“The United States alleges that, among other things, Tetra Tech EC disposed of soils that were contaminated with radionuclides above action levels in trenches in various locations at the Site.”

💡 This is the government’s central claim: Tetra Tech EC allegedly dumped radioactive soil in trenches instead of properly disposing of it in secure facilities.

“The Navy alleges it is required to complete the investigation and cleanup to comply with statutory and regulatory standards and alleges it cannot do so relying on Tetra Tech EC’s work.”

💡 The Navy explicitly states it cannot trust the contractor’s cleanup work, forcing a complete do-over at taxpayer expense.

“Accordingly, the Navy alleges that oversight agencies, the United States Environmental Protection Agency and California Department of Public Health, required the Navy to undertake a new site investigation and cleanup at the Site.”

💡 State and federal regulators determined the original cleanup was so flawed it had to be completely redone.

“The United States alleges that Tetra Tech EC is liable pursuant to Sections 107(a)(2) and (4) as an operator of a facility at the time of the disposal of hazardous substances and as a transporter of hazardous substances for disposal.”

💡 The government bases liability on Tetra Tech EC’s dual role as both the entity operating the facility and transporting contaminated materials.

“The Settling Defendant does not admit any liability to the United States arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, and the United States does not admit any liability to Settling Defendant arising out of the transactions or occurrences alleged in the Settling Defendant’s Counterclaim against the United States.”

💡 Despite the $40 million payment, Tetra Tech EC formally denies all wrongdoing and the settlement includes no admission of liability.

“This Consent Decree resolves only the Fifth Claim for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint and the Counterclaim asserted by Tetra Tech EC in its Answer and Counterclaim. It is styled as a ‘partial’ consent decree because the First through Fourth Claims for Relief in the Second Amended Complaint are not addressed herein.”

💡 This settlement covers only environmental cleanup costs, not False Claims Act violations or breach of contract, leaving major allegations unresolved.

“This incurred response costs and will continue to incur response costs into the future as the investigation continues.”

💡 The Navy’s cleanup costs are ongoing and may exceed the $40 million settlement, meaning taxpayers bear additional expenses.

“Within 30 days after the Effective Date, Settling Defendant shall pay to DON $40,000,000 (forty million dollars) plus an additional sum for Interest on that amount calculated from the date of lodging through the date of payment.”

💡 This specifies the exact settlement amount and adds interest charges calculated from the date the decree was filed.

“If any amounts due under Paragraph 5 (Payment by Settling Defendant for Response Costs) are not paid by the required date, Settling Defendant shall be in violation of this Consent Decree and shall pay, as a stipulated penalty, in addition to the Interest required, $25,000 per violation per day that such payment is late.”

💡 The decree includes automatic daily penalties to ensure Tetra Tech EC cannot delay payment without significant financial consequences.

“The Navy operated the shipyard from 1940 to 1974 and, during that time, it used Hunters Point to house the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory and to decontaminate ships.”

💡 This explains why the site contains radioactive contamination requiring specialized cleanup that Tetra Tech EC was hired to perform.

“In 1989, Hunters Point was placed on the National Priorities List (‘NPL’) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (‘CERCLA’), requiring a long-term cleanup plan.”

💡 The site has been recognized as a priority for cleanup for over 35 years, yet alleged contractor misconduct continues to delay remediation.

“This Consent Decree is binding upon the United States and upon Settling Defendant and its successors and assigns.”

💡 The decree binds only the government and Tetra Tech EC, with no provisions for community input, compensation, or oversight role for affected residents.

“The United States reserves all rights against Settling Defendant with respect to… liability for damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, and for the costs of any natural resource damage assessments.”

💡 The settlement does not cover environmental damages or health impacts, which the government can still pursue separately.

“The Parties agree, and by entering this Consent Decree this Court finds, that this Consent Decree constitutes a judicially-approved settlement pursuant to which the Settling Defendant has, as of the Effective Date, resolved liability to the United States within the meaning of Section 113(f)(2) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f)(2), and is entitled, as of the Effective Date, to protection from contribution actions or claims.”

💡 This settlement shields Tetra Tech EC from being sued for contribution by other potentially responsible parties for this contamination.

“The United States and Settling Defendant agree, and this Court by entering this Consent Decree finds, 1) that this Consent Decree has been negotiated by the Parties in good faith, 2) that settlement of this matter without further litigation and without the admission or adjudication of any issue of fact or law is appropriate… and 4) that this Consent Decree is fair, reasonable, and in the public interest.”

💡 The court’s approval includes a finding that avoiding trial and having no admission of wrongdoing serves the public interest, a conclusion many community advocates would dispute.