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

Heading: Plaintiffs' Suit as a Challenge to ATSDR Activity

Text: 59 Section 9613(h) denies jurisdiction to federal courts only if a removal or remedial action is challenged by plaintiffs. See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9613(h). Plaintiffs contend that even if ATSDR activities at Hanford are removal or remedial actions, their claim for injunctive relief does not constitute a challenge to those activities. The district court held that HDC's suit did challenge ongoing response actions at Hanford and thus was subject to Sec. 9613(h)'s jurisdictional bar. We agree. 60 A straightforward application of our precedent disposes of plaintiffs' claim. We held in Razore v. Tulalip Tribes, 66 F.3d 236 (9th Cir.1995), that [a]n action constitutes a challenge if it is related to the goals of the cleanup. Id. at 239; see also McClellan, 47 F.3d at 330 (holding that lawsuits that are directly related to the goals of the cleanup are challenges to removal actions and thus are barred by Sec. 9613(h)). Moreover, injunctive relief that for all practical purposes, seeks to improve on the CERCLA cleanup as embodied in the Interagency Agreement ... qualifies as a 'challenge' to the cleanup. McClellan, 47 F.3d at 330. HDC's request for injunctive relief in this case, while well-intentioned, amounts to an effort to read into CERCLA and the Hanford FFA a duty to initiate a health surveillance program at plaintiffs' request. As such, it clearly constitutes a challenge under McClellan to the federal government's continuing response activity at Hanford and thus is subject to Sec. 9613(h)'s jurisdictional proscription. 61