Tetra Tech EC, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Background

Tetra Tech asked the court to declare unlawful the Final Parcel G Removal Site Evaluation Work Plan for the former Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, which the Department of the Navy prepared and the Environmental Protection Agency approved. Tetra Tech sued the Navy and its Secretary, along with the Environmental Protection Agency and its Administrator, claiming violations of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court had previously dismissed the complaint for lack of Article III standing, which is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury that the court can likely remedy. Tetra Tech filed a first amended complaint, and the defendants again moved to dismiss it.

Standing Analysis

The court said that a plaintiff alleging a procedural injury under the Administrative Procedure Act must still identify a concrete interest threatened by the challenged government action. Tetra Tech alleged four possible injuries.

First, Tetra Tech said the work plan would require about $86 million in additional work and that the United States had demanded that Tetra Tech pay those costs. The court found that this alleged injury depended on several uncertain events, including whether Tetra Tech would lose a separate False Claims Act and contract case and then be ordered to pay the rework costs. Because that separate case was still in an early stage and its outcome was unknown, the court found the possible future economic injury too speculative.

Second, Tetra Tech said it had suffered past economic injury by spending time and resources reviewing and commenting on earlier draft work plans. The court found that these were self-inflicted injuries not fairly traceable to the government’s alleged violations. It also said that treating review and comments on proposed agency actions as sufficient injury would eliminate the established standing requirements.

Third, Tetra Tech alleged that the Navy’s decision not to renew its radiological contract was caused by the allegedly flawed work plan. The court found this allegation conclusory and implausible.

Fourth, Tetra Tech alleged a general interest, as a remediation contractor, in efficient and cost-effective cleanup and in protecting public health and the environment. The court found this concern too general to establish that Tetra Tech itself was directly injured.

Disposition

The court concluded that Tetra Tech had not demonstrated Article III standing and therefore did not consider the defendants’ other arguments for dismissal. It dismissed the first amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied Tetra Tech’s request for another opportunity to amend because Tetra Tech did not identify what additional facts it could add and further amendment appeared unlikely to help. The dismissal for lack of standing was without prejudice. The court ordered judgment entered and closed the case.