GE’s Hudson River PCB Site is Leaking Toxic Chemicals

It has been reported that General Electric’s (GE) Phase I cleanup of the Hudson River PCB site is leaking toxic material. As I recall, GE always wanted to cap the site since it would cost less and be more effective than EPA’s chosen remedy to dredge the site. According to EPA’s website, at the commencement of 2009, GE has reimbursed the government in the neighborhood of $37 million. If GE negotiates with EPA not to commence the phase II dredging plan, GE would be required to pay an estimated $43 million. Granted GE at the end of 2009 had a high stockholder equity ($117,291 million), therefore, a material impact would be 4% of that figure or $4,692 million. However, no one knows for certain if a material impact has occurred since most likely no one has added all the percentages of wastes that GE disposed of over the years at all superfund sites around the country in relationship to the estimated EPA balance owing for the selected cleanup costs. While GE’s annual report mentions that the company is allocating $.4 billion for remedial clean ups for the next two years, in many cases these liabilities extend over 30 years. Extended liabilities to balance sheets should be done for all companies (not just GE) to create transparency and permit stockholders to be aware of these long term off balance sheet liabilities.

Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) Proposes "Polluter Pay" Initiative

Just recently learned that Senator Frank Lautenberg (NJ) has introduced an initiative to make Superfund “polluter Pay”. I was confused by this statement since I was under the presumption that Superfund was always polluter pay. The federal government under the stimulus plan has given money to remediate old bankrupt facilities like the W.R. Grace’s facility in Vineland New Jersey. Lautenberg’s initiative would transfer the federal government footing the bill to a tax for all chemicals would be reinstated. Republicans will probably cry out that prices for every commodity will increase since product is derived from chemicals and that this measure is inflationary. This is true, but companies always pass on regulatory expenses to their consumers. What the Bush Administration and the republicans do not understand is that Superfund liability follows the principals of free market economy. If both company A and company B have similar balance sheets, but company A has more superfund liabilities than company B; company A will increase their price per unit to offset the superfund expense. Meanwhile, company B will most likely increase their prices to compete with company A, but this incremental increase will be all profit (from prudence where/how to dispose their waste or from pure luck). I thought this is what conservative republicans desire: survival of the fittest, and the strongest and most efficient companies will survive!

EFIS Letter to Elected Officials Concerning Corporations off Balance Sheet Concerns Regarding Superfund Liability

February 18, 2009



The President of the United States of America
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President

The ever-escalating federal “bailouts” have resulted in unprecedented public investment and concomitant public financial interests in a plethora of key U.S. companies and industries. In considering such investments, we believe it is imperative that the public and Congress have complete information regarding the true financial condition of these companies. This includes critical off-balance sheet items such as environmental liabilities, which are all too often not quantified or reported in the financial information released by the companies. These liabilities can represent enormous hidden future costs and should be identified and included in the calculations used in deriving and valuing public investments in these firms.

This is especially relevant in the case of the three large U.S. automobile manufacturers. With the taxpayer on the hook for all liabilities, along with Congress’ desire to be paid back in full, the looming question of when GM, Ford and Chrysler will become profitable makes all off-balance sheet items a necessity to be factored into valuations of these concerns.

We have reviewed the most current financial statements from these companies and have found both omissions and contradictory information regarding estimates of future environmental liabilities. My firm, Environmental Financial Information Services (EFIS), specializes in compiling and tracking such environmental liabilities. To do this, we have assembled one of the nation’s largest databases of such information, compiled from federal records over the past 18 years.

Our records show, for example, that General Motors owns a Superfund site called the General Motors Central Foundry Division. EPA estimates the cleanup actions at this site to cost between $109 and $123 million. General Motors has been billed just under $12 million to date associated with this facility, leaving an approximate balance owing of $100 to $111 million. This information, however, is not included in the current balance sheet for GM.

One hundred million dollars may not seem a lot of money to a large company like General Motors, but in its current position, with negative stockholder equity, Congress and the public needs such information to properly assess and value the investments they are making. My firm, EFIS, provides such information to law firms, banks and other investors on a regular basis and we believe the same information may be both material and relevant to government officials involved in the massive public investment actions now underway.

If you or someone on your staff would like to discuss with us how we may be of assistance in providing this information, we would be happy to meet at your convenience. We have great appreciation for the unprecedented responsibilities you have assumed, and hope we may be of service to you and the public in this endeavor.

Sincerely,



Alexander C. Stewart, Jr.
President

ACS/jf

Colorado Contemplating Stricter Environmental Standards

On word that Cotter Corporation, an uranium mills superfund site in Colorado is planning to reopen in 2014 to crush 500,000 tons of uranium per year; state senators, department of public health and environmental groups have teamed up to propose that state environmental standards be tightened. A couple of key points to the proposed initiative are that environmental cleanups should be completed before new waste is accepted; and that mill sites notify residents of contamination within 1 mile radius of the site. If this measure is passed, it may set precedence on nuclear and mill sites under President Obama’s administration energy initiative goals to increase the number of nuclear reactors, therefore most likely more waste to contend with.

EPA request NPL listing for Black Eagle Smelting Area

EPA is proposing the Black Eagle Smelting Area to be included on the Superfund National Priority List. The site will be proposed in March, and after further testing and public comment, it may become final in September. The site is a 250 acre smelter and refining complex with some residential properties in Montana. At this time, EPA hasn’t determined the boundaries of the site. The residential areas contain elevated levels of Cadmium, Lead and Zinc. It is reported that the lead levels are less at this site compared with other smelting sites i.e. East Helena, Butte and Anaconda. The residential area will be a priority for the first phase of the remedial action.

The Black Eagle Smelting operated from the late 1800’s until 1980 under the names Anaconda Copper Mining Company and Anaconda Mineral Company. According to EFIS’s records, Anaconda Company was purchased by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) in 1977. Atlantic Richfield was subsequently purchased by BP Amoco plc in 2000.