CC WORKSESSION 05061997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Peder A. Larson April 15, 1997 Page 5 and batteries. The amount of off -site shipments far exceeds the amount used by the MPCA to establish liability in its PRP identification effort. 3. MPCA staff speculated that Schnitzer broke or cracked batteries and that releases from those operations contributed to the contamination at the site. The Schnitzer site history indicates that battery breaking only occurred on a one time experimental basis inside the building on the site at a time long before the current business records utilized to establish liability in this matter. A review of the business records reveals that although Schnitzer owned a piece of battery breaking equipment, it was sold in May 1972. The documents related to that transaction confirm the statement made by Schnitzer representatives that any breaking of batteries was done only on an experimental basis and inside the building. 4. The only batteries handled in the yard were those in automobiles that arrived at the Schnitzer facility. Automobile scrapping operations at the Schnitzer yard date back to at least the 1950s. Although it is possible that some of the batteries from these cars were crushed or burned with these vehicles, the Schnitzer employees we interviewed indicated that car batteries were removed from cars, stored temporarily on pallets in the yard and routinely added to stockpiles in the metals room. We are not aware of any documentation indicating that any of the members of the Schnitzer Group sent automobiles to the Schnitzer site. One of the employees we spoke with told us that the City of Minneapolis had a contract with Schnitzer to handle all abandoned vehicles. That may mean that the City of Minneapolis could be one of the largest responsible parties. Presumably that is why it has joined with the University as a remediating party. 5. During the period 1950 to 1970 an undetermined number of transformers were accepted at the Schnitzer site. Based on interviews with former employees, a limited number of transformers were accepted on an irregular basis and only during certain years of operation. Transformers themselves are not 'a source of PCBs. Rather, the alleged source of PCBs is contaminated transformer oil. How the transformers were handled and whether they contained contaminated transformer oil with PCBs is unclear and the basis for liability on the part of PRPs is questionable. In fact, the available data revealed that the PCBs that are prevalent at the site are predominantly Aroclor 1248, a specific form of PCBs not associated with transformer oil (Aroclor 1260). Although the MPCA identified the University as a source for transformers, the MPCA's de minimis process attributes no liability to suppliers of transformers. 6. Other activities associated with the handling of scrap metal, particularly, the burning, dismantling and crushing of cars, the discharge of gasoline to the ground, the handling and storage of uncleaned motor blocks and the handling of porcelain coated tubs, sinks and appliances (containing capacitors) together with the processing of other painted scrap metal, contributed significantly to the lead and PCB contamination at the site.