CC WORKSESSION 05061997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Peder A. Larson April 15, 1997 Page 6 After interviewing former Schnitzer employees and reviewing the Schnitzer business records, we have concluded that the PRPs named by the MPCA should not be held liable for response costs incurred by the State or the other remediating parties. Our preliminary assessment of conditions at the site, including a review of aerial photographs, observation of debris and forensic sampling, are entirely consistent with this position. Since de minimis parry liability is premised on the same set of erroneous assumptions, the MPCA should immediately suspend its efforts to settle separately with de minimis parties. In sum, the MPCA has identified the wrong set of responsible parties at the Schnitzer Site. The MPCA should consider the evidence presented in this letter, review the information in MPCA files and withdraw the Commissioner Notice Letters issued to Group members and de minimis parties that informed those persons of their potential liability at the Schnitzer Site. THE MPCA'S PRP IDENTIFICATION PROCESS In addition to our concerns about the fairness of the MPCA's de minimis process, we are troubled by the MPCA's handling of the PRP identification process. The MPCA identified the members of the Group as PRPs after reviewing Schnitzer business records dating from 1977 to 1983. This is obviously a very small window in the life of the Schnitzer site. The MPCA conducted a mail survey of a few former Schnitzer employees but inquired only into the handling of transformers at the site. The MPCA did not conduct any interviews of former Schnitzer employees even though many of these individuals still reside in the Twin Cities area. Finally, the MPCA made no effort to review business directories or other available historical sources of information. Based on this cursory review, the MPCA determined that Group members were PRPs because they each shipped more than a total of 3,300 pounds of batteries or lead to the site or records indicated the shipment of transformers to the site. The MPCA named approximately 60 other businesses and units of local government as de minimis PRPs. Any party who shipped less than 1 per cent of the total volume of lead was arbitrarily placed in the de minimis category. The MPCA has provided no rationale supporting the disparate treatment of Group members and de minimis parties. The basis for the MPCA's assertion that PRPs and de minimis PRPs are liable for the cleanup of the Schnitzer site is found within Minn. Stat. § 115B.03, subd. 1. Responsible persons are defined under that section to include persons who arranged for the disposal, treatment or transport for disposal or treatment of a hazardous substance that was released at a facility. At the Schnitzer site, the MPCA has concluded that the mere storage of batteries and other forms of lead triggers arranger /generator liability under MERLA. (c