El Paso Natural Gas Company v. United States of America
847 F. Supp. 2d 111
D.D.C.2012Background
- EPNG and the Navajo Nation sue the United States and other federal defendants over a former uranium mill on the Navajo Nation near Tuba City, Arizona.
- BIA and EPA entered into an Administrative Settlement under CERCLA §104 to conduct a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study at the Landfill and oversee related actions.
- A Highway 160 Site remediation, funded by Congress and a DOE-tracked agreement with the Tribe, is also involved; the Tribe released the US from liability for remedial action.
- Plaintiffs allege RCRA violations and seek injunctive relief to compel cleanup activities at the Landfill and Highway 160 Site, among other properties.
- Defendants move to dismiss the RCRA claims as barred by CERCLA §113(h) and related standards; the court agrees and dismisses those claims.
- The Court later holds the Highway 160 Site claims moot and finds EPNG lacks standing to pursue those claims absent the Tribe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CERCLA §113(h) divests jurisdiction over RCRA claims related to the Landfill | EPNG/Tribe contend §113(h) does not bar pre-action or non-removed claims. | Defendants contend §113(h) bars any challenges that interfere with CERCLA removal/remedial actions. | Yes, §113(h) bars these RCRA claims. |
| Whether §113(h) applies to claims filed before CERCLA action | Plaintiffs argue timing limits should permit pre-action RCRA claims. | Defendants argue §113(h) bars challenges regardless of filing date. | Yes, §113(h) applies regardless of filing timing. |
| Whether the Administrative Settlement at the Landfill triggers §113(h) | Plaintiffs claim there was no binding CERCLA action to trigger bar. | Settlement commits to RI/FS and remedial actions, triggering §113(h). | Yes, settlement triggers §113(h). |
| Whether the Highway 160 Site claims are moot and EPNG has standing | Claims persist; funds may be insufficient but mootness not clear. | Remediation plan and waiver of liability moot the dispute; standing lacking. | Highway 160 Site claims moot; EPNG lacks standing; dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- River Village West LLC v. Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co., 618 F. Supp. 2d 847 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (§ 113(h) limits timing; no exceptions for chronology of citizen suits)
- Raytheon Aircraft Co. v. United States, 435 F. Supp. 2d 1136 (D. Kan. 2006) (discovery denied where § 113(h) applies)
- Jach v. American Univ., 245 F. Supp. 2d 110 (D.D.C. 2003) (jurisdictional review may require outside-the-pleadings factual resolution)
- Cannon v. Gates, 538 F.3d 1328 (10th Cir. 2008) (RCRA claims seeking injunctive relief may interfere with CERCLA cleanup and be barred)
- McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Perry, 47 F.3d 325 (9th Cir. 1995) (injunctive relief would interfere with CERCLA cleanup)