Law and the Environment

Recent Appellate Court May Expose Companies for Disclosures in Title V Deviation Reports

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently (May 27, 2016) reversed a federal district court in a citizen’s suit that sough hundreds of millions of dollars in civil penalties under the federal Clean Air Act for alleged thousand of violations.  In the case Environment Texas Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., the district court had ruled that only 94 of the allegations were actually violations, and that no penalty was in order.  In reversing this decision, the Fifth Circuit may have opened the door to civil penalties for all of the statements in Title V Deviation Reports that indicate a violation of the Title V permit or regulations have occurred.  This raises significant issues as companies are required to make deviation reports every year, and in most, cases, it is difficult to avoid any deviations in such reports.

 

“Know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em”: When to Disclose All in an Environmental Criminal Investigation

Kenny Rogers sang a song years ago with the lines “Know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” While referring to a poker game and a life lesson, I was reminded of the song in a recent criminal investigation a client was facing.  In these investigations, you always have to decide how much you will volunteer versus waiting on specific requests from environmental criminal investigators or attorneys.Making the decision on how much to volunteer is a true judgment call.

In some cases, like the one I just worked on, you have to decide if the facts demonstrate a clear lack of criminal intent or knowing violation in the case of most state and environmental statutes.  Some are based on strict liability or negligence, but most are “knowing” violations.  The line between civil and criminal enforcement is often largely a matter of enforcement discretion by environmental agencies or attorneys, prosecutors, agency attorneys, or district attorneys.

Evaluating the facts and circumstances, and how they may be perceived by the individuals involved is critical.  Different people will see matters differently.  One sees something as a mistake, others as an intentional, knowing act.

Sometimes this may mean federal and state agencies, sometimes two or three.  Occasionally, a local city or county investigator may want to be involved.  In addition to environmental agencies, in Texas EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, you may face review by wildlife agencies such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife.

In the right case, it can be productive to disclose the facts and make facilities available for tour by the investigators.  It can be effective to avoid a criminal investigation to disclose all and push for a decision that the matter should be referred to civil enforcement representatives, rather than being investigated by the criminal side of the agency house.

Often a rather early meeting and provision of documents and information may gain great confidence from the criminal investigators that the parties under review acted in good faith, but for whatever reason violated the law, even causing environmental damage.  Avoiding the criminal investigation can be more important for reputation of the entity and potentially even stock price.  Criminal environmental investigations tend to gain focus by the media and reverberate through the Internet and social media.  A turn from the criminal to the civil can avoid much of the damaging reputational impact.  For some parties that work with the government, criminal investigations can result in debarment from federal, state, or local contracts—with even greater damage than any fine.

When an event occurs that leads to a criminal investigation, a rapid legal analysis and strategy development is crucial.  Sometimes, it makes a significant difference if the alleged violator acts quickly and presents information and explanation before any subpoena or other request for information is received.  

The pro-active disclosure strategy does not fit every case. Sometimes waiting for any requests for information or documents is the best strategy.  Every instance must be considered based on its unique facts and actions by the entity’s or contractor’s employees.  

You have to “know when to hold ‘em, know when to fold ‘em.” I have found that in the right case, the full disclosure approach can turn a potentially damaging criminal investigation into a civil settlement of a small penalty.  

EPA Issues Final Greenhouse Gas Monitoring and Reporting Rule

On September 22, 2009, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  issued its final greenhouse gas monitoring and reporting rule that will require as many as 10,000 facilities in the United States to measure their greenhouse gases (GHGs) and start reporting them in early 2011 (GHG Reporting Rule).  Some industry groups had asked EPAfor a delay until 2011 to start monitoring and 2012 to start reporting their GHG emissions.  EPA chose not to provide such a delay and regulated facilities only have three and a half months to prepare for the monitoring that they must begin January 1, 2010.  This may be particularly challenging for those companies that must install or modify continuous emission monitors.

Following a Congressional amendment to the Omnibus Spending Bill in December of 2007 that required the EPA to issue a proposed rule by September of last year and a final rule by June of this year, the EPA under the Obama Administration has now moved forward with an initial step in establishing a GHG regulatory system.

In the GHG Reporting Rule, EPA has adopted a substantial program of GHG monitoring and reporting with a publicly available registry.  The program is “economy wide” and covers 85-90 percent of GHG emissions in the United States.

The EPA is in part implementing the GHG Reporting Rule to gather information for future regulatory and policy decisions. Thus, many of those sources that would be required to report under the GHG Reporting Rule may also be those that would be regulated under a federal GHG cap and trade system being discussed by Congress and the Obama Administration.

While the rule does not impose any reduction obligations, as prior reporting rules, such as the Toxic Release Reporting of SARA Title III, have shown, companies reporting emissions “manage what they measure.”  In other words, once companies must publicly report their emissions, they start to invest in ways to reduce those emissions.

I.     WHEN MUST YOU START MONITORING?

As stated above the monitoring must begin on January 1, 2010.

 

II. WHEN MUST YOU START REPORTING TO EPA?

The first report will have to be submitted to EPA by March 31, 2011, and then for subsequent years thereafter.

 

III.    WHAT GASES ARE COVERED?

The EPA has identified the traditional GHGs for reporting: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and certain other fluorinated gases. For purposes of comparing emissions of the various gases using a single unit, the gases are converted into the equivalent GHG impact of CO2. The conversion is based on the principle that the other gases have a greater impact in terms of causing the greenhouse effect and thereby global warming. As an example, one metric ton of methane emissions would be reported in terms of the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) of 21 metric tons. This is critical in understanding the threshold levels for application of the reporting requirements, as the non-CO2 GHG emissions may need to be converted to CO2e before determining whether the GHG reporting obligations apply to a particular facility.

IV.   WHAT FACILITIES ARE COVERED?

Four categories of facilities are required to measure and report their GHG emissions. In addition, vehicle manufacturers would be required to report the GHG emissions of their vehicles. We will focus on facility-based emitters in this Article.

1. Source Categories

The first category of facilities required to report under the GHG Reporting Rule are facilities that fall under a list of source categories identified by the EPA. These sources include, among others,

• coal-fired electric generating plants subject to the Acid Rain program,
• aluminum,
• ammonia,
• cement,
• electronics,
• lime,
• petrochemical,
• petroleum refining,
• certain underground coal mines, and
• municipal landfills.

2. Other Facilities That Emit 25,000 Tons Per Year or More of CO2e of Combined Emissions From Listed Source Categories

The second category of sources required to report are facilities that emit 25,000 or more metric tons of CO2e per year of combined emissions from stationary fuel combustion units, miscellaneous uses of carbonate, and all source categories that are listed and located at the facility in any calendar year.

These sources include, among others,

• electricity generation,
• electronics,
• ethanol production,
• food processing,
• glass production,
• iron and steel production,
• ferrous alloy production,
• oil and natural gas systems,
• pulp and paper,
• industrial landfills, and
• wastewater treatment.

3. Facilities That Do Not Meet the First Two Source Categories, but That Emit 25,000 Metric Tons of CO2e Per Year From Stationary Fuel Combustion Sources

The third source of facilities required to report are those that meet all of the following conditions:

(1) the facility does not contain any source category designated for the first two groups of categories;

(2) the aggregate maximum rated heat input capacity of stationary fuel combustion units at the facility is 30 mmBtu/hr or greater; and

(3) the facility emits 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year or more from all stationary fuel combustion sources.

4. Entities That Sell, Import, or Export Fossil Fuels, Industrial GHGs, and CO2

The final category of entities required to submit GHG emission reports under the proposed GHG Reporting Rule are suppliers of coal, coal-based liquid fuels, petroleum products, natural gas and natural gas liquids, producers of industrial GHGs as listed in the Rule, importers and exporters of industrial GHGs and CO2, and importers and exporters of industrial GHGs and CO2 exceeding 25,000 metric tons of CO2e per year.

V. WHAT MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT APPROACH MUST BE USED?

The EPA reviewed several monitoring or measurement options in developing the GHG Reporting Rule. The EPA selected the option of combined direct emission measurement and facility-specific calculations. Facilities that already have continuous emission monitoring (CEM) devices are generally required to add a GHG measurement capability. Those that do not have CEM devices would have the choice to install them or to use facility-specific calculation methods.

VI.   WHAT CERTIFICATION AND VERIFICATION IS REQUIRED?

The EPA reviewed several options regarding certification and verification of the GHG emissions reported to the EPA. The agency decided to require certification by a designated representative of the facility submitting the report and to have the EPA verify the emissions report. No third-party verification is currently proposed.

VII.     WILL THE INFORMATION REPORTED TO EPA BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC?

The information provided by the regulated facilities will be made available to the general public by a website developed by EPA.

VIII. WHAT CORPORATE FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE AND CORPORATE STRATEGIES SHOULD BE DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF THIS NEW REGULATION?

The GHG Reporting Rule is one of the significant steps made by the Obama Administration into climate change regulation and extends GHG measurement and reporting to a large part of the economy. As companies continue to review and develop their strategies for evaluating the potential risks and opportunities that a GHG regulatory system and potential cap and trade system will present, the GHG Reporting Rule is the one of the first salvos in what will be a concerted effort by Congress and the President to impose a GHG regulatory system in the United States.  Since establishing a company’s “carbon footprint” is now mandatory, understanding the implications of the reporting and public disclosure of the amount of greenhouse gas emissions raises several issues.

With this rule and potential future legislation that may be passed as early as this year or early next year, many publicly traded companies should also consider their disclosures in their filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission to determine if any further description of the risks or opportunities presented by climate change legislation should be discussed in their public filings.

Companies that may be regulated by any future climate change legislation, whether state, federal, or both, should develop a climate change strategy. Such strategies should include an evaluation of the number of GHG or carbon allowances that may be required to comply with climate legislation. One allowance would be required for every ton of emissions of CO2e equivalent. In addition, those companies selling or importing fossil fuels may be required to obtain allowances for every ton of CO2e equivalent of fuel sold. In engaging in this planning, companies should consider the extent to which low cost offsets purchased today could reduce the ultimate liabilities of the company in the future.

Many utilities, oil and gas companies, and other potentially regulated companies are already investing in carbon offset projects or purchasing credits now. In what could be one of the most significant environmental regulatory programs in the history of the United States, planning today could pay off with significant savings or dividends in the future. For many companies, climate change impacts should be a key strategic issue for the board and management.

Thompson & Knight Attorney Publishes Article on Climate Risk Disclosure

Texas- "Earlier this month, Xcel Energy entered into a settlement with the state of New York as a result of an investigation of several publicly traded utility companies with coal-fired power plants," according to Thompson & Knight Environmental Partner Scott D. Deatherage. His article "Climate Risk Disclosure: Xcel Raises Questions" was published in the September 17, 2008 editions of Energy Law360 and Environmental Law360.

According to the article, "the attorney general's office alleged that Xcel and four other named utilities - AES Corporation, Dominion Resources, Dynegy, and Peabody Energy - had failed to properly disclose climate risk in the companies' public filings." Deatherage says the settlement raises important questions, including "to what extent should publicly traded utilities that operate coal-fired power plants consider the Xcel settlement as appropriate precedent for future disclosure in SEC filings?" and "to what extent does the settlement reflect further pressure or liability on operators of existing or proposed coal-fired power plants?" He concludes, "the combined actions of environmental groups, certain state governments, and public pension and other public funds to influence the behavior of corporate America, and ultimately the legal and legislative process, may prove to be one of the broadest and most effective such campaigns ever witnessed."

Xcel Energy Settlement with New York Attorney General Requires Greater Climate Risk Disclosure

Xcel Energy entered into a settlement with Andrew Cuomo, the Attorney General of New York, as a result of an investigation of several publicly traded utility companies that the Attorney General's office alleged failed to properly disclosure climate risk in the companies' public filings.  The other utility companies that are being investigated are AES Corporation, Dominion Resources, Dynegy, and Peabody Energy.  In the settlement, Xcel Energy agreed to a variety of additional disclosures relating to climate risk.

The agreement requires that Xcel provide detailed disclosure of climate change and associated risks in its “Form 10-K” filings, the annual report required under securities laws and regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to provide financial performance information to investors. 

The climate risk disclosure agreed to by Xcel includes analysis of the impact of the following: 

the potential impact of present and probable future climate change regulation and legislation;

climate-change related litigation;

physical impacts of climate change;

current carbon (or greenhouse gas) emissions;

projected increases in carbon emissions from planned coal-fired power plants;

company strategies for reducing, offsetting, limiting, or otherwise managing its global warming pollution emissions and expected global warming emissions reductions from these actions; and

corporate governance actions related to climate change, including whether environmental  performance is incorporated into officer compensation.

“This landmark agreement sets a new industry-wide precedent that will force companies to disclose   the true financial risks that climate change poses to their investors,” said Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. “Coal-fired power plants can significantly contribute to global warming and investors have the right to know all the associated risks. I commend Xcel Energy for working with my office to establish a standard that will improve our environment and our marketplace over the long-term.” 

Ceres has been a proponent of increased climate risk disclosure.  Ceres is a nonprofit organization, supported by what it asserts is institutional investors with more than $6 trillion in capital, including the treasurers and  comptrollers of Newy York, California, Florida, Maryland, Rhode Island and five other states, and two of the country's largest pension funds--CalPERS and CalSSTRS. 

Ceres President Mindy S. Lubber said, “This groundbreaking settlement will send ripples far beyond Xcel Energy. It serves notice that all companies face financial exposure from climate change and will be expected to better inform investors of their strategies for dealing with it.”

The Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's State Climate Change Program and the Deputy General Counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, cheered the settlement.

Obviously, these statements reflect the views of parties that are promoting greater disclosure and hope they will be successful in forcing some form of change in the corporate emissions of greenhouse gases. Industry reaction has not been published as yet.  Many industries may find this development to raise additional questions as to disclosure obligations when it comes to the potential physical impact of climate change, the financial impact of current and future regulations, and future potential litigation.

These questions are particularly important for utilities that operate coal-fired power plants.  The degree to which other publicly traded companies feel compelled to consider similar disclosure will be something that will unfold over the next year or so.    At present, there is perhaps considerable uncertainty as to what is legally required.  In 2009, we may see developments that help reduce the uncertainty as to what degree of climate disclosure is necessary as new federal greenhouse gas reporting requirements will be issued and climate change legislation may be passed.  Many proposed bills offered in Congress require that the SEC create guidance and then regulations governing climate risk disclosure.

Andrew Cuomo’s investigation of the financial disclosure of Xcel and the other utilities is only one part of a larger attack by environmental groups, certain state governments, and public pension and other public funds on coal-fired power plants and the companies that owne and operate them.  As Congress and the Whitehouse had been an impossible place to achieve any climate change legislation, the environmental groups moved to the state legislatures, have filed lawsuits to try to force action under federal and state statutes, and have brought public nuisance suits.  Finally, they have tried to force action through shareholder initiatives and petitions and through an attempt to pressure public companies, especially those that operate coal-fired power plants to disclose what the environmental groups believe to be significant financial risk from operating plants that emit significant greenhouse gases.

If these actions are successful, the use of coal may be curtailed or the operators of coal-fired plants may begin to install a means of capturing the carbon dioxide emissions from the plants and injecting it underground.  If either occurs, alternative forms of producing electricity or capturing and “sequestering” carbon dioxide may lead to higher electricity prices.  Any federal legislation that places controls on carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plant will likely increase power prices as well.

Chairman of Accounting Standards Board Challenges Wall Street Journal Editorial on Proposed New Accounting Standard That Would Affect Environmental Disclosure

The Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), Robert Herz, wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal challenging the editorial published in the paper criticizing the proposed new standard for reporting loss contingencies.  This standard largely covers environmental liability disclosure.

Herz rejects the Wall Street Journal editorial in his letter, stating, "Under the proposal, the amount that would be required to be disclosed is the claim amount, or, if there is no claim amount, the company's best estimate of its maximum exposure to loss. The Board attempted to insure the proposal would not require a company to "[show] its hand to plaintiffs' attorneys" as the editorial says. For example, the proposal allows companies to aggregate claim amounts, so that the plaintiffs attorneys would not be able to identify specific cases. We have also proposed an exemption for certain disclosure situations that would be clearly prejudicial to the company."

He goes on to defend the proposal, stating, "It is because of the strong and extensive input we've received from investors who want greater transparency relating to a wide range of contingencies -- including litigation -- that we are proposing these expanded disclosures. The new disclosures are aimed at providing information earlier to existing and potential investors in order to give them a greater understanding of the risks companies are facing. We believe that information would improve their ability to make informed investment decisions."

The truth may lie somewhere between the view of Herz and the Wall Street Journal writer.  The changes will likely present risks to public and private companies, but particularly public companies whose financial statements and 10Ks are available on the Internet for all to see, including plaintiff's lawyers.  If the changes are adopted, public companies will not only need to revamp how they measure and report loss contingencies, but for those of us who address these issues that arise under environmental statutes or tort suits, we may have to rethink how environmental claims are measured and reported, and consider what internal controls are necessary to ensure these claims are adequately measured.

Stay tuned for further developments in this potentially dramatic change in the reporting of environmental liabilities.

Accounting Board Proposes Changes in How Environmental and Other Loss Contingencies Would Have to Be Reported

The way companies report contingent liabilities, in particular environmental liabilities, in their financial statements would undergo significant changes if a proposal by the Financial Accounting Standards Board goes into effect. 

On June 5, 2008, FASB released for public comment Proposed Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, Disclosure of Certain Loss Contingencies. The proposed standard would significantly expand the quantitative and qualitative disclosure requirements for loss contingencies under SFAS 5 and 141(R). In issuing the draft, FASB is responding to investors and other users of financial statements who are seeking additional information to assess the likelihood, timing, and amount of future cash flows associated with loss contingencies.  The proposed standard would be effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2008, and interim and annual periods in subsequent fiscal years.

Responses from interested parties wishing to comment on the proposed standard must be received in writing by August 8, 2008. Interested parties should submit their comments by email to director@fasb.org, File Reference No. 1025-300.

Environmental managers, attorneys, chief financial officers, and accountants should pay attention to how FASB ultimately addresse this issue, and should submit comments if they want to express any concerns to FASB.

Pension Funds Reach Agreement with Dynegy to Disclose Climate Risks by the End of the Year

Two of the largest pension funds have forced Dynegy Inc., to agree to report on climate risk by the end of this year, and how the company will address this risk.  The California State Teachers' Retirement System and North Carolina Retirement Systems, both of which owned substantial shares in the company, filed a shareholder resolution with Dynegy in January to require the company to report on the feasibility of adopting specific greenhouse gas reduction goals for its existing and proposed power plants.

In exchange for an agreement by Dynegy to make the report, the two pension funds withdrew the resolution.  Dynegy is apparently developing a plan to disclose climate change information to its shareholders, which likely will include the company’s annual greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a plan for mitigating those emissions.  The mitigating steps may include purchase of greenhouse gas offsets or carbon credits.

At the same time, Dynegy is planning to construct coal-fired power plants in Arkansas, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada and Texas. Two plants are under construction in Arkansas and Texas.

This development indicates a growing capability of institutional investors to force climate change disclosure from major companies.

Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Bill Contains Climate Risk Disclosure Provision

As companies prepare for their SEC filings and issuance of annual reports the question of climate risk disclosure becomes an issue to consider. With the events and rapid developments in the courts, states, Congress, and in Bali, companies may find it of particular importance this year to review their environmental disclosures for potential additional statements about climate change and greenhouse gas regulation. Of course, this will depend on their business and the location of their facilities.

What is important to consider is the fact that three separate climate change bills filed in Congress call for the SEC to issue an interpretive release, including the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, that was the first climate change bill voted out of the Environment and Public Works Committee.  This bill may be considered by the full Senate in 2008.

The text of the climate risk disclosure provision, similar to provisions in two other Senate climate change bills, is found in Section 9002 of the Climate Security Act, S. 2191, and is set forth below:

(a) Regulations- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission (referred to in this section as the `Commission') shall promulgate regulations in accordance with section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m) directing each issuer of securities under that Act, to inform, based on the current expectations and projections and knowledge of facts of the issuer, securities investors of material risks relating to--

(1) the financial exposure of the issuer because of the net global warming pollution emissions of the issuer; and

(2) the potential economic impacts of global warming on the interests of the issuer.

(b) Uniform Format for Disclosure- In carrying out subsection (a), the Commission shall enter into an agreement with the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or another appropriate organization that establishes voluntary standards, to develop a uniform format for disclosing to securities investors information on the risks described in subsection (a).

(c) Interim Interpretive Release-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall issue an interpretive release clarifying that under items 101 and 303 of Regulation S-K of the Commission under part 229 of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act)--

(A) the commitments of the United States to reduce emissions of global warming pollution under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, done at New York on May 9, 1992, are considered to be a material effect; and

(B) global warming constitutes a known trend.

(2) PERIOD OF EFFECTIVENESS- The interpretive release issued under paragraph (1) shall remain in effect until the effective date of the final regulations promulgated under subsection (a).

This provision has not become law, but the SEC is currently reviewing a petition filed by various state pension funds and other socially conscious investors and environmental groups, asking for the SEC to issue an interpretive release to provide guidance for companies and to require climate risk disclosure.  Whether this provision becomes law or the SEC independently adopts an interpretive release, the demand for climate risk disclosure in Congress and a significant part of the institutional investment community suggests that corporations that may be impacted by future greenhouse gas emission regulation should evaluate their corporate strategy regarding climate risk disclosure.

Asarco Asks Bankruptcy Court to Dismiss $68 Million Claim Filed by State of Texas

From EnergyLaw360

By Christine Caulfield , christine.caulfield@portfoliomedia.com

Wednesday, Sep 19, 2007 --- Bankrupt copper mining company Asarco LLC has urged a bankruptcy court to quash a $68 million claim by Texas officials for environmental damage to the state's coast, a claim it argues was filed too late.

In an objection lodged with the court on Friday, Asarco said the damage claim filed in July 2006 by the Texas attorney general on behalf of the state's natural resource trustees was barred by the statute of limitations.  The claim, just one of scores against the bankrupt copper producer for environmental damage, relates to the company's Corpus Christi facility, which processed mineral ore in the production if zinc.

The Tucson, Ariz.-based company, which no longer operates the facility, argues the state was aware of the release of toxins from the site more than three years before making a claim to the court.  Claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, otherwise known as Superfund, have a three-year statute of limitations, and that statute begins to run on discovery of a possible claim, Asarco told Judge Richard Schmidt.

“The Trustees had knowledge of the alleged release and losses well before July 14, 2003, three years prior to filing a claim,” the company said.  The state's knowledge was outlined in the attorney general's own proof of claim and expert report, Asarco told the court, both of which contained surveys, notices, memoranda and orders from the state warning the site was releasing dangerous metals into the Corpus Christi harbor and bay.

“It is undisputed that the state possessed knowledge of the alleged loss and its connection the alleged releases of hazardous substances at the site long before 2003,” said Asarco.

Even assuming the court were to rule that the claim was not time-barred, all portions of the state's claim relating to damage that occurred before the December 1980 effected date of Superfund were barred, the company added.  Last month, Judge Schmidt approved a $31 million settlement between Asarco and the federal government over cleanup at its hazardous California Gulch smelter site in Leadville, Colorado.

The settlement resolved a $200 million lawsuit brought by U.S. environment officials and the state of Colorado more than 20 years ago. The site, which encompasses the entire town of Leadville and an 11-mile stretch of the Arkansas River, was added to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's national priority list as a hazardous wasteland in 1983.  In approving the settlement, Judge Schmidt ignored the protests of Asarco's parent company, Asarco Inc., which earlier this month asked the court for an order forcing the company to seek its consent before entering into settlements “over the parent's strong protest.”

The company had slammed Asarco's haste in settling the California Gulch claims, saying the debtors had entered into an agreement despite expert analysis showing the claims were highly inflated.

“Alarmingly, the California Gulch settlement may be just the first of many settlement seeking to resolve the environmental claims that are the subject of the ongoing estimation proceeding and that are asserted in the aggregate amount of over $6.77 billion,” said the company, which lost power over Asarco in December 2005, when the court approved a corporate governance stipulation which shook up the board of directors and effectively excluded it from participation in governance matters.

Asarco, which has been active in mining, smelting and refining for over a century, still faces environmental claims at nearly 100 other sites. Those claims have been asserted by the federal government, state governments, Indian tribes and private parties.  The company also faces more than 95,000 asbestos-related personal injury claims, court documents have revealed, with the total value of all claims estimated to be potentially as high as $25 billion.  Asarco filed for Chapter 11 protection on Aug. 9, 2005, listing assets and liabilities in excess of $100 million.