Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Settlement Agreement with
Natural Resources Defense Council

Table of Contents

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

I.   INTRODUCTION

In Count I¹ of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Richardson, Civ. No. 97-936 (SS), plaintiffs allege that defendants have violated and continue to violate a settlement agreement entered as an Order by this Court on October 22, 1990 in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Watkins , Civ. No. 89-1835 (SS) (1990 Stipulation and Order), by failing to prepare an Environmental Restoration (ER) and Waste Management (WM) Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (ER/WM PEIS). Plaintiffs allege that, because of the violation, the Secretary of Energy, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management, the Assistant Secretary for Environment, Safety, and Health, and the United States Department of Energy (DOE) are in civil and criminal contempt of this Court.

Defendants allege that they are not in violation of the 1990 Stipulation and Order. They further allege that the Secretary, the Assistant Secretaries, and DOE are not in civil or criminal contempt of this Court.

By and through undersigned counsel, the parties agree and stipulate that they are making this Joint Stipulation in good faith in an effort to avoid further litigation of Count I of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Richardson, Civ. No. 97-936 (SS), or Natural Resources Defense Council v. Watkins , Civ. No. 89-1835 (SS); without any admission by defendants that they have violated and are continuing to violate the 1990 Stipulation and Order or that they are in civil or criminal contempt; and without any concurrence by plaintiffs regarding defendants’ positions. In addition, by and through undersigned counsel, the parties agree and stipulate to the following:

II.  CENTRAL INTERNET DATABASE

A.  Categories

DOE will establish a central database (Database), available to the public through the Internet, that will contain information in the following categories:

1. Contaminated environmental media, contaminated facilities, and waste controlled by the DOE Environmental Management (EM) Program. DOE will categorize waste and contaminated media by waste type (i.e. , high-level waste, transuranic waste (including buried transuranic waste), low-level waste, and mixed low-level waste). As to contaminated facilities, DOE will identify the facilities, and describe their use and status (operating or standby) and size (approximate square footage).
2. Contaminated facilities and waste generated by programs managed by the DOE Offices of Defense Programs (DP), Science (SC), and Nuclear Energy (NE). DOE will categorize waste and contaminated media by waste type (i.e. , high-level waste, transuranic waste, low-level waste, and mixed low-level waste). As to contaminated facilities, DOE will identify the facilities, and describe their use and status (operating or standby) and size (approximate square footage).
3. DOE-managed, domestic, and foreign research reactor spent nuclear fuel, excluding spent fuel from commercial reactors.
4. Sites governed by Section 151(b) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), upon the transfer of those sites to DOE ownership. As to these sites, DOE will provide the name and the location of the sites, describe the sites, and include available information provided to DOE at the time of transfer or acquired by DOE after the transfer, regarding residual contamination.
5. Sites managed as part of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP), if they have been returned to DOE for management. As to these sites, DOE will provide the name and the location of the sites, describe the sites, and include available information provided to DOE at the time of transfer or acquired by DOE after the transfer, regarding residual contamination.

B.   Types of Information

For each of the categories listed above, DOE will provide the following types of information in the Database:

1. Location of site/radioactive material. DOE will provide the name of the DOE site (e.g. , the Savannah River Site (SRS), the Pantex Plant (Pantex), the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL)) where the radioactive material is generated, stored, treated, or disposed.
2. Volume or mass of radioactive material. (a) As to waste, which DOE will categorize by waste type (i.e. , high-level waste, transuranic waste, low-level waste, and mixed low-level waste), DOE will provide information about the annual volumes (beginning with 1998), and the future projected volumes, of waste in storage, newly generated, treated, and disposed; (b) as to contaminated environmental media, DOE will provide the estimated volume of the media; (c) as to spent nuclear fuel, DOE will provide the mass of spent nuclear fuel in storage and the annual new receipts of spent nuclear fuel; (d) as to contaminated facilities, DOE will provide the approximate square footage of the facility, and identify whether the contamination is radioactive, chemical, or both.
3. Chemical constituents . As to waste and contaminated environmental media, DOE will identify the major chemical constituents of concern from a regulatory or programmatic perspective.
4. Radioactivity of materials . As to waste, contaminated environmental media, and spent nuclear fuel, DOE will identify the major radionuclides of concern from a regulatory or programmatic perspective, and it will provide the total estimated curie content.
5. Generator of waste or contaminated materials. DOE will provide information about the generator of waste, contaminated media, or spent nuclear fuel, by the DOE site (e.g., SRS, Pantex, INEEL) and the major program (i.e. , the DOE EM, DP, SC, and NE Offices) that is responsible for its generation, to the extent such information is collected by DOE.
6. Waste disposition plans and waste transfers. As to each waste type, DOE will provide information about the waste disposition path in terms of storage, treatment, and disposal, including site locations, to the extent that such information is collected by DOE. As to waste transfers between DOE sites or to commercial facilities, DOE will identify the shipping and receiving sites, and the annual volume of transferred waste (by waste type).

C.  Database Availability and Reporting Capability

DOE will make the Database available to the public on the Internet, through a Web-based reporting tool which will provide the capability to generate standard reports and perform searches and queries. DOE will develop the definition of user requirements for the reporting tool in consultation with stakeholders. DOE will provide reports, in hard copy, that are derived from the Database to organizations that work on issues relating to DOE’s environmental management activities, that do not have computer access to the Database, and that make reasonable written requests to the DOE point-of-contact (see Section II.G.1 of this Joint Stipulation) for specific information from the Database.

D.  General Provisions Regarding the Database

DOE will premise the development, operation and maintenance of the Database on the following:

1. DOE will include in the Database only data (a) that is presently available and collected by DOE on a national level, or (b) that is presently planned to be collected in the future by DOE on a national level.
2. The level and degree of detail of the data that DOE will provide in the Database for each category of information will vary, depending on the level and degree of detail of the data that are currently available to DOE and that are collected by DOE on an ongoing basis.
3. DOE will update the data elements in the Database in accordance with its schedules and procedures. To the extent that DOE collects the data in the Database annually, DOE will update those data annually. See also Section II.D.9 of this Joint Stipulation.
4. DOE will not include in the Database any information that is classified, unclassified controlled nuclear information (UCNI), or proprietary, as defined by Executive Order 12958 and its predecessors; Sections 11(y) and 148 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA); and 18 U.S.C. § 1905, respectively.
5. DOE will include in the Database only the data about non-radioactive hazardous waste and toxic chemicals that are provided in the DOE report entitled Annual Report of Waste Generation and Pollution Prevention (Waste Generation Report) and the DOE report entitled Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance With Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements Annual Report (Right-to-Know Report). These data are generally limited to the generation site, annual generation volume, and the Annual Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (TRI). The Waste Generation Report provides the total volume of hazardous waste generated, while the Right-to-Know Report provides data on toxic chemicals released to the environment and transferred offsite for treatment and disposal. DOE will provide in the Database the data from the Waste Generation Report only after DOE has made the Waste Generation Report publicly available. DOE will provide in the Database the data from the Right-to-Know Report, as well as the underlying data, at the same time that DOE transmits the Right-to-Know Report to the EPA.
6. DOE will not provide in the Database data on spent fuel from commercial reactors.
7. As to data in the Database about excess fissile materials and other hazardous or radioactive material inventories, DOE will provide only the data that is contained in the 1996 DOE report entitled Taking Stock: A Look at the Opportunities and Challenges Posed by Inventories from the Cold War Era (Materials in Inventory (MIN) Report). DOE currently has no plans to update this data. In the event that DOE undertakes a national update of any nuclear materials inventories, however, DOE will put any resulting unclassified update in the Database.
8. DOE will not be required to include data in the Database about waste and facilities managed by the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program.
9. DOE will not be required to update the data in the Database more frequently than on an annual basis, although it may choose to do so.

E.  Conduct of National Stakeholder Forums

In accordance with the following provisions, DOE will sponsor national stakeholder forums to address issues relating to the Database.

1. DOE will sponsor, at a minimum, two national stakeholder forums. DOE will sponsor a third national stakeholder forum upon plaintiffs’ timely request (see Section II.F of this Joint Stipulation). For plaintiffs or other organizations that are working on issues relating to DOE’s environmental management activities, upon written requests explaining their demonstrated need, DOE will consider applications for reasonable travel expenses associated with attending these forums. Under no circumstances will DOE’s payment of the reasonable travel expenses associated with the attendance by plaintiffs or other organizations of the forums exceed $50,000 per forum. See also Section II.F of this Joint Stipulation.
2. DOE will conduct the first stakeholder forum no later than 180 days after the entry of this Joint Stipulation as an Order of the Court. The purpose of the first forum will be to review the proposed outline, structure, and linkages of the Database. No less than thirty days before the conduct of the first forum, DOE will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the first forum and its tentative agenda. Plaintiffs or other interested organizations or individuals may submit comments on the tentative agenda to the DOE point-of-contact (see Section II.G.1 of this Joint Stipulation)
3. DOE will conduct the second national stakeholder forum after the Database becomes operational. The subject of the second forum will be the operation of the Database, including its structure and linkages to other databases. Some time after the first forum, DOE will inform plaintiffs, by letter, when the Database becomes operational. DOE will conduct the second forum no sooner than one year after the date on which DOE sends to plaintiffs the letter informing plaintiffs that the Database is operational. No less than thirty days before the conduct of the second forum, DOE will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the second forum and its tentative agenda. Plaintiffs or other interested organizations or individuals may submit comments on the tentative agenda to the DOE point-of-contact (see Section II.G.1 of this Joint Stipulation).

F.  Duration of Maintenance and Operation of the Database

DOE will maintain the Database for a minimum of five years from the starting date of the second national stakeholder forum (which will occur no sooner than one year after the date on which DOE sends to plaintiffs a letter informing plaintiffs that the Database is operational). Upon plaintiffs’ request, DOE will sponsor a third national stakeholder forum (see Section II.E.1 of this Joint Stipulation), before the expiration of the five-year period, to consider the issue of whether DOE will maintain and operate the Database beyond the five-year period. If plaintiffs make a request for a third forum, plaintiffs will do so no later than the first six months of the final required year of the operation of the Database. No less than thirty days before the conduct of the third forum, DOE will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing the third forum and its tentative agenda. Plaintiffs or other interested organizations or individuals may submit comments on the tentative agenda to the DOE point-of-contact (see section II.G.1 of this Joint Stipulation).

G.  Links to Other Databases

1. For the purpose of enhancing the usefulness of the Database, DOE will work with plaintiffs to improve upon and refine the content of the Database and to expand the availability of linkages in the Database to DOE site-specific databases (which may include certain facility-specific or program-specific information). In addition, within 30 days of the entry of this Joint Stipulation as an Order of the Court, DOE will designate a DOE Headquarters (HQ) point-of-contact to work with plaintiffs on this issue.
2. Before the first national stakeholder forum (see Sections II.E.1 and .2 of this Joint Stipulation), DOE will make a good-faith effort to identify and provide to plaintiffs a list of the major databases that may be included in or linked to the Database in order to improve the usefulness of the Database to DOE or the public. The issue of whether those additional databases should be added to or linked to the Database will be a subject of discussion at the first stakeholder forum.
3. DOE will work expeditiously to make any additions or refinements agreed to by the parties at the first stakeholder forum. Any such additions, refinements, or linkages to the Database, however, are subject to future change or discontinuation if DOE later determines that such additions, refinements or linkages cannot or should not be maintained because they are no longer useful to DOE or to the public or they are no longer economically or technologically viable.

III. STUDY ON LONG-TERM STEWARDSHIP ACTIVITIES

DOE will prepare a study on its long-term stewardship activities. By "long-term stewardship," DOE refers to the physical controls, institutions, information and other mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and the environment at sites where DOE has completed or plans to complete "cleanup" (e.g., landfill closures, remedial actions, removal actions,and facility stabilization). This concept of long-term stewardship includes, inter alia, land-use controls, monitoring, maintenance, and information management. While DOE’s study on long-term stewardship will not be a NEPA document or its functional equivalent, DOE will, nevertheless, follow the procedures set forth in the regulations of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) for public scoping, 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(1)-(2), and the procedures set forth in DOE's NEPA regulations for public review, of environmental impact statements (EIS's), 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313, except that (a) DOE will not transmit the study, in draft form, to EPA, and DOE (not EPA) will publish a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register , as set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313(a); and (b) DOE will not include any Statement of Findings as set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 1021.313(c). In the study, DOE will discuss, as appropriate, alternative approaches to long-term stewardship and the environmental consequences associated with those alternative approaches.

IV.  CITIZEN MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT FUND

Subject to Section VII of this Joint Stipulation, DOE will establish a $6.25 million citizen monitoring and technical assessment fund (Fund), in accordance with the following provisions:

A.   Purpose

The purpose of the Fund will be to provide monies to eligible organizations (in accordance with Section IV of this Joint Stipulation) to procure technical and scientific assistance to perform technical and scientific reviews and analyses of environmental management activities at DOE sites. Monies from the Fund may also be used to support the dissemination of the technical and scientific reviews and analyses undertaken with monies from the Fund. Monies from the Fund will not be used to conduct litigation, lobbying, or fundraising.

B.   Organizations Eligible to Receive Monies from the Fund

Any non-profit, non-governmental organization or any Federally recognized tribal government working on issues related to the nuclear weapons complex is eligible to receive monies from the Fund, upon application and subject to the criteria set forth in Section IV.E of this Joint Stipulation.

C.   Administration of the Fund

A nationally recognized, non-profit, non-governmental organization (Administering Organization) will administer the Fund. Within 30 days of the entry of this Joint Stipulation as an Order of the Court, plaintiffs and DOE will select RESOLVE, the Aspen Institute, or the Loka Institute, as the Administering Organization. Before DOE disburses any monies to the Administering Organization for the Fund, the Administering Organization will provide to DOE the documentation necessary to establish to DOE’s satisfaction that the Administering Organization has in place financial systems to administer the Fund in accordance with the Joint Stipulation and applicable laws and regulations. The Administering Organization will be responsible for retaining and providing access to records in accordance with 10 C.F.R. § 600.153. Subject to the criteria set forth in this Joint Stipulation, the Administering Organization will be the party responsible for selecting the recipient organizations. See Section IV of this Joint Stipulation.

D.   Funding Schedule

DOE will obligate $1.25 million either within 90 days of the entry of this Joint Stipulation as an Order of the Court or within 60 days of the Administering Organization’s provision to DOE of the documentation necessary to establish to DOE’s satisfaction that the Administering Organization has in place financial systems to administer the Fund in accordance with the Joint Stipulation and applicable laws and regulations, whichever is later. See Section IV.C of this Joint Stipulation. In addition, DOE will request that the remaining $5 million be included in the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2000. See also Section VII of this Joint Stipulation.

E.   Funding Criteria

1. The Administering Organization will dispense monies from the Fund based on proposals, submitted by eligible organizations or tribes, to perform technical and scientific reviews and analyses of environmental management activities at DOE sites. In their proposals, the eligible organizations or tribes will identify the technical and scientific issue(s) that they seek to have reviewed or analyzed, and the appropriately qualified candidate expert(s) to conduct the review or analysis.
2. Any technical and scientific review and analysis prepared with any monies from the Fund will be issued in final written form. The organization or tribe using monies from the Fund to pay for the conduct and preparation of a technical and scientific review and analysis will provide, without charge, copies of all final work products, immediately upon their completion, to DOE and the Administering Organization. The organization or tribe may disseminate the final work products or otherwise make them publicly available. DOE may also make copies of the final work products publicly available.
3. All monies from the Fund will be expended in accordance with the provisions of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-122 or Circular A-87.
4. Consistent with the cost principles in OMB Circular A-122, the Administering Organization will be responsible for proper accounting and auditing of Fund expenditures. In addition, the Administering Organization will provide an annual report to DOE regarding expenditures and compliance with the cost principles. The amount of expenditures from the Fund will not exceed $2 million in any given year.
5. Consistent with the cost principles in OMB Circular A-122, the Administering Organization shall limit the expenditure of monies from the Fund for administrative costs and expenses to the payment of the allocable portion of any reasonable salary, any other reasonable personnel costs and expenses, and any other reasonable costs that are directly associated with administering the Fund.
6. In the event that an organization or a tribe receiving an award from the Fund does not comply with any term or provision of this Joint Stipulation, DOE will have available to it the usual remedies associated with the federal government grant-making process.

V.   DISPUTE RESOLUTION

1. In the event that there is a dispute over compliance with any term or provision of this Joint Stipulation, the parties will engage in an informal dispute resolution process prior to seeking judicial review by this court, as specified in this section of the Joint Stipulation.
2. In order to initiate dispute resolution, the disputing party will submit to the other party a written statement setting forth the nature of the dispute, the element(s) of the Joint Stipulation affected by the dispute, the disputing party’s position with respect to the dispute, and the information that the disputing party is relying upon to support its position.
3. The disputing party will engage the other party in informal dispute resolution. During this informal dispute resolution period, which will not exceed 30 work days (unless the parties agree to an extension of the period), the parties will meet as many times as both deem necessary to discuss and attempt to resolve the dispute.
4. If the parties do not resolve the dispute through informal dispute resolution within the 30-work-day period or the extension thereof, the parties will engage in a formal mediation process. During this formal mediation process, which will not exceed 60 work days (unless the parties agree to an extension of the period), the parties will submit the dispute for mediation by a jointly selected and jointly compensated mediator. DOE will pay for 75 percent, and plaintiffs will pay for 25 percent, of the total cost of the formal mediation process.
5. Only in the event that the parties are unable to resolve the dispute through either informal dispute resolution or formal mediation, either party may file a motion asking that the Court enforce the provisions of this Joint Stipulation. If a party substantially complies with an enforcement order, the other party will not pursue the matter further in litigation.

VI.   PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEY FEES AND EXPENSES

DOE will pay to plaintiffs reasonable attorney fees and expenses relating to the litigation of Count I of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Richardson and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Watkins , including the contempt proceeding. The amount of reasonable attorney fees and expenses will be calculated in accordance with the applicable standards for qualifying fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. Under no circumstances will DOE’s payment of plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses exceed $200,000.00. The parties will negotiate the amount of plaintiffs’ reasonable attorney fees and expenses for a period of 60 days after the entry of this Joint Stipulation as an Order of the Court (or for a jointly stipulated extension of the period). If the parties cannot agree upon the amount of plaintiffs’ attorney fees and expenses within that period of time, the parties will submit the issue to the Court for resolution. Plaintiffs will initiate the submission by filing with the Court, within 30 days of the parties’ failure to agree, a petition for fees and expenses pursuant to EAJA.

VII. COMPLIANCE WITH ANTI-DEFICIENCY ACT

No provision of this Joint Stipulation will constitute or will be construed as a commitment or a requirement that DOE obligate or pay funds in contravention of the Anti-Deficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341, any other applicable law or regulation, or any Congressional guidance document. A "Congressional guidance document" is a formal committee report issued by jurisdictional committees in the annual authorization and appropriation process or in the course of acting on re-programming requests that complement the annual authorization and appropriation process. In the event that Congress does not provide appropriations sufficient to fund DOE's obligations under this Joint Stipulation, plaintiffs may reinstate their legal claims regarding the 1990 Stipulation and Order. In such an event, DOE will have no further obligation to perform any of the activities set forth in this Joint Stipulation.

VIII.   SCOPE AND RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

1. This Joint Stipulation will become effective upon the date of its entry as an Order of the Court. On that date, Count I of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Richardson, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Watkins, plaintiffs’ civil and criminal contempt allegations, and all pending motions are dismissed without prejudice.
2. The Court will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of enabling the parties, subject to Section V of this Joint Stipulation, to apply for any orders that may be necessary to construe or enforce compliance with the provisions of this Joint Stipulation.
3. This Court’s jurisdiction will terminate fully and completely five years from the starting date of the second stakeholder forum.
4. This Court will dismiss Count I of Natural Resources Defense Council v. Richardson, Civ. No. 97-936 (SS), and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Watkins, Civ. No. 89-1835 (SS), with prejudice upon termination of the Court’s jurisdiction.

IX.   RELEASE

1. Plaintiffs release and covenant not to sue or bring any civil, criminal, or administrative action against DOE, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or any past or present officer, director, official employee, agent, or contractor of DOE, the United States, or their successors or assigns, with respect to any claims or allegations based on or concerning the 1990 Stipulation and Order, including any claims or allegations (a) that DOE is required to prepare an ER/WM PEIS pursuant to the 1990 Stipulation and Order; (b) that the current Secretary of Energy or the previous Secretaries of Energy, the current or previous Assistant Secretaries (including the Acting Assistant Secretaries), and DOE are in civil or criminal contempt in connection with the ER/WM PEIS; (c) regarding the WM PEIS on the ground that the WM PEIS does not adequately address issues relating, in any respect, to ER wastes (i.e., wastes resulting from remedial actions, removal actions, closures, or decontamination and decommissioning); and (d) that DOE is required to prepare a PEIS concerning cleanup activities that are conducted pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as part of DOE’s overall Environmental Restoration Program, in the absence of new DOE programmatic decisions that would significantly affect the operation of those cleanup activities.

X. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

1. The parties have negotiated and executed this Joint Stipulation in good faith in order to avoid protracted litigation. This Joint Stipulation does not and will not constitute an admission or adjudication with respect to any allegation made by any party, including any liability under EAJA. Moreover, this Joint Stipulation does not and will not constitute an admission of any wrongdoing, misconduct or liability by DOE, its officers (past or present) and their successors or assigns, or any DOE contractors. Under no circumstances will this Joint Stipulation be admissible as evidence in any other proceeding.
2. All written notifications referenced in this Joint Stipulation will be sent by telefax transmission and regular United States mail to the following individuals at the following addresses:
   • For Plaintiffs:

     Director of the Nuclear Program
     Natural Resources Defense Council
     1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     (202) 289-6868
     (202) 289-1060 FAX

     Western States Legal Foundation
     1440 Broadway, Suite 500
     Oakland, CA 94612
     (510) 839-5877
     (510) 839-5397 FAX

   • For Defendants:

     Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management (EM-1)
     United States Department of Energy
     1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
     Washington, D.C. 20585
     (202) 586-7710
     (202) 586-7757 FAX

     General Counsel (GC-1)
     United States Department of Energy
     1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.,
     Washington, D.C. 20585
     (202) 586-5966
     (202) 586-7583 FAX
     

3. This Joint Stipulation is the entire agreement between the parties in this case. All prior conversations, meetings, discussions, drafts, and writings of any kind are specifically superseded by this Joint Stipulation.
4. The undersigned hereby certify that they are fully authorized to enter into and execute this Joint Stipulation on behalf of each representative party and to legally bind such party, its successor(s) or assign(s), and any other party acting on its behalf, to this Joint Stipulation.

Respectfully submitted this 12th day of December, 1998,

[PROPOSED] ORDER

SO ORDERED.

The following counsel should be notified of the entry of this Order:

David E. Adelman
Natural Resources Defense Council
1200 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005

Howard M. Crystal
Eric R. Glitzenstein
Meyer & Glitzenstein
1601 Connecticut Ave., N.W., #700
Washington, D.C. 20009-1035

Anthony P. Hoang
Martin J. LaLonde
United States Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Division
General Litigation Section
P.O. Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663

Top of Page

The following items (timeline and Summary of Data Elements (Updates Included)) are NOT part of the enforceable settlement agreement. They are intended to help summarize the agreement in a simple, non-legal format. If there are any inconsistencies between the settlement agreement and the time line and table, the settlement agreement should be considered the more accurate source.

Top of Page

GRAPHIC TIMELINE: NRDC v. Richardson Lawsuit Settlement Agreement

Top of Page

Exhibit 1 Summary of Data Elements (Update Frequency included)

Top of Page

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 14, 1998


NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
Anne Elliott (202) 586-5806

Energy Department Settles Lawsuit
with Environmental Groups

Settlement Creates New Tools For Public Participation In Cleanup Process

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) today announced a settlement of a lawsuit that would avoid further litigation and result in the creation of several new tools to enhance public understanding of the multi-billion dollar cleanup of the former nuclear weapons complex. The settlement was submitted Saturday to United States District Court Judge Stanley Sporkin in Washington for approval. Judge Sporkin signed the settlement in open court this morning.

"We are proud of this settlement and believe that the settlement represents a victory for the public and for the environment. Instead of litigating, the Department of Energy, NRDC and the other environmental groups who were participants in the lawsuit have agreed to work together to improve the availability of information about DOE's environmental management program through the Internet, and to support independent scientific and technical analysis for stakeholders," said Mary Anne Sullivan, Department of Energy General Counsel. "The settlement reflects this Administration's commitment to find creative approaches to settling lawsuits in ways that can serve a broad public good."

In 1997, NRDC, acting on behalf of itself and 38 non-governmental groups, filed suit against the Department of Energy and several DOE officials, alleging that the DOE violated a 1990 consent order by failing to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the department's environmental restoration program, and that this constituted contempt of court. Under the terms of today's agreement, the organizations would drop their claims concerning the 1990 consent order, as well as the contempt allegations.

The settlement has three major features:

• DOE will establish a central information database, available to the public through the Internet, containing information on radioactive and non-radioactive waste and contaminated facilities at DOE sites. The information to be included in the database will come from the department's Offices of Environmental Management, Defense Programs, Science, and Nuclear Energy. Through a series of public forums DOE will work with NRDC and others to enhance the usefulness of the database and to explore the establishment of Internet links to other DOE databases.

• DOE will establish a $6.25 million fund to assist citizens' groups and tribes in conducting technical and scientific reviews of environmental management activities at DOE sites. The resulting technical reports will be made available to any interested member of the public.

• DOE will prepare and invite public comment on a study on long-term stewardship, that is, the surveillance and maintenance activities that will occur at DOE sites following cleanup.

- DOE -

PR-98-188

Top of Page

_________________

¹Count I is the only remaining count in this case. Count II was dismissed without prejudice on August 18, 1998.