2009_0720_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

"�rom time to time; a�cording to the c�iteria set forth in the rules." The list ofprioritiES and t�e rules promulgated pursuant to this subdivision: shail be based tipon �l�e relative risk or danger to public heal�h or welfare or t�ie environment, taking into �ccount to the e�teni possible the popuTation at risk, the hazardous potential of the hazardous substances at the facilities, the potential %r contamination of drinking water supplies, the potential for direct hurzzan contact, the potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems, the administrativ� and financial capabilities of the [MPCA], and other appropriate factors. Mintz. R. Ch. 7044 includes the MPCA ru�es created pt�rsuant to Minn. Stat. § 11 SB.17, subc�. �3. As will be seen, however, while Chapter 7044 estahlishes how it is tk�at the MPCA rvill create and maintain the PLP, it is silent in terms of explaining exactly how it is that the MPCA uses these rules (if at all) to "authorize" pre-�lpril 1, � 982 response actions under l�inn. Stat. § 115B. I 7, subd. 12. Indeed, Minn. R. 7044.0100 ("Scope") says nothing about providing guidance for such authorizations. Instiead, the "scape" ofthe Chapter 7044 rules is to estab�is� release classificaiions, to ciescribe ihe procedures for the creation and rriaintenar�ce of the state's Perrnanenti List of Priarf ties and ProJect List, fo establisl� fi�nding priorities for the Project List and ta specify a ranking system to be usec� in scoring sites. 1Vlinn. R. 7044.0100. FurChermore, the rules leave many gaps about, e.g., what the MPCA does w�th a site's HRS ranking and what criteria it uses to class�fy releas�s or threatened releases. The MPCA does not have an� objective standards that it uses when it considers a cIeanup autharization under subdivision 12. The few MPCA subdivision 12 authorizations that exist typically lack at lot of detai� or rationale. Y`ractical Considerations Any consideration af efforts to compel past or current parties ta pay for historical or ongoing contamination is tied to the ability ta identify past or current polluters who have viable assets or funding. Tf�e information provided to us suggests that Tndianhead Trucking was a prior owner for a significant portion of the l�osevilie Twin Lakes Redevelo�ment Area. We have not checked inta the historical records closely, but we believe that Indianhead has long ago filed for bankruptcy and is defu�ct. We are unaware that Indianhead has any viable successors who assuined Tndianhead's liability. Thus, evidence that might tie exrsting conta��ination to prior activities of Indianhead will not, as a practical inatter; support claims either for cost recovery or injunctive reIief. On the other hand, r�vhere various hazardous substances or wastes have become commingled, ane party can be cal�ed upon to pay j ointly and several�y for an entire liability, �.inless the polluier can establish t1�e divisibility of its awn releases. So, if the evidence establi5hes that there are viable parties wha are responsible for past or ongaing releases, those parties might be ca�Ied upan to p�y far more than their share of liability. A lon�-standing debate in environmental law relates to responsibility far "orphan shares," that is, those shares attributable to defunct parties. There are some cases that suggest that a p�aintiff bears responsibility for such shares, but ther� has been considerai��e re-shuffling of the case law by recent United States Supreme Court cases and those cases couId lead to re-examination of the "or�han share" allocation. 7