CC WORKSESSION 05061997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Peder A. Larson April 15, 1997 Page 7 Although the Schnitzer site may have been impacted by lead and PCBs, the evidence available in the MPCA's file and gathered in interviews with former employees does not support the MPCA's liability determination for any of the PRPs or de minnnis PRPs who brought lead or batteries to the site. The MPCA either ignored or failed to even consider available information relating to operational practices at the Schnitzer site. For example, the initial Response Order by Consent required the Schnitzer representatives to submit a site history detailing past operations. That document revealed that the company stored batteries inside the main building and transported batteries to other facilities for disposal. In 1993, the MPCA retained a consultant to conduct a lead treatability study of the Schnitzer site. Based on input from the MPCA, COGNIS reported that the "lead contamination is presumed to have come from battery recycling activity." However, after analyzing samples from the site, COGNIS characterized the site as "contaminated with lead in the form of lead containing porcelain enamel glaze, leaded paint debris, wire solder, miscellaneous ionic lead species and possibly some lead acid battery residues." Despite receipt of this information, the MPCA inexplicably focused its PRP identification effort on the PRPs that supplied batteries and soft lead. Given the information we have uncovered relating to the history of operations at the Schnitzer Site (which is discussed further below), this focus seems particularly misguided. DEFICIENCIES IN THE MPCA'S PRP IDENTIFICATION PROCESS Last year we .visited the MPCA's offices and requested access to the Schnitzer business records which are in the custody and control of the MPCA. When we sought to review these records, MPCA staff expressed surprise. They assured us repeatedly that a painstaking and thorough review of the documents had already been completed. We understand that the MPCA has included costs associated with the PRP identification effort in its cost recovery demand. Despite the assurances we received, we proceeded to conduct our own independent review of the Schnitzer business records. We found a number of serious problems associated with the MPCA's review of the Schnitzer business documents and the Agency's attempt to identify PRPs. A review of electronic mail logs and internal memoranda demonstrates that the PRP identification process was sloppy, inaccurate and incomplete. In an April 15, 1996, a staff memorandum prepared after review of Schnitzer documents was completed characterized the process as follows: "During my examination of files compiled by Jeff Buss and worked on by Shawn Ruotsinoja, I found numerous oversights and errors... I asked Jeff months ago to go through the files and identify any sites (PRPs) which had any unresolved