Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases
Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases
Natural Resource Damage Assessment: Methods and Cases
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ased funding for the program was provided for in the Minnesota L<strong>and</strong>fill Cleanup Act of 1994.<br />
The 1996 Amendments to that Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 115B.441 – 115B.445) set forth a<br />
mechanism for obtaining contributions from insurance carriers to the funding for the program. In<br />
many cases, the people who bore legal responsibility for environmental response costs at these<br />
facilities (the owners or operators, those who hauled waste to the facility, or those who produced<br />
waste that was disposed of at the l<strong>and</strong>fills) held liability insurance for environmental response<br />
costs at the l<strong>and</strong>fill. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) works with the Attorney<br />
General’s Office to obtain appropriate payments from those insurance carriers which have<br />
outst<strong>and</strong>ing exposure for cleanup liability at the closed l<strong>and</strong>fill sites.<br />
In order to have a foundation for the settlement negotiation process, the MPCA has<br />
developed estimates of the environmental response costs the state expects to incur at each of the<br />
l<strong>and</strong>fills in the program. The agency has also developed estimates of NRDs, since the carriers<br />
can request settlement for NRDs at the time they settle for response costs <strong>and</strong> thus be granted<br />
immunity from future legal action regarding NRD compensation. As of November of 2001, the<br />
NRD portion of the settlements paid to the state totaled $3,359,072. 11<br />
The MPCA chose to base its NRD estimates on groundwater contamination at the 66<br />
l<strong>and</strong>fills at which groundwater contamination exceeds the state’s Health Risk Limits (HRL). The<br />
method they used was simplified, <strong>and</strong> used only data that was already readily available. Total<br />
damages at the 66 l<strong>and</strong>fills were estimated to be $50,712,046. The approach involves four<br />
steps: 12<br />
(1) Estimate average cost of lost groundwater services at a l<strong>and</strong>fill ($/gallon).<br />
(2) Estimate the volume of groundwater contaminated at each of the 66 sites.<br />
(3) Calculate value of the groundwater injury as (volume * average cost).<br />
(4) Allocate damages among carriers by multiplying the total groundwater damages at a<br />
l<strong>and</strong>fill by each carrier’s percentage share of the liability for costs at that l<strong>and</strong>fill.<br />
The average cost of lost groundwater services was estimated as the amount by which<br />
source groundwater contamination increases the cost of providing potable municipal water. The<br />
average cost to design, construct, operate, <strong>and</strong> maintain a groundwater treatment system over 30<br />
years was calculated (based on information from six l<strong>and</strong>fills in the program) to be .57<br />
cents/gallon. The cost of supplying drinking water based on uncontaminated groundwater<br />
supplies was estimated (based on five municipalities) to be .1 cents per gallon. Thus, the average<br />
cost of groundwater services lost due to contamination was assumed to be .47 cents/gallon (the<br />
difference between the two numbers).<br />
Discussion of Minnesota method<br />
The MPCA’s simplified valuation method is employed for a somewhat different purpose<br />
than New Jersey’s groundwater damage assessment method. The MPCA is seeking to file<br />
damage claims against those companies that insured the PRPs rather than the PRPs themselves,<br />
<strong>and</strong> insurance carriers have often settled with the state with a single payment that releases them<br />
11 Personal correspondence with Shawn Ruotsinoja at the MPCA.<br />
12 Ruotsinoja (1997).<br />
47