Opinion ID: 709549
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ATSDR Activities at Hanford as Selected

Text: 62 HDC asserts that even if its citizen suit is considered a challenge to the ATSDR's response activities, HDC is not challenging a selected activity and thus is not barred from bringing suit. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(h) (barring any challenge to removal or remedial action selected under Sec. 9604). Plaintiffs argue that initiation of a medical monitoring program at Hanford is statutorily mandated, and thus not a discretionary measure selected by the ATSDR. We disagree. 63 Section 9604(i)(9) provides that [w]here the Administrator of ATSDR has determined that there is a significant increased risk of adverse health effects in humans from exposure to hazardous substances ... the Administrator of ATSDR shall initiate a health surveillance program for such population. Thus, as we noted in Durfey, the ATSDR is only required to administer a 'health surveillance' (medical monitoring) program if the ATSDR Administrator has determined that there is a significantly increased risk for an affected population. Durfey, 59 F.3d at 125. The ATSDR has not made any determination concerning the increased risk of adverse health effects at Hanford. 16 Although the HDC believes such a determination is warranted at this time, we defer to the expertise and discretion of the ATSDR regarding the appropriateness of beginning a health surveillance program. See Washington State Dept. of Transp., 51 F.3d at 1497 (because determining the appropriate removal and remedial action involves specialized knowledge and expertise, the choice of a particular cleanup method is a matter within the discretion of the [government]) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litig., 780 F.Supp. 1551, 1565 (E.D.Wash.1991) ([D]eterminations as to the health effects of releases of hazardous substances from the Hanford site ... are, by statute, matters within the exclusive province of [the ATSDR].). Until the ATSDR makes a Sec. 9604(i)(7)(B)(9) determination, the decision to begin a health surveillance program lies within its discretion. CERCLA's Timing of Review provision prevents federal courts from interfering with that discretion. 64