LSI 2010 NRD Santa Fe final conference binder 072110.pdf
LSI 2010 NRD Santa Fe final conference binder 072110.pdf LSI 2010 NRD Santa Fe final conference binder 072110.pdf
Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP Speaker 24b: 2 CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT OF NRD CLAIMS A. Cooperative Assessments A cooperative assessment is one where the Trustees and the PRPs are jointly involved in conducting one or more phases of the NRD assessment process, including injury assessment, restoration planning, and implementation. The degree of cooperation can vary, from simply sharing assessment plans and data, to a fully cooperative process where the Trustees and the PRPs jointly design and conduct studies and work together to develop and implement a restoration program. The DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, is presently engaged in cooperative assessments at several sites involving injury to tribal resources. The OPA NRD regulations require that PRPs be given the opportunity to participate in the damage assessment process and, when appropriate, to jointly conduct a coordinated and open damage assessment with the Trustees. Unlike CERCLA, cooperative assessments under OPA are now commonplace. However, the extent of cooperation and the roles of the Trustees and the PRPs vary by incident. And, while the rules encourage cooperation, they do not provide any specific guidelines on how to develop a cooperative assessment process. The absence of such guidance led NOAA’ s DARRP to develop a Cooperative Assessment Process (“CAP”) web site, which serves as a clearinghouse of information for cooperative assessment frameworks, approaches, and tools. 1 The CAP was developed to promote the coordinated efforts of industry interests and governments (federal, state, and tribal) to facilitate the restoration of natural resources and their services injured or lost by hazardous substance releases and oil spills. The goal of the CAP is to optimize NRD assessment and restoration opportunities in the response or cleanup phase. The incentive to PRPs to participate in the CAP is a greater voice and more control over the timing of restoration actions, with reduced NRD assessment costs and reduced risk of litigation. The Trustees’ incentive is the expedited restoration of injured natural resources and associated services, and receiving PRP funding up front or through timely reimbursement. As a general rule, PRPs and Trustees agreeing to engage in cooperative assessment execute a Funding and Participation Agreement, under which the PRP agrees to pay all, or some percentage, of the Trustees’ assessment costs. One CAP approach under OPA NRD assessment is the formation of Joint Assessment Teams (“JATs”) in various parts of the country. The West Coast JAT, an ad hoc group of representatives from various state and federal trustee agencies, spill response organizations, and representatives from the oil industry formed in 1996, meets three times a year to discuss a variety of topics related to conducting cooperative assessments including collection of ephemeral data, injury assessment, NRDA case histories, recent developments in NRDA, and available resources. They have published recommendations for conducting cooperative NRD assessment, which include, among other things, (1) factors to consider early during the response phase of an incident to facilitate cooperation and expedite the damage assessment process; (2) suggestions 1 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/partner/cap/index.html DC1 1763595v.1 Law Seminars International | Natural Resource Damages | 07/16/10 in Santa Fe, NM
Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP Speaker 24b: 3 for developing a coordinated NRD assessment response organization; and (3) suggestions for developing an interim cooperative assessment agreement. 2 B. Integration of Remediation and NRD Activities at Department of Energy Facilities In 1996, the GAO estimated likely NRD at Department of Energy sites to be within the range of $2.8 billion to $13 billion, although it found that damages within the range of $2.3 billion to $20.5 billion were possible. 3 In addition to being a PRP at a site, however, the DOE is frequently the “lead agency” for remediation and a natural resource trustee. As lead agency, DOE will perform or oversee the response action. As natural resource trustee, DOE will be responsible, along with any co-trustees, for determining whether and to what extent natural resources under its trusteeship have been damaged. Other trusteeship interests on a DOE site may include other federal agencies which are trustees for particular natural resources; in such cases, DOE will be the primary federal trustee for resources on its facilities. At most DOE sites, state and tribal authorities will be the most important non-DOE trustees. In 1997, the DOE developed a policy for integrating natural resource concerns into response actions. 4 The 1997 Policy, which provides guidance on fulfilling DOE’s multiple roles, “requires heads of field organizations and program and project managers to consider natural resource risk issues and, when appropriate, seek to resolve them with the other natural resource trustees, such as States and Tribes.” DOE has sought to establish site-specific trustee councils at sites such as Hanford in Washington and Oak Ridge in Tennessee, which work to integrate natural resources concerns into remedial decision making and restoration planning. The most recent example of DOE’s integration of natural resource concerns into response actions is at Hanford, where two state and three tribal trustees filed suit against it, seeking past and future response costs, NRD, and a declaratory judgment of liability for natural resource injury assessment costs. 5 Shortly after briefing closed on DOE’s motion to dismiss the trustees’ claims for declaratory judgment of liability for assessment costs, but before argument was heard, DOE announced that it would be integrating a phased NRD assessment into its ongoing cleanup actions at the site. 6 C. Using Environmental Conflict Resolution in NRD Cases 2 West Coast Joint Assessment Team, Recommendations for Conducting Cooperative Natural Resource Damage Assessment (April 2007), available at http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/partner/cap/pdf/2007/02004%20JAT%20Recommendations%20Final.pdf. 3 GAO, Natural Resources Damage at DOE (1996, GAOLRCED-96-206R), at 2. In 1997, DOE provided its own report concerning its potential NRD liability. While noting a large range of uncertainty, it estimated liability to be in the range of $1.4 to $2.5 billion. See Richard B. Stewart, Memorandum Re: Legal and Related Policy Issues for Integrating Remediation and NRD Strategies at DOE Sites (6/21/05) at 21. 4 DOE, “Policy on the Integration of Natural Resource Concerns into Response Actions” (1997) (“1997 Policy”). 5 USDC, Eastern District of Washington Case No. CY-02-3105-LRS. 6 DOE Press Release, “DOE to Conduct Natural Resource Damage Assessment Process at Hanford,” (4/3/07), available at http://www.hanford.gov/communication/reporter/attachmentsiRL/2007/RL-07-0006.pdf. DC1 1763595v.1 3 Law Seminars International | Natural Resource Damages | 07/16/10 in Santa Fe, NM
- Page 281 and 282: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 283 and 284: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 285 and 286: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 287 and 288: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 289 and 290: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 291 and 292: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 293 and 294: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 295 and 296: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 297 and 298: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 299 and 300: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 301 and 302: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 303 and 304: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 305 and 306: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 307 and 308: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 309 and 310: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 311 and 312: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 313 and 314: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 315 and 316: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 317 and 318: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 319: Allan Kanner of Kanner & Whiteley,
- Page 322 and 323: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 324 and 325: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 326 and 327: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 328 and 329: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 331: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 335 and 336: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 337 and 338: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 339 and 340: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 341 and 342: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 343 and 344: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 345 and 346: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 347 and 348: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 349 and 350: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 351 and 352: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 353: Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP
- Page 357 and 358: Robert E. Unsworth of Industrial Ec
- Page 359 and 360: Robert E. Unsworth of Industrial Ec
- Page 361 and 362: Robert E. Unsworth of Industrial Ec
- Page 363 and 364: Robert E. Unsworth of Industrial Ec
- Page 365 and 366: Rick Dunford of Environmental Econo
- Page 367 and 368: Rick Dunford of Environmental Econo
- Page 369 and 370: Rick Dunford of Environmental Econo
- Page 371: Rick Dunford of Environmental Econo
- Page 374 and 375: William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desv
- Page 376 and 377: William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desv
- Page 378 and 379: William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desv
- Page 380 and 381: William H. Desvousges of W. H. Desv
Angus Macbeth of Sidley Austin LLP Speaker 24b: 2<br />
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE SETTLEMENT OF <strong>NRD</strong> CLAIMS<br />
A. Cooperative Assessments<br />
A cooperative assessment is one where the Trustees and the PRPs are jointly involved in<br />
conducting one or more phases of the <strong>NRD</strong> assessment process, including injury assessment,<br />
restoration planning, and implementation. The degree of cooperation can vary, from simply<br />
sharing assessment plans and data, to a fully cooperative process where the Trustees and the<br />
PRPs jointly design and conduct studies and work together to develop and implement a<br />
restoration program. The DOI, Bureau of Indian Affairs, is presently engaged in cooperative<br />
assessments at several sites involving injury to tribal resources.<br />
The OPA <strong>NRD</strong> regulations require that PRPs be given the opportunity to participate in the<br />
damage assessment process and, when appropriate, to jointly conduct a coordinated and open<br />
damage assessment with the Trustees. Unlike CERCLA, cooperative assessments under OPA are<br />
now commonplace. However, the extent of cooperation and the roles of the Trustees and the<br />
PRPs vary by incident. And, while the rules encourage cooperation, they do not provide any<br />
specific guidelines on how to develop a cooperative assessment process. The absence of such<br />
guidance led NOAA’ s DARRP to develop a Cooperative Assessment Process (“CAP”) web site,<br />
which serves as a clearinghouse of information for cooperative assessment frameworks,<br />
approaches, and tools. 1<br />
The CAP was developed to promote the coordinated efforts of industry interests and<br />
governments (federal, state, and tribal) to facilitate the restoration of natural resources and their<br />
services injured or lost by hazardous substance releases and oil spills. The goal of the CAP is to<br />
optimize <strong>NRD</strong> assessment and restoration opportunities in the response or cleanup phase. The<br />
incentive to PRPs to participate in the CAP is a greater voice and more control over the timing of<br />
restoration actions, with reduced <strong>NRD</strong> assessment costs and reduced risk of litigation. The<br />
Trustees’ incentive is the expedited restoration of injured natural resources and associated<br />
services, and receiving PRP funding up front or through timely reimbursement. As a general<br />
rule, PRPs and Trustees agreeing to engage in cooperative assessment execute a Funding and<br />
Participation Agreement, under which the PRP agrees to pay all, or some percentage, of the<br />
Trustees’ assessment costs.<br />
One CAP approach under OPA <strong>NRD</strong> assessment is the formation of Joint Assessment Teams<br />
(“JATs”) in various parts of the country. The West Coast JAT, an ad hoc group of<br />
representatives from various state and federal trustee agencies, spill response organizations, and<br />
representatives from the oil industry formed in 1996, meets three times a year to discuss a variety<br />
of topics related to conducting cooperative assessments including collection of ephemeral data,<br />
injury assessment, <strong>NRD</strong>A case histories, recent developments in <strong>NRD</strong>A, and available resources.<br />
They have published recommendations for conducting cooperative <strong>NRD</strong> assessment, which<br />
include, among other things, (1) factors to consider early during the response phase of an<br />
incident to facilitate cooperation and expedite the damage assessment process; (2) suggestions<br />
1 http://www.darrp.noaa.gov/partner/cap/index.html<br />
DC1 1763595v.1<br />
Law Seminars International | Natural Resource Damages | 07/16/10 in <strong>Santa</strong> <strong>Fe</strong>, NM