CC WORKSESSION 05061997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Peder A. Larson April 15, 1997 Page 2 below, raise serious doubts about the fundamental fairness of the proposed de minimis settlement to all parties but particularly to the members of the Group who have been misidentified by the MPCA as potentially responsible parties (PRPs). Therefore, the MPCA should immediately suspend the de minimis settlement process relating to the Schnitzer Site. The MPCA is not required to proceed with a de minimis settlement. In fact, because the MPCA has entered into a Response Order by Consent with the primary responsible party, the University of Minnesota, and other remediating parties, there is no reason for the MPCA to move forward with a de minimis settlement. The University was aware that the site was listed on the State List of Permanent List of Priorities when it purchased the property in 1987. Several years after the purchase the University realized that the escrow set aside for the cleanup was inadequate. The University made a bad deal. We understand that the de minimis parties will be asked to pay up to $1 million to compensate the University for its poor judgment. The Group members are being asked to contribute the rest of the cleanup cost, perhaps $4 million or more. Under the circumstances, we cannot understand why the MPCA feels compelled to pursue a de minimis settlement. The University and the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul have received grant monies and have agreed among themselves to fully fund the cleanup. The University and its redevelopment partners are legally obligated to pay past and future state costs. A de minimis settlement primarily benefits the University, the City of St. Paul and the City of Minneapolis. Such a settlement serves no public purpose. Because the MPCA's planned course of action will seriously prejudice the members of the Group, we must pursue a vigorous course of action to protect the interests of Group members. THE MPCA'S DE MINIMIS SETTLEMENT PROCESS Congress has specifically authorized the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enter into de minimis settlements in Superfund cases. See 42 U.S.C. § 9622. By contrast, the Minnesota Legislature has not authorized the MPCA to enter into de minimis settlements under the Minnesota Environmental Response and Liability Act (MERLA). Moreover, the MPCA has not adopted any guidelines or rules relating to de minimis settlements. Even though the MPCA has no authority to enter into de minimis settlements, the Agency stands poised to provide de minimis settlors with a broad - ranging covenant not to sue as well as contribution protection under both the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and MERLA. If the MPCA proceeds with its ill- advised plan, Group members and others will be deprived of procedural due process. This raises issues of fundamental fairness. A comparison M