[5] There are multiple anecdotes that the site was used to dump polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)-containing wastes, pesticides and military ordnance, but there is no confirming documentation.

It is considered common knowledge on Guam that both Japanese and U.S. forces placed unexploded ordnance (UXO) in the dump, in particular during World War II, with multiple anecdotes of explosions at the landfill sometimes causing fires.

In its final Record of Decision, the EPA noted as potentially responsible parties for the contamination as the U.S. Navy, GovGuam, and the Department of Public Works, among other reported landfill users.

[9] On 11 February 2004, after continued discharge in violation of the Clean Water Act, the District Court of Guam issued a Consent Decree in which GovGuam agreed to cease the discharge of pollutants from Ordot Dump, close Ordot Dump within 45 months, begin implementing a post-closure plan, and obtain permits for and begin operating a new municipal sanitary waste landfill within 44 months.

"[9] On 17 March 2008, the District Court, noting the lack of progress in implementing the 2004 Consent Decree, appointed as Federal Receiver the company Gershmann, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) to manage and supervise Guam's Solid Waste Management Division and achieve compliance with the Consent Decree.

On 31 August 2011, Ordot Dump was closed and its role taken by the newly constructed Layon Landfill in Inalåhan, which began operation on 1 September 2011.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that only the Section 113(f)(3)(B) action could apply to the case, but that a three-year statute of limitations had been triggered by the 2004 Consent Decree related to violations of the Clean Water Act and that therefore Guam could not sue the Navy.

The DC Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the ruling was "harsh" as the Navy had "deposited dangerous munitions and chemicals at the Ordot Dump for decades and left Guam to foot the bill.

An amicus brief in support of Guam was filed by the attorneys general of 24 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

[11] In the opinion for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas rejected the Navy's argument and agreed with Guam that only a settlement of CERCLA-specific liability could trigger the CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B) statute of limitations.