ELR Citation: ELR 20153
No(s). 93-2526 (8th Cir. Jul 20, 1994)

The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must follow the dispute-resolution process contained in a consent decree between EPA and owners of contaminated land concerning cleanup of the owners' building and six acres. At the time the parties entered the decree, EPA planned to decontaminate the building, but one year after a district court entered the decree, EPA decided to demolish the building. The owners invoked the dispute-resolution process to prevent the demolition.

The court first holds that it has jurisdiction over the appeal, because the district court's order requiring EPA to follow the dispute-resolution process set forth in the decree was a final order for purposes of appeal. Applying rules of contract interpretation, the court holds that EPA must abide by the dispute-resolution process contained in the decree. The structure, language, and context of the decree together render the owners' dispute with EPA's post-decree decision to demolish their building within the decree's ambit and, thus, subject to the dispute-resolution process. Moreover, the owners relied on EPA's plan to decontaminate the building when they entered into the decree.

[A prior decision in this litigation is published at 23 ELR 21128.]

Counsel for Appellant
Evelyn S. Ying
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice, Washington DC 20530
(202) 514-2000

Counsel for Appellee
John S. Hahn
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal
1301 K St. NW, Ste. 600, Washington DC 20005
(202) 408-6400

Before BEAM and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges, and STROM,^* District Judge.