Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1
2
3
4
5
6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9 Crane Co., et al., No. CV 03—2226—PHX—ROS (lead)
CV 04- 1400-PHX-ROS (consolidated)
10 Plaintiff,
ORDER
11 vs.
12
13 United States of America,
Defendant.
14
15 ,
16
1 On June 21, 2006 Plaintiff United States of America tiled an Unopposed Motion To
7
18 Enter the Partial Consent Decree ("Decree") (Doc. #75) that was submitted on April l 1, 2006
(Doc. #71, 72).1
19 _
20 — —
2] I Pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 136 of the Partial Consent Decree, and in
accordance with Section l22(d)(2) of Comprehensive Environmental Response,
22 Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9622(d)(2), and 28 C.F.R. § 50.7, the United
23 States of America published in the Federal Register notice of its lodging of the Partial
Consent Decree for purposes of soliciting public comment, and requested that the Court
24 refrain from considering entry of the Decree during the notice period of no less than thirty
25 days. E Notice of Lodging of Partial Consent Decree (Doc. #71). The United States
received two comment letters submitted by the Cities of Goodyear and Avondale. ge
26 Motion For Entry of Partial Consent Decree p. 2. The comment letters do not oppose entry
27 ofthe Decree, but rather "seek assurances that the Cities will be kept informed regarding the
implementation of the Site remedy under the settlement." Q
28 _
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 79 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 1 of 3

1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the Motion and enter the Decree.
2 The Court adopts the legal standard cited by the parties in the Motion For Entry ofthe
3 Decree, which is incorporated herein. Thus, so long as the consent decree is "reasonable,
4 fair, and consistent with the purposes that [the statute] is intended to serve," it shall be
5 entered. United States v. Montrose Chemical Corp. of California, 50 F.3d 741, 746 (9"‘ Cir.
6 1995). The Court does not have the authority to modify the Decree, but must either accept
7 or reject it as submitted. § Officers for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 688 F.2d 615, 630
8 (9‘" Cir. 1982). All the while, the Court is mindful that the underlying purpose ofthe review
9 is to detemiine whether the decree adequately protects the public interest. & United States
10 v. BP Exploration & Oil Co., 167 F. Supp. 2d 1045, 1049 QLD. Ind. 2001).
ll The Decree provides that Defendants will conduct all necessary investigatory and
12 remedial activities at the Phoenix—Goodyear Airport (North) Superfund Site (the "Site") in
13 Goodyear, Arizona. In addition, it provides that Defendants will pay $6.7 million to
14 reimburse the United States for its past costs and provides for payment of future response
15 costs. Further, to resolve the United States' claims for civil penalties and punitive damages
16 for failure to comply with the unilateral administrative orders, it requires Defendants to pay
17 a civil penalty of $500,000 and perform a Brownfields Inventory, Assessment, and
18 Remediation Supplemental Enviromnental Project within the City of Goodyear, Arizona,
19 valued at $1 million. @ Memorandum ln Support of Motion To Enter Partial Consent
20 Decree p. 3 (Doc. #75). Thus, on its face, the Decree addresses the hazards to the
21 environment and public health in that it requires Defendants to perform the remedy selected
22 by the Environmental Protection Agency to address the releases and threatened releases of
23 hazardous substances at the Site. The proposed Decree serves the Comprehensive
24 Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act's ("CERCLA") goals by ensuring
25 -_
26
27 After considering these comments, the United States concluded that they "do not raise issues
that would cause it to withdraw its consent to the Decree" and proceeded to seek entry of the
28 Decree by the Court. Q
- 2 -
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 79 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 2 of 3

I remediation of the Site and providing for the reimbursement ofthe United States' response
2 costs.
3 Having considered the proposed decree and supporting documents, the Court finds
4 that this standard has been satisfied. As such, the parties' Motion will be granted, andthe
5 Decree entered.
6
7 Accordingly,
8 IT IS ORDERED that the United States' Unopposed Motion For Entry ofthe Partial
9 Consent Decree (Doc. # 75) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file the Partial
10 Consent Decree lodged on April ll, 2006 (Doc. #71, 72).
ll
12 DATED this Q22day of June, 2006.
14
(Q t
“ Q
is *v ‘ I ’
16 United tates District Judge
l7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 3 -
Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS Document 79 Filed 06/27/2006 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 79

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 79

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:03-cv-02226-ROS

Document 79

Filed 06/27/2006

Page 3 of 3