpose to determine Congress’s intent. 42 U.S.C.  6901(a)(4) (2000). Courts have also focused on the fact that RCRA was a response to prior failures in state and local statutory law to effectively regulate hazardous waste. See , e.g., Gibson, supra note 22, at 277–78; David R. Hodas, Enforcement of Environmental Law in a Triangular Federal System: Can Three Not be a Crowd When Enforcement Authority is Shared by the United States, the States, and Their Citizens?, 54 Md. L. Rev. 1552, 1615 (1995).
74 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 273.
75 See, e.g., Davies v. Nat’l Coop. Refinery Ass’n, 963 F. Supp. 990, 1000 (D. Kan. 1997) (referring RCRA issues to the state’s environmental protection agency.); Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1350 (holding that RCRA issues should be deferred to the state environmental protection agency).
76 See, e.g., Craig Lyle Ltd. P’ship v. Land O’Lakes, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 476, 483–84 (D. Minn. 1995) (stating that congressional intent expressed in RCRA and the application of the primary jurisdiction doctrine must be consistent, and thus prohibit referral of RCRA issues to state agencies).
77 See, e.g., id.
78 See Davies, 963 F. Supp. at 977–98.
79 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 277–78.
80 See id. at 277.
81 See id. at 277–78.
82 42 U.S.C.  6901(a)(4) (2000).
83 Gibson, supra note 22, at 277 ; Hodas, supra note 73, at 1615.
84 Gibson, supra note 22, at 277–78.
85 Id.
86 See Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1159, 1170 (D. Wyo. 1998).
87 See id.
88 See County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 907 F.2d 1295, 1310 (2d Cir. 1990).
89 See County of Suffolk, 907 F.2d at 1310; Wilson, 989 F. Supp. at 1170.
90 See Coalition for Health Concern v. LWD, Inc., 60 F.3d 1188, 1190 (6th Cir. 1995).
91 See Wilson, 989 F. Supp at 1169.
92 United States v. W. Pac. R.R. Co., 352 U.S.59, 64 (1956).
93 See Wilson, 989 F.Supp. at 1169–70.
94 See id.
95 See id.
96 See, e.g., Davies v. Nat’l Coop. Refinery Ass’n, 963 F. Supp. 990, 997–1000 (D. Kan. 1997); Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1349–50 (D. N.M. 1995).
97 PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 618–619 (7th Cir. 1998); Gibson, supra note 22, at 275–76.
98 See id.
99 42 U.S.C.  6972 (b)(1)(A) (2000).
100 42 U.S.C.  6972 (b)(2)(A) (2000).
101 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 275–76.
102 See id.
103 Hallstrom v. Tallamook County, 493 U.S. 20, 29 (1989).
104 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 275–76; see also PMC, Inc., 151 F.3d at 619.
105 PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 619 (7th Cir. 1998).
106 Id.
107 See Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1159, 1170 (D. Wyo. 1998).
108 See Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1349–50 (D.N.M. 1995).
109 See id.
110 Id. at 1349.
111 Id. at 1350.
112 See id.; Gibson, supra note 22, at 279.
113 See Friends of Santa Fe County, 892 F. Supp. at 1350.
114 See id.
115 See id.
116 Gibson, supra note 22, at 279.
117 See Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1159, 1170 (D. Wyo. 1998).
118 Id.
119 See id.
120 Id.
121 Id.
122 See Wilson, 98 F. Supp. 1168–70.
123 Id.
124 See Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1350 (D. N.M. 1995).
125 Id.
126 Gibson, supra note 22, at 280–82; see Friends of Santa Fe County, 892 F. Supp. at 1349–50.
127 See Friends of Santa Fe County, 892 F. Supp. at 1350.
128 See id.
129 See id.
130 See id.
131 See id.
132 See Davies v. Nat’l Coop. Refinery Ass’n, 963 F. Supp. 990, 998 (D. Kan. 1997).
133 See id.
134 Gibson, supra note 22, at 280–82.
135 See id.
136 42 USC  6929, 6947(a) (2000); see also Gibson, supra note 22, at 280–82.
137 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 280.
138 See Friends of Santa Fe County v. LAC Minerals, Inc., 892 F. Supp. 1333, 1350 (D.N.M. 1995); Davies v. Nat’l Coop. Refinery Ass’n., 963 F. Supp. 990, 998 (D. Kan. 1997).
139 Friends of Santa Fe County, 892 F. Supp. at 1350 (citing Roberts v. Chemlawn Corp., 716 F. Supp. 364, 365–66 (N.D.Ill. 1989)).
140 See Friends of Santa Fe County, 892 F. Supp. at 1350; Davies, 963 F. Supp. at 998.
141 Anderson v. Farmland Indus., 45 F. Supp. 2d 863 (D. Kan. 1999); Local Envt’l Awareness Dev. Group of Berks v. Exide Corp., 1999 WL 124473 (E.D. Pa. 1999) [hereinafter LEAD]; Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275,(D. Colo. 1997).
142 See, e.g., Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 868; LEAD, 1999 WL 124473, at *21; Sierra Club, 173 F.R.D. at 284.
143 See Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 868–69.
144 See id.
145 Id. at 863.
146 See id. at 864.
147 See id. at 866–67.
148 See id at 868.
149 Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 866–67.
150 See id. at 868.
151 See id. at 867–68.
152 See id. at 868.
153 See id. at 865.
154 Id.
155 Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 868.
156 Id.
157 See id. at 868–69.
158 See id at 868–69.
159 Id.
160 1999 WL 124473, at *1.
161 Id. at *18.
162 Id. at *1.
163 Id. at *21. Exide implicitly asserted that the DEP should have primary jurisdiction because: (1) it was the duty of the agency to address such issues; (2) the CAA was a cooperative statute mandating DEP’s participation; and (3) DEP was actively overseeing Exide’s smelting facilities when the citizen-suit was initiated. See id.
164 Id. at *21.
165 See id. at *21.
166 LEAD, 1999 WL 124473, at *21.
167 See id at *21–22.
168 See id at *21.
169 See id at *22.
170 See id at *22
171 173 F.R.D. 275, 278 (D. Colo. 1997).
172 Id.
173 See id. at 283.
174 See id. at 284.
175 See id.
176 Id.
177 See Sierra Club, 173 F.R.D. at 284.
178 Id.
179 Id. at 284.
180 See id.
181 See Anderson v. Farmland Indus., 45 F. Supp. 2d 863, 868 (D. Kan. 1999); LEAD v. Exide Corp., 1999 WL 124473, *21–22 (E.D. Penn. 1999); Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation & Transmission Ass’n. Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275, 284 (D. Colo. 1997).
182 See e.g., Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 868.
183 See Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d. at 868; LEAD, 1999 WL, 124473, at *21–22 ; Sierra Club, 173 F.R.D. at 284.
184 See infra Part IV.A.
185 See infra Part IV.B.
186 See infra Part IV.B.
187 See e.g., Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d. at 868.
188 See infra Part IV.B.
189 See United States v. Western Pac. Ry Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64 (1956).
190 See id.
191 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 275–76.
192 See id.
193 See, e.g., PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 618–19 (7th Cir. 1998); Gibson, supra note 22, at 275–76.
194 See Anderson v. Farmland Indus., 45 F. Supp. 2d 863, 868 (D. Kan. 1999); LEAD v. Exide Co., 1999 WL 124473, *21–22 (E.D. Pa. 1999); Sierra Club v. Tri-State Generation & Transmission Assoc., Inc., 173 F.R.D. 275, 283–84 (D. Colo. 1997).
195 See infra Part IV.A.1.
196 See Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 868; LEAD, 1999 WL 124473 at *21–22; Sierra Club, 173 F.R.D. at 283–84.
197 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 276–78.
198 See Wilson v. Amoco Corp., 989 F. Supp. 1159, 1170 (D. Wyo. 1998).
199 See State Air Reserve Bd. v. Dept. of Navy, 431 F. Supp. 1271, 1274 (C.D. Cal. 1977).
200 42 U.S.C.  7409(a)(1)(A) (2000).
201 Id.  7410(a)(1).
202 Id.  7406; U.S. v. Ford Motor Co., 814 F.2d 1099, 1102 (6th Cir. 1987).
203 See Ford Motor Co., 814 F.2d at 1102.
204 See Baughman v. Bradford Coal Co., Inc., 592 F.2d 215, 218 (3rd Cir. 1979).
205 See 42 U.S.C.  7604(a); Sierra Club v. Larson, 2 F.3d 462, 465 (1st Cir. 1993).
206 See Larson, 2 F.3d at 469. See also, Citizens for a Better Env’t v. Deukmejian, 731 F.Supp. 1448, 1457 (N.D. Cal. 1990).
207 See, e.g., Larson, 2 F.3d at 469.
208 See, e.g., PMC, Inc. v. Sherwin-Williams Co., 151 F.3d 610, 618–19 (7th Cir. 1998).
209 See 42 U.S.C.  7604(b).
210 See Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1037–38.
211 42 U.S.C.  7604(b).
212 Id.  7604(b)(1)(A); Anderson v. Farmland Indus., 45 F. Supp. 2d 863, 865 (D. Kan. 1999).
213 Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 866; see also, Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49, 60 (1987) (stating the notice provision affords potential violators of the Clean Water Act the opportunity to cure the violation and avoid the citizen-suit).
214 Anderson, 45 F. Supp. 2d at 865 (quoting 42 U.S.C.  7604(b)(1)(B)).
215 42 U.S.C.  7604(b).
216 See Jaffe, supra note 8, at 1037–38.
217 See id.
218 See United States v. W. Pac. Ry Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63–64 (1956).
219 See id.
220 See 42 U.S.C.  7604(a).
221 Id.  7604(a)(1)(3).
222 Id.  7409(a).
223 See Great N. Ry. Co., v. Merchant’s Elevator Co., 259 U.S. 285, 291 (1922).
224 See Texas and Pac. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426, 441 (1906).
225 See United States v. W. Pac. Ry Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63–64 (1956).
226 42 U.S.C.  7604(a); Sierra Club v. Larson, 2 F.3d 462, 465 (1st Cir. 1993).
227 See Gibson, supra note 22, at 275–76 (stating that where Congress has given clear guidance through statutory mandates, judges are limited in their discretion to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine).
228 See e.g., W. Pac. Ry Co., 352 U.S. at 63–64.
229 Id.
230 Great N. Ry. Co., 259 U.S. at 291.
231 See id.
232 Richard J. Pierce et al., supra note 7, at 210.
233 Id.