http://www.abqjournal.com/539546/abqnewsseeker/report-state-consider-fining-los-alamos-lab-another-100-million.html
According to the article, The fight is between NMED and DOE regarding violations of the consent order.
“The ball is entirely in the Department of Energy’s court right now,” Flynn said. “We’ve structured the compliance orders in a manner to give DOE an opportunity to take accountability for the events that occurred and to step up and work with us on a constructive path forward in order to resolve all of the issues that caused this release. We’ve indicated all along that if DOE is willing to take accountability for the events that caused the release and work with the state then we’d be willing to release them from any further liability at Los Alamos and WIPP. If DOE is not willing to take accountability for what’s occurred then they are going to face significant additional penalties.”
Obviously both NMED and DOE understand that the fines are not "against" LANS or LANL. If LANS gets socked for this, it will be by DOE, not NMED.
According to the article, The fight is between NMED and DOE regarding violations of the consent order.
“The ball is entirely in the Department of Energy’s court right now,” Flynn said. “We’ve structured the compliance orders in a manner to give DOE an opportunity to take accountability for the events that occurred and to step up and work with us on a constructive path forward in order to resolve all of the issues that caused this release. We’ve indicated all along that if DOE is willing to take accountability for the events that caused the release and work with the state then we’d be willing to release them from any further liability at Los Alamos and WIPP. If DOE is not willing to take accountability for what’s occurred then they are going to face significant additional penalties.”
Obviously both NMED and DOE understand that the fines are not "against" LANS or LANL. If LANS gets socked for this, it will be by DOE, not NMED.
Comments
DOE and LANS are designated as "Respondents" in the original $54M violation letter and in the attached Consent Order. The letter also says "New Mexico will not tolerate any attempts by DOE to divert resources from the environmental or operational budget at the federal facilities in our state to pay for the penalties assessed in the attached Order."
LANS therefore has no funds that can be used to pay this fine, or any other. Previous award fees have all been distributed to the parent companies. The parent companies cannot be made to pay; that's what "LLC" means. So DOE is solely on the hook.
February 10, 2015 at 5:22 PM
Nothing, if you understand what an LLC is.
February 10, 2015 at 5:33 PM
There are cases, up to the US Supreme Court, that "pierce corporate veil". In almost all of them, it was a case of environmental damage caused by a LLC that was ultimately held to be the financial responsibility of parent organizations.
Yeah, and you expect this route to be taken by DOE, under Congressional scrutiny? I doubt it.
What you have here is a crazy game of chicken being played by both sides. The NNSA and LANS say "Go ahead and fine us and watch as with layoff hundreds of well paid employees in your state". The State of NM says "Pay these $54 million in fines right now or we will decide to hit you with even more fines that will total a quarter billion."
This thing has become very ugly and will probably be tied up in the court for years to come. And for the state of NM to threaten that they'll dramatically increase the fines unless LANL immediately pays up on the current fines is a blatant example of blackmail. It's time for Gov. Susanna Martinez to get on the phone ASAP and try to defuse this mess with the NNSA and LANL. Where is she?
February 10, 2015 at 9:26 PM
Nope, they've never said that, and they won't. Politically untenable. NM and other congressional delegations from NNSA-site states would rise up and smite DOE and NNSA. No other state is going to support DOE/NNSA for polluting New Mexico. DOE will back down and a deal will be negotiated, probably involving LANS losing the LANL contract. Fasten your seatbelts.
February 10, 2015 at 9:26 PM
The beauty of this issue is that she instigated this "issue" by forcing LANS to meet unrealistic goals on the 3706 Transuranic Campaign. The woman is a pure genius. I hope she puts the $152M from DOE/NNSA to "good use" and doesn't just remodel the Governor's mansion, buy new furniture, china, and silverware. God forbid another evening gown!
OK, now this gets real interesting. Specifically for environmental cases, the standard has come down to the commonality of the board of directors. If two LLCs share the same board, or almost the same exact one, then courts have ruled them to be inseparable for liability. Since LLNS and LANS have nearly identical boards, the LLNL fee may be one option to pay off the LANL fines.
The courts have ruled two nearly identical LLCs share liabilities and profits of each other as needed? Interesting.
If true, the courts may officially view LANS and LLNS as LANSLLNS.
OK, now this gets real interesting. Specifically for environmental cases, the standard has come down to the commonality of the board of directors. If two LLCs share the same board, or almost the same exact one, then courts have ruled them to be inseparable for liability. Since LLNS and LANS have nearly identical boards, the LLNL fee may be one option to pay off the LANL fines.
February 11, 2015 at 7:08 AM
The LANS BoG and the LLNS BoG function as one in the same, have the same subcommittees, meet at the same places and times, etc. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. Yep, the boards are, for all practical purposes, inseparable. If the earlier poster is correct, this does open up the LLNL fee as one possible way to collect on the LANL environmental fines.