Central Eureka Mine ca: ~1930s?
CENTRAL EUREKA MINE SITE CERCLA CLEANUP AND COSTS RECOVERY • Background: - 1850s to 1958: Historic operations of the Central Eureka Mine - 1970s to early 1990s: Residential developments around mine tailings - 1994: California DTSC’s Preliminary Site Assessment (PSA)
U.S. EPA’S SITE ACTIONS 1994 – 2001 • Soil testing; determine site boundaries • Develop Emergency Removal Plan (ERP) and action memorandum • Identify and negotiate with PRPs in cleanup participation • Implementation of ERP
Mesa de Oro Residential Plan LEGEND PRP AlliedSignal PRP Kaplan/Nehemiah 1 Numbered lots on which 14/16 18/20 CET performed work 13 270 280 290 275 300 310 320 185 195 175 Lot 14 330 325 Central 340 335 Eureka Mine 350 345 55/65 Lot 13 75/85 360 355 115 Clean Fill Staging Area 370 365 Lot 24 350 Lot 12 Bryson Drive 100104 110 Lot 2 Lot 5 70 114 360
SUMMARY OF U.S. EPA’S RESPONSE COSTS: CENTRAL EUREKA MINE SITE Parameter Subtotal % U.S. EPA Payroll & Travel $230,021 5.36 U.S. Coast Guard – Strike Force 60,071 1.40 U.S DHS-ATSDR Health Studies 194,333 4.53 Emergency Removal Cleanup Contractor 2,338,182 54.49 Damaged Property Compensation 5,357 0.12 Technical Assist. Consult. – Ecology & Envir. 480,043 11.19 Records Management & Support Services 20,230 0.47 U.S. EPA Indirect Costs 962,857 22.44 Total Site Costs $4,291,087 100.00
PRE-LITIGATION COSTS RECOVERY INITIATIVES 2004 – 2005 • EPA’s demands on PRPs for reimbursement of agency response costs • Pre-litigation settlement negotiations: 2004 – 2005
SELECTED DEFENSES TO JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR U.S. EPA’S CERCLA RESPONSE COSTS: CENTRAL EUREKA MINE SITE • Divisibility of site and environmental harm • Expiration of applicable statutes of limitations • Innocent landowner defense • Challenge EPA’s claimed costs: - not consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP) - arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with applicable law
COSTS RECOVERY LITIGATION 2006 – 2008 • United States v. Honeywell International and Kaplan & Nehemiah • Kaplan’s defense and counterclaim on Honeywell International • Kaplan’s third party complaint for contribution v. 36 third party defendants - Settlements - Court Judgment in Kaplan v. Bruner on liability and allocation
Recommend
More recommend
