CC WORKSESSION 05061997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Peder A. Larson April 15, 1997 Page 8 issues ... (List of 19 PRPs) ... Based on my review of these files, I think we have missed several important RPs and must do additional checking to see if, in fact, responses we have gotten are telling the truth. There have been major oversights in the management of these files. These mistakes represent 16,632 pounds of lead and 2 RPs who contributed transformers. So we are iboking at three major RPs and possibly 10 to 15 more de minimis parties." (Emphasis added). If the MPCA staff did not express any confidence in the PRP identification effort, it follows that neither the Schnitzer Group or any of the named de minimis parties should accept the accuracy or validity of the MPCA's "waste -in" list. After the MPCA discovered its own incomplete and shoddy work, the Agency revised the "waste -in list" by adding two parties, Amoco and U. S. Transformer, to the Group. In April 1994, earlier in the PRP identification process, another staff memorandum expressed surprise with the fact that after review of the business records there were over 500 parties that sold battery lead, lead or soft lead to Schnitzer during the period 1979 to 1980. Staff estimated that 75 names were relatively obvious but that additional follow -up work (reviewing business directories, phone books and interviewing employees) would be required to identify other PRPs. In a reply memorandum, lower level staff were instructed to name the 75 companies named on the shipping slips, and ignore the remaining 425 names. Hundreds of parties should have been identified as PRPs. During the PRP identification effort, the MPCA compiled a list of over 1,000 names from Schnitzer weight tickets and a separate list of 3,818 checks paid by Schnitzer to various parties. MPCA staff have conceded that this was one of the first sites that the MPCA has attempted to identify PRPs. Clearly, the MPCA had embarked on an ambitious project. However, when the Agency discovered that significant extra work would be required to complete an accurate PRP search, the MPCA abandoned the effort. Instead, of admitting that it lacked the resources to properly complete the PRP identification process, the MPCA used its "short list" of readily identifiable names and aborted the remaining effort. This cavalier approach casts a cloud of doubt over the MPCA's entire PRP identification effort. While it may have been expedient for the MPCA to proceed in such a fashion, the process is extremely unfair to Group members, de minimis parties and to the public. Under the circumstances, the MPCA's pattern of conduct constitutes a violation of the Minn. Rules Pt. 7000.0300 that provides that: