CC WORKSESSION 05061997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commissioner Peder A. Larson April 15, 1997 Page 10 additional transactions with Schnitzer during the mid 1970s. The MPCA has determined that any party that supplied transformers to the site should be added to the RP Group. Root Equipment Supply is an active company that is in the business of selling electrical supplies in the Twin Cities. Once again, Root Equipment Supply and perhaps many other companies should be added to the RP Group. These oversights and errors are not insignificant. By passing over parties who should have been named as RPs and overlooking major battery suppliers who should have been named as PRPs under the MPCA's theory, the MPCA has skewed allocation of cleanup responsibility. With a cleanup estimated to cost approximately $5 million, the MPCA's actions have had a major financial impact on Schnitzer Group members, many of whom are small businesses and, in one case, a unit of local government. By the MPCA staff s own admissions, the PRP identification effort was poorly conceived and conducted. The findings of the Group, based on a preliminary review of the MPCA's files, demonstrate the fundamental flaws with the MPCA's work. Based on the information that has been uncovered to date, the MPCA should not proceed with a de minimis settlement. The MPCA's erroneous assumptions about who should be named as PRPs at the Schnitzer site affect all members of the Group. The impact is particularly severe on Group members whose overall contribution of batteries or lead is just over the arbitrary one per cent figure determined by your staff. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS In providing the above comments and objections, the individual members of the Schnitzer Group do not admit that they are responsible for any release of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants that may have occurred at the Schnitzer site. The Schnitzer Group, and its individual members, specifically reserve all of their rights and defenses that may be asserted if the State or an other entity seeks to recover costs of any kind from the Schnitzer Group or any of its individual members. This reservation includes not only legal defenses, but also issues related to the scope and cost of the proposed or completed cleanup at the site. Under the federal de minimis process non settling parties clearly have rights to intervene to oppose such settlements. United States v. Union Electric Co. et al, 64 F.3d 1152 (8th Cir. 1995). The Group intends to vigorously assert its rights both as to the de minimis process and its ultimate liability. The Group urgently requests that the MPCA stop or abandon its de minimis process and reassess the entire PRP designation process in this case. Failure to do so may force the Group to take other legal action to protect its rights. )0