Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05192/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued September 5, 2000 Decided November 14, 2000

No. 99-5192

US Ecology, Inc., a California Corporation,

Appellant

v.

United States Department of the Interior, et al.,

Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 97cv00365)

Karl S. Lytz argued the cause and filed the briefs for

appellant. Laurence H. Levine and Peter L. Winik entered

appearances.

Mark R. Haag, Attorney, United States Department of

Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the

brief were Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, and

David C. Shilton, Attorney.

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 1 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Eric R. Glitzenstein, Howard Crystal, and Jonathan R.

Lovvorn were on the brief for intervenor/appellees.

Fran M. Layton, Mark A. Fenster, Alan K. Marks, and

Susan L. Nash were on the brief for amicus curiae County of

San Bernardino.

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Ginsburg and Tatel,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Edwards.

Edwards, Chief Judge: This case involves a dispute over

the availability of the so-called "Ward Valley Site" for potential use as a low-level radioactive waste ("LLRW") facility.

Ward Valley is a 1.7 square mile plot of the Mojave Desert

located just off I-40, 25 miles west of the Colorado River

separating Arizona from California. Appellee the Federal

Government owns the site and appellant US Ecology wants to

develop, build, and operate a LLRW facility on the site as a

licensee for the State of California. The Federal Government, however, has declined to transfer the land to the State

of California, thus dashing US Ecology's hopes to proceed as

developer and operator of a LLRW facility on the Ward

Valley Site.

In 1987, pursuant to the Southwestern Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact, California's Department of Health

Services ("CDHS") identified the Ward Valley Site as the

preferred location for the Compact's first regional LLRW

disposal facility. In 1988, the State of California contracted

with US Ecology, Inc., a private company in the business of

constructing and managing LLRW facilities around the country, to develop the site. On January 19, 1993, the outgoing

Secretary of the Interior, Manuel Lujan Jr., issued a Record

of Decision announcing his approval of the direct sale of the

Ward Valley Site to the State of California for potential use

as a LLRW facility. The sale and transfer of land never

happened, however. Citing concerns that his predecessor

had not only subverted the administrative process, but also

prematurely issued the Record of Decision in direct violation

of a federal judge's temporary restraining order, incoming

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 2 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt rescinded Secretary

Lujan's Record of Decision on February 18, 1993.

In January 1997, CDHS brought suit in the District Court

challenging Secretary Babbitt's 1993 rescission. US Ecology

filed suit one month later. Because both complaints raised

substantially similar claims, the District Court consolidated

the cases. In March 1999, the District Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all counts. See

California Dep't of Health Servs. v. Babbitt, 46 F. Supp. 2d 13

(D.D.C. 1999). CDHS elected not to appeal the judgment of

the District Court. As a result, only US Ecology is before

this court.

The current posture of the case bars this court from

reaching the merits of the claims that were before the

District Court. This is so because appellant US Ecology, now

on its own, does not have standing to contest the Federal

Government's refusal to transfer the Ward Valley land to the

State of California. Even were we to disagree with the

District Court and find that Secretary Babbitt improperly

rescinded the Record of Decision, appellant's alleged injury

would not be redressable unless and until California accepted

transfer of the disputed land and elected to proceed with the

Ward Valley project. On the record at hand, appellant has

no grounds upon which to claim that California will follow

these courses; indeed, appellant could not make any concrete

assertions on these scores even were the Federal Government

to now propose to transfer the Ward Valley land to the state.

Absent a showing of redressability, US Ecology's appeal must

be dismissed for want of standing. Accordingly, we vacate

the District Court's judgment as to appellant and dismiss this

case for want of jurisdiction.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

In 1987, California entered into the Southwestern LowLevel Radioactive Waste Compact with Arizona, North Dakota, and South Dakota pursuant to the Low-Level Radioactive

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 3 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Waste Policy Act Amendments of 1985, 42 U.S.C. ss 2021b2021j (1994). The Act makes states accountable for their own

LLRW production and disposal, and authorizes them to form

interstate compacts for the establishment of regional LLRW

disposal facilities. 42 U.S.C. ss 2021c, 2021d. Under the

Southwestern Compact, California is responsible for developing and operating the group's first such regional facility.

Cal. Health & Safety Code s 115255, art. 4(C)(1) (West

1996). Prior to entering into the Compact, California had

chosen appellant US Ecology as its license-designee to evaluate potential sites, to aid in the land application process, and,

after acquisition of the land, to develop, build, and operate its

LLRW facility. US Ecology worked in conjunction with and

under the oversight of CDHS, the agency charged with

managing disposal of California's low-level radioactive waste.

Beginning in 1987, CDHS, with the help of US Ecology,

filed a series of school land indemnity applications pursuant

to 43 U.S.C. ss 851-852 (1986), seeking to acquire the Ward

Valley Site from the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM").

In July of 1992, California shifted its application strategy and

requested that BLM sell the Ward Valley Site directly to the

state pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management

Act ("FLPMA"), 43 U.S.C. ss 1701-1784 (1986), rather than

under the school indemnity provisions. Under FLPMA,

BLM may at its discretion grant an application for direct sale

if it finds the transfer to be in the national interest and

"disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives."

43 U.S.C. ss 1701(a), 1713(a)(3). Upon such a finding, BLM

must publish a Notice of Realty Action, thereby providing

interested parties with notice and 45 days in which to comment on the proposed transfer. See 43 C.F.R. ss 2711.1-

2(a), 2711.3-3 (1998). Only then may BLM proceed with the

sale.

Before an agency takes any action that threatens the

environment, it must also comply with the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), which requires the agency to

prepare and issue an Environmental Impact Statement assessing any potential environmental impacts of its proposed

action. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 4 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

s 4332(C) (1994). Under NEPA regulations, the agency

must file with EPA the Final Environmental Impact Statement along with public comments received regarding the

proposed statement, which are then published in the Federal

Register. See 40 C.F.R. ss 1506.9-.10 (1998). An agency

must wait at least 30 days following publication before taking

any action based on the Final Environmental Impact Statement, after which time NEPA regulations require the agency

to prepare a Record of Decision justifying its ultimate decision. See 40 C.F.R. ss 1505.2, 1506.10(b).

US Ecology, in conjunction with BLM and CDHS, submitted the required impact statement in September of 1989, and

BLM published the Final Environmental Impact Statement

in May of 1991. Before BLM issued its Record of Decision,

however, California shifted its school indemnity application to

one for direct sale under FLPMA. In response, BLM published a notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on September 11, 1992, to assess

any further environmental impacts associated with acquisition

under the direct sale provisions. See Notice of Intent to

Prepare Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, 57

Fed. Reg. 41,771 (1992). After a period for comment, BLM

filed its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

on December 28, 1992, beginning the 30-day waiting period

set to end on January 27, 1993. At roughly the same time as

it issued its notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement, the Department of the

Interior had published a Notice of Realty Action notifying the

public that BLM was considering transfer of the Ward Valley

Site to California pursuant to FLPMA's direct sale provisions. In response, interested parties lodged a multitude of

protests and three filed mining claims related to the site.

On January 7, 1993--only 10 days after filing its Final

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement with EPA--

Secretary Lujan announced that there had been no need to

supplement the original Final Environmental Impact Statement, because, under NEPA, the method of transfer would

not affect the potential environmental harm. He converted

the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement into a

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 5 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

less formal Environmental Assessment, which does not require a 30-day post-publication waiting period, and issued a

Finding of No Significant Impact. The Secretary also issued

a memorandum declaring that, upon final disposition of the

three mining claims pending before the Interior Board of

Land Appeals, he intended to dismiss the Notice of Realty

Action protests, publish his Record of Decision approving

direct sale, and issue a land patent transferring title of the

Ward Valley Site to the State of California. The next day,

appellant US Ecology wired $500,000 to a BLM-designated

account as payment for the land.

Not to be outdone, project opponents filed suit in the

United States District Court for the Northern District of

California alleging that the Department of the Interior had

violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to designate

critical habitat for the desert tortoise. The District Court

immediately issued a temporary restraining order mandating

that the Department of the Interior was "[t]hereby temporarily restrained from transferring any BLM land in the

Ward Valley." Desert Tortoise v. Lujan, No. 93-0114 (N.D.

Cal. Jan. 8, 1993) (order granting temporary restraining

order). Despite the District Court's order, Secretary Lujan

executed the Record of Decision at issue on January 19,

1993--his last day in office. He did not, however, issue a

patent in the land. Upon discovering that Secretary Lujan

had executed the Record of Decision, the District Court

expanded its order to prevent the Department from "executing any document or taking any other action" to effectuate

transfer of the Ward Valley Site. Desert Tortoise, No.

93-0114 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 1993) (order extending temporary

restraining order). Less than one month later, and in the

midst of three pending lawsuits, incoming Secretary Babbitt

rescinded the Record of Decision. BLM later returned the

$500,000 to US Ecology.

B. Proceedings in the District Court

In early 1997, both CDHS and US Ecology filed separate

complaints against Secretary Babbitt, Deputy Secretary of

the Interior John Garamendi, the Department of the Interior

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 6 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

itself, and the Bureau of Land Management. Because each

party alleged substantially similar claims, the cases were

consolidated on October 27, 1997. On March 31, 1999, the

District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary

judgment on the merits regarding all of the consolidated

claims. See California Dep't of Health Servs., 46 F. Supp. 2d

at 13. By the time of the District Court's decision, Pete

Wilson, whose administration had spear-headed the effort to

obtain the Ward Valley Site, was no longer the Governor of

California. In his stead was Gray Davis, the newly elected

Governor, who as State-Controller had been a named plaintiff

in a pre-rescission suit brought by opponents to undermine

sale of the Ward Valley Site. CDHS officials, acting on

behalf of the State of California, chose not to appeal the

District Court's decision, and this court has dismissed US

Ecology's attempt to itself appeal the judgment against

CDHS. See US Ecology, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, No.

99-5192, 1999 WL 1006813, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 8, 1999) (per

curiam) (order of motions panel dismissing CDHS appeal).

Thus, only US Ecology's appeal of its own suit remains.

A number of noteworthy events have arisen since the

District Court issued its decision. On November 2, 1999,

DOI notified CDHS that it was terminating further consideration of, and denying without prejudice, CDHS's request for

direct sale of the Ward Valley Site. See Processing Terminated: Request for Sale Denied, CACA 30582 (Dep't Interior

Nov. 2, 1999) (unpublished decision of the Department of the

Interior), reprinted in Motion of Appellant US Ecology, Inc.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(E)(3)

and Request for Judicial Notice, Exhibit B (Apr. 27, 2000).

DOI cited the fact that CDHS Director Dr. Diana BontA had

not responded to a September 16, 1999 letter in which BLM

Deputy Director Tom Fry proposed termination of CDHS's

still-pending sale request. The letter had given the following

reasons for termination:

the State's decision to forgo an appeal from the adverse

decision in District Court; the formation of the Atkinson

advisory group seeking workable alternatives [to the

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 7 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Ward Valley facility]; the lack of funds in the State

budget for Ward Valley activities; the apparent lack of

authority of DHS to acquire land; and the substantial

steps, including tritium tests and preparation of an SEIS,

that would be required to proceed with the requested

sale.

Id. at 3. Also, in a related contract action against the United

States, the Court of Federal Claims ruled that Secretary

Lujan's Record of Decision had not created a contract between CDHS and the United States, and, a fortiori, had not

created any rights in US Ecology as third-party beneficiary.

See US Ecology, Inc. v. United States, No. 97-65L (Fed. Cl.

Mar. 27, 2000) (unpublished opinion). Finally, on May 2,

2000, appellant US Ecology filed suit against the State of

California in California state court alleging breach of contract

for failing to use its best efforts to obtain and develop the

Ward Valley Site. See US Ecology's Complaint, US Ecology,

Inc. v. State of California, No. 747562 (Cal. Super. Ct. filed

May 2, 2000). In addition to damages, US Ecology seeks

from the state court a writ of mandate ordering Governor

Davis and CDHS to take all steps necessary to comply with

California's contract with US Ecology, including requesting

rescission of the November 2, 1999 decision of the Department of the Interior. See id. pp 73-81.

II. Analysis

Because plaintiff CDHS unquestionably had standing to

challenge Secretary Babbitt's 1993 rescission, the District

Court had no occasion to consider appellant US Ecology's

standing to do the same. See Environmental Action v.

FERC, 996 F.2d 401, 406 (D.C. Cir. 1993) ("[O]nce one

petitioner has demonstrated standing we may permit the

participation of others."). Article III's jurisdictional mandate

does not disappear on appeal, however, and the "ability to

ride 'piggyback' on the State's undoubted standing exists only

if the State is in fact an appellant before the Court." Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54, 64 (1986). Thus, as the sole

party now before us on appeal, US Ecology must indepenUSCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 8 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

dently demonstrate Article III standing. This it has not

done.

To establish the "irreducible constitutional minimum" for

Article III standing, a party must show that it has suffered

an injury in fact, that there exists a causal link between that

injury and the conduct complained of, and that a favorable

decision on the merits will likely redress the injury. Lujan v.

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). "This

triad ... constitutes the core of Article III's case-orcontroversy requirement, and the party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence."

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83, 103-04

(1998). Because a deficiency on any one of the three prongs

suffices to defeat standing, we address only US Ecology's

most obvious failing--its inability to demonstrate that it is

" 'likely,' as opposed to merely 'speculative,' that [its] injury

will be 'redressed by a favorable decision.' " Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 561 (quoting Simon v. Eastern Ky.

Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 38, 43 (1976)).

Courts have been loath to find standing when redress

depends largely on policy decisions yet to be made by government officials. This is so, because the question of "[w]hether

[appellant's] claims of economic injury would be redressed by

a favorable decision [in such a] case depends on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the

courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion

the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict."

Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 615 (1989). When

redress depends on the cooperation of a third party, "it

becomes the burden of the [appellant] to adduce facts showing that those choices have been or will be made in such

manner as to produce causation and permit redressability of

injury." Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. at 562.

Appellant has not met this burden, admitting, as it must,

that, even were the Department of the Interior to issue a

patent as US Ecology requests, only the State of California is

capable of accepting title and taking ownership of the land.

Secretary Babbitt's 1993 rescission delayed California's appliUSCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 9 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

cation for direct sale under FLPMA; the Department of the

Interior's decision of November 2, 1999, terminated California's application for the Ward Valley Site. Whether and how

to comply with the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Amendments and Southwestern Compact is California's responsibility alone. Certainly, we do not begrudge appellant its disappointment at having invested--and perhaps lost--time and

money in the Ward Valley project. But, such injury, without

more, is not enough.

Appellant seeks refuge in a few lines of dicta found in this

court's recent opinion in University Medical Center of Southern Nevada v. Shalala, 173 F.3d 438 (D.C. Cir. 1999). In that

case, appellant University Medical Center ("UMC") challenged the Department of Health and Human Services' failure to retroactively place UMC on a list of eligible hospitals

entitled to pharmaceutical discounts from participating drug

manufacturers. HHS had, by the time of suit, placed UMC

on the list; however, UMC argued that, were HHS to backdate its listing of UMC to the point in time when UMC

actually had been eligible, UMC could perhaps obtain two

years' worth of retroactive drug discounts. Because the

contract between HHS and the participating drug manufacturers did not require the drug manufacturers to provide

such retroactive discounts, we held that UMC's injury was

only speculatively redressable. In so holding, we stated:

If it could be said that UMC was legally entitled to get

the discounts as a result of being placed on the list

effective December 1, 1992, then we might have a different situation. That would force us to ask how likely it

was that appellant would succeed in the second suit....

But we do not have to wrestle with this problem because

UMC does not even claim that it has a contingent legal

right against the drug manufacturers.

Id. at 442 (emphasis in original). US Ecology claims that the

instant case presents the "different situation" contemplated in

the foregoing dicta. We are not persuaded.

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 10 of 11
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Even assuming, arguendo, that the hypothetical raised in

University Medical Center poses a circumstance under which

the redressability problem might be avoided, US Ecology can

find no solace in the dicta. The circumstances of this case are

quite different from the University Medical Center hypothetical, because, on the record before this court, US Ecology

cannot demonstrate any legally enforceable right that California must (1) accept the Ward Valley Site if offered, and (2)

proceed with plans to build a LLRW facility on the land.

Indeed, the record before this court does not even support a

finding that US Ecology would be entitled to develop the

facility were California ultimately to pursue the Ward Valley

Site.

The mere fact that appellant has brought suit in California

state court on many of these issues says nothing about the

underlying merits of those claims nor the remedy to which

US Ecology would be entitled should it prevail. Here, as in

University Medical Center, "[e]ven if appellant had a declaratory judgment that the government unlawfully" rescinded its

Record of Decision, US Ecology has not shown "how, or

under what legal theory, it would be entitled to recover

against" the State of California. Id. In short, US Ecology

has failed to demonstrate redressability to support standing.

III. Conclusion

Because appellant lacks standing to pursue this appeal, we

vacate the District Court's judgment as to US Ecology and

dismiss this case for want of jurisdiction.

USCA Case #99-5192 Document #556347 Filed: 11/14/2000 Page 11 of 11