Apco oil liquidating trust
Lodi has some of the oldest Zinfandel vines in California, many dating back to the Gold Rush of 1849.PLAY: The Lodi Wine & Food Festival on April 2 is offering wine tasting and pairings, dishes from 15 local restaurants, olive oil tasting and the chance to meet the winemakers.
The settlement follows seven years of litigation concerning the APCO Liquidating Trust’s liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or “Superfund”) for costs incurred by the U. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the ongoing cleanup of the Oklahoma Refining Company (ORC) Superfund Site located in Cyril, Okla.The trust is a successor in interest to APCO Oil Corporation.The site was operated by Anderson-Prichard Oil Corporation and APCO Oil as an oil refinery from 1920 until about 1978, then in a limited capacity by Oklahoma Refining Company until 1987.“The settlement payments will be used to fund expected future cleanup at the ORC Superfund Site. In 1990, EPA placed the site on the National Priorities List.EPA’s previous response actions addressed contamination of surface water, soil, and sediments on the southern portion of the site and the demolition and removal of refinery structures, tanks, and chemicals from the northern portion of the site.The Environmental Protection Agency later found contaminated surface water, soil and sediments and other issues at the site.
The next phase of cleanup at the site is to begin in 2014.
The presentation will delve into groundwater modeling, modeling presentation, allocation, Daubert principles, and witness creditability.
The trust and the APCO Missing Stockholder Trust agreed to pay $14 million for cleanup of the Oklahoma Refining Company site in Cyril.
Faced with competing modeling, the Court reasoned that “even in the best of circumstances, a model is only an estimate and the accuracy of the estimate depends to a considerable extent on the data selected for sue in the computer model, the quality and reliability of that data and, of course, the skill of the modeler.” Ultimately, the Court rejected the City’s modeling base don Daubert, holding that “To be reliable, the expert’s testimony must be based on the ‘methods and procedures of science’ and reflect more than the witness’’ ‘subjective belief or unsupported speculation.’” After examining glaring errors in the City’s modeling, the Court rejected the City’s methodology because it was not based on any guidelines or standards, but rather on poor quality “professional judgment”.
This presentation will focus on the City of Wichita’s largely failed efforts to collect its response costs for remediating the Gilbert & Mosley Site (“Site”), one of the premier Brownfield redevelopment models. Trustees of the Apco Oil Corporation Liquidating Trust, 306 F. Both parties used computerized groundwater modeling to determine the plume sizes allegedly migrating from each source, and mathematical computations to allocate orphan shares within the Site.
Both parties agreed that where plumes overlapped, the overlapped area should be divided by the number of PRPs whose plumes contributed to the overlap. The City proposed two allocation models; the Trustees evaluated six allocation models.