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)

Download PDF
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STATE OF OREGON ~ 1 1 I. Paragraph 3 of the Consent Decree, ECF No. 60 at 2–3, is hereby 2 3 Paragraph 3 VACATED and is SUPERSEDED by the following: 4 3.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?