Washington State v. Bodman et al
Filing
223
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND STATE OF OREGON. Signed by Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson. (PL, Case Administrator)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
6
7
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
NO: 2:08-CV-5085-RMP
Plaintiff,
8
and
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE
BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY AND STATE OF OREGON
9
STATE OF OREGON,
10
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
11
12
13
ERNEST MONIZ, Secretary of the
United States Department of Energy,
and the UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY,
14
Defendants.
15
16
BEFORE THE COURT are the Department of Energy’s and the State of
17
Oregon’s Motions to Amend Consent Decree, ECF Nos. 76 and 99. For the
18
reasons set forth in the corresponding Opinion, the Court hereby orders that the
19
Consent Decree between the Department of Energy and the State of Oregon, ECF
20
No. 60, be modified as follows:
21
//
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND STATE OF OREGON ~ 1
1
I.
Paragraph 3 of the Consent Decree, ECF No. 60 at 2–3, is hereby
2
3
Paragraph 3
VACATED and is SUPERSEDED by the following:
4
3. DOE shall, on a quarterly basis, submit to Oregon, on the same day that it
5
submits to Ecology, 1 a written report documenting waste treatment plant
6
(WTP) construction and startup activities and tank retrieval activities at
7
Hanford that occurred during the period covered by the report. This written
8
report shall provide the status of progress made during the reporting period
9
and shall include:
10
a. A brief description of project accomplishments and project issues
11
encountered during the reporting period and/or expected in the next
12
three (3) months;
13
b. A definitive statement describing whether or not DOE has complied
14
with milestones that have already come due as of the date of the
15
16
1
17
Washington State Department of Ecology, throughout the following Consent
18
Decree modifications. The Court refers to the State of Washington as “Ecology” in
19
order for the modifications to remain consistent with the remaining, unmodified
20
Consent Decree sections. See ECF No. 60. This footnote is for explanatory
21
purposes only, and does not constitute part of the modified Consent Decree.
The State of Washington is also referred to as “Ecology,” shorthand for the
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND STATE OF OREGON ~ 2
1
report, and how any missed milestones may affect compliance with
2
other milestones;
3
4
c. Where applicable, a description of actions initiated or otherwise
taken to address any schedule slippage;
5
d. Budget/cost status;
6
e. Copies of written directives given by DOE to the contractors for
7
work required by the Decree entered in this case between DOE and
8
Ecology, if requested by Oregon.
9
10
f. A description of progress made towards resolving the five
outstanding WTP technical issues; and
11
g. An accounting of total labor hours expended on SST retrieval,
12
specifying the total percentage of hours worked utilizing self-
13
contained breathing apparatus.
14
h. The Consent Decree entered between DOE and Ecology permits
15
Ecology to request a hearing should Ecology demonstrate good
16
cause that DOE has not been forthcoming as pertains to the quarterly
17
reports. Ecology will serve Oregon with any request for a hearing,
18
and Oregon representatives may attend and participate in such a
19
hearing. Such permission to attend shall not vest Oregon with any
20
rights as a party to those proceedings. Oregon’s unavailability after
21
reasonable notice shall not require the delay or rescheduling of such
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND STATE OF OREGON ~ 3
1
2
3
4
hearings.
II.
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5 of the Consent Decree, ECF No. 60 at 3, is hereby VACATED
and is SUPERSEDED by the following:
5
5. In the event DOE determines that a serious risk has arisen that DOE may
6
be unable to meet a schedule as required in Section IV of the Consent
7
Decree entered in this case between DOE and Ecology, DOE shall notify
8
Oregon, on the same day that it notifies Ecology.
9
a. The Consent Decree entered between DOE and Ecology permits
10
Ecology to request a meeting and/or a hearing should Ecology
11
demonstrate good cause that DOE has not been forthcoming as
12
pertains to the “serious risk.” Ecology will serve Oregon with any
13
request for a meeting or hearing, and Oregon representatives may
14
attend and participate in such a meeting or hearing. Such permission
15
to attend shall not vest Oregon with any rights as a party to those
16
proceedings. Oregon’s unavailability after reasonable notice shall
17
not require the delay or rescheduling of such meetings or hearings.
18
19
III.
Paragraph 5A
A new Paragraph 5A is added to the Consent Decree as follows:
20
5A. Applicability of Federal Rule of Evidence 408. Federal Rule of
21
Evidence 408 does not apply to the above reporting requirements as the
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND STATE OF OREGON ~ 4
1
reports are not an offer of compromise but comprise a mandatory
2
element of an agreed-to and concluded compromise in the form of this
3
Consent Decree.
4
a. The Consent Decree entered between DOE and Ecology permits
5
Ecology to request a hearing should Ecology find that DOE has
6
asserted Rule 408. Ecology will serve Oregon with any request for
7
a hearing, and Oregon representatives may attend and participate in
8
such a hearing. Such permission to attend shall not vest Oregon with
9
any rights as a party to those proceedings. Oregon’s unavailability
10
after reasonable notice shall not require the delay or rescheduling of
11
such hearings.
12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to
14
15
16
17
counsel.
DATED this 11th day of March 2016.
s/ Rosanna Malouf Peterson
ROSANNA MALOUF PETERSON
United States District Judge
18
19
20
21
AMENDED CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
AND STATE OF OREGON ~ 5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?