CC PACKET 04021996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORS EY & WHITNEY L L P • Mr. Dale Trippler March 21, 1996 Page 3 transport to a treatment or disposal facility. Minn. Stat. §1156.04, subd. 5. Infiead, the household trash exclusion has application for community recycling programs, especially where the community does not own or operate the recycling ori disposal facility. This is consistent with the state's waste management policy which encourages and prioritizes recycling ahead of other (e.g., landfilling) waste management practices. Minn. Stat. §115A.02. The assertion of MERLA liability, therefore, for a city's recycling program would undercut the state's waste management policy and would suggest to municipalities that recycling efforts, whether current or historic, could subject the city to significant environmental liability risks. We don't believe this is the intended result, but it is an outcome that follows from identifying the Village of Saint Anthony as a significant PRP in the Schnitzer matter. We believe this outcome should and can be avoided by recognizing that the city could not generate the assigned volume of batteries arid restating the allocation such that the city, if responsible at all, is identified as a de minimis party. 3. The MPCA database of PRPs at the Schnitzer site is acpitrari Y limlited. The MPCA has developed a database identifying the alleged significant sfid de minimis PRPs at the Schnitzer site. The database is extremely limited and excludes a large number of PRPs who utilized the Schnitzer site for scrap metal processing and other iron and metal work. The decision on which parties to include and which to exclude is without support. Moreover, the MPCA has limited the PRP list to the years 1979 to 1983, even though it is known that Schnitzer operated at the site for over 40 years. Further, the volumes of materials from which the significant and de minimis PRP categories have been determined is grossly understated. We know, for example, that by the mid 1970s, Schnitzer had 40 to 50 employees and operated a number of high volume mechanical shears and shredders to process materials. The volume of materials processed, therefore, greatly exceeds the 329,012 pounds identified in the MPCA's PRP list. The MPCA's threshold determinations arbitrarily Iimit the number of PRPs and increase the potential liability exposure for small parties, such as Saint Anthony Village. The Schnitzer PRP database should reflect all parties that sent materials for processing at the site, even if the specific materials or amounts are not specified. In this manner, reasonable judgments can be made and an allocation determined. For example, it is known that a number of car dealers sent vehicles to Schnitzer for scrap metal processing. Since the contamination at Schnitzer includes petroleum products, volatile organic compounds, PCBs and metals, it is appropriate to identify the car dealers as PRPs. Yet, only one car dealer is identified as a significant PRP • and this at a total poundage which is less than that ascribed to the Village of Saint Anthony.