2009_0720_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

implem.ented as soon as site data anc� information. ma�Ce it possible to do so." 40 C�R 300.430(a)(1}. The NCP provides program management principles, including; "Sites should generally be remediated in operable units when early actions are necessary or appropriate to achieve significant risk reductian quickly, when phased analysis and response is necessary or apprapriate to achieve sign.ificant risk reduction quickly, when phased analysis anc� response is necessary or appropriate given the size or complexity of the site, or to expedite the completron of the total site cleanup." 40 CFR 300.4�0{a)(1}(ii). �xtensive guidance is gi�ven for remedial investigat�ons and related wark. "'I'he puzpose of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is to assess site canditions and eva�uate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy:" 40 CFR 300.430(a)(2). An RIIFS generally includes project scoping, data collection, risk assessment, treatability studies, and analysis of alternatives. 1'd. The NC�' addresses nurnerous top�cs for an RI/FS, including 1'roject Scoping (40 CFR 300,�30(b}), Commur�ity ReIations {40 CFR 300.430(c)), Remedial �nvestigations (RI) (40 C�'R 300.430(d}) and Feasibility Studies (40 CFR 300.430(e)). The Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) stage includes the development o�'the actual design ofthe selected remed� and the implernentatian of the remedy through construciion. A period of operation and maintenance may follow the Remedial Action acfiivities. 40 CFR 30�.435(a).3 MERLA Minnesota has its own cost recovery statute, the Minnesota Environmental Res�onse and Liability Act ("MERLA"), found at Minn. Stat. §§ 115B.01, et seq. MERLA is siinilar to CERCLA in some respects althoug�i there are many differences. MERLA allows cost recavery %r response actions necessary as a result of releases or tihreatened releases o� hazardous substances, but also allows recovery of lost profits and other damages in certain circumstances. ME�L,A allaivs a prevar`ling plaintiff ta recovery attarneys' fees. H6wever, NIE�I,A is subj ect to certain defenses on retroactivity depending upon the daie of the r��eases of hazardous substances. But, the City is in a better position that private parties to pursue cIaims for historical releases. AIsa, the City is allo�ea �o recovery any "reasonable and necessary response costs,'' whereas private pas-ties could recover only removal costs. Minn. �tat. § 115.B.04, subd. l. L�nder Minn. Stat. § 1158.04, subd. 1, "any person" who is res�onsible for a release or threatened release af a hazardous substance fi-om a facility is strictly liable, joint and severally, for, among other things, "all reasonable and necessary response costs incurred by the state, a palitical subdivisian of the state or the United states" and "all reasonabie �nd necessary removal costs incurred 6y any perso�." Minn. 5tat. § i 1SB.04, subd, 1(1) and (2). A responsible person (1�P}, however; �nay assert as a defense a�ainst such claims thaf the hazardaus substance released fron� the faci�ity in question was pIaced or came to be located in or on the facility before Apri� l, 1982 and 3 In addition to the provisions pr�sented in the NCP, the �PA has provided a library full of other guidance documents addressing removal actions, remedial actions, ar�d the types of documen�s one needs to prepare to address differenf steps in either type of pracess. In general, the EPA terids to refer to removal actians as imn�ediate, short-term responses, whereas remedial actions are lon� term actions: 4