ELR Citation: ELR 21564
No(s). 90-CV-1110S (W.D.N.Y. Mar 31, 1993)

The court holds that a nonprofit citizen group has standing to bring an Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) citizen suit against a company, alleging that the company failed to timely submit hazardous chemical information to state and federal authorities as required under EPCRA §313, and the court upholds the EPCRA citizen suit provision and reporting thresholds as not violative of the U.S. Constitution. The court holds that the group has standing because it alleged specific injuries to it and its members that could have been caused by the company and would be redressed by a favorable ruling. The group made a sufficient showing that the late reporting of the use of toxic chemicals by the company harms the group and its members by preventing emergency response teams from preparing adequately for the presence of particular toxic chemicals in the community, and by preventing an emergency response team member and a researcher from having the information about toxic chemicals necessary to complete their jobs well. Moreover, there is a direct causal relationship between the companies failure to prepare timely toxic chemical reports as required by EPCRA and the individuals and the emergency response team's lack of access to the information. Further, the redress sought could prevent the harm from reoccurring. The court holds that the EPCRA citizen suit provision does not violate the separation of powers principle or the appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. Congress had not retained discretion or supervision over enforcement of its legislation, and Supreme Court case law addressing similar provisions in other statutes further supports the proposition that EPCRA citizen suit provisions are a constitutional exercise of Congress' legislative power. The court also holds that the reporting thresholds of EPCRA §313 do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because the reporting requirements and thresholds established by EPCRA are rationally related to legitimate government interests.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Charles M. Tebbutt
Lippes & Shonn
1260 Delaware Ave., Buffalo NY 14209
(716) 884-4800

Counsel for Defendant
R. Williams Stephens
Raichle, Banning, Weiss & Stephens
410 Main St., Buffalo NY 14202
(716) 852-7587

Richard R. Elledge
Gould & Ratner
222 N. La Salle St., 8th Fl., Chicago IL 60601
(312) 236-3003