Company ordered to pay $97 million in Hunters Point Shipyard environmental lawsuit
ipyard, originally established as a repair facility during World War II, was later utilized by the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory until the 1960s for decontaminating ships exposed to atomic weapons and studying radiation effects. Transitioning away from military use in 1974, the site was subsequently listed on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Priorities List in the 1980s, earmarked for long-term remediation efforts. Tetra Tech EC was contracted by the Navy to assess radiation levels and address any hazardous zones.
In 2018, Tetra Tech EC came under the scrutiny of federal prosecutors due to allegations of tampering with soil samples intended for radiological analysis and manipulating data. Following this, two employees were convicted and sentenced to eight months in prison for falsifying records, bringing the company’s remedial practices into question. In response to these legal challenges, Tetra Tech EC spokesperson, Sam Singer, remarked that the firm opted for a settlement agreement and consent decree to avoid the prolonged litigation, emphasizing that the settlement does not imply an admission of guilt on the company’s part.
While the recent $97 million settlement with the federal government represents a significant step towards resolving the legal dispute, Tetra Tech EC’s legal entanglements are far from over. Attorney David Anton, involved in representing the whistleblowers since 2013, noted that the settlement still necessitates judicial review. Furthermore, other fraud allegations against the company brought forth by whistleblowers remain ongoing and unaffected by the settlement agreement. In addition to these legal challenges, Tetra Tech EC is facing lawsuits from residents of Bayview Hunters Point and developer Five Point Holdings.
The settlement signifies a pivotal moment in the protracted legal battle surrounding the Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup, shedding light on the complexities and repercussions of environmental remediation efforts. The case underscores the significance of transparent and accurate remediation practices, particularly in sites with a history of hazardous material exposure. As Tetra Tech EC navigates through the aftermath of this settlement, the broader implications for environmental cleanup projects and the need for stringent oversight and compliance remain at the forefront of the discourse.
Despite the settlement with the federal government, the continued legal hurdles facing Tetra Tech EC underscore the enduring challenges associated with ensuring environmental safety and accountability in remediation efforts. The unfolding legal saga serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining integrity and adherence to regulatory standards in environmental cleanup initiatives to safeguard public health and environmental well-being.
