of a CERCLA remedy. See Costner v. URS Consultants, Inc., 153 F.3d 667, 675 (8th Cir.1998). To determine whether a suit interferes with, and thus challenges, a cleanup, courts look to see if the relief requested will impact the remedial action selected. For example, in McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Perry, 47 F.3d 325 (9th Cir.1995), the court, in holding that plaintiffs’ citizen suit claims under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Clean Water Act were barred by section 113(h), held that vindication of those claims would create “new requirements for dealing with the inactive sites that are now subject to the CERCLA cleanup [and] clearly interfere with the cleanup.” Id. at 329-30; see also Razore v. Tulalip Tribes of Washington, 66 F.3d 236, 239 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Alabama v. EPA, 871 F.2d 1548, 1559 (11th
holding that where the government sues an insured to recover incurred cleanup costs under  107a4a of the cercla  or to impose a plan for remediation that action is not a suit for damages but is rather a suit for equitable monetary relief holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding no jurisdiction to entertain prp citizen suit where suit if successful would dictate specific remedial actions and  alter the method and order for cleanup in violation of 113h holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state