1	Riverkeeper Lawsuit Proposed Settlement MAY 13^th 2003 PUBLIC PRESENTATION
2	This Evening’s Agenda Introductions The History Environmental Conditions DEC’s Authority and Role The Lawsuit The Proposed Settlement Where Do We Go From Here
3	Introducing Hastings’ Team & Partners Hastings’ Legal Team Hastings is represented by Mark Chertok and Kate Sinding of Sive, Paget and Riesel, a law firm that has specialized in environmental law for 40 years. SP&R has represented Hastings for at least 15 years. Hastings’ Engineering Team Warren Riznychok of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. is the primary environmental engineering consultant representing Hastings. Malcolm Pirnie, a hundred-year-old firm, is the only purely environmental consulting firm in the US. The Riverkeeper’s Team The Riverkeeper is represented by Karl Coplan, Co-Director of the Pace Law School Environmental Law Clinic, and Bruce Bell of Carpenter Environmental Associates. CEA is a leading environmental consulting firm with over 25 years of experience.
4	The History Like much of the Hudson River shoreline in Westchester County, the 28-acre site is composed in large part of historic fill. The site was the home of over 100 years of heavy industrial activity. The last active owner of the site was Anaconda, which ceased operations in the mid-1970’s. Anaconda was later purchased by ARCO, which was recently purchased by BP and is now known as AR (Atlantic Richfield). The site was designated a New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Site by DEC in 1989.
5	DEC’s Authority and Role DEC is responsible under State law for selecting and mandating the final cleanup for the site. DEC’s preferred remedy will be presented in a proposed remedial action plan (PRAP). (DEC previously issued a PRAP for the site.) After receiving comments on the new PRAP, DEC will issue a record of decision (ROD) setting forth its final selected remedy for the site. The proposed settlement would only resolve the Riverkeeper and Village’s lawsuit against ARCO. It would not supplant DEC’s ongoing responsibility for ensuring that the site is cleaned up.
6	Environmental Conditions - Description of conditions - The Northwest Corner
7	Environmental Conditions High PCB concentrations in Northwest and Southwest Portions of the site. New York State cleanup guidelines: 1 part per million at surface level 10 parts per million subsurface or under impermeable cap
8
9	The Lawsuit April 1994: Riverkeeper initiates lawsuit to require ARCO to address PCB contamination on the site. May 1994: Hastings joins lawsuit. May 1995: Case suspended while DEC investigates. March 2001: Judge denies motions that would dispose of case without trial. January 2002-April 2003: Riverkeeper, the Village and ARCO engage in intense three-way settlement talks. Fall 2002: Judge sets trial date for May 2003. April 2003: Parties sign Term Sheet of Proposed Settlement.
10	The Settlement The Objectives: The Trustees and the Riverkeeper insisted on a settlement that would render the site safe for the full range of uses that have been proposed for the waterfront, as well as benefit the Hudson River environment. The proposed settlement provides for removal of the vast majority of PCBs at concentrations above the State cleanup criteria from the site, encapsulates and shields what is left, and provides slurry walls, bulkheads, and sufficient ground cap and cover to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.
11	The Settlement: General Site Remedy Protection of public heath and environment: Excavation of most PCB contaminated soils and lead hotspots. Placement of clean fill in excavated areas. Hydraulic control and containment of any remaining contaminated soils (bulkhead and slurry wall). Five foot cap over entire site consisting of contact barrier, demarcation layer, additional clean fill and topsoil. Three alternative cleanup levels: ARCO could not challenge any DEC-issued ROD that required a cleanup within the range of these three alternatives. ARCO would still have to perform minimum cleanup in proposed settlement if DEC-issued ROD requires less stringent cleanup levels. ARCO could challenge any DEC-issued ROD that required more extensive excavation, but would have to advocate for one of the three alternatives in the proposed settlement.
12
13
14	"7 feet of excavation in..." 7 feet of excavation in the Northwest Corner and Shoreline Area. Excavation of all soils containing concentrations of PCBs greater than 10 parts per million and lead hotspots in the remainder of the site. $4.5 million Trust Fund to be used for River-related activities/open space, with priority in the Village; $100,000 to be placed in Fund upon court-order consent decree containing settlement terms. Slurry wall to separate excavated areas with residual PCBs. Construction of bulkhead. 5 foot cap: 6" of asphalt and demarcation layer covered by 4 feet of clean fill and 6" topsoil across the entire site. All utilities above the cap (except for existing underground stream and sewer lines) and institutional controls. 100-year fund for maintenance of cap and bulkhead. Maximum height and minimum setback provisions. At least 6.25 acres open space with public access. Following continued negotiations, as much as 14.25 acres.
15
16	"Same as Alternative 1 except..." Same as Alternative 1 except 7 feet of excavation in the Northwest Corner and 9 feet in the Shoreline Area. Excavation of all soils containing concentrations of PCBs greater than 10 parts per million and lead hotspots in the remainder of the site. Trust fund of $3 million.
17
18	"Same as Alternative 1 except..." Same as Alternative 1 except 9 feet of excavation in the Northwest Corner and 12 feet in the Shoreline Area. Excavation of all soils containing concentrations of PCBs greater than 10 parts per million and lead hotspots in the remainder of the site. Trust fund of $1 million.
19	"Scenario 4:" Scenario 4: greater than or equal to 9 feet of excavation in the Northwest Corner or 12 feet in the Shoreline Area. ARCO could challenge any DEC-issued ROD but: $100,000 payment would still be made. ARCO would have to advocate for one of three alternatives in proposed settlement, including the five-foot cap over entire site, the bulkhead, and the hydraulic control and containment. If ARCO did not challenge the ROD, it would be required to implement the DEC-selected remedy under ongoing agency oversight.
20	The Settlement: Recap of Key Points The 7 foot depth of excavation in both the Northwest Corner and Shoreline Area of the site is effectively the guaranteed minimum; in the event the ROD directs less excavation, ARCO would still need to comply with the settlement. Applicability of the various scenarios depends on the excavation required by DEC. For example, if the ROD requires 8 feet of excavation in the Northwest Corner and 10 feet in the Shoreline Area, Alternative 3 would apply.
21	The Settlement: Recap of Key Points (cont’d) The lawsuit would be settled, with mutual releases, with the Court retaining jurisdiction over the settlement (which would be embodied in a consent order). If DEC does not issue a ROD or order to ARCO within one year, the Riverkeeper and Village can go back to court (considered a highly unlikely scenario). Sole release of ARCO by Riverkeeper and the Village relates to the lawsuit. ARCO retains the right to challenge a ROD embodying Alternative 4 but would waive the right to challenge a ROD with a remedy in the range of Alternatives 1-3.
22	Where Do We Go From Here Next steps in settling the lawsuit: Following public comment on the proposed settlement, the parties will finalize the terms of the settlement. The settlement will be entered as a judicially enforceable consent order. Next steps in cleaning up the site: DEC will issue a PRAP setting forth its preferred cleanup and provide for a public comment period. DEC will issue its ROD setting forth the final required cleanup.