a costly and burdensome environmental analysis that might take many years. This is especially true given that it took the EPA approximately 11 years before it finally issued its 632 page study, which, in many respects, touches upon many matters a NEPA environmental impact study would examine. In addition, if the Court found that NEPA was applicable and it compelled the EPA to conduct an additional notice and commentary period based on its requirements the same concerns of delay which Congress sought to avoid when it enacted section 9613(h) would be implicated. This is not to say that Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding NEPA’s notice and commentary requirements or the EPA’s need to conduct a NEPA environmental impact statement before vtl. Prot. Agency, 681 F.Supp. 1244, 1252 (E.D.Mich.1988) (<HOLDING>). The rationale behind these opinions rests on
holding that district courts are without jurisdiction to review preenforcement orders issued under the clean water act holding that section 9613h bars judicial review over constitutional challenges to cercla holding that case law from other circuits squarely precluded jurisdiction over preenforcement ruling under the clean air act holding that section 9613h precluded preenforcement judicial review of plaintiffs constitutional challenge cercla holding where challenge was waived that appellate review is precluded