Opinion ID: 3033866
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Fire Prevention.

Text: The Hanford Fire Department (HFD) was a subsidiary of DynCorp during the relevant period.2 Thus, HFD is a private entity and is the subcontractor retained to provide “Emergency Services.” HFD’s fire chief at relevant times was Don Good. The government argued that the plain terms of these contracts established that the DOE contracted with Fluor, which subcontracted with the HFD, to provide fire prevention and fire protection on the Hanford Site, including the ALE. Accordingly, the government contended (and the district court 2 HFD later became part of Fluor itself. 13004 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES agreed) that the independent-contractor exception to the FTCA immunizes the United States from the alleged negligence that could have contributed to the 24 Command Fire.
The Fluor contract with the DOE provided in pertinent part: [Fluor] shall provide technical and administrative emergency management services to Hanford Emer- gency Preparedness. The work scope includes maintaining the Hanford Emergency Management Plan and Implementing Procedures, managing the Han- ford Site Emergency Exercise Program, maintaining the site emergency response organization and facilities, training site emergency response organization members. . . . [Fluor] shall provide an emergency response capability for facilities under its control that implements the Hanford Emergency Management Plan . . . as modi- fied from time to time. In turn, the subcontract between Fluor and HFD provided that HFD would be responsible for “Emergency Services.” As quoted earlier, “Emergency Services” include “Fire Protection Engineering” and “Fire Prevention.” That is, unless the contract was somehow modified later, HFD was required by contract to provide fire protection and prevention to all of the Hanford Site. Hence, we look to the terms and circumstances of the MOU by which DOE transferred (or began transferring) management of the ALE to FWS in June of 1997. The MOU did not transfer actual title of the ALE to FWS; the ALE was still part of Hanford and was still owned by DOE. The MOU dealt with management responsibility. Section 4.3 of the MOU provided: AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13005 FWS will be responsible for coordination of the law enforcement, fire protection, emergency preparedness, and emergency medical services programs and general maintenance and administration for the ALE. FWS will coordinate with the appropriate DOE-RL POC [Department of Energy Richland Point of Con- tact, who was Craig Christenson] as identified in Attachment 4 of the Permit, for fire protection and emergency preparedness issues and maintenance and administrative issues of the ALE. Section 5.5 provided: Until FWS has developed its own approved manage- ment plan and has upgraded its own fire protection capabilities for the ALE, the appropriate DOE[-]RL POC as identified in Attachment 4 of the Permit, is responsible for providing FWS fire protection, including initial attack and incident management, for ALE structures and wildlands, on a cost reimburs- able basis from FWS. (Emphasis added). There was no such “approved management plan” when the wildfire occurred in June 2000, meaning that at that time — at least as between DOE and FWS — DOE was still “responsible for providing FWS fire protection, including initial attack and incident management, for ALE structures and wildlands, on a cost reimbursable basis from FWS.” The government contends that such responsibilities were ongoing as part of the Fluor contract, and related subcontract with HFD. The MOU required FWS “to manage the ALE consistent with the existing Arid Lands Ecology (ALE) Facility Management Plan . . . dated February 1993, prepared by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory [a contractor a.k.a. Battelle Memorial Institute] and approved by DOE-RL.” In turn, section 4.2.7 of the 1993 ALE Facility Management Plan contained the following language regarding “Fire Management”: 13006 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES Policy: Minimize the potential for human-caused fires on the ALE by maintaining fire breaks along site boundaries to limit the passage of fires onto or off ALE, and if fires should occur, fighting fires along existing fire breaks, roadways, and near buildings. Implementation: All fire fighting is the responsibility of the Hanford Site Fire Department. The ALE facility manager will periodically review the fire prevention and fire fighting plans with the Hanford Site fire protection personnel, ensuring that facility users take appropriate steps to minimize the possibility of causing a fire and advising facility users of actions that they should take if they encounter a fire while in the field. Procedures for establishing firebreaks and protecting them from wind erosion need to be established. The 1993 ALE Facility Management Plan contains a disclaimer indicating “the views and opinions of [Battelle] expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof,” although the plan was “approved” by the DOE. The document also indicates that “[t]he DOE retains final authority over all decisions, policies, and operations regarding ALE Site management.” It states that “[t]he ALE facility manager will use this plan to guide decisions on managing the [ALE].” After the June 20, 1997, MOU was signed, the DOE notified Fluor of the management transfer and indicated that Fluor was “to continue to provide fire protection services . . . to ALE.” A letter dated July 17, 1997, from the DOE to Fluor stated: The MOU requires fire protection services to con- tinue to be provided to ALE until FWS has devel- oped its own approved management plan, and AUTERY v. UNITED STATES 13007 upgraded its own fire protection capabilities for the ALE. Effective immediately you [Fluor] are directed to continue to provide fire protection services from the Hanford Fire Department (HFD) to ALE on a cost reimbursable basis to FWS, and coordinate planning activities directly with the FWS[.] (Emphasis added). On October 6, 1997, Fluor in turn officially notified DynCorp (and HFD) of the DOE’s July 17, 1997, letter. Fluor’s letter to DynCorp provided: The referenced letter [of July 17, 1997] (attached) provides direction for the Hanford Fire Department to continue to provide fire protection services to the Arid Lands Ecology Reserve on a cost reimbursable basis to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. You are requested to proceed with implementation of this request and to notify this office when the arrangements are completed. (Emphasis added). Also, in September of 1998, FWS entered into a direct agreement with HFD regarding fire protection of the ALE. A September 14, 1998, “Cooperative Agreement” provided: 1. Purpose The Cooperative Agreement is entered into between [FWS] and [HFD] to providing [sic] fire protection and wildfire suppression for the [FWS] managed lands located within the Hanford Site boundaries in Benton County, Washington [i.e., the ALE]. .... 3. Scope 13008 AUTERY v. UNITED STATES A. The HFD agrees to: 1. Provide first response fire fighting personnel and equipment (units) as available for fires within the bounda- ries of [the ALE]; 2. Provide ongoing fire fighting, medi- cal, and overhead team services as available, and at the request of [FWS]; .... 4. Notify [FWS] as immediately when a fire occurs and HFD responds to a fire on ALE. . . .