2009_0518_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

"from time to time; according. to the criteria set forth in the rules." The list of priorities and the rules promulgated pursuant to this subdivision: shall be based upon the relative risk or danger to public health or welfare or the environment, taking into account to the extent possible the population at risk, the hazardous potential of the hazardous substances at the facilities, the potential for- contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential. for direct human contact, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems, the administrative and financial capabilities of the [MPCA], and other appropriate factors. Minn. 1 R. Ch, 7044 includes the MPCA rules created pursuant to Minn.. Stat. § I 1 5B. 17, subd. 13. As will be seen,. however, while Chapter 7044 establishes how it is that the MPCA will create. and maintain the PL , it is silent in terms of explaining exactly how it is that the MPCA uses these rules if at all) to "authorize" pre -April 1, 1982 response actions under Minn. Stat. § 11 5B. 1 , subd. 12. Indeed, Minn, R. 7044.0100 ("Scope") says nothing about providing guidance for such authorizations. Instead, the 9�s.cope" of the Chapter 7044 rules is to establish release classifications, to describe the procedures for the creation. and maintenance of the state's .Permanent List of Priorities and Project List, to establish funding priorities for the Froj et List and to specify a ranting system to be used in scoring sites. Minn. . . 7044.0100. Furthermore, the rules leave many gaps about, e.g., hat the MPCA does with a sites HRS ranking and what criteria it uses to classify releases or threatened releases. The MPCA does. not have. any objective standards that it uses when it considers a cleanup authorization under subdivision 12. The few MPCA subdivision 12 authorizations that exist typically lack at lot of detail or rationale. Practical Considerations Any consideration. of efforts to compel past or current parties to pay for historical or ongoing contamination is tied to the ability to identify past or current polluters who have viable assets or funding. The information provided to us suggests that Indianhead Trucking was a prior owner for a significant portion of the Roseville Twin Lakes Redevelopment ,Area. We have not cheeped into the historical records closely, but we believe that Indianhead has long ago filed for bankruptcy and is defunct. We are unaware that Indianhead has any viable successors who assumed fndianhead's liability. Thus, evidence that might tie existing contamination to prior activities of Indianhead will not, as a practical matter, support claims either for cost recovery or injunctive relief. On the other hand, where various hazardous substances or wastes have become commingled, one party can be called upon to pay j ointly and severally for an entire liability, unless the polluter- can establish the divisibility of its o. releases. So, if the evidence establishes that there are viable parties who are responsible for past or ongoing releases, those parties night be called upon to pay far more than their share of liability. A long - standing debate in environmental law relates to responsibility for "orphan shares," that is, those shares attributable to defunct parties, There are some cases that suggest.. that a plaintiff bears. responsibility for such shares, but there has been considerable re-shuffling of the case law by recent United States Supreme Court eases and those cases could lead to re -exar ination of the `rorphan share." allocation. 7